Corpus Inscriptionum Neo-Phrygiarum

CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM.

A COMPLETE collection of the known Phrygian inscriptions belonging to the Roman Imperial period was published by Professor [Sir] W. M. Ramsay in vol. viii. of the Jahreah. d. Oest. Arch. Inst, (1905), pp. 79-120. On that occasion Professor Ramsay reprinted all the Phrygian texts which he had already collected in Kuhns Zeitsehrift fur Vergl. Sprachf. xxviii. pp. 381 ff., and added nineteen new inscriptions. The discovery in 1908 and 1910 of a score of fresh inscriptions, many of considerable interest, affords a suitable opportunity to revise the text of the older series. In a large majority, of cases, the new discoveries confirm Professor Ramsay's interpretations. In some cases they suggest or impose modifications. An account of other literature on the subject will be found in Ramsay's later paper. As I shall have occasion to refer constantly to Ramsay's papers in Kuhns Zeitsehrift and the Jahresh. d. Oest. Arch. Inst., it will be convenient to call those papers R (a) and R (b) respectively.1 Professor Ramsay's numbering does not correspond exactly with the number of Phrygian texts published, because his earlier collection contains a few Greek inscriptions. But it seems better to retain his numbers: it is to be understood that Nos. I. to XLVIII. are the older series, and Nos. XLIX.-LXVII. the new inscriptions. Whether or not the reprinting of the older texts is justified by the small amount of •change we shall have to introduce in Prof. Ramsay's divisions and interpretations, it will be convenient for philologists to have them all in a single paper. Ramsay's inscriptions will be reprinted in minuscule letters only; for the epigraphic copies, the reader is referred to R (a) and R (b) respectively. Exact epigraphic copies are given in the case of Nos. XLIX.-LXVIII. No. XXXVI. was re-copied by us in 1910la; we were able to improve on Prof. Ramsay's copy of 1905, and a fresh epigraphic copy is given below. A new copy of XLVI. is also given. It has not been considered necessary in every case to mention expressly the rejected views of former writers. Investigation in this subject has had to grope in the dark, and the material is still far from sufficient to give certainty. While the new inscriptions throw light on many obscure places in the older ones, they themselves raise new problems which can be answered

1 R(a) is used meaning sometimes 'Ramsay's earlier paper,' sometimes 'Ramsay in his earlier paper': and so R (b). Ia See below. 161 162 W. M. CALDER only by further discovery. It is pleasant to be able to confirm some former explanations, e.g. Torp's and Solmsen's division of AINIKOC (No. XVIII.), which seemed almost too ingenious to be convincing.2 I have received much help from Professor Ramsay, both in discussions while we were discovering and copying the new inscriptions, and in criticism of this paper after it was written. I have to thank him in particular for surrendering to me the privilege of making the new series publici iuris. To another friend, Mr. Fraser of Aberdeen University, I owe many helpful suggestions and criticisms. Fick, Solmsen, Kretschmer, and Torp have all been laid under contribution; I owe Professor Torp especial thanks for sending me three inaccessible articles on the Phrygian language, which I have found very useful. To keep this paper within reasonable limits of space, it seems better to assume in the reader a knowledge of Professor Ramsay's two articles than to quote extensively from them. The results attained in the following pages would have been impossible without Ramsay's exhaustive and successful treatment of the subject. The following notes do not pretend to be philological : the writer expects and invites criticism from comparative philologists. It is only by candid interchange of criticism from the philological and the historical points of view that a final solution of many of the problems raised here can be attained. Seven of the new inscriptions were found by the writer in the course of a journey in Southern Galatia and Eastern Asia in the summer of 1908.3 I was not at that time acquainted with the literature on the subject, and, as several of the texts were fragmentary and difficult, I decided not to publish them until some traveller should have had the opportunity of revising them in the light of a fuller knowledge of the known formulae. That opportunity was given me during further exploration in the same region, partly in company with Sir W. M. Ramsay, partly alone, in the spring and summer of 1910. I was able to revise all the texts found in 1908 (with the exception of No. LV., which had been broken, and of which I saw only a fragment of the last line). Nos. LIV., LVL, and LVIII. were re-copied by Professor Ramsay and myself in company, and also the difficult text of'Sinanli (No. XXXVI. in Ramsay's collection). Nos. LXI. and LXIII. were revised by myself. While travelling alone, I also found Nos. LXII. and LXV., and the authority for the text of those two inscriptions (of which No. LXII. is excellently preserved, and offers no difficulties) rests on my 1910 copy alone. No. LXVI. was copied by Mr. J. G. C. Anderson in 1898. and is now for the first time claimed as Phrygian. No. LXVII. was copied by Professor Callander : it is identical with No. XLI. in Ramsay's collection, copied by Mr. Hogarth. Professor Callander adds a few letters, and gives us a highly interesting text. The attempt to interpret these texts must be founded mainly on a study of the Greek formulae used by the neighbours and friends of the dedicators. It is natural to suppose that the ideas expressed (according to the taste or

2 See on No. XVIII. 3 Described briefly in Klio, 1910, pp. 232-242. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONTJM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 163 education of the dedicator) in Greek or in Phrygian, were roughly the same. It was by comparison with the prevailing Greek formulae against violation of the tomb that Schmidt, and especially Professor Ramsay, found their way to a true explanation of the common Phrygian formulae, and laid the basis for a scientific study of the language. We shall not err if we proceed a little further along the same road—an exact correspondence in detail cannot of course be looked for. As Greek education spread among the towns and villages of Eastern Phrygia (at first radiating in some degree from the centres of Seleucid and Roman Government, and later implanted firmly by the broadcast extension of Christianity)4 it gradually killed out the use of the native language; but the two idioms existed for a long time side by side,5 and it is to this period that the Neo-Phrygian texts belong. The vast majority of these texts are in the form of a curse on the violator of the tomb, appended to an epitaph written in Greek. In a few cases the epitaph is written in Phrygian, and one of these Phrygian epitaphs has a curse in Greek appended to it. Three dedications to deities, two in Phrygian and the third possibly containing a Phrygian verb, form a separate class. The writers of these inscriptions must, therefore, have been acquainted with both languages, and, whether the formula against violation was written in Greek or in Phrygian, it must have expressed the same general idea. This principle gives us the key to the interpretation of much that would otherwise be dark in the Neo-Phrygian inscriptions. After this method, based on a knowledge of the Greek Epigraphy of the district, and of the general historical conditions, has been applied, its results must be tested in the light of Com- parative Philology; but historical interpretation must come first. Much labour has been wasted by scholars who have searched the Neo-Phrygian inscriptions for affinities to other Indo-Germanic languages, unconsciou3 of the conditions which a knowledge of Phrygian antiquities would have imposed on their work. Several causes contribute to complicate the task of interpretation. The great majority of the inscriptions have been copied by competent epigraphists, but a few important and unique formulae occur in texts for which the authority is unreliable. A large number of the inscriptions are fragmentary. Further discovery alone can clear up many questions which are tantalizingly near to solution. Orthography offers another stumbling-block. The orthography of the Greek inscriptions of Eastern Phrygia permits great latitude in the use of vowels, and we must assume a corresponding or even greater latitude in the case of Phrygian, which had to use a foreign alphabet. But it is often impossible to decide whether a given variation is orthographic, or whether it is to be attributed to variety of dialect, or even to difference of inflexion. A further point requiring emphasis in this connexion is the influence

4 On the date of this movement, see to Kamsay's writings given there. Anderson in Studies in the . . . E. Roman 6 See Holl in Hermes, 1908, jjp. 240 ff. Prof. Provinces (Ramsay), p. 196, and the references Ramsay has always maintained this view.. 164 W. M. CALDER exercised by Greek on the Phrygian idiom under the Roman Empire. As time went on, the Phrygian-speaking districts became islands in a Greek sea. This situation probably influenced the character of Phrygian in two ways. (1) In the first place, many Greek words were borrowed. Several such, e.g. cropov and 6a\afiei (dative), have already been accepted as Greek, but it seems highly probable that the inscriptions contain a much larger admixture of Greek than is generally recognised. For it must be noted that our comparative ignorance of the character of the everyday Greek spoken in the Central-Anatolian cities from the time of the Diadochi down to the early centuries of the Roman Empire, must constantly compel us to leave open the question whether given words were borrowed from the local Greek or belonged originally to the Phrygian language. And the problem is still further com- plicated by the fact that Phrygian (as is proved by the Old-Phrygian inscriptions as well as by those of the Roman period) was closely akin to Greek. And Greek influenced not only vocabulary, but also inflexion, and even syntax.6 An exactly parallel process displays itself in Anatolian Greek at the present day. Anatolian Greek is full of Turkish words, generally with a Greek termination, and Turkish syntactical usages occur in many dialects alongside of Greek forms.7 (2) Secondly, apart from orthographic variation, a further cause may have tended to diversity in the language of the inscriptions. Classification according to locality brings out certain broad differences in vocabulary and style, and suggests that the gradually-accomplished isolation of the Phrygian districts from each other tended to set up dialectic differences. The three examples of the highly interesting form aSSaiceTop all occur within a comparatively restricted area on the west of the Phrygian- speaking country.7a The formula yeypeifievav eye&ovr io<; ovrav has been found only in a patch of Phrygian territory on the North-East.7b When the materials are richer than at present, a classification of the inscriptions according to locality may yield interesting results. In this respect also, we have a close parallel in the case of modern Anatolian Greek. The isolation of the Greek villages amid a Turkish-speaking population has brought it about that the people of villages only a few miles apart hardly understand each other, and use only Turkish as the language of inter-communication. The total area over which Neo-Phrygian texts are found is not wide ; but the parallel of modern Cappadocia makes it clear that we must allow for much local differentiation. The existence of over sixty inscriptions, of which no two are exactly alike, and all of which exhibit intelligent syntactical variations, is sufficient proof that Phrygian was not a moribund language surviving in a few fixed formulae, but was the everyday language of the uneducated classes at the period to which the texts belong. This fact has been emphasised by Prof. Ramsay (R (b) p. 84); and Professor Holl has shown more recently that Phrygian was spoken till the fifth or sixth century A.D. (Hermes, 1908,

6 See on atjiovv rov Kvovfiavei, No. II. 7a See No. LXIII. 7 See Mr Dawkins, J.H.S. 1910, pp. 109 ff. and pp. 267 ff. 7b See No. XXXII. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 165 p. 248). The native languages in the Roman world maintained themselves alongside of Greek and Latin until Christianity, with its insistence on the Cultursprachen, had penetrated into every nook and corner of the Empire. The inscriptions in this paper belong to the first three centuries of our era: one cannot feel certain that any of them are later than the end of the third century, but some few may be as early as the first (e.g. XXXI., XLVIIL).

I. Taret? irebfirjcrev TOV 'ATTTTOVV TOV eavTrjs dv\Bpa en ^Sicra Kal ra reKva fiv^/A?)1, %a r\TUs | auro? Kal TO, reicva avTov Kal IK T&KVCOV reKva. This inscription, evidently composed by a Phrygian who had learnt Greek, is reprinted here, because reference must be made below to some of its peculiarities. II. 'Aj/Tt7ra|T/)O9 Kal Ba|/3ou? Yia\vo<; Aeovr\l& I8t\q> Kal CV 'Aia yvvaiKi avTov, Kal T\VK

8 Phryg. Insch. ausrom. Zeit. p. 10. are described by the Greek words Ki^rt, xuP^o": 9 Studies in the E. Roman Provinces typos. "With oua compare Greek oia, Ha, &Ba. (Ramsay), pp. 305 ff. These units of population 166 W. M. CALDER cf. ica/civ and zeaxe) Probably A/raAa? is a personal name in both cases (A/eaAa? nom., A/eaXa gen.). A person might have a Greek and a Phrygian name (see R(6), p. Ill on No. IX.) and A/ea\a? may be the Phrygian name of Leontius.10 I take vice, like evxiv in XXX. and vxoSav in XV, to mean ' tomb ' (see on XXX. below). There remains OOYIT6TOY, in which I should recognise a verb, third sing, imperative active; for the form compare eirov, and Greek -ereo, etc. A verb in the imperative conveys an injunction, and the general sense becomes clear ' let the village take care of the tomb of Akalas '; or if the verb is intransitive ' let the tomb be given to the care of the village." With the sense, compare irapedefiriv . . . rfj KW/JLTJ in No. XLVIII., and the note there.

III. to? vi aefiov /cvov/navei icaicov a[8]8a/ceT fi]a[v]ica[v, T]O? [VI fie Bio's /ce (foueAft)?] en e- T ITT ernefi- evos ecTov. R(«) considers that this inscription belongs to the second century or earlier. It seems clear that the formula used here is the one which occurs with slight variations in Nos. VI. and XXV. The fragmentary letters of line 2 distribute themselves into yu,]a[i>]«a[i/ T]OS [VI fie 8io<; . . . , assuming that there is ligature of NK in fiavicav, and that I of Sio<; has escaped the copyist's notice. We can restore the rest of the line after the pattern of VI. and XXV., but there is no room here for the addition fie ie(e) ATTI. If the inscription is complete except for the gap marked in R (a), fiavicav is added asyndetically: elsewhere it is joined to Kvovfiavet by aivi (see on XVIII.). Ert is repeated before erm . . . : see on LXVII. For fiavicav (dat.) see on No. XLIX.

IV. Ai6SoTo<; MaK€BoviKo[<; 6 ical M.evav]hpo STI - - ). R (a) and (b) makes aivioi a single word. I take IOI, as dative masc. of the demonstrative pronoun IOS (cf. XV.), and regard aiv as the shorter form by elision of the disjunctive particle (atvi). This resolves Solmsen's difficulty (Kuhns Zeitschrift, N.F. xiv. pp. 67 and 68) about the "double" form aivi and aivioi. For aivi see on No. XVIII. 8rj is probably an asseverative particle, as Kretschmer holds. 0a\a/iei is the Greek word 6d\afio<; (a sepulchral chamber n) with a Phrygian dative ending. A comparison with TavTg 0a\afieiv in No. I. might suggest that ioi daXa^ei is an impossible combination : for the feminine dative termination of two other pronominal stems is known to be in -a {era and ra)or -av (crav), and ioi is clearly masculine or

10 It is also possible that vice and OKOAO are But the form atcaKas in XXX. is difficult to two words meaning a tomb or part thereof. explain on this view. u See No. XXX. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 167 neuter. But ravrrj OaXa/ieiv is evidently a false gender (emanating from a person who knew little Greek) given to a noun felt and declined as Phrygian on the analogy of Greek nouns like iroXei, etc.12 The Phrygian gender of 0d\a/Mo<: would naturally follow the Greek : cf. aopov in XXI.

~~IV. (bis). A]aS»7? Ka[TeTiK' to(?) vi [a^e/iov tevo\y(iavei .... A bad copy, by Seetzen, G.I.G. 3880. 10Nl in the copy is possibly a mistake for ICNI: cf. No. V.~~

V. Aci "If/ijei/o? d[V/3t] yXv/cvTarcp Ze»Tt[/c]«3 fj,vi]fir}s y^dptv t? tee Genov\?\ /c(v)ovfitvo- pa ivT\\j(piTo. This inscription is from Hamilton's copy. The above seems the most satisfactory way of restoring the Greek portion of the text. Aa occurs (Kretschmer, Einleitung, p. 351), and "I/ievo? (suggested by Prof. Ramsay) is the gen. sing, of the well-known name Elfiav or 'I/iav (Kretschmer, ibid. p. 369). The letters ANPI, an attested form of A NAP I, are more likely to have given rise to Hamilton's AMM than any other possible term of relationship. R(fr) corrects the third line to £b/to\<»[?] n rente . . . and it is true that there is no other certain instance of Biox; frfioXa standing together without a connecting particle.13 The most remarkable point in this inscription is the use of te(v)ovfiivo<; the genitive, instead of the usual dative form. The confusion between genitive and dative is common in Greek inscriptions of the period. Torp has tried to find a true bilinguis in this inscription, but another explanation of Bicw fe/ieAoj? confirmed by a newly discovered text13" excludes the meaning he gives to the expression.

