ASIATIC IONIANS.
There existed at the commencement of historical Greece, in 776 B. C.,
besides the Ionians in Attica and the Cyclades, twelve Ionian cities
of note on or near the coast of Asia Minor, besides a few others less
important. Enumerated from south to north, they stand,—Milêtus, Myûs,
Priênê, Samos, Ephesus, Kolophôn, Lebedus, Teôs, Erythræ, Chios,
Klazomenæ, Phôkæa.
That these cities, the great ornament of the Ionic name, were
founded by emigrants from European Greece, there is no reason to
doubt. How, or when, they were founded, we have no history to tell
us; the legend, which has already been set forth in a preceding
chapter, gives us a great event called the Ionic migration, referred
by chronologists to one special year, one hundred and forty years
after the Trojan war. This massive grouping belongs to the character
of legend,—the Æolic and Ionic emigrations, as well as the Dorian
conquest of Peloponnesus, are each invested with unity, and imprinted
upon the imagination as the results of a single great impulse. But
such is not the character of the historical colonies: when we come
to relate the Italian and Sicilian emigrations, it will appear that
each colony has its own separate nativity and causes of existence.
In the case of the Ionic emigration, this large scale of legendary
conception is more than usually conspicuous, since to that event is
ascribed the foundation or repeopling both of the Cyclades and of the
Asiatic Ionian cities.
Euripidês treats Ion,[288] the son of Kreusa by Apollo, as the
planter of these latter cities: but the more current form of the
legend assigns that honor to the sons of Kodrus, two of whom are
especially named, corresponding to the two greatest of the ten
continental Ionic cities: Androklus, as founder of Ephesus, Neileus
of Milêtus. These two towns are both described as founded directly
from Athens. The others seem rather to be separate settlements,
neither consisting of Athenians, nor emanating from Athens, but
adopting the characteristic Ionic festival of the Apaturia, and,
in part at least, the Ionic tribes,—and receiving princes from the
Kodrid families at Ephesus or Milêtus, as a condition of being
admitted into the Pan-Ionic confederate festival. The poet Mimnermus
ascribed the foundation of his native city Kolophôn to emigrants from
Pylus, in Peloponnesus, under Andræmôn: Teôs was settled by Minyæ
of Orchomenus, under Athamas: Klazomenæ by settlers from Kleônæ and
Phlius, Phôkæa, by Phocians, Priênê in large portion by Kadmeians
from Thebes. And with regard to the powerful islands of Chios and
Samos, it does not appear that their native authors,—the Chian
poet Ion, or the Samaian poet Asius,—ascribed to them a population
emanating from Athens: Pausanias could not make out from the poems
of Ion how it happened that Chios came to form a part of the Ionic
federation.[289] Herodotus, especially, dwells upon the number of
Grecian tribes and races, who contributed to supply the population
of the twelve Ionic cities,—Minyæ, from Orchomenus, Kadmeians,
Dryopians, Phocians, Molossians, Arkadian Pelasgians, Dorians from
Epidaurus, and “several other sections” of Greeks. Moreover, he
particularly singles out the Milesians, as claiming for themselves
the truest Ionic blood, and as having started from the prytaneium, at
Athens; thus plainly implying his belief that the majority, at least,
of the remaining settlers did not take their departure from the same
hearth.[290]
[288] Euripid. Ion, 1546. κτίστορ᾽ Ἀσίαδος χθονός.
[289] Pausan. vii, 4, 6. Τοσαῦτα εἰρηκότα ἐς Χίους Ἴωνα εὑρίσκω·
οὐ μέντοι ἐκεῖνός γε εἴρηκε, καθ᾽ ἥντινα αἰτίαν Χῖοι τελοῦσιν ἐς
Ἰῶνας.
Respecting Samos, and its primitive Karian inhabitants, displaced
by Patroklês, and Tembriôn at the head of Grecian emigrants, see
Etymol. Mag. v. Ἀστυπάλαια.
[290] Herod. i, 146. ἐπεὶ, ὥς γε ἔτι μᾶλλον οὗτοι (_i. e._ the
inhabitants of the Pan-Ionic Dodekapolis) Ἴωνές εἰσι τῶν ἄλλων
Ἰώνων ἢ κάλλιόν τι γεγόνασι, μωρίη πολλὴ λέγειν· τῶν Ἄβαντες
ἐξ Εὐβοίες εἰσὶν οὐκ ἐλαχίστη μοῖρα, τοῖσι Ἰωνίης μέτα οὐδὲ
τοῦ οὐνόματος οὐδέν· Μίνυαι δὲ Ὀρχομένιοι ἀναμεμίχαται, καὶ
Καδμεῖοι, καὶ Δρύοπες, καὶ Φωκέες ἀποδάσμιοι, καὶ Μολοσσοὶ, καὶ
Ἀρκάδες Πελασγοὶ, καὶ Δωριέες Ἐπιδαύριοι, ἄλλα τε ἔθνεα πολλὰ
ἀναμεμίχαται. Οἱ δὲ αὐτέων ἀπὸ τοῦ Πρυτανηΐου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων
ὁρμηθέντες, καὶ νομίζοντες γενναιότατοι εἶναι Ἰώνων, οὗτοι δὲ
οὐ γυναῖκας ἤγαγον εἰς τὴν ἀποικίην, ἀλλὰ Καείρας ἔσχον, τῶν
ἐφόνευσαν τοὺς γονέας ... Ταῦτα δὲ ἦν γινόμενα ἐν Μιλήτῳ.
