¹ TL = Tituli Asiae Minoris, I, Tituli Lyciae Lingua Lycia Conscripti, ed. Kalinka, E., Vienna, 1901Google Scholar. The inscriptions were re-edited by Friedrich, J. in Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler, de Gruyter, , Berlin, 1932, pp. 52–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the texts which appear in this paper are for the most part those of Friedrich's edition, with the following variations in the transliteration: Lycian Κ, ↓ and ∣ are represented as k, χ and y respectively, in accordance with the system advocated by Laroche.

² Six elements have been singled out and categorized into four groups. In the following table, these elements have been arranged from right to left, to indicate the usual (though not invariable) order in which they appear in the inscriptions cited above. Two passages in which ada appears have been omitted from the table—viz. TL 84. 5–6 and TL 131. 4–5—since they obviously do not conform with the general pattern indicated in the table.

³ Friedrich has partly restored v. 5 of TL 145 as follows: r[…]m[… adai]yẽ: ∠-adai]yẽ seems fairly certain, and I would suggest that the preceding word is m[ñti]. miñti is the usual form of this word, but mñti is found in TL 38. 8.

⁴ The text of TL 46 is very fragmentary, and there is space for twelve letters in v. 3 before miñ]ti. The missing words may well be se iye ñta tade, which would exactly fill this space. If so, then TL 46 should be relegated to Group IV.

⁵ For the grouping of awasi etc. with aladahali, see the discussion below under Element B.

⁶ miñta is very tentatively suggested here to help fill the lacuna in the text, in view of the collocation tasa miñta in TL 31. 4.

⁷ In this instance, the formula begins with sedi instead of the more usual se iye/iya. The explanation of sedi is quite uncertain. It is possible that the form should be analysed as se-d-i, and the -i construed as a dative enclitic pronoun equivalent to iye/iya, since it is now clear from the Letoon trilingual (referred to below) that the distinction between -i and iye, originally proposed by Thomsen and more recently by Pedersen and Houwink ten Cate, is incorrect. Alternatively sedi can perhaps be analysed as se-di, with -di construed as a reflexive pronoun (= ti). The whole question of the order of the Lycian enclitics is still somewhat problematical, and needs to be studied on a more comprehensive scale; see Laroche, , Comparaison du louvite et du lycien, BSL 53, 1957–1958, pp. 161 ffGoogle Scholar. (Laroche's series of articles in BSL—viz. 53, 1957–1958, pp. 159–97Google Scholar; 55, 1960, pp. 155–85; 58, 1963, pp. 58–79; 62, 1967, pp. 46–64 are hereafter cited as Comparaison I, II, III and IV respectively.)

⁸ In TL 31. 4–5, the words immediately following miñta are meleime seyaladahali. The conjunction se possibly indicates that meleime and aladahali are in some way associated, but the meaning of meleime is quite obscure.

⁹ ñtadẽ is a “portmanteau form” of ñta tadẽ, perhaps an error on the part of the mason. Cf. Thomsen, V., Études lyciennes I, Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Oversigt, Copenhagen 1899 (hereafter cited as EL), p. 67Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Cf. the list given by Meriggi, , Indogerm. Forsch., 46, 1928, pp. 168 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, referred to and partly quoted by Shafer, RHA 52, 1950, p. 2Google Scholar.

¹¹ Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J., The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period, Brill, Leiden, 1965 (hereafter cited as LPG), p. 88Google Scholar, n. r on TL. 6.

¹² Lykische Studien II, Bezz. Beitr., 12, 1887, p. 318Google Scholar.

¹³ Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 10, 1898, p. 58Google Scholar. Cf. also Thomsen's translation, EL p. 70.

¹⁴ Cited by Savelsberg, , Beiträge zur Entzifferung der lykischen Sprachdenkmäler I, Bonn, 1874, p. 42Google Scholar.

¹⁵ CRAI, Jan-Mar, 1974; translations and commentaries of the Greek, Lycian, and Aramaic versions were provided, respectively, by H. Metzger (pp. 82–93), E. Laroche (pp. 115–125), and A. Dupont-Sommer (pp. 132–49).

¹⁶ Cf. v. 14 of the Aramaic version, which also refers to the sum of 1½ minas.

¹⁷ Op. cit., p. 119.

