This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Edited by
B. Halpern — M. H. E. Weippert Th. P.J. van den Hout — I. Winter
VOLUME 22
A Journey to Palmyra Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers
Edited by
Eleonora Cussini
BRILL LEIDEN BOSTON 2005 •
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data are available on the Library of Congress website http://catalog.loc.gov
CONTENTS Foreword and Acknowledgements ................................................ ix Abbreviations ................................................................................ xiii List of contributors ....................................................................... xv Biographic Notes and Bibliography of Delbert R. Hillers .......... xvii The Sacred Banquets at Palmyra and the Functions of the Tesserae: Reflections on the Tokens Found in the Arßu Temple Khaled al-As’ad, Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, Jean-Baptiste Yon ................................................................. 1 Greek and Latin Words in Palmyrene Inscriptions: A Comparison with Syriac Sebastian P. Brock ............................................................... 11 Beyond the Spindle: Investigating the Role of Palmyrene Women Eleonora Cussini .................................................................. 26 The City of the Dead Michal gawlikowski ............................................................ 44 Variation in the Palmyrene Honorific Inscriptions Agustinus Gianto ................................................................. 74 Three New Palmyrene Inscriptions Andrew D. Gross .................................................................. 89 Lexicographical and Grammatical Notes on the Palmyrene Aramaic Texts Baruch A. Levine .................................................................. 103 The Safaitic Inscriptions at Dura Europos Michael C. A. Macdonald .................................................. 118 Zwei palmyrenische Relieffragmente Christa Müller-Kessler ..................................................... 130 Zu palmyrenischen Inschriften auf Reliefs Klaus Parlasca ..................................................................... 137 Palmyrene Burial Practices From Funerary Goods Kiyohide Saito ..................................................................... 150 A New Tessera From Palmyra. Questions of Iconography and Epigraphy Andreas Schmidt-Colinet and Khaled al-As‘ad ................ 166
viii
contents
Palmyra in the Third Century Javier Teixidor ....................................................................... 181 Bibliography .................................................................................... List of Figures and Plates ................................................................ Epigraphical Index .......................................................................... General Index .................................................................................
227 249 251 252
contents
ix
FOREWORD In the spring of 1999, Delbert Hillers, together with his wife Pat, and myself, had planned a research trip to Palmyra to take place in the following September. Our idea was a long, relaxed visit to the archaeological site in order collate inscriptions still in situ and in the museums in Palmyra and in Damascus as part of our ongoing project on Palmyrene epigraphy. Later on, in August, as we were working together in Baltimore, the illness that he had been fiercely fighting against for the last three years, worsened, and he decided, with great regret, to cancel the trip, with the hope it was just postponed. As we parted, when I left to Italy at the beginning of September, I assured him we would take our trip, later on. Unfortunately, Delbert Hillers passed away on September 25. Delbert Hillers devoted the last fifteen years of his research to Palmyrene studies. His interest in Palmyrene Aramaic, however, dates back to the end of the 1960s at least, when he directed a Ph.D. dissertation at the Johns Hopkins University written by J.K. Stark, Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions (Stark 1971). Later on, as of 1985, as Co-editor of The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project, Delbert Hillers and his research unit at Hopkins started working on Palmyrene Aramaic. I was lucky enough to enroll the following year in the Department of Near Eastern Studies, and be able to work with him at preparing a database of Palmyrene texts, and, at the same time, studying and collating inscriptions in museums and private collections across America and Europe. Thanks to his exceptional generosity, I became part of the publication project resulting in the volume Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (1996). During preparation of that volume, Delbert Hillers started corresponding and meeting with a number of scholars working in the field of Palmyrene studies, exchanging views and ideas, and taking great pleasure in it, as he told me in many occasions. A Journey to Palmyra originates from the desire to remember a scholar who contributed with his work to Palmyrene studies, and who was still very much involved in research in this area at the time of his untimely death. The Journey mentioned in the title clearly alludes, on a personal level, to our trip which never took place, but it is accomplished here—as I hope—thanks to the contributions of leading
x
foreword
scholars in the field of Palmyrene and Semitic studies. I am wholeheartedly grateful to them all for their participation. Furthermore, it was a pleasure to be able to include, thanks to a suggestion of Baruch A. Levine, the paper of Andrew D. Gross, who, as an undergraduate had studied with Delbert Hillers at Hopkins. Many of the contributors are part of the group mentioned above or old friends of Delbert Hillers. One of them could not participate, but he is fondly remembered here. As I was sending out a call for papers letter, H. J. W. Drijvers, declined the offer because of health reasons, and with great regret I was later informed that he passed away in 2002. As I started planning this volume, I did not have in mind a mere memorial volume—something Delbert Hillers would not have liked— but rather a research tool, containing papers focusing on different aspects of Palmyrene archaeological research, history and social history, art and philology, taking the readers on a journey to the site and through present issues in Palmyrene studies, in order to illustrate aspects of the complex and multifaceted culture of ancient Palmyra and of neighbouring areas. The thirteen papers—appearing in alphabetical order below—address all these issues. In the first contribution, Khaled al-As’ad, with Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet and Jean-Baptiste Yon examine the institution of the marzeaÈ, or sacred banquet, in the light of new archaeological findings. These are inscribed tesserae found in the excavation of the Arßu temple. Another paper, by Andreas Schmidt-Colinet and Khaled al-As’ad, analyses the same type of artifact. The authors discuss the iconographic motive on another tessera discovered (together with a fragment of building inscription mentioning a banquet hall) in 2001 by the Syro-German mission during excavation of a building complex located south of the Roman town. As already experienced in the course of preparation of PAT, the Palmyrene epigraphic corpus is constantly increasing due to archaeological finds, such as those mentioned, as well as the remarkable results of the Japanese expedition to Palmyra show (Higuchi–Izumi 1994; Higuchi–Saito 1998; Higuchi–Saito 2001). The work of the Japanese team is here illustrated by the analysis of burial goods studied by Kiyohide Saito. Besides archaeological finds, “new” unpublished inscriptions surface from time to time on the antiquities market. These pieces were often removed from Palmyrene tombs as results of clandestine excavations dating back to the early 1900s, and have become part of
foreword
xi
private collections. Some of these collections have now been dismembered, and, as a result, materials are retrieved and made available to the scientific community, as we may see in the paper by Klaus Parlasca. An inscribed male relief-bust discussed by Parlasca, auctioned in Vienna in November 2001 is published here by Christa Müller-Kessler, together with a fragmentary funerary relief depicting a woman discovered in London. Additional Palmyrene materials, found in international art sales include the three reliefs published here by Andrew D. Gross from auctions at Christie’s, New York, in June and December 2002. This last group is especially significant for it documents three different text-types: another funerary epitaph (accompanying the relief of a woman standing within an arched stela, an example of the Palmyrene nefesh reliefs discussed below by Gawlikowski), a dedicatory text and the foundation inscription of a tomb, mentioning its renovation. The interaction between iconography and the epigraphic records lays at the root of the study of the role of Palmyrene women, by this writer. Four more papers focus on Palmyrene and other epigraphic records, and these analyses shed additional light on the culture of ancient Palmyra. Sebastian Brock examines Greek words appearing in Palmyrene inscriptions and compares these attestations with the Syriac material, while Agustinus Gianto studies the formulation of honorific inscriptions. Furthermore, Baruch A. Levine discusses affinities between Palmyrene inscriptions and the recently published Nabatean-Aramaic papyri from NaÈal \ever (Yadin et al. 2002), and other literary sources in Aramaic and Post-Biblical Hebrew falling within the corpus of Rabbinic literature. Michael Macdonald investigates Safaitic inscriptions found at Dura Europos, some of which are unpublished or known to us in copy only. A thorough discussion of Palmyrene tombs by Michal Gawlikowski, leading the readers through the “city of the dead,” and a long, profound essay by Javier Teixidor presenting the historical events that marked the last phase in the history of the city, conclude our Journey to Palmyra. I wish to express my gratitude to my friends Simone C. Burger Robin, for her invaluable help in the course of revision of the final manuscript, to Christa Müller-Kessler, who offered many precious suggestions and encouragement at the very outset of this project, and to Daniele Montruccoli for his help in digitalizing the illustrations. I am grateful to the Editors of the series Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, Baruch Halpern, M.H.E. Weippert, Th. P.J. van den Hout and
xii
foreword
Irene Winter for accepting A Journey to Palmyra for publication, and I warmly thank Mattie Kuiper, and Fem Eggers, editors, Publishing Unit Religion and Social Sciences, Brill Academic Publishers, for their patience and help. Giovanni and Giulia, who have known and loved Del, and Federico, accompanied me with their unfailing support.
contents
xiii
ABBREVIATIONS AA(A)S Abb. ad loc Anon. BA Ber. 70 BGU Br BS III C CAD CCPA I-IV cf. CIL CIS CIS II CIS V constr CPA CRAI D DaM Déd DJD DJPA DNWSI Drijvers–Healey DSA ed, edd EH em et al. FGrH FHG
Les Annales Archéologiques (Arabes) Syriennes illustration ad locum, on this passage Anonymous Bertinelli Angeli 1970 Gawlikowski 1970, Berytus 17 Berliner griechische Urkunden Brockelmann 1928 Dunant 1971 Afel, causative verbal conjugation The Assyrian Dictionary, University of Chicago Müller-Kessler–Sokoloff 1997compare Corpus inscriptionum latinarum Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum 1893-1954 Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum 1950-1951 construct state Christian-Palestinian Aramaic Comptes rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres Pael, verb conjugation with doubling of middle radical Damaszener Mitteilungen Milik 1972 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, vols. I- , Oxford, Clarendon Press Sokoloff 1990 Hoftijzer–Jongeling 1995 Drijvers–Healey 1999 Tal 2000 editor, editors Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History emphatic state et alii Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Müller et al., Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum
xiv
fn G HA IGLS Inv Inv I-IX Inv X Inv XI Inv XII JBA JDS 3 JPA JS LIMC VII LS m n.d. NH no. p., pp. P. Oxy PAT pl Pl. Pho-Pu PS ptc RES RTP S s SA sf SO s.v. TDT vol, vols WH
abbreviations footnote Peal, basic verb conjugation Historia Augusta Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre Cantineau 1930-1936 Starcky 1949 Teixidor 1965 Bounni–Teixidor 1975 Jewish-Babylonian Aramaic Yadin et al. 2002 Jewish-Palestinian Aramaic Jaussen–Sauvignac 1909-1922 Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Augé 1994 Brockelmann 1928 masculine not dated Pliny, Naturalis Historia number page, pages Grenfell et al., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Hillers–Cussini 1996 plural plate Krahmalkov 2000 Palmyrene reliefs in Ingholt 1928 participle Chabot 1900-1904, Répertoire d’Epigraphie Sémitique Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955 Safaitic and Palmyrene graffiti from Dura Europos in Torrey 1931 singular Samaritan Aramaic suffix Sibylline Oracles sub voce Yardeni 2000 volume, volumes Winnett–Harding 1978
abbreviations
xv
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Khaled al-As’ad Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet
Sebastian P. Brock Eleonora Cussini Michal Gawlikowski Agustinus Gianto Andrew D. Gross Baruch A. Levine
Michael Macdonald Christa Müller-Kessler Klaus Parlasca Kiyohide Saito Andreas Schmidt-Colinet Javier Teixidor Jean-Baptiste Yon
Director of Antiquities and Museum of Palmyra, Tadmur, Syria Laboratoire des études sémitiques anciennes, CNRS, Collège de France, Paris Oriental Institute, University of Oxford Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia University of Warsaw Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome New York University Professor Emeritus of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, New York University Oriental Institute, University of Oxford Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Professor Emeritus, Universität Erlangen Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara, Japan Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Wien Collège de France, Paris HISOMA, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, CNRS, Lyon
xvi
abbreviations
abbreviations
xvii
BIOGRAPHIC NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DELBERT R. HILLERS Delbert Roy Hillers was born in Chester, South Dakota on November 7, 1932. After receiving a B.A. from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, in 1954, he enrolled in the Graduate Program at the Johns Hopkins University and, a student of William F. Albright, he received his M.A. in 1958. In 1957 he was ordained as a Lutheran minister at Concordia Seminary, and, in 1963, he received his Ph.D. from The Johns Hopkins University. Following a first appointment at Concordia Senior College, Fort Wayne, Indiana, in 1958-60, in 1963 he became Assistant Professor at The Johns Hopkins University. Associate Professor in 1966, he was appointed full Professor in 1970. In 1971, he became the W. W. Spence Professor of Semitic Languages. Co-editor of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research with William F. Albright from 1965 to 1968, and editor from 1969 to 1973, he was acting chair of the Department of Near Eastern Studies from 1964 to 1970, and chair from 1976 to 1979. Member of the Drew-McCormick expedition to Tell Balatah, Jordan in 1962, he participated to the ASOR excavation at Taanach, Jordan, in 1963, in 1966 and in 1968. In 1975 he directed soundings at Tell Ashara (Terqa), in Syria. Annual Professor at the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem in 1968-69, he was Trustee of the Amman Center of the American Schools of Oriental Research from 1978 to 1981 and member of the Damascus Advisory Committee of the American Schools of Oriental Research from 1984 to 1990. In 1970 he delivered the Schaff Lectures at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, was Annenberg visiting Professor at Dropsie College in 1985-86, and lectured in United States and European academic institutions. He was a member of the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee of the National Council of Churches from 1981 to 1984. From 1985 to 1992 he was co-editor with J. A. Fitzmyer and S. A. Kaufman of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, and recipient, as Principal investigator of NEH grants. He retired from the Department of Near Eastern Studies of The Johns Hopkins University in 1994.
xviii
biographic notes and bibliography Books:
Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Covenant: the History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969. Lamentations, Anchor Bible. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1972. Second revised edition, 1992. Micah, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, Delbert R. Hillers and Eleonora Cussini. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1996.
Books edited: Discoveries in the Wâdi ed-Dâliyeh, by Paul W. Lapp, Nancy Lapp, et al., Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1974.
Articles: 1958 1963 1964
1965
1967 1968 1970
“An Historical Survey of Old Testament Theology since 1922,” Concordia Theological Monthly 29 (1958) 571-594; 664-677. “Revelation 13:18 and a Scroll from Murabba’at,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 170 (April, 1963) 65. “Amos 7,4 and Ancient Parallels,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 26 (1964) 221-225. “An Alphabetic Cuneiform Tablet from Taanach (TT 433),” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 173 (Feb., 1964) 4550. “A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 176 (Dec., 1964) 46-47. “A Note on Judges 5, 8a,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (1965) 124126. “A Convention in Hebrew Literature, the Reaction to Bad News,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1965) 86-90. “Delocutive Verbs in Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967) 320-324. “Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968) 48-55. “Ugaritic ànpt ‘Wave-offering’,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 198 (April, 1970) 42. “A Reading in the Beth-Shemesh Tablet,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 199 (Oct., 1970) 66. “The Goddess with the Tambourine,” Concordia Theological Monthly 41 (1970) 606-619. “Fifty years of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
biographic notes and bibliography
1971
1972 1973
1974
1976 1978
1979
1983
xix
Research,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 200 (Dec., 1970) 3-7. “Additional Note,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 200 (Dec., 1970) 18. “A Hebrew Cognate of unuààu/’unt in Is 33:8,” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971) 257-259. “The Roads to Zion Mourn (Lam 1:4),” Perspective 12 (1971) 121133. (Essays in memory of Paul W. Lapp). “Burial,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 4. Jerusalem: Encyclopaedia Judaica, and New York: Macmillan, 1971. Cols. 1515-1516. “Cistern,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 5. Cols. 578-579. “Demons, Demonology,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 5. Cols. 15211526. “PaÈad yißÈaq,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972) 90-92. “màkn’ ‘Temple’ in Inscriptions from Hatra,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 207 (Oct., 1972) 54-56. “The Bow of Aqht: The Meaning of a Mythological Theme,”7180, in: H. A. Hoffner, Jr. (ed.), Orient and Occident (Cyrus Gordon Volume), Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker, and Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener, 1973. “Syrian and Palestinian religions,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition (1974) 966-970. “Observations on Syntax and Meter in Lamentations,” 265-270, in: H. Bream, R. Heim, and C. Moore (edd.), A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, Philadelphia: Temple University, 1974. “Homeric Dictated Texts: A Reexamination of Some Near Eastern Evidence,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 80 (1976) 19-23 (with Marsh H. McCall Jr.). “A Study of Psalm 148,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978) 323334. “Berit ‘am: ‘Emancipation of the People’,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978) 175-182. “Albright, William F.,” 10-12, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Biographical Supplement, Vol. 18, New York: Free Press, 1979. “Redemption in Letters 6 and 2 from Hermopolis,” 379-382, UgaritForschungen 11 (Schaeffer Volume), Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker, and Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener, 1979. “History and Poetry in Lamentations,” Currents in Theology and Mission 10 (1983) 155-161 (Essays in Honor of Alfred von Rohr Sauer). “The Effective Simile in Biblical Literature,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983) 181-185 (Samuel Noah Kramer Issue). “Imperial Dream: Text and Sense of Mic 5:4b-5,” 137-139, in: H. Huffmon, F. Spina and A. Green (edd.), The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983.
xx
1985
1987
1989
1990
1992
1995
1998
biographic notes and bibliography “Hôy and Hôy-Oracles: A Neglected Syntactic Aspect,” 185-188, in: C. Meyers and M. O’Connor (edd.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. “A Difficult Curse in Aqht,” 105-107, in: S. Morschauser and A. Kort (edd.), Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985. “Analyzing the Abominable,” Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1985) 253269. “Dust: Some Aspects of Old Testament Imagery,” 105-109, in: J. Marks and R. M. Good (edd.), Love and Death in the Ancient Near East, Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters, 1987 (Marvin Pope volume). “Covenant,” 133-137, in: Mircea Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 4. New York: Macmillan, London: Collier Macmillan 1987. “Byblos,” 219-220, International Encyclopedia of Communications, vol. 1, New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 1989. “William F. Albright as a Philologian,” 45-59, in: G. W. Van Beek (ed.), The Scholarship of William Foxwell Albright: An Appraisal, Harvard Semitic Studies 33, Atlanta, Ga: Scolars, 1989. “Rite: Ceremonies of Law and Treaty in the Ancient Near East,” 351-364, in: E. B. Firmage, B. G. Weiss and J. W. Welch (edd.), Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. “Lamentations, Book of,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York: Doubleday, 1992. Vol. IV, 137-141. “Micah, Book of,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York: Doubleday, 1992. Vol. IV, 807-810. “Two Readings in the Caravan Inscription Dunant, Baalshamin, no. 45,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 286 (May, 1992) 35-37 (with Eleonora Cussini). “Palmyrene Aramaic Inscriptions and the Old Testament, especially Amos 2:8,” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 8 (1995) 55-62. “Some Performative Utterances in Biblical Hebrew,” 757-766, in: Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995. “Notes on the Palmyrene Aramaic Texts,” ARAM 7 (1995) 73-88. “Two Notes on the Decameron (III vii 42-43 and VIII vii 64, IX v 48),” MLN 113 (1998) 186-191. “Palmyrene Aramaic Inscriptions and the Bible,” ZAH 11 (1998) 32-49. “Foreword,” ix-xiv, to The Quest of the Historical Jesus, by Albert Schweitzer, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1998.
biographic notes and bibliography
xxi
Reviews: M. Pope, Job: The Anchor Bible, Interpretation 19 (1965) 465-468. J. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11, American Journal of Archaeology 70 (1966) 290. A. Jirku, Der Mythus der Kanaanäer, Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967) 338-339. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. II, trans. D. Stalker, Literature Survey, Lutheran World/Lutherische Rundschau (1967) 219. J. Bright The Authority of the Old Testament, Lutheran World/Lutherische Rundschau (1968) 148. M. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, trans. A. Gottschalk, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968) 260-261. E. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en Grec, American Journal of Philology 90 (1969) 499-500. M. Sznycer, Les passages puniques en transcription latine dans le Poenulus de Plaute, American Journal of Philology 90 (1969) 381-383. T. Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Israel, Interpretations 23 (1969) 237238. E. Jenni, Das hebräische Piel, Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969) 212214. F. Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29 (1970) 298-300. Various books in “Some Books Recently Received,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 197 (Feb., 1970) 53-55. Various books in “Some Books Recently Received (Cont.),” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 198 (Apr., 1970) 43-46. W. Schottroff, Der Altisraelitische Fluchspruch, Biblica 51 (1970) 432-435. Various books in “Some Books Recently Received (Cont.),” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 203 (Oct., 1971) 45-46. Various books in “Book Notices,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 206 (Apr., 1972) 48-50. Various books in “Book Notices,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 207 (Oct., 1972) 57-58. M. Weippert, The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine, trans. J. Martin, Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973) 446. R. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl 13-14, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32 (1973) 346. G. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32 (1973) 346-347. M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33 (1974) 264-265. L. Viganò, Nomi e titoli di YHWH alla luce del semitico del Nord-ovest, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977) 576-577. D. Christensen, Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978) 89-91.
xxii
biographic notes and bibliography
M. Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979) 127-128. H. Gottlieb, A Study on the Text of Lamentations, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979) 630-631. J. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Vol. I (1973 reprint), Journal of the American Oriental Society 100 (1980) 177-178. M. Goshen-Gottstein, Syriac Manuscripts in the Harvard College Library: A Catalogue, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980) 236. G. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982) 118-119. H. Wolff, Micah the Prophet, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982) 502-503 L. Epsztein, La justice sociale dans le proche-orient ancien et le peuple de la Bible, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 20 (1983) 112. M. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East, Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983) 672. A. Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament, Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (1984) 767-768. R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, Hebrew Studies 25 (1984) 214. P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985) 117-118. J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament, Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986) 73. E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, Theology Today 44 (1987) 271-272. W. A. Mayer, III, Asherah: Extrabiblical Evidence, Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988) 531-532. L. Canfora, M. Liverani, C. Zaccagnini, I trattati nel mondo antico: Forma, ideologia, funzione, Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1992) 683684. B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Vol. 3, Accounts, Lists, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995) 361363.
sacred banquets and the
TESSERAE
1
THE SACRED BANQUETS AT PALMYRA AND THE FUNCTION OF THE TESSERAE: REFLECTIONS ON THE TOKENS FOUND IN THE AR‘U TEMPLE KHALED AL-AS’AD, FRANÇOISE BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, JEAN-BAPTISTE YON1
Nearly a half century has passed since the publication of Recueil des tessères de Palmyre,2 a fundamental reference work for all those interested in Palmyrene civilization, in the religious iconography of Roman Syria, and in the role and function of thiasoi in the Greco-Roman world. Even if this landmark publication of commendable scientific merit requires but little revision, the last few decades have nevertheless witnessed numerous excavations at the site of Palmyra, not only those conducted by the Syrian Department of Antiquities but also those undertaken by various international teams, among which the Polish Mission deserves special mention. All of these excavations have yielded new finds of tesserae which have enriched the collections of the Palmyra museum. Furthermore, when found outside of controlled archeological excavations, these small objects circulate easily, and thus inevitably appear with some regularity on the antiquities’ market. A rapid examination of several private collections has permitted the present authors to observe that a considerable number of unpublished tesserae have yet to be inventoried, and, for those already inventoried, photographs of the better struck or otherwise better preserved specimens could be published. With this in mind, a research project devoted to the Palmyrene tesserae was launched, of which team the present authors are members. The primary objective was the preparation of a supplement to Recueil des tessères de Palmyre. In the long term, a systematic review of the entire corpus is envisioned, in database form. Such a treatment allows not only the systematic recording of the known number of examples of each tessera, but also remains open to future finds.
1 The authors are very thankful to Robert Hawley who translated their text into English. 2 Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955.
2
k. al-as"ad, f. briquel-chatonnet, j.-b. yon
The present article is the fruit of this collaboration, and it is a pleasure to publish it here, in A Journey to Palmyra, offered in memory of Delbert Hillers, whose Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, written with E. Cussini, has so quickly become a standard reference work for which all who study Palmyra are grateful.3 The Arßu Temple was discovered fortuitously in September of 1980 by Ernest Will.4 The attribution of the sanctuary to the Arabian god Arßu was permitted by the discovery of an altar dedicated to this god, as well as to Qismayâ (“he who is in charge of fate”) and to “the daughters of the god” (bnt "l ).5 The site was then the object of a salvage excavation conducted by the Palmyra Museum and under the direction of Kh. As’ad. Of these excavations, only a brief note has been published thus far, by A Bounni.6 In addition to the altar published by J. Teixidor and Kh. As’ad, and a number of lamps, a large number of tesserae were also discovered on this occasion, all of the same type and all found in a jar (see below and Fig. 1). Several photographs from the archives of the Palmyra Museum allow some light to be shed upon the sanctuary and this veritable treasure trove of tesserae. The sanctuary sits to the southwest of the Agora, on the other side of the wadi. It belongs therefore to what has been called the “Hellenistic City”. It is known that this part of the site, between the Temple of Bêl and the Efqa spring, formed the original heart of Palmyra, a fact which is clearly evident from the orientation to the southwest of monuments such as the Agora or the Sanctuary of Nabu.7 It was only after the construction of the wall called “of Diocletian,” during the period of the Tetrarchy, that the city was divided in two. Unfortunately, very little is known about the evolution and ultimate fate of this zone, despite the recent work by the team of A. Schmidt-
3 Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, who had the occasion to meet Delbert Hillers at Oxford, and then to exchange several communications with him regarding the decipherment of various inscriptions, would also take this occasion to evoke the remarkable kindness and benevolence of him to whom these pages are dedicated. 4 Will 1983, p. 76, note 17 (= Will 1995, p. 518): “un sanctuaire très ruiné de style oriental à cour centrale.” 5 See Teixidor-As’ad 1985, pp. 286-293. The “daughters of the god” are alLat, al-#Uzzâ and Manât. 6 Bounni 1995, p. 20: “Die Notgrabung im Wadi erbrachte ein kleines Heiligtum von 20 auf 12 m Ausdehnung mit verschiedenen Anbauten für Kultpersonal.” 7 See Will 1983, p. 76.
sacred banquets and the
TESSERAE
3
Colinet.8 In fact, like the Arßu temple itself, all of the monuments from this part of the site are very poorly preserved. This may have been due to natural erosion, but it is equally possible that the events which followed the capture of the city by Aurelian in AD 273 were a factor.9 Whatever the date of its destruction be, very little of this sanctuary has been preserved, and the meager remains which have survived reveal precious little about its structure. As Fig. 2 illustrates, for the most part only the foundation still exists, save in the northwest corner where a few portions of a stone wall have been preserved as well.10 This area of twelve meters (nouth-south) by fifteen meters (cella?) was, it would seem, surrounded by several rooms which could have served cultic purposes. Only the northern and eastern portions of this complex have been excavated, however, and this reconstruction is, of course, necessarily hypothetical. The meager architectural remains described above provide a striking contrast to what is known about the sanctuary on the basis of epigraphic sources: namely, that it was the sanctuary of one of the four tribes constitutive of the city of Palmyra, and one of those in which the great benefactors were honored.11 It was specifically the altar and the tesserae discovered in this location that confirmed not only the link between Arßu and the tribe of the Bani Mattabôl, but also the status of the latter as one of the four tribes. One must nevertheless admit that the mere presence of tesserae in the name of a particular divinity do not, in and of themselves, constitute a proof that the temple was dedicated to that god. In the sanctuary of Baalshamin, for example, none of the tesserae discovered there carried that god’s name.12 Two among them mention the name of Nabu, though such a cult is not explicitly attested in this location (nos. 5 and 6). Likewise, among the most common type of 8
Schmidt-Colinet–al-As’ad 2000. Note the remarks of Will 1983, p. 76 (= Will 1995, p. 518): “très détruit anciennement déjà, au moment des événements de 273 ...” It is difficult to know on what basis he made this judgement. Further on (p. 78), he seems to assume (but on what grounds?) that the Hellenistic city had been destroyed by Aurelian’s troops. Perhaps on-going research will supply information on this matter. 10 The probable thickness of the wall was 75 cm. 11 See the text recently published by Drijvers 1995. The statues were erected in the sanctuary of Allat, in the sacred garden (the sanctuary of #Aglibol and Malakbel), in the sanctuary of Arßu, and in the sanctuary of Atargatis (lines 1-2). 12 Dunant 1959. 9
4
k. al-as"ad, f. briquel-chatonnet, j.-b. yon
tesserae found in the sanctuary of Bêl (see below), one finds not Bêl but instead two female divinities of uncertain identification. The tessera found in one hundred twenty-five examples during the excavation of the temple of Arßu corresponds to a type already known, this bearing number 174 in the Recueil (= PAT 2174).13 It is rectangular in form, greater in height than in width, and measures 17 mm. by 23 mm. The specimens were all modeled from a very fine and pure terracotta base, and have a slight orange tint. For convenience, we reproduce here the description given in the Recueil (Figs. 3 and 4): Face a: Arsou debout, en tunique à manches, cuirasse et anaxyrides, coiffé d’un casque en cloche, terminé par un bouton. De la main droite, il s’appuie sur sa lance; la main gauche semble posée sur la poignée d’un glaive; un petit bouclier est passé à son bras et apparaît derrière l’épaule gauche. En bas à droite, tête de bœuf et globule. À gauche: TYM‘MD, Taimoamad; à droite: TB‘WT, Tabaout. Grènetis. Face b: Chameau à droite, apparemment chargé. Devant lui, Hermès nu, debout, de face, avec de petites ailes au sommet de la tête. De la main droite, il tient sa bourse et un rameau de feuillage; la main gauche, ramenée sur la poitrine, tient le caducée appuyé sur l’épaule. Filet au pourtour.
The inscription contains only two proper names, of which the first is well attested at Palmyra.14 The second is found only here; its restitution was proposed on the basis of another tessera (PAT 2184). The most likely reading is probably TD#WT (or TR#WT).15 A. Caquot has suggested that the ending -WT is the suffix one often finds attached to abstract nouns, and that such a noun is here employed as a proper name.16 Should the preceding element be derived etymologically from the root YD‘ “to know”? Instead of imagining two separate individuals jointly sponsoring the banquet, one must no doubt interpret the second proper name as the patronym of the first. Such an omission of expected BR is not uncommon.17 One may attempt to situate more precisely the striking of this tessera 13
P. 12. Stark 1971, pp. 55 and 117. 15 Since the reading of the B sign in the tessera PAT 2184 is questionabt is conceivable that it too bore the name TD#WT. Incidentally, it also refers to the cult of Arßu. 16 Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, p. 166. 17 See, for example, Briquel-Chatonnet 1990; and PAT 1489, PAT 1519, and PAT 1522. 14
sacred banquets and the
TESSERAE
5
in the history of Palmyra on the basis of palaeography. On the one hand, the estimated date should not be placed too high, since the signs surpass neither the upper nor lower “margins” of the lines of writing. On the other hand, the legs of the signs are still linear, which would normally indicate a rather high dating. In fact, however, it appears that the epigraphic miniaturization necessary for the striking of tesserae was accompanied by certain graphic modifications: more specifically, the use of non-linear strokes in the legs of signs, which is normally considered to be characteristic of a later phase, is rather frequently found in monumental inscriptions. This greatly complicates the firm establishment of datation criteria. The Y forms an acute angle, and its summit is opposed to the line of writing. In a more rounded version, it is a form current at the end of the 1st century and in the 2nd century AD18 The sign later has a tendency to be rotated 45°.19 The # is upright, and resembles our modern “Y” sign, positioned upon the line. The form of this sign, as those of Y and T, finds parallels in PAT 0482 (= CIS 4130), which is dated to AD 95. The M signs have a rather particular form: the right leg is attached directly to the left leg at the summit of the sign, and a horizontal oblique stroke is joined to the left leg as a mere appendage. One finds an identical disposition of the M sign in the tessera PAT 2124 (= RTP 118), which is also, unfortunately, of uncertain datation.20 A form which is in some respects comparable is found in the text PAT 0472 (= CIS 4123), dated to AD 83. The T is simple, composed of neat linear strokes, without embellishment. Additionally, one notices that the right leg does not rest upon the line, a feature which appears only at the beginning of the 2nd century AD The leg of the W is linear, and the top of the sign is slightly inclined to the left. The leg of the D/R is linear, and almost upright; it is not pointed. In sum, it appears reasonable to propose a dating toward the middle of the 2nd century AD In terms of the sheer number of tesserae of the same type and of their archeological context, this lot sheds fascinating light on the function of the sacred banquets.21 It is generally admitted that the 18 See, for example, the inscription published by Drijvers 1995 (cited above in note 11). 19 See, for example PAT 1381. 20 See also PAT 2197, PAT 2243, and PAT 2247, to name other examples; these also are undated. 21 Gawlikowski 1990 (esp. pp. 2651-2652).
6
k. al-as"ad, f. briquel-chatonnet, j.-b. yon
tesserae, having been distributed along with the invitations to participate in these banquets, served as a sort of “admission ticket” to the latter.22 The tesserae under study here, recovered in controlled excavations, seem to have tumbled out of a fallen vase, presumably knocked over at the moment of the destruction of the edifice. Two hypotheses come to mind to explain the uniformity of this lot. In the first, the tesserae had been struck, but not yet distributed: in this case they would have been intended for use in connection with a banquet that never took place. The second hypothesis is that these tesserae represent those brought to the banquet by the invited guests: in this case we can suppose that the collection was assembled by the person in charge of admission at the entry to the banquet room, who tossed the collected tesserae into a vase as they were received. The first hypothesis seems to us less probable, if only because a few examples of this tessera had been found elsewhere, prior to the discovery of the sanctuary and the vase. We are entirely ignorant, however, of the provenance of such isolated token finds. It cannot be excluded that they too derive from the contents of the vase (see the photo), whether they were found on the surface or collected at this precise location. It is possible that all the tesserae of the various banquets which took place during a certain span of time were archived; such would at least explain why so many have been found. The number of recovered tesserae which are of the same type23 also permits a few reflections. It implies first of all a banquet in which a considerably large number of guests had assembled. On present data, however, only one banquet location was of sufficient size to accommodate such an assembly, the banquet hall of the temple of Bêl, where, according to E. Will,24 over one hundred individuals could have found a place among the beds of the banquet.25 Nothing of 22 Seyrig 1940a, pp. 51-58 (= Seyrig 1985, pp. 235-248); and Starcky– Gawlikowski 1985, p. 107. 23 One hundred twenty-five were found in the course of regular excavations, but others, of unknown provenance, are known. Five examplars are mentioned in Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955. A private collection in Damascus, which we have begun to inventory, contains another three. It is unlikely, of course, that this listing should be exhaustive. 24 Will 1997, pp. 873-887. 25 H. Seyrig interpreted also the building to the west of the Agora as a small temple, subsequently converted into a banquet hall, in which he supposed about forty guests could have assembled (Seyrig 1940b, pp. 236-239 = Seyrig 1985, pp. 235-248), but on this see now Balty 1991, pp. 50-56 and 591-593.
sacred banquets and the
TESSERAE
7
the kind applies to the temple of Arßu, at least inasmuch as the meager remains permit a reconstruction. The conventional representation of guests in pairs, reclining on beds as they eat, such as one can observe, for example, on certain tesserae, was probably not the case here. Only the rab marzeaÈ, the priests of the cult of Arßu, and certain “V.I.P.’s”26 of the tribe of the Bani Mattabôl were probably so installed, most likely in one of the smaller annexes of the cella described above. The other guests must have crowded into any free space available throughout the sanctuary. Such an assemblage of tesserae of the same type is not, in fact, without precedent. In the foundations of the banquet hall situated in the court of the temple of Bêl, a large number of tesserae were recovered, among the drainage and washing installations. For certain types, more than a hundred examples are attested (RTP 422 and 429). It is necessary, however, to note that this location concerned all of the residents of Palmyra, unlike the tribal sanctuaries, such as that of Arßu. In addition, tesserae mentioning other gods than Bêl, Nabu for example, were found there. It is thus reasonable that very large numbers of guests could be there accommodated. This lot of tesserae allows us better to evaluate the popularity of the cult of Arßu in the 2nd century AD27 It is known that this cult was active in the course of the 3rd century AD In fact, several inscriptions mention the construction of a basilica for the god Arßu in the Great Colonnade.28 This could be an indication that the sanctuary, situated as it is in the old part of the city, had been somewhat abandoned by the Mattabôl tribe, who preferred in this period to honor their god in the new urban center which lined the Great Colonnade.29 Such an abandonment could explain the fact that the archives of the temple had preserved this evidence regarding ancient banquets. 26 27 28 29
Following the terminology of Will 1997, p. 878. Gawlikowski 1990, pp. 2621-2623 and 2648-2649. al-As’ad–Gawlikowski 1986-1987. Yon 2002, pp. 75-78.
8
k. al-as"ad, f. briquel-chatonnet, j.-b. yon
Fig. 1. Jar containing tesserae (Photo: Palmyra Museum)
Fig. 2. Foundations of the Arßu temple (Photo: Palmyra Museum)
TESSERAE
Fig. 3. PAT 2174 (= RTP 174) Private collection, face a
sacred banquets and the 9
Fig. 4. PAT 2174 (= RTP 174) Private collection, face b
10
k. al-as"ad, f. briquel-chatonnet, j.-b. yon
sacred banquets and the
TESSERAE
11
GREEK AND LATIN WORDS IN PALMYRENE INSCRIPTIONS: A COMPARISON WITH SYRIAC SEBASTIAN P. BROCK
Edessa lies just under 300 kilometres north of Palmyra as the crow flies, and its Aramaic dialect, known today as Syriac, is closely related to that of Palmyra. Although the people of Edessa of the first three centuries did not share with the Palmyrenes anything like the same ‘epigraphic habit’, nevertheless a certain number of early inscriptions, and in particular three legal documents of the 240s in Syriac,1 make a comparison between the use of Greek words (and Latin words by way of Greek) in these two Aramaic dialects worthwhile and meaningful. Syriac of course continued on as a widespread literary language long after the latest Palmyrene inscription (dated 279/80),2 and the witness of this material (above all that of the fourth and fifth centuries) is adduced below to supplement the meagre harvest from Syriac inscriptions and documents contemporary with the Palmyrene inscriptions.3 Since no complete separate listing of Greek words in the Palmyrene inscriptions appears to have been made, the 75 instances4 are given below alphabeticized under their Greek form. Since my concern is primarily comparison with the Syriac material, discussion of the Palmyrene forms is limited to this aspect alone. For convenience, and for the sake of brevity, the Palmyrene inscriptions are cited solely 1
The texts are given in Drijvers–Healey 1999, pp. 231-248. See Taylor 2001, pp. 203-219, esp. 204-205. 3 No attempt has been made to extend the comparison to the contemporary inscriptions in Nabataean and Jewish Aramaic. 4 I have excluded the following, whose Greek origin seems uncertain: glp/glwp"/ glpt", which have usually been derived from Greek (8bNo, though this seems unlikely since borrowings directly from Greek verbs are very rare; gmwt (PAT 1556, of AD 128), for which Hillers and Cussini (PAT p. 353) rightly say that the derivation from Greek (V:@H is most improbable; prns (PAT 0261, of AD 21), and mprnsnyt" (PAT 0095, of AD 239), which could possibly be derived from Greek BD`<@@H (both the verb and the noun are quite common in Syriac, for which Br gives prs as the root; slwk" (PAT 0270, of AD 19), which is more likely to represent the place name Seleucia than Greek FL88@P\". 2
12
sebastian p. brock
under their number in D. R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore 1996), cited as PAT (note that PAT 0259, cited many times, is the Tariff of AD 137). (1) ala, Ç80 / ,Ç80 (DNWSI, 57; BA 100, 130): "l" (drmdry" ), PAT 1422, a bilingual inscription of the second century AD, has as the Greek counterpart ,Ç80H ... *D@:"*"D\T<, which makes it uncertain whether "l" is Latin ala or Greek Ç80, both of which have the same meaning, “troop.” Unattested in Syriac. (2) –8F@H (DNWSI, 283): hlss in PAT 0314 (of AD 135) corresponds to {"r 8F@[LH] in its Greek counterpart. Unattested in Syriac. (3) •<*D4VH (DNWSI 20; Br 28a): "drãy" (plural), PAT 0259, ii 128: the Greek counterpart is lost. The loanword, based on the Greek accusative, is not uncommon in Syriac, where the normal spelling is "ndrynã", though "ndryã" occurs in a number of early texts (e.g Eusebius, EH II.v.3; II.vi.2; II.xiii.3); closer to the Palmyrene form, with the neu assimilated, is a third-century inscription, Drijvers–Healey, As 1, with "dryã" (cf. also Schall 1960, p. 102). Surprisingly, a form with the first neu unrepresented ("drynã") occurs in two late texts, Ps. Callisthenes (ed. Budge 1889), p. 60, and Chronicon ad annum 1234 (ed. Chabot 1920), I, p. 151. (4) •<*Df< (DNWSI, 19-20): "drwn", occurring in PAT 0263 (of AD 108), PAT 0991 (undated) and perhaps PAT 2766 (of 6 BC) may derive from •<*Df<, “men’s quarters,” whence “banqueting hall,” though an Iranian origin is also possible, especially as this seems to be the source of Syriac "edrÙn§ (Br 6b, “cubiculum”), found in the Acts of Thecla (ed. Wright, p. 160) and occasionally elsewhere. (5) •DPZ (DNWSI, 109; BA 101; Br 49b): bt "rk", found in two damaged inscriptions, PAT 2759, PAT 2760, has an exact Syriac counterpart in b¿t ark¿, “archives,” which probably derives from •DP"\ (in the sense of “authorities, magistracy”), rather than •DP,Ã@< “archives,” since that entered Syriac separately as arkÊyÙn, which already features in Drijvers–Healey, P 1, of AD 243; also in Eusebius, EH I.xiii.5 and V.xviii.9 (corresponding to •DP,Ã", •DP,Ã@< in the Greek). (6) –DPT< (DNWSI, 109; BA 117; Br 49b): "rkwny" (plural) occurs three times in PAT 0259. The Syriac counterpart, arkÙn§, arkÙn¿, is not uncommon and already occurs in the Old Syriac Gospels (see Brock 1967, pp. 393-394). Drijvers–Healey, P 3 (of AD 242) has the derivative arkÙnåt§, with the abstract suffix. (7) •FFVD4@< (DNWSI, 92; BA 101-102; Br 38ab): "sr, "sr", "sryn are all attested in PAT 0259. Though not common in Syriac, the
greek and latin in palmyrene inscriptions
13
loan word already occurs in the Old Syriac Gospels (absolute singular, Mk 10:29; absolute plural Lk 12:6; Brock 1967, p. 394). (8) "ÛJ@6DVJTD (DNWSI, 122; BA 123; Br 8a): ["w]ãqrãwr occurs in PAT 1357, of AD 193 (cf. PAT 1406). The same spelling occurs in P 1-3, and in subsequent Syriac literature (e.g. Eusebius, EH II.viii.1; Cureton 1864, p. 41 (Acts of Sharbel), p. 63 (Acts of Barsamya); contrast "wãwqrãwr in a Jewish Aramaic document of AD 120.5 (9) $"F4846Z (DNWSI 179; Br 80b): bslq" “portico” occurs in PAT 0260 (of AD 175) as feminine (with rbt"), but in PAT 0298 (of AD 179) as masculine (with dnh). In Syriac only the fuller spelling bslyq" is found. (10) $,<,N46VD4@H < Latin beneficiarius (DNWSI, 179; BA 103; Br 79b): bnpqyr" occurs in PAT 0649 (of AD 189). The plural (with the fuller spelling bnypyqyr") seems to be attested in Syriac only in Eusebius, EH, IX. ix. 20. (11) $@L8,LJZH (DNWSI, 152; BA 138-139; Br 62b-63a): blwã (b"nãky") is found in PAT 1373 (of AD 163), and bylwã" (perhaps an error for bwlwã") in PAT 0283 (of AD 258/9). The term is not uncommon in Syriac, where the spelling is regularly bwlwã". (12) $@L8Z (DNWSI, 147; BA 139-141; Br 62b): bwl", normally in combination with dm(w)s, occurs frequently, ranging in date from AD 86 to AD 262. In Syriac, however, it is rather rare: Eusebius, EH, IV.xi.11, V.xxi.4 (both followed by d-sunqlitos), Life of Symeon Stylites (ed. Bedjan 1890, IV, p. 585), Martyrs of Samosata (ed. Bedjan 1890, IV, p. 107). (13) (X<@H (DNWSI, 230; Br 125b-126a): both the singular absolute gns and the plural emphatic, gnsy", occur in PAT 0259 (dy klm" gns klh “of every kind whatsoever”; mn gnsy" klhwn “of all kinds”), and the former is also attested in PAT 0312 (of AD 64), bkl gns klh “in every manner.” The loanword is extremely common in Syriac (Brock 1967, pp. 396-397), including the absolute in prepositional phrases such as men kul gnes, dkul gnes “of every kind.” (14) (
5
See Yadin 1962, p. 242.
14
sebastian p. brock
(15) (D"::"J,\" (DNWSI, 235; BA 138): bgrmãy" “during the secretaryship” occurs a number of times, in PAT 0259, PAT 1370 (of AD 218), PAT 1375 (of AD 75/76), PAT 2756 (undated). The word is absent from Syriac, though gramaãÊyÙn < (D"::"J,Ã@<, “document,” is very occasionally found (e.g. fragment of the SyroRoman Law Book, published in Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 85 (1968), p. 401). (16) (D"::"J,bH (DNWSI, 235; BA 137): grmãws occurs in PAT 0259, PAT 0305 (of AD 131) and PAT 1375 (of AD 75/76). Syriac (Br 133b) has only gramaãÊqos (-Êq§) < (D"::"J46`H, gramaãÊqÊ < (D"::"J46Z, and the derived abstract gramaãÊqåt§. (17) (L:<"F\"DP@H (DNWSI, 226; BA 112): gmnsyrks occurs only in PAT 1406 (second century AD). Syriac (Br 121a) has only gumn§sÊn < (L:
greek and latin in palmyrene inscriptions
15
(22) *`(:" (DNWSI, 241; BA 110-111; Br 141b-142a): the singular construct bdgm (bwl" wdms) features in PAT 2769 (of AD 171), and emphatic dgm" dy bwl" in PAT 0259, while the plural absolute (wbdgmyn) is found in PAT 1062 (of AD 145). The Syriac counterpart always has the fuller spelling (dwgm"), with three different plurals attested: dwgmã" (the most common), dwgm", and dwgmw. While dgm" in Palmyrene has the sense of “decree, enactment” (and is the equivalent of twÈyt"), its Syriac counterpart normally means “doctrine, dogma.” (23) *@L60X*D" (DNWSI, 52-53; Br 18b): "ksdr" is found rather frequently, once with the ‘pseudo-correction’ "kàdr" (PAT 0523, of AD 160).6 The plural "ksdryn occurs in PAT 1788 (dated AD 233) and PAT 0057 (of AD 263); in the latter, a bilingual, the Greek has the genitive plural ¦>,*Dä<. The Greek borrowing, "ksdr", features in a number of early Syriac texts, notably I Kings 7:4, Ezekiel 40:38 and 42 (passim), Ezra 10: 6, and the Syriac translation of Josephus, War VI.150 (ed. Bedjan, p. 793). (26) ¦B"<@D2TJZH (DNWSI, 97; BA 111): "pnrtã" (dy mdnÈ" klh) occurs only in PAT 0317, of the 260s. The same phrase, but with the native Aramaic mtqnn", occurs in PAT 0292 (of AD 271), and corresponds to the Greek ¦B"<@D2TJZH BVF0H ¦B"DP\"H of other inscriptions.7 Although the Greek word does not occur in Syriac, it is worth noting that mtqnn" is sometimes a divine title in early Syriac texts, e.g. Acts of Thomas (ed. Wright), p. 201, mtaqqn§n§ d-kulh¿n bery§t§, and
6 7
Compare Blau 1970, p. 58, note 17. See Swain 1993, pp. 157-164.
16
sebastian p. brock
Eusebius, EH, I.ii.4, b§rÙy§ d-kull wa-mtaqqn§n§ (corresponding to 6@F:@B@4Î< 6" *0:4@LD(`< Jä< Ó8T<). (27) ¦B4:,80JZH (DNWSI, 97; BA 112; Br 41a): "pmlã" occurs only in PAT 0509 (undated), in the sense of “curator of a tomb.” The Syriac counterpart "pymlãws is also restricted to a single occurrence, in Eusebius, EH, I.vii.12, where it is glossed h§naw d¿n y§ßÙp§, “that is, carer.” In the Syro-Roman Law Book qwrãwr (< 6@LDVJTD < curator) is used. (28) The abstract, "pmlãw, “curatorship” (DNWSI, 97; BA 111-112), based on the previous word, occurs both in the singular construct, "pmlãwt, in PAT 0314 (of AD 134/5), and in the plural absolute, "pmlwãn (an error for "pmlãwn) in PAT 0322 (second century AD). This derived abstract is unattested in Syriac. (29) ¦B\JD@B@H (DNWSI, 94; BA 133; Br 40b): "pãrp" features in a number of inscriptions from the 260s in the sense of “procurator”: PAT 0284 and PAT 0285 (both of AD 262), PAT 0286 (of AD 264) and PAT 0289 (of AD 267). The commonly found Syriac counterpart, normally "pyãrwp", usually has the sense of “manager,” or “guardian.” The defective spelling of the Palmyrene form is also found in the Teaching of Addai (ed. Howard, p. 1), while the intermediate "pãrwp" occurs in the two Old Syriac manuscripts (with suffix, "pãrwph) at Luke 8:3 (Peshitta rabbayteh) and Eusebius, EH, I.ix.3. (30) º(,:f< “governor” (DNWSI, 270; BA 124-125; Br 171a; Brock 1967, p. 401): singular hgm[w]n" (PAT 0314, of AD 134/5), hygmwn" (e.g. PAT 0259 ii, lines 65, 74, and PAT 0278, of AD 242/3), and hygmn" (PAT 0279, of AD 171) are all found, alongside the absolute plural, hgmnyn, in PAT 1062, of AD 145/6. The Syriac counterpart hgmwn" is commonly found in appropriate literature (along with the abstract hgmwnwt"); occasionally the spelling "ygmwn" is to be found (probably also in a third-century inscription, Drijvers–Healey, As 10, yg[mwn"]). The defective spelling hgmn" occurs twice in the Old Syriac Gospel manuscript Sinaiticus (Luke 20:20 and John 18:28). (31) 2L:X80 (DNWSI, 1221; Br 827b) “platform”: tml" features once, in PAT 1526 of AD 239. Syriac twml" seems to be recorded only from the Acts of the Synod of 449 (ed. Flemming, p. 18, line 33), though the related twmlyn < 2L:X84@< is found in the Life of Pachomius (ed. Bedjan 1890, V, p. 125). (32) ÊBB46`H (DNWSI, 292; BA 119, 120): both hpq" (PAT 0283 of AD 258/9, and PAT 0289 of AD 267) and hpqws (PAT 0286 dated AD 264, and PAT 1625 of AD 213) are found. In Syriac "pqws oc-
greek and latin in palmyrene inscriptions
17
curs in Sachau 1907, I, p. 54 (line 20); hpws < ÊBB,bH features in Drijvers–Healey, P 1, dated AD 243. (33) ÆJ"846`H (BA 123): both "yãlq["] and "yãlyq["] occur in the Tariff (PAT 0259). (34) 6"ÃF"D < Latin Caesar (DNWSI, 1018; BA 103-105; Br 680b): qsr is the normal spelling (e.g. PAT 0284 of AD 262, PAT 1357 of AD 193, PAT 2812 of AD 273), though qysr is found in the Tariff (PAT 0259, ii line 62). The regular Syriac form is qsr, though q"sr occurs in the Harklean Gospels and occasionally elsewhere in later manuscripts. PAT 0284 includes the honorific mrn “our lord,” characteristic of some early Syriac texts, though the word order is different (qsr mrn, against Syriac m§ran N qesar). (35) 6VDD@H < Latin carrus “wagon” (DNWSI, 1034-1035): ã#wn qrs, “a wagon-load” occurs in the Tariff (PAT 0259, i 13). Syriac borrows only the related Latin carruca (via Greek 6"D@ØP"), which is found already in Peshitta Exodus 14: 6.8 (36) 6,<J@LD\" < Latin centuria “a division of troops”“ (DNWSI, 1007; BA 105-106): qãry" (mksmws) occurs only in the bilingual PAT 0253 (second century AD), corresponding to centuria Maximi in the Latin text. Not found in Syriac. (37) 6,<J@LD\T< < Latin centurio “centurion” (DNWSI, 1015; BA 106; Br 677a): both qãryn" (PAT 1397 of AD 135) and qãrywn" (PAT 0308 of second century AD, and PAT 1548 of AD 115) are found. The corresponding Syriac form is regularly qnãrwn" (frequent from the Old Syriac Gospels onwards; Brock 1967, p. 404). (38) 6,D6\H, perhaps in the specialised sense of “tympanum” (DNWSI, 1036): both the singular qrqs" (PAT 0039 of AD 234) and the plural qrqsy" (PAT 0048 of AD 213, and PAT 0049 of AD 214) are found. Syriac qrqs" is derived from 6\D6@H, not 6,D6\H. (39) 6\<*L<@H “danger” (DNWSI, 992; Br 676a): the only occurrence is qdns in PAT 0197 of AD 132. The loanword is common in Syriac, spelled variously as qyndwnws or (more frequently) qwndynws. (40) 68,ÃFJD@< (?) (DNWSI, 1012) “fence, railing”: (w#bd) qlsãr[" (dy] ksp") occurs in PAT 0297 of AD 179; the identity of the object made is unfortunately very unclear, and other suggestions have been made (6V<"FJD@< “basket,” PAT p. 406; for others, see DNWSI, 1012). No Syriac counterpart is available.
8
See Joosten 1998, pp. 37-47, and Weitzman 1999, p. 257.
18
sebastian p. brock
(41) 6`8T< < Latin colonus (DNWSI, 997; BA 108; Br 669a): qwlwn (brty") “a colonist of Beirut” occurs in PAT 0761 (undated). An isolated occurrence in Syriac of the word (plural, qwlwn") is to be found in the Zuqnin Chronicle (‘Ps-Dionysius’; ed. Chabot, II, p. 375, line 19), where it has lost its original sense and simply means “husbandmen.” (42) 6@8T<,\" < Latin colonia “colony” (DNWSI, 1012; BA 108; Br 669a): qlny" features in PAT 0278 (of AD 242/3), PAT 0285 (of AD 262) and PAT 1415 (third century). The Syriac counterpart appears as qlwny" in Drijvers–Healey, P 1 (line 4) and P3 (line 4), dated AD 243 and 242 respectively; and as qwlwny" in Acts 16:12.9 (43) 6DVJ4FJ@H “excellent,” as a title (DNWSI, 1032; BA 118-119): the singular appears as both qrãsãs (e.g. PAT 0285 of AD 262, PAT 0288 of circa AD 267) and qrãsãws (e.g. PAT 0286 dated AD 264, PAT 0289 of AD 267), and the plural as both qrãsã" (PAT 0292 of AD 271) and qrãsãw" (PAT 0293 of AD 271). In Syriac this honorific title is always translated (e.g. at Luke 1:3). (44) 8,(4f< < Latin legio (DNWSI, 566; BA 125-126; Br 358b): the singular lgywn" features a number of times (e.g. PAT 0290 of AD 252, PAT 1548 of AD 114/5), while the plural lgyny" occurs only in PAT 0278 of AD 242/3 (preceded by yt, the only occurrence of this object marker in Palmyrene). Syriac distinguishes between lgywn, the demon (of Mark 5:9), and lgywn" “a legion;” both are common (the latter already in Peshitta Num 24: 24). (45) 84:Z< (DNWSI, 579; Br 367b): the single occurrence of lmn", in the Tariff (PAT 0259, ii line 1) clearly cannot mean “harbour,” and has instead the sense of “entrepôt, emporium,” by analogy with Akkadian karum, which has both meanings.10 The loanword is common in Syriac (always lm"n", construct lm"n); in a few early texts it must have the same sense as in Palmyrene. (46) :\84@< < Latin mille (DNWSI, 586; BA 127; Br 383b): the only occurrence is on a milestone in an abbreviated form m (PAT 0317 of AD 268/70). The loanword is common in Syriac, both in the sense of “mile” and in that of “milestone.” It is already attested in the Old Syriac Gospels (Brock 1967, pp. 407-408). (47) :`*4@H, a dry measure, or “container” (DNWSI, 596; BA 127;
9 10
On the Coloniae in the Roman East, see Millar 1990, pp. 7-58. See Brock 1975, pp. 83-84.
greek and latin in palmyrene inscriptions
19
Br 375a): the emphatic form mdy" features three times in the Tariff (PAT 0259, ii lines 69, 73, 133), with the absolute md" occurring once, in line 71. Syriac mwdy" is not uncommon and already occurs in the Old Syriac Gospels (the Peshitta, however, alters to sata: Brock 1967, p. 408); the plural is normally mdwt", but an absolute form mdyn is also attested. (48) <"`H “temple” (DNWSI, 723; Br 421a): nws" occurs only in PAT 1608 of c. AD 143 (referring to the Temple of Allat). The Syriac equivalent, naws§, is commonly found. (49) <`:@H “law” (DNWSI, 733; BA 126; Br 431a): nmws" features a number of times in the Tariff (PAT 0259), including in the phrase mn nmws" “by law.” The Syriac equivalent, n§mÙs§, is extremely common (and includes phrases such as dl§ bn§mÙs “illegally,” Commentary on the Diatessaron XIV.25); cf. Brock, 1967, p. 409. (50) >X<@H “stranger, foreigner” (DNWSI, 53; Br 338b): the plural "ksny" occurs in PAT 0305 of AD 130/1, where the ending –y’ is likely to represent the normal Palmyrene plural -ayy§. In the frequent Syriac "ksny",11 where the yodh is present in both singular and plural, it must represent a phonetic development. (51) >XFJ0H a measure (Latin sextarius), or “container” (DNWSI, 1018; Br 679b): the phrase lmdy" dy qsãwn #àr w[à]t occurs in the Tariff (PAT 0259, ii line 69), where qsãwn is almost certainly qsã" < >XFJ0H with a feminine absolute plural ending. The corresponding Syriac qes㧠is also treated as a feminine; it already features in the Peshitta Old Testament (cf. Brock 1967, pp. 409-410). (52) Ò:@8@(\" “agreement” (DNWSI, 71; Br 25a): the phrase b"mlgy" occurs in PAT 2760 (undated). Syriac "mwlwgy" (plural –ys, –yws) has the technical meaning of “confession of faith” (not found before the sixth century). (53) ÏBJ\T< < Latin optio “adjutant” (DNWSI, 291; BA 127-8): hpãyn occurs only in a third-century bilingual inscription from Hungary (PAT 0251), and corresponding to the Palmyrene the Latin has [op]tio. The word is unattested in Syriac. (54) @Û,J,D"<`H < Latin veteranus (DNWSI, 297; BA 143; Br 8ab): the absolute wãrn (in the phrase #lm wãrn “a veteran slave”) occurs twice in the Tariff (PAT 0259, ii lines 5, 86), while the emphatic wãrn" is found in PAT 0071, of AD 250/1. The Syriac counterpart,
11
Brock 1967, p. 409.
