Contrary to popular beliefs, the Seleucid settlement on the island of Failaka cannot be considered a typical Seleucid Katoikia (and, perhaps, it was not at all), since there is not enough fertile land for allotment of soldiers on the island. The Seleucid fortress was located in the most livable part of the island, where there is most fresh water and where the sea is suitable for navigation.

Key words: Failaka, Katoikia, Seleucids.

Despite its peripheral position on the outskirts of the Hellenistic world, the Seleucid settlement on the Kuwaiti island of Failaka (ancient Ikaros) is mentioned in all generalizing works on the history of Hellenism. This interest of researchers is due to the unique combination of various types of archaeological materials with data from the ancient tradition for monuments of the Hellenistic East, which together not only allows us to get a fairly complete picture of the life of this small settlement, but also provides valuable data for studying a number of important problems of Hellenistic history and culture [Gaibov, Koshelenko, Novikov, 1988, p. 183, 201].

During the period from 1958 to 2014, expeditions from different countries worked on Failak, exploring monuments of different eras, from the Bronze Age to the Islamic period inclusive. A special place is occupied by monuments of the Hellenistic period, including architectural remains (including four sanctuaries of the Hellenistic period), significant material (including a collection of terracotta), numismatic material (including three treasures and a number of scattered coin finds), and six Greek inscriptions.

However, all these data are rather fragmentary, which leads to serious discrepancies in their interpretation, even if we actively involve comparative materials from other monuments of the Hellenistic East (equally incomplete). This state of the sources makes it necessary to repeatedly discuss various issues of the history of Failaka in the Hellenistic period: consideration of arguments in favor or against various interpretations 1. The purpose of this article is to express a number of considerations regarding the status of the Seleucid settlement on the island.

In Hellenistic times, the Seleucid garrison and fortress 2 were added to the autochthonous population on the island. Here it is necessary to briefly indicate the history of the entity-

1 In this respect, for example, the title of one of the articles is significant: "Some notes on Hellenistic Failure" [Callot et al., 1987].

2 The construction of the fortress is traditionally dated to the time of Seleucus I, but recently it was hypothesized that the construction could have taken place under Antiochus I (Gelin, 2012).

page 64
in the history of the fortress, although a detailed discussion of the intricate issues of its chronology and periodization is not included in the task of this article. There are five stages in the life of a fortress [Gachet, 1990, p. 167; Gachet and Salles, 1993, p. 64]:

Stage 1

beginning of the third century BC-240/230 BC

Phase II

≈240/230 BC-end of the third century BC

Stages III-IV

end of the third century BC - middle of the second century BC.

Stage V

post-Selevkidsky

At the first stage, the fortress seems to have contained only two temples and three or four large buildings (presumably barracks for the garrison). At the second stage, the first houses appeared in the fortress. Perhaps during this period, the Seleucids temporarily lost control of the island and the autochthonous inhabitants moved under the protection of its walls. At the end of the third century BC, the garrison of the fortress was restored under Antiochus III, but after Antiochus IV, it quickly fell into disrepair, although it remained inhabited until the first century BC inclusive (Callot, 1991, p. 122-130) .3
Among the finds made in the fortress of particular importance is a badly destroyed inscription containing a letter from the Seleucid official Anaxarchus to the inhabitants of the island of o. Ikaros about the instructions he received from a higher official of Ikadion regarding the organization of affairs on the island. Since only traces of the letters were preserved from the date of the inscription, different researchers restored them in different ways, respectively, dating the inscription either to the time of Seleucus II or Antiochus III (for details, see: [Petropolou, 2006, p. 142-143; Maccabees, 2012(2), p. 250]). French archaeologists who have worked on the island prefer the second option, since it, in their opinion, is more consistent with the archaeological context (Callot et al., 1987; Gachet, 1990; Callot, 1991). However, not all researchers agreed with them, preferring to date it to the time of Seleucus II (Hannestad and Potts, 1990, p. 103; Hannestad, 1994, p. 592). This point of view was previously shared by me [Makkaveev, 2009, p. 22; Makkaveev, 2012(2), p. 250]. Now I am more inclined to the opinion of my French colleagues, but a detailed discussion of this issue is not part of the task of this article.

According to a popular hypothesis, the Seleucid fortress on Failak was the center of the Katoikia military settlement [Gaibov, Koshelenko, and Novikov, 1988, pp. 197-198; Cohen, 1978, p. 25; Piejko, 1988, p. 106; Kuhrt and Sherwin-White, 1993, p. 167-178]4, i.e., a rural military settlement, which was an intermediate form between a village (kωμη) and a polis. In it, the colonists received hereditary land grants from the tsar and were obliged to perform military service for this (Rostovtzeff, 1941, vol. I, p. 500-501; Bar-Kochva, 1976, p. 22-48; Fry, 2002, p. 187]. There are several arguments in favor of this hypothesis, but most of them are indirect.

