Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions 9783161493034, 3161493036

Citation preview

Karel Jongeling

Handbook of Neo-Punic

Inscriptions

Mohr Sıebeck

Karel Jongeling, born 1947; studied semitic languages in Groningen; Northwest-Semitics in Leiden.

1984 PhD.; lecturer of

ISBN-978-3-16-149303-4 Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at /ttp://dnb.d-nb.de.

© 2008

by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound GroObuchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface

This ‘Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions’ is just what the title implies, a basic tool for everyone who wants to study the Neo-Punic inscriptions. Quite anumber of detailed studies are necessary before a definitive edition of these texts is possible.* The main reason for its publication is twofold. In the first place it is important to stress that the editions and readings of many of these texts leave something to be desired, because so many of them have not been restudied in the last few decades. In the second place, it is difficult for many scholars to access all the texts as many of them have been edited in obscure journals, often not easily obtained. It would have been better, of course, had we had access to all originals, or at least good photographs of them, but it will be a time-consuming project to procure the photographs, and in the mean time a tool like this is useful for most ordinary purposes. Note, however, that the present author also did not have access to quite a number of publications. Some of the more obscure 19th-century journals are not in the Leiden University Library, while many modern editions are also not included in the same library. The form we have chosen for this collection is the accepted one. It is, therefore, comparable to text editions like KA/, Amapası 1967 and also JONGELING-KERR 2005, although the discussion of the textual problems is somewhat more extensive in this work than in the last mentioned one. The order in which the texts are presented is a geographical one, and each text 1s presented with a translation (if possible), and when necessary with a short commentary and bibliographical information. For several of these texts we have added a line drawing, always based upon published photographs or drawings. All drawings were made by the author. Some concordances (pp. XXI-XXIIT) provide an easy comparison with some well known edition, viz. the collection Punica edited by CHABOT, and the Neo-Punic texts in KAl.

" Cf. e.g. AMADASI

(1995b:

162): ‘Dans ce domaine, il serait important de conduire une étude

systématique des inscriptions d'époque tardive ...,' and in the same vein much earlier ROLLIG (1983: 376): ‘In this respect it is lamentable that the textual basis is not sufficient in all cases. The solution in these instances — I am thinking of the inscriptions from Guelma, Maktar and Tripolitania for example - is a careful reedition of the texts.’ The happiness about the announced new editions of the texts from Maktar and Tripolitania, expressed by ROLLIG (ib. note 10) has, as we know, until now only resulted in the reedition of the Tripolitanian texts. Apart from that edition we have the Constantine stelae that are preserved in Paris in SPC and the British Museum stelae in MENDLESON 2003.

V]

Preface

This monograph could not have been completed without the help of friends, of whom we want to mention my daughter Johanna Jongeling who checked the English, Robert Kerr, who provided some material and discussed most of it with us and

Marjanne Oosting, for her help with both indices and a final reading of the text. For all shortcomings I am, of course, solely responsible. K. Jongeling

Leiden, December 2006

Table of Contents

Preface

. . ..νν νιν

Introduction

ν εν ν

........

Bibliographical

Concordances

ce

0.0...

ce cece

ΑὈὈγονι δος...

..............

rss ee

. «Ὁ

V

eh νον νιν νιν νν νειν νειν νν νιν

XIII νννν

sees

A Note On The History Of Neo-Punic Epigraphical Studies

XVII

XXI

..............

l

l. Text from Egypt ........νονννννν νειν νιν νννννννν νιν nn

8

Memphis

8

......... 0.0.0... cece

2. Texts from Libya

rens

........0 0... cece een

El-Amruni

...........

leer

BirGebira

..........

0.0.

Breviglieri (Ras el-Hadagia) Bu Khemmasc Hr. Gen Rieime

1]

ss

12

.............. eee ee ee ne ee e

12

εν eee

eee

eee eee eee

........... νιν νιν νννννννννν νιν IB

....:: oo Herren

Mselleten . 2.2.2

oo oo

erer en

4]

41]

νυν εν νιν

Samet el-Créma...........

κεν ee

νυν ν νυν νυν

Saniat ben Howedl

rs εν νειν νειν

44

ras

.....: oc come

Cocoon I I I

Tarhuna

13 40

......«Ὁνννννν νειν eee eee eee eee

Sabratha...........

Tnpoli

0.0

cece

ll

eee

Misurata Marina

ΙΝ

9

hse

......... 0.0...

............

Labdah (Lepcis Magna)

Al-Qusbat

eee

9

53 53

ht

54

es

54

.............eeeeeeelee eR I I A et tt

55

............

Wadi el-Amud

eee

............... 0. eee eee rs

Zaiuet el-Mahgiub............ 0. ce eee nennen:

58

60

VIII

Table of Contents

3. Texts from ΤΊΠΙ518.......Ὁννννννννννν νιν νιν cece eens

62

Ain Barchouch ... νον νον νιν νιν νιν νιν eee Ain Zakkar oc ce e

e

ah ae

62 62

Arg el-Ghazouani «6.0... cee Bedja (Vaga) .. 0... eee

eee eee

64 64

Bir bou Rekba (Thinissut) .. 2... 222 oc cn onen Bir Tlelsa... 222202 oo ee μεν νιν νιν νιν νιν ν γεν νι Bordj Bou Chateur (008)... ....ὐὐν nea Bordj Helal .......ὐνν νιν νιν νν ene e Bou Grara (Gigthis) ......ννννν νι νιν νιν νιν ee eee eee Carthage ΠΕ eens

65 66 68 68 69 69

Djebel Mansour ((θ64|65}).......νννννννν νιν νιν νειν νιν m Ie

73

Djebel Massoud] .......νὐνν νιν νννννννν νιν n El-Djem (Thysdrus) .... 0.0.0... ccc ete eens Dougga (Thugga) .............. νιν νιν νιν εν νννννν I n Elles (Thigibba) ........Ὁὐνν νιν νι cette nets Gabes(Tacapes) .......ὐννν νιν νειν νιν νειν νιν ν νιν ννννννννννννννννγνννων Ghzaizya on eee nents Hammam Derradji (Bulla Regia) ........... νιν νν νιν ce eee Hr. el-Aouin ....:: 22 νι νιν νιν ee ar Hr. el-Blida (Abitinae) ...:: 2:0 νον νιν νιν ιν νι νννν RI Hr. Brighita (Sucubi)........222 2 co ννν νιν νειν ene tenes Hr. Djebbara ........νννννννννννννννν nent eee eee Hr. Drombi .............. esee RR 3h eres Hr. Ghayadha ................. 2. Hr. Guergour (Μαϑοι|14).......Ὁν νον νι νιν νιν νν eens Hr. Hammam Zouakra ..... «οὐ νιν ιν eens Hr.el-Hammi ....:::2: ce eee rns Hr. Kasbat (Thuburbo Majus) ..........0000 00. cece Hr. Kranfir . 0... eee Re a aas Hr. Maktar (Mactar) 2.0.2.0... 00. Hr. Meded (Mididi) .......22 2222 oo oo νιν νιν νιν νιν ν νειν e Hr. Medeine (Althiburus) ..........sseeeseeee eens Hr. Merah(Suo) ............. lees has Hr. Oum Guerguer.... νον ννν νιν νν νιν ννν νιν ehh Hr. Sidi Khalifat (Pheradi Maius) ..........2..c νιν νι νν νιν νιν νννννννννι Hr.Ziàn ER El Kef ER Kélibia (Clupea) ........ννν νον νννννν νιν νιν νιν RII rr Kesra (Chusira) 222222222 RR c ues Ksar Lemsa (Limisa) 2.222220 0000 RR RR

74 75 75 7ὃ 79 79 79 80 δ] 8] 82 83 84 86 89 89 89 90 9] 145 155 159 160 160 161 16] 162 162 162

Table of

Contents

IX

Ksar Toual Zouameul (Vicus Maracitanus) 2.22.02 ccm ΟΕ rhe Ksour Abd el-Melek (Uzappa) .........Ὁὐν νιν νιν νιν νιν νιν eee Maghraoua ............... εν ν νιν νιν νειν rr Metameur 2.2... ones hrs Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi ............ 222 o onen Sidi Ali Belkassem (Thuburnica) .....2.:: 2222 oo Sousse (Hadrumetum) ......... 2.22 con eens Tatahouine ....... sse hrs Teboursouk (Thibursicu Bure) ......Ὁννν νον νιν νιν νιν νιν eee eee Thibar ......Ὁνν νιν νιν νιν νειν νιν νιν νιν νιν νιν νιν RR reel Zaghouan (Ziqua) .......νὐν νιν νν ιν νννν eee teens Tunisia OU oo. eee hn

163 164 164 167 167 167 168 168 175 175 182 182 182

4. Texts from Αἰρθγια......

191

. ..νν νιν ννν νιν νιν νιν νν νειν εν

e

Ainel-Kebch ..........::: νιν νιν νιν νιν een eens Ain Youssef ........ cesses eee rrr rrr Les Andalouses (Castra Puerorum?) ...........lllllle ees AISCU ... eee ehh hh hrs Cherchel (Iol Caesarea)... Constantine (Cirta) 2.0... rre Dellys (Rusuccuru) . .....ὐννν νιν νιν ννν νιν νιν seen rennen Gouraya (Gunugu) pottery marks ..... 2.22. ν νιν νιν cece nennen Guelma (Calama) ....... «ον νιν νιν εν eee ee ene es Hr. Bou Atfan ......::: 0 Cocoon eee eee ννννι Kef Bezioun (Zattara) ........ sceler Kef Smaar (Columnata) ............. l.l Khallik 0. RR RR RR RR RA ác Kheneg (Tiddis) 2.0... 0.0.00 cee es Ksiba Mraou (Civitas Popthensis) .......... 0.0000. Oudjel (Uzelis) 2... 0. ete νιν ν νιν νι Qalat Abi s-Siba 2... er Souk Arrhas (Thagaste).. 0.0.0.0... νιν eens Takembrit (Siga) 2.0... ne ene eee nenn 1 2. en hh rers Tiffech (Tipasa in Numidia) .........0 0.0000. re Tipasa (in Mauretania) ....... 0.0... eee 9 νιν μιν

191 19] 192 192 193 196 225 226 228 244 245 246 246 246 247 249 249 252 252 252 253 253

Tirekbine

253

.....:: 0 oo corner

X

Table of

5. Texts from Morocco Banasa

.... 0.

Thamusida Volubilis

ee

.......... ........

Morocco OU

eee ce eee

cee

......

0.

eee eee

rr

255

rs

ec eee εν εν

0.

0.

6. Text from Greece Delos

...............sseeee ce

Melilla ........ 0c

Contents

a

255

4 εν ν γεν ννων 255

eee ee

s

ss

256 256

eere

258

...... 02er

260

2.2.2.2: oo

260

7. Texts from Malta and Pantelleria............................. 261 Malta...

oo oo

Pantelleria

..........

8. Texts from Sicily

ehh

e

261

llle

267

........ 0.0000

269

Favignana 2.0... εν νιν εν ν ee hr ras 269 Grotta Regina ......:: cc co νιν εν cee eee teen teens 269 Palermo

Sicily OU

.............

lee

9. Texts from mainland Italy Pompei Rome

sh

Be

........00.. 0000.00.00

....«τὐνννννννν νειν νιν νιν εν νιν νιν rs ............

eee

270

270

272 272

aas

273

10. Texts from Sardinia .......:: oo con

274

Antas

274

....... lees

Cagliari ............ celer ras Capo di Pula 2.0... e hrs Chia... uer Olbia .... «νον νιν νιν νων εν νιν Rss

274 274 275 276

S.ANtlOCO

276

Thartos

νυν εν ν νυν earl ...............

lle

282

Table of Contents

|]. Texts from Spain

....... «νον ν νιν

Xl

ccc

ννν

e

284

Almería ........ cesser hehe Cartagena .......... llle eee hrs (0)X: RR] e ras Malaga... RR RR Rh raa Mallorca ................eesseseeeeeele rr Villaricos 20 RR RR RR RR eee eee nna

284 284 284 285 286 287

12. Text from Wales ...........ssssssssssseeee

289

nern

Holt .... «ον νιν νιν νιν εν νν νειν rares

289

13. Coins with Neo-Punic ἰθρθπηαξ.......{νννννννν νιν ννν νιν νιν ννειν 290 Appendices Onomasticon ...........lllleee ehe hrs Vocabulary ΕἸ ΕΞ ΞΈΞΞΕΕΕ Bibliography .....««ον νιν νιν cece νννννν rh

313 38] 41]

Introduction

The editions of Neo-Punic inscriptions leave still much to be desired and this situation has not changed much since we commented upon it in JoNGELING 1984 (5-13). Apart from collections of important texts that still have not been edited adequately, as e.g. is the case with the texts from Hr. Maktar! (an edition of these texts has

been promised for several decades, but it is still wanting), other collections were published, but not always with useful photographs or drawings, which are highly important as the interpretation of several Neo-Punic signs is still controversial, and will remain so in the future because of the cursive character of the script. The study of Neo-Punic texts has been the subject of several general articles in the last fifty years, as e.g. FEVRIER 1963, FERJAOUI 1995. For FÉVRIER it was still important to give a definition of the term Neo-Punic (FÉvRIER 1963: 257), which, correctly, for him is only an indication of the type of script used in a text. Note, however, how he, in the same paragraph, insists on the difference between the spelling of the text written in Punic script, and those in Neo-Punic script, the latter ones written in an orthography that tries to be phonetic and only half succeeds. He is even convinced of Latin influence on this change in the principle of Punic spelling. It seems to us more probable that the development of this modernized Punic spelling should be described as an internal development, in many ways comparable to developments in the spelling of Hebrew, where vowel letters emerged much earlier, in a period when Greek or Latin influence is not to be expected. Somehow many scholars find reason to suppose that the people writing Punic texts in Neo-Punic script did not reflect on the way they chose the orthography. So e.g. FÉvRIER (1963: 262), who notes that there is no reason to suppose that the use of matres lectiones was systematic or rational, while it ıs at least quite clear that the use of vowel letters in Latin personal names and other loans was based on a system that was used in almost all Neo-Punic inscriptions from North Africa, as was correctly noted by AMADASI (1995: 162), when she speaks of the inscriptions of the late period of which the orthography is not as barbaric and irregular as has been maintained for a long time.” On the differentiation of (Phoenician), Punic and Neo-Punic, cf. also

! FÉvRIER (1963: 265) notes that the texts from Mactar will be published by him in the near future. Since then an edition by SzNvcER and FANTAR has been announced several times (cf. e. g. SZNYCER

1998: 51, n. 39)

? Cf. also JoNGELING 19892; id., 1990; id., 2003.