20
sebastian p. brock
wãrn", is occasionally found, e.g. Letter of Cosmas to Symeon the Stylite (ed. Bedjan 1890, IV, p. 646); Syro-Roman Law Book, para. 145 (ed. Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition II, p.148). [w]ãrn" occurs in an early third-century bilingual inscription from Tilli (E of Hasankef) where @Û,J,D"<`H is also present in the Greek).12 (55) B"<J@BT8,Ã@< “bazaar” (DNWSI, 908): pãply occurs only in the Tariff (PAT 0259, ii line 53). The word is not found in Syriac. (56) B8"J,Ã" “street, alleyway” (DNWSI, 915; Br 574a): the phrase dy bplãy" occurs in two inscriptions dated AD 235, PAT 0040 and PAT 0041. In both cases the term refers to part of a tomb complex. The Syriac counterpart, plãy" (plural plãwt") is not uncommon and already occurs in the Peshitta Old Testament (Jer 9:20, Cant 3:3). (57) B@84J,Ã" “tenure of public office” (DNWSI, 915; BA 112; Br 574a): plãy" (with the verb #bd) occurs once, in a bilingual inscription of AD 199 (PAT 1378). The Syriac counterpart, pwlyãy" (also pwlwãy") is not attested until the sixth century (after which it is not uncommon); it usually has the sense of “mode of life.” (58) BD"(:"J,LJZH “agent, representative” (DNWSI, 935; BA 135; Br 592b): prgmãt" (sic) occurs once, in the trilingual PAT 1413, dated AD 174 (the Greek also has BD"(:"J,LJZH); the representation of the second Greek tau by Palmyrene taw (clear in the photograph) is most surprising. In Syriac prgmãwã" is occasionally found (e.g. Isaac of Antioch, ed. Bedjan, p. 38, line 3, in parallel with tagg§r¿ “merchants”). The abstract prgmãy" < BD"(:"J,Ã" is rather more common. (59) BD`,*D@H “president” (DNWSI, 914; BA 132): the derived abstract plhdrwt" “presidency” occurs in the Tariff (PAT 0259, in line 1). There is no Syriac counterpart. (60) BD@<"Ã@H “front court/hall of a temple” (DNWSI, 939): in the bilingual PAT 0305 (of AD 130/1) prn"[yn] is paralleled by Greek B[D@]<"\å, while prnyn is attested in PAT 0331 and PAT 1608 (both mid second century). Syriac has no equivalent. (61) F0:,Ã@<, F0:,Ã" “standard, image” (DNWSI, 792; Br 480a): smyt" dy ksp" corresponds to JÎ F\(<@< •D(LD@Ø< in PAT 0247 of AD 236. Syriac attests singular symywn (usually “mark, sign”; k§t¿b sÊmÊyÙn is a tachygrapher) and plural symy" (which can have the sense of “milestones”). 12 It probably occurs in two of the Hatra inscriptions (nos. 324 and 332), though Beyer 1998 takes the word in a different way; the Tilli inscription is his T3.
greek and latin in palmyrene inscriptions
21
(62) F,FJXDJ4@H < Latin sestertius (DNWSI, 795; BA 142): the absolute plural, ssãrãyn, features in the Tariff (PAT 0259, ii line 71). The word is not attested in Syriac. (63) FJ@V “portica” (DNWSI, 87; Br 32b): the singular "sãw" occurs in quite a number of inscriptions (e.g. PAT 0520 of AD 149, PAT 1562 of AD 89), and the 3 m. s. suffix to the plural, "sãwwhy is also attested in PAT 1562 and PAT 1561 (likewise of AD 89). In Syriac "sãw" is quite commonly found (already in the Peshitta Old Testament and the Old Syriac Gospels: Brock 1967, pp. 418-419); though the absolute and emphatic plurals, "esãwÊn, "esãw¿, are both attested, no example of any suffixed form is known to me. (64) FJDVJ,L:" “army” (DNWSI, 88): on the basis of the accompanying Greek text "sãr[ãwm"] is a likely restoration in PAT 0305 of AD 130/1. The word is not found in Syriac. (65) FJD"J0(`H “general, military governor” (DNWSI, 87; BA 117; Br 34a, 469a): the absolute form, "sãrãg is the more frequently found (thus PAT 0278 of AD 242, "sãrãg lqlny’, PAT 0285 of AD 262, and PAT 2757 of AD 225), though the emphatic, "sãr[ãg]" occurs in an inscription of AD 168 from Dura Europos (PAT 1085). The earliest Syriac witnesses (Drijvers–Healey, P1, of AD 243, and Eusebius, Theophania II.17, in a manuscript of AD 411) likewise have the defective spelling "sãrãg", but subsequently the addition of an internal mater lectionis becomes the norm, "sãrãyg" (both spellings are found in Eusebius, EH: defective spelling at IX.i.7, but not at VIII.xi.1). The prosthetic alaph may occasionally be omitted when a preposition is prefixed, e.g. Eusebius, EH, IX.i.7 wlsãrãg". (66) The abstract "sãrãgw (DNWSI, 87-88; BA 118; Br 34a) is also found, in three different forms: the construct b"sãrãgwt (YrÈy) features in the undated PAT 2810; the suffixed form, b"sãrãgwth, is found in PAT 0280 of AD 254; and the plural absolute, b"sãrãgwn, occurs in PAT 1378 of AD 199. Similar phraseology is found in a number of early Syriac texts: thus b"sãrãgwt" d- in Drijvers–Healey, P 1 (of AD 243) and the Martyrdom of Habbib (ed. Burkitt 1913, p. 26), and b"sãrãygwt" d- in the Martyrdom of Shmona and Gurya (ed. Burkitt 1913, p. 3). (67) FJD`$48@H ‘pine-cone’ (DNWSI, 87): the emphatic plural, "sãrbyly", is found once, in the Tariff (PAT 0259, ii line 114). The Syriac counterpart, "sãrwbyl", is attested in a few texts (e.g. the early translation of Basil’s Hexaemeron, ed. Thomson, p. 84 line 2). (68) FL(680J46`H “senator” (DNWSI, 794; BA 139; Br 486a): both
22
sebastian p. brock
snqlãyqh (PAT 0290 of AD 251, and PAT 1358 of AD 272, snqlãyq") and sqlãyq" (PAT 0558 of third century) are attested. In the rare Syriac attestations the Greek case endings are preserved, m. s. swnqlyãyqws, f. s. swnqlyãyqy, m. pl. swnqlyãyqw (or -q¿). (69) Fb:NT<@H (DNWSI, 797): in the two attestations spwn appears to be used adverbially, in the sense of “in agreement”: Tariff (PAT 0259, ii line 96, hww spw[n]) and PAT 1584 (of first century AD, "qymw … spwn). For such an adverbial form one might compare Syriac s§mÙd “packed together.” The transcribed liturgical acclamation FL:Nf
4H “rank, row” (DNWSI, 422; Br 275a): in all the occurrences ãksys has the sense of “row (of niches)” (e.g. PAT 0051 of AD 241, PAT 0523 of AD 160). The same form, ãaksÊs, is also found in Syriac, but with the meaning “official entourage, bodyguard”; much more common, however, is ãeksa, also derived from JV>4H. (74) ßB"J46`H “of consular rank” (DNWSI, 291; BA 109; Br 179b): hpãyq" features once, in PAT 0291 of AD 258 (used of Septimius Odainat). The same spelling also occurs in Syriac in Eusebius, EH, III.xxxii.6, while a later and fuller spelling, "yp"ãyq" is found in the Martyrdom of Probus and his companions (ed. Bedjan 1890, VI, pp.
greek and latin in palmyrene inscriptions
23
178, 183). Syriac also attests several related borrowings, from àB"J@H, ßB"J,\"; the latter already occurs in the three legal documents of the 240s (Drijvers–Healey, P 1, 2 and 3) as hpãy", though the fuller spelling, hwpãy", is the one found in the literary texts (notably the various Edessene martyrdoms). (75) N\F6@H < Latin fiscus “public revenues, treasury” (DNWSI, 924; BA 121; Br 585a): the single occurrence of psqws is in PAT 2760 (undated). The only known Syriac attestation (psqwn based on the accusative) is in the Apology of Meliton (ed. Cureton 1855, p. 24 line 10). The rather high number of 19 Latin words will all have come by way of Greek (as is almost always the case in Syriac); in their original Latin forms these are: ala, beneficarius, caesar, carrus, centuria, centurio, colonia, colonus, decurio, denarius, dromedarios, ducenarius, fiscus, legio, mille, optio, sestertius, sextarius, and veteranus. Although there is a considerable overlap with Syriac, there are nevertheless 16 Greek words in Palmyrene which have no Syriac counterpart, and a further 7 which are only attested in Syriac in a different (though related form); in the following list words in the latter category are given in brackets: ala, –8F@H, •<*Df<, ((
24
sebastian p. brock
lation); thus in the cases of •<*D4VH, 6,<J@LD\", 6,<J@LD\T<, 6\<*L<@H, B"<J@BT8,Ã@<, FL(680J46`H, Fb<*[email protected] There is a unique case of the representation of Greek rho by Palmyrene lamadh (see no. 59). Greek internal vowels are much less frequently indicated by waw and yodh than they are in Syriac, though in several cases the earliest Syriac witnesses do conform with the defective spelling found in Palmyrene. In common with Syriac, Greek initial consonantal clusters beginning with a sibilant are provided with a prosthetic alaph. (b) Treatment of Greek case endings: as in Syriac, there are a number of different ways in which these are represented. Here only some main features are mentioned (an asterisk denotes that there is some variation in usage): /-os/: (i) zero: thus FJD"J0(`H* (ii) -ws: thus –8F@H, *y 0:@H*, (X<@H, 6DVJ4FJ@H*, N\F6@H (iii) -s: thus *y 0:@H*, (L:<"F\"DP@H, 6VDD@H, 6\<*L<@H, 6DVJ4FJ@H* (iv) -s": thus <"`H, <`:@H (v) -s" (Aramaic emphatic): thus ¦B\JD@B@H, ÊBB46`H, :`*4@H, @Û,J,D"<`H, FJD"J0(`H, FJD`$48@H, FL(680J46`H, ßB"J46`H. This sequence could be said to represent an increasing adaptation of the Greek borrowing into Aramaic. In Syriac cases of (i) are very rare; (ii) is quite common; (iii) is rare; (iv) is common with words which would otherwise appear as dissyllables (this clearly also applies to the Palmyrene examples); (v) is very common. /-oi/: for the emphatic the following are found: (i) -w" (intended as a transcription): only 6DVJ4FJ@4. In Syriac the plural of certain Greek words is given a slightly different ending, -w. (ii) -y" (= -ayya): –DPT<, (X<@H, 8,(4f<, >X<@H. (c ) Pronominal suffixes: in Syriac the use of suffixes with words of Greek origin is a sure sign that the word has been fully integrated into the Syriac lexical stock. The only two Greek words in Palmyrene to which suffixes (3 m.s) are directly attached are FJ@V and Fä:": though the former is a quite common loanword in Syriac, no suffixed forms appear to be attested, while the latter is not found at all in Syriac. 13
Also •<*Df<, not attested in Syriac.
greek and latin in palmyrene inscriptions
25
(d) Derived abstracts: the abstract suffix -uta is rather commonly found in Syriac attached to words of Greek origin.14 In Palmyrene there are three examples of this: ¦B4:,80JZH, BD`,*D@H, FJDVJ0(@H; the last is also found with a pronominal suffix. (e) In Syriac (and other languages) many borrowings from Greek are taken over from the accusative, rather than nominative, forms; the single instance of this in Palmyrene is •<*D4VH. 14
See Brock 1996, p. 280, and Brock 1999/2000, p. 441.
26
eleonora cussini
BEYOND THE SPINDLE: INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF PALMYRENE WOMEN ELEONORA CUSSINI
The study of women’s role in Palmyrene society is based upon a combined analysis of the epigraphic data with the extant visual representations, as well as from the interplay between these two elements.1 In fact, there are numerous inscriptions mentioning women, and funerary portraits depicting women in sterotyped poses, often holding the spindle and distaff, or other symbols of feminine activities.2 When compared to other contemporary and earlier Aramaic records having preserved only epigraphic data, Palmyrene sources provide a privileged standpoint for the study of women and their role. However, scarce attention has been devoted so far to this area of research.3 Little is known of the role and capacity of Palmyrene women, and of their individual stories, with the exception of queen Zenobia, the most prominent Palmyrene woman.4 The largest majority of avail1 Other contemporary Aramaic sources have preserved documents mentioning women: among these is the Babatha archive from NaÈal \ever (Lewis et al. 1989; JDS 3). Mention of women building tombs or owning tombs are contained in the Nabatean funerary inscriptions from Mada’in Salih, this last ones are typologically similar to Palmyrene cession texts (Healey 1993). Earlier Aramaic contracts witnessing to the role and legal capacity of women belong to the Elephantine archives (Porten–Yardeni 1989). However, all of the cited epigraphic specimens, differently from Palmyrene sources, are not integrated by iconographic data. On the issue of women’s representations in Palmyrene sources see Cussini 2000. 2 See, for example, a woman holding a ball of wool (Sadurska–Bounni 1994, p. 168, Cat. 225). On the spindle and distaff as symbols of feminine virtues, see Sadurska, in Sadurska–Bounni 1994, p. 189 “Je crois que l’objet [i.e. ball of wool] égale les outils du tissage étant emblème des vertus féminines traditionnelles.” Cf. below note 47, and Gawlikowski, The City of the Dead, below. 3 The available studies focus on women portraits within a general, formal analysis of Palmyrene sculpture (Colledge 1976; Zouhdi 1983; Sadurska, in Sadurska— Bounni 1994; Ploug 1995), with a certain interest devoted to jewellery (Musche 1988). 4 Surprisingly enough, very scanty Palmyrene texts mentioning Zenobia are preserved, and she is better known through classical sources. The only extant Aramaic records are PAT 0293, AD 271, on column, in the Great Colonnade, offered to
the role of palmyrene women
27
able inscriptions mentioning women are (A) funerary epitaphs added to relief-busts, or family groups, or written on stone-tablets originally placed onto the walls of the monumental tombs.5 They contain names and patronyms of women and mention their status within the family, e.g. “mother of, wife of, daughter of.” When indicated, the inscriptions usually note that the funerary reliefs were erected by male relatives.6 However, a few exceptions are documented: in some cases in fact, the funerary reliefs were commissioned by women, as PAT 0840 accompanying a double portrait: “Yarhay, son of / Bonne, which / was made for him by / his foster-mother. Ma#ainat, daughter of / Bonne. Alas!”; or PAT 0877, “Statue of #Atenatan, / son of Zabda#ateh, / which was made for him by / Aha, daughter of Nesha, / his wife. Alas!”; PAT 0901, “Makkay, son of / Shamshigeram. / Alas! Made / for him by his servant / and his daughter, (as a) / memorial”; PAT 0915, “Martay, daughter of / Taimarß[u], / that which was made for [her by] / Shagal, [her] sister.”7 As a whole, funerary epitaphs although widely attested, offer very limited information on the role of Palmyrene women, since the largest majority of them contain only personal names. (B) The second group of texts, in terms of quantity, originates from a funerary context as well and supplies a definitively higher degree of information. It consists of a handful of foundation inscriptions mentioning women or contain-
Zenobia by Zabda, chief general, and by Zabbay, general of Tadmor; PAT 0317, on column, from the Palmyrene region, dedicated to her son Wahaballat, mentioning “the illustrious queen”; and finally, PAT 2827, a lead tessera with a partly restored Greek text reading “queen Zenobia.” A 2002 exhibit held in Turin: Zenobia: il sogno di una Regina d’Oriente (catalogue: Anon. 2002), previously, in Paris: Moi, Zénobie, reine de Palmyre (cat.: Charles-Gaffiot et al. 2001) focused on Zenobia and her world. On the reconstruction of the lives of Palmyrene women see Cussini 2004. 5 For an example of the less commonly found funerary epitaphs on stone tablets see PAT 0464 (AD 41, originally from Tower 44, now lost) “[In the month of Siwan], the year 352. / [These statues] are of Kitut, son of / [Taimarßu, and of Maish]a, daughter of / [Malku,] his [wife], and of Lishamash, / [his son, and of Shulman], his son, and of / Maliku, his slave.” 6 PAT 0211, “[Statue of ...] / daughter of Warag, / made by / her husband. Alas!”; or PAT 0641, “Attay, daughter of / #Atenatan. / Alas! (This is) what / was made for her by / Yarhay / her brother”; PAT 0656, “Marion, son of / Elah[b]el, / (son of) Hairan. Alas! / (This is) what was made for him by / Hagigu, his son,” and many other samples. 7 For other instances of women offering architectural items to honor their husband, see below PAT 1644.
28
eleonora cussini
ing provisions regarding women. In addition, there are also almost twenty cession texts featuring women in the role of sellers or buyers of funerary properties.8 (C) A smaller percentage of honorific and dedicatory texts presents women both as dedicators as well as dedicatees of inscriptions, statues, and other artifacts. Finally, the Tariff, an inscription unique in type, contains references to taxes exacted from prostitutes.9 This material, combined with the available iconographic data—that is representations of women in funerary portraits—will be examined here to evaluate women’s role at Palmyra.10 (C) Honorific and Dedicatory Inscriptions The smallest group of texts within the cited types consists of six honorific inscriptions (including PAT 0293, dedicated to Zenobia), and of eleven dedicatory texts. The earliest extant honorific inscription is PAT 0315. It is incised on the base of the statue of a woman called #Ateim and was offered in 17 B.C. by two men, perhaps her sons, and by the tribe of the Bani Komara.11 Other texts are PAT 1346, on column, not dated: (A) “[Statue of . . . ] daughter of Makkay, / [(son of) Ummabi, which] was made for her by Ma#anay. (B) Statue 8 On the formulation and significance of cession texts (monumental inscriptions containing abstracts of legal documents whose full version was recorded on perishable material) see Cussini 1993 and 1995 with previous bibliography. 9 PAT 0259, ll. 47-51: "p ygb" mks" mn znyt" mn / mn dy àql" dynr ["w] ytyr dnr" Èd mn "tt" / wmn mn dy àql" "sryn tmny" / ygb" "sryn tmny" [Part II, Column 2] wmn mn dy àql["] "sry[n à]t" “In addition, the tax-collector shall collect tax from the prostitutes, from one who charges a denarius [or] more, one denarius per woman; and from one who charges eight assaria, he shall collect eight assaria; and from one who charge[s s]ix assar[ia,] he shall take [six] assaria.” Furthermore, l. 125: mks" dy #lymt" “the tax on girls (= prostitutes)”. 10 In addition to depiction of goddesses, for example Allat, Palmyrene women appear in two cultic scenes from the temples of Bel and Allat, showing veiled women participating to a religious cerimony. On this issue, Dirven 1999, pp. 82ff., fig. 18 and pl. XIX. For a discussion of the fragment from the temple of Bel, Seyrig 1934, pp. 159-165, pl. XIX; Gawlikowski 1990, p. 2614. Women with their face completely veiled are unattested elsewhere in Palmyrene sculpture; their presence in these reliefs, as noted in the cited literature, has to deal with the cultic framework of the scenes. Furthermore a headless, uninscribed feminine marble statue, may be the only existing example of honorific statue of a woman, see Colledge 1976, pl. 126. 11 Names of the dedicators are partly preserved: “This statue is of #Ateim, da[ughter of ... ] / Aushay, wife of Bolaha, [son of ... ] / which was erected for her by Aglibol and [Malakbel] / and the Bani Komara.”
the role of palmyrene women
29
of Hagar, daughter of Makkay, / (son of) Ummabi, which was made for her by Ma#anay, (C) her brother”;12 PAT 0300 of AD 179, a bilingual Greek-Aramaic text on a column in the Transversal Colonnade, originally accompanying the statue of Martay, offered to her memory by her husband Shuraiku; a Greek inscription offered by the Bani Mattabol tribe to a woman called Bettheis;13 an Aramaic text on column dedicated to Shallum by her husband Sewira.14 Women, as we see, were the recipients of honorific inscriptions and statues. In some cases, women offered statues or buildings honoring their relatives or spouse: PAT 1417, a bilingual GreekPalmyrene of AD 214 written on a column console from the Agora, was dedicated by Hagge to her father and brother; according to PAT 1644, a badly preserved inscription on a fragment of door lintel, a woman named Shagal offered a portion of a building to the memory of her husband; and PAT 1933, on a relief fragment found reemployed in a later construction, dedicated by Babatha to her husband whose name is lost.15 As we gather from extant dedicatory inscriptions, Palmyrene women offered altars, columns or ex-voto inscriptions to gods. Eight of these texts are dated: PAT 0167, of AD 23, records the offering of two columns to the god Baalshamin by three women, #Attay and Shabhay, daughters of Shahra, and #Ate, daughter of Firdush. PAT 0168, AD 52: Amatallat, daughter of Bare#a, wife of Belhazay, offered a column to Baalshamin. In the ensuing cases, women dedicated altars to the Anonymous God: PAT 1434 of AD 165 (Tidal freedwoman of Bassos); PAT 0352 of AD 178 (Hannate); PAT 0360 of AD 207 (Makki daughter of Oga, for “her life and the life of her daughter”); PAT 0366 of AD 220 (Domnina, daughter of Yadi#bel); PAT 0373 of AD 230 (Batzubaida, daughter of Gaddarsu, for herself and her husband #Ubaidu); and, finally, PAT 0356, date lost (Ala, daughter of Zubaida). The rest of the documents were not dated, or the date-formula is now lost: PAT 0065, Greek-Palmyrene, offered by Akamat daughter of Male to the Anonymous God “... there offers thanks Akamat, daughter of / [Male, son of E]lahbel, who
12
Inscriptions A and B contain the same text; B is better preserved than A. al-As’ad—Gawlikowski 1986-1987, pl. 19a. 14 al-As’ad—Gawlikowski 1986-1987, pl. 23b. For a study of this and other dedicatory inscriptions offered to women, Cussini 2004. 15 For cases of women offering funerary reliefs, cf. above. 13
30
eleonora cussini
called to him in darkness / [ ... ] and furthermore he answered her ...”); PAT 0413, Mezabba, daughter of Mezabbana; PAT 0426, Hadira, daughter of [ ... ]; PAT 0429, Shalmat, daughter of Elah.16 In other cases women may appear together with a male relative, for example the husband, as in the next three texts inscribed on altars offered to the Anonymous God: PAT 1911, AD 251 and PAT 2635; or the father, as in PAT 1001, AD 233. In addition, we may note PAT 0394, an ex-voto on altar offered in AD 263 by Yarhay son of Nabuda, and by two women, Koshay daughter of Seleuka, and Shabbatay daughter of Wahaballat; or PAT 0399, ex-voto on altar offered by Zabda, son of Hala, and Ba#altega, daughter of #Oga AD 268; or PAT 1430, ex-voto on altar dedicated to the Anonymous God by Yarhibola, Barrahum and a woman, Akme; PAT 1703, exvoto on altar offered to the gods Shulman and Abgal by two men and a woman, Shalmat; or, possibly, PAT 0184, a fragmentary inscription on altar offered by Yarhay, and by a woman, Shabay. Some inscriptions on altars offered to gods are dedicated to women alone, as PAT 1741, to Rawsay, daughter of Taimu#amad, with no indication of the dedicator’s name; or are dedicated to women and other male relatives, as PAT 2752 of AD 159, offered by Rapael “for Shalmat and for her brothers”; PAT 1916, AD 162, for the dedicator’s wife; PAT 1619, AD 175, for the dedicator’s wife and daughter; PAT 1658, AD 213 and PAT 1443, AD 221, for the dedicator’s mother.17 (B) Inscriptions from Funerary Context: Foundation and Cession Texts Foundation inscriptions may contain clauses indicating that the tomb was built, among the others, for one’s mother or daughters, and sometimes they include as well inheritance rights clauses specifically regarding women. On the other hand, as is well known, quite often a concluding clause specifies that the tomb was intended for the male descendants only.18 Foundation inscriptions mentioning women are: 16 See also PAT 1705, badly preserved inscription on altar offered to Allat by a woman, name lost. 17 Note also PAT 2783, perhaps from funerary context: dedication of a statuette to a woman, accompanied by the inscription “Made by Mihrabazan for Shalmat.” 18 E.g.: PAT 1216 and other cases. Perhaps the formula indicates that the female
the role of palmyrene women
31
PAT 1134, AD 67, stating that the tomb was built by Yadi#bel for his father, mother and brothers; PAT 2816, AD 86, built by Maliku for his father and mother; PAT 0002, most likely of AD 106, specifying that the tomb was built by Hairan for himself and for his daughters; or PAT 2776, AD 142: “This tomb was made by Male, son of ‘a#iday, son of Male, for himself and for his sister,19 and for his sons and for his daughters and for his grandsons, forever.”20 In a few cases, women are listed among the tomb’s builder: in PAT 1142, a Greek-Palmyrene inscription of AD 232, recording that the tomb “was dug and ornamented” by Julius Aurelius Hermeias and Phirma,21 and PAT 0568, AD 252 a fragmentary Greek-Palmyrene text, mentioning Akme daughter of Balati with two apparently unrelated men: Mokimu, daughter (sic) of Zabda#ateh, and Romanus, son of Male.22 A peculiar funerary inscription is PAT 0528, written on a tablet placed on the wall of the already cited Tomb of the Three Brothers in the South-West necropolis. It reads: “Batmalku, daughter of Zabdibol, / son of Zabdibol, son of ‘a#iday, / heiress of home and tomb.” There are other copies of the same inscription, all undated, originating from this tomb: they are PAT 0529 and PAT 0540. This woman, Julia Aurelia Batmalku, daughter of Zabdibol son of ‘a#iday is known to us thanks to a cession text carved on the door jamb of the same tomb (PAT 0527). According to this inscription, in AD 241 she sold four niches to Julius Aurelius Male, son of Yadiu. As we learn from her genealogy, she was the granddaughter of one of the founders of the tomb, ‘a#iday son of ‘a#iday son of Male.23 Apparheirs did not inherit the property in question and were excluded from the right of disposing of it (that is, selling portions of it), but they had the right of being buried in the family tomb. Cf. below, discussion of PAT 0528, and the term wràh “heiress.” 19 Interpretation of this word is problematic; see PAT, p. 323, wl"ÈÏth “and for his sister,” with mention of other possible readings. 20 From the “Tomb of the Three Brothers.” From the same tomb; PAT 0523 and PAT 0524, two cession texts of AD 160; PAT 0527 of AD 241, cession text; PAT 0528, PAT 0529 and PAT 0540, around AD 240 funerary epitaphs. 21 About Phirma, who in AD 247 sold a portion of the same tomb, see below PAT 2725. 22 The clause stating that the tomb was built or dug and ornamented or the like, by the cited individuals is not preserved. 23 Builder the tomb together with his brothers Nu#amain and Male, as recorded in four more cession texts from the same tomb: PAT 0523, PAT 0524, and PAT 0525, all of AD 160.
32
eleonora cussini
ently, around AD 240, she was the only living heir of the family, if she was able to sell an additional portion of the tomb,24 and she had three inscriptions placed in the tomb designating her as the “heiress of home and tomb,” wràt" dy byt" wm#rt". The term wràh “heiress” found in the three inscriptions of Batmalku is not attested elsewhere in the Palmyrene corpus.25 Batmalku, as heiress of the funerary property could thus dispose of it, as in fact we know from the discussed cession text of AD 240. What totally escape us are the implications of the phrase “heiress of home,” since we lack information regarding other immovable properties Batmalku might have inherited—together with the family monumental tomb. In other words, we can only hypothesize that Batmalku was the only heir of this wellto-do Palmyrene family, and that she controlled and could dispose of all of her immovable (as well as movable) properties, as indicated by this only surviving inscription, recording the sale of four burial niches. With this as the only exception, extant Palmyrene inscriptions never refers to a woman as “heiress” of properties. At the same time, it should be stressed, comparable inscriptions referring to man as “heir” are not present as well in the corpus. However, references to inheritance rights are contained in clauses from some foundation inscriptions, where it is implied—although not explicitly stated—that the female descendants did not inherit the tomb itself, but only the right to be buried in it.26 24 Within the same tomb, around a century earlier, the following portions had been sold to different buyers: “two sides of the northern and southern walls” (PAT 0067, sale conducted by husband and wife); “four niches of the western wall of the southern exedra ... and all the wall opposite the southern wall, of that same exedra, in which is a row of four niches” (PAT 0523); “the northern exedra, which faces south, which is on the right as you go in, in which there are twenty empty niches, and four niches which are outside the vaulted space, on the right as you enter” (PAT 0524); “the eastern wall of the southern exedra, in which is a row of eight niches, and three other niches which are on the left as one enters” (PAT 0525); and “four niches, inside on the south, in the east wall (of) the exedra which as one enters this hypogeum, is on the left, and two niches that are at the back of the cavity (?), clean ones” (PAT 0526, this last cession conducted by the same person who is in turn the buyer in PAT 0525). 25 Cantineau 1935, p. 150 cites two forms wràt" in PAT 0528 and PAT 0540, plus a third occurrence “wrà «il a hérité» Ingh(olt), inédit” which is actually the third occurrence of the same wràt" found in PAT 0529. The term yrt “heir” is found in the comparable Nabatean inscriptions from Mada’in Salih. Cfr. several other occurrences of yrt in Aramaic documents of sale from Murabba#ât, NaÈal \ever and Dura Europos, discussed in Cussini 1993. 26 This, as we saw, does not apply to all the surviving foundation inscriptions.
the role of palmyrene women
33
In other cases, as in PAT 2727, of AD 95, the text indicates that women owned a piece of property, but we are not told whether they had purchased, inherited, or received it as a gift.27 The inscription— written on the door lintel of a tomb in the South-West necropolis— contains an indication of ownership, rather than being a cession text: “This hypogeum, which is on the inside, is equally divided between Batmitray and Batailid; on the right as one enters the first row belongs to Batailid and on the left, the first row belongs to Batmitray; as one goes farther inside, the row on the right belongs to Batmitray and the row on the left belongs to Batailid.” Following a widely attested pattern common to foundation and cession texts, the inscription contains an accurate description of the property and its precise location within the tomb. Batmitray and Batailid, the two owners, are known to us through this inscription only, where their patronyms are not recorded. Thus, we cannot determine their type of relation, if any, nor their connection to other Palmyrene families. It may well be that each woman had acquired her share of this property as a result of a previous cession—not documented—or, by the same token, they had inherited the two parts. Several other cession texts illustrate the capability of women of buying and selling funerary properties. From AD 147 down to AD 274, seventeen inscriptions—out of a total of sixty-three cession texts, one of which is in Greek28—have preserved references to sale transactions conducted by women, seven times as buyers, and thirteen times as sellers of portions of tombs (see Table 1 below). In three cases (PAT 1815, PAT 0067 and PAT 1945), respectively, the two women who sell, and the woman who buys, are mentioned together with a man, the husband in PAT 1815, a brother in PAT 1945, perhaps the husband in PAT 0067. In the rest of the inscriptions they appear alone, or together with another woman, as in PAT 2729, where the two women are aunt and niece. In PAT 0095 of AD 239, which records two different sales by Julia Aurelia Shalmat and Ummadabu, they are apparently unrelated.29 First they sold eight niches to Julius Aurelius Maliku, and secondly nine niches to Ma#aina,
27
References to deeds of gift are not attested in the Palmyrene corpus, but note a funerary inscription from Mada’in Salih mentioning a deed of gift of immovable property: husband donates tomb to his wife (Healey 1993, p. 189, H 27). 28 Cantineau 1930, Inv VIII, 68 = Gawlikowski 1970, no. 51. 29 On Ummadabu, a brt Èry “freedwoman,” see below.
34
eleonora cussini
daughter of Bonne.30 How these women had come into possession of these properties is never stated; judging from the available prosopographic data, we may infer that in the majority of cases they inherited the tombs from their families.31 This is perhaps the case of Ummu, daughter of Bassa, known to us thanks to two cession texts from the Tomb of Maliku. In AD 213, her father, together with his brother had bought six niches from the descendants of the builder of the tomb (PAT 0048). She might have inherited from him these niches or at least some of them. Later on, in AD 257 Ummu bought four niches from Dadion, son of Habbay (PAT 0053), while ten years later, in AD 267, she sold two niches to Julius Aurelius Agathona (PAT 0054). In the light of these information we may conclude that perhaps Ummu had inherited burial spaces, but not enough for the needs of her family, since she bought four more in AD 257. The subsequent cession of two niches ten years later may be explained as the consequence of a period of financial straits she might have incurred necessitating the liquidation of some of her immovables, or simply because the available burials spaces exceeded her family needs. But this is just an hypothesis, since the texts do not contain these information. Finally, the same tomb preserved an additional cession text (PAT 0055) conducted by a woman, whose relation either to Ummu, or to the descendants of the family of the founder cannot be determined on the basis of the available prosopographic data. In AD 274, Tema, daughter of Abdastor sold five niches to Abgar son of Taime. We are not told from whom she inherited this property. Other samples of subsequent acquisitions of burial spaces conducted in the course of time by the one and the same woman are PAT 0057 (a bilingual Greek-Palmyrene), and PAT 0058, both from the tomb of Nasrallat. These texts are comparable to PAT 0053 and 30
In AD 188, a Bonne son of Bolaha, most likely Ma#aina’s father, bought eight niches in the hypogeum of Lishamsh, as recorded in PAT 0551. Fifty-one years later his daughter, needed to buy additional burial spaces in another tomb, located as well in the South-West necropolis. The same woman, although it is not certain, may be the one mentioned in a funerary epitaph cited above, PAT 0840. 31 In addition to the cited case of Batmalku (PAT 0527), see PAT 0555 where Shagal, the seller, is the great-granddaughter of the builder of the tomb. The same is true for PAT 1815, where Hannibel, son of the founder of the tomb, sells a portion of it together with his wife Pristina; or PAT 0095, where one of the two sellers is a descendant of the tomb’s founder, or PAT 2729, where the sale transaction is conducted by daughter and granddaughter of one of the builder of the tomb.
the role of palmyrene women
35
PAT 0054 discussed above. In AD 263 Julia Aurelia Amata, daughter of Bolhazay bought two exedras from Julius Aurelius Yadibel, son of #Abdishamaya. Two years later, in 265, she bought four additional burial niches from the same man.32 Cession texts, as well as other Palmyrene text-types may mention men and women characterized by the expression br Èry and brt Èry/ bt Èry , usually interpreted as “freedman, freedwoman,” which indicate individuals belonging to a specific Palmyrene social group.33 In two cases the inscriptions state that the funerary property was sold by women brt Èry. These texts are PAT 0095 of AD 239, and PAT 2725 of AD 242. The first inscription, already examined above records sales conducted by two women, one of which, Ummadabu is referred to as brt Èry. In addition, the text specifies she is mprnsnyt", the (legal) guardian, or foster-mother of her child.34 What is meant by this term, found in this inscription only, is difficult to say: perhaps the woman conducted the transaction in the interest of a minor son (“Bonne, son of Rabbel, her son”), who would be the owner of the property sold.35 According to the second inscription, in AD 242, Phirma sold a space within her tomb to a man. This woman is already known from an inscription that dates ten year earlier from the partly damaged foundation inscription from the Tomb of Hermes. Here she is cited together with Julius Aurelius Hermeias, a br Èry as well, as the builder of this hypogeum (cf. above PAT 1142). While
32 No other text mentioning these two individuals have survived. Perhaps, we may connect to this same woman a fragmentary funerary epitaph, PAT 1251: “Amata, daughte[r of ... ] / Belhazay, [ ... ] / Malku [ ... ] / peace(?)[ ... ].” 33 The status of br Èry and brt/bt Èry in Palmyrene society needs to be clarified, as well as the precise meaning of the expression itself. The equivalence bt Èry/ liberta, which led to the commonly accepted, although not entirely satisfactory interpretation “freedwoman” is based upon one occurrence only: PAT 0246. On this inscription, and Regina, the woman mentioned therein, Cussini 2004. Judging from the evidence provided by the cession texts, men and women characterized by this expression had attained a good economic and social status, since they were capable of buying portions of tombs. Cf. below Levine, pp. 112-113. 34 Written here mprnsyt" with omission of nun. Cf. Cantineau 1935, p. 116. 35 According to Ingholt, who published the inscription, the term would indicate a “provider,” from Greek BD@<@XT “to provide.” In the same article, Ingholt cites another occurrence of the term from an unpublished text: “«Aqamate, a daughter of Lishamsh, (son of) Yarhibole, mprnsyt" of Zebîdâ, son of Naàrâ, (son of) Nebûlâ, her son.» The tomb (AG) will be published in a subsequent article.” To my knowledge this inscription, cited as well in DNWSI, p. 674, is still unpublished (Ingholt 1938, p. 130).
36
eleonora cussini
he is referred to as br Èry of Aureli[us ... ], she is brt Èry of another woman, Akme, daughter of Antiochos Hulipe.36 In a unique case, PAT 1791 a cession text of AD 171, from a tomb located in Bazuriyyeh, in the region surrounding Palmyra, the usually laconic cession text is enriched by interesting details which convey the flavor of the original document of sale now lost.37 The inscription relates that Shalma, daughter of Bolaha, acting for her husband, sold half of the tomb in question and received from the buyer the sum of one hundred and twenty denarii.38 The peculiarity of the text rests upon the fact that this is the only example of payment receipt clause found in a Palmyrene cession text, characterized by the participle mwdy" “(Shalma) acknowledges (to seller)...,” containing as well an indication of the sale price, and other clauses from the original deed of sale, such as the mention of a witness to the transaction. In general, formulation of cession texts featuring women as sellers or buyers do not show differences of any sort from texts featuring men. The verbs employed to express the cession of the funerary property are the usual ones found in the rest of the Palmyrene cession texts. There is the expected predominance of the verb rÈq which, during the third century AD became practically the only verb used in cession texts to express the sale transaction.39 The epigraphic data examined indicate that Palmyrene women could dedicate inscriptions to gods and offered them altars and other
36 We may connect to this Akme, who belonged to a foremost Palmyrene family, the following inscriptions: PAT 0247 of AD 236, a Greek-Palmyrene dedicatory text found in Rome offered by a member of the same family, and perhaps, since Akme’s patronym is not recorded, also PAT 0843, a funerary epitaph, “Statue of #Abd[a], freedman of Akme.” 37 The lengthier version of this inscription, when compared to the standard cession texts is perhaps due to the geographic distance between Bazuriyye and the archives in Palmyra, where conceivably, a copy of the original, complete deeds of sale drafted on perishable material were deposited against possible litigations. 38 The woman is said to act bmqmwt “in the place of” her husband, #Ogailu, son of Boropa, who, for some reasons unknown to us, was unable to conduct the transaction. 39 The only exceptions are PAT 1815, where the cession formula is expressed by àwtpw “they took in partnership,” PAT 1791, where we find yhbt wb#dt “she has sold and ceded,” and PAT 0067, "Èbr wrÈq “made a partnership and ceded.” Palmyrene cessions are expressed by seven verbs: b#d, zbn, "Èbr, yhb, lwy, rÈq/"rÈq (found in the G and C forms), àwtp, and by two-verb combinations: "Èbr wyhb, "Èbr wrÈq, yhb w’Èbr, yhb wb#d, àwtp wrÈq. On their attestation and significance, Cussini 1993 and 1995.
the role of palmyrene women
37
architectural items. Likewise, they dedicated inscriptions and architectural items to husbands and funerary inscriptions and reliefs to relatives—males as well as females. At the same time, women were the recipients of dedicatory and honorific inscriptions. However, as we have seen, these text-types represent a small percentage within the epigraphic corpus, when compared to honorific or dedicatory texts for men. When we examine cession texts, the available data indicate that female presence is limited in this area too, but certainly well attested. The discussed instances of women selling property, and those that show women as buyers, as exemplified in Table 1, are a good specimen of the activity of Palmyrene women as managers of their own family properties.40 Finally, funerary epitaphs are largely attested; however, these brief inscriptions accompanying the reliefs of the defunct Palmyrenes convey little information enabling us to reconstruct life and role of the individual portrayed. Male portraits are usually characterized by items (or animal) indicating their occupation. Examples include the portraits of men holding a whip with a dromedary in the background,41 or the reliefs of scribes,42 or the numerous portraits of man wearing the modius priestly hat and holding in their hands cups and vases, or, in other instances, holding an item interpreted as a folded piece of parchment. Women are easily recognizable because of hairstyle, somatic features, jewelry, and due to the presence selected items characterizing their portraits: mainly the spindle and distaff (Fig. 1), but also, in a few cases, jewelry boxes, balls of wool, or keys.43 Nonetheless,
40 To these we may add PAT 2820, AD 238, a bilingual Greek-Palmyrene, found re-employed. The fragmentary Palmyrene text is integrated by Greek portion: Aurelia Shalmat, buys a “dug-out space” within a hypogeum from Aurelius Hanaina. Perhaps the same woman as Julia Aurelia Shalmat of PAT 0095, AD 239. If the two women are one and the same, one wonders why she bought a portion of another tomb, when she owned at least part of her family tomb (the T. of #Abd#astor) from which she sold, together with another woman, a total of seventeen niches in the course of AD 239, see above discussion of PAT 0095. 41 Hvidberg-Hansen–Ploug 1993, p. 90, no. 47: 5; or Sadurska, in Sadurska– Bounni 1994, p. 186, and figs. 33, 35, 80, 81. 42 Colledge 1976, pl. 80, 82 and 75 (see below Fig. 2). This last relief depicts Yarhay (see PAT 0679), most likely a scribe flanked by a young servant holding the book-roll case, scrinium, and folding waxed tablets, the polyptychon. Cf. Parlasca 1988. 43 For portraits of women with keys, see for instance Hvidberg-Hansen–Ploug
38
eleonora cussini
in a few cases, there has been some hesitation.44 Among the items found in representations of women, the spindle and distaff, or the ball of wool are symbols of women’s occupation and an indication of gendered role, and, for this reason they are limited to female portraiture.45 Others, like the keys or the jewelry boxes do not symbolize a specific occupation, but they are nonetheless mainly attested in feminine portraits.46 The information gained from the epigraphic corpus clashes, in some regards, with the idea of women’s role one can derive when examining female iconography. The reliefs, in fact, have preserved a more demure image of women, whose sphere of activity, judging from a wide number of portraits, seems to be restricted within the house.47 Palmyrene women instead, were capable of selling and buying properties, and could do this in the place of their husband, as we saw in one inscription, or of a son, as we read in another; at the same time they erected funerary reliefs or columns and issued dedicatory inscriptions to the memory of husbands and other relatives, or altars and ex-voto inscriptions to celebrate the gods. We may conclude by noting that assumptions on a secondary role of Palmyrene women based on gendered iconography and, specifically on the presence of the discussed items in female portraits are misleading and do not do justice to the picture resulting from the inscriptions. The active presence of women may be tracked in legal document, the cession texts, and in other moments and aspects of Palmyrene life, documented by civil and religious honorific and dedicatory texts. The information regarding women and their ac1993, p. 135, no. 89, or Dentzer-Feydy–Teixidor 1993, p. 165, n. 168 (= PAT 0644). 44 As with the case of a girl and a woman thought to be eunuchs, and the little girl mistaken for a siren by Colledge 1976, p. 72, and p. 264, cf. Cussini 2000. 45 Cussini 2000, p. 279. Spindle and distaff commonly appear in portraits belonging to Colledge’s first phase, dating between AD 50 and 150; the second phase fase roughly between AD 150 and 200, while the third and last one during the third century. Female portraits dating to this last phase do not present anymore elements such as spindle and distaff, ball of wool or keys. See Colledge 1976, p. 69 and following. 46 Keys may be occasionally found in portraits of priests, see Ploug 1995, p. 97. On this see Parlasca 1988. 47 The spindle and distaff as symbols of domestic virtues, echo one of the highly praised qualities of the Roman matronae, the lanificium, or assiduous work at the loom, as found in Latin funerary Laudationes, see, for example the Laudatio Murdiae, Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, VI, 10230.
the role of palmyrene women
39
tivities we gained, sieving through the wealth of extant inscriptions contribute to elucidate an aspect of Palmyrene social history. This analysis emphasizes a combined study of visual data and epigraphic records in order to obtain a balanced picture.
40
eleonora cussini
Table 1. Women selling and buying funerary spaces Year
Seller/s
147
man + Pristina d. Zabda#ateh s. of Taimarßu of Hannibel Shalma d. of Maliku s. of Bolaha Mokimu Shalmat d. of Azzizu s. of Shuhaimu Adda Shagal d. of Shayya#an s.
Julius Aurelius Bolimma Aurelius Hairan s. of Makkay J. A. Shalmat & Ummadabu J. A. Shalmat & Ummadabu J. A. Shela
Sold portion
Tomb
half hypogeum
’alamallat
half part
tomb in Bazuriyyeh ?
profane space ?
tomb in Qaryatein
2 sides of a wall
Yarhay, #Atenuri, Zabdibol Tower no. 70
[PN] daughter of Nabuza Aurelia Samay d. of Lishamash Julius Aurelius Maliku Ma#aina d. of Bonne J. A. Taime & Lishamash J. A. Batmalku d. J. A. Male s. of Zabdibol of Yadiu
?
J. A. Phirma br[t Èry] J. A. Akme + Batateakab
profane space
Dadion s. of Habbay J. A. Yadibel s. of Abdishamaya J. A. Yadibel s. of Abdishamaya Ummu d. of Bassa Tema d. of Abdastor
J. A. Zabdibol s. of Kohelu Shum#on, Mezabbana, Ishak Ummu d. of Bassa J. A. Amata, d. of Bolhazay J. A. Amata, d. of Bolhazay J. A. Agathona s. of Bassa Abgar s. of Taime
2 niches 8 niches
Julius Aurelius Male #Abd#astor
6 + 3 niches
#Abd#astor
1 exedra
?
4 niches
Yarhay, Zabdibol #Atenuri, Hermes
4 niches 4 niches
YarÈibôlâ, Taimoamad, Maqqai Maliku
2 exedras
Nasrallat
4 niches
Nasrallat
2 niches
Maliku
5 niches
Maliku
the role of palmyrene women
41
Table 1. Notes and concordances Female names are underlined. Abbreviations: d. = daughter; s. = son; J. A. = Julius Aurelius/Julia Aurelia.
AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
Fig. 1. Relief bust of Hanna, with spindle, distaff and key (after Hvidberg-Hansen–Ploug 1993, no. 26; PAT 0854)
the role of palmyrene women
43
Fig. 2. Relief of Yarhay and his servant (after Hvidberg-Hansen–Ploug 1993, no. 126; PAT 0679)
44
michal gawlikowski
THE CITY OF THE DEAD MICHAL GAWLIKOWSKI
A visitor coming to Palmyra today meets first some rather derelict funerary towers of the South-West necropolis, standing to his left beside the highway from Damascus. Much more impressive was the sight awaiting the travelers until mid-20th century, when they usually arrived through a passage between the western hills, called Valley of Tombs (Wadi el-Qubur). Standing towers and heaps of carved stones marking the sites of other tombs make up a unique landscape marked with melancholy and abandonment (Fig. 1). In Antiquity, when the buildings were complete, it was a real city with high-rise towers and sumptuous palaces along the main thoroughfare coming in from Emesa (today Homs). A small rocky outcrop in the middle of the valley, known locally as Umm Belqis (to commemorate the Queen of Sheba, for whom Palmyra was allegedly built by Solomon), bears at mid-height a ring of towers (Fig. 2). The ancient road bifurcated around this hillock and entered the town as two streets of the earliest quarters that developed on a plateau south of the present ruins.1 A rampart built under the Tetrarchy has not only condemned this part of the town, but also separated the western necropolis from its natural extension around the northern limit of the living city, using on its course some tombs incorporated as bastions, while some others remained inside the late defenses. This northern necropolis is today extremely dilapidated, but was once as dense and rich as the Valley of Tombs itself. There are two other sepulchral areas in evidence, both south of the oasis: to the west, the already mentioned cluster of tombs along the present road, and at some distance to the east, a group mostly notable today by its excavated underground funerary galleries. A poorer cemetery consisting of individual graves existed under the modern town, but only some tombstones in the museum can be seen today. Nearly all overground tombs have been mapped and numbered 1
Current excavations of A. Schmidt-Colinet.
the city of the dead
45
by the Wiegand expedition at the beginning of the 20th century.2 A monography on the funerary monuments in Palmyra was published many years later; quite recently, a dissertation on funerary towers treated this particular class of tombs in more detail.3 Besides, there exists a range of excavation reports covering mainly underground tombs. The eldest tomb known in Palmyra has been discovered by the Swiss mission in the sanctuary of Baalshamin.4 It goes back to the second century B.C. and appears to have been closed and purified in AD 11 in relation with the founding of the sanctuary. Other archaic monuments are towers standing in the Valley of Tombs and on the bordering hills; they belong to the first century B.C. During the first century AD and the first quarter of the next more towers filled the Valley, especially along its northern track and on the slope of Umm Belqis looking toward the city. Later on, several underground galleries and funerary caves found their place there, along with the so-called funerary temples. Of the latter, one has been recently excavated and comprehensively published.5 The southwest necropolis includes towers of the first century AD and many hypogea of the second century, of which about fifty have been excavated. Their inscriptions show the constant use of the underground tombs down to the end of the third century. The southeast necropolis seems to have been started at the very end of the first century. Several tombs have been excavated by Syrian, and more recently by Japanese archaeologists.6 The development of the funerary architecture in Palmyra starts in the late Hellenistic period and covers all three centuries of prosperity until the demise of the city after Zenobia. It is governed from the beginning by two constant principles: the use of loculi and the marking of the burial by an upright monument. Each can be traced back to a different tradition. The perpendicular slots in the walls of underground chambers and galleries, flat, arched or gabled on top, seem to be of Alexandrine origin. In the Levant, the first known examples were found in
2 3 4 5 6
Watzinger-Wulzinger 1932; on topography, Gawlikowski 1970a, pp. 147-166. Henning 2001. Fellmann 1970. Schmidt-Colinet 1992. Higuchi–Saito 1998.
46
michal gawlikowski
Marissa, a Sidonian colony in southern Palestine, but such loculi became soon a standard form of burial throughout Syria and Palestine,7 and remained so in Palmyra until the end of the third century, both hollowed out in the rock or built in masonry. On the other hand, raised tombstones and funerary stelae can be found in Syria from very early times, but the Arab migrations brought apparently with them the notion of the deceased being in some way present in the stone set up over the tomb and called for that reason nefesh or “soul”.8 Inscriptions prove this usage to be well established among the Nabataeans, Ituraeans and in other areas where nomads have settled in the later Hellenistic period, including Palmyra, where the nefesh took the form of a small arched stela, often with the standing figure of the dead in relief, to be set up on the grave and sometimes removed later to an underground tomb. More surprisingly, the term of nefesh applies occasionally to funerary towers. At the beginning, these were just masonry pillars built over a socle containing loculi burials, and could thus be conceived as collective monuments apt to house the souls of the deceased. Soon, the primitive notion faded away in the urban milieu, even more easily as the burials started to be installed in the higher part of the towers, becoming thus tombs and memorials in the same time. The earliest known tomb, found behind the temple of Baalshamin, consisted originally of a mudbrick squarish socle 4,5 through 5 mt. with a grave pit in the middle containing the bones of a woman buried in mid-second century BC. The mudbrick structure was later extended to envelope a low corridor with lateral loculi, partly hollowed out in the bedrock, partly built in rough stones. All this was certainly surmounted by a standing monument in brick levelled by the founders of the sanctuary in the early first century AD. Early funerary towers are found mostly on the hills right and left of the Emesa road. They are built in broken stone set in mortar around the central rubble core. Each has a square stepped socle 5 to 7 mt. each side in which there are reserved deep loculi, in some cases only four of them on two opposite sides, but sometimes up to twenty, opening on all four sides and on two levels (nos. 2, 4, 5, 6,
7
Peters–Thiersch 1905. For Alexandria, see already Thiersch 1904; Pagenstecher 1919. 8 Cf. Gawlikowski 1972.
the city of the dead
47
10, 24, 29, 52). Above, the tower proper contains a winding staircase around the central core in which a few additional internal loculi are sometimes reserved. Tapering on the outside, these towers are never preserved up to the top. Apparently, they served as lofty stelae above the graves contained in the socle. Three such towers (nos. 25-27), lined up with smoothed stone revetment, are apparently solid. Standing on a high ridge north of the Valley of Tombs, they probably mark burials underneath. Similar towers can be found at several sites on the Euphrates: Dura-Europos, Halabiyya, Baghuz. Unlike those of Palmyra, they are often adorned with plastered half-columns and pilasters. The dating is uncertain, but most are probably late Hellenistic.9 Only in Palmyra, however, appeared a device to install loculi inside the tower. There are two monuments containing narrow corridors with the lateral loculi (nos. 53 and 71a) and one containing a vaulted chamber with loculi above the socle which harbours other burials accessible from outside (no. 5). All three are neighbours on the southern slope of Umm Belqis. They should be considered as first attempts at increasing the number of loculi burials, the tendency that explains all subsequent development of funerary towers. Soon, there appear towers containing several chambers one above the other, all linked by a winding staircase between them and the outer walls (e.g. nos. 11, 95, 170). The chambers are distinctly narrower on top than at floor level, their walls being strongly inclined inwards in order to reduce the width of horizontal slabs used for ceiling. On their long walls four or eight loculi open each side, on two levels, while the entrance is placed alternatively in a long or a short side of the chamber. Some isolated loculi are to be found on the staircase itself. The earliest dated tower (Figs. 3-4, Tower of ‘Atenatan), built in 9 BC by two sons of ‘Atenatan Kohailu (no. 7)10 displays two entrances on opposite sides, leading into two independent chambers contained in the socle one above the other. Each has lateral loculi set symmetrically on two levels. The upper chamber contains the beginning of stairs going up toward four superposed smaller chambers with irregular loculi, and toward single loculi still higher up,
9 10
Cf. Will 1945/49 and Will 1945/49bis. Witecka 1994.
48
michal gawlikowski
where there was a decorative frame inserted in the façade above a corniche running around the tower. The top of the tower is not preserved and we do not know whether the stairs ended blind or led to some sort of terrace. All together there were over 40 loculi, walled and plastered one by one when used. Those situated in the higher part of the tower have usually a slit to the outside, apparently left open after the burial. However, an intact burial (the only one discovered in a funerary tower in recorded excavations) was found entirely closed. It seems sensible to admit that most towers with a less developed communication system, and even more those with external loculi, are older than the #Atenatan tower, though some archaic looking tombs might be actually contemporary with more advanced forms. While typology cannot provide exact dating which can rest safely only on dated inscriptions, there is a good chance that most if not all archaic-looking towers go back to the first century BC, and some are possibly even earlier. On the other hand, among the towers similar to #Atenatan’s there are two monuments dated respectively to AD 33 (\airan, no. 67) and AD 40 (Kitot, no. 44). Both display two opposite entrances, a winding staircase, and chambers with lateral loculi. The tower of \airan, situated on the steep northern slope of Umm Belqis, has even a third intermediary chamber in its socle, with an independent lateral entrance, while the ground floor extends into the bedrock with a hewn corridor provided with lateral loculi. All chambers are extremely narrow, and contain vertical slots, each once divided into four loculi by means of ceramic plates. The Kitot tower (Fig. 5) is larger. It stands at the foot of a hill on the opposite side of the Valley of Tombs, and contains in its higher tapering part, above the regular chambers with lateral slots, two smaller rooms with built-in sarcophagi. At the far end of the ground floor there are steps leading down toward an underground gallery which could not be excavated. The tower apparently ended in a flat terrace. Its most conspicuous feature is an arcade adorned with vinescroll opening on the third floor in the side facing the town, containing a banqueting group of Kitot and his family (Fig. 6).11 Neither this or other contemporary and earlier towers, however,
11
Will 1950.
the city of the dead
49
contain rooms apt to receive a family gathering at a funerary meal. In spite of cramped space the towers were visited by relatives, who burned frankincense in little round plaster altars on the floor in front of some loculi. The burials were usually marked simply with inscriptions traced in wet plaster closing the loculi. There is a gap in epigraphical record between AD 40 and 79 (the date of the tower no. 63). In the meantime a new device was introduced, which shall mark all later towers up to the last one dated in AD 128. The staircase of the later towers is built in one of the corners and consists of two parallel tracts between storeys. It takes thus much less place that the winding variety and makes possible bigger chambers, while the towers themselves are usually not larger than before. The chambers became identical in plan, so that the loculi slots are now uniform from foot to top of the tower, being divided only by slabs forming the loculi (e.g. tower no. 45, center of Fig. 5). Soon, the rough and austere masonry of early towers was replaced by ashlars, the internal walls made vertical and often decorated with pilasters. We can find these fineries for the first time in the tower of Jamblichus (no. 51), built in AD 83 on the northern slope of Umm Belqis (far right on Fig. 2). The monument preserved five storeys of identical plan up to the height of 26 mt., but there was originally one more storey. The façade displays over the main entrance a tympanon and higher up an elaborate niche supported by two winged Victories, which most probably framed a banquet relief. Inside, Corinthian pilasters on the ground floor and simpler ornaments on higher storeys frame numerous symmetrical loculi reserved in the long walls. There are however small square rooms on two of the higher storeys replacing two slots each and intended for sculptures representing members of the family reclining on banqueting couches. Similar is the tower of Elahbel and his brothers (no. 13), completed in AD 103 (Fig. 1). It is now most often visited and provides from its terrace a splendid panorama of the Valley of Tombs. The main difference from the Jamblichus tower consists in the presence of a vaulted crypt accessible from the back, being yet another chamber with lateral loculi. The far end wall on the ground floor above (Fig. 7) was decorated between pilasters with aligned half-figures of the family members alive at the time of the building and with a banqueting scene (now lost). In an arcade over the main entrance there still remains a slab with a couch in relief, but the family group having rested on it is gone.
