šiwraλm(i)-

This lexeme occurs once in a burial inscription and three times in the text of an official agreement found in the precinct of Artemis in Sardis. The burial inscription is normally dated to the mid-4^th century BCE, while the other text can be dated only more loosely, to 5^th-4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

acc. sg.	šiwraλmn	LW 2.10 (Sardis)
nom. pl.	šiwraλmiš	LW 22.9 (Sardis)
		LW 22.11 (Sardis)
		LW 22.12 (Sardis)

The form šiwraλmiš was commonly taken as nom. sg. in the earlier literature, e.g. Gusmani 1964a:190, but its plural reinterpretation became necessary in view of its agreement with the newly established 3pl. pret. kaττirs.  

[I.Y]

The noun in question occurs once as an apparent epithet of Artemis in a curse formula (LW 2.10 ak=ṃλ artimuν ipšimνaν kulumνa=k šiwraλmn [in]ãnu ‘I will make (?) Artemis of the Ephesians and the Koloans his šiwraλm(i)-’), in which all the other occurrences feature the collocation šiwraλmiš artimul ‘the šiwraλm(i)-officials of Artemis’, used once in coordination with kawe- ‘priest’. Therefore šiwraλm(i)- refers to a role that a goddess can assume with regard to her opponents, while human officials can exercise it on behalf of the same goddess. The interpretation ‘prosecutor’ proposed in Sasseville 2018c fits all of the above contexts and derives additional support from the Greek inscription SEG 36.1011, demonstrating that Artemis of Ephesus could have her own representatives in a court of law (προήγοροι).

The interpretation ‘protector’, proposed first in Meriggi 1935a:90, does not fit the context of the curse formula, while the other solutions, referred to in Gusmani 1964a:198, fit neither of the two contexts. The translation ‘priestly collegium’, preferred in Gusmani 1980a:91 necessitates the forced interpretation of LW 2.10 as ‘Artemis of the Ephesians and the Koloans, (namely her) priestly collegium’.    

[I.Y]

The derivational relationship between the semi-vocalic stem šiwraλm(i)- and the base noun šiwraλa- is reasonably clear. Therefore, one can hardly follow the tentative comparison of Gusmani 1964a:190 between the denominative suffix ‑m(i)- in Lydian and the participial suffixes in Luwian and Lycian. Once should rather compare Lyd. -m(i)- with the Luwian denominative suffix /-m(i)-/, as e.g. /massanam(i)-/ ‘prophet’ derived from /massan(i)-/ ‘god’, cf. Melchert 2003b:195.

[I.Y]

For the derivational base see šiwraλa-.