XIV

Introduction

SZNYCER 1978b,? 1999, AMADASI 2005. FERJAOUI 1995 notes, correctly, that many of the Neo-Punic texts have not been published adequately.? [n the Semitic texts the usual signs have been used, indicates signs only partially preserved or the reading of which is uncertain, [ ] is used to indicate reconstructed parts of the text, to indicate extant text supposedly written incorrectly, while we have used {} to indicate text written in Punic characters in those instances where texts were written partly in Punic and partly in Neo-Punic script. This was only done in the few texts where the text abruptly changes from one type of script to the other. [n several texts some signs have a Punic form while most signs are Neo-

Punic. This feature is not indicated in the edited text. We want to note especially that the numbering of texts in this collection differs from earlier overviews,? mainly because several texts were removed

from the list

as their script is rather Punic than Neo-Punic. This is the case e.g. with several texts from Sousse, while we also left aside the text from Cap Djinet presented as a Neo-Punic one by ROLLIG in KAI (sub 170), for which one may compare the drawing published by FEvRIER in 1954d: 86. In other instances, we found that in previous overviews we had listed the same text twice, basing ourselves on different editions. As was noted supra, the script used is the only differentiation between Punic and Neo-Punic. Therefore a systematic study of the Neo-Punic script is one of the desiderata in this discipline. Although we succeeded in providing some 200 drawings of Neo-Punic texts, these may only be used to get an impression of what the present author thought he could discern in older drawings and published photographs. These drawings cannot be used as the basis for a thorough study of the Neo-Punic writing system, a study much desired,? but, perhaps, they may inspire someone to undertake this important study. Another point in the descriptions of these texts relates to their actual form. In many instances we do not dispose of information on the dimensions of the object on which the text is written, nor of the dimensions of the graphemes used. A more complete overview of these texts necessarily will provide this information, but for the moment it has been impossible to give even basic information on this point.

* To us it seems rather impractical to go on using the term *Nco-Punic language,’ as SZNYCER (1978b: 267) does; in this respect he proves himself to be a disciple of Février. Terminologically more transparent is the use of the term ‘Neo-Punic’ for the script only, while the later phase of the language may conveniently be designated ‘Late Punic.’ * Why he supposes that we are of the opinion that only the latest edition of a text is acceptable for further study (FERJAOUI 1995: 164-165, with note 9), while we explicitly stated (JoNGELING 1984: 10-11), that it is important in every case to choose between the sometimes differing transcriptions and drawings, which means that sometimes older information is more important than later imperfect one, escapes us. * JONGELING 1984: xv-xxvii, JONGELING-KERR 2005: 96-104. ^ Note that the study of PECKHAM 1968 on the Phoenician script does not include Neo-Punic.

Introduction

XV

Several Neo-Punic inscriptions have had an important influence on the development of ideas on the Punic religion in Roman North Africa, this is especially the case with texts that allegedly treat of human sacrifice. We have decided that a full discussion of these, sometimes

problematic,

texts from a

religious point of view

should not be included in this overview. We only give some references to the rel-

evant literature.’ Characteristics of personal names from Punic and Neo-Punic inscriptions have been discussed before? and there is no need to repeat those findings.

7 Cf. e.g. XELLA 1991, LirinsKkı 1995, WAGNER-RUIZ CABRERO 2002. * Cf. especially HALFF 1963-1964, BENZ 1972, MASSON 1980, JoNGELING 1984, 1994, CHAKER 1985.

1975, VATTIONI

1977, 1979a,

1979b,

Bibliographical Abbreviations AE AAf AANL Afrlt AIEO AION AOAT ARAL ARN ASAC AuOr

BAC BAS BeO BICS BMQ BSAS BTIAAT BulSocArch

L’ Année Épigraphique. Antiquités A fricaines. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche. Africa Italiana. Annales de l'Institut d’Etudes orientales. Annali, Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche. L Algérie au temps des royaumes Numides, Paris 2003. Annuaire de la Société Archéologique de Constantine. Aula Orientalis. Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques et scientifiques. Bullettino Archeologico Sardo. Bibbia e Oriente. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. British Museum Quarterly. Bulletin de la Société archéologique de Constantine. Bulletin des travaux de l'Institut d'Archéologie at d'Art de Tunis. Bulletin de la Société Archéologique.

CRAI

Cahiers de Byrsa. Le bulletin du Centre de Documentation Archéologique de la Conservation de Carthage. Collection de l'École Francaise de Rome. v. Fuentes-Estafiol 1986. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin, 1863-. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Pars prima, Paris, 1880-. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Pars prima, Tabulae, tomus i, Paris, 1881. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Pars prima, Tabulae, tomus ii, Paris, 1890. Comptes Rendus des séances ... Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-

CT

Les cahiers de Tunisie.

CB CEDAC CEFR CIFE CIL CIS CIS 1 CIS ii

Lettres.

Bibliographical Abbreviations

XVIII DCPP DNWSI

v. Lipinski 1992. J. Hoftijzer & K. Jongeling, Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Leiden 1995.

Dougga DS-NELL

v. Khanoussi & Maurin, 2000.

EAO EB EH EpEcclAfr

Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, Études d archéologie orientale, vol. 1, Paris 1880-1895. Encyclopedie Berbere, Aix-en-Provence. v. Berthier-Charlier 1952-1955. "Episcopi Ecclesiae Africanae,’ in: Morcelli 1816, 377-394.

GGA

Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.

IAM ICO ICVR ILA i ILA ii ILAf ILLPRON

ILPBardo ILLRP Inscrlt x 4 IPT IRT IRTS

Dutch Studies published by ‘Near Eastern Languages and Literatures'.

v. Fevrier 1966. v. Amadası 1967. A. Sılvagni e.a., /nscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae, NS i-x, Roma 1922-1992. St. Gsell, /nscriptions Latines d’Algerie i, Paris 1922.

H.-G. Pflaum, /nscriptions Latines d'Algérie ii/l-2, Paris 1957-1976. R. Cagnat, A. Merlin & L. Chatelain, /nscriptions Latine d'Afrique, Paris 1923. Manfred Hainzmann & Peter Schubert, /nscriptionum lapidariarum Latinarum provinciae Norici usque ad annum MCMLXXXIV repertarum indices (ILLPRON indices), Berlin 1986- . Z. Benzina ben Abdallah, Catalogue des Inscriptions Latines Paiennes du musée du Bardo, Rome 1986. A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, Firenze 1965“. Sticotti, P. (ed.), /nscriptiones Italiae, vol. x, fasc. 4, Roma 1951. v. Levi Della Vida - Amadasi 1987. J.M. Reynolds & J.B. Ward Perkins, Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, London 1952. J.M. Reynolds, “Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, a supplement,’ PBSR xxiii 1955: 124-147.

JA JAOS JMS JNSL

Journal Journal Journal Journal

Asiatique. of the American Oriental Society. of Mediterranean Studies. of North-West Semitic Languages.

KAI KSINA

v. Donner-Róllig 1962. Kratkie Soob$ enija Instituta Narodov Azii.

LibAnt LPE

Libya Antiqua. v. Jongeling-Kerr 2005.

MAA MAH

v. Alexandropoulos 2000. Mélanges d' Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Frangaise de Rome.

Bibliographical

NSI

‘Martyrs et confesseurs Africains ...,' in: Monceaux 1905, 536-551. "Martyrologium Ecclesiae Africanae,' in: Morcelli 1817, 359-376. Mélanges de l'École Frangaise de Rome. Manfredi 1995. Müller 1861, 1862, 1874. Manfredi 1995. Manfredi 1995. Mazard 1955. v. Jongeling 1984. Neo-Punic inscriptions as listed by Schröder 1869, 63-72, Harris 1936, 160-161. v. Cooke 1903.


‘curtain,’ seems in accord with what follows. ‘gyz is explained by the same authors as a cognomen of unknown etymology. It is, however, very well possible that * idicates the article, while gyz 1s an unknown indication of a profession (possibly to be connected to the g°z of Sabratha N 1 7). Sabratha N 3

Bibliography: LEv1 DELLA VIDA 1963: 470; Trip. 43; TRE 43; IPT 3. Illustrations:

LEV!

DELLA

VIDA

1963:

tav.

(drawing).

ap ox «3107/53119

Sabratha N 2

Bibliography: LEvı DELLA VIDA 1949: 411— 412; Trip. 35; TRE 35; IPT 2.

Text: 1) brkb‘l w‘y b? ?t nd'r

Illustrations: LEVI DELLA VIDA 1949: fig. 2;

Translation:

IPT, tav. 1 (photograph).

1) Barikbal .. has ... a vow.

Text:

Remarks: We have given the reading proposed in /PT, sub 3. However, instead of w, k seems preferable. The reading of w results probably from the wish to read wy, a nisbe

1) Jt^£?dht *l pny“ wt htly?m ?$ *] hpth b°ISIk *gyz °8 b*m ’Ipqy

46

2. Texts from Libya

formation of the place name Oea. In the next word instead of b, p seems more appropriate. On this sign LEvi DELLA VIDA notes that

Translation:

it looks like p, but that it is most probably

Remarks: |f the drawing published can be trusted the reading of the last sign seems unnecessary. What is left may be the personal name b7/S/k, with the lengthening of / expressed in writing, which is, of course,

a b, this presumably to be able to connect

the word rb” with the Semitic root th’, ‘to imprint, to stamp.’ The interpretation of both words seems highly hypothetical.

1) Balshillek.

unusual but cf. PPG? § 97. Sabratha N 4 Sabratha N 6

Bibliography:

Levi

1967: 9-11; GARBINI IPT 4.

DELLA

1987b:

VIDA

1966-

16; TRE 53;

Illustrations: LEV1 DELLA VIDA 1966-1967: tav. 1; /PT, tav. 11 (photograph).

Bibliography: ἔνι DELLA VIDA 1927: 111; Trip. 19B; /PT 82B.

Illustrations: LEV1 DELLA VIDA

56] 0X

Text: 1) Jg/r [ Jytn bn* 2) ]bn b‘lysp 3) |bn sr

Translation: 1) ..., the son of A 2) ..., the son of Balyasof 3) ..., the son of sr

j

D

Text: 1 ) | *t /nk?

Sabratha N 5

Sabratha N 7

Bibliography: LEvı DELLA VIDA 1927: 111;

Bibliography: LEvı DELLA VipA

Trip.

19c; ΡΤ 82C.

19A; ΡΤ 82A.

Illustrations: LEV! DELLA VIDA 14; /PT, fig. 18a (drawing).

^

A

1927: fig.

14; IPT, fig. 18b (drawing).

1927: fig.

Illustrations: LEvı DELLA VIDA 14; /PT, fig. 18c (drawing).

Ge

N

Text:

Text:

1) b'lsllkt/n

1) b'n/t/pgr

( )

1927: 111,

1927: fig.

Sabratha Remarks: We have presented the reading from /PT, which is rather problematic, e being highly uncertain. In case the drawing is to be trusted, instead of g one should rather read m. It is difficult to determine the intended name.

47

Text: 1) "hyywypkwn/tp..kn/tK"$*n/t Remarks: LEvi DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (sub [PT 82) do not propose any reading. We have to admit, however, that no viable interpreta-

tion of the here proposed reading seems to be possible.

Sabratha N 8

Bibliography: LEv1 DELLA Vıpa 1927: 111; Trip. 19d; TRE 19; IPT 82D. Illustrations: LEvi DELLA VIDA 14; IPT, fig. 18d (drawing).

1927: fig.

GrPRT | %) iVy

( [Nl

Sabratha N 10 Bibliography: LEv1 DELLA VIDA 1927: 111; Trip. 19b; /PT 82F.

Illustrations: IPT, fig. |8f (drawing).

A?

Pla

SOA} 74

Text: 1) .. kg‘p/k dn/tm.r .Ik.*t/ng Remarks: LEV! DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (sub IPT 82) do not propose any reading. Sabratha N 11

1) ?mlr/bl bn mtnb'l 2) ]Itst/n °S/s 3) [ ]krzin

Bibliography: LEvt DELLA VipA 19c; IPT 82G.

4) In

Illustrations: IPT, fig. 18g (drawing).

Remarks: We have presented from /PT. In case the drawing is one is inclined to read in line 2 the name minb“l seems more or Sabratha

1927: 111,

the reading to be trusted, ./wsr’$. Only less certain.

N 9

Bibliography: LEV! DELLA VIDA 1927: 111; Trip. 19e; /PT 82E.

Text: 1) m..rdm Remarks: LEv1 DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (sub IPT 82) do not propose any reading.

Illustrations: IPT, fig. 18e (drawing).

PAY (9 1c

Sabratha

N 12

Bibliography: Levi DELLA VIDA 1927: 111, 19d; /PT 82H.

48

2. Texts from Libya

Illustrations: IPT, fig. 18h (drawing).

Text: 1)...

Remarks: LEv1 DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (sub IPT 82) do not propose any reading. Sabratha N 15 Text:

Bibliography: LEvı DELLA VIDA 1927: 111,

1) mun ?d?

19d; /PT 82K. Remarks: LEVI DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (sub IPT 82) do not propose any reading.

Illustrations: IPT, fig. 18k (drawing).

2.

