Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:46:44.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Authorship of the Inscribed Pillar of Xanthos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

William A. P. Childs
William A. P. Childs
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Inscribed Pillar of Xanthos is the most elaborate example of the Lycian pillar tombs. It is important for its reliefs preserved in London and Istanbul but particularly for the long historical inscription in Lycian which covers the south, east, and half of the north side of the pillar shaft. This is followed on the north side by a Greek epigram and a moderately long inscription on the remainder of the north and the whole west side in Lycian B or Milyan. The date of the pillar is generally placed around 400 B.C. This is based on the style of the reliefs of the upper burial chamber and on the analysis of the historical inscription.

The name of the author of the pillar appeared three times in the inscriptions – twice in the Lycian historical inscription (south side or a lines 1 and 29/30) and once in the Greek epigram (north side or c line 24, epigram line 5). Yet in the Lycian the name is missing entirely in both cases and in the Greek only the last two letters are preserved: [ … ]ις. The fact that he is called in the Lycian and Greek the son of Harpagos does not help identify him because this Harpagos is otherwise known only from two inscriptions, one still unpublished. Recently it has been argued by Laroche that the author of the inscription cannot be the formerly favoured Kherẽi (χerẽi) because the space for the name must have contained six letters. Bousquet has also shown that a plausible restoration of the name of the author of the inscription in the Greek epigram is [Gerg]is, the Greek equivalent of Kheriga (χeriga).

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 29 , December 1979 , pp. 97 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Demargne, P., Fouilles de Xanthos (hereafter FdX), I: Les piliers funéraires, Paris, 1958, pp. 79–105Google Scholar; FdX, V: Tombes-maisons, tombes rupestres et sarcophages, Paris, 1974, pp. 113–16Google Scholar. Laroche, E. in FdX, V, pp. 142–48Google Scholar, publishes the new fragments of the inscription. For a facsimile and transliteration of the latter see Tituli Asiae Minoris, I: Tituli Lyciae, ed. Kalinka, E., Vienna, 1901, No. 44, pp. 38–48Google Scholar (hereafter TL), with full references to the earlier literature. Abbreviations cited here other than those so noted are those recommended by the American Journal of Archaeology, 82 (1978), pp. 5–10Google Scholar, and L'Année Philologique.

2 For the sculpture see most recently Demargne, , FdX, V, p. 113Google Scholar; Childs, W., OpusRom, 9 (1973), pp. 111, 113Google Scholar; RA, 1976, pp. 281, 283, 307, 308Google Scholar. Two lengthy studies of the Lycian inscriptions have been published: König, F. W., “Die Stele von Xanthos, I”, Klotho, 1, Vienna, 1936Google Scholar, passim, and Stoltenberg, H. L., Die termilische Sprache Lykiens, Leverkusen, 1955, pp. 35–36Google Scholar. On the inaccuracies of these studies see Neumann, G., Die Sprache, 7 (1961), pp. 71–72Google Scholar, and Pedersen, H., Lykisch und Hittitisch, Copenhagen, 1945, pp. 62–65Google Scholar. For an early but good study of the whole monument see Benndorf, O., Öjh, 3 (1900), pp. 98–120Google Scholar.

3 TL 77; Benndorf, O., Öjh, 2 (1899), p. 25, fig. 24Google Scholar; Heberdey, R. and Kalinka, E., Denkschr-Wien, 45 (1897), I, p. 32Google Scholar, No. 39. Mørkholm, O. and Zahle, J., ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 88Google Scholar, note 130, report a second inscription from Phellos to be published by G. Neumann. It is widely believed that this Lycian Harpagos was indeed a Persian of the family of the sixth-century general: Leake, W. M., TRSL, 1 (1843), p. 264Google Scholar; 2 (1847), pp. 37–38; Gerhard, E., AZ, 2 (1844), col. 356Google Scholar; Lloyd, W. W., Xanthian Marbles: The Nereid Monument, An Historical and Mythological Essay, London, 1845, pp. 25–34Google Scholar; Tritsch, F. J., JHS, 62 (1942), pp. 47 and 46, note 17Google Scholar; Bernard, P., Syria, 41 (1964), pp. 209–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Laroche, in FdX, V, pp. 145–46Google Scholar.

