From Ugarit to Nabataea: Studies in Honor of John F. Healey 9781463235031

Citation preview

From Ugarit to Nabataea

Gorgias Ugaritic Studies

6

Gorgias Ugaritic Studies seek to capture the breadth and importance of Ugarit for the understanding of ancient Syria and its surrounding cultures. In this series, Gorgias Press publishes the works of scholars in the world of ancient Syria, its language, culture, religious beliefs, and ancient literary works fundamental to the contextualization of the Hebrew Bible and its interpretation.

From Ugarit to Nabataea

Studies in Honor of John F. Healey

Edited by

George Anton Kiraz Zeyad Al-Salameen

9

34 2012

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2012 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2012

‫ܕ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0180-7

Printed in the United States of America

ISSN 1935-388X

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................... v Preface ................................................................................................... xi John Francis Healey ............................................................................ xiii Honours ...................................................................................... xiii Education .................................................................................... xiii Employment................................................................................ xiii Short-term Fellowships ............................................................... xiv Publications ................................................................................ xiv Books..................................................................................... xiv Edited and Translated Volumes.............................................. xv Series and Journal Editorships .............................................. xvi

Articles (Books and Journals) .............................................. xvii

John Healey: a life in pictures .................................................. xxiii

Hatoon Al-Fassi Kamkam the Nabataean Priestess: Priesthood and Society in Ancient Arabia ............................................................................................ 1 Priesthood and Society in Ancient Arabia...................................... 1 Kamkam the Priestess .................................................................... 8 Abbreviations ............................................................................... 11 Bibliography ................................................................................ 11 Zeyad Al-Salameen Living Beings in Nabataean Iconography: Symbolism and Function .... 15 Introduction ................................................................................. 15 Part One: Plants ........................................................................... 19 The Palm Tree ........................................................................ 21 Grapevines ............................................................................. 24 Pine cones .............................................................................. 25 The rosette ............................................................................. 26

v

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Ears of wheat ......................................................................... 27 Pomegranate .......................................................................... 28 The wreath ............................................................................. 28

Part Two: Animals ....................................................................... 29 The eagle ................................................................................ 31 The dove ................................................................................ 34 The Camel .............................................................................. 35 Horses .................................................................................... 38 Ibex/ Gazelle .......................................................................... 41 The Bull (including horns and crescent) ................................ 42 Lions 45

Elephants................................................................................ 46 Winged figures (lion and griffon) ........................................... 47 Serpents.................................................................................. 49 Fish 52 Panther ................................................................................... 52 Minor Animals ....................................................................... 53

Part Three: Human Representations ............................................ 53 Female representations .......................................................... 53 The palm of the hand ............................................................. 56

Conclusions .................................................................................. 58 References .................................................................................... 61 Hamad Bin Seray Palmyrenes in the Mediterranean World: 1st century BCE to the 2nd century CE ................................................................................... 77 The Location of Palmyra .............................................................. 78 Political and commercial engagement with Rome ....................... 79 Palmyrene activities in Roman Egypt, the Red Sea and North Africa................................................................................... 80 Bibliography ................................................................................ 82 Sebastian Brock Dating formulae in Syriac inscriptions and manuscripts of the 5th and 6th centuries .......................................................................... 85 The materials ............................................................................... 86 Dated inscriptions ........................................................................ 89 Manuscripts ................................................................................. 92

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Dated inscriptions and manuscripts juxtaposed ........................... 95 Towards a typology ..................................................................... 97 A note on the handling of numbers ........................................... 101 Some preliminary observations .................................................. 102 Conclusion ................................................................................. 105 Amir Harrak Bacchus son of Mattay, a Master Calligrapher in the Mongol Period . 107 Biography of Bacchus son of Mattay .......................................... 108 Calligraphic Talents of Bacchus son of Mattay .......................... 114 Relationship between Bacchus’ Estrangela and Serṭo Scripts..... 118 Traces of Bacchus’ Calligraphy Elsewhere ................................. 118 Conclusion ................................................................................. 122 Hani Hayajneh Remarks on Ancient North Arabian Inscriptions from the Region of Taymāʾ in Northwest Arabia (I) ................................................. 123 Abbreviations ............................................................................. 136 Bibliography .............................................................................. 137 George Kiraz Tabetha Kthobonoyo Syriac: Child Language Acquisition of Kthobonoyo Syriac in a Multi-lingual Environment .................. 141 Introduction ............................................................................... 141 Tabetha’s Sociolinguistic Environment ...................................... 143 Challenges .................................................................................. 145 Phonology .................................................................................. 146 Morphology and Morphosyntax ................................................. 148 The Lexicon and Code Switching ............................................... 149 Conclusion ................................................................................. 151 Appendix.................................................................................... 151 London Bridge ...................................................................... 152 Poo and Tigger ..................................................................... 152 The wheels on the bus.......................................................... 152 Laïla Nehme A recently-discovered Nabataean sanctuary, possibly devoted to the sun-god ...................................................................................... 153 Description................................................................................. 153 Interpretation ............................................................................. 159 Appendix: the finds .................................................................... 162 60704_M01: bronze statuette (Nehme Plate 4: D) ................ 162

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 60681_M01: bronze casket ................................................... 162 60653_S01: stone incense-burner (Nehme Plate 5: B) .......... 164

Bibliography .............................................................................. 165 Dennis Pardee RS 18.113A+B, lettre d’un serviteur du roi d’Ougarit se trouvant à Chypre ....................................................................................... 167 Les détails matériels ................................................................... 168 Texte .......................................................................................... 170 Remarques textuelles ................................................................. 172 Traduction ................................................................................. 175 Remarques épistolographiques .................................................. 178 Commentaire ............................................................................. 180 Conclusions ................................................................................ 194 Ouvrages cités et abréviations bibliographiques ........................ 195 Lucy Wadeson The Obelisk Tomb at Petra and the Bāb al-Sīq inscription: a study of text, image and architecture ...................................................... 207 Location ..................................................................................... 208 Description................................................................................. 209 The Façade and Exterior ...................................................... 209 The Interior .......................................................................... 212 The Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium and Surroundings ....................... 214

Relationship between the Obelisk Tomb and the Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium ......................................................................... 216 The Bāb al-Sīq Inscription .......................................................... 217 Relationship between the Obelisk Tomb and the Bāb al-Sīq Inscription: new insights ................................................... 220 Date of the Obelisk Tomb .......................................................... 224 Conclusions ................................................................................ 228 Bibliography .............................................................................. 229 Robert Wenning Snakes in Petra ................................................................................... 235 The Snake Monument Br. 302 / D. 313 ..................................... 236 The relief D. 47e ........................................................................ 241 The relief D. 210e ...................................................................... 241 Snakes as attributes ................................................................... 243 Hermes/Mercury .................................................................. 243 Athena .................................................................................. 244

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

Medusa ................................................................................. 244

Frieze, Erotes with snake-like taenia (Br. 422, D. 863–864) ...... 244 Petroglyphs ................................................................................ 245 The new group of snake monuments ......................................... 246 Rock-cut relief in al-Qanṯara ................................................ 246 Rock-cut relief near the stairs to Umm al-Biyāra ................. 247 Rock-cut relief at Jabal al-Barra........................................... 248

Bibliography .............................................................................. 250 Figures ................................................................................................ 255 Index .................................................................................................. 283

PREFACE This Festschrift is dedicated to our dear friend and esteemed colleague Professor John F. Healey, who will celebrate his 65th birthday at the beginning of 2013. Professor Healey was born on 10th February 1948 in Leeds, UK, and studied in Dublin and Cambridge before completing his doctorate on Ugaritic in 1977 at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, under the supervision of the late Professor Donald Wiseman. Professor Healey has been an active teacher and researcher since 1973, and for nearly four decades his teaching abilities and scientific publications have been appreciated by numerous students and scholars all over the world. He is one of the leading researchers in Nabataean and Semitic Studies, and one of the most cited researchers in Nabataean civilization as well as Syriac studies. Professor Healey taught in several British universities including Birmingham and Cardiff, and in 1989 joined the University of Manchester. He was a Visiting Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford, and a Visiting Scholar at St John’s College, Oxford. He is a Fellow of the British Academy. Professor Healey taught countless students and has been a supervisor for M.A. and Ph.D. students of different nationalities at the University of Durham and the University of Manchester. Many of his students were from the Middle East. He edited several books, and his immense contributions to scholarship are indicated by his record of publications. He is one of the editors of the Journal of Semitic Studies, as well as being on the editorial boards of a number of other academic journals. Professor Healey is a scholar with an interesting and remarkable formidable research profile. He has been active in the following fields of research: Semitic languages; history of the alphabet; Ugaritic studies (including language and religion); Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible; Aramaic epigraphy and linguistics (especially Egyptian Aramaic, Nabatae-

xi

xii an, Palmyrene and Hatran Aramaic) and Syriac. He has also contributed to research on the Middle East during the Greek and Roman periods, Mandaic and the Mandaeans, as well as legal history (pagan and early Jewish legal documents). He shared his expertise and knowledge internationally through visiting positions within the UK and participation in dozens of cultural events in different parts of the world. We, the editors and contributors of this volume, are delighted to dedicate this work to our friend, teacher, and college, John F. Healey. We congratulate him on an outstanding career and academic reputation, and research that has profoundly influenced many people throughout his decades of teaching and research. We are proud to offer Professor Healey this volume of essays by so many scholars who are highly appreciative of his efforts. Our warmest thanks go to them and to for their stimulating essays and commitment to this publication, and to Melonie Schmierer for copy-editing the text. Zeyad Al-Salameen and George Kiraz Editors March 2012

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY Born: 10th February 1948 Leeds, England Parents: George Healey and Frances Clarke Married: Elizabeth Anne Warman on 3rd June 1972 Two children: Kevin James Healey (born June 1974); Frances Anne Healey (born September 1975) Interests: Travel in the Middle East, literature, walking, painting and model railways.

HONOURS 2011 Elected Fellow of the British Academy

EDUCATION Secondary education: St Michaels College, Leeds 1970 BA (1st class) Honours School of Semitic Languages and Hellenistic Greek, National University of Ireland 1972 MA (by examination) Semitic Languages, National University of Ireland 1977 PhD School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London): thesis ‘Death, Underworld and Afterlife in the Ugaritic Texts’

EMPLOYMENT 1973–74 Temporary Lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament, Department of Theology, University of Birmingham

xiii

xiv

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

1974–80 Lecturer in Semitic Languages, Department of Semitic Languages and Religious Studies, University College, Cardiff 1981–89 Lecturer in Hebrew, then Lecturer in Semitic Philology and Hebrew, School of Oriental Studies, University of Durham. Also Tutor, St Aidan’s College, University of Durham 1989–96 Lecturer, Senior Lecturer (1992), Reader (1995) in Semitic Studies, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, Victoria University of Manchester 1997–to date Professor of Semitic Studies (ad hominem), Department of Middle Eastern Studies, Victoria University of Manchester (School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures in the new University of Manchester from 2004)

SHORT-TERM FELLOWSHIPS 2000 Visiting Scholar, St John’s College, Oxford 2002–03 Leverhulme Research Fellow 2002–03 Visiting Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford

PUBLICATIONS Books 1980, First Studies in Syriac, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, (186pp.) [Reprints Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, 1981ff.; reprints with minor corrections: Birmingham, 1986, 1994] 1990, The Early Alphabet, British Museum Press/University of California Press, London/Berkeley, (64pp.) [Reprints London 1993, 1997; French translation as Les Débuts del’alphabet (translation by Christiane Zivie-Coche), Le Seuil, Paris, 2005; Japanese translation as Shoki Arufabetto (translation by Shigeo Takeuchi and Fumio Yajima), Gakugei Shorin, Tokyo, 1996] 1991, The Aramaic Targum of Proverbs [part of a composite volume in the Aramaic Bible series], The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, (viii + 65pp.)

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

xv

1993, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada’in Salih (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 1), O.U.P., Oxford, (xiv + 298pp. + maps and plates + 55pp. in Arabic) 1999, The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene (Handbuch der Orientalistik I/42) [written jointly with H. J. W. Drijvers], E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1999 (xv + 280pp. + plates) 2001, The Religion of the Nabataeans: a Conspectus (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 136), E. J. Brill, Leiden, 2001 (xvi + 242pp. + plates) 2005, Leshono Suryoyo: First Studies in Syriac (Gorgias Handbooks 2), Gorgias Press, Piscataway, NJ, (xxiii + 221pp.) [extensively revised version of 1980 publication above; German translation in preparation by Ahu Shemunkasho: Gorgias Press] 2009, A Brief Introduction to the Arabic Alphabet [written jointly with G. R. Smith], Saqi Books, London, (116pp.) 2009, Aramaic Inscriptions and Documents of the Roman Period (Textbook of Syrian SemiticInscriptions IV), O.U.P., Oxford, (xvii + 369pp. + figures + plates) [This book received an ‘honourable mention’ in the assessment for the British-Kuwait Friendship Society/British Society for Middle Eastern Studies Book Prize in 2010: ‘John Healey's book fills a long-felt need for a collection of representative texts from the different dialects during the Roman period of a language that was the common tongue of the Middle East for over a millennium before it was replaced by Arabic. The selection is first-class, and the introductions setting them in their contexts clear. The reviewer concludes that the work ‘is likely to remain a standard work on the subject for many years.’’] 2011, Law and Religion between Petra and Edessa: Studies in Aramaic Epigraphy on the Roman Frontier (Variorum Collected Studies Series CS966, Ashgate/Variorum: Farnham/Burlington, VT) Edited and Translated Volumes 1986, The Aramaic Language [translated from the German of K. Beyer], Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, Göttingen, (61pp.) 1989, Back to the Sources: Biblical and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Dermot Ryan [edited with K. J. Cathcart], Glendale Press, Dublin, (191pp.)

xvi

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

1994, Ugarit and the Bible. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, 1992 (Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 11) [edited with G. J. Brooke and A. H. W. Curtis], UgaritVerlag, Münster, (470pp.) 1999, The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity [edited with K. Parry et al.], Blackwell, Oxford, (xxii + 581pp.) [Paperback revised edition 2001] 2002, Studies on Arabia in honour of Professor G. Rex Smith (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 14) [edited with Venetia Porter], O.U.P., Oxford, (363pp.) 2004, Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 375) [edited with C. McCarthy], T & T Clark, International, London/New York, (376pp.) 2005, Studia Semitica: the Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 16) [edited with P. S. Alexander et al), O.U.P., Oxford (303pp.) Series and Journal Editorships Journal of Semitic Studies and Journal of Semitic Studies Supplements, University of Manchester/O.U.P. [one of five/six editors 1992–to date] Levant, Council for British Research in the Levant [member of Editorial Board 2008–to date Bulletin of Nabataean Studies (web-source [http://www.auac.ch/bns/] originally edited from the Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, subsequently hosted by the Association for the Understanding of Ancient Cultures, Basel) [member of the International Committee of Referees 2001–to date] Aram, Peeters Aram, Peeters (Leuven) [member of Advisory Editorial Board 1989–to date] Aramaic Studies, E.J. Brill (Leiden) [member of Editorial Board 2003–to date] British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem Monograph Series, British Academy/O.U.P. [sole editor 1994–99, when the School was merged with the Amman Institute] Arab Journal for the Humanities, Kuwait (Kuwait University) [editorial consultant, 2004–to date]

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

xvii

Adumatu, Riyāḍ (al-Sudairy Foundation) [Advisory Board, 2006–to date] Articles (Books and Journals) 1975, ‘Malku: mlkm: Anunnaki,’ Ugarit-Forschungen 7, pp. 235–238 1976, ‘The Underworld Character of the God Dagan,’ Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 5, pp. 43–51. 1976, ‘Syriac NSR, Ugaritic NSR, Hebrew NSR II, Akkadian NSR II,’ Vetus Testamentum 26, pp. 429–437. 1976, ‘Ecclesiastes 11, 7-12, 8. Youth and Age; Four Famous Inscriptions; The Dream of El,’ in Readings in Biblical Hebrew, pp. 107–127. 1978, ‘The Song of Songs,’ in Readings in Biblical Hebrew, pp. 120–133. 1978, ‘Ritual Text KTU 1.161 - Translation and Notes,’ UgaritForschungen 10, pp. 83–88. 1978, ‘Mlkm/rp’um and the Kispum,’ Ugarit-Forschungen 10, pp. 89–91. 1979, ‘Ugaritic and the Study of the Semitic Languages,’ Al-Ma'arifa 213, pp. 112–121. 1979, ‘Christians in a Muslim Land,’ Ur 4, pp. 18–22. 1980, ‘Ugaritic HTK: a Note,’ Ugarit-Forschungen 12, pp. 408–409. 1980, ‘The Sun Deity and the Underworld: Mesopotamia and Ugarit,’ in Death in Mesopotamia, pp. 239–242. 1980, ‘The Pietas of an Ideal Son in Ugarit,’ Festschrift C. F. A. Schaeffer, pp. 353–356. 1980, ‘L’ugaritique et l’étude des langues sémitiques,’ Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 29/30, pp. 17–22. 1980, ‘Ebla: Ancient City of Syria,’ Expository Times, pp. 324–328. 1980, ‘A Note on Syriac and Hebrew Manuscripts in Iraq,’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43, pp. 576–578. 1982, ‘Die Literatur,’ in Land des Baal, pp. 338–341. 1983, ‘Swords and Ploughshares: Some Ugaritic Terminology,’ UgaritForschungen 15, pp. 47–52. 1983, ‘Phoenician and the Spread of Aramaic,’ in Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici III, pp. 663–666. 1983, ‘Burning the Corn: New Light on the Killing of Motu,’ Orientalia 52, pp. 248–251. 1983, ‘Ancient Agriculture and the Old Testament (with special reference to Isaiah XXVIII 23-29),’ Oudtestamentische Studien 23, pp. 108 –119.

xviii

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

1983, ‘A Nestorian Gravestone,’ Arts of Asia 87 1984, ‘The Immortality of the King: Ugarit and the Psalms,’ Orientalia 53, pp. 245–254. 1985, ‘The Akkadian ‘Pantheon’ List from Ugarit,’ Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 2, pp. 115–125. 1986, ‘The Ugaritic Dead: Some Live Issues,’ Ugarit-Forschungen 18, pp. 27–32. 1986, ‘The Nabataeans and Mada’in Salih,’ Atlal 10, pp. 108–116. 1987, ‘The Rephaites of Ancient Palestine and Ugarit,’ in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Palestine, pp. 159–163. 1987, ‘Syriac Hasqbol: A Further Note,’ Biblica 68. 1988, ‘Ugaritic Lexicography and Other Semitic Languages,’ UgaritForschungen 20, pp. 61–68. 1988, ‘The Ugaritic ‘Pantheon’: Further Notes,’ Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 5, pp. 105–112. 1989, ‘Were the Nabataeans Arabs?’ Aram 1, pp. 38–44. 1989, ‘The Last of the Rephaim,’ in K. J. Cathcart and J. F. Healey (eds), Back to the Sources: Biblical and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Dermot Ryan (Dublin), pp. 33–44. 1989, ‘Syriac Sources and the Umayyad Period,’ in The Fourth International Conference on the History of Bilad al-Sham during the Umayyad Period, pp. 1–10. 1989, ‘Models of Behavior: Matt 6:26; Luke 12:24; Prov 6:6-8,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 108, pp. 497–498. 1989, (with G. Rex Smith), ‘Jaussen-Savignac 17 - the Earliest Dated Arabic Document (A. D. 267),’ Atlal 12, pp. 77–84. 1989, ‘Ancient Aramaic Culture and the Bible,’ Aram 1, pp. 31–37. 1989, ‘A Nabataean Sundial from Mada’in Salih,’ Syria 66, pp. 331–336. 1990, ‘Ugarit,’ in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, pp. 714–716. 1990, ‘The Nabataean Contribution to the Development of the Arabic Script,’ Aram 2, pp. 93–98. 1990, ‘The Early Alphabet,’ in Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet (London), pp. 196–257. 1990, ‘Mada’in Salih: Epigraphic Notes,’ Atlal 13, pp. 49–53. 1991, ‘Ugarit and Arabia: A Balance Sheet,’ Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 21, pp. 69–78. 1991, ‘Nabataean to Arabic: Calligraphy and Script Development Among the Pre-Islamic Arabs,’ Manuscripts of the Middle East 5, pp. 41–52.

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

xix

1991, (with C. Lightfoot), ‘A Roman Veteran on the Tigris,’ Epigraphica Anatolica 17, pp. 1–7. 1992, ‘Languages (Ugaritic),’ in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, pp. 226– 229. 1993, ‘Sources for the Study of Nabataean Law,’ New Arabian Studies 1, pp. 203–214. 1993, ‘Report on Epigraphic Work at Mada’in Salih,’ New Arabian Studies 1, pp. 228–230. 1994, ‘The Decipherment of Alphabetic Scripts,’ in K. J. Cathcart (ed), The Edward Hincks Bicentenary Lectures, pp. 75–93. 1994, ‘Les débuts de l’alphabet,’ in La naissance des écritures du cunéiforme à l'alphabet, pp. 252–327. 1995, ‘Ugaritic and Arabic: A Review,’ in Ugarit: ein Ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung I. Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt, pp. 75– 85. 1995, ‘Lexical Loans in Early Syriac: a Comparison with Nabataean Aramaic,’ Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 12, pp. 75–84. 1995, ‘Death in West Semitic Texts: Ugarit and Nabataea,’ in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, pp. 188–191. 1996, ‘Palmyra and the Arabian Gulf Trade,’ Aram 8, pp. 33–37. 1996, ‘May He be Remembered for Good: an Aramaic Formula,’ in K. Cathcart and M. Maher (eds), Targumic and Cognate Studies. Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara, pp. 177–186. 1996, ‘Grain and Wine in Abundance: Blessings from the Ancient Near East,’ in Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Essays Presented in Honour of John C. L. Gibson, pp. 65–74. 1997, ‘Vom Nabatäischen zum Arabischen: die Schrift der Nabatäer,’ in Petra: Antike Felsstadt Zwischen Arabischer Tradition und Griechischer Norm, pp. 99–101. 1997, ‘Das Land ohne Wiederkehr: die Unterwelt im Antiken Ugarit und im Alten Testament,’ Theologische Quartalschrift 177, pp. 94–104. 1998, ‘The Kindly and Merciful God: on Some Semitic Divine Epithets,’ in Und Mose Schrieb Dieses Lied Auf, pp. 349–356. 1999, ‘Death is Swallowed Up in Victory (I Corinthians 15:54): Canaanite Mot in Prophecy and Apocalypse,’ in New Heaven and New Earth. Prophecy and the Millenium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston (Leiden), pp. 205–215.

xx

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

1999, ‘Between the Aegean and the Near East - Ugarit as Point of Contact,’ in M. Kropp (ed), Schnittpunkt Ugarit (Mainz), pp. 47– 57. 2000, ‘The Early History of the Syriac Script: a Reassessment,’ Journal of Semitic Studies 45, pp. 55–67. 2000, ‘The Christians of Qatar in the 7th Century A.D.’, in I. Netton (ed), Studies in Honour of Clifford Edmund Bosworth I. Hunter of the East: Arabic and Semitic Studies (Leiden), pp. 222–237. 2000, (with Hamad Bin Seray), ‘Aramaic in the Gulf: Towards a Corpus,’ Aram 11/12, pp. 1–13. 2001, ‘Romans Always Conquer. Some Evidence of Ethnic Identity on Rome's Eastern Frontier,’ in N. Higham (ed), Archaeology of the Roman Empire. A Tribute to Professor Barri Jones, pp. 167–172. 2002, ‘Nabataeo-Arabic: Jaussen-Savignac nab. 17 and 18,’ in J. F. Healey and V. Porter (eds), Studies on Arabia in Honour of Professor G. Rex Smith (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement) (Oxford), pp. 81–90. 2004, ‘Sicherheit des Auges: the Contribution to Semitic Epigraphy of the Explorer Julius Euting,’ in C. McCarthy and J. F. Healey (eds), Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart (JSOT Supplement) (Sheffield), pp. 313– 330. 2004, ‘A Nabataean Papyrus Fragment,’ Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 146, pp. 183–188. 2005, ‘The Writing on the Wall: Law in Aramaic Epigraphy,’ in P. Bienkowski et al (eds), Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: papers in honour of Alan R. Millard (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 426) (London), pp. 127–41. 2005, ‘New Evidence for the Aramaic Legal tradition: from Elephantine to Edessa,’ in Studia Semitica: the Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume (Oxford), pp. 115–127. 2005, ‘More than Marginal: Ugarit in its eastern Mediterranean setting,’ in G. Khan (ed), Semitic Studies in honour of Edward Ullendorff (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 47) (Leiden), pp. 181–88. 2006, ‘A New Syriac Mosaic Inscription,’ Journal of Semitic Studies 51, pp. 313–327. 2007, ‘The World of the Nabataeans: Petra and Arabia,’ AEMES Journal of Ancient Egypt 59, pp. 11–14.

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

xxi

2007, ‘The Edessan Milieu and the Birth of Syriac,’ Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 10 (2). 2007, ‘Nabataean Inscriptions: Language and Script,’ in K. D. Politis (ed), The World of the Nabataeans: Volume 2 of the International Conference The World of the Herods and the Nabataeans held at the British Museum, 17-19 April 2001 (Oriens et Occidens 15) (Stuttgart). 2007, ‘From Sapanu/Sapunu to Kasion: the Sacred History of a Mountain,’ in W. G. E. Watson (ed), “He unfurrowed his brow and laughed”. Essays in Honour of Professor Nicolas Wyatt (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 299) (Münster), pp. 141–51. 2007, ‘Eastern Spirituality from Ephrem the Syrian to Isaac of Nineveh,’ in J. C. R. Hill (ed), The New Lion Handbook: the History of Christianity, p. 112. 2008, ‘Variety in Early Syriac: the context in contemporary Aramaic,’ in H. Gzella and M. Folmer (eds), Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz; Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 50) (Wiesbaden), pp. 221–9. 2008, ‘Some Lexical and Legal Notes on a Syriac Loan Transfer of 240 CE,’ in G. Kiraz (ed), Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: studies in honor of Sebastian P. Brock (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 3) (Piscataway), pp. 211–26. 2008, ‘City Institutions in North Arabia in the Roman Period,’ in A. R. al-Ansary, Kh. I. al-Muaikel and A. M. Alsharekh (eds), The City in the Arab World in the Light of Archaeological Discoveries: evolution and development, (Riyadh), pp. 77–84. 2009, ‘The Patriarch Isho’yahb III and the Christians of Qatar in the First Islamic Century,’ in E. C. D. Hunter (ed), The Christian Heritage of Iraq (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 13) (Piscataway), pp. 1–9. 2010, ‘The Nabataean ‘God of the Fathers’,’ in K. Dell, G. Davies, Yee Von Koh (eds), Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms: a Festschrift to honour Professor John Emerton for his eightieth birthday (Leiden), pp. 45–57. 2010, ‘The Church across the Border: the Church of the East and its Chaldaean Branch,’ in A. O'Mahony, E. Loosley (eds), Eastern Christianity in the Modern Middle East (London), pp. 41– 55.

xxii

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

2011, ‘Syriac,’ in S. Weninger (ed), Semitic Languages, an International Handbook (Berlin), pp. 637–652. 2011, (with Roberta Tomber), ‘Palmyrene Vessel,’ in D. Peacock and L. Blue (eds), Myos Hormos — Quseir al-Qadim. Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea. Volume 2: Finds from the Excavations 1999-2003 (Oxford), pp. 7–8. 2012, ‘Targum Proverbs and the Peshitta: reflections on the linguistic environment,’ in G. Khan and D. Lipton (ed), Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon (Leiden), pp. 325–335.

JOHN HEALEY: A LIFE IN PICTURES

Photos of the young John Francis Healey, and (bottom left) with his parents

xxiii

xxiv

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

John Healey with his family: (top left) as a young student; (top right) as a young father; (center) with Elizabeth Anne Warman on their wedding day; (bottom) with his wife and children

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

xxv

Out in the field: (top left) with a friend at Ebla; (top right and bottom

right): at Madâʾin Sâlih; (bottom left): recording an inscription at Sogmatar

xxvi

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

At leisure: (top left) beside the river Jordan; (top right): fishing in the Gulf; (bottom left): walking in the hills; (bottom right): on holiday in Italy

JOHN FRANCIS HEALEY

xxvii

(top): With friends and students; (center): with three former students

(Zeyad, Hamad and Ṣinasi); (bottom right): on his 60th birthday; (bottom right): John Healey today

KAMKAM THE NABATAEAN PRIESTESS: PRIESTHOOD AND SOCIETY IN ANCIENT ARABIA HATOON AL FASSI KING SAUD UNIVERSITY & QATAR UNIVERSITY The inscribed tomb of the woman Kamkam has generated speculation ever since its discovery. Dated to 1 BCE (making it one of the earliest-known Nabataean inscribed tombs), the tomb is that

of a woman of al- ijr/ egra who dedicated her tomb to her daughter and her daughter’s offspring. Kamkam is an unusual figure, and this paper proposes that her genealogy and deities

mentioned in her tomb inscription indicate that she was in fact a priestess.

PRIESTHOOD AND SOCIETY IN ANCIENT ARABIA To explore the role that priests and priestesses played in ancient Arabia, we will first move forward in time to the pre-Islamic era, and a 5th century CE reference to the priestess of al- ijr or egra (Madāʾin Ṣāli ). According to this story,1 Abdel Muttalib bin Hashim, the grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad, made a vow to Allah that if he was given 10 sons he would slaughter one once they had reached puberty in gratitude to Allah and as revenge for an earlier dispute with his tribe of

1

Ibn Hišām, sīrah 1: 199ff.; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmel 1: 454–456.

1

2

HATOON AL-FASSI

Quraysh about digging the historic and holy well of Zamzam. He was eventually granted ten sons, and set about fulfilling his vow. He met with each of his sons to tell them of his vow and asked that each write his name on a lot to be presented to the god Hubal. The priest or guardian of the god would then draw from the lots, and select the son for slaughter. The lot fell to Abdullah, the youngest son and future father of the Prophet. When the notables of his tribe, the Quraysh, heard of this, they insisted that he not fulfil his vow and that he find another solution so that slaughtering of sons would not become a tradition. They asked that he postpone the slaughter of his son until he could find a way to be excused from the vow, and offered their help with the ransom no matter what the cost might be. The priestess of al- ijr/ egra was proposed as an arbitrator, and that the final decision on slaughter or ransom would fall to her. The unhappy Abdel Muttalib visited the priestess at Khaybar, and she agreed to leave and consult her medium ‫ تابع‬whom she would ask for advice. When she returned the following day she told the men that she had an answer and asked them about the customary cost of blood money, diyyah. When Abdel Muttalib told her the diyyah was ten camels, The priestess said that he should go home and slaughter ten camels and then to draw lots ‫ القداح‬to choose between the camels and his son. If the lot should fall on Abdullah, Abdel Muttalib should add another ten camels and slaughter them. If the lot then fell on the camels, it would mean that the god was satisfied and his son would be saved. Returning to Makkah, Abdel Muttalib prayed to Allah and invited him to choose between his son Abdullah and the ten camels. The lot fell on Abdullah. He added a further ten and again the lot fell on Abdullah and this continued until the camels numbered one hundred, when the lot then fell on the camels and the god was satisfied. The happy father was prepared to slaughter the hundred camels as ransom for his son Abdullah, but to be certain he insisted on repeating the drawing of lots three times, and each time it pointed to the camels. He then slaughtered the camels and left them to God, not letting any person or animal eat them. According to the version of the story related above, the priestess of al- ijr/ egra, was not based in al- ijr/ egra but in Khaybar, a town with a prominent Jewish community in the 7th century. However, the

KAMKAM THE NABATAEAN PRINCESS

3

earlier source for this story, Ibn Hišām, did not mention al- ijr/ egra, but al-Hijaz. According to him, Abdel Muttalib went to Yaṯrib (Madinah), but eventually found the priestess in Khaybar,2 as in the story of Ibn al-Athīr. It seems that the towns were similarly known for their oracle-givers, and the relatively short distance separating the two (approximately 100 km apart) may also have contributed to some confusion between them. As far as I am aware, this story is not repeated in any other early Islamic source, but among the details agreed in its two versions are that there was a tradition of prediction and oracles-givers in Wadi al-Qura, in north-western Arabia (where the two towns lie), and this was a speciality exclusive to priestesses. In antiquity, priestesses were typically associated with a ruling male relation. The first queens or wives of a king known to be high priestesses were Baranamtara of Lagash, the wife of Lugalanda, (ca. 2350 BCE)3, and Shag-Shag, the wife of Urukagina, also of the Early Dynastic Period in Ur.4 Enḫeduanna, the daughter of Sargon of Akkad (ca. 2371–2316 BCE), was the high priestess of the Moon-God Nanna of Ur and the temple of An, the supreme God of Heaven, at Uruk. Enḫeduanna is also the first known poetess, and left poetry and hymns to the goddess Inanna. She was followed by Enmenanna, daughter of Naram-Sin, who held the same position of Enḫeduanna and called herself ‘wife of Nanna’. The tradition of appointing princesses as highpriestesses continued throughout the Sumerian and Akkadian periods.5 In ancient Egypt, a similar role was occupied by royal women. In the time of Ramesses II (1289–1224 BCE) and later, they served as the so-called ‘God's Wife of Amun, a role that combines the divine with the human in her person’.6 Priestesses belonged to society’s upper class, either by their connection to royalty or other elites. It seems that sacred

2 3

Ibn Hišām, sīrah 1: 201.

See for example this Akkadian proverb: ‘Man is the shadow of a god and a

slave is the shadow of a man; but the king is the mirror of a god’ (Nemet-Nejat 1998: 217). 4 5

Woolley 1934: 33ff.

Batto 1974: 8, 30, n.2; Lerner 1986: 62-68; Frymer-Kensky 1992: 64–65;

Nemet-Nejat 1998: 150. 6

Hollis 1997: 224.

HATOON AL-FASSI

4

marriage was not exclusive to the king or priestesses: we find that in southern Arabia Maʿin (Minaean) women were given in marriage to the God ʿAṯtar, who chose himself a woman on a certain day each year.7 Priests and priestesses were guardians of the gods and goddesses’ interests, preservers of their temples, supervisors of the gifts offered and sacrifices presented, mediators between gods and worshippers, making known their oracles, supervising the fertility cult of sacred marriage (especially in Sumer and Akkad), and writers and readers of the appropriate hymns and poems.8 It is possible that the Nabataean king was also the high priest of Dushara, since Dushara is the dynastic god, ‘God of (our) Lord’,9 and that the queen was the high priestess of the mother goddess, Allāt-Isis.10 Nabataean priests appear under different titles, which may denote either a hierarchy or simply different linguistic derivations. Among these titles are khn (kāhin), kmr (kamar),11 rb (rabb) and ʾpkl (ʾafkal) and others. John F. Healey has provided a comprehensive discussion as to their probable functions,12 and it appears that reference to several of these titles for a particular god or goddess indicates a hierarchy rather than a mere linguistic difference. For Allāt, three priesthood titles are cited in two inscriptions from Wadi Ramm, which refer to a khn ʾltw ʾlht(ʾ), kāhin of Allāt the goddess,13 and an ʾpkl.14 A third, found in ebran in awrān and dating from 47 CE, refers to a kmr ʾlt, kamar of Allāt.15 Al-ʿUzzā priests were given the title kāhin and appear frequently in Sinai.16 Savignac has noted that the word khn is unfamiliar in Aramaic and suggests that this word is a borrowing from Arabic,17 whereas Teixidor has regarded it as more relevant to the Canaanite culture than 7 8 9

RES 3306; Naim 2000: 710–713.

Frymer-Kensky 1992: 64. al-Fassi, 2007: 28.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Ibid, pp. 32–35.

Not found in Arabic.

Healey 2001: 163–164. Savignac 1932: No. 2. Savignac 1933: No. 2. CIS,II,170.

CIS, II, 611.

Savignac 1932: 592–93.

KAMKAM THE NABATAEAN PRINCESS

5

Arabian.18 Her priests in pre-Islamic Arabia were from the tribe of banū Šaybān from Sulaym.19 In the early Arabic Islamic sources, the kāhin and sādin were those who predict, tellers of secrets of the past and present and utterers oracles, giving the exegesis of dreams with the aid of jinn, spirits or underworld creatures. There were famous kāhins at the eve of Islam, such as Saṭī and Šiqq,20 as well as priestesses, kāhināt, such as Sujā and others. There is no information about Manāt’s priests, although references to her appear equally in male and female tombs at egra. She is the deity referred to most often after Dushara (that is, six times in five tombs: H 8, 16, 19, 31, 34). In pre-Islamic Arabia, her priests could also be men, and the clan of ʿAttāb son of Mālik from the tribe of Ṯaqīf were her servants or sadanah (pl. of sādin).21 Afkal, from Akkadian apkallu, means ‘the wise’,22 and this term is also found in Li yānite inscriptions (JS 277: afkal of Allāt). It is also found in many inscriptions from Sinai, in Tal al-Šuqāfiyyah, in Sī Sidrah and other places for different deities.23 Savignac has suggested that afkal was probably the highest religious authority, since the builders of the sanctuary at Ramm called themselves ʿlymw or ġlymw, ‘the servants’, of the afkal, a term normally used in relation to the Lord, or the king.24 Kmr, in Official Aramaic kmrʾ (from Akkadian kumru) for ‘priest’25 appears twice in Nabataean. Once with Allāt in ebran26 and once in the Temple of Winged Lions in Raqamū-Petra, which Hammond has argued belongs to Allāt.27

18 19 20 21 22 23

Teixidor 1995: 121.

Ibn Hišām, sīrah I: 78; Ibn al-Kalbī 22.

Ibn Hišām, sīrah I: 30–33; James 1955: 92–93. Ibn al-Kalbī 16.

Teixidor 1995: 121.

Littmann & Meredith 1954: No. 81; CIS, II, 526; 506, 526, 608, 766, 1236,

1748, 1885, 2491, 2665. 24 25 26 27

Savignac 1933: 412.

Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995 I: 516–517. CIS, II, 170.

Hammond et al. 1986: 78, l. 2. For other priestly titles see al-Fassi 1993:

266–270; Teixidor 1995: 120–121; Healey 2001: 163–165.

HATOON AL-FASSI

6

The title ptwrʾ is attested twice in egra and Raqamū-Petra inscriptions (H 29),28 which might mean, according to Healey, ‘diviner or perhaps a military augur advising on campaigns on the basis of entrails, dreams and astrology’,29 a function possibly related to the early Arab tradition of divination by the flight of birds.30 The word for ‘priestess’ is so far unattested in Nabataean. However, it is found in Li yānite as ʾfklt which could also be ʾfkl lt (JS 64L) or the priest of Allat, where the lām is assimilated.31 Pre-Islamic priestesses were known in Arabia and a few references are given here. Among these priestesses, kāhināt, there was Faṭimah al-Ḫaṯʿamiyyah in Makkah, Zarqāʾ al-Yamāmah in Najd, kāhinat banī Saʿd in Wadi al Qura (mentioned above), adas, from the north Arabian tribe of Ġanam, Ṭurayfah, kāhinah of Yemen, Zabrāʾ, between al-Ši r and aḍramawt, and Salmā al-Hamdāniyyah al- imyariyyah.32 The priestess’ role was not merely as a functionary of the rituals or the oracle of a certain god or goddess, or to remove the spirits from a possessed person.33 Her role also included what in modern classification would be listed under ‘health and trade’ or more generally, the ‘public sector’. Discrimination between the public (and the secular) and the sacred have been challenged by anthropological and social studies.34 Here it is useful to point out some of the roles attributed to the temple and its functionaries that clarify how the ‘sacred’ system functioned. The different roles played by priests and priestesses includes all of the following: supervision of different rituals, such as weddings, births, funerals, perhaps also circumcision; possibly the knowledge of different herbs making them expert healers; Possible involvement in ceremonies of procreation (what was known in ancient Sumer as the ‘sacred marriage’, usually conducted between the goddess Inanna-Ishtar - the love

28 29 30 31 32 33

Parr 1967–68.

Healey 2001: 164.

al-Andalusi 2: 795; Healey 2001: 165; al-Fassi 2005: 474. al-Fassi 1993: 264.

Ibn Hišām, sīrah IV: 17; al-Suhailī 1:131-143; Zaydān 1967 III: 20.

See, for example, the incantation text in Naveh 1979 with the detailed

commentary by Healey, 2001: 165. 34

See, for example, Mann 1986 I: 126; Beard & Crawford 1989: 25–39.

KAMKAM THE NABATAEAN PRINCESS

7

and fertility goddess - or her representative, and the king, the representative of Dumuzi, Inanna’s husband, which has been interpreted in later Greek literature on Babylonia and Syria as ‘temple prostitution’).35 Moreover, since the institution of the temple in most ancient societies functioned as a bank (for example in Mesopotamia).36 In today’s terms, priests and priestesses would be expected to be involved in financial arrangements. The temple collected tithes or taxes on silver, gold, offerings or provisions, as well as silver or bronze coinage. The percentage of such tithes collected is not clear in the inscription found on the inner wall of the Winged Lions Temple in Raqamū-Petra.37 Similar arrangements are known in Jerusalem and Hatra for the setting up in public of religious rules,38 and a share was to be given to the priest. Also included were fines collected on breaching tomb contract conditions, as found in egra. The inscription on the Kamkam tomb (JS 16; H 16) clearly specifies a fined sum to be paid to the priest. In addition to these sources of revenue, the temple was paid expiation. The Winged Lions Temple inscription has a reference to a condition of payment for acts of delinquency.39 Although the meaning is not clear, as the slab on which the inscription is written is broken in half, one would expect such functions to take place in the temple, or that such money would be paid in to the temple. Similarly, southern Arabia has left us an abundance of expiation inscriptions.40 The money that entered the treasury of the temple facilitated investment deals that priests and priestesses would have entered into, probably investment in the caravan trade in the main, but also lending money to the state or private individuals. Traces of the economic role of temples are found in early Sumer and later, where the temple was the commercial centre, and priests and priestesses were undoubtedly engaged in the commercial transactions that took place there. Furthermore, the temple was also used as an archive centre or record house, as was noted twice in a Nabatean papyrus and on 35 36 37 38 39 40

Frymer-Kensky 1992: 50–60.

Mann 1986 I: 126; Driel 1999: 25. Hammond et al 1986: 77–78.

Healey 2001: 164.

Hammond et al 1986: 78, l.2.

See Al-Naim 2000: 106–111; Frantsouzoff forthcoming.

HATOON AL-FASSI

8

tombs.41 Therefore, the temple with its crew of priests, priestesses, servants, slaves, worshippers, perhaps ‘temple prostitutes’, and perhaps travellers who stayed there, was self-sufficient. The temple functioned as a home for its priests and servants, as well as all the other roles it probably played. It encompassed the ḥaram or sacred space that was protected by the sanctity of the temple’s god or goddess. Its premises would usually include a source of water (either a well, cistern or spring), as seen in Allāt’s temple of Wadi Ramm. A ḥaram would be expected also to include a cemetery. It can be supposed that the priesthood, similar to other professions, was hereditary within a family. Children were usually dedicated to the service of the god or goddess, and this is found in many traditions, including those of Arabia, Babylonia, Egypt and Syria. Priests and priestesses had special familial or marital arrangements that did not necessarily reflect common customs, and this might have included celibacy or giving birth to children from unknown men. More of these customs are discussed in the example below. To summarize, any attempt in the study of ancient societies to separate the spheres of social life on the basis of a division between the religious and the secular, or the sacred and the political/social, will not prove useful or informative, and it can easily perpetuate the belief that a real distinction existed.

KAMKAM THE PRIESTESS The owner of tomb B19 in egra, Kamkam daughter of Wāʾilah daughter of arām, is of particular significance here. Her tomb has interesting features that can allow speculation about her identity (see plate with courtesy to Prof Healey). Kamkam’s tomb has an early date (1 BCE), and in it she ordains a fine not to the king but to the priest, the afkal. She does not name him or the god(dess) to whom he ministers. This is the only inscription42 that refers to a priest and ordains fines for 41 42

Yadin 1963; 2002 doc 3; JS 36.

JS 16; H16; T205, B19: 1BCE/CE

dnh kprʾ dy ʿbdw kmkm brt wʿlt brt ḥrmw wklybt brth lnpšhm wʾḥrhm byrḥ ṭbt šnt tšʿ lḥrtt mlk nbṭw rḥm ʿmh wylʿn dwšrʾ

wmwtbh wʿlt mn ʿmnd wmnwtw wqyšh mn yzbn

kprʾ dnh ʾw mn yzbn ʾw yrhn ʾw yntn yth ʾw ynpq

KAMKAM THE NABATAEAN PRINCESS

9

him in addition to fines for the gods. It is expected that the fine that went to a deity went, in fact, to the temple. This case specifying the priest with a special fine shows, however, the important role that religion and the temple played in society at the end of the 1 st century BCE. It is significant that Kamkam did not specify a fine for the king, and interestingly the other contemporary tomb (B6, which also dates from 1 BCE) also does not ordain any fines for gods or kings (JS 8; H 8). It is possible that fines paid to the king were in fact a later feature, copying an earlier allocation that directed fines to the priest. Another possibility is that in this period at the beginning of Nabataean rule over the city, the priest occupied a higher and more prestigious position in egran society than the king or his representative, the governor. Another unusual aspect of Kamkam’s tomb inscription relates to her matrilineal genealogy. It seems possible that Kamkam was associated with the type of temple where women were dedicated to the gods and might have undertaken sacred procreation rituals. It is possible on mnh gt ʾw šlw ʾw mn yqbr bh ʿyr kmkm wbrth wʾḥrhm wmn dy lʾ yʿbd kdy ʿlʾ ktyb pʾyty ʿmh

ldwšrʾ whblw wlmnwtw šmdyn 5 wlʾpklʾ qns

slʿyn ʾlq ḥrty blʿd mn dy ynpq bydh ktb mn yd kmkm ʾw klybt brth bkprʾ hw pqym ktbʾ hw whbʾlhy br ʿbdʿbdt

ʿbd

1. This is the tomb which Kamkam d. of Wāʾilah d. of

arām 2. and Kulay-

bah, her daughter, made for themselves and their descendants. In the month of Tebet, the 3. ninth year of

āriṯah, King of the Nabataeans, lover of his people. And

may Dushara 4. and his throne and Allāt of ʿAmnad and Manāt and her Qaysa curse anyone who sells 5. this tomb or who buys it or gives it in pledge or makes a

gift of it or removes 6. from it body or limb or who buries in it anyone other than

Kamkam and her daughter 7. and their descendants. And whoever does not act ac-

cording to what is written above shall be liable 8. to Dushara and Hubal and to Manāt in the sum of 5 shamads and to the exorcist-priest for a fine of a 9. thousand

areṯite selaʿs, except that whoever produces in his hand a document from the

hand of 10. Kamkam or Kulaybat, her daughter, regarding this tomb, this document will be valid. 11. Wahaballāhī s. of ʿAbdʿObadah 12. made it (Healey 1993b)

HATOON AL-FASSI

10

this basis, therefore, to explain why she dedicated her fine to the priest ʾpkl43 and not to the king, since her first loyalty was to the gods and the head of the temple. Alessandra Avanzini has written of women who appear in some South Arabian inscriptions with matrilineal genealogies: ‘il me semble opportun de les [polyandry and matrilineality] envisager comme des phénomènes propres à des femmes au statut spécial, probablement non-mariées, peut-être liées au culte’.44 It seems probable, therefore, that Kamkam was, in fact, a priestess, member of the second or third generation of priestesses dedicated to the temple. Hereditary professions are known in the ancient world, and it is not inconceivable that there would be a family of servants of the temple. She would have belonged to a priesthood level below that of ʾpkl. The question remains: in whose temple was Kamkam a hereditary priestess? Kamkam, in addition to the fines, invoked particular gods for certain curses. They include Manāt and her Qays, Allāt from ʿAmnad, and Dushara’s throne, in addition to Dushara proper, and the god Hubal, all receiving fines. Kamkam’s inscription provides the names of five gods and two specific epithets. That is not particularly helpful in identifying which god or goddess she was priestess of, or which god the priest served, and this must remain an enigma until a temple is uncovered in egra and more inscriptions are found. The exterior of her tomb is also interesting, and has an unusual design with a bas-relief of an eagle centred on the arch of the door. Curiously enough, this feature is not found in any other tomb in egra. Although one can relate the eagle to a solar god identified with Dushara,45 this is not enough to establish the principal god for whom Kamkam served as priestess. The goddess Manāt, principle goddess in the ijāz, is also a possible contender. A final and simple solution is that Kamkam was not a priestess of a specific god or goddess, but rather for all the gods known in egra and northern Arabia, both old and new. A dedication to all the gods also appears in the female Taymanite tomb of Waḍū (JS 11-12; H 11-12). 43

A partly similar situation is found in the Tal al-Šuqāfiyyah inscription,

which is dated after the Ptolemaic king as well as the priest, ʾpkl (see Strugnell 1959: 31–2). 44 45

Avanzini 1991: 161. Healey 1993a.

KAMKAM THE NABATAEAN PRINCESS

11

ABBREVIATIONS ADAJ BASOR BSOAS CIS IEJ JS JSS NAS RB RES T

Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Israel Exploration Journal Jaussen A. J. & Savignac R., Mission Archéologique en Arabie Journal of Semitic Studies New Arabian Studies Revue Biblique Répértoire d’Épigraphie Sémitique al-Theeb, S., Nuqūš al- ijr al-Nabaṭiyyah

BIBLIOGRAPHY al-Andalusi, Ibn Saʿīd [d. 685 H] Našwat al-ṭarab fī tārīḫ al-ʿarab (ed. D. Nuṣrat ʿAbdelrahm, Amman, 1982, 2 vols). al-Fassi, H. 1993, al- ayāt al-ijtimāʿiyyah fī šamāl ġarb al-jazīrah al-ʿarabiyah fī alfatrah mā bayn al-qarn al-sādis qabl al-mīlād wā al-qarn alṯāni al-mīlādī (Riyadh). 2005, ‘al-ʾawḍāʿ al-siyāsiyyah wa al-ʾijtimāʿiyyah wa al-iqtiṣādiyyah wa al-ṯaqāfiyyah fī jazīrat al-ʿarab’, al-kitāb al-marjiʿ fī tārīḫ alʾummah al-ʿarabiyyah, Vol I: al-juḍūr wa al-bidāyāt, almunaẓẓamah al-ʿarabiyyah liltarbiah wa al-ṯaqāfah wa alʿulūm (Tunis), pp. 452–485. 2007, ‘malikāt al-ʾanbāṭ: dirāsah ta līliyyah muqāranah’, Adumatu, 16, pp. 21–40. al-Naim, N. A. A. 2000, al-Tašrīʿāt fī janūb ġarb al-jazīrah al-ʿArabiyyah ḥattā nihāyat dawlat imyar (Riyadh). al-Suhailī, ʿAbdelrahmān [d. 581 H] al-Rawḍ al-ʾanif fī šarḥ al-sīrah al-nabawiyyah (ed. ʿAbdelrahman alWakīl, Cairo, 1967). al-Theeb, S. 1998, Nuqūš al- ijr al-Nabaṭiyyah (Riyadh).

12

HATOON AL-FASSI

Avanzini, A. 1991, ‘Remarqus sur le ‘matriarcat’ en Arabie du Sud’, in Révue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 1991–93 (61), pp. 157–161. Batto, B. F. 1974, Studies on Women at Mari (Baltimore). Beard, M. & M. Crawford 1989, Rome in the Late Republic, Problems and Interpretations (London). Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. II: sec.2. 1902–1907 (Paris). Driel, G. Van 1999, ‘Capital Formation and Investment in an Institutional Context in Ancient Mesopotamia’, in J. G. Dercksen (ed) Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia, Mos Studies 1 (Leiden), pp. 25–42. Frantsouzoff, S. forthcoming, La femme en Arabie du Sud antique. Frymer-Kensky, T. 1992, In The Wake of The Goddesses, Women, Culture, and the Biblical transformation of Pagan Myth (New York). Hammond, P., D. J. Johnson & R. N. Jones 1986, ‘A Religio-Legal Nabataean Inscription from the Atargatis/AlʿUzza Temple at Petra’, BASOR 263, pp. 77–80. Healey, J. F. 1993a, ‘Sources for the study of Nabataean Law’, NAS 1, pp. 203–214. 1993b, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Madaʾin Salih, (Oxford). 2001, The Religion of the Nabataeans: A Conspectus (Leiden). Hoftijzer, J. & K. Jongeling 1995, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden), 2 vols. Hollis, S. T. 1997, ‘Queens and Goddesses in Ancient Egypt, in K. L. King (ed) Women and Goddess Traditions in Antiquity and Today (Minneapolis), pp. 210–238. Ibn al-Athīr, ʿalī bin Mu ammad [d. 630 H] al-Kāmil fī al-tārīḫ (Beirut, 1983, 10 vols).

KAMKAM THE NABATAEAN PRINCESS

13

Ibn al-Kalbī, H. [d. 204 H] Kitāb al-Aṣnām, (ed. A. Zaki Pasha, Cairo, 1924). Ibn Hišām [d. 213 H] al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, (eds. J. Thabit, M. Mahmud & S. Ibrahim, Cairo, 1996, 5 vols). James, E. O. 1955, The Nature and Function of Priesthood (London). Jaussen A. J. & R. Savignac 1909, Mission Archéologique en Arabie, Paris, I. 1911, Mission Archéologique en Arabie, Paris, II. Littmann, E. & D. Meredith 1954, ‘Nabataean Inscriptions from Egypt II’, BSOAS 16, pp. 211–46. Mann, M. 1986, The Sources of Social Power, Vol I: A history of power from the beginning to A.D. 1760 (Cambridge). Naveh, J. 1979, ‘A Nabatean Incantation Text’, IEJ 29, pp. 111–9. Nemet-Nejat, K. R. 1998, Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia (Westport). Parr, P. J. 1967–68, ‘Recent Discoveries in the Sanctuary of the Qasr Bint Farʿun at Petra’, ADAJ 12-13, pp. 5–19. Répertoire d’Epigraphie Sémitique, T.I-VI (Paris) 1900–1919. Savignac, R. 1932, ‘Note de Voyage-Le Sanctuaire d’Allat à Iram’, RB 41, pp. 581– 597. 1933, ‘Le Sanctuaire d’Allat à Iram (1)’, RB 42, pp. 405–422. Strugnell, J. 1959, ‘The Nabataean Goddess ʿAl-Kutba and her Sanctuaries’, BASOR 156, pp. 29–36. Teixidor, J. 1995, ‘Le Campement; Ville des Nabatéens’, Semitica 43-44, pp. 111– 121.

14

HATOON AL-FASSI

Woolley, C. L. 1934, Ur Excavations Vol II, The Royal Cemetery, Text, (Pennsylvania). Yadin Y. 1963, ‘The Nabataean Kingdom, Provincia Arabia, Petra and En-Geddi in the documents from Nahal Hever’ Jaarbericht ex Oriente Lux 17, pp. 227–41. Yadin, Y., J. C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni and B. A. Levine, additional contributions by H. M. Cotton & J. Naveh 2002, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri (Jerusalem), 2 vols. Zaydān, J. [1902–06] 1967, Tārīḫ al-tamaddun al-Islāmī (Beirut), 2 vols.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY: SYMBOLISM AND FUNCTION ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNIVERSITY This article explores symbolism in Nabataean culture and its probable meanings and functions, with particular attention to

living beings in Nabataean iconography, using analysis and interpretation of symbolic material culture from archaeological

fieldwork conducted in Nabataea, as well as Graeco-Roman, Arabic and Islamic historical sources. The article is presented in three sections: the first discusses the symbolism of trees and plants in Nabataea; the second section discusses the symbolism

of birds and animals in Nabataean iconography; and the final

section discusses human representation (particularly that of the female form) in Nabataean art and iconography.

INTRODUCTION Symbolic behavior is a uniquely human behavior. Anything can assume symbolic significance, including both natural (i.e. plants and animals) and manmade objects. Ancient humans transformed objects and forms into symbols and expressed them in both religion and art.1 Symbolism played an integral role in expressing the beliefs of ancient societies and was frequently linked with religion as well as social behavior. I wish to express my gratitude to Robert Wenning, Erin Addison and Tali Er-

ickson-Gini for reading this article and for their valuable comments and suggestions. Any errors are mine alone. 1

Jaffe 1964: 230–272.

15

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

16

Before proceeding further we should define the term ‘symbol’. A symbol is anything which can stand for something beyond itself, without limit to how the thing is represented.2 It can also be defined as any physical, social or cultural act or object that serves as a vehicle for conception.3 In his attempt to identify cult objects and symbols Selz states ‘images and objects alike could be understood as representations of divine power and therefore could be treated as independent entities. Each of these entities fulfilled its own special function and as such was part of the concept of the divine. These functions stand for specific religious ideas and these entities could be objects of independent cult’.4 The meanings of material symbols can be interpreted in different ways. Hodder classified material cultural meanings into major categories: three simple forms (indices, signals and icons), and two complex forms (symbol and metaphor).5 As artifacts are silent when they are viewed out of their contexts, contextualization is of great importance in the study of material culture.6 As Hodder notes, the main task of archaeological interpretation ‘is the recovery of buried and lost meanings and this stems from the context in which the symbol originated’.7 Material symbols can be better understood, therefore, when they are encountered in their particular physical settings.8 Analysis of context may inform us as to how material symbols were used in ideology and power relationships.9 It should be noted that not every use of a symbol carries a symbolic message, and may be just an instance of decoration which has become universally applicable by tradition and distribution. Nabataean symbolic language emphasized religion, and therefore one must place the functions of these symbols within the religious and social contexts of Arabia in particular, and the ancient Orient in general. A considerable number of symbols are associated with burials and

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Neusner 1991: 2.

Geertz 1973: 208. Selz 1997: 167.

Hodder 1987: 23.

Hodder 1986: 122.

Hodder 1986: 51, 141.

Thomas 2000: 9.

Braithwaite 1982: 81.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

17

death. As Hodder notes, burial patterns are ‘structured through symbolically meaningful codes which can be manipulated in social strategies’.10 Although sources discussing this are limited, religion appears to have played an important role in Nabataean life. Strabo mentions in his Geography that the Nabataeans worshiped the sun, building an altar on top of the house and pouring libations on it daily and burning frankincense.11 The Byzantine Souda Lexicon, compiled around the 10th century CE and based on earlier sources, describes Dushara the chief Nabataean god as ‘Theusares - that is, the god Ares at Petra in Arabia. The god Ares is worshipped by them, for him they honor above all others. The image is a black stone12, square13 and unshapen, four feet high by two feet broad. It is set on a base of wrought gold. To this they offer sacrifice and for it they pour forth the victims’ blood, that being their form of libation. The whole building abounds in gold and there are dedications galore’.14 Although we know little of their actual religious practices, it seems that their cults were mostly associated with the cults of the pre-Islamic Arabs. They worshiped various indigenous and exogenous deities that were also worshiped in other parts of the ancient Orient, and most of the deities venerated were common in pre-Islamic Arabia. Some gods were imported by the Nabataeans, such as the Egyptian Isis, as well as Zeus and Dionysus.15 It is evident that some of the symbols used by the Nabataeans are to be linked with solar and lunar deities. The depiction of these sym10 11 12

Hodder 2000: 48.

Strabo, Geography 16.4.26.

The stones were taken as symbols of the divine in ancient Arabia and

Nabataea because of their strength, hardness and solidity. The worshiping of stones

was common in pre-Islamic Arabia and in other parts of the ancient Near East, and stones were regarded as the ‘container’ of the god. 13

The cubic form had cultic significance for Arabs. Banī al- arith bin Kaʿb of

Najrān had a house, which was venerated and called Kaʿbah, that is mentioned by

the Pre-Islamic poet al-Aʿshā (Ibn Durayd 1958: 155). Dhu al- Kaʿbah was another Kaʿbah that belonged to Baker and Taghlib north of Najrān (Ibn Durayd 1958:

285). There are also some sources from the 2nd and 4th centuries which record that the Arabians worshipped a god represented as a slab of stone (Healey 2001). 14 15

Patrich 1990: 51.

For more details, see Healey 2001.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

18

bols was not a Nabataean innovation, as the some of the sculptured artifacts and decorated items bearing crescent moons and stars originate from elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Astral and solar symbols were very widespread. The sun, for example, was represented in various ancient Near Eastern civilizations and represented the active power of nature. It was regarded as a supreme god by Strabo.16 Most of the symbols depicted in ancient Near Eastern art associated with solar and lunar deities were also particularly prominent among pre-Islamic Arabians. Although numerous studies have discussed Nabataean art and architecture, symbolism has not been discussed as a separate subject. It is of particular significance for the interpretation of Nabataean art because it presents symbolic indications and artistic values that in turn encode philosophical thoughts. Joseph Patrich, in his important contribution to the study of Nabataean iconography, divided the figurative representations in Nabataean art according to their styles into two major categories: Hellenistic-Roman, to which he attributed most of the figurative reliefs in Petra; and Greek-Oriental, to which the Kh. EtTannur group belongs. Non-figurative art forms another category. According to Patrich the non-figurative art ‘reflects the spirit of the Nabataean desert origins and should be considered the most original expression of Nabataean creativity’.17 Al-Rawabdeh has studied the political, religious and artistic cultural elements appearing on Nabataean coins throughout Nabataean history from the 1st century BCE until 106 CE.18 This study covers the development of the Nabataean monetary system and the political history of the Nabataeans, in addition to general comparison between the symbols depicted on these coins and other similar symbols appearing on Greek and Roman issues. Tuttle has made important contributions to the study of Nabataean symbolic materials in his work focusing primarily on terracotta figurines, presenting a model for the function of Nabataean terracotta figurines defining the primary categories of function and meaning: cultic, magic, didactic, toys, decorations, mementos, practical and representa16 17 18

Strabo Geography 16.4.26. Patrich 1990: 48–49.

Al-Rawabdeh 2000.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

19

tion of deities, personage as well as environmental representations.19 Various opinions have been offered regarding the function of these figurines in Nabataea. El-Khouri has suggested that they were votive offerings and used in religious ceremonies,20 and that sacred animals were probably symbols of gods or their manifestation.21 As a study on the symbolism in Nabataean art in general is lacking, the present paper provides a discussion of the preliminary indications and interpretations of the symbols used, exploring symbolism in Nabataean culture and its probable meanings and functions, with particular attention to living beings in Nabataean iconography.

PART ONE: PLANTS Most of the symbols used by the Nabataeans were also used by other cultures in the ancient Near East, including that of Arabia. The symbols used suggest Nabataean relations with Arabia, Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Graeco-Roman world and their wide sphere of contact are strongly reflected in the cultural achievements of the Nabataeans. It seems that relations with the Graeco-Roman world became stronger during the 1st century BCE, when their influence was to be found all over the ancient Orient. Tree and plant motifs are very popular in ancient art. Trees were linked in different cultures with creation myths and were considered as having divine powers and spirits.22 Some deities in the ancient world were actually symbolized by trees.23 Palm trees, pomegranate, pines and rosettes are the vegetation portrayed most often in ancient art. Large trees attracted attention from the earliest times, and were believed to have supernatural powers. Customs such as punishment for tree violators, and arboreal associations with granting of divine blessings, punishing of false oaths, protection of properties deposited underneath and cure of illness24 are known throughout the Hellenistic world.

19 20 21 22 23 24

Tuttle 2009.

El-Khouri 2002: 106ff. El-Khouri 2002: 106.

Moyra 1993; Frese and Gray 2007. Moyra 1993.

Dafni 2007: 3.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

20

Tree representations have a long history in the iconography of the ancient Near East from the Bronze Age through to the Hellenistic period. Common in the ancient Near East, tree representations were often used to symbolize a deity or other sacred creature, or a sacred place.25 Metaphysical elements universally associated with the palm and its variations are concepts of birth, life, nature and the cosmic right order.26 In the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar dreamt of a great tree, and in Daniel’s interpretation of the dream an angel descends from heaven to pronounce judgment on the tree.27 In Egyptian mythology, the ished tree was a sacred tree growing in Heliopolis, linked to the destiny of all beings.28 Trees are not only sacred in the major religions of the East and West, but also in other traditions all over the world.29 Veneration of trees was common in the Levant and Arabia, and their status is attributed to ancient and deep-rooted pagan traditions which venerated the divine power of trees.30 Philo Byblius (64–141 CE) alludes to an ancient belief that plants of the earth were esteemed as gods and honored with libations and sacrifices.31 In Canaan the cedar was sacred to El, the supreme deity of the Canaanites and Phoenicians,32 and the biblical Deborah sat waiting for litigants under the trunk of a palm tree.33 Pre-Islamic Arabians also venerated trees. The inhabitants of Najrān in south western Arabia worshipped the tall palm tree prior to the rise of Christianity, and had an annual festival during which they hung upon it their best garments.34 The Quraīsh tribe, as well as other pre-Islamic tribes, venerated a great green tree known as Dhdtu Anwāṯ, under which they stayed for a day suspending their weapons from its

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Frese and Gray 2007. Kantzios 1999: 436. Daniel 4: 10–13.

Pinch 2002: 112.

Frese and Gray 2007; Keel 1998. Moscati 1973: 66. Wood 1916: 124.

Gaster 1938: 342. Judges 4:5.

Ibn Hishām 1975: 33.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

21

branches and offering sacrifices beneath it.35 Al-ʿUzzā36, the major goddess of Quraīsh and Banī Kinānah, was believed to have been incarnated in a cluster of three acacia trees in one of the valleys on the road from Mecca to Medina, most likely to be venerated by passers-by.37 Another example from pre-Islamic Arabia is that of the so-called alUdaīybīah tree, which was visited and venerated, but ordered to be uprooted by ʿOmar Bin al-Khatāb, who was afraid it might later be worshipped.38 Al-Azruqī records the existence of pictures of trees inside the Kaʿbah during the pre-Islamic period in addition to statues and a picture of Jesus and Mary at the advent of Islam.39 The trees and floral motifs most often appearing in Nabataean art are the palm, grapevines, pine cones, ears of wheat, rosettes and pomegranate, and these are now discussed below. The Palm Tree The most commonly depicted tree in ancient Nabataean art is the palm tree. The date palm and the palm column were common motifs in Egyptian art. In ancient Egypt it signified life; for the Chaldeans, food for the soul and the residence of Ishtar, the divine mother of the Babylonians. It also had an important role in Mesopotamia. The stylized palm tree is the main decorative motif in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace.40 One of the most common symbols in Assyrian art is the so-called ‘sacred tree’ for which scholars have suggested three principle interpretations: the first interpretation associates it with the tree of life mentioned in Genesis; the second and most popular interpretation maintains that it is a stylized depiction of the date palm; the third interpretation suggests that it is not actually a tree.41 In addition to the date palm’s protective value it is closely associated with the goddess Ishtar in the Levant and Mesopotamia, the goddess addressed in Assyrian prayers as ‘palm tree, the 35 36

Al-Azruqī 2000: 130.

