Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, fascicule xiby Javier Teixidor

Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, fascicule xi by Javier TeixidorReview by: Michael H. SilvermanJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 89, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1969), pp. 630-634Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/596628 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 02:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.146 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:30:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/596628?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


630 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 89.3 (1969)

ments for a new one. By the same token, this review is not the place for me to discuss in detail the author's Five Phases of Mesopotamian history, as tempting as the subject is. Rather, I would simply like to suggest that this new view does not really help us very much in understand- ing Mesopotamian history. Indeed, in superim- posing modern terms and categories ("The Basic Aggregate," "The Catalyst," "The Transforma- tion," "Tradition and Experiment," "The Great Change") the author is denying an axiom in- corporated in his book and best typified by his phrase the "uniqueness of a civilization" (p. 54). If he must re-classify Mesopotamian history (a favourite game with historians) why not use indigenous terminology? Beyond this, however, I shall not go at the present time.

One item in this volume that could have been extremely helpful to the uninitiated is the map. Unfortunately this has been badly done. It is published on pp. 80-81 rather than at the begin- ning or end of the book where one would nor- mally look for it but, more annoying, approxi- mately one half inch (i.e. c. 50 miles!) has been lost from the middle due to improper binding. Thus several place names are illegible. Even more serious is the number of errors in the location of sites: Der has been placed in Iran instead of Iraq, Aqar Quf has been placed c. 25 miles from the Tigris instead of c. 10 miles, Ras Shamra has been placed c. 20 miles inland instead of at the coast, and Mari has been placed in Iraq instead of Syria! There are other inaccuracies in this map but these examples should suffice to indicate that it is not up to the high scholarly standard of the rest of the book and in a future edition these pages should either be deleted or com- pletely redone.

Finally, there are some criticisms on small points. The statement in the Foreword (p. v) that "translations of Akkadian epic texts, royal inscriptions, and law codes" are "readily available" must be qualified. Although the modern reader can find reasonably good, up-to-date, translations of epics and law codes, translations of royal inscriptions are still available only in a limited and unrepresentative form. Since the

translator tried to avoid indicating "the differences between Akkadian and English by typo- graphical means" (p. 66) why did he employ the specialized transliteration symbols (e.g., A instead of sh) in proper names? This is simply a nuisance to the lay reader. Why is Letter 95 (ABL 657) translated on p. 157 and not right after Letter 86 (ABL 2) on p. 150? They are both petitions by Adad-gumi-usur to Assurbanipal to show favour to the former's son, Arad-Gula.

In conclusion one can say that this book is not only a fine example of careful scholarship but a piece of literature appealing both to the eye (the publishers are to be congratulated on the format) and to the imagination. It will be read with pleasure and profit by specialist and layman alike.

A. K. GRAYSON UNIVERSITY OF Toromfo

Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, fascicule xi. By JAVIER TEIXIDOR (Institut franqais d'archdologie de Beyrouth). Pp. 64+pl. XIII, index. BEYROUTH, 1965.

This fascicule continues the publication of Palmyrene texts that was begun by the late Jean Cantineau during the 1930's. It includes 100 Palmyrene inscriptions of which 93 are published here for the first time, and of which seven have been previously edited.' The first 87 texts were copied from inscribed stones that were de- posited with the De#pot des Antiquites de Palmyre before 1934 and whose place of provenance is no longer known. The last 13 inscriptions were discovered during the 1936 excavations at the foundation wall of the Temple of Bel.

The Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre was originally conceived by Cantineau along the lines of the Repertoire des inscriptions semitiques as a handbook of texts. What was intended was the republication in brief form of inscriptions that had been edited previously in scattered

I Nos. 7, 18, 23, 29, 87, 99-100 have been published previously.



Reviews of Books 631

journals, books, and the CIS. That is, Cantineau considered as his primary task the gathering together of previously known texts into one series. To this he added a brief commentary. Now, this commentary did not have to include all germaine matters since many of the questions had been studied in the earlier publications. It was necessary only to summarize briefly the work of previous scholars, and to add discussions of those issues in which he differed from earlier students of the texts. In sum, Cantineau's In- ventaire was not an editio princeps of the inscriptions, but a brief handbook of known texts. Such is the character of fascicules i-ix.

In fascicules x and xi the character of the work changed: it now became, in large part, an editio princeps of inscriptions. As such, the require- ments of publication necessarily differ. Whereas for the earlier fascicules transcription, translation, and brief commentary were sufficient, the texts now require, in addition to these, both photographs and facsimiles and more detailed annotation. Recognizing the change in needs, the editor and author of fascicule xi have supplied the photographs (these we shall discuss pres- ently), but they have not extended the commentary to include study of all the textual phenomena. The reason for this, patently, is that a broadened commentary would have re- quired more space and more financial resources, and these were probably not available. In addition, there was probably a desire to keep the scope (or length) of the various fascicules equal, even if the function of the Inventaire had changed. Those responsible should, accordingly, not be reproached for the brevity of the commentary. Indeed, they should be praised for their work. However, this lack should be noted.

