Version classiqueVersion mobile

Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor

 | 
Hugh Elton
, 
Gary Reger

Rebirth of a Region: Ionia in the Early Hellenistic Period

Richard A. Billows

Texte intégral

  • 1 Emlyn-Jones 1980; Cadoux 1938; Cook 1982.

1Ionia had been in the Archaic period a, if not the, leading region of Greece in terms of cultural and economic developments and the spread of urbanism1. In the aftermath of the failed Ionian revolt against the Persian Empire, the subsequent absorption of Ionia into the Athenian Empire after 479, and the relegation of the Ionian cities to the status of political football contended over by Athens, Sparta, and the Persians during and after the Peloponnesian War, Ionia had become by the fourth century a fringe region in terms of political, cultural, and economic significance in the Greek world. It was to retain this secondary status through the first three quarters of the fourth century; but in the aftermath of Alexander’s conquests, the Hellenistic era became a time of revival for the Ionian cities, when they blossomed once more into one of the most vital and prosperous regions of the Greek world, with some of the most populous and important Greek cities – above all Smyrna and Ephesos – and this remained the case during the Roman period. The aim of this paper is to look at the beginnings of this “rebirth” of Ionia, to attempt to explain how and why it happened, and in particular to see to what extent it was the result of policy initiatives of the various Hellenistic kings who included all or parts of Ionia within their larger empires. For the purposes of this paper, I define Ionia as the cities of the Ionian League, plus Herakleia Latmos, Magnesia Maiandros and Magnesia Sipylos which belong to the same geographic space, but excluding the offshore islands of Samos and Chios due to the somewhat different situation their geographic separation from the mainland imposed. Chronologically, I limit my enquiry to the late fourth and third centuries, the “High” Hellenistic period before Roman intervention began to make itself felt. I will begin by reviewing, necessarily in the present format somewhat sketchily, the evidence for significant revitalization of the Ionian cities in the period in question, then show that Ionia was indeed conceived of as a distinct region by both outsiders – the Hellenistic kings – and insiders – the Ionians themselves – and finally will consider what prompted the Hellenistic rulers to promote the growth and prosperity of Ionia in the ways they did.

  • 2 Mastrocinque 1979.

2The various indicators of revitalization and growth can be grouped under five basic headings. Most important are, first, the cases of refoundation of cities at more favorable sites, usually involving significant expansion, and secondly the consolidation of cities by synoikism or the introduction of additional settlers. Thirdly, evidence of significant building activity is clearly relevant, and to some extent associated with this is, fourth, the promotion of civic cults – or cults controlled by the cities – in that this often involved construction or reconstruction of temples. Finally, there are the various favors, especially tax relief or abatement or exemptions, granted by the various Hellenistic rulers. The evidence for all of this is mostly quite well known and well studied; but it has been studied, by and large, either in isolation, as in the various publications of newly found inscriptions, or in the context of studies of particular cities, or as shedding light on the history and policies of particular rulers or dynasties. A good start in looking at the evidence for Ionia as a region was made by Attilio Mastrocinque in his book La Caria e la Ionia meridionale in epoca ellenistica, but that work – as the title implies – is primarily concerned with Caria and deals with southern Ionia principally because it overlaps geographically with Caria2.

  • 3 Paus. 7.5.1-3; Aelius Aristides 20.7, 20.20, and 21.4 (ed. Keil); Plin., Nat., 5.118. For Smyrnaia (...)
  • 4 See further Billows 1990, 213 and 295; Cohen 1995, 180-183.

