422 Philippe Gignoux

The Xanthos Trilingual Revisited

ANmlli LEMAIRE

Paleographical and philological remarks try to clarify several problems of the

Aramaic text. Pixodaro(s) 'edictldiitiih (lines 6-18) is introduced by :;mr (end of
line 5). A clarification of the meaning of mhlJ,sn (line 19) and ylmhnsl (lines 20,
23., 26), as well as a proposed double emendation in line 22, aid in understand-
ing lines 19-27: the priest Simias initiated the engraving of this inscription
(line 19a), the purpose of which was to protect his property.

Figure 7. Kanheri: Pahlavi inscription on veranda pillar. Twenty years after its discovery in the summer of 1973, not all the
difficulties of the famous Xanthos trilingual have been solved. This
Greek, Lycian, and Aramaic trilingual certainly has contributed to a bet-
ter understanding of the Lycian language, especially thanks to the pio-
neering work of E. Laroche, in collaboration with H. Metzger and A.
Dupont-Sommer for the Greek and Aramaic texts. Although there are
still problems with the Lycian text, I shall rather try to deal here with
difficulties in the Aramaic text as a tribute to J. C. Greenfield, who chose
Aramaic as his favorite field of research. Taking as a basis the editio prin-
ceps of A. Dupont-Sommer, 1 I shall present several paleographical and
philological remarks, before offering a new translation.'

Aramaic Text
1. BYRI;I SYWN SNT I:ID
2. 'RTI:ISSS MLK'
3. B'WRN BYRT' PGSWD[R]

I
I. A. Dupont-Sommer, "IIle partie: L'Inscription arameenne," in Fouille5 de Xanthos VI:
I La Stele trilingue du Ut6on [hereafter abbrev. as Xanthos W] (ed. H. Metzger, E. Laroche,
A. Dupont-Sommer, and M- Mayrhofer; Paris, 1979) 129-78, pls. XVI-XXIII.
11.1
2. At some future opportunity, I shall discuss the long-debated problem of the date of
II Figure 8. Kanheri: Pahlavi inscription on veranda pillar. the inscription.
l
423
III IIIII
424 Andre Lemaire The Xanthos Trilingual Revisited 425