VI. The key to the transcription of this inscription is No. XXV. (Hamilton's copy). Each of those texts helps us to decipher the other. The formula in both is practically identical. Compare also No. Ill, to]? vi crefiovv tcvov/iave [tcateov afifteper a[i]vov[fi] /i[a]v[tea]v, TO? vi fie £e/ieA.w «e Seo? [K- ? e] eTi rjTiTTeTiKfievot! e[ir]ov. R (a) marks the loss of three or four letters at the end of lines 1 and 3. On line 2, he notes that it is doubtful if a letter was lost at the end. Clearlv KUKOV should be restored in line 1: the stroke after € must

12 Or possibly through confusion with Greek itrmeiiifvai rots alSolois rS>v kitoK&vwv. 6a\dfi-n, a cavity, which is used meaning JS See on No. LXII. •grave' in Eur. Snpp. 980; or with the 13a See on No. LXII. 0a\d/xai which Hesychius explains as

VII. to? vi o~e/nov]v icvov/iavi Kaica\y t^eipav aS&aic ?]eiA, Seos ice £e/i[e\ft>? ]a/ceot eipoia TI €TiTr[e- ? €ITT]VOV. It is hopeless to attempt anything with this fragmentary text. aSSa/cer becoming aSSaxev before 8 is peculiar, and probably the restoration is wrong. aiceoi eipoia TI seems to be the correct division; compare aiceoi ireies ice in XII., on which a conjectural explanation of the expression is given. But if this division is adopted, it must be remarked that TI can be either the particle connecting aiceoi and eipoi (as in No. XXV.) or the repeated Tt (or en) in apodosis (see on LXVIL). A possible alternative is that we should divide aiceoi eipoi An eriTT[eTi/cfievoi ? enr\vov, taking Art, as the more usual A.TTI or ATTIC, to be the dative of the divine name Attis.

~~VIII. T6Tt/e]/xez>o? eirov.~~

14 See p. 164. 14a Cf. Nos. XXXIII., XXXVI. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 169 IX. ? @]u? Aov/jb\jjL\er{a\ov TIaov Trj[i] l&[- ai [y]vvaiKi Newo-pla /*v[ij- ftrf\ 9 a[iS\ioTaTov (e)'lveica It is fairly certain that the name Aovfieraos should be restored in the first line. It occurs at Iconium (Sterrett, Epig. Jour. No. 215), and at Serai-ini near Laodiceia Combusta (copied in 1910, and unpublished). The present inscription proves that it is a genuine Phrygian name, and not a local version of the Latin Domitius. Solmsen compares the name with the word 8017409 ( =

~~X. 'A//./ua UaT[r]pa] ical [IIa7r]7ra (T4KVOC<;) IBLOlf [avrjrj'i~~

~~(a) to9 vt erenow rov KVOV- fjiavei KCUCOVV ahhaiceT, TiT\eTiKfievo<; eirov. (b) I-NHKITAC~~

16 Eamsay, Studies in the . . . E. Roman xiv. p. 310. Provinces, p. 153 (Fraser). 17 Zum Phryyischen (Kristiania, 1896), p. 7. 16 See Ramsay in Sezzenbergers Beitrdge, E (b) ad. loc. takes 8O5ITI as equal to rtStiffi. N 2 170 W. M. CALDER The name Pateras occurs in Ramsay, Studies in the E. Rom. Provinces, p. 160, Sterrett, W.E. No. 104, etc. It is probable that the omission of retcvois is idiomatic: a dedication of Iconium published by Cronin in J.H.8. Vol. XXII. p. 116, contains the expression fiera rwv elBimv (LVTWV. On erenow rov Kvovfiavei see above on No. II. Sayce suggests (see R (b) on X.) that r)vr)KiTa

XI. (Of cre]//.oi/ KVOV- fiave]i Kaicwv %eip\av a/3/3e- per, TiJTeTiK/ie- vos A]TT6 a$e- t]rov. The restorations are by Prof. Ramsay. In line 4, the letters P£T given in R(6) do not suffice to fill the space. The restoration is either P€TAI or P 6 T TI, making afifiepeTai middle, or adding rt before reriKjievos. KCLKWV (ace. fern.) is a peculiar form: it is to be compared with the ace. of fern- substantives in -ov? {e.g. Ba/9ov?, No. II.: Ba/3ow, cf. Solmsen in Kuhns Zeitschrift, N.F. xiv. p. 57.

~~XII. {G.I.G. 3986.) EvBafi[oJeir[> ? U]p[i]]~~

eto? vi crefiovv tcvovfiavi Kaicov aSSa/cer t,eip aiceoi Trete? ice TIT- ArT([e] aSeirrvov. in the sense of a cavalry soldier is common in epitaphs in Asia Minor.18 The wife's name is probably \\pr\a-yri (IIjOtcrK^) : r\ for t and % for « occur frequently in the region. The end of line 6 could also be transcribed 7T6te? /e(e) ertr-, as in R (6). On ArTt[e] see on LXII. The text of this inscription depends on two bad copies, those of Hamilton and Seetzen. R (6) rejects the authority of both for the second last letter in line 5, and prints xa/ccov; but icaicov may have been used alongside of Kaicav (VII.) and icaicwv (XI.). On £eip for £eipa or £eipav see on IX. {KIPOV/JLUV). The verb eirrvov is clearly plural (so Professors Kretschmer, Ramsay,

18 Cagnat, Inscr. Grate, ad res Rom. pert. in. p. 625. But see Class. Rev. xxiv. p. 11. Possibly the sense here too is equiso. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 171 and Torp); we must therefore look for a plural subject, or for two subjects. The phrase containing the subject is evidently aiceot ireies ice. One could confidently state that these are two substantives conjoined by ice, were it not for the evidence of LIII., where we find KCU used as an emphatic particle in the apodosis. We are accordingly forced to leave two alternatives open in XII.; either aiceoi weies ice are two substantives (the first plural, the second singular or plural), joined by ice enclitic, or the two words aiceoi and ireies stand in some other relation to each other, and ice emphasises the verb in the apodosis. In the latter case, aiceoi could be the instrumental (or dative) case of a substantive, and 7rete? the plural subject of the sentence. The form aiceoi may be taken as fairly certain. Its occurrence in VII. is indecisive, for there it is the first word in a broken line; but in XXXIII. it occurs (in the form a/c/ceoi,, cf. xvovfifiavei for icvovfiavei in LIII.) between two well-attested Phrygian words, ovrav and fieicos. Professor Ramsay's attribution to this root of avicaioi and axeocrioi (R (b) on XXXIII.) is too disputable to be used as an argument until further evidence is found. The form a[ic]eocrioi (apart from the division) is highly improbable in itself: the symbol read as K is almost certainly B or P> for both K and A (the only other possibilities) occur frequently in XVIII., always in these forms. The word 7rete? (Hamilton; 7ret9 Seetzen) may perhaps be the same as Trpieis in XLIX. Phrygian Greek had a tendency to drop p after IT : e.g. we find TToa-iroujafi for Trpoairoirjirei in I., where see R (a) note. Treie? alongside of irpiei^ may illustrate this tendency, or a P in ligature with TT may have escaped the notice of both copyists. In XLIX. irpieis is clearly a substantive meaning a relative, attached to a female name. It may either be a feminine noun or a noun of neuter gender like Gk. reicvov, meaning ' child.'19 Its use in XII. favours the latter supposition. The plural verb implies that it means' children' here, and we thus have a parallel to I. (and a numerous class of similar inscriptions), where a curse is invoked on the children of the violator of the tomb. Let us now consider aiceoi. Its use as the first word in the apodosis in two cases, and as the first word in an extension of the apodosis in the third case (XXXIII.) suggests that it is an anaphoric pronoun. Agreeing with a singular relative (to?) it is probably singular; and accordingly it probably is the dative case of a pronoun, corresponding to the Greek Tovrrp. An alternative suggestion, that aiceoi may be a second term of relationship (thus making the invocation correspond to reicva ical etc reicvwv reicva in I.) is rendered improbable by the use of the singular verb hpeypovveirov (or eiTov according to R (&)) in XXXIII. We accordingly take ice in line 5 to fulfil the same function as icai in LIII. Similarly in VII. (aiceoi, eipoia TI) TI is the ' repeated' particle in apodosis,19a and eipoia is a substantive (plural) meaning something on which the curse is invoked. Can it correspond to Greek r/pia (r\piov ' a tomb ') ? The term r)piov occurs in Pontus (see Stitdia

19 If «•« (fern.), can agree with a neuter word meaning a female relative. 18» See on LXVII. 172 W. M. OALDER Pontica, Anderson, Cumont, Gre'goire, III. p. 68) and at Smyrna (Ath. Mitth. 1887, xii. 246).

XIII. to? vi ae/Mov /cvovfiavi K\XICOVV aftftepeTcu, [e- Ar-rie] aBeirov. II (a) notes that the last letter in line 1 ' may be C or o or even € or 0.' The above, given as an alternative in E(6), seems the most satisfactory restoration.

XIV. T]el/tMos Kal r) dvyarpl M.dv[y acoprj Kal Tetytio- &eo fivrj- 5 firjs eveKov. to? vi aefiovv KVO- vfMavet, tca/civ aBa- Ker aiv aSarea, M[a e^TiTeTt/cfievos A- 10 (TTiav [eiro]v. The first letter in line 9 is c : I follow R (b) in correcting it to e. On atv (= sive) see below, on No. XVIII. aBarea seems to be still another word meaning a tomb or part of a tomb (see R (b) on IV. and XV.).19b Ma is separated from Acrnap by the participle, doubtless for metrical reasons. Aa-Tiav (dative feminine) here appears as an epithet of Ma: in LIII. it is used alone as the name of the goddess. Ma of the Tembrogius is mentioned in a list of deities in XLVIII. R(6) conjectures that AT€AM is a fault for AT6AA, a variant for ATTICA A ; but our explanation of ACTIAN in LIII. renders this view untenable, and suggests that Ma and Acrriav should go together here. R (6) states that C at the beginning of line 9 is certain. He corrects it to 6, and this is probably right; but there may be some justification for following the epigraphic copy. The confusion of genitive and dative is one of the most marked characteristics of the ruder Anatolian inscriptions; we find rfj /MjT/w and TJ}? //.^T/at'.20 But Ma? Aa-Tiav is an unlikely collocation, and we prefer to look on C as an engraver's mistake for 6. An alternative to the above view is to take Aariav alone as the name of the goddess, and look for the second name of the tomb in AAATEAM[A. XV. Bav 7T/3OTV? o"[e] arafj,- e\vav fiav/cav A/t[t- a]? lav tot, avap Ao/ju«[Xa

~~b perhaps (O)8OT6O corresponds to Gk. 0CT~~

Bevvrj ravTitja VKoBdv "irpoTVs ere crTajievdv. The pentameter follows closely the type of XXXI. fiavxav has been generally accepted as equivalent to Greek /ji.vfj/Ma.25 Here it is in apposition to VKoBav. Following the name of the maker of the tomb, A/M«?, we have the relative and demonstrative pronouns in close juxtaposition, and the metre enables us to identify them closely; fiavicav A.fi(ji)ia$ lav T&i avap A6pvic[Xd. tav (relative) is pronounced as a single syllable as in to? vl cre/Movv ... in the main formula. Compare also lav in No. XXXI. A similar contraction (lengthening the o)26a takes place in a Greek metrical inscription of Pontus (Io/Swo?) (Studia Pontica, Anderson, Cumont, Gregoire, iii. p. 40). It is interesting that the initial y -sound does not lengthen the final syllable of 'A/xta?. On the other hand tot is the dative singular masculine of the demonstrative pronoun whose ace. sing, feminine occurs in XXXI. 'SSl/cer eldv; in eyeSovr to? ovriiv (in XXXII. etc.) its initial syllable is

21 Kretschmer, Einleitung, p. 339 f. (Ramsay), p. 153 (Eraser). (Cotiaeum). 25 See Fick in Bezz. Bettrage, xiv. p. 50 ; 22 i) for €. See on No. XLIX. Ramsay, ibid. p. 308. 23 25a Of. No. IX. /U(«)»'K[O]>' "re oTaHV]. The accent, however, may cause the 21 See Studies in the E. Roman Provinces lengthening. 174 W. M. CALDER shortened metri causa, tot, occurs again in No. IV., 101 daXafiei (dative masculine), avap is accordingly dative singular (Gk. avSpi); the form, as R(6) points out, is to be compared with the Old Phrygian oblique cases without case-ending (see Ramsay in Bezz. Beitrage xiv. p. 310). Aopvrc[\a<;] (or Ao/0w/e[Xo?] ?) is the husband's name (Gk. Aopv/cXer]?). The verb to A/ita? (ecmze? ? cf. XXXI.) was given in line 5 (lost).26 The whole inscription accordingly means ' Stranger, behold the tomb standing before thee, the memorial which Amias (set up) to her husband Doryklas.' Prof. Ramsay26a would avoid the difficulty caused by making ere (on which, as a separate word, some emphasis would fall) short before trrafievav, by understanding an adverb irpoTVcrae = TrdpoiOe. With ravei^a, if it is a verb, may be compared the Old Phrygian aravi^ev {Bezz. Beitrage xiv. p. 310). XVIII. at vi KOI aefiovv Kvovfiavet, K- aaovv aBSa/cer aivi fiavKa t>EO CIOIMETOTOCCIIICAPNAN These are the last three lines of an undeciphered Phrygian inscription : the mutilated text of the first seven lines baffles restoration. These lines evidently contain a variation of the usual curse. R (b)'s transcription of the latter portion is unsatisfying: a new inscription may solve the riddle. Torp offers an ingenious explanation, which must, however, await confirmation.27 Solmsen's28 brilliant division of AINIK O C is confirmed by LXIV., which begins thus: AIK O C = at «o?, si quis. I give his analysis of the expression in his own words. ' Ich glaube nicht zu irren mit der annahme, dass dieses aivt,Ko~~ceT aiv tot daXa/iei, reriK(jt,evo~~

~~~~XIV. io<{ vt, cr. K. K. aSaiceT aiv aSarea, .... TeTiK/xevos [eiro^v. XVIII. ai vi icos~~~~

26 The stone was broken at the bottom 28 Kuhns Zeitschrift, N.F. xiv. p. 65. Torp (B (a), p. 394). independently explained the words in the same 26a In a private criticism of this article. way : Zum Phrygischen, p. 6. 27 Zum Phrygischen, p. 7. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 175 XXVI. to? vi

VI. to? vi cre/jt,ovv icvovfiave [KCIICOV] aftfieper a[i\vov[fi] (t[a]vic[a]v, TO? VI . . . . rjTlTT€TlK/J,eVO^ €ITOV. XXV. to? vi (Ttfiovv Kvovfiavt, [ic\aicovv a/8/3tpeTo(p) aivi/i /ji[(a)vic]a, TO? VI . . . . T€TlKfJ,€VO<; eiTOV. An obvious variation (but occurring more rarely) of the formula rovrm T«3 r/paxp Ke rfjBe ry is Tovrtp TS rjpunp fi rrjBe rfj . I take aivi to be the disjunctive particle in Phrygian, formed from the conditional particle ai and vi, cf. Lat. siue