3The clearest cases of refoundation of Ionian cities at new and more favorable sites are Smyrna and Ephesos. The city of Smyrna had been destroyed in the seventh century and was never properly resettled, the Smyrnaioi living a village style existence (Strabo 14.1.37) until the late fourth century. To whom the honor of initiating the refoundation of Smyrna belongs is disputed: local Smyrnaian tradition credited Alexander the Great3; but Strabo, our earliest source in this matter, states unequivocally that it was the Diadochoi Antigonos Monophthalmos and Lysimachos who refounded Smyrna (14.1.37). It seems to me that Strabo should be believed as the historical lectio difficilior: local tradition would be much more likely to transfer credit from the relatively obscure Antigonos and Lysimachos to the great Alexander, than Strabo or his source(s) to do the reverse. We should understand that Antigonos initiated the process of refounding Smyrna, and was hence responsible for selecting the site – on the slopes of Mt. Pagos overlooking the Gulf of Smyrna – and that Lysimachos continued the process after the battle of Ipsos ended Antigonos’power and life4. At its new site Smyrna flourished, rapidly becoming one of the largest Greek cities in Asia Minor and one of the most important ports in the eastern Aegean.

  • 5 Cohen 1995, 177-180 for sources and details; also e. g. Mastrocinque 1979, 50-54.

4The evidence for Ephesos is clearer: the refoundation was unquestionably the work of Lysimachos. Due to the silting process of the river Kaystros, the old site of Ephesos no longer provided access to the sea; Lysimachos refounded the city on a magnificent scale at a new site between the two hills now named Bülbüldağ and Panayirdağ, with an excellent harbor (now also completely silted up)5. Lysimachos’ city, situated at the Aegean end of the great route running across Asia Minor via Kelainai (later Apameia Kibotos) and the Kilikian Gates to Syria and beyond, prospered and flourished throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Lysimachos’ refoundation involved a change in the name of the city, from Ephesos to Arsinoeia (or Arsinoe) in honor of his third wife, the sister and later wife of Ptolemy II Philadelphos; but the name change did not long outlast Lysimachos’ death in 281, the Ephesians not surprisingly preferring to revert to their traditional name.

  • 6 Published by Merritt 1935, 358-372, but for date and circumstances see Robert 1936b, 158-161 (= Ro (...)
  • 7 Wehrli 1968, 90-92.
  • 8 OGI, 229 (IK, 24.1-Smyrna, 573; IK, 8-Magnesia am Sipylos, 1); see now further Cohen 1995, 216-17.
  • 9 Cohen 1995, 187-188 states the case with full references; the notion of a refoundation was challen (...)
  • 10 Syll.3, 344 lines 5-15.

5A number of other Ionian cities show some evidence of refoundation late in the fourth century: Priene, Kolophon, Teos, and Magnesia Sipylos. The cases of Kolophon and Magnesia Sipylos are the clearest, in that in each case we hear of the existence of a palaia polis in addition to the Hellenistic city. The evidence for Kolophon comes from an inscription dated ca. 311 to 306 BC, which was concerned with the building of a new city wall that would enclose both Kolophon and the palaia polis6. We should probably understand the building of the wall to be the last stage in the process of refoundation, so that this refoundation should be understood to have occurred around 315-306; and in that Antigonos Monophthalmos is prominently mentioned in the preamble, along with Alexander, as guarantor of the city’s freedom, he should probably be credited with initiating the refoundation7. For Magnesia Sipylos, the evidence is the well known mid-third century documents concerning relations between Smyrna and Magnesia, which attest to the existence of a place called Palaimagnesia as well as Magnesia itself8. In that Magnesia in these documents is shown to have been inhabited by two sets of soldier settlers as well as by the Magnesians themselves, while Palaimagnesia had become a garrison-colony inhabited by troops guarding the region, it seems clear that the refoundation of Magnesia at a new site was the work of an early Hellenistic king in the context of introducing military colonists; and prominent mention of Antiochos I as the grantor of allotments to the colonists at Palaimagnesia points to that king as the likely initiator of the refoundation. There is no direct evidence for a refoundation of Priene, but since excavation at the site produced no evidence for pre-Hellenistic habitation, it is usually assumed that Priene, like Ephesos and other cities, was removed to a new and more favorable site under Alexander or one of his immediate successors9. In the case of Teos, the city was not actually moved, but a refoundation at an adjacent site seems to have been contemplated by Antigonos I in the context of his proposed synoikism of Lebedos with Teos, for in his preserved first letter to the Teans and Lebedians he mentions the possibility that most or all of the present city of Teos may be destroyed and new habitations be erected in a “newly built city” at an adjacent site10.