4. BR KTMNW l;ISTRPW space and the remains of two letters after the 0 alep, and the photographs
5. ZYBKRK WTRMYL 0MR corroborate Dupont-Sommer's personal examination of the inscription to
6. 0 TCSTW BCLY 0 WRN read :Jmr. Furthermore, this verb makes good sense in the context: it
7. K!DRINP" LMCBD LKNDWS introduces the official (written) declaration of the satrap.
8. 0
LH 0 KBYDSY WKNWTH . In line 6, Dupont-Sommer's translation of :Jtcitw 'they have thought,
9. wcBDW KMR 0 LSYMYN contemplated' is closer to the ambiguous Greek word edoxe and seems
10. BR KDWRS W 0 YTY BYIG[T?] better than 'they have instituted' 7 Even in Cowley 30,23, 0 tcst does not
11. ZYWLY 0 !WRN YHBW refer to a 'decision' but only to 'take thought for (that temple)': Bigvai,
12. LKNDWS 0 LH 0 WSNH BS governor of Judea, had no power to decide whether to (re)build a
13. NH MN MP YHYBN KSP temple in Yeb/Elephantine. The meaning of 0 tcstw is important for an
14. [M]NH l;ID WPLG KMR 0 ! ZNH understanding of the political relations between the people of Xanthos
15. ZBI;I LR0 !S YRW NQWH and Pixodaros: the project of the people of Xanthos had to be confirmed
16. LKNDWS 0 LW WDBIJ by Pixodaros for it to be enacted.
17. SNH BSNH TWR I WDM 0 At the end of line 6, bcly 0 wrn (cf. also line 11) is a West-Semitic des-
18. ]ZNH SBYQ ZYLH ignati<?n for the the citizens/ authorities of a town or country. It is al-
19. DTH DK KTB ZY MHI;I!SN op ready attested in eighth-century Aramaic;' the bcly of a town or of a
20. HN OyS MTWM YHNSL country may constitute 'a political assembly. 9
21. MN KNDWS 0 LH 0 0 W MN At the beginning of line 7, only pe and 0 alep are sure. The first two
22. KMR0 [Z]NH WYH!<WY> MN KNDWS letters could be dalet, kap, reS, or nun. 10 The reading krp:J is uncertain, es-
23. 0
LH 0 WKNWTH MHNSL pecially since the Iranian word *karpa is not attested elsewhere; there-
24. WMN °LH(Y) 0 UTW 0 RTMWS fore, the interpretation 'rite, cult' is still very uncertain.U Indeed, the
25. l;ISTRPTY W 0 l;IWRN < o >YS Greek ('altar') and Lycian ('sanctuary') seem to refer to something
26. MHNSL W 0 !LH 0 LHY 0 more concrete. One should note also that while cbd may mean 'worship
27. YBCWN MNH (a god)' in Hebrew and Judeo-Aramaic, this meaning is apparently not
attested in Imperial Aramaic, and the general meaning 'to make' would
fit better here if --p.:; designates something concrete.
Paleographical and Philological Remarks At the end of line 7, kndw~ (lines 7, 12, 16, 21; cf. kndws, line 22)
clearly corresponds to Lycian (<>r rather Caunian/Carian) chetawati (cf.
At the middle of line 3, byrt 0 corresponds to Greek polis (line 12): it is Luwian hantawati ) 12 'king'. However, it is considered in the Aramaic text
3 as the personal name of a deity. It should not, therefore, be translated
a 'city' or 'fortified town', rather than a simple 'citadel' or 'stronghold' .
At the end of the same line, Dupont-Sommer was in doubt as to the 'king', even if the Greek text has basilei (line 7). In Aramaic, 'king'
length of the lacuna, but there is clearly room for only one letter: res.
The alternative reading proposed by Dupont-Sommer, pgswd[rw], 4 must 7. Pace Teixidor, ibid., 182, but with P. Frei, Review of Xanthos VI, in BiOr 38 (1981)
cols. 366-67.
be rejected on paleographical as well as phonological' grounds. 8. Cf. bcly ktk, bcly ::.rpd: Sfire I A 4; I B 4-5_; cf. III, 23.26; see A. Lemaire and J.-M.
At the end of line 5, Dupont-Sommer's reading _:lmr'said' has been dis- Durand, "Les Inscriptions arameennes de Sfire et l'Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu" (HEO 20;
puted by J. Teixidor, 6 who reads only the 0 a!.ep. However, there is clearly Geneva and Paris, 1984) 113-31.
9. Cf. M. Sznycer, "L'Assemblc§e du peuple dans les cites puniques d'apres les te-
3. Cf. A. Lemaire and H. Lozachmeur, "Biriih/birtit='en arameen,n Sy:ria64 (1987) 261-66. moignages epigraphiques," Sem 25 (1975) 47-68, esp. 65.
4. Xanthos VI, 140. 10. Xanthos VI, 145 does not mention nun; but see the shape of nun in kndW$ (same
5. Cf. Greek PixiJdaros (and not PixOdarOs) and Lycian Pigesere!Pichesere. line).
6.]. Teixidor, "Bulletin d'€:pigraphie semitique," Syria 52 (1975) 261-95, esp. 287-88 = 11. The reading dnp::. would not be impossible (cf. perhaps Iranian diina-).
Bulletin_d'epigraphie simitique (1964-1980) (BAH 127; Paris, 1986) 339-40; cf. also "The Ara- 12. Xanthos Vl, 105-6, 145. One wonders whether the transcription with final -s could
maic Text of the Trilingual Stele from Xantbos," JNES 37 (1978) 181-85, esp. 181. correspond to a (Luwian nominative?) ending -tis> t(i)s > s.
426 Andre Lemaire The Xanthos Trilingual Revisited 427

