Cristof Berns

At the heart of the ancient metropolis of Miletus stood a spectacular fountain. Among its rich ornamentation was a long inscription. It not only reveals that the structure dates from the Roman Imperial period (1st century BCE to 3rd century CE), but also sheds light on some of the circumstances under which it was built. The messages conveyed through the architecture and inscriptions are, however, contradictory and apparently directed at different groups of recipients, as will be shown below.

The building was first uncovered in 1900 during the excavations at Miletus that had begun the previous year. For many centuries, this city on Turkey’s Aegean coast was one of the urban centres of the ancient world. Several generations of scholars have been involved in its study. Since 2018, an international team led by the University of Hamburg and involving the Cluster of Excellence Understanding Written Artefacts has been working on site.

When the first excavators explored the urban centre of Miletus, they encountered only the core structure of the fountain (Fig. 1). In its vicinity, however, they found numerous statues and architectural elements that appeared to belong to it. Based on very precise documentation, the archaeologist Julius Hülsen was then able to draw a reconstruction of the building, while the epigraphist Hermann Dessau deciphered the inscription carved into some of the entablature blocks.

The main feature of the fountain was a massive water reservoir fed by an aqueduct. It was enclosed by a façade approximately twenty meters wide and almost seventeen meters high. This structure also enclosed a basin that was fed from the reservoir via several outlets (Fig. 2). The façade was elaborately designed. Over a total of three stories, niches alternated with so-called aediculae – projecting elements each consisting of two columns and covered by a gabled roof. This created an architecture broken up by projections and recesses, enriched with numerous ornamental details as well as statues placed on the façade. The statues depicted various deities and mythological figures, primarily associated with water. The magnificent structure thus appears as a prime example of the generosity of public space design typical of cities during the Roman Imperial period, which seemingly benefited all its inhabitants. After all, they were able to enjoy the rich architecture and even derive practical benefits from it. As evidenced by corresponding scuff marks on the parapet of the aforementioned basin, vessels were lowered here on ropes to draw water. But the cooling effect of the water on the surroundings would also have been very welcome during the hot summer months.

The inscription on the building, however, stands in a certain contradiction to this impression of selfless splendour. It is carved into the entablature of the aediculae on the first floor and is not fully preserved; nevertheless, it could be reconstructed with little difficulty due to the formulaic nature of Roman architectural inscriptions. Most recently, the ancient historian Geza Alföldy has once again examined it in detail. He was able to present an improved reading of the text by taking into account several previously overlooked fragments and, for the first time, consistently aligning the individual sections of the text with the architectural evidence. Each section corresponds to an aedicula (Fig. 3).

Surprisingly, the inscription is written in Latin, even though Greek was spoken in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, to which Miletus also belonged:

[I] [Aus]pic[iis Imp(eratoris) T(iti)] Caesa[ris D]ivi Vespa[sia]ni f(ilii) Vespa[siani]

[II] [Aug(usti) pont(ificis) max(imi) trib(unicia) pot(estate) IX imp(eratoris) XV co(n)s(ulis) VIII censoris p(atris) p(atriae)]

[IIIa] [per M(arcum) Ulp]ium Traianum, co(n)s(ulem), leg(atum) A[ug(usti) leg(ionis) X fretensis bello Iudaico]

[IV] et provinciae Syriae, proco(n)s(ulem) Asiae et Hispaniae Baeticae, XVvir(um)

[V] [s(acris) f(aciundis), sod]alem Flaviallem, triumphalibus orn[a]men[t]is ex s(enatus) c(onsulto)

[IIIb] [cu]m amplius in eo crevit [aqua, nymphaeum dedicatus est].

The translation of the text reads: (I) Under the auspices of Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasianus, son of Divus Vespasianus, (II) Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, holder of the tribunician power for the ninth time, Emperor for the fifteenth time, Consul for the eighth time, Censor, Father of the Fatherland, (IIIa) under the supervision of Marcus Ulpius Traianus, Consul, Legatus Augusti of the Legio Ten Fretensis in the Jewish War (IV) and of the province of Syria, Proconsul of Asia and Hispania Baetica, member of the College of Fifteen (V) for the performance of sacrifices, member of the Flavian priesthood, honoured with the ornamenta triumphalia by decree of the Senate (IIIb), the nymphaeum was dedicated when it received a more abundant water supply.

The inscription is so skilfully composed and distributed across the sections of the façade that it seemingly effortlessly places the official entrusted with its dedication at the centre of attention. This official is M. Ulpius Traianus, a Roman career bureaucrat from Italica in Spain and the father of the future Emperor Trajan. Traianus pater had already had an impressive career when he became governor of the province of Asia in 79/80 CE. He was thus the highest-ranking official in one of the most important provinces of the Roman Empire. The inscription was certainly formulated and carved at his direct instigation.