  • 11 For Kolophon and Lebedos see Paus. 1.9.7 and 7.3.4-5; Strab. 14.1.21; Steph. Byz. s. v. Ephesos; a (...)
  • 12 See IK, 8-Magnesia am Sipylos, passim.
  • 13 Merritt 1935, 377-79 n ° III; Robert 1936b, 166 (= Robert 1969-1990, 2.1245).
  • 14 See now Kobes 1996, 210-220.

6The allied policy of consolidation by synoikism or the introduction of new inhabitants is attested at most of the same places that we learn of refoundations, as well as one other place. When Lysimachos refounded Ephesos on a notably magnificent scale, he attempted to incorporate in it the populations of Kolophon and Lebedos, which cities he destroyed, and he also incorporated the coastal town of Phygela11. The incorporation of the Lebedians and Kolophonians was not successful: continued independent existence of those cities in the later Hellenistic period shows that much – probably most – of their populations must have returned home after Lysimachos’ death. Still, Ephesos’ notable flourishing does indicate that the city was permanently strengthened by Lysimachos’ actions. The documents concerning Smyrna and Magnesia Sipylos cited above (n. 8) attest to Smyrna’s incorporation of both Magnesia and Palaimagnesia by sympoliteia in the late 240s, evidently with at least the tacit approval of the Seleukid ruler Seleukos II Kallinikos; but this incorporation seems to have proved ephemeral as later epigraphic evidence attests to Magnesia’s independent existence12. Kolophon is known to have incorporated the harbor town of Notion by sympoliteia at about the same time that the city was refounded and the new walls built (above n. 6), as a result of which Notion came to be referred to at times as “Kolophon-by-the-Sea”13. How this incorporation was affected by Lysimachos’ “destruction” of Kolophon is not known. The introduction of new settlers at Magnesia Sipylos, probably by Antiochos I, has been alluded to above (see esp. n. 8). The attempted synoikism of Teos and Lebedos by Antigonos I, abandoned after his death in 301, is another case in point (see n. 10). Finally, the renaming of Herakleia Latmos as Pleistarcheia, evidently by the dynast Pleistarchos who ruled Karia ca. 301-294, with which is often associated the building of a magnificent new city wall of which extensive remains are still to be seen, has been thought – given the surprisingly large extent of this new city wall – to have involved the introduction of new settlers, probably military colonists14.

  • 15 Cadoux 1938, 102-103.
  • 16 See IK, 1-Erythrai, 22 for the building of the city wall, and cf. also IK, 1-Erythrai, 23. Diod. 1 (...)
  • 17 See Wiegand and Schrader1904, esp. at 35-45.

7This brings us to the matter of building activity. Best attested is the building of new city walls. Besides that at Herakleia Latmos, just mentioned, more or less extensive new city walls are known to have been built at the following cities: Smyrna, where a few bits of a wall probably to be attributed to the time of Lysimachos still survive15; Ephesos, where Lysimachos had an enclosing wall 9 km in length built for his refoundation (Strabo 14.1.21), remains of which are still visible today; Kolophon, where two inscriptions attest to the building of the wall and its cost (above n. 6); and Erythrai, where an inscription attests to the building of new city walls, probably completed by 315 in view of the failed siege of the city by Seleukos in the following year attested by Diodoros16. Evidence of other building activity in the Ionian cities in this period is by no means lacking, though it is not always easy to discern archaeologically in view of the usually extensive Roman overlay. The evidence is too extensive and complex to cite here. Clearly in the case of the cities refounded at new sites, building activity must have been very considerable. I would further note as examples that Engel and Merkelbach, in their commentary to IErythrai point out of the closing decades of the fourth century that “in diesen Jahrzehnten wurde überall in Erythrai gebaut”, and that – whether one believes Priene to have been refounded or not – most of the buildings still to be seen at the well-preserved site of Priene are of Hellenistic date17.