First, according to all researchers, the settlement on Failak was not a polis 5. Secondly, the presence of the Seleucid fortress here. Third, the fact that the cults of the Greek gods, which are mentioned in the inscriptions discovered on Failak and in the reports of ancient authors about this islet6, are particularly popular in Hellenistic times-

3 Archaeologists who have worked in the fortress in recent years have kept the division into five stages, slightly correcting their dating. At the same time, they note that not all materials from previous expeditions have been published, so it is not yet possible to specify the chronological framework of individual stages for a number of sites on the territory of the fortress [Gelin, 2013].

4 I used to hold this position myself [Makkaveev, 2009; Novikov and Makkaveev, 2010; Makkaveev, 2011, p. 268; Makkaveev, 2012(1), p. 90], but now I consider it controversial [Makkaveev, 2014, p.371-372].

5 For more information, see: Kuhrt and Sherwin-White, 1993, p. 175; Makkaveev, 2009, p. 22; Makkaveev, 2012(2), p. 251-252.

6 Reports of ancient authors about fr. Ikarose (modern See Tkac, 1914; Weissbach, 1916; Makkabeev, 2011, pp. 37-38.

page 65
stu was used specifically among the military [Makkabeev, 2009, p. 23]. Fourth, the mention in the Icadion inscription of some conflicts over land plots between the Hellenes and the autochthonous population 7. If the soldiers of the garrison really had land, then they should be considered Katoiki. Fifthly, in the 22nd line of the Icadion inscription there is a word that can be restored as [κ]att[oικουντων] - "living", but also as [κ]att[oικων] - "katoikovs"8. In addition, the same inscription mentions tax exemption (ετελεια). In this case, it is not entirely clear who exactly it was applied to, since this part of the inscription is greatly destroyed and restored by different researchers in different ways. Nevertheless, there are a number of examples in the Hellenistic world where various tax benefits were granted specifically to military settlers.9 Finally, it should have been quite expensive and difficult to maintain a garrison on such a remote outskirts, so it seems logical to transfer it to self-sufficiency.

French archaeologists working on Failak believe that the Seleucid settlement on the island is not a catoikia, but a watchtower (φρουριον) [Salles, 1987, p. 107; Callot, 1993, p. 270-271] 10. They are based mainly on the fact that no agricultural implements (hoes, sickles) were found in the fortress, although there are stone grain grinders and ceramic mortars for crushing grain [Callot and Gachet, 1987, p. 46; Cachet, 1990, p. 190]. Soldiers could buy grain from the local population or import it from the mainland. The main occupation of the inhabitants of the fortress, judging by the findings, was fishing, as evidenced by numerous sinkers for nets and bitumen used for coating ships [Callot and Gachet, 1987, p. 46-47; Gachet, 1990, p. 190] 11.

If Failaka is considered Katoikia, then it is logical to assume that the soldiers should have lived there not alone, but with their families. Meanwhile, there is a fairly convincing hypothesis that the soldiers of the garrison were stationed in the fortress without wives: during the excavations, no cosmetic accessories were found, however, numerous weights for looms were found, but, according to French researchers, men could also be engaged in weaving [Gachet, 1990, p. 189]. To this, however, it has been objected that in the Greek world weaving was predominantly a female occupation.-

7 For my detailed interpretation of this plot, see: [Maccabees, 2009, p. 24-25; Novikov and Maccabees, 2010, p. 156-157; Maccabees, 2011, p. 122-127, 144; Maccabees, 2012(2), p.253-254]. However, I have now abandoned my earlier hypothesis that the Seleucid government's attempt to transfer the garrison soldiers to self-sufficiency by providing them with land on the island was due to the lack of money in the treasury after the "war of Laodice".

8 The distinction between the terms κατοικοι and κατοικουντες was first made by E. Bickerman [Bickerman, 1985, p. 79, note 392]. F. Piejko proposed the restoration option [κ]ατα[μενοντων ], translating it with obvious stretch as " still remaining "[Piejko, 1988, p. 97]. Meanwhile, the dictionary of G. J. Liddle and R. Scott allows us to translate the verb καταμενω not only as" to remain fixed; to continue "(remain fixed and continue), but also simply as" to live " (reside), which in this context would be much more logical. Other recovery options don't make sense. Of course, the variant of"military settlements" is not suitable, since there was only one Seleucid settlement (even if we consider it Katoikia) on the island. Because of the uncertainty of its meaning, the rather rare concept of [κ]ατ[oχοι] is hardly suitable, which can only be said with certainty that it is a certain category of people living at the sanctuary and, probably, dependent on it. For a discussion of the meaning of the word κατοχοι, see [Debord, 1982, p. 92-93].

