Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Phoenician Culture II. 1: Religion - Deities and Mythical Characters 904294417X, 9789042944176

Citation preview

E NCY CL O PAE DI C DICTIONAR Y OF PHOENICIAN CULTU RE RELIGION – DEITIES AND MYTHICAL CHARACTERS

PEETERS

ENCYCLOPAEDIC DICTIONARY OF PHOENICIAN CULTURE II.1 RELIGION – DEITIES AND MYTHICAL CHARACTERS

EDPC

Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Phoenician Culture

CHIEF EDITORS PAOLO XELLA, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma JOSÉ ÁNGEL ZAMORA LÓPEZ, Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid HERBERT NIEHR, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät, Tübingen

ASSOCIATE EDITORS ANDREA ERCOLANI, VALENTINA MELCHIORRI, WILFRED G. E. WATSON

SCIENTIFIC EDITORIAL BOARD VINCENZO BELLELLI, FRANCESCA GUARNERI, DAGMAR KÜHN, UMBERTO LIVADIOTTI, GIUSEPPE MINUNNO, RENATA SCHIAVO In collaboration with: LAURA ATTISANI, MARTA LOTTA, SUSANNE MAIER, ILARIA ORRI, FRANCESCA SIMI

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SCIENTIFIC BOARD MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO (Roma), ANA MARGARIDA ARRUDA (Lisboa), MARÍA EUGENIA AUBET (Barcelona), MARÍA BELÉN DEAMOS (Sevilla), SANDRO FILIPPO BONDÌ (Viterbo), ANNIE CAUBET (Paris), IZAK CORNELIUS (Stellenbosch), ROALD DOCTER (Gent), MHAMED HASSINE FANTAR (Tunis), NOTA KOUROU (Athens), LORENZA ILIA MANFREDI (Roma), MARÍA CRUZ MARÍN CEBALLOS (Sevilla), VALÉRIE MATOÏAN (Lyon-Paris), JOSEPHINE C. QUINN (Oxford), WOLFGANG RÖLLIG (Tübingen), HÉLÈNE SADER (Beirut), THOMAS SCHAEFER (Tübingen), PAOLA SANTORO (Roma), FRANCESCA SPATAFORA (Palermo), PETER VAN DOMMELEN (Providence), NICHOLAS VELLA (La Valletta), MARGUERITE YON (Lyon-Paris)

LINGUISTIC ADVISORS BRIGITTE PARGNY, WILFRED G. E. WATSON

GRAPHICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXPERT MARCELLO BELLISARIO (Archeologia Progettazione e Servizi S.r.l., Roma) Other collaborations: GIULIO CREDAZZI (Roma), IT Expert ROBERTO PISTOSO (Verona), Editorial and Management Support

EDPC

ENCYCLOPAEDIC DICTIONARY OF PHOENICIAN CULTURE II.1 RELIGION – DEITIES AND MYTHICAL CHARACTERS Edited by

HERBERT NIEHR and PAOLO XELLA DAGMAR

In collaboration with KÜHN, VALENTINA MELCHIORRI and GIUSEPPE MINUNNO Iconographic consultant: IZAK CORNELIUS

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2021

EDPC

Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Phoenician Culture

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4417-6 eISBN 978-90-429-4418-3 D/2021/0602/191 © 2021, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without the prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

AUTHORS

OF THE ENTRIES:

Manuel Álvarez Martí-Aguilar, Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo, Maria Bianco, Corinne Bonnet, Emanuela Calcaterra, Anna Cannavò, Giuseppina Capriotti Vittozzi, Izak Cornelius, Andrea Ercolani, Giuseppe Garbati, Francesca Guarneri, Beatrice Lietz, Jane Lightfoot, Umberto Livadiotti, Mireia López Bertran, Carolina López Ruiz, Lorenza-Ilia Manfredi, Matthew M. McCarty, Marίa Cruz Marίn Ceballos, Valentina Melchiorri, Paolo Merlo, Giuseppe Minunno, Herbert Niehr, Fabio Porzia, Sergio Ribichini, Renata Schiavo, Paolo Xella

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: Religion – Deities and Mythical Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XVII

ENTRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

APPENDIX: Entries in EDPC I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

241

INDEX of Figures and Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245

PLATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

254

INTRODUCTION Deities and Mythical Characters

1. The present volume of the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Phoenician Culture (acronym: EDPC) is concerned with deities and mythical characters. It is the second in a series of themed volumes on various aspects of Phoenician culture: another volume, also about religious activity – Cult and Ritual – is in preparation, and the two volumes are to be considered as closely related to each other, according to a scientific choice which will be justified below. Additional volumes will follow, dealing with language and written sources, both direct and indirect (Phoenician, Punic and Neopunic epigraphic texts, Old Testament and other Ancient Near Eastern written documents, as well as classical authors); on social, economic and political life, and, finally, on archaeological sites in the Levant and in the central and western Mediterranean. In this regard, it is important to point out that, as part of a collection, each volume must be considered (and made use of) as belonging to a set: in one sense independent, but at the same time inseparable from the others, in respect of the amount of information included, and for the network of cross-references linking the lemmata published in the various volumes. Volume I already contains a general presentation of the overall purpose of the EDPC as a whole: its history, arrangement, aims and methodology. Therefore, in this second volume, we will take for granted what has already been said about the problem of identifying and conventionally defining the Phoenicians, both in the Levant and in the West, as well as the protracted scholarly debate on this issue, which has not yet reached complete consensus. Only a few technical points concerning this matter will be taken up here, which we consider essential for the users of this volume (see below: Technical notes). 2. As far as EDPC II is concerned, a couple of important points need to be clarified first, before moving on to more detailed information: the title itself of this volume, on the one hand, and why the general topic “religion” has been divided into two parts, on the other. The present volume is a specialist compendium of divine and mythical figures attested in Phoenician documentation, as well as in indirect sources (chiefly, writers in Greek and Latin, including the Church Fathers, and other late authors). The chronological and geographical parameters, as well as the sources of knowledge, are naturally the same as those already adopted in our project. Nevertheless, unlike the longer-term approach adopted for the events of history and other aspects of cultural life (archaeology and material culture in general), it is particularly the first millennium BCE that is the chronological core of the present investigation. This is due to the fact that, even more than in other cases, direct epigraphic sources represent the fundamental fil rouge to follow here, in order to identify Phoenician deities. However, we have attempted to reconstruct the ancient historical roots of these various divine characters up to the Late Bronze Age and even earlier, and to follow the subsequent developments of their cults over time, in many cases up to the first centuries of the Christian era, and throughout the whole Mediterranean area. Our goal was to present here a compact repertoire that is as complete as possible, of easy and immediate consultation, organized according to criteria that aim to be consistent: essentially for these reasons, we decided to collect evidence regarding relevant aspects of cult and ritual in a separate volume, while well aware that overlaps of information would have been inevitable to some extent. At any rate, the perspective will be different in the two cases, implying not so much a repetition, but an integration of certain data, as well as, of course, new and complete sets of information, presented in an orderly and coherent form. Just one example in this regard. For each individual deity, of course, only general information concerning its places of worship will be provided in the relevant entry; however, an exhaustive presentation and description from the archaeological point of view will be provided in the EDPC volume dedicated to ritual and cult (see above).

X

INTRODUCTION

3. In the previous instalment, EDPC volume I, we have tried to point out the considerable difficulties in establishing a univocal, shared and historically founded definition of terms such as “Phoenician” and “Punic”, as well as delimiting exactly the regions inhabited by them, in the Levant and in the central and western Mediterranean. Given the elusive nature of the subject under study, and the high conventional character of our definitions, such difficulties emerge once again, of course, and even more so, for the topics “Phoenician religion and deities”. In addition, a supplementary theoretical problem must be seriously faced in this case, i.e. to establish – even conventionally – what we define as “deity” and “mythical character”, as well as “religion” in general. As is well known in the history of religions, the use and semantic range of these terms must be subject to the greatest caution, particularly when we deal with ancient or non-Western contemporary societies. We usually talk about myths, gods and heroes, often assuming that these terms are easily applicable to other cultures. Of course, this is not the case, as ethno-anthropological studies have demonstrated ad abundantiam. The conventional use of terms is indispensable on the heuristic level, but in special cases like this, there is a supplementary, mandatory obligation of maximum clarity a priori. Indeed, after an initial “etic” approach, attempts must be made to reconstruct the conceptual, inner, “emic” categories of the culture being studied: in our case, therefore, the specificity of Phoenician “religious” categories has to be highlighted, also within the broader framework of Ancient Near Eastern societies. Like all ancient societies, the Phoenicians had their own Weltanschauung in which they did not distinguish “religion” from other aspects of culture, as we do. For example, we would search the Phoenician lexicon in vain for terms that can translate our “religion”, “cult”, “faith”, etc. The conceptual categories of the Phoenicians were distinctive, and we have little hope of being able to identify them: they had their own complex cosmology and anthropology, where the dimensions we define as religious, political, economic respectively, were surely not conceived according to our worldview. Consider the terms “deity” (god/goddess) and “mythical character”. For us, the concept “deity” is relatively clear, at least in general: a supernatural being, conceived as endowed with extraordinary powers, not subject to birth or death, the object of cult and prayers, operating on both the cosmological and anthropological level; its powers are unlimited in the case of monotheism, but partially shared with other superhuman figures in the case of a plurality of characters: therefore, we must put ourselves on the level of a polytheistic system. Even so, we should not take anything for granted, because not all polytheisms are the same, as we will see immediately. In any case, a deity – however you may wish to understand it – is a symbolic universe of extreme complexity, subject to variations in form and content, according to the historical evolution of the culture that conceived it, and that continually re-moulds it. In the Phoenician language, the deity was called ᾿l(m), a term with an unclear and disputed etymology, in spite of multiple philological efforts. As in every polytheistic system, deities were male (᾿l) and female (᾿lt). A deity was characterized by a series of significant attributes, first of all, those alluding to absolute superiority over humans, and to their total subordination (servants, subordinates, etc.): Baal/Baalat, “Lord”/ “Mistress”, or terms expressing lordship according to human customs, such as Milk/Milkat, “King”/ “Queen”. Other epithets refer to cities, peoples, natural sites and so on, placed under divine dominion. Of course, the importance of divine epithets has been far from neglected in this repertoire, so much so that a theoretical lemma has been dedicated to them. Nevertheless, in addition to all this evidence, highly significant as indicators of the personality and rank of a deity are data such as the ownership of its places of worship, whether natural (mountains, caves, rivers, etc.) or artificial; or his/her status as the recipient of sacrificial offerings, prayers, vows; the frequency of occurrence as theophoric elements in personal and geographic names, which may be an indication of popularity. From a historical and cultural point of view, the Phoenicians and their city-states were the heirs of the Syro-Palestinian kingdoms of the Late Bronze Age, partially preserving the previous organization, institutions, and structure of the pantheon. Territorial states had a poliadic god(dess), flanked by a parhedros/a and a divine assembly, considered as the owner of the kingdom. The same basic structure is detectable in the Phoenician world. In turn, every Phoenician city had its own tutelary deities integrated into a cosmological universe, although within the framework of a shared mythical-ritual tradition. These are some common basic features

DEITIES AND MYTHICAL CHARACTERS

XI

of the pantheon of the Phoenician cities: at the top there is regularly a divine couple consisting of a male god (called baal or adon, “Lord”), whose identity varies from city to city, and a goddess, his consort or spouse (called baalat, “Lady”). This divine couple is considered as the supernatural hypostasis of the human royal couple. Nevertheless, while we possess some data on the structure of the various civic pantheons, the situation is very different in respect of mythological traditions. Indeed, the study of Phoenician mythology presents a twofold problem. On the one hand, the documentary situation is daunting, because there is an almost complete lack of direct sources; on the other hand, we do not know to what extent the Levantine mythological heritage was actually exported through the Mediterranean diaspora. We can certainly assume the formation of new traditions during the expansion phase and in the new settlements, either completely new or born to adapt a previous nucleus to the new cultural scenarios; however, these are merely assumptions. Among the mythological traditions of the Late Bronze Age, the alphabetic texts from Ugarit-Ras Shamra are an invaluable source of knowledge from a comparative point of view also for ancient Phoenicia. Everything we have to date testifies to a traditional heritage widely shared in Syria-Palestine, even if there must have been local variations over time. For later periods, Greek and Latin writers provide information on Phoenician and Punic deities and their cults, often indicating the corresponding Greek and Latin gods, and also recording some mythological traditions that, although subject to the effects of syncretism, could reflect, at least in part, original Phoenician myths. In any case, Phoenician and Punic mythology as a whole is almost unknown to us. The only notable exception is provided by the complex material handed down by Philo of Byblos, who wrote a “Phoenician History” in Greek in the 2nd century CE, allegedly collecting ancient traditions. His work is a blend of heterogeneous material, including cosmogonic and theogonic events and myths about the origins of culture; to a certain extent, it is possible that we are dealing with materials dating back to ancient traditions. Now, as is well known, in addition to the cultic dimension, deities literally “live” in the mythical events, in which they reveal aspects of their personality and powers. It is for this reason that we decided to incorporate in the present volume a few entries that do not concern individual deities: “Myth and mythology”, “Philo of Byblos”, “Mochos”, “Sanchouniaton”, “Thabion”, and also “Myth and mythology”, based on the considerations just set out. The entry “Pillars of Heracles/Hercules” has also been added, because it is a mythical motif that was extraordinarily popular in ancient Mediterranean mythologies, and was certainly present in Phoenician traditions, both in the Levant and in the central-western Mediterranean. We also announce that lemmata dedicated to Philo of Byblos and other legendary authors involved in mythological matters are scheduled for the EDPC volume on written sources, but with a different perspective: there the emphasis will be on the literary and philological aspects, rather than on the mythical content, of the works ascribed to them. But let us go back to the issue of the Phoenician deities. In our eyes, dependent to a large extent on the classical vision, it can seem implicit that the distinction between divine nature and human nature in ancient Mediterranean religions is represented by death: deities immortal, human beings inexorably mortal. Yet, in hindsight, the Greek world – which transmitted this approach to us – knew a third category of beings, called “heroes” or “demigods”, endowed with a mortal nature, but destined to become an object of veneration and worship after their death. But what does this mean for Phoenician culture? Is this tripartition between gods, heroes and human beings applicable to it? The issue is complex and deserves a brief digression. We can be fairly certain that, for the Phoenicians, death – at least death in the human sense of the term – was not the absolute discriminator between superhuman agents and human beings: at least, it did not apply systematically to all deities. Firstly, the Phoenician world inherits, at least in part, the tradition of royal ancestors deified after death, which was a characteristic of Syro-Palestinian culture, already from Ebla, and then especially in Ugarit. The Rapi᾿uma/Rephaim, who have an important entry in EDPC II, are well-known also in the I millennium BCE: one only has to think – quoting an external source – of how the king of Tyre was portrayed (even derisively) in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 26,1-28,19), to realize the extraordinary powers that were (self-)attributed to Phoenician sovereigns. And the deities themselves were linked to this tradition: Melqart, Baal of Tyre, clearly recalls this reality already in his own etymology, as a prototype of the deified primordial king.

XII

INTRODUCTION

Additional data on this same god, however, reveal another characteristic aspect of Phoenician conceptions during the I millennium BCE: the existence of deities who are the protagonists of an experience of death/ disappearance/latency, followed (and resolved) by a resurrection/ reappearance/return. The ideal model of this mythical and ritual motif is the Ugaritic god Baal: as the poetic texts of Ras Shamra literally say, he “dies” (KTU3 1.5 VI 23) and subsequently “rises” (KTU3 1.6 III 21). After a threatening latency, a harbinger of terror even for the gods, Baal comes back to life empowered once again: in effect, he finally manages to defeat (or, at least, to diminish) Death, represented by Motu, with consequences of fundamental importance for the cosmos, nature and human beings themselves. As for Melqart, the mythological data and a particular ritual – the feast of the “Awakening of the deity”, originally officiated by the legendary king of Tyre, Hiram, as Miqim elim, “Awakener of the god (Melqart)” – indicate that the Tyrian god also had a mythical background if not identical, certainly similar to that of the Ugaritic Baal. A Phoenician god, therefore, who overcomes death, and returns to life more powerful than before. Nonetheless, Melqart is not the only example of this historical typology. To him, must be added Eshmun, the god of Sidon, and perhaps the Baal of Byblos, Adonis in Greek sources. Melqart, Eshmun, Adonis – each with his own dramatic but happy-ending events – were commemorated in worship according to different cultic forms and times, in the main cities of the Levant, in Carthage and in the rest of the Phoenician Mediterranean. A last important comparative remark. It can hardly be accidental that the Greek equivalents of Melqart and Eshmun, i.e. Heracles and Asclepios, are the only two Hellenic gods who are protagonists of a death story, to then come back to life and be incorporated into the ranks of the great gods. We are faced with independent, but to some extent interrelated traditions; and, above all, we begin to glimpse the idea that the Phoenicians themselves had of their gods: powerful, but not absolutely immortal, sometimes exposed to dramatic destinies, but full of resources that revitalized them with renewed powers. Consequently, therefore, three of the major Phoenician gods can be evaluated as dying and rising deities, divinized heroes or heroic deities, it is clear that the difference between immortal and mortal nature is not distinctive enough to define Phoenician deities, because extraneous to that same culture which considered the earthly ruler to be almost divine. Another puzzling aspect of the Phoenician deities is the riddle of the plurality of figures united by the same name, but diversified by their epithets: e.g. a long series of divine characters called Baal and Astarte, but the question we ask ourselves (are they the same deities or different?), most likely, would never have occurred to a Phoenician. Leaving aside such epistemological questions, these series have been recorded and various interpretations have been proposed, hoping that further future evidence will contribute to a better understanding of this phenomenon. Also worth mentioning is the expression “mythical character”, which appears in the title of the present volume. As is well known in studies on the history of religions, this term usually denotes a character for whom only the mythical dimension is attested, i.e. without data that document a specific living cult. As far as can be deduced from the available material, and based on comparison with the mythological texts from Ugarit, many of these mythical characters were present in Phoenician cosmogonic and theogonic traditions. These figures, in general, cannot be considered as true polytheistic deities, but remain suspended in a dimension between the chaotic origins and the progressive establishment of the cosmic order, to be fully implemented only with the advent of the current divine generations. In this panorama, the figure of El-Cronus stands out, halfway between the pre-cosmic past and the orderly present reality, which he himself helped to establish. In fact, he is a sort of missing link between archaic traditions and current values and, like Baal Hammon first and Saturn later, will recover all his powers, ultimately (after the fall of Carthage onwards) reaching an unquestionably high rank. 4. The core of the present repertoire is represented by the Phoenician deities directly attested in the Levant as well as in the central and western Mediterranean. As is generally the case in the Semitic world, however, the Phoenician pantheon also includes a number of divine characters known only because they occur in personal names: consequently, such theophoric elements have also been included in our repertoire. Their importance is remarkable: they can testify to a level of devotion other than public, and can be explained either as a sign

DEITIES AND MYTHICAL CHARACTERS

XIII

of continuity in family traditions or, in any case, as archaic and/or limited cults within the sphere of minority devotions. In addition to the divine characters of Phoenician origin, lemmata related to foreign deities have also been taken into account. They come from cultures whose traditions the Phoenicians were partly involved in, or with which the Phoenicians came into contact: Syria, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Egypt, the classical world, without forgetting the Libyan-Berber substrate, or, say, the Nuragic culture in Sardinia or the Elymian culture in Sicily. In some cases, these cults entered Phoenician or Punic society, in other cases, they were devotions acquired by Phoenicians living in a foreign land and adapted to local religious traditions. On balance, it is a “divine landscape” as varied as the culture of the Eastern and Western Phoenicians, which testifies to their openness and adaptability to the different historical and social situations in which they found themselves.

TECHNICAL NOTES Finally, some technical information on the structure of this volume and how to consult it are indispensable for using it to the full. The following remarks partially repeat what has already been set out in EDPC I, but it seemed to us appropriate to ensure that the user of this volume can consult them independently. Information provided in the EDPC is arranged in a system that includes a series of lemmata and crossreferences. As regards lemmata, each has its own internal hierarchy, based on content and form. One type is the ordinary lemma, written by one or more authors (uncredited lemmata are by editors of the respective volumes), provided with a tendential selective bibliography and, in some cases, illustrations – figures, maps, chronological tables, genealogical lists etc. – linked directly or indirectly with the related entry. In addition, there are several “macro-lemmata” (key-cluster or “radial” lemmata): they focus on wide-ranging general topics, primary sources for radiating cross-references to other related or subsidiary lemmata. In the macro-lemmata, the description given is completed by an interpretation that places the material in its proper setting: examples will be found in volumes yet to be published, e.g. “Funerary world”, “Cult-places”, “Arts and handicrafts”. The cross-references play a very important role in the inner organization of this work and refer both to lemmata contained in this volume, as well as to others published in EDPC I, or to be published in the next volumes. The main cross-reference is the standard reference: it refers concisely to other lemmata for information (Baal of Sidon see ESHMUN). In some cases, however, a cross-reference is not restricted to this pattern, but has an additional short explanation that helps to set it in context. Cross-references to entries in this volume are marked by the use of SMALL CAPS (ESHMUN); cross-references to entries already published, or to be published in other volumes are marked with an *asterisk (*Carthage). All the terms mentioned are capitalized. An arrow preceding a cross-reference of any kind (→RESHEPH; →*Tyre) indicates that, according to the editors, reading the lemma(ta) in question is considered essential for completing the information.

in – – – – – – –

In principle, the lemmata in this volume are set out in sections, not evident in their layout, but potentially the following sequence: linguistic and documentary data (occurrences of divine names, their etymology, possible occurrences and/ or parallels in other languages); general historical information; direct evidence, starting from the Levant westwards, and following a chronological order as far as possible; indirect evidence (e.g. information provided by classical writers); ancient sources, usually exhaustive but sometimes selective; iconographic considerations (when possible), and a brief descriptive summary of the subject; an up-to-date bibliography, mostly summarized for understandable reasons, but in some cases extended, where deemed necessary; the abbreviations are explained in the corresponding lists.

XIV

INTRODUCTION

Generally speaking, for all the sigla not included in the lists of Abbreviations, the following compendia have been followed: – General Abbreviations: Roberts, J. (ed.) (2007) The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – Greek writers: Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S. and McKenzie, R. (19409) Greek-English Lexicon, with a Revised Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press. – Latin writers: Glare, P. G. W. (ed.) (20122) Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Regarding etymological and linguistic information, the following applies. In the spellings of proper names and toponyms, both here and in the entire set of volumes, where there is an established equivalent, that form has been adopted. In other cases, when it was necessary to choose from the most commonly used transcriptions, the criterion has been to use what is most available. Possible deviations from what was stated above will be obvious and will be justified by reading the individual lemmata: while trying to remain scientific and uniform, absolute rules have not always been followed in transcription and transliteration. A special case is presented by proper names occurring in inscriptions in Phoenician and in other HamitoSemitic languages, for which transliterations were required. While aware of the various problems, we have opted for the technical transliteration that seems most plausible, in respect of proven or presumed phonetic rules. This has not always been possible and in some cases an absolutely rigid criterion has not been applied, for example, in representing consonants (e.g. the lemma “Baalhammon” is the conventional transliteration of b῾lḥmn, as against ba῾lḥamun which is technically more correct, also ignoring the quantities of the vowels restored). More generally, for the vocalization of proper names, the most usual reconstruction has been followed, normally based on transcriptions in other scripts, or suggested by parallels in other Semitic languages. There are quite a few cases in which the original consonantal form needs to be interpreted and may give rise to a range of vocalization and transcription: for example, špṭb῾l could be represented as either “Shipitbaal” or “Shapatbaal” (the form adopted here); in all these cases, besides always giving the original Phoenician form in the lemmata, the discarded form has been included as a reference to the one adopted. Another example is provided by the name of the king of Byblos (᾿)ḥrm, which has been represented as “Ahirom” (instead of “Ahiram”) because that was the presumed vocalization of the personal name. Some further apparent inconsistencies need to be justified. The name of the god mlqrt was probably pronounced milqart, a form we have adopted in every instance where this divine name forms part of a proper name (e.g. Abd[i]milqart, Phoen. ῾bdmlqrt). However, following a very long-standing convention, this divine name usually appears as Melqart, so we have decided to adopt it. A similar, but not identical example is the case of Astarte; here, custom has imposed the Greek form, where instead ῾štrt was pronounced ῾ashtart in Phoenician, a form we have adopted only when this divine name is part of a proper name, such as Abd[i]ashtart, Phoen. ῾bd῾štrt; note that the presence of the connecting -i- is not evident in every case). To summarize: rigid spelling rules have not been applied, while providing the elements for understanding and reconstructing the original forms of the names without too much difficulty. As for Akkadian and Hittite, only in some cases has it been considered absolutely necessary to retain exact transliterations of letters such as /ḫ/ or /š/, otherwise written as /h/ and /sh/ respectively. Illustrations have only been included for certain entries, with no claim to be exhaustive or systematic, and are intended to accompany and assist the reading of the text, although in some cases the images are not directly derived from the Phoenician sources. Importantly, in this volume, the iconographic apparatus is more abundant and has a more relevant role than elsewhere, given the relevance of symbolic language in the conceptions of the deities, as imagined by the worshippers. The available material imposed a limited choice on the figurative level, supplemented by the presentation of written documents relating to the subject treated, or, in some cases, by images relating to cultic places, considered interesting for the treatment of that lemma.

DEITIES AND MYTHICAL CHARACTERS

XV

General maps have been added at the end of the volume: of Phoenicia and the ancient Mediterranean, and of Carthage and the central-western Mediterranean. Lastly, we wish to express our deepest gratitude to all our editorial colleagues and external collaborators, who, in a period fraught with difficulties at various levels for the Covid-19 pandemic, continued to do their utmost in the preparation of the text and its final set up. Without their scrupulous attention, collaborative spirit and efficiency, this volume could not have been published in such a short time. Rome and Tübingen, May 2020 HERBERT NIEHR – PAOLO XELLA

ADDENDUM During the preparation of this volume, Paul Peeters passed away unexpectedly (on March 22nd, 2021). We wish to remember him here with profound esteem and with gratitude for the friendship he extended to us, and the whole-hearted support he has given to our project from the very beginning.

ABBREVIATIONS

1. GENERAL* a. = author ad loc. = ad locum AK = Ancient Kingdom Akk. = Akkadian Anat. = Anatolian (A)NE = (Ancient) Near East app. = appendix Arab. = Arabic Aram. = Aramaic art. = article Ass. = Assyrian Bab. = Babylonian BA = Bronze Age BCE = Before Christian/Common Era Berb. = Berber bibliog. = bibliography ca = circa, about, approximately Carthag. = Carthaginian CE = Christian/Common Era cent. = century cf. = confer ch. = chapter cit. = cited class. = classic(al) cm = centimetre(s) c.m. = cubic meter(s) col. / cols = column(s) comm. = commentary Cypr. = Cyprian/Cypriot diam. = diameter diss. = dissertation DN(N) = divine name(s) dyn. = dynasty E = East east. = eastern ed. / eds = editor(s) ead. = eadem e.g. = exempli gratia Egypt. = Egyptian Engl. = English esp. = especially. *

et al. = et alii etc. = etcetera Etr. = Etruscan ex. = example f./ff. = following or followed fem. = feminine gender fig. / figs = figure(s) fr. = fragment frs = fragments fn. = footnote Gk = Greek gr = gram(s) h. = height ha. = hectare(s) Hebr. = Hebrew Hellenist. = Hellenistic Hitt. = Hittite IA = Iron Age i.a. = inter alia ibid. = ibidem, in the same work id./iid. = idem/iidem i.e. = id est, that is to say, in other words IE = Indo-European i.p. = in press impf. = imperfect inv. = inventory, inventories kg = kilogram(s) km = kilometre(s) l. = length Lat. = Latin LBA = Late Bronze Age LC = Late Cycladic LH = Late Helladic Lib. = Libyan lin. = line(s) lit. = literally m = metre(s) masc. = masculine gender max. = maximum MBA = Middle Bronze Age Medit. = Mediterranean

For abbreviations not included here see: http://public.oed.com/how-to-use-the-oed/abbreviations/ (Oxford English Dictionary).

XVIII

ABBREVIATIONS

Mesop. = Mesopotamian mill. = millennium min. = minimum MK = Middle Kingdom mm = millimetre(s) MonSer = Monograph Series MS(S) = Manuscript(s) Mycen. = Mycenaean N = North no. / nos = number(s) NB = nota bene NE = North-East Neoass. = Neoassyrian Neobab. = Neobabylonian Neopun. = Neopunic NK = New Kingdom north. = northern NS = Nova Series/New Series/Nouvelle Série/ Nuova Serie Nur. = Nuragic NT = New Testament Numid. = Numidian NW = North-West Obv. = Obverse OK = Old Kingdom Or. = Oriental OT = Old Testament Palest. = Palestinian passim = passim Pers. = Persian pf. = perfect Phoen. = Phoenician Pl. Pls = Plate(s) plur. = plural PN(N) = personal name(s) pron. = pronoun p(p). = page(s)

2. GREEK

AND

LATIN

ps. = pseudo ptc. = participle Pun. = Punic reconstr. = reconstructed repr. = reprint, reprinted rest. = restored Rev. = Reverse Rom. = Roman S = South S.-Arab. = South-Arabic sc. = scilicet SE = South-East Sem. = Semitic Sard. = Sardegna (Sardinia, inscription from, according to ICO) Sic. = Sicilia (Sicily, inscription from, according to ICO) sing. = singular s.m. = square meter(s) south. = southern Spa. = Spagna (Spain, inscription from, according to ICO) Sum. = Sumerian Suppl. = Supplement s.v. = sub voce SW = South-West Syr. = Syrian TN(N) = toponym(s) trans. = translation, translator, translated by Ug. = Ugaritic vid. = vide, ‘see’ vol. = volume vs. = verse or versus W = West w. = width west. = western

SOURCES

Ach. Tat. = Achilles Tatius Ael. = Aelianus Ep. = Epistulae NA = De natura animalium VH = Varia historia Aesch. = Aeschylus Tragicus Pr. = Prometheus vinctus Suppl. = Supplices Th. = Septem contra Thebas

Alcid. = Alcidamas rhetor Od. = Ὀδυσσεύϛ Antim. = Antimachus Colophonius Antioch. = Antiochus (FGrHist) Ant. Placent. = Antoninus Placentius Itin. = Itinerarium AP = Anthologia Palatina [Apollod.] = Apollodorus Mythographus Bibl. = Bibliotheca

ABBREVIATIONS

Epit. = Epitome App. = Appianus BC = Bella civilia Pun. = Λιβυκή Ap. Rhod. = Apollonius Rhodius Argon. = Argonautica Apul. = Lucius Apuleius Met. = Metamorphoses Arist.ristoteles Oec. = Oeconomica Ph. = Physica Pol. = Politica Arr. = Arrianus An. = Anabasis Ind. = Indica Athen. = Athenaeus Deipn. = Deipnosophistae Avien. = R. Festus Avienus Or. Mar. = Ora Maritima Aug. = Aurelius Augustinus CD = De Civitate Dei Ep. = Epistulae Caes. = C. Julius Caesar Civ. = De bello civili Gall. = De bello gallico [Caes.] = C. Julius Caesar (Pseudo-Caesar) BAfr. = Bellum Africum BAlex. = Bellum Alexandrinum [Caes. Naz.] = Pseudo-Caesarius Nazianzenus Dial. = Dialogi Cato = M. Porcius Cato Orig. = Origines Cic. = M. Tullius Cicero Div. = De Divinatione Nat. D. = De Natura Deorum Verr. = In Verrem Charax = Charax Historicus (FHG) Clem. Al. = Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. = Stromateis [Clem. Al.] = Pseudo-Clemens Recogn. = Recognitiones Clitarch. = Clitarchus (FGrHist) Coel. = L. Coelius Antipater Conon = Conon Historicus (FGrHist) Ctes. = Ctesias (FGrHist) Curt. Ruf. = Q. Curtius Rufus Historiae Alexandri Magni Dam. = Damascius Philosophus Isid. = Vita Isidori Pr. = De Principiis

XIX

D. Chr. = Dio Chrysostomus Or. = Orationes Dio Cass. = Dio Cassius Diod. = Diodorus Siculus Dion. Halic. = Dionysius Halicarnassensis Ant. Rom. = Antiquitates Romanae Dionys. Per. = Dionysius Periegeta Dsc. = Dioscorides Medicus mat. med. = De materia medica E. M. = Etymologicum Magnum Ephor. = Ephorus Historicus (FGrHist) Etym. Sym. = Etymologicum Symeonis Eudox. = Eudoxus Eun. = Eunapius (FGrHist) Eur. = Euripides Ph. = Phoenissae Eus. = Eusebius Caesariensis PE = Praeparatio Evangelica Chron. = Chronica ab Abraham Eust. = Eustathius Episcopus Thessalonicensis ad Dionys. Per. = Commentarii ad Dionysium Periegetam in Il. = Commentarii in Homeri Iliadem in Od. = Commentarii in Homeri Odysseam Fest. = Sex. Pompeius Festus De verb. sign. = De verborum significatione Flor. = L. (vel P.) Annaeus Florus Epit. = Epitome Fron. = Sex. Iulius Frontinus Str. = Stratagemata Galen. = Galenus De praecognit. = De praecognitionibus Gell. = A. Gellius Georg. Sync. = Georgius Syncellus Chron. = Chronographia Greg. Nazian. = Gregorius Nazianzenus Or. = Orationes Hdn. = Herodianus historicus Hdt. = Herodotus Hecat. = Hecataeus Milesius (FGrHist) Hecat. Abd. = Hecataeus Abderita Hellanic. = Hellanicus historicus (FGrHist) Heliod. = Heliodorus Aeth. = Aethiopica Herod. = Aelius Herodianus pros. cath. = De prosodia catholica Hes. = Hesiodus Th. = Theogonia Hier. = Hieronymus ab Abr = Chronicon ab Abraham

XX

ABBREVIATIONS

Hist. Aug. = Historiae Augustae Scriptores see SHA Hom. = Homerus Il. = Ilias Od. = Odyssea Hor. = Q. Horatius Flaccus Carm. = Carmina Hsch. = Hesychius Milesius historicus Hyg. = Hyginus Fab. = Fabulae (Genealogiae) Ister = Ister Historicus (FGrHist) Joseph. = T. Flavius Josephus AJ = Antiquitates Judaicae Ap. = contra Apionem Just. = M. Junianus Justinus Epit. = Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi Lactant. = Lactantius Div. Inst. = Divinae Institutiones Liv. = T. Livius Perioch. = Periochae Luc. = Lucianus Dial. D. = Dialogi deorum Im. = Imagines [Luc.] = Pseudo-Lucianus Syr. D. = De Syria Dea Lucil. = Gaius Lucilius Lyc. = Lycophron Tragicus Alex. = Alexandra Lyd. = Johannes Laurentius Lydus Mens. = De mensibus Macr. = Macrobius Grammaticus Sat. = Saturnalia Malal. = Johannes Malalas Chron. = Chronographia Mar. = Marinus V. Procl. = Vita Procli Mart. Cap. = Martianus Capella Mela = Pomponius Mela [Meliton] = Meliton Sardensis Or. ad Anton. Caes. = Oratio ad Antoninum Caesarem Men. Eph. = Menander Ephesius (FGrHist) Min. Fel. = Minucius Felix Oct. = Octavius Naev. = Naevius Nep. = Cornelius Nepos Ham. = Hamilcar Hann. = Hannibal Iphicr. = Iphicrates Tim. = Timoleon

Nigid. = P. Nigidius Figulus Nonn. = Nonnus Epicus D. = Dionysiaca Orig. = Origenes Cels. = contra Celsum Oros. = Paulus Orosius Adv. Pag. = Adversus Paganos Ov. = P. Ovidius Naso Fast. = Fasti Her. = Heroides Met. = Metamorphoses Rem. = Remedia amoris Paus. = Pausanias Periegetas Ph. = Philo Judaeus Ph. Bybl. = Philo Byblius Pherecyd. Sir. = Pherecydes Sirius (FGrHist) Phld. = Philodemus Philosophus Philist. = Philistus Historicus (FGrHist) Philosteph. Hist. = Philostephanus Historicus Philostr. = L. Flavius Philostratus Im. = Imagines VA = Vita Apollonii VS = Vitae Sophistarum Phot. = Photius Lexicographus Bibl. = Bibliotheca Homil. = Homiliae Pind. = Pindarus lyricus N. = Nemeae O. = Olympicae P. = Pythicae Pl. = Plato philosophus Criti. = Critias Leg. = Leges Symp. = Symposium Ti. = Timaeus [Pl.] = Pseudo-Plato Plaut. = T. Maccius Plautus Poen. = Poenulus Plb. = Polybius Plin. = C. Plinius Secundus Nat. = Naturalis historia Plut. = Plutarchus Moralia De Is. et Os. = De Iside et Osiride De Herod. malign. = De Herodoti malignitate De Stoic. re. = De Stoicorum repugnantiis De Superst. = De Superstitione Quaest. conv. = Quaestiones conviviales Quaest. rom. = Quaestiones romanae Sept. Sap. = Septem Sapientium Convivium

ABBREVIATIONS

Vitae Alex. = Alexander C. Gr. = Caius Gracchus Crass. = Crassus Flam. = Flamininus Poll. = Pollux Onom. = Onomasticon Polyaen. = Polyaenus Strat. = Stratagemata Polyzel. = Polyzelus Historicus (FGrHist) Pomp. Trog. = Pompeius Trogus Prol. = Prologi Porph. = Porphirius Tyrius Philosophus Abst. = De abstinentia Christ. = Contra Christianos Posidon. = Posidonius Historicus [Prob.] = Pseudo-Probus in. Verg. Ec. = Commentarius in Vergilii Eclogas et Georgica Ptol. = Ptolemaeus Mathematicus Geogr. = Geographia Priscian. = Priscianus grammaticus Inst. = Institutiones grammaticae Prudent. = Prudentius C. Symm. = Contra Symmachum Quint. = Quintilianus Inst. = Institutio oratoria Quodvultdeus Promiss. = De promissionibus et prædictionibus Dei R. Fest. = Rufius Festus Brev. = Breviarium Sall. = C. Sallustius Crispus Jug. = Bellum Jugurthinum Salv. = Salvianus De gub. Dei = De gubernatione Dei schol. = scholia [Scyl.] = Scylax (Pseudo-Scylax) Peripl. Serv. = Servius Onoratus A. = In Vergilii Aeneidos libros Ecl. = In Vergilii Eclogae G. = In Vergilii Georgica SHA = Scriptores Historiae Augustae Hadr. = Hadrianus Macr. = Macrinus

XXI

Pert. = Pertinax Tyr. Trig. = Tyranni Triginta Sil. = Silius Italicus Pun. = Punica Simpl. = Simplicius in Phys. = in Aristotelis de Physica Commentarii Solin. = C. Julius Solinus St. Byz. = Stephanus Byzantius Stesich. = Stesichorus Str. = Strabo Suet. = C. Suetonius Tranquillus Claud. = Claudius Suid. = Suidas Lexicographus Tac. = P. Cornelius Tacitus Ann. = Annales Germ. = Germania Tat. = Tatianus ad Gr. = Oratio ad Graecos Tert. = Tertullianus Ad nat. = Ad nationes Apol. = Apologeticus De Anim. = De Anima Scorp. = De Scorpiace Theoc. = Theocritus Idyll. = Idyllia Theopomp. = Theopompus (FGrHist) Thuc. = Thucydides Timae. = Timaeus (FGrHist) Tyrt. = Tyrtaeus elegiacus Tz. = Johannes Tzetzes ad Lyc. = ad Lycophronem Val. Max. = Valerius Maximus Varr. = M. Terentius Varro RR = Res rusticae Vell. = Velleius Paterculus Verg. = P. Vergilius Maro A. = Aeneis G. = Georgica Vic. = Victor Vitensis Hist. pers. = Historia persecutionum Africanae provinciae Zen. = Zenobius Zonar. = Zonaras Lexicographus Zos. = Zosimus

XXII

ABBREVIATIONS

3. BIBLICAL BOOKS 1. Old Testament Amos Bar 1 Chr 2 Chr Ctc Dan Deut Esd Esth Exod Ezek Gen Hab Hag Hos Isa Jdt Jer Job Joel Jonah Josh

Amos Baruch 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Canticles Daniel Deuteronomy Esdras Esther Exodus Ezekiel Genesis Habakkuk Haggai Hosea Isaiah Judith Jeremiah Job Joel Jonah Joshua

Judg 1-2 Kgs Lam Lev 1-4 Mac Mal Mic Nah Neh Num Obad Prov Ps Ruth 1 Sam 2 Sam Sir Song Tob Wisd Zech Zeph

Judges 1-2 Kings Lamentations Leviticus 1-4 Maccabees Malachi Micah Nahum Nehemiah Numbers Obadiah Proverbs Psalms Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel Ben Sira / Ecclesiasticus Song of Solomon Tobit Wisdom Zechariah Zephaniah

Heb Jas Jude 1-2 Pet Phil Philemon Rev Rom 1-2 Thes 1-2 Tim Titus

Hebrews James Jude 1-2 Peter Philippians Philemon Revelation Romans 1-2 Thessalonians 1-2 Thimothy Titus

2. New Testament Mt Mk Lk Joh Acts Apoc Col 1-2 Cor Eph Gal

Matthew Mark Luke John The Acts of the Apostles Apocalypse Colossians 1-2 Corinthians Ephesians Galatians

4. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES (BOOKS, JOURNALS, SERIES

ETC.)

A AAA AAAS AcOr

Athens Annals of Archaeology. Athens. Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes-Syriennes. Damascus: Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées de la République Arabe Syrienne. Acta Orientalia. Copenhagen.

ABBREVIATIONS

ADD ADPV AE AEA ÄAT ÄgAb AEPHE AFLFCa AfO AfRo 1 AfRo 2 AfRo 3

AfRo 4

AfRo 5

AfRo 6

AfRo 7

AfRo 8

AfRo 9

AfRo 10

AfRo 11

AfRo 12

XXIII

John, C. H. W. (19242) Assyrian Deeds and Documents. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Année Épigraphique. Paris. Archivo Español de Arqueología. Madrid. Ägypten und Altes Testament. Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz/Münster: Zaphon. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études. Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Cagliari. Archiv für Orientforschung. Vienna. Mastino, A. (ed.) (1984) L’Africa romana I. Atti del I Convegno di studio, Sassari, 16-17 dicembre 1983. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi. Mastino, A. (ed.) (1985) L’Africa romana II. Atti del II Convegno di studio, Sassari, 14-16 dicembre 1984. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi. Mastino, A. (ed.) (1986) L’Africa romana III. La documentazione epigrafica e la storia delle province romane del Maghreb. Atti del III Convegno di studio, Sassari, 13-15 dicembre 1985. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi. Mastino, A. (ed.) (1987) L’Africa romana IV. L’epigrafia e la storia delle province romane del Maghreb. Atti del IV Convegno di studio, Sassari, 12-14 dicembre 1986. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi. Mastino, A. (ed.) (1988) L’Africa romana V. L’epigrafia e la storia delle province romane del Maghreb. Atti del V Convegno di studio, Sassari, 11-13 dicembre 1987. Sassari: Università degli Studi di Sassari, Dipartimento di Storia. Mastino, A. (ed.) (1989) L’Africa romana VI. Il Nord Africa e la Sardegna in età tardo-antica. Atti del VI Convegno di studio, Sassari, 16-18 dicembre 1988. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi. Mastino, A. (ed.) (1990) L’Africa romana VII. Sopravvivenze puniche e persistenze indigene nel Nord Africa ed in Sardegna in età romana. Atti del VII Convegno di studio, Sassari, 15-17 dicembre 1989. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi. Mastino, A. (ed.) (1991) L’Africa romana VIII. Economia e società nel Nord Africa ed in Sardegna in età imperiale: continuità e trasformazioni. Atti dell’VIII Convegno di studio, Cagliari, 14-16 dicembre 1990. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi. Mastino, A. (ed.) (1992) L’Africa romana IX. Nuove scoperte epigrafiche nel Nord Africa ed in Sardegna. Atti del IX Convegno di studio, Nuoro, 13-15 dicembre 1991. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi. Mastino, A. and Ruggeri, P. (eds) (1994) L’Africa romana X. Civitas. L’organizzazione dello spazio urbano nel Nord Africa ed in Sardegna. Atti del X Convegno di Studio, Oristano, 11-13 dicembre 1992. Sassari: Editrice Archivio Fotografico Sardo. Khanoussi, M., Ruggeri, P. and Vismara, C. (eds) (1996) L’Africa romana XI. La scienza e le tecniche nelle province romane del Nord Africa e nel Mediterraneo. Atti dell’XI Convegno di studio, Cartagine, 15-18 dicembre 1994. Sassari: Editrice il Torchietto – Ozieri. Khanoussi, M., Ruggeri, P. and Vismara, C. (eds) (1998) L’Africa romana XII. L’organizzazione dello spazio rurale nelle province del Nord Africa e nella Sardegna. Atti del XII Convegno di studio, Olbia, 12-15 dicembre 1996. Sassari: EDS, Editrice Democratica Sarda.

XXIV

AfRo 13

AfRo 14

AfRo 15

AfRo 16

AfRo 17

AfRo 18

AfRo 19

AfRo 20

AION AIPHOS AJA AJSL

AK ALASP(M) AncSoc ANET ANES(S) ANLR ANRW

AnOr AnSt AntAfr AntCl AO AOAT

ABBREVIATIONS

Khanoussi, M., Ruggeri, P. and Vismara, C. (eds) (2000) L’Africa romana XIII. Geografi, viaggiatori, militari nel Maghreb: alle origini dell’archeologia nel Nord Africa. Atti del XIII Convegno di studio, Djerba, 10-13 dicembre 1998. Rome: Carocci. Khanoussi, M., Ruggeri, P. and Vismara, C. (eds) (2002) L’Africa romana XIV. Lo spazio marittimo del Mediterraneo occidentale: geografia storica ed economica. Atti del XIV Convegno internazionale, Sassari, 7-10 dicembre 2000. Rome: Carocci. Khanoussi, M., Ruggeri, P. and Vismara, C. (eds) (2004) L’Africa romana XV. Ai confini dell’impero: contatti, scambi, conflitti. Atti del XV Convegno di studio, Tozeur, 11-15 dicembre 2002. Rome: Carocci. Akerraz, A. et al. (ed.) (2006) L’Africa romana XVI. Mobilità delle persone e dei popoli, dinamiche migratorie, emigrazioni ed immigrazioni nelle province occidentali dell’Impero romano. Atti del XVI Convegno di studio, Rabat, 15-19 dicembre 2004. Rome: Carocci. González, J. and Ruggeri, P. (eds) (2009) L’Africa romana XVII. Le ricchezze dell’Africa. Risorse, produzioni, scambi. Atti del XVII Convegno di studio, Sevilla, 14-17 dicembre 2006. Rome: Carocci. Milanese, M., Ruggeri, P. and Vismara, C. (eds) (2010) L’Africa romana XVIII. I luoghi e le forme dei mestieri e della produzione nelle provincie africane. Atti del XVIII Convegno di studio, Olbia, 11-14 dicembre 2008. Rome: Carocci. Cocco, M. B., Gavini, A. and Ibba, A. (eds) (2012) L’Africa Romana XIX. Trasformazione dei paesaggi del potere nell’Africa settentrionale fino alla fine del mondo antico. Atti del XIX Convegno di studio, Sassari, 16-19 dicembre 2010. Rome: Carocci. Ruggeri, P. (ed.) (2015) L’Africa romana XX. Momenti di continuità e rottura: bilancio di trent’anni di convegni L’Africa romana. Atti del XX Convegno di studio, Alghero, 26-29 settembre 2013. Rome: Carocci. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie Orientales et Slaves. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles. Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves. American Journal of Archaeology. Boston. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1895-1941), which is continued by the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1942-present). Antike Kunst. Basel. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas (und Mesopotamiens). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Ancient Society. Leuven: Peeters. Pritchard, J. B. (ed.) (19693) Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ancient Near Eastern Studies (Supplement). Leuven: Peeters (formerly: Abr-Nahrain). see RAL. Temporini, H. and Haas, W. (eds) (1972ff.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms in Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Analecta Orientalia. Rome. Anatolian Studies. Ankara. Antiquités Africaines. Aix-en-Provence. L’Antiquité classique. Liège. Antiquités Orientales (Musée du Louvre). Paris. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn and Münster: UgaritVerlag.

ABBREVIATIONS

AoF APC 1 2 3

4

5

6

7

8

APN ArchCl ArchDelt ARID Art phénicien ARW ASGM Aug. AuOr AuOr(S) AWE

XXV

Altorientalische Forschungen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Acts of the International Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies, as follows: Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Roma, 5-10 novembre 1979). Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. 1983. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Roma, 9-14 novembre 1987). Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. 1991. Fantar, M. H. and Ghaki, M. (eds) Actes du IIIe Congrès International des Études Phéniciennes et Puniques (Tunis, 11-16 novembre 1991). Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine. 1995. Aubet Semmler, M. E. and Barthélemy, M. (eds) Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos (Cádiz, 2-6 octubre 1995). Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. 2000. Spanò Giammellaro, A. (ed.) Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Marsala-Palermo, 2-8 ottobre 2000). Palermo: Università degli Studi di Palermo, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia. 2005. Arruda, A. M. (ed.) (2013) Actas do VI Congresso internacional de Estudos Fenícios e Púnicos, Facultade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, 25 Setembro a 1 Outubro de 2005. Lisboa: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa. 2013. Ferjaoui, A. and Redissi, T. (eds) (2019) La vie, la mort et la religion dans l’univers phénicien et punique. Actes du VIIème Congrès International des Études Phéniciennes et Puniques 1-3. Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine. Guirguis, M. (ed.) (2017-2018) From the Mediterranean to the Atlantic: People, goods and ideas between East and West. 8th International Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies (Carbonia-Sant’Antioco, 21th-26th October 2013). Rome. Folia Phoenicia 1-2. Huffmon, H. B. (1965) Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. A Structural and Lexical Study. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Archeologia Classica. Roma. Archaiologikon Deltion. Athens. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. Rome: Accademia di Danimarca/Det Danske Institut i Rom. Caubet, A., Gubel, E. and Fontan, E. (eds) (2002) Art phénicien. La sculpture de tradition phénicienne. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft. Freiburg i. B., Leipzig und Tübingen: Teubner, Mohr. Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese. Milan: Università degli Studi, Istituto di Glottologia. Augustinianum. Rome: Istituto Patristico Augustinianum. Aula Orientalis. Barcelona. Aula Orientalis (Supplementa). Barcelona. Ancient West and East. Leuven: Peeters.

B BAA BAAL (HS) BABESH BAC BAH

Bulletin d’Archéologie Algérienne. Paris: de Boccard. BAAL: Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises (Hors Série). Beirut: Direction Générale des Antiquités. BABESCH. Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology (formerly: Bulletin Antieke Beschaving). Leuven: Peeters. see BCTH. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique. Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth.

XXVI

BAR (IS) BAS BASOR BBB BCAR BCH BCTH BdÉ BES BÉS BEThL BICS BiOr BJRL BM BMB BMC BMQ BMMGP BN BNJ BNP

Bonnet, C. (1988) Bonnet, C. (1996) BPOA BRA BSA BSFE BSFN BSNAF BTAVO BWANT BZAW

ABBREVIATIONS

British Archaeological Reports (International Series). Oxford. Bullettino archeologico sardo. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Jerusalem and Washington. Bonner Biblische Beiträge. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Athens. Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux historiques et scientifiques. Paris. Bibliothèque d’Étude. Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Cairo. Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar. New York. Teixidor, J. (1986) Bulletin d’épigraphie sémitique 1964-1980. Paris: Geuthner. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Leuven: University Press/ Peeters. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London. Bibliotheca Orientalis. Leuven: Peeters. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Objects in the British Museum. London. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth. British Museum Catalogue of Coins. British Museum Quarterly. London. Bolletino dei Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie. Rome: Musei Vaticani. Biblische Notizen. Salzburg: Herder. Worthington, I. (ed.) Brill’s New Jacoby: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ browse/brill-s-new-jacoby. Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar. Classical Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry. Consulted online on 28 April 2018 . Bonnet, C. (1988) Melqart. Cultes et mythes de l’Héraclès tyrien en Méditerranée. Studia Phoenicia 8. Namur/Leuven: Peeters. Bonnet, C. (1996) Astarté. Dossier documentaire et perspective historiques. CSF 37. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo. Madrid: CSIC. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums. Halle: Niemeyer. The Annual of the British School at Athens. Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie. Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique. Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France. Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Beihefte. Tübingen, 1969ff. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament. Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln/ Mainz: Kohlhammer. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin: de Gruyter.

C CAM CAT CB CBQ (MS)

Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea. Publicaciones del Laboratorio de Arqueología de la Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona. see KTU3. Cahiers de Byrsa. Tunis and Paris. Catholic Biblical Quarterly (Monograph Series). Washington, DC.

ABBREVIATIONS

CCEC CCJ CEC CEFR CENiM CHANE CHLI ChrÉg CIL ClPhil C(l)Q CIS CMAO CPG CRAI(BL) CRB CRRA CSF CT CTH

XXVII

Cahiers du Centre d’études chypriotes. Paris. Cambridge Classical Journal. Collection d’études classiques. Leuven: Peeters. Collection de l’École Française de Rome. Cahiers Égypte Nilotique et méditerranéenne. Paris. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Berlin: de Gruyter. Chronique d’Égypte. Bruxelles. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Classical Philology. Chicago. Classical Quarterly. Cambridge. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Contributi e materiali di archeologia orientale. Rome: Università la Sapienza. von Leutsch, E. L. and Schneidewin, F. G. (1839-1851) Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique. Leuven: Peeters. Comptes rendus de la Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Collezione di Studi Fenici. Rome. Faulkner, R. O. (2004) The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts: Spells 1-1185. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Catalog der Texte der Hethiter, in Fortführung der Arbeit von Laroche, E. (1971) Catalogue des textes Hittites. Paris: Klincksieck, bearbeitet von S. Košak und G. G. W. Müller.

D Da Pyrgi a Mozia

DaF DBH DCPP DDD2

Degrassi, Inscript. DHA DM DNWSI DO DRS

Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., Liverani, M. and Matthiae, P. (eds) (2002) Da Pyrgi a Mozia. Studi sull’archeologia del Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca. Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 3.1. Rome: Università La Sapienza. Damaszener Forschungen. Damascus: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung. Mainz am Rhein: Philip von Zabern Verlag. Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie. Lipiński, E. (ed.) (1992) Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique. Turnhout: Brepols. van der Toorn, K., Becking, B. and van der Horst, P. W. (eds) (19992: 2nd extensively revised edition). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden/ Boston: Brill. Degrassi, A. (1963) Inscriptiones Italiae XIII, 2. Fasti et elogia. Rome: Libreria dello Stato. Dialogues d’histoire ancienne. Besançon. Damaszener Mitteilungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Station Damaskus. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Hoftijzer, J. and Jongeling, K. (1995) Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, I-II. HdO 21. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Objects in the Damascus Museum. Cohen, D. et al. (eds) (1970ff.) Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques. Leuven: Peeters.

XXVIII

ABBREVIATIONS

E EA

EAD EBR

EDPC 1

EH EPAHA EPRO ErIs ESE I-III EV EVO

El-Amarna Tablets. According to the edition of J. A. Knudtzon (1908-1915) Die el-Amarna Tafeln. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Repr. 1964. Aalen: Zeller. Continued in Rainey, A. F. (1978) El Amarna Tablets 359-379. 2nd rev. ed. AOAT 8. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Exploration Archéologique de Délos. Paris: École Française d’Athènes et Éditions de Boccard. Helmer, Ch., McKenzie, S. L., Römer, Th. Ch., Schröter, J., Walfish, B. D. and Ziolkowski, E. (eds) (2009ff.) Encyclopaedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter. Ercolani, A. and Xella, P., in collaboration with U. Livadiotti and V. Melchiorri (2018) Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Phoenician Culture I. Historical Characters. Leuven: Peeters. Berthier, A. and Charlier, R. (1952-1955) Le sanctuaire d’El-Hofra à Constantine. Paris: Arts et Métiers graphiques. Études de Philologie, d’Archéologie et d’Histoire Ancienne publiées par l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire Romain, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Eretz-Israel. Israel Exploration Society. Lidzbarski, M. (1902-1915) Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik, I-III. Giessen: Töpelmann. Della Corte, F. (ed.) Enciclopedia Virgiliana 1-5. 1984f-1991. Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana (1, 1984; 2, 1985; 3, 1987; 4, 1988; 5.1, 1990; 5.2, 1991). Egitto e Vicino Oriente. Pisa.

F FAT FBW Fenici, Catalogo FGH FGrH(ist) FO

Forschungen zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg. Moscati, S. (ed.) (1988) I Fenici. Catalogo della Mostra di Venezia, Palazzo Grassi. Milan: Bompiani. Müller, K. W. L. (ed.) (1841-1872) Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. Leipzig: Didot. Jacoby, F. (1923-1958; 1994 repr.) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, I-IIIc. Berlin/Leiden: Weidmann and Brill. Folia Orientalia. Warsaw: Polska Akademia Nauk.

G GA Geus, K. (1994) GGM GM GRBS

Gazette archéologique. Recueil de Monuments pour servir à la connaissance et à l’histoire de l’art antique. Geus, K. (1994) Prosopographie der literarisch bezeugten Karthager. OLA 59. Leuven: Peeters. Geographi Graeci Minores, ed. by K. Müller. Paris, 1855-1861. Göttinger Miszellen. Greek, Roman & Byzantine Studies. Durham (North Carolina).

ABBREVIATIONS

XXIX

H HAAN HdO HEO HNPI HSM HTB HTR HUCA Huss, W. (1985)

Gsell, S. (1913-1928) Histoire ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord, I-VIII. Paris: Hachette et cie. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Hautes Études Orientales. Paris/Genève: Droz. Jongeling, K. (2008) Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Histoire du texte biblique. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre. Harvard Theological Review. Harvard: Cambridge University Press. Hebrew Union College Annual. Huss, W. (1985) Geschichte der Karthager. München: Beck.

I IBKWS ICO ICS(2) ID IDD IEJ IG IGLS IGRR IK ILAfr ILAlg ILS Inscr. Lind. IPT IRT

Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft. Guzzo Amadasi, M. G. (1967) Le iscrizioni fenicie e puniche delle colonie in Occidente. SS 28. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente. Masson, O. (1961; 19832) Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Recueil critique et commenté. Paris: Éditions de Boccard. Corpus des inscriptions de Délos. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Iconography of Deities and Demons in the Ancient Near East. University of Zurich in cooperation with Brill. Israel Exploration Journal. Jerusalem. Inscriptiones Graecae (1873ff.). Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Beirut: Institut Français du ProcheOrient. Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. and Karageorghis, V. (1977) Fouilles de Kition. Vol. 3. Inscriptions phéniciennes. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. Cagnat, R., Merlin, A. and Chatelain, I. (1923) Inscriptions latines d’Afrique. Paris 1923. Gsell, S. and Pflaum, H. G. (1922-1957) Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie, I-II/1. Paris 1922-1957; II/2, Algiers 1976: H. Champion. Dessau, H. (1892) Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Berlin: Weidmann. Blinkenberg, C. (1941) Lindos. Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902-1914. Vol. 2. Inscriptions, I-II. Berlin/Copenhagen. Levi della Vida, G. and Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1987) Iscrizioni puniche della Tripolitania (1927-1967). Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Reynolds, J. and Ward-Perkins, J. B. The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania. Rome/ London: King’s College London.

J JA JAC JAEI JAH JANES

Journal Asiatique. Paris: Société Asiatique. Journal for Ancient Civilizations. Changchun: Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections. The University of Arizona. Journal of Ancient History/Vestnik drevneĭ istorii. Moscow: Izd-vo Nauka. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of the Columbia University. New York.

XXX

JANER JAOS JARCE JBL JCS JdS JEA JEOL JHS JIAAA JIAN JJS JNES JNSL JRA JRS JSHRZ (NF) JSOT (SS) JSS

ABBREVIATIONS

Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Leiden: Brill. Journal of the American Oriental Society. American Oriental Society. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. Journal of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis. Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Baghdad School of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Journal des Savants. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux”. Leiden. Journal of Hellenic Studies. Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies: Cambridge University Press. Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology. Turhout: Brepols. Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique. Journal of Jewish Studies. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages. Stellenbosch. Journal of Roman Archaeology. Editorial Committee of the Journal of Roman Archaeology: Cambridge University Press. Journal of Roman Studies. Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies: Cambridge University Press. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Neue Folge). Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (Supplementary Series). Sheffield: SAGE Publishing. Journal of Semitic Studies. Manchester: Oxford University Press.

K KAI

KBo Krings, V. (1995) KTU3

Donner, H. and Röllig, W. (1962-2002) Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, I-III. 1962-1964, 1966-1969. Bd. 1: 5., erweiterte und überarbeitete Auflage, 2002. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköy. Krings, V. (ed.) (1995) La civilisation phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche. HdO 20. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. and Sanmartín, J. (1995) Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten (KTU: Dritte, erweiterte Auflage) / The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: Third, enlarged edition). AOAT 360/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

L LÄ Le Bas – Waddington LEC LHB/OTS Liban, l’autre rive

Helck, W. and Otto, E. (eds) (1972-1986) Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Le Bas, Ph. and Waddington, W. H. (1870) Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. Paris: Firmin-Didot. Les études classiques. Namur: Société des études classiques. The Library of Hebrew Bible. Old Testament Studies. Sheffield Academic Press et al. Liban, l’autre rive: Exposition présentée à l’Institut du Monde Arabe du 27 octobre au 2 mai 1999. Paris: Flammarion. 1998.

ABBREVIATIONS

LIMC Lipiński, E. (1995)

XXXI

Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Zürich/Munich/Basel, 1981ff. Artemis Verlag. Lipiński, E. (1995) Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique. OLA 64 = StPhoen 14. Leuven: Peeters.

M MAIBL MÄS MAL MARI MDAIK

MEFRA MH MIO(F) MIOS MN MNC Mus MUSJ MVÄG

Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien. Munich. Monumenti antichi. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. MARI. Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires. Paris. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (until 1944: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts für Ägyptische Altertumskunde in Kairo. Berlin/ Wiesbaden/Mainz am Rhein). Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Museum Helveticum. Schweizerische Vereinigung für Altertumswissenschaft / Association Suisse pour l’étude de l’Antiquité. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung. Berlin. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung. Sonderhefte. Berlin. Monumenta Numismatica. Prague. Musée National de Carthage. Le Muséon. Leuven: Peeters. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph. Beirut, Université Saint-Joseph: Imprimerie Catholique. Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft.

N NABU NAN NNPI NP

NSI NumAntClass

NABU. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. Paris. Jongeling, K. (1994) North-African Names from Latin Sources. Leiden. Jongeling, K. (1984) Names in Neo-Punic Inscriptions. Groningen: Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen. Signature of Neopunic inscriptions based on the numbering of P. Schröder (Die phönizische Sprache. Halle 1869, 63-72) and Z. S. Harris (A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven 1936, 160-161). Cooke, G. A. (1903) A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Numismatica e Antichità Classiche. Quaderni Ticinesi.

O OA OBO OGIS OLA OLP Or(NS) ORA

Oriens Antiquus. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Leuven: Peeters. W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Leipzig 1903-1905 (Hildesheim 1960). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Leuven: Peeters. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. Leuven: Peeters. Orientalia (Nova Series). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike / Oriental Religions in Antiquity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

XXXII

OrOcc OTS

ABBREVIATIONS

Oriens et Occidens. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag. Oudtestamentische Studiën. Leiden: Brill.

P PAT PBSR PdÄ PEQ Picard, C. (1954) PIHANS PNA 1/II PNA 3/II PNPPI POLO 3 PPG

PT PTU

Cussini, E. and Hillers, D. H. (1996) Palmyrene Aramaic Texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Papers of the British School at Rome. Probleme der Ägyptologie. Palestine Exploration Quarterly. London. Picard, C. (1954) Catalogue du Musée Alaoui. Nouvelle Série (collections puniques), T. I. Tunis: Institut des Hautes Études de Tunis. Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Radner, K. (ed.) The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Volume 1, Part II: B-G. 1999: University of Helsinki Press/Eisenbrauns. Baker, H. D. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Volume 3, Part II: Š-Z. 2011: University of Helsinki Press/Eisenbrauns. Benz, F. L. (1972) Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Proche-Orient et littérature ougaritique. Sherbrooke, Québec: Éditions GGC. Friedrich, J. and Röllig, W. (1999) Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. 3. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo unter Mitarbeit von Werner R. Mayer. AnOr 55. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Allen, J. P. (20152) The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press. Gröndahl, F. (1967) Die Personennamen der Texte ans Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Q QDAP QuadCagliari

Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine. Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti Paesaggio per la città metropolitana di Cagliari e le province di Oristano e Sud Sardegna. Cagliari.

R RA RAL RArch RAO RB RDAC RdÉ RE RÉA RÉG

Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale. Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rome. Revue Archéologique. Clermont-Ganneau, C. (1885-1921) Recueil d’archéologie orientale, I-VIII. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Revue biblique. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus. Nicosia. Revue d’Égyptologie. Paris. Pauly, A., Wissowa, G. et al. (eds) 1894-1980 Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart/München: Alfred Druckenmüller. Revue des Études Anciennes. Bordeaux. Revue des Études Grecques. Paris.

ABBREVIATIONS

REL REPPAL RÉS RevAfr RevSem RGG4

RGI RGRW RHR RhM RIB RIC RIH RIL RIN RINAP 4 RivArch Rix (2002) RlA RN RO Roscher, Lexicon RPARA RRC RRE RS RSF RSN RSO RSOu RTP RTun

XXXIII

Revue des Études Latines. Paris. Revue des Études Phéniciennes-Puniques et des Antiquités Libyques. Tunis. Chabot, J.-B., Clermont-Ganneau, C. et al. (eds) (1905-1968) Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique. Paris: Éditions de Boccard Revue Africaine. Algiers. Revue Sémitique. Betz, H. D. et al. (eds) (1998-2007) Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. 4. Auflage. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck Rivista Geografica Italiana. Florence. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill. Revue de l’Histoire des Religions. Paris. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie. Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965) The Roman Inscriptions of Britain I. Gloucester 1965. Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E. (1968) The Roman Imperial Coinage. London 1968. Ras Ibn Hani. Chabot, J.-B. (1940-41) Recueil des Inscriptions Libyques. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica e scienze affini. Milan. Leichty, E. (2011) The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669) = The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Rivista di Archeologia. Rome. Rix, H (2002) Sabellische Texte. Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen. Heidelberg: C. Winter Universitätsverlag. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. 1922-2018. Berlin: de Gruyter. Revue numismatique. Rocznik Orientalistyczny. Warsaw. Roscher, W. H. (1886-1937) Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. Leipzig: Teubner. Rendiconti. Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Rome. Crawford, M. H. (1974) Roman Republican Coinage I. London: Cambridge University Press. Religion in the Roman Empire. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Ras Shamra. Rivista di studi fenici. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Revue Suisse de Numismatique / Schweizer numismatische Rundschau. Rivista degli studi orientali. Rome: Università La Sapienza. Ras Shamra-Ougarit. Leuven: Peeters. Ingholt, H., Seyrig, J., Starcky, J., Caquot, A. (1955) Recueil des tessères de Palmyre. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique LVIII. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Revue Tunisienne. Tunis: Institut de Carthage.

S SAA 2 SAA 16

Parpola, S. and Watanabe, K. (1988) Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths = State Archives of Assyria, 2. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press. Luukko, M. and Van Buylaere, G. (2002) The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon = State Archives of Assyria, 16. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press.

XXXIV

SAK SANER SBL ScAnt SC SCEBA SCO SEAP SEG SEL SemClass SGRR SicArch SJOT SMSR SPAL SPC SS StAeg StBoT StEtr StMagr StOr StPhoen 1-2

StPhoen 3 StPhoen 4 StPhoen 5 StPhoen 6 StPhoen 7 StPhoen 8 StPhoen 9 StPhoen 10 StPhoen 11 StPhoen 12 StPhoen 13 StPhoen 14 StPhoen 16

ABBREVIATIONS

Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. Hamburg. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records. Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter. Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta (GA). Scienze dell’Antichità. Storia, Archeologia, Antropologia. Rome: Università La Sapienza. Sources Chrétiennes. Sardinia Corsica et Baleares Antiquae. Pisa/Rome: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. Studi Classici e Orientali. Pisa. Studi di egittologia e di antichità puniche. Pisa: Giardini. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 1923ff. Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico. Verona: Essedue Edizioni. Semitica et Classica. Association Semitica et Classica. Turnhout: Brepols. Studies in Greek and Roman Religion. Leiden: Brill. Sicilia Archeologica. Rome: L’ “Erma” di Bretschneider. Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament. Copenhagen. Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni. Rome: Morcelliana. SPAL. Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla. Sznycer, M. and Bertrandy, F. (1987) Les stèles puniques de Constantine. Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux. Studi Semitici. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente. Studia Aegyptiaca. Budapest. Studien zu den Boǧazköy-Texten. Studi Etruschi. Florence. Studi Magrebini. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Studia Orientalia. Helsinki. Gubel, E., Lipiński, E. and Servais-Soyez B. (eds) (1983) I. Redt Tyrus/Sauvons Tyr; II. Histoire phénicienne/Fenicische geschiedenis. Studia Phoenicia 1-2. Leuven: Peeters. Gubel, E. and Lipiński, E. (eds) (1985) Phoenicia and its Neighbours. Studia Phoenicia 3. Leuven: Peeters. Bonnet, C., Lipiński, E. and Marchetti, P. (eds) (1986) Religio Phoenicia. Studia Phoenicia 4. Leuven/Namur: Peeters. Lipiński, E. (ed.) (1987) Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. Studia Phoenicia 5. Leuven: Peeters. Lipiński, E. (ed.) (1988) Carthago. Studia Phoenicia 6. Leuven: Peeters. Gubel, E. Phoenician Furniture. Studia Phoenicia 7. Leuven: Peeters. v. Bonnet, C. (1988). Hackens, T. and Moucharte, G. (eds) (1992) Numismatique et histoire économique phéniciennes et puniques. Studia Phoenicia 9. Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Devijver, H. and Lipiński, E. (eds) (1989) Punic Wars. Studia Phoenicia 10. Leuven: Peeters. Lipiński, E. (ed.) (1991) Phoenicia and the Bible. Studia Phoenicia 11. Leuven: Peeters. Briquel-Chatonnet, F. (1991) Les relations entre les cités de la côte phénicienne et les royaumes d’Israël et de Juda. Studia Phoenicia 12. Leuven: Peeters. v. Geus, K. (1994). v. Lipiński, E. (1995). Geus, K. and Zimmermann, K. (eds) (2002) Punica - Libyca - Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huss zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. Studia Phoenicia 16. Leuven: Peeters.

ABBREVIATIONS

StPhoen 17 StPhoen 18 StPhoen 19 StPhoen 20 StPhoen 21 StPhoen 22 StSard Studi Moscati

Syll.3

XXXV

Niehr, H. (2003) Ba‛alšamem. Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes. Studia Phoenicia 17. Leuven: Peeters. Lipiński, E. (2004) Itineraria Phoenicia. Studia Phoenicia 18. Leuven: Peeters. Lipiński, E. (2009) Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite Deity. Studia Phoenicia 19. Leuven: Peeters. Elayi, J. and Elayi, A. G. (2009) The Coinage of the Phoenician city of Tyre in the Persian Period (5th - 4th Century BCE). Studia Phoenicia 20. Leuven: Peeters. Lipiński, E. (2015) Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire méditerranéenne. Studia Phoenicia 21. Leuven: Peeters. Abou-Abdallah, M. (2017) L’histoire du Royaume de Byblos à l’âge du Fer, 1080333. Studia Phoenicia 22. Leuven: Peeters. Studi Sardi. Cagliari. Acquaro, E. (ed.) (1996) Alle soglie della classicità. Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati, I-III. Rome/Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. Dittenberger, W. (1915-1924) Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Leipzig: Hirzel.

T TA TAF TAPhA ThWAT Trans TSSI III TUAT TUAT NF

Tel Aviv. Tübinger Archäologische Forschungen. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. Botterweck, G. J., Rinngren, H. and Fabry, H.-J. (1973-2000) Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Transeuphratène. Paris: Gabalda Gibson, J. C. L. (1982) Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions III. Phoenician Inscriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaiser, O. et al. (eds) (1982-1995) Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Janowski, B., Wilhelm, G. and Schwemer, D. (eds) (2004-2020) [Begründet von O. Kaiser] Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Neue Folge. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

U UAVA UBL UeA

UF

Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Dunand, M. and Duru, R. (1962) Oumm El-‘Amed. Une ville de l’époque hellénistique aux échelles de Tyr. I-II. Études et Documents d’Archéologie IV. République Libanaise, Direction Générale des Antiquités. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. Ugarit-Forschungen. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

V VO VT(S)

Vicino Oriente. Rome: Università La Sapienza. Vetus Testamentum (Supplementa). Leiden/Boston: Brill.

W WBG

Wissenschaftliche Buch-Gesellschaft. Darmstadt.

XXXVI

WdM

WO WZKM

ABBREVIATIONS

Haussig, H. W. (ed.) Wörterbuch der Mythologie. 1. Abt. Band I. Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient (unter Mitarbeit von D. O. Edzard, W. Helck, M. Höfner, M. H. Pope, W. Röllig, E. von Schuler). Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Die Welt des Orients. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. University of Vienna.

Z ZA (NF) ZÄS ZAH ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZOrA ZPE

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie (Neue Folge). Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik. Berlin: de Gruyter. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie. Berlin: Wasmuth Verlag. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

A ABADDIR

ADOM

DN probably to be interpreted as “Stone of the Mighty One” and corresponding to ᾿bn᾿dr, which, however, does not occur in Phoen. or Pun. inscriptions (→BAAL ADDIR). A. occurs in a Lat. inscription from Mauretania (→*Mauri), where a collegium of cultores dedicated an altar to the “Holy god Abaddir” (CIL VIII, 21481, from Zucchabar, *Miliana). According to Augustine (Aug. Ep. 17,2), Abaddires was the name of Pun. idols venerated in North Africa. According to Priscianus of Caesarea and other grammarians of the late period, A. was the name of the stone called baetylus (→BAETYL) by the Greeks and which, in Gk mythology, was devoured by CRONUS instead of his son Zeus (Priscian. Inst. 5,18; 6,45; 7,32; cf. other sources in Ribichini [1985] 119 fn. 16). In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10), the baetyls were invented by the god Ouranos, who created animated stones.

Phoen. ᾿dm; Eblaite dAdamma; Hebr. ᾿dm. A deity called ᾿dm – vocalized hypothetically as adom – occurs in Phoen. inscriptions in both the Levant and the west. Mediterranean. The earliest direct mention of A. is in the oldest known Phoen. inscription from *Cyprus (KAI 30), which dates back to the 9th cent. BCE. It is a funerary text where, in spite of some textual gaps, a curse formula can be identified (→*Blessings & curses), presumably directed against potential violators of the tomb. In particular, there is a triple invocation which calls on three different divine entities, mentioned in parallel: a god simply called BAAL, A. and – although in this case the reconstruction is hypothetical – the ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS: “by/in the hands (= through the strength) of Baal // by/in the hands of A. // … of the assembly (?) of the gods” (bn yd b῾l // bn yd ᾿dm // b[n yd ḥ]br ᾿lm). Some centuries later, the theophoric PN ῾bd᾿dm, “Servant of ᾿dm”, occurs in Carthag. *Onomastics (CIS I, 295,4, 4th-3rd cent. BCE [FIG. 1]). F. L. Benz (PNPPI, 260) proposed identifying ᾿dm with the goddess Itum (᾿itwm) mentioned in the Leiden Papyrus (see below), without excluding that it could be Edom, the eponymous ancestral god of the *Edomites. In reality, there is little doubt that A. is the name of the same goddess attested not only on Cyprus, but also in the Leiden Papyrus and, even much earlier, as Adamma in the *Ebla texts.

Ribichini, S. (1985) Poenus Advena. Gli dei fenici e l’interpretazione classica. CSF 19. Rome, 115-125; Jongeling, K. (19851986) JEOL, 129f.; Lipiński, E. (1995) 261f. S. RIBICHINI

Abobas see ADONIS ACHERBAS Mythical uncle and husband of →ELISSA, mentioned by Pompeius Trogus (apud Just. Epit. 18,4-5), known as →*Sicharbas, and mentioned as *Sychaeus in Vergil’s Aeneid. He was a priest of the god Heracles/ MELQART and a prominent worthy in *Tyre. All the forms of the name presuppose an original Phoen. PN such as S/*Zakarbaal. EDPC 1, s.v. “Sicharbas” (P. Xella). G. MINUNNO

Adamma see ADOM Adodos see DEMAROUS

Fig. 1. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 295

2

ADOM – ADONIS

In the Leiden Papyrus the goddess Itum is the wife of RESHEPH; in the aforementioned Cypr. inscription, A. occurs together with a Baal who is very probably Resheph, whose cult was very popular on the island. Based on these data and the nature of the epigraphic contexts, it is possible to hypothesize a chthonian character for A., a goddess who was ambivalently protective and destructive. The Syro-Palest. milieu of the I mill. BCE does not provide any other evidence on A., since the biblical PN ῾bd᾿dwm probably incorporates the Edomite DN Edom (Fowler [1988] 63.364). The problem of defining more precisely the possible links between A. and the biblical figure of ᾿adªmâh, a very interesting research topic initiated by F. Aspesi (1996), remains open. Massart, A. (1954) The Leiden magical Papyrus I 343 + I 345. Leiden; DRS 1, s.v. ᾿dm9, 9; Masson, O. and Sznycer, M. (1972) Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. HEO 3. Geneva/Paris, 13ff.; PNPPI, 260; Fowler, J. D. (1988) Theophoric personal names in ancient Hebrew: A comparative study. JSOT SS 49. Sheffield; Pomponio, F. (1993) SEL, 10, 3-7; Lipiński, E. (1995) 316-318; Aspesi, F. (1996) SEL, 13, 33-40; DDD2, s.v. “Soil (᾿dmh)”, 785-787 (F. von Kopper – K. van der Toorn); Xella, P. (1999) SMSR, 65, 19-30. P. XELLA

remain unchanged, and A. has also been used for foreign deities such as OSIRIS on *Cyprus and in *Phoenicia (cf. RÉS 504b). In the *Old Testament it occurs as ᾿dwn, which seems to denote the “lord”, in the sense of “sovereign”, who rules over countries, houses and lands, or even only over nuclear families. The form ᾿dny is used more frequently, especially in the prophetic texts, to refer to Yahweh. The female equivalent of ᾿dn, i.e. ᾿dt, “lady”, instead, has limited use in terms of time and geographical area. In fact, it occurs in the 10th cent. BCE at *Byblos, as an attribute of the goddess BAALAT GEBAL/Gubla, in inscriptions recording the offering of statues to that goddess by the local kings *Abibaal (KAI 5) and *Elibaal (KAI 6), and in a foundation inscription of king *Shipitbaal (KAI 7). Subsequently, the term would be replaced by rbt – the fem. form of rb – as shown by a Byblian inscription from the 5th cent. BCE in which Baalat Gebal is invoked as “my lady” by king *Yehawmilk (KAI 10). DRS 1, s.v. ᾿dn, 9; Ribichini, S. (1981) Adonis. Aspetti “orientali” di un mito greco. SS 55, Rome, 39-45; Loretz, O. (1984) Adn come epiteto di Baal e i suoi rapporti con Adonis e Adonaj. In: Ribichini, S. et al. (eds) Adonis. Relazioni del colloquio in Roma, 22-23 maggio 1981. CSF 18. Rome, 25-33; DDD2, s.v. “Lord (adon)” 531-533 (K. Spronk).

ADON Common Sem. ᾿dn, “lord”. Epithet used in ancient NW Sem. texts to indicate the power, prestige and authority of an individual or a deity and his dominion over men and things. In the texts from *Ugarit (Ras Shamra), the epithet is used both for BAAL, who is defined as adn, “lord”, guide and protector of the REPHAIM/Rapi᾿ūma, and for the king of the city. In Phoen. and Pun. inscriptions, A. is an epithet of several deities (e.g. BAAL ADDIR, BAAL HAMMON, BAAL MGNM, BAAL SHAMEM, ESHMUN, MELQART, MILKASHTART, SAKON, RESHEPH, SHADRAPHA and SID), and is used for persons of high royal rank, in accordance with the conception of royalty (→*Kingship) as a divine emanation. Wherever a man is defined as a “lord” (᾿dn), the deity is indicated as “god” (᾿l), in order to maintain the proper distance between the human and the divine (see e.g. KAI 39). The term A. is widespread in both the East and the West over a long span of time, extending even to the latest inscriptions of the tophet-sanctuaries (→*Tophet). The semantics and usage of the term

F. GUARNERI

ADONIS Gk Ἄδωνις, Ἄδων, Ἀδώνιος; Lat. Adon, Adonis, from (Sem.) Phoen. ᾿dn (“lord”: →ADON). In Gk and Rom. mythology, A. was the son that Myrrha bore to her own father CINYRAS (Athen. Deipn. 10,456a; Hyg. Fab. 58), or to Theias (according to Panyassis, quoted by [Apollod.] Bibl. 3,14,4). Hesiod knew him as a son of PHOINIX and Alphesiboea (Th. 3,14,3), while in other traditions he appears as a son of Cinyras and Metharme ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3,14,3). A.’s birth from Myrrha was miraculous, since he was born from the myrrh tree into which his mother was transformed. A. was loved by Aphrodite, but he also became a matter of contention between her and Persephone, to whom she had entrusted him as he was still a child. Due to A.’s beauty, Persephone wanted to keep him for herself. It was negotiated that A. would spend part of his life on earth, with Aphrodite, and the rest of it in the *Netherworld, with Persephone. Later A. was killed by a boar ([Apollod.]

ADONIS

Bibl. 3,14,4) and the anemone is said to have grown from his blood (Ov. Met. 10,734-739). In *Phoenicia, evidence of ritual activities connected with A. is only available for Rom. times. [Luc.] Syr. D. 6 hints at ceremonies (→*Festival) celebrated in *Byblos yearly, probably in conjunction with the heliacal rising of the star Sirius (→DEA SYRIA). Ceremonies took place in the sanctuary of Aphrodite of Byblos (→BAALAT GEBAL), and probably in the sanctuary of *Afqa. Ritual mourning was performed, and people had to shave their heads [FIG. 2]. Instead, women could choose to engage in prostitution with foreigners for one day (→*Prostitution, sacred). A temple of A. was built in the 2nd cent. CE in DuraEuropos, on the Euphrates. On *Cyprus, an “old” sanctuary of A. and Aphrodite is mentioned for *Amathus by Pausanias (9,41,2-5). Salaminians from Cyprus celebrated the Adonia, in 3rd cent. BCE Piraeus (IG II2, 1290). Probably they also held a procession for the Adonia according to their native custom, in about 300 BCE (IG II2, 1261). Some scholars suppose that a reference to the worship of A. is detectable in the Phoen. inscription from *Pyrgi (KAI 277). Recently, P. C. Schmitz (20152016) has proposed to read the word n᾿ in line 5, to be interpreted as “(the) Handsome (one)”, namely an epithet of A. Readings of the passage, however, differ significantly among scholars. A suggestion that the *Motya statue known as the “Giovane di Mozia” (“Motya Youth”) actually represents A. has found little consensus. As indicated by the inscription from *Athens, ritual features of the Adonia could differ in various cultural areas, so the evidence concerning aspects of the Gk festival should not be unduly extended to other

Fig. 2. Tessera from Palmyra depicting Adonis (or Tammuz?) mummified, on his funerary bed

3

contexts. In Greece, ritual mourning for A. was probably already celebrated in 7th cent. BCE Lesbos (see Sappho, frs 140A and 168 Lobel-Page). In 5th-4th cent. Athens, the Adonia festival appears to have been celebrated privately, mostly by women. Women also appear to have been chiefly concerned with the Adonia in Ptolemaic Alexandria (Theoc. Idyll. 15). The Athenian Adonia included the so-called “Gardens of Adonis”. These were pots sown with corn and vegetables that were put on the roofs of houses under the summer sun, so that the plants withered quickly after they had germinated. They grew up fast but died too early, just as the young A. had. The pots were then thrown into water (wells or springs, or the sea). Scholars disagree whether the use of the gardens of A. has an Or. origin. A reference to a similar tradition has been supposed in Isa 17,9-11. A Gk inscription found in *Laodicea ad Mare (IGLS IV, 1260) probably from the Hellenist. age, mentions a real garden of A. Indeed, in the Gk cultural context, the “Garden of Adonis” appears to have symbolized the agricultural failure of A. (who was also described as a failed hunter), in contrast with good agriculture, which was instead under the patronage of Demeter (→DEMETER & CORE). Many scholars, following J. G. Frazer (1907), interpreted A. as a “dying god” (→DYING GOD[S]), whose vicissitudes would symbolize the vegetal cycle, especially of corn or fruits. Indeed, in ancient sources A. was sometimes identified with OSIRIS, and in Rom. times some Byblians ([Luc.] Syr. D. 7) even argued that the annual rites in Byblos were actually celebrated for Osiris, not for A. Some Christian authors also identified A. with Tammuz. Similar interpretations were already widespread in the first centuries CE; the Tyrian philosopher *Porphyry, e.g. considered A. a symbol of ripe fruits (apud Eus. PE 3,12). Another late interpretation considered A. to be the sun (Macr. Sat. 1,21,1-6). Indeed, several features of A. correspond to a Gk stereotyped image of the “Orient”, felt as a negative “otherness”, opposed to Gk positive rules. The figure of A., however, is possibly related to a pattern of Syro-Phoen. deities (such as MELQART and ESHMUN) having experienced and overcome death. The cult of A. in *Byblos was probably the development of the cult of the BAAL of Byblos, the “lord” of that city. According to Strabo (16,2,18), Byblos was considered sacred to A., who, as claimed by one tradition (cf. schol. in Dionys. Per. 509), had been buried there by Aphrodite (the tomb of A. in Byblos is also hinted at by Lyc. Alex. 828-833).

4

ADONIS – AENEAS

Frazer, J. G. (1907) Adonis Attis Osiris. Studies in the history of Oriental religion. London; Baudissin, W. W. (1911) Adonis und Esmun. Leipzig; Atallah, W. (1966) Adonis dans la littérature et l’art grecs. Paris; Weill, N. (1966) BCH, 90, 664-698; Detienne, M. (1972) Les jardins d’Adonis. La mythologie des parfums et des aromates en Grèce. Paris; Will, E. (1975) Syria, 52, 93-105; Soyez, B. (1977) Byblos et la fête des Adonies. EPRO 60. Leiden; Delcor, M. (1978) Syria, 55, 371-394; Ribichini, S. (1981) Adonis. Aspetti “orientali” di un mito greco. SS 55. Rome; Servais, J. (1984) La date des Adonies d’Athènes et l’expédition de Sicile. In: Ribichini, S. et al. (eds) Adonis. Relazioni del Colloquio in Roma, 22-23 maggio 1981. CSF 18. Rome, 83-93; Servais Soyez, B. (1981) s.v. In: LIMC I, cols 222-229; Baudy, G. J. (1986) Adonisgärten. Studien zur antiken Samensymbolik. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 176. Frankfurt am Main; Bonnet, C. (1987) SEL, 4, 101-119; DCPP, s.v. (E. Lipiński); Di Filippo Balestrazzi, E. (1995) NumAntCl, 24, 133-172; DDD2, s.v. 7-10 (S. Ribichini); Reed, J. D. (2000) TAPhA, 130, 319-351; Mettinger, T. D. (2001) The riddle of resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East. Stockholm; Müller, H.-P. (2004) ZDMG, 154, 265-284; Matricon-Thomas, E. (2011) RSF, 39, 67-79; Schmitz, P. C. (2015-2016) SEL, 32-33, 33-43. G. MINUNNO

AENEAS Gk Αἰνείας; Lat. Aeneas. A. was the son of prince Anchises and the goddess Aphrodite, and belonged to a cadet branch of the ruling dynasty in Troy. He already appears as a hero, even though not very prominently, in Homer, who mentions the destiny of the future ruler over the descendants of the Trojans (Il. 20,307f.). Having escaped the destruction of his city, depending on the various traditions that arose in Gk, Sicilian or Italic settings, A. was also able to save his father and his son, as well as other fellow citizens and the sacra of Troy. After wandering around in the east. sector of the Mediterranean, he settled in the West, specifically in *Latium, where he or his descendants founded *Rome (see e.g. the depictions on the Tabula Iliaca Capitolina, dating to the end of the 1st cent. BCE, but probably inspired by the Iliou Persis by Stesichorus; FGrHist 4, fr. 84 [Hellanicus]; Lyc. Alex. 12261280). His myth (depicted on pottery and clay statuettes) was already known in Etruria (→*Etruscans) at least from the 5th cent. BCE. In the region of Lavinium (now Pratica di Mare), that is, in a Latium context, evidence for a cult of A. is provided by archaeology from the remains of a heroon that, after alterations going back to the 4th cent. BCE, seems to correspond exactly to the cenotaph of A. described by Dion. Halic. Ant. Rom. 1,64,5; a cippus from nearby Tor Tignosa, dated between the end of the 4th and the first half of the 3rd cent., has an inscription

that reads LARE AENIA D(onom), i.e. “a gift to the Lare Aneas”: but both the date and the reading remain uncertain. In this same period, in Rome, versions were circulating that made A. the founder of the city; for ex., in the Annales by Ennius (beginning of the 2nd cent. BCE), a poem that throughout the Republican era was the most widespread and important epic text in Latin. In order to fit the chronology, however, the Rom. annalists of the 3rd-2nd cent. transformed A. into the founder of the Alba dynasty from whom Romulus and Remus were born. Usually it is considered that by adopting as their founding father a character from the non-Gk world who also belonged to Gk mythology, the Romans had been able in some way to compare themselves with the Hellenist. world, stressing their historical and cultural affinity while maintaining an element of difference. From at least as early as the 2nd cent. BCE the gens Julia (which included Caesar and then Augustus) accepted A., son of Venus, as their own primordial ancestor, explaining the etymology of his name from his being a descendant of Julus, son of A. In fact, Augustus went so far as to place the sculpture portraying A. in flight with his father on his shoulders in one of the main exedrae of the new Forum built by himself (a composition copied in many small towns and colonies of the province, for example, in Mérida). Specifically to honour Augustus, the poet Virgil made A. the protagonist of his poem, called Aeneid after him, in which considerable prominence is given to the episode of A. disembarking near *Carthage, and to the account of the love and subsequent hatred between A. and the local princess, Dido (→ELISSA) (Verg. A., books 1 and 4). In Virgil’s account, the Pun. queen welcomes A. and his men, shipwrecked on the African coast, with open arms, and remains so fascinated by him that she even falls in love with him. During a hunting party, while sheltering from a sudden storm in the same cave, they are both overwhelmed by passionate desire. Their relationship takes on a public dimension: it is suggested to the Trojans that they remain in Carthage and join Pun. colonists. However, A., motivated by his moral and religious obligations (which force him to leave for Italy and fulfil his destiny as the ancestor of Rome), decides to break his promise of marriage and abandon Dido: embittered and irritated, the Pun. queen then kills herself, cursing the Trojan and initiating perennial hatred between their respective descendants, i.e. between Romans and Carthaginians (nullus

5

AENEAS – AGATHODAIMON

amor populis nec foedera sunto … pugnent ipsique nepotes: Verg. A. 4,624 and 629). This version by Virgil probably uses and expands a motif already present in previous Rom. epic, especially in a digression in the Bellum Poenicum by Naevius (fr. 23 Morell), which was used to trace the origin of the rivalry between the two cities. Even though the generally accepted chronology (in which the Trojan War came some ten generations before the foundation of the Pun. city, usually dated to the end of the 9th cent.) would make the episode historically completely unlikely, the idea of portraying the origin of the two cities (both founded by exiles, in the same period) in strict symmetrical terms became attractive. In any case, it was only when Augustus settled 3,000 colonists in the Pun. city, which had now become colonia Julia Carthago, that it began to flourish again. According to a tradition supported by Varro (recorded by Serv. A. 4,682 and 5,4), it was not Dido who fell in love with A. but her sister ANNA: there is an echo of this version in a late literary adaptation by Ovid (Fast. 3,523-564). Galinsky, G. K. (1969) Aeneas, Sicily and Rome. Princeton; Gabba, E. (1976) Sulla valorizzazione politica della leggenda delle origini troiane di Roma fra III e II sec. a.C. In: Sordi M. (ed.) I canali della propaganda nel mondo antico. Milan, 163173; Enea nel Lazio. Archeologia e mito. Catalogo della Mostra. Roma, Palazzo dei Conservatori, 22 settembre-31 dicembre 1981. Rome 1981; Horsfall, N. M. (1987) The Aeneas legend from Homer to Virgil. In: Bremmer, J. N. and Horsfall, N. M. (eds) Roman myth and mythography. London, 12-24; Poucet, J. (1992) AntCl, 61, 260-267; Holleman, A. W. J. (1995) AntCl, 64, 237f.; Vanotti, G. (1995) L’altro Enea: la testimonianza di Dionigi di Alicarnasso. Rome; DDD2, s.v. 11f. (K. Dowden); Bettini, M. and Lentano, M. (2013) Il mito di Enea. Turin; La Regina, A. (2014) Epigraphica, 76, 433-436; Giusti, E. (2018) Carthage in Virgil’s “Aeneid”: Staging the enemy under Augustus. Cambridge/New York.

activities, particularly in connection with vineyards and wine, the home and the dead (at *Thebes there was a heroon of A., see Suid. α 122 Adler, s.v. ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονοϛ). In *Egypt, where one of the tributaries of the Nile Delta was also called A. (Ptol. Geogr. 4,5,10), he was identified with the local god Shai. According to Philo of Byblos, an Egypt. image of the cosmos was a circle, with A. in the centre, represented as a hawk-shaped snake holding it together. Philo affirms that this notion of the cosmos was similar to that of Pherecydes of Syros (6th cent. BCE), whose speculation, he assumed, had developed a Phoen. tradition (Eus. PE 1,10,50-51). A snake, arranged in a circle and eating its own tail, was a Phoen. image of the world, according to Macrobius (Sat. 1,9,12). This motif, known as the ouroboros, or “snake (eating its own tail)”, probably spread from Egypt to the Levant. It is possibly also represented on the rim of a Phoen. bronze cup found at *Praeneste (Markoe [1985] 67f.). Quaegebeur, J. (1975) Le dieu égyptien Shaï dans la religion et l’onomastique. OLA 2. Leuven, 170-175; Dunand, F. (1981) s.v. In: LIMC I, cols 277-282; Markoe, G. (1985) Phoenician bronze and silver bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean. Berkeley; Thissen, H. J. (1996) ZPE, 112, 153-160. G. MINUNNO

U. LIVADIOTTI

Aesculapius see ASCLEPIUS; ESHMUN AGATHODAIMON Gk ἀγαθὸϛ δαίμων, ἀγαθοδαίμων. According to PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,48), the *Phoenicians called A. “the snake”, which they considered to be divine. In the Gk world, and especially in *Alexandria, A. was a very popular deity, often represented as a snake [FIG. 3]. He performed a wide range of tutelary

Fig. 3. Depiction of Agathodaimon on a relief (back of the throne of a statue of Isis)

6

AGENOR – AGROS & AGROUHEROS

AGENOR Gk Ἀγήνωρ. A. was a Phoen. king and a descendant of IO: he was either a son of her grand-daughter Libye and of POSEIDON (and a brother of BELOS), or a son of the latter and Io (and a brother of PHOINIX, who, instead, according to a different tradition, was a son of A.). A. moved from *Egypt to *Phoenicia, where he settled and was credited with having founded *Tyre and *Sidon (Curt. Ruf. 4,4,15), named after his wife (Malal. Chron. 2,7). When his daughter EUROPA was kidnapped by Zeus, A. sent his sons, one of whom was CADMUS, to search for their sister, obliging them not to come back unless they found her. In the 4th cent. BCE there was an Agenorion in Tyre (Arr. An. 2,24,2). Silius Italicus (Pun. 1,81-88) fancies a statue of A. among those standing in the sanctuary of ELISSA at *Carthage (which is called Agenoris urbs by Verg. A. 1,338). According to one source (Hyg. Fab. 64), Andromeda, CEPHEUS’s daughter, had previously been betrothed to an A., before Perseus rescued her. Another source (schol. in Eur. Ph. 217) states that an A. was Cepheus’ father. In a corrupt passage in [Prob.] in Verg. Ec. 10,18, Antimachus of Colophon (fr. 102 West) apparently considered A. to be the father of ADONIS. However, the text should be emended differently. Roscher, Lexikon I, s.v. (1), cols 102f. (H. W. Stoll); RE I, 1, s.v. (1), cols 773-775 (F. Dümmler); Canciani, F. (1981) s.v. (1). In: LIMC I, col. 283; EDPC 1, s.v. (A. Ercolani). G. MINUNNO

AGREUS & HALIEUS Gk Ἀγρεύς and Ἁλιεύς. In the Phoenician History by P HILO OF B YBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,11, and cf. 35) A. and H. are two brothers, descendants of the clan of SAMEMROUMOS. Their names mean “Hunter” (A.) and “Fisher” (H.). In fact, Philo describes them as the inventors of *Hunting and fishing, thus giving their names to these activities. They engendered two brothers (one of whom was Chousor: →KOSHAR/ KOTHARU), who discovered iron and how to work it. The two Gk words, Ἀγρεύς and Ἁλιεύς, are probably translations of their Phoen. equivalents. Indeed A. – which is also an epithet of APOLLO and Pan in Greek – may be the Phoen. name of the god

→SID, if he is to be connected etymologically with hunting, although there is no exact proof for such a hypothesis. Troiani, L. (1974) L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa, 111f.; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 175-177 and passim; Baumgarten, A. L. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 165f.; Lipiński, E. (1995) 101. S. RIBICHINI

AGROS & AGROUHEROS Gk Ἀγρός and Ἀγροῦ ᾕρως (or Ἀγρότης). In the Phoenician History by Philo of Byblos (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,12-13), Agros (“Field”) and Agrouheros or Agrotes (perhaps “Hero of the Land” or “Rustic”) are the ancestors of peasants and hunters, belong to the earliest generation of inventors and are included among the descendants of TECHNITES and Geinos Autochthon. In class. mythology they are also called the “Wanderers” (Gk Ἀλῆται) and Titans (Gk Τιτᾶνες), the sons of Ouranos and Gaia (→GE) who fought against Zeus when he had to fight his father CRONUS, the youngest of the Titans. Philo considers them to be the inventors of dwelling arrangements for sedentary peoples, with the concept of courtyards, vestibules and crypts for houses. AMYNOS & MAGOS descended from them, teaching the organization of villages and farming. Philo adds that there was great devotion to a statue (ξόανον) of Agrotes in *Phoenicia, and to a portable shrine (Gk ναός) (*Altar) in his honour, drawn by oxen (as also in the cult of Yahweh in 1 Sam 6, and of the DEA SYRIA, in [Luc.] Syr. D. 33, and depicted on coins). At *Byblos, especially, he was called “the greatest of the gods”. Agros has been compared with Gk Σίτων, “Cornfield” (Phoen. šd) or “Grain”, which in the Phoenician History is another name for Dagon (→DAGAN), and with the DN Beelseddi, which occurs in a Lat. inscription (IGLS, 2925 from Timna, perhaps originally b῾l šd; see also IGLS, 1011) that identifies him as Jove. Instead, the title “the greatest of the gods” (Gk θεῶν ὁ μέγιστος), ascribed to Agrohueros, is reminiscent of the Phoen. divine epithet ᾿dr, “powerful”. This may indicate that it corresponds to the name BAAL ADDIR, which occurs in Phoen. and Pun. inscriptions. The additional names Wanderers or Titans suggest a comparison with the [band of the] REPHAIM of Canaanite tradition

AGROS & AGROUHEROS – AION

7

(→*Canaanites), considered as historical in the Hebr. Bible (*Old Testament). Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 194-209; Ribichini, S. and Xella, P. (1980) UF, 12, 434-437; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, H. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 85; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 170-173; Ribichini, S. (2013) Agros e Agruheros. Immagini e gente d’un tempo che fu. In: Loretz, O. et al. (eds) Ritual, religion, and reason. Studies in the ancient world in honour of Paolo Xella. AOAT 404. Münster, 467-477. S. RIBICHINI

Agrouheros see AGROS & AGROUHEROS AION Gk Αἰών. A. means “a long space of time”, “eternity”. One of the earliest mortal characters mentioned in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790). He impersonates a primordial element, later mythologized according to Philo’s views. A. and Protogonos (“First-Born”) are children of the winds called COLPIA (Κολπία) and Baau (Βάαυ). Presumably, A. and Protogonos are siblings and not a couple, although the text is vague when it later mentions “the offspring of A. and First-Born (i.e. Protogonos)”. It is not impossible that, originally, they were two names for the same character. A. is said to have discovered “the food that grows on trees”. The children of A. and Protogonos are called “Genos and Generation” (Γένος καὶ Γενεά), and settled in *Phoenicia (Eus. PE 1,10,7; cf. 1,10,9). The term aion is used also in the general meaning of “a long time” in PE 1,10,1, when referring to the air and chaos, where everything originated as being “limitless” and “for a long aion”. Philo’s A. seems to impersonate the mythologized figure of Time or Eternity, which had an important place in Orphic and Phoen. cosmogonies (López-Ruiz [20192]) [FIG. 4]. The association of A. and Protogonos also points to this realm, as Protogonos appears in Orphic texts, sometimes called “Phanes”, “Shining One” (e.g. in the Orphic Rhapsodies and probably in the Derveni Papyrus: West [1983] 70-87). A. and other Time deities, in turn, also feature in Phoen. and Orphic cosmogonies, sometimes as “Chronos” (“Time”) and in

Fig. 4. Marble statue of Aion from Sidon (end of the 4th cent. CE)

a purportedly Phoen. tradition as “Oulomos”, an adaptation of the Sem. name ῾olam (see MOCHOS; BNJ 784 fr. 4 for Mochos; for Philo, BNJ 790 fr. 2). The notion of mythologized/divinized Time has a long history in Gk sources, from Pindar and Euripides to Proclus (5th cent. CE), and becomes especially productive in Platonism and Neo-Platonism. The figure also appears in 3rd-4th cent. CE mosaics of the east. Mediterranean, for instance at Nea-Paphos (*Cyprus), Antioch (*Anatolia), and Shahba-Philippopolis (*Syria). He is surrounded by a variety of mythological scenes that sometimes can be connected with time or the zodiac, and perhaps with NeoPlatonic philosophical concerns. Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 109-115; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 41; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 146-148; West, M. L. (1983) The Orphic Poems. Oxford; DDD2, s.v. 13f. (H. J. W. Drijvers); Quet, M. H. (2006) La mosaïque dite d’Aiôn et les Chronoi d’Antioche: une invite à réfléchir aux notions de temps et d’éternité dans la pars graeca de l’Empire des Sévères à Constantin. In: id. (ed.) La “Crise” de l’Empire romain de Marc Aurèle à Constantin: Mutations, continuités, ruptures. Paris, 511-590; BNJ 790 “Philon of

8

AION – AMBROSIAI PETRAI

Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon790-a790; BNJ 784 “Mochos-Laitos” (C. López-Ruiz, 2010): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/ laitos-mochos-784; López-Ruiz, C. (20192) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA), 151-617. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

AMBROSIAI PETRAI Gk Ἀμβρόσιαι Πέτραι. “Ambrosian Stones” or “Divine Rocks”, located at *Tyre. According to the account by Nonnus of Panopolis (D. 40,465-500), when the city was founded, two rocks were formed close together, drifting in the sea. On one of these islets there was an age-old, well-rooted olive tree, wrapped in flames but not consumed by them. The coils of a serpent were wrapped around its trunk and an eagle sat on its top. An oracle from the god MELQART had shown the indigenous people how to sail there, sacrifice the bird and make libations of its blood on the drifting rock. With that first sacrifice the rock became joined to the second and permanently fixed to it. In fact, Tyre, the “Rock” (Phoen. ṣr), was founded on these two rocks, which had emerged and were now stationary. The tradition preserved by this Byzantine poet must have been very old and included other mythical variations connected with the erection of two stone stelae when the city was founded. PHILO OF BYBLOS sets the story of two brothers, OUSOOS and SAMEMROUMOS (or Hypsouranios), at the origin of Tyre. The second brother had invented seafaring by adapting a tree felled by a violent hurricane which had set a forest ablaze. Immediately afterwards, he had consecrated two stelae to the fire and the wind, worshipping them and drenching them with the blood of the animals he hunted. Herodotus, who visited Tyre in the 5th cent. BCE, relates having seen in the sanctuary of Heracles-Melqart – which its inhabitants considered to be as old as their city – two shining stelae, one of refined gold and the other of emerald (Hdt. 2,44). These, then, are the traditions linked to the depictions of the divine Rocks on some coins from Tyre. An image of the A.P. appears for the first time on the reverse of imperial bronze coins minted during the reign of Elagabalus (218-222 CE), where they are depicted as two semi-circular rocks and on the exergue the legend ΑΜΒΡΟΣΙΕ ΠΕΤΡΕ or ΠΕΤΡΑΙ or ΠΑΙΤΡΕ in Greek.

Figs 5-6. Coin of Gordian III (Tyre) Obv.: Bust of Gordian III Rev.: Baetyls between star and crescent, altar and olive tree, sea shell (murex?) and two (palm?) branches

On coins issued by Julia Mesa (the grandmother of Elagabalus) there is a variant of this reverse, with a dog sniffing a murex shell on the exergue. This is clearly a reference to the myth of the discovery of *Purple by the god of Tyre, who had seen his dog’s cheeks turn red after it had bitten a mollusc and broken it into pieces. It is also interesting to note that the shell appears as a decorative symbol on the coins of Tyre from the 5th cent. BCE, and that the dog and the murex form the main iconography on the reverse of Phoen. didrachms minted by *Panormus-ṣyṣ in 415-410 BCE (*Numismatics). Also, the A.P. appear on the reverse of coins issued by Elagabalus, together with a god, identified as Melqart, in the act of making a libation on an altar. At that time, the motif of the BAETYL together with the murex and the palm-tree became one of the sym-

AMBROSIAI PETRAI – AMON

bols of the city, which also appears on coins of the emperor Trebonianus Gallus (251-253 CE). Very much the same arrangement as on coins of Elagabalus, with the two stelae on each side of an olive tree, also appears on coins issued by Valerianus (253260), together with an image of EUROPA and the protome of a bull or Ocean, and on coins issued by Gordian III (238-244). On these coins [FIGS 5-6], there is an important typological variant of the iconography shown by earlier coins minted by Elagabalus. The olive tree is on the right of the two stelae, while on the left a *Thymiaterion is depicted. According to G. Bijovsky (2005), this variant is due to the different perspective used to depict the same sanctuary in which the A.P. had been placed. It may have an equivalent in the scene shown on coins issued by Cornelia Salonina (253-268), wife of the emperor Gallienus, on the reverse of which Tyche (→GAD) is depicted in front of the temple of Melqart. The two divine rocks of Tyre have been compared with the bronze stelae consecrated in the sanctuary of Heracles-Melqart of *Cádiz (cf. Str. 3,5,5-6 and 37; Porph. Abst. 1,25) and the two stone cippi found in *Malta, dating to the 2nd cent. BCE with bilingual (Phoen./Gk) inscriptions having the same dedication to the “Lord of Tyre” (ICO Malta 1 – 1bis). Will, E. (1950-1951) Berytus, 10, 1-12; Will, E. (1973) RN, 6, 80-84; Zanovello, P. (1981) RivArch, 5, 16-29; Naster, P. (1986) Ambrosiai Petrai sur les monnaies de Tyr. In: StPhoen 4, 361371; Bonnet, C. (1988) 100-103; Chuvin, P. (1991) Mythologie et géographie dionysiaques. Clermont-Ferrand, 240f.; Gitler, H. and Bijovsky, G. (2002) NumAntClass, 31, 317-324; Bijovsky, G. (2005) The Ambrosial Rocks and the Sacred Precinct of Melqart in Tyre. In: Alfaro, C., Marcos, P. and Otero, C. (eds) XIII Congreso International de Numismatica. Actas. Madrid, 829834; Frangoulis, H. (2008) La fondation de Tyr chez Nonnos: influence d’Ératosthène. In: Cusset, C. and Frangoulis, H. (eds) Ératosthène: un athlète du savoir. Saint-Étienne, 139. L.-I. MANFREDI – S. RIBICHINI

AMON Egypt. Imn; Phoen. ᾿mn. From his name, this god is known as “The hidden one”. A. is depicted anthropomorphically, wearing a kilt and sometimes a rich waistcoat, as well as a crown decorated with two long feathers [FIG. 7]. Already present in the Pyramid Texts (OK), and belonging, together with his consort Amaunet, to the Ogdoad of Hermopolis (Hermopolis Magna), he became the highest deity in *Thebes. His rise began

9

Fig. 7. Gold-plated silver antropomorphic figure of the god Amon with double feathered crown (ca 600 BCE)

between the end of the I Intermediate Period and the beginning of the MK, when Theban princes came to power and several rulers of the XII dyn. (MK), starting with Amenemhat I, had theophoric names meaning “A. is at the head”. With his increasing importance, A. eclipsed the Theban warrior god Montu. During the NK, A. became the highest dynastic god and assumed the title of “King of the gods”, strengthening his role in parallel with the role of the pharaonic kingship, with which it was closely linked [FIG. 8]. As early as the temple of Deir el-Bahari, built by queen Hatshepsut (XVIII dyn., 15th cent. BCE), A.’s role was to generate the Pharaoh, replacing the sovereign in his meeting with the queen mother. A. was to have the same function in respect of *Alexander the Great in the “Romance of Alexander”. A. was considered to be a creator god, with aspects connected with fertility. While at first his sacred animal was the goose, later it became the ram, recognizable in the ram-headed sphinxes at Karnak. A triad developed around him, with Mut, his consort, and Khonsu, his divine son. The main centres of this cult

10

AMON – ANAT

found at Tekke, on *Crete, which in theory could be a theophoric name that includes this Egypt. god. However, A. occurs elsewhere, even if rarely, in PNN (see e.g. *Abdemon), whereas it is not documented in glyptic. [P.X.]

Fig. 8. Scarab made of coloured paste depicting the god Amon adored by a Pharaoh (Carthage, 7th-6th cent. BCE)

were at Karnak and Luxor. A. was enriched by his connection with RA whose cult centre was in Heliopolis, becoming A.-Ra. In this combination there is neither a new deity nor the obliteration of one god by the other. Instead, it shows the unity of divine power, in which two contradictory aspects are evident. A. is the Hidden One, the Secret, whereas Ra, in his astral form, is the one who reveals himself. The elevation of A. to dynastic god during the NK made his priesthood very powerful and initiated a crisis in polytheism. During the XVIII dyn. (NK), in the reign of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten (→*Tell el-Amarna), the sovereign established a single cult dedicated to the solar deity as Aten. As a result, A. suffered a damnatio memoriae: his name was meticulously erased from inscriptions and his cult was abolished. At the end of that reign, the cult was re-established and A., together with his clergy, regained extraordinary power, even defining Thebes as a kind of theocratic capital, a sanctuary city whose priests belonged to royalty during the XXI dyn. (Third Intermediate Period). During the NK, in the Theban area, there was a special theological development that has been called the Theologie des Willens. With the bond between the ruler of the country (the Pharaoh) and the ruler of the gods (A.) becoming ever stronger, A. intervened in history to govern it and his will is interpreted by Maat, the personification of order and harmony. At the same time, the relationship between the faithful and the deity seems to become more personal and vigorous. In the east. area of Karnak, marked out as solar, A. was worshipped as “The one who listens to prayers”. [G.C.V.] In the Phoen. world, A. seems to have been respected and venerated in the court of *Zakarbaal, the king of *Byblos, according to the story of *Unamon. As for epigraphy, it is doubtful whether the DN ᾿mn is actually mentioned in an inscription on the bronze goblet

PNPPI, 270f.; Otto, E. (1975) s.v. “Amun”. In: LÄ I, 238-248; Ribichini, S. (1975) Divinità egiziane nelle iscrizioni fenicie d’Oriente. In: Benigni, G. et al. (eds) Saggi fenici - I. Rome, 7-14, esp. 11; Assmann, J. (1983) Ra und Amon. Die Krise des politischen Weltbilds im Ägypten der 18.-20. Dynastie. Göttingen; Bell, L. (1985) JNES, 44, 251-294; Lemaire, A. (1986) Divinités égyptiennes dans l’onomastique phénicienne. In: StPhoen 4, 87-98, esp. 89-93; DDD2, s.v. “Amun”, 28-32 (J. Assmann); Assmann, J. (2001) The search for God in Ancient Egypt. New York, 189-244; Tobin, A. (2001) Amun and Amun-Re. In: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, I. Oxford, 82-85; Guermeur, I. (2005) Les cultes d’Amon hors de Thèbes. Recherches de géographie religieuse. Turnhout; Assmann, J. (2011) Theologie und Weisheit im Alten Ägypten. Munich, 93-99; Xella, P. (2018) I Fenici e gli dèi d’Egitto. Note su Horus nell’epigrafia fenicia. In: Vacca, A., Pizzimenti, S. and Micale, M. G. (eds) A Oriente del Delta. Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae. CMAO 18. Rome, 633-640.

G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI – P. XELLA

AMYNOS & MAGOS Gk Ἄμυνος, Μάγος. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,13), A. & M. are the descendants of AGROS & AGROUHEROS and invented the social organization of villages and cattle farming. Their descendants are Misor and Sydyk (→SYDYK & MISOR). It has been suggested (though very few scholars agree) that their names are connected with BAAL HAMMON (b῾l ḥmn) and BAAL MGNM (b῾l mgnm) respectively, who are mentioned together in the inscription KAI 78 from Carthage. Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 214-216; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, H. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 45; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 173f.; Lipiński, E. (1995) 363. S. RIBICHINI

ANAT Ug. ῾nt; Phoen. ῾nt. A goddess belonging to the earliest Sem. tradition (Amorite ḫanat), of uncertain etymology: perhaps it was the name of the tribe that also gave its name to

11

ANAT – ANAT BETHEL

the city of Ḫana, on the mid-Euphrates river, that already appeared in *Syria during the II mill. BCE, in an Amorite cultural context. Afterwards, the goddess appears chiefly in *Ugarit, where she plays a principal role in the local myths as the companion and sister of BAAL (she is at his side in cosmogonic battles [→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY], finds his body in the *Netherworld and helps to bring him back to life, confronts MOT, etc.) [FIG. 9]. A. is a deity of ambivalent character, feminine yet combative and violent, connected with sovereignty, a virgin but also a “lady”, able to fly (as well as being a warrior and huntress, connected with the animal kingdom), active and revered in civic religion. The cult of A. spread over Syria and *Palestine but also in *Egypt, and persisted, on a reduced scale, in some areas of the east. Mediterranean. However, we do not know whether and to what extent her characteristics evolved and changed in various places over the course of time. In some Phoen. and Pun. circles she was assimilated to ATHENA, certainly based on the warrior character shared by the two goddesses. The evidence is provided by Cypr. inscriptions from the temple of the Gk goddess in *Idalion, where possibly she was associated with Baal (RÉS 1210; see also RÉS 1209A); another inscription in *Lapethos, where she is also assimilated to Athena (Σωτείρα Νίκη), describes her as “force” or “refuge/stronghold” of the living (m῾z ḥym: CIS I, 95 = KAI 42). A. also occurs as a theophoric element in several North African PNN: ῾bd῾nt (“Servant of A.”) at *Carthage (CIS I, 3781,1-2; 4563,3; 5550,1-2; see also 4562,1-2 and 4959,1-2: ῾bd᾿nt) and ῾ntḥn (“A. is favourable”) at *Sousse (Hadrumetum: KAI 97,3). It has been suggested (Hvidberg-Hansen [1979]) that, in fact, A. is the historical forerunner of TINNIT, but this theory does not seem fully convincing. There is evidence for one of her manifestations, as ANAT BETHEL (῾ntbyt᾿l), in the cult of the Jewish Aramaean town of *Elephantine, although similarities with or differences from the goddess cannot be inferred. In a later period, the DN A. appears (in a contracted form) in the composite name Atargatis, the great Syrian Goddess (→DEA SYRIA), who had a prominent role in cults of the Hellenist. period, and is the result of a complex syncretistic process (→*Syncretism) involving several goddesses from Syria and Mesopotamia.

Fig. 9. Photo and drawing of a limestone stela depicting a goddess, probably Anat. Ras-Shamra/Ugarit, Acropolis WdM I (1965) s.v. (W. Röllig); Stadelmann, R. (1967) Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. Leiden, 88-96; Kapelrud, A. (1969) The violent goddess: Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts. Oslo; Roccati, A. (1972) RdÉ, 24, 152-159; Leclant, J. (1975) s.v. In: LÄ I, 253-258; Hvidberg-Hansen, F. O. (1979) La déesse TNT. Une étude sur la religion cananéo-punique 1-2. Copenhagen, esp. 67-112; van der Toorn, K. (1992) Numen, 39, 80-101; Wallis, N. H. (1992) The goddess Anat in Ugaritic myth. Missoula (MT); Watson, W. G. E. (1993) SEL, 10, 47-59, esp. 48-50; Lipiński, E. (1995) 309-313; DDD2, s.v. 36-43 (P. L. Day); Wade Eaton, A. (2003) The goddess Anat. Ann Arbor; Cornelius, I. and Niehr, H. (2004) Götter und Kulte in Ugarit. Mainz am Rhein, 50-52; IDD, s.v.: http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/ idd/prepublications/e_idd_anat.pdf (accessed 12.12.2019).

P. XELLA

ANAT BETHEL Akk. dA-na-ti-ba-a[a-ti DING]IRmeš; Aram. ῾ntbyt᾿l. A specific manifestation of the ancient Syr. goddess ANAT, here probably to be understood as “Anat (consort) of Bethel”. The goddess is mentioned – together with Bethel (dBa-a-tiDINGIRmeš: lit.: “Temple/Dwelling of EL/ the god”) – in the treaty set up between *Baal, king of Tyre, and *Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, in 675/674 BCE, as one of the deities guaranteeing the pact (SAA 2, no. 5, II 6’) (→*Treaties). The fact that, in this treaty, A.B. and Bethel feature among the Mesop. deities, and not among the Phoen. gods (mentioned at the end), suggests that they are not Phoen. but Aramaean deities (in fact, A.B. is documented in *Elephantine: Porten and Yardeni [1989] II B 7.3,3). Their presence in the Ass. pantheon is explained by

12

ANAT BETHEL – ANNA PERENNA

the strong Aramaization that marks Mesop. religion in this period. A possible connection with the baitylos (→BAETYL) of PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,16) seems to be generic and of no significance. Eissfeldt, O. (1930) ARW, 28, 1-30; Borger, R. (1957) VT, 7, 102-104; Barré, M. L. (1983) The god-list in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia. Baltimore/London, 43f.; Na’aman, N. (1987) ZDPV, 103, 13-21; SAA 2; Porten, B. and Yardeni, A. (1989) Textbook of Aramaic documents from Ancient Egypt 2. Contracts. Jerusalem; Lipiński, E. (1995) 311f.; DDD2, s.v. “Bethel”, 173-175 (W. Röllig). P. XELLA

Angel of Milkashtart see MILKASHTART ANNA Lat. Anna. Originally the NW Sem. name (cf. Phoen. ḥn, “grace”; Hebr. ḥnh) of a Carthag. heroine, sister and confidant of Dido (→ELISSA) (Verg. A. 4,9ff.; Ov. Her. 7,189f.). According to Varro (apud Serv. A. 4,682), it was A. rather than Dido who fell in love with AENEAS and then committed suicide. This fact has led to the hypothesis that originally A. was Dido’s other name, but this reconstruction is doubtful. As the Italic goddess ANNA PERENNA has a similar name, some sources (Ov. Fast. 3,545ff.; Sil. Pun. 8,50ff.) have even made these two figures overlap slightly: when Dido died, the Maurus king *Iarbas (→*Mauri) expelled A. from *Carthage. She ended up in *Latium, but even though welcomed by Aeneas, threw herself into the river Numicius and was then worshipped as a nymph of that river (cf. Ov. Fast. 3,653f.: ... placidi sum nympha Numici / amne perenne latens Anna Perenna vocor). RE I, s.v. (2), cols 2223f. (G. Wissowa); EV 1, s.v., 178-182; Calcaterra, E. and Ribichini, S. (2011) L’esilio di Anna fenicia sulle rive di fiumi italici. In: Intrieri, M. and Ribichini, S. (eds) Fenici e Italici, Cartagine e la Magna Grecia. Popoli a contatto, culture a confronto. RSF, 37. Pisa/Rome, 139-154. A. ERCOLANI

ANNA PERENNA Lat. Anna Perenna. Italic deity assimilated by several Lat. writers to ANNA, a Phoen. heroine and sister of ELISSA/Dido (Ov. Fast.

3,523-696; so also Sil. Pun. 8,25ff. and Verg. A. 4,9ff.), who fled from *Carthage after the queen committed suicide and landed on the shores of *Latium after a long sea voyage. Chiefly according to Ovid, here Anna was welcomed and given hospitality by AENEAS; but on the very night of her arrival, confused by a vision of her dead sister, the princess fled from the palace and disappeared in the waters of the river Numicius, where, as a “nymph among the nymphs”, she appeared the following day to those looking for her. From the variations of the myth as told by Ovid, it would seem that already in his time the origin of the goddess was not clear, even though the Italic and/or Magno-Greek substrate of her cult can be traced in several documents. However, analysis of these texts seems to exclude her Pun. origin, in spite of the clear evidence from Ovid and Silius Italicus. The etymology of the theonym A.P. is explained in Ovid’s Fasti (3,653-654) as the slow and perpetual flow of the waters of the river. Instead, Macrobius (Sat. 1,12,3; cf. Lyd. Mens. 4,36) uses the verbs annare and perennare to connect the goddess with the ancient Rom. spring festivals of the new year. In any case, Ovid’s account of the disappearance of the Phoen. princess in the river Numicius provides a mythical foundation for the worship of A.P., celebrated by the plebs on the Ides of March with songs and drinking. Recent archaeological finds in *Rome, in a cultic area outside the city on the via Flaminia, patronized from the 2nd-1st cent. BCE to the 5th-6th cent. CE, have indicated the existence of a special devotion to A.P., which provided a controlled escape from ordinary daily life, a connection with flowing water, and a playful component in the celebrations in her honour. Of importance among the finds near the wood and the fountain dedicated to her are three dedications to “A.P. and her nymphs”, as well as various written documents providing proof of the practice of black →*Magic (defixiones). These practices, in particular, prove that in the late imperial period, the worship of A.P. was completely marginalized, both in respect of the official cult, and in respect of the reassuring image of the benevolent goddess as described by Ovid and Silius Italicus for the Rom. heir of the mythical Phoen. princess. Guarducci, M. (1936) SMSR, 12, 125-150; Wiseman, T. P. (2006) Documentation, visualization, imagination: the case of Anna Perenna’s cult site. In: Haselberger, L. and Humphrey, J. (eds) Imaging Ancient Rome: Documentation, visualization, imagination (Proceedings of the Third Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture held

ANNA PERENNA – APIS

at the American Academy in Rome, the British School at Rome, and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (Rome, on May 20-23, 2004). Portsmouth, 51-61; Blänsdorf, J. (2010) The texts from the Fons Annae Perennae. In: Gordon, R. and Marco Simón, F. (eds) Magical practice in the Latin West. Papers from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza (30 Sept.-1 Oct. 2005). Leiden/ Boston, 215-244; Piranomonte, M. (2010) Religion and magic at Rome: The fountain of Anna Perenna. In: ibid., 191-213; Calcaterra, E. and Ribichini, S. (2011) L’esilio di Anna fenicia sulle rive di fiumi italici. In: Intrieri, M. and Ribichini, S. (eds) Fenici e Italici, Cartagine e la Magna Grecia. Popoli a contatto, culture a confronto. RSF, 37. Pisa/Rome, 139-154.

E. CALCATERRA – S. RIBICHINI

ANOBRET Gk Ἀνωβρέτ. Sem. name of unknown origin and meaning. It appears once in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,44 = 4,16,11; see BNJ 790 fr. 3b) for the bride of CRONUS and the mother of his “only son” IEOUD, who was sacrificed by his father, the king, at a critical moment in war. It is not clear whether this is the same sacrifice alluded to in PE 1,10,33. Philo of Byblos calls A. a “nymph” (νύμφη), which may indicate that the name was interpreted as containing the Sem. word ῾yn, “spring,” since Gk nymphs were often associated with water sources. Clemen ([1939] 69-71) suggested a derivation from Anat rbt (“Anat the Great”) (→ANAT), but this is unlikely. Renan, E. (1858) Mémoire sur l’origine et le caractère véritable de l’Histoire Phénicienne qui porte le nom de Sanchoniathon. In: MAIBL 23. Paris, 241-334; Clemen, C. (1939) Die phönikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos. MVÄG, Bd. 42, Heft 3. Leipzig, esp. 69-71; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 93 fn. 149; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 251; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790.

The “Running of the Apis” (pḥrr Ḥp), attested by the I dyn., consisted of a ritualized performance during which the Pharaoh had to run alongside the sacred bull. The ceremony took place in conjunction with festivals performed to regenerate the strength of the ruler and was linked with cyclical regeneration and fertility. A. had a certain role also as a funerary god and starting from the NK, depictions of the “Running of the Apis” occasionally occur within non-royal mortuary contexts to symbolize post mortem rebirth. Several details concerning the cult of A. are known thanks to ancient historians, above all Herodotus (3,28), Diodorus of Sicily (1,84-87) and Pliny (Nat. 8,184). By combining their accounts with direct sources, a complex core of beliefs emerges. The Egyptians seem to have believed that a virgin cow could be impregnated by a divine manifestation – in the form of a ray of light or a lightning bolt – of the god PTAH, and then give birth to a calf with physical peculiarities, such as being totally black with a white triangular spot on its forehead and a birthmark under its tongue. Both cow and calf were considered divine creatures: the first was identified with ISIS or HATHOR, while the second was recognized as A. When the sacred bull died, a new calf had to be chosen by the priests in order to replace the previous one. The A. bull was the focus of an elaborate cult both in life and after death. The living bull was believed to be capable of delivering oracles. Its foremost centre of worship was *Memphis, where A. was considered the earthly manifestation of the most prominent local god, Ptah. After its death, the sacred bull was mummified and buried with rites worthy of a member of the royal family (Papyrus Vindob. 3873: Vos [1993]).

C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Aphrodite see ADONIS; ASTARTE; BAALAT GEBAL; BAALTIS APIS Egypt. Ḥp. A. is known since the dawn of pharaonic civilization, and is one of the most important sacred bulls worshipped by the ancient Egyptians [FIG. 10].

13

Fig. 10. Statuette of Apis (elephant ivory). XXVI-XXX dyn. (664-343 BCE)

14

APIS – APOLLO

Like any person or animal subjected to funerary rites, each mummified A. bull was identified with OSIRIS, the god of the dead. Through time, the cult of the Osirized A. bulls led to the rise of a funerary deity, called Osiris-Apis or Osorapis. From the latter, after the advent of the syncretistic climate typical of the Hellenist. Age (→*Syncretism), a new Graeco-Egypt. god developed, called Serapis, associated with the sun, the underworld and fertility. The A. bulls were buried in special catacombs, known as “Houses of the Osiris-A.”, or Serapea. The most famous of these was the Serapeum of *Saqqara, not far from the site of Memphis. Several votive stelae have been found in the vicinity of the burials; moreover, there is some evidence that, during the Graeco-Rom. period, *Incubation rituals could have been performed inside the Memphite catacombs. With the advent of foreign dominations, the cults of the sacred animals, including the A. bulls, seem to have increased in popularity. According to Smelik and Hemelrijk (1984), the Egyptians emphasize these kinds of religious practices because they are considered as repugnant to foreigners and, therefore, as a way to preserve their own cultural identity. The presence of A. outside of Egypt is to be understood in connection with the spread of the Isiac cults throughout the Medit. world (→ISIS). Since the cow who gave birth to the sacred bull was identified with Isis, A. was associated not only with Osiris, but also with HORUS, and so had an important role within the Mysteries. [R.S.] In the Phoen. world, A. occurs only as a theophoric element in PNN, all, significantly, from *Elephantine: ytnḥp (Lidzbarski [1912] 2,5,16); ṣḥpmw (ibid. 11b, 34c); bnḥp (ibid. 34b); ḥpyw (ibid. 47,54). [P.X.] Lidzbarski. M. (1912) Phönizische und aramäische Krugaufschriften aus Elephantine. Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin; Simpson, W. K. (1957) Or, 26, 139-142; Malaise, M. (1972) Les conditions de pénétration et de diffusion des cultes égyptiens en Italie. EPRO 22. Leiden; PNPPI, 316; Ribichini, S. (1975) Divinità egiziane nelle iscrizioni fenicie d’Oriente. In: Benigni, G. et al. (eds) Saggi fenici - I. Rome, 7-14; Smelik, K. A. D. and Hemelrijk, E. A. (1984) Who knows not what monsters demented Egypt worships? Opinions on Egyptian animal worship in Antiquity as part of the ancient conception of Egypt. In: ANRW XVIII 4, 1853-2000; Vos, R. L. (1993) The Apis embalming ritual: P. Vindob. 3873. OLA 50. Leuven; Taylor, J. H. (2001) Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. London, 244-263; Smith, H. S., Andrews, C. A. R. and Davies, S. (2011) The sacred animal necropolis at North Saqqara: The mother of Apis inscriptions 1-2. London; Ikram, S. (2015) Speculations on the role of animal cults in the economy of ancient Egypt. In: Massiera, M., Mathieu, B. and Rouffet, F. (eds)

Apprivoiser le Sauvage / Taming the Wild. CENiM 11. Montpellier, 211-228; Renberg, J. H. (2017) Where dreams may come: incubation sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman world. RGRW184. Leiden. R. SCHIAVO – P. XELLA

APOLLO Gk Ἀπόλλων; Lat. Apollo. DN mainly corresponding to Sem. RESHEPH (more rarely, to ESHMUN). In class. mythology, A. is the brother of ARTEMIS and a son of Zeus and Leto; instead, in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,26), A. is a son of EL/CRONUS together with Zeus Belos (→BELOS) and has a second brother with the same name as his father. Philo adds that the three were born in Perea: probably a way of denoting a region on the other side of the river Jordan. On this basis, it is possible to consider that Philo knew A. to be identified with several deities of the preclass. ANE, especially with Nabu (cf. Str. 16,1,7 for the A. of Borsippa and [Luc.] Syr. D. 35-37 for the A. of Hierapolis), and that he refers to A. in a world history about origins that assigned supreme veracity to Phoen. traditions. Pausanias (7,23,7-8) also speaks of the Phoen. A., reporting that for one person he interviewed, who came from *Sidon, the god was considered to be the father of ASCLEPIUS, whom he had sired with a mortal woman, and that he was identified with the sun [FIG. 11]. During the 4th cent. BCE, in some bilingual (Phoen./ Cypr.) and trilingual (Phoen./Cypr./Gk) inscriptions from *Cyprus, the name A. is an interpretation of the Phoen. name Resheph, who had epithets corresponding to some local epicleses: at *Idalion, A. Amyklos corresponds to ršp mkl (KAI 39, 279 BCE); at *Tamassos, A. Alasiotas translates ršp᾿lhyts (RÉS 1213, 375 BCE) and A. Eleitas transcribes ršp᾿lyyts (KAI 41, 363 BCE). Another bilingual (Gk/Phoen.) inscription (CIS I, 114) provides evidence in the 4th cent. BCE of sacred delegates (“Hieronauts”) from *Tyre offering images of Tyre and Sidon to the A. of *Delos. The sanctuary of the god on that island also preserved, among its collections, some gifts that were said to be offered by the Carthag. *Iomilkos in the 4th cent. BCE. The special devotion for the Gk god by the Phoen. and Pun. population is also evident for the A. of Delphi, for whom the girls forming the chorus in the tragedy The Phoenician Women by Euripides (probably

APOLLO

performed in 409 BCE) were intended and to whom, according to Pausanias (10,17,1), the inhabitants of *Sardinia sent a statue of their god SARDUS PATER, perhaps towards the end of the 5th cent. BCE. On the other hand, there is ample literary evidence for the cult of a Pun. god identified with A. from Gk and Lat. writers. The name appears, e.g., in the list of gods invoked to guarantee the treaty made by *Hannibal (9) in 215 BCE with the ambassadors of *Philip V king of Macedonia, according to the account by Polybius (8,9,2-3) (→*Treaties). As he is mentioned in third position, immediately after Zeus and Hera, A. is certainly to be identified as a prominent god in the pantheon of *Carthage. Other evidence comes from Appianus (Pun. 127) and Valerius Maximus (1,1,18), who speak of the wealth of the sanctuary of A. at *Carthage, during the siege by Scipio Aemilianus (→*Scipions [6]), and of the golden statue placed inside the sanctuary. Instead, Pliny the Elder (Nat. 16,216) records the great antiquity of the temple for A. built at *Utica, contemporary with the Phoen. foundation of that city. Furthermore, Diodorus of Sicily (13,108,4; 17,41,7-8), Curtius Rufus (4,3,2123) and Plutarch (Alex. 24,6-7; Quaest. Rom. 61) record the story of the statue of A. removed by the Carthaginians in *Sicily in 409 BCE and taken to Tyre.

Fig. 11. Marble statue of Apollo (from a Nymphaeum, Beirut) (1st-2nd cent. CE)

15

This happened during the siege by *Alexander the Great, when the monument was secured with chains to prevent the god from abandoning the city and supporting its Gk adversaries. Evidence of a huge statue of A. removed from Carthage and taken to *Rome, probably on the orders of Scipio Aemilianus at the end of the III Punic War (*Punic Wars), is provided by Plutarch (Flam. 1,1) who actually saw it in the city, erected in front of a circus. Also perhaps of Carthag. origin was another bronze effigy of A., that, according to Cicero (Verr. 2,4,93), was also given by Scipio to the city of *Agrigentum, as testimony of Rom. generosity and a historical memorial of their victory over Carthage. There is evidence for the cult of A. in several settlements in Romanized North Africa, especially in *Bulla Regia, where it is possible that the god inherited the worship of a much older deity of the Pun. *Pantheon. The interpretation of the toponym *Rusucmona (Liv. 30,10,9, modern Ras *Sidi Ali el-Mekki, NE of Carthage) as corresponding to a Pun. expression such as r᾿š᾿šmn (“Cape of Eshmun”), and possibly identical with the “Promontory of Apollo” in some ancient literary sources (Livy, Strabo, Appianus and Zonaras: Lat. Promunturium Apollinis, cf. also the Pulchri Promunturium in Liv. 29,27), has given rise to the idea that Gk A. was a translation of the Phoen. name Eshmun, with a double North African interpretation (Asclepius and A.) of that deity. However, such a hypothesis seems difficult to accept since it ignores the evidence from Carthage for the cult of Resheph, overlooks the facts concerning the relevant presence of statues and shrines dedicated to Asclepius or A. in that city and elsewhere (at Bulla Regia and *Maktar for ex.), and underestimates the fact that the two deities have different titles and epithets (the latter a fairly certain indication of completely different spheres of divine competence). Radet, G. (1926) REA, 28, 113-120; Troiani, L. (1974) L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa, 173f.; Teixidor, J. (1983) RHR, 200, 243-255; Lipiński, E. (1995) 155f.; 162-165; Baslez, M.-F. (2000) Carthaginois dans les inscriptions de Délos: problèmes d’identification. In: APC 4.I, 197-203; Lightfoot, J. L. (2003) Lucian, On the Syrian Goddess. Oxford, 456-470; Cadotte, A. (2007) La romanisation des dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden/ Boston, 165-200; Bonnet, C. (2012) Lorsque les “autres” entrent dans la danse. Lectures phéniciennes des identités religieuses en contexte multiculturel. In: Payen, P. and Scheid-Tissinier, É. (eds) Anthropologie de l’Antiquité. Anciens objets, nouvelles approches. Turnhout, 109-115; Ribichini, S. (2015) Statue greche e culti fenici. In: Giuffré Scibona, C., Mastrocinque, A. and Multari, A.

16

APOLLO – ARQU-RESHEPH

(eds) “Ex pluribus unum”. Studi in onore di Giulia Sfameni Gasparro. Rome, 157-167; Ribichini, S. (2017) Les rites de la défaite dans la Carthage punique. In: Tahar, M. (ed.) Guerre et religion dans le monde punique. Tunis, 297-327; Ribichini, S. (2018) Reshef e il mestiere delle armi. In: Vacca, A., Pizzimenti, S. and Micale M. G. (eds) A oriente del Delta. Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae. CMAO 18. Rome, 579-589. S. RIBICHINI

Arae Philaenorum see PHILAENI ARES Gk Ἄρης. The Gk god of war is mentioned in the treaty between *Hannibal (9) and *Philip V, king of Macedonia (→*Treaties), at the head of the third triad of deities, followed by TRITON and POSEIDON (Plb. 7,9,2). An identification of this god with ERESH has been proposed. Since the latter does not appear to be a god of war, E. Lipiński (1995) suggested that A. could instead correspond to a Lib. warrior god, later identified as Mars (a Mars patrius is mentioned in CIL VIII, 23356, from *Mididi/Henchir Meded). In that case, this Lib. god might also have been identified with BAAL ADDIR (Cadotte [2007]). Other scholars prefer an identification with HADAD (Dussaud [1947]) or HADAD/BAAL SHAMEM (Barré [1983]). According to some sources, it was A. who killed ADONIS out of jealousy (schol. ad Hom. Il. 5,385b; Serv. E. 10,18; Nonn. D. 41,210-211). Dussaud, R. (1947) CRAI(BL), 91, 201-224, esp. 218; Barré, M.-L. (1983) The god-list in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia. Baltimore/London, 82f.; Le Glay, M. (1981) s.v. “Arish”. In: LIMC II, cols 580f.; Barreca, F. (1985) Il giuramento di Annibale (considerazioni storico-religiose). In: Sotgiu, G. (ed.) Studi in onore di Giovanni Lilliu per il suo settantesimo compleanno. Cagliari, 71-81, esp. 75; Lipiński, E. (1995) 398f.; DDD2, s.v., 85-88 (J. N. Bremmer); Cadotte, A. (2007) La Romanisation des dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden/Boston, 318f.; Sollazzo, C. E. I. (2011) Qualche considerazione sulle divinità nel “Giuramento di Annibale”. In: Intrieri, M. and Ribichini, S. (eds) Fenici e Italici, Cartagine e la Magna Grecia. Popoli a contatto, culture a confronto. RSF, 37. Pisa/Rome, 191-198, esp. 193. G. MINUNNO

Arganthonios see TARTESSOS Arsippo/us see RESHEPH

Arṣu see ERESH; RESHEPH Artemides see TITANIDES ARTEMIS Gk Ἄρτεμιϛ. A marble funerary stela from *Athens, dated to ca 400 BCE (KAI 53 = TSSI III, 40), bears a bilingual (Gk/Phoen.) inscription that mentions the name of the deceased: Abdtinnit (῾bdtnt), son of Abdshamash (῾bdšmš), in Phoenician, and Ἀρτεμίδωροϛ, son of Ἡλιόδωροϛ, in Greek. The *Interpretatio →TINNIT = A. exhibited by the two PNN is exceptional, and is evidently based on identification criteria that elude us. Also, faint traces of a vaguely Phoen. A. may perhaps be found on *Cyprus, at *Kition, in A.’s epiclesis Paralia (“She of the salt pans”, rather than “She of the shores”), which seems to combine local and Or. aspects. DCPP, s.v. (M. Yon); Lipiński, E. (1995) 313-315. P. XELLA

ARQU-RESHEPH Aram. ᾿rqršp. A.R. is the name of a divine character documented in the Aram. religion of Sam᾿al (*Zincirli, north. *Syria), who is to be considered as a particular hypostasis of the god RESHEPH. In the inscription of King Panamuwa I from Gerçin (ca 745 BCE) the sequence of the DNN is HADAD, EL, Resheph, RAKIB-EL and SHAMASH (KAI 214,23.18) [FIG. 12]. Only in line 11 does Shamash directly follow Rakib-El, and then comes A.R. (only documented in this inscription). Like Resheph, A. is connected with the destiny of the kingdom, chiefly under the aspects of “protection of the king” and “war against enemies”. The appearance of the god A.R. in Sam᾿al is due to North Arabian cultural influence: the war god Ruldāwu/Ruḍa reached as far as Sam᾿al, where he was transformed into the god A.R. Due to the loss of mythical and epic narrative traditions from Sam᾿al, the exact relationship between the gods A.R. and Resheph, possibly as complementing each other, is not known. Subsequently, in the 7th cent. BCE, the god Ruldāwu/Ruḍa is mentioned several times in the annals of Esarhaddon (→*Assyrians), where the

ARQU-RESHEPH – ASCLEPIUS

17

of the Phoen. god →ESHMUN, attested by both literary tradition and *Cult practice. The identification of A. with Eshmun is mentioned – among many other class. sources – by Damascius (Isid. 348), where the name of the Phoen. god is rendered literally Esmounos (Gk Ἔσμουνοϛ). In epigraphy, the trilingual (Lat./Gk/Pun.) votive inscription from Santu Iacci, *Sardinia (ICO Sard. 9) dating to the second half of the 2nd cent. BCE, provides the triple identification Aesculapius = A. = Eshmun, made by a worshipper named Cleon/ Κλέων/᾿klyn, for whom they were all the same god. In *Phoenicia (at *Sarepta, but mostly at *Sidon [FIG. 13]), on *Cyprus and elsewhere, Gk votive inscriptions were addressed to an A. who was actually also the Gk form of Eshmun. As for the interaction between the cults of Eshmun and A., it should be noted that the healing aspects attributed to Eshmun seem to be strongly empowered by his identification with the emergent A., starting from the end of the 5th cent. BCE.