¹⁸ This suggestion was made to me by Professor Tritsch, on the assumption that ∣ = 1, ○ = 10, and perhaps ˄ = ½. If we then read the numeral in retrogade fashion, it is possible to arrive at the figure 22½.

¹⁹ ∥∥ may be the correct reading in TL 4.5. See Friedrich's text.

²⁰ Lykische Studien IV, Bezz. Beitr. 14, pp. 198–9, 206Google Scholar, referred to also by Shafer, , AOr. 18(4), 1950, p. 258Google Scholar, who at the beginning of his article draws attention to the similarity between certain of the Lycian numerals and the first five Roman numerals.

²¹ This interpretation was tentatively suggested by Meriggi, , KiF. I, 1930, p. 457Google Scholar, and more recently has been discussed by Shafer, , AOr. 18(4), 259–60Google Scholar. Very problematical are the symbols and in TL 114 and 115 respectively. According to Shafer, these symbols should also be interpreted as ½, although Thomsen suggested that they represent the number 15 (EL p. 73).

²² Shafer, for instance, suggests that the symbols ∠– and Ο– may represent the numbers 7½ and 15 respectively (op. cit., p. 260).

²³ EL pp. 69–70.

²⁴ See Fouilles de Xanthos, Tome V, Klincksieek, Paris, 1974Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Xanthos V), pp. 128 and 142.

²⁵ Carruba, O., “Contributi al Licio,” SMEA fasc. 11, 1970 (hereafter cited as CL), p. 30Google Scholar.

²⁶ Cf. Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 88Google Scholar, n. q on TL 6, and Carruba, CL, p. 31.

²⁷ E.g. by Thomsen, , EL p. 10Google Scholar, and Carruba, CL p. 36.

²⁸ On sẽñne see LPG p. 65, par. 14.

²⁹ Cited by Thomsen, , EL p. 10Google Scholar, and Carruba, CL p. 27.

³⁰ E.g. Laroche, , Comparaison II, pp. 176–7Google Scholar, translation of TL 112. 4, Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 88Google Scholar, translation of TL 6. 3, and Carruba, , Die satzeinleitenden Partikeln in den Indogermanischen Sprachen Anatoliens, Rome, 1969 (hereafter cited as Partikeln), pp. 78–80Google Scholar, translations of TL 112. 3, 145. 3, and 134. 2. Note however Carruba's revised views in CL pp. 27 ff.

³¹ EL pp. 10–11.

³² kbi tike occurs in a number of prohibition clauses, and generally precedes the conjunction me (e.g. TL 88.3: kbi tike mei nipe ñtepi tãtu). It is generally (if not always) to be construed as the object of the following verb (or verbs).

³³ The text appears in Anz. phil.-hist. Kl. Öst. Ak. Wiss., 1962, No. 2, p. 9Google Scholar. It is discussed by Meriggi, in RHA, fasc. 72, 1963, pp. 11–12Google Scholar. The numbering is that proposed by Neumann for a forthcoming publication (see provisionally Neumann, in Borchhardt, J. et al. , Myra, Eine lykische Metropole (1975), 150 ff.Google Scholar).

³⁴ Op. cit., p. 11.

³⁵ Similar suggestions were made by Torp and Bugge (cited by Carruba, CL p. 28; cf. Thomsen's reference to Torp's proposal in EL p. 10). For a summary of Carruba's conclusions, see CL pp. 35–6, and note his proposal to include [el]edehe (TL 94.3) and elede (TL 90.4, 80.2) in the alaha-category.

³⁶ Op. cit., p. 36.

³⁷ On the form piye, see Thomsen, , EL p. 71Google Scholar.

³⁸ Houwink ten Cate construes piyatu as an imperative with miñti as its subject, and translates the passage: “and they have given (this disposition): Let the miñti give (rulings) to …” (LPG p. 93). Neumann, however, treats piyatu as a substantive in the accusative singular, and miñti as a dative, translating piyẽtẽ piyatu miñti as: “er legte der Mindis die Auflage auf” (Die Sprache, 16, 1970, pp. 58–9Google Scholar). The phrase is also briefly discussed by Carruba (CL p. 31, n. 7). Another possibility is to construe miñti as the subject of piyẽtẽ, and piyatu as the object of this verb: the miñti has given approval (?) (piyatu) to …”. This translation seems quite feasible, in spite of Torp's objections (cited by Neumann, op. cit., p. 58). The verb-object-subject sequence occurs also, I believe, in the ada formula, as I have suggested below in my interpretation of this formula.