5 Bousquet, J., “Arbinas, fils de Gergis, dynaste de Xanthos”, CRAI, 1975, pp. 141–42Google Scholar.

6 FdX, V, pp. 143–46Google Scholar. See Laroche, E., BSL, 53 (1958), pp. 186–93Google Scholar, and Gusmani, R., Die Sprache, 8 (1962), pp. 77–81Google Scholar, for words of relationship. Khahba has been translated as “son-in-law” but Laroche is cited by Bousquet, , CRAI, 1975, p. 141Google Scholar, as preferring the general term “descendant”. Now Bryce, T. R., JNES, 37 (1978), pp. 217–19Google Scholar, has argued that khahba means more precisely “grandchild” for which he marshalls strong support, though the restoration of khahba in an unpublished inscription from Xanthos cited by Bousquet (loc. cit.), making Erbbina the grandchild of Kuprlli, can be disregarded, since the inscription has been misread. See further below note 12. I wish to thank both Dr Bryce and Professor O. R. Gurney for making many helpful observations on this short paper although they are not to be charged with any errors which have persisted.

7 Imbert, J., MSL, 8 (1894), pp. 459–60Google Scholar.

8 FdX, V, p. 145Google Scholar.

9 Cf. Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 87Google Scholar, who still prefer Kherẽi but give two demonstrations of genealogies with two Kherigas. Their late date for the pillar (ca. 380) is the prime motivation for creating a second Kheriga. Others have argued this possibility to me verbally or by letter only. See further below, note 12.

10 Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 59Google Scholar.

11 Bousquet, , CRAI, 1975, pp. 141, 142Google Scholar (A line 1), 143 (B line 1).

12 Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 59Google Scholar, date Erbbina only very generally between 400 and 360 but the evidence would suggest a much narrower range from the 390's to ca. 380. It is possible that the κα[ρ]ίκα γένος of the Greek epigram (line 12) refers to an earlier Kheriga from whom the whole family is descended, but this cannot be the Kheriga of the coins. If Karikas and Gergis both are the transliterations of Kheriga it must be assumed that Karigas-Kheriga I is much older than the period of our inscription. Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 87 (B)Google Scholar suggest the following genealogy:

This is reasonable although the exact position of Karikas is really unknown. I suppose it is possible that he is a good bit older than Kuprlli; the lack of any coins with his name makes this likely. In any case he has nothing to do with the genealogy of the Lycian inscription.

13 The fact that the inscription is roughly stoichedon is a noteworthy feature because the form is rare in Asia Minor: Austin, R. P., The Stoichedon Style in Greek Inscriptions, Oxford, 1938, p. 93Google Scholar. Yet Austin (p. 98) considers the pillar's inscription to be purely stoichedon which it certainly is not.

14 Demargne, , FdX, I, p. 85Google Scholar; Laroche, in FdX, V, p. 143Google Scholar.

15 Ibid. p. 143.

16 Laroche, , FdX, V, p. 143Google Scholar, has noted two other internal deviations from the stoichedon pattern of the inscription: (1) In line 3 (British Museum fragment) the letters fall between those of line 2; (2) At the end of the preserved part of lines 17 and 18, line 18 has three letters (χer) in the space of only two in line 17 (di). Although Laroche does not pursue the matter, it is worth noting that there are two clear deductions to be made from these observations. First, since the preserved portions of lines 6–16 follow the pattern of line 17, they must all have had one letter less than lines 18 ff. not considering the diminution of the upper shaft of the pillar. Second, though most of line 3 is missing, so that it appears impossible to deduce the length of the line or to tell whether it had more or less letters than line 2, yet, in fact, line 3 (and most probably 3–17) must have one less letter than line 2. Because line 2 must have one less letter than line 30 (by simple count of the repetitive portion of lines 30/31) and lines 6–17 must have one less letter than lines 18 ff. apart from the diminution of the pillar shaft, it is impossible to have line 2 concord with line 30 unless line 3 had one less letter which is made up in line 18. For at some unknown point between line 18 and 30 the average length of line must increase again because of the increase in space available. This is particularly clear because of the necessary loss of a letter in line 2 owing to the breadth of the side at this point. Thus if line 30 had 31 letters, line 2 should have 30 letters, lines 3–17 29 letters, and lines 18 ff. 30 letters. Line 30 would have one letter more because of the increased breadth of the stone. If line 30 had, as I try to demonstrate below, only 30 letters, line 2 must have had 29 letters, lines 3–17 28 letters, and lines 18 ff. 29 letters.