  • 18 Upon his “liberation” of Ephesos in 334, Alexander assigned the tribute previously paid to the Per (...)
  • 19 IPriene, 156 (Tod 1948, no 184); see also Heisserer 1980, 142-168.
  • 20 The sanctuary and cult of Aphrodite Stratonikis at Smyrna is attested e. g. in IK, 24.1-Smyrna, 57 (...)
  • 21 For Seleukid interest in Didyma, see especially OGI, 213, 214, 226 and 227, I Didyma (below), 480, (...)
  • 22 Welles 1934, n ° 31-34 gives the responses of Antiochos III, Ptolemy IV, and Attalos I to the Magn (...)
  • 23 The international standing of the organization of Dionysiac artists centered at Teos, and the stat (...)

8A special case is that of temple building, with which is to be connected the promotion of cults generally. We know that the great temple of Artemis at Ephesos was being rebuilt in the time of Alexander: the king hoped to buy the right to dedicate the temple in his name by manking a substantial donation towards the building cost, but was turned down18. The temple of Athena Polias at Priene was built in this same period, and undoubtedly with financial aid from Alexander, as the dedicatory inscription in Alexander’s name attests19. We know that there was a temple and cult of Aphrodite Stratonikis at Smyrna, so named in honor of the wife of Antiochos I and much favored by the Seleukid monarchs: Seleukos II petitioned the various Greek states to award this temple asylia, for example20. It seem likely that a temple honoring a prominent Seleukid queen in this way will have benefited to some degree at least from Seleukid largesse. Seleukid interest is also attested in the case of the cult and temple of Apollo at Didyma, which was thriving in this period, as was the oracle of Apollo at Klaros21. The city of Magnesia Maiandros decided to attempt to gain a kind of pan-Hellenic status for its cult of Artemis Leukophryene, zealously promoting the main festival and successfully petitioning the Greek world to accord the sanctuary the status of “sacred and inviolate”, as a large dossier of inscriptions attest, including approving responses from kings Antiochos III, Ptolemy IV, and Attalos I22. In our period too belongs the efflorescence of the organization of Dionysiac artists based at Teos, which won for Teos a unique quasi-sacred status in the Greek world, and again there are indications of royal favor23.

  • 24 See Billows 1990, 194-197; Billows 1995, 73-80; Orth 1977; Ostwald 1982; Raaflaub 1985, esp. at 19 (...)
  • 25 See Billows 1990, 210-220 for full details on Antigonos’ relations with the cities of Ionian; for (...)
  • 26 Democracy is mentioned in association with freedom and/or autonomy in a number of Hellenistic insc (...)

9This brings us neatly to the matter of the granting of royal favors to the Ionian cities, concerning which a great deal more can be said than there will be room for in the present context. There is at any rate plentiful evidence of royal interest in and favors to most of the Ionian cities, as the evidence reviewed above has already shown. One of the key forms of royal favor was the granting of the status of “free and autonomous”, which effectively permitted a city to run its own internal affairs without interference by a royal governor or overseer24. This was clearly a relatively painless favor for a king to bestow, and the status was granted to Ionian cities by a number of kings that we know of: Antigonos I granted the status to Miletos, Kolophon, Teos, Lebedos, and Erythrai for certain, and most probably to all of the Ionian cities; the Seleukids largely followed his lead in this, as for example Antiochos I (probably, possibly II) did at Erythrai25. Associated with the status of freedom and autonomy in the inscriptions is the protection of democracy – or what passed for democracy in the Greek cities of this time – and at times also the promotion of harmony26.

  • 27 Antigonos and Ephesos: Knibbe and İplikcioğlu 1982, 130-131, n ° 6; Ptolemy II and Miletos: Welles (...)