Fig. 12. Inscription of King Panamuwa I (KAI 214, top right margin)

close connection of that god with the kingdom is evident, and also appears later in *Palmyra and in Palmyrene as Arṣu. Landsberger, B. (1948) Sam᾿al. Studien zur Entdeckung der Ruinenstätte Karatepe. Veröffentlichungen der Türkischen Historischen Gesellschaft VII. Serie, Nr. 16. Ankara, 48f. fn. 122; Barnett, R. D. (1964) The gods of Zincirli. In: CRRAI XI, Leiden, 59-87, esp. 79 fn. 68; Lipiński, E. (1983) The god ᾿Arqû-Rashap in the Samallian Hadad-inscription. In: Sokoloff, M. (ed.) Aramaeans, Aramaic and the Aramaic literary tradition. Ramat-Gan, 15-21; Lipiński, E. (2009) Reshep. A Syro-Canaanite deity. StPhoen 19 = OLA 181. Leuven/Paris/Walpole (MA), 223-228; Tropper, J. (1993) Die Inschriften von Zincirli. ALASP 6. Münster; Retsö, J. (2003) The Arabs in Antiquity. Their history from the Assyrians to the Umayyads. London, 158f.600-622; Leichty, E. (2011) The royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC). RINAP 4. Winona Lake (IN), 19.49.180. H. NIEHR

Arsaphes see HERYSHEF ASCLEPIUS Gk Ἀσκληπιόϛ.

The Gk healer god A., patron of medicine, like his Lat. counterpart Aesculapius, whose cult enjoyed extraordinary popularity in the ancient Mediterranean, was the class. interpretation (→*Interpretatio)

Fig. 13. Marble votive column from Bostan esh-Sheikh (Sidon) with a Greek inscription dedicated θεῶι Ἁγίωι Ἀσκληπιῶι. Jalabert, L. (1906) MUSJ, 1, 157-161; Edelstein, E. J. & Edelstein, L. (19752) Asclepius. A collection and interpretation of the testimonies 1-2. New York; Daly, L. W. (1980) ZPE, 40, 223225; Masson, O. (1982) Semitica, 32, 45-59, esp. 45f.; Wachter, R. (2005) Die griechischen Inschriften. In: Stucky, R. et al. (eds) Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon. Architektur und Inschriften.

18

ASCLEPIUS – ASHERAH

AK Beiheft 19. Basel, 319-330; De Miro, E., Sfameni Gasparro, G. and Calì, V. (eds) (2009) Il culto di Asclepio nell’area mediterranea. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Agrigento, 20-22 novembre 2005. Rome; Yon, J.-B. and Aliquot, J. (2016) Inscriptions grecques et latines du Musée National de Beyrouth. BAAL Hors-Série XII. Beirut, no. 293 p. 146. P. XELLA

Asiti see ASTARTE ASHERAH Ug. aṯrt; Hebr.᾿šrh; Akk. aš(i)r(a)tum. The earliest evidence of this goddess dates back to the Old Bab. period (ca 18th cent. BCE). She is mentioned, with the spelling aš(i)ratum, in some seal impressions that can be dated ca 1800-1760 BCE, in a hymn to the god Amurru, in a votive inscription and in some lists of gods. In these documents, A. always appears together with the Amorite god Amurru. During the LBA, the goddess A. appears in a Hitt. myth of Canaanite origin as the wife of the supreme god Elkunirsa (CTH 342) (*Hittites), and predominantly in the texts from *Ugarit. The religious texts from Ras Shamra provide us with the richest documentation of the goddess A. She appears, with the spelling aṯrt, in several god lists, in various ritual texts and chiefly in some mythological narratives. In the BAAL Cycle (KTU3 1.1-6), A. appears as the consort of the supreme god EL and is described as the creatrix of the gods (qnyt ilm). In the epic of King Kirta (KTU31.14-16), A. is invoked in connection with the birth of royal progeny and, together with ANAT, is the divine wet-nurse of the heir to the throne. In one passage in this epic (KTU31.14 IV 35-39), King Kirta, while travelling to the city of Udum in search of his wife, makes a vow to the goddess A. There, she has the epithets “A. of Tyre” (aṯrt ṣrm) and “Goddess of Sidon” (ilt ṣdnym), i.e. references to the two main cities of *Phoenicia. Her role of divine wet-nurse is also confirmed by the mythico-ritual text KTU31.23, where she is described as the wet-nurse of the “Gracious gods”. In the I mill. BCE, the goddess A. is documented in several different regions, but not in a uniform way. She is named in a few Bab. tablets (Merlo [1998] 113-121) and in South Arabia in several Qatabanian inscriptions and a few Minaean inscriptions (Bron [1998]). Here the goddess appears together with the lunar gods ῾Amm and Wadd, and a shrine near Wadi Ḥarib is dedicated to her.

Furthermore, the goddess A. occurs very often in the Hebr. Bible (*Old Testament) and in some ancient Hebr. inscriptions. The word ᾿ašērȃ is found 40 times in the Hebr. Bible, where it can refer either to an object of worship or – more rarely – to a goddess. According to current opinion, the object of worship called ăšērāh must have been a stylized tree or a wooden stake, in order to be understood as the cultic symbol of the goddess with the same name. In many passages in the Hebr. Bible, the cult of the goddess A. (or the cultic object itself) is associated with “foreign” cults (e.g. Exod 34,12-13; Deut 7,4-5), especially with the god BAAL (e.g. Judg 3,7; 1 Kgs 18,19), but it has been shown that such a connection does not reflect historical fact. Instead, it is only the result of an intentional theological polemic by biblical writers. To arrive at a framework that is closer to the historical and religious reality of the time, it is necessary to discuss those few biblical passages that seem to have escaped the late polemic against idols by biblical writers. According to those biblical passages, the cult of the goddess (or the object) A. was connected with the temple of Yahweh (2 Kgs 18,4; 21,7; 23,4-6) and with the royal house (1 Kgs 15,13). Following this new direction of research, the biblical evidence would prove the existence of a cult of the goddess A. as part of the official cult of Yahweh at least until the 7th cent. BCE. Only after that date did the goddess A. no longer accompany the supreme god Yahweh.

Fig. 14. Kuntillet ῾Ajrud. Pithos A

ASHERAH

The close connection between the goddess A. and the supreme god Yahweh is confirmed by some Hebr. inscriptions dating to the 8th cent. BCE, found on a pithos in *Kuntillet ῾Ajrud [FIGs 14 and 15] and graffito no. 3 of *Khirbet el-Qom. In the inscriptions from Kuntillet ῾Ajrud, possibly an outpost of the kingdom of *Israel on the trade route between *Gaza and *Eilat, there are several examples of a strange blessing formula addressed “to Yahweh … and to his A.” (lyhwh wl᾿šrth) (→*Blessings and curses). In these blessing formulae, as well as in the inscription from Khirbet el-Qom already mentioned, the disputed phrase ᾿šrth, “his A.”, occurs several times, closely connecting the goddess (or the object) A. with the god Yahweh, specified by a particular toponym: *Samaria or Teman. The very nature of the site of Kuntillet ῾Ajrud is a matter of debate (caravanserai, royal outpost or shrine) as is the possible presence of *Phoenicians on the site, since it lies along the trade route connecting Gaza with the Red Sea, going towards Arabia. The connection of the site of Kuntillet ῾Ajrud with the kingdom of Israel may be proved by the mention of “Yahweh of Samaria”, and by the use of the short form of the theophoric ending -yw in PNN. Instead, a connection with *Phoenicia seems less likely, as it can only be derived from the use of the Phoen. script in some inscriptions in Hebrew on plaster. Some scholars have proposed that the goddess A. (with the spelling ᾿šrt) can be seen in some short Philistine dedicatory inscriptions from the 7th cent. BCE found on amphorae from deposits in *Ekron (Philistia: →*Philistines) that read qdš l᾿šrt. How-

Fig. 15. Kuntillet ῾Ajrud. Pithos A (drawings of the left and the right side)

19

ever, that hypothesis is completely baseless because the dedicatory inscriptions in question should be translated “consecrated to the sanctuary”, since the term ᾿šrt meaning “shrine” is well documented in Phoenician. There has been considerable debate concerning how to identify the specific iconography of the goddess A. In the past, several scholars proposed identifying the goddess A. in a variety of widely occurring iconographic motifs in the Levant during the LBA, such as figurines of a frontally nude goddess of the qdš type (→QUDSHU), representations of a naked goddess standing on lions as “Mistress of animals”, representations of the so-called “twig goddess”, or else some figurines of a suckling goddess. More recently, however, the identification of these iconographic motifs with the goddess A. has been strongly contested by several scholars. For this reason, at present, it is preferable to exercise extreme caution in ascribing a DN to those iconographic motifs. Instead, there are many more studies inclined to consider the Judaean pillar figurines as genuine portraits of the goddess A. Even here, though, recent studies have stressed that there is a lack of certainty in such an identification. In conclusion, in current research, there is no direct evidence for the goddess A. in Phoen. and Pun. culture. The only trace of her possible presence in Phoenicia is the vague mention of an Athirat of *Tyre and *Sidon in the Ug. epic mentioned above (KTU3 1.14 IV 35-39). However, it is not completely impossible that A. might have been present at some level in cultic traditions (especially in PNN), perhaps concealed behind a divine epithet of some kind. Day, J. (1986) JBL, 105, 385-408; Olyan, S. M. (1988) Asherah and the cult of Yahweh in Israel. SBL MonSer 34. Atlanta (GA); Merlo, P. (1994) SEL, 11, 121-155; Ribichini, S. (1995) RSF, 23, 3-35; Xella, P. (1995) UF, 27, 599-610; Kletter, R. (1996) The Judaean pillar-figurines and the archaeology of Asherah. Oxford; Merlo, P. (1997) SEL, 14, 43-63; Bron, F. (1998) Notes sur le culte d’Athirat en Arabie du Sud préislamique. In: SchattnerRieser, U., Amphoux, C.-B. and Frey, A. (eds) Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain. HTB 3. Lausanne, 75-79; Merlo, P. (1998) La dea Ašratum-Aṯiratu-Ašera. Un contributo alla religione semitica del Nord. Rome; DDD2, s.v. 99-105 (N. Wyatt); Hadley, J. M. (2000) The cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah. Evidence for a Hebrew goddess. Cambridge; Wiggins, S. A. (2007) A reassessment of “Asherah”. With further considerations of the goddess. Piscataway (NJ); Cornelius, I. (20082) The many faces of the Goddess: The iconography of the Syro-Palestinian goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500-1000 BCE. OBO 204. Fribourg/Göttingen; Mastin, B. A. (2009) VT, 59, 99-115; Meshel, Z. (2012) Kuntillet

20

ASHERAH – ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS

῾Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman). An Iron Age II religious site on the Judah-Sinai border, with contributions by S. Aḥituv et al. Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem; Rich, S. A. (2012) AWE, 11, 19-34; Niehr, H. (2013) Maarav, 20, 27-38; Darby, E. (2014) Interpreting Judean pillar figurines. Gender and empire in Judean apotropaic ritual. FAT 2.69. Tübingen. P. MERLO

dence of A.’s role as the titular of that precinct. Interestingly, here the theonym appears with mimation. The presence of the god – honoured by believers of various origins, including *Phoenicians – in this transit region, much frequented for commercial purposes, can be explained as due to South-Arabic or Moabite influence (→*Moabites).

ASHTAR Ug. ῾ṯtr; Phoen. ῾štr; Moab. ῾štr; Aram.῾štrm. The god A. has a long history, ranging from *Ugarit to the South Arabian world, with a variety of roles that show the different aspects of his personality. As a matter of fact, A. seems to be foreign to the Phoen. and Pun. *Pantheon, in spite of the theophorus PN ῾štrḥn from *Byblos (Dunand [1950-1958] no. 19.083: Aramaic?), but with one important exception. He occurs as the recipient of offerings in a Phoen. inscription engraved on a bronze bowl from *Elyakhin [FIG. 16] – located in the central part of the Sharon plain – dating from the Pers. period (*Persians). This object is dedicated to A. by three of his devotees bearing Phoen. proper names, clear evi-

Fig. 16. Inscribed bronze bowl from Elyakhin

Dunand, M. (1950-1958) Fouilles de Byblos II. Paris, no. 19.083; Garbini, G. (1960) Or, 29, 322; Deutsch, R. and Heltzer, M. (1994) Forty new ancient West Semitic inscriptions. Tel Aviv/ Jaffa, 69-72 (no. 33); Xella, P. (1994) Pantheon e culto a Biblo. Aspetti e problemi. In: Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) Biblo. Una città e la sua cultura. CSF 32. Rome, 195-214; Lipiński, E. (1995) 411f.; Xella, P. (1996) Les pouvoirs du dieu ῾Aṯtar. In: Wyatt, N., Lloyd, J. B. and Watson, W. G. E. (eds) Ugarit, religion and culture. Essays presented in honour of Prof. J. C. L. Gibson. UBL 12. Münster, 381-404; Lipiński, E. (1999) The cult of ῾Ashtarum in Achaemenian Palestine. In: Cagni, L. (ed.) Biblica et Semitica: Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni. Naples, 315-323; Kottsieper, I. (2001) ZAW, 113, 245-250. P. XELLA

ASSEMBLY

OF THE GODS

Like other religions of the ANE, Phoen. polytheism implied that the supernatural beings that were worshipped formed a hierarchical and organized community, exactly as in the historical and social life of human beings. Each Phoen. city had its poliadic deities (usually a couple) who were at the top of the local pantheon. Subordinate to them were other deities, distinguished by specific qualities and possibly interconnected by relationships of various kinds (kinship, alliance, enmity, etc.). In several cases they could form syncretistic units (→*Syncretism), by being linked together in the cult due either to affinity or to their complementary powers (→DOUBLE DEITIES). The type of Phoen. documents we have, lacking any mythological texts, are very parsimonious in specific indications on this topic, unlike, for ex., *Ug. evidence, where the assembly of the gods is mentioned in expressions such as pḫr, mpḫrt, or dr (of the gods: ilm or bn il). In the area around *Phoenicia, the divine assembly may occur in the oldest known Phoen. inscription from *Cyprus (KAI 30) [FIG. 17], which dates back to the 9th cent. BCE. It is a funerary text where, in particular, there is a triple invocation which calls on three different divine entities, mentioned in parallel: a god simply called BAAL, ADOM and – although the reconstruction is hypothetical – the Assembly (here

ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS – ASTARTE

21

11. Geneva, esp. 121f.; L’Heureux, C. E. (1979) Rank among the Canaanite gods. HSM 21. Missoula (MT); DRS 4, s.v. dw/yr, 239-241; DNWSI II, s.v. mpḥrh, 673. P. XELLA

ASTARTE

Fig. 17. The inscription KAI 30 from Cyprus

possibly ḥbr) of the gods: “by/in the hands (= through the strength) of Baal // by/in the hands of A. // … of the assembly (?) of the gods” (bn yd b῾l // bn yd ᾿dm // bn yd ḥ]br ᾿lm). Moreover, the *Karatepe inscription (KAI 26 A III 19) mentions kl dr bn ’lm, “the whole generation of the sons of the gods”, which is matched by the expression rb dr kl qdšn, “the multitude of the generation of all the holy ones” in the first amulet of *Arslan Taș (KAI 27,12). Instead, in the inscription of *Yahimilk, king of *Byblos, the expression mpḥrt. l̓ gbl … qdšm (KAI 4,4-5), “the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos”, occurs, while in the inscription of the son of *Shipitbaal (KAI 9), also from Byblos, even though the context is broken, a collective reference to the gods of that city can be postulated. The information that can be gleaned from this scant documentation does not mention mechanisms for assemblies, although they must have been occasions for the Phoen. deities to make decisions and perhaps even for divine conviviality. The only idea to emerge is that the gods formed separate communities, possibly connected by family ties: in fact, the term dr alludes specifically to family and kinship connections between the deities, although unfortunately we are not able to reconstruct them, except for a few cases involving relationships between couples. Therefore, mythological accounts (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY) such as those handed down by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790), which are comparatively rich in indications of the hierarchical and genealogical relationships between the gods, are as yet unique in the documentation available to us. Masson, O. and Sznycer, M. (1972) Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. HEO 3. Geneva/Paris, esp. 13-20; Bron, F. (1979) Recherches sur les inscriptions phéniciennes de Karatepe. HEO

Ug. ῾ṯtrt; Phoen. ῾štrt; Hebr. ῾štrt; Aram ῾št (?); Gk Ἀστάρτη. Goddess with a name of uncertain etymology who belongs to the oldest W Sem. tradition. A. is present in almost every Phoen. pantheon, at both the official and public levels and at the private level, as indicated also by her extremely frequent occurrence in PNN (see below). Traces of her worship and of her sanctuaries can be found in almost all the regions of the Mediterranean affected by Phoen. expansion, from the Levant to the far West. The Bronze Age Very probably, A. is historically related to Akk. Ishtar (Sum. Inanna), although it is not possible to specify exactly the nature of this relationship over thousands of years. However, this seems confirmed by the apparent overall similarity between the two goddesses, both typically combining warlike and erotic aspects, as well as a strong connection with the institution of *Kingship. From when the available written documentation provides explicit information, A. appears as a goddess with wide and complex characteristics, with a central role in every pantheon, local and regional. In general, A. constantly interacts with various substrate and adstrate deities, resulting in various forms of mutual adaptation. Usually the goddess has a consort, often a weathergod, i.e. a manifestation of the BAAL of ancient Syr. tradition; she is a charismatic protector of royalty and of the dynasty, a powerful warrior but also a heavenly and astral goddess, a bringer of sensual energy, but also a goddess of the *Mourning and of Netherworld. The earliest written traditions seem to provide evidence of A. being worshipped. She is mentioned in the ritual texts from *Ebla (Tell Mardikh), in the III mill. BCE and later, in the MBA and LBA, she appears in several sets of texts and iconography in *Mari, *Emar and *Ugarit, with varying status, depending on the context and historical period. In Emar, A. is the most important goddess and the consort of the local Baal. In the mythological and ritual

22

ASTARTE

texts from Ugarit, in particular, A. occurs, not as the foremost deity, but jointly with ANAT, as a hunter and warrior (KTU3 1.92); her close relationship with Baal is shown by her epithet “A. name of Baal” (῾ṯtrt šm b῾l: KTU31.16 VI 56), which would reappear later in the I mill. in the royal inscriptions of *Sidon. During the LBA, outside *Syria and *Palestine, her cult is documented in *Egypt, where she seems to have been very popular as the “Lady of battles, goddess of the Asiatics”, depicted on horseback after the reign of Amenophis II (15th cent. BCE). The continual Egypt. military campaigns on the coast of Syria and Palestine certainly favoured the infiltration of several Sem. deities into Egypt. A.’s success is explained by her access to the Pharaoh’s divine entourage as the equivalent of extremely important Egypt. goddesses such as HATHOR and ISIS. There was a temple of A. in *Memphis, and the goddess is among the protagonists of the so-called Papyrus of Astarte, dated to the XIX dyn. (NK) (Papyrus Chester Beatty I and Amherst: Bonnet [1996] 66f.). A. and Anat are the daughters of RA and the companions of Seth, the god of Asiatic people; A. is depicted as a violent and irascible goddess, who faces a dangerous marine deity. I millennium BCE From the beginning of the I mill., A. is systematically present in Phoenicia and not only in the coastal region. During the IA, seemingly new deities emerge, such as MELQART and ESHMUN, but the worship of A. persists over time, and indeed the goddess seems to replace other female deities, receiving pre-eminent cults in all the small kingdoms of Phoenicia, with varying characteristics and attributes depending on location. The goddess replaced cults of local deities also elsewhere in the Medit. basin, in the regions where Phoen. peoples settled. The oldest evidence for A. in the West comes directly from Spain: the statuette of the so-called Astarte of Seville (8th cent. BCE) [FIG. 18] (see infra). In the Levant, the evidence for A. from individual Phoen. settlements is sporadic and uneven in terms of quality and quantity, but the spread of her cult is quite certain. A. was considered the Lady of the whole region, as is substantially confirmed by a late source from the Rom. period. In fact, PHILO OF BYBLOS notes that A. the “Great” and Zeus DEMAROUS, her consort, received sovereignty over the whole of Phoenicia from CRONUS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,31).

Fig. 18. Bronze statuette depicting Astarte enthroned with a dedication to the goddess. El Carambolo (?), Seville (8th-7th cent. BCE)

In *Byblos, the poliadic goddess is not explicitly mentioned as A., but appears under the name of BAALAT GEBAL, the “Lady of Byblos”, identified with the Egypt. goddess HATHOR, the Lady of Dendera: a very ancient cult going back to the III mill. In a small group of Sem. inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadim (Sinai Peninsula), dated to the II mill. (18th-14th cent. BCE), Hathor is called BAALAT. Very much later, in the second half of the I mill., the Baalat of Byblos is chiefly associated with ISIS, the protective goddess of the Pharaoh. This is probably why Plutarch sets the episode of Isis searching for the body of OSIRIS specifically in Byblos (De Is. et Os. 13-16). In Byblos, A. dominates that city’s pantheon together with one of her consorts, called “Baal of

ASTARTE

Byblos” (KAI 4), and already from the 10th cent. she is worshipped by local rulers (*Abibaal, KAI 5; *Elibaal, KAI 6; *Shipitbaal, KAI 7; the son of Shipitbaal, KAI 9). She must also have been worshipped by the Pharaohs, who sent offerings to her sanctuary. On the stela of *Yehawmilk (KAI 10), king of Byblos in about 450 BCE, Baalat is represented on a throne, in front of the king, who is displaying his own devotion. The dedicatory inscription mentions a series of works commissioned by the king in the sanctuary of the goddess, her protectress, to whom he is indebted for being in power. In 1983 a model of a throne made of terracotta appeared in an auction room, as noted by P. Bordreuil and E. Gubel (1985). The *Throne is a widely established symbol of sovereignty for A., especially in Sidon and *Tyre. On the back of this throne there is a bilingual (Phoen./Gk) inscription addressed to the Lady of Byblos and to A., which has prompted the hypothesis that it came from Byblos; its dates fluctuate between the 4th cent. BCE (for the section in Phoenician) and the Hellenist. or Rom. period (for the section in Greek). In 1998 a scarab in green jasper from the antiquities market appeared (Bordreuil [1998]), which bears a Phoen. inscription mentioning ῾štrt rbt gbl, “A. Lady of Byblos”, but its authenticity is suspect because of the language used. Also of dubious authenticity is a Byblian silver amulet with a long inscription that mentions A. (Lemaire [2003]). During the Hellenist. and Rom. periods, the cult of the Baalat of Byblos/A. was practised in Byblos and in the mountainous hinterland under the name of Aphrodite. [Luc.] (Syr. D. 4-5) also stresses that in his time the temple of Ἀφροδίτη Βυβλίη enjoyed great prestige and describes the rites (here called ὄργια) that were celebrated each year in honour of ADONIS, the Gk-Phoen. *Interpretatio of the local Baal, influenced by Osiris and his mythology and cult. In *Beirut, the evidence for A. does not go back beyond the Hellenist. period. A fragment of a marble plate from that period has a dedication to A. that can be dated to the 3rd-2nd cent. BCE (Bordreuil [1998]); the local coins, from the Hellenist.-Rom. period, may depict the goddess, either as Tyche or as a marine deity. Also, a goddess called Ourania (“heavenly”) from the Rom. period is known at Beirut (Mouterde [1944-1945]; Yon and Aliquot [2016] no. 47 p. 43). It cannot be excluded that A. may feature in *Deir el-Qalaa, looking like Hera and Juno, alongside BAAL MARQOD.

23

In Sidon, the cult of A. seems to be quite ancient and the goddess has a central role in the local pantheon, worshipped both within the city and in the suburban sanctuary of Bostan esh-Sheikh. On the other hand, the *Old Testament had already given A. the epithet of “Sidonian” (1 Kgs 12,5,33; 2 Kgs 23,13), as was the case in the texts from Ugarit (KTU3 1.14 IV 35-36). In terms of chronology, the earliest direct mention of the goddess goes back to the 8th cent. BCE: it is in an inscription engraved on an amphora of unknown provenance, although it must have come from the vicinity of Sidon (Puech [1994]). The text mentions a “priestess of Astarte-ḥr” (possibly the dead person), probably the same epithet of the goddess as in the inscription on the statuette of Seville, mentioned above. In both cases, rather than a “window” or a “tomb”, very probably the term ḥr is a place name, i.e. Hurri, which identifies a goddess in the tradition of Syria and Mesopotamia, the A. of Nineveh, whose cult was established in the LBA in the East, even reaching Egypt. On a broken Ammonite seal (→*Ammonites) dating to the 8th cent. there is a vow made to a goddess called ῾št bṣdn, “Asiti of Sidon” (Avigad and Sass [1997] no. 876, pp. 328f.). It seems likely that ῾št is an abbreviated form of A., or that it is the name given to the “Astarte of Ḫurri” in Egypt. sources of the II mill. This would suggest the continuation of the cult for this manifestation of the goddess, as well as her cosmopolitan nature. Most of the archaeological and epigraphic evidence for the goddess goes back to the Pers. period. As an indication of the prestige of her cult, some kings and queens of that period had the title of “priest/ess of A.” as the first of their official titles (KAI 13 and 14: *Tabnit and *Eshmunazor I), and to usurp the royal sepulchre is considered to be an “abomination for A.” (t῾bt ῾štrt: KAI 13). The dedication of king *Bodashtart, grandson of Eshmunazor I (second half of the 6th cent. BCE) confirms the special relationship of these kings of the Sidonian dynasty with the goddess. When he ascended the throne, Bodashtart offered A. a šrn, a term that has been understood to refer to a monumental structure, or else to a sort of “emblem” of the country, and in any case connected with the ceremonies of royal investiture (CIS I, 4; Zamora [2007]; Bonnet [2008]; Amadasi Guzzo [2012]).

24

ASTARTE

In the land around Sidon, A. is the consort of Eshmun, the Baal of Sidon, worshipped together in the sanctuary of “Sidon Land of the Sea” (ṣdn ᾿rṣ ym) and in the extra-urban sanctuary of Bostan eshSheikh, where the goddess had her own cult places (KAI 14): in particular, the famous “pool of A.”: a sacred area comprising a huge basin of water from the centre of which emerges a block with an empty throne, evoking the sovereignty of the goddess [FIG. 19]. In Sidon, A. has the title šm b῾l, “Name of Baal”, already mentioned previously for Ugarit, which stresses the intimate knowledge she had of her consort and her function of mediator through him: two qualities that make her a powerful, and sometimes fearsome goddess, who is also helpful (ἐπήκοοϛ, i.e. “who listens”, in Greek, in some inscriptions concerning Aphrodite taken as an interpretatio of A.). From the sanctuary of Bostan esh-Sheikh come some inscriptions consisting of arrangements of letters that form DNN, called “magic squares”, dating to the 4th cent. BCE. There the names of A., SHAMASH, Eshmun and of other deities are intertwined (Mathys [2008]). Their specific function has not been determined yet. In the 2nd cent. BCE, Lucian ([Luc.] Syr. D. 4) provides an evocative description of the temple of this goddess, considered to be one of the most famous in Phoenicia; he assimilates A. to Luna and to EUROPA. Depictions connected with the cult of A. include images of empty thrones and urns (found in Sidon), from which sometimes a jet of water or some baetyls gush out. From *Sarepta, 13 km S of Sidon, comes a plaque made of bone that mentions a double theonym (→DOUBLE DEITIES), TINNIT-A. (tnt῾štrt), dated to the 7th-6th cent. BCE (KAI 285). There is still discussion

Fig. 19. Pool of the throne of Astarte. Bostan esh-Sheikh (Sidon). Sanctuary of Eshmun

about the exact nature of this double DN (either a juxtaposition or a construct state with A. in the genitive: if the second, then possibly a place-name rather than a DN). However, A.’s association with Tinnit is absolutely certain, as also applies to the documentation from Carthage, where the two theonyms appear separately but are connected (lrbt ῾štrt wltnt blbnn, “for the Lady A. and for Tinnit in Lebanon”: KAI 81). There are sacred buildings dedicated to the goddesses, which in any case suggest a distinction between the two that seems to have remained unchanged all throughout the history of her cult in the West. In Tyre, A. forms a couple with the poliadic god Melqart and, according to the class. sources, has a principal role in the ritual and mythical traditions of that city. Josephus, citing Menander of Ephesus, tells us that *Hiram (1), king of Tyre, “demolished the old temples and from them built a new one dedicated to Heracles and Astarte” (Ap. 1,118). *Ittobaal, the father of the Israelite queen *Jezebel, was a priest of A. before becoming king of Tyre (Ap. 1,122-123). PHILO OF BYBLOS states that A. discovered a star that was flying about in the sky and seized it to consecrate it on her holy island of Tyre (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,31). During the ceremony known as the egersis of Melqart, A. has a decisive function in the revival and regeneration of the Baal of Tyre, a role that was probably assumed by the ruling king during the ritual. In fact, class. sources call Asteria the mother, ascribing to her the capacity of bringing her son back to life. But A. is also a war-goddess, whose power is displayed on the battlefield. This can be deduced from the vassal treaty made between Tyre and the Ass. empire in the 7th cent. BCE (→*Treaties), in which the goddess is invoked to destroy the lands of any potential traitor (SAA 2, 5). The royal character of the goddess is confirmed by the dedication attached to an empty throne found near Tyre (Khirbet eṭṬayibeh) and dated to the 2nd cent. BCE (KAI 17) [FIG. 20]. Some scholars have identified the mention of a sanctuary (qdš) dedicated to A., but it cannot be excluded that the inscription could include the term šrn, already documented in Sidon (see above): that case, M. G. Amadasi (2011) has suggested that the building was specifically intended for the cult of A., possibly a specific sacred enclosure. In approximately the same period, A. was also worshipped in a sanctuary in the rural village of *Umm el-Amed,

ASTARTE

Fig. 20. Throne of Astarte. Khirbet eṭ-Ṭayibeh (Tyre)

slightly S of Tyre, where MILKASHTART (depicted, like Melqart, as Heracles) and B AAL S HAMEM (KAI 19) also appear. Excavations completed between 1997 and 2009 at Tyre-Al Bass (Aubet [2004]), and the publication of the collection of Jawad Adra (Abousamra and Lemaire [2014]; for the other stelae, cf. Sader [2005]), have brought to light numerous funerary stelae that mention several PNN containing the name of A., eloquent testimony of the devotion for that goddess. In this lot, of particular interest is the funerary inscription of a priest of A.-ISIS (Abousamra and Lemaire [2013], 156f.). Outside mainland Phoenicia, one can mention the inscribed box from *Ur, dated to the 7th cent. BCE, with a dedication to A. made by *Amotbaal, daughter of a man who had the Egypt. name “Given by Isis” (pṭ᾿s: KAI 29). An inscription from Memphis, in Egypt, dated to the 2nd-1st cent. BCE, is the work of a Phoenician who is also associated with Isis (KAI 48). Herodotus (2,112-119) mentions the presence of the goddess in the foreign quarter of that city, whose cult may have been established there since the NK, given that Isis acts as the Lady of Peru-Nefer, the local port. With her are various deities such as BAAL SAPHON or, later, Serapis. It can also be mentioned that in a graffito from *Abydos (KAI 49,3), A. may be called “Name of Baal” (šm b῾l), possibly the same A. worshipped in the region of Sidon.

25

In Upper Galilee, at *Miṣpe Yammim, there may have been a sanctuary dedicated to A., according to the inscription on a bronze situla from the Pers. period, made in Egypt and found there, but out of context (6th-5th cent. BCE) (Frankel and Ventura [1998]; Kamlah [1999]). The *Old Testament gives us a negative image of A., the Canaanite goddess par excellence, a paradigmatic symbol of foreign polytheistic cults that had to be rejected by the Hebr. people. More specifically, she is associated with sacred prostitution (→*Prostitution, sacred) according to a disparaging tradition with no real historical basis. Her name in the plural, Ashtarot, deliberately vocalized as Ashtoret to evoke the term for “abomination” (boshet) that marks her cult, is used as a synonym for foreign “goddesses”, in parallel with the Baalim, reserved for the male gods of the →*Canaanites. This did not prevent local kings, such as *Solomon (1 Kgs 11,5,33) or *Ahab (1 Kgs 18), from adopting her cult on many occasions. The OT also mentions the warrior A. worshipped by the *Philistines (1 Sam 31,10). Very soon, the spread of the cult of A. reached the whole Medit. basin, beginning with *Cyprus, where the presence of Phoenicians was both strong and early. So, in *Kition (Kathari), in an area probably dedicated to a god (Caubet [1986] 159f.), inscribed fragments of a bowl have been found, on which the name A. may be read, perhaps (IK D 21). The goddess was also worshipped on the artificial mound of Bamboula, near the sea, where the administrative documents of the sanctuary (IK C 1; see also the dedication to A. IK A 1, both texts of the 4th cent. BCE) mention her with the title “Holy queen” (mlkt qdš). In these places, A. stands alongside her consort Melqart. Whether Kition itself or other kingdoms on the island, Cyprus is a particularly rich religious and cultural melting pot, where the great local goddess, the “Cypriot”, is given the Gk name Kypris and is occasionally equated with Aphrodite and A., due to a complex and varied series of cultural and iconographic interventions. Aphrodite was particularly well established in *Paphos, and received a cult according to local rules. Inscriptions provide evidence for the existence of an “A. of Paphos” (῾štrt pp) (Masson and Sznycer [1972] 81-86); there is also a dedication to A. dating to the 4th-3rd cent. BCE, but basically, the documentation from Paphos refers to Aphrodite in her aspect as Paphia and Ourania (sky goddess and daughter of Ouranos).

26

ASTARTE

In *Amathus, Aphrodite dominated the acropolis and was definitely identified as A. by Phoen. worshippers. There, also, the cults of ADONIS and of a certain Malika, which could refer to Melqart (Paus, 9,41,2; St. Byz. s.v. Ἀμαθοῦς; Hsch. μ 188 Latte, s.v. Μάλικα) are attested. In *Lapethos, A. receives offerings in the temple of A. “in Lapethos” (blpš) from Param, described as “ruler of Lapethos” (Lap. III). From *Idalion comes a marble stela bearing a dedication by *Baalmilk (3), king of Kition and Idalion (last quarter of the 5th cent. BCE) “before the effigy of A.” (Honeyman [1939] 106, fig. 2 no. 7). In *Salamina and in several other sites on Cyprus, where the Phoenicians lived together with other peoples, A. certainly continued the tradition of a great local goddess. Hathor and Isis are now added to the Cypr. and Gk layers, which produce a mixed iconography [FIG. 21], exemplified chiefly by the Hathortype capitals of Amathus. The innumerable depictions of nude females from Cyprus (Karageorghis [2005]) and elsewhere may refer to A., but we should avoid connecting this iconography too systematically to the goddess, and consider instead that the image evokes the power of seduction and reproduction. Similarly, if Aphrodite is considered to be “Oriental” by the Greeks, at least since Herodotus (1,105; see Paus. 1,14,7), this does not refer to a specific historical origin, which would make Aphrodite an emanation of A., but reflects the idea that the Greeks had of her spheres of influence and the ways in which she acts, especially her all-powerful sovereignty, which is considered as “Oriental”. In Carthage, A. was very popular, just like Melqart. The goddess becomes established in the Pun. necropolis along two basic routes: on the one hand, from Phoenicia (as goddess of Tyre and Sidon), on the other, from *Sicily (specifically from *Eryx). The name of A. already appears on the gold medallion from Carthage (ca 700 BCE) together with Pygmalion’s (KAI 73), indicating her origin to be Cyprus. The story of the foundation of Carthage transmitted by Justin (18,14,5) mentions a stopover for the Phoen. colonists on Cyprus in connection with a pre-nuptial rite. Very often mentioned in PNN, in spite of the rare direct traces of her cult, A. is associated with Tinnit in a sanctuary where they are worshipped as the two goddesses “in Lebanon”) (KAI 81), an indication of A.’s close connection with her Levantine

Fig. 21. Hathoric capital from the sanctuary of Kition-Bamboula (Cyprus) (500 BCE)

roots. The goddess also appears together with Eshmun (CIS I, 245: mention of a priest of Eshmun-Astarte), in a sequence of names conventionally known as a “double theonym” (→DOUBLE DEITIES). The inscriptions from the →*Tophet show the existence of many followers of her cult, each calling themselves “servant of A., the Powerful” (῾bd ῾štrt [h]᾿drt: CIS I, 255, 4842, 4843), but we do not know where the sanctuary/sanctuaries dedicated to her was/ were located. A. is definitely identified with Hera/ Juno, as well as with Aphrodite/Venus, and even with Demeter (DEMETER & CORE), whose iconography appears also in Carthage. In the oath made by *Hannibal (9) in the treaty with *Philip V, king of Macedonia, in 214 BCE (Plb. 7,9,2-3), A. must certainly be recognized under the name of Hera. Also, the veneration that Hannibal himself evidently had for Hera Lacinia of Croton presupposes a connection with the Pun. A. (Plb. 3,33,18). In fact, the cult of the goddess spread from Carthage into North Africa, for which there is some evidence, for instance, in *Sousse (Hadrumetum), where a servant of A. is mentioned; or in *Mididi (Henchir Meded), where there was a sanctuary dedicated to her as “wife of Baal” [FIG. 22]; or at *Sicca Veneria, where the cult of ASTARTE OF ERYX was adopted.

27

ASTARTE

Fig. 22. Neopunic inscription from Mididi (Henchir Meded) dedicated to Astarte

On the island of *Malta, at *Tas Silg, perhaps as early as the 8th cent. BCE, A. is superimposed on an indigenous prehistoric cult located in a vast sanctuary, a cult that was later continued by Hera and Juno. A.’s name appears on numerous sherds and votive inscriptions that date back to the 5th-2nd/1st cent. BCE (Amadasi Guzzo [2011]); there the goddess may have been associated with Milkashtart as his consort. There is also a temple of A. on the small island of *Gozo (KAI 62). On *Motya, on Sicily, a cippus with a broken Phoen. inscription dedicated to A. could suggest the existence of a cult centre dedicated to A. in the 6th5th cent. BCE (Uberti [1978]). On the same island, ASTARTE OF ERYX is particularly famous; she is superimposed on an Elymian goddess (→*Elymians), before being identified with Aphrodite and Venus (Lietz [2010]). Some classical writers mention, both here and in Acrocorinth, forms of sacred prostitution: some scholars consider this practice to be a “historiographic myth”, both ancient and modern. From *Soluntum comes the famous statue of a goddess on a throne, probably of A. During the II Punic War (*Punic Wars), in order to ward off the danger of Hannibal at the gates, the Romans officially introduced the cult of Venus Erycina into the Urbs. On Sardinia there is only one mention of A., in an inscription from *Cagliari (ICO Sard. 19, concerning A. of Eryx), but the cult of this goddess was also established in *Monte Sirai and *Tharros [FIG. 23]. In the Iberian Peninsula, from the site of *El Carambolo (→*Tartessos) comes an inscribed metal statuette of A., nude, seated on a throne. The inscription, which is dated to the 8th cent. BCE (TSSI III, 16), mentions the goddess as “Astarte ḥr”: this epithet has been understood in various ways to mean “window”, “tomb” or, quite plausibly, “Hurrian”, which at that time would have meant “Syrian”, referring to the (Ninevite?) origin of the goddess; in some Hitt.

rituals of the 13th cent., A. is mentioned as a goddess of Sidon (KBo II, 9 I 4; 36 rev. 14). But the goddess was definitely established in other places in Iberia and on *Ibiza, but whether on coins, bronzes, statuettes or other items, the exact identification of the goddess remains uncertain. In fact, A. was variously identified with Demeter, Isis and local goddesses of *Tartessos or Iberia in general. From *Pyrgi (Santa Severa), on the Tyrrhenian coast of north. Latium, come three inscribed gold plaques, two in Etruscan and one bilingual (Etr./Phoen.: see KAI 277). They commemorate the consecration of a sanctuary for A. – translated as Uni in the Etr. text – by *Thefarie Velianas, the ruler of Caere, in about 500 BCE. It has been suggested that A. could be associated with Melqart, whose traditional feast of burial and return to life was celebrated (→*Festivals; →*Miqim elim), a ritual in which the goddess played an active part as a vital and regenerative principle. Some scholars consider that the cult of A. in Pyrgi also included the practice of sacred prostitution, but the indications for this are scant and very much debated.

Fig. 23. Plaque depicting Astarte Tharros (6th cent. BCE)

28

ASTARTE

There are significant inscriptions from Greece, found in *Cos and *Delos (ID 2101, 2132; Arch. Delt. [1986], 17-30). A bilingual (Phoen./Gk) inscription from Cos commemorates the construction and offering to A., on the one hand and to Aphrodite on the other, of a building for sailors (a lighthouse, a bench or something else: it is difficult to identify) in the 4th cent. BCE by *Diotimos (his original Phoen. name has not been preserved), son of *Abdalonymus, king of Sidon. Again on Cos, a Phoen. thyasos worshipped A. (not translated into Greek) and Zeus, corresponding to Baal. In Greece, generally, the association between A. and Aphrodite is systematic, especially in respect of the marine and heavenly aspects of the Gk goddess: Pontia, Euploia or Ourania. On Delos, Isis joins the game of matching and identification. A.’s prerogatives as a saving and helpful goddess and those of equivalent deities are often pointed out in a context of travel, where sea routes dominated. In 333 BCE, in *Piraeus, the inhabitants of Kition request that the cult of A. should be recognized (IG II2, 337). Finally, it is worth remembering that the Greeks considered Aphrodite Ourania to be derived from the Syro-Phoen. A., and that the “disembarkation” of the journey from *Ashkelon is to be located on Cythera (Hdt. 1,105). The extraordinary geographical spread of the cult of A. is matched by its persistence over time: two sanctuaries of the goddess in Cappadocia were still being used as archives in the 2nd-1st cent. BCE, and the name A. appears in a dedication in Neopunic (and Latin) from *Thuburbo Maius, at the beginning of our era. In Corbridge, near Hadrian’s Wall in Britain, A. is still worshipped together with Melqart (IG XIV, 2553; cf. also 2554), while in Tyre, at the height of the Rom. period, LEUCOTHEA, as associated with Heracles, is certainly the same as A. The scale of A.’s attributes, active in heaven, on earth and sea, and even in the afterlife, in sexuality and in war, not to mention royalty and fertility, life and death, implies a plurality of interpretationes, to be deciphered case by case. A. is either Aphrodite/Venus, or Hera/Juno, or even EUROPA, Selene, INO/Leucothea, Cybele, Isis, Hathor, etc. The process of interpretatio acts like a kaleidoscope showing the various facets of the goddess. Her dissemination in the Mediterranean, therefore, influences and shapes her personality, e.g. her marine attributes are extended, as shown by inscriptions from Cos and Delos.

Astarte in personal names As has already been said, there is a rich gamut of Phoen. PNN in the East and the West, some of which have an unusual form, which reflects A.’s enormous popularity and highlights some of her special qualities. Aside from the element mlkt, “queen”, which very probably always refers to A., the goddess is called a “mother” (᾿m), bringing favour (ḥn᾿), help (῾zr), strength (῾z), life (ḥwt), and perhaps fortune (gd); she makes and donates gifts (p῾l, ytn), and as is customary, her followers show their trust by calling themselves servants and handmaids (῾bd, bd, ᾿mt), or someone who belongs to her (᾿š). In terms of iconography, the sovereignty that is typical of the goddess is over the human, animal and vegetal worlds. Therefore, A.’s iconography connects her with lions, horses, birds, hunting, various plants and floral motifs. The plaques known as “of A.” – if it refers to her – depict her nude, with her hands on her breast or her belly, sometimes pregnant. The throne, occasionally empty, evokes her presence and power; the symbolism of water is also quite evident in her images. A magnificent representation of A., associated with a Gk inscription in which she is called Ὑψίστη (“Most High”), comes from a domestic sanctuary on the via Appia Nuova, in Rome. Honeyman, M. (1939) Iraq, 6, 104-108; Mouterde, R. (19441945) MUSJ, 26, 45-52; Moscati, S. (1967) OA, 7, 91-94; Masson, O. and Sznycer, M. (1972) Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. HEO 3. Geneva/Paris; Bordreuil, P. and Gubel, E. (1985) Syria, 62, 171-186; Caubet, A. (1986) Les sanctuaires de Kition à l’époque phénicienne. In: StPhoen 4, 127-152; DCPP, s.v. “Astarté” (W. Röllig); Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1993) Astarte in trono. In: Heltzer, M., Segal, A. and Kaufman, D. (eds) Studies in the archaeology and history of Ancient Israel in honour of Moshe Dothan. Haifa, 163-180; Lemaire, A. (1993-1994 = 2000) Revue de la Société Ernest Renan, 43, 81-86; Puech, É. (1994) Trans, 8, 47-73; Lipiński, E. (1995) 128-154; Bonnet, C. (1996) passim; Bonnet, C. and Xella, P. (1996) L’identité d’Astarté-ḥr. In: Studi Moscati, I, 29-46; Avigad, N. and Sass, B. (1997) Corpus of West Semitic stamp seals. Jerusalem; Bordreuil, P. (1998) CRAI(BL), 1153-1164; Frankel, R. and Ventura, R. (1998) BASOR, 311, 39-55; Kamlah, J. (1999) ZDPV, 115, 163-190; Poveda Navarro, A. M. (1999) Melqart y Astarté en el Occidente mediterráneo: la evidencia de la Península Ibérica (siglos VIII-VI a.C.). In: Costa, B. and Fernández, J. (eds) De Oriente a Occidente: los dioses fenicios en las colonias occidentales. Eivissa, 25-61; Bonnet, C. (1999-2000) Brevi osservazioni comparative sull’Astarte funeraria. In: Márquez Rowe, I. and Sanmartín Ascaso, J. (eds) Arbor Scientiae. Estudios del Próximo Oriente Antiguo dedicados a Gregorio del Olmo Lete con ocasión de su 65 aniversario. AuOrS 17-18, Barcelona, 335-339; Bonnet, C. (2001) Encore sur Astarté. In: Scritti in memoria di Luigi Cagni. Naples, 1289-1301; Budin, S. (2003) The origin of Aphrodite. Bethesda (MD); Lemaire, A. (2003) Amulette giblite en argent. In: Deutsch, R. (ed.) Shlomo. Studies in epigraphy, iconography,

ASTARTE – ASTARTE OF ERYX

history and archaeology in honor of Shlomo Moussaieff. Tel Aviv/ Jaffa, 155-174; Amadasi Guzzo, M.G. (2004) Astarte fenicia e la sua diffusione in base alla documentazione epigrafica. In: González Blanco, A. et al. (eds) El mundo púnico: Historia, sociedad, cultura (Cartagena 17-19. Noviembre, 1990). Murcia, 47-54; Aubet, M. E. (2004) The Phoenician cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass. Excavations 1997–1999. BAAL Hors-Série I. Beirut; Cornelius, I. (2004) The many faces of the goddess. The iconography of the Syro-Palestinian goddess Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah, c. 1500-1000 BCE. OBO 204. Fribourg/Göttingen; Karageorghis, J. (2005) Kypris. The Aphrodite of Cyprus, Nicosia; Sader, H. (2005) Iron Age funerary stelae from Lebanon. CAM 11. Barcelona; Cadotte, A. (2007) La romanisation des dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden/Boston, 201-252; Bonnet, C. (2006-2007) Mythos NS 1, 11-23; Zamora, J. Á. (2007) Or, 76, 100-113; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2008) Il santuario di Astarte a Malta sulla base delle iscrizioni. In: Dupré Raventós, X., Verger, S. and Ribichini, S. (eds) Saturnia Tellus. Definizioni dello spazio consacrato in ambiente etrusco, italico, fenicio-punico, iberico e celtico. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Roma 10-12 novembre 2004). Rome, 377-383; Mathys, H.-P. (2008) Das Astarte-Quadrat. Zürich; Pisano, G. (2009) Ancora sull’Astarte della Villa dei Quintili. In: RAL, ser. IX.20, 215-220; Lietz, B. (2010) La dea di Eryce nel suo contesto mediterraneo: un’identità contesa. In: Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) La devozione dei naviganti. Il culto di Afrodite ericina nel Mediterraneo. Biblioteca di Byrsa 7. Lugano, 89-96; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2011) Il santuario di Astarte di Malta: le iscrizioni in fenicio da Tas-Silg. Rome; Carbillet, A. (2011) La figure hathorique à Chypre (IIe-Ier mill. av. J.-C.). AOAT 388. Münster; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2012) RA, 106, 5-18, Berlin, A. (2012) BASOR, 366, 25-78; Abousamra, G. and Lemaire, A. (2013) WO, 43, 153157; iid. (2014) Nouvelles stèles funéraires phéniciennes. Beirut; Anthonioz, S. (2014) Astarte in the Bible and her relation to Asherah. In: Sugimoto, D. T. (ed.) Transformation of a goddess: Ishtar-Astarte-Aphrodite. OBO 263. Fribourg/Göttingen, 125-140; Bloch-Smith, E. (2014) Archaeological and inscriptional evidence for Phoenician Astarte. In: ibid., 167-194; Cornelius, I. (2014) Revisiting Astarte in the iconography of the Bronze Age Levant. In: ibid., 87-101; Smith, M. S. (2014) ῾Athtart in Late Bronze Age Syrian texts. In: ibid., 33-86; Bonnet, C. (2015) Les Enfants de Cadmos. Le paysage religieux de la Phénicie hellénistique. Paris, passim; Yon, J.-B. and Aliquot, J. (2016) Inscriptions grecques et latines du Musée National de Beyrouth. BAAL Hors-Série XII. Beirut; Gubel, E. (2019) BAAL, 19, 145-152. C. BONNET

ASTARTE OF ERYX Phoen. ῾štrt ᾿rk. Gk Ἀφροδίτη Ἐρυκίνη; Lat. Venus (H)erycina. The main deity of the Sicilian ethnos of the →*Elymians, worshipped in a sanctuary on the top of Mount Eryx and a poliadic goddess of the city of *Eryx. Each of the peoples that inhabited west. *Sicily identified her with a member of their own *Pantheon (→*Interpretatio). As well as her Pun. name (documented only in the 4th-3rd cent. BCE), she had names in Greek (Aphrodite Erykine), Oscan (Herentas Herukina) and Latin (as both Venus Erycina and Venus Herycina).

29

Fig. 24. The inscription ICO Sard. 19

The cult of the goddess, with her various names, was considerably widespread beyond Eryx: in Greece, a temple was consecrated to her in the Arcadian city of Psophis (Paus. 8,24,2 and 6); in the Pun. area, there is evidence for her cult in *Cagliari and *Carthage (see below); in the Oscan region the goddess was venerated at least in Herculaneum (Rix [2002] Cm 10). However, the greatest expansion of her cult was during the Rom. period, when she was also introduced to *Rome (Liv. 22,9,9-11; 22,10,10; 23,30; 23,31,9; 30,38,10; 40,34,4-5; Ov. Rem. 549-554; Fast. 4,863-878; Str. 6,2,5; App. BC 1,93; Prudent. C. Symm. 1,180-192; Degrassi, Inscript. XIII, 2, p. 9; 38; 135; CIL VI, 2274), Latium (at Tusculum, CIL XIV, 2584), Basilicata (at Potenza, CIL X, 134) and Raetia (Hahn and Mratschek [1986]). Her cult continued in this period also in Campania, where bricks stamped with the name of the goddess in Latin have been found at *Pozzuoli (CIL X, 8042,1) and Gricignano d’Aversa (De Caro and Miele [2001]), and especially in North Africa. Here, there is again evidence of the presence of the goddess in Carthage (CIL VIII, 24528), but also in *Madauros (ILAlg I, 2069), in Cirta (*Constantine) (ILAlg II/1, 528), in *Thibilis (ILAlg II/2, 4649) and perhaps in *Thuburnica (CIL VIII, 25704; Durand [2013]). However, the alleged case in *Sicca Veneria is probably to be rejected (Lietz [2012]). At Eryx, there is evidence for her cult from at least the 5th cent. (Thuc. 6,46,3-4), when the image of the goddess appears for the first time as the only original type of the coinage of that city (Zodda [1989]), right down to the 1st cent. CE (Tac. Ann. 4,43; Suet. Claud. 25,5; CIL X, 7257). However, our evidence suggests that her cult was alive for a much longer period. Outside Eryx, the last mention of her goes back to the 3rd cent. CE (CIL X, 134, from Potenza). By combining features shared by both Phoen. ASTARTE and Gk Aphrodite, the goddess was the protector of love, sexuality and prostitution

30

ASTARTE OF ERYX

(→*Prostitution, sacred). She also guaranteed sovereignty over west. Sicily and the arm of sea dominated by her sanctuary. These features seem to have been retained, although with slight variations, in all the periods and cultural contexts involved in the diffusion of her cult. In addition, there is evidence for a military aspect as a goddess of victory (especially in Rome, but perhaps also in Gk and Oscan milieus, in connection with →*Mercenaries), for a role as protector from the perils of the sea (especially in certain mythical tales), and finally for a connection with the vegetal world (Lietz [2012]). At Eryx, a flock of doves was sacred to the goddess, who was worshipped together with EROS (probably as early as the 5th cent. BCE and certainly until the Rom. period). Female animal victims were sacrificed to her (and apparently the next morning she removed their remains with dew: Ael. NA 10,50), as well as plant offerings (Athen. Deipn. 9,395a). In her honour the two festivals of Anagogia (“The feast of departure”) and Katagogia (“The feast of return”) were celebrated in Eryx, separated by an interval of nine days, during which it was thought that the goddess travelled to North Africa, accompanied by her doves (Athen. Deipn. 9, 394f-395a; Ael. VH 1,15; NA 4,2). At the mythological level, the origins of the sanctuary are connected with the cycles of Heracles (Diod. 4,23,4; 4,83,1-7), of the Argonauts (Ap. Rhod. 4, 912-919), of Troy (as the foundation by the daughters of Phenodamas, Lyc. Alex. 951-977, or even of AENEAS, Dion. Halic. 1,53,1; Verg. A. 5,759-760). Historically speaking, the cult of the goddess unquestionably survived all the political upheavals that affected west. Sicily and, probably due to its deeply local roots, always received special consideration from the powers that controlled the region in turn (cf. the comments made in this respect, already in ancient times, by Diodorus of Sicily (4,83,1-7). In the 5th cent. BCE the sanctuary is not only under the jurisdiction of Eryx, but also of *Segesta, the hegemonic city in the Elymian area; furthermore, the cult of the goddess is already imbued with influences from neighbouring colonies, whether Gk or Phoen.-Pun. When the →*Eparchy was formed in west. Sicily (4th-3rd cent. BCE), the city and the sanctuary were largely appropriated by the Punics, probably due both to the strategic position of the mountain and to the importance of the cult of the goddess in the Elymian area (Garbini [2004]). To this period belongs a Pun. dedication found in Eryx, addressed “to the Lady A.

of Eryx” (lrbt l῾štrt ᾿rk) – which is the first occurrence of the Pun. name of the goddess (ICO Sic. 1) – and evidence for the existence of a cult of A.E. in both *Sardinia (ICO Sard. 19) [FIG. 24] and Carthage (CIS I, 3776) [FIG. 25]. Finally, two more elements certainly go back to the Pun. phase, even if evidence for them only comes from a later period. The first is the enormous economic wealth of the sanctuary, which is reported in the Rom. period, and is visible especially in the presence of a body of “sacred servants” (an unusual feature in Gk or Rom. worlds: Eppers and Heinen [1984]). The second is the celebration of the two festivals, of Anagogia and Katagogia, clearly intended to emphasize the connection of the goddess with North Africa. After the I Punic War (→*Punic Wars), the sanctuary came under Rom. influence: in response to the importance that it had had within the eparchy, now a strong claim was made to its Rom. character, exploiting the myth of its Trojan origins (Kienast [1965]; Schilling [1982]). In this setting, the goddess enjoyed a privileged relationship with the administration of the province (Lietz [2012]); probably the sanctuary became monumental then (Barresi [2010]); her cult was implanted in Rome in at least two temples (Venus Erycina in Capitolio and Venus Erycina extra portam Collinam) and became widespread in many other regions under Rom. control, both in the republican age and in the imperial period (see above).

Fig. 25. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 3776 mentioning Astarte of Eryx

ASTARTE OF ERYX – ATHENA

Pace, B. (1945) Arte e civiltà della Sicilia antica III. Rome, 630647; Kienast, D. (1965) Hermes, 93, 478-489; Moscati, S. (1968) OA, 7, 91-94; Schilling, R. (1982) La religion romaine de Vénus depuis les origines jusqu’au temps d’Auguste. Paris, 233-266; Eppers, M. and Heinen, H. (1984) Zu den “Servi Venerii” in Ciceros Verrinen. In: Vincenzo, G. (ed.) Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino I. Naples, 219-232; Hahn, J. and Mratschek, S. J. (1986) Erycina in Rätien, FBW, X, 147-154; Zodda, D. (1989) RIN, 91, 3-26; Pirenne-Delforge, V. (1994) L’Aphrodite greque. Contribution à l’étude de ses cultes et de sa personnalité dans le panthéon archaïque et classique. Athens/ Liège, 256-261; Bonnet, C. (1996) 115-119; De Caro, S. and Miele, F. (2001) L’occupazione romana della Campania settentrionale nella dinamica insediativa di lungo periodo. In: Lo Cascio, E. and Storchi Marino, A. (eds) Modalità insediative e strutture agrarie nell’Italia meridionale in età romana. Bari, 501-581, esp. 572f.; Garbini, G. (2004) RAL, 15, 26-32; Acquaro, E., Filippi, A. and Medas, S. (eds) (2010) La devozione dei naviganti. Il culto di Afrodite ericina nel Mediterraneo. Lugano; Barresi, P. (2010) Il culto di Venere ad Erice in età romana: le testimonianze archeologiche. In: Acquaro, E., Filippi, A. and Medas, S. (eds) cit., 161-172; Lietz, B. (2012) La dea di Erice e la sua diffusione nel Mediterraneo: un culto tra Fenici, Greci e Romani. Pisa; Durand, C. (2013) Vénus Érycine en Afrique romaine. In: Circé. Histoire, savoirs, sociétés, 3: http://www.revue-circe.uvsq.fr/venuserycine-en-afrique-romaine/. B. LIETZ

Asteria see Astarte Astroarché see Astarte ASTRONOE Gk Ἀστρονόη. Divine figure whose name appears to be a Gk adaptation of the name of the goddess ASTARTE. This name could point to A. having an astral character, but it could instead be connected with the syntagma mtrḥ ῾štrny, occasionally associated with the title mqm ᾿lm (→*Miqim elim). According to Damascius (Isid. 348, in Phot. Bibl. 302), A. was a Phoen. goddess, the “Mother of the gods”, who fell in love with the handsome Esmounos, the ASCLEPIUS of *Berytus (i.e. →ESHMUN). She once pursued him while he was hunting; he fled, but since she was about to seize him, he chose to emasculate himself with an axe. With the help of Paian, A. rekindled Esmounos with life-bringing heat and made him a god. A. is also mentioned in association with HERACLES in a 1st cent. CE Gk inscription found in *Tyre. Late inscriptions from the same city attest that A. was the name of one of the harbours of Tyre, possibly because of the presence of a sanctuary of A.

31

Dussaud, R. (1911) RHR, 63, 331-339; Rey-Coquais, J.-P. (1977) BMB, 29, 100f.132-134; Chéhab, M. (1984) BMB, 34, 139; id. (1985) BMB, 35, 666.676.733; DCPP, s.v. (C. Bonnet); Lipiński, E. (1995) 137. G. MINUNNO

Atargatis see ANAT; DEA SYRIA ATHENA Gk Ἀθηνᾶ. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,18 and 33), A. is mentioned together with Persephone as a daughter of E L /C RONUS ), and together with Hermes (→MERCURY) as her mentor in the art of warfare. She could be the Gk interpretation of the Sem. goddess ANAT, who certainly had a warrior-like character in the Ug. myths (→*Ugarit). However, Philo adds that her father entrusted the goddess with dominion over Attica and confers the adjective “virgin” on her sister Persephone, which in Ugarit is a specific and frequent epithet of Anat. Therefore, in the Phoenician History, the characters Persephone and A. seem to derive more from Gk tradition, more specifically from the Theogony by Hesiod. The Gk name A. is also mentioned in a bilingual (Phoen.-Gk) dedication of the 4th cent. BCE, from *Lapethos, on Cyprus (KAI 42), with an exact epigraphic equivalent to the name of the ‘Phoen.’ goddess Anat. Furthermore, a passage in the Alexandra by Lycophron (v. 658) mentions a “Phoenician goddess” (Φοινίκη θεᾶ) which the corresponding scholion identifies as the Athena of Corinth. However, this title should be connected with purple (and therefore with a goddess called φοινίκη, i.e. “Purple”), rather than with a Phoen. origin of that Corinthian deity. Therefore, it would simply be an additional local epithet of the great goddess of Corinth, worshipped as the “Industrious One” (Ἐργάνη), patroness of all craftsmen, including those working on the most characteristic of Phoen. products, namely purple. Also worth mentioning is the evidence indicating a Phoen. origin for Athena Lindia of *Rhodes: the votive gifts offered to that goddess by the Phoen. CADMUS (Diod. 5,58) and a 3rd cent. BCE dedication by a woman from *Sidon (Inscr. Lind. 132). Also disputed are the Phoen. origins of the title Ὄγκα given to the Athena of *Thebes. More correctly, as far as we know, the Phoen. etymology of that title remains only a

32

ATHENA – AZUZ

hypothesis proposed by ancient commentators (e.g. St. Byz. s.v. Ὀγκαῖαι; schol. in Aesch. Th. 163 and 164). This title of the Theban Athena is more probably to be connected with the Arcadian context of the story, which knew for ex. a city called Ὄγκαι as well as a region called Ὄγκειον, the domain of king Ὄγκειος son of APOLLO, in turn a god honoured by that same epithet. Finally, no less problematic are the reports of the cult of a certain A. Ἀστυρίς, worshipped in a city with the same name in Phoenicia (Ἄστυρα), not far from *Arados and recorded, e.g. in FGrHist 103 fr. 27 [Charax]; in Herod. pros. cath. 3,1 p. 387 and in St. Byz.: in reality, though, these quotations are interdependent. Kardara, C. P. (1970) AAA, 3, 95-97; Vian, F. (1963) Les origines de Thèbes: Cadmos et les Spartes. Paris, passim; Baslez, M. F. (1986) Cultes et dévotions des Phéniciens en Grèce: les divinités marines. In: StPhoen 4, 291; Ribichini, S. (1995) RSF, 23, 7-11; Bonnet, C. and Bianco, M. (2016) Pallas, 100, 155-179; Bonnet, C. and Bianco, M. (2018) Parcours anthropologiques, 13, 38-69 (http://journals.openedition.org/pa/632). S. RIBICHINI

Athirat see ASHERAH ATLAS Gk Ἄτλας. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,16 and 20), A. appears together with Elos (EL)/CRONUS, Baitylos (→BAETYL) and Dagon (→DAGAN) as one of the four sons that GE bore to Ouranos (→CRONUS). In Gk mythology, A. is known as the brother of Zeus (and not of Cronus; however, see Diod. 3,60,1), defeated by him and forced to carry the vault of the sky on his back (Hes. Th. 507ff.; 46). In Philo’s euhemeristic account, Cronus suspects his brother A. of wanting to dethrone him, and on the advice of Hermes (→MERCURY), decides to bury him in the depths of the earth. This character in Philo’s account has been seen as the transposition of a Phoen. superhuman, by referring to what is said about the god ASHTAR, BAAL’s adversary in the Ug. texts (→*Ugarit), and about the role of Upelluri in the Hurrian myth of Kumarbi, who was obliged to support the sky and the earth (→*Hurrians). Troiani, L. (1974) L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa 161f.; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei

Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 264; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 49.51; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 197f.; Contini, A. M. V. (1994) Hermes e la magia della scrittura. Genua, 92. S. RIBICHINI

ATTIS Gk Ἀττίϛ. The ancient mythical motif of self-castration in order to escape from a goddess, which is found in the documents concerning the Phrygian A., is echoed in mythological traditions about ADONIS and especially ESHMUN. According to the Neo-Platonic account by Damascius (Isid. 302; see Eus. PE 1,10,18 and 27), Esmounos, the Asclepius of Berytus (*Beirut), cut off his genitals with an axe during a hunt in order to escape from ASTRONOE (i.e. ASTARTE), in the same way that A., according to the so-called Phrygian version of the myth, emasculated himself to avoid being taken by Cybele. Apart from this shared motif, however, the two accounts have significant differences, especially the protagonist’s misogyny, which is missing from A.’s character. While it is possible that the tradition mentioned by Damascius may have preserved some authentic Phoen. elements (the hero of royal descent, loved by a goddess, protagonist in an event involving death and a return to divine rank), at this stage they are now given a different function in a different cultural context in which A. had a threefold personality as god, king and prototypical priest. Hepding, H. (1903) Attis, seine Mythen und sein Kult. Giessen, passim; Ribichini, S. (1985) Poenus advena. Gli dei fenici e l’interpretazione classica. CSF 19. Rome, 141-173; Xella, P. (2001) Da Baal di Ugarit agli dei fenici. Una questione di vita o di morte. In id. (ed.) Quando un dio muore. Morti e assenze divine nelle antiche tradizioni mediterranee. Verona, 73-96; Lancellotti, M. G. (2002) Attis between myth and history: King, priest and god. RGRW 149. Leiden/Boston/Köln, passim. P. XELLA

Azoros see ZOROS AZUZ Phoen. ῾zz, from a Sem. root which means “to be mighty/strong”.

33

AZUZ

A name, or more probably, a divine epithet: strength is, of course, a very frequent attribute of deities, see e.g. BAAL OZ in the Phoen. world, but also, e.g., Azazel mentioned in the *Old Testament (Lev 16), Azīzū from *Palmyra and Azizos from the late Rom. Edessa. The term is well attested in Mesop. and ancient Syr. (Ug.) onomastics as a theophoric element (Zadok [1978]; Lipiński [1984]), and it occurs also in the Phoen. and Pun. PNN (῾bd῾zz: CIS I, 252; 1257; 2672; EH 9). Of particular interest is the mention of A. in an inscription engraved on the bezel of a gold ring, probably from *Cadiz, dating to the second half of the 2nd cent. BCE (ICO Spagna 12 = KAI 71), with the incipit: l᾿dn l῾zz mlk῾štrt… [FIG. 26]. In this case, two interpretations are theoretically possible: to consider A. as an autonomous DN, and to translate “To the Lord, to Azuz, the Mighty One of Milkashtart”, or – as seems more plausible – to consider A. as an epithet of Milkashtart himself: “To the Lord, to Mighty Milkashtart” (→MILKASHTART).

Fig. 26. Inscription on a gold ring from Cádiz

KAI II, 87; PNPPI, 162.374f.; Zadok, R. (1978) BASOR, 230, 58-65; Lipiński, E. (1984) OLP, 15, 81-132, esp. 93-100; Lipiński, E. (1995) 272f.; Kühn, D. (2010) Syria [online], 87, 2010, mis en ligne le 01 juin 2016; accessed 11.02.2020: http:// journals.openedition.org/syria/850. P. XELLA

B

Phoen. b῾l. The common Sem. term B. denotes generically “lord”, “owner” (and can also mean “citizen” or “inhabitant” of a particular place, or even “husband”), and in religious terminology denotes the god who generally dominates the Syro-Palest. pantheons in the II-I mill. BCE as a poliadic god, lord of atmospheric phenomena, guarantor of the cosmic order and also endowed with healing and saving powers. A problem that is not easy to resolve is to establish whether B. was always and everywhere an epithet that identifies a specific god (e.g. this could apply in *Ugarit, where the proper name of B. seems to be Haddu, hd), of whether, in some cases, it is a genuine theonym. The “Baal of Ugarit” is a young god, powerful and a warrior. He is at the top of the local

pantheon together with the elderly creator god EL, as a poliadic deity, holding sovereignty won after a series of victorious battles [FIG. 27]. As the son of DAGAN, B. of Ugarit is the typical weather-god, lord of atmospheric forces and protector against the fury of unleashed natural elements. His personality is reflected in the iconography, where he is depicted as a warrior god [FIG. 28], and in the name Haddu, B. of Ugarit, which should be connected with Eblaite Ada, Addu in Mari and Aram. HADAD, all manifestations of a supreme deity associated with atmospheric phenomena. One of his epithets is “B. of (Mount) Sapa/unu” (b῾l ṣpn) (→BAAL SAPHON), a mountain on which the god resides and in which his body is buried with solemn funeral ceremonies by ANAT and Shapash (→SHAMASH), after his battle with Mot (→MOT/ MOUTH). In fact, Baal is the protagonist experiencing death and a return to life (→DYING GOD[S]), which gives him knowledge of the afterlife and familiarity

Fig. 27. Stela known as “Baal au foudre”. Ras Shamra/Ugarit. Acropolis

Fig. 28. Stela depicting Baal Qadbun (7th cent. BCE)

BAAL

BAAL – BAAL ADDIR

with the chthonian world and with his ancestors, the Rapi᾿ūma (→REPHAIM), who make him a regulator of the natural cycle, of fertility and fecundity, responsible for the balance between life and death. This particular B. in the LBA is probably the forerunner of several deities in the Aram. and Phoen. world who have a pre-eminent position in the respective pantheons and express the more specific aspects of his personality: the dynastic model, for ex. was inherited by MELQART in *Tyre, whereas characteristics of healing powers typify ESHMUN in *Sidon. Generally speaking, B. can be specified by certain epithets or appositions [→DIVINE NAMES & EPITHETS] that make him into autonomous deities with different characteristics, at least as far as can be deduced from the documentation available: →BAAL ADDIR, →BAAL HAMMON, →BAAL KR, →BAAL KRNTRYSH, →BAAL MGNM, →BAAL MALAGE, →BAAL MRQD, →BAAL ῾OZ, →BAAL SAPHON, →BAAL SHAMEM, →BAAL ṢMD. B. features in composite toponyms and oronyms, of which he is considered to be the lord: Baal of *Kition (b῾l kty), Baal of Tyre (b῾l ṣr, the classical epithet of MELQART) Baal of Sidon (b῾l ṣdn, Eshmun), Baal of Byblos (b῾l gbl, consort of BAALAT GEBAL), Baal of Arwad (BAAL ARWAD), Baal of Berytus, BAAL OF LEBANON (b῾l lbnn), Baal Saphon etc. B. can also be named in connection with places of worship, either natural or built by man, as b῾l bt, “B. of the sanctuary/temple” (→BAAL HAMMON) (although the same expression denotes the god of the clan or dynasty, as in the inscription of *Kulamuwa, king of Sam’al, [*Zincirli], KAI 24). The term b῾l is also used in combination with epithets that indicate connections with other deities (šm b῾l, “name of B.”), pn b῾l (“face of B.”), ᾿št b῾l (“wife of B.”), sml b῾l (“image of B.”), especially referring to the goddesses ASTARTE and TINNIT, and their functions as divine consorts or wives. The relationships that they express concern appearance (“name, face, image” of a god) and family (the goddess as “mother” and “wife”). The god B. is documented in *Egypt, *Anatolia (in the inscription of *Karatepe: KAI 26) and in a few passages in the *Old Testament. In Egypt, in the time of Amenophis II, this god is the titular of a sanctuary in the port of *Memphis. He is probably connected with the presence of Asiatic people in the Egypt. fleet, and the temple dedicated to Baal Saphon, protector of navigation. Only in the

35

Ramesside period would this god be actually adopted into the official Egypt. pantheon as the protector of the Pharaoh in battle without, perhaps, being widely favoured at the popular level. In the Phoen. inscription of Karatepe (8th cent. BCE), king *Azitawada calls himself “assistant” (hbrk) and “servant” (῾bd) of Baal and says that he is acting, with his blessing, to improve conditions in the lives of his people. Defining the identity of this god is complex, given the possible reference to Baal Shamem present in the cursing formula in the inscription (KAI 26, A III, l. 18). In the Old Testament, B. is the prototype of the deprecated Canaanite deity, although his cult attracted many followers in the Israelite world (→*Canaanites). In fact, the biblical sources document the presence of Phoen. cults connected with rulers who arrive in *Israel after political marriages between dynasties. *Jezebel, daughter of *Ittobaal, king of Sidon, is associated with the altar erected by *Ahab to Baal (here probably the Tyrian Melqart) in the temple of that god in *Samaria (1 Kgs 16,32-33) and is accused of “following the Baalim” (1 Kgs 18,18), probably a reference to the cult of Baal on Mount *Carmel and in *Samaria. Instead, Queen Athaliah, Jehoram’s wife, is associated with a foreign temple, also called the “temple of Baal” (2 Kgs 1,4-16). The collections of PNN in the various sets of texts show the very high frequency of B. in *Ebla, *Mari, *El-Amarna, Ugarit, in *Phoenicia and in the west. Medit. colonies, where this DN almost always appears in connection with various deities that cannot easily be identified. PTU, 114-117.131-133; PNPPI, 288-290; Pettinato, G. (1980) Pre-Ugaritic documentation of Baal. In: Rendsburg, G. et al. (eds) The Bible World. Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon. New York, 203-209; Bonnet, C. (1988) 78-80 and passim; DCPP, s.v. (W. Röllig); DNWSI I, s.v. b῾l2, 182-184; DDD2, s.v. 132-139 (W. Herrmann); Schwemer, D. (2001) Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Wiesbaden. F. GUARNERI

BAAL ADDIR Phoen. b῾l ᾿dr; Lat. Baliddir. B.A. is a theonym that very probably means “Powerful Lord”. This DN is documented in *Byblos, in a funerary inscription for the son of king *Shipitbaal III (KAI 9,

36

BAAL ADDIR

dated to the mid-5th cent. BCE), and then in several inscriptions from the west. Mediterranean, more specifically, *Sardinia, *Tunisia and *Algeria. The name appears in three inscriptions from *Sulci (Sant’Antioco), possibly all from the same local tophet-sanctuary (→*Tophet). The first inscription, dating to the mid-3rd cent. BCE, is inscribed on a silver cup (from a private collection and now in the Ferruccio Barreca Museum in Sulci), which records the dedication of that object to the “Lord Baal Addir” by public officials: l᾿dn lb῾l᾿dr ybrk skt mšql 10 + 9 + 20 + 20 ᾿š ḥdš᾿ ᾿mḥšbm …, “To the Lord Baal Addir. May he bless. Libation cup weighing 59 [shekels] that the controllers dedicated” (Bartoloni and Garbini [1999]). The second inscription is a vow performed by a certain Hillesbaal, inscribed on a stela in the local tophet-sanctuary (Bartoloni and Garbini [1999], 83f.). The third inscription is engraved on a lead disc that only has a PN (read ᾿drb῾l in ICO Sard. 41, and b῾l᾿dr by G. Garbini, in Bartoloni and Garbini [1999] 85). In Tunisia, B.A. appears in two inscriptions from *Bir Tlelsa (KAI 138) and *Henchir Guergour (JA [1916] 460-463) respectively. In Algeria, B.A. occurs especially in the region of *Constantine (Cirta Regia) in about twenty dedications engraved on the stelae of the tophet discovered in El-Hofra, near the ancient town (AO 5311; EH 4-19, 27, 42, 63, 241; add SPC 128 [FIG. 29] and possibly 101), which date back to the reigns of the Numid. kings *Massinissa I (1) and *Micipsa (1) (→*Numidians). In one of these inscriptions (EH 31) the DN is followed by the epithet mlk ᾿dr, “Powerful King”. In KAI 162, instead, again from the sanctuary of El-Hofra, BAAL HAMMON is followed by b῾l ᾿dr, as if it were an epithet (but see the new reading by W. Röllig in KAI5, no. 162). Finally, in EH 27 (= KAI 115), the inscription ends by mentioning the “temple of Baal Addir” (bt b῾l᾿dr). The logical conclusion seems to be that in this sanctuary, and during the 3rd cent. BCE, the name B.A. is used as an appellative of Baal Hammon, to whom almost all the inscriptions are dedicated. Also in Algeria, there are a further six dedications to Baliddir, the Lat. form of this theonym, accompanied by the titles deus patrius, augustus and sanctus (cf. esp. AntAfr, 26 [1990] 135 no. 4 from Aïn el-Bey; ILAlg II, 6486, 6487 and 6488 from *Sigus; AE 1989, 850 from Bir Eouel, all in the region of Costantine; also ILAlg I, 445 from *Guelaa bou Sba, in the territory of *Guelma (Calama); cf. also CIL VIII, 19121-19123; 5279).

For the Phoen. occurrences from Byblos and for many of those from the Pun. West, a specific connection between this deity and the *Funerary world, and with the ideology relating to divine beings who control the afterlife has been proposed. In fact, in the inscription from Byblos (see above), B.A. is invoked together with the other deities of the city, in a curse formula (→*Blessings and curses) that protects the resting-place of the king from any subsequent violation. In the occurrences from the West, there may be an echo of this connection, both in the plausible identification of B.A. as PLUTO, in North Africa, and in his partial correspondence to Baal Hammon in both El-Hofra and Sulci. In a different and more recent hypothesis, Cadotte [2007] rejects the correspondence between B.A. and PLUTO in North Africa, and instead proposes that Lat.-Pun. b῾l᾿dr / Baliddir could be explained as the Rom. god MERCURY (specifically assimilated to Silvanus).

Fig. 29. The inscription from El-Hofra (Constantine) SPC 128 Février, J.-G. (1949) Semitica, 2, 21-28; Beschaouch, A. (19711972) Karthago, 16, 103-105; Ribichini, S. (1986) Agruheros, Baal Addir et le Pluton africain. In: Actes du IIIe Colloque sur l’histoire et l’archéologie de l’Afrique du Nord (Montpellier). Paris, 133-140; Lipiński, E. (1995) 88f.; Bartoloni, P. and Garbini, G. (1999) RSF, 27, 79-91; Cadotte, A. (2007) La romanisation des dieux: l’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden/Boston, 113-164; Xella, P. (2011) Il tofet. Da Baal Hammon a Saturno. In: Manfredi, L.-I. and Soltani, A. (eds) I Fenici in Algeria. Le vie del commercio tra

BAAL ADDIR – BAAL HAMMON

il Mediterraneo e l’Africa Nera. Bologna, 140-144; D’Andrea, B. (2014) I tofet del Nord-Africa dall’età arcaica all’età romana (VIII sec. a.C. – II sec. d.C.). Studi archeologici. CSF 45. Pisa/ Rome, 315. S. RIBICHINI

BAAL ARWAD Possibly Phoen. b῾l ᾿rwd, not attested in the inscriptions. A god connected with the sea, presumably the poliadic BAAL who features on the coins of *Arwad in the 5th cent. BCE [FIG. 30]. He is depicted in human form up to the waist, as muscular, with bushy hair and a beard; in contrast, the lower part of his body is fish-shaped, covered in scales, with a forked tail and fins. In each hand he is holding a dolphin by its tail. This god is definitely connected with Arwad, even though his role is not clear. J. Elayi (2005) has proposed that he is a poliadic Baal, which is preferable to the hypothesis that he is a minor character in the pantheon of Arwad, typically connected with the sea. Furthermore, B.A. is also depicted on the reliefs in the royal palace of *Sargon II in Khorsabad, alongside the very same figure as in Arwad: a bearded god in the shape of a fish. The CRONUS mentioned in the Gk inscription IGLS VII, 4002, to whom a sacred grove is dedicated, probably has no connection with B.A.

Fig. 30. Coins of Arwad depicting a marine Baal Babelon, E. (1893) Les Perses Achéménides, les Satrapes et les Dynastes tributaires de leur empire. Cypre & Phénicie. Paris; Elayi, J. and Elayi, A. G. (2001) Trans, 21, 133-148; Elayi, J. (2005) Ba῾al Arwad. In: APC 5.I, 129-133; Elayi, J. and Elayi, A. G. (2015) Arwad, cité phénicienne du Nord. Suppl. to Trans 19. Pendé, 42.101f.143.203ff. P. XELLA

Baal (of) Byblos see BAALAT GEBAL BAAL HAMMON Phoen. b῾lḥmn; Gk Βαλαμουν (EH, Gk 1,1; 2,1-2); Lat. Balamon. A god documented in *Phoenicia and in the SyroAnat. region, who probably originated from the district of *Tyre. Instead, some scholars hold that he is North Syrian, although that hypothesis does not

37

explain the enormous spread of his cult in the west. central Mediterranean following Phoen. expansion, especially from Tyre, already by the end of the 9th cent. BCE. In fact, it is in the west. Mediterranean that most of the documentation concerning B.H. is concentrated, mainly from the →*Tophet of *Carthage and other sanctuaries of the same type, which provide proof of his enormous popularity. Etymology The first important element for understanding B.H.’s personality is provided by establishing the etymology of his name, “Lord of the ḥmn”. In past studies there has been (and now there still is) a debate concerning the meaning of his epithet ḥmn. Three main hypotheses have been proposed: a) B.H. is the “Lord of the (incense) altar” or the “Lord of the glowing brazier”, from the root ḥmm “to burn”, “to be hot”; b) B.H. is the “Lord of (Mount) Amanus”; c) B.H. is the “Lord of the chapel /baldachin”. In the first case (a), the proposal is based on the meaning of the Sem. root ḥmm, which can express the idea of heat, and more specifically, its comparison with the Hebr. term ḥmn (*ḥammān), pl. ḥmnym, which some consider to denote a “brazier” or “incense altar”. In the *Old Testament, the term ḥmn occurs several times in the plural, mostly in parallel with the “high places” (bmwt) (→*Bamah) and the so-called Asherahs (→ASHERAH). Whereas in essence the equivalence of Phoen. ḥmn to the biblical term is highly likely, if not actually certain, the translation of ḥmnym as “braziers” is not correct. In fact, from an examination of the relevant biblical passages (Ezek 6,4.6; Lev 26,30; Isa 27,9; 2 Chr 14,4; 34,4.7), it is clear that it is a cultic structure, i.e. a small building that was placed on top of an *Altar, typical for Canaanite religious tradition and connected in particular with the worship of Baal. The comparison with the mentions of ḥmn᾿ in Aramaic (Palmyrene and Nabataean) confirms this last interpretation: it was a sort of chapel or baldachin, intended to contain images of deities, used by preference for forms of personal and family devotion. The texts from *Ugarit provide additional proof for this meaning: there a ḫmn was a sacred chapel, a pavilion or baldachin containing divine images, used in the royal dynastic cult. For all these reasons, the suggestion that B.H. was the “Lord of the brazier” lacks any support. Rather, the evidence cited above points in the direction of “cultic

38

BAAL HAMMON

chapel”, a naos, which also applies to Phoen. ḥmn, the hypothesis central to proposal (c). The etymological proposal that would identify the name of Mount *Amanus in Phoen. ḥmn (b) was made hypothetically by J. Halévy (1883) and became stronger some years later, in 1902, with the discovery of the inscription of *Kulamuwa, king of Sam’al (*Zincirli) in north. Syria – not far from the mountain range of Amanus – in which B.H. is also mentioned. Another argument in favour of this interpretation has been found in an invocation with B.H., mentioned in parallel with BAAL SAPHON, inscribed in Phoen. on an *Amulet found in the region of Tyre and dated to the 6th cent. BCE (Bordreuil [1986]). Since Baal Saphon is connected to the mountain with the same name (→SAPHON), it has been deduced that B.H. was also a god connected to a mountain, i.e. Mount Amanus. Against this hypothesis several objections can be made, both in terms of language and the history of religions. In terms of language, the name of Mount Amanus in Phoen. should be ᾿mn, with an initial aleph – not ḥet – as in Ugaritic (see ġr amn, “Mount Amanus” in the Ug. letter KTU3 2.33). From the aspect of the history of religions, if we consider B.H.’s personality as a paternal and ancestral god, protector of the dynasty and the family, and dispenser of fertility and fecundity, patron of the tophet, extremely popular, especially in the Pun. world, any possible link with the mountain chain of Amanus is barely plausible, especially if we consider the historical developments in the character of this ancient dynastic god. Apart from a vague geographical location, nothing then suggests that in Sam’al this god was connected with that oronym: he simply appears as one of the many deities worshipped in the genealogical traditions of the ruling clan. As for the Tyrian amulet mentioned above, it does not seem very likely that the great god, who would perpetuate Phoen. tradition in North Africa in the shape of CRONUS/ SATURN, originated in the prerogative of marking the north. border of the east. Mediterranean, which is more a privilege of Mount Saphon. As a result, while still hypothetical, for the time being B.H. seems to be connected with domestic worship and with the chapel containing his statue – i.e. hypothesis (c) – so far the best etymology of his name. The Levant Following primarily the direct inscriptional evidence, the first explicit mention of B.H. in Phoenician goes

back to the second half of the 9th cent. BCE (ca 830825), in the curse (→*Blessings and curses) that closes the inscription of king Kulamuwa of YaudiSam’al (KAI 24 = TSSI III, 13). In this text, the god is invoked in a sequence of three gods, between BAAL ṢMD and RAKIB-EL, who are asked to intervene in order to punish anyone who might damage the inscription or usurp royal power (wyšḥt . r᾿š . b῾lḥmn . ᾿š . lbnh . wrkb᾿l . b῾l bt…, “and may Baal Hammon who belongs to Banihu and Rakib-El, lord of the dynasty, smash his (i.e. the guilty person’s) head…”; (line 16). Whereas Rakib-El has the epithet “lord of the dynasty” in general (b῾l bt), here B.H. appears as another dynastic god, connected (like Baal Ṣmd) with a particular king, whose name probably is Banihu (bnh). Without excluding an Aram. (generally, North Syrian) component in the origins of B.H., his presence in the Neo-Hittite pantheon of Zincirli can also be explained by the political and commercial relations at that time between *Cilicia and the Phoen. towns on the coast, especially Tyre. Tyrian influence – both religious and cultural – in the region, between the end of the 9th and the 8th cent., under Ass. domination, must have been relevant (→*Assyrians). This is also shown by the cult of MELQART by king *Bar-Hadad of *Aleppo (TSSI II, 1) and the very use of Phoen. language in several inscriptions. The explicit documentation on B.H. does not allow us to go back further in time for historical information. However, it is worth mentioning some older epigraphic indications, even though they should be viewed with caution, i.e. the presence of the element ḥmn in PNN (see below). Particularly to be mentioned is the inscription engraved on a clay cone found at *Byblos, in the so-called Temple of the Obelisks, and dated to the mid-11th cent. BCE (Dunand [1950-1958] no. 7765, p. 144), which mentions ῾bdḥmn. This PN has antecedents in Ugarit, in both alphabetic and syllabic cuneiform (abdiḫamanu: see PTU, 135.230). A bronze seal in the shape of a foot, dating to the 9th-8th cent. and of unknown provenance (Avigad [1966]), may contain the expression lḥmn, “for/of ḥmn”. It is difficult to interpret the expression p῾rḥmn inscribed on a touchstone made of basalt, of unknown provenance, dated to the end of the 8th cent. BCE (Bordreuil [1986], no. 4, pp. 21f.). Finally, from the necropolis of Tyre al-Bass comes a funerary stela (7th cent. BCE) engraved with the PN grḥmn (Sader [1991] 109ff.). At Thebes, in *Egypt, there is a funerary urn of a

BAAL HAMMON

Phoen. man called ῾bdḥmn (ESE III, p. 126, L-3410 = RÉS 1512). An inscription from *Elephantine contains a PN, doubtfully read as bd/᾿ḥmn by Lidzbarski ([1912] no. 8, p. 6), and it is also possible that the theophoric element here is ᾿mn, i.e. the Egypt. god AMON. In any case, ḥmn as a theophoric element has other extra-Phoen. parallels (in Neo-Assyrian, Hebrew and Aramaic: Xella [1991] 38ff.). In a much later period, Josephus mentions a man from Tyre, whose name in Greek is Ἀβδήμων (Ap. 1,115.120; AJ 8,149: →*Abdemon). Moving forward in time, we find in the 6th cent. BCE a direct reference to B.H., mentioned in an inscription engraved on the plaque (see above) made of lapislazuli, used as an amulet, from the region of Tyre. The text associates two gods, B.H. and Baal Saphon, in a request for a blessing engraved on both sides of this object: lb῾l ḥ / mn wl / b῾l ṣpn / kyb / rknn, “to B.H. and Baal Saphon, may they bless me”. As we have seen, this text has been cited to support B.H.’s connection with Mount Amanus, due to the parallelism between ḥmn and ṣpn. However, these two geographical locations, which apparently correspond to the two mountains, are actually pleonastic because they are both connected in different ways to the North. Also, once again it is the role that Mount Amanus may have had in the religious traditions of Tyre that is questionable. All this substantially concerns the East, apart from much later references to the cult of CRONUS in Syria, Lebanon and Jordania (Lipiński [1995] 256) and the mentions of B.H. in *Palmyra (see below). The central-western Mediterranean It is mainly in the central and west. Mediterranean that evidence for B.H. becomes considerably more abundant. Therefore, it becomes possible to follow the spread of his cult on *Malta, *Sicily, *Sardinia and in the *Iberian Peninsula, as well as, of course, Carthage and North Africa. Thanks essentially to archaeology and epigraphy from several tophets, evidence for the god is increased immeasurably, although the documentation does not always permit more detailed knowledge of his personality and his functions. On Malta, B.H. is mentioned in two votive inscriptions engraved on two rectangular cippi dated to the 6th cent. BCE (CIS I, 123 and 123bis = KAI 61A and 61B = ICO Malta 4 and 5). In these texts, the god is the only recipient of two sacrifices, mlkb῾l and mlk᾿mr respectively (→*Molk), and these documents,

39

together with the record of urns containing burnt bones, although no actual trace of them remains (Vella [2013]), make it more than likely that there probably was a tophet on the island. B.H. is also probably the “Lord Baal” mentioned in a Neopun. inscription from Malta, although it probably came from Tunisia (ICO Malta Neopun. 1). On Sicily, the tophet of *Motya provides the richest documentation on this god. On inscribed stelae – about thirty, only a small fraction of all the monuments, dated mostly to the 6th-5th cent. BCE – B.H. is invoked alone, following an established tradition, which has only one exception in Carthage where, from the end of the 5th cent. onwards, TINNIT – with the epithet pn b῾l (“face of Baal [Hammon])” – is in first position. In this small corpus of inscriptions from Motya, the PNN of worshippers also feature a considerable presence of the theophoric element b῾l, which can only denote the titular of the local sanctuary. A stela following the late Carthag. tradition, i.e. with Tinnit preceding B.H. in the dedication, comes from *Palermo (ICO Sic. 9); in *Lilybaeum, instead, in a votive inscription from the 4th-3rd cent. BCE, this god is the only addressee (ICO Sic. 5 = KAI 63), according to the tradition of that island [FIG. 31]; however, another inscription, again from Lilybaeum – where the existence of another Sicilian tophet in addition to the one in Motya seems a real possibility – features the Carthag. tradition, where Tinnit comes first (ICO Sic. 4). On Sardinia, the cult of B.H. is very well documented in various places, beginning with *Sulci (Sant’Antioco) and its ancient tophet, with a votive cippus dating to the 6th cent. BCE that mentions a mlk b῾l sacrifice to the god (ICO Sard. 17); B.H. is without any doubt the titular of the local sanctuary, as is also shown by a very broken stela on which the theonym is quite legible (Bartoloni [1976] Pl. XI, no. 78, pp. 39f.). Also, the “Baal” on a gold plate from the tophet of Sulci may refer to B.H. (Melchiorri and Xella [2020]). In *Tharros, the inscriptions from the tophet, few as they are, confirm B.H. as the titular of the local sanctuary (e.g. a stela from the 5th cent. BCE: Uberti [1978] 73-75). An indication of a cult place dedicated to the god, even though very uncertain, comes from *Monte Sirai: on a small rectangular bronze plaque (ICO Sard. 39), from the 4th3rd cent. BCE, l᾿dn l… can be read. As yet, the Iberian Peninsula has left no definite archaeological or epigraphic traces of B.H., but there

40

BAAL HAMMON

Fig. 31. The inscribed stela from Lilybaeum ICO Sic. 5

is some class. literary evidence indicating that also in this extensive region the cult of the god was quite widespread. Near Gadir/Gades (*Cádiz) there was a temple dedicated to Cronus, called geronti. At one time, even the PILLARS OF HERACLES, before being named after that god (→MELQART), bore the name of Cronus, according to the information from a scholiast (Schol in Dionys. Per. in GGM 2, no. 16, p. 640; cf. Plin. Nat. 3,8 who mentions him in connection with mythical characters who are the protagonists in various adventures in the Iberian Peninsula); the god gave his name to a hill in *Cartagena (Plb. 10,10,11) and also to a promontory near that city (Plin. Nat. 3,19 and 2,242), where a temple dedicated to him may have stood. Carthage and North Africa As a foundation of Tyre, Carthage inherited a large part of the cultural and religious traditions of the motherland. The presence and pre-eminence of B.H. in the tophet (and in the pantheon) of the North African metropolis constitutes proof, indirect but certainly significant, of the Levantine roots of the god and his cult.

The thousands of votive inscriptions that come from the Carthag. tophet provide evidence that, at least once in their lives, the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants, men or women, rich or poor, nobles, freemen or slaves, displayed their veneration for this ancestral god through prayers and sacrificial offerings, that quite probably also included infant victims, either alone or accompanied by extremely young lambs or kids. This last circumstance has prompted the theory that, at least to some extent, seasonal rites were being celebrated – the availability of very young lambs or kids must have been limited during the year – the characteristics of which, unfortunately, are unknown (the only indication of *Festivals is provided by some month names [→*Calendar], called specifically after solemn rites). As for the inscriptions from the Carthag. tophet, the oldest documents (7th-5th cent. BCE) exhibit dedications addressed only to B.H. (Bartoloni [1976]; Mazza [1977]), mentioning the mlk/t b῾l sacrifice (e.g. CIS I, 5684 [FIG. 32]). One of the various documents from the early phase of the life of the sanctuary that is particularly worth mentioning is a cippus that records the erection of an altar dedicated to the god within the sacred area (Ferron [1964-1965]). More numerous than monuments with a dedication only to B.H., are those in which the god is followed by his consort Tinnit. However, in the vast majority of inscribed votive monuments in the Carthag. tophet, the goddess Tinnit comes first, followed by B.H. In

Fig. 32. The Carthaginian cippus CIS I, 5684

BAAL HAMMON

fact, towards the end of the 5th cent. BCE, there was evidently a shift of Tinnit to first position in dedications, following theological and devotional processes that we can only guess at. However, the established and common opinion is that this goddess, called “Face of Baal” (pn b῾l), had not jumped ahead of B.H. in the hierarchy of the pantheon, but acquired a pre-eminent position thanks to her function as intermediary between the god and the faithful. Probably, they felt her to be a closer and more efficacious recipient and mediator for prayers and vows addressed ultimately to B.H., that Tinnit was careful to present and recommend. It is very clear that Tinnit was in some way B.H.’s executive hand, for ex., from the inscription CIS I, 4945, which closes with a curse formula against anyone violating the monument, where, as in a few other cases (CIS I, 3783,5-7; 3785,6-11; 4937,1-5; in CIS I, 5510) it is the couple who should intervene [FIG. 33]; B.H. alone is invoked in the inscription CIS I, 3784,1-3. The thousands of inscriptions from the Carthag. tophet make up a dossier that is apparently monotonous and repetitive, but they can provide valuable information on various aspects of the cult, especially at the sociological level. For ex., the majority of the dedicators are male, but about 10% are by women, who mention their patronymics rather than their husbands’ names (Amadasi Guzzo [1988]); the number of dedicators is also extremely interesting (Guarneri [2004]), as is their possible provenance (Guarneri [2015] passim). Quite distinct from the standard form of epigraphs is one particular monument, a cippus from the 3rd cent. BCE, into which an inscribed slab was inserted (KAI 78): the text is dedicated to four deities, with the sequence BAAL SHAMEM, Tinnit, B.H. and →BAAL MGNM. Of extraordinary interest, in this inscription, is the mention, among other things, of a “sanctuary” (kdš for qdš) of B.H., the actual

Fig. 33. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 5510

41

place where the monument stood, with a minute description of its orientation. The dedicator, called b῾ly, gives his genealogy up to the sixteenth generation, a significant factor that is also important for the chronology of the sanctuary. While almost none of the illustrations that appear on stelae, whether iconic or aniconic (*Iconism & aniconism), can be ascribed to particular deities, they do provide glimpses of ritual actions, as well as of their human and animal participants, with the cult directed to B.H. Another ancient tophet (7th/6th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE), slightly later than the one from Carthage, perhaps founded by *Sidon, is the one in *Sousse/Hadrumetum, from which comes archaeological and epigraphic evidence, which is especially valuable for our knowledge of this god (votive stelae, some inscribed, some not) and his iconography (see below). The Rom. name of the city, Colonia Concordia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Frugifera, is an eloquent indication of the role assumed by Saturn (Frugifer), the direct successor of B.H. in this period. The cult of B.H. survived in North Africa after the fall and destruction of Carthage, even if it was superimposed and gradually replaced by the cult of Saturn. This is documented by the proliferation of late tophets both in the regions under the direct influence of Carthage and in Numid. territory (→*Numidians) as well as in more peripheral areas. It was a complex cultic affair, in which the people ideally went back to the grand tradition of Carthage, but in fact they worked it into new forms; therefore, they were not simple Pun. cultic survivals, but re-creations of the past, especially intended as a response to Rom. hegemony in the 1st cent. BCE (McCarty [2017]). This implied not only the progressive presence of monuments in what previously were open air cultplaces, but also great innovations at the level of ritual, especially the cessation of infant sacrifices, now replaced by animal victims and offerings where blood was not spilt. As a result, the whole visible complex took on a new shape, from the iconography of the stelae to the constructions in cultic places. Starting from the East, these late tophets are found in current Libya (*Sabratha, Gheran); in modern Tunisia, where the main ones are to be found, they are (in alphabetical order): *Aïn Tounga, *Althiburos/Henchir Médeina, *Bulla Regia/Hammam Derradji, *Dougga/ Thugga, *Henchir el-Hami, *Henchir Ghayadha, *Maktar, *Mididi/Henchir Meded, *Thinissut/Bir

42

BAAL HAMMON

Bou Rekba, and in many other places; in Algeria they are in *Annaba/Hippo Regius, *Guelma/Calama, *Bethioua/Portus Magnus, *El-Hofra (*Cirta Regia/ Constantine); *Tipaza/ Tefassed, *Taksebt/Rusippir etc.; and in Morocco, in *Volubilis (Oualili). Among all these sanctuaries, the tophet of El-Hofra merits special mention. It was a site of intense activity and has provided a large amount of documentation, particularly between the end of the 3rd and the end of the 2nd cent. BCE, the period of the Numid. kings *Massinissa (1) and *Micipsa (203-118 BCE). Hundreds of votive stelae have been found, a third of them inscribed with dedications to B.H. and Tinnit. One fact of considerable interest is that, there, BAAL ADDIR is an epithet of B.H.; he is the recipient of mlk-sacrifices and once is perhaps called “Lord of the bt”, evidently the term (“sanctuary”) that denoted the tophet. Iconography Generally speaking, there is not a great deal of evidence that can give us information about the iconography of B.H., but there is enough to provide some elements to reconstruct his image. Here we are prescinding from symbols, whether iconic or aniconic, on the stelae, which some scholars have attempted to connect with B.H., because they are unverified hypotheses. In general, this god is portrayed as old, with a beard and seated on a throne that can be flanked by winged sphinxes; he is wearing a tiara or a pointed mitre, or else a typical head-dress usually described as “radiated” or “feathered”; his typical gesture is one of blessing, with his right hand raised, while his left is holding a sort of staff or sceptre, comprising a handle and a tip that usually ends in an ear of wheat. The evidence is of various kinds (also numismatic: cf. the aureus of Clodius Albinus and a coin from

Fig. 34a and b a. Aureus of Clodius Albinus b. Coin from Sousse-Hadrumetum

Hadrumetum [FIGs 34a and b]), coming from a range of periods, regions and sites and chiefly concerning the west. Mediterranean. First of all, we can mention a famous stela from the tophet of Sousse (Hadrumetum) dated to the 5th cent. BCE (Xella [1991] Pl. VII,5, pp. 117-119) [FIG. 35], which may provide the most complete image of B.H. available. Here the deity is seated on a throne flanked by sphinxes and receives homage from a worshipper or a priest; the god has a beard, is dressed in a long tunic and has a ribboned tiara on his head; in his left hand he grasps a sceptre ending in an ear of wheat, while his right hand is raised in the customary gesture of blessing. The scene is set in a sort of small chapel (a ḥmn? See above), and reproduces a motif that is known from Syria-Palestine to Carthage. There are significant iconographic parallels in glyptic and jewellery (Xella [1991] Pls VII,3-4, pp. 114-117). On the pediment of the Carthag. stela CIS I, 4870 there is a person between two sphinxes, who could be B.H. [FIG. 36]. On two stelae from the tophet of El-Hofra there are images that refer to the god in question.

Fig. 35. Stela from Sousse/Hadrumetum depicting Baal Hammon

BAAL HAMMON

43

Fig. 36. The Carthaginian stela CIS I, 4870

Fig. 37. Statue of Baal Hammon from Thinissut

On the first stela (EH 28) a character can be seen, facing out, bearded and with a large radiated or plumed crown on his head; he is seated on a throne, in his right hand he has a *Caduceus, in his left a lotus flower; the scene is set inside a small temple evoked by two columns supporting a triangular pediment adorned with various emblems. The associated inscription is addressed to B.H. The second stela, uninscribed (EH, Pl. IIc), also probably portrays the same deity, bearded, with a radiated crown, his raised right arm holding a caduceus, and his left hand close to his chest. Very probably, a terracotta statue, dated to the 1st or the beginning of the 2nd cent. CE, from the sanctuary of B.H./Saturn and Tinnit/Caelestis of Thinissut, on *Cape Bon, represents this god [FIG. 37]: he looks old, his head covered with a plumed polos, seated on a throne flanked by two sphinxes, with one hand raised in the gesture of blessing. Also to be mentioned in the iconographic dossier of B.H. is the bronze statuette from Genoni (Sardinia), that has been identified as B.H. (Roobart [1988]; Xella [1991]

Pl. IX,1). Prescinding here from other possible types of evidence (coroplastic, numismatics, etc.), it is possible to conclude that there was a standard iconography of B.H. as an elderly god, powerful and charismatic, typically on a throne with sphinxes, a source of blessing, bestowing prosperity. The fact that he is often depicted inside a small temple evokes the chapels that were built in several tophets, and supports the interpretation of ḥmn as denoting such a sacred building, possibly originally a domestic chapel (Xella [1991] 131ff.). In addition, (El-)Cronus had another two wings on his head, one for the spirit, the highest faculty, and the other for the faculty of perception. All this alludes to the god’s omniscience and indefatigability: the authenticity of this mythical tradition is confirmed by the divine image on coins from Byblos in the Rom. period (Babelon [1893] Pl. XXXVII,4; Hill [1910] Pl. XI,6). As the supreme god, belonging to a divine generation before the generation of poliadic deities, (El-)Cronus was conceived as an extremely influential ancestor, with immense powers, who was

44

BAAL HAMMON

perfectly suited to be the custodian of the traditions and the most sacred places of the Phoen. people. Given this mythological background, the god’s functions in the cult can be understood better. In Philo there is also the foundation myth for human sacrifices to Cronus. The god had an only son called IEOUD, whom he sacrificed on the altar because of the danger of a war that threatened the country. The boy was prepared for sacrifice and made to wear royal clothes. The ritual significance of this apparel is not easy to establish: perhaps it was a way of making the victim royal, so that he could then be able to enjoy, in the afterlife, the same privileges reserved for the sovereign. If that is the case, the sacrifice of the first-born (and, by extension, of children in general) would have implied not only the well-being of the community or the family that performed it, but was also an advantage for the victim himself, since, because of the rite, he would have gained a privileged destiny in the →*Netherworld. In any case, this evidence confirms that the rite of the tophet had a precedent in the act performed by the Phoen. Cronus, B.H., who institutes a specific sacrificial practice. A whole series of class. writers, starting with Sophocles (Andr. fr. 122 Radt) and ending with later Lat. and Christian authors, indicate Cronus/Saturn as the recipient of human sacrifices, some of infants, and it is no accident that it is specifically this god who is the patron of the tophet and the rites performed in it. There are many significant passages in authors writing in Greek who speak about Cronus as being the recipient of human sacrifice. This bloody rite is resorted to on several occasions to placate the anger of Cronus, considered responsible for the outbreaks of epidemics (Diod. 13,86,1-3; 13,86,39), or a military threat for Carthage (Diod. 20,14,4-6: sacrifice of two-hundred children to avert the danger represented by the Syracusan *Agathocles). Several other writers also provide various kinds of evidence for this rite ([Plat.] Minos 315b-316d; Hsch. λ 949 Latte = fr. 23 Kannicht – Snell; FGrHist 137 fr. 9 [Clitarchus]; Dion. Halic. Ant. Rom. 1,38,2; Plut. Mor. 17b-e [De superst. 13], etc.). Authors writing in Latin, a long tradition continued by Christian writers, confirm the same practice in respect of Saturn, in this case very different from the Italic Saturn (Xella [2009]). Later epoch The cult of B.H. also continues, in the later period and within Syria, as well as in *Palmyra. In fact, the

pantheon of that caravanserai city includes, besides a nucleus of deities headed by Bel, also a group of deities clearly of W Sem. origin, established there, following commercial and cultural contacts with various societies. Among these deities is Belhammon (b῾lḥmwn), who must be considered as identical with the B.H. of east. and west. Phoen. tradition. Through a Mesop. reflex of the theonym Bel, the cult of B.H. must have reached Palmyra from tribal clans originating in the Anti-Lebanon or Hauran. Texts and monuments that refer to Belhammon are dated between the 1st cent. BCE and the 1st cent. CE. In spite of the period being late, it is possible to deduce elements about the character and cult that help to clarify B.H. A cult place of Belhammon was constructed by the tribe of the Bene ῾Aǧrud on top of Jebel Muntar, SW of the urban area. Evidence for the temple is provided by three tesserae (RTP, nos 99, 214 and 224). A dedicatory inscription dating to 89 CE commemorates the erection of the temple. Another inscription (RTP, no. 213) mentions “Fortune” (gd: →GAD) of the clan of the Bene ῾Aǧrud and there is reason to suppose that this epithet always refers to Belhammon, an ancestral and family god of that tribe. A Lat. inscription from Dacia from the period of the Antonines (CIL III, 7954 = ILS, 4341), made by a Rom. citizen from Palmyra, connects Belhammon (here called Bebelhammon) with a goddess Benefal, clearly Fenebal (“Face of Baal”), re-establishing the couple B.H. – Tinnit that was so popular in Carthage. The documentation as a whole indicates that B.H. was not a traditional poliadic deity, like the Baals of the Phoen. cities. Instead, he appears as having less restricted and more transcendent powers, with characteristics of a god who is not national, but pan-Phoenician. His archetypal profile as father-god, siring many deities, is also confirmed by his epithet of “paternal god” (deus patrius) of Carthage (together with Juno) conferred on him by Virgil (A. 4,371372; cf. Serv. A. 4,680). In this way, B.H. transcended local cults and interests to embody the main values of tradition. This is why every new tophetsanctuary built in the diaspora in the West was dedicated to him, either alone or together with Tinnit. This fact, even in spite of the lack of archaeological evidence for a tophet in the East, seems to fit the Phoen. B.H., to the extent that the documentation available allows us.

BAAL HAMMON – BAAL KR

As god of the tophet – as we know him mainly from thousands of dedications – B.H.’s privileges were such that those cult-places were made the ideal reference point for the ideals and values that such sanctuaries conveyed. The fundamental problems underlying the rites of the tophet played a primary role in the daily life of persons even outside that sacred site, to which the faithful went in circumstances of extreme need. However, we know that in Carthage, besides the tophet, at least one other temple was dedicated to him, because at the end of his sea journey *Hanno (3) deposited his account of the expedition in the sanctuary of the god (ἀνέθηκεν ἐν τῷ τοῦ Κρόνου τεμένει). In spite of the precarious nature of our sources, B.H. was certainly worshipped also outside tophets. It can be mentioned here that it is fairly probable that the theophoric element b῾l, ubiquitous in Phoen. and Pun. PNN throughout the Mediterranean, refers to him, with the understandable omission of ḥmn as awkward (in terms of structure and language). From all the evidence as a whole concerning him, B.H. emerges as central in the devotion of the Phoenicians, and, with the proliferation of tophets, the god gains increasingly greater importance in the west. Mediterranean. It is not unlikely that the rites of the tophet replicated in their own way domestic acts of devotion accorded to the B.H. in the east. homeland. Guarantor of continuity and of the most sacred traditions, B.H. was the incarnation of the ancestral father figure, who welcomed requests from worshippers, ranging from offspring to individual and collective protection, from fecundity to fertility. He was an irreplaceable reference point for the migrants of the diaspora. Halévy, J. (1883) Mélanges de critique et d’histoire relatifs aux peuples sémitiques. Paris, esp. 426ff.; Babelon, E. (1893) Les Perses Achémenides, les Satrapes et les Dynastes tributaires de leur empire. Cypre & Phénicie. Paris; Hill, G. F. (1910) A catalogue of the Greek coins of Phoenicia (British Museum). London; Lidzbarski, M. (1912) Phönizische and aramäische Krugaufschriften aus Elephantine. Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin; Dunand, M. (19501958) Fouilles de Byblos II. Paris; Ferron, J. (1953) CB, 3, 113118; Le Glay, M. (1961-1966) Saturne africain. Monuments I-II. Paris; id. (1966) Saturne africain. Histoire. Paris; Ferron, J. (1964-1965) StMagr, 4, 1-15; Cross, F. M. and McCarter, P. K. (1973) RSF, 1, 3-8; Bartoloni, P. (1976) Le stele arcaiche del tophet di Cartagine. CSF 8. Rome; Mazza, F. (1977) RSF, 5, 131-137; Ubert, M. L. (1978) RSF, 6, 73-75; Bordreuil, P. (1986a) Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Muséee du Louvre et du Musée Biblique de la Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris; Bordreuil, P. (1986b) Attestations inédites de Melqart, Baal Hamon et Baal Saphon à Tyr. In: StPhoen 4, 77-86; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1988) Dédicaces de femmes à Carthage. In: StPhoen 6, 143-149; Le Glay, M. (1988) Nouveaux

45

documents, nouveaux points de vue sur Saturne africain. In: StPhoen 6, 187-327; Fantar, M. H. (1990) REPPAL, 5, 67-105; Xella, P. (1991) Baal Hammon. Recherches sur l’identité et l’histoire d’un dieu phénico-punique. CSF 32. Rome; Lipiński, E. (1995) 251-264; Guarneri, F. (2004) SEL, 21, 115-124; Cadotte, A. (2007) La romanisation des dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden/Boston; Niehr, H. (2008) s.v. In: IDD: http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/ idd/prepublications/e_idd_baal_hammon.pdf; http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_idd_illustrations_ baal_hammon.pdf (accessed 28.12.2019); Xella P. (2009) SEL, 26, 59-100; Lancellotti, M. G. (2010) Dea Caelestis. Studi e materiali per la storia di una divinità dell’Africa romana. CSF 44. Pisa/Rome; Xella, P. (2010) SEL, 27, 27-31; D’Andrea, B. (2014) I tofet del Nord Africa dall’età arcaica all’età romana (VIII sec. a.C. - II sec. d.C.). Studi archeologici. CSF 45. Pisa/Rome; Guarneri, F. (2015) Sull’ampio dorso del mare. Quando i Fenici viaggiavano con gli dei. Sacra publica et privata 6. Rome; Shaw, B. D. (2016) JRA, 29, 259-291; McCarty, M. M. (2017) Africa Punica? Child sacrifice and other invented traditions in early Roman Africa. In: The revival and reinvention of non-Roman religion under Roman imperial rule. RRE, 3.3, 393-428 (special issue, Ando, C. and Faraone, C. [eds]); Melchiorri, V. and Xella, P. (2020), Una lamina d’oro iscritta dal tophet di Sulci (S. Antioco, Sardegna). In: Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos. MYTRA 5, 305-316. P. XELLA

Baal Kition see BAAL ῾OZ BAAL KR Aram. b῾l kr; Phoen. (?) b῾l kr. DN of unknown etymology. It is still controversial in research as to whether the element kr is connected with the god Kura (second half of the III mill. BCE), one of the chief deities in *Ebla, who appeared as a young warrior god and to whom the Eblaite “Temple of the Rock” was dedicated. The oldest occurrences of the god B.K. come from *Anatolia. In this region, the god is mentioned in the Luwian-Phoen. bilingual from *Cineköy (ca 700 BCE), in which the deity is requested to grant the king peace, freedom, wealth and possessions. B.K. is probably to be considered the patron god of the *Mopsos dynasty, and corresponds to the weathergod Tarhunzas in the Luwian section of the inscription (→*Luwians). The Phoen. inscription from *Cebelireis Daği (second half of the 7th cent. BCE) mentions a settlement of the god B.K.; perhaps this refers to the consecration of a chapel dedicated to the god in the rural district mentioned in the text. Another Phoen. reference to B.K. is on a vase from *Sidon (4th cent. BCE).

46

BAAL KR – BAAL (OF) LEBANON

Above the god’s name is a depiction of a temple façade with a view of the statue of the god in the cella and underneath, a male figure surrounded by branches, which probably represents this deity. B.K. also features as a theophoric element in PNN. Thus, the PN ῾zkr occurs in Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad in the Lower Khabur (7th/6th cent. BCE) as does the PN (῾)bdkr on a Neoass. cylinder seal. In addition, there are some Neoass. PNN with Kura as the theophoric element, although the persons bearing these names need not necessarily have been *Phoenicians. Furthermore, there was also a temple of the god Kura in Nineveh, but its connection with the god B.K. remains unclear. Barnett, R. (1969) ErIs, 9, 6-19, esp. 9-11; DCPP, s.v. (C. Bonnet); Wilhelm, G. (1992) VO, 8, esp. 23-31; Lipiński, E. (1995) 239f.; Pomponio, F. and Xella, P. (1997) Les dieux d’Ebla. AOAT 245. Münster, 223-248; Tekoğlu, R. and Lemaire, A. (2000) CRAI(BL), 961-1006; Röllig, W. (2001) Phönizisches aus Nordsyrien und der Gott Kurra. In: Geus, K. and Zimmermann, K. (eds) Punica Libyca - Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huss zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. OLA 104. Leuven, 41-52; id. (2008) Zur phönizischen Inschrift von Cebelireis Daği. In: Roche, C. (ed.) D’Ougarit à Jérusalem. Recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil. Orient et Méditerranée 2. Paris, 51-56; Younger, K. L. (2009) JANER, 9, 1-23; Bordreuil, P. (2010) SemClass, 3, 227233; Lemaire, A. (2017) The Phoenician inscription of Çineköy. In: Younger, K. L. (ed.) The context of scripture IV. Supplements. Leiden/Boston, 77; Sallaberger, W. (2018) Kura, youthful ruler and martial city-god of Ebla. In: Matthiae, P., Pinnock, F. and D’Andrea, M. (eds) Ebla and beyond. Ancient Near Eastern studies after fifty years of discoveries at Tell Mardikh. Proceedings of the International Congress Held in Rome (15th-17th December 2014). Wiesbaden, 107-139. H. NIEHR

BAAL KRNTRYŠ The inscriptions on the monumental remains in *Karatepe, written in Phoenician and hieroglyphic Luwian (→*Luwians), include the DN B.K. six times in the Phoen. section of the text (KAI 26 A II 19; III 2-3.4; C III 17, 19; IV 20). In particular, this DN seems to denote the god represented by the statue, which the local patron *Azatiwada mentions to emphasize that it was in fact he who established his cult in Adana. In the hieroglyphic Luwian text, the equivalent of B.K. is (DEUS) TONITRUS-ḫu-za-sa, “Tarhuntas the greatly blessed”, i.e. the weather-god at the top of the Luwian pantheon. There have been several attempts to explain the term krntryš, which is certainly not Semitic, in respect of its etymology and semantic range.

Some of these interpretations can be mentioned. BAAL has been considered as connected with a place name (Kelenderis, Krindion, or even Tarsus, tryš…); or a Sem. version of Gk terms, by several scholars with various proposals (H. Bossert, A. DupontSommer, M. Weippert, F. Bron, W. Röllig, etc.); reference has been also made to krn as a divine symbol (see Akk. kurrinnu), but without coming to a satisfactory interpretation accepted by all. Recently, Ph. Schmitz (2009) has proposed that krntryš is an archaic adjectival form of Gk κορυνητήριοϛ, which never actually occurs, whereas Gk κορύνη “club” and the adj. κορυνήτηϛ do. After all, to consider the local weather-god as characterized by a club matches what is known about this type of deity, whether or not he is the god of *Aleppo (as Schmitz suggests), worshipped in the land of Adana. This particular proposal, even though still hypothetical, marks an advance in interpretation that cannot be ignored. Weippert, M. (1969) Elemente phönikischer und kilikischer Religion in den Inschriften des Karatepe. In: ZDMG Suppl. 1.1. Wiesbaden, 191-217; Bron, F. (1979) Recherches sur les inscriptions phéniciennes de Karatepe. HEO 11. Geneva, 183; DCPP, s.v. (R. Lebrun); CHLI 1; CHLI 2; Schmitz, Ph. (2009) KUSATU, 10, 119-160. P. XELLA

BAAL (OF) LEBANON Phoen. b῾l lbnn. “Lord of Lebanon”. A DN that only occurs in one Cypr. inscription from the second half of the 8th cent. BCE (CIS I, 5 = KAI 31 = TSSI III, 17). The text as preserved today is reconstructed from eight bronze fragments that originally must have belonged to two very similar inscriptions, written by different hands and inscribed on two identical cups. The finds, acquired by the Cabinet des Médailles (Paris) in 1877 through the antiques market, record a dedication to B.L. by the governor of qrtḥdšt (*Kition? v. also *Carthage), servant of *Hiram (2), king of the Sidonians. The offering mentioned in the text is represented by “bronze of the best quality” (br᾿št nḥšt) and was interpreted as a sort of tax paid to the god’s temple: according to C. Grottanelli (1988), this metal was the “first”, or the “best” part of the yield of one or more copper mines or foundries or the like. To date, the circumstances in which the fragments were discovered are not clear. Where they originally came from remains uncertain and, consequently, so does the

BAAL (OF) LEBANON – BAAL MALAGE

location of the cult of B.L. The hypothesis that they originate from *Phoenicia or Kition has long been abandoned. The most widely accepted opinion, today, is to locate the inscription in the area of *Limassol, where the bronzes, before going to the Cabinet des Médailles, were acquired by G. N. Lanitis, a local antique dealer. According to him, the findspot was to be identified with Moutti Sinoas, a small mountain ca 12 km N of *Amathus. Although the specific reference to this site has not been accepted by several scholars (e.g. Sznycer and Masson [1972]), in any case it is generally agreed that the fragments came from the territory of Amathus. Much less accepted is the interpretation suggested by E. Lipiński (passim). Returning to the hypothesis ascribed to M. Ohnefalsch-Richter (references in Hill [1937] and Mitford [1961]), Lipiński proposed recognizing the original findspot of the inscription(s) in Phassoula, ca 10 km N of Limassol, and more specifically in the hill of Kastro. In this site there is evidence of the presence, at least from the 2nd cent. CE, of a sanctuary of Zeus Labranios, the worship of whom – again according to Lipiński – could have been transplanted onto the earlier veneration of B.L. Partly because of the difficulties in pinpointing the actual cult centre, today it is hard to reconstruct the main attributes of this particular Baal. However, it is well-known that the Phoen. religion, in both the East and the West, diffusely includes supernatural beings associated with natural sites (cf. e.g. ASTARTE and TINNIT of Lebanon in CIS I, 3914 = KAI 81). Furthermore, PHILO OF BYBLOS records four descendants of “Time”, superhuman in size, after whom the mountains over which they ruled were named, including Mount Lebanon (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,9). Therefore, B.L. could be a deity with cosmic qualities, dominating the natural world and, particularly, atmospheric phenomena. A similar character could be linked to the attractive but merely hypothetical proposal of a correspondence between the god and HADAD of Lebanon, attested in *Rome in the temple on the Janiculum (Lipiński [1995]). Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. (1893) Kypros, die Bibel und Homer, I. Berlin, esp. 2; Babelon, E. and Blanchet, J.-A. (1895) Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris, 698f., no. 2291; Hill, G. F. (1937) Amathus. In: Mélanges Émile Boisacq 1. AIPHOS 5. Bruxelles, 485-491; id. (1940) A history of Cyprus, I, Cambridge, esp. 107; Mitford, T. B. (1961) AJA, 65, 93-151; Masson, O. and Sznycer, M. (1972) Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Cypre. HEO 3. Geneva/Paris, 77f.; Lipiński, E. (1983) La Carthage de Cypre. In: StPhoen 1-2, 209-211; Masson,

47

O. (1985) Semitica, 35, 33-46; Sznycer, M. (1985) Semitica, 35, 47-50; Grottanelli, C. (1988) ScAnt, 2, 243-255; id. (1991) ScAnt, 5, 397-407; Lipiński, E. (1995) 306-308; id. (2004) In: StPhoen 18, 46-51; Yon, M. (2004) Kition dans les textes. Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions. Kition-Bamboula, V. Paris, 51f. fn. 34; Ulbrich, A. (2008) Kypris. Heiligtümer und Kulte weiblicher Gottheiten auf Zypern in der kyproarchaischen und kyproklassischen Epoche (Königszeit). AOAT 44. Münster; Puech, É. (2009) L’inscription phénicienne du pithos d’Amathonte et son contexte. In: Schloen, J. D. (ed.) Exploring the Longue durée: Essays in honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake (IN), 391-401; Matthaus, H. (2010) CCEC, 40, 125-140; Cannavò, A. (2011) Histoire de Chypre à l’époque archaïque: analyse des sources textuelles. Lyon, I C 4 (http://theses. univ-lyon2.fr/documents/lyon2/2011/cannavo_a#p=0&a=top); Steele, P. M. (2013) A linguistic history of Ancient Cyprus. The non-Greek languages, and their relations with Greek, c. 1600300 BC. Cambridge, 231-234; Cannavò, A. (2015) The Phoenicians and Kition: Continuities and breaks. In: Garbati, G. and Pedrazzi, T. (eds) Transformations and crisis in the Mediterranean: “identity” and interculturality in the Levant and Phoenician West during the 12th-8th centuries BCE. RSF Suppl. Pisa/ Rome, 139-151; Ulbrich, A. (2016) Multiple identities in Cyprus from the 8th to the 5th century BCE: The epigraphic and iconographic evidence from Cypriot sanctuaries. In: Garbati, G. and Pedrazzi, T. (eds) Transformations and crisis in the Mediterranean: “identity” and interculturality in the Levant and Phoenician West during the 8th-5th centuries BCE. RSF Suppl. Rome, 81-98. G. GARBATI

BAAL MALAGE Akk. dba-al-ma-la-ge-e; Phoen. b῾l …? A god with this name is mentioned in the text of the treaty stipulated by *Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, with *Baal, king of *Tyre (→*Treaties), in a divine triad comprising BAAL SHAMEM, B.M. and BAAL SAPHON. These three deities are invoked to destroy the Tyrian fleet with strong winds and storms should the treaty be violated by the Phoen. king (SAA 2, no. 5 IV 10’-19’). Since B.M. is not attested elsewhere, we can only make speculations about his identity, starting from the Akk. context that connects him with navigation and marine weather phenomena. Among the various hypotheses, M. L. Barré ([1983] 85) proposed a link with ZEUS MEILICHIOS, which would lead to the Phoen. term mlḥ “sailor”, the most widespread etymological interpretation of Malage. According to E. Lipiński (1995), the original Sem. term is *mhlk, which occurs in Biblical Hebrew (mahalāk) with the meaning of “journey”, or “march”, while Akk. mālaku means “passageway”, “route”, or “waterway”: therefore, B.M. would be a Baal of the sea routes; in addition, Lipiński (1995) has proposed to identify him as the marine god called BAAL ARWAD,

48

BAAL MALAGE – BAAL MGNM

or POSEIDON in Gk sources. While the marine character of B.M. (a manifestation of a god known by another name?) seems probable, any further research or etymological interpretation is hampered by the lack of available documentation. Hvidberg-Hansen, F. O. (1973) AcOr, 35, 57-81; Barré, M. L. (1983) The god-list in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: A study in light of the Ancient Near Eastern tradition. Baltimore; DCPP, s.v. “Baal Malagê” (G. Bunnens); SAA 2; Lipiński, E. (1995) 243f. P. XELLA

a powerful local Baal with the character of a supreme god, assimilated to Jupiter, with Juno as his parhedros. His cult is also attested in *Rome and in Dacia, introduced by soldiers. Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. (1888) RAO 1, 101-114; Cintas, P. (1956) RevAfr, 100, 275-286; Bonnet, C. (1991) WO, 22, 73-84; DCPP, s.v. (W. Röllig); Lipiński, E. (1995) 115f.; Rey-Coquais, J.-P. (1999) Topoi. Orient-Occident, 9.2, 607-628; Aliquot, J. (2009) La vie religieuse au Liban sous l’Empire Romain. Beirut, 138f.; id. (2015) La fête au village: un nouveau regard sur le culte de Baal marcod à Deir el Qalaa (Liban). BAAL Hors-Série X. Beirut, 539-577; Yon, J.-B. and Aliquot, J. (2016) Inscriptions grecques et latines du Musée National de Beyrouth. BAAL Hors-Série XII. Beirut, no. 43 pp. 41f.

BAAL MARQOD Phoen. b῾l mrqd (?); Gk Βαλμαρκό/ώδης; Lat. Balmarcod(es). The sanctuary of *Deir el-Qalaa is located on a buttress of Mount Lebanon, on the north. bank of the Magoras River, 7 km N of *Beirut. In addition to monumental archaeological remains that have suggested a parallel with *Baalbek, this place of worship has yielded copious epigraphic evidence of various cults: in spite of Gk or Lat. names, the Phoen. origin of the divine characters is clear. Among the gods mentioned, the theonym Βαλμαρκο(ω)δης/Baalmarcod stands out, occurring in Gk and Lat. inscriptions during a period spanning the first three centuries CE. B.M. was the titular god of that sacred precinct and his name is usually interpreted as “Baal of the dance” (from a Sem. root rqd which means “to dance”, “to jump”), and considered a particular manifestation of the weather-god. A different and less convincing etymological explanation of the theonym B.M. is due to E. Lipiński (1995), according to whom mrqd would not refer to a “dance”, but would be a toponym (perhaps the very name of Deir elQalaa): accordingly, B.M. would be the Baal of a place, such as BAAL OF LEBANON. Other epithets attributed to B.M., such as Μηγριν (CIL III, 6669; from grn: “he who gathers the wheat”), however, seem to confirm his connection with sacred dances, particularly concerning joyful rites after harvesting, as well as his character as a fertility god. As J.-P. Rey-Coquais (1999) has remarked, the epigraphic evidence from Deir el-Qalaa can also suggest the identification of B.M. with POSEIDON or DIONYSUS. The documentation, however, is very limited and too uncertain to allow further speculation about the character of the god, who was undoubtedly

P. XELLA

BAAL MGNM Phoen. b῾l mgnm. The Pun. theonym B.M. occurs only once, in an inscription from the →*Tophet of *Carthage, dating to the 3rd cent. BCE (CIS I, 3778 = KAI 78) [FIG. 38]. This text is part of a composite monument, comprising a sandstone cippus (→*Stelae and cippi) inserted into a limestone parallelepiped base. The cippus, with

Fig. 38. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 3778 = KAI 78

BAAL MGNM – BAAL MRP᾿

unknown stratigraphy, has a jutting cornice on its front face: within that space a limestone rectangular slab has been inserted, on which there is an 11-line inscription. Above the inscribed area there are iconographic motifs: the solar disc and the crescent moon. Even though B.M. is a deity who is still unknown, the inscription is a document of exceptional importance from several aspects, especially for our knowledge of the Carthag. →*Pantheon. The dedication is completely unusual among the typical inscriptions of the tophet. In fact, the dedicator, a certain b῾ly, addresses four deities, mentioned after the opening blessing formula, in the sequence: BAAL SHAMEM, TINNIT-Pene Baal, BAAL HAMMON and finally B.M. Next comes the commemoration of the offering of a “hewn stela” (mnṣbt pslt, lin. 4) within the “sanctuary” of Baal Hammon, cited as kdš (clearly for qdš) and then – a very interesting detail – the exact orientation of the monument is given, and therefore of the sanctuary itself, with an E-W axis (… pny mb᾿ / hšmš wṣd᾿ mṣ᾿ hšmš … , “its front side towards sunrise and its rear side towards sunset”, lin. 5-6). After a simple offering formula, the dedicator records his own genealogy as far as the sixteenth generation, mentioning the head of the family, called mṣry, the “Egyptian” (lin. 6-7). This information is of considerable importance in respect of history and chronology: it makes it possible to date the ancestor of the family to approximately five centuries earlier, i.e. to the 8th cent., which is the period of the first Phoen. “colonial” expansion in the West, and of the well-established date of the Carthag. foundation. In terms of the history of religions, the unusual sequence of four theonyms cited in the first part of the text poses the problem of how to interpret B.M. and, consequently, of the possible interconnections between the deities mentioned. Etymologically, the term mgn – here probably in the plural – has been explained in various ways: as meaning “shield”, “protection” (DNWSI I, s.v. mgn2); as meaning “gift” (ibid., s.v. mgn3); as a place name (still unidentified: Lipiński [1995] 363); as a well-known PN (PNPPI, 339; NNPI, 180), in this case perhaps referring especially to the family of the *Magonids, for whom this god would have been a sort of a clan deity. For the moment, there are no elements that would make it possible go beyond conjecture. Whatever the nature of B.M. may be, it is still of interest to note the sequence in which the various gods are listed: here, Baal Shamem, in first

49

position, would seem to be the highest deity in the Carthag. pantheon, even above Baal Hammon, the chief deity, together with Tinnit, of the tophet, cited in third place after the goddess, as is usual in Carthage in this period. However, Baal Hammon is confirmed as the titular god of the sanctuary, as explicitly documented by the inscription (see above: b῾l kdš). In fact, here, the nature of the dedication as private has to be taken into consideration: as such, the offering must match both a preference and therefore a “hierarchy” that belongs to the religious feelings of the dedicator, and not of the Carthag. community. On closer inspection, therefore, apart from the special devotion that b῾ly had for Baal Shamem, the sequence of DNN in the inscription indicates an absolutely primary role for the hendiadys Tinnit-Baal Hammon: the two deities, cited centrally and therefore in the “strong” position within the sequence, seem to function almost as an ideological pivot in the actual invocation, after the introductory mention of Baal Shamem, and before a B.M., whom as yet we cannot identify. The presence of this deity – irrespective of whether his epithet refers to a family genealogy or to a specific place name – undoubtedly makes this dedication, which is already quite special, even more personal. Vassel, E. and Icard, F. (1932) RTun, 30, 243f.; Picard, G. C. (1954) Catalogue du Musée Alaoui. NS. Paris, 132f., Pl. LI, Cb-366; Février, J.-G. (1956) CB, 6, 13-22, esp. 20ff.; KAI II, p. 96; PNPPI, 137; Bartoloni, P. (1976) Le stele arcaiche del tofet di Cartagine. CSF 8. Rome, esp. p. 83, Pl. 9, no. 29; Xella, P. (1990) RSF, 18, 209-217; NNPI, 180. V. MELCHIORRI

BAAL MRP᾿ Phoen. b῾lmrp᾿ (?). The theonym B.M. occurs only once, in an inscription engraved on a marble fragment possibly from *Kition (*Cyprus) (CIS I, 41 = IK A 26), and dating to around the 4th cent. BCE. It is only known thanks to a drawing by P. Schröder (1880), who saw it in Larnaka. The text is too fragmentary to allow consistent interpretations: the hypothesis that it is the dedication of a statue (sml) is not supported by what is visible in the drawing, and even the mention of B.M. is not entirely certain. In line 3 b῾lmrp᾿ is followed by a kaph, after which there is an empty space. It has been proposed that k introduced the usual formula of blessing and thanksgiving to the deity for having listened

50

BAAL MRP᾿– BAAL ῾OZ (῾AZ)

to the prayer of the offerer (šm῾ ql brk / ybrk); however, if one wishes to maintain this hypothesis, it must be assumed that the rest of the formula continued in a hypothetical line 4, of which unfortunately there is no trace. Accordingly, E. Lipiński (1995) has proposed b῾lmrp᾿k as the correct reading, and, consequently, he interpreted mrp᾿k as a place name, of which that god would be the lord; however, his proposal to connect him with Zeus Oromtatos – which forces him to lower the dating of the inscription by a century – is not entirely convincing. From a different perspective, mrp᾿ – si vera lectio – could be related to the root rp᾿, “to heal”, and also to the month name mrp᾿[m] attested on *Cyprus, on *Malta, at *Carthage and *Cirta/Constantine (→*Calendar). According to the above hypothesis, then, it would note a healer Baal, a “Lord of healing”, possibly the epithet of an unidentifiable god. Schröder, P. (1880) ZDMG, 34, 675-684, esp. 680f., Pl. 5; Vattioni, F. (1959) Biblica, 40, 1012-1015; IK, 36-38, A 26; DCPP, s.v. (P. Xella – E. Lipiński); Lipiński, E. (1995) 308f. P. XELLA

Baal of Byblos see BAALAT GEBAL Baal of Sidon see ESHMUN Baal of Tyre see MELQART BAAL ῾OZ (῾AZ) Phoen. b῾l῾z. The name of the god BAAL with the epithet ῾oz (῾z), “Baal/Master of Strength/Might”, occurs, for the first and only time, in the Phoen. dedication of a “trophy” (trpy in the Phoen. script), whose base was recovered in Larnaka (ancient *Kition) in 1990 [FIG. 39]. The monument and its inscription were published in 1991 by M. Yon and M. Sznycer. Subsequently, the text was re-examined by M. Sznycer on several occasions (1991-1992; 2000; 2001) (text also in KAI 288), and some improvements to understand it are due to P. G. Mosca (2007). The monument was found out of position; however, it was assumed, without proof, that it came from the area called Bamboula, where a French mission had brought to light the remains of a sanctuary (probably dedicated to ASTARTE and MELQART), and of the war

Fig. 39. The “trophy” inscription from Kition (Larnaka) mentioning Baal ῾Oz

harbour. The dedication, currently in the Larnaka Museum (MLA 1513), was engraved in five lines on the short side of a block of marble (Yon [2004] 199, no. 14). It is dated to the first year of king *Milkyaton (392-391 BCE), “king of Kition and Idalion”, and was offered on the occasion of that polity’s victory over the Paphians and their allies. These unnamed allies are generally considered to be the Salaminians, as can be deduced from allusions by class. authors, mainly Diodorus of Sicily (14,98,1-4). In the final years of the 4th cent. BCE, Kition was allied with the *Persians against *Evagoras I, intent on taking complete control of *Cyprus. However, it has been proposed that those unnamed enemies could have had a different origin (*Idalion? See Mosca [2009]). The role of the Paphians is unknown. In the context of the trophy inscription, B.O. occurs three times: first, as the subject of the dedication to this deity by king Milkyaton and “all the people of Kition” (kl ῾m kty, also mentioned at the end of the text). The association of the king and his citizens, which is unusual in Phoen. inscriptions, appears in royal Cypro-Gk inscriptions (cf. the Idalion Table, ICS no. 217: Egetmeyer [2010] 629-635, no. 1) and characterizes the local royal ideology (Iacovou [2006]; Georgiadou [2010]). On the other hand, the representation of the god granting victory is typical of W Sem. memorial and thanksgiving inscriptions, as is the request for blessings, in the present case for the king and the people of Kition. As B.O. is known in Phoenician only from this trophy inscription, the question has arisen concerning his real nature: does the name Baal (meaning “master”) here conceal the personality of a specific god connected with war, or does the local patron god of Kition, named Baal, receive the epithet ῾oz specifically on the occasion of the battle won? As for the

BAAL ῾OZ (῾AZ) – BAAL SAPHON

god’s nature, it has been observed (Xella [1993]) that in the present case B.O. acts as a national god, functionally similar to Yahweh in *Israel, Kemosh in Moab (→*Moabites) or Qos in Edom (→*Edomites). However, since he is associated with strength or might (῾oz), he must represent a particular god connected with warfare. Consequently, the generic name Baal could conceal the name of the warrior god RESHEPH, more probably Reshep-mkl, who had an important cult in Idalion, worshipped particularly by Milkyaton and perhaps his father *Baalrom (2) (CIS I, 90 = KAI 38; and 91, and perhaps CIS I, 89 = Gk: ICS, no. 220, Egetmeyer [2010] 637 no. 4). Here, as elsewhere on Cyprus (in the Phrangyssa sanctuary, near *Tamassos), Resheph corresponds to APOLLO in Greek. Moreover, the fragmentary dedication by Milkyaton to Reshep-mkl (CIS I, 91) mentions a victory over “my enemies coming forth and their allies” (nṣḥt ᾿t ᾿by hyṣ᾿m w῾zrnm), a formula very similar to the one cited on the trophy inscription and probably commemorating the same event. If B.O. in the Kition text is to be identified with Resheph (and more specifically with Resheph-mkl), he should also be considered a god of war, giving victory in battles, and as the personal god of Milkyaton (and his family?), who was the founder of a new dynasty (his father Baalrom was not king), which supposedly had a special connection with Idalion (Xella [1993]). However, although B.O. is mentioned only on the trophy inscription, we know that in Kition there was a cult of a Baal called “Baal of Kition” (Baal kty: Yon [2004] 190 n. 1116 and Lipiński [1995] 315) who, so far as we know, is not to be identified with Resheph. Consequently, it is possible to propose that the trophy inscription was a dedication to the local patron god, the Baal of Kition, given the title of ῾Oz on that special occasion. In Idalion – a Gk kingdom before it was conquered by Kition in the 5th cent. BCE – probably in the same year 392-391, and on the occasion of that same important victory, Milkyaton offered a statue to the main god of that city, Reshepmkl/Apollo. As Master of Strength, B.O. has already been compared to the goddess ANAT, addressed in the inscription CIS I, 95 (KAI 42) as ῾nt ῾z ḥym, perhaps “strength of life” (or m῾z ḥym, “fortress of life/of the living”), together with the “Lord of Kings” or Ptolemy (probably Ptolemy I, 367/366-282 BCE). The text CIS I, 95 is a Gk/Phoen. bilingual, possibly engraved in about 295-294, when Ptolemy became

51

lord of the whole island of Cyprus (other hypotheses have been proposed). In the Gk text – which was the first to be engraved, even if the dedicator was a local Phoenician – the goddess receiving the dedication (an altar) is Athena Soteira Nike, “the one who saves and victory”. To match the saving victorious Athena, the Phoen. goddess Anat receives the epithet of ῾Oz (m῾z or ῾z) ḥym, on a specific occasion, most probably connected with the end of a period of wars. In a similar way, in Kition, the local god Baal kty, having granted a victory to his king and to his people receives the title of ῾Oz. Much earlier (approximately, end of the 8th cent. BCE) – following the same ideology, but using different formulaic expressions – the god Baal, called krntryš (→BAAL KRNTRYŠ) in the *Karatepe inscription (KAI 26), grants strength (῾oz) to his people, the inhabitants of Adana (dnnym in Phoenician) after *Azitawada’s victory over the surrounding kings. Yon, M. and Sznycer, M. (1991) CRAI, 791-823; Sznycer, M. (1991-1992) Semitica, 41-42, 89-100; Yon, M. and Sznycer, M. (1992) RDAC, 157-165; Xella, P. (1993) SEL 10, 61-69; Lipiński, E. (1995) 315f.; Yon, M. (1996) Les derniers rois phéniciens de Kition: état des recherches. In: Studi Moscati, 441-450; Sznycer, M. (2000) Nouvelles précisions et réflexions à propos de l’inscription phénicienne, récemment publiée, de Milkyatôn, roi de Kition et d’Idalion. In: Dubois, L. and Masson, E. (eds) Philokypros. Mélanges de philologie et d’antiquités grecques et proche-orientales dédiés à la mémoire d’Olivier Masson. Suppl. to Minos 16. Salamanca, 285-292; id. (2001) À propos du “trophée” de l’inscription phénicienne de Milkyatôn. In: Geus, K. and Zimmermann, K. (eds) Punica-Libyca-Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huss, zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. OLA 104 = StPhoen 16. Leuven, 99-110; Yon, M. (2004) Kition dans les textes: Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions. Kition-Bamboula 5. Paris, 199, no. 14; Iacovou, M. (2006) From the Mycenaean qa-si-re-u to the Cypriote pa-si-le-wo-se: The basileus in the kingdoms of Cyprus. In: Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Lemos, I. S. (eds) Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of Homer. Edinburgh, 315-335; Mosca, P. G. (2007) Maarav, 13, 175-192; id. (2009) Facts or Factoids? Some historical observations on the trophy inscription from Kition (KAI 288). In: Schloen, D. (ed.) Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake (IN), 345-349; Egetmeyer, M. (2010) Le dialecte grec ancien de Chypre, I. Grammaire; II. Répertoire des inscriptions en dialecte chyprogrec. Berlin/New York; Georgiadou, A. (2010) CCEC, 40, 141203; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2015) Or, 84, 29-40. M. G. AMADASI GUZZO

Baal Rosh see BAAL BAAL SAPHON Ug. b῾l ṣpn; Akk. dba-al-ṣa-pu-nu; Phoen. b῾l ṣpn; Hebr. b῾l ṣpwn; Egypt. b῾r dpn.