³⁹ Cf. TL 102. 2–3, 118. 2–3, 131. 2–4, 134. 3–4.

⁴⁰ See Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 79Google Scholar, par. 23 and n. 1.

⁴¹ Cf. Thomsen, , EL pp. 12–13Google Scholar.

⁴² Houwink ten Cate, here follows Laroche, , Comparaison II, p. 176Google Scholar.

⁴³ LPG p. 95.

⁴⁴ This must often have been a matter of practical necessity, given the size of most of the tombs and the number of eligible inhabitants.

⁴⁵ Cf. the following passages: TL 49, 57. 7–9, 75. 3–5, 84. 3, 91. 2–3, 94. 2–3, 102. 2–4, 109. 3–6, 110. 2–5, 111. 2–7, 118. 2–3, 134. 2–4, 139. 3–4, 149. 5 ff., 150. 4–8.

⁴⁶ Cf. Thomsen, , EL pp. 12–13Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ See above, n. 32.

⁴⁸ EL pp. 56–8. Thomsen's proposal is supported by Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 88Google Scholar, n. i on TL 6. But contrast Laroche who claims that (es)eri ta- indicates “un dommage ou une déprédation” (Comparaison I, p. 178Google Scholar), a view which is also held by Carruba (Partikeln, p. 75, n. 58). There is no clear evidence, however, that the sepulchral inscriptions are ever concerned with offences of an explicitly criminal nature, such as malicious damage to a tomb or theft of its contents.

⁴⁹ Cf. TL 6. 2–3.

⁵⁰ We have no knowledge of what Lycian burial procedures entailed. But since so many of the Lycian tombs were built as replicas of Lycian houses, it may well be that the preparation of a corpse for tomb occupancy reflected to some extent its earthly existence. Very likely the corpse was equipped with certain gifts or offerings which were placed in the tomb at the time of interment. Several inscriptions do in fact appear to contain references to tomb gifts or items of tomb furniture (see LPG p. 96, n. e on TL 88, and p. 97, n. a on TL 110). It may well be that the equipping of the corpse in this way, or the tomb which it was to occupy, was part of the general interment procedure.

⁵¹ kbi tike … atlahi tibe kbiyehi is to be understood as the object both of ñtepi tadi and alahadi.

⁵² I think it possible that te is to be interpreted as a locative adverb. But if this is so, then it does not conform to the chain of enclitics established by Laroche and followed by Houwink ten Cate (see the references cited above in n. 7).

⁵³ tewinaza may indicate the owner's profession, and if so it can be added to the list given by Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 63Google Scholar, par 10. Xote however that tewinaza occurs as a personal name in Zgusta's list Kleinasiatische Personennamen, Prague, 1964, sec. 1543–1, p. 510Google Scholar).

⁵⁴ See above n. 32, and contrast the translations of Meriggi and Carruba, both of whom construe kbi tike as the subject of alahadi.

⁵⁵ See Meriggi, , Indogerm. Forsch., 46, 1928, pp. 166 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Festschrift Hirt II, 1936, p. 275Google Scholar, and also Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 89Google Scholar, n. b on TL 16.

⁵⁶ El p. 67.

⁵⁷ This identification had in fact already been suggested by Torp, , Lykische Beiträge II, pp. 18 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁸ The inscription is recorded in Petersen, and von Lusehan, , Reisen in Lykien, Milyas, und Kibyratis, Vienna, 1889, p. 22Google Scholar, no. 27. Petersen and von Lusehan were of the opinion that μίνδις; signifies “die Gesammtheit der συγγενεῖς” (n. 5). See also Ormerod, H. A. and Robinson, E. S. G. in JHS 34, 1914, p. 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no. 32 for references to similar views, including a reference to Arkwright's suggestion that the mindis was the κοινόν of the heirs, not of the kinsmen.

⁵⁹ TAM II 62 Μίν[διος]. Note also TAM II 40, which contains the word μενδῖται, referring presumably to the individual members of the council (cf. Thomsen, , EL p. 70Google Scholar). On the equation of μίνδις/μενδῖται with miñti, see also Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 106Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ In TAM II 40, this seems clear from the reference to drachmas and the use of Alexander the Great's name to denote the coinage. TAM II 62 consists of three inscriptions, (c) containing the reference to the μίνδις. Kalinka admits that the letter forms of (c) are similar to those of (a) and (b), but suggests that (c) is a reproduction of an earlier inscription erased by age.

