AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightIn previous editions the missing name andethnicon of craftsman of the sarcophagus is here read as @86tppaotog vasirng.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
In this article,a published sarcophagus inscription from Turant Asarı located km northeast ofMyra is re-examined and given a new reading. The era in the first line of the inscription and somepersonal names in other lines could not be precisely read in the first edition and these issues were then leftwithout comment. The date ğtovg Gop' unvoç Aüövaioı) ta' (11th Audnaios 179) in the first line is readclearly. This date must have not been reckoned from 311 BC according to the Seleucid era as the year 179corresponds to 133/32 BC which is too early for the epigraphic form of the letters in this inscription. Itmay be the Sullan era (179=AD 94/5). But to date the inscription to the period after AD 43 seemsdoubtful from the kitharephoroi specified as the currency of penalty payment in the inscription. Thetypology of the sarcophagus and the letters characteristics of the inscription indicate a date around the endof first century BC or the beginning of first century AD and do not permit consideration of an era laterthan that of Sulla. This approximately dating is taken into consideration the year 179 goes back to the firsthalf of the second century BC. The most important year in this period is 168/7 BC with the independenceof Lycia from Rhodian dominion that would mark the beginning of the Lycian era. In consequence, thisarticle suggests the date recorded on this inscription was probably calculated from 168/7 BC (AD 11/12),the beginning of a new local era in Lycia. In the inscription two new personal names are deciphered asresult of the new reading as Bpoucaoowoa TsötoBsovg. In the article, it is suggested that Eleutheramentioned in the inscription should be Eleuthera Trebendatike. In previous editions the missing name andethnicon of craftsman of the sarcophagus is here read as @86tppaotog vasirng.
Özet
In this article,a published sarcophagus inscription from Turant Asarı located km northeast ofMyra is re-examined and given a new reading. The era in the first line of the inscription and somepersonal names in other lines could not be precisely read in the first edition and these issues were then leftwithout comment. The date ğtovg Gop' unvoç Aüövaioı) ta' (11th Audnaios 179) in the first line is readclearly. This date must have not been reckoned from 311 BC according to the Seleucid era as the year 179corresponds to 133/32 BC which is too early for the epigraphic form of the letters in this inscription. Itmay be the Sullan era (179=AD 94/5). But to date the inscription to the period after AD 43 seemsdoubtful from the kitharephoroi specified as the currency of penalty payment in the inscription. Thetypology of the sarcophagus and the letters characteristics of the inscription indicate a date around the endof first century BC or the beginning of first century AD and do not permit consideration of an era laterthan that of Sulla. This approximately dating is taken into consideration the year 179 goes back to the firsthalf of the second century BC. The most important year in this period is 168/7 BC with the independenceof Lycia from Rhodian dominion that would mark the beginning of the Lycian era. In consequence, thisarticle suggests the date recorded on this inscription was probably calculated from 168/7 BC (AD 11/12),the beginning of a new local era in Lycia. In the inscription two new personal names are deciphered asresult of the new reading as Bpoucaoowoa TsötoBsovg. In the article, it is suggested that Eleutheramentioned in the inscription should be Eleuthera Trebendatike. In previous editions the missing name andethnicon of craftsman of the sarcophagus is here read as @86tppaotog vasirng.