Sabratha N 13

Bibliography: LEV! DELLA Vıpa 1927: 111, 19b; /PT 821. Illustrations: IPT, fig. 181 (drawing).

iu

Text: 1) ymm Remarks: LEv! DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (sub IPT 82) do not propose any reading. Sabratha N 16

Text: 1) ...m/

Remarks: LEvI DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (sub IPT 82) do not propose any reading. Sabratha

Bibliography: GARBINI 1983a; GARBINI 1987b: 17; SZNYCER 1988: 195-196; ADAMS 2003: 228-229; Di ViTA-EvRARD 2004; LPE: 26. Illustrations: GARBINI 1983a; Di EvRARD 2004: 317 (photograph);

N 14

Bibliography: LEV! DELLA Vıpa

1927: 111,

19c; /PT 821.

VirA-

Text: 1) ndr Ib] . b$‘ntsty [y]wnthn . bn °g°dr . ks dh? [k Sm“] "t qlm

Illustrations: IPT, fig. 18) (drawing).

/

Latin parallel: Domno . Sapurno . vico M[—-]no . Voro . Suscepto . lu[—]hn . [ ]giaduris . f[il]ius . fecit Translation: 1) Has vowed to Bal of bs*ntsty Tunatan, the son of Ogodar a libation bowl, because he heard his voice.

Sabratha Remarks: The addition to the appellative bl, bsntsty, is of uncertain interpretation. It may the name of a place, or the prepostion b followed by a place name, if the Latin

Remarks:

49

On the right side of the text a

trusted. Anams (2003: 229) notes that v.s. in the Latin text should be interpreted as votum solvit, a normal expression in this type of text. In view of ’e’dr in the Latin version [A]giaduris is probably to be read. Di ViTAEvRARD (2004: 318) proposes to read vico A[ntistia]no in the Latin text, and to explain b&ntsty as the prep. 5, followed by the nota relationis $ and the name Antisti, or rather, to

drawing of something that may be a membrum virile is to be seen. GARBINI 1983c reads and translates: /) P ?dr mtn *l bt hm 2) pt dl? hms 3) ysk [, 1) O, may the gift for the girl / house of heat be strong, 2) the vulva may be made swollen, 3) ... GARBINI repeats this interpretation in 1994. This is all very uncertain and highly speculative. Our reading is based on the drawing provided by GanBiNI 1983c, but, as we are unable to give even a tentative interpretation, everything remains highly uncertain. The only point we want to stress is that we are more

text, Domno

. Sapurno . vico M(?)[,

is to be

read bsd ntsty ‘in the region of Antistius.' The

or less certain of the repetition of /thm, at

combination bi preceding a geographical name seems rather uncertain. However, the other solution leads to an incomplete spelling of the name Antistius, which also seems

the end of line | and at the beginning of line 2, against the reading of GARBINI 1983. Note also that the spaces between the words seem intentional, which makes the combination

awkward. The supposed name [yJwnthn is,

of bt in line 1 improbable. The word read

of course, uncertain, but very well possible. For the spelling r/ın for the ending /-tan/, cf. npthn in Djebel Mansour N 1 and its Latin parallel Nypranis.

by GARBINI as mtn in line | 1s possible bet-

Sabratha N 17 Bibliography: GaRBiNI. 1983c: 104-107; GARBINI 1987b: 16; GARBINI 1994: 116118; LPE: 26.

ter rendered as ’dn. Line 1-2 might then be built up as follows: To + divine name + lord over + an entity repeated in line 2. Then one should always bear in mind that the sign read as ἢ may also be interpreted as three times the sign b/d/r, which means that instead of hm one might also read dbrm or something comparable. Sabratha N 18

Illustration:

GARBINI

1983c:

105; GARBINI

1994: 117 (drawing).

XN

Bibliography: Di ViTA-GARBINI 1984: 863875; GARBINI 1984; GARBINI 1987a; GARBINI 1987b: 17; GARBINI 1994: 109-11; PısANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 105, Trip Npu 3. Illustrations: GARBINI 1987a: 65, fig. 8a (drawing); Di ViTA-GARBINI 1984: fig. 1; GARBINI 1987a: tav. xiia; DI VITA-GARBINI 1984: tav. cxlvi; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: tav. xxix (photograph).

Text:

1) I?b/d/rb/dr/ ?/mb/d/rn/t *Ib/d/r n/thm 2) p n/thm b/d/rp’zt/n

3) ys/skh

Text: 1) ?g?^wt mrqy bn mn/tlk ’8b 2) n’r Ihty Imrk ’hb

50

2. Texts from Libya

Translation: 1) ... Marcius, the son of mn/tlk, ... 2)...

cxlvi; GARBINI 1987a: tav. xiib; GARBINI 1994: tav. ix, 2; x, 2; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: tav. xxx (photograph).

Remarks: This text is painted on a wall inside a tomb. GARBINI translates: ‘L’eccelente Marco (o Marcio) figlio di mn/tlk, l'anziano.

Text: 1) Id’mn? git ^P

Aborri il peccato, amó la mansuetudine.' We think one may be rather certain about mrqy

Translation:

bii, but the rest of the text remains obscure, and also within these two words there is the small problem of the reading of the last letter of the name. GARBINI chooses y, which is, of course, to be expected. However, the

form of the sign is rather that of a X. The same holds true for the last sign of the word hty read by GARBINI in the next line, which means that the supposition that a derivation of the root hry, ‘to sin,’ is meant is rather improbable. Note that the last letter but one in line 1 may indicate 3, but it might also be an awkard ri, while last letter of the line is rather r than b as supposed by GARBINI, the b in bn clearly slanting to the left, the r at the end of this line and the next slightly slanting to the right. For the first word one would rather expect 'resting place' or something with a comparable meaning. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. ?g*t) accepts the reading of GARBINI and proposes ‘mortal remains.’ Without being able to present an interpretation of this

text, we propose to read: /) mg*wt mrqà bn mtlk ?Xlmr 2) t ^bldir Iht$ Imbldirk?hr. 1f this reading is correct, the Latin name Marcus seems to be rendered by nırg$, which, to say the least, is very remarkable. Sabratha N 19

Bibliography:

Di

VITA-GARBINI

1984:

863-877; GARBINI 1987a; GARBINI 1994: 111-112; Pısano-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 105, Trip Npu 4. Illustrations: Di VITA-GARBINI 1984: fig. 1; GARBINI 1987a: 65, fig. 8b; GARBINI 1994: 111 (drawing); Di VirA-GaRBiNI 1984: tav.

1) for ... Remarks: Text painted on a wall in a tomb. GARBINI supposes d’mn? to be a representation of Latin domina, which seems to be less probable. e*t he renders with ‘excellent." KRAHMALKOV 2000 (s. v. ?e*t), divides IPmn ?g*t ?P, translating “these are the mortal remains of Domina,’ which seems less attractive. The photographs rather point to a reading $ instead of m, while we do not see much difference between the sign read n in the first word and ¢ in the second, the reading being then: /d?XP e*t ’P, of which the interpretation remains obscure. Sabratha N 20

Bibliography: GARBINI with TABORELLI 1992: 71, n. 16; Pısano-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 102, Trip 3. Illustrations:

TABORELLI

1992,

tav.

xii

(drawing). Text:

1) ry$ Remarks: The texts Sabratha N 20-30 are both incised or painted on small steles. The reading of this text is the one by GARBINI. However, it does not seem to be supported by the drawing presented. Sabratha N 21 Bibliography: GARBINI with TABORELLI 1992: 71, n. 67; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 102, Trip 4.

Sabratha

5]

Illustrations: TABORELLI 1992, tav. xix (drawing); id., tav. vil, xix; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: tav. xxx (photograph). Text: one line of text, illegible. Sabratha N 22

Bibliography: GARBINI 1992: 71, n. 72. Illustrations: TABORELLI (drawing and photograph).

with

1992,

TABORELLI

tav.

xxi

Sabratha N 24 Bibliography: GARBINI with TABORELLI 1992: 71, n. 118; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 102, Trip 5. Illustrations: TABORELLI 1992, (drawing and photograph).

IPN Remarks: The reading by GARBINI needs revision. The reading of the second line

tav. xxvii

"4

might be srw’. Sabratha

Text: 1) ysmwsk

N 23

Bibliography:

GARBINI

with

TABORELLI

1992: 71, n. 93.

Illustrations:

TABORELLI

1992,

tav.

xxiv

(drawing and photograph).

Remarks: GARBINI proposes the reading ysniwsk or ysmtsk, supposing it to be a Berber name. He compares MUTS and notes that several Berber names begin with is and and in K. The reading ysmw’sk, however, is more probable.

Text: 1) ns..

Sabratha N 25

Remarks: GARBINI tentatively proposes to read nsb, which, however, is not borne out by the remains of the third sign.

Bibliography: GARBINI with TABORELLI 1992: 71-72, n. 167; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 102-103, Trip 6.

52

2. Texts from Libya

[lHlustrations: TABORELLI 1992, (drawing and photograph).

tav.

xxxii

Sabratha N 28

Bibliography: GARBINI 1992: 72, n. 229.

Text: three lines of illegible text

Illustrations:

Remarks: GARBINI recognizes the name elements ...mtn and nik... in line one. Highly uncertain reading. Sabratha N 26

Bibliography:

GARBINI

with

ἀμ

TABORELLI

1992: 72, n. 190; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI

2003:

103, Trip 7. Illustrations: TABORELLI 1992, (drawing and photograph).

tav. xxxvi

'TABORELLI

(photograph).

SN

with

1992,

TABORELLI

tav.

λιν

xliv

Text: 1) ].. m[

Text: 1) ’prkgl Remarks: In case the drawing is to be trusted, one gets the impression that the lower part of several signs is missing. The reading, therefore, remains uncertain, and seems mainly inspired by the existence of the Berber names FRK and GL.

Remarks: GARBINI recognizes three signs, two to the right and one to the left of a palm leaf. The third one may be a m, but even this 15 doubtful. Sabratha N 29

Bibliography:

GARBINI

with

TABORELLI

1992: 72. n. 241; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003:

103, Trip 9. Sabratha N 27 Illustrations:

Bibliography:

GARBINI

with

TABORELLI

1992: 72, n. 214; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI

TABORELLI

1992,

tav.

xlvi

(drawing).

2003:

103, Trip 8.

Text: 1) ]h

Illustrations:

TABORELLI

1992,

tav.

xli

(drawing). Text:

Remarks: A text painted in red, of which according to Garbini, only ἢ remains. The reading remains uncertain.

1) ]S Sabratha N 30

Remarks: It is impossible to decide from the drawing whether any Neo-Punic signs are

Bibliography:

extant.

1992: 72. n. 243.

GARBINI

with

TABORELLI

Samet el-Crema, Saniat ben Howedi

Illustrations:

TABORELLI

1992,

tav.

xlvii

(drawing and photograph).

53

Text: 1) In/tn/t b[ ] 2) msq[

Text: l) zt

Latin parallel:

Remarks: GARBINI supposes the three signs to have been incised from left to right. It seems, however, more probable to read °?:. The second sign might be a Punic f, or, possibly, a Neo-Punic zi.

2) 3) 4) 5)

I) Dis Manibus

Sabratha N 31

Bibliography: GARBINI 1992: 72—73, n. 158.

with

Illustrations: TABORELLI 1992, (drawing and photograph).

TABORELLI

tav. xxxvi

Text:

illegible Remarks: This text is found on a small urn. For the first line GARBINI proposes the reading ndr bs yrh, *yrh has dedicated the son of a sheep,’ where bx would be for bn 5s. The indistinct sign below this line of text, GARBINI supposes to be a stylized image of a phallus.

Samet el-Créma Sàmet el-Créma N 1

Bibliography: [PT 80. Illustrations:

IPT,

fig.

15

(drawing);

tav. xxx (photograph).

O| ¥ + CA

Flabi[ Mysul n vixit annos xl

Remarks: The uncut stone was found in a 'semi-Romanized Libyan cemetery’ (cf. /RT 860). AMADASI (sub /PT 80) supposes that at least two signs are lost at the beginning of line 1, which she proposes to read mS, basing herself on the drawing of the text. In the second line she proposes to read mXq[n] or msq[‘n], which could be the same name as the one found in the Latin text in line 4—5, Mysu[ca]n or Mysu[cha]n. The deceased might have used a local name along with a more official Latin one. Although possible, the spelling with q of the & in the Libyan ending /-kan/ is extremely rare and re-use of tombstones is attested elsewhere, therefore we suppose that the Latin and Neo-Punic text are unrelated. LEvi DELLA VIDA proposed to read b]I^w b[n in line I (cf. /PT 121 n. 2), however, the spelling of the name Flavius would then be rather awkward and two of the four signs that are legible in the drawing must be supposed to have been drawn very inexact. Note that it is also possible to suppose that line 1 contains an incomplete name, viz. mit^nb[l], for which cf. mstnbl (cf. the onomasticon).

/PT,

Saniat ben Howedi Saniat ben Howedi

N 1

Bibliography: DANIELS 1975; 1976: 13b 1; GARBINI 1987b: 18.

GARBINI

54

2. Texts from Libva

Illustration: DANIELS 1975: 261, 3 b, c, d (drawing); DANIELS 1975: fig. 1 (photograph).

0^ ^

Taglit Taglit N 1 Bibliography: DANIELS 1975; 1976: 13b 3; GARBINI 1987b: 18. Illustration: DANIELS

GARBINI

1975: 263, nr. 42.

Text: 1) kn/t

2) k'p Text:

1) ksp* 2)qb Remarks: Two inscriptions on a plate of terra sigillata. GARBINI 1976 notes that the reading Asp“ is also possible. If the drawing presented by DANIELS is to be trusted, the reading should rather be A*pr*. All readings proposed remain without explanation. On the same plate is a Latin inscription: CVPA, or, according to DANIELS

Remarks: On the stone, a stele in the form of a hand, also several lines in Tuareg (or Libyan ?) script are extant. It is, in our view, highly debatable whether the signs explained by GARBINI as reported above are really NeoPunic ones. [t seems more probable that they too were meant as Tuareg signs.

Tarhuna

1975, CURA. Tarhuna

Saniat ben Howedi

Bibliography: DANIELS 1975; 1976: 13b 2; GARBINI 1987b: 18.

