A Stroll along the Sea: The Processional Way in Ephesus and the Littoral

Citation with persistent identifier:

Feuser, Stefan. “A Stroll along the Sea: The Processional Way in Ephesus and the Littoral.” CHS Research Bulletin 3, no. 1 (2014). http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc.essay:FeuserS.A_Stroll_along_the_Sea.2014

1§1 Port cities played an essential role in the history of the ancient Mediterranean[1]. Due to their location they were the transition point for traffic between land and sea. It was here where the stream of goods, people and ideas was constricted. The geographer Alois Burghardt calls ancient port cities gateway cities, which he defines as “an entrance into (and necessary and exit out of) some area”[2]. Gateway cities develop preferably in the contact zones between areas of different economic intensity, different types of production or significantly differing geographical and/or physical conditions.[3] This character as a gateway city leads on the one hand to a specific economy in a port city as a place of increased trade and movement of goods. On the other hand, the special function develops a unique culture due to the constant exchange of people and ideas within its borders as well as the increased presence of foreigners. As the harbor is one of the most important entrances into a city it is also the scene of representations of the community and its elites. But how, for example, are these functions represented in the spatial layout of an ancient port city? How are the economic importance and the unique culture expressed in the material record? What was the significance of a harbor for the prosperity of an ancient city?

1§2 We are far from answering these questions and from understanding the spatial, functional, economic, as well as social and cultural relevance of ancient port cities. Most essential for the understanding of this phenomenon are studies that not only focus on the technical installations of harbors and ports but also illuminate the spatial and economic development of port cities and their social life. For the most part, these studies are still a desideratum. With this paper concentrated on the city of Ephesus – located on the western shore of Asia Minor – I want to take a closer look at one of the key elements of its civic life: the procession of the Ephesian Artemis. As rituals and processions were constitutive parts of both the urban space and the urban society my key question is how these festivals were related to the littoral[4] and maritime respectively, to the harbor and the sea. Was the ritual shaped or in one way or other influenced by the spatial and functional status of Ephesus as one of the major harbor cities in the Mediterranean? Can we find rites connected to the maritime or littoral in those processions?

1§3 Despite the great importance of the goddess to the city, only a few references have survived about the course, organization, and participants of the processions for the Ephesian Artemis. Hence, not even the precise course of the procession is reconstructed with certainty so far[5]. Nevertheless, on the ground of the given sources, the latest geoarchaeological research and a comparison of the situation in Ephesus with religious festivals better illuminated, I demonstrate that the procession of the Ephesian Artemis was in close spatial relation with the sea in Archaic and Classical times, only changing with the foundation of the Hellenistic city. Most probably this relationship was not only spatial but also functional, as the cult idol might have been cleansed at the sea shore in the course of one of these processions.

The Salutaris dedication

2§1 The most comprehensive account on the procession of the Ephesian Artemis is revealed in the inscription of the so-called Salutaris dedication[6]. This inscription meticulously documents a donation by the Roman equestrian C. Vibius Salutaris to Ephesus in AD 104. AD. It was inscribed on the marble wall of the southern parodos wall of the theater from which 568 lines survived. A second version of the inscription was meant to be placed in the Artemision; however, it has not been preserved. The dedication of Salutaris was twofold: On the one hand it comprised a certain amount of money that should be distributed to various civic and religious bodies in the temple of Artemis during the annual celebration of the goddess´ birthday. On the other hand, Salutaris dedicated 29 statues of Artemis, Roman Emperors and Ephesian tribes and institutions to be carried in a procession on days such as the regular assembly meetings, during the gymnastic games or other festivals[7]. Guy MacLean Rogers estimates that this procession might have taken place as frequently as once a fortnight[8], thus was an important element of the urban landscape of Ephesus.