would have been written m/k( 0 ) , but this word has already been used for of the corresponding Greek word polis, but mt!, an Akkadian loanword in
Artaxerxes (line 2), and the redactor may have avoided it consciously, Aramaic, means 'country' and not 'town' in Imperial Aramaic. 21 A com-
since it might create confusion. Furthermore, he specified the category parison of the two formulae with yhb makes it likely that the assembly of
of the name: "IF 'the god', which does not appear in the Greek text. the bcly 0 wrn represented not only the city of Orna but also the sur-
In line 8, one would expect kbydsy" if it had been related to "lh"; so rotlnding country. 22
kbydfy may have been directly connected with kndw$. Furthermore, it is The last word of line 16 is very difficult to read and interpret. The
difficult to accept an Aramaic ethnicon -sy; 13 kbydfy could be rather an first letter may be daletlrci!kap or nun; the second is a clear enough bet,
ethnicon of kbydS, perhaps a transcription of Lydian chbide with a (Lu- but the third one is strange. Dupont-Sommer proposed, tentatively, to
wian nominative?) ending -is. So one may propose to translate kndw~ :;lh::; read it as a sade and to interpret the word as rb$, a verb parallel to zbl}, 'to
kbydsy as 'the god Kandawats Caunian', rather than 'the King, the God of sacrifice' (line 15): 23 "Nous proposons done, sous toute reserve, le verbe
Caunos'. 14 RBS (racine II) 'asperger, saupoudrer', d'ou peut-etre 'immoler' ... -"
At the end of line 8, Dupont-Sommer reads knwth, while Teixidor Teixidor reads only "r[ . .]." 25 However, as Dupont-Sommer made it
and Neumann 15 have only wr[ . . ]. The reading knwth is clear enough if clear, his reference to rb.$ II 'sprinkle', hence 'sacrifice'(?), seems very
one takes into account that a taw was added above the line of writing. dubious, and it seems convenient to seek another solution. The last let-
This reading is confirmed by the same word in line 23. Aramaic knwth ter may also be interpreted as a ~et (cf. zb~, line 15), with a short vertical
'his colleagues' corresponds to Greek Arkesimai and to Lycian ArKKa- stroke (cf. mMsn, line 19) 26 and the last word read as db}J 'sacrifice',
zuma16 chitawati. Arkesimas/ArKKazuma looks like a theonym, but Aramaic which is an alternative writing of zb~ (line 15). This simple alternative
knwth is a common name, with a personal suffix relating to 'Kandawats'. reading would explain why the Greek and Persian texts used only one
One wonders whether knwth is not a translation 17 of Lycian ArKKazuma verb meaning 'to sacrifice'. It is moreover possible, since the variant writ-
chetawati. In that case, ArKKazuma/ArWVVazuma, probably of Carian ori- ings dlz for *dare well attested during the Persian Period, sometimes in
gin/8 would mean 'colleague(s)'. the same inscription." Indeed, note for example, znh (lines 14, 18), dk
At the end of line 10, it is paleographically possible to hesitate be- (line 19), and zy (lines 18, 19) in this inscription.
tween three possible readings: by [t], by/ 9 and bg. 20 Either by or byt may The sentence of line 19, dth dk ktb zy mh~sn, has been interpreted in
designate a 'house' or a piece of 'property, a plot of land,' while baga various ways:
would be an Iranian loanword meaning 'estate', which is about the same (a) Dupont-Sommer translates: 'Cette loi-ci, il (Pix6daro) (!')a in-
thing. The context makes a choice between these three possible readings serite, (lui) qui est maitre (de Ia decision)'. 28 However, this would mean
difficult. that the subject had not been mentioned since line 3, and this is really
The verb yhb 'to give' appears twice in the following lines, once in difficult to accept. Furthermore, the interpretation of zy mh}]sn 'master
the active form, Vly "wrn yhbw (line II), and once in the passive form, (of the decision)' is more a reference to the Greek text Pix8taros de kurios
