Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World, Asia Minor FOUNDATION OF THE HELLENIC WORLD
z
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Αναζήτηση με το γράμμα AΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα BΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα CΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα DΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα EΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα FΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα GΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα HΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα IΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα JΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα KΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα LΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα MΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα NΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα OΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα PΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα QΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα RΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα SΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα TΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα UΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα VΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα WΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα XΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα YΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα Z

Miletus (Antiquity)

Author(s) : Paleothodoros Dimitris (7/4/2006)
Translation : Velentzas Georgios

For citation: Paleothodoros Dimitris, "Miletus (Antiquity)",
Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World, Asia Minor
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=8177>

Μίλητος (Αρχαιότητα) (2/15/2006 v.1) Miletus (Antiquity) (3/9/2007 v.1) 
 

1. Geography

Miletus was the most important city of Ιonia in the Archaic period. It is at 37°35´ latitude and 27°15´ longitude on the site of the earlier settlement of Balat, which was ruined by an earthquake in 1955. Today the nearest village is Yenıköy. The archaeological site and the local Museum with findings from Miletus, Didyma, Priene and Myous are in the position Milet.

Excavations in Miletus started by French archaeologists in 1868, while significant research has been carried out since 1899 under the auspices of the German Archaeological Institute.1

The territory of Miletus, the land of “Milesie”, extended over an area of 2,000 sq. km.2 It included four parts: 1) Miletus, which was an island in the prehistoric period and was later transformed into a triangular peninsula, with a length of 1.8 km from north to south and a maximum width of 1.4 km. On the peninsula, or very near to it, there is a range of hills: Humeitepe is to the north, while Kaletepe dominates around the so-called Harbour of Lions, to the SW of Humeitepe. The low hill of the stadium is to the south of the second hill. Finally, the highest hill, Kalabaktepe (57 m high) is to the SW of the peninsula,3 2) Mount Grion, to the east, 3) the low valley of Maeander River (Büyük Menderes), controlled by the Milesians as far as the outskirts of the land of Magnesia, and 4) the islands of Miletus, Leros, Patmos, Lade, Farmakoussa and Lepsia (modern Lipsi). The flow of the Maeander River gradually turned Miletus from a coastal into a continental city, while the island Lade became a hill.

The territory of Miletus included a series of settlements:4 1) Assesos (Mengerevtepe), with the famous temple of Athena Assesia, which was destroyed by fire during the invasion of Alyattes. Archaeological research has found traces of the first destruction, the rebuilding of the sanctuary in the 6th century BC and its final abandonment after the fall of Miletus in 494 BC. The position was surrounded with a strong wall of the 5th century BC, which protected the entire coast of the Milesian land, 2) Teichioussa, a place where one part of the population usually took cover against another part during revolts, 3) Ioniapolis (Mersinet Iskelesi), 4) Didyma or Branchidai, 5) neighbouring Myous, which was annexed by Miletus in the 3rd century BC and later became an independent demos.5

2. Political History

2.1. The Minoan and Mycenaean Period

There was sparse habitation in the Neolithic period (7000-3100 BC), mainly in the area of the sanctuary of Athena, to the west of the hill of the stadium. In the Early Bronze Age Miletus was an important centre of the culture of western Anatolia, which reveals its link with the Cyclades, the Dodecanese and Troy. The prehistoric city started to prosper circa 2000 BC. Excavations showed that Miletus was a thriving commercial Μinoan centre in the Middle Minoan I A period. The Minoan community, the greatest outside Crete, thrived mainly between 1650 and 1450 BC, towards the end of the Middle Minoan ΙΙ Β period. Almost immediately it was succeeded by the Mycenaean settlement, which is restricted mainly to the zone including the sanctuary of Athena and the Harbour of the Theatre. Several buildings have been excavated, while there is material evidence of a large-scale production of Mycenaean pottery. Vases and figurines were also imported from Argolis. In the heyday of the Mycenean kingdoms of mainland Greece (15th-13th c. BC), Miletus was reported in the chronographies of Hittite kings as an ally of the Achaeans (Ahhiyawa) under the name Milawanda. In the last phase of the Bronze Age the city was again under the Hittites, as evidenced by the Hittite type of fortifications adopted. Homer reports Miletus as a Carian city that fought on the side of Troy.6 It was completely destroyed circa 1185-1180 BC and was abandoned.7

There are several conflicting mythological traditions about the foundation of the city.8 According to Pausanias, the first inhabitants were native Carians under Anax and Asterios followed by Cretan colonists under Miletus, who had been sent by King Minos. The Minoans coexisted with the Carians and inhabited the city, which changed its name from Anaktoria to Miletus. On the other hand, Strabo considers that the Cretan colonists were led by Sarpedon and came from the Cretan city of Miletus. Aristocritus of Miletus refers to the very old traditions of the Milesians and says that Miletus was a son of Apollo who fled to Caria in order to escape the envy of King Minos and founded a city named after him.9

2.2. The Foundation of the Ionic City and its Early History

According to archaeological evidence, Miletus must have been colonised circa 1050 BC by Greek colonists. As regards the architectural remains, they come mainly from the late Geometric period (700 BC).10 Miletus was a member of the Ionic Dodecapolis.11

According to mythological traditions, the Ionian colonists set off from Athens under Neleus.12 They had no women with them. They massacred all the male inhabitants they found there (Carian and Cretan colonists from Milatus of Crete) and married their women.13 Neleus was recognised as the founder of the city, while a monument erected in his honour has been found outside the Sacred Gate.14

At first, the descendants of Neleus established a monarchy. However, it was abandoned in the 10th/9th century BC, when the conflict between the two successors to the throne, the Neleid cousins Leodamas and Phitres or Amphitres, caused a strange trial: each pretender of the throne led a part of the Milesian army against a different enemy of the city. Leodamas won and became king. Phitres revolted and, at the head of his own force, killed Leodamas and attempted to accede to the throne. The sons of Leodamas, however, took vengeance for their father’s death. It was then that Epimenes was chosen as an aesymnetes. He exterminated the band of Phitres’ sons and established aristocracy.15

2.3. The Archaic Period

According to scant written evidence, Miletus was a key factor during the conflicts among Greek cities already from the late 8th century BC. It was a permanent enemy and competitor of neighbouring Samos. Thus, in the well-known war between Eretria and Chalcis over the control of the Lelantine Plain (8th c. BC), the Milesians joined the Eretrian side because Samos had joined Chalcis.16 In the first half of the 7th century BC the Milesians allied themselves with Εrythrae against Naxos, while towards the end of the same century Erythrae became the enemy of Miletus, which had joined forces with Chios.

Later on, when the King of Lydia Alyattes attacked the land of Miletus, the Chians helped the city. The Lydian Kingdom was against Miletus already from the years of Gyges, Ardys and Sadyattes –the predecessors of Alyattes. However, the conflict came to a head when Αlyattes unsuccessfully tried for 12 consecutive years to break down the resistance of the Milesians and their tyrant Thrasybulus. A treaty of alliance, favourable to Miletus, was finally signed (608 or 598 or 594 BC).

In the same period or shortly later Miletus allied with Samos against Priene. In any case, circa 530 BC, when they were again in conflict with Samos and its tyrant Polycrates, the Milesians were helped by their ally Mytilene and possibly other cities of Lesvos.17

The treaty Thrasybulus signed with Alyattes must have been in effect until the years of Croesus, as concluded by the text of Herodotus, who reports that when Cyrus occupied the Lydian Kingdom, he signed a treaty through which he granted the Milesians the privileges they already enjoyed. As a result, Miletus did not join the Ionians in their attempt to resist the Mede Harpagus, the general of Cyrus in Asia Minor.18

The political history of Miletus in the 7th and 6th century BC is more difficult to describe: aristocracy was overthrown by the tyrant Thrasybulus circa 615 BC. He was succeeded by two tyrants, Thoas and Damasenor,19 who aimed to politically eliminate the most notable aristocratic families. A generalised revolt followed and lasted for two generations, according to Plutarch. It brought about conflicts between two classes of the population, the Aeinautes and the Cheiromaches, and must have been settled by Parian judges, who recommended an oligarchic regime. The revolt probably started during the decline of the Milesian export trade in the early 6th century BC, which coincides with the end of the so-called Middle Wild Goat Style 2, while it possibly ended in 525 BC or, according to a recent suggestion, circa 540 BC, when the first officials known as ‘aesymnetes’ appeared.20

An alternative version of the events is given by Heraclides Ponticus, who reports that the revolt created conflicts between the rich and the Gergithes, who must have been a subordinate native (possibly of Lelegian origin) population. The Gergithes clashed violently with the rich and a period of massacres followed affecting both sides.21

In 513 BC the Milesians under their tyrant Histiaeus participated in the Scythian expedition of Darius. Histiaeus played a decisive role in the successful retreat of Darius I because he persuaded the Ionians not to abandon their position on the Danube River, but remain and support the Great King. As a reward, Histiaeus was offered by Darius several territories of Thrace, where he settled after leaving his cousin and brother-in-law Aristagoras in his stead in Miletus.22 The latter, after he failed to occupy Naxos on behalf of the Persians and fearing that he would fall into disgrace with them, caused the Ionian Revolt when he rebelled together with the populations of Asia Minor, Thrace and Cyprus. The defeat of the Milesians in the naval battle of Lade led to the suppression of the revolt. The Persians decided to punish the city that had instigated the revolt. Miletus was completely destroyed: most male citizens were killed and women and children were sold into slavery, while a part of the population was taken to Ambe of the Red Sea. The city was captured by the Persians, while the neighbouring highlands were ceded to the Carians of Pidasa.23

2.4. The 5th century BC

Despite the absolute character of Herodotus’ accounts of the destruction of Miletus by the Persians in 494 BC, the city continued to exist, although its population was decimated: a crew of Milesians is reported to have taken part beside the Persians in the naval battle of Mycale in 479 BC.24 However, they defected and were punished for their treachery when the Persians invaded the city. The latter destroyed and looted the sanctuary of Apollo in Didyma, and captured Branchides in mainland Asia.25 After it was freed from the Persians, the city was rebuilt in accordance with the plan of the famous Hippodamus of Miletus and joined the Delian League. The rapid recovery and the excessively high contribution the city had to make (10 talents) show that classical Miletus, without being able to rival its archaic predecessor, remained an important city of Asia Minor.26