2§2 The inscription explicitly outlined the route of this procession, thus giving us the most comprehensive account of one of the processions for the Artemis of Ephesus. Before plotting this route on the city plan of Ephesus as far as we know it from the current excavations I first extract the information on the procession way from the lines 48-52 and 419-425 of the inscription[9]:

[— ὑπὸ τῶν φυλάκων, συνεπιμελουμένων καὶ] δύ̣ο νε̣[οποι]-

ῶν̣ [καὶ σκηπτούχου, φέρηται καὶ] α̣ὖ̣ φ̣[έρη]τ̣αι, διαδ[εχομέ]-

50        νων [καὶ συμπροπεμπόντων τῶν] ἐ̣φή[β]ων̣ [ἀ]πὸ τῆς̣ [Μαγνη]-

τικῆς [πύλης εἰς τὸ θέατρον κα]ὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ θε̣[άτρου κατὰ]

τὸν αὐ[τὸν τρόπον,]

… by the guards, and two neopoioi as well as the beadle attending, to be brought and brought back, the ephebes receiving and escorting from the Magnesian Gate into the theatre, and from the theatre in the same manner…


ὅπως ἐξῇ τοῖς χρυσο-

420      φ[οροῦσιν τῇ θεῷ φέρειν εἰς τὰς] ἐκκλησίας καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας

τὰ ἀπεικ[ον]ίσματα καὶ <τὰς> εἰκόνας τὰ καθιε̣ρωμέν[α ὑπὸ Γαΐο]υ

Οὐειβίου Σαλουταρίου ἐκ τοῦ προνάου τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος̣, συν-

επιμελουμένων καὶ τῶν νεοποιῶν, συνπαραλαμβανόντων καί τῶν

ἐφήβω<ν> ἀπὸ τῆς Μαγνητικῆς πύλης καὶ συμπροπενπόντων

425      μέχρι τῆς Κορησσικῆς πύλης.


2§3 It may be permitted to the gold-bearers for the goddess to bring into the assembly and the contests the type-statues and the images dedicated by Caius Vibius Salutaris from the pronaos of Artemis, the neopoioi sharing in care, the ephebes sharing in receiving them from the Magnesian Gate and escorting the procession as far as the Koressian Gate.

2§4 The focal spatial points mentioned in the inscription are the pronaos of the temple in the sanctuary of Artemis, the Magnesian Gate, the theater and the Koressian Gate. The neopoioi, who were responsible for the maintenance of the buildings in the sanctuary and the oversight of the temple’s income from its estates[10], picked up the statues at the Artemision, from where they carried them to the Magnesian Gate. At the Magnesian Gate the ephebes took over the statuaries and carried them to the theater where they were placed on their bases. Twelve bases associated with the Salutaris dedication survived in the debris of the theater[11]. As soon as the assembly or the festival was over, the statues were brought by the ephebes to the Koressian Gate, whence the neopoioi carried them back to the Artemision[12].

2§5 Of these four places mentioned in the inscription, three have been located with certainty: the Artemision, the Magnesian Gate and the theater; the location of the Koressian Gate, however, is still in debate (Figure 1)[13]. The Artemision was one of the monuments excavated first by John Turtle Woods in 1869 and has been subsequently studied by Austrian archaeologists[14]. It is located approximately 1.5 kilometers to the east of the Hellenistic and Roman city next to a rocky hill called Ayasoluk. From there the procession led to the foot of the Panayırdağ which it circled clockwise to reach the Magnesian Gate, which is located in a valley between the Bülbüldağ and Panayırdağ in the southeast of Ephesus. While the Magnesian Gate was also excavated late in the nineteenth century, recent research has revealed a more thorough understanding of its building history[15]. In its inner court the ephebes received the type-statues and images from the neopoioi and carried them through the city. From there the procession walked along the so-called Magnesian Street, passed over or along the so-called Upper Agora and proceeded down the Embolos to the lower parts of the city. It was here that the procession walked along the important administrative buildings of the city, honorary and grave monuments and lavishly embellished private houses[16]. After crossing the Lower Agora[17] — presumably the commercial center of Ephesus — the procession reached the theater, where the type-statues and images were presented during assemblies. The completely excavated theater was built along the western slope of the Panayırdağ and is one of the tourist attractions of the modern site due to its state of preservation[18]. From there the procession walked along the so-called Marble Street, turned eastwards immediately north of the stadium and reached the Koressian Gate, which was supposedly located north of the Panayırdağ, although it has not yet been excavated. There the ephebes gave back the type-statues and images to the care of the neopoioi, who guarded their way back to the pronaos of the temple of Artemis. In the early third century AD, the sophist Flavius Damianus financed a stoa built over the path of the processional way from the Artemision to the gates of the city so that pilgrims could reach the temple even on rainy days when floods may have occurred[19].

