Description of Monument

White marble sarcophagus, broken in two; a garland decoration has been hacked away, but traces of two winged figures at the corners remain; for full description see Isik 187.

Description of Text

ll.1-12 cut on the tabella, whose mouldings have been erased, ll.13 ff on a prepared panel below.

Letters

Reasonably well-designed, cut and aligned, in the second-to-fourth-century style. Ligatured ΚΕ (l.3), ΜΕ (l.4), ΜΗ (ll.8, 9, 10), ΤΗ (ll.3, 4 twice, 10), ΤΗΝ (ll.3, 4). Unconventional spelling in l.3.

Date

Late second to early third centuries (lettering)

Edition ἐξέσται δὲμηδένι ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν μετὰ τὴν Περείτου κὲ τὴν τῆς Μελιτίου ἀποθεώσιν ὑπό τινος τῶν κληρονόμων αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ ἐξαλλωτριώσει μητὲ τῆς σοροῦ μητὲ τῶν εἰσώστων τινός ἢ ποιήσαι τι ἐπὶ ἐξαλλοτριωσει κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον

Translation

- - - ?it shall not be possible for] anyone to have the power, after the apotheosis of Pereitas and that of Melition [? to take action] ?by the agency of any of his heirs with a view to alienation of the sarcophagus or of any one of the other burial places, or to [do] anything at all with a view to alienation in any way.

Commentary

The sentence structure is not immediately obvious because an infinitive to balance one (?ποιῆσαι) in ll. 12-13 is lost - it may have stood in the earlier part of the text (an extensive area is undoubtedly lost at the beginning) or, perhaps, was omitted by error along with μηδέ in l. 5 (note that in ll. 5-6 there is another anomaly in the use of τινός where μηδένος might be expected).We may suppose that the owner had already made the standard provisions against deposit of unauthorised bodies or removal of authorised ones; but only know that he was emphatic as well as unusually explicit in his comparatively rare ban on formal alienation of the tomb (see Introduction and nos. 12.1108, 12.1107, (=MAMA VIII.545, 554) for other examples), arousing suspicion that he did not trust his heirs.

It may be that there had been some recent case in Aphrodisias or a neighbouring city to arouse this fear; but his concern may be personal and perhaps related to a funerary cult (see below).The tomb was a complex one, consisting of more than the sarcophagus (see ll. 11-12). The owner was undoubtedly Pereitas (l. 3) and since it is only his heirs who are mentioned (ll. 7-8) he was presumably the sole owner, although he shared use of the sarcophagus with Melition, surely his wife. His anticipation of apotheosis for both of them is another unusual feature of this text: but see e.g. 12.1108( = MAMA VIII.545), where there is also an explicit ban on alienation). It may be that by apotheosis he meant little more than death itself, but it could indicate the establishment of a quite formal cult at the tomb (see Introduction), to which the issue of alienation would be relevant.

Pereitas is a name used by members of the Aphrodisian élite families although also by others. The concern to prevent alienation of this tomb and the possibility of a formal cult there suggest a family of some standing as well as substance.

Locations

City, Village: standing by the main village well, next to 11.30 (=MAMA 522) Unknown: necropolis Museum (1980)

Text Constituted From

Transcription (Reynolds).

History of Recording

Recorded by the NYU expedition (Village 4 )

Bibliography

Reynolds and Isik 187.

Photographs

Complete (1973)

Left part (1980)

Detail (1978)