The polemical tone in which this remark of Herodotus is delivered
is explained by Dahlmann on the supposition that it was destined
to confute certain boastful pretensions of the Milesian Hekatæus
(see Bähr, _ad loc._, and Klausen ad Hekatæi Frag. 225).
The test of _Ionism_, according to the statement of Herodotus,
is, that a city should derive its origin from Athens, and that
it should celebrate the solemnity of the Apaturia (i. 147).
But we must construe both these tests with indulgence. Ephesus
and Kolophôn were Ionic, though neither of them celebrated the
Apaturia. And the colony might be formed under the auspices of
Athens, though the settlers were neither natives, nor even of
kindred race with the natives, of Attica.
But the most striking information which Herodotus conveys to us
is, the difference of language, or dialect, which marked these
twelve cities. Milêtus, Myûs, and Priênê, all situated on the soil
of the Karians, had one dialect: Ephesus, Kolophôn, Lebedus, Teôs,
Klazomenæ, and Phôkæa, had a dialect common to all, but distinct
from that of the three preceding: Chios and Erythræ exhibited
a third dialect, and Samos, by itself, a fourth. Nor does the
historian content himself with simply noting such quadruple variety
of speech; he employs very strong terms to express the degree of
dissimilarity.[291] The testimony of Herodotus as to these dialects
is, of course, indisputable.
[291] Herod. i, 142. Ephesus, Kolophôn, Lebedus, Teôs, Klazomenæ,
Phokæa—αὗται αἱ πόλιες τῇσι πρότερον λεχθείσῃσι ὁμολογέουσι κατὰ
γλῶσσαν οὐδὲν, σφὶ δὲ ὁμοφωνέουσι.
Instead of one great Ionic emigration, then, the statements above
cited conduct us rather to the supposition of many separate and
successive settlements, formed by the Greeks of different sections,
mingling with and modified by preëxisting Lydians and Karians, and
subsequently allying themselves with Milêtus and Ephesus into the
so-called Ionic amphiktyony. As a condition of this union, they
are induced to adopt among their chiefs princes of the Kodrid gens
or family; who are called sons of Kodrus, but who are not for that
reason to be supposed necessarily contemporary with Androklus or
Neileus.
The chiefs selected by some of the cities are said to have been
Lykians,[292] of the heroic family of Glaukus and Bellerophon: in
some causes, the Kodrids and the Glaukids were chiefs conjointly.
Respecting the dates of these separate settlements, we cannot give
any account, for they lie beyond the commencement of authentic
history: there is ground for believing that most of them existed for
some time previous to 776 B. C., but at what date the federative
solemnity uniting the twelve cities was commenced, we do not know.
[292] Herodot. i, 146.
The account of Herodotus shows us that these colonies were composed
of mixed sections of Greeks,—an important circumstance in estimating
their character. Such was usually the case more or less in respect to
all emigrations, and hence the establishments thus planted contracted
at once, generally speaking, both more activity and more instability
than was seen among those Greeks who remained at home, and among whom
the old habitual routine had not been counterworked by any marked
change of place or of social relations. For in a new colony it became
necessary to adopt fresh classifications of the citizens, to range
them together in fresh military and civil divisions, and to adopt new
characteristic sacrifices and religious ceremonies as bonds of union
among all the citizens conjointly. At the first outset of a colony,
moreover, there were inevitable difficulties to be surmounted,
which imposed upon its leading men the necessity of energy and
forethought,—more especially in regard to maritime affairs, on which
not only their connection with the countrymen whom they had left
behind, but also their means of establishing advantageous relations
with the population of the interior, depended. At the same time,
the new arrangements indispensable among the colonists were far from
working always harmoniously: dissension and partial secessions were
not unfrequent occurrences. And what has been called the mobility of
the Ionic race, as compared with the Doric, is to be ascribed in a
great measure to this mixture of races and external stimulus arising
out of expatriation: for there is no trace of it in Attica anterior
to Solon; and on the other hand, the Doric colonies of Korkyra and
Syracuse exhibit a population not less excitable than the Ionic
towns generally,[293] and much more so than the Ionic colony of
Massalia. The remarkable commercial enterprise, which will be seen
to characterize Milêtus, Samos, and Phokæa, belongs but little to
anything connected with the Ionic temperament.
[293] Thucyd. vi, 17, about the Sicilian Greeks—ὄχλοις τε γὰρ
ξυμμικτοῖς πολυανδροῦσιν αἱ πόλεις, καὶ ῥᾳδίας ἔχουσι τῶν
πολιτειῶν τὰς μεταβολὰς καὶ ἐπιδοχάς.
All the Ionic towns, except Klazomenæ and Phokæa, are represented
to have been founded on some preëxisting settlements of Karians,
Lelegians, Kretans, Lydians, or Pelasgians.[294] In some cases these
previous inhabitants were overcome, slain, or expelled; in others
they were accepted as fellow-residents, and the Grecian cities
thus established acquired a considerable tinge of Asiatic customs
and feelings. What is related by Herodotus respecting the first
establishment of Neileus and his emigrants at Milêtus is in this
point of view remarkable. They took out with them no women from
Athens (the historian says), but found wives in the Karian women of
the place, whose husbands and fathers they overcame and put to death;
and the women, thus violently seized, manifested their repugnance
by taking a solemn oath among themselves that they would never eat
with their new husbands, nor ever call them by their personal names.
