62 Dr. Kennepy Baivie’s Researches amongst the inscribed Monuments 
That this office partook of a sacerdotal character is evident from the uniform 
mention which is made of it in connexion with the rites and ceremonies of re- 
ligion. 
Thus, the Stratoniceian inscription referred to above, is headed EIII =TE- 
PANH®OPOY ITTOAEMAIOY, and then proceeds to a detail of the many 
advantages which resulted to the state from the protecting care of its tutelary 
deities, after which provision is made for the due celebration of an important part 
of their worship, that of Hecate in particular. 
In the inscriptions of Aphrodisias, it is to be remarked, that the name of the 
Stephanephoros always appears in connexion with the Chreophylakion, and the 
dispositions of the founders with respect to sepulchral monuments. No provision 
with regard to them appeared to have been binding, no cession of right made, 
without their being enrolled in the above mentioned office, and subjected to the 
cognizance of the presiding officer; for such the Stephanephoros appears to have 
been, from the invariable tenor of these documents. 
If now we compare with this the Roman usage, of assigning to the 
Pontifices the right of granting sites for sepulture, in all cases where the tomb- 
property was not hereditary,* as also of punishing by mulct the violation of se- 
pulchres,f the inference seems legitimate, that the functionaries who possessed 
similar rights in the Graeco-Roman towns, resembled those also in their office ; 
that they belonged to the priesthood. 
This inference acquires additional probability from the circumstance, that in 
the Lycian cities, Tlos, Pinara, and Xanthus, all dispositions relative to property 
in tombs appear to have been made with the cognizance of the High Priest for 
the time being; at least, EIII APXIEPEQ® are the words, in their tituli, 
which replace the Aphrodisian EIJI STEPANH®OPOY.f 
I have only to remark, in conclusion, that as we read of female Asiarchs, and 
* « A Pontificibus locus sepulcris assignabatur, nisi forte hareditaria ea fuissent, et tunc non 
erat operee pretium Pontificem intervenire, nam idem patrifamilias in illud jus erat, atque in reliquam 
hereditatem.” Dempst. Paralip. in Rosini Antigg. Roman. y. 38, p. 468. 
t Vid. Marini, gli Atti e Monumenti de Fratelli Arvali, tom. ii. pp. 632, 825, cited in my note, 
Fascic. Inser. p. 69. 
t Vid. Dise. in Lycia, Append. A., Titt. cxxxi. 8, p- 891; cxxxy. 30, p. 3965 cxlii. 3, p. 401; 
exliv. 26, p. 402 ; clviii. 4, p. 408. 
Me er 