~~~~XIX. Avp. Tvpavvot} Y\.aira ical Wipr/vr) fi~~~~

29 Zum Phrygischen, p. 6. 32 Phryg. Insch. aits rom. Zeit. p. 15. 30 Except, perhaps, in XLIII., but the 33 Fick in Bezz. Beitrage, xiv. p. 50: restoration there is uncertain. modified by Solmsen in Kuhns Zeitschrift, 31 See R (a) on No. IV. N.F. xiv. pp. 50, 51. 176 W. M. CALDER

~~~~XX. Avp. HovTri'ios ical Kapi/cb? ical Ylavi'a ol Kapi/cov, KXijpovofioi avrov, I8i[~~~~

~~~~0eipei. (Perhaps aacncvov is an imperative, meaning " let him perish.") But possibly KNOY/ is icvov[(iavei or KVOV\JUVO<;.~~~~

XXI. Avp. KvpiXXa Mvpwvo<; crv/tySto? Avp. Tiaird Mev(v)e~ OV TOV KCU KvpiCtiVOS KCU 'AlT' irdi 9 TtTTeri- Kfievo's eirov. cropov, like 8aXa/J,ei in IV. retains its gender in Phrygian; era is feminine in XLIX. and LXVII. The dative termination -ov occurs in aefiov (Nos. XIX., LXV.).34 Kaice is a 'shortened form of kakun or kakin':3S compare the forms vxoSav (?), evxiv, v/ce (see on XXX.). fie £e/ue\&>? is certain : we are not justified in changing to fie ^efieXto [e]rtTT.... (see on No. LXIL).

~~~~XXII., XXIII., and XXIV. are entirely in Greek.~~~~

XXV. tO9 vi crifiovv Kvov/iavi \_ic\aK0vv a/3- /3ipero(p) atvofj, fi(a)[v/c]a, TO*? VI [Seo? £"]tyU.[e]Xa>9 Tt fie *(e) A- 5 T[Tf] TitTeri/cfievos eirov. It is highly regrettable that this inscription is known only from Hamilton's copy. It is one of the most interesting of the whole series, and a perfectly reliable text would be valuable. The form o-ifiow may be accepted: there is great variety in the vocalisation of the entire series, aftftipero is a highly interesting form, i is a mere local variety (compare crifiovv for aefiovv) and the word is evidently the same as af3(3eper(ai). Comparing the final syllable with aSSatcerop in XLVIII. and LXIIL, it seems likely that

31 Cf. AovSov in No. LIV. »' K(o) ad loc. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 177 «/3/3tp6TO shows the same termination: either Hamilton has omitted p, or the r sound had disappeared (under the influence of the borrowed Greek middle form afiQepercu) and only the o sound was retained in pronunciation. See on LXIII. tuvifi has been explained above (on VI. and XVIII.). In III. and in VI. (which reproduces almost exactly the formula used here) we have found the demonstrative pronoun TO? followed by vt at the beginning of the apodosis. There can be no doubt that TOS recurs here (also followed by vi) at the end of 1. 3. Between aovifi and TO? Hamilton's copy contains MYPA- It is of course possible that this is still another name for the tomb; but more probable that Hamilton has read M^KA (cf. IX.) as MYPA. The similarity between this inscription and VI. makes this correction very probable. The division pe «(e) AT[TI] will be discussed under LXII.

~~XXVI. tO? Vi (7€/iOV KVOVfia- ve KaKov Saicer aivi fiavica, ri eirov TL in 1. 3 is not the copulative particle, but is like Tt in II. (a) etc. The simple form Sa/cer recurs in LVI.; 8o/cer in LIV.~~

~~~~XXVII. (o? ice~~~~

35a Cf. arparevaaufvov (for -or) in the epitaph of Eugenius, Bishop of Laodiceia Combusta, Klio, 1910, p. 233. 178 W. M. CALDER doubtfully K which must be right.' But aivi is nowhere else accompanied by ice, and we are not justified in inserting it here. Professor Ramsay's copy of the inscription is correct: he changes | to K in pursuance of his theory that aivi is a demonstrative pronoun. K in R (6) ought to be marked as a restoration. The Greek portion of the inscription is given only in R (b). See Prof. Ramsay's paragraph a.l. on the dating of the inscription. The order of the words in this inscription is important for fixing the meaning of aivi—see on XVIII. XXX. I revised this inscription without change in 1910. It is engraved on a Phrygian door-stone. On a higher part of the stone, near the right-hand side, there is the following fragment of a Greek inscription.

CIKONOMA Aip. AovSa? A/eaAa? ev/civ Apyov %if3r]- of? /3aveico<} Tota «(e) KidXra rjKerav hv{pir\ae)v. N The last line ends thus efFH- The reading is certain, and it cannot by any possibility be €[IT]V(OV), as Professor Ramsay tentatively suggests. It seems to be a contraction, probably for ivoirja-ev; the N was engraved wrongly, and corrected above the line. Professor Ramsay's division of the first five words seems probable; /3aveKos must be the word for ' wife,' occurring in the old Phrygian inscription36 in the form ftovotc (accusative)—here it is clearly in the genitive (R (bj). It must remain doubtful whether we should not divide Apyov; Iftrjow;: as the second name is probably the father's, Professor Ramsay's division is the more likely. If we are right in taking the symbols at the end to represent eiroirja-ev, the inscription must contain a word meaning ' tomb.' This word is undoubtedly ev/cw (accusative: compare tea/civ for xaicovv). Torp 37 has detected the root of this word in No. XV. (which, however, he divides and interprets in a different fashion from that attempted above). He connects the root VKO with Skr. okas, and Lycian like, oke, meaning ' house.' Now the language of Anatolian epitaphs continually suggests that the tomb was thought of as the ' house' of the dead person. Sometimes a door and pediment are represented on gravestones, sometimes a door simply: the gravestone is in some cases called ffvpa.38 In IV. the Greek word daXapos is used of the tomb; ica/idpa is used in the same way in an inscription published in Wiener Sitzb. xliv. 13. Anatolian rock-graves (common in Phrygia) were arranged after the pattern of the OLKO

" Bezz. Betirage, xiv. p. 309. Kleinasiens (Kaemmerer, Halle, 1909), p. 19. 37 Phryg. Inschriften am Mom. Zeit. p. 23. i0 E.g. in an inscription of Eumeneia, B.C.H. 38 See Kamsay, Cities and Bishoprics, pp. 99, xvii. p. 242, No. 5 ; on one of Pontus, Studio, 100. Pontica (Anderson, etc.), p. 93. Magnesia, 39 See a very useful pamphlet by Hans B.C.H. xviii. 11, 6. On this subject, see Stemler, Die Oriechischen Grabinschriften in Glotta, 1911, p. 204. COBPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 179 These quotations, which might be multiplied, are sufficient to prove that in Phrygian the word for ' house' could naturally mean ' grave.' evicip in this inscription must certainly have that meaning ; vice in II (b) and uicoSav 1 in XV. are both to be referred to the same stem; and the meaning in both these cases must likewise be ' grave.' There remain the letters TOIAKKIOATAHKETAN- B,(6) takes rj/cerav to be a genitive plural, meaning ' house-hold servants.' Anatolian inscriptions frequently contain provision for the burial of slaves or freedmen in the tomb of their master (e.g. Benndorf, etc. Reisen in Lykien, ii. 29 iv TOO v-rrocropiw ivK7}hevdrjaovrai ol aKKoi aireXevdepoi ical BovXoi r/ficov. Stemler, op. cit. p. 48). If rjKerav means ' servants,' the preceding letters probably contain two names, Tota «(e) KioXra, in the genitive. Totas is known in the forms ©was and Tovr/f; it is from the same root as 00?. (See on IX.) The inscription therefore means: ' Doudas Akalas made the tomb of Argou daughter of Sibeou, his wife, (and) of Toias and Kioltas, his servants.' The inscription was accordingly bilingual. Perhaps the fragment of the Greek portion given above contained the Greek names of the servants .... ei «(e) 'Ovofia[KplT(fi ? These letters belong to the latter part of the Greek inscription.

XXXI. acr ae/Movv Kvov/j,apa Bidpepa «(e) Eevveoi '&8uce[T~\ etav fiavKav cav ecnaes ftpaTepe /xai/iaprjav Hov/cpos Mavia- 5 o]v ei/€7ra/3/ce? Be rovv- @ov] Sevva NAl AMHSBPOKEin AEKM0YTAHZ1OY TTPOTOSOY A facsimile of this inscription is reproduced in Journal of Hellenic Studies, xviii. p. 121 (Anderson). The restoration TOW[/3OV] is very tempting: Ramsay's view that the accusative of this word was taken into Phrygian as nominative (and hence neuter) receives some confirmation from agaves TOTTOV in XLIX. (see a. I.). It is uncertain whether Y in line 8 is the last letter of the line. The name Bewa may be accepted, but no certainty, or even probability, can at present be attained with the following part of the inscription. See, however, on IX. I retain Prof. Ramsay's division, and accept his explanation, of the third fourth, and fifth lines, except Maviaiov (see below). Torp divides a?

~~~~~~41 I owe this explanation to Mr. Fraser, Aberdeen University, who thought of it independently of Prof. Torp's division. 180 W. M. CALDER~~~~~~

"ATTTTOVV, etc., and there is every reason to expect an accusative cre/iow alongside of the dative aefiovv. In XLIX. we have the expression ar a> ica eicrravi '. (a site) on which he sets up': here a is probably the Greek a>. This phrase recalls the expression (common on Anatolian metrical epitaphs) GTrfkr]v 8' eVt rvfi/3o) . . . earrjcrev, with several variations, ar in XLIX. is the preposition (Latin ad, English at) which occurs in a88a/cer, aftfteper. Possibly ar is the simple form of the preposition, and aBBa/cer = ar-Ba/cer, a/3/3eper = ar-fieper, aaaefiovv = arcrefiovv ; aSeirov for areirov being due to dissimilation. In XLIX. ar governs a dative, but Kvov/xava cannot be in the dative case, and is accusative jn form. We therefore have ar governing the accusative, just as we might find crrrfKrjv 8' eVt rv/uffov . . . eo-rrjcrev alongside of arifkr)v 8' eVt Tvpfttp ... ecrrrjaev in Greek. 'BBi/cer, with prodelision of a (Ramsay) is a part of the verb to which aBSa/cer belongs, and eiav, as Torp observes, is Latin earn ( = ej-«m). Heweot is dative of a masculine name : compare Bewa, probably feminine, in line 6. SiOpepa is not to be confounded with SiOpe-fra in XLIX., where the reading is certain. Btdpeyjra is probably an adjective; SiBpepa is a noun: on its meaning see R(6). It cannot be an adjective here, because it is joined to Kvovfiava, a well-attested substantive, by tee. The words Uevveoi 'BSiicer elav suggest that the first two lines were intended to be a rough hexameter. The third line, with ^.aifiap-qav of the fourth, forms a pentameter, cap is scanned as a single syllable, as in XV. The construction is somewhat mixed; the name Sevveoi occurs in the principal clause, and the word ftparepe (fratri), agreeing with it, in the relative clause. The inscription (see R(6) ad loc.) must accordingly be translated: ' On this tomb and (dithrera) Poukros, son of Manisos made this memorial to Xeuno, (the memorial) which he set up in marble to his brother; and Xeuna equipped (?) the tomb. . . .' The fact that Xeuno was the brother of Poukros is more evident in the original than in the translation, owing to the agreement of the cases. R(&) restores Mavicr[w]v in lines 4 and 5. But the name Maz^ao? (in the form Mawcro?) suits better. It occurs in an inscription published by Lanckoronski, Pisidien, No. 155b = C./.6r. 43661. Compare Mayocra? in Lycaonia, Ath. Mitth. xi. p. 163 (Kretschmer, Einleitung, p. 200).

XXXII. KXdpog Kal AovBa f) avfi/3to<; avrov ^iovcrov vim f/,vrjfit)<; %dpiv, xal AovBa kavry £a>cra. to? vi ae/jbovv Kvovfiavei 5 KO\KOVV aBBaicet, Iyeypei[i[e\va- v eyeSovr to? ovrav. Prof. Ramsay and I revised this inscription in 1910, and observed that lines 4 and $ began thus: IOCNIC 10 "AKOY CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 181 apparently the engraver began too low on the stone and corrected his mistake after cutting two letters. The Greek portion of this inscription contains a peculiarity. In Phrygia, the preparation of the grave was a religious duty, which everyone had to fulfil, or have fulfilled for him. In this case a husband and wife make a tomb for their son (who is dead—fivi]/j.7]<; ydpiv), and the wife provides for her own burial in the same grave. But the husband does not (as in XXXIII.): and the explanation must be that a grave has been provided for him already. Inscriptions recording the preparation of a grave commonly contain the names of the persons who were to be buried in it; and it would appear from this inscription that the obligation to lie in a grave so prepared was as binding as the obligation to prepare it. A single inscription is of course not sufficient to prove this suggestion; but the suggestion seems worth making in the expectation that further evidence may be found. The formula occurring in the apodosis of this text, and in several other inscriptions in our collection has so far been found only in a very limited area of Eastern Phrygia, on the border of Lycaonia and Galatia. R'(ft) divides yeypeifievav eyeSovrio*} ovrav, taking yeypei/ievav as equivalent to yeypaftfievrjv (from a verb *ypecf>'i>); eyeSoimo? as a future indicative or as an adjective = vTrev6vvo<; with a substantive verb understood; and ovrav (on the suggestion of'Professor Sayce) as corresponding to dFarav, aTV)v (avdrav Pindar). The same root perhaps occurs in mreiXrj, ovrdco (cf. Boisacq, Diet. Etym. de la Langue Grecque s.v. arrj). Before the discovery of the bilingual No. LXIV. which almost certainly translates yeypeifievav (cret . . . ) by %pl^a (= Kplfia), Professor Ramsay had suggested in conversation that yeypei/tevav is the Greek Keicpbfievqv. This must be correct. But it is puzzling to find K represented by 7; that the initial sound approximated to K is proved by the assimilation of aBBa/cer in the form aBBa/ce/c. A similar change from surd to sonant characterizes the modern pronunciation of ancient names in this country: e.g. K.dva (in Lycaonia) becomes Gehne. This explanation confirms Sayce's interpretation of ovrav, which must mean either Trpoartfiov or a calamity inflicted by the god. The verb eyeair in LVIIL, where the division is certain, shows that the division here must be eyeBovT to? ovrav.i2 to? is the demonstrative pronoun (see on No. XV.) shortened in this phrase for metrical reasons. . ,

XXXIII. Met/00? re/crow ical 'A/x/Ma rj cri5ya/3to? avrov reicvq> lBiq> ~M.dp/c(p TeKTOVt ical ^(oypdcfxo avtoprp fivrjfir)<; eveicev iiroi^crav ical ^dWe? eaurot?. 101; vr] ae/iow tcvovfiavet, /ca/covv aBBa/cer, yeyeifievav eyeBovr to? ovrav a/aceoi, fie/cos cuc/coXo? ri Bpeypovv enov O,VTO<; /ce ova ice po/ca yeyapiTfievos aifiarav T€VTOV

42 I had thought of eyeSov TI OS OUTOI1, as the borrowed Greek demonstrative pronoun, comparing e7«Sou with tLTOV, taking TI as the But lyeSovr 10s is more probable (so also Prof, particle in apodosis ( = CTI) and regarding os Ramsay). 182 W. M. CALDER form a diphthong, but v is inserted to mark a and a> as separate sounds. So ai>To<; in line 6 (if a true Phrygian word, as R(6) holds) was probably pronounced dvros, like the Naxian dFvros. The divisions in R(6) seem certain, except perhaps in TlAPerPOYNGITOY yeyeifievav may be a mistake of the engraver for yeypei/xevav ; or p may be dropped as in iroairoirjaei (see on XII). For a/c/ceot, see also on XII. R(6) prints ACBATAN, leaving it doubtful in his note whether the second letter is z or |. The authority of XXXV., where we read ABATAN, is decisive for Al BAT AN. Professor Ramsay suggests (by letter) that this may be aFarav (Greek arrjv) which occurs elsewhere as ovrav. But it would be surprising, if this were the case, to find both ovrav and ai/3arav in a single text, as we do here and in XXXV.