⁶¹ “die Mindis, bekanntlich die Behörde, die über das Bestattungswesen zu wachen hatte” (Indogerm. Forsch. 46, 1928, p. 165Google Scholar, and cf. n. 4, loc. cit.). Cf. Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 91Google Scholar, n. a on TL 36.

⁶² “On savait depuis longtemps que la miñti/mindis lycienne est une sorte d'assemblée locale ou fédérale devant l'autorité de laquelle sont jugés et punis d'amendes les violateurs de tombe” (Comparaison III, p. 78)Google Scholar.

⁶³ I have suggested above that this may be the interpretation to be assigned to TL 57. 4–5.

⁶⁴ This is a likely interpretation of TL 52, as Houwink ten Cate's translation seems to suggest (LPG p. 92).

⁶⁵ The miñti is referred to in the penalty clauses in TL 75. 5 and 139. 4 which are concerned with the punishment of persons defying the tomb owner's instructions.

⁶⁶ Meriggi, , Indogerm. Forsch. 46, 1928, pp. 164 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and KIF. I, 1930, p. 424Google Scholar; Mittelberger, , Die Sprache 10, 1964, p. 62Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ AOr 37, 1969, p. 524Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ See Meriggi, , Festschrift Hirt, II, pp. 261 ff.Google Scholar, and Houwink ten Cate, , LPG pp. 53–4Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ E.g. Thomsen, , EL p. 68Google Scholar, and Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 91Google Scholar, who tentatively suggests “fine” in his translation of TL 39.

⁷⁰ Xanthos V, p. 129Google Scholar.

⁷¹ EL pp. 68–70.

⁷² There is no equivalent in the Greek passage to mere ebette, which Laroche translates “pour ces règlements”.

⁷³ Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1570.

⁷⁴ See Friedrich, , Hethitisches Wörterbuch, p. 129Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ There is one other instance in the Lycian inscriptions where reference may be made to the individual members of the miñti—viz TL 149. 13–14: me piyaχã: m[i ……..] mupme: miñte. It seems not unlikely that miñite is to be construed as a dative plural after piyaχa: “(and) I have given to ….. to the members-of-the-miñti”.

⁷⁶ See Thomsen, , EL pp. 66–7Google Scholar, Pedersen, , Lykisch und Hittitisch, Copenhagen, 1945, pp. 30–1Google Scholar, par. 50, and Laroche, , Comparaison I, pp. 176–7Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ E.g. TL 6. 1 and 23. 1.

⁷⁸ Cf. Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 88Google Scholar, n. a on TL 6.

⁷⁹ Xanthos V, p. 136Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ See Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 65Google Scholar, par. 14.

⁸¹ Cf. TL 31. 3–6, 36. 3–5, 38, 41. 4–5, 42, 4, 47. 2–3, 50.1–2. Note that in TL 39 the list of prospective inhabitants appears to end with lada in v. 4, which is followed by a prohibition clause (señne …… ñtepi tane—vv. 4–6). The inscription then concludes with the ada formula: se iya ñta tãtẽ etc. From a grammatical viewpoint, one might expect iye here to refer to something less remote than those persons mentioned in vv. 3–4. But the formulaic nature of the expression, and its regular location at the end of an inscription no doubt accounts for the lack of strict grammatical continuity in this instance.

⁸² The only apparent exception is TL 6, which is discussed below.

⁸³ For the interpretation of this and similar penalty clauses, see Laroche, , Comparaison IV, pp. 59–61Google Scholar. It is debatable whether éni qlahi is to be construed as the subject or indirect object of the verb ttlidi. Also debatable is the meaning of amãma, translated by Laroche as “amende”. Neumann suggests that it is an adjective qualifying uwa etc. and meaning “untadelig” (Die Sprache 20, p. 110Google Scholar).

⁸⁴ Carrubu has recently argued that the numerical values to be assigned to aitãta, nuñtãta, kbisñtãta etc. are much smaller than is generally assumed (I Termini per Mese, Anno e i Numerali in Licio, Istituto Lombardo, Accademia di Scienze e Lettere, 1974, pp. 575–97Google Scholar, and especially pp. 578 ff.). His arguments are plausible, but not conclusive, and one must accept that the Lycian numerals are still largely unknown quantities.

