The fragment belongs to a petition that was directed to a proconsul. It was probably sent by members of a religious group who were interested in the performance of long-established sacred festivities. Ll. 15–17 contain the proconsul’s subscriptio. The petitioners quote, as, e.g., in no. 321, earlier official documents concerning their request (here subscriptiones, ll. 6–8 and 11). All the subscriptiones are given with indentation on the left and probably also on the right sides.

A short summary of the ed. pr.:

1–2 Perhaps [θεοὺς καὶ(?) θε]/ὰς ἐπικαρπίους? Cf. the wish for ἀγαθοὶ καρποί, no. 321, 15–16.

A. Chaniotis, EBGR 2009, no. 127 prefers [θυσί]/ας ἐπικαρπίους: “thanksgiving sacrifices after the harvest.”

2 -ΙΟΥΣ·ΑΤΙΝΑ: the stone.

3–4 Comparing ll. 9–10, one might envisage Σε[ . . . . . (cognomen of a proconsul) τῷ κρα(τίστῳ)] / ἀνθυπ(άτῳ) κὲ ἐτύχομεν ὑπογ[ραφῆς ταύτης].

4 Ligature KE (cf. also in ll. 9 and 14, perhaps also in l. 7).

5–6 cf. ll. 16–17. No. 321, 22–23 speaks of τὰς θυσίας…τὰς νενομισμένας ἐκτελεῖσθαι.

6–7 Perhaps something like εὐχ[όμενοι ὑπὲρ] / τοῦ θείου οἴκου (which seems to exceed slightly the line’s length); for the inclusion of the Emperor into the prayers during offerings, cf. no. 321, 14–15.

7–8 The pronoun ἐμοῦ refers to the author of the subscriptio, the proconsul. Maybe it was followed by a genitivus absolutus (ἐμοῦ κ[ωλύοντος]?). Was there, in l. 8, mention of “the illegal decisions,” τὰς παρανόμους ἐ[πικρίσεις]? Cf. the opposite (ἐπικρίσεις ἔννομοι) in no. 321, 8–9; toward the end of the latter inscription (ll. 24–25) ἀνθυπάτων κὲ ἐπιτρόπων ἐπικρίσεις are quoted.

9 ΜΑΝ´ ΦΟΥΣΚΩ: Probably Manilius Fuscus, see L. Petersen, PIR2 M137 and B. Thomasson, Laterculi praesidum I, p. 233, no. 176. He seems to have been proconsul Asiae some time around 210 AD. His wife was probably Flavia Politta whose munificence is known from no. 419, 15; see also P. Herrmann, TAM V 2, 1213.

The dative corresponds to the Latin ablativus temporis; cf. no. 674, 1–2; Sardis VII 1, nos. 52, col. 1, 11–12; and 153, 1–2. It is to be understood that the subscriptio was not only issued “under” Manilius Fuscus but also “by” him. For κράτιστος = vir clarissimus, attributed to men of senatorial rank, see IGSK 24, 1 (Smyrna), no. 600, 12–13 comm. - κρα(τίστῳ) ἀ[νθυπ(άτῳ)]: ΚΡΑΛ̣[ ] the stone.

9–10 See ll. 3–4 comm.

11 χρῆσθ[ε] or χρῆσθ[αι]. Perhaps something like ὑμεῖν ὑπογραφῇ χρῆσθ[αι συγχωρῶ]?

12 ΔΕΟΜΕΘΑ: M corrected from N. The last visible letter of the line could also be an O.

13–14 [τὰ μυστή]ρια: cf. no. 321, 28.

14 cf. no. 321, 13.

16–17 cf. ll. 5–6.

18–20 The text of the inscription until l. 17 is a copy of the petition plus the proconsul’s subscriptio. The copy was probably authenticated by the seals of several witnesses while the original was kept in the archives of Sardis.

According to the calendar of Asia the month Audnaios corresponds to November 23 through December 23. Thus, the precise date may have been a day from November 23 through 30 or December 6 through 12: [πρὸ θ´(η´, ζ´, etc.) καλαν]/δῶν Δεκεμβρίων or [πρὸ ὀκτὼ (ἑπτά, ἕξ, etc.) (ε)ἰ]/δῶν Δεκεμβρίων.

Γράτ[ῳ - - / ὑ]πάτο̣ις: probably the consules ordinarii of 221 AD, C. Vettius Gratus Sabinianus and M. Flavius Vitellius Seleucus, Γράτ[ῳ κὲ Σελεύκῳ | ὑ]πάτοις. Less probable the consuls of 242 AD, C. Vettius Gratus Atticus Sabinianus and C. Asinius Lepidus Praetextatus.