~~~~~~XXXIV. Movfo? Aeivapx&i ovfifil~~~~~~

~~~~~~XXXV. 'A\e!jav8po<; 'AXefjdvSpov fir/rpl ISia yXvKV- Tdrr) "AKKO. fivijfiiri<} eve/cev. to? vi~~~~~~

C in line 3 is more probable than |~, which is also possible (R (b)). Dative terminations in -ai are well-attested in these texts (cf. Nos. L., LX., and LXVIL). In view of the infrequency of iota adscript on the Imperial Greek inscriptions of Asia Minor, it is likely that -at in the Phrygian texts represents a diphthong. This termination is not, however, constant; in a majority of cases the dat. fem. termination is in -a.*2a The apodosis of this inscription is unique. Perhaps icai oi or tea tot may be read. The final letters recall Aicevavo\aFo<; (gen.) in the Old Phrygian inscription (Ramsay, Jour. R. Asiat. Soc. xv. 21, l.).42b Compare 'A«6i>a? in Sterrett. W. E. 504. But any attempt at interpretation would be, for the present, the merest fantasy. In the protasis, aSSatcer becomes aBBaicefi before fiavKcu : cf. XXXII.

~~~~~~XXXVI. This inscription was revised, and the copy improved by Professor Ramsay and me in 1910. A fresh epigraphic copy is given.~~~~~~

42a Cf. aijSoroj' and a$arav above. similarity (Mindeskrift over Prof. Dr. Sophv ^b This was pointed out to me by Prof. Sugge (1908), p. 214.) J. A. Smith. Prof. Torp also notices the CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 183 AAACrAHMCU" A 0 Y A A Y A ///W /"// AovSa vS[i

The lettering of the last' three lines is rude and sprawling, and the stone is badly worn. I did not think of the restorations given above till after we had left Sinanli; but they seem fairly certain, compare No. XXXIII; 'AXKeyStjfKov, the name of the dead man, is written in large letters, and placed at the head of the inscription to give it prominence. The Greek epitaph accordingly represents a mixture of two styles. A rare class of Anatolian epitaphs give simply the name of the deceased person in the nominative.43 The commonest type records that' So and so made a tomb for So and so'; the verb is often omitted. This inscription combines both styles, from a desire to lay emphasis on the name of the dead man.44 Allegdemon appears to be a new name. There was very probably no further line at the top. The formula used here is the same as that in XXXIlL, with omission of the words aiaceoi, to eirov. The lettering is so disgraceful that we may look for mistakes of spelling: but afiarav certainly supports the reading avfjarav in XXXIII. «TO9 for airo? is common in Greek inscriptions, as also is earov for eavrov. ard? is probably the Greek word here. A serious divergence between this inscription and XXXIII. is that the letters ePA are inserted between aSSa/cer. and jeypei/Mevav. Professor Eamsay's 1905 copy reads CDA, but in 1910 we both regarded £ and A as certain, and felt only a slight doubt regarding [p], the stroke of which is lost, and which might just possibly be.a, small O engraved above the level of the other letters. These copies exclude aBBaKer[op], which would in any case leave the following a unexplained. The best division for the present seems to be that given in the transcription, aSSa/cere being aSSa/cerai, the middle form, and pa being a particle corresponding to Greek (a)pa, or perhaps borrowed from Greek. TeuT6V9 and TSVTOVS are evidently attempts to write an identical sound in Greek letters, cf. icaicevv for KO,KOVV in XLV.

43 E.g. Le Bas, No. 912. 44 Cf. a similar arrangement, with.the genitive, in Class. Mev.xix. p. 428. H.S. VOL. XXXI. O 184 W. M. CALDER XXXVII fivt][/,r)<; yapiv f<o? /ee aefiovv Kvovfiave /ca/covv aSSa/cer T€TiKfievo]

~~~~~~XXXVIII. to? VL crefiovv icvovfiavec\ icaico\y aSSatcer TeriK/J,evo~~~~~~

~~~~~~XXXIX. • -t\]Xrj dBe[p](f>f} \ci\v- [TOO] seven lines defaced TO - P ATTIT) ice aBetrov. This fragment is helpful for the division of ATTI6AA6ITOY: see on No. LXII.~~~~~~

~~~~~~XL. ' to? vi cr[e]fiovv Kvovpave ica/cev p, Sew? £e/ie\a>9 ice TIT-~~~~~~

~~~~~~With Katcev compare the still more broken-down form Kaice (No. XXI.): on aSSaiceTop see LXIII.~~~~~~

~~~~~~XLI. This inscription is given, the Phrygian part after Prof. Callander's copy, as No. LXVII.~~~~~~

XLII. Hogarth, J.H.S. 1890, p. 159. R(6) adds a few letters from a second copy made by Mr. Hogarth in 1890, but does not state whether nATPHC in his copy is intended to supersede TTAPTHC in Mr. Hogarth's earlier copy.

~~~~~~Kal []povov[p]re[<; dvecrTTjaav yapw tO9 vi cre/j,ov [ic]v[i]fjiav\_ei icaic\o[yv Saice- r]ai era rpa[ . . . ]T»7 [ ytte £e/u.e\&>9] 5 ice [S>[«9] M€KONNOYKeiCNIO/// AITTAPTHC~~~~~~

~~~~~~This inscription is in too fragmentary a state to add anything to our knowledge till illustrative texts are found. R (b) seems right in dividing ^te Kovi'tv Kt i~~~~~~

XLIII. [fivrffir)?] %dp\t,v. t]o? vi aefiovv /cvov[fiavei Kdicovv a[88]aiceT awt, a- [Sarea ?] aivi (if this be the division, and not aSSa/cerai vi) requires a second word for the tomb (beginning with a); (see on XVIII.). Perhaps aSarea is the word (cf. XIV.). If so, atvi does not suffer elision here. Mr. Hogarth says there was no fourth line: No. XLVI breaks off in the same manner.

XLIV. Sterrett, Ep. Jour. No. 174. Improved by Anderson, J.H.S. 1898, p. 118. Recopied by me in 1908, when I counted the missing letters between AOK£ and IAA€ITOY as four, without any theory as to the meaning. The restoration given below exactly fills the space. t]o? av u[e/u.ovv KaKoi]v KVOV\JJ,- fiavei So/ce[r, ATT]J aSeirov. For Sotcer cf. LIV. ATTJ aSeirov, with omission of reTiKfievos, must mean ' let him belong to Attis,' a natural variation of ' let him be devoted to Attis.' See on No. LXII. With /cvov/ufiavei, cf. No. LIII; M at the end of line 1 is broken, but certain.

~~~~~~XLV. to?~~~~~~

~~~~~~XLVI. Jour. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 119. With the help of Mr. Anderson's copy, I was able to read more of this text in 1910. A fresh epigraphic text is given.~~~~~~

Za[y]d[pio'i 1 TOV Setvo? KAiVrpeoVeiOji Kal Upeoveis [yv- NH A YTLO A l*»w vr) avTw (sic) AiSo>- OITH 1 ^.eiASYf oi rfj IBeia 8vy- TAT P1 VWte'tf 5 yarpl (sic) y\[yicv- TATH ITA P 9,/^#/ TaTT) Trap8\ev(p AN6CTHCAN avetnrjaav MNHMHCXAPIN (iw>]/J,r)<; ydpuv. /t?5f / 10 C C 6^ ^<*^% ^ to? ae[/j,ovv . . . f//'"'// / /// // '_J_ 10 O 2 186- W. M. CALDER The former copy accidentally omits line 6. There were only two lines of Phrygian; the formula must have remained unfinished. AiSaot, for AiSeoi is striking, and shows the extent to which vowel orthography had become confused. On Hpeoveis see XLIX.

~~~~~~XLVII. Aiovvcrios~~~~~~

~~~~~~rpl eve/cev. to? vi~~~~~~

~~~~~~vet /caKo[y]v [aSSa/cer ...~~~~~~

~~~~~~a-e/ivv (cf. No. LXII.) is probably the correct restoration.~~~~~~

~~~~~~XLVIII. €[. . .]|0NIOYM€NOC violator vaSporos etrov Mtr/ja^ara /ce Ma? Te/j,poye- 5 to? Ke Tlovvra<; Ba? xe HjvcrTapv[a- hovfid Ke otovO-~~~~~~

~~~~~~av. Trapedefirjv rb 10 /jLvtjfietov rot? 77730- 6e- ol~~~~~~

This inscription depends on a copy and impression made by a Greek of Dorylaeum. About two letters are lost in line l,44abut there is no indication whether it is the first line in the original inscription, or whether the stone •W&s broken at the top. That the divine names MiTpeuftaTa, Ma? Tefipoyeio<;,iih and ILovvTas Ba? (or YLovvTa

44a Probably we should read eJViTJifleiou/tepos ; 44t) The genitive termination -tos is common of. eTiTfTiKfievos passim, in Isauria. See Class, liev. xxiv. p. 80. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARTJM 187 seems more probable, because the case-ending in oiovOBav and ovav is either accusative or dative, and it would be surprising to find either of those cases connected by /cat, with a series of genitives. R (b) has two powerful arguments on his side when he takes Hvo-rapvaBov/AQ as an indeclinable divine name, against Kretschmer's view that BovfiO should be corrected into Bovfi[o] or &ovfi[q>], making it equivalent to the word icwfir) in the Greek.45 For, firstly, the text appears quite certain, and secondly, the word corresponding to Kibfir) must now, after the discovery of Nos. XXXIII. and XXXVI., be held to be ovav. Names ending in -t occur sometimes in Asia Minor: see Ramsay in J.H.S. 1887, p. 514. We find -v as a feminine dative ending (see on No. XLIX.) and ovav may correspond exactly to Kafir). Or ovav may be accusative, governed by aSBaieerop (middle). The meaning of aSSateerop is the crucial point. Elsewhere it occurs twice as a middle form (Nos. XL., and LXIIL). The active aBBaxer is always used in the protasis to? vi. . . tcaicovv aSSa/cer ' whoever does harm,' apparently in the present (Torp, Phryg. Inschr. aus rom. Zeit. p. 12). 'SBi/cer (apparently for aSSi/cer) appears to be the preterite in XXXI., and to mean ' made.' Now, in the present inscription, the Phrygian formula evidently opens with a curse ; the verb eirov is regularly found with an expression equivalent to ' the violator of the tomb ' as subject. In aB&a/cerop the construction changes from the imperative to the indicative. The subject of etrov can scarcely be the subject of aSSaiceTop : and the meaning of aSSa/cerop ovav must be sought in the corresponding words in the Greek, irapeOifj^v rrj /cco/arj. The Greek portion gives a brief summary, in one sentence, of the Phrygian portion, which consists of two separate sentences. aS8a/c6TO/3 must mean ' he makes for himself (the subject being the maker of the tomb) or ' it is made' (the subject being the tomb). In the second case, we might translate (TO fivrjfielov) irapande'Tai rfj Kcofiy OlovOftq ; but it is very unlikely that aSSaiceTop can bear this meaning. A simpler explanation is to take ovav as accusative and translate ' he (Asklepios) makes the village his caretaker' treating oiovdBav as a substantive meaning ' caretaker.' In that case, oiovOBav may be connected with the verb oovirerov in II. b which we have translated ' let (the village) take care of . . .'46 The similarity of those two contexts is striking. The equivalence of ovav to Kcofirj gives us the form a&Sa/ceTop, for which see on No. LXIII.

46 See on No. IX. in these inscriptions, is a mere orthographic 46 As OOUITCTOU represents ' owitetou' (see on variation for T. And the initial o- and oi- are No. L.), we must assume, in order to connect possibly attempts to write an identical Phrygian the two words, that oioufySai' is for oi-Fov8fiav. sound ; the dat. fern, alternates between -o FovB- can be equivalent to Fir-, just as we find and -at. See on No. XXXV. T€TovK/j.evos for reTiKfiepos; 6 hcio, as elsewhere 188 W. M. CALDER XLIX. Copied at Iconium by Sir W. M. Ramsay and me in 1910.

HAlOCFAIOCAro HXto? Fato? ayo- P pavi axaves ro- ITONKAOANIA irov Haoavia TTPA TAAATIK TrpwyfiaTLK- ONA TCOKA ov ar a> tea tlCTANlTT €ATA KAHA/c eXra Ka rfKi- A A/ 0P£~r A a SiOpexJra CATTPI6C ^ era irpieis [A]u[p- HAI ANBAC/ 10 rfKiav Haa[ap. oaris eV[t/9ta- ar/are, 8a>[crei

~~~~~~~~¥: a'.~~~~~~~~

This inscription is engraved in rude but clear letters on a stele with ornamented top. The stone is broken at the right-hand bottom corner. In the first line there is a stop-mark, which must be accidental, after f- In line 9 the sixth and seventh letters are very close together, but it is certain that they are et and not 6. The next letter is C; the next was evidently intended to be A, but only part of the right-hand bar was engraved. The last remaining letter of line 10 was C, not 0- After the fifth letter in line 9 there is a horizontal bar: it is probably a slip of the chisel, but it is just possible that H is intended, in ligature with £. This change would be of no consequence phonetically. Line 9 is more carelessly engraved than the rest; apart from it, we felt no doubt as to any of the letters.46* It is a remarkable fact that while the main part of this epitaph is written in (strongly Graecised) Phrygian, the formula against violation of the tomb is in Greek. In the case of all the other composite inscriptions containing a curse, the reverse is the case. This fact is easily explained by the position of the Phrygian language in the ' furthermost city of Phrygia.' At this period (see below) Greek was the language used in official documents, in dedications to the gods, and on tombstones. Latin had never taken firm root in Iconium, even after its elevation to the rank of a Eoman colony. The formula against violation of the tomb, with its provision of a fine to be paid to the fiscus, is couched in the everyday official language of the city, even when the main part of the epitaph is in Phrygian. In the country districts, on the other hand, the Greek epitaph was a sign of education, while the curse in the old language of the native religion was considered more effective.