⁸⁵ A similar conclusion was reached by Arkwright, , Anatolian Studies presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (ed. Buckler, W. H. and Calder, W. M.), Manchester University Press, 1923, p. 23Google Scholar. Cf. also Carruba, , Partikeln, p. 86Google Scholar, n. 86.

⁸⁶ Cf. the expression with that which appears in TL 131. 2.

⁸⁷ The precise translation of this passage is far from certain. Cf. the suggestions of Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 91Google Scholar and Carruba, , Partikeln, pp. 94–5Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ It should of course be emphasized that Carruba would interpret (e)seri tadi in TL 6 as “takes away”, and therefore his explanation of aladahali is quite consistent with this interpretation.

⁸⁹ EL p. 68.

⁹⁰ LPG p. 91, n. a on TL 36.

⁹¹ Laroche does in fact take miñti as the subject of ñta tãtẽ in TL 39. 7, and translates: “et ici la mindis … a imposé au violateur …” (Comparaison I, p. 177Google Scholar). Cf. his translations of TL 38 and 39 in Xanthos, V, pp. 129–30Google Scholar.

⁹² Note, for example, that in the Greek inscription from Cyaneae referred to above, the singular form μίνδιος is followed by plural verbs and participles which relate to it.

⁹³ The use of the indefinite verb in both singular and plural forms is quite common in Lycian; e.g. TL 88. 2–4: se ẽke lati ddaqasa me ne ñtepi tãti ñtipa tezi se ladã ehbi kbi tike mei nipe ñtepi tãtu tibei nipe hl mi tuwetu—“and when Ddaqasa has died(?), they will place him in the sculptured/inscribed (??) sarcophagos, and (i.e. along with) his wife; let them neither place anyone else within here (?), nor let one erect (?) a hl mi”.

⁹⁴ It seems not unlikely that ta-, which appears in the ada formula in the variant forms tate, tete, etc. is cognate with tesi and tasa.

⁹⁵ See above, n. 38.

⁹⁶ Like ta-, τίθημι is used a number of times in the sepulchral texts in reference to the act of interment; e.g. TAM II 51. 11 ff: ἄλλῳ δὲ μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι ἐν τῷ πυργίσκῳ τεθῆναι κτλ.

⁹⁷ See above under Element D.

⁹⁸ This assumes of course that Houwink ten Cate's translation of the passage is correct, or that miñti is the subject of piyẽte.

⁹⁹ In the trilingual, siχlas in the Lycian version (v. 22) and δύο δραχμάς in the Greek version (v. 20) are equivalent amounts. It is likely then that the Lycian shekel and the Greek drachma were of similar value.

¹⁰⁰ This is a further argument against Carruba's suggestion that aladehχχãne refers to “pagamenti da effettuare per parti della tomba da devolvere alla miñti” (CL pp. 35–6). The amounts involved seem far too small to make this suggestion feasible.

¹⁰¹ This would be so if an ada was worth one fifteenth of a mina, as suggested above under Element A. However if Laroche's suggestion that ∣˄∣○○ in the trilingual = 12½ is correct, then the value of an ada would have been correspondingly higher.

¹⁰² This is the only case in which a finite form of alaha- occurs in the ada formula.

¹⁰³ E.g. TL 36. 4, 57. 5–6.

¹⁰⁴ In particular, slaves (TAM II 217. 4–5, 322. 6–7 etc.), freedmen (TAM II 438. 13–14 etc.), and threptoi (TAM II 604. 16–17 etc.).

¹⁰⁵ Between iye and punamaθθi only three letters are clearly discernible, and the generally accepted restoration, which appears in both Kalinka's and Friedrich's editions, is [tu]be[it]i (cf. Houwink ten Cate, , LPG p. 88Google Scholar, and Laroche, , Comparaison IV, p. 55Google Scholar). tubeiti means “he/one punishes/will punish” (see, e.g. Laroche, , Comparaison IV, p. 55Google Scholar). The restoration, however, is extremely awkward from the point of view of both grammar and sense, and should be regarded as far from certain.

¹⁰⁶ Note the comments of Imbert, , Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 9, 1896, p. 213Google Scholar, and Thomsen, , EL pp. 41–42, n. 1Google Scholar.