MacMullen argues that the rise and fall of the epigraphic habit reflects broader shifts in Roman culture. Digital tools make it easier to examine the details more closely. High-res photos allow scholars to revisit stones that earlier researchers could only partially transcribe, and digital mapping makes regional variation more obvious than it would be when working with printed catalogs.

I chose the province of Cilicia, which resulted in five sites mapped here, Adana, Anazarbus, Hierapolis Castabala, Mopsuestia, and Seleucia ad Calycadnum. All of them are towns, not rural villas or isolated monuments. That lines up with what we would expect from the epigraphic habit. People set up inscriptions where others would actually see them. A funerary monument along a road leading into a city like Mopsuestia or Anazarbus would have been seen by far more people than one placed out in the countryside. The map basically reflects Roman urban presence in the region, which makes sense because that is where the social motivation to commission inscriptions would have been strongest.

I chose this inscription because it had a man carved into it, which would be easier for me to understand that trying to read latin. The picture was taken by C. Witschel and last updated in 2010. It looks like a funerary altar or tombstone. The man carved on the front looks relaxed. The letters are pretty worn, but you can still make out what looks like a name near the top of the inscribed field. There is another line of text below the man, but its harder to see.