The symbol at the end of line 7 is an ivy-leaf. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 189 The use of the name Aurelius or Aurelia as a sort of praenomen in the Greek East has been long and successfully used as indicating a date sub- sequent to 212 A.D., when Caracalla elevated the whole Roman world to Roman citizenship, and when it became fashionable to adopt his name.47 The inscription is accordingly not earlier than the third century A.D. Evidence of a novel and unexpected kind can thus be brought to bear on the vexed question whether and in what sense Iconium was a ' city of Phrygia' in the time of St. Paul. The best discussion of this subject is that in Ramsay's Church in the Roman Empire, p. 37, ff. Xenophon calls Iconium * the furthermost city of Phrygia.' The Acts of the Apostles describes the apostles as fleeing from Iconium ' to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe,' implying that Iconium was not in Lycaonia; and other authorities of later date speak of Iconium as Phrygian. On the other hand, Cicero, Strabo, and Pliny make Iconium a city of Lycaonia : geographically it belongs to Lycaonia rather than to Phrygia, and for the purposes of government the Romans generally united it to Lycaonia. Professor Ramsay resolved the apparent inconsistency by making Iconium Phrygian in the sense that its people were Phrygians, and that it had belonged to the Phrygian empire ; Lycaonian in the sense that for administrative purposes—and this was the aspect under which it attracted the notice of Roman writers—it was classed to Lycaonia. Inscriptions XLIX. and L. exactly bear out this conclusion. Until the present year (1910) Phrygian inscriptions—the safest witness to the extension of the Phrygian-speaking race—have been found only as far south-east as the neighbourhood of Laodiceia Combusta. The fact that Phrygian could be used at Iconium as late as the third century A.D. in composing an epitaph, and at some date probably not earlier than the second century A.D. in a dedication (No. L.) shows how tenacious the Phrygian character of the city was. Even the older form of the name—which, whether by the chance of Turkish pronunciation or by a real tradition, has maintained itself to the present day—was used at that period by the Phrygian-speaking inhabitants of the ' City of the eikon'48 In Kaoavia, as often in Greek inscriptions, 0 (like ov) is inserted to mark a w-sound between two as. The divergence of gender between Koviov and Kaoavia is not important: Avarpav occurs beside AvaTpois in the Acts of the Apostles.4'9 The vocalisation is peculiar, but we have no materials for discussion of this subject. A parallel pair are Halala and Loulon; see Ramsay, Hist. Geog. of A. M., p. 353, and Jahresh. Oest. Arch. Inst. vii., (Beibl.) col. 112.

47 Ramsay, Studies in the . . . E. Rom. Churches, Ramsay and Bell, p. 512) as the Provinces, p. 355; and especially Class. Rev. original native name (Phrygian Kawania) 1 905 (xix.), p. 369. corrupted into Zlm/iviov by etymologising Greeks 48 See Hill, B.U. Catalogue of Coins, under the influence of the stories of Perseus Lycaonia, Introd. p. xxiii. and p. 4. I hope and Nannakos. Malalas, p. 36, gives Amandra elsewhere to give reasons for regarding the as an old name of Iconium. form \n6viov which occurs in Pliny, in Byzantine i9 See Harnack, Apostelgeschichte (1908), writers (e.g. Chalcocond. p. 243), and on a rude p. 86. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, etc. Lycaonian milestone (Thousand and One p. 128. 190 W. M. CALDER A common type of Greek inscription in Anatolia records the acquisition or preparation of a grave, and the erection thereon of a memorial of some sort. At Sengen, for example, an epitaph concludes thus : la-TtjXrjv evrv/erov irrj^ev eirl arj/iari r&Be: one of Obruk as follows: eV Be \l6a> godva ypd-tya<; iir&driK iprj rvfi./3q>. Compare Anderson, Jour. Hell. Stud, xviii. p. 118, no. 61. No. XLIX. is of this type. Its general sense is clearly as follows : ' Helios Gaios buys a large (?) plot of ground belonging to the community of Kawania, on which he also sets up a substructure and a two-chambered ? tomb ? to his daughter ? Aurelia Bas(s)a. Whoever forces an entrance, shall pay to the fiscus 1000 denarii.' The name HXto? ("H\JO? or "HXto? ?) occurs (in the form HXt?) on two inscriptions of Iconium, which I hope soon to publish in the Revue de Philologie. Cf. Studia Pontica (Anderson, etc.) Vol. III. p. 113. The forms ayopavi and eiaravi are peculiar. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion (as Mr. Fraser pointed out to me) that eto-ravi is a part of the Greek verb lo-rdvco, which occurs in the New Testament,50 and was therefore familiar in a centre of Christianity like Iconium. ayopavi is evidently similar in meaning to the Greek verb ayopdtyo. It can scarcely be a native Phrygian word, for we have no warrant to assume that Greek and Phrygian have developed independently a verb meaning ' to buy' from a substantive meaning ' a place of assembly.' (The meaning ' market-place ' which dyopd developed in Greek is secondary.)60* I accordingly take ayopavi as part of a verb dyopdvco, formed in local speech on the analogy of verbs like l. We must next consider its tense. Greek inscriptions recording the making of a tomb almost always have the principal verb in the aorist (first or third person); a few times in the imperfect.61 The present is very rare.62 But ayopavi and eiaravi are exactly equivalent in local orthography to dyopdvei and lardvei, and we are driven to the conclusion that these are the forms intended. The forms cannot be aoristic, for the aorist of the Phrygian verb corresponding to lo-rrjfu occurs in No. XXXI., in the form earaes (3rd person singular) and in No. LXVI., in the graecised form O-TTJCTOV (1st person ? singular). It is just possible that ayopavi and eia-ravi are imperfect: for we have seen that i and e replace each other in Phrygian orthography (ica>civ = tca/cev; ev/civ = vice), and i may here represent the Greek e. But the absence of augment in ayopavi suggests that eio-ravi is a variety for icrravi (ei and i are frequently interchanged) and this makes it almost certain that both forms are in the, present tense. Phrygian has the augment in earae? and ev-eirap/ces, and in the Old Phrygian e[S]o6?. There seem to be two possible explanations of the term agaves: (1) It may be the neuter of aj^a 1*179, in the meaning of ' great,' or ' wide' (see the Lexica). The neuter form with TOTTOV (which is clearly the

60 E.g. Ep. Rom. iii. 31. , B1 E.g. Ath. Mitth. xxxv. p. 177 (riy6pa(e): soa jjy notice has been drawn to the Phrygian compare the use of 4iroUt on tombs and works town-name Kepdpav 'Ayvpd ; but this is proof art. bably the Greek translation of the Phrygian 6'2 It occurs (at Iconium) Jour. Hell. Stud. (or older) name. xxii. p. 349 (Cionin), if the reading is correct. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 191 well-known technical use of the Greek word)63 is surprising. ~R'(b) suggests on No. XXXI. that TU/U./3O? was taken into Phrygian as TV/A/3OV, the case which was most familiar on Greek epitaphs, and treated as neuter. If this be correct, we may regard TOTTOV as a second instance of the same phenomenon. (2) One is tempted to connect a^ave? with the word a/yavv] used in a punning context in Aristophanes' Acharnians, 11. 108-9, and signifying a Persian measure. In that passage, it is a measure of bulk or weight, but it may have been in use in Asia Minor as a square measure. As regards the construction, agaves might be a false form for wyavaiov : it can scarcely be a genitive (which would also suit the context) : TJ often replaces e, as in ATTITJ for ATTte, rjTireriKfievo'i for eriT . . , etc.: but the reverse occurs only on the rudest Greek inscriptions, and is a proof of illiteracy.64 The meaning of TrpwyfiariKov is obscure. Possibly the meaning approximates to the Polybian sense of' fine,'' strong' (of a fort); but the interposition of the city-name between the noun and the adjective suggests rather a meaning like ty/jkoa-iov. Cf. the Byzantine pragmatica sanctio,' an Imperial decree that referred to the affairs of a community.' The sale of ground by a city for purposes of burial is attested.66 ar » is probably the Phrygian preposition which occurs in the compounds aBBa/cer, afffieper, aBeirov (see on No. XXXI.), and the Greek relative a/eTo<; of Bopara, comparing Suidas' gloss TT&XTOV ®pd/cu>v oirkov. In the Expositor, 1908 (Nov.), p. 417, Professor Ramsay took the word to mean ' the basis or substructure on which the sarcophagus (of Eugenius, bishop of Laodiceia Combusta) was placed.' This explanation is confirmed by an inscription, copied at Iconium in 1910, which runs as follows: AtXto? Aapto? Kareaicevaae ret Trekra ervv rq> eVeo-TcofTi.] /Sw/ip alavrm etc. Here the word clearly means the substructure on which the engraved memorial (which is shaped like an altar) stood. It is a Thraco-Phrygian word, which passed into the ordinary Greek vocabulary of the district, and found a place even in the epitaph of a Christian bishop. The name suggests that the substructure was originally of wood: see Prof. Keil, loc. cit. rfkia BiOpeyfra seem to be a substantive and an adjective agreeing with it.66a We remembered BiOpepa in XXXI.,67 and verified the S' several times :

63 I.e. meaning repl$o\os. The term i6iros pp. 247, 263, and Klio, 1910, p. 233 ; Savatra, often replaces ireplSoXos; at Hierapolis, it was Studies in the B. Roman Provinces (Ramsay), the usual term. (Stemler, Griech. Grabinsch. p. 160 ; Iconium (see below). The same word p. 24.) is clearly to he restored in Sterrett, Epig. Jour. 54 U.g. /j.tcrcfi$pl(av) Thousand and One No. 226, line i. (Iconium.) Churches (Ramsay and Bell), p. 514. 'Ape\ta, 56a The division H\m5i 8pttya.Te rather than 4ir[io-/3ia]ar)<^(r'>Te because there is hardly room for the latter. The former is rare, but it occurs on two unpublished inscriptions of Iconium. The form Jidcra (for Hdcrcra) occurs in Pontus: Studia Pontica (Anderson, etc.) vol. iii., p. 142, No. 122. L. Copied at Iconium in 1910 by Sir W. M. Ramsay and myself.

~~~~~~~~/ca TSi/cai co-~~~~~~~~

5S See Ramsay in Kuhns Zeitschrift, xxviii. Mr. G. F. Hill draws my attention. p. 385. 59 On the forms of this name, see Anderson 58a Perhaps it is connected with Greek ypiov in J.H.S. 1899, p. 119. In J.H.S. 1902, (see on No. XII.) cf. rovffKepeSpias (LVI.) with p. 357, Cronin wrongly corrects Upetei to Ti] /ca[l] Bi/cai,q> [ev\xfjv. But examination of the stone showed this view to be untenable. The text is cut on the front of a small bomos, the sides of which are unengraved, and the back of which is broken away. An inscription is sometimes written consecutively round two sides of an altar, but never on the back and front only.61 The text as given is complete, and certain except in a single detail. It is just possible that the first letter is T, for there is a break in the stone close to the left of the vertical bar; but it is more likely T, as the vertical bar is exactly in line with the upright stroke of K in line 2, and, as the inscription is carefully cut throughout,61* the alignment was probably attended to. There is apparently a stop-mark after L in line 1, but this is not quite certain : the hole is deep and clear, but it may be a natural flaw, f and A in line 2 are joined as shown in the epigraphic copy. The stroke which joins them is shallower in the middle than at the ends; but there is no doubt that the engraver wrote f and joined it with A. The inscription is a dedication to At/tt? in the Phrygian form TBiicai.6i This is better than dividing TBitca iu>yrr)v, forth e presence of iota at the beginning of the word corresponding to ev^v would be hard to explain. (o-^rjv must be the Greek word according to Phrygian pronunciation— compare the series icaicevv KCLKOVV KUKOV. The form TBiica becomes highly interesting when we compare it with similar forms found in Greek inscriptions of Eastern Phrygia. We found in 1910 an inscription at Tsheshmeli Zebir (see Anderson, Jour. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 282.), revealing the ancient name of the village and at the same time removing all doubt as to the true name of the Byzantine Bishopric 'Glavama' or Eudokias.63 It runs as follows: Aup(??\to?) Eu(7€/3i(o)? •%a>piov F Bav /ida<;, OIKCOV Be ')(w(plo)v K.ptaTevov, rrj yXv/cvTaTy fxov yvve/cl Tdn dvyarpl Aidrovos /wij/ijj? x°bPiv- This inscription will be discussed more fully elsewhere: for the present purpose it suffices to remark that Gdanmaa is evidently the correct form of Egdaua of the Peutinger Table, 'Etc&avfiava or 'E/cBavfiava of Ptolemy, TXavapa of Hierocles, and Takfiavov and TdXpava in the Notitiae (Anderson, J.H.S. 1899, p. 126). The name is derived from a Phrygian form of Bav meaning ' earth' and the name of the Phrygian goddess Ma (cf. Nos. XIV., XLVIIL). The latter half of the name contains two a-sounds pronounced distinctly, like Kaoavia in XLIX. This is clear in itself, and is proved by Ptolemy's 'EicBavuava, which is the nearest of all the corruptions to the true form (EKB- replacing 78 is interesting). TBav is to be compared with TBiica. An inscription of Savatra contains the

e" To bo described in the Revue de Philologie. epigrapHc copy suggests. 61 A separate inscription may be engraved on 6i For -01 (dat. fern.) see on No. XXXV. the back, or sides : e.g. Class. Rev. xix. p. 368, m Ramsay, Historical Geography, p. 344 ; No. I. Art. 'Lycaonia,' ia Jahresh. d. Oest. Arch. 61a The lettering is much better than the Inst. 1904 (Beiblatt), p. 97 ff. 194 W. M. CALDEB expression etc lyBiaSo^fj^, where 7 has arisen between K and S under the influence of this tendency in Phrygian to develop a sonant before Greek S.64 ALKIJ as a goddess is a purely Hellenic conception ; but we know that the Phrygian religion of Iconium borrowed at least one other goddess. The principal native deity of the district is the MijTijp Zi^firjvij of Sisma, many of whose cult-inscriptions have been found in the locality. One inscription records a dedication to Minerva Zizimene, the Athena of the Greek Iconium, who appears on coins.66 Tfjs is found as a proper name on inscriptions of Phrygia and Lycaonia: e.g. Jour. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 129, No. 150 (copied again by me in 1910: the text is certain); Ath. Mitth. 1888, p. 245, No. 36, where |~H is certain (verified by me in 1908). In both these cases it is feminine, and also in the following inscription, copied at Beykuyu Mesarlik, west of Insuyu in northern Lycaonia, in 1910. Kovftariaicos ice Koivroi T Trarpi /cal Trjs dvSpl Koivrip'[/j.]vi][/j,r)<:] xdpt,v.m The inscription of Arnasia (C.I.G. 8894) which was formerly read Tijs dp%uepev<; has now been corrected to TJ79 dpxuepevs (Studia Pontica (Anderson, etc.) iii. p. 115).67 There remains TTAP0EKA, which can be either the genitive singular of a name: ' Ges, daughter of Parthekas,' or (more probably) part of a verb corresponding to irapariO^iu (cf. XL VIII.) and meaning ' offered' (a vow). Perhaps it is a Phrygianised form of Greek irapedr/Ka. This view is strengthened by comparison with LII. (q.v.) where we read irape66ov . . . ei>xyv in an inscription written in very rude Greek. LI. Copied by Sir W. M. Ramsay and me at Suwarek (Psibela) in 1910. The stone had been hollowed out to make a water-spout; lines 2 and 4, where the restorations are certain, confirm our estimate of the number of letters lost in the Phrygian portion. A C KA,///wcwN I T€ K.Xeco]vi re- K N UJ/frri <7 real ea]vT& MH'