9 There is, however, a point of view that this was an exception rather than a widespread practice [Schallt, 1960, p. 308-309]. Apparently, the situation in different localities varied depending on the specific conditions [Rostovtzcff, 1941, vol. 1, p. 501].

10 Later, following the French archaeologists, some researchers who wrote about Faylaq also chose not to use the term "katoikia". Thus, Z.-M. Petropolu does not use it in his article, formulating his conclusions in a rather streamlined way: "The Greek settlement on Ikaros seems to have been something more than a garrison and something less than a polis". [Petropolou, 2006, p. 147].

11 On one of the bitumen pieces, a board print was preserved [Callot and Gachet, 1987, p. 47, fig. 9]. Later archaeological studies have shown that bitumen-coated vessels were used in the Persian Gulf region as early as the 3rd millennium BC (Bhacker, 2009, p. 167).

page 66
See [Hannestad, 1994, p. 593, p. 12]. The solution of this issue requires more detailed data: as mentioned above, the fortress has not yet been fully excavated and not all the materials of the excavations have been published.

Against the fact that it was Katoikia, one can put forward such an argument as the lack of fertile land on the island. I have already written very briefly about this in a previous article [Makkabeev, 2014, pp. 371-372]. Now I consider it necessary to consider this issue in detail, for which, in particular, it is necessary to focus on the natural conditions of Failaka.

Failaka is relatively small in size (the data given in the literature vary slightly): ≈6-7 km from north to south and ≈12 km from west to east. Its area is approximately 20 square kilometers (Dalongeville, 1990, p. 24) .12 The island is relatively low, averaging 1 m above sea level. Elevated areas can reach a height of 5-6 m and are located mainly in the coastal zone, while in the interior of the island, significant areas are occupied by low-lying sabhami salt marshes, some of which lie even below sea level (Dalongeville, 1990, p. 24). Such a relief structure like a giant "trough" in combination with a small height difference prevents the natural flow of water. Although Faylaka is characterized by a fairly high groundwater level, in most of its territory, the water in a freshly dug well becomes salty after a few hours and is unsuitable for either drinking or irrigation. There are only five places - and all of them are located on higher elevations - where there is really fresh water 13. Due to the high level of groundwater and lack of runoff, low-lying areas are very difficult to reach.sabhas are immediately flooded during periodic rainstorms on the island, especially at high tide. Only halophytes, which are very well resistant to saline soil, can grow on them, serving as food for sheep, although mediocre [Dalongeville, 1990, p. 28, 34].

This state of water and soil is primarily due to the history of the island's origin. The water level in the Persian Gulf has changed over the millennia. The maximum sea level - two meters higher than the present-is recorded for the period 7,000-4,000 years ago [Rice, 1994, p. 75, p. 25 (with reference to: Kassler, 1973)]. There are no monuments on Failak older than 2000 BC, which in itself suggests that the island was semi-submerged or completely submerged before that time (Rice, 1994, p. 394). Studies conducted in the 1980s confirmed this hypothesis [Dalongeville, 1990, p. 39]. Thus, the entire island, primarily the flat lowlands in its inner parts, consists of marine sediments that contain a lot of salt. Salt can be washed out only with rainwater and only from hills. Meanwhile, there is little rain here, and the terrain features, as already mentioned, prevent natural runoff.

Crop production in such conditions gives low yields: according to the British consul G. Dickson, in the middle of the 20th century wheat and barley were sown here, with about 10 thousand pounds of wheat sown annually, and with good rains, about 50 tons of grain were harvested [Dickson, 1956, p. 57] .14 Although G. Dixon wrote down these figures from the words of local residents, they should hardly differ much from the re-

12 When I tried to calculate its area in the SASPlaneta program, it turned out to be somewhat overestimated, ≈24 sq. km [Makkabeev, 2014, p. 372].

13 Information from the website of the Kuwaiti-Slovak archaeological mission that worked on the island in 2004-2008. [http://www.kuwaitarchaeology.org/failaka-geography.htmll. The British Consul G. Dixon, who visited Failaka in the 1940s, also writes about this. According to him, water from coastal wells was considered less salty than from wells in the interior of the island (Dickson, 1956, p. 56).