mn mt"yhybn (line 13). Dupont-Sommer translated mt"as 'town' because est8 than a translation of the Aramaic where, with this meaning, one
would expect mr~ or bel tcm.
13. Against Xanthos VI, 145.
14. Xanthos Vl, 145. 21. Cf. S. A Kaufman, The Akkadian Influence on Aramaic (AS 19; Chicago, 1974) 71;
15. Teixidar, "Aramaic Text of Trilingual Stele," 181; G. Neumann, Neujunde Likischer In- I. Kottsier)er, Die Sfrrache der Ahiqarspruche (BZAW 194; Berlin, 1990) 243-44. However, me
schriften seit 1901 (Vienna, 1979) 46. 'town' is well attested in both Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Mandaic.
16. Ibid., 44 prefers the transcription ArWWazuma (see already 0. Carruba, "Commen- 22. Cf. the perioikoi in the Greek text. On this last word in Lycia, cf. t Hahn, "Peri6ken
tario alia trilingue licio-greco-aramaica di Xanthos," Studi Miceni edEgeo-Anatolui 18 [1977] und Peri6kenbesitz in Lykien," Klio 63 (1981) 51-61.
273-318, esp. 294). On this problem of transcription, see also L. Sanz Mingote, "La escri- 23. The Greek and Lycian texts have only one verb for zbl.J,and rbi(?): thuein and kumezidi.
tura licia: Una propuesta de transcripci6n;' Aula Orientalis 7 (1989) 95-103, esp. 97, 103. 24. Xanthos W, 150.
17. Cf. the translation in the Greek text of chetawati by basilei, while it is simply ren- 25. Teixidor, ·~aic Text of Trilingual Stele," 180.
dered by kndw$ 'Kandawats' in Aramaic. 26. Cf. also Xanthos Vl, 163: "Les deux signes iadi et Mt peuvent arriver i se confondre
18. Cf. Laroche, Xanthos VI, 57, 114. si la· haste de droite du Mt est indliment raccourcie."
19. Xanthos Vl, 147. 27. Cf. S. Segert, Altaramiiische Grammaitk (Leipzig, 1975) 92, §3.2.7.5.3.
20. Teixidor, "Aramaic Text of Trilingual Stele," 181 n. 1. 28. Xanthos VI, 137.
428 Andre Lemaire The Xanthos Trilingual Revisited 429
(b) Teixidor translates: 'This edict (hereby) inscribed is the one that 35
is doubtful. Furthermore, the translation 'the existing priest' seems
conveys the title to the property' .29 In this case, ktb would be a passive strange and has no parallel. Teixidor proposed, rather, to interpret nhwy:J
participle with a defective writing. Although the full writing yhybn as an imperfect with the prefix n- (well known in Syriac); it would be con-
appears in line 13, such a defective writing might not be impossible. nected to the two participles mh14l 36 However, the prefix n- is attested
However, dth is feminine, 30 and the passive participle should also be on.ly in Syriac, while in Biblical Aramaic, and perhaps in Arebsun, we
feminine. Furthermore, the Haphel participle mhlfsn is generally related have the prefix l-. 37 Furthermore, o_ne would expect nhwhfO!y, but not
to a person and not to a writ. nhwy"; and, in that case, the final "alep would be very difficult to explain.
Now recent studies of the Haphel participle of /Jsn in Imperial Ara- Faced with such difficulties in interpreting the reading nhwy:;;, one
maic31 have clearly shown that Aramaic yalfsen is parallel to Hebrew yin- wonders whether it should not be corrected, even if such a solution
/Jal and that a mh!Jsn is a 'hereditary property-holder'. But who owns the seems rather desperate. In fact, one could think of two mistakes made by
property here? The first part of the inscription indicates the god Kanda- the engraver: (1) There is some space between kmr 0 and nh.... , and,
wats and (or rather, i.e.) his priest Simias; 32 this last one is the true because at the beginning of line 14 the engraver may have forgotten to
owner, as indicated by the last sentence of Pixodaros: wdm 0 znh sbyq zy lh engrave a (small) letter: the place could well fit a zayin, which is only a
(line 18) 'and this domain which is freed is his'. This interpretation is vertical stroke. This correction would give the demonstrative (z)nh, not