50
michal gawlikowski
The dead were wrapped in cloth, usually cut from discarded garments and soaked with resins. In the very stable and dry conditions which prevail inside towers the bodies could be well preserved, but unfortunately the looters have missed very few of them. They have, however, left behind many textile fragments which form today an astonishingly rich collection.12 The vertical loculi slots of later towers allowed for closing the burials not merely in masonry and plaster, as it was done earlier, but with rectangular plates bearing the image of the deceased in high relief. Typically, they represent half-figures from the waist up, with hands held close to the body. Men are usually draped in Greek fashion, some wear the cylindrical priestly hat and hold sacrifice vessels, others are bareheaded and hold often a scroll or a folded document, sometimes a palm or the pummel of a sword. The veil of ladies is always moved aside in order to show the face and the attributes of domestic virtues, such as spindle or a bunch of keys, later on increasingly rich assortments of jewels. Sometimes, young children accompany their mother, either standing behind her shoulder or being nursed on her lap. The oldest known funerary bust is dated in AD 65/66 and represents a lady whose name is lost.13 One apparently later sculpture of a lady and her child was found in the archaic tower of #Atenatan,14 but next to nothing survived in other towers throughout the site. However, a dated inscription from a tower with hypogeum of AD 56/57 found recently at the far end of the Valley of Tombs shows that an arched stele of a couple in the British Museum cannot be much younger.15 The development of the funerary tower in Palmyra can be described as a search to increase as much as possible the number of burial places: starting as an upright monument raised upon a socle with several individual loculi opening to the outside, the tower first received chambers with lateral loculi, then a real staircase and larger chambers with more loculi. While the tower of #Atenatan was apt to receive about fifty burials, there was up to three hundred places in that of Elahbel. All towers were conceived as family tombs, but 12 13 14 15
Schmidt-Colinet et al. 2000. Ingholt 1930a; Hvidberg-Hansen-Plough 1993, p. 42. Witecka 1994, pp. 85-86, pl. 12, 3. Gawlikowski 1998.
the city of the dead
51
fashion and prosperity led often to build new monuments while the old ones still contained much free space. Apparently, no tower was ever fully used, even more so that many were provided with underground extensions. Galleries with lateral loculi hollowed out in the desert subsoil were usually supported by vaults in plaster. The access was by a staircase starting from the ground floor of some towers (e.g. no. 19, Figs. 8-9), or beneath smaller structures of which only faint traces remain here and there in the Valley of Tombs. Towers built on a slope could be provided with caves extending into the rock on level with the ground floor chamber. Such is the case of the \airan tower (AD 33) and some of its neighbors, while a similar grotto on the hill opposite was surmounted with an independent tower-like square monument.16 Up to the end of the first century AD no underground tomb is known to exist without a surface monument, while many such monuments contained burials only within their stone structure and had no subterranean extension. From the end of the first century, however, there appear independent hypogea apparently not marked by any standing structure (Fig. 10). The earliest one known is dated in AD 87, while the dates of over twenty others cover the whole span of Palmyrene civilisation, most of them founded during the second century. Some fifty such tombs were investigated in the 1930s in the SW necropolis, but published incompletely or not at all.17 Many more can be located on surface but were never opened, especially in the northern necropolis, while only a few received the deserved attention. The excavation of underground tombs may be painstaking and sometimes dangerous, but they present the only chance of finding burials and funerary sculptures in place, undisturbed by robbers.18 Most of these tombs were hollowed out of the limestone strata which make up the subsoil of the desert plain. As this formation has often a loose structure, the ceilings had to be supported by arches and vaults made of plaster, sometimes with stone revetment. The entrance was always closed by a stone wall in which a stone door with one or two wings was set. This façade wall was built in an open trench provided with steps, either simply carved in the rock or cov16
ered with harder stone. The façade displayed usually foundation inscriptions on door-lintels or stone plates inserted above, and sometimes apotropaic figures like a magnificent Satyr head found recently by the Japanese expedition.19 More inscriptions on door-frames could relate changes in property rights to the tomb. Most excavated hypogea contain a single straight gallery 10 to 20 m long and 3-4 mt. wide, provided with many deep and narrow slots in all walls, each divided horizontally into several loculi. At the far end, an arch marks usually off a squarish space which is called exedra in the relevant inscriptions and was conceived as the best part of the tomb, often adorned with architectural elements such as pilasters and decorative niches, or with mural paintings. More exedras could open laterally just behind the entrance. The loculi could be provided with simple architectural frames and closed after burial with rectangular stone slabs bearing in high relief half-figures of the deceased. While most examples of this extremely rich and characteristic series of sculptures are found in various world collections and cannot be attributed at present to any particular tomb, their appearance in the 60s AD precedes only slightly, on the available evidence, that of independent hypogea and of towers with vertical inside walls about AD 80, and the two should be related. Some small tombstones, featuring frontal figures standing under an arch, were brought into family tombs apparently from earlier graves in the open, to be used as closing stones of loculi. Some tombs are more developed, with lateral galleries right and left behind the entrance making up a plan in the form of an upturned T. They could of course accommodate many more burials than a single gallery. One tomb of this type is known as “Three Brothers’ Tomb” (SW necropolis, near the Cham Hotel), and displays famous mural paintings in the far end exedra, including a group depicting Achilles at Scyros, shedding off his feminine disguise, and a Ganymedes being carried to heaven by the eagle of Zeus.20 Both scenes, it is believed, symbolise the liberation of the human soul from earthly bonds.21 The tomb was the first to be studied in the early 20th century, and is today regularly visited. Other visitable hypogea can be seen farther afield, in the SE necropolis. 19 20 21
Some funerary grottoes were cut in the hard rock of a hill opposite Umm Belqis and behind the Diocletian’s Camp (Fig. 11). They have no staircase and contain built-in loculi. One of them was excavated, to reveal at the far end burial places disposed in three layers to form a large flat surface on which some sarcophagi were set later.22 The manifest intention of the founders of all these underground tombs was to obtain the highest possible number of burial loculi at a cost lower than it would be inside funerary towers. Gradually, the monuments signaling them on surface disappear: apparently, there was no more need for collective memorial of the deceased. Instead, most burials in the underground galleries were marked by individual tombstones bearing the name and a likeness of the departed. It is not clear in what measure these stones were meant to represent their souls (nefesh). While the underground tombs, just as the towers, were considered as hereditary “houses of eternity,” they were not inalienable.23 Parts of them, either rows of loculi or entire galleries, could be ceded to distant relatives or apparent strangers, and even resold several times. The contracts to this effect are often engraved in shortened form on the door frame. However, a fiction of perpetual and hereditary family property is maintained for each part of the tomb, and the sale is seldom expressly admitted. Several families could thus share the same tomb, in the manner of the Roman catacombs. It seems that this development reflects a fundamental social change: the appearance of a urban middle class and the gradual waning of the tribal society still predominant during the first century AD. Many hypogea were in time provided with additional features meant to increase the splendor of the family burials. Starting from about AD 140, there appear stone slabs representing in relief dining beds (klinai), masking some of the loculi behind. Above them there stood in an architectural frame high relief sculptures of reclining figures, as for instance in a lateral gallery of “Three Brothers” or in a recently discovered tomb of Borrefa and BolÈa (Higuchi-Saito 2001). The earliest dated example of this motive in Palmyra can be seen under the arcade high in the wall of the Kitot tower (AD 40).24
22 23 24
Sadurska 1977. Cf. Gawlikowski 1970a, pp. 167-176; Will 1990, pp. 433-440. Will 1951.
54
michal gawlikowski
Another, nearly contemporary, has been found in the \airan tower.25 Such sculptures are also known from some hypogea, representing either full figures (tomb of Zabda) or half-figures cup in hand, to be disposed perhaps on a couch.26 In the late second century appear sarcophagi, disguised as banqueting couches, with legs at front corners. Between the legs there could be medallions with busts of family members, or standing figures of young attendants, horses, and camels. On the front edge of the sarcophagus, an upright slab bears the effigies of men reclining on a mattress, often clad in ornate Persian dress (embroidered tunic and trousers), of their children or servants standing aligned behind them, and of their wives sitting in armchairs set incongruously on the mattress at the feet of their men.27 In front of the entrance to the Palmyra Museum, there stands now a sarcophagus with an elaborate sacrificial scene between the front legs of the kline, and with a laden camel at its side, while at the feet of the reclining master a horse is being held ready by a groom standing on the couch.28 The sarcophagi were often disposed by three on a socle (called thymele), and formed together with the banqueters in high relief the image of a dining room at the far end of a gallery. In the tomb of #Alaine the excavator proposed even to arrange five sarcophagi in a horse-shoe pattern, but usually classical triclinia were deemed sufficient. Nearly all sarcophagi found in Palmyra fall within this rather peculiar category for which there are hardly any relevant parallels elsewhere. While the funerary banquet as such is a common Hellenistic motive, its association with sarcophagi seems to be a local concept invented in the second century. These monuments represent the entire family at their best, feasting in their luxurious clothes and surrounded with other status symbols they have cherished most. The sarcophagi were by no means exclusive to underground tombs. They are also to be found among the ruins of the so-called funerary temples which have replaced the towers as above-ground monuments during the first half of the second century. The towers continued to be used, of course, but the latest dated was built in AD 25 26 27 28
Gawlikowski 1970b, pp. 81-86. Michalowski 1960, pp. 139-204 (Zabda); Parlasca 1995, p. 314. Cf. Will 1951. Schmidt-Colinet 1995, fig. 48, 50, 51; Parlasca 1995, p. 313.
the city of the dead
55
128, while the earliest dated funerary temple is of AD 143. The chronological range suggested by these dates seems relevant, though new discoveries can obviously precise further the appearance of this new type of funerary monuments in Palmyra. Apparently, no other standing monuments were erected after 143 and up to the end of the Palmyrene civilisation. Most funerary temples are extremely dilapidated and their internal disposition often unclear. Unlike towers, they are always built in dressed stones and presented a tempting quarry for later generations. Earthquakes must have taken their toll, too. The most conspicuous is the tomb no. 86, at the far end of the Great Colonnade (Fig. 12), thoroughly studied by C. Watzinger, who provided a graphic restoration.29 The six column portico with its gable still stands, and can be seen through on engravings and older photographs; in the 1970s, two walls of the tomb have been raised, blocking the accustomed view without much profit for the understanding of the monument. Better inspired was the restoration of the tomb no. 150 on the northern necropolis (built by Julius Aurelius Marona in AD 236, Fig. 13), of which however only the outer walls subsist; a relief representing a sea-going ship, now in the Museum, comes from this monument. Another tomb, no. 36, has been recently excavated in the Valley of Tombs by a Syro-German mission and promptly published (Fig. 14).30 Though not enough stones are preserved to allow an actual reconstruction, the restoration on paper is nearly complete and trustworthy. This cannot be claimed for the tomb no. 85b, built by the brothers A#ailami and Zebida in AD 149.31 While it seems obvious that builders of all these monuments were to a large extent inspired by Western (maybe only Western Syrian) models of funerary architecture, they remained nevertheless attached to the local school of decoration, and to local customs. Though outwardly very different from the funerary towers, the later monuments remain to be family tombs, using the same burial modes, and their architectural form is best understood when compared to other contemporary buildings of the city. They are no temples at all, in any sense of the word, but tombs of the rich, who were leaving the
29 30 31
Watzinger–Wulzinger 1932, pp. 71-76, pl. 38-44. Schmidt-Colinet 1992. Cantineau 1929; Makowski 1983.
56
michal gawlikowski
underground galleries to the less affluent, and considered the funerary towers as definitely obsolete. A typical funerary temple was a square building raised on a podium, adorned with Corinthian pilasters at the four corners, and crowned with a Classical entablature. Some had a prostyle porch of six columns and a triangular pediment, making them resemble Roman temples, and changing the proportions of the plan (Fig. 15). The pediment, when there was one, remained however a mere makebelieve, as there was never a gabled roof. Sidewise, there could be crowsteps standing on the corniche (no. 173c). Apparently, there was no terrace on the roof either, the exterior walls serving as a boxlike receptacle for the actual tomb of much lesser height. The angular pilasters are often decorated with vertical floral bands in sunk relief, and a similar horizontal band could run between the pilasters at one-third of their height. The higher part of the front wall above the entrance could also receive more elaborate decoration, as it was the case with the tomb no. 36: a complex system of niches with columns, pilasters, and triangular or rounded pediments could be graphically restored there from hundreds of scattered blocks (Fig. 14), some of which are arranged now around the monument, in the Valley of Tombs. A. Schmidt-Colinet was able to prove that the decorative motives used there were borrowed from the textile repertory, as exemplified by garments reproduced in sculpture and by actual cloth fragments found in some tombs. Such adapting of the local vestimentary fashion into stone is typical of the architecture of Palmyra in general. On the other hand, some figurative scenes used in the pediments of the façade of tomb 36, such as cupids riding on dolphins and holding umbrellas, are inspired by imported sarcophagi. The interior of this tomb presented a square peristyle court in the middle, the roof around it resting on columns, four to a side. On all four sides there were vertical rows of loculi between pilasters and regularly disposed niches. The light-well of the peristyle reached an underground chamber supported by pillars, with more loculi. The whole structure was much lower than the exterior shell and so conceived that the outer walls could not be seen against the sky from any point inside. The graphic restoration of the tomb no. 86 is less precise, but apparently the interior should have been very much like the just described monument but for the peristyle being smaller, two by two
the city of the dead
57
columns only. In some other tombs low benches can be seen along the walls, containing loculi and providing the socle for sarcophagi or just upright slabs with reclining figures, as in the relatively early tomb no. 85b, which has been dubbed in French “tombeau-maison” because of the parallel with peristyle houses. The name, however, explains nothing and is not better than the more usual “funerary temple.” Other smaller monuments could have no interior colonnades and contain only a square room with sarcophagi and banquet slabs along the walls (Fig. 16). A row of monuments of the latter variety can be seen north from the standing colonnade of tomb 86, incorporated into the rampart of Diocletian: they were not excavated and the more or less untouched ruins are accessible from inside the fortifications. The outside face of the rampart has been cleared, showing the podia of these tombs and lower parts of their walls. In one of them we can see Victories standing on globes either side of the entrance; broken sculptures and inscriptions can be spotted in others. Another monument, tomb no. 3 at the far end of the Valley,32 contains an oblong room with loculi, such as can be seen in some later towers (Fig. 17). The appearance of higher parts of this collapsed tomb remains uncertain. Together with the lofty towers, the later temple-like monuments filled the desert all around the town and the oasis. The city of the dead should have been equally imposing than the great public monuments of the centre and certainly more so than the houses of the living.
32
Parlasca 1990.
58
michal gawlikowski Appendix
List of dated tombs33 #Atenatan and sons (no. 7) \airan Belshuri (no. 67) Kitot Taimarßu (no. 44) #Ogeilu #Ogga (no. 194) Banai and brothers (no. 63) Malku Moqimu (no. 155) Bani Ba#a (no. 68) Yamliku Moqimu (no. 51) Taimisha Taimisha (no. 169)
Towers VT 9 B.C. VT AD 33 VT AD 40 SE AD 73 VT AD 79 N AD 79/80 VT AD 83 VT AD 83 N AD 89
Elahbel and brothers (no. 13) P. Aelius Obayhan (no. 164) Nebozabad Nesha (no. 83a) Moqimu Zebida (no. 34)
VT N VT VT
Tower 83 Tower 70 Tower 118
AD AD AD AD
103 118 120 128
Late use of some towers (VT) in AD 215 (VT) in AD 234 (N) in AD 252
Independent dated hypogea BelÈazai Nurai SE AD 87 BolÈa Neboshuri SE AD 89 Batmitrai and Batailid SW before AD 95 #Abd#astor Nurbel SW AD 99 #Atenatan Zabd#ateh SW AD 98 \airan Yaddai SW AD 106/107 YarÈai Bariki VT AD 108 Julius Aurelius Male SW AD 109 Zabd‘ateh #Ate#aqab SW AD 114 Shim#on Fila SW AD 114/115 Malku SW AD 121 Shim‘on Borrefa SE AD 118 YarÈibola and Taimo#amad SW AD 123 Lishamshu Moqimu SE AD 123/124 Borrefa and BolÈa SE AD 128
PAT 0457 PAT 0462 PAT 0463 PAT 0549 PAT 0470 PAT 0471 PAT 0474 PAT 0472 Inv. VII 3 (Greek only) PAT 0486 PAT 0514 PAT 2726 PAT 0516 PAT 0118 PAT 0562 PAT 0568 PAT 1784 PAT 1867 PAT 2727 PAT 0094 PAT 0023 PAT 0002 PAT 2784 PAT 0026 PAT 0511 PAT 0512 PAT 1218 PAT 1785 PAT 2728 PAT 1787 Higuchi–Saito 1998, fig. 28
33 Abbreviations: VT = Valley of Tombs; N = Northern necropolis; SE = Southeast necropolis; SW = Southwest necropolis.
59
the city of the dead YarÈay, #Atenuri, Zabdibol \addudan \airan Nesha #Alaine \airan “Three Brothers” Naßrallat Malku Nurbel Moqimu So#adu Bar#ateh (no. 82) Bar#a Bonnur Julius Aurelius Hermes
SW SW SE VT SW SW VT VT SW VT
AD 133/134 AD 138 AD 138 AD 138 before AD 142 AD 142 AD 144 AD 179 AD 186 AD 232
Dated funerary temples Lishamsh Nurbel (no. 188) SE AD 143 A#ailami and Zebida (no. 85b) VT AD 149 Zebida Moqimu (no. 38a) VT AD 150 Taimarßu Borrefa (no. 149) N AD 159 Zabd‘ateh Zabdila (no. 38) VT AD 171 #Awida YarÈai (no. 191) SE AD 184 Zebida and Samuel (no.175) N AD 212 Julius Aurelius Marona N AD 236 (no. 150) \addudan and #Alaisha N AD 253 (no. 144)
PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT
0066 0517 1786 1949 2776 0056 1525 1143 0059 2725
PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT
0519 1138 0522 1154 0548 0552 0557 0565
PAT 0569
60
michal gawlikowski
Fig. 1. A view of the Valley of Tombs from the West. In the foreground, the tower of Elahbel
Fig. 2. The towers on Umm Belqis hillock, early 20th century (after Wiegand)
the city of the dead
Fig. 3. Tower of #Atenatan (7 BC) and, behind, tower of Elahbel (AD 103)
61
62
michal gawlikowski
Fig. 4. Tower of ‘Atenatan. Plans of storeys and section
Fig. 5. Left, tower of Kitot (AD 40), in the middle the sectioned tower no. 45
the city of the dead 63
64
michal gawlikowski
Fig. 6. Kitot banqueting with his family. Relief in the niche of his tower
the city of the dead
Fig. 7. Interior of the ground floor of Elahbel tower
65
66
michal gawlikowski
Fig. 8. Section through the tower no. 19 and its hypogeum
the city of the dead
Fig. 9. A view of the hypogeum under tower no. 19
67
68
michal gawlikowski
Fig.10. A restored section through a typical hypogeum (Yarhai, AD108) and plans of two others (Lishamsh and Nasrallat)
the city of the dead
Fig. 11. Grotto no. 80 in a hillside
Fig. 12. The porch of the funerary temple no. 86 (before restoration)
69
Fig. 13. The tomb of Marona (AD 236)
70
michal gawlikowski
the city of the dead
Fig. 14. Restored façade of tomb no. 36 (after Schmidt-Colinet)
71
72
michal gawlikowski
Fig. 15. Schematic elevation of tombs no. 173c and 86 (after Schmidt-Colinet)
Fig. 16. Remains of sarcophagi in the chamber of tomb no. 39d
the city of the dead
Fig. 17. Interior of the tomb no. 3
73
74
agustinus gianto
VARIATION IN THE PALMYRENE HONORIFIC INSCRIPTIONS AGUSTINUS GIANTO
Out of the 2832 inscriptions gathered in Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, about 180 are listed as honorific, that is, written in praise of a person, usually a public figure.1 A closer look will reveal that generally these inscriptions mention (a) the name of the honoree, (b) the action of building or constructing the monument, (c) the honorant or honorants, (d) the reason for honoring the person, i.e., her/his merits, and (e) the purpose formula lyqrh “in her/his honor,” and (f) the date.2 The present essay, written in honor of Delbert Hillers, whose works continue to inspire a passion for Palmyrene studies, seeks to describe the variation in the order of these elements. Again, the characterization of the honorant and the honoree can be expanded with genealogical lineage covering two or three generations or other descriptions. Such inscriptions have some affinity with funerary inscriptions in that both are intended to commemorate people who are no longer living.3 Yet, while the latter are found on sepulchers, 1 See the list given in PAT, p. 458. The list includes texts which consist only of the honoree’s name, preceded by the expression “the statue of,” such as PAT 0061, PAT 1355, PAT 1512 (followed by àlm “peace!”) PAT 1516, PAT 1664, PAT 2762, or not, such as PAT 0063, PAT 1354, PAT 1400, PAT 1513, PAT 1514, PAT 1519, PAT 1520. These will not be included in this study. Some other inscriptions, such as PAT 1349, PAT 1350, PAT 1515, PAT 2791, lie outside the scope of this essay because they contain the expression dkyr “let PN be remembered.” They are better described as prayers for the deceased person(s) rather than honorific inscriptions. Heavily restored and very fragmentary texts are not considered either. The texts used here, basically those given in PAT, have been checked against other editions, especially Cantineau 1930-1936 and Starcky 1949. The older, yet still useful, notes given in Lidzbarski 1898 and Cook 1903 have also been consulted. 2 The simplest form mentions only the honoree; see the previous note. Lidzbarski 1898, pp. 160-161 noted several recurring expressions in some thirty honorific inscriptions. A larger amount of data has allowed the present study to make more systematic observations. 3 PAT 0273, PAT 1364, PAT 1417 explicitly state that the statue was made after the death of the honoree. On the other hand, there is an indication in PAT 1387: 3 that the statue was made b-mwtb-h “during his presidency,” that is, in the honoree’s lifetime.
variation in honorific inscriptions
75
the former are written on statue bases, columns, or column consoles, or on stone tablets in a temple, and not connected with any burial monument. There are three main types of honorific inscriptions, based on the element which comes first: Type 1 starts with the honoree, Type 2 with the honorant, and Type 3 with the date. Each of these has several variants. Type 1 has all the above-mentioned elements, ordered in that sequence, namely {a b c d e f}. The following inscription, PAT 0263 (on a column console in the Temple of Bel) illustrates this: a. Honoree: (1) ßlm" dnh dy "qyÈ b[r n#r]y br "qyÈ “This statue is that of Aqayh, son of Noarai, son of Aqayh, b. Action: (2) dy #bdw lh for whom Xs have made4 c. Honorant: bny gdybwl Xs = the Bani Gaddibol d. Reason: bdyldy #bd lhn (3) bb" wtr#why w"p #bd b"lgày" Èmn" (4) klh hw w"trh w"p ãll "drwn" (5) klh wàpr lhwn bkl ßbw klh 6) bdylkwt #bdw lh ßlm" dnh because he built for them a gate and its doors, and also he built in Vologesias,5 a whole enclosure6 complete with its sanctuary; he even provided a roof to the entire banquet-place and he was thoroughly pleasing to them in every matter. That is why they have made for him this statue, e. Purpose: lyqrh in his honor. 4 This artificial rendering seeks to reproduce the word order of the Aramaic text, where normally the verb precedes the subject. 5 Vologesias was situated on a tributary of the Euphrates, about 90 km southeast of Babylon. It was founded in AD 51 by Vologases, king of the Persians, who managed to divert the trade route of Palmyra to this city. From there the goods were transported by river to Kerak near Basra. 6 Traditionally the word Èmn" is taken to mean incense-stand, from Èmn “to be hot,” hence something like incense brazier. Drijvers 1988, pp. 165-180, who thinks that the root is Èmn" “to protect,” “to wall around,” translates Palmyrene Èmn" in PAT 0263: 3 as “sanctuary.” In all probability, though, Èmn" refers to an enclosure, a closed area, annexed to, or within, a sacred place, that is, a sanctuary, called "tr in the next line.
76
f. Date:
agustinus gianto (7) byrÈ knwn ành 4.100+20” In the month of Kanun, year 420 (= OctoberNovember, AD 108).7
Similarly, the following inscriptions exhibit the order {a b c d e f}: PAT 0194, PAT 0198, PAT 0261, PAT 0262, PAT 0269, PAT 0273, PAT 0294, PAT 0297, PAT 0302, PAT 1353, PAT 1370, PAT 1395, PAT 1409, PAT 1411, PAT 1412, PAT 1415, PAT 1419. Probably to be included here are PAT 0309, PAT 0312, and PAT 1942 where the broken parts may have included the purpose. There are two variant forms of the type where all six elements are ordered as {a b c d e f}. The first is PAT 0274 (on a stone tablet in the Temple of Bel), which contains two kinds of information about the date. The first dates the statue to the time of the tenure of a chief of the caravan, the second gives the absolute date. a. Honoree: (1) [ßl]m mrqs "lp?y[s] yr[Èy br Èyrn] (2) [br " ]gr “The statue of Marcus Ulpius Yarhay, son of Hayran, son of Abgar,8 b. Action: dy "qymw lh for whom Xs have erected c. Honorant: bny àyrt" dy (3) [slq]t? mn krk "spsn" Xs = the members of the caravan that went up9 from Kerak Ispasina10 d. Reason: bdyldy #drh (4) [bkl ßb]w [kl]h because he helped it in everything whatsoever, e. Purpose: lyqrh in his honor. f. Date: brbnwt àyrt["] (5) [dy zbd#]t" br zbdl" ydy 7 The Palmyrene year is reckoned according to the Seleucid era, which started October 312 BC. 8 This reflects the restoration adopted in PAT. A possible alternative is (1) [ßl]m mrqs "ls tyd[rws dy mtqr" (2) àm]#gr “The statue of Marcus Aelius Theodoros, who is called Shema-gad,” adopted in Cook (1903, p. 272). In any case the problem does not affect the understanding of the structure of the inscription. 9 For the return journey from the east to Palmyra, the inscriptions use the verb slq “to go up”, reserving the verb nÈt “to go down” for the journey from Palmyra to the east. 10 Kerak (Ispasina), situated near Basra at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates, was an emporium during the Persian empire. Etymologically the name Kerak means fence, hence walled city or fortress, like Syriac kark§. There was a trade route from Vologesias southward by river to Kerak.
variation in honorific inscriptions
f. Date:
77
During the chieftainship of the caravan of ZabdeAta, son of Zabdila, (son of) Yadday, byrÈ "b ànt (6) 4.100+60+5+1 in the month of Ab, year 466 (= July-August, AD 155).”
The second variant is PAT 0294 (on a column in the Great Colonnade area), which has a double mention of purpose; the first corresponding to the honoree already mentioned, the second to his sons: a. Honoree: (1) ßlm" dnh dy tymrßw br tym" br mqymw (2) grb" rb àyrt" “This is the statue of Taimarßu, son of Moqimu, son of Garba, chief of the caravan, b. Action: dy #bdw lh for whom Xs have made c. Honorant: bny àyrt" dy slqw (3) #mh mn krk" Xs = the members of the caravan that went up from Kerak d. Reason: bdyldy Èsknwn nwr dnryn dy dhb (4) #tyqyn tlt m"h wàpr lhwn because he spared each of them11 the amount of12 three hundred golden dinars of the old currency and because he was pleasing to them, e. Purpose: lyqrh in his honor e. Purpose: wlyqr ydy (5) [wz]bdbwl bnwhy and in honor of Yadday and Zabdibol, his sons. f. Date: byrÈ nysn ànt 5.100+4 In the month of Nisan, year 504 (= March-April, AD 193).” Other inscriptions belonging to Type 1 show a different sequence. 11 Understanding D of Èsk “to spare,” “to hold back” (+ 3 m pl sf -nwn), also attested in Syriac, rather than “to spend” given in the glossary of PAT p. 366. The D derivation has a distributive sense, reproduced here as “each of them,” as suggested in Gianto 1996, p. 447. 12 The reading nwr is sufficiently certain, but its interpretation is difficult. Both the context and the Greek parallel "<"8T:"JT< suggest that it means “amount” or “expenses,” i.e., the dues that the caravan members might have had to pay as a contribution or in taxes. The letter nun in nwr could possibly be the engraver’s slip for the zayn of zwd “provisions, expenses,” which is semantically equivalent to "<"8T:"JT<. The little dot over the letter, however, makes it clear that the engraver meant it as resh.
78
agustinus gianto
PAT 0279 (on a column in the Great Colonnade area), for example, places the purpose before the reason. Hence the order is {a b c e d f}: a. Honoree: (1) ßlm" dnh dy ywlys "wrlys (2) zbyd" br mqymw br zbyd" #àtwr (3) byd" “This is the statue of Julius Aurelius Zabida, son of Moqimu, (son of) Ashtor, (son of) Baida, b. Action: d ?y? "qym lh for whom Xs have erected13 c. Honorant: tgr" bny àyrt" (4) dy nÈt #mh l"lgày" Xs = the merchants14 of the members of the caravan that went down with him to Vologesias, e. Purpose: lyqrh in his honor, d. Reason: bdyl (5) dy àpr lhwn because he was pleasing to them. f. Date: byrÈ nysn ànt 5.100 (6) +40+10+5+3 In the month of Nisan, year 558 (= March-April, AD 247).” Other examples showing the sequence {a b c e d f} are PAT 0193, PAT 0196, PAT 0265, PAT 0275, PAT 0281, PAT 0282, PAT 0298, PAT 1372, PAT 1381, PAT 1425, PAT 1944, PAT 2769, PAT 2778. PAT 1378 belongs here, but at the beginning there is a statement btwÈyt bwl" wdms “At the decree of the Council and People.” In a number of cases the reason is not mentioned and the elements are ordered as {a b c e f}. One of the examples is PAT 0278 (on a column in the Great Colonnade area), with its long honoree: a. Honoree: (1) ßlm ywlys "wrlys zbdl" br mlkw br mlkw (2) nàwm dy hw" "sãrãg lqlny" bmytwyt" dy (3) "lh" "lksndrws qsr wàmà kdy hw" tnn (4) q[r]spynws hygmwn" wkdy "ty lk" yt lgyny" (5) zbnyn sgy"n whw" rb àwq wÈsk rz"yn àgy"yn (6) wdbr #mrh àkytyt mãlkwt shd lh yrÈbwl (7) "lh" w"p ywlys [prysqws rb"?] dy sp" wrÈym mdth 13
The usual form of 3 m pl perfect is "qymw. The form here represents the pronunciation of one of the forms of 3 m pl, as in Syriac. For further evidence of this phenomenon, see Rosenthal 1936, p. 57, and Cantineau 1935, p. 56. 14 The expected form of constr m pl is tgry. The form ending in aleph in the text is to be compared with the Syriac form of constr m pl. For similar cases, see Rosenthal 1936, pp. 76-77, and Cantineau 1935, pp. 55-56; 122.
variation in honorific inscriptions
b. Action: c. Honorant: e. Purpose: f. Date:
79
“The statue of Julius Aurelius Zabdila, son of Maliku, son of Maliku, (son of) Nashum, who was leader of the colony at the coming of the divine Alexander Caesar.15 He was in office while Crispinus the governor was here and when he brought the legions here many times. He was overseer of the market and saved16 many expenses. He led his lifetime peacefully. Because of that the god Yarhibol is witness to him, and also Julius Priskos who cares and loves the city, (8) dy "qym lh for whom Xs have erected bwl" wdmws Xs = the Council and People, lyqrh in his honor. ànt 5.100+40+10+4 Year 554 (= AD 242).”
Here are the other cases where the reason is not given and the order is {a b c e f}: PAT 0115, PAT 0190, PAT 0266, PAT 0268, PAT 0283, PAT 0284, PAT 0286, PAT 0287, PAT 0289, PAT 0290, PAT 0291, PAT 0292, PAT 0296, PAT 0299, PAT 0300, PAT 0306, PAT 0313, PAT 1359, PAT 1361, PAT 1362, PAT 1364, PAT 1376, PAT 1389, PAT 1392, PAT 1396, PAT 1397, PAT 1399, PAT 1403, PAT 1417, PAT 1422, PAT 1423, PAT 1941, PAT 2815. In number this is the largest group within Type 1. PAT 1063 belongs here, though the mention of the honoree is preceded by the statement mn twÈyt bwl" wdms “By the decree of the Council and People.” A relatively small number of honorific inscriptions of Type 1 mention neither the reason nor the purpose: PAT 0303, PAT 0314, PAT 0315, PAT 1066, PAT 1357, PAT 1373, PAT 1386. Their form is {a b c f}. The following example is PAT 0303 (on a column console in the Transversal Colonnade): 15 The Roman emperor Severus Alexander was in Palmyra in the years 230231, while trying to control the advance of Persian influence under King Ardashir. 16 This is the same verb as in PAT 0294: 3 where the translation value is “to spare.” There is no need to understand the verb here as meaning “to spend.” The Greek parallel to wÈsk rz"yn àgy"yn is 6"4 @L6 @84(T< "N,4*0F"<J" PD0:"JT< “and being generous in not small sums of money.”
80
a. Honoree:
b. Action: c. Honorant: f. Date:
agustinus gianto (1) ßlm" dnh dy mlkw br mqym?[w] (2) br m#?y?ty br Èlypy “This is the statue of Maliku, son of Moqimo, son of Mu#itay, son of Hulipe dy Èdt l[h] for whom X has dedicated17 (3) br#th br làmà mlkw (4) brh X = Bar#ateh, son of Lishamsh Maliku byrÈ "dr ànt [...] 5.100+40+[...] In the month of Adar, year ....18
PAT 0285 and PAT 1413 are examples of {a b e c f}, that is, there is no mention of the reason, and the purpose is placed between the action and the honorant. The following is the text of PAT 0285 (on a column in the Great Colonnade area): a. Honoree: (1) spãmys wrwd qrãsã ?s "pãrp" (2) dwqnr" “Septimus Worod, eminent procurator ducenarius, b. Action: (2) dy "qym that X has erected e. Purpose: lyqrh in his honor c. Honorant: ywlys "wlys nbw?[z]bd br à#dw Èyr" (4) "sãr<ã>g" dy qlny" rÈmh X = Julius Aurelius Nabuzabad, son of Shu#adu, son of Haira, leader of the colony, his friend f. Date: ànt 5.100+60+10+4 byrÈ kslwl Year 574, in the month of Kislul (= NovemberDecember, AD 262).” To be considered as belonging to Type 1 are PAT 0292 and PAT 0293 (on columns in the Great Colonnade area) where the honorant immediately follows after the honoree, and thus precedes the action. There is no mention of the reason and the purpose formula; hence the form is {a c b f}. Here is PAT 0292: a. Honoree: (1) ßlm spãmyws "dy[nt] mlk mlk" (2) wmtqnn" dy mdn?È" klh 17 Normally the statue is said to have been erected or made, hence the use of either C of qwm or G of #bd. The use of D of Èdt in the sense of “to dedicate” is rather unique. It is unlikely that its usual sense “to renew” is meant here. 18 February-March; the year cannot be earlier than AD 229.
variation in honorific inscriptions
c. Honorant:
b. Action: f. Date:
81
“The statue of Septimius Odainath, king of kings, and the restorer of order19 in the whole East. spãmy" (3) zbd" rb Èyl" rb" wzby rb Èyl" (4) dy tdmwr qrãsã" Septimius Zabda, the army general-in-chief, and Zabbay, the army general, of Palmyra, noblemen, "qym lmrhwn have erected for their lord. (5) byrÈ "b dy ànt 5.100+80+2 In the month of Ab of the year 582 (= July-August, AD 271).”
PAT 1375 shows the same sequence as the above, but it also has the formula lyq[rh]. If the reconstruction is correct, then this is an example of {a c b e f}. In contrast to a Type 1, inscriptions belonging to Type 2 begin with the mention of the honorant or honorants, as clear from PAT 0276 (on a column), which contain all six elements ordered as {c b a d e f}: c. Honorant: (1) bwl" wdms “The Council and People b. Action: #bdw ßlmy" "ln trwyhwn have made these two statues a. Honoree: (2) l"#ylmy br Èyrn br mqymw br Èyrn mt" (3) wlÈyrn "bwhy rÈymy mdythwn wdÈly "lhy" for A#ailame, son of Hairan, son of Moqimu, son of Hairan, (son of) Matta, and to Hairan, his father, lovers of the city and fearers of the gods
19 The form is D ptc m s em of tqn “to repair” + sf -§n, thus m etaqq en-§n-§. Odenathus (AD 255-267) is known as the most successful ruler of Palmyra. In 259 he took the initiative to resist the expanding Persian offensive against the Roman administered territories in the East by launching a counter attack against Babylon and the surrounding territories. He succeeded in capturing Ctesiphon, a trade route center city northeast of Babylon on the Tigris, and thus restored Palmyra’s economic interests. It is interesting to note that the title ‘king of kings’ in this inscription actually is an imitation of Persian usage. It was used only during the reign of Zenobia, his widow, but never in Odenathus’ own lifetime. Palmyra enjoyed prosperity and relative security for more than a decade. This must have encouraged Zenobia, who succeeded her husband, to begin a political and military actions aimed at gaining independence from Rome. At the beginning she was successful, but in 273/ 4, the Roman emperor Aurelian crushed Zenobia’s troops.
82
d. Reason: e. Purpose: f. Date:
agustinus gianto (4) bdyldy àprw lhwn wl"lhyhwn bkl ßbw klh because they were pleasing to them and to their gods in everything whatsoever, (5) lyqrhwn in their honor. byrÈ nysn ànt 4.100+40+10 In the month of Nisan, the year 450 (= MarchApril, AD 139).”
There are several variant forms of Type 2, each with the omission of one or the other elements. PAT 0277 (on a column), does not mention the reason. Thus, the elements appear as {c b a e f}: c. Honorant: (1) bwl" wdms “The Council and People b. Action: #bdw ßlmy" "ln (2) trwyhn have made these two statues a. Honoree: lbryky br "mrà" br (3) yrÈbwl" wlmqym[w] brh rÈymy (4) mdythwn wdÈly "[lh]y" for Bariki, son of Amrisha, son of Yarhibole, and for Moqimu, his son, lovers of the city and fearers of the gods, e. Purpose: lyqrhwn in their honor. f. Date: byrÈ nysn ànt 4.100+40+10 In the month of Nisan, the year 450 (= MarchApril, AD 139).” In PAT 0280 (on a column in the Great Colonnade area) the action is not given, hence the form is {c a d e f}: c. Honorant: (1) bwl" wdms “The Council and People, a. Honoree: lywlys "wrlys (2) #g" dy mtqr" slwqws br (3) #zyzw #zyzw à"yl" for Julius Aurelius Oga, who was surnamed Seleukos, son of Azizu, (son of) Azizu, (son of) Shaila d. Reason: dy àmà wàpr (4) lhwn b"sãrãgwth wmgd lbwl" (5) zwzyn rbw who held office and was pleasing to them during his tenure as leader, and he had donated to the Council ten thousands zuz, e. Purpose: lyqrh in his honor.
variation in honorific inscriptions
83
f. Date:
byrÈ tàry ànt (6) 5.100+60+5+1 In the month of Tishri of the year 566 (= September-October, AD 254).” Another example of {c a d e f} is PAT 1421, where the honorant is bwl" “the Council.” In PAT 0260 (on a stone tablet in the Temple of Bel) there is no mention of the purpose; thus the form is {c b a d f}: c. Honorant: (1) bwl" wdms “The Council and People b. Action: "qymt ßlmy" "ln trwyhwn have erected these two statues a. Honoree: dy yrÈbwl" [br] (2) #g" w#wyd" br Èdwdn bny yrÈbwl" br Èdwdn br zbdbwl br Èdw[dn] (3) prmwn dÈl" "lhy" wrÈym" mdythwn wnhryn bmgdyhwn àgy"[yn] of Yarhibole, son of Oga and to Awaida, son of Haddudan, sons20 of Yarhibole, son of Haddudan, son of Zabdibol, son of Haddudan Phirmon, fearers of gods and lovers of their city and extremely generous in their gifts, d. Reason: (4) "Èrn" #bdw tr#y" "ln àttyhn dy plz" dy bbslq" rbt" (5) dy bt bl mn kyshwn Moreover, out of their own pocket, they made these six bronze doors, which are in the main entrance of the temple of Bel. f. Date: byrÈ "dr ànt 4.100+80+5+1 In the month of Adar of the year 486 (= FebruaryMarch, AD 175).” The same form {c b a d f} is also documented in PAT 0305. Type 3 puts the date at the beginning. The following example is from PAT 1352 (on a column console in the Temple of Bel). All six elements are present and ordered as {f a b c d e}: f. Date: (1) b[yr]È knwn ànt 3.100+20+10+5+1 “In the month of Kanun of the year 336 (= October-November, AD 24).
20
The Greek version has “grandsons” here.
84
agustinus gianto
a. Honoree
b. Action c. Honorant: d. Reason:
e. Purpose:
ßlm" dnh dy mlkw (2) br nà" br bwlÈ" dy mtqr" Èàà dy mn bny (3) kmr" This is the statue of Maliku, son of Nesha, son of Bolha, who was surnamed Hashash, who is of the Bani Komara dy "qymw lh for whom Xs have erected t[g]ry" klhwn dy bmdynt (4) bbl Xs = all the merchants of the city of Babylon mn dy àpr lhwn bkl gns klh w#[d]r bnyn" (5) dy h[y]kl" dy bl wyhb mn kysh dy l" #bdh (6) "nà bdyl kwt "qymw lh ßlm" dnh because he was pleasing to them in all manners. He assisted the building of the temple of Bel, and gave out of his own pocket, something that no one has ever done. For this reason they have erected for him this statue, lyqrh in his honor.”
Like the above, PAT 0192 and PAT 0200 also exhibit {f a b c d e}. There are three variant forms of this. The first makes no mention of the purpose, that is, {f a b c d} as in PAT 1353. The second has the form of {f a b c}, as in PAT 0271, PAT 1351, PAT 1356, where both the reason and the purpose are not included. The third leaves out the reason, hence {f a b c e}, PAT 1347 (on a statue base in the Temple of Bel), shown below in full: f. Date: (1) byrÈ tàry ànt 3.100+40+10+5+2 In the month of Tishri of the year 357 (= September-October, AD 45)21 a. Honoree: ßlm" dnh dy làmà br tybwl (3) br àkybl dy mn bny kmr" dy (4) Ènk hykl" dy bl wyrÈbwl (5) w#glbwl "lhy" bqdàwhy (6) ywm àtt" bnysn ànt 3.100+40+3 This is the statue of Lishamsh, son of Taibol, son of Shakaibel, who was from the Bani Komara who inaugurated the temple of the gods Bel and Yarhibol and Aglibol, with its sacred objects, on the sixth
21
Not AD 32, as given in PAT, see Gianto 1996, p. 446.
variation in honorific inscriptions
b. Action: c. Honorant: e. Purpose:
85
day of Nisan of the year 343 (= April 6, AD 32)22 (7) dy "qymw lh bnwhy for whom Xs have erected bnwhy Xs = his sons, lyqrh In his honor.”
In PAT 1524 (on a block of stone in the Temple of Bel) also belongs to Type 3; here right after the date there follows the action, honorant and honoree. Neither the reason nor the purpose is mentioned. Thus the form is {f b c a}: f. Date: (1) byrÈ tàry ànt 2.100 (2) +60+5+4 “In the month of Tishri of the year 269 (= September-October, 44 BC)23 b. Action: "qym[w] Xs erected c. Honorant: kmry" (3) dy bl Xs = the priests of Bel a. Honoree: ßlm" dnh lgrymy (4) br nbwzbd dy mn pÈd (5) bny khnbw this statue for Garimay, son of Nabuzabad, who was from the tribe of the Bani Kahinnabu.” The form {f b c a} is also found in PAT 2766. General Observations 1. Honorific inscriptions that start by mentioning the honoree, here called Type 1, form the largest group, totaling up to 83 clear examples. They are far more numerous than the other two types. There are only six inscriptions belonging to Type 2, that is, those that start by mentioning the honorant, and ten others belonging to Type 3, namely, those that start with the date. See the tabulation of the order of elements given in the Appendix.
22
In all probability this was a solemn festivity at Palmyra. A Palmyrene-Greek inscription mentions that fruit offerings and holocaust sacrifices were made on April 6; see Cantineau 1930-1936, Inv VI, 5, p. 18 (= PAT 0344). 23 This is the oldest dated Palmyrene inscription; note the printing error AD for BC in PAT.
86
agustinus gianto
2. The date of the inscription does not occur in the middle of the inscription. It stands either at the end, as in Type 1 and Type 2, or at the beginning, as in Type 3. 3. Five out of the six inscriptions in Type 2 mention the Council and People as honorants, and in the only remaining example, PAT 1421, the honorant is the Council. On the other hand, most of the honorants in Type 1 and Type 2 are individuals or group of merchants acting together. Note, however, that PAT 1415, which belongs to Type 1 {a b c d e f}, has as honorants the Council and People. 4. The three elements honoree, action, and honorant tend to stay close to each other regardless of their order. The only element that occasionally splits them is the expression of purpose “in his honor.” This is documented in PAT 0285 and PAT 1413. 5. In PAT 0280 and PAT 1421 the action is not mentioned. Nevertheless, the idea that the monument was made to honor somebody is clear and therefore the absence of the action is to be considered an ellipsis. 6. Mention of the reason is not an indispensable element. As a matter of fact, a great number of honorific inscriptions simply omit it. The examples come from all three types. This suggests that in honorific inscriptions the reason can simply be presupposed or taken for granted. When given, this element normally records specific merits or particular deeds of the honoree. To some extent, information about the honoree’s merits is given as attributes, not in a separate mention of the reason. This is clear, for example, in PAT 0278. 7. The expression of purpose lyqr + pronominal suffix is occasionally omitted. There are nine cases from Type 1, one from Type 2, and six from Type 3. In all these, it is nonetheless obvious that the statue or the monument has been made in honor of the person mentioned.
variation in honorific inscriptions
Appendix Order of elements in the honorific inscriptions PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT
{a b c e f} {a b c e f} {f a b c d e} {a b c e d f} {a b c e d f} {a b c e d f} {a b c d e f} {f a b c d e} {c b a d f} {a b c d e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c e d f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c d e f} {f a b c} {a b c d e f} {a b c d e f f} {a b c e d f} {c b a d e f}. {c b a e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e d f} {c a d e f} {a b c e d f} {a b c e d f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b e c f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a c b e f} {a c b f} {a b c d e e f} {a b c e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c e d f} {a b c e f}
PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT
{a b c e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c f} {c b a d f} {a b c e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c e f} {a b c f} {a b c f} {a b c e f} {a b c f} {f a b c e} {f a b c} {f a b c d e} {f a b c d} {f a b c} {a b c f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c e d f} {a b c f} {a c b e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e d f} {a b c e d f} {a b c f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c d e f} {a b e c f} {a b c d e f}
{a b c e f} {a b c d e f} {c a d e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e f} {a b c e d f} {f b c a}
PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT
1941 1942 1944 2766 2769 2778 2815
{a b c e f} {a b c d e f} {a b c e d f} {f b c a} {a b c e d f} {a b c e d f} {a b c e f}
variation in honorific inscriptions
89
THREE NEW PALMYRENE INSCRIPTIONS ANDREW D. GROSS
Several Palmyrene artifacts recently appeared in the catalogues of the auction house Christie’s in New York City, including three previously unpublished ones bearing inscriptions.1 The first, according to the order in which they appear here, is a tomb foundation inscription that is remarkable both for its overall content as well as its unusual architectural vocabulary. The second inscription records a dedication to the deity Abgal by Nebuza, son of Kaftut, an official of the well-known Palmyrene figure Odainat.2 The third inscription is a small funerary relief of a woman named Ba#a", daughter of "Elahbel. (1) Christie’s New York, Lot 354, Sale 1091, Antiquities, 12 June 2002, pages 208-209. Provenance: European Private Collection
This limestone Palmyrene relief bears a ten-line inscription describing the renovation of a family tomb. Two notable features of this inscription, carved in a monumental-style script, are (1) its use of architectural terminology previously unattested in Palmyrene Aramaic and (2) its two separate dates. The two dates refer respectively to the tomb’s original construction by Zabdibol in AD 43 and its renovation forty years later by Zabdibol’s sons Taimarßu and #Athe#aqab. The inscription as a whole dates to the time of the renovation in AD 83.3 The relief is 88.9 cm high and is decorated by 1 Prof. Delbert Hillers was my very first Aramaic teacher, and both his high philological standards and infectious love for Aramaic left a lasting impression on me. I therefore consider myself privileged to be able to honor the memory of Prof. Hillers with this small contribution. 2 Nebuza appears in another recently published Palmyrene Aramaic inscription (Teixidor 1997). For the potential historical light these two inscriptions shed on the latter portion of Odainat’s career, see below. 3 For a less well-preserved example of an inscription bearing two dates, with the latter date commemorating a tomb renovation, see PAT 0553. There are other inscriptions with two dates, although the latter date usually commemorates a legal transaction such as a cession or the formation of a partnership, and not a physical
90
andrew d. gross
two stylized ivy leaves flanking the last line of the inscription. The inscription has suffered a slight amount of damage, as a crack runs vertically on its left side. Only a few letters have been damaged, however, and with the extant traces and the aid of context, they can all be read without much difficulty. 1 byrÈ "b ànt 3.100+40+10+4 2 qbr" dnh dy bn" zbdbwl rb" 3 br #gylw "àgdt (or:"àgrt) dy mn bny #grwd 4 lh wlbnwhy lyqrhwn dy #lm" wmn 5 psyq" #ly" dy #l mn "sp" tÈty" 6 wl#l Èdtw wbnw tymrßw w#t#qb 7 bny zbdbwl dnh mn kshn lhn wlmlkw 8 "Èwhn rb" wlbnyhn lyqrhn dy 9 #lm" Èdt" dnh bànt 10 3.100 + 80 + 10 + 4 “1In the month of Ab, year 354 (= AD 43). 2This is the tomb that Zabdibol the elder, 3son of #Ogailu (son of?) "Aàgadat(?), who is from the #Agrudites [1]built 4for himself and for his children in their honor, forever. And from 5the upper(?) separation(?) which is above the lower vestibule 6and upwards, Taimarßu and #Athe#aqab, 7sons of this very Zabdibol, [6]restored and built [7]from their purses for themselves and for Maliku 8their elder brother and for their children in their honor, 9forever. This renovation (occurred) in the year 10394 (= AD 83).” Comments Line 2: rb": For the sense of “elder,” see Ingholt 1966, 471-476 and for further examples, PAT 0645; PAT 1019; PAT 2227.4 See also line 8 in this inscription. Line 3:"àgdt: This word defies easy interpretation, and because the resh and the dalet in this script are indistinguishable, it is difficult to determine whether this word should be read "àgdt or"àgrt. The first problem is determining the root—assuming that this word even is of Semitic origin. There are a few possible parallels within the Palmyrene onomasticon, although in each instance, we still have the problem of the ambiguity between resh and dalet. Thus, in PAT 0340:
renovation; see e.g., PAT 0562, PAT 0565, and PAT 1614 (and perhaps PAT 0554). 4 Cf. z#yr" (PAT 1633) and ãly" (PAT 0491) for the contrasting sense “younger.”
three new palmyrene inscriptions
91
6 and PAT 1163: 2, we have àgdy (or àgry), and in PAT 1453: 1, we have àgd" (or àgr"). Stark (1971, 113) connects these names to Syriac àgd" “pistachio-nut.”5 Although neither àgr nor àgd occurs as verbal roots in Palmyrene Aramaic, the verbal root àgr, “to send forth” or “to heat up,” is well-attested amongst related Aramaic dialects.6 While àgd does not occur as a verbal root in Aramaic, we do have the abovementioned nominal forms. A third possibility would be to derive "àgdt from the root sgd, meaning “to bow down, worship,”7 and therefore it could be a title or attribute referring to one’s religious devotion.8 Palmyrene Aramaic does not normally render an etymological samekh with shin, although it occasionally occurs in personal names of Arabic origin (Cantineau 1935, pp. 41-43; Rosenthal 1936, pp. 25-26, 38-39). Even if we were able to determine this word’s root, its morphology is somewhat opaque. Assuming either an Aramaic or an Arabic origin for this form, both the aleph-prefix and taw-suffix would be difficult to explain.9 Regarding the aleph-prefix, it could perhaps indicate the Arabic elative "af #al form.10 For a possible parallel, cf. the personal name "sgr found in two Thamudic inscriptions from the 5 Stark, however, reads these names as àgry and àgr", respectively, listing the possible Syriac cognates as “à¿g§r§" or à¿gd§".” The form à¿g§r§" appears to be a scribal error; see Brockelmann 1928, p. 756 and Löw 1881, p. 374. See Sokoloff 2002b, p. 1108, àgydt" “almond,” but also àgyrt" “almonds”; for Mandaic, Drower–Macuch 1963, pp. 459-460 àigda and p. 460 àigra. Teixidor (1965, p. 25; cf. also Cantineau 1930-1936, VIII: 7) suggests that àgr" is a variant of either E"("*,@H (attested in an inscription from southern Syria) or E"("D4@H (attested in an inscription from Cappadocia). See Wuthnow 1930, pp. 100, 168. In a Nabatean graffito from the Sinai, CIS 896, we have the name àgdy" (or perhaps àgry"). See also Littmann 1943, p. 209 no. 854 (àgr). 6 For Syriac, see Brockelmann 1928, p. 756; for JBA, Sokoloff 2002b, p. 1109; for Mandaic, Drower–Macuch 1963, p. 448. In JPA, this root only bears the former sense; see Sokoloff 2002a, p. 538. 7 Aggoula in fact proposes a similar derivation for the form àgd"/àgr" in PAT 1453. Because this form is not followed by a patronymic, he doubts that it is a personal name at all. Aggoula 1979, p. 112. 8 In Syriac, cf. the noun sgdt" “veneration” (Brockelmann 1928, p. 458). 9 In Palmyrene Aramaic, prefixed nominal schemes are formed either with a mem-prefix or a taw, not an aleph (see Cantineau 1935, pp. 110-111; Rosenthal 1936, pp. 73-74). This is not likely a prosthetic aleph, but for a personal name with an apparent prosthetic aleph before a root-initial shin, cf. in PAT 2366: "à##; see Ingholt– Seyrig–Starcky 1955, p. 162. 10 The Arabic elative "af#al is attested in several Palmyrene personal names: e.g., "bgl, "bgr, "db, "hwd, "zmr, "Èmr, "Èply, "klb, "knby, "knt, "nbt, "n#m, "#wy, "ßr#, "r"à, " à#d, "àqr"; see Cantineau 1935, p. 152; Piersimoni 1994, p. 95.
92
andrew d. gross
Tayma area.11 Unfortunately, the Arabic elative would not account for the taw-suffix.12 One other explanation would be to parse the aleph-prefix as an Arabic definite article assimilating to the following letter (i.e., aà-àagarat). For the noun àajara; pl. àajarat “tree, shrub, bush,” see Lane 18631893, 1507; Wehr 1961, 532. bny #grwd: This tribal name is well-attested elsewhere in other Palmyrene inscriptions.13 Regarding its vocalization, PAT 1425, a Greek-Palmyrene bilingual dating to AD 81, renders bny #grwd in Greek as !(D@L*0<@Ã.14 Line 4: dy #lm": This locution is rather common and appears to alternate freely with l#lm" and #d #lm". See also the comments to line 9 below. Lines 4-6. From the end of line 4 to the beginning of line 6, we have the most difficult section of the inscription: wmn psyq" #ly" dy #l mn "sp" tÈty" wl#l. In this section, which describes the area of the tomb that was renovated, the inscription refers to specific parts of the tomb using architectural vocabulary unattested in other Palmyrene tomb inscriptions, namely psyq" and "sp". The reading of both terms is quite certain, although the pe in each word differs slightly from the other in appearance. In psyq", the back of the pe is rather straight while in "sp", the back is somewhat convex. The difference could be due to practical difficulties the engraver faced as he carved the pe of psyq", which directly abuts the right edge of the inscription (see Fig. 1). In any case, there do not appear to be any preferable readings. The term psyq" derives from the root psq, which is attested in a variety of Aramaic dialects (although Palmyrene is not one of them) and has a rather diverse semantic range.15 The core meaning of this
11 Winnett–Reed 1970, p. 102, nos. 17-18. Winnett and Reed interpret this name as “having bloodshot eyes” based on Lane 1863-1893, pp. 1308f. But see Harding 1971, p. 41, who connects this name to Arabic sajîr “sincere friend.” 12 The taw could not be marking the feminine of the Arabic elative, as it is formed by the pattern fu#l§ (Fischer 2002, §127). Even if the taw indicated some sort of feminine form here, all of the parties mentioned in this inscription are male. I would like to thank Robert Hoyland, Émile Puech, and Gonzalo Rubio for their helpful suggestions regarding this difficult word. 13 Bani #Agrud: PAT 1226.02: 3-4; PAT 1425: 3; PAT 1498: 3; PAT 2105. 14 For more discussion of this tribal name, see Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, pp. 176–177. 15 For Syriac, see Brockelmann 1928, pp. 583ff.; for JBA, see Sokoloff 2002b, pp. 919ff.; for JPA, Sokoloff 2002a, p. 441.
three new palmyrene inscriptions
93
root, however, is “to cut off,” and therefore, psyq" must refer either to some architectural feature that divided the tomb into sub-sections or to some section of the tomb that itself was divided off. The architectural term "sp", from Akkadian asuppu,16 is attested elsewhere in Aramaic,17 although not in Palmyrene Aramaic. In Syriac and JBA, the medial u-vowel is usually indicated by the plene spelling "swp", whereas in the New Jerusalem texts from Qumran, "sp" is consistently spelled without a waw, as in the present inscription. Furthermore, with regard to internal u-vowels, this inscription tends to use defective orthography (e.g., qbr" instead of qbwr" and -hn instead of -hwn). While the prepositional combination l#l mn (“above”) is attested several times within the corpus of Palmyrene inscriptions,18 the slight variation that appears here in line 5, #l mn, is not. This expression is not particularly problematic, however, as #l mn is attested elsewhere in Aramaic.19 In addition, other variations are attested, including #l" mn, mn #l", and mn #l (cf. DNWSI, p. 843). Line 6: Èdtw wbnw: This combination of verbs could have been a hendiadys and thus be rendered more idiomatically as “renovated” or “rebuilt.” The verbal root Èdt is attested in a few other Palmyrene inscriptions, but never paired with another verb.20 Line 7: kshn: The expression mn kys (followed either by a pronominal suffix or a personal name) is a rather common feature of Palmyrene tomb inscriptions. The defective spelling, however, is unusual, although as mentioned above, this scribe tends to use defective orthography for internal u-vowels, and thus perhaps had the same tendency for internal i-vowels as well.