This same pledge they imposed upon their daughters; but how long
the practice lasted, we are not informed: it rather seems from the
language of the historian that traces of it were visible even in his
day in the family customs of the Milesians. The population of this
greatest of the Ionic towns must thus have been half of Karian breed.
It is to be presumed that what is true of Neileus and his companions
would be found true, also, respecting most of the maritime colonies
of Greece, and that the vessels which took them out would be scantily
provided with women. But on this point, unfortunately, we are left
without information.
[294] See Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, b. iv,
c. 10, p. 93.
The worship of Apollo Didymæus, at Branchidæ, near Milêtus,—that
of Artemis, near Ephesus,—and that of the Apollo Klarius, near
Kolophôn,—seems to have existed among the native Asiatic population
before the establishment of either of these three cities. To
maintain these preëxisting local rites was not less congenial to
the feelings, than beneficial to the interests, of the Greeks: all
the three establishments acquired increased celebrity under Ionic
administration, and contributed in their turn to the prosperity of
the towns to which they were attached. Milêtus, Myûs, and Priênê
were situated on or near the productive plain of the river Mæander;
while Ephesus was, in like manner, planted near the mouth of the
Kaïster, thus immediately communicating with the productive breadth
of land separating Mount Tmôlus on the north from Mount Messôgis
on the south, through which that river runs: Kolophôn is only a
very few miles north of the same river. Possessing the best means
of communication with the interior, these three towns seem to have
thriven with greater rapidity than the rest; and they, together
with the neighboring island of Samos, constituted in early times
the strength of the Pan-Ionic amphiktyony. The situation of the
sacred precinct of Poseidôn (where this festival was celebrated),
on the north side of the promontory of Mykalê, near Priênê, and
between Ephesus and Milêtus, seems to show that these towns formed
the primitive centre to which the other Ionian settlements became
gradually aggregated. For it was by no means a centrical site with
reference to all the twelve; so that Thalês of Milêtus,—who at
a subsequent period recommended a more intimate political union
between the twelve Ionic towns, and the establishment of a common
government to manage their collective affairs,—indicated Teôs,[295]
and not Priênê, as the suitable place for it. Moreover, it seems that
the Pan-Ionic festival,[296] though still formally continued, had
lost its importance before the time of Thucydidês, and had become
practically superseded by the more splendid festival of the Ephesia,
near Ephesus, where the cities of Ionia found a more attractive place
of meeting.
[295] Herodot. i, 170.
[296] Both Diodorus (xv, 49) and Dionysius of Halikarnassus (A.
R. iv, 25) speak as if the convocation or festival had been
formally transferred to Ephesus, in consequence of the insecurity
of the meetings near Mykalê: Strabo on the contrary speaks of the
Pan-Ionia as if they still in his time celebrated in the original
spot (xiv, pp. 636-638), under the care of the Priêneans. The
formal transfer is not probable: Thucydidês (iii, 104) proves
that in his time the festival of Ephesia was practically the
Pan-Ionic rendezvous, though Herodotus does not seem to have
conceived it as such. See Guhl, Ephesiaca, part iii, p. 117; and
K. F. Hermann, Gottesdienstliche Alterthümer der Griechen, c. 66,
p. 343.
An island close adjoining to the coast, or an outlying tongue
of land connected with the continent by a narrow isthmus, and
presenting some hill sufficient for an acropolis, seems to have been
considered as the most favorable situation for Grecian colonial
settlement. To one or other of these descriptions most of the Ionic
cities, conform.[297] The city of Milêtus at the height of its
power had four separate harbors, formed probably by the aid of the
island of Ladê and one or two islets which lay close off against
it: the Karian or Kretan establishment, which the Ionic colonists
found on their arrival and conquered, was situated on an eminence
overhanging the sea, and became afterwards known by the name of
Old Milêtus, at a time when the new Ionic town had been extended
down to the water-side and rendered maritime.[298] The territory of
this important city seems to have comprehended both the southern
promontory called Poseidium and the greater part of the northern
promontory of Mykalê,[299] reaching on both sides of the river
Mæander: the inconsiderable town of Myûs[300] on the southern bank
of the Mæander, an offset seemingly formed by the secession of
some Milesian malcontents under a member of the Neleid gens named
Kydrêlus, maintained for along time its autonomy, but was at length
absorbed into the larger unity of Milêtus; its swampy territory
having been rendered uninhabitable by a plague of gnats. Priênê
acquired an importance greater than naturally belonged to it, by its
immediate vicinity to the holy Pan-Ionic temple and its function of
administering the sacred rites,[301]—a dignity which it probably
was only permitted to enjoy in consequence of the jealousies of its
greater neighbors Milêtus, Ephesus, and Samos.[302] The territories
of these Grecian cities seem to have been interspersed with Karian
villages, probably in the condition of subjects.
[297] The site of Milêtus is best indicated by Arrian, i, 19-20;
see that of Phôkæa, Erythræ, Myonnêsus, Klazomenæ, Kolophôn,
Teôs (Strabo, xiv, pp. 644-645; Pausan. vii, 3, 2; Livy, xxxvii,
27-31; Thucyd. viii, 31).
[298] Strabo. xiv, p. 635.
[299] Strabo, xiv, p. 633; Herod. ix, 97-99. Τὸ Ποσείδιον τῶν
Μιλησίων. Strabo, xiv, p. 651.
[300] Strabo, xiv, p. 636; Vitruvius, iv, 1; Polyæn. viii, 35.
[301] Strabo, xiv, pp. 636-638.
[302] Thucyd. i, 116.