confirmed by the Greek text, which shows that Simias and his heirs were out of place after the emphatical kmr 0 (cf. kmr 0 znh, line 14). (2) The
to be the true owners of the domain. In such a case, one may very well reading of the letter after wy is uncertain. The shape looks like that of a
38
understand that Simias was interested in engraving the edict of Pixo- gime4 and the reading :;;alep is Dupont-Sommer's correction. However,
daros, which gave him a domain free of taxes. another correction is possible: the missing stroke could be a vertical
The next sentence is probably to be understood in this context. As stroke inside the angle, which would produce a he. 39 The word wyh does
already shown by Greenfield," in Aramaic documents of the Persian Pe- not seem to make sense here. If waw is an apodosis waw (after a condi-
riod, hn$l means 'to remove, to take (back)', or 'to reclaim' what has tional sentence beginning with Jp hn), one would expect the jussive
been given; it is specified several times that what has been given cannot yh<wy) 'let him be .. .': one might propose correcting a mistake due to
be reclaimed. This meaning fits perfectly here: haplography, reading wyh(wy) ... mhn,l (Hophal participle). In that pas-
1. hn,lis preceded by the verb 'to give', attested twice (yhbw, line 11, sive apodosis, the subject is probably the man ("y§: line 20) who took
and yhybn, line 13); (anything) away (yhn~l) 40 Needless to say, this second emendation is
2. hn,l is followed by mn + PN. conjectural.
In the middle of line 22, Dupont-Sommer reads nhwy~ which he in- The gods of the sanctuary are mentioned in the last conditional sen-
terprets as an emphatic Niphal participle and translates 'le pretre (alors) tence, beginning with waw41 Teixidor proposed emending 0 lh o (line 24)
existant'. 34 However, as he pointed out, the Niphal of the verb hwh is not in the plural :;;lh(y)J; 42 this small emendation seems reasonable, since
attested in Aramaic; in fact, the existence of Niphal in Imperial Aramaic :;;alep and yod are confused several times in this inscription. A similar con-
jectural emendation could be made at the end of line 25, correcting the
29. Teixidor, "Aramaic Text of Trilingual Stele," 184. reading tO e)ysor 0 (y)s (cf. 0 ys, line 20).
30. Cf. Dan 2:13, 15.
31. See H. Z. Szubin and B. Parten, "'Ancestral Estates' in Aramaic Contracts: The 35: Cf. P. Leander, Laut- und Formenlehre der A.gyptisch-aramiiischen (Hildesheim, 1966 =
Legal Significance of the Term mhl)sn,~ ]RAS (1982) 3-9; see also B. Parten and H. Z. Szu- GOteborg, 1928) §21b; Segert, Grammatik, 257, §5.6.7.3.7.
bin, '"Hereditary Leases in Aramaic Letters," BiOr 42 (1985) cols. 283-88; seeP. Grelot, "Es- 36. Teixidor, ''Aramaic Text of Trilingual Stele," 184; Review of Xanthos VI, in Syria 56
sai de restauration du papyrus AP. 26," Sem 20 (1970) 23-31, esp. 30-31. (1979) 394, no. 162.
32. Teixidor ("Aramaic Text of Trilingual Stele," 184) explains "(i.e. the god's)," but 37. Cf. Segen, Altaramiiische Grammatik, 297: §5.7.8.1.6.
the god does not act by himself: the priest Simias is acting in his name and both are clearly 38. See Xanthos VI, 154.
associated (cf. line 21: mn kndws ::.zh::> ::>w mn kmr::.). 39. Cf. the he of (z)nhjust before try.
33. J Greenfield, "Aramaic HNSL and Some Biblical Passages," in Meqor hajjim: Fest- 40. Cf. R. Contini, Review of Xanthos VI, in GrAnt 20 (1981) 233; Frei, Review of Xan-
schnft G. Moltn (Graz, 1983) 116-19; cf. also H. Z. Szubin and B. Parten, "A Life Estate of thos VI, col. 368.
Usufruct: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 6," BASOR 269 (1988) 29-45, esp. 41. 41. Cf. Segert, AltaramiiUche Grammatik, §7.5.4.2.
34. Xanthos VI, 154. 42. Teixidor, ''Aramaic Text of Trilingual Stele," 184 n. 21.
 I