16
See Kaufman 1974, p. 38 (and note 37 ad loc. for further bibliography). For Syriac, see Brockelmann 1928, p. 35; for JBA, Sokoloff 2002b, p. 147. The earliest attestation of this word in Aramaic occurs in the texts from Qumran, specifically the New Jerusalem texts (4Q554, 5Q15); see Greenfield–Sokoloff 1992, p. 85. 18 See PAT 0257: 3; PAT 1561: 2; PAT 1562: 5; PAT 1812: 3, and perhaps also PAT 2636: 2. 19 For JPA, cf. Inscription 1 from the synagogue in Dabbara in Urman 1972, pp. 17-18. According to Nöldeke 1898, §156, while #l mn is attested in Syriac, its occurrence is “sehr selten.” In an Old Syriac inscription, see Drijvers–Healey 1999, pp. 45, 47 (As 1, line 5). 20 PAT 0303: 2; PAT 0553: 2; PAT 0645: 4; and PAT 1066: 1. In Nabatean Aramaic, cf. CIS 235A: 2; 349: 3; but cf. Savignac–Starcky 1957, p. 215 (line 3), where Èdt is paired with "wsp. 17
94
andrew d. gross
Line 9: Èdt": Although this root is not attested as a noun in Palmyrene Aramaic, it does occur a few times as an adjective.21 One could perhaps understand it as the object of the verbs in line 6, interpreting it as a cognate accusative: “(they) renovated … this renovation” (or more idiomatically: “(they) carried out … this renovation”), but it would be awkward to have such distance between the verbs and their object. Another possibility would be to consider reconstructing [bt] at the end of line 8, and thus forming the phrase dy [bt] #lm".22 We would then interpret Èdt" as an adjective modifying bt #lm", and render the whole phrase, “this renewed (or: renovated) eternal home.” Because lines 1-7 each extend all the way to the left edge of the inscribed area of the inscription, it is slightly tempting to reconstruct text in the small gap at the end of line 8. (2) Christie’s New York, Lot 304, sale 1163, Antiquities, 12 December 2002, page 180 Provenance: European Private Collection
The inscription on this Palmyrene relief, written in a Palmyrene cursive script, records a dedication to the deity Abgal.23 The relief (59.7 cm wide) is inscribed in two places: the lower inscription records the date, and the upper inscription—written perpendicular to the lower inscription—records the names both of the deity and of the dedicator, Nebuza, son of Kaftut. Nebuza is also mentioned in another recently published Palmyrene inscription (Teixidor 1997, 68-71), where he also bears the title ãly" dy "dynt hpãyq" “servant of Odainat, the consul,” referring to the 3rd-century AD Palmyrene ruler Septimius Odenathus. Although both the present inscription and Teixidor’s inscription are of unknown provenance, they likely originate from Khirbet Semrin. Both inscriptions record dedications to the deity Abgal, and in the 1930s, archaeologists discovered a large temple complex dedicated to Abgal at Khirbet Semrin, a town located in the Jebel Shaar northwest of Palmyra.24 Furthermore, the artistic motifs found in the
21 Cf. PAT 0259: I: 8; PAT 2472; PAT 2473. See also the Tell Fekheriye inscription, line 11. 22 For parallels, see PAT 0470: 2; PAT 0474: 3; PAT 0549: 4; PAT 2816: 5. 23 See Schlumberger 1951, pp. 55-57, 148-51; pls. XXI–XXII. For more on Abgal, see Schlumberger 1951, pp. 125-128; Hoftijzer 1968, p. 42; Teixidor 1979, pp. 80-82; and Gawlikowski 1990, p. 2644. 24 See Schlumberger 1951, pp. 13-22.
three new palmyrene inscriptions
95
bas-relief bearing the present inscription resemble many of the basreliefs found at Khirbet Semrin (e.g., they depict the deity astride a horse with the dedicator standing beside an altar).25 Upper Inscription: 1 "bgl “Abgal, the good god, 2 ["l]h" 3 [ã]b" 4 nbwz Nebuza, 5 [b]r kptwt ãly" [s]on of Kaftût, servant 6 [d]y "dynt of Odainat 7 hpãyq" the consul.” Lower Inscription: byrÈ ??bt à ?? 5.100+60+9 “In the month of ?? year(?) 569 (= AD 257/8).” Epigraphic Notes and Comments (a) Lower Inscription: While the first word and the year are clear, the middle of the inscription presents some difficulties. After byrÈ, we would expect the name of the month. The letters bet and taw appear quite clearly, but the preceding letters are difficult to decipher. The first letter resembles #ayin, and the next resembles a kaf, but this would not produce the name of any known Palmyrene month name. The traces resembling #ayin could also be the numeral “5” (perhaps the day of the month?), but this still does not entirely clear up the problems of interpretation. The word to the left of the taw is difficult to interpret—perhaps ành (“year”) which sometimes does occurs here in Palmyrene inscriptions, but the traces are difficult to read. (b) Upper Inscription: Line 1:"bgl: We could reconstruct a prepositional lamed at the beginning of this word. In similar inscriptions, this preposition marks the deity to whom an altar or similar con25
There are a few other inscriptions outside of Khirbet Semrin that record dedications to Abgal. For elsewhere in the Jebel Shaar, see PAT 1697 (el-Mekeimle) and PAT 1703 (Ras esh-Shaar). Also see PAT 1568, an inscription from Wadi #Arafa in the Jebel el-"Abaid mentioning eight different deities including Abgal. For a relief from the Jebel Shaar depicting two rider deities other than Abgal, see PAT 1700.
96
andrew d. gross
struction is being dedicated (e.g., PAT 1667, PAT 1669, PAT 1700). These inscriptions, however, tend to be complete sentences that include the verb #bd, whereas the upper inscription here likely consists of mere labels identifying the two figures in the relief (cf. PAT 1670). Line 2: ["l]h": Other inscriptions refer to Abgal either by "lh" ãb" or gny" ãb".26 The letters here are rather difficult to read, and we therefore cannot rule out reading [gn]y". The traces, however, seem to favor reading the penultimate letter as he rather than yod. Lines 4-5: nbwz [b]r kptwt: The name nbwz" is a known hypocoristicon of nbwzbd, widely attested in the Palmyrene onomasticon (Stark 1971, 38, 98). Elsewhere, including Teixidor’s inscription, Nebuza is spelled nbwz".27 Perhaps the final aleph is lacking here because the scribe did not have enough room to carve around the horse’s head (see Fig. 2). kptwt is known elsewhere, though infrequently attested,28 and occurs once in Greek transcription (O"N"2[@]L2@L).29 Line 5: ãly": The term ãly in Aramaic generally means “boy, young man.” Amongst Palmyrene inscriptions, the term tends toward a more specific sense, namely “temple-page” or “servant.”30 Teixidor (1997, 70) suggests that because Nebuza was subordinate to such a powerful figure (see below), perhaps ãly in this particular case was a title of some relative importance. Because he held this title from at least AD 257/8 (the date of the present inscription) to AD 263 (the date of Teixidor’s inscription), ãly" probably did not refer to Nebuza’s youth. Could Nebuza have been a senior temple official connected with the Temple of Abgal in Khirbet Semrin, or does ãly" more likely simply refer to his subordinate position to Odainat? Lines 6-7: "dynt hpãyq" (< ßB"J46`H) = “consul.” Odainat also bears the title hpãyq" in an inscription that dates to the spring (Nisan) of AD 258.31 In Teixidor’s inscription, which was inscribed five years
26 " lh" ãb" : PAT 1668, PAT 1676, PAT 1683, PAT 1684, PAT 1690, PAT 1697; gny" ãb": PAT 1669, PAT 1670, PAT 1686. 27 PAT 0361; PAT 0605; PAT 1540; PAT 1928. 28 PAT 0525: 1; PAT 2495; PAT 2566; PAT 2572; PAT 2757: 1. 29 Cantineau 1930, pp. 543-545, no. 12. For further discussion of this name, see Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, p. 174; and Stark 1971, p. 92. 30 PAT 1442: 4; PAT 1677: 2. In PAT 0491: 1, ãly more likely expresses the more general sense of youth. In a couple Palmyrene inscriptions (PAT 0475: 1; PAT 1358: 8), however, it is not totally clear whether the term refers to youths in general, or to young temple-pages. See DNWSI, p. 423 for references. 31 PAT 0291.
three new palmyrene inscriptions
97
later (AD 263, Adar), Odainat is referred to as hpãyq" nhyr" (“the illustrious consul”).32 According to most scholars, this title refers to some sort of official position that Odainat held within the Roman imperial administration, perhaps the legatus of Syria Phoenice.33 Quite a good deal has been written on the various titles Odainat held throughout his career, and what the historical implications of these titles were for Palmyra and its place within the Roman Empire (for an exhaustive discussion and bibliography, see Hartmann 2001). (3) Christie’s New York, Lot 353, Sale 1091, Antiquities, 12 June 2002, page 208 Provenance: Gallery Archaeologia Montreal34
This Palmyrene limestone funerary relief depicts the deceased standing with her legs slightly apart and wearing a long tunic and a mantle pulled up over her as a veil, with the ends hanging behind. Her arms are bent and raised to her chest, with sharply incised features. The inscription to the left, which identifies the deceased, preserves the original red pigment. 1 b#" “Ba#a", 2 brt daughter of 3 "lh "Elahbel. 4 bl 5 Èbl Alas!” Line 1: b#": This poorly attested name can be used for males or females.35 Stark (1971, p. 77) suggests that it is a hypocoristicon (“asked for”), comparing it to Biblical Hebrew à"wl. Lines 3-4: "lhbl: A widely attested name meaning “Bel is God.” See Stark 1971, pp. 4, 68.
32 PAT 0291 actually refers to Odainat as nhyr" hpãyq" . Most translations of this text render this epithet as “the illustrious consul,” presumably considering it a syntactical anomaly. Another possibility would be to treat it as two separate epithets: “the illustrious one, the consul” (see Hillers–Cussini, PAT, p. 360). 33 For further discussion, see Hartmann 2001, pp. 102-108. 34 Formerly in the collection of Professor and Mrs. Sid Port, California. 35 Cf. PAT 0011: 1; PAT 0462: 3; PAT 0474: 3; PAT 0275: 2; PAT 1833: 2.
Fig. 1. Inscription of foundation and renovation of a tomb, AD 83
98
andrew d. gross
three new palmyrene inscriptions
Fig. 2. Relief offered to the god Abgal, AD 257/8
99
Fig. 3. Funerary relief of Ba#a" and copy of the epitaph (handcopy ADG)
100
andrew d. gross
Fig. 4. Inscription of foundation and renovation of a tomb, AD 83 (handcopy ADG)
three new palmyrene inscriptions 101
Fig. 5. Dedicatory inscription offered to the god Abgal, AD 257/8 (handcopy ADG)
102
andrew d. gross
three new palmyrene inscriptions
103
LEXICOGRAPHICAL AND GRAMMATICAL NOTES ON THE PALMYRENE ARAMAIC TEXTS BARUCH A. LEVINE
Some of my recent studies have brought home to me the power of language to transcend religion, national and ethnic identity, history and political affiliation. A classic paradigm is the Aramaic language, in all its dialect and phases. During its lond history , Aramaic has preserved the documented legacies of diverse communities in a common language, with the result that they all exhibit shared cultural features in vocabulary, diction, composition, typology, and substance. This is clearly demonstrated by the Palmyrene Aramaic Texts,1 edited by the late Delbert Hillers, in collaboration with Eleonora Cussini, his former student and editor of the present volume dedicated to his memory. It is, therefore, appropriate to offer some notes on the Palmyrene inscriptions in honoring a cherished colleague and friend, who excelled as a Semitist with a special interest in Aramaic, and who was a prominent scholar of the Hebrew Bible. Published as part of The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project, PAT greatly facilitates further investigation of the Palmyrene texts, themselves, and by extension, of other, fairly contemporary Aramaic sources. Most of the datable Palmyrene Aramaic texts are from the first three Christian centuries, and consist of honorific and funerary inscriptions, with a few legal texts, most notably the great Tariff from Palmyra. As in the case of the Tariff, many other inscriptions exhibit both Aramaic and Greek versions. I was stimulated to embark on the present study after completing, in collaboration with Ada Yardeni, the edition of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Nabatean-Aramaic papyri from NaÈal \ever on the Dead Sea (JDS 3), which include a large number of the so-called Bar Kokhba letters, as well as six, exceptional Nabatean legal documents.2 Several important connections with the Palmyrene inscriptions were noted in the Commentary to the NaÈal \ever texts, 1 2
Hillers–Cussini 1996. See Yadin et al. 2002.
104
baruch a. levine
and in hindsight, I have noticed additional points of comparison. Further study of primary Aramaic sources of the early Roman period, of all varieties, has been greatly stimulated by the publication of the comprehensive corpus of Judean Desert texts. This corpus is now available in Ada Yardeni’s Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Nabatean Texts from the Judaean Desert.3 Yardeni has edited the corpus, providing a Glossary-Concordance, Bibliography, analysis of script traditions, and translations of texts. The reader is further directed to the recent editions of Greek papyri from the Judean Desert, mostly of a legal character, prepared by Naphtali Lewis (1989), and Hannah M. Cotton (1997). The Palmyrene Aramaic inscriptions also reveal considerable affinity to literary sources composed in the contemporary Jewish languages, Post-Biblical Hebrew, and Jewish Aramaic, Palestinian and Babylonian, as preserved in the vast corpus of Rabbinic literature. There are even connections with Late Biblical Hebrew that should be brought to light. As we know, Post-Biblical Hebrew is infused with Aramaic features, not the least in its vocabulary, and yet its value as a resource for the study of Aramaic language and literature in late antiquity has not been fully utilized. The brief comments to follow are a product of a fresh, albeit brief look at the Palmyrene Aramaic inscriptions, with a view toward highlighting certain of their comparative links. The richness of the Palmyrene inscriptions invites much further investigation. Grammatical Notes I. Use of the Pa##el (D-Stem) in Palmyrene Aramaic The D-stem appears to be well attested at Palmyra, as evidenced by the examples listed here of verbs in the D stem, or forms based on it, culled from the PAT Glossary. Quite possibly, several additional forms which have been parsed as G-stems (= Pe#al), could just as well be taken as D-stems (= Pa##el).This option is by no means compelling, and is merely offered for consideration. If, however, these possibilities are accepted, the list of forms based on the D-stem at Palmyra would be significantly augmented. Surveying usage of the
3
Yardeni 2000; henceforth: TDT.
notes on palmyrene aramaic texts
105
D-stem at Palmyra will afford, in any event, an opportunity to comment on the meanings of the forms, themselves. a) D-stem verbs [Note: This list is not complete. Several unclear forms, and forms of uncertain meaning are omitted]. (1) brk v. “to bless.” Comparative Semitic evidence indicates the D-stem, even though this root evidences etymological and morphological problems. The Aramaic G-stem passive participle, bryk “blessed,” frequent at Palmyra, predicates a G-stem. (2) zbn v. “to sell. The D-stem is confirmed by immediate context and general Aramaic usage, as well as by morphology in some instances. For Judean Desert legal texts, see Yardeni 2000, TDT II, pp. 47-48, s.v. zbn, Pa##el. (3) Èdt v. “to renew, restore, install.” The sense is confirmed by immediate context, and by parallel usage in the cognate Semitic languages, which share a common typology. In East-Semitic, cf. Akkadian D-stem udduàu “to renew” and derived forms (CAD E, 3033), often in the context of building repairs and renovations. A similar typology is evident in West-Semitic, and is at home in PhoenicianPunic Èdà (Pi##el). Cf. DNWSI, 350; Krahmalkov 2000, p. 176; and in Late Biblical Hebrew, where the Pi##el Èidd¿à, likewise occurs in the context of renovation (2 Chron 15:8 [altar], 24:4, 12 [temple]). (4) ãll v. “to roof over”—a chamber. Cf. tãlyl “ceiling” (below, under III, a), probably also: mãlh “portico.” The D-stem is denominative of ãll (= ãÁl§l) “shade, protection,” thus: “to provide shade.” Perhaps cf. the Ugaritic substantive míll, based on the D-stem participle; a parallel word for bt “dwelling,” and mãb “seat, dwelling,” deriving from íl “shadow, protection,” hence: “ covered structure” (Whittaker 1972: 287). Also note the Akkadian D-stem ßullulu “to roof (a building),” and related forms, attested from Old Babylonian on (CAD ‘, 239-240, s.v. ßullulu A), and cf. rare JPA ãll “to cover, screen” (DJPA, 225). (5) ßbt v. “to ornament.” Presumably, this is denominative of the verb ßby “to desire,” nominal: ßbw. “object, desired object,” yielding Palmyrene tßby, tßbw “ornament,” literally, “a desired object” (see under III, a). This meaning reflects a well known typology, whereby what is desired comes to mean almost any object, or affair, for that matter. Hence, ßbt is a D-stem form, meaning literally: “to render desirable,” with causative force.
106
baruch a. levine
(6) qdà v. “to consecrate.” Common Semitic usage of D-stem, confirmed by morphology. (7) qrb v. “ to offer.” The D-stem is characteristic of Palmyrene Aramaic, in cultic context, and is attested in other Aramaic dialects (DJPA, 502, Levy IV, 369), in Achemenid Aramaic and at Hatra (DNWSI, 1028), whereas Hebrew most often employs the Hiph#il for this meaning. (8) àmà v. “to serve.” See below, under Comparative Vocabulary with the Judean Desert Texts. (9) tqn v. “to prepare, set up.” See below, under Comparative Vocabulary with the Judean Desert Texts. b) Nouns and adjectives based on the D-stem [Note: Normally, the forms listed here are not explicitly identified as D-stem in the PAT Glossary.] (1) Èãy" n. “fine, penalty.” This term occurs in the same clause as the verb Èwb “to owe.” Thus, dy yÈwb Èãy" “that he shall owe a penalty.” (See the next entry for references). The literal meaning is: “that which removes the offense,” expressing the privative function of the D-stem. The same term occurs in the Nabataean tomb inscriptions (Healey 1993, p. 219), s.v. H 34, line 11: dy "yty #lwhy Èãy"h “that he shall bear a fine” (literally: “That there shall be upon/against him a fine”). Healey (ibid., 224) discusses this term, calling attention to Ezra 6:17 where we have the Pa##el infinitive construct leÈaãã§y§" (Qere: lÁÈatt§"§h) “to expiate,” literally: “to remove the sin.” The point of stressing the literal meanings is to establish that Èãy" is, indeed, based on the D-stem. It is probable that Arabic forms of the cognate root derive from Aramaic. (2) Èyb adj. “owing, obliged.” This adjective (= Èayy§b) is constructed on the qaãã§l formation, from the root È-w-b. (See below under Comparative Vocabulary with the Judean Desert Texts, s.v. Èwb v.). (3) mmzgn n. “mixer,” n. The Pa##el participle + the affix: §n, serves as nomen agentis. (4) mprnsy n. “guardian, foster parent.” See below, under Comparative Vocabulary with the Judean Desert Texts. (5) màmà n. “officiant.” See above, under D-stem Verbs, àmà v. (6) qàt n. “archer.” This is the qaãã§l form (= qaàà§t), known in Biblical Hebrew (Gen 21:20), and generally in the Semitic languages, and serves as a nomen agentis. (7) tyr adj. “compassionate” (= tayy§r), the qaãã§l form based on the
and Palmyrene nßbh, are based on the G-stem, and designate what is “standing.” So, there are noun forms based on the G-stem. The presentation in DNWSI, 749-750 is non-committal. I have taken the Deir #Alla passage (Combination I, line 14), cited in DNWSI, as representing the Pi##el: wnßbw àdyn mw#d “And the Shadday-gods have set up a council” (Levine 1993, 244, 249). This has not been accepted by most investigators who suggest that wnßbw is a Niph#al form: “and they were standing in an assembly,” or the like. El-Amarna naߧbu (CAD N : 33) “to settle (?)” [Gt] reflects the stative sense of “being situated, standing.” The problem is that the Pi##el/Pa##el of the verb nßb is otherwise unattested, unless we include Deir #Alla and Palmyrene nßb in this category. Interestingly, A.Tal (DSA, 541-542) attributes all meanings attested for nßb in Samaritan to a root meaning “to plant, set up, establish, collect.” This is unlikely; it is more likely that there has been contamination with the homophonic Aramaic verb nßb “to plant” (DJPA, 358-359; LS, 442; CCPA I, Glossary, 276). It is better to preserve the distinctness of the two roots. There is also the matter of how to classify forms of the primae-yod realization of the same root, namely, yßb. G-stem forms of y-ß-b are have stative in force in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, whereas the same dialect, together with Biblical Hebrew, attest Pa##el and Pi##el. Hithpa##el forms (Baumgartner 1967-, 408; Levy I, 256). Dan 7:19 attests an Aramaic Pa##el infinitive construct lÁyaßߧb§" “to make firm,” hence: “ascertain (the meaning).” Notwithstanding the many problems raised by nßb and its alternate realization, yßb, I would argue for the Pa##el stem in Palmyrene, and at Deir #Alla, and seek to make certain that we haven’t overlooked it elsewhere. (4) àpr v. “to be good to, to do good to.” See below, under Comparative Vocabulary with the Judean Desert Texts. d) A possible G-stem form identified as D-stem pàq v. “to make clear, show, explain.” This verb is expressed in most other Aramaic dialects and in Post-Biblical Hebrew in the Gstem, and is realized phonetically as psq. The sense in Palmyrene is established by the Greek of the Tariff text: diasaph¿santos, from diasapheou “to explain.” At Hatra we find the G-stem in the sense of “to decide” (DNWSI, 946). Actually, the Grundbedeütung of this verbal root in Aramaic is “to cut,” which typologically may connote “deciding.” (Cf. the legal connotations of the root g-z-r “to cut”). I therefore question the basis for classifying psq as a Pa##el form in
counter other roles, including caravan leader, one in charge of water sources, and leader of the symposium, the mrzÈ, a very honored position. Palmyrene shows a trend toward abstract forms, in this case absolute rbnw, construct rbnwt- “term of leadership; office of leader” (cf. Post-Biblical Hebrew rabb§nût “position of leadership).” The form rabb§n§" is attested in Syriac (LS, 707), and rabb§n in JPA (DJPA, 514) with the meaning of “teacher, scholar.” In the Rabbinic sources, this title is used to designate several of the Patriarchs of Palestinian Jewry, and serves as a title introducing the personal name. Examples are: Rabb§n Gamlî"¿l (the Elder), Rabb§n ’im#ôn ben Gamlî"¿l, Rabb§n Yôȧn§n ben Zakk§"y, and for academic leaders of similar status in Babylonia: Rabb§n§" "Aàài, Rabb§n #Uqb§". Levy (IV, 416-417) outlines the information for the Palestinian and Babylonian sources. There are also plural forms: rabb§nîn (generally Palestinian Aramaic), and rabb§n§n (generally Babylonian Aramaic), often used collectively to designate the collegium of Sages. Titles compounded with rab (Common Semitic) exhibit a wide range of meanings, as noted by Hillers and Cussini, all expressing the basic sense of “chief, master.” Characteristically, religious communities, Jewish and Christian, appropriated guild terminology, and administrative titles to designate religious offices. Comparative Vocabulary with the Judean Desert Texts Following are several terms common to Palmyrene Aramaic and the Judean Desert texts. In each case, we observe how one group of sources illuminates the other. (1) "sr v. “to bind, obligate one’s self.” The one occurrence at Palmyra is in a broken funerary inscription, PAT 2774, which, for the most part, consists of personal names. In its final preserved line, line 12, it reads: [ ... ] w"srw whqymw byny[hwn] “[ ... ] and they made a binding agreement between them (literally: “and they bound and they established between them”). The two verbs in sequence, w"srw whqymw, are best taken as hendiadys. This reading is suggested by the formulary of the Samaria Papyri found at Wadi Daliyeh, dating from the fourth century BC.4 In those slave sales, we find standard 4
Cross 1985, pp. 7-17; Cross 1988, pp. 17-26; Gropp et al. 2001.
112
baruch a. levine
provisions, stated as follows: (1) wr#yw Èd mn Èd "sr" bynyhm wznh "sr" hqymw bynyhm “And they were mutually satisfied with the binding agreement between them. And this is the binding agreement (which) they established between them” (Papyrus 1, lines 4-6). (2) "w "ành b"sr" znh zy hqymt #mk “Or, if I renege on this binding agreement that I have established with you” (ibid. Papyrus 1, lines 6-8). (3) lqbl "sr" znh hqymw bybyhm “In accordance with this binding agreement (which) they established between them.5 In effect, the Palmyrene formulary is merely a variant of the formulas occurring in the Samaria Papyri, wherein the causative hqym “to establish, enact” is the operative verb. The term "sr “binding agreement” (also: “edict”) has a long history, and occurs in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Nabatean-Aramaic documents from NaÈal \ever (JDS 3, 50-51). In Numbers 30, the Torah chapter dealing with vows, it occurs as "Ás§r, the normal Aramaic form (Dan 6: 8, et passim), but is also vocalized "iss§r (Levine 2000, pp. 427- 430; Levine 1999; DNWSI, 90-92, s.v. "sr1 and "sr2 ). Mirabile dictu, this is the first time that I have taken the Palmyrene attestation into consideration! What is most interesting about the Palmyrene formulary is that it employs a finite verbal form, G-stem w"srw “and they bound,” which fact makes it directly relevant to the interpretation of Numbers, chapter 30, where we also have finite verbal forms. Thus Num 30: 5: we"Ás§r§h "aàer "§sÁrâ #l napà§h “and any binding agreement by which she had bound herself.” The root "-sr in Aramaic is thus attested in Aramaic documents of the Achemenid period, at Elephantine, Saqqara and Wadi Daliyeh, Post-Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, in texts of the Greco-Roman period, including at Palmyra. It seems to develop a primarily negative connotation Rabbinic literature and in Christian texts (see DJPA, 67, s.v. "syr “forbidden, prohibited,” and ibid. 68, s.v. "sr v. “ to prohibit”). (2) br/b[r]t Èry n. “freedman, freedwoman.” Cussini discusses the feminine designation bt Èry, rendered in Latin as liberta, “freedwoman” in PAT 0246.6 The Latin identifies the deceased woman in question, Regina, as liberta et coniuge “freedwoman and wife” of the named man Barates, whereas the Aramaic mentions only that she is bt Èry. Clearly, Regina was the wife of Barates. Cussini takes note of the difficulty in regarding Regina as a manumitted slave woman, and
5 6
Ibid. Papyrus 1, lines 10-11; and see Cussini 1993, pp. 245-246. Cussini 2004.
notes on palmyrene aramaic texts
113
yet that is what Latin liberta has been taken to mean, and undoubtedly does mean, in many cases. Although the Latin terms libertus and liberta are of wide use, the equation: bt Èry = liberta is unique to this inscription. A similar problem confronted the editors in interpreting P.Yadin 10 from NaÈal \ever, the marriage contract (kÁtubbâ) of the well known Babatha, executed at her second marriage and dated in the early second century AD. In that document the precise formula is: mzwn "nth brt Èwryn, which is translated “the (fitting) sustenance of a free (= married) woman.” In commenting on P. Yadin 10, the editors called attention to a highly unusual feature of a Greek marriage contract , dated 310 B.C.E., from Elephantine, in Egypt, wherein the husband is designated eluethéros “free man,” and the wife eleuthéra, and it is further stated: “Let Heracles provide to Demetria everything pertaining to a free wife (gunaikì eleuthérai).”7 The sense is not entirely clear, but “free” may mean “free born,” rather than “freed, manumitted.” Or, it may mean that the man and woman in question were free and unencumbered to marry; in the case of the woman, that she was no longer under the jurisdiction of her father, or pledged to another man. In any event, “free woman” is preferable to “freedwoman,” its having no necessary connotation of prior slave status. A possible resolution of the difficulty may be to equate all three designations: thus, Aramaic "nth brt Èwryn = Greek gçné eleuthéra = Latin liberta et coniuge “a free wife” (taking the Latin as hendiadys). This leads one to propose that in PAT 0095, brt Èry also means “free wife,” and implies no previous condition of servitude. There we read that two women cede a number of burial niches. One of the women is designated brt Èry PN, and it is stated that she is mprnsyt" “the executor” of that man’s son. Here, too, the sense may be “free wife,” namely that she was simply his wife. See the discussion in JDS 3, 48, and also see below, no. 5, mprnsy.8 (3) Èwb v. “to owe” adjectival Èyb “owing, obligated.” The adjectival form has already been noted above. The verbal form in the G-stem occurs in two clear contexts (a) in the rules of the symposium, PAT 0991, line 11: dy yÈwb Èãy" dd[ynrn …] “that he shall owe 7 JDS 3, p. 135, and cf. Farber 1996, p. 409 [D2 = P. Elephantine 1, lines 45], and note 1. 8 This interpretation of P. Yadin 10 and of PAT 0095 had been suggested by Hannah M. Cotton.
114
baruch a. levine
the penalty of denarii X-number.” (b) A provision in a funerary inscription: “Anyone who installs any outsider in the tomb” yÈwb lpsqws zwzyn " [lp… ] “shall owe the treasury 1[000] zuz.” In a Nabatean-Aramaic sale contract from NaÈal \ever (dated in the twenty-eighth year of Rab’el II = 97/98 C.E) one of the parties states, in the 1st person: “And if I, PN … will deviate from this (agreement) without authority”: "Èwb lk "nt PN dnh ... kl dmy zbny" " lh “I shall owe you , this same PN the entire price of these purchases” (JDS 3: 209210, s.v. P. Yadin 2:14-15). The "Aph#el participle, masculine singular occurs in P. Yadin 4, line 14 (JDS 3, 250-251) in a legal agreement: mwd" wmtÈyb "nh “I acknowledge liability” (hendiadys). Also note the Ithpa##al participle in CPA (CCPA I, Glossary, 1, 255). Various forms of this root occur frequently in later phases of Aramaic. (4) mwd" v. “declare, acknowledge” (the "Aph#el participle). This verb, in several related forms, characteristically introduces binding statements in legal documents that serve to verify sales, leases, loans, debt obligations, receipts of payment, and the like. Hillers and Cussini (PAT, Glossary, p. 369, s.v. ydy v.) cite the occurrence of this term in the Syriac Bill of Sale from Dura Europos, studied by J. Goldstein (1966), and others. This document is now available in Drijvers– Healey 1999, pp. 232-236, as P1, along with two, additional Syriac legal texts (as P2, P3), studied by J. Teixidor and S. Brock, all of which employ this terminology. What is more, the Judean Desert texts, in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Nabatean-Aramaic, attest this terminology quite regularly, as do their Greek counterparts, where the operative form is homologéô “I acknowledge,” a feature of the Greek papyri from NaÈal \ever, edited by N. Lewis (1989), and from Murabba#ât, recently edited by Hannah M. Cotton (1997). This is a case where the editors of the NaÈal \ever papyri, failed to adduce the relevant evidence from Palmyra, or from the Syriac legal papyri from Dura Europos, for that matter. See JDS 3, p. 60, in the Commentary on P.Yadin 45: line 6; and cf. P. Yadin 4, line 14; JDS 3, pp. 250-251. Notwithstanding these omissions, the discussion provided in JDS 3 directs the reader to provisions in Rabbinic law which are of considerable interest. The single, clear attestation of this typology in the Palmyrene texts comes in a document of cession, wherein a woman “declares” (feminine participle) to a certain person (mwdy" lPN), a Nabatean, to judge by his name and patronymic, that she has received a specified payment from him, in return for which she has ceded to him a half of her share of a
notes on palmyrene aramaic texts
115
burial cave (PAT 1791). Interestingly, P1 from Dura Europus also concerns receipt of payment: by a woman who states: “I acknowledge (mwdyn") … “that I have received (dqblt),” a sum of silver, in consideration of which she has sold her female slave to a certain man. P2 concerns a loan, and P3—an acknowledgement of a lease, which is the very subject of P.Yadin 44-46 at NaÈal \ever! (5) mprnsy n. “guardian, foster mother,” and the denominative verb, prns “to provide.” The given noun form, feminine, determined: mprnsyt" is based on the Pa##el participle. As explained just above, in connection with the designation bt Èry, the woman in question was most likely a guardian over her husband’s son. Palmyrene also attests a denominative. Of the good deeds of a certain man it is said: wprns brmnhwn bkl [s]bw klh rb" wz#r" “And he provided, apart from these (matters), for every possible need, great or small” (PAT 0261, lines 3-4). The quadriliteral, parn§s “executor, administrator,” occurs in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts from NaÈal \ever and Murabba#ât, as well as on lead weights, and is discussed in considerable detail in JDS 3, 48, in the Commentary on P.Yadin 44, a Hebrew legal text. This evidence relates administrators who operated as part of the Bar Kokhba regime in Judea during the period of the revolt against Rome in 132-135+ AD. The information provided by the Palmyrene texts was helpful, pointing to the private role of such agents, who have status in Rabbinic law, whereas the Judean Desert evidence reflected a public role, for the most part. An Aramaic deed of gift from NaÈal \ever, P.Yadin 7: 16 attests the denominative, D-stem form pirnûs “support,” and Rabbinic sources attest, in addition, feminine parn§sâ, with the same meaning (DJPA, 448; Levy IV, 120-121). J. Naveh (1978, p. 97, no. 63: 2), discusses an Aramaic synagogue mosaic from Noarah, near Jericho, probably dating to the fifth or sixth century AD, where we read: [d]kyr lãb bnymyn prns[h] br ywsh “May he be [rem]embered for good, Binyamin, the administrator, son of Yose.” (6) àmà v. “to serve.” Cf. above, the noun màmà “officiant,” based on the D-stem participle. In P. Yadin 7, lines 28-29, an Aramaic deed of gift from NaÈal \ever, we read that a wife, the recipient of the gift, was required to serve her husband: wmàmàh yty mn qst mtnt" d" “and she shall be serving me from part of this gift.” (JDS 3, 8485, Commentary, ibid. 107). One questions Krahmalkov (2000, 472), who lists Phoenician-Punic ’M’, v., as a G-stem. D-stem verbal forms are frequent at Hatra (DNWSI, 1168), and, along with forms derived from the D-stem, abound in JPA and CPA (CCPA I, Glossary, 295;
THE SAFAITIC INSCRIPTIONS AT DURA EUROPOS MICHAEL C. A. MACDONALD
In the Preliminary Report of the 1928-1929 season at Dura Europos, C. C. Torrey studied eight graffiti found in the “Palmyrene Gate.” Six of these (his S 1-6) he considered to be Safaitic, while, shortly before the book went to press, E. Littmann pointed out to him that the other two (S 7-8) were in fact Palmyrene graffiti.1 In the following season, a longer and much clearer Safaitic inscription was found carved into the plaster covering a pillar in the “south wady” and Torrey published a facsimile and reading of this in 1932.2 Torrey did not number this text but, for convenience it has been given the siglum S 9. Of these seven graffiti, regarded by Torrey as Safaitic, five were later republished in CIS v and given the numbers 51755180.3 Torrey considered his S 2 (CIS 5176) too weathered to be legible and although two drawings and a squeeze were available he did not reproduce any of them, nor attempt a reading. He also writes of another text “said to be very faintly recognizable” which he had not seen at the time of writing.4 This was presumably his “S 6” which does not appear in the chapter, the numbering of the texts jumping from S 5 to S 7, without explanation.5 Finally, in 1972, J. T. Milik re-read Torrey’s S 4 as a Hatran graffito.6 Thus, four Safaitic inscriptions were published by the Franco-American excavations at Dura-Europos,7 with two more reported. No more have been dis-
1
See Torrey 1931, pp. 172-177. See Torrey 1932, pp. 66-68. 3 Since Torrey published neither a copy nor a reading of S 2 this was simply given a number (CIS 5176) in CIS with the comment “hunc textum legere et interpretari desperaverunt editores.” 4 Torrey 1931, pp. 174-175. 5 Torrey was presumably reserving the number at the end of the “Safaitic” sequence for this extra text, since S 7-8 were Palmyrene. The editor of CIS V does not appear to have noticed this, remarking only that “titulum 6 deest,” and so did not give the text a CIS number. 6 Milik 1972, p. 334. See now Bertolino 1997, pp. 202-203, no. 2. 7 That is S 1 (CIS 5175), S 3 (CIS 5177), S 5 (CIS 5179), and “S 9” (CIS 5180). 2
safaitic inscriptions at dura europos
119
covered by the recent French mission. However, Roberto Bertolino, the epigraphist to the French expedition, has rediscovered three of the four published, plus one of the unpublished, texts and has photographed them. I am most grateful to him for sending me prints of his colour photographs and for suggesting that I re-examine these inscriptions Unfortunately, the graffiti are so crudely carved and the surfaces are so covered with extraneous scratches that even with the photographs it is impossible to achieve a secure reading of some of them. However, at least the extent and nature of the problem are now clear and are no longer compounded by the efforts of a copyist unfamiliar with the script. Torrey’s graffiti S 1-9 and the “C” numbers given by CIS v are therefore as follows (those photographed by Bertolino are followed by an asterisk *). S 1 = C 5175 Safaitic * S 2 = C 5176 Safaitic [(?) never published] * S 3 = C 5177 Safaitic * S 4 = C 5178 [published as Safaitic, but re-read as Hatran] S 5 = C 5179 Safaitic * S6 [Safaitic (?) never published] S7 Palmyrene S8 Palmyrene S 9 = C 5180 Safaitic [known only from Torrey’s copy] S 1-8 were found in the Palmyrene Gate.8 S 9 was found in the South-West temple.9 S1
(CIS 5175) Pl. 1 and Fig. 1 l gtm" b-dwry “By Gtm" at Dår§”
Torrey read l gtm "b dw + wasm, translating “Of Guth§m AbÊ Dawi.” However, this interpretation is improbable since the kunya (Abå + PN) is never found in Safaitic, and in Arabic it always precedes, rather than follows the ism. CIS emended the b to l, reading lgtm "l dwy, translating very tentatively “Guthâmo, (e) tribu Dawîyi (?).” However, such a construction would again be unheard of in Safaitic, where tribal affiliation is expressed by d"l + the tribal name, or by the nisbah, 8 9
Torrey 1932, p. 172. See below, under S 9.
120
michael c.a. macdonald
or by tracing the lineage back either to the eponymous ancestor or to a well-known sequence within the tribal genealogy. On the basis of Bertolino’s photograph, I would propose the reading above. There is no trace of a n after the b. The final letter of the text is a clear y and is separated from the w by a r, though this is rather faint on the photograph and was missed by Torrey. Neither gtm or gtm" have been found before in Safaitic, but compare the Arabic name Æatt§mah used for both a man and a woman,10 or the woman’s name, gtmy, which has been found twice in a Palmyrene inscription.11 I would suggest that the -" at the end of gtm" represents either the Aramaic emphatic ending, which is occasionally found on personal names in Safaitic,12 or the hypocoristic ending -" which, like -y, is quite common on one-word names in Palmyrene. The name in this text could be that of either a man or a woman. If my reading and interpretation are correct, this is an extremely unusual Safaitic inscription. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only text in this script in which the author has identified him- or herself simply by his/her name and the fact that he/she is in a particular geographical location. The nearest parallel is in another highly unusual text, from north-eastern Jordan, which reads l #qrb bn "bgr b-ms1rt #mrt frs1 “By #qrb son of "bgr, a horseman in the unit of the "l #mrt.”13 A second peculiar feature of this text would be the use of matres lectionis. Normally, Safaitic inscriptions are written entirely without vowels or diphthongs (if indeed the latter existed). However, here it is probable that the -" of the personal name represents /§/ and, if
10
See Lidzbarski 1902-1915, iii, p. 137. PAT 0965: A.1 and B.3, referring to the same person. See Stark’s comments on this name, Stark 1971, p. 83. If Stark is correct in deriving it from Arabic Æutm, then, if it has been Aramaized with the emphatic ending -", gtm" would presumably mean “the stay-at-home,” though Æutm can also mean “a forebearing or clement personage or chief” or “a man of rank or quality” (Lane 1863-1893, p. 380b). 12 See the list in Winnett–Harding 1978, p. 19. However, note that the majority of these are paralleled by forms of the same name with the Safaitic article, h-, e.g. #bd-"/h-#bd, whereas, to the best of my knowledge, a name *h-gtm has not yet been found in Safaitic. 13 See Macdonald 1993, p. 374. The parallel would, of course, be closer if one translated ms1rt as “camp” rather than “unit.” However, while the phrase “a horseman in a particular military unit” clearly defines the author’s status, “a horseman in a particular camp” is too vague a description to be useful in this respect, and so I would regard it as the less likely interpretation. 11
safaitic inscriptions at dura europos
121
dwry represents the name of the city, then the w must represent /å/. The name appears as dwr" in two texts in the Palmyrene script fom the city,14 and the use of -y in the Safaitic form to represent the final sound which appears as -" in Palmyrene can be paralleled by the spelling bßry (Bostra) in a Safaitic text compared with bßr" in Nabataean.15 The combination of the form of the personal name and the use of matres lectionis, suggests that the author was more familiar with Aramaic orthographic conventions than with those of the Safaitic graffiti in the deserts east and south-east of the \awr§n. S2 (CIS 5176) Pl. 2 Bertolino rediscovered this text and photographed it. However, unfortunately, the letters are so faint and the rock is so covered with other marks that I can make nothing of it. S3
(CIS 5177) Pl. 3 and Fig. 1 {ß}{w}f b{n} klb “{‘wf} {son of} Klb”
Torrey did not interpret the first sign and read the rest as ln(s1)ryhb. However, the photograph shows a finely scrtached ß or possibly an " , before the first sign copied by Torrey. It is in a different technique from the rest of the text, but it looks deliberate and there is no sign of another inscription to which it might belong. After the ß/" there appears to be an elongated w and this is followed by a shallow í or a f lying at 90° to the direction of the text. The form of the letter is clear, only its value is ambiguous. However, í in this con14
PAT 1085, l. 2 and 1094, l. 1. The Safaitic text is Winnett 1957, no. 78 (s1nt "ty h-mdy bßry), though the name occurs in another text (CIS 4448) apparently as bßr (s1nt Èrb h-mdy "l rm b-bßr ßqãrz). The last five letters on the copy have never been satisfactorily explained and it is possible that the first of them (ß) is in fact a miscopied y belonging to bßr, hence bßr(y). For the form bßr" in Nabataean, see RES 83, and JS Nab 39. In the orthography of Safaitic and Hismaic (formerly “Thamudic E”) -y regularly occurs in places where Aramaic has -", e.g. the divine name Dushara, Kutba and #Uzza which occur as d-s2ry, ktby and #zy in Hismaic and #zy in Safaitic, but as dwàr", ktb" and #z" in Nabataean. For the Hismaic examples see King 1990, pp. 687 and 689 and references there. For the Safaitic see the names mr"-#zy and mr"-h-#zy (WH 621, 627 and WH 1777, 3820). For the Nabataean see the examples collected in Cantineau 1930-1932, ii, pp. 80-81 (s.v. dwàr" ), and pp. 128-129 (s.v. "l-#z" ) and Strugnell 1959, pp. 29-36 (for "l-ktb" ). On the equivalence of Ancient North Arabian -y and Aramaic -" in general, see Macdonald 2000, p. 48. 15
122
michael c.a. macdonald
text does not seem to produce a possible name and I would therefore take the letter as f, reading the name as ßwf or "wf . The former has not been found before in Safaitic, but is a perfectly possible name. Compare, for example, Arabic ßaww§f “a wool-merchant.” If, on the other hand, the name is "wf, this has been found once before in Safaitic and is presumably a diminutive, perhaps *"Uwayf, of the more common name "f. On the photograph the b of bn is clear and the n seems to be a dot between its arms. The next letter is not at all certain but on the photograph looks like a k, the loop to one side of the stem on Torrey’s copy being, in fact, two short bars whose ends do not appear to be joined. At first sight, the next sign looks like a h and was so copied by Torrey. However, on the photograph, the side stroke seems to be part of a long extraneous scratch below the letter, and the sign is probably a l. The last letter is probably a b. The short line transecting the curve seems, on close examination, to be extraneous. The name Klb is, of course, well-attested in Safaitic. Parts of S 4 (CIS 5178), which is scratched immediately below the previous inscription, can be seen on the photograph (Pl. 3). Torrey, followed by CIS, considered this was Safaitic and read rs1l klb “the camel train of Kalb.” However, in 1972, J. T. Milik identified the text as a graffito in the Hatran script. He read it “w-Èmn" «et È[mn"]» nom propre ou appellatif, ou plutôt rÈmn", «RaÈimnâ», hypocoristique de RaÈîm-Nanai, «Bien-aimé de Nanai».”16 Bertolino in his re-edition of this text reads whmn", with a he rather than a È¿t.17 S5
(CIS 5179) Pl. 4 and Fig. 1 {ß}{b}{È} bn n{s1}{k} bn y·r “{‘bÈ} son of {Ns1k} son of Y·r”
Torrey read h-s1rb w-h-bd ·b “the camel train and Bedouin 4abba.” While this seems to me a most unlikely interpretation, I have difficulty proposing a viable alternative. A band of rough lime runs through the centre of the letters, obscuring parts of them. I have taken the first letter as ß, though the loop is barely visible on the photograph. The upper part of the second letter is very faint while the lower is very thick and touches the rather square È which follows. The b of bn is clear and seems to be followed by two dot n’s cut into the band 16 17
Milik 1972, p. 334. Bertolino 1997, p. 202, no. 2.
safaitic inscriptions at dura europos
123
of lime which runs through the middle of the s1 which follows. This is presumably the reason that Torrey copied it as a È, though he read it as w. There is no sign on the photograph of the stem of the next letter which Torrey copied as a h. Instead there is a third, fainter “prong” to the left of the other two, making it a È at 90° to the direction of the text, or more likely a k. The following bn is clear and the next letter is probably a y. What at first sight appears to be part of the stem above the loop can, on closer examination, be seen to be a thinner line which is not quite joined to the letter. The lower half of the next letter does not show up well on the photograph but is consistent with it being a ·, as shown on Torrey’s copy, and the final letter is different from the bs and is perhaps more likely to be a r. The first name, if I have read it correctly, is very well attested in Safaitic, and the second is also known. The third has been found once before in this form, in Oxtoby 1968, no. 58, where it is at the top of a genealogy of eleven generations. S6 This text was never published and Bertolino did not rediscover it. [S 9] (CIS 5180) Fig. 1 Unlike S 1-8, this inscription was found during the third campaign (1929-1930) “in the neighborhood of the south wady.”18 It was cut into the plaster covering “a pillar composed of rubble and cement”19 which the excavators considered to have been part of the colonnade in the “Southwest temple.”20 This was built up against the inner side of the “angle of the ramparts forming the jucture between the line along the desert and that which commands the south and east,”21 between towers 13bis and 14 (the south-west bastion). Pillet believed that it was destroyed when the ramparts against which it was built were breached during a siege.22 It is not clear whether the inscrip18
Torrey 1932, p. 66. ibid. 20 Pillet 1933, p. 14. Although Pillet refers to Pl. II and identifies the pillar as “K,” it is not marked as such on this plan. However, from Pillet’s description, it must be at the point marked r, in the wall between Room “J” and the courtyard. This is supported by Pillet’s comment in the previous year’s report that just behind this column [in fact 3.52 m., according to the plan] there is an altar of Babylonian character [“A” on the plan], Pillet 1932, p. 17. 21 Pillet 1932, p. 15. 22 Pillet 1933, p. 15. 19
124
michael c.a. macdonald
tion was carved while the temple was in use or when it was abandoned, after its destruction. The “text runs down [the pillar] perpendicularly, then [turns] horizontally to the right ... halfway around, then rises again in a perpendicular line.”23 Unfortunately, Bertolino was unable to rediscover this text, so it is known only from Torrey’s copy from the squeezes. This is reproduced here but rearranged to reflect its original lay-out as described by Torrey. l s2#m bn bgd d"l m#gm# w-ts2wq "l hdt w-"l gbt b#t n#m “By S2#m son of Bgd of the lineage of M#gm# and he longed for Hdt and for Gbt of the patrol of N#m.” Torrey read l s2# mbny bgr È"l m# gm# w-ts2wq "l tÈt w-"l gbt b#t n#m and translated “Of ’ai#, of the BanÊ BiƧd, passing by with a company; and he longed for TaÈt and for –ubbat; sending a greeting.” CIS correctly re-read the author’s name and patronym, s2#m bn bgd, but followed Torrey’s reading and translation of the rest of the text, while expressing grave doubts about Torrey’s derivation of the supposed verb È"l “to pass by” from the Arabic root Èwl.24 A. Jamme was the first to publish the correct reading, though his interpretation of b#t is untenable.25 To judge from Torrey’s facsimile (copied from squeezes) and his description,26 the text was well-cut and the reading of the letters seems clear. The signs for g, # and n are well distinguished and the only letter with an unusual form is d, which both Torrey and CIS read as È, though its value is not in doubt thanks to the expression d"l. The first name has been found in one other (unpublished) Safaitic inscription from north-eastern Jordan and the second is fairly well attested. However, the “tribal” name, m#gm# , is so far unique and, at first sight, would seem to belong to a small number of names found occasionally in Safaitic which end in an # which is not part of the root, e.g. #n#,27 Qdm#,28 Tm#,29 etc.30 In each of these cases, however, 23
Torrey 1932, pp. 66-67. Haec derivatio nobis valde dubia apparet” (commentary to CIS 5180). 25 Jamme 1970, p. 88, note 148. He takes b#t as a present participle in the dual in construct with n#m and meaning “both having followed N#m.” 26 Torrey 1932, p. 67 (facsimile), p. 68 (description). 27 WH 147, known only from a hand copy. The position of #n# between the l§m auctoris and bn makes it certain that it is a name and not, as the editors propose, “a magical (?) sign or wasm.” They suggested that the name may occur in WH 406, also known only from a hand copy. However, here the final name must surely 24
safaitic inscriptions at dura europos
125
the letters before the # represent elsewhere the non-divine element in theophoric names, thus, for instance, #n"l, Qdm"l, Tm"l, etc.31 This is not the case, however, with m#gm, which, anyway, would not make a suitable element in such a name. At present, I can offer no explanation of this ethnicon. H dt, the first of the two names after ts2wq "l, has not been found before. Assuming that Torrey’s facsimile is accurate, there can be no doubt about the reading. The etymology is, however, much more difficult. The Arabic word hådah “helmet” is a loan from Persian and I do not know when it entered the Arabian milieu. Certainly, several Safaitic rock-drawings show horseman with apparently plumedhelmets and one would suppose that these were rare and prized possessions which might give rise to a nickname. But we simply have no evidence as to what they were called in Safaitic, let alone that this was the origin of the present name. Nor do the Arabic roots hwd and h dy offer any very likely etymologies. A rather remote possibility might be that the author was an Aramaeophone attempting to write the name Èdt, which is well-attested in Safaitic, but that he did so phonetically using the harsh Aramaic pronunciation of È¿t which would approximate to /h/ and representing the spirantized pronunciation of post-vocalic /d/ by d. But this is of course unprovable.32 The second name Gbt may have been found once before in Safaitic, in CIS 3767 though even here the reading is not entirely certain.33 be hws1r (an alternative reading given by the editors) followed by extraneous marks. The editors speculated that these may have been intended to connect the author’s text with the word s1tr in WH 405, but this seems unlikely. 28 Macdonald–Harding 1976, no. 1. 29 WH 1125 (confirmed on the photograph) and in Hismaic, Harding–Littmann 1952, nos. 15, 229. Note that although these are marked as doubtful in King’s thesis (King 1990, p. 484) the readings are confirmed by the photographs. 30 These may be hypocoristics of theophoric names compounded with #Athe, as are some names in Palmyrene inscriptions, e.g., Br#", Bt#", Zbd#y, Mk#", #bd#" and, pace Stark, surely Tym# and Tym#". See Stark 1971 under these names. Needless to say the final vowels represented in Palmyrene by -" and -y would not normally appear in Safaitic orthography. 31 For references, see under these names in Harding 1971. Note that in the case of mwt # in WH 2494, the editors suggest that it may be the result of metathesis of the father’s name m#wt. 32 For Aramaic phonetic influence in the reverse direction, i.e. the consistent use of d for /d/ in a Hismaic inscription, see Macdonald 2000, p. 74, note 142 and Macdonald (in press). 33 In the other text (Winnett 1957, no. 19) cited in Harding 1971, p. 151, the name is clearly grt.
126
michael c.a. macdonald
I have taken b#t as the equivalent of Arabic ba#t, ba#at and ba#Êt meaning “someone or something sent,” hence “a messenger,” or “an army, force, or patrol that is sent out.”34 N #m could be a personal name, or the equivalent of Arabic na#am “camels and sheep and/or goats when pasturing,” or of Arabic na#Êm “blessing, comfort, enjoyment, well-being.”35 There are thus at least three ways of interpreting the phrase. (1) b#t n#m could be in construct with gbt, literally “Gbt of the patrol of N#m,” meaning that Gbt was a member of N#m’s patrol; or (2) b#t n#m could be in apposition to gbt, i.e. meaning “Gbt, N#m’s messanger;” or (3) b#t could be a participial ȧl referring to gbt, followed by an adverbial accusative n#m, thus equivalent to an Arabic ba#Êt na#aman meaning literally “sent out with regard to the pasturing animals,” i.e. “who was sent out [to look after] the pasturing animals.”36 Of these, I would suggest that (1) is probably the most likely. It is unfortunate that we have no further information on the nature and purpose of the building where this interesting inscription was found nor any hint as to why, and under what circumstances, the author carved it into the plaster on this pillar.
34
Lane 1863-1893, p. 223/b. Lane 1863-1893, p. 3035/b-c. 36 A fourth, highly speculative, possibility would be to take b#t as in apposition to gbt, and n#m as an adverbial accusative. Thus the expression would be the equivalent of an Arabic ba#Êt na#Êman meaning “sent as a blessing [or favour],” cf. the phrase in a \adÊth, ba#Êtu-ka ni#matan “he [i.e. MuÈammad] whom thou [O God] hast sent as a boon” (Lane 1863-1893, p. 223/b). In this inscription, the phrase would presumably refer to Gbt (who in this case would have to be a man) and the relationship the author had with him. Although the phrase sounds rather high-flown for a graffito, it could well have been a conventional expression like trÈ “untimely dead,” or rÇm mny “humbled by Fate.” However, since this suggestion involves assumptions about the author’s religious beliefs, about which we have absolutely no information, it can be no more than speculation. 35
safaitic inscriptions at dura europos
127
Fig. 1. Safaitic inscriptions at Dura Europos S 1, S 3 and S 5 traced by Macdonald from photographs by Bertolino. S 9 copied by Torrey from squeezes and rearranged by Macdonald according to the original layout as reported by Torrey
128
michael c.a. macdonald
Pl. 1. S 1 = CIS 5175 (photograph by R. Bertolino)
Pl. 2. S 2 = CIS 5176 (photograph by R. Bertolino)
safaitic inscriptions at dura europos
Pl. 3. S 3 = CIS 5177 (photograph by R. Bertolino)
Pl. 4. S 5 = CIS 5179 (photograph by R. Bertolino)
129
130
christa müller-kessler
ZWEI PALMYRENISCHE RELIEFFRAGMENTE CHRISTA MÜLLER-KESSLER
1. Das Bildnis der Amta bart Ama Die Vorliebe Delbert R. Hillers für anspruchsvolle Kriminalromane, die er mit der Autorin teilte und zu einem beiderseitigen Buchaustausch führte, hatte sicher auch etwas mit dem detektivischen Spürsinn zu tun, mit dem er selbst die entlegensten Palmyreniaca zu erfassen versuchte. Ungeachtet der äußerlichen Nüchternheit des Philologen, die eine Publikation wie Palmyrenian Aramaic Texts auszeichnet, konnte er sich auch nie dem ästhetischen Reiz entziehen, den viele der steinernen Dokumente ausüben. Ein solcher geht unzweifelhaft auch von dem vorliegenden Kalksteinfragment mit dem Bild einer weiblichen Person aus. Das Kalksteinfragment wurde in Großbritannien im Kunsthandel aufgespürt. Es gehört wohl zu der Vielzahl palmyrenischer Objekte, die seit langem in Europa zirkulieren, Testimonia der weitreichenden Plünderungen der Ruinenstätte Palmyra. Das Fragment hat eine Länge von 28,5 cm, seine Breite beträgt in der Mitte oben 14,2 cm, oberhalb der Inschrift aber lediglich 8,2 cm. Die Höhe beträgt max. 29 cm. Die Schmalseite links neben der Inschrift weist Glättungsspuren auf, die nahelegen, daß das Objekt dort endete, während auf der anderen Schmalseite nur irreguläre Bruchkanten vorliegen. Sowohl Ober- wie Unterseite zeigen grobe Bruchspuren. Ca. 1/3 der Rückseite scheint abgebrochen zu sein. Auf 2/3 der Rückseite sind aber eindeutige Abarbeitungs- und Glättungspuren vorhanden. Im Gegensatz zu den Meißelspuren der Schmalseite scheint es sich um die regelmäßigen Spuren einer neuzeitlichen Steinfräse zu handeln. Zwischen der Trennlinie des Inschriftenbereichs und dem Schleier des Kopfes beträgt die Distanz oben 5,2 cm, während es auf der anderen Seite 6 cm zum Trennstrich sind. Der weiter ausladende Schleier verengt jedoch die Inschrift bis auf 4,0 cm. Die dreizeilige Inschrift lautet (Abb. 1, 2): "mt" “Amta, brt Tochter der "m" Ama”
zwei palmyrenische relieffragmente
131
Beide Personennamen sind aus dem palmyrenischen Onomastikon gut bekannt. Zu den geläufigeren weiblichen palmyrenischen Personennamen gehört das semitische Wort für “Magd” "mt", siehe dazu Stark 1971, 70. Demgegenüber war die Schreibweise "m" bzw. das Matronym Ama “Mutter” nur PAT 1475 (Inv XI, 50), 1 brt" brt "m" belegt, siehe Stark 1971, 68. Es ist offensichtlich, daß das Kalksteinfragment nicht zu der Vielzahl der gewöhnlichen Loculus-Platten palmyrenischer Gräber gehört. Die großen Spuren von Gewandfalten, wohl Teil des den linken Arm des Verstorbenen überdeckenden Gewandes, zeigen an, daß ein wesentlich größeres Familienensemble vorlag, das anscheinend auf recht barbarische Weise zerschlagen worden war. Das Abbild der Amta war das eines Familienangehörigen des Verstorbenen. Da mir keine Vergleichsstücke bekannt sind, muß die kunsthistorische Rekonstruktion den Spezialisten überlassen bleiben. Indizien dafür, daß das Fragment Teil eines Sarkophags war, vermag ich nicht zu erkennen. Die chronologische Einordnung des Fragments wird dadurch erschwert, daß kein Brustschmuck sichtbar ist. Ohr- wie Stirnschmuck zeigen eher konventionelle Züge. Der Ohrschmuck besteht aus den üblichen traubenförmigen Ohrringen. Der unter dem Schleier und der turbanähnlichen Kopfbedeckung sichtbare Stirnschmuck hat neben der stark stilisierten Zentralpalmette jeweils drei durch Stege getrennte rechteckige Elemente, wobei die bei größeren Köpfen normalerweise detaillierter ausgeführten Sterne bzw. Sonnen hier wie oft durch simple gekreuzte Striche angedeutet sind. Das vielleicht um die Mitte des 2. Jh. n. Chr. anzusetzende Fragment zeigt einige künstlerisch bemerkenswerte Details. Das milde Lächeln der Amta kommt auch zustande durch leichte Variationen des Steinmetzen, der die linke Gesichtshälfte etwas breiter und flacher gestaltete als die rechte, das linke obere Augenlid etwas wulstiger hervortreten ließ und durch die assymetrische Ausladung des Schleiers dem weiblichen Kopf eine gewisse Dynamik verlieh. Die breitere Ausführung des Schleiers an der rechten Kopfhälfte ist ein Hinweis darauf, daß er dort von der nach oben gerichteten rechten Hand der Amta gehalten wurde.1
1
Vgl. u.a. Ploug 1995, 137-138 = Hvidberg-Hansen 1998, Nr. 53.
