iśtratageja (?)

The word is attested in the so-called Longer Strategos Votive Inscription of unknown date (see the discussion s.v. śa) from Side.

[Zs.S.]

acc. pl.?

iśtratagejaś

S3, 1

The attestation follows Pérez Orozco 2007a:136 checked against the photograph in Darga 1967a:Res. 8 (= Neumann 1968a:Taf. I.2 = Brixhe 1969a:Planche II) and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:426 Fig. 21.5. The existence of this word is not assured yet. It appears in the first line of S3 written in scriptio continua, the segmentation of which is basically clear: “jewase abase iśtratagejaś śa jewase masarasẹ^?”. Pérez Orozco 2007a:136 suggests that iśtratagejaś does not need to be further segmented, as it can reflect a loanword from Greek in genitive singular. Note, however, that scholars before and after his suggestion (Neumann 1968a:91f., Neumann 1978b:874; Ševoroškin 1975a:162; Eichner 1993a: 127f.; Nollé 2001a:635f. and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420, resp.) separated ejaś, even though they were not able to provide a falsifiable meaning (see under Meaning) and have not refuted Pérez Orozco’s proposal. Pérez Orozco’s hypothesis is formally possible, but the context is opaque, thus, it cannot currently be ascertained. Since the entire line seems to be one phrase, Pérez Orozco’s proposal allows an elliptic, but parallel construction of the line (“i. of j. a. and (i.) of j. m.”, on the presumable gen. pl. of these words see s.vv.), which argues for its correctness. The word can, however, be not only gen. sg., but also acc. pl. and nom. pl. and considering that this line is followed by the subject (the name, patronym, papponym, and the title strategos), the most probable case is acc. pl.

[Zs.S.]

Schürr 1997c:138, Schürr 1999a:167 n.6 and Pérez Orozco 2003a:114f. suggested (on different grounds) that the reading of the tenth sign of this word (N7) should be ‹j› and not ‹w›, as previously assumed. The key element that argues for the correctness of this proposal is the Sidetic transcription of the ending -ιος (locally -ιιυς) of Greek names as -ij (followed by Zinko 2016a:361f., Zinko & Zinko 2019a:422; accepted also by Schürr 2016b:150) and thus, it is followed here, too (cf. also the critical overview of Rizza 2019a:541–543).

[Zs.S.]

If Pérez Orozco’s proposal of the identification is correct, the underlying Greek word has different meanings. Due to the unclear context, it is not known which is the fitting one (Pérez Orozco 2007a:136, 139 chose ‘estrategía’). Alternatively, among those who separate iśtratagejaś into iśtratag ejaś, Ševoroškin 1975a:163 proposed that ejaś is a 3sg. verb, implicitly followed by Eichner 1993a:128, who even translated it (although pointing out that it is “unverbindlich”) as ‘hat … gesiegt’, which was followed by Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420 with two question marks and without reference to Eichner. Unfortunately, none of these authors offered any arguments why this should be the case. Moreover, its syntactic position (fronted before the subject within a nominal phrase, see above) strongly militates against a verbal interpretation.

[Zs.S.]

If Pérez Orozco’s proposal of the identification is correct, its Greek origin is obvious (Pérez Orozco 2007a:136).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 28 August 2020