~.

430 Andre Lemaire The Xanthos Trilingual ReVisited 431

At the end of line 26, Dupont-Sommer understood "lh "lhy"as refer- rep_resen~ the. o_fficial position/response/rescript of Pixodaros promul-
ring to Kandawats and his colleagues. However, ::Jlh :J~hy;:; ~eans '~hes~ gating this rehgwus law (diitiih). The Aramaic inscription also mentions
gods'" and refers, rather, to 'the god(s) Leto, Artemis, I;Isatrapatl ... (line 1;a) tha~ the _law was engraved on the order of "the property-
(lines 24-25). holder, the pnest Simias, who probably thought it the best way of avoid-
At the end of the inscription, "lh "lhy" ybcwn mnh is parallel to the ing. any reclamation. The same priest probably added the two male-
Cilician inscriptions of Kese~ek Koyii ( wybch lh shr wsms) and Gi:izneh diction~ in lines 19b-23 and 24-27, putting his property under the
( wybcwn lh bel smyn rb" shr wsmf). However, there is a difference in the protectiOn of his gods and of the great gods of the main sanctuary of
formula: here the verb bch is followed by mn (and not by I). In fact, here Orna, where the stele was erected.
bch is probably a Qal and not a Pace/, 44 and the suffix -h is not the object Ho':ever, even if the Aramaic text is clearly the official text, being
of the verb bch. The object of lines 24-27 seems to be Imphed, that Is, placed m the center between the Greek and Lycian texts, 45 one should
the stele with the inscription (diitiih), which is put under the protection note ~at. t~ough it is the longest monumental inscription in Imperial
of the gods of the main sanctuary. Aramaic, It IS not very well engraved. Without going into the details of a
paleographic analysis," I would state that one may clearly discern many
mistakes in this beautiful, official stele.
Translation
1. ,One letter (taw) was forgotten and later added above the line
1-5. In the month of Siwan, year one of King Artaxerxes, in the (end of line 8).
fortified city of Orna, Pixodaro(s) son of Katamno(s), the satrap in Caria . 2. At least one (mem at the beginning of line 14) if not two (zayin,
and Lycia, said/promulgated: · hne 22) letters were not engraved, though the engraver left space for
6-18. "The 'citizens' of Orna have contemplated instituting a cult/ them. These letters were probably written in ink by the scribe who wrote
making a chapel(?) to the god Kandawats Caunian and his colleagues. the model, but the engraver later forgot to engrave them.
And they made Simias son of Koddorosi priest. And there is a property . 3. Several letters are probably missing by haplography: two letters in
which the 'citizens' of Orna gave to the god Kandawats. Year after year a !me 22, wyh(wy>; one letter in line 23, 0 /h(y) 0 ; and one letter at the end
(mi)na and a half of silver will be given by the country. This priest will of line 25, "<y>s or e>ys; the last two mistakes being a consequence of
sacrifice to the god Kandawats a sheep for the new moon, and he will the easy confusiOn between the shapes of "alep and yod (infra).
sacrifice every year an ox. And this domain, which is his own, is freed." 4. The small upper right stroke of 0 alep is sometimes missing (lines
19a. The property-holder has written this law. 11, 14, 15, 26); thus they are easily confused with yod or gimel
19b-23. Furthermore, if ever someone takes (anything) away from . 5. Similarly, the middle stroke of the he 47 is probably missing in the
the god Kandawats or from ( t) his priest, let him be taken away by the god middle of !me 22, so that this letter is easily confused with gimel, yod, or
0
Kandawats and his colleagues. alep.
24-27. And whoever takes (anything/the stele?) away from the 6. Several letters present anomalous shapes: lamed in line 9, $ade/J;,et
god(s) Leto, Artemis, I;Isatrapati and others, these gods will seek (for it) at the end of lines 16 and 19, bet at the beginning of line 27; moreover,
from him. the shape of the samek is peculiar, to say the least.
7. Especially from line 19 downward, the lines of writing tend to
Even without a detailed analysis of the differences between the Ara- slope down on the left.
maic and Greek texts, it seems fairly clear that the Greek text represents 8. In the last line, the spaces between waw and nun, and nun and he
the position of the local authorities, with two archont~s of Lycia and .a are unusual.
governor of Xanthos established or confirmed by PJXodaros at th_eir . This large number of mistakes is all the more surprising, because the
head; their proposition has still to be promulgated by the satrap: Pzxota- znscnption zs engraved on a beautiful stele, and the Greek inscription is
ros de kurios esto (line 35). However, lines 6-18 of the Aramaic inscription
45. Xanthos VI, 133.
43. Ibid., 184. 46. Cf. the remarks above (pp. 424-29) and Dupont-Sommer's comments.
44. Cf. Dan 2:16, 18, 49; 7:16. 47. The shape of the he in this inscription seems to be influenced by the Lycian e.
 I
~