132
christa müller-kessler 2. Das Bildnis des Malikå bar ’o#§då
Der Kopf eines palmyrenischen Priesters war eines von zwei palmyrenischen Objekten, die vor kurzem durch das Dorotheum in Wien versteigert wurden. Mit freundlicher Erlaubnis des Dorotheums, Wien kann hier die recht gute Abbildung im Auktionskatalog Dorotheum, Antike Kunst und Fossilien, Auktion am 14. November 2001, Objekt Nr. 218 reproduziert werden. Nach der Beschreibung im Katalog hat das Kalksteinfragment die Maße 46,2 x 24,5 cm. Die vierzeilige Inschrift, die innerhalb eines sorgfältig profilierten Rahmen neben dem Kopf eingetieft ist, zeigt ebenfalls deutlich rote Bemalungsspuren. Die vierzeilige Inschrift lautet (Abb. 3): Èbl mlkw br à#dw br tymàmà
“Schade! Malikå, Sohn des ’o#§då, Sohn des Taymàamaà”
Zu den geläufigsten palmyrenischen, aber auch darüberhinaus verbreiteten Personennamen zählt das Hypokoristikon Malikå, griech. Mal(i)chos, siehe Stark 1971, 95 und zuletzt Hvidberg-Hansen 1998, 33/34. Das Patronym ist in der Schreibung à #dw, etymologisch auf arabisch sa#d “Glück” basierend, ebenfalls gut bezeugt, siehe Stark 1971, 115, sowie als griechisch Soados PAT 0266 oder Soades, vgl. auch PAT 0115, 1/2; PAT 0197, 1; PAT 1062, 2/3; vgl. Sados Wuthnow 1930, 101; Siehe zu diesem Namen in Hatra Abbadi 1983, 172 und allgemein Hvidberg-Hansen 1998, 67/68. Seltener ist in Palmyra der Name Taymàamaà “Diener des ’amaà”, siehe Stark 1971, 117 und PAT p. 441, griechisch Thaimisamsou (Genetiv). Zum Typus des Namens als arabisch taym “Diener + theophores Element” und zu seiner Verbreitung siehe nach Stark 1971, 117 s.v. tym noch Abbadi 1983, 173; Maraqten 1988, 222; Teixidor 1987, 138; HvidbergHansen 1998, 27. Die seltene Namenskombination macht den Priester Malikå mit einiger Sicherheit zu einem Bruder des ZabÊd§ (zbyd" ), Sohn des ’o#§då und weist ihn als Mitglied einer prominenten palmyrenischen Familie aus, auf die bereits Milik 1972, 229 aufmerksam gemacht hatte. Die Statue des ZabÊd§ muß sich aufgrund einer Konsoleninschrift einst auf einer Säule des Bel-Tempels befunden haben; lies PAT 0265 (CIS 3919), 1/2 ßlm" dnh dy zbyd" br à #dw tymàmà. Die nach einem
zwei palmyrenische relieffragmente
133
Ratsbeschluß der Boul¿ im Jahr 117 n. Chr. angebrachte Inschrift erwähnt seine Rolle als Symposiarch für die Priester des Bel. Ein anderer Verwandter ist dessen Neffe à #dw br [bl]yd# br à #d[w] tymàmà PAT 1062 (Déd, p. 13) B 2/3, bzw. in der griechischen Version dieser Inschrift aus Umm el-#Amad, datiert auf 145 n. Chr., A 2/3 [Soad]on BÙliadous tou S[o]adou tou Thaimisamsou, in einer anderen Inschrift genannt als à#dw br blyd# br à #dw br tymàmà PAT 0115 (Ber. 70, p. 66), 7/8 bzw. entsprechend in der griech. Version Z. 1/2. Den Soadon BÙliadous tou Soadou erwähnt auch PAT 0197 (BS III, 45),1/2, eine bilingue Ehreninschrift vom Bel-Tempel aus dem Jahre 132 n. Chr. Alle drei Bilinguen Texte zeigen ihn als vielfach geehrte Persönlichkeit und Retter von Karawanen nach Vologaisias. Das Fragment zeigt einen schmucklosen, strengen Priesterkopf mit der charakteristischen Kopfbedeckung des palmyrenischen Priesters. Es handelt sich um die obere Hälfte einer rechteckigen Loculus-Platte, deren recht qualitätvolle Ausführung nicht zuletzt durch die ungewöhnliche Profilierung des tiefer liegenden rechteckigen Feldes links und rechts des Kopfes zum Ausdruck kommt. Wie bei dem vorangehenden Fragment ist wegen des Fehlens des Oberkörpers eine exaktere chronologische Zuordnung sehr erschwert. Die Priestermütze ist etwa vergleichbar mit derjenigen des BÙlȧ Ny Carlsberg Nr. 20 (Ingholt Group I/Fb), doch ist hier die Stirnpartie des Kopfes mit angedeuteter Stirnfalte etwas breiter. Die in kreisrunde Aussparungen plazierten Augen sind leicht assymetrisch und in Details variierend gestaltet, mit jeweils recht großer, kreisförmiger Iris/Pupille. Dennoch könnte eine ähnliche Zeitstellung vorliegen, die wahrscheinlich sicherlich vor der Mitte des 2. Jh. n. Chr. liegt.
Abb. 1/Fig. 1. Relief der Amta
134
christa müller-kessler
135
Abb. 2/Fig. 2. Grab der Relief Amta
zwei palmyrenische relieffragmente
Abb. 3/Fig. 3. Grabinschrift des Malikå
136
christa müller-kessler
zwei palmyrenische relieffragmente
137
ZU PALMYRENISCHEN INSCHRIFTEN AUF RELIEFS KLAUS PARLASCA
In seinem großen Standardwerk Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (PAT) schuf Delbert R. Hillers zusammen mit Eleonora Cussini, der Herausgeberin dieser Gedenkschrift, eine neue Basis für die Arbeiten im Bereich der palmyrenischen Epigraphik. Es ist in diesem Zusammenhang sicherlich nicht ohne Interesse, einige Aspekte der früheren Forschung, besonders zur Entstehung der betreffenden, von JeanBaptiste Chabot bearbeiteten Faszikel des Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS) zu beleuchten. Die damit zusammenhängenden Fragen wurden in der neueren Literatur noch nicht im Zusammenhang besprochen. Dabei ist zu bedenken, daß die Materialsammlung für diesen Sektor des CIS im Wesentlichen auf dem Stand von 1914 basiert.1 Auch die Sachinformationen zu vielen Texten beruhen auf einem ebenso veralteten Forschungsstand. So wird z. B. zur Inschrift eines 1919/20 vom Louvre erworbenen Reliefs (Inv. AO 7476) im zweiten Textfaszikel des CIS II 3 von 1947, p. 462, Nr. 4572, nur ein Auktionskatalog von 1905 zitiert (= PAT 0933).2 Nach dem 1. Weltkrieg publizierte Literatur wurde im CIS nur in Ausnahmefällen berücksichtigt. Überdies ist das auf dem Titelblatt angegebene Erscheinungsjahr 1926 falsch. Die ersten Bogen tragen den Druckvermerk “Jan. 1924.” In Wirklichkeit wurde der erste Textfaszikel erst 1932 publiziert.3 Ebenso kompliziert ist die Drucklegung der beiden 1951 bzw. 1954 edierten Tafelmappen.4 Ihr anonymer Herausgeber war übrigens Jean Starcky. Eine Serie von 12 dieser Tafeln erschien bereits in Chabot’s Choix d’Inscriptions de Palmyre von 1922.5 Für die Corpus-Tafeln wurden später die CIS1
Vgl. zur Geschichte dieses Projekts Chabot 1947, 105-107. Dentzer-Feydy–Teixidor 1993, 220, Nr. 216, Abb. 3 Cantineau 1933, 169, Anm. 1 mit Hinweis auf Chabot 1930, 318, und Chabot 1932, 101. 4 Die Mappen enthalten keine Textblätter, jedoch einige ergänzende bzw. korrigierende Hinweise—jeweils auf der Innenseite des vorderen Deckels. 5 Chabot 1922 Taf. 21 = CIS II 3 Taf. 5 “ Taf. 22 = “ Taf. 3 2
138
klaus parlasca
Nummern eingedruckt. J.-B. Chabot hatte offensichtlich die für das CIS gesammelten Photos mit den zugehörigen Scheden Harald Ingholt für sein geplantes Corpus der palmyrenischen Skulpturen zugänglich gemacht.6 Es fehlt jedoch ein entsprechender Hinweis im Vorwort seiner Studier over Palmyrensk Skulptur von 1928. Das Fehlen von Zitaten auf dieses Werk im CIS hängt vermutlich mit der oben geschilderten Geschichte seiner Drucklegung zusammen. Es ist im übrigen wohl kaum bekannt, daß Chabot nie in Palmyra gewesen ist! Bei seiner letzten Reise in den Nahen Osten hatte ihm der Direktor des französischen Instituts in Beirut, Henri Seyrig, für einen Besuch Palmyras vergeblich einen Wagen mit Fahrer angeboten; er wolle lieber noch einmal Jerusalem wiedersehen, entgegnete der Gelehrte.7 Symptomatisch für die komplizierte Publikationsgeschichte der palmyrenischen CIS-Faszikel ist der Sachverhalt des Votiv-Cippus mit Inschrift der “Argapet” Vorodes. Seine Inschrift trägt im CIS die Zusatznummer 4105ter,8 obgleich sie bereits im Choix mit derselben fehlerhaften Angabe “probablement détaché d’une console” enthalten ist.9 Der 1914 angefertigte Abklatsch war offensichtlich nicht beschriftet—ein Manko, das auch bei anderen Texten begegnet.10 Da im Text des CIS Harald Ingholt erwähnt wird, kannte Chabot entweder dessen Beschreibung von 193011 oder die
Chabot 1922 Taf. 23 = CIS II 3 Taf. 17 “ Taf. 24 = “ Taf. 18 “ Taf. 25 = “ Taf. 31 “ Taf. 26 = “ Taf. 27 “ Taf. 27 = “ Taf. 39 “ Taf. 28 = “ Taf. 37 “ Taf. 29 = “ Taf. 40 “ Taf. 30 = “ Taf. 41 “ Taf. 31 = “ Taf. 36 “ Taf. 32 = “ Taf. 42. 6 Diese Feststellung ergibt sich aus einem Vergleich der identischen älteren Literaturangaben sowie vereinzelten, identischen Fehlern bei der Wiedergabe moderner Eigennamen. 7 Nach persönlicher Schilderung H. Seyrigs (†) an den Verfasser. 8 Palmyra, Mus. Inv. A 453/453; CIS II 3, 237, Nr. 4105ter, Taf. 5, 1 (Abklatsch), Taf. 21 (Relief nach Phot. H. Ingholt). 9 Chabot 1922, 52, Taf. 21, 5 (Abklatsch). 10 Ein besonders typisches Beispiel ist ein früher in Minneapolis befindliches Relief mit zwei Büsten, das ich für die Originalsammlung des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität Erlangen erwerben konnte (Inv. I 1184). Vgl. meine Edition mit eingehender Analyse der Textüberlieferung in Parlasca 1980, 149ff. 11 Ingholt 1930b, 147.
palmyrenischen inschriften auf reliefs
139
danach erfolgten Erwähnungen durch James G. Février von 1931.12 Ingholts reguläre Publikation erfolgte erst 1933.13 In PAT ist diese Inschrift irrtümlich zweimal aufgenommen—nach CIS und nach Ingholt.14 Die historisch-archäologische Bedeutung des Reliefs wurde in der Folgezeit mehrfach von anderen Autoren gewürdigt.15 Außerdem wurden zwei weitere Inschriften in PAT irrtümlich doppelt aufgenommen, ein Fragment im Palmyra Museum16 sowie ein Büstenrelief, das sich früher in einem Privatmuseum in Baalbek befunden hat.17 Ein wichtiger Ordnungsfaktor archäologischer Zeugnisse in der Fachliteratur sind bekanntlich die Inventar-Nummern. Trotzdem werden diese Angaben häufig stark vernachlässigt. Bei schriftlichen Anfragen sind die Konservatoren der betreffenden Sammlung häufig ratlos, wenn man sich nur auf Erwähnungen oder Abbildungen an entlegener Stelle bezieht, denen keine Inventar-Nummer beigegeben ist. Ebenso schwierig ist die Bestimmung von richtigen oder angeblichen Parallelen ohne Angabe der betreffenden Inventar-Nummern. Diese geben in der Regel nützliche Hinweise auf genaue oder approximative Erwerbungsdaten (so bei Jahres-Nummern oder durch die Nummernabfolge bei laufender Objektzählung). Diese Feststellung gilt insbesondere für Erwerbungen von Objekt-Gruppen. Gleichzeitig akzessionierte Reliefs können aus einem bestimmten Grab oder wenigstens aus derselben Raubgrabung stammen. Solche Kriterien sind mitunter eine zusätzliche Hilfe bei der Rekonstruktion von Grabzusammenhängen, wenn aufgrund der Inschriften bei häufig belegten Eigennamen genealogische Indizien nicht ausreichen. Ein derartiger Zusammenhang wird allerdings zerstört, wenn in einem Museum abgefallene oder unleserliche Inventar-Nummern
12
Février 1931, 90 Anm. 7; 92 Anm. 1; 95 Anm 5. Ingholt 1936, 93ff.., Taf. 19, 1. 14 PAT 0453 bzw. PAT 0063. 15 Schlumberger 1972, 339ff. (zur Person); Parlasca 1989, 206 Abb. 2; Equini Schneider 1993, 17f., 138f. Abb. 39; Will 1996, 109ff., 113 Nr. 10; Hartmann 2001, 87 Anm. 92 und 93; 206 Anm. 157. Vgl. ferner Gawlikowski 1993 zur Hypothese Schmidt-Colinets, den Bauherrn des “Tempelgrabes Nr. 36” mit dieser Persönlichkeit zu verbinden (Schmidt-Colinet 1992, 41ff.). 16 Fragment im Museum Palmyra: PAT 1179 = PAT 1594 (so bereits Ingholt 1938, 135 Anm 3). 17 Ehemals Frankfurt/Main, Privatbesitz (um 1935): PAT 0728 = CIS 4370; identisch mit PAT 2722; Wuthnow 1935, 63ff. mit Abb. (ohne Kenntnis der älteren Literatur). 13
140
klaus parlasca
unkorrekt “wiederhergestellt” werden. Ein solcher Fall betrifft zwei Büstenreliefs im Louvre.18 Sie erhielten zu einem relativ frühen Zeitpunkt—bereits vor 1914!—falsche, geänderte Nummern.19 In der älteren Literatur sind keine Inventar-Nummern angegeben.20 Dabei wurden zwei Büstenreliefs von Frauen mit reichem Schmuck und identischem Höhenmaß verwechselt. Die spätere Vertauschung der Nummern konnte ich mit Hilfe der Abbildungen in der Erstpublikation von Ch. Clermont-Ganneau klären. Darin sind auf einer Tafel sechs offenbar zusammen erworbene Büstenreliefs abgebildet. Fünf von ihnen tragen die korrekten Inventar-Nummern.21 Das sechste Relief hat hingegen eine aus dieser Folge herausfallende Nummer (AO 1575),22 obgleich die fehlende Nummer dieser Serie (AO 2198)23 zu erwarten wäre. Tatsächlich existiert im Louvre ein Relief mit dieser Nummer, doch handelt es sich zweifellos um eine Verwechslung. Demnach sind die Herkunftsangaben der beiden Reliefs im neuen Katalog auszutauschen.24 Das Fehlen von Inventar-Nummern ist besonders dann ein fatales Manko, wenn sich in dem betreffenden Museum mehrere ähnliche Objekte befinden, auf die sich der jeweilige Hinweis oder eine schematische Skizze beziehen können. Diesen Befund bietet leider das materialreiche Buch von Brigitte Musche über parthischen Schmuck.25 Im umfangreichen Abschnitt über Palmyra werden zahlreiche Reliefs im örtlichen Museum genannt. Da aber in keinem Falle eine Inventar-Nummer angegeben ist, sind sichere Identifizierungen in vielen Fällen nicht oder nur mit Vorbehalt möglich. Besonders schwierig ist die Erfassung palmyrenischer Skulpturen, die in Museen und Privatsammlungen außerhalb Syriens verstreut 18
S. u. Anm 22 und 23. Die verwechselten Inventar-Nummern erscheinen erstmals bei Chabot 19071914, 358f. Nr. 1076 bzw. 346 Nr. 1060. 20 Ledrain 1896, 30, Nr. VII; Clermont-Ganneau 1895, 116f., Taf. 1 “F.” 21 Clermont-Ganneau 1895, Taf. 1: AO 2196 = D; AO 2197 = C; AO 2199 = E; AO 2200 = B, und AO 2201 = A. 22 Dentzer-Feydy–Teixidor 1993, 167, Nr. 170, Abb. (H = 54 cm.). 23 Dentzer-Feydy–Teixidor 1993, 182, Nr. 183, Abb. (H = 53 cm.). 24 Ich hatte Annie Caubet und Jacqueline Dentzer-Feydy vor Abschluß des neuen Katalogs auf diesen Sachverhalt hingewiesen. Auf eine Korrektur der unrichtigen Nummern wurde jedoch verzichtet, um Irritationen in der späteren Literatur zu vermeiden. Bei allem Verständnis für diese Entscheidung ist zu bedauern, daß bei den betreffenden Texten ein Hinweis auf die Verwechslung der Inventar-Nummern unterblieb. 25 Musche 1988. 19
palmyrenischen inschriften auf reliefs
141
sind. Der 1947 publizierte zweite Textfaszikel der palmyrenischen Inschriften im CIS enthält zahlreiche Beischriften von Reliefs ohne Angabe ihres heutigen Standorts. Soweit Privatsammlungen genannt sind, entsprechen diese Angaben zumeist nicht mehr den heutigen Besitzverhältnissen. Glücklicherweise gelangten viele verschollene Reliefs mit Inschriften später in öffentliche Museen und Privatsammlungen bzw. in den Kunsthandel, wo sie dank ihrer Inschriften— besonders mit Hilfe der darin genannten Personennamen—relativ leicht zu identifizieren sind. Mit Hilfe eines “Preprints” der neuen Publikation von D. R. Hillers und E. Cussini (PAT) hatte ich Gelegenheit, auf der Basis meiner eigenen Unterlagen zahlreiche Standortangaben und Inventar-Nummern zu ergänzen bzw. zu korrigieren.26 In den vergangenen Jahren konnte ich weitere Informationen dieser Art ermitteln, von denen einige im Folgenden zusammengestellt werden. Ende 1931 wurde die seinerzeit bedeutendste Privatsammlung palmyrenischer Skulpturen aus dem Besitz des Architekten Émile Bertone in der Nähe von Paris versteigert.27 Von den 22, z. T. sehr bedeutenden Skulpturen war bisher der Verbleib von etwa der Hälfte in Museen und heute noch existierenden Privatsammlungen nachweisbar.28 Drei der verschollenenen Stücke sind erst in jüngster Zeit 26
Darauf bezieht sich der Hinweis in PAT, Seite X. Belles gravures anciennes du XVII e au XIX e siècle. Série importante de bas reliefs de Palmyre composant la Collection de feu M. Bertone, Auktionskatalog Hotel des ventes, Neuilly 14. Dez. 1931, 43-45, Nr. 646-667, Taf. 9-12. Vgl. den Hinweis von S. Reinach 1932, I, 146. 28 Nr. 647 = CIS 4624: später Kunsthandel New York F. G. Schab (1986); Auktionskatalog Sotheby’s New York 23.6.1989, Nr. 24 mit Tafel. Nr. 648 = London, British Museum, WA 132614. 651 = CIS 4532: später Paris, Sammlung Charvet. 652 = Ingholt 1936, 114 Anm. 249, Paris, Kunsthandeln, 2005. (Hinweis H. Lavagne). 653 = Morlanwelz (Belgien), Musée de Mariemont, Inv. 64/57. 655 = Paris, Louvre, Inv. AO 21383. 656 = Ingholt 1928, 140, PS 430. Paris, Musée du Petit Palais. (Hinweis H. Lavagne). 657 = CIS 4562, später Sammlung Béarn. 658 = CIS 4587: Rom, Vatikan, Museo Egizio. L. Nigro in: Zenobia 2002, 40, Abb. 36 659 = St. Louis, City Art Museum, Inv. 24:1960 (erwähnt in der Notiz von Reinach 1932 als besonders gutes Exemplar). 664 = CIS 4621: Paris, Louvre, Inv. AO 14925. 666 = CIS 4266: Bloomington, Indiana Art Museum, Inv. 61.16. 667 = CIS 4530: Paris, Louvre, Inv. AO 14926. 27
142
klaus parlasca
wieder aufgetaucht—zwei Reliefs in einem französischen Provinzmuseum,29 ein anderes im Londoner Kunsthandel.30 Zwei bereits vor 1914 in die USA gelangte Büstenreliefs wurden kürzlich als Besitz eines ungenannten Museums an der amerikanischen Ostküste in New York versteigert.31 Ein schönes, von H. Ingholt publiziertes Büstenrelief eines Mannes aus spättrajanischer Zeit konnte ich kürzlich in einem Pariser Auktionskatalog identifizieren.32 Außerdem seien an dieser Stelle einige Reliefs mit Inschriften genannt, die in der palmyrenischen Fachliteratur, soweit ich sehe, bisher noch nicht besprochen worden sind. Hierzu gehört ein 1969 in Frankfurt/Main versteigertes Weihrelief mit zwei stehenden Göttinnen (Abb. 1).33 Nach Ausweis der Beischriften sind die Stadtgöttin Palmyras und vermutlich Belti dargestellt. Seit den Forschungen Daniel Schlumbergers in der nordwestlichen Palmyrene34 sind in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten weitere Votivreliefs bekannt geworden, die aus ähnlichen Heiligtümern der palmyrenischen Landschaft stammen dürften. Leider sind in keinem Falle die Fundumstände dokumentiert.35 Zwei besonders interessante Reliefs dieser Gattung gelangten vor kurzem nach Lyon36 bzw. in eine Wiener Auk29 Jarville bei Nancy, Château de Montaigu, ehemals Sammlung É. Salin: BriquelChatonnet 1999, 248, Abb. 6 a.b. = CIS 4273 = Bertone Nr. 662 = PAT 0630; sowie 248f. Nr. 7 a.b. = CIS 4531= Bertone Nr. 663 = Ingholt 1928, 111, PS 192 = PAT 1762. 30 Bertone Nr. 661 = CIS 4529 = PAT 0980. Rupert Wace, Ancient Art, London (März 2001). Auktionskatalog Sotheby’s, New York 13. Juni 2002, 19f., Nr. 20 mit Farbtafel und Bibliographie nach meinen Informationen an den Vorbesitzer! 31 Auktionskatalog New York Christie’s 5.-6. Dez. 2001, 284 Nr. 721 (= CIS 4504 = PAT 0865) bzw. Nr 722 (= CIS 4526 = PAT 0887 = Ingholt 1928, PS 47, Taf. 14, 3, datiert Jan. 211). 32 Ingholt 1938, 131, Taf. 48, 3, danach PAT 1769; Ingholt 1928, 117, PS 232; Auktionskatalog Paris, Drouot-Montaigne Fr. Ricqlès 1.-2. Okt., 2000, 184, Nr. 916, Abb. Drei 1903 in Paris versteigerte Büstenreliefs befinden sich bereits seit 1909 in Bryn Athyn (PA), Glencairn Museum: CIS 4557 + CIS 4558 = PAT 0918 + PAT 0919 + PAT 0920 = Ingholt 1928, PS 275 + PS 272 + PS 117: Romano—Romano 1999, 33ff, Nr. 31 + 32 + 30 (ohne ältere Literatur), nach einem F. C. Albertson verdankten Hinweis. 33 Weltkunst 39, Nr. 22, 15. Nov. 1969, 1397, Abb. = Anzeige der 6. Kunstauktion Hans G. Dehio, Frankfurt/Main. J. Starcky (†) verdanke ich folgende Interpretation der Inschriften: “tdmwr” bzw. “[ ... ]àt” oder “[ ... ]ty” “(Bel)ti”? Seine Datierung aufgrund der Schriftform—wohl 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrhunderts—paßt gut zum stilistischen Befund des Reliefs. 34 Schlumberger 1951; vgl. seinen Vorbericht, Schlumberger 1935, 595ff. 35 Dies gilt leider auch für drei an verschiedenen Orten gefundene Reliefs, die Bounni 1966 publiziert hat. Die Inschriften Bounni–Teixidor 1975, 49f., Nr. 5456, Taf. 12, danach PAT 1567, PAT 1568, PAT 1569. 36 Musée des Beaux-Arts, Inv. 1992.13; Briquel-Chatonnet–Lozachmeur 1993,
palmyrenischen inschriften auf reliefs
143
tion.37 Ferner sei genannt ein fragmentiertes Exemplar, das vor einigen Jahren der Originalsammlung des Archäologischen Seminars der Universität Mannheim geschenkt wurde.38 Der palmyrenischen Forschung blieben bisher weitgehend unbekannt drei Büstenreliefs im Museum von Gaziantep im Südosten der Türkei. Sie stammen vermutlich aus dem Besitz des amerikanischen College, das sich dort vor 1914 befunden hat (früherer Ortsname Aintab).39 Ich verdanke ihre Kenntnis mehreren Photos Jörg Wagners,40 die Lesung der Inschriften J. Starcky.41 An dieser Stelle beschränke ich mich darauf, diese Reliefs provisorisch bekannt zu machen. Besonderes Interesse verdient das Relief eines Mannes namens Bônnâ, der als Enkel des durch andere epigraphische Zeugnisse belegten Arztes Nurbel bezeichnet ist (Abb. 2).42 Eine Schwester des Bônnâ ist durch ihr Büstenrelief in Istanbul bezeugt.43 Die um 60 n. Chr. datierbare Stele des besagten Arztes fand H. Ingholt im 121 n. Chr. angelegten Grab seines Enkels Malku (MalikhÙ),44 wohin sie offenbar von seinem ursprünglichen Einzelgrab übertragen wurde.45 Das zweite Relief, eine Frauenbüste (Abb. 3),46 ist nach Starcky’s
2-11; Galliano 1997, 67, Abb. Galliano 1998, 41, Abb.; Briquel-Chatonnet– Lozachmeur 2000, 56, Nr. 2, Farbabt., 57. Datiert 121 n. Chr. 37 Auktionskatalog Antike Kunst, Dorotheum, Wien 14. Nov. 2001, 76, Nr. 218, Abb. (Vgl. C. Müller-Kessler, 132-133, Abb. 3). 38 Inv. M. 1; Stupperich 1994, 69ff. Taf 7, 3. 39 Diese Sammlung ist mehrfach in den Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie, Bd. 1 angegeben, Jalabert–Mouterde 1929, Nr. 83f. und 108f. 40 J. Wagner hat meine Forschungen über syrische Grabreliefs wiederholt mit Photos und ergänzenden Informationen unterstützt, wofür ich ihm auch an dieser Stelle danken möchte. Nach Abschluß des Manuskripts machte mich E. Cussini dankenswerterweise darauf aufmerksam, daß A. Desreumaux und F. BriquelChatonnet bereits 1997 zwei dieser Reliefs veröffentlicht haben, siehe unten zu Anm. 42 und 46. Das dritte Relief (s. unten Anm. 47) ist in diesem Beitrag nicht erwähnt. 41 Brief vom 3. März 1978. 42 Inv. 206; 58x50 cm.: “Bônâ, Sohn des Abdastôr, Sohn des Nurbel des Arztes” sowie “’W#T"/’W#T" (Dittographie?) (und) Mezabbetâ, seine Töchter, wehe!” Der erste der beiden Mädchennamen ist anscheinend nicht belegt (Neg. J. Wagner 72/ 7/10A-11); Desreumaux–Briquel-Chatonnet 1997, 73ff. Nr. 1, Abb 1-3, dort Inv. 226 (sic!). 43 Inv. 3753; CIS II 4419; Ingholt 1938, 123, Taf. 46, 3; PAT 0779. 44 Palmyra, Mus. Inv. A 901/901; Ingholt 1966, 459ff. Abb. 2 (irrig Damaskus Mus.!). 45 Gawlikowski 1970, 115. 46 Inv. 214; 53x45 cm.: “Wehe Na#amû, Tochter des Ma#an.” Neg. J. Wagner 72/7/14. Desreumaux–Briquel-Chatonnet 1997, 77ff. Nr. 2, Abb. 4-6; Baâgelen 1999, 126 Abb. 42.
144
klaus parlasca
Lesung der Beischrift als Na#amû, Tochter des Ma#an bezeichnet. Das dritte Relief zeigt die Büste eines Mannes mit stehendem Mädchen neben seiner linken Schulter (Abb. 4).47 Das Relief eines Priesters in Istanbul, für das als Provenienz die Gegend von Gaziantep angegeben ist, stammt offenbar auch aus dem Besitz der genannten amerikanischen Institution.48 Abschließend sei noch die Photographie des Büstenreliefs eines gewissen Zabdibol, Sohnes des Yarhai vorgelegt, das ich 1978 im Pariser Kunsthandel gesehen habe (Abb. 5).49 Nach einem J. Starcky verdankten Hinweis ist es identisch mit einem früher in einer Privatsammlung in Homs befindlichen Relief.50
47
Inv. 211; Neg. J. Wagner 72/7/14. Maße: 56x52x21 cm. Inv. 7896. Karagöz 1984, 10.15, Nr. 29, Abb. (“Woman” sic!); richtig Rumscheid 2000, 94ff., 107, 199, Nr. 195, Taf. 62, 1. 49 Fa. Bresset, Paris; gesehen Januar 1978; 53x41,5 cm. 50 Ingholt 1928, 113, PS 205; PAT 1765. 48
palmyrenischen inschriften auf reliefs
145
Abb. 1/Fig. 1. Frankfurt/M., Kunsthandel (1969). Weihrelief mit zwei stehenden Göttinnen
Abb. 3/Fig 3. Gaziantep, Mus. Inv. 214. Relief der Na#amû, Tochter des Ma#an
148
klaus parlasca
Abb. 4/Fig. 4. Gaziantep, Mus. Inv. 211. Büste eines Mannes mit stehendem Mädchen
palmyrenischen inschriften auf reliefs
Abb. 5/Fig. 5. Paris, Kunsthandel (1978). Relief des Zabdibol, Sohn des Yarhai
149
150
kiyohide saito
PALMYRENE BURIAL PRACTICES FROM FUNERARY GOODS KIYOHIDE SAITO
1. Introduction Palmyra was a caravan city in an oasis in the center of the Syrian desert. It reached its peak of prosperity between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D. The strong influence of Greco-Roman culture is apparent in its urban design that emphasized the “modernism” of this desert city in those ancient days. Generally speaking, cities of this kind had a two-tiered structure consisting of an acropolis around which the society of the living developed, and necropoli surrounding the urban area, where the society of the dead existed. The ancient city of Palmyra is considered to have had such a structure. Yet little is known about the Palmyrene funerary practices that surrounding the society of the dead. Investigations of the underground tombs in the Southeast Necropolis in Palmyra have been ongoing since 1990 and many important discoveries have been made. This paper discusses the attitudes of the Palmyrenes toward the dead in terms of the artifacts buried with them.1 The tombs of Palmyra can basically be divided into two types: individual tombs and group tombs. Necropoli are made up of group tombs, while individual tombs are built separately either inside or outside the necropoli. There are three types of group tombs: tower tombs measuring 10 to 25 m. high above ground and containing loculi; underground tombs; and house tombs that have temple-like 1
In 1990 I visited Palmyra to prepare the first excavation for Japanese and was overpowered by an unfathomed atmosphere and fascination of the site. Since then I have fortunately worked in Palmyra with a great generosity of Directorate of General of Antiquities and Museums and, Palmyra Museum. Such opportunity was brought to me by Dr. Takayasu Higuchi. So I should like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Takayasu Higuchi and also I appreciate my colleagues working together in Palmyra. I also will never forget a great cooperation by Mr. Khaled Al-As’sad, Director of Palmyra Museum and his staff in the museum. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Eleonora Cussini and Dr. Michal Gawlikowski who encouraged me to contribute to the publication of A Journey to Palmyra.
burial practices from funerary goods
151
burial facilities. In addition, another variation of underground tombtype is found around the fortress of Diocletian. These tombs were built by tunneling horizontally through solid rock. Thus, the tombs of Palmyra evolved from tower tombs to underground tombs and then to house tombs over time in a somewhat staggered chronological order. There are four necropoli around the acropolis: the North Necropolis, the Valley of Tombs, the Southwest Necropolis, and the Southeast Necropolis. The group tombs built in these necropoli are intended to imitate houses, and their portals and interiors in particular are elaborately designed. The inscription “Eternal House” engraved on these tombs is evidence that the tombs were considered to be the residence of the dead. Indeed, it is a clear representation of the view of the tombs held by the Palmyrenes. 2. Past Investigations of the Tombs in Palmyra We can date the actual investigation of the tombs of Palmyra to 1917 when Wiegand studied the distribution of the tombs throughout the ruins and presented an accurate record of each tomb (Wiegand 1932). Although more than eighty years have passed, his data still remains reliable. In 1928, Ingholt, an authority on Palmyrene funerary sculptures, classified the funerary sculptures and pioneered the study of this field. In the 1930s, Seyrig and Ingholt presented an array of papers on funerary sculptures and the tombs of Palmyra (Seyrig 1936, 1937a, 1937b, 1941; Ingholt 1930a, 1932, 1935, 1936, 1938). In addition, the underground tomb of Iarhai in the Valley of Tombs was excavated by Amy, Seyrig and other researchers, and its actual state was made clear (Amy–Seyrig 1936). In 1947, E. Will presented a landmark paper about the tower tombs of Palmyra. In his paper, he classified the tower tombs into four types according to their appearance and structure. He arranged them in chronological order, and compared them with tombs in other regions in terms of the structure of the funerary chambers and loculi (Will 1947). When the government of Syria was planning to lay oil pipelines across the Southeast Necropolis in the 1950s, the Archaeological Bureau of Syria conducted a succession of investigations of the underground tombs and presented a detailed report on the tomb of Taai (Abdul-Hak 1952) and others (Saliby 1992). Ingholt also summarized the past research on funerary sculptures, and presented a three-stage chronology of the sculptures, thus laying the basis
152
kiyohide saito
for study in this field (Ingholt 1954). Research of the tombs of Palmyra has since focused on the tomb sculptures rather than on the structure of the tombs themselves. Despite this trend, Michalowski and Sadurska of Warsaw University, conducted investigations on the tower tombs in the Valley of Tombs and excavated underground and horizontally burrowed out tombs. Their investigation of the tower tombs led to the discovery of a previously unknown type of tomb that combines an underground tomb with a tower tomb. This discovery was a milestone that shed light on the evolution of tower tombs to underground tombs (Michalowski 1960, 1962, 1963; Sadurska 1977). Gawlikowski enhanced the visual observation method of inspecting the tombs of Palmyra established by Wiegand. In addition, he further developed Will’s classification of the tower tombs, and classified the underground tombs himself (Gawlikowski 1970). Colledge discussed funerary sculptures in general in a monograph (Colledge 1976). Around this time, a team from Switzerland excavated the Temple of Baalshamin and discovered an underground-type tomb behind the temple, dating to sometime before the birth of Christ (Fellmann 1970). In the 1980s, Parlasca pointed out problems concerning sculptures on sarcophagi (Parlasca 1984a). Tanabe compiled a list of all known examples of funerary statuary (Tanabe 1986). Schmidt-Colinet investigated house tomb no. 36 in the Valley of Tombs, and presented a report in 1992. In this report, he classified house tombs according to their styles. He also cooperated with A. Stauffer to compare the patterns on cloth unearthed in earlier excavations with those engraved on the clothes of sculptures and furnishings discovered in the tombs (Schmidt-Colinet 1992). In the 1990s, G. Ploug, studying the collection of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen, re-examined the classification of sculptures by Ingholt, using the busts he collected in Palmyra (Ploug 1995). Additionally, Sadurska and Bounni presented a detailed study on Palmyrene funerary sculptures (1994). Moreover, the 1990s also witnessed a new beginning in Palmyrene tomb studies: Takayasu Higuchi, Director General of the Research Center for Silk Roadology, began excavation of the Southeast Necropolis of Palmyra. During this excavation, a previously undisturbed underground tomb was discovered, and an anthropological study of the skeletal remains was carried out (Higuchi–Izumi 1994; Saito 1996).
burial practices from funerary goods
153
In 1998, Finlayson discussed in a Ph.D. dissertation the status of Palmyrene women and their family ties through an analysis of the veils, turbans, headbands, and other head dresses found on the funerary sculptures of female figures (Finlayson 1998). This analysis is likely to remain controversial for some time. In addition, Schmidt-Colinet presented a detailed study of the textiles from tombs in Palmyra (1998). As stated above, conventional investigations of Palmyrene tombs have focused on the study of the sculptures in the context of art history, and the archaeological study of the styles and distribution of tombs. Another focal point has been the study of the inscriptions engraved on the tombs and sculptures. This approach has leaned towards sociological issues such as genealogy and transfer of ownership, rather than the analysis of Palmyrene people’s view of tombs. So far, many researchers have conducted archaeological studies of tombs such as Ingholt (1930 etc.), Will (1947), Gawlikowski (1970), Schmidt-Colinet (1992) and others. However, these studies have not sufficiently dealt with the issues for which we are seeking information. Most Palmyrene studies related to funerary statuary and inscriptions such as Seyrig (1939), have prevented a detailed study of the tombs themselves. Funerary practices of Palmyra, and the usages of the earthenware and treatment of infants in the funerary chambers of hypogea in the Southeast Necropolis, have been dealt with elsewhere (Saito 2001). In this paper I focus on the relationship between funerary goods and the dead, a matter not closely observed, or clearly referred to in previous studies.
3. Concept of Palmyrene Funerary Practices through Burial Goods The subject of funerary items is important in the study of Palmyrene attitudes toward the burial of the dead. While “funerary items” can be defined in several different ways, I will use the definition of “items buried in a tomb with the dead” (Shigematsu 1979) in this study. Funerary items can be divided into: (1) clothes, amulets and accessories worn by the dead; (2) items used by the dead while they were alive; (3) items offered to the dead for use in the other world; (4) items offered to protect the tomb or prevent the spirit of the dead from leaving the tomb; and (5) items used in the funeral service.
154
kiyohide saito
A. Funerary items and loculi in Tomb C During the investigation of Tomb C, we discovered funerary items in ten out of thirty-four loculi compartments, and in three out of six pit graves for infants. In the innermost loculi, we recovered glass beads from ML 1-4, bronze mirrors, glass bottles, leather containers, and other bronze products from ML 1-1 (Fig. 2), and fragments of bronze products from ML 1-0. We found lamps in ML 2-1, fragmented bronze products in ML 2-0, amulets and glass beads in ML 3-1, and amulets, bronze bells, glass beads, and bronze chains in ML 3-0. Lamps came from ML 4-2 and ML 4-1. In the investigation of the loculi on the side wall, we found lamps in RL 4-4, rings and lamps in RL 4-1, lamps in RL 5-4, silver earrings in RL 5-1, and lamps in LL 5-3. Accessories such as beads, rings, earrings, and amulets were discovered in four compartments in the loculus, while lamps were recovered from six compartments. Only one compartment held funerary items other than accessories. While the loculi in this tomb consist of a total of thirty-four compartments, only a few of them had funerary items. On the other hand, three of the pit graves for infants contained funerary items (Fig. 3): coins, beads, bells and bracelets were recovered from P2, beads and lamps from P5, and glassware, bronze pins, and beads from P7. B. Funerary items and loculi in Tomb F Tomb F, in the first part of the main chamber, has six tiers of loculi in the east and west niches with sculptures of freed slaves; eighteen tiers of ten loculi in the second part; six tiers of six loculi in the third part; four tiers of one loculus in the east side chamber; and one tier of two loculi in the west side chamber. These loculi were hewn into the side walls. In addition, there are five tiers in the main funerary exedra and seven tiers in the façade of the third part. The number of the loculi such as compartments totaled forty-seven, which all together contained sixty-nine individuals. Out of those individuals, twenty-six were found with some funerary items. Twelve compartments contained lamps only, while ten people were buried with accessories. This means that most of these twenty-six individuals were buried with accessories or lamps. On the other hand, it is likely that the women and children were buried wearing accessories; items which
burial practices from funerary goods
155
they likely wore while living. To give specific examples, triple strand bronze earrings were discovered on the sides of a skull around ears in EL 2-0 (Fig. 4) in Tomb F and these portions of the skull had turned green due to copper rust. A bracelet discovered in the bottom tier of a loculus on the north wall of the east side chamber was around the wrist of a young female. In EL 6-0 (Fig. 5) in Tomb F, a gold pendant top inlaid with glass was discovered around the neck of a female. This pendant top was missing the moving part at its edge, which indicates that it had been used for an extremely long period of time. EL1-0, located in the east side chamber, consists of the bottom tier. Six bodies from top (skeleton 6) to bottom (skeleton 1) were piled up in this tier and had been covered by an influx of sand that had filled the tier. As the inside of the tier had not been disturbed, the bodies were discovered intact, and the depositional condition was very good. Skeleton 5 was a middle-aged female and had three bronze rings on the middle finger of her left hand. There was a lamp placed at her feet. Skeleton 4 was a middle-aged male whose skull was oriented towards the innermost wall. Four lamps were found at his feet. Skeleton 2 was an older male positioned with the head towards the innermost wall and a lamp at his feet. Skeleton 1, which was the first body buried in this tier, was a young female around eighteen years old. She was buried with her skull towards the innermost wall. Many more accessories (including two necklaces, one bracelet, five rings, and an amulet) were buried with her than with the other individuals (Fig. 6). Four lamps were put into the south end of this loculus with plaster and stones. Moreover, there are eleven pit graves for infants in Tomb F (Fig.7), and eight of them held some funerary items. Two of them had only lamps, while six other graves contained accessories of some kind, including glass beads, bronze bells, and iron tacks. In case of infant pit graves as well, accessories and lamps are major funerary items, but the percentage of pit graves with funerary items is very high. C. Funerary items and skeletal remains I have already discussed how the dead were buried with funerary items in Tombs C and F. Most of the dead were not buried with any funerary items at all, and lamps and accessories account for majority of the funerary items that were buried with the dead. Tomb
156
kiyohide saito
F has been seriously disturbed by robbers. In a number of compartments, the skulls have been detached from the rest of the remains so that the accessories worn by the dead could be easily removed. Despite these disturbances, the percentage of the dead accompanied by funerary items still remains relatively low. Accessories, as mentioned, account for the largest share of the funerary items. These accessories were found in the context of adult female, children, and infant burials. It is difficult to determine whether or not these children were buried with accessories on the basis of their sex, since gender is generally difficult to establish for child and infant burials on the basis of their skeletal remains. Not all of the children and infants were buried with items. There is a rich variety of funerary items, though many of them comprise accessories such as glass beads, bronze bells, and lamps. In some places, coins, glassware, and pins were discovered as well. Funerary items such as these were discovered in three out of the six pit graves for infants in Tomb C. In Tomb F, six pit graves out of eleven held accessories, and the other two had lamps. In short, a total of only eight pit graves contained funerary items. Perhaps, the Palmyrene underground tombs can be characterized by the fact that adult females, children, and infants were buried with accessories and other goods. To be more specific, infants were found with small glass beads, while adult females had large accessories. This means that accessories of different sizes and materials were buried according to the age of the dead. These accessories had probably been worn by the dead when they were alive. On the other hand, some males who were buried alone were found with lamps only. However, far more lamps were discovered with females than males. In addition, in Tombs C and F, we did not find any males who were buried with accessories. There are cases where males were buried with goods other than lamps, such as glassware or metal vessels. However, in those cases, the skeletal remains were not those of individual males, but those that had been buried with females or children. In light of this fact, we should investigate in greater detail the relationships between the funerary items and the skeletal remains. In ML 1-1 in Tomb C, a middle-aged male and an adult female (around twenty years old) were buried together. The male is probably Male, the son of the builder of this tomb. This compartment contains far more funerary items than any of the other loculi in Tombs C and F. There, the dead were buried with bronze
burial practices from funerary goods
157
mirrors, alabastron-type glass bottles, small glass pots, and leather containers (Fig.2). However, no beads or other accessories were found in this area, and this fact distinguishes this particular compartment from the others. Judging from the arrangement of the skeletal remains of these two people, it is apparent that the female was placed in this loculus first, and then Male was buried here. The decay of their bones shows that they were buried at almost the same time. 4. Conclusion As mentioned earlier, Tomb C retains no traces of artificial disturbance. Still, no funerary items were found in the loculi of Yarhay who built this tomb, his son, Shalma, another young son, Shalma, or his daughter, Ashtart. This person was the builder of this tomb and his children, and relief busts and standing figures depicting them were put into each compartment. Despite their high status, however, they were not accompanied with funerary items (except for cloth, leather items, wood items, and other organic objects). This is also true for Tomb F. Because Tomb F was owned by an upper class Palmyrene family, it is logical to assume that a myriad of goods would have been buried with the dead. However, even if we take into consideration the fact that the tomb has been plundered and seriously disturbed, we can infer that the males had not been accompanied with funerary items. This conclusion is based upon our examination of some loculi that, fortunately, were overlooked by the robbers. Then, why is it that even in the case of important individuals buried in the underground tombs, funerary items were not buried along with them? Generally speaking, it was the custom to bury males with nothing except for clothing. In the tower tomb of Atenatan dating to 9 BC, the mummified corpse of a male was discovered with no accessories except for clothes, a wooden cane, and footwear (Rahmo 1993). The fact that no funerary items were discovered in a tomb that is older than Tomb C probably indicates that it was a Palmyrene custom to bury males without offering any funerary items except for lamps, and they only dressed the dead for departure. Thus, men appear to have had simple burials; while, on the other hand, some women were adorned with rich accessories. While it is difficult to tell the sex of children on the basis of their skeletal re-
158
kiyohide saito
mains, it is reasonable to assume that boys were not buried with any accessories and that girls were buried with their accessories in light of the burial state of adult males and females. Like older girls, female infants seem to have been buried with accessories. However we cannot tell whether infant girls under the age of one actually wore accessories while they were alive. But, even if they did not wear accessories while alive, they were probably decorated with accessories when buried. Lamps were offered to the dead regardless of sex or age, but not all the dead were buried with lamps. Further study is needed to determine why some were buried with lamps and others were not. Some lamps were apparently offered by visitors to the tomb after the burial. Lamps placed near the dead and those offered to the dead after burial in front of loculi retain traces of former use: their wicks are stained with soot, though only in part. This indicates that these lamps were used only for a short period of time but not repeatedly. Lamps offered to the dead were usually placed near their heads or feet. Likely, these lamps were lit when the dead were laid in the loculi, so that the dead would not lose their way in the darkness, or their space would be lighted like in the world of the living. It seems that the Palmyrene buried the dead simply, so that they could continue the life of this world into the next world. This is probably why they did not have the custom of furnishing the dead with special offerings at their burial. It is likely that the Palmyrene regarded death as something to be continued from this world. For them, death was merely a departure to an “Eternal House,” a designation shown in the inscriptions provided on the tombs of Palmyra. The doors at the entrances of the Palmyrene underground tombs have locks, and the funerary chambers were accessible only by relatives and other people associated with the deceased. The tombs were frequented by visitors as evidenced by the water basins and lamps left in the chambers. Further, most of the Palmyrene underground tombs have wells on the right side, where visitors took water to fill water basins. Like other underground tombs, many lamps have been left in the funerary chambers as offerings in Tombs C and F. Lamps account for the largest share of funerary items unearthed from underground tombs. The Palmyrene customarily did not offer funerary items to the dead when burying them in a tomb, although they adorned females with accessories. This same principle also applies to children and infants.
burial practices from funerary goods
159
However, Male’s compartment in Tomb C is a bit different from the others, because here, mirrors and a lot of glassware were discovered. It is very unusual to see funerary items placed around a male body, because this was not the case with male bodies found in other loculi in Tombs C and F. Male’s compartment is very peculiar in this sense. Here, a young female was buried with Male, and it is apparent that her body was placed here earlier than Male. Probably, there is some particular reason for the unusual state of this compartment. It contained a bust of Male, and on and around the bust, many lamps, incense burners, and water basins were placed. These items represent the deep attachment of the bereaved, though we are not sure whether those sentiments were directed toward Male or the young female buried with him. In addition, at this stage, we have no way of knowing whether that attachment stemmed from their personalities or the cause of their death. More information must be collected before we can be more definitive regarding this matter.
160
kiyohide saito
Fig. 1. Location of the South-East necropolis
Fig. 2. Depositional state of burial goods in Loculus ML1-1 (Loculus of Male)
burial practices from funerary goods 161
162
kiyohide saito
Fig. 3. Infant pit graves in Tomb C
burial practices from funerary goods
Fig. 4. A child with earrings in EL2-0 of Tomb F
Fig. 5. A female with a gold pendant top in EL6-0 of Tomb F
163
Fig. 6. A female with many accessories in ENL1-0 of Tomb F
164
kiyohide saito
burial practices from funerary goods
Fig. 7. Infant pit graves in Tomb F
165
166
a. schmidt-colinet, khaled al-as‘ad
A NEW TESSERA FROM PALMYRA. QUESTIONS OF ICONOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY ANDREAS SCHMIDT-COLINET AND KHALED AL-AS‘AD
Since 1998 a joint Syrian-German archaeological mission has been investigating the area of the pre-Roman underground settlement of Palmyra south of the Roman town.1 Through geophysical prospection, the whole system of an underground settlement was made visible in the area south of the modern great wadi (Fig.1-2). Evidence was found, by opening two trenches (I and II), that in the center of this settlement, building activities lasted from the third century BC until the third century AD.2 In 2001 a large building complex was discovered in the very center of this settlement in trench II (Fig. 3). This building originally was sumptuously decorated with stucco and colorful wall paintings of high quality. Hundreds of fragments of this wall decoration have yet to be pieced together and analysed. But the whole complex can be dated most likely to the first or second century AD probably and will enlarge our knowledge on Palmyrene wall decoration.3 Within the context of this building the terracotta tessera was found which is the main subject of this study (Fig. 4). The tessera is rectangular in shape and well preserved (Fig. 4).4 It shows a combination of iconographic themes unique on tesserae until now, as far as we can see. On one side of the tessera (Fig. 4a), there 1 For critical discussion and support we would like to thank Jean-Charles Balty, Michel Gawlikowski, Marion Meyer and Ahmed Taha. 2 Cf. Schmidt-Colinet–al-As‘ad 2000; al-As‘ad–Schmidt-Colinet 2002. 3 al-As‘ad–Schmidt-Colinet 2002. For stucco found in Palmyra cf. Parlasca 1985; Parlasca in Ruprechtsberger 1987, pp. 326-333, nos. 51-66: Parlasca in CharlesGaffiot et al. 2001, pp. 330-332, nos. 69-81 with figs. on pp. 216-227. For stucco recently found within the context of domestic architecture cf. Gawlikowski 1991, pp. 403, 405, fig. 4-5; Schmidt-Colinet–al-As‘ad 2000, p. 71, pl. 16a. In general cf. also Colledge 1976, p. 104, pl. 136; Kohlmeyer–Strommenger 1982, pp. 205208, nos. 186-189 = Baratte, Au pays de Baal 1984, pp. 260-261, no. 304a-f = Garroni– Parcu, Da Ebla a Damasco 1985, pp. 301-303, nos. 195-200 = Weiss 1985, pp. 405ff., nos. 198-203; Syrie 1993, pp. 308-309, nos. 248-254. 4 Palmyra Museum, excavation no. 01.500.500; measurements: 22 x 17 x 6 mm.
new tessera. iconography and epigraphy
167
is a female figure seated to the left who looks right. She is shown in profile wearing a classical Greek garment (himation) covering not only her head but also the headdress. Her headdress, a (mural) crown or polos identifies this figure as a goddess.5 The goddess holds the branch of a palm tree in her right hand. To the left of the palm branch, there is a star and underneath, the palm branch a horizontal, crescent moon. The goddess puts her right foot on the right shoulder of a small figure of which the upper part is appearing en face in the very corner of the tessera. The head of this small figure also seems to be crowned. For an interpretation of this representation, one may look to iconographic parallels first on other tesserae as well as additional monument types. On tesserae: there are examples of a seated goddess looking to the right or to the left. She is usually named or explained as the goddess Manot,6 as Atargatis/Astarte/Gad/Tyche7 or simply an unidentified goddess.8 However, these differ from our example, because the seated goddesses are usually armed and accompanied by an animal, probably a lion. Their faces always are to be seen en face.9 Their dresses are never as classicizing as in our example. In all these respects our representation remains unique until now. There are other archaeological monuments that seem to explain more clearly the representation found on our tessera. In a very similar iconographic context we see the Tyche or guardian spirit of Palmyra with the mural crown on her head and with spring Efqa under her feet on two well known representations found in Dura Europos. These are the wall painting VI from the temple of the Palmyrene gods (Fig. 5a), and the relief dated to 158/9 AD (Fig. 5b).10
5 For the iconographic difference but sometimes identical meaning of the mural crown, the kalathos and the polos see Hörig 1979, pp. 136-154. 6 Ingholt-Seyrig-Starcky 1955, no. 281 = Starcky–Gawlikowski 1985, p. 109, pl. XV, 5. 7 Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, no. 510 = du Mesnil du Buisson 1944, pl. XXIXXXX, no. 19a; XXXII no. 19a; du Mesnil du Buisson 1962, pp. 370ff., fig. 204. For the iconography and interpretation of these representations see Hörig 1979, p. 176; also Augé 1994, LIMC VII, pp. 156-158 s.v. Palmyra. 8 Ingholt-Seyrig-Starcky 1955, no. 430 = du Mesnil du Buisson 1944, pl. XXXIV, no. 20a; cf. also Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, nos. 420-421, 432, 501, 510; Dunand 1959, p. 105, no. 12, pl. XV. 9 Cf. also the sitting figure of Allat on the limestone relief from the temple of Baalshamin: Gawlikowski 1990, p. 2641, pl. XX, fig. 44 (with references). 10 For these two monuments and their interpretation see Hörig 1979, pp. 169-
168
a. schmidt-colinet, khaled al-as‘ad
On the relief, the goddess is even visually connected to her priest, who stands to her right. The iconographic origin of these representations goes back to the famous Hellenistic statue of the Tyche of Antioch created by Eutychides.11 This iconography of the sitting city goddess Tyche was common also for other cities in Syria, as is found on coins from the city of Apamea.12 In fact, the closest iconographic parallels to our sitting goddess can be seen on late Hellenistic and early Roman coins from Antioch.13 There, the sitting Tyche of Antioch, holding a palm tree branch is represented on coins from time of Tigranes (83-69 BC, fig. 6) up to Tiberius (35/36 AD),14 and there are not other examples that date to a later time.15 The most similar, almost identical representation to our goddess is the Tyche on the coins of Tigranes.16 This is a strong argument for the dating of our tessera in an early period of Palmyra. In our context, one also has to remember the famous relief from Palmyra now in the Damascus National Museum17 representing a crowned sitting “good 175, pl. 8; also Rostovtzeff 1938, pl. I.2; du Mesnil du Buisson 1962, pp. 214ff., 367ff., figs. 143-144, 201-202; Colledge 1976, pl. 146; Drijvers 1976, pl. XIXXX; Teixidor 1979, pl. XXVIII and XXX; Parlasca 1984, 167ff., notes 1-2 (further references), figs. 1-3; Gawlikowski 1990, pp. 2618, 2639, pl. XVII, fig. 39; Will 1992, p. 160; Augé 1994, LIMC VII 1, p. 156, s.v. Palmyra 1-2; LIMC VII 2, p. 98, s.v. Palmyra 1-2. Cf. also the limestone head in the Museum of Palmyra probably representing the Tyche of Palmyra: Parlasca 1984, pp. 170ff., note 7 (further references), fig. 5; also Starcky–Gawlikowski 1985, pl. XIII 4; Tanabe 1986, pl. 127; Augé 1994, LIMC VII 2, p. 157, s.v. Palmyra 9; LIMC VII 2, p. 98, s.v. Palmyra 9. For seals and coins representing the head of the Tyche of Palmyra cf. also Parlasca 1984, pp. 171-172 fig. 6; Augé 1994, LIMC VII 1, p. 157, s.v. Palmyra 6-8; LIMC VII 2, p. 98, s.v. Palmyra 6-8. 11 For the Tyche of Antioch by Eutychides and her iconographic afterlife cf. Dohrn 1960; also Hörig 1979, pp. 149-154. 12 See recently Balty 2000, p. 470, fig. 4. 13 Meyer 2004. I am most grateful to Marion Meyer for this important hint and for the permission to use her manuscript. 14 Cf. Meyer 2004, Cat. M 1-4 (with references and good illustrations). 15 BMC, Seleucid Kings, nos. 3-8; Meyer 2004, Cat. M 1. On later coins, the goddess holds a kind of grains instead of the palm tree branch; cf. Meyer 2004, Cat. M 5-9. 16 Meyer 2004, Cat. M 1. 17 For the interpretation of this relief see basically Will 1985 and 1986; summarising also Will 1992, pp. 159-162; differently Colledge 1976, p. 48 pl. 38; Drijvers 1976, p. 19, pl. LI; Teixidor 1979, p. 97, pl. XVIII; Starcky–Gawlikowski 1985, p. 95, pl. XIII, 3; Gawlikowski 1990, p. 2639, pl. XVIII, fig. 40; cf. also Tanabe 1986, pl. 123-126; Syrie 1993, pp. 300-301, no. 239. For further references see Parlasca 1984, pp. 169ff., notes 4-6, fig. 4; Yon in Charles-Gaffiot 2001, p. 347, no. 166, with fig. on p. 274.
new tessera. iconography and epigraphy
169
goddess” as she is identified in the inscription.18 To her left stands another female figure wearing a mural crown on her head and carrying a laurel branch in her right hand. The interpretation of this relief and especially of the two goddesses is still not very clear. This sitting, “good goddess” with the eagle shown behind her and a dog besides her feet is probably Astarte-Atargatis. The standing figure with the laurel branch is likely the Tyche, the city goddess of Palmyra. It seems difficult to determine exactly the iconographic meaning of the two different headdresses of the two goddesses (see above fn 5). As E. Will has pointed out clearly (see fn 17), the small figure under the feet of the seated goddess in this case should not be interpreted as spring Efqa. This representation shows completely different iconography from the usual representation of spring Efqa. In comparison with this archaeological and epigraphic evidence, the seated goddess on our tessera with the small head in front of her feet can be interpreted in several ways: as the personification or incarnation of the city of Palmyra itself, or the personification of the fate of the city or even as the personification of a “genius loci,”19 which in our case may be the spring Efqa. On the other hand the goddess can be understood as the Gad/Tyche as guardian spirit of the city, of her gardens or even of her spring,20 which in this case would be represented by the small figure in front of her feet. On the other side (reverse) of the tessera (fig. 4b) the bust of a human figure en face can be seen. The person represented is identified as a priest by his headdress (modius).21 To either side of his head, there is a horizontal crescent, which may be a symbol of eternity (?).22 Below the bust an inscription informs us that this is “Moqimo, son of [...].”23 This type of figural representation showing the bust of a priest en face is one of the most common iconographic features on
18
PAT 0008; also Milik 1972, p. 165. For references see Hörig 1979, pp. 139-144. 20 For Gad/Tyche as guardian spirit of gardens or even of a spring see Hörig 1979, p. 166 (with references); cf. also Gawlikowski 1990, p. 2639. 21 For Palmyrene priests’ headdresses see Stucky 1973; also Schmidt-Colinet 1992, pp. 112-114, figs. 52-53, pl. 47-48. 22 So du Mesnil du Buisson 1962, pp. 110-111; du Mesnil du Buisson 1944, pl. LXXIV no. 49a = Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, no. 822, pl. 40; also Ingholt-SeyrigStarcky 1955, no. 873. 23 The reading of the inscription was kindly confirmed by Michel Gawlikowski. 19
170
a. schmidt-colinet, khaled al-as‘ad
Palmyrene tesserae (Fig. 7).24 The name “Moqimo” is also found in this text-type several times; however there is no indication that our Moqimo is identical with one already known from other inscriptions.25 Summary and further conclusions This tessera presents us with an image of the priest Moqimo honoring himself as well as the city goddess or guardian spirit of Palmyra, who is closely related to the spring Efqa. Perhaps Moqimo was a (or the) priest of this goddess. The iconography of the seated goddess with the small head in front of her feet and the extremely classicizing style of the entire representation are unique on Palmyrene tesserae until now. The classicizing features may allow us for the dating of this tessera to an early period. The iconographic evidence from the coins from Antioch (and Apamea) would indicate a date in the second half of the first century BC or the first half of the first century AD, at least not long after the middle of the first century AD. The communis opinio of scientists with regard to the use, meaning and dating of Palmyrene tesserae was best summarised by Colledge as follows: “Ritual banquets and distributions of foodstuffs customarily followed certain religious sacrifices at Palmyra. Access to these had to be controlled. This was done by the issue of little tokens, tesserae, to those privileged to attend. Occasionally, these tesserae were made in metal (bronze, iron or lead) or glass, but the vast majority which survive are of terracotta. Designs fill each side— pictures, words, or both together—but these, together with the shapes, vary constantly, so that no two issues are identical. Well more
24 Closest iconographic parallels are Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, no. 822, pl. 40 = du Mesnil du Buisson 1944, pl. LXXIV, no. 49a = Colledge 1976, pl. 54u (with crescent and star on both sides of the bust and with the inscription “Nebuzabad, son of Zebida” below the bust); Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, no. 873, pl. 42 (with crescent on both sides of the bust); cf. also Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, no. 818ff.; cf. also du Mesnil du Buisson, pp. 74-75, 91, pl. 37-38. For a general interpretation see du Mesnil du Buisson 1962, pp. 110-111, 515ff. 25 Several priests named MQYMW (Moqimo) are known from Palmyrene tesserae: cf. Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955, p. 175; for the very frequent name MQYMW in Palmyra in general, cf. Stark 1971, pp. 35-37 and 96 with the explication of the name: “He who causes to arise.” Cf. furthermore PAT 0005 (AD 148), PAT 0057 (AD 263), PAT 0255 (AD 149); also Milik 1972, pp. 106-115.
new tessera. iconography and epigraphy
171
than a thousand separate issues are now known, sometimes in more that a hundred examples. Unfortunately, few are dated; the dates fall between AD 89 and 188. So, lettering, and to a lesser extent style and content, become our chief guides to period.”26 As far as our tessera is concerned, we have to look at its archaeological context for additional historical inferences or conclusions regarding the urban fabric of Palmyra. The tessera was found in a building complex that was in use during the first and second centuries AD. This huge building is located in the centre of a settlement not far from the spring Efqa. Originally it was decorated with stucco and wall paintings of extremely high quality. In same context as the tessera, two artifacts were found which might give further indications regarding the interpretation of this building. First, there are fragments of an oil lamp carrying the inscription “Yarhibol” (Fig. 8).27 The name of god Yarhibol seems to be unknown on Palmyrene oil lamps until now, differently from other names of Palmyrene gods— such as #Aglibol and Malakbel28—usually found on oil lamps. As such lamps naming a god or goddess were usually found in sanctuaries or tombs, our lamp may have been used in a cultic context. Originally, Yarhibol “was the patron of the spring Efqa and usually represented in military dress, standing with his right hand raised to grasp a lance while the left grips the hilt of a sword.”29 On the other hand, within the main sanctuary of the city, the temple of Bel, the god Yarhibol was closely connected with the Tyche of Palmyra for a long time.30
26 Colledge 1976, p. 54; for tesserae see summarising Colledge 1976, pp. 54-56, pl. 54; also Ruprechtsberger 1987, pp. 334-339, nos. 67-76; Starcky–Gawlikowski 1985, pp. 107-109, pl. XV; Augé, in Charles-Gaffiot 2001, pp. 347-351, nos. 167177, with figs. on pp. 275-279. 27 Palmyra Museum, excav. no. 01.500.5021; measurement: 105 mm; cf. alAs‘ad–Schmidt-Colinet 2002. 28 For example on lamps found in the tomb of Alaine; cf. Lavagne in CharlesGaffiot 2001,p. 337, nos. 110-111, and fig. on p. 240 (with further references). 29 For Yarhibol as the god of the spring in general see du Mesnil du Buisson 1962, pp. 207ff.; Teixidor 1979, pp. 29-34; Gawlikowski 1990, pp. 2616-2617, pl. III, fig. 7; also Starcky–Gawlikowski 1985, p. 93; Lavagne in Charles-Gaffiot 2001, p. 343, no. 144 (with further references); Augé in Charles-Gaffiot 2001, p. 349, no. 170. 30 For the connection of Yarhibol with the Tyche of Palmyra within the temple of Bel cf. the inscription Tadm. 18 (= PAT 2767) “Nous avons donc ici la titulature officielle, la plus complète, du sanctuaire principal de l’oasis”: Milik 1972, p. 290; for the whole inscription cf. Milik 1972, pp. 288-292 pl. XI (with references); for
172
a. schmidt-colinet, khaled al-as‘ad
The second monument found together with the tessera is a small and very simple limestone relief (Fig. 9)31 representing a standing, armed male figure en face. This could be the representation of just a Palmyrene soldier, or it also could represent Yarhibol (see above fn 29). Finally, a Palmyrene building inscription which mentions the “founder of a banquet hall” (Fig. 10), was discovered little south of the tessera, in the very north of trench I. This inscription can be dated to the first century BC or the beginning of the first century AD.32 The iconography of the tessera, along with this archaeological and epigraphic evidence seems not to exclude the possibility that the architectural structure where the tessera was found could have been a sanctuary or an official cult place with close relations to the spring Efqa.33 However, to answer questions like these one day, we need not only further archaeological excavation in this area, but also more and clearer epigraphic evidence about the cultic practices in ancient Palmyra. the early dating of the inscription (third to first century BC) see Milik 1972, p. 300. 31 Palmyra Museum, excav. no. 01.313; measurements: 155x107x35 mm; cf. al-As‘ad—Schmidt-Colinet 2002. 32 The inscription was kindly read by M. Gawlikowski; see Schmidt-Colinet– al-As‘ad 2000, p. 71, note 41, pl. 15d. For banquet halls in Palmyra cf. also Will 1992, pp. 143-144; Will 1997. 33 For deities and sanctuaries known in Palmyra in general see Gawlikowski 1973; Gawlikowski 1990 (with full bibliography); Teixidor 1979; summarising also Drijvers 1976, pp. 9-22.