For the sake of accuracy, it is necessary to take revenge that the English text can be understood in two ways: the figure 50 tons can equally apply to both types of grain, if you understand the text verbatim, and to wheat alone, if you consider that this is just a careless wording. "When rains arc good, wheat and barely arc grown with some success. About 10000 lb. of wheat arc said to be sown annually in the whole island, the total yield of grain being about fifty tons" [Ibid.].

page 67
real ones. Given that the British pound is approximately 0.4359 kg, the yield on Failak should have been approximately 0.5-4.5. Provided that a person needs about 1 kg of bread and 15 cereals per day, such a crop could have been enough for about 130 people for a year, unless they occupied a much more modest amount in the diet of the islanders. places. Meanwhile, in the 20th century, the population of the island was much larger: about 200 families [Persian Gulf Pilot..., 1920, p. 156] or 1,500 people according to other sources [Dickson, 1956, p. 56]. In the Hellenistic period, the population of the island probably should have been about the same. Date palms were also cultivated here [Persian Gulf Pilot..., 1920, p. 156; Dickson, 1956, p. 57], since they tolerate highly saline soils well [Schuol, 2000, p.287-288].

In ancient times, the yield on Failak, apparently, was about the same as in the early XX century. During the study of monuments from both the Hellenistic and Bronze Ages, very small amounts of lentil, chickpea, and wheat grains were found, as well as two types of barley: human-friendly naked barley Hordeum nudum, and double-row barley Hordeum distichum, which, due to the hard shell that was difficult to separate from the grain, was used only for livestock feed. The main advantage of barley over wheat is its resistance to saline soils (Willcox, 1990, p. 46). The cultivation of date palms is confirmed by the findings of charred trunks (Willcox, 1990, p. 47). Probably, in the Icadion inscription, when referring to gardens (παραδει|[σους], pp. 31-32), it is palm trees that are meant, as well as blackthorn (ziziphus spina-christi) [Willcox, 1990, p. 50] - two of the four tree species that still grow on the island today.

During the Hellenistic period, the climate on Failak was apparently milder than today. For the Persian Gulf region, the period since the eighth century. It is considered to be wetter in the period B.C. to II c. AD, and arid in the period II-IX c. AD (Rice, 1994, p. 76).

According to Arrian, the island of Ikaros was covered with a "diverse forest" (υλη παντοια; Ait. Anab. 7.20.3-6). Currently, there are no forests on the island - only individual trees are found. It is worth noting that according to the dictionary of G. J. Liddle and R. Scott, the Greek word hλη can mean not only a forest, but also a shrub. The disappearance of trees, in addition to human economic activity, is mostly attributed by researchers to salinization of ground water [Dalongeville, 1990, p. 35], which, in turn, could have been caused by a rise in sea level, which in Hellenistic times was located one meter lower than today's [Dalongeville, 1990, p. 39].

In a wetter climate, the fauna of Failaka was also much richer. According to Arrian and Elian, there were animals on the island that were only allowed to be hunted for sacrifice: wild goats (αιγοι αγριο), deer (iελαφοι), and gazelles (δορκαδοι) (Arr. Anab. 7.20.3-6; Ael. De nat. animal. 11.9). During the excavations, individual gazelle bones were found both in the fortress and on a nearby Dilmun monument (F6) (Desse and Desse-Berset, 1990, p. 53, 59). Gazelle horns were also found in the central part of the island among the uplift material (Salles, 1988, p. 254).

Thus, in Hellenistic times, the conditions for farming on Failak should have been better than in the XX century, but the main problem - low land-was still not removed.

15 According to Cato's recommendation, the pasc of a hard-working slave should be 4-5 pounds of bread per day (Cato De Agri Cultura 56), which corresponds to approximately 1.3-1.6 kg for a Roman pound of 327.45 g (Chantraine, 1969, p.626); a non-hard-working person needs fewer calories. In the Old Babylonian period, an adult male worker received about 720 grains of barley per year, i.e., ≈1.97 liters per day (Kozyreva, 1988, p. 11, 145). According to the Canadian Grain Commission, the specific weight of barley is 50-62. 6 kg / hl [www.grainscanada.gc.ac], hence 1.97 liters of barley should weigh ≈0.96-1.18 kg.

16 This category also includes leafless tamarisk (tamarix aphylla) and acacia (acacia sp.) (Willcox, 1990, p. 43).

page 68
The fact that the soldiers of the garrison were not engaged in farming themselves cannot in itself mean that they were not Catholics. We know too little about the structure of the Hellenistic Catoikia. It is possible that in at least some of the colonies dependent peasants may have been engaged in farming for the colonists, as seems to have been the case in other areas of the Hellenistic world. The following facts may indirectly support this interpretation.

