5
Tomb ownership in Lycia: Site selection and burial rights with selected rock tombs and epigraphic material from Tlos
Abstract
This paper draws together archaeological, epigraphic, and historical evidence concerning burial customs in Lycia. The work concentrates in particular upon Tlos, one of the most important cities in Lycia. The rock-cut tombs chosen for study from the acropolis cover a period from the beginning of the 5th century BC to the 3rd century AD. These selected tombs at Tlos conform well with the formerly established archaeological facts regarding burial customs in Lycia. Tomb examples from Tlos are examined separately in terms of their periods and their architectural features.
The task involved gathering the published material. This material concerns foremost well-preserved tombs with inscriptions. They are classified according to their typological order and listed in chronological sequence separating tombs from the Classical period from those of the late Hellenistic and Roman periods. Consequently, it is understood that even the uninterrupted usage of family tombs throughout the years does not imply the existence of an unchanging burial tradition. Burial practice was usually transformed according to the necessities of the current conditions.
Keywords: burial customs, burial rights, Lycia, rock-cut tomb, Tlos.
There is a general consensus on the burial practices beginning by the 5th century BC in Lycia concerning some customs and institutions. The vital source for this consensus is the sepulchral epigraphic evidence dated from the late 5th century BC until the end of the 3rd century AD. Almost one thousand of these sepulchral inscriptions are in Greek. In addition, there are approximately 150 native, Lycian language inscriptions (Schuler 2007, 9; Colvin 2004, 45).
The concept of burial rights and customs has been discussed in Lycian archaeology by way of the evidence provided by the Lycian and Greek inscriptions mainly after the 1960s. Studies on Lycian graves and burial practices are quite rich, particularly the volume written by Bryce (1986), which provides the best methodological approach for the entire literary and epigraphic sources concerning Lycian burial traditions. A comprehensive study of social history based on epigraphic and archaeological material about mortality in Lycia was published by Schweyer (2002). The Kyaneai-Yavu studies by Hülden (2006; 2010) concerning the burial types and traditions in the region also contain very valuable additional remarks. Finally, the new monographies from Limyra edited by Borchhardt and Pekridou-Gorecki (2012), and Kuban (2012) will, doubtless be very much appreciated as well.1
On the other hand, despite new Lycian epigraphic discoveries, mostly of a formulaic character and with no richness of variety in their contents and the rareness of bilingual texts or more comprehensive inscriptions, the complete decipherment of the Lycian language still remains a problem. Maybe due to this, research over the last 25 years (since Bryce’s book), particularly after the systematic survey conducted by the Austrian Academy of Science since 2002 under the title of ‘The Lycian Inscribed Monuments Project’,2 has made no major changes to the claims put forward before.
Another difficulty is tracing the cultural continuity from the Classical to the Roman period. Any reflection of the political power of the Ptolemaic dynasty in the region cannot be recognized, seen or correlated to burial customs (Meadows 2006, 459–68). The scant quantity of securely dated sepulchral epigraphic material from Alexander’s invasion to 167 BC and Rhodian control (Schuler 2007, 15) does not permit a clear understanding of any changes in burial institutions and organizations in the region. However, it is obvious that in understanding the cultural context, inscriptions or literary material are not the only evidence. Architectural details and artistic depictions on tombs sometimes display better information than others, while the best supportive evidence is, of course, full context intact tombs with well-documented untouched archaeological and anthropological evidence. The most important and unfortunately the weakest evidence however, is the archaeology in Lycia.3 The Tlos excavation team in 2005 and 2007 was fortunate to excavate well-preserved, intact tombs with Lycian inscriptions. The detailed results of these finds will be published soon (Korkut 2013, 334–6; İşkan-Işık and Uygun 2009, 355–7 figs. 1–5). In this paper, due to the contradictory results of the find groups and the architecture of the newly unearthed tombs, the Tlos excavation team wished to share at least the general characteristics of these tombs, which provide a new perspective on the known burial customs and rights in Lycia (Fig. 5.1).
Being more comprehensible and forming a better comparison between the burial rights and customs of the Classical and Roman periods, the Tlos examples were examined separately in terms of their periods, a distinction which was not made, to any extent, before. The selected rock tombs, mostly with inscriptions from the acropolis, were divided into three different categories according to their typology and phases of use.
1.
Tombs that have particularly Lycian characteristics in their architectural features and also have Lycian inscriptions dated to the Classical period.
2.
Tombs with Lycian architectural features having Greek inscriptions and dated to the Hellenistic or Roman Imperial period.
3.
Tombs with architectural features of the Roman Imperial period and having Greek inscriptions dated to the Roman Imperial period.
Before focusing on the Tlos examples, a regional outlook with a summary of generally accepted burial customs and rights in Lycia is provided. As already mentioned, the most detailed analyses concerning Lycian burial customs to date have been made by Bryce (1986, 115–59) and Schweyer (2002, 45–89). According to Bryce, in the Classical period rock tomb ownership and the right of interment were privileges that were confined to a small proportion of the total population of the country. The tomb owner made provision for multiple burials in his tomb; during the Roman period, however, the rules seem less rigid (Bryce 1979, 298).
Fig. 5.1. Tlos. Rock-cut tombs from the north-east of the acropolis.
An attempt is made to divide this accumulated knowledge into two chronological periods: first the Classical period, then the late Hellenistic and the Roman periods taken together. Recai Tekoğlu translated the Tlos Lycian language inscriptions4 and Ertan Yıldız did the Greek ones.5 The period between the early Hellenistic and mid-Hellenistic roughly up to 167 BC, when Rhodians took control of Lycia, could not be securely included due to the scarcity of dated sepulchral epigraphic material within this period in the region.
The Classical period
Right of use
•
Tomb owners of the 5th and 4th centuries BC generally only provided for the burial of their wives and children, in only a few cases were other family connections provided for. These were restricted to a small group of lineal or collateral family connections such as the owners’ mother (TL 86, 95, 127), grandchildren, siblings, and nephews/nieces. In some rare cases perhaps family servants or retainers appear to have been included as well.6
•
According to the status or power of a family, it is possible to see the same person as an owner of two different tombs.7
•
In some cases, the tomb owner left instructions indicating where the various occupants were to be placed in his tomb (Bryce 1986, 118). Although it is not a rule, in some examples the left side was reserved for the tomb owner and the men of the family, while the women were buried on the benches on the right side of the chamber. Accentuation of the left side of the tomb chamber with some architectural details, such as a bolster on a kline or a niche or carrying reliefs, for example from Myra and Xanthos, are known (Seyer 2003, 86).
•
As a rule the inscriptions containing warnings and penalties mainly regard unauthorized interments and/or unauthorized use of reserved burial spaces within a tomb (Kloekhorst 2011; Bryce 1986, 118; Schweyer 2002, no. Myra 72; Avucu 2015).
