The Stone Memory of Space: Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis

www.libridergi.org Epigrafi, Çeviri ve Eleştiri Dergisi Journal of Epigraphy, Reviews and Translations Issue XI (2025) The Stone Memory of Space: Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis Ayşegül DURUKAN 0000-0002-0888-5531 The entire contents of this journal, Libri: Journal of Epigraphy, Translation and Review is open to users and it is an ‘open access’ journal. Users are able to read the full texts, to download, to copy, print and distribute without obtaining the permission of the editor and author(s). However, all references to the articles published in the ejournal Libri are to indicate through reference the source of the citation from this journal. Libri, is a peer-reviewed journal and the articles which have had their peer reviewing process completed will be published on the web-site (journal.phaselis.org) in the year of the journal’s issue (e.g. Issue XI: January-December 2025). At the end of December 2025 the year’s issue is completed. Responsibility for the articles published in this journal remains with the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Citation Durukan A., “The Stone Memory of Space: Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis”. Libri XI, 171-201. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17627421 Received Date: 07.10.2025 | Acceptance Date: 10.11.2025 Online Publication Date: 17.11.2025 Article Type: Research Article Editing: Phaselis Research Project www.libridergi.org Received Date: 07.10.2025 | Acceptance Date: 10.11.2025 LIBRI XI (2025) 171-201 Online Publication Date: 17.11.2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17627421 Article Type: Research Article www.libridergi.org The Stone Memory of Space: Inscription-Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis Mekânın Taş Hafızası: Phaselis’te Yazıt-Mimari Entegrasyonu ve Kentsel Bellek Mühendisliği Ayşegül DURUKAN * Abstract: This study analyzes twenty-two inscriptions along the main street of ancient Phaselis, approaching them not solely as philological documents but as architectural components that structure urban memory. Guided by H. Lefebvre’s concept of produced space and K. Lynch’s theory of urban imageability, the analysis examines whether the spatial relationship between inscription types and architectural contexts reflects intentional civic strategies. Statistical evaluation reveals a clear hierarchy in architectural integration: imperial dedications show structural incorporation at 66.7%, honorific inscriptions at 25%, and agonistic honors at 0%. Chronological clustering indicates that integration is concentrated between 93 and 146 CE, reaching its peak during Hadrianus’ synchronized monumental program in 130/131 CE. These patterns demonstrate that epigraphic placement was shaped not only by local aesthetic or pragmatic considerations but also by broader imperial frameworks influenced by the stability of the Pax Romana and the public sphere of the Second Sophistic. The study conceptualizes inscriptions as an interface that links memory, space, and civic representation, showing that epigraphic documents functioned as active architectural agents within Roman urban design. In doing so, it establishes a theoretical model for understanding how the epigraphic landscape of Phaselis participated in the production and perpetuation of urban memory. Keywords: Phaselis, Architectural Epigraphy, Urban Memory, Spatial Practices, Civic Representation, Pax Romana Öz: Bu çalışma, antik Phaselis’in ana caddesi boyunca yer alan yirmi iki yazıtı yalnızca filolojik belgeler olarak değil, aynı zamanda kentsel hafızayı biçimlendiren mimari bileşenler olarak incelemektedir. H. Lefebvre’nin üretilmiş mekân kavramı ve K. Lynch’in kentsel imaj kuramı doğrultusunda analiz, yazıt türleri ile mimari bağlamlar arasındaki ilişkinin kasıtlı sivil stratejileri yansıtıp yansıtmadığını araştırmaktadır. İstatistiksel değerlendirme, mimari entegrasyonda belirgin bir hiyerarşi olduğunu göstermektedir: imparatorluk ithafları %66,7 oranında yapısal bütünleşme sergilerken, onurlandırma yazıtları %25 ve agonistik yazıtlar %0 oranında mimari bağ kurmaktadır. Kronolojik kümelenme, entegrasyonun MS 93 ile 146 arasında yoğunlaştığını ve MS 130/131’de Hadrianus’un uyumlu anıtsal programı sırasında zirveye ulaştığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bulgular, yazıt yerleşiminin yalnızca yerel estetik veya pragmatik tercihlerle değil, aynı zamanda Pax Romana ’nın yarattığı siyasal istikrar ve İkinci Sofistik Dönem’in kamusal alan anlayışı gibi daha geniş imparatorluk çerçeveleriyle