10More important as a sign of royal favor, however, was no doubt the granting of tax relief or exemption. This obviously affected the cities in a material way, and it also diminished the income to the royal treasury, so we can be sure that the kings would be more hesitant to grant this favor, and can see it as a more secure sign of genuine royal interest in the well being of the city concerned. Nevertheless, royal grants of tax relief or exemption are well attested: for example, Antigonos I is known to have granted ateleia to Ephesos, from an inscription honoring his aide Aristodemos for helping the Ephesians win this concession; another inscription attests to tax relief granted to Miletos by kings Ptolemy I and II; the inscription from Erythrai cited above in connection with autonomy (n. 25) also records the grant of ateleia to the Erythraioi, including freedom from the burdensome “Galatian” tax levied to help pay for the defense of the Greek cities from Galatian depredations; and Antiochos III, or rather his viceroy Zeuxis, is recorded as having granted tax relief to the city of Herakleia Latmos27.

  • 28 For instance Syll.3, 368, a decree of the Ionian League from Miletos (and cf. another copy from Sm (...)
  • 29 Jacoby, FGrH 3B at p. 371 lists as Hellenistic historians of Ionia: Kadmos of Miletos, Metrodoros (...)
  • 30 For Philoxenos, see Plut., Mor., 333A and 531A, Plut., Alex.,. 22.1, and Polyainos, Strat., 6.4.9; (...)

11The evidence for revitalization of the Ionian cities, and for royal interest in the cities, is thus plentiful, and indeed a good deal more could be adduced if considerations of space allowed it. But in what sense was Ionia a region, or seen as a region? The Ionian cities themselves of course had the tradition of their ancient collective religious participation at the Panionion, and the story of their heroic though doomed revolt against Persian might recorded by Herodotos, to give them a sense of common identity. That they indeed felt such a sense is attested by several inscriptions from individual Ionian cities concerning the Ionian League, in which the interests of the Ionian cities collectively, particularly in the preservation of their freedom and democracy, are referred to28. One should also note the production of local histories of the Ionian region written in the Hellenistic era, attesting to a lively sense of communal identity29. A number of indications show that the kings too saw Ionia as a distinct region. Alexander the Great seems to have grouped the Greek cities of the coast – i. e. primarily the Ionian cities – as an administrative region under a certain Philoxenos; and under Lysimachos, too, the Ionian cities formed a distinct administrative region, as we know from an inscription honoring Lysimachos’ strategos in charge of the Ionian cities30.

  • 31 Welles 1934, n ° 3 lines 1-3.
  • 32 I Priene, 139; IK 1-Erythrai, 16.
  • 33 See Habicht 1970, 17-25; and cf. Lenschau 1916, 1890-1892.
  • 34 For Antigonos as possible re-founder see Tarn 1948, I. 32 and II. 231-33; Billows 1990, 217-218. F (...)
  • 35 See Syll.3, 368 (Lysimachos); OGI, 222 (Antiochos I); OGI, 763 (Eumenes II); I Priene, 55 (Nikomed (...)

12Equally significant, and more widely attested, is royal interaction with a revived form of the old Ionian League. The earliest datable mention of this revival is in the letter of Antigonos I to the peoples of Teos and Lebedos concerning their proposed synoikism, the first preserved words of which regulate their future joint representation at the Panionion (c. 304/303)31. Two other very fragmentary late fourth century inscriptions mentioning the League may be slightly earlier, to judge by their use of the Ionic dialect rather than the Hellenistic koine32. The existence of a League festival in honor of Alexander, attested by several inscriptions and by Strabo, has suggested to scholars that Alexander may have been responsible for reviving the League33. It is also conceivable that the League was revived by Antigonos Monophthalmos, and that either he himself ordered it to honor Alexander as a way of associating himself with that great king, or that an original festival called Antigoneia was abolished by Lysimachos and replaced by the Alexandreia – just as Lysimachos renamed Antigonos’ city of Antigoneia Troas Alexandria in honor of Alexander: the Diadochoi in general were certainly keen to emphasize publicly their association with Alexander34. Be that as it may, there is plentiful attestation of the League’s continued existence through the third and into the second centuries, and of the favorable interaction of various Seleukid and Attalid kings with it35. All of this, of course, makes it quite clear that – at least in the important sense of their belonging to an ancient, communal religio-ethnic organization that enjoyed wide respect – the Hellenistic rulers did indeed regard the Ionian cities as forming a distinct region.