Fig. 1. Palmyra, magnetogramm showing the underground settlement S of the Wadi in squares of 40 m to 40 m
new tessera. iconography and epigraphy 173
Fig. 2: Palmyra, general plan. N of the wadi: Roman town. S of the Wadi Interpretation drawing of the magnetogramm of the underground pre-Roman settlement with trenches I and II
174
a. schmidt-colinet, khaled al-as‘ad
new tessera. iconography and epigraphy
175
Fig. 3. Palmyra, detail of the magnetogramm with trench II where the tessera was found
Fig. 4. Palmyra, trench II, tessera, left: (obverse) city goddess of Palmyra and spring Efqa. Right: (reverse) priest Moqimo
176
a. schmidt-colinet, khaled al-as‘ad
new tessera. iconography and epigraphy
177
Fig. 5. Representations of the sitting Tyche of Palmyra, left: wall painting from Dura Europos. Right: relief from Dura Europos (after du Mesnil du Buisson 1962, 215 fig. 143-144)
Fig. 6. Silver Tetradrachme of Tigranes II, 83-69 BC (after Jidejian, p. 117)
178
a. schmidt-colinet, khaled al-as‘ad
Fig. 7. Representations of priests on Palmyrene tesserae; right no. R 820 (after du Mesnil du Buisson 1962, 110-111 fig. 67-68)
Fig. 8. Palmyra, trench II, oil lamp with the inscription “Yarhibol”
new tessera. iconography and epigraphy
Fig. 9. Palmyra, trench II, limestone relief representing Yarhibol (?)
179
Fig. 10. Palmyra, trench I, inscription mentioning a banquet hall
180
a. schmidt-colinet, khaled al-as‘ad
new tessera. iconography and epigraphy
181
PALMYRA IN THE THIRD CENTURY JAVIER TEIXIDOR
During the reign of Septimius Severus (193-211), a sort of religious, not to say cultural, syncretism became firmly established in the empire. The government’s attitude towards men of letters had already reached a turning point, thanks to Trajan’s wife, Plotina. Her correspondence with Hadrian and her letters to the philosophers are well known. Emperors in the second century, as Rostovtzeff has pointed out, did not persecute the philosophers nor did they wish to meddle in their literary disputes. Not only teachers and rhetors but also teaching establishments received funding from the government. The attitude adopted towards education in the second century was possibly a victory of the philosophers. Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Severus Alexander all favoured the same cause and watched over the expansion of primary education throughout the empire, especially in Egypt, as is attested by literary papyri, no doubt used as textbooks.1 Septimius Severus appears to have shown a genuine interest in culture. In his Breviarium, Eutropius remarks that Severus, in addition to his military reputation, “was also distinguished for his civil pursuits, for he was accomplished in literature and had acquired an extensive knowledge of philosophy” (8.19). Further evidence comes from the philosopher Alexander of Aphrodisias, who, in the dedication of his De Fato, thanks the emperors Septimius Severus and Caracalla because their recommendation (marturia) enabled him to become a teacher of Aristotelian philosophy (perhaps in Athens). Using what are probably technical terms, he explains that he was given a public mission to teach. Thanks to her eminent position in society, Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius Severus, who was born in Emesa, proved to be one of the most representative figures of this intellectual trend. With her we enter the intellectual circle which Philostratus describes in his Lives of the Sophists. “This effulgence of sophistry under the emper1
Rostovtzeff 1988, pp. 107, 309, 457-458. On Plotina, Cizek 1983.
182
javier teixidor
ors is commonly called the ‘Second Sophistic.’ The ‘sophistic’ of Gorgias was the first”. Philostratus’ work “attests considerable firsthand knowledge of the society in which his subjects moved” and, from another of his writings we learn that he belonged to the ‘salon’ of Julia Domna (Bowersock 1989, p. 95). The group of intellectuals who had gathered around the empress in the Palatino was a real school of orators and philosophers who were as much concerned with letters as with speculations on religious matters. The best description of the intellectual milieu over which Julia Domna presided comes from Philostratus. He calls her he philosophos Iulia. Philostratus wanted to link the sophists of his own age to the fourthcentury sophists, but this filiation is a fictitious one. Only with Nicetas of Smyrna and Iseus the Assyrian, both of the second half of the first century AD, did the second sophistic movement begin. Their personalities conform to what was expected of a sophist at that time. Nicetas was more admired for his baroque eloquence than for his architectural works in Smyrna. Philostratus tells us that Iseus abandoned his life of debauchery and became an ascetic renowned for his quick-witted repartee. Of this circle it has been said that the mathematicians were astrologers and the philosopohers sophists, that Philostratus was totally devoid of critical spirit, and that his quotations from the sophists whom he admired were puerile (Wright, p. ix-xli). However, they were perhaps dealing with problems of political philosophy. In Book 52 of Cassius Dio’s Roman History there is an imaginary debate between Agrippa and Maecenas, both of whom were counsellors of Octavius, the future Augustus, in which the first advises him to relinquish monarchy, while the second urges him to organize it. This rhetorical debate, probably composed in 214, was no doubt declaimed by Cassius Dio before Julia Domna’s circle in Nicomedia. We know that he was close to Septimius Severus whom he accompanied on his expedition to the East, as he would later accompany Julia Domna to Nicomedia. This undoubtedly anachronistic text abounds with references to questions which were vital for political life in the third century. Julia Domna descended from an Aramaic family of priest-kings who had ruled over Emesa since the demise of the Seleucids (69 BC). Emesa must have been one of the cities founded by Seleucus Nicator, though its name does not appear in the list of Greek cities known to have existed in Syria. The name of Sampsigeramus, a phylarch of the Emisenoi, is our first reference to Emesa dated 68 BC, and
palmyra in the third century
183
is specifically related to the deposition of Antiochus XIII Asiaticus. Strabo states that Sampsigeramus ruled over Emesa but preferred to reside in Arethusa (modern er-Restân) as this enabled him to control the crossing over the Orontes River (16.2, 10-11). After his victory over Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, Antonius took Arethusa away from Emesa and his decision was confirmed by Augustus who had the king put to death. The dynasty was reestablished by Augustus much later, in the person of Iamblichus II, the father of Sampsigeramus II (Dio 54.9, 2). The same Sampsigeramus is honoured in a Palmyrene inscription which refers to Germanicus and was perhaps made when he visited the city (Cantineau 1931, 139 = PAT 2819). Here he is given the formal title of “supreme king.” A Latin inscription from Baalbek in honour of his son Caius Julius Sohaemus confirms this royal title, calling him rex magnus (IGLS 2760). Emesa (modern Homs) owed its rise in importance in the third century less to the fact that its dynastic family had been received at the imperial court than to the wealth of Palmyra. Situated on the coastal route, it had become an entrepot as necessary as Palmyra itself, whose prodigious destiny it shared. Evidence of the links between the two cities can be found at the moment when Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to the Empire and the Palmyrenes chose the name Julius Aurelius because of the kinship they felt with the maternal side of the emperor’s family. Although the kings of Emesa have always been seen as Arab phylarchs, they were in actual fact petty Aramean kings.2 In Greek historians’ accounts of the Syrian troubles in the 60s BC, we can distinguish between Azizus, “the phylarch of the Arabs,” and Sampsigeramus and his son Iamblichus (I), “the phylarchs of the nation (ethnos) of the Emisenoi.” Strabo and Diodorus Siculus (40.1b,1) make a clear distinction between the Syrians on the one hand, and the Arabs and Scenites on the other, placing Sampsigeramus among the former. St. Jerome (In Genesim X 18) surely understood the ethnic situation in the region as he made Simyra, a town on the Syrian coast, the ancestor of “the noble nation of Emesa” (nobilis Syriae Coeles civitas).3 In 222 Severus Alexander was proclaimed Augustus, but it was 2 Sullivan 1977, studies the political history of Emesa but seems not to know what was happening within the Aramaic world. 3 Simyra, i.e. ‘MRY in Hebrew but ZMR on the Phoenician coins. This agrees with Pliny’s spelling of the name as Zimrya (NH 5.78).
184
javier teixidor
his mother Julia Mamaea, the sister of Julia Domna, who took charge of affairs and life in the palace. Aelius Lampridius, the author of his Life in the Historia Augusta (= HA) relates how he respected the privileges of the Jews and tolerated the existence of the Christians (22.4); he even supposedly kept images of deified emperors, saints like Apollonius of Tyana, Christ, Abraham and Orpheus (29). This remark reveals the sarcasm and no doubt the bitterness of the author of his Life who finds it hard to accept the demise of the ancient religion. This information of HA cannot be seen as purely fictitious as sometime later Origen, the Alexandrian theologian, was summoned to Antioch by Julia Mamaea to instruct her in the new religion (Eusebius, EH, 6.21, 3-4). The irruption of the Persian Sassanids as a new power on the eastern frontier of the Roman empire was, it seems, unexpected. The Sassanids had recently supplanted the Arsacid Parthians in the East. The provinces of Mesopotamia and Syria were under threat as the Sassanid king Ardashir wanted to reconquer the lands stretching from Ionia and Caria to Bactria, formerly part of the ancient Persian empire. Herodian mentions the existence of seditious movements fomented by Egyptian and Syrian soldiers in Antioch, and Cassius Dio speaks of rebellions within the Roman army in Mesopotamia. The emperor was warned about the danger looming in the East of the empire and wanted to settle the situation by using emissaries to engage in peace talks. Herodian gives a summary of a letter which the emperor had supposedly sent to the ‘Barbarians.’ But faced with the open hostility of the Persians, Severus Alexander decided to set off for the East. He divided his army into three prongs (6.5.1-2): one proceeded towards Armenia, making incursions into the land of Medes on the way, another was sent towards Dura-Europos and Seleucia-Ctesiphon, while the third remained with the emperor and would accompany him on the main road to Palmyra. The imperial visit is mentioned in an inscription in honour of Julius Aurelius Zabdila, the strategos of Palmyra. The bilingual inscription is dated 242/243. By this time the emperor had already died, but the Palmyrene wanted to recall what Zabdila had done for the emperor and his general-in-chief when he had visited Palmyra. Furthermore, the inscriptions provides us with important information about a Palmyrene notable who was probably Zenobia’s father: “Statue of Julius Aurelius Zabdila (Gk.: Zenobios who is [named] Zabdilah), son of Malku son of Malku son of Naààum, who was
palmyra in the third century
185
strategos of the colony at the time of the visit of the divine Emperor Alexander and who assisted Rutilius Crispinus, the general-in-chief, during his stay here, and when he brought the legions here on many occasions; who was in charge of the market and saved large sums of money; who conducted his career so honourably that he received a testimonial from the god Yarhibôl, and also from Julius [Priscus], most eminent prefect of the holy praetorium, and who loved his city: it is why the Senate and the People erected [this] statue in his honour in the year 554” (PAT 0278). The inscription marks the devotion of certain Palmyrene families towards the family of Severus, in particular the dynasty of Emesa, and is borne out by other bilingual inscriptions or even by Latin ones which are extremely rare in Palmyra. The name of Julius Aurelius is perhaps an expression of their sympathy for Julia Domna or her sister, Julia Maesa.4 Between the death of Alexander Severus and the accession to the throne of Gordian III early in May 238, the Empire lived through a sombre period in its history. There are two importance sources for this period: Shapur’s own account of his achievements in the Res gestae, engraved on a rectangular building known as Zoroaster’s Ka’aba at Naqsh-i-Rustam, near the ancient city of Persepolis,5 and Books 12 and 13 of the Sibylline Oracles (SO), which are brief cryptic texts. 1. The account of king Shapur is contemporaneous with the events it describes. Shapur had the Res gestae composed at the end of his reign, around 270-272. The title given to this work by modern historians is a conventional one and is, of course, based on an analogy with the Res gestae Augusti. Shapur wanted to ensure the glory of the campaigns he had led against Rome. Three versions of the document exist: in a Parthian Pehlevi dialect, in Sassanid Pehlevi, and in Greek. After describing the provinces and kingdoms which make up the Empire, an account of his three campaigns follows with the names of the towns he captured and his decisive victories over the Roman armies. The second part of the document is devoted to religious foundations. Shapur has deliberately copied the rites of the Roman military triumph; however, in tone, he draws his inspiration from a Near Eastern tradition dating back to the second millennium
4 5
Seyrig 1933, pp. 166-167; Gawlikowski 1969a; Herzig–Schmidt-Colinet 1991. Text edited by Maricq 1958.
186
javier teixidor
BC. Though undoubtedly apologetic, Shapur’s text is above all informative. 2. The SO were assembled in their current form in the sixth century AD. They consist of twelve books—1-8 and 11-14—written at different periods. The Sibyls are an idealised version of the Pythies at Delphi. While the Pythies of the Apollonian oracle are real women, the Sibyls are imaginary beings akin to nymphs or muses. Sibyls wrote history from the beginnning of time, and they were able to do so confidently since they belonged to a very remote past. The mythical Sibyls once accepted—they represent a divinatory practice which perhaps marks an attempt by the Greeks of Asia to create a female seer of their own, equal or superior to the Phythies of Delphi—can be used by a number of local traditions. The Sibylline legends fall into three broad headings: those of Greece, Italy, and the East (Nikiprowetsky, 1-10). The author of the SO clearly states that he has assembled his texts from a wide variety of sources, some of which are undoubtedly pagan in origin, although he seems unaware of the fact. The core of his documentation is Alexandrine in origin, or morely simply Egyptian. Quotations to the SO in the Church Fathers correspond to the texts we know, while references to the oracles in the Greek and Latin authors come from different sources, official no doubt and therefore not of Eastern provenance. The testimony of Lactantius, a thirdcentury Christian apologist, is significant for some of the Sibylline books. He does not quote from Books 11-14, which proves that they had not been written yet, although their themes had been circulating among certain circles. In his Divine Institutions (1.6.13), Lactanius says: “To all these Sibyls are attributed verses which are extant, except for the Cumaean Sibyl. Her books are kept concealed by the Romans and are not allowed by religious law to be examined by anyone, except the quindecimviri. There are indeed single books belonging to single Sibyls. But, because they are entitled with the name Sibyl, people believe they belong to one person, and they are mixed up, and it is impossible to distinguish and assign to each her own work, except for the Erythraean Sibyl who has introduced her own true name into verses and prefaced them by saying she was Erythraean, though she was born in Babylon. But we shall call them Sibyl without distinction wherever we need to use their evidence” (Parke 1988, 2-3). Unlike the Delphic oracles, the Sibyl does not present herself as
palmyra in the third century
187
a moral guide for the future. She addresses the world through a real discourse on universal history and in this way her text becomes a prophecy. The Sibyl accepts the inevitability of events and can thus be seen as endowed with apocalyptic vision. The Thirteenth SO deals with the history of Palmyra (Potter 1990) and may date from the late third century. The oracle begins where Book 12 left off, with the death of Severus Alexander, a victim of the hatred the soldiers felt for his mother, Julia Mamaea (line 286). This text is of special interest for the historiography of the Empire in the third century and a source of information about the social consequences of the Persian-Roman war. It provides first-class information about Palmyra and the surrounding regions, and even about the presence of the Roman administration in the east of the Empire. What the Sibyl tells us of course concerns the past, although she refers to the future as was the case in Delphi. This information reveals, on the one hand, the historic competence of the authors of oracles and, on the other, of the cultivated nature of the readers who would not have accepted a deformed presentation of the past. The Sibyls would not have been acceptable if they had mispresented events which could be verified by oral or documented accounts. The Sassanid wars The Romans began making preparations for war against the Persians around 238, when Gordian came to power. His war against the Persians, the Thirteenth SO (l. 9-12) informs us, would bring about a series of calamities—“wars and battles and killings of men and famines and plagues and terrible earthquakes and lightning strikes and lightning bolts throughout the entire world, and robbery and the desecration of temples” (l. 9-12)—, a catalogue of disasters worthy of an oracle announcing an apocalpytic scenario not unlike the eschatological warning of Christ in Matthew 24.7. For the age of Gordian, the Sibylline oracle predicted an uprising “of the evil (alphéstérôn) Persians, Indians, Armenians, and Arabs” against Rome. The strategoi of Rome must have prepared their expedition with the utmost care. One may nevertheless wonder whether the intelligence service of the Empire was aware that the reconquest of the former Persian empire launched by Shapur had the backing of an aggressive state religion based on Zoroastrism. This war has a new religious dimension which would have been inconceivable under the
188
javier teixidor
Parthian lords. Some information on Plotinus from Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus is relevant here: the philosopher had acquired “so complete a training in philosophy that he became eager to make acquaintance with Persian philosophical disciplines and that prevailing among the Indians. When emperor Gordian was preparing himself for his expedition against the Persians, Plotinus, then thirty-nine years old, went on the expedition” (3.15-20). The inhabitants of the Roman Empire had some knowledge of the religious movements in ancient Iran or India. The people living in the delta region of the Indus had entered into negotiations with the Romans at the time of Augustus and India had sent ambassadors to him. This was the first time, claims the text of the Res gestae divi Augusti, that such a legation had been received by a Roman leader (§ 3). Suetonius remarks that Augustus’ celebrity prompted the dispatch of ambassadors (Augustus 21.6). In his Epitome (2.3.§ 4), Florus adds that some of the ambassadors came from China. The Palmyrenes had maintained trade relations with the countries beyond the Gulf, probably even before the age of Augustus. The rise of Parthia under Mithridates I (170-134) had ushered in a new era for the Gulf region. The chronology of the series of conflicts that opposed the Seleucids and the Parthians remains uncertain. We do know, however, that in 129 BC, Hyspaosines, the eparch of Mesene (in southernmost Iraq), took control of the royal cities of Babylon and Seleucia for a while. Later on, driven out of Mesopotamia, he succeeded in keeping Antioch-on-the-Tigris, which he renamed Charax (“Fortress” in Aramaic, namely Charax Spasinou). The commercial policy followed by both Hyspaosines and his successors aimed at promoting commercial contacts with Syria. It surely opened up new markets for the people of the Gulf, who had been engaged in trade for centuries. Charax became the centre of a thriving trade with India and the Far East; in fostering it, the Mesene traders navigating in the Gulf seem to have privileged the promontory of Oman, taking little notice of Failaka and Bahrain. In the early stages of the Roman occupation of northern Mesopotamia, Crassus spent the late summer of 54 BC garrisoning the cities of Mesopotamia, thereafter returning to spend the winter in Syria. Plutarch insists that this was a mistake on the part of Crassus who needed to reinforce his power with the accession of Babylon and Seleucia, cities constantly at enmity with the Parthians (Bivar, 50). In AD 4 the Parthian king Phraates (V) was driven from his throne
palmyra in the third century
189
and fled to Roman Syria. This event served as a prelude to a long period of dynastic conflicts in the Parthian kingdom (Bivar, 68). The Parthians relied heavily on powerful minorities to govern the western provinces, as can be inferred from a passage in Tacitus’ Annals where we learn that in the early decades of the first century AD Artabanus had reached some kind of agreement with the traditional aristocracy of Seleucia, namely the Greeks, who constituted the nucleus of the polis. This agreement put an end to the power of the populace in the city and, in so doing, comments Tacitus, the king abolished democracy (6.41-42). The story of two Jewish brothers, Anilaeus and Asinaeus, as related by Josephus (JA 18.314-370), also illustrates Artabanus’ policy, for the monarch granted virtual political independence to the Jewish minority in Babylonia (Teixidor 1987a, pp. 188-189). The opening up of new avenues for Syrian trade by the Parthians explains why, in AD 131, the king of Mesene could appoint a Palmyrene as “the governor (satrapês) of the Thilouanoi” (PAT 1374). The Greek inscription (the Palmryene text has been lost) must refer to a region somewhere in the Gulf, probably on the island of TLWN (Tylos ?) mentioned in a sixth-century letter written in Syriac by the Katholicus of Seleucia-Ctesiphon to the Christians in Qatar. According to this late document, TLWN included some territory on the mainland in eastern Arabia. In AD 131, the Palmyrene satrap might also have extended his authority over both territories. The status quo enjoyed by the Mesene with respect to the Parthians of Ctesiphon and, consequently the commercial pre-eminence of Charax Spasinou in the Gulf, was disrupted by Vologases IV when he launched a military expedition against Mithradates, the king of Mesene in AD 150 or 151.6 Mithradates was installed on the throne most probably after Trajan had withdrawn from southern Mesopotamia in 117. The failure of Roman policy in the East obviously freed Vologases to consolidate his empire. When the Persians arrived on the political scene, Palmyra did not participate in the military operations, yet its commercial trade with the Gulf countries declined and may even have been interrupted. Between 211 (PAT 0295) and 247 (PAT 0279), there are no texts 6 The inscription in Greek and Parthian on the statue of Heracles discovered at Seleucia in 1984 sheds new light on the political history of Parthia (Bernard 1990, pp. 23-27).
190
javier teixidor
which refer to caravans in the direction of the Gulf. Moreover, the absence of references to caravans in either a bilingual inscription of the strategos Julius Aurelius or the testimony of Julius Priscus who resided in Antioch, invite us to think that Palmyra drew closer to Rome, thereby protecting itself from any possible Persian incursion. The Sibyl affirms that the new emperor Gordian was “insatiate (akorètes) of war”; the narrative, in the future tense of course, says that “a new Ares will drive warriors against the Assyrians; this warlike Ares will go as far as the deep-flowing silver-eddied Euphrates, hurling his spear” (SO 13, 15-18). The oracle sums up four years of Near Eastern history in six lines. The Roman army was under the command of the emperor’s father-in-law, the praetorian prefect Timesitheus, who was probably of Syrian origin. The offensive which he planned was a great success. Timesitheus recaptured Carrhae, crushed the Persians at Resaina, but died of an illness soon afterwards, at the height of his glory. The Roman army under the leadership of the new praetorian prefect, Philip the Arab, crossed over the Persian frontier and avanced towards Ctesiphon; it was reportedly defeated near Bagdad, at al-Anbar, and beat a retreat. According to Zonaras and Zosimus, Gordian died either at Zitha or in the vicinity of Carrhae and Nisibis. The year was 243 and this was the first campaign described by Shapur in his Res gestae: “A great battle took place between the two sides on the frontiers of Assyria at Misikhe. Gordian Cesar was killed and the Roman force was destroyed.” The accounts of Gordian’s death are not exempt from contradictions. According to the Thirteenth SO, he was “betrayed by a friend,” while Zosimus, asserts on the other hand, that “the soldiers, on the pretext of a shortage of necessities, surrounded Gordian in a disorderly manner, killed him as the chief cause of so many of the casualities and, as agreed, they conferred the purple on Philip” (l. 1719). The latter adds that when the new emperor set out for home, “he sent messengers ahead to Rome to announce that Gordian had died of a disease.” It is difficult to imagine how Philip could have announced the death of Gordian if he had in fact murdered him. After the defeat of the Roman army, Plotinus “escaped with difficulty to Antioch” and found safety there. Then, when Philip took control of the empire, he went to Rome, which is equally difficult to explain should Plotinus hold Philip responsible for the death of his former master. The text of Shapur’s Res gestae leads us believe
palmyra in the third century
191
that Gordian died on the battlefield, which is apparently confirmed by a bas-relief at Bichapur depicting the emperor crushed beneath Shapur’s horse. A legend has been constructed around Gordian’s death, and especially around his successor’s interest in Christianity, which was known to Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century. He recalls that the letters which Origen had sent to Philip and his wife Otacilia Severa had been preserved (EH 6. 36. 3). According to a probably apocryphal account of Philip’s life, Babylas, the bishop of Antioch, refused to allow him to enter a church because of his conduct (EH 6.34). The legend may have received the favour of the ecclesiastical authorities since it was used to show the supremacy of ecclesiastical power over secular. It is indeed unlikely that the emperor was insulted in his way at a time when Christianity had not yet become the official religion. The war with Rome came to an end, momentarily, when a peace treaty between Shapur and Philip the Arab was concluded in 244; it was a dishonourable pact according to Evagrius (5.7) and, especially Zosimus (3.32). Philip did not seem eager to advertise the treaty, which probably explains why coins from Antioch read merely “Pax fundata cum Persis” (Potter 1990, p. 223). Peace seems to have been established, but the Sibyl was there to say how fragile such a peace was: “when the wolf shall swear oaths to the dogs of gleaming teeth against the flock he will ravage, harming the wool-fleeced sheep, and he will break the oaths and then there will be the lawless strife of arrogant kings, in wars the Syrians will perish terribly, Indians, Armenians, Arabs, Persian and Babylonians will ruin each other in mighty battles” (13.28-34). Decius became emperor (249-251) upon the death of Philip. He set out to persecute the Christians immediately and Valerian continued this persecution until he was taken prisoner by Shapur. The Thirteenth SO, 81-88 refers to “the spoliation and murder of the faithful because of the former kings.” The author of these lines, added no doubt by a Christian, appears to explain Decius’ edict by the hatred of the emperor for Philip the Arab. It is, however, difficult to admit that the cause of his hatred was Philip’s well-documented interest in Christianity. As soon as Decius was proclaimed emperor, he concentrated on preserving and restoring religious traditions. Given the dangers which threatened the very existence of the Empire, it was essential to encourage a movement of unanimity and
192
javier teixidor
eliminate any kind of dissidence. Power must have been reaffirmed in 249 with the return to traditional thinking and the restoration of places of worship and ceremonies of the official religion.7 Odenathus, prince of Palmyra It was at this time that political life in Palmyra entered a new phase. In 252 Septimius Odenathus, son of Hairan, son of Wahballat Nâsor, bears the title “ruler of Palmyra” (rà" dy tdmwr in Gk., exarchos of the Palmyrene), then “clarissimus senator” (snqlãyq"). His son Septimius Hairan also bears the titles of “clarissimus senator” and of “exarch” in a dedication dated October 251, made in his honour by Aurelius Flavianus, son of Marius Flavianus Ra’ai, a soldier in the Third legion at Bostra. The first reference to this princely family of Palmyra, clearly of Aramaic origin, from which the true adversary of Shapur would descend, dates from this period. This is also the first documentated evidence of the title of Roman senator, synklètikos, not bouleutès, a title given to local senators. The unexpected appearance of the title of Roman senator, which is moreover coupled with that of “ruler of Palmyra,” indicates a shift in the political life of the city. Following the Roman model even more closely, Odenathus, like a newly-elected emperor, associated his son Hairan in the new administrative order of the city and no doubt in that of the region as well. In 253 Valerian attained supreme power “by unanimous consent,” Zosimus asserts. As for Shapur, he found a reason for resuming war. In his Res gestae, he says that “Cesar lied again and did wrong to Armenia. Then we marched against the Roman Empire and annihilated at Barbalissos a Roman force of 60,000.” Sometime in the middle of the century, Shapur took possession of Armenia and invaded Roman Mesopotamia. Nisibis and Charrae fell into his hands; he then entered Syria and reached as far as Antioch. Shapur’s campaign may have caused unrest among the Syrian communities in the city by triggering local conflicts; support for and against Rome and the Sassanids was at stake.8 Around 256, the Persians returned to
7
Potter 1990, p. 265 and note 187; Christol pp. 123-124. Mention should be made here of Mariades who was involved in Shapur’s capture of Antioch. Potter 1996, pp. 268-273 on this episode introduced by Thirteenth SO 89-100 are precious. But Gagè 1953 is not to be missed. 8
palmyra in the third century
193
western Asia, and Shapur’s Res gestae celebrate the third campaign from which he emerged victorious and Valerian a prisoner. Zosimus relates how the emperor was captured, highlighting his naivety and lack of political acumen. “Valerian went incautiously to Shapur with a small retinue to discuss the peace terms, and he was seized by the enemy. He ended his days in the capacity of a slave among the Persians, to the disgrace of the Roman name in future times” (I.36, 1-2). Alföldi thinks that the discrepancies between the sources relating this episode reflect the deep-seated ambivalence the emperor aroused among his contemporaries, though it is difficult to know what they had been told (Paschoud 1971, pp. 154-155). The Latin panegyrist of 297 painted a very bleak picture of the state of the Empire: in addition to the loss of territory following the Persian victories, there was also the shame of knowing that the prince of Palmyra “considered himself to be our equal.”9 The apocalyptic vision described in the Fifth SO, 93-110 belongs to this period, earlier than the Thirteenth SO; the Sibyl describes the desolation into which the Persians had plunged nations which makes the return of a Nero redivivus necessary. The emperor Nero is presented as “an eschatological figure who precedes the final transformation of the world. The legend that Nero would return and conquer Rome was widespread in the Roman world, especially in the East. It seems to have arisen from the vague circumstances of his death” (Collins 1972, p. 80). Nero was popular among the Parthians and, according to Suetonius, he hesitated whether to commit suicide or flee to Parthia (Nero, 47-49). The imposters traded on the belief that Nero had not died by suicide but lived on. “From this with help from commonplace ideas about the division between East and West, seems to have developed an expectation that Nero would return from the East to conquer Rome” (Bartlett 1985, p. 54). Astrologers, Suetonius says, had predicted that he would one day be repudiated. “Some of them, however, had promised him the role of the East, when he was cast off, a few expressly naming the sovereignity of Jerusalem, and several the restitution of all his former fortunes” (40). The Sibylline text and the legends related by Suetonius have their resonance in the Book of Enoch 56, 5-8: “In these days the angels will gather together and will launch themselves towards the east where the Parthians and
9
IV [VIII], 10, 2-1 and Chastagnol 1994, p. 798.
194
javier teixidor
Medes live; they will shake kings… And they [the kings] will rise up and will trample the earth of his elect, and the earth of his elect will be before them like a threshing-floor and a beaten track. But the city of my just ones will be an obstacle for their horses and they will kindle the war between them, and their right will deploy its force against them” (Milik 1976, pp. 94-95). The Palmyrenes on the Western frontier of the Sassanid empire kept the Persians in check, occupied Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, but spared Jerusalem, and becoming under the leadership of Odenathus a new power in the Roman East could match the Fifth SO’s theme, and no wonder then that the author of the Thirteenth SO had applied it to Odenathus. In lines 165-169 he says of him that “Then will come the sun-sent, dreadful, fearful lion, breathing much fire. With great and reckless courage he will destroy the well-horned swift stag and the great venom-spitting fearsome beast discharging many shafts and the bowfooted goat; fame will attend him; perfect, unblemished, and awesome, he will rule the Romans and the Persians will be feeble.”10 After Valerian, his son Gallienus became the sole legitimate emperor. In order to maintain his authority over the East, Gallienus preferred to reach an agreement with Odenathus, the prince of Palmyra. Zosimus writes: “The Scythians had laid waste to Greece and had even taken Athens by siege, when Gallienus advanced against those who were already in possession of Thrace, and ordered Odenathus of Palmyra, a person whose ancestors had always been highly respected by the emperors, to assist in the east which was then in a very desperate condition. Accordingly, having joined the remnants of the legions in the east the maximum number of his own troops, he attacked Shapur with great vigour; and having taken several cities belonging to the Persians, he also retook Nisibis, which Shapur had formerly taken and which favoured the Persian cause, by a first assault and ravaged it. Then advancing not once merely, but a second time, as far as Ctesiphon, he shut the Persians up in their fortifications, and rendered them content to save their wives, their children and themselves, while he restored order as best as he could to the pillaged territory” (I, 39.01). Odenathus launched a raid and not only succeeded in chasing the Persians away but also pur10 Besides the Persians, Odenathus’ rivals were Fulvius Macrianus (FHG IV, p. 193) and Callistus (= Ballista) (Zonaras 12.23-24). Both have their biographies in HA, Tyranni triginta.
palmyra in the third century
195
sued them into Mesopotamia. He did not however take Ctesiphon. Trebellius Pollio says that, “while Valerian was growing old in Persia, Odenathus the Palmyrene gathered together an army and restored the Roman power almost to its pristine condition” (HA, Two Valerians, 4). Though Gallienus was once again master of the East, it was Odenathus who exercised power along with his troops. Gallienus ended up with a military leader who, since 252, styled himself the “exarch of the Palmyrene.” A few Greek inscriptions and a bilingual Aramaic-Greek inscription commemorate the raising of statues by various municipal associations in honour of Odenathus or his son Hairan. They are dated 258 and give Odenathus the title of clarissimus consularis (lamprotatos hypatikos), a title which might commemorate the elevation of a Palmyrene prince to the position of ‘governor’ in the Syrian province. The standard Greek equivalent of consularis seems to have come to mean ‘governor’ and, “by the normal inflation of titles could be used of the governor of a one-legion province like Syria Phoenice, even though he would not be an exconsul.” It is thus possible that when the inscriptions from Palmyra in 257/258 call Odenathus hypatikos, he was then the legatus of the province (Millar 1993, p. 165). It is more coherent though to conclude, in view of king Abgar VII’s similar title at Edessa that Odenathus was given the ornamenta consularia instead of a position within the imperial government. The ascension of Odenathus signified the triumph of the Arameans in Syria. He claimed descent from Naßôr, which is certainly an Aramaic name. His genealogy is established in several inscriptions as Odenathus son of Hairan son of Wahballat Naßôr. Naßôr was the ancestor of a wealthy family who had contributed towards the building of an important Palmyrene sanctuary in Dura-Europos.11 Zosimus’ assertion (l. 39) that Odenathus descended from a family of illustrious forbears therefore seems justified. During the years when Odenathus was at the centre of Roman politics in the Near East, one Septimius Vorodes appears to have been in control of the administration of Palmyra. The presence of a Parthian statesman in the political life of a city still under Roman control is probably not a coincidence. In April 262, he appears in Aramaic and
11
Gawlikowski 1969b, but see now Gawlikowski 1985.
196
javier teixidor
Greek as “the (eminent) procurator ducenarius of Cesar” (PAT 0284); in December 262, he is “the most excellent procurator ducenarius” (PAT 0287 and 0286). In Greek and Palmyrene inscriptions he is also given the Roman title of the Parthian-Sassanid argapetes, ‘governor of the city,’ therefore of a city in the Parthian kingdom. Another bilingual inscription, though only the Greek text has survived, gives his ‘cursus honorum’: “the eminent imperial procurator ducenarius, administrator of justice of the metro-colonia, who has brought up the caravans at his own expense, and has (worthy) testimony borne to him by the chiefs of the merchants, who has exercised brilliantly his functions as strategos, who has been public notary (agoranomos) of the metro-colonia; who has spent large sums from his own coffers, who has been pleasing to the Senate and to the People and who is now the symposiarch, with brillance, of the priests of the god Zeus-Bel” (PAT 0288, trans. Dodgeon–Lieu 1991, p. 79). The titles borne by Vorodes reveal the hybrid nature of the state and government of Palmyra in the third century. Hence between 262 and 267, while Odenathus was waging war on the Persians, Palmyra was governed by a second-class imperial procurator. Gallienus appointed Odenathus “corrector of the whole East” (mtqnn" dy mdnÈ" klh), a title which requires some explanation, as Potter recently explained. The Thirteenth SO and Zonaras12 portray Odenathus as a leader who held a supreme position within the Roman hierarchy, like Avidius Cassius under Marcus Aurelius or Julius Priscus with his brother Philip the Arab. To call Odenathus a ‘restitutor’ would signify giving him an honorific title, reducing him to the status of a mere ‘restorer.’ However, the imperium maius of Odenathus, corrector of the whole East, did not invest him with the power to appoint governors. We know that those who were nominated at this time received their appointment from the emperor (Potter 1990, p. 54 note 158). Odenathus renewed his offensive against the Persians between 263 and 266. His troops advanced as far as Seleucia-Ctesiphon and challenged the Persians beneath the walls of the city. This more modest version of events is preferable, in Mommsen’s opinion, to the one related by the historian Syncellus, who says that the city had been taken by Odenathus. Warmington’s commentary is relevant
12 Zonaras 12.23 (Dodgeon–Lieu 1991, pp. 66-67) and Potter 1990, pp. 391394, and 1996, pp. 271-285.
palmyra in the third century
197
here: “From the inscription of Sapor, we may deduce that the damage done to the Persians by Odenath on their return over the Euphrates was not very extensive. Vast numbers of captives are said to have been settled in the interior of the Persian Empire. But the later successes were genuine, though nothing is known of what prevented Sapor from reacting with more vigour. On the strength of these histories, Gallienus took the style of Persicus Maximus in 263 and issued coins with the legend PAX FUNDATA in 264” (Parker— Warmington 1935, pp. 392-393). After Mesopotamia, Odenathus made his way towards Cappadocia. The Goths had moved eastwards and, in 263, plundered Chalcedonia, Illion, and Ephesus and all of Asia Minor as far as Cappadocia by 264. When Odenathus arrived on the scene, the Goths retreated. Odenathus was the real emperor of the East. This was an opinion held by the HA (Two Gallieni 3) commenting on Odenathus’ victory over Quietus at Emesa. Millar righly says that, “For the position of Odenathus himself we are dependent either on repeated statements by the late-fourth-century (and acutely) unreliable Historia Augusta that he received the imperium of the orient, or even the title ‘Augustus’; on reports by two Byzantine chroniclers [Syncellus and Zonaras] that he was made strategos (general or military commander) of the East: or on contemporary documents” (Millar 1994, pp. 169-170). These documents do not however give him the title of ‘emperor.’ Odenathus must have assumed the title of ‘King of Kings’ at this time following the Persian model. It may be assumed that he took this title from the Arsacid and Persian royal protocol as a means of protesting against the Persian usurpation, convinced he had the backing of a group of supporters from the dynasty of the Arsacids who had taken refuge in Palmyra. The privileged position of Septimius Vorodes at the Palmyrene court would thus become comprehensible. Odenathus no doubt associated his son Hairan with the crown since, on a tessera in the Damascus Museum, he bears the title of basileus (Seyrig 1937), and in a Greek inscription found beneath a niche in a monumental arch, Herodianus (Hairan) is, like his father, entitled “King of Kings.” This inscription is of considerable interest: “To the King of Kings [having received] the royalty near the Orontes, crowned for victory over the Persians, Sep[timius Herodi]anus, by Julius Aurelius Septimius Vorodes [and Julius Aurelius... procurator of the sove]reign (epitropos tès despoinès), ducenarius, both strategoi of the illustrious colony” (Gawlikowski 1985,
198
javier teixidor
p. 225). Given that Herodianus died with his father, Potter can reasonably conclude that the title of “Kings of Kings” already existed in Palmyra at the time of Odenathus and that Zenobia’s power was well established since she is designated as “the sovereign.” Vorodes’ dedication may commemorate Hairan’s elevation as coregent with his father “at a ceremony which took place on the plain on Orontes, presumably outside Antioch after the defeat of the Persians in (probably) 262” (Potter 1990, p. 385). The court of Palmyra wanted to imitate the imperial court. Understandably, says Mommsen, “the officers who remained loyal to Rome would have opposed the vice-emperor in Palmyra.” Odenathus’ conduct was no doubt the cause of his downfall. He was put to death in 267-268. This was no legal execution, but rather, according to the anonymous Continuator of Cassius Dio, the result of a conspiracy. The instigator was Rufinus, a legate of Syria or Arabia; he allegedly confessed to planning his death “with the support” of the emperor. Rufinus justified his action by saying that if he had not done so, Odenathus ”would have launched a revolution.”13 Zosimus says that “whilst residing at Emesa, he was killed in a conspiracy as he was celebrating the birthday of a friend” (l. 39). The author of the HA explains how he died as follows: “Then, after he had for the most part put in order the affairs of the East, he was killed by his cousin Maeonius … together with his son Herodes, who, also, after returning from Persia along with his father, had received the title of emperor. Some god, I believe, was angry with the commonwealth, who, after Valerian’s death, was unwilling to preserve Odenathus alive. For of a surety, he, with his wife Zenobia, would have restored not only the East, which he had already brought back to its ancient condition, but also all parts of the whole world everywhere” (HA, Thirty Pretenders 15). The political power of Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra The history of the Near East in the third century between 260 and 270 AD is unclear. In the HA Trebellius Pollio gives a poor sum-
13 Mommsen 1985, p. 805; Gawlikowski 1985, p. 261. Syncellus (p. 717, 3) places Odenathus’ death during the Scythian raid (Barnes 1978, p. 73). The existence of Odenathus’ two young sons, Herennianus and Timolaus is uncertain.
palmyra in the third century
199
mary of the political situation in the East; he confused two events when he writes: “As for Gallienus, indeed, when he learned that Odenathus was murdered, he made ready for war with the Persians —an over-tardy vengeance for his father—and, gathering an army with the help of the general Heraclianus, he played the part of a skilful prince. This Heraclianus, however, on setting out against the Persians, was defeated by the Palmyrenes and lost all the troops he had gathered, for Zenobia was ruling Palmyra and most of the East with the vigour of a man” (Two Gall. 13, 4-5). Zosimus, however, saw the events in a different light. In his opinion, the praetorian prefect Heraclianus “plotted to murder Gallienus” (1.40, 2). After the assassination of Gallienus in 268, Zosimus remarks that, “when the troops were calmed by their commanders, Claudius took over as emperor, a post he had previously been destined for by common consent” (l.41, 1). Both writers derived their information from the Athenian Dexippus, who had acquired some fame as a Byzantine historian although his biased testimony over-inflated the role of Claudius II.14 Upon the death of Odenathus in 267, the crown passed to his son Wahballat, but it was Zenobia who seized power. Potter comments that Roman governors “did not regard their offices as hereditary, but Zenobia appears to have held that Palmyra’s superior position in the East did not end with her husband’s death, a point that would help explain the break with Rome” (Potter 1996, p. 381). Both mother and son were theoretically allies of the emperor Claudius and maintained their links with Rome throughout the two years of his reign. Coins issued from the workshops in Cyzique, Antioch and Alexandria bear the names of Claudius alongside those of Wahballat and Zenobia until the succession of Aurelian. Claudius showed himself to be a cautious man and continued Gallienus’ policy in the East. But, as Potter righly remarks, the glory he won in battle with the Goths “did not translate into a sudden restoration of unity to the empire.” The expectations must have been great should we take as (partly) authentic the acclamations shouted in his honour in the temple of Apollo on the Palatine Hill when his letter was read aloud: “Claudius Augustus, deliver us from the men of Palmyra” (repeated
14 Chastagnol 1994, p. 924; on Dexippus historian, Porter 1990, pp. 88-89, 94 and Cizek 1994, pp. 287-289.
200
javier teixidor
five times), “Claudius Augustus, set us free from Zenobia” (repeated seven times). In a letter from Claudius to the Senate, we read: “The provinces of Gaul and Spain, the sources of strength for the state, are held by Tetricus, and all the bowmen—I blush to say it—Zenobia now possesses. Quidquid fecerimus satis grande est” (HA, Claud. 4 and 7). With the accession of Aurelian (270-275), the East once again became central to Roman policy. The Palmyrenes were prepared to comply, but it was perhaps in order to ensure the legitimacy of Zenobia as Queen of Palmyra against Aurelian. Three years after the death of Odenathus in August 271, two “very powerful men”, Septimius Zabdâ, chief of the great army, and Septimius Zabbai, general of the Palmyrene army, erected two statues, one “to their Lord, Septimius Odenathus, King of Kings and corrector of the whole East,” the other ”to their sovereign lady, Septimia Zenobia (Palm. Bathzabbai), most illustrious and pious Queen” (PAT 0292, PAT 0293). A panegyric, perhaps a funerary oration, composed by Longinus, who was by then advisor to the queen, may have reinforced this legitimacy. The existence of this document, but not its contents, is known from two letters by Libanius, the Greek rhetor of Antioch (314-c. 393). In one of them, Libanius urges Anatolius, a senator in Constantinople, to be outspoken on behalf of a certain Eusebius: “He is upright and temperate and well brought up, being also the son of Odenathus and a descendant of that Odenathus, the mention of whose name alone caused the hearts of the Persians to falter,” and in another letter, addressed to Eusebius himself, Libanius asks him to send a copy of the speech given by Longinus (epistulae 1006 and 1078: Dodgeon–Lieu 1991, pp. 109-110). Further information about the queen comes from a milestone discovered on the road between Palmyra and Emesa. The inscription has three lines in Latin: “D[omino] N[ostro] / (damaged letters) Au[relius] Val[erius] Dioclet[ianus] / XIII.” Below are two texts in Latin and Palmyrene partly mutilated but easy to construct: “For the safety of Septimia Zenobia, the most illustrious Queen, the mother of the Emperor Septimius Athenodorus.” The Palmyrene text reads: “For the safety and victory of Septimius Wahballat Athenodorus, illustrious King of Kings and corrector of the whole East, son of Septimius Odenathus, King of Kings, and also on behalf of Septimia Bathzabbai, the illustrious Queen, mother of the sovereign King, daughter of Antiochus / M.XIV.” The figure XIV gives the
palmyra in the third century
201
distance from Palmyra in Roman miles. While the figure XIII in the Latin inscription, written after the fall of Palmyra at the time of Diocletian, no doubt gives the new point of departure now Diocletian’s camp and no longer the Temple of Bel (PAT 0317 = CIS 3971; Clermont-Ganneau 1920, pp. 382-419). In the Greek inscription the Queen is given the name of Zenobia not Bathzabbai. In Palmyra, names like Zabeida, Zabdila, Zabbai, or Zabda, all of which are derived from a root meaning “gift, given” (from or by a god being implied), are frequently transformed into Zenobia (Equini Schneider 1993, p. 30). The names of the generals Zabda and Zabbai therefore stem from the same root as the Semitic name Bathzabbai. Rather than a simple onomastic coincidence, it is more probable that the three were members of the same family. However, the name of Zenobia’s father, Antiochus, is worth commenting on. In his apocryphal Thirty Pretenders, Trebellius Pollio relates how Zenobia attended public gatherings “in the fashion of a man, holding up, among other examples, Dido and Seramis, and Cleopatra, the founder of her family” (27); later on he says that she “boasted herself to be of the family of the Cleopatras and the Ptolemies” (30.2). According to this line of thought, it has been said that with this patronym, Zenobia also prided herself on the Seleucid origins of her family. For his commentaries on Zenobia the author of the HA may have taken his inspiration from Ammianus Marcellinus. The Latin historian wrote about the rowdy men who enter “the vaulted rooms of a bath” and extol women “with such disgraceful flattery as the Parthians do Semiramis, the Egyptians their Cleopatras, the Carians Artemisia, or the people of Palmyra Zenobia” (28.4.9). If we place this passage in its literary context, i.e. if we accept that the author of the HA based his account on Ammianus’ text, then his remark about Zenobia’s claims to see herself as a descendant of Semiramis or Cleopatra loses all significance. On the other hand, Antiochus, the name of her father, is well attested in inscriptions of Palmyra and would therefore appear to be his real patronym, not a claim to descend from an illustrious family. It is hard to see how the Queen could have tampered with a military milestone, an official document to be read by foreigners. With reference to this and other milestones discovered along the same route to Emesa, it has been pointed out that “it is not known whether they were erected to commemorate the restoration of the road (probably no more than a track, as no
202
javier teixidor
traces of a walkway have been found), or, more probably, as a sign of sovereignity in a region which then depended directly on Palmyra, not on the Roman empire. Milestones bearing the name of Vaballath Augustus, “therefore after the break with Rome, have been found on the Via Nova and the coastal route as well. When Syria was under Palmyrene domination, Roman roads, if not maintained, were at least furnished with Latin milestones” (Bauzou 1989, pp. 210-211). While Claudius was intent on freeing Pannonia from the armies of the Goths, Zenobia was extending her territory. This is made clear in a passage from Malalas: Zenobia, “exacting revenge for the death of her own husband, gathered his kinsmen and took over Arabia, then held by the Romans. She also slew the Dux Trassus of the Romans and all the force with him” (XII 299, 3-10; Dodgeon-Lieu 1991, p. 86). This reference seems to be confirmed by an incomplete Latin inscription at Bostra, referring to the passage of the Palmyrene army through southern Syria. The inscription concerns the rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Hammon and a silver statue: “[…] templum Iovis Hammon[nis] dirutum a Palmyrenis hostibu[s…] quem refecit cum statua argen[tea …].” Jupiter Hammon was the tutelary deity of the Third Legion Cyrenaica, and if the temple was destroyed by the Palmyrene, “it was no doubt because it was the sanctuary of the oppressor par excellence, situated in the garrison, where imperial resistance to the Palmyrene would have concentrated” (Seyrig 1941b). For the Palmyrene forces the only route toward Bostra was in the direction of Egypt. There is no reason to believe that their movement was facilitated by the via Nova Traiana; a Nabatean caravan road towards the south had always existed. Access to Eilat and from thence towards the Red Sea did not depend upon the existence of a road; rather, the presence of hostile semi-nomads, including the Nabataeans of course, could prevent Palmyrenes from crossing Arabia. By 270, however, they had become the real masters in the region: a series of milestones on the Bostra-Amman road bearing Latin inscriptions contain the name of Wahballat but no reference to the Roman emperor: “To the Imperator Caesar L. Julius Aurelius Septimius Vaballathus Athenodorus, Persicus Maximus, Arabicus Maximus, Adiabenicus Maximus, the Devout, the Fortunate, the Unconquered, Augustus […]” (AE 1904, 60). On the 15th and 20th mile stations on the via Nova from Bostra, two milestones, partly broken, read: “Lucius Julius Aurelius Septimius Vaballathus Athe-
palmyra in the third century
203
nodorus, King, Consul, Imperator, Dux of the Romans” (DodgeonLieu 1991, pp. 88-89; Bauzou 1989, p. 210). The same titles appear on coins struck in Antioch and also on coins and papyri in Egypt. The Palmyrene wanted to bring this part of Arabia under their control and this must have provoked a hostile reaction among the Bedouin or semi-nomadic tribes living in the area. A centralising power always arouses resentment among peoples, even intestine struggles such as the ones described by the Arab historian Tabari. Social tensions may explain the existence of often rebuilt fortifications and walls in the second half of the third century in places such as Bostra, Adraha (modern Der’a), Suwayda, or Khirbet es-Samra.15 Aurelius Flavianus, the son of Marius Heliodorus and a soldier in the Cyrenaic legion (Palm. “of Bostra”), who erected a statue in October 251 at Palmyra for Hairan son of Odenathus, “his patron, in esteem and gratitude” (in Greek only), is the same Flavianus beneficiarius who was in charge of the fortifications at Adraha ten years later (CIS 3944; Ingholt, 132-133). Since the publication of Pflaum’s study of Greek inscriptions at Adraha in 1952, historians and archaelogists have explained the construction of these fortifications in northern Arabia as a means of defence against the Persians or out of fear of attacks from the Palmyrenes. The Persians, however, did not get that far, at least not as conquerors. As Pflaum understood, the Sassanid advance towards Asia Minor replicated Persian imperialism of the time of the Achaemenids. And on the other hand, military operations by the Palmyrenes are unknown in this region before the reign of Aurelian. Epigraphic evidence and archaelogical findings lead us to assume that the existence of fortifications can be fully explained by inter-tribal warfare among the Arabs. We must remember that in his inscription at Namara at the end of 328, Imru’al Qays is portrayed as the unifier of tribes; he is called king of all the Arabs and credited with victory over the most important tribes. As the Gulf was controlled by the Persians, the Palmyrenes may have preferred to follow the western route to the Red Sea which crossed Arabia. It seem unlikely, however, that the driving force behind their conquest of Egypt was the pursuit of commercial activites. The Palmyrene had been trading with Egypt before the 15 On the relevance of Tabari’s text for the history of Palmyra, see Bowersock 1983, pp. 132-135; Equini Schneider 1993, pp. 68-69 with a good bibliography. More recently Teixidor 1997-1998, p. 727.
204
javier teixidor
arrival of Zenobia; of course, after the conquest, they controlled eastern trade around the Red Sea. Zosimus explains that Zenobia “had more ambitious aims” and despatched general Zabdas to Egypt. The Palmyrene troops under his command seized Egypt between September and November 270. News of Aurelian’s accession reached Alexandria by November or December in the same year. Papyri with the names of Aurelian, Year I and of Aurelian, Year 4, the oldest of which are dated 7th and 15th November, provide proof of this.16 But between the death of Claudius, sometime late in August 270, and the proclamation of Aurelian, the soldiers at Sirmium, where Claudius had died, proclaimed emperor his brother Quintillus. Europius says that “he was killed on the seventeenth day of his reign” (9.12). So Zenobia made her decision to invade Egypt at a time of considerable political and administrative confusion. According to Zosimus, Timagenes, an Egyptian,17 attempted “to place Egypt under the government of the Palmyrenes. He had for this purpose raised an army of Palmyrenes, Syrians and barbarians, to the number of seventy thousand, which was opposed by fifty thousand Egyptians. A sharp engagement ensued between them, in which the Palmyrenes had the greater advantage. He then departed, leaving them a garrison of five thousand” (I, 44, 1-2; Dodgeon–Lieu 1991, p. 87). Aurelian immediately despatched Tenagino Probus to intervene in Egypt. Probus had waged war against the Bedouins in 269 and fought against pirates in 270 (Paschoud 1971, pp. 160-161). He raised an army, Zosimus asserts, “with all the Egyptians who opposed the Palmyrenes, expelled their garrison.” His victory was short-lived however, as the Palmyrenes renewed their attack with the aid of Timagenes. Probus was captured and committed suicide (I. 44. 2). From 270 onwards the name of Wahballat appears on Egyptian papyri and Alexandrian coinage alongside that of Aurelian. A Greek ostracon dated June 271 mentions “Our Lords Aurelian and Wahballat Athenodorus Augustus.” Two Egyptian documents in Greek dated March 272 bear the joint regnal year of Aurelian and Wahballat, who is called “most illustrious King, Consul, Emperor, gen-
16 Cizek 1994, p. 257, n. 1: P. Oxy. 2921 and P. Oxy., XL 2906, 2908 II-III; Chastagnol 1994, 960 (P. Oxy. 2906). 17 Most probably Aurelius Timagenes, a high priest for life, see Equini Schneider 1993, p. 70, note 40.
palmyra in the third century
205
eral of the Romans.”18 Wahballat managed to get himself accepted as a real co-emperor. After her triumph in Egypt, Zenobia was justified in bestowing on her son the three famous imperial titles of Persicus, Arabicus and Adiabenicus Maximus on milestones in Arabia. No historical or legendary texts mention the presence of Zenobia in Egypt. The success of the Palmyrenes in Egypt may have been incomplete. On the one hand, though the anti-Roman party was prepared to form an alliance with the invaders, the pro-Palmyrene party in Alexandria was perhaps composed of the Jewish residents.19 On the other hand, the Christians must have put up a considerable resistance to the Palmyrene invaders since they no doubt wanted to maintain the good reputation which some of them enjoyed in Alexandria (Eusebius, EH 7.32, 6-7). Moreover, the Manicheans had flourished in Egypt thanks to the help their missionaries had received from Zenobia similar to what she had done in Palmyra. Egypt was reconquered after the fall of Palmyra: between 17th April and 28th August 272, the name of Wahballat disappears from the papyri, and Aurelian alone remains. I share Graf’s opinion that, when all is said and done, the precise reasons for the Egyptian campaign by the Palmyrenes remain obscure. The philosophers at the court Before dealing with the Palmyrene presence in northern Syria, and especially in Antioch where Zenobia must have spent the greater part of her life as queen, a few remarks about the group of intellectuals and no doubt missionaries who had gathered around her are in order. The Greek historian, Nicostratus of Trebizond, wrote a history of this period which goes from Philip the Arab to the defeat of Valerian and the swift ascension of Odenathus (FGrH 98). His account closely follows that of the author of the Thirteenth SO and, like him, he considers that Philip’s compromise with the Persians was detrimental to the eastern provinces of the empire. Nicostratus who had apparently accompanied Odenathus on his expedition to 18 19
P.Oxy. 1264; BGU, p. 946; Dodgeon–Lieu 1991, pp. 91-93. Schwartz 1953, p. 77, followed by Graf 1989, pp. 143-167.