When the Persian ruler (frataraka) Wahubarz17 learned that the 3,000 Catholics in Persis were plotting against him, he transferred them to the Comast region and assigned them to private houses, the owners of which were ordered to kill their new guests (Polyaenus Stratagemae VII.40). Thus, the Katoyks could be transferred to another area without providing them with land there. This can be interpreted in many different ways. Either the status of Catholics did not imply the possession of a land allotment at all, 18 or, much more likely, Catholics were called up for service for a certain period of time, while their allotments were cultivated by other people: their closest relatives or dependent peasants from among the autochthonous non-Greek population.

In Pergamum, there is a well-known case of granting allotments to Catholics: one with 100 plethres of arable land and 10 plethres of vineyard, and the other with 50 plethres of arable land and 5 plethres of vineyard 19 (IPerg. I: 158, 11. 14-16), which in terms of modern measures of area 20 would be approximately 8-13.5 and 4-6. 7 ha, respectively. For comparison, the Roman yuger, defined as a measure of the area that one team of oxen can plow in one day (Plin. N. H. 19. 10), was approximately 0.25 ha (Chantraine, 1967, p.1512). Based on this, a warrior could work 50 plethres of arable land on his own, whereas for 100 plethres he clearly needed an additional worker, otherwise he would only have to spend a whole month plowing.21
Although it is not known whether such allotments were a standard norm or not, most likely, approximately this order of land was usually provided to katoikas. In fact, the allotment provided to a warrior must generate sufficient income to equip and feed his family. There is no reason to assume that the land on Failak was much more fertile at that time than in Pergamum - and as a result, it was required much less, we do not have.

However, the total area of Failaka is only about 2000 hectares, of which not all the land is suitable for cultivation. If we start to carve out allotments of the same area as in Pergamon, the land available on the island would not be enough for two hundred katoyks: approximately as many people could have lived in the fortress at the end of the III-beginning of the II century BC [Callot, 1989, p. 136; Callot, 1991, p. 130, P. 1]. Meanwhile, by the time the Greeks arrived, most of the fertile land on the island should have belonged to the autochthonous population.

The Seleucid government apparently still tried to allocate at least some land to the soldiers on the island, but was afraid to come into conflict with the aborigines, who could easily kill the colonists who had dispersed to their sites one by one. Therefore, it chose a compromise option: forbidding encroachment on other people's rights.

17 Polyenus mentions him under the name Oborzos [Fry, 2002, pp. 280-281, ed. 95; Bar-Kochva, 1976, p. 33].

18 Although references to landless Katoyki occur in the sources (OGIS 229, 1.100), they, of course, cannot serve as proof of this point of view: there are also landless peasants.

19 On Filax, of course, there was no question of any vineyards.

Plethra 20 as a measure of area was a square with a side of 100 feet, i.e. about 27-35 m [Chantraine, 1972, S. 927], i.e. about 0.0729-0.1225 ha.

21 The difference in the time required for plowing, due to the different mechanical composition of the Italian and Pergamon soils, probably should not be too large in this case. There were bulls on Filax, including in the Hellenistic period [Desse and Desse-Berset, 1990, p. 52, 54].

page 69
at the same time, allowing all those in need to cultivate virgin land, as much as they are able to work with their own labor and as much as they needed for personal sustenance 22 [Makkaveev and Novikov, 2010, p.157; Makkaveev, 2011, p. 126, 268; Makkaveev, 2012(2), p. 254]. The fact that the Icadion stele was placed inside the fortress seems to indicate that it primarily protected the colonists ' rights to occupy free land.

It should be noted that the Greeks chose to settle in one of the most convenient places on the island. At present, the entire territory of Failaki has been surveyed quite well from an archaeological point of view. All Hellenistic monuments are concentrated exclusively in the south-western part of it. It was in this part of the island that people lived since ancient times, while in other parts of the island settlements existed only in certain historical periods.

As mentioned above, this part of the island is best supplied with fresh water. Although there is still the problem of how the fortress itself was supplied with water: the only well found on its territory, apparently, was filled in no later than the beginning of construction. Meanwhile, during its heyday, the fortress was significantly strengthened and became able to withstand a proper siege using siege engines [Callot, 1989, p. 136; Callot, 1991, p. 127-130].

One of the wells also existed on the site of the fortress itself. K. Jeppesen believed that the well and the staircase leading to it were filled in during the construction of the fortress, so as not to block the passage through the southern gate (Jeppesen, 1989, p. 73). Excavations in recent years have confirmed this hypothesis: it was found that the street of Early Hellenistic times that crossed the fortress from north to south in the area of the southern fortress wall was laid over a thick layer of" accumulations regulieres", the clean sand under which, apparently, is the mainland. But on top of this layer of sediments, the wall of a house built on top of a well is also erected. This makes us think that the latter ceased to work even before the arrival of the Hellenes. Thus, the problem of how the fortress was supplied with water remains [Gelin, 2013].