52

BAAL SAPHON

B.S. is the chief god of a mountain, Mount *Saphon, now called Jebel al-Aqra῾, in *Syria, 40 km N of the site of *Ugarit. This mountain is the residence of the local BAAL, Haddu (→HADAD), also called “Baal of Ugarit”, of whom B.S. could be a specific manifestation, without therefore being exactly the same as him, since the Ug. ritual texts clearly differentiate them (see e.g. KTU3 1.112,22ff.; 1.119, passim, etc.). B.S. also appears in Akk., Egypt., and Hebr. documents, associated with his sacred mountain, whose name means “North”. In the *Old Testament, Mount Saphon is in parallel with Sion, the hill of Yahweh (Isa 14,12-15; Job 26,7-13; Ps 48,2-3; 89,13). Therefore, B.S. is clearly a god of storms and of the weather. Very soon, however, after the BA, since Mount Saphon is an extraordinary observation point from which one can keep watch over the whole sea, its Baal is endowed with prerogatives in respect of navigation. In *Egypt, in *Memphis, in the 13th cent. BCE, there are traces of his cult and this prerogative is confirmed by his association with a sacred boat. The name of Mount Saphon also occurs in Hittite and Akkadian as Haz(z)i, from which the Gk name Zeus Casios for B.S. comes, in this region as elsewhere in the Mediterranean (see below). This Mount Haz(z)i is mentioned in the Hurrian myth of Ullikummi (→*Hurrians) since it is from its summit that the weather-god, Tesho/ub, notices the stone monster whom he is going to defeat. In a later period, PHILO OF BYBLOS still considers Casios as one of the sacred mountains of the *Phoenicians (apud Eus. PE 1,10,9). The emperor Hadrian also climbed Casios in order to make a sacrifice to his god (SHA Hadr. 14). In *Phoenicia itself, in the I mill. BCE, B.S. appears for the first time in the treaty between *Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, and Baal I, king of *Tyre (→*Treaties), in about 675-670 BCE (SAA 2, no. 5 iv 10’). At the start of the oath of loyalty of this agreement, three Baals are mentioned: BAAL SHAMEM, BAAL MALAGE and B.S., who are asked to unleash the winds and the sea in order to destroy the Tyrian fleet should there be betrayal. Therefore, it is certainly the weather-god and the god of navigation who is invoked here. Later, the name of B.S. appears on a Tyrian lapislazuli amulet from the 6th cent. BCE, on which is the dedication: lb῾l ṣpn wb῾l ḥmn kybrknn, “To B.S. and to Baal Hammon so that they may bless me” [FIG. 40]. Originally based in *Syria, B.S. spread all over the Mediterranean, either as such or in the Hellenized form of

Fig. 40. Lapis lazuli amulet with a dedication to Baal Hammon and Baal Saphon

Zeus Casios. The toponym B.S. is known, certainly a reference to a sanctuary in the east. delta of the Nile (Exod 14,2.9; Num 33,7), and the mention of B.S. invoked in the Phoen. letter from *Saqqara (KAI 50), with “all the gods of Tahpanes” (→*Tell Defennah) confirms the existence of this cult place. Zeus Casios was worshipped in the region of Pelusium in the Hellenist. and Rom. period (see already Hdt. 3,5) and, as we have seen, his presence in Egypt could go back to the LBA. This god also appears in Greece (at *Delos) and in Spain. However, the most interesting direct document is the “Marseille Tariff” (KAI 69) which sets out the rules and the sacrificial tariffs (→*Tariff, sacrificial) in force in his Carthag. temple, since the heading of the inscription must probably be read bt b῾l ṣpn. In any case, this text seems to prove the god’s remarkable popularity in the Pun. metropolis, even though the characteristics of his cult at the end of the 3rd cent. BCE cannot be determined. Mention must also be made of the theophoric element Saphon (ṣpn) that appears in Phoen. and Pun. PNN from Carthage and Egypt (ṣpnb῾l, ṣpnyṣdq, grṣpn, ῾bdṣpn), but also in Neopun. names (ṣpn, ṣpn῾zy); it could be a verbal element, but also, if it is a noun, it could mean “(wind of the) North”, but, in any case, the connection with the ancient B.S. seems certain. Finally, it is possible that the Gk mythical monster TYPHON had some linguistic (and morphological?) connection with B.S. PNPPI, 401f.; Bordreuil, P. (1986) Attestations inédites de Melqart, Baal Hamon et Baal Saphon à Tyr. In: StPhoen, 4, 77-86, esp. 82-86; Bonnet, C. (1987) Typhon et Baal Saphon. In: StPhoen 5, 101-143; NNPI, 202; Fauth, W. (1990) UF, 22, 105118; Lipiński, E. (1995) 244-251; Wyatt, N. (1995) The significance of Ṣpn in West Semitic thought. In: Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. (eds) Ugarit: ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. ALASP 7. Münster, 213-237; DDD2, s.v. “Baal Zaphon”, 152-154 (H. Niehr); Romero Recio, M. (1999) Ostraka,

BAAL SAPHON – BAAL SHAMEM

8, 541-549; Carrez-Maratray, J. Y. (2001) Trans 2, 87-100; Ayali-Darshan, N. (2020) The Storm-god and the Sea. The origin, versions, and diffusion of a myth throughout the Ancient Near East. ORA 37. Tübingen. C. BONNET – P. XELLA

BAAL SHAMEM Phoen. b῾lšmm (Ba῾alšomem); Aram. b῾lšmyn (Be῾elšamayin); Akk. Ba-al-sa-me-me; Hebr. b῾lšmyn (Be῾elšamayin); Gk Βεέλσαμιν, Βάλσαμος. The roots of the Phoen. weather-god B.S. lie in the religious traditions of LBA *Anatolia. There we find the type of deity that can be described as a “weather-god related to the heavens”, and who in this way distinguishes himself and acts as the protector of the kingdom and has supremacy in the pantheon. From Anatolia, this kind of deity reached north. *Syria, where he is documented in *Aleppo, *Alalakh and *Ugarit, and is shown to be of the type “Baal in the heavens” also for west. and central Syria on the basis of the Amarna Letters (*Tell el-Amarna) (EA 108,919; 147,13-14; 149,6-7). However, there is still no evidence for the god B.S. in that correspondence. The first occurrence of this deity in Phoen. religion is in the 10th cent. BCE, in the inscription of king *Yahimilk of *Byblos (KAI 4,3), dating to about 950 BCE [FIG. 41]. In this inscription, the word-divider within the name of the god is significant, so that in KAI 4,3 the DN B.S. does not yet appear as one word, but as two: “Baal of heaven”. The deity occurs here as a transregional weather-god, together with the Baal of Byblos (b῾l gbl), as patron god of the kingdom. The reconstruction of another reference to B.S. in the *Shipitbaal inscription from Byblos (KAI 9) is disputed and should not be accepted. However, the dedication of two

Fig. 41. Inscription of Yahimilk king of Byblos (KAI 4) mentioning “Baal of heaven” (ca 950 BCE)

53

incense altars from Byblos to the god BAAL dating to the 4th-3rd cent. (KAI 12) does refer to B.S. A palimpsest Gk inscription found in Abedat near Byblos as well as a Gk inscription from Sarba, that mention the god Zeus Ouranios, allow us to document the cult of B.S. in the region of Byblos until the middle of the 2nd cent. CE. Also in this connection is the mention of the god Beelsamin by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,7). In this way, Philo reveals an Aram. form of the DN and at the same time a solarization of the god, mainly known from Hauran (temple of Si῾) and from *Palmyra (where Baal Shamayin is depicted with the sun-god and the moon-god as satellite deities). As for the expansion of the cult of B.S. from Byblos towards the S, the earliest occurrence of the Phoen. god B.S. from *Tyre is in the 676 BCE treaty between *Baal, king of Tyre, and *Esarhaddon, king of Assyria (→*Treaties). In this text, B.S. appears as a transregional weather-god alongside the principal deities BAAL MALAGE and BAAL SAPHON, as well as MELQART, ESHMUN and ASTARTE of Tyre (SAA 2, no. 5 iv 10´-12´). A reference to B.S. is in the inscription KAI 18 from *Umm el-Amed, in the vicinity of Tyre, dating to 132 BCE. This epigraph is the votive text of a private individual; the god B.S. is probably worshipped jointly as theos synnaos in the temple of the god MILKASHTART. From Byblos, the cult of B.S. was spread N, where the great temple of *Baitokaike was dedicated to this god according to the inscription IGLS VII, 4028. This temple – located in an upper valley in the Alaouite mountains – was the central sanctuary of a coalition of states with Arados (*Arwad) at its head. Historically, the foundation of this sanctuary can be traced back to the Pers. period, and archaeologically up to the Hellenist. period. B.S. assumed the role of the only god venerated by all the pilgrims and, therefore, also the position of the highest and universal deity. Further evidence for his cult comes from Sahin, which lies on the road from Arados to Baitokaike (IGLS VII, 4027). To summarize: in *Lebanon, B.S. was worshipped as a cosmic weather-god, whose cult was not restricted to a single town. Therefore, B.S. transcended several diverse pantheons of Lebanon, which were under the leadership of a local Baal. For this reason, B.S. was also never connected with a place name, as happened with BAAL and other deities of the Phoen. religion.

54

BAAL SHAMEM

Furthermore, in line with his universal status, B.S. had no consort. Due to the very restricted nature of Phoen. documents transmitted to us, there are no mythological texts (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY) from the I mill. BCE that involve B.S., so that his interactions with other Phoen. deities remain unknown. Beyond the Phoen. heartland, the cult of B.S. is also established in *Palestine. Here the Phoen. settlement of *Tel Michal (6th or 5th cent. BCE), which had been founded by Tyre, and furthermore *Sichem (Rom. period), where a colony of Phoen. tradesmen lived, are to be mentioned. B.S. is mentioned in *Anatolia, N of the Phoen. mainland. Firstly, in *Hassan Beyli on the east. border of the kingdom of Que (KAI 23; second half of the 8th cent. BCE), where the name of the god B.S. can be reconstructed in a Phoen. inscription. In *Karatepe, which belonged to the kingdom of Que (KAI 26 III 18; ca 700 BCE), there was no Phoen. sanctuary; a hieroglyphic Luwian text had been translated into Phoenician. The Anat. weather-god of the heavens is rendered as B.S. in the Phoen. version. Here it is noteworthy that a gap has been left between the two elements forming the name of B.S., so that here, as already in KAI 4, B.S. is to be read as “Baal of heaven”. This proves that it was very close to the hieroglyphic Luwian original. In respect of the cult of B.S. on the Medit. islands, there is evidence from *Kition, on *Cyprus (RÉS 1519b), where this cult arrived from Tyre, and from *Sardinia, where the god is mentioned on the base of a 3rd cent. BCE stela from Stampace (*Cagliari: ICO Sard. 23), where he is related to ᾿ynṣm, the ancient name for current S. Pietro island, near Sant’Antioco (*Sulci) [FIG. 42]. In *Carthage, the god B.S. was one of the chief deities of the pantheon. There is evidence of a college of priests of B.S. (CIS I, 379; 4860; 5955), as well as a dedication to him (CIS I, 3778 = KAI 78), indicating

Fig. 42. The inscription ICO Sard. 23 dedicated to Baal Shamem

that B.S. was also worshipped in the sanctuary (→*Tophet) of Baal Hammon (→BAAL MGNM). Temples of the Phoen. god B.S. are preserved in Lebanon and Palestine respectively. In *Byblos, the so-called L-shaped temple is probably mentioned in KAI 4 as of the gods Baal of Byblos and B.S. However, due to the destruction caused during the Crusades, no more clarity can be gained here. However, the temples in Baitokaike and in *Chhim are well preserved. As for iconography, a seal from Lebanon (?), now in the Louvre (AO 25908), which is dated to the 7th or 6th cent. BCE, depicts a male bearded god, seated on a throne, holding a fenestrated axe in his right hand and in his left a spear, the tip of which turns into a plant. The upper part of the seal is dominated by a crescent moon with a solar disc [FIG. 43]. While this seal can probably be ascribed to B.S., it does not have an inscription as proof.

Fig. 43. Seal depicting Baal Shamem. Lebanon (7th-6th cent. BCE)

The iconography in the temple of Chhim depicts the bust of a solarized god and a garland with three bukrania. Here also an interpretation of B.S. is considered in research. In the religion of the →*Aramaeans, B.S. was worshipped under the name of Baal Shamayin in Hamath. The introduction of his cult into that kingdom originates from Phoen., or more specifically, Byblian influence on Hamath, where the goddess BAALAT OF BYBLOS and ADONIS also feature. King Zakkur of Hamath and Lu῾ash credited Baal Shamayin with his elevation to the throne and his victory over the

BAAL SHAMEM

overwhelming coalition of Luwian-Aramaean kings in the siege of Hazrak (KAI 202). Mention of the “Lord of heaven” in the region of Rash in Papyrus Amherst (63 VIII 17) indicates a continuous cult of the god Baal Shamayin in Hamath until the 7th cent. BCE. The “Lord of heaven” was invoked for the fertility of the land. A cult of Baal Shamayin may also be identified on a stela of a weather-god found in Tell Ahmar, with an inscription in hieroglyphic Luwian, which mentions the heavenly weather-god. Another important iconographic indication for the god Baal Shamayin is provided by an 8th cent. BCE bronze cup from North Syria, in the centre of which is a god crowned with a tiara, holding a spear and walking among the sun, moon and stars, portrayed as a lord of heaven. In the later period, Baal Shamayin had an important temple in Palmyra. The inscriptions found there mention the god Baal Shamayin, the deities worshipped with him, his priests and devotees and also the endowments for his sanctuary. In Palmyrene inscriptions Baal Shamayin was invoked as “the god”, “the great and merciful”, “the lord of the world”, “the good god” or as “the good and rewarding god”, and in Gk inscriptions as “the highest Zeus who listens”, “the greatest, lightning throwing Zeus” and as a “hurler of lightning”. In the iconography of this oasis town, the god is depicted as a bearded man on a throne or as a warrior. He could also be symbolized by an eagle and as ruling over the planets. Together with Baal Shamayin the moon-god Aglibol and the sun-god Malakbel were worshipped, as he was considered their lord [FIG. 44]. In addition, Baal Shamayin was closely connected with the god Duraḥlun. This indicates a connection between the Baal Shamayin worshipped in Palmyra and the Raḥle in Anti-Lebanon and therefore with his origin in the West. From Palmyra the cult of Baal Shamayin reached further E; good evidence of his cult in Dura Europos is provided by inscriptions and a temple. Furthermore, Baal Shamayin was worshipped also in Hatra, in Upper Mesopotamia, although the inscriptions show that he was a foreigner within the local pantheon. In most of the inscriptions, Baal Shamayin comes after the Triad of Hatra. His role was rather in the private devotion of the city. Correspondingly, his temple was on the west. edge of the city.

55

Fig. 44. Relief sculpture of a Palmyrene triad from Bir Wereb: Baal Shamin (middle), Aglibol (left) and Malakbel (right) (2nd cent. CE)

The starting point for the god Baal Shamayin being accepted in *Israel was the fact that the kingdom of Jeroboam II (787-748 BCE) was a close neighbour of the kingdom of Hamath (2 Kgs 14,25-28). Jeroboam II, who like Zakkur of Hamath was able to extend his kingdom considerably, relied on Baal Shamayin as the god of the kingdom and for military success (KAI 202) and his dynastic god Yahweh was granted the title of “the Lord of heaven”, which is also documented for the 7th cent BCE in Papyrus Amherst (63 VIII 17). Later, from *Samaria the cult of the “Lord of heaven” reached as far as *Elephantine in Upper Egypt, where Yahu was invoked as the “god of heaven”. There is no evidence for worship of the god B.S. in *Judah during the period of the kings. Even so, Yahweh, as the chief god of the pantheon of Judah, rose to the position of a ruler of heavenly power and in addition was exposed to solarization. In this respect, especially in the literature from the period of the second temple, Yahweh could also be addressed as “god of heaven” (Gen 24,3 [and of the earth]; Jonah 1,9; 2 Chr 36,23; Ps 136,26; Ezra 1,2; 5,11f.; 6,9f.; 7,12.21.23; Neh 1,4.5; 2,4.20) and “Lord/King of heaven” (Dan 4,34; 5,23; Jdt 5,8; 6,19; 9,12 [and of the earth]; 11,17; Tob 6,18 [Sin]; 7,17; 10,11-13). However, this does not imply a cult of the god B.S. in Judah. From the 2nd cent. BCE it became ever more desirable to avoid the name of a Sem. deity and replace indigenous deities with Gk names. The so-called

56

BAAL SHAMEM

“Hellenistic reform” in Jerusalem under Antiochos IV was not due to external compulsion but the result of an inner-Jewish reform movement. The Maccabaean revolt shows that in certain circles in Jerusalem, Yahweh was identified with Baal Shamayin or Zeus Olympios, although this does not mean that Yahweh was replaced by a foreign god. Rather, a reforming faction in Jerusalem identified the god of Judah with the Zeus Olympios of the *Seleucids. The orthodox Jews called this the “Abomination of desolation” (šiqquṣ šomem) and passionately rejected it (Dan 9,27; 11,31; 12,11; similarly, 1 Macc 1,54 and Dan 8,13). As a result, the Maccabees considered the Jerusalem temple to be deconsecrated. For the depiction of Yahweh as B.S., two 4th cent. BCE coins can be considered. Coin SC 40 from Samaria shows a bearded god on a throne, with his right hand raised, holding a sceptre in his left. The inscription on the coin in Gk calls him “Zeus”. Coin BMC Palestine XIX 29 (TC 242,5) from Jerusalem shows a bearded god on a winged wheel. As the coin inscription only mentions the province name Yehud, it is clear that it refers to the highest god of this province, i.e. Yahweh, in the form of the heavenly B.S. In the religion of the →*Philistines, the Adon-Papyrus from *Eqron found in *Saqqara (ca 604/603 BCE) documents the worship of B.S. (KAI 266,1-3). In spite of the Aram. form, the origin of Baal Shamayin among the Philistines is due to contacts with the Phoenicians from Byblos. This is indicated by the relationship between the Phoen. building inscription of the temple from Eqron and the dedication from Byblos. Subsequently, there is evidence for a cult of the god Baal Shamayin in the religion of the Ituraeans in north. Palestine and in the *Beqaa. In Palestine, the sanctuary of *Qedesh is to be ascribed to Baal Shamayin due to the mention of the “Holy god of heaven” in its dedicatory inscription, and its representations of the god as an eagle. Whether the god originates from Tyre or from Si῾ in Hauran can no longer be determined. The great temple of Raḥle is to be ascribed to the god Baal Shamayin, on the basis of the representation of an eagle on its lintel, even though it is not mentioned in any inscription. In any case, in Palmyra there is a close connection between the god Baal Shamayin and the god Duraḥlun from Raḥle. In Hauran, in Harra and in the Pentapolis, the DN Baal Shamayin occurs in Aram. form in both Arab. and Gk inscriptions. There are important temples of

the god Baal Shamayin in the renowned pilgrimage centre of Si῾, in Qanawat, in Slim and in Gerasa with the temple of Zeus-Olympios. In addition, there is abundant iconographic evidence for the cult of this god, from Hauran and the pentapolis, especially altars, naiskoi with depictions of eagles and some anthropomorphic sculptures. From Hauran, the cult of the god Baal Shamayin penetrated the Nabataean religion and spread as far as Petra and Wadi Rum. However, an identification with Dušara, the highest god of the →*Nabataeans, who also had the traits of a heavenly deity, did not take place. In the religion of Liḥyan in North Arabia there is evidence for the cult of Baal Shamayin in the oasis town of Dedan. From the 2nd cent. BCE the cult of Baal Shamayin was brought from North Arabia, by the tribe of Amir, to South Arabia. For the Amir, Baal Shamayin was their tribal god, who was also appealed to in many personal matters, as shown by inscriptions professing belief or atonement, or making requests. Furthermore, they transformed the DN Baal Shamayin into Du-Samāwī (“the [god] of heaven”). There is proof of the cult of the god Du-Samāwī in several places in South Arabia well into the 5th cent. CE. In the religion of the Mandaeans, Baal Shamayin was merged with Yahweh, resulting in the name Jo-Shamayin. As yet, the only reference from Egypt to the god B.S. is on a healing statue from the late period; the form of the name as b῾r šmm indicates a Phoen. origin. B.S. occurs, furthermore, in a few class. sources such as *Poenulus, Aḥiqar, the Mani-Kodex from Köln and in Gk magical papyri. A critical remark by a Syr. Church father informs us that the cult of Baal Shamayin lasted until the 7th cent. CE, especially in Harran, Nisibis and Edessa. Sourdel, D. (1952) Les cultes du Hauran à l’époque romaine. BAH 3. Paris; Eissfeldt, O. (1963) Ba῾alšamēm und Jhwh. In: id., Kleine Schriften, II (ed. by Sellheim, R. and Maaß, F.). Tübingen, 171-198; Collart, P. et al. (eds) (1969-2000) Le sanctuaire de Baalshamin à Palmyre I-VI. Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana X,16. Basel/Rome; Drijvers, H. J. W. (1971) Ba῾al Shamîn, de heer van de hemel. Assen; Vattioni, F. (1972) Aug., 12, 479-515; id. (1973) Aug., 13, 37-74; Schwabl, H. (1978) Zeus. Mit archäologischen Zeugnissen von Erika Simon und Beiträgen zur Sprachgeschichte von Jochen Schindler und zu Mykenischen Texten von Stefan Hiller. Munich; Collart, P. (1986) s.v. In: LIMC III/1, cols 62-63; id. (1986) s.v. In: LIMC III/2, cols 75-78; Lemaire, A. (1983) RSF, 11, 9-19; DCPP, s.v. (C. Bonnet); Koch, K. (1994) Ba῾al Ṣapon, Ba῾al Šamem and the critique of Israel’s prophets.

57

BAAL SHAMEM – BAALAT

In: Brooke, G. J., Curtis, A. H. W. and Healey, J. F. (eds) Ugarit and the Bible. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible. Manchester, September 1992. UBL 11. Münster, 159-174; Lipiński, E. (1995), 84-90; DDD², s.v., 149151 (W. Röllig); Blum, E. (1997) BN, 90, 1-27; Sima, A. (1999) WZKM, 89, 207-224; Healey, J. F. (2001) The religion of the Nabataeans. A conspectus. RGRW 136. Leiden/Boston/Köln, 124-126; Kaizer, T. (2002) The religious life of Palmyra. Oriens et Occidens 4. Stuttgart, 79-88; Leitz, Chr. (ed.) (2002) Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen II. OLA 111. Leuven, 778; Waliszewski, T. and Ortali Tarazi, R. (2002) Chhîm. 2000 ans d’histoire au cœur d’un village antique du Liban. Warsaw/ Beirut; Niehr, H. (2003) Ba῾alšamem, Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes. Leuven; Freyberger, K. (2004) DM, 14, 13-40; Müller, H.-P. (2005) JSS, 50, 281-296; Bunnens, G. et al. (2006) A new Luwian stele and the cult of the Storm-God at Til Barsib Masuwari. Publications de la Mission Archéologique de l’Université de Liège en Syrie. Tell Ahmar II. Leuven, 81-83; Schwemer, D. (2008) JANER, 8, 15f.; Aliquot, J. (2009) La vie religieuse au Liban sous l’Empire Romain. Beirut, 260f.272-278.349-352; Stein, P. (2009) Monotheismus oder religiöse Vielfalt? Dū Samāwī, die Stammesgottheit der ᾿Amīr, im 5. Jh. n. Chr. In: Arnold, W. et al. (eds) Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien und Sokotra. Wiesbaden, 339-350; Yon, J.-B. (2012) Palmyre; Younger, K. L. (2012) JNES, 71, 209-230; IGLS XVII/1. Beirut, 151-164; de Hulster, I. J. (2013) (Ohn)Macht der Bilder? (Ohn)Macht der Menschen? TC 242.5 in ihrem Entstehungs- und Forschungskontext. In: Lykke, A. (ed) Macht des Geldes – Macht der Bilder. ADPV 42. Wiesbaden, 45-68; Wyssmann, P. (2013) König oder Gott? Der Thronende auf den Münzen des perserzeitlichen Samaria. In: ibid., 25-44; Rohrmoser, A. (2014) Götter, Tempel und Kulte der Judäo-Aramäer von Elephantine. Archäologische und schriftliche Zeugnisse aus dem perserzeitlichen Ägypten. AOAT 396. Münster, 118-122; Lipiński, E. (2015) Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire méditerranéenne. OLA 237 = StPhoen 21. Leuven/Paris/Bristol (CT), 175-178; Schwemer, D. (2016-2018) “Wettergott(heiten)”. A. Philologisch § 7. In: RlA 15, 69-91; Holm, T. L. (2017) JNES, 76, 1-37, esp. 18f.22f.; Bonnet, C. et al. (2018) SMSR, 84, 567591, esp. 578-585; Stucky, R. (2018) AK, 61, 63-72; van der Toorn, K. (2018) Papyrus Amherst 63. AOAT 448. Münster, 13-18.34.125f.

Fig. 45. Inscription of Kulamuwa, king of Sam’al (Zincirli)

“mace” or “cudgel”, even if the hypothesis of “pair” (of horses) or “equipment (of a chariot)” cannot be excluded, given the meaning of the Sem. root ṣmd. Less plausible, for etymological reasons, although it cannot be excluded completely, is the hypothesis that he is the “Lord of the pact/treaty” (Hvidberg-Hansen [2007]). A mace is the typical weapon of a certain type of deity (“weather-god”), the most famous example being BAAL of *Ugarit (in any case, also portrayed as a divine charioteer). B.Ṣ. does not seem to have had a specific symbolism in the iconographic repertoire of the inscriptions from Sam’al. B.Ṣ. is the god of one of the most ancient local dynasties, still worshipped by Kulamuwa, as were Baal Hammon and Rakib-El, also mentioned in the corpus of Sam’al.

H. NIEHR

BAAL ṢMD Phoen. b῾l ṣmd. W Sem. god, possibly not originally Phoen. but Aram., mentioned in the Phoen. inscription of *Kulamuwa (KAI 24), king of Y᾿dy/Sam’al (→*Zincirli) [FIG. 45]. B.Ṣ. occurs together with R AKIB -E L and B AAL HAMMON in the curse formula against anyone who would damage the monument (→*Blessings and curses): he would have his head shattered by B.Ṣ. (yšḥt . r᾿š . b῾l . ṣmd), a deity explicitly connected with the dynasty of Gabbar (᾿š lgbr). The concept of “shattering” or “breaking” expressed in the curse seems to favour interpreting the epithet ṣmd as a

Tropper, J. (1993) Die Inschriften von Zincirli. ALASP 6. Münster, 20ff.; Niehr, H. (2004) Götter und Kulte in Sam’al. In: Hutter, M. and Hutter-Braunsar, S. (eds) Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität. AOAT 318. Münster, 301-318; Hvidberg-Hansen, F. O. (2007) RSF, 35, 9-14. P. XELLA

BAALAT Phoen. b῾lt. A common Sem. term – like →BAAL, masculine – from a root which means “to rule”, “to dominate”. B. is found in religious terminology to indicate the power and dominion of a goddess over various aspects of the natural and human world. Used much more rarely than the masculine form, in the Phoen. world the term B. occurs almost exclusively

58

BAALAT – BAALAT GEBAL

for the Lady of Byblos (→BAALAT GEBAL), the Baalat par excellence. An exception is the theonym →BAALAT HḤDRT. DNWSI I, s.v. b῾l2, 182-184; DDD², s.v., 139f. (E. T. Muller, jr). F. GUARNERI

BAALAT GEBAL Phoen. b῾lt gbl. “Lady of Byblos”. The name or the epithet of the main goddess of *Byblos. It occurs in Phoen. inscriptions from the start of the I mill. BCE, even if it is known in Egypt. texts – also in a Phoen. cultural context – already from the III mill. BCE. Starting from the Valley of the Nile, the first mentions of the Byblian “Lady” appear in hieroglyphic texts dating to the MK, in which in fact the expression Nbt kpn, “Lady of Byblos”, qualifies the goddess HATHOR (cf. formula 262 in the Coffin Texts: “Hathor Lady of Byblos is the rudder of your boat”), often worshipped as ruling over foreign lands. From the same period, the epithet spread into *Egypt also as a female PN (whereas the equivalent Phoen. expression never occurs in PNN). The extremely close relations between the goddesses of Dendera and the goddess of Byblos are clearly confirmed, again in Egypt. texts during the NK. E.g. the stela of Thutmoses III from Gebel Barkal, while not mentioning Hathor, records the construction of wooden ships “in the vicinity of the Lady of Byblos” (i.e. probably in Byblos itself); in turn, the inscription of Minmose, the architect of that Pharaoh, commemorates (among other events) the construction (at Byblos again?) of the temple of Hathor “Lady of Byblos”. The same formula, with the addition of “Princess of Uauat”, accompanies the name of the Egypt. goddess on a statuette from the XIX dyn., possibly from Deir el-Medina. Still during the NK, among the various references is the mention of a temple of the goddess in the Fayyum, in Papyrus Wilbour (XX dyn.). With reference once again to data from an Egypt. context, the name of the B.G. occurs repeatedly in the letters of *Tell el-Amarna (EA 68; 74-76; 78-79; 81; 83; 85; 89; 92; 105; 107-109; 112; 114; 116-119; 121125; 130; 132). In particular, in letters sent to the Pharaoh by *Rib Adda, ruler of Byblos, Bēltu ša Gubla appears as a witness and guarantor of what is written down. In addition, she is invoked almost sys-

tematically in wishes for power offered to the Egypt. king, since she is considered to be the one who granted him power, a function certainly largely dependent on her identification with Hathor. Furthermore, in four Amarna letters (EA 83-86) there is mention of a certain *Ummaḫnu described as a “servant of the Lady of Byblos”: this woman is evidently a Byblian priestess, who must have spent some time in *Egypt together with her husband Milkuru (performing cultic acts, possibly to Hathor), to then return to her city of birth so as to take part in the wine festival in honour of the Baalat. Moving on to the information provided directly by the excavations of Byblos, Hathor is invoked alone or as “Lady of Dendera” in many documents from Egypt (such as in a cylinder of Pharaoh Chefren, of the IV dyn.). In the city, where Baalat owned a very ancient temple located on the acropolis, immediately next to a sanctuary dedicated to a male god (perhaps her consort), again Hathor is celebrated since the OK as “Lady of Byblos”. Proofs of this are, e.g. the so-called “bas-relief de la maisonnette” (ca 23002200 BCE: probably an architrave that must have adorned the actual temple of the Baalat), an inscribed (re-used) stone slab found in the “Temple of the Obelisks” (if its date to the OK can be proved) and some offertory discs and plates made of alabaster and calcite, chiefly connected with Pharaoh Pepi I, which came from Egypt to be donated to the Byblian goddess. Recently, it has been suggested that these objects, besides being indications of a cult at Byblos performed by Egypt. individuals, were “instruments by which the Egypt. court wished to obtain political and economic benefits from the authorities in Byblos, given that the Lebanese city was a major trade center in the commercial networks of the Near East” (Espinel [2002]). The expression “Lady of Byblos”, that follows the name of Hathor, recurs then in Egypt. items found in Byblos, which can be dated to the MK and NK. Indications of this are provided by an inscription commissioned by a local prince engraved on an Egyptianizing statuette in which OSIRIS is mentioned together with Hathor, and by a fragment of a statue on which the formula “Lady Hathor” occurs. However, the earliest Byblian evidence for the assimilation between the Egypt. goddess and the local deity is probably to be found in the so-called “Cylindre Montet” (ca 2350 BCE). On that object is depicted a seated female figure wearing bull’s horns and the solar disc on her head, classical attributes of

BAALAT GEBAL

Hathor that over time were typical, almost continously, also of the b῾lt gbl (as shown by the very much later stela of king *Yehawmilk; see below). After the end of the NK, the relationship between Hathor and the B.G. changes radically. During the I mill. Hathor gradually loses the epithet that linked her to the Phoen. city (although it still is to be found in the temple of Edfu in the Ptolemaic period), and the PN Nbt kpn also fell into disuse; at the same time, there was a gradual advance of ISIS who would become so important that she would replace Hathor herself as the wife of Osiris and the mother of HORUS, to become probably the chief Egypt. reference point for the B.G. (however, the overlap between the B.G. and Isis is never documented directly in *Phoenicia, unlike her overlap with Hathor; rather, it is hinted at by iconography). Instead, from almost the same period, the B.G. begins to feature directly and repeatedly in the Phoen. inscriptions from Byblos. Worshipped as ᾿dt and rbt, she is presented as the favourite of the royal dynasties, retaining her central position in the local pantheon until at least the Hellenist. period. Focusing, then, on documents from Byblos, first of all, the mention of the b῾lt gbl in the inscription of king *Yahimilk, dated between 950 and 940 ca BCE (KAI 4) is still disputed. The restoration of the sequence b῾l gbl has not been accepted unanimously. Instead, the reference to this deity in a short text dated to ca 925 BCE from the outskirts of Byblos (but with no actual context for its discovery) is certain: besides the mention of the B.G., the inscription records the epithet ᾿dn (→ADON) which must refer to a male deity, although his identity is unknown. In the course of time, from the end of the 9th and at least until the middle of the 4th cent. BCE, the goddess appears as an indispensable and constant patron of the kings of Byblos and their families. It is to her that *Abibaal and *Elibaal (KAI 5 and 6), sons of Yahimilk, *Shipitbaal I (KAI 7), the son of Shipitbaal III (KAI 9; b῾lt with no mention of the TN), Yehawmilk (KAI 10) and queen *Batnoam (KAI 11; but also without a place name) turn. Again in Byblos, the cult of the b῾lt gbl is well documented by some objects dated as a whole between the 5th and 4th cent. BCE. These are a broken statuette of the seated goddess from ca the middle of the 5th cent. BCE, a black painted cup from almost the same period and which perhaps mentions a libation of wine in honour of the deity (which may recall the episode

59

concerning the priestess Ummaḫnu), and an interesting but equally disputed terracotta model of a throne (4th cent. BCE). More particularly, on the back of this model are two inscriptions of offering, one in Phoenician, with the standard formula lb῾lt gbl, and the other in Greek, addressed to A STARTE θέα μεγίστη. At present, the contemporaneity of the two texts is still strongly disputed; even so, the find is clear evidence for the assimilation between the Byblian “Lady” and the most famous and widespread pan-Phoen. goddess. According to some scholars, the evidence for that assimilation as much earlier is supplied by an inscribed Byblian silver plate possibly from the end of the 6th cent. BCE, and by the inscription engraved on a scarab, also from Byblos, dated between the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 4th cent. BCE, which is a dedication to Astarte rbt gbl (however, several doubts have been raised about the authenticity of these objects). Furthermore, the name Astarte appears on coins from Byblos in the 1st cent. BCE, where it is accompanied by the formula lgbl qdšt, “to holy Byblos”. Finally, we can mention a rather late (1st cent. BCE or 1st cent. CE: KAI 12) Byblian dedication on an altar, addressed “to our Lord and to the image of Baal” (l᾿dnn wlsml b῾l). It cannot be excluded that the B.G. can be identified in the second component of the formula – sml b῾l – according to an expression similar to those used for Astarte and TINNIT, indicated respectively in some documents as šm b῾l (“name of Baal”) and pn b῾l (“face of Baal”). In addition, it is useful to remark that, outside Phoenicia, a possible reference to the Baalat has been recognized in the cult of Pahalatis, whose name, representing the Luwian form of the Sem. b῾lt, is known from inscriptions from *Hamath (ca middle of the 9th cent. BCE; cf. Niehr [2014]). Besides the information supplied by inscriptions, quite a lot of data concerning the B.G. can be derived from literary sources, even though fragmented in nature and through complex layers of diverse (but partially assimilated) characters and traditions. In the 2nd cent. CE PHILO OF BYBLOS, first of all, mentions a certain BAALTIS, called Dione, to whom CRONUS/ EL, after his victory over Ouranos, entrusts power actually over Byblos, founded by him (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10). In the text, Philo distinguishes this character from Astarte/Aphrodite (called μεγίστη, as in the bilingual inscription from Byblos), who is considered to be the sister of Baaltis and the

60

BAALAT GEBAL

wife of Cronus. The name Dione used for the Byblian goddess seems to stress how ancient the deity was, considering that in Gk religion this name, a feminine form of Zeus (according to a relationship similar to the connection between b῾lt and b῾l), defines a character belonging to a very ancient divine generation. In spite of the differentiation between Astarte and Baaltis, the two goddesses must have been very similar: in fact, Philo states that the first wore a bull’s head on her head; this attribute is very close to the iconography of the B.G., borrowed largely from the images of Hathor (and later of Isis; cf. infra). In this regard, a gloss by Hesychius can also be mentioned. It reveals some uncertainty about the “identity” of Baaltis, considering her identification with both Aphrodite and Hera (Hsch. β 556 Latte). An echo of all this can be found in the account by pseudo-Meliton in the 3rd cent. CE concerning a Blty ([Melit.] Or. ad Anton. Caes. 5): a Cypr. queen who was buried in *Afqa on Mount *Lebanon, not far from Byblos (cf. Aphrodite Afakitis, e.g. in Zos. 1,58), near the tomb of her beloved Tammuz (son of Kautar, king of the Phoenicians), killed by a jealous Hephaestus during a boar hunt. Likewise, the burial of Blty and Tammuz in Lebanon can be connected with the information concerning Aphrodite and ADONIS transmitted in De Syria dea by pseudo-Lucian (→DEA SYRIA). In that work there is an account of the festivals celebrated in the great Phoen. city in honour of the hero. The ceremonies took place inside the city temple of a goddess called the Byblian Aphrodite (also known as Aphrodite Libanitis, who is probably to be identified as the B.G.; [Luc.] Syr. D. 6 and 9); they were directly connected with the sanctuary of Afqa mentioned above, in the place where Adonis himself was considered to be buried – which evokes what was said by Meliton – in the sources of the river also called Adonis, present-day *Nahr Ibrahim: once a year the waters of the river became tinged with red – i.e. with the hero’s blood – and so signalled the start of the festivities. According to pseudo-Lucian, the sanctuary must have been very ancient: in fact, it was founded by CINYRAS, the father of Adonis ([Luc.] Syr. D. 9). Perhaps, the cult of Aphrodite and her lover is to be understood as inheriting very much older Phoen. forms of devotion and dedicated to the B.G. and her consort (an ᾿dn, a b῾l gbl; see above). In view of the particular figure of Adonis, it is possible that the rituals involved the celebration of the disappearance and return of a poliadic deity, follow-

ing the myth and cult of a kind of god that was wellknown in Syria and Palestine since the BA (see, e.g. BAAL, ESHMUN, MELQART, REPHAIM; v. also *Divinization & heroization and DYING GOD[S]). After all, Byblos was one of the main centres of an intricate complex of traditions, with facets similar to those described above, with Isis as protagonist (with whom, as mentioned, the B.G. was assimilated during the I mill.). In his De Iside et Osiride (15-16) Plutarch sets one of the episodes of the Isis myth in Byblos, which focused on the search for the body of Osiris, killed and dismembered by Seth. Furthermore, according to Lucian, every year a “papyrus head” reached Byblos from Egypt, announcing the death of Osiris (confused with Adonis; [Luc.] Syr. D. 7). To complicate the picture as a whole even more, involving the characters mentioned above, who are related in various ways, there is an indication by Johannes Lydus – ascribed to Phlegon of Tralles (Lyd. Mens. 1,21, p. 11) – that the Phoen. Aphrodite was identified with a goddess called Blatta. It has been proposed to link that Blatta to Aphrodite Blaute mentioned in an Athenian inscription. Moreover, some Lat. PNN in North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, such as Blatia, Blattae, Blattius etc. can also be derived from this Blatta (Vattioni [1979]). All the information collected, therefore, makes it possible to rehearse most of the principal features of the B.G.’s personality, although it is still quite complicated to reconstruct her many facets and her development over time. First of all, the documentation reveals a goddess clearly perceived as a powerful poliadic figure, intimately connected with Byblos. As yet, it is difficult to determine the reasons why she was always characterized by what can be considered, apparently at least, an epithet; however, it is possible – as has been proposed (Stadelmann [1967]) – that her assimilation to Hathor, as early as the III mill., must have prevailed over an ancient local cult. Probably the strong influence that Egypt exercised on Byblos made the overlap with the goddess of Dendera so meaningful and urgent that the epithet “Lady of Byblos”, used for the same Egypt. deity, acquired more importance than the (supposed) original Phoen. theonym. Recently, however, it has been remarked that the expression b῾lt gbl should be understood, at least in some inscriptions, as a real proper name, even preserving its original meaning (“Lady of Byblos”): in some texts, the terms b῾lt and gbl, indeed, are not

61

BAALAT GEBAL

separated by punctuation marks; this makes the construct b῾ltgbl quite similar to that of royal names (such as Elibaal) mentioned in those same texts (Zernecke [2013]). Certainly, it is highly likely that the B.G. is identifiable also as Astarte, as expressly stated in the bilingual inscription on a clay throne already mentioned. This find, however, cannot be considered as definite evidence for an original and constant correspondence between the two goddesses. Rather, it is better to suppose that the assimilation evolved over time, in much later periods of the cult of the B.G. and specifically when, during the I mill., Astarte acquired a prominent role within the city religion of Phoen. kingdoms. Recently, e.g. it has been proposed that Astarte should be considered a sort of “international label, typical of Phoenician-Greek koinè from Hellenistic or Roman times” (Bonnet [2015]); the same label has been applied, at some point, also to the B.G. In any case, Philo of Byblos clearly and explicitly states that the goddesses were (also) separate entities; he says, indeed, that they were sisters, both wives of Cronus. In terms of function, the parallel between Hathor and the B.G., as well as her equivalence to Astarte, allow us to see the Byblian Lady as having celestial and astral connotations (in Egypt, Hathor herself is called “Lady of Heaven” and “Lady of the Stars”), protector of seafarers, nourishing men and gods, and having erotic but also violent and bloody connotations. Alongside these functions is the very close connection of the goddess with the king and, more widely, with royalty in all its aspects (→*Kingship). Besides the repeated mention of the Baalat in the royal inscriptions from Byblos, possibly the most obvious example of that relationship is the stela of Yehawmilk [FIG. 46]. In the text engraved on that monument, the king states he had dedicated to Baalat, who had allowed him to be king, some artefacts inside her sanctuary (“And I made, for my sovereign Lady of Byblos, this bronze altar that is in this [courtyard?] and this engraving in gold which is in front of my engraving and the winged sun, in gold, that is in the middle of the stone on top of this engraving and this portico, its columns and capitals [?] that are above them and its roof…”). For her part, the goddess would guarantee Yehawmilk the benevolence of the gods and with it the favour of the people and of other kings, in accordance with a type of protection that has been correctly defined “three-dimensional” (Xella [1994]). In turn, the scene depicted on the

Fig. 46. Stela and inscription of Yehawmilk, king of Byblos, dedicated to Baalat Gebal

stela, immediately above the inscription, shows the king in an act of adoration, standing in front of the Baalat. She is seated and giving a blessing, and on her head she wears a Hathor crown; in her left hand is a sceptre (a similar scene is depicted on a clay plaque of unknown provenance, and may be connected with the configuration of the Byblian temple of the “Lady”); the whole image is framed above by a large winged solar disc. In these images, then, the Egypt. influence on the forms and iconography of the deity, as already mentioned, is quite clear. That influence would continue also in more recent times: some coins of Byblos, from the period of Pompey, depict a goddess who clearly looks like Isis (characterized, e.g. by the basileion); the legend on those coins is either lgbl qdšt or simply lgbl.

62

BAALAT GEBAL – BAALAT HḤDRT

Finally, as already mentioned, the cult of the B.G. must have been linked with the devotion for a specific powerful city god, her consort, which continued with its own individual forms at least beyond the Rom. period. The rituals must have been performed either in the city (the temple of the goddess, as has been noted, stood alongside the sanctuary of a b῾l), or on Mount Lebanon, near Afqa (cf. Aphrodite Libanitis and Afakiti mentioned above). It cannot be excluded that the goddess worshipped in the second locality could claim some sort of relationship with the Astarte in a Carthag. inscription (KAI 81 = CIS I, 3914), in which the goddess, together with Tinnit, is defined as blbnn, “of Lebanon”. Chassinat, E. (1928) Le temple d’Edfou. Cairo; Stadelmann, R. (1967) Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. Leiden; Bordreuil, P. (1977) Semitica, 27, 23-27; Soyez, B. (1977) Byblos et la fête des Adonies. EPRO 60. Leiden; Vattioni, F. (1979) StMagr, 11, 1-65; Puech, É. (1981) RSF, 9, 1981, 153-168; Ribichini, S. (1981) Adonis. Aspetti “orientali” di un mito greco. Rome; Scandone Matthiae, G. (1981) Il problema delle influenze egiziane sulla religione fenicia. In: La religione fenicia. Matrici orientali e sviluppi occidentali. Atti del Colloquio (Roma, 6 marzo 1979). Rome, 61-80; Garbini, G. (1982) RSF, 10, 164f.; Scandone Matthiae, G. (1984) RSF, 12, 133-163; Bordreuil, P. and Gubel, E. (1985) Semitica, 35, 5-11; Bordreuil, P. and Gubel, E. (1985) Syria, 62, 171-186; Falsone, G. (1986) Anath or Astarte? A Phoenician bronze statuette of the Smiting Goddess. In: StPhoen 4, 63-76; Gubel, E. (1986) Une nouvelle représentation du culte de la Baalat Gebal? In: StPhoen 4, 263-276; Pirenne, V. (1987) Aspects orientaux du culte d’Aphrodite à Athènes. In: StPhoen 5, 153-156; Scandone Matthiae, G. (1987) RSF, 15, 115125; Na’aman, N. (1990) UF, 22, 247-255; Scandone Matthiae, G. (1991) Hathor Signora di Biblo e la Baalat Gebal. In: APC 2.I, 401-416; DCCP, s.v. (E. Lipiński); Bonnet, C. (1993) UF, 25, 25-34; Gubel, E. (1994) Byblos: l’art de la métropole phénicienne. In: Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) Biblo. Una città e la sua cultura. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale (Roma, 5-7 dicembre 1990). Rome, 73-96; Helck, W. (1994) Byblos und Ägypten. In: ibid., 105-111; Ribichini, S. (1994) Le origini della città santa, Biblo nei miti della tradizione classica. In: ibid., 215-230; Scandone Matthiae, G. (1994) La cultura egiziana a Biblo attraverso le testimonianze materiali. In: ibid., 37-48; Xella, P. (1994) Pantheon e culto a Biblo. Aspetti e problemi. In: ibid., 193-214; Lipiński, E. (1995) 70-79; Ribichini, S. (1995) RSF, 23, 16f.; Bonnet, C. (1996) 19-30; Bordreuil, P. (1998) CRAI(BL), 11531164; Sawaya, Z. (1998) BSFN, 53, 1998, 93-99; Espinel, A. D. (2002) SAK, 30, 103-119; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2003) Su due iscrizioni fenicie “per Astarte”. In: González Blanco, A. et al. (eds) De la tablilla a la inteligencia artificial. Homenaje al prof. Jesús-Luis Cunchillos en su 65 aniversario. Zaragoza, 332-340; Lemaire, A. (2003) Amulette phénicienne giblite en argent. In: Deutsch, R. (ed.) Shlomo. Studies in epigraphy, iconography, history and archaeology in honor of Shlomo Moussaief. Tel Aviv/ Jaffa, 155-174; Aliquot, J. (2004) Syria, 81, 201-228; Ribichini, S. (2005) Interpretazioni di Astarte. In: APC 5.I, 445-453; Nunn, A. (2008) Trans, 35, 165-190; Aliquot, J. (2009) La vie religieuse au Liban sous l’Empire romain. Beirut, esp. 158-164; Lightfoot, J. L. (2009) Pseudo-Meliton and the cults of Roman Near East. In: Bonnet, C. et al. (eds) Les religions orientales dans le monde

grec et romain. Cent ans après Cumont (1906-2006). Bruxelles/ Rome 2009, 387-399; Zernecke, A. E. (2013) WO, 43, 226-242; Niehr, H. (2014) Religion. In: id. (ed.) The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria. Leiden/Boston, 127-203; Bonnet, C. (2015) Chaos e Kosmos, 16, 1-15; ead. (2015) Les enfants de Cadmos. Le paysage religieux de la Phénicie hellénistique. Paris, esp. 164-196. G. GARBATI

BAALAT

HḤDRT

Phoen. b῾lt hḥdrt. “Lady of the ḥdrt”. Female DN as yet occuring only in the Carthag. inscription CIS I, 177 (= KAI 83) [FIG. 47], the exact provenance of which remains unknown. This text, possibly to be dated between the 3rd and the 2nd cent. BCE, includes the dedication lrbt l᾿m᾿ wlrbt lb῾lt hḥdrt, which can be translated as “To the Lady, to the mother, and to the Lady of the ḥdrt”. The term ḥdrt, used in the formula as an epiclesis attributed to the second goddess mentioned, has been explained in various ways, although all the interpretations have tended to refer to an underground cavity (Sznycer [1975]; Ferjaoui [1992]). While the CIS gives it the meaning “penetrale”, in KAI it is understood as “Gruft” (b῾lt hḥdrt = “Herrin der Gruft”). Others have translated it as “inner shrine” (b῾lt hḥdrt = “Mistress of the inner shrine”; NSI, 131), in the sense of a subterranean chamber found in temples, or else as a term that again refers to the chthonian world (in a sanctuary and/or a funerary context) but denoting, more widely and metaphorically, the *Netherworld kingdom (b῾lt hḥdrt = “Maîtresse des Enfers”: Lipiński [1995]). As for the identification of b῾lt hḥdrt and of the goddess that precedes her in the dedication – i.e. rbt ᾿m᾿ – most scholars have proposed a direct parallel with DEMETER & CORE. This interpretation has been suggested due to the mention in the Carthag. text of a “mother” goddess and her connection with a character linked to the subterranean world. According to the well-known account given by Diodorus of Sicily (14,77,4-5), the two Gk goddesses were officially adopted in *Carthage in 396 BCE; there, cultic practices were carried out by Gk residents and the more eminent citizens. This episode would have occurred after the sack of the temple in *Syracuse by general *Himilco (3), as a result of which there followed the wrath of the goddesses and, as an act of expiation, their insertion into the Carthag. pantheon. The expression lrbt l᾿m᾿ wlrbt lb῾lt hḥdrt, then, would be seen as a clear confirmation of what Diodorus

BAALAT HḤDRT – BAALTIS

63

Fig. 47. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 177

said. At present, however, the veracity of the information given by that author, and therefore the connection between the Gk goddesses and CIS I, 177 are not commonly accepted. S. Ribichini (2008), for ex., has recently suggested connecting the passage of Diodorus to processes of literary mythologizing intended to fabricate a negative image of Carthag. culture; it is not by chance that the introduction of Demeter and Core into the largest Phoen. colony was provoked, according to the sources, by an act of impiety committed by the Punics (the sack of the temple in Syracuse). Moreover, the event would not necessarily have entailed substantial changes to the Carthag. pantheon, nor would it have been viewed as a break with already existing beliefs. M. H. Fantar (2008) has proposed seeing the acceptance of Demeter and Core in Carthage as a concession to the Gk community by the institutions of the Pun. city. Even so, this event would not have meant the insertion of new elements into the city’s religion, which, on the contrary, would have retained its traditional features. On the other hand, it remains true that, even today, the direct archaeological and epigraphic evidence concerning the presence of the two Gk goddesses in Carthage is limited to very few data, all even somewhat dubious, which do not allow us to go beyond mere hypotheses. After all, the actual mention in CIS I, 177 of a “mother goddess” and of “a lady of the inner chamber (?)”, does not necessarily entail that the divine beings mentioned were foreign to the religious system of the city. The epithet ᾿m(᾿), for instance, occurs several times in Pun. inscriptions, and in Carthage itself it defines, in at least two cases, the goddess TINNIT (CIS I, 195; 380). Finally, even accepting a possible influence of Gk traditions on Carthag. beliefs, we should not undervalue the fact that in the Pun. metropolis, a common cult of the two goddesses is clearly documented in at least one other case: CIS I, 3914 records a dedication to Astarte and Tinnit blbnn (“of Lebanon”), possibly evoking the association already known in *Sarepta in the 7th-6th cent. BCE, expressed by the double DN tnt῾štrt (→DOUBLE DEITIES). Following Ribichini (2008),

therefore, we can still accept the relevant comments made in the past by S. Gsell (HAAN IV, 347), who considered the interpretation of CIS I, 177 as still too uncertain to allow us to connect this text, tout court, with the cult of Demeter and Core; according to S. Gsell, this assumption is not implausible, but that is all we can say. Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. (1895) Études d’Archéologie Orientale I. Paris, 149-155; Xella, P. (1969) SMSR, 40, 215-228; Lipiński, E. (1973) VT, 23, 443-445; Sznycer, M. (1975) Le mot ḤDR en phénico-punique et en ouest-sémitique. In: Études sémitiques. Actes du XXIXe Congrès International des Orientalistes. Paris, 70-75; Hvidberg-Hansen, F. O. (1979) La Déesse TNT. Une étude sur la religion canaanéo-punique I-II. Copenhagen, I, 20f.; II, 17-19; Pritchard, J. B. (1982) The Tanit inscription from Sarepta. In: Niemeyer, H. G. (ed.) Phönizier im Westen. Mainz am Rhein, 83-92; Picard, C. (1982-1983) Kokalos, 28-29, 187-194; Ferjaoui, A. (1992) Recherches sur les relations entre l’Orient phénicien et Carthage. Carthage, 401; DNWSI I, s.v. ḥdrh, 350; Lipiński, E. (1995) 375; Ribichini, S. (1995) RSF, 23, 14-16; Bonnet, C. (2006) Identité et altérité religieuse. À propos de l’hellénisation de Carthage. In: François, P., Moret, P. and Péré-Noguès, S. (eds) L’hellénisation en Méditerranée occidentale aux temps des guerres puniques (260-180 av. J.-C.). Pallas 70. Toulouse, 365379; Fantar, M. H. (2008) Le culte de Déméter et ses incidences à Carthage. In: Di Stefano, C. A. (ed.) Demetra. La divinità, i santuari, il culto, la leggenda. Atti del I Congresso internazionale (Enna, 1-4 luglio 2004). Pisa/Rome, 243-246; Ribichini, S. (2008) L’arrivo della dea. A Roma e a Cartagine. In: ibid., 235241; Garbati, G. (2014-2015) Byrsa, 25-28, 81-113; Distefano, G. (2016) Cartagine. Demetra “peregrina sacra”: un santuario greco nella citta punica? In: Russo Tagliente, A. and Guarneri, F. (eds) Santuari mediterranei tra Oriente e Occidente. Interazioni e contatti culturali. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Civitavecchia - Roma 2014). Rome, 539-542. G. GARBATI

BAALTIS Gk Βααλτίς. A goddess associated with the city of *Byblos in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,35 = BNJ fr. 2). In Philo’s narrative, CRONUS gives Byblos to “the goddess Baaltis, who is also Dione” (θεᾷ Βααλτίδι τῇ καὶ Διώνῃ). She corresponds to the goddess BAALAT GEBAL, the “Lady of Byblos”, a transliteration of the Sem. name →BAALAT (b῾lt, fem. of b῾l

64

BAALTIS – BABAI

“lord”), whose cult is attested epigraphically (e.g. KAI 6, 7). She is equated with Dione, a Gk deity best known for her unusual appearance in Hom. Il. 5,352430 as the mother of Aphrodite. Dione’s name is a feminine version of Zeus (cf. gen. Διός). In Philo’s →*Interpretatio, however, Dione is a wife of Elos (EL)-Cronus (cf. Eus. PE 1,10,22.24), her sisters ASTARTE and RHEA being the other two mentioned with her. It is also possible that B. (Baalat), and therefore perhaps Dione in that list of wives, was yet another hypostasis or title of the divine consort and the main NW Sem. goddess, one of several variants of ASHERAH, the Canaanite wife of El (BNJ 790 fr. 2). A Syriac text attributed to the bishop and apologist Meliton of Sardis (2nd cent. CE) mentions a story about a queen of “Gebal” (*Byblos) called Balthi, arriving there from *Cyprus. She is most likely further evidence for the survival of B. in regional mythologies into Rom. times, especially since in the Syriac text she is associated with Tammuz and “Kuthar” (→KOSHAR/KOTHARU), said to be the “king of the Phoenicians”. Cross, F. M. (1973) Canaanite myth and Hebrew epic. Cambridge (MA); Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 57; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 201.205.223; Burkert, W. (1992) The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern influence on Greek culture in the Early Archaic Age. Cambridge (MA), esp. 96-100, and fn. 5; Brown, J. P. (1995) Israel and Hellas. 1. BZAW 231. Berlin/New York, 245; West, M. L. (1997) The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic elements in Greek myth and poetry. Oxford, 57; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newjacoby/philon-790-a790; van Rompay, L. (2011) Meliton the Philosopher. In: Brock, S. P. et al. (eds) The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Piscataway (NJ), 284f. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Baau see AION BABAI Phoen. b᾿by; Lat. bab(…). Epiclesis of the Phoen. and Rom. god SID/SARDUS PATER, known today only from inscriptions found in the temple of *Antas (in south-west. *Sardinia, inland). The term occurs in five Phoen. texts (also as the variant bb᾿: I, VIII, IX, XI, VI+XIII of the Antas corpus; as a whole: 5th-2nd cent. BCE), and in the Lat. inscription of the epistyle that was part of the

Fig. 48. Epistyle inscription in the Antas temple and detail of the text with the dedication to Sardus Pater bab(…) (period of Caracalla)

temple after its reconstruction in the time of Caracalla [FIG. 48]. Instead, the reading Sid (or Sidia) Babi, proposed for the incipit of a Lat. inscription engraved on a ring from a tomb, also in Antas, probably to be dated to the first Byzantine period, remains very uncertain. The term B. has been understood in several ways. When the inscriptions from Antas were first studied, at the end of the 1960s, it was proposed that the cluster of consonants should be split into the locative preposition b, followed by the noun ᾿by (Fantar [1969]). The noun was seen as an unknown place name (“Abi”), probably to be located in Sardinia. The expression ṣd ᾿dr b᾿by, “powerful Sid b᾿by”, which recurs in the Phoen. inscription from Antas, would then be similar to formulae of the type DN + b + toponym. In Sardinia itself an example can be found in the expression b῾šmm b᾿ynṣm, “Ba(al) Shamem of the island of falcons”, in an inscription from *Cagliari (CIS I, 139 = ICO Sard. 23 = KAI 64) (→BAAL SHAMEM). Again, right after the discoveries in Antas, two other readings were proposed, to some extent similar to each other but resulting from different assumptions. On the one hand, B. was considered as derived from a supposed paleo-Sardinian form, bab(ba)i, meaning “father” (Garbini [1969]). This hypothesis was based on a combination of elements, including comparison with some modern dialect forms – babbu, babbai and abai – used in Sardinia to mean “father”. According to this reading, the first two terms in the Lat. formula Sardus Pater bab(…), written on the epistyle of the temple, would be considered as a single semantic group. Thus, the word pater would not be an epithet of Sardus, but actually part of the DN, followed by

BABAI – BAETYL

the epiclesis bab(…). On the other hand, it was suggested that B. is related to the Sem. term ᾿b (“father”); in that case, the word should be understood as an expression of the type ᾿b᾿b, adapted to denote Sid as the “grandfather” or as the “father of the father” (and consequently as an “ancestor” or “progenitor”: Ferron [1971-1972]). Later, a further possibility was introduced. The term was linked to a powerful figure – a certain snake called Babi – known from the Pyramid Texts (du Mesnil du Buisson [1973]). Defined in *Egypt as a prince of the night, of the stars and the dead, a protector and healer, later Babi was supposed to assume human form and become the father of the Sardinians. This theory, which has not been widely accepted, was essentially based on the representation of a snake on the ring, cited above, from a late Antas tomb and bearing a debated inscription (read by du Mesnil du Buisson as follows: Sida [vel Sidia] Babi dedi don [vel donum] denarios XCIV). Finally, towards the end of the 1980s, yet another interpretation was proposed: the formula ᾿dr b᾿by (“powerful b᾿by”), at the beginning of some of the Phoen. inscriptions from Antas, was read as the result of a close functional and morphological connection of Sid with the Egypt. being BꜢby (Bebon), represented as a baboon, chthonian in nature and with apotropaic and thaumaturgic powers; in this way, the epithet b᾿by should be understood as a direct derivation from that being’s name (Mazza [1988]). The cluster ṣd ᾿dr b᾿by, therefore, would be interpreted as “Sid, powerful BꜢby/b᾿by”, providing evidence for the close relationship between the god of Antas and cults of Egypt. origin. Generally speaking, though, the proposal that has received the most consensus so far, is undoubtedly that made by Garbini (1994), who sees B. as derived from a proto-Sardinian language. Recently, however, this possibility has been strenuously debated. Firstly, the suggestion to derive the term B. from Phoenician – based specifically on its possible connection with the noun ᾿b – has been revived (Dridi [2010]), partly repeating the above-mentioned idea suggested by J. Ferron; this hypothesis was connected with the definition of Sid himself as “father” in the theophoric name ᾿bṣd from *Thebes, in Egypt. Secondly, and more recently, it has been pointed out that some words used in Sardinian to mean “father”, such as babbu and babbai, do not really belong to the protohistoric substrate of the island; they seem to derive, instead, from the Italian word “babbo” (Wagner [2008]; Bernardini and Ibba

65

[2015]; Stiglitz [2019]). It seems quite clear, then, that currently the meaning of the term B. is far from being understood; also unexplained is the reconstruction of the reasons that led the word to be used both in the Phoen. and in the Lat. name of the god of Antas (there is a similar case in the trilingual inscription from *Santu Jacci, in which the word MERRE, of uncertain origin and meaning, follows the name of ESHMUN/Asclepios/Aesculapius in the Pun., Gk and Lat. versions of the text). Fantar, M. (1969) Les inscriptions. In: Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) Ricerche puniche ad Antas. SS 30. Rome, 47-93; Guzzo Amadasi, M. G. (1969) Note sul dio Sid. In: ibid., 95-104; Garbini, G. (1969) AION, 29, 317-331; Sznycer, M. (1969-1970) Karthago, 15, 68-74; Ferron, J. (1971-1972) StSard, 22, 268289; du Mesnil du Buisson, R. (1973) Le grand serpent Babi Dieu Sid devenu le père des Sardes. In: id., Études sur les dieux et les mythes de Canaan. EPRO 33. Leiden, 225-240; Ferron, J. (1976) Mus, 89, 425-440; Mazza, F. (1988) RSF, 16, 147-156; Garbini, G. (1994) La religione dei Fenici in Occidente. SS NS 12. Rome, 23-29; Lipiński, E. (1994) Le pilier Djed et le dieu Sid. In: OA Miscellanea I. Rome, 61-74; Lipiński, E. (1995) 330-350; Minunno, G. (2005) EVO, 28, 269-285; Wagner, C. L. (2008) Dizionario Etimologico Sardo. Nuoro (ed. by G. Paulis); Dridi, H. (2010) Entre autochtones et Puniques: quelle identité pour Sid à Antas (Sardaigne). In: Ferjaoui, A. (ed.) Carthage et les autochtones de son empire du temps de Zama. Hommage à M. H. Fantar (Siliana-Tunis, 10-13 Mars 2004). Tunis, 161168; Serra, P. B. (2014) Theologica & Historica, 23, 343-369; Bernardini, P. and Ibba, A. (2015) Il santuario di Antas tra Cartagine e Roma. In: Cabrero Piquero, J. and Montecchio, L. (eds) Sacrum Nexum. Alianzas entre el poder político y la religión en el mundo romano (Madrid, 11-12 de diciembre de 2014). Madrid/Salamanca, 76-138; Stiglitz, A. (2019) I Fenici nel golfo di Cagliari. In: APC 7.I, 131-146. G. GARBATI

Bacchus see DIONYSUS BAETYL Gk Βαίτυλος; Lat. Baetylus. B. is mentioned by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,16) as one of the offspring begotten by Ouranos and GE. Later on, Ouranos unsuccessfully attempted to kill him as well as his brothers ATLAS, DAGON and CRONUS. According to one Phoen. etymology, B. (bt ᾿l) would mean “house of god/EL, corresponding to the god Bethel of Jer 48,13; a similar DN is also mentioned (together with ANAT B ETHEL ) in *Esarhaddon’s succession treaty (dba-a-ti!-DINGIR, Lauinger [2012] 102) and in his treaty with *Baal (1), king of *Tyre (Rev. IV 6’;

66

BAETYL – BASTET

Parpola and Watanabe [1988] 27, dba-a-a-ti-DINGIR.MEŠ) among the patron deities (→*Treaties). Anat Bethel (῾ntbyt᾿l) is also one of the composite PNN presenting the element byt᾿l (the others being ḥrmbyt᾿l, perhaps “sacredness of B.”, and ᾿šmbyt᾿l, “name of B.”, or “Ashimbethel”, a goddess from Hamath and the Oasis of Teima: Rohrmoser [2014] 141-144]), which appear from the 6th cent. BCE in Aram. documents, especially from *Egypt, where there was a temple of Bethel, probably in the Aswan region (Milik [1967] 565). Although some scholars suggested a Phoen. origin of Bethel (e.g. Milik [1967] 575; Barré [1983] 46-50), he is most probably an Aram. god (van der Toorn [1992] 84f.). Corresponding to the etymology of B.’s name is another piece of information provided by Philo of Byblos (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,23), who maintains that Ouranos also invented baitylia, stones endowed with life. These baitylia are clearly deemed by Philo to be different from B. son of Ouranos. He probably presented them as devices intended to help Ouranos to regain the power that Cronus had taken from him (Baumgarten [1981] 202). Since B. is the son of, or was invented by Ouranos, i.e. “Sky”, B. may be connected with meteorites. In late sources B. is identified as the stone swallowed by Cronus instead of Zeus (a Zeus B. is mentioned in a 3rd cent. CE Gk inscription from Dura-Europos), also identified as ABADDIR. B. was possibly symbolically connected with lions: in Esarhaddon’s treaties, B. and Anat-Bethel are supposed to send a lion against those who would be disloyal. A 3rd cent. CE Gk inscription from Kafr Nabo, in NW Syria (IGLS, 376), associates the gods “Symbetylos” (᾿šmbyt’l) and “Lion” (together with a Seimion); and Damascius (Isid. 203) wrote that in the region of Mount Lebanon a lion had appeared in the air together with a fiery B.

BASTET Egypt. BꜢś.t.t; Phoen. ᾿bst; Gk Βουβάστις. Goddess with feline characteristics, from the city of Bubastis, in the east. Delta, close to the mouth of Wadi Tumilat (*Tell el-Mashkuta). Originally a lioness goddess, her image gradually softened to become a maternal and benevolent cat [FIG. 49], although still connected with the myth of the “Distant Goddess” (→HATHOR). In *Egypt, feline goddesses represented the dangerous aspect of femininity and were connected with the deep South, from which, however, the regenerative flood returned each year. They were considered as mistresses of the widian (wadis), paths along which it was possible to reach the precious raw materials concealed in those inhospitable lands, or to travel to the far lands in the South, from which precious goods arrived (ivory, ebony, perfumes) via the road of oases

Milik, J. T. (1967) Biblica, 48, 565-577; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden; Barré, M. J. (1983) The god-list in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: A study in light of the Ancient Near Eastern treaty tradition. Baltimore/ London; Ribichini, S. (1985) Poenus Advena. Gli dèi fenici e l’interpretazione classica. CSF 19. Rome, 115-125; SAA 2; van der Toorn, K. (1992) Numen, 39, 80-101; DCCP, s.v. “Bétyle” (E. Lipiński); DDD2, s.v. “Baetyl”, 157-159 (S. Ribichini); Lauinger, J. (2012) JCS, 64, 87-123; Rohrmoser, A. (2014) Götter, Tempel und Kult der Judäo-Aramäer von Elephantine. AOAT 396. Münster. G. MINUNNO

Fig. 49. Statuette depicting the goddess Bastet with a sistrum. Egypt (664/630 BCE)

BASTET

to the W, or the Red Sea to the E. These female deities, with their fiercely aggressive appearance, represented the solar eye and therefore the daughters of RA, and were connected with the protective *Uraeus of royalty. They were also considered to be carriers of hazards, such as the deadly epidemics that spread particularly during the hottest season, at the same time as the annual flood. In order to ward off such dangers, perfumes undoubtedly played a role (→*Perfume), and like them, B.’s name written with the sign indicating an *Unguentarium, shows the connection. Furthermore, the hypothesis has been put forward that the Gk word ἀλάβαστρον, used to denote alabaster but also a certain type of unguentarium, is connected with the name of B. and is a calque on an Egypt. expression denoting “B.’s container” or “B.’s stone”. In fact, Egypt. calcite (or alabaster) has been connected with perfumes from time immemorial and like them is loaded with magical meaning. B. is the earliest documented feline goddess (from the Proto-dynastic period). As she became more distinctive over time, particularly in the I mill. BCE, as the benevolent and maternal aspect of the lioness goddess, popular devotion towards her increased. As a result, cat-shaped amulets (→*Amulet) as well as figurines (also small bronzes) of the domestic feline suckling her kittens become more numerous [FIG. 50], as do burial places for mummified cats. During the III Intermediate Period, or in the period of Lib. power, Bubastis became very important and was the capital during the XXII dyn., in a period when Phoen. presence in Egypt seems to have been particularly conspicuous. The location of this city along the Pelusian branch – a prime position between

Fig. 50. Amulet of glazed green paste in the shape of a cat (Ibiza)

67

the Nile Valley and the Levantine coast – was very important for international access to the area. Phoen. interest in the region increased, prob. due to the excavation of the canal connecting the Nile with the Red Sea in the Saitic period and then in the Pers. period. B. had an important role also in *Memphis, especially in the important sacred area of *Saqqara, where the goddess had a sanctuary and was known as “Lady of Ankhtaui” (one of the names for the city and for its necropolis). The goddess of Memphis was Sekhmet, the lioness consort of PTAH, who, together with the god Nefertem formed the local triad that often featured among the amulets found in the West. B. and Sekhmet represent two complementary aspects and their cult in a city, that foreigners visited in large numbers, and in regions where the proven presence of ASTARTE shows a connection that must have existed in the eyes of Memphite *Phoenicians, and more generally, of Phoen. visitors to Egypt. On the other hand, Astarte herself also appears as an anthropomorphic and lion-headed goddess in the temple of Edfu. The menacing aspect of the Distant Goddess is clearly incarnated as Sekhmet “the powerful”. Amenhotep III (XVIII dyn.) had numerous statues of the sculpted lion-headed goddess: a complete monumental series, one statue for each day of the year, dedicated to different aspects of the goddess, was placed around the lake of the temple of Mut in Karnak, a series that has been defined (Yoyotte [1998]) as a “litany in stone” to ward off the dangers associated with the goddess. The inscriptions on these sculptures show the connection with the decans, already well-known and documented in Phoen.-Pun. areas. This countless repetition of the image of the goddess is reminiscent of the numerous amulets found in the West depicting the lion-headed goddess (e.g. a necklace at *Tarquinia). Herodotus (2,59-60) describes the annual festival of the goddess of Bubastis, whom the Greeks identified with ARTEMIS: a great many people arrived by boat, accompanied by music and dance. These festivities, when huge quantities of wine were consumed, show links with female fertility, as also shown by the playing of the double oboe (Gk aulos), which is certainly linked to reproduction in Egypt. The widespread appearance in the Delta and the Mediterranean, between the 8th and the 6th cent. BCE, of figurines in *faience called “talismans for happy motherhood”, depicting BES, the female cat and players of the double oboe, is concentrated particularly in the area of Bubastis. This

68

BASTET – BELOS

type of object – which must have promoted Phoen. trade in the Mediterranean – stimulated its reproduction outside Egypt as well, accompanied by prophylactic prescriptions to assist motherhood. B.’s son Mahes (Gk Mysis), a lion-headed god, was also present among the amulets found in the Mediterranean. B.’s typical features, closely connected with the key location of Bubastis for trade in exotic goods from the Red Sea, undoubtedly facilitated the reception of the feline goddess in the Phoen. world, as well as her presence at Memphis. Besides the diffusion of the amulets, there were cultic images outside Egypt, such as the lion-headed goddess of *Thinissut, which combines feline features with clothing typical of ISIS, showing how, in the Mediterranean, knowledge of and beliefs of a many-faceted Egypt. pantheon were acquired, a pantheon that, at the same time, tended to unity [G.C.V.] The written evidence for B. in the Phoen. and Pun. world is restricted to her name as a theophoric element in PNN. From the first half of the 7th cent. BCE, a Phoenician called Ahubasti, “Brother of B.”, a “head porter” at Nineveh is mentioned. In Egypt, we find proper names constructed with B. at *Abydos (῾bd᾿bst: KAI 49,37; p῾l᾿bst: KAI 49,34) and *Elephantine (p῾l᾿bst: Lidzbarski [1912] no. 11a; ῾bd᾿bst: ibid. no. 12.15b.39.46 [῾]bd᾿bst). Elsewhere a certain ῾bd᾿bst, described as “the Carthaginian” (hqrtḥdšty), occurs at *Kition in the 5th cent. BCE (IK C 1.B,6 = KAI 37), and the same name is documented at *Tyre (KAI 17, 2nd cent. BCE) and at *Umm el-Amed, more or less in the same period (UeA, p. 191), where an Egyptianizing mini-genealogy includes a certain ῾bd᾿sr son of ῾᾿bd᾿bst, defined as “our master”. Finally, some individuals with compound names that include B. (῾bd᾿bst: CIS I 3267,5; ῾bdbst: CIS I 2082,4) occur also at *Carthage (however, both ῾bdbt in CIS I 3565,5 and yšbšt at *El-Hofra/Costantina, EH 224,3 are dubious). [P.X.] Lidzbarski, M. (1912) Phönikische und aramäische Krugaufschriften aus Elephantine. Berlin; Leclant, J. (1960) Syria, 37, 1-67; el-Kordy, Z. (1968) La déesse Bastet. Cairo; Otto, E. (1975) s.v. In: LÄ I, 828-830; Ribichini, S. (1975) Divinità egiziane nelle iscrizioni fenicie d’Oriente. In: Benigni, G. et al. (eds) Saggi fenici - I. CSF 6. Rome, 7-14; Yoyotte, J. (1980) BSFÉ, 87-88, 47-75; Lipiński, E. (1983) Les Phéniciens au temps des Sargonides: Ahoubasti, portier en chef. In: APC 1.I, 125-134; Sternberg, H. (1984) s.v. “Sachmet”. In: LÄ V, 324-333; Fernández, J. H. and Padró, J. (1986) Amuletos del tipo egipcio del Museo Arqueólogico de Ibiza. Ibiza, 52-55; Lemaire, A. (1986)

Divinités égyptiennes dans l’onomastique phénicienne. In: StPhoen 4, 87-98; Yoyotte, J. (1988) RdÉ, 39, 155-178; Bulté, J. (1991) Talismans égyptiens d’heureuse maternité. “Faïence” bleu vert à pois foncés. Paris; Delvaux, L. and Warmenbol, E. (eds) (1991) Les divins chats d’Égypte: un air subtile, un dangereux parfum. Leuven; Scandone Matthiae, G. (1993) SEL, 10, 9-19; Malek, J. (1997) The cat in ancient Egypt. London; Aufrère, S. H. (1998) Le “Champ divin” de Bastet à Bubastis, l’albâtre, les parfums et les curiosités de la Mer Rouge (= Autour de l’univers minéral XI). In: Gyselen, R. (ed.) Parfums d’Orient. Bures-surYvette, 65-83; Belén, M. and Marín Ceballos, M. C. (2002) SPAL, 11, 169-195; Pinch, G. (2004) Egyptian mythology: A guide to the gods, goddesses and traditions of Ancient Egypt. Oxford, 115-117. G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI – P. XELLA

Bel: The Bab. god B. occurs as a theophoric element in the PN *Yatonbaal (ytnb῾l), “chief of the priests of the god Nergal”, mentioned in a bilingual (Gk/Phoen.) inscription from *Pyraeus (CIS I, 119 = KAI 59). See also →NERGAL.

Belhammon see BAAL HAMMON BELOS Gk Βῆλος. Named twice in one passage of PHILO OF BYBLOS’ Phoenician History (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,26 = BNJ 790 fr. 2), in the first instance as “Zeus Belos” (Ζεὺς Βῆλος). He is listed there as one of the three sons of CRONUS born in Peraia (perhaps a “small town in Syria” according to St. Byz. s.v. Περαία). The other two children of Cronus are his homonym Cronus and APOLLO. B. is also the ancestor of Sidon (in a sequence B.– NEREUS – PONTOS – Sidon, PE 1,10,27). In fr. 30 (from St. Byz. s.v. Βαβυλών). B. is the father of the eponymous founder of the city of Babylon. Belos’ name is a straight adaptation to Gk of Phoen./Aram. Ba῾al/Bel. As a mythological character in Gk historical and chronological sources, he belongs to the saga of either PHOINIX-CADMUS or Danaos, connected with *Phoenicia or *Egypt. He also appears under the Gk and Lat. names of Beleos/Belaios/Bel(i)us (Gantz [1993] 211.307f.; Garstad [2004]). Philo’s Belos occupies his expected place in the line of divine succession, as a son of Cronus (Elos/EL), just as in Canaanite tradition BAAL is the son of El/Ilu, mirroring the Gk Hesiodic myth in which Zeus is the son of Cronus. Zeus/Belos must also underlie the notorious passage in which “Greatest Astarte and Zeus DEMAROUS and Adodos, the king of the gods, were ruling the

BELOS – BENSADIQ

land with the consent of Cronus”, attaching to “Zeus” the appropriate NW Sem. names/hypostases of the weather-god “Demarous” and “Adodos” (PE 1,10,31; cf. commentary on BNJ 790 fr. 2). Eusebius probably has this passage in mind when saying that “Phoenician theologians (…) recorded that Zeus is a son of Cronus, a mortal born from a mortal, a Phoenician by race” (PE 3,10,20) (Attridge and Oden [1981] 89f. fn. 112). The name “Belos” appears in Philo in other theophoric names, e.g. Hierombalos and Abibalos (PE 1,9,21), fem. BAALTIS (PE 1,10,35), Beelsamen (PE 1,10,7) (→BAAL SHAMEM), SOURMOUBELOS (PE 1,10,43). While some think that this Zeus Belos refers back to the Bab. Bel, versions of Zeus/Baal were popular in Rom. Syria, most prominently at *Palmyra (Millar [1987] 155f.; see also Baumgarten [1981] 205-207). Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 95.176; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 53; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 84. Leiden, 149ff.; Millar, F. (1987) JJS, 38, 143-164; DCPP, s.v. (E. Lipiński); Gantz, B. T. (1993) Early Greek myth: A guide to literary and artistic sources 1. Baltimore/London; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 2019): http:// referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon790-a790; Garstad, B. (2004) ClPhil, 99, 246-257. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Belus: alternative name of the royal father of Dido in Verg. A. 1,621; Sil. 1,87f.; Hyg. fab. 243. →ELISSA.

BENSADIQ Phoen. bnṣdq. A character named B. (“Son of Sadiq”) is mentioned in a Pun. dedicatory inscription from ancient ᾿yrnm/ Cossyra (→*Pantelleria). The text is engraved on the smooth profiled edge of a marble offertory table that came to light in 2011, during the excavations carried out there by an archaeological expedition of the University of Tübingen (Germany) [FIG. 51]. The table was found along the processional road that led to the sanctuary located on the island’s Acropolis. The inscription, dated to the 2nd-1st cent. BCE, records the dedication of the table “to the Lord, B.” (l᾿dn lbnṣdq) by two individuals who mention their

69

Fig. 51. The offertory table from Pantelleria

genealogy as far back as their grandfathers. Regarding B.’s identity, as noted by W. Röllig (2014), the term ᾿dn (→ADON) attributed to him strongly suggests that he was a divine, rather than a (possibly, authoritative) human character, even though difficult to identify. The root (like the word) ṣdq has the basic meaning “to be legitimate”, “to be rightful”, and occurs several times in the Phoen. lexicon: see e.g. the royal title mlk ṣdq (and mlk yšr) in the case of Yehawmilk (1), king of *Byblos (KAI 4,6), or, at *Sidon, where king Bodashtart (1) defines his son *Yatonmilk as “legitimate son” (KAI 16). All this, however, does not go beyond the etymological level. Nevertheless, there is another epigraphic mention of a character named B., which has so far escaped the attention of scholars, because it is generally considered to be a PN. On a fragment of a circular marble base (h 4 cm, chord 18.5 cm) from S. Antioco/*Sulci, is the engraved Neopun. text rp[y]᾿š hbrk bnṣdq, “PN (Rafias/Rufus?) hbrk of B.” (CIS I, 150 = ICO Sard. Neopun. 1) [FIG. 52]. Here B. – as in the case of Pantelleria – is the recipient of a dedication (the nature of the monument is unknown, possibly the base of a statuette or the like). The two inscriptions are contemporary and it seems certain that at that time (during the Rom. period) there was – at least in the two Medit. islands – a cult of a divine character called B. A separate specific problem is the exact meaning of the term hbrk, for which two interpretations have been proposed. On the one hand, it could be a loanword from Akk. abarakku, “steward”, which also occurs in the *Ebla texts as ’à-ba-ra-gú-u(m). On the other hand, hbrk could be interpreted as the article h- followed by brk, here a passive participle from the root brk, and mean “The Blessed one”. It must be

70

BENSADIQ – BEROUTH

added that hbrk also occurs in the *Karatepe inscription (KAI 26 A 1: ᾿nk ᾿ztwd hbrk b῾l, “I am Azitawada, hbrk of Baal”); see also Röllig [1999] 51.58), in the *Cineköy inscription (Tekoğlu and Lemaire [2000]), again in the syntagma hbrk b῾l, and in five Phoen. seals from *Cilicia (Lemaire [1977]: in this case as a title of individuals [once in the form hbrkt], with no reference to a deity). Both proposals have weaknesses, but this philological question cannot be addressed here. In any case, it is clear that hbrk is a title, used both in secular contexts and also in reference to a god, towards whom the bearer has a (possibly official) relationship of dependence. Once established that B. is a divine figure, it is possible to make progress in determining his identity, since bnṣdq seems to be an epithet (albeit crystallized over time as a real theonym).

seems entirely plausible that this divine figure, provided with an adequate mythological background, may have been at the centre of a pan-Phoen. cult in the central Mediterranean, also due to the extension of Eshmun’s powers beyond his ancient therapeutic functions. Rosenberg, R. A. (1965) HUCA, 36, 161-177; Rosenthal, F. (1969) in ANET, 654 fn. 1; Lipiński, E. (1974) RSF, 2, 45-47; Lemaire, A. (1977) Semitica, 27, 29-40; Bron, F. (1979) Recherches sur les inscriptions phéniciennes de Karatepe. HEO 11. Geneva, esp. 28ff.; Krebernik, M. (1984) WO, 15, 89-91; Lipiński, E. (1988) ZAH, 1, 61-73, esp. 60f.; DNWSI II, s.v. ṣdq2 and ṣdq3, 962f.; DDD2, s.v. “Zedeq”, 929-934 (B. F. Batto); Röllig, W. (1999) in Çambel, H. (ed.) Corpus of hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions II. Karatepe-Arslantaş. Berlin; Hawkins, J. D. (2000) Corpus of hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions I. Inscriptions from the Iron Age. Berlin; Tekoğlu, R. and Lemaire, A. (2000) CRAI(BL), 961-1006; Müller, H.-P. (2001) RSF, 29, 13-26; Butts, A. M. (2013) Maarav, 20.2, 189-198; Röllig, W. (2014) RSF, 42, 9-16; Schäfer, T., Schmidt, K. and Osanna, M. (eds) Cossyra I. Die Ergebnisse der Grabungen auf der Akropolis von Pantelleria / S. Teresa. Der Sakralbereich. TAF 10. Rahden. P. XELLA

Beroe see BEROUTH; ELIOUN Fig. 52. Neopunic inscription from Sulci mentioning Bensadiq

In the Phoen. mythical traditions preserved by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790), a character named Sydyk occurs, paired with Misor (→SYDYK & MISOR), as a couple that corresponds to the Mesop. gods Kittum and Misharum, who are connected to the sun-god. A similar connection has been tentatively proposed by Rosenberg (1965) for a god Ṣdq of *Jerusalem. Following the divine genealogies in Philo’s account, it is possible to learn the name of Sydyk’s son. In fact, Sydyk mated with one of the TITANIDS or Artemides – the daughters of CRONUS – and she bore a son named ASCLEPIUS (cf. Eus. PE 1,10,24ff. and also PE 1,10,38, where Sydyk is said to be the father of the seven CABIRI and of an eighth son, also called Asclepius). According to this narrative, despite its well-known complex editorial history, the son of Sydyk, called the “just one”, was Asclepius, i.e. Phoen. ESHMUN. As a consequence, on the basis of epigraphic data and mythological traditions, it can be proposed that B. is a manifestation of ESHMUN, whose cult – also with the Gk name Ἀσκλήπιος – enjoyed enormous popularity in the final centuries of the Hellenist. age. It

BEROUTH Gk Βηρούθ. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS, (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,15), B. is the name of the consort of ELIOUN/HYPSISTOS. She lived with him near *Byblos and bore him two sons: Ouranos (→CRONUS) and GE. B. has been linked with the ancient name of Berytus, modern *Beirut, although that city appears elsewhere in the Phoenician History with a different spelling. While Nonnus of Panopolis (D. 40,14ff.) considers Berytus as a city of origins, the “abode of the contemporary men of the dawn”, other ancient writers state that it was founded by Cronus and explain its name as a reference to the strength of the settlement or the abundance of water (St. Byz., Ethnica, s.v.; Eust. ad. Dionys. Per. 912; Etym. Sym. s.v.). Probably, in this case Philo preserves a Byblian tradition about a local goddess, the consort of a god called Elioun, about whom there is no other information in either the literary or the epigraphic sources. Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 253f.; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, H. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 86; Baumgarten, A.

BEROUTH – BES

I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 186f. S. RIBICHINI

BES Egypt. Bś. Tutelary Egypt. genie in charge of protection in domestic life, and more particularly of women giving birth and of babies. In traditional iconography he is depicted with monstrous features in the form of a partially theriomorphic dwarf, typically with a mane, lion’s ears and a tail. Frequently he is shown as front facing but also in profile. One of his main attributes is a large feathered crown [FIG. 53]. B. is often considered as a genuine deity. However, even though he is very often depicted also in the decorative repertoire of temples, B. does not seem to have had sacred buildings dedicated to his cult before the Late Period (Altenmüller [1975]). B. is connected with HORUS the child (→HARPOCRATES), whom he accompanies and protects, sometimes exchanging roles with him; he also has some affinity with PATAECUS, who also belongs to the solar world and looks like a dwarf. There is a clear connection between this deformed figure and infancy, as well as with femininity, eroticism and fecundity. B. assisted at childbirth and protected children and

Fig. 53. Vase in shape of Bes from Tartous (4th-3rd cent. BCE)

71

was associated with various goddesses, especially hippopotamus-deities, including Tawret, a goddess with solar connotations, associated with female fertility, and Ipet, connected with the night sky, sleep and, therefore, the afterlife. There is also a consort of B., depicted as a female version of him, called Beset. The link with femininity and eroticism is also expressed by the presence of B. in HATHOR’S circle and his role in the myth of the “Distant Goddess”: he dances and plays an instrument together with monkeys accompanying the goddess as she returns, and therefore with the Nile flood; also evident is his link with wine and drunkenness, while he could be equated with Gk Silenos, also in view of his function as educator of the divine child. Bes is also closely connected with solar cults. This is evident, first of all, from his proximity to deities connected with the sun, such as Tawret, Hathor and especially Horus. His role as a protector of infants certainly fits a solar character, since divine infants or adolescents, such as Horus, Nefertem or SHED, were considered to be a manifestation of the rising sun. Moreover, the frequent match with Horus has led, over time, to the appearance of hybrid deities, such as Horbes or Bes-Harpocrates, who certainly had solar aspects. It is significant to note that very many objects decorated with images of B., and even some rare examples of his consort Beset, were found in *Amarna (→*Tell el-Amarna) (Stevens [2006]). Given the religious climate in the reign of Akhenaton and his actions against traditional deities, this fact has aroused considerable interest. In effect, it has been asserted that the presence of B. in Amarna can be explained by his marked solar character (Malaise [1990]). However, there may be other considerations. During the Amarna period, in respect of particular types of belief connected with domestic cults that focus on fertility, a strong continuity with traditional religion has been confirmed and from that site have come several objects depicting not only B. and Beset, but also hippopotamus-deities or feline-deities, conspicuously associated with BASTET (Stevens [2006]). The origins of B. are disputed. Since in Egypt. mythology he is connected with the South, his origins were considered to be African. In this respect, it should be noted that, on the one hand, he seems to belong particularly to the Egypt. imagery of the far South connected with the Nile flood; on the other hand, his appearance as a monstrous mask seems to connect him with a specific African mythology.

72 Etymologically, the name B. may derive from the root, bśꜢ, meaning “to protect”. According to D. Meeks (1992), that verb was used for apotropaic purposes, to refer to babies born prematurely, and therefore particularly in need of care and protection. Before the XXI dyn., no definite instances of that DN are known (Corteggiani [2007]). Instead, creatures depicted with the iconographic features typical of B. are already known in the OK (Romano [1989]). In fact, in academic writings, the name “Bes” is used conventionally for a specific physical shape – called a Bes-type figure, or Bes-figure – to which, over the course of the history of *Egypt, various names have been given. From the MK, Bes-type figures are often associated with the name/noun ꜤḥꜢ, a term that may be translated as “the fighter”. Other DNN associated with Bes-type figures after the Graeco-Rom. period, such as ḥy.t, could be variant spellings of the same root ꜤḥꜢ, or derive from the verb ḥꜢỉ, “to dance”, and so refer to the dancing posture in which he is often depicted. Especially during the I mill. BCE, there is a series of divine figures with a Bes-type face, together with physical features and various attributes, with a name that refers to other divine beings (e.g. Soped, Horus, Nefertem, RESHEPH). E.g. there is a small bronze statuette decorated in gold, electrum and silver, kept in the Metropolitan Museum, of a Bes-type character, with an inscription that identifies him as Horus Ashakhet; the dedicator’s father has a theophoric name related to ASTARTE [FIG. 54]. This manifold identity has a counterpart in the so-called B. pantheos, a multiform being with a Bes-type face, widespread in the Late Period. This composite being heightens the impression that the face is a sort of mask. Evidence for the apotropaic function of the Bes-figures comes from the very earliest phases of Egypt. history. The most relevant finds in this connection are the so-called ivory magic wands or birth tusks, found chiefly during the MK. They are curved objects made of a particular type of ivory extracted from hippopotamus teeth. They had an apotropaic function and were primarily intended to protect women giving birth and babies. In fact, these sticks were decorated with tutelary genii, including Bes-type figures, often armed with knives and shown in the act of destroying various evil beings, such as monsters and serpents. It is worth mentioning that in later documentation – e.g. on the so-called cippi of Horus-Bes, together

BES

Fig. 54. Bes-image statuette of the god Hor-Asha-Khet offered by a man called Ibi, son of Pedi-Astarte. Egypt (4th-2nd cent. BCE)

with Harpocrates or Horus-Shed, B. has a primary role in incantations protecting against bites from snakes and other animals. B. is intimately connected with domestic life. He is depicted on minute objects for toilette, on mirrors and on amulets meant to be worn, on furniture decoration, or painted on the walls of houses, including the royal residences. In fact, his popularity ran right across Egypt. society and had a primary role also in temples and in connection with royalty. Bes-type figures, often associated with hippopotamus deities, form the decorative repertoire of several objects that belong to the symbolism associating death with sleep during life. Headrests, for ex., were used in everyday life as pillows, but were also associated with the afterlife and used in grave goods. In Egypt. belief, while asleep, people could meet the spirits of the dead or be threatened by evil beings in a dream. In this connection we also know of magic formulae – some actually written on headrests – intended to drive away demons or ghosts who could appear in the world of dreams (Szpakowska [2010]). Depictions of Bes-figures, sometimes armed with butcher’s knives, often feature in the decoration of beds and here too they are objects that could be used in either a domestic or a funerary setting (Graves-Brown [2018]). Also, it should be remembered that beds were often associated

BES

with breast-feeding and therefore with early maternal care for infants (Graves-Brown [2018]). The so-called votive beds merit special attention. They are small objects made of terracotta that look like a bed, often decorated with Bes-type figures and other iconographic motifs connected with female fertility. The objects belong to a well-defined historical and geographical context – the area around Thebes, in the Third Intermediate Period – and can be ascribed to a specific social context: groups of women involved in cultic activities, such as singers and musicians, belonging to the circles of the Divine Wife of Amon, an influential religious function exclusive to women of royal blood. The votive beds have been found mostly in domestic settings, but, in some cases, they would have been deposited near sacred buildings or inside graves. In terms of symbolism, the decorations refer to female fertility (especially conception and birth) but also to more strictly Hathorian themes such as the myth of the Distant Goddess, the celebrations for the start of the new year in the Egypt. calendar and the arrival of the Nile flood (Del Vesco [2010]; Teeter [2010]). There are also various types of vases that reproduce the features of the face of B. and it has been suggested that they were used for wine, due to the strong link with Hathor, notoriously associated with drunkenness. However, given the role of B. in beliefs connected with female fertility and the protection of infants, another valid hypothesis could be their use for milk (Graves-Brown [2018]; Charvàt [1980]). Bes-type figures are often associated with war. There are several depictions of B. in the decoration of a processional chariot (but probably modelled on a war chariot) found in the tomb of Tutankhamun. From the I mill., B. is depicted as the driver of the chariot of the god Horus-Shed (Pietri [2019]). Also, the dancing pose in which he is usually depicted has been compared (Szpakowska [2016]) to a war dance. This would match perfectly one of the oldest names associated with Bes figures, ꜤḥꜢ, which, as already mentioned, can be translated as “the Fighter”. However, it should be noted that the knives with which the god is usually armed are meant for butchery and not as weapons of war. Only after the Rom. period was B. portrayed with a shield and a sword (Partridge [2002]; Szpakowska [2010]). Depictions of Bes appear in decorations and reliefs in temples, sometimes in colossal sculptures. Even in these contexts there is a strong connection with fer-

73 tility and childbirth. In the temple of Hatshepsut in Deir el-Bahri, a Bes-type figure assists at the birth of the queen; in temples in the Graeco-Rom. period, B. appears repeatedly in the decorative repertoire of Mammisi, buildings associated with temples and dedicated to divine birth. Archaeological research has shown how, in the Graeco-Rom. period, in Egypt, a misshapen divine “Bes-type” figure could be worshipped in a sanctuary with a therapeutic installation, e.g. in the oasis of Bahariya (Hawass [2000]), while a large-size version of him is depicted together with images of females on the walls inside sanctuaries, such as in the Anubieion in *Saqqara or in a chapel of Ain-el-Muftellah (Bahariya). Furthermore, in the Osireion of *Abydos, we know that B. pronounced oracles and was associated with the practice of *Incubation in the Rom. period. Iconographic evidence from the Late Period and the Hellenist. and Rom. time shows B.’s role as a capital or telamon, supporting the architrave of a chapel dedicated to the goddess, often nude. In this architectural role, alongside B. on the capitals of the Mammisi, this god seems to have not only an apotropaic role, but also the function of supporting the sky, in connection with the gigantic solar dwarf, whom we know from texts of the Late Period. In that epoch, especially, one can imagine how “Bes-type” figures can conceal the mysterious and unmentionable features of a solar deity, in whom are combined aspects of birth and rebirth, of assistance and protection, from the cosmic dimension to the domestic level, able to be expressed through oracles. A “Bes-type” character is well known outside Egypt already at the beginning of the II mill. BCE (Matoïan [2014]). Bes-figures were widespread in the Levant and then around the Mediterranean. Notably, in Minoan Crete also depictions of the female counterpart of B., Beset, and Ipet/Tawret are attested. There is an evident connection between B. and others beings who are similar, such as the Mesop. Humbaba and the Gk Silenos – or related, such as MELQART and Heracles. Thanks to Phoen. and Gk trade, the small images of B. became widespread, used as amulets: outside Egypt he retained his connection with the female world, evidently accompanied by precise magico-therapeutic prescriptions, since numerous figurines have been found in the NW Mediterranean in tombs for women.

74 The figure of B. is well documented in the Phoen. and Pun. world, but no inscription mentions his name. However, it has been proposed, very hypothetically, that the name of this god – as bš – is recognizable in the place name ᾿ybšm (on coins from Ebusus [*Ibiza] and in CIS I, 266), which would then mean “Island of B.” (Solá Solé [1956] 325-334; Lipiński [1995] 325). Also worth mentioning is the possibility (Garbini [2006]) of reading bt bš at the beginning of the Nora stela (CIS I, 144) meaning “temple of B.”. Garbini (1965) had also proposed that in the Pun. world, the image of B. could stand for the god ESHMUN. In another hypothesis, in Ibiza (KAI 72 = ICO Spagna 10) and perhaps elsewhere, B. was referred to as gd (→GAD) (Solá Solé [1956] 349f.). B. appears in glyptic, also as “lord of the animals”. This is a Phoen. innovation in iconography (Wilson [1975] 88). It is possible that the role of taming a lion should be seen as a connection with images of Shed and baby Horus, usually accompanied by B. on Egypt. magical stelae, in which they grasp dangerous animals, including lions. In this connection, it is worth mentioning a possible “Bes-type” head (now kept in the Louvre) from the region of Larnaka (*Kition), who could be associated with a cippus bearing the inscription ršp š[...], which A. Hermary (1984) restored as ršp šd, i.e. Resheph-Shed. However, the reconstruction of the inscription, its association with that head, and whether the head actually belonged to “Bes-type” figures are questionable. From *Amathus (Cyprus) come several figures, including a colossal deformed looking couple, supporting one or two lion cubs, generally considered as connected with B. and Heracles, the date of which is uncertain (Hermary [1984]; Parlasca [2010]): that figure has been identified as Eteocypriot BAAL, coupled with the goddess kypria (Tassignon [2009]). The similarity of its shape with B. could be explained by his relationship with Hathor-Aphrodite. A “Bestype” figure is found very often in the west. Mediterranean. It features on coins from Ibiza, possibly supporting the interpretation of that place name (᾿ )ybšm as “Island of B.”. It has been surmised, therefore that this god was worshipped on the island and that the image on coins reproduced a local cultic image (Padró [2000]); however, there are not many finds on Ibiza that can be connected with B. (Velázquez Brieva [2007] 178). Whereas in Phoen. and Pun. settlements on *Sicily there are very few images of B. (Famà [2012]), quite a few come from Pun. locations

BES

Fig. 55. Statue of Bes from Bitia (Sardinia) (4th-2nd cent. BCE)

in Sardinia, handcrafted in various ways (Stiglitz [2012]). Particularly noteworthy are some monumental sculptures depicting B. found in *Bitia [FIG. 55], *Cagliari, Fordongianus and Maracalagonis. The last two cases were a couple of statues. It has been suggested (Agus [1983]) that these sculptures go back to the imperial Rom. period, and probably belong to buildings used for the cult of Isis. However, it is likely that some of them, especially the ones from Bitia and Cagliari, are older. Based on the context of its discovery, the statue from Bitia could have belonged to a building associated with worshipping the dead (Garbati [2014]). Solá Solé, J. M. (1956) Sefarad, 16, 325-355; LÄ I, 1975, s.v., 720-724 (H. Altenmüller); Wilson, V. (1975) Levant, 7, 77-103; Graziani, S. (1978) AION, 38, 53-61; Moscati, S. (1979) RAL, 34, 233-239; Bisi, A. M. (1980) RSF, 8, 19-42; Charvàt, P. (1980) ZÄS, 107, 46-52; Agus, P. (1983) RSF, 11, 41-47; Hermary, A. (1984) Revue du Louvre, 34, 238-248; Tran Tam Tinh, V. (1986) s.v. In: LIMC III,1, cols 98-108; III,2, cols 74-86; Hermary, A. (1986) s.v. “Bes (Chypre et in Phoenicia)”. In: LIMC III,1, cols 108-112; III,2, cols 86-89; Hölbl, G. (1986) Ägyptisches Kulturgut im phönikischen und punischen Sardinien. EPRO 102. Leiden; Romano, J. F. (1989) The Bes-image in Pharaonic Egypt. 1-2. Ann Arbor; Malaise, M. (1990) Bès et les croyances solaires. In: Israelit-Groll, S. (ed.) Studies presented to M. Lichtheim. Jerusalem, 680-729; Meeks, D. (1992) Le nom du dieu Bès et ses implications mythologiques. In: Luft, U. (ed.) The intellectual

75

BES – BRATHY

heritage of Egypt. Studies presented to L. Kákosy. StAeg XIV. Budapest, 423-436; Volokhine, Y. (1994) BSÉG, 18, 81-95; Capriotti Vittozzi, G. (1999) BCAR, 100, 155-165; Hawass, Z. (2000) The discovery of the temple and the statue of the god Bes at Bahria Oasis. In: Alexandrian Studies II. In honour of Mostafa el Abbadi. Société d’Archéologie d’Alexandrie. Bulletin 46, 137154; Padró, J. (2000) APC 4.II, 643-646; Gómez Lucas, D. (2002) Estudios Orientales, 5-6, 91-106; Capriotti Vittozzi, G. (2006) BMMGP, 25, 53-78; Stevens, A. (2006) Private religion at Amarna: the material evidence. Oxford; Toro Rueda, M. I. (2006) Nacimiento y protección en el Mediterráneo: el caso de Bes. Madrid; Corteggiani, J.-P. (2007) L’Égypte ancienne et ses dieux: dictionnaire illustré. Paris, 84-87; Hermary, A. (2007) Amathonte classique et hellénistique: la question du Bès colossal de l’agora. In: Flourentzos, P. (ed.) From Evagoras I to the Ptolemies. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference, Nicosia 29-30 November 2002. Nicosia, 81-92; Velázquez Brieva, F. (2007) El dios Bes de Egipto a Ibiza. Eivissa; Garbati, G. (2009) L’immagine di Bes in Sardegna: appunti su un “indicatore morfologico”. In: Bonnet, C., Pirenne-Delforge, V. and Praet, D. (eds) Les religions orientales dans le monde grec et romain. Cent ans après Cumont (1906-2006): bilan historique et historiographique. Turnhout, 293-308; Tassignon, I. (2009) Le Baal d’Amathonte et le Bès égyptien. In: Michaelidis, D., Kassianidou, V. and Merilles, R. S. (eds) Egypt and Cyprus in Antiquity (Proceedings of the International Conference, Nicosie 2003). Oxford/Oakville, 118-124; Del Vesco, P. (2010) Letti votivi e culti domestici: tracce archeologiche di credenze religiose nell’Egitto del Terzo Periodo Intermedio. Pisa; Matoïan, V. (2010) SemCl, 3, 213-221; Parlasca, K. (2010) Die kyprische Kolossalstatue eines “Bes” in Istanbul. In: Bol, R., Kleibl, K. and Rogge, S. (eds) Zypern - Insel im Schnittpunkt interkultureller Kontakte: Adaption und Abgrenzung von der Spätbronzezeit bis zum 5. Jhdt. v. Chr. Symposium, Mainz 7.-8. Dezember 2006. Münster, 237-263; Szpakowska, K. (2010). Nightmares in Ancient Egypt. In: Husser, J.-M. and Mouton, A. (eds) Le cauchemar dans les sociétés antiques. Actes des journées d’étude de l’UMR 7044 (15-16 novembre 2007, Strasbourg). Paris, 21-39; Teeter, E. (2010) Baked clay figurines and votive beds from Medinet Habu. Chicago; Capriotti Vittozzi, G. (2011) Note sui Bes. Le sculture del Metropolitan Museum of Art e del Museo Egizio di Firenze. In: Buzi, P. et al. (eds) Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti. BAR IS 2264. Oxford, 69-84; Famà, M. L. (2012) Il Bes del Museo Pepoli di Trapani. In: Del Vais, C. (ed.) EPI OINOPA PONTON. Studi sul Mediterraneo antico in ricordo di Giovanni Tore. Oristano, 321-328; Stiglitz, A. (2012) Bes in Sardegna. Nuove attestazioni da San Vero Milis (Sardegna centro-occidentale). In: Angiolillo, S., Giuman, M. and Pilo, C. (eds) Meixis. Dinamiche di stratificazione culturale nella periferia greca e romana (Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi “Il sacro e il profano”. Cagliari, Cittadella dei Musei, 5-7 maggio 2011). Rome, 133-151; Weingarten, J. (2013) The arrival of Egyptian Taweret and Bes[et] on Minoan Crete: contact and choice. In: Bombardieri, L. et al. (eds) SOMA 2012. Identity and connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, I. BAR IS 2581 (I), 371-378; Garbati, G. (2014) Il tempio “di Bes” e i “devoti sofferenti” di Bitia. Memorie locali e attualità del culto. In: Tortosa, T. (ed.) Diálogo de identidades. Bajo el prisma de las manifestaciones religiosas en el ámbito mediterráneo (s. III a.C.-s. I d.C.), Mérida (Badajoz, España), 12-14 noviembre. Mérida, 289-302; Matoïan, V. (2014) CRAI(BL), 1201-1223; Szpakowska, K. (2016) Feet of fury: demon warrior dancers of the New Kingdom. In: Landgráfová, R. and Mynářová, J. (eds) Rich and great: Studies in honour of Anthony J. Spalinger on the occasion of his 70th Feast of Thot. Prague, 313-323; Remberg, G. H. (2017) Where dream may

come: Incubation sanctuaries in Graeco-Roman world, I. RGRW 184. Leiden/Boston, 485-495; Graves-Brown C. (2018) Demons and spirits in Ancient Egypt. Cardiff; Pietri, R. (2019) Égypte, Afrique & Orient, 94, 43-52. G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI – G. MINUNNO – R. SCHIAVO

Bethel see ANAT BETHEL Bona Dea see CAELESTIS BOREAS Gk Βορέας. God of the wild North wind in class. mythology (Hom. Il. 5,524f.; 15,170f.). B. was considered the son of Eos (Dawn) and to be resident in the cold region of Thracia. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,6), B. is mentioned in the cosmogony (→MYTH AND MYTHOLOGY) together with his brother NOTUS, the god of the South wind. Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 81ff.; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 86-88; Coppola, D. (2010), Anemoi. Morfologia dei venti nell’immaginario della Grecia arcaica. Naples, 40-44. S. RIBICHINI

BRATHY Gk Βράθυ. Together with other mountains such as Casios, *Lebanon and *Anti-Lebanon, B. is mentioned by PHILO OF BYBLOS in his Phoenician History (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,9) as a son of Light, Fire and Flame (→PHOS, PYR & PHLOX), and as a parent of OUSOOS and HYPSOURANIOS. Like his brothers, B. ruled over the mountain named after him. B. supposedly corresponds to *Mount Amanus, but that name could also be a scribal mistake for the name of Mount Tabor. In Greek, B.’s name means “savine”, but Gk versions of the *Old Testament occasionally use βράθυ to translate bērôš, usually meaning “cypress”. Since Ezek. 27,5 attests that bērôš grew on Senir, which according to Deut 3,9 is Mount Hermon, also an identification with the latter has also been suggested.

76

BRATHY – BYBLOS

Lipiński, E. (1971) OLP, 2, 59f.; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 132-148; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 154f. G. MINUNNO

(into a plant): Myrrha, the mother of ADONIS. See also MELOS. Ribichini, S. (1994) Le origini della città santa. Biblo nei miti della tradizione classica. In: Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) Biblo. Una città e la sua cultura. CSF 34. Rome, 223f. S. RIBICHINI

BYBLIS Gk Βύβλη, Βύβλις, Βυβλίς. According to Stephanus Byzantius (Ethnica, s.v. Βύβλοϛ) the Phoen. city of *Byblos, founded by CRONUS, owes its name to B. (cf. also Eust. ad Dionys. Per. 912). In class. tradition, B. is a heroine, the daughter of Miletus (son of APOLLO) and of Cyanea (daughter of Meander). She fell in love, incestuously, with her brother Caunus, but he rejected her and fled to *Caria, where he founded the city that was named after him. B., instead, started to wander, in the grip of her madness, until she pined away amidst tears and transformed herself into a brook on which the Nymphs bestowed an inexhaustible supply of water. However, according to another source (schol. in Lyc. Alex. 829), the city of Byblos owes its foundation and its name to another heroine, who committed incest (with her own father) and was metamorphosed

BYBLOS Gk Βύβλος. According to Stephanus Byzantius (s.v. Κύπροϛ), who mentions Philostephanus and Istrus as his sources, B. is also the name of a hero, the consort of Aphrodite, and the father of Cyprus, a heroine who gave her name to the homonymous island of *Cyprus. According to Johannes Malalas, instead, B. was the founder of an inhabited and fortified town on the Phoen. coast, named after him (see also Eust. ad. Dionys. Per. 912). Ribichini, S. (1994) Le origini della città santa. Biblo nei miti della tradizione classica. In: Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) Biblo. Una città e la sua cultura. CSF 34. Rome, 223. S. RIBICHINI

C CABIRI Gk Κάβειροι. According to PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790), the C. were sons of Sydyk (→SYDYK & MISOR), and were also known as DIOSCURI, Corybantes, or Samothraces. They invented the boat, while their sons discovered herbs, remedies for bites of animals, as well as spells (apud Eus. PE 1,10,14). The descendants of the C. are also said to have built rafts and boats on which they sailed; they also erected a shrine near Mount Casios (→SAPHON), where they had been cast ashore (apud Eus. PE 1,10,20). CRONUS gave the city of Berytus (*Beirut) to the C., to POSEIDON, and to hunters and fishers (apud Eus. PE 1,10,35). According to Philo (apud Eus. PE 1,10,38), there were seven C., and ASCLEPIUS (→ESHMUN) was their eighth brother; the sons of Sydyk were ordered by TAAUTOS to record the events that had happened, and were therefore the first to do so. Again Damascius (Isid. 302) mentions the C., or Dioscuri, as Sydyk’s sons, and the seven brothers of Esmounos (i.e. Eshmun), the Asclepius of Beirut. In the Gk world, the C. were a group of superhuman beings, worshipped in various places. According to some scholars, the name C. derives from the Sem. root kbr and mean “The great ones”, corresponding to the epithet “Great Gods” (θεοὶ μεγάλοι) given to the C. as well as the Dioscuri and the Samothraces. Indeed, several different, non-Sem. etymologies have been proposed, and the name C. could instead be of Anat. origin (e.g. Beekes [2004]). Furthermore, the root kbr does not occur in Phoen. inscriptions; it is used in Aramaic, but the hypothesis proposed by J. Halévy (1893) of a mention of the C. in the Aram. inscription KAI 212 has been rejected. Although J. Ebach (1979) suggested that the C. should be identified as the REPHAIM, probably they did not originally belong to Phoen. mythology (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY), but were later identified with the sons of Sydyk. The latter could also have been connected to the Pataeci (→PATAECUS) since, in Herodotus’ opinion (Hdt. 3,37), the Pataeci were like the images of both the C. and their father Hephaistos (the Egypt. god PTAH), represented in *Memphis as pygmies. Herodotus’ statement, that the *Phoenicians used to carry the Pataeci on the prows of their triremes, suggests that they were linked to navigation,

just as the C. and their descendants do in the work by Philo of Byblos. The C., with their eight brothers, could be represented on coins of Beirut issued under Elagabalus (Rouvier [1900] 303, Pl. ΙΔ´). Halévy, J. (1893) RevSem, 1, 141-166, esp. 149; id. (1894) RevSem, 2, 25-60, esp. 30f.; Roscher, Lexicon II,2 s.v. “Megaloi Theoi”, cols 1894-1897 (L. Bloch); Halévy, J. (1899) RevSem, 7, 333-355, esp. 338; Rouvier, J. (1900), JIAN, 3, 237-312; Hemberg, B. (1950) Die Kabiren. Uppsala; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart, 234-265; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 176f.224.229; Collini, P. (1990) SCO, 40, 237-287; Vollkommer-Glökler, D. (1997) s.v. “Megaloi Theoi”. In: LIMC VIII,1, cols. 820-828; Burkert, W. (20012) Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. Stuttgart, 419-425; Musti, D. (2001) Aspetti della religione dei Cabiri. In: Ribichini, S., Rocchi, M. and Xella, P. (eds) La questione delle influenze vicino-orientali sulla religione greca. Stato degli studi e prospettive della ricerca (Atti del Colloquio Internazionale Roma, 20-22 maggio 1999). Rome, 141-154; Beekes, E. (2004) Mnemosyne, 57, 465-477; Cruccas, E. (2014) Gli dei senza nome. Sincretismi, ritualità e iconografia dei Cabiri e dei Grandi Dei tra Grecia e Asia minore. Rahden. G. MINUNNO

Cadmos see CADMUS CADMUS Gk Κάδμος. According to Gk mythology, C. was a Phoenician from either *Tyre or *Sidon. The son of AGENOR (or PHOINIX), C. went in search of his sister (or niece) EUROPA, who had been abducted by Zeus. During his quest, C. went to Delphi, consulted the oracle and, taking its advice, followed a cow, which stopped and lay down where *Thebes was to be founded. He also killed a dragon guarding a nearby spring and then sowed its teeth, from which the so-called Spartoi emerged. Then C. married Harmonia, a daughter of ARES and Aphrodite. Several places (especially *Rhodes and Thracia) are said to have been visited, named after, or even founded by C., his companions, or relatives. Among these were M EMBLIAROS , who settled in Thera, *Thasos (an island where the *Phoenicians searching for Europa founded a temple of “Heracles” according to Hdt. 2,44) and Kilix (who gave his name to the

78

CADMUS – CAELESTIS (JUNO)

Cilicians) (→*Cilicia). According to one source, one of C.’s brothers was Phoinix, who reached Libya and gave his name to the Carthaginians (Poeni: Hyg. Fab. 178). C. was also said to have reigned over the Illyrians, and his son was Illyrius ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3,5,4). Eventually, C. was turned into a serpent and sent to Elysium ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3,5,4), or to the Isle of the Blessed (Pind. O. 1,78). C. is said to have erected a temple of POSEIDON on Rhodes (Diod. 5,58), built altars to Poseidon and ATHENA on Thera (schol. in Pind. P. 4,10), and to have participated in the mysteries of Samothrace (Diod. 5,48). Apparently, C. had married Harmonia in Samothrace, where there was a ritual search for her during a festival. C. was also credited with several discoveries that made him a cultural hero: stone quarrying (Plin. Nat. 7,195; Clem. Al. Strom. 1,16), bronze working (Hyg. Fab. 274), mining and gold smelting (Plin. Nat. 7,197). However, C. (or at least his group, according to Hdt. 5,58) was especially connected by many (see Plin. Nat. 7,192) with the transmission of the *Alphabet to the Greeks (which is why it was also known as “Cadmaean letters”) – or even with its invention [FIG. 56]. Although C.’s legend belongs to Gk mythology (scholars debate the nature of its historical basis, possibly early Or. cultural influence on Greece), C. was later welcomed in his supposed Phoen. homeland, where he was celebrated on coins minted by Tyre and Sidon from the 2nd cent. BCE. The Tyrians also offered him roots of medicinal plants, considering him to be one of the first physicians (Plut. Quaest. conv. 3). According to one late source (Ach. Tat. 2,2), the Tyrians had adopted the

Fig. 56. Tyrian coin depicting Cadmus bringing the alphabet to the Greeks (3nd cent. BCE)

myth connecting C. with DIONYSUS, whom they therefore celebrated as a deity of their own. In fact, the offspring of C. and Harmonia included INO, who became LEUCOTHEA, as well as Semele, the mother of Dionysus. Indeed, according to Herodotus, it was from C. and his companions that Melampus learned of the worship of Dionysus, which he then taught to the Greeks (Hdt. 2,49,3). A supposedly Sidonian euhemeristic account (→*Euhemerism) makes C. a royal cook, who eloped with Harmonia, a slave flute-player (Athen. Deipn. 14,658e, mentioning Euhemerus of Coos as his source). C. Clermont-Ganneau (1901) suggested a comparison with the Apollon Mageirios known in *Cyprus, but that account could be a mere comic invention. Clermont-Ganneau, C. (1901) RAO IV. Paris, 224-226; RE X,2 s.v. “Kadmos” (4), cols 1460-1472 (K. Latte); Vian, F. (1963) Les origines de Thèbes: Cadmos et les Spartes. Études et commentaires 48. Paris; Edwards, R. B. (1979) Kadmos the Phoenician. Amsterdam; Servais-Soyez, B. (1981) AC, 50, 733-743; Rocchi, M. (1989) Kadmos e Harmonia. Un matrimonio problematico. Rome; DCPP, s.v. “Kadmos” (E. Lipiński – C. Bonnet); Bonnet, C. (2018) Cadmos reloaded. The shaping of cultural memory between Phoenicia, Greece and Rome. In: Garbati, G. (ed.) Cercando con zelo di conoscere la storia fenicia. Atti della giornata di studi dedicati a Sergio Ribichini. Roma, CNR, 20 marzo 2015. CSF 47. Rome, 49-61. G. MINUNNO

CAELESTIS (JUNO) Also called Juno Caelestis or, from the 2nd cent. CE, simply Caelestis, the Rom. heiress of Carthag. TINNIT and the consort of the African SATURN (→BAAL HAMMON; →CRONUS). Evidence for her cult is found especially in Rom. Africa, but also in Italy, the Iberian Peninsula and, to a lesser extent, in Britain, Dacia and Pannonia, from the 2nd BCE to the 4th cent. CE, flourishing during the 2nd-3rd centuries CE. Several scholars (e.g. Lipiński [1995] 147ff.435ff.; Bullo [1994] 1597; etc.) consider her to be the heiress of ASTARTE, which is justified by the close relationship and the many similarities between her and Tinnit. However, the existence of the pair BAAL HAMMON and Tinnit as protector deities of *Carthage in the pre-Rom. period indicates that, in all likelihood, these were the same gods who in the Rom. period were called Saturnus and Caelestis. The destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE entailed the preceding ceremony of the euocatio mentioned by

CAELESTIS (JUNO)

Macrobius (Sat. 3,9,1-9), who claims to have obtained this information from Sammonicus Serenus, who, in turn, had been inspired by the text of a certain Furius, probably L. Furius Philo, proconsul in 135 BCE, belonging to the circle of *Scipio Aemilianus (→*Scipions [6]). It is a ritual in which a general or high-ranking military man invites the patron or protector deity of the city under attack to go to his battlefield, having promised to build a temple to him and hold celebration games in his honour. In this way, he would avoid committing a possible sacrilege, at the same time ensuring that he had the support of the deity. In spite of doubts by some scholars about the reliability of this text, there do not seem to be reasons for excluding it. On the other hand, the passage by Servius (A. 12,841) in which he states that, during the II Punic War (*Punic Wars), Juno was exorata, meaning that she was worshipped in a special way, and during the III Punic War the goddess was transported to *Rome by Scipio, seems to be referring both to the visit made by *Hannibal [9] in 205 BCE to the sanctuary of Hera Lacinia (Liv. 28,46,15-16; Plb. 3,33; Cic. Div. 1,48-49), and to the fulfilment of Scipio’s vow of euocatio. Even so, most scholars have grave doubts that the image of the goddess was actually transported to Rome at this time, given the lack of information about it. The oldest evidence for the cult of Juno Caelestis in Rome is a fragment of a pediment, dated to the mid-1st cent. CE, which depicts a goddess riding a lion, following the iconography peculiar to Cybele, that may have come from the Arx Capitolina, and which, from its size, must have belonged to a small chapel. The oldest inscription, this time dedicated to Venus Caelestis (CIL VI, 780), is slightly later, in the time of Nerva or possibly Trajan (1st cent. CE). In another inscription from the 2nd cent., the goddess appears ordering an offering to PLUTO (AE 1950, 53). These documents, then, provide evidence of a cult that does not necessarily involve her image being moved or the construction of a large temple. Back to Carthage, after the destruction of that city in 146 BCE there was a vacant period in which it is unlikely that the cult disappeared; however, we lack evidence about the goddess in the African metropolis itself, but not in the surrounding areas. In 122 BCE, *Caius Graccus (→*Gracchi [6]), tribune of the plebs, founds a Rom. colony in it and, significantly, names it Colonia Junonia Carthago, which implies an awareness of the primacy of the goddess in the

79

city and in African territory, both for the Romans and for the indigenous people. An indication of this acknowledgement is also provided by the coins minted in 47-46 BCE by Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (*Caecilii Metelli [3]) (RRC, 459-461), father-in-law and ally of Pompey (*Pompeius Magnus, Cnaeus), the iconography of which claims to honour the patron deities of Carthage and Africa, suitably stressing these aspects, no doubt more for political than religious reasons. A good proof of the little success the initiative of Gracchus had is the fact that in 44 BCE Caesar made the decision to send a new colony to Carthage, which would now adopt the name Colonia Julia Concordia Karthago, which seems to have occurred in 42, becoming, already in 40, the religious and administrative capital of Proconsular Africa. The image that Rom. writers of the 1st centuries BCE and CE, mainly poets, have of the goddess of Carthage, is indebted to the work by Virgil, who envisions her installed there with her chariot and her weapons (A. 1,15-18), bearing in mind, as has been shown, the Sabine Juno Curitis: so Horace (Carm. 2,1,25-28) and Ovid (Fast. 6,45-46). No less mythical is the location of the temple where a horse’s head had been found (Verg. A. 1,441-447). Instead, Pliny (Nat. 6,31.200) mentions the temple of Juno in which *Hanno (3), after his periplus (→*Peripli), hung up the skins of two hairy women – clearly gorillas, or another type of great ape – captured on the Gorgades Islands. During the first centuries of the CE, Africa and particularly the city of Carthage underwent important transformations in every field: urban planning, socio-economics, culture and religion. These involve, on the one hand, a new urban plan for the city with the resulting relocation of its sacred spaces and, on the other, the definition of the new pantheon of Rom. Carthage, especially of Saturn and Juno Caelestis, who, even though they represent continuity with Baal Hammon and Tinnit, have logically been re-interpreted in a new political, social and cultural context. Evidence from epigraphy, which is not very abundant for C. in Rom. Carthage, shows the relationship of that goddess – as well as other deities – with the cult of the Emperor, as is evident from the formula pro salute imperatoris, which is common in inscriptions, both official and private. This circumstance is explained as a means of social promotion by the local elites, largely Romanized Africans, who would have a significant role in the process of Rom. acculturation, especially from

80

CAELESTIS (JUNO)

the 2nd cent. CE. From the Historia Augusta we have proof of the existence of an oracle in the temple of the goddess in which a prophetess made predictions. Thus, in the time of Antoninus Pius, there is evidence of a consultation by the proconsul of Africa concerning several matters related to the reign of the Emperor, using the expression ut solebat, which is quite illuminating (Hist. Aug. Macr. 3,1-4). Similarly, during the proconsulate of Pertinax in Africa (188-190) it is said that the prophecies of the goddess caused riots (Hist. Aug. Pert. 4,2). The text is too corrupt for further clarification. Also of great interest is the information that, when Celsus was being proclaimed as Emperor, he was made to wear the peplum of the goddess (SHA. Tyr. Trig. 29,1). Some scholars have questioned the truth of these facts. However, there cannot be any doubt about the very existence of the oracle, whereas the presence of the temple is a more complex issue. The text by Quodvultdeus (Promiss. 3,38,44), our main source of information, in spite of the doubts that arise, states that the pediment had an inscription in large bronze letters which read: Aurelius pontifex dedicauit, from which one can deduce that it was probably built (or perhaps rebuilt) by a certain Aurelius, very probably Marcus Aurelius. This sanctuary, as described by Quodvultdeus, occupied an area of 2000 paces and followed the typical plan of “Semitic” sanctuaries, with a main building consecrated to the goddess and adjacent buildings dedicated to other deities, and a platea that was richly decorated with a mosaic floor and columns and walls adorned with precious stones. Even though for some time its importance has been exaggerated, there is no doubt that the period of Severi marks the apogee of his cult, already promoted by Septimius Severus, born in *Leptis Magna, his wife Julia Domna, born in *Syria, or his son Caracalla. The gold pieces and denarii minted by both emperors, as well as the medals of the first (Septimius Severus: RIC IV/1, p. 116, no. 193; p. 125, no. 266, Pls 7, 9 and 267; p. 194, nos 759-760, Pls 10, 7; p. 195, nos 763, 763a, 767, 767a; Caracalla: RIC IV/1, p. 231, nos 130a and b; p. 232, nos 131a and b; p. 279, no. 415; p. 280, no. 418a; p. 289, no. 471; medallion: Gnecchi [1910] vol. III, no. 7, p. 39) depicts C. riding a lion, representing Carthage, to which the emperor had granted the Ius Italicum, probably the source of the inscription INDULGENTIA AUGG(ustorum) IN CARTHaginem on them. In any case, and in spite of what has been proposed on the basis of some

inscriptions (CIL XIII, 6671; CIL VII, 759), there does not seem to have been a special relationship between Julia Domna and the goddess. It was Elagabalus, who, in 221 CE, performed a theogamy (“sacred marriage”) between C. and Sol Invictus, the god of Emesa (of whom he was a priest), motivated not only by his own extravagance, but by the Or. origins of the goddess. For this he transported the image of C. to Rome, together with her “dowry”, i.e. the great wealth accumulated in her temple, and installed her in Elagabalium, celebrating a great feast in her honour (Hdn. 5,6,4-5; Dio Cass. 79,1,3-12). At the same time, it is said that a temple of the goddess was built on the Palatine, which we know already existed in 259 CE (CIL VI, 37170). Given how ephemeral the reign of Elagabalus was, it does not seem as if these events were of great importance for the cult of the goddess in Rome. Several sources inform us of the role of C. in Carthage during the early period of Christianity, including the passage by Quodvultdeus quoted above (Promiss. 3,38,44), which transmits the negative view that Christians had of her sanctuary. After being left abandoned for a considerable period, it was transformed into a Christian temple and bishop Aurelius placed his throne there for the Easter of 399. However, the attraction it had for the local population and the return to pagan cult and ritual made the tribune Ursus, by order of Constantius and Augusta Placidia, raze it to the ground in 421, making it into a cemetery. Finally, the Vandals had even demolished the platea, allegedly called the via Caelestis (Vic. Hist. pers. 1,3), which led to the temple. The hatred and fear that the cult of the goddess – since it was so strongly rooted among the “pagans” – made Christians feel is also tangible in other Christian writers. Examples are Augustine of Hippo, who in some way compares the rites of the Great Mother with rituals for C. (CD 2,4.26) showing his moral rejection of them, or Salvianus of Marseille (De gub. Dei 8,2,9-11), who mentions that the temple was intra muros patrios and calls the goddess, as did Augustine repeatedly, a daemon, being particularly critical of those who call themselves Christians and yet continue to worship C. The cult of C. extended mainly into Rom. Africa, especially in the province of Proconsular Africa, but also, to a lesser extent, in the other African provinces [FIG. 57]. Of most significance, for various reasons, of the settlements in Proconsular Africa is *Thinissut (Siagu), on the summit of a hill lying NE of Ksar

CAELESTIS (JUNO)

Fig. 57. Dedication to Caelestis from the pagus et civitas siviritani

es-Zit, clear evidence of the continuity between the cults of Baal Hammon-Tinnit and Saturn-Caelestis; KAI 137 in the Neopun. script, commemorates the construction, between the second half of the 2nd cent. and the 1st BCE, of two sanctuaries or chapels dedicated to Baal Hammon and Tinnit that would last until the period of the Roman Empire, well into the 4th cent. Of particular interest are the terracotta sculptures, one of which is a female standing with her feet on a lion with a Lat. inscription on its back that has been read as follows: D(eae) v(irgini)/ C(aelesti) s(acrum). F(ecit) Satur/ninus P. fil(ius), /Phae[radi]/ tanus Maius, dating to the time of Augustus. C. also has an important temple in Thuburbo Maius (*Henchir Kasbat), a city of which she was patron, although she was also worshipped in another sanctuary together with Saturn. Inscriptions also mention other temples in Thugga (*Dougga), Mustis (*Henchir Mest/Le Krib), *Simitthus (Chemtou) and various smaller buildings in many other places. Generally, evidence from Africa concerning C. shows us that there was a cult of the goddess, especially in the more important cities, in which she frequently was a poliadic deity: Carthage, Thugga, Cirta Regia (*Constantine), Thuburbo Maius, even though we also find her in rural villages, in which the goddess is invoked as a provider of rain and protector of harvests. As for Rome and Italy, the inscriptions can be misleading, since the term Caelestis is often accompanied by a name of various goddesses, such as Venus, Diana or Bona Dea, which makes one question whether they really are about this African goddess.

