Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:59:38.900Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disciplinary Agents in the Sepulchral Inscriptions of Lycia1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

T. R. Bryce
T. R. Bryce
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lycian scholars have long recognized that a number of the sepulchral inscriptions of Lycia refer to certain disciplinary agents responsible for punishing persons guilty of illegal use of a tomb—e.g. by making unauthorized burials in the tomb. TL 57 provides a typical example:

hrppiye mei:tadi:tike:me ne:tubeiti:mãhãi huwedri.se itlehi:trmili: (lines 8–9)

“If (anyone) places anyone (else) upon them (i.e. the authorized tomb occupants), the huwedri gods and the Lycian itlehi will punish him.”

There has been some fluctuation of opinion on the actual nature of the disciplinary agents involved. Many of them once thought to have been secular authorities can now quite confidently be regarded as deities or religious institutions, and this of course throws a rather different light on the nature and purpose of the penalty clauses in the inscriptions. In some cases, these clauses seem to have threatened the offender with divine retribution and nothing more, but in other cases, the offender apparently risked a more tangible form of penalty. One might then ask to whom precisely a tomb violator was answerable for his offence, and what precisely was the nature of the penalty imposed upon him.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 31 , December 1981 , pp. 81 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 TAPA 59, 1928, pp. 48ffGoogle Scholar.

3 BSL 53, 1958, p. 190Google Scholar.

4 Ibid.; cf. Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 203Google Scholar.

5 Admittedly qla does appear four times in the penalty clauses without reference to Leto or to any other deity — viz TL 75. 5, 94. 3, 109. 6, 111. 3. But it may well be that qla and ẽni qlahi ebiyehi are similar in their actual import, the latter expression introducing a more specific element into the threat.

6 BSL 55, 1960, p. 183, n. 3Google Scholar. See also Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 93Google Scholar, n. h on TL 56.

7 Cf. Laroche, , BSL 55, 1960, p. 173Google Scholar.

8 Cf. Neumann, , Die Sprache 20, 1974, p. 111Google Scholar, and Laroche's commentary on the Letoon trilingual, CRAI, 1974, p. 121Google Scholar.

9 Cf. TL 109. 6: qlayeb:pñtreñni “the p. qla here”.

10 Identical expressions occur in TL 102.3 and 112. 5–6.

11 “Die satzeinleitenden Partikeln in den Indogermanischen Sprachen Anatoliens”, Rome 1969, (cited hereafter as “Partikeln”) p. 79, n. 66Google Scholar.

12 Die Sprache 20, 1974, pp. 111–112Google Scholar.

13 CRAI, 1974, p. 121Google Scholar.

14 A further difficulty lies in accounting for the first ñ in pñtrẽñni if this word refers to Patara.

15 Note also the association of wedreñni with mãhãi in TL 101. 4–5: me ne: ma[h]ãi: tubeiti wed [ reñ] ni “the ‘regional’ deities will punish him”.

16 The suggestion which Carruba makes (see above, n. 11).

17 See Laroche, , CRAI, 1974, p. 123Google Scholar, n. 3.

18 This restoration is assumed by Laroche, , BSL 62, 1967, p. 53Google Scholar.

19 RHA 63, 1958, pp. 96–99Google Scholar, Dictionnaire de la langue louvite, Paris, 1959, p. 127Google Scholar; see also Houwink ten Cate, , LPG pp. 125–128Google Scholar.

20 E.g. TL 44 b 34, c 34, c 64, d 4, d 12, d 14, d 44. On the various forms of the name) trqqas, trqqñt-, trqqiz) see, in addition to Laroche, , Gusmani, , Die Sprache 10, 1964, pp. 42 ffGoogle Scholar.

21 Cf. Laroche, , BSL 62, p. 58Google Scholar.

22 pddãt- is translated tentatively by Laroche as “temenos”. Note his discussion, BSL 62, pp. 61–62Google Scholar. See also Gusmani, , IF 67, p. 167Google Scholar, and n. 29.

23 British Museum Quarterly, Vol. 28, 1964, pp. 95 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 The vessel is referred to briefly by Laroche, , BSL 62, p. 53Google Scholar, and described in some detail by Barnett, in Mélanges Mansel, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara, 1974, pp. 893–900Google Scholar.

25 Pedrita is presumably the same as padrita- who appears in TL 44 b 53; kumeziya padritahi “the altar of Padrita”, See also Neumann, , Die Sprache 13, 1967, pp. 34–38Google Scholar.

26 See Barnett, , Mélanges Mansel, pp. 900–901Google Scholar, and note the references cited therein.

27 Mélanges Mansel, p. 901.

28 Mélanges Mansel, p. 902.

29 Bibliotheca Orientalis 11, 1954, p. 123Google Scholar, BSL 53, 1958, p. 190Google Scholar, n. 3, Dictionnaire de la langue louvite, pp. 69–70, BSL 62, 1967, p. 54Google Scholar.

30 LPG p. 94, n. g on TL 57.

31 Gusmani reaches a similar conclusion in Die Sprache 10, 1964, pp. 43–44Google Scholar; cf. his discussion in RIL 94, 1960, pp. 506 ffGoogle Scholar. and IF 68, p. 290Google Scholar. Carruba also considers both possibilities, finally opting for mãhãi as a genitive plural (SMEA 11, 1970, p. 37, n. 24)Google Scholar; see also his discussion in “Partikeln”, p. 77.

32 BSL 62, p. 56Google Scholar.

33 The miñti seems to have been a community institution whose responsibilities included the supervision of the tombs. In this particular connection, see my comments in AS 26, 1976, pp. 183–184Google Scholar.