The photographs appended to the work con- stitute a special problem. In the first place, for sixteen inscriptions no photographs were pro- vided. Ordinarily, plates of all texts ought to be given. Now, some of the inscriptions may have been too fragmentary or too abraded for photo-

2 Nos. 3, 6, 13, 14, 19, 45-46, 48, 51, 62, 64, 68, 72, 75, 90, 96.

graphic reproduction. In these cases omission of the photo is understandable. Yet, the author generally fails to explain why no plate is given. More important, even though great efforts were probably expended to secure the photographs, their usefulness for purposes of comparison is questionable. Except for very clear inscriptions, it is impossible to decipher very much on the plates. One cannot control independently Teixi- dor's readings except in such instances where the text is so clear that no questions would ever arise in any case. Often I have the consciousness that his readings are incorrect, and yet I cannot offer an alternative text since it is impossible to ascertain the readings on the plates. Many instances of this have been collected, but it is not necessary to detail them here. Where the text by itself is distinct, the author has done careful work, and can be followed. However, it is not the clear cases that engage our attention, but the problematic ones. One wants to know if it is possible to follow the author when the text is not distinct on the plate. It seems that his readings may be trusted, but we do not know for sure. In most cases this problem is not crucial since the formulas and proper names are known; nevertheless, some incorrect (?) readings may hide new expressions, grammatical data, and proper names. For these reasons, I would suggest that wherever ordinary photographic plates are illegible, the editors provide squeezes, and even careful handcopies, in addition to regular plates, in future fascicules of this series.

Finally, we must strongly protest one serious deficiency in this fascicule-namely, the lack of an adequate index. Though the proper names are fully indexed, only a small selection of "vocabu- laire" i.e., non-proper names, is offered. It is, therefore, impossible to find quickly forms in various texts which one would like to compare and study. It is to be hoped that future fascicules of this series will provide a full index of all words.

In detail, the contents of this fascicule are: (i) Inscribed altars dedicated to the unnamed god (nos. 1-48). The usual formulas are: ibryk fmh NWm' rhmn', etc. ("To him who is blessed forever, the Merciful One, etc."); Dkrn tb lbryk ?mh




Ndm', etc. ("A good remembrance to Him whose name is blessed forever," etc.); and cEt' dh dy cbd x grb 1rhmn', etc. ("This altar which X made and offered to the Merciful One," etc.). (ii) Funerary texts containing the names of the deceased, followed or preceded by the word hb1 ("Alas") (nos. 49-65). One text (no. 56) also includes a fragmentary date. (iii) Various honorific and/or religious dedications (nos. 66-87). Since the content of each inscription differs, it is impossible to describe them in general categories. (iv) Texts of Wall T (nos. 87-100). These are the inscriptions that were discovered during the 1936 excavations at the foundation wall of the Temple of Bel. This wall ("T") represents the first enclosure of the Bel Temple that was inaugurated in 32 C.E. The stones employed in constructing it were taken from the previous Hellenistic shrine on the site, and it is on these re-used stones that the inscriptions appear. The value of these texts is, accordingly, great, since they all must pre-date 32 C.E. They belong to the most archaic period of Palmyrene. Unfortunately, most are fragmentary; four, however do provide complete texts (nos. 88, 92, 99 and 100), dealing with the erec- tion of honorific statues. Text 100, finally, is dated to 44 B.C.E.

The following are brief comments on some of the inscriptions. They are not meant to denigrate Teixidor's work, for that is indeed praiseworthy, but to offer alternative renderings, more complete annotations, and, in one or two cases, to correct obvious misprints:

1:5-6 dy qrw lrhmn', and 17:6 dy qrw lh; cf. 16:4 dy qr lh-Note that in the verb qr['], "in- voke," the distinction between singular qr and plural qrw is preserved. In many cases this differentiation had been lost so that both forms were written the same. Now, it is well known that the strong penult accent had caused the final syllable of the third pers. plu. perf. to become weakened and, eventually, silent-see F. Rosen- thal, Die Sprache der Palmyrenischen Inschriften, Leipzig, 1936, p. 57. Even though it was no longer pronounced, it was often kept in the or- thography. In our texts, however, this "histori- cal" spelling almost never occurs in other verbs,

and yet always in qr[']. The reason for this is probably due to the semi-weak third radical aleph! yod.