Criminal offences and the protection of the tomb
•
Twenty-four Lycian inscriptions mention an institution or council called minti, which seems to have been a secular authority connected with the organization of the tombs (TL 2, 3, 4, 11, 31, 36, 38, 39, 42, 46, 47, 50, 52, 57, 58, 75, 106, 114, 115, 118, 135, 139, 145, 149). Its chief function seems to have been to take care of the necropolis management and to monitor the instructions of the tomb owners (Bryce 1979, 298–9; Schweyer 2002, 47–50; Zimmermann 1992, 147–54; Hülden 2006, 339–40; Kuban 2012, 103–5).
•
During the Classical period tombs were in most cases placed under the protection of deities; according to the tomb owner’s choice, the local mother goddess, Trqqas, Maliya, Huwedri gods, or the confederate gods (Houwink ten Cate 1961, 94, TL 57) would punish the offender (Bryce 1981, 84–5).
•
The Lycian inscriptions do not refer to specific criminal offences, such as damage to the tomb or stealing its contents. According to Bryce ‘the criminal acts of this nature were no doubt subject to a different type of disciplinary process, which fell outside the scope of the sepulchral inscriptions’ (Bryce 1986, 120).
•
Specific monetary penalties for tomb violation were less known in Lycia during the period of Lycian inscriptions, but some inscriptions do indicate the amounts specified in the ‘ada’ formula (Neumann 2012, 410), which was probably a small amount of payment assumed by the minti on the tomb owners’ behalf. According to Frei (1977, 66), 1 ada is equal to 1.25 Attic drachmae (Bryce 1976, 190).
•
The carving of a new inscription or the erasure of an old one was not a criminal offence; there are no examples that refer to it as such. On the contrary, both the Classical and the later tombs with inscriptions present examples of this nature. Tomb no. 7 presents an example of an erased inscription from Tlos (TL 36, TAM II 1028) (Fig. 5.25).
Funerary rituals
•
According to the sepulchral Lycian inscriptions, amongst the funerary rituals performed in honour of the tomb owner (Bryce 1986, 87, 127), annually organized animal sacrifices seem to have been a common practice (TL 84, 150, 74 b).
•
Inscription TL 84 from Sura mentions a sacred place for offerings. According to the inscription, the tomb owner, Mizretiye, established an offering place, called hrm˜mã for himself (Hülden 2006, 323).
•
Offering places in front of the rock tombs or open air rock compartments/spaces are common in the Lycian necropoleis; see, for example, Limyra (Kuban 2012, 106–9).
•
The latest discovery at the acropolis of Tlos (Korkut 2015a, 89–94) presents us with a specific example of a rock-cut shrine with depictions of a bull and a horseman carved in relief. As the location of the cult area is on the northern slope where the acropolis and necropolis join, this rock shrine with its votive pits could easily be connected to the necropolis and its rituals. In this case it can be inferred that this rock shrine was a ‘sacred offering place for common usage’ within the necropolis.
•
Cattle (wawa), sheep (xava), or cocks are the most common animals to be sacrificed (Hülden 2006, 311–5). A scene from the Harpy tomb monument at Xanthos exemplifies the sacrifice of a cock. The depiction on this monument has been accepted as the earliest iconographic evidence of an animal sacrifice (Tritsch 1942, 49; Bryce 1980b, 42). Another well-known composition amongst the 4th century reliefs from Lycia is ‘bull sacrificing’, but on this disagreements prevail among the scholars. While İşkan (2004, 395–6) accepted the bull as a sacrificial animal to the storm god of Lycia Trqqas, Hülden (2006, 307–15) and Borchhardt (Borchhardt and Pekridou-Gorecki (eds.) 2012, 268–72, 304–8) explain the bull sacrifice through the cult of the dead. In addition, Borchhardt provides some examples of unearthed animal bones from the tombs at Limyra as evidence of the bull sacrificing ritual (Blakolmer 1993, 158; İşkan 2004, 395; Hülden 2006, 307–15; Borchhardt and Borchhardt-Birbaumer 1992, 99). In this case the location of the bull scene gains importance. If the location is related to the necropolis, the activity should be argued as having a funerary context.
•
Although there are various examples of funeral banquet scenes in the Lycian tomb iconography (Işın 1995, 72–3), Lycian inscriptions do not mention banquets as part of the rituals in the necropolis (Hülden 2006, 318–20). If the archaeological context is not secure, finds like animal bones in the necropolis can easily be confused with animal sacrifice.
Hellenistic and Roman Imperial period
Right of use
•
In exactly the same way as in the Classical period, tomb owners during the Hellenistic and Roman periods continued to be primarily concerned with the responsibility to provide for their immediate families (Bryce 1979, 298–9), but in the course of time, particularly during the Roman Imperial period, the family privacy gradually disappears and the tomb beneficiaries can easily derive from different family stems.8 According to the degrees of kinship, these tombs were grouped into the following categories by Bryce: A. spouse, children, or other lineal descendants; B. parents; C. collaterals (including brothers/sisters, nephews/nieces, uncles, aunts, cousins; D. in-laws (including parents-in-law, sons-/daughters-in-law, brothers-/ sisters-in-law), E. threptoi and related terms; F. slaves and freedman.
•
As in the Classical period some tomb owners left instructions indicating where they preferred to be placed in the tomb; again accentuation of the left side is known (Adak and Şahin 2004, 99).
Criminal offences and the protection of the tomb
•
By the end of the Classical period the Lycian term minti seems to have become practically defunct. It is referred to in Greek inscriptions, which are of comparatively early dates, but the term minti is replaced by the Greek term mindis (TAM II 62). By the Roman Imperial period the institution of mint seems to have completely disappeared (Bryce 1986, 122; TAM II 62, 40).
•
During the Roman Imperial period criminal acts such as the damaging of the tomb or the plundering of its contents were accepted as offences (Schweyer 2002, 259–60 (Myra 72)).
•
In the Roman Imperial period the responsible institution or council related to the necropolis management seems to have been rather complicated. Penalties could be paid to religious bodies such as the Hierataton Tameion and the Temple or sometimes to secular bodies such as the Demos, Polis, Fiscus, Gerusia, Boule, or even Peripolion and Kome, but there was no specific institution with a particular name. In general, the fine varied from 500 denarii to 5,000 denarii, but there were several exceptions as well.
•
It seems that using the same tomb for three generations was standard. On the other hand, in order to regulate the rights of the next generations some penalties had been imposed. Tombs were considered as entailed property. The authority regulated selling or alienating of the tombs during the Roman Imperial period.9
•
Curse formulae are found in the Greek inscriptions dating from the Imperial period and in a number of cases offenders were threatened with divine retribution (Bryce 1981, 91–3). The curse statements can be in different formulations, for instance: A. the one who acts against (so and so), will be faithless; B. … will be impious; C. … will commit sin against all gods; D. … will be subject of the worst way to die; E. … will be cursed by all gods.
•
An ‘incentive payment’, representing a fraction/part of the total penalty was frequently to be paid to the informant (Bryce 1981, 93); it was usually one third of the total amount.
Funerary rituals
•
There must have been a funerary cult established, involving periodic sacrifices in honour of the dead. Several of the Greek inscriptions from the Roman Imperial period mention bird and animal sacrifices, such as cocks, fowls, goats,10 or pigs (Schweyer 2002, 42), offered at a certain time of the year by the descendants or the heirs of the tomb owner – once before the harvest and once before the vintage (TAM II 245, 636, 637, 715).