Figure 1. Plan of the city of Ephesus in the 2nd century AD with the route of the procession as outlined in the Salutaris dedication

2§6 The procession route of the Salutaris dedication had no relationship to the sea or the harbor whatsoever. From the Artemision to the city and on its way back it led through flat ground and crossed two small rivers. Half of its path, however, was shaped by the places and buildings of Ephesus. Its focal points were the two most important city gates and the theater and it passed by important buildings and monuments of the city. Only when walking down the Embolos could the members of the procession get a glimpse of the harbor and the sea in the background. Thus, the location of Ephesus at the seashore and its function as the most important harbor in the west of Asia Minor, as well as one of the busiest ports in the Mediterranean, were not mirrored in the main procession of Ephesus known from the Salutaris dedication. However, the impression of a terrestrial and landlocked procession mainly originates from looking only at the festivity in Roman Imperial times. For broadening the perspective and analyzing the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic route of the procession one first has to take into account the radical change of the maritime and fluvial landscapes in the Bay of Ephesus caused by the alluvial deposits of the river Kaystros.

The changing landscape in the bay of Ephesus

3§1 The progressive sedimentation of the river Kaystros since the maximum incursion of the sea between 5000 and 3000 BC profoundly altered the maritime topography of Ephesus and the adjacent bay[20] (Figure 2). In the Chalcolithic period a bay, originally 18 kilometers deep, was located in what is now known as the valley of the Küçük Menderes. Gradually the alluvium of the river filled it in. In the early Hellenistic period the Kaystros / Küçük Menderes already reached the sea north of Ayasoluk hill and the Artemision, thus, the former island of Syrie / Korudağ was tied to the land. Due to the rapid sedimentation processes, the settlement of Ephesus was reestablished under Lysimachos in the early third century BC at the hills of Bülbüldağ and Panayırdağ approximately two kilometers to the west of the Artemision and the old settlement, where a wide, sheltered bay was to be found. The slopes of the two hills offered narrow, flood-free land in the lower city of Ephesus[21], whereas the upper area of the new city was built on higher ground. Thus the sheltered bay offered favorable conditions for the anchoring and landing of ships. The vast flat plateau of the upper town between the two hills of the city provided favorable settlement conditions[22].

Figure 2. The reconstruction of the shoreline in the bay of Ephesus based on the recent geoarchaeological research

3§2 Crucial for the further development of the maritime topography of Ephesus was the accelerated sedimentation due to the alluvial deposits of the Kaystros from the Hellenistic period onwards, which related to a successive shifting of the coastline further to the west. Whereas in the first century BC the coastline was located north of the Panayırdağ, in the first century AD it was by then already about 1.5 kilometers further west. Thus, in Roman Imperial times the very flat delta of the river Kaystros — a swampy area with several arms of the river and river banks — filled the former embayment to the north of the Panayırdağ. By the end of the first century AD, the harbor in the lower city of Ephesus with its formerly wide bay was increasingly silting up. To cope with this situation a new harbor was built approximately. 250 meters to the west of the old one and the marshy area in between was artificially consolidated. On this newly gained land major building projects such as the so-called harbor baths, a columned road and the Olympieion were built. The Late Roman/Early Byzantine coastline was already located two to three kilometers to the west of the city, so that the port had to be connected to the open sea via a channel. Thus, both the narrow opening between the harbor and the open sea and the non-existent exchange of water lead to a constant siltation problem in the basin. As a result, by the early Byzantine period the city harbor of Ephesus was abandoned in favor of a bay in the area today known as Çanakgöl[23]. This bay was located about 3.5 kilometers to the west of the city; the geoarchaeological data reveal that it was in use until at least the sixteenth century. Thus, the alluvial deposits of the Kaystros changed the littoral city of Hellenistic Ephesus into a terrestrial, landlocked settlement from at least the second century AD onwards.

The procession in Archaic and Classical times

4§1 Processions from the Archaic and Classical settlement to the Artemision and further around the Panayırdağ had already been held before the establishment of the Hellenistic-Roman city. By then the city of Ephesus was located near the Artemision on the Ayasoluk and its slopes, which rose immediately at the seashore. Although there are no references in the written sources about the course of the procession, the existence of such a processional way is suggested by the Archaic and Classical pottery as well as by graves that have been found on the northern and southern lower slopes of the Panayırdağ as demonstrated by Michael Kerschner et al. (Figure 3). These graves did not belong to a settlement in this area, but resemble the course of the procession route[24]. A second hint for a pre-Hellenistic processional way is the winding course of the so-called Marble Street in the Hellenistic-Roman city (Figure 1), which is not aligned to the Hellenistic street grid[25], but resembles an older path. This path must have been of such a significance that it was incorporated into the street system of the new city without any alteration.