1:5 'tcm-This proper name is probably originally CtCm. The first Cain was dissimilated to aleph under the influence of the second cain, as in the Eleph. 'tcdry < ctcdry, i.e., cAtecidri. Therefore, the divine element in 'tCm is probably cAte. The second element may be a hypocoriston of cAte- caman, as T. suggests. However, because hypocoristic elements generally replace the divine element, and not the other one', it is better to take cm as a complete word. It may be the equiv- alent of Heb. cam, "kinsman," and the name, accordingly, be cAtgCdm, "CAte is [a/my] kinsman."

3:2 ldkrn-T.'s note here is infelicitous. The word dkrn does not disappear after 162 C.E. since it is attested in the Dura texts-Compte du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire des inscriptions palmyreniennes de Doura-Europos, Paris, 1939, nos. 19 (168 C.E.) and 20 (undated, but probably third century C.E.). Rather, the archaism is the employment of ldkrn as the object of cbd, instead of the later usage of dkrn tb cbd.... Cf. also insc. 24:1 and 28:1.

5:2 td't-Due to the fissure in the rock, the name could also be tt'l. It is still unexplained.

5:3 bss-This name occurs in many languages. In addition to the Greek alternative listed by Teixidor, note the Akkadian forms in K. Tall- qvist, Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, Helsinki, 1906, p. 308, and the Persian name listed by F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg, 1895, p. 67b.

13:4 [4]yrn tly' dy-T. translates "Hairan, le jeune, qui est..." It would be better to understand, with Cantineau, Grammaire, p. 146, "Hairan, the servant of . . ."

13:21 rm'-This name is probably a hypocoriston of the root rwm ("be high", or "exalted"). Cf. the Eleph. name rmy (also fem.), A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1923 (abbrev. A.P.), 34:3.

3 On this, see provisionally my Dissertation, "Jewish

Personal Names in the Elephantine Documents: A

Study in Onomastic Development," University Micro- films, Ann Arbor, 1967, oh. IV, esp. p. 106.



Reviews of Books 633

31:3 br syw.'-The name should probably be read sywc', from the root syc ("help"). Note that this root syc is attested in Palm.-cf. Jean- Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions s~mitiques de 1ouest, Leiden, 1965 (abbrev. DISO), p. 192.

32:5 bs'-According to Caquot (cited by T.) this name is Arabic. While this is entirely possible, one should note that the name is often found in Egyptian-Aramaic texts of the fifth cent. B.C.E-E. G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Mu- seum Aramaic Papyri, New Haven, 1953 (abbrev. BMAP), 11:2; and N. Aim6-Giron, Textes arameens d'Egypte, Cairo, 1931 (abbrev. TAE), 100 a, b, c; 112 a, b. Although the name in those cases is generally considered Egyptian (so Aim6- Giron and Kraeling), it could be Akkadian (K. Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names, Helsinki, 1914, p. 64) or even Hebrew/Aramaic-Jewish (my Dissertation, p. 120). It is therefore quite possible that it is an ancient Oriental name of pre-Arabic origin. Palm. texts are replete with such appellatives. For this reason, it would be profitable to inspect pre-Christian Aramaic, Akkadian, etc. corpora of texts for onomastic parallels, as well as later Greek and Arabic documents.

33:4-5 cglbwl wmlkbl -on these deities, see now, H. W. Haussig (ed.), W6rterbuch der Mytho- logie. Abt. I: Die alten Kulturvijiker. Bd.I: Gdtter und Mythen im vorderen Orient, Stuttgart, 1965, sv.

33:6 dbnwh -The use of the prefix d, instead of the proclitic dy, to indicate possession occurs here for the first time in Palm. texts. T. rightly emphasizes this fact.

47:2 cl hyy bn[ -On the plate only cl h is visible. I have attempted to decipher the rest of the line many times but to no avail.

50:1-For this line, the following must be read: hbl brt' brt 'm' 'tth ("Alas! BRT' daughter of Amma, wife of.. ."). T.'s translation seems to follow this interpretation ("Helas! Berta fille de Amma femme de .. . "), but his note appears to place brt' 'm' together. This comment should therefore be deleted, as the name must be read brt'. It seems to be a profane name meaning "the

daughter," but are there any parallels for this interpretation?

55: note-The reference to the Inventaire cannot be located in the place cited.

59-On the plate the photograph of the bust does not seem to show any inscription.

63:3 mky-Instead of Ingholt's suggested derivation from M(l)kbl (RTP, p. 156, cited by T.), it may be better to compare Heb. mykyh. This last appears at Eleph. as mkyh (Kraeling, BMAP, 1:12) and mky (Cowley, A.P., 1:11), and in the Lachish Letters as mkyhw (11:4), all without the yod. As such, its derivation would be: my+k+y = "who [is] like [god X (represented by the hypocoristic element y)]?". This spelling mky is regular in Palm., even if it would not be in Old Aram. and R.A. Now, in the earlier dialects of Aram. the constituent "who" is mn, as against Heb. my, and the name is accordingly mnky (as in Eleph.). However, since nasalization is often lost in Palm. (see Rosenthal, op. cit., p. 40), the form would again appear without the n, without recourse to Heb. influence-inky.