•
Although it is not known whether this ritual was common and exactly which period it can be dated back to, the Roman historian Valerius Maximus (2.16.3) mentions that it was customary for Lycian males to wear female garments as a sign of mourning for the departed. Plutarch refers to a similar practice (Consolatio ad Apollonium 112F–113A). Probably related to this statement there is an interesting inscription from Tlos, which, according to Kolb (1976), mentions that a specific group of men, dressed as women, was permitted to participate in the women’s cult for Dionysos.
These above-mentioned general remarks, mostly obtained from published epigraphic material from Lycia, should more or less also give some indication of the burial practices in Tlos. On the basis of the results of the survey conducted by Taner Korkut in Tlos and its periphery, there are a total of 87 rock-cut tombs on the acropolis and nine more around the city centre with a variety of forms, ranging in date from the 5th century BC to the 3rd century AD. There are only four tombs carrying relief carvings, two of them on the rock façade. Twenty-four of these rock-cut tombs have inscriptions, four of them in Lycian and the rest in Greek.
To work towards a better understanding, through a comparison of the literary and the epigraphic evidence with the archaeological evidence, the eleven most informative tombs have been selected for this paper, and are, as already mentioned above, examined below in three different categories according to their construction and phases of use.
Category 1: Tombs with particularly Lycian characteristics in their architectural features carrying Lycian inscriptions
Tomb no. 1 (Bellerophontes Tomb)
The tomb named Bellerophontes by Quintianus is located in a barely accessible location on the cliff (Figs. 5.2–3) (Korkut 2015b, 287–99). The tomb has an Ionic distyle in-antis temple façade with architrave and pediment. The anteroom gives access to two burial chambers with two doorways from the entrance, which was probably planned to avoid disturbance during later burials and to protect the tomb owner’s privacy (Figs. 5.4–5) (Seyer 2006, 126). The room on the left measures approximately 2.10×2.05 m and contains three klinai. Following a typical pattern, the bolstered kline is placed on the right side of the tomb. The room on the right is almost the same in size and measures 2.06×2.10 m but the klinai are shorter and the workmanship is incomplete.
On the upper left side wall of the antechamber, in low relief, Bellerophontes rides his horse Pegasus, fighting against the Chimera.11 The door on the left is decorated in reliefs with a lion at the top and a dog at the bottom. The right door, however, is simpler than the one on the left carrying only a single dog relief at the bottom. In between the two sliding real doors a pseudodoor in Doric order imitates the wooden construction with its metal-like decorations. A new discovery on the pediment is a centred bust-relief ranked with the lions. The centred bust holds objects in both hands, in the left a double-axe and in the right what has been interpreted as a thunderbolt.12
Fig. 5.2. Tlos. Bellerophontes cliff: Rock-cut tombs from the north of the acropolis.
Fig. 5.3. Tlos. Tomb no. 1. Bellerophontes rock-cut tomb.
Fig. 5.4. Tlos. Tomb no. 1. Plan and sections of Bellerophontes rock-cut tomb.
The stylistic features of Bellerophontes as a horseman, the lions and dogs, and the centred bust in the pediment are all of an early 5th century BC date (480–450) (Korkut 215b, 289–93).
TAM I TL 22: Tomb of Hrikttibili and his wife
‘Hrikttibili, the divine uwehi, and his wife (lies here)’
The Lycian inscription, which was carved on the upper left side, emphasizes not only the tomb but the whole cliff façade (Fig. 5.6). The placing of the inscription is very unusual, as is also the inscribed text itself. It is not written in the common formula well known from other 5th–4th century Lycian tombs. The most important difference from the other sepulchral inscriptions is the ‘Godly’ or ‘Divine’ adjunct, used after the name Hrikttibili. Hence we may think that this cliff was most likely reserved for this important man during the first building period, which most probably includes the inscription and the upper left side of the Bellerophontes tomb; besides, accentuation of the left side of the tomb chamber with the depiction of Bellerophontes is noticeable.
Fig. 5.5. Tlos. Tomb no. 1. Interior view of the room A of the Bellerophontes rock-cut tomb.
Fig. 5.6. Tlos. Tomb no. 1. Lycian inscription on the facade of the Bellerophontes cliff (TL 22).
The other chambers on the upper right and left end of the façade of the cliff are of late workmanship. These late tombs show that during the Roman Imperial period, when there was a shortage of space in the necropolis the cliff and the family of Hrikttibili seem to have lost their privileged position.
Tomb no. 2
As it has not as yet been excavated we do not know the architectural features of this tomb in detail, but it can be assumed that it has at least one burial chamber (Fig. 5.7). It is built in the very common manner of the classical simple house-type façade architecture and dated to the 4th century BC.
Tomb of the household of Ikuwe
‘Ipresida son of Armanaza PN, father and member of household of Ikuwe (?) for his wife and children…’
The inscription was read by Recai Tekoglu (2002–2003, 104–14). According to the inscription the owner of the tomb was Ipresida, son of Armanaza (Fig. 5.8). He was a member of the household of Ikuwe; and he built this tomb for his wife and his children.
Fig. 5.7. Tlos. Tomb no. 2.
Fig. 5.8. Tlos. Tomb no. 2. Lycian inscription
Tomb no. 3
Tomb 18.25, located in the east of the acropolis, was unearthed in 2005 (Fig. 5.9) (Korkut 2013, 335–6). The façade of the tomb shows simple Lycian house tomb architecture, as is the case with most of the others at Tlos. The architrave has rounded beam-ends at the bottom and on top of it there are three fasciae. The traces of the wooden-like construction can also be seen on the main body of the chamber façade with the projecting ends. On the left there is a sliding door, which was closed when it was first discovered in 2005. The interior of the tomb is designed with U-shaped triclinium benches and there is a rectangular cavity right in the middle (Fig. 5.10). When it was entered, both the benches and the cavity were completely full of interments and their burial goods (Fig. 5.11). The burial gifts are dated from the early 3rd century BC to the early 1st century AD. So it is very clear that in the course of some 300 years the door of the chamber must have been opened numerous times.
Fig. 5.9. Tlos. Tomb no. 3.
Fig. 5.10. Tlos. Tomb no. 3. Plan and section.
Fig. 5.11. Tlos. Tomb no. 3. Interior view.
Fig. 5.12. Tlos. Tomb no. 4.
Tomb of Sikheriwale (New Lycian inscription, not published)
‘Sikheriwale son of Ddew[ele]de, for himself and for the grandmother’s descendant. alahadali ada.’