81

In general, one tends to think of a private cult, especially by peoples of African origin. Something along these lines may apply to Hispania where, besides the Phoen. and Pun. tradition, one has to take into account the presence of military elements from the same origin, which is undoubtedly a very obvious factor in other Rom. provinces: Britannia, Germania, Dacia and Pannonia. The importance of the temples of C. in Africa depended, of course, on the wealth of their builders, whether individuals or communities, going from grand architectural complexes to small chapels that could be either in cities or in the countryside. From the viewpoint of archaeology, we can state that only some of them really are dedicated to C., and tend to follow the Or. tradition of an enclosure with a large porticoed courtyard around a chapel. Often the goddess is worshipped alongside Saturn, as he was the main titular, except, so far as we know, for the sanctuary of Thinissut, where it is she who houses her consort. There is no doubt that the most important must have been the great sanctuary of Carthage, which we know about from the Liber de promissionibus et praedictionibus Dei. The most elaborate hypothesis concerning its location and probable archaeological remains, although it has not been definitively accepted due to the lack of sufficient evidence, was proposed by H. Hurst (1999). He places it on the hill of Koudiat el-Hobsia, next to the *Tophet, with its main nucleus on the summit of the hill, and the chapels of the other gods on its slopes. Another large temple belongs to Thuburbo Maius, or Thugga, the second built in the time of Alexander Severus. In general, these buildings are not wellknown, and therefore it is not possible to establish a common pattern. The data are even more meagre for temples outside Africa, starting with Rome itself. As far as C.’s ritual is concerned, little of which is generally known, it is not much different from what is documented about other contemporary Rom. cults: offerings of food – in Sarmizegetusa, Dacia, mulsa is mentioned, a mixture of wine and honey – and sacrifices of animals (Piso [1993]). She is also offered votive gifts which vary in quality, from small terracottas – depicting either the goddess, or the worshipper, doves, etc. – to silver statues (Thugga: CIL VIII, 26458). In Carpis, the goddess is offered a thorax (CIL VIII, 993/12454), a term that has been explained in various ways, oscillating between cuirass, cloak and peplum, but more probably was a

82

CAELESTIS (JUNO)

pectoral, in connection with the luxurious ornaments with which sometimes the breasts of female images were adorned. We have little more than a generic description by Augustine of the licentious nature of her festivals, since we cannot attribute to C. the rituals typical of the Magna Mater (“Great Mother”) that he describes in De civitate Dei (2,4). Instead, in 2,26, Augustine mentions a feast attended by a large number of people at which, with the image of the deity placed in front of her temple, certain rites were performed that were obscene for Christian morality, and very probably were related to the fertility aspect of the goddess. The authenticity of the oracle, mentioned in the Historia Augusta and uttered by a priestess, cannot be questioned, irrespective of the events described, although we do not know its origin or antiquity. Inscriptions document various types of priests, most of them, of course, in Africa, often corresponding to local variants. The most frequent title is simply sacerdos or, less often, sacerda (Simitthus: CIL VIII, 25648); a woman has the title sacerdos in Hadrumetum (*Sousse): CIL VIII, 22920, and in Rome there is mention of a sacerdotia (CIL VI, 37170). These could evoke the hierarchical collegia, the chief representative of which is given the title of magister (e.g. *Zita [Henchir Zian], CIL VIII, 22690), while in Rome (CIL VI, 2242) a princeps sacerdotium Deae Caelestis is documented. In Cirta there were a sacerdos loci primi (AE 1907, 244), and a sacerdos loci secundi (CIL VIII, 19512a). There are several references to canistrarii or “basket carriers”, whose function is no doubt quite minor. Augustine mentions the sacrati Caelestis, comparable to the Sem. qdšm (→*Holy[Holiness]) initiated into the cult of the goddess, who are said to have received some kind of religious instruction (castitatis praecepta: CD 2,26). Instead, Salvianus (De gub. Dei 8,10) wonders who would not have been initiated in her cult or dedicated right from birth. Of special interest in respect of the survival of Pun. traditions is the double priestly title of C. and Aesculapius, which seems to evoke the relationship between Astarte and ESHMUN. Quite often, people of some standing in society, who perform other religious duties or important administrative functions, have a priestly title. Generally, they all seem to be freemen and of African origin, although there are also some who have been emancipated. As for the social position of devotees of C., which can also be deduced from inscriptions, it is a fact that in Africa there are people from every

class, preferably free people who often fill administrative posts of some importance, but at the same time, well-off freedmen. In Rome they are mostly emancipated slaves, and in the other provinces, they are people of African origin, whether soldiers or not. Usually, in order to know the personality of the goddess, the epithets she receives, in inscriptions and in the literary sources, are of great relevance (→DIVINE NAMES & EPITHETS). First of all comes Virgo, which is common in literary texts but rarer in inscriptions. This epithet is not to be taken in its literal and modern meaning, but is to be understood as “young damsel” and therefore similar to her counterparts, and, in this respect, she is close to ARTEMIS-Diana, as was Tinnit. It would seem that this aspect would make her remote from the maternal characteristics inherited from her predecessor, which we see reflected chiefly in iconography, especially in her probable additional split into Nutrix. However, nothing is further from the truth, since it should be understood that this is an aspect connected with her role in fertility and one should not look for rational consistency. The goddess is augusta in a large number of inscriptions, an epithet that defines her in relation to the Emperor, endowing her with a nuance of excellence that derives from him. She is also domina, a title comparable to Pun. rbt, which makes her both human and exalted; she is sancta, a title that Or. deities usually have and which is probably related to her spiritual character. The epithets pia, aeterna, invicta or triumphalis are much rarer, all of them related to her divine nature and her exalted character, in the same way that numen concerns her powers. An interesting nuance is provided by the epithet redux et conservatrix domus suae of Auzia (Aumale) (CIL VIII, 20743), which in this particular case alludes to the protection she gives during a long journey and for a safe return, also supported by the inscription from Portus (CIL XIV, 4488). Attempts have been made to connect this aspect with the plates of the plantae pedum (itus et reditus?) consecrated to the goddess that we saw in Italica and also in Rome. However, this type of depiction is particularly complex and it is not possible to assign a single meaning to them categorically. Tertullian (Apol. 23,2) calls her pluviarum pollicitatrix, which clearly alludes to her propitiatory role in connection with rain and the fertility of the fields, and largely explains her popularity among African farmers. On the other hand, it is worth revisiting the various ways by which she is named and her

CAELESTIS (JUNO)

association with other deities. In the beginning she is called Juno Caelestis, although throughout the 2nd cent. BCE only the adjective Caelestis began to be used, which is how she was preferably known already in the 3rd cent. Sometimes she is also called Juno Caelestis Regina, a royal character which was seen in the iconography of the Pun. Tinnit, like Astarte previously. The fact that the goddess is chiefly known as Caelestis raises doubts in some cases. For ex., it is not certain that the Diana Caelestis of Carthage (CIL VIII, 999) and Mediolanum (CIL V, 5765) prove both goddesses to be the same, even though it should be added that Tinnit is already equated with Artemis. The Venus Caelestis who is documented chiefly in Italy is usually understood to be a Lat. version of Aphrodite Ourania, although it is also possible that this name stresses Astarte’s role in the character of C., as it could be a local preference. There are also doubts about her probable identification with Nemesis (Caelestis Nemesis) in the amphitheatre of Emerita Augusta (AE 1961, 48), a connection that may also apply in the sacellum in Italica, where we find inscriptions dedicated to both goddesses separately. A similar case is the Bona Dea Caelestis documented in Venafrum (CIL X, 4849) or Aefula (CIL XIV, 3530) or Caelestis Brigantia in Corstopitum (Corbridge) (RIB 1131). A clearer relationship is established with Fortuna, to a great extent the heiress of Gk Tyche, identified in turn with Phoen. GAD, as protector of various groups of the population: families or clans, villages, cities or nations, as was Tinnit. In Cirta she is called Fortuna Caelestis (CIL VIII, 6943). In connection with family groups, in Africa she is Sittiana (Cirta: AE 1907, 244 and AE 1942-1943, 88) and Graniana (Haut Mornag: AE 1909, 9). Likewise, sometimes she is connected with the genius municipalis (Thuburbo Maius, ILAfr 228), and very similar is her probable identification with Africa, which we find in Lucus Augusti (Africa Caelestis, AE 1973, 294), reminiscent of the G(enius) T(errae) A(fricae) on the denarius of Metellus. Also to be mentioned are the examples of Dea Syria Magna Caelestis in Apulum (Berciu-Popa [1964] 473f.), of Baltis Caelestis also in that city (AE 1903, 58), or of the dea Coryphea sive Caelestis Augusta (Hoffiler – Saria [1938] 240). Lastly, the personification of various aspects of Tinnit is recognized as very likely in the Rom.-African version of Ops and Nutrix. There is no doubt about the relationship, inherited from Tinnit and Baal

83

Hammon, between C. and Saturn, palpable in their shared sanctuaries, in inscriptions and in iconography, although it is obvious that there had been a reinterpretation of her from the Tinnit “face of Baal” of the tophet, very dependent on the god, and the new Caelestis, much more independent and powerful by herself. Also unquestionable is the relationship with Aesculapius that is evident in various sources: a priest of the two gods is mentioned three times in Mustis (AE 1968, 595 and 596 and CIL VIII, 16417); both deities appear, associated in some way, in *Theveste (CIL VIII, 1887/16150) and in Apulum (CIL III, 993); a statue of the god has been found in the temple of C. in Thugga, and Tertullian also mentions them together (Apol. 23,2). Her relationship to PLUTO, MERCURY, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, Jupiter Dolichenus, Sabazius, etc., is still somewhat sporadic and is explained by their special contexts. The iconography of C. lacks any canonical prototype, a feature peculiar to Sem. religions. Even so, it is possible to speak of several types that usually correspond to the different attributes of the goddess, borrowing certain features from deities in fairly neighbouring cultures, such as Egypt. or GraecoRom., which is explained not by her identification with these goddesses, but by the similarity of certain iconographic features. As Regina the goddess is usually shown enthroned: this is the case for the cippus from *Uchi Maius (Bullo [2010] fig. 1) which we can definitely say is of her, thanks to the inscription Caelesti Aug(ustae) sacrum. Although only the upper part of the body is preserved, it is clear she is wearing something on her head, perhaps a mural crown, with a sceptre in her left hand. The sculpture from Theveste (Bullo [2010] fig. 3) has similar iconography, where the goddess is not only holding a sceptre, but is veiled. She is also shown enthroned in some stelae, sometimes accompanied by Saturn, as on the two stelae from Guinifida (Khenafsa, Theveste: Antonielli [1922] figs 41 and 42), with a lion always present, close to the goddess [FIG. 58]. We see her alongside Saturn and other gods, with a lion as a footstool, on a stela from *Henchir Meded/Mididi (Antonielli [1922] fig. 40), where she is wearing a sort of polos and holds a sceptre in her left hand. She is already shown riding pillion on a lion, following the model of Cybele, in the pediment of the Capitolium in Rome, in the mid-1st cent. CE, with a sceptre in the same hand and unusual headgear (Bullo [2010] fig. 5), and in the Metamorphoses (6,4,1-2) in

84

CAELESTIS (JUNO)

Fig. 59. Silver denarius of Septimius Severus (202-210). Rev.: Dea Caelestis, draped, riding on a lion, holding a thunderbolt in her right hand and a sceptre in her left; below, water gushing from a rock

Fig. 58. Funerary stela depicting Caelestis

the mid-2nd cent. CE, Apuleius evokes her in the same way. We see her mounted on a lion on a relief from Aïn Amara (Bullo [2010] fig. 6), on the medallion of Marcus Aurelius (ibid.: fig. 9), on coins minted by Septimius Severus [FIG. 59] and Caracalla (ibid.: fig. 7), on the gem in the Marlborough collection (Antonielli [1922] fig. 27), or on many lanterns (Antonielli [1922] fig. 28). We can also see her enthroned between sphinxes, in the statue of Thuburbo Maius (1st cent. BCE-1st cent. CE, Bullo [1997] 270, B3). She is shown as standing on a lion in the terracotta figure from Thinissut, on the back of which is the inscription D(eae) v(irgini)/ C(aelesti) s(acrum), or on the relief from Thibilis from the 2nd cent. CE also with a dedication to Caelestis (ILAlg II, 4628). Her relationship with a lion is shown in an original way in the version of

a lion-headed goddess, usually standing, documented from the pre-Rom. period in Thinissut and *Bir Derbal (see under Tinnit), as well as on the denarius of Metellus, from the mid-1st cent. BCE, although it does not seem to have lasted for the whole of the imperial period. We must also mention the enthroned figure with the head of a lioness, in the sanctuary of Torreparedones (Baena, Córdoba) (Marín and Belén [2002-2003]). Quite probably it was intended to portray the goddess as enthroned, with no significant attributes, so that caution is necessary in any interpretation. A separate matter is the motif of seated ladies breast-feeding a baby, considered to be a representation of the goddess in her aspect as nourishing, that is, as Nutrix, an outstanding example of which is the terracotta image from the sanctuary of Thinissut (Bullo and Rossignoli [1998] fig. 7), or the various representations on North African stelae, especially on the two now in Yale University (Wurnig [1999] Pls 23 and 24). Sometimes, only the head or bust of the goddess is depicted, as can be seen in the North African sashes or diadems from Batna and *Thala (Bullo [1997] c6). In these she is depicted next to Saturn, veiled and wearing the mural crown. Less certain are some depictions of the bust of a female in connection with a half-moon, generally attributed to Tinnit/Caelestis in her lunar aspect (Bullo [1997] nos 15, 16, 17). Merlin, A. (1910) Le sanctuaire de Baal et Tanit près de Siagu. Notes et documents publiés par la Direction des Antiquités et des Arts. Paris; Gnecchi, F. (1912) I medaglioni romani, I-III. Milan (Bologna 19682); Antonielli, U. (1922) Tanit-Caelestis nell’arte figurata. In: Notiziario archeologico del Ministero delle Colonie III, 41-67, Pls I-XI; Hoffiler, V. and Saria, B. (1938) Antike Inschriften aus Iugoslavien. Heft 1. Noricum und Pannonia Superior. Zagreb; Rénard, J. (1959) BSNAF, 27-52; Berciu, I. and Popa, A. (1964) Latomus, 23, 473-482; Zecchini, G. (1983) Il

85

CAELESTIS (JUNO) – CARTHAGO

santuario della dea Caelestis e l’Historia Augusta. In: Sordi, M. (ed.) Santuari e politica nel mondo antico. Milan, 150-167; Halsberghe, H. (1984) Le culte de Dea Caelestis. In: ANRW II 17,4, 2203-2223; Cordischi, L. (1990) ArchCl, 42, 161-195; Marín Ceballos, M. C. (1993) Dea Caelestis en la epigrafía hispana. In: II Congresso Peninsular de História Antiga. Coimbra, 825-845; Piso, I. (1993) ZPE, 99, 223-226; Bullo, S. (1994) La Dea Caelestis nell’epigrafia africana. In: AfRo 11, 1597-1698; Lipiński, E. (1995) passim; Marín Ceballos, M. C. (1995) Kolaios, 4, 827-843; Bullo, S. (1997) s.v. “Virgo Caelestis”. In: LIMC VIII/1, cols 269-272; Bullo, S. and Rossignoli, C. (1998) Il santuario rurale presso Bir bou Rekba (Thinissut): uno studio iconografico ed alcune riconsiderazioni di carattere architettonico-planimetrico. In: AfRo 12, 249-267; Hurst, H. (1999) The sanctuary of Tanit at Carthage in the Roman period. A re-interpretation. Portsmouth; Wurnig, U. (1999) Reliefstele der Dea Caelestis. Studie zu Religion und Kunst im römischen Nordafrika. Würzburg; Marín Ceballos, M. C. and Belén Deamos, M. (2002-2003) En torno a una dama entronizada de Torreparedones. In: Homenaje a la Dra. Dña. Encarnación Ruano. Boletín de la Asociación Española de Amigos de la Arqueología, 42, 177-192; Cadotte, A. (2007) La romanisation des Dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden; Bullo, S. (2008) Echi di tradizioni orientali nel santuario di Caelestis a Cartagine. In: AfRo 17, 893-905; Ferri, G. (2009) Storia, Antropologia e Scienze del Linguaggio, 24.1-2, 181-202; Bullo, S. (2010) Ancora sulla dea Caelestis: iconografie ed attributi. In: Ben Abid Saadallah, L. (ed.) Iconographie et religions dans le Maghreb antique et médiéval. Tunis, 225237; Lancellotti, M. G. (2010) Dea Caelestis. Studi e materiali per la storia di una divinità dell’Africa romana. CSF 44. Pisa/ Rome (basic text on this topic). M. C. MARÍN CEBALLOS

CARCHOS Gk Κάρχοϛ. According to one writer of the Byzantine period (Tz. ad Lyc. 1206) C. was the daughter of Egypt and a son of Zeus and Thebe. The island of Carchedon was named after her. The quasi-etymological play on *Carthage/qrtḥdšt is transparent. For similar cases see also CARTERE, CARTHAGENE and CARTHAGO. Bonnet, C. (1988) 147.166.188; Geus, K. (1994) 207. A. ERCOLANI

CARTERE Gk Καρτέρη. Ampelius (9,12) states that C. was the mother of the Tyrian Hercules (→MELQART). This evidence has no historical value and is based solely on the probable etymology of the name, connecting it with qrt(ḥdšt) (“New City”, i.e. Carthage). For similar cases see also CARCHOS, CARTHAGENE and CARTHAGO. Bonnet, C. (1988) 166 and fn. 5; Geus, K. (1994) 206f.

CARCHEDON

A. ERCOLANI

Gk Καρχηδών. A name attributed by some Gk writers (FGrHist 556 fr. 47 apud Eus. Chron. 802; Eudox. fr. 360 Lasserre; App. Pun. 1) to the person who, together with ZOROS (Ζῶρος), founded *Carthage. Aelius Herodianus (pros. cath. 3,26,10-11), Stephanus Byzantius (s.v.) and Eustathius (ad Dionys. Per. 195) mention only C. as the founder and eponym of that city, whereas Jerome (Hier. ab Abr. 976) and Eusebius of Caesarea (Chron. 972.978) consider him to be the father of Dido (→ELISSA), the Tyrian exile, who named the city she founded after her progenitor. Ζῶρος is easily understood to be the Phoen. name for *Tyre, while Καρχηδών is the name of Carthage, its colony. Ribichini, S. (2009) Carthago a Cartha. In: Bartoloni, G. et al. (eds) Tiro, Cartagine, Lixus: nuove acquisizioni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale in onore di Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo, Roma 24-25 novembre 2008. Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 4. Rome, 25-43. S. RIBICHINI

CARTHAGENE Gk Καρθαγήνη. According to one tradition from the Byzantine period (Georg. Sync. Chron. 183CD), C. was the founder of the city of *Carthage in *Libya. The name is probably a back formation from qarthadasht. For similar aetiological information linking a PN to a “city” (qrt) see also CARCHOS, CARTERE and CARTHAGO. Geus, K. (1994) 212f. A. ERCOLANI

CARTHAGO Lat. Carthago. According to one tradition reported by Cicero (Nat. D. 3,42), C. was the daughter of the Tyrian Hercules (→MELQART) as well as the granddaughter of Jupiter (BAAL HAMMON) and Asteria (ASTARTE). This is a mytheme with a transparent aetiology for the name

86

CARTHAGO – CINYRAS

*Carthage/qrtḥdšt, within the wider relationship of that city with *Tyre, its motherland. For similar cases see also CARCHOS, CARTERE and CARTHAGENE. Bonnet, C. (1988) 147.166.188; Geus, K. (1994) 207. A. ERCOLANI

Castor see DIOSCURI CEPHEUS Gk Κηφεύς. Son of BELOS (Hdt. 7,61; [Apollod.] Bibl. 2,1,4) or AGENOR (Nonn. D. 2,679-683; schol. in Eur. Ph. 217), C. was mostly considered a king of Ethiopia, but other traditions connected him with Joppa/*Jaffa (FGrHist 26 fr. 1 apud Phot Bibl. 186,40; St. Byz. s.v. Ἰόπη; Plin. Nat. 6,35,182, merged the two versions, deducing that, under C., Ethiopia should have ruled over *Syria), or with Babylonia (St. Byz. s.v. Χαλδαῖοι). Following an oracle, C. chained his daughter Andromeda to a rock as a sacrifice to a sea-monster sent by POSEIDON, but Perseus rescued and married her. Like Andromeda and Perseus, C. became a constellation. According to Hyginus (Fab. 64), Andromeda’s former betrothed was named Agenor; he plotted together with C. to kill Perseus, who turned them to stone by displaying the head of Medusa. In Conons’ euhemeristic version (→*Euhemerism), C. granted Andromeda to PHOINIX, but, in order to avoid upsetting C.’s brother Phineus (who also was a suitor of the girl), a simulated abduction was arranged; unaware of the plot, Perseus rescued Andromeda by destroying the ship (whose name was “sea-monster”) on which Phoinix was carrying her away. Roscher, Lexicon II, s.v. “Kepheus” (4), cols 1109-1113 (K. Tümpel); RE XI,1, s.v. “Kepheus” (2), cols 223f. (K. Latte); Schauenburg, K. (1991) s.v. “Kepheus” (I). In: LIMC VI,1, cols 6-10. G. MINUNNO

Ceres see DEMETER & CORE CHNA Gk Χνᾶ. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,39) C. is the

brother of EISIRIOS and the first to change his name to PHOINIX. The Gk name is a transcription of Canaan and clearly indicates the founder of the Canaanite tribe (→*Canaanites). The equivalence between these two peoples established by Philo seems typical of him, as does his comment on C.’s change of name to the name of the ancestor of the *Phoenicians. Moscati, S. (1969) Biblica et Orientalia, 3, 266-269; Troiani, L. (1974) L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa, 192f.; Ribichini, S. (1999) Rileggendo Filone di Biblo. Questioni di sincretismo nei culti fenici. In: Bonnet, C. and Motte, A. (eds) Les syncrétismes religieux dans le monde méditerranéen antique. Bruxelles/Rome, 149-177. S. RIBICHINI

Chousartis see SOURMUBELOS Chousor see KOSHAR/KOTHARU CINYRAS Gk Κινύραϛ. C. is a character in Gk mythology, Or. in origin but closely associated with *Cyprus in the various surviving traditions, the oldest of which go back to the Homeric period. His main features can be subsumed around a certain number of nuclear themes, some of which go back to connections with the Ancient Near Eastern world (son of the Syr. Sandokos, who had settled in *Cilicia: [Apollod.] Bibl. 3,14,3, cf. AP 11,236; king of the *Assyrians in Hyg. Fab. 58, 242,270), especially with the Phoen. world (king of *Byblos: Str. 16,2,18, cf. Eust. ad Dionys. Per. 912; [Luc.] Syr. D. 9). His connection with ADONIS, a son of C. according to the most widespread version of the myth, from an incestuous relationship with his daughter Myrrha, is very noticeable in tradition, even if it is a relatively recent embellishment (Ov. Met. 10,298559; the earliest occurrence of this tradition is in the lost comedy Adonis by Plato the Comic, 5th-4th cent. BCE: Athen. Deipn. 10,456a). The sources connect C. with Cyprus, over which he was king (Hom. Il. 11,20), as an ally and friend of the Greeks, although he did not take part in the expedition against Troy. Later traditions (especially in scholia to Homer) elaborate on the connection between the Cyprus of C. and the Gk contingent: C. had

CINYRA – CNEPH

promised to send help to Agamemnon, but did not fulfil his obligation (schol. in Hom. Il. 20; cf. Alcid. Od. 20-21; [Apollod.] Epit. 3,9,1). In his role as king of Cyprus, C. (or his sons, or else more rarely other members of his family) is the founder of some of the main cities on the island (*Amathus: Theopomp. FGrHist 115 fr. 103, St. Byz. s.v. Ἀμαθοῦς; Kinyreia: Nonn. D. 13,451f.; Kourion: St. Byz. s.v. Koύριον; *Marion: St. Byz. s.v. Μάριον; *Paphos: [Apollod.] Bibl. 3,14,3; schol. in Dionys. Per. 509) and is the real origin of the name of Cyprus (FGrHist 334 fr. 19 [Ister]; St. Byz. s.v. Κύπροϛ). His family relationship with *Pygmalion, another mythical king of Cyprus ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3,14,3; FGrHist 758 fr. 3a) and with Teucros, founder of Salamina (Paus. 1,3,2; schol. in Lyc. Alex. 450), makes him one of the central figures in the mythical period in Cyprus from the perspective of Gk tradition. Other aspects recorded in the sources are C.’s wealth (Tyrt. fr. 9,6 Gentili-Prato, cf. Pind. N. 8,28-35, Pl. Lg. 660c, and many later writers), probably connected with his reputation as the inventor of metal-working (Plin. Nat. 7,195), his longevity (Plin. Nat. 7,154), as well as his oracular activities (Clem. Al. Strom. 1,144). C.’s connection with Aphrodite (Pind. P. 2,26-31), for whom he established a famous cult at Paphos, giving his name to the Kinyrades, the dynasty of priests of that goddess (schol. in Pind. P. 2,27, cf. Le Bas – Waddington, III, no. 2798; JHS, 9 [1888] 249 no. 101; Hsch. κ 2744 Latte, s.v. Κινυράδαι) is a relatively recent embellishment. It can definitively be justified with the appropriation by the royal dynasty of Paphos, in the class. period, of what was by then considered to be an archetypal figure of Cypr. culture (the “cristallisation des Kinyrades à Paphos”, as aptly expressed by C. Baurain [1981]), through the Great Cypriot Goddess, the wanassa, identified with Aphrodite. Very much along the same lines is the tradition, transmitted by Theopompus (FGrHist 115 fr. 103), that considers C. to be the head of a band of Cypriots who had fled from the *Hellenization of the island (at the time of the nostoi) and had settled in *Amathus: as part of the strategy to provide the kingdom of Amathus with its own identity, C., perceived as a symbol of the local pre-Hellenic substrate, takes on the role of a founder hero. A reliable tradition connects C. with APOLLO (Pind. P. 2,26-31, cf. schol. Hom. Il. 11,20; schol. in Pind. P. 2,27, 31; Suid. κ 1651 Adler, s.v. Κινύραϛ; Hsch.

87

κ 2745 Latte), sometimes in connection with Adonis (schol. in Theocr. 1,109a). The relationship with Apollo is indicative of the importance of music in the formation of C.’s character. The Ug. texts mention the deity knr, dingir-giški-na-rum in Akkadian (RS 20.24, KTU3 1.47:32; cf. KTU3 1.118:31, 1.148:9, 38), a deified harp (for the musical instrument itself, not as a god, cf. KTU3 1.19 I 8; 1.101:16; NT Gk κινύραϛ; Hebr. kinnōr), who is undoubtedly one of the Ancient Near Eastern antecedents of C. together with the Ug. god KOSHAR/KOTHARU (connected with music and metallurgy), Syriac Kauthar (king of the Phoenicians and the father of Tammuz), and Phoen. Chousor (inventor, craftsman and dispenser of oracles: FGrHist 790 frs 2 and 11). The origin of C. from several Near Eastern sources that mention the spheres of music, metallurgy and prophecy can be traced in the Gk tradition documented by the sources, for which the Cypr. aspect of his character is primary. Connected with Aphrodite and Apollo, respectively Gk personifications of the Great Cypr. Goddess and her consort, king of the island in its founding phase (in a mythical perspective), of the Trojan War and of the nostoi, in Gk myth C. symbolizes the pre-Hellenic past of Cyprus. With these characteristics, in constructing the identity of the Cypr. kingdoms of the class. age, C. emerges as an archetypal figure, the source for giving the political and religious authorities their legitimacy. Brown, J. P. (1965) JSS, 10, 197-219; Kapera, Z. S. (1971) FO, 13, 131-142; Baurain, C. (1980) BCH, 104, 277-308; id. (1981) AC, 50, 23-37; id. (1981) BCH, 105, 361-372; Ribichini, S. (1982) Kinyras di Cipro. In: Lanternari, V., Massenzio, M. and Sabbatucci, D. (eds) Scritti in memoria di Angelo Brelich. Bari, 479-500; Loucas-Durie, E. (1989) Mètis, 4, 117-127; Cayla, J.-B. (2001) CCEC, 31, 69-81; id. (2005) Apollon ou la vie sauvage: à propos de quelques épiclèses d’Apollon à Chypre. In: Belayche, N. et al. (eds) Nommer les dieux. Théonymes, épithètes, épiclèses dans l’Antiquité. Turnhout, 227-240; Franklin, J. C. (2015) Kinyras: The Divine Lyre. Hellenic Studies 70. Washington (DC). A. CANNAVÒ

CNEPH Gk Kνήφ. According to PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790) a name given by the Egyptians to the snake as a divine being, as described in a longer passage about the nature and theological relevance of snakes. The name is cited by Eusebius of Caesarea (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,48 = BNJ 790 fr. 4), and is reported as

88

CNEPH – CRONUS

a topic on which the “hierophant” EPEEIS wrote (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,49-50), repeating the detail that the snake has the head of a hawk. The name Cneph may derive from Kham-utef, a Hellenist. manifestation of AMON in the form of a snake. Another clue in the passage is that the snake was said to be called ἀγαθὸϛ δαίμων (i.e. “benevolent demon/ spirit”: →AGATHODAIMON) by the *Phoenicians, a euphemistic expression used for snakes in *Egypt and Greece. More importantly, a cult of Agathodaimon as a protector of vineyards and grain fields, sometimes represented as a snake (but often as a figure with symbols of abundance and fortune) spread from Greece throughout the Mediterranean and was well established in Egypt by Rom. times, where there was some overlap or confusion with Chnum, the lionheaded serpent; Agathodaimon is also invoked as having bird and serpent features in a Hermetic prayer. Hengel, M. (1974) Judaism and Hellenism. Philadelphia; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 94f.; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 257; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Colpia see AION Corybantes see BENSADIQ Cosmogony see MYTH & MYTHOLOGY; PHILO OF BYBLOS CRONUS Gk Κρόνος; Lat. Cronus. C. was the name of a deity who, according to Gk mythology, was a son of Ouranos and father of Zeus. On the *Greek mainland, he almost never received a direct cult; his persona was limited to the realm of the narrative (Nilsson [1967] 511: “Er ist mythologisch, nicht kultisch”). By contrast, in the Phoen. and Pun. world, C. appears far more regularly as the recipient of *Cult and sanctuaries in inscriptions, for ex. as protector of a neighbourhood in *Arwad (IGLS VII, 402). Yet his most

important role in the Phoen. world is as a figure involved in the syncretistic process that related BAAL HAMMON to SATURN in North Africa. C.’s appearance in Africa may tell us less about Carthag. cult, though, and more about the treatment of a seemingly foreign deity by Gk writers and worshippers. Traditionally, scholars have recognized a direct relationship between Baal Hammon (Phoen. and Pun.), Cronos (Gk), and Saturn (Lat.), either as equivalences in a kind of trilingual dictionary, or as distinct figures whose equation by ancient authors and worshippers led to a kind of cross-contamination of each god’s portfolio. So, for ex., M. Le Glay (1966) argues that by the Rom. imperial period, although African Saturn was Baal Hammon, the process of →*Syncretism had left Saturn also as a god of time, thanks to the Gk slippage between Cronos (proper name) and chronos (time). Yet as with all equations of deities with different names in different languages, more attention should be paid to the specific agents who make the equivalence and the precise circumstances in which they do so. Originally, there may have been a relationship between C. and the north. Syr. god Kumarbi, established via shared myths. Hesiod’s C. follows the same narrative trajectory as Kumarbi in the BA Hurrian-Hitt. Kumarbi cycle (→*Hittites; →*Hurrians): a deity who overthrew his father and was in turn overthrown by his son, being castrated in the process (Güterbock [1948]). P HILO OF B YBLOS ’ Phoen. theogony, although its antiquity and sources have been questioned, repeats a related version of the tale, in which he equates EL with Cronus (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10). E. Lipiński (1983) suggests that this equation is mistaken, and that in the original Byblian myth, it was Dagon (→*DAGAN) rather than EL with whom C. could be linked. Beyond shared myth traditions, the link between C. and Baal Hammon seems to have been made almost exclusively by those who wrote in Greek, and almost always in the context of →*Child sacrifice. This equation was already being made by the 5th or 4th cent. BCE: a fragment of Sophocles’ Andromeda (fr. 122) records that, “Among foreigners, it has been the custom from the beginning to require human sacrifice to Cronus”. Although the passage does not specify which foreigners, it is often assumed that it refers to child sacrifice in Pun. tophets (→*Tophet). More precisely, [Plat.] Min. 315b-c records the Carthaginians as offering their own children to C.,

89

CRONUS

a clear reference to the rites practised in the tophet of Salammbô, and evidence that the author recognized Baal Hammon as C. This equation continues in Gk authors of the 3rd to 1st cent. BCE (FGrHist 137 fr. 9; Diod. 20,14,7), almost always in the context of child sacrifice. The one possible exception is in the alleged Gk translation of Pun. Periplus of Hanno, which records that the original was displayed at Carthage “in the temple of Cronus” (→*Hanno [3]; →*Peripli). While this may imply a wider range of rites and offerings in the tophet than is attested archaeologically at present (and dedication of a monument stemming from a sea-voyage would be appropriate close to the harbours, where the tophet sat), the passage could also suggest another temple to C. at *Carthage. Still, C. was recognized almost exclusively by “outsiders” writing about Pun. sacrificial rites. There are also four dedications, all from Cirta (*Constantine), made by inhabitants of North Africa to C. (EH nos 3-6 Gk). All four come from the tophet where most Punic-script dedications are to Baal Hammon, and all are inscriptions in the Gk script made by individuals with Gk names. Most probably, these dedicants were part of the Gk community living in Cirta. Tellingly, one dedicant made his offering to C. and Θεννειθ Φενη Βαλ (→TINNIT). Baal Hammon’s name is translated, while Tinnit’s is not, nor is her epithet. This suggests two things: first, Baal Hammon was named C. by Greeks in the context of child sacrifice (the same dynamics are at play in literary accounts); and second, this translation was somehow simpler or more normalized than the equation of Tinnit with a Gk name. Why did certain writers and dedicants cast a god whom others called Baal Hammon as C.? E. Lipiński ([1983]; [1995] 256-258) sees the association between C. and Baal Hammon as the result of the earlier mythological ties between C. and Dagon (who, he argues, is a hypostasis of Baal Hammon). Yet the moments when writers recognize this equivalence are almost exclusively moments of child sacrifice. In other words, it was the blending of C.’s mythological deeds – killing his children – with contemporary rites – child sacrifice – that allowed the ancients to create this relationship, as Diodorus (20,10,14) and Tertullian (Apol. 9) already recognized. Perhaps, too, the strangeness of giving any cult to C., who was never directly worshipped in the Gk world, encouraged this equation of a “foreign” god with strange rites and C.

At the same time, even though both worshippers and authors writing in Gk frequently chose to call Baal Hammon by the name C. when speaking about human sacrifice, in other contexts, they might choose other names. For example, in presenting the deities that *Hannibal (9) swore by in his dealings with Philip V, king of Macedonia (→*Treaties), Polybius probably translates Baal Hammon as Zeus rather than as C. because here, Baal Hammon was being invoked as a chief deity (Barré [1983]). Although the link between Baal Hammon and C. might have become almost a norm or rule, choosing how to interpret a deity in one’s own language was always contingent on circumstance or aspects of the deity’s portfolio being highlighted at a given moment. C.’s apparent presence in North Africa, then, stems primarily from attempts by Greek-speakers to recognize a seemingly alien god in the context of a particular rite: child sacrifice. In this context, the personality or portfolio of C. was not some intermediate step between Baal Hammon and Saturn. Nor does Gk labelling of a Phoen.-Pun. deity as C. necessarily tell us much about the persona of that deity in the eyes of his Phoen.-Pun. worshippers; like any interpretation, this divine equation tells us more about the interpreter’s religious system than about the object of interpretation. Güterbock, H. G. (1946) Kumarbi. Mythen vom churritischen Kronos aus den hethitischen Fragmenten zusammengestellt. Zürich; id. (1948) AJA, 52, 123-134; Le Glay, M. (1961-1966) Saturne Africain. Monuments I-II. Paris, passim; id. (1966) Saturne africain. Histoire. Paris; Nilsson, M. (1967) Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Bd. I. Munich; Barré, M. (1983) The god-list in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: a study in light of the Ancient Near Eastern treaty tradition. Baltimore; Lipiński, E. (1983) BiOr, 40, 306-310; Xella, P. (1991) Baal Hammon: recherches sur l’identité et l’histoire d’un dieu phénico-punique. CSF 32. Rome, 91-105; Lipiński, E. (1995) 255ff. and passim; Ribichini, S. (1996) Su alcuni aspetti del Kronos fenicio. In: Studi Moscati I, 371-381. M. M. MCCARTY

Cybele see ATTIS; CAELESTIS; DEA SYRIA

D DAGAN Akk. dagan; Ug. dgn; Hebr. dgwn; Gk Δαγών. The etymology of the DN is not clear, since neither a derivation from NW Sem. dgn, “wheat”, nor from Arab. dağana, “to be clouded” is convincing. The cult of D. is attested from the mid-III mill. to the I mill. BCE. Tuttul, on the Middle Euphrates, was the main cult centre of the god. Above all, this god was called the “Lord of Tuttul” and the “Lord of the land”, i.e. of the Middle Euphrates region. In addition, the significance of D. for *Kingship must be mentioned. However, the title bêl pagrê (“Lord of the offerings to the dead”) of D., that occurs in *Mari, does not make him a god of the *Netherworld. The consort of D. is the goddess Šala. From Tuttul his cult expanded and reached places such as *Mari, Terqa, *Ebla, *Emar and *Ugarit. In the god-lists from LBA Ugarit, D. has an exalted position, since he is mentioned immediately after EL and before the various manifestations of BAAL (KTU 3 1.47,4; 1.118,3; RS 20.24,3; 26.142,5; 92.2009,3; 94.2188,5; 94.2579,3; AO 29.393,2; DO 6568,3). His equivalent is dgn / dda-gan; only in RS 92.2004 does D. appear as dKUR, as documented, for ex., in Emar. It is clear from KTU3 1.24,14 and 1.100,14-18 that the D. worshipped in Ugarit is a deity from Tuttul. D. is rarely mentioned in the ritual texts from Ugarit (KTU3 1.48,5; 1.109,21; 1.127,21; 1.148,2 [reconstr.]; 10.26; 1.162,9; 1.166,9; 1.173,4), which reflects a rather secondary role of this god in the cultic life of the city. This is also apparent in the few references to the god D. in the incantations (KTU3 1.100,14-18; 1.107,39; 1.123,3-4). Similarly, in the myths and epics from Ugarit, D. has no independent role. Unlike the other deities of Ugarit, Baal is called the son of D., not of El (KTU3 1.2 I 18-19.35.37; 1.5 VI 23; 1.6 I 6.51-52; 1.10 III 34; 1.14 I 24-25; II 24-26; IV 6-8 etc.). This clearly shows that the Baal cult came from outside Ugarit. Underlying this filiation of Baal is D.’s identification with the Hurrian god Kumarbi who, in turn, was also equated with El (→*Hurrians). The discovery of two stelae as memorials of an offering for the dead to D. (KTU3 6.13 and 6.14) [FIG. 60] does not prove that the south-east. temple of the

acropolis of Ugarit was dedicated to this god. Instead, D. was worshipped jointly as theos synnaos in the temple of the god El. The find of the stelae – on the steps in front of the cella – is secondary; instead, they should be connected with the cult-place of the stelae in the sanctuary to the E of the cella. The term pgr, which occurs in the inscriptions KTU3 6.13 and 6.14, does not mean offering for the dead, but refers to the stelae themselves that are dedicated to D. This means that these Ug. inscriptions are unrelated to the title of D. as bêl pagrê (see above) which appears in Mari. In Mesopotamia during the I mill. BCE, the cultic significance of D. is considerably reduced; however, the god still appears in a few literary compositions, in god-lists and as a theophoric element in PNN right into the Late Bab. period. In west. *Syria and *Palestine, the culture of the →*Philistines should be mentioned specifically.

Fig. 60. The Dagan stela RS 6.021. Ugarit, S of the temple of El

DAGAN – DEA SYRIA

Even if common opinion wishes to prove the cult of the god D. here, justified doubts have been raised about this view. Specifically, I. Singer (1992; 2000) and M. Hutter (2004) understand the theonym D. as derived from Hitt. tekan (“earth”), from which one can deduce a chthonian deity, who was adopted from the Philistines in north-west. Syria and transmitted as far as south. Palestine. This means that there is a clear difference between the Sem. god D., whose cult existed in Syria, chiefly to the W of the Euphrates, from the middle of the III mill. BCE until the Late Bab. period, and the Philistine D. with Anat. roots, whose cult lasted from the LBA until the early Christian period in south. Palestine. This Philistine god D. is mentioned in some I mill. BCE documents. Thus, the treaty between Assurnerari V of Assyria and Mati-ilu, king of Arpad (754 BCE), (→*Treaties) mentions D. musuruna as one of the deities of the oath (SAA 2, no. 2 vi 21), i.e. a god of the south. Philistine frontier region. The inscription on the sarcophagus of *Eshmunazor II, king of *Sidon, dating to the last quarter of the 6th cent. BCE, mentions “Dor and Jaffa, the rich lands of D., which are in the Plain of Sharon”, as territorial gains to the kingdom of Sidon (᾿yt d᾿r wypy ᾿rṣt dgn h᾿drt ᾿š bšd šrn: KAI 14,19). According to the *Old Testament, D. was the god of the Philistines, who had temples in *Ashdod (1 Sam 5,17; Isa 46,1 LXX; 1 Chr 10,10; 1 Mac 10,83-84; 11,4) and in *Gaza (Judg 16,23). In addition, there are place names such as Bet-Dagon (Josh 15,41; 19,27). According to PHILO OF BYBLOS, the god Dagon discovered grain and the plough (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,16.25), and so the DN is explained by Sem. dgn (“grain”‚ “cereal”). Consequently, the ancient Syr. god D. does not appear in the pantheon of the Phoen. cities of *Lebanon. Even the occasional mention of D. as a theophoric element in PNN, the interpretation of which is debated, does not alter this picture. Schmökel, H. (1928) Der Gott Dagan. Leipzig; Healey, J. F. (1977) JNSL, 5, 43-51; Müller, H.-P. (1980) ZDPV, 96, 1-19; Pettinato, G. and Waetzoldt, H. (1985) Or, 54, 234-256; Singer, I. (1992) Syria, 69, 431-450; Fleming, D. E. (1993) ZA, 83, 88-98; Wiggins, S. A. (1993) VT, 43, 268-274; Niehr, H. (1994) JNSL, 20, 165-177; Lipiński, E. (1995) 170-174; Pomponio, F. and Xella, P. (1997) Les dieux d’Ebla. AOAT 245. Münster, 102106.376f.; DDD², s.v. “Dagon”, 216-219 (J. F. Healey); Singer, I. (2000) Semitic dagan and Indo-European *dheĝhon: Related words? In: Arbeitman, Y. L. (ed.) The Asia Minor connexion:

91

Studies on the pre-Greek languages in memory of Charles Carter. Leuven, 221-232; Crowell, B. L. (2001) JANER, 1, 32-83; Schwemer, D. (2001) Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Wiesbaden, 397-412; Feliu, L. (2003) The god Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. CHANE 19. Leiden; Hutter, M. (2004) Widerspiegelungen religiöser Vorstellungen der Luwier im Alten Testament. In: Novák, M. et al. (eds) Die Außenwirkung des späthethitischen Kulturraumes. AOAT 323. Münster, 425-442; Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. (2005) UF, 37, 227-239; Lipiński, E. (2006) On the skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. OLA 153. Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA), 136-138; Otto, A. (2006) ZA, 96, 242-268; Jacquet, A. (2009) RA, 103, 159-188; Callot, O. (2011) Les sanctuaires de l’Acropole d’Ougarit. Les temples de Baal et de Dagan. RSOu XIX. Lyon, 67-86; Lipiński, E. (2012) Dagan, the master of ploughing. In: Boiy, T. et al. (eds) The Ancient Near East, a life: Festschrift Karel van Lerberghe. OLA 220. Leuven, 335-344; Niehr, H. (2012) Two stele mentioning mortuary offerings from Ugarit. In: id. et al. (eds) (Re)Constructing funerary rituals in the Ancient Near East (Akten eines Internationalen Symposiums in Tübingen im Mai 2009). QSS 1. Wiesbaden, 145-156; Roche-Hawley, C. (2012) Procédés d’écriture des noms de divinités ougaritaines en cunéiforme mésopotamien. In: ead. and Hawley, R. (eds) Scribes et érudits dans l’orbite de Babylone. Orient et Méditerranée, Archéologie 9. Paris, 149-178; Ayali-Darshan, N. (2013) JAOS, 133, 651-657; Hutter, M. (2013) BN, 156, 53-64; Guichard, M. (2017) Semitica, 59, 5-56. H. NIEHR

Dagon see DAGAN Daimon see GAD Damu see DOM DEA SYRIA Lat. name of the goddess whose indigenous name was Atargatis. She and her partner HADAD can be seen as latter-day forms of the Hitt. weather-god Tessop/Teshub and his consort Hebat (→*Hittites), whose worship extended over south. *Anatolia and north. *Syria. On coins from *Hierapolis from the time of Alexander’s conquest (→*Alexander the Great), which are our earliest evidence, her name appears as ‹Atar ‹ ateh, Tar ‹ateh (cf. the form Dercetō which occurs in the Gk historian Ctesias’ account of the goddess of Ascalon [*Ashkelon], FGrHist 688 fr. 1 [4] 2-3 and fr. 1d), or ‹Teh. The compound combines ῾Aṯtar (→ASHTAR; cf. Phoen. ASTARTE) and ANAT, the name of a well-known Ug. goddess (→*Ugarit), of which ‹ Teh is a direct continuation. Her image, too, has clear continuities with deities from Ugarit (Seyrig

92

DEA SYRIA

[1971]). Her developed class. iconography, however, shows the profound influence of the Anat. mother goddess Cybele, with lions couchant on either side of her throne, a mural crown on her head, and a tympanum or drum cradled in the crook of her arm. The affinity is recognized in ancient sources (Macr. Sat. 1,23,20), and indeed, RHEA is one of the goddess’ literary interpretationes graecae (→*Interpretatio). The identification that is almost invariable in the goddess’ Medit. diaspora is, however, Aphrodite (Hagnē Aphrodite on *Delos under the period of Athenian administration; Syr. Aphrodite in Olbia, Aetolian Phistyon, Piraeus and elsewhere). This never appears in Syria itself, where Atargatis continues to appear into the imperial period, but Syria Theos/Thea, Lat. Dea Syria, is the form that eventually prevails throughout the Roman Empire, including on coins from Hierapolis itself (BMC, Syria, nos 138-146). The narrator of Lucian’s treatise De Dea Syria identifies her with Hera, but this is an exclusively literary interpretation (also Plut. Crass. 17,6, cf. Ael. NA 12,30). The city of Hierapolis, described in Lucian’s treatise, is the goddess’ most celebrated cult centre, but she is also attested (inter alia) in *Lebanon, *Palmyra, Dura Europos (where her excavated sanctuary has yielded an important relief of Atargatis and Hadad enthroned on either side of their cultic standard), and north. Mesopotamia. Hierapolitans carried her cult to Hellenist. Delos, where the inscriptions from her large temple complex indicate an international community of worshippers; it is attested elsewhere in the Aegean, the mainland of Asia Minor, *Mainland Greece and Macedonia, *Rome (where she had a sanctuary in the district of Trastevere), south. Italy and *Sicily, the Danube provinces, and Hadrian’s Wall. Our richest evidence for the cult is also the most problematic, because in Syr. D. Lucian not only parodies the language and style of Herodotus, but also assumes a complex stance whereby the narrator is both bewildered outsider and privileged insider. He says confusingly that in the main she is “Hera”, but has “something of” the appearance of A THENA , Aphrodite, Selene, Rhea, A RTEMIS , Nemesis, and the Fates ([Luc.] Syr. D. 32). Her “character” is a matter of inference from the ritual practices he reports, though his strong indications of the importance of *Water in the cult (Syr. D. 45f.: a sacred lake with tame fish; Syr. D. 13, 33.48: a water-pouring ritual) and his reference to a dove in the divine couple’s iconography (Syr. D. 33) marry

up with other sources that indicate the sanctity of fish and of doves throughout the whole Levant, their connection elsewhere in the mythography of the, or a, Syr. goddess (Ctes. FGrHist 688 fr. 1 [4] 3-4; Nigid. fr. 100 Swoboda), and the “spring-loving” character of Hierapolis itself (Jacob of Sarug, Homily on the Fall of the Idols 11,62). These indications, together with the presence of “Astarte plaques” in Hierapolis and a figure identified by Lucian as Eileithyia, goddess of childbirth (Syr. D. 38), seem to suggest a nurturing character; the presence of features in the temple which could be archly misrepresented as giant phalli (Syr. D. 16, 28-9) might also point to a concern with fertility. More sensationally, Lucian also describes a spring festival (Syr. D. 49-51) in which new devotees of the goddess perform auto-castration and existing devotees wound themselves to the accompaniment of ecstatic music. For all its lurid quality, the account suggests a parallelism (influence? common substrate?) with the galli in the cult of Phrygian Cybele, for whom similarly bloody rites were performed in the spring festival at Rome. The description of the Syrian Goddess’ begging priests in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (8,24-9,10) and Lucius, or the Ass (36-41), ascribed to Lucian, supports the suggestion that ancient observers perceived the cults to be parallel; the goddesses are called “sisters”, and the statue of Dea Syria is eventually lodged in the other’s temple (Apul. Met. 9,10). An emotive novella in the Syr. D. about the foundation of the present temple in the reign of Stratonice (19-28 CE) endows the Seleucid queen (*Seleucids) with the inscrutable and dangerous qualities of a divinity in whose service a young man castrates himself; this is literary coloration. The goddess’ cult will have presented very different aspects in different parts of the Medit. world, and interpretation is inevitably guided by the nature of the sources. In Hellenist. Delos the (exclusively archaeological) evidence suggests a typical characterisation as a “listening” deity (cf. also Nigid. fr. 100 Swoboda … deam Syriam benignissimam; Ampelius 2,12 deam benignam et misericordem hominibus ad bonam vitam), a connection with fertility (votive phallus), an association with sacred fish, and also monthly ritual dining in the temple, which retained an Or. ground-plan apparently lost in Hierapolis. The imperial evidence of the Danube provinces, where she appears with I.O.M. Dolichenus in Apulum in Dacia, suggests the development of new configurations of “Oriental” deities, distilling a

DEA SYRIA – DEITIES IN PERSONAL NAMES

sense of “Syrianness” abroad without reproducing any particular set-up from Syria itself (Berciu and Popa [1964]). Over time she seems to have acquired the characteristics of other Hellenist. henotheistic religions which laid claim to universal dominion and might (Apul. Met. 8,25,3; cf. Macr. Sat. 1,23,18). The development is vividly illustrated by the inscription from Hadrian’s Wall which identifies her with Virgo, the Mother of the Gods, Pax, Virtus, and Ceres, universal dispenser of justice and order (Collingwood and Wright [1965]). Albright, W. F. (1924-1925) AJSL, 41, 88-91; Berciu, I. and Popa, A. (1964) Latomus, 23, 473-482; RIB 1971; Seyrig, H. (1971) RN, 13, 11-21 (repr. in id., Scripta Numismatica. Paris 1986, 171181); van Berg, P.-L. (1972) Corpus Cultus Deae Syriae 1-2. EPRO 28. Leiden; Hörig, M. (1979) Dea Syria: Studien zur religiösen Tradition der Fruchtbarkeitsgöttin in Vorderasien. AOAT 208. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn; ead. (1984) Dea SyriaAtargatis. In: ANRW II 17,3, 1536-1581; Will, E. (1985) Le sanctuaire de la Déesse syrienne. EAD 35. Paris; Drijvers, H. J. W. (1986) s.v. In: LIMC III,1, cols 355-358; Lightfoot, J. L. (2003) Lucian: De Dea Syria. Oxford. J. L. LIGHTFOOT

DEITIES IN PERSONAL

NAMES

Sem. PNN often incorporate the name of a deity, accompanied by a verb, a name or adjective, expressing either the relationship between deity and human or a quality of the god, thus revealing not only the religious devotion of the individual believer and his family, but also preserving DNN that are sometimes attested only in the onomastic corpora and their possible attributes. In addition, the frequency with which a DN appears in proper names may be an indication of its greater or lesser popularity, the most frequent deities composing the names being mostly the more popular in the Phoen. *Pantheon (BAAL, MELQART, ASTARTE, ESHMUN). Consequently, the Phoen. onomastic repertoire of the East and West is a valuable source of information on DIVINE NAMES AND EPITHETS, as is generally the case in the Sem. world. Although distinctions between official/public and private religiosity cannot be applied rigidly, at the level of personal devotion a glimpse can be gleaned from the repertoire of PNN, testament to the multifaceted divine-human relationship that can be deduced from their structure. The deity, ᾿l(t) (→EL, →ELAT) is generally perceived as “Lord” (→BAAL, →ADON) or “Lady” or “Mistress” (→BAALAT), “King” (mlk) or “Queen” (mlkt),

93

and the believer declares her/himself to be her or his “servant” or “slave” (῾bd, ᾿mt), “client” (gr), “son”/”daughter” (bn/bt), always in a relationship of deep submission. The deity is also viewed in terms of kinship, manifesting care and attention for human subjects (᾿b, “father”, ᾿m, “mother”,᾿ḥ(t), “brother”/”sister”, ῾m, “paternal uncle” etc.). The child is conceived as a gift of the god (ytn, “to give”), or coming from the hands of the god (bd, “in the hand[s]) of” or “from the hand[(s]” of). Many verbs, nouns and adjectives express a range of positive and comforting actions attributed to the gods: to bless, to grant wishes, to protect, to save, to give life, to foster, to prosper, to heal, to help, to nurture, to listen, and so on. The Phoen. pantheon of East and West included a large number of divine characters, worshipped and popular at different levels, some known only because they occur as theophoric elements in Phoen. PNN. In some cases, these deities are largely found in other documentations, e.g. Egypt. deities such as AMON, APIS, BASTET, HATHOR, HORUS, ISIS, MIN, PTAH, RA; but also NW Sem. divine figures such as ASHTAR, DOM, ERESH, perhaps IOL (Berber deity?), PAAM, SHAGGAR, SHAHAR/SHIHAR, SHALIM. In other cases, instead, they can only be identified as deities in the expectation of new discoveries and studies, allowing their personality to be specified. In Phoen., Pun. and Neopun. inscriptions, the following may have been theophoric: ᾿bk (῾bd᾿bk, CIS I, 1018: engraver’s error?); ᾿bn, “stone” (?) (᾿bnb῾l, ᾿bnšmš: →ABADDIR); ᾿hl, “tent” (gr᾿hl); ᾿/῾rmy (῾bd᾿rmy); ᾿šr (᾿šršlḥ, ῾bdšr); hkl, “palace” or “temple” (grhkl); ḥdš, “new moon”, “month” (bnḥdš[t]); ḥll (᾿bḥll); yṣn (῾bdyṣn); ks᾿, “full moon” (῾bdks᾿); krr, a month name (῾bdkrr); ṣdq (→BENSADIQ); tywn (῾bdtywn) – either conceived as gods or in some cases being epithets of better known divinities. Their presence in proper names can be explained either as a sign of continuity in family traditions (see e.g. the practice of papponymy), or, in any case, as archaic and/or limited cults within the sphere of minority devotions. Also, the level of meaning attributed to the PNN in all periods and places is not always clear. PNPPI; NNPI; NAN; Halff, G. (1963-1964) Karthago, 12, 63-146; Israel, F. (1983) Osservazioni formali all’onomastica fenicia della madrepatria. In: APC 1.III, 667-672; id. (1991) Note di onomastica fenicia IV: rassegna critica sull’onomastica fenicio-punica. In: APC 2.II, 511-522; id. (1995) L’onomastique et la

94

DEITIES IN PERSONAL NAMES – DEMETER & CORE

prosopographie. In: Krings, V. (1995) 215-221; Israel, F. (2013) L’onomastica fenicia della Madrepatria: un primo aggiornamento. In: Briquel-Chatonnet, F., Faveaud, C. and Gajda, I. (eds) Entre Carthage et l’Arabie heureuse. Mélanges offerts à François Bron. Orient et Méditerranée 12. Paris, 217-234. M. G. AMADASI GUZZO – P. XELLA

DEMAROUS Gk (Ζεὺς) Δημαροῦς. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,18-19 and 27-28), D. is the name of one of the sons of Ouranos, whom his favourite mistress bore him and who was then taken prisoner by EL/CRONUS and given to Dagon (→DAGAN) as a wife. Siding with Ouranos in the struggle between the gods, D. had to confront PONTOS and, forced to flee, first promised a sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow should he escape successfully. D.’s son is Melcarthos, also called Heracles (→MELQART). He is considered to be the personification of the river called Tamyras by Strabo (16,2,22) and Damuras by Polybius (5,68,9), which flows into the sea 20 km ca S of *Beirut. But in the following passage (cf. Eus. PE 1,10,31), Philo states that ASTARTE “the supreme (goddess)”, and Zeus (called both) D. and Adodos, “king of the gods”, ruled over the whole of Phoenicia with Cronus’ consent. They must be the couple comprising Astarte and a Phoen. Zeus, called D. or Adodos. The second name is probably a transcription of HADAD or Haddu, the Sem. weather-god. Du Mesnil du Buisson, R. (1966) El et ses épouses vus par Philon de Byblos (Fragm. ii, 12b-27). In: Mélanges d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire offerts à Jerôme Carcopino. Paris, 271288; id. (1966) Zeus Dêmarous, père de Melqart, d’après Philon de Byblos. In: Bernhard, M.-L. (ed.) Mélanges offerts à Kazimierz Michalowski. Warszawa, 553-559; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 195-197; DDD2, s.v. (J. C. Greenfield). S. RIBICHINI

DEMETER & CORE Gk Δημήτηρ; Κόρη; Phoen. krw᾿ (Core?). D. is a goddess of Gk origin related to nature, fertility and agriculture, identified with Ceres in Rom. religion. D.’s daughter, Core, was kidnapped by Hades. So D. went to look for her, forgetting her functions and plunging humankind into desolation due to the lack of fertility in the land. Zeus intervened by

forcing Hades to return C., but he refused. Finally, they reached an agreement by which C. would spend part of the year on earth and the rest in Hades (the *Netherworld). So, when she returns to earth, D. makes the plants grow (spring) and when she goes back to Hades, vegetation disappears (autumnwinter). For this reason, D. is considered to bring in the seasons. The cult of D. was quite widespread throughout the whole Gk world. There were sanctuaries and several large temples dedicated to D. in most of the Gk citystates. Her cults and rituals are connected with the agricultural cycles of the year, as is clear from some epithets of the goddess, such as Kalligeneia (“she who leads to a pretty spring”) or Achaia (“reaper”). The Thesmophoria are the best known festivals. They are celebrated throughout the Gk world at the start of the farming season. The material associated with D. in Gk sanctuaries comprises small figurines of animals, mostly pigs, containers for grain and water, and statuettes that are almost exclusively female. In addition, offerings were made of animals, chiefly pigs, and cooked food, especially cakes. Lanterns and torches form another set of objects typical of the cult of D., because some rituals took place at night. The island of Sicily was consecrated to the goddess (Cic. Verr. 4 106). The earliest evidence for the cult of D. on that island is dated to the second half of the 7th cent., and all the material is associated with Gk colonies, such as *Gela, *Selinus and *Syracuse. Consequently, archaeological evidence indicates that the cult of D. reached Sicily through the Gk population. But D. was also worshipped in indigenous contexts such as *Morgantina and Sambucina. According to the written sources, the introduction of the cult of this goddess into the Pun. world is associated with an official act by the Carthag. elite, which took place in 396 BCE. As related by Diodorus of Sicily (14,63-77) *Himilco (3) introduced the cult of D. to *Carthage as an act of expiation after he had destroyed the temple of that goddess in Syracuse. The reliability of this information has been questioned recently and it has been argued that the author’s comment is part of a stereotypical and imaginary preconception of what is Punic. Even if the information is assumed to be true, it is possible that the adoption of Gk goddesses would not have altered the traditional Carthag. pantheon. Others say that, in fact, D. and C. retained their character as foreign

95

DEMETER & CORE

goddesses in Carthage. Furthermore, the scarcity of inscriptions in Carthage indicates that the goddess was not well established there. Indeed, the only (possible) evidence of the cult of D. comes from a Carthag. inscription (CIS I, 5897 = KAI 70), in which perhaps the name of C. appears, transcribed from Greek (krw᾿). Also significant is the inscription KAI 83 (= CIS I, 177), in which one goddess (D.?) has the epithet of “mother” (᾿m᾿) and another (C.?) is described as the “Lady of the underworld or of tombs” (b῾lt hḥdrt: →BAALAT HḤDRT). However, it is doubtful whether these inscriptions imply the existence of a foreign cult since ᾿m᾿ may also refer to another goddess such as TINNIT. Furthermore, the inscription dates to the 3rd-2nd cent. BCE, so it would not seem to be directly related to the facts reported by Diodorus. Recently, another inscription has been identified – KAI 89 (= CIS I, 6068) – found in a tomb in the necropolis of Douïmès in Carthage (→*Funerary world) and dated to the 3rd cent. BCE. It is a curse (→*Blessings & curses) against thieves who would be executed because of a certain deity (rbt ḥwt ᾿lt) (→HAWWAT). It has been argued that ᾿lt (→ELAT) corresponds to Persephone/C., but this interpretation has not been unanimously accepted. In the Rom. period, Lat. inscriptions mention and distinguish between the Cereres graecae and the Cereres punicae, and the priestesses of Ceres were well established in Carthage in the 1st cent. BCE. The distinction between the goddesses with two different (“ethnic”) epithets is an indication of complex cultural contacts that remain unexplained. The archaeological material associated with D. comprises coins with the iconography of C. (→*Numismatics), figurative representations (→*Coroplastics) such as the thymiateria (→*Thymiatherion) or perfume burners (also called incense burners) shaped like female heads, and anthropomorphic terracottas such as the kourotrophos, or those with the iconography typical of the goddess (cakes, baskets with fruit, piglets or torches) [FIG. 61]. The thymiateria or incense burners are representations of women whose lower halves are decorated with the hem of a tunic fastened by a brooch or fibula. These objects are hollow inside and are covered with a bowl, generally with perforations. The women appear carrying on their heads a kalathos decorated with ears of wheat, swans, fruits, rosettes, winged flames and turrets, although some examples are undecorated. Research has focussed on the origin of

Fig. 61. Head of Demeter kernophoros. Carthage (2nd cent. BCE)

these objects, their spread over the west. Mediterranean, the deities portrayed, or their style and typology. In some cases, these objects were used as perfume burners, as they have traces of burning in their bowls, or else they may have had other uses since some have neither holes nor any remains of burnt substances. This material is found throughout the whole Pun. Mediterranean and can be dated between the 4th and the 1st cent. BCE. The contexts vary: domestic areas, sanctuaries, pottery workshops or tombs, either in towns or in the countryside. The rural nature of some cultic spaces on *Sardinia and *Ibiza, from where some of these types of terracotta already mentioned originate, contradicts the argument that the (possible) spread of D. was due to sponsorship by the state of Carthage and emphasize the popular nature of the cult. On the other hand, the archaeological material associated with D. in the Pun. Mediterranean indicates intensive contact with the Gk world. Even so, this does not necessarily imply the adoption of Gk rituals: certain elements of the cult, which seem similar to those peculiar to D., may have been adopted for specific reasons, connected with the chthonian and rural character of the local goddesses. This is evident from the cave of *Es

96

DEMETER & CORE – DICTYS OF CRETE

Culleram in Ibiza or the nuraghe of Genna Maria in *Villanovaforru (recently there has been proof of D.’s presence in the temple of *Antas, Sardinia, in the late Republican period). In fact, differences have been noted between the material found in the Gk sanctuaries and the objects from Pun. contexts. On the one hand, in the Pun. examples, no pig has been identified as an animal sacrificed among the remains of the fauna analysed, which is in contrast with the Gk rituals to the goddess. On the other hand, the torches, which are important elements in the Gk cult centres dedicated to D., are very rare in Pun. sanctuaries or else simple types are found which are totally unlike the lamps with multiple lips that feature in Gk rituals (e.g. Genna Maria in Villanovaforru and *Lugherras in Sardinia). Aside from the agricultural aspect, the incense burners found in funerary contexts, as well as the kourotrophos and the figurines with their typical iconography, would emphasize their nourishing and maternal aspects. We do not know whether this material represents D., C., Tinnit, or other local goddesses. This applies particularly if we take into account studies of such material in the Gk world, which consider that some types of terracottas, generally associated with D. and C., could be used in cults of other goddesses, or even represent those making an offering. What does seem clear is that this material culture represents the importance of women as caring for members of the community, both in life and in death. Bisi, A. M. (1968) SicArch, 3, 41-44; Xella, P. (1969) SMSR, 40, 215-228; Picard, C. (1982-1983) Kokalos, 28-29, 187-194; Cole, S. (1994) Demeter in the ancient Greek city and its countryside. In: Alcock, S. and Osborne, R. (eds) Placing the gods. Sanctuaries and sacred space in Ancient Greece. Oxford, 199-216; Lipiński, E. (1995) 374-380; Ribichini, S. (1995) RSF, 23, 3-35; Chérif, Z. (1997) Terres cuites puniques de Tunisie. Rome; Hinz, V. (1998) Der Kult von Demeter und Kore auf Sizilien und in der Magna Graecia. Wiesbaden; Pena, M. J. (2000) Sobre el origen y difusión de los Thymiateria en forma de cabeza femenina. In: APC 4.II, 649-659; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2003) SEL, 20, 25-31; Garbati, G. (2003) Sul culto di Demetra nella Sardegna punica. In: Regalzi, G. (ed.) Mutuare, interpretare, tradurre: storie di culture a confronto (Atti del 2º Incontro “Orientalisti”). Rome, 127-143; Peri, C. (2003) Demetra e Core nella religione punica. In: ibid., 145-154; Bonnet, C. (2006) Identité et altérité religieuse. À propos de l’hellénisation de Carthage. In: PereNogues, S. et al. (eds) L’hellénisation de la Méditerranée occidentale aux temps des guerres puniques (260-180 av. J.-C.). Pallas 70, 365-379; Campanella, L. and Garbati, G. (2007) Daidalos, 8, 11-48; Marín Ceballos, M. C. and Horn, F. (2007) (eds) Imagen y culto en la Iberia prerromana: los pebeteros en forma de cabeza femenina. Sevilla; Acquaro, E. (2008) Kore nella monetazione di Cartagine punica. In: Di Stefano, C. A. (2008) (ed.) Demetra. La divinità, i santuari, il culto, la leggenda. Atti del

I Congresso internazionale (Enna, 1-4 luglio 2004). Pisa/Rome, 135f.; Fantar, M. H. (2008) Le culte de Déméter et ses incidences à Carthage. In: ibid., 243-246; Ribichini, S. (2008) L’arrivo della dea. A Roma e a Cartagine. In: ibid., 235-241; Muller, A. (2009) Le tout ou la partie. Encore les protomés: dédicataires ou dédicantes? In: Prêtre, C. (ed.) Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse. Systèmes votifs dans les sanctuaires de déesses du monde grec. Liège, 81-95; Carboni, R. (2012) Demetra veneranda, apportatrice di messi dai magnifici doni. Diffusione e problematiche dei culti agrario-fertilistici in Sardegna durante l’età tardo-punica e romana. In: Carboni, R., Pilo, C. and Cruccas, E. (eds) Res sacrae. Note su alcuni aspetti cultuali della Sardegna romana. Cagliari, 9-29; van Dommelen, P. and López-Bertran, M. (2013) Hellenism as subaltern practice. Rural cults in the Punic world. In: Prag, J. R. W. and Quinn, J. C. (eds) The Hellenistic West. Rethinking the ancient Mediterranean. Cambridge, 273-299; Marín Ceballos, M. C. and Jiménez Flores, A. M. (2014) Imagen y culto en la Iberia preromana II: nuevas lecturas sobre los pebeteros en forma de cabeza femenina. Sevilla; Bernardini, P. and Ibba, A. (2015) Sacrum Nexum. Il santuario di Antas tra Cartagine e Roma. In: Cabrero Piquero, J. and Montecchio, L. (eds) Sacrum Nexum. Alianzas entre el poder político y la religión en el mundo romano (Madrid, 11-12 de diciembre de 2014). Madrid/Salamanca, 76-138. M. LÓPEZ-BERTRAN

Derceto see DEA SYRIA Diana see CAELESTIS DICTYS OF CRETE Gk Δίκτυς ὁ Κρής; Lat. Dictys Cretensis. Presumed to be the companion of the Cretan hero Idomeneus in the expedition against Troy, D. is considered to be the author of a work that describes the events of the Trojan epic up to the return of the Gk heroes and the death of Ulysses as if it were an eye-witness account. This work comprised nine books written in Phoenician on bark from the linden tree. On returning to *Crete, D. asked to have it buried with him when he died. In about the 4th cent. CE, a Lat. version of this work, by a certain L. Septimius, was in circulation, with the title Ephemeris belli Troiani. In the prologue there is an account of the marvellous discovery of these ancient writings. Due to a powerful earthquake in Crete in the time of Nero, D.’s tomb came to light together with his mysterious books. The emperor, to whom these texts had been sent by the governor of the island, and well aware of the importance of the discovery, had them translated into Greek by experts in Phoenician and then added them to one of his libraries as a verior textus of the Trojan epic, recorded by a witness to those events.

DICTYS OF CRETE – DIONYSUS

However, the characteristics of the work and the unusual way in which it was discovered indicate that the text was an apocryphal document ascribed to D., at a time of compilation and fantasy, stemming from the genre of the typical historical novel that was quite widespread in the Late Hellenist. and Hellenist.-Rom. period (traces of what must have been the Gk original have been identified in papyrus fragments of the 2nd-3rd cent. CE from Tebtunis). In terms of knowledge of the Phoen. world, this work does not provide anything worthy of note. Instead it mostly reflects the traditional portrayal of the *Phoenicians in class. sources, which at the time when it was actually composed (the first imperial age) had already been fixed in widely established reminiscences and clichés. It is more interesting to stress here the role of the literary topos of the unexpected discovery of a very ancient chronicle, which is said to have been written in Phoenician by an author who lived in the time of the Trojan War, to underpin its being independent of and earlier than Homeric tradition. Only in this way, in fact, could the text attributed to D. attempt to compete with the centuries-long authority of Homer, claiming to be a verior historia of the events involving Troy. The Ephemeris was very popular in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when it became the main source for writers in the so-called “Trojan Cycle”, alongside the Romance of Troy by Dares the Phrygian. Frazer, R. M. (1966) The Trojan War. The Chronicles of Dictys of Crete and Dares the Phrygian. Bloomington/London (critical edition); Eisenhut, W. (19732) Dictys Cretensis Ephemeridos belli Troiani libri. Leipzig; Peristerakis, A. (1984) Δίκτυς ὁ Κρής. Athens; Masaracchia, E. (1986) Studi Latini e Italiani, 1, 67-80; Mazza, F. (1991) Dictys di Creta e i “libri fenici”. In: APC 2.I, 155-160; Merkle, S. (1999) News from the past: Dictys and Dares on the Trojan War. In: Hoffman, H. (ed.) Latin fiction: the Latin novel in context. London, 155-166; Gainsford, P. (2012) CCJ, 58, 58-87; Ní Mheallaigh, K. (2012) CCJ, 58, 181-193; id. (2013) Lost in Translation: The Phoenician Journal of Dictys of Crete. In: Whitmarsh, T. and Thomson, S. (eds) The romance between Greece and the East. Cambridge, 196-210. F. MAZZA

Dido see ELISSA Dione see BAALTIS

97

DIONYSUS Gk Διόνυσος. In Gk mythology D. was an offspring of Zeus and Semele (a daughter of CADMUS and Harmonia). D. was an immortal born of a mortal woman (Hes. Th. 938). After his mother’s death, D. was entrusted to her sister INO, until she was driven mad by Hera ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3,4,3). There were, however, several different traditions about D. One of them considered D. to be a son of Zeus and Persephone, or Demeter (→DEMETER & CORE) (Diod. 3,64,1). The ancient mythographers even disagreed on whether there had been only one D. or several. In the Orphic tradition D., son of Zeus and Persephone, was dismembered by the Titans (Diod. 5,75,4), boiled and then roasted, but later he was reborn, or brought back to life. The cult of D. also included mysteries (at least in the Hellenist. period). D. was closely connected with wine and viticulture. According to Achilles Tatius (2,2-3: 2nd cent. CE), Tyrians considered this god as their own, and celebrated a festival of D. Protrygaios, commemorating the gift of the wine bestowed by D. on a Tyrian herdsman. Symbols connected to D. appear in *Phoenicia (especially under the Hellenist. rulers), as well as in Pun. culture. In *Carthage, D. may have been identified with a Phoen. deity, rather than worshipped as a Gk god; however, the PN ῾bd᾿bk (CIS I, 1018) could hypothetically be interpreted (Lipiński [1995] 385) as “Servant of Bacchus” (the Lat. name of D., from his appellative Βάκχος). D. was often identified with OSIRIS, as attested by a pair of bilingual inscriptions from *Malta (CIS I, 122-122bis = KAI 47 = ICO Malta 1-1bis: 2nd cent. BCE), where the Gk PN Διονύσιος corresponds to Phoen. ῾bd᾿sr (“Servant of Osiris”). The identification of D. and Osiris (who, however, also appears to correspond to Serapis in the texts from Malta), was well established in *Egypt (Hdt. 2,42; Diod. 1,13,5). Nevertheless, Plutarch asserts that D. was also identified as ADONIS. According to different traditions, instead, D. loved either Adonis (Plut. Mor. 47, 4,5,3; Athen. 456a-b), or his daughter Beroe (Nonn. D. 41-43). For the latter, D. fought against his rival POSEIDON, to whom she was eventually granted by Zeus. In Rom. Africa the widespread worship of LIBER PATER might have succeeded the cult of D./Bacchus [FIG. 62]. In *Leptis Magna, Liber Pater was identified with SHADRAPHA, as shown by a bilingual (Neopun.-Lat.)

98

DIONYSUS – DIOSCURI

According to Philo of Byblos, some of the descendants of the D. were the first to invent the use of medical herbs, magical formulae (→*Magic) and cures for bites from animals. [S.R.]

Fig. 62. North-African mosaic representing the triumph of Dionysus in India

inscription (KAI 127 = IPT 25). According to E. Lipiński ([1995] 387), the “patrons” of the town, Shadrapha and MILKASHTART (IPT 31), may have replaced D. and Heracles respectively, who were associated in the propaganda of the *Lagids. Baudissin, W. W. (1911) Adonis und Esmun. Leipzig, 231-241; Otto, W. F. (1933) Dionysos. Mythos und Kultus. Frankfurt am Main; Picard, C. (1979) AntAfr, 14, 83-113; Detienne, M. (1986) Dionysos à ciel ouvert. Paris; Hamdorf, F. W. (1986) DionysosBacchus. Kult und Wandlungen des Weingottes. München; Kany, R. (1988) JAC, 31, 5-23; Lipiński, E. (1995) 384-390; Frontisi Ducroux, F. (1997) Dioniso e il suo culto. In: Settis, S. (ed.) I Greci: storia, cultura, arte, società II. Turin, 275-307; DDD2, s.v., 252-258 (F. Graf); Cadotte, A. (2007) La Romanisation des Dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden, 253-281; De Vita, P. (2011) Culti dionisiaci a Mozia. In: Acquaro, E. (ed.) Scavi e ricerche a Mozia II. Lugano, 13-23.

The iconography of the D. appears widely on Rom. coins. However, it is rare on Pun. coins and appears only on semi-axes with the D. side by side on the Obv., with a star above each head, and on the Rev., two horses galloping towards the right, with the legend ῾tg/῾tp. With some uncertainty, these coins are attributed to the Neopun. mint of *Utica, dating to 170-150 BCE [FIG. 63]. Unlike the motif of the two brothers, the galloping horse often appears on Pun. coinage and stars associated with deities feature on Neopun. coins from North Africa. On the coins of *Hippo Regius (2nd-1st cent. BCE), a star features on the head of a god wearing a conical hat (pileus) on the Rev. This deity has been identified as one of the D., either because of the shape of his headgear or from the presence of the star. The depiction of the D. wearing the pileus as Cabiri deities spread throughout the Gk East, from the end of the 3rd cent. BCE. The same motif also appears on bronze coins from the mint in *Tripoli (Lebanon), dated to 189-188 BCE, with two pilei, a star above each, and ῾tr, the Phoen. name of the town, on the Rev. [L.-I. M.]

Fig. 63. Zeugitana. Utica. 2nd cent. BCE. AE semi-axe depicting the Dioscuri

G. MINUNNO

DIOSCURI Gk Διόσκουροι. In class. mythology, this is the name for the twins Castor and Pollux, sons of Zeus and Leda. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,14 and 20) they are considered to be the descendants of Sydyk (→SYDYK & MISOR) and said to be identical with the community of the CABIRI, enigmatic deities of Samothrace, who are sometimes confused with the Corybantes. Their descendants built a raft and a boat and fled by sea.

Manfredi, L.-I. (1995) Monete puniche. Repertorio epigrafico e numismatico delle leggende puniche. Bollettino di Numismatica, Monografia 6. Rome; DDD2, s.v. “Dioskouroi”, 258f. (K. Dowden); Alexandropoulos, J. (2006) La monnaie punique. La monnaie numide. In: Numismatique et histoire de la monnaie en Tunisie. Tome I. L’Antiquité. Tunis, 60f.214f.; Manfredi, L.-I. (2006) Nuove prospettive della numismatica fenicia e punica: tra tradizione e innovazione. In: Vita, J.-P. and Zamora, J. Á. (eds) Nuevas Perspectivas I. La investigación fenicia y púnica. Barcelona, 73-85; Alexandropoulos, J. (20072) Les monnaies de l’Afrique antique. Toulouse. S. RIBICHINI – L.-I. MANFREDI

Dioskouroi see DIOSCURI

DIVINE NAMES & EPITHETS

DIVINE

NAMES

& EPITHETS

In early dictionaries of mythology (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY), the organisation of the divine world was approached through the concept of the →“Pantheon”, seen as an aggregate of individual gods. In this perspective, the divine figures are described as persons or personifications with specific attributes or competences, such as ASTARTE, the “goddess of sexuality and war”, or ESHMUN, “the therapeutic god”, linked by kinship or affinity. In recent decades, historians of religions have rejected this naive approach and emphasized the dynamism and plasticity of divine figures in polytheistic contexts. The variety of names that a god can have illustrates the fact that gods are multifaceted powers, and not individuals, the spectrum of each god’s powers being actually expressed through a more or less complex set of names. The large range of onomastic elements or attributes in Phoen. and Pun. inscriptions, and in related foreign literary sources, provides crucial information on the nature, functions, modes of action, representations, and connections of the gods. Since the onomastic attributes may be specific to one god or shared by several gods, only a systematic collection and analysis of them can make it possible to observe how “pantheons” functioned, in specific times and places, as a complex, fluid and interconnected network of divine powers. These networks, therefore, can be represented by a map of the divine world, a map as fluid as the human strategies adopted to communicate effectively with the divine. In fact, a DN is definitely not a conventional label but rather a pragmatic construct, related to a specific context, intended to please the gods, to underline a relevant facet of their skills, and to facilitate the success of ritual interaction. The process of naming the gods concerns defining, portraying, interacting, organizing, connecting and mapping. It is a complex process, which implies both structural and pragmatic aspects of religious practices. It also combines traditional onomastic elements, due to ancestral habits, with a certain capacity for innovation and creativity. This can be seen especially in multicultural contexts, when processes of mutual appropriation occur, and may affect the way gods are invoked in cultic environments. The splitting up of the divine into a polytheistic regime continues to challenge scholars (Versnel [2011]; DuBois [2014]; Parker [2017] for the Gk

99

world; Allen [2015] for the Sem. area). The ancients themselves sometimes expressed their wonder and incomprehension faced with a divine world that was almost infinite and largely elusive. This sense of powerlessness has also resulted from the state of the documentation: the enormous number of onomastic attributes documented throughout the I mill. BCE and all around the Medit. basin has, so far, prevented any systematic study in the Phoen. and Pun. domain. The absence of an up-to-date epigraphic corpus encompassing all the evidence and the lack of digital resources similar to those created by Gk and Lat. epigraphists, represent a serious hurdle to a systematic analysis of the DNN and their significance for the study of religious systems and practices. An international project on this important aspect of research is currently underway with the aim of filling this gap (Bonnet et al. [2018]). In agreement with Parker (2017), the whole set of names and qualifications applied to gods should be considered as a “grammar of divine manifestation”, or a “language” composed by divine onomastic elements. In respect of the Phoen. and Pun. body of evidence, a crucial point immediately arises. Whereas the notion of “cult epithet” (or epiclesis), generally an adjective or a name attached to a “theonym”, suits a very large part of the cases attested in the Gk sources, in the Sem. area, the onomastic elements that can operate as cult epithets are more diverse: adjectives, participles, relative phrases, nominal syntagma, etc. In order to embrace a wide set of data and to promote a truly comparative approach, it is more appropriate and effective to leave aside the binomial “theonym-epithet”, and to use the more flexible concepts of “onomastic attribute” and “onomastic sequence” (Bonnet et al. [2018]), which do more justice to the fluidity and diversity of the naming process. In the remarkable diversity of “onomastic attributes” used for the gods, some trends may, however, be noticed. On several occasions, gods are designated by a single element, a “proper name”, such as MELQART or Eshmun, TINNIT or SHADRAPHA. Some of these have a clear etymology: Melqart (preferably to be pronounced Milqart, from mlk qrt) is the “King of the City”, i.e. *Tyre, since he is also called “Baal of Tyre”; Shadrapha (from šd rp᾿) is the “Shed/God/ Spirit who heals”. The name of Eshmun probably stems from a root meaning “being fat/healthy”, which implies that the god is connected with oil, with healing, but also with royal rituals. In other cases,

100

DIVINE NAMES & EPITHETS

such as Astarte or collaterally Tinnit, the etymology is still debated. In order to grasp who a god or a goddess is, the onomastic attributes added to his or her “proper name” are relevant. A very common type of onomastic attribute among Phoen. and Pun. DNN is the toponymic or topographic adjective, which anchors a deity to a real or imaginary place, such as “Astarte of Paphos” or “Baal of Sidon”, but also “Astarte of (Mount) Lebanon” or “Melqart in charge of the rocks”. TNN are frequently associated with the common name BAAL/ BAALAT “Lord”/“Lady” of *Byblos, *Sidon, Tyre, *Kition, *Eryx, etc. S. I. Allen (2015) has correctly argued that TNN associated with deities and related to cities, regions or mountains, do not reveal a local manifestation of a “global” deity, as usually stated, but a distinct and independent divine power, with its own rituals and traditions. If the many Baals or “lords” of different places are indeed specific gods, however, not all toponymic attributes have the same significance and impact. When they result from a diffusion process, they imply at the same time a connection with the original model and a certain degree of autonomy in their different local reformulations. BAAL SAPHON, for ex., is originally the “Lord of (Mount) SAPHON”, 40 km N of *Ugarit. However, his cult spread widely in *Phoenicia, *Egypt, *Carthage and even in the Iberian Peninsula, as a god connected with atmospheric phenomena and navigation. The toponymic reference gave way to a functional connotation shared by the various forms of Baal Saphon, in various places, without preventing the emergence of local differences, sometimes no longer perceptible to the modern observer. Frequently the name of a deity refers to his/her function or his/her field of action, such as “El creator of the earth”, for a cosmogonic god (→EL QN ᾿RṢ), “Baal of the club”, for a SMITING GOD (with a possible parallel with the famous iconographic type), “Baal of power” (→BAAL ῾OZ), for a war god, “Resheph of the arrow” (→RESHEPH), for a god who spreads disease, “HOTER MISKAR” – which probably means “The Herald’s Sceptre” – for a messenger god, possibly analogous to Hermes, etc. Similar representations are also expressed through the use of epithets (or attributes) such as “Powerful Baal” and even vague or tautological qualifications such as “the Sacred Queen” or “Eshmun the god”. The use of personal suffixes, “Astarte (is) my Lady” or “Melqart (is) our Lord”, probably reflects processes

of appropriation by specific agents in the rituals in which they are directly involved (for example the dedication of an object or a monument). Some onomastic attributes shed light on the relationship between two deities. When Tinnit is called “Face of Baal” (thousands of times in the Carthag. →*Tophet) or Astarte, “Name of Baal”, the onomastic sequences express the intimate relationship between the male god and his female counterpart. The divine face and the DN are two strategic elements to gain access to the god, to interact with him, which is the ultimate goal of worshippers. Titles such as “Lord” or “Lady” (᾿dn, ᾿dt, b῾l, b῾lt, rbt) seem to be adopted frequently in onomastic sequences, simply to praise the god(dess). They do not necessarily imply that the god(dess) is the prominent figure of the pantheon or the sanctuary, but that the worshipper exalts his/her power in order to interact more efficiently with him/her. Shared onomastic attributes are more significant when specific. For example, GAD (gd), which means “Fortune”, is used exclusively for Tinnit in *Ibiza and for a Gd hšmm/hymm, “Gd/Fortune of the heavens / of the days”, in *Maktar. Since Tinnit is named CAELESTIS in Lat. sources, one can explore the connection between the notion of “fortune” and the “sky”, probably through astrological beliefs. Since translatability is a hallmark of polytheisms, another interesting issue is how Phoen. and Pun. divine onomastic sequences are rendered in foreign sources or in bilingual inscriptions. A bilingual dedication from *Cyprus (KAI 42) mentions “Athena Saviour Victory” in Greek and “Anat Force Life” or “Refuge of the Living” in Phoenician (→ANAT). The two words included in both onomastic sequences are close in meaning, but nonetheless differ, although they portray a war goddess able to provide both vital energy and victory. A similar process may be observed in the famous bilingual cippi found in *Malta, but most probably from Tyre, where “our Lord Melqart Baal of Tyre” in the Phoen. dedication is rendered as “Heracles founder” in Gk, with no explicit personal (direct?) link (even though Melqart is Lord of Tyre, because he had a major role in the foundation of that city). In other cases, however, the onomastic attributes are not translated, but merely transcribed phonetically, because they refer to information (often spatial) that is untranslatable. Divine powers are definitely constructed through complex naming systems, which allowed ancient

DIVINE NAMES & EPITHETS – DOUBLE DEITIES

societies to combine, condense, polarize – or, conversely, to dismiss – notions, values, phenomena, experiences, which are at stake in specific contexts. In this sense, the full set of gods and onomastic elements that we label “Phoenician religion” is a modern construct. Deities and their many names are – no more but no less – products of History, in the sense of a dynamic process involving anthropological structures and human agencies. As yet, a complete list of the Phoen. and Pun. onomastic sequences/ attributes is not available and it is hoped that new research projects will fill this gap. Bonnet, C. (2009) Le visage et le nom. Réflexions sur les interfaces divines à la lumière de la documentation proche-orientale. In: Bodiou, L. et al. (eds) Chemin faisant. Mythes, cultes et société en Grèce ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Brulé. Rennes, 205-214; Versnel, H. S. (2011) Coping with the gods. Wayward readings in Greek theology. Leiden; DuBois, P. (2014) A million and one gods: The persistence of polytheism. Cambridge (MA); Allen, S. L. (2015) The Splintered Divine: A study of Ishtar, Baal and Yahweh divine names and divine multiplicity in the Ancient Near East. Boston/Berlin/Munich; Bonnet, C. (2017) RSF, 45, 49-63; Parker, R. (2017) Greek gods abroad. Names, natures and transformations. Oakland; Bonnet, C. and Bianco, M. (2018) S’adresser aux dieux en deux langues. In: Parcours anthropologiques [online], 13, put online 10 September 2018, URL: http://journals.openedition.org/pa/632; Bonnet, C. et al. (2018) SMSR, 84, 567-591. C. BONNET – M. BIANCO – F. PORZIA

DOM Phoen. d῾m; dm; Ug. (?) d῾m. Theonym which only occurs in PNN, possibly during the LBA at *Ugarit (bnd῾m: KTU3 3.7,8: cf. PTU, 122). In Phoenician, a theophoric PN d῾mmlk (“Dom is king”) occurs in the inscription on the “Astarte of Seville” statuette (TSSI III, 16; cf. Amadasi Guzzo [1993]) and in an inscription from *Tyre (RÉS 1204,4). In addition, two other theophoric PNN are known: d῾mṣlḥ (“D. made it prosperous”) and d῾mḥn᾿ (“D. was gracious”); a funerary stela from *Athens, with a bilingual (Phoen./Gk) inscription, dated to the 4th cent. BCE (CIS I, 115 = KAI 54), provides evidence for a Sidonian family devoted to D.: their names are written in Phoenician (d῾mṣlḥ bn d῾mḥn᾿ ṣdny) and in Greek (Δομσαλὼς Δομανὼ Σιδώνιος). The PN dmšm which occurs in a Carthag. inscription (CIS I, 951,3) is too doubtful to be included in this small dossier. As a consequence, all the evidence seems to be Phoen. and locates the god in the Levant. His figure is shrouded in darkness. Etymologically, the root basi-

101

cally means “to support” (so also PNPPI, 301: “Supporter”). Finally, an interpretative proposal by E. Lipiński (1987; 1995) must be mentioned, who identifies D. with the god Damu, documented in *Syria and *Mesopotamia as early as the *Ebla period; according to him, D. would be a “good genius”; however, the whole proposal remains hypothetical. PNPPI, 108.301; Lipiński, E. (1987) Le dieu Damu dans l’onomastique d’Ebla. In: Cagni, L. (ed.) Ebla 1975-1985. Dieci anni di studi linguistici e filologici. Naples, 91-99; Bonnet, C. (1990) Antipatros l’Ascalonite dévoré par un lion. Commentaire à CIS I, 115. In: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Sznycer I. Semitica 38. Paris, 39-47; Amadasi, M. G. and Bonnet, C. (1991) SEL, 8, 1-21; DCPP, s.v. (E. Lipiński); Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1993) Astarte in trono. In: Heltzer, M., Segal, A. and Kaufman, D. (eds) Studies in the archaeology and history of Ancient Israel in honour of Moshe Dothan. Haifa, 163*-180*; Lipiński, E. (1995) 190-192; Bianco, M. (2015) SemClass, 8, 53-62, esp. 53. P. XELLA

DOUBLE

DEITIES

The linking together of two (or more) deities, in mythical traditions and in the cult, is a feature of many polytheistic religions in the ancient world (→*Polytheism): in *Egypt, *Ebla, *Ugarit, and in the Hitt. (*Hittites) or Hurrian (*Hurrians) culture of *Syria and *Anatolia, as well as in the religion of South Arabia. This usage is not unknown even in Phoen. religion, both in the East and in the West. In fact, in Phoen. and Pun. inscriptions there are quite a few “double” DNN, where one name is placed after another in a close association, making them almost a single theonym. However, some of these DNN only appear to be double and therefore have to be removed from the dossier for various reasons. For ex., a possible MELQART-RESHEPH on a seal from *Tyre, in the unusual form mlqrtrṣp, is in fact mlqrt bṣr (“Melqart of/ in Tyre”: Bordreuil [1986] 77-82). Also ḥṭr mskr, perhaps the deified sceptre of the god Maskir or Me/ iskar (→HOTER MASKIR/MISKAR), does not seem to belong to this category. And even if ršp š[…] found on *Cyprus, were in fact Resheph-(→)SHED, it would really be a theonym followed by an epithet rather than a sequence of two actual DNN. Instead, MILKASHTART is rather more difficult to interpret: this is a single and independent deity, but it could have originated from associating the god Milk (→MILKU) (or MELQART?) with the goddess ASTARTE, or else from his being located in *Ashtarot (Tell Ashtara).

102

DOUBLE DEITIES – DYING GOD(S)

Furthermore, the mkl who accompanies Resheph on Cyprus is possibly an ethnonym qualifying the theonym, a Sem. calque on APOLLO amyklos documented on Cyprus in Greek (Lipiński [1986]). However, there are certainly definite examples of double DNN of various types: two male gods, such as ESHMUN-MELQART (for whom there is direct evidence from Cyprus and *Ibiza, as well as many indications of similar functions) and SID-Melqart (*Carthage); two goddesses, TINNIT-ASTARTE (*Sarepta); real divine couples such as Eshmun-Astarte and Sid-Tinnit (both in *Carthage). It seems clear that, on the basis of these particular associations of two deities, there were special and privileged relationships between them, which were then expanded to a level that we could call “theological”. Either similar functions united two deities or else they complemented each other’s powers. It was believed that joining them together could create complex beings with powers that were even better and more beneficial to their devotees. This is how their joint veneration in shared places of worship, which attracted large numbers of faithful needing protection, was justified. Röllig, W. (1965) KAI II, 88f.; Ribichini, S. and Xella, P. (1979) RSF, 7, 154-158; Hermary, A. (1984) La Revue du Louvre et des Musées de France, 4, 238-240; Sznycer, M., ibid.; Bordreuil, P. (1986) Attestations inédites de Melqart, Baal Ḥamon et Baal Ṣaphon à Tyr. In: StPhoen 4, 77-86; Lipiński, E. (1986) Resheph Amyklos. In: StPhoen 4, 87-99; Xella, P. (1990) “Divinités doubles” dans le monde phénico-punique. In: Hommage à Maurice Sznycer. Semitica, 39. Paris, 167-175; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1991) Or, 16, 82-91; Wallensten, J. (2014) Kernos, 27, 159-176. P. XELLA

DYING

GOD(S)

This definition – in full: Dying and rising god(s) – has gained considerable popularity in research thanks to J. G. Frazer, who used it to refer to several male characters in ancient Medit. religions (ATTIS, ADONIS, OSIRIS, Tammuz), whom he considered to be protagonists of events involving divine death and resurrection. This methodological approach has been severely criticised and it has been proved that this supposed “category” of divine beings has no raison d’être at all. Instead, there are several examples (more than were proposed by Frazer himself [1907]) of deities who undergo a whole range of experiences: they hide, vanish and then reappear with new roles in a variety of

ways that cannot be reduced to a single abstract model. Furthermore, for human beings, death as an event is certainly not the same as it is for gods. The only character that the sources explicitly mention as dying and returning to life is the Ug. god BAAL: he dies and then reappears from the *Netherworld to reaffirm his sovereignty over the cosmos and its inhabitants, including the dead. In the Phoen. world of East and West, there are three characters who should no longer be considered in a sequence of death and resurrection à la Frazer, but as going through an experience that alters their forms and functions to some degree. In a later period, there is evidence for commemorative celebrations for Adonis that give some idea of a figure connected with the ideology of dead and deified kings (→REPHAIM), although in general it does not foresee either resurrections or soteriological implications in the afterlife. Some sources, mostly secondary, credit ESHMUN and MELQART with going through a crisis that they overcome and which, mutatis mutandis, makes them very close to Ug. traditions. The characteristics of the Sidonian healer god Eshmun seem to be compatible with a myth that allowed him to be transformed (like ASCLEPIUS) from a mere mortal into a healing god, brought about by the intervention of a great goddess (ASTARTE). As for Melqart, probably a divine projection of the earthly king, the sources document a ceremony of that gods’ death and return to life, originally celebrated by the king (→*Miqim elim), called egersis in Gk. The myth may allude to death in fire and a return to life, once again with Astarte’s intervention, but it is difficult to identify specifically Phoen. elements in a complex tradition that also included Heracles. Perhaps this was a complex pan-Medit. tradition, with various local versions. Ultimately, the Phoen. sources, in spite of considerable variations, allow us a glimpse of a fairly uniform ideology at the level of myth and ritual, concerning the transition from the human to the superhuman level of the main poliadic gods, each with his own typical functions. It seems to fit in well – in terms of typology and historical and cultural continuity – with the earliest facts known regarding divine and royal ideology in *Syria and *Palestine. Frazer, J. G. (1907) Adonis Attis Osiris. Studies in the history of Oriental religion. London; Mettinger, T. D. (2001) The riddle of resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East. Stockholm; Xella, P. (ed.) (2001) Quando un dio muore. Morti e assenze divine nelle antiche tradizioni mediterranee. Verona. P. XELLA

E Egyptian gods see AMON; APIS; BASTET; BES; HARPOCRATES; HATHOR; HERISHEF; HORUS; ISIS; MIN; PTAH; RA Eilethya see DEA SYRIA EISIRIOS Gk Ἐισίριοϛ. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,39), E. is the brother of CHNA and the inventor “of the three letters”, a formula that has given rise to various explanations, none of which seems to be satisfactory. The whole context of the fragment in question (by Philo) refers to the terminology of mystery cults. Philo presents them as two brothers, as successors of the priests of the mysteries and of the prophets who presided over the initiation ceremonies, who, in turn, were disciples of THABION, the first hierophant. It has been proposed that E.’s name is a transcription of OSIRIS (the Egypt. god) or of *Israel, or else of a certain Syrios, the founder of the Syrians, who added three signs to the script invented by TAAUTOS, or even as another way of referring to Taautos – using the epithet “Osirian” – as that god’s assistant. Troiani, L. (1974) L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa, 192f.; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos, The Phoenician History. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 232235; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 197f.; Contini, A. M. V. (1994) Hermes e la magia della scrittura. Genua, 134. S. RIBICHINI

EL Ug. il; Phoen. ᾿l; Hebr. ᾿l. The DN derives from the Sem. root ᾿wl (“to be in front”, “to be the first”). The evidence for E. as chief god of a →*Pantheon is provided by textual and iconographic sources in *Ugarit, and his temple was located on the acropolis of the city. The textual Ug. sources on the god E. are available as lists of gods, rituals, myths and epics. The deity-lists start with Ilib, E.’s predecessor, and show E.’s precedence over DAGAN and BAAL (KTU3

1.47,3; 1.118,2; RS 20.24,4; 26.142,3; 92.2004,3; 92.2009,3; 94.2188,3; 94.2579,2; DO 6568,2). The same applies to the sequence in many rituals in which, generally, E. is mentioned before the other deities of Ugarit (KTU3 1.39,2; 1.65,1; 1.148,2.10.25 etc.). However, on the basis of the myths and epics from Ras Shamra, a gradual reversal of the positions of E. and Baal is evident as these texts are to be set in the final phase of Ugarit. According to the Epic of Kirta (KTU3 1.14 - 1.16), E. held high rank, he dealt directly with the affairs of King Kirta, his lack of children (KTU3 1.14 I 6 - III 49) and his healing from a deadly illness, so that he was attributed with the powers of a magician (KTU3 1.16 V 1 - VI 14). King Kirta is described as his son or his lad and E. as his father (KTU3 1.14 I 40-42; II 8-9.24; III 32; IV 6; VI 13.41[rec.]; 1.15 II 16.20; 1.16 I 10-11.20-23 etc.). Instead, the god Aliyanu Baal appears in the Epic of Kirta only as an intercessor of the king before E. (KTU3 1.15 II 11-16). In the first part of the Baal Cycle (KTU3 1.1 - 1.6), E. and the sea-god Yammu (→YAM) are said to be closely connected, but then they are both defeated by the coalition of ANAT and Baal (KTU3 1.1 - 1.2). Quite reluctantly, and due to the mediation of the goddess ASHERAH, E. consents to the construction of a palace for Baal (KTU3 1.3 1.4), and only after Anat’s victory over Motu (→MOUTH/MOT) does E. acknowledge the kingship of Baal (KTU3 1.5 - 1.6). On the whole, in the episodes of the Baal Cycle, it seems that E.’s power went into decline in favour of Baal’s. In addition, Baal is considered to be the son of the god Dagan (KTU3 1.2 I 18-19.35.37; 1.5 VI 23; 1.6-7 I 6.51-52; 1.14 I 24-25; II 24-26; IV 6-8 etc.) and not the son of E. and Asherah. In the Epic of Aqhatu, Baal appears as the intercessor for King Danilu before E. (KTU3 1.17 I 16-33), as the god responsible for the disappearance of rain (KTU3 1.19 I 38-48), as well as Danilu’s assistant in finding Aqhatu’s bones and keeping his grave undisturbed (KTU3 1.19 III 1-45). E.’s role remains very much in the background, for ex., when he was asked by Anat to harm Aqhatu (KTU3 1.17 VI 46-53). From the so-called Rapi᾿ūma-texts (KTU3 1.20 - 1.22) (→REPHAIM), which form the last tablet of the Epic of Aqhatu, we know of a dwelling of E. on Mount *Lebanon (KTU3 1.21 II 8-12; 1.22 I 2-24).

104 E.’s position as father of the king, or of princes, is assumed both in the Epic of Kirta and in KTU3 1.23. In this connection, the hieros gamos (i.e. sacred marriage) also had a significant role in the royal ideology of Ugarit. In terms of the history of religions, this gradual transfer of power from E. to Baal should be understood as a succession myth. The somewhat disrespectful portrayal of E. in KTU3 1.114 reflects the loss of importance of the god E. (or his partial change of role within the pantheon) during the late period of Ugarit. Various epithets and titles of the god E. are attested. His epithet ab šnm (KTU3 1.1 III 24; 1.4 IV 24 etc.) identifies him as “Father of Šanuma”, i.e. of an inferior god, whose significance is no longer clear. Another epithet, ab adm, found only in the Epic of Kirta (KTU3 1.14 I 37.43; III 32.47; V 43 [reconstr.]; VI 13.32), does not mean “Father of humankind”, as usually claimed, but “Father of man”, i.e. of King Kirta. As “Creator of creatures” (KTU3 1.4 II 11; III 32; 1.6 III 5.11; 1.17 I 24) E. is called the father of human beings. Furthermore, E. appears as astute and clever (KTU3 1.1 III 6.21-22; IV 13.18; 1.4 II 10; III 31; 1.5 VI 11-12; 1.6 I 49-50; III 4.10.14; 1.15 II 13-14; 1.16 IV 2.9; V 10.23; 1.18 I 15; 1.24,44-45). In addition, E. bears the titles “King” (KTU3 1.3 V 35-36; 1.4 I 4-5; IV 38.48) “Bull” (KTU3 1.1 III 26; 1.2 I 16.33.36; III 16.17.19; 1.4 IV 39; 1.14 I 41; II 6.23-24 etc.) and “Holy One” (KTU3 1.16 I 11.21-22; II 49). Several deities have the epithet “Beloved of E.”, such as Arišu (KTU3 1.3 III 43) (→ERESH), Yammu (KTU3 1.1 IV 20; 1.3 III 38-39; 1.4 II 34; VI 12; VII 3-4) and Motu (KTU 3 1.4 VIII 23-24), which expresses a particularly close connection of these opponents of the god Baal with E. In respect of the dwellings of the god E., three traditions in the texts from Ugarit need to be distinguished. One of his divine residences is located on Jebel Ansariye, to the E of Ugarit, “at the sources of both rivers, amidst the origin of both oceans” (KTU3 1.2 III 4 [reconstr.]; 1.3 V 6-7; 1.4 IV 21-22; 1.6 I 33-34; 1.17 VI 46-49). In this way, the kingdom of Ugarit was protected in the N and E by divine residences. Jebel Ansariye, with its ridges, extends right into the SW of the kingdom, and comes close to the Mediterranean, the dwelling of the god Yammu, adjoining SAPHON in the N. An Anat. tradition involving Mounts Kassu and Lelu in Anatolia (KTU3 1.1 III 12.21-24 [reconstr.]; 1.2 I

EL

19-21) is also documented. Kassu lies in the central part of the upper country and Lelu is in the lower part, near Šinuwanta and Zarnusa. The reception in Ugarit of Anat. residences of the god E. occurred in the context of the extensive adoption of Anat. motifs and themes. However, the geographical location of another residence of E., namely Huršana (KTU31.1 III 22), still remains unresolved. According to a third south. tradition, Mount Lebanon and Mount *Hermon appear as the dwellings of E. in the so-called Rapi᾿ūma-texts (KTU3 1.20 - 1.22). The south-east. temple on the acropolis in Ugarit was dedicated to the god E. The discovery of two stelae mentioning the god Dagan (KTU3 6.13 and 6.14) is no evidence for ascribing the temple to this god, since he was probably jointly worshipped as theos synnaos in this temple. The subordination of the god E., evident in the myths and epics from Ugarit in favour of Baal’s ascendance, is also apparent in the archaeology of the E.-temple. After the earthquake of 1250 BCE had destroyed both temples on the acropolis, only the temple of Baal was rebuilt, and here also the cult in his temenos was continued, provisionally. The E.-temple remained in ruins until the destruction of the city in 1185 BCE. This shows that in the meantime, the cult of Baal had become more important for the kingdom and the city than the cult of the god E. However, joint worship of E. and Baal in the Baal-temple also seems quite probable. The depictions of seated gods giving blessings have been interpreted as iconographic sources for the god E. [FIG. 64]. This applies to the so-called E.-stela (RS 8.295), though it may also portray a weather-god, as the reference to E. is not made certain through inscriptions. Instead, the limestone figurine of an enthroned god, found in the “Sanctuaire aux rhytons” in the city centre of Ugarit (RS 88.070), which has no horned crown, portrays a divinized king. Starting from Ugarit and remaining in direct connection with it, in the N and E, the god E. was accepted in Luwian (→*Luwians), Sam᾿alian and Aram. culture, which is distinct from his south. adoption in Phoen. culture. In line with the decline of the god E. in the late period of Ugarit, as is evident not only from the myths and epics, but also from the archaeology of the temple of E., in the I mill. BCE, E. no longer appears as the highest god of the pantheon. There is a reference to E. in hieroglyphic Luwian from the vicinity of Carchemish. According to that

EL

Fig. 64. Statue of a god identifiable as El from Ras Shamra/Ugarit (RS 23.393)

inscription, the heavens belong to E. and the earth to Ea (TÜNP 1 §4). Also in the I mill. BCE, in the pantheon of Sam᾿al (→*Zincirli), E. is mentioned directly after the god HADAD (KAI 214,2.11.18; 215,22). Thus the DN RAKIB-EL is to be mentioned, which can be understood either as “Charioteer of El” or, with the theophoric element considered as an epithet, as “Charioteer of god”. Rakib-El appears as the dynastic god of *Kulamuwa until the reign of *BarRakib (KAI 24,16; 25,4-6; 214,2-3.11.18; 215,22; 216,5; 217,7-8). Contrary to several translations, however, the god E. does not feature in the Phoen. inscriptions from *Karatepe; the references in question are to “gods” (KAI 26 I 8; II 6; III 11). In an Aram. E.-tradition there are also references to him in the wisdom sayings in the Story of Ahiqar from north. Syria (Ahiqar VI 91; VII 97; VIII 109; X 156), and in the Transjordanian Bileam inscription (Comb. A line 2). In Pap. Amherst 63, E. was absorbed in Bethel, which is located on Jebel Ansariye,

105 called Rash (VI 12.15; VII 7.11.13; VIII 2.15-16; IX 3 etc.). There is only one additional reference to E. (IX 19). In the treaty stelae from Sfire, the god El-we-Elyan is included among the witnesses of the treaties (KAI 222 A 10-12). In the *Old Testament, in a text from the Hasmonaean period (end of the 2nd cent. BCE), a god called El Elyon, creator of the heavens and the earth, is mentioned (Gen 14,18-22; cf. Ps 78,35); there, it is an archaic name for Yahweh. There is only one Phoen. reference to the god E., in *Umm el-Amed, S of *Tyre: a dedication to “El, the lord” (Hellenist. period: UeA, 7). In his Phoenician History, PHILO OF BYBLOS gives the god E. the additional name CRONUS (apud Eus. PE 1,10,15-30). In the Phoen. inscriptions from *Kuntillet ῾Ajrud, text 4.2,6 may provide a reference to E., although E. could also be understood as the epithet “god”, just as its parallel b῾l can be considered to mean “lord”. This also applies to the theophoric element E. in onomastics of the *Ammonites, which refers to an epithet rather than to a DN, since Milkom was the head of the Ammonite pantheon: consequently, it is certain that there never was a cult of the god E. among this people. The mentions of ᾿l in the OT, like those in the Ammonite PNN, should be considered as epithets and not as references to a cult of E. in IA Palestine. Eissfeldt, O. (1951) El im ugaritischen Pantheon. Berlin; Pope, M. H. (1955) El in the Ugaritic texts. VTS 2. Leiden; Röllig, W. (1959) El als Gottesbezeichnung im Phönizischen. In: von Kienle, R. et al. (eds) Festschrift J. Friedrich. Heidelberg, 403-416; Parker, S. (1977) ZAW, 89, 161-175; Lipiński, E. (1988) UF, 20, 137-143; de Moor, J. C. (1990) The rise of Yahwism. BEThL 91. Leuven; Niehr, H. (1990) Der höchste Gott. BZAW 190. Berlin/ New York; id. (1992) UF, 24, 293-300; Tropper, J. (1993) Die Inschriften von Zincirli. ALASP 6. Münster; Handy, L. K. (1994) Among the host of heaven. The Syro-Palestinian pantheon as bureaucracy. Winona Lake (IN); Niehr, H. (1994) UF, 26, 419426; Smith, M. S. (1994) The Ugaritic Baal Cycle I. Introduction with text, translation and commentary on KTU 1.1 - 1.2. VTS 55. Leiden/New York/Köln; Niehr, H. (2001) Die Wohnsitze des Gottes El nach den Mythen aus Ugarit. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Lokalisierung. In: Janowski, B. and Ego, B. (eds) Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. FAT 32. Tübingen, 325-360; Tropper, J. and Hayajneh, H. (2003) Or, 72, 159-182; Cornelius, I. and Niehr, H. (2004) Götter und Kulte in Ugarit. Mainz am Rhein, 43-45; Rahmouni, A. (2008) Divine epithets in the Ugaritic alphabetic texts. HdO I/93. Leiden/Boston; Smith, M. S. and Pitard, W. T. (2009) The Ugaritic Baal Cycle II. Introduction with text, translation and commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3 - 1.4. VTS 114. Leiden/Boston; Yakubovitch, I. (2010) The West Semitic God El in Anatolian hieroglyphic transmission. In: Cohen, Y. et al. (eds) Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and their neighbours in honour of I. Singer. StBoT 51. Wiesbaden, 385-398; Callot, O. (2011) Les sanctuaires de l’Acropole

106

EL – EL QN ᾿RṢ

d’Ougarit. Les temples de Baal et de Dagan. RSOu XIX. Lyon, 67-86; Roche-Hawley, C. (2012), Procédés d’écriture des noms de divinités ougaritaines en cunéiforme mésopotamien. In: ead. and Hawley, R. (eds) Scribes et érudits dans l’orbite de Babylone. Orient et Méditerranée, Archéologie 9. Paris, 149-178; Lemaire, A. (2013) Semitica, 55, 83-99; Blum, E. (2013) ZDPV, 129, 21-54; Niehr, H. (2014) Religion. In: id. (ed.) The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria. HdO I/106. Leiden, 127-203, esp. 160-162; Cornell, C. (2015) UF, 46, 2015, 49-100; Niehr, H. (2015) Mythen und Epen aus Ugarit. In: TUAT NF 8, 177-301; Husser, J.-M. (2017) UF, 48, 685-694; van der Toorn, K. (2018) Papyrus Amherst 63. AOAT 448. Münster, 6-39. H. NIEHR

EL QN ᾿RṢ Phoen, ᾿l qn ᾿rṣ. This DN (“El, creator/owner of the earth”) is found in Hittite as well as in Phoenician and Punic, Hebrew and Aramaic (Palmyrene and Hatraean). It is based on the Ug. DN El, although it never occurs in *Ugarit in this form, so that the creation of the composite DN must be ascribed to Hitt. theologians (→*Hittites). The god E. first occurs in the LBA cuneiform myth “El and Asheratu” (CTH 342.11), which reworks an originally NW Sem. account, the Ug. background of which is still clearly recognizable. According to this myth, E. resides at the source of the Euphrates, just as in Ugarit, El dwells at the source of the two rivers (KTU3 1.2 III 4 [rest.]; 1.3 V 6-7; 1.4 IV 21-24; 1.6 I 33-34; 1.17 VI 46-49 [partly rest.]. Even though in Ugarit El occurs as the creator of mankind (bny bnwt: KTU3 1.4 II 11; III 32; 1.6 III 5.11; 1.17 I 24) and of the gods (qny ... ilm: KTU3 1.3 V 9) and ASHERAH as the creatrix of the gods (qnyt ilm: KTU3 1.4 I 22; III 26.30.35; IV 32; 1.8 II 2), neither creation nor ownership of the earth is mentioned in the Ug. texts. Then there is a further occurrence of E. in a Hitt. prayer (CTH 342.2). There he is called the “Lord of Sleep/Dream” and is the consort of the sun-goddess of the *Netherworld. In the hieroglyphic Luwian section of the bilingual (Phoen./Hitt.) inscription from *Karatepe (ca 700 BCE), there is the sequence of heavenly Tarhunzas, the sun-god, and Ea, who stands for E. The equivalence between E. and Ea goes back to the correspondence between El and Ea already found in Ugarit. In its Phoen. section, the gods BAAL SHAMEM and E., and Shapshu, the sun-goddess of the *Netherworld (špš ῾lm) (→SHAMASH), occur (KAI 26 A III 19), by which the ranking of the heaven above the earth and the underworld below it, is established. This

Fig. 65. The inscription from Leptis Magna dedicated to El qn ᾿rṣ (IPT 18)

corresponds to E.’s role in the Hitt. prayer CTH 342.2. The trilingual (Phoen./hieroglyphic Luwian/ Neoass.) inscription from *Incirli is legible in spite of epigraphic difficulties in the Phoen. section. It goes back to the dynast Awarikku – who also had the bilingual from Karatepe drawn up – and is dated to about 740 BCE. On the reverse of the Phoen. inscription is the sequence Shamash, Baal Shamem and E. (line 14). An ostracon found in *Jerusalem, dating to the 8th-7th cent. BCE, mentions qn ᾿rṣ, although it is uncertain whether, for ex., “El” or [z]qn, “elder” should be restored there. In the *Old Testament, Gen 14,18-19.22 mentions the god “El Elyon, creator of heaven and earth”. This is a combination of the gods El and Elyon – who still appear separately as the gods of Arpad, in the Sfire inscriptions (KAI 222,11). In *Palmyra, E. occurs as ᾿lq(w)nr῾ and is equated with POSEIDON (PAT 2779). Four additional occurrences are on tesserae (PAT 2219-2222). It is likely that E. is also concealed in the Gk and Lat. DN Connarus from *Baalbek (IGLS 2743; 2841). E. is mentioned for the last time in a 2nd cent. CE Pun. dedicatory inscription from *Leptis Magna (IPT 18 = KAI 129) [FIG. 65]. This means that there is evidence for the cult of E. ranging from *Anatolia to North Africa over a period of 1,200 years. Otten, H. (1953) MIO, 1, 125-150; Lipiński, E. (1995) 59-62; Niehr, H. (1997) Zur Semantik von nordwestsemitisch ῾lm als “Unterwelt” und “Grab”. In: Pongratz-Leisten, B., Kühne, H. and Xella, P. (eds) Ana šadî Labnāni lū allik. Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig. AOAT 247. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 295305; Weippert, M. (1997) Elemente phönikischer und kilikischer Religion in den Inschriften des Karatepe. In: id., Jahwe und die anderen Götter. FAT 18. Tübingen, 109-130; DDD 2, s.v.

EL QN ᾿RṢ – ELIOUN

“El-creator-of-the-earth”, 280f. (W. Röllig); Niehr, H. (2001) Die Wohnsitze des Gottes El nach den Mythen aus Ugarit. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Lokalisierung. In: Janowski, B. and Ego, B. (eds) Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. FAT 32. Tübingen, 325-360, esp. 330-339; Haas, V. (2006) Die hethitische Literatur. Berlin, 213-216; Kaufman, S. (2007) Maarav, 14, 7-26; Singer, I. (2007) The origins of the Canaanite myth of Elkunirša and Ašertu reconsidered. In: Groddek, D. and Zorman, M. (eds) Tabulae Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag. DBH 25. Wiesbaden, 632-642; Rahmouni, A. (2008) Divine epithets in the Ugaritic alphabetic texts. HdO I/93. Leiden/Boston, 98-101.275-277; Yakubovich, I. (2010) The West Semitic god El in Anatolian hieroglyphic transmission. In: Cohen, Y. et al. (eds) Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and their neighbours in honour of I. Singer. StBoT 51. Wiesbaden, 385-397; McAffee, M. (2013) UF, 44, 201-216; Weippert, M. (2014) UF, 45, 537-541; Dijkstra, M. (2016) El-Kunirsha in Anatolia, the Levant and elsewhere. In: Matoïan, V. and al-Maqdissi, M. (eds) Études Ougaritiques IV. RSOu XXIV. Leuven, 119-138; Thomas, R. (2017) UF, 48, 453-524; Dijkstra, M. (2018) UF, 49, 71-93, esp. 80-87. H. NIEHR

ELAT Phoen. ᾿lt. Scholars question whether E., the Phoen. common noun for “goddess”, also functioned as a DN (a similar debate concerns Ug. ilt and this term in general). There is no definite evidence for E. as a component of Phoen. or Pun. PNN. Priests of E. occur in some dedicatory inscriptions from *Carthage (CIS I, 243244; 4861). Since most probably the goddess TINNIT is mentioned in all these texts, there E. could be interpreted (according to Lipiński [1992]) as a reference

Fig. 66. The inscription from Sulci ICO Sard. Neopun. 5 with the mention of a sanctuary of Elat

107

to that goddess. On a 3rd cent. CE coin (issued under the emperor Gordian III: Hamburger [1954]) from *Tyre, the legend ᾿lt ṣr can be interpreted either as “goddess of Tyre” (Tyche, according to E. Lipiński), or “E. of Tyre”. However, a 1st cent. BCE inscription from Sulky (*Sulci) in *Sardinia (CIS I, 149 = KAI 172 = ICO Sard. Neopun. 5) mentions a sanctuary “for the lady E.” (lhrbt l᾿lt) [FIG. 66]. E. also occurs in a 3rd cent. BCE incantation text from *Carthage (CIS I, 6068 = KAI 89). Scholars have explained this passage in various ways, but most of them consider E. to be a common noun, while M. G. Amadasi Guzzo (2003) suggested that E. should be considered a DN, and that rbt ḥwt ᾿lt is to be interpreted as “E., mistress of living”. Since the lead sheet with this inscription had been deposited inside a tomb (as a tabella defixionis →*Magic), Amadasi Guzzo has proposed identifying E. with the Gk goddess Persephone-CORE. The epithet rbt for ᾿lt may even occur earlier, in a 13th cent. BCE inscription from *Lachish (Puech [1986] 17-18). Hamburger, H. (1954) IEJ, 4, 201-226, esp. 224; PNPPI, 268f.; Puech, E. (1986) TA, 13, 13-25; DCPP, s.v. “El” (E. Lipiński); Ribichini, S. (1995) RSF, 23, 3-35, esp. 5-7; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2003) SEL, 20, 25-31; Krahmalkov, C. R. (2000) PhoenicianPunic Dictionary. OLA 90 = StPhoen 15. Leuven, 56f. G. MINUNNO

ELIOUN Gk ῾Ελιοῦν. A character in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS who is also called ῞Υψιστος, “Most High” (→HYPSISTOS) (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10, 14-15 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). E. is partnered with one BEROUTH (Βηρούθ) (personifying the city of Berytus/*Beirut?), and is himself sited “in the area of Byblos” (περὶ Βύβλον). With Berouth he fathers “Heaven and Earth” (Ouranos and GE), who, in turn, begets CRONUS (Elos), the father of Zeus/BELOS. Therefore, E. stands at the top of the shared “Succession Myth”, the narration of which starts in this passage, but E. adds one layer absent from Hesiod’s Theogony, which conforms with the Near Eastern traditions that place different entities before the sky-god and include cosmic figures and first inventors. The name E. is the obvious NW Sem. equivalent to “Most High”, with the Gk being a translation of the Phoenician/Aramaic, see

108

ELIOUN – ELISSA

Hebr. ῾elyôn, Aram. ῾lyn (in the MS: Ἑλιοῦν, Ἐλιούμ, Ἑλιούμ); the rough breathing must be a mistake introduced into the manuscript tradition (according to Baumgarten [1981] 184). “Most High” or “High One” is a common epithet attached to the supreme deity of →*Canaanites, *Aramaeans and *Israelites in the NW Sem. tradition. It occurs in the Ug. texts for BAAL (῾ly) (Kirta Epic: KTU3 1.14 III, 4-6); in the Hebrew Bible (*Old Testament) as an epithet of El (e.g. Gen 14,18), Yahweh (Ps 18,14; 21,8), and Elohim (Ps 53,3), and in Aram. and South-Arabic inscriptions, although so far not in Phoen. documents. The Gk version, Hypsistos (“Most High”), became a widespread title for both Sem. and Gk deities (their mutual →*Interpretatio) in Hellenist. times. The striking death of E. in an encounter with wild beasts at the end of this passage is unexplained, although reminiscent of narratives about other Sem. dying gods such as Baal (→DYING GOD[S]) or more aptly ADONIS (in Gk tradition, killed by a boar). Nock, A. D. (1936) HTR, 29, 39-88 (= Essays in religion and the ancient world, ed. by Z. Stewart, Cambridge [MA], 1972, I, 414443); Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 91f.253f.; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 184-186; Noegel, S. (2006) Greek religion and the Near East. In: Ogden, D. (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Greek Religion. Oxford, 21-37. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

ELISSA Gk Ἐλίσσα; Phoen. ῾lšt. E. is the name of the heroine who founded *Carthage, recorded by the Gk historian Timaeus of Tauromenion (ca 350-260 BCE), our oldest literary source for this myth (FGrHist 566 fr. 82: underlying the translation of Phoen. Ἐλίσσα by Timaeus as Gk Θειοσσώ there could be a para-etymological wordplay: the Gk text has Θειοσσώ. ταύτην φησὶ Τίμαιος κατὰ μὲν τὴν Φοινίκων γλώσσαν Ἐλίσσαν καλεῖσθαι; now, by assonance, Θειοσσώ could refer to θεός just as ῾lšt could refer to ᾿l). The more famous name of Dido (Gk Διδώ; Δειδώ in Timaeus) might have been given to her by the Libyans after all her wanderings. However, the most detailed account concerning E./ Dido is the one provided by Justin (18,4,3-6,8): a daughter of Mutto, king of *Tyre (left nameless in the account by Timaeus, but called Mettes or Belus/

Belos in other sources), E. was forced to leave her homeland and escape from her brother PYGMALION, who had murdered his consort ACHERBAS (in other sources either Hasdrubal or *Sychaeus). Together with very few followers, with her husband’s wealth and the relics of MELQART, E. first reached *Cyprus and then North Africa. There, from the Maxitanians, a Lib. people, she acquired as much land as an ox hide (Gk βύρσα, byrsa; in fact, the citadel of Carthage is known as *Byrsa in the sources) could cover: so she cut the hide into strips and used them to mark out a portion of land that was large enough for the foundation of a city, i.e. Carthage (< Phoen. qrtḥdšt, “New Town”), which would become the new fatherland of E. So *Hiarbas (1), king of the Maxitanians, asked for E.’s hand and even threatened her to make her marry him. E. gained time with the pretext of *Mourning for her husband, and then committed suicide, throwing herself onto a burning pyre to escape that wedding. The version given by Virgil in the Aeneid is considerably different and is probably based on the Bellum Poenicum by C. Naevius (3rd cent. BCE): E./Dido killed herself due to the pain caused by the departure of AENEAS, with whom she had fallen hopelessly in love. This is a poetic embellishment, with more definite dramatic overtones, which turned E./Dido into a paradigm of the tragic heroine, who in Virgil seems to symbolize and foreshadow in equal measure the destruction of Carthage. In Carthage E./Dido was the object of a hero cult: according to Silius Italicus (1,81-98), the consecrated grove in the centre of the city, in a place where the skull of a horse was found, was dedicated to E./Dido herself (cf. Just. 18,6,8, according to whom it was in fact a divine cult: pro dea culta; cf. also App. Pun. 1,1-4), contrary to what Virgil stated (A. 1,441-447), so that the site was dedicated by E./Dido to Juno. Several depictions on coins in the Rom. period were inspired by the story of E./Dido. Although there are no absolutely certain facts to exclude E./Dido as having originally been a historical person, these accounts, as a whole (whether it is the version by Justin, who seems to follow Timaeus closely, or the one by Virgil, or even others, some glimpses of which can be found in authors such as Silius Italicus), have the characteristics of a mythical account. The version by Justin is presented as a ktisis, a foundation story, and is in agreement with similar accounts, that stray into the myth for a clearly

ELISSA – ERESH

aetiological reason (a good example, in the case of the foundation of Carthage, is the place name Byrsa). The “Roman” version of the story, instead, being dramatic, seems to be an attempt to explain and justify the historical antagonism (even though superseded by the time of Virgil) between Carthage and *Rome, tracing it back to the mythical – and therefore paradigmatic – hostility between E./Dido and Aeneas. Certainly, the basic outline of the E./Dido episode fits the actual historical process of founding colonies: a group of exiles which abandons its fatherland in search of a new country, where they found and establish their new base. However, even if several elements of the myth of E./ Dido seem to have a foreign imprint, other elements lead to the belief that there was a Phoen. tradition particularly connected with the transfer of Melqart’s relics. In corroboration of this hypothesis, mention can be made of evidence for a hero cult of E./Dido in Carthage (Silius Italicus etc.: see above), as well as the presence, in Carthage, of the PN ῾lšt, presumably adopted specifically in honour of E. Main sources: FGrHist 566 fr. 82 (Timaeus of Tauromenion), 783 fr. 1 (Menander of Ephesus); Cato Orig. 50; Verg. A. 1,338-368.441-449; 4,35-38.655656; Str. 18,832; Vell. 1,6,4; Sil. Pun. 1,21-25.7376.81.98;2,391.406.421f.;4,765;7,488;8,47.50.78.122. 166.231;14,573;15,746;17,224; Tac. Ann. 16,1,2; Gell. 9,9,14; App. Pun. 1,1-4; Just. 18,4,3-6,8; Ser. A. 1,340.367 (longer list in Geus, K. [1994] 209). PNPPI, 171f.379; Grottanelli, C. (1972) I connotati “fenici” della morte di Elissa. In: Religioni e civiltà. SMSR NS 1, 319-327; Garbini, G. (1980) I Fenici. Storia e religione. Naples, esp. 199f.; Grottanelli, C. (1983) Encore un regard sur le bûchers d’Amilcar et d’Elissa. In: APC 1.II, 437-441; La Penna, A. (1985) s.v. “Didone”. In: EV II. Rome, 57-63; DCPP, s.v. “Byrsa” (S. Lancel – E. Lipiński); DCPP, s.v. “Élissa-Didon” (C. Bonnet); Geus, K. (1994) 207-210; Lipiński, E. (1995) 407-411; Krings, V. (1998) Carthage et les Grecs, c. 580-480 av. J.-C. Textes et histoire. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 13. Leiden/Boston/Köln, passim. A. ERCOLANI

Elkunirsha see EL

QN ᾿RṢ

Elos see EL; CRONUS Epaphos see MALCANDER

109

EPEEIS Gk ᾽Επήεις. According to PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790) in the Phoenician History, E. was “the greatest hierophant” and “sacred scribe”, said to have been translated by one Areios of Heracleopolis (apud Eus. PE 1,10,4950 = BNJ 790 fr. 4). He appears in a fragment sometimes labelled by scholars “On Snakes” (e.g. Attridge and Oden [1981] 63-69), but introduced by Eusebius/ Porphyry as part of SANCHOUNIATHON’s writing about “Phoenician letters” (περὶ τῶν Φοινίκων στοιχείων). E. is otherwise unknown, but Philo would place him among the hierophants and allegorizers that he criticizes (e.g. PE 1,10,39; →MYTH & MYTHOLOGY), hence the quotation from Eusebius does not comprise Philo’s endorsement of E.’s views on snakes or any theological matters. The fragment could belong to some of Philo’s unpreserved works, but it could equally belong to the Phoenician History, as suggested by the mention of TAAUTOS and writings associated with the physical, divine and ritual properties of snakes. E. is quoted in relation to the discussion on serpents because he allegorized a shining snake with a hawk’s head as the first divine being (see also CNEPH). Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 65.67; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 257; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline. com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

ERESH Phoen. ᾿rš; Ug. arš (?). The term ᾿rš – the vocalization /eresh/ is to be considered conventional – occurs as a theophoric element in the PN ῾bd᾿rš, attested more than thirty times in inscriptions from *Carthage (see PNPPI, 149; the forms dbd᾿rš, ῾b᾿rs and ῾bd᾿rt are all related to this PN). However, ᾿rš also occurs in several other PNN, female and male (᾿rš, ᾿rš᾿, ᾿ršm, ᾿ršt, ᾿rštb῾l, ᾿ršty, etc.: see PNPPI, 276f., also for Lat. forms such as Aris, Arisus, Arisuth etc.). This theophoric element is not unknown elsewhere in ancient Syr. tradition (e.g. Alalakh and *Ugarit).

110

ERESH – EROS

The Sem. root ᾿rš has the basic meaning “to request”, “to desire”, and this verb may occur in the Pun. inscription from *Pyrgi, in the clause: k῾štrt ᾿rš bdy, which can be translated “when/because Astarte requested it from him”. In the light of this, the best interpretation of ᾿rš, therefore, seems to be “the desired one” or the like. Various explanations have been proposed for this theophoric element, which seems to indicate a deity (ARES, mentioned in the so-called oath of Hannibal [Plb. 7,9,2]; a god similar to ᾿Arṣû of Edessa; the Phoen. equivalent of POTHOS “Desire” mentioned by PHILO OF BYBLOS; or the Phoen. term corresponding to Akk. eršu, “sage”, an epithet of the god Enki/Ea in Mesop. religion, and here perhaps an attribute of Chousor/Koshar (→KOSHAR/KOTHARU), according to Lipiński [1995] 111f.). Any proposal remains speculative and hypothetical. Significantly, the inscription CIS I, 251 [FIG. 67] shows the existence of a “servant of the temple of Eresh” (῾bd bt ᾿rš) at Carthage; therefore, irrespective of the precise meaning of the term, it is clear that E. is a real divine figure with his own cult place and worshippers. However, the personality of E. still remains in the shadows, since the evidence we have does not allow us to clarify it.

Fig. 67. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 215 mentioning a “servant of the temple of Eresh” PNPPI, 149.276f.; DRS 1, s.v. ’/εrś/š, 34; DNWSI I, s.v. ’rš1, 114f.; Lipiński, E. (1995) 111f.; Xella, P. (2016) Il testo fenicio di Pyrgi. In: Bellelli, V. and Xella, P. (eds) Le lamine di Pyrgi. Nuovi studi sulle iscrizioni in etrusco e in fenicio nel cinquantenario della scoperta. SEL 32-33. Verona, 45-68. P. XELLA

EROS Gk ῎Ερως. E. “Love” appears in PHILO OF BYBLOS’ cosmogony as the offspring of CRONUS/Elos and ASTARTE, as a

Fig. 68. Eros and Psyche. Terracotta, from the vicinity of Tyre (2nd-3rd cent. CE)

sibling of POTHOS (“Desire”) (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,24 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). While Pothos has a more prominent position as a generating cosmic element in Philo’s Phoenician History and in Phoen. cosmogonies as attested elsewhere, E. seems to be a natural addition of the Gk mythological character and the philosophical idea it represents in archaic and later tradition [FIG. 68]. Like Pothos, E. also has two faces. As a cosmic figure, E. appears in Hesiod’s Theogony among the first four, self-generated elements (Th. 116-120), only after Chaos, Earth and Tartaros, an idea with resonances in Orphic cosmogony and in Platonic philosophy: e.g. in Plato’s dialogues E. is considered as the oldest of the gods (Symp. 178a-b). As a mythological impersonation, E. is traditionally the love-inducing son of Aphrodite (as Amor/Cupid of Venus in Rom. tradition). Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 38-40; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 132f. and passim; DDD2, s.v., 304306 (P. W. van der Horst); Gantz, T. (1993) Early Greek myth: A guide to literary and artistic sources, 1-2. Baltimore/London, 3f.; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newjacoby/philon-790-a790; López-Ruiz, C. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA), 106f.152-154. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

ESHMUN

ESHMUN Phoen. ᾿šmn; Akk. (ia-)su-mu-nu/na; Gk Ἐσμούνος. Phoen. god worshipped particularly in *Sidon, identified by inscriptions and class. sources with Gk Asclepios (→ASCLEPIUS) and Lat. Aesculapius (in the sources, more rarely, also with APOLLO and IOLAOS). Etymology The name probably comes from the Sem. root šmn, meaning “to be fat”, i.e. “to be beautiful”, from which terms for animal and plant fat (“oil”) derive; moreover, this etymology seems to be supported by the biblical Hebr. (hapax) ᾿šmwnym (“the healthy ones/powerful ones”: Isa 59,10; cf. 1QIsaa for the vocalization). The DN could be factitive/active and so mean “he who anoints” > “he who heals”, immediately accounting for some of E.’s chief properties; in any case, in the Ancient Near East oil, used as an ointment, was a basic element of hygiene and care of the body (→*Cosmetics); this is why, perhaps, it was associated, also in the name, with a figure who among his most typical characteristics had the ability to protect and heal. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that even in the time of Nero, Dioscorides, a physician (mat. med. 4,70), mentions the so-called herbs of E., medicinal plants that perhaps are to be identified as Solanum nigrum (known as Morella communis, black nightshade). In *Syria and *Palestine, the oldest direct evidence for E. is not earlier than the 8th cent. BCE: more specifically, two theophoric PNN, one incomplete from *Shiqmona (᾿šmn᾿dn) and the other in an inscription from al-Bass, near *Tyre (᾿mt᾿šmn; Sader [2005] 91.S10). Also from around this period are the first occurrences of the god in Akk. sources: his name appears in the treaty drawn up between Assur-nerari V, king of *Assyria, and Mati-ilu, king of Arpad (754 BCE), and then in the one signed by *Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, and *Baal, I king of *Tyre (671 BCE →*Treaties). Bronze Age antecedents However, E. seems to claim a much older history than is documented at the start of the I mill. BCE. In fact, some data from around Syria and *Egypt allow a glimpse of the process by which a superhuman character is defined, with therapeutic features connected with the (curative) properties of oil, already from the III-II mill. BCE. At *Ebla, e.g. the element ì-giš (lit.: “vegetable fat”, “oil”) is known to be used

111

in PNN as a theophoric element, even though it is never written with the divine determinative. As is true of other members of the Eblaite pantheon (Damu, Malik [→MILKU]), who were later deified, ì-giš could also represent an early phase in a process leading to the elevation to divine rank of a natural element or of an epithet, and the qualities ascribed to it. During the LBA, in texts from *Ugarit, a character called šmn is the recipient of offerings made by the king during a rite performed on the threshold of a cultic building (KTU3 1.41); the same element may also occur in the PNN of that city. In *Egypt, instead, a medico-magical papyrus from the 14th cent. BCE, written in a NW Sem. language, mentions E. more directly, called “our father”, alongside ASTARTE, prefiguring a relationship that would be very successful in later centuries (both in the East and the West). To these data it should be added that “a god of maritime Sidon”, perhaps to be identified as E., is known from at least the 11th cent. BCE, thanks to a NW Sem. text transcribed into Egypt. hieratic (the presence of the Phoen. god also seems indicated by the Egypt. TNN). In essence, the documentation available seems to indicate a gradual definition, already during the BA, of a divine being originally connected with oil and its qualities. I millennium BCE During the I mill. BCE, E. takes on the guise of a pan-Phoen. god. The extent of his diffusion is clearly shown both by PNN (which are quite varied and give some idea, in comparison with other Phoen. deities, of his protective abilities), and by votive and funerary inscriptions. In the Phoen. motherland, very early the cult of E. seems to have had a particular connection with the city of Sidon, in which the actual origins of this god could be identified. Archaeological, epigraphic and literary sources document especially the large and constant attendance at the famous sanctuary outside the city, located in the forest of *Bostan esh-Sheikh (cf. the “grove of Asclepius” cited in Str. 16,2,22), to the N of the city near the river *Nahr al-Awwali (the Bostrenus of D. P. 9,17, or the fluvius Asclepius, for which cf. e.g. Ant. Placent. Itin. 2) [FIG. 69]. The existence of this sacred area, within which E. is associated with the goddess Astarte (cf. the Egypt. papyrus mentioned above), is connected with the possible presence of a spring there, to which healing powers were ascribed, that right from the start would

112

ESHMUN

Fig. 69. The sanctuary of Eshmun at Bostan esh-Sheikh (view from the North)

be the fulcrum of the cult. Even though the spring has not yet been located, the inscriptions of some kings of Sidon (*Eshmunazor II, *Bodashtart and *Baalshillem [1]) clearly speak of a temple for E. the “holy prince” (šr qdš), which is on the hill near the “Ydlal spring”. It is not fortuitous that in this sacred area there was a complex system for providing and distributing water from the nearby river, supplemented by pools and basins for ritual use (→*Water) [FIG. 70]. Not incorrectly, then, E. is usually considered to be the poliadic god of Sidon, worshipped in particular by the local dynasty in the Achaemenid period (→*Persians). Or else, it is possible, but not completely certain, that this god is to be recognized in the “Baal of Sidon” (b῾l ṣdn) occurring in the funerary inscription of Eshmunazor II. In that text, the king states that not only did he, together with his mother

Fig. 70. The Nahr al-Awwali river in the vicinity of Bostan esh-Sheikh

(Emashtart), build (or rather rebuild and extend) the complex of Bostan esh-Sheikh, but that he also built a city temple for the Baal of Sidon and another for Astarte “Name-of-Baal” (šm b῾l). Doubts about the identification of the b῾l ṣdn arise from the fact that some LBA Akk. sources, from Ugarit and *El-Amarna, mention the Baal of Sidon, using the ideogram of the so-called weather-god: theoretically, at least, such a deity would not be very compatible with Phoen. E., who is very much more a healer in character. However, it is also true that a therapeutic god – SHADRAPHA – is actually depicted on a famous stela as a SMITING GOD; this may make it likely to connect E. with a Baal perceived chiefly as a powerful fighter, like the b῾l ṣdn. The connection between E. and water, for which there is strong evidence at Bostan esh-Sheikh, is confirmed and has a indirect comparison in documents from the sanctuary of *Amrit, nowadays in the Syr. territory opposite Arados (*Arwad), which was also built around a spring. Although it is not possible to establish for certain that E. was the titular god of that sacred place, evidence of his presence comes from a dedicatory inscription, dating to the second half of the 5th cent. BCE, and engraved on a statue perhaps of an “offerer”. In addition, the cult of E. must then have been accepted, as expected, in almost all *Phoenicia. Further S, instead, in *Tyre, the god is clearly mentioned in a 6th cent. BCE inscription, engraved on a gold leaf that originally was rolled up in a case for holding amulets (→*Amulet). The literary sources, then, indicate the existence in Berytos (*Beirut) of a certain Esmounos/Asclepius (discussed below), considered to be genuinely Phoen. (Dam. Isid. 348; cf. also Eus. PE 10,24-25,38). Nor can it be excluded that E. is to be recognized in the HOLY GOD OF SAREPTA, known from various inscriptions from *Sarepta itself, as in a 4th-3rd cent. BCE Phoen. inscription on a male statue originally part of an architectural structure, and in two Gk texts from the imperial period, and from *Pozzuoli (a 1st cent. CE Gk inscription). Furthermore, the cult of Asclepius was also practised at Sarepta, as indicated by an inscription in syllabic and alphabetic Gk from the 4th cent. BCE. Outside Phoenicia, the DN ᾿šmn is documented in *Palestine by an interesting 3rd-2nd cent. BCE inscription found in *Nebi-Yunis, considered a forgery by some scholars, but very probably authentic. The text connects the cult of E. with the deposition

113

ESHMUN

of a “mlk monument” (→*Molk), similar to west. Pun. inscriptions belonging to tophet-sanctuaries (*Tophet). Finally, in the late period some sources mention an Asclepius leonthoucos from *Ashkelon (Mar. V. Procli 19), possibly to be connected with an image of the Gk god on a cup (dated to the beginning of the 4th cent. CE) probably from *Caesarea in Palestine: the representation there of king *Straton I (1) of Sidon, directly in front of Asclepius, suggests some relationship between the images and the cult of E. Moving towards the W, on *Cyprus, the name of the god recurs in the double DN ᾿šmnmlqrt (→ESHMUN-MELQART; →DOUBLE DEITIES) in a text from *Kition, and in a series of inscriptions dating to the first half of the 4th cent. BCE and discovered in the hill sanctuary of Batsalos, SE of Kition. The occurrence of that double theonym is of particular importance because it could be directly connected with what is as yet the earliest occurrence of the deity in the west. Mediterranean: in fact, in an inscription from *Ibiza (discovered in an area slightly N of the necropolis of *Puig des Molins) and dated to the mid-7th cent. BCE, the same DN appears, in which E. is associated with MELQART. Based on some features of its language, it has been proposed that this inscription could actually have come from Cyprus (Kition?). Again in the Iberian Peninsula, “prince” E. (šr, as in the inscriptions of the Sidonian kings) is mentioned in a short “magical” text (→*Magic) dating to the 6th-5th cent. BCE from Moraleda de Zafayona (*Granada), possibly from a funerary context. Instead, class. sources (Plb. 10,10,7-8) speak of a temple of Asclepius built on one of the hills around *Cartagena; a late (2nd cent. CE) inscription, painted on the walls of Cueva Negra (Murcia), refers, instead, to a pilgrim visiting the site, who calls himself a sacerdos of Ebusitan Aesculapius (i.e. “of Ebusus/ *Ibiza”): both cases could provide indications on the spread of the cult bestowed on the Phoen. god in the Iberian territories. In the west. region, however, the most significant information comes from North Africa – particularly from *Carthage – and from *Sardinia. In the Pun. metropolis, the existence of at least one city temple dedicated to E. (although it is not possible to establish whether all the texts refer to the same sacred area), is recorded several times in the inscriptions, together with the mention of the personnel in the service of the temple (CIS I, 2362,6; 4834,4-5; 4835,3;

Fig. 71. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 4834 mentioning a “servant of the temple of Eshmun”

4836,4; 4837,4-5; 5594,4-5 [FIG. 71]), and the association of the god with Astarte (CIS I, 254 has the double-barrelled DN ᾿šmn῾štrt). Furthermore, still in connection with Carthage, the sources refer several times to the rich temple of E./Asclepios/Aesculapius, built on the Hill of *Byrsa (e.g. App. Pun. 130; Str. 18,3,14; Liv. 41,22; 42,24). In that building, in which the Senate used to convene at night, the last defenders of the city found refuge. When Scipio’s (→*Scipions [6]) final assault was imminent, they elected to set themselves and the structure alight rather than fall into the hands of the Romans. Later data then confirm the god’s role in Rom. Carthage as patron deity (obviously in its Lat. form). On Sardinia, the diffusion of E. is known chiefly from two inscriptions. From *Santu Jacci (*Cagliari) comes a trilingual (Pun./Gk/Lat.) inscription from the

114

ESHMUN

second half of the 2nd cent. BCE (or, according to recent studies, from the 1st cent. BCE), in which E./ Asclepios/Aesculapius is called MERRE; in the region of Cagliari (in the village of Nunziata, Stampace), instead, an →*Ex-voto – a clay hand – has been found on which is engraved a brief text: ᾿šmn šm῾ (which can be translated “E. has listened”, although it cannot be excluded that it is a PN, like b῾lšm῾ or mlqrtšm῾, identical in meaning. i.e. “the god had listened”). Thanks to recent research, it has also been proposed that a temple of the deity was erected in the vicinity (possibly near Viale Trento; Stiglitz [2017]). Also in connection with Cagliari, the local fortunes of E. may be indicated by the discovery, in the grounds of a power station, of a statue of the Egypt. god BES, whose image is often interpreted as the representation of E. (see infra). The spread of E./Asclepios/Aesculapius in Sardinia may also have reached *Nora (with its temple of Sa Punta ’e Su Coloru), *Bitia (with its temple “of *Bes”) and more recently, Maracalagonis and *Fordongianus. In Nora, there may be indirect evidence of this god’s cult in the form of two clay statuettes of “sleepers”, from the end of the 2nd cent. BCE, one of which is entwined in the coils of a serpent, possibly connected with an →*Incubation ritual. In the other localities mentioned, the presence of E. could instead be indicated, much as in Cagliari, by the discovery in situ of statues of BES (or inspired by the iconography of that character: one from Bitia and two from Maracalagonis and Fordongianus). Also, specifically from Fordongianus, come some dedications addressed, possibly not by chance, to Rom. Aesculapius. Based on all this evidence as a whole, then, E. appears primarily as a very specialized character, distinguished by healing powers, often connected with the presence of water. The first useful element for analysis of his personality and the forms of his cult is the information provided by the second treaty drawn up between Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, and Baal I, king of Tyre (see above), in which the god is called on, together with other deities, to guarantee the stipulations. In the treaty there is express reference to the role entrusted to E. and his innate powers: the document states specifically that, if the agreement is violated by the Phoen. king, the god, together with MELQART, will bring destruction on countries and peoples, depriving the population of nourishment, clothing and oil for anointing (this last almost certainly a reference to the

protective and curative powers of that substance and of E. himself). Therefore, together with Melqart, E. appears as responsible for the well-being and safeguarding of the communities, intervening either against or for the basic conditions of existence (food, clothing and health). In this way, his function is performed both by being the guarantor, together with the Tyrian god, of international relations, and by his proximity to everything that concerns men. It is clear, then, that the deity had a strong connection with the human sphere and especially with its social and institutional forms; not by chance, in slightly later documents from Sidon, E. is probably chosen as the poliadic god, closely connected with royalty (→*Kingship). Furthermore, it seems quite clear that the treaty places the Sidonian god and Melqart on the same functional level, delegating the same powers to both. This specific affinity was probably the basis for the particular association recorded in the inscriptions from Cyprus and Ibiza. The construction of the double theonym ᾿šmnmlqrt, as of other similar forms (e.g. tnt῾štrt in an inscription from Sarepta), in fact, is at least partly due to the need to promote, on specific occasions in the cult, the similarities in function between the protagonists of the relationship; those similarities, as in the treaty of 671 BCE, are expressed in the display and exercise of similar powers, in order to guarantee the very survival of the faithful (although the possibility cannot be excluded that in the formulation of double DNN, one of the theonyms could have functioned as a determinative of the other, as is well documented in other cultural contexts (Parker [2017]). As is well known, the common attributes that connect E. with Melqart are based on an historical and cultural dimension common to both gods, antecedents of which are to be found in the Syro-Palest. traditions of the BA (especially in Ugarit). Even though at present there is no direct information on the god of Sidon, in fact several late literary passages seem to be inspired by a much older context. In particular, a text from the beginning of the 6th cent. CE, attributed to the Neoplatonist Damascius, records an interesting mythical account, some elements of which are useful for reconstructing the profile of the Phoen. god, as well as the history of his origins. The protagonist of the story is a certain Asclepius from Berytus; Damascius identifies him as being specifically Phoen., called Esmounos and considered to be the eighth son of Sadykos (“Just”), as well as the

ESHMUN

younger brother of the DIOSCURI/Cabiri (→SYDYK & MISOR; →BENSADIQ). The goddess ASTRONOE (i.e. Astarte) falls in love with the youth, a famously handsome prince and hunter (→ATTIS), although her advances are rejected. This rejection then marks the tragic end of Esmounos, who feels forced to castrate himself. The affliction that ensues from this terrible event leads the goddess to evoke Peana and to re-awaken Esmounos by means of “vital heat”. After his revival, the youth attains divine status. Damascius then notes that the name Esmounos was used by the Phoenicians to refer to “vital heat” (from the NW Sem. term ᾿š, “fire”); he also mentions that others instead prefer to explain the word as meaning “eighth” (᾿šmn: “eight” in Phoenician): as just mentioned, Esmounos, in fact, was considered to be the eighth son of Sadykos (→SYDYK & MISOR). On the whole, this account by the Neoplatonist writer shows some aspects such as the importance of fire for elevation to divine status and the royal origin of the character that recur in traditions about Melqart. In a wider context, this event has exact parallels in the beliefs connected with the Baals of Syria-Palestine in the LBA: even though it is not exactly a kind of death and resurrection (as it happens, Esmounos loses his energy and then regains it thanks to the intervention of the goddess), it still is about a mortal – the hunting prince after a tragic event – who is elevated to divine status. Thanks to this particular solution, the protagonist acquires superhuman powers (including the power to heal). Besides recurring again for the god of Tyre, a similar “transformation” characterizes the kings and some famous (not only) historical characters (as well as others), dead and divinized, of the Syro-Palest. tradition called →REPHAIM (benefactors and healers: from the root rp᾿, “to heal”). The mythical foundation of their cult can be traced back to the mythology of Baal and more specifically to the episode of the battle with Mot (“death”) (→MOUTH), characterized by the god’s disappearance in the *Netherworld and his return to life, by means of which he becomes Baal-Rpu (“Baal the saviour/ healer”, leader of the Rephaim). Therefore, the account given by Damascius seems to preserve some aspects, possibly of Phoen. origin, which allow us to connect E.’s functions (perhaps also as a poliadic god), and his similarity with Melqart, with a stratified process; a process that probably began in the BA and depended on ancestors, who have risen to be protectors of city life, and to the god Baal, of whom the

115

Phoen. gods could be considered almost as successive variations. The character of E., therefore, even though specialized in the realm of healing, seems to appear chiefly as a potent urban Baal, with very wide powers. What is recorded in the metal plate from Moraleda de Zafayona (see above) seems to be very direct from this viewpoint: in the text the god is remembered as he who “protects by night and by day, at all times”. The complexity of E.’s personality is also confirmed by documentation found in various sanctuaries. For the East, information from the temple of Bostan eshSheikh provides clear evidence not only of the close connection between this god and royal dynasties, but also of the connection of his cult with childhood. In fact, from the sanctuary comes a considerable number of statuettes of →*Temple-Boys, as well as children’s toys and jewellery of various kinds; according to some scholars, the figurines, specifically, should be connected with the performance of rites of passage marked by *Circumcision (Beer [1987]); furthermore, it cannot be excluded that one of the pools in the sacred area was intended specifically for children. In Amrit, instead, devotion to the god was associated, at one stage in the life of that sanctuary, with a sort of process of “democratization” of ritual practices. In the Pers. period, the building was shaped like a “Π”, defined by the presence of a portico, used by the ordinary visitors to the area and positioned on three sides of a pool (in the centre of which there was a naos). This particular and original architectural design has been interpreted as a way of adapting to the new needs in the relationship between the deity and his worshippers, based on a more direct involvement of individuals within the local cult (Oggiano [2005]). Moving towards the W, E.’s very close connection with more “personal” rituals, close to the existential dimensions of the faithful (much as in Amrit), seems to be documented also in some sanctuaries on Sardinia in the late-Pun. and Rom. periods. Even though, as yet, it remains very difficult to identify with any certainty the deities for whom these places were intended, the widespread presence of modest ex-votos (→*Ex-voto) (mainly anatomical), mostly made of terracotta and mostly expressing healing cults, could indicate local involvement of the Phoen. god (here the clay hand from Cagliari is relevant). A situation of this type can be supposed, e.g. in the case of the temple “of Bes” in Bitia (see above):

116

ESHMUN

the performance of healing rituals in this area, probably mostly by individuals of modest or humble origin, seems to be well documented by anatomical ex-votos (especially penises and limbs), and by numerous figurines of what is called the “suffering devotee” type; furthermore, the presence of a cult statue of the demon Bes could indicate that the temple actually was dedicated to E. (on the relationship between E. and Bes, see below). The temple of Sa Punta ’e Su Coloru in Nora could belong to a setting similar to the one in Bitia, but with quite different outcomes. In fact, earlier we mentioned the possibility of ascribing two clay statues of “sleepers” to the rite of incubation, practised in the sanctuaries of Asclepios/Aesculapius (and therefore, connected hypothetically with an earlier cult of E.). Finally, it cannot be excluded that, on Sardinia again, in some cases E. had assumed traits belonging to much older local traditions, perhaps from a protohistoric period. This seems indicated by the title “Merre” given to the god in the trilingual inscription from Santu Jacci (mentioned above), a term interpreted by some as an indigenous loanword suitable to indicate the name – or an epithet – of an ancient Nur. deity (→*Nuragics), although the origin and meaning of the word have yet to be explained. Iconography As yet, there is absolutely no exact information about the image of E. Unlike what we know about other deities (such as Melqart and Astarte), the name of this god does not seem to be associated with any specific depiction. It goes without saying that the almost complete absence of documentation has led to numerous hypotheses being formulated, none of which is supported by any certain element. E.g. the god has been identified in a series of coins from Sidon, dated between 450-425 and 333 BCE (→*Numismatics). On these coins, a male character on a chariot is represented in profile, dressed in the Elamite-Pers. style and depicted in the “posture of blessing”. The chariot is followed by another male, holding a vase and a sceptre. According to some scholars, the scene is to be explained as a cultic procession, and the person on the chariot is considered to be a dynastic deity, perhaps E. (or else the Baal of Sidon and RESHEPH), followed by the king of the city. However, it cannot be excluded that – also taking into consideration the period in question and Sidon’s special role within the Pers. empire – the man on the chariot should in fact

be identified with an Achaemenid king. The passage from Damascius, instead, has some elements associated with the structure of the temple of Bostan eshSheikh: a representation from the Hellenist. period, part of the decorative frieze of the so-called Pool of the throne of Astarte (beginning of the 3rd cent. BCE), shows a youth in the act of hunting an antelope; therefore, it has been suggested that this scene could claim some connection with the prince, also a young hunter, mentioned by the Neoplatonist. Another theory, which neither contradicts nor necessarily excludes the proposal just described, is to see E. in the depictions of Bes. The idea is based, in particular, on possible functional similarities between the two, and more specifically on the close connection that the Egypt. god had with healing cults in the west. Mediterranean, especially on Sardinia (e.g. the examples of Bitia and Fordongianus, given above). In fact, the image of Bes is very widespread on coins from Ibiza and could be connected with the existence (already mentioned), documented in inscriptions (Murcia), of an Ebusitan Aesculapius. In that case, it would be the outcome of a process, certainly not unknown to the Phoenicians, which consisted of adopting a foreign image to depict local deities. In any case, the possibility of a connection between E. and the iconography of Bes may find support in a series of data relating to the so-called Heracles Dactylos of Ida, described in various literary sources as a pygmy looking like an Egyptian, adept at magical practices, who is even depicted on the amulets of his female devotees (Paus. 7,5,4-8; 8,31,3; Diod. 5,64,7). C. Grottanelli (1972), in particular, has suggested linking this figure with Bes, and therefore with E. From this point of view, it is significant that in Diodorus the Dactylos are equated with the CABIRI, who, in turn, are connected by Damascius with the “genuinely Phoenician” Asclepius of Berytus. Lastly, also in respect of iconography, it is worth noting that E. could be concealed as an image of the Heracles type: in Bustan esh-Sheikh, but especially in Amrit, statues have been found that belong to the so-called “Heracles/Melqart” type, depicting a young male with a club, a leontè and small lions, in the pose of a combatant [FIG. 72]. Although this type is often connected with the Tyrian god, as shown by the name it is usually given, it is significant that in both the sanctuaries mentioned, the cult of E. (rather than of Melqart) is specifically documented in the inscriptions.

