The existence of the following inscriptions was brought to my knowledge by Ibrahim Gürcan of the village of Kazıkbağları. I visited the places in question in September 1965.
I. In the village of Atçılar Köyü, high in the hills some 7km. in a straight line due north from the site of Aegae, brought from the hill of Danışman Tepe close above the village on the north and built into the mosque when this was repaired in 1953, a block of hard brown stone 0.65 high,0.43 wide, 0.20 thick. The stone appears complete, with plain upper surface; the writing begins close under the top edge. At the bottom a space of 22 cm. is left rough; this part of the stone was obviously buried in the earth. Letters 35 to 43 mm. high (0, Ω and Θ smaller), still showing traces of red colouring. Photograph Fig. 1.
Tercümesi : Attalos oğlu Philetairos, stellerle tahdit edilen araziyi Apollon Chresterios’a takdis etti.
Although the stone seems complete, the inscription is plainly defective at the top; since we can hardly imagine the text beginning on a stone above, it appears that the top line must have been trimmed away when the block was reused in the repair of the mosque.
The temple of Apollo Chresterios a few miles east of Aegae is of course well known ; a description of the ruins is given by Bohn and Schuchhardt in Altertümer von Aegae 46-49. The building is dated by the inscription on the architrave to the first century B.C. No excavation has been undertaken, and it does not appear whether an earlier temple existed on the same spot; our present inscription may be taken as evidence that a temple of Apollo Chresterios existed somewhere in the neighbourhood two hundred years earlier[1].
Danışman Tepe, from which our stone comes, is a good five miles from the site of the temple. If we should assume that the other stelae were placed at a similar distance around the temple, the dedicated area w'ould be very large; but no doubt more likely we should suppose that a smaller piece of land was marked out in the vicinity of Atçılar Köyü. The whole of this region is mountainous and thinly populated; there is some cultivation around Atçılar itself, but the land is mostly rough hillside covered with scrub and boulders. Danışman Tepe rises something over 600 m. above sea-level.
That the name of Philetaerus should be supplied at the beginning of our text is not, I think, doubtful. The inscription falls into line with three others (OGI 310, 311, 749) which record dedications of land near Thespiae in Boeotia, in two cases to the Muses of Helicon and in one case to Hermes, by Φιλέτηρος Άττάλω Περγαμεύς. Foucart, the original editor of the first two (BCH VIII (1884), p. 158 and IX (1885), p. 405), supposed this to be the third son of Attalus I, the only Philetaerus son of Attalus then known. Holleaux, however (REG X(1897), p. 33, and more fully REG XV (1902), p. 302 ff. =Et. d'Ep. et d’ Hist. Gr. II, p. 1,) argued that the reference must be rather to the original Philetaerus, the founder of the dynasty. This was confirmed by an inscription published in 1902 (JHS XXII, p.193), which showed that this Philetaerus’ father was in fact named Attalus, and this view was accepted by the editor of the third text, Jamot (BCH XXVI (1902), p. 156), as it is now, no doubt, by most scholars[2]. The question is discussed by Dittenberger in OGI I p. 655-6, who also inclines, with some reservations, to Holleaux’s opinion.
Holleaux’s arguments were briefly ( 1 ) the absence of the title Βασιλεύς, essential for Attalus I, (2) the addition of the ethnic Περγαμεύς, (3) the form of the ethnic, suggesting an early date when the Thespians were not familiar with the form used at Pergamum, and (4) the style of the script.
Dittenberger observes, with regard to the second of these points, that none of the Attalids were Pergamenes in the sense of being citizens of Pergamum, but that the younger Philetaerus, born and bred in that city, had at least more justification for calling himself so than the Paphlagonian eunuch. The form of the ethnic he explained rather as due to a desire on Philetaerus’ part to conform to the Greek usage, ethnics in -ηνός being unknown in Greece itself and having something of a barbarian connotation. In our present inscription the ethnic is not used at all. Holleaux’s first argument, however, was admitted by Dittenberger to be very strong, if not conclusive. On this point our text affords no evidence, as it is presumably possible that two lines rather than one may have been trimmed away for reuse of the stone in the mosque.