According to Tekoğlu’s translation of the Lycian inscription the tomb was built by ‘Sikheriwale the son of Ddweledes, for himself and for the offsprings of his grandmother’. Tekoğlu adds that ‘the grandmother’ can also be interpreted as the ‘mother in law’.14
The most confusing discovery of the tomb was the Lycian inscription. Before the tomb was opened, when the Lycian inscription and the Lycian house tomb façade architecture was first seen, it was expected that the tomb should be dated to a period covering the first three quarters of the 4th century BC, in other words, to a time before Alexander the Great. However, the find context of the tomb presented a Hellenistic dating. No furnishing prior to 300 BC was found.15
Tomb no. 4 (without inscription)
Another tomb was opened in 2007 (Fig. 5.12) (Korkut 2013, 334–6; İşkan-Işık and Uygun 2009, 357 fig. 5). It is almost of the same type but is somewhat smaller than tomb no. 3. The interior design was unusual. The tomb chamber was divided into two with a separation made from brick (Fig. 5.13). The find context is almost similar to tomb no. 3 and the burial gifts were dated from the beginning of the 3rd century BC to the early 1st century AD. (Fig. 5.14).
Fig. 5.13. Tlos. Tomb no. 4. Interior view; the separation made from brick.
Category 2: Tombs with Lycian architectural features having Greek inscriptions and dated to the Hellenistic or Roman Imperial period
Tomb no. 5
This tomb, with Lycian house-type façade architecture, is on the northeast corner of the acropolis cliff (Fig. 5.15). It differs from the others with its highly artistic reliefs (Fig. 5.16). The relief is placed on the east while the entrance gate of the tomb is on the south. It has a very simple interior design. It measures almost 2×2 m and has benches placed in an ‘L’ shape; one is on the left and the other is on the rear wall (Fig. 5.17). The kline on the left is emphasized with a bolster.
Fig. 5.14. Tlos. Tomb no. 4. Skeleton remains.
The relief on the east is divided into two horizontal friezes. There are ten warriors fighting in pairs: three couples on the upper frieze and two on the lower. The victor is depicted as either displaying his rival’s shield or trying to get hold of it; the vanquished, on the other hand, is rendered as lying down on the ground in all his nakedness. The style of the frieze presents the features of the early 4th century BC (Bruns-Özgan 1987, 232–5).
TAM II 600 Tomb of a woman (ignota)16
‘The tomb (belongs to) [NN] from Kadyanda, who is the daughter of Alexandros (the son) of Alexandros, (who is the son) of Dionysios, following the legitimate concession given on the 13th of Audenaios under the archiereus (head-priest) Caesianus in the year … and (this record was) put into the archives by Apollonios also known as Eirenaios. Into this (tomb), his father Alexandros, (the son) of Alexandros, (who is the son) of Dionysios; and Alexandros, (the son) of Eirenaios have already been (buried). She herself (NN) and her husband Eirenaios, the son of Zosibios will also be buried (here). Nobody else has permission to bury anyone (else here), otherwise the one (who will act against this) will give to the Tlosians’ gerusia 1,000 denarii, one third of which the informant will receive.’
The inscription that was placed here dates from the Imperial period and has no relation to the earlier relief. It was inscribed while Caesianus was the archpriest of the Lycian Koinon. Although the years of his service as archpriest are unknown, he might be identified with Tiberius Claudius Caesianus Agrippa (Reitzenstein 2011, 237), who is known from an inscription in Sidyma which records that he repaired the roof of the tetrastoa, which was demolished probably by the earthquake of 141 AD (TAM II 179; Takmer 2010, 108), and from another inscription in Xanthos recording that he financed themis (TAM II 301–5).
Fig. 5.15. Tlos. Tomb no. 5.
Fig. 5.16. Tlos. Tomb no 5. Fighting warriors’ relief.
Fig. 5.17. Tlos. Tomb no. 5. Plan and section.
The tomb is allocated to a woman (ignota) whose name is unknown (Fig. 5.18). Her father Alexandros and her son-in-law Alexandros were already buried in it; other than them, she, the tomb owner and her husband Eirenaios will be buried there as well. No one else will be allowed to be interred there; whoever acts against this will pay 1,000 denarii to the Tlosians’ Gerusia and one third of the money will be paid to the informant.
This tomb is a very good example of the tombs that lose their meaning and privacy over the course of time.
Tomb no. 6
This is one of the most striking tombs in the acropolis in terms of size (Fig. 5.19). Its façade is about three times larger than the regular tombs, the tomb chamber, however, only measures 3.17×2.54 m (Fig. 5.20). On the façade there are two rows of quartet windows above the doorway. The benches are arranged in a U shape, in the triclinium design (Fig. 5.21). In contrast to the previous examples, the kline on the left is not accentuated. However, the benches on the left and on the rear wall both have bolsters.
Fig. 5.18. Tlos. Tomb no, 5. Greek inscription (TAM II, 2 600).
Fig. 5.19. Tlos. Tomb no. 6.
Fig. 5.20. Tlos. Tomb no. 6. Interior view.
Fig. 5.21. Tlos. Tomb no. 6. Plan and section.
TAM II 599 Tomb of Eperastos17
‘This tomb of (belongs to) Eperastos of Tlos, (the son) of Philokles, (and it is also) for his wife Nannis, for Soteris the heir of the same Eperastos and for the descendants of her (Soteris) in succession and for those to whom she may permit in writing; and also for her (Soteris’s) husband Zosimos and her sister Syntrophia. To nobody else is permission given to bury (in this tomb), except if I or (my) heir Soteris permit, otherwise the one who authorizes or buries will pay to the Demos of Tlosians … drachms, half of which the informant will receive.’
Being one of the most pompous tombs in the acropolis, the smallness and the simplicity of the internal planning of tomb no. 6 is surprising. Nevertheless, the size of the interior is in accordance with the inscription. The tomb is allocated to a nuclear family of father, mother, and daughter.
A later addition to the inscription states that Eperastos is the tomb owner. It also adds that Eperastos not only allotted the tomb to his wife and his daughter, but to the descendants of his daughter as well. Besides, Eperastos also mentions that his son-in-law and his sister will be buried here. This shows that the girl’s side of the family has taken the groom under their protection. If anyone other than an authorized person will dare to do anything against …, (…) amount of drachmae shall be paid to the Tlosians’ Demos. Due to the use of drachmae instead of denarii as the unit of currency and the letter styles having late Hellenistic or early Roman features, the inscription can be dated to a period shortly before AD 43 when Lycia became a Roman province.
Tomb no. 7
This tomb is on the right side of the modern road going up to the city. The entrance to the tomb is on the south (Fig. 5.22). The façade is in the form of a classical Lycian house tomb whose roof with its round beams and three fasciae was cut from a separate block, applied afterwards and jointed into the rock. The burial chamber is rather small; it measures 2.63×2.01 m (Fig. 5.23). There is only one narrow kline measuring 1.76×1.10 m, carved out into the rock on the right side of the entrance (Fig. 5.24). On the doorpost of the façade there is an illegible, erased inscription and just next to the erased one is another inscription of eight lines which should be related to the change in the tomb’s ownership (Fig. 5.25). The letter style of this later, added inscription may carry late Hellenistic features.
Fig. 5.22. Tlos. Tomb no. 7.
Fig. 5.23. Tlos. Tomb no. 7. Plan and section.
Fig. 5.24. Tlos. Tomb no. 7. Interior view.
Fig. 5.25. Tlos. Tomb no. 7. Erased inscription.