117

ESHMUN – ESHMUN-MELQART

Fig. 72. Statue of “Heracles/Melqart” from Amrit Babelon, E. (1904) CRAI, 231-239; Jalabert, L. (1906) MUSJ, 1, 157-161; Baudissin, W. W. F. G. (1911) Adonis und Esmun. Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte des Glaubens an Auferstehungsgötter und an Heilgötter. Leipzig; Babelon, E. (1912) MN, 138-146; Garbini, G. (1965) L’iscrizione punica. In: Barreca, F. et al. (eds) Monte Sirai – II. Rapporto preliminare della campagna di scavi 1964. SS 14. Rome, 9-92; Croon, J. H. (1967) Mnemosyne, 20, 225-246; Grottanelli, C. (1972) OA, 11, 201-208; Lipiński, E. (1973) AION, 33, 161-183; Delavault, B. and Lemaire, A. (1976) RB, 83, 569-583; Dunand, M. (1983) L’iconographie d’Echmoun dans son temple sidonien. In: APC 1.II, 515-519; Xella, P. (1983) Sulla più antica storia di alcune divinità fenicie. In: APC 1.II, 401-408; Bordreuil, P. (1985) Le dieu Echmoun dans la région d’Amrit. In: StPhoen 3, 221-230; Finkielstejn, G. (1986) RB, 93, 419-428; Puech, E. (1986) Syria, 63, 327-342; Will, E. (1988) s.v. “Eshmoun”. In: LIMC IV,1, cols 23-24; Beer, C. (1987) Comparative votive religion: The evidence of children in Cyprus, Greece and Etruria. In: Linders, T. and Nordquist, G. (eds) Gifts to the gods. Boreas 15. Uppsala, 21-29; Xella, P. (1988) ASGM, 29, 145-151; id. (1988) RSF, 16, 21-23; id. (1988) WO, 19, 45-64; González Bravo, R. and Hernández Hidalgo, M. (1990) Zephyrus, 43, 267-269; Xella, P. (1990) Aspects du culte d’Eshmoun à Carthage. In: Carthage et son territoire dans l’Antiquité. Actes du IVe Colloque international sur l’histoire et l’archéologie de l’Afrique du Nord I. Paris, 131-139; id. (1990) Semitica, 39, 167-175; id. (1993) Eschmun von Sidon. Der phönizische Asklepios. In: Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. (eds) Mesopotamica-Ugaritica-Biblica. Festschrift für K. Bergerhof. AOAT 232. Kevelaer/ Neukirchen-Vluyn, 481-498; Lipiński, E. (1994) Apollon/Eshmun en Afrique proconsulaire. In: Le Bohec Y. (ed.) L’Afrique, la Gaule, la religion à l’époque romaine. Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay. Coll. Latomus 226. Bruxelles, 19-26; id. (1995) 154-168; Brown, M. L. (1998) UF, 30, 133-154; Marín Ceballos,

M. C. (1999) Los dioses de la Cartago púnica. In: De Oriente a Occidente: los dioses fenicios en las colonias occidentales. XII Jornadas de Arqueología fenicio-púnica, Eivissa 1997. Ibiza, 63-85; Groenewoud, E. M. C. (2001) ANES, 38, 139-159; Xella, P. (2001) Baal di Ugarit e gli dèi fenici: una questione di vita o di morte. In: id. (ed.) Quando un dio muore. Morti e assenze divine nelle antiche tradizioni mediterranee. Verona, 73-96; id. (2001) Les plus anciens témoignages sur le dieu Eshmoun: une mise au point. In: Daviau, P. M. et al. (eds) The world of the Aramaeans II. Studies in history and archaeology in honour of Paul-Eugène Dion. Sheffield, 230-242; id. (2001) Trans, 22, 63-77; Bordreuil, P. (2002) À propos des temples dédiés à Echmoun par les rois Echmounazor et Bodachtart. In: Da Pyrgi a Mozia, 105-108; Nunn, A. (2002) Trans, 23, 29-25; Elayi, J. and Elayi, A. G. (2004) Trans, 27, 89-108; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. and Xella, P. (2005) SEL, 22, 47-57; Oggiano, I. (2005) Dal terreno al divino. Rome, 190-198; Sader, H. (2005) Iron Age funerary stelae from the Lebanon. CAM 11. Barcelona; Schwartz, M. (2006) JIAAA, 1, 145-147; Xella, P. (2006) Il “Dio Santo” di Sarepta. In: del Olmo Lete, G., Feliu, L. and Millet Albà, A. (eds) Šapal tibnim mû illakū. Studies presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Sabadell/Barcelona, 481-489; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2007) VO, 13, 197-206; Stiglitz, A. (2007) RSF, 32, 43-71; Ribichini, S. (2010) Eshmun-Asclepio. Divinità guaritrici in contesti fenici. In: De Miro, E., Sfameni Gasparro, G. and Calì, V. (eds) Il culto di Asclepio nell’area mediterranea. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Agrigento, 20-22 novembre 2005). Agrigento, 201-217; Benseddik, N. (2010) Asklépios, Eshmun mais encore… In: Meetings between cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean. XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Bollettino di Archeologia on line, 1 [2010]) 11-21; Garbati, G. (2010) RSF, 38, 157-181; Oggiano, I. (2012) RSF, 40, 191-210; Bonnet, C. (2015) Les enfants de Cadmos. Le paysage religieux de la Phénicie hellénistique. Paris; Parker, R. (2017) Greek gods abroad. Names, nature, and transformations. Oakland; Stiglitz, A. (2017) Madre de forasteros: Cagliari in età fenicia e punica. In: APC 8.I, 125-131; Garbati, G. (2018) Dividere e condividere l’identità (divina). mlqrt, ’šmn, ’šmnmlqrt. In: id. (ed.) Cercando con zelo di conoscere la storia fenicia. Atti della giornata di studi dedicata a Sergio Ribichini. CSF 47. Rome, 139-155; Garbati, G. and Pedrazzi, T. (2019) Eaux et cultes en Phénicie à l’époque perse. In: Robinson, B. A., Bouffier, S. and Fumadó Ortega, I. (eds) Ancient waterlands. Aix-en-Provence, 213-224. G. GARBATI – P. XELLA

Eshmun-Astarte see ASTARTE; ESHMUN ESHMUN-MELQART Phoen. ᾿šmnmlqrt. A double-barrelled theonym (→DOUBLE DEITIES) identifying a god whose origin is probably *Cyprus, since nearly all the mentions of him in inscriptions come from that island. More specifically, they are from a small sanctuary located on the hill of Batsalos, SW of *Kition, which was probably dedicated to this god. The texts are engraved on marble vases (in a predominantly fragmentary state), are votive in

118

ESHMUN-MELQART – EUROPA

character and can be dated to the second half of the 4th cent. BCE (IK A 3,7; A 5; A 10-15). To these documents must be added a very interesting Phoen. inscription from *Ibiza – so far the oldest from that island – which can be dated to the first half of the 7th cent. BCE. The document was found slightly N of the necropolis of *Puig des Molins. It is a plaque made of unidentified animal bone (7·1 × 8 × 0·5 cm), intended to be nailed to the door of a building, the exact nature of which escapes us [FIG. 73]. It is plausible that it was a chapel or in any case a building with an unspecified cultic function. The text reveals that the dedicated object was in fact a “door” (š῾r), and the author, Eshmunab(i) (᾿šmn᾿b), mentions the offering to the god, his lord, and records his ancestry to the sixth generation (l᾿dn . l᾿šmnmlqr / t. š῾r. ᾿z p῾l . ᾿šmn᾿b…). In terms of culture and language, a Cypr. origin of the Ibiza document cannot be excluded, even though the inscription clearly testifies to a local cult. In any case, one might wonder if E.M. is a deity whose characteristics do not correspond exactly to a specific god of the Phoen. →*Pantheon – and was therefore represented as an “Heracleous” Eshmun – or rather a true cultic combination, which implied the joint veneration of the poliadic deities of the two most prestigious cities of the Levantine motherland, *Sidon (→ESHMUN) and *Tyre (→MELQART). After all, the second hypothesis seems the most founded, both on the basis of the attestation in the inscription of Ibiza, and because the traces of such a (more or less close) association between the god of Sidon and the lord of Tyre can also be found elsewhere, and earlier than the Cypr. evidence. In the 7th cent. BCE,

the treaty between *Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, and *Baal, king of Tyre (→*Treaties), mentions Eshmun and Melqart side by side, associating them in punitive interventions against the violators of the pact and, implicitly, in their specific functions. It can also be remarked that here the powers of both gods concern the well-being of mankind, both collectively and individually, and this identifies them not as mere healers, but as great poliadic “Baals”, with less specialized and wider prerogatives. If we consider that Eshmun and Melqart represent the main cults of Sidon and Tyre, that is, the Phoen. metropolises par excellence, their cultural association may have been motivated by two orders of reasons: parity of role and political representation, on the one hand and morphological affinity, founded on the exercise of a similar power and directed essentially to the survival of their faithful, on the other hand. In addition to these data, at least the possibility that the association between Eshmun and Melqart is indirectly attested in *Phoenicia, and more specifically in *Amrit, must be taken into account. Here the archaeological and epigraphic evidence suggests the existence of a common cult of the two gods, characterized by therapeutic aspects, even if the “double” DN as such does not (at least so far) occur anywhere else. Bonnet, C. (1988) 324-327; Lipiński, E. (1995) 289-292; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. and Xella, P. (2005) SEL, 22, 47-57. P. XELLA

Esmounos see ESHMUN EUROPA

Fig. 73. The inscribed Ibiza plaque

Gk Εὐρώπη. A Phoen. princess, the daughter of PHOINIX, or AGENOR. While picking flowers on the seashore of *Tyre (or *Sidon) with her companions, she was abducted and brought to *Crete by Zeus in the likeness of a bull (or by a bull sent by Zeus). Minos was among the offspring she bore to Zeus on Crete. E.’s brother CADMUS left *Phoenicia in search of her. According to a Pers. source of Herodotus, E. was carried off by some Greeks (Hdt. 1,2). In a similarly euhemeristic version (→*Euhemerism), a Cretan king named Tauros conquered Tyre and took E.

EUROPA

prisoner. A late source (Malal. Chron. 2,34) states that in the 6th cent CE Tyre a festival, called “The bad evening”, still commemorated the abduction of E. by that king. Another late source ([Luc.] Syr. D. 4) claims that, according to some people, it was to E., who was also represented on Sidonian coins, that a Sidonian sanctuary of ASTARTE was dedicated.

119

Roscher, Lexicon I, s.v., cols 1409-1418 (W. Helbig); RE VI,1, s.v. “Europe” (1), cols 1287-1298 (J. Escher); Bühler, W. (1968) Europa; ein Überblick über die Zeugnisse des Mythos in der antiken Literatur und Kunst. Munich; Ribichini, S. (1995) RSF, 23, 3-35, esp. 13f.; Infusino, I. and Grano, F. (2011) Il mito di Europa: dalla Fenicia all’Occidente greco. In: Intrieri, M. and Ribichini, S. (eds) Fenici e Italici, Cartagine e la Magna Grecia. Popoli a contatto, culture a confronto. RSF, 37. Pisa/Rome, 179-190. G. MINUNNO

G GAD Phoen. gd. Probably from the Sem. root gdd, “to cut”, “to allot”. The term is similar to Gk τύχη and Lat. fortuna, and occurs in NW Sem. as a component of PNN and as an epithet (→DIVINE NAMES & EPITHETS) – but possibly also as a name – of deities (e.g. in proper names in texts from *Ugarit written in alphabetic cuneiform: ilgdn [?], gdy [?], gdn [?], ndrgd [?] (Ribichini and Xella [1991]). Already present in *Mari in the name of king Yaggid-Lim (19th cent. BCE), its earliest possible use as a DN is indicated in a Proto-Canaanite inscription from *Lachish (1200-1150 BCE), in which the syntagma gdy occurs (perhaps “my Gad” or a hypocoristic; however, it cannot be excluded that it is an incomplete PN). Data from later periods, even though more abundant and explicit, do not seem to confirm G. as denoting a specific being. In the Graeco-Rom. period, this word, corresponding to Gk tyche in inscriptions (CIS II, 3927 from *Palmyra: 140 CE), besides forming PNN, is used as an epithet of various deities and with the form “Gad of…” is often associated with cities, tribes, families and individuals (but also with rivers and gardens; this association with the names of things, persons and places is also found in the *Old Testament; for place-names, see e.g. Baal-Gad [Josh 11,17; 12,7; 13,5] and Migdal-Gad [Josh 15,7]). J. Teixidor (1979) has explained this as due to the adaptation of an original reference to an ancient Sem. deity of fate that, during the I mill. BCE, led to the term being used as an epithet of several beings associated with the potential protection of the destiny of humans, places and things. At least in the East, therefore, during the Hellenist. period, G. did not necessarily denote a specific divine identity. Rather, it expressed the protective role fulfilled by gods over (good) fortune, over the fate of individuals, of communities and of various social and political organizations. In this sense, G. is similar to Lat. genius and Gk δαίμων. In spite of the Palmyrene bilingual, the proposed equivalence between G. and tyche should be regarded with caution, with a preference for a correspondence to genius (Kaizer [1997]), given the wider semantic extension of the Lat. term. In Isa 65,11, on the other hand, G. in the expression

“the table of G.”, as worshipped in a cult (together with Meni), is translated in Greek not by tyche but by δαίμων, a word that also does not refer to a specific deity and derives, according to some interpretations, from the verb δαίομαι (“to divide”), similar in meaning to the Sem. root gdd. In the Phoen. and Pun. world, the word is well documented in PNN where, however, it is not always definitely theophoric. In fact, it may denote the expression of a wish and of good luck (e.g. in association with the word n῾m – as in gdn῾m and gdn῾mt – and therefore (according to Benz [1972] 295), with birth. At present, G. is definitely used only in two cases as a divine title referring specifically to the goddess TINNIT. It appears with this function in an inscription from the *Tophet of *Nora, on Sardinia (lrbt ltnt pn b῾l wgd, “To the Lady, to Tinnit face of Baal and Fortune”; RÉS 1222 = ICO Sard. 25, from the 4th-3rd cent. BCE), and in a text from the *Cueva d’Es Culleram on *Ibiza (lrbt ltnt ᾿drt whgd, “To the Lady Tinnit, Powerful and Fortune”; KAI 72 = ICO Spagna 10B, from ca 180 BCE) [FIG. 74]. The definition of Tinnit as G. could be read as supporting some similarities between the Phoen. goddess and Manawat, the consort of Belhammon in Palmyra, whose name means “lot, portion, destiny, fate”. In a third text (KAI 147, a Neopun. inscription from *Maktar), the word is part of the expression gd hšmm, “fortune of the heavens”, probably corresponding to the Fortuna Caelestis of *Constantine (CIL VIII, 6943). In this case, also, although indirectly, G. could evoke the Carthag. goddess, since CAELESTIS partly inherited her cult in Africa (however, it must be said that the expression in Pun. could also be read as gd

Fig. 74. The inscription ICO Spagna 10B

GAD – GINGRAS

hymm, “Fortune of Days”). A Pun. G., possibly also Tinnit, is probably to be identified in the δαίμων Καρχηδονίων mentioned as one of the divine guarantors in *Hannibal’s oath, part of the treaty (→*Treaties) signed with *Philip V king of Macedonia in 215 BCE (Plb. 7,9,2-3; Carthag. deities are called δαίμωνεϛ in App. Pun. 131). In this respect, of particular importance is the presence of the legend GTA, Genius Terrae Africae or Genius Tutelaris Africae, on the denarius of Q. Cecilius Metellus Scipio (48-46 BCE; *Caecilii Metelli [3]), on which there is an image of a lion-headed goddess, interpreted by some scholars, in fact, as Tinnit. Also, an original Phoen. G. could be concealed behind the mention of Fortuna coloniae (Syria, 20 [1939] 315) and of Genius coloniae (CIL III, 6671, 6672), documented in the Rom. period at *Beirut, or behind the Genius Carthaginis who appears in a Lat. text from Dacia (CIL III, 993). In any case, Genius Coloniae is called Hercules in *Leptis Magna (IRT 1,3-9,275, 280), identified with MILKASHTART and associated with SHADRAPHA/LIBER PATER in the cult. From the aspect of iconography, besides the figure on the denarius of Metellus, the attribute that would allow us to recognize deities with the functions of G. has been detected in the corona muralis (typical of tyche). In *Phoenicia, perhaps the earliest example comes from the royal necropolis of *Sidon, in a depiction on a late 5th-4th cent. BCE scarab. Solá Solé, J. M. (1956) Sefarad, 16, 341-355; Berthier, A. and Le Glay, M. (1958) Lybica, 6, 23-58; Garbini, G. (1965) RSO, 40, 205-213; Yadin, Y. (1970) Symbols of deities at Zinjirli, Carthage and Hazor. In: Sanders, J. A. (ed.) Near Eastern archaeology in the twentieth century. Essays in honour of N. Glueck. New York, 199-231; PNPPI, 294f.; Teixidor, J. (1979) The pantheon of Palmyra. EPRO 79. Leiden, 88-100; Grottanelli, C. (1982) VO, 5, 103-116; Ahlström, G. W. (1983) PEQ, 115, 47f.; Barré, M. L. (1983) The god-list in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia. Baltimore, 64-67; NNPI, 45f.51; Ribichini, S. and Xella, P. (1991) SEL, 8, 149-170; DCPP, s.v. (C. Bonnet) and s.v. “Daimon/Genius” (C. Bonnet – E. Lipiński); Lipiński, E. (1995) 62-64; Marín Ceballos, M. C. (1995) Kolaios, 4, 827-843; Kaizer, T. (1997) OLP, 28, 147-166; id. (1998) OLP, 29, 34-62; DDD2, s.v. “Baal-Gad”, 144 (D. Na’aman); ibid., s.v., 339-341 (S. Ribichini); IDD, s.v. (M. C. Marín Ceballos): http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/ prepublications/e_idd_gad.pdf (accessed 15.10.2019); Lancellotti, M. G. (2010) Dea Caelestis. Studi e materiali per la storia di una divinità dell’Africa romana. CSF 44. Pisa/Rome, 24-26.89; Albertz, R. (2012) Personal names and family religion. In: Albertz, R. and Schmitt, R. (eds) Family and household religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant. Winona Lake (IN), 245-367; Thomas, R., The god Gad: online article, March 30, 2016 (http://www.religionofancientpalestine.com/?p=488) (accessed 25.02.2020). G. GARBATI

121

GAUAS Gk Γαύας. Another name for →ADONIS on *Cyprus (Lyc. Alex. 831 and scholia ad loc.).

GE Gk Γῆ. According to PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,15-17), G. was a daughter of ELIOUN and BEROUTH. Because of G.’s beauty, the earth was named after her. She married her brother Ouranos, and gave birth to CRONUS, Baetylus (→BAETYL), Dagon (→DAGAN) and ATLAS. Due to G.’s jealousy for Ouranos’ other wives, they separated. After that, however, he repeatedly raped her, and also tried to kill her children, but G. assembled a defensive alliance against him. Eventually, she was avenged by her son Cronus. Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. Stuttgart, 228.394; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 188-191.236f.239.242. G. MINUNNO

Geinos Autochton see TECHNITES Genius see GAD Genius Terrae Africa see CAELESTIS GINGRAS Gk Γίγγρας, Γίγγρης. G. was a Phoen. name of ADONIS and of a flute. According to Athenaeus (4,176), and others (see e.g. Eust. in Il. 17,496; Poll. Onom. 4,76 and 102), the *Phoenicians mourned for Adonis with the high-pitched and plaintive tone of the γίγγροι. Ribichini, S. (1981) Adonis. Aspetti “orientali” di un mito greco. SS 18. Rome, 38.43f. S. RIBICHINI

H HADAD Akk. Addu/Adad; Ug. hd; Hebr. hdd; Aram. hdd; Gk Ἄδα/ωδοϛ; Lat. Adadus. H. is a deity of a type widely attested in the religions of the Ancient Near East: it is also found in the Phoen. and Pun. world of the I mill. BCE, in various forms and with different attributes (see below). There is evidence for the Sem. weather-god Hadda from the middle of the III mill. BCE in the *Ebla texts. Etymologically, his name is derived from the verb hdd, “to thunder”. In Ass. and Bab. sources, this DN appears as Adad and Addu; in W Sem. Sources, it appears as Ug. Haddu, Aram. Hadad and Hebr. Hadad; in Gk and Lat. sources it occurs as Adados/Adadus (→ADODOS). At the head of the Aram. pantheons of *Syria was the weather-god H., because rain-dependent crops were predominant in that region, so that a decisive role in the provision of rain – for vegetation and the fertility of men and animals – was appropriate for him [FIG. 75]. Two major manifestations of H. can be distinguished: H. of *Aleppo, whose cult dominated in north. and

Fig. 75. The Hadad inscription KAI 214 (front view)

central Syria, and H. of Guzana and Sikani (Tell Fekherye), whose cult centre was E of the Euphrates and predominant in Upper Mesopotamia. H. of Aleppo had the most prominent position. The cult of the local weather-god is attested since the III mill. BCE, and was practised throughout north. Syria and *Anatolia. The cult in *Ugarit marked a change, since in the original cult of the weathergod Haddu, his local manifestation as “Lord of Saphon” (b῾l ṣpn) (→BAAL SAPHON) or “Lord of Ugarit” (b῾l ugrt) prevailed. For a while there is still a parallelism between Baal and Haddu (KTU3 1.2 I 45-46; 1.4 VII 35-38; 1.5 I 22-23 and the like), but in the following period, in the coastal area of Syria, the weather-god occurs under the name of Baal, e.g. in the religions of *Phoenicia, Philistia (→*Philistines), *Israel and *Judah (here then successively replaced by Yahweh), while he appears in central Syria under the name Haddu/Hadad. In the treaty between Assur-nerari V, king of Assyria, and Mati-ilu, king of Arpad, dating to 754 BCE, H. leads the list of Aram. oath deities; these also include another H. and Rammānu from *Damascus (SAA 2, no. 2 vi 18-26). The contract texts of Sfire (KAI 222 A 10-11) also show that H. of Aleppo was at the head of the pantheon of Bit-Agusi. The temple of H. of Aleppo was located on the citadel of Aleppo, where it was built in the early BA and existed until the I mill. BCE. At the time of Julian the Apostate (361-363 CE) a cult of Zeus was practised here. H. of Sikani is mentioned in the Aram. inscription of Tell Fekherye (KAI 309), where he is called the “Canal Inspector of Heaven and Earth” (lin. 1-2) and “Canal Inspector of All Rivers” (lin. 4), a sign that he had assumed the Mesopot. role of the weather-god Adad; then, H. recurs in his local manifestations as “H. of Sikani” (lin. 1) and as “Lord of Habur” (lin. 16). In addition, he provides pasture land, food and sacrificial rations to all gods (lin. 2-4) and he lets all lands bloom (lin. 4-5). He is a merciful god to whom prayer is good (lin. 5). His warlike qualities are evident in the epithet gbr, “hero” (lin. 12). Fundamental also is the connection of the god H. with the ruling house, and in this regard, his role as a war-god. For Guzana (Tell Halaf), it is also clear that legal documents were drawn up in front of the statue of H. in his temple, and oaths were pronounced there. The

HADAD

temple of H. of Sikani is probably to be found on the citadel of that city, but it has never been excavated. The cult of the weather-god of Guzana is attested until Christian times according to Syriac and Mandaean sources. According to the 8th cent. BCE Aram. inscription from Bukan on Lake Urmia (KAI 320), due to the parallelism of H. with the Urartaean main god Haldi, the easternmost region testifies to veneration for H. A seal of unknown provenance with the Aram. inscription l῾bdhdd (ca 800 BCE: RÉS 5904 = Herr [1978] 47 no. 9) demonstrates the private worship of H. In the Aram. wisdom sayings of Ahiqar, H. occurs at the head of a north. Syr. pantheon as the “Lord of Saints” (Aḥiqar VI 79). H. of Sam᾿al (*Zincirli) (KAI 214) [FIG. 75], also appears as the H. of the vineyards (inscription of Katumuwa, from Sam᾿al). Still unclear is the meaning of H. Qr/d/pd/rl in that inscription: probably it is a TN. It is not possible to say anything more specific about the actual manifestations and cults of H. that lie behind these inscriptions. As yet, the temple of H. in Sam᾿al has not been identified. It is likely to be found in the remains of a sanctuary on the Sam᾿al acropolis. This could also be indicated by the mention of the construction of a temple in Sam᾿al by King Panamuwa I (ca 790-750 BCE) (KAI 214,19-20). For Hamath, the allocation of bâtiment III on the acropolis is assumed to be the H. temple. Likewise, the seated figurine of a god with a horned crown from near Hamath is considered a representation of the god H. [FIG. 76]. In south. Syria, other manifestations of the god H. dominate in the sanctuaries of *Baalbek and *Damascus. The H. of Baalbek, best known as Jupiter Heliopolitanus, was revered as the “Lord of the source” in accordance with his personality. H. of Baalbek is depicted as a cosmic weather-god standing between two bulls. He wears a long robe, which is adorned on the front with the heads or busts of the planetary gods, on the back with an eagle and on both sides with a lightning bolt. The god wears a solar emblem on his chest, a polos on his head and holds ears of wheat in his left hand as a symbol of fertility. To thank and honour the god, replicas of his image made of lead were thrown into the water channels leading to Baalbek. His new temple in Baalbek, located above the older H. sanctuary, was never completed.

123

Fig. 76. Statue of a male god, probably Hadad, from the vicinity of Hama (ca 1000-850 BCE)

The H. of Damascus, also known as Zeus Damascenos or Jupiter Damascenus in the Hellenist.-Rom. period, was the lord of the oasis and city of Damascus. In some Ancient Near Eastern inscriptions, the epithet rammānu, “Thunderer” occurs, which is also found in the Old Testament (2 Kgs 5,18; cf. also Zech 12,11). Originally, Rammānu was an independent deity, who was only secondarily identified with the H. of Damascus. In Christian times, the temple of H. of Damascus was replaced by the basilica of John the Baptist, which in turn had to give way to an Umayyad mosque. The only find from H.’s temple is a relief with a sphinx. In iconography, the H. of Damascus is known from coins of Antiochus XII (8784 BCE), which show a standing god flanked by two bulls. Under a coat, he wears a long robe with a solar emblem on the chest, a polos on his head and holds ears of wheat in his left hand as a sign of fertility. As yet, only the iconographic representation of the lunar weather-god appears on stelae from Gaziantep (south. Turkey), Bet-Saida (et-Tell) (north. Israel), Tell al-Awas and et-Turra (both in north. Jordan).

124

HADAD – HARPOCRATES

Then the cult of *Palmyra should also be mentioned: indeed, concealed behind the main god of the oasis known as Bel, is the god H., whose name has resulted in the epithet Bel, which derives from the Marduk cult, due to Mesop. influence on Palmyra. This is mainly demonstrated by Papyrus Amherst 63 cols XIV-XVII for the 7th cent. BCE. As for *Kingship, the royal name “Barhadad” (“son of H.”) found in Bredj near Aleppo (KAI 201) and in Damascus can be mentioned, which is to be understood against the ideological background of kingship as derived from the gods. Several Aramaean kings, such as Panamuwa I in Sam᾿al (KAI 214,2-10) and Hazael in Damascus (KAI 310,4), claim to have been brought to power by H. In this context, the royal cult of the dead should also be mentioned. In Gerçin near Sam᾿al, a statue of the god H. was erected inside the royal necropolis. On the occasion of offerings for the god H., the spirit of the dead king Panamuwa was also addressed, so that the deceased monarch could partake of the meal together with H. (KAI 214,1522). A comparable royal cult of the dead is provided by clearly later evidence in Damascus, where the cult of Adados (Hadad) and of Azaelos (Hazael) is documented until the Rom. period (Joseph. AJ 9,93-94). The accompanying consort of the god H. could be the goddess Hebat in Aleppo, the goddess Shala in Babylonia and Assyria as well as in Tell Fekheriye (KAI 309,18) and in Damascus, the goddess Atargatis can be identified. In fact, in Hierapolis, Atargatis, also known as DEA SYRIA, is even ranked above the god H. Elsewhere, H. seems to have been the head of the pantheon on his own. In the vicinity of Anat, in the middle Euphrates region, there is evidence for the cult of the god Apladad, “the heir of H.”, at the end of the 8th cent. BCE. This god was worshipped mainly by Aramaeans. The DN occurs very often as the theophoric element in Ass. and Aram. PNN. The most important cult centre of Apladad is the town of Anat, and there were important dependent sanctuaries both in *Dura Europos and in Palmyra. His cult is documented until the 6th cent. CE. Sourdel, D. (1952) Les cultes du Hauran à l’époque romaine. BAH 53. Paris, 39-44; Klengel, H. (1965) JCS, 19, 87-93; Vanel, A. (1965) L’iconographie du dieu de l’orage dans le Proche-Orient ancien jusqu’au VIIe siècle avant J.-C. CRB 3. Paris; Herr, L. G. (1978) The scripts of ancient Northwest Semitic seals. HS Mon 18. Missoula (MN); Abou-Assaf, A. et al. (1982) La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne. Paris;

SAA 2, 8-13; Freyberger, K. S. (1989) DM, 4, 61-86; Greenfield, J. C. (1993) ErIs, 24, 54-61; Müller-Kessler, Chr. and Kessler, K. (1995) Zum Kult des Wettergottes von Guzana. In: Erkanal, A. et al. (eds) Eski yakin doǧu kültürleri üzerine incelemer in memoriam I. Metin Akyurt Bahattin Devam Anı Kitabi. Istanbul, 239244; Fronzaroli, P. (1997) Les combats de Hadda dans les textes d’Ebla. In: MARI, 8, 283-290; Grätz, S. (1998) Der strafende Wettergott. BBB 114. Bodenheim; Lemaire, A. (1998) CRAI(BL), 293-300; Popko, M. (1998) AoF, 25, 119-125; DDD2, s.v., 377382 (J. C. Greenfield); Kohlmeyer, K. (2000) Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo. Münster; Novák, M. (2001) UF, 33, 437-465; Schwemer, D. (2001) Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Wiesbaden; Bunnens, G. (2004) The Storm-God in Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia from Hadad of Aleppo to Jupiter Dolichenus. In: Hutter, M. and Hutter-Braunsar, S. (eds) Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität. AOAT 318. Münster, 57-81; Gonnella, J., Khayyata, W. and Kohlmeyer, K. (2005) Die Zitadelle von Aleppo und der Tempel des Wettergottes. Münster; Bunnens, G., Hawkins, J. D. and Leirens, I. (2006) Tell Ahmar II. A new Luwian stele and the cult of the Storm-God at Til-Barsib-Masuwari. Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA); Freyberger, K. S. (2006) Polis, 2, 157-170; Schwemer, D. (2006-2008) Rammānu(m). In: RlA 11, 236f.; Niehr, H. (2007) Aramäischer Aḥiqar. JSHRZ NF II.2. Gütersloh, 18-20; Schwemer, D. (2008) JANER, 7, 121-168; id. (2008) JANER, 8, 1-44; Lipiński, E. (2010) Studies in Aramaic inscriptions and onomastics III. OLA 200. Leuven/Paris/Walpole (MA); Masson, E. (2010) SemClass, 3, 47-58; Niehr, H. (2010) Götter und Kulte in den Königreichen der Aramäer Syriens. In: Bonnet, C. and Niehr, H., Religionen in der Umwelt des Alten Testaments II. Stuttgart, 187-324; Hawkins, J. D. (2011) AnSt, 61, 35-54; Bel, N. (2012) Jupiter Héliopolitain. Paris; Niehr, H. (2014) Religion. In: id. (ed.) The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria. HdO I.106. Leiden/Boston, 127-303; EBR 10 (2015) s.v. “Hadad (Deity)” (H. Niehr); ibid. s.v. Hadadrimmon (H. Niehr); Hitzl, K., Kurzmann, P., Niehr, H. and Petersen, L. (2015) ZOrA, 8, 188-235; Schwemer, D. (2016-2018) “Wettergott(heiten)”. A. Philologisch § 7. In: RlA 15, 69-91; van der Toorn, K. (2018) Papyrus Amherst 63. AOAT 448. Münster, 6-39. H. NIEHR

Haddu see HADAD Hades see PLUTO Halieus see AGREUS & HALIEUS HARPOCRATES Egypt. Ḥr-pꜢ-ẖrd (“Horus the boy”); Gk Ἁρποκράτης. HORUS as an infant appears already in the Pyramid Texts, but becomes steadily more established from the NK, and we know of a priesthood of him from the Third Intermediate Period. In his iconography the god is shown following the Egypt. canons of depicting infancy: nude, with a side lock on one side of his head and his finger on his lips. Becoming even more widespread in Ptolemaic and Rom. *Egypt, he

HARPOCRATES

followed ISIS in the extensive circulation in the Medit. of cults through a Gk and Rom. iconography that repeated basic Egypt. characteristics, sometimes adding other attributes and symbols. As the son of ISIS and OSIRIS, H. has royal features and over time took on solar connotations, finally being clearly identified in the I mill. BCE as the rising sun, also through the widespread iconography of a boy on a lotus blossom. Another significant characteristic is his connection with fertility and agrarian rites. These are still quite evident during the Rom. period in the frequent presence of the cornucopia, and sometimes of ears of corn in his images. Due to his connotation as a divine son, he generally is part of a triad (with Isis and Osiris) and this forms the model for the arrangement of many Egypt. deities as a triad, while H. tends to take on the attributes of other divine sons. The extensive presence of buildings called mammisi from the 4th cent. BCE is connected with the cult of H. as temples of a divine birth that prefigures a royal birth. In the domestic sphere, H. has an important role in protective →*Magic: Isis is a great sorceress, entrusted with looking after the little boy, with whose fragility the weakness of babies is identified, and whose safety is then entrusted to the divine mother. In the so-called stelae of Horus on crocodiles, extensively present in Egypt from about the mid-I mill. BCE, the divine boy stands on crocodiles while he dominates dangerous beasts, surrounded by magical images and texts. In this guise, he may look very like PATAECUS and is connected with SHED,

Fig. 77. Detail from a Magical Stela or “Cippus of Horus”. At the centre of the picture, Harpocrates is depicted frontally, while dominating several potentially dangerous animals; above his head, an effigy of Bes. Probably from the Memphite area (360-343 BCE)

125

whose protective role is found on magic stelae and is closely linked with BES who is his tutor [FIG. 77]. A valuable stela of this type, dated to the XXX dyn., has a dedication in Phoenician (Cairo Museum, CGC 9402). Gk-Rom. terracottas show us the extensive diffusion of H. with his various attributes, often a lotus bud; some dwarf figures have been connected with the cult of H., of whom they sometimes carry the image. H. was identified with Heracles, whose club he sometimes holds, but also with young DIONYSUS and EROS. [G.C.V.] H. was widely known in the Pun. world, as shown by two pieces of direct evidence. In fact, we have two bronze statuettes of H. in similar poses. The god is nude, standing, has a pigtail on the right side of his head and a uraeus on his forehead. The first statuette, of unknown provenance, is now in the Archaeological Museum of Madrid (Inv. 2150); on four sides of the base an inscription (KAI 52 = RÉS 1507) is engraved, dated between the 4th and the 2nd cent. BCE: it is an invocation to the god with a prayer to grant life to his worshipper, Abdeshmun (ḥrpkrt ytn ḥym l / ῾bdy l῾bd᾿šmn…). The second statuette, also of unknown provenance, is now in the British Museum (BM 132.908) [FIG. 78].

Fig. 78. Harpocrates. Egypt. bronze statuette, with inscriptions in Egyptian hieroglyphics and in Phoenician on its base. Probably from the Memphite area (360-343 BCE)

126

HARPOCRATES – HATHOR

On it is engraved a bilingual text, in hieroglyphic Egyptian and in Phoenician. The Egypt. inscription differs very slightly from the Phoen. text (the names are Egypt. and the name of the engraver is not mentioned). As in the other statuette, the Phoen. text (dated between the 6th and 4th cent. BCE: TSSI III, 38) is the prayer of a worshipper (Amos, son of Eshmunyaton, grandson of ῾Azormilk) who asks H. to grant him life (ḥrpkrt ytn ḥym…). [P.X.] Barnett, R. D. (1963-1964) BMQ, 27, 82-85; Röllig, W. (19691970) WO, 5, 118-120; Ferron, J. (1974) RSF, 2, 77-95; Meeks, D. (1977) s.v. In: LÄ II, 1003-1011; Malaise, M. (1991a) BSFÉ, 122, 13-35; id. (1991b) Harpocrate au pot. In: Verhoeven, U. and Graefe, E. (eds) Religion und Philosophie im alten Ägypten. Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. OLA 39. Leuven, 219-232; id. (1993) Le faucon et la chouette d’Harpocrate. In: Cannuyer, C. and Kruchten, J.-M. (eds) Individu, société et spiritualité dans l’Égypte pharaonique et copte. Mélanges A. Théodoridès. Athens/Bruxelles/Mons, 147-158; Clerc, G. (1994) Héraklès et les dieux du cercle isiaque. In: Berger, C. et al. (eds) Hommages à Jean Leclant II. Cairo, 97-135; Malaise, M. (1994) Questions d’iconographie harpocratique soulevées par des terres cuites d’Égypte gréco-romaine. In: Berger, C. et al. (eds) Hommages à Jean Leclant III. Cairo, 373-383; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1996) Su tre iscrizioni fenicie dall’Egitto: formule augurali e cronologia. In: Studi Moscati, 3, 1047-1061; Sternberg-El Hotabi, H. (1999) Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Horusstelen. Ein Beitrag zur Religionsgeschichte Ägyptens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ÄgAb 62, I-II. Wiesbaden; Malaise, M. (2000) Harpocrate. Problèmes posés par l’étude d’un dieu égyptien à l’époque gréco-romaine. In: Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques de l’Académie royale de Belgique, 6e série, 11, 401-431; Sandri, S. (2006) Har-pa-chered (Harpokrates). Die Genese eines ägyptischen Götterkindes. OLA 151. Leuven; Malaise, M. (2011) À la découverte d’Harpocrate à travers son historiographie. Bruxelles. G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI – P. XELLA

Hasdrubal, sic, instead of ACHERBAS, is called Dido’s husband (→ELISSA) by Timaeus of Tauromenium (FGrHist 566 fr. 82).

Hasis(u) see KOTHAR/KOTHARU HATHOR Egypt. Ḥw.t-Ḥr. H. was a prominent goddess of the Egypt. pantheon. Traditional iconography depicts her as a cow, as a woman having a cow’s head, or anthropomorphically, with bovine horns or ears. Other animals sacred to H. were cobras, lionesses and cats, while other associated manifestations were mountains, sycamore

trees and certain kinds of jewellery and musical instruments. H.’s foremost roles were those of Mistress of Heaven and a fertility goddess associated with sexuality and reproduction. As a celestial deity, she was the divine mother who gave birth to the sun every morning; consequently, she also had a fundamental mortuary role, ensuring the post mortem rebirth of the deceased. Likewise, as the king’s divine mother, she ensured legitimacy and continuity to the dynastic line. Her Egypt. name Ḥw.t-Ḥr literally means “estate of Horus”, referring to the god of divine kingship. In connection with her fertility role, H. embodied the productivity of all the lands in the domain of the Pharaoh and, thus, the goods derived from them, above all textiles, gems and precious metals. The origins of H. must be seen as strictly related to the emergence of centralized power and its ideological apparatus. On the other hand, representations of cattle or human beings with bovine features are a recurrent motif in several pre-dynastic and protodynastic sources. Therefore, it has been assumed that the iconography of H. and other cow goddesses – such as Bat – may have been the result of an ideological reshaping of earlier deities. The first attestations of H. date back to the IV dyn. During the OK her priesthood played an important role and included several women belonging to the royal family. King Menkaure was particularly devoted to H. and promoted her cult by founding new sanctuaries. These sculptures have been interpreted as proof of the economic role assumed by several H. temples in provisioning Menkaure’s Sed-festival and, perhaps, his mortuary cult. In this regard, it could be argued that H. functioned as a mediator between the central state and the various territorial divisions of *Egypt, acting as divine guarantor of the economic exchanges between them. Notably, during the same historical phase, she began to take on a rather similar function in Egypt’s diplomacy, especially with regard to power relations with *Byblos [FIG. 79], where she was identified with the BAALAT GEBAL (see e.g. the inscribed stela of King *Yehawmilk, CIS I, 1 = KAI 10, where the Phoen. goddess is depicted as H.). H. is a marginal deity in the PT. Her name occurs in a very restricted number of spells, where she is described as mother of HORUS, Mistress of Heaven and a goddess who provides the ruler with garments. In subsequent religious texts, however, H. assumes a major role. She is not only described as the mother

HATHOR

Fig. 79. Statuette of Hathor, Lady of Byblos. Ramesside period, XIX dynasty

of the deceased and the one who provides him with clothes and nourishment, but also as “Primordial Goddess”, “Mistress of Totality” and “Mistress of all the gods” (CT IV, 172h; CT VI, 298c). As a funerary goddess, one of her main functions was to guarantee freedom of movement to the dead. In a number of OK private tombs, she is described as a beneficent entity able to guarantee fair winds for the voyage of the deceased. In the CT, she is the gatekeeper of the sky, who allows souls to enter the *Netherworld (CT I, 181a-b; CT II, 124a-c; CT IV, 52c); and she is invoked to remove the obstacles encountered by the dead during their journey in the next world (CT I, 184a). She has a key role in the solar bark of RA and its voyage through the sky. And, by the NK, this aspect finds a significant parallel in the iconographic repertoire found in royal and nonroyal tombs, where the goddess is depicted among the crew of the solar bark, or at the prow of the night bark. Furthermore, as goddess of the Netherworld, H. was often associated with other female deities, such as Amentet, the goddess of the necropolis in the west. desert and Meretseger, the patron of the Theban mountain on the west. bank of the Nile, where both royal and non-royal individuals were buried.

127

During the III and the II mill. BCE, H. certainly had a prominent transcultural role, becoming the patron goddess of voyages and trade. She was identified with several foreign goddesses and there are cultic places dedicated to her at a number of sites outside Egypt. In this regard, it can be observed that her role as guardian of the Netherworld and Lady of the Desert overlapped her function as the goddess of foreign lands. In several CT spells, H. is called “Lady of Punt” (CT I, 204e) or “Lady of Byblos” (CT I, 262b). Especially in the latter case, it is stated that she is able to provide the deceased with the oars for his boat, probably a reference to imports of Lebanese cedar. In the CT it is also possible to find an allusion (CT VI, 63l-65f) to the turquoise mines of the Sinai, where, during the XII dyn., a temple was erected in her name. Several stelae belonging to leaders of mining expeditions describe her as the patron of their voyages abroad. She is also called a Golden Goddess, often in connection with the Nubian regions from where gold was exported. Archaeological data testify that H. had a specific role even in relations between Egypt and *Cyprus, where she was identified with a local female deity as protector of copper mining activities. By the NK, H. was assimilated to other Egypt. goddesses, above all ISIS, Sekhmet and Tefnut. She was also identified with the Sun-Eye, a female destructive force often depicted as a Nubian or Lib. lioness. Under this guise, she assumed the characteristics of a violent martial goddess whose main function was to destroy the enemies of Ra. Allusions to this myth can already be identified in the CT. However, it is only from the XVIII dyn. that this divine figure acquired a prominent role within the royal sphere, perhaps in connection with the aggressive imperialistic ideology characterizing this historical phase. The Sun-Eye myth even influenced the NK iconographic repertoire concerning queenship. The great wife of Amenhotep III, Tiye, was depicted as a female sphinx trampling both Asiatic and Nubian enemies. And, Nefertiti, the great wife of Akhenaton, was portrayed in the typical bellicose pose of the Pharaoh smiting foreign enemies. As a fertility goddess, H. was associated with childbirth and love, including both romantic and sexual attraction. In this guise, especially by the NK, she was the object of a widespread popular devotion. Some inscriptions describe H. as the goddess who listens to the pleas of both noble and poor women

128

HATHOR – HEIMARMENE & HORA

and a great number of ex-votos (*Ex-voto) have been found inside her cultic places. She was invoked to solve love pains and was asked to obtain healthy offspring, as well as to heal infertility and impotence. In addition, numerous festivals (→*Festival) were dedicated to H., such as the Beautiful Feast of the Valley and the Festival of Intoxication. These events were marked by enjoyable activities, such as music, dancing and the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Indeed, drunkenness had a central role, certainly in reference to the myth of the Sun-Eye, in which the uncontrollable murderous rage of the goddess is appeased by making her drink red beer that looked like blood. During the Hellenist. age, H. was identified with the Gk goddess Aphrodite and was involved in the Ptolemaic royal ideology. At the same time, she was gradually eclipsed by Isis, who also absorbed her main features. In fact, while Isis progressively assumed the connotations of a universal deity worshipped in all the known world, H. slowly lost her importance outside of Egypt. Bleeker, C. J. (1973) Hathor and Toth: Two key figures of the ancient Egyptian religion. Leiden; Scandone Matthiae, G. (1991) Hathor Signora di Biblo e la Baalat Gebal. In: APC 2.II, 401-406; Pinch, G. (1993) Votive offerings to Hathor. Oxford; Scandone Matthiae, G. (1994) L’Oro e la Dorata: Un’ipotesi su un epiteto di Afrodite ed Hathor. In: Berger, C., Clerc, G. and Grimal, N. C. (eds) Hommages à Jean Leclant III. Cairo, 435-440; Gillam, R. A. (1995) JARCE, 32, 211-237; Espinel, A. D. (2002) The role of the temple of Ba῾alat Gebal as intermediary between Egypt and Byblos during the Old Kingdom. In: SAK, 30, 103-119; Tower Hollis, S. (2009) JAEI, 1.2, 1-8; Graves-Brown, C. (2010) Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt. Auckland; Carbillet, A. (2011) La figure hathorique à Chypre (IIe-Ier mill. av. J.-C.). AOAT 388. Münster; Dunn Friedman, F. (2015) Implications of the Menkaure Triads. In: Der Manuelian, P. and Schneider, T. (eds) Towards a new history for the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Leiden/Boston, 18-59; Schiavo, R. (2016) Goddelijke Vrouwen. In: Kaper, O. E. (ed.) Koninginnen van de Nijl: Macht en schoonheid in het Nieuwe Rijk (1539-1077 v. Chr.). Leiden, 133-142; Meeks, D. (2017) SMSR, 83, 109-115. R. SCHIAVO

HAWWAT Phoen. ḥwt. The term in question appears in a 3rd cent. BCE Pun. inscription (CIS I, 6068 = KAI 89), engraved on a small rolled up sheet of lead discovered in a tomb in *Carthage [FIG. 80]. The text contains a magic spell calling on a goddess to act against the person for whom the curse is intended (→*Blessings and curses). The incantation asks a goddess, mentioned at the start

Fig. 80. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 6068

in the formula rbt ḥwt ᾿lt, “Lady ḥwt Elat”, to destroy someone by making him melt, just as lead melts. It was initially proposed that the second term of the invocation is a DN, i.e. a goddess called “Ḥawwat”, considered to be the queen of the *Netherworld. In the light of recent studies, however, it seems that such a hypothesis must be excluded. Instead, Pun. ḥwt is an intensive infinitive of the verb “to live” (ḥwy) and the formula refers to the goddess →ELAT, invoked as “Lady of living/life”, probably to be identified with Gk Persephone. The formula of this incantation tablet is the same as in curse-tablets (defixionum tabellae) in use in the Italic, Gk and Rom. world, and it is certainly likely that specialists in →*Magic in Carthage used models foreign to Phoen. tradition. Lipiński, E. (1995) 411-413; Müller, H.-P. (2000) OrNS, 69, 393406; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2003) SEL, 20, 25-31. S. RIBICHINI

HEIMARMENE & HORA Gk Εἱμαρμένη καὶ Ὥρα. Mythical characters mentioned by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,23). They were sent by Ouranos to fight CRONUS, together with “other allies”. But Cronus won them over, and kept them with him. Any identification of He. and Ho. with known Phoen. deities can only be conjectural, as is the suggestion by F. Løkkegaard (1954) that Heimarmene might correspond to GAD. Løkkegaard, F. (1954) Studia Theologica, 8, 51-76; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 201. G. MINUNNO

129

HERYSHEF – HOLY GOD OF SAREPTA

Helios see SHAMASH; BAAL SHAMEM Hephaestus see KOTHAR/KOTHARU; PTAH Hera see ASTARTE; TINNIT Hera Lacinia see CAELESTIS. Heracles see MELQART Hercules see MELQART; PILLARS HERCULES

OF

HERACLES/

Herentas Erucina see ASTARTE OF ERYX Hermes see MERCURY; SAKON HERYSHEF Egypt. Ḥry-š.f; Gk Ἁρσαφής. A theonym that means “The one on the lake”. He was portrayed with a ram’s head and was worshipped in Herakleopolis Magna. Considered as a creator god, he had solar traits and was identified with RA and OSIRIS. During the I mill. BCE he was worshipped as a cosmic deity. He also had a role in protective →*Magic. [G.C.V.] H. is mentioned in a dedicatory inscription on one of the obelisks in the so-called “Temple en L” (to use M. Dunand’s definition) in *Byblos, located near the temple of the local BAALAT [FIG. 81]. Since the name of the Egypt. god is only apparently similar in sound to the theonym RESHEPH, many scholars have erroneously considered that god to be the titular of the temple in Byblos. In fact, the temple must have been dedicated to a local BAAL, possibly even the BAAL OF BYBLOS, typically depicted as a SMITING GOD, mentioned in I mill. BCE inscriptions [P.X.] Altenmüller, B. (1977) s.v. “Harsaphes”. In: LÄ II, 1015-1018; Scandone Matthiae, G. (1981) Il problema delle influenze egiziane sulla religione fenicia. In: La religione fenicia. Matrici orientali e sviluppi occidentali. SS 53. Rome, 61-80, esp. 67ff.; Xella, P. (1994) Pantheon e culto a Biblo. In: Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) Biblo. Una città e la sua cultura. CSF 34. Rome, 195-214, esp. 197f.; Pinch, G. (2002) s.v. In: id. (ed.) Handbook of Egyptian mythology. Santa Barbara/Denver/Oxford, 141. G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI – P. XELLA

Fig. 81. Obelisk with hieroglyphic inscription by Abishemu, prince of Byblos, “beloved of Heryshef-Ra”. Byblos, Temple of Obelisks

Hierombal see PHILO

OF

BYBLOS

HOLY GOD OF SAREPTA Gk θεὸς ἅγιος Σαραπτηνός; Phoen. ᾿lm hqdš (?). A god called “Holy god of Sarepta” in Greek is documented by extra-Phoen. sources, even though so far this epithet cannot be connected with a specific deity. On the other hand, Phoen. epigraphic sources mention several deities to whom the epithet of “Holy god”, ᾿lm hqdš (➝*Holy [Holiness]), is attributed, although none is explicitly connected with *Sarepta. The H.G. of Sarepta occurs in several Gk inscriptions dating to the 1st cent. CE. From these, the most salient datum to emerge is from one specific episode, which also affirms the popularity of this god. It is a journey by sea, from *Tyre to *Pozzuoli, made by the cult image of the H.G. of Sarepta, on the orders of that deity. The trip, organized by a Phoen. (priest?)

130

HOLY GOD OF SAREPTA

named →*Abdelim, ended in Pozzuoli on the 29th May 79 CE. All this is attested from a Gk inscription (accompanied by a shorter Lat. text) found in two fragments in Pozzuoli, currently kept at the Michigan Museum (IGRR 420, p. 137f. = OGIS II, 594, p. 285287; see Milik [1967] 576). There is another document, also from Pozzuoli, which may belong to the same dossier. It is an inscription in Gk and in Lat., engraved on a marble plaque and bearing a dedication by the city of Tyre (here called “Holy and inviolable”) to a god called “Holy”; this term is followed by a word beginning with a sigma, θεῷ ἁγίῳ σ[…, usually reconstructed as σ[εβαστῷ], “August” (IGRR 419 = CIL X, 1601 [IG XIV, 831]). However, another reconstruction cannot be ruled out, i.e. Σ[αραπτενῷ] and in that case, our god would come back into play, for which the characteristic ethnic designation would be reconfirmed, as well as the link with Tyre. Two other Gk inscriptions from the imperial period are also relevant. The first one is engraved on a bronze plaque and commemorates a votive offering in honour of θεῷ ἁγίῳ Σαραπτενῷ made by a certain Sunegdemos (Συνέγδημος) (Torrey [1948]: θεῷ ἁγίῳ / Σαραπτενῷ / Συνέγδημος / ἀνέθηκεν). The second inscription, also votive in character, is fragmentary; it is engraved on a marble block and may come from Sarepta (Pritchard [1971] 54ff. and id. [1978] 43-45, fig. 16). Its text can be reconstructed thanks to a comparison with the other inscription. It seems possible that these two inscriptions refer specifically to the moment when the god’s statue left Tyre, heading for Pozzuoli. These documents confirm the deep roots of the cult of the god of Sarepta both in the Levantine motherland and among the *Phoenicians scattered throughout the central Mediterranean. As for Phoen. texts, of particular interest is an inscription by someone called →*Abdhor: a dedication engraved on a statue dating to the 3rd-2nd cent. BCE, possibly from Sarepta. The statue represents a male character dressed in the Egypt. style. Its back is shaped like a small pillar that was meant to be inserted into an architectural structure [FIGS 82 and 83]. The text of the inscription commemorates Abdhor’s dedication of two statues to a deity named “Holy god” (᾿lm hqdš). In this case, given the probable provenance of the document, it is plausible that the “Holy God” to whom Abdhor dedicates the two statues is in fact the H.G. of Sarepta.

Fig. 82. Statue and inscription of Abdhor

If we now consider deities who were given the title of “Holy” (qdš) in Phoenician, the only likely candidates are MELQART and ESHMUN or, less plausibly, SHADRAPHA. The Melqart hypothesis is supported by several factors, including the enormous popularity of that god in the Medit. context. The epithet “Holy” is documented for the god of Tyre both in Phoenician and Greek. A Phoen. inscription from Tharros (ICO Sard. 32,1) is dedicated “To the Lord, the Holy God Melqart” (l᾿dn l᾿lm hqdš mlq[r]t); in a Gk inscription from Tyre, Heracles (i.e. the Tyrian god) is called “Holy” (Chéhab [1962]; Bonnet [1988] 62f.). In addition, other documents confirm the Holy god’s link with Tyre and with Tyrians resident in Campania. On the other hand, there are strong points in favour of Eshmun. His cult enjoyed great popularity especially in the Achaemenid period; in his famous Sidonian sanctuary of Bostan esh-Sheikh, the god has the Phoen. title “Holy Prince” (šr qdš: cf. KAI 14,17; 15,16 and, most recently, the inscription along the river Awali near Sidon, see Xella and Zamora [2004],

HOLY GOD OF SAREPTA – HORON

Fig. 83. Detail of the inscription mentioning the “Holy God”

lin. 4); Gk inscriptions discovered in this sacred area – dated according to the Sidonian Era (the 1st year corresponding to 111/110 BCE, i.e. between 59/58 BCE and 141 CE) – provide further proof. Indeed, all these texts call the titular god of the sanctuary “Holy god Asclepius” (Phoen. Eshmun) θεῷ ἁγίῳ Ἀσκληπίῳ (Wachter [2005] 324, Gr6, Pl. 35; 324, Gr7, Pl. 35 324, Gr8), or simply θεῷ ἁγίῳ “Holy god” (Wachter [2005] 321, Gr1, Pl. 33). A probable parallel with the inscription of Abdhor and the offering of his statues is provided by a bilingual (Phoen./ Gk) inscription that mentions the dedication of two statues to a god, whose name is not legible in the Phoen. text, although in the Gk text Asclepius is mentioned and qualified as “Holy god” (Mathys [2005] 288, Ph12, Pl. 28: smlm šnm ᾿l ytn ῾b[d “These two statues Abd… gave ”; Gk: Ζ]ήνονος / [θεῷ ἁγίῳ Ἀ]σκληπίῳ: Wachter [2005] 319). Finally, it is worth remembering that Asclepius was given the epithet of ἀποβατήριος (protector of persons landing: Arr. An. 1,11,7) whenever there was a solemn landing in a maritime city (Robert [1963] esp. 314ff.), exactly as in the case of the H.G. of Sarepta after the crossing from Pozzuoli to Tyre. On balance – without excluding the possibility that originally the H.G. was a Sareptan deity, who entered the Tyro-Sidonian cult later – at the moment his identification as either Melqart or Eshmun seems equally likely.

131

Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. (1901) Le phénicien Theosebios de Sarepta et son voyage à Pouzzoles. In: id., Recueil d’archéologie orientale IV. Paris, 226-237; id. (1909) De Tyr à Pouzzoles. In: Florilegium Melchior de Voguë. Paris, 111-128; Torrey, C. C. (1948) Berytus, 9, 45-94; Chéhab, M. (1962) MUSJ, 38, 11-40; Robert, L. (1963) REA, 65, 298-329; Milik, J. T. (1967) Biblica, 48, 546-622; Pritchard, J. B. (1971) BMB, 24, 39-56; id. (1978) Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City. Princeton; Masson, O. (1982) Semitica, 32, 145-149; Bonnet, C. (1988) 62ff. and passim; Xella, P. (1993) Eschmun von Sidon. Der phönizische Asklepios. In: Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. (eds) Mesopotamica Ugaritica - Biblica. Festschrift für K. Bergerhof. AOAT 232. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 481-498; Lipiński, E. (1995) 194f.; Rey-Coquais, J.-P. (2002) Inscriptions inédites de Sidon. In: Paci, G. (ed.) Epigrafai. Miscellanea epigrafica in onore di Lidio Gasperini. Ichnia 5.2. Tivoli (Rome), 799-832; Xella, P. and Zamora, J. Á. (2004) BAAL, 8, 273-300; Mathys, H.-P. (2005) Die phönizischen Inschriften. In: Stucky, R. A. et al. (eds) Das Eschmunheiligtum von Sidon. Architektur und Inschriften. AK Beiheft 19. Basel, 273-318; Wachter, R. (2005) Die griechischen Inschriften. In: ibid. 319-331; Xella, P. (2006) Il Dio Santo di Sarepta. In: del Olmo Lete, G., Feliu, L. and Millet Albà, A. (eds) Šapal tibnim mû illakū. Studies presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the occasion of his 65th birthday. AuOrSuppl 22. Sabadell, 481-489; Lombardi, P. (2011) Mediterraneo Antico, 14, 391-432; Xella, P. (2018) Qui était le “dieu saint”? In: Xella, P. and Zamora, J. Á. (eds) Inscriptions phéniciennes inédites ou peu connues dans la collection de la Direction Générale des Antiquités du Liban. BAAL Hors Série 15. Beirut, 24-27. P. XELLA

Hora see HEIMARMENE & HORA HORON Ug. ḥrn; Phoen. ḥrn; Hebr. ḥrn; Gk Αὐρώνας. DN of unknown etymological origin (perhaps “he from the hole”?). The oldest references to H. come from the 18th cent. BCE with a PN from *Mari (APN, 32.192) and two PNN in the Egypt. Execration Texts. From the 15th cent. BCE come further Egypt. mentions of H., whose cult reached *Egypt as part of the adoption of NW Sem. cults there. His symbolic animal in Egypt was the falcon, which attacks snakes. The god H. occurs quite often in the texts from *Ugarit. The procedure of a necromancy performed in the “Maison du Prêtre Hourrite” (KTU3 1.124,5-8) mentions in parallel the temples of the gods H. and BAAL, in which a vessel with myrrh had to be used. Both gods were supposed to heal the sick crown prince. As yet, there is no archaeological evidence for the temple of H. in Ugarit; possibly, it was located outside the city. The parallel between the gods H. and Baal, found in KTU3 1.124, also occurs in an incantation against a sorcerer, from *Ras Ibn Hani (KTU3

132

HORON – HORUS

1.169,1-10). Two further incantation texts from Ugarit mention H. KTU3 1.100 concerns the search for an antidote to the effects of snakebite. It is similar to KTU3 1.107, 38, in which EL and H. had to expel snake venom. KTU3 1.82 also describes this kind of incantation against snake poison. In an incantation from the “Maison d’Ourtenu” (KTU3 1.179) that is only partially preserved, the residence of H. is said to be situated on the waters. The mention of H. in KTU3 1.176,20 may belong to a mythical context, but, in any case, that text is very incomplete. In the epics from Ugarit H. features in King Kirta’s curse, where together with the goddess ASTARTE-Name-of-Baal he should break the head of crown prince Aqhatu (KTU3 1.16 VI 54-58). There are extremely few references to the cult of H. in Phoen. religion. The first *Amulet from *Arslan Taş (KAI 27), which is the product of an Aram. scribe from a Phoen. original, mentions the spell from heaven and the *Netherworld and the gods Baal and H. (lin. 13-16). In addition, H. is described as having a pure mouth and he has seven concubines. The parallelism between the gods Baal and H. already existed in Ugarit (KTU3 1.124 and 1.169). H.’s protective function against demons in Arslan Taş is also comparable with his protective function in KTU3 1.100 and his role as an exorcist in KTU3 1.169. In Phoen. onomastics, for the second half of the 8th cent. BCE, the PN ῾bdḥwrn (“Servant of H.”) occurs (PNPPI, 154.309). Here also the positive side of H. as protective is effective. There is evidence in the temple of *Antas, on *Sardinia (6th-5th cent. BCE), for the practice of offering statuettes of H. and SHADRAPHA to the god SID, its titular: as a consequence, an affinity between these two healer deities can be deduced [FIG. 84]. Place names from *Palestine formed from bt ḥrn refer to the temple of H. (Josh 16,3.5; 18,13; 21,22; ostracon no. 2 from Tell Qasile). In addition, there are the dual Horonayim in the *Old Testament (Isa 15,5; Jer 48,3.5.34) and the place name Hawronen on the Mesha-Stela (KAI 181,31-32). A Gk inscription from the temple of *Delos (2nd cent. BCE) is dedicated to the gods Heracles and Auronas, who is easily recognizable as H.

P. (1986) Catalogue des sceaux sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris, 20 no. 2; Pardee, D. (1988) Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961). RSOu IV. Paris, 193-226; Xella, P. (1988) WO, 19, 45-64; van Dijck, J. (1989) GM, 107, 59-68; Lipiński, E. (1995) 363-366; Pardee, D. (1998) Syria, 75, 15-54; DDD², s.v., 425f. (U. Rüterswörden); Caquot, A. and Dalix, A.-S. (2001) Un texte mythico-magique. In: Yon, M. and Arnaud, D. (eds) Études Ougaritiques I. RSOu XIV. Paris, 393-405; Gubel, E. (2002) The anthroponym ῾ḥr: New light on the iconography of the god Horon? In: Da Pyrgi a Mozia, 269279; Leitz, C. (2002) Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen V. OLA 114. Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA), 108; Wyatt, N. (2006), “May Horon smash your head!”: A curse formula from Ugarit. In: del Olmo Lete, G., Felíu, L. and Millet Albà, A. (eds) Šapal tibnim mû illakū. Studies presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the occasion of his 65th birthday. AuOrS 22. Sabadell, 471-479; Rahmouni, A. (2008) Divine epithets in the Ugaritic alphabetic texts. HdO I.93. Leiden/Boston, 176f.; Tazawa, K. (2009) Syro-Palestinian deities in New Kingdom Egypt. The hermeneutics of their existence. BAR IS 1965. Oxford, 60-71; Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. (2013) Mustertext einer Beschwörung gegen Zauberer (KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20). In Loretz O. et al. (eds) Ritual, Religion and Reason. Studies in the ancient world in honour of Paolo Xella. AOAT 404. Münster, 205-227; del Olmo Lete, G. (2014) Incantations and anti-witchcraft texts from Ugarit. SANER 4. Berlin/Boston, 26f.205-211; Hillmann, R. (2016) Brautpreis und Mitgift. Gedanken zum Eherecht in Ugarit und seiner Umwelt mit einer Rekonstruktion des im Ritual verankerten “Schlangentext”-Mythos. ORA 18. Tübingen, 119-176.206-215.

Albright, W. F. (1936) AJSL, 53, 1-12; Stadelmann, R. (1967) Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. PdÄ 5. Leiden, 76-88; Sznycer, M. (1968-1970) Karthago, 15, 68-74; Xella, P. (1972) AION, 32, 271-286; Uberti, M. L. (1978) AION, 38, 315319; Caquot, A. (1979-1980) AAAS, 29-30, 173-180; Bordreuil,

HORUS

H. NIEHR

Fig. 84. Votive inscription from Antas (no. VI) mentioning the god Horon

Egypt. Ḥr; Phoen. ḥr; Gk Ὢρος; Lat. Horus. A great Egypt. god closely connected with *Kingship.

HORUS

The meaning of his Egypt. name Ḥr is usually understood to be “The Far One” or “He who is above”. He is depicted as a falcon, as a falcon-headed man or as a *Winged disc, to emphasize his heavenly identity with solar traits [FIG. 85]. He usually has the double crown representing rulership over Upper and Lower Egypt, typical of the Pharaoh. The name H. often appears as a composite, in order to show specific divine aspects and roles (e.g. “H., who unites the Two Lands”, “H., avenger of his father”, “H., son of Isis”, “H. the child” who became →H ARPOCRATES for the Greeks and Romans). At times, some of these aspects have been interpreted as indicators of various divine figures or, more often, as manifestations of a single deity who had several important cult centres and various roles. H. is generally known as the son of ISIS and OSIRIS, a divine family – also known through a work by Plutarch (Is. et Os.) – belonging to the Ennead of Heliopolis, an ancient and important centre for solar worship. However, H. the Elder, the brother of Osiris, also belongs to the same mythological setting and HATHOR may be either H.’s mother or his consort. As the son of Osiris, H. is his heir as sovereign of *Egypt after the assassination of his father by his brother Seth. Conceived after his father’s death, he guarantees the continuity of royalty by defeating his uncle, Seth, and is the very image of the Pharaoh. In the most widespread form of the myth, especially in the late period, together with Seth, H. forms a duo of opposite and complementary gods: while H., as legitimate king, guarantees order and harmony (Maat), Seth represents chaos. However, this view is not exhaustive and in fact both gods, in the very early period, would have represented rulership over the two different parts of Egypt. The cult of H. is very ancient and persisted for a long time as it was still important in the Graeco-Rom. periods, e.g. in the well-known temple of Edfu in Upper Egypt. In fact, the catacomb of the falcons at *Saqqara shows the importance of his cult in this period, in an area that foreigners often visited. The great Sphinx of Giza was known as “H. on the horizon”, but also as the east. deity Hurun (→HORON), with whom H. was identified. In contacts with other Medit. cultures, H. was generally seen as a young royal and triumphant deity and was assimilated to APOLLO by the Greeks (Hdt. 2,144,2); his image as a falcon was spread throughout the Mediterranean through scarabs and amulets. In the form of an infant, in the late period,

133

Fig. 85. Green jasper scarab (6th cent. BCE) with falcon-headed Horus flanked by Ptah and Thoth, with a winged disk above (Tartous)

he is depicted on top of crocodiles on magical stelae belonging to H. and was linked particularly with BES, who became his tutor. [G.C.V.] The theonym H. is documented in Phoen. and Pun. inscriptions as a theophoric element in PNN. In an inscription on a statue that may come from *Sarepta, the dedicator is called ῾bdḥr, “Servant of H.” (Xella and Zamora [2018] B1). In an inscription from *Umm el-Amed, the dedicator’s father has the same name; he is the priest of the local deity MILKASHTART (RÉS 307, 1-2; see UeA, 188; Art Phénicien, 144, no. 157), as well as at *Kition, on Cyprus, in a funerary inscription (IK B 44). The Egypt. theonym also occurs in other PNN, in Egypt at *Abydos (ḥr: RÉS 1340), *Elephantine (bn ḥr: Lidzbarski [1912] no. 14, p. 8 and no. 21, p. 11; ḥrkp: id., no. 55 p. 17; ḥrml, reading uncertain: id. no. 47, p. 16) and, perhaps, at Saqqara (mlkm̊ḥr̊ ̊ on an ostracon: Naveh [1987] 27); on Cyprus, at Kition, (ḥr: IK B 1,1 and perhaps B 26,2 and D 1,2); in Greece, in a Phoen./Gk bilingual from *Demetrias (Phoen. ḥ᾿r, Διόδωρος in Greek: Masson [1969] no. 6, p. 699) and also in North Africa, at *Carthage (plsḥr: CIS I, 4853,4). [P. X.] Lidzbarski. M. (1912) Phönizische und aramäische Krugaufschriften aus Elephantine. Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin; Gardiner, A. H. (1944) JEA, 30, 23-60; Griffiths, J. G. (1960) The conflict of Horus and Seth. From Egyptian and classical sources: A study in ancient mythology. Liverpool; Masson, O. (1969) BCH, 93, 679700; Schenkel, W. (1980) s.v. In: LÄ III, 14-25; Naveh, J. (1987) IEJ, 37, 25-30; DCPP, s.v. (P. Dils); Hornung, E. (20056) Der Eine und die Vielen. Altägyptische Götterwelt. Darmstadt, passim;

134

HORUS – HOTER MASKIR/MISKAR

Meltzer, E. (2001) “Horus”. In: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, II. Oxford, 119-122; Davies, S. and Smith, H. S. (2005) The sacred animal necropolis of North Saqqara. The Falcon complex and catacomb. The archaeological report. Egypt Exploration Society, Excavation Memoir 73. London; Charron, A. (2009) Égypte, Afrique et Orient, 53, 49-58; Capriotti Vittozzi, G. (2010) Horus, Apollon, Melqart et l’île flottante. In: Raffaele, F., Nuzzolo, M. and Incordino, I. (eds) Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan congress of Egyptology (Naples, June 18th-20th 2008). Wiesbaden, 13-21; Potter, R. (2011) JAEI 3, 27-38; ead. “Part II”, 39-52; Forgeau, A. (2010) Horus-fils-d’Isis. La jeunesse d’un dieu. Cairo; Xella, P. and Zamora, J. Á. (2018) Inscriptions sur pierre. B1. In: iid. (eds) Inscriptions phéniciennes inédites ou peu connues dans la collection de la Direction Générale des Antiquités du Liban. BAAL Hors Série 15. Beirut, 17-27; Xella, P. (2018) I Fenici e gli dèi d’Egitto. Note su Horus nell’epigrafia fenicia. In: Vacca, A., Pizzimenti, S. and Micale, M. G. (eds) A Oriente del Delta. Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae. CMAO 18. Rome, 633-640. G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI – P. XELLA

HOTER MASKIR/MISKAR Phoen. ḥṭr (῾ṭr) mskr/myskr. DN composed of two terms: ḥṭr, which probably means “sceptre”, and mskr, generally interpreted as “herald” from the root skr – and, consequently, the god would be called the “Herald’s Sceptre” – even though it cannot be excluded that it is a Berber name with the preformative mas- (NAN, xiii) (*Berber[s]), and not a Sem. word. In the first hypothesis, H.M. would have been the one who fixes the destinies (Février [1956]), but the relationship with the sceptre is not easy to understand (a deified object that represented, as pars pro toto, the deity and/or its essential function?). According to G. Garbini (1994), H.M. is identical to Meskir, an archaic divine figure, a creator god perhaps belonging to the Canaanite tradition of the III mill. BCE, later assimilated to EL in the II mill. and perpetuated in the I mill. BCE as a secondary character in the “official” Phoen. pantheon. Its late reappearance in the Pun. world should be read as a deliberate religious archaism, a nationalistic recovery of ancient homeland cults, in a historical moment in which foreign divinities and cults emerge: a fascinating hypothesis, but not founded on evidence. In any case, regardless of etymology (although a particularly important element in this case, since the theonym is unusual), H.M. is almost certainly an indigenous god, since the epigraphic evidence for him comes mainly from *Maktar and *Carthage (see, however, the PN ᾿mtmskr in a funerary stela from Lebanon of unknown provenance and authenticity; Lemaire [2001] 13).

A temple of H.M. at Maktar – a site with a →*Tophet that has provided several hundred votive inscriptions, as well as many funerary texts from the local necropolis – is known from archaeological and epigraphic evidence. The precinct was located on a rocky ridge NE of the Forum and has undergone various building phases. Initially (end of the 2nd-1st cent. BCE), it was a sacred open-air area, characterized by the presence of a monumental altar (10 × 5 m); subsequently, it was surrounded by various buildings; then it became a real temple, with pediments, a crypt and a chapel: a Neopun. inscription (KAI 145 = HNPI Mactar N 64) tells us that the works were carried out by a local corporation, the mrzḥ (→*Marzeah; →*Associations & confraternities); another Neopun. inscription mentions the temple and the place where it was located (KAI 146 = HNPI Mactar N 65). Later, under the Severi, a new temple was built with a longaxis plan. The land pertaining to the sacred site revealed overlapping layers of earth with coal, ashes and bones, i.e. the remains of sacrifices offered to the god. The sanctuary of H.M. is also attested by three Carthag. inscriptions (CIS I, 253; 254; 4838) [FIG. 86], which mention a “servant of the temple of H.M.” (῾bd bt ḥṭr mskr). Devotion to H.M. is also documented by PNN such as grmskr (about twenty times at Carthage), ῾bdmskr (and variants: six times in Carthage, but also once in *Sidon [RÉS 930,1]), and ᾿mtmskr (once in *Tyre) (Israel [2013]). An important aid to understand the personality of H.M. may be the expression mlk ḥṭr myskr rzn ymm b῾l ḥrdt / ῾l gbrtm, in the aforementioned inscription

Fig. 86. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 254

HOTER MASKIR/MISKAR – HYPSISTOS

KAI 145,5-6, which, however, poses difficulties; a possible translation is: “King H.M., prince of days (or, less plausibly, “of the seas”), lord of terror, for his mighty deeds”. H.M. would then be a god with cosmic connotations, a powerful lord of time, who inspires terror with his formidable attributes. De Vaux, R. (1939) RB, 48, 394-405; Février, J. G. (1956) Semitica, 6, 15-31; Février, J. G. and Fantar, M. H. (1965) Karthago, 12, 43-59; PNPPI, 305f.351; Sznycer, M. (1972) Semitica, 22, 25-43; Picard, C. (1982) Karthago, 20, 71-74; NNPI, 51.68; Picard, G.-Ch. (1988) BAC B, Afrique du Nord, NS 18, 21-25; DCPP, s.v. (E. Lipiński); Garbini, G. (1994) La religione dei Fenici in Occidente. SS NS 12. Rome, 15-18; DNWSI I, s.v. ḥrdh, 403; II, s.v. rzn, 1065; Lipiński, E. (1995) 174-176; HNPI, 91-145.333; Lemaire, A. (2001) Michmanim, 15, 7-23; Ben Abid, L. (2010) RHR, 227, 683-701; Actes de la Journée Maktar (1er juin 2012): Recherches sur les inscriptions néopuniques trouvées lors des fouilles franco-tunisiennes. In: SemClass, 6, 2013, 219-266; Israel, F. (2013) L’onomastica fenicia della Madrepatria: un primo aggiornamento. In: Briquel-Chatonnet, F., Faveaud, C. and Gajda, I. (eds) Entre Carthage et l’Arabie Heureuse. Mélanges offerts à François Bron. Orient et Méditerranéee 12. Paris, 217-234; Fantar, M. H., Sznycer, M. and Bron, F. (2015) Stèles à inscriptions néopuniques de Maktar. 1. MAIBL 51. Paris. P. XELLA

135

HYPSISTOS Gk Ὕψιστος. H. means “The Most High” and is a title that is attributed to several deities to denote their preeminent position within a group of divine characters. In the Phoenician History by P HILO OF B YBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,15) it is another way of denoting →ELIOUN, one of the gods from primaeval times. In the LXX, H. translates Hebr. Elyon, which is another name for Yahweh and is used to express the uniqueness of the god of the Jews. In the Hellenist. and Rom. periods the epithet is frequently used also for other deities of the polytheistic civilizations of the Ancient Near East, such as Zeus, Cybele, ISIS, Serapis and Mithras. Ὑψίστη is also a title of ASTARTE in a Gk inscription engraved on a bas relief found on the Appian Way, in *Rome, which depicts that goddess. DDD2, s.v., 439-443 (C. Breytenbach); Pisano, G. (2009) Ancora sull’Astarte della Villa dei Quintili. In: RAL, ser. IX, 20, 215-220; Belayche, N. (2011) Hypsistos: A way of exalting the gods in Graeco-Roman polytheism. In: North, J. A. and Price, S. R. F. (eds) The religious history of the Roman Empire. Oxford, 139-174. S. RIBICHINI

Hypsouranios see SAMEMROUMOS & HYPSOURANIOS

I IAO Gk Ἰάω and Ἰαώ; see also IEOUD. The name of the Hebr. god documented in the mystery rites of the Chaldaean. According to PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 7), it means “intelligible light” in Phoenician. This etymology is mentioned by the Byzantine writer Johannes Lydus (Mens. 4, 53), in a passage in which he records the existing differences between theologians on the characteristics of the god worshipped by the Hebrews. The explanation of this theonym as “intelligible light” is unique in ancient sources, but has an equivalent in the terminology used in the Chaldaean Oracles for the luminosity of so-called “superior beings”. Macrobius, citing APOLLO of Clarus in Sat. 1,18,18-20, compares the name of I. to the names of LIBER PATER and Helios (the Sun), whereas several Gk and Lat. writers propose other, parallel titles for the god of the Hebrews (DIONYSUS, Zeus, Jupiter, HYPSISTOS). I. also appears in Gk magical papyri, in a range of combinations and titles. Possibly, the Gk name I. echoes abbreviated forms of the name of Yahweh (such as Yhw, Yh and Yw) found in Ancient Near Eastern documents. Troiani, L. (1974), L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa, 73f.; Assmann, J. (1997) Moses the Egyptian. The memory of Egypt in western monotheism. Cambridge (MA), 50f.; DDD2, s.v. “Yahweh”, 910-919 (K. van der Toorn); Smith, M. S. (2008) God in translation. Deities in cross-cultural discourse in the Biblical world. Tübingen, 275-283; Vasileiadis, P. D. (2017) Vetus Testamentum et Hellas, 4, 21-51. S. RIBICHINI

IEOUD Gk Ἰεούδ. Mentioned in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790) as the “Only son” of CRONUS sired by ANOBRET, he is sacrificed by his royal father in a situation of military danger. I. appears only once, in Eus. PE 1,10,44 (= 4,16,11 = BNJ 790 fr. 3b). It is not clear whether this is the same sacrifice alluded to in PE 1,10,33 where his “only son” is not mentioned by name but is immolated on the occasion of famine and death. Porphyry mentions the practice in his Abst. 2,56,1, which Eusebius quotes in PE 4,16,6 (= BNJ 790 fr. 3a). Note that

Cronus/Elos had other sons, including MOUTH, named in the same passage as deified after he died (but not sacrificed). These and other allusions in ancient sources incriminate the *Phoenicians with the practice of infant sacrifice (2 Kgs 23,10; Isa 30,33; Jer 7,31-32 etc.: →*Child-sacrifice). Although these were external opinions and probably biased, we do have archaeological and textual evidence for a ritual practice including the special burial and offering of cremated infants at the so-called →*Tophet sites in Pun. contexts. In the passage from Philo, the offering may be a substitute for the king, given the child’s adornment, though presumably that is how the children of kings would be buried (see Hdt. 1,111-113 on Cyrus the Great as a baby). The variants in the manuscript tradition (Ἰεούδ in MS D, Ἰεδούδ in MS A) show different interpretations of the name as either transliterations of a Phoen. word akin to Hebr. yḥyd, “only” (agreeing with the Gk μονογενῆς, “only son”), or else to ydyd, “dear one; beloved”. The emphasis on “only son” is supported by the Hebr. tradition about Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22,12, cf. Judg 11,34), and it is what Philo understood, as he adds “for this is what the Phoenicians called and still call only sons”. This passage appears twice in Eusebius’ PE, cf. 1,10,44ff. (following fr. 10), where he places it in the supposed work by Philo, On the Jews, although it is not clear whether this was a separate work from the Phoenician History (see commentary on Philo BNJ 790 fr. 3b and 10). Løkkegard, F. (1955) Studia Theologica, 8, 51-57; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 63; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 52f.; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Il see EL Ilib see EL Imhotep see PTAH

INO-LEUCOTHEA

Inanna see ASTARTE INO-LEUCOTHEA Ἰvώ Λευκοθέα.

As the daughter of CADMUS and Harmonia, I.-L. (etymologically: the “white goddess”, a name she adopted after her apotheosis), comes from a Phoen. line: the Agenorides. According to Homer, she has marine attributes since she helped Odysseus coming ashore on his raft (Od. 5,333ff.). Entrusted to bring up DIONYSUS, the son of her sister Semele, she is simultaneously portrayed as a kourotrophic goddess. Hence her assimilation to Mater Matuta in Italy. However, in mythology, she appears as a “failed” mother, since, married to Athamas, she begins by persecuting Phrixos and Helle, the children he had from a previous bed. She wants to sacrifice them on the basis of an oracle, but they finally escape with the help of a ram with a golden fleece, who takes them to Colchis. After that Hera, jealous of the one who had reared the son of Zeus, turns Athamas insane and he kills Learches, born from his union with I.-L., and also tries to get rid of the second born, Melicertes. In order to escape this lethal destiny, I.-L. throws herself into the sea with Melicertes: in this way she becomes the marine goddess Leucothea and he becomes Palaemon, the god of harbours. Instead, a variant of this myth describes I.-L., delirious as a Maenad, and like Medea, boiling her son Melicertes in a cauldron of immortality. Numerous indications are available of her assimilation to ASTARTE, who was also a marine and kourotrophic goddess. Polyaenus (Strat. 5,2,21), Aelianus (VH 1,20) and [Arist.] Oec. 2,2,20 choose her as the Gk name for the goddess of *Pyrgi (Caere) who is no other, in the bilingual plates, than (Phoen.-Pun.) Astarte and (Etr.) Uni. A dedication in Greek from the period of Severus, from *Tyre, mentions a priest of Good Fortune who also is in charge of the cult of I.L. and the perpetual high priestess of “lord Heracles”, who can be identified as MELQART (Bonnet [1988] 63; Yon and Aliquot [2016] 154f. no. 310). Besides the poliadic deity, a promantis, i.e. an oracle deity, whose identity is unknown, is mentioned; J. Aliquot (2009) has proposed to see him as Melicertes, called the “messenger” (angelos) of another god in an inscription from Haloua. The coins from Arados (→*Arwad; →*Numismatics) show the young Dionysus sitting on the knees of

137

a kourotrophic goddess (Rey-Coquais [1974] 233247). From Berytus (*Beirut) comes an altar from the Rom. period, with a Lat. inscription stating that it was offered by a Rom. citizen to the gods of the Heliopolitan triad and to I.L., for his salvation and that of his fellow citizens, in fulfilment of a vow (Yon and Aliquot [2016] 33f. no. 27). At *Deir el-Qalaa, in the hinterland of Beirut, it is the Lat. equivalent of I.L., Mater Matuta, the goddess of dawn and of matrons, who receives an altar from a female member of the local elite, following an oracle from Juno Regina (CIL III, 6680). I.L. is also attested in the *Beqaa at Kfar Zabad, in *Hermon at Haloua, Rahlé and Ain el-Bourj, in Hauran, at Inkhil and, in the Decapolis, in Gerasa and Tel Jezreel (Scythopolis). Only rarely can the existence of a sanctuary be proved, but there are echoes of a widespread cult, undoubtedly from towns on the Phoen. coast, such as Tyre, *Sidon and Berytus. The cult of I.L. seems to be established in *Phoenicia for two reasons: on the one hand, she belongs to the clan of the Agenorides (cf. Luc. Dial. D. 4,2, who places it in Sidon); on the other hand, she is easily accepted by resonating with the local goddess (Astarte, Atargatis [DEA SYRIA], etc.) based on the protection of children and seafarers. On the votive altar of Kfar Zabad, on Jabal Terbol, in the Beqaa, I.L., identified by a dedication in Greek, is depicted in tunic and coat, flanked by two lions and decked out with a horn of plenty. Associated with Jupiter Heliopolitanus (mentioned in Latin in the dedication), she is holding both Atargatis and Tyche. The fame of the couple comprising I.-L. and her son Melicertes/Palaemon is evident from an epigram by the Sidonian poet Antipater (second half of the 2nd cent. BCE; AP 6,223) concerning Hermonax, a fisherman, dedicating “to Ino and to her son Palaemon, marine deities, a marine wonder”. The dossier of Rahlé shows that the cult of I.L. was only established gradually. In 60 CE, in the oldest inscription of the sanctuary, the local goddess is named, but in evidence from the 2nd-3rd cent. CE, I.L. has replaced her, possibly accompanied by a topical epiclesis (IGLS XI, 20, 21, 23). An inscription from Ain el-Bourj (IGLS XI, 39), on the east. slope of Mount Hermon, from the time of Trajan, alludes to funeral ceremonies in the sanctuary of I.L. and, at Segeira, also on Mount Hermon, local customs are inspired by the famous Corinthian funeral celebrations in honour of I.L. and Melicertes. Each community

138

INO-LEUCOTHEA – IOCOLON

that adopts these divine names and these foreign cults, re-invents local traditions, following a pragmatic strategy. In this way, I.L. becomes the patron goddess of village communities in the mountains, whereas initially she was a marine goddess. In the towns on the Phoen. coast, the daughter of CADMUS has the role of guaranteeing the existing relations between Phoenicia and Greece, countries surrounding the Aegean sea where she lived. Whether in Tyre or Sidon, I.L. overlapped the local Astarte, strengthening the network of references to Cadmus and Dionysus, and therefore Phoen.-Gk parentage.

cultural traditions. However, the connection of the myth of I. with the Phoen. world seems purely to be due to the role assigned by Gk traditions to Phoen. mariners. Often seen as piratical and untrustworthy, they were therefore sometimes used, in story-telling, as a disruptive element in the chain of events. RE IX,2 s.v., cols 1732-1743 (S. Eitrem); Yalouris, N. (1986) Le mythe d’Io. Les transformations d’Io dans l’iconographie et la littérature grecque. In: Kahil, L., Augé, Ch. and Linant de Bellefonds, P. (eds) Iconographie classique et identités régionales. (Paris 26 et 27 mai 1983). BCH Suppl. 14. Paris, 3-23; Mitchell, L. G. (2001) CQ, 51, 339-352. A. ERCOLANI

Rey-Coquais, J.-P. (1974) Arados et sa pérée aux époques grecque, romaine et byzantine. BAH XCVII. Beirut; Bonnet, C. (1986) SMSR, 52, 53-57; ead. (1988) 63-66.282-286; Kaizer, T. (2005) Syria, 82, 199-206; Aliquot, J. (2006) Topoi, 14, 245-264; id. (2009) La vie religieuse au Liban sous l’Empire romain. BAH 189. Beirut, 164167; Bonnet, C. (2014) Les Enfants de Cadmos. Le paysage religieux de la Phénicie à l’époque hellénistique. Paris, 349-353 and passim; Yon, J.-B. and Aliquot, J. (2016) Inscriptions grecques et latines du Musée National de Beyrouth. BAAL Hors Série 12. Beirut. C. BONNET

IO Gk Ἰώ. For the myth of I., there is a considerable number of variants in the several sources. According to the best documented tradition, I. was the daughter of the Argive river god Inachus. The most detailed version of the myth is provided by the tragedian Aeschylus (5th cent. BCE) in his play The Suppliants as well as in Prometheus Bound (even though its attribution to Aeschylus is now doubted by modern critics): I. was a priestess of Hera who, out of jealousy, turned her into a heifer and forced her to make lengthy journeys until, having reached *Egypt, she regained her human form. In Greece, various historical and rational explanations were proposed for the myth. One of the earliest is the one in Hdt. 1,1, according to which I. was kidnapped by Phoen. pirates, who had come to Argos for trade, and was taken by them to Egypt (cf. also FGrHist 70 fr. 156 [Ephorus]). In the Phoen. version of the account, however, as given by Plutarch (De Herod. malign. 11 [Mor. 856e]), I. chose to escape with the *Phoenicians fearing the consequences of her affair with the ship’s captain. In E.M. s.v. Βόσπορος (p. 205, l. 35ff. Kallierges) she is called the daughter of CADMUS, which may imply closer links with Phoen.

IOCOLON A Lat. inscription from Naraggara (Africa Proconsularis: CIL VIII, 16809 = ILAlg I, 1184), composed by a Romanized African, is dedicated to a deity called Iocoloni deo patrio. Therefore, I. seems to be an indigenous god for whose character and etymology several hypotheses have been proposed, all contradictory. F. Vattioni (1994 and 1995) proposed that this North African god had a Pun. or Punicized name. In his opinion, it would be the vocalization of the theonym yḥw᾿ln, composed of the future causative of the verb ḥw/y᾿, “to live” and ᾿ln, “god”, meaning “Cause the god to live”. With a considerable element of speculation, Vattioni even suggested that the god in question is to be identified as BAAL HAMMON. Instead, G. Garbini (1994), having isolated the theophoric element y᾿ql in a Neopun. inscription from *Sicily (CIS I, 134 = ICO Sic. Neopun. 1, provenance unknown) [FIG. 87], suggested that it would also appear in the PN ᾿ḥyy᾿ql, which he interpreted as “My brother is y᾿ql”. E. Lipiński (1995) does not accept Garbini’s interpretation of the PN and analyses it as an exclamatory particle equivalent to Hebr. ᾿āḥ and divides it as ᾿ḥ yy᾿ql, with the translation “Alas! Iyoqolo”.

Fig. 87. The inscription ICO Sic. Neopun. 1

IOCOLON – IOLAOS

On balance, it seems certain that I. is an indigenous African deity (cf. the adjective patrius in the inscription from Naraggara), adopted in the Pun. world, but not originally Pun. In terms of etymology, there do not seem to be any credible hypotheses, given the probable non-Sem. origin of the theonym. Therefore, I. has to be considered as yet another obscure deity whose character remains elusive. Vattioni, F. (1994) Appunti africani. In: Le Bohec, Y. (ed.) L’Afrique, la Gaule, la religion à l’époque romaine. Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay. Collection Latomus 226. Bruxelles, 34f.; Garbini, G. (1994) Iocol in Sicilia. In: id. La religione dei Fenici in Occidente. SS NS 12. Rome, 47-50; Lipiński, E. (1995) 372f.; Vattioni, F. (1995) SMSR, 61, 423-425. P. XELLA

IOL Phoen. y᾿l/y῾l. The element y᾿l, y῾l or yl – to be vocalized as Iol or Ial – occurs in the Pun. and Neopun. (but also Lib.) PNN ylgm/y῾lgm, y᾿lp῾l, y᾿l῾᾿, ylgww (?), y῾l[kš], possibly y῾rgm, in inscriptions from *Gozo, *Carthage, *Althiburos, *Maktar. A PN such as y᾿lp῾l (CIS I, 132 = KAI 62, from Gozo) makes it practically certain that I. is a theophoric element related to an otherwise unknown divine figure. Theoretically, it could be either the Pun. form of IOLAOS, or an independent character belonging to the North African (Lib.Berber) substratum (→*Berber[s]). In the absence of further data, the identity of this character has still to be clarified. PNPPI, 128.320; Sznycer, M. (1982) Semitica, 32, 157-166; NNPI, 169-172; Lipiński, E. (1995) 369f. P. XELLA

IOLAOS Gk Ἰόλαοϛ. Gk hero, the son of Iphicles, and the nephew and trusted companion of Heracles (MELQART). The name I. has been connected with the Sem. form y᾿l (variants yl and y῾l), which perhaps appears in PNN in North Africa and *Gozo (see e.g. ylgm, y῾lgm and y᾿lp῾l) and interpreted by some scholars as a theonym (→IOL). This same DN may be connected with the place name Iol, the ancient name for the modern town of *Cherchel in *Algeria.

139

Most of the information about I. in Phoen. contexts is supplied by various class. authors, who describe the mythical colonization of *Sardinia. Based, for instance, on Diodorus of Sicily (4,29-30), Heracles set I. the task of founding a colony on that island (as dictated by an oracle from APOLLO) by bringing the Thespiads there, the sons that Heracles himself had sired from the daughters of Thespius. Having reached *Sardinia, I. defeated the indigenous people in battle and divided up the best land into lots, especially that flat land “which even today is called Ioleus”, planting fruit trees there. After that, the hero summoned Daedalus from *Sicily and entrusted him with important building work; moreover, he promoted also the construction of tribunals and sumptuous gymnasia (in which some scholars have suggested identifying a literary echo of some elements of pre- and proto-historical insular architecture; cf. Mastino [2004]). Also according to Diodorus, I. named his people “Ioleans” after his own name, and in turn they honoured him like a father. At the end of his venture, I. returned to Greece while the other founders and their descendants became barbarous and started to live in the mountainous region, without eating grain and living in subterranean dwellings. In this way, they avoided the dangers and especially the wars led by the Carthaginians and the Romans. The Sicilian historian mentions I. again in book V (5,15), repeating and elaborating on some details of the hero’s expedition in Sardinia: he remembers, e.g. the population of the Ioleans, the descendants of the barbarians who came to the island together with the son of Iphicles and the Thespiads; in fact, other Greeks and barbarians also belonged to this ancient founding group. Furthermore, after I. had left for Greece, after several generations, some Thespiads abandoned Sardinia for Italy, settling near Cuma. Others, instead, stayed on the island and their leaders were the finest of the local inhabitants and they kept their own freedom. On Sardinia the hero, who had left some time ago, continued to be worshipped like a god and was called pater (when noting this particular feature, Diodorus sets up a curious parallel with Persia, stating that the *Persians called Cyrus in the same way, i.e. pater). Instead, according to Pausanias (10,17,5; cf. also 1,29,5 and 7,2,2), I.’s was the fourth migration to Sardinia (following the migrations of Sardo [→Sardo/SARDUS PATER], Aristeus, Norax and the previous arrival of the Trojans), which also involved the Thespiads and

140

IOLAOS

Athenians; the settlers founded the cities of *Olbia and Ogryle (Ogryle was founded exclusively by Athenians). In this regard, it should be mentioned that recent research in the city of Olbia has led to the identification of an actual Gk phase of the settlement, which is easily recognisable from the last thirty years of the 7th cent. BCE. Pausanias goes on to say that in his time there were “choria in Sardinia called Iolaia”, and that I. was still honoured by the inhabitants. Unlike Diodorus, however, he states that I. and his companions died in Sardinia (Paus. 9,23,1); the Thebans themselves handed down this information, even though they used to display a heroon of the hero in their own city. Solinus explicitly mentions the tomb of I. on the island: he states that the Ioleans erected a temple next to it, since I., “imitating his uncle’s bravery, had liberated Sardinia from so many evils” (1,61), bringing back harmony among the local inhabitants. Also based on this information, it has been proposed that the Thespiads led by I. to Sardinia were the heroes mentioned by Aristotle (Ph. 4,11) alongside whom it was possible to sleep. In fact, Simplicius, commenting on Aristotle (in Arist. phys. I = Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 9,707f.), identifies those heroes as the sons of Heracles, sired from the daughters of Thespis, but who died on the island, and whose bodies remained intact after death. Therefore, I., as the head of the Thespiads in the drive to colonize the island, could be connected in some way with *Incubation rites (Breglia Pulci Doria [1981; 2005]). However, it should be mentioned that, as yet, Simplicius is the only writer to link all these elements, while trying to complete information from Aristotle, whereas no other source directly connects I. and the Thespiads in Sardinia with such practices (Minunno [2013]). There has been and still is much discussion also about the name that these Thespiads acquired on the island, i.e. Ioleans. According to some scholars, it conceals the name of the Ilienses, an ancient people of Sardinia who initiated resistance movements against the Romans (e.g. Liv. 40,19,6 and 34,13; 41,6,6 and 12,5; Plin. Nat. 3,7,85; cf. also Str. 5,2,7). However, the two names are not necessarily interchangeable, considering that the Ioleans remain in myth whereas the Ilienses “seem to act in history” (Didu [2003]). The assonance between the two names could be due to a Gk adaptation of the name of a Sardinian people, which evoked the name I. In other words, “the name Ilienses could have favoured the creation of myths

about Iolaous” (as well as the accounts by Pausanias and Silius Italicus about the arrival of the Trojan exiles, called Ilieis, in Sardinia, who arrived because of a storm that drove them away from Aeneas: I. Didu [2003]). On the whole, I. himself and the events in which he was involved on Sardinia may foreshadow, at the historical level – as some scholars have suggested (e.g. Meloni [1944]) – elements of very ancient contacts between that region and the Gk world. According to some interpretations, the protagonists of those relationships, together with the Nur. peoples (→*Nuragics), would have been the Aegean, or more specifically Mycen. mariners, who reached the island between the 13th and the 12th cent. BCE (Mastino [2004]). Besides the literary sources concerning the colonization of Sardinia, I. is also mentioned in the so-called oath of *Hannibal (9), which comes at the beginning of the treaty drawn up in 215 BCE between the Barcid and *Philip V of Macedonia (Plb. 7,9,2) (→*Treaties). The text mentions this hero immediately after the daimon of the Carthaginians (→GAD; →T INNIT ) and Heracles. Some scholars have

Fig. 88. Razor from the necropolis of Sainte-Monique (Carthage) possibly depicting Sid/Iolaos (left) and Melqart/Heracles (right)

IOLAOS – ISIS

141

Salamanca, 76-138; Acquaro, E. (2017) Gerión, 35, 9-15; Mastino, A. (2017) La Sardegna arcaica tra mito e storiografia: gli eroi e le fonti. In: Guirguis, M. (ed.) La Sardegna fenicia e punica. Storia e materiali (Corpora delle antichità della Sardegna). Nuoro, 19-29.

suggested possibly identifying this character with the god SID; in fact, in *Carthage, Sid was worshipped in close association with Tinnit and MELQART, deities who are identified, respectively, with the daimon and with Heracles mentioned just before I. by Polybius. Accordingly, it has also been proposed to see I./Sid as one of the two male figures depicted on a razor (*Razors) from the necropolis of *Sainte Monique in Carthage (*Funerary world), dating to the 3rd cent. BCE [FIG. 88]. On one side of this object a seated youth is shown, holding a plant in his left hand and in his right another type of plant, with a bird next to it. On the other side, Heracles is shown, resting. The first image, given the combination with Heracles, could refer to the episode mentioned in the sources where I. heals his uncle/companion in *Libya, after the fight with Typhon, using the scent of a burnt quail (Eudox. of Cnidus apud Athen. 9,47; Zenob, 5,56). It should also be mentioned that some scholars preferred to recognize the I. in Hannibal’s oath as ESHMUN, especially since both characters had healing powers (Barré [1983]).

Egypt. Ꜣś.t; Phoen. ᾿s; Aram. ᾿sy; Gk Ἶσις. I. is one of the most important Egypt. deities. She is a mother-goddess, usually portrayed as a woman wearing as a head-dress the symbol of her name, which is the hieroglyphic sign for “throne” [FIGS 89 and 90]. Since over time she was assimilated to several other goddesses also in the Phoen. and Pun. world, a number of iconographic variations can be identified. As a consequence, I. was depicted with different kinds of head-pieces, such as the double plume crown, the

Bianchi, U. (1963) Sardus Pater. In: Atti del Convegno di studi religiosi sardi (Cagliari, 24-26 maggio 1962). Padova, 33-51; Brelich, A. Sardegna mitica. In: ibid., 21-33; Picard, C. (19651966) Karthago, 13, esp. 71f., no. 38, fig. 66; Grottanelli, C. (1973) RSF, 1, 153-164; Bondì, S. F. (1975) Osservazioni sulle fonti classiche per la colonizzazione della Sardegna. In: Benigni, G. et al., Saggi Fenici - I. Rome, 49-66; Breglia Pulci Doria, L. (1981) La Sardegna arcaica tra tradizioni euboiche ed attiche. In: Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard 6. Naples, 61-95; Lipiński, E. (1995) 369f.; Didu, I. (2001) Iolei o Iliei? In: Poikilma. Studi in onore di M. R. Cataudella. La Spezia, 397-406; id. (2003) I Greci e la Sardegna. Il mito e la storia. Cagliari, esp. 94-120; Saggioro, A. (2003) Sardinia – Ichnoussa. Questioni di metodo per una storia religiosa della Sardegna. Rome, esp. 29-45; Bernardini, P. (2004) Gli eroi e le fonti. In: Zucca, R. (ed.) Logos peri tes Sardous. Le fonti classiche e la Sardegna. Rome, 39-62; Mastino, A. (2004) I miti classici e l’isola felice. In: ibid., 11-26; Breglia Pulci Doria, L. (2005) La Sardegna arcaica e la presenza greca: nuove riflessioni sulla tradizione letteraria. In: Bernardini, P. and Zucca, R. (eds) Il Mediterraneo di Herakles. Rome, 61-86; Didu, I. (2005) Iolao nipote di Eracle e Sardo figlio di Maceride in Sardegna: assimilazione, mutazione, distinzione. In: ibid., 53-60; D’Oriano, R. and Oggiano, I. (2005) Iolao ecista di Olbia: le evidenze archeologiche tra VIII e VI secolo a.C. In: ibid., 169-199; Minunno, G. (2005) EVO, 28, 269-285; Garbati, G. and Peri, C. (2013) Tra Oriente e Occidente. Dèi patres e dèi “guaritori” nella Sardegna punica: qualche riflessione. In: APC 6.I, 322-330; Minunno, G. (2013) A note on ancient Sardinian incubation. In: Loretz, O. et al. (eds) Ritual, religion and reason. Studies in the ancient world in honour of Paolo Xella. AOAT 404. Münster, 553-560; Anello, P. (2014) RSAnt, 6, 1-20; Bernardini, P. and Ibba, A. (2015) Il santuario di Antas tra Cartagine e Roma. In: Cabrero Piquero, J. and Montecchio, L. (eds) Sacrum Nexum. Alianzas entre el poder político y la religión en el mundo romano (Madrid, 11-12 de diciembre de 2014). Thema Mundi 7. Madrid/

Fig. 89. Faience statuette of Isis suckling Horus/ Harpocrates. The goddess is portrayed with her typical throne-shaped head-dress. Egypt, Ptolemaic period (332-30 BCE)

G. GARBATI

Ishtar see ASTARTE ISIS

142 vulture head-dress and, above all, bovine horns with a solar disc typical of HATHOR. She is also frequently depicted as a bird of prey or as a winged goddess. One of the main symbols of the goddess was the so-called tj.t: an *Amulet associated with blood and life, interpreted by some scholars as the representation of a sanitary towel used during menstruation or a tampon used to prevent bleeding in pregnancy and, thus, a potential miscarriage. I.’s personality and main functions are inextricably related to the Osirian cycle (→OSIRIS). In this respect, one has to take into consideration that the myth of the death and rebirth of Osiris played a crucial role in the Egypt. religion and, over time, there have been several significant variations of it. The most detailed versions currently known were written by Gk authors – notably Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride) and Diodorus of Sicily – who have reported a more recent re-adaption of the story in accordance with the cultural climate of their time. The first Egypt. documents recording a narrative version of the myth date back to the NK (Louvre Stele C 286; Chester Beatty Papyrus 1, which focuses on the contending of HORUS and Seth), but as early as the V dyn., numerous allusions to it can be identified in the PT. The salient episodes of the myth can be summarized as follows. Osiris, the divine king of Egypt, was murdered and dismembered by his brother, Seth, who then assumed the throne. I., the wife of Osiris, went in search of the remains of her husband with the aim of reassembling his body. The goddess was thus able to bring Osiris back to life, but only temporarily, in order to conceive, posthumously, a legitimate heir, Horus. The latter, once an adult, defeated Seth, regaining the throne of Egypt, while Osiris, assumed the role of god of the *Netherworld. In Egypt. sources certain episodes of the myth appear to be particularly significant. The childhood of Horus, during which the infant god had to be constantly hidden and protected by his mother, functioned as the mythical prototype for several healing spells. Likewise, ritual actions performed for the deceased Osiris by I. and her twin sister, Nephthys, were perceived as the paradigmatic model for each funerary ritual. The rise of I. is certainly linked to the formation of the pharaonic state. There is no evidence of her existence before dynastic times and the very meaning of her name, “throne”, implies a close relationship with kingship and its ideological apparatus. She

ISIS

makes her first appearance in the PT, at the end of the V dyn. Within this corpus, her name occurs about seventy times and she is one of the most important deities. She is identified with the star Sirius and is one of the nine deities forming the Ennead of *Heliopolis. Her main role is to protect and revive her deceased husband Osiris. Given that this god symbolizes the deceased king and his post mortem destiny, I. is responsible for the protection of the deceased Pharaoh, his nourishment, his ascent to the sky and his otherworldly resurrection. Furthermore, a number of spells describe her as the mother of Horus, who was the god of divine kingship. In this guise, she overlapped with the role of another prominent goddess, HATHOR. However, although in the PT both goddesses are referred to as the mother of Horus, I. shows a more specific function as defender of her son’s right to the throne. Over time, I. seems to have increased in importance, even assuming new functions and attributes. In the CT she is described as Mistress of the Deserts (CT I, 211e) and the one who is “more Ꜣḫ and more noble than the other gods” (CT II, 216c). The meaning of the word Ꜣḫ is rather complex. It could be translated as “effective”, and probably indicated a special status linked to great powers and knowledge. For ex., this term was used to designate the deceased who gained a glorified position and were thus able to influence the mundane affairs of the living. It was therefore assumed that this epithet emphasized the role of I. as magician and healer. From the MK onwards, the goddess is invoked in an impressive number of magical healing spells in order to cure a broad spectrum of illnesses and malaises, such as migraine, intoxication, poisonings caused by snakes and scorpions, and diseases induced by the evil eye or malignant beings. In this regard, several spells from the Ramesside Age connect the magical powers of the goddess to a myth known as the Tale of Re and Isis. The story tells how I. was able to create a snake by mixing clay with RA’s saliva. The enchanted reptile, then, bit the sun god, causing him a terrible illness. I. was the only one able to heal him, but, in return, she asked Ra to reveal his secret name to her, which represented the very essence of Ra’s power. By the NK, I. was identified with several goddesses, such as Mut, Tefnut, and above all Hathor. She indeed absorbed the main characteristic and iconographic features of the latter. And, like Hathor, she

ISIS

was associated with childbirth and sexuality, and thus invoked in spells to induce love. Furthermore, she was assimilated with the Sun’s Eye, a martial goddess who embodied the aggressive aspects of the solar light. Over time, I. became the female deity par excellence. In the inscriptions in Graeco-Rom. temples it is stated that every Egypt. goddess is a form of I. The same concept is included in Gk texts, in which all the main goddesses of the Medit. world are said to be individual manifestations of I. After the NK, I. became the foremost Egypt. female deity. She was equated with the Gk goddess Demeter (→DEMETER & CORE) and had a dominant role in the ideology concerning queens. Most notably, Cleopatra VII used to identify herself with the goddess. The historical facts concerning the birth of Caesarion and the absence of Caesar, who had been murdered, certainly showed a certain resemblance with Osirian mythology. As a consequence, Cleopatra began to profile herself as the “New Isis”, who had to protect and defend her son’s right to the throne. I. became extremely popular even among the non-Egypt. social groups, and during the post-pharaonic eras she became the object of a mystery cult, that went beyond national borders, spreading throughout the Rom. world. [R.S.]

Fig. 90. Relief depicting Isis from the Temple of Sety I at Abydos. The goddess is portrayed with the typical attributes of Hathor, such as the head-dress with the solar-disk between bovine horns and a sistrum. Abydos, reign of Sety I/Ramses II (1290-1213 BCE)

143 In the east. and west. Phoen. world, I. played an extremely important role. In particular, her affinities with ASTARTE are evident in many regions and places in the Mediterranean, where I. forms part of the game of matching and identifying her with that great Phoen. goddess. It is probably due to these circumstances that the cult of Astarte entered the pharaonic court already as early as the 15th cent. BCE and that later her cult spread throughout Egypt. In any case, in the Land of the Nile, I. was also worshipped by *Phoenicians, as several documents prove. On a stone statuette (of unknown provenance) of I. on a throne with the infant Horus, dating to the 4th cent. BCE, is an inscription with a dedication “To my lady, Astarte” (lrbty ῾štrt: RÉS 535 = 935) by a Phoen. called grṣpn. Also worth mentioning is a 2nd-1st cent. BCE inscription from *Memphis, placed on the plinth of a stela portraying Horus with crocodiles (KAI 48): here, a Phoenician called p῾l῾štrt makes a dedication addressed “To my lady, the powerful goddess Isis, to the goddess Astarte and to the gods …” (lrbty l᾿lm ᾿drt ᾿s ᾿lm ῾štrt wl᾿lnm …), proving her devotion to both great goddesses. In *Byblos, a city that has a long-standing connection with Egypt, I. is compared with the local Baalat (→BAALAT GEBAL), who is also a manifestation of Astarte, influencing her iconography from at least the second half of the II mill. BCE. A bronze situla perhaps from Egypt, but probably made in Phoenicia (by emigrants from Memphis?), is engraved with a Phoen. inscription dating to the 5th cent. BCE (Amadasi Guzzo [1996] 1061). It is a brief invocation to Isis (here written ᾿sy) by a devotee named Abdptah (᾿sy ttn ḥn wḥym l῾bdptḥ bn ῾bd᾿, “May Isis grant favour and life to Abdptah son of Abdo”). Still in terms of epigraphy, the oldest indirect reference to I. in Phoenician in any inscription is in the 7th cent. BCE, in the PN pṭ᾿s, the Phoen. translation of the Egypt. name pꜢ-dy-Ꜣś(t). This PN occurs in the so-called Ur Box (KAI 29), as the father of Amotbaal (᾿mtb῾l), who dedicates this object to Astarte. However, this same PN may have appeared even earlier, in the 8th cent. BCE, on a seal found in *Samaria, which has been classified as Phoen. on the basis of strong arguments, even if this is not accepted by all scholars (Lemaire [1986] 93f.). The same PN (as pṭ᾿s and pṭ᾿sy) occurs later, in the 5th cent. BCE, in the ostraca from *Elephantine (Lidzbarski [1912] nos 48 and 57).

144

ISIS – ITANOS

Yet again, onomastics provides evidence, in Phoenician, of the devotion of individual worshippers of I. In the graffiti from *Al-Mina on the Orontes, in the 5th-4th cent. BCE (Bron and Lemaire [1983]) the PN ᾿sytn occurs (no. 5) as well as ῾s, possibly an abbreviation of a theophoric name containing I. (no. 16);῾bds may occur in *Amrit (RÉS 234 = 1601; although the reading ῾bd᾿ is more likely); ᾿s῾᾿ occurs in Byblos in the 1st cent. CE (KAI 12,3); furthermore, ῾bd᾿s occurs in Sidon (RÉS 298; Vanel [1967] 57f.); several composite theonyms incorporating I. are documented at *Nebi Yunis (῾bd᾿s and ᾿sytn); ᾿sbrk is documented at *Umm el-Amed (UeA, 191), while in *Tyre there is a funerary inscription of a priest of Astarte-Isis (Abousamra and Lemaire [2013] 156f.); there is another ῾bd᾿s in *Kition (CIS I, 50 = IK B 41,1), on Cyprus, in the 4th cent. BCE. Finally, it should be mentioned that the episode involving Osiris and I. certainly influenced mythology in the W Sem. world, forming part of the traditions concerning the so-called dying-gods (→DYINGGOD[S]) (BAAL in *Ugarit, MELQART, ESHMUN and ADONIS in Phoenicia during the I mill. BCE). In fact, in Plutarch’s account (De Is. et Os. 13-16), a central episode of the mythical story is actually set in Byblos: I. went into that Phoen. city in search of the sarcophagus containing the remains of her husband Osiris, and then became the wet-nurse of the local prince. [P.X.] Lidzbarski, M. (1912) Phönizische und aramäische Krugaufschriften aus Elephantine. Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin; Ben-Dor, I. (1946) QDAP, 12, 77-83; Vanel, A. (1967) BMB, 20, 57f.; Münster, M. (1968) Untersuchungen zur Göttin Isis vom Alten Reich bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches. Berlin; PNPPI, 271f.; Dunand, M. (1973) Le culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée. EPRO 26, 1-3. Leiden; Griffiths, J. G. (ed.) (1975) The Isis-book. Metamorphoses Book XI. Apuleius of Madauros. EPRO 39. Leiden; Ribichini, S. (1975) Divinità egiziane nelle iscrizioni fenicie d’Oriente. In: Benigni, G. et al. (eds) Saggi fenici - I. Rome, 7-14; Borghouts, J. F. (1978) Ancient Egyptian magical texts. Nisaba 9. Leiden; Bergman, J. (1980) s.v. In: LÄ III, 186-203;

Bron, F. and Lemaire, A. (1983) Inscriptions d’Al-Mina. In: APC 1.III, 677-686; Demarée, R. J. (1983) Akh iqer en-Ra Stelae: on ancestor worship in Ancient Egypt. Egyptologische Uitgaven 3. Leiden; Lemaire, A. (1986) Divinités égyptiennes dans l’onomastique phénicienne. In: StPhoen 4, 87-98; DCPP, s.v. (P. Dils); McCarter, P. K. (1993) BASOR, 290-291, 115-120; Lipiński, E. (1995) 319ff. and passim; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1996) Su tre iscrizioni fenicie dall’Egitto: formule augurali e cronologia. In: Studi Moscati, 3, 1047-1061, esp. 1047f.; DDD2, s.v., 456-458 (J. Assmann); Griffiths, J. G. (2001) s.v. In: The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford, 188-191; Wendrich, W. (2006) Entangled, connected or protected? The power of knots and knotting in Ancient Egypt. In: Spaszkowska. K. (ed.) Through a glass darkly: Magic, dreams and prophecy in Ancient Egypt. Swansea, 243-269; Bricault, L. and Versluys, M. J. (eds) (2010) Isis on the Nile. Egyptian gods in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. RGRW 171. Leiden; Abousamra, G. and Lemaire, A. (2013) WO, 43, 153-157; Gasparini, V. and Veymiers, R. (eds) (2018) Individuals and materials in the Graeco-Roman cult of Isis. RGRW 187. Leiden. R. SCHIAVO – P. XELLA

ITANOS Gk Ἰτανός, Ἴτανος. Town on the island of *Crete, which may take its name from a Phoenician (or a son of PHOINIX) called Ἰτανός, according to St. Byz. s.v. This name has been linked to that of Ἰταῖος, which would be another denomination of ADONIS according to the lexicographer Hesychius (Hsch. ι 1077 Latte). Autran, C. (1920) Phéniciens. Essai de contribution à l’histoire de la Méditerranée. Paris, 54f.; Bunnens, G. (1979) L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires. EPAHA XVIII. Bruxelles/ Rome, 258; Ribichini, S. (1981) Adonis. Aspetti “orientali” di un mito greco. SS 55. Rome, 43. S. RIBICHINI

Itum see ADOM Iuno see ASTARTE; CAELESTIS; TINNIT

J Juno see CAELESTIS; TINNIT Jupiter see BAAL MARQOD; BAAL HAMMON; HADAD; SATURN Jupiter Ammon see ZEUS AMMON

K Kabeiroi see CABIRI Kadmos see CADMUS Kittum & Mesharum see BENSADIQ Kneph see CNEPH Kolpia see COLPIA Kore see DEMETER & CORE KOSHAR/KOTHARU Ug. ktr (fem. pl. ktrt); Phoen. kšr; Gk Χουσώρ. According to the god-lists from *Ugarit, K. is not one of the higher deities but has a lower rank in the local pantheon (KTU3 1.47,16; 1.118,15; 1.148,6). In the Bab. transmissions of god-lists, K. corresponds to Ea (RS 20.24,15; 94.2579,16; AO 29.393,14; 26.142,11; 92.2004,11; 94.2188,11). K. appears very seldom in the ritual texts (KTU3 1.39,14; 1.43,8; 1.105,12; 1.120,5; 1.123,28). In the poetic texts of Ugarit, K. appears especially under the double-barrelled name Kotharu-wa-ḫasisu. This also fits the parallelism with “Hayyanu (= Ea), the one with skilful hands” (KTU3 1.1 III 4-5 [reconstr.]; 1.3 VI 22-23; 1.17 V 18-19). In a passage in the epic of Aqhatu, K. is depicted as a different god from Ḫasisu (KTU3 1.17 V 9-32), but this is a form of poetic style, and not a statement about two deities. The poetic and mythological texts from Ugarit show clearly that K. was considered to be an architect, an armourer and a craftsman. So K. first builds the palace of the sea-god Yammu (→YAM) (KTU3 1.1 III 1-28; 1.2 III 2-12) and then the palace of the weathergod BAAL (KTU3 1.4 V 41 - VI 40; VII 14-27). In the construction of these palaces, the window-episode is important, as K. is aware of the significance of the window for the appearance of the god Baal. Even though Baal at first hesitates about the insertion of the window (KTU3 1.4 V 60 - VI 1-15), later he reverts to K.’s suggestion and allows the window to be put

in, which opens a rift in the clouds for the voice of the weather-god (KTU3 1.4 VII 13-34). Furthermore, K. prepares the weapons with which Baal strikes his opponent Yammu (KTU3 1.2 IV 11-26). He also constructs the bow for crown prince Aqhatu (KTU3 1.17 V 1-33), which the goddess ANAT covets because of its high quality (KTU3 1.7 VI 15-40). As a goldsmith, K. produces the gifts for the goddess ASHERAH (KTU3 1.3 VI 1-25; 1.4 I 23-43). These qualifications of K. as architect, weapon-smith and craftsman correspond to the statement that his dwelling is on the island of *Crete and in Egypt. *Memphis (KTU3 1.1 III 1; 1.2 III 2; 1.3 VI 12-16; 1.17 V 20-21; 1.100,46). This is an allusion to MBA and LBA cultural and trading contacts between Crete and *Egypt, in which Ugarit was also fully involved. These are especially apparent in the reception of Aegean and Egypt. art (e.g. wall paintings) and commodities, and in their imitation by craftsmen in Ugarit. Besides K. being described as an architect, weaponsmith, goldsmith and craftsman, there is yet another aspect to K. In KTU3 1.108,5 the “exorcists” of K. appear (cf. also KTU3 1.169,10 for this term); this should be compared with KTU3 1.6 VI 49-50, where K. calls himself an “exorcist”. As a theophoric element in PNN, K. occurs in the name ktrml[k], “K. is king” (KTU3 1.87,59). According to Papyrus Amherst (63 VIII 19-21), K. is asked to construct a window in the house of the weather-god, which is a resumption of the corresponding episodes in the Baal-Cycle of Ugarit. The fem. plural ktrt denotes the goddesses of pregnancy. They feature in the god-lists (KTU3 1.47,13; 1.118,12; 1.148,5) and their equivalent appears in a Bab. list as dsassuratu (RS 20.24,12). The epic of Aqhatu describes the appearance of the ktrt during the pregnancy of the wife of king Danilu (KTU3 1.17 II 26-42). Here, as in KTU3 1.24,5-6.15.40-42, the ktrt are seen as the daughters of Hilalu, i.e. of the new moon, where the connection between new moon and pregnancy is made evident. They are also referred to as the “shining ones”. Related is the hymn to Yariḫu and Nikkal (KTU3 1.24), in which the ktrt appear with the same epithets as in the epic of Aqhatu (KTU3 1.14,5-6.15). In the *Old Testament, the term ktrt occurs in Ps 68,7, although the semantics of this

KOSHAR/KOTHARU

Hebr. hapax legomenon is not clear nor is the topic pregnancy, so that there is no connection here with the ktrt from Ugarit. K. does not appear directly in Phoen. inscriptions. However, he was not unknown to Phoen. culture. This is shown, firstly, by Pun. and Neopun. PNN with K. as the theophoric element, and secondly by the fact that K. occurs in the works by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790) under the name Chousor. He is considered a magician and equated with both the divine smith Hephaistos and ZEUS MEILICHIOS (apud Eus. PE 1,11). Lichtenstein, M. H. (1972) JANES, 4, 97-112; PNPPI, 336; Xella, P. (1976) Il dio siriano Kothar. In: id. (ed.) Magia. Studi di Storia delle religioni in memoria di Raffaela Garosi. Rome, 111125; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 178-190; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 166-170; ThWAT IV, s.v. kašer (D. Kellermann); Lipiński, E. (1988) UF, 20, 137-143; Handy, L. K. (1994) Among the host of heaven. The Syro-Palestinian pantheon as bureaucracy. Winona Lake (IN), 131-147; Lipiński, E. (1995) 108-112; DDD2, s.v. “Koshar”, 490f. (D. Pardee); ibid., s.v. “Kosharoth”, 491f. (D. Pardee); Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. (1999) UF, 31, 165-173; Dietrich, M. (2000)

147

Zypern und die Ägäis nach den Texten aus Ugarit. In: Rogge, S. (ed.) Zypern. Insel im Brennpunkt der Kulturen. Schriften des Instituts für Interdisziplinäre Zypern-Studien 1. Münster and alibi, 63-89; Theuer, G. (2000) Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palästinas unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von KTU 1.24. OBO 173. Freiburg/Göttingen, 135-249; Rahmouni, A. (2008) Divine epithets in the Ugaritic alphabetic texts. HdO I 93. Leiden/Boston, 156-158.182f.201f.; Ayali-Darshan, N. (2011) UF, 43, 1-6; Rahmouni, A. (2012) AuOr, 30, 55-74; Roche-Hawley, C. (2012) Procédés d’écriture des noms de divinités ougaritaines en cunéiforme mésopotamien. In: Roche-Hawley, C. and Hawley, R. (eds) Scribes et érudits dans l’orbite de Babylone. Orient et Méditerranée, Archéologie 9. Paris, 149-178, esp. 159f.171; Yon, M. (2013) Kothar, dieu architecte et forgeron, et les Ougaritiens à la fin de l’âge du Bronze. In: Bordreuil, P. et al. (eds) Les écritures mises au jour sur le site antique d’Ougarit (Syrie) et leur déchiffrement 1930-2010. Paris, 249-268; del Olmo Lete, G. (2014) Incantations and anti-witchcraft texts from Ugarit. SANER 4. Berlin/Boston, 16f.; Niehr, H. (2015) Mythen und Epen aus Ugarit. In: TUAT NF 8. Gütersloh, 177-301; van der Toorn, K. (2018) Papyrus Amherst 63. AOAT 448. Münster, 6-39. H. NIEHR

Kronos see CRONUS Kura see BAAL KR

L Leucothea see INO-LEUCOTHEA LIBER PATER L.P. succeeded D IONYSUS /Bacchus in the Rom. imperial period, and achieved great success in North Africa, especially in the rural contexts of the territories that had been part of the Numid. kingdoms (→*Numidians). The cult of L.P. spread mostly in Tripolitania (*Leptis Magna, Oea/*Tripolis, *Sabratha, *Gightis, *Dougga [Thugga] and several other settlements) [FIG. 91], where the god was venerated with various epithets and associated with other deities (chiefly Hercules, Venus, Ceres: Cadotte [2007] 275ff.). This great popularity suggests the previous existence

of an indigenous deity of the substrate population, to whom L.P. was assimilated. In any case, L.P. clearly conceals →SHADRAPHA, as is explicitly demonstrated by a bilingual (Neopun./Lat.) from Leptis Magna, where the equivalent of the Pun. god is Lat. L.P. (IPT 25 = IRT 294); another bilingual inscription mentions Shadrapha, together with MILKASHTART (Lat. Hercules), as “patrons of Leptis” (rbt ᾿lpqy). Bruhl, A. (1953) Liber Pater. Origine et expansion du culte dionysiaque à Rome et dans le monde romain. Paris; Di Vita, A. (1968) Or, 37, 201-211; Foucher, L. (1981) Le culte de Bacchus sous l’Empire Romain. In: ANRW II/17.3. Berlin/New York, 684-702; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1981) Les divinités dans les inscriptions puniques de Tripolitaine: essai de mise au point. In: BAC NS, 17B, 189-196; Jalloul, B. A. (1992) Le culte de Liber Pater en Afrique à la lumière de l’épigraphie. In: AfRo 9, 10491065; Cadotte, A. (2007) La Romanisation des dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden/Boston, 253-281; Isler-Kerény, C. (2010) Il culto di Liber/Bacco nel mondo romano / The cult of Liber/Bacchus in the Roman world. In: La Rocca, E. (ed.) Il sorriso di Dioniso/ The smile of Dionysus. Turin/London/Venice/New York, 27-44. P. XELLA

Linos see MALCANDROS

Fig. 91. Cultic complex consisting of the temples of Concordia, Frugifer, Liber Pater and Neptunus. Dougga, Hadrian epoch (117-138)

M Maceris see AMYNOS & MAGOS; MELQART Magos see MELQART; SARDUS PATER Mahes see BASTET MALCANDROS Gk Μάλκανδρος. According to Plutarch (De Is. et Os. 15-16 [Mor. 375a-c]), M. was a king who ruled over *Byblos together with queen ASTARTE (Gk Ἀστάρτη), at a time when the Egypt. goddess ISIS arrived in that Phoen. city in search of OSIRIS, who had disappeared. The name M., which occurs only in this work, could be a misreading of the Phoen. god MELQART, but it has been explained as a deformation of the original Phoen. theonym mlk ᾿dr, a “Powerful King”, the consort of Astarte, and described as a possible lord of the *Netherworld, according to Phoen. traditions. In Plutarch’s narrative M. is a hospitable king, welcoming the Egypt. goddess who arrived in Byblos in the guise of a human, and breast-fed his son. She then reveals herself in her full divine splendour and asks for the wooden column supporting the roof of the royal palace, to which M. consents, leaving Isis to drag the body of Osiris (who had been buried and incorporated into the trunk of that tree) out of it. Then, M. receives the pillar that the goddess had cut down, wrapped in a piece of linen and smeared with ointment. From that time, the king’s descendants and the inhabitants of Byblos worship this trunk in the temple of Isis. In fact, M. is portrayed as a welcoming king, compliant and deferential towards the goddess, even to the extent of entrusting her with his two sons, whom he outlived. Still according to Plutarch, in fact, the younger prince, probably the one who was breastfed by the goddess, died of terror when he heard the desperate screams uttered by Isis when she obtained the wooden coffin containing the body of her dead husband (De Is. et Os. 16 [357c]). The older son, instead, entrusted to the goddess by the king when she embarked for *Egypt with the body of Osiris, died during the voyage. Some scholars, agreeing with Plutarch, stated that he was struck down by

the furious gaze of the goddess when, during a stopover, the lad surprised her weeping sadly and humiliatingly over the lifeless body of her lover. Others, instead, stated that the boy drowned and that Isis made him an object of worship: he would then be the Maneros (Gk Μανερῶς) about whom the Egyptians sing at their banquets, where the guests carry the figurine of a mummy (see also Plut. Sept. Sap. 2 [148a]). Yet others claimed that the boy was called Palaestinus or Pelusium (Gk Παλαιστινὸν ἢ Πηλούσιον) and had given his name to the city Pelusium, founded by that goddess. The whole story probably goes back to an ancient Egypt. substrate of mythical tales about Osiris and about Egypt and *Phoenicia (e.g. in the myths about Epaphos [Gk Ἔπαφος], it is the queen of Byblos who brings up the son whom IO bore to Zeus). However, its primary justification lies in the complex *Syncretism of the Rom. imperial period, and probably draws on traditions from *Alexandria as well as from other writers in Gk, such as Eudoxus, Hecataeus and Apion. Plutarch’s text also repeats several narrative elements from the Gk myth of Demeter, who went in search of her daughter Core (→DEMETER & CORE) and was welcomed by the king of Eleusis, who entrusted her with bringing up his son (see hymn. Hom. Cer.). On the other hand, the death of both sons of king M. may belong to the set of accounts concerning the aweinspiring powers of the Egypt. goddess, as part of the more general typology about the terrifying nature of the divine gaze and prohibitions on staring. Instead, the motif of the death of the older prince in the sea could have arisen from a confusion with DICTYS drowned in a river, described by Plutarch in another passage (De Is. et Os. 8 [353e]). Finally, the name and cult of Maneros had already been recorded by Herodotus (2,78-79), although he identifies that person with Linos (Λίνος), an Egypt., Phoen. and Cypr. song and connects it with the Egypt. custom of carrying a wooden statuette depicting a dead person in a coffin at symposia, to remind the guests of the end that awaits them all. Both Herodotus and Plutarch probably refer to a mythical tradition that in the class. world records characters whose name contains a double meaning, as a song with an emotional refrain and as the name of a hero (see ADONIS, with his epithets Abobas, GINGRAS and GAUAS; other Gk heroes

150

MALCANDROS – MELOS

who died young and were mourned with songs named after them are, for ex., Ila, Iacchus, Ialemos, Linos, Pagaios, Bormos, Lityerses). However, in the view of class. mythology, they also belong to the set of narratives that stabilized the crisis in a Phoen. type of monarchy (→*Kingship) by means of recurring literary themes, such as the death of hereditary princes and the banishment of the ruling king (→CINYRAS). Deonna, W. (1965) Le symbolisme de l’œil. Paris, 153ff.; de Martino, E. (1975) Morte e pianto rituale nel mondo antico. Torino; Hani, J. (1976) La religion égyptienne dans la pensée de Plutarque. Paris, esp. 78-88; Ribichini, S. (1994) Le origini della città santa. Biblo nei miti della tradizione classica. In: Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) Biblo. Una città e la sua cultura. CSF 34. Rome, 221-227; Tower Hallis, S. (2009) JAEC, 1.2, 1-8. S. RIBICHINI

Malik see MILKU Fig. 92. The Mekal stela

Malku see MILKU Maneros, Manerote see MALCANDROS Maskir see HOTER MASKIR/MISKAR

between the two deities, either iconographic (the whole composition is Egypt.) or linguistic. In fact, the epithet mkl attributed to Resheph may correspond to Gk amyklos and therefore have no connection with the Egypt. theonym, which as yet has no specific (feasible) Sem. equivalent.