Ibn al-Kalbī states that al-ʿUzzā was a great idol among Quraīsh to which

they offered gifts and sacrifices (1995: 12). 37 38 39 40 41

Al-Azruqī 2000: 79–84.

Yāqūt al- amawī 1955: volume 2, 229. Al-Azruqī 2000:1:11. Beaulin 2005: 56. Giovino 2004.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

22

daughter of Nineveh’.42 In Canaan the palm was a symbol of the phoenix, a legendary bird that signified resurrection.43 It was also one of the symbols of the well-known goddess Ishtar in the Aramaic world.44 The palm tree appears frequently in classical art. Palm tree motifs were used in the Mycenaean world as a sacred symbol.45 The palm tree is repeatedly found in Biblical literature: the Psalmist says ‘the righteous shall flourish like the palm tree’.46 In the New Testament, when Jesus came to attend the feast in Jerusalem, the Jews took palm tree branches and went before him,47 and in the book of Revelation the righteous carry palms in their hands.48 There is abundant evidence for the veneration of palm trees by pre-Islamic Arabians. The palm tree appears frequently in pre-Islamic poetry, and is described as a female.49 The images of the she-camel and the palm tree were apparently associated in the minds of pre-Islamic Arabian poets, and ‘camels’ are called ‘palm trees’, and vice versa.50 The image of the palm tree is depicted as a fruit tree on coins issued in southeast Arabia, and a symbol of life and vegetation in general.51 Arabs believed that the spirit of the goddess al-ʿUzzā had settled inside a palm tree and they therefore presented it with sacrifices and offerings before the Prophet sent Khalid Bin Al-Waleed to uproot it.52 In extremely rare cases the palm tree appears in the rock art of central Arabia, some of which is related to the many ancient Arabian inscriptions found on the same rock.53 These are mostly dated to 1000–500 BCE. Islamic sources allude to the significant role of palm trees. The tree was linked with the birth of some prophets, such as Jesus (ʿIssā), as 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Kantzios 1999: 342. Al-Majidi 2001: 75.

al-Majidi 2000: 128–129. Kantzios 1999: 290. Psalms 92:12. John 12:13.

Revelation 7:9.

ʿAbd Ar-Ra mān 1980: 255. Abū Swelem 1991: 115. Bin Seray 2005: 114.

Ibn al-Kalbī 1995: 25–26. Khan 2007: 286.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

23

mentioned in the Holy Qurʿan. The Qurʿan states that Mary was driven to a trunk of a date-palm and heard a voice from beneath her saying that Allah had provided a small brook to drink and ripe dates from the tree to eat, but she must refrain from talking to any person: ‘shake the trunk of the palm-tree toward thee, thou wilt cause ripe dates to fall upon thee’.54 Nabataean art and sculpture abound with images of plants and trees, particularly the palm, indicating that the palm tree held a significant position in Nabataean society (see Al-Salameen Plate 1). The Nabataean papyri uncovered in Wādī abra indicate that palm trees were the most common trees cultivated south of the Dead Sea during the Nabataean and post-Nabataean periods.55 They were also cultivated north of Qumran.56 Palm trees were apparently cultivated in only three strategic areas in Nabataea as the remainder of the kingdom did not provide conditions suitable for its transplantation. Various motifs associated with the palm tree were depicted by the Nabataeans. These include the image of the full tree as well as palmate branches, which constitute one of the main floral motifs and are among the decorations most utilized by potters. The prevalent decorative element is the palmate branch design, which is represented in Nabataean terracotta figurines57 and is also attested on coins issued by Aretas IV (9 BCE–40 CE) to commemorate important events such as the birth of his son and his second marriage.58 In Petra, there are depicted betyls framed by palms59 which may represent a kind of sanctuary (see Al-Salameen Plate 1: B).60 Palms are 54 55 56 57 58 59

Qurʿan 19:25.

Yadin et al 2002.

Zangenberg 2000: 138–142. Tuttle 2009: 414.

Meshorer 1975: 58ff.

The cult of betyls was the most important religious feature of pre-Islamic

Arabia. The betyl as a symbol signified the appearance of the god in front of the

worshipper. Nabataean betyls were furnished with raised bases called mwtb’. Eyeidols (stelae with ‘two square frames either incised, recessed, or protruding from

the upper part of the surface, that are separated by an elaborated rectangle’ Patrich 1990:82) were common in Nabataea and suggest symbolic meaning, as the

artist focus on the eye, nose and sometimes the mouth. The eye is one of the most widespread symbols in all religious representation (Meslin 2005) and it may reflect

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

24

also represented in Petra on a horned altar portrayed on a podium and flanked by two palm trees (see Al-Salameen Plate 1: C).61 The palm branch appears on coins issued by Aretas IV, and Meshorer suggests that these coins are connected ‘with notable personal events in the life of the king and of the royal family, the symbolic significance of the palm-branch being the reason for its use on these particular coins’.62 Interestingly, a palm branch also decorates some of the Nabataean engraved columns that embellish the rock-cut tombs in egra (see AlSalameen Plate 1: D). From these two depictions of the palm tree within cultic contexts, it seems that this tree signifies a god or goddess, probably al-ʿUzzā, which lives, according to the Arabian belief, in the palm tree. It has a cultic nature as well as decorative functions. Grapevines The grapevine is the second kind of vegetation widely portrayed in Nabataean iconography, and representations consist of grape leaves alternating with clusters, a depiction common in Assyria from the 7th century BCE.63 It was also a common motif in the Graeco-Roman world, Palmyra and southern Arabia. The grape was the emblem of the Greek god of wine, Dionysus, and the Roman god Bacchus, and an emblem of intoxication as well as fertility of the land.64 Vine motifs appear frequently in Levantine art. Flood states, ‘The ubiquity of vine ornament in the arts of pre-Islamic Syria is hardly surprising in a region which owed so much of its economic prosperity to viticulture. Just as the vine, a prolific natural creeper, leant itself to covering vertical architectural

divine all-seeing vision (note the nose is for smelling, as the gods liked the smell of

incense). Pliny the Elder explained that the small image inscribed in the pupil was

a sort of miniature soul (Natural History 21.12.51). Currently 27 Nabataean eyebetyls are known, but hundreds of plain betyls (Wenning 2001: 83–84). There is

only one example with a mouth under south-Arabian influence; the second ‘Nabataean’ piece at the Irbid Museum is from South Arabia. 60 61 62 63 64

Dalman 1908: 177; Wenning 2001: 88. Dalman 1908: 245.

Meshorer 1975: 49.

Al-Shawi 1986: 136. Hall 1912: 75.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

25

members, representations of it in architectural contexts were often used to define, emphasize, or frame architectonic elements’.65 Grape motifs appear on Nabataean pottery, sculpture and in the mural painting of the so-called painted house in Bayḍa where vines represent the main decorative element of the painting (see Al-Salameen Plate 2: A).66 It is also represented in the Nabataean fresco uncovered in the Nabataean villa of Wādī Mūsā.67 These examples indicate the importance of this plant in Nabataea, and at this site in particular a considerable number of winepresses have been recorded.68 Viniculture flourished in Nabataea. Evidence for this has been found in excavations and surveys conducted at locations including Kh. edh-Dhari and Bayḍa69. Wine formed an integral feature of the Marzeaḥ70 association and was one of the major beverages consumed. Dozens of Nabataean rock-cut wine presses have been found in Bayḍa north of Petra, constructed within agricultural fields. Religious Nabataean features, as well as inscriptions, have been found near some of the presses, suggesting a close relationship between wine production and cultic activity in Nabataea. It is clear that grapevines indicate cultic nature, fertility, life and vegetation as well as their other solely decorative functions. Pine cones Pine cones appear in Nabataean iconography and may be traced back to Pharaonic Egypt, where they signified completeness and were a

65 66 67 68 69

Flood 2001: 68.

Twaissi et al 2010. Twaissi 2001: 37.

al-Salameen 2004.

The name of this site itself might be connected with the cultivation of

grapes. One of the meanings of the word bayḍa in Arabic refers to a famous type of

grape which normally comes from Ṯāʾif in Arabia (Ibn Man oūr, bayḍa) and the

site might have been named after the introduction of this kind of grape 69 which is probably the same type that is still cultivated in the area today. 70

The Marzeaḥ associations were very common in the ancient Levant, and

feasting and drinking were essential elements of these festivals. The rites and rituals practised in these Marzeaḥs were either funerary rites which aimed to commemorate the dead or rituals associated with living persons (Schmidt 1996: 4 ff.).

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

26

symbolic tree for the gods.71 They also appear frequently on Seleucid and Maccabean coins.72 Pine cones are found decorating Nabataean capitals and some sculptured motifs uncovered in Kh. Et-Tannur.73 They are also attested on Nabataean pottery74 and seem to signify fertility and abundance. The rosette The rosette was widespread in the art of the ancient Near East and was one of its most common artistic decorations. Rosette decorations are present in Mesopotamian art and appear on their seals, for example, as a circular arrangement of dots or ovals, which may take on a floral appearance.75 The rosette appears in Nabataean iconography in rock-cut facades, on lamps and in sculpture (see Al-Salameen Plate 2: B, C, D). It appears frequently on stones uncovered in the Kh. Et-Tannur temple and in Petra and is sometimes separated by a type of tryglyph, reflecting Hellenistic influence.76 The Doric frieze consists alternately of tryglyphs and metopes, and this was the common order of the Late Hellenistic period in the East. Rosettes also appear on the Atargatis statue discovered in Kh. Et-Tannur, which is currently displayed in the Amman Museum. Rosettes are one of the most common floral motifs embellishing the Nabataean rock-cut tombs and may signify funerary function. They appear over the doorways of the facades of egra in particular, sometimes inside the pediment or over an arch surmounting the entrance77 and between two lions immediately over the doorway.78 They can appear independently or in designs comprising two or three rosettes.79

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Hall 1912: 1–2.

Sear 1979.

Glueck 1966.

Twaissi 2001:73. Smith 2007: 43.

Glueck 1937: 10; Gärtner: 2003. McKenzie 1990: Pl. 2, 8b, 9d.

McKenzie 1990: Pl. 10:2.

McKenzie 1990: 12:b, d; 13:c; 14:9.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

27

Some Nabataean lamps are decorated on their upper surface with radials surmounted by rosettes with four to seven petals.80 On a nozzle of a lamp from Petra there is a symbol which may represent a chalice, torch or candlestick consisting of a hemispherical body and a trumpet base.81 Two rosettes appear on the Nabataean Volute Type B lamp. Each consists of four circles and Negev suggests that the dots may have had a religious significance.82 They may also have had funerary functions, particularly when depicted on rock-cut facades. Ears of wheat Ears of wheat appear in the iconography of the ancient Near East and Mesopotamia as early as the Sumerian period, symbolizing the goddess Ishtar and signifying giving and abundance.83 They were also common in Graeco-Roman art as the emblem of Demeter, goddess of agriculture and farming, and the Roman god Ceres, god of the harvest.84 Botanical analysis of carbonized remains from Nabataean Aqaba reveals that most dietary plants were grain, predominantly wheat, including chaff and lentils.85 Ears of wheat are attested in Nabataean iconography, and appear decorating Nabataean frescos such as the panel uncovered within the Nabataean villa of Wādī Mūsā in 1996.86 They also appear on the Nabataean zodiac.87 The acroterion at the apex of the Treasury is decorated with the horns of Isis, with an ear of wheat on either side,88 as well as in other sculptured figurines.89 Wheat ears may signify renewal, birth, fertility, abundance and agriculture.

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Khairy 1990: 10. Khairy 1990: 11.

Negev 1974: 78.

al-Majidi 1998: 100; 2001: 87. Sacks and Brody 2005: 107. Retzleff 2003: 55. Twaissi 2001: 38.

McKenzie 2003: fig. 191.

McKenzie 1990: 141. Glueck 1966.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

28 Pomegranate

The pomegranate assumed early on associations with blessing and fertility. It also connoted piety, good deeds, and knowledge.90 The pomegranate was an emblem of rebirth and reproduction in the Roman world, signifying fertility and abundance. According to the Greeks, pomegranate was the food of the dead, and it was said that Core’s obligation to spend part of her time in the underworld was due to her having eaten the seeds of the pomegranate.91 The attributes of the Greek goddess Persephone include torches, a cornucopia, ears of corn and pomegranate.92 In Nabataean iconography, the pomegranate appears mainly in sculpture, in both pottery and in the floral capitals (see AlSalameen Plate 1: E),93 indicating that pomegranate also symbolized abundance in Nabataean society. The wreath The wreath is another floral motif that appears frequently in GraecoRoman art. It was the symbol of Pluto, Zeus, Pen, Apollo and Hera.94 The god Dionysus is generally represented wearing a wreath of grape leaves95 and the god Zeus is represented with a wreath of olive.96 The wreath appears on some Nabataean coins, especially those issued by Aretas IV, Malichus II and Rabel II.97 The laurel wreath appears on Nabataean coins over the heads of kings, particularly those dated to the reign of Aretas IV, in imitation of the Roman emperors.98 An altar was found in Kh. Et-Tannur depicting winged Tyche holding a palm branch in her left hand and a wreath in her right hand.99 In a stele from the Winged Lions Temple a goddess is depicted with large oval eyes with a long stylized nose between them, and a wreath crown90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Romanoff 1944: 308–309. Coleman 2007: 838.

Sacks and Brody 2005:255.

Glueck 1937:9–10; Hammond 1977; Twaissi 2001: 73, 185. Hall 1912:44.

Sacks and Brody 2005:115.

Sacks and Brody 2005: 230.

Meshorer 1975; Schmitt-Korte and Price 1994: 84.

Schmitt-Korte and Price 1994:105. Glueck 1937:15.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

29

ing the stele.100 Some Nabataean fine ware pottery is painted with a wreath design, in either the center or restricted to the rim area.101 Headbands made of floral motifs were common in the ancient Near East and they appear, for example, on the heads of goddesses such as ʿAnāt, the fertility deity in Canaan.102 These headbands are also attested in Nabataean art (see Al-Salameen Plate 3: F) especially in aniconic representations of some of the deities represented, such as the idol of the god Hayyan uncovered in the Winged Lions Temple at Petra.103 It also appears in the Nabataean medallion-betyl relief near the stairs to the High Place of Sacrifice in Petra.104

PART TWO: ANIMALS Cultures around the world have acknowledged and maintained a sacred connection between the animal world and humankind, and ancient myths illuminate the important role of animals and nature in daily life.105 Animals were associated with certain gods and goddesses who provided humans with guidance and assistance. Depictions of birds are found in the art of most ancient Near Eastern civilizations on pottery, coins, paintings and sculpture. Birds had several meanings in ancient cultures, symbolizing ‘man’s soul or spirit as it is released from the body in ecstasy or in death; the bird is a symbol of absolute freedom and transcendence of the soul from the body, of the spiritual from the earthly’.106 Pliny mentions the eagle-owl to be a funeral bird, and it was regarded as an extremely bad omen, especially at public auspices.107 The bird had different interpretations in pre-Islamic Arabian beliefs. According to the Arabs, the bird is associated with luck (either good or bad).108 An-Nwaīrī mentions the Arab belief that once a man 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Patrich 1990:85. Schmid 1996.

al-Majidi 2001: 79. Patrich 1990: 85. Hammond 1968. Kumelos 2005. Waida 2007.

Pliny Natural History 3:315–317.

Ad-Dumaīrī 1965: 162.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

30

died or was killed his soul (‘naphs’) would take the form of a bird called al-Hām, which cries for the dead.109 The Hām informs the relatives of the dead about the departed individual, as mentioned in the poems of Umayah Bin Aṣ-Ṣalt, who writes:110 ‘My Hām informs me of what you feel, so may you avoid disgraceful and disgusting [behavior]’.111 After the advent of Islam this tradition was condemned and the prophet stated ‘no Hām, no Hām’.112 l-Taṭaīyor (‘pessimism’) originates from the word ṭaīyr (‘bird’). Pre-Islamic Arabs adopted the concept of the bird as an omen-giver, and if a man wished to travel from his home he would pass by a bird and cause it to fly. If the bird flew to the right the man could continue his travel, but if the bird flew to the left it was a sign that he should cancel his trip.113 As we shall discuss below, birds are abundant in preIslamic Arabian iconography despite their extreme rarity in Arabian rock-art, with the exception of petroglyphs of ostriches and a few falcon and eagle features whose date is yet unknown.114 Birds depicted include the eagle, which was widespread in Nabataean art, and storks, lapwings (or ‘pewits’) and woodcocks, which appear in the so-called ‘Painted House’ in Bayḍa.115 Birds appear in decoration on Nabataean pottery as well as in fragments of mural paintings on panels uncovered inside the Nabataean villa of Wādī Mūsā.116 Our information about livestock in Nabataea is regrettably scarce. Strabo mentions the rearing of sheep, goat, oxen and other animals in Nabataea.117 Published archaeological discoveries from Nabataean sites such as Petra and Sinai have found bones of sheep and goats, the animals most commonly exploited by Nabataeans for their milk, wool and meat.118 Depictions of these animals and others are common in the rock

109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

An-Nwaīrī 1932: volume 1: 268. al-Fayūmī 1982: 287.

Translation of this poetic verse by Homerin (1985).

Ibn

anbal 1995: volume 2, 421.

Ad-Dumaīrī 1965, volume 2: 172. Khan 2007: 213.

Glueck 1956: 14.

Twaissi 2001: 25, 74. Strabo 16.4.26.

Zeitler 1990: 48; Meshel 2000: 15–16.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

31

drawings at Nabataean sites, but the date of these drawings, based mainly on their specific style, is uncertain. 119 Other animal representations in Nabataean art include eagles, camels, horses, bulls, bull horns, ibex/gazelle, winged figures, serpents, fish and panthers, and these are discussed below. The eagle The eagle is one of the most important birds to appear in ancient iconography. It was a manifestation of the solar deity in Mesopotamia and Persia, as is clearly illustrated by the famous winged sun disks.120 Eagle motifs are common in Near Eastern art in general and Assyrian funerary art; even making its way into Parthian art as displayed on coins.121 The eagle was the solar symbol for Egyptians, the emblem of Nisroch for the Assyrians and the emblem of Greek Zeus and Roman Jupiter.122 Eagles derived their symbolic value from their swiftness, fierceness, and ability to soar; and are equated through these qualities with various deities.123 Ptolemaic coins often feature eagles on their reverse. The eagle was linked in the ancient world with human strength and was adopted as a symbol of leaders, as in Hatra, where it was accorded special respect and regarded as the symbol of the god Maran-Shamash.124 In Palmyra the god Baʿl Shamīn is depicted in the form of an eagle.125 The eagle was worshipped in imyar in southern Arabia, where it was depicted open-winged with its head to the right and two snakes encircling it.126 It was the emblem of the moon god in adramawt in southern Arabia and was depicted on some of the monetary issues dated to the 3rd century CE.127

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

Parr 1959: 106–08.

Waida 2007.

Werlin 2006: 88.

Hall 28.

Gray 2005.

Al-Shawi 1986: 16. Drijvers 1976: 28.

Bossert 1951: 99 fig. 1290. Sedov 1992a: 124.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

32

Islamic sources confirm the significant role of the bird in Arabian thought. Al-Qalqashandī mentions that when Arab kings walked with their prestigious escorts they flew eagles called shawāhīyn over their heads and that this was an indication of great rank.128 Islamic sources which discuss the affairs of pre-Islamic Arabs refer to connections between the eagle and the ‘eternality request’ in that period. This tradition, according to the sources, goes back to the time of Luqmān son of ʿĀd. It is mentioned in the writings ‘akhbār’ that Luqmān (and after the utter destruction of his people, ʿĀd) was given the option to live the lifetime of seven eagles. He caught young eagles and brought them up, with each living eighty years. The seventh and last eagle was called Labad. One day this eagle flew away and never returned. It had died, and Luqmān subsequently also passed away, with the eagle Labad becoming a symbol of survival.129 The deity Nasra, whose name means ‘eagle’, is mentioned in the Holy Qurʿan as one of the deities worshipped by the people of Noah beside other deities before the deluge: ‘They said, ‘Do not abandon your gods. Do not abandon Wadd, Suwāʿ, Yaghoūth, Yaʿoūq, and Nasra’.130 Some Nabataean rock-cut facades were originally carved with images of animals and birds (see Al-Salameen Plate 3: A, B, C), but when animals are depicted they are often so badly eroded that they are difficult to determine. The most-portrayed bird in Nabataean iconography is the eagle. The eagle clearly held great symbolic power for Nabataeans and often appears associated with funerary complexes. It appears in Nabataean art in a variety of representations, mostly in a single form decorating the rock-cut facades over the pediment of the doorway or under its arch.131 It appears on religious features at egra (Madāʾn

128 129 130

al-Qalqashandī 1913, volume 2: 59. Ad-Dumaīrī 1965: volume 2: 617.

Noah 71: 23. These deities were worshipped later in Arabia and Ibn al-

Kalbī mentions that Nasra was worshipped by Dhu al-Khalāʿ near Balkha. The other deities Noah’s people worshipped in Arabia were Suwāʿ which was adopted by

Hydhayl bin Mudrika near Madina, Wadd which was worshipped in Dawmat alJandal, Yaghoūth which was worshipped by Muš ij and the people of Jurash, and

Yaʿoūq which was a god of Khaywān and Hamdān near Mecca (Ibn al-Kalbī 1995: 10).

131

McKenzie 1990: Pls. 2; 3; 63:d.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

33

Ṣāle ) and funerary facades, as well as on cultic installations in Petra. Eagles typically appear in frontal position but sometimes face left or right with spread wings. Examples of the eagles depicted include the so-called ‘eagle-gully’ in Wādī Defleh at Petra which represents an eagle above a stele or cult niche (see Al-Salameen Plate 3: B).132 Most Nabataean kings minted issues bearing Hellenistic-style eagles on the reverse and Meshorer has argued that the eagle depicted on the coins may be regarded as having a specific religious significance (see Al-Salameen Plate 4: A).133 These include coins issued by Malichus I, Obodas III and Aretas IV.134 There is a Nabataean capital with an eagle in the Obodas (Western) Temple in Oboda.135 The eagle is portrayed standing on a thunderbolt136 in a sculpture from Kh. Et-Tannur looking to his left with his wings wide open. There is also a Nabataean inscription alluding to an eagle votive dedicated to the god Qos.137 Eagles and snakes sometimes appear together. From Kh. Et-Tannur there is an example depicting an eagle with a snake entwined around its body, the heads of the two meeting confrontationally (see AlSalameen Plate 3: D).138 A similar representation from ancient Near Eastern art is found on a lintel from northern Golan, in which two eagles are biting snakes.139 A low-relief panel from Aden in southern Arabia parallels the Nabataean version: the eagle’s wings are in open-

132 133 134 135 136

Patrich 1990: 108.

Meshorer 1975: 25–25.

Schmitt-Korte and Price 1994: 84. Negev 1997: 22.

The thunderbolt was one of Zeus’ and Jupiter’s chief symbols (Berens

2003: 101–102). There are various representations of the fulmen/thunderbolt

among the art of Kh. at-Tannur and Kh. adh-Dharih, as well from Ain Braq and on a relief from Petra and in the painting of the temple at Wadi Ramm. In Kh. Tannur

temple is a statue identified for Qos-Zeus – Hadad who is represented seated on a throne, flanked by bulls and holding a thunderbolt in his left hand, meanwhile his

consort is seated on a throne flanked by lions (Patrich 1990: 109). The eagle is

portrayed standing on a thunderbolt in a sculpture form Kh. Tannur looking to his left and his wings are wide open (see Al-Salameen Plate 3: D). 137 138 139

Milik 1958: 236.

Glueck 1966: 465. Maʾoz 1995: 168.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

34

pointed style, its head faces right and two snakes encircle it, their heads meeting on either side of the eagle.140 Eagles are almost always depicted in Nabataean iconography in a distinctive way, facing frontward with wings spread open. The head is sometimes posed to the right with round eyes, with the relatively thick legs spread apart. The placement of eagles almost always involves funerary contexts, appearing, for example, on Nabataean tombs. They are also well-attested in funerary contexts throughout the Roman world,141 and in the Levant.142 The eagle in Nabataea can be interpreted in various ways. When it appears on a funerary façade the eagle is probably a Nabataean depiction of the immortal soul of the dead.143 When it appears on coins it probably symbolizes strength and royalty. Apart from its appearance in funerary contexts, in religious contexts the eagle symbolizes a deity. The dove The dove appears frequently in ancient Near Eastern and GraecoRoman iconography and is linked with the mother goddess.144 It was sacred to the goddess of fertility connected with the cult of Aphrodite145 and was most likely sacred to the Syrian goddess Atargatis, the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar.146 Diodorus Siculus mentions that Semiramis, daughter of the Syrian goddess Derketo (i.e. Atargatis), passed away and ‘turned into a dove,’ and that the Assyrians therefore worship the

140 141 142 143

Bossert 1951: 99, fig 1290. Rahmani 1999: 69.

Naveh 1995: no. 10 and 24.

The famous work written by Farid Uddin Attar of the 12th century CE is

entitled Manṭq al- aīyr (‘Conversation of the Birds’). He uses the imagery of birds

as human souls that journey through seven valleys and, at the end of the road, discover their identity with the Simurgh, the divine bird that ‘has a name but no body,’ a perfectly spiritual being (Wadia 2007). 144 145 146

Hall 1994: 19. Waida 2007.

Khairy 1990: 25.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

35

dove as a goddess,147 as do the inhabitants of Syria, because the name of Semiramis is similar to the word for ‘doves’.148 Dove figurines are rare at Nabataean sites.149 The rearing of pigeons has been connected with funereal and cultic aspects, and a columbarium been found in Petra near Qasr al-Bint which is likely to be the temple of Aphrodite mentioned in the Babatha archive.150 Its design is similar to that discovered at Masada especially in view of the size of the niches (25 x 25 x 19 cm), which are suitable for dovecotes.151 Such rock-cut features are found at other locations in the southern Levant152 and in Egypt where they were used primarily to raise pigeons.153 As far as the function of these installations is concerned, several theories have been suggested. Some scholars have associated them with the cremation of the dead,154 but we doubt this was the use of Petra’s columbarium, since no remains of cremation have been uncovered there. The most probable suggestion is that they were used to rear doves for cultic purposes.155 This seems likely, because of the strong relationship in Greek mythology between the dove and Aphrodite. The second piece of supporting evidence is the location of this installation behind the Qasr al-Bint Temple, which is likely to be the temple of Aphrodite mentioned in the Babatha Archive.156 The Camel The camel appears repeatedly in ancient Near Eastern art, and particularly that of Arabia. It is often attested in pre-Islamic poetry and is the most frequently-mentioned animal in these poems.157 The camel played a ritual role in pre-Islamic Arabian beliefs, and the Prophet Mohammad

147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157

Diodorus Siculus The Library of History 2:20:2.

Diodorus Siculus The Library of History 2:4:6. el-Khouri 2002: figures 316, 98. Healey 2001: 42.

Foerster 1995: 219–23.

Zissu and Rakach 1999: 65–73; Dalman 1908: 230. Zissu and Rakach 1999: 72. Safrai 1994: 174.

Dalman 1908: 230; Oren 1968: 57. Healey 2001: 42. Bin Seray 1999.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

36

addressed this by telling a delegation from the Ṭay tribe that he (the Prophet) was better than al-ʿUzzā and the black camel that they worshipped.158 It was a very important animal in Arab culture and traditions, and several accounts mention worshipers giving money or camels to the keeper (sāddin) of the Kaʿbah when consulting Hubal for an oracle.159 Veneration of certain animals in honor of particular idols was a common practice in Arabia before the advent of Islam, and the shecamel was the most venerated of all animals. The sacred nature of different types of she-camels is mentioned in the Holy Qurʿan in the context of their veneration in pre-Islamic Arabia. Allāh says: ‘Allāh has not ordained a baḥīrah or a sāʾbah or a waṣīlah or a ḥamī, but those who disbelieve fabricate a lie against Allāh. And most of them understand not’.160 aḥīrah was a she-camel with a torn or pierced ear: her milk was offered to idols and no one was allowed to drink it. The Sāʾbah is also a she-camel, which was set free from idols and gods and nothing was allowed to be carried on it. The aṣīlah was yet another she-camel, which gave birth to a she-camel in her first and second deliveries and had sacred milk. amī was a male camel used for stud,161 and when these camels died their meat was dedicated to the gods.162 Camel petroglyphs are attested all over the rock-art of Arabia, and the camel is shown both as a domesticated and a wild beast.163 Depictions include both camels and she-camels. Discussing camel iconography in rock-art, Corbett argues that Pre-Islamic poetry is a source of valuable insight into the symbolic potency of the camel and the shecamel for the ancient Arabs.164 He adds that ‘the power of the she-camel to help mediate and socialize an individual’s perception and understanding for the surrounding physical and metaphysical world is evident almost everywhere she-camel imagery occurs, whether poetic,

158 159 160 161 162 163 164

al-Aṣfahānī u.d. volume 16: 47–8. Ibn Hishām 1995. Qurʿan 5:103.

Ṣa ī al-Bukhāri 6: 243.

Ibn

abeeb u.d. 330.

Khan 2007: 131–132. Corbett 2010: 117.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

37

literary, epigraphic or archaeological’.165 Archaeological discoveries support the historical sources confirming the cultic nature of the camel in Arabia, and camel tombs have been unearthed in the Arabian Peninsula.166 The camel appears in Nabataean iconography as one of the most important animals to the Nabataeans for practical as well as for religious and symbolic purposes. The Nabataeans were known throughout the classical period for their involvement in the aromatics trade, and camels were central as a means of transportation. Nabataeans used camels for both war and travel. Depictions from Nabataea include examples of one-humped and two-humped camels,167 and from Petra, there is a depiction of a two-humped camel led by a man probably wearing Parthian clothes: both the type of camel and the garb of the cameleer are foreign to the area.168 Several examples suggest that the camel was venerated in Nabataea. Camels were depicted on the southern wall of the Petra Siq (see Al-Salameen Plate 4: E). Most of this scene is eroded but the wellpreserved part of the depiction is the lower part, showing the legs of the camels and their guide. Behind the relief there is a water channel. The depiction of these camels inside the Siq may suggest a ‘less functional’ meaning, and may indeed indicate ritual activity. 169 A similar depiction was found in Petra near the Monastery (see Al-Salameen Plate 4: G).170 Epigraphic evidence also supports our understanding of camel iconography. A Nabataean text explicitly mentions the dedication of camels to a god,171 and the word gml ‘camel’ is attested in its plural form in a Nabataean inscription found in Puteoli which dedicates the sacrifice of two camels by Nabataean men to Dushara.172 We do not know, however, whether this dedication was through actual or modeled

165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172

Corbett 2010: 148.

Potts 1990 volume 2: 278–79.

Patrich 1990: 148; Graf 1994: 306.

Patrich 1990: 148. Bedal 2000: 165.

Dalman 1908: 276. CIS II 157.

CIS II 157.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

38

camel figurines.173 In addition, small camel figurines have been found at Nabataean sites (see Al-Salameen Plate 4: C, D).174 The camel was depicted on the coins of Aemilius Scaurus and Trajan, making the camel the symbol for Arabs/Arabia in Roman art.175 The camel in Nabataean iconography is linked with resurrection as well as the immortality of the dead. A Nabataean camel burial inscription was found in the Wādī Rum region, suggesting a similar association with resurrection known from pre-Islamic Arabia.176 A coffin-cloth has been uncovered along with human remains in Kh. edh-Dhari in Jordan bearing a representation of camel(s) (see Al-Salameen Plate 4: B),177 which is additional support for a connection between camel iconography and the concept of resurrection.178 Horses In comparison to other societies such as Indo-European, Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations, the role of the horse in religious life in Arabia and the Levant was relatively insignificant. Cults involving horses, particularly rituals that include the killing of a white stallion, are attested throughout the Indo-European world as well as in ancient Greece. The Greeks sacrificed white horses to Poseidon and the sun.179 Horses appear in Roman art as the emblem of Castor, patron god of horse-men.180 In Arabia, horse representations are abundant and appear in different forms. They are attested in the rock-art of ancient Arabia, and petroglyphs of horses are found in various forms and in different activities such as in fighting and hunting scenes.181 These representations reflect the spirit of the mobile nomadic life.

173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181

Healey 2001: 102.

Negev 1986: fig. 29; Khairy 1990: fig 22; 24. Bowersock 1983: 34. Hayajneh 2006.

Kh. edh-Dhari Exhibition Catalogue 2002: 75.

Bin Seray 1999: 46–71. Doniger 2005.

Hall 1912: 22.

Khan 2007: 165.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

39

A legend found in Arabian sources from the pre-Islamic period speaks of horses created from the wind.182 Other sources relate that horses were created from the water, especially the horses of Suleiman.183 Arabs believe that there is a tree in paradise from the bottom of which will emerge a golden horse, in order to be ridden by dwellers in paradise; these creatures are saddled and bridled with pearls and corundum and not subject to physical processes like urination or defecation.184 Although Strabo’s account states ‘the country produces no horses. Camels offer the services they require instead of horses’,185 there is a great deal of evidence for the use of horses in Nabataea. A horse-rider is depicted in a drawing from Umm al-Biyarah in Petra,186 and terminology associated with riding horses is attested in Nabataean epigraphy derived from the roots prs or sws which both mean ‘horse’.187 Horses are represented in Nabataean terracotta figurines ornamented with a saddle, girth, bridles and other decorations, sometimes appearing with riders.188 Al-Khouri has argued that horses symbolized the solar deity and figurines of horses were also sacrificed to the sun goddess, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.189 Horses appear on Petra’s ‘Treasury’ monument on both sides of the facades facing away from the entrance (see Al-Salameen Plate 8: B)190 and there are two riders on these horses. They are considered by some scholars to be the sons of Zeus, Castor and Pollux, who were guides for the soul in a Greek-Alexandrine tradition.191 It seems that the interpretation of the function of these two creatures should be limited to within the pre-Islamic Arabian context. The horse is mentioned at least 162 times in pre-Islamic elegiac poetry, some of which appears in

182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191

An-Nwaīrī 1932: vol 9, 343–344.

An-Nwaīrī 1932: vol. 14: 105–106. Ad-Dumaīrī 1965: vol.1: 310–312. Strabo 16.4.28.

Morton 1956: 33.

al-Theeb 2000: 210–11, 180.

el-Khouri 2002: 54; Tuttle 2009: 185ff. El-Khouri 2002: 106.

McKenzie 1990: 141. Wright 1973: 83–90.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

40

mythological images and is frequently linked with the period after death.192 The use of horse images in pre-Islamic Arabia seem to range from sacred and funereal to involvement in feats of bravery. A salvage excavation was conducted in 2006 on small cemeteries c. 30 km southeast of the village of al-Hussayniah on the Desert Highway in southern Jordan, and these burials may be dated to the post Nabataean period.193 One of the uncovered burials was that of a man and his horse. The preservation of this animal’s skeleton and skin, although it was untreated, may be related to the presence of preservatives in the soil which helped to maintain its material integrity. Horse remains may be significant in showing some sort of connection with the practices of nomadic pastoralists in the area, who were most likely descendants of the Nabataean Arabs. The Al-Khazna courtyard excavation at Petra has revealed animal bones inside the tombs discovered there and these include bones of slaughtered and burnt rams and camels.194 The custom of burying horses195 is also attested in Arabia, whose inhabitants were particularly fond of horses. A grave containing the skeleton of a horse placed alongside the dead man (presumably his owner) was found at Meleiha in the United Arab Emirates.196 Such prestige burials reflect the high status of this animal in Arabia between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century CE, confirming its significance in religious and mythological spheres.

192

Al-Sirī ī 1998: 162ff.

For details see al-Salameen and Falahat 2009. Scientific analysis conduct-

193

ed by Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts (U.S.A.), provided dates

of 131–259 CE (calibrated) for MD B 1 Burial and 210–384 CE (calibrated) for MD

C 1 Burial and those discovered in Wādī Abu Khasharif are also seemingly dated to the same period, based on similarities between the discovered materials and the burial customs adopted in both cemeteries (Perry et al. 2007: 540–542). 194 195

Farajat and Nawafleh 2005: 392.

Some Islamic resources refer to the custom of worshiping horses in Pre-

Islamic Arabia, especially in Bahrain (for more details see Bin Seray 2005: 110– 112).

196

Bin Seray 2005: 110ff.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

41

Ibex/ Gazelle The ibex/gazelle was widespread in the art of the ancient Near East as early as the 4th millennium BCE, and they were apparently used in sacrifices to the mother goddess. The ibex/gazelle played a prominent role in the beliefs of the southern Arabians and appears frequently in the rock-art of southern Arabia as early as the Chalcolithic period.197 Ritual hunting was a common practice in southern Arabia as early as the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE and was conducted on specified dates and practiced by high ranking members of society. Ibexes were the main target of such hunts.198 Ibex/gazelle representations are also widespread in the rock-art of central and northern Arabia as early as the prehistoric period.199 Khan argues that the gazelles ‘did not have any mythical or totemic importance and were depicted as part of the local fauna and sometimes possibly as symbolic motifs in association with large compositions of animals’.200 An ibex burial was uncovered south west of Saudi Arabia and the bones were found covered with a capstone; a circular structure was created outside, suggesting that this ibex was perhaps treated as a mythical animal for which a special grave was made.201 Other evidence from Arabia supports interpretations of the cultic nature of this animal. There were two idols in the form of gazelles in the Kaʿbah in Mecca. After Khuzāʿah expelled Jarham from Mecca, Alārith al-Jarhamī took the two gazelles made of gold from the Kaʿbah, dug a pit during the night and buried them in the Zamzam region.202 When ‘Abd al-Muṭaleb and his son dug in Zamzam he found two gazelles made of gold and a cache of swords and armor. Ibn Hishām mentions that these two gazelles were the first golden items placed inside the Kaʿbah.203

197 198 199 200

Al-Maʿmarī 2009: 30.

Serjeant 1976.

Khan 2007: 181.

Khan 2007: 181. Caprids are found among the petroglyphs at Petra but

their date cannot be determined. 201 202 203

Khan 2007: 185.

Al-Azruqī 2000: 75.

Ibn Hishām 1975: 1–2: 146.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

42

Ibex/gazelle figurines and vessels are attested in Nabataean terracotta figurines (see Al-Salameen Plate 4: F, H).204 Archaeological excavations conducted at Ez-Zantur in Petra revealed that gazelles were consumed in Petra,205 and bones of Gazalla docras have been found in western Sinai at a Nabataean sanctuary dated to the 2nd century BCE. These finds indicate animal sacrifice or dedications to the deity of the sanctuary.206 The Bull (including horns and crescent) The bull was a very important animal in ancient art, signifying strength, ability and fertility. The bull appears in various forms in Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia.207 It was the emblem of a number of ancient deities, including Egyptian Ptah, the creative power, the Syrian storm god Hadad, Canaanite El, Greek Zeus, the Persian rain god and Roman Neptune. In Syria, the bull is depicted alone or in association with significant figures such as kings, leaders and priests.208 For the Sumerians, the bull was the god of strength, fertility, ferocity and storms and was worshiped and linked to Inleel. Its cult was widespread in the ancient world in general and in Arabia in particular. The bull appears in the rock-art of southern Arabia as early as the Bronze Age209 symbolizing the moon god.210 The bull (and horns) features widely in the decorations of south Arabian sanctuaries and religious features, and its sacrifices were common there as well.211 Artists of the kingdom of aḍramawt depicted bulls in their sculpture and on the kingdom’s bronze coins.212 In southern Arabia the major cult was linked with the sun and moon, and the bull was the symbol of the moon-god Al-Maqah213. In the 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213

Tuttle 2009: 186ff. Studer 2007: 260. Studer 2007: 267.

Zeuner 1963: 236–240; al-Majidi 2000: 124.

al-Majidi 2001: 132.

Al-Maʿmarī 2009: 29. Beeston 1952: 22. Rice 1997: 196.

Jacqueline 1986. Rice 1997.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

43

same region the bull was connected with prayers for rain. When the Arabs prayed for rain they gathered as many bulls as possible, took them to the top of a mountain in order that their prayers might be heard and set the bulls on fire in supplication.214 Pre-Islamic poetry confirms that bull sacrifice was linked with rain.215 Pre-Islamic poets also linked the image of the bull with the worshipped stars.216 Horns were kept in the Kaʿbah during the pre-Islamic period, and it is mentioned that when the Arabs gathered to demolish the Kaʿbah upon the advent of Islam, they removed a pair of horns along with jewelry.217 We have limited evidence for the depictions of bulls in Nabataean iconography, but bull’s horns are frequently depicted. The representation of the bull in connection with Hadad, a young bull shown standing with its forefeet free from the slab, was very common.218 In Kh. EtTannur Zeus-Haddad is flanked by a bull on either side and holds the horns of the bull on his left side (see Al-Salameen Plate 5: A).219 Horns are symbolic objects and were symbols of divinity across the ancient Near East.220 The crescent is identified as an anthropomorphic representation of the sun-god in ancient Mesopotamia.221 The crescent was widespread in the ancient cultures of the Near East including Babylon and Assyria, Phoenicia and Ptolemaic Egypt.222 It occupied a special place in the engravings of pre-Islamic Arabs as it was the emblem of the most widely venerated gods in Arabia. The bull was an animal symbolic of the moon god and forms a frequent motif in old south Arabian iconography.223 Horns appear in a variety of forms in the classical arts: plain single horns, horns with the head of animals and cornucopiae either paralleled or crossed.

214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223

al-Jā i 1969: 4, p. 466.

al-Jā i 1969: 4, p. 466. Abū Swelem 1986: 101. Al-Azruqī 2000: 61.

Glueck 1966: 372.

Freeman 1941: 337–8.

Botero 2001: 65.

Smith 2007: 17ff.

Zahle 1990.

Beeston 1952: 22.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

44

Cornucopiae were common in the Graeco-Roman world and appear in two forms on Nabataean coins adopted from Hellenistic culture.224 Meshorer has suggested that they may have signified Atargatis for the Nabataeans.225 Cornucopiae are identified as horns which are normally full of food and drink, and signify abundance, fertility and harvest.226 In classical literature the horns represent either the horn of the goat Amalthea, who fed the infant Zeus, or the horn broken by Heracles from the head of Achelous, who had taken them from a bull to fight Heracles for the hand of Deianeira.227 The goddess Atargatis is shown bearing cornucopia or stalks of grain to symbolize wealth and well-being. It is worth mentioning that three main forms of horns appear in Nabataean iconography: horned animals, horned altars and cornucopiae. Horned altars with flat bodies are representations of earlier types of altars,228 which are found in Nabataean terracotta figurines229 and are depicted frequently in Nabataean iconography.230 Their shape may be linked with the crescent moon. The horned altars were either made of a single block of stone or engraved on the surfaces of the rocks, and surely indicate symbolic religious meaning. Some Nabataean cultic niches and altars231 were furnished with crescents over their upper surfaces (see Al-Salameen Plate 5: B, C). The horn appears frequently at Nabataean sites including Wādī Rum, Petra, Oboda and

224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231

Meshorer 1975: 25.

Meshorer 1975: 25. Hall 1912: 94.

Coleman 2007: 241.

el-Khouri 2002: 107. Tuttle 2009: 217.

See, for example, Dalman 1908: 198, 205, 212, 301.

Altars were abundant in Nabataean culture. One of the altar’s main func-

tions was for the offering of burnt offerings such as frankincense, and it seems that there were small private altars (that were probably kept in private houses) and

public altars constructed in high places or within sanctuaries. Sometimes altars were depicted symbolically. Strabo indicates that burning incense was a Nabataean

practice, and the discovery of altars and incense burners confirm that incense was

in fact frequently used in Nabataean religious practices (Geography 16.4.26). The

Nabataeans constructed raised altars such as that in front of Qasr al-Bint to perform public sacrifices. Used as a table, it invited the god to partake of the offering; used as a throne it bade the god take his place (Edsman 2005: 278).

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

45

Kh. Et-Tannur in a variety of forms and shapes.232 Roche considers that as evidence for a lunar cult and argues that the moon god was adopted by the Nabataeans under the influence of southern Arabia, although there is no epigraphic evidence or literary reference that illustrates this hypothesis.233 It is reasonable to suggest that horns symbolize the moon god cult, but the matter of its origins is open to debate. Lions Lions appear in two forms (naturalistic and composite) in ancient art. They appear frequently in ancient Egyptian art signifying kingship. Emblems of deities and kings, lions denoted strength and authority. 234 Included in monumental carvings and images, lions appear to have been very important in the ancient Near East. In the Levant the lion was an ancient symbol of female goddesses such as Ishtar and Inana, who were sometimes portrayed riding a lion.235 In Aramaic iconography Ishtar was symbolized by the lion opening her mouth aggressively.236 Lions are depicted in rock-art in Arabia, probably as a symbol of bravery, power and authority.237 The lion is attested in the Li yanite iconography in northern Arabia. Two lions were engraved on the entrance of one of the Li yanite tombs and Caskel assumes that they signify a local god.238 Lion imagery is also attested in north Arabian inscriptions.239 Lion reliefs have been found at Nabataean sites including Dhari , Kh. Et-Tannur and Petra. They are depicted both in their natural forms and as winged creatures decorating the rock-cut facades of egra in northern Arabia (see Al-Salameen Plate 6: A, B). Glueck concludes that the lion basin at Kh. Et-Tannur may have had some connection with

232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239

Patrich 1990: 108; Glueck 1937: 14; Roche 1995; Dalman 1908: 179–80. Roche 1995.

Hall 1912: 20.

al-Majidi 2001: 78.

al-Majidi 2000: 128. Khan 2007: 203.

Caskel 1954: 46. Corbett 2010.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

46

one of the Atargatis figurines there, as the goddess Atargatis is frequently represented in connection with lions.240 Lion spouts were discovered in Wādī Mūsā,241 and the lion also appears on some of the Nabataean capitals uncovered within the Winged Lions Temple in Petra242 as well as on the Treasury. One of the Nabataean rock-cut facades in egra portrays two lions over the entrance facing each other. Unlike the lions decorating a façade on the way to al-Deir in Petra, these lions are not portrayed in frontal position (see Al-Salameen Plate 6: A). Lions are engraved in the Wādī Farasa area and on the way to al-Deir where two lions are engraved on a façade on both sides of the entrance, facing each other (see Al-Salameen Plate 5: E, F). Lions do not seem to have had religious significance in Nabataean culture, but they most likely symbolize strength and power. Elephants Archaeological finds of ivory in the Levant date to prehistoric periods and elephants lived in Syria in the 2nd and 1st millennia BCE.243 The Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III recorded that he hunted 120 elephants during his campaigns in Syria around the 15th century BCE.244 Unfortunately, the exact date of their disappearance from the region is not yet known. Indian elephants were used in Hannibal’s well-known war with the Romans and it is commonly agreed that this animal was introduced to the Roman world around 281 BCE.245 The use of elephants in war was adopted by Alexander the Great from the Indians and their use is subsequently found in the armies of the Ptolemies and Seleucids. Distinguished elephant-headed capitals were discovered in the Petran Great Temple (see Al-Salameen Plate 7: B). The species of elephant (African or Indian) is disputed. Some researchers have proposed that they are Indian elephants and others suggest that they are Afri240 241 242 243 244 245

Glueck 1966: 373.

Twaissi 2001: 185.

Hammond 1996. Barnett 1982.

Dodge 1955: 17–22.

Warmington 1928: 151.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

47

can.246 Lyttleton and Blagg suggest that the capitals decorated with elephant heads may have had associations with the Indian triumph of Dionysus as well as with Hellenistic kingship.247 The connection between Nabataeans and elephants is not yet substantiated and Juvenal is the only source who refers to the importation of elephants via Nabataea. The importation of elephants from Africa to Egypt, probably via Nabataea, increased during the Ptolemaic period. Many ports were established along the Egyptian Red Sea coast to facilitate the acquisition of various items, including elephants from Africa, to counter the Indian elephants of the Seleucids.248 This demand for elephants for military use promoted further importation of elephants and probably greater involvement by Nabataean merchants in this commercial field. Juvenal refers to the importation of elephants from India and North Africa via Nabataea, saying: ‘All of it, out of the tusks exported from Indian jungles, from the Moroccan frontier, or some Nabataean forest, where the monstrous beasts had shed their fabulous weapons.’249 The function and meaning of this symbol in Nabataean culture is not yet clear, but the elephant may have signified power in Hellenistic tradition. Elephants may also have had only decorative functions since they were not common in the ancient heritage of Arabia and did not have any cultic association in pre-Islamic Arabia or the Levant. Winged figures (lion and griffon) Wing iconography was common in the ancient world, and is found in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and Syria.250 Winged creatures appear frequently in the art of the ancient Near East and in different forms.251 They appear as animal-headed creatures with human bodies, birdheaded creatures with animal bodies and human-headed creatures with lion bodies. All these representations have been interpreted as repre-

246 247 248 249 250 251

Blagg 1990: 131–36. Blagg 1990: 274.

Sidebotham 1986: 4.

Humphries 1958: 140.

Ornan 2005: 87; LeMon 2007: 43–44. al-Majidi 2001: 188–194.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

48

senting demons or monsters, or to signify semi-divine or secondary deities.252 The winged animal may represent an angel, signifying ranks of spiritual or heavenly beings which serve as intermediaries between the earthly and divine worlds.253 As far as Nabataean art is concerned, there are some examples of wing representations, especially on friezes.254 Winged Nike appears on some early Nabataean coins which are interpreted as an imitation of Seleucid monetary issues.255 Nike is shown on a Nabataean lamp, holding a palm or olive branch in her left hand and extending the right hand to a round shield, on which is inscribed details of a victory.256 There are also two Nikes on the facade of the Khazneh.257 Winged Nike appears on the coins issued by Aretas III.258 A sculpture from Petra presents winged lions with snakes.259 Winged Tyche from Kh. Et-Tannur holds a palm branch in the right hand and wreath in the left hand.260 Winged lions were engraved on one of the rock-cut facades in egra and these probably represented effective guardians for the dead. The griffon is composed of a lion’s body and a bird’s head and wings (see Al-Salameen Plate 6: D). It was the emblem of Alexander the Great, an emblem of invincibility, and is common in Graeco-Roman iconography.261 It appears in various art forms, such as a relief of a winged anthropomorphic creature holding limp snakes flanked by griffon.262 The exact meaning of winged figures in Nabataean culture is not easily determined. These figures might have had cultic significance, linked with the immortality of the dead, or may have had merely deco252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262

al-Majidi 2000: 107–110. Piras 2005: 343.

Parr 1957: pl. 5, 8A.

Schmitt-Korte and Price 1994: 95. Hammond 1957.

McKenzie 1990: pl. 59b.

Schmitt-Korte 1990: 107–8.

Dalman 1908: 355; Parr 1957: pl. 5.

Glueck 1937: 15; Glueck 1966: pl. 185. Hall 1912: 38.

Glueck 1966: 483–4, pl. 167a.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

49

rative functions. Connections between these figures and magical practices cannot be ruled out. Serpents Different types of serpents appear in many mythologies of the ancient world, and signified various meanings and functions. For the Egyptians, the serpent, which appears frequently on the Pharaonic crowns, signifies sovereignty, the generative power of the sun, royalty, divine goodness and immortality.263 The Ouroboros, a serpent swallowing its own tail, was an Egyptian image adopted by many cultures as a symbol of eternity. In Egyptian mythology, serpents can be divine protectors or symbol of renewal.264 The snake appears in Mesopotamian art as early as the 3rd millennium BCE.265 The Mesopotamian deity Ningishzida, for example, was symbolized by snakes twining around an axial rod.266 The snake is attested frequently in Babylonian art for protective purposes,267 and in Africa appears as a symbol of eternity.268 In many mythologies a serpent is linked to the origin of the world and to creation; it is also considered a protector of houses, bestowed of happiness, and representative of cosmic, demonic and divine powers.269 Serpent objects appear in archaeological contexts in the Levant from the Chalcolithic to the Hellenistic periods. Numerous objects have been found in cultic contexts in the Levant and Phoenicia which can be interpreted as a likely indication of the practice of a serpent cult.270 Serpent symbols or objects with serpent decorations have been discovered in cultic and domestic contexts in various sites in Canaan.271 Ugaritic tradition reports two serpent charms ‘used by members of the Ugaritic priesthood in an annual rite devoted to exorcising Ugarit serpents 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271

Lurker 1980: 100. Pinch 2002: 106.

Miroschedji 1981.

al-Majidi 1998: 99. Hrouda 1991: 253.

Coleman 2007: 951.

Oldham 1905; Lurker 2005.

Sejin 1994: 70; Berenes 2003: 57. Sejin 1994.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

50

and thus protecting the people’.272 In Ugarit, the snake was linked with healing273 and signified the goddess ʿAnāt when it appeared in a crossed form.274 Eagles and serpents sometimes appear together in Levantine art.275 There were attempts to link the snake with deities of the southern Levant; it was one of the assistants of the god of death at Ugarit and snake objects are manifestations of the multiple functionality of a goddess in the southern Levant.276 The serpent cult decreased in the southern Levant in the Iron Age.277 Arabia provides strong archaeological evidence for the significance of the serpent in the lives of pre-Islamic Arabs. Snake decorations are common on the walls of the Umm an-Nār burials in the United Arab Emirates, dated mostly to the period between 2600–2000 BCE.278 In addition, snake burials have been uncovered in Bahrain from the socalled Late Dilmun Building Complex.279 The snake was one of the most common living beings applied as a decorative motif to pottery objects manufactured in the Arabian Gulf from the 1st millennium BCE.280 A calcite-alabaster voussoir from Mārib shows an eagle fighting a snake. It is not clear whether this eagle was the symbol of the god Sayīn, Nasr or Wadd. The motif recurs on other architectural fragments from southern Arabia.281 Snakes were also represented in metal in southern Arabia and these metal objects have been interpreted as votive offerings.282 In the kingdom of Maʿīn, the serpent was the symbol of the moon god and played an important role in the religious life of this kingdom: it appears in their temples and on their columns.283 Its veneration continued in 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283

Astour 1968. Astour 1968.

al-Majidi 2001: 81.

Maʾoz 1995: 168; Sejin 1994; Bossert 1951: 99, fig 1290. Sejin 1994: 131; Cassuto 1962. Sejin 1994: 70.

ʿAbd An-Naʿīym 2000: 210. Potts 2007.

al-Khraysheh and al-Nashif 2007: 167–168. Breton 2002: 142–152, Fig. 192.

Henninger 1981: 223. al-ʿUraīqī 2002: 61.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

51

Yemen until modern times, as it is still depicted on the walls of buildings as amulets to protect buildings from disasters and evil spirits.284 In pre-Islamic poetry, the snake was a symbol of deception and cunning, and therefore as a symbol of pessimism.285 Al-Azruqī mentions a snake that guarded wells for about 500 years, and other narratives refer to a snake that guarded al-Kaʿbah.286 The serpent appears in a variety of forms in Nabataea and depictions are scattered across various Nabataean sites. From Kh. Et-Tannur one example depicts an eagle with a serpent entwined around its body, the heads of the two meeting confrontationally (see Al-Salameen Plate 3: D).287 Freeman has suggested that the figure of an eagle fighting a serpent was probably a representation of Zeus combating evil.288 The snake was engraved inside a cave opposite to the so-called ‘Djen Blocks’ in Petra and a horse and his rider were portrayed beside him (see AlSalameen Plate 6: C).289 Another example comes from Wādī Mūsā. A fresco panel was uncovered inside the Nabataean villa there in 1996 and depicts a snake in association with the god Pan.290 Two snakes appear on one of the rock-cut facades of egra around a relief of a human head and all of these were engraved inside the pediment hewn over the doorway. The snakes were portrayed approaching the human head, which may represent the head of a dead person (see Al-Salameen Plate 6: E).291 A final example of snake representation in Nabataea is that of the so-called Snake Monument in Petra which is one of the largest Nabataean representations of snakes (see AlSalameen Plate 7: D). It is clear that serpents have cultic significance in Nabataea; they may also be linked with magic and protection of the dead.

284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291

al-ʿUraīqī 2002: 62. Sheikho 1991: 728.

Al-Azruqī 2000: 1: 158–161. Glueck 1966: 465.

Freeman 1941: 340.

Dalman 1908: 109–110. Twaissi 2001: 40.

Jaussen and Savignac 1909–14: pl. 37.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

52 Fish

Fish representations are well-attested in connection with the goddess Atargatis in the ancient Near East. At the Atargatis temple in Ascalon there was a pond with fish sacred to the goddess, and other fish ponds devoted to Atargatis are known in Ascalon, Hierapolis and Edessa.292 Excavations at ez-Zantur in Petra have revealed the remains of fish from the Nabataean period,293 showing that Nabataeans consumed small tuna or narrow-barred Spanish mackerel and groupers, which are typical of the Red Sea’s fauna.294 Fishhooks and fish bones are attested in the Nabataean Aqaba strata. Evidence from recent excavations at Aqaba suggests that its inhabitants consumed seafood and also exported dried fish.295 Fish feature in Nabataean art in the zodiac uncovered in Kh. EtTannur. There two fishes appear surmounting the head of the goddess, and these have been referred to as dolphin goddesses (see Al-Salameen Plate 7: A).296 McKenzie has argued that the appearance of fish may be an emblem of Pisces,297 and that one should rule out the possibility of deity representation. Wenning, on the other hand, argues that ‘Atargatis is not the Fish or Dolphin Goddess, and not necessary an Aphrodite type, but a matron, a tutelary deity, and a goddess of fate and fertility’.298 He concludes that the fish symbolize living water.299 Panther The last animal attested in Nabataean iconography is the panther. There are few panthers in Nabataean art,300 and these appear to have only a decorative function and do not denote any symbolic religious significance.

292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300

Glueck 1966: 374.

Berset and Studer 1996: 381.

Berset and Studer 1996: 383–85. Retzleff 2003: 55.

Glueck 1966: pl. 49a; Glueck 1966: 368. McKenzie 2003.

Wenning 2009: 581.

Wenning 2009: 578–579.

Stucky 1992: pl. 2, 1; Hammond, 1978 pl. 55, 2.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

53

Minor Animals There are other less important animals and birds that are shown only in Nabataean terracotta figurines. These include monkeys, donkeys and hedgehog figurines and vessels.301 The function and significance of these figurines include votive, funerary, magical, and decorative functions, and as toys as well as environmental representations.302

PART THREE: HUMAN REPRESENTATIONS Human representations are common in the iconography of the ancient Near East. They appear in single sculpture statues, small figurines in rock-art and in various forms and positions. Human figures are found on almost all rock-art in Arabia from the Neolithic period onwards.303 Some represent deities and gods, while others represent ordinary individuals, and yet others may represent spiritual nature. Female representations Female representations appear in abundance in the art of the ancient Near East and the earliest appearance of females is associated with cultic practices during the Neolithic period. Female deities are present in the iconography of the ancient Near East as protector, guardian and as representations of deity. The cult of the female goddess was known in the Levant, Mesopotamia and Egypt.304 Archaeological discoveries in southern Arabia confirm that its people venerated the mother goddess, whose figurines have been uncovered in various places in ancient Yemen.305 Female figures with flowing hair and raised hands are also found in southern Arabian art.306 Drawings depicting persons either alone or in association with animals are common in the iconography of the Safaitic Bedouins.307 Some figures in Safaitic texts include women, but the majority depicts women 301 302 303 304 305 306 307

See, for example, el-Khouri Figures 39, 40, 313–314, Tuttle p. 335.

Tuttle 335.

Khan 2007: 15.

Keel and Schroer 2004.

Yassen et al 1996: 300–301. Oxtoby 1968: 29.

Clark 1980: 48–49.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

54

who represent (according to Harding) the goddess Raḍw-Ruḍā.308 These appear nude or semi-nude with hands raised upwards; the head is in the form of a circle. Female representations in Arabia were depicted as schematic or abstract representations.309 They sometimes appear singing with flutes and in one case carrying a musical instrument.310 A woman is depicted in Safaitic rock-art standing with upraised arms, accentuated hips and flowing wavy hair.311 The female figures accompanying Safaitic Bedouin texts are identified as goddesses, either of the sun or the god Raḍw-Ruḍā.312 In the mentality of ancient Arabs, women were linked with fertility and motherhood and in them pre-Islamic poets313 found secrets of the renewal of life. This mother-creature can be described as fat with huge feminine organs,314 and such imagery is typical of the so-called mother goddess in the prehistoric ancient Near East. The sun, the main deity in the poetry of pre-Islamic Arabia, was linked with women, and thus the sun was often described as a beautiful and attractive nude female.315 The woman in the poems of Imrʾū al-Qaīs and al-Aʿshā was a deity signifying the sun, worshipped by the majority of the inhabitants of Arabia.316 Some scholars have even assumed that the description of some women in pre-Islamic poetry like Laīlā and Suʿād parallels the description of fertility goddesses in the Graeco-Roman world.317 The sun appeared in many figures and aspects in the minds of pre-Islamic people, and, appearing in the form of a naked woman implied femininity, motherhood, and fertility.

308 309 310 311 312 313

Harding 1969.

Khan 2007: 17. Harding 1969.

Clark 1980: 52; Oxtoby 1968: 29.

Oxtoby 1968: 29.

One of the major interpretations of pre-Islamic poetry is mythological,

emphasizing the control of the metaphysical powers on poets and their subsequent use of symbols in poetry (Zakī 1980: 151–174). 314 315 316 317

al-Baṣal 1980: 85.

Zakī 1979: 82–84.

ʿAbd ar-Ra mān 1980: 255.

ʿAbd ar-Ra mān 1982: 150–159.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

55

Human representations and depictions are present in Nabataean iconography, but special attention was given to female representations. As far as male representations are concerned, they appear sometimes in religious contexts. One such example of a male image is represented in architectural affixes uncovered in Petra, and these are naturalistic mold-cast human faces, furnished with rounded cheeks, bulbous eyes and pouting lips. Four possible interpretations for these objects have been suggested: they either represent deities, local royalty, allied royalty or distinguished local citizens.318 Women enjoyed remarkable status in Nabataean society. As evidenced in Nabataean texts, Nabataean woman had the right to own, transfer, sell and mortgage property. A considerable number of Nabataean tomb inscriptions of egra include references to women.319 Some of the astonishing rock-cut tombs belong to Nabataean women. Furthermore, portraits of Nabataean queens appear on numismatic issues as early as the reign of Obodas III (30–9 BCE). Women are represented in Nabataean terracotta figurines and appear in many forms, including the standing draped and nude female and the enthroned draped and nude female320 (see Al-Salameen Plate 8: A). The majority of identifiable terracotta figurines most probably functioned as cultic and personal objects as well as representations of deities.321 Nudity was connected with rituals in ancient Near Eastern beliefs. The use of nudity in female terracotta figurines may indicate their divinity or may represent fertility.322 The female figure portrayed in the Treasury at Petra likely refers to a queen whose attributes, based on comparative Ptolemaic examples, suggest high rank of some sort and may indeed portray the king’s wife (see Al-Salameen Plate 7: D).323 A standing woman appears raising her hand on Nabataean coins (see Al-Salameen Plate 8: D). She is draped in a long garment, wearing

318 319 320 321 322 323

Hammond and Mellott-Khan 1998.

See, for example, Healey 1993: H1, H12.

Tuttle 2009: 145–50, 217. Tuttle 2009: 257–58.

Tuttle 2009: 259, el-Khouri 2002. Zayadine 2005.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

56

a girdle around her waist and a veil on her head. Meshorer has suggested that the figure portrays a queen or deity.324 Erotic scenes appear on some Nabataean lamps325 and these representations were common in the 1st century CE, a favorite theme in Imperial Rome.326 It seems that these scenes are imitations of Roman representations, since eroticism also appears frequently in Roman iconography.327 The exact meaning of these scenes is not yet entirely understood. It appears that besides lighting they also had sacred and secular uses, as they were presented as offerings and were found in funerary contexts.328 The palm of the hand The palm of the hand was a symbol of deity, worship, prayer and meditation. It also signified blessings, oaths and consecration.329 Hand or palm prints are a common element found in almost all the world’s rock art, and this is a ‘common universal phenomena which may be the result of identical human ideological and cosmological thoughts and beliefs’.330 Palm of the hand representations were common among many cultures in the ancient Near East. In Mesopotamia, for example, the open palm of the hand was a symbol of the sun and of justice.331 A standing woman raising her hand appears often in stylized forms on Tanit’s scepters from Canaan, and this raised palm symbolized the blessing and protection of Tanit.332 The Phoenician goddess Tanit is normally represented in this stylized form with her hands raised.333 The rock-art of Arabia and southern Jordan provide us with numerous drawings that portray standing humans, mostly women raising 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333

Meshorer 1975: 34.

See, for example, Khairy 1990: 13. Barrett 2005: 96. Barrett 2005: 96.

Barrett 2005: 73. Denny 2005.

Khan 2007: 222.

Patrich 1990: 134.

al-Majidi 2001: 82. al-Majidi 2001: 83.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

57

their hands.334 In some places in Arabia, the palms are depicted separately and in some cases with half arms, and both date from the Neolithic period up to the recent past.335 Archaeological fieldwork conducted in Arabia has demonstrated the functional meaning of the raised palm. Alabaster statues of females raising their hands are common archaeological discoveries in southern Arabia.336 An interesting inscribed bronze hand dedicated to the god Taʾlab was found in southern Arabia and dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. This object is regarded as ‘a powerful symbol of good fortune and is thus not only depicted as a trophy, but also as an apotropaic motif on dedicatory inscriptions’.337 The palm of the hand appears in the rock-art of Arabia connected with the wrist and the upper arm, and may symbolize particular deities or certain tribes of the region.338 It seems that the bronze hand signified might, justice and power and ‘it apparently symbolized the angel Idârûmâ, the high hand, the strong hand, the angel of Dusares, the god of Gaia’.339 The inscription reads ‘Osos, Obaidos, the son, the two, made an offering for his angel Idâ-rûmâ’.340 Some Nabataean terracotta figurines represent female figurines whose right arm is raised against the torso with its palm outward, and the figures are clearly articulated by vertical grooves (see Al-Salameen Plate 8: A).341 The palm of the hand appears on Nabataean coins issued by the Nabataean king Malichus I (58–30 BCE) (see Al-Salameen Plate 8: C). Meshorer assumes that this symbol had a distinctly religious and ceremonial significance in the life of the Nabataeans.342 There is also a standing woman raising her right hand on one of the coins issued by Obodas III,343 apparently to bless and salute the dealer of the coin.