It is rare to find a genuine Greek colony established at any
distance from the sea; but the two Asiatic towns called Magnêsia
form exceptions to this position,—one situated on the south side of
the Mæander, or rather on the river Lethæus, which runs into the
Mæander; the other more northerly, adjoining to the Æolic Greeks, on
the northern declivity of Mount Sipylus, and near to the plain of
the river Harmus. The settlement of both these towns dates before
the period of history: the tale[303] which we read affirms them to
be settlements from the Magnêtes in Thessaly, formed by emigrants
who had first passed into Krête, under the orders of the Delphian
oracle, and next into Asia, where they are said to have extricated
the Ionic and Æolic colonists, then recently arrived, from a position
of danger and calamity. By the side of this story, which can neither
be verified nor contradicted, it is proper to mention the opinion
of Niebuhr, that both these towns of Magnêsia are remnants of a
primitive Pelasgic population, akin to, but not emigrants from, the
Magnêtes of Thessaly,—Pelasgians whom he supposes to have occupied
both the valley of the Hermus and that of the Kaïster, anterior
to the Æolic and Ionic migrations. In support of this opinion, it
may be stated that there were towns bearing the Pelasgic name of
Larissa, both near the Hermus and near the Mæander: Menekratês of
Elæa considered the Pelasgians as having once occupied most part of
that coast; and O. Müller even conceives the Tyrrhenians to have
been Pelasgians from Tyrrha, a town in the interior of Lydia south of
Tmôlus. The point is one upon which we have not sufficient evidence
to advance beyond conjecture.[304]
[303] Conon, Narrat. 29; Strabo, xiv, pp. 636-647.
The story in Parthenius about Leukippus, leader τῶν δεκατευθέντων
ἐκ Φέρης υπ᾽ Ἀδμήτου, who came to the Ephesian territory and
acquired possession of the place called Kretinæon, by the
treachery of Leukophryê, daughter of Mandrolytos, whether truth
or romance, is one of the notices of Thessalian migration into
those parts (Parthen. Narrat. 6).
[304] Strabo, xiii, p. 621. See Niebuhr, Kleine Historische
Schriften, p. 371, O. Müller, Etrusker, Einleitung ii, 5, p.
80. The evidence on which Müller’s conjecture is built seems,
however, unusually slender, and the identity of Tyrrhênos and
Torrhêbos, or the supposed confusion of the one with the other,
is in no way made out. Pelasgians are spoken of in Trallês and
Aphrodisias as well as in Ninoê (Steph. Byz. v. Νινόη), but this
name seems destined to present nothing but problems and delusions.
Respecting Magnêsia on the Mæander, consult Aristot. ap. Athen.
iv, p. 173, who calls the town a colony from Delphi. But the
intermediate settlement of these colonists in Krête, or even
the reality of any town called Magnêsia in Krête, appears very
questionable: Plato’s statement (Legg. iv, 702; xi, 919) can
hardly be taken as any evidence. Compare O. Müller, History of
the Dorians, book ii, ch. 3; Hoeckh, Kreta, book iii, vol. ii,
p. 413. Müller gives these “_Sagen_” too much in the style of
real facts: the worship of Apollo at Magnêsia on the Mæander
(Paus. x, 32, 4) cannot be thought to prove much, considering how
extensively that god was worshipped along the Asiatic coast, from
Lykia to Troas.
The great antiquity of this Grecian establishment was recognized
in the time of the Roman emperors; see Inscript. No. 2910 in
Boeckh, Corp. Ins.
Of the Ionic towns, with which our real knowledge of Asia Minor
begins, Milêtus[305] was the most powerful; and its celebrity was
derived not merely from its own wealth and population, but also from
the extraordinary number of its colonies, established principally
in the Propontis and Euxine, and amounting, as we are told by some
authors, to not less than seventy-five or eighty. Respecting these
colonies I shall speak presently, in treating of the general colonial
expansion of Greece during the eighth and seventh centuries B. C.: at
present, it is sufficient to notice that the islands of Ikarus and
Lerus,[306] not far from Samos and the Ionic coast generally, were
among the places planted with Milesian settlers.
[305] Ἰωνίης πρόσχημα (Herodot. v, 28).
[306] Strabo, xiv, p. 635. Ikarus, or Ikaria, however, appears
in later times as belonging to Samos, and used only for pasture
(Strabo, p. 639; x, p. 488).
The colonization of Ephesus by Androklus appears to be connected
with the Ionic occupation of Samos, so far as the confused
statements which we find enable us to discern. Androklus is said
to have lingered upon that island for a long time, until the oracle
vouchsafed to indicate to him what particular spot to occupy on the
continent; at length the indication was given, and he planted his
colonists at the fountain of Hypelæon and on a portion of the hill
of Korêssus, within a short distance of the temple and sanctuary
of Artemis; whose immediate inhabitants he respected and received
as brethren, while he drove away for the most part the surrounding
Lelegians and Lydians. The population of the new town of Ephesus was
divided into three tribes,—the pre-existing inhabitants, or Ephesians
proper, the Bennians, and the Euônymeis, so named (we are told) from
the deme Euonymus in Attica.[307] So much did the power of Androklus
increase, that he was enabled to conquer Samos, and to expel from
it the prince Leôgorus: of the retiring Samians, a part are said
to have gone to Samothrace and there established themselves, while
another portion acquired possession of Marathêsium near Ephesus, on
the adjoining continent of Asia Minor, from whence, after a short
time, they recovered their island, compelling Androklus to return to
Ephesus. It seems, however, that in the compromise and treaty which
ensued, they yielded possession of Marathêsium to Androklus,[308]
and confined themselves to Anæa, a more southerly district farther
removed from the Ephesian settlement, and immediately opposite to
the island of Samos. Androklus is said to have perished in a battle
fought for the defence of Priênê, which town he had come to aid
against an attack of the Karians. His dead body was brought from
the field and buried near the gates of Ephesus, where the tomb was
yet shown during the days of Pausanias; but a sedition broke out
against his sons after him, and the malcontents strengthened their
party by inviting reinforcements from Teôs and Karina. The struggle
which ensued terminated in the discontinuance of the kingly race
and the establishment of a republican government,—the descendants
of Androklus being allowed to retain both considerable honorary
privileges and the hereditary priesthood of the Eleusinian Dêmêtêr.
The newly-received inhabitants were enrolled in two new tribes,
making in all five tribes, which appear to have existed throughout
the historical times at Ephesus.[309] It appears too that a certain
number of fugitive proprietors from Samos found admission among the
Ephesians and received the freedom of the city; and the part of the
city in which they resided acquired the name of Samorna, or Smyrna,
by which name it was still known in the time of the satirical poet
Hippônax, about 530 B. C.[310]
[307] Kreophylus ap. Athen. viii, p. 361; Ephor. Fragm. 32, ed
Marx; Stephan. Byz. v. Βέννα: see Guhl, Ephesiaca, p. 29.
[308] Pausan. vii, 4, 3.
[309] The account of Ephorus ap. Steph. Byz. v. Βέννα, attests at
least the existence of the five tribes at Ephesus, whether his
account of their origin and primitive history be well founded
or not. See also Strabo, xiv, p. 633; Steph. Byz. v. Εὐωνυμία.
Karênê or Karinê is in Æolis, near Pitana and Gryneium (Herod.
vii, 42; Steph. Byz. Καρήνη).
[310] Stephan. Byz. v. Σάμορνα; Heysch. Σαμονία; Athenæus, vi, p.
267; Hippônax, Fragm. 32, Schneid.; Strabo, xiv, p. 633. Some,
however, said that the _vicus_ of Ephesus, called Smyrna, derived
its name from an Amazon.
Such are the stories which we find respecting the infancy of the
Ionic Ephesus. The fact of its increase and of its considerable
acquisitions of territory, at the expense of the neighboring
Lydians,[311] is at least indisputable. It does not appear to have
been ever very powerful or enterprising at sea, and few maritime
colonies owed their origin to its citizens; but its situation near
the mouth and the fertile plain of the Kaïster was favorable both to
the multiplication of its inland dependencies and to its trade with
the interior. A despot named Pythagoras is said to have subverted
by stratagem the previous government of the town, at some period
before Cyrus, and to have exercised power for a certain time with
great cruelty.[312] It is worthy of remark, that we find no trace of
the existence of the four Ionic tribes at Ephesus; and this, when
coupled with the fact that neither Ephesus nor Kolophôn solemnized
the peculiar Ionic festival of the Apaturia, is one among other
indications that the Ephesian population had little community of
race with Athens, though the œkist may have been of heroic Athenian
family. Guhl attempts to show, on mistaken grounds, that the Greek
settlers at Ephesus were mostly of Arkadian origin.[313]
[311] Strabo, xiv, p. 620.
[312] Bato ap. Suidas, v. Πυθαγόρας. In this article of Suidas,
however, it is stated that “the Ephesian Pythagoras put down, by
means of a crafty plot, the government of those who were called
the _Basilidæ_.” Now Aristotle talks (Polit. v, 5, 4) of the
oligarchy of the Basilidæ at Erythræ. It is hardly likely that
there should have been an oligarchy called by that same name both
at Erythræ and Ephesus; there is here some confusion between
Erythræ and Ephesus which we are unable to clear up. Bato of
Sinôpê wrote a book περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τυράννων (Athenæus, vii, p.
289).
[313] Guhl, Ephesiaca, cap. ii, s. 2, p. 28. The passage which he
cites in Aristeidês (Or. xlii, p. 523) refers, not to Ephesus,
but to Pergamus, and to the mythe of Augê and Têlephus: compare
_ibid._ p. 251.
Kolophôn, about fifteen miles north of Ephesus, and divided from the
territory of the latter by the precipitous mountain range called
Gallêsium, though a member of the Pan-Ionic amphiktyony, seems to
have had no Ionic origin: it recognized neither an Athenian œkist
nor Athenian inhabitants. The Kolophonian poet Mimnermus tells us
that the œkist of the place was the Pylian Andræmôn, and that the
settlers were Pylians from Peloponnesus. “We quitted (he says) Pylus,
the city of Neleus, and passed in our vessels to the much-desired
Asia. There with the insolence of superior force, and employing from
the beginning cruel violence, we planted ourselves in the tempting
Kolophôn.”[314] This description of the primitive Kolophonian
settlers, given with Homeric simplicity, forcibly illustrates the
account given by Herodotus of the proceedings of Neileus at Milêtus.
The establishment of Andræmôn must have been effected by force, and
by the dispossession of previous inhabitants, leaving probably their
wives and daughters as a prey to the victors. The city of Kolophôn
seems to have been situated about two miles inland, but it had a
fortified port called Notium, not joined to it by long walls as the
Peiræeus was to Athens, but completely distinct. There were times in
which this port served the Kolophonians as a refuge, when their upper
town was assailed by Persians from the interior; but the inhabitants
of Notium occasionally manifested inclinations to act as a separate
community, and dissensions thus occurred between them and the people
in Kolophôn,[315]—so difficult was it in the Greek mind to keep up a
permanent feeling of political amalgamation beyond the circle of the
town walls.
[314] Mimnerm. Fragm. 9, Schneid. ap. Strab. xiv, p. 634:—
Ἡμεῖς δ᾽ αἰπὺ Πύλον Νηλήϊον ἄστυ λιπόντες
Ἱμερτὴν Ἀσίην νηυσὶν ἀφικόμεθα·
Ἐς δ᾽ ἐρατὴν Κολοφῶνα, βίην ὑπέροπλον ἔχοντες,
Ἑζόμεθ᾽ ἀργαλέης ὕβριος ἡγεμόνες.
Mimnermus, in his poem called Nanno, named Andræmôn as founder
(Strabo, p. 633). Compare this behavior with the narrative of
Odysseus in Homer (Odyss. ix. 40):—
Ἰλιόθεν με φέρων ἄνεμος Κικόνεσσι πέλασσεν
Ἰσμάρῳ· ἔνθα δ᾽ ἐγὼ πόλιν ἔπραθον, ὤλεσα δ᾽ αὐτούς·
Ἐκ πόλιος δ᾽ ἀλόχους καὶ κτήματα πολλὰ λαβόντες
Δάσσαμεθ᾽, etc.
Mimnermus comes in point of time a little before Solon, B. C.
620-600.
[315] Aristot. Polit. v, 2, 12; Thucyd. iii, 34.
It is much to be regretted that nothing beyond a few lines of
Mimnermus, and nothing at all of the long poem of Xenophanês
(composed seemingly near a century after Mimnermus) on the foundation
of Kolophôn, has reached us. The short statements of Pausanias omit
all notice of that violence which the native Kolophonian poet so
emphatically signalizes in his ancestors: they are derived more from
the temple legends of the adjoining Klarian Apollo and from morsels
of epic poetry referring to that holy place, which connected itself
with the worship of Apollo in Krête, at Delphi, and at Thebes. The
old Homeric poem, called Thebaïs, reported that Mantô, daughter of
the Theban prophet Teiresias, had been presented to Apollo at Delphi
as a votive offering by the victorious epigoni: the god directed her
to migrate to Asia, and she thus arrived at Klarus, where she married
the Kretan Rhakius. The offspring of this marriage was the celebrated
prophet Mopsus, whom the Hesiodic epic described as having gained
a victory in prophetic skill over Kalchas; the latter having come
to Klarus after the Trojan war in company with Amphilochus son of
Amphiaraus.[316] Such tales evince the early importance of the temple
and oracle of Apollo at Klarus, which appears to have been in some
sort an emanation from the great sanctuary of Branchidæ near Milêtus;
for we are told that the high priest of Klarus was named by the
Milesians.[317] Pausanias states that Mopsus expelled the indigenous
Karians, and established the city of Kolophôn; and that the Ionic
settlers under Promêthus and Damasichthôn, sons of Kodrus, were
admitted amicably as additional inhabitants:[318] a story probably
emanating from the temple, and very different from that of the
Kolophonian townsmen in the time of Mimnermus. It seems evident that
not only the Apollinic sanctuary at Klarus, but also the analogous
establishments on the south of Asia Minor at Phasêlis, Mallus, etc.,
had their own foundation legends (apart from those of the various
bands of emigrant settlers), in which they connected themselves by
the best thread which they could devise with the epic glories of
Greece.[319]
[316] Hesiod. ap. Strab. xiv, p. 643; Conon, Narrat. 6; Argument
of the poem called Νόστοι (apud Düntzer), Epicc. Græc. Frag. p.
23; Pausan. ix, 33, 1.
[317] Tacit. Annal. ii, 54.
[318] Pausan. vii, 3, 1.
[319] See Welcker, Epischer Kyklus, p. 285.
Passing along the Ionian coast in a north-westerly direction from
Kolophôn, we come first to the small but independent Ionic settlement
of Lebedus—next, to Teôs, which occupies the southern face of
a narrow isthmus, Klazomenæ being placed on the northern: this
isthmus, a low narrow valley of about six miles across, forms the
eastern boundary of a very considerable peninsula, containing the
mountainous and woody regions called Mimas and Kôrykus. Teôs is said
to have been first founded by Orchomenian Minyæ under Athamas, and
to have received afterwards by consent various swarms of settlers,
Orchomenians and others, under the Kodrid leaders Apœkus, Nauklus,
and Damasus.[320] The valuable Teian inscriptions published in the
large collection of Boeckh, while they mention certain names and
titles of honor which connect themselves with this Orchomenian
origin, reveal to us at the same time some particulars respecting the
internal distribution of the Teian citizens. The territory of the
town was distributed amongst a certain number of towers, to each of
which corresponded a symmory or section of the citizens, having its
common altar and sacred rites, and often its heroic eponymus. How
many in number the tribes of Teôs were, we do not know: the name of
the Geleontes, one of the four old Ionic tribes, is preserved in an
inscription; but the rest, both as to names and number, are unknown.
The symmories or tower-fellowships of Teôs seem to be analogous to
the phratries of ancient Athens,—forming each a factitious kindred,
recognizing a common mythical ancestor, and bound together by a
communion at once religious and political. The individual name
attached to each tower is in some cases Asiatic rather than Hellenic,
indicating in Teôs the mixture not merely of Ionic and Æolic, but
also of Karian or Lydian inhabitants, of which Pausanias speaks.[321]
Gerrhæidæ, or Cherræidæ, the port on the west side of the town of
Teôs, had for its eponymous hero Gerês the Bœotian, who was said to
have accompanied the Kodrids in their settlement.
[320] Steph Byz. v. Τέως; Pausan. vii, 3, 3; Strabo, xiv, p. 633.
Anakreon called the town Ἀθαμαντίδα Τέω. (Strab. _l. c._)
[321] Pausan. vii, 3, 3. See the Inscrip. No. 3064 in Boeckh’s
Corp. Ins., which enumerates twenty-eight separate πύργοι: it is
a list of archons, with the name and civil designation of each:
I do not observe that the name of the same πύργος ever occurs
twice.—Ἀρτέμων, τοῦ Φιλαίου πύργου, Φιλαΐδης, etc: there are
two πύργοι, the names of which are effaced on the inscription.
In two other inscriptions (Nos. 3065, 3066) there occur Ἐχίνου
συμμορία—Ἐχίναδαι—as the title of a civil division without
any specification of an Ἐχίνου πύργος; but it is reasonable
to presume that the πύργος and the συμμορία are coincident
divisions. The Φιλαίου πύργος occurs also in another Insc. No.
3081. Philæus is the Athenian hero, son of Ajax, and eponym of
the deme or gens Philaidæ in Attica, who existed, as we here see,
in Teôs also. In Inscription, No. 3082, a citizen is complimented
as νέον Ἀθάμαντα, after the name of the old Minyan hero. In No.
3078, the Ionic tribe of the Γελέοντες is named as existing at
Teôs.
Among the titles of the towers we find the following,—τοῦ Κίδυος
πύργου, τοῦ Κιναβάλου πύργου, τοῦ Ἱέρυος πύργου, τοῦ Δάδδου
πύργου, τοῦ Σίντυος πύργου: these names seem to be rather foreign
than Hellenic. Κίδυς, Ἱέρυς, Σίντυς, Δάδδος, are Asiatic,
perhaps Karian or Lydian: respecting the name Δάδδος, compare
Steph. Byz. v. Τρέμισσος where Δάδας appears as a Karian name:
Boeckh (p. 651) expresses his opinion that Δάδδος is Karian or
Lydian. Then Κινάβαλος seems plainly not Hellenic: it is rather
Phœnician (Anni_bal_, Asdru_bal_, etc.), though Boeckh (in his
Introductory Comment to the Sarmatian Inscriptions, part xi,
p. 109) tells us that βαλος is also Thracian or Getic,—“βαλος
haud dubie Thracica aut Getica est radix finalis, quam tenes
in Dacico nomine Decebalus, et in nomine populi Triballorum.”
The name τοῦ Κόθου πύργου, Κοθίδης, is Ionic: Æklus and Kothus
are represented as Ionic œkists in Eubœa. Another name—Πάρμις,
τοῦ Σθενέλου πύργου, Χαλκιδεῖος—affords an instance in which
the local or gentile epithet is not derived from the tower; for
Χαλκιδεῖς, or Χαλκιδεύς was the denomination of a village in the
Teian territory. In regard to some persons, the gentile epithet
is derived from the tower,—τοῦ Φιλαίου πύργου, Φιλαΐδης—τοῦ
Γαλαίσου πύργου, Γαλαισίδης—τοῦ Δάδδου πύργου, Δάδδεῖος—τοῦ
πύργου τοῦ Κιζῶνος, Κίζων: in other cases not—τοῦ Ἑκαδίου πύργου,
Σκηβηΐδης—τοῦ Μηράδους πύργου, Βρυσκίδης—τοῦ Ἰσθμίου πύργου,
Λεωνίδης, etc. In the Inscrip. 3065, 3066, there is a formal vote
of the Ἐχίνου συμμορία or Ἐχίναδαι (both names occur): mention is
also made of the βῶμος τῆς συμμορίας; also the annual solemnity
called Leukathea, seemingly a gentile solemnity of the Echinadæ,
which connects itself with the mythical family of Athamas. As
an analogy to these Teian towers, we may compare the πύργοι in
the Greek settlement of Olbia in the Euxine (Boeckh, Inscr.
2058), πύργος Πόσιος, πύργος Ἐπιδαύρου,—they were portions of the
fortifications. See also Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxxvi, pp. 76-77.
A large tower, belonging to a private individual named Aglomachus
is mentioned in Kyrênê (Herod. iv, 164).
The worship of Athênê Polias at Erythræ may probably be traceable
to Athens, and that of the Tyrian Hêraklês (of which Pausanias
recounts a singular legend) would seem to indicate an intermixture
of Phœnician inhabitants. But the close neighborhood of Erythræ
to the island of Chios, and the marked analogy of dialect which
Herodotus[322] attests between them, show that the elements of
the population must have been much the same in both. The Chian
poet Iôn mentioned the establishment of Abantes from Eubœa in his
native island, under Amphiklus, intermixed with the preëxisting
Karians: Hektor, the fourth descendant from Amphiklus, was said
to have incorporated this island in the Pan-Ionic amphiktyony. It
is to Pherekydês that we owe the mention of the name of Egertius,
as having conducted a miscellaneous colony into Chios; and it is
through Egertius (though Iôn, the native poet, does not appear to
have noticed him) that this logographer made out the connection
between the Chians and the other group of Kodrid settlements.[323]
In Erythræ, Knôpus or Kleopus is noted as the Kodrid œkist, and as
having procured for himself, partly by force, partly by consent,
the sovereignty of the preëxisting settlement of mixed inhabitants.
