The Inscriptions (Plates XXIII–XXIV)

chapter 4 The Inscriptions (Plates XXIII–XXIV) 1 Inscription I 1.1 Epigraphical Overview Karapla hill (Pharsala), on the elevation marked Sykies on between local and Ionic forms observed in Thessalian current HMGS maps (formerly Koukouvaia).1 Altitude: ca. inscriptions around the mid-fifth century BCE.3 Thus the 365 masl. Coordinates: 39° 16' 36.84" N, 22° 20' 42.90" E. tilted delta (lines 3, 5)4 appears next to an upright one Dedicatory inscription, engraved at ca. 3 m. above ground (line 4), while E for Ē (lines 1–2) appears next to Ionic xi on the east wall of a small rocky bay opening into the (line 5). On one occasion the engraver seems to lapse back north side of the cliff [Plate VI: 4; Fig. 13]. The text con- into retrograde writing (lines 3–2). Overall the tooling sists of a single column of writing laid out within a trap- appears to be consistent with some of the other stonework ezoidal area which has been carefully smoothed out for found at the site (such as the dressing of the apsidal chapel the purpose2 [Figs. 44–45]. This area occupies a recessed on the sanctuary’s upper level, p. 19 above). Dimensions part of the wall enclosed above and to the right by a raised of the smoothed area: height 0,35 m; width 0,5 m (at the edge. Some of the text in the right margin of the inscrip- top), 0,45 (at the bottom). Average letterheight: 0,03–0,045 tion runs over this natural frame (lines 2–4). Except for m. Date: first half of the fifth century BCE (for some par- these few letters, which are shallow and almost no longer allels of fifth century inscriptions from Pharsalus see e.g. visible today, the rest of the inscription is neatly cut and free IThess I, 69; 82). of damage. The lettering shows the characteristic wavering ΠΑΝΤΑΛΚΕΣ ΑΝΕΘΕΚΕ v ΝΟ ΘΕΑΙΣΤΟΔΕΡ̣Γ̣ ΤΑΝΔΕΔΑΦΑ̣Ν 5 ΑΕΔΑΠΑΞ vac. Φ̣ΑΝΠ vac. 2 ΝΟ: undetected by Giannopulos (although the nu is ing line running counter the direction of the other letters clearly discernible in fig. 2 of his 1919 article), the last two (although interestingly the N is not reversed). Such shifts letters in line 2 were first reported by Peek on the raised in the the direction of the lettering can be explained by edge which runs alongside the right margin of the writing contextual reasons, such as position, symmetry, etc. For a panel. As Peek saw, ΝΟ completes the text of the follow- discussion of Attic examples see Threatte 1980, pp. 52–54. 1 Della Seta 1922–1923, p. 284; Levi 1923–1924 p. 27. Koukouvaia (‘Owl’) and Sykies (‘Fig Trees’) are both names that reflect the zoology and botany of the area; cf. pp. 7; 24 above; also pp. 11–12 on the general 3 Examples and discussion are found in Jeffery 1990, pp. 96–99, toponomastics of the district. plate II, and Suppl. pp. 436–437. 2 Peek describes this area as an inverted triangle with a blunt apex, 4 Jeffery 1990, p. 96, fig. 29: δ3. For a similar example of the tilted delta 1938, p. 20; see also Moore 1994, p. 10. see e.g. IG IX 2, 271 with the accompanying illustration. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi ��.��6�/9��9��6��_006 58 chapter 4 3: the ending letters of this line run over the right mar- (three times in a text of only six lines). While ON at the gin of the inscription, continuing into the rough area end of line 2 can be explained as the correction of an over- immediately adjacent to it (ΕΡ̣Γ̣) and then in the space sight, there seems to be no evident reason for the textual above (ΝΟ), as discussed in the previous note. overflow at the end of lines 4–5. With all the space avail- 4 ΑΝ: inscribed in the same area as the line ends of able to him, we cannot but wonder why our mason has 2–3 above. It is unclear why the lettercutter persisted in resorted to using the unpolished surface to the right of the using this uneven part of the wall when over half of the inscriptional field. A further reason for puzzlement is the smoothed surface was still available to him. Even assum- way the text apparently breaks off in the last line. Since ing that he did not become aware of having omitted there is no evidence for physical damage we must con- ΕΡΓ̣ΟΝ until after he began to engrave the beginning of clude that this was also the text which presented itself to line 4, he could not have made the same error again with readers in antiquity. Were the ancient visitors of the sanc- ΔΑΦΑΝ. After Φ Decourt reads a right-angled oblique tuary as perplexed as we are? Very