Regarding what we know about Demokritos of Ephesos and the manuscript tradition of Diogenes Laertius, relevant in this respect, see below, Biographical Essay.

In this testimonium we read “τῆς πόλεως καὶ Σαμοθράικης”, ‘[on] the city and [on] Samothrake’. The uncertainty is caused by καὶ”, ‘and’, that is present in manuscripts B and P, though missing in F. If ‘and’ is right, Demokritos wrote on the Temple of Ephesos and the city, and on Samothrake (noteworthy is that we would normally expect “περὶ”, ‘on’ after ‘and’: the fact that it is missing adds to our problem), which would make him, probably, primarily a local historian. As a ‘local historian’ we should define any writer restricting a specific work to a description of a defined place or location. In the practice of the local histories, as collected, e.g., by Jacoby in his third volume of FGrH, we notice that many local histories tend to have also a strong cultic component, i.e., they are (partly) devoted to the description of a specific sanctuary or the vicissitudes and/or worship of a certain deity or hero at a given locality.

If ‘and’ should be left out in T 1, then Demokritos wrote on the Temple of Ephesus and on the polis of Samothrake, and hence becomes akin to a writer of a periegesis, a kind of guided tour through the Aegean area. Also, however, the cultic element may have been quite prominent, as may, e.g., be shown by merely looking at Pausanias’ work and its description of many temples and their cultic peculiarities. The information we have on Demokritos’ work makes the choice difficult. Jacoby appears to have chosen Demokritos as the writer of two works. What he did not determine, could not determine, and we still cannot, is the nature of that work, especially since the classical writers did not bother with the subtleties that modern philologists tend to apply (and which are clearly reflected in the structure of Jacoby’s work).

The context of F 1, a description of the display of luxury of Ephesos’ inhabitants, might appear to favour the option that Demokritos was a local historian, with perhaps a more or less strong (regarding the order in the title I would suggest a rather strong) tendency for attention to cultic aspects. A. Tresp. Die Fragmente der griechischen Kultschriftsteller (Giessen 1914; repr. New York 1975), 158 , specifically includes Demokritos among the writers on cults. Considering his only known other subject, Samothrake, this may look like a sensible option: as a distinction this is, however, of little help since both local historians and writers of a periegesis may well focus on cultic phenomena. As it is, it is impossible to determine the nature of Demokritos’ work with any degree of certainty.

The temple at Ephesos, the Artemision, not only functioned as a religious institution but also was an asylum and an important marketplace with international contacts. It was, moreover, the focal point of contact between Greeks and Persians for a considerable period (cf. Plutarch, Lysandros 3, Xenophon, Hellenika 1.5.1, 3.4.18, Anabasis 6.1.23, with E. Wirbelauer, C. Höcker. Der Neue Pauly 3 (Stuttgart/Weimar 1997), 1078 -85 Ephesos,, here at 1081 and J. Dillery. Xenophon and the History of his Times (London 1995), 86 -7 for Ephesos as a ‘workshop of war and good hope’ in preparation of the campaigns of King Agesilaus in Asia Minor). This pivotal role in the relations between Greeks and Persians (or rather Europe and Asia) predates the Peloponnesian War and continued well into the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and is well reflected in the archaeological record: cf. H. Cimrin. Ephesus: the Metropolis of the Antique Age (Izmir 2002) and H. Koester. Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture (Valley Forge, PA 1995). The present remains, dating from 300 BC (Lysimachos) and before, still testify to the culture(s) and opulence present at Ephesos.

The temple benefited from these assets and the city of Ephesos thrived: see W. Elliger. Ephesos: Geschichte einer antiken Weltstadt² (Stuttgart 1992). The wealth of the city also meant that many of its inhabitants acquired sufficient means to dress themselves magnificently and display their luxury. This is described in the first fragment. Most of the colours, even most shades of purple, could be obtained by vegetable dyes (before applying these the textiles needed to be mordanted, frequently using alum, to make the colours hold). These vegetable dyes could be used to obtain various shades of yellow, red, blue, green, violet, brown, and grey and black. Among the components of these vegetable dyes were indigo, woad, saffron, madder, several kinds of barks and plants, berries and beets. Of these colours, purple was the most expensive, especially if a vegetable dye was not used but the very expensive animal dye, originating from the purple-yielding shellfish of the genus Murex (cf. M. Reinhold. History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity (Brussels 1970) and J. Doumet. A Study on the Ancient Purple Colour and an Attempt to Reproduce the Dyeing Procedure of Tyre as described by Pliny the Elder (Beirut 1980)), followed by reds. White textiles needed to be bleached over a fire in which sulphur, forexample, was burned. The use of minerals for dying textiles is very limited and unsatisfactory.