~~~~~~~~K\Teo\v /carcovjp «.o[a- KeaT, (r)e\riKfievo]~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~The difficulty of restoring this text is made greater by the obvious carelessness of its composition, re/cvai is evidently repeated, as also probably~~~~~~~~

64 Studies in the Ml. Roman Provinces C.I.L. iii. 13638. Hill, Catalogue of B.M. (Ramsay), p. 160, from Callander's copy. Coins, Lycaonia, p. 5. Prof. Callanderprints e«(i) SiaSoxys(for ^« 66 I find a fourth instance, also feminine, in I recopied this inscription with my 1908 notebook, from Tchetme in Phrygia and rSdv/iaa fresh in my mind in 1910, Paroreios. and regarded € K T A as quite certain. Cf. 67 If we read T»)s in No. L., we may connect • the proper name 'AWeyStfitov in No. XXXVI., it with the name Tay found at Laodiceia and the Homeric ipiySoimos. Combusta, see Kretchmer, EinleUung, p. 347. m Sec Ramsay in Class. Hcv. xix. p. 368. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 195 the last two letters of kain&. The name Cleon is inserted exempli gratia. The mutilation of this inscription is the more to be regretted as it contains deviations from the normal formulae. The letter at the end of line 5 is almost certainly e, but there is just a possibility that it may be 0. The first letter in line 6 is K ; the upright stroke has disappeared. The fifth symbol in the same line is an upright stroke, which may be |, or the first bar of any relevant letter. The first letter after the gap in the seventh line is almost certainly C- The third last remaining letter in line 4 was N, but this must be a mistake for H- There was no trace of ligature between this N and the following M. There were probably more lines; but no trace of further letters appeared, except a doubtful A. A, or A, where the 10th line would end. . • This is an example of the commonest formula; but (1) a new word appears in place of xvoufiavei, (2) a new form of the verb aBa/cer is used. peiereov is the most probable form of the word for ' tomb,' though peareoi is possible (cf. Bevpeoi in XXXI). Is this a Phrygianised form of the Latin (e)reetioni ? (Compare Xeyecov for legio.) The objection to this view is that erectio does not appear to have been used concretely—at any rate, not in the Latin inscriptions of Asia Minor. But Psibela was an important point on the road across Lycaonia, and several roads branched there.68 It seems likely enough that there was a Roman element in the population, and that the word (e)rectio is an echo of the local Latin speech. This seems better than to take the word as native Phrygian. Perhaps aSa/cear (ad+faciat) is another Latinism. But if we read aSaiceaT, we must assume that the first T of reTiKfxevo

LII. At Serai-ini, near Laodiceia Combusta, in the wall of the principal Djami. Copied by Sir W. M. Ramsay; in 1905; copy revised and improved by Sir W. M. Ramsay and me in 1910. This inscription is given here, as probably containing a Phrygian verb. It is engraved on a rough-hewn stone with a raised border, in very rude letters.

~~~~~~~~Avp(tjXio~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~pov[~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~0? NeCTTO/H- avov~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~irapeddov 'Toy'OpovSi- m~~~~~~~~

Ramsay, Art. 'Lycaonia,' in Jahresli. Oest. Arch. Inst. 1904 (Beiblatt), p. 93. 196 W. M. CALDER At the end of line 2, n is certain ; but it is probably a mistake for [*i. The second last letter in line 6 may possiby be A, but 0 is more probable. The rest of the inscription is certain. The main difficulty in this text is whether we are to take the letters TTOKUJMHTHC as an abbreviation for Trpcoro/ceofii]Tr)<; or to understand a village name H6a. In the latter case irapeddov can only be a verb, in the former case it may still be a verb, or ifc may be the name of the village in the genitive plural Hape6d(a>)v. The substitution of o for a is not unknown in the ruder inscriptions of this period and locality; but HapedBa is a very unlikely village name. It is more likely that, in whichever way we explain TTOKWMHTHC, irapeOdov is part of the same verb which occurs in No. L.: with the termination compare or^a-ov in No. LXVI. The meaning of irapaTiOecrQai in No. XLVIII. easily passes into that of ' set up,' ' dedicate'; irapOeica and irapedOov are probably Phrygian forms of the Greek verb.68a TrapicrTrj/u is used in a similar sense in the phrase Xprjaruivol Xprjcmavoi'; 'Trapecrrtjaafiev TO epTo/ca>/M]Tr)<; see Cronin (Jour. Hell. Stud. 1902, p. 359), whose assumption of a village lip&ra Kio/nr] or Tlpcorr] Kco/j,r) is unnecessary. This inscription has not been published before; but Ramsay's 1905 copy has been referred to by Ramsay (Cities of St. Paul, p, 448, N. 15) and by the present writer (Classical Review, 1910, p. 80, N. 2J, where a wrong restoration (irapBevcp Tpo/covSi) of lines 6 and 7, which exactly suited the older copy, was used in an argument. This correction does not invalidate the argument. The form "Toy must be still another of the Greek attempts to write the name Jehovah (see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 327 ff.). The latest discussion on this subject is that in Miss Ramsay's Preliminary Report to the Wilson Trustees (Aberdeen, 1909), with reference to an inscription of Sisma, north of Iconium, and not far from Serai-ini. I should read this inscription (adopting an alternative suggestion in Miss Ramsay's paper which appeared to be confirmed by re-examination of the stone in 1910) [yirep rrjs T&.aL Ttiyr)^ KOL TU T\piwv Sij/iov Ato? ^JleyLTep)ov. The letter following GJ in AlONYCU) seemed to me in 1910 to be certainly I :69 the above restoration abolishes the difficulty (felt by Miss Ramsay) of putting the name of Dionysus before that of Leto. The name Hra? occurs in an inscription copied by me in- Isauria in 1910 (feminine); evaz>r»?TO9 occurs as an epithet of Hecate at Amorium (Klio, 1910, pp. 232 ff.). Miss Ramsay holds ' that 'lva> is a simplification of attested spellings, such as latoovrje, leovaijip, aided by Greek "TJ??.' The form 'To^? is a similar local

^ They are more probably Greek words preferred K (see Miss Ramsay, loc. at). In modified by Phrygians than Phrygian words 1910 I considered that the letter could not by cognate with ths Greek. any possibility be K. There is a break in the "9 On Iota adscript in Imperial inscriptions, , , , ,, . , , ,,, ,. , , , , m z> imn <7o n /• T> • stone close to the right of the vertical bar ; but see Class. Rev. 1910, p. 78. Prof. Ramsay m ,, . „ B , „ , ., ... ' r J there is room lor part ol both oblique bars Class. Mev. xix. p. 370, prints |, and indicates beyond the break> and they do not appeari N as possible. In 1909 he and Miss Kamsay CORPUS INSCRIPTIONU.M N.EO-PHRYGIARUM 197 attempt at simplification.6911 The Orondian territory (Ramsay, Hist. Geog. p. 332) occupied the mountains south of Sisma and Serai-ini. In Class. Rev. 1910. p. 79, I wrongly took 'Ivco in the above inscription to be a mistake for viq>.

~~~~~~~~LIII. In the Eastern cemetery at Serai-ini, near Laodiceia Combusta copied by Professor Ramsay and myself in 1910.~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~l/rc«//ai"""Q C TAA A TaX- A I 4v* T (JU I A I OJ TG> T € K NWMNHM T€KVO> H C x A P I N~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~/0CN/C€KOYN 5 to? vi crefiovv /cv[ov- MMANSI KA fifiavei KaKovv [a- AAAKGTTM KA I//- SS[]i,, K[O]I [i- T I T T (? T I KK£N//' [ ACTIAN6 ITO Acrnav eirov.~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~liiM,tL in I Hi I~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~AOVKIO~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~LIV. Copied by me at Beughru Delik in 1908. Copy revised and improved by Sir W. M. Ramsay and me in 1910.~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~69a Or is it an attempt to write Jovi ? 70 See on LXII. 198 W. M. CALDER~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~Y A A C / A / CU ITA 7ra- TPJ AlONYClOJk rpl cr P i pj/ q> e'77- 6v«> [tc]e A- OYAOY MNHMH CXAPIN OC K€ 9 %dpw 09 «e C fMOYNKNO^Mi aefiovv Kvo[v\fj,a- N£l KA KOYNAO vet, ica/cow 80- € 1.5~~~~

It is doubtful if there was a further line at the bottom, but it appeared probable that there was not. For an explanation of the concluding formula, see on No. LXII. The Greek 09 replaces the Phrygian to?, as in LVI. (?) For the form Boxer, compare XLIV. On AovBov (dative) see Kretschmer, Einleitung, p. 337. This inscription confirms my copy of XLIV. LV. Copied by me at Beughru Delik in 1908. In 1910 the stone had been broken, and I saw only the last four letters. The middle of the Phrygian portion was broken away. AYPHAIOCACl A.vprj\io<; 'Ao-

~~~~~~~~~~OJC «o? KXavSco- «f K€YC rfj IBla~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~: io[<; vi crefijovv K[vovfia[yei /c[a.K0vv] aBBa~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~C[. . .JIAIICIN~~~~~~~~~~

Laodiceia Combusta, like Iconium and Derbe, received the title of "Claudian" in the reign of. the Emperor Claudius. The epitaph of Eugenius, composed about 340 A.D.,71 has the. form AaoBi/cecop. Ramsay (Hist. Geog. of A.M., p. 388) quotes A AOAIKEGJN as the form used on coins ; but all the three known coins of Laodiceia Combusta (one of Vespasian, two of Titus and Domitian) bear the lea-end K AAYAIOAAO AIKeCON.72 71 Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p.,351. busta distinguished itself from the city on the 72 Hill. B.M. Catalogue, Lycaonia, Introd. Lycus. pp. xxii.-xxiii. This was how Laodioieia Com- CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 199 The present inscription shows that the form K\av8io\,ao8iicev<; lasted at least into the third century : the use of AvprjXco? as a praenome.n is not earlier than Caracalla. Between the middle of the third and the middle of the fourth centuries it passed out of use, and the simple form AaoSi/cevs took its place.72a The mutilation of this inscription is regrettable, for the apodosis varies from the common formulae. Until the discovery of a fresh example, nothing can be attempted.

~~~~~~~~~~LVI. Copied by me at Kutchuk Besh-Kavak in 1908. Copy improved by Sir W. M. Ramsay and me in 1910.~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~CA TAPlOCAO y/ Ao- YKIOYAQYAA VKLOV AovSa T H I A I A 0>/<;tf,N B /CO KAI6ATCO ftLu> tcai earui~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~H C XA P I N yaptv-~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~] rovaK.epe.h- 4OC C AC TO Y C K £ PC £.4 t3/AC KA KO YNA p](a? KaKovv Sa/cei, [T- f,\ TTf T IICMf e]iTTeTi/c/j.evo<; 10 Aj~~~~~~~~~~

The last line of this inscription is broken, but fortunately sufficient traces of the letters remained to make the text certain. There is room for 1 at the beginning of line 7, and probably this letter has been lost: 05 is, however, certain in LIV. The last letter of line 7 can only be A, and the circular part of P remains at the beginning of line 8. The first letter of line 9 is represented in both our copies by a circular stroke as shown in the copy; [T£jlTT . . . is probably the reading, for ei is constantly used as

72a The form K\av5io\ao$iK4aiv occurs in an inscription belonging to th$ reign of Gallienus (Klio, 1910, p. 234). H.S.—VOL. XXXI. p 200 W. M. CALDER equivalent to i. (See, however, on LXV.) It is possible that two letters are lost at the end of line 9, but no trace of them appeared, and the alignment is not regular enough to compel us to assume any loss of letters. However, it is better to state that there is room for A A here, as it accom- panies ATTI£ (following it, however) in all the other cases, except No. LXV. See, however, on LXIL, where it is argued that ah is part of the verb, and does not govern Ame. On the Phrygian name Sagarios, see Oonin in J.H.S., xxii., p. 116. I have divided Tovaicepehpias, comparing the form Ticr/ceXeSpiai in LXVIL, but cannot feel certain that the division should not be TOV aKepeSpias, or even TOWS /cepe&pias. era? TOV aKepeBpiw; for era? ( = ravr^?) T^? cricepeBpias would be parallel to crefiovv TOV /cvovfiavei in No. LXI. TOV in that case might be a mistake for TJ;?. If we read cricepeBpiat; here, we must read aa TI

~~~~~~~~~~OrNKNOY to? vi ae/jbovv icvov- MAN6 KA KOYNAA fiave Kaicovv aS- AAKCTT ITT6TIKM BaiceT, TiTTeTi/c/ii- CN OC A TTIAA6I ATTI a8et- TOY~~~~~~~~~~

73 era is def. art. in XLIX. See on II. a. 7Ja jn view of the tendency in Phrygian to 74 ffas rovs KepeSptas and tra TIS Ke\eSpiai change i before a vowel into yod, this seems would be still more difficult to explain. better than to assume elision of e. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 201 This inscription exhibits no variation from the normal formula. The pure Phrygian dative form Kvovfiave occurs also in VI., XXVI., XL., etc. LVII. At Besh-Kavak; copied by me in 1908, and by Sir W. M. Ramsay and me in 1910. avSpl ical vlip fi- NHMHCXAPINAIOTgN W//i xp Aioyiv[rj<; TT A TPfKAJAA 6A$OJrtNHM APIN

~~~~~~~~~~MONANM-PO TLTJIOV eyean yeypcfievov.~~~~~~~~~~

The names of the two dedicators, mother and son, are given; but not those of the two dead men. The Phrygian doorstone on which this inscription is engraved is crowned by a circular pediment containing a male between two female figures. The dedication is to two men. Evidently this type was ' in stock' in a local workshop, and the stone was used in spite of its unfitness for the dedication. The Greek portion is written above the Phrygian 'door,' on the raised middle bar and side of which the curse is engraved. The stone is broken under the last N, but sufficient of the surface remained to the right of N to carry another letter if one had been engraved, and none appeared. It seemed fairly certain that the inscription ended with yeypi/ievov. The first letter of line 4 is certainly M, and there was no letter before it. It is uncertain whether the second M and the following p are in ligature, but it appeared highly probable, and NMP is an unlikely combination. With this reservation, all the letters down to the second o are certain. We did not feel so sure of TIHION as the epigraphic copy suggests; the stone was much worn here, and the following possibilities were noted: j can scarcely be Y, but it is just possible (| is certain). H niay possibly be P| ; the | following H had two short strokes following it, which seemed accidental, but suggested K as a possible variant of this |. ON, and the remainder to the end, are certain. We thought on the whole, that TiHION was the most probable reading. I cannot offer any explanation of the opening letters of the Phrygian portion. Professor Ramsay suggested on the spot that it should begin [ae\fiov av, but we looked in vain for any trace of a letter before Nl. rirjtov (if the form be accepted) is perhaps equivalent to the common ovrav in the signification of penalty, and is connected with Greek riai. eyeerir has P 2 202 W. M. CALDER evidently the same suffix as Latin -esit (-erit): it is connected with eye&ovr, and means ' he shall pay,' or ' he shall suffer.' For yeypifievov see on No. XXXII. The opening words must therefore contain a conditional protasis, or perhaps a participial form meaning ' the violator' (6 dSiKijcraf in Greek). The Phrygian portion is in rough iambic metre: compare the Greek curse quoted under LIX. LIX. Copied at Kerpishli in 1910 by Sir W. M. Ramsay and me.

~~~~~~~~~~T re r p£i yeypei/j,evav e- N r] (.09 ov(r)av.~~~~~~~~~~

~~The accompanying Greek inscription is lost. This inscription begins with two Greek words ; compare a common Greek formula: OVT&)9 dwpois nrepLireaono crvfi(f>opal<; Tt? av Trocrd^ei %etpa rrjv /3apv~~

~~~~~~~~~~K\avfiovao<; 'A[CTA:- AHJTIOCKAIBABA \r)TTi6<; Ka\ Ba/3a vl& 'A ica-~~~~~~~~~~

CAN€CTHCAM€ 5 N Aeto9 Te M- COPCOMNHMHC dBeX,(f>a> a- XAPINIOCNICAN a>p(p ymnqfjjr]^ ydpw ^09 vi aav 10 icaKovv aS[8a]«e (iavicai, ye[ype]i[ievav eye&ovr to9 ovrav. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 203 The form ear(ot?) is common in epigraphy : cf. No. LVI. There was no T at the end of line 10; cf. No. LI. (note). On the definite article aav (dative feminine) see on No. XLIX. At the beginning of line 1, I could only read AjAN or possibly MJAN. Professor Ramsay's copy shows traces of a circular letter before A : he would read ®X]av/ji.ovao<;Jih The name is to be compared with Mo£>£o? in No. XXXIV. The division can hardly be Aav Movcro?, for a triple name is very unusual among the East Phrygian natives. This inscription is on a stele, with circular pediment, in which there is a female between two male figures. The ornaments at the bottom form a pretty exhaustive collection of the agricultural implements and household requisites usually portrayed on gravestones of Eastern Phrygia and the sur- rounding country. The mistake ea(u)rot? aveaTrjaafiev is common on rude inscriptions.