Towards the mid-5th century BC the situation in Miletus was particularly tense because of social and political conflicts. There is little information about the precise conditions of the period because the chronology of the important epigraphic and literary sources of the time is quite difficult.27 An early dispute (dating from between 470 and 440 BC) seems to have divided the oligarchic side into pro-Athenians and pro-Medians. The latter were exiled and a relative resolution provided rewards for those who would contribute towards their killing.28 In the mid-5th century BC the Athenians intervened in a conflict between the oligarchs and the democrats and, strangely enough, supported the former side. An inscription of 450/449 BC reports the measures Athens took when it intervened in the affairs of Miletus, including the guard posted in the city. The oligarchs rebelled and massacred the democrats.29 Athens must have intervened again, as in the decade of 430 BC at the latest the regime in Miletus was democracy, according to the Athenian standards.30 In 441 BC Miletus and Samos fought for the influence on the territories of Priene. The Samians won but the Milesians caused the intervention of Athens, which favoured them and established democracy in Samos. It is presumed that democracy had already been established in Miletus at the time.31

In 425/424 BC a force of Milesian soldiers took part in Athenian operations against Corinth. The following year the city gave Athens the substantial number of 2,000 hoplites. Nothing is known about the number of the Milesian allies that participated in the unfortunate Sicilian expedition of Athens.32

Miletus revolted against the Athenians in 412 BC after the intervention of Alcibiades. The Milesians denied the Athenians access to the harbour and made them sail to Lade. Later on, they successfully repelled the attack of the Athenians and their Argive allies. However, they maintained democracy, while there were some disputes with the Spartan Lichas, who tried to persuade the Milesians to obey the satrap of Lydia Tissaphernes. For the rest of the war Miletus was the place where the representatives of the Persian king flocked in order to reconcile with the Milesians.33 In 412/411 BC the Milesians reacted to the presence of a Persian stronghold in their territory and destroyed it. The Spartan general Lichas vainly tried to make them change their mind. They turned against him and, finally, when he became ill and died, refused to bury him in their city.34 Despite the problems, Miletus remained a military base for Spartan operations. In 409 BC a Milesian force that tried to avert the Athenians from occupying Pygela (near Kuşadasi) was almost completely exterminated. Finally, in 405 BC the satrap of Phrygia Pharnabazus or the Spartan admiral Lysander supported a bloody coup that imposed oligarchy again.35

After 404 BC Miletus came again under the Persian control. When Cyrus the Younger rebelled, Miletus was the only city that did not join him thanks to Tissaphernes, who had executed or exiled all the supporters of the king’s brother and rebel Cyrus. The latter, although supported by exiled Milesians, besieged the city unsuccessfully.36

2.5. The recovery of the 4th century BC

After the rebellion of Cyrus was suppressed Miletus remained under Persian control.37 The Peace of Antalcidas (386 BC) put a final end to the independence of Asian Greeks. As regards Miletus, the Persian intervention played a favourable role, when by order of Artaxerxes II and the satrap of Ionia Strouses the city won a piece of land in the plain of the Maeander River, which was also claimed by Myous.38 Miletus later came under the control of the Hecatomnides (377-353 BC), the semi-autonomous satraps of Caria.39

In 334 BC Miletus was one of the most powerful fortified places of the Persian defence against Alexander the Great. The Macedonian king had to besiege the city by land and water. Before the outbreak of operations, the oligarch ruler Glaucippus suggested that Miletus remain a neutral city, open to both the Persians and the Macedonians, but Alexander flatly refused. The city was finally captured. The defenders, Milesian and Greek mercenaries, suffered heavy losses. The inhabitants, on their knees, begged the king when the wall was pounded and torn down by Alexander’s formidable siege engines. Alexander felt very sorry for them and did not destroy the city but overthrew the pro-Persian oligarchy and restored democracy.40Not before long (late 333 BC) the Persian fleet, which had remained almost intact during Alexander’s advance, recaptured the city.41 However, after the Persian fleet was permanently destroyed in the summer of 332 BC, Miletus was occupied again by the Macedonians under Balacrus.42

2.6. The Hellenistic Period

There is considerable information about Miletus of the 3rd and 2nd century BC thanks to a series of inscriptions discovered in the early 20th century at Delphinium, the official archives of the city.43

When Alexander died, Miletus came under the control of the satrap of Caria Asandrus, who had become autonomous. Antigonus I Monophtalmos (One-Eyed) sent Docimus and Medeius in 312 BC to free the city and grant autonomy. Moreover, the democratic patrimonial regime was restored.44 Miletus remained under Antigonus until he was killed in the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. After that, the city seems to have maintained good relations with all the Successors:45Seleucus I Nicator made substantial donations to the sanctuary of Didyma and returned the statue of Apollo, which had been stolen by the Persians in 494 BC.46 In 295 BC Demetrius Poliorcetes, son of Antigonus, was the eponymous archon (stephanephorus) in the city. Then the city allied with Ptolemy I,47 while Lysimachus must have assumed power in the region. In general, he adopted a strict policy towards the Greek cities by imposing high taxes.48 In order to cope with them Miletus resorted to lending. Around 287/286 BC Demetrius returned but failed to maintain his possessions and was imprisoned in Syria. Nicocles of Sido, the commander of the fleet of Demetrius, surrendered the city. Lysimachus dominated until 281 BC, when he was defeated by Seleucus. In 280/279 BC the Milesians adopted a new chronological system, the Seleucid period. The first eponymous archon of the period (stephanephorus) was Αntiochus I, the successor of Seleucus.49 The following year, Ptolemy II made a large donation of land to the city, while some years later he was honoured through a resolution, which stated his friendship and alliance with the city.50 Miletus remained in the league of the Ptolemies until the end of the century. In 262 BC Antigonus II Gonatas, the King of Macedonia, who coveted Caria, unsuccessfully tried to detach the city from the Ptolemies.51

The next year (261/260 BC) the regent of Ptolemy II in Asia Minor, his son Ptolemy III, who was settled in Ephesus and Miletus, revolted with the help of Timarchus, an Aetolian war lord, who managed to impose tyranny on Miletus. Finally, Ptolemy was assassinated by his mercenaries.52 The Seleucids controlled Miletus again, while Antiochus II was offered divine honours because he was considered to have restored freedom and democracy by expelling the tyrant Timarchus.53

Miletus supported Seleucus II in the conflict among the successors of Antiochus II, who died mysteriously in 246 BC. However, the city came soon under Ptolemaic influence thanks to the expedition of Ptolemy III to Asia (246-245 BC).54 In the same period, the city signed an immunity treaty with the Koinon of Aetolians aiming to avoid being attacked by Aetolian pirates.55

Miletus in the second half of the 3rd century BC adopted a policy of military colonisation of its wider region thanks to the settlement of Cretan mercenaries in a series of fortresses.56 At the same time, the city wanted to consolidate its relations with other, not immediately neighbouring, Asia Minor cities: treaties of egalitarianism were signed with Τralles / Seleuceia (218/217 BC), Mylasa (215/214 BC) and Antioch ad Maeandrum.57

In 201 BC Philip V of Macedonia managed to capture Miletus because the Milesians had been impressed by his victory in the naval battle of Lade. The Macedonian king detached the territories of Myous from Miletus and gave them to neighbouring Magnesia ad Maeandrum.58 Nothing is known about Miletus during the extensive operation of Antiochus III in Asia Minor in 197/196 BC.59 During the war between Antiochus III and the Romans (190 BC), the Milesians allied with the latter and, what is more, provisioned the Roman fleet. The victory of the Romans offered Miletus a new list of eponymous stephanephoroi archons. Under the Peace of Apamea in 188 BC, the city reoccupied the territories of Apollo Terbintheus in Myous, which had been detached by Philip.60 In the immediately following period the external policy of Miletus was actually controlled by Rhodes. The city signed a series of treaties in the 180s BC: a) a confederation treaty with Pidasa (188/187 BC) – it was actually a concealed annexation of Pidasa to the state of Miletus –, b) a treaty of alliance with Heraclea by Latmus (185/184 BC) and c) a peace treaty with Magnesia ad Maeandrum (between 185 and 180 BC), following a war between Miletus and Heraclea on the one side and Magnesia and Priene on the other side.61 Throughout the Hellenistic history of Miletus, Priene was hostile towards the city: inscriptions of Priene refer to clashes, truces and arbitrations dating from the 3rd century BC, circa 200 BC, until the 1st century BC.62

After Rhodes was punished by Rome because of its wavering attitude in the third Macedonian War, Miletus came under the influence of the Attalids. Eirenias, the Milesian ambassador in the Attalid court, worked so that both sides would benefit from this relationship: Εumenes II benefited the city, which in turn honoured him even after his death. In the same period the city was benefited by the Seleucid ruler Αntiochus IV, who is considered to have dedicated, through his court, the bouleuterion of the city.63 After 129 BC and the formation of the province of Asia, Miletus must have remained free, although historians believe that the Romans controlled even the regime by appointing a body of 50 archons.64 Large families of merchants (negotiatores), such as the Gessi and the Clodii, moved their businesses to the city.65 At the same time, throughout the 2nd century BC Miletus maintained its preferential relations with its alleged metropolis Athens, by the Milesians participating in the Panathenaea and other Athenian festivals.66

In the decade of 90 BC the Roman Senate settled border disputes among Miletus, Magnesia and Priene, which had put forward claims over the plain of Maeander.67 Accordingly, Miletus together with other cities of Asia Minor, such as Mylasa and Εrythrae, were often summoned to act as arbitrators between cities of Crete and the Peloponnese.68 This proves that Miletus was a free city even in the 1st century BC.69