likely one of the reasons which he prefers to render as a dotted Ν. for the engraving of Inscription II was to provide pilgrims 5–6: although no physical damage appears to have and passersby with a guide to the interpretation of these occurred, the last two lines of the inscription defy any ancient carvings. Similar initiatives were not unknown to attempt at interpretation. Line 6 ends impossibly with a the managers of Greek sanctuaries, who encouraged visi- pi, while the remaining ten letters in the text stubbornly tor interest in ‘sacred relics’ and the traditions associated resist organization in coherent word sequences. As shown with them. A pertinent example is that of the inscriptions in the next section, much ink has been spilled in trying to in “Cadmean letters” seen by Herodotus on some votive make sense of this part of Inscription I. The third letter tripods at the shrine of Ismenian Apollo in Thebes:7 these in line 5 is debated: some editors read a tilted delta as in texts, which named mythological heroes Amphitryon and line 3 (Giannopoulos, Comparetti, Moore), others (Hiller, Laodamas among the dedicators of the tripods, appear Peek, Maas, Gallavotti, Decourt) prefer to print rho. “For to have been a later addition by Ismenium officials—evi- the rho in the shape of French capital D” Decourt invites dently for the purpose of educating onlookers about the to compare IG IX 2, 151: the sign in line 5 has however the origin of the votives. “Perhaps” writes J.W. Day, “early in the same markedly angular quality of the delta in line 3, of sixth century, the local authorities inscribed them, proba- which is almost an exact replica.5 At the end of the line, bly as labels to explain an oral tradition that had grown up the letter previously printed by Giannopoulos as an epsi- about the tripods. The link between the real dedicators’ lon is better restored as a xi on the evidence of Peek’s names and their offerings had disappeared—a serious squeeze (although Peek himself prefers to interpret this diminution of renown in a society which valued competi- sign as a punctuation mark). After this sign, past an inter- tive display very highly”.8 In the case of Inscription I, the vening space, Decourt believes he can discern the traces of an additional epsilon but the reading, as he admits, is 7 “I have myself seen Cadmean writing in the temple of Ismenian far from certain. Some debate also arises over the first let- Apollo at Thebes of Boeotia engraved on certain tripods and for the ter in line 6. Interpreted by most as a phi, this sign does not most part looking like Ionian letters. On one of the tripods there show as deeply cut a crossbar a s the phi in line 4, prompt- is this inscription: ‘Amphitryon dedicated me from the spoils of ing Peek to consider theta as a more plausible option.6 Teleboae’. This would date from about the time of Laius the son of Labdacus, grandson of Polydorus and great-grandson of Cadmus. A There can be no doubt that Inscription I shows a num- second tripod says, in hexameter verse: ‘Scaeus the boxer, victorious ber of puzzling aspects. The relatively good quality of the in the contest, gave me to Apollo, the archer god, a lovely offering.’ lettering seems in contrast with the way this engraver Scaeus the son of Hippocoon, if he is indeed the dedicator and not repeatedly runs over the right margin of the inscription another of the same name, would have lived at the time of Oedipus son of Laius. The third tripod says, in hexameter verse again: ‘Laodamas, while he reigned, dedicated this cauldron to Apollo, the 5 A rho of the kind described by Decourt is not listed in Jeffery’s table sure of aim, as a lovely offering’ ” (Hdt. 5, 59–61 transl. Godley). of Thessalian letterforms (1990 p. 96, fig. 29), nor was I able to find 8 1994, p. 40. The characterization of these texts as ‘labels’ is Stephanie evidence for it elsewhere. The alleged D-shaped rho in IG IX 2, 151 West’s: “Dedicatory inscriptions are an early and obvious applica- belongs to an early reading of the inscription discarded by Hiller in tion for writing, and we need feel no surprise if the guardians of favor of the widely attested delta by the same shape (Jeffery 1990, the Ismenion decided to add such dedications to objects tradition- p. 96, fig. 29: δ2). See Α̣ΝΟDΥ (Ἀνόδου[ν]?) for AD 4 (1901) p. 7, no. 11 ally associated with local heroes, not, probably, with any intention ΙΝΟΡΟΥ in IG IX 2, 151, line 1.

Load more