GARBINI

ING Illustration: DANIELS

N 1

N 2

1975: 261, 24a

Text: 1) dmyr Remarks: According to the drawing presented by DANIELs, the reading of m and y seems certain. The first sign looks like d (or *) and the last sign looks rather like * (or eventually d), while nothing is to be seen of the downstroke to be expected with r.

Bibliography: GARBINI. 1983c; GARBINI 1987b:

1983b; 17-18;

GARBINI SZNYCER

1992a:

101-103;

GARBINI 1992; SZNYCER 1994; 2006: 194; TRE 54; LPE: 26-27.

GARBINI

1988:

196-197;

Amapası

Illustrations: GARBINI DASI

1992:

1983b: tav. vi; AMA-

104 d; GARBINI 2006:

ing); GARBINI

194 (draw-

1983b: tav. vi; SZNYCER

fig. 1 (photograph). Text: 1) mnsbt § p‘byt 2)btg'rpnrt 3) m qwynt 4) btm Translation: 1) Stele of Pabit,

2) the daughter of Garap, which ere3) cted Quintus, 4) at his own expense.

1994:

Tripoli

RJ

e R74]

IA

IC x

Remarks: Although the text of this inscription seems to be easily read, much discussion

has

already

been

published

on

it,

mainly because GARBINI 1983a supposed it to be a dedication to the Dea Caelestis. This proposition is still accepted by Elmeyer (sub TRE 54). The correct reading of the third line was established by SZNYCER 1988, 1994. The problem remaining, as SZNYCER (1994: 31, 33) remarked, is the reading of the two Libyan names. GARBINI 1983a read n*byt in line |, a reading accepted by AMADAS! 1992. For n“byt, one may compare Libyan NBT, RIL 1076, 1083. However, GARBINI 1992 reads r*byt and SZNYCER 1994 reads, without further comment, k(?)b/ ryt. The stone is now displayed in the Museum in Tripoli and the study of the original has convinced us that ELMAYER (sub TRE 54) is right in reading p as the first sign of this name, although we do not accept his combination with the preceding sign, when he reads sp?byt as a name. The same combination is made by GARBINI (2006: 194), who interprets s/*byt as a personal name. Equally difficult is the reading of the second Libyan name. GARBINI 1983a, combining with part of

the

ELMAYER a double was read GARBINI

following

word,

read

gdb*nnrt.

(sub TRE 54), reads gdbp nrti? as personal name. Later this name gdb'n by AMADASI 1992, cf. also (2006: 194). who reads this name

55

as edb‘r. We are convinced, after studying the original, that the reading g“r‘p is the most probable one. The first * has a very small deformation which makes it look somewhat like d, but one would expect a longer shaft for this letter. For the use of »r with relative function, first noted for this text by Amapası 1992, cf. also Wadi elAmud N 2. The verbal form in line 2-3 has been read ry; / ti? by SZNYCER (1988: 197). The v, however, read at the end of line 2 is quite different from the one in line 1. Because outside the written area several holes are to be found of more or less similar depth as this presumed grapheme we suppose that this 1s a hole not intended as a part of the text. The reading of the last word in this text is also problematic. Looking at the various examples of ἢ (in minsbt and qwynt) and r (in minsbt), one gets the impression that the reading btm is more probable than bum, although the second proposal is perhaps easier as far as the context 1s concerned, and (therefore ?) accepted by several of the scholars mentioned, cf. e. g. GARBINI

(2006:

194).

Tripoli Tripoli N 1 Bibliography: AURIGEMMA 1916: 391—393; Lev! DELLA VIDA 1927: 96-97; Trip. 7A; IPT 5A; [RT 246; Illustrations: AURIGEMMA

1916: 392 fig. 8

(drawing); /PT, tav. 11 (photograph). Text: 1) *bdml[qrt ]

Latin parallel: 1) .. Aurellius Epagri 2) filius de sua pecunia dedit Translation:

1) Abdmelqart.

56

2. Texts from Libya

Tripoli N 2

Translation:

1) Adirbal 2)..

Bibliography: AURIGEMMA 1916: 383—387; Lev! DELLA VipA 1927: 97; Trip 7B; [PT 5B; IRT 229; AE 1919, 97.

Tripoli N 4

Illustrations: IPT, tav. 11 (photograph).

Bibliography: ROMANELLI

1922:

103; Levi

DELLA VIDA 1927: 97—98; Trip. 9; TRE 9. Text:

1) *bdmlart bn mt/n[ ]b[ 2) Tlf Ib‘

Illustrations: ROMANELLI fig. 22 (drawing).

1922:

103; /PT,

3) my’n/t[

Latin parallel: 1) Apollini 2) Sacrum 3) Avrellivs Epa

4) gri filius de sua pecunia dedit Translation: 1) Abdmelqart, the son of Mutunbal (?) 2)... 3)... Tripoli N 3 Bibliography: POGNON DELLA

VIDA

1887: 291—293; LEv!

1927: 97-98; Trip. 9; IPT 87.

Illustrations: PoGNoN 2] (drawing).

1887: 291; IPT, fig.

Text:

1) ’drb’[ 2) m[ Translation:

1) Adirbal (?) 2)..

Text: 1) ?drb'l

2)]qs

Remarks: ELMAYER (sub TRE 9) accepts Levi DELLA VIDA’s reading, which we have repeated supra, but translates: “To the glorification of god.’ Although LEvı DELLA VIDA remarks that the reading 15 easy, we are not quite convinced and suppose that the first sign is really ?, the second, however, looks rather like w, followed by *, r and ?. In the following line m may be read. However, the meaning of 1) νῷ) 2) m[ remains obscure.

Tripoli

57

Tripoli N 5

Bibliography: LEv1 DELLA VIDA 1963: 481; Trip. 49; TRE 49; IPT 7. Illustrations: LEVI DELLA VIDA iii (photograph).

1963: tav. xii; 7PT, tav.

Text: 1) |qr'? bn *bdmiq[rt] 2) ]s’/mt/nt/ny Translation:

|) Jcratus, the son of Abdmelqart 2)... Remarks:

The

first

name

in

line

]

is,

of

course, a Latin name ending in -cratus, or, as LEvi DELLA VıDA 1963 supposed, in case the name is complete, Cratus. As such a name is not otherwise attested, AMADASI (sub /PT 8) proposes Gratus, which, however, seems less probable, because q for Latin g is not to be expected. Tripoli N 6 Bibliography: IPT 8. Illustrations: IPT, tav. 111 (photograph).

2) ]Jb/ktm‘r[

Remarks: The two drawings differ from each other, which makes it difficult to give any more or less certain readings. AMADASI (sub IPT 83) notes that in line | a personal name might be extant beginning with bd- or *bd-. In line 2 she refers for the possible reading btm to the well-known expression ‘at his own costs.' In line 3 she supposes a possible ? at the beginning of the line. ?rk might then be a form of the root ’rk ‘to be long,’ while sp might be the same word as sp in RES 1204, ‘bowl.’ Highly uncertain interpretations, as AMADASI herself correctly remarks.

3) ]rkwsp/b[ 4) 8thn? [ 5) Pr'mls

be read st hn’, ‘the year of Anno.’ In line 5 the last group of graphemes, “mis, might

Text: 1) syq

Tripoli N 7 Bibliography: IPT 83; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 105, Trip 1. Illustrations: IPT, figs. 19-20 (drawings). Text:

1) ]bd[

In line 4 the signs sthn’ may be a date, to

58

2. Texts from Libya

be explained as the article, followed by the indication of a function, as noted by AMa-

Dası. However, one would rather expect an indication like this before the dating of the text. The only words that can be read with more or less certainty are St In? ‘the year of Anno,' in line 4; although the combination St hn’, ‘the wife of Anno,’ cannot be completely ruled out. Tripoli N 8 Bibliography: IPT 89. Text: 1) mtnb‘l bn

Translation: 1) Mutunbal, the son of Remarks: Only a note on this text has survived, no reproduction or copy seems to have been made. Tripoli N 9 Bibliography: IPT 90. Text: 1) d/b

Remarks: Only a note on this text has survived, no reproduction or copy seems to have been made.

Wadi el-Amud Wadi

el-Amud

LEV1

Translation: 1) Tomb; absolute property, which made 2) Masaukan for his father, Yamrur, the son of Gatit, 3) the ms/y, and for his mother Zut, the daughter of Gatidan, the ng/by, 4) and for his son and for his wife Aslian, the daughter of Yankedasan, the son of 5) Siwak, the ng/by, alas for the four of them ! It was made completely at his Own expense 6) during their life and the life of his sons Arisham and ’y’sdn. Remarks: For the first word VATTIONI 1966 proposes the reading b’r, *pit.' LEvI DELLA ViDA 1967b defends his earlier reading, cf. also GARBINI (1987b: 13). For br / b?r with the meaning ‘grave,’ one may compare bvr in Zliten LP 1. ?tn is best explained as a feminine form of the adjective tm, complete, preceded by the article. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. ?rb*t) reads in line 1ff.: b’rm qmt?r p ?$ prim m*swk*n Phy? ... wPmm ... wPbny ... wPsty ... πᾷ Prb'tnm, translating ‘you have acquired the tomb that Masauchan made for his father, his mother, his son and his wife; be considerate for the four of them' (cf. id., s.v. br, m ?$, qny;). The probability of the existence of a general relative pronoun m?

followed by "3 is quite small (cf. also KRAH-

N 1

Bibliography: LEvı DELLA ViDA 1964: 5760; VATTIONI 1966: 39; LEvi DELLA VIDA 1967b: 259-260; GARBINI 1987b: 13; TEIXIDOR 1964—1980: 100—101; Trip. 38; TRE 38; IPT 79; LPE: 27-28. Illustrations:

Text: 1) br mqn?t?tm? ^$ p“lm 2) m“swkn Pby? ymrr bn g'tyt 3) hmsly wPmm zwt bt g“tydn hn/tglby 4) wPbny wl’Sty *sly*n/t bt yn/tkd‘sn bn 5) sywk hn/tglby h$ Prbtnm npl“ btsty bn/ty 6) bhytnm wbhyt bn?m ?r$m w^y?sdn

DELLA

VIDA

xxxia; /PT, tav. xxx (photograph).

1964:

tav.

MALKOV 2001: 93, 95), while the plurale tantum b’rm for tomb is also strange. In line 5 hi is a problematic word. Levi DELLA VIDA (1964: 59) relates the word to the root Aw%/ h3$, which in Hebrew means ‘to sigh,’ the substantive being used as an exclamation, *woe,' “alas.” ELMAYER (sub TRE 38) supposes a lapsus for ms, ‘statue,’ which seems less probable. The same author proposes to

Wadi el-Amud

ray

59

TC

X

oA D INT iN

TNR

VINA ENS N J ROPA APA TS BYR RON

TAN

Wadi el-Amud N 1

explain Prbtum as the preposotion /, followed by a variant form of rbtnm, which he then erroneously explains as a singular rbt + suffix of the I“ person plural + a redundant plural morpheme. The m in bhytnm in line 6 has been added a little above the line between the shafts of the ἢ in /ur/tglby in line 5. Without reason,

it seems,

KRAHMALKOV

(2000,

s. v. hyy), reads bhytnm wbhyt in line 6, translating ‘while they were «still? alive and when he himself was alive.’ Wadi el-Amud

N 2

Bibliographv: LEVIı DELLA VIDA 1964: 6062; Trip. 39; TRE 39; IPT TT; LPE: 28.

Text: 1) mnsbt m? p? bn[’m] 2) ’bn’m nymrn y[ 3) bn’m n/tin/tylin/tpl ^?rám Translation: 1) Stele which made his sons 2) for their father Nimiran .. 3) ...... Arisham. Remarks: For the use of m’ as a relative pronoun, cf. also AMADAsiI (1980: 34) and supra sub Tarhuna N |. The bim in line 3 may be a derivation from the verbal root bny, ‘to build,’ or a form of bi, ‘son,’ construed by a suffix (for the context, cf. also the next text, line 5, bim).

Illustrations: LEV! DELLA VIDA 1964: tav. xxxivc; /PT, tav. xxix (photograph).

60

2. Texts from Libya

Wadi

el-Amud

N 3

Bibliography: Levi DELLA VIDA 63; Trip. 40; TRE 40; /PT 78.

1964: 62-

Illustratione: LEV! DELLA VIDA 1964: tav. xxxivb; /PT, tav. xxix (photograph).

Text: 1) brktgd’

Text: 1) np‘? hmnsbt 8° 2) [Iny]mr^n bn m'Swkk'sn

3) [bn ]wn/tt $rwlm/[ Jwm[ ]wr?[ ]n/t 4) [ ]b/rm/l Sm’ nymr‘n bn/t ξη 0 5) [ S]l[$ Jbnm “Spn/t pln/t[ [

xA) Translation: 1) Barikatgidde.

Jw

Jw’rSm bn

bd‘strt Translation: 1) This stele was made 2) for Nimiran, the son of Mashukkasan 3)... 4) ... Nimiran ... 5) ... and Arisham, the son of Bodashtart. Remarks: Instead of § as a demonstrative in line 1 one would rather read ζ΄. In is difficult to establish whether -kk- in the name mswkkSn indicates a lengthened consonant or two consonants with a vowel in between.

It is not impossible that the name nymı“n in line 4 is followed by an expression indicating his age: bn 3XiP[t ...]w [S]18.

Remarks: On a bowl of terra sigillata, incised after burning. The texts presented sub Zaiuet el-Mahgiub N 1-3 were found in the same tomb. Zaiuet el-Mahgiub N 2

34

Bibliography: LEvı DELLA VIDA 1963: 482;

Trip. 50b; ΡΤ 94.

Illustrations: LEvi DELLA VIDA 1963: tav. xiv; /PT, tav. xxxiii (photograph).

Zaiuet el-Mahgiub 1) bkkr Zaiuet el-Mahgiub N 1 Bibliography: Levi Della Vida Trip. 50a; TRE 50a; IPT 93.

1963: 482;

Illustrations: LEvi DELLA VIDA 1963: tav. xiv; JPT, tav. xxxiii (photograph).