For the style of the script Holleaux had the benefit of consulting Jarnot’s squeeze; he concluded that the letters conform closely to the style current in Boeotia in the first half of the third century, and could hardly be much later than 250 B.C. The printed majuscule copies given by Foucart and Jamot (BCH locc. citt.) would not require a date earlier than the second century and are evidently not sufficiently accurate. In this connexion the photograph (Fig. 1) of our inscription may be of interest. As between a date in the time of the first Philetaerus (281-263 B.C.) and one in the early second century (the younger Philetaerus was not born before 219 B.C.) the script appears to me to be absolutely conclusive in favour of the former. The letter-forms are indeed such that one would much more readily attribute them to the fourth century than to the second. If it be admitted that our text and the other three all refer to the same prince, there can be no serious doubt of his identity.
Nor is this the first known donation by Philetaerus to Apollo Chresterios. Long ago Cyriac of Ancona copied (apparently on the site of the temple itself) a dedication reading ’Απόλλωνι Χρηστηρίωι Φιλέταφος Άττάλου[3]. He was indeed noted for the generosity of his gifts and dedications. What inference, if any, may be drawn from this dedication of land to Apollo with regard to the relations subsisting between Pergamum and Aegae I leave to others to decide[4].
2. On the site of Cyme at Namurt Limanı, in the line of the citywall on the east side, a large block of white marble still standing upright and apparently in its original position. It measures 0.66 m. in width, 0.51m. in thickness; the lower part is buried in the earth and I could not get to the bottom of it. The height is more than im., and probably a good deal more. There is a dowel-hole and lead-channel in the upper surface. The stone is inscribed on the front and on the left flank; in the latter case the writing begins, rather surprisingly, 15 cm. from the left edge and continues to the extreme right edge. On the front the text occupies the entire width of the stone. Elegant Hellenistic letters, very regular and carefully written, 1 cm. high on the front, 8 to 9 mm. on the left flank. Photograph Figs. 2, 3.
Tercümesi: 1(a) fazileti ve kendisine göstermiş olduğu hüsnüniyetten dolayı. Yanma da, aynı kaide üzerine, onun başına bir çelenk koymakta olan Halk’ın insan boyundan büyük tunç heykeli dikilsin; gene de aynı kaide üzerine babası Lakrates oğlu Dikaiogenes’in aşağıdaki şekilde bir yazıt taşıyan heykeli dikilsin: “Halk, Lakrates oğlu Dikaiogenes’i (tebcil etti)”. Bundan başka, önümüzdeki Dionysia yortusunda, çocukların yarışmalarında, agonotet, Dikaiogenes kızı Arhippe’nin başına, fazileti ve Halk’a göstermiş olduğu hüsnüniyetten dolayı bir altın çelenk koysun, ve kendisi ön sırada bir yere davet edilsin. Yukarıdaki şeref nişaneleri, hem şimdi görevlendirilen hem de gelecekte görevlendirilecek olan agonotetler tarafından, tıpkı diğer hayır sahipleri için yapıldığı gibi ilân edilsin. Sonra da, Arhippe vefat ettiği zaman, ozamanki prytanis, yukarıda tayin edildiği şekilde ilân ederek, kendisine bir altın çelenk sunsun ; ve diğer hayır sahipleriyle aynı yere gömülsün. Ve heykellerle kaidenin bir an evvel yapılması için, kardeşi Dikaiogenes oğlu Olympios’tan lâzım gelen parayı iade edilmemek şartiyle hibe etmesi ve mezkûr heykellerle kaideyi Arhippc’nin tercih edeceği şekilde bizzat hazırlaması talep edilsin. İşbu karar şehrimizin ve vatandaşların selâmetine uygun olsun. Metrophanes vazifede iken Terpheios ayında (verildi).
I (b) Arhippe’nin verdiği teberru ve ziyafet münasebetiyle Phyle’lerin yapacakları kurban merasimleri hakkında karar.