334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343

Jaussen, and Savignac 1909–14, fig. 6; Farès-Drappeau 2008. Khan 222.

Simpson 2002: fig. 282. Sima 2002: n. 221.

Eskoubi 2009: 72–73. Patrich 1990: 134. Patrich 1990: 134. Tuttle 2009: 374.

Meshorer 1975: 25. Meshorer 1975: 25.

58

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

CONCLUSIONS Nabataeans, other pre-Islamic Arabians and Levantine people share much common imagery and these are mostly to be identified as having symbolic value. Many symbols were adopted and incorporated in Nabataean iconography, including trees, animals and human representations, which were widespread motifs from the 4th millennium BCE in Mesopotamia up to the coming of Islam. Unfortunately, there is no textual evidence to support the iconographic analysis described in this paper, but the application of a hermeneutical approach has been useful for understanding the function of these symbols. It is clear that most of the symbols used by the Nabataeans were common in the ancient Near East, Arabia and the GraecoRoman world, but the meaning of each symbol could differ from place to place and from society to society. Some similarities are obvious in the type and shape of symbols used throughout the ancient Orient, as symbols were widely employed for identifying human or divine characters, but there appears to be differences in their functions. Most symbols denote spiritual and religious concepts and may be linked with religion and magic. It is also clear that most of the symbols used were not purely decorative objects, but also had a sacred role. Nabataean culture is normally studied within the context of Graeco-Roman culture. It is evident from this survey, however, that symbols adopted by the Nabataeans reflect a strong oriental character and scholars’ efforts to ascribe western cultural meanings must be treated with caution. Most of the symbols adopted by the Nabataeans are best interpreted in the light of pre-Islamic civilizations rather than the Graeco-Roman world, as has been customary in the scholarship. While there are of course many cultural imports to Nabataea from the GraecoRoman world, their Arabian character is clearly evident. Most depicted symbols existed prior to the appearance of the Nabataeans in the historical record, suggesting that they were drawn from their ancestors and from other cultures. As far as the functions of these symbols in Nabataea are concerned, we may delineate the following functions: Identification of deities: it is clear that some symbols such as the eagle, ibex/gazelle, palm tree, bull and female images could have functioned as divine images and signified deities.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

59

Cultic function: some symbols such as the palm of the hand, grapevine, eagle, camel, ibex/gazelle, bull, serpent, female representations and winged animals had cultic functions, but it is difficult to determine their nature. We can infer this in light of other examples attested in Arabia. Immortalizing the dead: Nabataean believed in an afterlife and also believed, as did other pre-Islamic Arabians, that the dead live ordinary lives in their tombs. Various symbols including rosettes, ears of wheat, eagles, camels, horses, winged animals and female representations were used to immortalize the dead. Most tombs were provided with a nefesh,344 a funerary stele constructed to indicate the residence of the dead. It resembles ‘a pointed or concave cone ending in a sort of spout or blossom – a shape totally different from that of the stelae idols. The difference is further attested to by the identifying inscriptions that occasionally accompany them’.345 Decorations: some symbols depicted by the Nabataeans did not have any cultic, funerary and ritual functions and were therefore used with decorative intent. It is worth mentioning that all of the decorative symbols used also fulfilled other functions. Magic: Nabataeans were seemingly conscious of magic and seem to have believed that parts of nature and daily life were influenced by divine or spiritual powers, and therefore some of the symbols, such as winged animals, serpents, women, the palm of the hand as well as the faces portrayed on some of the rock-cut tombs, were probably used to protect against events and to ward off dangers. Fertility, life and vegetation: female representation in ancient iconography is almost always linked with fertility and abundance.

344

It was not customary for the Nabataeans to portray the dead either in re-

lief or in a three dimensional statue and they used an architectonic shape, a cone topped by an inflorescence, placed on a square or cylindrical platforms (Patrich

122). But there are some exceptions, like the Obelisk Tomb with a grave relief

(McKenzie 1990: pl. 168a-b), as well as the figures of the Tomb of the Roman Soldier.

345

Patrich 1990: 70.

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

60

Royalty: some Nabataean symbols signify royalty, such as the wreath, eagles and some of the male representations.

Palm tree Grapevine

X

X

X

X

Pine cones

X

X

Pomegranate

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Wreath Rosetta

X

Ears of wheat Eagle

X

Camel

Other functions

Decoration

Magic

tion

Fertility, life and vegeta-

X

funerary function

X

Immortality of the dead,

Cultic nature

Symbol

Identity of deity

TABLE 1: Symbols and functions of living beings in Nabataea

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ibex/ gazelle

X

X

X

Bull (horn and

X

X

X

Royalty

Royalty

crescent) Lion

X

Horse

X

Winged animals

X

Winged

X?

X

X X

X

Protection

X

X

Protection

humans Panther

X

Elephants Serpent

X X

X

Fish Monkey figurines

X X

X

X

X

X

Toys and environmental representations

X

X

61

Other functions (cont.)

vegetation (cont.)

Fertility, life and

Immortality of the dead,

funerary function (cont.) X

Decoration (cont.)

X

Magic (cont.)

Donkey figurines

Cultic nature (cont.)

Symbol (cont.)

Identity of deity (cont.)

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

Toys and environmental representations

Hedgehog figurines

X

X

X

X

Toys and environmental representations

Dove Woman

X

Palm of the

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X Blessing

hand Male

X

X

X

Erotic scenes

X

X

Facial

X

X

Royalty

representation

X?

representation

REFERENCES ʿAbd An-Naʿīym, M. 2000, Silsilat Āthār mā Qabl at-Tariḫ wafajreh fī Shibh al-Jazīyrah alʿ rabīyyah (United Arab Emirates). [In Arabic] ʿAbd ar-Rahmān, A. 1980, Ash-Shiʿr al-Jāhily: Qaẓāīyāhw l- anīyah wal-Maūẓoūʿīyah (Beirut). [In Arabic] 1982, ṣ- oūrah al- anīyah fy sh-Shiʿr al-Jāhily fy ẓoū an-Naqd ladīyth (Amman). [In Arabic] Abū Swelem, A. 1986, ‘Qiṣat ath-Thaūr wadalātiha ar-Ramzīyah fy ash-Shiʿr al-Jāhily’, lmajalah alʿarabīyah lelʿulūm al-Insānīyah, 22, pp. 90–109. [In Arabic]

62

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

1991, ‘Al-Nakhlah fy ash-Shiʿr al-Jāhily’, Mu’tah lelbuḥoūth wad-derāsāt, 6:2, pp. 93–140. [In Arabic] Ad-Dumaīrī, Kamālw ed-dān 1965, aīyāt al- aīyūān al-Kubrā (Cairo). [In Arabic] Astour, M. 1968, ‘Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27, pp. 13–36. al-Aṣfahānī, A. u.d.: Kitāb al- ghānī (Boūlāq). [In Arabic] al-Azruqī, Abī al-Walīd 2000, khbār: Mecca wma Jāʾā fīhā mn al- thār (Beirut). [In Arabic] Barnett, R. 1982, Ancient Ivories in the Middle East and Neighboring Lands (Jerusalem). Barrett, D. 2005, The Ceramic Oil Lamp as an Indicator of Cultural Change within Nabataean Society in Petra and its Environs circa CE 106, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Brown University. Beaulin, P. 2005, ‘World Hegemony, 900–300 BCE’, in D. Shell (ed) A companion to the ancient Near East, pp. 48–63. Bedal, L. 2000, The Petra Pool-Complex: a Hellenistic Paradeisos in the Nabataean Capital: Results from the Petra ‘Lower Market’ Survey and Excavation, 1998, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Beeston, A. 1952, ‘Old south Arabian Antiquities’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1/2, pp. 20–23. Berens, E. 2003, Myths and Legends of Ancient Greece and Rome. Berset, N. and J. Studer 1996, ‘Fish Remains from Ez-Zantur (Petra, Jordan)’, in Petra- EzZantur: Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992, vol 1 (Mainz).

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

63

Bin Seray, H. 1999, al-Ibil fy bilād aš-šarq al-adnā al-qadīm wašebh al-Jazīrah al‘arabīyah (Riyadh). [In Arabic] 2005, ʿOmān min al-Qarn ath-Thālith qabl al-Mīylād Ilā ʾl-Qarn as-Sabiʿ al-Mīylādī, (Kuwait). [In Arabic] Blagg, T. 1990, ‘Column Capitals with Elephant-Head Volutes at Petra’, Levant 22, pp. 131–37. Bossert, H. T. 1951, Altsyrien (Tübingen). Botero. J. 2001, Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago). Braithwaite, M. 1982, ‘Decoration as ritual symbol: a theoretical proposal and an ethnographic study in southern Sudan’, in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge), pp. 80–88. Breton, J-F. 2002: ‘Architecture’, in J. Simpson (ed) Queen of Sheba Treasures from Ancient Yemen (London), pp. 142–52. Bryan, D. 1973, Texts Relating to the Marzeah: A Study of an Ancient Semitic Institution. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Johns Hopkins University. al-Bukhāri, Mohammad Bin Ismāʿīl 2005, aḥīḥ al- ukhāri, (Beirut). [In Arabic] Caskel, W. 1954, Lihyan und Lihyanisch, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Köln). Cassuto, U. 1962, ‘Baal and Mot in the Ugaritic’, Israel Exploration Journal 12:2, pp. 77–86. Clark, V. 1980, A Study of New Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne.

64

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

Coleman, J. 2007, The Dictionary of Mythology: An A-Z of Themes, Legends and Heroes (London). Corbett, J. 2010, Mapping the Mute Immortals: a Locational and Contextual Analysis of Themudic E/ Hismaic Inscriptions and Rock-Drawings from the Wadi Hafir of Southern Jordan. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago. Dafni, A. 2007, ‘The Supernatural Characters and Power of Sacred Trees in the Holy Land’, Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3:10: pp. 1–16. Dalman, G. 1908, Petra und seine Felsheiligtümer (Leipzig). Denny, F. 2005, ‘Hand’, in L. Jones (ed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit), pp. 3769–3771. Diodorus of Sicily The Library of History (translated by C. Oldfather, London). Dodge, B. 1955, ‘Elephants in the Bible Lands’, Biblical Archaeologist 18:1, pp. 17– 22. Doniger, W. 2005, ‘Horse’, in L. Jones (ed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit), pp. 4131–4136. Drijvers, H. 1976, The Religion of Palmyra (Leiden). Edsman, C. 2005, ‘Altar’, in L. Jones (ed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit), pp. 275–279. Eskoubi, K. 2009, ‘Dirāsah Tahlīylīyah Lirusūm Sakhrīyah Wanuqoūsh Thamūdīyah mn Trīyb Bementaqat ʿAsīyr Jounoūby al-Mamlakah alʿArabīyah as-Sʿūdīyah’, Adumatu, 20, pp. 71–80. [In Arabic]

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

65

Farajat, S. and S. Nawafleh 2005, ‘Report on the Al-Khazna Courtyard Excavation at Petra (2003 Season)’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 49, pp. 373–393. Farès-Drappeau, S. 2008, ‘La Représentation de la Main dans les Gravures Rupestres en Jordanie du Sud’, Journal of Epigraphy and Rock-Drawings, II, pp. 53–67. al-Fayūmī, M. 1982, Fy al-Fikr al-Dīnī al-Jāhily (Egypt). [In Arabic] Flood, F. 2001, The Great Mosque of Damascus: Studies in the Makings of an Umayyad Visual Culture (Leiden). Foerster, G. 1995, Masada V: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports: Arts and Architecture (Jerusalem). Frazer, J. 1995, The Golden Bough. Freeman, R. 1941, ‘Nabataean Sculpture in the Cincinnati Art Museum’, American Journal of Archaeology, 45:3, pp. 337–341. Frese, P. and S. Gray 2007, ‘Trees’, in L. Jones (ed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit), pp. 9333–9340. Gaster, T. 1938, ‘Some Ancient Oriental Folklore’, Folklore 49 (4), pp. 335–375. Geertz, C. 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York). Giovino, M. 2007, Interpretations of the ‘Assyrian Sacred Tree’ 1849–2004, PhD thesis, The University of Michigan. Glueck, N. 1937, ‘Explorations in Eastern Palestine III’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 65, pp. 8–29.

66

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

1939, ‘The Nabataean Temple of Qasr Rabbah’, American Journal of Archaeology 43, pp. 381–87. 1956, ‘A Nabataean Painting’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 141, pp. 13–23. 1966, The Story of the Nabataeans: Deities and Dolphins (London). 1970, The Other Side of Jordan (Cambridge). Graf, D. 1994, ‘The Nabataean Army and the Cohortes Ulpiae Petraeorum’, in E. Dabrowa (ed) The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East (Krakow), pp. 265–311. Gray, S. 2005, ‘Eagle’, in L. Jones (ed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit), pp. 2253–2254. Hall, A. 1912, Glossary of Important Symbols in their Hebrew, Pagan and Christian Forms (Boston). Hall, J. 1994, Illustrated Dictionary of Symbols in Eastern and Western Art (London). Hammond, P. 1959, ‘Pattern Families in Nabataean Painted Ware’, American Journal of Archaeology 63, pp. 371–82. 1977, ‘The Capitals from the Temple of the Winged Lions, Petra’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 226, pp. 47– 51. 1973, The Nabataeans. Their History, Culture and Archaeology (Gothenburg). 1996, The Temple of the Winged Lions, Petra, Jordan. 1973–1990 (Fountain Hills). Hammond, P. and T. Mellott-Khan 1998, ‘Nabataean Faces from Petra’, Annual of the Department of Antiquates of Jordan 42, pp. 319–330. Harding, L. 1969, ‘A Safaitic Drawing and Text’, Levant, 1, 1, pp. 68–72.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

67

Hayajneh, H. 2006, ‘The Nabataean Camel Burial Inscription from Wadi Ram/Jordan’, Die Welt Des Orient, Band XXXVI, pp. 104– 115. Healey, J. 2001, The Religion of the Nabataeans: A Conspectus (Leiden). Henninger, J. 1981, ‘Das Opfer in den Altsudarabuschen Hochkulturen’, in J. Henninger (ed) Arabia Sacra (Freiburg). Hodder, I. 1986, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (Cambridge). 1987, Archaeology as Long-term History (Cambridge). 2000, ‘Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View’, in J. Thoman (ed) Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader (London), pp. 33–55. Homerin, E. 1985, ‘Echoes of a Thirst Owl: Death and Afterlife in Pre-Islamic Arabic Poetry’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 44:3, pp. 165–184. Hrouda, B. 1991, Der Alte Orient, Geschichte und Kultur des alten Vorderasien (Munchen). Humphries, R. 1958, The Satires of Juvenal (Bloomington). Ibn Habeeb, Abū Jaʿfar ud: Al-Muhabar (Beirut). [In Arabic] Ibn Hanbal, A. 1995, Al-Musnad (Cairo). [In Arabic] Ibn Hishām, Abū Mohammad 1975, As-Sīrah Nabawīyyah (Beirut). [In Arabic] Ibn al-Kalbī, Hishām 1995, Kitāb al-Asnām (Cairo). [In Arabic] Jacqueline, B. 1986, ‘al-Fann Fy Minṯaqat al-Jazīrah al-ʿArabīyah Qabl al-Islām’, Dirāsāt Yamanīyah, 23–24, 16–42. [In Arabic]

68

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

Jaffe, A. 1964, ‘Symbolism in the Visual Arts’, in C. Jung (ed) Man and His Symbols (New York), pp. 230–72. Al-Jāhiz, Abū Othmā 1969, Kitāb al-Haīyūān (Beirut). [In Arabic] Jaussen, A. and R. Savignac 1909–14, Mission Archéologique en Arabie (Paris). Kantzios, N. 1999, The Palm Tree-Palmette Motifs and Goddess Imaginary in the Bronze Age. PhD Thesis, Bryn Mawr College. Khairy, N. 1990, The 1981 Petra Excavations I (Weisbaden). Khan, M. 2007, Rock Art of Saudi Arabia across Twelve Thousand Years (Riyadh). Kh. edh.Darih Exhibition Catalogue (2002). al-Khraysheh, F. and K. al-Nashif 2007, Dubai: Hazarat ataqadom ʿ br Thalathat ʾĀlāf ʿĀm (Dubai). [In Arabic] el-Khouri, L. 2002, The Nabataean Terracotta Figurines (Oxford). Kumelos, R. 2005, Feathered Grace: Animal Guides in Mythology, Literature and Life, PhD Thesis, Pacific Graduate Institute. LeMon, J. 2007, The Iconography of Yahweh’s Thesis, Emory University.

inged

orm in the Psalms, PhD

Lindner, M. 1988, ‘Eine al-‘Uzzā-Isis-Stele und andere neu aufgefundene Zeugnisse de al-‘Uzzā-Verehrung in Petra (Jordanien)’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 104, pp. 84–91. Lurker, M. 2005, ‘Serpent’, in L. Jones (ed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit), pp. 8456–8460.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

69

Lyttleton, M. and T. Blagg 1990, ‘Sculpture from the Temonos of Qasr el-Bint at Petra’, Aram 2, pp. 267–286. Al-Maʿmarī, A. 2009, ‘Dirāsāt al-ʿAsr al-Hajarī al-Hadīyth fy Jounoūby al-Jazīrah alʿArabīyah: Naqd al-Masāder Waʾistiklās an-Natāʾij’, Adumatu, 20, pp. 7–39. [In Arabic] MacDonald, J. 1922, The Use of Symbolism in Greek Art, PhD Thesis, Chicago. al-Majidi, K. 1998, Ad-Dīyn s-Sumarī (Amman). [In Arabic] 2000, Al-Muʿtaqadāt al-Ārāmīyah (Amman). [In Arabic] 2001, Al-Muʿtaqadāt al-Kanʿānīyah (Amman). [In Arabic] Maʾoz, Z 1995, Ancient Synagogue in the Golan: Art and Architecture (Qazrin). [In Hebrew] Maximus of Tyre: Maximus of Tyre. Dissertationes (Stuttgart/Leipzig), 1994. McKenzie, J. 1990, The Architecture of Petra (New York). 2003, ‘Carvings in the Desert: The Sculpture of Petra and Khirbet etTannur’, in H. Markoe (ed) Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans (New York), pp. 165–91. Meshel, Z. 2000, Sinai: Excavations and Studies (Oxford). Meshorer, Y. 1975, Nabataean Coins (Jerusalem). Meslin, M. 2005, ‘Eye’, in L. Jones (ed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit), pp. 2940–2943. Morton, W. 1956, ‘Umm el-Biyara’, The Biblical Archaeologist 19 (2), pp. 26–36.

70

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

Moyra, C. 1993, Myths of the Sacred Tree: Including Myths from Africa, Native America, China, Sumeria, Russia, Greece, India, Scandinavia, Europe, Egypt, South America, Arabia (Rochester). Naveh, J. 1995, ‘Zoar Tombstones’, Tarbiz 64/4, pp. 477–97. [In Hebrew] Negev, A. 1974, The Nabatean Potter’s Workshop at Oboda (Bonn). 1986, Nabatean Archaeology Today (New York). Neusner, J. 1991, Symbol and Theology in Early Judaism (Minneapolis). An-Nwaīrī, Shihābw ed-dīn 1932, Nihāyat al- rb fy unūn al-Adab (Cairo). [In Arabic] Oldham, C. 1905, The Sun and the Serpent: A Contribution to the History of SerpentWorship (London). Oren, E. 1968, ‘The ‘Herodian Doves’ in the Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 100, pp. 56–61. Ornan, T. 2005, The Triumph of the Symbol: Pictorial Representation of Deities in Mesopotamia and the Biblical Image Ban (Fribourg). Oxtoby, W. 1968, Some Inscriptions of the Safaitic Bedouin (New Haven). Parr, P. 1959, ‘Rock Engravings from Petra’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 91, pp. 106–08. Patrich, J. 1990, The Formation of Nabatean Art: Prohibition of a Graven Image among the Nabateans (Jerusalem). Peritz, I. 1898, ‘Woman in the Ancient Hebrew Cult’, Journal of Biblical Literature 17:2, pp. 111–148.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

71

Perry, M., H. Falahat and A. al-Shiyyab 2007, ‘Wadi Mudayfaʾat and Wadi Abu Khasharif’, American Journal of Archaeology, VIII:3, pp. 540–542. Peters, F. 1977, ‘The Nabateans in the Hawran’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 97, pp. 263–75. Pinch, G. 2002, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology (Santa Barbara). Piras, A. 2005, ‘Angels’, in L. Jones (ed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit), pp. 343–349. Pliny Natural History (translated by H. Rackam, London). Portal, F. 1904, A Comparison of Egyptian Symbols With Those of the Hebrews (New York). Potts, D. 1990, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity from Alexander the Great to the Coming of Islam. Volumes I-II (Oxford). 2007, ‘Revisiting the Snake Burials of the Late Dilmun Building Complex in Bahrain’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 18, pp. 55–74. Al-Qalqashandī, Abū al-ʿAbās 1913, Subh al- ʿsha fy sināʿat al-Insha (Cairo). [In Arabic] Rahmani, Y. 1999, A Catalogue of Roman and Byzantine Lead Coffins from Israel (Jerusalem). Al-Rawabdeh, N. 2000, Dirāsah Lel-ʿAnaser al-Hazārīyah wad-Dīynīyah wal- annīyah lLatī Tazhar ʿala n-Nuqoūd an-Nabatīyah (Jordan). [In Arabic] Retzleff, A. 2003, ‘A Nabataean and Roman Domestic Area at the Red Sea Port of Aila’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 331, pp. 45–65.

72

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

al-Ribāʿī, A. 1988, ‘Al-Taīyr wal-Muʿtaqad fy ash-Shiʿr al-Jāhily’, Al-Majalah alʿArabīyah lelʿolūm al-Insānīyah, 29, pp. 116–156. [In Arabic] Rice, M. 1997, The Power of the Bull (London). Roche, J-M. 1995, ‘Le Cult Lunaire a Petra’, Transeuphratene 10, pp. 57–66. 1996, ‘Remarques sur les Nabatéens en Méditerranée’, Semitica 45, pp. 73–99. Romanoff, P. 1944, ‘Jewish Symbols on Ancient Jewish Coins (Continued)’, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 34, 3, pp. 299–312. Sacks, D. and L. Brody 2005, Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World (New York). Safrai, Z. 1994, The Economy of Roman Palestine (London). Al-Salameen, Z. 2004, The Nabataean Economy in the Light of Archaeological Evidence, PhD Thesis, University of Manchester. Al-Salameen, Z. and H. Falahat 2009, ‘Burials from Wadi Mudayfaʾat and Wadi Abu Khasharif, Southern Jordan - Results of a Survey and Salvage Excavations’, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. 9:2, pp. 85– 108. Sear, D. 1979, Greek Coins and their Values (London). Schmid, S. 1996, Die Feinkeramik, in B. Andrea et al (eds) Petra, Ez Zantur I. Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992 (Mainz), pp. 151–172. Schmidt, B. 1996, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Winona Lake).

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

73

Schmitt-Korte, K. 1990, ‘Nabataean Coinage- Part II: New Coin Types and Variants’, Numismatic Chronicle 150, pp. 105–133. Schmitt-Korte, K. and M. Price 1994, ‘Nabataean Coinage- Part III: The Nabataean Monetary System’, Numismatic Chronicle 154, pp. 64–131. Sedov, A. 1992, ‘New Archaeological and Epigraphical Materials from Qana (South Arabia)’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 3: 2, pp. 110–137. Sejin, K. 1994, An Archaeological Investigation of the Snake Cult in the Southern Levant: The Chalcolithic Period through the Iron Age, PhD Thesis, University of Chicago. Selz, G. 1997, ‘The Holy Drum, the Spear, and the Harp: Towards and understanding of the Problems of Deification in third Milliniuem Mesopotamis’, in I. Finkel and M. Geller (eds) Sumerian Gods and their Representation (Groningen). Serjeant, R. 1976, South Arabian Hunt (London). Al-Shawi, N. 1986, Sculptures of Hatrans: A Study of Custom and Jewelry, PhD Thesis, Indiana University. Sheikho, L. 1991, Shuʿarāʾ an-Nasrānīyah Qabl al-Islām (Beirut). [In Arabic] Sima, A. 2002, ‘Religion’, in J. Simpson (ed) Queen of Sheba Treasures form Ancient Yemen (London), pp. 161–180. Simpson, J. 2002, Queen of Sheba Treasures from Ancient Yemen (London). al-Sirīhī, S. 1998, As-Sūrah fy Shiʿr ar-Rithāʾ al-Jāhily (Jaddah). [In Arabic]

74

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

Smith, B. 2007, Your Rays Cover the Earth Like a Net: Literary and Iconographic Portrayals of the Sun-God in Ancient Mesopotamia, PhD Thesis, Hebrew Union College. Strabo The Geography of Strabo (translated by H. Jones, London). Studer, J. 2007, ‘Animal Exploitation in the Nabataean World’, in K. Politis (ed) The World of the Nabataeans. Volume 2 of the International Conference ‘The World of the Herods and the Nabataeans’ held at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001 (Stuttgart), pp. 251–272. al-Theeb, S. 2000, Al-Muʿjam an-Nabaty: dirāsah muqāranah lilmufradāt walalfā anNabatiyah (Riyadh). Thomas, J. 2000, ‘Introduction: the Polarities of Post-processual Archaeology’, in J. Thoman (ed) Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader (London), pp. 1–20. Tuttle, C. 2009, The Nabataean Coroplastic Arts: A Synthetic Approach for Studying Terracotta Figurines, Plaques, Vessels, and other Clay Objects, PhD Thesis, Brown University. Twaissi, S. 2001, Dirāsat al-Mukhalāfāt an-Nabatīyah al-Mukhtashafah fy ʿām 1996 (Jordan). [In Arabic]

ādī Mūsā

Twaissi, S., F. Abudanh and F. Twaissi 2010, ‘The Identity of the Nabataean ‘Painted House’ Complex at Baidha, North-West Petra’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 142, 1, pp. 31–42. al-ʿUraīqī, M. 2002, al-Fann al-Miʿmārī wal-Fikr ad-Dīnīy fy al-Yaman al-Qadīym (Cairo). [In Arabic] Waida, M. 2007, ‘Birds’, in L. Jones (ed) Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit), pp. 947–949.

LIVING BEINGS IN NABATAEAN ICONOGRAPHY

75

Warmington, E. 1928, Commerce between the Roman Empire and India (Cambridge). Wenning, R. 2001, ‘The Betyls of Petra’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 324, pp. 79–95. Werlin, S. 2006, Eagle Imagery in Jewish Relief Sculpture of Late Ancient Palestine: Survey and Interpretation, MA Thesis, University of North Carolina. Winnett, F. 1940, ‘The Daughters of Allah’, The Muslim World 30, pp. 113–30. Wood, W. 1916, ‘The Religion of Canaan: From the Earliest Times to the Hebrew Conquest’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 35, pp. 1–133. Yadin, Y., J. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, and B. Levine 2002, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri (Jerusalem). Yāqūt al-Hamawī 1955, Muʿjam al- uldān, 5 vols (Beirut). [In Arabic] Yassen, G. et al 1996, ‘Unpublished terracotta figurines in the Museum of the Archaeology Department, Sanaʾa University, Yemen’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 7: 2, pp. 287–303. Zakī, A. 1979, Al- sātīyr (Beirut). [In Arabic] 1980, Dirāsāt fy an-Naqd al- dabī (Beirut). [In Arabic] Zayadine, F. 2001, ‘The Settlement of the Arabian Tribes in Southern Jordan and the Sinai at the End of the First Millennium BC’, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 7, pp. 365–72. 2003, ‘The Nabataean Gods and Their Sanctuaries’, in G. Markoe (ed) Petra Rediscovered. Lost City of the Nabataeans (New York), pp. 57–64. 2005, ‘Al-Khazna, the Treasury Re-Visited, A Forgotten Document of Leon de Laborde’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49, pp. 395–401.

76

ZEYAD AL-SALAMEEN

Zeitler, J. 1990, ‘Houses, Sherds and Bones: Aspects of Daily Life in Petra’, in S. Kerner (ed) The Near East in Antiquity, Vol 1 (Amman). Zeuner, F. 1963, A History of Domesticated Animals (London). Zissu, B. and S. Rokach 1999, ‘A Hellenistic Columbarium at Ziqim’, ‘ tiqot 38, pp. 65–73.

PALMYRENES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD: 1ST CENTURY BCE TO THE 2ND CENTURY

CE

HAMAD M. BIN SERAY UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNIVERSITY Successfully negotiating relations with the empires of Rome and

Parthia, Palmyrene international trade flourished between the 1st century BCE and 2nd century CE as the people of the Syrian Desert took to the seas of the Arabian Gulf and the Mediterranean.

This article discusses Palmyrene attitudes to policy and commerce between the 1st c. BCE and the 2nd c. CE, and their successful management of relations with two great empires: Rome and Parthia. This era saw Palmyrene international trade flourish, as the people of the Syrian Desert took to the seas of the Arabian Gulf and the Mediterranean. A strong Palmyrene presence was found in Mediterranean cities, ports, islands and provinces, including Alexandria, Rome Delos, Kenkraii (Kenchreai) and across North Africa. A trading society, it was in Palmyra’s interest to cooperate with Rome in the protection of trade routes. Palmyrenes worked alongside the Roman fleet in the Mediterranean, joining the Roman fleet which controlled the Syrian coast and protected the trading ships laden with goods. Goods from Rome and other Mediterranean centers have been discovered in archaeological sites in the Gulf, and part of this article outlines the Palmyrene role in the transport of these goods, commodities, pottery and glass in the Gulf.

77

HAMAD BIN SERAY

78

The present discussion is formed of three sections: (1) The location of Palmyra; (2) Political and commercial engagement with Rome; (3) Palmyrene activities in Roman Egypt, the Red Sea and North Africa.

THE LOCATION OF PALMYRA Palmyra is situated 240 km north-west of Damascus and 144 km east of Homs. Protected by desert, Palmyra was well supplied with water from nearby springs that also allowed abundant palm-trees to grow. It is not far from the Euphrates, allowing access by river out to the Gulf and further afield. To the north are the heights of Jabil Hayan, J. Tarr and J. Mohammad bin Ali. Scholars have long been entranced by the contrast between Palmyra and the bounteous wealth of her former inhabitants and the surrounding desert. Waxing poetic, Iain Browning writes of Palmyra the ‘bride of the desert’,1 and in the words of Rostovtzeff, ‘No ruins of the ancient world outside Italy are more famous than the beautiful romantic remains of Queen Zenobia’s city – the desert-city of caravans. No city of the Near East has yielded such an abundance of inscriptions, sculptures and fragments of painting.’2 Maritime imagery is often used to evoke the concept of a cosmopolitan trading center. D. P. Crouch speaks of the ‘Port of Palmyra’,3 and Javier Teixidor refers to Palmyra as ‘the Roman port in the desert’4. However, this terminology is closer to the truth than many would expect for the people of a desert society, and Palmyrenes became heavily involved in maritime trade. Located far from the sea, scholars have noted the incongruity of a desert people sailing seas and oceans. Yahya attributes this expanded remit to changes in the relative importance of overland versus maritime trade.5 The location of the Near East, the intersection of the continents of Asia, Africa and Europe, may also have stimulated innovative attitudes toward trade. Near Eastern societies developed intensive commercial and economic relationships

1 2 3 4 5

Browning 1979: 13.

Rostovtzeff 1932: 107.

Crouch 1969: 65. See also: Huzayyin 1942: 13. Teixidor 1984.

Yahya 1990: 332.

PALMYRENES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

79

not only with each other but also with regions as far as China, India, Africa, and Eastern and Northern Europe. This encouraged the development of diverse skills sets necessary to lead caravans through the desert and navigate at sea. Successful trade required the formation of networks between communities, and these groups fostered cultural interaction and stimulated remarkable intellectual development, leading to urban growth and prosperity.6 Palmyra’s status was not only a serendipitous outcome of its geographical location. By perseverance and clever manipulation of their political, commercial and geographical surroundings, Palmyrenes were able improve their city’s international prospects and fortunes. Wherever Palmyrenes settled, they left traces of their affiliation to Palmyra,7 and indeed referred to themselves as ‘Palmyrenes’. Nigel Pollard has termed this ‘Palmyrene personality’.8 In the 1st century BCE Palmyra began to develop from its status as a town in a desert oasis to become a city of global importance. Reaching the peak of its prosperity in the 1st century CE.9 Palmyra began to outperform all other cities across the Near East. Palmyrenes set up centers in all significant cities that included trading houses, banking institutions and resident agents. The centers provided a range of facilities and office space, with stores and housing for trade employers, agents and clients, providing an important service to visiting Palmyrene traders and their caravans. Palmyrene resident aliens living in these cities had certain privileges.10

POLITICAL AND COMMERCIAL ENGAGEMENT WITH ROME By 63 BCE Syria had come under Roman rule and most of its cities submitted to Roman authority. Palmyra took longer than most to submit, but Rome dealt carefully with the city, recognizing its strategic importance between Rome and Parthia. In the words of Pliny (V, xxi.88), Palmyra had ‘a destiny of its own between the two mighty em-

6 7 8 9

Fisher 1950: 120–122; Hasan 1943: 473. Cheesman 1914: 88.

Pollard 2003: 126.

Grainger 1990: 182; Stoneman 1995: 38.

10

Al-Hilu 2004: 1039–1040.

HAMAD BIN SERAY

80

pires of Rome and Parthia, and at the first moment of a quarrel between them always attracting the attention of both sides’. Rome had a great appetite for the oriental luxuries coming from the East, and much of the trade routes for these products were under Parthian control. Appian writes that Palmyrene merchants brought the products of India, Arabia and Persia and sold them ‘in the Roman Empire’. It seems that Palmyrenes had already established trading connections in Mesopotamia before the arrival of Rome in the East. By taking advantage of its unique location and delicate geopolitical circumstances, Palmyra was able to barter its access to goods from the East into respect and status from their Roman overlords. In 129 CE the Emperor Hadian visited Palmyra, and was welcomed as a second founder of the city. Flatteringly, Palmyrenes welcomed him by calling themselves ‘Hadrianopolitae’, and the city ‘Hadriana Palmyra’. Hadrian responded by granting Palmyra the privileges of the jus italicum (i.e. the same legal rights as Italy). With Roman support, Palmyrene commercial activities of this period gained added momentum. In its relations with Parthia, Palmyra was able to maintain connections throughout the Parthian-Roman wars during the reigns of Trajan and Septimius Severus, showing the city was viewed as an acceptable trading partner by the Parthian authorities.

PALMYRENE ACTIVITIES IN ROMAN EGYPT, THE RED SEA AND NORTH AFRICA As traders and military personnel, Palmyrenes were an established community in Alexandria,11 one of the main trading capitals of the ancient world.12 Alexandrian merchants had access to the Red Sea for trading and importing Indian, African, Arabian and Asian commodities and products, and reference to these mercantile endeavors is found in the inscription of the Alexandrine resident Nikanor (or Naokoroi), who had collaborated with a group of merchants trading in the Red Sea. At the same time, Alexandria was involved in the development of its own industrial products.13 As a result of Palmyrene control on the trade 11 12 13

Rostovtzeff 1932: 146. See also: Teixidor 1984: 43.

Huzar 1988: 648, 650.

Raschke 1978: 644; Rostovtzeff 1957: 605.

PALMYRENES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

81

route overland from Palmyra to the Mediterranean coast, Syrian goods moved by sea to the island of Delos.14 Palmyrene presence in Rome itself is well-attested, and a shrine dedicated to Palmyrene Malkbol and other Palmyrene gods stood on the slopes of Roman’s Janiculum hill. A bilingual Greek-Palmyrene inscription15 on a relief representing the gods Haglibol and Malkbol from the Janiculum sanctuary is now in Rome’s Capitoline Museum, and the dedicatory inscriptions of Palmyrene16 traders and archers operating in the Roman army, written in Palmyrene, Greek and Latin, have also been found.17 Palmyrenes also settled as members of military units across North Africa. The Roman army in North Africa was divided into three large units that moved and responded according to security needs in the provinces. Each military section had its own command and usually operated independently of the others. In North Africa Palmyrenes belonged to the unit ‘Nommere’ (Numerus), (Numerus Palmyrenorum). Palmyrenes apparently felt at home in the region and settled in the interior of North Africa, well accustomed to desert warfare, using bows and arrows and fighting on the backs of camels.18 Palmyrenes were also stationed at Mughniah, to the west of Tilmisan in modern-day Algeria.19 Their presence in this area is seen in dedicatory inscriptions in al-Kantra, Misʾadah and al-Qara. The inscriptions are in Latin and date from the mid-2nd century to the mid-3rd century CE.20 Another Palmyrene Latin inscription is known from Alaionep Mount Nefoussa in the Tripoli area on the Libyan coast. This inscription, dated to the 2nd – 3rd centuries CE is dedicated to the god Yarhabol.21

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Crouch 1969: 51.

Greuther Inscriptionum Romanorum Corpus Absolutissimum.

Some of the individual actually identify themselves as of Palmyrene origin.

Binni, A., pp. 16, 28, 56, 277; Colledge 1976: fig. 147.

Shiniti 1999: 95–96, 101–102, 103, 325. Shiniti 1999: 122, 263.

Albertini 1931: 204–207, nos. 8,9.

Birley 1978: 1518; Brogan & Reynolds 1960: 51.

82

HAMAD BIN SERAY

BIBLIOGRAPHY Albertini, E. 1931, ‘Inscriptions d’El Kantara’, Revue Africaine 72, pp. 193–261. Al-Hilu, A. 2004, Ancient Syria (Damascus). [In Arabic] Binni, A. Palmyra and Palmyrense (Damascus). [In Arabic] Birley, E. 1978, ‘The Religion of the Roman Army: 1895-1977’, ANRW II (16.2), pp. 1506–1518. Brogan, O and J. Reynolds 1960, ‘Seven New Inscriptions from Tripolitania’, PBSR 28, pp. 51–54. Browning, I. 1979, Palmyra (Park Ridge). Cheesman, G. L. 1914, The Auxiliary of the Roman Imperial Army (Oxford). Colledge, M. 1976, The Art of Palmyra (London). Crouch, D. P. 1969, Palmyra, PhD thesis submitted to UCLA. Fisher, W. B. 1950, The Middle East: A Physical, Social and Regional Geography (London). Grainger, J. D. 1990, The Cities of Seleukid Syria (Oxford). Greuther, J. 1616, Inscriptionum Romanorum Corpus Absolutissimum. Hasan, M. A. 1943, ‘Islamic Trade in Several Periods of Islam’, al-Muqtataf 103 (5). [In Arabic] Huzar, E. G. 1988, ‘Alexandria AD Aegyptum in the Julio-Claudian Age’, ANRW, II (10.1), pp. 619–668.

PALMYRENES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

83

Huzayyin, S. A. 1942, Arabia and the Far East (Cairo). Pollard, N. 2003, Soldiers, Cities & Civilians in Roman Syria (Ann Arbor). Raschke, M. G. ‘New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East’, ANRW, II (9.2), pp. 604–1361. Rostovtzeff, M. 1932, ‘The Caravan-Gods of Palmyra’, JRS 22 (2), pp. 107–116. 1932, Caravan Cities (Oxford). 1957, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford). Shiniti, M. S. 1999, Algeria under Roman Occupation (Algeria). [In Arabic] Stoneman, R. 1995, Palmyra and Its Empire (Ann Arbor). Teixidor, J. 1984, Palmyre: Un port Romain du desert, Semitica: 34 (Paris). Yahya, L. Y. A. W. 1990, Arabs in Ancient Antiquities (Alexandria). [In Arabic]

DATING FORMULAE IN SYRIAC INSCRIPTIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE 5TH AND 6TH CENTURIES

SEBASTIAN BROCK UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD This paper offers a typology of dating formulae in manuscripts

and inscriptions of the 5th and 6th centuries (with a slight overspill into the 7th) written in Classical Syriac, also taking into

consideration the usage in the Old Syriac inscriptions and documents of the 1st to 3rd centuries CE.

In an earlier Festschrift in honour of another distinguished scholar of Middle Aramaic epigraphy,1 I offered an initial typology of dating formulae in the various different dialects of Middle Aramaic, ending with a brief comparison with the formulae found in early Syriac manuscripts, with the aim of discovering how far they preserved earlier usages. As it emerged, only in rare cases were the older formulae preserved. It would seem appropriate now, in this volume in honour of John Healey, who has contributed so much in the field of Middle Aramaic and Old Syriac inscriptions,2 to offer a sequel to the earlier article, 1

‘Some notes on dating formulae in Middle Aramaic inscriptions and in early

Syriac manuscripts’, in Z.J. Kapera (ed.), Intertestamental Essays in Honour of Jósef Tadeusz Milik (Kraków, 1992), pp. 253–64. 2

Most notably, of course, in his excellent Aramaic Inscriptions and Documents

of the Roman Period (Oxford, 2009), and his earlier collaboration with H.J.W.

Drijvers in The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene (Leiden, 1999). as well

as his The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada’in Salih (Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplement 1; Oxford, 1993).

85

SEBASTIAN BROCK

86

but focusing this time primarily on the manuscripts and inscriptions of the 5th and 6th centuries (with a slight overspill into the 7th) written in Classical Syriac. While, for reasons of space, no reference is made to practice in other Late Aramaic dialects, the usage in the Old Syriac inscriptions and documents of the 1st to 3rd centuries CE is also taken into consideration.

THE MATERIALS Since it is more convenient to refer to individual manuscripts and inscriptions simply by date (prefaced by MSS or INSCR), the available dated inscriptions and manuscripts are enumerated below, each listed in chronological order.3 Where the date is given in italics, this indicates that it is partly missing, or (sometimes in the case of bilingual inscriptions) found only in the accompanying Greek inscription. If two inscriptions or manuscripts are of the same date, they are distinguished in references to them by the addition of the letters A and B. Only bare references to the publications are given, and the following abbreviations are used:

3

Earlier listings of much the same material can be found in F.G.B. Millar,

‘The Syriac Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus (449)’, in R. Price and M. Whitby (eds), Chalcedon in Context (Liverpool, 2009), pp. 51–4, and in my ‘Edessene

Syriac inscriptions in late antique Syria’ [see Abbreviations, below], pp. 298–300. In the lists below I have taken the opportunity to include a few items that I had

previously overlooked. A great deal of important data on early Syriac manuscripts

is to be found in the unpublished Oxford DPhil thesis by M. Mundell (Mango), Artistic Patronage in the Roman Diocese of the Oriens, 312–634 AD (1985); see also her

‘Patrons and scribes indicated in Syriac manuscripts, 411–800 AD’, Jahrbuch der

Österreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft 32/4 (1982), pp. 3–12, and ‘The production of Syriac manuscripts 400–700 AD’, in G. Cavallo and others (eds), Scritture,

Libri et Testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio (Spoleto, 1992), pp. 161–79. For a recent overview of Syriac inscriptions in Syria, see Briquel Chatonnet and Desreumaux 2011a.

DATING FORMULAE

87

Abu Assaf 1972 = A. Abu Assaf, ‘Syriac inscriptions at the National Museum of Damascus’ [in Arabic], Annales archéologiques arabes de Syrie 22 (1972), pp. 135–44. Ant. = Era of Antioch. Briquel-Chatonnet and others 2008 = F. Briquel-Chatonnet, A. Desreumaux, and J. Moukarzel, ‘Découverte d’une inscription syriaque mentionnant l’évêque Rabbula’, in G. Kiraz (ed.), Malphono w-Rabo dMalphone. Studies in Honour of Sebastian P. Brock (Piscataway NJ, 2008), pp. 19–28. Briquel Chatonnet and Desreumaux 2011a = F. Briquel Chatonnet and A. Desreumaux, ‘Syriac inscriptions in Syria’, Hugoye 14:1 (2011), pp. 27–44. Briquel Chatonnet and Desreumaux 2011b = F. Briquel Chatonnet and A. Desreumaux, ‘Oldest Syriac Christian inscription discovered in North-Syria’, Hugoye 14:1 (2011), pp. 45–61. Brock 2006 = S.P. Brock, ‘St Aninas/Mar Hanina and his monastery’, Analecta Bollandiana 124 (2006), pp. 5–10. Brock 2009 = ‘Edessene Syriac inscriptions in late antique Syria’, in H.M. Cotton, R.G. Hoyland, J.J. Price, and D.J. Wasserstein (eds), From Hellenism to Islam. Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 289–302. Chabot 1929 = J-B. Chabot, ‘Inscriptions syriaques de Bennaoui’, Syria 10 (1929), pp. 252–6. Desreumaux 1999 = A. Desreumaux, J.Gaborit and J-S. Caillou, ‘Nouvelles découvertes à Apamée d’Osrhoène’, Comptes rendus de l’ cadémie des Inscriptions & Belles Lettres 1999, pp. 75–105. D-H = H.J.W. Drijvers and J.F. Healey, The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene (Leiden, 1999). Donceel-Voûte 1988 = P. Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements des églises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988). Halloun 1988 = M. Halloun, ‘Two Syriac inscriptions’, Liber Annuus 38 (1988), pp. 271–4. Harrak 1995 = A. Harrak, ‘Notes on Syriac inscriptions. I, The inscription of Ma‘ar-zayta’, Orientalia 64 (1995), pp. 77–9.

88

SEBASTIAN BROCK

Healey 2006 = J.F. Healey, ‘A new Syriac mosaic inscription’, Journal of Semitic Studies 51 (2006), pp. 313–27. IGLS = Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, I- (Paris, 1929–). Krebernik 1991 = M. Krebernik, ‘Schriftfunde aus Tell Bi‘a 1990’, Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 123 (1991), pp. 41– 69. Littmann 1904 = E. Littmann, Semitic Inscriptions, Part I, Syriac Inscriptions (Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899–1900, IV; 1904). Littmann 1934 = E. Littmann, Semitic Inscriptions: B, Syriac Inscriptions (Leiden, 1934). Mouterde 1932 = P. and R. Mouterde, ‘Inscriptions grecques de Souweida et de ‘Ahire’ Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 16 (1932), pp. 102–8. Mouterde 1942/3 = P. Mouterde, ‘Inscription syriaque du Gebel Bil‘as’, Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 25 (1952/3), pp. 83–6. Mouterde 1945 = P. Mouterde, ‘Inscriptions syriaques de haute Syrie’, Appendix in R. Mouterde and A. Poidebard, Le Limes de Chalcis (Paris, 1945), pp. 222–7. Naveh 1976 = J. Naveh, ‘Syriac miscellanea’, Atiqot 11 (1976), pp. 102–4. Palmer 1987 = A.N. Palmer, ‘A corpus of inscriptions from Tur ‘Abdin and environs’, Oriens Christianus 71 (1987), pp. 53–139. Pognon 1907 = H. Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul (Paris, 1907). Puech 1988 = E. Puech, ‘Une inscription syriaque sur mosaique’, Liber Annuus 38 (1988), pp. 267–70. Sachau 1882 = E. Sachau, ‘Edessenische Inschriften’, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 36 (1882), pp. 142–67. Salamé-Sarkis 1989 = H. Salamé-Sarkis, ‘Syria grammata kai agalmata’. Syria 66 (1989), pp. 313–30. Steiner 1990 = R. Steiner, ‘A Syriac Church inscription from 504 CE’, Journal of Semitic Studies 35 (1990), pp. 99–108.

DATING FORMULAE

89

DATED INSCRIPTIONS The first date is the CE equivalent, and the bracketed date is that of the era used (normally the Seleucid). TABLE 1: Dated inscriptions Date

Location

Publication

6 (317) Adar

Birecik

D-H, As55

73 (385) Teshri I

Serrin

D-H, Bs2

165 (476) Shbat

Sumatar

D-H, As36 and 37

165 (476) 13 Adar

Sumatar

D-H, As29

192 (503) Iyyar

Apamea

Desreumaux 1999

th

(Osrhoene) 194 (505) Nisan

Edessa?

Healey 2006

201/2 (513)

Edessa

D-H, As16

209 (20) Adar

Edessa

D-H, As9

224 (535) Nisan

Edessa

D-H, Am9

226 (37) Kanun II

Apamea

Desreumaux 1999

(Osrhoene) 227/8 (539)

al Mas‘udiye

D-H, Bm1

228 (39) Tammuz

Edessa

D-H, Am7

235/6 (547)

Edessa

D-H, Am6

240 (552) Kanun I

Osrhoene

D-H, P2 (legal document)

242 (553) Illul

Osrhoene

D-H, P3 (legal document)

243 (554) Iyyar

Dura Europos

D-H, P1 (= P. Dura 28; legal

259 (70) Shbat

Edessa

D-H, Am1

389 (437 Ant.)

Babisqa

IGLS II, 555

document)

Xandikos 406/7?

4

al-Nagba

Briquel

al-Kebira

2011b4

Chatonnet

&

Desreumaux

The editors reconstruct the date as [bšnt š]b‘ | [m’’ wt]mn| [‘sr’... ], 718 =

406/7 CE; the end of line three, however, could suggest another possibility: [bšnt

š]b‘ | [m’’ wt]mn|[yn w’r]b‘ ’|[štkll (e.g.)... , (from the illustration, the beth in line 3 seems rather likely), i.e. 784 = 472/3 CE.

SEBASTIAN BROCK

90 Date (cont.)

Location (cont.)

Publication (cont.)

407 (455 Ant.)

Borj al Qas

IGLS II, 3735

425/6 (737)

Edessa?

Briquel-Chatonnet and others 2008

434 (482 Ant.) Loos

Dar Qita

Littmann 1934: 4

441/2 (490 Ant.)

Qasr Iblisu

Littmann 1934: 11

471 (782) Adar

Huweija

Abu Assaf 1972: 2 = Donceel-Voûte,

Halawa

p.147, 1496

Khirbet al

Littmann 1934: 7 = IGLS II, 553

Panemos

473/4 (522 Ant.)

Khatib 491/2 and 495/6

Basufan

Littmann 1934: 50

Monastery of

Puech 1988, Brock 2006

(540, 544 Ant.) 493A (804) Nisan

Mar Hanina 493B (805) Teshri I

Edessa region

Sachau 1882, no 4

497 (808) 12th Illul

?

Halloun 19887

500 Artemisios

Umm Hartain,

Donceel-Voûte 1988, p.193

Hama 501/2 (550 Ant.)

Surqanya

Littmann 1934: 57

504 (815) Illul

?

Steiner 1990

507/8 (556 Ant.)

Khirbet

Pognon 1907: 82

Hassan, near Dehes 509 (820) Ab

Tell Bi‘a, near

Krebernik 1991: 1

Raqqa 512 (823) 24th Illul

Zebed

IGLS II. 310

(trilingual) 513 (561 Ant.) Iyyar

Fidreh

Littmann 1934: 23

515/6 (827 Apamea)

Ma‘ar Zayta

Harrak 1995

517/8 (82?9)

Rasm el-Hajal

Mouterde 1945: 118

J. Jarry, in his republication of the inscription in Annales Islamologiques 9

5

(1970), p.190, mysteriously gives the CE date as 456/7. 6

The text on p.149 is not always accurate; see also H. Kaufhold’s review in

Oriens Christianus 80 (1996), pp. 279–82. 7

Halloun gives the date as ‘around 496’, but since the month is Illul, it will

be 497.

DATING FORMULAE Date (cont.)

Location (cont.)

Publication (cont.)

525/6 (574 Ant.)

Kefr Nabu

Littmann 1934: 52

531/2 (580 Ant.)

Fidreh

Littmann 1934: 24

533 (581 Ant.) Tammuz

Khirbet al

Littmann 1934: 8

Khatib 533/4 (845)

Qartmin

Palmer 1987: A.1

Monastery, Tur ‘Abdin 536 and 539/40

?

Brock 2009, p.294

539/40 (588 Ant.)

Surqanya

Littmann 1934:58

543/4 or 550/1

Kalota

Littmann 1934: 54

545/6(?) (594(?) Ant.)

Kalota

Littmann 1934: 55

546(?)

Baqirha

Littmann 1904: 10

547

Babisqa

Littmann 1904: 14, 15

547/8 (859)

South Syria

Mouterde 1932

551/2? (600 Ant.)

Abu’l Kudur

Littmann 1934: 2

556 (868) Teshri II

near Raqqa

Abu Assaf 1972: 1

563/4 (875)

Rasm al Hajal,

IGLS II, 317B = Mouterde

Palmyrene

1945: 10

575 (886)

Jebel Bil‘as,

Mouterde 1942/3

A[dar]/I[yyar]/A[b]

Palmyrene

576 (887) Ab

Al Dayr al

(847, 851) 27th Hziran

(592 or 599 Ant.)

Abu Assaf 1972: 4

Wastani 577/8 (626 Ant.)

Der Sim‘an

Littmann 1934: 26

578/9 (627 Ant.)

Der Sim‘an

Littmann1934: 27

579/80 (891)

Kefr Hout

Mouterde 1945: 7

593/4 (905)

Stablat on)/

(Pogn-

Pognon 1907: 19; Chabot 1929: 2

Bennaoui

(Chabot) 594/5, or 604/5,

?

Naveh 1976: 1

or 644/5; (96[.])

8

The number providing the decade is mostly lost and Mouterde leaves the

square brackets blank; from the illustration, however, it would seem from the traces that ‘sryn would be the most probable, i.e. 829 = 517/8 CE.

91

SEBASTIAN BROCK

92 Date (cont.)

Location (cont.)

Publication (cont.)

595 (906) Nisan

Tell Bi‘a

Krebernik 1991: 2

601/2 (Antioch 650)

Tell ‘Ada

Littmann 1934: 16

604/5 (653 Ant.,

?

Salamé-Sarkis 1989: 1

[Indiction] 8)

MANUSCRIPTS All manuscripts identified as ‘Add.’ are in the British Library; for convenience, the page numbers in S.E. and J.S. Assemani, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus, II-III (Rome, 1758–9; repr. Paris, 1926) and in W. Wright’s Catalogue of Manuscripts in the British Museum acquired since 1838, I-III (London, 1870–72) are also given (Wright’s three volumes have a continuous pagination). It should be noted that Wright converts Seleucid years to CE dates without taking into account the first three months (Oct.-Dec.) of the Seleucid year (the figures have been adjusted in the list below). TABLE 2: Manuscripts Date

Place

Reference

411 (723) Teshri II

Edessa

Add. 12,150; p.633

459/60 (771)

?

Add. 14,512; p.250 9

462 (773) Nisan

?

St Petersburg, Public Library Syr. 1

463/4 (775)

Amid

Add.14,425; p.5

473 (521 Ant.)

perhaps Qal‘at

Vatican Syr. 160; III, p.319

Wed. 17th Nisan

Sim‘an

474 (785) Illul

Edessa

Add. 17,182; p.403

500/1 (vid.)

Mabbug

Add. 14,528, ff.1–151; p.1032

509 (820)

Monastery of

Add. 14,542; p.417

Tues. 15th Nisan

Pa‘nur

510 (822) Teshri I

Edessa

Deir as-Suryan Syr. 8 (Kamil, no.12)

510/11 (822)

Mabbug

Add. 17,126; p.526

512 (823) Kanun II

?

Add. 17,182; p.404

518 (830 Apam.) Teshri II

?

Add. 14,571; p.413

522 (834) 21st Kanun I

?

Vatican Syr. 111; III, p.79

9

For the date of the under-text of this palimpsest, see W.H.P. Hatch, An Al-

bum of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston, 1946; repr. Piscataway NJ, 2002), Plate II, p.53.

DATING FORMULAE Date (cont.)

Place (cont.)

Reference (cont.)

528 (839) Nisan

Edessa

Vatican Syr. 140; III, p.232

528/9 - 537/8 (84.)

?

Add. 14,459, ff.67–169; p.68

532A (843; Ind. 10) 28th

?

Add. 14,445; p.26

?

Add. 17,176; p.1072

533/4A (845)

Edessa

Add. 14,479; p.86

533/4B (845)

?

Add. 12,175; p.637

534 (845) 10th Hziran

?

Sinai Syr. 4610

535 (846) 10th Iyyar

Kafra d-Barta

Add. 14,530; p.1029

Iyyar 532B (Bosra 427) 14th Hziran

near Apamea 540/41 (852)

Edessa

Add. 17,107; p.23

543 Kanun I (855)

?

Sinai Syr. M27N

545 (856)

?

Add.14,431; p.14

548 (859) Tammuz

Edessa

Vatican Syr. 12; II, p.34

550/51 (862; vid.)

?

Add. 14,610; p.639

552 (863)

Sarmin

Vat. Syr. 112; III, p.80

553 (864) Illul

Edessa

Add. 12,166; p.491

554 (866; vid.) Kanun I

Monastery of

Add. 14,635, ff.16–18; p.414

Mon. 10th Nisan

Mon. 20th Shbat

Mar Sargis 557 (868) 5th Nisan

?

Add. 14,558; p.466

563 (874; Ind. 11) Ab

Monastery of

Vatican Syr. 143; III, p.249

John of Nairab 564A (875) 20th Nisan

?

Vatican Syr. 137; III, p.218

564B (875) Ab

Monastery of

Vatican Syr. 104; III, p.30

Mar Quryaqos, Barbaron 565 (876) Shbat

Edessa

Add. 17,157; p.505

569A (880 & 617 Ant.)

?

Add. 14,599; p.547

569B (880) Iyyar

Sarmin

Add. 14,597; p.651

576 (887; vid.)

for Sketis, Egypt

Vatican Syr. 142; III, p.245

?

Add. 17,169; p.454

Iyyar

30th Tammuz 581A (892) Hziran

10

See P. Géhin, ‘Manuscrits sinaïtiques dispersés, II’, Oriens Christianus 91

(2007), p.15.

93

SEBASTIAN BROCK

94 Date (cont.)

Place (cont.)

Reference (cont.)

581B (892)

?

Vatican Syr. 138; III, p.221

Monastery of

Add. 14,464; p.70

30th Tammuz pre 583 (894)

Mar Zakkai, Kallinikos 584 (895)

Monastery of

29th Tammuz

Gubba Barraya

Add. 12,160, ff.1–108; p.472

586A (897) Shbat

Monastery of

Florence, Laur.Plut. I.56

John of Beth

(‘Rabbula Gospels’)

Zagba 586B ([8]98;

?

Add. 14,609; p.1089

Monastery of

Add. 12,158; p.556

Indiction [ ]) Teshri I 587/8 (899)

Maki(?) 593 (905) 4th Kanun I

?

Add. 17,152; p.477

598/9A (910)

?

Add. 17,102; p.12

598/9B (910)

?

Add. 14,568; p.406

599/600A (911)

?

Add. 17,110; p.118

599/600B (911; Khosro

Tell Dinawar,

Add. 14,460; p.53

[II] 10)

Beth Nuhadra

603 (914) Illul

Sketis

Add. 14,587; p.524

604 (915)

Mathan, near

Add. 12,170, ff.1–135; p.458

15th Tammuz

Bostra

611 (922)

Monastery of the

Sat. 12th Illul

Star, Hina

614/5 (Khosro [II] 25)

Nisibis

Add. 14,471; p.53

615 (926) 1st Ab

?

Paris Syr. 69

621/2 (933)

(Serugh

Add. 14,478; p.91

Add. 12,135, ff.44–207; p.487

region) 624 (935) Ab

for Gedalta

Add. 14,472; p.82

633 (945; Ind. 7) Kanun I

Beth Hala, near

Wolfenbüttel 3.1.300 Aug.fol11

Damascus

11

Described in J. Assfalg, Syrische Handschriften Verzeichnis der orientalis-

chen Handschriften in Deutschland, V (Wiesbaden, 1963), pp. 8–15, no.5.

DATING FORMULAE

95

DATED INSCRIPTIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS JUXTAPOSED It is remarkable that the 6th century provides no less than 28 dated inscriptions and 40 dated manuscripts, and that there is either a dated inscription or/and manuscript belonging to 50 different years in that century. TABLE 3: Inscriptions and manuscripts juxaposed Inscriptions

Manuscripts

389 Babisqa 407 Borj al Qas 411 Edessa 434 Dar Qita 435/6 Edessa? 441/2 Qasr Iblisu 459/60 462 463/4 Amid 471 Huweija Halawa 473 perhaps Qal‘at Sim‘an 473/4 Khirbet al Khatib 474 Edessa 491/2 and 495/6 Basufan 493A Monastery of Mar Hanina 493B Edessa region 497 500 Umm Hartain, Hama 500/1 Mabbug 501/2 Surqanya 504 507/8 Khirbet Hassan 509 Monastery of Pa‘nur 509 Tell Bi‘a, near Raqqa 510 Edessa 510/11 Mabbug 512 512 Zebed 513 Fidreh 515/6 Ma‘ar Zayta 517/8 Rasm el-Hajal 518 522

SEBASTIAN BROCK

96 Inscriptions (cont.)

Manuscripts (cont.)

525/6 Kefr Nabu 528 Edessa 528/9 - 537/8 532A 532B (Bosra region) 532 Fidreh 533 Khirbet al Khatib 533/4A Edessa 533/4B 534 Qartmin Monastery 534 535 Kafra d-Barta (near Apamea) 536 and 539/40 539/40 Surqanya 540/41 Edessa 543/4 or 550/1 Kalota 545 545/6(?) Kalota 547/8 South Syria 548 Edessa 550/51 551/2?

Abu’l Kudur 552 Sarmin 553 Edessa 554 Monastery of Beth Mar Sargis

556 near Raqqa 557 563 Nairab 563/4 Rasm al Hajal 564A 564B Monastery of Mar Quryaqos 565 Edessa 569A 569B Sarmin 575 Jebel Bil‘as 576 for Sketis, Egypt 576 Al Dayr al Wastani 577/8 Der Sim‘an 578/9 Der Sim‘an 579/80 Kefr Hout 581A

DATING FORMULAE Inscriptions (cont.)

97

Manuscripts (cont.) 581B pre 583 Monastery of Mar Zakkai, Kallinikos 584 Monastery of Gubba Barraya 586A Monastery of John of Beth Zagba 586B 587/8 Monastery of Maki(?) 593

593/4 Stablat (Pognon)/ Bennaoui (Chabot) 594/5, or 604/5, or 644/5 595 Tell Biʿa 598/9 599/600 Tell Dinawar, Beth Nuhadra 601/2 Tell ‘Ada 603 Sketis 604 Mathan, near Bostra 605 611 Monastery of the Star, Hina 614/5 Nisibis 615 621/2 624 for Gedalta 633 Beth Hala, near Damascus

TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY In my contribution to the Milik Festschrift, interest was focused on three aspects: the position of the dating formula (at the beginning or at the end of the inscription), the various patterns into which the dating formula fell, and a cursory comparison with the practice in early Syriac manuscripts. In the materials for the 5th and 6th centuries the dating formula more frequently comes before the verb, at the beginning of inscriptions,12 while in manuscripts it normally follows the relevant

12

INSCR 441/2, 491/2, 497, 493A, 539/40, 576, 577/8, 578/9, and 605 are

exceptions, with the verb coming before the date.

SEBASTIAN BROCK

98

verb (usually eštlem ‘is completed’).13 As in the earlier contribution, the different patterns into which the dating formulae fall are analysed below. Where there is only one element (the year) mentioned, there are three possibilities: 1(a) šnt + N (= number); 1(b) bšnt + N; and 1 (c) b + N. In both manuscripts and inscriptions bšnt is the norm;14 the use of šnt without the preposition is only very rarely found: INSCR 501/2.15 Here a clear shift in usage can be observed, from šnt, which is the norm in the Old Syriac inscriptions,16 to bšnt, the norm in the 5th and 6th century materials. Where there are two elements concerned, the year and the month, practice is divided between the sequence Year-Month, and Month-Year, the latter being the only sequence found in the Old Syriac inscriptions. In the inscriptions and manuscripts of the 5th and 6th centuries this old sequence of Month-Year is quite often preserved, almost always in the form byrh M (= month name) dšnt N, with the genitive particle d- added:17 thus INSCR 471, 509, 513, 532, 595; MSS 462, 473, 474, 528, 530/40, 548, 553, 563, 563/4, 569B, 581A. The only exceptions are MSS 411 and 510, both of which preserve the older usage of having šnt without the preposition, i.e. byrh M šnt N; this reflects the earlier standard pattern in Palmyrene, Nabatean and Hatran, as well as in Old Syriac. It is of interest to note that the pattern byrh M dy šnt N is already attested in a number of Palmyrene inscriptions.

13

The verb comes after the year (and month) in MSS 509, 532B, 599A and

14

Only in INSCR 563/4 is šnyn added after the number.

633. 15

The formula without the preposition is also found in Add. 17,167 (p.678),

where the figure for the Seleucid year (760 = 448/9 CE!) ‘is evidently erroneous’

according to Wright, who suggests that 960 (= 648/9 CE) was intended; šnt is found occasionally in the two- and three-element formulae: MSS 411, 510, 532B, 554, 557. 16

With the sole exception of 235/6; note, however, that bšnt also occurs in

the three documents of 240, 242 and 243, but only for the year of the emperor,

etc, and not in the Seleucid era dating. The third possibility, bN, occurs only in a single Old Syriac inscription, of 201/2. 17

An exception is provided by MS 603, which has byrh M bšnt N, with the

preposition beth instead of dalath.

DATING FORMULAE

99

The reverse sequence Year-Month is quite widely found in both inscriptions and manuscripts of the 5th and 6th centuries. This is evidently an innovation as far as Syriac is concerned, though it is found earlier in a few Palmyrene inscriptions (mostly of the 3rd century). The normal pattern for this sequence is in the form bšnt Y byrh M: thus INSCR 493B, 504, 536; MSS 512, 554, 565; MS 554 is an exception, retaining the older usage with just šnt. In some rare cases the form bšnt bM occurs, with the yrh absent (INSCR 533; MS 518). Where there are three elements, with the date within the month added, the sequence is almost always Year-Month, and in the manuscripts a standard pattern emerges, though several variant formulae are also found, while the inscriptions offer a variety of forms, some of which are also attested in manuscripts: - bšnt N byrh M bN bh: MSS 509 (+ day of week), 522, 532B, 535, 545

(+ day of week), 564B, 581B, 604 (+byrh’ added), 611 (+ day of week), 624.

- šnt N + verb + byrh M bN bh byrh’: MSS 532B, 557 (both with the old šnt still present).

- bšnt N byrh M bks’ bh: INSCR 556; MS 624 (sale); ks’ is also found in the damaged colophon of MS 598/9B. - bšnt N bN bM: INSCR 512.

- bšnt wN byrh M: INSCR 493A.

- bšnt N bywm yrh M: INSCR 574/5; MS 553 (yrh’). - bšnt N bywm N dM: MS 633.

A few cases of the reverse sequence, Month-Year, are found with the following three patterns: - byrh M bN bh dšnt N: MSS 473 (+ day of week), 532A, 584, 593.