TAM II 639 Tomb of Meis18
‘For Meis (the daughter) of Sarpedon, Semridarma (the daughter) of Androbios for her mother; and (with) Timarkhos and Sarpedon (the children) of Pherekles, for their grandmother (ordered built this tomb), because of her affection.’
The inscription mentions that Semridarma with her two children named Timarchos and Sarpedon built a tomb in honour of their beloved grandmother Meis. The inscription provides information about an exceptional example of a tomb built by a woman for her mother and no other name or family member is recorded as having the right of other interments. The inner arrangement of the tomb also supports this, as it has only a single kline.
Category 3: Tombs with architectural features of the Roman Imperial period and Greek inscriptions dated to the Roman Imperial period
Tomb no. 8
This tomb is on the cliff of Bellerophontes (Fig. 5.26). The façade architecture of the tomb presents Roman Imperial features with its very simple Doric doorframe, which was not cut from the monolithic rock block. Instead all the elements of the frame have been worked and placed separately. The tomb chamber measures 4.30×2.70 m (Fig. 5.27). On the back wall there is a loculus-like arrangement inside of it. The sidewalls are covered with plaster.
Fig. 5.26. Tlos. Tomb no. 8.
Fig. 5.27. Tlos. Tomb no. 8. Plan and section.
Fig. 5.28. Tlos. Tomb no. 8. Greek inscription.
TAM II 605 Tomb of Iason, Menelaos and Aristippos (Fig. 5.28)19
‘Lives,
Iason and Menelaos, the children of Menelaos the third (Menelaos son of Menelaos of Menelaos) and Aristippos son of Krateros (ordered) built this heroon, in which the klines are for themselves, (their) wives, (their) children who should be cognately from them, just as the will permitted. The first kline on the left side shall be for Iason; the first kline on the right side for Menelaos; The second kline on the left side for Aristippos; The second one in the right side (belongs) to Iason and Menelaos for the burial of their servants and for their descendants. No one else but us is authorized to approve, otherwise (the violator) shall pay 500 denarii to the Demos of the Tlosians. Menelaos shall approve the (burial) of Philoumenos (the son) of Arsasisinto the first kline on the right side that belongs to him (Menelaos).’
Fig. 5.29. Tlos. Tomb no. 9.
There is no certain evidence for dating, except that it is from before AD 212 as the names are without Aurelius/-a nomen. But the low fine and that it was paid to the Demos of Tlos may indicate an earlier date, probably before AD 141.
The tomb owners were two brothers, Iason and Menelaos, sons of Menelaos, and their friend Aristippos, son of Crateros. The tomb was intended for the use of the owners, their wives, their children, servants and their descendants, the arrangement being approved by the Demos.20 The size of the chamber fits the tomb definition provided by the inscription. Particularly the arrangement of the two regular-sized double banks on the right and two on the left are obvious. As Bryce already formulated, kline A on the left was allotted to Iason, kline A on the right to Menelaos, kline B on the left to Aristippos, kline B on the right to Iason and Menelaos’ threptoi (household slaves) and the children of their threptoi.
Tomb no. 9
This tomb is on the cliff of Bellerophontes (Fig. 5.29). It has very similar workmanship to the previous tomb no. 8. The inner arrangement is rather smaller measuring 3×2.80 m (Fig. 5.30). There is no trace of the klinai. It is obvious that the right of use of this tomb belonged to the privileged family members.
Fig. 5.30. Tlos. Tomb no. 9. Plan and section.
TAM II 602 Tomb of Zosimos21
‘Lives,
Zosimos from Tlos (the son) of Neiketikos (who is the son) of Neiketikos of Lysanios (ordered) built this heroon for himself, for (his) children, wife, his descendants and for anyone he may authorize in writing. If anyone other than Zosimos, who built (the heroon), buries anybody (else), they will pay a fine of 1500 denarii to the most sacred treasury. But if Zosimos who built (this heroon) authorizes someone, the obtainer of the authorization shall have the authority for those the obtainer (of this authorization) might wish to bury.’
Though tomb no. 9 is plainer in terms of its lintel and doorpost craftsmanship compared to tomb no. 8, both tombs must belong more or less to the same time span within the Roman Imperial period.
According to the epigraphic information, the tomb was termed a heroon and was built by Tlosian Zosimos, for himself, for his children, for his wife and for their lineal descendants and for the people he allowed to be buried with a written document. If anyone buries someone without permission, a 1,500 denarii fine will be paid to the most sacred treasure.
It dates to before 212 AD due to the absence of Aurelius/-a nomen, but is probably close to TAM II 601 of AD 141, recording the same amount in the fine payable (see below, tomb no. 10).
Tomb no. 10
This is another Roman Imperial tomb building. The tomb chamber measures 3.61×3.98 m (Fig. 5.32). There is no trace of the klinai (Fig. 5.31). The features of the rock chamber and the multi-grooved architectural decoration of the doorpost and the lintel are very similar to tomb no. 8, but the added vaulted entrance just in front of the door differentiates it from the others and interest arises with its monumental effect.
Fig. 5.31. Tlos. Tomb no. 10.
TAM II 601 Tomb of ignota22
‘(a) (This tomb belongs to) …phoros (the son) of Pappos (who is the son) of Androbios; to Alexandros (the son) of K… also known as Sikouleinos; to Alexandros (the son) of an unknown father; to Hedia with her children; …to Alexandros (the son) of Alexandros (who is the son) of Stephanos; to Daidalos also known as Eiphitos; to Kolakairos (the son of) Agrippinos also known as Stasithemis; to Arteimas (the son) of Arteimas; to Eutykhiane (the daughter) of Eutykhes, Claudia Vilia Procla’s freedman; to Eutykhes, Claudia Veilia Procla’s freedman and in the authorization given to Eutykhes for only six additional names; to those (six) he might consent, without permitting the subsequent generation of anyone (amongst the six) or (their) descendants.
(b) No one but us has the authority to authorize the joint burial right to anyone unmentioned or to bury anyone else, otherwise (the violator) should pay 500 denarii to the city of Tlosians. In the same way any unmentioned one has no authorization to bury anyone else, otherwise (the violator) shall pay to the city of Tlosians 1500 denarii, one third of which the informant will receive.
(c) The inscription itself and its security were recorded via the public registers, under Gaius Iulius Heliodoros also known as Diaphantos, archiereus of the Sebastoi (head-priest of the emperors).’
Fig. 5.32. Tlos. Tomb no. 10. Plan and section of Tomb no. 10.
According to its inscription, tomb no. 10 was used by a minimum of 11 people; additionally one of these (Euthyces) had the right to approve six more external names. It is obvious that these beneficiaries belong to different family stems. The tomb presents no family privacy at all; this kind of tomb usage probably indicates economic difficulties.23
The inscription dates from the period when Gaius Iulius Heliodoros was archpriest of the emperors in AD 141 (Reitzenstein 2011, 198–200). Furthermore, the Vilia Procla mentioned in the inscription erected a statue of Hadrianus in AD 126 (Engelmann 2012, 188) and also renovated the proscenium of the theatre at Patara in AD 147 (TAM II, 408).