Apparently, some previous structures existed directly on the site of the future fortress, although not on its entire territory. In addition, based on the available publications, it is still difficult to say whether there was a period of desolation between them and the fortress or not. As early as 1958, Danish archaeologists made a pit on the outside of the north wall in its northwestern part and discovered four clearly distinguishable layers, including two relatively thin habitable layers separated by layers of pure sand that contained neither ceramics nor bones (Albrectsen, 1958, p. 175, fig. 3, p. 187]. At the same time, the pits near the eastern half of the northern wall showed that it was built directly on the sand without traces of human activity immediately before the foundation of the fortress (with the exception of isolated finds from the Bronze Age 23) [Cachet and Salles, 1986, p. 302, 304, 315].

L. Hannestad pointed out that there is a contradiction in the publications of Danish archaeologists: if one of the early articles stated that pre-Hellenistic materials were extremely rare during the excavations of the fortress (Jeppesen, 1960), then in the final article it was stated that the pre-Hellenistic materials were extremely rare (Jeppesen, 1960).

22 This interpretation follows from the reconstruction of the text proposed by K. Jeppesen: [Jeppesen, 1989, p. 82-110]. ΑΝΘΡΟΠΟ[Ι ΜΗ ΠΕ|Ν[Ο]ΜΕΝΟΙ ΑΔΙΚΩΝΤΑΙ ΜΗΔΕ[Α]Ν|ΜΕ[ΤΑ]ΓΩΝ[ΩΝ Ε]ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΙΝΕΣ ΤΟΥΤΩΝ ΒΟΥΛΩΝΤΑ[Ι]Ι ΕΞ|ΕΛΕΙΝ ΑΡΓΟΝ]ΕΝ ΤΗΙ ΝΗΣΩ[Ι) ΧΩΡΑΝ ΠΑΡΑΔΕΙ|[ΣΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΗΙΠ ΕΙ[Α]Σ ΕΞΕΡΓΑΣΑΜΕΝΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΦΥΤΕΥ|[ΣΑΝΤΕΣ ΕΑΥΤΟΙΣ] ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΑΤΡΙΚΟΝ "...и чтобы нуждающиеся не были бы несправедливо обижены. Equally, if some of them want to use the virgin land on the island and cultivate their fields and gardens with their labor, thus ensuring the right of legal inheritance."

23 But they may well have come from pre-Hellenistic monuments (F6) located a few hundred meters to the north of the fortress, where the Greeks actively took stones and earth for construction.

page 70
The monograph refers to a cultural layer about 70 cm thick preceding the foundation of the fortress [Jeppesen, 1989, p. 9]. L. Hannestad noted that this contradicts the results of French excavations and the surviving reports of the Danish expedition do not contain any indications of the presence of such layers [Hannestad, 1994, p.590]. And yet, in recent years, French researchers have discovered the remains of some kind of structure directly under the tower, which is located in the central part of the western wall. In their opinion, the pottery originating from there must date back to the 1st millennium BC (Gelin, 2014).

The southwestern part of the island is also convenient because it is on this side that the sea is most suitable for navigation. It is here that one of its highest points (≈6.5 m) is located, which is clearly visible from the sea [Persian gulf pilot..., 1920, p. 156; Salles, 1988, p. 255; Dalongeville, 1990, p. 23]. Mud and sandbanks and rocks surround the island on all sides except the west side, and only on the west side is there a more or less convenient approach to the island at high tide, although even there the depth is only 2-6 feet (Persian Gulf Pilot, 1920, p. 156). During the Hellenistic era, the conditions for navigation should have been even more difficult, since then the level of the Persian Gulf, as shown by studies conducted on Failak, was one meter lower than today (Dalongeville, 1990, p. 39). In addition, the northern side of the island is exposed most of the year to the strong north-westerly wind of shamal, in which ancient ships simply could not go to sea, while on the southern side of the island such problems do not arise [Salles, 1988, p. 255; Dalongeville, 1990, p. 30]. At the same time, the southern coast of the island is rocky, which excluded the possibility of a sudden landing of troops. According to M. Gelin, this circumstance may have been one of the main reasons for choosing the location for the fortress (Gelin, 2014).

Thus, the Seleucid colony on the island of Failaka was either not a Katoikia at all, or our idea of Katoikia needs to be corrected: it is possible that granting soldiers the status of Katoikas did not imply granting them land at all.

list of literature

Bikerman E. The Seleucid State, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985.
Gaibov V. A., Koshelenko G. A., Novikov S. V. Studies of archaeological sites of the Hellenistic period on the island of Failaka // Bulletin of Ancient History. 1988. N 2.

Kozyreva N. V. Ancient Larsa. Essays on economic life. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1988.