Generaller, phyle başkanları ve âzaların teklifi üzerine Senato karar verdi. Mademki Dikaiogenes kızı Arhippe, kendi âlicenaplığına ve vatana her zaman göstermiş olduğu hüsnüniyet ve cömertliğine uygun olarak, hayırhahlığını ve yardımseverliğini belirtmek için hiç bir fırsat kaçırmıyor, öyle ki hem bütün Halk hem de vatandaşların herbiri tarafından takdir ve minnettarlıkla karşılanmaktadır, ve ecdatlarının erdem ve âlicenaplığına ve kendisinin Halk’a karşı olan yardımseverliğine uygun olarak parlak ve şanlı mükâfatlarla tebcil edilmiştir; zira bu şekilde vatanını daha güzel ve daha parlak bir hale sokmuştur; şimdi de, Halk’ın müsaade ettiği heykeller, yani kendisine Halk tarafından bir çelenk sunulmakta olan Arhippe ile babası Dikaiogenes’in heykelleri yapıldıktan ve Arhippe’nin takdis ettiği Senato binasımn önüne dikildikten sonra, insan sevgisini göstererek Umumî Senato’ya kurban ve ziyafet için elli stater, ve her phyle’ye altmış stater, ve Kyme’de oturan yabancılarla azatlılara elli stater hediye ettiği gibi, vatandaşlara ve şehirde oturan diğerlerine şekerlemeler dağıtmıştır; işte bu yüzden de Halk, Arhippe’yi methederek onun davranışını ve vatanına karşı olan fedakârlık ve cömertliğini en büyük teveccüh ile kabul etmeğe karar vermiştir. Kallippos vazifede iken Terpheios ayında bütün Generaller bu teklifte bulundular.
I (c) Arhippe için yapılacak kurban merasimi hakkında karar.
Generaller, phyle başkanları ve âzaların teklifi üzerine Senato karar verdi. Mademki Dikaiogenes kızı Arhippe vahim ve tehlikeli bir hastalığa tutulunca Halk, kendisine karşı beslediği teveccüh dolayısiyle pek fazla üzülmüştür —zira uslu ve mutedil ve hem ecdatlarının hem kendi âlicenaplığına uygun bir şekilde davranarak vatanına karşı olan hüsnüniyet ve hayırhahlığını birçok önemli hususlarda göstermiştir— şimdi de tanrıların nzasile sıhhati düzelince Halk, kurtuluşuna ziyadesiyle sevinerek bu vesile ile tanrılara gereken şekilde minnettarlığını göstermeyi münasip ve Arhippe’ye karşı olan iyiniyetine uygun görmektedir; işte bu sebepten dolayı Halk, Generallerin Arhippe’nin kurtuluş ve sağlığı için tanrılara bir kurban merasimini hazırlamalarına karar vermiştir. Uğurlu olsun. Athenaios vazifede iken Tcrpheios ayının yirmibeşinde bütün Generaller bu teklifte bulundular.
II (a) Phyle’lerin yapacakları kurban merasimleri hakkında karar.
Generaller, phyle başkanlar! ve âzaların teklifi üzerine Senato karar verdi. Mademki Dikaiogenes kızı Arhippc, kendi âlicenaplığı ve vatana herzaman göstermiş olduğu hüsnüniyet ve cömertliğe uygun olarak, hayırhahlığını ve yardımseverliğini belirtmek için hiç bir fırsat kaçırmıyor, öyle ki hem bütün Halk hem de vatandaşların herbiri tarafından takdir ve minnettarlıkla karşılanmaktadır, ve ecdatlarının erdem ve âlicenaplığına ve kendisinin Halk’a karşı olan yardımseverliğine uygun olarak parlak ve şanlı mükâfatlarla tebcil edilmiştir; zira bu şekilde vatanını daha güzel ve daha parlak bir hale sokmuştur; şimdi de, kendi tarafından inşa ettirilmiş olan Senato binasına önceden kararlaştırılan kitabeyi yazdıktan sonra, insan sevgisini göstererek Umumî Senato’ya kurban ve ziyafet için elli stater ve kurban merasiminde bulundurulacak öküz için Attika parasiyle yetmiş drahme, ve elli testi yıllanmış şarap, ve her phyle ve bütün yabancılara aynı miktarı vermiş, hem de kendi tarafından inşa ettirilmiş olan Senato binasında vatandaşlara ve şehirde oturan diğerlerine şekerlemeler dağıtmağı vaadetmiştir; işte bu yüzden de Halk, Arhippe’ yi methederek onun davranışını ve vatanına karşı olan yardımseverlik ve cömertliğini en büyük teveccüh ile kabul etmeğe karar vermiştir. Diogenes oğlu Apollodoros vazifede iken Terpheios ayının on ikisinde verildi.