The fabrics of which the textiles were made were wool, linen, cotton, and (the most expensive) silk. The textiles were used to make garments, for example, and several types of garments are mentioned in F 1. First, there is the sarapis, described by Hesychios in his Lexikon (s.v.) as a ‘Persian tunic (chiton) [shot with white]’ (cf. Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 8.3.13 for a description of Cyrus’ clothes), adding that Queen Parysatis tore her sarapis and loosened her hair (probably at hearing the news of the death of Cyrus the Younger at Cunaxa). Second, there is the kalisiris, in origin an Egyptian garment, which was a long full-length garment that closely fitted the body and sometimes had sleeves. It was basically copied throughout the middle east, though local variations might occur. The aktaiai are described in the fragment itself.

In itself the fragment is not very spectacular, but it gives us a glimpse into the life of a privileged group, that could afford to spend a substantial amount of money on clothing. The very cloths described, moreover, underline the international character of the city. It stands to reason that most common people wore either undyed garments or garments dyed in less expensive colours than purple, red, and yellow and, above all, less fashionable ones. The best known is the chiton (full length or knee length) for men and the chiton and peplos (tunic) for women, all tied at the waist with a belt. The standard outer garment (for men and women) was the himation, the long cloak, wrapped around the body with one end thrown over the shoulder. A shorter version, the chlamys, was used for riding or hunting. These garments were of woven wool and linen and basically all consisted of rectangular pieces of cloth (easy to weave), fastened at the shoulders with (multiple) pins. They were a long way from the elegant garments described by Demokritos.

The Temple of Ephesos was a highly important shrine for Artemis. The tradition regarding its origin is unclear; the Artemis cult was either introduced by Amazons or by Amazons fleeing from Herakles and Dionysos into the asylum of an already existing sanctuary (cf. Pausanias 7.2.7). Its age appears to be confirmed by some finds dating from the Minoan-Mycenaean period. The earliest proven construction was a wooden temple, dating from the eighth century BC, but around 600 BC the construction of a temple was started that, although never completed, was counted among the seven wonders of the world.

Referred to as the great marble temple, or temple D, its construction was financially supported by King Kroisos of Lydia. The names of its original designers are transmitted as Chersiphron of Knossos and his son Metagenes, who started the construction in the Ionic style (Vitruvius, De architectura libri decem, 7 praef. 16), but, says Vitruvius, ‘it is said that later Demetrios, a temple warden of Artemis herself, and Paionios of Ephesos have finished the construction’. It is said to have been splendidly decorated, housing sculptures by Pheidias, Polykleitos, Kresilas, and Phradmon. On the very night that Alexander the Great was born, the sixth of Hekatombaion (21 July) 356 BC, one Herostratos burned this temple to the ground attempting to immortalize his name (cf. Plutarch, Alexander 3). After the fire ‘the citizens erected another and better one’ (Strabo 14.1.22), nowadays labelled temple E, but it was only completed after the death of Alexander, whose financial help in the reconstruction had been declined by the Ephesians. Instead they paid for it themselves (Strabo 14.1.22). The architect of the new temple was Cheirokrates (or Deinokrates) and this temple was adorned with many statues, including some by Praxiteles and Thrason (Strabo 14.1.23; cf. E. Wirbelauer, C. Höcker. Der Neue Pauly 3 (Stuttgart/Weimar 1997), 1078 -85 Ephesos, A. Bammer, U. Muss. Das Artemision von Ephesos: das Weltwunder Ioniens in archaischen und klassischer Zeit (Mainz am Rhein 1996), and U. Muss. Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos (Wien 2001)).

Samothrake, like Ephesos, was primarily renowned because of its temple and its importance as a sanctuary. Samothrake, an island in the northern part of the Aegean, about 30 km off the Thracian coast due south of Mesambria, was primarily inhabited by Thracians. It had only one city (with the same name as the island), close to which (to its west) was a sanctuary. Originally (c. eighth century BC) this was destined for the Theoi Megaloi, the Great Gods, but it gradually changed into a shrine for the Dioscuri Castor and Polydeuces. From the late classical period onwards, its importance increased and reached its climax in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The sanctuary continued to exist until well in the fourth century AD; cf. A. Külzer, C. Tsochos. Der Neue Pauly 11 (Stuttgart/Weimar 2001), 24 -9.