Tomb no. 11 Inscription belonging to an unknown ‘monumental tomb’ building
Although information concerning the origins of the inscription is lacking, it is very possible that this fragment belonged to a monumental tomb building, not to a rock-cut tomb. Nevertheless, as the text offers exceptional information and provides a wider perspective on the burial rights, the inscription has been included in this study.
TAM 604 (Private Collection, Fethiye)24
‘The people who possessed each kline and who are the under-mentioned (ordered) constructed this heroon. The klines have been allotted (as follows): on the right, from amongst those who will (be put in) get in the (tomb) Asklepiades also known as Philoumenos, Glykon (the son) of Krateros of Krateros, Eleutheros also known as Apollonios, Kallinikos (the son) of Agathemeros, Polyneikos (the son) of Glykon; on to the left kline, Eirenaios (the son) of Damas (who is the son) of Damas, Zosimos (the son) of Zosimos, Apollonios also known as Symmachides (the son) of Apollonios (who is the son) of Apollonios, Philokyros (the son) of Apollonios (who is the son) of Apollonios (the son) of Symmaios, Eirenaios (the son) of Arteimas, Pompeius (the son) of Harpalos also known as Karpos; onto the middle kline, Apollonios and Zotikos, Epaphrodeitos (the son) of Epaphrodeitos (who is the son) of Epaphrodeitos, Stephanos (the son) of Epaphrodeitos, Alexandros (the son) of Alexandros (who is the son) of Eirenaios, Eirenaios (the son) of Eirenaios (who is the son) of Eirenaios (the son) of Tilomas, Polyktetos (the son) of Apollonios (who is the son) of Apollonios (the son) of Symmasis. Only their wives, children and grandchildren (will have) the right of joint burial, but (it will) end for the next generation. In the hyposorion will be placed their (own) servants from their environment. No one else shall have the authority to give permission to anyone or to bury anyone, otherwise the violator shall pay to the city of Tlosians 1500 denarii, one third of which the informant will receive. No one else will place anyone onto the other (person)’s kline, which is unshared with him. Otherwise the one, who places, similarly shall pay to the city 300 denarii, one third of which the informant will receive’.
According to the inscription the tomb belongs to 17 or 18 men coming from different family stems.25 Everyone has the right to inter their wives and children but no other descendants; besides, they all have the right to bury their households and their children as well. As it is seen with this extreme example, the total number of persons eligible for burial could be more than one hundred during the Roman Imperial period. The inscription itself was recorded via the public registers, under [NN] archiereus of the Sebastoi (head-priest of the emperors).
The amount of the fine is the same as for TAM II 601 and 602 (see above). That the payment is due to the city and the informant is given one third of the payment is also contained in TAM II 601 of AD 141. The increase in fines was perhaps associated with the earthquake of AD 141, so these three inscriptions might be from the end of the first half of the 2nd century AD.
General remarks on how the tombs of Tlos have contributed to the knowledge of Lycian funerary practice
The tombs of Tlos from the necropolis, situated in close proximity to the acropolis, have been carefully analyzed. The tombs’ characteristics of period, type, and craftsmanship have provided interesting insights into Lycian burial customs.
Site selection and status
The Lycian inscription connected to the Bellerophontes tomb (tomb no. 1) honours the tomb owner Hriktibili as ‘Godly’, an uncommon practice in Lycia. It is assumed that in accordance with this honour, an in-antis, Ionic temple-like architectural choice was made deliberately. On the other hand, the privileged status of the tomb and its owner has continued throughout the Classical and Hellenistic periods. During the Roman Imperial period three new tombs were added to the same rocky area; consequently, the privileged status/position of the Hriktibili family was shared with other tomb owners.
Another example that shows how the status and privileges of a tomb owner can alter is tomb no. 5. This 4th-century BC Lycian tomb, whose owner was honoured with his warrior identity, evolved into a different tomb through the addition of an inscription in the Roman Imperial period. It became a tomb by which a woman honoured herself and her family.
On the other hand, the interior of tomb no. 6, one of the most pompous tombs in the acropolis in terms of its size, was planned on a small scale and the inscription allowed for a limited number of interments. This seems to have been a precaution taken against any future usurpation of the family’s privileged status.
Inscriptions, tomb architecture, and dating
Tomb no. 1, which was dated to the 5th century BC (480–50), from the stylistic features of the depicted figures, is one of the earliest examples amongst the temple-like tombs in the region. This dating offers a new perspective for the muchdebated typological dating of Lycian rock-cut tombs. In consequence the idea of dating the house-type tombs earlier than those of the temple-façade type should be questioned.
The newly found inscriptions of tomb no. 2 have contributed to the corpus of Lycian inscriptions.
The archaeological finds from the Sikheriwale tomb no. 3 proved that all the information regarding the dating of Lycian tomb architecture and Lycian inscriptions is in need of some revision. The new data showed that Lycian inscriptions were still being inscribed/carved on rock-cut tombs in the early 3rd century BC and that the tradition of house-type tombs could have continued for longer than had previously been understood.
Tomb no. 4, which was unearthed in 2007, is dated to the early 3rd century BC. It was documented that the tomb had been in use for 300 years.
The subsequently added inscription on the Lycian house-type tomb no. 6 is dated to a period shortly before AD 43, when Lycia became a Roman province.
Tomb no. 8 is dated to the 2nd century AD with its inscription and architecture. It is an important example in that its measurements and inner design match the instructions and advice that is provided in the inscription.
Rights of tomb use
The right of use of the remarkable tomb no. 6 belonged to a small family of father, mother, and daughter. But the father gave his daughter control over tomb’s use. If she wished she could allot space for her husband and his sister. The inscription shows that the final rights concerning burial were completely surrendered to the daughter.
Tomb no. 7 was built for a woman named Meis by her daughter and grandsons. There is no inscribed record concerning the subsequent use of this tomb.
Tomb no. 10 is an example of Roman Imperial period practice, which does not limit its rights of use to one family, but allows people from different family lines to be buried together in the same tomb.
The otherwise unknown monumental tomb no. 11 is exceptional in its inscription detailing the tomb’s use. It gives the names of 17 men with different lineages and their families the right of interment. This implies that around 100 people were given the right to be buried within this particular tomb.
Funerary rituals
In the Tlos excavations of 2013, on the northern slope where the acropolis and the necropolis merge, a very important cult site was located. There are 16 votive pits and depictions of a bull and a horseman carved on the rock. Taner Korkut (personal communication) has interpreted this site as an outdoor cult site dedicated to the native Lycian sky god Trqqas. On the other hand, in the light of the above-mentioned inscriptions it seems very probable that the site may also have been used for periodic offerings and sacrifices to the deceased. If this was the case, this recent archaeological discovery presents us with very important evidence as to the Lycian funerary practice outside the immediate area of the tomb.