This pattern is also attested in an early note of sale in MS 576. - bywm N bM dšnt N + day of week: MS 552. - bywm yrh M dšnt N: MS 569A.

Though some three-element patterns do occur in the Middle Aramaic inscriptions, there are no exact precedents for any of the Syriac ones. A further dating element, found in both inscriptions and manuscripts, is the addition of bywmy, ‘in the days of’: INSCR 493A, 493B, 515/6, 534, 536, 547/8, 595; MSS 463/4, 473, 509, 510, 528, 532A,

SEBASTIAN BROCK

100

535, 557, 563, 564B, 569A, 569B, 576, 587/8, 593. MS 614/5 provides as an alternative bqwmh d-, ‘during the office of’. The era employed may or may not be specified.18 Both the inscriptions and the manuscripts normally employ the Seleucid era, which has remained in standard use in Syriac manuscripts right into the 19 th century. In the inscriptions this is assumed and never specified, except perhaps in INSCR 605, where d[ywny]’, d-yawnaye, ‘of the Greeks’, has been supplied; d-yawnaye is found in MSS 509, 512, 569A, 581B, 583. In the manuscripts the Seleucid era, if it is specified at all, is more frequently designated as being that of Alexander: thus MSS 500/1, 510/11 (these two are both from Mabbug), 535, 552, 564A, 564B, 586A, 604, 622. In cases where the era of Antioch is used,19 this is usually indicated: INSCR 491/2, 501/2, 507/8, 533, 601/2, 605; MSS 473, 569B (as well as the Seleucid), though there are some exceptions where it is not indicated at all: INSCR 434, 441/2. There is a single inscription and a single manuscript where the era of Apamea is used:20 INSCR 515; MS 518; while in MS 532B the era of ‘the hpky’, eparchy of Bosra’ is employed.21 In cases in the inscriptions where the era is specified, this is introduced either by bmnyn’, ‘in the numbering’: INSCR 491/2, 515, 533, 601/2, 605; or by bhšbn’, ‘in the reckoning’, written defectively: INSCR 501/2, 507/8. In the manuscripts only bmnyn’ features: MSS 473, 518, 535, 564B. Use of the dating by year of the Indiction cycle is only found in INSCR 595 and MSS 532A, 563, 586, 633. Regnal years (of Khosro II) feature in the only two dated manuscripts which definitely originate in the Sasanian Empire (MSS 599/600, 614/5), though a general reference

18

For the different eras employed by Syriac scribes, see in general F. Briquel-

Chatonnet, ‘Le temps du copiste: notations chronologiques dans les colophons de

manuscrits syriaques’, in F. Briquel-Chatonnet and H. Lozachmeur (eds), ProcheOrient ancien: temps vécu, temps pensé (Antiquités sémitiques III; Paris, 1998), pp. 197–210. 19

This began in 49 BCE (thus subtract 48); as in the Seleucid era, the year

begins in October (thus for Oct. - Dec., subtract 49). 20 21

The era of Apamea is in fact identical with the Seleucid era. The era of Bosra began on Mar 22nd 105 CE.

DATING FORMULAE

101

to the collation having been made ‘in the days of the Emperor Maurice’ is found in MS 599/600A. Indication of place is of course absent from inscriptions, but in the manuscripts it features (b- + place name) a number of times: MSS 411, 462, 463/4, 474, 509, 510, 510/11, 518, 528, 532B, 533/4, 535, 541, 548, 553, 565, 569B, 584, 588, 611, 599/600, 614/5. Usually place comes after the dating formula, but in a few cases it precedes it: MSS 510/11 (Mabbug), 533/4 (Edessa), 541 (Edessa), 565 (Edessa). 588.

A NOTE ON THE HANDLING OF NUMBERS In the Middle Aramaic inscriptions the use of numerical symbols (for 100, 10, 5 and 1) is regularly found in Hatran, normally in Palmyrene, while practice in Nabataean is divided, as is also the case in Old Syriac, where they still feature in the earlier Old Syriac inscriptions (years 6, 73 and 165), but by 192 usage has changed, and all the subsequent Old Syriac inscriptions and the three documents have the numbers written out (years 192, 194, 209, 218, 224, 226, 235/6, 240, 242, 243 and 259). This is also the case in many Nabataean inscriptions (and the document of 99 CE), as well as in the Murabba‘at papyri (early 2 nd century CE). In the summaries of two of the documents (240 and 242) only the five hundred is written out, while the remainder of the number is given in the form of alphabetic numbers (a practice which later became the norm) with n = 50, and b =2, g = 3; against later practice, however, the lower number in both documents comes first, i.e. bn, gn, instead of nb (= 52), ng (=53). In the Classical Syriac inscriptions, the old numerals have disappeared, and numbers are regularly written out, with the sole exception of three inscriptions (years 513, 532 and 551/2) where alphabetic numerals feature, in accordance with what became the later standard practice. In the manuscripts the numbers in the dates are regularly written out. Though not of direct relevance to the concern of the present contribution, it is worth noting that the old numerals are sometimes employed for quire numbering, a practice that died out (with a few excep-

SEBASTIAN BROCK

102

tions) after the 9th century.22 They evidently continued in use, however, in medical (and probably other scientific) texts for several more centuries. The manuscript of 411 seems to be unique in employing sequential alphabetic numerals (i.e. k = 11, not 20, etc.) for numbering the quires.

SOME PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS It would certainly be premature at this stage to attempt to identify scribal schools, for this would require taking into consideration many other factors as well, both codicological and palaeographical, in conjunction with a detailed study of distinctive phraseology in other parts of the colophons,23 quite apart from the dating formulae which have been considered here. Nevertheless a small beginning can be made, seeing that we are fortunate in having no less than nine manuscripts specifically written in Edessa ‘capital of Beth Nahrin’ (411, 474, 510, 528, 533/4, 541, 548, 553, 565), as well as a further four copied by scribes who identify themselves as being an ‘Edessene scribe’ (katoba urhaya; 518, 552, 563/4, 593) and a further one who states that he was from Edessa (584). Furthermore, two are from Mabbug (500/1, 510), two from Sarmin (552, 569B), and two were written from within the Sasanian Empire (599/600, 614/5; the latter in Nisibis itself). Do the manuscripts specifically written in Edessa display any common factors? In the first place it can be observed that in the twoelement formulae they always retain the older sequence of Month-Year. This is also the case with the ‘Edessene scribes’, with one exception (518). While this sequence is not in itself distinctive, there is one pattern that is almost exclusive to manuscripts specifically written in Edessa, namely the sequence Month-Year-Place (without further additions): thus 411, 462, 510, 528 (+ byawmay), 548, 553; of these, only 462 is uncertain, since the name of the place has been erased. The same pat22

See my ‘Les signatures en chiffres arithmétiques dans les manuscrits syri-

aques de la British Library’, in F. Briquel Chatonnet and M. Debié (eds), Sur les pas

des Araméens chrétiens. Mélanges offerts à Alain Desreumaux (Cahiers d’études syriaques 1; Paris, 2010), pp. 159–67. 23

Thus, to take one striking example, the combination of ka’em ‘al with the

ensuing biblical phrase a(y)k mhalleṣ beth maqdša (Rom. 2:22) is common to MSS 584, 586A, 593, and 622.

DATING FORMULAE

103

tern, with the day of the month added, also occurs in 584, whose scribe was from Edessa. The only other manuscript with this particular sequence of Month-Year-Place is 569B (+ byawmay, as 528), written in Sarmin. Curiously, another rare pattern that is best attested for manuscripts written in Edessa (533/4, 541, 565) is the sequence Place-Year (-Month), otherwise only found in 510/11 (Mabbug) and 588. While the two manuscripts copied in Mabbug do not display any obvious common features in their dating formulae, those from Sarmin share the unusual sequence Month-Year for a three-element date, though in detail they differ. It is noticeable that the two manuscripts from outside the Roman Empire are alone in providing the pattern of just Year-Place, though that sequence + byawmay does occur in one other manuscript (463/4, Amid). They also share the added regnal dating, denoted by the years of Khosro II. Apart from these cases where the manuscripts are known to share a common place of origin, attention might be drawn to particular patterns that are either well attested, or unusual in some way. While the sequence Year-Month (alone) is attested by three manuscripts (512, 518, 554), this sequence is much more frequent with the addition of the day of the month: thus MSS 522, 535 (+ Place and byawmay), 545, 557 (+ byawmay), 564, 581B, 604, 611, 624. In the case of the three-element formulae, where normally the year precedes the month, the reverse sequence, already noted for the two manuscripts from Sarmin, is also found (in a slightly different form) in a small group of five manuscripts (473, 532A, 576, 584, 593), most of which are of unknown provenance. Finally, it is worth remarking on the large number of cases, both in the inscriptions (31 out of a total of 62) and in the manuscripts (40 out of a total of 57), where the month is specified. In the case of the manuscripts the figures are possibly of interest, given that in the winter months daylight was considerably shorter (a factor often indicated in calendars).24Thus the figures for the completion of manuscripts in each month are: 24

Thus in a calendar attributed to Jacob of Edessa, published in Parole de

l’Orient 1:2 (1970), pp. 415–29), the variable hours of daylight and night are specified for each month (the maximum differences being December (9 hours daylight, 15 night) and June (15 hours daylight and 9 night).

SEBASTIAN BROCK

104

TABLE 4: Manuscripts completed in each month 411–633 CE Teshri I (Oct.):

2

Nisan (Apr.):

7

Teshri II (Nov.):

2

Iyyar (May):

4

Kanun I (Dec.):

5

Hziran (Jun.):

3

Kanun II (Jan.):

1

Tammuz (Jul.):

5

Shbat (Feb.):

3

Ab (Aug.):

4

Adar (Mar.):

-

Illul (Sep.):

4

Total Winter months:

13

Total Summer months:

27

These figures are quite surprising, in that the shortest month has more than the longest (needless to say, it should be remembered in this connection that a manuscript may take several months to complete). 25 If, however, one compares the sum for the winter months (13) with that of the summer ones (27), the figures are more what one might expect. Since the sample available for the years 411 to 633 is fairly small, it is worth comparing their figures for the much large sample that is provided by taking into account all dated Syriac manuscripts up to 1300; here the figures are:26 TABLE 5: Manuscripts completed in each month up to 1300 CE Teshri I (Oct.):

16

Nisan (Apr.):

29

Teshri II (Nov.):

18

Iyyar (May):

23

Kanun I (Dec.):

21

Hziran (Jun.):

18

Kanun II (Jan.):

17

Tammuz (Jul.):

30

Shbat (Feb.):

24

Ab (Aug.):

31

Adar (Mar.):

26

Illul (Sep.):

29

Total Winter months:

122

Total Summer months:

160

Again, the figure for December is surprisingly high, and that for June surprisingly low. The quite high figure for March suggests that the absence of any manuscripts completed in March in the period 411–633 is

25

A very instructive modern colophon giving these sorts of data is to be

found in the Gospel Lectionary copied by the late Mor Julius Çiçek, published by the Bar Hebraeus Verlag in 1987: see my ‘The Art of the Scribe’, in S.P. Brock and

D.G.K. Taylor (eds), The Hidden Pearl, II. The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage (Rome, 2001), p.251. 26

The evidence is listed in my ‘A tentative checklist of dated Syriac manu-

scripts up to 1300’, forthcoming in Hugoye 2012.

DATING FORMULAE

105

fortuitous. Although it is difficult at present to interpret these figures, nevertheless it seems worth drawing attention to them here, since it is possible that they may prove significant in the light of other factors, such as the background of economic life, periods of the year requiring more intensive agricultural work, etc.

CONCLUSION It is particularly regrettable that virtually all evidence is lacking for the 4th century, since this is likely to have been an important period of transition. When the evidence reappears again, in the early 5th century, it is significant that our oldest manuscript witness of 411 contains some features of Old Syriac practice (notably šnt, rather than bšnt) that were subsequently usually replaced. This manuscript is exceptional in other ways as well, in particular in the manner in which it numbers the quires, using sequential alphabetic numbers which are not attested, it seems, in any other manuscript. Another notable shift away from practice in the Old Syriac inscriptions (and Middle Aramaic usage in general) is in the appearance of the new sequence of Year-Month, replacing Month-Year. The older sequence, however, does continue to survive side by side with the new one, although in a slightly altered form, with šnt being replaced by dšnt. In the case of three-element dating formulae, considerable variety is to be found in the inscriptions in the choice of the various possibilities, none of which demonstrate any real continuity from the period of Old Syriac. In the manuscripts, however, a standard new pattern is clearly beginning to emerge. While it is premature to try to identify schools, the relatively high number of manuscripts connected with Edessa may allow one to isolate certain features that may prove to be characteristic of Edessene usage (some indications of these are given above), especially when they are taken in conjunction with other factors. But further exploration along these lines remains a task for the future, and the same applies to correlating the materials presented here with the evidence to be found in literary sources. In connection with the latter it is worth drawing attention here to the colophons to the Harklean Gospels which turn out to provide an intriguing link with 510/11, one of the two manuscripts written in Mabbug. In the colophons to the Harklean Gospels the reference to the original revision of 507/8, sponsored by Philoxenus, is stated to have been made ‘in the town of Mabbug in the year eight hun-

SEBASTIAN BROCK

106

dred and nineteen of Alexander the Macedonian...’.27 While the rather rare sequence Verb-Place-Year, attested both there and in 510/11, is found in a few other manuscripts, the combination of this sequence with the specification of Alexander as ‘the Macedonian’ is only to be found in 510/11, copied three years after the completion of the revision and containing Philoxenus’ own Commentary on Matthew and Luke. It thus seems highly likely that Thomas of Harkel, writing in 615/6, took over the exact phraseology from his source, written a little over a century previously.

27

The colophon can conveniently be found in G.A. Kiraz (ed.), Comparative

Edition of the Syriac Gospels, IV John (Leiden, 1996), p. 369.

BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY, A MASTER CALLIGRAPHER IN THE MONGOL PERIOD AMIR HARRAK UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO This article examines the calligraphic talents of Bacchus son of

Mattay, looking at what is known of the man and comparing his

Estrangela script with inscriptions from the monastery of Mārehnām, near Mosul, whose superb script resembles that of Bac-

chus’ manuscript.

The Mongol period witnessed an intensive production of inscriptions and manuscripts in which the monk and priest Bacchus son of Mattay of ‘Bēt- udaid’ (modern Qaraqosh, Iraq) played a pivotal role. A native of Northern Mesopotamia, he lived in Edessa, where he was probably trained in Estrangela calligraphy and the copying of manuscripts, before moving to Egypt, where he copied several manuscripts with a script of immense beauty. In the 1960s, the late Father Jules Leroy devoted an article to this master calligrapher and another Bacchus who was a miniaturist.1 The present article, written in honour of the renowned epigraphist of early Syriac, Professor John Healey, concentrates on the calligraphic talents of Bacchus son of Mattay. He seems to have mastered the ‘Medial Script,’ attested from the 8 th century onward

1 Jules Leroy, ‘Deux scribes syriaques nommés Bâkôs,’ L’Orient Syrien 7

(1962), pp. 103–120.

107

AMIR HARRAK

108

in Ṭūr-‘Abdīn,2 and may have been the calligrapher of the monastery of Mār-Behnām, near Mosul, whose superb Estrangela script resembles that of Bacchus’ manuscript.

BIOGRAPHY OF BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY Bacchus is known through several manuscripts that he copied in Edessa and at the Monastery of the Syrians in Egypt. Manuscripts that are securely attributed to him include: BL. OR. 8729, a Gospel written in Sel. 1541 = 1230 CE3 Bodleian 65 (Syriac), Anaphora copied in Sel. 1559 = 1238 CE4 Add. 17256, Psalter copied in Sel. 1562 = 1251 CE5 Add. 14686, Lectionary copied in Sel. 1566 = 1255 CE 6 A few personal details about Bacchus are found in the colophon of the manuscript BL. OR. 8729 (number 1 above), copied in 1230 CE which exhibits an outstanding Estrangela script. Unlike his other work, the colophon is written in Serṭo. It is printed here for the first time along with its first English translation:

‫ܐܠܝܩܪܐ ܘܠܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܕܬܠܬܝܝܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܘܫܘܬܝ‬ .‫ ܚܕ ܠܐܗܐ ܫܪܝܪܐ‬.‫ܒܐܘܣܝܐ ܕܐܒܐ ܘܕܒܪܐ ܘܕܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ ܘܠܗܓܝܢܐ‬.‫ܘܠܨܒܬܐ ܘܗܕܪܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܫܠܝܚܬܝܐ ܕܠܐܗܐ‬ 2

For the term and an excellent discussion of the subject see Andrew Palmer,

‘The Syriac Letter Forms of Ṭūr-‛Abdīn and Environs,’ Oriens Christianus 73 (1989), pp. 77–82. 3

A photo of the Syriac colophon is found in Jules Leroy, Les Manuscrits Syri-

aques à Peintures, Album (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1964), p. 159 no. 2. His French

translation of the same is found in his article “Deux scribes syriaques nommés

Bâkôs,” pp. 110–11. See also W. H. Hatch, Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston 1946), plate XCII. 4

R. Payne Smith, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bodleianae,

vol. VI (Oxford, 1864), no. 65, cols. 229–231; this source is available online: http://cpart.byu.edu/files/Smith_Catalogi%20codicum%20manuscriptorum.1864.p df

5

William Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Ac-

quired since the Year 1838, vol. I (London: 1870), no. CCIX, pp. 142–3. 6

Ibid., no. CCXXVIII, pp. 169–72; Hatch, Dated Syriac Manuscripts, plate

XCIII, p. 144.

‫‪109‬‬

‫‪BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫ܕܐܚܐ ܦ̈ܪܘܫܐ ܘ̈ܪܚܡܝ ܠܐܗܐ‪ .‬ܐܫܬܡܠܝ ܟܬܝ‬ ‫ܘܐܫܬܠܟܠ ܬܟܒܐ ܗܐܢ ܕܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܩܕܝܫܐ ‪ .‬ܒܫܢܬ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܢܝܐ ̈‬ ‫ܠܐܦ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܢܟܝܐܠ ܒܥܣ̈ܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܚܡܫܡܐܐ ܘܐ̈ܪܒܥܝܢ ܘܚܕܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܝܘܡܝ ̈ܪܥܘܬܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ‪ .‬ܡܪܝ‬ ‫̈ܘܬܫܥܐ ܒܬܡܘܙ ܝܪܚܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܝܓܢܐܛܝܘܣ ܦܐܛܪܝܪܟܐ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ ܕܣܘܪܝܐ‪ .‬ܥܕܬܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܒܝܘܡܝ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܕܡܨ̈ܪܝܐ ܕܐܠ ܪܝܫܐ ܗܘܬ ܒܗܐܢ ܙܒܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܡܝܛܪܦܘ ܕܐܘܪܗܝ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܡܒܪܬܟܐ܀ ܐܬܬܟܒ‬ ‫ܕܝܢ ܒܛܘܪܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܐܘܪܗܝ‪ .‬ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕܝܠܕܬ ܠܐܗܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܫܬܡܗܐ ܕܝܪܐ ̈‬ ‫ܕܐܟܣܢܝܐ܀ ܘܬܟܒܗ ܕܝܢ ܐܢܫ ܡܚܝܐܠ‬ ‫ܘܚܛܝܐ‪ .‬ܘܡܐܠ ̈ܡܘܡܐ ܘܚܒ̈ܪܬܐ‪ .‬ܕܡܬܝܕܥ ܫܡܗ‬ ‫ܒܐܟܘܣ ܒܪ ܡܬܝ ܒܪ ܡܘܫܐ ܒܪ ܐܫܥܝܐ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܒܬܝܚܘܕܝܕܕ ܩܪܬܝܐ ܡܒܪܬܟܐ ܕܒܐܬܪܐ ܕܡܘܨܠ ܘܕܢܝܢܘܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܒܫܡܐ ܲܡܢ ܕܝܪܝܐ ܒܟܘܢܝܐ ܕܝܢ ܩܫܝ‪̈ .‬‬ ‫ܒܥܒܕܐ ܕܝܢ ܓܠܝܙ‬ ‫ܡܢ ̈ܫܘܡܗܘܗܝ܀ ܫܟܢܬܗ ܕܝܢ ܐܐܢ ܒܐܟܘܣ ܐܠܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܐܢ‪ .‬ܠܕܝܪܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܕܝܠܕܬ ܠܐܗܐ ܕܣܘ̈ܪܝܝܐ ܕܒܡܕܒܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܨܪܝܢ‪ .‬ܐܟܡܢ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܠܝ ̈‬ ‫ܘܐܠܒܗܝ ̈‬ ‫ܘܐܠܚܝ‪ .‬ܠܥܘܗܕܐܢ‬ ‫ܘܠܕܘܟܪܐܢ ܘܠܚܘܣܝܐ ܘܠܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ‪̈ .‬‬ ‫ܒܨܠܘܬܐ ܘܒܩܘ̈ܪܒܐ‬ ‫ܥܕܡܐ ܠܥܠܡ܀ ܪܩ‬ ‫ܕܡܫܬܡܠܝܢ ܒܕܘܬܟܐ ̈ܗܕܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ‪̈ .‬‬ ‫ܕܝܢ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܬܟܒܐ ܘܢܦܩܬܐ ܘܠܟܗܝܢ ܡܬܒܥܝܢܬܝܐ ܡܢܝ‬ ‫ܐܬܝܝܗܘܢ ܡܫܡܠܝܐܬܝ‪ .‬ܡܢ ̇ܗܘ ܡܐ ܕܙܢܬ ܛܝܒܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܐܗܬܝܐ ܒܬܝ ܐܝ̈ܕܝ܀ ܐܐܠ ܡܦܝܣ ܐܐܢ ܒܬܚܢܢܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܡܬܟܫܦ ܐܐܢ ܕܟܠ ̇ܡܢ ̇ܕܦܓܥ ܒܬܟܒܐ ܗܐܢ‪ .‬ܕܒܚܘܒܐ‬ ‫ܢܒܥܐ ܡܢ ܠܐܗܐ ܕܢܚܣܐ ܠܝ ̈ܚܛܗܝ ̈‬ ‫ܣܓܝܐܐ ̇‬ ‫ܕܣܥܪܬ‪.‬‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܕܒܠܟܗܘܢ ̈‬ ‫ܙܢܝܐ ܕܚܛܬܝܐ ܡܦܟܪ ܐܐܢ‪ .‬ܘܗܐ‬ ‫ܒܨܠܘܬܟܘܢ‪ .‬ܕܗܢܘܢ ܢܗܘܘܢ ̈‬ ‫ܡܬܓܘܣ ܐܐܢ ̈‬ ‫ܡܨܥܝܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܦܝܣܢܐ ܐܠܠܗܐ‪ .‬ܕܟܒܪ ܐܫܟܚ ܒܨܪܐ ܙܥܘܪܐ ܕ̈ܪܚܡܐ‬ ‫ܒܝܘܡܐ ̇ܗܘ ܪܒܐ ܕܕܝܢܐ ܟܐܐܢ‪ .‬ܡܕܝܢ ܒܥܐ ܐܐܢ ܡܢܟܘܢ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܬܗܡܘܢ‪ 7‬ܡܢ ܗܕܡܟܘܢ܀ ܨܠܘ ܕܝܢ ܥܠ ܐܚܐ ܕܝܠܖ ܪܒܢ‬ ‫ܣܪܓܝܣ‪ .‬ܕܐܠܝ ܐܦ ܐܬܛܪܦ ܥܡܝ ܒܠܟܗܝܢ‬ ‫‪. In fact the writer forgot the pronominal suffix‬ܬܗܡܘܢܝ ‪Phonetic spelling; read‬‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫‪and when he wanted to insert it there was space only for final nūn.‬‬

AMIR HARRAK

110

̈ ̈ .‫ܐܒܗܝܢ ܕܦܓܪ ܘܕܪܘܚ‬ ‫ܡܬܒܥܝܢܬܝܐ܀ ܘܨܠܘ ܐܦ ܥܠ‬ ̇ .‫ܘܒܥܒܕܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ‫ܘܥܠ ܟܠ ܕܐܫܬܘܬܦ ܒܡܠܬܐ‬ .‫ ܘܡܬܥܗܕ ܠܢ ܦܪܘܫܐܬܝ‬:‫ܕܒܚܘܒܐ ܡܨ̇ ܐܠ ܥܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܢܚܣܐ‬ ̇ .‫ܢܬܥܗܕܝܘܗܝ ܒܪܐ ܝܚܝܕܝܐ ܒܡܐܬܬܝܗ ܬܪܝܢܬܝܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܠܗ ̈ܚܘܒܘܗܝ‬ .‫ܠܥܢܝܕܘܗܝ ̈ܡܗܝܡ‬ ‫ܘܚܛܗܘܗܝ ܘܢܚܣܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̇ ‫ܒܨ‬ .‫ ܘܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܡܝܢ‬.‫ܠܘܬܗ ܕܝܠܕܬ ܠܐܗܐ ܡܪܝܡ‬ For the honour and glory of the holy Trinity, equal in essence, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one true God, and for the

adornment and the glory of the Apostolic Church of God, and for the reading of the sagacious and God-loving brothers, this book of the

holy Gospel was completely finished in the year one thousand five hundred and forty-one of the perfidious8 Greeks, on the twenty-

ninth of the month of Tammūz (July), during the days of the shepherds of the Church, Mōr Ignatius the patriarch of Antioch of Syr-

ia9—the Coptic Church did not have a leader during this time10 - and the days of Mōr Yuwannis, the Metropolitan of Edessa the ‘Blessed City.’

It was written on the holy mountain of Edessa, in the monastery of

the Mother of God named bēt-‘aksnōyē (= monastery of foreigners).

It was written by a man, frail, a sinner, and full of faults and errors,

known by name as Bacchus son of Mattay son of Moses son of Isaiah of Bēt- udayd,11 the blessed village which is in the region of Mosul 8

This pejorative adjective is sometimes found in manuscripts instead of the

usual ‘holy Greeks,’ in reference to the Seleucid computation system, considered ‘holy’ in Syriac Christianity. It is thus not coined by the writer of the colophon. 9

He is Ignatius III Dā’ūd (David), who administered the Church between

1222 and 1252; Jean Maurice Fiey, Pour un Oriens Christianus Novus: répertoire des

diocèses syriaques orientaux et occidentaux, Beiruter Texte und Studien 49 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993), p. 32. 10

Between 1216 and 1235 and the administration of John VI (1189–1216)

and Cyril III (1235–1243), the Coptic Church was without patriarch. 11

The name ends unusually with double dōlat: ‫ ܒܬܝ ܚܘܕܝܕܕ‬instead of the ex-

pected ‫ = ܒܬܝ ܚܘܕܝܕܐ‬Bēt-Khudaydā, one among many other forms of the name, in ref-

erence to present-day Qaraqosh or al- amdāniyyah. See A. Harrak, ‘Qaraqosh,’ in S. P. Brock et al, Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage ([Piscataway, NJ]: Gorgias Press, 2010), pp. 243–4.

BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY

111

and Nineveh; he is monk in name, and priest in title but in deeds lacking in all distinction.

I, Bacchus, donated this Gospel to the holy monastery of the Mother of God of the Syrians which is in the desert of Egypt, so that it may be for me, my parents, and my brothers (cause) for remembrance,

commemoration, forgiveness, and association in the prayers and in the Eucharist that will be offered in this holy place, forever.

The parchment of this book and its expenses and necessities are entirely from me, from what the divine grace has poured into my

hands. But I ask, begging and requesting everyone who finds this book to beg God with love to forgive the many sins that I have

committed, for I am entangled with all kinds of sins. Behold, I seek refuge in your prayers, that they12 may become my mediators and

intercessors before God, for perhaps I would find a little bit of mercy on the great day of just Judgement. I beg you, therefore, not to discard me from your group.

Also pray for my brother, the monk Sargīs (Sergius), who laboured

and toiled with me in all the necessary tasks. Pray also for our natu-

ral and spiritual fathers and all who associated themselves (with us), whether in word or in work. He who prays for us with love and remembers us in particular, may the Only-Begotten Son remember

him in his second coming; may he forgive his faults and sins and

have mercy on his deceased faithful ones, through the prayers of the Mother of God and of the holy ones! Amen.

This colophon is significant in that it gives information on Bacchus’ country of origin, his whereabouts and work in Edessa, his relationship with the monastery of the Syrians in the Scete Desert, and the name of his brother. His hometown Bēt-Khudēdā, Bukhdēdā, Baġdēdā, modern Qaraqosh and al- amdāniyyah, is located to the east of Mosul in Iraq, and was and still is a Syriac Christian village whose people speak vernacular Aramaic as their native tongue. The monastery of Bēt-ʿaksnōyē in Edessa is also mentioned in the context of 13th century events in the

12

In other colophons the verb is ‫‘ ܬܗܘܘܢ‬you may become…,’ which makes bet-

ter sense.

AMIR HARRAK

112

Syriac Chronicle 123413. The other manuscript of Bacchus, Bodleian 65 (number 2 above), mentions an anaphora offered by him to the church of the Mother of God in Melitene, which he copied in the monastery of the Mother of God, called ‘of Solitaries, on the holy mountain of Edessa.’14 He spent at least eight years in Edessa, between 1230 (the date of the Estrangela Gospel) and 1238 (the date of the anaphora). In those years Bacchus was still young, healthy and full of energy, as is evident in the way he wrote his Gospel, with an assured and skilful hand. The ‘Blessed City’ probably gave him the opportunity to master calligraphy in both Estrangela and cursive scripts. It is interesting to note that the colophon of BL. OR. 8729 gives the full identity of the copyist, whereas in all other manuscripts he gives only his first name. This genealogical provision may reflect the fact that he was still new in Edessa and felt the need to present himself with full credentials.15 He may have worked as a copyist for some time before going to Edessa, since his Gospel reflects mastery in calligraphy, a stage well beyond that of beginners. Moreover, he was able to afford the high expense involved in producing a manuscript, probably through copying codices at cost. The expenses covered the costs of parchment, black and colour ink, leather for binding, and fees for his assistant, his own brother Sargīs. In 1230, the year he copied the Gospel, the lively Bacchus refers to himself merely as a sinner, but in the colophon of Add. 17256, written twenty years later (1251), he claims himself sick to the point of

13

Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, t. II, ed. I. B.

Chabot, T. CSCO 82/Syr. 37 (Paris 1916), p. 223 line 16–17 (the year 1224). 14

R. Payne Smith, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bodleianae,

vol. VI (Oxford, 1864), no. 65, cols. 229–231; this source is available online: http://cpart.byu.edu/files/Smith_Catalogi%20codicum%20manuscriptorum.1864.p df

15

A copyist and miniaturist named Bacchus son of Bar-Ṣawmō, who was also

on the mountain of Edessa, identified himself in full in a colophon dated to Sel.

1533 (1222 CE). That was eight years before Bacchus son of Mattay copied his

Gospel and perhaps even before he went to Edessa. The manuscript of Bar-Ṣawmō, containing miniatures, is at the Syriac Orthodox monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem; Hatch, Dated Syriac Manuscripts, Plates XCII; Leroy, Les Manuscrits Syriaques à Peintures, pp. 318–9.

BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY

113

wishing to die. In his excellent Catalogue, Wright gives the Syriac text of the colophon but without translation,16 which is now given here: The completion of the second part of the Psalms of David, the king and the Prophet, along with its (first) part, was ended in the year

one thousand five hundred and sixty-two of the perfidious Greeks, on Saturday, the 16th day of the month of Īlūl (September), during

the days of the administrators of the Church Mōr Ignatius Patriarch of Antioch of Syria,17 and Mōr Athanasius the Patriarch of Egypt.18

Both parts were written in our holy monastery of the Mother of God, we the Syrians, which is in the desert of Egypt, I mean, Scetis.19

An old man, frail, of infirmities and sores, whose name is Bacchus,

wrote it for the aforementioned monastery, so that they may use it in the service and sing it, that they may pray for him and for his

parents, and the rest. And you my fathers and brothers, a powerful unit, a virtuous and holy congregation of monks, tested solitaries

and veritable anchorites, along with the venerable Abbot: I beseech you while I fall before you, not to blame me on account of the im-

perfect copying, because I did my best as much as I could, and God

is witness! I am very weak due to old age, and behold, my hands are

shaking and persisting sicknesses press hard on me and every day [I] wish I would die.

I beg your kindness to be mediators [and intercessors] between God

and me; perhaps he would have mercy and pardon me through your prayers. […] and pray for me expressly. May he too be pardoned by God [… …] for everyone who associated himself. And on my spiritual brother

a[bbīb …], my natural brother Rabban Sergius who

passed away. Pray for […] the late Rabban Isaiah who taught me— may God pardon him [Amen].

16 17

Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, vol. I, pp. 142–3.

The patriarch is Ignatius III David; Fiey, Pour un Oriens Christianus, p. 32.

He was Athanasius III (1250–1261). 19 ̇ For the term and its Coptic origin see R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus ‫ܬܩܠ ܠܒܐ‬: 18

syriacus, vol. II (Oxford: Clarendon Press/Hildesheim, Olms repr., 1901/1981), col. 4482.

AMIR HARRAK

114

In this colophon Bacchus perhaps exaggerates his health problems since he managed to copy yet another manuscript in 1255, Add. 14686 (number 4 above). But by then he must have been genuinely infirm, and no more manuscripts were produced by him after this date. His work as a calligrapher and copyist lasted at least 25 years, a productive career even by today’s standards. If he died at the age of 75 years, he would have left his native country when he was 55 years old. If this were the case, he would have copied manuscripts for many years while still in Mesopotamia. Unfortunately, few old manuscripts have managed to survive in that region, ravaged as it has been by wars and invasions.20

CALLIGRAPHIC TALENTS OF BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY We now turn to Bacchus’ skills in Estrangela. The manuscript BL. OR. 8729 (see Harrak Plate 1) provides an excellent example of his handwriting in this script. Comparisons of his letter forms with others found elsewhere in the Jazīrah in both manuscripts and inscriptions serve to highlight the features of his calligraphy. Fortunately, Andrew Palmer has already discussed the epigraphy of the inscriptions of Ṭūr-‘Abdīn and its environs,21 making our task somewhat easier, while Hatch’s dated manuscripts published with images provide even more examples to compare with the work of Bacchus. The horizontal bar of the independent olaf in the manuscript of Bacchus is slightly lengthened and nicely curved, while its right foot rests on a shoe-like base markedly ahead of the foot (as in └). The same olaf is found in MS Sachau 304 (Berlin), dated by Sachau to the 13th 20

New catalogues of manuscripts have been recently published in Iraq in Ar-

abic, thanks to the indefatigable scholar of Qaraqosh, Fr. Behnām Sōnī. These include his Catalogue of manuscripts of the Churches of

aġdēdā and Catalogue of the

Manuscripts of the People of aġdēdā (Dehōk, 2011); Catalogue of the Manuscripts of

the Monastery of Mār- ehnām the Martyr (Baghdad, 2005); Colophons of Manuscripts and ooks of the Churches of aġdēdā and of the Manuscripts of the People of aġdēdā,

Inside and Outside (Dehōk, 2011). See also Ġānim ‛Abdul-A ad al-Šamānī. ahāris

al-maḵṭūṭāt al-suryāniyya fī abrašiyyat dayr Mār-Mattā [Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the Monastery of Mār-Mattā] (Dehōk, 2010). 21

A. Palmer, ‘A Corpus of Inscriptions from Ṭūr ‘Abdīn and Environs,’ Oriens

Christianus 71 (1987), p. 53–139.

BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY

115

century, on the basis of its similarity with MS Sachau 322, securely dated to 1240/122 (MS Sachau 304 is also an East-Syriac lectionary featuring predominately East-Syriac holy men and was restored by a ‘Nestorian’ bookbinder). Palmer attributed it to a well-known copyist named Emmanuel who lived around the year 1000. Close to this date is Add. 14490, a Gospel dated to 1089, which exhibits the same letter form, as does an inscription from Qartmin dated ca. 1105.23 It seems that this type of olaf began sometime during the 10th century and continued to the time of Bacchus, since from the earliest Syriac manuscripts (dated to 411) to the late 9th century, this shoe-like part is consistently situated behind the foot (as in ┘). After this period, this part of the letter merges with the line when ligatured. A patriarchal funerary inscription from the monastery of Rabban Hormizd dated to 1591 preserves these features.24 By contrast, the olaf in other periods and regions is represented with a straight bar or a bar that has an exaggerated angle resting on the right foot. This detail usually ends with a hook in several 8th and 9th century inscriptions, and in many manuscripts dated to earlier periods.25 It is abandoned in 10th century inscriptions from Ṭūr‘Abdīn,26 but in 19th century inscriptions from Alqōsh it ends with a small ball. The bēt in the manuscript of Bacchus is quite angular and made of straight lines. The same feature is found in manuscripts produced in Ṭūr-‘Abdīn between the 8th and 10th centuries, although in all other periods the top part is usually slightly curved. From the beginning of the 8th century to the time of Bacchus, the ligatured gōmal looks more 22

See one folio of the manuscript in Palmer, ‘The Syriac Letter Forms,’ pp.

71–73 and plate 1; on it see also E. Sachau, Die handschriftenverzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, XXIII: Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften (Berlin: 1899), p. 27. 23

Palmer, ‘A Corpus of Inscriptions,’ pp. 116–19; a hand copy of the inscrip-

tion is also found in Henri Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul (Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1907), plate 14. 24

A. Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, Recueil des inscriptions

syriaques 2 (Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2010), vol. 1 and 2, no. AP.01.34. 25

See for example Hatch, Dated Syriac Manuscripts, plates XXVI (564 CE), XL

(613–14 CE), LVI (778 CE), and LX (804 CE). 26

Palmer, ‘The Syriac Letter Forms,’ pp. 86–87.

116

AMIR HARRAK

or less the same: an acute and open triangle ending with a clear ball. From the 11th century to the time of Bacchus, the Estrangela dōlat is almost a straight angle with the same line thickness, unlike earlier times in which the letter was made of a leg topped by a horizontal thicker line. The hē is made of a curved top line which then curls downward, forming on its way an angle on the right side, in addition to a middle leg that ends at the bottom level of the letter. This is the traditional shape of the Estrangela letter found in manuscripts over the centuries. The wāw is traditionally pointed in some manuscripts and inscriptions, but is rounded like its East-Syriac counterpart in others. In inscriptions from Ṭūr-‘Abdīn, a tall pointed wāw appears in the 10th century but remains a regional variant. The shape of the ṭēt in Bacchus has a small triangular body, unlike its counterpart in earlier manuscripts, which is usually large and seems to reflect the preference of our calligrapher. The top part of his initial and medial kōf is rather rounded and does not exhibit an angle, as is detected in other shapes in both manuscripts and inscriptions before his time. No independent or final kōf is attested in the folio, but its top part is expected to be rounded as well; this would contrast with the V-shaped top of the letter seen before his time. Bacchus’ mīm in initial and medial positions has two parallel legs, the right with a hook with which it almost forms an angle; both legs are topped by a slightly curved horizontal bar whose length is not exaggerated. The letter is markedly angular and the space within it is wider than its counterpart in manuscripts and inscriptions of earlier periods, where the hook is raised, reducing the space inside the letter. As is generally the case, the independent or final mīm is made of a box whose upper side protrudes on the left side, in addition to a short tail. Bacchus accentuates the angular borders. The final independent or attached nūn in the manuscript is unlike its counterparts in all other sources: although it is made of an oval head that can be found elsewhere, the thin horizontal tail attached to the head underlines up to two letters before it, while elsewhere, including MS Sachau 304 from Ṭūr-‘Abdīn, the tail is much longer, covering some four letters. The shapes of initial and medial nūn are straightforward. The semkat in BL. OR. 8729 of Bacchus is characteristically made of two triangles, almost of equal size like ‘cat’s ears’, while in several manuscripts of the calligrapher’s time and from two centuries earlier the same letter is found rounded and cursive. The same letter in MS

BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY

117

Sachau 322 (dated to 1240/1) and MS Sachau 30427 are the closest in shape to their counterpart in BL. OR. 8729. This type of semkat is of course well-known before the 10th century, but in most cases it is not as angular or as linear as in Bacchus’ manuscript. The slightly slanted line of initial ‘ē (‘ayn) of our calligrapher ends with a small ball, a feature attested in manuscripts since the 8 th century. In earlier manuscripts and in epigraphy, the end of the letter lacks the ball. The top part of the pē of Bacchus is markedly angular, as is the case in most manuscripts over the centuries; in a few cases the head of the letter is rounded. As for the upper part of the ṣōdē, it is a pronounced curvature known in most manuscripts of nearly all periods, but the lower part is acutely angular and ends with a short tail. While the general shape is the same in other manuscripts of various periods, the lower part is sometimes less angular and the tail is longer. The qōf of our calligrapher is a simple box with angular corners; the top line is not curved and does not go slightly out of the box to the left side, as is the case in nearly all manuscripts at all time periods. His T-shaped šīn, slightly curved at the top, is also commonly found in manuscripts from the 10th to the 13th centuries. Finally, the loop of his tāw, whether ligatured or standing alone, is a trapezoid with an inclined hasta. As is clear from the survey of the letters above, the calligraphy of Bacchus is quite similar to that found between the 10th and the 13th centuries, studied in detail by Palmer. It is very similar to MS Sachau 304 and Sachau 322, dated by their owner to the 13th century, and therefore contemporary with Bacchus’ manuscript. There are, however, some slight differences, such as the final nūn with its short tail (while it is characteristically long in all manuscripts and inscriptions deriving from Upper Syria). The tail of the ṣōdē by Bacchus is also uniquely short. In general appearance, the letters of our calligrapher are more angular, wider, thicker, and larger than most of the epigraphic data known elsewhere. These features are relatively minor, as Bacchus did after all live in Edessa where he learned or improved his Estrangela writing, and where this script was revived after some centuries of neglect.28 Little is known about this script in Mesopotamia, and one wonders if Bacchus perhaps taught it when he visited his home country. 27 28

Ibid., p. 79 column 3.

Palmer, ‘The Syriac Letter Forms,’ pp. 77–8.

AMIR HARRAK

118

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BACCHUS’ ESTRANGELA AND SERṬO SCRIPTS Bacchus son of Mattay was as skilled in Estrangela as in Serṭo, but in the study of his manuscripts one detects the influence of the former on the latter. The generally thick, dark, and wide letter forms are common in all his manuscripts. Although his Serṭo is cursive, it is also linear and sometimes quite angular. Moreover, such letters as ʻē (ʻayn), bēt, gōmal (in all positions), ḥēt, ṭēt, yōd, kōf (in all positions), lōmad, mīm (in all positions), and qōf are the same in both cursive and in Estrangela (figs. 2 and 3 above). Only the following letters are cursive, being EastSyriac, not Serṭo, letter forms: dōlat, hē, wāw, semkat, pē, rēš, šīn, and tāw. The common Serṭo and Estrangela letters in manuscripts signed by the name Bacchus strongly suggest they were all penned by our calligrapher and copyist.

TRACES OF BACCHUS’ CALLIGRAPHY ELSEWHERE Some of the many Syriac inscriptions in the monastery of MārBehnām,29 located near Mosul and close to the hometown of Bacchus son of Mattay, exhibit an Estrangela script strikingly similar to that in the Gospel copied by him. The ‘medial’ script was probably more or less the same throughout Upper Syria and Mesopotamia from the 10th to the 13th centuries, but questions over the identity of the monastery’s masterful calligrapher remain. Kasrūn of Edessa, a famous calligrapher and miniaturist who (according to Bar-Hebraeus) died in the monastery of Mār-Behnām,30 could not have been that calligrapher, since he died in 1139, a century before the reconstruction activities began. Might Bacchus have been the calligrapher, perhaps during one of his visits to Mesopotamia? Although there is no proof that he was responsible for the monastery’s Estrangela inscriptions, he remains the only known calligrapher with the requisite skill. 29

Behnām was martyred sometime during the 4th and 5th centuries and was

buried in the martyrium while the monastery served as a hostel for pilgrims seeking healing from epilepsy throughout the centuries. On the inscriptions in both

buildings see Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, vol. 1 and 2, AE.01 and AE.02. 30

J.S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. II (Roma: Typis Sacrae Congre-

gationis de Propaganda Fide, 1721), p. 449.

BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY

119

First, let us compare the calligraphy in BL. OR. 8729 (see Harrak Plate 1) with inscriptions from inside and outside the monastic church (see Harrak Plate 2: B, C). The form of the independent olaf with its horizontal bar resting on a right foot with a shoe-like base is exactly the same in both cases. The quite angular bēt, the gōmal ending with a small ball, and hē with its usually straight top part with a sharp angle, are further common features. The small triangular body of the ṭēt is characteristically similar. The top part of the kōf in final and independent positions is markedly rounded, and it ends as a straight, slightly slanting line, a common feature in both calligraphies. The initial and medial mīm in both examples is of square form with two parallel legs and a straight horizontal bar, just as in Bacchus’ Serṭo script. Sometimes this bar is slightly raised up near the end, but never in its middle part. Final mīm with its top part and thin vertical bar is identical in Mār-Behnām and in BL. Or. 8729. The same may be said for final nūn with its oval head and short tail, unlike its form with a long tail in the Upper Syrian tradition. Semkat is of double triangle shape in both cases, while the upper part of ṣōdē in some cases in Mār-Behnām, when standing alone, looks much like a tilde (~), but in other cases it shows the usual pronounced curvature known in the manuscripts of Bacchus and others from Upper Syria. Qōf is commonly a simple box with sharp angles. The šīn is a T-shaped letter, always flat at the top, in Mār-Behnām, while in the manuscript of Bacchus the top part is slightly curved. Finally, the loop of the tāw in Mār-Behnām, whether ligatured or standing alone, is either a trapezoid, as in Bacchus’ handwriting, or an acute triangle with an inclined hasta. While the letter forms can be more or less common to all manuscripts and inscriptions of Upper Syria and Mesopotamia, the general appearance of the Estrangela script in Mār-Behnām (Harrak Plate 2: B) and in the Gospel of Bacchus (Harrak Plate 1; Plate 2: A) is so similar that one wonders who traced the monastery’s inscriptions if it was not Bacchus himself. In both cases the script is large, linear, angular, thick, and quite elegant. The inscriptions of Mār-Behnām mention many names, including the monks Abū-Sālim, his brother Abraham, FaḍlAllāh, and ‘Īsā, and the deacons Abū-Naṣr, Behnām, and Ma būb, but these men were all involved in building activities. The names of build-

AMIR HARRAK

120

ers and stonecutters are expressly mentioned in inscriptions (e.g. in the façade of the tomb of Mār-Behnām in his mausoleum31), but calligraphers are never mentioned. Second, the fact that our calligrapher was a native of Qaraqosh, a village which shared the same fate as the monastery throughout history, is also suggestive. In the 18th century both entities formed one diocese, as is clear from the inscriptions of Bishop Karas, Superior of the monastery and bishop over Qaraqosh at the time of the invasion of the region by Nadir-Shah the Persian in 1743.32 Relations between MārBehnām and Edessa seem to have been strong. A century before Bacchus went to Edessa, Kasrūn of Edessa (previously mentioned) lived in the monastery and ended his life there. During the Abbasid period and even into the Mongol period the province of al-Jazīrah extended from Takrit to arrān and the Upper Euphrates. Relations between Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt existed from time immemorial, and trade expeditions led by Takritans33 throughout the Near East facilitated relationships between various Christian communities. Relations also existed between the Mār-Behnām monastery and the desert of Scetis. During the 13th century, the monk Yū anōn of Bēt-Khudaydā offered a manuscript (now held at the British Library)34 to Coptic monks in Egypt. Bacchus surely returned to his parents, community, and village more than once during his time in Edessa and, later on, in Egypt. On such trips he may have visited the monastery of Mār-Behnām, in which he probably spent his novitiate (though this time may have been spent in the Monastery of Mār-Mattay, which is in the same region). Third, the timing of Bacchus’ life falls exactly in the period when drastic renovations were undertaken at the monastery, although the

31

Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions, vol. 1 and 2, no. AE.02.01. Late in-

scriptions mention the name of writers of texts but never the calligrapher; ibid., AP.01.32, an inscription from Rabban Hormizd dated to 1538. 32

Ibid., no. AD.03.02 and AD.03.04 from Qaraqosh; in the latter inscription

from the Church of Sergius and Bacchus, Karas is expressly mentioned as rīš marʻītō ‘leader of the diocese.’ 33

On the Takritans see Lucas van Rompay and Andrea B. Schmidt, ‘Takritans

in the Egyptian Desert: The Monastery of the Syrians in the Ninth Century,’ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 1 (2001), pp. 41–60. 34

Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, vol. III.

BACCHUS SON OF MATTAY

121

exact year of these activities is not known. The earliest date mentioned inside the monastic church is 1164, when work was executed inside the ‘altar,’ which is the sanctuary. This cannot be the year of the restorations of the sanctuary’s façade, which consisted of the Royal Gate and the small gate. The inscription in question specifically mentions the ‘Altar’ and not the Royal Gate or the façade; its script, a mixture of Serṭo and Estrangela,35 is not as attractive as the masterful calligraphy in the façade (Harrak Plate 2: B, C). The latest date of the Mongol era inside the church is the year 1295, found in an inscription commemorating the invasion of the monastery by Mongol soldiers and the complaint of the abbot before Il-khan.36 The inscriptions of the sanctuary (Harrak Plate 2: C) and exterior façades (Harrak Plate 2: B) are not dated but they mention two monks whose names are also found in the inscriptions of the Royal Gate, indicating that the rebuilding activities outside and inside the church, at least in the area of the Royal Gate, happened at the same time. The great historian of Mesopotamian Christianity, the late Father Fiey, devoted much attention to studies of the monastery37 and fixed a relative date for the renovations on the basis of the architectural and cultural styles known in the 13th century. At that time, Mosul and its region were under the rule of the governor Badr-al-dīn Lu’lu’ (d. 1261), who undertook building projects with architectural and sculptural designs specific to his time. Thus, the outside façade, namely its intricate miḥrāb-looking niche located between two gates, is nearly a replica of the shrine of the hand of ‘Alī (Pandjah ‘Alī) in Mosul, dated to 1287, and thus later than the façade of Mār-Behnām. Inside the church, the gate known as ‘Double Baptism’ is decorated with fourteen panels

35 36

Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions, vol. 1 and 2, AE.01.34.

Ibid., AE.01.20; see also Henri Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de

la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul, Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1907), p. 135

(edition), pl. X 76 (copy); Niu Ruji and Amir Harrak, ‘The Uighur Inscription at the

Mausoleum of Mar Behnam, Iraq,’ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4, pp. 66–72. 37

Jean Maurice Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne: contribution à l'étude de l’histoire,

de la géographie ecclésiastiques et monastiques du nord de l'Iraq, vol. 1 (Beirut,

Dar el-Machreq, 1968), pp. 565–613 ; id., Mar Behnam (Baghdad, Iraqi Ministry of Information, 1970).

122

AMIR HARRAK

formed by intertwined snakes and other motifs also found in mosques in Mosul. One of these gates in the mausoleum of the Imām ‘Awn-al-dīn dates to the year 1248, in which Bacchus son of Mattay was in the zenith of his professional career, famed for his calligraphy and copying. Relations between Christians of the same regions in the Near and Middle East were, and in many ways still are, very strong, a fact which suggests that Bacchus could well have been contacted to trace inscriptions for the monastery of his native land.

CONCLUSION Thanks to the few colophons he left behind, this paper has been able to shed some light on a brilliant, though little-known, calligrapher who lived during the Mongol period. It has been established that the ‘medial’ Estrangela script was not limited to Northern Syria but it was also used in the best way possible in Upper Mesopotamia, as evidenced in the fine Estrangela calligraphy found in the inscriptions of MārBehnām. The common script is expected, since the ecclesiastical domain of the Syriac patriarch of Antioch fostered constant contact between Syria and Mesopotamia. The calligrapher of Mār-Behnām, an unrivalled professional, has proved an enigma in the historical studies of the monastery. The present paper has not been able to settle this question satisfactorily, but has shown that Bacchus’ identity, profession, life and times make him a strong candidate for the elusive calligrapher of Mār-Behnām.

REMARKS ON ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE REGION OF TAYMĀʾ IN NORTHWEST ARABIA

(I)

HANI HAYAJNEH YARMOUK UNIVERSITY, JORDAN The last two decades have witnessed a tremendous increase in the publication of new Ancient North Arabian (= ANA) inscriptions from different regions of north Arabia. The new epigraphical material has significantly contributed to our knowledge of the cultural history of this part of the world in pre-Islamic times. I have had the opportunity to study inscriptions published by Khalid Eskoubi in his book entitled Dirasa Taḥlīlīya Muqārina li-nuqūš min minṭaqat Ramm anūb ġarb Taymāʾ (An Analytical and Comparative Study of Inscriptions from ‘Rum’ region, south west of Taymāʾ). This work provides us with valuable epigraphical material containing unprecedented historical, religious and social insights into the region of Taymāʾ and its inhabitants. It is becoming evident that the region’s inhabitants and/or those who passed through the area used different languages, dialects and scripts: Taymanite and Thamudic B inscriptions constitute the majority of the epigraphical corpus; Thamudic C and D are also represented but are less numerous than the first two groups; 1

1

See Macdonald (2000), who isolated Safaitic, Thamudic E (named by him

and Geraldine King; 1999) as Hismaic, and Thamudic A (labeled by him as Taymanite or Taymanitic). Thamudic B, C and D remained unlabeled and maintained

123

HANI HAYAJNEH

124

and Dadanitic, Nabataean, Aramaic, and even ismaic and Kufic inscriptions are also encountered. The volume’s photographs allow us to verify the readings of a considerable number of inscriptions, some of which were already known from older publications, i.e. Jaussen and Savignac.2 In treating such a large epigraphic collection which represents a wide range of ANA epigraphic types, a potential problem is that of differentiation between ANA script types. For example, a graphical sign could have the same shape in two different ANA epigraphic types, but could be used to represent a different phonetic value in each, which causes confusion when trying to read a text found among other textual types. As such, the danger of misreading characters is considerable. Likewise, some Thamudic B and Taymanite letter signs can be used interchangeably, i.e. Thamudic B signs are used in Taymanite and vice versa. And in some cases, they are written in mixed characters that are not exclusive either to Taymanite or Thamudic B. These factors present difficulties when trying to classify such texts under one of the known labels or designations of ANA epigraphical types, suggesting that the rigid standards proposed for the classification of ANA epigraphical groups should be reviewed and reconsidered. A series of articles3 devoted to the inscriptions from the region of southwest Taymāʾ is planned. These articles will concentrate on five subjects: 1) an attempt towards the verification of readings of inscriptions with epigraphical commentaries; 2) a corpus of the region’s ANA inscriptions with accompanying bibliographic information; 3) a study on the symbols accompanying the inscriptions; 4) a lexical study of the words and particles which occur in the texts; and 5) a survey of the grammatical features attested in ANA inscriptions from the region of southwest Taymāʾ. The current contribution provides both new and original readings of the ANA inscriptions found in Eskoubi 4, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 31, their old designations as Resklassenbildung, owing this designation to Knauf (1981). 2 3

Jaussen and Savignac (1909-1914).

Texts under Eskoubi 25, 169, 170, 177 were treated in Hayajneh (2001a, b)

and Müller and al-Said (2001, 2002). Eskoubi 58, 82, 83 were republished by

Hayajneh (2009). Eskoubi 20 and Eskoubi 245-247) will be treated in separate articles, see Hayajneh (forthcoming-a) and (forthcoming-b).

ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN INSCRIPTIONS

125

40, 44, 51, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 71, 78, 85, 89, 93, 104, 110, 117, (text under 119–123), 126, 128, 131, 132, 141, 147, 163, 166, 183, 185, 267, 280, 289 and 299. Some of the texts discussed here were ignored by Eskoubi, but can still be seen in the photographs of inscriptions that were read.4 Such texts will be given the first Eskoubi number distinguished by an alphabetic letter, e.g. Eskoubi 119a. In other cases, he mistakenly divided a single text into two or more inscriptions and gave each a separate number. In such cases, the various parts of the inscription were gathered under one text and one Eskoubi siglum. Likewise, Eskoubi sometimes identified multiple inscriptions considered by him as one single text.5 For these, each text is given the same number but differentiated by a, b or c. In the current study, word dividers are used if they are graphically present; otherwise, they will be replaced by a word divider in the transcription. The arrows denote the direction of the line of the text. If no arrow is used, this means the direction is from right to left. Difficult, but discernable characters will be transcribed in outlined fonts, instead of setting a circle above each, e.g. the in by. Eskoubi 4: ṣmntn

b gs1[.] ‘ mntn son of Gs1[..?]’

(Eskoubi reads: ṣmntn b gs1m) The last character of the second name is not clear. A symbol is visible beneath the text. Eskoubi 6: kfrʾl

b ḫbtn {Symbol} ‘Kfrʾl son of

(Eskoubi reads: kfrʾl

btn’

bhnbḫ)

The second sign after b should be read as ḫ, not h or s2. We should note that the common character for s2, especially in the texts that are mostly of Taymanite type, has the common South Semitic form ( ), cf. for example, s2wf (Eskoubi 18), S2br (Eskoubi 63), S2mt (Eskoubi 64), S2kr (Eskoubi 65), S2ms1n (Eskoubin 85), S2kr (Eskoubi 65), Ns2ʾt (Eskoubi 82), Ys2hd (Eskoubi 82), S2gb (Eskoubi 217), etc. On the other hand, the graphical sign for ḫ in Taymanite has the form ( ), cf. ʾḫr (Eskoubi 20), ḫll (Eskoubi 56), ḫyr (Eskoubi 57), btn (Eskoubi 67, 234) and Ṣrḫ (Eskoubi 111). Two further instances for the occurrence of ḫ with an 4 5

E.g. Eskoubi 119–123, 175. E.g. Eskoubi 44, 104.

HANI HAYAJNEH

126

extended tail to the left are found in the names ṣʿn (Eskoubi 95) and ʾḫṭb (Eskoubi 104). The ductus of the text’s last two graphical signs suggests the reading tn, instead of bḫ, in spite of the similarity of the shape of the last character with the letter for ġ in Taymanite, which appears forked with two strokes at both its extremities. Here the upper extremity is not forked, which supports the reading as n instead of ġ. This reading can be ascertained through the occurrence of the same name, btn, in Eskoubi 234, where the typical Taymanite ḫ is used. Eskoubi 14: yʾrnl

ṣm

‘ ʾrnl son of m ’

(Eskoubi reads: yʾrnlʾṯmg) The fourth sign is an n, not s2. The sixth and seventh graphemes should be read as b and ṣ. The upper diagonal stroke of the k is recognizable in spite of the scratch which crosses it. The last sign, read here as b, is not clear, but an elongated b with curved bars is encountered in this collection. Moreover, personal names beginning with the letters are frequent in Taymanite as an abbreviated form of ṣlm. Eskoubi 17: 4) s3.tl (?) 3) l

ġnmn / lfs3 / d w (?)(←)

2) ḥ / s1nw(?)t mt(?) / ddn / ... () 1) lm ys3ʿn

b ġḍn / ll (or l b) (←)

The readable characters form the following text: lm ys3ʿn / b ġḍn / ḥll ( or ḥl b) / s1nw(?)t mt(?) / ddn / ... l / ġnmn / lfs3 ‘By Ys3ʿn son of Ġḍn (he) encamped / arrived (in) the years of the death / destruction (?) of Ddn ...for Ġnmn ...’ (Eskoubi reads: lmyšʿn / bbḍ / ngb) This boustrophedon text begins at the bottom. Eskoubi identified parts of the first line which he read as lm ys2ʿn bbd / ngb. The last two signs in the first line should be read as ll instead of gb. The sign h is discernable above the cluster ll, which constitutes part of the word hll, ‘arrive, encamp.’ This verb is frequently attested in the Taymanite inscriptions (see e.g. Eskoubi 20, 104b, 185). Another possibility is to read the second character after the first l as b, i.e. ḥl b (see e.g. Eskoubi 55). The text continues after that with the letter s1. Its shape, however, is unfamiliar in Taymanite and more common in Thamudic B and other ANA

ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN INSCRIPTIONS

127

texts. The n-sign is visible and followed directly by a rounded letter, which is most probably a w. Thus, a reading of the whole cluster as s1n t (= Arabic sanawāt) (‘years’) as an external feminine plural of the singular s1nt can be considered. After that, we encounter the letter m, which resembles the m-sign of Thamudic B, followed by a fuzzy t shape. The name ddn is clear. The rest of the line cannot be seen in the photo. The third line runs with the l ġnmn lfʾ ...., however, the gaps in the text leave us with many uncertainties. Eskoubi 18: lm watched out (?)’

zʾbt / s2wf/ () ‘By Zʾbt (he) protected /

(Eskoubi: lm zʾbt šwʿ) The reading of the last sign as f can be ascertained through a comparison with the shape of f in other inscriptions of the same collection (e.g. Eskoubi 6 and 26). Thus, s2wf could be a form of a suffix conjugation derived from the root s2wf. Etymologically, it can be associated with Sabaic s2wf, ‘protect’,6 Yemeni Arabic tašwīf, ‘protection of women’,7 yašūf, ‘protect’8 or with Arabic ʾašāfa, ‘to become on the brink, or verge, or at the point of it,’ tašawwafa, ‘to look down, to see the plain country; he (a man) raised his, or stretched and raised his eyes,’ šawwāf, ‘a sharp-sighted man’.9 Eskoubi 20: lm flṭ ḥll b Qdr ḫr h ḥwl () ‘By lṭ (who) arrived / encamped in Qdr at the end of the year’ (Eskoubi: lmʿlwḥllbddnʾḫrhḥwl) Eskoubi’s reading of the whole text is lmʿlwḥllbddnʾḫrhḥwl, where he apparently misread the third, fourth and fifth signs as ʿlw instead of flṭ, and the ninth, tenth and eleventh signs as ddn instead of qdr. Careful investigation of the photos under Eskoubi 20 and the upper section of the photo under Eskoubi 18 leaves no doubt that the locative must be read as qdr, which could be connected with the tribal name Qedar 6 7 8 9

Beeston et al 1982: 136. Piamenta 1990-1: 271.

Silwī 1994: 123.

Lane, 1619. These derivatives and their meanings in Arabic seem to have

developed to Modern Arabic šāfa ‘to see,’ see Bloch 1993: 101f. for discussion.

HANI HAYAJNEH

128

known in Assyrian, biblical and Aramaic sources as a name of tribal federation.10 The adverb (or preposition) ʾḫr is etymologically related to Classical Arabic ʾāḫir, ‘after’,11 Hebrew and Official Aramaic ʾḥr, ‘after (locative and temporal),’ and Punic ʾḥr, ‘then’.12 For the word hwl, cf. Classical Arabic ḥawl, ‘a year’.13 For discussion, see Hayajneh (in preparation). Eskoubi 26: l bs1m b ʾhdr fʿl / nk ‘By Bs1m son of ʾhdr, he performed sexual intercourse’ (or: lbʾm b ʾhdr fʿl / nk ‘Lbʾm son of ʾhdr and he performed sexual intercourse’) (Eskoubi: lbʾm

b ʾhdr

fʿl / nk)

The third sign can be read either as s1 or as an alef, as a vertical stroke on the middle of the horizontal shaft and another one, which could not be original, attached to the right corner of the upper part of the sign, are visible. The first reading of the name as bs1m is more probable as we do not expect mimation in ANA personal names, i.e. in case of lbʾm. Therefore, I would prefer to understand the first sign as a lām auctoris, not as a part of the name. It is noteworthy that the signs for ʾ and h in the name ʾhdr are connected with a short horizontal stroke. Eskoubi 31: ʾs1 b dmg b ʾṣdq(?) ḍbʾ l[..]f .(?) ‘ʾs1 son of Dmg son of ʾṣdq (?), (he) waged a war (for) [..]f (?)’ (Eskoubi: ʾs1bdmg

lʾṣr

hḍbʾ

ḥrfn)

Eskoubi considered the vertical shafts in this text as word dividers. However, shafts as such are not present in this text. They constitute here parts of graphical signs that should be taken into account while reading the text. The reading of the last character of the name ʾṣdq cannot be ascertained. Other signs at the end of the text are not possible to verify due to the blurred photo. The word dbʾ is most probably a verbal form; see derivatives of the root ḍ ṣbʾ in Semitic languages with the meaning ‘war, army,’ e.g. Sabaic,14 Old Ethiopic,15 and Northwest Se10 11 12 13 14

Radner 2007. Lane 32.

Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995: 38ff. Lane, 675.

Beeston et al 1982: 40.

ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN INSCRIPTIONS

129

mitic.16 As a nominal form, ḍbʾ is attested in Thamudic B (Eskoubi 165): b) h rḍw s1ʿdn b h ḍbʾ ‘O Rḍw! Give (me/us) assistance in the war.’ Eskoubi 40: mwr b mrd ‘By Mwr son of Mrd’ (or: Gwr b Grd) (Eskoubi: mḍr b mrd) It is highly improbable to consider the scratch after the d as a graphical sign. In Eskoubi 129, the name gwr has occurred. There, a g, not an m, is recognizable. Eskoubi 44: The two lines can be considered as two separate inscriptions, not as one as Eskoubi suggested: Eskoubi 44a: lm ṣnl b kfr Kfr son of by’ {symbol}

b ṣby {symbol} () ‘By nl son of

Eskoubi 44b (= JSTham 495): Ykfrʾl / ʾs1 ʾtw () ‘Ykfrl follower / underling of ʾtw’ A symbol is incised at the end of the first text. The word read by the editor as ʾḫw should be modified to ʾtw. The first name in the second texts (b) was followed by the word ʾs1, for which I suggested the meaning ‘ally, follower; subordinate, underling’.17 The name ʾtw is already attested in other Taymanite inscriptions as a personal name (e.g. Eskoubi 93 = JS 573: ʾtw b fgʿ ‘ʾtw son of gʿ’). Eskoubi 57: l bḥmd

b ṯrbn ‘By ḥmd son of rbn’

The cluster of graphemes l bḥmd also occurs in other Taymanite inscriptions (see Eskoubi 271). If we consider the first two signs as a part of the name, then we are dealing here with a compound name, consisting of lb and ḥmd. This is difficult to accept given the fact that there are no parallels for such a personal name in the Semitic onomastica. More probable is that the first l functions as a lām auctoris. I suggest that the cluster bḥmd is an onomastic unit, i.e. b+ḥmd; such a tradition is known within Arabian name-giving.18 The second name could be read

15 16 17 18

Leslau 1990: 544. DNWSI, 955.

Hayajneh 2009: 77f.