Remarks: On a bowl of terra sigillata, incised after burning. The group of letters may be an unknown personal name, or perhaps be explained as two abbreviations: bk and kr. The first abbreviation oculd be for brk or b“IsIk, for the second one only kysr comes to mind.

Zaiuet el-Mahgiub Zaiuet el-Mahgiub N 3

abbreviation. If correct, one might think of a personal name like b*/hn? or brk-.

Bibliography: LEvı DELLA VIDA 1963: 482; Trip. 50c; /PT 95.

Zaiuet el-Mahgiub N 4

Text:

Bibliography: IPT 85.

1) b’

Illustration: IPT, tav. xxxii (photograph) Remarks: Of this small text, incised on a piece of terra sigillata, no reproduction exists. The two letters possibly form an

61

Text: illegible

3. Texts from Tunisia

Ain Barchouch Bibliography:

N 1 GHakı

1985:

177;

GARBINI

1985:

177

(photo-

1987b: 55. Illustration:

GHAKI

JR ee anh) IP) X [qe /

j^ y ni

IPE Z SITui

graph).

MEN SA JULEP YX

Text: 1) in’ °bn °st ... Translation: |) This stone was erected ... Remarks: The edition is incomplete as GHAKI (1975: 177) himself notes. He only gives the three words at the beginning of the text and notes that they are followed by the names of the deceased and his father and grandfather.

ERE

Ain Barchouch

Text:

1) bm/’r$ § *dyt hk 2) nt “drt mt“ bt ὃ 3) ‘nt Sb‘m wSb“ 4) wkn“ S‘nt ‘sr 5) wSmn

rs‘

Ain Zakkar

6) mS‘rt nsb

Ain Zakkar N 1

Translation: |) Boras, the client of Adyat the priest-

Bibliography: CHABOT 1936-1937: 170171; FÉvRIER 1955a: 63-64; HOFTUZER 1961: 344—348; FEvRIER 1964-1965: 93-95; JoNGELING 1984: 9f.; GARBINI 1987b: 37; FERJAOUI 1996: 25-35; JONGELING 1996b:

2) ess important, she died at the age of

157-158;

JONGELING

1997; KA/

seventy seven years and she had been ten years and eight »“$“ Masharat erected it.

136; LPE:

28-29. Illustrations: CHABOT

3) 4) 5) 6)

Remarks:

1936-1937:

171 (this

drawing reprinted with FÉVRIER 1955); FERJAOUI 1996: pl. 3-4 (photograph).

This

enigmatic

text,

which

has

been often discussed, remains problematic, mainly in the first and last lines. CHABOT 1936-1937 remarks that at the beginning of line 1 one might suppose the word b*l, a reading not accepted by subsequent

Ain Zakkar

scholars studying this text. Further he recognised, beyond doubt, /ınkt at the end of line 1 and the beginning of line 2 and the number of years mentioned in line 3.

When in 1955 FÉVRIER discusses this text he is not aware of CHABOT’s earlier publication. He reads the first word in line ] as fps, which is hardly acceptable, linking it to Greek tapos, ‘grave,’ without explaining why this word should have been borrowed into later Punic, while several Punic words with a comparable meaning are in regular use in other inscriptions. HOFTIUZER 1961 reads n’ps, for which he also supposes the

meaning ‘funerary monument,’ which meaning is attested for Hebrew np$. This reading is also accepted by KRAHMALKOV (2000,

s.v. ups, LIPINSK! 1997: 318). Both readings are, however, highly improbable. The reading of this first word seems to be bmrs or b’r$, as supposed by FERJAOUI. FERJAOUI translates: ‘In ?r$,^ while JoNGELING 1996b supposed a unknown word bm/’r$ with the meaning 'funerary monument,' thus remaining in line with the earlier interpretations. However, in JoNGELING 1997 b’r$ is supposed to be an otherwise unattested personal name. FEVRIER explains the following 3*dyt as a combination ofthe relativity marker followed by a Semitic personal name derived from the root *dy. FERJAOUI (1996: 30) supposes $“dyr to be a Berber name and he compares several names mentioned by CHABOT in the name index of R/L beginning with d. JONGELING 1997 points at the use of the relativity marker $ between two names, probably to indicate the relation ofa client to his/her former master, cf. also FANTAR 1972, who supposes that $ indicates the relation of a freedman to his former master, or of a protégé to someone protecting him, which might explain why in this text the genealogy of the deceased is not mentioned. Less probable is the supposition of KRAHMALKOV

(2000, s.v. mnp, S, 2) that § may be used with the same meaning as bn. At the end of the line and the beginning of line 2 he reads

hknt, the priestess. The reading is difficult,

63

as the second sign, of course, looks somewhat like n, while the third sign might also be a b. This lead us to our proposal to read hnbt, ‘the prophetess,’ JoNGELING (1996b: 158), but later we reverted to the older reading hknt in 1997 (JONGELING 1997: 39). HorruzER 1961 reads /inkt, relating the word to the well-attested /imkt in the formula hnkt *bnt (and variants, for which see sub Hr. Maktar N 32). However, the following word can hardly be read “bnr, ‘drt seems certain, at least as far the reading is concerned. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. “bn) reads linkt *bnt, ‘here she has been laid to rest,’ following HorruzEnR 1961. Lipinski (1997: 318) accepts the same reading, but he translates

*bnt as ‘stele.’ The following signs FÉVRIER interpreted as mn“br (part. piel of a root nwh, ‘to grow’), but HOFTIJZER’s (1961) m“ bt, ‘she died at the age of,’ seems much more plausible. In line 5 FEVRIER 1955 reads γι, which he explains as equivalent of Hebrew ^3, but written with a vowel letter indicating the vowel /a/. This solution is also accepted by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. ,᾽ 3). Why this word, of which we know the pronunciation quite well because it is represented by Rus-, Ros-, in several Punic names of North-African promontories as mentioned by Roman authors, should be pronounced /ras/ in this case, remains unanswered; /rus/ is the expected realization of this word, while /ras/ is unacceptable. Another problem is whether the word r^ can be used for a female head or chef. It is not impossible that a masculine counterpart of this word occurs in Labdah N 2. The next word, FÉVRIER reads as *mis*rt for /a-mosorarot/, ‘the female singers.’ He is then left with the enigmatic nsb at the end of the last line, which he explains as a noun

equivalent with mnsb. Although the word Is attested, it seems awkward to use it on its own at the end of a text describing the deceased. We therefore still suppose that it is quite possible that nsb is a verbal form and that the preceding mrt is the subject. Because a personal name MSRT / MSRT is attested in Libyan (R/L 413 resp. 290) this

64

3. Texts from Tunisia

is best explained as another example of the often attested custom to mention not only the name of the deceased on but also the name of the person the stone. This leaves us with unknown word 7*3, indicating the deceased had fulfilled for

a tombstone, who erected an otherwise the function 18 years. We

gt may stand for Berber names like g‘gyryt or g*Igst. Arg el-Ghazouani N 2 Bibliography: FANTAR 1975b: 269; GARBINI 1987b: 63.

did not find any Semitic word that might be related to this title, yet we are, however, reluctant to describe it as a possible loan from Libyan. The supposition of FERJAOUI 1996 that this word is the feminine counterpart of 7?3, ‘chef,’ seems hardly possible. The following ms‘rt he derives from the root

Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

$rt and for which he supposes the meaning ‘religious service’ or ‘office.” KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. np$,, *m;, *m srt, mn, $rt;) combines 7*3 “m Xrt, ‘head of the service per-

Translation: 1) zybq, the founder.

FÉVRIER did. KRAHMALKOV easily translates nsb as ‘ stele,’ which perhaps seems attractive, but leaves us with the question why such seemingly useless information has to conclude such a beautifully made monument.

Arg el-Ghazouani Arg el-Ghazouani N 1 Bibliography: FANTAR 1975b: 269; GARBINI 1987b: 62. Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

1975b: tav. 73 (pho-

Text: 1) Sl bn gt

Translation: 1) $/, de zoon van gt. Remarks: One wonders whether the two very short names are not really abbreviated names. X/ could be for $mrb‘l, while

Text: 1) zybq hnsk

Remarks: For zybq, see the remark s. v. in the onomasticon.

Bedja (Vaga) Bedja N 1 Bibliography: GESENIUS 1837: 445-449; WunM 1838: 30-31; DE SauLcy 1847a: 3-6, JUDAS 1847a: 100; BLAU 1849: 440; EWALD 1852: 1726, 1; Movers 1845: 104; BOURGADE 1856: 46-47; LEvy 1857: 76, B2; SCHRÖDER 1869: 269, nr. 3; CHABOT, Punica xii 18b; Bısı 1972; Numidica vii; NP 13. Illustrations: GESENIUS 1837: tab. 26, xii; DE SAULCY 1847c: pl. xxxvii, 1; SCHRÓDER 1869: Taf. xvii 3 (drawing).

anot J9/o3] ^ "19

ojo

art o(qro FIOT X R9 109

NS ANS

sonnel.’ Also FERJAOUI wonders about the unconnected nsb at the end of line 6, not offering, however, a better explanation than

1975b: tav. 73 (pho-

|

Text: 1) [π΄ °bn z Imtnb‘l bn y*$d 2) b^y *w? Snt “sr w*m$

J

Bir bou Rekba (Thinissut)

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Mutunbal, the son of YaSda2) bay, he lived fifteen years. Remarks: It is interesting to note how one could misread this text in the 19th century, by just substituting signs that are easily interchanged, cf. the reading of the first line as proposed by Movers (1845: 104): r*n*?bn $Imt wb‘l bny ‘sr, translated as: “Erected the stone Solomit and Baal, sons of Usar.’ A few years later, LEvy (1857: 76) reads the whole text correctly, apart from the father’s name, which he transcribes as y‘zrb‘/.

Bir bou Rekba (Thinissut) Bir Bou Rekba N

1

Bibliography: BERGER 1908b; BERGER 1908c; BERGER 1908d; LipzBaAnski 1915: 58-60, 280; BERLINER 1916; VASSEL 1920: 475-477, TPI 210; RES 942, 1858; KAI 137; LPE: 29. Illustrations: V ASSEL 1920: 476 (drawing of the end of lines 1 and 2).

07/70 104 ang 1) Pdn Ib'] wltnt pn Ὁ mqdsm $nm 53 p'l ὉΠ] tnsmt bst Sptm 2) hmlk whmlk bn ?nkn kn? “I mlkt hbn? '$ bmadsm ?l 3) ’pSn bn gdsn wb‘lhn’ bn mskr w*l mlkt

hmth

4) prnkn bn mndkn wySd? bn ?nkn b? h’Inm ?| “It h

65

5) mqdSm ?l b'sr w$b* Iyrh mp“ Ipny hst z np‘! nbl 6) nskt?rb* “It hnqd3m Ἢ spm Snm wzbrm nm wnntn 7) t hkhnm ?t?r$ bn ’nkn w?t bd'$trt bn yps Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal and to Tinnit Fane Bal; two holy places which the citizens of tnsmt made in the year of the suffetes 2) Imilk and Imilk, the son of Ankan; were over the building work that was in these holy places 3) ApSan, the son of Gadsan and Balanno, the son of Miskar and over the plastering work 4) Parankan, the son of Manadkan and YaSdo, the son of Ankan. These gods went into 5) these holy places on the seventeenth of the first month Mappa of this year. Were made vessels of 6) cast metal four for these sanctuaries, two bowls and two vessels and they were presented 7) to the priests, to Arish, the son of Ankan and to Bodashtart, the son of Yapash. Remarks: DussauD (with BERGER 1908d) concludes from the use of the preposition *It in line 4 that the gods in question must have been of a celestial nature, because they descended upon the sanctuaries. LIDZBARSKI, however, remarks that one cannot draw conclusions from the use of */t that may have been used with the same meaning as ”/ or even /. SLOUSCHZ (sub TPI 210) supposes bn in line 2 to be a plural construct, thus arriving at two brothers with the same name, which is less probable. For the date mentioned in line 5, cf. BERLINER 1916. Note that the unknown word zbr indicates some sort of vessel; it is used parallel with sp, and both zbr and sp are hyponyms of nbl. KERR, personal communication, combines zbr with Arabic zibrat, ‘piece of iron,’ which seems to us rather uncertain. The form fn in line 6 is best explained as a niphal form. The sec-

66

3. Texts from Tunisia

ond 1 may point to the existence of a variant root utn (cf. PPG? $ 160). Note the repetition of the preposition ^t before the appositional

Text: 1) [0 °dr — htgdS 2) b'ISylk bn m'rq? “wy'ny

personal names in line 7. For the names, see

3) t hmzbh

the onomasticon.

4) $*g* § b$m hmlkt btm km

$ hmqnt § “br ?

5) ὈΚ Ὁ slm bt’rm btm 6) - hyd$ νν γααξ Bir Tlelsa Bir Tlelsa N 1

Bibliography: VASSEL 1914: 5-16; DUSSAUD 1914: 618-620; VassEL 1915; LIDZBARSKI 1915: 287-290; VassEL 1916b; VASSEL 1916c; DussAUD 1917: 165-167; BRUSTON 1919; FÉvRIER 1949a: 25-26; LEvi DELLA VipA 1964c: 308-309; SZNYCER 1980; FERRON

1987; JONGELING

2004; KAI

138; LPE:

Translation: 1) To the mighty Bal has consecrated for himself 2) Balshillek, the son of Marcus Avianius, 3) the altar of cattle, of cereals o4) f cakes, of perfume; the work completely as 5) in the design, according to its plan, at his

own expense 6) he renewed and consecrated.

29-30. Illustrations: LIDZBARSKI SEL 1916b:

11; SZNYCER

1915: 288; Vas1980: pl. 11, b; FER-

RON 1987: 224, 225 (photograph).