II (b) Arhippe için yapılacak kurban merasimi hakkında karar.
Generaller, phyle başkanlan ve âzaların teklifi üzerine Senato karar verdi. Madem ki Dikaiogenes kızı Arhippe vahim ve tehlikeli bir hastalığa tutulunca Halk, kendisine karşı beslediği teveccüh dolayısiyle pek fazla üzülmüştür —zira uslu ve mutedil ve hem ecdatlarının hem kendi âlicenaplığına uygun bir şekilde davranarak vatanına karşı olan hüsnüniyet ve hayırhahlığını birçok önemli hususlarda göstermiştir—şimdi de tanrıların rızasiyle sıhhati düzelince Halk, kurtuluşuna ziyadesile sevinerek bu vesile ile tanrılara gereken şekilde minnettarlığını göstermeği münasip ve Arhippe’ye karşı olan iyiniyetine uygun görmektedir; işte bu sebepten dolayı Halk, Generallerin Arhippe’nin kurtuluş ve sağlığı için tanrılara bir kurban merasimini hazırlamalarına karar vermiştir. Uğurlu olsun. Xenon oğlu Athenaios vazifede iken Dios ayında (verildi).
Apart from the difference in the size of the letters on the two sides of the stone, the script is uniform throughout, and might well be the work of a single lapicide. If so, he has done his work remarkably well. In 113 lines of text there seems to be nothing that must be attributed to him as an error. The redaction also leaves little to be desired. A severe critic might no doubt prefer τετιμαμένα (dative) in I b 29 (cf. II a 12) and πεποιημένην rather than the infinitive in I c 50 (cf. II b 45) ; in II a 15 there is no strictly logical antecedent for the relative ας[5], and in II a 27 there is nothing which can properly govern the future infinitive γλυκιειν; but in general the phrasing is correct and characteristic of the period. The deponent use of the middle άπάντασθαι in I b 28 (cf. II a 11) does not apppear to be quoted elsewhere.
It is not easy at first sight to know quite what to make of these texts. We have five decrees in honour of a certain lady named Archippe: on the front of the stone two in the Aeolic dialect and one in the Attic koine, on the flank of the stone two, both in Attic, of which the former largely repeats the second on the front, but with more detail in the middle, and the latter repeats word for word the third on the front except for the tailpiece at the end. What is the explanation of these repetitions and partial repetitions, in one case in the same dialect, in the other case in different dialects? I c and II b are both dated in the year of Athenaeus (called in one case only ‘son of Xenon’) but in different months; the others are all dated in different years. What temporal and causal relationship between the parts does this imply?
There is further the question of the dialect. The reader’s immediate impression is that the Aeolic is, if I may so express it, half-hearted. Apart from such Attickoine forms as άπο-, άνα-, μετά, πρύτανις, χαλκέαν, χρυσέω, the addition of iota to the dative plural in -οις, -αις, is intermittent. For psilosis the evidence is slight, but consistent as far as it goes. The aspirate is given to the relative (καθότι, έφ’ οΐς), which is itself an importation from the koine, but not to έκάστω (I a 28). In commenting on another Cymaean inscription (Schwyzer 647), which dates from the time of Augustus and is similarly couched in a degraded Aeolic, C. Buck remarks (Greek Dialects p. 219) that it is “a characteristic example of the artificial revival of the dialect in imperial Roman times” ; any such explanation of our texts is ruled out by the style of the script, and we must admit at least some of the faulty features at a date earlier by some 150 years.
