Ignasi-X avier A diego

Two reading notes to the Lycian text of the

Letoon trilingual stele

Since the first publication by Emmanuel Laroche of the Lycian part

of the Lycian-Greek-Aramaic inscription found in the Letoon sanc-
tuary near Xanthos (N 320) (preliminary edition in Laroche 1974;
full edition in Laroche 1979), this edition of the text has become the
standard version: it has been used as the basis of later editions of
Lycian inscriptions (Neumann 1979, Melchert 2001), dictionaries
(Melchert 2004, Neumann 2007) and of all the studies of this highly
important document of the Lycian language. Therefore, Laroches
reading has been adopted as canonical.
For this reason I was very surprised to observe two reading errors
in Laroches edition on consulting a rather good photograph of the
inscription. To my knowledge, these errors have gone unnoticed so
far, and the dependence on Laroches transcription has meant that
these two errors have persisted in all the subsequent literature on
Lycian.
The photograph can be downloaded from: http://farm2.staticflickr.
com/1239/5102244346_50de100dde_o.jpg. The photograph was
taken and uploaded by Damian Entwistle.1

1. Line 24

The first reading error is closely related to a more general prob-

lem with the study of the trilingual stele N 320: the palaeographic
characteristics of the Lycian text on the trilingual stele have not
attracted the attention of scholars. The full Laroche edition (1979)2
included one photograph but no drawings, while in the supplement
to Kalinkas corpus, Neumann (1979) did not include either photos
or drawings. Probably for this reason, nobody seems to have noticed
1
I am very grateful to Damian Entwistle for permission to reproduce some parts of
his photograph in this article.
2
Laroche (1974) is a preliminary edition without photographs.
Kadmos Bd. 51, S. 9398
Walter de Gruyter 2012
ISSN 0022-7498 DOI 10.1515/kadmos-2012-0006
94 Ignasi-Xavier Adiego

that two different variants of are used in this inscription. This is

even more surprising if one observes that the first editor, Laroche,
devotes several pages to palaeographic questions in which he offers
a single form of in N 320, (Laroche 1979:55). In fact the trilin-
gual stele shows two different forms: is the letter used until line
24, but from that line onwards the form used is 13.
That we are dealing with two variants of the same letter and not
with two different letters is demonstrated by the fact that the same
words appear spelt with either variant, e.g. mahna:
Line 9:

mah1na
Line 37:

mah2na

Indeed the first appearance of the second variant, on line 24, has
caused a reading error to be perpetuated in all the bibliography I
know, from Laroche (1974) onwards: In lines 2225, the inscrip-
tion speaks of the sacred things (kumaha) belonging to the Kaunian
King and ArKKazuma. Laroches lectio is tawataha : bid\naha :
serKKazumaha. However, the text does not actually say bid\naha,
but bidnaha, with the second variant of 1:
Line 24:

bid2naha

3
Laroche did note the co-presence of these two variants in the inscription of a base
for a statue of the dynast Arbinas (N 325; more exactly in the fragment n. inv.
6121, see FdX 9.1, p. 186 and FdX 9.2, pl. 77a).
 Two reading notes to the Lycian text of the Letoon stele 95

Laroches reading was undoubtedly influenced by the other attested

forms of the words Kaunos, Kaunian. These words always show
e: bide (loc. sg.) Kaunos, bid\ni (nom. sg. c.) Kaunian,
bid\nehi (nom. pl. c.) of Kaunian, and also in Milyan bidewni
(nom. sg.) Kaunian (see Melchert 2004, ss.vv.). However,
bidnaha is genuinely Lycian if one thinks of the rules of metaph-
ony in this language, established independently by Melchert (1992)
and Rasmussen (1992). Here the final back vowel a assimilates the
vowels preceding the a, cf. ttaraha genitival adjective in nom. pl. n.
(like bidnaha) of t(e)teri city and tasa nom. pl. of tese oath.