şekillendiğini göstermektedir. Çalışma, yazıtları hafıza, mekân ve kamusal temsil arasında bir arayüz olarak kavramsallaştırmakta ve epigrafik belgelerin Roma kentsel tasarımında etkin mimari unsurlar olarak işlediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu yaklaşım, Phaselis’in epigrafik dokusunun kentsel hafızanın üretimi ve sürekliliğine nasıl katkı sunduğunu açıklayan bir kuramsal model geliştirmektedir. Anahtar sözcükler: Phaselis, Mimari Epigrafi, Kentsel Bellek, Mekânsal Pratikler, Kamusal Temsil, Pax Romana * Assoc. Dr., Akdeniz University, Interior Architecture Department, Antalya/Türkiye. ayseguldurukan@ akdeniz.edu.tr | 0000-0002-0888-5531 Ayşegül DURUKAN 172 Epigraphy is not confined to texts incised on stone or metal surfaces; it is a practice that encompasses every form of writing produced with writing instruments and intended to endure beyond everyday use1. This comprehensive definition permits the evaluation of epigraphic data not solely from a philological perspective but also within a cultural, spatial, and historical context. Inscriptions ought to be regarded as integral elements of architectural and spatial compositions, conceived in conjunction with their supporting surfaces. The integration of inscriptions with architectural surfaces elevates their function beyond merely transmitting historical information, transforming them into aesthetic and symbolic elements that influence the atmosphere of a space. In this respect, epigraphy is understood as a multilayered practice of representation that encompasses the relationship among text, space, and object2. In ancient Rome, the fusion of writing with material surfaces evolved into a powerful strategy that reinforced public authority and inscribed collective memory into space. This conjunction, which participates in the phenomenon it depicts at a meta-textual level, is among the primary markers of conceptual fusion in the period’s epigraphic culture3. This approach positions epigraphic texts not merely as documents, but as constitutive elements of aesthetic and spatial experience. From antiquity to the present, the design of epigraphic documents has not only generated new “written material” realities; it has also, through their tangible volumes, turned them into foundational elements that shape spatial configuration, thereby producing textual-visualficta4. In this sense, inscriptions are regarded not only as texts but as multilayered constructs that must be read together with the image and the architectural environment5. Therefore, the multilayered configuration that inscriptions establish upon architectural surfaces is intertwined not only with aesthetics but also with processes of social production. In this context, theories of space enable a broadened interpretation of epigraphy. According to H. Lefebvre (1991, 26ff.), space is not merely a physical substrate; it is a product of social production and also functions as an instrument of thought, control, and power. Viewed from this perspective, honorary inscriptions are understood not only as instruments of production but also as instruments of urban governance and intellectual representation. Beyond serving as propaganda and communication devices that render authority visible in public spaces, their voluThis article was prepared within the framework of the Akdeniz University Scientific Research Projects Office (NAP) project FBA-2022-6013, Use of AR Technology in the Digitalization of Tourism: The Case of Phaselis, funded from 26 April 2022 to 26 April 2024. 1 Bodel 2010, 110. 2 Kumler 2023, 447ff. 3 Bodel 2010, 115. 4 Textual-visual-ficta designates inscriptions’ fusion of text and image with architectural surfaces, which not only conveys historical information but also generates new spatial formations and symbolic realities. The notion, highlighted by A. Kumler (2023, 447-452), is consonant with accounts of writing’s conceptual integration with material context (Bodel 2010, 115) and of inscriptions’ multitemporal effects in sensory– spatial experience (Hamilakis 2014, 124). 5 Jackson Williams 2020, 1. Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis 173 metric presence and spatial placement make them variable elements within the city’s settlement archaeology and the organization of interior space. Conversely, in ancient cities, honorary inscriptions are not merely texts conveying political messages; they also serve as directional, identity-forming, and mnemonic elements situated within “concrete space”. As Norberg-Schulz (1976, 11) observes, individuals perceive space not solely as a geometric void but as an environment imbued with qualitative distinctions (for instance, “up” and “down”). Kevin Lynch’s (1960, 117-118) theory of urban perception further reinforces this perspective. Honorary inscriptions can be regarded as elements that, through functioning as nodes or landmarks, facilitate navigation and perception within ancient cities, enhance urban visibility, and make collective memory tangible within the spatial context. Architectural analysis positions the surface texture, typography, material distinctions, and legibility of epigraphic documents within the dynamics of spatial experience at the scale of the individual body. Emphasizing sensory, tactile, and visual perception, interior architecture interprets inscriptions as agents of cultural heritage that shape user experience, rather than merely serving as records. Epigraphic documents incised into stone and integrated with architectural elements can be understood not only as carriers of written information but also as layers of meaning within architectural composition and interior organization. Inscriptions executed on lintels, architraves, column drums, and voussoirs reinforce the visual and conceptual integrity of architectural design; likewise, texts engraved on interior walls, wall paintings, paving stones, and mosaics, as well as on amphorae, vases, and the full range of ceramic, metal, and glass objects including everyday utensils and furniture produce a spatial narrative read in concert with structural elements. This suggests that epigraphic data are not merely archaeological finds to be documented; they are also constituents that contribute to the legibility and mnemonic depth of designed space6. As illustrated in Figure 1, limestone is identified as the most diverse material in terms of typology. Its significant prevalence in honorific and imperial dedication inscriptions suggests that limestone served as a standard medium for urban representation. Conversely, marble appears in more selective honorifics, thereby functioning as a marker of social hierarchy and prestige. The occurrence of dark-colored marble in a single votive inscription represents an exceptional choice of material. Collectively, this distribution suggests that inscriptions are not merely portable records, but cultural artifacts whose meanings are influenced by the status and accessibility of their material. 6 Kumler 2023, 452. Ayşegül DURUKAN 174 Fig. 1. Distribution of inscription typologies according to material (limestone, marble, dark marble) Fig. 2. Material distribution across architectural and non-architectural affiliations Figure 2 demonstrates that limestone is predominantly utilized in inscriptions, encompassing both architectural and non-architectural contexts. This distribution implies that limestone was historically and geographically accessible, acting as a conduit for the continuity of the city’s architectural heritage. Conversely, marble exhibits a more restricted distribution; its maritime importation underscores its symbolic role as a material reserved for specific contexts. Collectively, the two illustrations indicate that material selection is not merely a physical substrate for inscriptions but also a fundamental factor influencing their typological functions, architectural settings, and placement within public spaces. Therefore, the material– construction layer provides an essential analytical framework for comprehending the intricate relationships among architectural context, material technology, and cultural representation Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis 175 within the epigraphic record. Contextual Mobility and Reinterpretation of Inscriptions It is apparent that sole reliance on location information, whether in situ or incertus, is inadequate for the comprehensive assessment of epigraphic documents. Inscribed texts are not restricted to their original sites of creation; instead, they circulate across diverse structures, functions, and urban centers throughout history, exhibiting multilayered mobility. Therefore, the architectural context must be interpreted in a manner that considers not only the inscription’s current condition but also its pathways of displacement, reuse, and the adoption of new meanings7. The spatial analysis of epigraphic data is subject to ongoing reinterpretation concerning the various positions it has held over time. Two levels of continuity can be distinguished: the first pertains to the carrier material of the inscription and its textual content, which are preserved as a stable layer; the second involves meanings derived from the spatial context, which constitute a variable layer. Consequently, the horizon of meaning associated