Concluding remarks
The research on the selected tombs, prominent with their inscriptions, reliefs and architecture, revealed 700 years of continuing tradition in the usage of rock cut tombs at Tlos. The chronological analysis presents some social transformation particularly on the management and usage of these tombs. The right of use of the rock tombs, which was primarily for immediate families in the Classical period and some extended family members in the Hellenistic period, eventually changes during the Roman Imperial period. The family privacy disappears and the tomb beneficiaries can be from different family stems. The reason for the change in this common and unbroken custom during the Roman Imperial period is associated with the increase in the population and the adjustments in the management. Another important consequence of this study brings out some new aspects of the dating of the Lycian tombs. This new result is particularly related to the tombs that were examined under the first category in this study; tombs no. 1 and 3. Tomb no. 1 with its temple-like façade architecture is dated to the 5th century BC according to the stylistic feature of its relief. The Lycian-inscribed tomb no. 3 is dated to 300 BC by the archaeological finds from its excavation. This new suggestion for the dating argues for the possibility of a later date for the Lycian inscriptions on the rock tombs, for which the common dating is usually ascribed to the first half of the 4th century BC.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Professor Korkut for allowing us to work on this subject and to use the drawings and photos from the excavation archives, which were prepared by Çilem Uygun, Tijen Yücel, and Bayram Akdağ. We are also thankful to Mikhail Duggan for the English proof reading of this manuscript.
All illustrations are used with the kind permission of the ‘Tlos Excavation’ directorate.
Notes
An unpublished Master’s thesis by Avcu 2014 at the University of Akdeniz in Antalya, concentrates on the penalties against tomb violations and the institutions related within Lycia.
Some preliminary results of this project are given; see Seyer 2009; 2007; 2005; 2004.
For the Patara necropolis excavations, see İşkan and Çevik 1997, 191–9; 1995; Işın 2007; for the Limyra necropolis excavations, see Kuban 2012.
R. Tekoğlu kindly permitted us to use the translation of an unpublished Lycian inscription on the tomb of Sikheriwale.
Up to now most of the Greek epigraphic material did not translate to any living languages. This study particularly prefers to give all the translations.
Schweyer 2002, 197–8; Lycian term prnnezi = members of the household = Greek oixeioi; see Bryce 1986, 116, 150–3; Neumann 2012, 409.
Borchhardt, in Borchhardt and Pekridou-Gorecki (eds.) 2012, 34 (Limyra TL 115 Esedeplémi); Bryce 1979, 279 (Karmylessos TL 7 and 8 Triyétezi).
Existence of different family stems in the same tomb can be exemplified with the inscriptions from Tlos see, TAM II 601, 604 etc.
Avcu 2014, 16; for the related inscriptions, see TAM II 752, 260, 124, 41, 624.
Schweyer 2002, 42–3; Hülden 2006, 312; for an example of goat sacrifice in Tlos, see Adak and Şahin 2004, 101–2.
For the meaning and the interpretation of Bellerophontes and Pegasus, see Borchhardt and Pekridou-Gorecki (eds.) 2012, 314–5.
According to Korkut 2015a, 98–102, ‘double axe and thunderbolt are related to Trqqas and this belief gave way to Cronos during the Roman Imperial period in Tlos’.
13
Korkut will soon publish a detailed analysis of the Bellerophontes tomb.
I thank Tekoğlu for his comments.
There is some evidence for the Lycian inscriptions dated after Alexander the Great. TL 29 is a well-known example from Tlos; see Tekoğlu 2006, 1703–10. On the other hand, if we accept that the tomb was constructed in the 4th century BC, it is possible that the tomb could have been evacuated and sold to a new family by the end of the same century, in which case the tomb furnishings, not datable to before 300 BC, must belong to the new owners.
Sherk 1992, 225; Pembroke 1965, 225; Bruns-Özgan 1987, 156–7.
Pembroke 1965, 222; Naour 1977, 274.
Naour 1977, 277, 288; Adak and Şahin 2004, 99; Zgusta 1964, 308, 461; Robert 1978, 35; Balland 1981, 254.
Kubinska, 1968, 29, 110; Adak and Şahin 2004, 99–100. For the supervision of the Polis over the graves see Zimmermann 1992, 155; Kokkinia 2007, 169; Pembroke 1965, 221.
For the comments see Bryce 1980a, 172–3.
Zimmermann 1992, 194; Wörrle 1999, 359.
Pembroke 1965, 221; Naour 1977, 274; Balland 1981, 155; Sherk 1992, 225; Adak and şahin 2004, 99.
The AD 142 and 144 earthquakes could have been the cause of dire economic conditions. For the dating of the earthquake see Erel and Adatepe 2007, 243–246.
Adak and Şahin 2004, 99; Rousset 2010, 2, 35; Pembroke 1965, 239.
For the comments, see Bryce 1980a, 173–4.
Abbreviations and bibliography
ANMED = News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas.
TAM I = Kalinka, E. (1901) Tituli Asiae Minoris. Vol. I: Tituli Lyciae lingua Lycia conscripti. Vienna, Hölder.
TAM II = Kalinka, E. (1930–1944) Tituli Asiae Minoris. Vol. II: Tituli Lyciae, linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. Vienna, Hölder.
TL = Kalinka, E. (1901) Tituli Asiae Minoris: Tituli Lyciae lingua Lycia conscripti. Vienna, Hölder (revised and reedited by J. Friedrich, Kleinasiatiche Sprachdenkmäler, Berlin, 1932).
Adak, M. and Şahin, S. (2004) Neue Inschriften aus Tlos. Gephyra 1, 85–105.
Avcu, F. 2014 Lykia Bölgesi Mezar Yazıtlarında Mezar Cezaları ve Mezar Tahsilat Kurumları. Antalya, Akdeniz University Department of Ancient Languages and Cultures, Unpublished Master’s thesis.
Balland, A. (1981) Fouilles de Xanthos VII. Inscriptions d’époque impériale du Létôon. Paris, Éditions Klincksieck.
Blakolmer, F. (1993) Die Grabungen in der Nekropole V von Limyra, Vorläufige Ergebnisse. In Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Wien 6–12 Mai 1990, 2 Band (Denkschrift Wien 231 und 235), 149–62. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Borchhardt, J. and Borchhardt-Birbaumer, B. (1992) Zum Kult der Heroon, Herrscher und Kaiser in Lykien. Antike Welt 23.2, 99–116.
Borchhardt, J. and Pekridou-Gorecki, A. (eds.) (2012) Limyra. Studien zu Kunst und Epigraphik in den Nekropolen der Antike. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag.
Bruns-Özgan, C. (1987) Lykische Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beiheft 33).
Bryce, T. R. (1976) Burial fees in the Lycian sepulchral inscriptions. Anatolian Studies 26, 175–90.
Bryce, T. R. (1979) Lycian tomb families and their social implications. Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 22.3, 296–313.
Bryce, T. R. (1980a) Burial practices in Lycia. Mankind Quarterly 21, 165–78.
Bryce, T. R. (1980b) Sacrifice and dead in Lycia. Kadmos 19, 41–9.
Bryce, T. R. (1981) Disciplinary agents in sepulchral inscriptions of Lycia. Anatolian Studies 31, 81–93.
Bryce, T. R. (1986) The Lycians in literary and epigraphic sources. Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press.