Figure 3.Find spots around Ephesus from Classical times
Figure 3. Find spots around Ephesus from Classical times

4§2 Assuming that the processions circled the Panayırdağ clockwise[26] since Archaic times, the pilgrims left the Artemision and the seashore in the direction of the Panayırdağ, traversing through a flat floodplain and passing three small rivers. They walked through the valley between the Panayırdağ and the Bülbüldağ which would later be known as the Upper City of the Hellenistic-Roman Ephesus. Following a steep gradient, the procession reached the seashore of the wide bay, turned to the north, and traversed on flood-free land along the sea around the northern and western slopes of the Panayırdağ back to the Artemision. The road or, rather, path of the procession might have been paved with small sections of stones and bricks. However, it had no further architectural setting[27] other than the graves excavated so far.

4§3 The Panayırdağ must have been a focal point of the procession, but the reason for circling it is not immediately evident. Along its lower northeastern ridge, a rock sanctuary was located for both the Anatolian goddess Kybele and Zeus, that is attested for the fifth century BC until Roman Imperial times, with most of its documented finds dated to the fourth and third centuries BC.[28]. Further ancient sanctuaries on top of the Panayırdağ are so far not verified. The sanctuary for Kybele and Zeus on the northeastern ridge of the hill seem not to have been the main reason why the procession circled the Panayırdağ, but the hill itself seems to have been an object of worship[29]. The ancient mount Pion known from inscriptions and literary sources is identified with the present-day Panayırdağ[30]. The personified Pion is depicted on coins of the second and third centuries AD and was carried in the procession of the Salutaris dedication as a statue[31]. One of the striking natural features seems to have been the mountain’s capacity to absorb even heavy rainfall in its many gullies and crevices without the rain causing any damage in the fields around[32]. This natural phaenomenon might not only have created curiosity in Roman Imperial times but also worship in earlier periods.

4§4 Not only the Panayırdağ but also the sea and the seashore were important elements of the processional way in Archaic and Classical times — in contrast to the procession of the second century AD. The pilgrims approached the sea from the valley between the Panayırdağ and the Bülbüldağ and proceeded along its shores. One wonders whether the sea was merely a picturesque setting as well as a “passive companion” or also a place for rituals along the processional route. One is reminded of ritual acts such as ablutions of the cult image, which is attested for the Athenian festival of Plynteria scheduled for the last month of the year. During this festival young girls and women from the dynasty of the Praxiergidai removed the decorations from the xoanon of Athena Polias, covered it and took it from its sanctuary on the Acropolis to the washing area – most probably located at the bay of Phaleron[33]. In a similar festival also know from Athens, ephebes took the Palladion — another image of Athena — once a year in a procession to the sea in order to wash it there and later returned it to its place in a court of justice[34]. In addition further ablution ceremonies at the seashore are known for cult images in Argos and Kos[35]. Furthermore, a month Πλυντηριών is known from the calendars of the cities Chios, Ios, Paros, and Thasos and might have been part of the so-called Ionian ancestral calendar according to Catherine Trümpy[36]. Therefore, cleansing festivals were not only celebrated in Athens but were also part of the religious calendar of cities on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. However, this does not necessarily mean that the cult images were brought to the sea for the ceremony but could also have been cleansed in the sanctuary.

4§5 In the Archaic and Classical period, the route taken by the procession of the Ephesian Artemis around the Panayırdağ was in close spatial relationship with the sea. Whether there also was a cultic relationship is impossible to determine with certainty on the basis of the sources. However, it seems reasonable to assume that there was a cleansing festival in the cult calendar of the Artemision — based on the month Πλυντηριών as reconstructed for the Ionian ancestral calendar — and that this cleansing might have taken place at the seashore.