In the Mithradatic War Miletus encountered serious difficulties between 89 and 81 BC – as indicated by the fact that the god Apollo was chosen four times as the eponymous stephanephorus archon.70 After 81 BC the city did not face similar difficulties, although the initial alliance with the King of Pontus resulted in the city losing its freedom. In 83 BC the city was compelled by Lucius Licinius Murena to send a naval force of 10 ships so that the war against Mithradates could be continued. In the end, one of the ships was occupied by Verres, an action considered piratic by the Milesians.71

This attempt must have delivered the decisive blow to the once mighty naval force: while Julius Caesar was sailing to Rhodes in 75-74 BC, he was captured by pirates in Farmakoussa, off the coast of Miletus. The city had to pay the ransom the pirates were asking.72 In the same period some Milesians under Alexander of Miletus (Polyhistor) managed to be awarded the Roman citizenship.73 Finally, the city became autonomous in 38 BC, in the years of Mark Antony.74

2.7. The Roman Imperial Period

The history of the city in the early centuries of the Roman Empire is largely unknown. Only a few incidents connected with the city, which must have been inferior to Pergamon, Ephesus, Smyrna and Sardis, are reported. It should be mentioned that Tiberius (26 AD) refused to make it the centre of the imperial cult, a title won by Smyrna.75

However, his successor Caligula (37-41 AD) and his wife were worshipped by the city. This cult did not last very long because of Caligula’s death and the subsequent damnatio memoriae of the emperor. The title of neokoros must have been restored by Commodus (180-192 AD). Elagabalus (218-222 AD) awarded the second official title of neokoros to the city, which Miletus lost again because of the damnatio memoriae of the emperor in the years of Alexander Severus.76

The city was visited by Trajan (114 AD), who inaugurated some new projects, such as the Nymphaeum. The city participated in the Panhellenion, the league of the Greek cities established by Emperor Hadrian.

The main benefactor of the city was Annia Galeria Faustina, daughter of Antoninus Pius (Eusebes) and wife of Marcus Aurelius, who visited the city and stayed there for a while (164 AD). Among her donations were the construction of the magnificent baths named after her and the completion of the Roman theatre. In the meanwhile, the steadily increasing number of worshippers swarming into the sanctuary of Apollo in Didyma, which became very famous in the Imperial years, certainly contributed to the economic prosperity of Miletus.

3. Institutions and administration

There are numerous epigraphic and literary sources referring to the regime of Miletus in the various phases of its history.77 The oldest title in aristocratic Miletus was the aisymnetes, which must have been established when monarchy was overthrown.78 Little is known about the way the regime operated but, in any case, it lasted until 513 BC at the latest. During the Ionian Revolt Isagoras imposed the system of isonomia, that is, a type of moderate democracy. After the adventure of internal turmoil in the mid-5th century BC and oligarchy, dominated by officials called ‘epimenioi’, the city adopted a type of democracy similar to the Athenian regime. More specifically, the operations of the boule of Miletus and Athens were very much alike: they both had the system of prytaneia and the representation of the members under the system of tribes, some of which were identical to the respective Athenian ones.79 This system replaced the earlier Ionian system of six tribes (Oenopes, Oplites, Boreis, Argadeis, Geleontes and Aegikoreis).80 The boule of Miletus decided which possible resolutions would be discussed in the Ekklesia.81 The members of the boule were elected by lot even in the 2nd century BC.82 This system of government was generally the same until the Hellenistic period, although there were some inevitable intervals because of the constant political changes. Finally, in the early phase of Roman administration in Asia Minor, Miletus restored a system of oligarchy dominated by a body of 50 archons.

The inscriptions of the Classical and Hellenistic period also report a series of officials, such as strategoi(generals), tamiai(treasurers), praktores(tax collectors) and the grammateis(secretaries).83

4. Topography

4.1. The Archaic City

In the Archaic period Miletus extended from the hill Kalabaktepe, the acropolis of the settlement, as far as the Harbour of Lions. Although the city of the Geometric period covered the same area, the four-sided elliptical houses were concentrated around the sanctuary of Athena.84 The Archaic city was larger covering about 1,100,000 sq.m. According to some probably high estimates, there were about 4,000 houses, thus indicating that the overall population of the in-walled city must have amounted to 20,000. The estimates of the overall population of free Milesians give numbers between 50,000 and 100,000, which implies that the great majority lived outside the residential area, in settlements and country houses.85 A fortification wall of the second half of the 7th century BC, strengthened by defensive towers, protected the city: it possibly extended as far as the southern part of the peninsula including a double fortification wall around the acropolis Kalabaktepe.86 The overall area of the walled part was about 110 hectares, although it is not certain whether it was fully covered with buildings.

The most important building of the period is the temple of Apollo (Delphinium) in the area of the harbour. Very few traces of the archaic sanctuary of Apollo have been preserved. It is only known that it was preserved throughout the 5th century BC after the Persian destruction. It looked like an open-air temenos with an altar at the centre. Other important monuments of the Archaic period are the temple of Athena in the centre of the peninsula, the temple of Dionysus and the temple at Kalabaktepe, which is attributed to Artemis. Unfortunately, archaeological research has produced dismal results concerning the architecture of these Ionic and marble monuments. The three suburban sanctuaries of the Archaic period dedicated to Athena of Assesos in Assessos, Aphrodite in the hill Zeyintepe and Αpollo in Didyma were of equal, if not greater, importance.87 In the early 6th century BC a monumental marble altar dedicated to Poseidon was built to the south of the peninsula of Miletus. An imposing marble stairway connected the two parts of the monument, which stood on different levels and was decorated with a cyma and volutes.

4.2. The Hippodamian city

After the destruction of 494 BC Miletus possibly continued to be sparsely inhabited. The city was refounded in 479 BC. Hippodamus of Miletus is considered to have worked out the plan of the classical city, which included streets crossing vertically and defining building blocks of equal size. Each building block included six buildings. Because none of the building blocks of the city has been excavated, it is not known whether the tradition indicating the rectangular city plan attributed to Hippodamus is reliable. The origins of this discovery concerning the city plan must have existed before 479 BC, in the town-planning of Milesian colonies.

In Classical years the centre of the city was in its northern part. Most public buildings were there: the sanctuary of Apollo (Delphinium), the Prytaneion and the North Agora. Moreover, the temple of Athena was rebuilt just after 479 BC.88 It is immediately behind the so-called West Agora, to the south. The classical temple stood on an artificial flat level. It was an Ionic distyle in antis temple with 6 columns on the narrow and 10 columns on the long sides. It had a very unusual orientation from south to north and measured 18 × 35 m.89

One of the most important complexes of Miletus is the North Agora dating from the 5th century BC, which was the oldest civil, commercial and religious centre of the city. The remains were traced to the south of the stoa of the Harbour of Lions. To the east, the North Agora was blocked by a wall, which had a propylon in the centre, while on the west side there was a peristyle area surrounded with shops. The Prytaneion was in the southwestern part of the North Agora. It was a particularly important public building in ancient Greek cities, where the prytaneis convened and official visitors and honours of guest were accommodated.

The archaic wall, destroyed in 494 BC, must have been rebuilt after 412 BC, as indicated by the resistance successfully mounted by the Milesians against the Athenians and the Argives. The Sacred Gate in the southern part of the wall was particularly important. The start of the Sacred Way linking Miletus with the sanctuary of Apollo in Didyma was there. In Classical years the Sacred Gate was 5 m wide and was surrounded by two almost square towers.

4.3. The Hellenistic and Roman Miletus

Both the archaic and the classical city have been largely covered by the impressive Hellenistic and Roman monuments. Miletus remained an important civil and commercial centre of Ionia, with three harbours: the Harbour of Athena, the Harbour of the Theatre and the Harbour of Lions.

The most important buildings of the Hellenistic years were the Gymnasium of Eumenes II and the Gymnasium of Eudemus, the Theatre, the Stadium, the Bouleuterion and the South Agora. The walled area was drastically reduced in the difficult period the city went through during the first Mithradatic War (88-83 BC).90 This wall was strengthened by marble and limestone blocks, while a certain part of the wall was fortified with towers.

In the Roman period the look of the city changed significantly because a series of impressive buildings, such as the Thermae at Humei Tepe, the Baths of Faustina, the Thermae of Capito, the Ionian Stoa, the Nymphaeum of Trajan and the Serapeion, were constructed. However, the two most important harbours, the Harbour of Lions and the Harbour of the Theatre, remained the reference points of the city. The Harbour of Lions penetrated deep into the northern part of the peninsula of Miletus and was the main military harbour of the city. It was named after the two sizeable marble lions adorning the narrowest point of its entrance since the 3rd century BC. The lions are not in their original position today; the one is in a very good condition and the other was found broken into pieces. A long L-shaped Doric stoa (32 m), which was built in the Hellenistic years and accommodated shops, was built on the waterfront.

In the Roman years there were two significant monuments in the southwestern corner of the Harbour: the Large and the Small Monument. The Big Monument, an extremely imposing building, consisted of successive bases, where a marble tripod supporting a cauldron stood. It was constructed by Augustus in remembrance of his victory in the naval battle of Actium in 31 BC. Its overall height was about 18 m. Only the circular lower base of the monument has been preserved. The Small Monument of the Harbour was built in the 1st century AD within a short distance from the Large Monument and its construction was influenced by its counterpart. It was a marble triangular monument ending in a triangular Corinthian capital, which probably supported a marble amphora. The overall height must have been about 5.36 m.

In the southeastern corner of the Harbour there was a monumental gate built in the 1st century AD, which offered access from the harbour to the city through the Sacred Way. Only the foundations of this luxurious construction have been preserved. On the eastern side of the Harbour of Lions, on the west side of the modern hill Humei Tepe, a complex of Gymnasium-Baths was built in the years of Emperor Trajan (98-117 AD). The Thermae of Humei Tepe occupied the northern part of the complex and included apodyteria (changing rooms) and cold, warm and hot bathrooms. The southern part included the palaestra, which was defined by colonnades with auxiliary rooms and shops. The best preserved facilities are the hot bath (caldarium) and the changing rooms.