34 BSL 62, p. 54Google Scholar.

35 This differs from appositional terms of the -aza category which indicate a role or a function of the tomb owner, and are not essentially a definition of the owner himself.

36 E.g. TAM II 51, 55, 218, 451, 452, 521, 613, 637, 692, 927, 1028, 1081Google Scholar. See also the discussion of Carruba, SMEA 11, 1970, p. 37Google Scholar, n. 24.

37 AS 26, 1976, p. 186Google Scholar.

38 The text is restored by Friedrich: s[e ma]r[az]i[ya]:miñt[ah]a:.

39 Cf. Laroche, , CRAI, 1974, p. 123, no. 2Google Scholar. maraziya is one of Houwink ten Cate's additions to the second class of a- stem nouns (LPG pp. 53–54, par. 17).

40 E.g. erubliya (TL 131. 3), arawaziya (references given in LPG p. 53), pruliya (TL 44 b 1), kumeziya (references given in LPG p. 54).

41 It may well be that the neuter nouns ending in the suffix -iya are used in a collective rather than in a strictly plural sense, arawaziya, for instance, appears to be plural in form, but refers to a single sepulchral building (generally translated as “heroon”). Cf. the small group of Latin nouns which are plural in form, but are used in a collective rather than in a plural sense; e.g. castra “camp”, loca “region, district”.

42 See above, n. 33.

43 See Houwink ten Cate, , LPG pp. 59–61Google Scholar, par. 5.

44 The restoration is not suggested by either Kalinka or Friedrich, but appears in Laroche, , BSL 62, p. 54Google Scholar.

45 Perhaps also belonging to the second class of a- stems. Note that contrary to Hittite practice, the neuter nouns maraziya and tasa(?) must be construed as the subjects of the verbs in the penalty clauses where they occur. Cf. Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 60, n. 5Google Scholar.

46 AS 26, 1976, pp. 187–190Google Scholar.

47 I have already discussed this in the above mentioned article, pp. 184–185.

48 The form of this word is basically adjectival, as the -ehi termination indicates.

49 Lykische Studien III, Göttingen, 1888, p. 278Google Scholar.

50 MSL 9, 1896, pp. 230 fGoogle Scholar.

51 Lykische Beiträge I, Videnskabsselskabets Skriften, no. 4, Copenhagen, 1898, pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

52 “Lykisch und Hittitisch”, Copenhagen 1945, p. 39Google Scholar, sec. 65.

53 LPG p. 94, n. g on TL 57.

54 BSL 62, p. 56Google Scholar.

55 E.g. TAM II 59, 63, 77, 83, 89, 221, 222, 228Google Scholar, etc.

56 One may speculate that the Greek version was provided for those persons who could not read the epichoric language, and who for some reason were not subject to the authority of the local wedri.

57 Cf. the comments of Pedersen, , “Lykisch und Hittitisch”, pp. 26–27Google Scholar, sec. 44, who claims that qastti must signify “rächt, straft”, and not merely “urteilt”.

58 On Near Eastern curse formulae, see Parrot, A., Malédictions et violations de tombes, Librairie Orientaliste, Paul Geuthner, Paris, 1939, pp. 103–139Google Scholar.

59 Cf. TAM II 213Google Scholar. 12–13, 442. 4–5 (largely restored), 636. 13–14, 797. 14–17, 798. 1–2, 838. 21–22, 923. 4. Occasionally these threats are combined with curses of a more general nature; e.g. TAM II 451Google Scholar. 11–14 (largely restored), 488. 3–5.

60 This group of inscriptions indicates clearly the importance of the cult of the Dioscuri at Idebessos in Roman times.

61 The only exception appears to be TL 88. 5–6Google Scholar: me ne itlehi tubeiti trmili huwedri se trqqas.se mãhãi huwedri “the whole(?) Lycian itlehi and Tarhunt and all(?) the gods will punish him”.

62 Cf. the forms of expression in TL 111. 2–3Google Scholar and 131. 2–4.

63 It seems preferable to translate ttleiti/ttlidi as “to make payment” (with ẽni qlahi ebiyehi as its indirect object), rather than “to impose, inflict”. The verb may well be cognate with tllaχñta which appears in lines 19–20 of the Letoon trilingual, where it stands in apposition to the ada expression and obviously means “payment”.

64 The Lycian numbers are still for the most part unknown quantities. The value assigned to aitãta by various scholars ranges from 8 to 80.

65 qebeliya is found only in this context, and its meaning is unknown. Neumann suggests that it may belong to the preceding syntactic group, and is possibly a qualifying adjective “schlachtreif”; alternatively, it may belong to the following group, and is perhaps the name of a deity or the epithet of a deity (Die Sprache 20, 1974, p. 109 and n. 2)Google Scholar.

66 By the Roman imperial period, tomb ownership had become widespread throughout all social classes. There are, for example, a number of instances of freedmen and slaves owning their own tombs in this period – presumably freedmen and slaves of some wealth and substance. I have discussed this phenomenon in an article appearing in Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 22, 1980, pp. 296–313Google Scholar.

67 See above, n. 63.

68 Cf. TAM II 1225. 8–11Google Scholar, in which the fine specified is payable to the priest of Sozon, and JHS 15, 1895, p. 109Google Scholar, no. 18 in which it is payable to the priestess of Leto.

69 For numerous instances of fines made payable to Hephaestos at Olympos, see TAM II 956 ffGoogle Scholar.

70 These classifications are not of course intended to indicate strict chronological sequence.