The procession after the foundation of the Hellenistic Ephesus

5§1 In the beginning of the third century BC, Lysimachos relocated the city of Ephesus from the Ayasoluk to the hills Panayırdağ and Bülbüldağ and the adjacent bay. As the harbor at Old Ephesus was in danger of silting up, Lysimachos` aim was to establish a suitable anchorage for his new city. As a result of this relocation the city became part of the processional way. Evidence for the Artemis procession in the third century BC might be found in one of the Mimiambs of Herondas, where an image of a procession by the famous Greek painter Apelles is briefly described[37]. Also this image was positioned in a sanctuary of Asklepios on Kos. Dieter Knibbe and Gerhard Langmann assume that it was the same image about which Pliny the Elder notes that it shows a priest of Artemis during a procession[38]. As both passages convey nothing about the route taken by the procession we have to rely on the reconstructed path in Archaic and Classical times and the information given in the dedication of Salutaris.

5§2 Due to the heavy rebuilding in Roman Imperial times, the layout of the Hellenistic city is hard to determine. One of the first monuments erected were the city walls with their gates and towers[39]. However, neither the Koressian Gate nor the Magnesian Gate of the early third century BC as focal points of the procession have been located with certainty. The complex of the Magnesian Gate excavated in the late nineteenth century goes back only to the middle of the second century BC; the location of an earlier predecessor is unknown[40]. The theater as another focal point of the procession was built as early as the third century BC and might have been one of the first large-scale building projects of the new city[41].

5§3 The harbor of the newly established city of Ephesus was most probably located immediately west of the Panayırdağ; however, no remains of its maritime structures have been found so far. Under the walls of the so-called Lower Agora of Roman Imperial times, two adjacent market buildings have been detected dating to the middle of the third century BC[42]. Those complexes were part of the harbor of Ephesus and stood in the vicinity of the shore line. Thus, the procession of the Ephesian Artemis still ambulated in close spatial relationship to the sea, which by that time was converted into a harbor. This must have changed the character of the religious festival profoundly. The comparison to Athens indicates that cultic cleansings were possible in a harbor area such as the Phaleron and hence can also be assumed for Ephesus. However, the further rapid siltation processes in the Hellenistic period resulted in a relocation of the waterfront approximately 150 meters to the west. By that time the processional way had lost its former connection to the sea and perpetuated as a terrestrial, landlocked festival.


6§1 In the Archaic and Classical period the processional way of the Ephesian Artemis was closely related to the sea and its shoreline. Thus, it had a spatial littoral character. In one way or other those processions must have shaped the perception of the natural and religious landscapes around Ephesus. It is likely that the seashore was actually part of the religious landscape and itself held a cultic function as the place where the cult image was cleansed, although this cannot be proved with certainty.

6§2 After the relocation of Ephesus from the Ayasoluk near the Artemision to the hills Panayırdağ and Bülbüldağ, the setting as well as the character of the procession changed profoundly. By that time it did not extend from the sanctuary and the adjacent city through open landscape around a natural wonder anymore, but led from an extra-urban sanctuary to the center of a city and back. In Hellenistic times the processional route passed through the harbor area west of the Panayırdağ. No later than the Augustan period the urban layout of Ephesus had altered as the harbor had to be moved further westwards due to siltation processes in the bay. By then, the procession was completely incorporated into the built environment of the city which consisted of columned streets, peristyls, temples and honorary monuments. The close relationship between the processional way, the sea, and the Panayırdağ was lost entirely with the silting up of the bay and the establishment of the Hellenistic and Roman city. In the beginning of the third century AD, even the path from the sanctuary to the gates of Ephesus was covered with a stoa by the sophist Flavius Damianus, thus losing its former natural character.

6§3 As a result the most important procession in Ephesus had a decided spatial and functional littoral character in Archaic and Classical times. From Hellenistic times onwards this littoral character was gradually lost because of the relocation of the city and the constant siltation processes. By the time of Augustus, when Ephesus became one of the busiest harbor cities in the Mediterranean, the procession was a terrestrial, landlocked festival exhibiting no links to the spatial and functional significance of the city. Finally, where the cleansing of the cult image might have taken place in Roman Imperial times, is still unknown.


Agelidis, S. 2012. “Zur architektonischen Fassung von Prozessionswege.” In Manifestationen von Macht und Hierarchien in Stadtraum und Landschaft, Byzas 13, ed. F. Pirson, 81–98. Istanbul.

Brückner, H., et al. 2008. “Vom Meer umspült, vom Fluss begraben. Zur Paläogeographie des Artemisions.” Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis. Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums, ed. U. Muss, 21–31. Vienna.