13What, finally, are we to make of the revival of Ionia, and of royal promotion of this revival, that I have documented? The key is of course the geographic position of the Ionian cities. In the fifth and early fourth centuries the Ionian cities were on the fringe of the Greek world, and at times indeed politically outside it – when they were under Persian control. With Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire, and the consequent incorporation of Asia Minor, Syria/Palestine, and lands further east into the new “Hellenistic” world, the Ionian cities became geographically central to the Greek world, lying as they did between the old cities of mainland Greece and the Aegean, and the new colonial Greek cities of western Asia. In part the revival of Ionia is to be attributed to this brute geographic fact: they were able to exploit plentiful economic opportunities afforded by their newly central location. Particularly important here are the great west-east routes across Asia Minor to inner Asia – the Royal Road in the north running from Smyrna via Sardis, Pessinos, and Ankyra to the upper Euphrates valley and so to Mesopotamia, and the southern road running from Ephesos via Kelainai/Apameia, Lykaonia, and the Kilikian Gates to Syria and beyond – which help to explain the importance of the Ionian cities, and especially Smyrna and Ephesos, lying at their western termini. But this does not explain the royal interest in promoting Ionian revival, though this interest is quite easy to explain.

  • 36 Billows 1990, app. 3 no 16, 44, 48, 59, 94, 112, 114, and 139 for officers of Antigonos from Ionia (...)
  • 37 For Antioch Pisidia see Strab. 12.84 and IMagnesia n ° 79-80; for Antioch Persis see IMagnesia, 61 (...)
  • 38 Note, for example, Ionian colonists at such Hellenistic colonies as Laodikeia on the Lykos – Rober (...)

14The new kings of former Persian lands needed plentiful Greek manpower to fill their armies, their administrations, their new colonies. The old established Greek cities on the west coast of Asia Minor were hence a critically important resource for them. They had important self-interested motives for promoting the prosperity and populousness of these cities. The importance of these cities to the kings in the contexts I have just listed are well attested: we know of numerous officers and officials in the empires of Antigonos I and his Seleukid successors who came from Ionian cities, far more than could be listed here. My own prosopographical researches into this matter are limited to the personnel of Antigonos Monophthalmos’ empire: he had men from Miletos, Teos, Erythrai, Klazomenai, Samos, and Chios serving under him, as well as men from numerous other Greek cities of Asia Minor, such as Elaia, Halikarnassos, Bargylia, Iasos, Lampsakos, Kyzikos to name just a few36. One might also point, for example, to the known supply of drafts of settlers by Magnesia Maiandros for the Seleukid colonies Antioch Pisidia and Antioch Persis37. We are in general poorly informed about the origins of the settlers in the numerous Hellenistic colonial foundations, but we have every reason, it seems to me, to ascribe a substantial role in providing such settlers to the old Greek cities of the Asia Minor coast: these were the cities over which the founders of most of the colonies had direct control38!

15The importance of the Ionian cities to the Hellenistic rulers is thereby made clear: this is why they went out of their way to refound, resettle, grant tax exemptions and favorable status, etc. And it should be emphasized that virtually all of the kings did so: in the course of the examples I have cited in this paper, I have mentioned Alexander the Great, Antigonos Monophthalmos, Lysimachos, Seleukos I, Antiochos I, Seleukos II, Antiochos III, Ptolemy I, and Ptolemy II. It must also be noted, finally, that their work of promoting the Ionian cities had a lasting impact: the flourishing condition of Smyrna and Ephesos under the Roman Empire are the clearest attestation of this.

Notes

1 Emlyn-Jones 1980; Cadoux 1938; Cook 1982.

2 Mastrocinque 1979.

3 Paus. 7.5.1-3; Aelius Aristides 20.7, 20.20, and 21.4 (ed. Keil); Plin., Nat., 5.118. For Smyrnaian coins reflecting the tradition of Alexander as founder see e. g. BMC Ionia 279 no. 346 and 294 n ° 442; SNG von Aulock 2231.