Mater Matuta see INO-LEUCOTHEA MEKAL/MIKAL Egypt. m῾-k-Ꜣr. Name of a rather obscure Syro-Palestin. deity which occurs on an inscribed limestone stela from BethShean (in the so-called M.-Temple: 14th cent. BCE) [FIG. 92]. The god is depicted as seated on a throne, holding a was-sceptre in his left hand and an *Ankh in his right. M. is approached by two dedicators, each holding a lotus flower. An Egypt. inscription designates the enthroned deity as “The Lord of BethShean”. Various identifications have been attempted and, in particular, a relationship was proposed between M. and the god RESHEPH, who has the epithet mkl in several Phoen. inscriptions from *Cyprus (CIS I, 89,3; 90,2; 91,2; 93,5; 94,5). This was also the starting-point for iconographic studies that have explored possible connections between the lord of Beth-Shean and the Phoen. god. However, more in-depth research has excluded any relationship

Vincent, L. (1928) RB, 36, 512-543; Thompson, H. (1970) Mekal. The god of Beth-Shean. Leiden; Fulco, W. J. (1976) The Canaanite god Rešep. New Haven, 51-54; Lipiński, E. (1987) Resheph Amyklos. In: StPhoen 5, 87-99; Cornelius, I. (1994) The iconography of the Canaanite gods Reshef and Ba῾al. Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c 1500-1000 BCE). OBO 140. Fribourg, 25ff.; IDD, s.v. (J. Eggler): http://www.religionswissenschaft. uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_idd_mekal.pdf (accessed 13.07. 2019). P. XELLA

Melcarthos see MELQART; DEMAROUS Melicertes see INO-LEUCOTHEA MELOS Gk Μῆλος. According to Verrius Flaccus (Rom. grammarian of the Augustan age, cited in Fest. De verb. sign. s.v. Μῆλος), the island of the Cyclades is named after the

MELOS – MELQART

hero M., who arrived there from *Phoenicia. Stephanus Byzantius (s.v. Μῆλος) adds that both the island and the town with the same name are Phoen. foundations and are also called Byblis (BYBLIS), founded by *Phoenicians from *Byblos. In class. tradition there is another person with the same name (cf. Serv. E. 8,37), originally from *Delos, who left his fatherland and reached *Cyprus during the reign of king CINYRAS; there he became a friend of ADONIS and married a girl from the Cypr. royal family. When ADONIS died, during a boar hunt, M. hanged himself in despair, so out of pity Aphrodite transformed him into the tree with the same name. Bunnens, G. (1979) L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires. EPAHA XVIII. Bruxelles/Rome, 188.259; Ribichini, S. (1994) Le origini della città santa. Biblo nei miti della tradizione classica. In: Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) Biblo. Una città e la sua cultura. CSF 34. Rome, 224. S. RIBICHINI

MELQART Phoen. mlqrt; Akk. mil-qar-tu. In terms of etymology, the theonym mlqrt is a composite noun: mlk + qrt, and means “King of the city”. He is the patron god of the city of *Tyre and, at the same time, also patron of Phoen. expansion in the Medit. region. Tyre and the Levant The foundation myths of the Phoen. metropolis are preserved in Gk literature from the Rom. imperial age (PHILO OF BYBLOS: FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,10-11; Nonn. D. 40,465-500); they place this god at the origin of the city’s existence. In fact, according to these sources, the city originated from the conjunction of two wandering rocks (ṣr, the Phoen. name for Tyre, means “rock”), which became fixed thanks to M.’s deeds (→AMBROSIAI PETRAI). They feature on the coins of Tyre (Bijovksy [2003]) [FIG. 93]. Tyre and its divine protector are also connected with the mastery of the sea and navigation. Probably M. is a deified royal ancestor, acts as the archetype of the historical sovereign and, therefore, as the primordial protector of the interests of the territory and its people. As a consequence, he is the guarantor of integrity and of collective well-being, the supporter of the enterprises of the Tyrians. M. is also the

151

Fig. 93. Tyrian coins depicting the Ambrosian Stones, a sacred olive tree and an altar

expression and the symbol of the specific identity of the kingdom and the people of Tyre. The vassal treaty between Tyre (with king *Baal I) and Assyria (with king *Esarhaddon) towards 675-670 BCE (SAA 2, no. 5, iv 14’-17’; a previous mention in SAA 2, no. 2, vi 22, 754 BCE; →*Treaties), names him alongside ESHMUN, the royal god and patron of *Sidon, assigning them the following prerogatives: should the oath be broken, the two gods had to deport the local population, deprive it of food, oil and clothes. As a result, possibly the god riding a seahorse featured on coins from Tyre in the 5th4th cent. BCE, is actually M., as lord of the seas and as patron deity. Philo of Byblos makes M. the son of Zeus DEMAROUS (Eus. PE 1,10,27: τῷ δὲ Δεμαροῦντι γίνεται Μέλκαρθοϛ ὁ καὶ Ἡρακλήϛ); according to other sources, his mother was Asteria, quite probably a variant of ASTARTE (Athen. 9,392d; Eust. in Od. 11,600), who was credited with the ability of bringing the dead god back to life: this is probably an echo of the annual ritual of “re-awakening”, called egersis in Gk sources, although the Phoen. equivalent is unknown (but probably derives from the root qwm). This motif may be found on Pun. *Razors (Acquaro [2017]); an astral interpretation of the ritual does not seem very likely (Escacena Carrasco [2009]); it has also been considered as connected with the invention of sailing (Marlasca Martín [2005]). From all of this, however, only the existence of a priestly function (→*Priesthood) can be deduced, i.e. the →*Miqim elim (mqm ᾿lm), to be translated perhaps as “resurrector/re-awakener of the god”, which occurs in various regions of the Mediterranean in the Hellenist. period, and could be connected with the cult of M. (Zamora [2017]). Nevertheless, the specific forms of this ceremony remain unknown. Also uncertain is the contribution that a famous vase from Sidon (unfortunately now lost) can supply, which – according to some scholars – possibly illustrated it [FIG. 94]. Probably the meaning of the rite is to be found in the cyclical

152

MELQART

Fig. 94. The vase from Sidon

restoration of the cosmic order, guaranteed on the one hand by the god and by the king, his representative on earth, on the other. In both cases, this was brought about with the help and protection of Astarte, the god’s consort and protector of the king. This ritual was important enough to attract delegates from far away, like the Carthag. θεωρίαι taken by surprise at Tyre by the siege of *Alexander the Great in 332 BCE. After Alexander, these festivities were increasingly directed towards Heracles and took the form of “games”, in the Gk style (see 1 Mac 4,18-20). In spite of M.’s central role in Tyre, as yet we only have some rare Tyrian inscriptions in Phoenician that could throw light on aspects of his cult. We can cite a 5th cent. BCE seal that mentions “M. in/of Tyre” (StPhoen 4, 78); the lead projectiles with the legend “M. has won” (APC 4.I, 205-215; Bonnet [2015] 72f.), that are a good indication of the god’s vocation to protect the city [FIG. 95]; the bronze tesserae and weights (3rd-1st cent. BCE) in which the official formula “M. in/of Tyre” recurs (Bonnet [1988] 60; Elayi and Elayi [1997] 125, no. 333, fig. 7, 18, Pl. XXIV, and p. 176f.; Bonnet [2015] 292-295); and a marble base dating to about 100 BCE, from the region of Tyre (APC 3.I, 187-192; Bonnet [2015] 292), which evokes a dedication placed “under [the feet of his L]ord Melqart in the sanctuary [of his lord] forever” (tḥt [p῾m b]῾ly mlqrt b᾿šr [b῾ly] l῾lm). Even Alexander the Great, appearing below the walls of Tyre, asked to be allowed to visit the island sanctuary of the god. His request provoked a refusal from the Tyrians. There followed an apocalyptic seven-month siege, which saw the construction of breakwaters by

the Greeks, and then the defeat and massacre of the Tyrians (Diod. 17,40,2-46; Curt. Ruf. 4,2-4; Arr. An. 2,16-24; Plut. Alex. 24-25; Just. 11,10-14). Afterwards Alexander prevailed and introduced “Heraclean games” in honour of the local god, whose descendant he claimed to be, since in fact it was the Tyrian Heracles. All this strengthened and accelerated the process of incorporating the Tyrian cult into the Gk world. On the basis of the corpus of Phoen. inscriptions, however, it is clear that veneration for M., the ancestral Baal of Tyre, did not end with the Macedonian Gk conquest, in spite of the cultural shift that ensued (Bonnet [2015] 269-327). Therefore, M. can be identified as Heracles wearing a crown of laurel depicted on coins and tesserae that refer to the inviolability and consecration of Tyre, in 141/140 BCE (Knäpper [2018]). After that date, the whole city was put under the protection of the divine lord of places, and incorporated into the network of great festivals in the Gk world (Bonnet [2015] 292294). Traces of the worship of M./Heracles in Tyre are still to be found at the height of the Rom. period, which explains the polemics of some Christian writers against that god ([Clem. Al.] Recogn. 10,24; [Caes. Naz.] Dial. 2,112). The exact location of M.’s urban sanctuary in Tyre remains very uncertain: perhaps it was near the Cathedral of the Crusaders or beneath it. According to Flavius Josephus, who claims to have used local sources, i.e. the royal Annals of Tyre – although this could be a literary fiction to confer authority on his

Fig. 95. Lead projectiles with the legend in Phoenician “Melqart has won”

153

MELQART

evidence (AJ 8,5,3 §§145-146; Ap. 1,117-119) – the annual feast of M., celebrated in spring (→*Festivals), was initiated by *Hiram I, king of Tyre in the 10th cent. BCE, when urban areas and cults on the island of Tyre were being reorganized. At all events, the cult of M. is closely connected with the worship of Astarte, his main consort. In fact, the two deities seem to be together everywhere and are a real couple at the divine level. Together they protect the royal family and the city: the female component of the couple exerts her regenerative power on the male god and, indirectly, on the human community led by the king. The intermittent nature of the god’s presence – if M. really is mentioned in 1 Kgs 18,2040 – which has a positive emic meaning, is the focus of the parody of “Canaanite” polytheism (→*Canaanites) that the prophet Elijah stages on Mount Carmel to prove the superiority of the god of *Israel. Afterwards, the power and influence of the god of Tyre are criticised by the prophet Ezekiel (28,1-9) in the 6th cent. BCE: the prophet stresses the god’s arrogance and his dominion over the seas. However, the name M. never actually appears in the *Old Testament. From what Herodotus says, having visited Tyre in the 5th cent. BCE (Hdt. 2,44), at the time of his visit, the sanctuary of M. enjoyed a considerable international reputation. The local priests tell to the Gk historian that the sanctuary was contemporary with the foundation of the city, again stressing the extremely close connection between Tyre and its poliadic god. The temple in question, which is described as sumptuous to the eyes of Herodotus, is of Heracles of Tyre: this shows that, then, the match between M. and the Gk hero was an established fact (Nitschke [2013]). In fact, a series of indications suggest that M.’s relationship with Heracles goes back very much earlier, probably on *Cyprus, in the Hellenized Cypro-Phoen. kingdoms of that island, such as *Kition or *Idalion, at least after the 8th cent. BCE, as suggested by the imagery on a Idalion cup: it shows two heroes fighting a lion or carrying one on their shoulders – heirs of an Ancient Near East. iconographic motif – shown next to the hero with a leonté, which prefigures a canonical phenotype of Heracles [FIG. 96]. On Cyprus, these two characters meet and interact, especially in iconography: the leonté, the club and the bow are shared by both and ultimately the Gk veneer imposes a standardized image for M. and Heracles. However, M. had his own Phoen. iconography, but we know it only thanks to a document which may

Fig. 96. Statue of Heracles-Melqart from Idalion (Cyprus) (5th cent. BCE)

or may not be representative of his imagery (cf. the coins of Tyre, which present a completely different image, if it really is of M.). In fact, the stela of *Bredj, near Aleppo, in the Aramaean kingdom of Bit-Agusi, has a dedication in Aramaic to M. made by king *Barhadad (1), dating to about 800 BCE (KAI 201; Cecchini [2013]) [FIG. 97]. The image accompanying the text is a dynastic figure walking and carrying a fenestrated axe on his shoulder (Pinnock [2002]). The bowl from Kourion, on Cyprus, depicts the “journey” (conquest? hunt?) of a character with similar features, but there is no certainty that it is M. (Cecchini [2010]). In any case, the early insertion of M. in the Aramaean world shows that, quite early on, the god was exposed, especially in terms of iconography, to interactions that were probably hybridized. Before leaving the east. coast of the Mediterranean, the sanctuary of *Amrit must be mentioned, with its *Maabed dug out of the rock and lying in the centre of a vast water basin surrounded by porticoes.

154

MELQART

terranean, from Kition to *Lixus, from *Carthage to Gades (*Cádiz) and *Ibiza, from *Malta to *Motya, from *Tharros to *Leptis Magna and *Delos (Bonnet [1988]; Amadasi Guzzo [2005]; Bernardini and Zucca [2005]). This means that M. travels with his devotees and his “relics” accompany him when new settlements are established (Bonnet [2015bis]). Later, all these aspects helped to associate M. with Heracles, the Gk hero of Medit. colonization, standardbearer of *Hellenism in the borders, traveller over land and sea, founder of cities and of dynasties, planner of routes and slayer of monsters. So Diodorus of Sicily (20,14) is correct in calling M. (the Phoen. or Tyrian Heracles) the god “in charge of the colonies”. From Malta come two matching inscribed bilingual (Phoen./Gk) cippi dating to the 2nd cent. BCE, the origin of which remains debated (KAI 47 = ICO Malta 1; Amadasi Guzzo and Rossignani [2002]): they are dedicated “to the lord, to Melqart, Baal of Tyre” (l᾿dn lmlqrt b῾l ṣr), corresponding to “Heracles archegetes” (Ἡρακλεῖ ἀρχηγέτει) in Greek, i.e. the god of fundamentals and foundations (Bonnet [2009]) [FIG. 98].

Fig. 97. Stela and inscription from Bredj (Aleppo) dedicated to Melqart by Barhadad king of Aram

Worshippers would come there and even sleep there to obtain divine favour, for a cure or for other types of divine intervention (Lembke [2004]; Bonnet [2015] 121-126). In use between the 6th and the first half of the 5th cent. BCE, in this sanctuary there is a ditch full of sculptures with Heraclean motifs. One may wonder whether it was M. who was worshipped with this image, or whether it was Eshmun, who features in inscriptions. The dedication to S HADRAPHA , from that vicinity – associated with an older image of a powerful lord of the lions – may have been “a healing genius” with similar functions (Bonnet [2015] 119-121). S of Tyre, on the other hand, the theonym MILKASHTART is dominant, but in this case also, the Heraclean imagery betrays a relationship with M., the precise nuances of which remain uncertain (Bonnet [2015] 315-322). Central and western Mediterranean After the beginning of the I mill. BCE, following the wake of the sailors and traders of Tyre, M.’s cult becomes widespread on all the shores of the Medi-

Fig. 98. Marble cippus from Malta with a bilingual inscription dedicated to Melqart, Baal of Tyre (2nd cent. BCE)

MELQART

Therefore, M. is at the same time a founder, ancestral and patron god, a monarchical god, connected with the Syr. tradition of deified royal ancestors – documented from *Ebla to *Mari and from *Emar to *Ugarit – and a colonial deity. As a coloniser, he spreads over the Mediterranean alongside the Tyrians, retaining his original identity, but inevitably coming into contact with various social substrates (Iberian, Nuragic, Sikelian, Cypriot, Etruscan, etc.). M.’s epithet as the god “over the rock” (῾l hṣr in Phoenician) in four inscriptions dated between the 4th and the 2nd cent. BCE, from *Sardinia and Ibiza, shows how a type of god who ensures stability and so both navigation and prosperity, has been widely exported together with the people of Tyre (Bonnet [2009]; Garbati [2012]). The sanctuaries of M. in the Mediterranean follow the course of the trading routes used by the *Phoenicians (especially Tyrians), as far as what are called the →PILLARS OF HERCULES, marking the edges of the known world, while their exact location varies depending on geographical knowledge and the locations given for the myths of Heracles (Bernard [2018] 51-58). Literary tradition (especially in Just. 17,4,15) associates M. with the foundation of Carthage, as ELISSA-Dido took his “relics” with her in order to found the “new city”, i.e. the new Tyre, Qart-hadasht (Garbati [2012, 2015]; Bonnet [2015bis]; Álvarez Marti-Aguilar [2014, 2014bis, 2018]), with slightly different interpretations by Justin. However, the traces of the cult of M. in Carthage are not very old. His sanctuary is mentioned in some inscriptions, which however give no indication whatever of its location, what it looked like and the details of the cult practised there (see CIS I, 4894; 5575). As yet, archaeology has not been able to provide anything about it. However, it is certain that devotion towards the god was profound (CIS I, 5510); M. was associated with SID, who in turn was connected with the colonization of Sardinia (CIS I, 256); his name was given to a large number of people, which certainly indicates his success over a long period, at least at the level of family piety. M. is depicted as Heracles on *Razors and is mentioned among the divine guarantors of the treaty drawn up between *Hannibal (9) and *Philip V, king of Macedonia, listed of course under the name of Heracles (Plb. 7,9,2-3). Certainly, they celebrated his egersis, a ceremony performed by a specific cultic official (the Miqim

155

elim: see e.g. KAI 70). It is quite clear that the cult of MILKASHTART, as at *Umm el-Amed, is not foreign to M., even though the relationship between the two gods is no clearer than it is in *Phoenicia. In any case, M.’s popularity in Carthage is undeniable: he is the embodiment of the Tyrian roots of the colony, and as such, is the object of special attention from the Carthag. authorities, who send a *Tithe to the god in Tyre and take part in his panegyric every year (apart from interruptions, correctly punished by disasters: see especially Diod. 20,14 and Plb. 31,12). Important identity and memory processes intertwine in his cult, in spite of the fact that the dynastic element provides its main matrix. From Carthage, M. and his cult spread into North Africa, including the regions close to the Pun. area, but in all these places (*Sabratha, *Icosium, *Iol-Caesarea, *Tangiers, *Lixus, etc.) literary traditions and traces in toponymy, inscriptions or on coins (Moreno Pulido [2015]) refer either to Heracles or to Hercules, two theonyms behind which one can perceive a possible Pun. background, but neither certain nor specific. At *Leptis Magna traces have been found of the cult of Milkashtart, who shares the role of a poliadic god with Shadrapha (IPT 31). Of all the other archaeological and epigraphic references to M. in the diaspora, we can note in particular the traces that come from Cyprus, already mentioned in connection with the equivalence between M. and Heracles (Morstadt [2015]). At Kition-Bamboula, in the sanctuary built after the 9th cent. BCE, M. and Astarte are in two contiguous areas. From this site come Heraclean images, but also an image of a Zeus in combat armed with a lightning bolt, that could refer back to the power of the Baal of Tyre. On the other hand, perhaps it also bore the title of Baal of Kition, at least according to a Phoen. inscription from the sacred area of Kathari (5th-4th cent. BCE: IK D 37). Finally, also at Kition, from a small sanctuary on the hill of Batsalos, near the salt lake, have come inscriptional traces of M. and Eshmun being worshipped jointly, an association that is very common in Phoenicia and elsewhere. There are indications of the cult of M. at Idalion, *Golgoi and *Salamina, but the most consistent epigraphic evidence comes chiefly from Larnaka-tis-Lapithou (LL II and III). To the 4th and 3rd cent. BCE belong two important Phoen. inscriptions addressed to the local M. (“of Narnaka”), who is especially associated with Astarte and *Osiris. It is not impossible that there M. was

156

MELQART

identified with POSEIDON, the recipient of an offering in Greek. At *Amathus perhaps it is possible to identify M. in Malika of Hesychius (Petit [2007]), as the consort of Aphrodite, alias Astarte. The implanting of M. in *Delos in the 2nd cent. BCE is a particularly instructive example. In 154/153 an honorary decree, Gk in language and style (ID 1519; Bonnet [2015] 480-490) provides the opportunity to the community of Tyrian traders established on the island and named “Heracleists of Tyre”, to display their attachment to the euergetes of the group, a certain Patron, who had negotiated with the Athenian authorities for the concession of a plot of land to celebrate the cult of their ancestral god. In this inscription, the latter is called “archegetes” and “benefactor of humanity”, using a typical Gk formula that however echoes the prerogatives of the god of Tyre, founder of that city and protector of its inhabitants. The presence of a Miqim elim on the island of *Rhodes (KAI 44; Zamora [2017]) suggests that the god had also been established there. Instead, the dossier of Thasos, echoing what Herodotus had said (2,44) – that he had seen a sanctuary of the Tyrian Heracles on the Aegean island – remains fairly evanescent (Pitz [2016]). On the island of Malta, besides the two bilingual cippi mentioned above, literary evidence suggests locating the cult of M. and/or of Milkashtart at Tas Silġ, alongside worship of Astarte. As for Sardinia (Bernardini and Zucca [2005]), the myths of the colonization of the island by the Punics allude to Maceris, father of Sardos (SARDUS PATER) (Paus. 10,17,2-5), a double name which is undoubtedly recognizable as Melqart and Sid, already associated together in Carthage. From Tharros (ICO Sard. 32) comes a very incomplete dedication to M. (3rd-2nd cent. BCE), who certainly had a temple there and may feature on scarabs produced locally [FIG. 99]. Pun. PNN on Sardinia provide parallel evidence of his popularity. At *Antas M. probably was worshipped alongside SID-Sardus Pater, as indicated by the presence of a Heraclean type in iconography there. It can also be mentioned that three inscriptions from Sardinia, from *Cagliari, Antas and Tharros respectively, describe M. as “in charge of the rock” (Garbati [2012]). On *Sicily, M. was certainly popular, even if the number of documents that mention him is very low. The place name *Rosh-Melqart, “Cape (of) Melqart” (perhaps *Selinus), several PNN and various Gk

Fig. 99. The inscription from Tharros (Sardinia) ICO Sard. 32

traditions or inscriptions concerning the presence of Heracles on the island (at *Eryx, *Syracuse, Agyrion, *Motya, Selinus) are traces of a possible veneration of M., generally associated with or assimilated to Heracles. However, as yet there are no mentions of his cult in inscriptions. This has not prevented I. Malkin (2005 and 2011) from considering Sicily as a middle ground, where sanctuaries and social practices connected with the cults of M. and Heracles were in dialogue. On the coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea, at →*Pyrgi, not far from Caere, three gold plaques have been found with bilingual (Etr./Phoen. or Pun.) inscriptions (KAI 277; Bellelli and Xella [2016]). It cannot be excluded that the buried god is M. himself, to whom indirect allusion is made in the Pun. section of the dedication; here the text commemorates a royal gift made to Astarte, the titular – together with the Etr. goddess Uni – of the sanctuary or of part of it. The presence of a Heraclean type of iconography, in temples A and B in the sacred area, seems to favour the hypothesis of the implantation of M. and his ritual of death and return to life, even if as yet there are no decisive proofs in this respect. Other hypotheses on the identity of the buried deity have been proposed, but as yet the documentation does not allow this problem to be resolved. The introduction of M. into *Rome, on the Forum Boarium, seems fairly dubious, in spite of his definite popularity in the whole Rom. West, as also shown by the Lat. inscription from Corbridge (Northumberland), at the foot of Hadrian’s Wall, together with Astarte (IG XIV, 2253).

MELQART

In the Iberian Peninsula, the great centre for the cult of M. is at Gades (*Cádiz), founded by the Tyrians (Str. 3,5,5; Just. 44,5,2), who were invited by an oracle to take the relics of their god there (Marín Ceballos [2014]). That city, due to its location at the limits of the known world, took on a strong symbolic meaning (Bernard [2018]), but was also involved in various commercial activities, such as tuna fishing and preserving food (Sáez Romero [2009]). Many class. sources describe the local sanctuary, situated on an island, consecrated to Heracles/Hercules, both prestigious and renowned throughout all antiquity. In their descriptions of places, cultic ceremonies and their typical images, it is difficult to distinguish what was originally Phoen. from later developments. Exactly as in Tyre, two stelae (Hdt. 2,44) formed the most characteristic feature of the sanctuary, which also had an oracle. However, as yet, there is no mention of M. in an inscription from this site, where, once again, the god was accompanied by Astarte, his consort, and where Milkashtart also appears. As in the case of Astarte, M. must have spread into south. Spain, but the relevant dossier has to be interpreted with sensitivity, since M. is never explicitly mentioned there. On Ibiza (Costa and Fernández [2012]), an inscription dating to the first half of the 7th cent. BCE mentions Eshmun-Melqart (Amadasi Guzzo and Xella [2005]), while another, more recent, seems to associate M. with RESHEPH (KAI 72). In summary, M. appears as a beneficent, powerful and apotropaic god, for whom two types of iconography were used: either a Heraclean type of iconography, able to convey all these functions as a whole, or an iconography of the SMITING GOD type, which expresses similar but not identical aspects. His cult, which unfortunately is known to us mostly through the information supplied by Gk and Rom. sources – therefore through the variously distorting prism of the Gk hero – is the object of persistent affection from the Pun. people. The reason is that M. embodies their Phoen. historical and cultural roots, and therefore their own identity. In spite of the lack of direct sources, M.’s prerogatives seem to be very extensive. As Baal the king, he watches over the well-being of his followers at every level (health, reproduction, wealth, mobility, security etc.). His annual festival commemorated the disappearance of the primordial king, founder of both the city and the dynasty, as well as his return to life in order to bring great prosperity to the cosmos in general, and to Tyre and its population

157

in particular, with the crucial help of Astarte, the divine queen, who possessed royal and life-giving charisma. Dunand, M. and Saliby, N. (1985) Le temple d’Amrith dans la pérée d’Aradus. Paris; Bonnet, C. (1988); Bonnet, C. (1989) RSF, 17, 31-40; Bonnet, C. (1995) UF, 27, 695-701; Lipiński, E. (1995) 226-243; Bonnet, C. (1997) s.v. In: LIMC, Addenda, cols 830-834; Elayi, A. and Elayi, J. (1997) Recherches sur les poids phéniciens. Suppl. to Trans 5. Paris; Poveda Navarro, A. M. (1999) Melqart y Astarté en el Occidente mediterráneo: la evidencia de la Península Ibérica (siglos VIII-VI a.C.). In: Costa, B. and Fernández, J. (eds) De Oriente a Occidente: los dioses fenicios en las colonias occidentales. Eivissa, 25-61; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. and Rossignani, M. P. (2002) Le iscrizioni bilingui e gli “agyiei” di Malta. In: Da Pyrgi a Mozia, 5-28; Pinnock, F. (2002) Note sull’iconografia di Melqart. In: ibid., 379-389; Lembke, L. (2004) Die Skulpturen aus dem Quellheiligtum von Amrit. Studie zur Akkulturation in Phönizien. DaF 12. Mainz am Rhein; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2005) Melqart nelle iscrizioni fenicie d’Occidente. In: Bernardini, P. and Zucca, R. (eds) Il Mediterraneo di Herakles. Rome, 45-52; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2005) Trans, 30, 29-18; ead. and Xella, P. (2005) SEL, 22, 47-57; Bonnet, C. (2005) Melqart in Occidente. Percorsi di appropriazione e di acculturazione. In: Bernardini, P. and Zucca, R. (eds) Il Mediterraneo di Herakles. Rome, 17-28; Malkin, I. (2005) Herakles and Melqart: Greeks and Phoenicians in the middle ground. In: Gruen, E. S. (ed.) Cultural borrowings and ethnic appropriations in Antiquity. Stuttgart, 238-258; Marlasca Martín, R. (2005) La Egersis de Melqart: una propuesta para su interpretación. In: APC 5.I, 455-461; IDD s.v. (C. Bonnet): http:// www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_idd_ melqart.pdf (accessed 15.08.2019); Cadotte, A. (2007) La romanisation des dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden/Boston, 283-305; Petit, T. (2007). In: CCEC, 37 (= Hommage à Annie Caubet), 283-298; Bonnet, C. (2008) Diasporas, 12, 1-23; Bonnet, C. (2009) L’identité religieuse des Phéniciens dans la diaspora. Le cas de Melqart, dieu ancestral des Tyriens. In: Belayche, N. and Mimouni, S. (eds) Entre lignes de partage et territoires de passage. Les identités religieuses dans les mondes grec et romain, Paris/Leuven, 295-308; Escacena Carrasco, J. L. (2009) Complutum, 20, 95-120; Sáez Romero, A. M. (2009) El templo de Melqart en Gadir: hito religioso-económico y marítimo. Consideraciones sobre su relación con la industria conservera. In: Mateos, P. et al. (eds) Santuarios, oppida y ciudades: arquitectura sacra en el origen y desarrollo urbano del Mediterráneo occidental. Mérida, 115-130; Cecchini, S. M. (2010) Il viaggio di Melqart. In: Quaderni di VO 4, 73-87; Malkin, I. (2011) A small Greek world: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. Greeks overseas. Oxford/New York; Costa, B. and Fernández, J. H. (2012) Algunas consideraciones sobre el culto a Melqart en Ibiza. In: Del Vais, C. (ed.) EPI OINOPA PONTON. Studi sul Mediterraneo antico in ricordo di Giovanni Tore. Oristano, 613-624; Garbati, G. (2012) RSF, 40, 159-174; Cecchini, S. M. (2013) La stele di Breyg. In: APC 6.I, 275‐283; Nitschke, J. (2013) Interculturality in image and cult in the Hellenistic East: Tyrian Melqart revisited. In: Stavrianopoulou, E. (ed.) Shifting social imaginaries in the Hellenistic period. Narrations, practices, and images. Leiden/Boston, 253-282; Alvarez Marti-Aguilar, M. (2014) AEA, 87, 21-40; id. (2014) Mentira fenicia? El oraculo de Melqart en los relatos de fundacion de Tiro y Gadir. In: Marco Simon, F., Pina Polo, F. and Remesal, J. (eds) Fraude, mentira y engaño en el Mundo Antiguo. Barcelona, 13-33; id. (2018) The network of Melqart: Tyre, Gadir, Carthage and the founding

158

MELQART – MERCURY

god. In: Naco del Hoyo, T. and López Sanchez, F. (eds) War, warlords, and interstate relations in the Ancient Mediterranean. Leiden, 113-150; Marín Ceballos, M. C. (2014) El santuario de Melqart en Gadir, dudas y certezas. In: Russo Tagliente, A. and Guarneri, F. (eds) Santuari mediterranei tra Oriente e Occidente. Rome, 299-308; Bonnet, C. (2015) Mythos, 9, 71-86; ead. (2015) Les Enfants de Cadmos. Le paysage religieux de la Phénicie hellénistique. Paris; Garbati, G. (2015) Tyre, the Homeland: Carthage and Cádiz under the Gods’ Eyes. In: Garbati, G. and Pedrazzi, T. (eds) Transformations and crisis in the Mediterranean. “Identity” and Interculturality in the Levant and Phoenician West during the 12th – 8th centuries BCE. Suppl. to RSF. Pisa/Rome, 197-208; Moreno Pulido, E. (2015) Melqart-Herakles nella monetazione mauritana. In: AfRo 20, 821-834; Bijovsky, G. (2003) The Ambrosial Rocks and the sacred precinct of Melqart in Tyre. In: XIII Congreso internacional de numismática. Madrid, 829-834; Bellelli, V. and Xella, P. (eds) (2016) Le lamine di Pyrgi. Nuovi studi sulle iscrizioni in etrusco e in fenicio nel cinquantenario della scoperta. Verona; Pitz, Z. (2016) Kernos, 29, 101-118; Acquaro, E. (2017) Gerión 35, 9-15; Zamora, J. Á. (2017) RSF, 45, 65-85; Bernard, G. (2018) Nec Plus Ultra. L’Extrême Occident méditerranéen dans l’espace politique romain (218 av. J.-C. – 305 ap. J.-C.). Madrid; Knäpper, K. (2018) HIEROS KAI ASYLOS. Formen und Funktionen der territorialen Asylie im Hellenismus in ihrem historischen Kontext. Historia-Einzelschrift 250. Stuttgart. C. BONNET

MEMBLIAROS Gk Μεμβλιάρος. According to some ancient Gk writers (Hdt. 4,147; Paus. 3,1,7; schol. in Pind. P. 4,88; St. Byz. s.v. Μεμβλιάρος and Θήρα), M. is the name of a Phoen. hero, the son of Poikiles (Ποικίλης). He participated in the expedition led by CADMUS, in search of his sister EUROPA. M. would have been left on the island of Calliste in the Aegean Sea, subsequently called Thera, where he founded a colony. The same name was sometimes given to the nearby island of Anaphe, based on the same mythical assumptions. Bunnens, G. (1979) L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires. EPAHA XVIII. Bruxelles/Rome, 188.259. S. RIBICHINI

MERCURY Lat. Mercurius. A deity with a broad portfolio, M. enjoyed wide popularity across North Africa during the Rom. imperial period in a range of instantiations. While part of his popularity can be explained by the many areas of life he could influence and his prevalence across the Rom. West, numerous attempts have been made to

connect M. in Africa with various pre-Rom. deities, and to distinguish different “Mercuries” (African, Phoen., Graeco-Rom.) from one another. The importance of Hermes and M. in Africa can be seen in even a quick glance at TNN. Gk topographers called the Pun. Ras Addar (Cap Bon, Tunisia) the Cape of Hermes ([Scyl.] Peripl. 110f.; Str. 17,3,16). A number of other sites, including some in the territory of Phoen. colonies along the coast, were called Ad Mercurios in the imperial period. He was an omnipresent deity in the landscape. Across North Africa, M. was first and foremost adopted [FIG. 100] as a god of prosperity and commerce, partaking in the pan-Medit. persona of the god. Cities of Pun. origin rapidly adopted the cult of M.; in Augustan *Leptis Magna, M.’s *Caduceus was carved on the new market building dedicated by Annobal Tapapius Rufus, while in *Dougga (Thugga), M.’s temple was not only built next to the markets, but he is called the genius macelli (AE 1922, 107). The hope for commercial success no doubt led to worshippers involving M. with the major cash-crops of the region: dedications to M. appear both in oliveoil pressing areas, as well as associated with olive groves in rural areas. This link to arbours and agriculture may also have encouraged the dedicatory and iconographic slippage between M. and Silvanus: they not only receive joint or double-named dedications, but Silvanus is often shown with the ram and cock attributes of M. In most of these cases, there is no need to seek a direct pre-Rom., Lib.-Pun. precedent: in a world where religious activity was primarily concerned with achieving concrete outcomes, worshipping M. was simply the best tool to achieve the prosperity sought by individuals who happened to be engaged in the moneymaking activities specific to North Africa. Still, there are certain features of the cult of M. that do seem more closely connected to a pre-Rom. cult. First, at a number of sites (*Cirta, *Thuburnica, Vazi Sarra, Cincaris), M. receives the epithet sobrius (“sober”). Glossing the term, Festus (De verb. sign. s.v. sobricum vicum) suggests that the god received milk libations instead of wine. Often, this unusual feature of the god’s worship has been cited as evidence for the cult’s Pun. origin (although the presence of wine amphorae at Carthag. sanctuaries suggests that Pun. gods happily received alcoholic offerings!). The clearest evidence for Mercurius Sobrius being part of a Pun. African cult may in fact

MERCURY – MERRE

Fig. 100. Stela depicting Mercury from Madaura

come from *Rome, where his cult was established in a neighbourhood of African immigrants in the republican period. Yet if Mercurius Sobrius does represent a Pun. deity, by the imperial period, even though he remained still a teetotaller, he also had a commercial role: his temple at Vazi Sarra (and perhaps also at Thuburnica) probably held periodic markets. The other unique feature that has been used to connect M. to a pre-Rom. god is iconographic: he is sometimes shown accompanied by a scorpion. W. Deonna (1959) suggests that this attribute implies M.’s ties to a Phoen. predecessor, probably SHADRAPHA. The iconographic evidence for the scorpion being unique to a Pun. god, though, is minimal. Instead, the presence of the scorpion in the area from *Madauros to Sitifis (*Setif) may simply illuminate a localized (or regionalized) role taken on by the god. A. Cadotte (2007) argues that the distinction between iterations of M. does not fall along the urban/rural divide (as M. Le Glay [1966] suggested), but instead along a coastal/inland divide. In the cosmopolitan trading ports of the littoral, M. was more akin to his Graeco-Rom. counterpart. Further inland, however, BAAL ADDIR was interpreted as M. (and/or MercurySilvanus). To bolster his argument, Cadotte points to

159

the similar geographic distribution (around *Thysdrus and in the Constantinois) of Baal Addir and M., the epithets awarded to M. (for ex., potens, which he sees as a translation of Addir, Pun. ᾿dr), and a common iconography. Many of these arguments can be rejected: the caduceus that appears on a dedication to Baal Addir in the Cirta *Tophet is probably a ritual standard (common to a range of dedications to various deities on Pun. reliefs), rather than a caduceus; the epithets are likewise shared by a number of gods; and the geographic distribution is the product of M.’s wide popularity and the limited number of sites with pre-Rom., Pun. dedications. Although many scholars have sought to find various Pun. deities lurking in the guise of M., it is unnecessary always to hunt for a pre-Rom. god beneath a Rom. veneer. Even in the clearest case for a Pun. forerunner, Mercurius Sobrius, the deity’s role in the imperial period as a marketplace god would have been immediately recognizable to visitors from other parts of the empire. The roles and personas of deities were not wholly determined by a kind of pre-Rom. path-dependence, but by the creativity of worshippers seeking divine favours for localized needs in a globalized Mediterranean. Deonna, W. (1959) Mercure et le scorpion. Brussels; Le Glay, M. (1966) Saturne africain. Histoire. Paris, 242-246; id. (1971) AntAfr, 5, 125-153; Février, P.-A. (1976) DHA, 2, 305-336; Arnaud, A. and Arnaud, P. (1994) De la toponymie à l’histoire des religions: réflexions sur Mercure africain. In: Le Bohec, Y. (ed.) L’Afrique, la Gaule, la religion à l’époque romaine. Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay. Brussels, 142-153; Lipiński, E. (1995) 393-396; Palmer, R. E. A. (1997) Rome and Carthage at peace. Stuttgart; Cadotte, A. (2007) La romanisation des dieux: l’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden, 113-164; Fentress, E. (2007) Where were the North African nundinae held? In: Gosden, C. (ed.) Communities and connections: Essays in honour of Barry Cunliffe. Oxford, 125-141; Benseddik, N. and Lochin, C. (2008) Producteurs d’olives ou d’huile, voyageurs, militaires, commerçants: Mercure en Afrique. In: AfRo 18, 527-546. M. M. MCCARTY

MERRE Pun. m᾿rḥ; Gk μέρρη; Lat. merre. A term of uncertain origin, so far only documented in a trilingual (Pun./Gk/Lat.) votive inscription from *Santu Jacci (*Cagliari), dated to around the second half of the 2nd cent. BCE or, following recent opinions, to the 1st cent. BCE; it is engraved on the plinth for the base of an Attic column made of bronze

160

MERRE – MILKASHTART

(CIL I, 2226; IG XIV, 608; CIS I, 143 = ICO Sard. 9) [FIGS 101 and 102]. In the three versions of the text, M. qualifies the god ESHMUN/Asclepios/Aesculapius, for whom the *Ex voto mentioned – a bronze *Altar – is intended, since he has healed the worshipper, a certain Cleon of Gk origin (as clearly stated in the Pun. version). The term has been understood as a place name or as a Sem. epithet meaning “(the one who) guides”. However, according to the currently most reliable reading, it could be a loan from the ancient Sardinian substrate language, used to indicate a PN or an epithet of a Nur. healing deity (to be included, perhaps, among the deities worshipped by the Sardinian populus of Galillenses) (→*Nuragics). Apart from the word’s specific meaning, the repetition of M. in different languages, without adaptations, recalls a phenomenon attested in *Sardinia also at the *Antas sanctuary, where the term b᾿by/bab(...) (see BABAI), of unknown origin, is an epithet, both in Phoenician and in Latin, defining the name of the god SID/ SARDUS PATER.

Gastaldi, E. (2000) Epigraphica, 62, 11-28; Marginesu, G. (2002) Le iscrizioni greche della Sardegna: iscrizioni lapidarie e bronzee. In: AfRo 14, 1807-1826; Pennacchietti, F. (2002) Un termine latino nell’iscrizione punica CIS I 143? Una nuova congettura. In: Beccaria, G. L. and Marello, C. (eds) La parola al testo. Scritti per Bice Mortara Garavelli. Alessandria, 303-312; Zucca, R. (2004) Sufetes Africae et Sardiniae. Rome, 134-136; Mastino, A. (2005) Storia della Sardegna antica. Nuoro, 407f.; Dyson, S. L. and Rowland, R. J. (2007) Archaeology and history in Sardinia from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages: shepherds, sailors and conquerors. Philadelphia, 140; Stiglitz, A. (2007) RSF, 35, 43-71; Campus, A. (2012) Punico – Postpunico. Per un’archeologia dopo Cartagine. Tivoli; Ibba, A. (2015) Processi di “romanizzazione” nella Sardinia repubblicana e alto-imperiale (III a.C.II d.C.). In: Mihailescu-Bîrliba, L. (ed.) Colonization and Romanization in Moesia Inferior. Premises of a contrastive approach. Kaiserslautern/Mehlingen, 23; id. (2016) Sardi, Sardo-punici e Italici nella Sardinia repubblicana: la testimonianza delle iscrizioni. In: De Vincenzo, S. and Blasetti Fantauzzi, C. (eds) Il processo di romanizzazione della provincia Sardinia et Corsica. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Cuglieri, 26-28 marzo 2015). Rome, 77f. G. GARBATI

Mesharum see SYDYK & MISOR Mettes: alternative name of the royal father of Dido in Serv. A. 1,343. →ELISSA MILKASHTART

Fig. 101. Trilingual inscription CIL I, 2226 = IG XIV, 608 = CIS I, 143

Fig. 102. Trilingual inscription CIL I 2226 = IG XIV 608 = CIS I, 143. Drawing of the inscriptions

Martini, P. (1861) BAS, 7, 57-59; Spano, G. (1870) Sulla base votiva in bronzo con iscrizione trilingue latina, greca e fenicia trovata in Pauli Gerrei. Memoria sopra l’antica Cattedrale di Ottana e scoperte archeologiche fattesi nell’isola in tutto l’anno 1870. Cagliari; Cecchini, S. M. (1969) I ritrovamenti fenici e punici in Sardegna. SS 32. Rome, 85f.; Garbini, G. (1991) SEAP, 9, 79f.; Zucca, R. (1996) Inscriptiones latinae liberae rei publicae Africae, Sardiniae et Corsicae. In: AfRo 11, 1463-1465; Culasso

Ug. mlk῾ṯtrt; Phoen. mlk῾štrt. The DN occurs in Ug. and Phoen. sources. Etymologically, it is a combination of the DN mlk (“king”) and the TN Ashtartu/Ashtarot, meaning “Milku of Ashtarot”. The second term is a TN referring to Tell Ashtara, a place in Bashan. M. was founder of a dynasty, divinized after his death, who was given the rank of an important underworld deity, even though he should not be completely limited to chthonian aspects. There is no inscriptional evidence for M. from Ashtartu/Ashtarot. In terms of religious geography, the connection between the mountain of the gods (*Hermon) and the entrance to the *Netherworld (Bashan) has to be taken into consideration. The rituals from *Ugarit mention a god of the →*Netherworld, MILKU in Ashtartu (KTU3 1.100,41; 1.107,42). He appears as “Rap᾿iu, king of the underworld”, in a hymn, which states that he had a throne in Ashtartu and gave oracles in Edrei (KTU3 1.108,13). The composite form of the DN occurs in the economic text KTU3 4.790,17, which in parallel with

MILKASHTART – MILKU

deliveries of barley to the horses of the god RESHEPH also mentions the horses of the god M. Even though the earliest reference to the god M. is in the texts from Ugarit, in view of where he was worshipped, the god did not originate in Ugarit, but in Bashan. From there, his influence spread not only to Ugarit, but also to *Phoenicia and *Israel. Phoen. inscriptions from *Umm el-Amed provide evidence, in the Hellenist. period, of the cult of the god M. [FIG. 103], whose temple was there, who was worshipped together with ASTARTE and the “Messenger of M.” (UeA 2; 3; 6; 13; 14). There are also references to M. on *Malta (4th cent. BCE), in *Carthage (CIS I, 250; 2785; 4839; 4850; 5675: 3rd-2nd cent. BCE), *Cádiz (KAI 71: 2nd cent. BCE) and *Leptis Magna (1st cent. BCE), where he is put on a par with Hercules and is mentioned – together with SHADRAPHA – as one of the two dei patrii of that town (rbt ᾿lpqy: IPT, 31, 1 = KAI 119). A king Og of Bashan is known in the *Old Testament, who resided in Ashtarot and Edrei as the last of the repha᾿im (→REPHAIM) and was defeated by Moses, when he conquered Transjordan (Gen 14,5; 15,20; Deut 1,4; 2,11.20; 3,1-13; Josh 12,4; 13,12; 17,5; 1Chr. 20,4). This is a late literary reflex of the LBA and Phoen.-Pun. cult of M.

Fig. 103. Sundial from Umm el-Amed with a dedication to Milkashtart

161

UeA, esp. 184-193; Caquot, A. (1965) Semitica, 15, 29-33; Wüst, M. (1975) Untersuchungen zu den siedlungs-geographischen Texten des Alten Testaments I: Ostjordanland. BTAVO B. 9. Wiesbaden, 25-57; Ribichini, S. (1976) RSO, 50, 43-55; Ribichini, S. and Xella, P. (1979) RSF, 7, 145-158; Kellermann, D. (1981) ZDPV, 97, 45-61; IPT, 75f.; del Olmo Lete, G. (1988) SEL, 5, 51-60; Pardee, D. (1988) A new datum for the meaning of the divine name Milkashart. In: Eslinger, L. and Taylor, G. (eds) Ascribe to the Lord. Biblical and other essays in memory of Peter C. Craigie. JSOTS 67. Sheffield, 55-68; Bordreuil, P. (1990) À propos de Milkou, Milkart et Milk῾ashtart. In: Cox, E. M. (ed.) Sopher Mahir. Northwest Semitic studies presented to Stanislav Segert. Maarav 5-6. Winona Lake (IN), 11-21; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1991) Or, 60, 82-91; DCPP, s.v. (C. Bonnet – E. Lipiński); Lipiński, E. (1995) 271-274; Niehr, H. (1998) UF, 30, 569-585; id. (2016) Ahnen und Ahnenkult in den Königsepen aus Ugarit. In: Hiepel, L. and Wacker, M.-Th. (eds) Zwischen Zion und Zaphon. Studien im Gedenken an den Theologen Oswald Loretz (14.01.1928-12.04.2014). AOAT 438. Münster, 379-400; id. (2017) Die rapi’ūma/repha’îm als konstitutives Element der westsemitischen Königsideologie. Herkunft – Rezeptionsgeschichte – Ende. In: Jonker, L. C. et al. (eds) Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016. VTS 177. Leiden/Boston, 143-178. H. NIEHR

MILKU W Sem. DN; etymologically “king”, even though the exact relationship with malku/malik is uncertain. This is why some scholars have considered M. to be a S Sem. dialectal variant of malku. A god Milku is known in *Ugarit, whose temple was in Ashtartu in Bashan (KTU3 1.100,41; 1.107,42; 4.790,17; RS 86.2235,17’). Through Bashan, the seat of the god Rapi᾿u, M. also acquired an underworld connotation. The cult of the god M. in Ugarit is due to the ruler Yaqaru (ca 1440-1420 BCE), who came from Bashan and founded the last dynasty of Ugarit. The god M. is a deified ancestor of the dynasty, who has the function of protecting the living and dead kings of the dynasty (→REPHAIM). A god called M. is also mentioned in an Anat. ritual from *Emar (VI.3,472,62’). In the *El-Amarna letters, the names (mostly of kings) Abimilku (EA 146-155) (*Abimilk [1]), Abdimilku (EA 123: [→*Abdimilk (9)]; 203), Ilimilku (EA 151,45) and Milkilu (EA 249-250; 254; 267; 269-271; 273; 287; 289-290; cf. the variant Ilimilku in EA 286), are proof of the adoption and continuation of the royal ideology of Bashan in Canaan (*Canaanites). In *Phoenicia in the I mill. BCE the following royal names occur: *Yahimilk (KAI 4,1; ca 970-950 BCE), *Urimilk I (ca 701 BCE), *Milkyasap (ca 673 BCE), *Urimilk II (5th cent. BCE), *Yehawmilk (KAI 10,1;

162

MILKU – MIN

ca 450 BCE), *Urimilk III from *Byblos (second half of the 4th cent. BCE), *Yatonmilk I from *Sidon (KAI 16; after 515 BCE), as well as *Milkiram/ Milkirom (8th cent. BCE) and Ozmilk (ca 349-333 BCE) from *Tyre (→*Az[z]imilk). They provide evidence for the continuation of the royal ideology that emerged from Bashan, which is also documented in LBA Canaan. The royal name *Iomilkos from *Delos (mid-4th cent. BCE) also belongs to the same context. In addition, inland from Tyre, there is evidence for the cult of the god MILKASHTART. This DN also clearly shows the connection of the *Netherworld god M. with his cult place in Bashan, as known from Ugarit. Only rarely does M. occur as a theophoric element in non-royal PNN, i.e. in the PN Ilimilku in Ugarit and Tyre in the LBA, and in the PN *Yadamilk in *Carthage. Here also the close relationship between the god M. und Phoen. royal ideology (→*Kingship) is once again evident. There is also evidence for the cult of the god in *Jerusalem. The vocalization as molek is based on a distortion practised by the Masoretes, which should evoke Hebr. bošet, “shame” (→*Molk). A connection of the god M. with royal ideology is no longer recognizable; instead, it is clear that M. was worshipped as a chthonian god (Lev 18,21; 20,2-5; 1 Kgs 11,7; 2 Kgs 23,10; Jer 32,35; Isa 57,9), whose connection with the netherworld, known from LBA Bashan, survives. However, there is no proof either of the practice of *Child sacrifice nor of a *Tophet in Jerusalem; rather, by means of such accusations, kings, especially Manasseh (696-642 BCE) were brought into disrepute (2 Kgs 21,1-16). Lemaire, A. (1976) Syria, 53, 83-93; Heider, G. C. (1985) The cult of Molek. A reassessment. JSOT SS 43. Sheffield; Arnaud, D. (1986) Recherches au Pays d’Aštata. Emar VI.3. Textes sumériens et accadiens. Paris, 458-465; del Olmo Lete, G. (1988) SEL, 5, 51-60; Day, J. (1989) Molech. A god of human sacrifice. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 41. Cambridge; DCPP, s.v. “Iomilkos” (E. Lipiński); s.v. “Milkirâm / Milkirôm” (E. Lipiński); s.v. “Milkyasap” (E. Lipiński); s.v. “Urumilk” (E. Lipiński); s.v. “Yahimilk” (J. Elayi); s.v. “Yatanmilk” (E. Lipiński); s.v. “Yehawmilk” (J. Elayi); Bordreuil, P. (1990) Maarav, 5/6, 11-21; Hess, R. S. (1993) Amarna personal names. Winona Lake (IN), 13f. and passim; Krebernik, M. (1987-1990) s.v. “Malik”. In: RlA 7, 305f.; DDD², s.v. “Malik”, 538-542 (H.-P. Müller); Smelik, K. A. D. (1995) SJOT, 9, 133-192; DDD², s.v. “Molech”, 581-585 (G. C. Heider); van Soldt, W. (2003) The vocalization of the Ugaritic word mlk “King” in Late Bronze Age syllabic texts from Syria and Palestine. In: Basten, M. F. J. and van Peursen, W. Th. (eds) Hamlet on a Hill. Semitic and Greek studies presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the occasion of his

sixty-fifth birthday. OLA 118. Leuven, 459-471; Stavrakopoulou, F. (2004) King Manasseh and child sacrifice: Biblical distortions of historical realities. BZAW 338. Berlin; ead. (2012-2013) SEL, 29-30, 137-157; Niehr, H. (2017) Die rapi᾿ūma/repha᾿îm als konstitutives Element der westsemitischen Königsideologie. Herkunft - Rezeptionsgeschichte - Ende. In: Jonker, L. C. et al. (eds) Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016. VTS 177. Leiden/Boston, 143-178. H. NIEHR

MIN Egypt. Mnw. An ancient Egypt. god associated with virility, sexual potency and fertility. He is traditionally depicted as a standing man holding his phallus with his left hand, while his right arm is raised above his shoulders [FIG. 104]. M. is linked to procreation, fecundity and post mortem rebirth. One of his main epithets, Kamutef (KꜢ-mwt-f), literally means “bull of his mother” and refers to the god’s divine power of cyclical selfregeneration by impregnating a goddess – ISIS, HATHOR, or Repit – who was both his consort and

Fig. 104. Wood statue of the god Min. Egypt (Ptolemaic Period)

163

MIN – MOCHOS

mother. Nevertheless, in both Egypt. and W Sem. traditions, the uplifted arm was considered as a distinctive trait of war deities (→SMITING GOD). It has been argued, therefore, that, besides fertility, the ithyphallic nature of M. could be interpreted as an intimidating gesture. M. was therefore not only the god of fertility and rebirth, but also a bellicose deity invoked to ward off dangers. The main symbols sacred to the god were: the atef-crown and the double plume crown – which, occasionally, were combined together – and the lettuce, considered as an aphrodisiac. The so-called Min-emblem is an obscure hieroglyphic sign, used to write the name of the god. It consists of a small disk flanked by two elongated semicircles and its actual meaning is still debated: lightning bolt; a tool used for *Circumcision; the bolt of a door (Goedicke [2002]). The typical iconography of M. finds significant precedents in the protohistoric phases, but a secure identification of those archaic ithyphallic figures with the god of the dynastic period cannot be proved with certainty. With the rise of the pharaonic state, M. played a prominent role within royal ideology. Like other fertility deities, he was associated with agricultural productivity and the supply of goods for the crown. M. was thus considered as a mediator between the central administration and the various regional territories, acting as patron god of the economic exchanges between them. This role entailed also an additional function related to trade with foreign lands. One of the epithets attributed to M. was “Lord of the Eastern Desert” and, in this guise, he was the divine protector of the caravans involved in the import of exotic luxury goods. One of his main cult places, Coptos, was located near Wadi Hammamat, a crucial hub for ancient trade routes to the Red Sea, and from there to Punt (Eritrea or South Arabia) and India. It was probably because of this strong connection with foreign lands in the East that M. was often depicted and worshipped together with certain Levantine deities, such as R ESHEPH , Qadeshet (→QUDSHU), or ANAT. By the MK M. was associated with several gods, such as OSIRIS, HORUS and PTAH. Starting from the NK, he was assimilated to AMON and the two gods were often worshipped as a single entity called Amon-Min, who was considered the primaeval creator god of the cosmos. By the Graeco-Rom. period, M. was identified with both Pan and Priapus. [R.S.]

The god M. is not mentioned directly in the Phoen. and Pun. world, but perhaps he appears in a PN from *Elephantine (Lidzbarski [1912] 15c: ᾿ḥmn “Brother of M.” or “M. is brother”; however, the alleged PN grmn in RÉS 2009 must probably be read grš/kn). [P.X.] Lidzbarski, M. (1912) Phönizische und aramäische Krugaufschriften aus Elephantine. Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin; PNPPI, 349; Ogdon, J. (1986-1987) BES, 7, 29-42; Wiekinson, R. H. (1991/1992) BES, 11, 109-118; McFarlane, A. (1995) The god Min to the end of the Old Kingdom. Australian Centre for Egyptology: Studies 3. Sydney; Romanosky, E. (2001) s.v. In: The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford, 413-415; Goedicke, H. (2002) MDAIK, 58, 247-255; Grzybek, E. (2002) Coptos et la route maritime des Indes. In: Boussac, M.-F. (ed.) Autour de Coptos: Actes du Colloque organisé au Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon (17-18 mars 2000). Lyon, 337-347; Hense, M., Kaper, O. E. and Geerts, R. C. A. (2014) BiOr, 72, 586-602; Kitat, S. (2018) GM, 256, 115-124. R. SCHIAVO – P. XELLA

Miskar see HOTER MASKIR/MISKAR Misor see SYDYK & MISOR MOCHOS Gk Μώχος. A wise man and a writer associated with Phoen. antiquities and cosmogony/theogony (→Myth & mythology). M.’s name does not appear in the fragments of the Phoenician History as a source for PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790), but he is mentioned together with SANCHOUNIATHON by Athenaeus (2nd cent. CE) as “one of those who wrote Phoenician histories” (Athen. 3,100 [126] = Philo in BNJ fr. 790a = Mochos-Laitos in BNJ 784 fr. 3b). Athenaeus’ passage might imply that he was associated with *Tyre in particular, but the reference there (as sharing a homeland with *Ulpianus of Tyre) can refer to *Phoenicia in general. Also in the 2nd cent. CE Tatianus mentions M. as a writer of Phoen. antiquities (Oratio ad Graecos 37 = BNJ 784 T1). There he is grouped with two others, Theodotos and Hypsicrates, and is said to have been translated by Laitos, an author about whom we have no solid information, but who probably wrote in the 2nd cent. BCE about the lives of philosophers. The other two are otherwise

164

MOCHOS – MOUTH/MOT

unknown. He is also associated with Laitos in other fragments (BNJ 784 fr. 1a in Tatianus; fr. 1b apud Clem. Al. 1,21.114,2). Still other fragments, however, mention M. and Laitos separately (Laitos: BNJ 784 frs 7 and 8; Mochos: BNJ 790 frs 2, 3a, 3b, 4). M., like Sanchouniathon, is generally situated in the LBA, in a remote time expressed in Gk terms as happening before the Trojan War (BNJ 784 frs 6 and 3b), or else in the archaic period before Pythagoras (BNJ 784 fr. 5). M. shares with Sanchouniathon a non-Gk name, most probably Sem. although with no direct parallel (but cf. biblical Ma῾ôch in 1 Sam 27,2, Ma῾achah in 1 Kgs 2,39). Some testimonia and fragments (BNJ 784 T1 and frs 1a? and 1b, BNJ 790 fr. 3a) seem to conflate M. with his transmitter/translator Laitos or with other Hellenist.-period writers, including Menandros of Pergamon, Berossus and Manetho (BNJ 784 fr. 3a in Joseph. AJ 1,107). In some of the fragments, M. is grouped with religious figures of “barbarian” cultures, such as the Pers. Magoi, the Thracian Zalmoxis, and the Lib. called ATLAS, legendary figures associated with the “Oriental wisdom” that foreshadowed Gk philosophy (BNJ 784 fr. 2 = Diog. Laer. 1,1). Along the same lines, M. appears as a “physiologist prophet” and one of the “Phoenician hierophants” from whom Pythagoras learned his wisdom when he was “initiated into all the mysteries of Byblos and Tyre” (Jambl. VP 13 = BNJ 784 fr. 5). Finally, Damascius reports a cosmogony from “the mythology of the Phoenicians, according to Mochos”, in the same passage where he reports a Sidonian cosmogonic tradition (Dam. Pr. 125c [I p. 323 Ruelle] = BNJ 784 fr. 4). Mochos’ Phoen. cosmogony included a first principle of Aether and Air, from whom an intelligible god Oulomos was born, and from him, Chousoros, “the opener” (→KOSHAR/KOTHARU), and then an egg. From the two halves of the egg the Earth and Sky emerge (Ouranos and GE). This cosmogony overlaps with Philo’s in some principles, such as the existence of Air at the very beginning (Dark Air in Philo), the idea of the cosmic egg (Heaven and Earth also follow but after other entities), and a time-related entity, Oulomos in Mochos, AION in Philo. Both Oulomos (Οὐλωμός) and Chousoros (Χουσωρός) in Mochos’ cosmogony are transliterations of Phoen. names: ῾ulom meaning “remote time, eternity, ancient” (cf. Hebr. ῾ôlâm, an epithet of EL), and chousor as a development of the Canaanite craftsman known in Ug. myth as Kothar-wa-Hasis. Chousor

(Χουσώρ) is mentioned by Philo of Byblos (cf. PE 1,10,11), as one of the first inventors associated with iron work and also with spells and prophecies, and correctly equated with Hephaestus (see BNJ 784). Some of these motifs, especially the role of Time and the egg, show the intersection between Gk (Hesiodic, Orphic) cosmogonies and Phoen. traditions. West, M. L. (1971) Early Greek philosophy and the Orient. Oxford; Stern, M. (1974) Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism: Edited with introductions, translations and commentary 1: From Herodotus to Plutarch. Jerusalem; Brisson, L. (1991) Damascius et l’Orphism. In: Borgeaud, P. (ed.) Orphisme et Orphée, en l’honneur de Jean Rudhard. Geneva, 157-209; Westerink, L. G. and Combès, J. (1991) Damascius, Traité des Premiers Principes 3. Paris; West, M. L. (1994) CQ, 44, 289307; Burkert, W. (2004) Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern contexts of Greek culture. Cambridge (MA)/London; Riedweg, Ch. (2005) Pythagoras: His life, teaching, and influence. Ithaca/ London, esp. 5-8.25f.; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790; BNJ 784 “MochosLaitos” (C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline. com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/laitos-mochos-784; López-Ruiz, C. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA), esp. 130-170. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Mot see MOUTH/MOT MOUTH/MOT Gk Μούθ. The name comes from the Sem. root mwt, “death”, “to die”. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790) M. is a son of CRONUS and RHEA, whom Cronus deified when the child died (apud Eus. PE 1,10,34 = BNJ fr. 2) immediately after birth, if he is the same child mentioned in PE 1,10,24. This passage contrasts with the immediately preceding mention of Cronus immolating his only son, a different child (cf. also the sacrifice of IEOUD in PE 1,10,44). Philo also notes that the *Phoenicians called him Thanatos or Plouton, which indicates his chthonian nature and strongly suggests that he should be identified with the Mot of the mythological and ritual texts from *Ugarit, in which he appears as the personification of death, and fights against BAAL to contest his dominion over the cosmos and the creatures in it. It is less clear whether this is the same being as Mot (Gk Μώτ), who appears earlier in the cosmogonic

MOUTH/MOT – MYTH & MYTHOLOGY

section of the Phoenician History (PE 1,10,1-2 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). This Mot has a different genealogy: it originates among the very first elements out of POTHOS (“Desire”) and Wind. Moreover, Mot has a different, primordial function in Philo’s cosmogony or its source: it is a generative substance from which all other creatures come to life, and which Philo interprets as mud or liquid putrefaction, and is said to have the shape of an egg and to have a splendour like the sun and the stars. The pagan idea that humans were “children of putrefaction” is mentioned by Christian authors as late as the 9th cent. CE (Phot. Homil. 9,6, surely through Eusebius). It is most likely that both the name and function of Mot derive from Egypt. cosmogony, as mꜢwt is the word for the fertile earth that emerges from the Nile flood, and the Hermopolitan cosmogony has Nun or the primordial waters as the source of life and of the Ogdoad of gods, who become creators and generators of light. If this comparison is correct, the symbolism of the primordial cosmic egg and the connection with the damp earth would reveal an Egypt. component that cannot be ignored in the cosmogonic content of Philo’s works. Other similarities between these cosmogonies, such as the idea of an egg, are shared by other Phoen. cosmogonies and support the Egypt. connection for Mot. The name Mouth is also associated with ISIS (Plut. De. Is. et Os. 38). It may be that the Canaanite death god Mot is derived from the Egypt. cosmogonic concept (his abode is decaying in the Ug. poem), but that the two (Mouth and Mot) followed separate mythological-cosmogonic traditions. Troiani, L. (1974) L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa, passim; Oden, R. A. (1978) PEQ, 110, 115-126; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 40f.; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 37; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 111ff.115ff. and passim; Garbini, G. (1982) La Cosmogonia fenicia e il primo capitolo della Genesi. In: Di Gennaro, G. (ed.) Il cosmo nella Bibbia. Naples, 127-148; DCPP, s.v. Môt (P. Xella); West, M. L. (1994) RECQ, 44.2, 289-307; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790a790; BNJ 784 “Mochos-Laitos” (C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http:// referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/laitosmochos-784; Efthymiadis, S. and López-Ruiz, C. (2014) Byzantion, 84, 165-169. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ – P. XELLA

165

Myrrha see ADONIS; CINYRAS MYTH & MYTHOLOGY Unlike the situation for Gk and Rom. cultures, we lack any direct textual transmission of Phoen. literature. But such literature did exist, as did oral mythology, since some Graeco-Rom. writers quote or mention Phoen. texts and sometimes transmit or explain versions of Phoen. stories. Through archaeology and inscriptions we also gain some partial knowledge of Phoen. religion and ritual (→*Cult; →*Rite), but we do not have their native narratives about gods, heroes and foundations, or what we may call myth. The genres of cosmogony-theogony, first inventors (or culture heroes), and foundation stories are the best represented across the fragmentary testimonies recovered from class. sources. From Phoen. religion and funerary practices and symbols we can even tease out Phoen. afterlife beliefs (→*Funerary world), which may also have been accompanied by mythological stories. A number of Phoen. cosmogonies are transmitted in a series of late class. texts, which shows that the *Phoenicians cultivated mythical narratives about world origins, even if we only have access to late versions. In the case of PHILO OF BYBLOS (2nd cent. CE; FGrHist 790), the beginning of his Phoenician History contains an account of origins, first inventors, and the birth and succession of gods (theogony), as part of a Euhemerized narrative (→*Euhemerism) of Phoen. history from the origins of the world. The text is only fragmentary and is transmitted indirectly by Eusebius of Caesarea (4th cent. CE) in his Praeparatio Evangelica (1,9,23-1,10,31), through excerpts in Porphyry (3rd cent. CE), who had in turn excerpted Philo. Both Eusebius and Porphyry are interested in pagan religious accounts for different reasons (Christian apologetics and philosophical enquiry, respectively). Euhemerism was a trend that began most intensely in the Hellenist. period, named after Euhemerus of Messene, who in his work The sacred inscription (only fragments are preserved) interpreted the gods as divinized people. Philo uses this rationalizing method to show that Gk mythology distorted older and more accurate accounts of cosmic origins and the gods through the introduction of allegorical readings and the use of myths in mysteries, while Phoenicians and Egyptians were the pioneers in this sort of enquiry and had more accurate knowledge.

166

MYTH & MYTHOLOGY

Besides Philo’s cosmogony, Damascius cites two others, one allegedly Sidonian and the other by MOCHOS, a wise man mentioned by several late authors who transmit Phoen. history. The basic features in these reports are: the primordial place of air or mist (dark air in Philo), the importance of a time entity (Chronos [→CRONUS], AION or Oulomos), and the idea of a cosmic generative egg every year. Some of these features are shared by Orphic cosmogonies, i.e. Gk cosmogonies attributed to Orpheus transmitted also in fragments by other authors, and usually associated with mystery cults such as the Dionysiac and Eleusinian sects. Philo’s account also contains elements of “mainstream” (i.e. Hesiodic) cosmogony and theogony, such as an initial Chaos, and the succession of Heaven and Earth, Cronus (Elos), and Zeus, akin to the classical succession scheme. However, a large number of Levantine characters appear with Sem. names transliterated and adapted into Greek, sometimes translated or glossed (e.g. Dagon [→DAGAN], DEMAROUS, ZOPHASEMIN, ELIOUN, BELOS, Elos [→EL], ASTARTE, Chousor [→KOSHAR]), and frequent equivalences are drawn between these entities and the Gk ones (e.g. Elos = Cronus, Belos = Zeus, Chousor = Ephaestus, TAAUTOS [Thoth] = Hermes). Sometimes these characters are as old as divine titles or hypostases in Ug. texts (e.g. Philo’s Demarous = Ug. Dmrn; Philo’s seven daughters of El = Ug. Kotharatu?). The unique narrative elements of some parts of the account (e.g. the fight between BAAL and the Sea (→YAM), the sacrifice of a first born by Cronus, the role of Astarte and Baal as joint rulers under Cronus) also leave no doubt that the Phoenicians of Philo’s time had inherited earlier NW Sem. narratives. This is not surprising as Phoen. religion presents strong continuities with Canaanite culture (→*Canaanites), maintaining some BA institutions and deities (e.g. *Polytheism, funerary stelae, ritual banquets or *Marzeah, the importance of Baal and versions of a fertility goddess), even to a greater degree than their monotheistic neighbours the Hebrews. Egypt. influences are also strong in Phoen. cosmogonic fragments, as in Phoen. culture in general, including the cosmic egg, which finds a parallel in the Hermopolitan cosmogony (see also PHILO OF BYBLOS, and MOCHOS, and also AION, BELOS, CNEPH, Elioun, EROS, MOUTH, SAMEMROUMOS & HYPSOURANIOS, OUSOOS, POTHOS). Philo’s account of “first inventors” in his Phoenician History was a tool for a Euhemeristic interpretation

of the mythical past, as the gods could be historicized as human culture heroes who were later divinized. These first inventors (protoi heuretai) became popular in Hellenist. scholarship (see Diod. 1,15ff.). This model had its roots in a much older tradition of culture heroes in the Ancient Near East (e.g. Adapa and Theogony of Dunnu in Mesopotamia, and in the Hebrew Bible Cain and Abel, Noah, Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain, all in Genesis). It is possible that the Phoenicians/Carthaginians independently engaged with this type of figure and with a rationalizing mode of divine interpretation, before or in tandem with Hellenist. influences. By the Hellenist. period, Gk euergetai, Rom. leaders, and Carthag. generals (the *Barcids) were using propaganda with Euhemeristic overtones, as they competed for the use of Hercules/Heracles-MELQART and other divinities (e.g. Ammon, BAAL HAMMON) as culture heroes, on which they modelled their leadership, as the Ass. kings had already done with respect to Marduk. Foundation stories of three main Phoen. cities, *Tyre, *Carthage and Gadir (*Cádiz) have reached us only through Graeco-Rom. sources, such as Virgil, Strabo, Pompeius Trogus (via Justin), and Nonnus. In his epic poem Dionysiaca, Nonnus of Panopolis (5th cent. CE) says that the foundation of the city of Tyre (D. 40,423-538) occurred when the god DIONYSUS (Bacchus) asked Heracles about the origins of the city. Heracles, who represents the founding godking Melqart, provides a unique account which, late and distorted as it is, contains elements of an old Phoen. tradition. The story makes the Tyrians autochthonous, emerging from the muddy soil, and “agemates” of Aion, the “Eternal” god. They are the ones who built the city upon rocky foundations. As they bask on the rock under the sun, Heracles (Melqart) himself wakes them (cf. the ZOPHASEMIN in Philo of Byblos, the first intelligent beings who also emerged from mud and were awoken by thunder). Heracles first teaches them to build a sailing boat and orders them to find the floating Ambrosial Rocks (→AMBROSIAI PETRAI), on which they must establish the sacred foundation of Tyre. On one of the islands an olive tree glows with a non-consuming fire, and a serpent and an eagle are in a permanent stand-off, while a bowl balances at the top of the tree amidst branches shaken by the winds. After sacrificing the eagle to the gods (POSEIDON, Zeus, and “the Blessed”), the two rocks were to become fixed as the foundations of the city’s two parts (the mainland and the island).

MYTH & MYTHOLOGY

In another account by Philo of Byblos, the city was settled by two brothers, Samemroumos (or “High-inHeaven”) and Ousoos. They were children of “Genos” and “Generation”, who initially settle *Phoenicia, and who, in turn, descend from Aion (“Time Eternal”) and Protogonos (“First-Born”). The two accounts are different but share variations on the ideas of autochthony (including the generative mud), the invention of sailing, the worship of stelae, and the central role of a tree and fire. A time deity (Aion, Oulomos), appears in both foundation stories and is common in Phoen. cosmogonies. The digression on how Heracles instructed the Tyrians to build the first ships agrees with the Phoenicians’ fame as sailors, and ties in with the mythological traditions of “first inventors” (see above). The “AMBROSIAI P ETRAI ” also recall the importance of baetyls (→BAETYL), pillars, and stelae in the Phoen. cultic repertoire (e.g. Hdt. 2,44 on the two stelae in the temple of Heracles in Tyre). Also in the 3rd cent. CE, the Ambrosial Rocks and an olive tree were depicted on Tyrian coins. It is possible that the famous “PILLARS OF HERCULES” associated with Gadir, its famous Heracles-Melqart temple, and the Straits of Gibraltar symbolically mirrored Tyre and its two sacred rocks at the other end of the Mediterranean. The issue of an oracle given by Heracles-Melqart is also a feature of the foundation of Gadir, the main Tyrian enclave on the Atlantic coast of southwest. Spain. According to Strabo (3,5,5), the Tyrians made three failed attempts to found a city since the sacrifices to the god were not propitious, until they discovered the site of Gadir and established the temple of Melqart (also known as a Heracleion). The temple was a centre of regional pride, and in Rom. times the bones of the god were thought to be kept there (P. Mela 3,46; cf. Diod. 5,20,1-3 for the Phoen. character of the temple; on Heracles-Melqart see below). A more famous foundation story concerns Carthage, another Tyrian foundation, preserved in two Augustan-era sources: Virgil (70-19 BCE) and Trogus (1st cent. BCE-1st cent. CE), through Justin’s Epitome of Trogus’ Philippic Histories (Just. 18,4-6). According to Trogus, the “New Town” (QartHadasht) was founded by a contingent of self-exiled Tyrians led by ELISSA, sister of the abusive king PYGMALION, who had killed her husband *Acherbas, priest of Heracles (i.e. Melqart), for his riches. Accompanied by her retinue, she fled to *Cyprus, where she received support from the local priest of

167

Jupiter (= Zeus, Baal), who joined the expedition with eight sacred prostitutes of Venus (= Astarte). As the gods foresee the success of the new foundation, they prevent the king Pygmalion from pursuing his sister. Elissa settles on the Byrsa hill, tricking the natives into allowing her to acquire the land covered by an ox-hide, which the Tyrians cut into thin strips. Pressured by the local king *Hiarbas (1) to marry him, Elissa commits suicide on a pyre, to join her dead husband in the afterlife. In a more compact version of the same story, Virgil makes the goddess Venus in disguise tell A ENEAS (her son) about Carthage’s beginnings. He had arrived in the city while it was under construction, after fleeing from fallen Troy (A. 1,418-457). The poet adjusted the foundation story to make the queen (here called Dido) fall in love with Aeneas and burn herself on the pyre out of heartbreak when the Trojan hero abandons her to pursue his destiny in Italy. The Tyrian plot is the same, with name differences (Elissa is Dido and her husband ACHERBAS is *Sychaeus), and the omission of the Cyprus episode (there is only mention of “allies in exile”). Although we do not know their sources, Trogus (a Celtic-Rom.) wrote about the west. empire under Augustus, based on Gk sources (e.g. Theopompus, Ephorus, Timaeus, Polybius, Posidonius) who transmitted earlier information about west. Medit. regions, including predominantly Phoen. areas in North Africa, *Sicily and Iberia. Indeed, the rendezvous on Cyprus, sacred prostitution (*Prostitution, sacred), the priestly order, the (self-) immolation by fire, and the names (PYGMALION = Pumayyaton, Elissa = Elisha/Alashya, Acherbas = *Zakarbaal) mentioned do sound Phoen.-Carthag. They also partly agree with the Annals of Tyre, which record a king Pygmalion (who reigned for 47 years) whose sister (Elissa?) left early in his reign and founded the colony in 814 BCE (according to Menander of Ephesus, as transmitted by Joseph. Ap. 1,17,125). Yet another version by the 4th cent. BCE Sicilian historian Philistus reportedly had Azoros and CARCHEDON as founders of the North African city (eponymous founders of ṣor/ṣur (ṣr) [“rock”]/Tyre, and Qart-Hadasht/Carthage). Trogus-Justin is also the source for a myth from *Tartessos in SW Iberia: the story of Gargoris and Habis. This myth stems from a local foundation story, mixed with Gk and Phoen. features, seemingly told in a Euhemeristic fashion (the kings of the story may have been gods in the original tradition). In a pattern not unlike the

168

MYTH & MYTHOLOGY

Phoenician History by Philo, the Iberian story starts as a sort of succession myth with heroic tropes, then includes an account of first inventions, and the narrative then transitions from myth to historical times through the legendary figures of Geryon and Heracles, culminating with the Carthag. invasion of Iberia (Just. 44,4.1-14). The story of the PHILAENI provides yet another example of a Carthag. myth filtered through Gk and Rom. lenses (Sall. Jug. 79). Yet it is difficult to tease out which Phoen. elements, if any, underlie other Gk or Rom. myths, for instance the saga of CADMUS and EUROPA from Tyre, whose names are possibly Phoen., from qdm and ῾rb, “east/ancient” and “west/evening” (first mentioned as a Tyrian in Hdt. 2,49). This story became emblematic in Phoenicia itself by Rom. times (where Europa on the bull appears in local coins), reflecting the complex, sometimes circular, relationship between Phoenicians and Greeks since the early I mill. Other Gk mythical sagas probably tied to Phoen. figures and their stories are those of Danaos, several PHOENIX characters, and probably Melicertes and Palaimon, as well as others indicating Cyprus as an important middle ground for Gk and Phoen. cultures (e.g. CINYRAS, father of Myrrha and ADONIS, and Aphrodite herself). Early on, the Greeks acknowledged the overlap between their own deities and those from the Levant and Egypt, often resulting in *Interpretatio being applied. Already Herodotus drew direct equivalences between several of the gods (2,43-64): most relevant for the Phoen. case is the overlap between Heracles and Melqart, which he conceived as two Heracleis, a man/hero and a god, corresponding to the “Greek” and the “Egyptian”, whose cult was imported into Greece from Tyre (Hdt. 2,43f., cf. Diod. 1,24,1-4); and between Aphrodite and the Syro-Phoen. love goddess “Aphrodite Ourania (“Heavenly”)” (i.e. Astarte), brought by the Levantines to Cyprus and then to Greece (Hdt. 1,105,3). The similarities between the Gk Heracles and the attributes and stories associated with other Near Eastern characters includes the likes of Gilgamesh, Marduk and NERGAL, a Mesop. god of the *Netherworld (portrayed with a lion, a bow and a club). In turn, Heracles’ role as archegetes (founder of cities), the fact that he brings civilization to the Mediterranean, as well as his relationship to the Netherworld (he travels there twice in his labours, and personally undergoes death and rebirth) are attributes that he shares with

Melqart. An exceptional example of this complex fabric of Gk and Phoen. myths and its survival in the Rom. Levant is in a Syriac account attributed to bishop Meliton of Sardis (2nd cent. CE). Preserving an Aramaean tradition, the Syriac text (in the Hebr. script) demonstrates the survival of old Phoen. figures from the *Byblos-Cyprus axis (Kothar, Balthi/Baalat, i.e. the Lady of Byblos, and Tammuz), all the while integrating Gk Ares and Hephaistos in a mangled version of Aphrodite’s love affairs. Finally, we can only hypothesize that mythical narratives complemented the world of Phoen. ritual. For instance, the egersis or ritual of “awakening” the god Melqart (Joseph. AJ 8,5,3, Ap. 1,118-119; perhaps 1 Kgs 18,27; cf. Eudoxus fr. 284b; Paus. 10,4,6) suggests the Phoenicians shared the broader idea of “DYING AND RISING GOD(S)”. This pattern serves as the backbone for numerous stories usually associated with agricultural and human life-death cycles (cf. Gk Persephone, Anat. Telepinu, ATTIS, Syr. Adonis, Mesop. Dumuzi and Ishtar). Strong belief in an afterlife is also evident from the abundant use of *Amulets and inscribed lamellae deposited in burials, that had been used in life. The deposit of *Ostrich eggs and the recurrence of the goddesses Astarte, ISIS, HATHOR and Sekhmet and their symbols (e.g. lotus flowers) on funerary objects, as well as protective formulae on inscribed amulets and some scenes in painted tombs, reveal a strong Egypt. influence and a complex afterlife universe, which most likely also was informed by a mythological apparatus (→*Funerary world). In general, due to their close encounters with the Greeks through centuries of Gk mythological and literary formation, the Phoenicians occupied a unique position in the transmission of Mesop., Egypt. and other Near Eastern mythological traditions that are better known through Gk and Rom. adaptations from the archaic period onwards. Astour, M. (19672) Hellenosemitica: An ethnic and cultural study in West Semitic impact on Mycenaean Greece. Leiden; Troiani, L. (1974) L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa; Edwards, R. (1979) Kadmos the Phoenician: A study in Greek legend and the Mycenaean Age. Amsterdam; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC); Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden; Burkert, W. (1985) Greek religion. Cambridge (MA); Bonnet, C. (1988); Gantz, T. (1993) Early Greek myth. Baltimore (MD);

MYTH & MYTHOLOGY

West, M. L. (1994) RECQ, 44, 289-307; id. (1997) The East face of Helicon: West Asiatic elements in Greek myth and poetry. Oxford; Rocchi, M., Ribichini, S. and Xella, P. (eds) (2001) La questione delle influenze vicino-orientali sulla religione greca. Stato degli studi e prospettive della ricerca. Atti del Colloquio internazionale di studi (Roma, 20-22 maggio 1999). Rome; Smith, M. S. (20022) The early history of God: Yahweh and the other deities of Ancient Israel. San Francisco; Frendo, A. J., de Trafford, A. and Vella, N. C. (2005) Water journeys of the Dead: a glimpse into Phoenician and Punic eschatology. In: APC 5.I, 427-443; Stager, J. M. (2005) Hesperia, 74, 427-449; LópezRuiz, C. (2006) JANER, 6, 71-104; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis and C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks. brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790; BNJ 784 “Mochos-Laitos” (C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/laitos-mochos-784; BNJ 788 “Klaudios Iolaos(?)” (C. López-Ruiz, 20192) http:// referenceworks.brillonline.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/ entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/klaudios-iolaos-788-a788; ead. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA); Van Rompay, L. (2011) Meliton the Philosopher. In: Brock, S. P. et al. (eds) The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Piscataway (NJ), 284f.; Graf, F. and Johnston, S. I. (20132) Ritual texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets. London/New York; Winiarczyk,

169

M. (2013) The “Sacred History” of Euhemerus of Messene. Transl. by W. Zbirohowski-Kośeia. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 312. Berlin/New York; Álvarez Martí-Aguilar, M. (2014) AEA, 87, 21-40; Efthymiadis, S. and López-Ruiz, C. (2014) Byzantion, 84, 165-169; López-Ruiz, C. (20142) Greek and Near Eastern mythology: A story of Mediterranean encounters. In: Edmunds, L. (ed.) Approaches to Greek mythology (2nd revised edition). Baltimore, 154-199; Quinn, J. C. (2014) A Carthaginian perspective on the Altars of the Philaeni. In: Quinn, J. C. and Vella, N. (eds) The Punic Mediterranean: Identities and identification from Phoenician settlement to Roman rule. Cambridge, 169-179; Bonnet, C. (2015) Les enfants de Cadmos. Le paysage religieux de la Phénicie hellénistique. Paris; López-Ruiz, C. (2015) JANER, 15, 52-91; Whitmarsh, T. (2015) Battling the gods: Atheism in the Ancient World. New York; López-Ruiz, C. (2017) Gods, heroes, and monsters: A sourcebook of Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern myths in translation. Oxford/New York; ead. (2017) Phoenix, 71, 265-287; ead. (2017) “Not that which can be found among the Greeks”: Philo of Byblos and Phoenician cultural identity in the Roman East. In: The revival or reinvention of non-Roman religion under Roman imperial rule. RRE, 3.3, 366-392 (special issue, Ando, C. and Faraone, C. [eds]). C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

N Neptunus see PONTOS; POSEIDON NEREUS Gk Νηρεύς. A primordial sea god in class. mythology, N. is mentioned in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHIst 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,26) alongside TYPHON and PONTOS. Unlike Hesiod (Th. 233ff.), who says that he is the son of Pontos and the father of the Nereids, Philo considers him to be the father of Pontos and the son of BELOS. Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 90; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 207. S. RIBICHINI

NERGAL The Bab. god of the *Netherworld occurs in a Phoen./Gk bilingual document from the 3rd cent. BCE, found at Piraeus (*Athens) (CIS I, 119 = KAI 59; cf. IG II/2 10271). It is an epitaph (→*Funerary world) for a Sidonian woman called ᾿spt (→*Asept), whose name (Ἄσεπτ in Greek) occurs only here. The votive monument in question was erected by a certain *Yatonbaal (ytnbl), who has the title rb khnm ᾿lm nrgl, “Head of the priests of the god N.” (the hypothesis that here ᾿lm is a dual and that N. is a “double” deity [→DOUBLE DEITIES] – proposed by S. M. Chiodi [1998] – is totally unfounded). As W. Röllig had previously suggested, it is likely that this cult was imported from Kutha, a city sacred to the Bab. god, who had already penetrated *Syria and *Palestine (on the *Assyrians as besieging *Samaria see 2 Kgs 17,24.30), and then had spread to Greece (*Greek Mainland). In the light of all this, it is plausible that the name of the dedicator is a

theophoric name containing Bel, which would fit in with the cultic background (Bel is one of the most popular gods in *Palmyra), rather than the hypothesis of a mistake (the absence of an ῾ayin) suggesting the presence of BAAL in the name. There is no convincing evidence for an assimilation of N. to →MELQART, or for any involvement of that Tyrian god in this case. A PN [῾bd ?]nrgl is attested in an inscription from Tyre. KAI II, 72f. (W. Röllig); von Weiher, E. (1971) Der babylonische Gott Nergal. AOAT 11. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, passim; PNPPI, 272; Bonnet, C. (1988) 148-150; Bordreuil, P. (1995) Nouvelles inscriptions phéniciennes de la côte de la Phénicie. In: APC 3.I, 187-190 (no. 1); Lipiński, E. (1995) 242f.; Chiodi, S. M. (1998) RSF, 16, 13-20; DDD2, s.v., 621f. (A. Livingstone). P. XELLA

Norax see IOLAOS NOTUS Gk Νότος. God of the South wind, the son of Eos (the Dawn). In class. mythology N. is characterized as a harmful and humid wind. He is mentioned among the protagonists of the Cosmogony (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY) in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,6), together with BOREAS, the god of the North wind. Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 80-82; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 86.88; Coppola, D. (2010) Anemoi. Morfologia dei venti nell’immaginario della Grecia arcaica. Naples, 45f. S. RIBICHINI

Nutrix see CAELESTIS

O Omichles see MYTH &

OSIRIS

MYTHOLOGY

OPHIONEUS Gk Ὀφιονεύς (Ὀφίονος). In PHILO OF BYBLOS’ Phoenician History (FGrHist 790), O. is a character that the pre-Socratic mythographer-philosopher Pherecydes Sirius dealt with in his engagement with Phoen. cosmogonic/theogonic materials (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY). Both the name (from Gk ὄφιϛ, “snake”) and the context make this a serpent-like entity connected with cosmology. The Ophionidai mentioned there are presumably his descendants (→TITANIDS). He appears in a fragment sometimes labelled by scholars “On Snakes” (apud Eus. PE 1,10,50 = BNJ fr. 4), but introduced by Eusebius/Porphyry as part of SANCHOUNIATHON’s document on “Phoenician letters” (περὶ τῶν Φοινίκων Στοιχείων). Other snake-related entities and their divine qualities are mentioned in this fragment, but their relationship with O. is not clear. These are the Ἀγαθὸϛ Δαίμων (PE 1,10,48 and 51), i.e. “benevolent demon/spirit” (→AGATHODAIMON), and CNEPH, both belonging to the Graeco-Egypt. realm (→EPEEIS). An allusion to further discussion indicates that Philo dealt with these characters at greater length in passages we do not have. That Pherecydes would be a source for Gk knowledge about Phoen. cosmogony is not surprising, as he was believed by ancient writers to have accessed “the revelations of Ham” or the “secret books of the Phoenicians” (West [1971] 1-75; Schibli [1990]). He also commented on a battle between CRONUS and Ophioneus (Orig. Cels. 6,42). More generally, in Gk mythic tradition, O. was a Titan who was the first to rule on Olympus (Ap. Rhod. A. 1,530ff.). West, M. L. (1971) Early Greek philosophy and the Orient. Oxford; Attridge, W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 67; Schibli, H. S. (1990) Pherekydes of Syros. Oxford; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks. brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Ops see CAELESTIS

Egypt. wsir; Phoen. ᾿sr; Aram. ᾿wsry; Gk Ὀσίρις, Ὀυσείρις, Ὀυσίρος. Egypt. god of the afterlife, generally portrayed in the shape of a mummy. He is wearing the White Crown (Upper Egypt) or the atef-Crown, holding the heqa-sceptre and the nekhekh-sceptre. Both these sceptres, of uncertain origin, are royal attributes and have been connected with shepherding. The origin of the spelling of his name is disputed, although the presence of the hieroglyph of a throne shows O.’s connection with *Kingship. He forms part of the Ennead of *Heliopolis, together with his sister-wife ISIS and the other couple, Seth and Nephty. His myth, widely documented in the Egypt. sources, has been transmitted to us by Plutarch in systematic form (De Iside et Osiride). A just and civilizing king and the husband of his sister Isis, O. was tricked by his brother Seth who, having invited him to a banquet, set a trap by making him go into a chest that was thrown into the waters and even reached the sea, stopping at *Byblos; there, around the coffin, an extremely beautiful bush grew up that was then cut by the king of Byblos to make a pillar for his own house. Isis, in search of her husband, reached Byblos; there she was called by queen ASTARTE to be the wetnurse of the baby prince. Eventually, Isis removed the coffin from the tree-trunk, which remained an object of veneration in Byblos. After that, Seth cut the rediscovered body into pieces and scattered them. This explains why there are several sanctuaries dedicated to O. in *Egypt, where the various relics were worshipped. In Egypt, Isis is often depicted in the shape of a bird hovering over the mummiform body of ithyphallic O.: in fact, HORUS was born posthumously. O. was worshipped particularly in *Abydos (Upper Egypt) and Busiris (Lower Egypt), while there was an important sanctuary on the island of Biga, near the island of Phylae, dedicated to Isis. One of O.’s tombs was on Biga: being close to the First Cataract, at the southernmost border of Egypt, it was believed that the sources of the Nile were there and that the flood originated from O.’s cadaverous humours. Over time, O. replaced other deities in charge of funerary rites, such as Khentamentiu of Abydos. At first, only the

172

OSIRIS

dead king identified himself with O., as the new king was his son Horus; however, over time, post mortem royal privileges spread into society, and each dead person was able to identify with O. and so acquire new life. The rites of mummification and burial were closely connected with O., as were the “Books of the Afterlife” that accompanied the dead as guides to returning to life. Of special importance in the development of beliefs concerning the Afterlife was O.’s role as the judge of the dead (Book of the Dead, 125), at the weighing of the heart. His connection with the Nile flood and the chthonian aspects of O. made him a god of rebirth in agriculture: wheat was planted in containers shaped like him to make a living image of the vegetating god. In the rituals of the month of Khoyak, which are performed at Dendera, we see the widow Isis preparing images of the mummiform god using a mixture of earth and seeds. In the I mill. BCE, the cult of O. was increasingly more established in its connection with the cyclical regeneration of the cosmos (solar rebirth, the regeneration of the moon and the agricultural cycle), that is, outside the strictly funerary sphere: so every city had, in its precinct, areas and cults dedicated to O. Unnefer, one of O.’s epithets, probably indicating his reconstructed form and return to life. The Gk name Onnophris was a calque on Unnefer. Because of the god’s death in water, people who had drowned had a special cult in Egypt: Antinous, paramour of the emperor Hadrian, who drowned in the Nile, was deified as Osiris-Antinous. Such deified dead people were considered to be able to give oracles. In the Ptolemaic period, a Hellenized image of Serapis, the god of the Afterlife, whose name is formed from Osiris-Apis, and who became the consort of Isis, was worshipped in the Mediterranean. However, the mummiform figure of O. was not erased, but was still venerated at the popular level during the Rom. period, as shown by the crude mummiform terracotta figurines found both in Europe and in North Africa. Besides Plutarch, other sources document this longevity of the myth and its religious practice: for ex. Apuleius in his Metamorphoses, while [Luc.] (Syr. D.) tells us how O. (who was confused with ADONIS) was still worshipped in Byblos, where he is supposed to be buried. Some scholars consider this connection between O. and Byblos to be a late invention, while recently F. Servajean (2011) has stressed the link between an Osirian type figure, the hero of the The Story of the Two Brothers (XIX dyn.), and *Phoenicia: the

connection is especially clear between the god and the pine tree, clearly an allusion to a sarcophagus. In the Ptolemaic and Rom. periods we know of O. as being identified with AION. [G.C.V.]

Fig. 105. Inscription on a statue from Umm el-Amed dedicated to Osiris by Baalshillem (UeA, no. 8)

In the Phoen. world, there is evidence for the cult of O. especially in Byblos, after the Egypt. NK, since he appears in a series of inscriptions. There are direct references to O. in the second half of the 4th cent. BCE, in an inscription on a marble slab from *Lapethos (*Cyprus), which mentions him together with MELQART and Astarte, as the recipient of offerings and as the titular of a temple. In the second half of the 2nd cent. BCE, at *Umm el-Amed, in the vicinity of *Tyre, a statue of a bare-chested male wearing a chendijt-kilt with a belt and a usekhpectoral, has the dedicatory inscription: “To the lord Osiris” (l᾿dn l᾿s[r]: RÉS 504B = UeA, no. 8, p. 189), made by a certain Baalshillem, to express his gratitude [FIG. 105]. It is of interest to note that there is a twin statue, also dedicated by Baalshillem, although this time “To the Lord El/the god” (l᾿dn l᾿l: RÉS 504B = UeA, no. 7, p. 188). The relationship between the two recipients is not clear.

OSIRIS – OUSOOS

O. appears very often in Phoen. and Pun. PNN, beginning perhaps with a seal, of unknown provenance, dated to the 8th cent. BCE, bearing the PN syrb῾dy, (“O. [is] behind/with me”: Lemaire [1983] no. 12): it is the earliest mention of this theonym in Phoenician. As could be expected, there are many occurrences from Egypt, where the temple of O. in Abydos was visited by many devotees of Phoen. origin (CIS I, 99-110 = KAI 49). On *Elephantine, in the 5th cent. BCE, the names ᾿srtny and ῾bd᾿sr occur (Lidzbarski [1912] no. 1 and no. 34b respectively); later, in the 2nd-1st cent. BCE, a certain ῾bd᾿sr (KAI 48) occurs at Memphis. In Phoenicia, at *Al-Mina on the Orontes, at the beginning of the 4th cent. BCE, two abbreviated PNN may contain the theonym ᾿sr (Bron and Lemaire [1983] no. 11, where ᾿r is possibly an abbreviation of ᾿sršmr, and no. 21, ῾r may be an abbreviation of ῾bd᾿sr). The name ῾bd᾿sr also occurs several times at Umm el-Amed (CIS I, 9; UeA, pp. 191.193f.); in *Palestine, at *Nebi-Yunis, between *Jaffa and *Ashdod, an inscription from the 3rd-2nd cent. BCE repeatedly mentions ῾bd᾿sr. On Cyprus, ῾bd᾿sr occurs in an inscription from *Lapethos placed on the socle of a monument dedicated in the temple of Melqart (KAI 43,2 = RÉS 1211); in *Kition, persons with the same name are documented several times. A certain ῾bd᾿sr erects a monument to a goddess that he does not identify, whom he invokes as “My Lady, mother ᾿zrt” (lrbty l᾿m h᾿zrt) (IK A 27,2); another person with the same name erects a funerary stela for himself and his wife (IK B 1,1); yet another erects a funerary stela for his own father (IK B 3,2-3); a certain ᾿mt᾿sr is known from *Idalion (CIS I, 93 = KAI 40,2). On *Malta, in bilingual (Phoen./Gk) inscriptions on the famous cippi from the 2nd cent. BCE (ICO Malta 1-1bis = CIS I, 122 and 122bis = KAI 47), the dedication to Melqart, lord of Tyre, was made by a family that worshipped O., as shown by the fact that all its members had theophoric names based on that Egypt. god (two called ῾bd᾿sr, Διονύσιος in Greek and two called ᾿sršmr, Σαραπίων in Greek). [P.X.] Lidzbarski. M. (1912) Phönizische und aramäische Krugaufschriften aus Elephantine. Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin; Honeyman, A. M. (1938) Mus, 51, 285-298; Caquot, A. and Masson, O. (1968) Syria, 54, 302-306; PNPPI, 272f.; Ribichini, S. (1975) Divinità egiziane nelle iscrizioni fenicie d’Oriente. In: Benigni, G. et al. (eds) Saggi fenici - I. Rome, 7-14; Griffiths, J. G. (1980) The

173

origin of Osiris and his cult. Leiden; id. (1982) s.v. In: LÄ IV, 623-633; Pinch, G. (1982) s.v. In: Handbook of Egyptian mythology. Santa Barbara/Denver/Oxford, 178-180; Bron, F. and Lemaire, A. (1983) Inscriptions d’Al-Mina. In: APC 1.III, 677686; Lemaire, A. (1983) Semitica, 33, 28-31; id. (1986) Divinités égyptiennes dans l’onomastique phénicienne. In: StPhoen 4, 87-98; Greenfield, J. C. (1987) Larnax tes Lapethou III revisited. In: StPhoen 5, 391-401; Vernus, P. (1991) SEAP, 9, 19-32; Griffiths, J. G. (2001) s.v. In: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt II. Oxford, 615-619; Hornung, E. (20057) Der Eine und die Vielen: Altägyptische Götterwelt. Darmstadt; Koemoth, P. P. (2005) Discussions in Egyptology, 61, 37-47; Smith, M. (2008) Osiris and the Deceased. In: Dieleman, J. and Wendrich, W. (eds) UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles: http://digital2. library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz001nf6bg; Coulon, L. (ed.) (2010) Le culte d’Osiris au Ier millénaire av. J.-C. Actes de la table ronde internationale (8-9 juillet Lyon 2005). BdÉ 153. Cairo; Servajean, F. (2011) ENIM, 4, 197-232. Smith, H. (2017) Following Osiris: Perspectives on the Osirian Afterlife from four Millennia. Oxford. G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI – P. XELLA

Oulomos see AION Ouranos see BAAL HAMMON; CRONUS; MYTH & MYTHOLOGY

OUSOOS Gk Οὔσωος. O. and Samemroumous (or “High in Heaven”) (→SAMEMROUMOS & HYPSOURANIOS) appear in PHILO OF BYBLOS’ Phoenician History as a pair of brothers connected with *Tyre. They are part of the narrative about “first inventors” (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,9-11 = BNJ 790 fr. 2; Ousoos’ name is restored in PE 1,10,9). They are born from giants who personify mountains of north. *Syria and *Lebanon, in turn descended from “Light, Fire, and Flame” (→PHOS, PYR & PHLOX), and before that from Genos (“Generation”), so ultimately linked with AION and Protogonos. While Samemroumos is said to have invented huts, O. invented leather clothing and sailing: leather from the animals he hunted; boats by trimming trees, which had burned due to the wind and friction. Appropriately, O. dedicated stelae and blood offerings to Fire and Wind. Quarrelling with his brother Samemroumos, who settled in Tyre, the two siblings eventually were worshipped with stelae or staves (στῆλαι) and at festivals. Although scholars have drawn connections between Samemroumos and a

174

OUSOOS

neighbourhood of *Sidon, Philo’s tradition locates the brothers in Tyre. O’s name, like that of Samemroumos, must be an adaptation from Phoenician, but its origin is obscure, and Philo does not venture a translation or exegesis. Early commentaries favoured a possible connection of the brothers with the biblical pair of Jacob (who built booths for cattle: Gen 33,17) and the rough red-haired “skilful hunter” Esau (Gen 25,27; Renan [1858] 255; Lagrange [1905] 456), while others see him as a version of Canaanite Ḫasis(u) (→KOSHAR/ KOTHARU: e.g. Løkkegard [1955] 60). More likely is the equivalence with the Egypt. and Bab. name used for the old settlement in mainland Tyre, called Uzu. Perhaps the quarrelling brothers represent the two neighbourhoods (island versus mainland) of Tyre, embodying respectively the contrast between urban and nomadic modes of life. The similarities with Tyre’s foundation myth as elaborated by Nonnus of Panopolis (D. 40,423-538) are also indicative of a Tyrian source. The story includes a tree which is engulfed in un-consuming fire, and the “Ambrosial Rocks” (→AMBROSIAI PETRAI) represented in Tyrian coins from Rom. times, belong in the Phoen. tradition of stelae and baetyls (→BAETYL; →Stelae & cippi). These stones also symbolized the two parts of the city, island and mainland, and were a feature of the

temple of MELQART (cf. Hdt. 2,44). Moreover, in Nonnus’ story, Heracles (i.e. Melqart) is described as teaching the Tyrians shipbuilding and sailing, inventions associated with O. in the Phoenician History. Heracles was also credited with the invention of purple dyeing (e.g. Greg. Nazian. Or. 4,108). Therefore, some have seen in O. a version of the fallen angel Azael in Hebr. tradition, one of the nephilim (i.e. semi-divine giants), who is associated with textile dyeing. Renan, E. (1858) Mémoire sur l’origine et le caractère véritable de l’Histoire Phénicienne qui porte le nom de Sanchoniathon. MAIBL 23. Paris, 241-334; Chayne, T. K. (1897) ZAW, 17, 189; Lagrange, M. J. (19052) Études sur les religions sémitiques. Paris; Clemen, C. (1939) Die phönikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos. MVÄG Bd. 42, Heft 3. Leipzig; Eissfeldt, O. (1952) Taautos und Sanchuniathon. Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1. Berlin; Løkkegard, F. (1955) Studia Theologica, 8, 51-57; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 149-174; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 43; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 159-165; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newjacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

P PAAM Phoen. p῾m. The Phoen. PN ῾bdp῾m, occurring in a Phoen. funerary inscription from *Tyre/al-Bass (Sader [2005] no. 51 pp. 74f.), and in the graffiti of *Abu Simbel, in *Egypt (CIS I, 112), is a theophoric PN containing the element p῾m, which denotes a rather unknown deity. This element may also appear in North Africa, in the PN n῾mp῾m (with variant spellings, also in the fem.). It also has several equivalents in Lat. inscriptions (Namphamo with its many variants) during the Rom. period. These provide confirmation that P. is a deity, apparently with a somewhat limited popularity. Etymologically, the term means “foot”, but, as noted by E. Lipiński ([1995] 215-218), it can take on the symbolic meaning of “phallus”, opening up a way to understanding his personality and his cult. Along the same lines, that scholar has suggested that P. is identifiable in φαεμα, mentioned in a Phoen. graffito in Gk letters, in the cave of Wasṭa, between *Sarepta and *Tyre (→*Cave), marked by strong sexual symbolism. That inscription may document the initiation of a new acolyte to the cultic service of the divine Phallus. Even though his interpretation should be accepted with caution (for a different interpretation, see Schmitz [2012] 140f.), it is possible that P. could be a phallic deity and as yet this seems to be the only possible way to determine his identity. Sznycer, M. (1958) Semitica, 8, 3-10; PNPPI, 362.393; NAN, 107110; NNPI, 24f.48; DNWSI II, s.v. p῾m2, 928f.; Lipiński, E. (1995) 215-218; Sader, H. (2005) Iron Age funerary stelae from Lebanon. CAM 11. Barcelona; Schmitz, P. C. (2012) The Phoenician diaspora. Epigraphic and historical studies. Winona Lake (IN).

Ptah”) or connected with the Sem. root for “to open”, “to incise” (ptḥ). The Gk historian describes the irreverence of Cambyses towards the statue of Hephaestus (Ptah) at *Memphis, in the form of a dwarf, similar to the Παταίκοι that the *Phoenicians placed on the prows of their ships with an apotropaic function. Small images of dwarves are known as early as the NK and become ever more widespread in the Late Period, usually made chiefly of faience, often having a eyelet so that they could be worn. The presence of a cosmic “gigantic dwarf” in magical texts has been connected with this figure, which was linked with Ptah [Fig. 106]. The dwarf is traditionally connected with metal-working and goldsmithing, well in evidence in Memphis in royal workshops; he denotes regeneration and is the bringer of good luck: he retains the shape of an infant, even after reaching sexual maturity. In the Leiden Magical Papyrus (I 348), a dwarf is asked to help a woman giving birth, and the presence of a statuette in his image is prescribed. During the XVIII dyn., in the reliefs of Soleb (reign of Amenhotep III), a dwarf dances during the Sed-festival (royal jubilee of rebirth). At Saqqara, during the XXX dyn., a dwarf danced for the funeral of the APIS bull. The solar nature of the figurines called P. is shown by the presence, on many examples, of the so-called pantheistic trigram, a cryptic spelling that probably expresses the presence of the solar deity, possibly Atum. In the Late Period, the mythology connected with P. becomes even more complex. Polymorphic figurines

P. XELLA

Pane/Pene Baal see TINNIT; BAAL HAMMON Pantheon see ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS PATAECUS Gk Παταίκος. Term of uncertain etymology, introduced by Herodotus (3,37), interpreted as a diminutive of PTAH (“little

Fig. 106. Amulet depicting Ptah-Pataecus Ibiza (5th-4th cent. BCE)

176

PATAECUS – PHALANTUS

appear, connected with other “pantheistic” images typical of this epoch. There are examples of P. with a ram’s head (also featuring in some trigrams) or a falcon’s head. The dwarf may have the curl typical of a baby like HARPOCRATES (a feature that is also found on many terracottas of dwarves in the Ptolemaic and Rom. periods). Often he is wearing a scarab on his head, which also features in the trigrams, alluding to solar transformation. A fairly widespread type of P. shows him standing on crocodiles, with ISIS behind him with her wings open in a protective attitude: this type clearly shows the dwarf as overlapping the boy HORUS (Harpocrates), who appears in a similar pose on magical stelae. In some cases, the link between P. and Ptah or other members of the Memphite pantheon is explained by an inscription. Some magical stelae depict a short figure: an ithyphallic scarab with a human head, like P.’s, which is connected with an egg, that the inscription links with Ptah. Of significance for the development of the complex forms of that god, whose characteristics indicate a relationship with P., are the reliefs in the temple of Hibis in the Kharga Oasis, from the Pers. period. P. became very widespread in the Mediterranean through the sale of Egypt. amulets and of reproductions, especially in the Phoen. region. Terracotta figurines inspired by P. are found on *Cyprus, sometimes with the same iconographic features as BES. Griffiths, J. G. (1982) s.v. “Patäke”. In: LÄ, IV, 914f.; Montet, P. (1952) BSFE, 11, 73f.; Morenz, S. (1975) Ptah-Hephaistos, der Zwerg. Beobachtungen zur Frage der interpretatio graeca in der ägyptischen Religion. In: Blumenthal, H. and Herrmann, S. (eds) S. Morenz, Religion und Geschichte des alten Ägypten. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Weimar, 496-509; Ryhiner, M.-L. (1977) RdÉ, 29, 125137; DCPP, s.v. “Patèque” (J. Leclant); Scheel, B. (1989) Ptah und die Zwerge. In: Altenmüller, H. and Germer, R. (eds) Miscellanea Aegyptologica: Wolfgang Helck zum 75. Geburtstag. Hamburg, 159-164; Koenig, Y. (1992) RdÉ, 43, 123-132; Dasen, V. (1993) Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece. Oxford; Graefe, E. (1998) “Phallus und Ei”. In: Clarysse, W., Schoors, A. and Willems, H. (eds) Egyptian religion, the last thousand years (= Studies J. Quagebeur). Leuven, 117-124; Leitz, C. (2002) Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen III. Leuven, 168f.; Capriotti Vittozzi, C. (2003) Polis, 1, 141-154; IDD, s.v. “Pataikos” (V. Dasen): http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_idd_ pataikos.pdf (accessed 12.01.2019). G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI

Pataikos see PATAECUS Pene/Pane Baal see TINNIT; BAAL HAMMON Persephone see DEMETER & CORE; ADONIS

PHALANTUS Gk Φάλανθος. In Gk traditions about *Rhodes, P. is the name of the Phoen. prince who lived with his family on that island, in a fortified citadel called Achaia, before the arrival of the Greeks. Being very well provisioned, for quite some time the *Phoenicians resisted the siege by the invaders under the leadership of Iphicles. In fact, an oracle had ensured that they would remain on the island until crows became white and fish appeared in drinking cups. However, Iphicles got to know of that oracle and having corrupted one of P.’s servants (or P.’s daughter, who yielded to the Greek out of love), had fish placed in the water drawn from the well and over the citadel released crows whose wings had been whitened with chalk. When P. saw this, he understood that he no longer owned the territory. Therefore, he sent ambassadors to Iphicles asking for ships so that he could leave the island, swearing that he would only take away what he could carry in a stomach. When Iphicles gave his approval, P. slaughtered animal victims, emptied their stomachs and filled them with gold and silver. However, Iphicles reacted to this trick by reversing the terms of the agreement: he said that he was prepared to supply the Phoenicians with ships, but without oars, sails or rudders. In order to leave, therefore, P. and his family had to bury most of their possessions in the hope of recovering them once they had returned. Even so, they left much of what they owned to Iphicles and the Greeks, who then became the lords of the island. Other writers in the 4th-3rd cent. BCE, such as Ergias of Rhodes (FGrHist 513 fr. 1 apud Athen 8,61 [360d-361a], Polyzelus (FGrHist 521 fr. 6 apud Athen. 8,61 [361c]) and Conon in the 1st cent. CE (FGrHist 26 fr. 1 apud Phot. Bibl. 186,47), agree that these events happened in a very remote past, i.e. in a “mythical” time when the Phoenicians and pre-Gk peoples had left, after the events resulting in the current situation, distinguished by the presence of Greeks. Also evident in the account are some of the most typical themes in the class. view of the Phoenicians, such as their greed and their use of verbal deception (cf. also ELISSA, for *Carthage), which, however, had to defer to the intellectual superiority of the Greeks in games of guile. Furthermore, all the characters and places involved, whether Phoen. or not, have Gk names, and this also reveals the process of mythologization (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY)

177

PHALANTUS – PHILAENI

caused by the class. tradition, which inserts Gk PNN even into different ethnic contexts. P. in particular, i.e. the presumed Phoen. lord of the citadel of Achaia, has the same name as the founding hero of Tarentum, who also had to deal with an apparently implausible oracle (see Paus. 10,10,6-8). Coldstream, J. N. (1969) BICS, 16, 1-8; Bunnens, G. (1979) L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires. EPAHA XVIII. Bruxelles/Rome, 129-131.187; Ribichini, S. (1995) Les Phéniciens à Rhodes face à la mythologie classique. Ruses, calembours, prééminence culturelle. In: APC 3.II, 341-347; Antonetti, C. (1996) DHA, 22, 65-78. S. RIBICHINI

PHILAENI Gk Φιλαίνοι; Lat. Philaeni. Name of two Carthag. brothers, protagonists of a legend in which they accept being buried alive in order to ensure a border that benefited *Carthage in its territorial dispute with *Cyrene, giving their name to the altars that the Carthaginians erected to honour their memory. The legend of the P. brothers seems to derive from the previous existence of certain boundary markers in the region of the Gulf of Sirte/Sidra, originally known as the “Altars of Philaenus” (in the singular) or of both P. This set of references suggests a location that is generally accepted, i.e. in the area of Jebel Ala, at the centre of the Great Sirte. The earliest mention is in the periplus by PseudoScylax ([Scyl.] Peripl. 109), who mentions a port called “The Altars of the Philaenus”, in the inner end of the Sirtes (→*Peripli). Polybius also mentions certain “altars of Philaenus” (3,39,2) and “Philaenian altars” (10,40,7), as the east. border of Carthag. rule in Africa, the west. border being the PILLARS OF HERACLES. In Ptolemy (Geogr. 4,3,4; 4,4,1), Philaenus is the name of a village in Great(er) Sirte, close to which were the “altars” with the same name; and the Cosmographia by Julius Honorius (44) includes P. among the cities of the African coast, between Cyrene and *Leptis. As for references to the “altars of the P.”, in the plural, Sallust (Jug. 19,3) asserts that they marked the limit of Carthag. dominion in the direction of *Egypt. Strabo (3,5,5-6; 17,3,20) comments that they were in the middle of the territory of the Sirtes. Pliny (Nat. 5,28) agrees in locating these altars within the

Gulf of Sirte, noting that they were made “of sand”. Solinus (27,43) reproduces similar information, locating them in the Great Sirte. In the Stadiasmus Maris Magni (84) the Altars of the P. are noted as being a harbour that was safe, pretty and had abundant water. Orosius (Adv. Pag. 1,2,88) mentions the altars as the west. limit of *Lybia, *Cirenaica and the Pentapolis. The altars are also mentioned in the Itinerary by Antoninus (65,6) and in the Tabula Peutingeriana (7,2), where they are depicted in two paintings that show two pairs of columns, described as the frontier between Africa and Cirenaica [FIG. 107]. As for the original nature of the “altars” and their name, it has been suggested that they could be the twin peaks of Jebel Ala – the only visually striking landmark for shipping in the area – which must have been named after the village (kome) called Philaenus, mentioned by Ptolemy (4,3,4), which in turn must have been named after its Gk owner (Quinn [2014]).

Fig. 107. Tabula Peutingeriana (detail)

The most complex version of the legend of the P. brothers is the one transmitted by Sallust (Jug. 79,110), who portrays Carthage and Cyrene as powerful cities, that fought each other in lengthy battles over their shared boundaries. These wars weakened both to the point where they feared attacks from other nations. To resolve the problem, during a truce, both states accepted the agreement to send off delegates, who, on a specified day, would all leave together, from their respective cities, and fix the common frontier at the place where they would meet. According to Sallust, the P. brothers, sent from Carthage, walked faster than Cyrene’s delegates. As they were worried about the consequences of their delay, they accused the Carthaginians of having left before the agreed time. According to Sallust, confronted with the objection from Cyrene’s men, the Carthaginians agreed to accept another pact, as long as it was just. The Greeks

178

PHILAENI – PHILO OF BYBLOS

proposed to the P. either that they could be buried alive in that very place, where the frontier would be set, or else be allowed to advance as far as they wished and establish it there, on the same terms. The P. accepted the proposal and were buried alive, in this way establishing the east. frontier of Carthage. Again according to Sallust, the Carthaginians dedicated altars to the P. brothers in that place and organized tributes and honours in the fatherland. The version of the legend by Pomponius Mela (1,38) is essentially the same as the one by Sallust, but abridged. Instead, even though the version by Valerius Maximus (5,6, ext. 4.) follows the same narrative structure, it includes important changes: in his account, the P. leave Carthage before the agreed time, and so break the established pact. In spite of ascribing such behaviour to the Carthaginians, Valerius Maximus praises the patriotism of the P. brothers, who by their sacrifice succeeded in extending the borders of the Carthag. empire and whose fame spread beyond the destruction of Carthage, as an example of the immortality of virtue. Solinus (27,8) says that the P., mentioned briefly by Silius Italicus (Pun. 15,704), were given their Gk name (phil-ainos) because of their “desire for praise” (cupido laudis). It is usually thought that the legend about the P. brothers is Gk in origin (Malkin [1987]), thanks to the name of the protagonists and to the narrative core of the account, the theme of “walking the course au territoire”, a sporting competition intended to settle a territorial dispute, a model documented in Gk literature, but also in other Medit. cultural traditions (Ribichini [1991]). Parallels for the other element of the narrative – the burial alive of the protagonists – have been noted in Gk and Rom. contexts, in connection with sacrifices for a foundation, or to avert invasions. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the narrative could correspond to a Carthag. intervention in a pre-existing Gk legend (Devillers [2000]). Alternatively, the legend may originate in a Carthag. rather than a Gk context (Quinn [2014]), since in the version recorded by Sallust, the Carthag. brothers are presented as heroes and as an extreme example of virtue and of love for one’s country, in contrast to the negative example given by Cyrene’s envoys. Sallust’s use of certain libri punici from Carthage as a source for his history of the peoples of Africa would also support this thesis. The beginning of the 2nd cent. BCE has been considered as a suitable context for the creation of a myth projected back into a

remote past, in order to consolidate the Carthag. claim on control of the ports of Sirtes, which emerged as a response to the growing Graeco-Rom. idea of punica fides (Quinn [2014]). In 1936, during the Italian colonial mandate of the region, the commander, Italo Balbo had a monumental arch built in Ras Lanuf, over the road linking Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, into which two bronze statues of the P. brothers were set. This arch was demolished later, but the statues are now kept in Medinet Sultan, about 40 km from Ras Lanuf. Goodchild, R. G. (1952) PBSR, 20, 94-110; Stucchi, S. (1975) ΒΟΜΟΙ ΦΙΛΑΙΝΟΥ – Arae Philaenorum. In: id., Architettura cirenaica. Rome, 597-603; Abitino, G. (1979) RGI, 86, 154-172; Malkin, I. (1990) DHA, 16, 219-229; id. (1987) Religion and colonization in Ancient Greece. SGRR 3. Leiden; Oniga, R. (1990) Il confine conteso: lettura antropologica di un capitolo sallustiano, Bellum Iugurthinum 79. Bari; Ribichini, S. (1991) I fratelli Fileni e i confini del territorio cartaginese. In: APC 2.I, 393-400; Geus, K. (1994) 214f.; Devillers, O. (2000) Regards romains sur les autels des frères Philènes. In: AfRo 13, 119-144; id. (2005) Les origines de la légende des frères Philènes. In: APC 5.III, 1147-1152; Quinn, J. C. (2014) A Carthaginian perspective on the Altars of the Philaeni. In: Quinn, J. C. and Vella, N. (eds) The Punic Mediterranean: Identities and identification from Phoenician settlement to Roman rule. Cambridge, 169-180. M. ÁLVAREZ MARTÍ-AGUILAR

PHILO

OF

BYBLOS

Also known as Herennius, an author active in the early 2nd cent. CE, in the time of the Emperor Hadrian, although more precise dates for his life are uncertain. Only one of his works has reached us in extensive fragments, the Phoenician History (see below). As was usual in the Rom. East, he wrote in Greek and was the author of many other historiographical and grammatical works. Philo is connected with one Herennius, whom the Suida refers to as a consul (Herennius Severus), however he was probably not a consul but rather an intellectual of that period and the patron of the writer. Philo probably obtained Rom. citizenship through him, and so adopted his name (see commentary on testimonia in BJN 790). The Suida calls Philo “a grammarian” (φ 122 Adler), and lists several of his works: On the Acquisition and Selection of Books (12 books), On the Cities and the Famous Men Each of Them Produced (30 books) (which was later summarized and was an important source for Ethnica by Stephanus Byzantius) and On the Reign of Hadrian. Other grammatical works

PHILO OF BYBLOS

by Philo are mentioned by the Byzantine Etymologicum Magnum and other authors, such as a dictionary On Synonyms and Antonyms (De diversis verborum significationibus, summarized by a certain “Ammonius”: Dickey [2007] 94-96). Other treatises are attributed to Philo, such as On the Jews, On Phoenician Letters, and On Phoenician Elements, but these may have been sections of the Phoenician History used separately at some point and interpreted as separate works (cf., e.g. The dream of Scipio, excerpted from Cicero’s De re publica). Philo’s excerpts also mention a separate commentary on Thoth, whose name is preserved corruptly (Ethothia?), and a work called Paradoxical Inquiries (3 books), in which Philo exposed the contradictions produced by Gk mythological accounts (see testimonia and fragments in BNJ 790; on Philo’s contributions to Gk scholarship, see Matthaios [2007] 234f.). Philo’s work is also mentioned by other authors, such as Origenes (Cels. 1,15 = BNJ 790 fr. 9) and probably Athenaeus (3,100, p. 126A = BNJ fr. 790a), Johannes Lydus (Mens. 4,53 = 790 fr. 7; Magistr. 1,12 = BNJ 790 fr. 55), and Eustathius (ad Dionys. Per. 752 = BNJ 790 fr. 56; in Il. 7,430 = BNJ 790 fr. 57). Philo’s influence was far-reaching in that his disciples achieved such a reputation that at least two are named in extant sources (→*Hermippus of Beirut [Suid. ι 706 Adler] and →*Paulus of Tyre [Suid. π 809 Adler]; see BNJ 790 for commentary on the testimonia). The Phoenician History was written in eight or nine books, and we have extensive excerpts of it in the Praeparatio Evangelica by Eusebius of Caesarea (ca 260-339). Eusebius quoted and paraphrased a lost work by the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry which contained extensive quotations of Philo’s work (3rd cent. CE). This work is the only significant preserved testimony of Phoen. literature, that is, written by an author from a Phoen. city about Phoen. affairs (perhaps also, if more obliquely, Heliodorus’ novel the Aethiopica, cf. López-Ruiz [2017]). The Phoenician History was intended as a history (“Antiquities”) of the *Phoenicians, not unlike what his contemporary Josephus achieved for Jewish history. It starts with an account of world origins, which included de-mythologized (Euhemeristic: see below) accounts of the gods and culture heroes or first inventors. The account would have then transitioned into historical events leading up to Philo’s times. Berossus and Manetho had undertaken similar enterprises in the early Hellenist. period for Mesop. and

179

Egypt. antiquities respectively (cf. also the scope of the Hebr. Bible, starting with creation and leading into national historical narratives). All the excerpts quoted by Eusebius from Porphyry, however, belong to this first “pre-historical” section of the Phoenician History, so we lack the overall perspective of how the entire History fits together. This is the result of Eusebius’ interest in demonstrating the absurdity of pagan accounts of the origins of the world and their belief in ridiculous gods. He draws from Porphyry, who also focused on this section due to his encyclopaedic interest in different world views (but without the polemic agenda). Much attention has been paid to the narrative frame that Philo uses for his History. The author claims to be translating the works of one SANCHOUNIATHON, a legendary Phoen. wise man (called a “theologian” and a “polymath”) who was situated traditionally some time before the Trojan War (that is in the LBA). Eusebius says that Sanchouniathon lived “in the time of Semiramis, queen of the Assyrians” (PE 1,9,21), a legendary character also set in the II mill. (e.g. Diod. 2,1,22). Philo translated this work into Greek, which was the result of Sanchouniathon’s research into the “secret works” held in sanctuaries and written in the “script of the Ammouneans” (PE 1,9,26, cf. PE 1,9,20-21 = BNJ 790 fr. 1). In Philo’s account, Sanchouniathon learned his wisdom from the writings of TAAUTOS, a version of the god Thoth. Philo (according to Porphyry) also postulated that Sanchouniathon had been informed by Hierombalos, a priest of the god Ieuo, who wrote for king Abibalos of Beirut. Apparently, others besides Philo knew of Sanchouniathon (e.g. Athen. 3,100 [126a] = BNJ fr. 790a mentions him together with MOCHOS as “one of those who wrote Phoenician histories”), and his name is the Gk transliteration of a NW Sem. theophoric name attested in Phoenician-Punic as sknytn, containing the DN Skn (→SAKON) and the verb ytn “to give”, hence “Sakon gave.” Also striking is Philo’s Euhemeristic methodology, that is, the reinterpretation of mythology as history (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY), and of gods as real people who were later divinized. In his view, the Phoenicians and Egyptians were among the most ancient of the “barbarians” and the source of traditions for the rest of mankind. His narrative aims to show how they first worshipped the greatest men (kings and benefactors) as gods (PE 1,9,29), but their mythology was later misinterpreted by the Greeks and distorted by

180

PHILO OF BYBLOS

mystery cults. This rationalizing trend has ancient roots in the philosophical Gk tradition, but is most explicitly laid out in the work of Euhemerus of Messene (probably from *Sicily, floruit ca 300 BCE), whence the term →*Euhemerism. We only have fragments of his work The Sacred Inscription, in which a fantastic journey is the framework for the exposition of religious disbelief (Whitmarsh [2015] 152-155). Philo’s choice to follow this rationalizing interpretation for his cosmogony-theogony encouraged the critical view that he was mostly drawing on Gk intellectual traditions to invent a competing Phoen. account for nationalistic purposes. The frequent →*Interpretatio of Gk gods and the clear debt of parts of the History to traditional Gk myth, especially the Theogony by Hesiod, was also interpreted as proof of unoriginality and deep →*Hellenization. The comparison between Philo’s work and the Ug. mythological and ritual texts, however, has led to the rehabilitation of Philo’s works as a source for NW Sem. mythology, as pioneered by O. Eissfeldt (1939; 1952; 1960). Other studies that highlight the Canaanite-Phoen. strands of Philo’s work include Clemen (1939), Barr (1974-1975), Troiani (1974), Ebach (1979), Baumgarten (1981), Ribichini (1987, 1991), Cors i Meya (1995, 1999-2000), López-Ruiz (2010) 84-129; cf. also West (1997, 283-286). Judging from our fragments, the basic structure of this first part of the Phoenician History is as follows. In a preface (PE 1,9,23-29; 1,10,6), Philo establishes the ancient origins and authority of his treatise (Sanchouniathon-Thoth) as well as its intention, namely, to dispel the misunderstandings that the Gk allegorical interpretation of myth and its use in mysteries through the centuries have caused. The central section on Cosmogony-Theogony follows (PE 1,9,301,10,5), according to the “Cosmogony of Taautos” (PE 1,10,5). It opens with a series of self-generated first elements, such as a dark and windy air/gas and chaos; from the wind emerged Desire (POTHOS) as a creative principle for all things, and a generative muddy substance called Mot (MOUTH/MOT). From this emerged creatures, first senseless/insensate ones, and then intelligent ones called ZOPHASEMIN (“heavenly observers”), which had the shape of an egg. As this Mot shines forth, the celestial bodies appear; the heated sea and land produce the winds, floods, and thunder, the last of which awakens the Zophasemin, who populate the earth with other animals.

The third section is the “History of Culture” (PE 1,10,6-1,10,14), which lists mortal men (the first ones born from the winds Colpia and Baau) who introduced essential advancements or inventions for human progress, such as fire, harvesting from trees, agriculture, the making of clothes, house building, sailing, fishing and hunting, and religious rituals. These mortals’ names include those of cosmic or divine entities, some of which he glosses as Gk translations of Phoen. names. For instance, AION and Protogonos are Gk names known from other Phoen. and Orphic cosmogonies, Baalsamen is a known Sem. god (Philo adds “Lord of Heaven” in Phoenician: →BAAL SHAMEM), and Sem. names underlie SAMEMROUMOS (Gk HYPSOURANIOS, i.e. “High in Heaven”) and probably OUSOOS. Other figures are anthropomorphic versions of abstract or natural entities or names of activities (Light, Fire, Flame [→PHOS, PYR & PHLOX], Mount Casios [→SAPHON], Hunter, Fisher, etc.). Other equivalences make clear Philo’s interpretatio between Sem. and Gk traditions, such as in the case of Chousor (cf. Ug. Kotharu-wa-Ḫasisu: →K OSHAR /K OTHARU ), whom he equates with Hephaistos and ZEUS MEILICHIOS, and Taautos, whom he equates with Hermes and Thoth. The “History of Cronus” follows (PE 1,10,15.30), which narrates the life and death of Elos/CRONUS. This section corresponds to the pattern of the succession myth, combining elements known from Gk and Near Eastern traditions. For instance, the element standing before Heaven and Earth, a certain ELIOUN/“Most High”, occupies the position that Ilu-ibi and Alalu occupy in the Ug. and Hurro-Hitt. texts respectively. Heaven and Earth occupy the same position in Gk and NW Sem. tradition, and the castration of Ouranos by Cronus and the Cronus-Zeus conflict follow Gk patterns (in turn indebted to Anat. cosmogony). But Philo’s account also contains Canaanite elements, such as the fight between the weather-god and the Sea (PONTOS in Philo, cf. YAM in the Ug. Baal Cycle), the Seven Daughters of EL (akin to the Ug. Kotharatu?), and the figures of Dagon (→DAGAN) and DEMAROUS. In turn, Philo’s BELOS occupies a predictable place in the succession, as a son of Cronus/Elos, akin to Baal, son of El/Ilu in the Ug. texts, and Gk Zeus, son of Cronus. The same Zeus/Belos features in the passage in which “Greatest Astarte and Zeus, Demarous and ADODOS, the king of the gods, were ruling the land with the consent of Cronus”, attaching to Zeus “Demarous”

PHILO OF BYBLOS

and “Adodos” the appropriate NW Sem. names/ hypostases of the weather-god (PE 1,10,31). This state of affairs after the rule of Cronus has been labelled “Account of Later Rulers” in editions (PE 1,10,30.42), and it includes some notes on Cronus’ behaviour and status, such as the sacrifice of his only son, the divinization of another of his children, MOUTH (possibly = Ug. Mot, “Death”), and a description of Cronus’ emblem which marks him as an ever-watchful powerful guardian. Finally, besides the mainstream Gk and NW Sem. features of Philo’s account of origins, some elements point to the convergence of Orphic and Phoen. cosmogonies. These include the initial Darkness, the primaeval role of Pothos (Desire), Aion and Protogonos, the figure of Chousor, and the presence of a generative egg (in this case the Zophasemin). Even this short and selective overview shows the multi-layered nature of Philo’s account and his engagement with NW Sem. lore, be it via popular knowledge or through texts in Phoenician (not in use after the 1st cent. BCE in the Levant, though alive until much later in North Africa) or in other living languages, most likely Aramaic. Philo writes in a correct koine Greek (i.e. Hellenist. period Attic), but his lexicon has a strong Sem. component, with abundant Sem. names, sometimes morphologically adapted to Greek, at other times indeclinable, e.g. Adôdos, Baau, Belos, Berouth, Beelsamên, Dagôn, Elioum/Elioun, Zophasêmin, Êl, Thôth/Thouth, Ieoud, Melcarthos/Melcathros, Misôr, Mouth, Môt, Sydek/ Sydyk, Chousôr. Philo and his audience could recognize and interpret Phoen. names, as is clear from the frequent inclusion of Gk equivalents or glosses, e.g. when he explains Elioun as “Most High” (Hypsistos) (from Sem. ῾l, “up[wards]” or “height”, PE 1,10,15); Beelsamen as Phoenician for “lord of heaven”, equivalent to “Zeus among the Greeks” (PE 1,10,7); and the Zophasemin as “heavenly observers”, from zophê-shamaim or the like (PE 1,10,2). Philo’s syntax also betrays some Sem. influence, for instance in his use of the “kai style”, which prefers brief paratactic sentences to subordination (cf. the Septuagint and the Gospels: Cors i Meya [1999; 2003]). The motif of the discovered or deciphered ancient text is not unknown in antiquity, both in the ancient Near East (from the preface of Gilgamesh to a version of Deuteronomy, according to 2 Kgs 22-23) and in the Gk world especially in the novel (Ní Mheallaigh

181

[2013] on “pseudo-documentarism” and its narrative function). The elaborate and hyperbolic narrative framework does not necessarily invalidate the author’s engagement with ancient traditions, and Berossus and Manetho had already integrated Near Eastern historiographic techniques and genres, such as king lists, within the narrative mode of Gk historiography. The mention of Sanchouniathon’s archival sources points to Philo’s use of temple registers and king lists. Indeed, succession lists of Near Eastern rulers circulated among Hellenist. writers such as Manetho and Berossus and a similar list of Phoen. kings was used by Menander of Ephesus, a major source for Josephus and probably for Philo. By filtering ancient data through his Euhemeristic methodology, Philo intended to place Phoen. mythical and historiographical tradition on an equal footing with the dominant Graeco-Rom. productions. Other contemporary authors from the East and North Africa participated in similar efforts to highlight self-definition through literature, such as Posidonius of Apamea, the novelist Jamblichus of Emesa, Lucian of Samosata, Dio Chrysostomus and Arrian, both of Bithynia, Meleager of Gadara, and Fronto of Numidia (see Andrade [2013] and [2014]; Isaac [2011]). It is among these projects that Philo’s History needs to be interpreted, as an antiquarian and polemic work that is both a Phoen. and a Rom. product. RE VIII,1 s.v. “Herennios” (2), cols 650-661 (A. Gudemann); Clemen, C. (1939) Die phönikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos. Leipzig; Eissfeldt, O. (1939) Ras Schamra und Sanchunjaton. Halle (Saale); id. (1952) Sanchunjaton von Beirut und Ilumilku von Ugarit. Halle (Saale); id. (1960) Phönikische und griechische Kosmogonie. In: Éléments orientaux dans la religion grecque ancienne (Colloque de Strasbourg 22-24 mai 1958). Paris, 1-16; Troiani, L. (1974) L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa; Barr, J. (1974-1975) BJRL, 57, 17-68; Oden, R. A. (1978) PEQ, 110, 115-126; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi; Brizzi, G. (1980) OA, 19, 117-131; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC); Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden; Ribichini, S. (1987) Traditions phéniciennes chez Philon de Byblos: une vie éternelle pour des dieux mortels. In: Kappler, C. et al. (eds) Apocalypses et voyages dans l’au-delà. Paris, 101-116; Edwards, M. J. (1991) ClQ, 41, 213-220; Winiarczyk, M. (1991) Euhemerus Messenius reliquiae. Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Stuttgart/Leipzig; West, M. L. (1994) RECQ, 44, 289-307; Cors i Meya, J. A. (1995) Concordance of The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. Sabadell/Barcelona; id. (1997) Faventia, 19, 9-32; West, M. L. (1997) The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic elements in Greek myth and poetry. Oxford; Cors i Meya, J. A. (1999) Faventia, 21, 9-44; id. (1999-2000) Traces of the ancient

182

PHILO OF BYBLOS – PHOS, PYR & PHLOX

origin of some mythic components in Philo of Byblos’ Phoenician History. In: Molina, M., Márquez Rowe, I. and Sanmartín, J. (eds) Arbor Scientiae: estudios del Próximo Oriente Antiguo dedicados a Gregorio del Olmo Lete con ocasión de su 65 aniversario. AuOr, 17-18. Sabadell, 341-348; id. (2003) Faventia, 25, 37-66; Pardee, D. (2000) Les textes rituels. RSOu 12, 1-2. Paris; Dochhorn, J. (2002) WO, 32, 121-145; Dickey, E. (2007) Ancient Greek scholarship. Oxford; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790; BNJ 784 “Mochos-Laitos” (C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks. brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/laitos-mochos-784; ead. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA); Isaac, B. (2011) Attitudes toward provincial intellectuals in the Roman Empire. In: Gruen, E. (ed.) Cultural identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Los Angeles, 491-518; Andrade, N. (2013) Syrian identity in the GraecoRoman world. Cambridge; Ní Mheallaigh, K. (2013) Lost in translation: The Phoenician Journal of Dictys of Crete. In: Whitmarsh, T. and Thomson, S. (eds) The romance between Greece and the East. Cambridge, 196-210; Andrade, N. (2014) JNES, 73, 299-317; Matthaios, S. (2015) Greek scholarship in the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity. In: Montanari, F., Matthaios, S. and Rengakos, A. (eds) Brill’s Companion to Greek Scholarship I: History. Disciplinary profiles. Leiden, 184-296; Whitmarsh, T. (2015) Battling the gods: Atheism in the ancient world. New York; López-Ruiz, C. (2017) “Not that which can be found among the Greeks”: Philo of Byblos and Phoenician cultural identity in the Roman East. In: The revival or the reinvention of non-Roman religion under Roman imperial rule. RRE, 3.3, 366392 (special issue, Ando, C. and Faraone, C. [eds]).

Another tradition (already in Hes. fr. 139 Merkelbach-West) considered him to be the father of ADONIS. The tendency to explain an ethnonym (in this case Φοίνικες) by imagining a progenitor from whom the whole ethnos takes its name, and then inserting him into a genealogical tree that connects him to other mythical characters, is typical of the Gk world. Bonnet-Tzavellas, C. (1983) La légende de Phoinix à Tyre. In: StPhoen 1-2, 113-123; ead. (1983) LEC, 51, 3-11.

2. Name of a legendary king of *Tyre according to a late version of the myth of *Purple (e.g. accepted by Malal. Chron. 2,32). Reigning over the Phoen. city at the time of the occasional discovery of purple by a “philosopher” called Heracles and his dog, he would have decreed its success by choosing it as the symbol of royalty. Phoinix, king of the Dolopes, son of Amintor (mentioned in Hom. Il. 9,168 etc.), has absolutely no connection with the Phoen. world. U. LIVADIOTTI

C. LÓPEZ RUIZ

PHOS, PYR & PHLOX Phlox see PHOS, PYR & PHLOX PHOINIX Gk Φοῖνιξ (< φοινός, “[dark] red”?) 1. A character in Gk mythology, considered the eponymous progenitor of the *Phoenicians. Various genealogical traditions (collected mainly in schol. in Ap. Rhod. 3,1186) generally consider him as the son of AGENOR (so already in Hes. fr. 138 Merkelbach-West), and the father (e.g. so already in Hom. Il. 14,321), or brother ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3,1,1; Hyg. Fab. 178) of EUROPA and CADMUS; and also the brother of Kylix, the eponymous progenitor of the Cilicians (*Cilicia). According to myth, P. unsuccessfully joined the search for Europa, kidnapped by Zeus, and settled in *Phoenicia ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3,1,1), or (according to the Rom. version taken from Hyg. Fab. 178) in Africa. In Rom. times P. is represented together with Cadmus on the reverse of a coin struck in *Sidon by Emperor Elagabalus (BMC, Phoenicia, Pl. XLIII.4).