17 For the meaning of nẽni see Laroche, , BSL, 53 (1958), pp. 192–93Google Scholar; FdX V, pp. 125–27Google Scholar; Carruba, O., ParPass, 24 (1969), p. 270Google Scholar; Bryce, , JNES, 37 (1978), p. 222 and note 23Google Scholar. Bryce conjectures “sibling” rather than brother, but this does not change the sense in the case in question here although, if correct, it would make the suggested restoration less attractive. Cf. Gusmani, , Die Sprache, 8 (1962), pp. 78–80Google Scholar.

18 CRAI, 1975, p. 142Google Scholar (A line 1).

19 Ibid., p. 141. The translation given by Bousquet is in need of correction but this does not affect the relationship of Kheriga and Erbbina.

20 Babelon, E., Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines, II, 2, Paris, 1910, col. 282Google Scholar; see also Imbert, , MSL, 8 (1894), p. 461Google Scholar.

21 Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 54Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., pp. 61–62.

23 Ibid., pp. 75–76.

24 Schwabacher, W., “Lycian Coin Portraits”, in Essays in Greek Coinage Presented to Stanley Robinson, Oxford, 1968, pp. 113–15Google Scholar, and pl. 11, 1-11. Robinson, E. S. G., NC, 8 (1948), pp. 54–56Google Scholar, assigns the portrait coins of Tissaphernes to his first and second periods of particular power, 413–07 and 400–395 B.C. We have no way of knowing when Kherẽi began to copy the satrap's issues, but if the portrait series was issued only on specific occasions, the first issues of portrait/owls may have been Kherẽi's original model and his coins begin at the same time, ca. 412/11. Yet Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), p. 84Google Scholar, now argue that Kherẽi's earliest portraits with tiara antedate the earliest issue of Tissaphernes. Indeed, they attribute helmeted portraits to both Kuprlli, and Kheriga, : ActaA, 43 (1972), pp. 105–106Google Scholar; 47 (1976), p. 79. It is certainly not unreasonable to begin Kherẽi's coinage in the 420's but the question of his portrait issues needs further study. Cahn's, H. A. recent article “Dynast oder Satrap?”, Schweitzer Münzblätter, 25 (1975), pp. 84–91Google Scholar, is refuted by Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 47 (1976), pp. 80–84Google Scholar.

25 Mørkholm, and Zahle, , ActaA, 43 (1972), p. 112Google Scholar and generally 47 (1976), pp. 47–89.

26 TL 44 c 37, 50, d 8, 19, 45. König, , Klotho, 1 (1936), pp. 100, 111Google Scholar, suggests that the name Kherẽi appears in Lycian B as Zirei (lines c 32, 44).

27 See König's, reconstruction, Klotho, 1 (1936), pp. 99–141Google Scholar. He considers the inscription to repeat in its essentials the Lycian (A) text. He points out (p. 100) the frequent recurrence of the name (?) Wakhssa in the Lycian B inscription of the north side. Despite his analysis of its contents, it is perhaps possible that the Lycian B inscription was added later and Wakhssa = Wekhssere as König himself suggests (pp. 59–60).

28 Imbert, J., Babylonian and Oriental Record, 4 (1889–1890), p. 160Google Scholar; Deecke, W., BPW, 8 [26] (1888), col. 828Google Scholar; Bugge, S., “Zur Xanthos-Stele”, in Festschrift für Otto Benndorf, Vienna, 1898, p. 231Google Scholar.