MAMA XI 24 (Eumeneia) 
Honorific statue-base for Rufus
- Type of monument:
- Honorific statue-base.
- Location:
- Kocayaka (Eumeneia): in a fountain.
- Description:
- Plain white marble block, broken above, left, and below; complete at right.
- Dimensions:
- Ht. 0.68+; W. 0.28+; Th. 0.24; letters 0.015-0.030.
- Record:
- Squeeze; photograph (1954/20).
- Publication:
- Drew-Bear 1978: 74-5, IV 7 (SEG 28, 1122).
- Date:
- First century AD.
[- - - - - - - - - - - - ἡ]
[βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆ]μος ἀνέστη-
[σαν· ἐπιμελη]σαμένων
[τῆς (e.g.) ἀναπ]ράξεως τοῦ
[εἰς ταύτην τὴ]ν τειμὴν χρή̣-
5[ματος καὶ τῆς] κατασκευῆς
[καὶ ἀναστάσε]ω̣ς τοῦ ἀνδρ-
[ιάντος - - - - -]υ Ῥούφου ἀρ-
[ετῆς ἕνεκεν κ]α̣ὶ εὐεργε-
[σίας - name -]ς · καὶ Ῥούφου
10[- - -, φύσ]ει δὲ Ῥούφου,
[καὶ- - -]τος · στρατ-
[ηγοῦ? - - -]
Line 1: ]νος ἀνέθη- D(rew)-B(ear).
Line 3: ]ρας ἕως τοῦ D-B.
Line 11: ]. .σις τὴν̣ D-B.
[...the council and the peo]ple set it up. The collection of the money for this honour and the construction and erection of the statue of [...] Rufus, for the sake of his virtue and benefaction, was undertaken by [...] and Rufus, [adoptive sons of...], natural sons of Rufus, [and...], strat[egos...]
Illustrations:
MAMA XI 24 (Eumeneia 1: 1954-20)
Squeeze of MAMA XI 24 (Eumeneia 1: 1954-20)
The editio princeps of this inscription (Drew-Bear 1978, IV 7) was based on an inferior copy of the stone, with incorrect readings in lines 1, 3, and 11. Although Drew-Bear left the text unrestored, he suggested several restorations in his commentary, most of which should be rejected (line 2, [ποιη]σαμένων; line 3, [σπεῖ]ρας ἕως; lines 4-5, χρη[σαμένων]; lines 7-8, ἄρ[χοντος]; lines 8-9, εὐεργέ[του]; line 9, [τῆς πόλεω]ς). The monument appears to be a statue base in honour of a certain ... Rufus (line 7), the funding for which was met by his two natural sons (lines 9-10) and the local civic strategos (or perhaps ‘first strategos’: see the commentary to MAMA XI 26 [Barnett 1954/1]). The approximate line-length (c. 10-11 letters missing at left) is provided by the standard formula in lines 5-6, [τῆς] κατασκευῆς |[καὶ ἀναστάσε]ω̣ς τοῦ ἀνδρ|[ιάντος]. Lines 3-5 are non-formulaic, and my restoration is intended merely to capture the sense; the restoration in line 3 seems rather too short.