206
javier teixidor
Mesopotamia, celebrates his victory over the Persians and ends his account before the assassination of the Palmyrene monarch in 267. Potter thinks that “the scope of his history suggests that it was intended to glorify Odenathus and to demonstrate that as a ruler he was superior to the Roman emperors” (Potter 1990, p. 71). The atmosphere at the court of Palmyra when the news of Gordian’s and Valerian’s defeat was announced can easily be imagined. Callinicus of Petra, a sophist who taught rhetoric in Athens, may perhaps have been at the court. According to the Souda, Callinicus dedicated a work on Alexandria to Zenobia, calling her Cleopatra (Equini Schneider 1993, p. 28). Among his other works is one written against the philosophical sects. One of the texts that Prophyry used in his Contra Christianos leads us to assume that Callinicus shared Porphyry’s hostility towards the new religion. Longinus was the most important adviser at the court of Palmyra. Thanks to Libanius’ curiosity, we can imagine him before the ruling family of Palmyra as he pronounces his oration on the death of Odenathus.20 Zosimus however portrays him at the end of Zenobia’s reign, after her defeat by Aurelian, as responsible for the imperialist policy of the Syrian queen, but adds that “his writings are highly beneficial to all those interested in learning.” The information supplied by these two writers depict a Longinus who was active at the court throughout the time that Wahballat and Zenobia exercised almost absolute power over the East. Born in Emesa between 210 and 220, Longinus was the heir of his uncle, the famous rhetor Fronton of Emesa. He speaks of his interest in philosophy: “When I was a boy there were not a few masters of philosophical argument, all of whom I was enabled to see because from childhood I trav-
20 See A. Baldini’s important study on the descendants of Odenathus mentioned in Libanius’ letters (Baldini 1985). “La positiva figurazione di lui [Odenathus] nelle maggiori fonti è chiaro segno della sua impostazione politica. Le due epistole di Libanio, e più la 1006, indicano come ancora in piena età teodosiana, continuasse a vivere, non solo nei discendenti, nelle regioni orientali la figura di Odenato, assunta a simbolo.” Conversely, on Zenobia’s political enterprises, Baldini says: “Il punto del non ritorno nei rapporti con Roma può fissarsi soltanto nel momento di Zenobia, sulla quale si tende a scaricare la responsabilità della rottura aperta nei rapporti romano palmireni. Può anche ventilarsi l’ipotesi, tuttavia, che gli sviluppi centrifughi del momento palmireno non siano dovuti a sostanziali mutamenti nella dialettica politica interna di Palmira, ma all’avvento alla guida del governo centrale di Roma di un nuovo gruppo politico, di quei militari che la tradizione ha cristallizzato nella dizione di Restitutores Illyrici” (pp. 148-149).
palmyra in the third century
207
elled to many places with my parents, and became acquainted in the same way with those who had lived on later in my intercourse with a great number of peoples and cities. Some of them undertook to set down their doctrines in writing, so as to give posterity the chance of deriving some benefit from them; others thought that all that was required of them was to lead the members of their school to an understanding of what they held” (20. 22-29). Longinus studied under Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria and then taught in Athens. Plotinus said of him that he was “a philologist not a philosopher” (14.18-20), making a distinction that poses problems of exegesis but which seems to emphasize his role as a man of culture. Porphyry, a disciple of his in Athens, said that Longinus was “the most discerning critic of our times, a man who subjected practically all the works of his other contemporaries to drastic investigation, to show what conclusion he came to about Plotinus” (20. 1-2). Eunapius also said that “he was a living library and a walking museum and, that he had, moreover, been entrusted with the role of critic of ancient writers, like many others before him, such as the most famous of them all, Dionysius of Caria” (456). After accompanying emperor Gordian on his expedition to the East and making a brief visit to Antioch, Plotinus settled in Rome, devoting himself to the study of philosophy and giving public lectures. Porphyry arrived in Rome in 263 and stayed there with Plotinus until 268. In his Life of Plotinus he paints a remarkable portrait of the philosopher. There he includes a letter that Longinus had sent him. Longinus asked him to visit him in Phoenicia and bring Plotinus’ works with him: “Send them when you like, or, better, bring them: for I shall never stop asking you to give the journey to us the preference over any other, if for no other reason—for surely there is no wisdom which you could expect to learn from us as a result of your visit—for the sake of our old friendship and of the climate, which is particularly good for the ill-health of which you speak” (19). Was Longinus writing from Zenobia’s court ? Though Porphyry said that he had written from Phoenicia, it seems unlikely that Porphyry, a native of Tyr, would have located Palmyra in Phoenicia; perhaps he was thinking of Emesa, Longinus’ birthplace, or Apamea where Amelius, a former disciple and assistant of Longinus in Rome, now lived. Notwithstanding Porphyry’s assertion, Longinus most probably wrote from Palmyra, because he complains in the letter of a lack of scribes and this dearth is more easily explained at Palmyra
208
javier teixidor
that at Emesa or Apamea, both full of intellectual activity. Porphyry was a major figure of Platonism, and produced a considerable body of work. He furthered Aristotle’s logic by introducing it into the history of philosophy. Another side to his personality which concerns us directly, was his hatred of Christians, which he no doubt spoke about to his friend and former master Longinus. “In the social and political context of the second half of the third century and sous la plume of the author of Contra Christianos, the nomen ‘Christianoi’ was a category of religious membership which outside observers perceived as particularly disturbing. The ‘Christians’ were in some way anti-society”(Tardieu 1992, p. 510). Through her friends, Zenobia was no doubt aware of what Prophyry called the “barbaric influence” of the Christians. Longinus’ influence at the court of Palmyra could not therefore have been conducive to the spread of christianity among the Palmyrenes. On the other hand, the Manichaean texts do not conceal the favourable welcome of the queen to the Manichaean missionaries. Tardieu has managed to establish the sequence of events based on Persian texts in Parthian and Sogdian. Mani, who had probably settled in Seleucia Ctesiphon, sent to Mar Addâ, who was at Kirkûk (Karha dBeyt Sloh), three scribes, with his gospel and two other texts asking him to strive to spread religion “like a merchant hoards up a treasure.” Addâ went to Palmyra, where he cured the sister of Tadi, i.e. Zenobia, “the wife of Cesar.” This cure by the Manichaean leader seems to have aroused the enthousiasm among the Palmyrenes. It brought about many conversions including those of Tadi and Nafsha her sister. Among the Coptic texts from Medinet Madi, south-west of Fayyoum, a fragment of a homily gives a very summarized history of the Manichaean settlements in Palmyra and al-Hira. Translated mainly from Syriac, either directly or via Greek intermediaires, these texts clearly demonstrate that the religion flourished in a Judaeo-Christian milieu.21 Zenobia’s interest in Manichaeism gave way to a curiosity, apparently sustained in Judaism, which seems to have developed at Antioch rather than at Palmyra. While the Jewish communities in Bostra and other Syrian cities are well known, the traces left by the
21 Tardieu 1992, pp. 17-24; Gardner–Lieu 1996, pp. 150-153; Teixidor 19971998, p. 728.
palmyra in the third century
209
Jews in Palmyra are rather meagre. Onomastics are of little help. References to Palmyrene Jews, on the other hand, can be found among Greek inscriptions in the catacombs at Beth She’arim. The necropolis yielded over 200 inscriptions in 1936-1940. They give the name of the person buried, or indicate the ownership of a hall, funerary chamber or individual tombs. By far the greatest number of the inscriptions are in Greek, but there are also a few in Hebrew and Palmyrene. This material provides clear evidence that the necropolis of Beth She’arim was used as a burial place for Jews of the East throughout the third and fourth centuries AD. Palmyrene inscriptions, anthroponyms, and references to Palmyra in two Greek inscriptions prove that Palmyrene Jews were buried in some of the funerary halls in the catacombs. An examination of these Palmyrene chambers shows that burials had ceased by 272/273 when Palmyra was destroyed by the Roman armies (Mazar 1957, viii-ix ; Graf 1989, pp. 148-149). The Babylonian Talmud is, on the whole, hostile towards the Palmyrenes. One passage reads: “Fortunate is he who will see the fall of Palmyra, for it is associated with the first and second temple; for the destruction of the first she provided 80,000 archers, for the second 8,000 archers” (Starcky-Gawlikowski 1985, p. 40). Odenathus’ attack on the city of Nehardea in 262 or 263, the centre of a renowned rabbinic school, during the campaign launched by Palmyrene army against Shapur, must have mortified Jews on both sides of the Euphrates. This event is well documented in the rabbinic sources. The school had been founded under Parthian domination and it is doubtful whether the Zoroastrian priests in Shapur’s entourage would have tolerated the school. With the victory of the Sassanids, a reaction against all non-Zoroastrians set in. The cities of Nehardea, Sura, Pumbeditha, and Seleucia are known to have housed important Jewish communities. In the Parthian era, they were organized under an exilarch (resh galuta) and to some extent recognized as an autonomous legal body.22 Commercial reasons might of course explain Jewish hostility towards the Palmyrenes if Odenathus had successfully prevented them from practising their trade freely
22 Goldin 1949, p. 184. For the history of the Jewish centres in Babylonia, see Neusner 1965, pp. 113-163; on the destruction of the Academy, Neusner 1996, pp. 14-45.
210
javier teixidor
so as to encourage that of the Palmyrenes. According to the Talmud, Zenobia herself maintained strained relations with the rabbis (Equini Schneider 1993, pp. 14, 38-44). Recalling the existence of a Jewish community in Palmyra, Franz Cumont describes the political and religious situation: “The power of Palmyra under Zenobia, who ruled from the Tigris to the Nile, must have had as a corollary the establishment of an official worship that was necessarily syncretic; hence its special importance for the history of paganism. Although the Babylonian astrology was a powerful factor in this worship, Judaism seems to have just as much influence in its formation. There was a large Jewish colony in Palmyra which the redactors of the Talmud considered as barely orthodox and this colony has, it seems, compromised with idolators” (263, note 82). Cumont thinks he can substantiate his general remarks on Judaism in Palmyra by providing two pieces of evidence: 1) it was Zenobia herself who restored a synagogue in Egypt, and 2) the existence of a cult devoted to Zeus Hypsistos, always referred to with the periphrase ‘the one whose name is blessed forever’ in hundreds of inscriptions in Palmryene and even in Greek; this cult, according to Cumont, was based on the Jewish liturgy. Both proofs are, however, highly contentious. It has been said of Zenobia that it was her interest in Judaism which led her to restore the privilege of asylum, probably granted by Ptolomey III (246-222), to a synagogue in the Delta. It was not, however, Zenobia who restored the privilege. The inscription on the synagogue is bilingual. The Greek text reads: “By order of the queen and king. Replacing an earlier plaque with the dedication of the house of prayer, let the following be written: ‘King Ptolemy Euergetes has proclaimed this house of prayer to be a place of asylum’.” The Latin text reads: “The queen and king have ordered.” Mélèze comments that as regards the queen and the king who restored this privilege, the vast majority of modern commentators opt for Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, and her son Valballah, but today we know that it is preferable to think of the last Cleopatra (VII) and of one of her coregents, maybe her brother Ptolemy XIV or, even better of her son Caesarion. This puts the inscription three centuries back, between 47 and 30 BC. The stele fits with the context of asylum granted by the last Ptolomies to various places of worship in Egypt” (MélèzeModrzejewski 1991, p. 84). Regarding the worship of “the one whose name is blessed forever,”
palmyra in the third century
211
I think that this anonymous god is none other than Yarhibol, the ancestral god of the oasis. His cult may have changed its original form in the liturgy once the cult of Bel was institutionalized. Yarhibol had his own sanctuary near the Efca spring; he was given the epithet of ‘Lord of the spring’ and, more importantly, that of ‘ancestral god’ or simply ‘god.’ The appearance in Palmyra, as early at the first century, of hundreds of altars bearing the dedication ‘to the one whose name is blessed forever’ may be considered as the birth of a spiritualized form of worship of Yarhibôl; in which case the Jewish character of the name should be excluded.23 In the domain of worship, there is no reason for thinking that the god of the Hebrews was adored or even recognized in the oasis. The Antiochine milieu Zenobia also wanted to extend her empire into Asia Minor. Zosimus explains: Aurelian “prepared to march against the Palmyrenes, who had already become master of all Egypt and the East, as far as Ancyra in Galatia, and would have acquired Bithynia even as far as Chalcedon, if the Bithynians had not learned that Aurelian had been made emperor, and so shook off the Palmyrene yoke” (1.50,1). The Syrian coinage of the princes of Palmyra produced in the workshop at Antioch clearly show that Zenobia had control of the city. For a couple of months in 271, the name of Vahballat appears alone on the obverse as Clarissimus, Rex, Imperator, Dux Romanorum, he was careful however not to assume the title of Augustus. Aurelian appears on the reverse. Later on, he began to have coins struck in Antioch with his image and that of his mother (ZENOBIA AVG[usta]), while omitting the name of Aurelian, an initiative which clearly shows his break with the emperor. The usurpation of the title of Augustus by Wahballat and Zenobia must have taken place on coins from Antioch and Alexandria at the same time. Seyrig has pointed out that Syrian coinage followed Alexandrine coinage: “This close similarity is a mark of administrative unity; it attests to a series of decisions taken
23 In The Pagan God (1977) and The Pantheon of Palmyra (1979) I argued for the identification—at a particular moment in the history of Palmyra—of Yarhibol with the god “whose name is blessed forever.” This thesis has often been criticized for reasons that are in my opinion unconvincing.
212
javier teixidor
by a centralising power and applied throughout the whole of Zenobia’s empire at the same time” (Seyrig 1966). The population of Antioch in the third century must have numbered some seven to eight hundred thousand inhabitants. Flavius Josephus rightly says that after Rome and Alexandria, Antioch, “for extent and opulence, unquestionably ranks third among the cities of the Roman world” (JW 3.2.4). However, Strabo says that Seleucia on the Tigris was larger than Antioch (16.2.4). Procopius, writing in the mid-sixth century states that Antioch “in wealth and size and population is the first of all the cities of the Eastern Roman Empire” (De bello pers. I, 17.36). Like most other large maritime cities in the eastern Mediterranean, Antioch was a Greek city but as soon as one left the populated settlement, one was in Semitic Syria. Syriac was spoken in the suburbs; in one of his homilies John Chrysostom says that the inhabitants from the suburbs and surrounding countryside who came to hear him preach understood next to nothing of what he said (Bardy 1929, p. 203). Antioch was not much loved by the Roman authorities. Hadrian in the course of his travels “conceived such a hatred for the people of Antioch that he wished to separate Syria from Phoenicia, in order that Antioch might not be called the chief city of so many communities” (HA, Hadrian 14). The division came with Septimius Severus who created two provinces : the northern Syria Coele, or “Hollow Syria”, with Antioch, and the southern Syria Phoenice. Antioch had been granted autonomy by Pompey: “Antiochia libera,” says Pliny (5.79) speaking of the city. Under Caracalla, the city became a colony, with no remission of tribute, so that it was subjected to taxes like the whole province of Syria. The inhabitants of Antioch took their revenge on the emperors who wanted to humble them by making fun of them. Alexander Severus felt shame at being called a Syrian, “especially because, on the occasion of a certain festival, the people of Antioch and of Egypt and Alexandria had annoyed him with their jibes, as is their custom, calling him a Syrian synagogue-chief and a high priest” (HA, Severus Alexander 28). It was in Antioch that Avidius Cassius under Marcus Aurelius and Pescenius Niger, Septimius Severus’ rival, reigned. Under Elagabalus, Antioch was disrupted by civil wars. The city had inspired the rhetoricians to make lengthy speeches about the insubordination and slackness of the troops (Zosimus, 2.34.2). In the second half of the third century, Palmyra predominates over
palmyra in the third century
213
the Roman East and Zenobia can be imagined ruling for few years in an Antioch troubled with religious and political quarrels. At the court of Zenobia, perhaps an itinerant court, Hellenism prevailed over Semitic culture. However, Seyrig commenting on the coinage of the Palmyrene rulers has rightly observed that in the first issuing the name of Zenobia’s son is written in Latin, Vabalathus, whereas on the coins of the following issue done most probably in Emesa the name has changed into Vhabalathus, a loan-translation of the Aramaic Wahballat. This phonetic variant seems to acknowledge the importance of the Semitic element in the Syrian metropolis. But its official introduction in the political life of a city divided along ethnic lines did not assure its surviving. The importance of the Jewish community in the city is well known to historians of antiquity. Seleucus had attracted them to the city by granting them Greek rights of citizenship as Flavius Josephus recalls: “the Jewish residents in Antioch are called Antiochenes, having been granted rights of citizenship by its founder Seleucus” (Contra Apionem, 2.4.39), and their rights were inscribed on bronze tablets. The inhabitants of the city asked Titus to destroy them which he refused to do; even after the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, the Jews maintained their ancient privileges (JW 7.110). The Jews, who lived in their own quarters, formed a politeia with its own archons and religious and political leaders; they had come to own several synagogues, of which one in particular was lavishly decorated with ex-votos from the Temple of Jerusalem donated by the successors of Antiochus Epiphanes. Josephus also related the misfortunes which befell them from time to time: quarrels between Jews and pagans were frequent.24 The Jews recruted admirers and supporters even among the pagans; those who did not wish to accept circumcision became proselytes, they were oi phoboumenoi ton theon. “The form of the union of the Gentiles with Judaism, and the extent of their observation of Jewish law, were very varied. Those who underwent circumcision presumably undertook thereby the obligation to observe the Law to its full extent. Between the two extremes there were presumably various intermediate positions” (Schürer 1986, p. 164). Christianity grew in importance among the inhabitants of Antioch,
24
JW 7.3.3-4. Cf. John Chrysostomus, Adversus judaeos 1.6 (PG 48, 851).
214
javier teixidor
principally among the Jews. The Acts of the Apostles gives a description of the comings and goings between Jerusalem and Antioch in the first century, then the arrival of St Paul who settled there for some time. The differences between Jerusalem and Antioch must have been frequent and important but after the destruction of Jerusalem, Judeo-Christianity gave way to a hellenized Christianity. The conduct of Paul of Samosata bears witness to the oriental vocation of the region north of Antioch as the history of his doctrinal discussion is partly that of the clashes with the hellenized Church of Antioch. Paul of Samosata Paul was a native of Samosata (modern Samsat on the AdiyamanUrfa road), the capital of the kingdom of Commagene which covered the southern slope of the Taurus range. Samosata was an oriental city where Syriac Aramaic was spoken even though the inscriptions were written in Greek. Lucian of Samosata, born ca. 125 AD, describes himself when he was a young man as “still barbarous in speech and wearing an outer garment in Assyrian style.”25 Paul was also an oriental and in all likelihood spoke Aramaic. He was elected bishop of Antioch in 260 after Demetrian who had lived through the invasion of Shapur. Soon after, he must have made contact with Zenobia. Three aspects of Paul’s ecclesiastical career should be taken into account when studying Zenobia’s counduct in Syria: 1) his ecclesiastical and political activities; 2) his relationship with Judaism, and 3) his teaching which was seen by the other bishops as being contrary to tradition.26 (1) Eusebius paints a very gloomy picture of Paul’s personality in his EH (VII, 30,7). One senses in his text that Paul’s conduct shocked his colleagues so much as to make them feel very angry. Eusebius wrote that he did not speak like a bishop but like a sophist. The civilian offices which Paul held are known to us by the title of ducenarius which he was fond of assuming. The title may conceal 25 Bis accusatus 27; quoted and commented on by Bardy 1929, p. 252. For the Letter of Mara bar Serapion (is a Syriac Samosatene writing? No precise date can be determined), see Millar 1971, 4 and 1994, 460-462. 26 I do not share some of Millar’s views on Paul of Samosata and Zenobia published in his article of 1971.
palmyra in the third century
215
an administrative office. This function is attested in Palmyra at precisely the same time; Septimius Vorodes bore the title of epitropos Sebastou doukénarios. A procurator ducenarius may exercise a variety of civilian or military functions; they were the direct collaborators of provincial governors in charge of dealing with public revenues and expenditure. Paul may have exercised a secular responsability which involved handling large sums of money; it was perhaps this responsability which enabled him to become or be appointed ducenarius procurator while continuing to exercise his religious functions as a bishop. Political circumstances may have facilitated his appointment. After the capture of Valerian by the Persians in 260 and until Antioch was recaptured by Aurelian in 272, Antioch was dependent on Palmyra; these twelve years covered Paul’s episcopate. It would have been skilful of Zenobia to make such an independent bishop the instrument of her policy in Antioch. The exactions which the bishops reproached him are easy to explain if Paul, who was not a native of Antioch, had played a significant role in managing the finances of the city. Eusebius reproduced a letter drafted by various bishops, nominally addressed to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria but sent out to all the other bishops in the provinces of the Empire. The letter describes the tenor of Paul’s life in the city: “This charlatan (goés) juggles with church assemblies, courting popularity and putting on a show to win the admiration of simple souls [ … ]. All hymns to our Lord Jesus Christ he has banned as modern compositions of modern writers, but he arranges for women to sing hymns to himself in the middle of the church on the great day of the Easter festival: one would shudder to hear them!” These were women who lived among the bishops, priests and deacons. Their behaviour was not faulty; in actual fact they were the “sons (or daughters) of the Covenant” (rbnay/Bnat qyama).27 Even when the bishop Marutha of Maipherkat refers to Paul as a heretic in his compilation of canons composed in the mid-fifth century he does not accuse him of indecent conduct with women.28 Eusebius admits that some of the bishops and priests in the countryside and neighbouring towns followed 27 Vööbus 1958, p. 79; also Murray, 1975, pp. 14-17, 256-257; Pierre 1988, pp. 98-107. 28 Vööbus 1982, t. I (text), p. 24; t. II (transl.), pp. 19-20. On the “concubines” (‘omûrithê) of the priests and bishops, see p. 48 (text) and p. 42 (transl.).
216
javier teixidor
Paul. The psalms and hymns suppressed by Paul no doubt reflected the theological thought of the Great Church which is why Paul saw them as ‘modern’ and wanted to change them. Chanting was part of the liturgy of the early Christian church. In a letter addressed to Trajan, Pliny the Younger wrote that the Christians sang hymns to Christ as if he were a god (Letter 96). The importance of this literature is highlighted by many references in the works of Christian or pagan authors writing against the Christians. The Syriac texts of the Acts of Thomas, of Bardaisan or of Ephrem provide us with ample evidence concerning the hymns and canticles of the eastern communities. Many bishops were justifiably worried about the propaganda which the heretics could make of this popular means. Bardy remarks that in the fourth century, the council of Laodicea “thought that they had acted correctly by banning psalms written by individuals and the non canonical books” (p. 267). What is striking about the criticism of the bishops against Paul was the worldly life their colleague lived. Yet, at the most Paul could be accused of violating piety, which is a reprehensible act in any religion. A well-known Latin-Greek inscription from Dumary on the Palmyra-Damascus road, is the record of a case for improper occupation of priesthood by Caracalla in person at Antioch in 216. The advocate says to the emperor: “To the peasants, the case is over matters of piety, for you nothing is more important than piety. So now they have confidence in the present instance in engaging in a case before a most pious king and judge.” The accusation of the peasants is precise : “He enjoys [immunity from taxation] and exemption from liturgies, wears a gold crown, enjoys [precedence], has taken the sceptre in his hand and has proclaimed himself the priest of Zeus.”29 (2) Among the bishops in the neighbouring dioceses, Paul had a reputation for being a judaizer. He could be so out of a leaning already present when a joung person in Samosate or as a result later on of his idea of Christianity. This initial Judaism, true or “apocryphal” is linked to his relationship with Zenobia and this relationship is historically indisputable; ecclesiastical writers from the fourth century onwards underline it on several occasions. Athanasius of
29 The inscription was published by Roussel in Roussel-de Visscher 1942-1943. For this translation and further commentaries, see Millar 1994, pp. 317-318.
palmyra in the third century
217
Alexandria who regarded Paul as the forerunner of the Arian doctrine, accused him of wanting to introduce Judaism into Christianity. One passage in his History of the Arians is of special interest because of his remarks about Zenobia : “When have we heard of such an illegality? When, even at the time of the Roman persecutions was a similar sinful act perpetrated? The pagans were the first persecutors but they did not introduce idols into the churches ; Zenobia was a Jewess and a supporter of Paul of Samosata, but she did not hand over churches to the Jews to make them into synagogues” (75, PG XXV, 777B; Bardy 1929, p. 85). This passage from Athanasius is the earliest known reference concerning Paul’s relationship with Zenobia and the most significant piece of evidence about the religious feelings of the queen of Palmyra. The sentence “Zenobia was a Jewess and a supporter of Paul of Samosata” should be read in its context. The sentence is usually quoted on its own but it is not emphasized that Athanasius portrayed Zenobia addicted to Judaism as much as the pagans were to their religion, yet she respected the churches like the pagans did. Athanasius went to Antioch a little less than one hundred years after Zenobia’s hold over the city and may have obtained first-hand information about Paul’s political and religious position with regard to Judaism and Zenobia’s conduct. A few years later in 391, John Chrysostom, who was a native of Antioch and well-informed about the history of the city, also alluded to Zenobia’s Judaism in a homily on the Gospel of St. John (PG LIX 65). To a Syriac chronicler living around 664, the reason for Paul’s downfall was his relationship with Zenobia of Palmyra. This is his account: “The cause of his downfall was his association with a woman the Persians had established over Syria and Phoenicia when they defeated the Romans; her name was Zenobia. As Paul wanted to please her and she was interested in all things concerning the Jews, he was led into the heresy of Artemon.”30 In the thirtheenth century, Bar-Hebraeus wrote in his Ecclesiastical Chronicle that Paul had relapsed into heresy four years after he was condemned by the council at which time he met Zenobia, “a certain Jewish woman who had risen up against the Romans coming from the Persian lands of Syria, who was very
30 Syriac text in Broks 1903, p. 58. For Artemon (Artemas)’s heresy, see Eusebius, EH 5.28 and 7.30.17.
218
javier teixidor
well received by Paul”(Bardy 1929, p. 257). Bar-Hebraeus’s second account appears in the Abridged History of the Dynasties, which is a version of Eusebius’ text. This last text is more accurate than the first as it attributes the recognition of the authority wielded by Zenobia to the emperor Gallienus.31 There is not the slightest evidence that Zenobia was Jewess from birth: the onomastics of her family and that of her husband belong to the Aramaic onomasticon. However, I am inclined to take Athanasius’ testimony literally and believe that she was a Jewish proselyte, which would explain why she had such a strained relationship with the rabbis. Zenobia may have become interested in Judaism on hearing Longinus speak about Porphyry’s interest in the Old Testament. Christian writers soon became aware that Porphyry used his knowledge of the Old Testament and the literal interpretation of it he favoured to attack the Christians. In the fifth century, Theodoret of Cyr, a condisciple of Nestorius, said that Porphyry had read the books of prophecy “very carefully and that he spent much time on them when he was planning his work against us.”32 The heretic Artemon may have exerted a hold over Paul, as the Syriac chronicler affirms, but it is also possible that, as the same chronicler says, it was Zenobia who drove him towards Judaism. After having been in the religious coterie of her husband’s family, of Dura Europos origin, and upon which the priestly dignities were often conferred (Gawlikowski 1969b), Zenobia may have become interested in Judaism when she arrived in Antioch where the Jews “specially congregated.”33 Furthermore, Christianity had awakened an interest in the Old Testament by arguing that the new religion merely completed the Law and the Prophets, though the hellenized Christianity in Antioch would have attracted the Semites less than Judaism which was thriving throughtout this period both in Syria and Palestina as in Mesopotamia. (3) The heretic Paul was eventually expelled from his church in Antioch, but this event must be placed within the vertiginous con-
31
Barhebraeus may have taken this information from Theodoret of Cyr, Haeret. Fabul. II, 8; PG 83, 393 C-396 C. See Bardy 1929, pp. 127-128. 32 Thérapeutique VII. 36, p. 305, 12-14 II (fr. 38, p. 64) (Sodano 13, n. 20). 33 Josephus explains: “partly owing to the greatness of that city, but mainly because the successors of King Antiochus had enabled them to live there in security” (JW 7.3.3).
palmyra in the third century
219
text of the third century. The mystical experiences of Plotinus and Porphyry are a good example of the new religious practices which interested then the philosophers. In their intellectual investigations there is an aspiration towards unity. And Christianity invited criticism from their opponents with its idea of one God in three persons. In an intellectual world strongly impregnated with middle Platonism, how was it possible to explain the Trinity to someone for whom God is One par excellence and everything else is non One? Before Paul there had been heretics who believed more or less in Gnostic doctrines. It was however difficult to say exactly who the heretics were. Paul represents an innovation in the religious life of Antioch. His revolutionary conduct towards the Great Church is inscribed in the conflictual context of the Syrian church. A continual confrontation must have existed in Antioch between Christians of oriental habits speaking Syriac and hellenized Christians surely neither of them wanting to be identified with the western world. Zenobia’s political career cannot be dissociated from the religious antagonism which existed in Antioch and perhaps even to a greater extent between Antioch and Alexandria, the great cultural centre of the Levant.34 Paul, a rational thinker, despised the allegorical method used by Greek philosphers in their interpretations of myths and fables relating to the gods and subsequently adopted by the Christian writers of the Alexandrian school to interpret Biblical texts. Paul’s hostility towards Alexandria is understandable but it cannot be ruled out that Zenobia’s policy for whom Egypt was a conquered land did not play a role in Paul’s conduct. In describing the errors of Paul in his History of the Church, Eusebius said that he made Christ into “an ordinary man” (7.27.2). Paul’s refusal to accept the pre-existence of Christ by attributing a distinction of persons, the divine and the human, heralded the theology of Nestorius. Nestorianism is justified in seeing Paul as one of its founders. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria and the key man in the Council of Nicaea (325) does not hesitate to see Paul’s doctrine as being akin to the teachings of the heretic Ebion who advocated the observance of the Law of Moses (Bardy 1929,
34 Antioch did not possess a school like the one in Alexandria. Antioch acquired its pre-eminence gradually; it was only in 325 when the first Council of Nicaea convened that parity was achieved by law between Alexandria and Antioch.
220
javier teixidor
99, n. 2). Even though Paul did not make these ideas his own, it seems cogent to consider the bishop of Antioch never mind his friendship for Zenobia as a Christian who had some sympathy, perhaps even a penchant for Judaism. Ecclesiastical reaction against Paul was not slow in coming. The bishops of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Pont, Tarsus, Iconium, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Palestine and Bostra among others, convened a council and condemned Paul; the outcome of the confrontation among these bishops and the supporters of Paul did not calm the situation down. In 268 another council met in Antioch and this time, Eusebius tells us, two men brought their moral authority to bear sentence, Malchion who presided over “the teaching of rhetoric in the Hellenic schools,” and Anatole, an Alexandrian senator, who was an imposing figure of erudition and wisdom. Paul was condemned by the council, but continued to lead the Church in the city; as long as Zenobia remained the mistress of Syria, the situation would not change. To her Antioch represented the political control of the East. Throughout the Roman empire, neither the emperor nor the provincial governors were unaware of the place which the bishops held in Christian society and their edicts show that they were not mistaken about their role; but they did not apparently have the idea of taking advantage of their moral power to confer official functions on them. Zenobia was ahead of her time by granting Paul the rank of ducenarius. Though not a Christian, she seemed to understand what advantage could be gained for the state by a sort of mainmise over the Church in a city like Antioch where the importance of the Christian population, in the third century, made the bishop into a powerful figure. While not going so far as to make Paul into a sort of appointed representative of the Palmyrene empire, it must be recognized that the influence Paul wielded was not solely spiritual and that his rank contributed towards making him the master of most of the people. Aurelian’s march against Zenobia finally took place. After the defeat of the Palmyrene horsemen stationed in Antioch and Zenobia’s flight to Emesa organized by her general-in-chief Zabdas, Aurelian entered the city. Paul was then deprived of his bishopric, “but he absolutely refused to hand over the church building; so the emperor Aurelian was appealed to, and he gave a perfectly just decision on the course to be followed: he ordered the building to be assigned to
palmyra in the third century
221
those to whom the bishops of the religion in Italy and Rome addressed a letter. In this way the man in question was thrown out of the church in the most ignominious manner by the secular authority” (Eusebius, EH 30.18-19). Aurelian intervened in the matter in order to settle an issue of ownership not of orthodoxy. The episcopal residence which Paul refused to leave was the property of a corporate body not a private person. If the account by Aelius Lampridius in the HA, Severus Alexander (49.6) is to be believed, there existed already a sort of jurisprudence which might explain why the decision was taken: “When the Christians took possession of a certain place, which had previously been public property, and the keepers of an eating-house maintained that it belonged to them, Alexander rendered the decision that it was better for some sort of a god to be worshipped there than for the place to be handed to the keepers of an eating-house.” The historicity of this fact is uncertain; in any case, Alexander’s ruling remains “the earliest historical evidence we have of the legal and direct ownership of the corpus christianorum ” (Bardy 1929, p. 359). Gallienus’ rescript in 260 ordering the restitution of places of worship to Christians all over the world is well known; this was his response to a petition from the bishops addressed to the emperor in the name of the Christian community. The case of the church in Antioch is different ; the ownership of the place was disputed by two groups of Christians. As Bardy says, it is understandable that historians and theologians were concerned with this approach. Matthieu Blastaire, a fourteenth-century canonist, explained why Aurelian thought that he who opposed the decisions of his co-religionists should be expelled from the Church, but the emperor entrusted the bishop of Rome and his entourage with the care of examining whether Paul’s expulsion from the Church was justified (Bardy 1929, p. 360). A political intention with regard to Zenobia cannot be ruled out. Though perhaps not all of the bishops in the region were in favour of Rome, all of them were, it appears, under the influence of the theological authority of Alexandria and Alexandria had always been an ally of Rome. Once Aurelian had settled urgent business, he set out for Emesa. He pursued Zenobia and her army as far as the plain which lies before the city. Here the two armies confronted each other. From Zosimus’ somewhat confused account we learn that although
222
javier teixidor
Aurelian did not emerge victorious from the battle he was not defeated. Zenobia’s troops finally dispersed which must have been the ultimate cause of their downfall: “The Palmyrenes ran away with utmost haste and in their flight trod each other to pieces and were slaughtered by the enemy.” Zenobia was naturally much disturbed by this defeat. The common opinion was that it would be prudent to relinquish all claims to Emesa and remain within Palmyra. “This was no sooner proposed than done, as there was no disagreement. Aurelian, upon hearing of the flight of Zenobia, entered Emesa, where he received an enthousiastic welcome from the citizens, and found the treasure which Zenobia had left behind” (I. 53-54). We are entitled to question Rome’s interest for an Aramaic city whose history was so closely interwinded with that of Palmyra. The HA, Aur. 25, 3-5, relates an anecdote which is important for Aurelian’s political and religious propaganda: the god Elagabal supported the army during the battle of Emesa which would explain why on entering the city the emperor hastened to visit his temple. Then he sent his troops out into the desert in pursuit of Zenobia. Palmyra did not offer a protracted resistance. The system of defense of the city was designed to hold in check the brigands in the desert, not to withstand attacks from a regular army for any length of time. According to the HA Aur. 26-28, 2, Zenobia received help from the Persian soldiers. She made her escape on a racing dromedary and reached the Eurphrates hoping to obtain assistance from Shapur I. She had just boarded a boat when the Roman cavalry sent in her pursuit arrived. She was taken back to Aurelian’s camp. And Zosimus adds that “since he was naturally ambitious he realized that the conquest of a women would not bring him glory in the eyes of future generations” (1.55.3). Among the Palmyrenes who remained barricaded in the city some wanted to take a chance and fight the Romans, while others “waved palm leaves from the remparts pleading for forgiveness” (1.56.1). A badly damaged inscription, apparently dated 272/273, purportedly mentions Septimius Haddudan, a senator who was one of those who wanted to surrender. The inscription also mentions “Aurelian Cesar,” but what kind of relationship Haddudan had with the emperor remains hypothetical (Gawlikowski 1971). After taking possession of the city, Aurelian went back to Emesa where he brought Zenobia and her accomplices to trial. “Among them was Longinus; the emperor sentenced him to death. Others beside Longinus suffered
palmyra in the third century
223
punishment on being denounced by Zenobia” (1. 56.3). The Greek historian John of Antioch repeated this accusation. Aurelian “inflicted the death penalty on many distinguished men in each city who were accused by Zenobia. He was a brutal sort of person and bloodthirsty —more of a general necessary for the time than an amiable emperor.”35 In this instance Zosimus is rather biased. This cowardice of Zenobia does not seem to be in keeping with her character as portrayed in the HA and by the same Zosimus. What happened to Zenobia at the end of her life remains obscure and has been the subject of many contradictory accounts. After the departure of Aurelian, the Palmyrenes took advantage of his involvement in Europe and rose up in revolt inciting Marcellinus, “whom the Emperor had appointed prefect of Mesopotamia and Rector of the East, to assume the purple” (Zosimus, 1.60.1). The revolt was probably led by Septimius Apsaeus who is given “by the city” the title of “citizen and protector (prostatès)” in a Greek inscription engraved on a column near those of Odenathus and Zenobia (Cantineau 1930, Inv. III, 18). Zosimus portrays him as the leader of the anti-Roman faction in Palmyra when the hostilities first broke out. On hearing the news of the revolt, Aurelian immediately turned around, crossed Antioch where games where being held and made his way towards Palmyra; he took the city without a fight and, according to Zosimus, plundered it and set it alight, and “razed it to the ground,” which is not true as life continued and a large number of monuments remain standing today. Zosimus adds that “After this action, he quickly won over the Alexandrians who were on the point of revolt, being already divided among themselves” and made a triumphant entry into Rome. Apart from the fact that he did not return to the capital immediately, what interests us here is the reference to the revolt of the Alexandrians which apparently took place at the same time as the one of Apsaeus in Palmyra. The name of the Alexandrian chief who led the revolt was Firmus, according to the HA which describes him as a close friend and ally of Zenobia. It is worthwhile pausing here. In his Life of Plotinus, Prophyry mentions one Firmus whose real name was Castricius, “who was the greatest lover of beauty of all of us and venerated Plotinus. He was Amelius’s faithful servant and helper in every need and as
35
Frag. 155, FHG IV, p. 599; Dodgeon–Lieu 1991, p. 100.
224
javier teixidor
devoted to me, Porphyry, as if I was his own brother” (7. 24-28). Firmus was not however a strict observer of Plotinus’ doctrine: he took an interest in public life and it is known that he gave up vegetarianism which he had practised for some time and that he gave lectures to explain why he had done so. Porphyry wrote De abstinentia to bring his friend back to ascetism (Brisson 1992, pp. 233-234). Firmus’ cultural milieu, hostile towards the Christians to the point of encouraging their persecution seems to have been the anti-Roman milieu of Alexandria. The political personality of Firmus invites us to identify him with the Firmus in the HA, a friend of Zenobia, despite the bizarre anecdotes related by the author of his life. This Firmus was a wealthy man who possessed an extensive library, maintained strong commercial relations with the Blemmyes and the Sarrasins and sent his merchant ships as far away as India. He was well acquainted not only with Arabia and Syria but also Lower Nubia where the Blemmyes had been harrassing the Roman authorities for many years. Firmus no doubt had built up business connections all over the East and had entered into political agreements (Février 1931, p. 139). He led the uprising against the Romans in Alexandria which, like the one of Apsaeus, was immediately suppressed. The identity of Firmus, the one described by Plotinus and the one in the HA cannot be established with certainty but, apart from the fact that his dual personality as a man of culture and a merchant argues in favour of this identification, the gluttony of Firmus in the HA is so strongly emphasized by the author that it is hard not to think that, as a partisan of Aurelian, he wanted to make a caricature of his enemy who was a disciple of Porphyry. The author of Aurelian’s life in the HA (31) quotes from one of his letters revealing “a confession of most savage fury.” After the punishment inflicted on Palmyra (“Those who still remain must be spared. For it is our belief that the few have been chastened by the punishment of the many”) came the pillage of the Temple of the Sun (i.e. of Bel) by a well hierarchized group of soldiers (aquiliferi legionnis tertiae cum vexilliferis et draconario et cornicinibus). The emperor promised to restore the temple “to the condition in which it formerly was.” Upon his return to Rome, Aurelian erected the magnificent temple of the Sun ornamented with all the votive offerings brought from Palmyra. He placed in it the statues of the Sun and of Bel (Zosimus 1. 61,1-2). This unexpected presence of Bel associated to a solar deity, perhaps Elagabal of Emesa, in the heart of the Ro-
palmyra in the third century
225
man empire discloses the relevance of the solar theology, a product of the spiritual conceptions of the age integrated into the religious tradition of imperial worship, and ready to justify the reinforcement of absolutism at the end of the crisis. We can borrow from emperor Julian the last word on Aurelian. In the Symposium of Caesars, written at Constantinople in 361, Julian imagines the arrival of Aurelian as he came “rushing in as though trying to escape from those who would detain him before the judgement seat of Minos. For many charges of unjustifiable murders were brought against him, and he was in flight because he could ill defend himself against the indictments. But my lord Helios who had assisted him on other occasions, now too came to his aid and declared before the gods, ‘He has paid the penalty, or have you forgotten the oracle uttered at Delphi, ‘If his punishment match his crime justice has been done’? (314D).” Palmyra had entailed the loss of Mesopotamia and Armenia for the Romans but the frontier of the empire would remain the Euphrates (without the Palmyrene soldiers in its right bank).
ABBADI, S., Die Personennamen der Inschriften aus Hatra. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 1, Hildesheim: Olms Verlag 1983. ABDUL-HAK, S., “L’hypogée de Taai à Palmyre,” AAAS 2 (1952) 193-251. AGGOULA, B., “Remarques sur l’Inventaire des Inscriptions de Palmyre, fasc. XI et XII,” Semitica 29 (1979) 109-118. AMY, R.-H. SEYRIG, “Recherches dans la necropole de Palmyre,” Syria 17 (1936) 229-266. ARMSTRONG, A. H. (ed.), Porphyry, The Life of Plotinus, The Loeb Classical Library, 1995 [Repr.]. al-AS’AD, Kh.-M. GAWLIKOWSKI, “New Honorific Inscriptions in the Great Colonnade of Palmyra,” AAAS 36-37 (1986-1987) 164-171. al-AS‘AD, Kh.-A. SCHMIDT-COLINET, “Palmyra 2001,” Chronique archéologique de Syrie 4 (forthcoming). al-AS‘AD, Kh.-O. TAHA, “The Tomb of Zabd‘ateh the Palmyrene,” AAAS 15 (1965) 29-46 (in Arabic). al-AS‘AD, Kh.-O. TAHA, “The Tomb of Bolha the Palmyrene,” AAAS 18, (1968) 83-108 (in Arabic). AUGÉ, C., see LIMC VII 1994. BALDINI, A., “Echi postumi dell’usurpazione palmirena,” Studia palmyrenskie 8 (1985) 143-152. BALTY, J.-Ch., Curia Ordinis. Recherches d’architecture et d’urbanisme antiques sur les curies provinciales du monde romain, Académie royale de Belgique. Mémoires de la classe des Beaux-Arts XV, 2, Brussells, Palais des Academies, 1991. BALTY, J.-Ch., “Claudia Apamea. Données nouvelles sur la topographie et l’histoire d’Apamée,” CRAI 2000, 459-481. BARATTE, F., (ed.), Au pays de Baal et d’Astarté. Dis mille ans d’art en Syrie, Paris: Association Française d’Action Artistique, 1984. BARDY, G., Paul de Samosate, Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1929. BARNES, T. D., The sources of the Historia augusta, Coll. ‘Latomus’ 155, Brussels, 1978. BARTLETT, J. R., Jews in the Hellenistic World, Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish & Christian World, 200 BC to AD 200, vol. 1/i, 1985. BA”EGELEN, N., (ed.), The Legacy of Gaziantep to World Culture, Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications, 1999.
228 Baumgartner 1967Bauzou 1989
Bedjan 1890 Bernard 1990
Bertinelli Angeli 1970 Bertolino 1997
Beyer 1998 BGU Bivar 1983
Blau 1970 Bounni 1966
Bounni 1995
Bounni–Saliby 1957 Bounni–Teixidor 1975
Bowersock 1983
bibliography BAUMGARTNER,W., et al., Hebraisches und Aramaisches Lexikon zum alten Testament, 4 vols., and Supplement, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967-. BAUZOU, Th., “Les routes romaines de Syrie,” 205-221 in: J.-M. Dentzer–W. Orthmann (edd.), Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie, II, Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, 1989. BEDJAN, P., (ed.), Acta martyrum et sanctorum Syriace, Paris-Leipzig, 1890-1897 [Repr. Hildesheim: Olms Verlag 1968]. BERNARD, P., “Vicissitudes au gré de l’histoire d’une statue en bronze d’Héraclès entre Séleucie du Tigre et la Mésène,” Journal des Savants, JanvierJuin (1990) 3-67. BERTINELLI ANGELI, M. G., Nomenclatura pubblica e sacra di Roma nelle epigrafi semitiche, Genova: Istituto di Storia Antica, 1970. BERTOLINO, R., “Les inscriptions hatréennes de Doura-Europos: étude épigraphique,” 199-206, in: P. Leriche–M. Gelin (edd.), Doura-Europos Études IV 1991-1993, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, 149, Beirut: Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient 1997. BEYER, K., Die aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra und dem übrigen Ostmesopotamien, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998. Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden, Berlin, 1892-1937. BIVAR, A. D. H., The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, 1983, ch. 2, in: W. B. Fisher (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3 (1), Cambridge University Press,1968-1991. BLAU, J., On Pseudo-Corrections in some Semitic Languages, Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1970. BOUNNI, A., “Nouveaux bas-reliefs religieux de la Palmyrène,” 313-320, in: M.-L. Bernhard (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Kasimierz MichaÑowski, Warsaw: PWN, 1966. BOUNNI, A., “Vierzig Jahre syrische Ausgrabungen in Palmyra,” 12-20, in: A. Schmidt-Colinet (ed.), Palmyra. Kulturbegegnung im Grenzbereich, Antike Welt, Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie, Band 27, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1995. BOUNNI, A.–N. SALIBY, “L’hypogée de Shalamallat dans la Vallée des Tombeaux à Palmyre,” AAAS 7 (1957) 25-52 (in Arabic). BOUNNI A.–J. TEIXIDOR, Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, Fascicule XII, Damascus: Publications de la Direction Générale des Antiquités et Musées de la République Arabe Syrienne 1975. BOWERSOCK, G. W., Roman Arabia, Cambridge, MA-London: Harvard University Press, 1983.
BOWERSOCK, G. W., The Hellenistic Period and the Empire, ch. 2: 3, in: P. E. Easterling–B. M. W. Knox (edd.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. I part 4, Cambridge University Press, 1989. BORDREUIL, P.–F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET– E. GUBEL, “Bulletin d’Antiquités archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues BAALIM VII,” Syria 76 (1999) 237-280. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F., “Un petit autel votif de style palmyrénien inédit,” Syria 67 (1990) 183187. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F.–H. LOZACHMEUR, “Un nouveau bas-relief votif de Palmyre au Muséée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon,” Bulletin des Musées et Monuments Lyonnais 2 (1993) 2-11. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F.–H. LOZACHMEUR, “Bas-reliefs palmyréniens,” in: G. Galliano (ed.), Recueil des Inscriptions lapidaires ouest-sémitiques du Musée des Beaux-Arts et du Muséum d’Histoire naturelle de Lyon, Bulletin des Musées et Monuments Lyonnais 2/ 3 (2000) 52-57. BRISSON, L., “Castricius,” 233-234, in: Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, Histoire des doctrines de l’Antiquité classique, volume II, variorum edition, Paris: J. Vrin, 1992. BROCK, S. P., “Greek words in the Syriac Gospels (vet. and pe.),” Le Muséon 80 (1967) 389-426. BROCK, S. P., “Some aspects of Greek words in Syriac,” 80-108, in: A. Dietrich (ed.), Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, ph.-hist. Kl., III. 96, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1975. (Repr. in: Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity, London: Aldershot, Variorum Reprints, ch. 4, 1984). BROCK, S. P., “Greek words in Syriac: some general features,” Studia Classica Israelica 15 (1996) 251262. (Repr. in From Ephrem to Romanos, London: Aldershot, Variorum Reprints, ch. 15, 1999). BROCK, S. P., “Greek words in Ephrem and Narsai: a comparative sampling,”Journal of the ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 11/12 (1999/2000) 439-449. BROCKELMANN, C., Lexicon Syriacum, 2 nd ed., Halle: Max Niemeyer 1928 [Repr. Hildesheim: Olms Verlag 1995]. BROOKS, E.-W., Chronica minora, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) III, vol. IV [1903]. BUDGE, E. A. W., The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Cambridge University Press, 1889. 1913 BURKITT, F. C., (ed.) Euphemia and the Goth with the acts of martyrdom of the confessors of Edessa, London, 1913.
bibliography CANTINEAU, J., “Fouilles à Palmyre”, Mélanges de l’Institut français de Damas 1 (1929) 1-15. CANTINEAU, J., “Textes funéraires palmyréniens,” Revue Biblique 39 (1930) 520-551. CANTINEAU, J., Le Nabatéen. I-II, Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux [Repr. 1978]. CANTINEAU, J., Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, Publications du Musée de Damas, Fascicules I-IX, Beyrouth: Institut Français d’archéologie de Beyrouth. CANTINEAU, J., “Textes palmyréniens du temple de Bêl,” Syria 12 (1931) 116-142. CANTINEAU, J., “Tadmorea,” Syria 14 (1933) 169202. CANTINEAU, J., Grammaire du palmyrénien épigraphique, Publication de l’Institut d’Études orientales de la Faculté des Lettres d’Alger 4, Le Caire: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale. CHABOT, J.-B., Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Paris: Leroux, 1899-1910. CHABOT, J.-B., Répertoire d’Epigraphie Sémitique; publié par la commission du Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum, vol. 2, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale 1900-1904. CHABOT, J.-B., Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) 81, Syr. 36, Louvain, 1920. CHABOT, J.-B., Choix d’Inscriptions de Palmyre, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale 1922. CHABOT, J.-B., “Un «Corrector totius orientis» dans les inscriptions de Palmyre,” CRAI 1930, 312-318. CHABOT, J.-B., Report on the new fascicule of the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, CRAI 1932, 100-101. CHABOT, J.-B., “Inscription palmyréniennes,” 105-107, in: A. Blanchet–J.-B. Chabot–G. DupontFerrier (edd.), Les travaux de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Histoire et inventaire des publications, Paris: Klincksieck 1947. CHARLES-GAFFIOT, J.– H. LAVAGNE – F.-M. HOFMAN (edd.), Moi, Zénobie, reine de Palmyre, Paris, Centre Culturel de Panthéon: Skira, 2001. CHASTAGNOL, A., Histoire auguste. Les empereurs romains des II e et III e siècles, trad. and comm. by A. Chastagnol, Paris: Robert Laffont, 1994 (= HA). CHRISTOL, M., L’Empire romain du IIIe siècle, Paris: editions errance, 1997. CIZEK, E., L’époque de Trajan, circonstances politiques et problèmes idéologiques, Bucarest-Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1983. CIZEK, E., L’Empereur Aurélien et son temps, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1994
bibliography Clermont-Ganneau 1895
231
CLERMONT-GANNEAU, C., “Bustes et inscriptions de Palmyre,” Études d’Archéologie Orientale 1 (1895) 105-130. Clermont-Ganneau 1920 CLERMONT-GANNEAU, C., “Odeinat et Vaballat,” Revue Biblique 1920, 382-419. Collart–Vicari 1969 COLLART, P.–J. VICARI, Le sanctuaire de Baalshamin à Palmyre, vol. I-II: Topographie et architecture, Bibliotheca helvetica romana, Neuchâtel, 1969. Colledge 1976 COLLEDGE, M. A. R., The Art of Palmyra, London: Thames and Hudson–Boulder: Westview Press, 1976. Collins 1972 COLLINS, J. J., The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, SBL Dissertation Series 13, Missoula, 1972. Cook 1903 COOKE, G., A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM LATINARUM, 1876 Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae borussicae editum, vol. VI, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1876. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM SEMITICARUM 1893 Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Ab Academia Inscriptionum et Litterarum humanorum conditum atque digestum, Pars secunda. Tomus I: Inscriptiones aramaicas continens, Fasciculus secundus, Paris, 1893 (CIS II). 1902 Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Pars secunda. Tomus I: Inscriptiones aramaicas continens, Fasciculus tertius, Paris, 1902 (CIS II). 1926 Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Pars secunda. Tomus III: Inscriptiones palmyrenae, J.-B. Chabot (ed.) Fasciculus primus, Paris, 1926 (CIS II). 1947 Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Pars secunda. Tomus III: Inscriptiones palmyrenae, Fasciculus secundus, Paris, 1947 (CIS II). 1950-1951 Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Pars quinta. Tomus I: Inscriptiones saracenicae continens, Inscriptiones Safaiticae, Paris, 1950-1951 (CIS V). 1951 Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Pars secunda. Tomus III: Inscriptiones palmyrenae, Tabulae: Fasciculus primus, Paris, 1951 (CIS II). 1954 Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Pars secunda. Tomus III: Inscriptiones palmyrenae, Tabulae: Fasciculus secundus, Paris, 1954 (CIS II). Cotton 1997 COTTON, H. M., “Greek Documentary Texts,” 133-278, in: H. M. Cotton – A. Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nah.al H.ever and Other Sites (The Seiyâl Collection II), DJD, XXVII, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Cross 1985 CROSS, F. M., “Samaria Papyrus I- An Aramaic Slave Conveyance of 335 B.C.E.,” Eretz-Israel 18 (1985) 7-17. Cross 1988 CROSS, F. M., “A Report on the Samaria Papyri,” in: J. Emerton (ed.), Supplement, Vetus Testament 40 (1988) 17-26.
bibliography CUMONT, F., Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, Paris: Paul Geuthner, 19294. 1855 CURETON, W., Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara bar Serapion, London, Rivingtons, 1855. 1864 CURETON, W., Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the earliest establishment of Christianity in Edessa and in the neighbouring Countries, London, Williams and Northgate 1864 [Repr. Amsterdam 1967]. CUSSINI, E., The Aramaic Law of Sale and the Cuneiform Legal Tradition, Ph.D. Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1993. CUSSINI, E., “Transfer of Property at Palmyra”, Palmyra and the Aramaeans, Journal of the ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 7 (1995) 233-250. CUSSINI, E., “Palmyrene Eunuchs? Two Cases of Mistaken Identity”, 279-290, in: E. Rova (ed.) Patavina orientalia selecta, Padova, Sargon, 2000. CUSSINI, E., “Regina, Martay and the Others. Stories of Palmyrene Women,” Orientalia (2004) 1-10, pl. XXIII, XXIV. DENTZER-FEYDY, J.–J. TEIXIDOR, Les antiquités de Palmyre au Musée du Louvre, Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, Paris, 1 993. DESREUMAUX, A.–F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, “Deux bas-reliefs palmyréniens au musée de Gaziantep,” Semitica 47 (1997) 73-79. DIRVEN, L., The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos. A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria, Leiden–Boston– Köln: E. J. Brill, 1999. DODGEON, M. H.–S. N. C. LIEU (edd.), The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, AD 226-363. A Documentary History, London and New York, Routledge, 1991. DOHRN, T., Die Tyche von Antiochia, Berlin, Mann 1960. DRIJVERS, H. J. W., The Religion of Palmyra, Iconography of Religions, 15, Institute of Religious Iconography, State University Groningen, Leiden 1976. DRIJVERS, H. J. W., “Aramaic \MN" and Hebrew \MN: Their Meaning and Root,” Journal of Semitic Studies 33 (1988) 165-180. DRIJVERS, H. J. W., “Greek and Aramaic Palmyrene Inscriptions,” 31-42, in: M. J. Geller–J. C. Greenfield–M. P. Weitzman (edd.), Studia Aramaica. New Sources and New Approaches, Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 4, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995. DRIJVERS, H. J. W.–J. F. HEALEY, The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999.
