Main Site . Inscriptions found at Boubon necropolis
39. Epitaph of Kallikles and his wife Artemeis
Καλλικλῆς τρὶς τοῦ Ῥόδωνος Βου(βωνεύς)
εις Κάστορο‹ς› Β̣ου(βωνίδος) ζώντων, εἰς
Kallikles III, great-grandson of Rhodon, citizen of Boubon, raised the monument for himself and his wife Artemeis, daughter of Kastor, citizen of Boubon, while they (both) lived, the entire expense for which was met by his foster son Synekdemos, according to what Kallikles declared in his will4.
Round funerary altar with relief bucrania draped with garlands, found and documented by Heberday in the area at the foot of the mountain of Boubon on the East, which seems to have been a necropolis, in 1895. Heberdey's recording of the stone remained unpublished. The inscription was first published by Bean in 1956 based on Bean's own documentation. Schindler took Heberdey's drawing into account for his editon.
Height: 87 cm; diameter: 42 cm; letters: 1.5- 2.3 cm.
Bean 1956, no. 17; SEG 17 (1960), no. 707; Schindler 1972, no. 28 (p. 55: drawing by an unknown scholar based on that of Heberdey); BullÉp 1973, no. 461; Milner 1998, p. 3, no. 1.34.
L. 1 : Καλλικλῆς: see no. 72. Ῥόδων: a name diffused in most areas of the Greek world, but apparently rare in the Cibyratis, it is attested a second time in Boubon: cf. no. 52.
L. 6-7 : Αρτεμεις see no. 23. Κάστωρ: see no. 63. Ζώντων: Expressions such as ζῇ, ζῶν, ζώντων, ζῶσι etc. are common in funerary inscriptions from Cibyra5. They are attested in 63 epitaphs from that city. One might think that such a large group of inscriptions from the same site could provide answers as to when and why those expressions were used. Might this 19% (63 inscriptions out of 333 funerary texts included in IK Kibyra I), be seen as a reliable indication of how often the Cibyrates had their funerary monuments raised during their lifetime? In other words, can we assume that, when such an expression is absent, the tomb was erected after the tomb owner's death? Unfortunately, I doubt that the epigraphic material can support such conclusions, because there appears to be little consistency in the way those formulae were used. Among those 63 epitaphs, there is a relatively high number of cases, in which ζῇ, ζῶν etc. are apparently meant to distinguish between those members of a family who were already dead and buried in the tomb, and those who were still alive and merely destined to be laid to rest close to their relatives sometime in the future. However, this distinction is hardly ever stated clearly, and thus one cannot be sure (exceptions: IK Kibyra I 192: ζῶντος - τελευτήσαντα; cf. Naour 1976, p. 134, no. 29: ζῶσα - τὸν γενόμενον αὐτῆς ἄνδρα). In other cases, ζώντων, ζῶσι etc. are certain to mean that a family tomb was raised before any fatality occurred (for example IK Kibyra I 113; 119; 151; 160; 272; 291). Finally, there are cases in which ζῶν clearly was not used to distinguish between living and dead members of a family or group with a right of burial in a grave, as it refers to only person, the tomb owner himself who was buried there (IK Kibyra I 197; 279; 280; 344). Reynolds 2004, p. 628 regards this and similar formulae to mean, most probably, that the text was cut during the tomb owner's lifetime and served as a warning to possible violators that there was someone personally interested in preserving the tomb for its owners. Nevertheless, Reynolds notes, the possibility should not be excluded that such expressions had a different meaning, perhaps indicating a belief in survival after death. In the present case, the situation may be reconstructed with a fair amount of certainty as follows: Kallikles' will, which named his foster son Synekdemos as his heir (or one of his heirs), included a provision that Synekdemos raise a tomb for Kallikles and his wife Artemeis. If, as seems most likely, ζώντων means here that the couple indeed still lived at the time when the monument was raised, then Synekdemos met the requirement set in Kallikles' will ahead of time. By fulfilling his obligation to provide a tomb for his benefactors, he proved to them already during their lifetime that he deserved the inheritance, possibly forestalling in this way the fears expressed in some funerary inscriptions, that heirs cannot be trusted with one's commemoration. In an inscription from Phrygian Akmonia, the tomb owner Onesimos declares that he raised the tomb for himself and his wife in his lifetime "because heirs neglect the dead" (οἱ γὰρ κληρο<νό>μοι τῶν θνησκόντων ἀμελοῦσιν. MAMA 6 306; cf. BullÉp. 1954, no. 235). In a document from Prusias ad Hypium in Bithynia, Chariton expresses the same concern more bluntly: he raised the monument for himself and his loved ones "because heirs do not do these things" (ταῦτα γὰρ κληρονόμοι οὐ ποιοῦσιν. IK Prusias ad Hypium 88; cf. BullÉp. 1953, no. 193). In another epitaph from the same city, Aurelius Marcianus states that his son would not be allowed to inherit from him unless he made sure Marcianus was buried in the sarcophagus he had provided ([εἰ δὲ μ]ὴ θήσει με ὁ υἱός μου Αὐρ. Μᾶρκος ἰς τὴν πύελον, μὴ κ[ληρονομηθῆ]ναί με ὑπὸ αὐτοῦ, ἂν δὲ τεθ[εικὼς ᾖ] αὐτὸν κληρονόμον μου χωρὶς προκρίματο[ς ----- ]. IK Prusias ad Hypium 86;). Menophanes from Prusa ad Olympum left an unambiguous trace of his disgruntlement with his heirs on his sarcophagus: "Menophanes, son of Apollonius, grandson of Theagenes, during his lifetime, (raised) the tomb for himself and his wife Tata, which will not be for his heirs" (that is, it will not be available to them for burial); Μηνοφάνης Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Θεαγένους ζῶν ἑαυτῷ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ Τάτᾳ τὸ μνημεῖον ὃ πρὸς τοὺς κληρονόμους οὐκ ἔσται. Ötüken 1996, no. 255 BM 3a. On the importance of wills in Roman society see the authoritative article by E. Champlin 1989 (p. 213f. on wills as means to "strike bargains with posterity").
L. 9-10 : On foster children see no. 47.
Literally: in the will that he made