79:3 d' cmwd[']-Here d' seems to be the same as dh, the fem. demonstrative pronoun/adjec- tive "this." Judging by the forms listed in Jean- Hoftijzer, DISO, pp. 78-79, this is the first oc- currence in Palm. of the spelling with aleph instead of he. However, since forms with both aleph and he occur at Eleph. and in Nabat., this is no problem. Placing the demonstrative before its noun is also attested. The real question here is how can a fem. demonstrative modify the masc. noun cmwd[']? The people mentioned in the text are all men. Perhaps the reading is incorrect, but it cannot be checked since the plate, once again, is almost illegible.

86-Is this one inscription or two separate ones? Inspection of the plate suggests the second alternative, but again this is uncertain.

89:1 kmry'-Actually, the stone only has m.y'. The mark after the m is strange, but it cannot be r.

92: 1 llm-Although the inscribed text is quite clear on the plate, of this word only im is visible on the stone. While T.'s reading may be the correct restoration, it ought to be so indi-




cated. Moreover, the word could also be taken as [hU]lm ("to the peace of").

ibid. soyl-On this name, see also the fifth cent. B.C.E. text, Aim6- Giron, TAE, p. 98, and n. 2.

94:1 mrywn-The reading is clear. The name is assuredly derived from the root mr' ("be a lord"), with the 5n hypocoristic suffix. There is no need to question such a name in an early text since it is certainly Aram. Recourse to Latin or Greek etymologies is unneccessary.

95 lmlkw -The k is strange, and seems most consistently read as m, unless one assumes that there is a fissure in the stone at that point. Yet, the form mlmw is unknown to me.

97:4 'ply-Judging by the distinct plate, the aleph is gone, and should be so marked. I read the second word on the line as cm, though the second letter could also be r or d. The c is clear.

The purpose of these annotations is to high- light some problems, especially in the treatment of proper names, and to emphasize some important grammatical data in the texts. They are intended to add to the author's comments, and not to criticize them. Professor Teixidor is to be congratulated for his fine edition of these important Palmyrene inscriptions.

MICHAEL H. SILVERMAN THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

Die Anfdnge der Astronomie (Erwachende Wissen- schaft II) . By B. L. VAN DER WAERDEN.

Pp. xii and 316 + 33 pp. of illustrations. Groningen: P. NOORDHOFF LTD., 1966. Price Fl. 47.

Science Awakening, the preceding work in this series, is a history of Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek mathematics. Readers expecting a history of astronomy with the same scope will be in for a surprise when they open Die Anfange der As- tronomie: the concentration on Babylonian methods virtually excludes Greek astronomy, which has apparently been reserved for a third volume. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable and rewarding unity to the "Beginnings of Astron-

omy" as the total pattern of argument emerges from the details of the fabric.

The three opening chapters, which occupy about half of the book, systematically examine Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and early Per- sian astronomy. An extensive discussion of the Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga, with assistance from radiocarbon dating, leads Professor van der Waerden to the dates - 1727 to -1685 for the reign of Hammurabi. How Thales might have predicted the eclipse of -584 May 28 is another puzzle of long standing to which the author sup- plies an answer, albeit speculative: perhaps Thales applied a 2312-month cycle to the total lunar eclipse of -586 July 4-5.

Two chapters on Babylonian lunar and plane- tary calculations form the heart of the book. These ancient schemes are empirical and numer- ical; simple linear functions represent the mo- tions. The author shows clearly how the lunar and solar constants can be derived from a hand- ful of elementary observations of lunar eclipses. The fundamental work of Kugler and 0. Neuge- bauer underlies this entire section, but van der Waerden has added new insights of his own, for example, the first full explanation of the column B (Neugebauer's ci) in the lunar System A tables. The thorough column-by-column description of the systems is justified, for, as the author re- minds us, the lunar System A is the oldest example of an empirical but also mathematical scientific theory.

The wealth of detail on the Babylonian as- tronomical techniques has as its ultimate goal the dating of their origin. Van der Waerden not only postulates the origin of System A for the moon between - 620 and -440 and for the planets between -520 and - 300, but he suggests the name of its inventor: Nabu-rimannu, who lived in the 6th century B.C. Similarly he proposes the name of Kidinnu as the inventor of the lunar System B, around -450. A fourth "high point" in the flowering of Babylonian astronomy-the daily motion theory for Jupiter using third-order differences-remains unattrib- uted.

With chapter 7, "Sternreligion, Astrologie und