-.-»"ν»"

πω

ἜΞΒΒΒΒΝΟΡΜΌΝ

ΡΟ

2...

mA

Remarks: The description of the altar is normally transcribed as /mmzbh 3hmqnt br 3*o* bim. However, because of the strange representation of the feminine ending (-/, -’,

T»

IA

Δ)2 3? ἈΝ 3? |

ERW, Tr.

yn

y^" I

AIPXNE

MONON

Y ye exp gx” T3*] 73 ^ S09

ὁ--ὦ

MARALH

Se

Bir Tlelsa

N 1

Bir Tlelsa

67

-^), we think it 1s better to divide as we have

In his translation, however, he translates the

done. The supposition preferred by KRAH-

word

MALKOV

one) engrave an image,’ where the image 1s understood to be the image of the deity. The whole explanation seems far-fetched. The expression berm btm occurs also elsewhere, viz. in Labdah N 16, where it is also followed by a form of the yifil of qds: hnb*l ... bPrm btm pl w?yqds, and in Labdah N 13, where, however, the context is broken. In both texts IPT and KAI read bn ?rm instead of brrm, but the combination with btm both in Labdah N 16 and Bir Tlelsa N 1. and the fact that the name "rmi is not attested elsewhere, makes

(2000,

s.v. mqnt,

br),

that $“br is

to be taken as a pass. participle of Shr, ‘to break,’ seems less probable. btm in line 4 is explained, as we do, by most commentators as ‘completely,’ note, however, that FERRON (1987: 206) insists that the meaning must be the as in the next line, ‘at his own expense’ (by mistake he then translates btm in line 5 on the next page ‘[the drawing], which he himself prepared’ or *in its beautiful form’). The word s/m in line 5 has been variously read and explained. Most commentators read s/m, whereby FÉvRIER (1949:, id., 1961: 7) thinks of a variant form of XIm, ‘perfect’; LIDZBARSKI (1915: 288f.) proposed to interpret this word as the plural of an unknown noun s/; LEvi DELLA VIDA (1964: 309) supposed s/n

as a causative

form,

"he made

the reading proposed by FÉvRiER

(some-

(1954:

77) very attractive. FÉVRIER 1977 points to the concurring use of mtb and rrt in the Milkpilles epitaph. Note, of course, also the concurring use of the yifil of gd¥ and rr. It

to be the sing. + suf. 3'* sg. m. of a word sl

Is probable,

meaning ‘entrance’ or 'pallisade.' It seems, however, most probable that the word is the direct complement of the preceding Arb (the reading Anı/“ kn“ at the end of line 5 and the beginning of line 6 as proposed by LipzBARSKI 1915 and followed by δια (KA7 a.l.), is highly improbable. Note, however,

of the roots Ath and rr have different but complementary meanings. The suffix - in berm 15 interpreted as a pronominal element referring to the subject of the verb by PPG?, § 332 in Labdah N 16. It seems to us that it rather refers to ἀρ mentioned just before it. It is interesting to note how the syntax of this text remains uncertain. Several scholars have taken Balshillek in line 2 as the subject

that

also

FERRON

(1987:

206),

who

could

study the original also reads ki/*, explained

by him as /komal, ‘as,’ parallel with Hebrew komo, which seems difficult historically, as one would expect the development à > 6 in Punic even more than in Hebrew). RÖLLIG (KAI a.l.) has remarked that it is possible to read s/m, ‘statue,’ instead of s/m. As the form of s and s are in many instances not really differentiated in the Neo-Punic script, and this 1s the only occurrence of this sign in this text, this 1s an attractive proposition, as it leaves us with a word that is at least well-known in North-West-Semitic. FERRON (1987: 207) reads slm which he explains as a development of s/m. The expression Ar“b sim probably indicated something like ‘a blue-print,

a design.’

FERRON

(1987:

206)

supposes that Arb is a verbal form, meaning ‘to write’ > ‘to draw, to trace, to engrave.’

of the verbs

therefore,

that

the

in line 6, moving

derivations

this

line

in

their translation to a position near to the subject, cf. e.g. DussAUD (1917: 167), SZNYCER (1980: 41), PPG?, ὃ 332, FERRON (1987: 207). Others have combined Balshillek to the preceding /itqds, cf. e.g. ROLLIG (KA/ a.l.), cf. also KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. qds;). Also because the hithpael of qds in classical Hebrew is almost always used with reflexive meaning (against PPG?, $ 149), we think that this explanation is probably correct. The supposed Latin influence on the syntax of

this text, cf. PPG?, $ 332, cannot therefore be proved. Note, however, also DE SIMONE (2003: 161-162), who maintains that the first line is a Neo-Punic calque of a Latin dativ so frequently found at the beginning of Latin votive texts.

68

3. Texts from Tunisia

Bordj Bou Chateur (Utica)

Text: 1) ’nyk bt gdrhs

Bordj Bou Chateur N 1 Bibliography: CiNTAS 1951: 79; FERRON 1975: 235-236, 275-276, nr. 412; GARBINI 1976: 20; GARBINI 1987b: 35. Illustrations:

CiNTAS

1951:

79 (drawing);

Translation: 1) Anik the daughter of gdrhs. Remarks: The last letter, judging by the photograph, might be either s or s, as supposed by FERRON.

FERRON 1975: pl. cxxviii (photograph).

Bordj Helal

Text: 1) tn“ s Ipw

Bordj Helal N 1 Translation:

1) This was erected for pw. Remarks: The reading offered is the one by FERRON 1975, which is, however, uncertain. When taking the drawing published by CINTAS 1951 into consideration, one gets the impression that the reading might be some-

Bibliography: EuTING 1875: 239f.; CHABOT, Punica xxv 5; Marcy 1936: 82-85; ÁLVAREZ DELGADO 1964: 213-214; MASSON 1977: 41-43; SzNvckR 1977a: 47-57; GARBINI 1987b: 39; JONGELING 1996a: 78; BOHM 1999: 63-66; NP 125; RIL 72; KAI 139; LPE: 30-31.

thing like tnsb/d/rlp. CINTAS notes that the

Bordj Bou Chateur N 2 Bibliography: FERRON 1975: 242, 256-258, 275, nr. 428; GanBiNI 1976: 20; GARBINI 1987b: 54.

NM

FERRON

1975:

pl.

cxxxiii

LO

Text: 1) ly[g]w*kny bn knrd't bn 2) msy“In tn? °bnm P Libyan parallel: 2) WKNRDT 3) NNBYH

VAIO

ore’

\ δὰ

A

7

N N

^in pp |

7

l) YGWKNH

Illlustrations: (photograph).

2

NN N

remains enigmatic and one wonders whether the drawing is exact in this regard. The reading w as proposed by FERRON seems hardly possible. The text is found on a stele representing a humanlike figure, so most probably the word is the name of a deceased person.

Ν

N\

which seems more or less clear. The last sign

4

S

pw. The next sign must be read 7 in case one supposes f to precede. However, when reading pw, both ¢ and n are possible. The next sign looks somewhat like 3, and not at all like the * proposed by FERRON. The next sign looks more like b/d/r than s followed by / + p

Illustrations: EuTING 1875: next to 238 (drawing); BERGER 1892 (cf. 327-329); RIL pl. xii 1; SZNYCER 1977a: pl. ix (photograph).

IN

probably r, although it is possible to read

^N

script used is poor. The first sign is most

p ey")

Bou Grara (Gigthis), Carthage Translation: 1) For Yagwakani, the son of Kanardat, the son of 2) Masyalan were these stones erected.

X)”

Remarks: Marcy (1936: 85) reads s in the name msy“In. BOHM (1999: 63) follows MARCY

ın reading

s. The

name,

however,

he combines with the two preceding signs, read by him as dn. The resulting dnmsy“In he explains as the name of a clan or tribe (ibid., 66), of which the fanciful explanation from Indo-European need not be repeated here. Note that all editions prior to SZNYCER 1977a read the first personal name in line | as ygw*kn. SZNYCER'S reading is to be pre-

ferred. This is the only Neo-Punic text in which, apparently a funerary monument is indicated by the plural hm singular.

instead of the

Bou Grara (Gigthis) Some plaster fragments with remains of NeoPunic texts, found in Bou Grara and presumably presented to the Musée du Bardo, seem to remain unpublished (cf. PornssoT 1924: ccxvi, DUSSAUD 1925a). Bou GraraN

|

VPERCVS

Translation: 1) Imilco, the son of Shafot, the son of Anobal 2) from Shabo. Remarks: DUSSAUD 1915 notes that he sees no relation between the Neo-Punic and the Latin

text.

Lupercus,

as a personal

name,

is attested in at least two Latin inscriptions from Sousse (Hadrumetum; AE 1903: 133, 134). The word or word-group in line 2 is easily explained as the marker of relativity followed by the name of a place, as DusSAUD remarks. Nonetheless it remains a possibility that some other quality of Imilco is mentioned.

Carthage Carthage N 1

1

Bibliography: CONSTANS SAUD 1915: cxcv.

69

1915: clxxi; Dus-

Bibliography:

LANDAU

ANO-TRAVAGLINI

2003:

1899:

90, 91; Pıs-

122-123,

C Npu

1;

CIS 174. Illustrations: DussauD ing); FANTAR 1999b: graph). Text: 1) hmik bn Spt bn hnb‘l 2) SSb’ Latin text: 1) LVPERCVS

1915: cxcv (draw33, nr. 6 (photo-

Illustrations: CIS itab. xxxviii (photograph); CIS 1 tab.xxxix (drawing).

70

3. Texts from Tunisia

Remarks: This mostly unintelligable text is

probably an account of some sort. The representation of the text by PISANO-TRAVAGLINI

(2003: 112-123) gives an incorrect impression of completeness, by not indicating the many lacunae in the reading as given in C/S,

Translation: 1) To the lady, to Tinnit Fane Bal and to the lord to Bal 2) Amun which dedicated Abdmelqart, the son of Ab3) dashtart, the son of Matlaq.

which we have rendered supra.

Remarks: The name in line 3, mn/tlq, is not explained from Semitic and may be Berber.

Carthage N 2

The reading, however, is highly uncertain.

Bibliography: CIS 580; JONGELING

1996b:

157; Mosca 2005: 67-70.

Carthage N 4

Illustrations: JoNGELING 1996b: 166 (drawing); (15 ii tab. v (photograph).

Bibliographv: CIS 942. Illustrations: CIS n tab. xii (photograph).

Text: 1) Irbt wPdn b*l hmn 2) nS ?r$t bt bd'strt 3) Sm“ qP brk ’r’

Text: 1) {Irbt Itnt pn b* 2) | wPdn b‘l hmn 3) '$ ndr “zmik h}hn

Translation: 1) To the lady and the lord Bal Amun 2) has brought Arishat, the daughter of Bodashtart 3) he heard her voice, blessed her.

4) Ὁ bn *bdm[I]qrt bn

Remarks: The use of n? to indicate the act of offering something to the god(s) is also attested in some other texts (cf. Hr. Maktar N 36, Guelma N 22, a.e.). [ts use seems to be not much different from vin. JONGELING 1996b proposed to read at the end of line 3

br? tm, which seems paleographically possible,

but

is not

interpretation, argues.

without

as

problems

Mosca

(2005:

for the

67-69)

Carthage N 3 Bibliography: CIS 842.

5) knz

Translation: 1) To the lady, to Tinnit Fane Ba2) l and the lord Bal Amun 3) which dedicated Ozmilk Anno4) bal, the son of Abdmelqart, the son of 5) Kanaz. Remarks: The part of the text between { } is written in Punic script, the rest is Neo-Punic. CIS 942 reads A[Is]b*! instead of h/n]bfl, then prints the form with -n- between [ | in the text, and notes that the texts clearly shows

a Punic

ἢ,

followed

by

Neo-Punic

hin. Between Ozmilk and Annobal, the word bn is missing (which supposes, however, a rather long genealogy). One wonders whether somehow two different texts have been mixed up by the stone mason.

Hlustrations: CIS n tab. x (photograph). Carthage N 5 Text: 1) Irbt Itnt pn Ὁ wPdn [Ib'l] 2) hmn °§ ndr *bdmlqrt bn “b 3) d'&trt bn mn/tlq

Bibliography: CIS 949; LPE:

31.

Illustrations: CIS i1 tab. xii (photograph).

Carthage

71

Text: 1) (Irbt Itnt pn Ὁ 2) wl’dn Ib‘! hmn 3) °§ ndr] b'Ipd?

4) bn bd‘Strt Translation: 1) To the lady, to Tinnit Fane Bal 2) and to the lord to Bal Amun 3) which dedicated Balpado, 4), the son of Bodashtart.

Text: 1) [ἀπ [05] “mn nd“

2)r$ ndr b'lpg 3) Sm? qP brk^

Remarks: The part of the text between { } is written in Punic script, the rest is NeoPunic. Carthage N 6 Bibliography:

V AssEL

1906; VASSEL

1907;

CIS 2992; ΚΑΙ 94. Illustrations: CIS 11 tab. Ixi (photograph). Text: 1) Irbt Itnt pn “I wPdn 2) [0] hmn °8 ndr ygr$

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offer2) ing which vowed Balpago 3) he heard her voice, blessed her. Remarks: According to the comment in C/S, ndr? in line 2 1s a lapsus for ndr. There is, however, no reason why εἰ} could not be a genuine fem. form. Carthage N 8 Bibliography: EuTING 1875: 240; CIS 3245; NP 126.

Translation: 1) To the lady, to Tinnit Fane Bal and to the lord 2) to Bal Amun, which dedicated Yagrash.

Illustrations: EUTING 1875: next to 240; C7S i1 tab. Ixviii (photograph). Text:

Remarks: The first word is transcribed Prbt in C/S, probably a misprint. pi^ in line | probably lapsus for pn b'l, rather than for pn“ b“l, as supposed by RóLLIG (sub KA/ 94), who remarks upon the inconsequent use of“ for /e/, which however is unattested

Carthage N 7 Bibliography:

EutinG

1871:

32-33;

CIS

1) P bd? 2) [$ nd]r &pty&r 3) [bn] hf 1 km 4) [SP qP bri?

Translation: 1) 104] wh2) ich vowed Shafotyashor, 3) the son of ..., because he hea4) rd his voice, blessed him.

3244; NP 118. Illustrations: EuTING 1871: CIS ii tab. Ixviii (drawing).

