The Relocation of Priene Reconsidered

Abstract

THE CITY OF PRIENE WAS EXCAVATED in the opening years of the twentieth century by Weigand and Schrader.' When they failed to discover anything datable to the pre-Hellenistic period, they formulated the hypothesis that the city had been relocated (Weigand and Schrader 35), suggesting as the cause of the move the notorious silting operation of the Maeander. They attributed the relocation to Alexander, since he dedicated the temple of Athena, which constituted an integral part of the basic city plan (45). While the excavators' hypothesis of a relocation won the unanimous approval of later scholars, their suggestion that Alexander was its sponsor did not meet with similar acceptance. The first to dissent was Hiller von Gaertringen, the editor of the inscriptions from the site, who argued that the responsible party was Athens, and the date shortly after the death of Mausolus.2 The next candidate was put forward by G. E. Bean and R. M. Cook, who suggested that the Hecatomnid rulers of Caria were responsible for the metoikesis (Bean and Cook 141). More recently the case for Alexander has been reopened.3 The aim of the present paper is to propose a radical solution to the problem-in essence, a cutting of the Gordian knot-by putting forward the case against relocation. According to tradition, the city of Priene was founded during the Ionian migrations by Philolas, a descendant of Penelaus, and Aepytus, son of Neileus, the founder of Miletus, who took the site by force from the Carians (Pausanias 7.2.3, 10). The forced nature of the settlement makes it highly likely that the Prienians settled in a compact and easily defensible form rather than in scattered settlements village-fashion. Was there some point at which the city was dispersed into villages, or ceased to exist altogether, so that it could be synoikized or refounded? In 545/4 it was captured by the