4 See further Billows 1990, 213 and 295; Cohen 1995, 180-183.

5 Cohen 1995, 177-180 for sources and details; also e. g. Mastrocinque 1979, 50-54.

6 Published by Merritt 1935, 358-372, but for date and circumstances see Robert 1936b, 158-161 (= Robert 1969-1990, 2.1237-1240); see now further Maier 1959-1961, I, n ° 69 and Cohen 1995, 183-187.

7 Wehrli 1968, 90-92.

8 OGI, 229 (IK, 24.1-Smyrna, 573; IK, 8-Magnesia am Sipylos, 1); see now further Cohen 1995, 216-17.

9 Cohen 1995, 187-188 states the case with full references; the notion of a refoundation was challenged by Demand 1990, 140-146.

10 Syll.3, 344 lines 5-15.

11 For Kolophon and Lebedos see Paus. 1.9.7 and 7.3.4-5; Strab. 14.1.21; Steph. Byz. s. v. Ephesos; and Eustathios, Comm. to Dionysios Periegetes, 828. For Phygela see IK, 14-Ephesos, 1408 and Robert 1967a, 36-40.

12 See IK, 8-Magnesia am Sipylos, passim.

13 Merritt 1935, 377-79 n ° III; Robert 1936b, 166 (= Robert 1969-1990, 2.1245).

14 See now Kobes 1996, 210-220.

15 Cadoux 1938, 102-103.

16 See IK, 1-Erythrai, 22 for the building of the city wall, and cf. also IK, 1-Erythrai, 23. Diod. 19.60.4, cf. also 20.107.5.

17 See Wiegand and Schrader1904, esp. at 35-45.

18 Upon his “liberation” of Ephesos in 334, Alexander assigned the tribute previously paid to the Persian king to the temple of Artemis, rather than continuing to collect it himself, according to Arr., Anab., 1.17.10. Strabo tells us (14.1.22) that Alexander offered to pay all costs of rebuilding the temple in return for the right to rededicate it in his name-e, and was turned down by the Ephesians.

19 IPriene, 156 (Tod 1948, no 184); see also Heisserer 1980, 142-168.

20 The sanctuary and cult of Aphrodite Stratonikis at Smyrna is attested e. g. in IK, 24.1-Smyrna, 573 (OGI, 229) lines 11-12, recording also the letters sent by Seleukos II to all “kings, dynasts, cities, and peoples” requesting asylia for the sanctuary and city; and cf. OGI, 228 for a decree from Delphi preserving a favorable response to Seleukos’request. on the concept and meaning of asylia in general see now Rigsby 1996.

21 For Seleukid interest in Didyma, see especially OGI, 213, 214, 226 and 227, I Didyma (below), 480, and note also App., Syr., 65. On Didyma and Claros in the Hellenistic period see Rehm 1958 and J. and L. Robert 1989.

22 Welles 1934, n ° 31-34 gives the responses of Antiochos III, Ptolemy IV, and Attalos I to the Magnesian initiative; see further I Magnesia for the full dossier of inscriptions.

23 The international standing of the organization of Dionysiac artists centered at Teos, and the status the organization lent to its home city, is well attested, most importantly by the long inscription recording Antiochos III’s relations with Teos and his granting of asylia and freedom from tribute to the city in honor of Dionysos and the Dionysiac artists: Herrmann 1965.

24 See Billows 1990, 194-197; Billows 1995, 73-80; Orth 1977; Ostwald 1982; Raaflaub 1985, esp. at 193-207; Bosworth 1992.

25 See Billows 1990, 210-220 for full details on Antigonos’ relations with the cities of Ionian; for Antiochos I/II and Erythrai see IK, 1-Erythrai, 31 and 32; see further IPriene, 1 for Alexander according the status “free and autonomous” to Priene, and IK, 24.1-Smyrna 573 lines 64-65 for Seleukos II’s according of the same status to the Smyrnaioi, and cf. lines 10-11 mentioning the king’s guaranteeing of autonomy and democracy. Note also OGI, 222, a decree of the Ionian League honoring Antiochos I for, among other things, his care that the Ionian cities should enjoy freedom and democracy, a policy also pursued by his ancestors (lines 15-20).