with the epigraphic document is reiterated in each period through its specific location. This phenomenon can be explained through the use of spolia within the context of Roman civilization. D. Kinney (1997, 118ff.) emphasizes that marble artifacts, which carry personal and meaningful connections, were often reused and repurposed in various forms, including funerary stelae, honorific inscriptions, and altars. Reuse has not only helped preserve materials but also allowed inscriptions to gain new meanings across different contexts. In this regard, the creative reuse of spolia as ‘new material’ can be linked to a process of renovatio memoriae 8. Yet this transformation has not always met with uniform acceptance. While some viewers regard spolia as a dignified component that forges a link with the past, for others it signifies the disintegration of the city and of social order9. Accordingly, spolia emerges as a phenomenon that simultaneously renders continuity and rupture visible, activating social memory in divergent directions. The transfer of inscriptions from Phaselis to Attaleia exemplifies one of the most tangible instances of this contextual fluidity. Following the Arab raids of the seventh century, inscribed blocks transported from Phaselis were repurposed as spolia in the restoration of Attaleia’s walls and harbor. This process not only illustrates the functional transformation of inscriptions within an urban context but also highlights the evolving relationships they established with new urban identities. Documents TAM II/3 1191, 1210, 1183, and 1217 corroborate this transfer at the epigraphic level. The block designated AC13, housed in the Antalya Archaeological Museum, along with inscribed plinths retrieved from the sea and detailed in Akçay (2016), exhibits archaeological evidence of displacement and reuse10. The 7 See also Arslan & Tüner Önen 2023, 132ff. 8 Renovatio memoriae refers to the transformation of the past into a new memory framework through the redeployment of inscriptions and monuments as ‘new material’, in contrast to damnatio memoriae . According to D. Kinney (1997, 146), reception was not monolithic; some audiences perceived such interventions as legitimate continuity, while others regarded them as evidence of social disintegration. 9 Kinney 1997, 146. 10 Akçay 2016, 11-12, 33, 46, 51, 95. Ayşegül DURUKAN 176 wear observed on the surfaces of these artifacts underscores the fragility of the spatial integrity of inscriptions and affirms that digital preservation is essential for safeguarding epigraphic heritage. Augmented Epigraphy: Digital Heritage Management and Inclusive Access in Phaselis The article outputs, compiled as a comprehensive catalogue and prepared for data processing, include the Catalogue of Honorary Inscriptions along the Main Street of Phaselis and their Architectural Affiliations (Fig. 1). The inscriptions on the main street have been digitally exhibited via Augmented Reality (AR), with access facilitated both online and on-site. Through uniquely identified QR codes linking to the city’s official website and database, open access is provided to high-resolution facsimiles, detailed transcriptions, transliterations, translations, content and location data, in situ status, conventional and advanced documentation records (RTI, photogrammetry, AR, laser scanning, restitution), three-dimensional outputs, conservation and restoration logs, and pertinent publications. An accessibility framework inclusive of individuals who are blind or have mobility restrictions has been adopted; solid models of the inscriptions have been developed and made accessible through QRassisted guidance. Supported by the studie’s findings, this integrated digital guidance model exemplifies its contribution to cultural heritage conservation and enhances the appeal of tourism offerings. The investigation into the relationship between epigraphy and architectural context is established through a descriptive assessment of the data contained within this catalogue; the subsequent subsections systematically present the patterns and interpretations derived from this dataset11. At this stage, rather than presenting tabular data in detail, the analysis12 advances directly to examinations of dimensional indicators, typology, chronology, and material characteristics13. Width measurements have been systematically extracted from standardized dimension fields using consistent notation14. 