Following the publication of the first volume of Die Inschriften von Kibyra in 2002 by C., readers have waited more than 20 years for the appearance of the second volume. The delay is, however, understandable: C. continued his surveys in the Kibyratis for some 25 years, work that unsurprisingly brought to light a considerable body of new material, whose scholarly treatment required time. The present volume is devoted mainly to northern Kibyra, while also extending beyond the city’s presumed territory into more northerly regions. The material is organised into six sections, each preceded by a brief informative introduction concerning the history and geography of the relevant city or area: Kibyra and its vicinity; Alassos and the estate of the Calpurnii/Ummidii; the region surrounding Lake Söğüt; the northern territory of Kibyra; Olbasa; and Hadrianoi, Kormasa and the territory of Sagalassos. In total, C. publishes 136 inscriptions, 93 of them new, all meticulously edited and accompanied by detailed commentary with German translations except where the fragmentary state makes translation impossible or, as in the case of no. 93, where the complexity of the text necessitates extended discussion in the commentary. It is hardly surprising that most of the inscriptions in the volume are funerary, followed by a number of dedications to various deities and a small group of imperial dedications, while honorary and building inscriptions are rare, each represented by only a few examples. Of particular importance is the full publication of the list of Sozon-priests involved in the construction of a temple (no. 57). In addition to this, there are four further name lists, one of which can be identified as a donor list (no. 83), while the nature of the others (nos 54, 64–5) remains uncertain. Also noteworthy is a new dedication to Constantius, discovered near the village of Çallıca (no. 126), which may be regarded as supporting evidence for identifying this site with the city of Hadrianoi.
C.’s misfortune is that his no. 1 – an important but fragmentary document on the building activities in the reign of Claudius – was recently published with additional fragments from the ongoing excavations at the imperial temple in Kibyra, providing answers to some uncertainties he could only conjecture about or leave unresolved (Ş. Kileci and N. Tüner-Önen, in: F. Onur and C. Schuler [ed.], New Research in Greek Epigraphy in Lycia. Proceedings of the Symposium at Antalya, Türkiye, 28–30 March 2022 [2024], pp. 123–41). Apart from confirming that the building was restored with funds provided by Tiberius for the city’s reconstruction, the new documents also attest that it was dedicated to Augustus and Livia – whereas C. considers Tiberius and Livia possible dedicatees. C. acknowledges the new developments in the introduction but justifies the omission on the grounds that inclusion would have further delayed publication. On the same pretext, he also refrained from incorporating two apparently important new documents from Olbasa, although he assigned them numbers in the corpus (nos 115 and 117) and left them blank, announcing that he would address them in separate articles. Only a brief mention is offered, namely a decree recognising the Nikephoria in Pergamon and an imperial reply of Septimius Severus to a petition. While C.’s concern not to delay the appearance of the monograph is understandable, and a full edition may not have been feasible, readers might expect to find a more detailed account of the content and historical significance of these documents in the introduction.
It deserves praise that C. provides an extensive and generally satisfactory critical apparatus and commentary for each inscription. Yet there are instances where a more detailed analysis would be welcome. As regards no. 29, for example, one is left wondering why the couple Kakeis and Neoptolemos describe one foster child, Kalliope, simply as θρεπτή, while the other, Agoranomos, is styled as τειμότατος θρεπτός (‘dearest/most honoured foster child’). Although C. plausibly suggests that the latter was a later addition, might we not also envisage a scenario in which the parents grieved more deeply for Agoranomos or – though less likely – felt greater affection for him, so that this difference is reflected in the inscription? Such ambiguities are rarely easy to resolve in epigraphic interpretation, but even a brief discussion would be useful. Equally, it would be desirable to learn more about the diffusion of certain cults in the vicinity of the findspot or, more broadly, within Pisidia (such as Hosios and Dikaios in no. 132).
It is regrettable that only eight inscriptions offer a precise dating according to the Kibyran Era, compelling C. to rely primarily on letter forms. Apart from these, the dedication of no. 107 also bears a date, which C. nonetheless assigns broadly to the imperial period on the grounds that the era employed in that locality (Doğanbaba, immediately north of Lake Salda) is unknown, thus precluding precise dating. In contrast, in his discussion of no. 110, a dedication to Apollo discovered in the village of Çaltepe south-east of the same lake, C. dates the inscription to 119/20 ce according to the Sullan Era, noting that this era was in use in the vicinity of Lake Salda. Such an argument, however, seems at odds with his earlier statement, given the proximity of Doğanbaba to Lake Salda, and suggests that a similar approach could reasonably have been applied to no. 107 as well. A brief explanation why this possibility was not considered would be illuminating.
C.’s detailed palaeographical descriptions are helpful in situating each text within a general chronological framework. In most cases C. avoids precision and assigns the inscriptions broadly to the imperial period on the basis of lettering style. In some instances a narrower dating might be ventured; for example, the letter forms of no. 59, as far as can be judged from the photograph, exhibit distinct third-century features. The quality of the figures overall is satisfactory, though in some cases closer and more detailed photographs would be desirable – notably no. 52 (fig. 52) and the sarcophagus lid inscription dated to 44/45 ce in the Kibyran Era (no. 24, fig. 27), where the relatively early date would have warranted clearer documentation. With regard to dating criteria, C. observes in the commentary to no. 51 that the absence of the nomen Aurelius is no secure proof of a date before the Constitutio Antoniniana, since it fell out of use again in the later third century. Yet nonetheless he dates no. 54 as well as no. 73 (on p. 126) to before 212 ce on the basis that no Aurelii are attested, an argument inconsistent with his earlier caution.
Given the predominantly funerary character of the inscriptions, the abundance of onomastic material – at times including the first attestations of certain personal names – should not be regarded as unexpected. Alongside epichoric names attested for the first time (e.g. Κηκυμος/Κηκυμας in no. 54 or Κινδισις/Κινδισευς in no. 62), the occurrence of Agoranomos as a personal name, rather than in its usual function as an official title, is noteworthy. C. offers generally valuable, and in some instances elaborate (e.g. Καδουας in l. a28 of no. 57), commentaries on nearly all personal names; in certain cases, however, in my view these seem redundant – for instance, Τρωΐλος (no. 13), Καλλικλῆς (no. 34), Ἀρτειμης (no. 57), and Αππας and Τατεις (no. 68) are well-attested in Kibyra and its environs.
The carefully prepared indexes and maps considerably enhance the utility of this volume, enabling readers to navigate the material with ease and precision. For the reasons outlined above this book constitutes a significant and lasting scholarly achievement.