Taf.

xxxviii;

Remarks: 'The above reading is based upon the drawing published by EuTING 1874. The reading presented in C/S is the following: 1) [bl]? 2) [ ndr] Sptys... 3) [bn] hm[ ] k 4) [nt] ql] br?

72

3. Texts from Tunisia

Carthage N 9

Text: 1) Irbt Itnt wl’dn

Bibliography: EuTING 1875: 240; CIS 3246; NP 127.

2) Ihmn °§ ndr bd’Str

Illustrations: EuTING 1875: next to 240 (drawing); C/S ii Ixviii (photograph).

Translation: 1) To the lady, to Tinnit and to the lord 2) to Amun, which dedicated Bodashtar3) t, the son of Abdeshmun, the son of Anno.

Text:

1) Indr

3) rt bn *bd?[$m]n bn h[np

2) 101 hmn 5m? qP brk° Translation:

1) ... vowed 2) to Bal Amun, he heard his voice, blessed him.

Remarks: bd“Strrt, dittography at the break between the lines 3 and 4. Carthage N 12 Bibliography: CIS 3249.

Carthage N 10 Illustrations: CIS ii tab. Ixviii (photograph). Bibliography: CIS 3247 Text:

Illustrations: CIS 1 tab. Ixviii (photograph). Text: 1) Irbt Itnt pn Ὁ“ wP 2) dn [05] hmn °§ ndr

3) (τὰ b b*Strt

4) bn bdmlart} Translation: 1) To the lady, to Tinnit Fane Bal and to the ]2) ord, to Bal Amun, which dedicated 3) Arish, the son of Bodashtart, 4) the son of Bodmelgart.

1) Irbt Itnt p[n] 2) b*l wl’dn Ib'l

3) h{m]n f ] 4) [ ] Translation: 1) To the lady, to Tinnit Fane 2) Bal and to the lord to Bal 3) Amun ... Carthage N 13 Bibliography: CIS 3250. Illustrations: CIS 11 tab. Ixviii (photograph).

Remarks: b b“$trt 1s probably a stonemason's mistake for bn bd°strt. The part of the text between { } is written in Punic script, the rest is in Neo-Punic. Carthage N 11

Text: 1) b‘ISIk bn [... ] *bd^S[mn

...] b'l

Translation: 1) Balshillek, the son of ... Abdeshmun, citizen of

Bibliography: CIS 3248. Illustrations: CIS n tab. Ixviii (drawing).

Remarks: b'l at the end of this mutilated text might also be part of a personal name in a genealogy consisting of three names.

Djebel Mansour (Gales) Carthage N 14 Bibliography:

73

Text: 1) sim ndr gzz Spn CIS

3251;

GaRBiNI

2006:

189. Illustrations: GARBINI 2006: 189 (drawing); CIS ii Ixviii (photograph of squeeze).

Translation: 1) ... votive offering of gzz ὅρη. Remarks: FERRON-PINARD (1960-1961 a.l.) translate: *Gozéz-Saphon has accomplished his vow.’ Highly uncertain interpretation, because both s/m pro 3lm and spn pro spn are suspect.

Djebel Mansour (Gales) Djebel Mansour N 1

1) Irbt tnt pn b

Bibliography: GAUCKLER 1900 (Latin text); CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1905b; GAUCKLER 1905; LipzBarskı 1908: 187-190; FÉVRIER 1949b: 90-91; ApAMs 2003: 226-227; RES 679; KAI 140; LPE: 31-32;AE 1905 34; CIL viii 23834; ILT 634; ILPBardo 320.

2) “| wldn Ib*] hmn 3) ndr ?r&m bn kb/d/r&b/d/r

Illustration: ILPBardo 320 (photograph).

Text:

Translation: 1) To the lady Tinnit Fane B2) al and to the lord, to Bal Amun 3) votive offering of Arisham, the son of kbiysr. Remarks: GaRBINI (2006: 189) correctly reads /imn instead of mn as was done in CIS. The last name he reads as kbd, explaining it as a form of the name kbdsd, where CIS read k[y]$r. As far as we can judge from the photograph provided in C/S, the reading Of GARBINI is possible. The name Ayr, however, is attested at least ten times in Punic inscriptions from Carthage, see the note in the onomasticon sub Ky. Carthage N 15 Bibliography: FERRON-PINARD, 1960-1961: 152-153.

Text: 1) br? bft] z [q]w^r[t]h bt npthn

2) b'l gl P$]t glr bn hm‘nt hknt

3) b’...thl...yht/nk/b’/%°s/sym 4) 5) 6) 7)

s‘tr rg? br? [n w]'Is/$ [g‘1] b’nym [P g' 1] whw?

hm'nt n‘mp bn qir bn hm'nt bt? rwp? whmlkt b* &nt ‘msm w...

Latin parallel: 1) Qvarta Nyptanis filia G2) alensis vxsor Celeris 3) Mantis filii sacerdos magna 4) conditivm sua pecunia fecit cvratorib 5) vs Satvrvm Rogatv Brvti 6) one Maniv Nampamone 7) Valente Celeris fi/io/iis strvctoribus Rvfv 8) Imilcone Tvlenses vixit anzis lix Translation: 1) Built this temple Quarta, the daughter of Nyptan,

74

3. Texts from Tunisia

2) citizen of Gales, wife of Celer, the son of Amanat, the priestess 3)... 4) Satur, Rogatus, Brutus, Amanat, Namph-

5) amo, Valens, the sons of Celer, the son of Amanat, citizens of 6) Gales. Builders were Rufus and Imilco, Citiz-

7) ens of Gales, and she lived fifty years and ... Remarks: For the Latin text we follow GAUCKLER 1905. The name Amanat may be read /im‘n/tn/t, and the choice for the read-

ing mnt is based on the Latin text. The partly reconstructed br in line | is translated as ‘tomb’ by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. br..). At the end of line 3 &/b?/X' s/$ym is read by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. K*s;) as k’sym, a noun (part. qal ?) derived from the root k*s, ‘to undertake and supervise,’ parallel to the Latin curatoribus, which seems not impossible, when comparing A*s in Labdah N 18. The name at the beginning of line 4 is read Str by most scholars. Note, however, that CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1905b: 387) remarks about the first character that it could well be a s. As s‘tr 1s well attested while X*tr seems to be either non-existent or at least extremely rare, we suppose that the reading with s is the more probable one. In line 5 ADAMS (2003: 227) translates: ‘son of Celer, sons of hmn‘t,’ probably a slip of the pen. The spelling b'nym points to a pronunciation /banim/, rather than the expected

/bonim/ > /bünim/, the form actually preserved in bunem, in the first Latino-Punic inscription from Wadi Umm el-Agerem. As * in the rest of this text is used in its historically appropriate place (as in b‘/ / b‘P), indicating /a/ in semitic words (nt, *m$m) and in non-Semitic names (/[q]w*r[t]h, Str rer, nfmp([*nr, etl, hnfnt), where the last two names are perhaps not quite certain, but at least nearly so, because of the Latin text Galesis and the possible reading Mantis, one wonders whether to suppose a nominal derivation from the root bry having the

same meaning as the participle, e. g. according to the qattal-formation. This could be influenced by the Latin parallel where also a noun is used, structoribus. Note also DE SIMONE (2003: 161), who accepts the participle, but explaining the use of this nominal form against a possible perfect in the same way. The fact that Nyptan is called 5*/ g‘/ in the Punic text and just Nyptanis .. Galesis in the Latin counterpart does not strengthen the theory proposed by FANTAR (1988: 209— 211), that 5*/ in Punic texts is parallel with

Latin princeps.

Djebel Massoudj Djebel Massoudj

1

Bibliographv: CHABOT 1943-1945a, 64-67; FÉvRIER 1954c; FÉvRIER 1957: 119-121; SHIFMAN 1965: 122-124; GARBINI 1968: 13-17; SZNYCER 1977b: 178-181; GARBINI 1987b: 38; SZNYCER 1997; ΚΑΙ 141; TEixiDOR 1964-1980: 100.; LPE: 32 Illustrations: CHABOT 1943-1945a: pl. iv (photograph of squeeze); KA/ Taf. x (drawing).

Kyo git 1 » by SAN

ory

varier ty ὙΠ}

"rar

for-ca bony 9*3 EP,

seis sfr o Text: 1) ti?

t?^bn z mih X °] rst tkt

2) bn..$ bn dwS bmnht bnplsm bm...t

3) mkwsn hmmlkt b$t *srm w^ht 4) Imlkm Imb’bn °§ “| hsyw*t w*d'^t 5) ’bn z mrsm

m’tm w’rb‘m

m

El-Djem (Thysdrus), Dougga (Thugga) Translation: |) Erected this stone ms/ (?) who is set over the lands of Tushkat 2) son of ...son of Dush ...

the text that ries (cf.

3) Makusan, the king, in the year twentyone 4) of his kingship. From the stone on the

sign and until

Remarks: Why this text, written in a characteristic Punic ductus has been added to the collection of Neo-Punic texts is not clear, as CHABOT 1943-1945a speaks of a Punic text. We have included the text for the sake of completeness,

attestation of a pagus Thuscae in a Latin from Mactar, also SZNYCER 1977 notes ?rst tSK*t is to be translated ‘the territoof Tushkat,' comparing Thusca-TvVoKa also Varrıonı 1994a: 113, SZNYCER

1997:

5) this stone 240 'distances'.

but left out the N in number-

ing this text. The difficult word in line | is read nbh by SHIFMAN 1965, explained as a personal name. The reading mh is defended by GARBINI 1968, and accepted by TEIXIDOR (1964-1980: 100). FEvRIER (1957: 119, 121) and SZNYCER (1977b: 178) read this word as wibh, interpreting it as a Libyan name (cf. also SZNYCER 1997: 134), while KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. mmlKt, mrs), reads wth, another personal name. Whatever the correct reading, from a semantic point of view it seems more attractive to suppose that following the object the subject is mentioned. A combination of t ’bn = with a following noun, as supposed by GARBINI seems less probable. At the end of line 2 KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. mmlkt), reads bm[mlk]t meaning ‘during the kingship,’ which seems less probable in view of mmilkt, ‘king,’ directly following mkwsn, and his kingship being mentioned in line 4 with the expression Imlkm, ‘of his kingship.” In line 3 ba Pr]$

bn dw& bn nrwt bn zllsn bm[p]qdt is read

75

134-135, MANrREDI

2003: 443-445).

The word συμ in line 4 is explained by SZNYCER (1997: 138-139) as ‘inscribed stela,' or ‘monument,’ siding with those who suppose this word to be the same or at least related to Aramaic swt (KA/ 228). Although not impossible, it seems to us worthwhile to

pursue a comparison with svi (Cherchell N I), which might perhaps be read as syw*n and has also been translated as ‘monument.’ At the end of line 4, FÉvRIER (1957: 121) reads st instead of ?t, which he tentatively connects with the root sdd.

El-Djem (Thysdrus)

El-Djem N 1 Bibliography:

BERGER

1910b,

ccxl;

RES

94]. Text:

1) bn‘trt Translation:

1) bufırt Remarks:

A personal

name,

or bn followed

by the name “ ? The inscription is found on the backside of a statue of earthenware, scratched before baking. Nothing seems to precede bn, according to the information provided.

by FÉvRIER (1957: 121), who translates ‘... son of Arish, son of dw$ son of nrwt son of Zilalsan,

by

order

...' This

reading

translation is accepted by SZNYCER 134). In I.

4 SHIFMAN

and

Dougga (Thugga)

(1997:

1965 divides /mb ’bn,

'to determine the exact distance «from» the stone,’ which is hardly probable from a syntactical point of view, cf. also GARBINI (1987b: 38). GARBINI (1968: 14) points to

Dougga N 1 Bibliography: GANNEAU 563.

BERGER

1905a; GHaK1

1903;

CLERMONT-

1997: 36-37, RES

76

J. Texts from Tunisia

Illustration: GHaKI graph).

1997:

pl. 3, 4 (photo-

Dougga N 2 Bibliography: DussauD 1914c: 44; CHABOT 1916: 122-123; GHAKI 1997: 35. Illustrations:

CHABOT

1916:

122,

fig.

1

(drawing).

Text: 1) [1]’dn [0 ndr ? $ ndrry 2) Sm“ ql? wbrk° Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal, votive offering which dedicated 7r y 2) he heard his voice and blessed him. Remarks: BERGER 1903 notes that the characters r and y at the end of line | are ‘quite different from those ın the rest of the text,’ and with a clear interval between them. He supposes that r might be an abbreviation for rbn, and y the first letter of a abbreviated personal name, or y the first letter of the word yim*

and

r the

abbreviation

of a personal

name. Both signs together being an abbreviation for a name like Ridaeus, ryd‘y, thus CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1905a, is more probable, however. One wonders whether in this case, as sometimes elsewhere, we encounter a misunderstanding between the stonemason and his superior, recorded

in stone. Cf. also

the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 64 ad line 29. GHakı (1997: 37), following another proposal of CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1905a, supposes, with all reserve, that r y might be for ., the son of y... .

Text: 1) Pdn 105] hm[n ndr

2)? b*P tbg*g[ 3) bn mgn mrs

4) [ 8[ }'tn &bh bf 5) [ ]m[ ]kn bn hmlk[ §

6) ‘mh qlm brk[m Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, which vowe2) d the citizens of Dougga, ... 3) the son of Magon, Marish[ 4) ...atan ... 5) ...kan, the son of Imilco, he hear6) d their voice, blessed them.. Remarks: The first? in line 2 may be the last letter of the verb ndr?. $bh is most probably (part of) a name or an epithet. It is unlikely that a form of the root zb/ is to be found in the middle of the list of citizens of Dougga.

Dougga (Thugga) Dougga N 3 Bibliography: DussauD 1914c: 45; CHABOT 1916: 128-129a.; VATTIONI 1994a: 118; GHAKI 1997: 37; LPE: 32-33. Illustrations: CHABOT 1916: 129 (drawing); GHAKI 1997: 3, 5 (photograph).

the photographs published by GHAK1, while also the drawing published by CHABOT is uncertain on this point. Dougga N 4 Bibliography: Dussaup 1914c; CHABOT 1916: 128-129b; Varrıonı 1994a: 119; GHaK1 1997: 37; LPE: 33. Illustration: GHAKI graph).