11 Data source and scope: The analysis is based on twenty-two entries from the working table titled 'Catalogue of Honorary Inscriptions along the Main Street of Phaselis and Their Architectural Affiliations'. Since AC15 a/b is recorded on a single row, it is considered as one entry in the primary tables. When an alternative double count is necessary, it is specified in the relevant tables via a footnote. 12 Analytical approach: Descriptive statistics only. Totals, percentages, medians, and ranges are reported; no inferential tests are performed. 13 Variable definitions: Architectural Affiliation = Ita indicates the presence of an architectural connection. NonArchitectural or Uncertain Affiliation signifies the absence of, or uncertainty regarding, such a connection. The classification of inscriptions includes the following categories: Honorific, Imperial Dedication, Agonistic, Votive inscriptions, and Milestone. Dimensional data are obtained from the dimensions field. 14 Measurement extraction: The width variable is read from the first occurrence of the token W: … m in the dimensions field. Units are meters, and notation has been standardized for consistency. Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis 177 Fig. 3. Catalogue of Honorary Inscriptions on Phaselis’ Main Street with their Associated Architectural Contexts Ayşegül DURUKAN 178 Typological Hierarchy in Architectural Embedding: Differential Integration Patterns of Phaselitan Inscriptions The catalogue analysis reveals marked differentiation in architectural integration patterns across inscription types. Certain types exhibit higher frequencies of architectural affiliation, while others predominantly fall under non-architectural or uncertain categories. A clear hierarchy emerges between inscription types and their degree of architectural embeddedness15. Imperial dedications demonstrate the highest rate of architectural affiliation: four of six examples (66.7%) display direct architectural links. This elevated proportion indicates that imperial dedications occupied a privileged position within the urban landscape and were intentionally integrated into prominent architectural settings to underscore their ceremonial and political significance. The incorporation of these dedications into buildings and monuments reflects Phaselis’s civic strategy of manifesting allegiance to imperial authority through spatial emphasis. Architecturally affiliated subset: FBA-2022-6013/14 [AC10]; FBA-2022-6013/18 and 19 [AC15 a/b]; FBA-2022-6013/21 [AC16]; FBA-2022-6013/22 [GL6] (Fig. 4, 5, 6, 7). Fig. 4. Honorary Inscription for a Priest of Athena and a Priestess of Imperial Cult16 15 FBA-2022-6013/18 and FBA-2022-6013/19 (AC15 a/b) are fragments of a single inscription; therefore, they have been counted as one record. 16 Akçay 2016, 35-37. Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis 185 Fig. 12. Epigram of Praise Written for an Athlete25 The overall temporal horizon indicates that architecturally affiliated records cluster within a fifty-three-year window between 93 and 146 CE. Within this band, the Domitianic phase forms the starting point, a peak is observed in the Hadrianic years, and the final integrated example is recorded at the end of the Antoninus Pius period. Although the catalogue includes inscriptions dated after this span, no new instance of architectural affiliation is attested after 146 CE. Furthermore, four of the six architecturally affiliated records are securely dated within this period; one is broadly attributed to the second century, and one remains undated. This pattern indicates that the practice of incorporating inscriptions into architecture along the main street intensified within a specific temporal span and then weakened, implying a shift in urban representation priorities and commemorative regimes after the late second century. The findings suggest that the integration of inscriptions with architecture was not merely an aesthetic or technical decision but a strategic discourse articulated within the ideological and philosophical context of Rome. Particularly, in alignment with the Second Stoa’s tendency to sacralize the concepts of social order and law, the incorporation of imperial honorifics and dedications into monumental structures can be interpreted as a political act serving a cosmic order. 25 Şahin 1999, 45 nr. 9; Merkelbach & Stauber 2002, 76; Akçay 2016, 51-52. Ayşegül DURUKAN 186 Fig. 13. Honorary Inscription for Aurelius Ptolemaios26 Fig. 14. Honorary Inscription for Aurelius Kougas27 26 Bérard 1892, 444ff. nr. 94; Laum 1914, Inventory No: AC5 1914, 124 nr. 141; TAM II 1206; Tüner Önen 2008, 343-345 nr. 32; Akçay 2016, 54-55. 27 Adak et al. 2005, 9 nr. 6; Tüner Önen 2008, 345-346 nr. 33; Akçay 2016, 56-58 nr. 11. Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis 187 Fig. 15. Honoring Ptolemaios28 Fig. 16. Honorary Inscription for the Lyciarches Aurelius [Pamphilos]29 28 Beaufort 1818, 66; CIG 4332; IGR III 764; Laum 1914, 124 nr. 140; Barth 1850, 252 nr. 26; CIG Add. III 1156; van Buren 1908, 188 nr. 17; TAM II 1200; Blackman 1981, 140 fig. 69, 4; Tüner Önen 2008, 324-326 nr. 22; Akçay 2016, 61. 29 Adak et al. 2005, 15 nr. 11; Tüner Önen 2008, 339; Akçay 2016, 46. Ayşegül DURUKAN 188 Fig. 17. Agonistic Inscription for the Winner of the Agon Testamented by Eukratidas30 Fig. 18. An Honorarium for Rufus [......]Procurator of the Province of Lycia-Pamphylia31 Simultaneously, this architectural-epigraphic integration reflects the impact of the Pax Romana in the Eastern Mediterranean. The political stability provided by the imperial peace enabled the deliberate construction of monumental programs, which accelerated the institutionalization of imperial ideology32 along the main streets of trading cities in the Eastern Mediterranean, such as Phaselis, at sensory, temporal, and spatial levels. Within this context, 30 Adak et al. 2005, 8 nr. 5; Tüner Önen 2008, 347-348 nr. 34; Akçay 2016, 81. 31 Tüner Önen 2008, 331 nr. 24; Akçay 2016, 73-74. 32 See also Evangelidis 2008, 125. Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis 189 the merging of inscriptions with architecture can be seen not only as Romans reflection of the past but also as a forward-looking form of “ urban memory engineering ”. Scale and Placement: Dimensional Analysis for Architectural Integration Strategies Dimensional analysis of inscription-structure relationships on the main street employs width measurements to identify correlations between stone scale and architectural attachment modes. The data distinguish between two primary integration strategies: affixation to superstructural components (architraves, lintels) and placement as freestanding blocks with restricted display surfaces. This quantitative, corpus-based analysis reflects methodological principles established in digital epigraphy, wherein standardized metadata enables systematic architectural characterization33. Operationally, a descriptive dimensional analysis along the primary street of Phaselis reveals how the width of the inscribed stone surface aligns with the mode of architectural integration. Through a measurement-based analysis, the distinction becomes apparent between examples positioned on superstructure elements such as the architrave and lintel and those retained as freestanding blocks with narrow display faces, interpreted within architectural terms. In processing the dataset, the first “W: ... m” entry in the “Dimensions” field of each record was recorded as the width. In the single case where “W” is absent, the “Diam” value was employed as a substitute, with all measurements standardized to meters. The subset exhibiting architectural integration includes the following items: FBA-2022-6013/21 [AC16] (W: 2.35 m) (Fig. 6), FBA-2022-6013/18 and 19 [AC15 a/b] (W: 2.24 m) (Fig. 5), FBA-2022-6013/22 [GL6] (Block I, W: 1.25 m) (Fig. 7), FBA-2022-6013/14 [AC10] (W: 1.18 m) (Fig. 16), FBA-2022-6013/16 [AC12] (W: 1.06 m) (Fig. 10), and FBA-2022-6013/17 [AC13] (W: 0.59 m) (Fig. 15). In the subset without architectural affiliation or with uncertain affiliation, the inscriptions are as follows: FBA-2022-6013/01 [AC2] (W: 0,49 m) (Fig. 21), FBA-2022-6013/02 [AC1] (W: 1,56 m) (Fig. 16), FBA-2022-6013/03 [AC19]: W: 0,38 m (Fig.17), FBA-2022-6013/04 [BH1] (W: 0,78 m) (Fig. 19), FBA-2022-6013/06 [AC3] (W: 0,50 m) (Fig. 22), FBA-20226013/07 [AC4] (W: 0,57 m) (Fig. 12), FBA-2022-6013/08 [AC5] (W: 0,57 m) (Fig. 13), FBA-2022-6013/09 [AC6] (W: 0,58 m) (Fig. 14), FBA-2022-6013/10 [AC7]: W: 0,47 m (Fig. ), FBA-2022-6013/11 [AC8] (W: 0,49 m) (Fig. 20), FBA-2022-6013/12 [AC9]: W: 0,49 m (Fig.9), FBA-2022-6013/13 [AC18]: W: 0,48 m (Fig. 15), FBA-2022-6013/15 [AC11]: W: 0,54 m (Fig. 24), FBA-2022-6013/20 [AC14]: W: 0,47 m (Fig. 18). 33 Rossi 2020, 145. Ayşegül DURUKAN 190 Fig. 19. Sotas Priest of Helios and other Gods34 Fig. 20. Honoring Ptolemaios35 34 Adak et al. 2006, 3 nr. 1; Tüner Önen 2008, 307-308 nr. 4; Akçay 2016, 123. 35 Beaufort 1818, 66; CIG 4332; IGR III 764; Laum 1914, 124 nr. 140; Barth 1850, 252 nr. 26; CIG Add. III, 1156; van Buren 1908, 188 nr. 17; TAM II 1200; Blackman 1981, 140 fig. 69, 4; Tüner Önen 2008, 324-326 nr. 22; Akçay 2016, 61. Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis 191 Fig. 21. The Honoring for […]Ara[t]os Son of Obrimos36 Fig. 22. Honorary Inscription for Philokrates of Olympos37 Furthermore, regarding FBA-2022-6013/05 [AC22] (Fig. 23), the width was not documented; therefore, the value “Diam: 0.45 m” was used as a surrogate for width. In this context, the analysis yielded solely descriptive statistics. The reported results encompass totals, percentages, the median defined as the midpoint of the ordered series, and the range, which is calculated as the difference between the maximum and minimum values. 36 Tüner Önen 2015, 27-29 nr. 1; Akçay 2016, 106-108. 37 Adak et al. 2005, 15 nr. 11; Tüner Önen 2008, 340; Akçay 2016, 16, 49-50. Ayşegül DURUKAN 192 Fig. 23. Column-shaped stele38 Fig. 24. Honorary Inscription for Kolalemis39 A dimensional analysis of the inscriptions along the main street of Phaselis, based on width measurements, indicates that the integration of inscriptions and structures adheres to a 38 Tüner Önen 2015, 27. 39 Bérard 1892, 443 nr. 93; TAM II 1202; Tüner Önen 2008, 332-333 nr. 25; Akçay 2016, 64-67. Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis 193 discernible system within the ancient urban fabric. Among this corpus of twenty-two inscriptions, six demonstrate an organic connection with architectural structures, whereas sixteen are either uncertain or appear as independent blocks. A significant correlation is observed between the size of the inscriptions and their architectural integration. When comparing the width range of integrated inscriptions, from 0.59 m to 2.35 m, with that of independent inscriptions, from 0.38 m to 1.56 m, the integrated group not only begins at smaller sizes but also extends to considerably larger dimensions. Notably, large-format examples seem to have been positioned on architraves, lintels, and other structural members, thereby becoming integral components of durable architectural solutions. This extensive spectrum of widths reflects the manner in which structural requirements influenced integrated inscriptions, underscoring a preference for monumental inscriptions in antiquity, particularly for imperial-period dedications and honorific texts for prominent individuals. Conversely, the narrower size range observed in independent inscriptions aligns with conventional practices in monument production. In contrast, the portable nature of the predominantly incertus small-scale honorific bases substantiates the inference that these inscriptions were detached from their original contexts. Following invasions between the 7th and 9th centuries CE, numerous stone blocks appear to have been prepared for transfer from Phaselis to Attaleia or repurposed within the city for various purposes. Such displacements can be regarded as primary reasons for their current uncertain locations. Archaeological evidence further suggests that some examples were utilized as fill material in harbor infrastructure works. Consequently, these inscriptions not only lost their contextual integrity but also underwent physical interventions, including removal, transportation, and reuse, which severed them from their original epigraphic setting. A notable detail among these inscriptions is that two different items, FBA-2022-6013/01 and FBA-2022-6013/12, share the exact width of 0.49 m. This suggests standardized block manufacture and indicates that such examples can be evaluated as a serially produced and prototypical category of honorific inscriptions40. Rather than unique monuments, these pieces can be interpreted as portable outputs of a repeated and ritualized tradition of commemoration. The analytical results also have implications for conservation. Large-scale inscriptions that are integrated with architecture tend to remain in situ and therefore show greater stability in terms of archaeological context. In contrast, small-scale and portable inscriptions display dispersal due to high mobility factors, which causes the original epigraphic fabric of the ancient city to survive only in a partial and fragmented form. In this perspective, dimensional analysis functions not only as a quantitative descriptive tool but also as a method that makes visible the hierarchical logics of production in the culture of ancient inscriptions, the strategies of architectural prioritization, and the risk assessments that inform 40 Conversely, these inscription bases cannot be considered in isolation. Statues once mounted on them, whether of stone or of metal (bronze, silver, etc.), were frequently dismantled, damaged, or destroyed for other purposes, thereby depriving the bases of their complementary elements. The removal of the statue diminishes the inscription’s monumentality and also attenuates its original semantic and ritual role. Ayşegül DURUKAN 194 contemporary conservation approaches. This dimensional reading of the Phaselis epigraphic corpus provides a reference