Gk Φῶς, Πῦρ, Φλόξ. The three elements “Light”, “Fire” and “Flame” are mentioned in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF B YBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,9 = BNJ 790 fr. 2) as mortal children of Genos (“Offspring”), who, in turn, was the offspring of AION and Protogonos. Alternatively, “Genos” here can be read as “the offspring of” and not as the mythologized character as in PE 1,10,7, avoiding the problem of linking Aion and Protogonos as parents. Attempts to equate the three entities with Canaanite deities (→*Canaanites) are not widely accepted. These characters have no presence as mythological personifications elsewhere in the extant fragments, except for Fire in PE 1,10,10, where OUSOOS dedicates stelae to him and to Wind. Phos, Pyr and Phlox have as offspring a group of giant creatures, eponyms of the mountains called Casios (SAPHON), *Libanon, *Anti-Libanon and B RATHY . From these were born S AMEMROUMOS (Hypsouranios) and Ousoos. Light has an important presence in the cosmogony, whether as part of the phenomena involved in creation (e.g. “the air filled

PHOS, PYR & PHLOX – PILLARS OF HERCULES/HERACLES

with light” in PE 1,10,4; “the land was filled with light” in PE 1,10,49), or in the concept of “intelligible light” (e.g. referring to IAO: Lyd. Mens. 4,53 = BNJ 790 fr. 7; cf. commentary to fr. 7). The invention or discovery of fire, whether from lightning or friction between trees, was a popular Gk ethnographic motif, and the phenomenon of spontaneous fire appears soon after in the same fragment in relation to Ousoos’ invention of the first boats made from tree branches in *Tyre (PE 1,10,10). Fire also appears in the cosmogony of Pherecydes as reported by Damascius (Pr. 124) as the offspring of Chronos (Time). Time-figures such as Chronos, Aion (here the ancestor of Fire) and Oulomos were central in Orphic and Phoen. cosmogonies as reported by the Neoplatonists (see MOCHOS; cf. BNJ 784). Miller, P. D., Jr. (1965) CBQ, 27, 256-261 (= id. [2000] Israelite religion and biblical theology. Sheffield, 18-23); Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 124-131; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 81; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 152f.; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790; BNJ 784 “Mochos-Laitos” (C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks. brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/laitos-mochos-784; ead. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA). C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

PILLARS

OF

HERCULES/HERACLES

Gk Ἡρακλείαι στῆλαι; Lat. Herculis columnae. The first definite mention of the P.o.H. is by Hecataeus of Miletus, between the late 6th and the beginning of the 5th cent. BCE. More specifically, it appears in two fragments of his Journey Round the Earth, which records the city of Kalathe (FGrHist 1 fr. 39) and the ethnos of the Mastianoi (FGrHist 1 fr. 41), at the west. edge of the Mediterranean. However, the idea of a west. edge of the known world, clearly marked off by monuments or particular natural features, similar or at least comparable to the famous pillars, must have been much more ancient. Recently, the possibility of finding a parallel to the later Gk myth in *Egypt in the 12th cent. BCE has been reconsidered and evaluated (Betrò [2016]). In particular, some texts and illustrations from the tomb of Ramses VI (1142/40-1134/32), in the Valley of

183

the Kings, refer to two Large Rocks placed in the middle of the west. sea, at the edge of the world. In this reference there may be, even hypothetically, also a mention of *Libya, i.e. one of the two regions that, together with south. Iberia, were often indicated in ancient times as one of the more traditional sites for the P.o.H. However, according to direct and explicit evidence especially in Greece, it is in around the early decades of the 5th cent. BCE that the Pillars clearly appear as a symbol of the furthermost limit, envisioned not merely as geographical, which man could and should reach, but also as one he must not cross. With this meaning, the two Heraclean stelae appear in some of Pindar’s writings, which go back to the years between 476 and 473 BCE (O. 3 42-45; N. 3 19-26; I. 4 11-14). By mentioning them, as has been noted (Nesselrath [2011]), the poet’s intention is to show how a man, through victory (in the pan-Hellenic games), can certainly aim to touch an ultimate limit, without, however, going beyond it; such a limit is symbolized by the P.o.H., set near present day *Cádiz (N. 4,69) and beyond which “no human being was allowed to go” (Bianchetti [2008]). Already in the early decades of the 5th cent., the metaphorical meaning of the two “monuments” must have been established, as well as their privileged relationship with a specific settlement: the largest Phoen. colony in Iberia. More precise information on the location of these pillars and their relationship with the Heraclean myths are supplied, also in the 5th cent., by Herodotus and some centuries later, by Diodorus of Sicily and Apollodorus. First of all, the historian from Halicarnassus mentions them several times and, in one particular passage, states that Geryon “lived on the island called Erytheia by the Greeks, beyond the Pillars of Heracles, opposite Gadeira, in the Ocean” (Hdt. 4,8,2); so Herodotus clearly places the stelae in the area of the Strait of Gibraltar, not far from Cádiz. In about the mid-1st cent. BCE, similar information, but with more details, is recorded by Diodorus (4,17-25; cf. also 3,55): the author states that the pillars were erected by Heracles at the point where Europe and Africa were closest together, once again near the settlement of Gadeira. He also notes that according to some, the pillars themselves made the entrance narrower, to prevent sea monsters from reaching the inner sea (the Mediterranean), whereas others said that, after they were erected, the two continents, which before had been joined together, became

184

PILLARS OF HERCULES/HERACLES

separated, allowing the Ocean to be mixed with the Mediterranean. Some time later, probably at the start of the imperial age, the Gk mythographer Apollodorus says, instead, that Heracles, travelling along the route that brought him to Erytheia (the island “now called Gadeira”), where Geryon lived, reached Libya and then *Tartessos. There, “at the border of Europe and Libya”, he decided to erect two pillars, one in front of the other, as a signal and as a memorial of his passage ([Apollod.] Bibl. 2,5,10). So, the versions by Herodotus, Diodorus and Apollodorus agree in locating the P.o.H. in the region of the Strait of Gibraltar, close to Erytheia/Gadeira (cf. also Pl. Ti. 24e and Criti. 114a-b: as we know, he placed the island of Atlantis in front of the Strait – “which you call the P.o.H.”; as we have seen, Pindar instead seems to place the borders of the world in Cádiz itself). For these two more recent writers, moreover, the erection of the stelae is directly connected with the tenth Labour of Heracles, which brought him to the lands of Geryon (located mostly at the west. border of the Mediterranean; this feat must have been known already in the 6th cent.: however, Hecataeus sets the Geryon event near Ambracia, in NW Greece: FGrHist 1 fr. 26). Quite recently, it has been proposed that the shift of the Pillars from Cádiz – as mentioned by Pindar – to the Strait of Gibraltar (not far from the Phoen. settlement – even though for Herodotus and Diodorus, for instance, it was beyond the Pillars) should be connected with the disruption in Gk trade towards the Atlantic from the end of the 6th cent. BCE, as part of the consolidation of Carthag. hegemony in the west. Mediterranean. This hypothesis is not accepted unanimously and in fact, Gk trade was resumed later, in the mid-5th cent. BCE (Antonelli [1995; 2011]; Domínguez Monedero [1988]). In fact, it is possible that “in relation to these changed political conditions, the geography of the West must be re-evaluated and that the P.o.H. were fixed in the Strait, which had become the limit of a West reduced to the Mediterranean” (Bianchetti [2008]). Irrespective of the specific underlying historical reasons, it remains true that the exact location of the P.o.H. – as well as their “shape” – was hotly debated in Antiquity. The main witness for such discussions is Strabo, who, in about the 1st cent. BCE, collected the various opinions about it, combining them with the relevant sources of information. In his account of the foundation of Cádiz by *Phoenicians from *Tyre, near the P.o.H. (3,5,5),

Strabo records that some identified the pillars with Calpe (the Rock of Gibraltar) and Abilyx (on the opposite Lib. shore) or even with two small islands in the same area, one of which was called “belonging to Hera”. Others instead attempted to shift the Planetae – the “Wanderers” – and the Symplegades – the “Clashing Ones” – into this area, considering them to be the authentic stelae. Also, according to Strabo, for some notable writers such as Dicearchus, Eratosthenes and Polybius, as well as most Greeks, the pillars were positioned near the Strait. Instead, according to the Iberians and the Libyans, their location, in fact, should be in Gadeira. Others again – whose identity is not specified – recognized the monuments in the bronze pillars, eight cubits high, placed in Phoen. Heracleion, also in Gadeira, on which were written the costs of constructing the building (as Strabo stresses, that position was accepted by Posidonius). The author argues in particular against this last opinion, stating that on the real pillars there must have been a description of the marvellous feats of Heracles and certainly not of the money paid by the Phoenicians. In his view, on the other hand, a location in Gadeira was of no use to mark a limit, since the island was about halfway round a long coastline forming a bay (Str. 3,5,6). Furthermore, in Strabo’s text the difficulty in finding the location of the stelae is already obvious in his account of the foundation of the Iberian colony by the Phoenicians: driven by the oracle of Heracles(/ MELQART), towards the pillars – that were the limits of the inhabited world and of the hero’s Labours – as exactly where to set up a colony, the Phoenicians succeeded in this undertaking only on a third attempt. In fact, even before arriving in Cádiz, they had attempted, unsuccessfully, to sail to the E. of the Strait of Gibraltar, opposite the coasts of *Sexi, and then, going further beyond the Strait, on an island dedicated to Heracles lying next to the city of Onuba (*Huelva). At the end of his account, Strabo notes the ambiguity of the various identifications, noting the human custom of marking the remotest and most important destinations with altars, towers, or pillars; once these monuments collapsed, their names were used to denote those places: “for any islets or whatever you want to call them or the points forming the Strait” (3,5,6). Both the possibility of a direct connection between the P.o.H. and the stelae in the Heracleion in Cádiz and the likelihood of identifying them with places or

PILLARS OF HERCULES/HERACLES

small islands in the Strait of Gibraltar, both noted by Strabo, are repeated by other writers. For the first, in his Vita Apollonii Philostratus describes two stelae placed inside the temple, in fact, made of a mixture of gold and silver, over one cubit high (smaller, then, than those mentioned by Strabo) with indecipherable inscriptions on them (VA 5,5). They were assigned a rather enigmatic purpose, probably dependent, as has been stressed recently (Álvarez Martí-Aguilar [2017]), on their very close relationship with the nature of the places where the temple was erected. In fact, these objects were intended to maintain the delicate balance between land and sea, giving protection from natural disasters (such as a tsunami). In that case, however, they may have been important anathemata (Marín Ceballos [2001]) not necessarily the same, in appearance and meaning, as the pillars in Strabo’s account. When describing the sacking of the sanctuary in 38 BCE by Bogus, king of *Mauritania, and the marvellous self-immolation of an eagle following a priest’s oracular dream, Porphyry (Abst. 1,25) also mentions some stelae inside the Heracleion, between which an altar stood. The second possibility, i.e. identifying the pillars in other sites or in small islands in the Strait recurs, instead, in Pliny the Elder (Nat. 3,4). He speaks of mountains placed in the narrowest part of the Strait, that formed a barrier to passage from both directions: Abyla in Africa and Calpe in Europe, the final destinations of the Labours of Hercules, which indigenae columnas eius dei vocant. Again, according to the locals, it was this same hero – much as in the account by Diodorus – who dug into the mountains, allowing the sea, previously excluded, to enter and so alter the nature of those places. There is a similar account in Pomponius Mela (1,27), for whom it was Hercules himself who separated Abyla and Calpe (previously joined together), allowing the Ocean to enter (cf. also Philostr. Im. 2,33; VA 5,5). Centuries later, in the 4th cent. CE, Avienus records information of various kinds about the P.o.H., once again inspired by a variety of sources (Or. Mar. 321-415). E.g. he states that while some identified the pillars with the rocky promontories of Abyla and Calpe – as we have already seen – Euctemon, an astronomer in the second half of the 5th cent. BCE, saw them instead as two islands near the Strait of Gibraltar. These islands, 30 stadia away, were wooded and desolate and contained altars and temples dedicated to Hercules; the sacrifices performed there needed to be very

185

quick, because it was a sacrilege to stay there too long. Nor should it be ignored that sometimes the P.o.H. were located in completely different regions, far from each other (so that even some modern scholars have proposed various readings, although most critical historians have not accepted them). Probably after the conquests by *Alexander the Great there was a sort of “multiplication” of the actual pillars, due the Gk view of the world being extended to previously unknown countries (Nesselrath [2011]). Again, it is Strabo (3,5,5-6), for ex., who states that the Macedonians located the P.o.H. (and of DIONYSUS) in India. Afterwards, this wider approach was even projected into the regions of north. Europe, so that Tacitus states that the pillars were near the German North Sea (Germ. 34), although he admits that by now it was customary to attribute to the hero “any splendid thing (…) wherever it is found”. Finally, at the beginning of the 5th cent. CE, Servius, commenting on Virgil’s expression Protei columnae, also locates the P.o.H. in Pontus: nam columnas Herculis legimus et in Ponto et in Hispania (A. 9,262). Besides the various ways that the pillars were perceived in various periods and by different Gk and Rom. writers, it seems quite clear that the conception and perception of the two “monuments” must have intersected with (and perhaps partly depended on) Phoen. traditions and specifically, cults and myths concerning the god Melqart, who was constantly equated with Gk Heracles. The clearest evidence for this is provided by Strabo, and more specifically in his description of the foundation of Cádiz: in that tale the P.o.H. form the main landmark, both geographically and symbolically, to the extent that they were even identified by some, e.g. Posidonius, one of Strabo’s sources, with the stelae in the local Heracleion (however, at present there is no definite evidence for the Phoen. sanctuary; a possible exception is provided by some bronze statuettes – dated between the 8th and the 7th cent. BCE – found in the waters between the small island of Sancti Petri and the Punta del Boquerón, which could allude to the very much earlier existence there of a sanctuary). On the other hand, the repeated siting of these pillars near the Strait of Gibraltar seems, at least partially, to reflect the geography of the temples of Melqart: at *Lixus, on the Atlantic coast of *Morocco, significantly, directly opposite Cádiz, another temple of the god must have stood; according to Pliny, this building was even older than the Iberian temple (Nat. 19,63;

186

PILLARS OF HERCULES/HERACLES

furthermore, Pliny himself puts the location of another of the Labours of Hercules specifically in Lixus; cf. Plin. Nat. 5,3). Good evidence that the area of the Strait was particularly rich in sanctuaries is also provided by *Gorham’s Cave, a coastal sanctuary lying at the foot of the east. rock of Gibraltar and frequented from the 8th cent. BCE, that is to say from the initial phases of Phoen. expansion towards the West. But even before the accounts concerning the west. edges of the world, the close connection between Melqart (Heracles/Hercules) and the pillars/ stelae chiefly involved the city of Tyre, in which the god was worshipped as both the founder and patron. From this aspect, the passage in Herodotus where he recounts his visit to the sanctuary of that deity in the Levantine metropolis is significant. He describes it as “richly ornamented with many votive gifts”, among which there were “two stelae, one in pure gold, the other made of emerald, that shone amazingly at night” (Hdt. 2,44,1-3). Besides the material of which they were made, the high value of the two ex-votos (*Ex-voto) must have depended, primarily, on their symbolic meaning, which goes back to the origins of the sanctuary and of Tyre itself. In fact, the stelae probably evoked the foundation myth of the city, according to which – following instructions dictated by the oracle of Melqart (just like the foundation myth of Cádiz) – the city, ṣr, “Rock”, was born from immobilizing two rocks drifting in the sea thanks to the sacrifice of an eagle (the AMBROSIAI PETRAI; Nonn. D. 40,311-580). So, these pillars/stelae bore “a message of dominion, wealth and stability” (Bonnet [2008]), partly parallel, perhaps, with the message on the two stelae in Cádiz described by Philostratus (who, after all, records the immolation of an eagle in the Iberian temple, a marvel that, as mentioned, recurs at the birth of Tyre). It is significant that, also in the 3rd cent. CE, between the times of Elagabalus and Gallien, the stelae were reproduced on some Tyrian coins and identified by the inscription Ambrosie petre (or petrai). For the intense relationship between Melqart and the stelae we also have fairly probable indications in the archaeological and epigraphic evidence, thanks especially to a specific type of offering to the god found in various contexts in the west. Mediterranean. Notably, the well-known marble “semi-pillars” from *Malta, which had no structural function, on the base of which is a bilingual (Phoen./Gk) text, dated to the beginning of the 2nd cent. BCE (ICO Malta 1-1bis = KAI 47); its

authors are two people born in Tyre. In the dedication, the god is called b῾l ṣr, “lord of Tyre”, which corresponds to the term archegetes in the Gk version. Some scholars have linked these finds to the agyiei, which are specially connected with the cult of APOLLO, worshipped as the protector of roads. Also on a white marble column, once again with no architectural purpose (it is the object dedicated) is an inscription found at *Cagliari, which records the vow of a ḥnwṭ, “on elongated stone”, to the Tyrian god. The inscription is offered to Melqart in the guise of ῾l hṣr (“on the Rock”, “on Tyre”), and has been dated between the end of the 4th and the first half of the 3rd cent. BCE. The same epithet is then repeated in a text from *Ibiza, discovered in the vicinity of the necropolis of *Puig des Molins. Dating to the 3rd cent. BCE, it is engraved on a cubic stone base and mentions the deposit of two items in honour of Melqart ῾l hṣr, two statues resting “on a column-shaped element ending in a capital” (Amadasi Guzzo [2006]), possibly similar to the finds from Malta and Cagliari. Therefore, it is possible that, in the votives just described, a more or less direct link can be seen with the literary accounts concerning the presence of the famous pillars in the temples of the god of Tyre, as well as with the founding functions of Melqart (called b῾l ṣr and ῾l hṣr in the texts mentioned). Certainly, these types of offering cannot have been exclusive to the cult of Melqart; in fact, the word ḥnwṭ is repeated in the plural (ḥnwṭm) in an inscription from Cagliari (3rd cent. BCE) dedicated to Baashamim (b῾šmm) (→BAAL SHAMEM ), on the Island of Falcons (ICO Sard. 23). Carpenter, R. (1966) Beyond the Pillars of Hercules: The Classical World seen through the eyes of its discoverers. New York; Grottanelli, C. (1972) OA, 11, 49-63; Turnquist, G. M. (1974) BASOR, 216, 13-15; Grottanelli, C. (1981) Santuari e divinità nelle colonie d’Occidente. In: La religione fenicia. Matrici orientali e sviluppi occidentali (Atti del Colloquio in Roma, 6 marzo 1979). Roma, 109-137; Zanovello, P. (1981) RivArch, 5, 16-29; Naster, P. (1986) Ambrosiai Petrai sur les monnaies de Tyr. In: StPhoen 4, 361-371; Amiotti, G. (1987) Le colonne d’Ercole e i limiti dell’ecumene. In: Sordi, M. (ed.) Il confine nel mondo classico. Milan, 13-20; Borca, F. (2002) In orbem intrare: l’Oceano, il Mediterraneo e le colonne d’Ercole. In: AfRo 14, 123-128; Bonnet, C. (1988); Domínguez Monedero, A. J. (1988) Píndaro y las Columnas de Hércules. In: Ripoll, E. (ed.) Actas del Congreso Internacional “El Estrecho de Gibraltar”. Madrid, 716-724; López Melero, R. (1988) El mito de las Columnas de Hércules y el Estrecho de Gibraltar. In: ibid., 615-642; Jourdain-Annequin, C. (1989) Héraclès aux portes du soir. Mythe et histoire. Paris; Prontera, F. (1990) L’estremo Occidente nella concezione geografica dei Greci. In: La Magna Grecia e il lontano Occidente. Atti del XXIX Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia (Taranto, 6-11

PILLARS OF HERCULES/HERACLES – PLUTO

ottobre 1989). Naples, 55-82; Cruz Andreotti, G. (1994) DHA, 20, 57-85; Antonelli, L. (1997) I Greci oltre Gibilterra. Rappresentazioni mitiche dell’estremo occidente e navigazioni commerciali nello spazio atlantico fra VIII e IV sec. a.C. Rome; Moret, P. (1997) RÉG, 110, 25-56; Ribichini, S. (2000) Sui miti della fondazione di Cadice. In: APC 4.II, 661-668; Marín Ceballos, M. C. (2001) Les contacts entre Phéniciens et Grecs dans le territoire de Gadir et leur formulation religieuse: histoire et mythe. In: Ribichini, S. Rocchi, M. and Xella, P. (eds) La questione delle influenze vicino-orientali sulla religione greca. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale (Roma, 20-22 maggio 1999). Rome, 315-331; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2002) QuadCagliari, 19, 173-179; ead. and Rossignani, M. P. (2002) Le iscrizioni bilingui e gli agyiei di Malta. In: Da Pyrgi a Mozia, 5-28; Bernardini, P. (2003) SCEBA, 1, 111-121; Mierse, E. W. (2004) AJA, 108, 545-575; Bijovsky, G. (2005) The Ambrosial Rocks and the Sacred Precint of Melqart in Tyre. In: Alfaro, C. et al. (eds) XIII Congreso International de Numismatica. Actas. Madrid, 829-834; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2005) Trans, 30, 9-18; ead. (2005) Melqart nelle iscrizioni fenicie d’Occidente. In: Bernardini, P. and Zucca, R. (eds) Il Mediterraneo di Herakles. Rome, 45-52; Roller, D. W. (2006) Through the Pillars of Herakles. New York/London; Bianchetti, S. (2008) Mainake, 30, 17-58; Bernardini, P. (2009) Annali della Facoltà di Lettere dell’Università degli Studi di Sassari, 1, 185-224; López Pardo, F. (2010) Una isla “errante” entre las Afortunadas de Plinio. In: Fornis, C. et al. (eds) Dialéctica histórica y compromiso social. Homenaje a Domingo Plácido. Zaragoza, 819-832; Ramón, J. et al. (2010) Deux nouvelles inscriptions puniques découvertes à Ibiza. In: Ferjaoui, A. (ed.) Carthage et les autochtones de son empire au temps de Zama. Hommage à M. H. Fantar. Colloque international (Siliana-Tunis, 10-13 Mars 2004). Tunis, 231-236; Antonelli, L. (2011) I Fenici (e i Punici) di estremo Occidente nell’Ora maritima di Avieno. In: Álvarez Martì-Aguilar, M. (ed.) Actas Simposio Internacional “Fenicios en Tartesos: nuevas perspectivas”. Málaga, 1-16; Nesselrath, H. G. (2011) Eikasmos, 22, 131-149; Fernández Camacho, P. (2013) Cuadernos de Filología Clásica, 23, 277-293; Álvarez Martí-Aguilar, M. (2014) AEA, 87, 21-40; id. (2014) ¿Mentira fenicia? El oráculo de Melqart en los relatos de fundación de Tiro y Gadir. In: Marco Simón, F., Pina Polo, F. and Remesal, J. (eds) Fraude, mentira y engaño en el Mundo Antiguo. Barcelona, 9-29; Bravo Jiménez, S. (2014) Control ideológico y territorial en el Estrecho de Gibraltar en la Antigüedad (siglos X-I a.C.). Ceuta; Garbati, G. (2014) RSF, 40, 159-174; Jiménez Ávila, J. (2015) Figuras fenicias del Mediterráneo. Caracterización y novedades. In: id. (ed.) Phoenician bronzes in Mediterranean. Madrid, 197-230; Betrò, M. (2016) RSF, 44, 99-103; Marín Ceballos, M. C. (2016) El santuario de Melqart en Gadir, dudas y certezas. In: Russo Tagliente, A. and Guarneri, F. (eds) Santuari mediterranei tra Oriente e Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale. Rome, 299-308; Álvarez Martí-Aguilar, M. (2017) GRBS, 57, 968-993; Jiménez Ávila, J. (2018) Phoenician male bronze figurines: New evidence from Huelva and southern Spain. In: APC 8.II, 199-207. G. GARBATI

PLUTO Lat. Plutus. Pluto, the Rom. god of the *Netherworld and fertility, seems to have played a slightly different role in North Africa during the imperial period. There, his frequent attestation in Lat. inscriptions bespeaks his unusual popularity, which has led many scholars to

187

see a Phoen.-Pun. or Lib. “crypto-god” lurking under a Romanized veneer. Dedications to P. appear from *Tripolitania to Mauretania Caesarensis over the course of the imperial period, many simple votives from individuals. The greatest concentration of offerings to P., though, comes from Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena, and from agricultural centres such as *Mustis, Thugga (*Dougga) and *Thuburbo Maius. Coupled with the epithet frugifer (“fruitful”), this distribution suggests that one of his key roles was as a fertility god. Still, despite a common name and basically shared portfolio, instantiations of P. were thoroughly localized: he is called the genius of Mustis, and variously the genius of Thugga or a neighbourhood of Thugga (genius vici), where he is also shown bearing the mural-crown attribute of a civic god. The search for pre-Rom. precedents to explain P.’s popularity in Africa has led to several distinct proposals, each of which seeks to find an earlier named deity hidden behind P.’s mask (for the potential fallacy of this approach, see McCarty [2016]). S. Ribichini (1986) argues that BAAL ADDIR became P., a position widely rejected by others. For M. Le Glay ([1966] 121), the link between P. and the Cereres (→DEMETER & CORE) in the imperial period suggests that Gk Hades was imported to Africa from *Sicily along with the cult of Demeter and Core in 396 BCE. Still, the majority of inscriptions connecting P. to the Cereres (whose cult in North Africa, in any case, seems to be a tradition re-invented following the Rom. creation of a colony at *Carthage: see McCarty [forthcoming]) comes not from the territory of Carthage, but from Mauretania (CIL VIII, 8442, 9020, 9021). This lacuna in time and space weakens the link between P. and the Sicilian cult. E. Lipiński (1990; 1995) suggests an alternative hypothesis: in some cases, instead of Pun. BAAL HAMMON being transformed into SATURN, he was interpreted as P. So, for ex., in the area around Hadrumetum (*Sousse), where Baal Hammon’s cult is amply attested, Saturn never received the same level of cult; instead, Lipiński argues that P. takes over Baal Hammon’s portfolio and persona. There do seem to be regional variations in how P. was worshipped. Apart from his link with the Cereres in Mauretania Caesarensis, and his appearance as a local deity at Mustis and Thugga, he was worshipped by cult associations in some areas. At *Miliana, a group of cultores Plutonis made an offering for the

188

PLUTO – PONTOS

imperial family (CIL VIII, 21482). At 1st-cent. CE *Sucubi, a misre – no doubt the Lat. transliteration of Pun. mzrḥ, a cult association (→*Mizreh) – dedicates a portico in the temple of P. (AE 1964, 176; Poinssot [1959-1960]). Combined with the inscription’s date, given by the year of the town’s sufetes (*Suffetes), and the Sem. names of the dedicants, the existence of a mzrḥ suggests that P.’s cult there may have had Pun. roots. Poinssot, C. (1959-1960) Karthago, 10, 93-129; Beschaouch, A. (1971-1972) Karthago, 16, 103-105; Le Glay, M. (1961-1966) Saturne africain. Monuments I-II. Paris; id. (1966) Saturne africain. Histoire. Paris; Ribichini, S. (1986) Agrouheros, Baal Addir et Pluton africain. In: Histoire et archéologie de l’Afrique du Nord. IIIe Colloque international. Paris, 133-142; Lipiński, E. (1990) Pluton. Hypostase chthonienne de Baal Hamon? In: AfRo 7, 245-250; id. (1995) 380-384; Saint-Amans, S. (2004) Topographie religieuse de Thugga (Dougga). Bordeaux, 319-324; Cadotte, A. (2007) La romanisation des dieux: l’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous l’haut-empire. RGRW 158. Leiden, 325-341; McCarty, M. M. (2016) Gods, masks, and monstra: situational syncretisms in Roman Africa. In: Alcock, S. E., Egri, M. and Frakes, J. (eds) Beyond boundaries: Connecting visual culture in the provinces of Ancient Rome. Malibu, 266-280; McCarty, M. M. (forthcoming) Transforming religion under the Roman Empire. In: Hitchner, B. (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Roman Africa. Oxford. M. M. MCCARTY

Pollux see DIOSCURI PONTOS Gk Πόντος. P. is mentioned in the second fragment of PHILO OF BYBLOS’ Phoenician History (FGrHist 790 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). P. (“Sea”) is the son of NEREUS. Both are sea deities in Gk mythology, but P. is the father (not the son) of Nereus in Hesiod (Th. 233). In Philo’s genealogy, Nereus is in turn the son of Zeus BELOS, who is one of the children of CRONUS (apud Eus. PE 1,10,2628). To P. are born Sidon (a female character) and POSEIDON (PE 1,10,27). In Philo’s euhemerized theogony (→*Euhemerism), P. is attacked by Ouranos (“Sky”), who “wages war again against Pontos” (PE 1,10,27), although it is unclear whether “again” refers to a previous attack on P., as the Greek implies, or to previous wars started by Ouranos in general (see PE 1,10,22-23, when Ouranos sent enemies against Cronus). In this attack against P., Ouranos allies with DEMAROUS (Δημαροῦς), and P. is

victorious (PE 1,10,28). Although P.’s death is not narrated in the extant fragments, it is assumed when Poseidon and others “consecrated the relics of Pontos in Beirut” (PE 1,10,35). Since this comes at the end of a narrative where the final stage seems to put A STARTE and Zeus (also called Demarous and Adodos) in the ruling position (even if “with the consent of Cronus”, PE 1,10,31), we may assume a final war between the sea-god and the weather-god, in which BAAL/Zeus/Demarous won, narrated somewhere in the unquoted sections. In Philo’s narrative, P. seems to stand for NW Sem. YAM (“Sea”), who appears in the Ug. Baal Cycle as an adversary of BAAL, the weather-god who is victorious there. In Philo’s story, P. is also attacked first by Ouranos, however, and later not directly by Zeus/ Belos but by Demarous, who stands for the weather-god (cf. PE 1,10,31). This Demarous is a son of Ouranos and his concubine (PE 1,10,18-19), and a weather-god surrogate inherited from Canaanite tradition, as dmrn appears in the Ug. texts as a title or hypostasis of Baal (KTU3 4 VII 39). In this narrative Philo mentions that Demarous is the father of Melcarthos/Heracles (MELQART) (PE 1,10,27), which also aligns him with Zeus/Baal (cf. Zeus as father of Heracles). The fight between the weather-god and a sea-god or sea monster is a widespread motif in Greece and the Ancient Near East: TYPHON in Hesiod (Th. 820-880); the Anat. myths of Illuyanka, Hedammu, and Ullikummi; the Marduk-Tiamat fight in Mesopotamia; and the victory of Yahweh over the sea and Leviathan in the Hebr. Bible (e.g. Isa 27,1; Ps 29). In Indo-European mythologies, the motif appears in dragon-slaying myths. Philo also aligns Typhon with Yam, as he appears together with P. and his father Nereus (PE 1,10,26), both sea entities. This mythological P. is not the same as the geographical reference mentioned several times in other fragments of Philo’s work, probably from his treatise “On Cities and the Famous Men Each of them Produced” (e.g. BNJ 790 frs 15, 24, 25, 31, etc.), where P. stands for a region in the Black Sea. Collins, A. Y. (1976) The conflict myth in the Book of Revelation. Missoula (MA); Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 176.272.279.341; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 53.57; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 207f.; Bonnet, C. (1987) Typhon et Baal Saphon. In: StPhoen 5, 101-143.

PONTOS – POSEIDON

Ballabriga, A. (1990) RHR, 207, 3-30; Zannini Quirini, B. (1991) L’interpretatio graeca dell’ugaritico Yam. In: APC 2.I, 431-437; Bordreuil, P. and Pardee, D. (1993) MARI, 7, 63-70; Lipiński, E. (1995) 120-122; Page, H. R. (1996) The myth of cosmic rebellion: A study of its reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical literature. Leiden/New York; Pardee, D. (1997) West Semitic canonical compositions. In: Hallo, W. W. and Younger, K. L. (eds) The context of Scripture. 1. Canonical compositions from the biblical world. Leiden/New York/Köln, 239-375; del Olmo Lete, G. (2001) AuOr, 19, 125-132; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks. brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790; López-Ruiz, C. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA), 151-167. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

POSEIDON Gk Ποσειδῶν. P. was the Gk god of the sea, also connected with earthquakes and horses. He was a son of CRONUS and RHEA. In Gk texts related to the Phoen. and Pun. world, P. is the interpretatio graeca of several Phoen. deities (→*Interpretatio), whose identification is controversial. According to PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,27), P. was a son of PONTOS. Other sources claim that he sired AGENOR and BELOS from Libye ([Apollod.] Bibl. 2,1,4 and 3,1,1; FGrHist 3 fr. 21 [Pherecydes]). P.’s cult on *Rhodes, according to the foundation myth, was supposedly established by CADMUS, in fulfilment of a vow he made when he ran into a storm during his search for EUROPA. The priests celebrating this cult were thought to descend from the *Phoenicians left in charge of that cult by Cadmus, who had intermarried with the Ialysians (Diod. 5,58,2). The main (or a highly important) god of Berytus (*Beirut) was presumably identified as P. Philo of Byblos (apud Eus. PE 1,10,35) reports that Cronus gave the city of Berytus (*Beirut) to P., the CABIRI, the Hunters and the Fishermen (→AGREUS & HALIEUS). Then they consecrated Cronus’ remains there. In a late epic text, P. had to fight his rival DIONYSUS for Beroe, who was eventually granted to him by Zeus (Nonn. D. 42f.). Since the 2nd cent. BCE, a figure carrying a trident on a cart drawn by seahorses appears on coins of Beirut. P. was also worshipped in the premises of the association of the Berutians in *Delos. At *Larnaka-tis-Lapithou, on *Cyprus, where supposedly there was a sanctuary of a god whose name in Greek was P. Narnakios (Le Bas – Waddington, 2997), a Phoen. inscription (KAI 43 = TSSI III, 36)

189

mentioning mlqrt bnrnk indicates that P. corresponds to MELQART. It is unknown which Carthag. god corresponded to the P. mentioned in the Gk text of the Periplus of *Hanno (3). According to that text, Hanno erected a temple to P. on the African headland of Soloeis (§4; cf. [Scyl.] Peripl. 112; →*Peripli). In that case, the interpretation as P. could be explained by the maritime skills of the deity in question. Maritime features also occur in other references to the worship of P. in Carthag. religion: it was in his naval camp that *Hamilcar (1) – according to one version of his death (480 BCE) – was sacrificing to P. (Diod. 11,21,4); and to expiate the desecration of a necropolis in *Agrigentum (in 406 BCE), *Himilco (3) had a large number of cattle thrown into the sea for P. (Diod. 13,86,3). P. is also mentioned in the oath attached to the treaty between *Hannibal (9) and *Philip V, king of Macedonia (Plb. 7,9,2). P. is named as the third member of a group that included ARES and TRITON, for whom several identifications have been proposed. R. Dussaud (1947) suggested YAM, but he is hardly attested in the I mill. BCE. P. has also been identified with BAAL SAPHON, mentioned as the third member of a triad (with BAAL SHAMEM and B AAL M ALAGE ) in the treaty between the Ass. king *Esarhaddon and king *Baal I (1) of Tyre (→*Treaties). A Neopun. inscription from *Leptis Magna (IPT 18 [13] = HNPI Labdah 10) mentions ᾿l qn ᾿rṣ, i.e. “EL master/creator of the earth” (→EL QN ’RṢ). Since a bilingual (Aram./Gk) inscription from *Palmyra (Cantineau [1938] 78f.: PAT 2779) shows that P. in the Gk text corresponds to the DN ᾿lqwnr῾ in Aramaic, G. Levi Della Vida (1959) suggested that the Rom. cult of Neptunus in Leptis (where there was a temple of Neptunus: see IRT 306) was derived from the previous cult of ᾿l qn ᾿rṣ. The epithet qn ᾿rṣ may point to the agrarian character of the god, like the title καρποδότης that P. has on a Gk inscription from Thapsus (AE 1987, 1016). A Lat. dedication to Neptunus was found in the same building of *Maktar in a Neopun. inscription (RÉS 2221 = KAI 145 = HNPI Hr. Maktar 64) mentioning rzn ymm. An interpretation of this epithet as “prince of the sea” has been suggested (Fantar [1977] 103105), but “prince of days” is perhaps to be preferred (see HNPI, 118). Possibly, the cult of Neptunus/P. in Rom. Africa [FIG. 108] developed from the indigenous Lib. religion (cf. Hdt. 2,50 and 4,188), and it cannot be ruled out that, in some of the occurrences,

190

POSEIDON – PTAH

P. was the interpretatio of a Lib. deity who was also worshipped in *Carthage.

P. does not appear in Hesiod, however Himeros (another word for “desire”) does (Th. 64, 201). Philo’s P. matches a Phoen. cosmogonic tradition transmitted in fragments, where the more abstract P. was a primordial cosmic, generative force (like Eros, as in Hes. Th. 116-120). So in the Sidonian cosmogony reported by Eudemos of Rhodes (cited by Dam. Pr. 125c [I p. 323 Ruelle] = BNJ 784 fr. 4), “Time, Desire (Pothos) and Mist” came first of all; Desire and Mist then generate Air and Breeze, and from them comes an egg that also forms part of Phoen. cosmogonic tradition, as also attested in Philo (PE 1,10,2) and in MOCHOS’ cosmogony (BNJ 784 fr. 4). The position of a “Love/Desire” entity as one of the principal motors of cosmic creation, shared by Hesiod and the fragmentary Phoen. cosmogonies, is striking, although how these traditions came into contact or influenced each other is a matter of speculation.

Fig. 108. Medallion from El-Khroub (Algeria) depicting Poseidon seated on a throne Hill, G. F. (1910) Catalogue of the Greek coins of Phoenicia. London, Pl. VII, 1-3.5; Cantineau J. (1938) Syria, 19, 72-82; Dussaud, R. (1947) CRAI(BL), 91, 201-224; Levi Della Vida, G. (1959) Tracce di credenze e culti fenici nelle iscrizioni neopuniche della Tripolitania. In: von Kienle, R. et al. (eds) Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag am 27. August 1958 gewidmet. Heidelberg, 299-314, esp. 302-304; Fantar, M. (1977) Le dieu de la Mer chez les Phéniciens et les Puniques. SS 48. Rome, esp. 27-42; Bruneau, Ph. (1978) Les cultes de l’établissement des Poséidoniastes de Bérytos à Délos. In: de Boer, M. B. and Edridge, T. A. (eds) Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren. Leiden, 160-190; Barré, M.-L. (1983) The god-list in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia. Baltimore/London, 78-82; Lipiński, E. (1995) 116-120.390-393; Cadotte, A. (2007) La Romanisation des Dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden, 307-324. G. MINUNNO

POTHOS Gk Πόθος. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790), P. (“Desire”) appears twice (both times in BNJ fr. 2). First, as a cosmogonic principle, which caused the primordial wind to mix with itself, initiating the creation of all things, starting with the muddy substance called Mot (→MOUTH/MOT) (apud Eus. PE 1,10,1). Later, as a personification of Desire (PE 1,10,24), Desire and EROS (“Love”) are listed as the children that CRONUS/Elos sired with ASTARTE, the natural progeny of the love-fertility goddess, just as Eros is associated with Aphrodite in Gk tradition.

Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 37-40.105f.; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 110f..132f.; LópezRuiz, C. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA); BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790a790; BNJ 784 “Laitos(-Mochos)” (C. López-Ruiz, 20192), http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/ laitos-mochos-784. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Protogonos see AION PTAH Egypt. Ptḥ; Phoen. ptḥ. A god of *Memphis, P. is depicted anthropomorphically and mummiform, standing (or sometimes sitting) inside a naos, while holding a wꜢś-sceptre, his head in a close-fitting smooth skull cap, his false beard stiff and straight [FIG. 109]. P. is one of the principal Egypt. deities and his cult is documented as early as the proto-dynastic period, even though we have no clear mythological sources for the earliest times. He features in cosmogony as a son of the god Atum in the Coffin Texts (Spell 647; CT VI 267h-j), but the greatest expansion of his personality as a creator god is known to us from more recent documents. For ex., the so-called Memphite Theology, portrays P. as the one who brings creation

PTAH

Fig. 109. Statue portraying the god Ptah. Egypt (ca 1070-712 BCE)

into existence by means of thought (heart) and word (tongue). From the OK onwards, at Memphis, there are priests of P. who also have titles connected with the royal workshops, especially of jewellery; some have the title “Superintendent of the workmen”, which later became the specific prerogative of this priestly office. The actual name of this god is possibly related to (the verb) ptḥ, “to model”. From the NK onwards, P. emerges as the supreme god, due to an extension of his cosmogonic role and thanks to his skill in crafts. He takes on the role of separating the land from the sky, which in the Heliopolitan tradition belongs to Shu; as P.-Tatenen, he is “father of the gods”, and in some texts from the Rom. and Ptolemaic periods, he even creates the sun-god. In a text from the Ramesside period (Papyrus Leiden I 350; IV 21-22), his status as supreme god is emphasized by his connection with AMON and RA in a sort of trinity: it contains all the gods. As a benevolent god, he has an important role in personal piety and is defined as “he who listens to prayers”. In his role as creator, he is “Lord of

191

Maat”, the personification of order and harmony. P.’s connection with craftsmen (he was identified with Gk Hephaistos and even earlier, with Chousor [→K OSHAR /K OTHARU ]) is also evident from the reputation of his cult in specific places, e.g. Deir el-Medinah, the village of the workmen of the royal tombs in west. *Thebes during the NK. At the time, the capital Memphis remained an important centre for crafts, especially metallurgy, keeping alive P.’s role as patron of workmen of this type involved in these production centres. Already in the NK there are indications, especially in magic texts, of a giant cosmic dwarf, seen in connection with P. and the dwarf PATAECUS; similarly, the testimony of Herodotus (3,37) must also be taken into consideration, who mentions a certain statue of Hephaistos, identified with P., in the shape of a dwarf worshipped at Memphis and the presence, even though rare, of P.’s name on that dwarf. Also connected with P., from ancient times, is Sokaris, a funerary god. Furthermore, from the NK, he forms a triad with Sekhmet, a lioness goddess representing the dangerous side of HATHOR/Distant Goddess, and Nefertem, the solar boy who manifests himself in the primordial lotus. This triad features frequently among the figurines in faience spread throughout the Mediterranean by Phoen. trade. Particularly in the Ptolemaic and Rom. periods, P. was considered the father of APIS and Imhotep, the architect of the funerary complex of Djoser at Saqqara (III dyn.), identified with Asclepius by the Greeks. [G.C.V.] The god P. appears in Phoen. onomastics at *Abu Simbel and *Elephantine in a short series of theophoric PNN: sptḥ (Lidzbarski [1912] 9: a transcription of Egyptian), ῾b(d)ptḥ (ibid. 42, 59 and CIS I, 111a) and ptḥy (CIS I, 111b). An inscribed situla of unknown origin contains a prayer to ISIS by a certain Abduptah (῾bdptḥ). This setting and the types of name found do not indicate that P. was highly popular in the east. and west. Phoen. world except, of course, for the communities living in the land of the Nile, whose devotion towards local deities was evidently normal. [P.X.] Lidzbarski. M. (1912) Phönizische und aramäische Krugaufschriften aus Elephantine. Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin; SandmanHolmberg, M. (1946) The god Ptah. Lund; Zandee, J. (1948) De hymnen aan Amon van Papyrus Leiden I 350. Leiden; Ribichini, S. (1975) Divinità egiziane nelle iscrizioni fenicie

192

PTAH – PUMAY

d’Oriente. In: Benigni, G. et al. (eds) Saggi fenici - I. CSF 6. Rome, 7-14, esp. 11; te Velde, H. (1982) s.v. In: LÄ IV, 11781180; Lipiński, E. (1984) OLP, 15, 83-132; Allen, J. P. (1988) Genesis in Egypt. The philosophy of ancient Egyptian creation accounts. New Haven; McCarter, P. K. (1993) BASOR, 290, 115120; Berlandini, J. (1995) RdÉ, 46, 9-41; Lipiński, E. (1995) 323-325; van Dijk, J. (2001) s.v. In: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt III. Oxford, 74-77; Leitz, C. (2002) Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen III. Leuven, 168180; El Hawary, A. (2010) Wortschöpfung. Die Memphitische Theologie und die Siegelsstele des Pije. OBO 243. Freiburg/ Göttingen; Xella, P. (2018) I Fenici e gli dèi d’Egitto. Note su Horus nell’epigrafia fenicia. In: Vacca, A., Pizzimenti, S. and Micale, M. G. (eds) A Oriente del Delta. Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae. CMAO 18. Rome, 633-640. G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI – P. XELLA

PUMAY Phoen. pmy; Gk Πυγμαίοϛ/ Πυγμαίων. A Phoen. god originating on *Cyprus, very probably documented by the stela of *Nora, on *Sardinia (CIS I, 144 = KAI 46; see also ICO Sard. 1 and TSSI III, 11: 9th-8th cent. BCE) [FIG. 110], by Gk lexicographical sources, and by the Phoen-Pun. onomastic tradition of Cyprus and *Carthage. The etymology of this name is not clear, but perhaps it should be related to the pre-Gk and pre-Sem.

Fig. 110. The Nora stela

substrate of Cyprus. The earliest occurrence – the only evidence from inscriptions that seems to indicate P. as a real deity – is on the Nora stela. In spite of the difficulties in interpreting the text, lpmy (lin. 8) is probably to be understood as a dedication “to P.”. Gk sources identify P. with APOLLO (Anon. Laur. Duod. Deor. 2,33, 267 Studemund) or with ADONIS (Hsch. π 4281 Latte, s.v. Πυγμαίου). On Cyprus, both these deities embody (in various periods and with a range of characteristics) the main god of the island, who on Phoen. Cyprus assumes several identities: MELQART, RESHEPH, ESHMUN. Therefore, it seems reasonable that P. was a kind of local deity, one of the many incarnations of the “Great God of Cyprus” (consort of the “Great Goddess”, often identified as ASTARTE and later as Aphrodite). P. appears in various composite theophoric PNN from Cyprus and Carthage. Undoubtedly, the most famous and best documented is pmyytn, “P. has given”, the name of the last king of *Kition and *Idalion (362312 BCE: CIS I, 10; 11; 14; IK III, A1; A2; A3; A29; Hill [1904] nos 75-81, Pl. IV 20-23) (→*Pumayyaton [3]), but also of a contemporary individual from Kition, documented by a broken funerary stela (CIS I, 12; IK III, E1), of various persons from Carthage, mentioned on the stelae of the *Tophet (CIS I, 617; 670; 2106; 5690), as well as of someone from *Ksar Toual Zouamel, in the 2nd cent. BCE (BCTH [1946-1949] 253). For the king of Kition and Idalion, the Gk sources transmit pmyytn as equivalent to pygmalion (→PYGMALION) (Diod. 19,79,4), but also as the alternative form pymaton (Athen. 4,167c). Other rare Gk names (pygmachos, “boxer, pugilist”, epitaph of *Amathus, 2nd cent. CE: SEG XXXII, 1366; pygmas, epitaph of Deidamas, Amorgus, 7th cent. BCE: IG XII7 442), have also been connected with P., from a false etymology that suggests pygme, “fist” (cf. pygmaios, “with the size of a fist”). The name pgmlyn, a Phoen. transcription of Gk pygmalion, occurs on a gold medallion from Carthage (CIS I, 6057 = KAI 73 = TSSI III, 18: →*Yadamilk) found in a tomb in the necropolis of Douïmès (→*Funerary world) from the mid-7th cent. BCE. Most scholars agree that pgmlyn, occurring twice in the inscription on the medallion, is a deity. The identification between Phoen. pmyytn and Gk pygmalion is far from universally accepted, but it seems difficult to avoid a connection, however vague, between the pgmlyn on the medallion from Carthage, the Phoen. theophoric name pmyytn and P.

193

PUMAY – PYGMALION

Two other mythical or pseudo-historical characters mentioned in the class. sources are also called pygmalion: the king of *Tyre, the brother of *DidoELISSA (FGrHist 566 fr. 82, and following other authors right up to Virgil), and the king of Cyprus, a lover of Aphrodite, first mentioned by Philostephanus of Cyrene in the 3rd cent. BCE (FHG III, 31 fr. 13), but made famous especially by Ovid’s Metamorphoses (10,243-297). His overlap with P., both consorts of the “Great Goddess” of Cyprus, is particularly significant. Also worth mentioning is the tradition making Pygmalion the father-in-law of CINYRAS and the grandfather of ADONIS ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3,14,3; FGrHist 758 fr. 3a), both mythical figures connected with Cyprus and Aphrodite. Other composite theophoric names associated with P. are known from Cyprus, especially at Kition: ῾bdpmy (CIS I, 88, IK III, F1: 4th cent. BCE; IK III, D38: 6th cent. BCE), and the corresponding female ᾿mtpmy (CIS I, 55, IK III, B37: 4th-3rd cent. BCE). Other compound names occur in Carthage: pmyšmr (CIS I, 197 and 2379), pmyṣrn and pmyḥwy, both on the same funerary inscription dating to the 4th/3rd cent. BCE (CIS I, 5981), whereas the simpler form pmy, probably as an abbreviation of a theophoric PN, occurs only on one stela from a tophet (CIS I, 4777), but also on the bilingual (Phoen./Gk) dedication by someone from Tyre at *Delos, in the 2nd cent. BCE (ID 2322). We have absolutely no idea about the nature and functions of the god P., so it seems impossible, at present, to ascribe a specific iconography to him. Here too, then, P. seems to share the fate of Cinyras, another mythical figure originating in Cyprus, for whom there is also very little evidence. Hill, G. F. (1904) A Catalogue of the Greek coins in the British Museum: Catalogue of the Greek coins of Cyprus. London; Dupont-Sommer, A. (1948) CRAI(BL), 12-22; Février, J.-G. (1950) RA, 44, 123-126; Ferron, J. (1958-1959) CB, 8, 45-56; id. (1966) RSO, 41, 281-288; Delcor, M. (1968) Syria, 45, 323-352; Ferron, J. (1968) Mus, 81, 255-261; Peckham, J. B. (1968) The development of the late Phoenician scripts. Cambridge (MA), 119-124; Cross, F. M. (1972) BASOR, 208, 13-19; Peckham, J. B. (1972) OrNS, 41, 457-468; PNPPI, 391f.; Bunnens, G. (1979) L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires. EPAHA XVIII. Rome/Bruxelles, 30-41.300-303; BÉS, no. 65, p. 55; no. 92, p. 26; no. 137, pp. 253-255; Baslez, M.-F. and Briquel-Chatonnet, F. (1988) Semitica, 327-337; Müller, H.-P. (1988) OrNS, 57, 192205; Shea, W. H. (1991) VT, 41, 241-245; Zuckerman, B. (1991) Maarav, 7, 209-301; DCPP, s.v. (A. M. Bisi); Lipiński, E. (1995) 297-306; id. (2004) Itineraria Phoenicia. StPhoen 18 = OLA 127. Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA), 234-244; Egetmeyer, M. (2010) Le

dialecte grec ancien de Chypre. Berlin, 378f.; Pilkington, N. (2012) BASOR, 365, 45-51; Schmitz, Ph. C. (2012) The Phoenician stele from Nora (CIS I 144). In: id., The Phoenician diaspora. Epigraphic and historical studies. Winona Lake (IN), 15-31; Mosca, P. G. (2017) KUSATU, 22, 125-171. A. CANNAVÒ

PYGMALION Phoen. pgmlyn: Gk Πυγμαλίων. A name linked to Phoen. compound theophoric PNN – found chiefly on *Cyprus and in *Carthage – formed from the theonym →P UMAY , especially pmyytn (CIS I, 12, *Kition: IK III, E1; CIS I, 617; 670; 2106; 5690; see also BCTH [1946-1949] 253). This is also the name of the last king of Kition and *Idalion (362-312 BCE: CIS I, 10; 11; 14; IK III A1, A2, A3, A29; Hill [1904] nos 75-81, Pl. IV 20-3), for whom the Gk sources transmit Phoen. pmyytn as equivalent to Gk pygmalion (Diod. 19,79,4) or pymaton (Athen. 4,167c). The god Pumay, originating on Cyprus – identified by Gk sources as APOLLO (Anon. Laur. Duod. Deor. 2,33, 267 Studemund) or ADONIS (Hsch. π 4281 Latte, s.v. Πυγμαίων) – is certainly one of the incarnations of the “Great God” of Cyprus, consort of the “Great Goddess” (usually identified as ASTARTE or Aphrodite). Phoen. pgmlyn, a transcription of Gk P., which occurs on a gold medallion from Douïmès (Carthage), dating to the mid-7th cent. BCE (CIS I, 6057 = KAI 73 = TSSI III, 18: →*Yadamilk) [FIG. 111], is a deity also associated with Astarte; his partial overlap with Pumay is probable. Class. sources document two mythical characters called P.: the king of Tyre, the brother of ELISSA-Dido (FGrHist 566 fr. 82, and according to other writers

Fig. 111. Gold medallion from Carthage CIS I, 6057

bearing the name pgmlyn

194

PYGMALION

right up to Virgil) and the king of Cyprus, Aphrodite’s lover, first mentioned by Philostephanus of Cyrene in the 3rd cent. BCE (FHG III, 31 fr. 13), but made famous especially by Ovid’s Metamorphoses (10,243-297). According to part of the tradition, this king was CYNIRAS’ father-in-law and the grandfather of Adonis ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3,14,3; FGrHist 758 fr. 3a). While it does not seem possible to equate P., king of Tyre, with P., king of Cyprus, they both had a close connection with Cyprus. Because of his relationship with Aphrodite, P. king of Cyprus evokes the pgmlyn of the medallion from Carthage and the god Pumay.

Hill, G. F. (1904) A Catalogue of the Greek coins in the British Museum: Catalogue of the Greek coins of Cyprus. London; Ferron, J. (1958-1959) CB, 8, 45-56; id. (1968) Mus, 81, 255261; Peckham, J. B. (1968) The development of the late Phoenician scripts. Cambridge (MA), 119-124; Bunnens, G. (1979) L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires. EPAHA XVIII. Bruxelles/Rome, 300-303; BÉS, no. 92, p. 96; Müller, H.-P. (1988) OrNS, 57, 192-205; Lipiński, E. (1995) 297-306; Pilkington, N. (2012) BASOR, 365, 45-51; Schmitz, Ph. C. (2012) The Phoenician stele from Nora (CIS I 144). In: id., The Phoenician diaspora. Epigraphic and historical studies. Winona Lake (IN), 15-31; Mosca, P. G. (2017) KUSATU, 22, 125-171. A. CANNAVÒ

Pyr see PHOS, PYR & PHLOX

Q QUDSHU Egypt. qdš(t). Q. is pronounced Qadištu (Uehlinger [1998]). It is the name of a goddess known from the hieroglyphs (qdš[t] with the divine determinative) on Egypt. stelae from the NK, mostly from Deir el-Medinah. Depicted is a naked woman with HATHOR head-dress facing the front, standing on a lion, holding serpents and lotus flowers [FIG. 112]. She is flanked by the Egypt. fertility god MIN and the armed Levantine god RESHEPH; in some cases she stands alone.

Terracotta plaques from LBA *Palestine depict a nude female holding plants (but never serpents), with two rare cases where she is standing on a lion. Two other rare examples (a gold foil and a terracotta) have a nude woman on horseback, on the terracotta, flanked by two smaller males. Naked women holding plants on golden pendants are only known from the trading centre of *Ugarit, but no terracottas (limited only to LBA Palestine). The figure holding plants on the LBA terracottas and metal plaques may perhaps be linked with the figure on the inscribed Egypt. stelae. However, not all nude females (some having no attributes) are necessarily Q., nor is Q. the same as the goddess ASHERAH in the Ug. texts because the epithet qdš is not feminine. The naked woman continues in the iconography of the Phoen. period (I mill. BCE). Some of these should be identified with the goddess ASTARTE rather than with Q. Images of Q. might have served to enhance sexuality or life. DCPP, s.v. (E. Lipiński); Uehlinger, C. (1998) Nackte Göttin. B. In der Bildkunst. In: RlA 9, 53-64; DDD2, s.v. “Holy One”, 415418 (F. van Koppen – K. van der Toorn); Lahn, K. (2005) Qedeschet. Genese einer Transfergottheit im ägyptisch-vorderasiatischen Raum. In: SAK 33, 201-237; Cornelius, I. (2008) The many faces of the Goddess: The iconography of the Syro-Palestinian goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 15001000 BCE. OBO 204. Fribourg/Göttingen; Tazawa, K. (2009) Syro-Palestinian deities in New Kingdom Egypt. Oxford; IDD, s.v. (I. Cornelius): http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/ prepublications/e_idd_qudshu.pdf (accessed 13.08.2019). I. CORNELIUS

Fig. 112. Limestone stela (ca 1300 BCE) with the figure of “Qudshu the beloved of Ptah” on a lion, holding flowers and serpents

R RA Egypt. R῾; Phoen. r῾ (?). Supreme solar deity, worshipped especially in *Heliopolis, whose name is written with the sign of the solar disc. R. was considered to be the protagonist of the natural cycle and therefore of the universe, including its mythical dimension. Not only did the daily cycle of the sun mark time, but it guaranteed a new creation every day. By moving across from the east. horizon, he brought back life, while in the evening he was swallowed by the west. horizon, to cross through the *Netherworld and be reborn the following morning, after having triumphed over destructive forces lying in ambush. This rhythm was connected with the annual cycle, when the heliacal rising of the star Sothis coincided ideally with the return of the Nile flood and the New Year. As early as the IV dyn. (OK), there is a clear connection between R. and the king, who in his royal protocol bears the title “Son of R.” that would also become usual in the course of history. During the V dyn., evidence for the importance of the solar cult is provided mainly by solar temples open to the sky, in which an obelisk, the benben – a stone erected as a divine hypostasis – was worshipped. Right up to the Rom. period, when obelisks were erected even outside *Egypt, especially in *Rome, the obelisk remained specifically a solar image. R. is connected with Atum, a creator god who rises over the primordial ocean and, in his daily cycle, manifests himself as Khepri, the scarab whose name is connected with the meaning of being in the sense of becoming; furthermore, another very recognizable link is with *HORUS of the Horizon (Ra-Harakhty) [FIG. 113]. In his nocturnal form, when he sails through the Netherworld, R. is connected with OSIRIS, who represents death. Life is restored by union with the sun, which is how the union between R. and Osiris is understood, a theological aspect that is still found in Plutarch, where Osiris is hidden in the arms of the sun (De Is. et Os. 52), or when his clothing is described as made of light (De Is. et Os. 77). From the NK, a special connection with AMON is well known. Furthermore, some female figures have a function relating to R.: Maat, the personification of order and harmony, is beside him in his role as creator, while

HATHOR represents his incinerating eye. Some myths about R. are attested from the I mill. BCE and have been spread beyond Egypt. The myth of the solar eye, transmitted by a Demotic text, is about the daughter of the sun who left Egypt but then returned as a benevolent goddess (→BASTET). Herodotus (2,73) has transmitted the myth of the phoenix, a divine bird who regenerated itself in the solar temple of Heliopolis: in Egyptian, benu, the name of the solar bird, is phonetically close to benben, or “obelisk”. Various animals are connected with R.: the baboon with its forepaws raised in the act of worship appears on each side of the solar deity and accompanies obelisks; the ichneumon also has a solar meaning; the tawny cat represents the sun in its battle against the destroying serpent Apophis [FIG. 113]. The lion is connected with the sun and as a pair marks the place of the epiphany, representing the east. horizon. The sign of the horizon, which frames the solar disc between two mountains when it appears, with its strong meaning of epiphany, was used to denote the temple. The

Fig. 113. The god Ra-Harakhty (Horus on the Horizon) in the sun barque with the god Seth slaying the serpent Apophis (papyrus, ca 1085-950 BCE)

regenerative power of the sun also affected daily objects, especially their being placed in a tomb, such as the head-rest, for ex., its shape, which supports the head of the dead person, evoking the disc on the horizon being reborn. The mythological domain of R. is certainly present in the imagery spread by *Amulets, some of them also beyond Egypt: besides the scarab, we find the sign of the horizon and the obelisk. [G.C.V.] R. is not mentioned directly in the Phoen. world. During the LBA, in the Levant, RESHEPH and generally

197

RA – RAKIB-EL

the solar deities of Sem. religions have been identified with this Egypt. god (→SHAMASH). The element r῾ appears in the PNN ῾bdr῾ (CIS I, 3778,10) and r῾/᾿mlk (CIS I, 1199,4; 1525,3; 3803,2; 4708,5; 5756,4-5; variant with aleph: CIS I, 5914,3), in inscriptions that come from the Pun. world. Probably it refers to R., even though r῾ also means “shepherd” in the NW Sem. lexicon. [P.X.] PNPPI, 409f.; Assmann, J. (1983) Ra und Amon, die Krise des polytheistischen Weltbilds im Ägypten der 18.-20. Dynastie. OBO 51. Freiburg/Göttingen; Barta, W. (1984) s.v. “Re”. In: LÄ V, 156-180; Hornung, E. (19852) Der Eine und die Vielen. Altägyptische Götterwelt. Darmstadt; Bresciani, E. (ed.) (1992) Il mito dell’Occhio del Sole. Brescia; Lipiński, E. (1995) 181f.348f.; Müller, M. (2001) Re and Re-Horakhty. In: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, III. Oxford, 123-126; Quirke, S. (2001) The cult of Ra: Sun-worship in Ancient Egypt. London; Leitz, C. (ed.) (2002) Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen III. OLA 112. Leuven, 612-619; Ciampini, E. M. (2004) Gli obelischi iscritti di Roma. Rome; du Quesne, T. (2006) The Osiris-Re conjunction with particular reference to the Book of the Dead. In: Backes, B., Munro, I. and Stöhr, S. (eds) TotenbuchForschungen. Gesammelte Beiträge des 2. Internationalen Totenbuch-Symposiums (Bonn, 25. bis 29. September 2005). Studien zum Altägyptischen Totenbuch 11. Wiesbaden, 23-33; IDD, s.v. (K. Stucky): http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/ prepublications/e_idd_ra.pdf (accessed 12.12.2019).

King *Kulamuwa of Sam᾿al (ca 840-810 BCE) names R. in the curse section of his Phoen. inscription (KAI 24), together with the gods BAAL ṢMD and BAAL HAMMON and gives R. the title of “Lord of the House” (KAI 24,16), i.e. the patron god of his dynasty. He also dedicated an object made of silver, with an inscription in which he asks the god R. for a long life. On the statue of HADAD from Gerçin, King Panamuwa I (ca 790-750 BCE) mentions the gods Hadad, El, RESHEPH, R. and SHAMASH (KAI 214,2-3.11.18). This sequence allows us to determine R.’s high rank in the pantheon of Sam᾿al, even though R. appears in the penultimate position. This also applies to the inscription of King *Barrakib in memory of his father Panamuwa II (ca 743-733 BCE), in which R. also has the title “Lord of the House” (KAI 215,22). R. is the theophoric component in the name of King Barrakib (ca 733-713/711 BCE), meaning that he is identified as “Son of R.” [FIG. 114]. This must be a

G. CAPRIOTTI VITTOZZI – P. XELLA

Rakab-El see RAKIB-EL RAKIB-EL Phoen. rkb᾿l; Aram. rkb᾿l; Ass. bēl rakab. DN, “Charioteer of El”. It is uncertain whether it should be vocalized as rākib (ptc. G-stem) or as rakkāb (noun). The mythical background for this DN is unknown but, in any case, a connection with the Ug. motif of the “Rider on the Clouds” can be accepted. Similarly, the god EL, attested at *Ugarit, also occurs in Zincirli (*Sam᾿al) (KAI 214,2-3.11.18; 215,22). Therefore, it has been proposed that R. is the god El with the epithet “Chariot rider”. However, if the ᾿l component of his name does not mean “El”, R. would simply be a divinized charioteer. The god R. is mentioned in the inscription from Ördek Burnu and in the inscriptions from Sam᾿al (KAI 24,16; 25; 214,2-3.11.18; 215,22; 216,5; 217,7-8). The oldest mention of the god R. is in the inscription of Ördek Burnu, dating to the second half of the 9th cent. BCE, in which R. appears together with the goddess Kubaba.

Fig. 114. The inscription of Barrakib (KAI 216)

198

RAKIB-EL – REPHAIM

throne name. In his inscriptions Barrakib mentions the god R. as his lord, whom he thanks for his enthronement (KAI 216,5; cf. B 4 in Tropper [1993] 164) and whose servant he considers himself to be (217,2 [reconstr.]). Equally, R. is also supposed to let his servant Barrakib find mercy before his overlord, the Ass. king *Tiglath-pileser III (→*Assyrians) (KAI 217,7-9). An iconographic representation of the god R. is the symbol of a yoke present on the stela of Kulamuwa (KAI 24) and on a seal of king Barrakib. Outside Sam᾿al a “Bēl Rakab of Sam᾿al” occurs in an Ass. letter to King Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE) (SAA 16,61), and from the time of Assurbanipal (668-630 BCE) comes the Ass. PN Bēl-rukūb-šarruuṣur, with the god R. as its theophoric element (PNA 1/II, 326). von Luschan, F. (1943) Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli V. Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli (ed. W. Andrae). MIOS XV. Berlin, Pls 38b and 47f-g; Landsberger, B. (1948) Sam᾿al. Studien zur Entdeckung der Ruinenstätte Karatepe. Veröffentlichungen der Türkischen Historischen Gesellschaft VII. Serie, Nr. 16. Ankara, 45-48; Barnett, R. D. (1962) The Gods of Zincirli. In: CRRAI, 11, Leiden, 59-87, esp. 76-79; Yadin, Y. (1970) Symbols of deities at Zincirli, Carthage and Hazor. In: Sanders, J. A. (ed.) Near Eastern archaeology in the twentieth century. Essays in honor of Nelson Glueck. New York, 199-231, esp. 200-204; DCPP, s.v. (E. Lipiński – P. Xella); Tropper, J. (1993) Die Inschriften von Zincirli. ALASP 6. Münster; DDD², s.v., 686f. (K. van der Toorn); PNA 1/II, 326; SAA 16, 58-62; Krebernik, M. (20062008) s.v. In: RlA 11, 232; Lemaire, A. and Sass, B. (2012) CRAI(BL), 227-240; iid. (2013) BASOR, 369, 57-136; Fales, F. M. and Grassi, G. F. (2016) L’aramaico antico. Storia, grammatica, testi commentati. Udine, 170f.194f.; Niehr, H. (2014) Religion. In: id. (ed.) The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria. HdO I/106. Leiden/ Boston, 127-203, esp. 158-160.163f.; id. (2018) Questions of text and image in ancient Sam᾿al (Zincirli). In: Attinger, P. et al. (eds) Text and image. Proceedings of the 61e RAI, Geneva and Bern, 22-26 June 2015. OBO SA 40. Leuven/Paris/Bristol (CT), 309-319, esp. 311-313. H. NIEHR

REPHAIM Ug. rp᾿m; Phoen. rp᾿m; Hebr. rpym. This term for the spirits of dead kings, meaning “the healers”, which is derived from the root rp᾿, “to heal”, and was later also used for dead spirits in general, occurs only in the W Sem. languages Ugaritic, Phoenician and Hebrew, but not in Aramaic. The significance of the R. for Phoen.-Pun. culture is that they allow us a glimpse of the afterlife of kings and of ordinary people, especially in the late period.

The texts from *Ugarit are the oldest sources for the rapi᾿ūma, and from them it is clear that the idea of rapi᾿ūma originated in Bashan at the foot of Mount *Hermon; only later did it reach Ugarit and other regions in the Levant. Even though there are no written source texts from Bashan about the rapi᾿ūma, in the texts from Ugarit it is still possible to identify an independent Bashan tradition and separate it from the Amorite (→*Amorites) tradition of ancestor worship of the malakūma (mlkm), and of the forebear Ditānu (dtn) that is also documented in Ugarit. The clearest evidence for the reception of the Bashan tradition in Ugarit is provided by the ritual KTU3 1.108, which deals with the transfer of the divine powers of Rapi᾿u, the king of the *Netherworld, and of the rapi᾿ūma, to the newly enthroned king of Ugarit. According to this text, the god Rapi᾿u is enthroned in Ashtartu (*Ashtarot, Tell Ashtara), the site of his temple, and he utters necromantic oracles in Edrei. The transmission of the Bashan tradition to Ugarit came about through the royal house in Bashan from which King Yaqaru originated, who founded a new dynasty in Ugarit between 1440 and 1420 BCE. In KTU3 1.166,13 the Rapi᾿u of Yaqaru is mentioned. This can be compared with KTU3 1.108,2, in which Rapi᾿u appears as the god of Yaqaru. The epic character of King Dan᾿ilu is also important, as he was king of Harnamu in the north. *Beqaa, and in the Epic of Aqhatu he is called a “man of the Rapi᾿u”, i.e. a descendant of the dynastic god Rapi᾿u from Ashtartu and Edrei (KTU3 1.17 I 1 [rest.].17.35.37 etc.). The most important text about the rapi᾿ūma is KTU3 1.161. This ritual was designed to accompany the spirit of King Niqmaddu IV into the Netherworld. In the first ten lines of the text, historical kings of Ugarit are not listed but, instead, the mythical ancestors, who are subordinate to Ditanu (Didanu), are invited to take part in the festivities; then the spirit of King Niqmaddu is asked to join this group and to go into the underworld with the other R. The Baal Cycle (KTU3 1.1-1.6) ends with a hymn to the sun-goddess Shapshu (→SHAMASH), as she guarantees the permanence of the cosmic order, which also entails that each deity should remain in his or her respective region. Therefore, Shapshu is said to have the rapi᾿ūma under her, as well as the Divine Ones (KTU3 1.6,46-49). In the Epic of Kirta (KTU3 1.141.16) King Kirta is exalted among the rapi᾿ūma of the Netherworld, in the assembled company of

199

REPHAIM

Ditanu (KTU3 1.16 III 2-4). The blessing of the god EL on Kirta anticipates the process of installing the king within the dynastic family, and already accords him the status of a rapi᾿u while still alive. Therefore, the rapi᾿ūma-texts (KTU3 1.20-1.22), which represent fragments of the fourth tablet of the Epic of Aqhatu (KTU3 1.17-1.19), show that even after tragic accidents such as the death of the crown prince Aqhatu, the royal ancestors, who were responsible for the continuation of the dynasty, could be asked for help successfully. In the Phoen. inscriptions from *Lebanon, the R. appear only twice. In the inscription of King *Tabnit of *Sidon (end of the 6th cent. BCE), potential looters of the tomb are threatened with having no descendants under the sun and no resting-place with the R. (KAI 13,6-8). Accordingly, an offending king would be denied any descendants, and therefore any cult when dead and any repose among the spirits. The curse in the inscription on the sarcophagus of King *Eshmunazor of Sidon (end of the 6th cent. BCE) is similar in content (→*Blessings and curses). According to that curse, any person who disturbs the resting-place of the king will have no dwelling among the R., will not be buried in a grave and will have neither son nor offspring (KAI 14,6-9). It is unlikely that only during the 6th cent. BCE the concept of the R. was accepted by the kings of the Levant and that this, was restricted to the South. Similarly, it is difficult to determine whether and to what extent an appeal to the Ug. rapi᾿ūma traditions is present, or whether it came directly from Bashan. The last Pun. reference to the R. comes from *ElAmrouni in North Africa (1st cent. CE) with the dedication l᾿l[nm] ᾿r᾿p᾿m (“To the div[ine] dead spirits”), which corresponds to D(is) M(anibus) SAC(rum) in the Lat. part of the inscription (KAI 117) [FIG. 115]. The acceptance of the R. as royal ancestors in *Israel must have taken place under King Jeroboam II (787747 BCE), as he had captured Bashan and added it to the kingdom of Israel. As yet, the written record of this acceptance is exclusive to the *Old Testament. Here there are references to the R. as royal ancestors in Israel and *Judah (Isa 14,9; 26,13-14). Similarly, the “Valley of the R.” (Josh 15,8; 18,16; 2 Sam 5,18.22; 23,13; Isa 17,5; 1 Chr 11,15; 14,9; cf. Jer 31,40) refers to royal ancestors. Instead, the reference in Job 26,5 is ambivalent since, on the one hand, there are clear allusions to Ug.

Fig. 115. Neopunic inscription of El-Amrouni

mythology, but on the other, the exclusive nature of royal ancestors is no longer discernible. The other mentions of R. in the OT refer to the spirits of all dead people (Isa 26,19; Ps 88,11; Prov 2,18; 9,18; 21,16). Thus the R. come across as a people of the past, who inhabited Bashan and were defeated by foreign kings (Gen 14,5; cf. 15,20), or by Moses in connection with the possession of the land, together with their king, Og (Deut 2,11.20; 3,11.13; Josh 12,4; 13,12; 17,15; 1 Chr 20,4). These narratives already spelled an end to the cult of dead kings in Judah and Israel in the pre-monarchical period. In reality, in Jerusalem, a cult of royal ancestors in a shrine near the Temple continued well into the 5th cent. BCE. Then, the onset of criticism by the priesthood caused this cult to be discontinued (Ezek 43,6-9). Karge, P. (1917) Rephaim. Paderborn; Wüst, M. (1975) Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments I. Ostjordanland. BTAVO B.9. Wiesbaden, 25-57; DBS X (1981) s.v. (A. Caquot); Spronk, K. (1986) Beatific afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. AOAT 219. Kevelaer/ Neukirchen-Vluyn, 161-196; del Olmo Lete, G. (1988) SEL, 5, 51-60; Dijkstra, M. (1988) UF, 20, 35-52; Tropper, J. (1989) Nekromantie. Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. AOAT 223. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 129-156; Ford, J. N. (1992) UF, 24, 73-101; Schmidt, B. B. (1994) Israel’s beneficent dead. Ancestor cult and necromancy in ancient Israelite religion and tradition. FAT 11. Tübingen, 71-122; DDD2, s.v., 692-700 (H. Rouillard); Loretz, O. (2003) Götter – Ahnen – Könige als gerechte Richter. Der “Rechtsfall” des Menschen vor Gott nach altorientalischen und biblischen Texten. AOAT 290. Münster, 211-336; Merlo, P. and Xella, P. (2001) Da Erwin Rohde ai Rapiuma ugaritici: antecedenti vicino-orientali degli eroi greci? In: Rocchi, M., Ribichini, S. and Xella, P. (eds) La questione delle influenze vicino-orientali sulla religione greca. Rome, 281-297; Pardee, D. (2011) Or, 80, 1-65; Bordreuil, P. (2014) SemClass, 7, 31-36; Niehr, H. (2015) Mythen und Epen aus Ugarit. In: TUAT NF 8. Gütersloh, 177-301; id. (2015) The abolition of the cult of the dead kings in Jerusalem (Ezek. 43.6-9). In: Korpel, M. C. A. and Grabbe, L. L. (eds) Open-mindedness in the Bible and beyond. A volume of studies in honour of Bob Becking. LHB/OTS 616. London/New York, 223-235; id. (2016) Ahnen und Ahnenkult in den Königsepen aus Ugarit. In: Hiepel,

200

REPHAIM – RESHEPH

L. and Wacker, M.-Th. (eds) Zwischen Zion und Zaphon. Studien im Gedenken an den Theologen Oswald Loretz (14.01.192812.04.2014). AOAT 438. Münster, 379-400; id. (2017) Die rapi᾿ūma/repha᾿îm als konstitutives Element der westsemitischen Königsideologie. Herkunft – Rezeptionsgeschichte – Ende. In: Jonker, L. C. et al. (eds) Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016. VTS 177. Leiden/Boston, 143-178. H. NIEHR

RESHEPH Eblaite Rasap, Rašap, Rašappa; Akk. Rašpu; Ug. ršp; Phoen. ršp; Hebr. Rešep; Aram. ršp; Egypt. ršp(w). The etymology of the DN is based on the Akk. divine epithet rašbu (“terrifying”, “awe-inspiring”), and not on the verbal root “to burn”, as some scholars have claimed. The first occurrence of the god is in the second half of the III mill. BCE in the texts from *Ebla. There he seems to hold a high rank in the local pantheon and occurs as a god of war and of the *Netherworld, but also as a healer-god. In accordance with this position – since, on the one hand, he causes diseases but on the other he can also provide protection from them – he occurs both in curses and as a theophoric component of PNN. As a result, Abu-R. (“R. is father”), Enna-R. (“R. is merciful”), Ebdu-R. (“Servant of R.”), or Iti-R. (“R has given”) occur. There are also various toponymic manifestations of R. such as the R. of Adani, the R. of Daraum, the R. of Mulukku, the R. of Shi᾿amu, the R. of Tunip and several more. In the case of R. of Gunu, instead of the name of a town, a defined area within the royal Palace of Ebla has been adopted. One of the city gates of Ebla was named after R., which can be explained from the temple that is in the city quarter behind it. The most important temple of R. is located in sanctuary B1 next to the royal palace. That palace also explains the manifestation of the god as R. of the Palace. As R. was the god of the royal necropolis, he also exhibits a chthonian nature. The goddess Adamma (→ADOM) appears as a consort of R., who as mother-goddess was concerned with fertility. Subsequently, R. occurs in the III and II mill. BCE also in the cults and onomastics of Tunip, *Emar, Ekalte, Terqa, Hana and *Mari. On *Cyprus, R.(-N ERGAL ) is mentioned in an *Amarna letter, which complains about plague on that island (EA 35,13-15.35-39). As part of the reception of Ancient Near Eastern deities during the LBA, the cult of R. reached *Egypt from the Levant [FIG. 116].

There, for ex., he appears as the war-god of Pharaoh Amenophis II (1428-1397 BCE). R. has a bellicose character as he is equivalent to the Egypt. war-god Montu. From the Ramesside period, the cult of R. also spread to the ordinary people of Egypt, as shown principally by the stelae of private individuals, which group together R. in a triad with the Sem. goddess QUDSHU and the Egypt. god MIN. There is evidence for the cult of R. in Egypt during the I mill. BCE. Egypt. iconography stresses the warlike nature of R., as it depicts him wearing a gazelle’s head, or a white or red crown, together with a lance, a spear, a quiver, a club, a shield and ankh-symbols (*Ankh). In addition, among private individuals, R.’s healing character is also to be found, as he appears as the protector god against demons and as combating dangerous diseases. According to the god-lists from Ras Shamra, R. has a lower rank in the Ug. pantheon (KTU3 1.47,27; 1.118,26; 1.148,8.32). In the Bab. translations of these god-lists, R. appears as Nergal (RS 20.24,26; 94.2579,26; AO 29.393,24; DO 6568,17). R. also appears in other rituals, omens and incantations (KTU3 1.39,4.7; 1.78,3, 1.79,9; 1.81,10-11; 1.82,3;

Fig. 116. Egyptian stela from Qantir representing an armed divine character and the name Resheph

RESHEPH

1.90,2; 1.91,11; 1.100,31; 1.105,7.25; 1.107,40; 1.123,31; 1.126,3.5; 1.165,2.3). Two texts are particularly worth mentioning here. One is an incantation (KTU3 1.82,1-5) in which BAAL is petitioned as a healer-god against the effects of R.s’ arrows. In the other text, which has the form of a litany (KTU3 1.123), R. is addressed, alongside other important deities of Ugarit. R. also occurs in two royal contemplation rituals (KTU3 1.90 and 1.168), in which the king of Ugarit pays a visit to R. Hagab and brings him gifts. The dedication of a lion-headed rhyton to R. of Gunu (KTU3 6.62) indicates the lion to be the symbolic animal of R. R. is mentioned in the ritual KTU3 1.91,11 in the plural, showing that several statuettes of the god R. were brought to the king’s palace. This translation ritual is an indication of various local manifestations of the god R., who appears in other rituals as R. of Bibita (KTU3 1.100,31; 1.105,25), R. of Gunu (KTU3 1.165,3; 6.62,2; RS 25.318,2), R. of Hgb (KTU3 1.90,2; 1.168,1-2), R. of Mulukku (KTU3 1.105,7; 4.182,61) and R. of Mhbn (KTU3 1.105,1; 1.106,6). There are also the R. of the army (KTU3 1.91,15) and R. Idrap (KTU3 1.148,32). The only known title of R. is zbl, “prince” (KTU3 1.15 II 6). The economic text KTU3 4.219,3 mentions a temple of R. of Gunu, although the location of that cult place within Ugarit or in the Ug. kingdom is not clear. In another economic text, horses of the gods R. and MILKASHTART are mentioned (KTU3 4.790,16-17). Behind these lies a connection with the Netherworld for both deities. It is also evident from the mention of the chariots of the rapi᾿ūma (→REPHAIM), on which they travel from Bashan to king Dan᾿ilu (KTU3 1.20 II 2-4 and 1.22 II 22-23). R. and Milkashtart also use divine chariots as a means of transport, possibly in order to bring their statues to Ugarit, already mentioned in a translation ritual of R. (KTU3 1.91). In addition, the chthonian character of R. in KTU3 1.78 is clear, where R. acts as the guardian of the gates to the Netherworld. In the Epic of Kirta, R. occurs, on the one hand, as the destroyer of some of king Kirta’s descendants (KTU3 1.14 I 18-19), and on the other is present at Kirta’s wedding (KTU3 1.15 II 6). This second occurrence shows the protective role of the god R., which is also expressed in Ug. PNN such as Aḫ-R./Iḫ-R. (“My brother is R.”), Ili-R. (“My god is R.”), N῾m.-R. (“My delight is R.”), R.-abu (“R. is father”), Abd-R. (“Servant of R.”) or Adar-R. (“R. has helped”).

201

In the iconography of the Levant during the II mill. BCE, R. is depicted as a striding and threatening god. However, there are no statuettes or reliefs definitely of R. This applies both to Ugarit and to LBA *Byblos, where the god R. does not actually appear, and only the figurines of a warlike god from the temple of the obelisks can be understood as depicting R. In the I mill. BCE the god R. becomes less popular than in the II mill. BCE. The cult of R. in Sam᾿al (→*Zincirli) was due either to a North Syr. cultic tradition, documented since Ebla, or was particularly inherited from Ugarit, in favour of which would be the cult of the god EL in Sam᾿al. R. is mentioned in the inscription of King Panamuwa I (ca 790-750 BCE) after HADAD and El, or after Hadad, El, RAKIB-EL and SHAMASH. These deities had stood by the king and conferred the sceptre of rulership on him. In this way, especially, R.’s support is emphasised (KAI 214,2-3). Further on in the inscription, the relevance of the deities Hadad, El, Rakib-el, Shamash and A RQU -R ESHEPH for the welfare of the country is mentioned (KAI 214,11). The god Arqu-Resheph appearing here represents the belligerent side of R., as he is combined with the Arabian god Ruldāwu/Ruḍa, due to North Arabian influence on Sam᾿al. However, the relationship between these two gods, Arqu-Resheph and R., in Sam᾿al, remains unknown, as no myths or epics from there have been preserved. In his three mentions in KAI 214 R. appears as one of the patron gods of the kingdom of Sam᾿al. There is a further mention of R. from Aramaean *Syria in a fragment of a stela from Tell Sifr in the 8th cent. BCE. However, due to the fragmentary condition of that inscription, no further comments – not even about the decipherable mention of the goddess Kubaba – are possible. In *Palmyra, R. is mentioned in an inscription of the temple of Bel dating back to 6 BCE (PAT 2766): it is the dedication of buildings in the temenos of that temple to the deities Herta, Nanai and R. There is evidence for the cult of R. in *Phoenicia from the 5th cent. BCE. The inscriptions of King *Bodashtart (end of the 6th – middle of the 5th cent. BCE) mention construction work on temples in the town of *Sidon, where the expression “Land of the Reshaphim” occurs (᾿rṣ ršpm: KAI 15). Quite probably there was a quarter in that city that was named after a temple, in which various manifestations of R. were worshipped.

202

RESHEPH

From the late 6th cent. BCE, the Plain of Sharon belonged to Sidon (KAI 14,18-20), and there, N of *Jaffa, is the city of Apollonia, founded in the Pers. period. It retained the name Arsūf in Arabic (Hebr.: Tel Arshaf), which contains the god’s name R. with a prosthetic aleph, as the city was named after him (as is still also apparent from 1 Chr. 7,25). The equivalence of R. with A POLLO is known from *Cyprus. There are additional Phoen. references to R. from Cyprus, where, in the 7th cent. BCE, R. is mentioned on the base of a statue from Palaeokastro, in the vicinity of *Kition: here, only a šin in this divine epithet is still legible. In Phoen. inscriptions dating after the 4th cent. BCE, various local manifestations of R. are attested, such as R. Alasiotas and R. Eleites in *Tamassos, R. of the Arrow in Kition and R. Mkl, who is identical with Apollo Amyklaios, in *Idalion (→MEKAL/MIKAL) [FIG. 117]. The identification of R. with APOLLO is likely since both gods bring disease and healing. R. occurs as a theophoric element in the PNN ῾bdršp (“Servant of R.”) and ršpytn (“R. has given”). The god R. Ṣprm, who occurs in the Phoen. inscriptions from *Karatepe (KAI 26 A II 10-12; end of the 8th cent. BCE), is to be understood neither as “R. of the birds” nor as “R. of the goats”, but as the god of Mount Sarpa, i.e. as the Phoen. version of the Luwian stag-god Runtiyas. One of the few Pun. mentions of R. is the PN ῾bdršp, (“Servant of R.”), from *Carthage (CIS I, 2628,6). Temples dedicated to Apollo are known in Carthage and *Utica, so that the god Apollo-R. from Cyprus had been envisaged in those cases; other scholars, instead, have proposed to identify that Apollo as Phoen. ESHMUN. Equally disputed is the question as to whether Apollo – mentioned in the bilateral treaty between *Hannibal (9) and *Philip V, king of Macedonia

Fig. 117. The inscription CIS I, 91 dedicated to Resheph-mkl

(215 BCE) (→*Treaties) – is identical with R. As yet, the mention of a temple servant of the god R. in CIS I, 251 remains slightly unclear, since there the DN R. is partially restored. For epigraphical reasons, the reading of a DN ᾿ršp mlqrt on the bronze sculpture from *Es-Culleram in *Ibiza must be rejected. The cult of R. is also attested in *Israel and *Judah. What is distinctive for the *Old Testament is that R. no longer appears as an independent god, but as a demon under the supremacy of Yahweh (Deut 32,24; Hab 3,3-5; Job 5,7; Ps 78,48), or as an opponent of Yahweh (Ps 76,4), or as subordinate to the god MOT (Ctc 8,6). In Sir 43,17 R. occurs in a poetic comparison with birds. R. does not appear as a healer since in the OT the aspect of healing has been transferred exclusively to Yahweh (Exod 15,26). Also, R. no longer occurs in Israel and Judah as a theophoric element of PNN. The plural Reshaphim in Ps 76,4, 78,48, Sir 43,17 and in Ctc 8,6 stands for “demons”. The de-divinization of R. continues in the LXX, where the R. mentioned in the Hebr. original becomes “raptor” in Greek (Deut 32,24; Hab 3,5; Job 5,7; Sir 43,14.17). In the iconography of the I mill. BCE – as previously in the II mill. BCE – R. is depicted as a striding and menacing god, equipped with a shield, unlike portrayals of Baal. Stadelmann, R. (1967) Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. PdÄ 5. Leiden, 47-76; Caquot, A. and Masson, O. (1968) Syria, 45, 295-321; Conrad, D. (1971) ZAW, 83, 157-183; Schretter, M. K. (1974) Alter Orient und Hellas. IBKWS 33. Innsbruck; Fulco, W. J. (1976) The Canaanite god Rešep. AOS 8. New Haven (CT); ThWAT VII, s.v. (M. J. Mulder); Xella, P. (1979-1980) AAAS, 29-30, 145-162; Müller, H.-P. (1980) ZDPV, 96, 1-19; Xella, P. (1988) WO, 19, 45-64; DDD2, s.v., 700-703 (P. Xella); Cornelius, I. (1994) The iconography of the Canaanite gods Reshep and Ba῾al. OBO 140. Fribourg/Göttingen; id. (1998) JNSL 24, 167-177; Lipiński E. (1995) 179-188; Pomponio, F. and Xella, P. (1997) Les dieux d’Ebla. AOAT 245. Münster, 297-315; Niehr, H. (2003) Zur Entstehung von Dämonen in der Religionsgeschichte Israels. Überlegungen zum Weg des Rešep durch die nordwestsemitische Religionsgeschichte. In: Lange, A., Lichtenberger, H. and Römheld, K. F. D. (eds) Die Dämonen/Demons. Tübingen, 84-107; id. (2003) Zur Interferenz der phönizischen Religion mit den Religionen ihrer Umwelt am Bespiel von Zypern. In: Schwertheim, E. and Winter, E. (eds) Religion und Region. Götter und Kulte aus dem östlichen Mittelmeerraum. Asia Minor Studien 45. Bonn, 9-30; Streck, P. and Seidl, U. (20062008) s.v. In: RlA 11, 251-254; Rahmouni, A. (2008) Divine epithets in the Ugaritic alphabetic texts. HdO I.93. Leiden/Boston, 297-299; Lipiński, E. (2009) Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite deity. OLA 181 = StPhoen 19. Leuven/Paris/Walpole (MA); Tazawa, K. (2009) Syro-Palestinian deities in New Kingdom Egypt. The hermeneutics of their existence. BAR IS 1965. Oxford, 38-59 and passim; Niehr, H. (2011) Texte aus Syrien. In: TUAT NF 6. Gütersloh, 83-88; Roche-Hawley, C. (2012) Procédés

RESHEPH – RHEA

d’écriture des noms de divinités ougaritaines en cunéiforme mésopotamien. In: ead. and Hawley, R. (eds) Scribes et érudits dans l’orbite de Babylone. Orient et Méditerranée, Archéologie 9. Paris, 149-178, esp. 155f., 172-176; Münnich, M. M. (2013) The god Resheph in the Ancient Near East. ORA 11. Tübingen. H. NIEHR

Resheph-mkl see RESHEPH RHEA Gk ῾Ρέα. One of the wives of CRONUS/Elos, R. appears three times in PHILO OF BYBLOS’ Phoenician History (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,22.24.34 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). She is a daughter of Ouranos (“Sky”) as in Gk myth, where she is a Titan and the sister of Cronus. First she is sent by Ouranos to kill Cronus, with her sisters ASTARTE and Dione, but the three are kept as wives instead (PE 1,10,22). Cronus has seven children with R., who are not mentioned by name. It is said that one of them was worshipped since birth (PE 1,10,24). Philo ends his narrative about Cronus saying that he had deified another son, who had died, called MOUTH (PE 1,10,34). Therefore, that son must be the one mentioned earlier, but not the one sacrificed (PE 1,10,33). Muth/Mouth (Gk Μούθ) is identified with Hades and PLUTO by the *Phoenicians, Philo says, and he must be a version of the

203

Sem. Mot represented in the Ug. epics, and not the same as the primordial muddy substance called Mot (Μώτ) in PE 1,10,1-2 (= BNJ fr. 2). This family line agrees with the standard Gk sequence, where Hades is a brother of Zeus and the other Olympians, children of Cronus and R. His physical death and divinization allow him to inhabit the *Netherworld, a Euhemeristic interpretation of a religious concept (→*Euhemerism), that accords more with the “dying gods” (→DYING GOD[S]) of the ANE (e.g. OSIRIS, BAAL, Inanna etc.) than with Gk tradition. While the other wives, Astarte and Dione, are adaptations of Sem. goddesses (Astarte and probably BAALTIS of Byblos), R. has no Astarte equivalent and may be a direct addition to comply with the Hesiodic couple Cronus-Rhea. Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 240; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 51-57; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 200-202.204; West, M. L. (1983) The Orphic Poems. Oxford; Gantz, B. T. (1993) Early Greek myth: A guide to literary and artistic sources 1. Baltimore/London; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 2019 2): http:// referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

S SADAMBAAL Phoen. ṣdmb῾l, “Sid of/from Baal” (?); “Sid, the equal of Baal” (?). As yet, this DN is known exclusively from an inscription probably from *Gozo, dated to the 2nd cent. BCE (CIS I, 132 = ICO Malta 6 = KAI 62) [FIG. 118]. It records the construction and restoration of several sanctuaries (→*Cult places) by the will of the “people of Gozo”, one of which was dedicated to S., another was built in honour of ASTARTE and others were dedicated to deities whose names have not been preserved. The theonym S. has been the subject of various interpretations, most of which are characterized by a tendency to alter the reading of the consonantal sequence, largely because of its uniqueness and, therefore, the difficulty in providing a satisfactory meaning. For ex., in CIS I (p. 162), the name is read as ṣrmb῾l, and so is connected hypothetically with the god SOURMOUBELOS mentioned by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,42). For H. Stocks (1936), instead, the DN would originally have been ṣlmb῾l, with a shift from lamed to daleth; in this way the name would correspond to Salammbô. On the basis of other readings, the theonym could be related to b῾l ṣdn, known in *Sidon from the inscription of *Eshmunazor II (Harris [1936]) or else, to b῾l ṣmd

Fig. 118. Inscription from Gozo mentioning Sadambaal

(BAAL ṢMD) in the text of king *Kulamuwa from *Zincirli/Sam᾿al (KAI 24; in that case, it would be a mistake by the lapicide in the Gozo inscription: so W. Röllig). However, an examination by S. F. Bondì (1977) has proved that, in terms of palaeography, the reading ṣdmb῾l must be considered correct. According to Bondì’s interpretation, the DN would comprise two parts: the first – ṣd – would be the name of the god SID, worshipped on *Sardinia in the temple of *Antas, and in *Carthage in the “double” theonyms ṣdtnt (Sid-Tinnit) and ṣdmlqrt (Sid-Melqart) (→DOUBLE DEITIES); the second group of consonants – b῾l – should be identified as an epithet of the god MELQART. In fact, that god is known as b῾l ṣr (“Lord of Tyre”) in two inscriptions from *Malta that are almost contemporary with the one from Gozo (CIS I, 122-122 bis = ICO Malta 1-1 bis = KAI 147). Following this reading, the two components in question would be connected by the simple preposition m, with the meaning “of, from”. The whole theonym would then be understood as “Sid of (from) Baal (= Melqart)”. This proposal seems supported by the presence of Sid-Melqart in Carthage; moreover, it would have additional proof from class. sources, which record the strong connection between Sid/ Sardos (SARDUS PATER) and Melqart/Macerides; Pausanias, for ex., when describing the first as the son of the second, uses the expression “Sardos, son of Maceris” (Paus. 10,17,2) which is very close in structure to the sequence ṣdmb῾l. In this way, the Gozo inscription would further testify, despite its peculiar formulation, to the fortunes of the cult of Sid in the West, and more particularly, of the close relationship between this deity and the main god of *Tyre. A new reading of ṣdmb῾l has been proposed by G. Garbini (2016); while sharing the general hypothesis proposed by Bondì, he has preferred to interpret the central m as the word dm, with assimilation of the initial d to the final consonant of ṣd (i.e. as ṣd-dm-b῾l). The term dm would come from the Sem. root dmw/y, meaning “to be like, the equal of”; therefore, ṣdmb῾l should mean “Sid equal to (or: equal of) Baal”. Based on what Garbini has suggested, the DN could possibly correspond to Siddinpal in a Lat. inscription from *Tripolitania (IRT 195). Finally, E. Lipiński (1995) has proposed a different interpretation, translating ṣdmb῾l as “Image of Baal”.

SADAMBAAL – SAKON

Harris, Z. S. (1936) A grammar of the Phoenician language. New Haven (CT), 140; Stocks, H. (1936) Berytus, 3, 31-50; Dussaud, R. (1946-1948) Syria, 25, 205-320; Teixidor, J. (1969) Syria, 46, 342; Grottanelli, C. (1973) RSF, 1, 153-164; Sznycer, M. (19741975) AEPHE, IVe Section, 191-208; Robin, C. (1975-1976) AEPHE, IVe Section, 184-190; Bondì, S. F. (1977) SCO, 26, 299-302; Hvidberg-Hansen, F. O. (1986) Uni-Astarte and TanitIuno Caelestis: Two Phoenician goddesses of fertility reconsidered from recent archaeological discoveries. In: Bonanno, A. (ed.) Archaeology and fertility cult in the Ancient Mediterranean. Amsterdam, 170-195; Lipiński, E. (1995) 102f.; Vella, H. C. R. (1995) The Island of Gozo in classical texts. In: Briguglio, L. (ed.) Occasional papers on Islands and small states. Malta, 1-40; De Trafford, A. (1998) Treasures of Malta, 4.3, 37-41.91; Garbati, G. (1999-2000) EVO, 22-23, 167-177; Bonanno, A. and Cilia, D. (2005) Malta, Phoenician, Punic and Roman. Sta Venera (Malta), 79f.; Lipiński, E. (2014) RO, 67, 36-45; Sagona, C. (2015) The archaeology of Malta: From the Neolithic through the Roman period. New York; Garbini, G. (2016) RSF, 44, 109-113. G. GARBATI

SADIDOS Gk Σάδιδος. A son of CRONUS/Elos in PHILO OF BYBLOS’ Phoenician History (FGrHist 790) He appears only once in the passages preserved, as a son whom Cronus kills “with his own steel” out of suspicion (apud Eus. PE 1,10,21 = BNJ 790 fr. 2), presumably as that son would be a threat to his power. This murder is not a sacrifice or offering to the gods like the ones mentioned in PE 1,10,33 (Cronus’ unnamed “only son” dedicated to Ouranos) and in PE 1,10,44 (= 4,16,11 = BNJ 790 fr. 3b) (sacrifice of IEOUD, also called his “only son”). In the same passage, Cronus is also said to have killed an unnamed daughter. The reputation of Cronus/Elos as a homicidal father accords with the Gk image of Cronus, who devours his own children to prevent their succession (Hes. Th. 459), not unlike when Zeus gulps down Athena in the womb of her mother (Th. 890). The proposal that S. and Ieoud might be the same name distorted by textual corruption (Eissfeldt [1952] 19f.) is not widely accepted. Cronus/Elos had other sons, including MOUTH, named in the same passage as divinized after he died (not sacrificed). Eusebius was well aware of the frequent accusation that the *Phoenicians practised *Child sacrifice, since he quotes Porphyry’s mentions of the practice in Abst. 2,56,1; (cf. Eus. PE 4,16,6 = BNJ 790 fr. 3a). Eissfeldt, O. (1952) Sanchunjaton von Beirut und Ilimilku von Ugarit. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums 5. Halle; Barr, J. (1974-1975) BJRL, 57, 17-68; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History.

205

Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 51; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 199; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newjacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

SAKON Phoen. skn, ᾿skn; Lat. sychun. The god S. occurs mainly as a theophoric element in PNN in *Phoenicia, North Africa and *Egypt. It also appears in the name of the mythical SANCHOUNIATON (Phoen. sknytn) who, according to *Porphyry of Tyre, was “almost contemporaneous with Moses” (apud Eus. PE 1,9,21). However, the earliest indirect mention of S. is in an Ass. text from the 6th cent. BCE, which mentions a person called mab-di-si-k[u-ni] (PNA 1/I, 8), corresponding to Phoen. ῾bdskn (perhaps attested as ῾bskn in a funerary inscription from *Tyre: Sader [2005] no. 41 p. 63). Among the PNN from *Carthage, especially, S. is the most widespread theophoric element after MELQART, ASTARTE and ESHMUN (cf. Halff [1963-1964]). S. had a temple in *Carthage itself, since an inscription from the local *Tophet mentions a “servant of the temple of S., the Holy Lord” (῾bd bt skn b῾l qdš: CIS I, 4841). S. is also mentioned in a fragmentary list of deities, between BAAL and SHAMASH, in the Carthag. inscription CIS I, 4963. A Phoen. inscription dating to the 3rd cent. BCE from *Piraeus (CIS I, 118 = KAI 58), engraved on a marble altar, commemorates the dedication of that altar to ᾿skn ᾿dr, “S. the Powerful” (for the prosthetic aleph cf. the PN ῾bd᾿skn in an inscription from *Cap Jinet), together with other dedications in Greek to Hermes (→MERCURY) and Zeus Soter. A possible equivalence between S. and Hermes, proposed precisely on the basis of these finds (Cooke [1903] 100), could be confirmed by the connection of Hermes with herms (Bonnet [1991]). The PN Συμυσχοῦν, which occurs on a Gk inscription from *Tyre (Dussaud [1911] 331f.) has been understood as “Eshmun is Sakon”. If this is the case, according to E. Lipiński ([1995] 178), ᾿skn could originally have been the name of the Sidonian baetyl of Eshmun (but this hypothesis is not very plausible). In any case, S. could in fact be a sort of personification of a BAETYL, a typical element of the oldest Syr. religious tradition. In fact, S. corresponds

206

SAKON – SANCHOUNIATHON

linguistically to the sikkannum of *Ebla, to the na4 sikkānum of *Mari (see also dsikkānum at Emar), and the skn of *Ugarit (KTU3 17 I 26; II 16; 6.13,1), which indeed seems to denote a baetyl, a sacred stone, probably from a root skn meaning “to inhabit” (according to Durand [1988] 6). Less plausibly and with no obvious historical basis, J. Teixidor considers S. to be a minor deity, with roots in Iranian religious concepts (BÉS, 85). It should be mentioned that S. does not seem to be connected with the Gk PNN Σάκων and Σάκης (Lipiński [1995] 177f.). Also, the epithet Συκόνα given to the DEA SYRIA in an inscription from *Delos, and the gods Συκ[ο]ναῖοι mentioned there (Bruneau [1970]), although Sem. in origin, should not be connected with Phoen. and Pun. S. Finally, it should be mentioned that Numid. PNN (→*Numidians) such as Sucan, Samsucan, Sagganis, Wrskn should instead be connected with the local god Sug(g)an. Cooke, G. A. (1903) A Text-Book of North-Semitic inscriptions. Oxford; Dussaud, R. (1911) RHR, 63, 331-339; Halff, G. (19631964) Karthago, 12, 70; PNPPI, 365f.; Bruneau, Ph. (1970) Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale. Paris, 650-655; Lipiński, E. (1973) UF, 5, 191-207; NNPI, 47; Durand, J.-M. (1985) Le culte des bétyles en Syrie. In: Durand, J.-M. and Kupper, J.-R. (eds) Miscellanea Babylonica. Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot. Paris, 79-84; Durand, J.-M. (1988) NABU 1988/8, 5f.; Bonnet, C. (1991) L’élément théophore SKN dans l’onomastique méditerranéenne. In: APC 2.II, 455-461; DCPP, s.v. (C. Bonnet – E. Lipiński); NAN, 26; Lipiński, E. (1995) 176-179; PNA 1/I, 8, s.v. “Abdi-Sikūni” (K. Radner); Sader, H. (2005) Iron Age funerary stelae from Lebanon. CAM 11. Barcelona. G. MINUNNO – P. XELLA

Salammbô see SADAMBAAL SAMEMROUMOS & HYPSOURANIOS Gk Σαμημροῦμος, ῾Υψουράνιος. Literally “High-in-Heaven.” In PHILO OF BYBLOS’ Phoenician History (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,9-11 = BNJ 790 fr. 2), S. and his brother OUSOOS (Οὔσωος) are part of the list of first inventors (protoi heuretai) in a section on the history of culture (PE 1,10,6-14). They are children of giants who personify Syr. and Lebanese mountains, in turn descended from Light, Fire, and Flame (→PHOS, PYR & PHLOX), who in turn descend from Genos (“Generation”), and ultimately from AION and Protogonos. The two characters are

associated in the text with *Tyre, although scholars have also seen possible Sidonian associations behind their names (see below). Samemroumos is a Gk transliteration of a Sem. name containing šmm rmm, hence translated as “High in Heaven” (→ZOPHASEMIN), although his brother’s (Ousoos), also from an original non-Gk name, is not clear. S. is said to have invented huts, while his brother invented leather, clothing and sailing. S. settled in Tyre, and quarrelled with his brother, and both were eventually worshipped as stelae or staves (στήλαι) and at festivals. S.’ descendants were to be the inventors of other civilizing crafts, i.e. Hunter (Ἀγρεύς) and Fisherman (Ἁλιεύς) (AGREUS & HALIEUS), and from them Chousor/Hephaistos (→KOSHAR/KOTHARU) and an unnamed brother, the discoverers of iron working (PE 1,10,11). Despite the passage’s focus on Tyre, the connection with a district of *Sidon mentioned in inscriptions (KAI 15, KAI 14) may lie behind the name of S. The names of his descendants, Hunter and Fisherman, could contain a pun involving Sidon’s name, as the root ṣyd denotes both hunting and fishing, and ṣyd would have been the eponymous hero of Sidon, as well as a deity attested in the Phoen.-Pun. theophoric names. But the text explicitly sites them in Tyre and the fraternal conflict might thus reflect the conflict between Sidon and Tyre or among sections within Tyre. The epithet b῾lt šmm rmm (“Lady of High Heavens”: →BAALAT) is also used for ANAT in Ug. texts (KTU3 1.108,7). Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 149-174; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 43; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 159-165; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline. com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Samothraces see CABIRI SANCHOUNIATHON Gk Σαγχουνιάθων. An author believed in antiquity to have lived in the late II mill. BCE (before the Trojan War) and to have written about Phoen. history and theology. P HILO OF B YBLOS (FGrHist 790) claims that his Phoenician History is a direct translation of

SANCHOUNIATHON

Sanchouniathon’s writings, which he put into Greek from the so-called “script of the Ammouneans” (apud Eus. PE 1,9,26). In PE 1,9,20 (= BNJ 790 fr. 1) Eusebius of Caesarea (following *Porphyry) states that Philo of Byblos translated S.’s treatise (τὴν συγγραφήν). There are similar undated statements in BNJ 790 T3 (Porph. Abst. 2,56). Then Eusebius quotes Porphyry’s Contra Christianos more specifically (Eus. PE 1,9,21) on the antiquity and veracity of S., whom Porphyry situated before the Trojan War and considered to be a contemporary of Moses, although later he set him “in the time of Semiramis, queen of the Assyrians” (Attridge and Oden [1981] 24 fn. 19; Dochhorn [2002] 124f. fn. 11). Eusebius quotes Philo’s own work (as cited in Porphyry) as proof of the type of theology that this ancient “theologian” (i.e. S.) postulated, which focused on men and women and not on gods, as translated by Philo, and so he attributes Philo’s Euhemeristic account [→*Euhemerism] to S. (Eus. PE 1,9,23-29). For Philo himself, S. was a “polymath” who researched the writings of TAAUTOS/ Thoth, the inventor of writing and the euhemerized version of the god Thoth. In Porphyry’s comments on Philo’s work he states that S. had provided “the truest narrative of Jewish History” (Eus. PE 1,9,21), informed by Hierombalos, a priest of the god Ieuo, who had written an account for king Abibalos of Berytus (*Beirut). Although Porphyry does not mention Thoth as a source of S.’s wisdom, the two presumably also come from Philo’s preface and are not incompatible (the priestly/archival source presumably derived from Taautos’ even older wisdom). The mention of Jews in the works of Philo is considered problematic, here as in PE 1,10,43 (= BNJ 790 fr. 10), and Jewish matters may have been instead treated in the Phoenician History in the sections on later historical periods now lost, subsequently extracted by scholars as a separate treatise (Gruen [1998] 205; Dochhorn [2002] 143f.; cf. Stern [1980] vol. 2, p. 143). This treatise is also mentioned, e.g. in Origenes, Cels. 1,15 (= BNJ 790 fr. 9), where Philo is said to comment on Hecataeus of Abdera’s own treatment of Jewish matters (ca 360-290 BCE) (BNJ 264 T7c; see Stern [1980] Vol. 1, 20-44; for Philo’s take on Jewish matters, cf. Troiani [1974] 23f.34-36). In addition to Philo’s Phoenician History, S. is mentioned independently in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae (3,100 [126a] = BNJ fr. 790a), where he is listed together with MOCHOS as “one of those who wrote

207

Phoenician histories” (in BNJ 784 fr. 3b). From the context, Athenaeus’ passage makes S. either a Tyrian or a generic Phoenician. The Suida mentions S. as a Tyrian (probably from Athenaeus or a common source), and the same name appears in Theod. Graec. aff. 2.44ff. (spelled Σαγχωνιάθων). There is no other independent evidence concerning this figure (Baumgarten [1981] 45-48). The name S. is the Gk transliteration of a NW Sem. theophoric name attested in Phoenician-Punic as sknytn, containing the DN skn and the verb ytn “to give”, hence “Skn gave” (→SAKON). The god is poorly attested outside some inscriptions and proper names (see commentary on BNJ 790 fr. 1). The origin and authority of this figure are entangled with the general controversy about the antiquity of Philo’s sources. The recourse to a “translation” of arcane texts as a framework for Philo’s Phoenician History may be a literary device (cf. other cases in Ní Mheallaigh [2013]), but the fact remains that much of his cosmology-theogony and mythology (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY) is of NW Sem. stock, including his allusion to the Egypt. scribal figure Thoth and to the “letters of the Ammouneans”, most likely not related to *Ugarit and the *Amanus mountains but to Egypt. Ammon (López-Ruiz [2010] 94-101 and [2017]). Stern, M. (1974) Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism: Edited with introductions, translations and commentary, vol. 1: From Herodotus to Plutarch. Jerusalem; Troiani, L. (1974) L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi; Stern, M. (1980) Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism: Edited with introductions, translations and commentary, vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius. Jerusalem; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC); Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden; Edwards, M. J. (1991) ClQ, 41, 213-220; Gruen, E. (1998) Heritage and Hellenism: The reinvention of Jewish tradition. Berkeley/Los Angeles; Dochhorn, J. (2002) WO, 32, 121-145; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790; LópezRuiz, C. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA); Ní Mheallaigh, K. (2013) Lost in translation: The Phoenician Journal of Dictys of Crete. In: Whitmarsh, T. and Thomson, S. (eds) The romance between Greece and the East. Cambridge, 196-210; Johnson, A. P. (2013) Religion and identity in Porphyry of Tyre: The limits of Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Cambridge; López-Ruiz, C. (2017) ‘Not that which can be found among the Greeks’: Philo of Byblos and Phoenician cultural identity in the Roman East. In: RRE, 3.3, 366-392 (special issue, Ando, C. and Faraone, C. [eds]). C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

208

SAPHON – SARDUS PATER

SAPHON Ug. ṣpn; Akk. ṣa-pu-nu; Egypt. dpn; Phoen ṣpn; Hebr. ṣpwn. Name of present-day Jebel al-Aqra῾, Gk Κάσιος, in *Syria, 40 km N of the site of *Ugarit (height 1759 m) [FIG. 119].

Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament. OBO 129. Fribourg/Göttingen, 171-223; DDD2, s.v. “Zaphon”, 927-929 (H. Niehr); Lipiński, E. (1995) 244-252 and passim; Wyatt, N. (1995) The significance of Ṣpn in West Semitic thought. In: Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. (eds) Ugarit: ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. ALASP 7. Münster, 213-237. P. XELLA

Sardos see SARDUS PATER SARDUS PATER

Fig. 119. Jebel al-Aqra῾

A holy mountain according to the mythological and ritual texts and the god lists of Ras Shamra – a sort of Syr. Olympus – Mount S. was the abode of the local B AAL (also called →B AAL S APHON ), and the place for the ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS. It was considered as a deity, since it was the recipient of various offerings. The main mythological events regarding Baal concern this sacred mountain, from the construction of Baal’s palace to the burial of that god after he had been killed by MOT. The tradition of Mount S.’s holiness is well documented in Mesop., Hurrian, Hitt., Hebr. and Aram. texts. In a later period, PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,9) still considers Mount Casios as a sacred mountain of the *Phoenicians. The emperor Hadrian climbed it in order to make a sacrifice to his god (SHA Hadr. 14). The tradition on the holiness of Mt S. has also left traces in the Phoen. and Pun. world: some PNN have S. as a theophoric element (grṣpn, ῾bdṣpn, ṣpn, ṣpnb῾l, ṣpnyṣdq, ṣpn῾zy), even though it cannot be excluded that in some cases ṣpn is an abbreviation of Baal Saphon. Eissfeldt, O. (1932) Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer. BRA 1. Halle; Clifford, R. J. (1972) The cosmic mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. HSM 4. Cambridge (MA); PNPPI, 401f.; NNPI, 202; Koch, K. (1993) Ḫazzi-Ṣafôn-Kasion. Die Geschichte eines Berges und seiner Gottheiten. In: Janowski, B., Koch, K. and Wilhelm, G. (eds)

Gk. Σάρδωϛ; Lat. Sardus Pater. Hero and eponymous god of *Sardinia, identified in the temple of *Antas (Fluminimaggiore) with the Phoen. god SID b᾿by (→BABAI). S./S.P. is known first of all from two inscriptions from that Sardinian sacred area, one on the epistyle of the building from the time of Caracalla, and the other on a bronze tablet with dovetail handles of uncertain date (possibly the second half of the 3rd cent. CE: Sotgiu [1968-1970]). The first inscription records the dedication of the temple to S.P. bab(…) and its restoration, probably at the start of the 3rd cent. CE; on the second, instead, there is a dedication to the god by a certain Alexander, servus regionarius. Then, the name S.P. is repeated, around his effigy, on the reverse of coins by Marcus Atius Balbus – Octavian’s maternal grandfather and propraetor of Sardinia in 59 BCE – issued in a Sardinian mint by the princeps himself between 38 and 15 BCE. However, most of our information about Sardos/Sardus comes from a series of class. writers, many of them quite late (in any case, not earlier than the 1st cent. BCE) who are largely in agreement. Above all, the literary passages constantly stress the hero’s parental connection with Heracles/Macerides. Silius Italicus, for ex. defines him as “strong of his lineage from the Libyan Hercules” (Sil. Pun. 12,355358), while Pausanias calls him “son of Macerides”, noting that among the Egyptians and Libyans he was known as “Heraclides” (Paus. 10,17,2). He is credited with the first cycle of the colonization of Sardinia; according to Pausanias, S. was the leader of the Libyans (“a large multitude” for Isid. Etym. 14,6,39) who came to the island from North Africa. That island, after S.’s arrival, was given a new name (i.e. “Sardinia”: cf. Mart. Cap. 6,645, “indeed Sardinia was named after S., son of Hercules”, or, even earlier Silius Italicus, Pun. 12,355-358, “[the island]

SARDUS PATER

was initially called Ichnusa by the Greek colonists. Then Sardus, strong of his lineage from the Libyan Hercules, changed the appellation of the region using his own name”). Also, we know from Pausanias that the local peoples accepted the new arrivals in a new alliance. However, that alliance was due to constraint and necessity rather than to “a favourable attitude”. The same writer also mentions that the colonization did not imply the creation of towns: “neither the Libyans nor the indigenous peoples wanted cities to be established; scattered in hovels and caves, they lived where they happened to be”. This set of information concerning migrations towards Sardinia is complemented by a further item, which is no less interesting and certainly original. Pausanias again reports the offering of a bronze statue of S. in the pan-Hellenic sanctuary of Delphi; an offering wanted by the “barbarians of the West who live in Sardinia” (10,17,1). It is uncertain whether the text refers to the indigenous peoples of the island or to the local communities of Phoen. origin. According to some scholars, this episode should be connected with the defeat suffered by general *Malchus in Sardinia, after which the local inhabitants celebrated their victory with a gift for the Gk sanctuary (Colonna [1991]). Recently, however, it has been proposed to set this account around the end of the 5th cent. BCE, or even during the following cent. (i.e. when the temple of Antas was built), and to see those “barbarians from the West” mentioned by Pausanias as Carthaginians (Bernardini and Ibba [2015]). Therefore, taken together, this literary and epigraphic documentation presents S./S.P. as a colonizer who, once he had reached Sardinia, becomes an eponymous and ancestral figure; the god is considered to be “the founder”, “the first of the Sardinians”. This feature is forcefully defined by the use of the title pater that accompanies the name of S. in the inscriptions: this term usually defines primordial, indigenous and eponymous deities, expressing “an indigenous primordiality that clashes with the cosmic primordiality of many Greek deities” (Bianchi [1963]). Interestingly, the same epithet defines another heroic protagonist in the mythical history of Sardinia, namely IOLAOS, who is also connected with Heracles. S.’ roles as an “ancestor” and “progenitor”, as well as the description of him in the sources as “first of the Sardinians”, have often prompted the theory that the cult of the Rom. god at Antas, and previously, of the Phoen. god Sid, had come after the original

209

worship of a “regional” god of the Nur. peoples, with dynastic functions (→*Nuragics). According to some scholars, this possibility is foreshadowed, in particular, by the interpretation of the title bab(…), that follows the name of S.P. in the inscription on the epistyle of the temple, as a loan from the Sardinian substrate (meaning “father”; Garbini [1969]) and by the presence in Antas of an indigenous necropolis from the early IA, possibly hosting ancestor worship. In one of the tombs was found a bronze statuette of a male, nude and with a spear, identified by some as a sort of Sid or S.P. However, it must be said that today, while on the one hand the reference of bab(…) to Proto-Sardinian remains very doubtful and much discussed, on the other hand the available information is too meagre for theories about a specific connection between the construction of the temple of Antas and the presence there of the Nur. necropolis. Its tombs, indeed, must already have been obliterated at the time when the Phoen. sanctuary – now lying under the Rom. temple – was built (end of the 5th-4th cent. BCE). Therefore, even admitting that ancient Nur. traditions could undoubtedly have influenced or at least been adopted again in the rites that were performed in that sanctuary, as yet, the concept of a dynastic deity, regarded as the progenitor of the island peoples, can be dated no earlier than the 5th-4th cent. BCE. Recently, moreover, it has been suggested that the consolidation of S.P. in the Rom. period is connected with political and ideological strategies activated at the time of the so-called second Rom. conquest of Sardinia (from about 180 BCE). These strategies were intended to create, through a cult that had by then become traditional (with the previous worship of Phoen. Sid), a sacrum nexum, “an agreement in which there were, on the one hand the Romans and their representatives in the provincia, and on the other, the Sardo-Punics, comprising both their nobility and businessmen, and their common plebs” (Ibba [2015]). The iconographic sources also provide information about the characteristics of S.P. On the coins of Atius Balbus (see above) the god is shown in profile, most often with a beard, a plumed head-dress and a spear [FIG. 120]. The presence of the head-dress, in particular, has made it possible to infer some relationship between the image and a well-known small bronze statuette from *Genoni; the bronze depicts a male in the attitude of blessing, wearing a crown exactly like the one that appears on coins (however, the bronze

210

SARDUS PATER

Fig. 120. Coin with effigies of Sardus Pater

statuette has also been ascribed, more likely, to BAAL HAMMON). More recently, the god of Antas has been recognised in a fragmentary figure that, together with at least three others, was part of a terracotta high relief that must have decorated the pediment of the temple in the late Republican period (second half of the 2nd cent. BCE) [FIG. 121]. The figure depicts a naked youth, possibly holding a spear, and wearing a plumed crown (with the feathers falling over his

Fig. 121. Antas. Reconstruction of an image of Sardus Pater belonging to the frontal in high relief, dating to the late Republican period

shoulders); Heracles/Hercules must have been on his left. Like Sid, his Phoen. predecessor, S.P. must also have boasted a series of complex relationships with other deities, as shown by literary sources and, once again, iconographical data. Besides the connection with Heracles/Hercules, some votive material found in the Sardinian temple alludes to the cult of several deities. Examples are Zeus/Jupiter Dolichenus, Minerva and MERCURY (Minunno [2005]), possibly connected with the titular god of the sacred building for functional and/or mythical reasons, or else simply as being involved in the local cult by individual worshippers for specific rituals. Furthermore, according to some interpretations, between the figures closest to the god there probably were also Demeter (→DEMETER & CORE) and DIONYSUS: both deities have been identified, hypothetically, as the two figures depicted in the above mentioned high relief, positioned respectively to the left (on a throne flanked by felines) and to the right (on a rock) of the central characters (S.P. and Hercules). However, for the time being, these identifications remain unconfirmed. The female figure, for ex., may have a connection with T INNIT /C AELESTIS , given the close relationships between that Carthag. goddess and Sid, evident in the name of the double deity ṣdtnt known in the North African metropolis. Pettazzoni, R. (1912) La religione primitiva in Sardegna. Piacenza, 27-92; Albizzati, C. (1929) Sardus Pater. In: Atti del Convegno archeologico sardo. Reggio Emilia, 64-87; Bianchi, U. (1963) Sardus Pater. In: Atti del Convegno di Studi religiosi sardi (Cagliari, 24-26 maggio 1962). Padua, 33-51; Brelich, A. (1963) Sardegna mitica. In: ibid., 23-33; Sotgiu, G. (1968-1970) StSard, 21, 7-20; Garbini, G. (1969) AION, 29, 317-336; Bondì, S. F. (1975) Osservazioni sulle fonti classiche per la colonizzazione della Sardegna. In: Benigni, G. et al. (eds) Saggi Fenici - I. CSF 6. Rome, 49-65; Roobaert, A. (1986) Sid, Sardus Pater ou Baal Hammon? À propos d’un bronze de Genoni (Sardaigne). In: StPhoen 4, 335-345; Tronchetti, C. (1986) EVO, 9, 117-124; Colonna, G. (1991) Doni di Etruschi e di altri barbari occidentali nei santuari panellenici. In: Mastrocinque, A. (ed.) I grandi santuari della Grecia e l’Occidente. Atti del Convegno (Trento, 1991). Trento, 43-67; Didu, I. (2003) I Greci e la Sardegna. Il mito e la storia. Cagliari, 39-73; Bernardini, P. (2004) Gli eroi e le fonti. In: Zucca, R. (ed.) Logos peri tes Sardous. Le fonti classiche e la Sardegna. Rome, 39-62; Mastino, A. (2004) I miti classici e l’isola felice. In: ibid., 11-26; Zucca, R. (2004) Sardo, figlio di Makeris. In: ibid., 86-95; Bernardini, P. (2005) I Melqart di Sardò. In: Bernardini, P. and Zucca, R. (eds) Il Mediterraneo di Herakles. Studi e Ricerche. Rome, 125-143; Breglia Pulci Doria, L. (2005) La Sardegna arcaica e la presenza greca: nuove riflessioni sulla tradizione letteraria. In: ibid., 61-86; Didu, I. (2005) Iolao nipote di Eracle e Sardo figlio di Maceride in Sardegna: assimilazione, mutuazione, distinzione. In: ibid., 53-60; Zucca, R. (2005) Hercules Sardus. In: ibid., 249-257; Minunno, G. (2005) EVO, 28, 269-285; Garbati, G. and Peri, C. (2013) Tra Oriente e

SARDUS PATER – SASM

Occidente. Dèi patres e dèi “guaritori” nella Sardegna punica: qualche riflessione. In: APC 6.I, 322-330; Bernardini, P. and Ibba, A. (2015) Il santuario di Antas tra Cartagine e Roma. In: Cabrero Piquero, J. and Montecchio, L. (eds) Sacrum Nexum. Alianzas entre el poder político y la religión en el mundo romano. Thema Mundi 7. Madrid/Salamanca, 76-138; Ibba, A. (2015) Processi di “romanizzazione” nella Sardinia repubblicana e alto-imperiale (III a.C.-II d.C.). In: Mihailescu-Bîrliba, L. (ed.) Colonization and Romanization in Moesia Inferior. Premises of a contrastive approach. Kaiserslautern/Mehlingen, 11-76; Manca di Mores, G. (2015) Il Sardus Pater ad Antas e la Tarda Repubblica romana. In: AfRo 20, 1933-1941; Acquaro, E. (2017) Gerión, 35, 9-15; Garbati, G. (2017) “Forma e sostanza”. Note sul linguaggio figurativo in Sardegna tra III e I sec. a.C. Il contributo delle terrecotte di uso cultuale. In: Tortosa, T. and Ramallo Asensio, S. F. (eds) El tiempo final de los santuarios ibéricos en los procesos de impacto y consolidación del mundo romano (Murcia, 12-14 novembre 2015). Madrid, 231-246; Mastino, A. (2017) La Sardegna arcaica tra mito e storiografia: gli eroi e le fonti. In: Guirguis. M. (ed.) La Sardegna fenicia e punica. Storia e materiali. Corpora delle antichità della Sardegna. Nuoro, 19-29; Manca di Mores, G. (2019) Circolazione di modelli e quadri simbolici in Sardegna: le terrecotte architettoniche del tempio del Sardus Pater ad Antas. In: Lulof, P. et al. (eds) Deliciae fictiles V. Networks and workshops: Architectural terracottas and decorative roof systems in Italy and beyond. Oxford, 355-364; Zucca, R. (2019) (ed.) Il tempio del Sardus Pater ad Antas (Fluminimaggiore, Sud Sardegna). MAL 24. Rome. G. GARBATI

SASM Phoen. ssm. A theonym with an as yet unknown etymology, documented chiefly in PNN as ῾bdssm and ssmy. I. Levy (1921) favoured an Egypt. origin, as had already been suggested by G. Maspéro (see ClermontGanneau [1888]; 182 fn. 2), with reference to the minor god šsmw. W. F. Albright (1939) proposed a Hurrian origin (KAI II, 44); for T. H. Gaster (1942), ssm bn pdršš᾿ could have had an equivalent in Ἀπόλλων παταρεύς, while M. Krebernik (2009) suggests a correlation with Šaššamu (possibly connected with the afterlife); on the basis of the geographical distribution of PNN that include S., E. Lipiński (1995) prefers the hypothesis of a theonym belonging to a Cypro-Minoan substrate. During the LBA the god in question occurs in Ug. PNN (῾bdssm: KTU3 1.75,12; bnssm: KTU3 4.170,18). Perhaps S. is also identifiable in the Neoass. PN m Šá-áš-ma-a-a, presumably belonging to a person of Phoen. origin (Tallquist [1914]; PNA 3/II, X: dated 628 BCE). Outside *Phoenicia, Σεσμaῖoς can be mentioned (a patronymic that occurs several times, *Σεσμᾶς, probably corresponding to Phoen. ssmy) in funerary inscriptions from Maresha, in *Judah; in one instance

211

it refers to a Sidonian called Apollophanes (Tomb 1: Ἀπολλοφάνης Σεσμαίου ἄρξας τῶν ἐν Μαρίσηι Σιδονίων: OGIS 593 = Peeters and Thiersch [1905] 36-40, 3rd cent. BCE). S. actually occurs in documents that are probably related to *Magic. The name S. is written on three of the four sides of a stone *Amulet of unknown provenance (Clermont-Ganneau [1898] = RÉS, 1505). On the fourth side a palm branch is engraved: actually this is a rebus (Schwartz [1996]), since this Phoen. name (cf. Ug. ssn) was probably similar to the name S. On a bronze statuette of the Mesop. “demon” Pazuzu, found in *Egypt (Moorey [1965]) and now kept in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford), an inscription mentions lssm bn pḥh, probably referring to the owner of this object. However, a certain ssm bn pdršš᾿ (or bn pdr, see Caquot [1973] 47; Garbini [1981] 281) is mentioned in the first amulet from *Arslan Taş (KAI 27 = TSSI III, 23) [FIG. 122], a document whose authenticity has not been universally accepted. While some scholars consider ssm bn pdršš᾿ to be the person who enjoyed the benefit of this amulet (Conklin [2003]; Zamora [2003]), according to other interpreters it is instead a demon or a deity with threatening characteristics (e.g. Cross and Saley [1970]), or else a beneficent being (e.g. Fauth [1970]). Instead, A. van den Branden (1961) has suggested that here S. is a toponym. Some even identify S. as the anthropomorphic figure brandishing an axe, depicted on the amulet. The PN ῾bdssm also occurs in Phoen. graffiti in *Abydos (KAI 49,11.46.47) and he could be a person from *Cyprus (see infra). In *Sidon, in the 5th cent. BCE, ῾bdssm occurs on an ostracon (Vanel [1967] 47 and Pl. I: ostracon A8). However, it is mostly on Cyprus and in the Aegean that S. is widely documented, always as a PN: ῾bdssm is found in *Kition (IK B 1,1; B 33 and 44; see Sznycer [1984] 117f.); in *Idalion (CIS I, 93 = KAI 40,3; see Caquot and Masson [1968] 304); in *Tamassos (RÉS 1213,3-4 = ICS2 216a,3-4: a-pa-sa-so-mo-se). On *Rhodes, in a bilingual (Gk/Phoen.) funerary inscription, ῾bdssm is the father of Abdmelqart of Kition (Fraser [1970] 31-32, Pl. 12a). Coins with legends in syllabic Greek from 470/460 and 450 BCE, minted by a king of *Marion, bear the name *Σεσμᾶς (sa-sa-ma-o-se, genitive: ICS2 168; Masson and Sznycer [1972] 79f.). This same name, Σεσμᾶς, occurs in *Larnaka-tis-Lapithou where the author of a bilingual dedication to ANAT-ATHENA and

212

SASM – SATURN

Satrapes see LIBER PATER; SHADRAPHA SATURN

Fig. 122. The first amulet from Arslan Taş

Ptolemy I has the Gk name Praxidemos, son of Σεσμᾶς, and the Phoen. name Baalshillem, son of Sasmay ([s]smy). Among the PNN in *Carthage both ῾bdssm (CIS I, 5733,6-7) and ssmy (CIS I, 3771,5) are attested. From this heterogeneous evidence it is possible to deduce, with some caution, the ambivalent nature of this deity, capable of destructive and ominous interventions, but also able to help and assist, as seems to be shown by his presence in theophoric names, undoubtedly chosen by his devotees wishing for protection. Clermont-Ganneau, C. (1888) Quatre noms gréco-phéniciens. In: RAO I, 183-192; id. (1898) L’amulette au nom du dieu Sasm. In: RAO II, 60f.; Peters, J. P. and Thiersch, H. (1905) Painted tombs in the necropolis of Marissa (Marêshah). London; Tallqvist, K. L. (1914) Assyrian personal names. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 43.1. Helsingfors, 219; Lévy, I. (1921) Sasm. In: Volume du Cinquantenaire de l’EPHE. Bibliothèque des Hautes Études 230. Paris, 282-288; Albright, W. F. (1939) BASOR, 76, 5-11; Gaster, T. H. (1942) Or, 11, 41-78; Falkner, M. (19541956) AfO, 17, 100-120; van den Branden, A. (1961) Bibbia e Oriente, 3, 41-47; Moorey, P. R. S. (1965) Iraq, 27, 33-41 and Pl. VIII; PTU, 187; Vanel, A. (1967) BMB, 20, 45-95; Caquot, A. and Masson, O. (1968) Syria, 45, 295-321; Cross, F. M., Jr. and Saley, R. J. (1970) BASOR, 197, 42-49; Fauth, W. (1970) ZDMG, 120, 229-256; Fraser, P. M. (1970) BSA, 65, 31-36, esp. 31f. Pl. 12a; Masson, O. and Sznycer, M. (1972) Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. HEO 3. Paris/Geneva; PNPPI, 148.162.368; Caquot, A. (1973) JANES, 5, 45-51, esp. 47; Garbini, G. (1981), OA, 20, 277-294, esp. 281; Sznycer, M. (1984) RDAC, 117-121; DCPP, s.v. (C. Bonnet – E. Lipiński); Lipiński, E. (1995) 289.292-296; Schwartz, M. (1996) Bulletin of the Asia Institute, NS 10, 253-257; DDD2, s.v. “Sasam”, 725f. (B. Becking); Conklin, B. W. (2003) Biblica, 84, 89-101, esp. 91; Zamora, J.-Á. (2003) SEL, 20, 9-23; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2007) Notes d’onomastique phénicienne à Kition. In: Hommage à Annie Caubet. CCEC, 37, 197-209, esp. 202f.; Krebernik, M. (2009) s.v. “Šaššamu”. In: RlA, 12.1-2, 87; Bianco, M. (2015) SemClass, 8, 53-62, esp. 54-56. G. MINUNNO – P. XELLA

Lat. Saturnus. God of the Lat. and Italic world, who in Romanized North Africa became the successor of →B AAL HAMMON in the devotion of a multitude of faithful, as attested by numerous cult places, votive monuments and inscriptions, as well as by Gk writers who identify him with →CRONUS. In Lat. literary sources, a long tradition that also includes several Christian authors confirms that identification and, in this case, S. is a different god from Italic Saturnus: the functional analogies of the two gods were limited to specific aspects, such as the agrarian and chthonian dimension (see for ex. Curt. Ruf. 4,3,23; Min. Fel. Oct. 30,1ff.; Tert. Apol. 9,1-6; Orig. Cels. 5,27; Lactant. Div. Inst. 1,12,1ff.; Aug. CD 7,19-26). The extraordinary diffusion of the cult of S. – who seems to take the place of Baal Hammon – was one of the most momentous episodes in North African cultural life after the fall of *Carthage. The traditional opinion as to how this “replacement” would have occurred is that S. was the Rom. persona of his Pun. predecessor. However, several clues indicate that this was less mechanical and more complex, implying important adaptations and transformations of that deity, both ideologically and in terms of ritual. In other words, it was not a simple external overlap, but the product of a historical dynamic: an authoritative god, principally linked to the →*Tophet, became an almost omnipotent character, and his cult developed widely in North Africa and remained popular for several centuries (allusions by Augustine and Martianus Capella prove the tenacious persistence of his cult, which even lasted until the 6th cent. CE). Even though the continuity with previous Carthag. religious tradition is undeniable, the personality of S. and his cult underwent a dynamic process of transformation, as attested, among others, by the epithets attributed to S.: augustus already from the 1st cent CE, and then dominus, deus, sanctus, invictus, deus magnus aeternus, but also frugifer. While Baal Hammon was traditionally associated with TINNIT/ C AELESTIS , now other deities such as Sol and Luna, the DIOSCURI, are represented alongside S.; and other associations emerge, with Ops and Nutrix,

SATURN

MERCURIUS, Silvanus, PLUTO, Neptunus, Mars and LIBER PATER; his assimilation to Jupiter is also documented. In short, so-called *Romanization modified the nature of sacrifices as well as the iconography of ritual, through a progressive evolution that culminated in the Flavian age. While public *Child sacrifice had been prohibited already under Tiberius, from Tertullian (Apol. 9,1-6; see also Ad nat. 2,7,15; Scorp. 7,6) we know that such blood practices continued until the end of the 2nd cent. CE, at least in private. Nevertheless, in general, the rites were different from before, and the practice of molchomor prevailed almost everywhere: it was a sacrifice of substitution, celebrated above all in darkness (sacrum magnum nocturnum), where an animal victim replaced the child as equally sacred (ex voto agnum pro vikario, anima pro anima vita pro vita sanguine pro sanguine). This was the transformation of the ancient *molk-sacrifice, and now the divine blessing expanded to the existential happiness of the believer. Over time, chiefly starting from the 2nd cent. CE, Rom. influence is more and more visible in the shape and iconography of votive stelae, embellished with garlands, renewed in the garments and hairstyles of the faithful, also enriched in decoration in general. This applies at the ritual level, also and above all in the exclusivity of animal sacrifices and other nonsacrificial offerings, given the widespread (Rom., Christian) prohibition on child victims. These influences, partly external but partly also substantial, can be perceived in more intense forms above all in Numidia (→*Numidians), the land of the ancient colonies for the veterans of Marius, in the region of Cirta Regia (*Constantine) and *Cherchel. The tophet sanctuaries dedicated to Baal Hammon were essentially sacred open-air areas, following ancient Carthag. tradition. Between the 2nd cent. BCE and the 2nd-3rd cent. CE, chapels and other buildings are constructed inside/over them, transforming their initial character with substantial renovations, and even radical alterations to their structural plan. By now, the sanctuary of S. had become a temple, closely modelled on Rom. customs. The oldest sanctuary of S. seems to be the one in *Dougga (Thugga), dating to 36-37 CE, built on the initiative of the Rom. citizens of the local pagus. Another is in *Bir Derbal, built under Vespasian, and yet another at *Uchi Majus, dating to the time of Nerva. During the 2nd cent. CE the process is generalized, with a

213

peak under Antoninus Pius, the date of the first ex-votos (→*Ex-voto) explicitly dedicated to Saturn. Under the Severi, there is the greatest expansion of his cult, while the 3rd cent. seems to have been a moment of general atony, also for religious practice. Of the approximately two hundred known sanctuaries of S., more than half are in Proconsular-Byzacena, and ca a quarter in Mauretania Caesarea. The last stela explicitly dedicated to S. is dated to 272; other ex-votos date back to the 4th cent. (*Djemila, *Sillèque), but there are no additional sanctuaries: in 364-367, a civic basilica was built in Djemila, on the remains of the previous pagan sanctuary. From a sociological point of view, in Rom. North Africa, the cult of S. was chiefly rural and popular, widespread in villages and the countryside among indigenous peoples, who were variously exposed to Rom. cultural influence. The god was conceived as an absolute and omnipotent sovereign. His attributes and symbols emphasize his dominion in the heavens (as a guide of the sun, to which he is assimilated), on earth (where he is frugifer, the regulator of natural powers), and also in the *Netherworld (with care of the dead). Together with Juno Caelestis, S. forms the pair of universal ancestors who “come out of the tophet” to regulate planetary fortunes by presiding over everything relevant for their followers. Le Glay, M. (1961-1966) Saturne africain. Monuments I-II. Paris; id. (1966) Saturne africain. Histoire. Paris; id. (1988) Nouveaux documents, nouveaux points de vue sur Saturne africain. In: StPhoen 6, 187-237; Lipiński, E. (1995) 251-264; Fentress, E. (2000) Romanization and the city. Creation, transformation, and failures. Portsmouth (RI); Wilson, A. I. (2005) Romanizing Baal: The art of Saturn worship in North Africa. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium on Problems of Roman Provincial Art, Zagreb 2003. Opuscula archaeologica: Dissertationes et Monographiae. Zagreb, 403-408; Cadotte, A. (2007) La romanisation des dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden/Boston, 25-63; Lancellotti, M. G. (2010) Dea Caelestis. Studi e materiali per la storia di una divinità dell’Africa romana. CSF 44. Pisa/Rome; McCarty, M. M. and Quinn, J. C. (2015) Échoes puniques en pays numide. In: Badi, D. (ed.) Massinissa: au cœur de la consécration du premier état numide. Algiers, 167-198; Shaw, B. D. (2016) JRA, 29, 259-291; McCarty, M. M. (2017) Africa Punica? Child sacrifice and other invented traditions in early Roman Africa. In: The revival or the invention of non-Roman religion under Roman imperial rule. RRE, 3, 393-428 (special issue, Ando, C. and Faraone, C. [eds]); Xella, P. (2019) Romanization in North Africa: from Baal Hammon to Saturn. In: Russo, A. et al. (eds) Carthago. The immortal myth. Rome, 226-228. P. XELLA

Sekhmet see BASTET

214

SHADRAPHA

Serapis see APIS; DIONYSUS; OSIRIS Seth see HORUS SHADRAPHA Phoen. šdrp/b᾿. DN composed of two clearly distinguishable elements: šd, possibly the name of an Egypt. god that means “saviour” (→SHED), and rp᾿, from a Sem. root with the basic meaning “to heal”, “to save” (the hypothesis of an Iranian origin of this theonym seems to have been discarded). The two elements overlap semantically to enhance the overall meaning of this DN, translatable as “Healing genius” or the like. This etymology in itself effectively describes this divine character whose cult, in various places, has prevalently prophylactic and apotropaic aspects. Over time, his powers extend to the protection of general well-being, thus assuming universalist features. The earliest epigraphic occurrence of S. in *Phoenicia is the inscription engraved on a stela from *Amrit (RÉS 234 = 1601; Louvre, AO 22247), whose date is not certain (probably the 5th cent., but according to some scholars the 7th/6th BCE): it is a dedication to this god by a devotee whose prayer has been answered [FIG. 123]. The Amrit stela is important also due to the iconography of S.: he is represented standing on a lion; in his right hand he wields a club and in his left he holds another lion by its hind legs; he is dressed in the Egypt. style, with a white tiara adorned with an *Uraeus. The image is of an adult and fighting god, dominating over ferocious animals, and so very different from the iconography of Egypt. Shed as a child. In Phoenicia, a pottery fragment from *Sarepta dated to the 5th cent. bears a dedication of a devotee for a favour he received (J. Teixidor, in Pritchard [1975] 100f.); there is no good reason to hypothesize that S. is a local version of ESHMUN there, as some have claimed. Moving towards the west. Mediterranean, on *Sardinia, in the temple of *Antas, during the 5th cent. BCE, the practice of offering statuettes of S. and HORON to SID/SARDUS PATER – to whom the sanctuary is dedicated (M. Fantar in Acquaro et al. [eds] 1969, no. 6) – is attested: it is a strong indication of functional affinities between these divinities on the iatro-therapeutic level.