Colvin, S. (2004) Names in Hellenistic and Roman Lycia. In S. Colvin (ed.) The Greco-Roman East, politics, culture, society, (Yale Studies 31), 44–85. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Engelmann, H. (2012) Inschriften von Patara. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 182, 179–201.
Erel, T. L. and Adatepe, F. (2007) Traces of historical earthquakes in the ancient city life at the Mediterranean region. Journal of Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 13, 241–52.
Frei, P. (1977) Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 56.
Houwink ten Cate, P. H. J. (1961) The Luwian population groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic period. Leiden, E. J. Brill.
Hülden, O. (2006) Gräber und Grabtypen in Bergland von Yavu (Zentrallykien). Studien zur Antiken Grabkultur in Lykien (Antiquitas 45). Bonn, Dr Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
Hülden, O. (2010) Die Nekropolen von Kyaneai. Studien zur Antiken Grabkultur in Lykien II. In F. Kolb and O. Hülden, Lykische Studien. 9. Die Siedlung Kyaneai in Zentrallykien (Tübinger Althistorische Studien 9). Bonn, Dr Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
Işın, G. (1995) The easternmost rock tomb in Lycia: ‘Topal Gavur’ at Asartaş. Lykia 1, 68–78.
Işın, G. (2007) Patara Terrakottaları. Hellenistik ve Erken Roma Dönemleri (Patara V.1). İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.
İşkan, H. (2004) Zum Totenkult in Lykien II: Schlachtopfer und Libation an lykischen Gräbern. Anadolu’da Doğdu. Fahri Işık Armağanı, 379–417. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.
Işkan, H. and Çevik, N. (1995) Die Grüfte von Patara. Lykia 2, 187–216.
Işkan, H. and Çevik, N. (1997) Patara 1995. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 18.2, 119–99.
İşkan-Işık, H. and Uygun, Ç. (2009) Akropol. Tlos 2007 Yılı Kazı Etkinlikleri. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 30.2, 355–7.
Kloekhorst, A. (2011) The opening formula of Lycian funerary inscriptions: mẽti vs. mẽne. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70.1, 13–23.
Kokkinia, C. (2007) Junge Honoratioren Lykien und eine neue Ehreninschrift aus Bubon. In C. Schuler (ed.) Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums München, 24–26 Februar 2005 (Ergänzungsbände su den Tituli Asiae Minoris, 26), 165–75. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Kolb, F. (1976) Zu einem heiligen Gesetz von Tlos. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphie 22, 228–30.
Korkut, T. (2013) Die Ausgrabungen in Tlos. In P. Brun, L. Cavalier, K. Konuk, and F. Prost (eds.) Euploia. La Lycie et la Carie antiques: Dynamiques des territoires, échanges et identités (Actes du Colloque de Bordeaux, 5, 6 et 7 Novembre 2009 Bordeaux), 333–44. Bordeaux, Ausonius.
Korkut, T. (2015a) Akdağların yamacında bir Likya kenti: Tlos. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.
Korkut, T. (2015b) Tlos Antik Kenti Bellerophon Kaya Mezarı. In E. Okan and C. Atila (eds.) Prof. Dr. Ömer Özyiğit’e Armağan, 287–99. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.
Kuban, Z. (2012) Die Nekropolen von Limyra. Bauhistorische Studien zur klassichen Epoche. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag.
Kubinska, J. (1968) Les monuments funéraires dans les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure. (Travaux du Centre d’Archéologie Méditerraéenne de l’Académie Polonaise, 5). Warsaw, Państwove Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Meadows, A. (2006) The Ptolemaic annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929. In K. Dörtlük, B. Varkıvanç, T. Kahya, and J. Des Courtils (eds), The IIIrd symposium on Lycia. Symposium proceedings, 459–70. Antalya, Suna-Inan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü.
Naour, C. (1977) Inscriptions de Lycie. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 24, 265.
Neumann, G. (2012) Die Lykischen Grabinschriften von Limyra. In Borchhardt and Pekridou-Gorecki (eds.), 389–409.
Pembroke, S. (1965) The last of the matriarchs: A study in the inscriptions of Lycia. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 8, 217–47.
Reitzenstein, D. (2011) Die lykischen Bundespriester, Repräsentation der kaiserzeitlichen Elite Lykiens (Klio, Suppl. 17), 198–200. Berlin, Akademie Verlag Berlin.
Robert, L. (1978) Les conquétes du dynaste lycien Arbinas. Journal des Savants 165, 3–48.
Rousset, D. (2010) De Lycie en Cabalide. La Convention entre les Lyciens Termessos prés d’Oinoanda (Fouilles de Xanthos X). Geneve, Librairie Droz.
Schuler, C. (2007) Einführung: Zum Stand der griechischen Epigrafik in Lykien. Mit einer Bibliographie. In C. Schuler (ed.) Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien. Akten des Kolloquiums München, 24–26 Februar 2005, 9–27 (Ergänzungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris, 25) Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Schweyer, A.-V. (2002) Les Lyciens et la mort. Une étude d’histoire sociale (Varia Anatolica 14). Paris and Istanbul, De Boccard Edition-Diffusion.
Seyer, M. (2004) Likçe Yazıtlı Anıtlar Projesi: Ksanthos 2003 Yılı Çalışmaları Üzerine Bazı Düşünceler. ANMED 2, 85–9.
Seyer, M. (2005) Likçe Yazıtlı Anıtlar Projesi: Rhodiapolis, Karmilessos ve Pınara 2004 Yılı Araştırmalarının Bazı Sonuçları. ANMED 3, 153–7.
Seyer, M. (2007) Likçe Yazıtlı Anıtlar Projesi: 2006 Yılı Çalışmaları. ANMED 5, 123–6.
Seyer, M. (2009) Zur Ausstattung der Kammer lykischer Felsgraeber. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 59, 51–82.
Sherk, R. K. (1992) The eponymous officials of Greek cities IV. The register. Part III: Thrace, Black Sea area, Asia Minor (continued). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 93, 223–72.
Takmer, B. (2010) Stadiasmus Patarensis için Parerga (2): Sidyma I. Yeni Yazıtlarla Birlikte Yerleşim Tarihçesi. Gephyra 7, 95–136.
Tekoğlu, R. (2002–2003) Die Sprache 43.1, 104–14. Vienna, Wiener Sprachgesellschaft Harrassowitz Verlag.
Tekoğlu, R. (2006) TL 29: una nuova proposta di lettura. In R. Bombi et al. (eds), Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani III. Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso, 1703–10.
Tritsch, F. J. (1942) The Harpy tomb at Xanthos. Journal of Hellenic Studies 62, 49.
Wörle, M. (1999) Epigraphische Forschungen zur Lykiens VII. Asarönü, ein Peribolion von Limyra. Chiron 29, 353–70.
Zimmermann, M. (1992) Untersuchungen zur historischen Landeskunde Zentrallykiens. Bonn, Dr Rudolf Habelt Gmbh.
Zgusta, L. (1964) Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Ceskoslovenská akademie ved. Orientalní ústav. Monografie 19). Prague, Verlag der Tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