The remains of the Hellenistic and Roman Delphinium, the starting point of the annual sacred procession that made its way to the temple of Apollo in Didyma, have been preserved in the southeastern corner of the Harbour of Lions. In the Hellenistic period the temenos was extended and surrounded with Doric porticoes on its three sides, thus measuring 60 × 50 m, an area equal to two building blocks. The central open-air space included exedrae, altars and various other offerings. In the Roman years a circular monopteral temple with a roof in the form of a pyramid was built at the centre of the sanctuary, the porticoes followed the Corinthian order, while a monumental propylon was added to the western side. The archives of the city were kept at the Delphinium, as indicated by the inscriptions found in the interior of the walls of the portico and the inscribed columns in the courtyard of the sanctuary.91

The Capito Thermae is to the south of the Delphinium. The complex was built in the 1st century AD following a donation of Cnaeus Vergilius Capito, the governor of Asia Minor in the years of Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD). The Palaestra of the Capito Thermae was the main training room; it had a square plan and measured 39 × 40 m. Its open-air space was surrounded with a two-storey Ionic portico, while on the eastern side there was a semi-circular swimming pool (natatio). The eastern side of the palaestra had two entrances to the facilities of the Thermae. The building of the Thermae was divided into three wings. The middle wing included the apodyterium, the warm and the hot bath (tepidarium and caldarium respectively). The north and the south side included apodyteria, water tanks and heated spaces with hypocausts. The exterior of the Thermae was plain, but the interior was adorned with colourful marble covering the floors and the walls.92

The remains of the so-called Gymnasium of Eudemus, the central Gymnasium of the city, with a rectangular plan, are to the south. It dates from the first half of the 2nd century BC and was funded by the notable Milesian Eudemus. The entrance was on its south side, which also included a monumental propylon. The Gymnasium was built around a rectangular (19 × 35 m), open-air palaestra, surrounded with a portico with Doric columns. The main building of the Gymnasium was on the northern side and included a row of rooms behind an Ionic colonnade. The Ephebeion, the institution where adolescents received instruction, was at the centre. On both sides there were the apodyteria, the aleipterion ("anointing room") – and the bath – the essential auxiliary spaces of the ancient Greek gymnasia.

A monumental Nymphaeum dating from the 2nd century AD existed to the south of the Hellenistic Gymnasium. Its construction was funded by Marcius Ulpius Traianus, an official of the province of Asia Minor and father of the subsequent Emperor Trajan. The Nymphaeum was U-shaped and measured 20 × 17 m. It had a three-storey facade with luxurious architectural and sculptural decoration, in front of which there was a large tank. The monument is today in a relatively good condition. It is considered one of the most important and impressive fountains of Asia Minor. The statues adorning the Nymphaeum depicted gods and demigods.93

Near the Nymphaeum there was the so-called Monument of Laodice, today destroyed to a great extent. It was a building dedicated by the inhabitants of Miletus to Laodice, the wife of the king of Syria Antiochus ΙΙ (261-246 BC), in remembrance of a donation.94

The area of the North Agora underwent several changes in the Hellenistic period. A Doric portico surrounded the sides of the open-air space of the Agora, while at the centre of the western portico an Ionic prostyle temple was built. In the Roman period the open-air space of the Agora was defined by a two-storey Ionic portico, while on its eastern side a double row of rooms was added.95

The Bouleuterion was excavated to the south of the North Agora. It was built in the first half of the 2nd century BC and, according to inscriptions found there, its construction is associated with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the King of Syria (175-164 BC). The building consisted of three main parts: the propylon, the courtyard and the assembly hall. At the centre of the courtyard, a few traces of which have been preserved, there was an altar of the Roman period dedicated to the cult of Emperor Hadrian. There were four entrances to the assembly hall, which was roofed and its interior was shaped like the cavea of a theatre. Several rows of seats have been preserved. It is believed that it seated 800-1,200 spectators and was possibly used for musical performances.96

The remains of the South Agora dating from the 3rd century BC are to the south of the North Agora and the Bouleuterion.97 It is one of the greater in dimensions ancient Greek Agoras. It included a large rectangular open-air space surrounded with portico and shops. The eastern portico was funded by Antiochus I (281-261 BC). Access was from the western, southern and northern side. In the years of Hadrian (117-138 AD) the northern entrance to the Agora was adorned with a monumental two-storey propylon with lush architectural and sculptural decoration on the facade. The northern gate of the Agora has been reconstructed and is exhibited at the Museum of Pergamon in Berlin. Only the crepis and few parts of the upper floor are preserved in Miletus.98

Along the western side of the South Agora a large warehouse, where crops and various other merchandise were kept, was built in the mid-2nd century BC. It was an oblong two-storey building, whose interior was divided by an axial row of pillars into two aisles. Its foundation and bases of the pillars have been preserved. The Serapeion, built in the years of Septimius Severus (193-211 AD) or his successors, lies between the South Agora and the large warehouse. The architectural plan of the temple is reminiscent of the type of basilica because its interior was divided into three aisles by two rows of columns. The entrance to the temple was adorned in the 3rd century AD with a monumental marble propylon, whose triangular pediment is today preserved.

On the eastern side of the Theatre lies the Heroon dating from the Hellenistic period (late 2nd or early 1st c. BC). It included a large coutyard with a row of rooms on its narrow sides, while the main burial structure was inside the courtyard in the form of a vaulted chamber that looked like a tomb. Another heroon dating from the early 3rd century AD is to the south of the theatre. It included a peristyle courtyard with Corinthian columns and a square burial structure with a vaulted roof. In the interior there was an altar, on top of which there was a marble sarcophagus with rich relief decoration. The person to whom this luxurious burial monument was dedicated is not known.99

The Harbour of the Theatre is in the western part of the peninsula of Miletus. There were important complexes of commercial and sports facilities around this theatre.

The Theatre is in the northern part of the peninsula of Miletus. It was first built in the 4th century BC as a Greek theatre. Its cavea is bigger than a semicircle, was partly propped against the natural rock and had a rectangular skene. It was directed SW so that the spectators could enjoy the wonderful view to the sea and the southern part of the city. In the Hellenistic years the skene had two floors and a proscenium was added, on top of which there was a trapezoid logeion, while the cavea was extended so that the theatre could accommodate about 5,300 spectators.

In the Roman period, possibly in the years of Nero, the Hellenistic theatre of Miletus was remodelled into a theatre of the Roman type of Asia Minor: the two-storey skene had a luxurious facade (scaenae frons) made of colourful marble and rich architectural and sculptural decoration. The floor of the orchestra was covered with red marble slabs. It was converted into an arena and was used for gladiator combats. Thus, the first tiers of seats were removed and a protective parapet was constructed.

New works were carried out towards the late 2nd century BC, when the skene had three floors, with the last floor being decorated with a relief frieze depicting deities and Eros hunting wild beasts. The imperial box (tribunal) in the middle of the cavea was constructed in the same period and was based on four columns. The seating capacity of the theatre was about 15,000. It has been restored and is the best preserved building of the city.100

The Thermae, whose construction was funded by Faustina, is within a short distance from the Harbour of the Theatre. To the west is the palaestra, a square open-air space measuring 77.5 × 79.41 m surrounded with Corinthian colonnades. The baths were to the east and included the apodetyria and the cold, warm and hot rooms as well as perspiration facilities. These spaces were luxuriously made and decorated with statues and colourful marble. The apodetyrium was an oblong room with niches on its long sides, which were chambers with two or three beds for the relaxation of the visitors. The niches of the northern side were decorated with statues of Muses, which have been taken to the Museum of Constantinople. The facilities of the baths included lots of vaulted spaces of different shape and look. On their sides there were niches and bathing basins of various types. In the cold bath there was a large water reservoir decorated with two statues-fountains: the river god Maeander and a lion. Copies of these works have been put up in these positions, while the originals are kept in the Museum of Miletus. The heated rooms were in the eastern and northern part of the complex.101

The stadium of the city, whose construction must have been funded by Faustina, lies on the southern side of the Harbour of the Theatre. It is a rectangular building 192.27 m long with a seating capacity of about 15,000. The arena was the same size as the stadium of Olympia in Greece. The running track (dromos), that is, the main training area for the athletes, which was 29.56 m wide and races were held there, was between the two long sides. A monumental propylon was built at the eastern entrance in the 3rd century AD.101

Another sports complex is to the west of the stadium. It is the oldest gymnasium of Miletus, whose construction was funded by Eumenes II of Pergamon (197-159 BC). The architectural design of the Gymnasium is not known, as the building was remodelled during the Roman period. A decree of the inhabitants of the city honouring the benefactor Eumenes II was inscribed on the monumental propylon leading from the Gymnasium to the Stadium. At the same time, access to the West Agora, on the southwestern side of the Harbour of the Theatre, was through the propylon: the three sides of the spacious rectangular square measuring 191 × 79 m are surrounded with porticoes of Ionic colonnades. To the north of the Agora and to the west of the Harbour of the Theatre a heroon of the Hellenistic years was found, which was converted into an Ionic prostyle temple in the Roman period. However, neither the hero to whom the heroon was dedicated nor the deity worshipped there, when it was converted into a temple, is known.102

There is an Ionic Stoa in the northeastern corner of the city, on the eastern side of the Sacred Way, which led to the sanctuary of Didyma. Its facade included an oblong Ionic colonnade with 35 columns that stood on a high crepis consisting of seven steps and supported an entablature with a richly decorated frieze. Behind the colonnade there was a row of rooms serving various functions. The construction of the building dates from the period of the Flavian dynasty (69-96 AD), while some alterations were carried out in the years of Emperor Trajan (98-117 AD).

