DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0368
App. I. INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PENTAPOLIS. 699
Tia[v«>} squeezed into its place in smaller characters) SjeySoafT^] r) \ap.-po-
tAtt] <Upoiro\ei.T(iv -iroAu M. At the left side there was subsequently
added in small rude letters (3) dd. NN. hnpp. cliocletiani et Maximiani
invict. Aug\g\. Below this (4) tovs eirKpaveaTarovs Kaiaapas <t>A.a. Ova\.
\Kuiv(TTavTi erasedW Kal Ta\. Ovak. Ma^qxiavdv ?; 'lepoiroXeiTSiv irokis.
Dates (1) A.D. 276-282, (2) 284. (3) 285, (4) 292.
The inscription to Prohus was engraved in fine well-cut letters (shapes
A, T, UJ, ¥, 6, C): the distance was probably one mile, as no
number was added. The stone, in that case, is not very far from its
original position, though it has heen moved undoubtedly. The name of,
Prohus was very rarely erased ; but another instance of erasure occurs at
Komana Capp. BCH 3883 p. 131, Journal of Philol. 1882 p. 1491.
Here the name is assured by the horizontal bar of TT. which is not com-
pletely destroyed.
631. Kotch-Hissar. MM. Legrand and Chamonard BCH 1893
p. 277, 'il pa/rait impossible deproposer mie restitution vraisemblable'; but
except the first two and a half lines, the sense is probable: [tp ['\}e[poir]o-
[\iT&n ? koivov ?] e£? [(TTi^p]a[(j)fjs [-------] ireiixiiaev 'Apiwva 'A\ e^avh'pov
■naa\r]s aperfis 'lpt[K.a • • ey]pa(pi] to [boyp.]a erov[s ev\bs Kal dy8o7)fKoor]oi;
p-r/vos bevrepov [e]v[\j/]rir(pia-\avTos <$>i\[i7ttov TETOYNt- -]A tov ypapp-aricot
Ka[l Seou ?\rjpov2' boypaToypa^^a-avrav Atjl/uoKAe'oj re Mrjvo.boopov Kal)
'A\et;a.vbpov Mev[ei<\iovs Kal] ^PlXittttov 'Ao-/cA[?]-idSoiA B.C. 34.
The exordmm would be the most interesting part of this document:
a new copy is much to be desired. The date is one of the earliest known
among the inscr. of Central Phrygia; and it is especially tantalizing
that the opening lines are partly hidden. The Roman custom that
witnesses should be present when the decree was transcribed and entered
in the archives (see no. 544) was imitated in the Asian cities. Generally
the witnesses were selected by lot from among those who had been present
when the decree was passed (AaxoVray boynaroypcupcov at Assos, Sterrett
in Papers Amer. Sc/i. Athens I p. $5): they were often three in number as
here (at Assos 1. c, Ephesos see Hicks no. 481 lines 315 ff., and probably
Hermes INp. 198, Mitylene Collitz Sammluug no. 238, Iasos Th. Reinach
Rev. $t. Gr. 1893 p. 166): sometimes two along with the Secretary of
the City (at Ephesos Hicks no. 481 lines 297 ff., at Akmonia no. 544 where
probably the first person in the concluding formula is the ypap-ixarevs,
1 In the latter place I distrusted my another epithet or office of Philip is
own copy and assigned the inscv. wanted (unless we should read [2eou?J-
WTOngly to Caracalla. flpOV doyp.!)Tnypn[cj>7](7cit'Tos]).
" In place of a personal naine here.
Tia[v«>} squeezed into its place in smaller characters) SjeySoafT^] r) \ap.-po-
tAtt] <Upoiro\ei.T(iv -iroAu M. At the left side there was subsequently
added in small rude letters (3) dd. NN. hnpp. cliocletiani et Maximiani
invict. Aug\g\. Below this (4) tovs eirKpaveaTarovs Kaiaapas <t>A.a. Ova\.
\Kuiv(TTavTi erasedW Kal Ta\. Ovak. Ma^qxiavdv ?; 'lepoiroXeiTSiv irokis.
Dates (1) A.D. 276-282, (2) 284. (3) 285, (4) 292.
The inscription to Prohus was engraved in fine well-cut letters (shapes
A, T, UJ, ¥, 6, C): the distance was probably one mile, as no
number was added. The stone, in that case, is not very far from its
original position, though it has heen moved undoubtedly. The name of,
Prohus was very rarely erased ; but another instance of erasure occurs at
Komana Capp. BCH 3883 p. 131, Journal of Philol. 1882 p. 1491.
Here the name is assured by the horizontal bar of TT. which is not com-
pletely destroyed.
631. Kotch-Hissar. MM. Legrand and Chamonard BCH 1893
p. 277, 'il pa/rait impossible deproposer mie restitution vraisemblable'; but
except the first two and a half lines, the sense is probable: [tp ['\}e[poir]o-
[\iT&n ? koivov ?] e£? [(TTi^p]a[(j)fjs [-------] ireiixiiaev 'Apiwva 'A\ e^avh'pov
■naa\r]s aperfis 'lpt[K.a • • ey]pa(pi] to [boyp.]a erov[s ev\bs Kal dy8o7)fKoor]oi;
p-r/vos bevrepov [e]v[\j/]rir(pia-\avTos <$>i\[i7ttov TETOYNt- -]A tov ypapp-aricot
Ka[l Seou ?\rjpov2' boypaToypa^^a-avrav Atjl/uoKAe'oj re Mrjvo.boopov Kal)
'A\et;a.vbpov Mev[ei<\iovs Kal] ^PlXittttov 'Ao-/cA[?]-idSoiA B.C. 34.
The exordmm would be the most interesting part of this document:
a new copy is much to be desired. The date is one of the earliest known
among the inscr. of Central Phrygia; and it is especially tantalizing
that the opening lines are partly hidden. The Roman custom that
witnesses should be present when the decree was transcribed and entered
in the archives (see no. 544) was imitated in the Asian cities. Generally
the witnesses were selected by lot from among those who had been present
when the decree was passed (AaxoVray boynaroypcupcov at Assos, Sterrett
in Papers Amer. Sc/i. Athens I p. $5): they were often three in number as
here (at Assos 1. c, Ephesos see Hicks no. 481 lines 315 ff., and probably
Hermes INp. 198, Mitylene Collitz Sammluug no. 238, Iasos Th. Reinach
Rev. $t. Gr. 1893 p. 166): sometimes two along with the Secretary of
the City (at Ephesos Hicks no. 481 lines 297 ff., at Akmonia no. 544 where
probably the first person in the concluding formula is the ypap-ixarevs,
1 In the latter place I distrusted my another epithet or office of Philip is
own copy and assigned the inscv. wanted (unless we should read [2eou?J-
WTOngly to Caracalla. flpOV doyp.!)Tnypn[cj>7](7cit'Tos]).
" In place of a personal naine here.