Creative Commons licence Attribution 2.5 (
All reuse or distribution of this work must contain somewhere a link back to the URL
Originally published in
Fragment from a
l. 1 on what survives of the rim, ll. 2-13 within the
Quite well designed, cut and aligned in the second-to-fourth-century style,
Perhaps
l.1 omitted, Cormack; perhaps ἡ αὐτοῦ γύνη
l.3, [νομένου κα]ὶ, Cormack, but a woman is being described and in any case this gives too long a line; for the possibility of a reference to the
l.5, [σορὸν, Cormack, which gives too long a line
l.10 ἀποτείσει, Cormack
l.12, τρισ, Cormack
[? The sarcophagus belongs to - - -] Neikopolis (who is) sui iuris [?having the ius] liberorum (alternatively [ . ? . and her] children). In it she alone shall be buried, no one else having the right to bury anyone [in it], since [whoever undertakes that] and [buries in it] will pay to [the most sacred] treasury (at Rome) [ . ? . ] thousand [denarii] of which [a third] shall belong to the [prosecutor].
The fragmentary l.1 may well have referred to other features of the monument beside the sarcophagus in which Neikopolis alone was to be buried. If her children shared the ownership with her, as Cormack's solution of l.4 requires, they will have been buried in these.Neikopolis was clearly a Roman citizen. Her lost nomen is very likely to be Aurelia if the date proposed is right. She was sui iuris for the conduct of business (i.e. could act without the intervention of a male guardian). There are good parallels for this description in a series of funerary inscriptions, all apparently of the third century, at Termessos (TAM III.383, 482, 669, 705, 714), where the formula used is αὐτεξούσιος τέκνων δικαίῳ, i.e. sui iuris because she has ius liberorum, the ius liberorum (based on a woman's having children) being the common qualification for the status (cf. AE 1930.80 where a woman who may have been Aphrodisian transacted business herself at Ephesus, explaining only that she was ἔχουσα τέκνων δίκαιον). It seems possible that ll.3-4 here referred to the ius liberorum, but if so not in the standard formula; something like γε[ννήσε]ι τέκνων might be considered, but I have found no parallel.I have no satisfactory proposal for supplementing l.4 in other ways.The size of the funerary fine may well have been 3000 denarii as in Cormack's supplement, but that cannot be certain; 2000 would fit the space, although nothing higher.
Transcription (Reynolds); publication
Recorded by the MAMA expedition, who appear to have conveyed it to the temple; by the NYU expedition, before 1966.
Published by