See Hazim (1994) for parallels from ASA anthroponomy.

HANI HAYAJNEH

130

as ṯrbn instead of s2rbn, since the grapheme of s2 in Taymanite is distinctive in comparison to its shape in other ANA scripts. Eskoubi 59: 1) bmrt ḥll

f ‘Bmrt arrived in Ft’

{symbol} (Eskoubi: bmrt ḥll) A symbol is incised beneath the inscription. Eskoubi 61: yfrʿ / b

rt ‘Yfrʿ son of Mṣrt’

(Eskoubi: yḍrʿ ṣmʿrtn) The graphemes for m and s are wiped out. The last sign, which appears as a dot, is not part of the text. This sign may be used to mark the end of the text, i.e. compare with Eskoubi 112: yfrʿ b mṣrt which ends with a vertical shaft. Eskoubi 63: l rfʾ s1 kfr b s2br {symbol} ‘by Rfʾ, the follower / underling of Kfr son of S2br’ (Eskoubi: lrʿ

ʾbbkfr

bšbl)

The upper part of the alef is attached to the lower part of the Nabataean character for m. For the etymology and meaning of the word ʾs1, see Hayajneh.19 The sign for r in the name s2br is visible and cannot be mistaken with the shape of l, especially since the r appears in the same form in kfr. Eskoubi 64 = JSTaym 519: 1) ṣmdʿ b s2mt

ʾl trḍ {SYMBOL}

2) lt 1 + 2) ‘ mdʿ son of S2mt, verily, may llāt be content / satisfied’ (Eskoubi: ṣmdʿ

19

b zmt

Hayajneh 2009: 77f.

ʾl trḍlt)

ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN INSCRIPTIONS

131

Jaussen and Savignac’s reading ṣmdʿ bnmt ʾlt rṭlt was adopted by Winnett20 but rejected by G. Ryckmans21 who proposed ʾlt rḍ lt ‘Allāt, sois satisfaite! – Lāt.’ The reading was later modified by Jamme22 to trḍlt. The m in the patronymic as s2mt is not to be mistaken with the sign for ḍ. This can be enhanced through the usage of the same graphical sign

of m in the introductory particle lm ‘by.’ The letter ḍ with its two internal horizontal strokes is visible in the word cluster trḍ. The two signs lt were incised under the end of the first line. For the structure ʾl trḍ lt, we

could propose that the cluster ʾl is used, as a parallel to ʾalā! in Arabic, to intensify interjections introducing sentences, or to denote interrogation respecting a negative, in the meaning of ‘verily, truly, indeed.’ The

verb trḍ can be understood23 as a form of prefix conjugation of the third person singular feminine from the root rḍy/w ‘be satisfied,’ cf. Arabic raḍiya, ‘be satisfied, content’24 and Safaitic rḍy ‘be pleased’.25 It is governed here by the particle ʾl. Thus, a translation of the whole phrase could be proposed as follows: ‘verily, may llāt be content / satisfied.’ Eskoubi 71: Ydʿ

b yġr ‘Ydʿ son of Yġr’

(Eskoubi: ydʿ b ygr) Eskoubi 78: l bḥ«m»d ʾtw ‘By ḥmd has arrived’ (Eskoubi: lbḥbd ʾḫw) The fourth sign, which has been inserted by the author of the text between ḥ and d, might be an error for m., i.e. bḥmd. The latter name is attested elsewhere in Taymanitic.26 Due to the absence of the word b ‘son of,’ the following word ʾtw could function here not as a personal name but as a form of suffix conjugation ‘to come.’ The verb is attested 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Winnett 1985: 23 and 1971. Ryckmans 1937: 332.

Jamme 1967: 62; see also Macdonald 1992: 40, Note 74. Eskoubi 1999: 122. See Lane 1099. WH 149.

Cf. for example Eskoubi 57.

HANI HAYAJNEH

132

in Eskoubi 169 in which the name of the Babylonian king is mentioned.27 Eskoubi 85: read yṯʿ b s2ms1n ‘Yṯʿ son of S2ms1n’ (Eskoubi: ys2ʿ b nms1h) The dot which precedes the text separates the inscription from the preceding text (Eskoubi 84) Eskoubi 89: lm bʿṯtr b ʿl w s1qm dd ‘By ʿṯtr son of ʿl, and (he) became sick of love’ (Eskoubi: l m b ʿ s2 t r b ʿ l w s1 q m dd) Eskoubi considered ʿṯtr as a divine name, however, personal names preceded by a preposition b are well known in the Semitic onomastica.28 As for the following cluster of signs, bʿl, the b is the shortened form of bn. Thus, ʿl could be considered as a patronymic derived from the root ʿlw/y ‘to be high, exalted,’ cf. ʿl in Qatabanian.29 The word s1qm, which is preceded by the conjunction w ‘then, and,’ could be understood as a form of suffix conjugation of the third person singular, cf. Arabic saqima, ‘disordered, distempered, sick, ill’.30 Albright31 understood s1qm as a safʿel form of qwm + Dād ‘Dad (= Adād) has raised.’ With G. Ryckmans32, such an interpretation is highly improbable, as such causative forms are not known in ANA. I would suggest here that the word could function as an object of the verb s1qm explained above, cf. Hebrew dūdīm ‘love,’ dūdā ‘Geliebter, Liebhaber,’ Akkadian dādu ‘Geliebter, Liebe’,33 and a translation ‘became sick of love,’ which remains in the realm of Winnett and Reed’s translation as ‘lovesick.’34 It is 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

See Hayajneh 2001a, b.

See Hazim 1994.

Hayajneh 1998: 193. Lane 1383.

Albright, BASOR 66 [1937]: 31.

Ryckmans 1937: 330. KBL, 206.

Winnett and Reed 1970: 83. It might be worth mentioning that in some

Arabic dialects of Northern Jordan up to ca. 30 years ago, the word dūd was used in the meaning ‘friendship’, especially among children who used to play without

charging the loser any amount of money. In this case, they agree from the begin-

ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN INSCRIPTIONS

133

highly improbable to associate the word with Arabic dūd with the meaning ‘worm,’ as Littmann suggested35; i.e. ‘he is suffering from worm.’ Eskoubi 93: ʾtw b fgʿ ‘ʾtw son of gʿ’ (Eskoubi: ʾḫw b fgʿ) In Taymanite inscriptions, the sign t was represented in a different shape rather than with two crossed diagonal lines.36 Eskoubi 104: The inscription can be divided into two texts instead of one: Eskoubi 104a

lm ʾḫtb ‘By ʾḫtb’ {symbol}

Eskoubi 104b 1) l ʿbd b lhd (←) 2) hll b ddn () ‘By ʿbd son of Lhd’ ‘(he) encamped/arrived in Ddn’ (Eskoubi: 1) lm ʾḫwb / bdblhd 2) ḥll bdd[n]) The third sign of Eskoubi 104a should be read as ḫ. The sign for t is clear and used in other Taymanite inscriptions. Eskoubi 110 {symbol} l ṣmntn b yf {symbol} ‘By mntn son of Yf’ (Eskoubi: ṣmntn b yʿ) The reading of the last character can be ascertained through Eskoubi 141: bḥmd / b yf. Considering the name Yf as a full patronym is enhanced through its occurrence in other inscriptions37 and in Al-Said.38 Eskoubi 117: nṣbl (←) ning of the play by saying the sentence yallah nilʿab ʿan dūd ‘let us play (on the basis) of friendship [not on the basis of money or gambling]’. 35 36 37 38

Littman, p. 49.

See Macdonald 2000: 34 Cf. Eskoubi 141.

Al-Said 2004: 203.

HANI HAYAJNEH

134 (Eskoubi: lbṣn) Eskoubi 119a:

On the upper right side of the photos depicted under the sigla Eskoubi 119–123, a name Ntn (= JSTaym 458) is recognizable. This name was ignored by Eskoubi. Eskoubi 126: l ʿzrʾl / b kkb ‘By ʿzrʾl son of Kkb’ (Eskoubi: ʿzrʾl

bkkb rʿwb)

The text is read by Eskoubi with a final b, as JS 439. The name rʿw (read by Eskoubi as rʿwb) is not part of the text and its final b is not seen in the photo. Eskoubi 128: nʿml b ḥfrz ‘Nʿml son of (Eskoubi: nḍlbḥfrz

frz’

hʾlhrm)

The text is followed by a symbol, which has been read by JS 450 and Eskoubi as word divider and h. Additional signs following the latter text are recognizable; however, they belong to another text, which does not fully appear in the photo. The name frz is attested in Eskoubi 120. Eskoubi 131: l flṭ / b qdr ‘By lṭ son of Qdr’ (Eskoubi: l glw b qdr) The sign for f is clear in the gravure. Moreover, the quadrangular shape with two internal diagonal strokes is typical of ƒ in the Taymanite inscriptions of this collection. Eskoubi 132: l ʿbd (Eskoubi: lʿbd

b

ʿrt ‘By ʿbd son of

ʿrt’

bʿrt)

A symbol is seen above the text. The same writer of Eskoubi 264: l ʿbd b wʿrt. Eskoubi 137: {symbol} ʿzr

[..]

(Eskoubi reads ʿzrʾl) Eskoubi 141: bḥmd / b yf () ‘ ḥmd son of Yf’ (Eskoubi: bḥmd / b gyb) Cf. Eskoubi 110, in which the patronymic yf occurs.

ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN INSCRIPTIONS Eskoubi 147: l ṣmrfʾ derling of S1mw’

135

ʾs1 / s1mw ‘By mrfʾ ʾs1 follower / un-

(Eskoubi: ṣmrgʾ ʾs1 s1mw) Eskoubi 163: l tym ‘By Tym’ (Eskoubi: rym) Eskoubi 166: Eskoubi reads: s2rbn bʿzrn //: hlm can be divided into two texts: Eskoubi 166a: ṯrbn Eskoubi 166b ḥlm

brʾsn/. However, the inscription

b ʿzrn {symbol} ‘ rbn son of ʿzrn’ b rʾs1n / : {symbol} ‘ lm son of Rʾs1n’

The signs for ṯ, s2 and s3 are distinguished in the Taymanite script. Text (a) was followed by a symbol represented by two strokes and two dots above each other, while text (b) was followed by another symbol. The presence of two symbols leaves no doubt that we are dealing here with two separate texts. Eskoubi 175a: A personal name read as ʾldb is seen on the lower left corner of the photo under an ANA text (similar to Hismaic [= Thamudic E]) which took the number Eskoubi 175. Eskoubi 183: ys1mʿl b by {symbol} ‘Ys1mʿl son of by’ {symbol} (Eskoubi: ysmwl) Eskoubi 185: lm s1mh / b qny / arrived/encamped in Ddn’

‘By S1mh son of Qny

(Eskoubi: lmwhm bqny ḥllbddn) The sign for s1 in the first name can be distinguished by the short stroke on the top of its upper horizontal base. The internal diagonal stroke cannot be considered as a part of the grapheme. As a personal name,

HANI HAYAJNEH

136

s1mh is attested in Eskoubi 28. See Hayajneh for parallels in the Semitic onomastica.39 Eskoubi 236: 1) kfrʾl b dm {symbol} ‘Kfrʾl son of Dmg’ {symbol} 2)

g

(Eskoubi kfrʾl b dṯḥr) The sign read by Eskoubi as ṯ can be easily recognized as m. A symbol is seen to the left of the text, instead of ḥ. The third letter of the name dmg is written in the second line under d and m. Eskoubi 280: Wdd b dzt ‘Wdd son of Dzt’ Eskoubi’s translation as ‘aḥabba bi-dazzat’ ‘he was in love with Dzt’ is unlikely as we expect f instead of b following the first name in similar formulae in the Thamudic C inscriptions. Thus, I would understand the grapheme b as an abbreviated form of bn ‘son,’ as in other Taymanite texts. Eskoubi 289: ḥll b ddn lm yʾs1l ‘By Yʾs1l (who) arrived/encamped in Ddn’ (Eskoubi: ḥll b ddn lm yʾs1l) The reading of the second character as an alef instead of a w is wellfounded, as the two upper vertical strokes based on the upper horizontal line are recognizable. The construction of the text differs from other texts in which the expression ḥll b + locative preceded the introductory phrase, i.e. lm + PN. Eskoubi 299: lm ʿzr (Eskoubi: lmʿzr

b flṭ ‘By ʿzr son of lṭ’

b ʿlw)

ABBREVIATIONS Eskoubi

ANA inscriptions edited and published in Eskoubi (1999)

39

Hayajneh 1998: 163ff.

ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN INSCRIPTIONS JS Lane WH

137

ANA inscriptions edited and published in Jaussen and Savignac (1909–1914)

An Arabic-English Lexicon (1877) ANA inscriptions edited and published in Winnett and Harding (1978)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Beeston, A. F. L., M. A. Ghul, W. W. Müller and J. Ryckmans. 1982, Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic) (Louvain-la-Neuve). Eskoubi, Kh. M. 1999, Dirāsa Taḥlīlīya Muqārina li-Niuqūš min Minṭaqat (Ramm arb Taymāʾ (Riyadh) Al-Riyāḍ.

anūb

Hayajneh, H. 1998, Die Personennamen in den qatabænischen Inschriften: Lexikalische und grammatische Analyse im Kontext der semitischen Anthroponomastik. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 10 (Zürich). 2001a, ‘Der babylonische König Nabonid und der RBSRS in einigen neu publizierten frühnordarabischen Inschriften aus Taymāʾ’, Acta Orientalia 62, pp. 22–64. 2001b, ‘First evidence of Nabonidus in the Ancient North Arabian inscriptions from the region of Tayma’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 31, pp. 81–95. 2009, ‘Die frühnordarabischen taymānischen Inschriften und die Frage der Antipathie gegen den Gott ṣlm in der Region von Taymāʾ’, in W. Arnold, M. Jursa, W.W. Müller and S. Procházka (eds.) Analecta Semitica In Memoriam Alexndri. Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien und Sokotra: Analecta Semitica In Memoriam Alexander Sima (Wiesbaden), pp. 73– 104. Hazim, R. 1994, ‘Ein Typus altsüdarabischer theophorer Namen, in: Arabia Felix. Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien’, in Festschrift Walter W. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, hrsg. von Norbert Nebes (Wiesbaden), pp. 95–99.

HANI HAYAJNEH

138

Hoftijzer, J. and K. Jongeling 1995, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions I-II (with Appendices by R. C. Steiner, A. Mosak Moshavi and B. Porten) (Leiden). Jamme, A. 1967, Thamudic Studies (Washington D.C).

1971, ‘Rezension von Winnett und Reed (1970) Ancient Records from North Arabia’, Orientalia 40, pp. 481–489. Jaussen, A. and R. Savignac 1909–14, Mission Archéologique en Arabie, Vols I-II (Paris). Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner 1967–90. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, Lfg. 1–4 (Leiden). Lane, E. W. 1877, An Arabic-English Lexicon: derived from the best and the most copious eastern sources (London). Leslau, W. 1991, Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden). Macdonald, M. C. 1991, ‘Hu 501 and the use of s3 in Taymanite’, JSS 36, pp. 11–35. 1992, ‘North Arabian epigraphic notes I’. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 3, pp. 23–43. 2000, ‘Reflections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11, pp. 28–79. 2004, ‘Ancient North Arabian’, in R. D. Woodard (ed) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the orld’s ncient Languages (Cambridge), pp. 488–533. Macdonald, M. C. A. and G. M. H. King 1999, ‘Thamudic’, Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 10, pp. 436–438. Müller, W. W. 1982, ‘Das Altarabische der Inschriften aus Vorislamischer Zeit’, in W. Fischer (ed) Grundriß der arabischen Philologie, Vol I: Sprachwissenschaft (Wiesbaden), pp. 30–36.

ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN INSCRIPTIONS

139

Müller, W. W. and S. F. Al-Said 2001, ‘Der babylonische König Nabonid in taymanischen Inschriften’, Biblische Notizin, pp. 109–119. 2002, ‘Der babylonische König Nabonid in taymanischen Inschriften’, in N. Nebes (ed.) Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik: Erstes Arbeitstreffen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Semitistik in der Deutschen Morgenändischen Gesellschaft vom 11. bis 13. September 2000 an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (Wiesbaden), pp. 105–122. Ryckmans, G. 1937, ‘Notes épigraphiques. Deuxième série’, Le Muséon 50, pp. 323– 344. Al-Said, S. F. [= al-Saʿīd, S. F.] 1995, Die Personennamen in den minäischen Inschriften: Eine etymologische und lexikalische Studie im Bereich der semitischen Sprachen, Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission der Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur in Mainz 41 (Wiesbaden). 2004, ‘Nuqūš ṯanūdīya min Taymāʾ’, Ma allat āmiʿat al-Malik Saʿūd – Al-Ādāb 17 (1), pp. 183–225. Soden, W. von 1965–1981, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Unter Benutzung des lexikalischen Nachlasses von Bruno Meissner, 3 Bde (Wiesbaden). Winnett, F. V. 1937, A Study of the Lihyanite and Thamudic Inscriptions (Toronto). 1971, ‘An Arabian Miscellany’, AION 31 (N.S. 21), pp. 443–454. 1979, ‘A reconsideration of some of the inscriptions from the Taymāʾ area’, in Studies in the History of Arabia: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Studies in the History of Arabia, 23rd-28th of April, 1977 (Riyadh), pp. 69–77. 1985, ‘Studies in Thamudic’, Journal of the College of Arts, King Saud University 12 (1), pp. 1–58. Winnet, F. V. and G. L. Harding 1978, Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns (Toronto). Winnett, F. V. and W. L. Reed 1970, Ancient Records from North Arabia (Toronto).

140

TABETHA KTHOBONOYO SYRIAC: CHILD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OF KTHOBONOYO SYRIAC IN A MULTI-LINGUAL ENVIRONMENT GEORGE A. KIRAZ BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE This article describes the case of a child named Tabetha, who

acquired classical Syriac as a spoken language natively, beginning with a description of her sociolinguistic environment, and

the challenges met in raising Tabetha as a Kthobonoyo speaker. Following this, a description of Tabetha’s grammar (in terms of

phonology, morphology and morphosyntax) and lexicon is given,

describing the first five and half years of her language development.

INTRODUCTION Visitors to Mor Gabriel Monastery in Southeast Turkey might be surprised to find children who speak a form of classical Syriac in addition to their native Turoyo dialect. Classical Syriac is taught not only as a literary language at the Monastery’s school, but also as a spoken language. The attitude of Mor Gabriel’s malphone is echoed in a statement made by Malphono Isa Garis, its director of students, “ ‫ܠܦܘܬ ܪܥܝܢܝ‬

‫ܟܠ ܡܠܦܢܐ ܕܐܝܢܐ ܠܫܢܐ ̣ܕܗܘ܆ ܐܢܗܘ ܕܥܡ ܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ ܒܠܫܢܐ ̇ܕܡܠܦ‬ ‫ ܘܐܦܐܠ ܟܫܪܐ ܡܠܦܢܘܬܗ‬.‫ܠܗܘܢ ܐܠ ܡܣܬܘܕ܆ ̇ܗܘ ܡܠܦܢܐ ܐܠ ̇ܥܒܕ ܘܠܬܝܗ‬

— in my opinion, if any teacher, of whatever language, does not converse in the language which he is teaching, then he is not doing that

141

GEORGE KIRAZ

142

which is right, and his training will not be successful.”1 This paper describes how children acquire classical Syriac as a spoken language. However, unlike the pupils at Mor Gabriel Monastery who learn the language after their ‘critical period’ (the period after which a newly acquired language becomes a second language rather than a native one), I will describe a case of a child named Tabetha, who acquired classical Syriac as a spoken language natively. An extremely small number of such cases are known: I know of only three families, but none have been documented to date. The form of classical Syriac that is spoken today is known as kthobonoyo, a term almost exclusively used for the spoken form of the language despite its literal meaning (e.g. I speak Kthobonoyo, but I read/write Suryoyo). The term Kthobonoyo is used to emphasize that the speaker is not speaking a vernacular dialect such as Ṭuroyo or Swadaya. I have discussed elsewhere some of the formal properties of Kthobonoyo Syriac.2 To summarize, Kthobonoyo is dominant amongst West Syriac speakers, with at least a few hundred speakers worldwide, mostly clergymen and (male) malphone. This makes Kthobonoyo a male-dominant language where feminine forms are hardly used; in fact, misusage in feminine forms is quite noticeable among even the most fluent of speakers. Code switching is another feature of Kthobonoyo, the intensity of which varies depending on the aptitude level of the speakers and the level of formality of the dialogue. The remarks made herein on Tabetha Kthobonoyo Syriac (TKS) are based on a recorded diary study. While the diary approach has been used by researchers in the past, one must take care to avoid generalizations. After all, this paper describes but one isolated case. Furthermore, the diary was kept sporadically during the five years under investigation. This paper begins with a description of Tabetha’s sociolinguistic environment, and the challenges met in raising Tabetha as a Kthobonoyo speaker. Following this, a description of Tabetha’s grammar (in terms of phonology, morphology and morphosyntax) and lexicon is given. This paper describes the first five and half years of Tabetha’s 1 2

Heto [ eṭo], vol. 5, nos 8-9, 2003, p. 46.

G. Kiraz, ‘Kthobonoyo Syriac, Some Observations and Remarks’, Hugoye:

Journal of Syriac Studies 10 (2007) pp. 113-24.

TABETHA KTHOBONOYO SYRIAC

143

language development (Tabetha turned 11 in Feb, 2012). All examples here (including those with English code switching) are written right-toleft.

TABETHA’S SOCIOLINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT Tabetha lives in what is usually called a ‘Syriac-speaking community,’ although the term is quite misleading in the context of this paper. Generally, a ‘Syriac-speaking’ community is considered to be one whose liturgical language is Syriac; it does not follow that members of the community actually speak or read Syriac (or any other Neo-Aramaic dialect). Within the specific community to which Tabetha belongs (NJ, USA), only those who are originally from Ṭur ‛Abdin, and not always all, tend to speak Ṭuroyo; others speak either Arabic, Turkish, Armenian or Kurdish (in order of the approximate number of speakers). English is of course the common language of communication. Most community children are at least bilingual, but none have Kthobonoyo as a primary or secondary native language apart from Tabetha (and her two brothers). Hence, Tabetha’s interactions in Kthobonoyo are exclusively with adults. With her peers, even within the Syriac-speaking community, she communicates in English. Tabetha’s home linguistic setting is quite complex. Her farther is a native speaker of Arabic and a speaker of Kthobonoyo. Her mother is a native speaker of Turkish. Tabetha’s paternal grandmother, a native speaker of Arabic, lived in the same household until Tabetha was four. The parents communicate in English, and Tabetha’s father and paternal grandmother communicated in Arabic. Her mother and grandmother communicated primarily in English. Interactions with Tabetha take the following patterns: Father-Tabetha, Kthobonoyo; Mother-Tabetha, Turkish (until the age of four); paternal Grandmother-Tabetha, Arabic. Until the age of 8 months, Tabetha spent most of her days with her Arabic-speaking paternal grandmother. Later, she was sent to an English-speaking babysitter (a native of Jamaica) with five other children (all of whom were African American). At the age of 16 months, Tabetha uttered her first words in English (her first words were thank you). During her first two years, Tabetha did not communicate with her parents in English (apart from a few favorite utterances such as no and all mine). In fact, her parents were unaware of how much English the child actually knew, but received periodic reports from the babysitter on her English development. A few times a month Tabetha interacted with

144

GEORGE KIRAZ

visitors who spoke Kthobonoyo, which enforced the notion that Kthobonoyo was not just her father’s language. Both parents purposefully taught Tabetha their respective languages through a repetitive process. For instance, at the age of 12 months, when playing a game whereby Tabetha repeatedly fell on the bed, the phrase ݀‫ ܛܒܬܝܐ ܢܦܠܬ‬was repeated, as was the corresponding Turkish phrase, Tabetha düştü ‘Tabetha fell.’ Even earlier, phrases were repeated with almost every action. For instance, when Tabetha was being nursed, the phrase ‫‘ ܝܢܩܝܢܢ ܚܠܒܐ‬we are sucking milk’ was often repeated (initially the father used ‫ ܫܬܝܢܢ ܚܠܒܐ‬for a month, until it dawned on him that ‫ ܝܢܩܝܢܢ‬would be a better usage!). When indicating an action, the active participle plural form was always used; e.g. ‫ܢܚܬܝܢܢ‬ (when going down the stairs), ‫( ܣܠܩܝܢܢ‬when going up the stairs), ‫( ܠܒܫܝܢܢ‬when putting clothes on), etc. This use of the active participle in the plural form would later become dominant in Tabetha’s verbal system. Three modalities were encouraged at home: speaking (from day one), and reading and writing from the age of 17 months onward. Children’s books, consisting of referential words (e.g. animals, vegetables), were read to Tabetha in Kthobonoyo and Turkish. At around the same time, Tabetha was exposed to reading and writing the alphabet (in both Syriac and Latin scripts), and would recognize, but not generate, letters in both scripts. At an early age, Tabetha was also exposed to the East Syriac script through the video Assyrian Alphabet and was able to recognize both scripts at the age of five. The two primary languages (Kthobonoyo and Turkish), as well as the social dominant language (English) diverge in a number of ways. Kthobonoyo is considered the highest in social status, and no doubt Tabetha will be unique and commended for being able to speak it. In fact, her teacher and babysitter report that Tabetha is very proud of her languages. “Daddy doesn’t know all words,” she once reported to her babysitter after boasting that she knows many languages, “He has to look in the big book [i.e. the dictionary].” Linguistically, the three languages could not be more diverse in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Each of the three languages has sounds which do not exist in the other two, the morphology of English is concatenative, that of Turkish is agglutinative, and of Syriac is templatic (root-and-pattern morphology). Syntactically, Syriac is less configurational (i.e. has freer word order) than English and Turkish. None of this, however, seems to affect Tabetha’s acquisition abilities.

TABETHA KTHOBONOYO SYRIAC

145

CHALLENGES As children have an innate ability to learn multiple languages simultaneously prior to the ‘critical period,’ the challenges here are faced by the Kthobonoyo-speaking parent(s), not the child. Two main challenges, from the parental perspective, were noticed with regards to the lexicon and morphology. The Kthobonoyo-speaking parent’s prior experience with Kthobonoyo was limited to conversations with clergy and adults, restricting the size of the parent’s active lexicon. The lack of a wider social context for the use of Kthobonoyo means that speakers forget, from time to time, lexemes which they have once acquired, and may not be able to produce them spontaneously. This is primarily the case in referential lexemes (i.e. referring to objects). Tabetha’s father would temporarily resolve an unknown lexeme, or a forgotten one, with the use of the demonstrative pronouns ‫ ܗܐܢ‬or ‫ܗܕܐ‬, and by pointing to the object. Later, the father would check the lexica, or if necessary coin a new lexeme, though this could sometimes take several weeks. The use of the demonstrative pronouns remained very pronounced in Tabetha’s productive speech until the age of five, using ‫ ܗܐܢ‬for objects whose names she did not know. Sometimes her father ܳܳ ܰ would spontaneously coin a word, such as ‫ ܡܗܠ ݂ܟܢܐ‬for the ‘travelator’ ܽ ܳ in an airport when Tabetha once pointed to it and asked ‫ܗܐܢ ܡܘܢ‬ ܺ

ܰ ‫ܬܝܘ ̱ܗܝ‬ ݂ ‫ܐ‬.

As the usual Syriac lexica have Syriac as a source language, they are not helpful in finding Syriac words. Here, Zahrira (2000), by Khoshaba and Yokhanna, was most welcome. This lexicon is primarily a reverse of Manna’s Syriac-Arabic lexicon, but with many more new additions. In using it, however, one must be critical and careful. The authors provide for each Arabic word numerous Syriac correspondences without ‘fine-tuning’ the semantics. Nevertheless, it has been immensely helpful in communicating with Tabetha. With regards to morphology, addressing a female posed some challenges. A feature of adult Kthobonoyo (as briefly mentioned above) is its male centricity as speakers are predominantly clergy (by default, male) and male malphone. Even in adult speech, feminine verbal forms are not used properly. Ill-usage on the part of the parent was noticed and later corrected. With regards to the idiomatic usage of Kthobonoyo, especially in phrases hitherto unknown in liturgical or classical Syriac, references are made to Arabic or English phraseology. Frequently, English usage dom-

GEORGE KIRAZ

146 inates (e.g.

‫‘ ܡܘܢ ܐܬܝ ܥܠ ܨܘܪܩܐܠ‬what’s on television?’ dominates over ‫شو في بالتلفزيون‘ ܡܘܢ ܐܬܝ ܒܨܘܪܩܐܠ‬.’)

Another challenge faced by all parents in bi- or multi-lingual environments is maintaining consistency in the use of language. Sociolinguists recommend that parents maintain the use of the same language(s) with their children, with minimal code-switching. At the age of 23 months, just prior to the period when Tabetha began to recognize that Kthobonoyo and Turkish were separate languages, the following dialogue took place when Tabetha wanted her Kthobonoyo-speaking parent to lift her and put her on a chair: Tabetha: otur “sit” (Tur.) Father:

‫ܡܘܢ ܐܡܪܐ ܐܢܬ؟‬

“what are you saying” (Syr.)

Tabetha:

otur, otur

Father:

‫ܒܐܒܐ ܐܠ ܡܣܬܟܠ‬

“Daddy does not under

Tabetha:

otur, otur

Father:

‫ܫܘܒܩܢܐ ܐܠ ܡܣܬܟܐ ܠܐܢ‬

Tabetha:

‫ ܬܒ‬،‫ܬܒ‬

stand” “Sorry, I don’t under stand”

The father obviously understood Tabetha’s Turkish request, but made sure that communication between him and Tabetha remained in Kthobonoyo. Two months later, Tabetha once said /o-teb/ (o from Tur. otur and ‫)ܬܒ‬. It was around this period that she began to realize that Daddy and Mommy spoke different languages.

PHONOLOGY By the age of 12 months, Tabetha’s productive speech was limited to canonical babbling (stringing together of consonants and vowels in open syllables), with the exception of baba and mama (for ‘dad’ and ‘mom,’ respectively). At the age of 13 months, she was able to produce, using reduplication typically used by children, Turkish gal gal ‘come,’ and shortly after its Arabic counterpart ta‛ ta‛ (her first words were not in Kthobonoyo). Her receptive capabilities, however, were already at the word level. For instance, she would respond to the sound of ‫ܢܩܫܝܢܢ‬ ̈ by clapping her hands, probably without understanding the phono‫ܟܦܐ‬ logical or syntactic units of the utterance.

TABETHA KTHOBONOYO SYRIAC

147

Tabetha was exposed to the combined phonemic sets of Kthobonoyo, Turkish, English, and, to a certain extent, Arabic. While many consonants are common to these languages, there are sounds unique to Syriac and Arabic (e.g. [‛], [q], and emphatic sounds), and others to Turkish (e.g. ç, ş, j). Tabetha, like any other monolingual, was undergenerating phonemes by the age of 16 months; e.g. [t] for both [t] and [θ]. She reduced Semitic emphatic sounds to their non-emphatic counterparts. The phoneme [‛] was not pronounced for the first two years, but is now pronounced clearly. The phoneme [q] was also not pronounced by the age of two, and is now half way between [q] and [k] (and remains so to this day). As expected, vowel qualities were hard to distinguish during the first year or two. Even at the age of 16 months, Tabetha referred to ‫[‘ ܒܬܝ‬letter] beth’ with both /bet/ and /bīt/. By now, however, the various vowels have been mastered. During the first two years, phonemic confusability was a feature of Tabetha’s speech. At 13 months, for example, Tabetha understood and produced ‫‘ ܢܘܪܐ‬fire [in fireplace]’ and ‫‘ ܢܘܐܢ‬fish [in a fish tank],’ especially in the latter case when a parent was feeding the fish, using the canonical babbling mam-mam (for ‘food’). However, when devoid of this context, she very often mixed up these two words. In terms of intonation, Tabetha’s intonation patterns were well developed even during the babbling stage. When generating words, stress followed the canonical rules of the language in question, even when the various languages differed in how they represent stress (e.g. English marks stress lexically, while Syriac is rule-based.) Tabetha’s handling of syllabification also follows what is generally observed with other monolinguals and bilinguals. She would often omit a consonant in two-consonant clusters, e.g. *shem instead of shlem for ܶ ‘end.’ Tri-syllabic words were reduced to two-syllabic ones, e.g. ‫ܫܠܡ‬ ܺ ܽ ‫‘ ܢܚܬܝܢܢ‬let’s go down’ became ‫ ܳܢܚܬܝ‬and sometimes ‫ ܳܢܚܬܘ‬. Syllabic reductions became more obvious in larger phrases; for instance, although Tabetha could say ‫ ܬܒ‬perfectly at the age of 25 months, the [b] was ܳ ܳ ܶ omitted when ‫ ܗܪܟܐ‬was added, resulting in ‫‘ ܬ ܗܪܟܐ‬sit here.’ Also, ܳ ‫ ܰܕ ܳܡ ܳܢܐ* > ܰܕ‬, etc. By the age of two, she no longer ܰ > *‫ܡܨ ܰܢܢ‬ ܰ ; ‫ܪܡ ܳܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܨ ܶܠ ܰܝܢܢ‬ omitted consonants within the word. To this day, Tabetha ܰ omits ܳ theܰ firstܺ consonant ܺ in many initial consonant clusters, e.g. ‫ܛܝܒܐ* > ܡܛܝܒܐ‬, ܳ ‫ܝܚܐ* > ܦܬ‬ ܳ ‫ܬ‬. This gives rise to the creation of a homograph, ‫ ܽܡܘܢ‬, ‫ܝܚܐ‬ ܽ ܽ from the lexemes ‫ ܠ ܡܘܢ‬and ‫ܡܘܢ‬. This phenomenon is connected with another one: Tabetha’s lack of prefixation (discussed further below).

148

GEORGE KIRAZ

Uncanonical metathesis takes place in a number of lexemes, e.g. ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ݂ > *‫ܣܟ ܳܒܐ‬ > *‫( ܣܟ ܳܝܐ‬until age four, but now corrected), ‫ܬܟܒܐ‬ (where the ‫ ݂ܬ‬turns into ‫ܣ‬, not unlike the Malankara/Malabar pronunܶ ̈ ‫ܡܫ‬ ܰ > *‫ܡܫ ̈ܦܠ ܶܚܐ‬ ܰ (where the schwa is on ‫ ܦ‬as exciation of ݀‫)ܬ‬, ‫ܚܠ ܦܐ‬ pected). All these were corrected after the age of five. At the age of five, when Tabetha’s verbal system began to recognize verbal patterns, epenthetic vowels were inserted whenܰ code ܳ switching with English stems conjugated as Syriac verbs, e.g. / ‫ ܳܐܢ̱ܬ‬run ܳ ‫ܐܠ‬/ ‘do not run’. Code switching and morphosyntax are discussed below.

ܳ ‫ܟܣ ܳܝܐ‬

MORPHOLOGY AND MORPHOSYNTAX It was too difficult to determine Tabetha’s acquisition abilities for morphology prior to the age of four. It was around this time that she became somewhat, but not fully, aware of number, gender and person. Suffixation in verbal forms became very clear at this age, even suffixing Syriac morphemes to English stems which code switching. It is unlikely that Tabetha recognized prefixation (see under the lexicon). What is most interesting is that by the age of four (and more so at the age of five) Tabetha began exhibiting signs of acquiring the CV-template as a morpheme. As the imperative is usually dominant in parents’ interactions with children (e.g. don’t do this or that), the imperative form replaces the typical past 3rd singular masculine as Tabitha’sܰ base stem from which ܶ ܶ ܳ ܳ ܰ other verbal forms were derived, e.g. ‫( ܣܒܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܗ‬for ‫‘ ) ܢܣܒ‬you take it’. Later, the active participle form began to become dominant simply because this form was emphasized by the Kthobonoyo-speaking parent from the outset. This was especially the case in code switching ܶ ܺ ݁ ܰ (from brush ܺ ‫ܬܝ‬ with English stems, e.g. ‫ܝܢܕܝܢܢ‬ ‫( ܦܪ‬from pretend), ‫ܒܪ ܺܫ ܰܝܢܢ‬ ܺ ܰ teeth), ‫( ܒܝܠ ܺܕܝܢܢ‬from build). After the age of four, Tabetha began generating words in the past singular 2nd person feminine, but always addressed her father in the feminine form ܺ ܰ (because this was the form with which he addressed her), ܺ e.g. ‫( ܬܟܒܬܝܢ‬both m. and f.) and in code switching as well, e.g. ‫( ܰܪܬܝܝܢ‬from write). By the age of five, the verbal CV template was noticeable in Tabetha’s verbal system. This was especially pronounced in code switching when vowels (and sometimes consonants) ܰ ܰ were added in order to fill in ܰ gaps in the CV template, e.g. ‫‘ ܳܚܪܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܢ‬we see’ where ݀ on the verb

TABETHA KTHOBONOYO SYRIAC

149

is used to fill the second V in CVCV present tense template for final-‫ܐ‬ ܳ ݂ ‫‘ ܰܟܕ ܺܠ‬when you leave’. verbs, e.g. ‫ܝܒܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ‬ Tabetha recognized the importance of gender in the verbal system around the age of five. At the age of five and a half,ܰ while on aܰ short ܳ ܽ carܰ trip, Tabetha on her own: ܺ‫ܒܐܒܐ ܐܠ ܺ ܰܝܐ܆ ܟܢܟܘܐܢ ܐܠ ܳܝܐ܆‬ ܺ began conjugating ܺ

ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ܬܝܐ ܡܐܡܐ ܰܐܠ ܳܝܐ‬ ݂ ‫ܬܝܐ ܟܢܟܘܐܢ ܐܠ‬ ݂ ‫ܬܝܐ܀ ܐܠ ܰܡ ܳܨܝܐ ܒܐܒܐ ܐܠ‬ ݂ ‫ܬܝܐ܆ܛܒܛܘܒ ܐܠ‬ ݂ ‫ܡܐܡܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫“ ܛܒܛܘܒ ܐܠ ܳܝܐ‬Dad is tired (m.), Kenoro is tired (m.), Mom is tired (f.),

Tabetha is tired (f.); not possible Dad is tired (f.), Kenoro is tired (f.), Mom is tired (m.), Tabetha is tired (m.).” At the age of five and a half an instance of the perfect singular 3 rd feminine Tabetha ܳ CV template was observed. When the parent asked ܺ ܽ ܰ ܰ ‫ܒܛܘܒ ܰܢ‬ ‫“ ܠ ܽܡܘܢ ܐܠ ܰܢ ܶܩܕܬܝܢ‬Why did you not clean?” She answered, ‫ܩܢܩ‬ ‫ܛ‬ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܰ “Tabetha cleaned” (‫ ܢܩܢܩ‬for ݀‫)ܢܩܕܬ‬. The first time use of an ܽ imperfect ܰ ܰ ܰ form ܶ ܺ was also observed at this time, when Tabetha said ‫ܐ̱ܡܪ ܡܐܡܐ ܬܘ‬ ‫“ ܢ ݂ܐܬܐ‬Tell Mom to come” (note the masculine gender in the verb instead of the feminine, and the use of English to for the relative pronoun ‫ܕ‬ which is absent like all other forms of prefixation). Code the intra ܺ word level. Examples inܺ switching tookܰ place ܽ at ܰ ܺ ‫ܓܠ‬ clude ‫ܝܢ‬ ‫ܪܐܬܝ‬ ‘you write’, ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܝܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‘we ܺ ܰ ݁ ܺ ܶ glue’, ‫‘ ܒܪܫܬܝܢ‬you brush [teeth]’, ‫‘ ܦܪܣܬܝܢ‬you press’ (note ݀), ‫‘ ܕܪܣܬ ܰܝܢ‬to dress’, etc. A very interesting ܰ instance was the use of ݀ to ‫‘ ܬܝܶܝܢܢ‬we tie’ akin to final-‫ ܐ‬verbs. ܳ ̱ was also observed at the age of The first use of the enclitic ‫ܗܘܐ‬ five and a half, but as in the case of Swadaya (which had nothing to do with Tabetha’s process), the verb was not declined, e.g. ܰ ܽ acquisition ‫‘ ܛܒܛܘܒ ܳܝ ܰܕܥ ̱ܗ ܳܘܐ‬Tabetha knows’. Around the same time Tabetha beܰ ‘I am ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ܡܒ‬ gan using the personal pronoun ‫ ܐ̱ܐܢ‬as an enclitic, e.g. ‫ܙܚܐ ܐ̱ܐܢ‬ kidding’.

THE LEXICON AND CODE SWITCHING Tabetha’s mental lexicon is a subset of the lexicon used by her Kthobonoyo-speaking parent, itself a subset of the Kthobonoyo lexicon, which in turn is a subset of the classical Syriac lexicon with additional neologisms and coinages. When the parent did not know a particular word, he would look it up in dictionaries or coin a new term. When faced by two options for a word, the parent opted for the one that was similar to its counterpart in a language familiar to Tabetha, e.g. for orange, ‫ ܦܘܪܬܩܐܠ‬was chosen over ‫ ܐܛܪܘܓܐ‬because of its proximity to Arabic ‫ برتقال‬and Turkish. An ex-

GEORGE KIRAZ

150

ample of a new coinage is ‫ܦܢܟܘܟܐ‬, from English pan and Syriac ‫ܟܘܟܐ‬ ‘cake’ for pancake. As is the case for all monolinguals and bilinguals, Tabetha began acquiring lexical items prior to her generative abilities, and examples of this have been noted in relation to phonology. During her first two years, overextension, where a word is used beyond its meaning, was a feature of Tabetha’s mental lexicon. For instance, she used ‫ ܫܠܡ‬to denote the end of an action, but also to denote that something was not there, instead of ‫ܠܬܝ‬, a word she would later generate. Similarly, she used ‫ ܩܛܐ‬for both cats and dogs (and probably would use it for other small four-legged animals if she encountered them) until she learned the distinction between these words. The letter ‫ ܒܬܝ‬was used to denote writing in general. By age four, Tabetha’s overextension had dwindled. Also by age four, Tabetha began to ask about Syriac lexemes she did not know, e.g. and

/‫؟‬he ‫ܣܘܪܝܝܐ‬ /‫؟‬boots ‫ܣܘܪܝܝܐ‬

‫ܡܘܢ‬/ “What is he in Syriac?” ‫ܡܘܢ‬/ “What is boots in Syriac?”

She would also enquire about the English meaning of words she did not understand, e.g. Tabetha: ‫ܕܝܠܟ؟‬

‫“ ܐܝܟܐ ܩܘܒܥܬܐ‬Where is your hat?” Father: ‫ܩܘܒܥܬܐ ܐܒܕܬ‬ “The hat was lost.” ܶ Tabetha: ‫“ ܡܘܢ ܐܒܕ ܐܢܓܠܝܫܝܐ؟‬What is ebad in EngFather:

ܰܶ lost ‫ܐܒܕ‬

lish?”

“ebad is lost.”

In other instances, Tabetha uttered a sentence with code switching and then inquired about the missing Syriac word, e.g. /‫ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ‬forgot ‫ܡܘܢ‬

.‫ ܬܟܪܝܢܐ ܕܫܢܐ‬forgot ‫ܛܒܛܘܒ‬/

“Tabetha forgot Katrina’s gift. What is forgot in Syriac?” This inquisitiveness, however, was not the norm and in most cases code switching was retained. Many examples appear in the appendix, but worth mentioning here are the English two-word idioms which are split by an object, e.g.

ܶ ܳ̈

/off ‫ ܡܣܢܐ‬take

‫ ܟܢܟܘܐܢ‬/ “Kenoro takes the shoes off.”

TABETHA KTHOBONOYO SYRIAC

151

/on ‫ ܗܐܢ‬leave

ܺ ݁ ܰ ‫ܛܒܛܘܒ ܒܥܝܐ‬/ “Tabetha wants to leave this on.” /up ‫ܕܫܢܐ ܟܕ ܪܦܬܝܢ‬/ “The gift when you wrapped it up.”

Tabetha also scolded her Father if he used an English word in an utterance, even in the case of compound proper nouns, e.g. Father:

Rhode Island ‫ܒܬܪܟܝܢ ܐܙܠܝܢܢ ܠ‬

“We will go later to Rhode Island”

Tabetha: ‫ ܐܢܓܠܝܫܝܐ‬island ̈ ‫ܒܐܒܐ ܐܡܪܬܝܢ‬ “Dad, you said island in English!!”

Father:

Rhode ‫ ܐܙܠܝܢܢ ܠܓܙܪܬܐ ܕ‬Oh

“Oh, we will go to the island of Rhode.” As Tabetha lacked prefixation at the age of five, bdwl letters became ܶ ܰ is evening, not in the evening; ‫ܝܩܘܢ‬ ܽ ‫ܟܣ‬ ܺ ‫ܒܠ‬ ܳ ‫ܒܪ‬ part of the lexeme, e.g. ‫ܡܫܐ‬ ܳ ܳ lexicon, not in the lexicon; ‫ ܠ ܥܒܐ‬forest, not to the forest. Examples enܰ ܳ ܳ ܽ ܺ ܶ forcing this notion are ‫‘ ܒܠܟܣܝܩܘܢ ܣܟܒܐܐܬܝܘܗ̱ܝ‬is the lexicon a book?’ (where ‫ ܣܟܒܐ‬is for ‫)ܬܟܒܐ‬, and the following conversation: Father: est.”

‫“ ܐܙܠܝܢܢ ܠܥܒܐ‬We shall go to the forܳܳ

Tabetha: ‫ܠ ܥܒܐ؟‬

‫“ ܡܘܢ‬What is l‛obo?”

CONCLUSION This paper has given remarks on the sociolinguistic environment surrounding Tabetha, and some remarks on phonology, morphosyntax and lexicon. While the observational approach used in presenting this study cannot be generalized, it provides a starting point for understanding how children acquire Kthobonoyo natively. More and more, English is now taking over in Tabetha’s general linguistic acquisition and her Kthobonoyo is probably below that of a five year old.

APPENDIX The following nursery songs were translated from English and used during the first five years.

GEORGE KIRAZ

152 London Bridge

‫ ܕܦܪܬ) ܗܐ ܢܦܠ܆ ܗܐ ̇ܢܦܠ܆ ܗܐ ̇ܢܦܠ‬،‫ܓܫܪܐ ܕܠܢܕܢ (ܐܘ ܕܕܩܠܬ‬ ‫ܕܫܪܐ ܕܠܢܕܢ ܗܐ ̇ܢܦܠ܆ ܐܘ ܫܦܝܪܬܐ‬

London Bridge is falling down, Falling down, falling down. London Bridge is falling down, My fair lady. Poo and Tigger

‫ܦܘ ܥܡ ܬܝܓܪ ܗܐ ܟܪܟܝܢ܆ ܦܘ ܘܬܝܓܪ ܐܠܪܥܐ ܡܛܝܢ‬ ‫ܦܘ ܥܡ ܬܝܓܪ ܠܬܪܝܢ ܡܢܝܢ܆ ܬܘܕܝ ܬܘܕܝ ܗܢ ܣܦܩ‬ The wheels on the bus

̈ ‫ܓܝܓܠܝ ܒܨܐ ܚܕܪܝܢ ܘܟܪܟܝܢ܆ ܚܕܪܝܢ ܘܟܪܟܝܢ܆ ܚܕܪܝܢ ܘܟܪܟܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܓܝܓܠܝ ܒܨܐ ܚܕܪܝܢ ܘܟܪܟܝܢ܆ ܚܕܪܝ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‬

The wheels on the bus go round and round Round and round, round and round The wheels on the bus go round and round All through the town.

.‫ܘܫܪܟܐ‬

‫ܬ̈ܪܥܝ ܒܨܐ ܦܬܚܝܢ ܘܣܟܪܝܢ܆ ܦܬܚܝܢ ܘܣܟܪܝܢ܆‬

.‫ܘܫܪܟܐ‬

‫ܛ ̈ܝܐ ܠܒܨܐ ܣܠܩܝܢ ܘܢܚܬܝܢ܆ ܣܠܩܝܢ ܘܢܚܬܝܢ܆‬

The door on the bus goes open and shut, etc. The boys on the bus go up and down, etc.

.‫ܘܫܪܟܐ‬

ܺ ‫ܣܘܝܫ‬ ܺ ‫ܣܘܝܫ ܥܒܕܐ܆‬ ܺ ‫ܣܘܝܫ‬ ܺ ‫ܡܫܘܚܬܐ ܕܒܨܐ‬ ‫ܣܘܝܫ ܥܒܕܐ܆‬

The wipers on the bus go ‘Swish, swish, swish,’ etc.

A RECENTLY-DISCOVERED NABATAEAN SANCTUARY, POSSIBLY DEVOTED TO THE SUN-GOD

LAÏLA NEHME CNRS, UMR 8167 ORIENT & MÉDITERRANÉE This article presents, in provisional form, a recently discovered

and excavated Nabataean sanctuary devoted to the cult of the sun-god in Madâ’in Sâlih, ancient Hegra.

DESCRIPTION I recently had the pleasure of reading John Healey's Variorum Collected Studies, published in 2011, and discovered in it an article ‘Dushara as sun-god’, which he had initially written for Sergio Noja Noseda’s Festschrift. After Sergio’s untimely death, the Festschrift was abandoned and the article was therefore never published. As a small tribute to John’s scholarly contribution to Nabataean studies, I would like to present, at least in provisional form, a recently discovered and excavated Nabataean sanctuary which I believe was devoted to the cult of the sungod. This sanctuary was discovered in Madâ’in Sâlih, ancient Hegra in north-west Arabia. It lies in the so-called residential area, far from the place where most of the monuments with a religious character have

153

LAÏLA NEHME

154

been recorded to date, i.e. the Jabal Ithlib, north-east of the site.1 The residential area lies in a flat and large plain in the approximate centre of Hegra, surrounded by a mudbrick rampart (Nehme Plate 1: A). There are only a few rocky outcrops in this area: two of them, in the south, named Hill A and Hill B, stand exactly at the city limits. Another, locally named Marbat al-Hisân, which has the form of a mushroom, lies just beneath its northern limit. The last two, in the northern half of the city, were numbered IGN 131 and IGN 132 by the Institut Géographique National in 1978–1979. They are the only outcrops around which religious monuments have been carved. The conspicuous character of IGN 132 (Nehme Plate 1: B) and the presence, at its foot, of several rock-cut features, made it a good candidate for excavation. Two seasons, for which a preliminary report has been submitted to Atlal, have been undertaken so far, in 2010 and 2011.2 The outcrop numbered IGN 132 is slightly longer than it is wide (about 35 x 20 m) and is oriented north-south. Its top is at about 794 m above sea level and it dominates the surrounding plain. It is, for example, 16 m higher than Area 2 of our excavations, which is located 200 m to the north-west (see Nehme Plate 1: A). Its southern side is steeper than its northern side. Immediately to the north the land forms a terrace where, in places, the bedrock reaches the surface. The bedrock falls away in a gentle slope from south to north (3 m over more than 15 m distance). On the south-western side of the hill, nine excavation squares were opened in 2003 by D. al-Talhi.3 The Latin inscription dated to between 175 and 177 CE, which mentions the restoration of the town’s rampart (if the reading vallum in line 3 is correct), was found in a baulk between two squares of this trench.4 Several archaeological structures were visible around the bottom part of the outcrop before excavation (see Nehme Plate 1: B),5 including one rock-cut room (IGN 132a), the ceiling of which has partly col-

1

On the Jabal Ithlib and its monuments, see most recently Nehmé et alii

2006: 91–96 and Nehmé 2004: 656–667. For location, see Nehme Plate 3; B. 2

2010: Charloux et alii (in press) and 2011: Benech et alii (in press).

3

On the results of these excavations, see al-Talhi and al-Daire 2005: 206–

4

Ibidem.

207. 5

On IGN 132, see Nehmé et alii 2006: 91.

A RECENTLY DISCOVERED NABATAEAN SANCTUARY 155 lapsed, and three niches with betyls (IGN 132b-d). The top of the outcrop is a platform sloping up from north to south. A groove cut into the rock, c. 50 cm wide, runs around it. The excavation began with the clearance of the rock-cut room IGN 132a, which turned out to be very disappointing. The fill did not contain any diagnostic sherds (the ware seems to belong to Byzantine or late Byzantine ware types)6 and the room itself, in which we expected to find the benches of a triclinium, was empty. The excavation continued on the terraces north of the outcrop, where two walls, interpreted as temenos walls, came to light, one external and one internal, with a very clearly identified door in the latter (Nehme Plate 2). We then moved to the west side of the outcrop where six stone basins, two of which were visible before excavation and three of which were complete, were cleared. It is not certain yet whether and how they are associated to the well, dug partly in the rock and partly in the earth sediment, which was excavated a few meters further south, immediately at the foot of the crack which separates the outcrop into two parts. It should be noted that this well, numbered 132, was installed in the most inadequate place, as shown by the fact that it lies beyond the diagonal line, running north-east – south-west, which marks the limit of the area where Nabataean wells have been dug (Nehme Plate 3: A). Indeed, it is built in a rather high position: the highest spot of the wall surrounding the well is at the altitude of 785 m whereas, by comparison, the altitude of the top of the so-called Bîr Nabatî, well no. 9, is at 780.65 m. Considering that the water table at Bîr Nabatî was at 761 m in 2005, water should be expected at 24 m in well no. 132. Of course, the water table in antiquity was much higher than it is now (probably at 8 or 9 m), but it was nevertheless several meters further down in this well than in most of the other wells (by comparison, the summit of well no. 12 is at 778.20 m, well no. 27 at 775.95 m and well no. 42 at 774.44 m).7 It is therefore necessary to explain why a well was installed in this place, and one may suggest the following two reasons: (1) because of the sanctuary built on top of the outcrop (see below), there was certainly a need for water in this particular 6

All the pottery from the Madâ’in Sâlih excavations were read by C. Durand

and Y. Gerber. 7

See the section of these wells in Courbon 2008: fig. 16, 17, 18, 21.

LAÏLA NEHME

156

place; (2) the very specific position of the well at the foot of the crack probably allowed it to be supplied directly with rain water, thus making it both a well and a cistern. 8 If there had been no sanctuary above, it would be difficult to explain why the Nabataeans chose this location, and if it was not for the crack, there would be no reason to dig it at this relatively high altitude. There are domestic quarters around IGN 132 (as shown, in particular, by the 2003 excavations west of IGN 132), but if the Nabataeans had needed a well to supply them with water, there were plenty of other, more appropriate, locations in which to dig. The excavation of the installation on top of the outcrop began in 2010 but most of the work was done during the 2011 season. The installation is composed of an open-air enclosure and a paved platform (Nehme Plate 2: A). The enclosure is defined by a (probably) low wall made of a single row of sandstone blocks carefully laid in a trench dug in the bedrock, c. 50 cm wide (Nehme Plate 3: B). The blocks are fixed in the trench with wedging stones and mortar. The best preserved parts of the wall are on the north side but traces of it are also visible on the other three sides. This provides relatively exact dimensions for the enclosure: 16 m north-south and 13.50 m east-west. The builders clearly made best use of the space available and gave the enclosure the maximum possible size. This is particularly visible in the north-west corner, where the edge of the cliff is only half a meter away from the angle. It must have been rather difficult to build a wall so close to the cliff, but Nabataean builders and stone-cutters (particularly those who cut the monumental tombs) were accustomed to these situations. They also made good use of the bedrock, following the variations of its level and only carving it when necessary. Layers of mortar and wedging stones were systematically employed, in a very pragmatic manner. The paved platform (Nehme Plate 3: C) was probably a square, the sides of which were c. 4.50 m.9 Seventeen slabs, made of white and soft sandstone, are preserved. They are very thin (3 to 4 cm thick) and therefore extremely fragile, disintegrating when one walks on them, forming 1 to 2 mm thick leaves which then crumble away. They are 8 9

As was Bîr Nabatî, the only other well of this kind in Madâ’in Sâlih.

It is difficult to determine its exact dimensions because its western and

northern parts are missing and the reconstruction is based on the principle of symmetry (the same space on each side of the columns).

A RECENTLY DISCOVERED NABATAEAN SANCTUARY 157 laid on a preparatory layer made of compact clayish earth mixed with small stones, the thickness of which varies according to the irregularities of the bedrock. The slabs are carefully assembled and no mortar was used to join them to each other, except on the edges of the platform, where a fine grey mortar was used to fix together the slabs and the wedging stones which link them to the bedrock. Whenever it was possible, i.e. when the bedrock was at the right level (it slopes gently from west to east), the builders avoided putting slabs on the platform, as can be seen in its south-western angle, where the bedrock was simply cut down to the level of the top of the slabs. Faint traces of grey mortar on the bedrock show, however, that the latter was probably coated in order to give it a better aspect. The form and size of the slabs varies considerably: the smallest two are 36.5 x 69 cm and 40.5 x 66 cm while the largest two are 88 x 66 cm and 1.30 x 53 cm. Apart from the slabs and the wedging stones, the only feature in situ is a rectangular block of good-quality white sandstone, 95 x 30 cm and 14 cm high, fixed to the bedrock and to the slabs below it with a 3.5 cm thick layer of grey mortar mixed with small stones. Its upper surface bears no traces of tool marks but its front and right (west) faces bear traces left by a drill spindle. This block is not part of a possible wall surrounding the platform, because there is no space available to the right (west) of it. It is therefore better to assume that it was some sort of pedestal for an altar or other religious device. At about 0.75 m from the edges of the paved platform, the negative of four columns was observed. They are visible either because slabs were clearly cut in order to make them fit in (four slabs were cut), because the bedrock was cut deeper to embed them or because there are still traces of the white mortar which was used to fix them firmly to the substrate. The south-western column is the best preserved. Its diameter is 55 cm, as is that of the south-eastern one. Not a single fragment of column drum was found, neither on top of the outcrop nor in the destruction layers below (important destruction layers were identified in the area between the basins and the wells and in the well itself). This shows that the column drums were all taken away when the monument on top was dismantled, probably to be reused somewhere else. The four columns were probably part of some sort of canopy protecting the

LAÏLA NEHME

158

paved platform from the sun and the rain. It brings to mind the central platform of the cella of several temples (Baalshamîn and Sûr in southern Syria,10 Khirbat Tannûr in Jordan,11 etc) as well as that of the tower of Mashnaqa in Lebanon.12 The total absence of architectural blocks on and around the platform makes it difficult to reconstruct the monument which stood there: was it some sort of cella or a monumental altar? It was initially thought that access to the summit of IGN 132 was given primarily through a ramp built parallel and against the northwest face of the outcrop, up to chamber IGN 132a (Nehme Plate 4: A; and see Plate 2). However, the excavation, in 2011, of the area in front of the chamber where a few stones had been exposed in 2010, showed that these blocks belong in fact to the bases of two pillars, 1.90 m distant from each other, resting directly on the bedrock. Only two courses are preserved and the stones used to build them, carelessly assembled, are of friable white sandstone. The bedrock on which they are laid is pulverulant and wavelets shaped by erosion have formed on the surface. The feeling is that of a work undertaken in haste. Despite this, it is probable that these two pillars were part of the initial access to the top of IGN 132. Indeed, they are on the western side of the outcrop, the only side where an access could be installed, the other sides being too steep, and in front of what is left of the rock-cut staircase which originally provided an easy climb to the top. Faint traces of this staircase are still visible above the entrance to the rock-cut chamber IGN 132a. Apart from the latter, the original aspect of the access cannot be reconstructed: the pillars are all that remains of a possible monumental gateway to the sanctuary. As previously mentioned, the ceiling of IGN 132a has partly collapsed and we have every reason to believe that this happened early in the history of this area. Indeed, it is assumed that when the chamber was dug, part of the ceiling collapsed, also destroying access to the top. At this time, the sanctuary was in use and a new access, a roughly-built ramp, had to be installed quickly, using spall from the digging of the chamber and meeting up with what was left of the rock-cut staircase. Because the ramp clearly makes use of the stone fragments obtained by 10 11 12

Dentzer-Feydy 2010: 226 and fig. 1, 3. McKenzie 2002: fig. 4, 21, 28.

See Aliquot 2009, fig. 132, 134 p. 252.

A RECENTLY DISCOVERED NABATAEAN SANCTUARY 159 the quarry workers, medium ones in the lower part and small ones in the upper part, the digging of the chamber and the building of the ramp are considered to be almost contemporary.

INTERPRETATION Pottery found on top of the outcrop, read by Y. Gerber in 2012, is mostly dated to the interval between the mid-1st century BCE and the mid-1st century CE. This suggests that at the turn of the era, a high place was built and used on top of IGN 132, in the northern part of the residential area of ancient Hegra. It was protected by temenos walls and at least one entrance to the complex was opened on the northern side – perhaps not in the middle – of the open-air courtyard thus delineated.13 Access to the high place was originally given through a rock-cut staircase which was destroyed when the ceiling of the rock-cut chamber IGN 132a collapsed (see above). Roughly in the middle of the rectangular enclosure, a paved platform was protected by a canopy, visible only through the traces of the imprints of the four columns which carried it. Apart from the slabs of the pavement, the only element in situ is a rectangular ashlar, fixed to the slabs with mortar on the southern edge of the platform. The whole installation is orientated almost exactly north-south, which is probably not a coincidence.14 As this is the best orientation to follow the course of the sun, particularly in winter, it is possible that this high place was devoted to the cult of the sun-god. Indeed, the whole installation is reminiscent of Strabo’s text describing the religious customs of the Nabataeans (Geography, XVI.4.26): ἥ λιον τιμῶσιν ἐ πὶ τοῦ δώματος ἱ δρυσά μενοι βωμό ν, σpέ νδοντες ἐ ν αὐ τῷ καθ´ ἡ μέ ραν καὶ λιβανωτί ζοντες, ‘they worship the sun, building an altar on the top of the house, and pouring libations on it daily and burning frankincense’. J. Healey15 has recently pointed to the fact that Dûsharâ, in a Greek

13

There was possibly another entrance, on the west, but the temenos walls

have completely disappeared on this side. 14

There is a very small difference of 12° to the east due to the orientation of

the platform. 15

Healey 2011.

LAÏLA NEHME

160

inscription from Suwaydâ’ in southern Syria, 16 is called ανικητος ‘unconquered’, and that this epithet is characteristic of the sun deity (Sol invictus). Therefore, it may be that Dûsharâ as sun-god was worshipped in the residential area of Hegra. The discovery of a stone incense burner (Nehme Plate 5: B) and a bronze casket which may have been used for storing incense (Nehme Plate 4: E) are arguments in favour of this interpretation, despite the fact that these objects were not found directly associated with the platform (see the Appendix). A portable betyl, an altar, an offering table or any other object needed for the worship rituals may also have been installed on or near the rectangular ashlar found in situ on the platform. Finally, the three niches with betyls which are carved on the western and southern faces of IGN 132 are most probably linked to the presence of the high place on top, although the relative chronology between these installations is impossible to determine. It is not completely certain that there was a monumental building on top of IGN 132. The hypothesis of the existence of such a structure is valid only if one interprets the blocks found in the destruction layers at the foot of the eastern site of the outcrop as the result of the destruction of this building. Moreover, one has then to assume that the building, whatever its form, was dismantled deliberately, possibly with the view of reusing the blocks, most of which are of very good quality. If this was not the case, one would have to explain why the blocks fell only on one side of IGN 132. It should also be emphasised that this deliberate destruction appears to have been done in an organised way: the blocks were sorted (‘bad’ ones were thrown in the well, ‘good’ ones north of the well) and the destruction did not greatly affect the area where the stone basins were installed. It is certain, however, that as soon as the building was destroyed, the well was no longer in use, unless the blocks found in it came from somewhere else, i.e. from the lining of the well itself. The estimated number of blocks extracted from the well is c. fifty units, to which should be added the small blocks thrown away in the excavation dump. If one interprets the last preserved course of the lining of the well (at the top) as the original upper course, twenty-nine blocks are missing in the upper three courses of the lining. 17 There are 16 17

Waddington 1968: no. 2312.

Considering that each course contains 12 or 13 blocks and that two, three,

A RECENTLY DISCOVERED NABATAEAN SANCTUARY 161 thus more blocks in the well than blocks needed to fill the gaps in its lining. In theory, there is no need to reconstruct a building on top of IGN 132 and one must also take into account the difficulties involved in dragging up the blocks, which came from a distant quarry. 18 In addition, the platform was self-sufficient and had the required installations for a place of worship: an open-air platform, part of which was protected by some sort of canopy supported by four columns, and an altar or other furniture used during the ceremonies on the southern edge. Nevertheless, the hypothesis of an upper building is the only one explaining the presence of the blocks in the destruction layers excavated in 2010 and 2011, and it is safe to assume that there was indeed a monumental structure there, of which very little is left. One parallel to our installation may be found in Petra. It is around and on top of an outcrop standing on a large terrace in the Jabal alM‘aysrah ridge, bearing number 520 in G. Dalman’s catalogue19 (Nehme Plate 4: B, C). The bottom part of the outcrop is occupied by several rock-cut chambers (Dalman no. 519). Two partly-destroyed staircases lead to the top, one in the north and one in the south. The latter, which has several flights, is very well cut. On the top of the outcrop, several installations were recorded: a bench, a block interpreted as an altar, basins, cup holes, a possible stibadium, etc. The surface is covered with earth and it would be worthwhile clearing it, as it is probable that other features would appear. The relative chronology between the installations at the top and those at the bottom is difficult to determine because there is no stratigraphic link between them, but if the hypothesis is correct that the top building was dismantled and that the blocks were thrown down and sorted out, it follows that the well is earlier than the destruction of the building. It is also probable that the presence of the well is closely linked to that of the sanctuary and that both were installed approxiand five blocks are preserved in the three upper courses (thus 3 x 13 = 39, minus 10 = 29). 18

The closest quarries which offer good quality white sandstone, equivalent

to the quality of the blocks found in the destruction layers, are on the slopes of the Jabal Ithlib. 19

Dalman 1908: 286, fig. 231 (plan of the top).

162

LAÏLA NEHME

mately at the same time. As for the relationship between the well and the basins to the north, it is difficult to be more precise at the moment. At least some of the basins were filled with water by hand (basins no. 1–3 may have received rainwater directly from the top, although this is not certain) and if such was the case, the nearby well would have been a very good source of water. This would mean, in turn, that the well and the basins are more or less contemporary and that the whole complex was built at the turn of the era. This monument, with its walls built in white sandstone, was probably one of the most conspicuous elements in the landscape of ancient Hegra, competing with the monumental rock-cut tombs.