5. Economic and intellectual life

Archaic Miletus was a famous commercial centre. The city was wealthy, already from the Prehistoric period, thanks to its privileged position, as it was the gate of the East to the West and vice versa. Its key position in the relations between the two worlds was further consolidated. Already from the 8th century BC the Milesians launched feverish activities of colonisation in the Black Sea. Ancient sources report somehow excessively that the Milesians founded 90 colonies, which scholars reduce to about 40. However, even this number is very impressive.103 Moreover, the Milesians played an active role in the trade with the West, maintained their relations with Sybaris and participated in the foundation of Naukratis in Egypt.104

Apart from the exceptional pottery production of the city (Wild Goat Style I and 2, Fikellura Style), Miletus was famous in Antiquity for the quality of lamb wool, the well-known textiles and the purple dye. This reputation continued until the Hellenistic and the Roman period.105 There was large-scale furniture production as well. In the 5th century BC the beds of Miletus were particularly popular and were considered valuable possessions. Between 434 and 433 BC 10 beds are reported among the offerings to the Parthenon of Athens, which increased to 16 in subsequent years. The distinctively beautiful furniture of Miletus with the rectangular legs and the ornate, rich design was very famous.

In fact, the prosperity of Miletus was mainly based on the rich land the city controlled and the exploitation of its agricultural products. The production of oil, and possibly wine, must have been significant, judging by the widespread Milesian amphorae in the Eastern and Central Mediterranean.106

In the Archaic period Miletus was the theatre of the most important scientific inventions: it was the birthplace of the earliest and most prominent Ionian natural philosophers, such as Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes. Another important science, history, started there with the work of Hecataeus.

The role of Miletus as the link between the East and the West does not seem to have been influenced by the Lydian and Persian domination in the 6th century BC. However, after its destruction in 494 BC, the city lost its primacy in Ionia and the Black Sea. The 5th century BC was a period of decline, which continued until the period of the Ptolemaic domination, when Miletus competed with Rhodes and Athens in trading with Alexandria.107 The fact that Miletus was able to maintain mercenaries and followed an extremely aggressive policy against its allies proves the prosperity of the city. Things did not change when the Romans were involved in Asia Minor. Even towards the late 2nd century BC extensive construction works were carried out in the city. When Augustus (30 BC) consolidated peace, Miletus became again an important commercial entrepot, with merchandise travelling between East and West. The cosmopolitan character of imperial Miletus is evidenced by the fact that a powerful Jewish community existed in the city.108

6. Coinage

The city of Miletus is among the first Greek cities that used electrum coins. The types include the lion’s head on the obverse and the incuse square on the reverse.

The type of archaic silver coins, with the lion’s head on the obverse and the incuse square on the back, is similar to the previous type. However, the type of the Aeginetic weighing unit (stater of 18.55 gr) was adopted instead of the previous Milesian (22.8 gr) unit. Coinage was possibly stopped or dramatically reduced between 494 and 479 BC. Amber coins disappeared since then, while silver coins adopted the lion on the obverse and a floral ornament on the reverse.109

A permanent numismatic type was adopted in the 4th century BC: the head of Apollo Daphnephoros in profile appeared on the obverse, while a lion turning its head back and a rose or a star on the exergue, with the monogram of the city (M) appeared on the reverse.110 All coins, both silver and bronze, included the name of an official, which is helpful for the division of the workshop’s production into seven sub-periods in the Late Classical and Hellenistic period. Between 353 and 333 BC the city minted silver coins according to the Rhodian weighing system (four-drachma coin of 15.3 gr, drachma of 3.7 gr and semi-drachma of 1.8 gr) and bronze coins depicting the lion on the front and the rose on the back. Some silver coins of the city included the initials ΜΑ and ΕΚΑ corresponding to the Carian satraps Mausolus and Hecatomnus respectively.111 The second period (313-290 BC) included only bronze coins depicting Apollo and the lion. Between 333 and 313 BC there were a lot of coins according to the type of Alexander the Great.112 In the third period (290-281 BC) there were silver two-drachma coins weighing about 6.5 grams, while in the fourth period (259-246 BC) the so-called Persian system (two-drachma coins weighing 10.5 gr) was adopted. In the fifth period (225-195 BC) the same system was followed, although with lower weights, while in the sixth period (175-86 BC), when Miletus entered into political relations with Attiki, two names of officials appeared on four-drachma coins and the city followed the Attic weighing system. This period also included a relatively rare coin depicting the head of Rome on the obverse, which is connected with the introduction of the particular deity circa 130 BC. In the seventh period (39-17 BC) only bronze coins were minted showing the lion on the obverse, while the reverse depicted the archaic cult statue of Apollo in Didyma sculptured by Canachus. A limited series of gold staters, according to the Attic weighing system, which depicted the lion on the obverse and the bow and the quiver of Apollo on the reverse, also belongs to an unknown period before the 2nd century BC.113

In the Roman Imperial period bronze coins were minted from the years of Augustus until the end of the 3rd century AD. The usual types included the statue or bust of Apollo in Didyma, the bust of the personified Senate, a statue representing Artemis and a deer, Leto and her two children, Zeus holding the thunder, Apollo naked and sitting in front of an altar and his statue in the temple of Didyma. A series of games is also reported (DIDYMEIA, COMMODEIA, OLYMPICS, PYTHIANS and PANIONIAN PYTHIANS). The commonest type includes the epithet MILESION (of Miletus) followed by the inscription NEOKORON or NEOKORON SEVASTON(in the years of Elagabalus).114

1. For the excavations at Miletus: Müller-Wiener, W. (ed.), Milet 1899-1980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung. Kolloquium, Frankfurt a.M. 1980, (IstMitt Beiheft 31, Tübingen 1986).

2. For the city of Miletus: Wiegand, T., Milet 2.2, Die Milesische Landschaft (Berlin 1929), Cook, J. M., ‘Some Sites of the Milesian Territory’, BSA 56 (1961) pp. 90-101 and Lohmann, H., ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet. Vorbericht über die Kampagnen der Jahre 1990, 1992 und 1993’, AA (1995) pp. 293-328, ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet. Vorbericht über die Kampagnen der Jahre 1994 und 1995’, AA (1997) pp. 285-311 and ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet. Vorbericht über die Kampagnen der Jahre 1996 und 1997’, AA (1999) pp. 439-473.

3. For the geomorphology of Miletus: Greaves, A.M., ‘The Shifting Focus of Setlement at Miletos’, in Flensted-Jensen, P. (ed.), Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart 2000) pp. 57-77.

4. Rubinstein, L., ‘Ionia’, in Mogen Hasen, M., Nielsen, Th.h. (ed.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis (Oxford 2004) pp. 1082-1083, see Miletos.

5. See Hermann, P., ‘Neue Urkunden zur Geschicthe von Milet im 2 Jhdt. v.Chr’, IM 15 (1965) pp. 93-96 and pp. 101-103.

6. Iliad ii. 868.

7. For Miletus in prehistory and the important excavations of W.-D. Niemeier, see Gorman ,V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 20-31 and Greaves, A., Miletos. A History (London 2002) pp. 40-73, in which the previous bibliography is cited. For Miletus as Milawata/ Milawanda, see recently Mountjoy, P. A., ‘The East Aegean – West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa’, AnatSt 48 (1998) pp. 33-67. Destruction of the city: Mountjoy, P. A., ‘Miletos: A Note’, BSA 99 (2004) pp. 189-200.

8. Prinz, F., Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie (Zetemata 72, München 1977) pp. 97-98 and 107-111. Gorman, V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 14-20. Sourvinou-Inwood, Chr., Hylas, The Nymphs, Dionysos and Others. Myth, Ritual, Ethnicity (Stockholm 2005) pp. 268-309.

9. Pausanias 7.2.5. Strabo 12.8.5. Aristocritus of Miletus FGrHist 493 F 3. Finally, there are two more versions, which combine the aforementioned names and places, without adding something new: according to Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3.1.1.2.1, Asterios was a Cretan nobleman married to Europe, who had already had three sons with Zeus (Minos, Sarpedon, Radymanthos). All three of them argued about the love of Miletus. Finally, Sarpedon and Miletus fleet to Caria and built the city there. According to Ephorus FGRHist 70 F 127, as it is reported by Strabo 14.1.6, Sarpedon led the Cretans from Miletus in Crete to the city which obtained henceforth the name of their homeland. A similar version is provided by Antoninus Liberalis 30. Carian Miletus before Ionians: Pherecydes FGrHist 3 F 155.

10. Greaves, A., Miletos. A History (London 2002) pp. 75-79.

11. Herodotus 1.142.3.

12. Gorman ,V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 30-33.

13. Pausanias 7.2.5. Herodotus 9.97. According to Aelianus 8.5, the first city founded by the Ionians was Miletus.

14. See Heinzel, E., ‘Neleus, Herrscher von Pylos, und der Gründermythos von Milet’, ÖJh 68 (1999) pp. 1-11. Monument: Herda, A., ‘Der Kult des Gründerheroen Neileos und die Artemis Kithone in Milet’, ÖJh 67 (1998) pp. 1-48.

15. Conon FGrHist 26 F 44. Nicolaus of Damascenus FGrHist 90 F 52 and F 53. The historical value of the narrative has been disputed, mainly because the name Epimenes corresponds to the name of the officials Epimeneans. Thus, it can be interpreted as an explanatory myth for the establishment of the particular office. Gorman ,V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 90-94.

16. Herodotus 5.99.1. See Tausend, K., Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen in archaischen Griechenland (Historia Einzelschriften 73, Stuttgart 1992) pp. 137-145.

17. Alliance with Erythrae against Naxos and alliance with Samos against Priene: Tausend, K., Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen in archaischen Griechenland (Historia Einzelschriften 73, Stuttgart 1992) pp. 74-78 and 83-85. Alliance with Mytilene against Polycrates: Herodotus 1.18.3. Lydian raids: Herodotus 1.14.4-1.22.4.

18. Treaty between Cyrus and Miletus: Herodotus 1.141.4, 143, 169. For a probable validity of the treaty in the period of Alyattes and during the reign of Croesus, see Tausend, K., Amphiktyonie und Symmachie : Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen in archaischen Griechenland (Historia Einzelschriften 73, Stuttgart 1992) pp. 95-96 and Gorman ,V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 123-124.

19. Plutarch, Moralia 298 C-D.

20. Revolt: Plutarch, Moralia 298C-D. Parian Judgement: Herodotus 5.28-29. Connection of the revolt with a decline in exports: Greaves, A., Miletos. A History (London 2002) p. 96. A swift in dating of the catalogue of aesymnetes from 525 to 540: Gorman, V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 112-113.