Makkaveev N. A. Seleucid katoikia na ostrov Failaka (Kuveyt) [Seleucid Katoikia on the island of Failaka (Kuwait)]. Magnitogorsk. 2009. N 1 (23).

Makkaveev N. A. The Persian Gulf region in the Seleucid-Parthian period. Diss... Candidate of Historical Sciences, Moscow, 2011.

Makkaveev N. A. Katoiki - social category of Hellenistic time // Terms, concepts, categories in literary texts and documents, Moscow: Publishing House of the Literary Institute, 2012(1).

Makkaveev N. A. Hellenistic inscriptions from the island of Failaka (Kuwait). Translation and comment // The Ancient East and the ancient world. Proceedings of the Department of Ancient World History. Vyi. VIII. Moscow: Akademika Publ., 2012 (2).

Makkaveev N. A. The Persian Gulf on the periphery of the Hellenistic world // The oldest states of Eastern Europe. 2012: Problemy hellenizma i obrazovaniya Bosporskogo tsardva [Problems of Hellenism and Education of the Bosporan Kingdom], Ed. by A.V. Podosinov and O. L. Gabelko, Russian Foundation for Assistance to Education and Science, Moscow, 2014.

Novikov S. V., Makkaveev N. A. Seleucid Catoikia: organization and Relations with the local population (based on the materials of excavations on Failaka Island (Kuwait)) / / Vostok, Evropa, Amerika v Drevnosti. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov XVI Sergeevskikh chteniy [Collection of scientific works of the XVI Sergeev Readings]. univ., 2010.

Fry R. Nasledie Irana [Heritage of Iran], Moscow: Vostochny lit., 2002.
Albrectscn E. Alexander the Great's Visiting Card // Kuml. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Hojbjerg, 1958.

Bar-Kochva B. The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Bhacker M.R. The Cultural Unity of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean: A Longue Duree Historical Perspective // The Persian Gulf in History / Ed. by L.G. Potter. L.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

page 71
Callot O., Cachet J., Salles J.-F. Some notes about Hellenistic Failaka // Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. 1987. Vol. 17 (Proceedings of the Twentieth Seminar for Arabian Studies held at London on 1st-4th July 1986).

Callot O. Failaka a l'epoque hellenistique // L'Arabie preislamique et son environnement historique et culturel. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 24-27 juin 1987 / T. Fahd (ed.). Strasbourg; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989.

Callot O. La forteresse hellenistique de Failaka // Golf Archdologie Mesopotamien, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Oman / Hrsg. von Kl. Schippmann, An. Herling, J.-F. Salles. Gottingen: Verlag Marie L. Leidorf Buch am Erlbach, 1991 (Internationale Archaologi, 6 / Hrsg.: CI. Dobiat, Kl. Lcidorf).

Callot O. Failaka-Ikaros sous Antiochos III: etude numismatique // Arabia Antique: Hellenistic Centers Around Arabia / F.d. by A. Invernizzi, J.-F. Salles. Roma: Istituto italiano per il Estremo Oriente, 1993.

Chantraine H. Jugerum // Der Kleine Pauly. 1967. Bd. II.

Chantraine H. Libra // Der Kleine Pauly. 1969. Bd. III.

Chantraine H. Plethron // Der Kleine Pauly. 1972. Bd. IV.

Cohen G.M. The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and Organization. Wiesbaden: Steincr, 1978 (Historia Einzelschriften 30).

Dalongeville R. Presentation physique generale de l'ile de Failaka // Failaka Fouilles Francaises 1986-1988 / sous la direction de Y. Calvct et J. Cachet. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient et de la Mediterranee Jean Pouilloux, 1990 (Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 18).

Debord P. Aspects sociaux et economiques de la vie religieuse dans l'Asie Mineure greco-romaine. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982 (Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'Empire romaine, T. 88).

Desse J., Dessc-Berset N. La faune: les mammiferes et les poissons // Failaka Fouilles Francaises 1986-1988 / sous la direction de Y. Calvet et J. Cachet. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient et de la Mediterranee Jean Pouilloux, 1990 (Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 18).

Dickson H.R.P. Kuwait and Her Neighbours. L.: George Allen and Unwin, 1956.

Faylaka Geography [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.kuwaitarchacology.org/failaka-gcography. html.

Cachet J. Un habitat du IIe s. av. J.-C. dans la forteresse de Failaka // Failaka Fouilles Francaises 1986-1988 / sous la direction de Y. Calvct et J. Cachet. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient et de la Mediterranee Jean Pouilloux, 1990 (Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient, 18).

Cachet J., Salles J.-F. Failaka, Koweit // Materialen zur Archdologie der Seleukiden und Partherzeit im sudlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet / Hrsg. von U. Finkbeiner. Tubingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 1993.