2. Line 30

Laroches reading of a phrase in 3032 was as follows (Laroche

1979: 5354)4:
30 seijehbijai-
31 t\ : tasa : mere: ebette : teteri : arn-
32 as : sejepew\tlrm\i : arni :
This phrase corresponds to a more laconic expression on the Greek
side:
26 ka poisanto rkouw Jnyioi ka o per-
27 oikoi
(and the Xanthians and the perioikoi have made oaths).
Interpreting the Lycian phrase on the basis of this reading is not very
complicated. We can isolate ait\ tasa, which would be the literal
equivalent to the Greek they have made oaths, and the words fol-
lowing this are the subject: teteri arnas se(j) epew\tlrm\i arni
means the city (of) Xanthos and the Xanthian perioikoi, very
similar although not identical to the subject in the Greek version.
mere ebette has no correspondence in Greek, but the meaning and
morphosyntax are quite clear: mere is a plural dative of mara law,
regulations or sim., and ebette is a plural demonstrative that accom-
panies mere. Therefore: to/for these laws, to/for these regulations.
As for the elements preceding ait\ in line 30, the segmentation and
interpretation established by Laroche has been generally adopted (see
Melchert 2000, Melchert 2001 and the corresponding entries in his
dictionary, Melchert 2004):
I replace Laroches y with j, following the standard transcription of Lycian
4

currently used.
96 Ignasi-Xavier Adiego

se=i(j)=ehbij(a)
se: copulative conjunction and
i(j): enclitic pronoun in dative or adverb for him/therein his/its
ehbij(a) possessive adjective referring to tasa oaths.
The translation would then be: and the city (of) Xanthos and the
Xanthian perioikoi have made their oaths to him/therein for these
regulations. Here are the translations by Laroche (1974), (1979),
Carruba (1977) and Melchert (2000):
Laroche (1974): Et ont fait serment pour ces rglements la ville
dArna et les voisins (?) dArna.
Laroche (1979): Et ils lui ont fait leur serment pour cette loi, la ville
dArna et les priques dArna.
Carruba (1977): E fecero i loro giuramenti a queste leggi la citt di
Arnna e i perieci di Arnna.
Melchert (2000): And the city of Xanthos and the Xanthian peri-
oikoi have sworn oaths to him for these regulations.
The possessive ehbij(a) is a bit bothersome: note that Laroche (1974)
and Melchert (2000) ignore it in their translations. It seems to refer
to the subject, but in that case it is merely redundant. Moreover,
one would expect a possessive with a plural reference like *epttehija
their, fr. leur, ital. loro.
In fact this ehbij(a) does not exist. The photograph of the inscrip-
tion shows that the reading is wrong:

seijehrijait\

Instead of seijehbijait\, one should read seijehrijait\, with r not

b. The alleged possessive ehbij(a) disappears and in its place we can
read and segment as follows:
se=ije=hri(j)=ait\
where ije is the enclitic adverb therein (Melchert 2004, s.v.) and
hri the well-known Lycian adverb/preverb up, on.
 Two reading notes to the Lycian text of the Letoon stele 97