21. Heraclides Ponticus 11.5, as mentioned by Athenaeus 12.523f-524d. See generally Faraguna, M., ‘Note di storia milesia arcaica. I Gergithes e la stasis di VI secolo’, SMEA 36 (1995) pp. 37-89.

22. For the role of Histiaeus in the Scythian expedition: Herodotus 4.137-139. Deployment at Myrcinus Μυρκίνο in Thrace: Herodotus 5.11.1-2. Rise of Aristagoras: Herodotus 5.30.2. See Talamo, C., ‘Istieo ed Erodoto. Per la storia della tirannide a Mileto’, RendNap 44 (1969) pp. 173-203 and Robertson, N., ‘Government and society at Miletus, 525 - 442 B.C.’ Phoenix 41 (1987) pp. 356-398. For Aristagora’s action see De Sanctis, G., ‘Aristagora di Mileto’, RivFil 59 (1931) pp. 48-72.

23. Herodotus 6.18-20.

24. Herodotus 9. 99.3 and 9.104: The Persians, suspecting that the Milesians would defect, led them to a fortified position, further from the battle field. However, the Milesians paid a high price, because they led the survivals back to the Greek camp, and the Persians slaughtered them first.

25. Ctesias 27, Pausanias 8.46.3.

26. Gorman, V., ‘Milesian Decrees of Isopoliteia and the Refoundation of the City, ca. 479 BCE’, σε Gorman, V., Robinson, E.W. (ed.), Oikistes. Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in the Ancient World Offered in Honor of A.J. Graham (Leiden 2002) pp. 181-193. Miletus is mentioned in the tributary catalogues of the Athenian Alliance of 454/453 BC along with the Milesians of Leros and Teichioussa: IG I³ 259.III.19 and VI.19-22. See Piérart, M., ‘Milet dans la première liste de tributs’, ZPE 15 (1974) pp. 163-167. It is also independently written in the catalogues of 452/451 (IG I³ 261.II.28), with a contribution of 10 talents initially and from 443/442 (IG I³ 269.I.33) to 430/429 (IG I³ 281.I.14) of 5 talents. In 427/426 (IG I³ 284.15-17) it is again reported together with Leros, contributing 10 talents, while in 415/414 the city contributes independently the amount of 10 talants (IG I³ 290.Ι.9).

27. See Earp, A. J., ‘Athens and Miletos ca. 450 B. C.’, Phoenix 8 (1954) pp. 142-47, Barron, J. P., ‘Milesian Politics and Athenian propaganda, c. 460-440 B.C.’, JHS 82 (1962) pp. 1-6, Gehrke, H. J., ‘Zur Geschichte Milets in der Mitte des 5. Jhs. v. Chr.’, Historia 29 (1980) pp. 17-31, Robertson, N., ‘Government and society at Miletus, 525 - 442 B.C.’, Phoenix 41 (1987) pp. 356-398, Delorme, J., ‘Athènes et Milet au milieu du Ve siècle av. J.C.’, JSav (1995) pp. 209-281 and Gorman, V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 227-236.

28. Dessau, H., Herrmann, P., Rehm, A., Milet, 6. Inschriften von Milet, 1, A. Inschriften n. 187 - 406 (Nachdruck aus den Bänden I 5 - II 3). B. Nachträge und Übersetzungen zu den Inschriften n. 1 – 406, (Berlin – New York 1997) n. 187. Koerner, R., Inschriftliche Gesetzestexte der frühen griechischen Polis: Aus dem Nachlass von Reinhard Koerner (Köln-Wien 1993) p. 311. Gorman, V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 232-234. The interpretation of the situation described as inner-oligarchic conflict derives from the fact that the epimenes archons mentioned are actually an element of the oligarchic magistracy: Piérart, M., ‘Les epimenioi de Milet’, AntCl 38 (1969) pp. 365-388.

29. For the Athenian decree in 450/449 (IG I³ 21), see Oliver, J. H., ‘The Athenian Decree concerning Miletus in 450/49 BC’, TAPhA 66 (1935) pp. 177-98, Fornara, C. W., ‘The date of the Regulations for Miletus’, AJP 92 (1971) pp. 473-475, Bradeen, D. W., McGregor, M. F., ‘Regulations for Miletos’, in Norman O. K. (ed.), Studies in Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphy (London 1973) pp. 24-70, Cataldi, S., ‘La Secessione dei βέλτιστοι milesi e le Ξυγγραφαί ateniensi per Mileto’, in Cataldi, S. (ed.), Studi sui rapporti interstatale nel mondo antico (Pisa 1981) pp. 161-233, Balcer, J. M., ‘Miletos (IG I² 22 [IG I³ 21) and the structures of Alliances’, in Balcer J. M. (ed.), Studien zum attischen Seebund (Konstanz 1984) pp. 11-30. According to Gorman, V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 227-230, the decree also resulted in the establishment of democracy in the city, a suggestion not generally accepted. See Hornblower, S., A Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford 1991) pp. 188-189. Support of Athens to the oligarchs resulted to the death of the democrats: Pseudo-Xenophon, Athenaion politeia 3.11. See Lapini, W., ‘Atene e Mileto nell’ “Athenaion politeia”’, in L’ “Athenaion politeia” dello Pseudo-Senofonte (Napoli 1997) pp. 79-107.

30. Herrmann, P., ‘Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Athen und Milet im 5. Jahrhundert’, Klio 52 (1970) pp. 163-173 (inscription of the decade of 430). See also Piérart, M., ‘La sixième tribu de Milet’, BCH 102 (1978) pp. 563-564, ‘Athènes et Milet, 1. Tribus et démes milésiens’, MusHelv 40 (1983) pp. 1-18 and ‘Athènes et Milet, 2: L’organisation du territoire’, MusHelv 42 (1985) pp. 276-299.

31. Thucydides 1.115.2. See Gorman, V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) p. 236.

32. Thucydides 4.42, 4.54.1 and 7.57.4 respectively.

33. Exclusion of the port: Thucydides 8.17.3. Attempt for recapture by the Athenians: Thucydides 8.24-27. Meeting point with the Persian delegate: Thucydides 8.28-109.

34. Frictions with the Persians and Lichas: Thucydides 8.84-85. Thomson, W. E., ‘Tissaphernes and the mercenaries at Miletos’, Philologus 109, 1965, pp. 294-297.

35. Base of Spartans: Xenophon., Hellenica 1.5.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.7. Crashing of the force: Xenophon., Hellenica. 1.2.2-3. Abolition of democracy: Diodorus Siculus 13.104.5-6. Plutarch., Lysander 8. Polyaenus 1.45.1.

36. Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.6 and 1.2.2.

37. Polyaenus 8.16, cites the presence of a Milesian force in the guards of the satrap Tissaphernes when he died in 395 BC.

38. Briant, P., Histoire de l’Empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris 1996) p. 511.

39. Polyaenus 6.8. Hecatomnides and Miletus: Dunham, A. G., A history of Miletus: down to the Anabasis of Alexander (London 1915) pp. 118-120.

40. Arrian Α, 18.1-19.6. Diodorus Siculus 17.22.1-5. Bosworth, A.B., Κατακτήσεις και Αυτοκρατορία του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου (trans. Κ, Μακρή, Athens 1998) pp. 86-89. Romane, J.P., ‘Alexander's sieges of Miletus and Halicarnassus’, AncW 25 (1994) pp. 61-76.

41. Quintus Curtius IV.1.37

42. Arrian C.2.3-7. Quintus Curtius IV.5.13.

43. See Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) pp. 162-442. Weiss, E., ‘Zu den milesischen Inschriften aus dem Delphinion’, ÖJh 17 (1914) pp. 257-272. Von Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, U., Kleine Schriften, V.1 (Berlin 1937) pp. 417-466. Hermann, P., Milet VI.1. Inschriften von Milet. B. Nachträge und Übersetzungen zu den Inschriften n° 1-406 (Berlin – New York 1997) pp. 155-217. For the inscriptions of the 2nd cent. see Rehm, A., Zur Chronologie der milesischen Inschriften des 2 Jhs. (Berlin 1923). General account of the history of the period: Hermann, P., ‘Milet au IIe siècle’, in Bresson, A., Descat, R., Les cités d’Asie Mineure occidentale au IIe siècle a. C. (Bordeaux 2001) pp. 109-116.

44. Diod. S. 19.75.3-4. The liberation of Miletus and restoration of democracy is mentioned in the catalogue of stephanephori, under the archon Ippomachus (March 313-February 312). Liberation took place at the end of the year. Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) n. 123. The democratic patrimonial regime was restored thanks to Antigonos: IG II² 1129. Billows, R., Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1990) p. 210.

45. Based on the interpretation of Orth, W., Köningliche Machtanspruch und städtische Freiheit (München 1977) pp. 17-32.

46. Pausanias 1.16, 3. Two inscriptions from Didyma in honour of Seleucus’ wife, Apame and his son Antiochus, dated to the 1st century, due to their financial contribution for the construction of the temple, confirm the good relations of the Seleucids with Miletus: Rehm, A., Didyma II. Die Inschriften (Berlin 1958) n. 480 and 279. See Gasparri, C., ‘La donazione di Seleuco Nikator al Didymaion di Mileto’, in Omaggio a Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, (Studi miscellanei 15, Roma 1970) pp. 45-53.

47. Seibert, J., ‘Ptolemaios I. und Milet’, Chiron 1 (1971) pp. 159-166. Günther, W., Das Orakel von Didyma in hellenistischer Zeit (IstMitt Beiheft 4, Tübingen 1971) pp. 25-27.

48. Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) n. 138. See Burstein, S. M., ‘Lysimachus and the Greek Cities of Asia. The Case of Miletus’, AncW 3 (1980) pp. 73-79.

49. Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) n. 123.

50. Donation: Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) n. 139 (decree of 262 in which the donation of 279/278 is cited). For the Ptolemaic influence on Miletus see Bagnall, R. S., The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (Leyden 1976) pp. 169-175.

51. Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) n. 139 and note on p. 304. This inscription cites that the city was threatened by land and sea, particularly after the victory of Gonatas at a naval battle in Kos.

52. Pomp. Trog. 26. Athenaeus. 13, 593b. Fronto ΙΙΙ, 2, 11. Welles, C.B., Royal Correspondance of the Hellenistic Period (New Haven 1934), n. 14, line 9. The identity of Ptolemy is a topic for discussion. See W. Huss, ‘Ptolemaios der Sohn’, ZPE 121, 1998, pp. 229-250.

53. See Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950), I, p. 95 and II, p. 926, footnote 22. Kneppe, A., ‘Timarchos von Milet. Ein Usurpater im Seleukidenreich’ in Migratio et commutatio. Studien zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. Thomas Pekàry zum 60 Geburstag am 13 September 1989 dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülem (Sankt Katharinen 1989) pp. 37-49.

54. There are no exact evidence for the period but the city belongs to the Ptolemaic alliance in a later date: Haussoulier, B., Études sur l’Histoire de Milet et du Didymaion (Paris 1902) pp. 135-137. Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) pp. 367. Will, E., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique² (Nancy 1979), 1, p. 260.

55. Klaffenbach, G. ‘Asylievertrag zwischen Ätolien und Milet’, in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse XX (Berlin 1937) p. 155 ff.

56. The deployment of Cretan mercenaries is dated to 234/233 and 229/228: Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) n. 33 and 37 respectively.

57. Treaties of egalitarianism: Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) n. 143, 146 and 144 respectively.

58. Occupation by Philip: Polybius 16.5.6. Detachment of the territories of Myous: Polyvios 16.24.9. See Ma, J., Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford 1999) p. 80.

59. According to Haussoulier, B., Études sur l’Histoire de Milet et du Didymaion (Paris 1902) p. 149 and Schmitt, H. H., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ des Grossen und seiner Zeit (Historia Einzelschriften 8, Wiesbaden 1964) p. 281, Miletos submitted to Antiochus. An opposite view was expressed by Holleaux, M., Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecque IV (Paris 1952) p. 330, Günther, W., Das Orakel von Didyma in hellensitischer Zeit (Tübingen 1971) p. 92 and Wörrle, M., ‘Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos I: Antiochos III., Zeuxis und Herakleia’, Chiron 18 (1988) p. 446, n. 97. Ma, J., Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford 1999) p. 86 and 89 is rather inclined towards the first view.

60. Alliance with the Romans: Titus Livius 37.16.2 and 37.17.3. The speculative, lost catalogue of stephaniphoroi in the Roman period is compiled by Wörrle, M., ‘Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos I: Antiochos III., Zeuxis und Herakleia’, Chiron 18 (1988) p. 437, based on the fact that the previous catalogue is completed in the end of the Seleucid era in Asia Minor. Apameia treaty: Polyvios 21.46.5.

61. Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) n. 149, 150 and 148. Hermann, P., ‘Milet au IIe siècle’, Gauthier, Ph., ‘Les Pidaséens entrent en Sympolitie avec les Milésiens : la procédure et les modalités institutionnelles’ and Migeotte, L., ‘Le traité entre Milet et Pidasa (Delphinion 149). Les clauses financières’, in Bresson, A., Descat, R., Les cités d’Asie Mineure occidentale au IIe siècle a. C. (Bordeaux 2001) pp. 113-116, 117-127 and 129-135. Mezger, F., Inscriptio Milesiaca de pace cum Magnetibus facta (München 1913). Errington, R.M., ‘The peace treaty between Miletus and Magnesia (I.Milet 148)’, Chiron 19 (1989) pp. 279-288. Ager, Sh.L., Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World 337-90 B.C. (Bekeley 1996) n. 109.

62. Hiller von Gaertingen, Fr., Inschriften von Priene (Berlin 1906) n. 27, 28, 111, 143-144, 120.

63. Relations with the Attalids: SEG 36 (1986) n. 1046-1081. Kleine, J., ‚Pergamenische Stiftungen in Milet’, in Müller-Wiener, W. (ed.), Milet 1899-1980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung. Kolloquium, Frankfurt a.M. 1980, (IstMitt Beiheft 31, Tübingen 1986) pp. 129-140. Relations with the Seleucids: Hermann, P., ‘Milesier am Seleukidenhof’, Chiron 17 (1987) pp. 171-190.

64. See generally Hermann, P., ‘Milet au IIe siècle’, in Bresson, A., Descat, R., Les cités d’Asie Mineure occidentale au IIe siècle a. C. (Bordeaux 2001) p. 116, where all the cases when Romans assigned Milesian judges on the Greek cities conflicts are cited.

65. Broughton, T.R.S., ‘Asia’, in Frank, T., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4 (Baltimore 1938) p. 550.

66. Günther, W., ‘Milet und Athen im zweiten Jahrhundert v.Chr.’, Chiron 28 (1998) pp. 21-34.

67. Hiller von Gaertigen, F., Inschriften von Priene (Berlin 1906) n. 111 and 120. Tod, M.N., International Arbitration among the Greeks (Oxford 1913) pp. 45-46. Arbitrators were appointed from Erythrae and Sardeis.

68. For instance the case if Lato and an anonymous neighbour: van Effentere, H., Bougrat, M., ‘Les frontières de Lato’, Κρητικά Χρονικά 21 (1969) p. 29.

69. Kallet-Marx, R., Hegemony to Empire. The Development of Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C. (Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford 1995) p. 171.

70. Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) p. 125. Βλ. Kallet-Marx, R., Hegemony to Empire. The Development of Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C. (Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford 1995) p. 277.

71. Cicero, II Ver. 1.86-89.

72. Velleius Patercullus II 41.3. Valerius Maximus VI.9.15. Plutarchus, Caesar 1.8.2. Suetonius, Caes. 4.1-2.

73. Holtheide, B., Römische Bürgerrrechtspolitik und römische Neubürger in der Provinz Asia (Freiburg 1983) pp. 22, 26-31.

74. Kleiner, G., Das römische Milet. Bilder aus der griechischen Stadt in römischer Zeit (München 1970).

75. Tacitus, Annales 4.55-56.

76. Dio Cassius 59. 28, 1. Robert, L., ‘Le culte de Caligula à Milet et la province d’Asie’, in Hellenica VII (Paris 1949) pp. 206-238. Collas-Heddeland, E., Néocorie impériale: de la rivalité à la primauté (Diss. Université Paris IV 1993) pp. 51-57.

77. See generally Müller, H., Milesische Volksbeschlüsse. Eine Untersuchung zur Verfassungsgeschichte der Stadt Milet in hellenistischer Zeit (Hypomnemata 47, Göttingen 1976) and mainly Nawotka, K., Boule and Demos in Miletus and its pontic colonies from classical age until third century A. D. (Wroclaw 1999).

78. See Gorman, V., Miletos. The ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor 2001) pp. 111-121, the older idea of the aisymnetes office being dated to the period after the Parian arbitration in 525 BC is rejected.

79. Seven of the tribes of Miletus are identical to the ones appointed by Cleisthenes in Athens: Aiantis, Akamantis, Erechtheis, Kekropis, Leontis, Oineis, Pandionis. Two more tribes are mentioned by inscriptions: Asopis and Theseis. There must have been 12 tribes in total. Jones, N.F., Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study (Memoirs of the Philosophical Society, Volume 176, Philadelphia 1987) pp. 322-323.

80. Jones, N.F., Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study (Memoirs of the Philosophical Society, Volume 176, Philadelphia 1987) p. 321 (only the first four are encountered in inscriptions from Miletus).

81. Schehl, F. W., ‘Probouleutic Commissioners in Miletus during the Hellenistic Period’, TAPhA 82 (1951) pp. 111-126.

82. Nawotka, K., Boule and Demos in Miletus and its pontic colonies from classical age until third century A. D. (Wroclaw 1999) pp. 141-142 and 151-157. The council must have had a great number of members, judging by the fact that the capacity of the bouleuterion varied between 800-1200 people.

83. Rubinstein, L., ‘Ionia’, in Mogen Hasen, M., Nielsen, Th.h. (ed.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis (Oxford 2004) p. 1086, see Miletos.

84. Weickert, C., Hommel, P., Kleiner, G., ‘Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957’, IstMitt 9-10 (1959-60) pp. 38-39. Kleiner, G., Alt-Milet (Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J.W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a.M., 4, 1, Wiesbaden 1966) p. 14 ff.

85. Number of houses: Gates, M.H., ‘Archaeology in Turkey’, AJA 99 (1995) p. 238. Population: Dunham, A. G., A history of Miletus: down to the Anabasis of Alexander (London 1915) p. 142 (100.000 for Miletus land in total). Roebuck, C., Ionian Trade and Colonization (New York 1959) pp. 21-23 (64.000). Greaves, A., Miletos. A History (London 2002) p. 102 (50.000-60.000). Inhabitancy outside the walls: Herodotus 1.17.2.

86. Cobet, J., ‘Milet 1994 - 1995. Die Mauren sind die Stadt. Zur Stadtbefestigung des antiken Milet’, AA (1997) in 249-284. Blum, I., ‘Die Stadtmauer von Alt-Milet. Ergebnisse des Surveys 1996 und 1997’, AA (1999) in 53-76. Graeve, V.v., ‘Milet 1994-1995. Vorbericht über die Grabungsarbeiten und Geländeerkundungen, die Denkmälerrestaurierung und die naturwissenschaftlichen Begleitprogramme der Miletgrabung in den Jahren 1994 und 1995’, AA (1997) pp. 118-120. Lang, F., Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland: Struktur und Entwicklung (Berlin 1996) pp. 199-201.