Fig. 123. The stela from Amrit with a dedication to Shadrapha

On *Sicily, between the 5th and the 3rd cent. BCE, S. is mentioned in some inscriptions painted on the walls of the *Grotta Regina, near Palermo (*Panormos) (Grotta Regina II, nos 8, 30, 32, 35, 38, 45 A3). In the 3rd cent. BCE the cult of S. is documented in *Carthage by the dedication of a stone altar (mzbḥ ᾿bn) to this god, mentioned here in the form šdrb᾿ (CIS I, 3921 = KAI 77) [FIG. 124]. At *Leptis Magna, in *Tripolitania, S. is mentioned – together with MILKASHTART – as one of the two dei patrii of that town (rbt ᾿lpqy: IPT, 31,1 = KAI 119; 2nd-1st cent. BCE). Also at Leptis, LIBER PATER clearly covers S., as is demonstrated by a bilingual (Neopun./Lat.: IPT 25 = IRT 294) inscription. In Rom. times, in fact, the assimilation of these two gods will become habitual, and their sphere of action will extend to the vegetation and the fertility of the fields. In *Palmyra, starting from the 1st cent. BCE, reliefs and tesserae testify to the presence of S. who, although dressed in a military outfit, reveals his ancient aspects of protector and healer because he

SHADRAPHA – SHAHAR/SHIHAR

215

SHAGGAR

Fig. 124. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 3921

holds a sort of *Caduceus and is accompanied by a scorpion. As far as the god named Satrapes in Greek (Σατράπης) is concerned, his relationship with S. is unclear; the theonym seems to be the Hellenized form of Pers. ḥštrpty, attested in the (Lycian/Gk/Aram.) inscription of Xanthos, in Lycia (358 BCE); Satrapes is later attested on two Gk inscriptions from Ma῾ad in Lebanon, near *Byblos (3rd cent. BCE), where he has the title “Lord of the whole world” (Starcky [1949] 67-69). In this regard, the testimony of Pausanias (6,25,6) must be mentioned, according to whom in a square of the Elis there was the statue of a beardless god, believed to be POSEIDON; however, another name for him, i.e. Satrapes, synonymous with Corybas, was known, conferred on him κατὰ τὴν Πατρέων προσίκησιν, which directs us to *Cilicia. All these testimonies allow us to glimpse complex syncretistic phenomena (→*Syncretism), which, however, do not seem to cast doubt on the Phoen. origin of S. Loukianoff, L. (1930-1931) BIE, 13, 67-84; Levi della Vida, G. (1942) BASOR, 87, 29-32; Starcky, J. (1949), Syria, 26, 43-85; Caquot, A. (1952) Syria, 29, 74-88; Di Vita, A. (1968) Or, 37, 201-211; Acquaro, E. et al. (eds) (1969) Ricerche puniche ad Antas. Rome; Pritchard, J. B. (1975) Sarepta. A preliminary report on the Iron Age. Philadelphia; Coacci Polselli, G., Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. and Tusa, V. (1979) Grotta Regina II. Le iscrizioni puniche. Rome; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1984) BAC NS 17b, 1981, 189-196; Puech, E. (1986) Syria, 63, 327-342; Xella, P. (1983) Sulla più antica storia di alcune divinità fenicie. In: APC 1.I, 401-407; Lipiński, E. (1995) 195-199.386-388 and passim; id. (1995) ZAH, 8, 247-274; Kaizer, T. (2002) The religious life of Palmyra: A study of the social patterns of worship in the Roman Period. OrOcc 4. Stuttgart; Cadotte, A. (2007) La Romanisation des dieux. L’interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. RGRW 158. Leiden/Boston, 253-281; Aliquot, J. (2012) La vie religieuse au Liban sous l’Empire Romain. Beirut. P. XELLA

Ug. šgr; Phoen. šgr; Hebr. šgr. Deity belonging to the oldest Sem. tradition. Difficult to focus on either personality or characteristics; fluctuating in gender, male or female depending on the context where she/he occurs. S. left a late trace in the Phoen. world, since she/ he is attested only at *Carthage, in a theophoric PN with a “classical” structure: ῾bdšgr, “Servant of šgr” (CIS I, 2669,4 [hypothetical reconstruction]; 2988,4; 3993,4; 4514,5-6). The history and characteristics of this divine figure can be followed starting from the texts of *Ebla (Tell Mardikh), where a god Sanugaru is attested, to be considered as analogous to S. Here, there are indications of the lunar nature of this deity, perhaps conceived as a crescent with its two horns. In later times, a deity named S/Shaggar is present in ancient Bab. texts and mostly in the Syro-Anat. area (*Emar, *Ugarit). In the Ras Shamra texts, where the cult of the moon itself (yrḫ) in its various phases is attested (ksa = full moon; šgr = crescent moon), S. is part of a divine couple, šgr wiṯm, the second element of which may be Fire (see the Mesop. god Ishum). In the *Old Testament šeger is mentioned several times, but as a common noun (Exod 13,12; Deut 7,13; 28,4.18.51; Sir 40,19) and its connections with ASTARTE are very clear: this ancient lunar deity has become “the offspring of cattle” (see the stereotyped parallelism šĕgar ᾿ălāpȇkā // ῾aštĕrôt ṣô᾿nkā). The lunar character of S. is further confirmed by a Deir Alla inscription, where he is mentioned in parallel with ASHTAR, the morning star. This complex and long documentation confirms the common belief that the moon, in its various phases, had the power to affect conception, birth, and the fertility of flocks and of nature in general. PNPPI, 163.413f.; Lipiński, E. (1995) 351-355; Pomponio, F. and Xella, P. (1997) Les dieux d’Ebla. Étude analytique des divinités eblaites à l’epoque des archives royales du IIIème millénaire. AOAT 245. Münster, 319f.; DDD2, s.v. “Sheger”, 760-762 (K. van der Toorn). G. MINUNNO – P. XELLA

SHAHAR/SHIHAR Ug. šḥr; Hebr. šḥr; (Akk. Emar) šaḫru; Phoen. šḥr; South Arab. sḥr.

216

SHAHAR/SHIHAR – SHALMAN

Astral deity of ancient Sem. tradition – probably to be vocalized šiḥar or šaḥar (see e.g. the Akk. PN ab-di-si-har: ADD, 254 Rev 4) – which has left traces in the documentation of many cultures in the Ancient Near East. S. was probably related to dawn and the morning star. In the mythological texts of Ras Shamra/*Ugarit, in particular, S. (together with S HALIM ) is the protagonist of a mythical-ritual text (KTU3 1.23) that is difficult to understand and for which different interpretations have been proposed. In the Phoen. and Pun. world, S. is only attested as a theophoric element in a few PNN, such as btšḥr (Tyre: Sader [2005] stele no. 24 pp. 49-51), šḥrb῾l (*Carthage: CIS I, 287,2-3; 4435,5; *Sigus: Février and Berthier [1975-1976] 80f.), ῾bdšḥr (EH 121,1; 134,2 and see also 28,3: ῾pšḥr; SPC, 11,2; 32,1: all from *El-Hofra/Constantine), and possibly Bosiharis (CIL V, 4919 [FIG. 125]). S. was therefore a divine figure who, although not actually worshipped, remained in some family traditions at the level of personal onomastics.

constructions of opposition, intersection, integration, and domination. Atlanta (GA); Husser, J.-M. (2017) UF, 48, 685-694. G. MINUNNO – P. XELLA

SHALIM Ug. šlm; Phoen. šlm; Hebr. šlm; Akk. š/salimu. Astral deity of ancient Sem. tradition – probably to be vocalized Shalim – which has left traces in the documentation of many cultures in the ANE, from the pre-Sargonic and Sargonic periods onwards (see also the name of *Jerusalem). S. was probably related to Venus, the evening star (“Dusk”, “Peace”: PNPPI, 417). In the texts of Ras Shamra/*Ugarit, in particular, S. (together with SHIHAR) is the protagonist of a mythical-ritual text (KTU3 1.23) that is difficult to understand and for which divergent interpretations have been proposed. In the Phoen. and Pun. world (*Cyprus, *Carthage, El-Hofra/*Constantine), S. is only attested as a theophoric element in some PNN, such as šlmlḥy, btšlm (fem.) and yknšlm. However, it is not certain that S. is always present as a theophoric element in these nominal forms, since the root šlm, “to complete” (“to recompense” or “to pay”, piel) is well attested in PNN; in particular, “the complete/healthy one” could be an epithet for a child, considered as a substitute for a family member who died (Stamm [1939], 294f.). There is no doubt, however, that S. was quite an obscure divine figure who, while possibly not actually worshipped, remained in some family traditions at the level of personal onomastics. Stamm, J. J. (1939) Die akkadische Namengebung. MVAÄG 44. Leipzig; PNPPI, 417f.; Roberts, J. J. M. (1972) The earliest Semitic pantheon. Baltimore, 51.113; Xella, P. (1973) Il mito di Šḥr e Šlm. Saggio sulla mitologia ugaritica. SS 44. Rome; Fowler, J. D. (1988) Theophoric personal names in ancient Hebrew. A comparative study. JSOT SS 49. Sheffield, esp. 192.285.362; DDD2, s.v. “Shalem” (F. B. Huffmon); Gulde, S. U. (1999) UF, 30, 289-334; Smith, M. S. (2006) The rituals and myths of the Feast of the Goodly Gods of KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal constructions of opposition, intersection, integration, and domination. Atlanta (GA); Husser, J.-M. (2017) UF, 48, 685-694. P. XELLA

Fig. 125. The Latin inscription CIL V, 4919 PNPPI, 414f.; Xella, P. (1973) Il mito di Šḥr e Šlm. Saggio sulla mitologia ugaritica. SS 44. Rome; Février, J.-G. and Berthier, A. (1975-1976) BAA, 6, 67-81, esp. 80f.; Lipiński, E. (1995) 355f.; DDD2, s.v. “Shahar”, 754f. (S. B. Parker); Gulde, S. U. (1999) UF, 30, 289-334; Sader, H. (2005) Iron age funerary stelae from Lebanon. CAM 11. Barcelona; Smith, M. S. (2006) The rituals and myths of the Feast of the Goodly Gods of KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal

SHALMAN Phoen. šlmn; Gk Σελαμάνης. A divine person with an obscure character, certainly not Phoen. in origin and incorrectly identified by some scholars (purely based on an apparent assonance)

SHALMAN – SHAMASH

with ESHMUN. In *Phoenicia, S. occurs only in an inscription (RÉS 930) on a marble obelisk from *Sidon now in the Louvre Museum, where *Abdmaskir, a high official in the Seleucid administration (with the titles rb ῾br lspt and rb šny) (→*Seleucids) commemorates an offering (mnḥt) he made to the god [FIG. 126]. Elsewhere, the DN appears as a theophoric element in proper names, both Middle-Ass. (Salaman[u]) and Neoass. (Salmanu). In *Egypt, a deity called Resheph-šl/rmn (→RESHEPH) is documented on a votive stela from the XXI-XXII dyn. The fem. form. Se/alamanēs occurs in a Gk inscription from Jebel Sheikh Barakat (Koryphé), near *Aleppo, dating to the end of the 1st-2nd cent. CE (IGLS 2, 465, 464). The god s/šlmn features in inscriptions from *Hatra, *Palmyra and South Arabia generally, and it has been proposed that he is a god on horseback (M. Höfner). Perhaps the historical origins of S. and his cult are to be sought specifically in the N Sem. area. Albright, W. F. (1931-1932) AfO, 7, 164-169; BÉS, 440-442; WdM, I, s.v. (M. Höfner – E. Merkel); Lipiński, E. (1995) 174-176; DDD2, s.v., 755-757 (B. Becking); Art phénicien, no. 78, p. 86. P. XELLA

Fig. 126. Inscribed obelisk of Abdmaskir dedicated to the god Shalman (Sidon)

217

SHAMASH Phoen. šmš. The word S. denotes the sun and the solar deity in NW Sem. religions, including the Phoen. and Pun. world. The curse formula (→*Blessings and curses) that closes the first part of the funerary inscription of *Eshmunazor II king of *Sidon (end of the 6th cent. BCE) mentions the evils to which a possible profaner “among the living under the sun” (KAI 14,12) would be exposed. A similar expression appears in the inscription of his father *Tabnit (6th cent.; KAI 13,7) and on the first *Amulet from *Arslan Taş (TSSI III, 23,26). The term S. also helps to denote two compass points: the East as the place where the sun rises and the West where it sets (*Karatepe, *Masûb, *Carthage: KAI 26 I,4, 19,21; II,2; KAI 19,1; ΚΑΙ 78,5-6). S. also features in place names. Legends on coins ascribed to *Lixus or *Volubilis name the place where they were minted as mqm šmš, “Place of the Sun”. In *Málaga, in Spain, there is also an issue of coins, dated between 100 and 45 BCE, with the legend S. and an image of a temple that may also belong to the solar god. The radiant head or the actual star are also present on various coins from the Neopun. period (HNPI, 375f.). In a Phoen. inscription from *Egypt, qrt šmš translates *Heliopolis (RÉS 1515,2). Also worth mentioning are two place names in *Phoenicia: *Samsimuruna (ANET, 287, 291, 294) and Σάμφη (St. Byz. s.v.). The deity is female in *Ugarit (with the name Shapash/ Shapshu [špš], who plays a significant role in the mythological BAAL Cycle), but S. is male in the Phoen. domain. He appears, from the end of the 8th cent. BCE, in the bilingual (Luwian/Phoen.) inscription from Karatepe (KAI 26 III, 19 and IV, 3), where he has the epithet “eternal” (῾lm). A month in the Phoen. *Calendar has the name yrḥ zbḥ šmš, “month of the sacrifice to S./the Sun”; it occurs in *Pyrgi (KAI 277), *Kition (IK III A 27) and probably in *Larnaka-tis-Lapithou (KAI 43). It is particularly interesting that on a drinking cup from *Cyprus, dating to the 4th cent. BCE, there is mention of a mrzḥ (→*Marzeah) of this god. The mrzḥ is a funerary association that worshipped S. in his chthonian aspects, by means of specific banquets, where the inscribed cup served as a symbolon for its members (Greenfield [1982]). From a Pun. inscription (CIS I, 3780 [FIG. 127]), we know of a servant of the temple of S. in Carthage, but the actual location of this cult is unknown.

218

SHAMASH – SHED

Fig. 127. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 3780

The name S. also features in a list of theonyms from Carthage (CIS I, 4963). It is found on stelae, in the Phoen. and Pun. domain (*Stelae & cippi), but the images do not necessarily refer to the cult of the sun, as there are so many other symbols of different kinds on these monuments. The evidence from PNN is much clearer (PNPPI, 422): in both the East (especially on Cyprus) and the West, S. appears as a theophoric element. So far, the main formulae are: ᾿bnšmš, ᾿dnšmš, ᾿šmnšmš, bdšmš, brkšmš, yknšmš, ῾bdšmš, šmššlk, and perhaps also šmšy. The vocalization is known from a cuneiform transcription: ab-did sa-am-si (Israel [1983] 669). The nominal or verbal elements that occur together with S., for the most part, often appear together with other theophoric elements. In bilingual inscriptions (from Cyprus and *Piraeus), in Phoen. PNN, S. is translated into Greek as Helios (῾bdšmš = Ἡλιόδωρος) and several *Phoenicians in the diaspora (*Delos, Athens, *Demetrias, Delphos…) are named Ἡλιόδωρος. In the Hellenist. and Rom. periods, in *Syria, Phoenicia and *Palestine, the solar, and more generally heavenly attributes of the almighty deities (Baals or Zeus megistos, hypsistos, etc.) are stressed; ultimately, they eclipsed specialist deities, such as S. Greenfield, J. C. (1982) IEJ, 32, 118-128; Israel, F. (1983) Osservazioni formali all’onomastica fenicia della madrepatria. In: APC 1.III, 667-672, esp. 669; Bonnet, C. (1989) SEL, 6, 97-115; DCPP, s.v. (C. Bonnet – E. Lipiński); Lipiński, E. (1995) 264-268; Kutter, J. (2008) nūr ilī. Die Sonnengottheiten in den nordwestsemitischen Religionen von der Spätbronzezeit bis zur vorrömischen Zeit. AOAT 346. Münster, 211-291.

S. is a DN or a divine title of W Sem. origin, possibly from the root šdd, “to be powerful”; related figures are Mesop. Šēdu and Hebr. (pl.) šdym. It is the first element of the theonym →SHADRAPHA. In the *Old Testament, sacrifices made to the Shedim (believed to be foreign gods) are mentioned disapprovingly (Deut 32,17), and Ps 106,36-37 condemns the Israelites for having reached the point of offering their children to the Shedim, considered as a particular category of demons (LXX: δαίμωνες): this statement suggests a cultural milieu similar, if not exactly identical, with the one in *Phoenicia. Finally, in Talmudic literature, the Shedim are a group of godlike beings endowed with maleficent powers, who have since been forgotten. S. is probably attested at *Ugarit, in a text from *Ras Ibn Hani, if the phrase lšd qdš means “to the holy S.” (RIH 77/21B = KTU3 1.166:12). As early as the XXII dyn. the cult of S. is also documented in *Egypt, where he was venerated together with OSIRIS as a healing deity particularly effective in protection from harmful animals and reptiles. S. is not mentioned directly in *Phoenicia, but appears in the PN gršd, “Servant/Client of S.”, which occurs on a seal dated to the 7th-6th cent. BCE (Bordreuil [1986] no. 26, p. 36) [FIG. 128].

Fig. 128. Phoenician seal mentioning Shed

C. BONNET

Shapash see SHAMASH SHED Akk. šēdu; Egypt. šd.w; Ug. šd(?); Phoen. šd; Hebr. šd.

Caquot, A. (1952) Syria, 29, 74-88; KAI II, p. 95; Xella, P. (1983) Sulla più antica storia di alcune divinità fenicie. In: APC 1.I, 401407; Brunner, H. (1984) s.v. “Sched”. In: LÄ V, 547-549; Bordreuil, P. (1986) Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris; Lipiński, E. (1995) 329-332; DDD2, S.v. “Demon”, 235-240 (G. J. Riley). P. XELLA

219

SID

Sheger see SHAGGAR Shihar see SHAHAR/SHIHAR Sicharbas see ACHERBAS SID Phoen. ṣd. Phoen. god whose name occurs in many of the votive inscriptions found in the temple of *Antas in *Sardinia (mining region of Iglesiente), in texts from *Carthage, very probably in an inscription that may come from *Gozo, and in a little over one hundred PNN spread in various regions. In Antas, the excavation of the temple structures, which began towards the end of the 1960s, has recovered a group of thirty inscriptions dating as a whole between the 5th and the 2nd cent. BCE (the construction of the temple does not seem to precede the end of the 5th cent. BCE). Some of these, at least in the most complete versions, open with the formula: l᾿dn lṣd ᾿dr b᾿by (“To the Lord, to S. powerful b᾿by”; →BABAI) [FIG. 129]. Instead, in Carthag. documentation, the name S. is mentioned at the end of five texts engraved on stelae dating to the 4th-3rd cent. BCE from the *Tophet and dedicated, as is usual, to TINNIT and BAAL HAMMON; there, ṣd appears as part of double theonyms (→DOUBLE DEITIES) in the expressions ῾bd ṣdmlqrt (“servant of Sid-Melqart”: CIS I, 256) and ῾bd bt ṣdtnt m῾rt (“servant of the temple of Sid-Tinnit m῾rt”: CIS I, 247-249; 5145). This means that there must have been temples (→*Cult-places) in Carthage consecrated to this deity, even in the specific form indicated in the inscriptions. Still uncertain, but quite likely, is the connection of an inscription of dubious provenance (perhaps from the island of Gozo), dated to the 2nd cent. BCE, with the cult of this same god. The text mentions a ṣdmb῾l, which may be interpreted, among the more reliable possibilities, as “S. of/from *Baal” (Bondì [1977]) or as “S. equal (or equivalent) to Baal” (Garbini [1969; 1994]); BAAL would be identified as MELQART, defined as b῾l ṣr, “Lord of Tyre”, in the well-known bilingual (Gk/Phoen.) inscriptions from *Malta; in that case ṣdmb῾l would be similar to the ṣdmlqrt of Carthage (→SADAMBAAL). In turn, the mention of S. in two Lat. inscriptions from Sardinia is extremely dubious:

Fig. 129. Punic inscriptions from Antas with dedications to Sid

the first, engraved on a ring from the tomb of a woman, from Antas, possibly from the early Byzantine period, seems to begin with the name Sida (or: Sidia) Babi; the second, from Sant’Antioco (*Sulci) and dating to a period not earlier than the 3rd cent. CE, begins with the word Sidon(ii), which has been interpreted as an ethnic signum from the name of the Phoen. town of *Sidon and, at the same time, as an expression of personal devotion to the god (some scholars consider that S. may have a significant connection with that famous Phoen. city; cf. infra). Finally, ṣd appears in several theophoric PNN (e.g. ytnṣd, ᾿bṣd, bdṣd, b῾lṣd, mtnṣd), widespread from the Levant (*Phoenicia, *Palestine, *Egypt) to the central Mediterranean (*Greece, North Africa, *Sicily, Sardinia), most of which (over one hundred) have been found in Carthage. Furthermore, the Latinization of some names with a Phoen. origin is well-known, as in the case of the North African names Sidiathones and Sidiatho, read as derivations from ṣdytn (CIL VIII, 27155 and 27369; cf. also Siddinpal in a Lat. inscription from *Tripolitania: IRT 195). From the aspect of etymology, the name ṣd has been explained in various ways. First of all, the theonym could be related to the Sem. root ṣwd, “to hunt”/”to fish”; this suggestion has led to the supposition that S. was a hunting deity, next in functions to AGREUS & H ALIEUS mentioned by P HILO OF B YBLOS as inventors of *Hunting and fishing; moreover, based on the comparison with ῾ṯtrt ṣwd[t] (“Astarte the huntress”), which occurs in *Ugarit, ṣd could originally have been the epithet of a deity that later

220 became an independent name (Amadasi Guzzo [1969]). According to another interpretation, though, ṣd could be connected with the name of the town of Sidon (ṣdn). The latter, in turn, would be an extended form of the name S. with the ending -on, as is common in place-names in *Syria and Palestine (Garbini [1994]). The god would then be the founder and eponym of that important Phoen. city. Thus, he would be recognized in the b῾l ṣdn, the “Lord of Sidon”, cited alongside ASTARTE in the inscription of *Eshmunazor II (however, it is more likely that b῾l stands for ESHMUN there). Based on yet another explanation, the theonym ṣd would claim an Egypt. origin and would be considered as a transcription of ḏd (the djed pillar); as a result, the double DNN ṣdmlqrt and ṣdtnt, found in Carthage, should be “translated” as “ḏd-pillar of Melqart” and “ḏd-pillar of Tinnit” (Lipiński [1994]). Some echoes of possible links between S. and Sidon and between S. and Egypt, links that revolve around the two last explanations for ṣd mentioned above, can be documented in late traditions (e.g. Malal. Chron. 3,69) that refer to the genealogy of king Melchisedek, who lived in the time of Abraham (Gen 14,18-19). The sources connect the king’s origins with the emigration to Palestine of prince Sidos, son of Aigyptos, the king of *Libya; Sidos would have occupied the region of Canaan (→*Canaanites) and have founded the city of Sidon there. Melchisedek, therefore, would belong to his descendants. At present, however, all the readings of the theonym ṣd and the hypotheses concerning its etymology, as well as any possible connections with the person of Sidos, remain unconfirmed (Minunno [2005]; Bernardini and Ibba [2015]). Much more certainty for the reconstruction of the characteristics of S. is provided by the identification of this god with Rom. SARDUS PATER bab(…), who was superimposed on the Phoen. god in the temple of Antas from at least the late Republican period. Many class. writers refer to this character, making him a colonizing and eponymous hero, the son of Maceris/ Heracles (Melqart) and of North African origin (indeed, it is even said that he comes from *Libya). In Antas, his name occurs on two Lat. inscriptions, one of which is engraved on the epistyle of the temple in the time of Caracalla. The convergence between S. and Sardus Pater has enabled the first to be seen as ideologically connected with the earliest history of Sardinia. In the literary sources, in fact, Sardos is the one who, after conquering the island, gives it a new

SID

name – i.e. Sardinia – replacing the older name of Ichnoussa (e.g. Paus. 10,17,2); in turn, the term pater clearly defines his dynastic traits, “expressing an epichoric primacy that is typically Roman” (Bianchi [1963]). Such features clearly comply with a cult established in a temple built in an isolated position (in the valley of Antas, in Iglesiente), not attached to a specific urban setting and visited by devotees coming from different places on Sardinia (as shown by some Pun. inscriptions of Antas, in which some people making offerings say they are from Karalis [*Cagliari] and Sulky [*Sulci, Sant’Antioco]). Such a cult, then, should have “regional” features, as shown by the very name of the god in the Rom. period. Furthermore, based largely on the epichoric nature of Sardus Pater, it has been proposed that S. should also be identified with the Gk hero IOLAOS (however, rather than equivalence, one should speak of a typological correspondence). Strongly connected with Heracles and defined as pater in the sources – in the same way that Sardus is called Pater in Antas – he also is a protagonist in one of the cycles of the mythical colonization of Sardinia (Diod. 4,29-30; 5,15). In fact, Iolaos is mentioned in *Hannibal (9)’s oath signed in 215 BCE, as transmitted by Polybius (7,9,2). In this text, his name occurs immediately after the names of the daimon of the Carthaginians (→GAD; →TINNIT) and of Heracles, who correspond to Tinnit and Melqart respectively, with whom S. is associated in the cult in Carthage (in the above-mentioned theonyms ṣdmlqrt and ṣdtnt; cf. infra). The reference in the literary sources to characters who, in myth, create the earliest history of Sardinia, as well as the identification of S., in the Rom. period, with an eponymous character, have led to the suggestion that the origin of the cult in Antas must go back to the oldest worship of a Nur. deity (→*Nuragics): an ancestral “first of the Sardinians” whose successor would inherit most of his functions. The presence of such a figure is foreshadowed by the title b᾿by that follows the name of S. in the Phoen. inscriptions of Antas and that of Sardus Pater, in the form bab(…), in the inscription on the epistyle of the temple in the time of Caracalla. According to the reading proposed by G. Garbini (1969), largely accepted in the past, this term should be considered as a loan from a proto-Sardinian substrate, with the meaning of “father”. Further indications of an earlier indigenous cult may possibly be seen in the fact that the temple of Antas was built close to a Nur. necropolis and, most of all,

SID

in the discovery in a tomb of a bronze statuette representing a nude male figure with a spear: according to some scholars, this statuette could be read as an indication of the existence there of a cult similar to the one that later would be organized in the sacred building. However, even though it cannot be excluded that the cult of Antas had been influenced by local traditions, the direct connection between S. (and Sardus Pater) and a proto-Sardinian divine character has been placed in doubt on several occasions (Esposito [1991]; Dridi [2010]; Bernardini and Ibba [2015]; Garbati [2017]; Stiglitz [2019]). First of all, the supposed relationship between the Pun. building and the indigenous necropolis has little support, as the latter had certainly been obliterated for some time when the sanctuary was set up. Furthermore, recently the connection of b᾿by/bab(…) with the local linguistic substrate has been strongly disputed (although both the origin and the etymology of the word remain unknown). The hypothesis of the existence of a Nur. god, with epichoric features, who preceded both the Phoen. and Rom. deities, remains substantially without direct and specific support. The network of relationships that S. has with other divinities is extremely complex, but is well documented in the inscriptions. First of all, we have previously mentioned the connection of the god with Melqart, the colonizer and founder of *Tyre, poliadic in name (mlk + qrt = “king of the city”). This relationship is indicated by a number of factors and, specifically, by the presence in Antas of an inscription addressed to the Tyrian deity (whose name is followed in the text by ῾l hṣr, “on the rock / on Tyre”); by the Carthag. inscriptions (mentioned above) that quote the double theonym ṣdmlqrt; by the text from Gozo that mentions ṣdmb῾l; by the literary sources that in the class. *Interpretatio make Sardus the son of Maceris/Heracles (= Melqart; similarly, the expression ṣdmlqrt could therefore be understood as “S. son of Melqart”); and, finally, by the presence in Antas of votive and architectural material that refers to Hercules. It is also worth mentioning, for ex., a high-relief pediment in terracotta dated to the second half of the 2nd cent. BCE, in which Sardus is portrayed next to his father. Besides the relationship suggested by the narratives concerning Sardus and Maceris, the match between S. and Melqart may depend on similarities in terms of function and, specifically, on both gods being colonizers and founders. Moreover, such a relationship could also boast Egypt.

221 colouring, at least in the nuances that the personalities of the two gods acquired within the religious dimension that developed at Antas. In the literary sources, especially Pausanias, Heracles/Melqart, father of Sardos/S., seems to be associated with the Egypt. Heracles of Canopus, a “Phoenician deity transplanted to Egyptian soil” (Grottanelli [1973]; see Paus. 10,13,8). Perhaps this figure is to be connected with an indication of Herodotus concerning the existence, close to the “Canopic” mouth of the Nile, of a temple of Heracles (Hdt. 2,113). From this perspective, there is an attractive option of seeing, in the temple of Antas, some possible Egypt. features of the cult, as shown by the presence there of some votive material, such as anthropomorphic statuettes that derive from Ptolemaic *Hellenism and Alexandrian culture. Instead, the relationship between S. and Tinnit is more difficult to interpret, documented by the ṣdtnt m῾rt of Carthage, to whom (at least) one temple in the city was dedicated. Unlike the evidence for ṣdmlqrt, no further elements for understanding the significance and characteristics of this double deity are available, either from the literary sources or from material evidence. Furthermore, any interpretation is complicated by the presence of the term m῾rt. The CIS, for instance, translates ṣdtnt m῾rt as Sid-Tanitidis Megarensis, with a reference to Megara, the famous quarter of Carthage mentioned by Appian (Pun. 113.117.135); however, the word could be more easily connected with the Sem. term for “cave” (Sznycer [1968-1970]), referring therefore to a specific setting – physical and/or symbolic – of the cult of ṣdtnt. Beyond its meaning, the theonym ṣdtnt is clear evidence of the strong connection of the god of Antas, “father” of the Sardinian people, with Carthage, a connection that is also largely foreshadowed in class. sources where Sardos is said to be from Libya. In previous studies, it has been suggested that the emergence of S. in Sardinia was due to the development of a complex of ideologies and myths. This would have involved ṣdmlqrt as well, partly in order to consolidate the cultural and at the same time political and economic relations between Carthage and the Italian island (also as part of a process of making peace with the local peoples, as proposed by P. Bernardini [2002]). Proof of this would be not only the character of the god as a colonizer but also, and especially, his extremely close relationship with the poliadic goddess of the city, formalized in the double deity ṣdtnt. In any case,

222 the presence of S. in Antas, which cannot be confirmed before the 5th-4th cent. BCE, coincides both with the choice of TINNIT as the protective goddess of the metropolis and with critical moments in the growth of Carthage as a Medit. power. It cannot be excluded that the very positioning of the Sardinian temple, in the heart of a mining area, corresponded to territorial strategies for control of the island’s resources. At Antas again, in the cult, S. appears alongside other deities and his relationship to them helps to reconstruct his complex personality. First of all, feeble connections between S. and female figures, possibly including Tinnit once again, are supplied by some votive material. This comprises, specifically, stone statuettes from Greece, some of which are linked with the iconography of DEMETER & CORE and Aphrodite, and especially an inscription that seems to mention an ᾿lt (“goddess”) (→ELAT). Also, it is useful to mention again the high-relief pediment in terracotta, in which Sardus and Hercules are accompanied by a young male and a female seated on a throne (identified by some as Demeter: Bernardini and Ibba [2015]). Secondly, two inscriptions from the temple record the offering to S. of statuettes of the gods HORON and SHADRAPHA, both featuring marked attributes of healing. Their involvement has meant seeing the titular god of the cult as a healing deity, similarly to other specifically “medical” beings, such as Eshmun. However, the offering in Antas of divine images could also have depended on individual worshippers promoting the healing aspects of the cult that do not necessarily belong to S.’s original character, or, in any case, have been deliberately emphasized on specific occasions of personal devotion (as largely attested in numerous sanctuaries in Sardinia during the Hellenist. period). Furthermore, the specific connection with Shadrapha could go beyond the sphere of sanatio: this god was worshipped in North Africa, at *Leptis Magna, as a poliadic deity, together with MILKASHTART. In the Rom. period these two were identified with LIBER PATER and Hercules respectively. This link closely resembles the one between S./Sardus Pater and Melqart/ Heracles; it could have been commemorated in the high-relief pediment in terracotta: some have understood the fourth figure in the composition to be DIONYSUS, a god who is closely connected with LIBER PATER (Bernardini and Ibba [2015]; Manca di Mores [passim]).

SID

Finally, the reconstruction of S.’s iconography remains very difficult. So far, not one simulacrum that can definitely be attributed to the god has been found (a small bronze statue from *Genoni remains dubious and rather than as S., it could be identified, more correctly, as BAAL HAMMON). Some elements, however, can be gleaned from the images of Sardus Pater on the coins of Atius Balbus and on the highrelief pediment in terracotta of the temple: in both cases, the god is portrayed with a spear and a crown of feathers (and on coins with a beard); such features could have been attributed to the Rom. god thanks to the preceding iconographic conceptualizations of the Phoen. deity. It is not accidental that similar images appear on two Carthag. *Razors. The first has, on one side, an image of Heracles/Melqart, while the engraving on the other depicts a youth with a spear in the act of defeating an enemy. This warrior has been identified by someone as S.; in fact, he is wearing a special headgear that could be compared to the crown of feathers of Sardus Pater. The second razor also depicts Heracles/Melqart on one side, and on the other, a seated youth with a plant in his left hand and another plant-like element in his right, next to which is a bird. The youth has been considered as S. in the guise of Iolaos: in fact, this depiction could refer to the episode recorded by the sources in which Iolaos uses the smell of a burnt quail to cure his uncle/ companion, Heracles, in Libya, after his battle with TYPHON (Eudoxus of Cnidus apud Athen. 9,47; Zenob. 5,56). Bianchi, U. (1963) Sardus Pater. In: Atti del Convegno di Studi religiosi sardi (Cagliari, 24-26 maggio 1962). Padua, 33-51; Fantar, M. (1969) Les inscriptions. In: Ricerche puniche ad Antas. SS 30. Rome, 47-93; Guzzo Amadasi, M. G. (1969) Note sul dio Sid. In: ibid., 95-104; Sznycer, M. (1968-1970) Karthago, 15, 68-74; Ferron, J. (1971-1972) StSard, 22, 268-289; Grottanelli, C. (1973) RSF, 1, 153-164; Ferron, J. (1976) Mus, 89, 425440; Bondì, S. F. (1977) SCO, 26, 299-302; Minutola, M. A. (1976-1977) DdA, 9-10, 399-438; Uberti, M. L. (1978) AION, 38, 315-319; Ribichini, S. (1982) RSF, 10, 171-175; Sotgiu, G. (1982) Epigraphica, 44, 17-28; Roobaert, A. (1986) Sid, Sardus Pater ou Baal Hammon? À propos d’un bronze de Genoni (Sardaigne). In: StPhoen 4, 335-345; Xella, P. (1990) Semitica, 39, 165-175; Esposito, R. (1991) AFLFCa, 54, 111-120; Garbini, G. (1994) La religione dei Fenici in Occidente. SS NS 12. Rome, 23-29; Lipiński, E. (1995) 330-350; Garbati, G. (1999) RSF, 27, 151-166; Bernardini, P. (2002) Il culto del Sardus Pater ad Antas e i culti a divinità salutari e soteriologiche. In: Spanu, P. G. (ed.) Insulae Christi. Il Cristianesimo primitivo in Sardegna, Corsica e Baleari. Oristano, 17-28; Minunno, G. (2005) EVO, 28, 269-285; Dridi, H. (2010) Entre autochtones et Puniques: quelle identité pour Sid à Antas (Sardaigne). In: Ferjaoui, A. (ed.) Carthage et les autochtones de son empire du temps de Zama. Hommage à M. H. Fantar (Siliana-Tunis, 10-13 Mars 2004). Tunis, 161-168;

223

SID – SMITING GOD

Garbati, G. and Peri, C. (2013) Tra Oriente e Occidente. Dèi patres e dèi “guaritori” nella Sardegna punica: qualche riflessione. In: APC 6.I, 322-330; Serra, P. B. (2014) Theologica & Historica, 23, 343-369; Bernardini, P. and Ibba, A. (2015) Il santuario di Antas tra Cartagine e Roma. In: Cabrero Piquero, J. and Montecchio, L. (eds) Sacrum Nexum. Alianzas entre el poder político y la religión en el mundo romano. Thema Mundi 7. Madrid/Salamanca, 76-138; Manca di Mores, G. (2015) Il Sardus Pater ad Antas e la Tarda Repubblica romana. In: AfRo 20, 19331941; Garbini, G. (2016) RSF, 44, 109-113: Garbati, G. (2017) “Forma e sostanza”. Note sul linguaggio figurativo in Sardegna tra III e I sec. a.C. Il contributo delle terrecotte di uso cultuale. In: Tortosa, T. and Ramallo Asensio, S. F. (eds) El tiempo final de los santuarios ibéricos en los procesos de impacto y consolidación del mundo romano (Murcia, 12-14 novembre 2015). Madrid, 231-246; Mastino, A. (2017) La Sardegna arcaica tra mito e storiografia: gli eroi e le fonti. In: Guirguis, M. (ed.) La Sardegna fenicia e punica. Storia e materiali (Corpora delle antichità della Sardegna). Nuoro, 19-29; Zucca, R. (2017) Antas e Matzanni. In: ibid., 183-193; Manca di Mores, G. (2019) Circolazione di modelli e quadri simbolici in Sardegna: le terrecotte architettoniche del tempio del Sardus Pater ad Antas. In: Lulof, P. et al. (eds) Deliciae fictiles V. Networks and workshops: Architectural terracottas and decorative roof systems in Italy and beyond. Oxford, 355-364; Zucca, R. (2019) (ed.) Il tempio del Sardus Pater ad Antas (Fluminimaggiore, Sud Sardegna). MAL 24. Rome. G. GARBATI

Sid-Melqart see SID; MELQART; DOUBLE DEITIES Sid-Tinnit see SID; TINNIT; DOUBLE DEITIES SIDE Gk Σίδη. Female mythological character who allegedly gave her name to the city of *Sidon. From her union with Bel (here evidently BAAL) Aigyptos, the eponym of *Egypt, was born. Probably this is a late tradition, based on the example of cities called Side of which a female eponym was known (as in Pamphylia and Laconia). Instead, Josephus (AJ 1,132: see Gen 10,15) mentions a male eponym for Sidon. One myth tells us how S. committed suicide in order to escape from her incestuous father; the gods took pity on her and made her into the pomegranate plant that grew from her blood. In fact, Gk side denotes both the fruit and the plant. This episode has been compared with the – typically “Oriental” in Gk thought – events concerning Myrrha, the mother of ADONIS, but we do not know the connection between this Side and Side as eponymous of Sidon. The metamorphosis of blood into a plant, however, might originate from a mythical complex related to

the historical-religious type of the dema, an entity which in many mythologies gives rise, with its death, to species of edible plants. Another myth sees a different S. – Orion’s wife – compete in beauty with Hera who, in anger, throws her into Hades. This may reflect the contrast between a hunter-gatherer culture (Orion) and proto-agriculture. Roscher, Lexikon IV, s.v., cols 814f. (O. Höfer); Chirassi, I. (1968) Elementi di culture precereali nei miti e riti greci. Incunabula Graeca 30. Rome, 80f.; Minunno, G. (2006) PdP, 349, 271-278. G. MINUNNO

Sidos see SID Silvanus see MERCURY SMITING GOD The term “smiting god” was coined by D. Collon (1972) to describe the gesture of a bronze figurine with raised hand [FIG. 130]. This motif is derived from depictions of the “smiting Pharaoh” from 3000 BCE, who grabs the enemy by his hair and raises his weapon to smite him (Egypt. Ḥwi: Hasel [1998] 36f.), which continued until Rom. times. I. Cornelius ([1994] 255) argued that “menacing” is a more appropriate description, because there

Fig. 130. Replicas of smiting deities from Kamid el-Loz

224

SMITING GOD – SOURMOUBELOS

is no enemy depicted and the gesture expressing power is important in itself. The term is also applied to bronze figurines from other regions and periods, including the Phoen. period (ca I mill. BCE) and its world. There are examples from Hitt. sites (→*Hittites) and *Syria, esp. from *Ugarit (Ras Shamra). Statuettes were also found at *Byblos dating from the 14th-13th cent. BCE. *Cyprus played an important part in the spread of this type of figure to the Occident; examples have been found in *Sicily, *Sardinia and as far West as Spain. Gk gods like Zeus were copied from these Or. types. Scarabs from Pers. Yehud (*Judah) depict a smiting Heracles. The bronzes wear the Egypt. white and atef-crowns. Most of these bronzes do not depict any weapon, although a few show shields. A figure with the same gesture also occurs on the glyptic material from Syria, going back to the II mill. BCE. In some cases, he appears in front of a naked goddess. A whole series of Egypt. stelae from the NK depict a figure with this gesture (Cornelius [1994] and Tazawa [2009]). The figure is identified as ršpu (→RESHEPH) in the hieroglyphic text and mostly wears an Egypt. atef-crown and is armed (e.g. with a shield). Because of this, some scholars have described other bronzes as Resheph figurines, although some might also represent →BAAL, who is shown as a “Smiting god” on a cylinder seal from Avaris (ca 18th cent.). Some bronzes may instead represent the Egypt. king. Syro-Anat. stelae depict a weather-god in a smiting pose on the back of a bull. There are also bronzes depicting females, “smiting goddesses”, which may represent either →ASTARTE or →ANAT, because both were “violent goddesses”. However, since Anat was less well-known in the I mill. BCE, they are more probably of Astarte. Collon, D. (1972) Levant, 4, 111-134; Seeden, H. (1980) The standing armed figurines in the Levant. PBF 1. Munich; Bisi, A. M. (1986) Le “Smiting God” dans les milieux phéniciens d’Occident. In: StPhoen 4, 169-187; Falsone, G. (1986) Anath or Astarte? A Phoenician bronze statuette of the Smiting Goddess. In: StPhoen 4, 53-67; Hall, E. S. (1986) The Pharaoh smites his enemies. A comparative study. MÄS 44. Munich; DCPP, s.v. (A. M. Bisi); Cornelius, I. (1994) The iconography of the Canaanite gods Reshef and Ba῾al. Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c. 1500-1000 BCE). OBO 140. Fribourg; Hasel, M. G. (1998) Domination & resistance: Egyptian military activity in the Southern Levant 1300-1185 B.C. PdÄ 10. Leiden; Otto, A. (2000) Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-Syrischen Glyptik. UAVA 8. Berlin; Acquaro, E. (2001) Bronzes. In: Moscati, S. (ed.) The Phoenicians. London, 472-490; Bunnens, G. (2004) The StormGod in Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia from Hadad of

Aleppo to Jupiter Dolichenus. In: Hutter, M. (ed.) Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität. AOAT 318. Münster, 57-81; Burkert, W. (2008) Migrating gods and syncretisms: Forms of cult transfer in the ancient Mediterranean. In: id., Kleine Schriften. Bd. 2. Göttingen, 17-36; Cornelius, I. (20082) The many faces of the Goddess: The iconography of the SyroPalestinian goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500-1000 BCE. OBO 204. Fribourg/Göttingen; Lipiński, E. (2009) Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite deity. OLA 181 = StPhoen 19. Leuven; Tazawa, K. (2009) Syro-Palestinian deities in New Kingdom Egypt. Oxford; Münnich, M. M. (2013) The god Resheph in the Ancient Near East. ORA 11. Tübingen. I. CORNELIUS

Sol Invictus see CAELESTIS; SATURN SOURMOUBELOS Gk Σουρμουβηλός. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790), S. is a divine figure said to have followed the theology of TAAUTOS. Eusebius quotes this passage as part of the alleged work On the Jews, whose existence outside the Phoenician History, however, is not certain (Eus. PE 1,10,43 = BNJ 790 fr. 10; cf. also PE 1,9,21; see Stern [1980] 143). S. is also called Thouro (Θουρώ) and Chousarthis (Χούσαρθις). Like SANCHOUNIATHON, S. is a Gk adaptation of a Sem. theophoric name, in this case containing the name of BAAL. It is possible that the name is a garbling of Hierombalos, who appears in PE 1,9,21 as a source of Sanchouniathon’s wisdom (Eissfeldt [1952] 18-20). If Hierombalos lies behind S., this passage would provide an explicit connection between the priestly source for Sanchouniathon and the wisdom of Taautos/Thoth. His other name, Chousartis, may be a form of Chousor/Chousoros, who appears in Phoen. cosmogony as a later version of NW Sem. KOTHARU, and is explicitly associated with the discovery of iron and in Philo is identified with Hephaistos (PE 1,10,11; cf. commentary on BNJ 790 fr. 2) and with ZEUS MEILICHIOS (Eus. PE 1,10,12). In the cosmogony of MOCHOS, Chousor is a generating cosmic figure called “the opener”, from whom the cosmic egg is generated (Dam. Pr. 125c [I p. 323 Ruelle]; see BNJ 784 fr. 4 for further commentary). Thouro is commonly thought to stand for Torah. If S. is to be emended to Ouroumbelos and Thouro is a form of the Egypt. child-birth goddess Thoeris, the two could correspond to the Ug. gods HORON and Kotharu.

SOURMOUBELOS – SYDYK & MISOR

Eissfeldt, O. (1952) Sanchunjaton von Beirut und Ilimilku von Ugarit. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums 5. Halle; Stern, M. (1980) Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism: Edited with introductions, translations and commentary, Vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius. Jerusalem; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 101; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 104; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newjacoby/philon-790-a790; BNJ 784 “Mochos-Laitos” (C. LópezRuiz, 2019 2): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/ brill-s-new-jacoby/laitos-mochos-784. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Sychaeus: so, instead of ACHERBAS, is called Dido’s husband in some ancient sources (e.g. Verg. A. 1, 343 etc.).

See ELISSA and *Sycharbas SYDYK & MISOR Gk Συδύκ, Μισώρ. Mythical figures mentioned by PHILO OF BYBLOS in his Phoenician History (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,13-14). According to Philo, they were born from AMYNOS and MAGOS. S. and M. discovered the use of salt. Misor begot TAAUTOS, Sydyk begot seven sons, called CABIRI or DIOSCURI, or Corybantes. From one of the seven TITANIDS, daughters of CRONUS, S.

225

begot an eighth son, Asclepius (→ESHMUN) (Eus. PE 1,10,25.38; Dam. Isid. 302). Philo (Eus. PE 1,10,13) explained their names as “just” (S.) and “agile” (M.). The latter is surely a misinterpretation, if not a textual corruption (Gk εὔλυτον, “agile”, for εὔθυτον, “straight”, as suggested by H. Jacobson). Their names, derived from the roots ṣdq and yšr, represent the couple “justice and righteousness”, attested in Phoen. (Byblian), as well as in Hebr. royal ideology, by the inscription of *Yahimilk (KAI 4), a “just and righteous” king (mlk ṣdq wmlk yšr). The parallelism ṣdq//yšr appears in the Ug. poem of Kirta (KTU3 1.14 I 12-13). The personification of these two features, as in Philo, already occurs in a Ug. list of deities (KTU31.123,14), where ṣdq and mšr are a composite god. They correspond to the Mesop. gods kittum and mīšarum, who are connected to the sun-god. A similar connection has been proposed by Rosenberg (1965) for a god ṣdq of Jerusalem. Rosenberg, R. A. (1965) HUCA, 36, 161-177; Liverani, M. (1971) ΣΥΔΥΚ e ΜΙΣΩΡ. In: Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra VI. Milan, 55-74; Cazelles, H. (1973) JANES, 5, 59-73; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart et alibi, 216-223; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 45.47.53.59; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 175f.; DCPP, s.v. “Sydyk et Misor” (P. Xella); Niehr, H. (1997) ZAR, 3, 112-130; Jacobson, H. (2002) ClQ, 52, 404. G. MINUNNO

T TAAUTOS Gk Τάαυτος. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS, (FGrHist 790) T. is a Gk translation of a Phoen. form of the Egypt. god Thoth (also spelled Thoyth). Also according to Philo, T./Thoth is the source of SANCHOUNIATHON’s knowledge about “how things came into being”. In Philo’s Euhemeristic reading (→*Euhemerism), T. is a human character who invented writing and learning, which is in line with the Egypt. god’s main domain. Philo identifies him with Egypt. Thoyth (Θωύθ), Alexandrian Thoth (Θώθ), and Gk Hermes (apud PE 1,9,24 = BNJ 790 fr. 1; repeated in 1,10,14 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). The section quoted from Porphyry by Eusebius of Caesarea does not mention T./Thoth or the text written in “Ammounean letters” as sources used by Sanchouniathon, associating him, instead, with Hierombalos, a priestly figure from Berytus (*Beirut) (PE 1,9,21). Presumably, these various details all derive from Philo’s work and are due to Eusebius’ selection and his “copying-and-pasting” decisions, and we may assume that the temple registers mentioned did exist thanks to T.’s introduction of recording knowledge in writing. T. appears several other times in Philo’s fragments. Within the cosmogony proper, he is associated with the account of the origins of animals said to be written in a Cosmogony (PE 1,10,5), and later he is attributed with special knowledge on snakes and nature in general (PE 1,10,46-47.53 = BNJ 790 fr. 4), perhaps justifying the reconstruction of a work named after him under the corrupted title Ethothia (᾽Εθωθῶν) or the like, mentioned in 1,10,48 (= BNJ 790 fr. 4; excerpted also as fr. 8). T. as the patron of writing is reiterated in PE 1,10,14 (where he is said to be the son of Misor: →SYDYK & MISOR) and in PE 1,10,36, while in PE 1,10,38 T. (where he is called a god) is granted the whole of *Egypt by king CRONUS (all in BNJ 790 fr. 2). In PE 10,43 (= BNJ 790 fr. 10) T./Thouth is counted as the wisest among the *Phoenicians, who transformed religion by turning to accurate or “scientific” knowledge (εἰς ἐπιστημονικὴν ἐμπειρίαν), and whose theology was later misinterpreted and distorted by the allegorical school. This comment is said to come

from On the Jews, a work by Philo, the existence of which is dubious, since it is mentioned only in the Phoenician History (see commentary in BNJ 790 fr. 10). Philo’s T./Thoth is well grounded in Egyptianizing Phoen. wisdom, while his identification with Gk Hermes (→MERCURY) was popular in previous Graeco-Rom. sources (e.g. Hdt. 2,138,4; Diod. 1,16,2; Cic. Nat. D. 3,22. Hecataeus of Abdera, FGrHist 264; see Boylan [1922] 99-101; Fowden [1986]). The association of Thoth with cosmogonic literature goes back at least to the Hellenist. period, especially in Hermetic literature. Boylan, P. (1922) Thoth, the Hermes of Egypt. Oxford; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 60-71.223-234; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 72f. and passim; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 44f.67-74 and passim; Fowden, G. (1986) The Egyptian Hermes: A historical approach to the late pagan mind. Princeton; Edwards, M. J. (1991) ClQ NS, 41, 213220; Ribichini, S. (1991) Taautos et l’invention de l’écriture chez Philon de Byblos. In: Baurain, C., Bonnet, C. and Krings, V. (eds) Phoinikeia grammata. Lire et écrire en Méditerranée (Actes du Colloque de Liège, 15-18 novembre 1989). CEC 6. Liège/Namur, 201-213; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. LópezRuiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brills-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Tammuz see ADONIS; BAALAT GEBAL Tanit see TINNIT TECHNITES Gk Τεχνίτης. T., “Craftsman”, “Artisan”, appears as one of the children of the family of Chousor (→KOSHAR/ KOTHARU) in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PΕ 1,10,12 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). The other child is “Earthly Native” (Γήινος Αὐτόχθων). This mention of T. is confusing as he is probably the same as Chousor, identified explicitly with Hephaistos by Philo immediately before. Perhaps this is the result of a misunderstanding

227

TECHNITES – TINNIT

of the Canaanite god Kotharu-wa-Hasisu (a composite name for one deity) somewhere in the chain of transmission leading to Philo, or his own rationalizing interpretation. Similarly, his brother, Earthly Native, may be a doublet of Terrestrial Native in PE 1,10. T. and Earthly Native are credited with the invention of sun-dried bricks and of roofs, as part of the section on “first inventors” in the Phoenician History (PE 1,10,9-11 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). Løkkegard, F. (1955) Studia Theologica, 8, 51-57; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 191-194; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 45; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 169f.; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. LópezRuiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brills-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

THABION Gk Θαβίων. T. appears once in the preserved fragments of the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,39 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). T. is mentioned as the first of the “hierophants of the Phoenicians”, who allegorized confusing historical facts with cosmic and physical events, leading to the further Gk distortion of the past in their mythological narratives. After long sections on cosmogony, on first inventors (or a history of culture), and the account of CRONUS’ rule and of later rulers (frs 1 and 2), this passage at the end of fr. 2 returns to the issue of Philo’s views on the shortcomings of his predecessors, who distorted the legacy of TAAUTOS (i.e. the accounts of Phoenician history). Here and in PE 1,9,26 (= BNJ 790 fr. 1) Philo links these allegorizing misrepresentations with the use of myth in (unspecified) rituals and mysteries. The name Thabion (not attested elsewhere) seems to be a Gk adaptation of a Sem. name, although interpretations of that original name vary. Ug. proper names such as tby and ṯby/ ṯbym may or may not lie behind the name. The most interesting suggestion is the possible relationship between the hypothetical Sem. name ṭobyom or the like (“Good Day”) and Gk Euhemeros (lit. “Good Day”, not a common Gk name). Euhemeros was an author who spread the rationalizing and historicizing interpretation of myth in Hellenist. times

(→*Euhemerism; →MYTH & MYTHOLOGY), although T. is represented here as doing the opposite. A variant in MSS B and O reads θαυίωνος παῖς πρῶτος “Thauion, the first child of…” instead of Θαβίων, ὃς πάμπρωτος… “Thabion, the very first of…”, the better reading in MS A. Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 59; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 232.236.238; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks. brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790-a790. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Theias see ADONIS Theogony see MYTH & BYBLOS

MYTHOLOGY;

PHILO

OF

Thot see TAAUTOS TINNIT Phoen. tnt; Gk Τιννιθ or Τεννειθ (in inscriptions from El-Hofra/*Constantine: EH no. 1 Gk, 167f.; no. 3 Gk, 168f.; KAI 175 and 176). Goddess of Phoen. origin, documented especially in *Carthage and in some colonies in the west. Mediterranean. As yet, none of the attempts at an etymological explanation of this theonym has provided convincing results. After a phase in which scholars tended to ascribe a Lib.-Berber origin to the name tnt, new evidence from the Levant has emerged to show that this deity has a Phoen. origin. The Levant The most important piece of evidence is an inscription engraved on an ivory plate found in a temple of *Sarepta in 1974, which bears a dedication to Tinnit-Astarte (tnt-῾štrt: KAI 285), dated between the 7th and the beginning of the 6th cent. BCE. This inscription was placed at the feet of a statuette that must represent the goddess (or goddesses?). This find has helped to evaluate other occurrences, such as the Lebanese place names ῾Aqtanit, ῾Aitanit and Kfar Tanit, the existence of which had led E. Ronzevalle

228

TINNIT

to propose a Levantine origin for T. which has currently been questioned by other scholars (e.g. Lipiński [2015]). Also to be taken into account are theophoric names such as grtnt (“Client of T.”), said to be a Sidonian on a Phoen. ostracon from the sanctuary of ESHMUN at Bostan esh-Sheikh (*Sidon), dated to the 5th cent. BCE (KAI 37 A,16; B,10), as well as another from *Kition (IK D 38, 171-173); ῾bdtnt (“Servant of T.”), the name of another Sidonian resident in *Athens and dated to about 400 BCE (CIS, I 116 = KAI 53), which could be related to the name Afetennau in the Phoen. inscription written in Gk letters, from the cave of Wasta, in the vicinity of *Tyre (KAI 174). Even though somewhat dubious, other names to be mentioned are tnt῾l᾿ (“T. the high one”? Sader [2004] I.4.d), or tntšb῾ (“T. is abundance”) on funerary stelae from the necropolis of al-Bass, near Tyre (Sader [2004] no. 13), dated between the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th cent. BCE. Another possible theophoric name is mentioned in an inscription engraved on a bronze lamp from the Pers. period of unknown provenance, now in the Museum of Beirut (ltnt šp ᾿š p[ ]: BÉS, no. 138 p. 372). M. G. Amadasi Guzzo (1999) has shown that, in the tesserae from south. Lebanon, the phrase ḥn(t) tmt does not contain the name of the goddess, as some have claimed, but means “complete gratuity”, “completely free”. With such Or. antecedents, the inscription from *Borj Jedid (Carthage), concerning construction works in the sanctuaries of ASTARTE and Tinnit in/ from Lebanon (lrbt l῾štrt wltnt blbnn: CIS I, 3914 = KAI 81), dated to the 4th-3rd cent. BCE, recovers all its meaning [FIG. 131]. Both the epithet rbt and the epiclesis blbnn – which stresses her Levantine origin – could belong to either goddess, mentioned separately in this case. Carthage and the western Mediterranean Almost all the remaining epigraphic evidence concerning T. comes from Carthage and North Africa, and to a much lesser extent from west. *Phoenicia. In the first case, most of it comes from the →*Tophet in the Pun. metropolis, where, from the end of the 5th cent. BCE, the common dedication formula on stelae (→*Stelae & cippi) commemorates a mlk-sacrifice (→*Molk) to Tinnit pn b῾l and BAAL HAMMON in that sanctuary. Bearing in mind that previously Baal Hammon was the only god to whom the offerings were intended, it is necessary to explain

Fig. 131. The inscription CIS I, 3914 = KAI 81 mentioning Astarte and Tinnit in/from Lebanon

the emergence of T. and her subsequent rise in the *Pantheon, as well as her epithet pn b῾l. It is agreed that this epithet means “Face of Baal”. This expression can also be connected with the epithet šm b῾l, “Name of Baal”, ascribed to Astarte in the Sidonian inscription of King *Eshmunazor II, dating to the 6th cent. BCE (KAI 14 = TSSI III, 28,18), which, in turn, corresponds to Ug. ῾ṯtrt šm b῾l (KTU3 1.16 VI 56), and other syntagms of a similar type, such as the Gk term Salammbô (Hsch. σ 102 Latte, s.v. Σαλαμβώ), equivalent to Sem. ṣlm b῾l, “image of Baal” (→SADAMBAAL). Tinnit’s epithet pn b῾l stresses her role as mediator with her consort Baal Hammon. She is the “face” of the god as an emanation of his hypostasis, a loveable and maternal face which is also close to human beings. This epithet corresponds to fane Bal in the inscription KAI 175 or to fene Bal in KAI 176. It has also been connected with the Fanebalos that appears on coins from *Ashqelon in the time of Hadrian (117-138) and of Antoninus Pius (138-160). Ultimately, this epithet has to be understood as an expression of the dependence of the goddess T. on Baal Hammon, in exactly the same way that other goddesses such as Aṯtart (῾ṯtrt) and ANAT in *Ugarit were dependent on the local poliadic BAAL. Tinnit’s function as Baal Hammon’s “hired hand” in curse formulae has also been emphasized (→*Blessing & curse) (CIS I, 3783; 4945; 4937), which is comparable to the function of Aṯtart together with HORON at Ugarit (see KTU3 1.16 VI 56). In contrast with the epithet ᾿dn (→ADON), customarily used to refer to Baal Hammon, T. is called rbt, “lady” (see e.g. CIS I, 1310), or even rbtn, “our lady”, used more

TINNIT

for goddesses, including Astarte herself. The theophoric PN ῾bdrbt (CIS I, 2262) could refer to T., or even to Astarte. It is worth mentioning that in some Carthag. inscriptions, T. is called by the masculine term ᾿dn (CIS I, 401; 3048; 3913; 4328; 4994; 5527; 5621), as is also the case in other inscriptions from North Africa. This fact has been interpreted by some scholars as an allusion to a hypothetical androgynous character of the goddess, possibly inherited from Astarte and Ishtar, and is connected with her possible warlike nature; T. is also called ᾿drt, “powerful”, an epithet she shares with Astarte. In reality, the sporadic use of ᾿dn for T. may be explained as a simple engraver’s error, or mechanical repetition of a formula in which the term is absolutely always used for Baal Hammon. Tinnit pn b῾l is also ᾿m, “mother”, as shown by CIS I, 195 and 380. The interpretation of the Carthag. inscription KAI 83 (= CIS I, 177): lrbt l᾿m᾿ wlrbt lb῾lt hḥdrt, is more complex. It is usually translated “to the lady, to the mother and to the lady, the mistress of the chamber” (→BAALAT HḤDRT ); some have explained the term ḥdrt as “tomb”, “underground chamber”, possibly as a euphemism for the *Netherworld, alluding to a possible chthonian aspect of the goddess and her connection with the underworld; others claim it is a “cave” or a nuptial chamber. In general, the epigraph is supposed to refer to the goddesses DEMETER and CORE, whose worship, according to Diodorus of Sicily (14,77,4-5), was introduced in Carthage in 397 BCE, although recent research tends to minimize its significance in the Pun. metropolis. Thus, the expression “Lady of the chamber” would refer to Core. However, it is also possible to understand that the epigraph mentions two attributes of the same deity, and so more probably refers to T., for whom any of the possible meanings of the expression hḥdrt – underground room, hypogeum or cave, closed chamber (inner room) or cella of a sanctuary – would be suitable. In the other tophets in North Africa, in both the Pun. and Neopun. periods, the goddess appears with her usual titles, mentioned before Baal Hammon only once at *Sousse (Hadrumetum) cf. KAI 97, and sometimes even alone, as in an inscription from *El-Kenissia (inscription EK 97); she is also mentioned after Baal Hammon in an inscription from *Thinissut (see infra), and in another from *Mateur. In the other regions of Rom. Africa Nova, T. appears only once, at *Aïn Tounga (Thignica), where her consort precedes her (D’Andrea [2014] 196, fig. 8.7).

229

Instead, she is mentioned very often in Numidia (→*Numidians), especially in El-Hofra (*Constantine, ancient Cirta Regia), where she precedes Baal Hammon in a large number of inscriptions from the local tophet, except for EH 120, where the sequence is reversed. Two inscriptions from this site provide direct indications of a possible conjugal relationship between Baal Hammon and T.: they are EH 21 and 23. Also in this region, T. is documented at *Tirekbine (D’Andrea [2014] 277), *Annaba (Hippo Regius: D’Andrea [2014] 269) and el-Kheneg (D’Andrea [2014] 277). In the rest of the Mediterranean, T. appears on *Sicily before Baal Hammon as the recipient of a mlk-sacrifice on a stela from *Palermo (ICO Sic. 9), apparently late and now lost, and also at *Lylibaeum, between the 4th and 2nd cent. BCE (ICO Sic. 4). With doubts as to whether it is T. or Astarte, there is also the dedication (lrbt) written on pottery from Cappiddazzu, in *Motya, from the 4th cent. BCE, or the rock inscription in *Grotta Regina (Ribichini and Xella [1994] 53 and 71 respectively). On *Sardinia, the goddess appears in Capo di Pula, *Nora, on a black-painted beaker in the local tophet (ICO Sard. 25 = KAI 72) dating from the end of the 4th to the beginning of the 3rd cent. BCE, which is of special interest since T. has the epithet gd after the usual pn b῾l [FIG. 132]; at *Tharros T. is mentioned on a stela in the shape of an altar from the tophet, dating to the 5th-4th cent. BCE (Uberti [1976] 53-55); in *Sulci, the goddess is mentioned alone in a votive inscription with the epithet pn b῾l (3rd-2nd cent. BCE: Amadasi Guzzo [1990] no. 11, p. 79), and perhaps she may be identified in the rbt ᾿lt (→ELAT) to whom a temple is dedicated, as shown by another bilingual (Lat./Neopun.) inscription dating to the 1st cent. BCE (ICO Sard. Neopun. 5 = KAI 172). In *Monte Sirai, we find the PN ῾bdtnt in an inscription on bronze from the 4th-3rd cent. BCE (ICO Sard. 39). Finally, we should mention a reference to the goddess on a bronze plaque, in the Neopun. script, in the cave-sanctuary of *Es Culleram (*Ibiza), dated to about 180 BCE, which commemorates some improvements to the sanctuary paid for by a priest lrbtn ltnt ᾿drt wgd, “to our lady, to powerful Tinnit and Gad” (ICO Spagna 10 = KAI 72). Compared with the large number of theophoric PNN composed with the name Astarte, those in which T. appears are rare. This is probably due to the conservative nature of proper names, given the late

230

TINNIT

Fig. 132. The inscription ICO Sard. 25 from Capo di Pula (Nora, Sardinia)

appearance of the goddess in Carthage, and perhaps also to her complex and somewhat vague relationship to Astarte. Besides the name ῾bdtnt, “Servant of T.”, which is very common in the west. world (Monte Sirai: ICO Sard. 39,2; Carthage: CIS I, 501,4; 975,5/6; 2720,3; 4906,3/4; 4978 and 5679,2/3), cited already, there is also grtnt, “Client of T.” (KAI 37 A, 16; B, 10), which may simply presuppose the idea of protection provided by the goddess; ῾ztnt, “T. is strong” or “Strength of T.” (CIS I, 2026), with parallels in PNN based on Astarte and Baal, a name that in fact has been interpreted as indicating her possible warrior-like nature; ᾿štnt, “Vassal/Man of T.” (CIS I, 542); bdtnt, “for T.” or “in the hand of T.” (KAI 69,2), referring to the power exercised by the goddess. The classical sources Information about T. as provided by Gk and Lat. sources is scarce. In the extensive collection of writers who refer to infant sacrifices, only CRONUSSATURN is mentioned, undoubtedly Baal Hammon, as the recipient of the sacrificial rite: this is probably due to the fact that T., as pn b῾l, has a very secondary role as simple mediator, since the god is the real protagonist of the rite and of a relationship with the human race. In any case, there are some references to Juno in connection with Carthage (which was called Colonia Junonia after its destruction), which have been considered as interpretationes of T., even though some of them are closer to myth and legend than to real history. Pliny (Nat. 6,31,200) mentions that *Hanno [3], after performing his periplus (→*Peripli), in the temple of Juno in Carthage, hung up the hairy pelts of two “women” – undoubtedly gorillas or another type of ape – captured on the islands of the Georgiades. Instead, Macrobius (Sat. 3,9,7-8) describes the ceremony of euocatio performed by *Scipio Aemilianus (*Scipions [6]) during the III Punic War (*Punic Wars), in which the

protector gods of Carthage are invited to switch to the side of *Rome. Even though this author does not actually mention Juno, the commentary on Virgil by Servius (A. 12,841), concerning the exoratio of Juno during the II Punic War and her translatio to Rome, together with her sacra, made by Scipio Aemilianus after the III Punic War, allows the name of the goddess to be deduced. Most scholars are doubtful as to whether that translation took place at that time. Servius (4,680) himself considers Saturn and Juno as the dii patrii of Carthage, as also in G. 1,498.680.729. In A. 1,443 he refers to the construction of the temple of Juno. After the destruction of the city, in 122 BCE the deductio of *Caius Gracchus (*Gracchi [4]) took place, and the name Colonia Junonia was imposed on the new city (Plut. C. Gr. 11). In A. 1,16-18, Virgil states that Juno lived in the city and preferred it to all her other towns, including *Samos, and that she kept her weapons and her chariot there. Later, in 1,441-449, he mentions the temple consecrated to Juno by Dido (ELISSA), at the site where the horse’s head had appeared. Of special interest is the oath formula in the treaty between *Hannibal [9] and *Philip V, king of Macedonia (→*Treaties) in 215 BCE, transmitted by Polybius (7,9,2-3) and considered to be the Gk translation of a Pun. original. The Gk text mentions Hera, but also the daimon of the Carthaginians. It is generally accepted that here the term daimon is a translation of gd, a Sem. word synonymous with “good wishes” or “good luck” (→GAD). Over time, it became an aspect of the local deities, i.e. protection they reserved for their devotees, whether as a clan, a village, a city or a nation. In this way, it could be applied to any deity who performed this function. From at least the 4th cent. BCE, she was equated with Gk Tyche and very probably she is to be identified in the siglum GTA, read as G(enius) T(errae) A(fricae), on a denarius minted in Africa by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (*Caecilii Metelli [3]) dating to 48-46 BCE. On the reverse there is a female character, standing, with the head of a lioness and dressed in a skirt made of feathers, while in her right she holds an object that looks like an *Ankh, or the so-called symbol of Tinnit/Tanit. This allows us to suppose, on the one hand, that this genius is the Rom. *Interpretatio of the daimon in the Gk text of the treaty and of the epithet gd accompanying T. in the inscriptions from Nora and Es Culleram already mentioned, who protects not only Carthage, but the whole

TINNIT

231

African province. On the other hand, it is correct to consider that the image in question is in fact of the goddess mentioned. From this evidence, then, it can be deduced that the goddess T. took on this aspect of gd, a patron or poliadic deity in Carthage, from an unspecified time. It has been suggested that her increasing success in the Pun. metropolis was the result of a devotional strategy that occurred during the 5th cent. BCE, in a period of growth and of international assertion of that city. It would therefore be a re-interpretation of this cult, in which its Levantine origins were valued, at the same time making her a symbol of Carthage asserting itself as an autonomous power. In this process, most probably, her close relationship with Astarte, patron goddess of several cities on the Lebanese coast, would have assumed an important role. So T. becomes the parhedros of Baal Hammon and his intermediary with the faithful. This attribute of gd was spread to other regions under the influence of Carthage, notably at Capo di Pula (Nora, Sardinia) and at Es Culleram (Ibiza), where there is additional archaeological evidence of this function. Iconography It is difficult to identify T.’s iconography, due to her close relationship to Astarte and to the complexity that presupposes the use of foreign (Gk and Egypt.) expressive forms to portray Phoen. and Pun. deities. In spite of this, the one most probably to be identified as T. is the figure dressed in a skirt and a cloak with outspread wings. The female image in the shape of a bell with a winged “cloak” is the most common *Ex-voto in the site sacred to T. in the cave-sanctuary of Es Culleram, on Ibiza. It is considered to be a simplified local adaptation of the type best represented in the sarcophagus said to be “of the winged priestess”, from the so-called necropolis of the Rabs (*Funerary world), dated between the end of the 4th and the first half of the 3rd cent. BCE [FIG. 133]. This figure, which shows clear Egypt. influence, is wearing a skirt formed by overlapping wings and a vulture head-dress. Such clothing originally evokes the Egypt. vulture-goddess Nekhbet in her maternal aspect, and was worn by other goddesses, as well as queens and some Egypt. priestesses. At a certain moment, around the end of the 5th cent. BCE, this attire was adopted to represent T. The person buried in the sarcophagus was no doubt a member of the Carthag. social and political elite, possibly a priestess of the goddess, as the ladies buried in the wooden

Fig. 133. Marble sarcophagus named “of the winged priestess”. Carthage, Necropolis of the Rabs (4th-3rd cent. BCE)

coffins in Sulci (end of the 5th or beginning of the 4th cent. BCE) and *Kerkouane (3rd cent. BCE) must also have been in their respective realms. They wished to emulate the divine apparel, following an old Egypt. custom (documented in the Graeco-Rom. era), by which ladies of noble birth identified with the goddess HATHOR, to follow her to the afterlife. In Carthage there are similar depictions in the necropoleis, both in terracotta (e.g. MNC no. inv. 06.17), and on *Razors (Acquaro [1971] Ca 33, Ca 76, Ca 77, Ca 79), but there is also an example in ivory (10 cm long) in the so-called Chapelle Carton. A depiction that is very similar to the one on the ex-votos from Ibiza is on a stela from the tophet of Sousse (Hadrumetum) (Cintas [1947] fig. 116), dated between the second half of the 4th cent. and the first half of the 2nd cent. BCE. It is important to note that, as yet, this iconography has only been found in

232

TINNIT

Carthage and in the areas of her closest influence, in North Africa and Ibiza. Probably in a later period, a new type would emerge (which must also have had ancient roots) closely related in respect of clothing, with a typical lioness’ head, an evocation of the Egypt. goddess Sekhmet, connected with Astarte in Egypt. It has been documented in an amulet case from Kerkouane, dated to between the 5th and the 4th cent. BCE. Although inspired by similar exemplars of a clearly Egyptianizing type – no doubt the depiction of the Egypt. deity – it shows a female wearing the same skirt formed by overlapping wings and holding some ivy leaves, a symbol of renewal and life, neither feature at all related to the Egypt. goddess. This type is also documented by the lionheaded figure from the sanctuary of *Thinissut [FIG. 134], the date of which, strongly debated, could be between the 3rd and the 1st cent. BCE; by the similar figure of Ghardimaou (*Bir Derbal), as well as by the coins minted by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio accompanied by the title GTA, interpreted as G(enius) T(errae) or T(utelaris) A(fricae) (48-46), which stresses the protection given by T. over the African territory. It is worth noting that the existing patronage of the Gad (daimon) over Carthage is now extended to the whole Rom. province of Africa. A strange enthroned figure made of stone, with a head that, in spite of being broken, very probably seems to be of a lioness, was found in the Ibero-Rom. sanctuary of *Torreparedones (Castro del Río-Baena, Córdoba) [FIG. 135]. There, also, a female head was found, with a Lat. inscription identifying her as the goddess CAELESTIS (CIL II 2/5, 406). A wide Or. tradition also lies at the origin of showing the goddess on a throne, as found at Es Culleram, and very probably also on two stelae from Sousse, with the goddess holding an unidentifiable spherical object (Cb 1076 and 1077). Likewise, various Hellenizing terracottas (→*Hellenization) depicting an enthroned figure, found in the necropolis of Carthage and dated to between the 4th-3rd cent. BCE, have been attributed to her. Mention must also be made of an incomplete figure, from the so-called Chapelle Carton, of a goddess on a throne between sphinxes, with her feet on a lion (MNC Inv. 54,1 63), or the lady who shares her throne made of sphinxes with a headless god from Kerkouane (Museum of Kerkouane, 4th-3rd cent. BCE). Also, to be mentioned are images of the goddess on a throne, all somewhat late, from the

Fig. 134. Leontocephaline female statue from Thinissut (2nd cent. BCE)

sanctuaries of Thinissut or *El Jem. Connected with these are the terracottas of a goddess breast-feeding a baby, from the necropolis of Carthage (MNC Inv. CMA 340), dated to the 4th cent. BCE, or the one in the urban area of Kerkouane (Museum of Kerkouane), or the image on a pendant from the Carthag. necropolis of Sainte Monique that survives in later ones from Thinissut or Soliman. Terracottas of a similar kind are found in the south-east. regions of the Iberian Peninsula. A series of images on Carthag. razors, already mentioned, may quite probably be connected with T. as a nourishing mother goddess. In the whole west. Mediterranean under the influence of Carthage, in sacred or funerary contexts, incense-burners (→*Thymiateria) in the shape of a female head are very often found. Generally, these heads are covered with a kalathos decorated with various motifs on the frontal part: the most predominant comprises two ears of wheat, sometimes transformed into birds, in a heraldic

233

TINNIT

position, between which are three small fruit-shaped spheres. Contrary to the traditional view that ascribed these objects to the cult of Demeter, today they tend to be considered – like other terracottas of the Hellenizing type – as ex-votos connected with the cult of one or more goddesses with similar characteristics. However, various circumstances have prompted some of the incense-burners to be connected with the cult of T., such as the fact that they are frequently found in areas clearly consecrated to this goddess: the so-called Chapelle Carton of Carthage, the *Favissa of *Villaricos (Almería), or the cave of Es Culleram (Ibiza) among others. The discovery on Ibiza or Sardinia of some of these incense-burners, featuring a lid in the shape of a walled crown [FIG. 136], has suggested that they could actually represent the goddess T. in her aspect as the Gad or Fortune of Es Culleram or Capo di Pula (Nora). It is certainly possible that the female head on Carthag. coins – an adapted copy of the Arethusa created by Evainetos for Syracuse – actually represents T., the patron goddess of Carthage (in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula, it should evoke Artemis of Ephesus, just as in Emporion and on *Rhodes). There are certain symbolic or figurative depictions on stelae that very often have been connected with the goddess but for no good reason. These types require a detailed study that has yet to be made. Of all these symbols, the one usually called the “sign of Tinnit” should really not be connected with that goddess in current opinion. Whatever its origin may be – very probably the Egypt. ankh combined with the pubic triangle – it is said to refer to life, fecundity and prosperity, which is why it is commonly used as an apotropaic symbol and a good luck token. In general, at present it does not seem possible to connect a symbol with a specific deity automatically, in view of its polysemy. In spite of this, it is certain that the symbols are elements of a specific semantic field and therefore they could of course accompany different deities that have characteristics included within that field. In any case, this particular symbol – which is extremely common on various kinds of support in many different regions – requires a combined study to evaluate how it developed at the local level (→Symbols, religious). Cult places As for the temples and sanctuaries dedicated to T. in Carthage, mention must be made of the passage in the inscription of Borj Jedid concerning building

Fig. 135. Enthroned leontocephaline (?) figure from Torreparedones (Baena, Córdoba)

work in the sanctuaries of Astarte and T. of Lebanon (see above). Although the inscriptions are dated to the 4th-3rd cent. BCE, we must assume that the temple was earlier. The close relationship between the two temples is significant. Perhaps they were two chapels inside the same enclosure, which is reminiscent of the inscription from Sarepta mentioned above, and the possible ascription of this sanctuary to both or only one of these goddesses. It has been suggested that both temples or chapels might have been located close to the place where the inscription was found. Other literary references to sanctuaries of the goddess in Carthage can be found in the passages by Pliny or Virgil already quoted, even though in this case Juno would correspond more to Astarte than to T. Also worth mentioning is a reference in the inscriptions to the temple dedicated to a “double deity” (→DOUBLE DEITIES) called Sid-Tinnit (ṣdtnt), followed by the word m῾rt, which is explained as the outer quarter of Carthage known in the sources as Megara (CIS I, 247; 248; 249; 5145). It is not easy to identify the titulars of the few temples in Carthage for which we have archaeological evidence. Quite probably, based on the material, chiefly terracottas, found inside it, the temple excavated by L. Carton (1929) in the vicinity of the station of Salammbô, was dedicated to Baal Hammon and T. In terms of chronology, this sanctuary dates between the end of the 3rd and the first quarter of the 1st cent. BCE. It has been supposed that the cultic area (House 1, space E) excavated by the University of Hamburg near the Decumanus Maximus of Carthage was dedicated to T., Baal Hammon and Astarte. This adscription is based exclusively on three symbols in

234

TINNIT

the floor. These are a large sign of T., a circle inscribed with a cross, and a rosette, which have been interpreted as the respective symbols of those three deities. The symbol of T. is also found on the thresholds of three houses in Kerkouane, as well as in “Temple A” of *Selinus and at the entrance of dwellings, both in Selinus itself, and in *Cagliari, and generally considered to be apotropaic. Outside Carthage, undoubtedly the most important is the sanctuary of Thinissut mentioned above, which stands at the top of a hill lying NE of Ksar es-Zit. KAI 137 commemorates, in the Neopun. script, the construction, between the second half of the 2nd and the 1st cent. BCE, of two sanctuaries (or chapels) dedicated to Baal Hammon and T.: while not everyone agrees, they are said to be situated in the west. area of the complex. At *El Jem (Thysdrus) there was probably a sanctuary of Baal Hammon and T., of which little is known. However, it has been identified thanks to the find of several terracotta figures of a goddess on a throne and fragments of another, possibly depicting Baal Hammon, that may be dated between the 1st cent. BCE and the beginning of the 2nd cent. CE. Apart from the tophets, it is more difficult to identify cultic sites dedicated to T. on Sicily and Sardinia. Even today, it is not possible to connect the frequent finds of female terracotta ex-votos to a specific cult: among these, the incense-burners already mentioned, especially in Sardinia and in the Iberian Peninsula, and this is in spite of the fact that sometimes they are found in clearly Pun. contexts. In Spain, the sanctuary of Es Culleram in Ibiza must be mentioned, possibly the best documented among the sacred spaces consecrated to T., with no known parallels and with a proven spread towards the southeast. Iberian coast. It is highly probable that the cave of Villaricos (Almeria) – known chiefly for its favissa inside which were found a large number of incense-burners in the shape of female heads – was also dedicated to the goddess. To summarize, the goddess T. appears to us in various aspects. First of all, her Levantine origin, most likely Sidonian, certainly stands out. The clearest indication that we have of her character places her in close relationship with Astarte: this allows the supposition that T. shared certain attributes with her. This relationship persisted in Carthage, according to the inscription KAI 81. However, the evidence for T. comes mainly from the tophet, where, as we have

Fig. 136. Thymiatherion in the shape of a female head wearing a wall-shaped crown (Ibiza)

seen, she is given the epithet pn b῾l, clearly dependent on Baal Hammon. T. is simply his executive and his mediatrix, emphasizing her motherly nature as well. As is already very clear in the tophet, the town sanctuary par excellence, where T. is mentioned before Baal Hammon from the end of the 5th cent. BCE, the goddess appears as both patroness and protector, the gd of the city. This aspect would become particularly popular in late Carthage, spreading into other regions under that city’s influence, such as Ibiza or Sardinia. As a poliadic deity, some scholars consider T. to have the aspect of a warrior, a characteristic that she would have inherited from Astarte, and so becoming more like goddesses such as Athena and Juno. However, in the tophet, but also already in Sarepta and Es Culleram, T. exhibits features that make her one who favours life and fertility, and as such helps us to understand her role in the afterlife. Hence her character as a psychopomp deity, which we can deduce from evidence such as the sphinx of *Elche (Alicante). T. is a goddess who is both celestial (connected with the stars and especially with the moon, perhaps as protecting female fertility) and chthonian, whence her cult in caves, documented especially at Es Culleram and Villaricos (Almeria) (→*Cave). These characteristics show her strong connections with Astarte, whose daughter or younger sister she may have been, possibly also the consort of Baal Hammon. T. has affinities with the Gk deities Hera,

TINNIT – TITANIDS

Artemis, Tyche and Demeter/Core, and with the Rom. goddesses, Juno (Juno Caelestis, who would very probably consider herself as her heir →CAELESTIS), Diana, Fortuna, Nutrix and Ops. T. shares some of her attributes with all these goddesses.

235

Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire méditerranéenne. OLA 237. Leuven/Paris/Bristol (CT), 63-94. M. C. MARÍN CEBALLOS

Thouro see SOURMOUBELOS Merlin, A. (1910) Le sanctuaire de Baal et Tanit près de Siagu. Paris; Gsell, S. (1920) HAAN IV, 243-251; Antonielli, U. (1922) Tanit-Caelestis nell’arte figurata. In: Notiziario archeologico del Ministero delle Colonie III, 41-67, Pls I-XI; Carton, L. (1929) Sanctuaire punique découvert à Carthage. Paris; RE IV, A2, s.v. “Tanit”, cols 2178-2215 (K. Preisendanz); Cintas, P. (1947) Le sanctuaire punique de Sousse. Paris; Aubet, M. E. (1969) La Cueva d’Es Cuyram (Ibiza). Barcelona; Picard, C. (1969) Tanit courotrophe. In: Hommages à Marcel Renard 3. Collection Latomus 103. Bruxelles, 474-484, Pls CLXX-CLXXIV; Acquaro, E. (1971) I rasoi punici. SS 41. Rome; Aubet, M. E. (1976) Algunos aspectos sobre iconografía púnica: las representaciones aladas de Tanit. In: Homenaje a García y Bellido. Revista de la Universidad Complutense XXV, 101, vol. I, 61-82; Uberti, M. L. (1976) RSF, 4, 53-55; Hvidberg Hansen, F. O. (1979) La Déesse TNT. Une étude sur la religion cananéo-punique. Copenhagen; Moscati, S. (1981) OA, 20, 107-117; Pritchard, J. B. (1982) The Tanit inscription from Sarepta. In: Niemeyer, H. G. (ed.) Phönizier im Westen. Mainz am Rhein, 83-92; Huss, W. (1985) 511-516; Bordreuil, P. (1987) Tanit du Liban. In: StPhoen 5, 79-85; Amadasi, M. G. (1990) Iscrizioni fenicie e puniche in Italia. Rome; Stieglitz, R. R. (1990) AW, 21, 106-109; Bonnet, C. (1991) WO, 22, 73-84; Xella, P. (1991) Baal Hammon. Recherches sur l’identité et l’histoire d’un dieu phénico-punique. CSF 32. Rome; Ribichini, S. and Xella, P. (1994) La religione fenicia e punica in Italia. Rome; Lipiński, E. (1995) 199-215; Marín Ceballos, M. C. (1995) Kolaios, 4, 827-843; Bonnet, C. (1996); Fantar, M. H. (1997) s.v. “Tanit”. In: LIMC VIII/1, cols 1183f.; Bullo, S. and Rossignoli, C. (1998) Il santuario rurale presso Bir bou Rekba (Thinissut): uno studio iconografico ed alcune riconsiderazioni di carattere architettonico-planimetrico. In: AfRo 12, 249-267; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (1999) Hypothèse sur quatre tessères phéniciennes inscrites. In: Avishur, Y. and Deutsch, R. (eds) Michael. Historical, epigraphical and biblical studies in honour of Prof. Michael Heltzer. Tel Aviv/Jaffa, 39-43; Niemeyer, H. G. (2000) Un nuevo santuario de la diosa Tanit en Cartago. In: APC 4.II, 635-642; Müller, H.-P. (2003) RSF, 31.2, 123-138; id. (2004) Beobachtungen zur Göttin Tinnit und der Funktion ihrer Verehrung. In: Heltzer, M. and Malul, M. (eds) Tesûrôt LaAvishur. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, in Hebrew and Semitic languages. Festschrift presented to professor Yitzhak Avishur on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Tel Aviv/ Jaffa, 141-151; Marín, M. C. (2007) Pebeteros con corona mural. In: ead. and Horn, F. (eds) Imagen y culto en la Iberia Prerromana: Los pebeteros en forma de cabeza femenina. Sevilla, 109119; Lancellotti, M. G. (2010) Dea Caelestis. Studi e materiali per la storia di una divinità dell’Africa romana. CSF 44. Pisa/ Roma; Marín, M. C., Belén, M. and Jiménez, A. (2010) Mainake, 32, 133-157; Garbati, G. (2013) Baal Hammon and Tinnit in Carthage. The Tophet between the origin and the expansion of the colonial world. In: Xella, P. (ed.) The Tophet in the Ancient Mediterranean. SEL 29-30. Verona, 49-64; id. (2013) Tradizione, memoria e rinnovamento. Tinnit nel tofet di Cartagine. In: Loretz, O. et al. (eds) Ritual, religion and reason. Studies in the ancient world in honour of Paolo Xella. AOAT 404. Münster, 529-542; D’Andrea, B. (2014) I tofet del Nord Africa dall’età arcaica all’età romana (VIII sec. a.C.- II sec. d.C.). Studi archeologici. CSF 45. Pisa/Rome; Lipiński, E. (2015) Tanit-pane-Baal. In: id.,

TITANIDS Gk Τιτανίδες. The T. were the seven daughters of CRONUS with ASTARTE, also called Artemids (᾽Αρτέμιδες) in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,23 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). One of the T. coupled with Sydyk (→SYDYK & MISOR) (correctly called “Just” by Philo as Sydyk transliterates the Sem. term), and gave birth to ASCLEPIUS (PE 1,10,25). In Hesiod’s Theogony 132135, the six T. and their brothers are daughters of Ouranos and GE (Earth), not of Cronus and RHEA. Cronus and Rhea are among the Titans born from Ouranos and Ge, while here the T. (and the Artemids) are descendants of those Titans, just as e.g. the Oceanids would be descendants of Ocean. Note that Cronus also has children with Rhea, who seems to be conflated in Philo with other wives of Cronus/ Elos (Astarte, Dione), who are her sisters and are mentioned in the same section (PE 1,10,22-24). Apollodorus follows the same tradition as Hesiod, except that he includes Dione among the T., to make them seven, like Philo ([Apollod.] Bibl. 1,1,3). A parallel has been drawn between the seven Titanids/Artemids and the Ug. Kotharot, who appear as goddesses of childbirth and fertility in the Aqhat epic (KTU3 1.17), a function of the Titanids implied by their other name, “Artemids”, and who, in the Ug. deity lists, appear after/under Ilu (EL) (RS 24.643:25, see Pardee [2002] ad loc.). Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 211f.262-264; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (eds) (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 53; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 204.227; Pardee, D. (2002) Les textes rituels. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12.1-2. Paris; A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz (20092): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newjacoby/philon-790-a790; López-Ruiz, C. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA), esp. 108f. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

236

TRITON – TYPHON

TRITON

Tyche see GAD

Gk Τρίτων. This god is mentioned in the treaty between *Hannibal (9) and *Philip V, king of Macedonia (→*Treaties), as the second element in the third triad of deities, preceded by ARES and followed by POSEIDON (Plb. 7,9,2). Here T. has been considered to be an interpretatio graeca (→*Interpretatio) of Chusor (KOSHAR/KOTHARU) (Dussaud [1947], Barré [1983], Fantar [1993]), or PTAH-PATAECUS (Barreca [1985]). Since, according to Herodotus (4,188), T. and Poseidon were worshipped by the dwellers by the Tritonian lake, T. may correspond to a Lib. deity who might have been identified with YAM (Lipiński [1995]) [FIG. 137]. In Sil. Pun. 14,578, T. is also the name of a Carthag. warship in the 2nd Punic War (→*Punic Wars).

TYPHON

Fig. 137. Mosaic depicting Triton. Sidi Ghrib (Tunisia) (Beginning of the 5th cent. CE) Dussaud, R. (1947) CRAI(BL), 91, 201-224, esp. 218f.; Barré, M. L. (1983) The god-list in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia. Baltimore/London, 83-86; Barreca, F. (1985) Il giuramento di Annibale (considerazioni storico-religiose). In: Sotgiu, G. (ed.) Studi in onore di Giovanni Lilliu per il suo settantesimo compleanno. Cagliari, 71-81, esp. 75f.; Fantar, M. H. (1993) Carthage. Approche d’une civilisation, II. Tunis, 288-291; Lipiński, E. (1995) 122; Sollazzo, C. E. I (2011) Qualche considerazione sulle divinità nel “Giuramento di Annibale”. In: Intrieri, M. and Ribichini, S. (eds) Fenici e Italici, Cartagine e la Magna Grecia. Popoli a contatto, culture a confronto. RSF, 37. Pisa/ Rome, 191-198, esp. 193. G. MINUNNO

In Gk mythology, T. is the son of Gaia (→GE) and of Tartarus, a formidable representative of the chaotic forces that menace the sovereignty of Zeus. From his union with Echidna, daughter of PONTOS, a generation of monsters was born: Orthos, the Hydra of Lerna, Cerberus and Chimaera. As the avenger of the Titans, T. is the enemy of Zeus par excellence, who confronts him and finally throws him into the Tartarus, from where he had come (Hes. Th. 836868). His victory marks the beginning of the unchallenged reign of Zeus. T. has been connected with the “Phoenician” world (in the wide sense) in two ways. On the one hand, his name could derive from or be related to the name of SAPHON (Jebel al-Aqra῾), the sacred mountain of BAAL of *Ugarit, also called BAAL SAPHON, located to the N of that city; on the other hand, T.’s cave is located by several Gk writers as “among the Arimes”, a place name that could refer to the *Aramaeans (Hom. Il. 2,782-783; Hes. Th. 304-306; Hdt. 3,5; [Apollod.] Bibl. 1,6,3). Like Baal Saphon, T. unleashed storm and lightning and occasionally appears as a snake (Ezek 1,4). Vian, F. (1960) Le mythe de Typhée et le problème de ses origines orientales. In: id., Éléments orientaux dans la religion grecque. Paris, 27-37; Bonnet, C. (1987) Typhon et Baal Saphon. In StPhoen 5, 101-143; DCPP, s.v. (C. Bonnet); DDD2, s.v., 879881 (J. W. van Henten); Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. (2001) Trans, 21, 87-100. C. BONNET

Y YAM Ug. ym. God connected with marine (ym) and fluvial (nhr) water, documented chiefly in *Ugarit, in the ritual and mythological texts, where he has the role of BAAL’s adversary in the struggles for cosmic sovereignty, ultimately succumbing to him, but then being incorporated into an ordered universe. In fact, Y. is present in Ug. lists of deities, although in a subordinate role, and is the recipient of sacrificial offerings of various kinds. The mythical motif of the battle of the weather-god with his chaotic enemy, connected with the sea, was quite widespread in the Ancient Near East during the BA (in *Anatolia and *Syria-*Palestine), and must certainly have survived in the Levant during the I mill. BCE, probably in various versions with differing functions. The proposal by G. Garbini (1981) to identify him in a funerary inscription from *Salamina on *Cyprus is evidently incorrect as it is more probably to be read as a PN (῾bd᾿šm[n]). However, in Phoen. mythological traditions (→MYTH AND MYTHOLOGY) there are several characters connected with water, such as PONTOS, the father of *Sidon, mentioned in the Phoenician History by P HILO OF B YBLOS (FGrHist 790 apud Eus. PE 1,10,26-35), TYPHON (who is probably BAAL SAPHON) or POSEIDON, also mentioned in the treaty between the Ass. king *Esarhaddon and the king of *Tyre, *Baal (→*Treaties). Of special significance is the fact that in the traditions connected with Philo of Byblos, Pontos is actually the adversary of DEMAROUS, to be connected with the god Baal of Ugarit,

who has the epithet dmrn, “Bold”, in the mythological and ritual texts from Ras Shamra (KTU3 1.4 VII 39; 1.92:30). In all these cases, it is not easy to determine whether and to what extent the ancient Ug. god of water survived in the →*Interpretatio that produced all these characters, connected with the sea and navigation. However, it must be presumed that the role of Y. in LBA mythology (→MYTH & MYTHOLOGY) identifies him as a pre-polytheistic figure, superseded by the Syro-Palest. pantheon of the IA. In any case, there must certainly have been marine elements present in the personalities of the important Phoen. and Pun. poliadic deities, but without monopolizing their attributes, unlike Y., whose character was essentially maritime. Fantar, M. H. (1977) Le dieu de la mer chez les Phéniciens et les Puniques. SS 48. Rome; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 131-136 and passim; Garbini, G. (1981) OA, 20, 119-123; DCPP, s.v. (P. Xella); Matthiae, P. (1992) Some notes on the Old Syrian iconography of the god Yam. In: Meijer, D. J. W. (ed.) Natural phenomena. Their meaning, depiction and description in the Ancient Near East. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. Verhandelingen, Afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 152. Amsterdam, 169-192; IDD, s.v. (J. Eggler): http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/ e_idd_yam.pdf; DDD2, s.v. “Sea”, 737-742 (F. Stolz); AyaliDarshan, N. (2010) The bride of the sea: The traditions about Astarte and Yamm in the Ancient Near East. In: Horowitz, W., Gabbay, U. and Vukosavović, F. (eds) A woman of valor: Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern studies in honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz. BPOA 8. Madrid, 19-33; Niehr, H. (2016) s.v. “Yammu”. In: RlA 15.1-2, 142-144; Ayali-Darshan, N. (2020) The Storm-god and the Sea. The origin, versions, and diffusion of a myth throughout the Ancient Near East. ORA 37. Tübingen. P. XELLA

Z Zeus see BAAL HAMMON; ZEUS AMMON; ZEUS MEILICHIOS ZEUS AMMON The god Z.A. was venerated in the Siwa Oasis, in the Lib. (now the Egypt.) desert [FIG. 138], and the cult of his oracle was extremely popular in North Africa during the Rom. imperial period.

Particularly famous was *Alexander the Great’s devotion for this god [FIG. 139] and his oracular responses. F. Lenormant’s (1876) hypothesis that Z.A. or Jupiter Ammon – the Gk and Lat. →*Interpretatio, respectively, of the oracular god Ammon – must be recognized as BAAL HAMMON, has enjoyed some approval in the past. However, more recent studies have convincingly demonstrated that even if some contamination or confusion may have occurred in the late period, they are two distinct deities, each with his own character and cult. Lenormant, F. (1876) GA, 2, 146f.; Lipiński, E. (1986) Zeus Ammon et Baal Hammon. In: StPhoen 4, 307-332; Kuhlman, K.-P. (1988) Das Ammoneion. Mainz am Rhein; Xella, P. (1991) Baal Hammon. Recherches sur l’identité et l’histoire d’un dieu phénicopunique. CSF 32. Rome, 145f.; DCPP, s.v. (E. Lipiński). P. XELLA

Zeus Arotrios see DAGAN Zeus Casios see BAAL HAMMON Fig. 138. Oracular temple of Zeus Ammon in the Siwa Oasis

Fig. 139. Relief depicting Zeus Ammon

ZEUS MEILICHIOS Gk Ζεύς μειλίχιος. An epithet of the god Chousor (KOSHAR/KOTHARU) in the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790 fr. 2 apud Eus. PE 1,10,11). In *Athens, Argos and other Gk cities, the epithet M. (Gk μειλίχιος: “soft”, “mild”, “gentle”), applied to Zeus, specifies the features of a paternal deity who represents the benevolent aspect of the cult for the dead. In particular, the chthonian character of the deity and the soteriological nature of his cult are confirmed in a Lex Sacra from *Selinus on *Sicily, dating to the 5th cent. BCE. The remains visible today of the open-air temenos there, dedicated to Z.M., are later than the fall of Selinus (409 BCE) [FIG. 140]. They are next to the temple of Demeter Malophoros, which exhibits elements recalling the temple complex typical of mystery cults to the goddess in Eleusis (→DEMETER & CORE). A recent re-examination of the inscriptions, the temple complex and the defixiones from Selinus shows that here the dedicators were exclusively Gk in origin

ZEUS MEILICHIOS – ZOPHASEMIN

239

Petit, Th. (2007) CCEC, 37, 283-298; Smith, M. S. (2008) God in translation: Deities in cross-cultural discourse in the Biblical world. Tübingen, 254f.272f.; Grotta, C. (2010) Zeus Meilichios a Selinunte. Rome. E. CALCATERRA

ZOPHASEMIN

and that the cult of the god was closely linked to family worship, intended to purify and protect the home. Furthermore, the cult of Z.M. does not seem to have continued in the strictly Pun. period of the history of Selinus. The comparison of Chousor with Z.M. in Philo of Byblos (→KOSHAR/KOTHARU) is interpreted as a reference to the benign nature of Gk Meilichios, closely connected with economic prosperity, plenty, wealth and fertility (like Agathos Daimon: cf., for ex., Paus. 9,39,5.13; →AGATHODAIMON). Philo identifies Chousor with Gk Hephaestus and considers Z.M. as a further identification of the Phoen. god with a Gk deity (→*Interpretatio). This, therefore, excludes any hypothesis deriving Gk Meilichios from Phoen. mlk, and any assimilation of that god with a different Phoen. deity, such as MELQART or other gods.

Gk Ζοφασημίν. In the Phoenician History by PHILO OF BYBLOS (FGrHist 790) this is a group of “animals with intelligence” (ζῶια νοερά) born from less advanced animals “with no sensation” (οὐκ ἔχοντα αἴσθησιν), who had emerged from the primaeval muddy mixture identified as Mot (→MOUTH) (apud Eus. PE 1,10,2 = BNJ 790 fr. 2). The name is a transliteration of a Sem. word, and Philo glosses the term by saying that they are “observers of the heavens” (οὐρανοῦ κατόπται), following exactly what the Sem. word means, ṣophe-šamayim (hence Clemen’s [1939] emendation to Ζοφησημίν). Their possible connection with the fallen angels of Jewish tradition (Enoch 1,5; 10,9; 12,2) – who were associated with the planetary angels – is debated (Baumgarten [1981] 113f.; Attridge and Oden [1981] 77 fn. 33). The progression from “non-sensible/insensate” to “intelligent” animals is not as expected (non-sensible – sensible but non-intelligent – intelligent). They are also said to be in the form of an egg, which is an allusion to the idea of the cosmic egg or “world egg” that appears in other Phoen. cosmogonies: the Sidonian cosmogony and the one reported by MOCHOS (Dam. Pr. 125c [I p. 323 Ruelle] = BNJ 784 fr. 4; see Mochos: BNJ 784; on the egg see especially West [1994]). The egg is a feature also shared by some Orphic cosmogonies in the Gk world, arguably influenced by the Phoen.Egypt. realms. The appearance of Mot (a watery muddy primaeval substance from which life emerges), the egg-shaped creatures, and the astral objects that emerge from a shining Mot, in this same sequence (PE 1,10,1-2 = BNJ 970 fr. 2), all suggest strong Egypt. influence (especially by the Hermopolitan cosmogony) on the Phoen. tradition with which Philo is engaging.

Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington (DC), 81; Cusumano, C. (1991) Mythos, 3, 19-47; DCPP, s.v. “Meilichios, Zeus” (C. Bonnet – P. Xella); Famà, M. L. and Tusa, V. (2000) Le stele del Meilichios di Selinunte. Padua; Cusumano, N. (2006) Metis, 4, 165-192;

Clemen, C. (1939) Die phönikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos. MVÄG Bd. 42, Heft 3. Leipzig; Ebach, J. (1979) Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos. BWANT 108. Stuttgart and alibi, 46-53; Attridge, H. W. and Oden, R. A., Jr. (1981) Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. Introduction, critical text, translation, notes. CBQ MonSer 9. Washington

Fig. 140. Stela from the temenos of Zeus Meilichios

240

ZOPHASEMIN – ZOROS

(DC), 37; Baumgarten, A. I. (1981) The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A commentary. EPRO 89. Leiden, 114f.119f.; West, M. L. (1994) RECQ, 44, 289-307; BNJ 790 “Philon of Byblos” (A. Kaldellis – C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/philon-790a790; BNJ 784 “Mochos-Laitos” (C. López-Ruiz, 20192): http:// referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/ laitos-mochos-784; López-Ruiz, C. (2010) When the gods were born: Greek cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge (MA), 130-170. C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ

ZOROS Gk Ζῶρος, Ἄζωρος, Ἄζαρος. Z. is the Gk name of the mythical founder of *Carthage, together with →CARCHEDON, according to traditions handed down by Philistos of Syracuse (FGrHist 556 fr. 47 apud Eus. Chron. 802: Ἄζωρος), Eudoxus of Cnidus (fr. 360 Lasserre: Ἄζαρος) and Appianus (Pun. 1: Ζῶρος). Z. is the Gk transcription of the Phoen. name for *Tyre (ṣr; see also Lat. sarra). Ribichini, S. (2010) Carthago a Cartha. In: Bartoloni, G. et al. (eds) Tiro, Cartagine, Lixus: nuove acquisizioni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale in onore di Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo (Roma, 24-25 novembre 2008). Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 4. Rome, 25-43. S. RIBICHINI

APPENDIX ENTRIES IN EDPC I

Abaris Abbar Abdadoni Abdalonymus Abdamon Abdashtart Abdbastet Abdelim Abdeshmun Abdhor Abdi-irama Abdileti Abdimilk Abdimilkutti Abdmaskir Abdosir Abibaal Abimilk Acherbas Adarmilk Addumu Adelphasium Adherbal Adherbes Adonibaal Aemilius Paulus, Marcus Afri Agathocles Agenor Agorastocles Ahab Ahimilk Ahirom Alabis Alalia Alexander the Great Amatashtart Amatosiris Ammonites Ammunira Amorgus Anati Androcles Anterastulis Anthes Antipater of Sidon Antipater of Tyre

Apollonius of Tyre Arabion Aradus Aramaeans Archagathus Arcobarzanes Aris Arisbas Arishut Arishutbaal Ariston Arses Asasis Asept Ashtarthut Ashurbanipal Ashurnasirpal II Aspasius of Byblos Aspasius of Tyre Assyrians Astharymos Athyr Atilius Regulus, Marcus Autaritus Aynel Az(z)ibaal Az(z)imilk Azitawada Baal Baalazor Baalhanon Baalimanzer Baalmilk Baalrom Baalshamar Baalshillek Baalshillem Baalyasop Baalyaton Baana Ba(a)nno Babylonians Bagas Bagasus Bagesus Bagrada Barcas

Barce Barcids Barhadad Barikshamash Barkatel Barmocaros Barrakib Batnoam Baton Berber(s) Beryas Bin-ana Bitias Bocchus Bodashtart Bodbaal Bodmilqart Bodo Bodsid Boethus Bogud Bogus Bomilcar Bostar Butes Caecilii Metelli Canaanites Canthus Capussa Caralis Carthalo Charon Chremetes Cinyps Cirta Claudii Cothon Cupencus Cydnus Damusi Dardanus of Phoenicia Darius Demonicos Diodorus of Tyre Diodotus of Sidon Dionysius Diotimos

242 Dorieus Draces Duilius, Caius Dynasties Edomites Elibaal Elimilk Elipaal Elymians Eparchy Epipalos Esarhaddon Eshmunadon Eshmunazor Eteocypriots Etruscans Euphrates of Tyre Evagoras Fabii Fen(e)khu Flaminius Nepos, Caius Fulvius Centumalus Maximus, Cnaeus Gabar Gaetuli Gaia Gala Garadus Garamantes Garamus Gauda Gelesta Geminus of Tyre Geras Gerastratos Geratmilk Geratmilqart Gersaphon Gestar Gibalos Giddenes Gillimas Gisgo Gracchi Gulussa Hadrianus of Tyre Hamilcar Hampsicora Hampsicus Hannibal Hanno Harpe Hasdrubal Herillus of Carthage

APPENDIX

Hermippus of Berytus Hiarbas Hiberus Hicetas Hiempsal Hieron Himilco Hiram Hittites Hodius Hurrians Hyempsas Hyksos Ia(c)hon Iberians Idus Iertas Ilertes Ili-milku Ili-rapih Imilce Iomilkos Iphicrates Israel Ithemon Ittobaal Jezebel Juba Judah Jugurtha Junius Pullus, Lucius Karchedon Kittim Kulamuwa Lacumazes Ladmus Laelius Lagids Latins Leastartos Leocritus of Carthage Libyo-Phoenicians Lilaeus Lixus Luli Lutatius Catulus, Caius Luwians Mago Magonids Mahalces Maharbaal Malchus Manlius Torquatus, Titus Maraxes

Marinus of Tyre Masaesylii Masgaba Massinissa Massylii Mastanabal Mastanesosus Masulis Matho Mattan Mattanbaal Mauri Maximus of Tyre Maz(a)day Mazaetullus Mazaeus Menahem Mercenaries Metenna Methousastartos Micipsa Milkiram Milkon Milkyasap Milkyaton Milphio Miltiades Misdes Moabites Monaesus Mopsos Morinus Murrus Musonius of Tyre Mycenaeans Myconus Myrcanos Mytthumbaal Naareshmun Nabataeans Nabis Naravas Naris Nealces Nebuchadnezzar II Nicocles Nicocreon of Salamis Numidians Nuragics Oezalces Omri Ornytos Othrys Ozerbaal

APPENDIX

Paltibaal Paulus of Tyre Persaeus of Kition Persians Phalantus Phelles Philip V Philistines Philocles Phoenicians Plautus Pnytagoras of Salamis Pompeius Magnus, Cnaeus Porcius Cato, Marcus Porphirius of Tyre Praxippos Probus of Berytus Ptolemy Pumayyaton Punic Wars Punic(s) Pyrrhus Rabi-Ilu Rabu-Sidqu Rib-Adda Rome Rothus Sab(b)ura Sabratha Saces Sapharus Sapho Sargon II Satatna Scipions

Sciron Sea Peoples Seleucids Sennacherib Shabi-Ilu Shalmaneser III Shamabaal Shapatbaal Siccha Sicharbas Sidqimilk Sittius, Publius Solomon Sophonibaal Spendius Straton Suniatus Surata Sychaeus Symaethus Synalos Syphax Syrticus Tabhapi Tabnit Tartessians Taurus Terentius Varro, Caius Tetramnestos Teucer Thapsus Thefarie Velianas Thulis Thunger Thuris

243 Thyrus Thysdrus Tiburna Tiglath-pileser Timoleon Treaties Turdetanians Tyres Ulpianus, Gnaeus Domitius Annius Ummahnu Unamon Urikki Urimilk Valerius Laevinus, Marcus Vermina Volux Waruwazat Xanthippus Xerxes Yadamilk Yaharbaal Yahimilk Yakinbaal Yakinlu Yantin-Adda Yapah-Adda Yatonmilk Yehawmilk Yidya Zarzas Zelalsen Zeno of Kition Zeno of Sidon Zimrida

INDEX OF FIGURES AND PLATES

1. FIGURES Fig. 1. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 295. CNR Archive. Fig. 2. Tessera from Palmyra depicting Adonis (or Tammuz?) mummified, on his funerary bed. After: Ingholt, H., Seyrig, H. and Starcky, J. (1955) Recueil des tessères de Palmyre. Paris: Geuthner, no. 342, p. 47.

Fig. 9. Photo and drawing of a limestone stela depicting a goddess, probably Anat. Ras-Shamra/Ugarit, Acropolis. After: Cornelius, I. and Niehr, H. (2004) Götter und Kulte in Ugarit. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, Fig. 89, p. 53. (Aleppo, National Museum).

Fig. 3. Depiction of Agathodaimon on a relief (back of the throne of a statue of Isis). After: Weber, W. (1914) Die ägyptisch-griechischen Terrakotten. Berlin, Fig. 4, p. 27. (Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum).

Fig. 10. Statuette of Apis (elephant ivory). XXVI-XXX dyn. (664-343 BCE). l. 8.7, w. 2.7, h. 6.2 cm. Credit Line: Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917. Accession Number: 17.190.62. MET. (New York, Metropolitan Museum).

Fig. 4. Marble statue of Aion from Sidon (end of the 4th cent. CE). h. 110 cm. After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) Liban, l’autre rive. Catalogue de l’Exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe du 27 octobre 1998 au 2 mai 1999. Paris: Flammarion, p. 196. (Paris, Musée du Louvre).

Fig. 11. Marble statue of Apollo (from a Nymphaeum, Beirut). (1st-2nd cent. CE). h. 140, l. 55 cm. After: Doumet-Serhal, C., Maïla-Afeiche, A.-M., Rabate, A. and El-Dahdah, F. (1997) Pierres et croyances. 100 objets sculptés des Antiquités du Liban. Beirut: Direction Générale des Antiquités, no. 44, p. 85.

Figs 5-6. Coin of Gordian III. Tyre. AE 29, 19.43 gr. Obv.: Bust of Gordian III, in armour, draped, wearing a laurel crown; Rev.: Baetyls between star and crescent, altar and olive tree, sea shell (murex?) and two (palm?) branches. BMC 429. Posted May 2016: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/ meepzorp/rp_phoen_tyre_pt02.htm (London, British Museum).

Fig. 12. Inscription of King Panamuwa I (KAI 214, top right margin). After: Tropper, J. (1993) Die Inschriften von Zincirli. ALASP 6. Münster, Fig. 14, p. 348. (Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum).

Fig. 7. Gold-plated silver figure of the anthropomorphic god Amon with double feathered crown (ca 600 BCE). h. 24 cm. After: https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_ online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery. aspx?assetId=973486001&objectId=154939&partId=1/ Strudwick, N. (2006) Masterpieces of Ancient Egypt. London: BMP, pp. 200-201. (London, British Museum). Fig. 8. Scarab made of coloured paste depicting the god Amon worshipped by a Pharaoh. Carthage (7th-6th cent. BCE). 8 × 5 mm. After: Vercoutter, J. (1945) Les objets égyptiens et égyptisants du mobilier funéraire carthaginois. Paris: Geuthner, Pl. III, no. 72, p. 112.

Fig. 13. Marble votive column from Bostan esh-Sheikh (Sidon) with a Greek inscription dedicated θεῶι Ἁγίωι Ἀσκληπιῶι. h. 27, diam. 13.5-11.5 cm. After: Wachter, R. (2005) Die griechischen Inschriften. In: Stucky, R. et al. (eds) Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon. Architektur und Inschriften. AK Beiheft 19. Basel, 324, Gr6, Taf. 35. Fig. 14. Kuntillet ῾Ajrud. Pithos A. After: Meshel, Z. (2012) Kuntillet ῾Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman). An Iron Age II religious site on the Judah-Sinai border, with contributions by S. Aḥituv et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Fig. 5.25. Fig. 15. Kuntillet ῾Ajrud. Pithos A (drawings of the left and the right side). After: Meshel, Z. (2012) Kuntillet ῾Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman). An Iron Age II religious site on the Judah-Sinai border, with contributions by S. Aḥituv et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Figs 64 and 64a.

246

INDEX OF FIGURES AND PLATES

Fig. 16. Inscribed bronze bowl from Elyakhin. After: Deutsch, R. and Heltzer, M. (1994) Forty new ancient West Semitic inscriptions. Tel Aviv/Jaffa, Fig. 33, p. 70. Fig. 17. The inscription KAI 30 from Cyprus. From: Masson, O. and Sznycer, M. (1972) Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. HEO 3. Geneva/Paris: Droz, Pl. III. Fig. 18. Bronze statuette depicting Astarte enthroned with a dedication to the goddess. El Carambolo (?), Seville (8th-7th cent. BCE). After: Bonnet, C. (1996) Astarté. Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques. CSF 37. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pl. X. (Seville, Museo Arqueológico). Fig. 19. Pool of the throne of Astarte. Bostan esh-Sheikh (Sidon). Sanctuary of Eshmun. After: Stucky, R. et al. Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon. Architektur und Inschriften. AK Beiheft 19. Basel, Beilage, no. 1, p. 15. Fig. 20. Throne of Astarte. Khirbet eṭ-Ṭayibeh (Tyre). After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (2007) La Méditerranée des Phénciens: de Tyr à Carthage. Paris: Somogy: Institut du Monde Arabe, p. 117, Cat. 70. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 21. Hathoric capital from the sanctuary of KitionBamboula (Cyprus) (500 BCE). After: Bonnet, C. (1996) Astarté. Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques. CSF 37. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pl. VIII. Fig. 22. Neopunic inscription from Mididi (Henchir Meded) dedicated to Astarte. After: Ferjaoui, A. (1990) Dédicace d’un sanctuaire à ῾Aštart découverte à Mididi (Tunisie). In: Hommages à Maurice Sznycer. Semitica, 38.1, Pl. XXII. Fig. 23. Plaque depicting Astarte. Tharros (6th cent. BCE). After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (2007) La Méditerranée des Phéniciens: de Tyr à Carthage. Paris: Somogy: Institut du Monde Arabe, p. 192, Cat. 221. Fig. 24. The inscription ICO Sard. 19. From: ICO, Pl. XXXIV. CNR Archive. Fig. 25. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 3776 mentioning Astarte of Eryx. CNR Archive. Fig. 26. Inscription on a gold ring from Cádiz. From: ICO, Pl. LX. CNR Archive.

Fig. 27. Stela known as “Baal au foudre”. Ras Shamra/ Ugarit. Acropolis. h. 142 cm. After: Cornelius, I. and Niehr, H. (2004) Götter und Kulte in Ugarit. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, Fig. 71, p. 46. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 28. Stela depicting Baal. Qadbun (7th cent. BCE). l. 68, w. 30, h. 168 cm. After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (2007) La Méditerranée des Phéniciens: de Tyr à Carthage. Paris: Somogy: Institut du Monde Arabe, p. 111, Cat. 78. (Museum of Tartous). Fig. 29. The inscription from El-Hofra (Constantine) SPC 128. After: SPC, no. 128, p. 143. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 30. Coins of Arwad depicting a marine Baal. After: Babelon, E. (1893) Les Perses Achéménides, les Satrapes et les Dynastes tributaires de leur empire. Cypre & Phénicie. Paris: Rollin & Feuardent, no. 832, Pl. XXII, 1-3. Fig. 31. The inscribed stela from Lilybaeum ICO Sicilia 5. CNR Archive. Fig. 32. The Carthaginian cippus CIS I, 5684. From: Bartoloni, P. (1976) Le stele arcaiche del tofet di Cartagine. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pl. XXXV, no. 124. CNR Archive. Fig. 33. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 5510. From: Xella, P. (1991) Baal Hammon. Recherches sur l’identité et l’histoire d’un dieu phénico-punique. CSF 32. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pl. V, 4. CNR Archive. Fig. 34. a. Aureus of Clodius Albinus. After: Foucher, L. (1968-1969) Archéologie vivante, I.2, Fig. 133. b. Coin from Sousse/Hadrumetum. From: Xella, P. (1991) Baal Hammon. Recherches sur l’identité et l’histoire d’un dieu phénico-punique. CSF 32. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pl. X, 2. Fig. 35. Stela from Sousse/Hadrumetum depicting Baal Hammon. From: Xella, P. (1991) Baal Hammon. Recherches sur l’identité et l’histoire d’un dieu phénico-punique. CSF 32. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pl. VII, 5.

INDEX OF FIGURES AND PLATES

Fig. 36. The Carthaginian stela CIS I, 4870. From: CIS I, Pl. XXX, 2. CNR Archive. Fig. 37. Statue of Baal Hammon from Thinissut. After: Merlin, A. (1910) Le sanctuaire de Baal et de Tanit près de Siagu. Paris: Leroux, Pl. VII, 16. Fig. 38. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 3778 = KAI 78. From: Xella, P. (1991) Baal Hammon. Recherches sur l’identité et l’histoire d’un dieu phénico-punique. CSF 32. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pl. II, 2. CNR Archive. Fig. 39. The “trophy” inscription from Kition (Larnaka) mentioning Baal ῾Oz. Courtesy Prof. Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo. Fig. 40. Lapis lazuli amulet with a dedication to Baal Hammon and Baal Saphon. After: Bordreuil, P. (1986) Attestations inédites de Melqart, Baal Hamon et Baal Saphon à Tyr. In: StPhoen 4, Fig. 4 A-B, p. 82. Fig. 41. Inscription of Yahimilk king of Byblos (KAI 4) mentioning “Baal of heaven” (ca 950 BCE). After: Niehr, H. (2003) Ba῾alšamem. OLA 123 = StPhoen 17. Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA), Fig. 1, p. 401. (Byblos Museum). Fig. 42. The inscription ICO Sard. 23 dedicated to Baal Shamem. From: ICO, Pl. XXXV. CNR Archive. Fig. 43. Seal depicting Baal Shamem. A bearded god, seated on a throne, holding a fenestrated axe in his right hand and in his left a spear. In front of the god there is a thymiaterion. In the upper part there is a crescent moon with a solar disc (7th-6th cent. BCE). After: Niehr, H. (2003) Ba῾alšamem. OLA 123 = StPhoen 17. Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA), Fig. 9, p. 406. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 44. Relief sculpture of a Palmyrene triad from Bir Wereb: Baal Shamin (middle), Aglibol (left) and Malakbel (right) (2nd cent. CE). After: Niehr, H. (2003) Ba῾alšamem. OLA 123 = StPhoen 17. Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA), Fig. 14, p. 411. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 45. Inscription of Kulamuwa, king of Sam’al (Zincirli). After: KAI 24, Pl. XXVII. (Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum).

247

Fig. 46. Stela and inscription of Yehawmilk, king of Byblos, dedicated to Baalat Gebal. After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (2007) La Méditerranée des Phéniciens: de Tyr à Carthage. Paris: Somogy: Institut du Monde Arabe, p. 74, Cat. 43. CNR Archive. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 47. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 177. CNR Archive. Fig. 48. Epistyle inscription in the Antas temple and detail of the text with the dedication to Sardus Pater: bab(…) (period of Caracalla). After: Bernardini, P. and Ibba, A. (2015), Il santuario di Antas tra Cartagine e Roma. In: Cabrero Piquero, J. and Montecchio, L. (eds) Sacrum Nexum. Alianzas entre el poder político y la religión en el mundo romano (Madrid, 11-12 de diciembre de 2014). Thema Mundi 7. Madrid/ Salamanca, Figs. 15 and 2b respectively. Fig. 49. Statuette depicting the goddess Bastet with a sistrum. Egypt (664/630 BCE). MET. Accession Number: 58.67 Free royalty: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/ collection/ search/558306 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art). Fig. 50. Amulet of glazed green paste in the shape of a cat (Ibiza). h. 1.85 cm. After: Fernández, J. H. and Padró, J. (1986) Amuletos de tipo egipcio del Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza. Ibiza: Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza, Pl. IX, no. 141, p. 53. (Ibiza, Museo Arqueológico). Fig. 51. The offertory table from Pantelleria. Courtesy Prof. Thomas Schäfer. Fig. 52. Neopunic inscription from Sulci (S. Antioco, Sardinia) mentioning Bensadiq. From: ICO, Pl. L. CNR Archive. Fig. 53. Vase in the shape of Bes from Tartous (4th-3rd cent. BCE). h. 21 cm. After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (2007) La Méditerranée des Phéniciens: de Tyr à Carthage. Paris: Somogy: Institut du Monde Arabe, p. 368, Cat. 272. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 54. Bes-image statuette of the god Hor-Asha-Khet offered by Ibi, son of Pedi-Astarte. Egypt (4th-2nd cent. BCE). MET. Accession Number 29.2.3.

248

INDEX OF FIGURES AND PLATES

Free royalty: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/ collection/ search/547904 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art). Fig. 55. Statue of Bes from Bitia (Sardinia). Sandstone (4th-2nd cent. BCE). 132 × 70 × 53 cm. From: Russo, A., Guarneri, F., Xella, P. and Zamora López, J. Á. (eds) (2019) Carthago. Il mito immortale. La Mostra / Carthago. The immortal myth. The Exhibition. Rome: Electa, p. 63. (Cagliari, Museo Archeologico Nazionale). Fig. 56. Tyrian coin depicting Cadmus bringing the alphabet to the Greeks (3rd cent. BCE). After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (2007) La Méditerranée des Phéniciens: de Tyr à Carthage. Paris: Somogy: Institut du Monde Arabe, p. 74, Cat. 43. Fig. 57. Dedication to Caelestis from the pagus et civitas siviritani. After: Aounallah, S. and Mastino, A. (eds) (2018) Carthage maȋtresse de la Méditerranée, capitale de l’Afrique (IXe siècle avant J.-C. – XIIIe siècle). Histoire et Monuments 1. Tunis, p. 125. Courtesy Prof. Samir Aounallah. Fig. 58. Funerary stela depicting Caelestis. From: Lancellotti, M. G. (2010) Dea Caelestis. Studi e materiali di una divinità dell’Africa Romana. CSF 44. Pisa/ Rome: Fig. 5, p. 70. (Tunis, Bardo Museum). Fig. 59. Silver denarius of Septimius Severus (202-210). Obv.: Legend: SEVERVS PIVS AVG; portrait of Septimius Severus. Reverse: Legend: INDVLGENTIA AVGG IN CARTH. Dea Caelestis, draped, riding on a lion, holding a thunderbolt in her right hand and a sceptre in her left; below, water gushing from a rock. RIC IV, 1936, no. 266. Online Coins of the Roman Empire (2020): http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.4.ss.266_denarius; [accessed 08/04/ 2020]; http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s6285.html [accessed 08/04/2020]. Fig. 60. The Dagan stela RS 6.021. Ugarit, S of the temple of El. l. 38, h. 87 cm. From: Cornelius, I. and Niehr, H. (2004) Götter und Kulte in Ugarit. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, Fig. 79, p. 49. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 61. Head of Demeter kernophoros. Carthage (2nd cent. BCE). h. 35 cm.

After: Slim, H. and Fauqué, N. (2001) La Tunisie antique. De Hannibal à Saint Augustin. Paris: Éditions Mengès, p. 77. (Carthage Museum). Fig. 62. North-African mosaic depicting the triumph of Dionysus in India. After: Lancel, S. (2003) L’Algérie antique. De Massinissa à Saint Augustin. Pars: Editions Mengès, p. 188. (Sétif Museum). Fig. 63. Zeugitana. Utica. 2nd cent. BCE. AE semi-axe depicting the Dioscuri. (https://www.cointalk.com/threads/dioscuri.312595/). Fig. 64. Statue of a god identifiable as El from Ras Shamra/ Ugarit (RS 23.393). Bronze with gold leaf. h. 13.5 cm. After: Cornelius, I. and Niehr, H. (2004) Götter und Kulte in Ugarit. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, Fig. 67, p. 44. Fig. 65. The inscription from Leptis Magna dedicated to El qn ᾿rṣ (IPT 18). From: IPT, Pl. V, 18. Fig. 66. Inscription from Sulci ICO Sard. Neopun. 5 with the mention of a sanctuary of Elat. From: ICO, Pl. LIII. CNR Archive. Fig. 67. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 215 mentioning a “servant of the temple of Eresh”. CNR Archive. Fig. 68. Eros and Psyche. Terracotta, from the vicinity of Tyre (2nd-3rd cent. CE). 15 × 8.5 cm. After: Gubel, E. (1986) Les Phéniciens et le monde méditerranéen. Bruxelles: Générale de Banque, no. 92. (Beirut, Museum of the American University of Beirut). Fig. 69. The sanctuary of Eshmun at Bostan esh-Sheikh (view from the North). After: Stucky, R. et al. (2005) Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon. Architektur und Inschriften. AK Beiheft 19. Basel, Beilage 4, no. 3. Fig. 70. The Nahr al-Awwali river in the vicinity of Bostan esh-Sheikh. CNR Archive (Photo P. Xella). Fig. 71. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 4834 mentioning a “servant of the temple of Eshmun”. CNR Archive.

INDEX OF FIGURES AND PLATES

Fig. 72. Statue of “Heracles/Melqart” from Amrit. After: Jourdain-Annequin, C. and Bonnet, C. (2001) Images et fonctions d’Héraclès: les modèles orientaux et leur interprétation. In: Rocchi, M., Ribichini, S. and Xella, P. (eds) La questione delle influenze vicino-orientali sulla religione greca. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale (Roma, 20-22 maggio 1999). Rome, 195-223, Fig. 2. Fig. 73. The inscribed Ibiza plaque. From: SEL, 22, 2005, Fig. 1. CNR Archive. Fig. 74. The inscription ICO Spagna 10B. From: ICO, Pl. LIX. CNR Archive. Fig. 75. The Hadad inscription KAI 214 (front view). After: Tropper, J. (1993) Die Inschriften von Zincirli. ALASP 6. Münster, Fig. 9. (Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum). Fig. 76. Statue of a male god, probably Hadad, from the vicinity of Hama (ca 1000-850 BCE). After: Orthmann, W. (1988) Propyläen Kunstgeschichte. Bd. 18. Der Alte Orient, Berlin, Fig. XLVIII. Fig. 77. Detail from a Magical Stela or “Cippus of Horus”. At the centre of the picture, Harpocrates is depicted frontally, while dominating several potentially dangerous animals; above his head, an effigy of Bes. Probably from the Memphite Area, 360-343 BCE. MET. Accession Number: 50.85. Free royalty: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/ search/546037 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art). Fig. 78. Harpocrates. Egypt. bronze statuette, probably from the Memphite area, with inscriptions in Egyptian hieroglyphics and in Phoenician on its base. CNR Archive. (London, British Museum). Fig. 79. Statuette of Hathor, Lady of Byblos. Ramesside period, XIX dyn. l. 8, h. 27, w. 6.8 cm. From: Scandone Matthiae, G. (1987) Una statuetta del Museo Egizio di Torino con dedica ad Hathor Signora di Biblo. In: RSF, 15, 115-125, Pl. XXVI. CNR Archive. (Torino, Museo Egizio). Fig. 80. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 6068. CNR Archive. Fig. 81. Obelisk with hieroglyphic inscription by Abishemu, prince of Byblos, “beloved of Heryshef-Ra”. Byblos, Temple of Obelisks.

249

l. 45, h. 145 cm. After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (1998) Liban, l’autre rive. Catalogue de l’Exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe du 27 octobre 1998 au 2 mai 1999. Paris: Flammarion, p. 68. (Beirut, National Museum). Fig. 82. Statue and inscription of Abdhor. From: Xella, P. and Zamora, J. Á. (2018) Inscriptions sur pierre. B.3. In: Xella, P. and Zamora, J. Á. (eds) Inscriptions phéniciennes inédites ou peu connues dans la collection de la Direction Générale des Antiquités du Liban. BAAL Hors Série 15. Beirut, Fig. 3, p. 18. (Beirut, National Museum). Fig. 83. Detail of the inscription mentioning the “Holy God”. From: Xella, P. and Zamora, J. Á. (2018) Inscriptions sur pierre. B.3. In: Xella, P. and Zamora, J. Á. (eds) Inscriptions phéniciennes inédites ou peu connues dans la collection de la Direction Générale des Antiquités du Liban. BAAL Hors Série 15. Beirut, Fig. 4, p. 19. (Beirut, National Museum). Fig. 84. Votive inscription from Antas (no. VI) mentioning the god Horon. After: Acquaro, E. et al. (1969) Ricerche puniche ad Antas. SS 30. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pl. XXVIII, 1. CNR Archive. Fig. 85. Green jasper scarab (6th cent. BCE) with falconheaded Horus flanked by Ptah and Thoth, above a winged disk (Tartous). h. 1.65 cm. After: Gubel, E. (1986) Les Phéniciens et le monde méditerranéen. Bruxelles: Générale de Banque, n. 254. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale). Fig. 86. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 254. CNR Archive. Fig. 87. The inscription ICO Sic. Neopun. 1, From: ICO, Pl. XXII. CNR Archive. Fig. 88. Razor from the necropolis of Sainte-Monique (Carthage) possibly depicting Sid/Iolaos (left) and Melqart/ Heracles (right). After: Acquaro, E. (1971) I rasoi punici. SS 41. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Fig. 38,2. Fig. 89. Faience statuette of Isis suckling Horus/Harpocrates. The goddess is portrayed with her typical throne-shaped headdress. Egypt, Ptolemaic period (332-30 BCE). MET. Accession Number: 55.121.5.

250

INDEX OF FIGURES AND PLATES

Free-royalty: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/ search/548310 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art). Fig. 90. Relief depicting Isis from the Temple of Sety I at Abydos. The goddess is portrayed with the typical attributes of Hathor, such as the head-dress with a solar-disc between bovine horns and a sistrum. Abydos, reign of Sety I/Ramses II (1290-1213 BCE). Free royalty. Source: Pixabay. Fig. 91. Cultic complex consisting of the temples of Concordia, Frugifer, Liber Pater and Neptunus. Dougga, Hadrian epoch (117-138). After: Aounallah, S. and Mastino, A. (eds) (2018) Carthage maȋtresse de la Méditerranée, capitale de l’Afrique (IXe siècle avant J.-C. – XIIIe siècle). Histoire et Monuments 1. Tunis, p. 269. Courtesy Prof. Samir Aounallah. Fig. 92. The Mekal stela. After: Thompson, H. (1970) Mekal. The god of Beth-Shean. Leiden, Pl. V, p. 57. Fig. 93. Tyrian coins depicting the Ambrosian Stones, a sacred olive tree and an altar. After: Bonnet, C. (1988) Melqart. Cultes et mythes de l’Héraklès tyrien en Méditerranée. StPhoen 8. Leuven/Namur: Peeters and Presses Universitaires de Namur, Pl. 1, Fig. 2. Fig. 94. The vase from Sidon. After: Bonnet, C. (1988) Melqart. Cultes et mythes de l’Héraklès tyrien en Méditerranée. StPhoen 8. Leuven/ Namur: Peeters and Presses Universitaires de Namur, Pl. 1, Fig. 1. Fig. 95. Lead projectiles with the legend “Melqart has won”, in Phoenician. After: Sader, H. (2018) Inscriptions conservées dans les dépôts. A. Inscriptions sur métal. In: Xella, P. and Zamora, J. Á. (eds) Inscriptions phéniciennes inédites ou peu connues dans la collection de la Direction Générale des Antiquités du Liban. BAAL Hors Série 15. Beirut, Fig. 1, p. 15. (Beirut, National Museum). Fig. 96. Statue of Heracles-Melqart from Idalion (Cyprus) (5th cent. BCE). 44 × 16 × 9.5 cm. After: Gubel, E. (1986) Les Phéniciens et le monde méditerranéen. Bruxelles: Générale de Banque, n. 15. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 97. Stela and inscription from Bredj (Aleppo) dedicated to Melqart by Barhadad king of Aram. After: ANEP, no. 499, p. 170. (Aleppo, National Museum).

Fig. 98. Marble cippus from Malta with a bilingual inscription dedicated to Melqart, Baal of Tyre (2nd cent. BCE). 105.5 × 34 × 31 cm. After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (1998) Liban, l’autre rive. Catalogue de l’Exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe du 27 octobre 1998 au 2 mai 1999. Paris: Flammarion, p. 175. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 99. Inscription from Tharros (Sardinia) ICO Sard. 32. After: ICO, Pl. XLI. CNR Archive. Fig. 100. Stela depicting Mercury. Madaura. After: Lancel, S. (2003) L’Algérie antique. De Massinissa à Saint Augustin. Pars: Editions Mengès, p. 201. Fig. 101. Trilingual inscription CIL I 2226 = IG XIV 608 = CIS I, 143. CNR Archive. Fig. 102. Trilingual inscription CIL I 2226 = IG XIV 608 = CIS I, 14.3 Drawing of the inscriptions. After ICO, Pl. XXX. CNR Archive. Fig. 103. Sundial from Umm el-Amed with a dedication to Milkashtart. After: Doumet-Serhal, C., Maïla-Afeiche, A.-M., Rabate, A. and El-Dahdah, F. (1997) Pierres et croyances. 100 objets sculptés des Antiquités du Liban. Beirut: Direction Générale des Antiquités, no. 98, p. 153. (Beirut, National Museum). Fig. 104. Wooden statue of the god Min. Egypt (Ptolemaic Period). h. 4.1, w. 1, d. 0.7 cm MET Accession Number:10.130.2441. (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art). Fig. 105. Inscription on a statue from Umm el-Amed dedicated to Osiris by Baalshillem (UeA, no. 8). After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (2007) La Méditerranée des Phéniciens: de Tyr à Carthage. Paris: Somogy: Institut du Monde Arabe, p. 332, Cat. 125. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 106. Amulet depicting Ptah-Pataecus. Ibiza (5th4th cent. BCE). After: Fenici, Catalogo, p. 401. (Ibiza, Archaeological Museum). Fig. 107. Tabula Peutingeriana (detail). Facsimile. CNR Archive.

INDEX OF FIGURES AND PLATES

Fig. 108. Medallion from el-Khroub (Algeria) depicting Poseidon seated on throne. Diam. 10 cm. After: Lancel, S. (2003) L’Algérie antique. De Massinissa à Saint Augustin. Paris: Editions Mengès, p. 48. Fig. 109. Statue portraying the god Ptah. Egypt (ca 1070712 BCE). MET. Accessing Number: 2009.175. Free royalty: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/ search/587598 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art). Fig. 110. The Nora stela. CNR Archive. Fig. 111. Gold medallion from Carthage CIS I, 6057 bearing the name pgmlyn. After: CIS I, 6057, Tab. CXVIII. CNR Archive. Fig. 112. Limestone stela with the figure of “Qudshu the beloved of Ptah” on a lion, holding flowers and serpents (ca 1300 BCE). h. 28 cm. After: ANEP, no. 471, p. 163. (Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum). Fig. 113. The god Ra-Harakhty (“Horus on the Horizon”) in the sun barque, with the god Seth slaying the serpent Apophis (ca 1085-950 BCE). Papyrus, ca 18 cm l. After: Keel, O. (1978) The Symbolism of the biblical world. New York: Seabury Press, Fig. 55. (Cairo, Egyptian Museum). Fig. 114. The inscription of Barrakib (KAI 216). After: KAI III, Pl. XXXII. (Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum). Fig. 115. Neopunic inscription from El-Amrouni. After: HNPI, p. 9. Fig. 116. Egyptian stela from Qantir depicting an armed deity and the name Resheph. After: Cornelius, I. and Niehr, H. (2004) Götter und Kulte in Ugarit. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, Fig. 93. p. 54. Fig. 117. The inscription CIS I, 91 dedicated to Resheph-mkl. CNR Archive. Fig. 118. Inscription from Gozo mentioning Sadambaal. After: ICO Malta 6. CNR Archive.

251

Fig. 119. Jebel al-Aqra῾. From: Cornelius, I. and Niehr, H. (2004) Götter und Kulte in Ugarit. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, Fig. 28, p. 19. Fig. 120. Coin with effigies of Sardus Pater. After: Bernardini, P. and Ibba, A. (2015) Il santuario di Antas tra Cartagine e Roma. In: Cabrero Piquero, J. and Montecchio, L. (eds) Sacrum Nexum. Alianzas entre el poder político y la religión en el mundo romano (Madrid, 11-12 de diciembre de 2014). Thema Mundi 7. Madrid/ Salamanca, Fig. 14a. Fig. 121. Antas. Reconstruction of an image of Sardus Pater belonging to the frontal in high relief, dating to the late Republican period. From: Manca di Mores, G. (2018) Iconografie tra mondo punico e romano nell’altorilievo del tempio del Sardus Pater ad Antas. In APC 8, Fig. 6. Fig. 122. The first amulet from Arslan Taş. CNR Archive. Fig. 123. The stela from Amrit with a dedication to Shadrapha. After: Fontan, E. and Le Meaux, H. (eds) (2007) La Méditerranée des Phéniciens: de Tyr à Carthage. Paris: Somogy: Institut du Monde Arabe, p. 52, Cat. 76. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 124. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 3921. CNR Archive. Fig. 125. The Latin inscription CIL V, 4919. After: Gregori, G. L. (1991) Gaio Silio Avola, patron di Apisa Maius, Siagu, Themetra e Thimiliga. In: AfRo 8, 229237, Pl. I. Fig. 126. Inscribed obelisk of Abdmaskir dedicated to the god Shalman. Sidon. h. 105 cm. After: Art Phénicien, no. 78, p. 86. (Paris, Musée du Louvre). Fig. 127. The Carthaginian inscription CIS I, 3780. CNR Archive. Fig. 128. Phoenician seal mentioning Shed. After: Bordreuil, P. (1986) Catalogue des sceaux ouestsémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, no. 26, p. 36. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coll. De Clercq). Fig. 129. Punic inscriptions from Antas with dedications to Sid.

252

INDEX OF FIGURES AND PLATES

After: Minoja, M., Cossu, C. and Migaleddu, M. (eds) (2012) Parole di segni. L’alba della scrittura in Sardegna. Catalogo della mostra (Cagliari, 15 aprile-15 novembre 2011), Cagliari 2012. CNR Archive. Fig. 130. Replicas of smiting deities from Kamid el-Loz. Courtesy Prof. Dr. Izak Cornelius. Fig. 131. The inscription CIS I, 3914 = KAI 81 mentioning Astarte and Tinnit in/from Lebanon. CNR Archive. Fig. 132. The inscription ICO Sard. 25 from Capo di Pula (Nora, Sardinia). CNR Archive. Fig. 133. Marble sarcophagus named “of the winged priestess”. Carthage, Necropolis of the Rabs, 4th-3rd cent. BCE. 76 × 68 × 197 cm. After: Russo. A., Guarneri, F., Xella, P. and Zamora López, J. Á. (eds) Carthago. Il mito immortale / Carthago. The immortal myth. Rome: Electa, p. 21. (Carthage, National Museum). Fig. 134. Leontocephaline female statue from Thinissut. (2nd cent. BCE). 158 × 55 cm. After: Russo. A., Guarneri, F., Xella, P. and Zamora López, J. Á. (eds) Carthago. Il mito immortale / Carthago. The immortal myth. Rome: Electa: p. 64. (Nabeul, National Museum).

2. PLATES Plate 1. Phoenicia and the Ancient Mediterranean. Plate 2. Phoenicia and the Levant. Plate 3. Carthage and the Central Western Mediterranean.

Fig. 135. Enthroned leontocephaline (?) figure from Torreparedones (Baena, Córdoba). Photo Archive of Project Religio Antiqua (HUM-650). Courtesy Prof. M. C. Marín Ceballos. Fig. 136. Thymiatherion in the shape of a female head wearing a wall-shaped crown. Ibiza. Courtesy Prof. María Cruz Marín Ceballos. (Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza y Formentera). Fig. 137. Mosaic depicting Triton. Sidi Ghrib (Tunisia). (Beginning of the 5th cent. CE). After: Slim, H. and Fauqué, N. (2001) La Tunisie antique. De Hannibal à Saint Augustin. Paris: Éditions Mengès, p. 133. Fig. 138. Oracular temple of Zeus Ammon in the Siwa Oasis. After: Lipiński, E. (1986) Zeus Ammon et Baal Hammon. In: StPhoen 4, Fig. 1, p. 309. Fig. 139. Relief depicting Zeus Ammon. After: Lipiński, E. (1986) Zeus Ammon et Baal Hammon. In: StPhoen 4, Fig. 8, p. 318. (Samos, Pithagorio Museum). Fig. 140. Stela from the temenos of Zeus Meilichios. Selinus. From: Famà, M. L. and Tusa, V. (2000) Le stele del Meilichios di Selinunte, Padua, Pl. 22, no. 40. (Palermo, Museo Archeologico Regionale Antonino Salinas).

Plate 1. Phoenicia and the Ancient Mediterranean.

Plate 2. Phoenicia and the Ancient Mediterranean.

Plate 3. Phoenicia and the Levant.