DROWER, E. S.–R. MACUCH, A Mandaic Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1963. DUNANT, C., “Nouvelles tessères de Palmyre,” Syria 36 (1959) 102-110, pl. XIV. DUNANT, C., Le sanctuaire de Baalshamin à Palmyre, Vol III: Les inscriptions. Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana. Rome, Institut Suisse de Rome. see Wright 1968. Ecclesiastical History, London, W. Heinemann, 1949-. see Ratti 1996. EQUINI SCHNEIDER, E., Septimia Zenobia Sebaste, Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider 1993. FARBER, J. J., “Greek Texts,” 386-568, in B. Porten (ed.), The Elephantine Papyri in English. Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996. FELLMANN, R., Le sanctuaire de Baalshamîn à Palmyre V. Die Grabanlage, Rome: Institut Suisse, 1970. FÉVRIER, J. G., Essai sur l’histoire politique et économique de Palmyre, Paris: Librairie J. Vrin 1931. FINLAYSON, C., Veil, Turban, and Headpiece: Funerary Portraits and Female Status at Palmyra, Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1998. FISCHER, W., A Grammar of Classical Arabic (translated from the German by Jonathan Rodgers); 3rd rev. ed., New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2002. GAGÈ, J., “Les Perses à Antioche et les courses de l’hippodrome au milieu du IIIe siècle à propos du ‘transfuge’ syrien Mariadès,” Bulletin de la Faculté des Lettres de Strasbourg 31 (1953) 301-324. GALLIANO, G., Les antiquités.Guide des collections, Lyon-Paris 1997. GALLIANO, G., Guide. Musée des Beaux Arts, Lyon 1998. GARDNER, I. M. F.–S. N. C. LIEU, “From Narmouthis (Medinet Madi) to Kellis (Ismant elKharab): Manichaean Documents from Roman Egypt,” Journal of Roman Studies 86 (1996) 146-169. GARRONI, G.,–E. PARCU, (edd.), Da Ebla a Damasco. Diecimila anni di archeologia in Siria. Roma, Campidoglio, Palazzo dei Conservatori 15 febbraio – 26 marzo 1985, Milano, Electa, 1985. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., “Deux inscriptions latines de Palmyre,” Studia palmyrenskie 3 (1969) 71-76. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., “A propos des reliefs du temple des Gaddê à Doura,” Berytus 18 (1969) 105109. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., Monuments funéraires de Palmyre, Warszawa, PWN, 1970. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., “Palmyrena, ”Berytus 17 (1970) 81-86.
bibliography GAWLIKOWSKI, M., “La notion de tombeau en Syrie romaine,” Berytus 21 (1972) 5-15. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., Le temple palmyrénien, Palmyre VI. Le temple palmyrénien. Étude d’épigraphie et de topographie historique, Warsaw: PWN, 1973. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., “Les princes de Palmyre,” Syria 62 (1985) 251-261. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., “Les dieux de Palmyre,” 2605-2658, in: W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW). Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Band 18, Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter 1990. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., “Fouilles récentes à Palmyre,” CRAI 1991, 399-410. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., review of A. SchmidtColinet, Das Tempelgrab Nr. 36 in Palmyra. Studien zur Palmyrenischen Grabarchitektur und ihrer Ausstattung. Damaszener Forschungen, Band 4, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1992, in: Archeologia 44 (1993) 151-152. GAWLIKOWSKI, M., “Deux publicains et leur tombeau,” Syria 75 (1988) 145-151. GIANTO A., “What’s New in North-West Semitic Lexicography and Palmyrene Studies?” Orientalia 65 (1996) 440-449. GOLDIN, J., “The Period of the Talmud (135 B.C.E.–1035 C.E.),” ch. 3, in: L. Finkelstein (ed.), The Jews; Their History, Culture and Religion, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1949 [Repr. New York: Schocken Books 1972]. GOLDSTEIN, J. A.., “The Syriac Bill of Sale from Dura-Europus,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25 (1966) 1-16. GRAF, D. F., “Zenobia and the Arabs,” 143-167, in: D. H. French – C. S. Lightfoot (edd.), The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire, proceedings of a colloquium held at Ankara in September 1988, BAR International Series 553, Monograph (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara) no. 11, 2 vols., Oxford, 1989. GREENFIELD, J. C. – M. SOKOLOFF, “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Aramaic Vocabulary,” 78-98, in: T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Qumran Aramaic, Abr Naharaim Supplement 3, Louvain, 1992. GRENFELL, B. P. – A. S. HUNT, et al. (edd.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1898-. GROPP, D. M. – M. BERNSTEIN – J. C. VANDERKAM – M. BRADY, Wadi Daliyeh II. The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh, by D. M. Gropp, and Qumran Cave 4 . XXVIII, Miscellanea, Part 2, by M. Bernstein, M. Brady, J. Charlesworth, P. Flint, H. Misgav, S. Pfann, E. Schuller, E. J. C. Tigchelaar,
J. Vanderkam, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XXVIII, Oxford, Clarendon Press. HARDING, G. L., An Index and Concordance of Preislamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions, University of Toronto Near and Middle East Series, 8, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1971. HARDING, G. L., – E. LITTMANN, Some Thamudic Inscriptions from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1952. HARTMANN, U., Das palmyrenische Teilreich, Oriens et Occidens. Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben, vol. 2, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2001. HEALEY, J. F., The Nabatean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada’in Salih. Edited with Introduction Translation and Commentary, Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993. HENNING, A, Die Turmgäber von Palmyra. Eine lokale Bauform als Ausdruck kultureller Identität, unpublished dissertation, University of Köln, 2001. HERZIG, H. E.–SCHMIDT-COLINET, A., “Two recently discovered Latin inscriptions from Palmyra,” Damaszener Mitteilungen 5 (1991) 65-69. HIGUCHI, T.–T. IZUMI (edd.), Tombs A and C Southeast Necropolis Palmyra Syria, Surveyed in 1990-92, Research Center for Silk Roadology Vol. 1, Nara, 1994. HIGUCHI, T.–K. SAITO, Study of the Southeast Necropolis in Palmyra, Bulletin of the Research Center for Silk Roadology 5, Nara: Nara University, 1998. HIGUCHI, T.–K. SAITO, Tomb F - Tomb of BWLH and BWRP—Southeast Necropolis in Palmyra, Research Center for Silk Roadology Vol. 2, Nara: Nara University, 2001. HILLERS, D. R.–E. CUSSINI, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project, III, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore-London 1996. HOFTIJZER, J., Religio Aramaica: Godsdienstige Verschijnselen in Aramese Teksten, Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 16, Leiden, 1968. HOFTIJZER, J.–K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, I-II, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995. HÖRIG, M., Dea Syria. Studien zur religionsgeschichtlichen Tradition der Fruchtbarkeitsgöttin in Vorderasien. Alter Orient und Altes Testament vol. 208, Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker 1979. HVIDBERG-HANSEN, F. O, The Palmyrene Inscriptions. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1998.
236 Hvidberg-Hansen–Ploug 1993
bibliography
HVIDBERG-HANSEN, F. O.–G. PLOUG, Katalog Palmyra Samlingen Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen 1993. Ingholt 1928 INGHOLT, H., Studier over palmyrensk Skulptur, Copenhagen, C. A. Reitzels 1928. Ingholt 1930a INGHOLT, H., “The oldest known Grave-Relief from Palmyra,” Acta archaeologica 1 (1930) 191-194. Ingholt 1930b INGHOLT, H., “Some Religious Monuments Recently Found in Palmyra,” 144-148, in: Actes du V e Congrès International d’Histoire des Religions à Lund 2729 Aug. 1929, Lund 1930. Ingholt 1930c INGHOLT, H., “Quatre bustes palmyréniens,” Syria 11 (1930) 336-347. Ingholt 1932 INGHOLT, H., “Quelques fresques récemment découvertes à Palmyre,” Acta Archaeologica 3 (1932) 1-20. Ingholt 1935 INGHOLT, H., “Five Dated Tombs from Palmyra,” Berytus 2 (1935) 58-120. Ingholt 1936 INGHOLT, H., “Inscriptions and Sculptures from Palmyra,” Berytus 3 (1936) 83-127, Pl. 18-26. Ingholt 1938 INGHOLT, H., “Inscriptions and Sculptures from Palmyra II,” Berytus 5 (1938) 93-140. Ingholt 1962 INGHOLT, H., “Palmyrene Inscription from the Tomb of Malku,” Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph 38 (1962) 101-119. Ingholt 1966 INGHOLT, H., “Some Sculptures from the Tomb of Malku at Palmyra,” 457-476, in: M.-L. Bernhard (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Kasimierz MichaÑowski, Warsaw: PWN, 1966. Ingholt 1970 INGHOLT, H., “The Sarcophagus of Be‘elai and other Sculptures from the Tomb of Malku,” Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph 46 (1970) 173-200. Ingholt 1974 INGHOLT, H., “Two Unpublished Tombs from the Southwest Necropolis of Palmyra,” 37-53, in: D. K. Kouymjian (ed.), Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, Beirut, American University of Beirut. Ingholt 1976 INGHOLT, H., “Varia Tadmorea,” 101-137 in: Palmyre, bilan et perspectives: Colloque de Strasbourg (1820 octobre 1973), Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques, 1976. Ingholt–Seyrig–Starcky 1955 INGHOLT, H.–H. SEYRIG–J. STARCKY (with linguistic remarks by A. CAQUOT), Recueil des tessères de Palmyre, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, tome 58, Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1955. Jacoby 1923JACOBY, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin, Weidmann. Jalabert–Mouterde 1929 JALABERT, L. – R. MOUTERDE, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie 1, Commagène et Cyrrhestique, Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1929. Jamme 1970 JAMME, A., Safaitic Notes (Commentary on JaS 44-176), Washington D.C., 1970, [privately printed].
Lactantius Lane 1863-1893 Ledrain 1896 Levine 1993 Levine 1999
Levine 2000 Levy 1963 Lewis et al. 1989
237
JAUSSEN, A. – M. R. SAVIGNAC, Mission archéologique 1922 en Arabie, (6 vols.) Paris: Leroux/ Geuthner, 1909-1922. JIDEJIAN, N., Lebanon. Its Gods, Legends and Myths Illustrated by coins, Beirut: Dar el- Machreg Distribution. JOOSTEN, J., “Greek and Latin words in the Peshitta Pentateuch: first soundings,” 37-47, in: R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256, Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale 1998. see Wright 1969. KARAGÖZ, ”., Anadol’udan Mazar Stelleri–Anatolian Steles, Istanbul 1984. KAUFMAN, S. A., The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, Assyriological Studies 19, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1974. KOHLMEYER, K.–E. STROMMENGER (edd.), Land des Baal. Syrien. Forum der Völker und Kulturen, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1982. KRAELING, C. H., “Color Photographs of the Paintings in the Tomb of the Three Brothers at Palmyra,” AAAS 11/12 (1961/62) 13-18, pl. 1-16. KRAHMALKOV, Ch. R., Phoenician-Punic Dictionary, Leuven: Peeters, 2000. KING, G. M. H., Early North Arabian Thamudic E. Preliminary Description Based on a New Corpus of Inscriptions from the \ism§ Desert of Southern Jordan and Published Material, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1990. see Monat 1986. LANE, E. W., An Arabic-English Lexicon (8 parts), London, Williams and Norgate, 1863-1893. LEDRAIN, É., “Inscriptions sémitiques inédites,” Revue d’Assyriologie 3 (1896) 27-30. LEVINE, B. A., Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, vol. 4, New York: Doubleday, 1993. LEVINE, B. A., “Vowing, Oaths and Binding Agreements: The Section on Vows in the Light of the Aramaic Inscriptions,” Eretz-Israel 26 (1999) 84-90 (Hebrew). LEVINE, B. A., Numbers 21-36, The Anchor Bible, vol. 4a, New York:Doubleday, 2000. LEVY, J., Worterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgeselschaft, 4 vols., 1963. LEWIS, N.–Y. YADIN–J. C. GREENFIELD, The Documents of the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Greek Papyri. Edited by Naphtali Lewis. Aramaic and Nabatean Signatures and Subscriptions Edited by Y. Yadin and J. C. Greenfield, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Macdonald 2000 Macdonald–Harding 1976 Macdonald (in press)
Magie 1954, 1963 Makowski 1983 Maraqten 1988 Maricq 1958 Mazar 1957 Mélèze-Modrzejewski 1991 du Mesnil du Buisson 1944
du Mesnil du Buisson 1962
bibliography Society-The Hebrew University of Jerusalem-The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC), vol.VII 1, 156-158 s.v. Palmyra (Ch. Augé); vol. VII 2, p. 98 s.v. Palmyra (Ch. Augé), Zürich/München, Artemis. LIDZBARSKI, M., Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, Weimar, Emil Felber, 1898. LIDZBARSKI, M., Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik (3 vols.), Giessen, Ricker/Töpelmann, 1902-1915. LITTMANN, E., Safaitic Inscriptions, Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904-1905 and 1909 IV, C, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1943. LÖW, I., Aramäische Pflanzennamen, Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1881. [Repr. Hildesheim: Olms Verlag 1973]. MACDONALD, M. C. A., “Nomads and the \awr§n in the Late Hellenistic and Roman Periods: A Reassessment of the Epigraphic Evidence,” Syria 70 (1993) 303-413. MACDONALD, M. C. A., “Reflections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia,” Arabian archaeology and epigraphy 11 (2000) 28-79. MACDONALD, M. C. A.–G. L. HARDING, “More Safaitic Texts from Jordan,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 21 (1976) 119-133. MACDONALD, M. C. A., “From Ded§n to Iram in four Ancient North Arabian inscriptions,” in: D. F. Graf – S. Schmidt (edd.), Fawzi Zayadine Festschrift. MAGIE, D., The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, three vols., The Loeb Classical Library [Repr. 1954 (vol. II) and 1963 (vol. III)]. MAKOWSKI, K., “Recherches sur le tombeau de A‘ailami et Zebida,” DaM 1 (1983) 175-187. MARAQTEN, M., Die semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 5, Hildesheim: Olms Verlag, 1988. MARICQ, A., “Res gestae Divi Saporis,” Syria 35 (1958) 295-360. MAZAR, B., Beth She‘arim, Vol. I: The Catacombs IIV, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1957. MÉLÈZE-MODRZEJEWSKI, J., Les Juifs d’Egypte de Ramses II à Hadrien, Paris: Armand Colin Editeur, 1991. du MESNIL du BUISSON, R., Tessères et monnaies de Palmyre. Inventaire des collections du Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale. Planches, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1944. du MESNIL du BUISSON, R., Les tessères et les monnaies de Palmyre, texte, Paris: E. de Boccard, 1962.
MEYER, M., “Bronzestatuetten im Typus der Tyche von Antiochia,” Kölner Jahrbuch 33 (2000) 185-195. MEYER, M., Die Personifikation der Stadt Antiochia. Ein neues Bild für eine neue Gottheit (forthcoming). MICHALOWSKI, K., Palmyre I, Warsaw: PWN, 1960. MICHALOWSKI, K., Palmyre: Fouilles Polonaises 1960, Warsaw: PWN, 1962. MICHALOWSKI, K., Palmyre: Fouilles Polonaises 1961, Warsaw: PWN, 1963. MILIK, J., “Textes Hebreux et Araméens,” 67-205, in: P. Benoit–J. T. Milik–R. De Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabba#ât, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, II, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. MILIK, J. T., Dédicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases sémitiques à l’époque romaine, Recherches d’épigraphie proche-orientale, I, Bibliothèque archèologique et historique, 92, Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1972. MILIK, J. T., The Books of Enoch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. MILLAR, F. G. B., “Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: the Church, local culture and political allegiance in third-century Syria,” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971) 1-17. MILLAR, F. G. B., “The Roman Coloniae of the Near East,” 7-58, in: M. Solin–F. M. Kajava (edd.), Roman Policy in the East and other Studies in Roman History, Commentationes humanarum litterarum 91, Helsinki, Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters, 1990. MILLAR, F. G. B., The Roman Near East, 31 BC– AD 337, Harvard University Press, 1994. MOMMSEN, Th., Histoire romaine, trad. fr. CagnatTutain, Paris: Robert Laffont, 1985. MONAT, P., (ed.), Lactantius in: Institutions divines, vol. I, Sources Chrétiennes 326, Paris: 1986. MUFFS, Y., Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, Leiden: E. J. Brill [Repr. E. J. Brill 2003, with a Prolegomenon by B. A. Levine]. MÜLLER, C.,–Th. MÜLLER et al., Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum I-IV = FHG. MÜLLER-KESSLER, C.–M. SOKOLOFF, A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, 5 vols. Groningen: STYX Publications, 1997-. MURRAY, R., Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 1975. MUSCHE, B., Vorderasiatischer Schmuck zur Zeit der Arsakiden und der Sasaniden, Handbuch der Orientalistik 7, Leiden, 1988. NAKAHASHI, T., “Problems Surrounding the Skeletal Remains unearthed from Tomb A and C,” in:
javier teixidor HIGUCHI, T.–T. IZUMI (edd.), Tombs A and C Southeast Necropolis Palmyra Syria, Surveyed in 1990-92, Publication of Research Center for Silk Roadology Vol. 1, Nara, 1994. NAU, F., Liber Legum Regionum, in: R. Graffin (ed.), Patrologia Syriaca, Paris, 1907 [Repr. Brepols 1993]. NEUSNER, J., A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. I and II, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965, 1966. NIKIPROWETZKY, V., La Troisième Sibylle, Paris: Mouton, 1970. NÖLDEKE, T., Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik, Leipzig, Chr. Herm. Tauchnitz, 1898. OXTOBY, W. G., Some Inscriptions of the Safaitic Bedouin, American Oriental Series, 50, New Haven, CT, American Oriental Society, 1968. PAGENSTECHER, R., Necropolis, Leipzig 1919. PARKE, H. W., Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity, ed. B. C. McGing, London-New York, Routledge, 1988. PARKER, H.M.D.–B. H. WARMINGTON, A History of the Roman World from A.D. 138 to 337, London, 1935 (Additional notes, 381-400, by Warmington, 1958) [Repr. 1966]. PARLASCA, K., “Ein frühes Grabrelief aus Palmyra,” 149-152, Eikones. Studien zum griechischen und römischen Bildnis. Hans Jucker zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet, Bern, Franke Verlag 1980. PARLASCA, K., “Probleme der palmyrenischen Sarkophage,” Marburger Winckelmann-Programm 1984, 283-296. PARLASCA, K., “Die Stadtgöttin Palmyras,” Bonner Jahrbücher 184 (1984) 167-176. PARLASCA, K., “Figürliche Stuckdekorationen aus Palmyra. Ältere Funde,” DaM 2 (1985) 201-206, pl. 63-68. PARLASCA, K., “Ikonographische Probleme palmyrenischer Grabreliefs,” DaM 3 (1988) 215-221. PARLASCA, K., “Palmyrenische Bildnisse aus dem Umkreis Zenobias,” 205-211, in: W. Schuller–J. von Ungern-Sternberg (edd.), Xenia, Festschrift für Robert Werner zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, Konstanz, Universitätsverlag 1989. PARLASCA, K., “Die palmyrenische Grabkunst in ihrem Verhältnis zur römischen Gräbersymbolik,” 112-136, pl. 22-32, in: Probleme des provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens, Akten des 1. Internationalen Kolloquiums über Probleme des provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens, Graz 27.–30.4. 1989, Mitteilungen der Archäologischen Gesellschaft Steiermark 3/4, Wien [1991]. PARLASCA, K., “Beobachtungen zur palmyrenischen Grabarchitektur,” DaM 4 (1990) 181-190.
PARLASCA, K., “Palmyrenische Sarkophage mit Totenmahlreliefs–Forschungstand und ikonographische Probleme,” 311-317, pl. 126-128, in: G. Koch (ed.), Akten des Symposiums “125 Jahre SarkophagCorpus” Marburg 4.-7.10.1995, Mainz [1998]. PASCHOUD, F., Zosime. Histoire nouvelle, tome I, CUF, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971. PETERS, J. P.–H. THIERSCH, Painted Tombs in the necropolis of Marissa, London 1905. PFLAUM, H.-G., “La fortification de la ville d’Adraha d’Arabie (259-260 à 274-275),” Syria 29 (1952) 307-330. see Wright 1968. PIERRE, M.-J., Aphraat le Sage persan. Les exposés, t. I, Sources chrétiennes n° 349, Paris: 1988. PIERSIMONI, P., “Who’s Who at Palmyre: An Overview,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 25 (1994) 89–98. G. PLOUG, Catalogue of the Palmyrene Sculptures Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1995. see Armstrong 1995. PORTEN, B.–A. YARDENI, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, Vol. 2, Contracts, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1989. POTTER, D. S., Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire. A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990. POTTER, D. S., “Palmyra and Rome : Odaenathus’ Titulature and the Use of the Imperium maius,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 113 (1996) 271285. RAHMO, R. Les Momies de Palmyre, Damascus, 1993. RATTI, S., (ed.), Eutropius, books 7-9, epitome of Roman history, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté, 1996. REINACH, S., “Nouvelles archéologiques et Correspondance. Sculptures palmyréniennes,” Revue Archéologique 1932, 146. ROMANO, D. G.–I. B. ROMANO, Catalogue of the Classical Collections of the Glencairn Museum, Academy of the New Church Bryn Athyn, Bryn Athyn, PA, 1999. ROSENTHAL, F., Die Sprache der Palmyrenischen Inschriften und ihre Stellung innerhalb Aramäischen, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptische Gesellschaft 41, Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1936. ROSTOVTZEFF, M., Dura-Europos and its Art, Oxford, Clarendon 1938. ROSTOVTZEFF, M. I., Histoire économique et sociale de l’Empire romain, Paris: Robert Laffont, 1988.
242
javier teixidor
Roussel–de Visscher 1942-43 ROUSSEL, P.–F. DE VISSCHER, F., “Les inscriptions du temple de Dmeir,” Syria 23 (1942-1943) 174-200. Rumscheid 2000 RUMSCHEID, J., Kranz und Krone. Zu Insignien, Siegespreisen und Ehrenzeichen der römischen Kaiserzeit, Istanbuler Forschungen 43, Tübingen, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag 2000. Ruprechtsberger 1987 RUPRECHTSBERGER, E. M., (ed.), Palmyra. Geschichte, Kunst und Kultur der syrischen Oasenstadt, Linz, Gutenberg, 1987. Sachau 1907 SACHAU, E., Syrische Rechtsbücher, voll. I-III, Berlin, Georg Reimer. Sadurska 1976 SADURSKA, A., “Nouvelles recherches dans la nécropole ouest de Palmyre,” 11-32, in: Palmyre, bilan et perspectives: Colloque de Strasbourg (18-20 octobre 1973), Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques, 1976. Sadurska 1977 SADURSKA, A., Le tombeau de famille de ‘Alainê. Palmyre. Fouilles polonaises VII, Warsaw: PWN, 1977. Sadurska–Bounni 1994 SADURSKA, A.–A. BOUNNI, Les Sculptures funéraires de Palmyre, Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, Roma 1994. Saliby 1992 SALIBY, N., “L’hypogée de Sassan fils de Malê à Palmyre. Mit einem bibliographischen Anhang von Klaus Parlasca,” DaM 6 (1992) 267-292. Savignac–Starcky 1957 SAVIGNAC, R.–J. STARCKY, “Une inscription nabatéenne provenant du Djôf,” RB 64 (1957) 196– 217. Schall 1960 SCHALL, A., Studien über griechische Fremdwörter im Syrischen, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1960. Schlumberger 1935 SCHLUMBERGER, D., “Neue Ausgrabungen in der Syrischer Wüste nordwestlich von Palmyra,” Archäeologische Anzeiger (1935) col. 595-633. Schlumberger 1951 SCHLUMBERGER, D., La Palmyrène du nord-ouest, Bibliothèque archèologique et historique 49, Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1951. Schlumberger 1972 SCHLUMBERGER, D., “Vorôd l’agoranome,” Syria 49 (1972) 339-341. Schmidt-Colinet 1989 SCHMIDT-COLINET, A., “L’architecture funéraire de Palmyre,” 447-456, in: J.-M. Dentzer–W. Orthmann (edd.), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie II, Saarbrücken, 1989. Schmidt-Colinet 1992 SCHMIDT-COLINET, A., Das Tempelgrab Nr. 36 in Palmyra. Studien zur palmyrenischen Grabarchitektur und ihrer Ausstattung, Damaszener Forschungen, Vol. 2, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern 1992. Schmidt-Colinet 1995 SCHMIDT-COLINET, A. (ed.), Palmyra. Kulturbegegnung im Grenzbereich, Antike Welt, Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie, Band 27, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Schmidt-Colinet–al-As’ad SCHMIDT-COLINET, A.–Kh. al-AS’AD, “Zur
palmyra in the third century 2000 Schmidt-Colinet et al. 2000
Urbanistik des hellenistischen Palmyra. Ein Vorbericht,” DaM 12 (2000) 61-93. SCHMIDT-COLINET, A.–A. STAUFFER–Kh. alAS‘AD, Die Textilien aus Palmyra. Neue und alte Funde, Damaszener Forschungen 8, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 2000. SCHÜRER, E., The History of the Jewish People in the age of Jesus Christ, vol.III.1, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1986. SCHWARTZ, J., “Les Palmyréniens et l’Égypte,” Bulletin de la Societé d’Archéologie d’Alexandrie 40 (1953) 63-81. SEYRIG, H., “Textes relatifs à la garnison romaine de Palmyre,” Syria 14 (1933) 153-168. SEYRIG, H., “Bas-reliefs monumentaux du temple de Bêl à Palmyre,” Syria 15 (1934) 159-165. SEYRIG, H., “Note sur les plus anciennes sculptures palmyréniennes,” Berytus 3 (1936) 137-140. SEYRIG, H., “Armes et costumes iraniens de Palmyre,” Syria 18 (1937) 4-31. SEYRIG, H., “Antiquités syriennes 21. Sur quelques sculptures palmyréniennes,” Syria 18 (1937) 31-53. SEYRIG, H., “Note sur Hérodien, prince de Palmyre,” Syria 18 (1937) 1-4. SEYRIG, H., “Les tessères palmyréniennes et le banquet rituel,” 51-58, in: L.-H. Vincent (ed.), Memorial Lagrange, Paris: J. Gabalda, 1940. SEYRIG, H., “Rapport sommaire sur les fouilles de l’agora de Palmyre,” CRAI 1940, 238-249. SEYRIG, H., “Antiquités syriennes 34. Sculptures palmyréniennes archaïques,” Syria 22 (1941) 31-41. SEYRIG, H., “Inscriptions de Bostra,” Syria 22 (1941) 46-47. SEYRIG, H., “Caractères de l’histoire d’Émèse,” Syria 36 (1959) 184-192. SEYRIG, H., “VHABALATHUS AUGUSTUS,” 659-662, in: M.-L. Bernard (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Kazimierz Michalowski, Warsaw: PWN, 1966. SEYRIG, H., Scripta varia. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, tome 125, Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1985. SEYRIG, H.–R. AMY, “Recherches dans la nécropole de Palmyre,” Syria 17 (1936) 229-266. SHIGEMATSU, K., “Funerary Items,” Dictionary of World Archaeology, vol. 1, 956-957, Heibon-sha, Tokyo 1979 (in Japanese). SOKOLOFF, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990. SOKOLOFF, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 2nd edition, Ramat-Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press–Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
244
javier teixidor
Sokoloff 2002b
SOKOLOFF, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Ramat-Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press– Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. STARCKY J., Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, Fascicule X, Damascus, Imprimerie catholique de Beyrouth, 1949. STARCKY, J.–M. GAWLIKOWSKI, Palmyre, Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, J. Maisonneuve, 1985. STARK, J. K., Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1971. STRUGNELL, J., “The Nabataean Goddess AlKutba’ and her Sanctuaries,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 159 (1959) 23-36. STRZYGOWSKI, J., Orient oder Rom. Eine Grabanlage in Palmyra und ihre Gemälde, Leipzig, 1901. STUCKY, R. A., “Prêtres syriens I: Palmyre,” Syria 50 (1973) 163-180. STUPPERICH, R., “Fragment eines palmyrenischen Votivreliefs im Archäologischen Seminar der Universität Mannheim,” Thetis 1 (1994) 69-74, Pl. 7, 3. SULLIVAN, R. D., “The Dynasty of Emesa,” 198219, in: W. Haase–H. Temporini (edd.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW). Teil II, Principat, Bd. 8, Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977. SWAIN, S., “Greek into Palmyrene: Odaenathus as ‘Corrector Totius Orbis’?,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 99 (1993) 157-164. Anon. (ed.), Syrie. Mémoire et Civilisation, Paris: Institut du Monde Arabe, Flammarion, 1993. TAL, A., A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, 2 vols., Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000. TANABE, K., Sculptures of Palmyra I. Memoirs of the Ancient Orient Museum, vol. I, Tokyo: Ancient Orient Museum, 1986. TARDIEU M., “L’arrivée des manichéens à al-Îira,” 17-24, in: P. Canivet–J.-P. Rey-Coquais (edd.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam, VII e–VIII e siècles, Damascus, 1992. TARDIEU, M., “Les gnostiques dans la Vie de Plotin,” 503-546, in: Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, Histoire des doctrines de l’Antiquité classique, volume II, variorum edition, Paris: J. Vrin. TEIXIDOR, J., Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre. Fascicule XI, Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique. 1965. TEIXIDOR, J., The Pantheon of Palmyra, Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales (EPRO), vol. 79, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979. TEIXIDOR, J., “Parthian Officials in Lower Mesopotamia,” Mesopotamia 22 (1987) 188-189.
TEIXIDOR, J., Review of S. Abbadi, Die Personennamen der Inschriften aus Hatra. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 1, Hildesheim: Olms Verlag 1983, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 107, 138. TEIXIDOR, J., “Nouvelles inscriptions palmyréniennes,” Semitica 47 (1997) 65-71. TEIXIDOR, J., “Antiquités sémitiques,” 713-731, in: Annuaire du Collège de France, Résumé des cours et travaux, Paris: 1997-1998. TEIXIDOR, J.–Kh. al-AS’AD, “Un culte arabe préislamique à Palmyre d’après une inscription inédite,” CRAI 1985, 286-293. TAYLOR, D. G. K., “An annotated index of dated Palmyrene Aramaic texts,” Journal of Semitic Studies 46 (2001) 203-219. THIERSCH, H., Zwei antike Grabanlage bei Alexandrien, Leipzig, 1904. TORREY, C. C., “The Safaitic Inscriptions,” 172177, in: P. V. C. Baur–M. I. Rostovtzeff (edd.), The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of Second Season of Work, October 1928April 1929, New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1931. TORREY, C. C., “The Semitic Inscriptions. A Safaïtic Inscription,” 66-68, in: P. V. C. Baur–M. I. Rostovtzeff–A. R. Bellinger (edd.), The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of Third Season of Work, November 1929-March 1930, New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1932. URMAN, D., “Jewish Inscriptions from Dabbara in the Golan,” Israel Exploration Journal 22 (1972) 1623. VOIGT, R., “Griechischer Wortindex zu Anton Schalls ‘Studien über griechische Fremdwörter im Syrischen’,” 539-543, in: R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256, Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale. VÖÖBUS, A., History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, I, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) 184, Subs, 14, Louvain 1958. VÖÖBUS, A., The Canons ascribed to Maruta of Maipherqat and Related Sources, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) 439/440, Script. Syri 191/192, Louvain, 1982. WATZINGER, C.–K. WULZINGER, “Die Nekropolen,” 44-76, in: Th. Wiegand–D. Krencker (edd.), Palmyra. Ergebnisse der Expeditionen von 1902 und 1917, Berlin: H. Keller, 1932. WEHR, H., A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1961.
246
javier teixidor
Weitzman 1999
WEITZMAN, M., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999. WEISS, H. (ed.), Ebla to Damascus. Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria, Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1985. WIEGAND–D. KRENCKER (edd.), Palmyra. Ergebnisse der Expeditionen von 1902 und 1917, Berlin: H. Keller, 1932. WILL, E., “La tour funéraire de Palmyre,” Syria 26 (1945/49) 87-116. WILL, E.,“La tour funéraire de la Syrie et les monuments apparentés,” Syria 26 (1945/49) 258-313. WILL, E., “La tour funéraire de Palmyre,” Syria 26 (1947) 312-399. WILL, E., “Le relief de la tour de Kithôt et le banquet funéraire à Palmyre,” Syria 28 (1951) 70-100. WILL, E., “Le développement urbain de Palmyre: témoignages épigraphiques anciens et nouveaux,” Syria 60 (1983) 69-81. WILL, E., De l’Euphrate au Rhin: aspects de l’hellénisation et de la romanisation du Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, tome 135, Beirut: Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-orient 1985. WILL, E., “La déesse au chien de Palmyre,” Syria 62 (1985) 49-55. WILL, E., “La déesse au chien de Palmyre: note additionelle,” Syria 63, 383-384. WILL, E., “La maison d’éternité et les conceptions funéraires des Palmyréniens,” 433-440, in: M. M. Mactoux–E. Geny (edd.), Mélanges Pierre Lévêque, Paris: Les belles lettres, 1990. WILL, E., Les Palmyréniens: La Venise des sables, Paris: Armand Colin. WILL, E., “À propos de quelques inscriptions palmyréniennes: Le cas de Septim(i)us Vorôd,” Syria 73 (1996) 109-115. WILL, E., “Les salles de banquet de Palmyre et d’autres lieux,” Topoi 7 (1997) 873-887. WINNETT F. V., Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan, University of Toronto Near and Middle East Series, 2, Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1957. WINNETT F. V.–G. L. HARDING, Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns, University of Toronto Near and Middle East Series, 9, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. WINNETT F. V.–W. L. REED, Ancient Records from North Arabia. Near and Middle East Series 6, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. WITECKA, A., “Catalogue of Jewellery Found in the Tower-Tomb of Atenatan at Palmyra,” Studia palmyrenskie 9 (1994) 71-91.
Weiss 1985 Wiegand–Krencker 1932 Will 1945/49 Will 1945/49bis Will 1947 Will 1951 Will 1983 Will 1985
Will 1985 Will 1986 Will 1990
Will 1992 Will 1996 Will 1997 Winnett 1957 Winnett–Harding 1978
Winnett–Reed 1970 Witecka 1994
palmyra in the third century Whittaker 1972 Wright 1968 Wright 1968 Wright 1969 Wuthnow 1930 Wuthnow 1935 Yadin 1962 Yadin et al. 2002
Yardeni 2000 Yon 2002
Zenobia 2002 Zoudhi 1983
247
WHITTAKER, R. E., A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. WRIGHT, W. C. (ed.), Eunapius, in: Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists, The Loeb Classical Library, 1968. WRIGHT, W. C. (ed.), Philostratus, in: Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists, The Loeb Classical Library, 1968. WRIGHT, W. C. (ed.), Julian, in: The Caesars, The Loeb Classical Library, 1969 [Repr.]. WUTHNOW, H., Die semitischen Menschennamen in griechischen Inschriften und Papyri des Vorderen Orients, Leipzig, 1930. WUTHNOW, H., “Eine palmyrenische Büste,” 6369, in: R. Paret (ed.), Orientalistische Studien. Festschrift Enno Littmann, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1935. YADIN, Y., “Expedition D – the Cave of Letters,” Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962) 227-257. YADIN, Y.–J. C. GREENFIELD–A. YARDENI– B. LEVINE, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean Documents, edited by Y. Yadin, J. C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, B. A. Levine, with additional contributions by H. M. Cotton and J. Naveh, Judean Desert Studies III, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration SocietyThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem-The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2002. YARDENI, A., Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert, 2 vols, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2000. YON, J.-B., Les notables de Palmyre, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, tome 163, Beirut: Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient 2002. Anon. (ed.), Zenobia: il sogno di una Regina d’Oriente, Milano: Electa, 2002. ZOUHDI, B., “La femme dans l’art de Palmyre,” Damaszener Mitteilungen 1 (1983) 315-316.
248
javier teixidor
palmyra in the third century
249
LIST OF FIGURES AND PLATES al-as’ad–briquel-chatonnet–yon Fig. 1. Jar containing tesserae (Photo: Palmyra Museum) Fig. 2. Foundations of the Arßu temple (Photo: Palmyra Museum) Fig. 3. PAT 2174 (= RTP 174) Private collection, face a Fig. 4. PAT 2174 (= RTP 174) Private collection, face b cussini Table 1. Women selling and buying funerary spaces Fig. 1. Relief bust of Hanna, with spindle, distaff and key (after Hvidberg-Hansen– Ploug 1993, no. 26; PAT 0854) Fig. 2. Relief of a scribe and his servant (after Hvidberg-Hansen–Ploug 1993, no. 126; PAT 0679) gawlikowski Fig. 1. A view of the Valley of Tombs from the West. In the foreground, the tower of Elahbel Fig. 2. The towers on Umm Belqis hillock, early 20th century (after Wiegand) Fig. 3. Tower of ‘Atenatan (7 BC) and, behind, tower of Elahbel (AD 103) Fig. 4. Tower of ‘Atenatan. Plans of storeys and section Fig. 5. Left, tower of Kitot (AD 40), in the middle the sectioned tower no. 45 Fig. 6. Kitot banqueting with his family. Relief in the niche of his tower Fig. 7. Interior of the ground floor of Elahbel tower Fig. 8. Section through the tower no. 19 and its hypogeum Fig. 9. A view of the hypogeum under tower no. 19 Fig. 10. A restored section through a typical hypogeum (Yarhai, AD108) and plans of two others (Lishamsh and Nasrallat) Fig. 11. Grotto no. 80 in a hillside Fig. 12. The porch of the funerary temple no. 86 (before restoration) Fig. 13. The tomb of Marona (AD 236) Fig. 14. Restored façade of tomb no. 36 (after Schmidt-Colinet) Fig. 15. Schematic elevation of tombs no. 173c and 86 (after Schmidt-Colinet) Fig. 16. Remains of sarcophagi in the chamber of tomb no. 39d Fig. 17. Interior of the tomb no. 3 gross Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6.
Inscription of foundation and renovation of a tomb, AD 83 Relief offered to the god Abgal, AD 257/8 Funerary relief of Ba#a# Inscription of foundation and renovation of a tomb, AD 83 (handcopy A.D. Gross) Dedicatory inscription offered to the god Abgal, AD 257/8 (handcopy A.D. Gross) Funerary epitaph of Ba#a# (handcopy A.D. Gross)
macdonald Fig. 1. Safaitic inscriptions at Dura Europos Fig. 2. S 1 = CIS 5175 (Photo: R. Bertolino)
250
list of figures and plates
Fig. 3. S 2 = CIS 5176 (Photo: R. Bertolino) Fig. 4. S 3 = CIS 5177 (Photo: R. Bertolino) Fig. 5. S 5 = CIS 5179 (Photo: R. Bertolino) müller-kessler Fig. 1. Funerary relief of Amta Fig. 2. Funerary relief of Amta Fig. 3. Funerary relief of Malikå parlasca Fig. 1. Dedicatory relief with two standing goddesses Fig. 2. Funerary relief of Bônnâ Fig. 3. Funerary relief of Na#amû, daughter of Ma#an Fig. 4. Funerary relief of a man with standing girl Fig. 5. Funerary relief of Zabdibol, son of Yarhai saito Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7.
Location of the South-East necropolis Depositional state of burial goods in Loculus ML1-1 (Loculus of Male) Infant pit graves in Tomb C A child with earrings in EL2-0 of Tomb F A female with a gold pendant top in EL6-0 of Tomb F A female with many accessories in ENL1-0 of Tomb F Infant pit graves in Tomb F
schmidt-colinet–al-as’ad Fig. 1. Palmyra, magnetogramm showing the underground settlement S of the Wadi in squares of 40 m to 40 m Fig. 2. Palmyra, general plan. N of the wadi: Roman town. S of the Wadi. Interpretation drawing of the magnetogramm of the underground pre-roman settlement with trenches I and II Fig. 3. Palmyra, detail of the magnetogramm with trench II where the tessera was found Fig. 4. Palmyra, trench II, tessera, left: (obverse) city goddess of Palmyra and spring Efqa. Right (reverse): priest Moqimo Fig. 5. Representations of the sitting Tyche of Palmyra, left: wall painting from Dura Europos. Right: relief from Dura Europos (after du Mesnil du Buisson 1962, 215 fig. 143-144) Fig. 6. Silver Tetradrachme of Tigranes II, 83-69 BC (after Jidejian, p. 117) Fig. 7. Representations of priests on Palmyrene tesserae; right no. R 820 (after du Mesnil du Buisson 1962, 110-111 fig. 67-68) Fig. 8. Palmyra, trench II, oil lamp with the inscription “Yarhibol” Fig. 9. Palmyra, trench II, limestone relief representing Yarhibol (?) Fig. 10. Palmyra, trench I, inscription mentioning a banquet hall
#Athe 125, n30 Qismayâ 2 sacred garden 3 Shulman 30 temple of #Aglibol and Malakbel 3, n11 temple of Allat 3, n11; 19; 28, n10 temple of Arßu 3; 3, n11; 7 temple of Atargatis 3, n11 temple of Baalshamin 45; 152; 167 temple of Bel 2; 6; 7; 28 n10; 75; 83; 84; 85; 132; 171; 171 n30; 201 temple of Nabu 2 YarÈibol 171; 171, n30; 172; 179; 211; 211, n23
254
epigraphical index
EPIGRAPHICAL INDEX List of cited Palmyrene inscriptions PAT 0002 AD 106 (Foundation text) 31, 58 PAT 0005 AD 148 (Epitaph) 170, n25 PAT 0008 n.d. (Epitaph) 169, n18 PAT 0011 n.d. (Epitaph) 97, n3 5 PAT 0023 AD 98 (Foundation) 58 PAT 0026 AD 109 (Foundation?) 58 PAT 0039 AD 234 (Cession text) 17 PAT 0040 AD 235 (Cession) 20 PAT 0041 AD 235 (Cession) 20 PAT 0048 AD 213 (Cession) 17; 34 PAT 0049 AD 214 (Cession) 17 PAT 0051 AD 241 (Cession) 22 PAT 0053 AD 267 (Cession) 34 PAT 0054 AD 267 (Cession) 34, 35 PAT 0055 AD 274 (Cession) 34 PAT 0056 AD 142 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0057 AD 263 (Cession) 15; 170, n25 PAT 0059 AD 186 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0061 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 0063 (=PAT 0453) n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1; 139 PAT 0065 n.d. (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 0066 AD 133 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0067 AD 194 (Cession) 32, n24; 33; 36, n39 PAT 0071 AD 251 (Cession) 19 PAT 0094 AD 98 (Foundation) 58 PAT 0095 AD 239 (Cession) 11, n4; 33; 34, n31; 35; 37, n40; 113; 113, n8 PAT 0115 AD 147 (Honorific) 79; 132; 133) PAT 0118 AD 215 (Cession) 58 PAT 0167 AD 23 (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 0168 AD 52 (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 0184 n.d. (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 0190 AD 32 (Honorific) 79 PAT 0192 AD 61 (Honorific) 84 PAT 0193 AD 90 (Honorific) 78 PAT 0194 AD 98 (Honorific) 76 PAT 0196 AD 103) (Honorific) 78 PAT 0197 AD 132 (Honorific) 14; 17; 132; 133
PAT 0198 AD 138 (Honorific) 76 PAT 0200 n.d. (Honorific) 84 PAT 0211 n.d. (Epitaph) 27, n6 PAT 0246 n.d. (Epitaph) 335, n33 PAT 0247 AD 236 (Dedicatory) 20; 36, n36 PAT 0251 n.d. (Epitaph) 19 PAT 0253 2nd century AD (Epitaph) 17 PAT 0255 AD 149 (Epitaph) 170, n25 PAT 0257 AD 146 (Dedicatory) 93, n18 PAT 0259 AD 137 (Tariff) 12; 14; 15; 17; 19, 20; 21; 22; 28; 94, n21 PAT 0260 AD 175 (Honorific) 13; 83 PAT 0261 AD 21 (Honorific) 11, n4; 76; 115 PAT 0262 AD 142 (Honorific) 76 PAT 0263 AD 108 (Honorific) 12; 75; 75, n6 PAT 0265 AD 117 (Honorific) 78; 132 PAT 0266 AD 127 (Honorific) 79; 132 PAT 0268 AD 28 (Honorific) 79 PAT 0269 AD 51 (Honorific) 76 PAT 0270 AD 19 (Honorific) 11, n4 PAT 0271 AD 17 (Honorific) 84 PAT 0273 AD 140 (Honorific) 74, n3; 76 PAT 0274 AD 155 (Honorific) 76 PAT 0275 n.d. (Honorific) 78; 97, n35 PAT 0276 AD 139 (Honorific) 81 PAT 0277 AD 139 (Honorific) 82 PAT 0278 AD 242 (Honorific) 16, 18; 21; 78; 86; l85 PAT 0279 AD 247 (Honorific) 16; 78; l89 PAT 0280 AD 254 (Honorific) 82; 86 PAT 0281 AD 259 (Honorific) 78 PAT 0282 AD 257 (Honorific) 78 PAT 0283 AD 258 (Honorific) 13; 16; 79 PAT 0284 AD 262 (Honorific) 15; 16; 17; 79; l96 PAT 0285 AD 262 (Honorific) 15; 16; 18; 21; 80; 86
epigraphical index PAT 0286 (AD 2621) (Honorific) 16; 18; 79; 196 PAT 0287 n.d. (Honorific) 79; 196 PAT 0288 AD 267 (Honorific) 18; 196 PAT 0289 AD 267 (Honorific) 15; 16; 18; 79 PAT 0290 AD 251 (Honorific) 18; 22; 79 PAT 0291 AD 258 (Honorific) 22; 79; 96, n30; 97, n32 PAT 0292 AD 271 (Honorific) 15; 18; 79; 80; 200 PAT 0293 AD 271 (Honorific) 18; 26, n4; 28; 80; 200 PAT 0294 AD 193 (Honorific) 14; 76; 77; 79, n16 PAT 0295 AD210 (Honorific) 189 PAT 0296 AD 179 (Honorific) 79 PAT 0297 AD 179 (Honorific) 17; 76 PAT 0298 AD 179 (Honorific) 13; 78 PAT 0299 AD 179 (Honorific) 79 PAT 0300 AD 179 (Honorific) 29; 79 PAT 0302 AD 166 (Honorific) 76 PAT 0303 AD 229 (Honorific) 79, 93, n20 PAT 0305 AD 131 (Honorific) 14; 19; 20; 21; 83) PAT 0306 AD 157 (Honorific) 79 PAT 0308 n.d. (Honorific) 17 PAT 0309 n.d. (Honorific) 76 PAT 0312 AD 164 (Honorific) 13; 76 PAT 0313 AD 150 (Honorific) 79 PAT 0314 AD 135 (Honorific) 12; 16; 79 PAT 0315 17 BC (Honorific) 28; 79 PAT 0317 n.d. (Honorific) 15; 18; 27, n4; 201 PAT 0322 n.d. (Dedicatory) 16 PAT 0331 2 nd century AD (Dedicatory) 20 PAT 0340 AD 114 (Dedicatory) 90 PAT 0344 AD 132 (Dedicatory) 85, En 22 PAT 0352 AD 178 (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 0356 n.d. (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 0360 AD 207 (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 0361 AD 207 (Dedicatory) 96, n27
255
PAT 0366 AD 220 (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 0373 AD 230 (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 0394 AD 263 (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 0399 AD 268 (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 0413 n.d. (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 0426 n.d. (Dedicatory) 330 PAT 0429 n.d. (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 0453 (see PAT 0063) PAT 0457 9 BC (Foundation) 58 PAT 0462 AD 33 (Foundation) 58; 97, n35 PAT 0463 AD 41 (Foundation) 58 PAT 0464 AD 41 (Foundation) 27, n5 PAT 0465 AD 56 (Foundation) 90 PAT 0470 AD 79 (Foundation) 58; 94, En 22 PAT 0471 AD 79 (Foundation) 58 PAT 0472 AD 83 (Foundation) 5; 58 PAT 0474 AD 83 (Foundation) 58; 94, n22; 97, En 35 PAT 0475 n.d. (Epitaph) 96, En 30 PAT 0482 AD 95 (Foundation) 5 PAT 0486 AD 103 (Foundation) 58 PAT 0491 n.d. (Epitaph) 90, n4; 96, n30 PAT 0509 n.d. (Epitaph) 16 PAT 0511 AD 114 (Foundation) 58 PAT 0512 AD 114 (Foundation) 58 PAT 0514 AD 118 (Foundation) 58 PAT 0516 AD 128 (Foundation) 58 PAT 0517 AD 138 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0519 AD 143 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0520 AD 149 (Foundation) 21 PAT 0522 AD 149 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0523 AD 160 (Cession) 15; 22; 31, n20, n23; 32, n23; 32, n24 PAT 0524 AD 160 (Cession) 31, n20, n23; 32, n24 PAT 0525 n.d. (Cession) 31, n23; 32, n24; 96, n28 PAT 0526 AD 191 (Cession) 32, n24 PAT 0527 AD 241 (Cession) 3 3 1; 3 1, fti 20; 34, fin 31 PAT 0528 n.d. (Epitaph) 31; 31, n20; 32, n25 PAT 0529 n.d. (Epitaph) 31; 31, n20; 32, n25
1 Discrepancy between date in Greek and Palmyrene portions of text. Cf. CIS 3940, esp. p. 111.
256
epigraphical index
PAT 0540 n.d. (Epitaph) 31; 31, n20; 32, n25 PAT 0548 AD 181 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0549 AD 73 (Foundation) 58; 94, n22 PAT 0551 AD 188 (Cession) 34, n30 PAT 0552 AD 184 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0553 n.d. (Foundation) 89, n3; 93, n20 PAT 0554 AD 204 (Foundation?) 90, n3 PAT 0555 AD 193 (Foundation) 34, n31 PAT 0557 AD 212 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0558 n.d. (Foundation) 22 PAT 0562 AD 229, 234 (Cession) 58; 90, n3 PAT 0565 AD 236 (Foundation. Cession) 59; 89 PAT 0568 AD 252 (Foundation, Cession) 31; 58 PAT 0569 AD 253 (Foundation) 59 PAT 0605 AD 145 (Epitaph) 96, n27 PAT 0630 n.d. (Epitaph) 142, n29 PAT 0641 n.d. (Epitaph) 27, n6 PAT 0644 n.d. (Epitaph) 38, n43 PAT 0645 n.d. (Epitaph) 93, n20 PAT 0649 AD 189 (Epitaph) 13 PAT 0656 n.d. (Epitaph) 27, n6 PAT 0679 n.d. (Epitaph) 37, n42; 43 PAT 0728 (=PAT 2722) n.d. (Epitaph) 139 PAT 0779 n.d. (Epitaph) 143, n43 PAT 0840 n.d. (Epitaph) 27; 34, n30 PAT 0843 n.d. (Epitaph) 36, n36 PAT 0854 n.d. (Epitaph) 42 PAT 0865 n.d. (Epitaph) 142, n31 PAT 0877 n.d. (Epitaph) 27 PAT 0887 AD 211 (Epitaph) 142, n31 PAT 0901 n.d. (Epitaph) 27 PAT 0915 AD 215 (or 115) (Epitaph) 27 PAT 0918 n.d. (Epitaph) 142, n32 PAT 0919 n.d. (Epitaph) 142, n32 PAT 0920 n.d. (Epitaph) 142, n32 PAT 0933 n.d. (Epitaph) 137 PAT 0965 n.d. (Epitaph) 120, n11 PAT 0991 n.d. (Legal) 12; 113 PAT 1001 AD 233) (Dedicatory) 3 PAT 1019 n.d. (Epitaph) 90 PAT 1062 AD 145 (Honorific) 15; 16; 132; 133 PAT 1063 AD 198 (Honorific) 79
PAT 1066 AD 204 (Honorific) 79; 93, n20 PAT 1085 AD 168 (Dedicatory) 21 PAT 1134 AD 67 (Foundation) 31 PAT 11318 AD 149 (Foundation) 59 PAT 1142 AD 232 (Foundation) 31; 35 PAT 1143) AD 179 (Foundation) 59 PAT 1154 AD 159 (Foundation) 59 PAT 1163 n.d. (Epitaph) 91 PAT 1179 (PAT 1594) n.d. (Epitaph) 139, n16 PAT 1216 n.d. (Foundation) 330, n18 PAT 1218 AD 120 (Foundation) 58 PAT 1226.02 n.d. (Foundation) 92, n13 PAT 1251 n.d. (Epitaph) 35 PAT 1270 n.d. (Epitaph) 11, n4 PAT 1346 n.d. (Honorific) 28 PAT 1347 AD 45 (Honorific) 84 PAT 1349 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1350 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1351 AD 24 (Honorific) 84 PAT 1352 AD 24 (Honorific) 83 PAT 1353 AD 25 (Honorific) 76, 84 PAT 1354 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1355 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1356 AD 56 (Honorific) 84 PAT 1357 AD 193) (Honorific) 13; 17; 79 PAT 1358 AD 272 (Honorific) 22; 96, n30 PAT 1359 3rd century AD (Honorific) 79 PAT 1361 AD 128 (Honorific) 79 PAT 1362 n.d. (Honorific) 79 PAT 1364 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n33; 79 PAT 1370 AD 218 (Honorific) 14; 76 PAT 1372 AD 164 (Honorific) 78 PAT 1373 AD 161 (Honorific) 13); 79 PAT 1374 AD 131 (Honorific) 189 PAT 1375 AD 75 (Honorific) 14; 81 PAT 1376 AD 81 (Honorific) 79 PAT 1378 AD 199 (Honorific) 20; 21; 78 PAT 1381 AD 211 (Honorific) 5, n19; 78 PAT 1386 AD 111 (Honorific) 79 PAT 1387 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n3 PAT 1389 AD 112 (Honorific) 79 PAT 1392 n.d. (Honorific) 79 PAT 1395 AD 157 (Honorific) 76
epigraphical index PAT 1396 AD 157 (Honorific) 79 PAT 1397 AD 135 (Honorific) 17; 79 PAT 1399 AD 157 (Honorific) 79 PAT 1400 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1403 n.d. (Honorific) 79 PAT 1406 n.d. (Honorific) 13; 14 PAT 1409 AD 159 (Honorific) 76 PAT 1411 AD 156 (Honorific) 76 PAT 1412 AD 140 (Honorific) 76 PAT 1413 AD 174 (Honorific) 20; 80; 86 PAT 1415 n.d. (Honorific) 18; 76; 86 PAT 1417 AD 214 (Honorific) 29; 74, n3; 79 PAT 1419 AD 150 (Honorific) 76 PAT 1421 AD 86 (Honorific) 83, 86 PAT 1422 n.d. (Honorific) 12; 15; 79 PAT 1423 AD 108 (Honorific) 79 PAT 1425 AD 81 (Honorific) 78; 92; 92, n13 PAT 1430 AD 235 (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 1434 AD 165 (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 1442 AD 219 (Dedicatory) 96, n30 PAT 1443 AD 221 (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 1453 nd. (Dedicatory) 91; 91, n7 PAT 1475 n.d. (Epitaph) 131 PAT 1489 n.d. (Epitaph) 4, n17 PAT 1498 n.d. (Dedicatory) 92, n13 PAT 1512 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1513 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1514 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1515 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1516 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1519 n.d. (Honorific) 4, n17; 74, n1 PAT 1520 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1522 n.d. (unclassified) 4, n17 PAT 1524 44 BC (Honorific) 85 PAT 1525 AD 144 (Foundation) 59 PAT 1526 AD 239 (Foundation) 16 PAT 1540 AD 219 (Dedicatory) 96, n27 PAT 1548 AD 115 (Dedicatory) 17; 18 PAT 1556 AD 128 (Dedicatory) 11, n4 PAT 1561 AD 89 (Dedicatory) 21; 93, n18 PAT 1562 AD 89 (Dedicatory) 21; 93, n18 PAT 1567 n.d. (Dedicatory) 142, n35 PAT 1568 AD 153 (Dedicatory) 95, n25; 142, n35
257
PAT 1569 n.d. (Dedicatory) 142, n35 PAT 1584 AD 70 (Dedicatory) 22 PAT 1594 (see PAT 1179) PAT 1608 AD 143) (Dedicatory) 19; 120 PAT 1614 AD 131 (Foundation; Cession) 90, n3 PAT 1619 AD 175 (Dedicatory) 330 PAT 1625 AD 213 (Dedicatory) 16 PAT 1633 AD 148 (or 248) (Epitaph) 90, n4 PAT 1644 n.d. (Dedicatory) 27, n7; 29 PAT 1658 AD 213 (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 1664 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 1667 AD 199 (Honorific) 96 PAT 1668 n.d. (Dedicatory) 96, n26 PAT 1669 n.d. (Dedicatory) 96; 96, n26 PAT 1670 AD 154 (Dedicatory) 96; 96, n26 PAT 1676 AD 212 (Dedicatory) 96, n26 PAT 1677 AD 270 (Dedicatory) 96, n30 PAT 1683 AD 257 (Dedicatory) 96, n26 PAT 1684 AD 261 (or 266) (Dedicatory) 96, n26 PAT 1686 n.d. (Dedicatory) 96, n26 PAT 1690 n.d. (Dedicatory) 96, n26 PAT 1697 n.d. (Dedicatory) 95, n25; 96, n26 PAT 1700 n.d. (Dedicatory) 96 PAT 1703 n.d. (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 1705 n.d. (Dedicatory) 30, n16 PAT 1741 n.d. (Dedicatory) 330 PAT 1762 n.d. (Epitaph) 142, n29 PAT 1765 n.d. (Epitaph) 144 PAT 1769 n.d. (Epitaph) 142, n32 PAT 1784 AD 87 (Foundation) 58 PAT 1785 AD 118 (Foundation) 58 PAT 1786 AD 138 (Foundation) 59 PAT 1787 AD 123 (Foundation) 58 PAT 1788 AD 232 (Foundation; Cession) 15 PAT 1791 AD 171 (Cession) 13; 14; 36; 36, n39; 115 PAT 1812 n.d. (Epitaph) 93, n18 PAT 1815 AD 147 (Foundation) 33; 34, n31; 36, n39 PAT 1833 n.d. (Epitaph) 97, n35 PAT 1867 AD 89 (Foundation) 58
258
epigraphical index
PAT 1911 AD 251 (Dedicatory) 30; 107 PAT 1916 n.d. (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 1928 AD 234 (Dedicatory) 96, n27 PAT 1933 n.d. (Dedicatory) 29 PAT 1941 AD 62 (Honorific) 79 PAT 1942 AD 122 (Honorific) 76 PAT 1944 n.d. (Honorific) 78 PAT 1945 AD 92, 240 (Foundation; Cession) 33 PAT 1949 AD 138 (Foundation) 59 PAT 2105 n.d. (tessera) 92, n13 PAT 2124 n.d. (tessera) 5 PAT 2174 n.d. (tessera) 4; 9 PAT 2184 n.d. (tessera) 4; 4 n15 PAT 2197 n.d. (tessera) 5, n20 PAT 2227 n.d. (tessera) 90 PAT 2243 n.d. (tessera) 5, n20 PAT 2247 n.d. (tessera) 5, n20 PAT 2366 n.d. (tessera) 91, n9 PAT 2472 n.d. (tessera) 94, n21 PAT 2473 n.d. (tessera) 94, n21 PAT 2495 n.d. (tessera) 96, n28 PAT 2566 n.d. (tessera) 96, n28 PAT 2572 n.d. (tessera) 96, n28 PAT 2635 n.d. (Dedicatory) 30 PAT 2636 AD 10 (Dedicatory) 93, n18 PAT 2722 (see PAT 0728) PAT 2725 AD 242 (Cession) 31, n21; 35; 59
PAT 2726 AD 120 (Foundation) 58 PAT 2727 AD 95 (Cession) 33; 58 PAT 2728 AD 123 (Foundation) 58 PAT 2729 AD 243 (Cession) 33; 34, n31 PAT 2752 AD 159 (Dedicatory) 330 PAT 2756 n.d. (Honorific) 14 PAT 2757 AD 225 (Unclassified) 21; 96, n28 PAT 2759 n.d. (Unclassified) 12 PAT 2760 n.d. (Foundation?) 12; 19; 22; 23 PAT 2762 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 2766 6 BC (Honorific) 12 PAT 2769 AD 171 (Honorific) 15; 78 PAT 2774 n.d. (Funerary) 111 PAT 2776 AD 142 (Foundation) 31; 59 PAT 2778 AD 84 (Honorific) 78 PAT 2783 n.d. (Dedicatory) 30, n17 PAT 2784 AD 108 (Foundation) 58 PAT 2791 n.d. (Honorific) 74, n1 PAT 2810 n.d. (Dedicatory) 21 PAT 2812 AD 273 (Honorific) 17 PAT 2815 AD 252 (Honorific) 79 PAT 2816 AD 86 (Foundation) 31; 94, n22 PAT 2819 n.d. (Foundation) 183 PAT 2820 n.d. (Cession) 37, n40 PAT 2827 n.d. (tessera) 27, n4
INDEX OF LATIN WORDS ala 12; 23 beneficiarius 13; 23 Caesar 17; 23 carruca 17 carrus 17; 23 centuria 17 centurio 17; 23 colonia 18; 23 colonus 18; 23 curator 16 decurio 14; 23
