No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
The subject of the Lycian inscriptions appears to have been first brought prominently to notice by Sir Charles Fellows half a century ago. The first texts in this character were copied by Cockerell, and published in Walpole's travels. These were commented on, in 1821, by M. Saint Martin, who, judging from the bilingual in Greek and Lycian from Limyra, supposed the native version of the text to be comparable with the Syriac and Phoenician. Ten years later, in 1831, Dr. Grotefende communicated to the Royal Asiatic Society a paper, published in the third volume of the Transactions, treating of the five Lycian texts then known, and lie concluded from the declension of the verb that the Lycian must have belonged to the Aryan family of speech, and that it possessed long and short vowels as in Persian. In 1838–9 Sir C. Fellows collected copies of twenty-four Lycian inscriptions, including the great obelisk of Xanthus, on which are inscribed, in letters one and half inches long, no less than 246 lines of Lycian writing, and twelve lines of Greek hexameters. A certain number of coins of Lycian cities, with Lycian inscriptions, were also recovered, and the results published in 1840 in the volume called “ Lycia.” The copy of the great Xanthus text was however imperfect, and to this, as the most important of the Lycian monuments, Sir Charles Fellows devoted further attention, and in 1842 published a larger and very careful reproduction of the monument.
- Type
- Original Communications
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1891
References
Page 618 note 1 To avoid repetition of authorities I here give the references to the various works cited in this paper—
(Schmidt, ) Neue Lykische Studien. M. Schmidt. Jena, 1869Google Scholar.
(Sharpe, ) Lycia. Sir C. Fellows. London, 1841Google Scholar.
(Deecke, ) Lykische Studien Berlinier Phil Wochen, 06, 1888Google Scholar.
(Hubschmann, ) Janaer Literaturzeitung, 02 1879Google Scholar.
(Imbert, ) Babylonian and Oriental Record, vols. iii. p. 259, iv. p. 153, v. pp. 105, 142Google Scholar.
(Müller, M.) Sanskrit Grammar. London, 1870Google Scholar.
(Haug, ) Essays on Sacred Language of Parsees. M. Haug. Bombay, 1862Google Scholar.
(Spiegel, ) Die Altpersischen Keilinschriften. F.Spiegel. Leipzig, 1881Google Scholar.
(Bopp, ) Comparative Grammar. English translation. London, 1845Google Scholar.
(Schrader, ) Prehistoric Antiquities Aryan Peoples. English translation. London, 1890Google Scholar.
To which I may add many interesting private letters from M. J. Imbert, to whom I am much indebted.
Page 620 note 1 The connexion of the Lycian extra letters with the Cypriote character is generally agreed to. Sir C. Fellows discovered a short text in Greek and Cypriote, in Lycia itself, which was put down as “Phœnician” —the Cypriote character being then unknown. It is imperfectly copied, but the syllables to, no, a, se, and perhaps le, are distinct, and can belong to no other known script. The Greek is imperfect, but clearly funerary.
Page 621 note 1 It should be noted that the alphabet so explained answers exactly to that of the old Persian texts deciphered from the Cuneiform character by Sir H. Rawlinson.
Page 624 note 1 The references to Skeat are to the list of 461 Aryan roots in Skeat's, “Etymological Dictionary of the English Language” (Oxford, 1888)Google Scholar, which are translated from Fick's, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch, 3rd edition, Göttingen, 1874Google Scholar, and Curtius' Greek Etymology, English edition.
Page 625 note 1 See Fellows', Lycia, p. 458Google Scholar.
Page 630 note 1 M. Imbert has disputed Sharpe's transliteration of the last word. The latest copy appears to, read Fobealaea (Bab: Rec. vol. v. p. 106). This does not, however, seem to me sufficient ground for rejecting the value w for the Lycian sign which resembles the Cypriote va.
Page 646 note 1 M. Imbert makes only 19 lines, rearranging after line 16, but this does not affect my attempted translation.
Page 648 note 1 Schmidt (Neue Lykische Studien, p. 127), discussing the word walâhe, perceives that it is a term relating to persons, and renders it “descendants.”
Page 661 note 1 These five lines are not given by Fellows, but were sent to me by M. Imbert (see Bab. Eeo. vol. vi. p. 147). I have retained the numbering of the lines in Fellows' text. The newly deciphered lines make a total of 244 for the whole inscription. They seem to agree with my rendering of the rest of the text, and to contain some statement to the effect “This is the tomb of the son of Harpagus.”