26 Democracy is mentioned in association with freedom and/or autonomy in a number of Hellenistic inscriptions: see e. g. the documents from Smyrna and the Ionian League cited at n. 25 above; and cf. Milet I, 3, 123. For harmony also associated with these concepts, note e. g. the words of the Ionian League decree for Antiochos I (OGI, 222) at l. 14-17.

27 Antigonos and Ephesos: Knibbe and İplikcioğlu 1982, 130-131, n ° 6; Ptolemy II and Miletos: Welles 1934, n ° 14; Antiochos III and Herakleia, Wörrle 1988a.

28 For instance Syll.3, 368, a decree of the Ionian League from Miletos (and cf. another copy from Smyrna: IK, 24.1-Smyrna 577), praises a benefactor for helping both the cities individually and the Ionians collectively (lines 4-5); OGI, 222, a decree of the Ionian League from Klazomenai, urges king Antiochos I to care for the Ionian cities so that they may enjoy freedom, democracy and harmony, explaining that in this way he will be the cause of many blessing to the cities (lines 14-21); OGI, 763, a letter from Eumenes II to the Ionian League mentioning praise bestowed on him by the League for his benevolent disposition towards each of the cities (lines 17-21).

29 Jacoby, FGrH 3B at p. 371 lists as Hellenistic historians of Ionia: Kadmos of Miletos, Metrodoros of Chios (?), Demetrios of Phaleron, and Artemidoros of Ephesos; in addition there were numerous histories written of individual Ionian cities in which the history of Ionia as a whole was naturally also discussed, see Jacoby, loc. cit. under the cities Chios, Ephesos, Erythrai, Klazomenai, Kolophon, Miletos, Phokaia, and Samos.

30 For Philoxenos, see Plut., Mor., 333A and 531A, Plut., Alex.,. 22.1, and Polyainos, Strat., 6.4.9; cf. Bosworth 1988, 256-257. For Lysimachos’general Hippostratos as governor of the Ionian cities, see Syll.3, 368.

31 Welles 1934, n ° 3 lines 1-3.

32 I Priene, 139; IK 1-Erythrai, 16.

33 See Habicht 1970, 17-25; and cf. Lenschau 1916, 1890-1892.

34 For Antigonos as possible re-founder see Tarn 1948, I. 32 and II. 231-33; Billows 1990, 217-218. For the Diadochoi and Alexander see now Billows 1995, 33-41.

35 See Syll.3, 368 (Lysimachos); OGI, 222 (Antiochos I); OGI, 763 (Eumenes II); I Priene, 55 (Nikomedes II); and for other epigraphic documents concerning the Ionian League see IK, 24.1-Smyrna, 575, IPriene, 56, Hommel et al. 1967, 45-63, and Milet, I, 3, 120.

36 Billows 1990, app. 3 no 16, 44, 48, 59, 94, 112, 114, and 139 for officers of Antigonos from Ionia, and cf. n ° 1, 12, 46, 55, 107, 120 for men from other western Anatolian Greek cities in Antigonos’ service.

37 For Antioch Pisidia see Strab. 12.84 and IMagnesia n ° 79-80; for Antioch Persis see IMagnesia, 61 (OGI, 233).

38 Note, for example, Ionian colonists at such Hellenistic colonies as Laodikeia on the Lykos – Robert 1969; Synnada – coins of Synnada laid claim to Ionian ancestry, see Cohen 1995, 322-323; Apameia Myrleia – the fact that this city, probably founded by Prousias I after the destruction of the original Myrleia by Philip V in 202, was called by Pliny “Apamea quae nunc Myrlea Colophoniorum” (Nat., 5.143) might suggest that Kolophonians were recruited to populate this colony.

Auteur

Department of History, Columbia University

© Ausonius Éditions, 2007

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search