Burghardt, A. F. 1971. “A Hypothesis about Gateway Cities.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 61:269–285.

Burkert, W. 1970. “Buzyge und Palladion: Gewalt und Gericht in altgriechischem Ritual.” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 22/4:356–368.

———. 2011. Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. 2nd edition. Stuttgart.

Deubner, L. 1932. Attische Feste. Berlin.

Engelmann, H. 1987. “Der Berg Pion auf ephesischen Münzen.” ZPE 67:149–150.

———. 1995. “Philostrat und Ephesos.” ZPE 108:77–87.

Fossel-Peschl, E. A. 1982. Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos. Graz.

Groh, S. 2006. “Neue Forschungen zur Stadtplanung in Ephesos.” ÖJh 75:47–116.

Heberdey, R. 1904. “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Ephesus 1902/3.” ÖJh 7: Beibl, 37–56.

Hofbauer, M. 2002. “Zum Theater von Ephesos. Eine kurze Darstellung der Grabungsgeschichte zwischen 1866 und 2001.” ÖJh 71:177–187.

Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2002. 2003. ÖJh 72:289–339.

Jones, C. 1999. “Pion, Pionios.” In Steine und Wege, Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65 Geburtstag, ed. P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, 51–54. Vienna.

Kansteiner, S., et al. 2014. Der neue Overbeck IV. Spätklassik, Hellenismus. Maler des 4./3. Jhs. v. Chr., Bildhauer des 3./2. Jhs. v. Chr. Berlin.

Keil, J. 1914. “Aphrodite Daitis.” ÖJh 17:145–147.

Kenzler, U. 2006. “Die augusteische Neugestaltung des Staatsmarktes von Ephesos.” Hephaistos 24:169–181.

Kerschner, M., et. al. 2008. Archäologische Forschungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte von Ephesos in geometrischer, archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Grabungsbefunde und Keramikfunde aus dem Bereich von Koressos. Vienna.

Knibbe, D., and G. Langmann. 1993. Via Sacra Ephesiaca I. Vienna..

Kraft, J. C., et al. 2000. “A Geologic Analysis of Ancient Landscapes and the Harbors of Ephesus and the Artemision in Anatolia.” ÖJh 69:175–233.

Kraft, J. C., et. al 2007. “The Geographies of Ancient Ephesus and the Artemision in Anatolia.” Geoarchaeology 22/1:121–149.

Marksteiner, T. 1999. “Bemerkungen zum hellenistischen Stadtmauerring von Ephesos.” In 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, ed. H. Freisinger and F. Krinzinger, 413–419. Vienna.

Muss, U., ed. 2001. Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos. Vienna.

———. 2008. Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis. Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums. Vienna.

Nagy, B. 1991. “The Procession to Phaleron.” Historia 40/3:288–306.

Parker, R. 1983. Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford.

Pearson, M. N. 1985. “Littoral Society: The Case of the Coast.” The Great Circle 7:1–8.

———. 2006. “Littoral Society: the concept and the problems.” Journal of World History 17. 4:353–373.

Rogers, G. M. 1991. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos. Foundation Myths of a Roman City. London.

Scherrer, P. 2001. “The Historical Topography of Ephesos.” Urbanism in Western Asia Minor. New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge and Xanthos, ed. D. Parrish, 57–93. Portsmouth.

———. 2006. “Hellenistische und römische Stadttore in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Ephesos.” In Stadttore: Bautyp und Kunstform, Akten der Tagung in Toledo vom 25. bis 27. September 2003, ed. T. G. Schattner and F. Valdés Fernández, 63–78. Mainz.

———. 2007. “Von Apaša nach Hagios Theologos. Die Siedlungsgeschichte des Raumes Ephesos von prähistorischer bis in byzantinische Zeit unter dem Aspekt der maritimen und fluvialen Bedingungen.” ÖJh 76:321–351.

Scherrer, P., and E. Trinkl. 2006. Die Tetragonos Agora in Ephesos. Grabungsergebnisse von archaischer bis in byzantinsiche Zeit – Ein Überblick. Befunde und Funde Klassischer Zeit, Forschungen in Ephesos 13/2. Vienna.

Scheer, T. S. 2000. Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik, Zetemata 105. Munich.

Schultheß, O. 1935. s. v. Νεωποιοί RE 16/2:2433–2439.