LXI. Copied by me at Laodiceia Combusta in 1908. Revised by me without change in the Phrygian formula in 1910. The text, which is certain throughout, is cut on a rough shapeless stone. Map/cia Map- KOV 'E/caraiov re/cvois t'Stot? ical eavr[fi Los ae/Jiovv TOV KVOVfla- vei KCUCOV a- Sa/ceT, rcTen- Kfievos ArTte aSeirov. For aefiovv rov tcvovfxavet see on II. For Arrte see on LXII. rt goes with ren/cfievos rather than with ica/cow : see on II. In the last line, eorov must be read: the horizontal bar following I must be accidental.

LXII. Copied by me in 1910 beside an old bridge east of the road from Bolavadin to Tshai. The text is complete, and certain throughout- There is no Greek inscription on the stone, a plain rectangular block which looks as if it had formed part of a built tomb.

/OCNlC6MYNKN°y to? vt aefivv tcvov- fiavei KCLKVV aSBa- K6TAI KANATTIHKe K€T aitcav, A.TTirj /ce A€U>CK€TITT£TIKH£ 8e&)? K6 z>o? enov. NOC6ITQY This inscription, which rivals in interest any in the whole series, was found by the merest accident. After a long journey, my horses failed me at Bolavadin (Polybotum), and I hired a local waggoner to take tne to the railway

1Va Taking the element ®\av- as Galatian. 204 W. M. CALDER at Tshai station. On the road thither I observed an old bridge some distance to the left of the road, but as my men had been drenched crossing a river, and as previous travellers had passed this way, I did not turn aside to examine it. We reached Tshai station two hours before train-time, and the station-master, on learning my trade, showed me his collection of antiques, and an inscription he had copied several years before beside the old bridge we had passed, which is nearly an hour's fast ride from the station. The copy was an inaccurate one, but it sufficed to show the interest of this unique formula, and I decided to return and look for the stone. I found a driver who was willing to gallop to the bridge and back for a dollar, and I had time to find and copy the inscription. The 0 in Kvovjxaveu is added above the line. I looked for a similar 0 in crefivf and KCLKW. The stone is chipped above the former, and if an 0 was engraved, it has disappeared; but probably none was engraved. There was no 0 above icaicvv. Standing where it does, aiicav may be either a substantive agreeing with ICCLKW, or an anaphoric pronoun introducing the apodosis. In the latter case, it is the nominative of aiciceoi (No. XII.). But it is much better to take it as a substantive meaning ' harm,' ' hurt.' Cf. Greek ' impetus,' or alicd\.r] ' fraus,' rather than al/cla = aeiKia. KaKvv may be for /cavrfv, to which it is phonetically equivalent: but in the same inscription suggests that v in icaicvv corresponds to ov in /ca/cow. If aiKav is feminine, tcaicvv in agreement with it is peculiar; but cf. /ca/cov %eip(a) in XII. The discovery of this inscription and of No. LVI. confirmed an interpretation of ATTI6AA or ATTIA A, which a study of the published inscriptions had already suggested to the writer. Before discussing the subject, let us collect the instances of this and similar groups of letters. XI. XII. nrrenKfieva ATT([e] aSeiTTVov. XIV. Ma \e\riTeTLKfievo<; Acrriav [etToJu.

~~~~~~~~~~, XXV. fie «(e) AT[T»] TiTT€TiKfievo<; eiTov. (Reading uncertain.) XXXIX. Ami] ice aSeorov. XLIV. ATT]I aSeirov (without reTiicfievos). XLV. TiTreTLK/xevo'i Ame aSetrov.~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~LI. (j)e\rLKfievo\i ATT[*] ahet\rov. LIII. [e]T(TT6T(«/U.ei'[o?] AaTiav eirov. LIV. ATT( a^ei[rov. (Apparently sole apodosis.)~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~LVI. re]nTeTUKfievo^ [AT]TI6 eirov. LVII. TiTTeTi/cfievos Am aSeirov. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 205 LXI. TiTeriicfJ,evo<; Ame aSeirov. LXII. ATTWJ K€ Sew? KE TCTreTiK^ievo'; enov.~~~~

LXV. K\rrcri [#]iT[T]e['r]tK/uei'o[? £9 (?) aSe]iTov. LXVII. T[e]Ti/c/AevoCybele in the religion of Phrygia, and a characteristic figure in the cult, was Attis, who appears as Men on the Greek inscriptions. We should expect to find Attis, if any deity, invoked in the Phrygian formulae, but, so far as I know, the words TeTiKfievos ATTIEAA€ITOY have not yet been explained in this obvious manner, which would see in them the equivalent of the Greek /carr]pa[j,evo<; "ATTI ecrrco. This view is plausible in itself, and is proved definitely by LVI. and LXJI. The true Phrygian dative ATTI€ occurs seven times in the above quotations (three times with the orthography ATTIIJ) ; the form Am occurs six times. I am not competent to discuss on philological grounds the question whether there was a change from the termination -e to the termination -i in ATTC and similar datives (under Greek influence) or not. The former hypothesis seems more probable, given the historical conditions; for, at the period to which the majority of our inscriptions belong Phrygian was being invaded and swamped by Greek, and if we find the -e suffix surviving to this period, it must have belonged originally to the Phrygian language. These remarks apply in particular to the pair Kvov/xave and /evovfiavi (or ei.). In XXXI., which Professor Ramsay regards as the oldest inscription in his list, we have the form ffparepe. In XL. and LXIIL, two inscriptions containing the old reflexive form a&Sa/ceTop, which was afterwards replaced by aBSa/cerai (see on LXIIL), and therefore presumably early, we likewise reaid the form icvovfiave. We conclude that the e- ending was used mainly in the period when Phrygian was less affected by Greek than it is in relatively later inscriptions; it therefore seems probable that the change to the -i termination took place under Greek influence. The name of Attis is immediately followed by the verb eirov once (LVI.): in all the other cases in which the name occurs immediately before the imperative the preposition aS is inserted. But for the evidence of XXXIX. it might be possible to assume that the preposition follows its substantive75 for metrical reasons,76 as in Greek. No. XXXIX. renders this supposition untenable, for there tee is inserted between ATTITJ and aS. Professor Ramsay's copy of this inscription hardly supports the restoration

75 ar {-aS) takes the dative in XLIX. 76 See on LVI. 206 W. M. CALDER [Sew?] Arrir] zee, but it is clear that some such expression was used : the name Amr) was coupled with that of another god by enclitic Ke, and the verb aBetrov followed.7611 This instance proves that we must read a&enov (compare for the form Latin adesto): its frequent use is explained by metrical necessity, but in two instances the simple form eirov is used (LVI. and LXIL). In a similar context we find the feminine dative Acrriav used twice (once as an epithet or equivalent of Ma) : see on LIII. See also on No. XLIV. Having established so much, we can appreciate the evidence of LXIL on the vexed question of the meaning of Se&>9 feêXeo?, which occurs, with variations, in several of the Neo-Phrygian inscriptions. No problem connected with the interpretation of these inscriptions has given rise to so much controversy as this. No. LXIL definitely rules out some of the interpretations proposed, and narrows down the possible meaning of the expression so far as to make it practically certain. Before discussing the subject, we shall bring together the instances : the expression is always in the apodosis, and it makes for clearness to give the whole apodosis in each case. IV. 8r) St&>9 £efie\w[<; rnrer]iKfievo'; enov (or £efie\ai [em . . .) , V. fie 8ia)[s £\ofio\w erneriKfievos t]rov VI. TO? vi fie êfie\co Ke Seo? en, rjrirrer/Kfievo'i e[irjov VII. Seo? Ke ê/u,[e\o)<; . . . aKeoi eipoia ri ernr\eriKfieva enr]vov XXI. fie £efie\a)

~~~~~~~~~~XXV. T09 vi [Seo? £']t/u.[e]\&>? rt fie Ar(e) AT[TI] TirTeriK/xevos eirov XL. Se&>9 £e/xeA,&>9 «e TiTTeTiKfie[v]o<; enov XLII. [,ue £e]£teX9 Ke TnerTiKfievos enov~~~~~~~~~~

LXIII. <$ea>9 fe/tteX&)9 [r]e Tt,rer[ovKfievo, which occurs also in IV., and possibly in V. Brj precedes the combination in IV., fie in V., VI., XLII.; fie also occurs before ê/te\&)9 alone in XXI. Variations in the formula itself are XXL, where Se9 ri and LXII, where £efie\(o<; is replaced by Arnr], and «e occurs after both Amrj and Sea>9 (compare Latin . . . que . . . que). Prof. Ramsay (R (a), p. 397) referred to Hesychius' gloss ê/ne\ev (Bdpftapov avSpdiroBov <£>pvye<;, and suggested that êfieXco might mean ' children;' (compare Inscr. No. I.). Torp takes fie as a preposition =' with' (and I think, with Ramsay, correctly), and he regards Seco? Ke £e//.e\a>9 as meaning ' himself and his family ' (Phryg. Inschrift. tiun rihn. Zeit. p. 16 f. and again Zwn Phrygischen, p. 4, where he defends his view