87. Gerkan, A.v., ‘Zur Lage des archaischen Milet’, in Bericht über der VI. Internationalen Kongress für Archäologie: Berlin 21-26 August 1939 (Berlin 1940) pp. 286-288 and 323-325. Müller-Wiener, W., ‘Bemerkungen zur Topographie des archaischen Milet’, σε Müller-Wiener, W. (ed.), Milet 1899-1980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung. Kolloquium, Frankfurt a.M. 1980 (IstMitt Beiheft 31, Tübingen 1986) pp. 95-104. Lang, F., Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland: Struktur und Entwicklung (Berlin 1996) pp. 198-199. Graeve, V.v., ‘Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen im archaischen Milet’, NüBIA 14 (1997-98) pp. 73-88. Delphinium: Gerkan, A.v., ‘Zum Heiligtum des Apollon Delphinios in Milet’, IstForsch 17 (1950) pp. 288-290. Kalabaktepe and Athina temple: Gerkan, A.v., Kalabaktepe, Athenatempel und Umgebung, Milet 1. 8, Berlin 1925. Temple of Dionyssus: Real, W., ‘Milet 1973-1975. Vorbericht über die Arbeiten der Jahre 1973 und 1975, 2. Ausgewählte Funde aus dem Dionysos-Tempel’, IstMitt 27-28 (1977-1978) pp. 105-116. Temple of Aphrodite: Senff, R., ‘Das Aphroditenheiligtum von Milet’, in Asia Minor Studien 49 (Bonn 2003) pp. 11-25. Greaves, A.M., ‘The Cult of Aphrodite in Miletos and its Colonies’, AnatSt 54 (2004) pp. 27-33. Temple in Assessos: Weber, B.F., ‘Zum spätarchaischen Tempel auf dem Mengerevtepe bei Milet’, in Säule und Gebälk. Zu Struktur und Wandlungsprozess griechisch-römischer Architektur. Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 16. bis 18. Juni 1994 (Mainz 1996) pp. 84-89.

88. Held, W., in ‘Zur Datierung des klassischen Athenatempels in Milet’, AA (2004) pp. 123-132, supports the traditional dating in early Classical period. An opposite view has been stated by Niemeier, W. D., Graeves, A. M., Selesnow, W., ‘"Die Zierde Ioniens". Ein archaischer Brunnen, der jüngere Athenatempel und Milet vor der Perserzerstörung’, AA (1999) pp. 373-413, who dated the temple before 494 BC.

89. Only scanty traces are preserved from the Archaic temple: Mallwitz, A., Schiering, W., ‘Der alte Athena-Tempel von Milet’, IstMitt 18 (1968) in 89-160. For the Classical temple see Mallwitz, A., ‘Gestalt und Geschichte des jüngeren Athenatempels von Milet’, IstMitt 25 (1975) in 67-90. About the finds in the temple see Held, W. Göltekin, A. Das Heiligtum der Athena in Milet, Milesische Forschungen 2 (Mainz 2000).

90. Gerkan, A.v., Milet 2.3. Die Stadtmauern (Berlin 1935). Graeve, V. v., Kleiner, G., ‘Milet. Bericht über die Arbeiten im Südschnitt an der hellenistischen Stadtmauer 1963’, IstMitt 23-24 (1973-74) pp. 63-115. Pimouguet-Pédarros, I., Pimo ‘Défense et territoire. L'exemple milésien’, Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 21 (1995) pp. 89-109 and Archéologie de la défense. Histoire des fortifications antiques de Carie, époques classique et hellénistique (Besançon 2000) pp. 354-357.

91. Rehm, A., Das Delphinion in Milet ΙΙ. Die Inschriften (Milet 1.3, Berlin 1914) pp. 162-442.

92. Tuchelt, K., ‘Bemerkungen zu den Capito-Thermen in Milet’, in Mansel'e armagan. Mélanges Mansel (Ankara 1974) pp. 147-169. Köster, R., ‘Die Palästrahallen der Capitothermen in Milet. Überlegungen zur Rekonstruktion F. Krischens’, IstMitt 43 (1993) pp. 429-436.

93. See Hülsen, J., Milet 1.5. Das Nymphaeum (Berlin 1919). Alföldy, G., ‘Traianus pater und die Bauinschrift des Nymphäums von Milet’, REA 100 (1998) pp. 367-399. The statues are kept in Miletus, Constantinople and Berlin.

94. Weber, B.F., ‘Zum Laodikebau in Milet’, IstMitt 39 (1989) pp. 585-592.

95. Gerkan, A. v., Der Nordmarkt und der Hafen an den Löwenbucht (Berlin 1924).

96. Borrmann, R., ‘Ausgrabungen von Milet (Buleuterion)’, AA (1908) pp. 499-507. Knackfuss, H., Milet 1.2, Das Rathaus von Milet, (Berlin 1908). Tuchelt, K., ‘Buleuterion und Ara Augusti. Bemerkungen zur Rathausanlage von Milet’, IstMitt 25 (1975) pp. 91-140.

97. Knackfuss, H., Milet I.7. Der Südmarkt und die benackbarten Bauhmagen (Berlin 1924).

98. Wiegand, E., ‘Die kunstgeschilichtliche Bedeutung des römischen Markttores in Milet’, Kunstwanderer (1925-26) pp. 359-362. Strocka, V.M., Das Markttor von Milet (Winckelmannsprogramme der Archäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 128, Berlin 1981).

99. Graeve, V. v., ‘Milet 1985. Der Grabnaiskos aus dem Heroon I’, IstMitt 36 (1986) pp. 8-12.

100. Hellenistic theatre: Krauss, F., ‘Die hellenistischen Bühnen des Theaters von Milet’, RM 71 (1964) pp. 12-129 and Milet 4.1. Das hellenistische Theater. Der römische Zuschauerbau (Berlin 1973). Roman theatre: Altenhöfer, E., Die Reconstruction der Theaterhalle auf der Rückseite des ersten römischen Bühnengebäudes von Milet und ihre entwicklungsgeschichtliche Stellung, Fakultät der Bauwesen der Technischen Hochschule, München 1970 and ‘Das erste römische Bühnengebäude des Theaters von Milet’, in Müller-Wiener, W. (ed.), Milet 1899-1980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung. Kolloquium, Frankfurt a.M. 1980, (IstMitt Beiheft 31, Tübingen 1986) pp. 165-173. Frieze: Altenhöfer, E., Bolé R., ‘Der Eroten-Jagdfries des Theaters in Milet’, IstMitt 39 (1989) pp. 17-47.

101. Gerkan, A.v., Milet . 2.1. Das Stadion (Berlin 1921).

102. Weber, B.F., ‘Milet 1983 - 1984. Die Grabung im Heroon II’, IstMitt 35 (1985) pp. 24-38.

103. Colonisation: Bilabel, F., Die Ionische Kolonization (Philologus Supplement 14.1, Leipzig 1920). Ehrhardt, N., Milet und seine Kolonien (Frankfurt am Main – New York 1983).

104. The cosmopolitan character of Miletus is testified by the great number of Egyptian and Phoenician objects found in the temples: Hölble, G., ‘Funde aus Milet, 8. Die Aegyptiaca vom Aphroditempel auf dem Zeytintepe’, AA (1999) pp. 345-371.

105. Excellent lamb wool: Athenaeus 12.540e-f. See generally: Le Dinahet, Th., Labarre, G., “Les métiers du textile en Asie Mineure de l’époque hellénistique à l’époque impériale”, in Aspects de l’artisanat du textile dans le monde méditerranéen (Lyon 1996) pp. 46-118. Miletus was famous for its purple dye: Herrmann, P., ‘Milesischer Purpur’, IstMitt 25 (1975) pp. 141-147.

106. Amphorae: Greaves, A., Miletos. A History (London 2002) p. 97. Aristoteles Politica Ι.11, 1259α5-21 refers that Thales became rich when he foresaw the excellent oil production and rented all the oil presses of Miletus and Chios.

107. Rostovtseff, Μ.Ι., Histoire économique et sociale du monde hellénistique (Paris 1989, French translation of the original The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford 1941) pp. 118-120.

108. Hommel, R., ‘Juden und Christen im Kaiserzeitlichen Milet. Überlegungen zur Theaterinschrift’, IstMitt 25 (1975) pp. 167-195.

109. For the Archaic and Classical coins see Head, B. N., Historia Nummorum. A Manual of Greek Numismatics² (London 1911) pp. 584-585, Moucharte, G. ‘À propos d’une découverte de monnaies de Milet’, RBN 130 (1984) pp. 19-35 (Archaic) and Deppert-Lippitz, B., Die Münzprägung Milets von vierten bis ersten Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Typos 5, Frankfurt 1984) pp. 11-14.

110. For the coinage of Miletus from the 4th century until 1st century BC see Mastrocinque, A., ‘Storia e monetazione di Mileto all'epoca dei Diadochi’, AIΙΝ 27-28 (1980-81) pp. 61-78. Deppert-Lippitz, B., Die Münzprägung Milets von vierten bis ersten Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Typos 5, Frankfurt 1984). Kinns, P., ‘The Coinage of Miletus’, NC 146 (1986) pp. 233-260.

111. Gehrke, H.-J., Stasis: Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in der griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (München 1985) p. 116, note 12.

112. Thomson, M., Alexander’s Drachm: Mints, 1. Sardes and Miletus (Numismatic Series 16, New York 1983).

113. Kinns, P., ‘The Coinage of Miletus’, NC 146 (1986) pp. 245-247.

114. Head, B. N., Historia Nummorum. A Manual of Greek Numismatics² (London 1911) p. 586. Baldus, H. R., ‘Die Gesandtschaftsreise des Poplas. Zu einem ungewöhnlichen Münztyp Milets unter Commodus’, Chiron 15 (1985) pp. 187-196. Meyer, E., ‘Zwei unedierte severische Münzen aus Laodicea ad mare und Milet’, NumAntCI 18 (1989) pp. 269-275. Baldus, H. R., ‘Ein unedierter kaizerzeitlicher Gegenstempel von Milet’, IstMitt 46 (1996) pp. 241-244. See also Burnett, A., Amandry, M., Ripollès, P.P., Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. I (London-Paris 1992) pp. 449-450 and Vol. II (London-Paris 1999) pp. 176-177.

     
 
 
 
 
 

Entry's identity

 
press image to open photo library
 

>>>