Sokolicek, A. 2009. “Zwischen Land und Stadt: Neues zum Magnesischen Tor in Ephesos. Erste Ergebnisse.” ÖJh 78:321–347.

———. 2010. “Chronologie und Nutzung des Magnesischen Tores von Ephesos.” ÖJh 79:359–381.

Stock, F., et al. 2013. “In Search of the Harbours: New Evidence of Late Roman and Byzantine Harbours of Ephesus.” In LAC 2012: 2nd International Landscape and Archaeology Conference, Berlin, Quaternary International 312, ed.W. Bebermeier, P. Hoelzmann, E. Kaiser, and J. Krause, 57–69. Philadelphia.

Thür, H. 1999a. “Via Sacra Ephesiaca. Vor der Stadt und in der Stadt.” In Steine und Wege, Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, 163–172.

———. 1999b. “Der Embolos: Tradition und Innovation anhand seines Erscheinungsbildes.” In 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, eds. H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, 421–428. Vienna.

Trümpy, C. 1997. Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsabfolgen. Heidelberg.

Wankel, H. 1979. Die Inschriften von Ephesos I a, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11/1. Bonn.

Weiss, C. F. 2012. “Bodies in Motion: Civic Ritual and Place-Making in Roman Ephesus.” In Making Roman Places, Past and Present: Papers Presented at the First Critical Roman Archaeology Conference Held at Stanford University in March, 2008, JRA Suppl. 89, ed. D. M. Totten and K. L. Samuels, 50-63. Portsmouth.

Weiß, P. 1985. “Argaios/Erciyas Dağı – Heiliger Berg Kappadokiens. Monumente und Ikonographie.” JNG 35:21–48.

[1] I would like to express my gratitude to the CHS and its staff for the opportunity to work under excellent conditions in the fall term of 2014 and to present part of my work in the research bulletin. For comments on my paper presented during the research symposium I would like to thank Douglas Frame, Luca Giuliani, Alexander Nagel, Ioanna Papadopoulou and Nikolaos Papazarkadas. The following thoughts are part of a more comprehensive project on harbor cities in the eastern Mediterranean from Hellenistic to Roman Imperial times.

[2] Burghardt 1971, 269.

[3] Burghardt 1971, 269–270.

[4] For the idea of littoral societies in harbor cities and settlements along the sea shore Pearson 1985; Pearson 2006, 354.

[5] Engelmann 1995, 84 f. contra Knibbe – Langmann 1993, 28. – The four different processions reconstructed by Knibbe – Langmann 1993, 28–32 are not backed by the literary sources.

[6] First published in Wankel 1979, 166–222 Nr. 27 with a German translation. The reconstructed Greek text and an English translation can also be found in Rogers 1991, 152–185.

[7] Wankel 1979, 174 lines 52–55; 204 lines 553–560. See also Rogers 1991, 83 and Weiss 2012, 55.

[8] Rogers 1991, 83.

[9] Wankel 1979, 173 f. lines 48–52; 197 lines 419–425. Only a few characters survived of a third mentioning of the route in lines 207–213 (Wankel 1979, 184 lines 207–213) on the ashlars of the parodos wall, the passage is mainly reconstructed. – The translation given her is based on Rogers 1991, 155.

[10] Schultheß 1935.

[11] Wankel 1979, 223–247 no. 28-36.

[12] For a comprehensive discussion of the procession and its route through Ephesus see Rogers 1991, 80–126 and Weiss 2012, 53–56.

[13] Groh 2006, 64 f. 69; Sokolicek 2009, 321 footnote 3 locate the Koressian Gate to the north of the Panayırdağ immediately east of the stadium. – Scherrer and Trinkl 2006, 13. 352 plan 18; Scherrer 2006, 69–72 and Scherrer 2007, 333 interpret a Hellenistic wall underneath the Roman north gate of the Lower Agora as the remains of the Koressian Gate. See for convincing arguments against such an interpretation Groh 2006, 71 f. – Weiss 2012, 55 fig. 2 wrongly locates the Koressian Gate north of the Baths of Vedius.

[14] For an overview on the current research see the articles in Muss 2001 and Muss 2008.

[15] Sokolicek 2009; Sokolicek 2010.

[16] For the Upper Agora see Fossel-Peschl 1982; Kenzler 2006. For the honorary and grave monuments along the so-called Embolos see Thür 1999 b.