APPENDIX: THE FINDS Three objects, found during the excavations, are worth mentioning. 60704_M01: bronze statuette (Nehme Plate 4: D) A small bronze figurine representing a bird of prey (see the characteristic eyebrows) in ‘imperial’ posture, probably an eagle, with hooked beak, projecting chest and opened wings (not spread wings). The left leg thrusts out and the head is slightly turned to the right. The wings are symmetrical and join each other at the back to form the tail, which in turn joins the stand. This small object, found on top of IGN 132, was probably a votive offering. 60681_M01: bronze casket This bronze casket (Nehme Plate 4: E) had been fitted into the small space left between wall 60666 (see fig. 3), basin no. 1 and a stone laid flat. It was certainly put there on purpose, possibly to hide it, if not just to put it away in the right place. It was laid flat, resting on its feet. It is a casket with six compartments radiating out from a central circular space (diameter 17.5, height 12.3 cm). The thickness of the walls is 0.6 cm for the inside and 0.7 cm for the outside wall. Three compartments show on their bottom a black deposit, probably ash, while the others still contain earth. The walls between the compartments were made of plaster, except for their upper part, which was made of a me-

A RECENTLY DISCOVERED NABATAEAN SANCTUARY 163 tallic stem, 0.8 to 1.4 cm high and 0.6 cm wide (however, in one case at least, the plaster also covers the stem). It is difficult to say whether the plaster also covered the bottom of the compartments. In some of them the metal appears, and in others it is covered with earth.20 The casket rests on three feet (5.3 cm high) which were originally decorated with human heads, only one of which is relatively well preserved (see detail on Nehme Plate 4: E). When looking at the casket from above, the feet are invisible. The head is probably male and is framed with a crenellated pattern reminiscent of the crowsteps of the Nabataean tomb façades. The hair appears like a flat band which comes down to the level of the ears. The pupil of the left eye is marked by a circle in relief. The outline of the mouth is not very clear and it is not certain whether both lips are represented. The bust is protruding forward but nothing is visible on it. The closest parallels to this casket are to be found in three regions of Yemen (Nehme Plate 5: A): • Jawf (illegal excavations, photograph M. Arbach in 2004): ‘Alî ‘Aqîl and Antonini 2007, no. II.C.a.6, p. 200: casket with two compartments, ring-shaped base, lid decorated with feline head. Date: 1st-3rd c. CE? Private collection. • Awsân (provenance necropolis and temple?): ‘Alî ‘Aqîl and Antonini 2007, no. II.C.a.1–4: - no. II.C.a.1: casket with four compartments, three lion paw shaped feet, lid. Diam. 16 cm; h. 7.7 cm. Date: 1st-3rd c. CE? Aden National Museum 2627; - no. II.C.a.2: casket with four compartments, ring-shaped base, lid. Diam. 13.9 cm; h. 6.7 cm. Aden National Museum 1446; - no. II.C.a.3: casket with two compartments, three bull paw shaped feet, lid. Diam. 8.5 cm; h. 5 cm. Aden National Museum 28;

20

The compartments have not been cleaned because we decided it was pref-

erable to leave this to a professional restorer.

LAÏLA NEHME

164

- no. II.C.a.4: casket with one compartment, three bull paw shaped feet, lid. Diam. 8.5 cm; h. 5 cm. Aden National Museum 543. • north of San‘â, site of al-Huqqa (Rathjens and von Wissmann 1932: 86, fig. 44): incense-burner made of a flared tripod on three lion-headed feet (or bull-hoofed shaped feet? See Avanzini 2008: 394). Diam. 11.8 cm; h. 8.7 cm. • Zafâr, Khor Rori (Avanzini 2008: 394, 396, pl. 33 p. 446, no. 868): incense-burner made of a hammered tripod on three lion’s paw shaped feet soldered to the bowl. Three triangular openings in the base, clogged by ash, were used for ventilation. It contained remains of a burnt substance. It may have had a perforated lid. Diam. 12 cm; h. 8 cm. According to A. Avanzini, bronze incense-burners are quite rare in South Arabia and less than a dozen are preserved. There are therefore, it seems, two categories of objects which have the same form as our object: compartmented caskets (with one to four compartments) and incense-burners. The fact that 60681_M01 has six compartments and no holes for ventilation in its base makes it likely that it was used as a casket rather than as an incense-burner, despite the traces of burnt material in some of the compartments (possibly the result of a reuse). It may, however, have been used to store incense or cosmetics. The marks visible on the top may be the traces of the soldering of a lid but this is not certain. Other parallels to these caskets, according to ‘Alî ‘Aqîl and Antonini, are to be found in Egypt and in NeoBabylonia but mainly in Hellenized Asia: Bactria (Aï Khanoum for example).21 It is the first object of this kind found in the Nabataean realm and, in this respect, it deserves attention and care. 60653_S01: stone incense-burner (Nehme Plate 5: B) It was found in the destruction at the bottom of the outcrop, on the east side. Its preserved height is 28 cm and its maximum width is 23 cm. Its original thickness was probably 18 to 20 cm, which makes it approxi21

References in ‘Alî ‘Aqîl and Antonini 2007: 68.

A RECENTLY DISCOVERED NABATAEAN SANCTUARY 165 mately square in section. Three sides (the fourth is broken) are decorated with horns and there is a small cavity on the top.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ‘Alî ‘Aqîl ‘A. and S. Antonini 2007, Bronzi sudarabici di periodo pre-islamico (Paris). Aliquot J. 2009, La vie religieuse au Liban sous l’empire romain (Beirut). Avanzini A. 2008, ‘A port in Arabia between Rome and the Indian Ocean (3rd C. BC – 5th C. AD)’, Khor Rori Report 2 (Arabia Antica, 5) (Rome). Benech C., G. Charloux, Z. T. Fiema, L. Nehmé, I. As-Sabhan (in press), ‘Report on the fourth season (2011) of the Madâ’in Sâlih Archaeological Project’, Atlal 22, 2011. Charloux G., N. Delhopital, Z. T. Fiema, L. Nehmé, J. Rohmer, I. Sachet, J. Studer (in press), ‘Report on the work of the Saudi-French Madâ’in Sâlih Archaeological Project in 2009 and 2010’, Atlal 21, 2010. Courbon P. 2008, ‘Les puits nabatéens de Madâ’in Sâlih’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 19, pp. 48–70. Dalman G. 1908, Petra und seine Felsheiligtümer (Leipzig). Dentzer-Feydy J. 2010, ‘Les sanctuaires païens de type régional en Syrie du Sud’, in M. al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, J.-M. Dentzer (eds), Hauran V. La Syrie du Sud du néolithique à l’Antiquité tardive. Volume 1. Actes du colloque de Damas 2007, (Beyrouth), pp. 225– 238. Healey J. 2011, ‘Dushara as Sun-God’, in Law and Religion between Petra and Edessa. Studies in Aramaic Epigraphy on the Roman Frontier. Number XXI. Intended for publication in: I Primi Sessanta Anni di Scuola. Studi dedicati dagli amici a Sergio Noja Noseda

166

LAÏLA NEHME nel suo 65° compleanno, 1996. Farnham (GB) & Burlington (USA), pp. 37–53.

McKenzie J., A. T. Reyes, S. Gibson 2002, ‘Khirbat at-Tannûr in the ASOR Nelson Glueck Archive and the Reconstruction of the Temple’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 46, pp. 451–476. Nehmé L. 2004, ‘Explorations récentes et nouvelles pistes de recherche dans l’ancienne Hégra des Nabatéens, moderne al-Hijr / Madâ’in Sâlih, Arabie du Nord-Ouest’, Comptes rendus de l’ cadémie des inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, pp. 631–682. Nehmé L., T. Arnoux, J. C. Bessac, J. P. Braun, J. M. Dentzer, A. Kermorvant, I. Sachet, L. Tholbecq, J. B. Rigot 2006, ‘Mission archéologique de Madâ’in Sâlih (Arabie Saoudite): recherches menées de 2001 à 2003 dans l’ancienne Hijrâ des Nabatéens’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 17, pp. 41– 124. Rathjens C., H. von Wissmann 1932, Vorislamische Altertümer (Südarabien-Reise, 2; Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde, 38, Reihe B, 19, Bd 2) (Hamburg). al-Talhi D., M. al-Daire 2005, ‘Roman Presence in the Desert: a New Inscription from Hegra’, Chiron 35, pp. 205–217. Waddington W. H. 1870, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie (Paris).

RS 18.113A+B, LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT SE TROUVANT À

CHYPRE

DENNIS PARDEE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO This article examines a letter composed by an Ugaritian administrator stationed in Cyprus. A new edition and translation of the

text is offered, which allows for a more accurate linguistic and historical analysis of its content. Certain elements in the text,

such as a unique blessing formula (lines 6–9), indicate that the letter’s addressee was not in fact the Pharaoh Amenophis III, but

rather the King of Ugarit. In addition, a new reading of the final

section of the text (line 39) suggests that the administrator intends to purchase ships on behalf of his Ugaritian overlord.

C’est un plaisir de présenter cette étude d’une lettre ougaritique à John Healey, qui a travaillé sur les textes d’Ougarit au début de sa carrière et qui a dirigé des thèses dans ce domaine.1 D’autant plus que nous nous sommes rencontrés la première fois au centre du royaume d’Ougarit, au colloque célébrant le cinquantenaire de la découverte en 1979, qui a eu lieu à Lattakié avec visites du site de Ras Shamra et de Ras Ibn Hani. 1

Nous remercions P. Bordreuil d’avoir accepté de lire un brouillon de ce

texte pour en améliorer l’expression française.

167

DENNIS PARDEE

168

Ce texte a été choisi parce que quelques spécialistes de l’histoire chypriote nous ont posé la question de savoir s’il s’agissait d’un texte en rapport avec l’Égypte, selon l’avis de l’éditeur, ou plutôt avec Chypre, dont le nom paraît à la ligne 8. Dans notre première étude de ce texte, nous avions accepté l’avis de l’éditeur,2 alors que dans une étude ultérieure où seule la traduction, accompagnée de quelques notes explicatives, était possible, nous avons proposé que l’auteur était plutôt un Ougaritain se trouvant à Chypre.3 Nous proposons ici une nouvelle édition du texte, où sera expliquée notre préférence pour cette dernière interprétation.

LES DETAILS MATERIELS Lignes 1–15', 22'–39' = RS 18.113A = DO 7509 = PRU V 8 = UT 2008 = KTU/CAT 2.42 Dimensions: hauteur 83 mm; largeur 65 mm; épaisseur 18 mm. Lignes 16'–21' = RS 18.113[B]4 = DO 7509 = KTU/CAT 2.43 Dimensions: hauteur 39 mm; largeur 28 mm; épaisseur 5 mm. État: partie supérieure gauche, constituée de plusieurs fragments, à laquelle appartient RS 18.113[B] d’après tous les critères sauf celui du joint matériel (la main du scribe, la grandeur des signes, la couleur de l’argile, vraisemblablement le lieu de trouvaille);5 le bas du recto a disparu aussi bien que le verso presque entièrement, et il ne reste donc que des bribes du corps de la lettre. Nous n’avons pas retrouvé le petit fragment qui, à l’époque de l’editio princeps, portait la fin des lignes 3 et 27'–34' (les lignes 2–9 du verso chez l’éditeur, l. 15–22 dans KTU/CAT)6 — puisque nous n’avons pas vu le fragment, nous indiquons ces signes copiés par l’éditeur entre crochets. 2 3 4

Pardee 1987: 205.

Pardee 2002: 104–5.

Dans Bordreuil et Pardee 1989: 163, les crochets indiquent que cette ma-

nière de désigner le petit fragment était nouvelle, nécessaire dans le système de

classement de ce recueil selon lequel chaque objet devait porter un numéro d’inventaire. 5 6

Pardee 1987: 204. Pardee, ibid.

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

169

Caractéristiques épigraphiques: main de scribe typique des textes administratifs avec prolongation exagérée de certains clous, en particulier le clou de droite du { }; le {ʿ} est prolongé à droite et son côté inférieur est parallèle à l’axe de l’écriture; les clous latéraux du {š} sont des clous longs et en biais, non pas des Winkelhaken, mais le signe présente tout de même un aspect trapu; {ṯ} à six branches. Lieu de trouvaille: Palais Royal, pièce 77, point topographique incertain.7 Editio princeps: Virolleaud, PRU V (1965), p. 14–15, no 8 (sans photographie).8 Principales études: Ahl 1973: 446–49. Dietrich et Loretz 1976: 21–22. Knapp 1983: 38–45. Linder 1970: 41–43. Lipiński 1977: 213–17. Pardee 1987: 204–10. ——2002: 104–5. Sasson 1966: 134. Virolleaud 1965: 14–15.

7 8

Voir Pardee, ibid.

Dietrich et Loretz en ont publié des photographies en 1976 (pl. VII*, sous

les sigles ‘S 33’ et ‘S 34’). Virolleaud n’a édité RS 18.113[B] ni avec le grand fragment (voir Pardee 1987: 210, n. 44) ni séparément; ce petit fragment parut donc

pour la première fois dans Dietrich et Loretz 1976: 22 et pl. VII* (S 34), sous forme de translittération et de photographie, mais sans fac-similé.

DENNIS PARDEE

170

TEXTE Recto RS 18.113A 1) l . mlk . ˹b˺[ʿly …] 2) r

˹g˺[

3) t m . rb . mỉ[

m] . ʿbdk]

———————————— 4) l . pʿn . bʿly[ . mr qtm] 5) šbʿd . w . š˹bʿd˺[ . qlt] 6) ảnkn . rgmt . l . bʿlṣ˹p˺[n] 7) l . špš . ʿlm . l . ʿṯtrt[…] 8) l . ʿnt . l . kl . ỉl . ảlṯ˹y˺[…] 9) nmry . mlk . ʿlm ———————————— 10) mlkn . bʿly . w˹t˺[…] 11) yšỉḫr . w . ʿm . ˹bʿ˺[…] 12) ʿš˹r˺ỉd . lỉk˹-˺[…] 13) w [.] b˹ʿly˺ . ˹mn˺[…] ................................... Verso ................................... 14') ˹-˺[…] 15') ˹-˺[…] ...................................

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

171

RS 18.113[B]9 16') […]˹--˺[…] 17') […]m˹-(-)˺[…] 18') […]˹-˺ . tbʿ[…] 19') [… ]lk . ʿ˹-˺[…] 20') [… ]˹y˺kn[…] 21') […

]˹--˺[…]

................................... RS 18.113A 22') [

]y

23') […] 24') […] 25') […] 26') w [.] ˹-˺[…] 27') ʿšr[m …] 28') yšt[ . tbʿ …] 29') qrt . m˹l˺[k˹-˺ …]10 30') w . ʿl . ả˹p˺[ . s …] 31') bhm . w[ . rgm . hw . ảl …]

9

L’emplacement du fragment RS 18.113[B] est incertain, et nous indiquons

donc la disparition d’un nombre inconnu de lignes avant et après celles-ci. Ces quelques signes pourraient évidemment appartenir à des lignes qui sont partielle-

ment conservées à gauche, soit au haut du verso (l. 14'-15'), soit au bas (l. 22's.); mais, cela étant impossible à déterminer, nous donnons à ces fragments de lignes leur propre numérotation. 10

Des demi-crochets entre crochets indiquent un signe qui était porté sur le

fac-similé de l’éditeur comme étant abîmé.

DENNIS PARDEE

172 Tranche supérieure

32') ttn . ks[p . lhm . ʿd] 33') ỉlảk[ . ʿm . mlk] 34') ht . lỉk[˹-(-)˺ mlk] Bord gauche 35') w . ml˹k˺ . yštảl . b . hn ˹.˺[…] 36') hmt . w . ảnyt . hm . tʿ˹-˺[…] 37') mkr . hảd . w . rgm ˹.˺ ảnk[…] 38') mlkn . ybqṯ . ảnyt . w . ảt˹-˺[…] 39') ˹t˺mkrn . w . mlk . ˹lả˺k . ʿm˹-˺[…]

REMARQUES TEXTUELLES11 6) Bien que l’on voie une tache claire dans le bord de la cassure à droite, il nous paraît maintenant invraisemblable qu’il s’agisse de la tête d’un {n} (avec CAT, contre Pardee).12 8) Une meilleure interprétation de nmry, l. 9, nous amène à abandonner la restitution d’un mot à la fin de cette ligne,13 restitution qui de toute manière manquait de vraisemblance en raison de la longueur importante de la ligne telle qu’elle est conservée.14 11

Dans notre étude préliminaire, nous avons déjà comparé nos lectures avec

celles de l’éditeur et des auteurs de KTU. Nous ne répétons pas ici toutes ces observations, mais indiquons surtout nos lectures qui sont nouvelles par rapport à notre

première étude aussi bien que les différences entre notre lecture et celle donnée dans CAT. 12

Dans la transcription de notre étude préliminaire (Pardee 1987: 205), nous

avons indiqué que trois signes auraient été partiellement conservés après {bʿl}; en préparant le fac-similé qui accompagne cette étude-ci nous n’en avons trouvé que deux.

13

Ibid., p. 207, nous avons proposé de restituer šlm, ‘bien-être’, qui aurait

fonctionné comme complément d’objet direct du verbe rgmt, l. 6. 14

Au sujet de la restitution de la préposition l à la fin de cette ligne, épigra-

phiquement plus plausible que la restitution de trois signes, mais qui présente d’autres difficultés, voir plus bas, note 40.

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

173

12) Il nous semble maintenant plus prudent de ne pas indiquer le dernier verbe comme {lỉk˹t˺}, car du dernier signe il ne reste qu’une petite trace, et le sens du passage n’est pas assez clair pour permettre de déterminer le sujet du verbe. 17') Après le {m}, lire soit {˹y˺}, soit {ḫ˹-˺}. 22') Le {y} se trouve sur la tranche droite au même niveau que le dernier signe de la ligne 9 et presque en contact avec lui. 30') L’éditeur a indiqué sur sa copie un {p} entier, mais on ne trouve sur la tablette dans son état actuel qu’une tête de clou horizontal aussi bien que ce qui semble être la tête d’un clou vertical dans la configuration de { , ṭ}.15 Contrairement aux auteurs de CAT, nous n’adoptons pourtant pas la lecture de { }, car on voit difficilement comment Virolleaud ait pu se tromper entre {p} et { } — nous concluons que ce tracé horizontal, à vrai dire assez vague, n’est en fait qu’un élément de la cassure. Ces mêmes auteurs n’indiquent pas, non plus, le clou séparateur et le {s} que Virolleaud portait sur son fac-similé à droite du {p}. 32') Il nous paraît nécessaire de respecter le désir du scribe de corriger le premier signe, apparemment {ả} dans un premier temps, pour en faire un {t} (contre KTU/CAT, où l’on trouve un {ả} certain et, en note dans CAT, la suggestion de corriger ce {ả} pour lire {t}16 — la correction était déjà effectuée par le scribe).17 35') Dans notre étude préliminaire,18 nous avons indiqué que la trace à la fin de cette ligne serait celle d’un clou séparateur, suivant en cela Dietrich, Loretz et Sanmartín.19 La trace est fine,20 trop fine et trop ac-

15 16

Cf. Pardee 1987: 208.

De nouveau en 1994: 45, 49, Dietrich et Loretz ont présenté la lecture de

{ttn} comme une correction à effectuer sur le texte que porte la tablette, que, ellemême, porterait {ảtn}. 17 18 19

Cf. Pardee 1987: 208; 2003–2004: 307.

Ibid., p. 206; cf. idem 2003–2004: 57.

Dietrich et Loretz 1976: 21; Dietrich, Loretz et Sammartín 1976: 156;

1995: 181. 20

Pour indiquer ce fait, nous avons placé le petit point par lequel le clou sé-

parateur est transcrit entre demi-crochets (sur la nécessité de ce procédé dans la

transcription de l’ougaritique, voir nos propos dans Pardee 1999: 193–94; 2001a:

DENNIS PARDEE

174

colée au {h}, nous semble-t-il, pour être le reste de l’angle inférieur gauche d’un clou horizontal ou la pointe d’un clou vertical plus important que le clou séparateur. 38') Comme nous l’avons indiqué dans notre étude préliminaire,21 la trace à la fin de la ligne n’est pas assez bien conservée pour permettre de déterminer s’il s’agit du séparateur ou du vestige d’un autre signe. 39') La lecture de {w .} au début de la ligne (Virolleaud, KTU/CAT) ne reflète pas ce qui se trouve sur la tablette. Le moins que l’on puisse dire est que ces deux signes ne sont certainement pas parfaitement conservés comme ces auteurs l’ont laissé croire. La description que nous en avons faite dans notre étude préliminaire s’est confirmée par la nouvelle étude entreprise en vue de préparer le fac-similé proposé ici. N’oublions pas que les copies de l’éditeur étaient ‘normalisées’, et ce qui ressort clairement de l’examen de la photographie et de notre fac-similé est que l’éditeur ne s’est pas efforcé de représenter la situation respective des signes sur la tablette. En effet, son {w} arrive jusqu’à la mi-largeur du {l} à la ligne précédente, alors que sur la tablette ce premier signe et le {m} suivant sont situés de part et d’autre de la pointe du {m}, premier signe de la ligne précédente. À notre avis, nous ne sommes pas ici devant un cas où la tablette a souffert depuis le travail de l’éditeur et le nôtre, mais d’une erreur de sa part, erreur suivie par les auteurs de KTU/CAT. Ce que l’on voit sur la tablette est un seul clou horizontal22 dont le bord gauche touche à la ligne verticale imaginaire qui marque la marge gauche de l’écriture des lignes 35'-37' (le premier signe de la ligne 38' était placé légèrement à droite de cette marge); la tête de ce clou est émoussée et nous avons pensé dans notre

309 n. 17). 21 22

Pardee 1987: 209.

En préparant le fac-similé de la tablette, nous n’avons pas retrouvé à

gauche du clou horizontal qui est bien conservé l’angle de clou mentionné dans

notre étude préliminaire (Pardee 1987: 209; cf. 2002: 104; 2003–2004: 163). Dans

notre cahier de travail daté des 25 et 28 juin 1987, nous retrouvons ‘il existe peutêtre la trace d’un clou’, formule plus prudente. Un nouvel examen en juin 2001 avec l’aide de la précieuse loupe binoculaire montre que ce qui se trouve à gauche du clou horizontal est une petite cassure ronde, sans angle de clou visible dans les bords de la cassure.

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

175

étude préliminaire restituer {ả}, mais la lecture de {t} nous paraît maintenant plus vraisemblable. Il est nécessaire de souligner l’incertitude de la lecture des signes {lả} vers la fin de la ligne: le premier signe pourrait être {ṣ,s,b,l,ủ,d}, alors que la première des deux têtes de clous visibles à droite paraît très étroite pour appartenir à {ả}, car la tête du premier clou de ce signe est normalement assez large. La restitution de {lả} est pourtant vraisemblable, car on peut penser qu’ici, à la fin de la ligne où l’espace entre la ligne précédente et la marge gauche du texte au verso était étroit, le scribe a serré un peu les clous du {ả}. La dernière trace visible paraît trop importante pour qu’il s’agisse du séparateur.

TRADUCTION Recto 1) Au roi, [mon] m[aître,] 2) dis: 3) Message du chef de MʾI[--, ton serviteur]. ———————————————— 4) Aux pieds de mon maître[, de loin,] 5) sept fois et sept fois [je tombe.] 6) Moi-même je prononce auprès de Baʿlu- apu[nu,] 7) de Šapšu-ʿālami, de ʿAṯtartu[,] 8) de ʿAnatu, de tous les dieux d’Alashia, 9) (des vœux pour) la splendeur de (ta) royauté éternelle. ———————————————— 10) (Quant au) roi, mon maître, pays[…] 11) retardera. Et au MAÎT[RE …] 12) dix fois AVOIR envoyé[…] 13) Et mon maître, QUOI[…] ...................................

DENNIS PARDEE

176 Verso

................................... 14') ˹-˺[…] 15') ˹-˺[…] ................................... RS 18.113[B]23 16') […]˹--˺[…] 17') […]M˹-(-)˺[…] 18') […]˹-˺ÊTRE parti[…] 19') [… ]LK . ʿ˹-˺[…] 20') [… ]sera[…] 21') […

]˹--˺[…]

................................... RS 18.113A 22') [

]Y

23') […] 24') […] 25') […] 26') ET [-]˹-˺[…] 27') vin[gt …] 28') mettra [PARTIR …] 29') la ville du RO[I…] 30') Et est monté aussi[ S…]

23

9.

À propos de l’emplacement du fragment RS 18.113[B], voir plus haut, note

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

177

31') parmi eux. Et[ lui de dire: ‘Ne] Tranche supérieure 32') [leur] donne [pas] de l’arge[nt jusqu’à ce que] 33') j’envoie [au roi (un message)’.] 34') Voici qu’[il] envoie (ce message) [au? roi.] Bord gauche 35') Et que le roi, pour sa part, s’enquière au sujet de ces chose[s?…] 36') EUX. Et quant aux bateaux, si tu/ils ʿ˹-˺[…] 37') cet agent commercial, (et)24 moi, pour ma part, disant[…], 38') ‘Notre roi cherche des bateaux’. Et je d[onner?]ai [l’argent? …] 39') ils? (les) vendront. Et, Ô roi, envoie-m[oi …]. Texte vocalisé 1) lê malki b[aʿliya] 2) rugum 3) ta mu rabbi MʾI[-- ʿabdika] 4) lê paʿnê baʿliya [mar aqtama] 5) šabʿida wa šabʿida [qālātu] 6) ʾanākuna ragamtu lê baʿli ṣapuni 7) lê šapši ʿālami lê ʿaṯtarti 8) lê ʿanati lê kulli ʾilī ʾalaṯiya 9) namirrīya mulki ʿālami 24

Si cette phrase constitue l’apodose de la clause conditionnelle introduite

par hm à la ligne précédente, le w est w d’apodose et disparaît dans la traduction française.

DENNIS PARDEE

178

10) malkuna baʿlîya uwwat-[…] 11) yašaʾḫir- wa ʿimma baʿ[li- …] 12) ʿašaraʾida laʾik-[…] 13) wa baʿlîya mannu[…] 14'-26') détruits 27') ʿašar[īma …] 28') yašītu[ TBʿ …] 29') qarît- mal[k- …] 30') wa ʿala ʾapa[ S …] 31') bihumu wa[ ragama huwa ʾal] 32') tattin kas[pa lêhumu ʿadê] 33') ʾilʾaku[ ʿimma malki] 34') hatti laʾik[a ʿimma? malki] 35') wa malku yištaʾʾal bi hini[…] 36') humuti wa ʾanayyātu himma Tʿ˹-˺[…] 37') makkāru hannadū wa rāgimu ʾanāku[…] 38') malkunū yabaqqiṯu ʾanayyāti wa ʾatt[inu? kaspa?] 39') tamkurūna wa malki laʾak ʿimmaya[…]

REMARQUES EPISTOLOGRAPHIQUES Rien dans ce texte ne permet d’identifier l’un ou l’autre des correspondants comme étant étranger au royaume d’Ougarit:25 l’adresse est ty-

25

Rien ne vient appuyer, non plus, l’affirmation suivante de Lipiński : ‘… the

introductory part of the letter does not leave any doubt as to its being a draft, a

copy, or an archive translation of a message addressed from Ugarit to the pharoah

by an Egyptian official …’ (1977: 213–14). L’adresse est typique des lettres ougaritiennes et la bénédiction, comme nous le verrons, est sui generis mais avec un lien

très précis, si l’on admet l’identification de nmry avec nmrt en RS 24.252:23', 25',

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

179

pique des lettres adressées par un fonctionnaire qui écrit au roi, son maître, et, une fois l’identification de nmry avec Aménophis III écartée (voir commentaire des lignes 1–9), on ne trouve aucune identification explicite du roi qui était destinataire de la lettre. On a vu dans la mention des dieux d’Alashia une preuve de l’origine alashiote de l’auteur de la lettre,26 mais, puisqu’un serviteur du roi d’Alashia ne se serait vraisemblablement pas adressé au roi d’Ougarit en le qualifiant de son ‘maître’,27 il nous paraît nécessaire d’interpréter cette invocation de divinités alashiotes comme l’indice que l’auteur, qui était ougaritain et ‘serviteur’ du roi d’Ougarit, se trouvait à Chypre au moment d’envoyer la lettre.28 Si l’adresse et la formule de prosternation n’ont rien de remarquable,29 la bénédiction se trouvant aux lignes 6–9 ne trouve pas de avec la royauté ougaritienne (voir commentaire de la l. 9). 26 27

Knapp 1983: 38–45; cf. Portugali et Knapp 1985: 66.

Le roi d’Ougarit s’adressait au roi d’Alashia comme son ‘père’ (RS 20.168,

RS 20.238: Nougayrol 1968, textes 21 et 24; cf. Malbran-Labat dans Bordreuil et

Malbran-Labat 1995: 445; Freu 1998: 27). On sait que le ‘grand intendant’

({LÚ.MAŠGIM.GAL}) d’Alashia s’adressait au roi d’Ougarit en se nommant en premier lieu mais sans employer de titre marquant explicitement le rapport hiérarchique entre les correspondants (RS 20.018: Nougayrol 1968, texte 22). 28

Comme le dit très justement Singer, ‘It is only natural that in blessing his

lord he should invoke the gods of both countries’ (1999: 678). 29

Quelques remarques à propos d’aspects de ces formules que des décou-

vertes plus récentes permettent d’expliquer: (1) Le fait que mrḥqtm, selon la restitu-

tion vraisemblable de la fin de la ligne 4, se placerait après l pʿn X et avant šbʿd w šbʿd n’est plus sans parallèle dans ces textes (comme c’était le cas il y a quelques

années : Kristensen 1977: 148): cet ordre des trois éléments de la formule se re-

trouve en RS 20.199:4–6 (texte dont l’édition complète fait toujours défaut; pour le moment, voir KTU/CAT 2.68 et Pardee 1984: 213–15, 228). (2) La conservation partielle des trois clous inférieurs du second {d} à la ligne 5 permet d’écarter la restitution ici de {šbʿ[ỉd]} (Aartun 1974: 16), et, de toute manière, cette dernière

forme n’est attestée qu’une seule fois (RS 9.479A:9 = CTA 52 = KTU/CAT 2.12). (3) Notre collation confirme la lecture par l’éditeur de clous horizontaux au côté

gauche du troisième signe à la ligne 11 et son identification comme un {ỉ} (Virolleaud a copié trois clous et a transcrit par {h}; Dietrich et Loretz 1976: 21 lisent

{ỉ}, comme le font Dietrich, Loretz et Sanmartín 1976: 156; 1995: 181; cf. Pardee 1987: 205). Sur notre fac-similé, on verra que les quatre clous du {ỉ} sont partiellement visibles, et la proposition d’Ahl (1973: 118, 446) de lire {yš[lm]} et d’y voir le début d’une nouvelle série de salutations devient donc caduque.

DENNIS PARDEE

180

parallèle dans ces textes. Par sa longueur, elle ressemble aux vœux de bien-être adressés au roi d’Égypte (RS 16.078+:15–24; RIH 78/3+:6– 11),30 mais les formules sont différentes dans les deux cas. 31 En RS 16.078+, le verbe est ʾRŠ, au lieu de RGM, les divinités nommées sont différentes et la formule inclusive est ỉl mṣrm, ‘les dieux d’Égypte’, et la bénédiction ne fait pas partie de la praescriptio, comme ici, car elle figure au corps de la lettre. La formule de bénédiction proprement épistolaire qui se trouve en RIH 78/3+ ressemble de très près à celles que nous connaissons par les lettres d’el-Amarna. Pourtant, du point de vue de l’expression du vœu, cette bénédiction se place d’une perspective différente de celle des formules courantes en ougarique: au lieu de souhaiter que les dieux agissent d’une manière ou d’une autre (qu’ils ‘gardent’, qu’ils ‘donnent le bienêtre’, qu’ils ‘fortifient’ …), l’auteur de la lettre affirme qu’il ‘prononce aux’ divinités nommées ‘la splendeur de la royauté éternelle’ du destinataire. Par sa situation après les formules d’adresse et de prosternation, cette déclaration semble jouer le rôle de formule de bénédication plus précisément qu’en RS 16.078+, où la situation de la formule ‘ʾRŠ …’ semble constituer plutôt une déclaration de fidélité de l’auteur qu’une bénédiction. Nous concluons que rgmt … constitue en elle-même un vœu de bien-être éternel, mais la différence de perspective par rapport aux formules yšlm, etc., mérite d’être soulignée.

COMMENTAIRE Lignes 1–9. Dès la présentation préliminaire de ce texte par l’éditeur, celui-ci a identifié le mot nmry à la ligne 9 comme correspondant à ‘la forme accadienne ou syllabique du nom du célèbre Pharaon Aménophis III’ qui ‘a régné de 1405 à 1370’,32 et cette identification a été admise par la plupart des chercheurs au cours des années et jusqu’à présent.33 30

RS 16.078 + RS 16.109 + RS 16.117 = PRU II 18 = UT 1018 =

KTU/CAT 2.23; RIH 78/03 + RIH 78/30 = Bordreuil et Caquot 1980: 356–58 = CAT 2.81. 31

Ceci constitue une raison de plus d’écarter ce texte du groupe de lettres

adressées au roi égyptien (voir commentaire des lignes 1–9). 32 33

Virolleaud 1955: 75; cf. idem 1965: 15, 85 n. 1.

Vogt 1956: 387; Rainey 1962: 39, n. 5; 1965: 108; Eissfeldt 1965: 15; Gor-

don 1965: 444 (§ 19.1652); Schaeffer 1965: xi; Linder 1970: 41, 43; Ahl 1973:

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

181

À l’encontre de cette interprétation, Rainey34 a proposé d’y voir une forme apparentée à nmrt, mot qui désigne la splendeur du roi d’Ougarit en RS 24.252:23', 25',35 et, depuis cette date, plusieurs spécialistes ont adopté cette explication.36 Il nous paraît nécessaire soit d’adopter cette interprétation, soit de penser qu’il s’agit de la traduction d’un texte ancien, car (1) rien n’indique que l’usage de l’écriture alphabétique remonte au début du XIVe siècle37 et (2) ce serait le document le plus

446, 448; Gaál 1974: 97; Lipiński: 1977: 213–17; Heltzer 1978: 152–53; Caquot

1979: 1416; Astour 1981: 16; Cunchillos 1982–1983: 270; 1984: 233; 1985: 72, n.

20; Knapp 1983: 40; Milano 1983: 141, n. 2; Pardee 1987: 205, 207; 1988: 89–90, n. 48; Smith 1990: 123, n. 24; del Olmo Lete 1992: 226; 1999: 337; del Olmo Lete

et Sanmartín 2000: 325; Niehr 1997: 296–97; Freu 2000: 12; 2006: 32–33; Rahmouni 2008: 295. 34 35

Rainey 1974: 188

RS 24.252 = Virolleaud 1968: texte 2 = KTU/CAT 1.108. Comme plu-

sieurs chercheurs l’ont bien vu, le mot dans le texte de la vingt-quatrième campagne ne désigne pas la ‘bénédiction’, mais la ‘splendeur’ (voir nos arguments dans

ce sens et la bibliographie antérieure dans Pardee 1988: 115; aux éléments bibliographiques rassemblés dans la note 199, on peut ajouter Singer 1999: 678; Watson 2002: 119; Pardee 2003–2004: 164–65). Dijkstra (1999:158) a pourtant extrapolé

cette interprétation à nmry. Malgré l’absence de noms à n-préformante en ougari-

tique, Singer (1999: 678) continue à évoquer la racine MRR pour expliquer le nom nmrt.

36

Van Soldt 1983: 693; 1990: 345, n. 164; 1991: 88 n. 78; 2006: 684 n. 71;

Dijkstra: 1999: 158; Singer 1999: 677–788 (voir aussi p. 623, n. 67, et p. 631, n.

87); Pardee 2001b: 24 n. 69; 2002: 104 ; 2003–2004: 164–65; 2007: 187–88. Live-

rani, déjà en 1962 (28, n. 6) exprimait des réserves sur le bien-fondé de l’identification avec Aménophis III; mais, quelques années plus tard (1979a: 1298, 1303), il a admis l’identification comme probable. 37

Si l’on admet que la célèbre version ougaritique (RS 11.772+ = CTA 64 =

KTU/CAT 3.1) d’un traité conclu entre un Niqmaddu et un certain uppiluliuma est du temps de Niqmaddu ‘III’ et de Šuppiluliuma II, ou que ce texte soit la traduction

récente d’un traité entre Niqmaddu ‘II’ et de Šuppiluliuma I, les documents ougari-

tiques que la datation certaine permet d'identifier comme les plus anciens remontent à ʿAmmiṯtamru ‘II’, à savoir au milieu du treizième siècle. Sur la composition

tardive des Archives Est, où fut découvert RS 11.772+, voir Dalix 1998: 5–15; sur

l’identification de RS 11.772+ soit comme texte tardif, soit comme traduction tardive d’un document datant du XIVe s., voir Pardee: 2001b: 5–31; sur l’apport de RS

18.113A+B pour la question de la date de l’invention du système cunéiforme alphabétique, voir Pardee: 2004: 34–39; 2007: 187–88.

DENNIS PARDEE

182

ancien des textes provenant des Archives Centrales et annexes.38 Admettant cette interprétation de nmry, il reste à expliquer la différence de forme entre nmrt et nmry. Nous voyons trois explications possibles: il s’agirait (1) de la terminaison nisbe,39 (2) du morphème féminin /-ay/, (3) de la particule enclitique. Les deux premières explications présentent, nous semble-t-il, des difficultés plus grandes que la troisième. On ne dirait pas ‘je prononce aux dieux le splendide’, et, pour rendre cette solution plus vraisemblable, il faudrait restituer šm, ‘nom’, à la fin de la ligne 8. En effet, ‘je prononce aux dieux le nom du splendide, du roi éternel’ ne présente pas la même difficulté. En revanche, il est plus difficile d’admettre que le scribe ait placé ce mot šm à la fin de la ligne 8, qui mordait déjà bien sur la tranche.40 La deuxième solution paraît invraisemblable, car le mot nmr-, s’il est apparenté à nmrt, est certainement un emprunt à l’accadien,41 et la désinence féminine /-ay/ — avec la consonne /y/ — est principalement ouest-sémitique. Parce que la possibilité d’attacher la particule enclitique à un mot à l’état construit est indiquée sans ambiguïté par la formule ỉly ủgrt en RS 15.008:4–5 (PRU II 15 = KTU/CAT 2.16), cette solution paraît se conformer très bien aux données épigraphiques de ce texte aussi bien qu’à la grammaire ougaritique. Dans les trois cas de figure, on est obligé d’admettre

38

C’est la raison pour laquelle Liverani doutait à un moment donné de

l’identification de {nmry} avec Aménophis III (référence ici plus haut, la n. 36).

Ces doutes ont été confirmés par l’étude détaillée des archives du palais royal à laquelle s’est livré Van Soldt (pour ce qui concerne ce texte-ci, voir 1991:88). 39

C’était l’explication de Rainey (1974: 188), mais il ne proposait pas de tra-

duction du texte. 40

Il est aussi difficile d’admettre que la préposition l ait été placée à la fin de

la ligne 8, restitution nécessaire pour que nmry puisse être ‘the last deity in the in-

vocation’ (Singer 1999: 678). En effet, le scribe a inscrit cette préposition au début des lignes 7 et 8, et il n’existe aucune raison de penser qu’il eût fait autrement aux lignes 8–9 — surtout lorsqu’on constate que la ligne 8 s’était vraisemblablement

étendue plus sur la tranche que l’une ou l’autre des lignes 6 et 7. (Nous ne considérons pas la possibilité que Singer ait identifié nmry avec kl ỉl ảlṯy, car il a traduit cette formule comme étant au pluriel, analyse qui nous paraît évidente.) Knapp (1983: 39, 40, 42) était le premier à entrevoir cette interprétation, mais ne l’a pas adoptée avec la même assurance que Singer. 41

Il ne peut s’agir d’un nom nord-ouest sémitique dérivé de la racine MRR

pour la raison indiquée plus haut, note 35.

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

183

que ce mot n’est pas identique à nmrt et, si les deux mots sont apparentés, qu’il s’agit d’un autre emprunt à l’accadien. Ce fait ne laisse pas d’étonner, car les emprunts à l’accadien sont tout de même relativement rares en ougaritique, mais il semble s’imposer. Dès lors, la comparaison avec l’accadien namrirrū, un plurale tantum signifiant ‘supernatural, awe-inspiring luminosity’42 ou ‘schrecklicher Glanz’,43 paraît tout indiquée pour le sens, bien qu’on ne puisse entrevoir que le mot ougaritique soit l’emprunt de cette forme précise, car elle s’écrirait {nmrr} en ougaritique. Si dans ce texte le mot est au pluriel (comme namrirrū en accadien), l’usage de la particule -y s’accorderait au fait qu’elle s’attache souvent, surtout en prose, à un nom qui se termine en /ī/, ce qui serait le cas d’un nom au pluriel et au cas oblique. Ligne 3 rb mỉ[…]. Puisque le fragment de droite a disparu, il n’est plus possible de contrôler la largeur de la lacune sur l’objet lui-même. Il est nécessaire de constater que, sur le fac-similé de l’éditeur, la largeur de la lacune conviendrait mieux à la restitution de {mỉ[t . ʿ]bdk},44 qu’à celle de {mī[ḫd . ʿ]bdk},45 pour ne citer que les principales propositions de restitution. Pourtant, l’éditeur lui-même a entrevu la possibilité de restituer {mỉ[ḫdym . ʿ]bdk}, ce qui nous amène à nous demander si à l’époque ce petit fragment était en fait attaché au grand.46 La situation épigraphique étant donc floue, on peut dire seulement qu’il serait logique que ce soit le chef du port d’Ougarit qui s’occupât d’une question

42 43 44

CAD N1: 237–38. AHw: 728–29.

Gordon 1965: 4*, 482 (§ 19.2297); Dietrich et Loretz 1976: 21; Dietrich,

Loretz et Sanmartín 1976: 156; Dahood 1977: 470; Knapp 1983: 39; Van Soldt

1991: 88; Cunchillos et Vita 1993: 276; Vita 1995: 145 (restitution possible; voir aussi la note suivante); 1999: 495 n. 247; 2005: 77; Cunchillos, Vita et Zamora 2003: 751. 45

Virolleaud: 1965: 15; Linder 1970: 41; Ahl 1973: 446; Heltzer 1976: 80–

81; Liverani 1979a: 1337; 1979b: 499; Amadasi Guzzo 1982: 32; Dietrich et Loretz 1994: 45, 50; Dietrich, Loretz et Sanmartín 1995: 181, n. 1; Dietrich et Loretz 2000: 197–200; Singer 1999: 678; Watson 1999: 6; Tropper et Vita 2001: 577 (prise de position ferme pour cette interprétation); Pardee 2002: 104. 46

Nous avons remarqué dans notre étude préliminaire (1987: 206) que, si les

signes {bdk} appartenaient au recto du fragment qui portait la fin des lignes 22'34', leur emplacement par l’éditeur dépendait de ce fait et ne pouvait être une erreur. Hypothèse invérifiable, hélas.

DENNIS PARDEE

184

de bateaux, même à l’étranger. Les équivalences {KAR : ka-a-ru : maḫa-[z]i : ma-aḫ-ḫa-[du]}47 et l’orthographe {URU.KAR} pour désigner la ville de Maʾḫadu48 indiquent que rb mỉḫd serait l’équivalent strict de rab kāri en accadien,49 celui qui s’occupait des affaires douanières aux frontières maritimes.50 Le bureau du ‘chef du port’ était vraisemblablement situé dans la ville de Maʾḫadu, ‘le port’ d’Ougarit par excellence, même si son autorité s’étendait sur tous les ports du royaume. D’ailleurs, l’usage de rb au lieu de skn laisse croire que mảḫd/mỉḫd était possession royale dans le sens étroit du terme,51 que son chef avait le même statut que le chef des corporations royales, et qu’il s’occupait du port de Maʾḫadu et des droit royaux qui s’y exerçaient plutôt que du village qui l’entourait.52 Lignes 6–8. Il y a lieu de penser que toutes les divinités nommées ici étaient alashiotes.53 Par là nous n’entendons pas nier l’importance de Baʿlu apuni, ʿAṯtartu et ʿAnatu à Ougarit mais souligner le fait que la

47

Nougayrol 1968, texte 137 ii 21' (qui a restitué {ma-aḫ-ḫa-[zu]}); cf.

Huehnergard 2008: 105–6. 48 49

Astour 1970: 115, 120; Van Soldt 1996: 675–76.

Singer 1999: 672 n. 220, 223; p. 678. Avaient déjà interprété la formule

comme ‘chef du port’ : Linder 1970: 41; Ahl 1973: 446; Liverani 1979: 499; 1979:

1303 (‘maire’), 1337 (‘surintendant’) ; Astour 1981: 15 (‘prefect’); Amadasi Guzzo 1982: 32. 50

Arnaud 1996: 61–62. Tout hypothétique qu’elle soit, la restitution de

{mỉ[ḫd]} est beaucoup plus plausible que celle de {mỉ[dḫ]}, qui était la première proposé par l’éditeur (Virolleaud 1965: 15) et que d’autres ont répétée (Heltzer

1976: 80–81; Dietrich et Loretz 1994: 45, 50; Dietrich, Loretz et Sanmartín 1995:

181, n. 1), car cette maʾduḫu n’avait vraisemblablement rien à faire avec le port principal d’Ougarit (voir Van Soldt 1996: 675; 1998: 731–32, 743). On laissera de côté la resitution de {mỉ[šmn…]}, ‘the seal-bearer’ (Lipiński 1977: 214), car la formule n’est pas attestée et l’existence d’un fonctionnaire ayant ce titre appartient au domaine de la spéculation. 51

D’ailleurs, étymologiquement mảḫd/mỉḫd peut signifier ‘possession (ce dont

on s’est saisi)’, ‘l’endroit où l’on prend possession de’, ou ‘droit commercial’ (cf. Astour 1970: 118–19). 52

Selon Heltzer 1976: 81–82, rb ne serait attesté qu’ici pour désigner le chef

d’une ville, alors que skn s’emploie dans ce sens aussi bien pour la ville d’Ougarit que pour d’autres villes du royaume; cf. Vita 1999: 473–74. 53

Cf. Yon 2007: 21. Pour l’éditeur, les quatre divinités nommées étaient des

‘divinités d’Ougarit’ (Virolleaud 1955: 74; cf. idem, 1965: 15).

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

185

divinité Šapšu ʿālami n’est pas jusqu’ici connue sous cette appellation précise par un texte d’origine ougaritienne. Cela permet d’entrevoir la possibilité que l’auteur de la lettre ait voulu nommer des divinités alashiotes dont son maître saurait apprécier la valeur puisque leurs homologues faisaient partie de son panthéon à lui. En faveur de l’hypothèse d’un panthéon local, on peut citer la locution verbale RGM l, ‘prononcer auprès de’, que l’on ne peut prendre au pied de la lettre que s’il s’agit de divinités du lieu où se trouve l’auteur.54 On sait que l’influence de Baʿlu apuni, l’un des dieux les plus importants du culte ougaritien, s’étendait loin, jusqu’en Égypte à cette époque et jusqu’à l’autre extrémité de la Méditerrannée au millénaire suivant,55 et ce ne serait donc pas étonnant qu’il figure au panthéon alashiote, surtout en tant que patron des marins. C’est surtout la présence ici de Šapšu ʿālami qui nous fait penser que l’auteur de la lettre a évoqué des divinités locales, car, à part ce texte-ci, ce théonyme n’est connu que par le texte phénicien de Karatepe (KAI 26 iii 19) et par une lettre d’el-Amarna de provenance tyrienne (EA 155:6, 47).56 Il n’y aurait rien d’étonnant que la divinité soit connue à Ougarit aussi, mais son absence des textes rituels, où se trouvent plus de deux cents théonymes,57 nous invite à penser qu’il s’agit peut-être d’une hypostase de la divinité solaire plutôt ‘phénicienne’.58 La mention de cette hypostase, qu’elle soit ougaritienne ou non, ne peut

54

En faveur de la même analyse de la liste, Lipiński a cité la formule kl ỉl ảlṯy,

qu’il prend pour une ‘closing expression’ (1977: 214; cf. Knapp 1983: 40; Koch 1993: 82). Sans vouloir retirer toute valeur à l’argument, on pourrait tout de même

imaginer que les dieux nommés aient été ougaritiens alors que la formule finale

avait pour fonction d’y ajouter tous les dieux locaux. Avec l’analyse comme liste de

divinités alashiotes, l’identité de ‘tous les (autres) dieux’ reste à fixer: étaient-ils principalement ‘phéniciens’ ou plus cosomopolites, et quelle partie était représentée par les dieux proprement chypriotes? 55 56 57 58

Niehr 1999: 152–54.

Texte d’el-Amarna selon la numérotation de Knudtzon 1915. Pardee 2000: 898–905.

Avigad et Greenfield 1982: 126. Pour les éléments bibliographiques, voir

Dietrich et Loretz 1996: 895; on y ajoutera Vattioni 1972: 560–63; 1981: 283;

Vorländer 1975: 150; Baumgarten 1981: 146–48; Bonnet 1989: 98–99; Smith 1990: 123, n. 24; Koch 1993: 82; Ribichini 1998: 107, 112; Rahmouni 2008: 305– 6.

DENNIS PARDEE

186

pas avoir été sans intérêt pour le roi d’Ougarit, membre d’une lignée qui considérait sa royauté comme étant éternelle (voir plus haut, commentaire des lignes 1–9). En revanche, si les quatre divinités nommées étaient installées à ʾAlaṯiya, cela ne laisse pas de doute quant au caractère sémitique59 et même ‘phénicien’ d’une partie importante de la population de la partie d’Alashia déjà à la fin du Bronze récent. Enfin, il est probable — toujours dans le cas de figure selon lequel il s’agit de divinités alashiotes — que l’ordre de mention des quatre divinités ouest-sémitiques est d’une importance plus significative pour leur place dans le panthéon ‘phénicien’/alashiote que dans le panthéon ougaritique.60 Ligne 8 ảlṯy. La bonne lecture des deux textes où on a cru trouver une variante de {ảlṯy} avec {ḏ} pour {ṯ}61 fait rentrer, au moins pour le moment, la représentation de ce toponyme dans une orthographe régulière.62 Si la preuve dirimante de l’identification chypriote d’Alashia

59 60

Lipiński 1977: 214–15.

L’ordre de mention ici ne correspond à l’ordre de présentation de ces

quatre divinités ni sur la première des grandes listes nominatives divines ougari-

tiennes (RS 1.017 [et par.]: bʿl ṣpn, ʿnt, špš, ʿṯtrt — l. 5, [21], [22], 25) ni sur la se-

conde (RS 24.643 [et par.]: bʿl ṣpn, špš, ʿṯtrt — l. 27, 32, 38 [le théonyme ʿnt n’est conservé sur aucun des exemplaires de cette liste qui étaient disponibles à l’époque

où nous préparions notre édition des textes rituels: voir Pardee 2000: 796–97]). De toute manière, ces noms ne sont que des éléments figurant sur des listes plus

longues et dont tous les principes d’organisation ne sont pas connus. Nous signalons pourtant aussi que cet ordre de mention ne se retrouve pas, non plus, dans les

autres listes nominatives divines, plus courtes, que l’on peut extraire des textes rituels (voir Pardee 2000: 1091–1100). Nous prenons cette position par rapport aux

propos suivants: ‘Vgl. aus Ugarit die in einem Brief an den König von Ugarit erwähnte “Sonnengöttin der Ewigkeit”, špš ʿlm …, die hier unmittelbar neben Baal, dem Staatgott von Ugarit, genannt und diesem zugeordnet ist’ (Stähli 1985: 27). 61

Sur RS 24.312:1 {ảlṯyy} au lieu de {ảlḏyy}, voir Pardee 2000: 767 (la

bonne lecture remonte à Xella 1981: 185); à propos de la lecture de {˹k˺lḏy} en RS 19.016:21, au lieu de {ảlḏy}, voir Pardee 1999: 31, 32, 35. 62

L’orthographe avec {ḏ} dans un texte hourrite n’est pas étonnante: RS

24.274:6 {ả˹lḏ˺yǵ}, où le toponyme porte ‘le suffixe d’ethnique’ (Laroche 1968: 504). Bien que les signes {lḏ} soit mutilés, la lecture paraît, selon l’éditeur, ‘pratiquement sûre’ (ibid., p. 505), et elle est admise par les auteurs de KTU/CAT (texte 125). Nous avons collationné la tablette en 1981 (sans la copier), et la lecture de l’éditeur nous paraissait probable.

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

187

n’est pas encore trouvée, elle est généralement admise,63 et l’on n’a rien annoncé dans les nouveaux textes de la Maison d’Ourtenou qui s’y opposerait.64 Le fait que cette entité politique s’écrit en syllabique soit {KUR.a-la-ši-a}, ‘le pays d’Alashia’, soit {KUR.URU.a-la-ši-a}, ‘le pays/ville d’Alashia’ (avec variantes orthographiques),65 cas identique à celui d’Ougarit,66 ne laisse pas de doute qu’il constituait, comme Ougarit, une cité et un état éponyme — mais on ne connaît pas encore l’étendue de la région que gouvernait la ville d’Alashia. Le texte hourrite évoqué plus haut (note 62) associe les dieux d’Alashia, ceux d’Amourrou et ceux d’Ougarit (et) ʿAmmiṯtamru comme participants divins à un festin en l’honneur des dieux-pères.67 Les rapports entre Ougarit et Amourrou sont connus pour être étroits et resserrés par des mariages entre rois d’Ougarit et princesses du royaume d’Amourrou.68 Bien que les rois d’Alashia se qualifient de ‘père’69 en écrivant à un roi

63

Dans Pardee 2000: 117–18, nous avons indiqué les références bibliogra-

phiques pertinentes à l’étude de {ảlṯy} en RS 1.002. Voici, d’une perspective plus

large, d’autres références importantes: Dussaud 1952; Nougayrol 1963: 120, n. 60; 1968: 79; Astour 1975: 259; Knapp 1983: 38–45; 1996: 3–11; Charpin 1990: 125–

26 (au dix-huitième siècle il s’agirait d’une ville de Chypre, peut-être Enkomi); Lipiński 1992: 63 n. 3, 65 (avec la n. 12); Caubet et Matoïan 1995: 101; Vita 1995: 173–75; Na’aman 1997: 611; Freu 1998: 27; Durand 1999: 163; Singer 1999: 675– 78; Yon 2007: 15–16. 64

Malbran-Labat admet comme donnée cette identification: dans Bordreuil et

Malbran-Labat 1995: 445; Malbran-Labat 1995: 104. 65

Voir, par example, le dossier Alashia rassemblé par Nougayrol (1968: 79–

66

Les données ont été rassemblées par Bordreuil 1995: 11–12.

89). 67

Voir Dietrich et Mayer 1997. Il reste à prouver que la mention du roi

ʿAmmiṯtamru à la l. 7 est suffisante pour assurer l’interprétation par ces auteurs selon laquelle ‘Der Text wurde anläßlich des Todes von ʿAmmištamru III. ca. 1215 abgefaßt’ (p. 88). D’une part, selon certains auteurs, ce roi aurait disparu bien

avant 1215 (selon Singer 1999: dépliant après p. 732, ce roi aurait régné entre

1260 et 1235; Freu 2006: 260 indique 1260–1230), d’autre part, ce nom royal aurait pu être cité comme célèbre par le passé, à l’instar de ʿAmmiṯtamru et Niqmaddu

en RS 34.126 (RSO VII 90 = KTU/CAT 1.161). L’ensemble des textes de la vingtquatrième campagne se ressemblant de plusieurs manières, il faudrait reprendre leur étude en cherchant des éléments permettant de les dater. 68 69

Singer 1999: 666–67; Freu 2006: 181–84.

RS 20.168 (Nougayrol 1968: texte 21) et RS 20.238 (Nougayrol 1968: texte

DENNIS PARDEE

188

d’Ougarit, l’origine historique de ce rapport — purement social ou au moins en partie familial? — reste à déterminer. Quoi qu’il en soit de cette incertitude, le texte hourrite exprime clairement les rapports privilégiés qui existaient entre le royaume d’Ougarit et les deux autres qui sont nommés: les dieux des trois royaumes participaient aux obsèques lorsqu’un roi d’Ougarit disparaissait. Ligne 9 nmry mlk ʿlm. Dans notre commentaire global des lignes 1–9, nous avons repoussé l’identification de nmry avec le pharaon Aménophis III, admettant qu’il s’agit d’un terme signifiant ‘splendeur’, apparenté à nmrt en RS 24.252:23', 25' (références plus haut, note 35). Il nous est nécessaire maintenant de proposer une explication de l’emploi de ce terme par l’auteur de la lettre. RS 24.252 est le seul autre texte attestant l’emploi d’un mot à base de nmr-, et toute tentative d’explication doit donc comparer les deux textes. D’ailleurs, on constate un deuxième lien entre les deux textes: ce que nous prenons pour une variante de la formule mlk ʿlm est accolée à la figure divine auquel le texte de RS 24.252 est adressé, à savoir rpủ, que nous avons expliqué70 comme titre de Milku, qui serait mlk ʿlm, roi de l’au-delà. C’est celui-ci qui est fêté le premier selon le texte de RS 24.252, dont la fonction est de permettre au roi (vivant) d’Ougarit de participer aux qualités royales et divines dont l’une est désignée nmrt. Il nous paraît plausible que l’emploi ici de la formule apparentée ait eu pour fonction d’affirmer que le roi a été effectivement investi de ces qualités. Il est aussi plausible, nous semble-t-il, de penser que la formule évoquait la ‘royauté éternelle’ (mulku ʿālami) à laquelle le roi participait71 plutôt que d’y voir précisément le même titre que portait Rāpiʾu/Milku, à savoir ‘roi d’éternité’ (malku ʿālami).72 En effet, RS 24.252, RS 24.257 (Virolleaud

24); de nouveaux exemples se trouvent parmi les tablettes inédites de la Maison d’Ourtenou (voir Malbran-Labat dans Bordreuil et Malbran-Labat 1995: 445). 70 71 72

Pardee 1988: 83–97 Dijkstra 1999: 158.

C’est l’interprétation traditionnelle qui remonte à l’éditeur (Virolleaud

1965: 15), adoptée à la quasi unanimité en raison du lien avec l’interprétation de

nmry comme nom royal (voir, dans le même volume où Dijkstra traduit par ‘ever-

lasting kingship’, Singer 1999: 678, ‘king of the world/eternity’). Le premier, à

notre connaissance, à intégrer la suggestion de Rainey dans une interprétation globale du passage était Dijkstra.

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

189

1968: texte 5 = KTU/CAT 1.113) et RS 34.126 (RSO VII 90 = KTU/CAT 1.161) peuvent s’interpréter comme signifiant que tous les rois d’Ougarit participaient à la ‘royauté éternelle’, mais que seul Rāpiʾu/Milku était ‘le roi de l’éternité, à savoir de l’au-delà’.73 Nous signalons une autre attache littéraire entre cette formule épistolaire et RS 24.252: au moins selon notre interprétation de ce dernier texte, c’est le grand dieu Baʿlu qui était responsable du maintien des liens entre les rois défunts et le roi vivant de la lignée; or, dans le cycle de Baʿlu, la royauté de Baʿlu est reconnue pour être éternelle (CTA 2 iv 10 mlk ʿlmk /mulku ʿālamika/, ‘ta royauté éternelle [lit. la royauté de ton éternité]’). Lignes 10–11. L’état du texte nous empêche de déterminer le rapport entre ḥwt, ‘le pays’,74 et le verbe yšỉḥr, qui signifie litéralement ‘causer un retard’.75 Il en va de même de l’interprétation du {-n} de mlkn comme pronom suffixe (‘notre roi’)76 ou comme particule enclitique77 — la seconde analyse nous paraît pourtant plus vraisemblable vu le cas similaire de {špšn} en RS 18.038:21 (PRU V 60 = KTU/CAT 73

Il est indiscutable, nous semble-t-il, que la formule mlk ʿlm ait eu une réso-

nance égyptienne (voir Gaál: 1974: 97–99), mais ce fait ne constitue pas une preuve dirimante de l’origine ou de la destination égyptienne de ce texte, car RS

24.252 montre que le concept était devenu ougaritien. Il est non moins erroné, nous semble-t-il aussi, de penser que la souveraineté du roi terrestre dont il est

question dans ce document épistolaire soit exercée uniquement ou même principalement sur l’au-delà, comme on l’a proposé en alignant mécaniquement la formule de ce texte avec celle de RS 24.252 (Niehr 1997: 296–97; cf. Watson 2001: 285). 74

Dès 1974, Caquot, Herdner et Sznycer avaient proposé que ḥwt représente

ici le nom commun signifiant ‘pays’ (1974: 197, n. t); cf. Herdner 1978a: 52–53; Lipiński 1977: 214; Pardee 1987: 205, 207–8). Il ne s’agit donc pas d’une forme verbale de la racine 20).

75

WY (Dahood 1965: 20; 1979: 448; De Moor 1979: 643, n.

Pardee 1987: 208; Tropper 1990a: 23; 2000: 587 (§ 74.662.1), 588

(§ 74.622.3), 616 (§ 75.218). Dijkstra ne fournit pas de preuve de la traduction par ‘to withhold, keep back (things)’ (1999: 154) — ‘refuser’ n’est pas la même chose que ‘retarder’. 76 77

Virolleaud 1965: 15; Dahood 1965: 20; 1979: 448.

Aartun 1974: 61; Hoftijzer 1982: 123; Pardee 1987: 204, 207 (première in-

terprétation); 2002: 104; Tropper 1990a: 23; 2000: 823 (§ 89.11b). Linder (1970: 41) et Ahl (1973: 446) avaient déjà traduit par ‘May the king, my lord’ et ‘Oh king, my lord’, mais sans indiquer leur analyse de mlkn.

DENNIS PARDEE

190

2.39), où le sens du passage infirme l’analyse du {-n} comme pronom (en revanche, s’il s’agit à la ligne 38' d’une citation par l’auteur de cette lettre de ses propres paroles adressées aux gens d’Alashia, {mlkn} pourrait bien signifier ‘notre roi’). Ligne 12. La restitution du petit angle de clou comme un {t} pour lire {lỉk˹t˺}, ‘j’ai envoyé’,78 est plausible; mais, vu l’état de la tablette, rien n’est certain.79 Ligne 30'. Puisqu’un adverbe ne suit pas normalement une préposition, l’interprétation des signes {ʿl . ả˹p˺} comme le verbe ʿLY suivi de l’adverbe80 paraît indiquée. Lignes 31'-32'. Comme on peut le voir en mesurant l’espace que devaient occuper les signes portés par Virolleaud sur sa copie mais qui aujourd’hui ont disparu,81 le mot {ảl} était vraisemblablement le dernier mot de la ligne 31', et ce mot portait donc sur le verb ttn au début de la ligne 32'.82

78

Dietrich et Loretz 1973: 77, n. 32 (la lecture est présentée comme le résul-

tat de la ‘Kollation des Originals … in Paris’); Lipiński 1977: 214; Tropper 2000: 379 (§ 65.147d), 470 (§ 73.353), 617 (§ 75.224). 79 80

Pardee 1987: 205; 2002: 104; 2003–2004: 208.

Lipiński (1977: 215) a pris ảp pour le nom commun signifiant ‘nez, visage’,

traduisant ‘face downwards’, interprétation fondée sur les formules NPL ou

HŠT WH + ʿl ʾPYM en hébreu biblique (2 Sam. 14:4, 33; 1 Rois 1:23). Nous re-

marquons pourtant que, dans les trois attestations de ces formules, le mot ʾP est chaque fois au duel et qu’il porte chaque fois un pronom suffix. 81

L’éditeur a indiqué sur sa copie un petit espace avec quelques hachures

après {ảl} mais, sur sa transcription, il a accolé le crochet au {l} de ce mot (Virolleaud 1965: 14, 15); il n’a pas commenté ces lignes. Dietrich et Loretz (1976: 21)

et Dietrich, Loretz et Sanmartín (1976: 156) ont indiqué un grand espace mutilé après {ảl}; dans CAT (1995: 181), ces mêmes auteurs indiquent que la ligne 32' devait se terminer par {ảl}. 82

Pardee 1987: 206, 208; 2002: 104. Sur la lecture de {ttn}, voir plus haut,

la remarque textuelle. Parker (1967: 89) et Lipiński (1977: 215) ont bien compris que la ligne 32' devait se terminer par ảl, mais ils n’avaient pas à leur disposition la bonne lecture du premier mot à la ligne 33' et ils ont par conséquent essayé de

faire porter la négation volitive sur ảtn. Tropper ne propose pas d’interprétation du passage, mais il indique la lecture de {ttn} une fois comme certaine (2000: 635

[§ 75.512]) une fois comme incertaine (2000: 722 [§ 77.322b] — citant CAT comme autorité).

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

191

Ligne 34'. Après {lỉk}, l’éditeur a porté sur son fac-similé une lacune de la largeur d’un signe, avec à droite ce qui semble être la tête d’un clou vertical partiellement conservée (Virolleaud 1965: 14). L’espace est nettement insuffisant pour la restitution de {. ʿm} proposée par Lipiński (1977: 215), et celle de {. l} semble mieux correspondre à ce que l’éditeur a dessiné. Quant au verbe lỉk, l’orthographe est celle de la forme active.83 On n’admettra donc ni l’analyse comme passif ni le besoin de chercher un autre sujet dans les lignes précédentes 84 — sans indice du contraire, ce verbe signifiera ici ‘envoyer (un message)’.85 Aussi, sans autre indice, l’auteur du message sera le même qui parlait à la ligne 31' et il s’agira d’un ‘parfait épistolaire’, soit que le message que l’auteur de cette lettre adresse au roi reprend les paroles de l’autre personne, soit que le messager portait deux messages et que celui-ci fait ici allusion à l’autre. Ligne 35'. Le verbe yštảl, quelle qu’en soit l’analyse précise,86 est employé deux fois dans ces textes en mauvaise part pour exprimer la répétition lassante de questions qui semblent constituer en fait des demandes (RS 29.093:1287 et RS 29.095:1088 — peut-être aussi en RS

83 84 85 86

Tropper 2000: 470 (§ 73.353), 617 (§ 75.224). Sasson: 1966: 134; Linder 1970: 42.

Ahl 1973: 446; Lipiński 1977: 215; Pardee 1987: 206; 2002: 104.

On a posé la question de savoir si les orthographes {yštỉl} et {yštảl} sont

des variantes du schème-Gt ou si {yštảl} ne serait le tD avec métathèse du /š/ et

du /t/, la première de ces consonnes étant une sifflante. Huehnergard (1986) a proposé cette seconde analyse (cf. Pardee 1987: 208). Pardee (1984: 252, n. 7) et

Verreet (1984: 319–21) avaient déjà pensé à l’analyse de la forme comme dérivée

du schème-D, mais sans le raffinement de la métathèse proposée par Huehnergard.