It begins with an unusual reference to the auspices of the reigning Emperor Titus (79–81 CE), under which the fountain was built. This was likely intended to acknowledge the emperor’s efforts to improve the infrastructure of the Roman Empire. Only then does the name of the governor M. Ulpius Traianus appear, followed by the most important stages of his career and the note that the dedication took place at a time when the water supply had been improved. In the text of the inscription, the governor’s name seems almost to disappear amid the abundance of information. If, however, one considers the relationship between the inscription and the architecture, it becomes clear that it was placed exactly in the centre of the façade and was thus highlighted (Fig. 3: IIIa). This was only possible because the last part was the only section of the entire text that was moved to a second line (IIIb).

In other respects, as well, an unusual amount of attention was paid to the inscription’s position. Unlike usual practice, it is carved into the frieze of the entablature – that is, the part of the entablature normally reserved for ornamental decoration (Fig. 4). This allowed the letters to be carved 8 cm high and set on a uniform surface, making them easily legible from a distance. Furthermore, the architectural mouldings above and below them seemed to frame the inscription. Finally, the inscription’s enormous length – a total of 10.75 m – as well as the standard design of the letters as capital letters helped to emphasise it within the overall context of the façade.

For understanding the inscription, it is also important that it makes no mention of the financiers of this impressive monument. As is to be expected with such infrastructure projects, the Milesian municipality itself would have paid for the construction. Their contribution, however, took a back seat to the figure of the supervising Roman official. The Latin language also suggests that the inscription was not primarily addressed to the local population, whose language was Greek. Rather, its intended audience was the members of the political elite who, like M. Ulpius himself, competed throughout the empire for public office. By providing a comprehensive account of Ulpius’s career that demonstrated his success, the inscription served as an incentive for his colleagues and thus ultimately contributed to the stabilisation of the competitive political system. Overall, the monument thus conveys an ambivalent message: The benefit to the local community provided by the water installation stood in contrast to its inscription, which was geared more toward the empire’s internal political dynamics.

Under Gordian III (emperor 238–244 CE), the monument, constructed nearly two hundred years earlier, was renovated once again, as another inscription attests. It was carved into the entablature of the third storey at a later date and, significantly, was composed in Greek. Apparently, some blocks that had fallen during an earthquake had previously been repaired or replaced. However, the result of this restoration effort was not long-lasting: after another earthquake, the monument collapsed and ultimately lay in ruins, partly because Miletus had by then already lost its significance as a major city, and the small settlement still existing there had no need for magnificent fountains. The memory of the official nevertheless endured, and likely longer than M. Ulpius Traianus himself had expected, for his inscription still provides an occasion to reflect on his deeds.

---

References

Alföldy, Geza (1998), ‘Traianus pater und die Bauinschrift des Nymphäums von Milet’, Revue des Études Anciennes, 100: 367–399.

Berns, Christof (2020), ‘Die Hafenstadt als Handlungsraum: Beobachtungen zur Präsenz verschiedener Akteure im städtischen Zentrum von Milet’, in Dirce Marzoli, Sabine Reinhold, Udo Schlotzhauer, Burkhard Vogt and Hannah Schnorbusch (eds), Kontaktmodi (Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen, 17), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 97–106.

Hülsen, Julius (1919), Das Nymphäum: Milet I 5, Berlin: Reimer.

Niewöhner, Philipp (ed.) (2016), Miletus/Balat: Urbanism and Monuments from the Archaic to Ottoman Periods, Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Wiegand, Theodor (1901), Zweiter vorläufiger Bericht über die von den Königlichen Museen begonnenen Ausgrabungen in Milet (Sitzungsberichte der königlich preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 28), Berlin: Reimer.

Description

Location: site of Miletus, Türkiye

Date: between 79 and 81 CE

Material: Marble

Size: height 16.87 m, width 20.45 m, depth 21.13 m (fountain/monument); height 0.08 m, length 10.75 m (inscription)

Copyright Notice

Fig. 1: Miletus Excavation, Lauren Osthof

Fig. 2: Julius Hülsen (Hülsen 1919, plate 63)

Fig. 3: Miletus Excavation, Silas Munnecke (using the reconstruction of Hülsen 1919)

Fig. 4: Miletus Excavation, Christof Berns

Reference Note

Christof Berns (2026), A Milesian Fountain and its Inscription: Water for all, or an Elitist Monument? In Marina Sartori, Thies Staack (eds): Artefact of the Month No. 37, CSMC, Hamburg.