[17] Groh 2006, 86. – For the history of the Lower Agora see Scherrer – Trinkl 2006.

[18] On the theater of Ephesus see Hofbauer 2002.

[19] Knibbe – Langmann 1993, 47–50; Thür 1999 a.

[20] For the geoarchaeological research dealing with the development of the lower Küçük Menderes Valley confluences see Kraft et al. 2000; Kraft et al. 2007; Brückner et al. 2008; Stock et al. 2013.

[21] Groh 2006, 56; Brückner et al. 2008, 22 Abb. 5.

[22] Groh 2006, 52.

[23] Stock et al. 2013.

[24] Kerschner et al. 2008.

[25] Groh 2006, 53 fig. 3; 55 fig. 4; 113.

[26] Engelmann 1995, 84 f. – Knibbe – Langmann 1993, 28 consider a route around the Panayırdağ anti-clockwise, as the altar in the Artemision is located to the west of the temple and as they consider Artemis as a nocturnal goddess. They value the clockwise direction mentioned in the dedication of Salutaris as a confirmation of their theory, as his „geschmacklose[s] Neureichenspektakel“ [tasteless spectacle of a new-rich] (Knibbe – Langmann 1993, 31) was not supposed to compete with the official procession of Artemis.

[27] Knibbe – Langmann 1993, 36 f.; Thür 1999 a, 170. – For possible altars along the processional way Knibbe – Langmann 1993, 11, however, there is no evidence for them neither in the archaeological nor in the epigraphical record. – Agelidis 2012, 87 f. 90 demonstrates that processional ways outside of cities had a plain layout up to Hellenistic times and were paved with stone only since Roman Imperial times.

[28] Scherrer and Trinkl 2006, 263 f.; Agelidis 2012, 84–86.

[29] Sacred mountains were not unknown in Asia Minor. Most prominent was the Mount Argaios in Cappadocia, which was depicted as small scale bronze statuettes and on coins from the 1st century BC until the 3rd century AD, see Weiß 1985.

[30] Jones 1999, 51.

[31] For the coins see Engelmann 1987. – For the statue of Mount Pion as part of the Salutaris dedication Wankel 1979, 183 no. 27 line 195; 232 no. 31 line 8. In both inscriptions the name is restored, however, the reconstruction is almost certain; see Jones 1999 51 with footnote 3.

[32] Engelmann 1987, 149 f.; Jones 1999 51.

[33] For the festival of Plynteria at Athens see Deubner 1932, 17–20; Parker 1983, 26–28; Scheer 2000, 57–60; Burkert 2011, 347 f.

[34] Burkert 1970; Burkert 2011, 127. – Nagy 1991 gives the alternative interpretation that the procession of the ephebes to Phaleron was a re-enactment of the evacuation of the xoanon to Salamis in the course of the Persian War in 480 BC.

[35] Heberdey 1904, 213 footnote 10; Burkert 2011, 127. Heberdey 1904 is arguing for a similar cleansing festival in the course of the procession for the Ephesian Artemis Daitis due to a line in the Etymologicum Magnum 252, 11–26. However, Keil 1914 and Deubner 1932, 21 footnote 2 demonstrate that it cannot have been a cleansing festival because of its name.

[36] For the month Πλυντηριών in the cities of Chios, Ios, Paros and Thasos Trümpy 1997, 34–36. 70. – For the reconstruction of an Ionian ancestral calendar Trümpy 1997, 18–38. For Ephesos a month Πλυντηριών is not conveyed as only the Ephesian calendar of Roman Imperial times survived, see Trümpy 1997, 96–99.

[37] Herondas Mimes 4, 66–75.

[38] Pliny, the Elder natural history 35, 93. – Knibbe – Langmann 1993, 28–32. Contra such an assumption Kansteiner et al. 2014, 177–179 no. 24 f.

[39] Marksteiner 1999; Groh 2006, 61–65.

[40] Sokolicek 2009, 341 and Sokolicek 2010, 378 f.

[41] The dating is based on a sondage in one of the foundation chambers of the skene frons, see Jahresbericht 2002, 308 f., and the location of the theater within the Hellenistic street grid, see Groh 2006. 70.

[42] Scherrer 2001, 66; Scherrer – Trinkl 2006, 15; Groh 2006, 68.