Andre Lemaire
432

a generally well-engraved stoichidon. 48 The engraver probably did not

know Aramaic and was not used to engraving Aramaic 1nscnptw~s. T~1s
·
1S · ·
not surpns1ng ·
since, a t Xanthos , "moins de
~
5% des textes 1nscnts
~
d'epoquearchalque et classique sont en arameen. Cette langue apparalt The Inscribed Marble Vessels from Kition
' . ,49
essentiellement comme l'instrument d e I empue.

48. Xanthos VI, 32. I' • d It "

49. C. Le Roy, "'-- •
.(ll<1lueen, 1yCien
· et grec·. Pluralite des langues et plura tte es cu ures,
Hethetica 8 (1987) 263-66, esp. 264.
E. LIPINSKI

A number of Phoenician inscriptions on fragments of white marble, found on the

szte of Eshmun-Melqart's sanctuary at Kition, reproduce a dedicatory formula
that is reconstr:l;Lcted here ?n the basis of recent reeditions of the fragments in
qu.,estion. The possible aim of these offerings of marble bowls and the nature of the
deity so honored are further examined.

The Cesnola collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,

comprises a number of Phoenician inscriptions on fragments of white
marble bowls, which occasionally show a spout or a handle. The inscrip-
tions are engraved in a single line around the rim; one is written in two
lines on the belly of the bowl. All the pieces were found between 1869
and 1871 and seem to derive from a single site, a small sanctuary of the
Phoenician deity Eshmun-Melqart, which occupied the low hill called
Batsalos among the salt lagoons southeast of ancient Kition. 1
Although the dedications are very fragmentary, they are sufficient to
restore a whole formula, which Ernest Renan proposed reading as fol-
lows: "On the X day of the month Yin the year Z of Pumayyaton, king of
Kition and Idalion, son of king Milkyaton, king of Kition and Idalion, N
son of NN vowed this gift to his Lord, to Eshmun-Melqart, for he heard
his voice; may he bless."' Not all the bowls bore the full formula, while
others -had additional data, such as the donor's official title. The new
publication of these inscriptions by M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, 3 on the one
hand, and by J. Teixidor, 4 on the other, has provided an opportunity to

1. For information on the site where these bowls were found, see G. Colonna Ceccaldi,
"Decouvertes de Chypre," Revue archeologique n.s. 11/21 (1870) 24-27.
2. CIS!, vol. I, p. 48.
3. M. G. Amadasi Guzzo and V. Karageorghis, Fouilles de Kition, vol. 3: Inscriptions
pMniciennes (Nicosia, 1977) A 5-25 and E 3.
4.]. Teixidor, "The Phoenician Inscriptions of the Cesnola Collection," MMJ11 (1976)
55-70.

433