Sivan (1990) repousse cette interprétation, refusant d’admettre l’existence de la forme {yštỉl}. Tropper (1990b: 371–73; 1990c: 395; 2000: 183 [§ 33.243.11c], 519 [§ 74.232.1], 524–25 [§ 74.232.21]) cite des preuves que le Gt devait être

/yiqtatal/ et voit en {yštảl} et {yštỉl} le schème-Gt avec et sans syncope de la troisième voyelle. 87

RS 29.093 = Herdner 1978b = KTU/CAT 2.70, nouvelle édition dans

Bordreuil et Pardee 2004 et 2009, texte 28. 88

RS 29.095 n’a été publié jusqu’ici que sous forme de transcription:

KTU/CAT 2.71. Voir aussi la traduction anglaise avec quelques notes explicatives

chez Pardee (2002: 111), davantage de remarques dans Pardee 2003–2004: 51, 55, 73, 135, 137, 168–69, 265, 278, 290, 379).

DENNIS PARDEE

192

94.2383+:1089). Ici, puisque l’auteur suggère au roi d’entreprendre l’acte à propos duquel yštảl est employé, on en conclura qu’il emploie le terme en bonne part. Il propose donc au roi qu’il s’informe90 au sujet de l’affaire abordée dans la lettre mentionnée à la l. 34.91 Comme nous l’avons vu dans la remarque textuelle, le signe après {hn} semble être le séparateur, et il paraît donc nécessaire de d’admettre la séquence de signes {b . hn};92 mais trancher entre l’explication de {hn} comme le pronom indépendant et celle qui y voit un pronom démonstratif complexe n’est pas facile.93 Ligne 36'. On peut prendre le trait de séparation comme indice permettant de préférer l’analyse de hm comme conjonction conditionnelle.94 On a souvent restitué {tʿ˹-˺[…]} par {tʿ˹r˺[b …]},95 et les traces du troisième signe peuvent en effet se compléter pour lire {r}; mais il ne

89

RS 94.2383 + 94.2619 sera publié comme le texte 69 dans Bordreuil, Ha-

wley et Pardee à paraître. 90 91

Sasson 1966: 134; Pardee 1987: 206; 2002: 104.

Il ne s’agit donc pas d’une manière discrète de la part de l’auteur de pré-

senter une pétition (Rainey 1971: 167; Lipiński 1977: 216; Mallon 1982: 91). Par-

ker (1967: 49–50) avait déjà traduit par ‘be consulted’, mais sans traduire le passage ni proposer d’interprétation plus précise. 92

Pardee 2003–2004: 57. Avant la réédition du texte par Dietrich et Loretz

(1976), où la lecture du trait de séparation fut indiquée pour la première fois (voir

la remarque textuelle), Sasson (1966: 134) a proposé la restitution de {hn[d]} et Ahl (1973: 447) celle de {hn[k]}. 93

Traitant uniquement le texte de KTU/CAT, Tropper présente les deux pos-

sibilités morpho-syntaxiques: en 2000: 68 (§ 21.412c) et 226 (§ 41.222.5a), il ne cite que {b . hn} et traduit par ‘bei ihnen’ ou par ‘über sie / darüber’; en 2000: 210

(§ 41.112.7), 211 (§ 41.12) et 231 (§ 42.4), il est question de la restitution de {b .

hn . [hmt]} qu’il traduit ‘über die be[treffenden (Leute) …]’ (la formule complète n’est indiquée et traduite qu’à la p. 231). Jusqu’ici, hnhmt n’est pas attesté par un

texte épistolaire, mais un exemple se rencontre en RS 15.128:8 (PRU II 161 = KTU/CAT 3.3), un texte administratif, où il est écrit sans séparateur (sur cette forme, voir Tropper 2000: 230–31 [§ 42.4]). 94

Pardee 1987: 206; 2002: 104; 2003–2004: 57. Pour Tropper (2000: 70

[§ 21.412m], 196 [§ 33.322.3b]), il s’agirait du pronom suffixe, 3e p. du pl. 95

Virolleaud 1965: 15; Sasson 1966: 134; Linder 1970: 42, 43, 159; Ahl

1973: 447, 449; Lipiński 1977: 216; Tropper 2000: 444 (§ 73.233.41) (voir notre critique, Pardee 2003–2004: 223, de la restitution avec {-n} final que propose ici

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

193

s’agit pas moins d’une restitution hypothétique (il pourrait s’agir du verbe ʿRK, au lieu de ʿRB, ou bien le troisième signe pourrait aussi se lire {k} ce qui présente d’autres possibilités de restitutions). L’absence d’expression parallèle dans ces textes constitue un obstacle à tout essai de restitution. En outre, parce que le bas de la tablette a disparu, nous ne sommes pas en mesure d’estimer la longueur originale de cette ligne et des autres qui sont inscrites sur la tranche gauche, ce qui entraîne l’impossibilité d’apprécier le rapport entre ce verbe et les mots mkr hnd, ‘ce marchand’, au début de la ligne suivante. Enfin, le t-préformante pourrait exprimer soit la 2e p. du masc. sing., ‘tu (le roi) …’, soit la 3e p. probablement du fém. pl., avec pour antécédent ảnyt.96 Ligne 37'. Certains ont pris rgm ici pour un infinitif à usage absolu et fonctionnant comme un accompli.97 Le passage se prête pourtant mieux à l’interprétation qui y trouve la suite de la formule conditionnelle commencée à la ligne précédente — l’état du texte nous empêche de déterminer si la suite est syntaxique ou seulement logique, à savoir si l’apodose de la phrase conditionnelle se trouve ici ou dans les mots précédents.98 Cela étant, rgm sera soit l’infinitif ayant la force d’un inaccompli, soit le participe. Ligne 38'. Les premiers mots semblent constituer la citation de paroles de l’auteur de cette lettre adressées aux alashiotes, et dans ce cas {mlkn} peut signifier ‘notre roi’ ici (sur {mlkn}, ‘le roi’, à la ligne 10, voir commentaire plus haut).99

le savant allemand). 96

Dans ce contexte d’achat de bateaux, on préférera l’analyse de {ảnyt}

comme au pluriel: Tropper 2000: 196 (§ 33.322.3b). 97

Lipiński 1977: 216 ‘I have said’; Mallon 1982: 118 ‘and I said’; Dijkstra

1999: 154 (sans traduction); Tropper 2000: 211 (§ 41.131a) ‘und ich sagte’, 484 (§ 73.513.6) et 492 (§ 73.531.2) ‘und da sagte ich’. D’autres ont traduit de cette manière sans indiquer leur analyse de la forme: Sasson 1966: 134; Linder 1970: 42; Ahl 1973: 447; Knapp 1983: 41. 98

Voir plus haut, la note 24, Pardee 1987: 206, où nous avons traduit comme

s’il s’agissait d’une nouvelle phrase: ‘And I say’, et Pardee 2002: 104, où nous avons traduit comme le début de l’apodose: ‘I, for my part, will say’. 99

Pour Tropper (2000: 823 [§ 89.11b]), il s’agirait du n-enclitique dans les

deux cas.

DENNIS PARDEE

194

Ligne 39'. Si le sens du verbe MKR est ‘vendre’, comme l’indique RS 19.066:16 (PRU V 116 = KTU/CAT 3.8),100 la lecture de { ˹t˺mkrn} est à préférer à celle de {˹ả˺mkrn} (voir la remarque textuelle),101 car l’auteur de la lettre, si nous avons bien compris les lignes précédentes, ne cherche pas à vendre des bateaux mais à en acheter. Dans ce texte épistolaire, l’analyse de {lảk} comme impératif102 paraît préférable à l’analyse comme infinitif.103

CONCLUSIONS Un serviteur du roi d’Ougarit, vraisemblablement le responsable des ports du royaume d’Ougarit, en particulier de celui de la métropole, écrit à son maître depuis l’île de Chypre. Il commence par assurer le roi qu’il le bénit devant les dieux du lieu, mais la plus grande partie du corps de la lettre est perdue. Les dernières lignes, mieux conservées, parlent d’une affaire de bateaux, apparemment de bateaux que l’auteur de la lettre propose au roi d’acheter en son nom. Les circonstances de cet achat restent inconnues en raison de l’état du texte, mais, vu la situation économique des dernières décennies du Bronze récent, époque où le royaume d’Ougarit servait d’intermédiaire entre l’Égypte et le Hatti, en particulier pour le transport de céréales,104 on imagine facile100

w hm ảlp l tśʿn mṣrm tmkrn, ‘et s’ils ne paient pas les mille (sicles d’argent),

ils seront vendus en Égypte’. Cf. del Olmo Lete et Sanmartín 2000: 272. 101

Tropper (2000: 450 [§ 73.243.22]) a admis la lecture de {˹ả˺} que nous

avons proposée dans notre étude préliminaire; il traduit ‘ich werde/will verkaufen’

(en revanche, p. 263 [§ 51.44e], il indique la présence ici du nom commun mkr, ‘Kaufmann’). Avant nous, Lipiński (1977: 216; cf. 1982: 176) avait proposé la lecture de {tmkrn}, mais en admettant l’existence des cinq clous indiqués par

l’éditeur, car il lit {k. tmkrn}; il prend le verbe pour un passif: ‘they will be sold’, interprétation possible (il faudrait le texte sans les lacunes actuelles pour être en mesure de déterminer la voix du verbe). 102

Pardee 1987: 206; 2002: 104; 2003–2004: 226–27, 296; Tropper 2000:

448 (§ 73.243.1). 103 104

Tropper 2000: 618 (§ 75.227a) — avec point d’interrogation.

Pour ne citer que les ouvrages de référence: Singer 1999: 672–73, 716;

Freu 2006: 191, 149–50, 223–28. En ce qui concerne les documents en langue ougaritique, on sait par RIH 78/03+ (Bordreuil et Caquot 1980: 356–58 = CAT 2.81)

que le commerce de céréales entre l’Égypte et Ougarit remontait à l’époque du roi ʿAmmiṯtamru qui régnait autour de l’an 1250; mais les textes clés, tels que RS

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

195

ment que le roi d’Ougarit ait éprouvé le besoin d’acquérir des bateaux supplémentaires.

OUVRAGES CITES ET ABREVIATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHIQUES Aartun, K. 1974, Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen. 1. Teil (Kevelaer, NeukirchenVluyn). Ahl, S. W. 1973, Epistolary Texts from Ugarit: Structural and Lexical Correspondences in Epistles in Akkadian and Ugaritic (thèse, Brandeis). AHw = von Soden 1958–91. Amadasi Guzzo, M.-G. 1982, ‘Il vocabolo mʾḫd/mḫz in ugaritico e in fenico’, Materiali Lessicali ed Epigrafici I (Rome), pp. 31–36. Arnaud, D. 1996, ‘Études sur Alalah et Ougarit à l’âge du Bronze récent’, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 37, pp. 47–65. Astour, M. 1970, ‘Maʾḫadu, The Harbor of Ugarit’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 13, pp. 113–27. 1975, ‘Place Names’. In L. R. Fisher (ed), Ras Shamra Parallels II (Rome), pp. 249–369. 1981, ‘Ugarit and the Great Powers’, in G. D. Young (ed), Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic (Winona Lake), pp. 3–29. Avigad, N. et Greenfield, J. C. 1982, ‘A Bronze phialē with a Phoenician Dedicatory Inscription’, Israel Exploration Journal 32, pp. 118–28.

18.031 (PRU V 59 = KTU/CAT 2.38), qui fait état de bateaux ougaritiens chargés

de céréales qui ont fait naufrage au large de Tyr, et RS 18.038 (PRU V 60 = KTU/CAT 2.39), où l’empereur hittite se déclare périssant, sont vraisemblablement à dater plus près de la chute du royaume au début du 12e s.

196

DENNIS PARDEE

Baumgarten, A. I. 1981, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos (Leiden). Bonnet, C. 1989, ‘Le dieu solaire Shamash dans le monde phénico-punique’, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 6, pp. 97–115. Bordreuil, P. 1991, (ed.) Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville. Les textes de la 34e campagne (1973) (Paris). 1995, ‘Métropoles et métrologies poliades’, Semitica 43–44, pp. 9–20. Bordreuil, P., et A. Caquot 1980, ‘Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1978 à Ibn Hani’, Syria 57, pp. 343–73. Bordreuil, P., R. Hawley et D. Pardee à paraître Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville III. Textes 1994–2002 de la Maison d’Ourtenou en cunéiformes alphabétiques (Leuven). Bordreuil, P., et F. Malbran-Labat 1995, ‘Les archives de la maison d’Ourtenou’, Comptes Rendus de l’ cadémie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres, pp. 443–49. Bordreuil, P., et D. Pardee 1989, La trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit. 1. Concordance (Paris). 2004, Manuel d’ougaritique (Paris). 2009, A Manual of Ugaritic (Winona Lake). CAD = The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago (Chicago), 1956–2010. Caquot, A. 1979, ‘Ras Shamra. La littérature ougaritique’, in H. Cazelles et A. Feuillet (eds), Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, vol. 9 (Paris), pp. 1361–1417. Caquot, A., A. Herdner et M. Sznycer 1974, Textes ougaritiques. Tome I: Mythes et légendes (Paris). CAT = Dietrich, Loretz et Sammartín 1995. Caubet, A., et V. Matoïan 1995, ‘Ougarit et l’Égée’, in M. Yon, M. Sznycer et P. Bordreuil (eds), Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C, histoire et archéologie.

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

197

Actes du colloque international (Paris, 28 juin-1er juillet 1993) (Paris), pp. 99–112. Charpin, D. 1990, ‘Une mention d’Alašiya dans une lettre de Mari’, Revue d’ ssyriologie et d’ rchéologie Orientale 84, pp. 125–27. CTA = Herdner, 1963. Cunchillos, J.-L. 1982–1983, ‘Conférence’, nnuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Ve Section - Sciences Religieuses 91, pp. 269–72. 1984, ‘La religiosité quotidienne dans la correspondance d’Ugarit’, Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 201, pp. 227–38. 1985, ‘La foi et la piété quotidiennes dans le corps des lettres trouvées à Ugarit’, in A. Caquot, S. Légasse, M. Tardieu (eds), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (Kevelaer), pp. 69–77. Cunchillos, J.-L., et J.-P. Vita 1993, Banco de datos filológicos semíticos noroccidentales. Primera Parte: Datos ugaríticos. I. Textos ugaríticos (Madrid). Cunchillos, J.-L., J.-P. Vita et J.-Á. Zamora 2003, The Texts of the Ugaritic Data Bank (English translation by A. Lacadena et A. Castro) (Piscataway). Dahood, M. 1965, Psalms I: 1–50, Introduction, Translation, and Notes (New York). 1977, ‘Phoenician-Punic Philology’, Orientalia 46, pp. 462–75. 1979, ‘Review of Dietrich, Loretz et Sammartín 1976’, Orientalia 48, pp. 448–49. Dalix, A.-S. 1998, ‘Šuppiluliuma (II ?) dans un texte alphabétique d’Ugarit et la date d’apparition de l’alphabet cunéiforme. Nouvelle proposition de datation des “Archives Ouest”’, Semitica 48, pp. 5–15. Del Olmo Lete, G. 1992, La religión cananea según la litúrgia de Ugarit. Estudio textual (Sabadell). 1999, Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit (English translation by W. G. E. Watson) (Bethesda).

198

DENNIS PARDEE

Del Olmo Lete, G., et J. Sanmartín 2000, Diccionario de la Lengua Ugarítica II (Sabadell). De Moor, J. C. 1979, ‘Contributions to the Ugaritic Lexicon’, Ugarit-Forschungen 11, pp. 639–53. Dietrich, M., et O. Loretz 1973, ‘Untersuchungen zur Schrift- und Lautlehre des Ugaritischen (II)’, Ugarit-Forschungen 5, pp. 71–77. 1976, Die Elfenbeininschriften und S-Texte aus Ugarit (Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn). 1994, ‘Rasuren und Schreibfehler in den keilalphabetischen Texten aus Ugarit. Anmerkungen zur Neuauflage von KTU’, UgaritForschungen 26, pp. 23–61. 1996, Analytic Ugaritic Bibliography 1972–1988 (Kevelaer, NeukirchenVluyn). 2000, ‘Ugartisch mi/aḫd ‘Hafen’ und m(i/a)ḫdy ‘Hafenbewohner’’, Ugarit-Forschungen 32, pp. 195–201. Dietrich, M., O. Loretz et J. Sanmartín 1976, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit einschließlich der keilalphabetischen Texte außerhalb Ugarits. Teil 1 Transkription (Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn). 1995, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition) (Münster). Dietrich, M., et W. Mayer 1997, ‘Ein hurritisches Totenrituel für ʿAmmištamru III. (KTU 1.125)’, na šadî Labnāni lū allik. eiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig (Münster) pp. 79–89. Dijkstra, M. 1999, ‘Ugaritic Prose’, in W. G. E. Watson et N. Wyatt (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Leiden), pp. 140–64. Donner, H., et W. Röllig 1966–2002, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften (Wiesbaden). Durand, J.-M 1999, ‘La façade occidentale du Proche-Orient d’après les textes de Mari’, in A Caubet (ed), L’acrobate au taureau. Les découvertes

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

199

de Tell el-Dabʿa (Égypte et l’archéologie de la Méditerranée orientale (1800–1400 av. J.-C.). Actes du colloque organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel le 3 décembre 1994 (Paris), pp. 149–64. Dussaud, R. 1952, ‘Note préliminaire: Identification d’Enkomi avec Alasia’, in A. Schaeffer (ed), Enkomi-Alasia. Nouvelles missions en Chypre 1946–1950 (Paris), pp. 1–10. Eissfeldt, O. 1965, ‘Neue keilalphabetische Texte aus Ras Schamra-Ugarit’, Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Heft 6. Freu, J. 1998, ‘La fin d’Ugarit et l’Empire hittite. Données nouvelles et chronologie’, Semitica 48, pp. 17–39. 2000, ‘Ugarit et les puissances à l’époque amarnienne (c. 1350–1310 av. J.-C.)’, Semitica 50, pp. 9–39. 2006, Histoire politique du royaume d’Ugarit (Paris). Gaál, E. 1974, ‘Osiris-Amenophis III in Ugarit (Nmry.mlk.ʿlm)’, Recueil d’études dédiées à Vilmos Wessetzky à l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire (Budapest), pp. 97–99. Gordon, C. H. 1965, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices (Rome). Heltzer, M. 1976, The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit (Wiesbaden). 1978, Goods, Prices and the Organization of Trade in Ugarit (Wiesbaden). Herdner, A. 1978a, ‘Nouveaux textes alphabétiques de Ras Shamra - XXIVe campagne, 1961’, in I. Schaeffer de Chalon et A. SchaefferBoehling (eds), Ugaritica VII (Paris), pp. 1–74. 1978b, ‘Lettre de deux serviteurs à leur maître’, in I. Schaeffer de Chalon et A. Schaeffer-Boehling (eds), Ugaritica VII (Paris), pp. 75–78.

200

DENNIS PARDEE

Hoftijzer, J. 1982, ‘Quodlibet Ugariticum’, in G. van Driel et al (eds), Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Leiden), pp. 121–27. Huehnergard, J. 1986, ‘A Dt Stem in Ugaritic?’, Ugarit-Forschungen 17, pp. 402. 2008, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, Revised Edition (Winona Lake). KAI = Donner et Röllig 1966–2002. Knapp, A. B. 1983, ‘An Alashiyan Merchant at Ugarit’, Tel Aviv 10, pp. 38–45. 1996, Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC (Altamont). Knudtzon, J. A. 1915, Die el-Amarna Tafeln (Leipzig). Koch, K. 1993, ‘Wind und Zeit als Konstituenten des Kosmos in phönikischer Mythologie und spätalttestementlichen Texten’, in M. Dietrich et O. Loretz (eds), Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica. Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992 (Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn), pp. 59–91. Kristensen, A. L. 1977, ‘Ugaritic Epistolary Formulas: A Comparative Study of the Ugaritic Epistolary Formulas in the Context of the Contemporary Akkadian Formulas in the Letters from Ugarit and Amarna’, Ugarit-Forschungen 9, pp. 143–58. KTU = Dietrich, Loretz et Sammartín 1976. Laroche, E. 1968, ‘Documents en langue hourrite provenant de Ras Shamra’, in J.C. Courtois (ed), Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit, commentaires des textes historiques (première partie) (Paris), pp. 447–544.

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

201

Linder, E. 1970, The Maritime Texts of Ugarit. A Study in Late Bronze Age Shipping (thèse, Brandeis). Lipiński, E. 1977, ‘An Ugaritic Letter to Amenophis III Concerning Trade with Alašiya’, Iraq 39, pp. 213–17. 1982, ‘Sale, Transfer, and Delivery in Ancient Semitic Terminology’, in H. Klengel (ed), Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien (Berlin), pp. 173–85. 1992, ‘Les Phéniciens à Chypre et dans l’Égée’, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 23, pp. 63–87. Liverani, M. 1962, Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici (Rome). 1979a, ‘Ras Shamra. Histoire’, in H. Cazelles et A. Feuillet (eds), Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, vol. 9 (Paris), pp. 1295– 1348. 1979b, ‘La dotazione dei Mercanti di Ugarit’, Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (1979), pp. 495–503. Malbran-Labat, F. 1995, ‘La découverte épigraphique de 1994 à Ougarit (les textes akkadiens)’, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 36, pp. 103–11. Mallon, E. D. 1982, The Ugaritic Verb in the Letters and Administrative Documents (thèse, The Catholic University of America) Milano, L. 1983, ‘Gli epiteti del faraone in una lettera ugaritica da Ras Ibn Hani’, in O. Carruba, M. Liverani, C. Zaccagnini (eds), Studi orientalistici in recordo di Franco Pintore (Pavia), pp. 141–58. Muchiki, Y. 1999, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (Atlanta). Na’aman, N. 1997, ‘The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod’, Ugarit-Forschungen 29, pp. 599–626.

202

DENNIS PARDEE

Niehr, H. 1997, ‘Zur Semantik von nordwestsemitisch ʿlm als “Unterwelt” und “Grab”’, in B. Pongratz-Leisten et al (eds), na šadi Labnāni allik. Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig (Münster), pp. 295–305. 1999, ‘Baal-Zaphon ‫’בעל צפן‬, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking et P. W. van der Horst (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Second extensively revised edition (Leiden), pp. 152– 54. Nougayrol, J. 1963, ‘Guerre et paix à Ugarit’, Iraq 25, pp. 110–23. 1968, ‘Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit’, in J.-C. Courtois (ed), Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit, commentaires des textes historiques (première partie) (Paris), pp. 1–446. Pardee, D. 1984, ‘Ugaritic: Further Studies in Ugaritic Epistolography’, Archiv für Orientforschung 31, pp. 213–30. 1987, ‘Epigraphic and Philological Notes’, Ugarit-Forschungen 19, pp. 199–217. 1988, Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (Paris). 1999, ‘Trois remarques d’épigraphie ougaritique’, Semitica 49, pp. 191– 94. 2000, Les textes rituels (Paris). 2001a, ‘A Brief Reply to J. Tropper’s “Probleme”’, Aula Orientalis 19, pp. 303–9. 2001b, ‘Le traité d’alliance RS 11.772’, Semitica 51, pp. 5–31. 2002, ‘Ugaritic Letters’, in K. L. Younger and W. W. Hallo (eds), The Context of Scripture. Vol. III: Archival Documents from the Biblical World (Leiden), pp. 87–116. 2003–2004, Recension (de Tropper 2000), Archiv für Orientforschung online version 50: 1–404 (http://orientalistik.univie.ac.at/ publikationen/archiv-fuer-orientforschung/). 2004, ‘Aux origines de l’alphabet’, Dossiers d’ rchéologie, hors série no 10, pp. 34–39. 2007, ‘The Ugaritic Alphabetic Cuneiform Writing System in the Context of Other Alphabetic Systems’, in C. Miller (ed), Studies

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

203

in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg (Chicago), pp. 181–200. Parker, S. B. 1967, Studies in the Grammar of Ugaritic Prose Texts (thèse, Johns Hopkins University). Portugali, Y., et A. B. Knapp 1985, ‘Cyprus and the Aegean: A Spatial Analysis of Interaction in the Seventeenth to Fourteenth Centuries B.C.’, in A. B. Knapp, T. Steck (eds), Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (Los Angeles), pp. 44–78. PRU II = Virolleaud 1957. PRU V = Virolleaud 1965. Rahmouni, A. 2008, Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (English translation by J. N. Ford) (Leiden). Rainey, A. F. 1962, The Social Stratification of Ugarit (thèse, Brandeis). 1965, ‘The Kingdom of Ugarit’, Biblical Archaeologist 28, pp. 102–25. 1971, ‘Observations on Ugaritic Grammar’, Ugarit-Forschungen 3, pp. 151–72. 1974, ‘The Ugaritic Texts in Ugaritica 5’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 94, pp. 184–94. Ribichini, S. 1998, ‘Quelques remarques sur le ‘temps’ phénicien’, in F. BriquelChatonnet, H. Lozachmeur (eds), Proche-Orient ancien: temps vécu, temps pensé (Paris), pp. 99–119. RSO VII = Bordreuil, éd., 1991. Sasson, J. 1966, ‘Canaanite Maritime Involvement in the Second Millennium B.C.’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 86, pp. 126– 38. Schaeffer, C. F.-A. 1965, ‘Préface’ in C. Virolleaud (ed), Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives sud, sud-ouest et du petit palais (Paris).

204

DENNIS PARDEE

Singer, I. 1999, ‘A Political History of Ugarit’, in W. G. E. Watson et N. Wyatt (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Leiden), pp. 603–733. Sivan, D. 1990, ‘Tštʾil and yštʾal in Ugaritic: Problems in Methodology’, UgaritForschungen 22, pp. 311–12. Smith, M. S. 1990, The Early History of God. Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco). Stähli, H.-P. 1985, Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (Freiburg). Tropper, J. 1990a, Der ugaritische Kausativstamm und die Kausativbildungen des semitischen. Eine morphologisch-semantische Untersuchung zum ŠStamm und zu den umstrittenen nichtsibilantischen Kausativstämmen des Ugaritischen (Münster). 1990b, ‘Zur Vokalizierung des ugaritischen Gt-Stammes’, UgaritForschungen 22, pp. 371–73. 1990c, ‘Die ugaritischen Verben tertiae ʾ und ihre Mode’, UgaritForschungen 22, pp. 383–96. 2000, Ugaritishe Grammatik (Münster). Tropper, J., et J.-P. Vita 2001, ‘Pächter für den Hafen und die Landzugänge von Ugarit. Neue Überlegungen zu KTU 4.172, 4.266, 4.336 und 4.388’, Ugarit-Forschungen 33, pp. 573–78. UT = Gordon 1965. Van Soldt, W. H. 1983, Recension (de Young, éd., 1981), Bibliotheca Orientalis 40, pp. 692–97. 1990, ‘Fabrics and Dyes at Ugarit’, Ugarit-Forschungen 22, pp. 321–57. 1991, Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar (Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn). 1996, ‘Studies in the Topography of Ugarit (1). The Spelling of the Ugaritic Toponyms’, Ugarit-Forschungen 28, pp. 653–92. 1998, ‘Studies in the Topography of Ugarit (3). Groups of Towns and their Locations’, Ugarit-Forschungen 30 (1998), pp. 703–44.

LETTRE D’UN SERVITEUR DU ROI D’OUGARIT

205

2006, ‘Studies on the sākinu-Official (3). The sākinu of Other Ugaritic Towns and of the Palace and the Queen’s House, and the Findspots of the Tablets’, Ugarit-Forschungen 38, pp. 675– 97. Vattioni, F. 1972, ‘Note sul Genesi (Gen 14, 17–24 ; 21, 23)’, Augustinianum 12, pp. 557–63. 1981, ‘Apporti del semitico del nord-ovest per la comprensione della lessicografia eblaita’, in L. Cagni (ed), La lingua di Ebla. Atti del Covegno Internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980) (Napoli), pp. 277–85. Verreet, E. 1984, ‘Beobachtungen zum ugaritischen Verbalsystem’, Ugarit-Forschung 16, pp. 307–21. Virolleaud, C. 1955, ‘Les nouvelles tablettes alphabétiques de Ras Shamra (XVIII e campagne, automne 1954)’, Comptes Rendus de Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres, pp. 73–82. 1957, Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives est, ouest et centrales (Paris). 1965, Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives sud, sud-ouest et du petit palais (Paris). 1968, ‘Les nouveaux textes mythologiques et liturgiques de Ras Shamra (XXIVe Campagne, 1961)’, in J.-C. Courtois (ed), Ugaritica V: Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit, commentaires des textes historiques (première partie) (Paris), pp. 545–95. Vita, J.-P. 1995, El ejército de Ugarit (Madrid). 1999, ‘The Society of Ugarit’, in W. G. E. Watson et N. Wyatt (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Leiden), pp. 455–98. 2005, ‘Ougarit entre la guerre et la paix. Brève histoire militaire d’un royaume cananéen du Bronze Récent’, in J.-M. Michaud (ed), La ible et l’héritage d’Ougarit (Sherbrooke), pp. 67–98. Vogt, E. 1956, ‘Ugaritica’, Biblica 37, pp. 387.

206

DENNIS PARDEE

Von Soden, W. 1958–1981, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (Wiesbaden). Vorländer, H. 1975, Mein Gott. Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn). Watson, W. G. E. 1999, ‘“Message” in Myth and Missive: Ugaritic tḥm’, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 25/2, pp. 1–16. 2001, ‘Some Comments on DLU vol. I’, Aula Oritentalis 19, pp. 281–93. 2002, Recension (de Muchiki 1999), Journal of Semitic Studies 47, pp. 117–19. Xella, P. 1981, I testi rituali di Ugarit. I. Testi (Rome). Yon, M. 2007, ‘Au roi d’Alasia, mon père …’, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 37, pp. 15–39. Young, G. D. 1981 (ed), Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic (Winona Lake).

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA AND THE BĀB AL-SĪQ INSCRIPTION: A STUDY OF TEXT, IMAGE AND ARCHITECTURE

LUCY WADESON UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD This paper reassesses the Obelisk Tomb at Petra and its relation

to the āb al-Sīq inscription, in the context of the author’s previous examination of the interiors of Nabataean façade tombs. It

is argued that the inscription indeed refers to the Obelisk Tomb,

based on a detailed study of the text in relation to the architecture of the tomb and its different modes of representation. This ultimately sheds light on the way social and cultural identities

could be expressed through funerary epigraphy and architecture in Nabataean society and allows an insight into the identity and

priorities of the tomb owner. Furthermore, results from the exca-

vation of Tomb Br. 779 in Petra, which shares notable similarities with the Obelisk Tomb, elucidate the debated date of the latter tomb.

The so-called Obelisk Tomb (Br.1 35) in the Bāb al-Sīq at Petra is exceptional among Nabataean rock-cut tombs since it has four large freeI would like to express my thanks to Robert Wenning and Susan Walker for

their useful comments on drafts of this paper. Any errors that follow are of course my responsibility.

207

LUCY WADESON

208

standing obelisks in its façade, framing a statue in relief. Although it has elements familiar to funerary architecture at Petra, it does not belong to one of the eight façade types that have been established for the Nabataean façade tombs. The tomb also has other aspects which are not so common at Petra, such as the arched recess inside the burial chamber, the novel location of the accompanying triclinium below the façade, and the additional burial chambers carved into the sides. The main issue in scholarship concerning the Obelisk Tomb is whether the funerary inscription carved on a rock-face on the other side of the wadi refers to this tomb or another in the vicinity. If the inscription is to be related to the Obelisk Tomb, the second question is whether it should be dated to Malichos I (59–30 BCE) or Malichos II (40–70 CE), since the year of the ruling king is illegible. The author’s comprehensive study of the interiors of the tombs at Petra and their relationship to the façades and associated structures, and new excavation of two monumental façade tombs at the base of the al-Khubthah mountain, allow a reassessment of the unique Obelisk Tomb and the issues surrounding it. This paper will demonstrate how the Bāb al-Sīq inscription indeed refers to the Obelisk Tomb and how text, image, architecture and burial customs are cleverly related to express specific social and cultural identities. Furthermore, similarities with the recently excavated Tomb Br. 779 suggest the Obelisk Tomb was more likely to have been constructed in the reign of Malichos II than Malichos I. This sheds light on the dating of other tombs with comparable features, such as the type of tooling and decoration.

LOCATION The Obelisk Tomb is located in the Bāb al-Sīq necropolis on the south side of the Wādī Mūsa, before the entrance to the Sīq (Wadeson Plate 1: A). The façade faces northwest, into the wadi, and is highly visible to those approaching the Sīq from the east to enter Petra (Wadeson Plate 1: B). To the east are Block Tombs (or ‘Djinn Blocks’) Br. 7, Br. 8 and Br. 9, while to the west is the Aṣla Triclinium-Complex. There are also several façade tombs and simple pit graves in the rocky outcrops on 1

The numbering system for the tombs at Petra established by Brünnow and

von Domaszewski (1904) is used in this study (e.g. tomb Br. #).

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

209

either side of the wadi. As Wenning notes, this necropolis is one of the furthest away from the city centre, which has caused scholars to question its relationship to the settlement at Petra.2 However, he also stresses how it may correctly lie outside the original borders of the city, if the arch at the entrance to the Sīq is to be interpreted as a gateway, and emphasises its important location on one of the main paths into the city. This necropolis also contains some of the earliest dated rock-cut monuments at Petra, including the Aṣla Triclinium-Complex, dated to c. 96/95 BCE by its inscription, and the block tombs, which Mouton has argued predate the façade tombs and may have been carved at the end of the 2nd century BCE.3 Supposedly early block tombs are also found in the necropolis around the Snake Monument in Wādī Rās Sulaymān / al-Thughrah in the south of Petra.4 Notably, this area, like the Bāb al-Sīq, is one of the highest parts of the city and is thus formed of the lighter coloured Honeycomb and Dīsī sandstones, the latter being the topmost layer of the sandstones. Dīsī sandstone is a softer stone which forms small, rounded rocky outcrops and is easy to carve. This might explain the form of the block tombs which are carved free from the rock on all four sides, following the shape of the outcrops, as opposed to the tombs which have two-dimensional façades carved into the cliff-faces.5 This type of stone may have also influenced the design of the Obelisk Tomb, which, as will now be described, has four obelisks carved free from the rock in its façade.

DESCRIPTION The Façade and Exterior The façade of the Obelisk Tomb measures 15.98 m in width and 12.3 m in height.6 The characteristic feature of this tomb is the four freestand-

2 3

Wenning 2012: in press.

Mouton 1997: 81–98; 2006: 79–119; 2010: 275–287. See also Wadeson

2012a: in press. 4 5 6

Sachet 2009: 100–102.

For further discussion see Wadeson 2012a: in press.

McKenzie 1990: 156–157 (McKenzie provides a useful detailed description

LUCY WADESON

210

ing obelisks that comprise the upper part of the façade (Wadeson Plate 2: A). Similar rock-cut obelisks are found at the High Place and to the south of the Tomb of ʿUnaishū. Although much larger, these obelisks are identical in form to the nefesh carvings at Petra. Nefesh (npš) literally means ‘life, person’. In Nabataean funerary contexts it is the obeliskshaped carving often topped with a crowning motif and mounted on a base, which is sometimes inscribed (Wadeson Plate 2: B). These are usually, but not always, associated with tombs and burials and serve to memorialise and symbolise the deceased.7 However, in the case of the Obelisk Tomb, it is the only occurrence of a nefesh being formally incorporated into the actual design of a façade tomb at Petra. In the wider Nabataean region, there is evidence for tombs being crowned by other monumental structures. For example, in a Nabataean funerary inscription from Madeba, dated to 37/38 CE, a tomb with ‘two funeral monuments above it’ is described.8 The pit graves at Mampsis/Kurnub (1st – 2nd century CE) were topped with a freestanding monument built from limestone ashlars. Although only the bases of these structures survive, it seems that they formed rectangular stepped pyramids, judging by the one example of Tomb 119 that collapsed into the grave below.9

of this tomb and the triclinium below it, and can be referred to throughout); Netzer 2003: 36. 7 8

Wenning 2001: 87–88; Kühn 2005: 136–228.

CIS II 196; Healey (1993: 247–248) provides a translation, commentary and

fuller bibliography. 9

Negev 1971: 114. The custom of placing pyramids above tombs appears to

have been common in Hellenistic-Roman period Jerusalem. Besides the Tomb of

Zechariah in the Kidron Valley, there is evidence that the Tomb of Jason in Rehavia and the Tomb of Queen Helene north of the Damascus Gate were also topped

by pyramids. For the latter tomb, Josephus describes three pyramids above the fa-

çade (Antiquities 20.95), and according to Kon, fragments of one of these pyramids were found on site (Kon 1947: 70–74; Kloner and Zissu 2007: 231–232). These

tombs may have been influenced by the 2nd century BCE Hasmonean family tomb at Modi’in, which ancient sources describe as being surmounted by seven pyramids

(I Maccabees 13: 27–29; Josephus Antiquities 13. 211–213) but whose remains have never been found. From the author of the Maccabees we learn that each pyramid

represented a member of the family interred within. See also Kühn 2005: 266 n. 736.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

211

In the centre of the façade of the Obelisk Tomb, between the two central obelisks, a full-length statue is carved in deep relief (Wadeson Plate 2: A, C). It is set in a niche, which is framed by a pair of pillars and topped by an entablature carrying a Doric frieze. The statue depicts what appears to be a draped male figure. The head is missing and the figure is considerably weathered, especially the lower part of the drapery, which no longer exists. The visible section of drapery extends in broad folds from the left shoulder and wraps around the right side of the torso. Although von Domaszewski believed the figure to be wearing a toga,10 the existing drapery is closer to the appearance of a himation. Since the lower part of the drapery is lost, it cannot be determined whether the hem was straight-edged, like the Greek himation, or curved, like the toga. Susan Walker observes that the statue looks more Greek than Roman in style, and possibly even Ptolemaic.11 Funerary portraiture is not common at Petra, with only four other tombs presenting statues or busts in their façades.12 As will be discussed below, this type of figural representation was used to convey aspects of the cultural identity of the tomb owner(s). In the centre of the lower part of the façade is the entrance to the tomb. The doorway, which is approached by a small rock-cut staircase, is framed by pilasters supporting an entablature with a Doric frieze (Wadeson Plate 2: A).13 Outside the doorway is a small platform with some notable structures carved into it (Wadeson Plate 3: A, B). Two steps run along the right side of the base of the façade and connect with what appears to be a small stibadium approached by more steps on the east. In front of this, a deep t-shaped receptacle has been carved, clearly at a later date since it is not aligned with any other feature of the tomb and cuts into the stibadium structure. While the platform and stibadium would have accommodated the funerary rituals that took place outside the tomb, it is unclear what purpose the later receptacle served, other than perhaps collecting rainwater. Access to this platform

10 11 12

Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: 172. Personal correspondence 8.9.08.

These include: the Turkmāniyyah Tomb (Br. 633), the Urn Tomb (Br. 772),

the Soldier Tomb (Br. 239) and the Silk Tomb (Br. 770). See Wenning 2004: 157– 181.

13

McKenzie 1990: 156.

LUCY WADESON

212

and the tomb entrance is provided by a rock-cut staircase leading up from the left side. Although the obelisks, decorative elements and funerary portrait are features found in Nabataean funerary architecture, it is the combination of them in the façade of the Obelisk Tomb that is unique. No other comparable tomb façade exists; therefore this tomb does not belong to any of the established façade types and is usually described as ‘exceptional’ in scholarship.14 An Egyptian influence is often noted in the design of this façade, given the use of the obelisks. Browning even makes the interesting comparison with the 13th century BCE Temple of Ramses II at Abu Simbel, which has four seated colossal statues of the pharaoh and a statue in a niche between the central pair, 15 comparable to the four monumental obelisks of the Obelisk Tomb and its central statue in relief. The Interior The burial chamber of the Obelisk Tomb is squarish in shape and measures 5.91 m in width by 5.69 m in length, with a ceiling height of 3.95 m (Wadeson Plate 3: B).16 The floor of the chamber is clear to bedrock and one grave (0.5 m x 1.9 m) has been carved in the north corner, parallel to the left side wall. In each of the side walls are two tall loculi (niches for burial, deeper than they are wide) which are approximately 2.3 m in height (Wadeson Plate 3: C). Those in the left wall are 1.2 m wide and 2.4 m deep. Floor graves have been carved inside the loculi in the far left of the left wall and the far left of the right wall. Loculi, with or without graves, are the most common burial installation found in the tombs at Petra.17 In the centre of the back wall is an arched recess (arcosolium), measuring 2.9 m in width, 1.6 m in depth and 3.2 m in height (Wadeson Plate 3: C, D). It is framed by pillars and topped with a decorative segmental arch. In the floor of the arcosolium is a large grave (1.25 m x 14 15 16

For example Netzer 2003: 36. Browning 1973: 107.

All the following measurements for this tomb are provided by McKenzie

(1990: 156). 17

For an overview of the burial installations found inside Nabataean tombs,

see Wadeson 2010a: 57–65.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

213

2.51 m) parallel to the back wall. Like the other graves in the tomb, it has a recessed ledge to support the covering slabs that once sealed the burials. Arcosolia are not common in Nabataean funerary architecture and during the author’s survey of the tombs at Petra, only nine façade tombs (out of a total of c. 500 surveyed) were recorded as having this type of installation.18 These tombs typically have façades belonging to the Double Pylon, Hegr and Complex Classical types, which are usually the largest and most elaborate.19 It seems that the more decorative the exterior of a tomb was, the more likely the interior was to have a wider variety of burial installations carved in its walls. As will be demonstrated below, the choice of burial installation may have been related to the social and cultural identity of the tomb owner. The front wall of the chamber has two small windows which flank the doorway. The walls are dressed with neat lines tilted between fortyfive and sixty degrees from the horizontal. Along the top of the walls, directly beneath the ceiling, runs a band of horizontal lines, while small bands of vertical lines are carved down the corners of the walls (Wadeson Plate 4: A).20 These can be explained by the difficulty in manipulating the tools in the corners of the walls and ceiling to create the same diagonal direction as in the rest of the walls.21 The ceiling is dressed with lines running parallel to the façade. This style of dressing is one of two characteristic patterns that have been noted in the rock-cut monuments at Petra.22 These are useful criteria for determining the contemporaneity of tombs with an uncertain chronology.23 The neat and symmetrical arrangement of the burial installations in the Obelisk Tomb, as well as the good quality tool-work, make this tomb comparable to those with the large Complex Classical, Hegr and

18

These include the Soldier Tomb, the Urn Tomb, the Obelisk Tomb and

Tombs Br. 313, 451, 687, 779, 781 and 825. Arcosolia were also noted in three

tombs without façades: Br. 24, Br. 768 and a previously unrecorded chamber [= Kühn 2005: 263–264] to the south of Br. 12 in the Bāb al-Sīq. 19

Wadeson 2010a: 62–65. For Nabataean façade tomb typology, see Wade-

son 2010a: 49 Table 1, 51 Fig. 2. 20 21 22 23

Horsfield and Horsfield 1938: 39; McKenzie 1990: 44, 157. Rababeh 2005: 93.

McKenzie 1990: Pl. 51; Wadeson 2010b: Chapter 4. McKenzie 1990: 41–44, 53, 121–122.

LUCY WADESON

214

Double Pylon type façades. Since we know that the latter two types of façade tombs were typically owned by the elite of Nabataean society, according to the inscriptions carved on the tombs at Madāʾin Ṣāli (ancient Hegra),24 we can hypothesise an owner of a similar social status for the Obelisk Tomb. This is not only suggested by the size, decoration and location of the tomb, but also by the funerary complex to which it belongs. The Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium and Surroundings A triclinium with a decorative façade is carved in the rock-face below the Obelisk Tomb (Wadeson Plate 4: B). This is known as the Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium (Br. 34). The façade, which is 15.57 m wide and 11.2 m high,25 is of the Complex Classical type. Notable is the broken pediment in the lower storey framing a segmental pediment and another broken pediment in the upper storey.26 Dwarf pilasters are found in the upper order, while engaged pilasters and columns are found in the lower order. This façade has similarities with the Tomb of the Broken Pediment and the lower order of the Corinthian Tomb, which as we will see allowed McKenzie to place these monuments in the same chronological grouping.27 It is one of the few triclinia (and biclinia) at Petra to have a decorative façade, of a type usually only found with tombs. Others include al-Deir, the Lion Chamber (Br. 452) and Br. 455. The squat proportions of this façade and the partly quarried rock on the right side of the platform suggest that work on the exterior of this monument was never finished (Wadeson Plate 4: B). Nevertheless, it still functioned, as demonstrated by the complete benches and burials inside the chamber (Wadeson Plate 4: C). Numerous examples of unfinished tombs still being used for burial were noted during the author’s fieldwork,28 including those with Complex Classical façades, such as the Renaissance Tomb. The reasons for this are unclear, but it may be that 24 25

Wadeson 2010a: 67; 2011b: in press; 2011c: 3; Healey 1993.

All the measurements presented here for the Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium and its

elements are found in McKenzie 1990: 155–156. 26

A detailed description of the architectural elements of this façade can be

found in McKenzie 1990: 155. See also Netzer 2003: 30. 27 28

McKenzie 1990: 44–45, 52.

Wadeson 2010b: Chapter 4, Table 4.2.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

215

geological and topographical limitations played a large role in determining whether rock-cut monuments could be completely finished as envisaged. The interior chamber, accessed through a doorway in the centre of the façade, is 6.44 m wide by 7.41 m long, with a ceiling height of 4.3 m.29 The floor is clear to bedrock and benches are carved along the sides of the back and side walls (Wadeson Plate 4: C; Plate 5: A). The benches are 2 m wide and 0.93 m high, 30 with a recessed edge carved along their front. Access to the benches is provided by two steps in the front corners of the chamber, as is common in triclinia at Petra.31 High in the back wall of the triclinium, on the right side, are two small square-shaped loculi with graves inside (Wadeson Plate 5: A). These have been disturbed, but have not yet been investigated for any surviving human remains. This type of loculus is only recorded in a handful of tombs, with notable examples including the Turkmāniyyah Tomb, the Soldier Tomb, Tomb Br. 258 and Tomb Br. 676. It is also found in the façades of several tombs, the most well-known being the Urn Tomb. In all cases, loculi of this sort are carved high in the chamber walls or façades, perhaps to emphasise the importance of the burials within, or to protect their inviolability. The presence of burials in triclinia, where funerary feasts were held, is a notable feature at Petra.32 Other occurrences are found in Triclinium Br. 256 in Wādī Farasah West and in Triclinium Br. 812 in the funerary complex of the Tomb of ʿUnaishū. This may suggest fluid boundaries between the living and the dead. Outside the doorway to the triclinium, to the left, are two circular receptacles carved in the bedrock with a diameter of 0.14 – 0.15 m,33 most likely used for funerary libations upon entering the chamber (Wadeson Plate 4: C). Either side of the triclinium are two additional burial chambers (Wadeson Plate 4: A, B). The chamber to the left, measuring 3.57 m wide, 3.49 m long and 2.5 m high,34 is slightly raised

29 30 31 32 33 34

McKenzie 1990: 155. McKenzie 1990: 155.

See for e.g. Triclinia Br. 220 and Br. 256.

For a discussion of this phenomenon, see Wadeson 2011c: 10. McKenzie 1990: 155. McKenzie 1990: 155.

LUCY WADESON

216

above the outside ground level and contains three graves carved in the floor. The chamber to the right, carved in the right rock wall, measures 3.48 m wide, 3.40 m long and 2.4 m high.35 It too is raised above the outside floor level. The floor of the chamber is not completely clear, but there are two oval-shaped receptacles visible in the back left corner and a rectangular niche in the back wall (Wadeson Plate 5: B). In the left part of the left wall is a nefesh carving with a rounded base (Wadeson Plate 5: C). Directly below this, carved in the floor, is a circular receptacle, again most probably used for offerings to the deceased individual represented by the nefesh. In the right part of the left wall is a raised opening to an adjoining chamber (3.27 m x 2.66 m36) with four rounded floor graves carved in the floor. Apart from this chamber, which is roughly dressed, the walls of the other chambers and the triclinium are finished with identical tooling to that in the Obelisk Tomb above.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OBELISK TOMB AND THE BĀB AL-SĪQ TRICLINIUM The Obelisk Tomb and Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium form a coherent unit, connected by a stairway on the left and isolated from other monuments (Wadeson Plate 4: B). There is a cistern located halfway up the stairway, between the two monuments, that provided the water for the funerary services. This element, together with the platforms, triclinium, stibadium, burial chambers, additional rooms and receptacles reveal that we are dealing here with a funerary complex that accommodated a significant number of people and a variety of funerary activities in service of the dead. Such complexes, the elements of which are described in the Turkmāniyyah Tomb inscription,37 are well-known in Petra and have recently been the subject of several studies. 38 It is likely they belonged to important individuals in Nabataean society, given their prominent locations, size and highly decorative façade types, which as discussed above were typically chosen by the elite. The layout of these complexes differs depending on the topographical setting and stylistic 35 36 37 38

McKenzie 1990: 155. McKenzie 1990: 156.

CIS II: 350; Healey 1993: 238–242.

See for e.g. Schmid 2007; 2009; Wadeson 2011c.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

217

influences.39 For example, the Soldier Tomb Complex in Wādī Farasah East is arranged around the narrow gorge in an effort to recreate threedimensional space in the spirit of Hellenistic luxury architecture.40 The Obelisk Tomb, however, is unique in that tomb and triclinium are stacked one above the other, perhaps due to the lack of suitable clifffaces for carving façades in this area of small rocky outcrops. It has been proposed in previous discussions that the Bāb al-Sīq triclinium is not related to the Obelisk Tomb and may have been carved at a later time.41 One reason for this is that the façades of the two monuments are not aligned. However, McKenzie points out that “the interior side walls of both monuments are almost parallel to each other”.42 Also, as mentioned above, the two monuments belong to one unified complex and are more or less contemporaneous on account of their positioning, function, identical tooling and access.43 This important complex took the attention of those entering Petra via the Bāb al-Sīq, and the architecture, decoration, size and position all played a role in reflecting the high social and economic status of the tomb owner and those buried within. Information about the identity of these individuals can be found in the Bāb al-Sīq inscription, which it will now be argued is related to the tomb.

THE BĀB AL-SĪQ INSCRIPTION The monumental Bāb al-Sīq inscription is carved on the eastern side of a rock outcrop on the north side of the Wādī Mūsa, opposite the Obelisk Tomb (Wadeson Plate 5: D; Plate 6: A).44 It is a bilingual inscription in Nabataean and Greek and reads as follows:45

39 40 41

Wadeson 2012a: in press.

Schmid 2009: 142, fig. 3, 147, fig. 6, 161.

Browning 1973: 106; Zayadine 1997: 41; see also discussion in Kühn 2005:

59–62 and Netzer 2003: 36. 42

McKenzie 1990: 44.

43

This idea is also supported by McKenzie (1990: 44) and Kühn (2005: 61,

44

First published by Milik 1976: 43–152; see also Milik 1980: 12–13; McKen-

265).

zie 1990: 34; Healey 1993: 243–244; Sartre 1993: 89–91; Nehmé 2003: 248–249. 45

Source for text: Healey 1993: 243 (based on Milik 1976: 143–151).

LUCY WADESON

218

1. mqb[rʾ] dnh bn[h] ʿbdmnkw br ʾkys br 2. šly [br] ʿtyh[w…lnpšh] w[ʾ] rh wʾ r 3. hm lʿ[l]m ʿlm[yn šnt…] lmnkw b ywhy 4.  5.  The following translation is provided by Healey:46 ʿAbdmanku son of Akayus son of Shullay son of ʿUtayhu….built this burial-monument (for himself) and his descendants and their descendants for ever and ever (in the year…) of Maliku, during his lifetime. Abdomanchos son of (Ach)aios made this (funeral) monument for (himself) and for his (chi)ldren. This is one of the few detailed funerary inscriptions found at Petra, and it is also one of the longest of a commemorative nature. The lack of tomb inscriptions at Petra has been a much debated issue in scholarship and is highlighted by the rich corpus of funerary inscriptions from Madāʾin Ṣāli .47 It also partly accounts for the uncertain chronology of the tombs and gaps in our knowledge about Nabataean funerary practices and beliefs. Thus, the information provided in the Bāb al-Sīq inscription is crucial to any study of funerary architecture and customs. According to this and other Nabataean funerary inscriptions, it seems to have been customary for tombs to be built and dedicated during the owner’s lifetime. This may explain why elements of grief and emotion are lacking in Nabataean funerary epigraphy, but present in the Latin and Greek funerary inscriptions at Petra, such as the Sextius Florentinus Tomb inscription48 and the Arrianos inscription from Façade Br. 6649, which were set up after the mentioned individual had died.50

46 47 48

Healey 1993: 243.

Nehmé 2003: 203–258. For the Madāʾin Ṣāli inscriptions see Healey 1993.

CIL III 1414810: Brünnow and Domaszewski 1904: 382; Bowersock 1983:

160; McKenzie 1990: 33; Sartre 1993: 85–87; Birley 2005: 244. 49

CIG III 4667: Laborde 1847: 256–257; Brünnow and Domaszewski 1904:

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

219

ʿAbdmanku, in the Bāb al-Sīq inscription, wished to express a dual cultural identity by detailing the dedication and his identity through both the Nabataean and Greek languages. The primary and most detailed part of the inscription is in Nabataean, while a summary of the information is provided in Greek below, in which the names have also been Hellenised. The details provided in the Nabataean section, such as his paternal line of ascendants, the year the tomb was dedicated and the fact it is intended for eternity are clearly important and required in a Nabataean cultural context. The Nabataean cultural identity of ʿAbdmanku seems to be the dominant one according to the inscription. However, he also wished to show off his Greek cultural leanings, a common tendency among the local elite of urban centres in the GrecoRoman Near East. Despite the Hellenizing tendencies of ʿAbdmanku, Sartre questions his social status and believes that if he had held an important position in society then his titles would have been included in the inscription.51 However, his social status is defined here through his familial relationships and contra Sartre we are dealing with a tribal society, not a Greek polis. The inscription records his paternal line over three generations, which is uncommon at Petra. Being able to trace one’s ancestors was surely a mark of prestige, legitimacy and high status. Furthermore, ʿAbdmanku must have been financially capable in order to build a tomb in this prominent location in Petra. The question remains however, to which tomb does the inscription refer?52 Below the inscription is a small cavity that some scholars have suggested was once the tomb or that it was never completed (Wadeson Plate 6: B).53 However, the cave does not bear any resem-

232–233; Kennedy 1925: 53, 74; Wenning 1987: 213; McKenzie 1990: 38, 171; Sartre 1993: 91–94. 50 51 52

McKenzie 1990: 59 n 100; Sartre 1993: 91–94; Macdonald 2003: 40. Sartre 1993: 91.

See discussions in Zayadine 1981: 111–112; Wenning 1987: 206; 2003:

137; Netzer 2003: 36; Hackl, Jenni and Schneider 2003: 222–224. 53

Milik 1980: 13; also discussed by Nehmé 2003: 248–249 and Wenning

2003: 137. According to the author’s observation, this cavity is destroyed rather

than unfinished, as the remains of water channels either side attest. These channels, which cut the cavity, were most likely eroded by the water with time.

LUCY WADESON

220

blance to typical funerary architecture and the inscription dedicates a tomb that has already been built.54 Zayadine raised the possibility that the inscription referred to two pit graves in the top of the rock outcrop, however changed his mind in a later article since he believed the graves to predate the inscription by at least a generation.55 In addition, pit graves do not equate to the monumental, family tomb referred to in the inscription. Sartre proposes that the tomb may have been washed away in one of the flash floods,56 but this is impossible to prove or disprove. The final proposition is that the inscription in fact refers to the Obelisk Tomb on the other side of the wadi. McKenzie supports this relationship and rightly observes that the inscription is not only opposite the Obelisk Tomb, the most prominent burial monument in the area, but also placed in the most eye-catching location in large letters for passers-by who approached the Sīq (Wadeson Plate 5: D).57 She believes that had it been placed on the façade itself, its visibility would have been limited. This is questioned by several scholars who find it unlikely that the inscription would be so far from the tomb and not engraved upon its façade.58 However, it has not previously been noted how the bilingual nature of the inscription is reflected in the design of the Obelisk Tomb. This observation, which will now be discussed, corroborates McKenzie’s arguments that the Obelisk Tomb and Bāb al-Sīq inscription are related.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OBELISK TOMB AND THE BĀB AL-SĪQ INSCRIPTION: NEW INSIGHTS Through the author’s novel study of the interiors of the tombs at Petra and analysis of their relation to the façades and exterior structures, new insights were gained into the relationship between burial practices, architecture, sculpture and epigraphy.59 This provided the appropriate

54 55 56 57 58 59

McKenzie 1990: 34.

Zayadine 1986: 221 and contra 1997: 40. See Nehmé 2003: 258 n. 71. Sartre 1993: 91.

McKenzie 1990: 34.

For example see Nehmé 2003: 258 n. 72; Wenning 2003: 137. See Wadeson 2010a; 2010b; 2011a; 2011c.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

221

framework for a re-evaluation of the Obelisk Tomb and the issues surrounding it. In the discussion of the Bāb al-Sīq inscription above, it was noted how bilingualism was used to portray different cultural identities, namely Nabataean – the more dominant element – and Greek. By examining the elements and layout of the Obelisk Tomb, it became evident that the design of the façade and burial chamber appear to visually reflect the same bilingual nature of the inscription and express dual cultural identities. This strengthens the idea that the inscription refers to this tomb. Firstly, in a consideration of the façade, we may interpret the obelisks as a local form of representation and the portrait statue as a Greek form of representation, both of them combined harmoniously in the one design (Wadeson Plate 2: A). The statue, as a figural representation, belongs to the Greco-Roman tradition of funerary portraiture.60 As discussed above, such portrait busts and statues are not common in Nabataean funerary architecture, and the non-figural nefesh carvings are the favoured form of representation. In the case of the Obelisk Tomb, the statue appears more in the tradition of Greek funerary sculpture, given the full-length of the figure and the style of the drapery.61 Its position in the most prominent part of the façade, dominating the tomb, suggests it represents the tomb owner, who, if we follow the information in the inscription, would be ʿAbdmanku (or, according to the Greek part of the inscription, Abdomanchos). While he has chosen to portray himself as Hellenised, the four obelisks in the façade which frame this statue are by contrast a local, non-figural form of representation, each one perhaps functioning as a nefesh, the symbolic representation of the deceased. In this respect, if again we follow the inscription, the obelisks 60

The insertion of a full-length statue into the design of the tomb can be

traced back to Greek practice (Skupinska-Løvset 1983: 275), which surely reached the Nabataean realm through the spread of Hellenistic artistic trends in the Near

East, while the use of the funerary bust has a Roman background, reaching its zenith in the freedmen reliefs of the late 1 st century BCE and early 1st century CE (Kleiner 1977: 180–181; Skupinska-Løvset 1983: 274, 275; Walker 1985: 45–46). The custom of decorating the closing slab of a loculus with a relief bust derives

from Palmyra (Colledge: 1976: 67–72, 138), although the relief bust itself is a Roman concept. 61

S. Walker suggests it may even look Ptolemaic in style (Personal Commu-

nication 8.9.08).

LUCY WADESON

222

could represent the children of this ʿAbdmanku.62 Furthermore, it has been previously noted by several scholars how the number of obelisks matches the number of loculi in the burial chamber,63 suggesting that each one memorializes a deceased individual buried in the tomb. The elements in the façade are in fact cleverly related to the installations and layout of the burial chamber. Besides the obelisks being related to the loculi in the side walls, the funerary statue is aligned with the arcosolium in the back wall (Wadeson Plate 3: B, D).64 While the statue dominates the exterior part of the tomb, the arcosolium dominates the interior, carved in the most prominent position in the centre of the back wall, aligned with the entrance, and the only burial structure that is enhanced with carved decoration. The size, decoration and location of this structure suggest it belonged to the tomb owner portrayed in the façade. This idea is further supported by inscriptions from the tombs at Madāʾin Ṣāli , which provide evidence that the owners of the tombs were usually buried in the most prominent position in the back wall of the chamber.65 The arcosolium is a burial installation more common to Greco-Roman funerary architecture than Nabataean funerary architecture. Notable examples in the region are found in 1st century CE rock-cut tombs in Alexandria and Jerusalem, in which they are the most elaborate type of burial structure, usually reserved for the head of the family or tomb founder.66 As mentioned above, they are only found in a handful of tombs, typically large tombs with elaborate façade types, belonging to those of a high social and economic status. The choice of the arcosolium for burial by the tomb owner / head of 62

Browning (1973: 107) interprets the obelisks as god-blocks representing

four different deities. However, betyls are usually rectangular-shaped, while the nefesh tapers in the form of a triangle or obelisk. 63

Matthiae 1991: 265–266; Zayadine 1997: 40; Kühn 2005: 265–267. As

Kühn (2005: 266) notes, two of the loculi have graves carved in their floors (one of

them with space for two burials), whereas the other two do not. This slightly confuses the relationship between the obelisks and the number of deceased individuals in the tomb; however it is possible that the graves were added at a later stage. 64 65 66

As also noted by Kühn (2005: 265–267).

See for example Inscription H2 on Tomb A3/IGN 9; Healey 1993: 81.

For Alexandrian tombs with arcosolia (e.g. the Kom al-Shoqafa tomb) see

Venit 2002; for Jerusalem tombs with arcosolia (e.g. the Tomb of Queen Helene) see Kloner and Zissu 2007.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

223

the family, like the statue on the exterior of the tomb, may again reflect his Greek cultural leanings. The tall loculi in the side walls, related to the obelisks on the façade and likely intended for the burial of family members, are exclusive to Nabataean funerary architecture in terms of their size and layout. They are a local form of burial structure, typically found in Nabataean rock-cut tombs. Thus, the two modes of representation we see in the Bāb al-Sīq inscription and the façade of the Obelisk Tomb are also observed in the choice and arrangement of burial installations. The obelisks and loculi reflect the local (i.e. Nabataean) aspect of the tomb owner’s identity, while the statue and arcosolium reflect the Hellenised aspect. Nevertheless, the graves carved in the floors of the loculi and arcosolium present the typical form of Nabataean graves with projecting ledges to support covering slabs, suggesting that they accommodated a local method of burial.67 Although the burials have been looted, excavation of what remains would surely verify this. Thus, both Greek and Nabataean cultural identities are displayed through text, image, architecture and burial customs, and cleverly united in the coherent design of one tomb. That the Greek and Nabataean elements were compatible with one another is evident in the harmonious design of both the façade and interior of the Obelisk Tomb, which reflect the bilingualism of the inscription. The anthropomorphic and aniconic forms of representation on the façade of this tomb are an excellent example of how the two could be successfully combined and should not been seen in conflict.68 This idea has been recently applied by Alpass to Nabataean visual culture in general. One notable example he cites is the ‘Medallion and Block Relief’ on the way down from the al-Madbah high place.69 He states that ‘these modes of representation were used in unison and not seen to be in opposition’,70 encouraging a

67 68

See Wadeson (2011a: 34–35) for a description of burial methods.

However, Kühn (2005: 266) questions whether the obelisks and the statue

on the Obelisk Tomb were contemporary due to the apparent dichotomy between the different types of representation. 69 70

Alpass 2010: 107–109.

Alpass 2010: 107. See also Stewart 2008: 314.

LUCY WADESON

224

move away from more traditional views in which the two were seen as incompatible and at odds.71

DATE OF THE OBELISK TOMB If we accept that the Bāb al-Sīq inscription indeed refers to the Obelisk Tomb, the next question that needs addressing is the date in which the tomb was carved. The inscription mentions a year of the king Malichos, but unfortunately the number is illegible. In addition, palaeography does not allow us to verify the date of the inscription.72 We know that there were two kings named Malichos – Malichos I, ruling from 59–30 BCE, and Malichos II, ruling from 40–70 CE.73 As will now be discussed, stylistic studies tend to favour a construction in the period of Malichos II. This can now be confirmed through archaeological data recovered from the excavation of Tomb Br. 779 at the base of al-Khubthah. The reuse of the tombs at Petra as houses and animal shelters over the centuries has resulted in the loss of burial evidence which would have otherwise provided the date in which they were at least used. Stylistic studies, beginning with Brünnow and von Domaszewski, have aimed at establishing a typologically-based chronology for the façade tombs.74 The traditional view of increasing complexity in façade design over time has recently been challenged by the author, based on a study of the tomb interiors, their relation to the façades and the dated inscriptions on Nabataean tombs at Madāʾin Ṣāli .75 However, since the Obelisk Tomb does not fit into the traditional typology established for the façade tombs, it is difficult to place it in the chronological sequences which have been proposed for the façade tombs over the last century. Von Domaszewski believed it should be dated after the Roman annexation of 106 CE due to the decoration of the doorway and because he interpreted the garment on the statue as a toga. 76 He also considered 71 72 73

For example see Patrich 2007: 100–101.

McKenzie 1990: 34; see also Milik 1980: 12: Wenning 1987: 206.

The dates of the reigns of Nabataean kings are from Healey 2001: 29–30

(based on Wenning 1993). 74

Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: 137–191; for a discussion of previ-

ous stylistic studies see Wadeson 2010a: 48–56. 75 76

Wadeson 2010a: 48–69; 2010b.

Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: 172. See also McKenzie 1990: 4.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

225

the Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium to be Late Roman.77 But these interpretations were based on the misguided belief that many of the tombs with classical design had to have been carved in the Roman period.78 McKenzie’s study of the tombs with classical-type façades successfully demonstrated that most of these were influenced by Alexandrian architecture, rather than Roman, and were thus made in the Nabataean period.79 Through a detailed study of the architectural mouldings of the dated tombs in Madāʾin Ṣāli and of the archaeologically-dated evidence from freestanding buildings in Petra, McKenzie observed that a simplification of the classical architectural decoration and proportions occurred with time, in contrast to the traditional view of increasing complexity.80 She also established relationships between elements of the classical façades and dated monuments in the city and was thus able to suggest particular groups of tombs that could be placed in a chronological sequence.81 Based on a study of the classical elements on the façade of the Obelisk Tomb and the Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium, McKenzie placed these monuments in a group together with the Corinthian Tomb, Tomb Br. 70 and the Tomb of the Broken Pediment due to similarities in the arrangement and proportion of the mouldings.82 She established that this group of monuments (which she labels Group C) occurs later in the chronological sequence due to the preference for simpler mouldings and squatter proportions.83 Since she dates Group B to the 1st century CE, then Group C must also be dated to this century, but later.84 As she relates the Obelisk Tomb to the Bāb al-Sīq inscription, she proposes that the king referred to in the inscription must be Malichos II who reigned from 40–70 CE rather than Malichos I (59–30

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: 172.

Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: 158–161, 169, 172. McKenzie 1990: 33–59. McKenzie 1990: 24–25.

McKenzie 1990: 33–59. McKenzie 1990: 44–45. McKenzie 1990: 49.

See McKenzie 1990: 56, Table 14 for the sequence of the groups and their

chronology.

LUCY WADESON

226

BCE).85 Thus she dates the Obelisk Tomb and Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium to 40–70 CE.86 A date in the reign of Malichos II can in fact be corroborated by the recent excavation of Tomb Br. 779 at the base of the al-Khubthah massif. This tomb, which has a Double Pylon type of façade (Fig. 19), is one of two tombs currently being cleared and excavated by the International al-Khubthah Tombs Project (IKTP), directed by the author. 87 It has a large, square-shaped chamber with four graves carved in the south-eastern corner and an arcosolium in the centre of the back wall, with a large grave carved in its floor (Wadeson Plate 6: D). Although like many of the tombs at Petra, its burials have been disturbed, enough material was recovered during careful excavation of the graves to enable us to date when this tomb was in use and to reconstruct the funerary practices associated with it. Despite the lack of loculi and the different façade type, certain features of this tomb are identical to those of the Obelisk Tomb, which may suggest they were carved by the same stonemasons or workshop and were thus contemporary. Firstly, the characteristic tooling of the Obelisk Tomb is identical to that of Tomb Br. 779, with the bands of horizontal lines below the ceiling and vertical lines by the corners of the walls (Wadeson Plate 4: A). This style of tooling is only found in a handful of tombs at Petra (see below). Secondly, both tombs have an arcosolium placed in the centre of the back wall (Wadeson Plate 3: D; Plate 6: D), the dimensions of which are almost identical. These are compared in Table 1 below. The dimensions of the burial chambers of both tombs differ, as is evident in Table 2. Although the width and length of the Obelisk Tomb are approximately half that of Tomb Br. 779, it should be remembered that the addition of loculi on both sides of the Obelisk Tomb would have extended the width by 4.8 metres. Although more work is required regarding this issue, it is useful to note that the width plus length of Tomb Br. 779 (12.2 + 10.2 = 22.4) divided by the Ptolemaic

85

McKenzie 1990: 49. Other scholars, for example Wenning (2003: 137) and

Sartre (1993: 90), have favoured Malichos II as the king referred to in the Bāb alSīq inscription. See also Kühn (2005: 60 n. 138) for a discussion of the dating. 86 87

McKenzie 1990: 52.

http://www.auac.ch/iktp/ For the first preliminary report see Wadeson

2012b: in press. See also Wadeson 2011a: 31–36.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

227

foot (0.35) equals the whole number of 64. Also, when the dimensions of the Obelisk Tomb arcosolium are subjected to the same formula, the resulting figure is 22. Further research into this matter may shed light on ancient metrology and the system used by Nabataean architects when planning their monuments. TABLE 1: Dimensions of the Arcosolia in the Obelisk Tomb and Tomb Br. 779

Obelisk Tomb (Br. 35)

Tomb Br. 779

Width (m)

2.90

2.96

Depth (m)

1.60

1.69

Height (m)

3.2

2.92

TABLE 2: Dimensions of the Chambers of the Obelisk Tomb and Tomb Br. 779

Obelisk Tomb (Br. 35)

Tomb Br. 779

Width (m)

5.91

12.2

Length (m)

5.69

10.2

Height (m)

3.95

4.52

The excavation of the arcosolium grave in Tomb Br. 779 revealed painted potsherds embedded in the mortar that sealed the burial. 88 These sherds date to Schmid’s Phases 3a and 3b,89 giving the sealing of the burial a terminus post quem of 75–100 CE. Given the prominent location of this burial and the elaborate structure within which it lies, it was most likely the first burial in the chamber and therefore provides us with an approximate date of use of the tomb. Based on the similarities noted above been this tomb and the Obelisk Tomb, it is suggested here that the Obelisk Tomb should be dated around the same period. This would confirm that Malichos II is referred to in the Bāb al-Sīq ins-

88 89

Wadeson 2012b: in press. Schmid 2000.

LUCY WADESON

228

cription, but that the tomb was constructed and dedicated perhaps near the end of his reign, rather than the beginning. Three other façade tombs were noted to have the exact same tooling style as the Obelisk Tomb, Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium and Tomb Br. 779. These include Tomb Br. 253 in Wādī Farasah West, which has a Simple Classical type façade, Tomb Br. 534 in Wādī Mʿayṣrah West, which has a Double Pylon type façade, and Tomb Br. 590 Wādī Mʿayṣrah East, which has a Proto-Hegr type façade. This may indicate that they are roughly contemporary, and thus could also date to the second half of the 1st century CE. Notably, these tombs are found in locations all over Petra – to the north, south and west, demonstrating that in this period tomb carving does not seem to be restricted to a particular area. Further grouping of tombs according to their tooling style may shed more light on their chronology.90 It is of course possible that two different tooling styles were used in the same period, but belonged to different workshops. Nevertheless, by forming groups based on similarities we can at least gain an idea of the contemporaneity of certain tombs and use this as a base for further enquiries.

CONCLUSIONS This paper has argued that the monumentality, expression of status and bilingual nature of the Bāb al-Sīq inscription are reflected in the design of the exterior and interior of the Obelisk Tomb at Petra. This suggests that the inscription refers to the Obelisk Tomb, although it is carved on the other side of the wadi. The dedicator of the inscription and owner of the tomb, ʿAbdmanku, was clearly an individual of a high social and economic status, given the size of the tomb and its location in a highly frequented and important route into Petra. By using Greek and Nabataean in the funerary inscription, anthropomorphic and aniconic modes of representation in the tomb façade, and local and foreign forms of burial installation in the burial chamber, he is expressing both Nabataean and Hellenised aspects of his cultural identity, a practice not unknown among the local elite. These two aspects of his cultural identity should not be viewed as in opposition, but were clearly compatible given the harmonious design of the tomb. They should also remind us 90

As emphasised by McKenzie 1990: 53.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

229

of the multi-cultural environment of Petra during the Nabataean period, as expressed by Strabo (Geog. 16.4.21) and reflected in the rich variety of the art and architecture. The clever relationship between the elements in the façade and interior of the Obelisk Tomb is noted among other monumental tombs at Petra, and highlights the importance of studying the burial chambers and installations together with the tomb façades. This study has also confirmed that the Obelisk Tomb was built during the reign of Malichos II (40–70 CE), rather than Malichos I (59– 30 BCE), based on similarities with the recently excavated Tomb Br. 779. The primary burial of the latter tomb has a terminus post quem of 75–100 CE according to the ceramics, which suggests the Obelisk Tomb was carved closer to the last quarter of the 1st century CE. Although many of the burials at Petra have been looted, the fruitfulness of the excavation of Tomb Br. 779 should be stressed here, since enough material still survives in disturbed graves that can provide us with new insights into the debated chronology of the tombs. ʿAbdmanku, the supposed owner of the Obelisk Tomb, was not only memorialised through text, monument and image, but also the funerary activities that would have repeatedly taken place at this tomb complex, such as gatherings, offerings and feasting conducted by the family and perhaps other individuals. Such activities, which would have been highly visible to those entering Petra via the Sīq, served to both honour ʿAbdmanku and his descendants and reinforce the social standing of the surviving family.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alpass, P. 2010, ‘The Basileion of Isis and the religious art of Nabataean Petra’, Syria 87, pp. 93–113. Birley, A. R. 2005, The Roman Government of Britain (Oxford). Bowersock, G. W. 1983, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, MA). Browning, I. 1973, Petra (London).

230

LUCY WADESON

Brünnow, R. E. and A. von Domaszewski 1904, Die Provincia Arabia, Vol. 1 (Strassburg). Colledge, M. A. R. 1976, The Art of Palmyra (London). Hackl, U., H. Jenni and C. Schneider 2003, Quellen zur Geschichte der Nabatäer: Textsammlung mit Übersetzung und Kommentar (Freiburg/Göttingen). Healey, J. F. 1993, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada’in Salih (Oxford). 2001, The Religion of the Nabataeans. A Conspectus (Leiden). Horsfield, G. and A. Horsfield 1938, ‘Sela-Petra’, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 7, pp. 1–42. Kennedy, A. B. W. 1925, Petra: Its History and Monuments (London). Kleiner, D. E. E. 1977, Roman Group Portraiture: The Funerary Reliefs of the Late Republic and Early Empire (New York). Kloner, A. and B. Zissu 2007, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Leuven). Kon, M. 1947, The Tombs of the Kings (Tel Aviv). [In Hebrew] Kühn, D. 2005, Totengedenken bei den Nabatäern und im Alten Testament: eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie (Münster). Laborde, L. 1847, ‘Inscriptions grecque et latine inédites trouvées en 1827’, Revue archéologique 4.1, pp. 253–260. MacDonald, M. C. A. 2003, ‘Languages, scripts, and the uses of writing among the Nabataeans’, in G. Markoe (ed.), Petra Rediscovered (London), pp. 37-56. Matthiae, K. 1991, ‘Die nabatäische Felsarchitektur in Petra’, Klio 73, pp. 226–278.

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

231

McKenzie, J. S. 1990, The Architecture of Petra (Oxford). Milik, J. T. 1976, ‘Une inscription bilingue nabatéenne et greque à Pétra’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 21, pp. 143–152. 1980, ‘Quatre inscriptions nabatéennes’, Le monde de la Bible 14, pp. 12–15. Mouton, M. 1997, ‘Les tours funéraires d’Arabie, nefesh monumentales’, Syria 74, pp. 81–98. 2006, ‘Les plus anciens monuments funéraires de Pétra: une tradition de l’Arabie préislamique’, Topoi 14, pp. 79–119. 2010, ‘The monolithic djin blocks at Petra: a funerary practice of preIslamic Arabia’, in L. Weeks (ed.), Death and Burial in Arabia and Beyond (Oxford), pp. 275–87. Negev, A. 1971, ‘The Nabataean necropolis of Mampsis (Kurnub)’, Israel Exploration Journal 21/2–3, pp. 110–129. Nehmé, L. 2003, ‘Les inscriptions des chambres funéraires nabatéennes et la question de l’anoymat des tombes’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 14.2, pp. 203–258. Netzer, E. 2003, Nabatäische Architektur (Mainz am Rhein). Patrich, J. 2007, ‘Nabataean art between east and west: a methodical assessment’, in K.D. Politis (ed.), The World of the Nabataeans (Stuttgart), pp. 79–101. Rababeh, S. M. 2005, How Petra was Built (Oxford).

232

LUCY WADESON

Sachet, I. 2009, ‘Refreshing and perfuming the dead: Nabataean funerary libations’, in F. al-Khraysheh (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 10 (Amman), pp. 97–112. Sartre, M. 1993, ‘Inscriptions de la Jordanie IV. Pétra et la Nabatène méridionale du wadi al-Hasa au golfe de ‘Aqaba’, IGLS 21(4). Schmid, S. G. 2000, Die Feinkeramik der Nabatäer. Typologie, Chronologie und kulturhistorische Hintergründe. Petra – Ez Zantur II 1 (Mayence). 2007, ‘Nabataean funerary complexes: their relation with the luxury architecture of the Hellenistic and Roman Mediterranean’, in F. al-Khraysheh (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 9 (Amman), pp. 205–219. 2009, ‘Überlegungen zum Grundriss und zum Funktionieren nabatäischer Grabkomplexe in Petra’. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 125.2, pp. 139–70. Skupinska-Løvset, I. 1983, Funerary Portraiture of Roman Palestine: An Analysis of the Production in its Culture – Historical Context (Gothenburg). Stewart, P. 2008, ‘Baetyls as statues? Cult images in the Roman Near East’, in Y.Z. Eliav, E.A. Friedland and S. Herbert (eds), The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East (Leuven), pp. 297–314. Venit, M. S. 2002, Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria (Cambridge). Wadeson, L. 2010a, ‘The chronology of the façade tombs at Petra: a structural and metrical analysis’, Levant 42, pp. 48–69. 2010b, The Façade Tombs of Petra: from Exterior to Interior, University of Oxford: D.Phil. thesis. [Unpublished.] 2011a, ‘Im Gedenken an die Toten: Die Bestattungssitten der Nabatäer’ Antike Welt 42/6, pp. 31–36. 2011 (in press, b), Nabataean façade tombs: a new chronology. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 11 (Amman).

THE OBELISK TOMB AT PETRA

233

2011c, ‘Nabataean tomb complexes at Petra: new insights in the light of recent fieldwork’, in A. Mackay (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Classical Studies 32. (http://ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/ Wadeson.pdf), pp. 1–24. 2012 (in press, a), ‘The funerary landscape of Petra: results from a new study’, in L. Wadeson and L. Nehmé (eds), Nabataean Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42. 2012 (in press, b), ‘The International el-Khubtha Tombs Project (IKTP): preliminary report on the 2010 season’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 55. Walker, S. 1985, Memorials to the Roman Dead (London). Wenning, R. 1987, Die Nabatäer –Denkmäler und Geschichte (Göttingen). 1993, ‘Eine neuerstellte Liste der nabatäischen Dynastie’, Boreas 16, pp. 25–38. 2001, ‘The betyls of Petra’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 234, pp. 79–95. 2003, ‘The rock-cut architecture of Petra’, in G. Markoe (ed.), Petra Rediscovered (London), pp. 133–143. 2004, ‘Nabatäische Büstenreliefs aus Petra – zwei Neufunde’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 120.2, pp. 157–181. 2012 (in press), ‘The International Aslah Project, Petra: new research and new questions’, in L. Wadeson and L. Nehmé (eds), Nabataean Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42. Zayadine, F. 1981, ‘Photogrammetrische Arbeiten in Petra’, in G. Hellenkemper Salies (ed), Die Nabatäer. Erträge einer Ausstellung im Rheinischen Landesmuseum, Bonn, 24 May – 9 July 1978, Kunst und Altertum am Rhein Vol. 106 (Köln), pp. 109–124. 1986, ‘Ein Turmgrab in Bab es-Siq’, in M. Lindner (ed), Petra. Neue Ausgrabungen und Entdeckungen (Munich), pp. 217–221. 1997, ‘Zwischen Siq und ad-Der. Ein Rundgang durch Petra’, in T. Weber and R. Wenning (eds), Petra. Antike Felsstadtzwischen

234

LUCY WADESON arabischer Tradition und griechischer Norm (Mainz), pp. 30– 55.

SNAKES IN PETRA ROBERT WENNING WESTFÄLISCHE WILHELMS-UNIVERSITÄT MÜNSTER This article provides some new information about the role of snakes in relation to Nabataean religion, presenting a small group of unknown snake monuments from Petra.

It gives great pleasure to congratulate a dear friend by contributing to his Festschrift. John’s book ‘The Religion of the Nabataeans’ is a stimulating study,1 and as we share interests in this subject, I would like to present him with a small piece on Nabataean religion. 2 In the book there is no entry for ‘snakes’ or ‘snake-deity’, and the present article provides some new information about the role of snakes in Petra. The aim of this article is not to discuss the complex meaning of snakes in ancient art and religion,3 but to shed some light on a subject which has received little attention in recent decades, namely the role of snakes in relation to Nabataean religion. This article presents a small group of unknown snake monuments from Petra;4 first discussing the 1 2

Healey 2001.

I thank the editors for accepting this paper, and Will Kennedy and Melonie

Schmierer for their assistance in providing an English translation. 3

Glueck 1965: 479–490 and Hammond 1973a: 3–19 (among many others)

have discussed in detail various aspects of serpents in Greek and Near Eastern art,

emphasizing healing, protection and fecundity in funerary contexts. For preHellenistic snake monuments in the Levant, see Keel 1992: 195–226. 4

Snakes are also found in Nabataean art from Nabataean settlements apart

from Petra, and although these have been considered they are not the subject of the present study.

235

ROBERT WENNING

236

known snake monuments from Petra (most of which were described and discussed by Dalman in 19085) and how they have been interpreted in the scholarly debate.

THE SNAKE MONUMENT BR. 302 / D. 313 The Snake Monument near the Wādī Rās Sulaymān is the first port of call in any discussion of snakes in Petra. Already mentioned by Irby (1823) and Laborde (1830), with Laborde presenting the first picture of the monument,6 it is referred to by Brünnow (1904) as a tomb of the Pylon-type with an omphalus, decorated with a snake.7 Dalman (1908) provided the first detailed description of the monument and its setting, followed by a thorough study by Hammond (1973). Dalman states that the monument is not an altar, tomb or Pylon, but rather a high rock-cut cube crowned with a snake entwined around a cone (Wenning Plate 1: A, B).8 The cube measures 3.2 x 3.3 x 2.33 m, and the cone is about 2 m high and 2 m in diameter. Glueck has suggested that the cone was a betyl,9 and Hammond has explained that the coils of the snake did not cover an object in the center.10 If parallels are considered, one should not exclude the possibility that the snake coils around an imaginary altar.11 The size of the coils and parallels lead to the conclusion that the snake is a python.

Dalman (1908: 76) listed nos. 47d, 210c, 313e, 315. Brünnow and von Do-

5

maszweski (1904: 180, 183, 185) mistakenly identified snakes in the reliefs of the

Dioscurii, the Nikai and the Amazons of the Khazne, and (179, 319) no.422 in a relief with Eros (see below). This was repeated by Glueck 1965: 483–484. 6 7

Ossorio 2009: fig. 66.

Brünnow and von Domaszweski 1904: 144, 162, 287, 289 no. 302, fig. 143,

with citations of Irby and Laborde; Jeremias 1907: 167. The drawing fig. 143 is criticized by Dalman 1908: 217 note 3. 8

Dalman 1908: 76, 217–219 no. 313, figs. 141–144. The cone was already

mentioned by Irby. 9

Glueck 1965: 483. He calls it a ‘Dushara block’. This is repeated by Ham-

mond 1973: 2–3, 25–29. 10 11

Hammond 1973a: 2.

Comparison with examples from Rhodes in Weber 1996: 14; 1997: 117 as-

sumes a cylindrical altar or upper part.

SNAKES IN PETRA

237

The head was mistakenly assumed to be part of the thick upper part, which is actually part of the upper coil.12 In fact, the head of the snake was most likely on the top, which seems to be lost. The second and third coils below the upper part have been destroyed at the western side, and this was already visible in the figures of Dalman over 100 years ago.13 Today, the upper coil appears to overlap the damaged part giving a misleading impression of a large mouth. As the head has in fact been lost, one should not follow Dalman’s assumption that the head of the snake is oriented towards the southwest;14 and Hammond’s suggestion that the snake was placed in the direction of the necropolis15 may very well be the case. Dalman mentions cuttings on the cube and a platform belonging to the monument (Wenning Plate 1: D), and Hammond notes that parts of the monument have never been finished.16 He describes the approach to the monument as a ‘processional way’, but although a path to the monument exists, to describe it as a ‘processional way’ seems somewhat unconvincing and over-interpreted. Hammond himself remarks that the very limited size of the monument’s platform could not accommodate many people at the same time, and that there is no indication of a cultic apparatus.17 The Snake Monument is part of the necropolis between the head of Wādī Thugra and Rās Sulaymān about 1.25 km south of Petra, and is cut into the rock of a very high peak overlooking the area of the necropolis (Wenning Plate 1: C). Behind the monument, part of the peak is still untouched at the same height as the monument. Although the peak of the promontory is in the very southeast of the rocky area, it is in a prominent position. Hammond refers to it as a commanding height.18 Taking into account the Block Tombs Br. 303 and 307, and the shape, style and workmanship of the monument (block-like composi-

12 Dalman 1908: 218.

13 Dalman 1908: fig. 142. 14 Dalman 1908: 218.

15 Hammond 1973a: 3, 20. Dalman 1908: 217–218 notes that the cube is

oriented in accordance with cardinal points. 16 Hammond 1973a: 22–23.

17 Hammond 1973a: 2, 19–20. 18 Hammond 1973a: 19.

ROBERT WENNING

238

tion, crude modeling, complete lack of elaboration and some unfinished details), Hammond associates the necropolis and Snake Monument with the earliest funerary monuments at Petra (2nd c. BCE to 1st c. BCE).19 Although Hammond’s dating seems correct, the block-like composition is already found in prototypes.20 One must also consider the poor state of preservation of the monument and the possibility that the snake could have been plastered and painted. Unfinished parts of monuments, especially those near to the ground, are not a criterion for dating.21 Dalman interprets the snake as a chthonic animal, functioning as a guardian of the cave tomb (which he assumed to be below the monument).22 Zayadine (1975) also mentions a cave.23 Hammond rejects the possibility of a tomb being related to the monument, assuming that the massive Snake Monument was a ‘public’ monument to protect the whole necropolis.24 He compares the role of the snake as a protector

19 Hammond 1973a: 22–27. Hammond 1992, 262 also tried to place the ear-

liest phase of the settlement in Petra in this southern area. His thesis of a settle-

ment here is not convincing, but the necropolis could depend on the new settlement of the Nabataean nobility in Petra itself in this period. The same situation

can be observed in the Bāb as-Sīq in the east of Petra. The early dating can be supported by the results of Isabelle Sachet’s excavation of Block Tomb Br. 303 in 2006. She is preparing a publication and kindly sent me an unpublished report on

this research. She dates the earliest phase of this tomb to the late 2nd c. BCE (Sachet 2010: 159).

20 See Weber 1997: figs. 129b-c.

21 For example, the Khazne shows a range of unfinished parts and details.

22 The interpretation of Robinson 1930: 81–82 with some biblical connota-

tions was a setback. He reported that the monument represented a kind of serpent

worship, older than all other altars, shrines and sanctuaries in Petra, potentially even Edomite in origin. This classification is not acceptable.

23 Zayadine 1975: 336. It remains unclear exactly which cave is meant by

Dalman and Zayadine. Jeremias 1907: 167 refers to the pedestal. The cave at the

foot of the rock drawn by Laborde (Ossorio 2009: fig. 66) appears to be a fiction. There are some hollows in the rock, but none of these seems to be a burial cave. Therefore, it could be that Dalman and Zayadine refer to Block Tomb Br. 303 (D.

310), which is situated about 25 m southeast of the Snake Monument. Isabelle Sachet kindly provided me with a plan of the area, and there is no other tomb or burial cave included except Br. 303.

24 Hammond 1973a: 19–21, 23; Sachet presented a paper at the XI Interna-

tional Conference on the Archaeology and History of Jordan at Paris, June 2010,

SNAKES IN PETRA

239

with Tyche, the protective goddess governing the fortune and prosperity of cities.25 Although the monument is sculpted figuratively, Hammond interprets the monument as a kind of ‘sacred stone’. He compares the cube not only with the Block Tombs but also with betyls.26 This focus on the cube rather than the snake is problematic, as the cube is just the pedestal of the snake.27 With Glueck’s interpretation of the Khirbat at-Tannur sculptures in mind, Hammond discusses Nabataean betyls in combination with eagles and eagles with serpents. Accepting the notion that the eagle is a symbol of the sun god Dushara, he concludes that in the earliest stages the sun god was represented by the snake motif alone, and that the snake might be a surrogate of Dushara as sun god or even the oldest representation of Dushara.28 Assuming that the snake was a divine symbol, Hammond envisions a cultic setting for the monument. 29 However, there are too many uncertainties in his thesis and it cannot be accepted.30 Another avenue for interpretation is suggested by Zayadine, who notes the existence of a parallel monument from Gadara.31 The Gadara snake monument, which belongs to a rock-cut tomb, was classified by

suggesting that the snake could also have been the protector of the southern entrance to Petra, which seems less convincing to me.

25 Hammond (1973a: 11) refers to the personal name Na ašṭab as the ‘good

serpent’, an epithet of the Minaean god Wadd, following Savignac 1933: 413;

Höfner 1965b: 518. Others explain the name as ‘the good fortune’, without relating it to a snake-god. The name is documented in Nabataean inscriptions at Wādī Ramm, Ruwāfah, 127).

egra, and Petra (Negev 1991: no. 723; Milik and Starcky 1975:

26 Hammond 1973a: 23–29. For an overview of Nabataean betyls compare

Wenning 2001.

27 Because the monument follows Greek prototypes, the cube as the carrier

of the figure can hardly be compared with the mōtab, which is the carrier or ‘seat’ of the betyls (Healey 2001: 158–159; Wenning 2001: 88–90). 28 Hammond 1973a: 25–29; 1973b: 50–51. 29 Hammond 1973a: 21.

30 See as well Zayadine 1980: 219; Zayadine 1983: 187, pl. 9A. 31 Zayadine 1983: 187, pl. 9C.

ROBERT WENNING

240

Weber, and dated to the 2nd c. BCE.32 Weber cites a large group of snake monuments, giving special emphasis to those with a funerary context. He refers to Hellenistic funerary monuments from Rhodes and Rheneia, and as Nabataeans are documented at Rhodes in the Hellenistic period,33 these Hellenistic monuments could very well have been the prototype for the Petra and Gadara monuments. As Weber explains, the snake was the apotropaic symbol of foreign metics (resident aliens) at Rhodes and the south-western littoral zone of Asia Minor in the Late Hellenistic period. Metics did not have full civil rights, and were organized in separate associations which took care of the burials and sepulchral representations of their members. This does not, however, mean that the monument in Petra was attached to foreign individual, as the type of monument could have been adopted by a Nabataean. One should not then assume that the monument involved veneration of the snake, that the Snake Monument was a ‘public monument’, or that it represented the protector of the whole necropolis in this area. It does not represent ‘good fortune’, the agathos daimon, the ‘good genius’, and of course does not represent Dushara. The main aspect of the snake should be seen as apotropaic. This interpretation is supported by snake representations on Nabataean tombs in egra.34 Any interpretation of the Snake Monument should include the Block tomb Br. 303. Both are monumental, both seem to have an early date, and they are the only installations in that corner of the necropolis. If this suggestion is correct, the Snake Monument should be seen as a monumental tomb marker, not in the sense of the nefesh,35 but in the

32 Weber 2002: 413–414 no. PL 28, pl. 46 E; 1996: 13–14, pl. 5 A-B; 1997:

117–118, figs.129a-c.

33 Wenning 1987: 23 no. A 8; Roche 1996: 78, 85; D. Graf read a paper on

the Nabataeans in the Mediterranean at the XI International Conference on the Archaeology and History of Jordan at Paris, June 2010. 34

The tombs B 1, 7, 11, 22, and 23 show an apotropaic mask or face (Hum-

baba) between two snakes in the pediment (McKenzie 1990: pl. 2–4, 16; McKenzie,

Reyes and Schmidt-Colinet 1998: 39–41, figs. 7, 9). The tombs are dated to the second quarter of the 1st c. CE. 35

See Kühn 2005 for the meaning of nefesh in ancient Near Eastern cultures

and for a catalogue of nefesh monuments in Petra.

SNAKES IN PETRA

241

sense of an individual representative monument (as in the prototypes at Rhodes).

THE RELIEF D. 47E A clear sepulchral context is given for a relief in the small, low tomb D. 47 in the Bāb as-Sīq. The floor of the cave is densely filled with graves. The entrance wall in the interior has two reliefs discovered by Dalman. 36 To the left is a horse or mule carrying a betyl (D. 47d),37 and to the right are two snakes with a quadruped between their heads (D. 47e).38 The snakes wind diagonally to the upper right corner with their tails touching each other (Wenning Plate 2: A), giving the impression of a kind of enclosure or gable hurdle for the animal at the top. The bodies of the snakes coil slightly and become larger towards the top. The snakes measure 1.53 m and 1.62 m. From their size and thickness (5– 15 cm), and size relative to the quadruped, the snakes appear to be pythons. The head of the left snake is at the height of the bowed head of the quadruped, preventing the animal from escaping. The right snake is biting into a hind leg of the quadruped and trying to pull the animal backwards to devour it. The quadruped measures 35 x 17 cm. The tail of the animal is raised. It is impossible to give a precise classification of the quadruped; a dog or a bull was suggested by Dalman, a jackal by Zayadine.39 Dalman assumes the scene has a protective function and Zayadine assumes it to be apotropaic. Both associations seem possible and are not mutually exclusive. If the scene represents a mythological tale, it is unknown.40

THE RELIEF D. 210E Dalman grouped together the monuments D. 207–D. 219 in his ‘second sanctuary of the theater mountain’. This grouping and interpretation is debatable, although a sanctuary could fit in the rock-cut 36 37 38 39 40

Dalman 1908: 76, 110 no. 47e, fig. 28. Wenning 2001: 91, fig. 8.

Nehmé and Villeneuve 1999: fig. 25. Zayadine 1974: 43.

Kühn 2005: 69, 277. Contrary to Glueck 1965: 484 the snake and dog in

this relief do not refer to Mithraic symbols.

ROBERT WENNING

242

chamber D. 210. The monuments are situated on the upper terrace of the so-called northern way to the Great High Place. Today it is almost impossible to continue from this terrace to the summit, and this may explain why D. 210 received almost no attention after its first description by Dalman in 1908.41 The back wall of chamber D. 210 has a very large niche (2.05 x 2.26 m) reaching to the ceiling (Wenning Plate 2: B). A profiled pedestal 1.42 cm long and 53 cm high (D. 210d) joins the niche to the right and continues all the way to the lateral side. A snake (D. 210e) is cut in high relief above the pedestal (Wenning Plate 2: C). In the wall above the snake are two empty votive niches (D. 210f). It was usual to set up betyls in niches on certain occasions. It can be assumed that there was a relationship between the snake on the pedestal and the niches, unless one prefers to relate the niches to whatever was installed in the central niche. The contents of the central niche remain unknown.42 There are no niches or reliefs at the left of the central niche. The lower profile of the pedestal is directly below the bottom line of the great niche, although the reason for that arrangement remains unknown. The upper profile is badly damaged. Large parts are cut away irregularly, and it appears as if someone had once tried to carve another snake. A draped female figure is sculptured at the body of the pedestal at a distance of 31.5 cm from the left edge (Wenning Plate 2: D). The tall figure measures 32 cm in height. She is moving to the left and is shown in three-quarter view. The folds of the chiton and himation are clearly visible. The head of the figure once touched the upper profile, but is now cut off. The figure is so badly preserved that it is very difficult to classify her.43

41 42

Dalman 1908: 185–187, figs. 101–103; Lindner 1976, 93, fig. on p. 93.

Dalman 1908: 186 cautiously suggested two statues, but the two holes in

the back wall of the niche do not support such a conclusion. A niche with two

statues would be decidedly unexpected in Petra, and there are very few examples

of high niches with a statue like that suggested in the so-called Obodas chapel (D. 294b).

43

Helmut Merklein suggested Isis in a personal communication in 1995. The

figure is not winged or horned, is not fish-tailed, and does not appear to have an outstretched arm. The poor state of preservation and insufficient documentation advises against such interpretations.

SNAKES IN PETRA

243

The snake is not resting directly upon the pedestal, but is winding horizontally slightly above it. A festoon is painted between the upper profile of the pedestal and the coils of the snake. The snake winds from right to left and is oriented to the main niche. The end of the snake’s tail is sculptured horizontally on the lateral wall. The complete length of the snake is 1.85 m, and the body measures up to a maximum of 13 cm in height. After four coils the body of the snake is raised diagonally, but the head has been cut away.44 Once again, the snake can probably be identified as a python. Dalman assumes the snake to be an object of divine veneration.45 It seems the most convincing interpretation because of the pedestal, the figure on the pedestal and the festoon, but the snake could also have been a protective power; a guardian related to deities in the central niche. Lindner recalls the lararium of the House of the Vettii in Pompeii, terms the snake ‘the good spirit of the house’, and assumes figurines of Lares in the niches.46 In my opinion there are too many differences between the two monuments, which do not support the comparison or its associations.

SNAKES AS ATTRIBUTES Hermes/Mercury Hermes/Mercury holding the kerykeion or caduceus (a rod with two winding snakes), is depicted in three bust reliefs and a medallion relief from Petra.47 In mythology the snakes fought each other until Hermes separated them, and in gratitude they entwined his rod, and became a symbol of freedom and trade. The Nabataeans, however, seem to have preferred a kerykeion with snakes fighting aggressively.

44 The impression that the body thickens towards the head and that the

mouth was wide open is only due to damage. 45 Dalman 1908: 76.

46 Lindner 1976: 93, with a sketch of the lararium on page 94. By the same

measure one could compare the snake below Mithras as Tauroktonos (like Merkelbach 1984: fig. 50), but both belong to a different tradition. 47 Wenning 2004: nos. 9.1, 10.3, 12.3; B.1.3.

ROBERT WENNING

244 Athena

Athena wears the powerful aegis, the skin of a goat with snake oracles and the head of Medusa in the center. Athena, or Athena Allat, is depicted with the aegis in four bust reliefs from Petra.48 Medusa In mythology the head of Medusa, the Gorgoneion, turned to stone all who gazed upon her. The hero Perseus beheaded Medusa, and her snake-haired head became a prominent apotropaic sign in Greek art from the 8th c. BCE onward. The fearful face is emphasized rather than the snakes, which shape a knot around the neck. There are at least 28 representations of the Gorgoneion known from Petra, mostly with a more decorative function.49 As Grawehr discusses, these Gorgoneia probably do not contain any local features, and they are unrelated to other snake monuments from Petra.50 None of these three groups with snakes as attributes are associated with the role of snakes in Petra.

FRIEZE, EROTES WITH SNAKE-LIKE TAENIA (BR. 422, D. 863–864) Brünnow and von Domaszewski and Dalman discovered two reliefs of Erotes between winged lions and griffins 51, and a fragment of a third relief was exhibited in the yard of the Archaeological Museum in Petra in 1995.52 Bachmann, Watzinger and Wiegand attribute the reliefs to 48 49

Wenning 2004: nos. 12.4, 13.9; Stucky 1996: 340 nos. 32–33.

In architecture: the Khazne (McKenzie 1990: pl. 83a), the Lion Triclinium

(McKenzie 1990: pl. 136b), Tomb Br. 649 (Freyberger 1998: pl. 71d), and the Tomb of Sextius Florentinus (McKenzie, Reyes and Schmidt-Colinet 1998: 39, fig.

5c), the Temple of the Winged Lions-complex (Wagner 2001: fig. 2); in figural capitals (Parr 1957: pls. 8B, 13B; Kolb and Keller1999: frontispiece; Bikai et al. 2008:

figs. 15h-i); in the oscilla of the fresco from az-Zanṭur (Kolb 2003: fig. 260); in weapon-friezes (McKenzie 1990: pls. 64b, 65b; McKenzie, Reyes and SchmidtColinet 1998: fig. 5a); fragment of relief or a statue of Athena-Allat (Donner and Sieg 1998: fig.28); on lamps (Rosenthal and Siwan 1978: fig. no. 396; Grawehr 2010: pl. 6). 50 51

Grawehr 2010: 223–225.

Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: 178–179, 319 no. 422, fig. 348; Jer-

emias 1907: 175; Dalman 1908: 76, 354–356 nos. 863–864, figs. 324–325. 52

McKenzie 1988: 93 no. 42.

SNAKES IN PETRA

245

the entrance of the Ephebeion in the north of the lower yard of the assumed Gymnasium.53 It subsequently became clear that this forms part of the access way to the Temple of the Winged Lions. The first explorers described the Erotes as having snakes in their hands and compared that motif with the infant Heracles strangling snakes and the apotropaic stelae of Horus holding snakes and other dangerous animals in his hands. Bachmann, Watzinger and Wiegand, however, correctly recognized the supposed ‘snakes’ to be taenia, strips of fabric. Although taenia could be used to honor victors, they are used here by the Erotes to bind mythical animals. The composition was still an adaption of the old motif of the potnos theron, now embedded into Hellenistic style and thinking. Although the strips are perhaps intentionally shaped in a snake-like fashion, the reliefs in Petra do not represent snakes and do not refer to snakes in Petra.54

PETROGLYPHS There may be some depictions of snakes among the petroglyphs in Petra, but these monuments have not yet been fully documented. Dalman noticed an incision (D. 315) near the Snake Monument,55 but it is debatable whether a snake is actually represented. Lindner mentions an incised snake near the Isis sanctuary at the Wādī Abū ʾOllēqa.56 U. Hübner kindly sent me a photograph of a snake carved into a piece of rock, which he discovered at the western base of Umm al-Biyāra (Wenning Plate 3: A).57 The stone is somewhat eroded and measures about 48 x 30 x 10 cm. The snake, a viper, is directed to the right and is uprising while coiling heavily. These petroglyphs can only be dated roughly (and may be Nabataean, Roman, or even Byzantine). It cannot be assumed that they are Nabataean in the strictest sense. 53 54

Bachmann, Watzinger and Wiegand 1921:65–67, fig. 59.

A snake-like handle is attached to a Nabataean cup (Horsfield 1941: 138–

139 no. 135, pl. 19). It seems to be more of an artistic variant of the twisted handles than a meaningful representation of snakes. 55 56 57

Dalman 1908: 219 no. 315, fig. 144. Lindner 1989: 288.

Ulrich Hübner, personal communication in 2010. I am grateful for this in-

formation and the permission to include the find in this article.

ROBERT WENNING

246

THE NEW GROUP OF SNAKE MONUMENTS Rock-cut relief in al-Qanṯara In 2007 D. Kühn kindly reported seeing a snake relief in the Wādī alQanṯara to me, and I was able to visit the spot later that year. 58 The relief seems to be known to the Bedouins and some guides, but is not yet mentioned in scholarly studies. To reach the site, one starts at Dalman’s so-called ‘second sanctuary of al-Qanṯara’ (D. 123) and climbs down into the Wādī al-Qanṯara, which is divided here into two river beds. One continues about 150 m to the east to reach the most southern bank of the Wādī al-Qanṯara. To the left there is the rock-face with the snake relief (coordinates: x735.826, y356.586, UTM). The shallow relief is cut about 60 cm above a rocky ledge and measures 39 cm in width and 64 cm in height (Wenning Plate 3: B). The outline of the niche is a very shallow and slightly eroded depression. The steeply uprising snake is depicted in three slight coils (Wenning Plate 3: C). The tail is not resting on the ground. The body is somewhat flat with clear edges and the snake is oriented to the left. It is not easy to define where the mouth ends, and the head does not seem to widen greatly. In front of the head of the snake there is something which cannot be identified.59 It is also difficult to classify the type of the snake. It is not a cobra (uraeus), and probably not a python. It could be a viper. The snake does not threaten, but rather seems to have a protective character. It does not belong to the types of the snakes representing the genius loci or the agathos daimon. The best parallel is that of the harmless snake of Aesculapius. Although one must assume that the Nabataeans used a prototype for the relief, it is not possible to deter-

58

Dagmar Kühn provided me with a photograph, and this find prompted me

to give attention to the snake monuments in Petra. I am very grateful for her information. 59

The object hangs like a garland. It is not clear if the snake is attacking or

devouring an animal. It is also possible that the snake is touching an object. The

mouth and uprising coiling of the snake give a wrong impression of being a seahorse instead of a snake. The outlines of the niche and the snake are damaged by

modern scratches. An incised number 6 to the right and a circle to the left of the relief are either accidental or secondary.

SNAKES IN PETRA

247

mine where the prototype came from. It is my impression that it seems more Hellenistic than Egyptian or Near Eastern. The monument’s size and the way the niche is cut and positioned correspond with Nabataean votive niches, among which these snake reliefs are rather unusual. Although there are no other installations around this niche and nearby, which is not uncommon among the votive niches in Petra, the setting could support an assumption of veneration. Snakes’ annual shedding of their skin rendered them a symbol of regeneration and everlasting life. Much about this snake monument remains uncertain. It is unknown whether the snake was intended to protect from snake-bites like the biblical Nehushtan (Num 21:8–9), which, like Aesculapius’ snake, was associated with healing. 60 If this snake monument is indeed related to a particular deity, we must agree with Dalman that much remains uncertain.61 Rock-cut relief near the stairs to Umm al-Biyāra In 2010 I showed S. G. Schmid a photograph of the snake relief discussed above and asked him if he knew of any other snake monuments in Petra. Fortuitously, he recalled seeing a small relief of a snake while climbing up to Umm al-Biyāra a few days before. He kindly provided me with a photograph taken during the discovery (Wenning Plate 3: D).62 In 2011 I was able to relocate the relief, which is unusually near to the restored stairs, just 25 cm above them, and almost at the bottom of the cliff. It is a very small relief, 7 cm in width and 18 cm in height. The relief of the snake and the rectangular niche-like hollow are so flat that it was not possible to measure the depth. The relief is slightly eroded and has become indistinct. The relief is that of the al-Qanṯara relief en miniature. The snake is steeply uprising in three slight coils and the tail barely touches the ground. The snake is oriented to the left. The body of the snake is 60

In the Syrian sphere Šadrapaʾ should be added (Lichtenberger 2003: 44–46,

61

Dalman 1908: 76; Höfner 1965a: 442. There are various deities connected

312).

with snakes, like Wadd or Nergal, but it is not yet possible to identify the Nabataean deity venerated here. 62

I am grateful to Stephan G. Schmid for the information, the photograph

and the kind permission to include his find in this article.

ROBERT WENNING

248

somewhat flat and the head is slightly enlarged and may possibly be used to clarify the head of the al-Qanṯara snake. To the left of the snake there seems to be an incised horned altar, which is even closer to the stairs. The altar is as worn and indistinct as the snake relief and is scratched rather than neatly incised. The upper right part has flaked off. To the left of the two carvings is a worn Nabataean šlm-inscription with a personal name.63 Directly above the snake relief and below a protruding part of the rock is a votive niche (Wenning Plate 4: A). It measures 32 x 42–47 x 16.5 cm. The back wall is slightly curved and parts have flaked off. The ceiling and the lateral sides of the niche are also damaged. In front of the bottom is a small cup-like hollow (8 x 8 x 6 cm) for libations. The niche is empty. Directly to the left is a second niche (32 x ca. 26 x 7 cm), which is more worn. This niche is also empty. It can be assumed that the two niches are related to the snake relief, but this remains uncertain considering the different sizes. People walking up will readily notice the niches, but may easily overlook the snake relief. There is no obvious answer accounting for the size of the snake relief and its location. Rock-cut relief at Jabal al-Barra In 2010 I heard of a snake relief in Jabal al-Barra, an area believed to be lacking Nabataean niches and inscriptions. I had the opportunity to conduct a day-long survey of the area and discovered several Nabataean monuments, among them the snake relief. This area seems to be well-known to Bedouins and hikers, and the place has been used as a spot for coffee-breaks and has suffered thoughtless damage.64 The snake relief, a niche and two Nabataean inscriptions are cut into the rock-face below a protruding part of the rock (coordinates: x0733.283, y3357.443). In front of the niches is a plateau opposite the 63

Laïla Nehmé kindly read it šlm tymw (personal communication, 2011), and

noticed another šlm-inscription to the right of the first one. I am grateful for her help.

64

There are scratches to the snake relief and damage on the inscription and

the niche. On both sides of the snake relief there are several modern Arab names scratched on the rock.

SNAKES IN PETRA

249

southwest end of Umm al-Biyāra. There are no other installations except for a small basin (34 x 22 x 6–12 cm) in the rock-floor about 30 m to the east, where a small buried gorge with a large crevice comes down from the south. The plateau is situated to the western end of the massif. There is another valley beyond it and from the next height one can see down to the ‘Araba. Before one climbs into the valley, Rās Slaysil is visible in the northeast. The flat snake relief measures 41–50 cm in width and 147 cm in height (Wenning Plate 4: B). The edges of the original niche can be seen in the two upper corners, directly joined by the inscriptions. The lower left edge cannot be determined with certainty, as the framing is arched and is not symmetrical to the upper part. It is possible that the niche was unfinished or was poorly worked at this point. The snake is steeply uprising in six coils. The long tail rests on the ground to the right, while the snake is directed to the left. The body is relatively broad. The coiling is somewhat irregular in comparison with the other two reliefs. The outline of the snake has been retraced by modern scratches. Although the head is not enlarged, the snake appears to resemble a cobra more than a viper, although in comparison with the other reliefs one should assume that all three snakes belong to the same kind (possibly a viper). This snake is not defined by the type of other contexts.65 However, it is possible that no such classification was intended, and that it was sufficient to depict a snake, a mighty image of power. A smaller niche is cut into the niche of the snake just in front and to the left of the head of the snake (Wenning Plate 4: C). The niche measures 22 cm in width, 29 cm in height, and 17 cm in depth at the bottom of the niche. The back of the niche is arched like an abutment niche. The back and the lateral sides are roughly chiseled. It is possible that only the floor of the niche is original and that the niche was enlarged and deepened in later or modern times. Directly below the niche joining the right lower edge is a hollow (11 x 10 x 6 cm), which seems to have originally been cut for libations. 65

It is possible to find a few parallels for these uprising snakes, but a connec-

tion cannot be established. The back of an altar from the Mithraeum of S. Clemente in Rome depicts such a snake, representing the second grade (Merkelbach 1984: 91, fig. 45).

ROBERT WENNING

250

The Nabataean inscription to the right of the snake relief measures 24 x 24 cm and is carved slightly slanting (Wenning Plate 4: D). It was read as ḥplw? by L. Nehmé. The Nabataean inscription to the left of the snake relief measures 33 x 7 cm (Wenning Plate 4: C), and is disturbed by two secondary holes drilled into two characters. It was read as ʾly. šhw{ʾ}? by L. Nehmé.66 Both inscriptions do not explain the relief or the meaning of the snake, but could well have been carved by worshippers. In summary, the Nabataeans were very familiar with use of snake imagery in monuments and reliefs. All monuments refer to individual religious practices of the Nabataeans and range in size from small to monumental. Although the function of the snake monuments was apotropaic-protective, especially within sepulchral contexts where no veneration of the snakes seems intended, the snakes were clearly an object of cultic veneration, probably concerned with protection. These monuments can be grouped together with votive niches with betyls and figural deities (e.g. Isis, Dushara-bust, and eagle), and it is significant that from among these a specific type developed around the snake. Two of the monuments seem to depict a scene from a narrative (D. 47e, D. 210e). As no Nabataean mythological texts are known, we are unlikely to be able to explain these contexts or even to tell which deity the snakes represent. However, this new group of monuments does support the idea of a snake cult or snake-deity in Petra.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bachmann, W., C. Watzinger and T. Wiegand 1921, Petra (Berlin). Brünnow, R.-E. and A. von Domaszewski 1904, Die Provincia Arabia auf Grund zweier in den Jahren 1897 und 1898 unternommenen Reisen und der Berichte früherer Reisender beschrieben, vol. I (Strassburg). Dalman, G. 1908, Petra und seine Felsheiligtümer (Leipzig). 66

Laïla Nehmé kindly gave me her first readings based on my photographs

(personal communication).

SNAKES IN PETRA

251

Donner, H. and E. Sieg 1998, ‘Observations and Investigations in the Upper Valley of the Hermitage near ad- Dayr, Petra’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42, pp. 279–292. Freyberger, K. S. 1998, Die frühkaiserzeitlichen Heiligtümer der Karawanenstationen im hellenisierten Osten. Damaszener Forschungen 6 (Mainz). Glueck, N. 1965, The story of the Nabataeans. Deities and Dolphins (New York). Grawehr, M. 2010, Eine Bronzewerkstatt des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. von ez Zantur in Petra/Jordanien, Petra Ez Zantur, vol. IV (Mainz). Hammond, P. C. 1973a, ‘The Snake Monument at Petra’, American Journal of Arabic Studies 1, pp. 1–29. 1973b, The Nabataeans: Their History, Culture and Archaeology (Gothenburg). 1992, ‘Nabataean Settlement Patterns inside Petra’, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 4, pp. 261–262. Healey, J. F. 2001, The Religion of the Nabataeans. A Conspectus (Leiden). Höfner, M. 1965a, ‘Die Stammesgruppen Nord- und Zentralarabiens in vorislamischer Zeit’, in H. W. Haussig (ed), Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient (Stuttgart), pp. 407–481. 1965b, ‘Südarabien (Sabaʾ, Qatabān u.a.)’, in H. W. Haussig (ed), Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient (Stuttgart), pp. 483–552. Horsfield, G. and A. Conway 1941, ‘Sela-Petra, The Rock, of Edom and Nabatene IV. The Finds’, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 9, pp. 105–204. Jeremias, F. 1907, Nach Petra! Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem 3, pp. 151–174.

252

ROBERT WENNING

Keel, O. 1992, Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu warden (Freiburg/Schweiz). Kolb B. 2003, ‘Petra – From Tent to Mansion: Living on the Terraces of EzZantur’, in G. Markoe (ed), Petra Rediscovered. Lost City of the Nabataeans (New York), pp. 230–237. Kolb, B. and D. Keller 1999, ‘Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinische Ausgrabungen auf ez Zantur in Petra 1999’, Jahresbericht der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinische Stiftung für archäologische Forschungen im Ausland 1999, pp. 17–34. Kühn, D. 2005, Totengedenken bei den Nabatäern und im Alten Testament (Münster). Lichtenberger, A. 2003, Kulte und Kultur der Dekapolis. Untersuchungen zu numismatischen, archäologischen und epigraphischen Zeugnissen (Wiesbaden). Lindner, M. 1976, ‘Die zweite archäologische Expedition der Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft nach Petra (1976)’, Natur und Mensch. Jahresmitteilungen der Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft Nürnberg e.V, pp. 83–96. 1989, ‘Ein nabatäisches Klammheiligtum bei Petra’, in M. Lindner (ed), Petra und das Königreich der Nabatäer (5th ed.) (Nürnberg), pp. 286–292. McKenzie, J. S. 1988, ‘The Development of Nabataean Sculpture at Petra and Khirbet Tannur’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 120, pp. 81–107. 1990, The Architecture of Petra (Oxford). McKenzie, J. S., A. T. Reyes and A. Schmidt-Colinet 1998, ‘Faces in the Rock at Petra and Medain Saleh’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 130, pp. 35–50. Merkelbach, R. 1984, Mithras (Königstein).

SNAKES IN PETRA

253

Milik, J. T. and J. Starcky 1975, ‘Inscriptions récemment découvertes à Pétra’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 20, pp. 111–130. Negev, A. 1991, Personal Names in the Nabtean Realm (Jerusalem). Nehmé, L. and F. Villeneuve 1999, Pétra: Métropole de l’arabie antique (Paris). Ossorio, F. A. 2009, Petra. Splendors of the Nabataean Civilization (Vercelli). Robinson, G. L. 1930, The Sarcophagus of an Ancient Civilization: Petra, Edom, and the Edomites (New York). Roche, M.-J. 1996, ‘Remarques sur les Nabatéens en Méditerranée’, Semitica 45, pp. 73–99. Rosenthal, R. and R. Sivan 1978, Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Jerusalem). Sachet, I. 2010, ‘Libations funéraires aux frontières de l’Orient romain: le cas de la Nabatène’, in J. Rüpke and J. Scheid (eds), Bestattungsrituale und Totenkult in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Stuttgart), pp. 157–174. Savignac, R. 1933, ‘Le sanctuaire d’Allat à Iram’, Revue Biblique 42, pp. 405–422. Stucky, R. A. 1996, ‘Ausgewählte Kleinfunde’, in A. Bignasca et al (eds), Petra. Ez Zantur I. Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992 (Mainz), pp. 337–353. Wagner, M. 2001, ‘Ein neues Fundstück aus dem großen Petra-Puzzle. Natur und Mensch’, Jahresmitteilungen der Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft (Nürnberg) e.V, pp. 309–322. Weber, T. 1996, ‘Gadarenes in Exile’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 112, pp. 10–17.

254

ROBERT WENNING

1997, ‘Die Bildkunst der Nabatäer’, in T. Weber and R. Wenning (eds), Petra. Antike Felsstadt zwischen arabischer Tradition und griechischer Norm (Mainz), pp. 114–125. 2002, Gadara – Umm Qēs Vol. I. Gadara Decapolitana. Untersuchungen zur Topographie, Geschichte, Architektur und bildenden Kunst einer “Polis Hellenis” im Ostjordanland. bhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 30 (Wiesbaden). Wenning, R. 1987, Die Nabatäer. Denkmäler und Geschichte (Freiburg/Schweiz). 2001, ‘The Betyls of Petra’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 324, pp. 79–95. 2004, ‘Nabatäische Büstenreliefs aus Petra. Zwei Neufunde, mit U. Hübner’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 120, pp. 157–181. Zayadine, F. 1974, ‘Die Felsarchitektur Petras’, in M. Lindner (ed), Petra und das Königreich der Nabatäer (2nd ed.) (Nürnberg), pp. 39–69. 1975, ‘Un ouvrage sur les Nabatéens’, Revue Archéologique 70, pp. 333– 338. 1980, ‘Die Felsarchitektur Petras’, in M. Lindner (ed), Petra und das Königreich der Nabatäer (3rd ed.) (Nürnberg), pp. 212–248. 1983, ‘Un fascinum près de l’Odéon d’Amman-Philadelphie’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 99, pp. 184–188.

FIGURES

Al Fassi Plate 1: Tomb of Kamkam, the Priestess B19: JS 16; H 16 (photo J. Healey)

255

256

Al-Salameen Plate 1: A (top left): Idol-niche in the Siq, Petra (Dalman 1912: 45); B (top right): Betyl depicted between two palms (Dalman 1908: 177); C (center left): Altar between two palms (Dalman 1908:

245); D (center right): Palm leaf decorating a Nabataean capital of the

Hegra facades (Photo Z. Al-Salameen); E (bottom): Floral decorations on pottery (Hammond 1959: 375–77)

257

Al-Salameen Plate 2: A (top): Part of the Nabataean mural painting of the ‘Painted House’, Bayḍa; B (bottom left): Female head with rosette

from Kh. Et-Tannur (McKenzie 2003: Fig. 189); C (bottom upper right): Rosettes from

egra; D (bottom lower right): Pseudo-Doric frieze with

busts and rosettes from Kh. Et-Tannur (McKenzie 2003: Fig. 187)

258

Al-Salameen Plate 3: A (top left): Eagle depicted on a Nabataean facade in

egra; B (top right): Stele with an eagle above it, Petra (Patrich 1990:

108); C (center left): Eagle depicted on a Nabataean facade in

egra; D

(center right): Sculpture of eagle wrestling with a serpent (McKenzie

2003: Fig. 186); E (bottom left): Panel with the bust of Atargatis (Zayadine 2003: Fig. 41); F (bottom right): Nabataean eye-idol (Lindner 1988: fig. 5)

259

Al-Salameen Plate 4: A (top left): Silver coin, Malichus I (35/34 BCE) depicting an eagle (Meshorer 1975: n.12); B (top right): Coffin-cloth from

Kh. edh-Dhari (Kh. edh-Dhari Exhibition Catalogue 2002: 75); C (left) and D (center): Fragments of terracotta figurines representing a camel

(Tuttle 2009: 452, 471); E (right): Camel relief in the Siq in Petra; F

(left): Fragment of a terracotta figurine representing an ibex head (Tuttle 2009: 515); G (right): Camel relief near the Monastery, Petra (Dalman 1908: 276); H (bottom left): Fragment of a terracotta figurine representing an ibex head (Tuttle 2009: 520); I (bottom right): Sculptured ibex head (Glueck 1937: fig 12)

260

Al-Salameen Plate 5: A (top left): Zeus-Haddad with bulls (Zayadine

2003); B (top center) and C (top upper right): Niches from Petra (Dalman 1908: 310, 312); D (top lower right): Lintel from Oboda (Patrich 1990:

94); E (center left) and F (center right): Lion reliefs from Petra; G (bottom left) and H (bottom right): Lion-spouted fragments (Glueck 1937: fig. 12)

261

Al-Salameen Plate 6: A (top left): Two lions between a rosette on a fa-

cade of Hegra; B (top right): Winged lion surmounting a Nabataean pediment in Hegra; C (center left): Depiction of a snake and a horse from

Petra; D (center right): Winged creature from Petra; E (bottom): Rock-cut façade at Hegra (photos Z. Al-Salameen)

262

Al-Salameen Plate 7: A (top): Personification of the ‘fish goddess’ (McKenzie 2003: Fig. 192); B (center): Elephant-headed capital, Petra; C

(bottom left): The tholos of the Treasury, Petra; D (bottom upper right): The Snake Monument, Petra; E (bottom lower right): Panther sculpture (Glueck 1937: fig. 11)

263

Al-Salameen Plate 8: A (top left): Terracotta figurine of a woman with raised hand (Tuttle 2009: 374); B (top right): Sculptured relief on the

Treasury representing a horse and rider; C (bottom left): Reverse of a bronze coin with a palm of the hand, Malichus I (34/33 BCE) (Meshorer 1975: n.17A); D (bottom right): Reverse of a bronze coin with a standing woman, Obodas III (13/12 BCE) (Meshorer 1975: n.35)

264

Harrak Plate 1: BL. OR. 8729 (Hatch 1946: Plate XCII)

265

Harrak Plate 2: A (top): Add. 17256 (partial Serṭo text) (Wright 1870:

CCIX, pp. 142–3); B (center): Monastery of Mār-Behnām (South gate); C (bottom): Monastery of Mār-Behnām (Exterior wall, Sanctuary)

266

Nehme Plate 1: A (top): General aerial view of the residential area of

Madâʾin Sâlih with the features mentioned in the text; B (bottom): General view of IGN 132 from the west, before excavation

267

Nehme Plate 2: Kite view of IGN 132 at the end of the 2011 excavation season

268

ROBERT WENNING

Nehme Plate 3: A (top): Distribution of the wells in Madâʾin Sâlih and location of the new well, no. 132; B (bottom left): A section of the low

wall which surrounds the open-air enclosure on top of IGN 132; C (bottom right): Kite-view of the paved platform. The negative of the columns is marked by a ‘c’

269

Nehme Plate 4: A (top): The rock-cut chamber IGN 132a and the ramp

built with splinters resulting from the digging of the chamber; B (center left): General view of Dalman no. 520 from the south; C (center right):

The southern staircase leading up to the top of Dalman no. 520, from the west; D (bottom left): Bronze figurine representing an eagle, 60704_M01; E (bottom right): Bronze casket 60681_M01, with detail of one of the feet

270

Nehme Plate 5: A (top): Yemeni parallels to bronze casket 60681_M01; B (bottom): Stone incense-burner 60653_S01, face

271

Pardee Plate 1

272

Pardee Plate 2

273

Wadeson Plate 1: A (top): Map of the Bāb al-Sīq area showing the loca-

tion of the Obelisk Tomb and Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium (circled), Petra

(Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: Pl. 3); B (bottom): The Obelisk Tomb and Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium, as seen upon entering the Bāb al-Sīq, Petra (photo A. Hamm)

274

Wadeson Plate 2: A (top left): The façade of the Obelisk Tomb, Petra; A (top right): A nefesh carving on the façade of Tomb Br. 320, Wādī al-

Thughrah, Petra; C (bottom): The statue in the façade of the Obelisk Tomb, Petra (photos L. Wadeson)

275

Wadeson Plate 3: A (top left): Rock-cut features in front of the Obelisk

Tomb, Petra (facing west); B (top right): Plan of the Obelisk Tomb, Petra

(McKenzie 1990: Pl. 124); C (bottom left): The burial chamber of the Ob-

elisk Tomb, with a loculus to the left of the arcosolium; D (bottom right): The arcosolium in the burial chamber of the Obelisk Tomb, Petra (photos L. Wadeson)

276

Wadeson Plate 4: A (top left): The dressing of the walls and ceiling of the

Obelisk Tomb (view towards top left corner of chamber); B (top right): Plan of the Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium, Petra (McKenzie 1990: Pl. 128); C (bottom): The Obelisk Tomb and Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium, Petra (photos L. Wadeson)

277

Wadeson Plate 5: A (top left): The interior of the Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium

(view towards back wall), Petra; B (top right): The small chamber to the

right of the Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium; C (bottom left): The nefesh carving in the left wall of the chamber to the right of the Bāb al-Sīq Triclinium

(note circular receptacle carved in the floor below); D (bottom right): The Bāb al-Sīq inscription and its relation to the Obelisk Tomb, Bāb al-Sīq, Petra (photos L. Wadeson)

278

Wadeson Plate 6: A (top left): Detail of the Bāb al-Sīq inscription; B (top right): The Bāb al-Sīq inscription and the cavity below it; C (bottom left): Double Pylon Tomb Br. 779 after excavation, al-Khubthah, Petra; D (bottom right): The burial chamber of Tomb Br. 779 after excavation, with an

arcosolium in the back wall and floor graves in the south-eastern corner (photos L. Wadeson)

279

Wenning Plate 1: A (top left): Northeastern corner; B (top right): North-

western corner; C (bottom left): The peak with the Snake Monument, looking southeast; D (bottom right): Snake Monument and the rest of the original peak to the right, looking to the northwest (photos R. Wenning)

280

Wenning Plate 2: A (top left): D. 47d; B (top right): The back wall of

chamber D. 210; C (bottom left): The snake on the pedestal in chamber D. 210 and two niches above; D (bottom right): The draped female figure at the pedestal (photos R. Wenning)

281

Wenning Plate 3: A (top left): 8 Fig. 9 Petroglyph from Umm al-Biyāra

(photo U. Hübner); B (top right): Wādī al-Qanṯara, rock with the snake relief (photo R. Wenning); C (bottom left): Fig. 11 Votive niche in the

Wādī al-Qanṯara (photo D. Kühn); D (bottom right): Votive niche on the steps towards Umm al-Biyāra (photo S. G. Schmid)

282

Wenning Plate 4: A (top left): Two niches above the snake relief; B (top right): Jabal al-Barra, snake relief with inscriptions to both sides and a niche; C (center left): Left inscription; D (bottom left): Right inscription; E (bottom right): Secondary niche in the snake relief (photos R. Wenning)

INDEX al-Hussayniah, 40 Al-Khazna courtyard, 40 al-Khubthah, 224, 278 al-Madbah, 223 Alqōsh, 115 Al-ʿUzzā, 4, 21, 22, 36 Arrianos inscription, 218 Aṣla Triclinium-Complex, 208 Atargatis, 12, 26, 34, 44, 46, 52, 258 Athena, 244 Bāb al-Sīq, 207, 208, 209, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 273, 276, 277, 278 Babatha archive, 35 Bacchus, 24 Baʿl Shamīn, 31 Baʿlu Ṣapuni, 184, 185 Bayḍa, 25, 30, 257 Bēt- udaid, 107 betyl, 23, 24, 29, 155, 160, 222, 233, 236, 239, 241, 242, 250 Ceres, 27 Demeter, 27 Dionysus, 17, 24, 28, 47

Dushara, 4, 5, 9, 10, 17, 37, 153, 159, 160, 165, 236, 239, 240, 250 Edessa, 52, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 117, 118, 120, 165 Erotes, 244, 245 Ez-Zantur, 42, 52 Gadara, 239, 254 Great Temple, 46 Hadad, 33, 42, 43 aḍramawt, 6, 31, 42 Hām, 30 Harklean Gospels, 105 Hatra, 7, 31, 98, 101 Hayyan, 29 egra, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 24, 26, 32, 45, 46, 48, 51, 55, 153, 159, 160, 162, 166, 214, 256, 258, 261 High Place of Sacrifice, 29, 210, 242 ijāz, 10 imyar, 31 House of the Vettii, 243 Hubal, 2, 9, 10, 36 Idâ-rûmâ, 57 Ishtar, 6, 21, 27, 34, 45

283

284

INDEX

Isis, 4, 17, 27, 68, 229, 242, 245, 250 Jabal al-Barra, 248, 282 Jazīrah, 63, 67, 69, 114, 120 Kaʿbah, 17, 21, 36, 41, 43, 51 Kh. edh-Dhari , 25, 38, 45, 259 Kh. Et-Tannur, 18, 26, 28, 33, 43, 45, 48, 51, 52, 257 Khaybar, 2 Khazneh, 48 Mabbug, 92, 95, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105 Madāʾin Ṣāli , 1, 153, 155, 156, 165, 166, 214, 218, 222, 224, 225 Madeba, 210 Maʿin, 4 Makkah, 2, 6, 21 Mampsis, 210, 231 Manāt, 5, 9, 10 Maran-Shamash, 31 Mār-Behnām, 107, 108, 114, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 265 Mārib, 50 Marzea , 25 Masada, 35, 65 Medallion and Block Relief, 223 Medusa, 244 Meleiha, 40 Melitene, 112 Monastery of Mār-Mattay, 120 Monastery of Rabban Hormizd, 115

Monastery of the Syrians, 108, 120 Mor Gabriel Monastery, 141 Nasra, 32 Nefesh, 59, 210, 216, 221, 222, 231, 240, 274, 277 Nike, 48 Nisibis, 94, 97, 102 Obelisk Tomb, 59, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 220, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277 Oboda, 33, 44, 70, 260 Painted House, 30, 74, 257 Palmyra, 24, 31, 64, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 101, 221, 230 Pan, 51 Persephone, 28 Petra, 5 Qartmin, 91, 96, 115 Qasr al-Bint, 35, 44 Raḍw-Ruḍā, 54 Rās Sulaymān, 237 Sarmin, 93, 96, 102, 103 Sextius Florentinus Tomb, 218 Sinai, 4, 5, 30, 42, 69, 75, 93 Siq, 37, 233, 256, 259 Snake Monument, 51, 209, 236, 237, 238, 240, 245, 251, 262, 279 Soldier Tomb, 215, 217 Taʾlab, 57 Tanit, 56 Taymāʾ, 123, 124, 137, 139

285 Tomb of the Broken Pediment, 225 Tomb of ʿUnaishū, 210, 215 Treasury, 27, 39, 46, 55, 75, 262, 263 Ṭūr-ʿAbdīn, 108, 114, 115, 116 Turkmāniyyah Tomb, 215, 216 Tyche, 28, 48, 239 Ugarit, 167, 178, 179, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 194, 195, 196, 201, 205 Umm al-Biyāra, 39, 245, 247, 281 Umm an-Nār burials, 50 Urn Tomb, 215

Wādī Abū ʾOllēqa, 245 Wādī al-Qanṯara, 246, 281 Wadi al-Qura, 3 Wādī Defleh, 33 Wādī Farasa, 46, 215, 217, 228 Wādī Mʿayṣrah, 228 Wādī Mūsā, 25, 27, 30, 46, 51, 74, 208, 217 Wādī Rūm, 4, 8, 33, 38, 44 Wādī Rās Sulaymān, 209, 236 Temple of Winged Lions, 5, 7, 28, 29, 46, 66, 244, 245 Zamzam, 2, 41 Zeus, 17, 28, 31, 33, 39, 42, 43, 44, 51, 260