framework for the comparative evaluation of inscription and architecture relationships in similar ancient cities. Interpretive Synthesis: Architectural Epigraphy as Urban Memory The honorific inscriptions along the main street of Phaselis elucidate how the city’s collective memory is constructed in both material and symbolic dimensions. Integrated with architectural elements, this epigraphic fabric makes visible patterns of civic representation and the layered structure of urban memory. To interpret this phenomenon, Henri Lefebvre’s “spatial triad” is adopted as the principal theoretical framework. Lefebvre (1991, 33) conceptualizes space as a dynamic process produced through social practices, elucidating it through three interrelated notions: spatial practice, representations of space, and representational spaces. From this perspective, produced space can be examined as a comprehensible and decipherable entity composed of historically accumulated layers of meaning41. Much like an inscription that invites the viewer to read and interpret its layered text, produced space can be approached as a palimpsest of historically accumulated meanings. Comparative evidence from Roman Italy also suggests that honorific inscriptions served as mediators of civic visibility and inter-city affiliation. This analogy is not intended as a direct historical comparison but rather as a conceptual framework that demonstrates the role of inscriptions as communicative agents within broader urban systems. Roncaglia identifies such regional networks formed through the benefactory initiatives of local elites, which maintained both local cohesion and allegiance to the empire42. The Phaselis corpus reflects this communicative logic, illustrating how the epigraphic landscape functioned simultaneously as a medium of civic representation and as a provincial expression of imperial ideology. This theoretical triad provides a robust analytic ground for examining both the production and perception of the honorific inscriptions in Phaselis. On the one hand, the inscriptions belong to representations of space through their relations to architectural configuration and urban design; on the other, they are produced at the level of spatial practice through everyday use, ceremony, and circulation. At the intersection of these two dimensions, epigraphic works that become part of the architectural whole function as representational spaces, symbolically deepening citizens’ public experience. In this way, the inscription–architecture ensemble makes the traces of social practices in space legible and sustains the layered continuity of urban memory43. Kevin Lynch’s (1960, 108-109) ‘image of the city’ theory, developed on urban readability and collective memory, is complementary in explaining the perceptual roles of epigraphic focuses in the city. The urban image is constructed through the holistic orchestration of paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks44. As perception intensifies at decision points and landmarks 41 Lefebvre 1991, 17. 42 Roncaglia 2014, 191ff. 43 Lefebvre 1991, 38. 44 Lynch 1960, 46ff. Inscription–Architecture Integration and Urban Memory Engineering in Phaselis 201 10.1007/s41245-023-00196-8. Laum B. 1914, Städtisches und staatliches Münzwesen der Griechen bis auf Alexander den Großen . Leipzig. Lefebvre H. 1991, The Production of Space . Oxford & Cambridge. Lynch K. 1960, The Image of the City . Cambridge. Norberg-Schulz C. 1976, Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture . New York. Roncaglia C. E. 2014, “‘Pliny Country’ Revisited: Connectivity and Regionalism in Roman Italy”. Eds. J. Bodel & N. Dimitrova, Ancient Documents and Their Contexts: First North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy . Leiden & Boston, 191-212. Rossi I. 2020, “Qualitative and quantitative approaches in digital epigraphy”. Archeologia e Calcolatori 31/2, 145-156. Şahin S. 1999, “EMA I: Inschriften aus Pamphylien und Lykien”. EA 31, 40–52. Tüner Önen N. 2008, Phaselis Antik Kenti ve Teritoryumu . Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi. Antalya. Tüner Önen N. 2013, “Hadrian’s Travels in the Eastern Mediterranean Based on New Inscriptions from Phaselis”. Adalya XVI, 93-106. Tüner Önen N. 2015, “Yeni Buluntular Işığında Phaselis Epigrafi Çalışmaları”. Phaselis I, 19-38. van Buren A. W. 1908, “Inscriptions from Asia Minor, Cyprus and the Cyrenaica”. JHS 28, 180-201. Walpole R. 1820, Travels in Various Countries of the East: Being a Continuation of Memoirs Relating to European and Asiatic Turkey . London. Weber W. 1907, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus . Leipzig.