What is the function of hri here? It is very interesting to note that

in Hittite, the verb to swear, link-, and its causative linganu- are
constructed with the adverb er up, on whose Luwian coun-
terparts are Luw. arri, Lyc. hri and dative (or the accadographic
equivalent with ANA) for expressing (make) swear to, (make) swear
on, (make) swear before, or alternatively (make) swear (allegiance)
to (Puhvel HED, s.v. lenk-/li(n)k- CHD s.v. link-, linganu-):
LUGAL-was ZI-ni er ITU-mi ITU-mi linkikittin swear month
by month to the kings soul! (KUB XIII 3 II-25-26) (Puhvel HED)
nu ANA LUGAL SAL.LUGAL ANA mT[ud]aliya DUMU.LUGAL
L
tuukanti katta AN[A DUMU.M]E=U DUMU.DUMU.
ME=U ... er ANA P"NI [d]U URUarranai kuitman linkueni
While we are swearing allegiance to (er) the king and the queen,
to Tudaliya, (who is) the prince and tuukanti, and subsequently
(katta) to his [son]s and grandsons, in the presence of (ANA P"NI)
the Stormgod of arranai (KUB 31.42 iii 11-16) (CHD).
It remains unclear to me which interpretation of this Hittite con-
struction prevails in many cases, whether swear to in the sense
of swear, calling somebody to witness (French jurer par) or in
the sense of swear (allegiance) to (jurer fidelit ). Puhvel gives
preference to the first interpretation, whereas in CHD all the exam-
ples quoted are systematically translated according to the second.
The Lycian passage also admits both interpretations: with the new
reading, the sentence se=ije=hri(j)=ait\ tasa mere ebette teteri arnas
: se(j)=epew\tlrm\i : arni can mean and the city of Xanthos and
the Xanthian perioikoi have made oaths therein to these regulations
(French: ont jur par ces reglements), or it can mean and
the city of Xanthos and the Xanthian perioikoi have made oaths (of
allegiance) to these regulations (French: ont jur fidelit ces
rglements). In the first case, the decree would function as wit-
ness and guarantor of the oath, while in the second it would be the
recipient of the oath. I prefer the first interpretation (regulations as
witnesses) on the basis of the subsequent words in the inscription:
immediately afterwards the purpose of the oath is explained: as
Melchert (2000) translates, they shall execute these regulations as
they are written on this stele. Therefore it seems that the object of
the oath is to execute the regulations. Moreover, the Greek version
renders this interpretation even more clearly: ka poisanto rkouw
Jnyioi ka o peroikoi sa n ti stlhi gggraptai poisein
98 Ignasi-Xavier Adiego

ntel tow yeow totoiw ka ti ere and the Xanthians and the
perioikoi have made oaths of accomplishing all which is written in
the stele for these gods and for the priest.
So, in the Lycian version but not in the Greek one it was added
that the oaths of executing the regulations were made on the regula-
tions themselves, which acted as witnesses of these oaths. It is even
possible that this could refer to a real, physical act of swearing before
(or more exactly on) the text of the decree. In this case, the sense of
se=ije=hri(j)=ait\ tasa mere ebette would be absolutely literal: they
have made oaths therein on (hri) these regulations.

References

Carruba, O. (1977) Commentario alla trilingue licio-greco-aramea di

Xanthos, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 18, 273318.
CHD = H. G. Gterbock H. A. Hoffner Th. P. J. van den Hout. The
Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Online edition: http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/xstar/eCHD/.
FdX 9: Fouilles de Xanthos IX. Sous la direction dHenri Metzger: La
rgion nord du Lton. Les sculptures. Les inscriptions grco-lyciennes,
Paris 1992 (2 vols).
Laroche, E. (1974) La stle trilingue rcemment dcouverte au Lton de
Xanthos: le texte lycien, Comptes-rendus des sances de lAcadmie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 118, 115125.
Laroche, E. (1979) Linscription lycienne, Fouilles de Xanthos 6, Paris,
49127.
Melchert, H. C. (1992) Relative Chronology and Anatolian: The Vowel
System, in Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII.
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Leiden, 31. August 4.
September 1987, Innsbruck, 4153.
Melchert, H. C. (2000) The Trilingual Inscription of the Lton, Lycian
Version: http://www.achemenet.com/pdf/lyciens/letoon.pdf.
Melchert, H. C. (2001) Lycian Corpus. Electronic version: http://www.
linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/webpage/lyciancorpus.pdf.
Melchert, H. C. (2004) Dictionary of the Lycian language, Ann Arbor,
New York.
Neumann, G. (1979) Neufunde lykischer Inschriften seit 1901, Wien.
Neumann, G. (2007) Glossar des Lykischen. berarbeitet und zum Druck
gebracht von Johann Tischler, Wiesbaden.
Puhvel, J. HED Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Berlin 1984
Rasmussen, J. E. (1992) The distribution of e and a in Lycian, in Rekon-
struktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Leiden, 31. August 4. September
1987, Innsbruck, 359366.