But more remarkable than this: the heading of lb, and the dating of both la and lb, are in Attic. One sees no reason for this in the ordinary way, and it can hardly fail to suggest that the dates are not those of the original passing of the decrees but of the decision at some later time to inscribe them on the present stone. Yet the dates are different, so that two separate decisions would be postulated. Nor would this help to explain the relationship between lb and Ila; neither of these is a copy of the other, for apart from the difference of dialect the middle portions differ considerably. And these middle portions are the parts that matter; the beginning and the end are formalities that might be repeated on quite separate occasions. The benefactions recorded in the middle parts are closely similar— 50 staters for a sacrifice and banquet to the Council, presents of money to each of the tribes and to the resident aliens, and a distribution of sweetmeats to all inhabitants of the city. But the details vary: Ila makes further mention of the ox for the sacrifice and wine for the banquet, and the sums assigned to the tribes are not the same. Moreover, whereas lb 39 has έγλύκισεν, in Ila 27 we find only the future infinitive γλυκιεϊν, implying merely a promise. Given further the difference of dialect and date, we must surely conclude that lb and Ila are two quite separate decrees.
Neither lb nor Ila confers any honours on Archippe: they simply express the People’s gratitude. The honours are conferred in la, of which the preserved part does not record her services, and include a group of statues showing Archippe being crowned by the People, and her father Dicaeogenes. These are refered to in lb 32 as having now been made and set up. It seems likely therefore that in point of time Ila comes first, recording the People’s gratitude for Archippe’s promise to make the benefactions mentioned; this was followed (perhaps in the next year) by la, conferring honours upon her, and this again still later by lb, recording the implementation of the honours and the actual performance of her earlier promises[6]. The delay was surely due to her severe illness, recorded in Ic and lib ; it is possible (though not of course necessary) that the provision for her burial in la i iff. was prompted by the dangerous nature of her sickness. We need not suppose that δέδωκεν in Ila 20 means merely “offered” or “promised”; the money may have been already given, but its application to the purposes intended was postponed by reason of the illness.
One or two puzzling features remain. It appears that the two dialects were used indifferently and that no significance is to be attributed to the heading and dating of la and lb; certainly it would be wrong to imagine that the Aeolic must be earlier than the Attic. But why was the decree for a sacrifice in thanksgiving for Archippe’s recovery written out twice in the same terms, dated in the same year (apparently) but in a different month? We must, I think, conclude that this appearance is deceptive and that the two dates are in fact of different years; either Athenaeus and Athenaeus-son-of-Xenon are two different men, or the same Athenaeus was re-elected a few years later. We may perhaps guess what happened. The stone is standing in the line of the city wall and is likely to have formed part of a gateway; only an excavation could prove or disprove this, but the curiously unsymmetrical placing of the text on the left flank might be explained if the block was not free-standing. It is certainly not a stele, nor can it be the base of the statue decreed to Archippe, which we know carried a group of three, one of them over life-size, and was erected in front of the Council-House. Possibly then the sequence of events was something like this: Archippe made her donation (Ha), but before it could be applied she fell dangerously ill. On her recovery lib was inscribed in thanksgiving and honours decreed to her (la) ; later, when the honours and the benefactions had been implemented, the People expressed their gratitude again (lb). Meanwhile reconstructions had been carried out at the gate, and the left flank became covered up; lib therefore needed to be repeated on the face of the stone (with the new date), but the same need was not felt in the case of IIa, w'hose contents were in their essence contained in lb. Alternatively we may suppose that Ila was in fact reinscribed on the face of the stone which stood above ours; we know that this stone carried at least the beginning of la.
Four of the five decrees are dated in the month of Terpheios. This month was previously known —or almost so. Another inscription of Cyme (BCH XII (1888), 360 = Schwyzer 646) is dated μηννος Τέρφεος, and a decree of Mytilene or Eresus found at Magnesia-ad- Maeandrum (Inscr. von Magn. 52 = IG XII Suppl. 138) is dated τώ μήννο; τώ [Τε]ρφείωι[7]. Η. von Gaertringen (ZG XII Suppl, p. 17) gives a list of the Lesbian months, in which Terpheus figures as the eighth or ninth, corresponding to Metageitnion or Boedromion[8]. It seems therefore that Τερφεϊος was the normal form of the name, with Τερφεύς admitted at Cyme as an alternative.