76a This statement must now be modified ; see Addenda, p. 214. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 207 against Kretschmer's criticism). Solmsen (in Kuhns Zeitschrift, N.F. xiv. p. 55) takes Sew? and £t/£e\w? to correspond to Gk. Ato? and Xe/xeXr;?. Prof. Ramsay in R(&) p. 107 regards the expression as meaning 'gods and men,' and takes fie as a preposition meaning ' among.' Kretschmer (Aus der Anomia, p. 19 f.) gives Sew? Ke £e/ze\w9 the meaning of ' heaven and earth,' and regards fie (comparing SJJ in No. IV.) as an asseverative particle equivalent to Greek fid. Finally Kretschmer suggests (R (b), p.. 79, N.I.) that Sew? Ke £e/ue\w? means ' heavenly and chthonian gods'—a suggestion which had already been made by Gustav Meyer, as I learn from Solmsen, loc. eit.7>ih This suggestion I consider to be right, and I would use the following arguments in support of it. It now seems fairly certain that fie is a preposition meaning ' with' or ' among' (see R (6) on Nos. IV. and XVIII.). Prof. Ramsay notes that fie is sometimes used for fierd in Greek inscriptions of Eastern Phrygia, and it is the form that has survived in modern Greek. Cf. fie «(e) ATTI, p. 208. The form Sews1 (or Seo?, Stw?) is constant; but £efie\a> occurs at least twice in place of §e/4e\w?. feêAw might be a dative (or ablative) singular (cf. aefiov) or a genitive singular; Sew?, if singular, can only be genitive. But in LXII. (ATTM; Ke Sew? Ke TCTTeTiKfievos eirov) we have Sew? subject to the same government as ATTITJ, a certain dative case; Sew? must therefore be dative. In that case it can only be a dative plural, and Solmsen's view that it is equivalent to Ato? must be given up, as well as Torp's opinion that it is nominative singular, and means avTos. Now, since Sew? is a dative plural, £e/tieXw? must be in the same case: for the two ideas are parallel in all the cases where they occur together, and the words are generally joined by Te or Ke. Accordingly the form £efie\a> must be regarded as equivalent to £e/ieXw?. In two of the inscriptions in which êfieXw occurs, it is doubtful whether £e/u.e\w[?] should not be read; in IV. it is easy to make this restoration, and V. depends only on Hamilton's unreliable authority. In VI. we read fie £e/*eXw Ke Beos: the reading is certain, but, as Prof. Ramsay points out (R (b), p. 107), an engraver's error is very probable.760 The word is parallel to Seo? (clearly an orthographic variety of Sew?), and must therefore be in the same case. We must accordingly find a meaning for Sew? «e £e/u.eA,w? which will suit the words whether the preposition fie is used or not. Apart from the meaning ' heavenly and chthonian gods,' Ramsay's suggestion ' gods and men' comes nearest to fulfilling this condition, but it does not quite fulfil it. In the cases in which Sew? Ke £e/ie\w? is preceded by fie, we could understand it to mean ' (let him be accursed) when among gods and men,' i.e. both when alive and when dead (for the dead were deified in Phrygia and were called Oeoi—Anderson, J.H.8. 1889, p. 127). But this meaning does not suit the simple dative, for reTLKfievos with the dative, corresponding to KaTrjpafiivos with the dative, must mean ' devoted to '; and it was only to the gods that wrongdoers were devoted, not to men. 76b I have not seen Meyer's article. rtio Or perhaps s is dropped like v in Kaice, r in aSSuice, etc. 208 W. M. CALDER On the other hand, the meaning suggested by Meyer and Kretschmer suits all the conditions. In the Greek devotiones of Asia Minor, the anger of the gods is invoked on the violator of the tomb in several recurring formulae. In the representa- tive list given by Stemler (Griech. Grabinsch. Kleinasiens, pp. 70, 71), we find sometimes one or more gods invoked by name {e.g. Mrjv, "H)uo5, êkrjvrj, 'AOrjvd, ATJTCO) ; sometimes the Kara^dovioi deoi are appealed to (Wiener Sitzb. xliv. 123); sometimes all the gods (Benndorf, Reisen in, Lyhien, ii. 6); sometimes the deol Karaxôvioi /ecu ovpdvioi (G.I.G. 4253, Benndorf, loc. cit. 16). Occasionally all the male gods and some goddess or goddesses in particular are mentioned, e.g. afiapraiXos eara Oewv wavrcov fcai AJJTOV? KOX T&V TeKvcov avTrjs (C.I.G. 4259), evo%o<; ecrTco iracn deois teal leXtfyy teal ATJTO) (Benndorf, loc. cit. 193); sometimes one chthonian deity in particular and the naraydovioi Oeol in general, e.g. dcre/3??? els rr/v Arffir/rpa KCU TOV$ oviow; deovs (Wiener Sitzb. xliv. 128). I have been unable to find any instance of a person KaTTjpafievos rols teal rots avdpanrois, and, if this were the meaning of the commonest Phrygian formula, it would be certain to occur on Greek epitaphs of Phrygia. On the other hand, Kretschmer's etymology of the words (Aus der Anomia loc. cit.) exactly suits the meaning of Oeols ovpavooit; teal KaraÔovlon, which is common in Greek epitaphs. And this meaning suits the words whether we find them in the dative form simply, or whether they are preceded by a preposition meaning ' amongst.' It is equally suitable if Prof. Kretschmer's explanation of fxe is correct. And this meaning exactly tallies with that which we must give to the phrase ATTHJ ice Secos ice in the inscription under discussion. Attis is mentioned as representing the KaraÔovioi deol,, and Seto? means ovpavloa Oeols. It is not necessary to suppose that Beats always meant deols ovpaviois: it was doubtless the generic word for ' gods,' and acquired the meaning of ' heavenly gods' in opposition to £e/ieX,<»? must therefore be a substantive. In No. XXV. I have read tentatively fjue «(e) AT[TV|. If this is correct, the name of Attis is added tautologically after it has been included in £e/AeX,&>?.7M The words fxe «e would in that case correspond to the Greek criiv icai, which occurs in Phrygian Greek epigraphy ; fie governs the dative in fie ê/xeXcof, XXI., etc. But I do not overlook the possibility that M€K AT[- •] in XXV. (following Seo? ft/ieA-w? TI) may have to be explained by comparison with M£KONNOY (following fe/xeXo)? ice Se

~~~~~~~~~~LXIII. Copied by me at P.olavadin (Polybotum) in 1908. Copy revised and improved by me in 1910.~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~76d Cf. Wiener Sitzb. xliv. 128, quoted above. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 209~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~J0CNIC6 MO1~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~to? vi aefiovv icvovfjuave rca/cow aS8[a- /cerop, Se&)9 £e/xe\&)? [YJe TiTer[ov/c/u,€vo~~~~~~~~~~

This inscription is engraved on a ' doorstone' with four panels, sur- mounted by a triangular pediment. There was no remaining trace of a Greek inscription. Note, on the text, that the space between O and Y in KAKOYN is an old flaw in the stone, and never contained a letter. C in A6UJC is written small between two horizontal lines, as if the engraver had begun the following Z and then corrected it to C. But for his care in making this correction, we should have been presented with a form Beat, like £e/j,e\a> in some other texts! Z £ M € A CO C is followed by a short empty space, which probably was never engraved; the next letter is part of T, not of K. The last remaining letter in line 2 is a round one: it can be O or €, but not I. We must choose between TeTov/cfievos (cf. XXVIII.) and rereiKfievo'; (cf. XIX.). This inscription contains the third occurrence of the reflexive form aSSaKerop. Ramsay's discovery of XXXIII., where ova is certain, and means ' tribe' or ' village,' fixes the division aSSaiceTop ovav in XLVIII., and the division ahSa/cerop must certainly be accepted above, and in No. XL. a/3/3tpeTo(p) should probably be read in XXV. (see above, ad loc). It will not be doubted that XLVIII. must be placed early in the series: the important part of it is written in Phrygian, and a short explanation of its substance is added in Greek. This points to a date when the Phrygian language was in full vigour. The most usual form of these verbs is aSSa/cer and a/3/3epeT, but we find clear instances of forms in -erai (XIII., LIIL, and LXVIL). We conclude that there was a reflexive (or perhaps a deponent) form in -etor in Phrygian alongside of the active form in -et, and that it was being ousted by the Greek reflexive form in -ercu. The middle voice was especially affected by the Anatolian Greek-speaking population. Cf. Studia Pontica (Anderson, etc.), iii. p. 36 ; Ramsay in Philologus, 1888, p. 754. We find the Greek reflexive form in what appear to be relatively later inscriptions, the Phrygian form in relatively earlier ones. The existence of a Phrygian Ifeflexive voice is the hypothesis which best explains, the occurrence of Greek reflexive forms in the inscriptions.77 afiftipeTo, if the reading is correct, is a broken-down form of the -etor termination: cf. /caice for in XXI., aSSaice for aSSa/cer in LX.

77 The alternative is to assume that the form in -etai as well as that in -dor was Phrygian. 210 W. M. CALDER I leave it to philologists to settle the relation between the termination in ahhatcerop and similar forms in Sanskrit, Celtic, and the Italic languages, and also whether the termination is likely to be due to Galatian influence.

~~~~~~~~~~LXIV. Copied in 1910 by Sir W. M. Ramsay and myself beside a well one hour north of Besh-Kavak.~~~~~~~~~~

a Ovydr-rjp 'A0a- vaa\iov avv TS> avv- /3L(I) •a[i)Trj<; Avp- Maf- ifito T\OV TITXOV f- 5 covres [xal (ppovuvp- T69 e[auToi<> avea- jf](ra[v fivrifir}<; yapiv. TI? TOVT[O TO fivq/xelov icai \aTOfi\lov /ca/c(o<} eTTLcrftaL- 10 v(i)v Tp\oir(p nvb voirjcrei, TO yjpljxa [iicTeiaei.

~~~~~~~~~~ai /cos [era ixavKa >ce Kvovfiav- ei ica[ica.v aBSaKtrai yeylpeiftevav eyeSoVT 10- 15 9~~~~~~~~~~

The epigraphist in Anatolia has often reason to regret the deliberate destruction of valuable texts; but seldom has the chisel of a vandal deprived us of so interesting a document as this bilingual. The stone containing the inscription had been fitted into a well-head; the right-hand side stood too high, and had been cut level. Fortunately, the size of the stone left it clear how many letters had been lost in each line; and in any case the restorations in lines 4 to 7 fix exactly the length of the lines. The restoration of the Greek epitaph was made by Professor Ramsay in presence of the stone.77a I give a tentative restoration of lines 8 to 15, which were cut in smaller letters than the epitaph proper, and filled a space which could have held about 20 or 21 lebters of the size of those which remained. The Phrygian portion is restored only exempli yratia; the Greek must have been somewhat as above. CCE I in line 15 probably contains the lastietter of to?, and a word (replacing ovrav, ' penalty;), beginning with crei . . . Perhaps it is cognate to the Greek aivo/iai, but at present it cannot be restored. I thought also of yeyp[eifji,evav ovTav eyeJcrcretJY, taking e

The proper names are, of course, not certain. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 211 Fortunately a few valuable details can be gleaned among the debris of this inscription. The word fiavica has been generally accepted as the equivalent of fivrjfia or fMvrj/jLeiov, and these words may confidently be inserted.7711 The opening words in the second line of either version are clearly \aro/j,[lov and icvovfiav]ei, Ka[ic . . ., and the first line in either version must have contained another word describing the tomb. In the Greek version, this is the only possible supposition. The restoration \a.TOfi[lov], which Professor Ramsay made immediately, is attested in the sense of 'grave' in G.I.G. 2032 (= Lebas- Waddington 1473) from Selymbria, etc, In line 11, TO %/at/ia (= Kpl/u-a) is valuable as supporting the meaning we have assigned above to yeypeifievav, which clearly occurs in the corresponding passage in the Phrygian version, line 14. ai *o? (line 12) has been discussed on XVIII. LXV. Copied by me in 1910 at Kurshunl.u (see Anderson, J.H.8. 1889, p. 293) in the cemetery. The inscription is engraved immediately under the pediment (broken) of a buried doorstone (?). I thought there had been a line (doubtless of Greek) above the inscription, but T was the only surviving trace of it. (Probably avea-]r[rj(Tev.)—

IOCC6MOYKNOYMAN //wo- K 0 Yf A <\ ';'<. '(,'<'?% $ T T I H C I T,? e T I KM£N C//////(WtZ I TO Y (o? aefiov Kvovfi,av[ei /ca]/cov[v] a[SSa/ceT, A]TT4- V [0'\n\r']e[T]iKfievo[^ t? (?) aSe]iTov. I made the following notes: ' ATTI is clear; the second letter in line 2 is almost certainly 0, not €, and the third letter is certainly I, not T. After the fourth letter there is a break, containing room for one letter. There is space^ between /uei>o[?] and [e]tTou for three or four letters.' Possibly the space was not engraved ; but the above restoration seems feasible. The name of Attis is generally followed by aSeiTov; the fact that the participle is inserted here between Amr) and the imperative would lead us to expect eirov simply, to complete the hexameter; but aBeirov may have been retained from its association, for metrical reasons, with the name of Attis. For t? (demonstrative) compare No. XXVIII. For aefiov see on XIX., XXI.; for Amrj, No. LXII. I have restored the second letter in line 2 as 0, understanding that 6 has been written for T as often in Greek inscriptions (e.g. 0y for rfj, Qeicvois for re/wot?). It must, however, be noted that a semi-circular letter (which cannot be 6) precedes iTreTircfievos in No. LVI. I have restored it there [YejtTT . . .; but the possibility must be allowed that there was a form eirenicfievoi; or o-iTernc- fievos. The letter in the present inscription, however, seemed circular, not semi-circular, and neither of those texts gives sufficient supporb for such a form. But it may be found later, necessitating a correction in the transcription of LVI. and LXV.

"b See Note 25. 212 W. 31. CALDER LXVI. Copied by Mr. Anderson in Sultan Mesarlik (1 hour 20 mins. S. of Kozanli), in 1898, and published by him, J.H.S. 1899, p. 123, No. 132. On an ' altar, with serpent in relief on one side. The letters are clear.'

~~~~~~~~~~MHNOYAOYTO eCTAPTOJNOC MHTePCCTHC ON~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~Mr. Anderson suggests as an explanation MIJVOVSOVTO(V) ( = MT}V6SOTOV) 'EardprtDvo^ firir(r})p eoTJ/~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~ANHCMHTPI dvr)<> (?) M.r)Tpl 6TXHN~~~~~~~~~~

The connexion of the small letters in the sunk space at the top with the larger ones below is obscure. In the second last line, there is room for a letter before A, but a careful inspection convinced me that none had been engraved. "Avr)<; is a possible name: "Avva (fem.) is very common, and "Avva/cos and "Ovvrjs (cf. oSSa/cer, So/cer for aSSa/cer, Baicer) are referred to the same stem (Kretschmer, Einleitv/ng, p. 344). But possibly the name is Maadvrj<;.77c Mdaa (fem.) occurs at Iconium, G.I.G. 3998, and (probably fem.) in J.H.S. 1899, p. 290. The letters MAC in line 2 and ANM in line 1 are certain. Before A in line 1 there appeared to be two letters, the first consisting of an upright stroke, with the top broken away: the second letter is possibly &, a late form of A ; but the circular part is rubbed and faint. Or the two symbols together may be M. The letter after A N M is the top part of A or A or the first half of M or |s|. The rest of the line, about 2 to 4 letters, is lost. The next line is occupied by MAC, all certain: between this and line 3, there is room for a line, but it appeared that none had

77c cf. Jlasanes the Lydian hero ; see B.M.C. Lydia, p. cxi. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 213 been engraved. The first line can scarcely contain the name Thdvfiaa77A (which would suit the traces), for the presence of a local name would be hard to explain in this position. It is more likely to contain Masanes' first name. This inscription shows that Cybele was known at Kozanli (as in many other places) simply as ' the Mother.' We accordingly transcribe Mr. Anderson's inscription.

~~~~~~~~~~' Eavo^, etc. 'Eo-re-~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~airekevOepoi~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~T6KVOIS [~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~Teiprj yvvai-~~~~~~~~~~

/OC 'O? C A T I C IC e A € A PI A ! aa TuriceteSpuu fvA KOYN A AKCTA KCLKOVV [S]aKera[i, TCTl KMGNOCAC r[e]Ti>c/j,ei>o<; A[r- T/ A 6 C.I TOY Tt aS[e]iTOU. 77d See on No. L. Ep. Jour. No. 163) fia-rpi occurs for ii-nrpl. 78 MaTap occurs as a personal name in J.H.S. 78a As Professor Souter pointed out to me. 1899, p. 84, and on an unpublished inscription 78b [We found two further occurrences of copied in 1908 at Kelhassan in N. Lycaonia. aveffT^ao/ity in the district of Laodiceia Com- On a Greek inscr. of Phxygia Paroreios (Sterrett, busta in 1911.] •214 W. M. CALDER

Torp's conjecture that TMTK ... in the older copy was the first part of a feminine noun meaning 'tomb' is confirmed bv the new copy (Phryg. Insch. aus rom. Ze.it. p. 10). The word is evidently identical with Tovo-tcepeBpi,a<;, for which see on LVI. On era, see on XLIX. Saicer occurs in XXVI. and L/VT. The letter C at the end of line 4 must be a mistake of engraver or copyist for X : letters at the end of a line are often badly engraved, or worn and difficult. R(6) prints [A AJAK6TAI from Hogarth's MAK€TA ; but Professor Callander's copy, while indicating the letter as difficult, supports A. A note on the word er«. or TI may be added here. This word always occurs, in one form or the other, before Ten/c/uevos, usually causing duplication of the initial r (enTTeriK/u.evo'i), but sometimes not. That (e)n was felt to coalesce with the participle, and form a single word with it, is made probable by the fact that it is inserted before (e)Tt,TeTifC[ievo

ADDENDA. The following notes are added after a journey in Eastern Phrygia in the summer of 1911. I have succeeded in revising Nos. XXXI, XXXIX., XLIII, and LXVII. (the third together with Sir W. M. Ramsay). I feel the greatest diffidence in introducing any change into the text of No. XXXI; Mr. Anderson's facsimile of this inscription is one of the most accurate I have ever compared with an original. Further, after searching for the stone throughout several hours of brilliant sunshine, I found and revised it during a rainstorm. But a long and careful inspection convinced me that the fifth letter from the end of line two is a C with very short horizontal bars. 'SSt/ce? is parallel to eo-Tae? and eve-trapices in the same text. No. XLIII. is engraved on a broken doorstone: the inscription must have been continued below. In LXVII. WlecXidSi should be JiacrcXeiBrj. BatceTa^i] is certain, and so is Am: the first T has lost its vertical bar, but is not open to doubt. Sir W. M. Ramsay has verified my 1910 copy of LXII.; every letter is certain. I made a complete copy of the Phrygian portion of No. XXXIX. A provisional transcription is appended: to? vi a-[efi]ov T[OV\ Kvov/jLav[e] jca/covv Ti [aS]Sa«eT, [S]to? [«]e [o"]£e/a[eA.]a>? «[e T]fT[T]e[T]t/c/i£[i']o9 eirov Amr) >ce aSetrov. «e after ATTMJ accordingly connects two sentences, instead of CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 215 two divine names as argued above. With ATTM? ice a&eirov cf. Nos. XLIV. and LIV. The new text confirms the argument advanced on No. LXII. regarding the division of ATTI6AA6ITOY. In 1911 we have found four new texts in Phrygian, one consisting of twenty-two lines. These, with one further inscription which Professor Callander has kindly sent me, are reserved for a second paper. W. M C.

~~~~~~~~~~H.S.—VOL. XXXI.~~~~~~~~~~