http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2008/10/15/survey-results-in-boubon-cibyratis-northern-lycia/ ISSN 1754-0909 (Online) Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:45:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2008/10/15/survey-results-in-boubon-cibyratis-northern-lycia/comment-page-1/#comment-8569 Christina Kokkinia Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:06:20 +0000 http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2008/10/15/survey-results-in-boubon-cibyratis-northern-lycia/#comment-8569 Thank you Paola, I will have etei-meisen corrected (fortunately it is correct in the book version, ISBN 978-960-7905-47-5). As for No. 64, it puzzles me too, I too would have expected a sigma on the stone at the end of the first name (and hence a nominative Τατας). But I could see quite clearly the oblique stroke of a nu, so ν with underdot it had to be. I will try to have more photos posted soon (I have one on which you can see that half N), but there is only so much our IT-people can do, and they work very hard already. Thank you Paola, I will have etei-meisen corrected (fortunately it is correct in the book version, ISBN 978-960-7905-47-5). As for No. 64, it puzzles me too, I too would have expected a sigma on the stone at the end of the first name (and hence a nominative Τατας). But I could see quite clearly the oblique stroke of a nu, so ν with underdot it had to be. I will try to have more photos posted soon (I have one on which you can see that half N), but there is only so much our IT-people can do, and they work very hard already.

]]> http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2008/10/15/survey-results-in-boubon-cibyratis-northern-lycia/comment-page-1/#comment-8534 Paola Ceccarelli Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:33:09 +0000 http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2008/10/15/survey-results-in-boubon-cibyratis-northern-lycia/#comment-8534 This is very impressive! There is a small typo in your transcription of your inscription n. 32: a τει, perfectly visible on the beautiful photo supplied, is missing from the transcription of l. 3 (etei-mesen instead of e-mesen). I find n. 64 puzzling: the photo gives only half the text (a large part of the column is of course invisible), and I have no solution, but one would expect Tatas and Artemeis to be those who write in memory – Tatas of his son, Artemis of her brother (this would have to be the same person,possibly also named Tatas, although I have difficulties in making prosopographical sense of this; comparison with the other texts however shows typically the person who dedicates the funerary stone to be named in the nominative at the beginning. ?). This is very impressive!
There is a small typo in your transcription of your inscription n. 32: a τει, perfectly visible on the beautiful photo supplied, is missing from the transcription of l. 3 (etei-mesen instead of e-mesen).
I find n. 64 puzzling: the photo gives only half the text (a large part of the column is of course invisible), and I have no solution, but one would expect Tatas and Artemeis to be those who write in memory – Tatas of his son, Artemis of her brother (this would have to be the same person,possibly also named Tatas, although I have difficulties in making prosopographical sense of this; comparison with the other texts however shows typically the person who dedicates the funerary stone to be named in the nominative at the beginning. ?).

]]>