of the Greco-Roman Era in certain ancient Sites of Asia Minor. 57 
This, or the 7Adras, appears to have been divided into certain compart- 
ments, sepulture in which was generally granted to the less distinguished members 
of the family of the erector of the monument. Then followed the Bapos, or altar, 
sometimes called the r¥uBos, sometimes pvnpetov, which rested on the 7Aaras, 
and was also partitioned into cells (eia@a7ax), for the same purpose. ‘This sup- 
ported the gopos, or sarcophagus, which was reserved for the chief members of 
the family, but with an intermediate monument sometimes interposed, called the 
Eidopopos, itself contaming an eiaworn, for the junior members, or whomsoever 
else the founder or purchaser should select as entitled to the privilege. 
If to these we add the copiov and drocopiov, the former of which appears 
to have been synonymous with, or a diminutive of copos, the latter, by its com- 
position, the substruction on which it rested, the B@pos, and perhaps, the 7Aaras 
also, that is, im general, the whole monument as distinct from the sarcophagus, 
we are in possession of the chief features of the sepulchral structures of Aphro- 
disias. 
Before dismissing this head of my subject, it may be proper to advert to, for 
the sake of correcting it, an assertion which the editor of Mr. Fellows’ Greek 
Inscriptions has ventured in his preliminary remarks on one of those from the 
site of Aphrodisias. This is: ‘that the words 7Aaras and eicéary constantly re- 
cur on monuments of this kind at Aphrodisias, but are not met with in other Greek 
inscriptions and authors.”* With respect to the first of these terms, this dictum 
may be correct ; at least, ] am not prepared to contest its accuracy; but in the 
case of the second, I must be allowed to observe, that in one of the tituli which I 
copied on the site of Thyatira, and which I had the honour of submitting to 
the notice of the Academy on the occasion of my last Address, I could evidently 
perceive one-half of the word ETTIQSTON. These also were Eiodoraz, but 
the reason, as I conceive, of the slight alteration was, the construction of the 
sentence, which appears to have been as follows, rav éyKemevav emt THS Topov 
ETLOOTOV ...++.kaTacKevactas, who added the compartments which lie over 
* Disc. in Lycia, Tit. xl. pp. 40, 331. 
VOL. XXI. ri! 
‘ 