Gelin M. Do retour de mission... Failaka au Koweit (1) // Les Carnets de l'Ifpo. La recherche en train de se faire a l'Institut francais du Proche-Orient (Hypolheses.org), 26 janvier 2012. http://ifpo.hypotheses.org/2908.

Gelin M. De retour de mission... Failaka au Koweit (2) // Les Carnets de l'Ifpo. La recherche en train de se faire a l'Institut francais du Proche-Orient (Hypotheses.org), 18 mars 2013. http://ifpo.hypotheses.org/4929.

Gelin M. De retour de mission... Failaka au Koweit (3). La forteresse hellenistique // Les Carnets de l'Ifpo. La recherche en train de se faire a l'Institut francais du Proche-Orient (Hypotheses.org), 16 juillet 2014. http:// ifpo.hypotheses.org/6123.

Hannestad L., Potts D.T. Temple Architecture in the Seleucid Kingdom // Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom / Ed. by P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, J. Zahle. Aarchus: Aarchus University Press, 1990 (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 1).

Hannestad L. The Chronology of the Hellenistic Fortress (F5) on Failaka // Topoi. 1994. Vol. 4, fasc. 2.

Jeppesen K. A Royal Message to Ikaros: The Hellenistic Temples of Failaka // Kuml. 1960.

Jeppesen K. Danish Archaeological Investigations on Failaka, Kuwait, Ikaros: The Hellenistic Settlements. Vol. 3: The Sacred Enclosure in the Early Hellenistic Period: With an Appendix on Epigraphical Finds. Mocsgard; Aarhus: Aarchus University Press, 1989 (Jutland archaeological society publication, XVI: 3).

Kassler P. The structures and geomorphic evolution of the Persian Gulf // Purser B.H. The Persian Gulf Holocene Carbonate Sedimentation and Diagenesis in a Shallow Epicontinental Sea. N.Y.: Springer, 1973.

Kosmin P. Rethinking the Hellenistic Gulf: the New Greek Inscription from Bahrain // Journal of Hellenic Studies. 2013. Vol. 133.

Kuhrt A., Sherwin-White S. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993.

Persian Gulf Pilot Comprising the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Makran Coast. First Edition. Published and Sold by the Hydrographie Office under the Authority of the Secretary of the Navy. Washington: Government printing office, 1920.

Petropoulou Z.-M. A Seleucid Settlement on Failaka // Epigraphica Anatolica. 2006. Vol. 39.

Piejko F. The Inscriptions of Icarus-Failaka // Classica et Medievalia. Revue Danoise de Philologie et d'Histoire. Copenhague. 1988. Vol. 39.

Potts D.T. The Arabian Gulf in Anliquitv. Vols. I II. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Rice M. The Archaeology of the Arabian Gulf c. 5000-323 BC. L.; N.Y.: Routledgc, 1994.

Robert L. Hellenika. Recueil d'epigraphie, de numismatique et d'antiquites grecques. P.: Adricn-Maisonncuvc, 1949. Vol. VU.

Rostovtzeff M.I. The Social and Economie History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford; N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1941. Vols. I-III.

page 72
Salles J.-F. Failaka, une ile des dieux au large de Koweit // Comptes rendues de l'Academie d'inscriptions et de belles lettres. 1985. Vol. 129, n 4.

Salles J.-F. The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Selcucids // Hellenism in the East / Ed. by A. Kuhrt, S.M. Sherwin-White. L.: University of California Press, 1987.

Salles J.-F. [Compte-rendu]: Patitucci S., Uggeri G. Failakah. Insediamenti Medievali Islamici. Ricerehe y scavi nel Kuwait. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1984 // Syria. T. 65, fasc. 1-2, 1988.

Schalit A. The Letter of Antiochus III to Zeuxis Regarding the Rstablishment of Jewish Military Colonics in Phrygia and Lydia // The Jewish Quarterly Review. New Series. 1960. Vol. 50 (No. 4. April).

Schuol M. Die Charakene. Ein Mesopotamisches Konigreich in hellenistiseh-parthischer Zeit. Stuttgart: Franz Stcincr Vcrlag, 2000.

Tkac J. Ichara // Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 1914. Bd. 17.

Weissbach F.H. Ικαρος // Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 1916. Bd. IX.

Willcox G. The Plant Remains from Hellenistic and Bronze Age Levels at Failaka, Kuwait. A Preliminary Report // Failaka Fouilles Francaises 1986-1988 / sous la direction de Y. Calvet et J. Gachet. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient et de la Mediterranee Jean Pouilloux, 1990 (Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 18).

page 73

Permanent link to this publication: