Hellenistic Didyma and the Milesian Past
Noboru Sato
Introduction
Following the arrival of Alexander the Great in Miletus, drastic politicalchanges occurred in there and in other Greek city-states in Asia Minor. This period
was also a crucial turning point for Didyma, an extra-urban sanctuary of Miletus.
This occurrence of change is presumably an observable indication of one of the
major structural shifts in the late classical and early Hellenistic periods. What impact
did these political and cultural changes have on Milesian mythical narratives andhistoriographies? This study aims to examine Hellenistic myths and historiographies
concerning the Didymaeum, the temple of Apollo Didymeus, focusing on theinfluence of contemporary Milesian religious and diplomatic activities and on
interactions with Hellenistic rulers and other Greek city-states.1
1. Miletus and Didyma in the late classical and early Hellenistic periods
For most of the fourth century BCE, Miletus was under the authority of the
Achaemenid Persian Empire. Soon after the end of the Peloponnesian War, control
of Ionia, a region on the west coast of Asia Minor, including Miletus, was concededto the Persians. Miletus apparently remained under the power of Tissaphernes, thePersian satrap of Lydia and Ionia, starting in at least 401 BCE but perhaps beginningearlier. No source suggests that the Milesians resisted the Persians even after
Tissaphernes died in 395 BCE. The Achaemenid control of Miletus and other AsiaticThis paper is based on my conference paper delivered at the Third Euro-Japanese Colloquium on
the Ancient Mediterranean World held at the British School at Athens in 2014 and at the Asia Minor
Seminar at Kyoto University in 2016. I thank the participants at these conferences for theircomments, especially Dr. Alexander Herda for his careful reading of my manuscript, his
encouragement and his many insightful suggestions. I also thank the anonymous reviewers of
JASCA for their comments and suggestions. This work was supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research 18H03587, 19KK0296, 21K00940.
1
In her recent book, Polis Histories, Collective Memories and the Greek World, Oxford 2019 (Polis
Histories), R. Thomas surveys various aspects of polis- and island histories in the Greek world.
Focusing on “Milesian histories” among others (esp. 91–94, 195–201, 228–260), she discusses theirgeneral tendency to narrate political figures’ lives and events. My paper focuses on the Milesian
myths and histories related to the sanctuary of Didyma and examines their dynamism in the earlyHellenistic period.

78

Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didyma
Greek poleis was formally confirmed with the King’s Peace in 386 BCE. At the endof the classical period, however, Miletus was returned to the Greek side when it was
besieged, captured, and liberated by Alexander the Great in 334 BCE, early in his
great eastern campaign. After Alexander died, the Milesians maintained good
relations with the Hellenistic dynasties in general, although their relationships withsome rulers were strained.2
The beginning of the Hellenistic period was also an important turning point forthe mantic sanctuary of Didyma. By the late Archaic period, this sacred precinct had
become renowned for its oracle among the Greeks and the residents in thesurrounding area.3 At the beginning of the fifth century BCE, however, Didyma wasplundered and damaged by the Persians, either under Darius I or Xerxes, and lost its
function as a place of oracular consultation.4 After the Persian wars, Miletus, which
gradually recovered from the destruction,5 did not neglect the sanctuary of Didyma.
In the middle of the fifth century BCE, the Milesians passed a decree according towhich the Molpoi, a prestigious cult association, would make a periodical sacredprocession from the temple of Apollo Delphinius in Miletus along the Sacred Way
to the sanctuary of Didyma.6 The cultic procession was presumably conducted inthis period. However, unfortunately, the inscription does not reveal how often the2

The control of Tissaphernes: Xen. Anab. 1.1.6, 1.2.2; Polyaenus, Strat. 7.16. The King’s Peace: Xen.
Hell. 5.1.31. Alexander’s expedition: Arr. Anab. 1.18.3-19.11; Diod. Sic. 17.22. Liberation from
Asander: Diod. Sic. 19.75.1-5. On Miletus in this period, see A. M. Greaves, Miletos: A history,
London 2002 (Miletos), 133–134; V. B. Gorman, Miletos, the Ornament of Ionia, Ann Arbor 2001
(Miletos), 146, 236–242; H. W. Parke, The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor, New York 1985
(Oracle), 35–43.
3
N. Ehrhardt, Didyma und Milet in archaischer Zeit, Chiron 28 (1998) (archaischer Zeit), 11–20.
4
Hdt. 6.19 (Darius I in 494 BCE); Ctesias 27; Strabo 14.1.5, 11.2.4, 17.1.43 (Callisthenes BNJ 124 F
14); Paus. 1.16.3, 8.46.3 (Xerxes in 478 BCE). K. Tuchelt, Die Perserzerstörung von BranchidaiDidyma und ihre Folgen archäologisch betrachtet, AA (1988), 427–438; Gorman, Miletos (n.2), 146.
The archaic temple of Didymaeum was damaged by the Persians, but recent archeological researchsuggests that a fire during the Persian invasion of Didyma only affected parts of the archaic templeof Apollo. See e.g., U. Dirschedl, Didyma, Türkei. Der archaische Apollontempel (‚Tempel II‘) in
Didyma und die Genese der monumentalen ionischen Sakralarchitektur (Publikationsprojekt). Die
Arbeiten des Jahres 2018, e-Forschungsberichte des DAI 2019-2, 138–146.
5
Gorman, Miletos (n.2), 147–151; A. Herda, Copy and paste? Miletos before and after the Persian
Wars, in E. Capet et al. (eds.), Reconstruire les villes: modes, motifs et récits, Turnhout 2019 (Copyand paste), 91–120.
6
Milet I 3, 133. On the sacred procession of the Molpoi, see Gorman, Miletos (n.2), 176–186; A.
Herda, Der Apollon-Delphinios-Kult in Milet und die Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma, Mainz
2006 (Neujahrsprozession); A. Chaniotis, The Molpoi Inscription: Ritual. Prescription or Riddle?,
Kernos 23 (2010), 375–379. The inscription is a Hellenistic copy of the original decree from 450/49
BCE. Scholars have discussed when the inscription was published and when the core part of thesacred law was fixed.

79

JASCA 5 (2023)
ceremony was actually performed, the scale of the ceremony, or how long it was
performed. Thus far, archaeologists have uncovered no material proving thecontinuity of the procession during the fifth century BCE.7 However, it is clear thatthe damaged Archaic temple of Apollo in Didyma was not reconstructed until thelate classical period. The Didymaean oracle also remained silent until the late fourth
century BCE. After the arrival of Alexander, however, the oracle finally resumed
operations and the Milesian ambassadors brought numerous oracles to theMacedonian king at Memphis in Egypt in 331 BCE, according to Callisthenes. 8
Although the real function of the Didymaean oracle in the early Hellenistic period
has not been elucidated, Hellenistic Didyma produced many oracular statements, as
inscriptions attest from the late third century BCE.9
Around the same time, the citizens of Miletus also started a new ambitious
building project: the refoundation of the gigantic Temple of Apollo Didymeus, oneof the largest temples in the ancient Greek world. 10 The first phase presumably
began between 334 and 300/299 BCE under two architects, Daphnis of Miletus andPaeonius of Ephesus, who had completed the great temple dedicated to Artemis
Ephesia at Ephesus, another gigantic temple in the Greek world.11 This project musthave aroused the Milesian citizens’ interest and inspired local pride. However, thedelay and difficulty in its construction probably also occupied the Milesians’
attention. It remains unclear when the reconstruction was initially planned or
7

Herda denies there was any serious interruption of the cultic procession after the Persian wars (A.
Herda, Apollon Delphinios–Apollon Didymeus, in R. Bol, U. Höckmann und P. Schollmeyer(Hrsg.), Kult(ur)kontakte, Rhaden 2008 (AD-AD), 21–22, 36–37, 58, 64). However, Slawischexpresses skepticism regarding its continuity in the fifth century BCE (Epigraphy versus
Archaeology, in C. Gates, J. Morin, and T. Zimmerman (eds.), Sacred Landscapes in Anatolia andNeighbouring Regions, Oxford 2009, 29–34; Id., Processions, Propaganda, and Pixels:
Reconstructing the Sacred Way between Miletos and Didyma, AJA 122-1 (2018), 101–143). Cf. K.
B. Gödecken, Beobachtungen und Funde an der Heiligen Straße zwischen Milet und Didyma, ZPE
66 (1986), 217–253.
8
Callisthenes, BNJ 124 F 14a = Strabo 17.1.43.
9
Parke, Oracle (n.2), 35–36; J. Fontenrose, Didyma: Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions,
Berkeley and London 1988 (Didyma), 15–16. The first “historical” oracles following Alexander’sarrival at Miletus, according to the literature, are dated in 228/7 BCE. However, the absence of oracle
inscription does not necessarily mean that the mantic sanctuary was not in operation in the latefourth and early third centuries. Particularly in the earliest phase of the protracted reconstruction
project of the Temple of Apollo, the oracle could have been operated in a different manner than inlater phases.
10
K. Tuchelt, Branchidai-Didyma: Geschichte und Ausgrabung eines antiken Heiligtums, Mainz am
Rhein 1992, 15; Parke, Oracle (n.2), 48–50; Id. The Temple of Apollo at Didyma, JHS 106 (1986)(Temple), 121–131. Fontenrose, Didyma (n.9), 16–18.
11
Vitr. De arch. 7. Praef. 16.

80

Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didyma
actually began. The literature reveals, however, that the construction did not gain
momentum until the Seleucid dynasty finally provided generous financial support in
the early third century BCE.12
2. The Didymaeum as a facilitator of diplomatic action
The sanctuary of Didyma was not only a financial burden but also a facilitatorof diplomatic action for the Hellenistic Milesians. They could and did use its status
as a religious center to establish good relationships with outsiders, especiallyHellenistic dynasties. While the Greek poleis in the classical period were mainly
concerned with their cities’ local gods, 13 the Hellenistic rulers could, or perhaps
needed to, justify their diplomatic and military policies and their rule over increasingareas by expressing their piety toward many deities associated with various citystates, and especially toward the gods worshiped at pan-Hellenic or regionalreligious centers. Although some dynasties showed concern for one temple or deity,
their benevolence was not restricted. 14 Thus, many Greek poleis, especially thosewith major religious centers, such as Miletus, could use their sanctuaries and ritualcults to establish good relations with Hellenistic kings.15
Notably, the first Didymaean oracles after the restoration were diplomatic.
According to Callisthenes, as previously mentioned, the Milesians sent envoys toAlexander the Great in Egypt with oracles concerning, for example, Alexander’s
descent from Zeus, his victory, and Darius’s death; as a message of allegiance to the
new ruler, this collection of oracles was almost obsequious. There is no evidence
that Alexander or his colleagues consulted Apollo Didymeus or solicited these
12

D. Steuernagel, Der Apollontempel von Didyma und das Orakel in der römischen Kaiserzeit, in D.
Erker und G. Schörner (Hrsg.), Medien religiöser Kommunikation im Imperium Romanum, Stuttgart
2008, 123–140 discusses the financial difficulty concerning the construction of the Didymaeum up
to the Roman Empire.
13
On “polis religion,” see C. Sourvinou-Inwood, What is Polis Religion? in O. Marray and S. Price(eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, Oxford 1990, 295–322; Id., Further Aspects ofPolis Religion, in Annali dell’Institution Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Sezionedi Archeologia e
Storia Antica 10 (1988), 259–274 [now reprinted in R. Buxton (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek
Religion, Oxford 2000, 13–37, 38–55]. On the classical Greek attitude toward the sanctuaries of theother poleis, see I. Polinskaya, Shared Sanctuaries and the Gods of Others: On the Meaning of“Common” in Herodotus 8.144, in R. M. Rosen and I. Sluiter (eds.), Valuing Others in Classical
Antiquity, Leiden 2010, 43–70.
14
B. Dignas, Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Oxford 2002, 43.
15Interestingly, in the mid-fourth century BCE, the Milesians under the Persian rule dedicated anhonorific statue of Idrieus and Ada, Mausolus’s siblings and successors, at Delphi (Syll.3 225). This
may suggest that the Milesians in this period had not yet regarded the sanctuary of Didyma as astrong facilitator of diplomatic action.

81

JASCA 5 (2023)
oracles.16 Instead, it was the Milesians who sought to establish a good relationshipwith the king, using their (once) renowned sanctuary for their initiative.17 Certainly,
Callisthenes praised Alexander and his achievement and, therefore, his accounts are
regarded as containing many unreliable details. 18 However, at least the Milesians
had a clear reason to attempt to establish good relations with the new ruler: Miletus
was the only Ionian city that resisted Alexander in 334 BCE, and the politicalsituation was not settled by 332 BCE.19 Moreover, to establish and express a good
relationship with Alexander, the Milesians apparently used their political/religious“past.” In 334/3 BCE, they granted Alexander the title of stephanephoros/aisymnetes,the “eponymous annual magistrate” of Miletus, a role that traditionally played
essential religious functions. Furthermore, the Milesians located Alexander in theirlocal history by engraving for publication the brand-new epigraphic list of
stephanephoroi/aisymnetai, which starts from 525/4 BCE, and inscribing the name ofAlexander at the end of the list.20 Around the same period, the city of Miletus seems
to have initiated its plan to rebuild the once renowned but now damaged Archaic
temple of Apollo in Didyma. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that once
Alexander arrived, the Milesians attempted to forge a good relationship with this16

By contrast, Alexander was involved in the construction or reconstruction of other importantsanctuaries in this area, such as in Priene and in Ephesus (RO 86 A = I.Priene 156; Strabo 14.1.22).
17
Callisthenes, loc. cit. (n.7); cf. Parke, Oracles (n.2), 35–37.
18
C. Morgan, Divination and Society at Delphi and Didyma, Hermathena 147 (1989), 17–42 is
skeptical of the idea that Didymaean oracle actually functioned immediately after the liberation ofMiletus. On unreliability of Callisthenes, see e.g., T. S. Brown, Callisthenes and Alexander, AJPh
70 (1949), 225; R. D. Milns, Callisthenes on Alexander, Mediterranean Archaeology 19/20 (2006),
233–37. Recently, J. P. Nudell, Oracular Politics: Propaganda and Myth in the Restoration ofDidyma, AHB 32 (2018), 44–66, has convincingly shown that Alexander did not seem to be
involved in the reconstruction of the Didymaeum. He even assumes that the story of the Milesianambassadors bringing oracles to Alexander was fabricated, perhaps under the influence of the
Seleucid and the Milesian effort to enhance the prestige of Didyma after the death of Alexander.
However, Callisthenes was a contemporary to this event. To me, it is plausible that the Milesian
envoys visited Alexander in Egypt and referred to the once well-known oracular sanctuary ofDidyma, even if they did not bring the oracles that Callisthenes claims.
19
Alexander’s siege of Miletus: Arr. Anab. 1.18.4-19.6; Diod. Sic. 17.22; Strabo 14.1.7. Greek
envoys to Alexander in Egypt: Arr. Anab. 3.5.1; Curt. 4.8.12; Strabo 17.1.43. On the war in the
Aegean area after Alexander moved eastward in 334, see S. Ruzicka, War in the Aegean, 333–331
B.C.: A Reconsideration, Phoenix 42 (1988), 144.
20
Milet I 3, 122–128. Alexander’s name is inscribed at Milet I 3, 122, col. II, l. 81. See also R. K.
Sherk, The Eponymous Officials of Greek Cities IV. The Register Part III, ZPE 93 (1992), 229–232.
The part from 525/4 to 334/3 BCE shows a uniformity of lettering, suggesting this part was inscribedat the same time. Afterward, the name of the official was added annually to the list. On the date ofMilet I 3, 122, see P. J. Rhodes, Milesian Stephanephoroi: Applying Cavaignac Correctly, ZPE 157(2006), 116.

82

Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didyma
new powerful ruler by using the authority of their mantic sanctuary, even if it did not
fully function as it did after the mid-third century BCE. Although Callisthenes may
have concocted some details, his description of the rebirth of the oracle at Didyma
presumably reflects some sort of actual Milesian diplomatic activity in relation to
Alexander.
Although how effective such diplomatic measures would have been during theage of Alexander remains unknown, they were effective in the case of the Seleucid
dynasty. Two inscriptions around 300 BCE state that Seleucus I had long shown
kindness to Miletus and the sanctuary of Didyma, and that his wife, Apame, andtheir son Antiochus had provided generous financial support for the development
and improvement of the temple at Didyma.21 In 288/7 BCE, Seleucus I dedicated agift of many golden and silver vessels and offered sacrifices at the temple. An
inscription containing an inventory of these gifts and a message from the kingemphasized the king’s initiative and his wish for prosperity for the Milesians and thesanctuary of Apollo Didymeus.22 These examples clearly demonstrate the dynasty’s
deep concern for the Didymaeum and Miletus, to which the sanctuary belonged. The
Seleucids may have aimed to use Apollo as their dynastic patron god and theDidymaean oracles for their political propaganda.23
What is unlikely, however, is that the royal family showed their concern for thissacred precinct in a unilateral manner without any influence from Miletus. Notably,
Demodamas, the Milesian citizen who proposed honorific decrees concerning themembers of the dynasty in return for their financial support, also served Seleucus II
as a military leader. 24 Other Milesian elites as well could plausibly have been
21

I.Didyma 479, 480; W. Günther, Das Orakel von Didyma in hellenistischer Zeit, Tübingen 1971
(Orakel), 23–43.
22
I.Didyma 424; Günther, Orakel (n.21), 44–50.
23
App. Syr. 56; Diod. Sic. 19.90.4; Just. 15.4; Lib. Orat. 11.99; I.Erythrai 205.74-75. Indeed, rivalry
with other monarchs, such as Lysimachus, who ruled the Greek city-states on the western coast of
Asia Minor after the battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE, may have also motivated them to make such agenerous contribution. The Seleucids presumably sought to extend their influence over the area they
did not rule through their enormous financial assistance to the important regional sanctuary.
However, as H. S. Lund, Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship, London and N.Y. 1992,
136–138 argues, we should avoid understanding the Seleucid devotion to Didyma exclusively froma political point of view. Their religious motivation should not be underestimated.
24
Plin. HN 6.49; K. Nawotka, Demodamas of Miletus, Seleucus I and Apollo, MHEMOH 7 (2008),
135–152; M. Widmer, Apamè. Une reine au cœur de la construction d’un royaume, in A. Bielman, I.
Cogitore et A. Kolb. (dir.), Femmes influentes dans le monde hellénistique et à Rome, Grenoble
2016, 25–27. In his recent paper, Nawotka emphasizes the Milesian initiative to promote the cult of
Apollo at Didyma and Demodamas’s influence over the Seleucid royal court (Apollo, the Tutelary83

JASCA 5 (2023)
sufficiently close to the dynasty to encourage its involvement in the restoration anddevelopment of the oracular sanctuary at Didyma.25 Moreover, according to a letterfrom Seleucus II, the Milesians gave him a sacred crown from “the adyton” of theDidymaeum. Clearly, the citizens of Miletus used the religious authority ofDidymaean Apollo to consolidate their good relationships with the Seleucids.26
The regional situation in western Asia Minor may have also led the Milesians torealize the importance of their mantic sanctuary as a facilitator of diplomatic action.
Some refoundations of Ionian cities and temple-building activities are attested
starting from the mid- to late fourth century BCE: for example, Ephesus, Priene,
Kolophon, Teos, and Magnesia Sipylus. Hellenistic dynasties often granted these
Greek cities favors. In fact, monarchies in this period were generally expected to “dogood to all and thus rule and preside over a willing people, earning their love by his
beneficence and humanity.”27 Surrounded by other Greek cities and competing witheach of them for royal favor, the Milesians may have attempted to distinguishthemselves from the others by claiming importance owing to their city’s ancient or
mythical origin and the high dignity of the Temple of Apollo Didymeus.
Using the Didymaeum as a means of facilitating diplomatic action, theMilesians and other people around the city must have expanded their consciousnessof the mythical and historical past concerning the sanctuary. In the following
sections, the mythical narratives and historiographies concerning the Didymaeumthat circulated in the Hellenistic period are investigated, elucidating how they were
influenced by contemporary domestic and international situations.
3. The wisest sage at the Didymaeum
The Didymaeum is mentioned by Callimachus, a Hellenistic poet active in thethird century BCE, in a story of Thales, one of the seven sages and the cultural hero
God of the Seleucids, and Demodamas of Miletus, in Z. Archibald and J. Haywood (eds.), The
Power of Individual and Community in Ancient Athens and Beyond, Swansea 2019, 261–284).
25
R. Meijering, Religious Support and Political Gain: the Seleucids, Miletus, and Didyma, 301–281
BC, Talanta 46–47 (2014–2015), 244–245 highlights the importance of the Milesian soldiers in the
Seleucid army.
26
I.Didyma 493; Günther, Orakel (n.21), 66–95.
27
Polyb. 5.11.6. On Hellenistic kings’ benefactions toward the Greek cities in Asia Minor, see K.
Bringmann, The King as Benefactor: Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism, in
A. Bulloch et al. Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley, L.A. and
London 1993, 7–14; J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford 2000. On the
refoundations of Ionian cities and temple-building activities, see e.g., R. Billows, Rebirth of a
Region, in H. Elton and G. Reger (eds.), Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Paris
2007, 33–44.

84

Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didymaof Miletus.28 In retelling the story of the gift for the wisest sage, the poet places theaction in Miletus, following Leandrius of Miletus.29 In his Iambics,30 Callimachus
says that a certain Arcadian, Bathycles, died and left a phiale (libation bowl), withthe command that it be given to the best sage.31 It was initially given to Thales, but
he passed it to another sage. After being passed around, it finally returned to Thales.
He then, according to Callimachus, sent it to Apollo Didymeus and composed thefollowing verse: “Thales gives me to the lord (sc. Apollo) of the race of Neileus (sc.
the Milesians), / Having twice received this as a prize.”
Callimachus seems to have intentionally chosen this version of the story inwhich Thales dedicates the phiale to the Didymaeum. In fact, another Milesianversion of this story seems to have preceded Callimachus, according to which,“Thales, son of Examyas, a Milesian, [dedicates this] to Apollo Delphinius,” not toApollo Didymeus. 32 Fontenrose suggests that in the original legend, Thales may
have dedicated his phiale at the Delphinion in Miletus, not at Didyma, and that the
inscription on it “may have inspired the legend with Apollo Didymeus substitutedfor Delphinius and with a dedicatory epigram and an oracle invented for it.”33
International politics around Miletus may have affected Callimachus’s selectionof the Didymaeum. Scholars have argued that Callimachus’s strong interest in
Didyma reflects the Ptolemaic dynasty’s expansion policy.34 Certainly, epigraphicalevidence shows Ptolemaic interest in Miletus in the 270s and 260s. When Seleucus I
Nicanor died in 281 BCE, Ptolemy II Philadelphus started expanding his area ofinfluence in Anatolia, and in the course of his campaigns, he donated a piece of land28

On the cult of Thales in Miletus, see A. Herda, Burying a sage: the heroon of Thales in the agora ofMiletos, in O. Henry (ed.), 2èmes Rencontres d’archéologie de l’IFEA : Le Mort dans la ville,
Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra–muros en Anatolie, du début de l’Age duBronze à l’époque romaine, İstanbul 2013, 67–122. Thomas, Polis Histories (n.1), 243–245 points
out Thales’s Milesian connection in historical narratives.
29
On various versions of the dedication of the gift for the wisest sage, see e.g., A. Busine, Les Sept
Sages de la Grèce Antique, Paris 2002.
30
Diegeseis 6, 8ff. = p. 163 Pfeiffer.
31
Callimachus Iambics 1.52-63 (Fr. 191 Pfeiffer) tells a different tradition about Bathycles’s cup.
32
Leandrius BNJ 492 F 18 (N. Sato, Maiandrios of Miletos and (?) Leandr(i)os of Miletos (491–492),
Brill’s New Jacoby. [visited April 13, 2014] <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-snew-jacoby/maiandrios-of-miletos-and-leandr-i-os-of-miletos-491-492-a491_492>)
33
Fontenrose, Didyma (n.9), 66 n.5.
34
A. Cameron, Callimachus and His Critics, Princeton 1995, 166–172; N. Ehrhardt, Poliskulte bei
Theokrit und Kallimachos: das Beispiel Milet, Hermes 131 (2003) (Poliskulte), 269–289; M.
Brumbaugh, Kallimachos and the Seleukid Apollo, TAPA 146-1 (2006), 61–97. Cf. Thomas, Polis
Histories (n.1), 252.

85

JASCA 5 (2023)
to the Milesians in 280/79 BCE.35 The Milesians made honorific statues for Philotera,
Philadelpus’s sister, and his sister-wife Arsinoe. 36 Arsinoe also received a cult in
Miletus, at the latest after her death in 270 or 268 BCE.37 In 260 BCE, following thedifficult time caused by the Chremonidean War, Philadelphus sent his envoys,
including his son, to the Milesians to persuade them to renew their alliance with theking by showing the contributions from him and his father to Miletus.38
However, as far as we know, nothing clearly affirms the Ptolemaic dynasty’s
particular interest in the sanctuary in Didyma.39 Presumably, having researched theMilesian past and observing the political and cultural situation of his age,
Callimachus himself found the Didymaeum attractive to the Ptolemaic kings and his
followers and selected a story on the dedication of the phiale to the sanctuary. The
Hellenistic poet must have noticed the Milesian effort to reconstruct the temple of
Apollo in Didyma and the Seleucid dynasty’s generous contribution by the time hewas composing his poetry. He might not have chosen the this holy place as theimportant setting without the Milesian and Seleucid efforts to enhance the authority
and the sanctity of the oracular sanctuary. What seems likely is that not just the
Ptolemaic general diplomatic policy but the Milesian and Seleucid economic anddiplomatic activities by that time significantly influenced the Hellenistic poet’s
choice of a particular version of mythical traditions.
35

Milet I 3, 123, ll.38-40. G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, London and New York 2000
(Ptolemaic Empire), 38; J. D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars, Leiden 2010, 77.
36
I.Didyma 115.
37
Milet I 7, 288, 289.
38
Milet I 3, 139.
39
The dedication of the statues of Ptolemaic royal families to Artemis in Didyma (see above n.32)
does not necessarily prove the Ptolemaic dynasty’s particular interest in the sanctuary. It is theMilesians who decided to make the dedication to the goddess in the sanctuary. Previously, they had
placed a statue and inscriptions for Apame, Seleucus I’s wife, in the sanctuary of Artemis in Didyma(I.Didyma, 113, 480). Ehrhardt argues that Naucratis’s economic contribution to the reconstructionof the Didymaeum may attest to Ptolemy’s concern over the sanctuary (Poliskulte (n.34), 288–289.
Cf. W. Günther, Spenden für Didyma. Zu einer Stiftung aus Naukratis, in K. Geus und K.
Zimmermann (Hrgs.), Punica – Libyca – Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huß, zum 65.
Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen, Studia Phoenicia 16, Leuven 2001,
185–198). Although Naucratis may have needed Ptolemy’s consent, this assumption does notnecessarily prove that Philaderphus was particularly interested in the sanctuary in Didyma.
Naucratis itself had a long relationship with Miletus. Miletus was one of the cities whose citizens
settled in Naucratis and founded its own sanctuary in the Archaic period (Hdt. 2.178; Strabo 17.1.8),
though the actual relationship between Miletus and Naukratis is disputed. Cf. N. Ehrhardt, Milet undseine Kolonien: vergleichende Untersuchung der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen.
Frankfurt 1988 (Kolonien), 87–90; J. W. Drijvers, Strabo 17.1.18 (801C): Inaros, the Milesians andNaucratis, Mnemosyne 52 (1999), 16–22.

86Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didyma

4. The Legend of Branchus
A story of Branchus, the eponymous ancestor of the Branchidae, a family ofhereditary prophets in charge of the Didymaean oracle, is recounted by Conon, amythographer active in the Augustan period, whose collection contained several
myths popular among the Hellenistic poets and prose writers.40 In the thirty-thirdstory in his Diegeseis, Conon tells the tale that Smicrus, a boy from Delphi, sailed to
Miletus following an oracle. There, he married the daughter of an elite Milesianfamily, and their son, Branchus, who was beloved and endowed with the gift ofprophecy by Apollo, later declared oracles at Didyma. Thus, Branchus became themythical founder of the oracle of Didyma. On the one hand, whether the version
chosen by Conon dates back to an earlier period or was a version created in theHellenistic period remains unclear. Certainly, the legend of Branchus dates back at
least to Hipponax of Ephesus, an iambic poet flourishing in the late sixth century
BCE.41 On the other hand, as scholars have suggested, the Hellenistic mythographic
tradition undeniably influenced Conon’s narratives.42
Conon’s version notably contains both a Delphic element and a Milesianelement: Branchus’s Delphic origin, and his Milesian family on the maternal side.
The Delphic origin of Branchus was evidently known to Hellenistic intellectuals.
Callimachus wrote a poem concerning Branchus, naming Daetes as his paternal
ancestor (F 229.7). Daetes was the father of Machaereus, the priest at Delphi, whoeither killed Neoptolemus or helped Orestes kill him. 43 Although it remains
uncertain whether this story belongs to the same tradition followed by Conon,
clearly, the Hellenistic poet consciously chose the myth connecting the origin ofDidyma and Delphi. As in the aforementioned case with the story of Thales,
Callimachus’s choice of the topic of the Didymaeum was presumably influenced byMilesian and Seleucid diplomatic and economic activities concerning the sanctuary
as well as by the Ptolemaic political interest in Miletus. 44 In other words, the40

S. Blakely, Conon (26): Biographical Essay, Brill’s New Jacoby. [visited April 4, 2014]<http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/Conon-26-a26>; M. K. Brown,
The Narratives of Konon. Text, Translation and Commentary on the Diegeseis, München/Leipzig,
2002 (Konon), 1-6, 8–14.
41
Hipponax fr. 105 West. See A. Herda, AD-AD (n.7), 21, n.67.
42
Brown, Konon (n.40), 232, 298; A. Henrichs, Three Approaches to Greek Mythography, in J.
Bremmer (ed.) Interpretation of Greek Mythography, London 1987, 245.
43
Asclepiades of Tragilos FGrH 12 F15; Pherec. FGrH 3F 64a with Jacoby, Scholion on Euripides
Andr. 53; Brown, Konon (n.40), loc. cit.
44
See above pp. 7–8 and nn. 33–38.

87

JASCA 5 (2023)
contemporary international political and cultural situation may have shaped theHellenistic mythography of the Didymaeum.
The focus on Branchus’s Delphic origin may have also reflected a contemporaryinterest of the Hellenistic Milesians. 45 As we have seen above, they obviously
sought to enhance the authority of the oracle in Didyma, which was once obsoleted
for one and half centuries. Tracing its origin to Delphi, the most influential oraculartemple in the ancient Greek world, could certainly serve this purpose. The Milesianinterest in connecting the Didymaean oracle with Delphi is also suggested in the
renewal of the oracle’s operation after its refoundation. Following a 150-year gap,
the Archaic practice in Didyma could not resume with all the same forms. Instead,as scholars have argued, the oracle in Didyma was probably reformed based on themodel of the Delphic oracle: 46 A woman was chosen as prophetis, recalling thePythia of Delphi. The oracles were composed in hexameter verse, although thistechnique had probably been abandoned at Delphi by the late fourth century BCE.
These features obviously reveal the Milesian effort to elevate the sacredness of theoracle of Didyma by using the authority of the Delphic oracle. Presumably, someelite Milesians contributed to the creation of the system by which the renewed oracle
operated, either by providing their knowledge of oracles and other rituals or byinviting experts on oracles from outside. Although a lack of evidence prevents us
from reconstructing the process by which the Didymaean oracle was recreated,parallel examples are available from other cities, where city elites often led therevival of religious cults.47
The claim of “Milesian” blood of the Branchidae, that is, the Milesian mother ofBranchus, which appears in Conon’s version, may have also reflected the interest ofMilesians in the Hellenistic period. After the oracle was restored, Milesian citizens,
rather than the family of prophets, became directly involved in its actual operation.
At its restoration in the late fourth century BCE, the Milesians established the new
offices of prophetes, candidates for which were chosen by lot from among Milesian45

Fontenrose, Didyma (n.9), 107. Cf. Brown, Konon (n.40), loc. cit.
Parke, Oracles (n.2), 40–42; Fontenrose, Didyma (n.9), 78–79; A. Greaves, Divination at Archaic
Branchidai-Didyma, Hesperia 81 (2012), 177–206.
47
A. Chaniotis, Negotiating Religion in the Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire, Kernos 16 (2003),
177–190; Id., Ritual Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean, in W. V. Harris (ed.), Rethinking
Mediterranean, Oxford 2005, 141–166; S. Hotz, Ritual Traditions in the Discourse of the Imperial
Period, in E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Ritual and Communication in the Graeco-Roman World, Liège
2006, 283–296.
46

88

Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didyma
citizens nominated by the demes.48 The Milesian elites who served as prophetes took
pride in this role.49 Although it is implausible that a wide range of Milesians could
occupy the position, the election of the prophet and his operation of the oracle
evidently became one of the most important works of the city of Miletus. The
Milesian lineage of their mythological forerunner Branchus may have contributed tovalidating the authority of these newly established priests who were selected among
the local citizens.
Competition or communication with other sanctuaries may have influenced thefoundation myth of Didyma regarding its emphasis on the Delphic and Milesianorigins. Among others, a foundation legend of the sanctuary of Clarus also has aDelphian element blended with local factors. In this legend, Manto, the daughter ofTeiresias, once dedicated to Delphi as a first fruit, set out for Asia Minor at thebehest of an oracle and established an oracular shrine at Clarus. According to sometraditions, Manto married Clarus, an eponymous hero of the region, or Rhacius, theleader of the Colophonians.50 Theopompus seems to have narrated this version of themythical foundation of Clarus in the fourth century BCE. The foundation myth of thisneighboring rival oracular sanctuary, which seems to have spread already in theclassical period, presumably influenced the Milesians in the Hellenistic period, whowere creating the previously mentioned system of oracle and seeking to increase theauthority and sanctity of the reestablished oracular sanctuary in Didyma.
5. Minoan Didyma?51
Leandrius, a local historian in Hellenistic Miletus, also referred to a story
concerning Didyma. Although his work is now lost, Clement of Alexandria, an early48

Parke, Oracles (n.2), 41–42; Fontenrose, Didyma (n.9), 45–56. On the modern arguments about thetraditions concerning the Branchidae, see e.g., H. W. Parke, The Massacre of the Branchidae, JHS
105 (1985), 59–68; N. G. L. Hammond, The Branchidae at Didyma and in Sogdiana, CQ 48 (1998),
339–44; Ehrhardt, archaischer Zeit (n.3), 13–16; A. Herda, AD-AD (n.7), 21, nn.66–67. In any case,the reform of the mantic process after the 150-year interval must have been important for thecontemporary Milesians.
49
A. Busine, Oracles and Civic Identity in Roman Asia Minor, in R. Alston, O. van Nijf and C. G.
Williamson (eds.), Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age, Leuven
and Paris 2013, 175–196.
50
Theopom. FGrH 115 F346. On Manto and the foundation myths of Clarus, see M. B. Sakellariou,
La migration grecque en Ionie, Athens 1958 (La migration), 164–166; Parke, Oracle (n.2), 112–
113; N. MacSweeney, Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia, Cambridge 2013, 104–122.
51
I have partly discussed this section in my previous paper, N. Sato, Milesian Foundation Myths andDidyma, Journal of Classical Studies 61 (2013) 12–23 [in Japanese with English summary]. To
avoid confusion, I use “Miletus” as the name of the city and “Miletos” as the name of the hero.

89

JASCA 5 (2023)
Christian philosopher, cited a passage from his book, in which he stated, “Cleochus
was buried in the Didymaeum, in Miletus.” Cleochus is the grandfather of Miletos,
one of the major founding heroes of Miletus. According to Pausanias, well before“the Ionian migration” led by Neileus,52 the city of Miletus was founded by Miletos,
who had fled from Crete.53 Other classical or Hellenistic authors, as we will discuss,
also name Miletos as an ancient Milesian founding hero. Thus, Leandrius tells thatthe grandfather of the founding hero was buried in the most important suburban
sanctuary of the city.
The traditions concerning Miletos and Cleochus possibly date back to at least
the classical period. The scholion on Apollonius of Rhodes relates that Miletos wasabandoned by his mother as a baby but was saved by his grandfather, Cleochus, andlater fled from Minos to Samos and then to Caria, where he founded Miletus.54 This
information is from Aristocritus, possibly a Milesian, who wrote Milesiaca during
the Hellenistic period.55 Moreover, the scholiast says that this story of Cleochus andMiletos is also “testified” by Herodorus, a mythographer in Heraclea at Pontus in thefifth century BCE.56
However, no sources before Leandrius even suggest the burial of the founding
hero’s family in this most important sanctuary, although the sanctuary itself was
already well known in the Archaic period. In the ancient Greek world, the burial of a52

Hdt. 1.146, 9.97; Paus. 7.2.6. On Ionian migration myths, see e.g., Sakellariou, La migration (n.50),
passim, esp. 39–76, 331–336; G. L. Huxley, The Early Ionians, London 1966, 25–30; F. Prinz,
Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie, München 1979 (Gründungsmythen), 314–376; Gorman,
Miletos (n.2), 31–43; A. Herda, Panionion-Melia, Mykalessos-Mykale, Perseus und Medusa, IstMitt
56 (2006), 43–102; J. Cobet, Das alte Ionien in der Geschichtsschreibung (Das alte Ionien), in J.
Cobet, W.-D. Niemeier und V. von Graeve (Hrsg.), Frühes Ionien, Mainz 2007 (Frühes Ionien),729–743. On the debate concerning the reality of Ionian migration, see e.g., J. Vanschoonwinkel,
Greek migrations to Aegean Anatolia in the Early Dark Age, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek
Colonisation, vol.1, Leiden 2006, 115–142; Cobet, Das alte Ionien (n.52); I. S. Lemos, The
Migrations to the West Coast of Asia Minor, in Cobet et al. (eds.), Frühes Ionien (n.52), 713–727.
On intermarriage between ancient Greek colonists and indigenous people, see J. M. Hall, Hellenicity,
Chicago 2002, 101–102; A. Herda, Karkiša-Karien und die sog. Ionische Migration, in F.
Rumscheid (Hrsg.), Die Karer und die Anderen, Bonn 2009 (Karkiša), 76. Some show a cautious
attitude toward intermarriage: e.g., Gorman, Miletos (n.2), 42–43; Greaves, Miletos (n.2), 27.
53
Ephorus BNJ (=FGrH) 70 F 127 tells that the Cretan founder of Miletus was not Miletos but
Sarpedon. Prinz, Gründungsmythen (n.52), 97–111, esp. 109–110 views the myth of Miletos as alater invention. See also the refutation by C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Hylas, the Nymphs, Dionysos andOthers, Stockholm 2005 (Hylas), 269–270, n.149.
54
Schol. Apollon. Rh. I, 186.
55
Aristocritus, FGrH 493 F 3; Sourvinou-Inwood, Hylas (n.53), 270, n.150.
56
Herodorus, BNJ 31 F 3 with F. Graf’s comment; Prinz, Gründungsmythen (n.52), 109–110, n.25;
Sourvinou-Inwood, Hylas (n.53), 269–270, n.149, n.151. See also Thomas, Polis Histories (n.1),
233–234.

90

Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didyma
founding hero or his family generally attracted intellectuals and many others, andcultic activities were often held at these burial places.57 Nevertheless, no evidence
before Leandrius even hints at Cleochus’s burial in Didyma. The so-called Molpoi
inscription lists a number of rituals and associated deities but—although it probably
dates back to the Archaic period—no mention or suggestion of Cleochus’s burial.58
The notion of the burial of the grandfather of the founding hero in this renownedsacred precinct is likely, therefore, to have been invented in the early Hellenistic
period or, if not created out of thin air, certainly given significantly more attention
than before.
The episode of the burial of the grandfather of the city’s founding hero allows
for the assumption that the sanctuary might date back to the Cretan/Minoan age. In
other words, for the Greeks in the Hellenistic period, the story could have suggested
that the sanctuary of Didyma had been closely related to Miletus since theCretan/Minoan period. On the one hand, archaeological studies certainly show thatthe sanctuary was continuously occupied, at least starting in the Bronze Age. On theother hand, no Greek or Minoan cultic activity in the Bronze Age has been explicitly
verified in Didyma.59 The tradition concerning Cleochus’s burial in the Didymaeum
does not seem to reflect the reality of the Bronze Age but, more likely, thecontemporary Milesian attempts to enhance the authority of the sanctuary and todeepen their bond with their important extra-urban religious center by tracing it back57

On the tomb of Neileus, Paus. 7.2.6. On the recent research on the cults of the founders of the
Greek colonies, see e.g., I. Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece, Leiden 1987.
58
Gorman, Miletos (n.2), 176–186; Herda, Neujahrsprozession (n.6). Herda in his book (305–310)
argues that ΕΝΚΕΛΑΔΟ in lines 29–30 means “at the sanctuary of Kelados” and identifies the deity
as a son of Miletos mentioned at Schol. Dion. Perieg. 825. Even if the phrase in the Molpoi
inscription refers to the god Kelados, as Herda argues, the god may originally have been a river god
in the Archaic period and its association with Miletos may have been invented much later.
59
Archaeological research has shown the prosperity of Miletus in the Bronze Age. See e.g., Greaves,
Miletos (n.2), 39–73; W.-D. Niemeier, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Hittites and Ionians in Western Asia
Minor, in A. Villing (ed.), The Greeks in the East, London 2005, 1–36; Id., Milet von den Anfängen
menschlicher Besiedlung bis zur Ionischen Wanderung, in Cobet et al. (eds.), Frühes Ionien (n.52),
3–19. Didyma was also prosperous in the Bronze Age, but no explicit cultic activity in Didyma in
the Bronze Age has been confirmed. A late-Minoan shard was found in Didyma but was probably
from a stratum of the middle of the seventh to the beginning of the sixth century BCE. See T. G.
Schattner, Didyma, ein minoisch-mykenischer Fundplatz? AA 1992, 369–372; Greaves, Miletos(n.1), 109–111; A. Slawisch, Didyma: Untersuchungen zur sakralen Topographie und baulichen
Entwicklung des Kernheiligtums vom 8.-4.Jh. v. Chr., in I. Gerlach und D. Raue (Hrgs.), Sanktuar
und Ritual: Heilige Plätze im archäologischen Befund, Rahden-Westf 2013, 53–60. The origin of
the sanctuary is possibly Carian (Herda, AD-AD (n.7), 20–22; Id., Karkiša (n.52), 87–88, 96–101).

91

JASCA 5 (2023)
to the Cretan/Minoan period, the very beginning of Milesian mythical foundation
history.
Again, the emulation of or communication with other city-states, especially with
Clarus, may have influenced the mythical narrative connecting the Didymaeum with
the Cretan founding hero. The rival oracular sanctuary had also claimed a pre-Ionian
Greek origin. According to Pausanias, the Colophonians believed that the first
Greeks to arrive in the region around Clarus were the Cretan Rhacius and hiscolleagues (7.3.1–2), and that their leader married Manto, the daughter of Teiresias,
who arrived there later, in accordance with a Delphic oracle (9.33.2). The Ionians
later arrived at Colophon and inherited the state from their Cretan predecessors(7.3.2–3). An Archaic poet refers to Rhacius in the context of the foundation of
Clarus, although he is described as Mycenaean rather than Cretan (Epigonoi F3).
Although how these Clarian myths may have shaped the Didymaean myths remains
unclear, the Milesians seem to have attempted to emulate Clarus by devising or byfocusing on a pre-Ionian Greek origin for their oracular sanctuary, linking it to theremote past and emphasizing the strong, ancient ties between the holy place and thecity.
6. The Didymea and the Divine Couple
Another example suggests that diplomatic affairs exerted an influence on the
mythography surrounding Didyma and that assemblies of the people were important
forums for spreading the mythical narratives developed in accordance with
contemporary interests. Around 210 BCE, in keeping with the oracles, the Milesians
decided to enlarge the Didymean festival into a quadrennial pan-Hellenic festival
and then sent an emissary to many cities to invite them to the festival. The decree
also states that not a few ethnes and kings, that is, Hellenistic rulers, alreadyproclaimed the asylia of Miletus and its territory, obviously including Didyma, due
to Apollo’s oracles and to the intercourse of Zeus and Leto that occurred at Didyma(διὰ τὴν ἐν τῶιδε τῶι τόπωι Λητοῦς καὶ Διὸς μεῖξιν).60
The origin of the myth of the divine meixis is uncertain.61 Leto was presumably
worshiped in connection with Apollo in Didyma, as well as his twin goddess,
60

Milet VI, 3 1052 = Syll.3 590 = IG XII, 4 1, 153, 154. See also Günther, Orakel (n.21), 100–107; K.
J. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley 1996 (Asylia), 172–
176; Id., Cos and the Milesian Didymeia, ZPE 175 (2010), 155–157.
61
Park, Oracle (n.2), 59–60 assumes that the Hellenistic Milesians fabricated the myth of the meixis
between Zeus and Leto at Didyma. This assumption seems possible, at least to me, but it remains

92Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didyma
Artemis, from an earlier period. An Archaic oracular bone tablet from Olbia, a
Milesian colony on the Black Sea coast, contains the goddess’s name and the name
Apollo Didymeus Milesius, which suggests that Leto was also worshiped in themother city.62 Although the presence of Zeus in Archaic Didyma is not clear,63 themyth of the divine sexual relations that occurred in this sanctuary may also dateback to the Archaic period, as some scholars have assumed. By contrast, however,nothing before this decree explicitly indicates that Zeus and Leto had sexual
relations in Didyma. Thus, the Milesians in the Hellenistic period possibly paid
much more attention to this mythical episode than they had previously, when they
discussed it among themselves in the assembly64 and negotiated with other cities,
ethnes, and kings concerning the asylia of the Milesian territory and the festival of
Didymea. The Milesians presumably sought to elevate the prestige and sanctity ofthe sanctuary of Didyma by referring to the meixis myth to persuade other cities andHellenistic kings of the sacredness of this sanctuary. In addition, the recognition ofasylia by these kings and other cities must have raised the Milesians’ confidence inthe myth of the divine sexual relations, which is suggested by the reference to thesame episode again in the decree to invite Greek cities to the Didymean festival.
speculation. Günther argues that it may have originated in the Archaic period (Orakel (n.21), 104–
107). See also Herda, Neujahrsprozession (n.6), 320. The evidence that Günther provided doessuggest the presence of Leto and Zeus in the Archaic Didyma, but it does not necessarily prove theArchaic origin of the myth of their meixis.
62
SEG 36.694; W. Burkert, Olbia and Apollo of Didyma, in J. Solomon (ed.), Apollo: Origins andInfluences, Tucson and London 1994, 49–60; L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia
du Pont, Genf 1996, 146–154; Herda, Neujahrsprozession (n.6), 320–321, n.2290; id., AD-AD (n.7),
23–25, 34; B. Bravo, Una tavoletta d’osso da Olbia Pontica della seconda metà del VI secolo a. C.
(SEG XXXVI, 694), ZPE 176 (2010), 99–119.
63
Günther and Fontenrose discuss the presence of Leto and Zeus in Didyma beginning in the Archaic
period based on archeological findings (Günther, Orakel (n.21), 106–107; Fontenrose, Didyma (n.9),
134). Günther argues that Callimachus fr. 229.1 (Δαίμονες εὐυμνότατοι, Φοῖβέ τε και Ζεῦ, Διδύμων
γενάρχαι) suggests that the myth of the meixis between Zeus and Leto originated in the Archaic
period (Orakel (n.21), 104). Herda, AD-AD (n.7), 241–215 assumes that the same fragment
suggests that Zeus was worshiped in Archaic Didyma. However, the fragment of the Hellenistic poet
does not necessarily prove the cult of Zeus in Archaic Didyma.
64
The Milesian decree regarding the Didymea (Milet VI, 3 1052) was passed at the council and theassembly around 210 BCE. Miletus seems to have retained its democratic constitution in the latter
half of the third century BCE after Antiochus II had liberated it from a short-lived tyranny under
Timarchus, an Aetolian, and granted the city freedom and democracy in 259/8 BCE. I.Didyma 358;
App. Syr. 65. See also Günther, Orakel (n.21), 54–55; Rigsby, Asylia (n.60), 173; Hölbl, Ptolemaic
Empire (n.35), 44; V. Grieb, Hellenistische Demokratie: Politische Organisation und Struktur infreien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Groβen, Stuttgart 2008, 238–251; S. Carlsson,
Hellenistic Democracies: Freedom, Independence and Political Procedures in Some East Greek
City-States, Stuttgart 2010, 249–250.

93

JASCA 5 (2023)
Presumably, through diplomatic negotiations, the myth of the meixis of Zeus andLeto in Didyma was officially established in Miletus and spread among the people
around the city.
A desire to emulate other cities may have also motivated the Milesians toheighten their consciousness of the union of the divine couple. The existence ofother famous Apolline sanctuaries, such as that at Delos, may have inspired theMilesians to pay attention to the parents of Apollo. As Park speculates, their union at
Didyma means that Apollo was conceived at Didyma, and this myth may have beena good one for promoting the sanctuary of Didyma because Delos had long reputed
their legendary claim of being Apollo’s birthplace. 65 Additionally, however, rivalpoleis in Asia Minor may have influenced the Milesians’ claims. Ephesus, one of themost influential Ionian cities, claimed that Leto gave birth to Artemis, Apollo’s twinsister, on the island of Ortygia, near Ephesus. The story must have been well known
to the local people since the third quarter of the fourth century BCE at the latest,when Scopas was working on a group of statues, including Leto and Ortygia with achild in each arm.66 Moreover, after an epiphany regarding Artemis in 221 BCE, thecitizens of Magnesia on the Maeander, a competitive rival of Miletus, seem to havestarted a project to create a new crowned festival in honor of Artemis Leucophryene,in accordance with a Delphic oracle.67 The Milesians probably emulated their rivals
not only by making their festival one of “crowned” games but also by emphasizing
the connection between their sactuary and the twin gods Artemis and Apollo, andtheir parents Zeus and Leto, which was probably an attempt to raise the status of
their sacred precinct over that of their rivals.
7. Milesian Colonies and Apollo Didymeus
Milesian diplomacy with other Greek city-states in the Hellenistic period also
made the Milesians and other related peoples conscious of their histories of65

Parke, Oracle (n.2), 59–60. However, see above nn.61 and 63. There is no need to assume that theMilesians fabricated the myth of the meixis in the Hellenistic period. They may have emphasized amythical episode that had already been available to them.
66
Strabo 14.1.20; G.M Rogers, The Mysteries of Artemis of Ephesos, New Haven and London 2012,38.
67
On the recent debate concerning the Leucophryena, see Rigsby, Asylia (n.60), 179–279; G. Sumi,
Civic Self-Representation in the Hellenistic World: The Festival of Artemis Leukophryene, in
Magnesia-on-the-Maeander, in S. Bell and G. Davies (eds.), Games and Festivals in Classical
Antiquity, Oxford 2004, 79–92; W. J. Slater, D. Summa, Crowns at Magnesia, GRBS 46 (2006),
275–299; P. Thonemann, Magnesia and the Greeks of Asia (I. Magnesia 16.16), GRBS 47 (2007),
151–160; J. D. Sosin, Magnesian Inviolability, TAPA 139 (2009), 369–410.

94

Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didyma
colonization and of Apollo Didymeus.68 In the 330s and 320s, Miletus concluded
isopoliteia treaties with Cyzicus and Olbia, Milesian colonies. “Histories” ofcolonization plausibly played an important role in their negotiations and speeches at
the Milesian council and assembly. The phrase “κατὰ τὰ πάτρια” mentioned in theinscriptions of these treaties suggests that they decided to follow their traditional orancestral arrangements, which may date back to the period of their colonization.69
These treaties may have encouraged the Milesians to think of Apollo Didymeus,
whose involvement in Milesian colonization is suggested at least by an Archaic bonetablet from Olbia.70
Around 220 BCE, Miletus passed a decree concerning isopoliteia with Cius,
another Milesian colony on Propontis in Mysia.71 In the inscription, the relationshipbetween “the founder (κτίστης)” and “its colonists (ἄποικοι)” is explicitly stated as areason for the Milesians to treat the Cians with generosity; its mention must reflect
the sentiments of the speeches delivered in the assembly. The Milesians in theassembly were presumably aware not only of their status as colonizers in the
Archaic period but also of Apollo Didymeus as the most important deity related to it,
for the Cians sought the benevolence of the Milesians because they failed to fulfill
their obligation of dedicating a phiale as a first fruit to the deity.72
In 219/8 BCE, Miletus and Tralles/Seleucia-at-Maeander concluded a treaty to
grant each other potential citizenship. 73 Although, according to a tradition,
Tralles/Seleucia was founded by the Argives and a Thracian tribe named Tralles, the68

On Milesian diplomatic policies, see J. LaBuff, Polis Expansion and Elite Power in Hellenistic
Karia, New York 2016, 47; S. Saba, Isopoliteia in Hellenistic Times, Leiden and Boston 2020
(Isopoliteia), esp. 35–83.
69
Olbia: Milet I 3, 136; Saba, Isopoliteia (n.68), 37–44. On this inscription, see also V. Gorman,
Milesian Decrees of Isopoliteia and the Refoundation of the City, ca. 479 BCE, in B. Gorman and E.
Robinson (eds.), Oikistes. Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in the AncientWorld. Offered in Honor of A. J. Graham, Leiden 2002, 181–193. Cyzicus: Milet I 3, 137; Saba,
Isopoliteia (n.68), 45–48. On recent discussion about syngeneia, see e.g., O. Curty, Les parentés
légendaires entre cités grecques, Paris 1995 (parentés), esp. 224–241; Id., La parenté légendaire àl’époque hellénistique, Kernos 12 (1999), 167–194; Id., Un usage fort controversé: la parenté dansle langage diplomatique de l’époque hellénistique, Anc.Soc. 35 (2005), 101–107; S. Lücke,Syngeneia, Frankfurt 2000; A. Erskine, O brother where art thou? Tales of kinship and diplomacy,in D. Ogden (ed.), The Hellenistic World, London and Swansea 2002, 97–117.
70
SEG 36.694. See above n.61.
71
Milet I 3, 141; Saba, Isopoliteia (n.68), 52–58. On Milesian foundation of Cius, see Ehrhardt,
Kolonien (n.39), 47–48.
72
On the interpretation of this decree, see A. Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World, Oxford 2005,
122; Ehrhardt, Kolonien (n.39), 235; Sabe, Isopoliteia (n.68), 52–58.
73
Milet I 3, 143; Curty, parentés (n.69), 136–138; Saba, Isopoliteia (n.68), 9–15, 58–63.

95

JASCA 5 (2023)
representative of that city referred to their ancestral syngeneia relationship with theMilesians and to Apollo Didymeus’s crucial role in the establishment of theirrelationship (l.4: [διὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ] συγγένε̣ι̣αν̣ ; ll.8–9: τὸν Ἀπόλλω τὸν Διδυμῆ,εἰς ὃν ἀναφέ[ρουσιν καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴ]ν̣ τῆς πρὸς τὴμ πόλιν συγγενείας).74 Whatever thesyngeneia in this case meant exactly to the Milesians and the Tralleians/Seleucians,
they clearly emphasized their past concerning their close relationship that originatedfrom the deity, possibly a (fabricated) story of Milesian colonization, in the courseof the negotiation at least at the assembly in Miletus. Notably, not only the Milesians
but also the Tralleians/Seleucians resorted to the Milesian colonial past and Apollo
Didymeus’s crucial role, at least to some extent, to reach their mutual agreement.
Certainly, as Saba points out, Apollo Didymeus is emphasized only in the Milesian
decree. Therefore, the past concerning the syngeneia that originated from the deity
was more important for the Milesians.75 However, it was the representatives of the
Tralleians/Seleucians who referred to their syngeneia and the importance of Apollo
Didymeus at the Milesian assembly. The wording incised on the inscription reflect
the Milesian intentions, but it is hard to believe that the Milesians made up theTralleian/Selucian ambassadors’ speech.
In the second century BCE, Apollonia-at-Rhyndacus sent envoys to Miletus tonegotiate the renewal of their relationship, presumably on Apollonia’s initiative.76
The inscription of the Apollonian decree relates that when their representatives
arrived at Miletus to renew their relationship that had originated from the Milesiancolonization (περὶ τοῦ ἀνανεώσασθαι τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν πρὸς αὐτὸν τῶι δήμωι ἡμῶνδιὰ τὴν ἀποικίαν συγγένειαν), the Milesians investigated histories and otherdocuments (ἐπισκεψάμενοι τὰς περὶ τούτων ἱστορίας καὶ τἆλλα ἔγγραφα). As aresult, the Milesians agreed to renew their relationship because their ancestors in the
Archaic period, led by Apollo Didymeus, had founded various colonies, including
Apollonia-at-Rhyndacus.77

74

Strabo 14.1.42.
Saba, Isopoliteia (n.68), 63.
76
Milet I 3, 155; Curty, parentés (n.69), 143–145; Herda, AD-AD (n.7), 26–27; Saba, Isopoliteia(n.68), 81–82.
77
καθ’ οὓς καιροὺς ἐκπέμψαντες στράτευμα καὶ εἰς τοὺς [κ]ατὰ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον καὶ τὴνΠροποντίδα τόπους κρατήσαντες δόρατ(ι) τῶν ἐνοικούντων βαρβάρων κατώ(ι)κισαν τάς τε ἄλλας
Ἑλληνίδας πόλεις καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν καθηγησαμένου τῆς στρατείας Ἀπόλλωνος Διδυμέως·7596Noboru Sato: Hellenistic Didyma
Apollonia is generally agreed to have been a type of “Milesian” colony,possibly one founded by another Milesian colony, Cyzicus.78 Therefore, the story of
the Milesian colonization of Apollonia cannot be wholly fabricated. Nevertheless,before accepting the Apollonian ambassadors’ explanation, the Milesians in thesecond century BCE found it necessary to make a careful examination of history. The
Milesians presumably either rediscovered a forgotten historical episode or newly
learned about an ancient event unknown to them through the Apollonian envoys’
speeches. Having examined the historiography and other documents, the Milesians
accepted the Apollonian version of the history of their colonization and officiallyadded a “new” episode to their history at the council and assembly. Before they
dispatched envoys, the Apollonians had also discussed their Milesian origin and theimportance of Apollo Didymeus at the council and assembly at home. After theenvoys returned, the Apollonian citizens debated again the same matter at theirassembly and passed a decree in accordance with the Milesian response. The
reference to the Milesian investigation of histories and other documents in the
Apollonian decree may suggest that the Milesian answer encouraged theApollonians to convince themselves of their ancestral connection with the Milesians.
These last two examples in particular illustrate that the Hellenistic Milesians
obviously thought of Apollo Didymeus as having been deeply involved in theirArchaic colonizing activities and that not only the Milesians but also foreigners wereconscious of Miletus’s past and helped shape contemporary beliefs about it throughtheir claims in diplomatic negotiations.
The ambassadors’ speeches and the discussions that followed at the assemblymust have increased the Milesian citizens’ consciousness of their past concerning
colonization and encouraged them to build an identity as a “mother city” responsible
for numerous Greek colonies. In the Hellenistic period, the Milesian past that
focused on colonization and Apollo Didymeus was repeatedly reconstructed throughtheir interactions with other Greek city-states and circulated widely among the78

On the history of Apollonia-at-Rhyndacus, see Ehrhardt, Kolonien (n.39), 44–47; A. Abmeier, Zur
Geschichte von Apollonia am Rhyndakos, in E. Schwertheim (Hrsg.), Mysische Studien (Asia Minor
Studien 1), Bonn 1990, 1–16. While Apollonia is now generally agreed upon as a Milesian colony,scholars have debated in what sense Apollonia-at-Rhyndacus was a Milesian colony. Ehrhardt holds
that it was founded by Cyzicus, another Milesian colony (47). Abmeier argues that Apollonia had
been founded by the Attalids between 183 and 150 BCE and that its Milesian origin may have been
based on another nearby Milesian site, such as Miletouteichus (Μιλητουτεῖχος). (6–16). P.
Herrmann (ed.), Inschriften von Milet, VI, 1, Berlin 1997, 193–194 and Saba, Isopoliteia (n.68), 81–
82, n.137 conveniently summarizes this debate.

97

JASCA 5 (2023)
citizens. These stories are probably the reason why Milesians in the second century
CE used “the mother city of many large cities in the Euxine, Egypt and all over the
Oikoumene” as well as “the first city of the Ionians” as the titles of their city.79
Conclusion
The restoration of the Didymaean oracle and the reconstruction of the Templeof Apollo Didymeus in the late classical and early Hellenistic periods increased theMilesian consciousness of the sanctuary’s past. The mythical and historicalnarratives concerning Didyma that circulated in this period reflected contemporary
Milesian interests: the myths served to validate the current oracular operation in
Didyma by elected Milesian citizens and to enhance their pride and their facilitationof diplomatic action by tracing back its history to the mythical past or by connecting
its origin with Delphi. While it is unlikely that these myths were all fabricated in thisperiod, presumably, some episodes were changed or even created, and others gained
more attention than before, enhancing the authority and sanctity of Didyma.
Moreover, the mythical and historical past of the sanctuary functioned not only to
distinguish the Milesians from others but also to link them with Hellenistic kingsand other Greek city-states. Through diplomatic negotiation, the Milesians, as wellas other cities and monarchs, shaped, sometimes concocted, and shared the past
concerning Miletus and the Didymaeum. The Hellenistic Milesians and theircontemporaries related to the city were actively committed to shaping and spreading
the mythical/historical narratives on Didyma for the needs of the present.

Kobe University
nsato@lit.kobe-u.ac.jp

79

Milet VI, 3 1111 (= CIG 2878, 195AD), 1140 (177–193AD), 1184–1202. On the competition overtitles among Asiatic Greek cities in the Roman period, J. H. M. Strubbe, Gründer kleinasiatischer
Städte. Fiktion und Realität, Anc.Soc. 15–17 (1984–86), 253–304; B. Puech, Des cités-mères auxmétropoles, in S. Follet (ed.), L’hellénisme d’époque romaine: nouveaux documents, nouvelles
approches, Paris 2004, 357–404.

98