The Erythræan historian Hippias recounted how Knôpus had been
treacherously put to death on ship-board, by Ortygês and some other
false adherents; who, obtaining some auxiliaries from the Chian
king Amphiklus, made themselves masters of Erythræ and established
in it an oppressive oligarchy. They maintained the government, with
a temper at once licentious and cruel, for some time, admitting
none but a chosen few of the population within the walls of the
town; until at length Hippotês the brother of Knôpus, arriving
from without at the head of some troops, found sufficient support
from the discontents of the Erythræans to enable him to overthrow
the tyranny. Overpowered in the midst of a public festival,
Ortygês and his companions were put to death with cruel tortures
and the same tortures were inflicted upon their innocent wives and
children,[324]—a degree of cruelty which would at no time have found
place amidst a community of European Greeks: even in the murderous
party dissensions of Korkyra during the Peloponnesian war, death was
not aggravated by preliminary tortures. Aristotle[325] mentions the
oligarchy of the Basilids as having existed in Erythræ, and as having
been overthrown by a democratical revolution, although prudently
managed: to what period this is to be referred we do not know.
[322] Herod. i, 142: compare Thucyd. viii, 5.
[323] Strabo, xiv, p. 633.
[324] Hippias ap. Athen. vi, p. 259; Polyæn. viii, 44, gives
another story about Knôpus. Erythræ, called Κνωπούπολις. (Steph.
Byz. v.)
The story told by Polyænus about the dictum of the oracle, and
the consequent stratagem, whereby Knôpus made himself master of
Erythræ, represents that town as powerful anterior to the Ionic
occupation (Polyæn. viii, 43).
[325] Aristot. Polit. v, 5, 4.
Klazomenæ is said to have been founded by a wandering party, either
of Ionians or of inhabitants from Kleonæ and Phlius, under Parphorus
or Paralus: and Phôkæa by a band of Phokians under Philogenês and
Damon. This last-mentioned town was built at the end of a peninsula
which formed part of the territory of the Æolic Kymê: the Kymæans
were induced to cede it amicably, and to permit the building of
the new town. The Phokians asked and obtained permission to enrol
themselves in the Pan-Ionic amphiktyony; but the permission is said
to have been granted only on condition that they should adopt members
of the Kodrid family as their œkists; and they accordingly invited
from Erythræ and Teôs three chiefs belonging to that family or
gens,—Deœtês, Periklus, and Abartus.[326]
[326] Pausan. vii, 3, 3. In Pausanias the name stands _Abartus_;
but it probably ought to be _Abarnus_, the eponymus of Cape
Abarnis in the Phôkæan territory: see Stephan. Byz. v. Ἀβαρνίς.
Raoul Rochette puts Abarnus without making any remark (Histoire
des Colonies Grecques, b. iv, c. 13, p. 95).
Smyrna, originally an Æolic colony, established from Kymê fell
subsequently into the hands of the Ionians of Kolophôn. A party of
exiles from the latter city, expelled during an intestine dispute,
were admitted by the Smyrnæans into their city,—a favor which they
repaid by shutting the gates and seizing the place for themselves,
at a moment when the Smyrnæans had gone forth in a body to celebrate
a religious festival. The other Æolic towns sent auxiliaries for the
purpose of reëstablishing their dispossessed brethren; but they were
compelled to submit to an accommodation, whereby the Ionians retained
possession of the town, restoring to the prior inhabitants all their
movables. These exiles were distributed as citizens among the other
Æolic cities.[327]
[327] Herod. i, 150; Mimnermus, Fragm.—
Θεῶν βουλῇ Σμύρνην εἵλομεν Αἰολίδα.
Smyrna after this became wholly Ionian; and the inhabitants in
later times, if we may judge by Aristeidês the rhetor, appear to
have forgotten the Æolic origin of their town, though the fact is
attested both by Herodotus and by Mimnermus.[328] At what time the
change took place, we do not know; but Smyrna appears to have become
Ionian before the celebration of the 23d Olympiad, when Onomastus
the Smyrnæan gained the prize.[329] Nor have we information as to
the period at which the city was received as a member into the
Pan-Ionic amphiktyony, for the assertion of Vitruvius is obviously
inadmissible, that it was admitted at the instance of Attalus, king
of Pergamus, in place of a previous town called Melitê, excluded by
the rest for misbehavior.[330] As little can we credit the statement
of Strabo, that the city of Smyrna was destroyed by the Lydian
kings, and that the inhabitants were compelled to live in dispersed
villages until its restoration by Antigonus. A fragment of Pindar,
which speaks of “the elegant city of the Smyrnæans,” indicates that
it must have existed in his time.[331] The town of Eræ, near Lebedus,
though seemingly autonomous,[332] was not among the contributors
to the Pan-Ionian: Myonnêsus seems to have been a dependency of
Teôs, as Pygela and Marathêsium were of Ephesus. Notium, after its
recolonization by the Athenians during the Peloponnesian war, seems
to have remained separate from and independent of Kolophôn: at least
the two are noticed by Skylax as distinct towns.[333]
[328] See Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, b. iv,
ch. 5, p. 43; Aristeidês, Orat. xx-xxi, pp. 260, 267.
[329] Pausan. v, 8, 3.
[330] Vitruvius, iv, 1.
[331] Strabo, xiv, p. 646; Pindar, Frag. 155, Dissen.
[332] Thucydid. viii, 19.
[333] Skylax, c. 97; Thucyd. iii. 34.