1997:

pl. 3, 6 (photo-

>< >

v — DI

PRP ONE KU pr OAT OA

71

Text: 1) bym n?m wbrk tn 2) ?*bn Ig^wd bn 3) b'[n]wk bn kyw 4) ^mdyty Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day was erec2) ted the stone for Gaud, the son of 3) Banuk, the son of Kiu 4) the Maditi.

Text: 1) bym n’m wbrk 2) tn? “bn lm 3) st bn g^wd bn

4) b'nk bn kyw Remarks: V ATTIONI (1994a: 118) reads /*.. A for the name in line 3. For kyw VATTIONI (ibid.) tentatively points to Ceius, Ceiu in CIL viii 6066, 7825. The expression bym mm wbrk is normally found in votive texts and it is supposed by some to indicate the day that an infant was sacrificed, cf. e.g. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v.). In is interesting to find it in the context of a funeral inscription. For ?mdyty, see below sub Hr. Meded N 13. The y in the name kym, both in this and the next text, is difficult to recognize in

5) ’mdty Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day 2) was erected the stone for Am3) sit, the son of Gaud, the son of 4) Banuk, the son of Kiu 5) the Maditi. Remarks: ‘mst might be read ‘nist according to VATTIONI (1994a: 119). In case the first reading is correct, the name might be the

78

feminine lead to the in line 3, the names

3. Texts from Tunisia

counterpart of “ms, which would reading of br instead of the first bn thus VATTIONI (1994a: 118). For in line 4, see the preceding text.

Dougga N 5 Bibliography: CHABOT

Illustrations: (drawing); graph).

1916: 123-126.

CHABOT

GHAKI

1916:

1997:

124,

Translation: l) Taman

Remarks: Probably a personal name, comparable to Libyan r. Mw, cf. JONGELING (1984: 168).

Ellés (Thigibba)

fig. 2

pl. 2, 3 (photo-

Ellés N 1 Bibliography: GHAK1 2002: 1669. Illustrations: GHAKI 2002: fig. 2, 3 (photograph). Text:

1) Pdn Ib‘! hmn ndr °§ 2) ndP b'P wills St Slt 3) ? wSt ml'sklm brk? im* ? Text:

4) tqlm

1) [1]’dn 105] hmn [ P3 zb? 2) [bI'P tbg?g *[ ]bn bb* 5°pt bn 3) "zmlk [ Tr ]hmlkt hmy

4) [ If ] Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, what offered 2) the citizens of Dougga, at the time of the presidency of ... the son of Babba, Shafot, the son of 3) Ozmilk, the president being Imilco, the Mi4) ... Remarks: We suppose that ‘/ in line 2 may be read */t r, and r[ in line 3 as r[b. Is hmy/ to be emended to /imyddy ? Dougga N 6 Bibliography: CHABOT Text: 1) thmn

1916: 127.

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, a votive offering which 2) dedicated the citizens of w//“s m, the year of XI? 3) and the year of m/“sklm, he blessed him, he heard 4) their voice. Remarks: The edition by GHAKI (2002: 1669) does not represent the correct division in lines as visible on the photograph. The text 1s strange on some points. So it seems that this collective dedication uses the singular suffix in br incorrectly. Also the indication of the date by means of a repeated Sr is not attested elsewhere. GHAKI supposes both Sltm and ml"sklm to be names of Berber origin. However, the last letter of the first name seems to be rather ?, which might indicate a Latin name ending in -us. GHAKI translates the text as if he supposes the "t in line 3-4 to be the pronoun of the 24 sing. masc.,

Gabes (Tacapes), Ghzaizya, Hammam

while the traditional explanation as the nota

Derradji (Bulla Regia)

79

Gabes (Tacapes)

objecti is more probable. For the nomen loci Ἐς GHAKI (2002: 1674-1675) compares the ethnicon U/ulen[ses] as attested in CIL vill 12552c; the spelling w//^s may be for /ululas/.

Gabes N 1 Bibliography: TEMPLE

Ellés N 2

Illustration: ing).

Bibliography: GHAKI 2002: 1670-1672.

Text:

TEMPLE

1835: 133, 321. 1835,

no.

78 (draw-

1) ]kq . . .z/$ Illustrations: GHAKI

2002: fig. 4 (photo-

graph).

Remarks: TEMPLE (1835: 133) notes succintly that the inscription is fragmentary.

Text: 1) Pdn Ib‘l hmn nd’r °§ ndr 2) b'P wll's St ἢ. “m ISS

Ghzaizya

3) pl. *ml.yms*.? 4) y ... | brkm Sm‘ *t qlm

Ghzaizya N 1

Translation: |) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering which dedicated 2) the citizens of wil‘s, in the year ... 3)... 4) ... he blessed them, listened to their

voice. Remarks: GHAKI interprets Ἢ as the pronoun 24 sing. masc., cf. the remark sub Ellés N 1. Ellés N 3 Bibliography: GHAK1 2002: 1672-1674. Illustrations: GHAKI 2002: fig. 5, 6 (photograph).

Bibliography: GHAK1 Illustration: GHAKI graph).

1993: 166. 1993: fig. 1, 2 (photo-

Text: 1) m'rprtn bn ... tn 2) ndr 3n Ib“ 3)Ihn ... brk? Translation: 1) m*rprtn the son of ...tn 2) this votive offering for Ba3) 1 Amun ... he blessed him.

Text:

Remarks: The photographs presented by GHAKI are rather indistinct, but they do not seem to be completely in line with the reading proposed by him.

1) | b*P wll's 2) ἸξΙΣ 3) |Ip3l*

Hammam

Remarks: third text cation by sub Ellés

As GHAKI notes this is probably a commemorating a collective dedithe citizens of w//‘s, for which see N 1.

Hammam

Derradji (Bulla Regia) Derradji N 1

Bibliography: FÉvRIER 1968b: 227-228; GARBINI 1975: 258-261; GaRBiNI 1987b: 62; Fantar 19902, 108-109..

80

3. Texts from Tunisia

227;

Fantar

MONS

Illustrations: FÉvRIER 1968b: 1990a, pl. xix (photograph).

leaves us with /is/sn/tn/t, where two n’s seem more probable than two r’s, by comparison to the ¢ in §r. 27k is, in all likelihood, the pronoun of the Ist sing., probably indicating the Arish just mentioned, which makes it probable that s/s/tn/t is a trade or a function, preceded by the article.

SQ

Hammam

Derradji N 2

Bibliography: FEVRIER BINI 1987b: 62.

ET, ^f, j^ A jy v

N

Illustrations: FEVRIER graph).

1968b:

229;

Gar-

1968b: 229 (photo-

Text: 1) nd‘r ’tm ’n“dr [ Translation: 1) has dedicated, has fulfilled the vow .. Text: 1) [!]’dn zbh ?r$ bn

Remarks:

2) &ld ?nk hsnn &t

vowed, has accomplished the vow,’ or ‘vow,

3) mgn

has accomplished the vow.’ Although the spelling might point to the second expla-

Translation: 1) To the lord sacrificed Arısh, the son of 2) Shalad. 1 am the ...; the year of

3) Magon.

Remarks: hsnn the reading of which is uncertain, remains without interpretation. With much reserve FÉvRIER 1968b, who reads hstt, proposes to think of a hiphil form, 1 s. perf., of yst, ‘to kindle,’ which is improbable, as one would expect a yiphil instead of a hiphil in Phoenician-Punic; GARBINI (1975: 260f., 1987b: 62) supposes sft to be a variant of stt (< root Syr), ‘stele,’ which is also less probable, while mgn is translated by him

FEvRIER

a.l

translates:

‘Has

nation, /nadar/ being the noun and /nador/ being the verbal form, the syntax seems easier when one assumes that nd‘r is a verbal form. ?tm may be a form of the root tmm, but the context does not allow us to determine the precise form. Less probable seems the reading proposed by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. m), nd'r ?t n? n“dr, ‘he vowed [?he fulfilled] what he vowed,’ as in many instances two forms of the root ndr are attested, in which cases one is always a noun and the other always a verb.

Hr. el-Aouin

as ‘gift.’ Note also XELLA (1991: 76), who reads /istt, but without interpretation. As far as the photograph published by FANTAR 1990a allows us to see, we suppose that the possible readings of the last word(s) of line 2 are /is/sn/tn/tSt. Xt mgn seems probable (pace FANTAR

(1990a,

110

n. 6), who

maintains

that instead of § s should be read), which

Hr. el-Aouin N 1

Bibliography: BERGER-CAGNAT

BERGER

1899:

1899;

LIDZBARSKI

cxxxvi; 1902:

43-44; LANDAU 1903: 29; ADAMS 2003: 217; RES 79; TPI 218; LPE: 33-34; CIL viii

Hr. el-Blida (Abitinae),

24030 (CIL 1 707, p. 936); ILT 763; Zucc^ 1996: 1444-1445. Illustrations:

BERGER-CAGNAT

1899:

next

Hr. Brighita (Sucubi)

δ]

Remarks: As the Latin name of this place begins with a vowel, the ? following b‘? in line 2 1s probably the first sign of the name Abitinae in its Punic form.

to 53 (photograph). Text:

1) [hmzbh s]t yin qynp nrrqy prifmq’) 2) rp? &t $ptm *bdmlqrt w^dnb[l] Greek parallel: Kovivuxtog Maoxtol[c HoaxAeióo[v tateos]

Hr. Brighita (Sucubi) Hr. Brighita N 1

Latin parallel:

Bibliography: EuTING 1875: 235-237; DERENBOURG 1876; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 435, 3 C2; ADAMS 2003: 225-226; NP 123; NS] 53; KAI 142; LPE: 34—35; CIL vii 793; ILT 680; AE 1983: 954.

Quintus Marci[us] Protomacus [medicvs] facta Lucius . Marcius . cos . m[ense

Illustrations:

Ilowrto]uayog

(complete

Translation: 1) This altar gave Quintus Marcius Protomacus 2) the doctor, in the year of the suffetes Abdmelgart and Adonibal.

EuTING

1875:

next

to

235

with the Latin text); LIDZBARSKI

1898: Taf. xix | (drawing). Text: 1) g‘[d]*y bn plk$ bn phl*n ’qyl’ 2) ‘wh S’n?[t] Sy[S]m wS'$ wShqnd 3) * bt sqnd“ ^3[t]m *w* ξ πὶ vacat

Remarks: LANDAU (1903: 29) restores: 1) [hmzbh z]t ytn qyn? m*rqy prt 2) [mk h]rp? $t ptm *bdmlqrt w^dnb[*l] . Zucca (1996: 1444) presents the Latin text as follows: Q. Marci[us ...] / Protomacus, [decuma] / facta, libens merito, consulibus M[...

4) phP Pb'thm mngbt/n s“try wg'dy 5) *T..]kb'bdmwnn/t?ph*mtrT.. | "tm 6) bthnm phP ngstg *w* Snht mnpwbdm$yk

7) Π{.71......1.6[...] str pb[..]wf[... Pqt/dr bslm[.]

Latin parallel: Hr. el-Blida (Abitinae) Hr. el-Blida N 1 Bibliography: DussauD

1925b, cclii.

Text:

1) Pdn [05] hmn °§ nd? 2) ^P *[..]rglt[.]t

3)] Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, what dedicated 2) the citizens of ...

Dis Manibus sacrum Gadaevs Felicis filius pivs vixit annis Ixvi hic situs est Secvnda Secvndi filia vixit annis [ ] Satvrio et Gadaevs patri piissimo posvervnt. Translation: 1) Gadaeus, the son of Felix, the son of Palan Aquila 2) lived sixty six years and Secund3) a, the daughter of Secunda, his wife, lived years .. 4) Made for their parents the grave Saturius and Gadaeus 5) .. 6) they made (?) ... he/she lived years ... 7) ...... Satur ......

3. Texts from Tunisia

5^) vireos YO LINGO Pr SAIS? deroUIPROTO, aE j

SA b III? ary

(2

“Od

mt‘

82

|

WF i A

TM ΄

TR mu AT δῶν ὯΝ x, PyXN ez "

E Re os Sater

"EA ἢ Er

u

1

MOA D

Hr. Brighita N 1 Remarks: The reading ?$[t]m in line 3 seems much more probable than °’$/r]’, as given e.g. by ROLLIG (KA/ a.l.) and followed by ADAMS (2003: 225). The same holds true for the reading Pb‘thm instead of Ph“nhm. The word gbr, 'grave', preceded by rit, has been proposed for the word(s) following Pbrthm, however, the reading of the last letter of this word as r seems highly speculative when compared to the certain one in

preceding text remains uncertain. We cannot propose a better reading, are not convinced, however, of this solution. The two names sqnd* and s‘try have been read with $ by previous editors of this text, although the difference between 3 and s in this text seems to be clearly marked.

Hr. Djebbara

the name ‘try, directly following. DERENBOURG (1876: 178 n. 2) proposes the reading mnsbt, which would be an attractive solution as far as the meaning 15 concerned, but the q seems to be undeniable in the extant drawing. DE SIMONE (2003: 160), who reads phP Pb*nhm mt qbr, notes that this clause, meaning 'they made for their dead parent a grave,' probably accepting the reading of

KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. nıt,,), is not good Semitic syntax. As the clause is stil! not read with any certainty it is difficult to discuss this point expecting any reasonable results, but perhaps one may suppose the existence of a derivation from the root ngb, mnqbt, ‘a place hollowed out.' The lines 5 to 7 remain without any reasonable explanation. RÓLLIG (KAI a.l.) reads ’gbr bslm at the end of line 7, cf. also ADAMS (2003: 225). What the relation of 'the grave in peace' should be to the

Hr. Djebbara N 1 Bibliography: DussauD

1923, Ixxix.

Text: 1) [tn?] °bn z Ihmlk

2) [ ]db[ Pm bn m

3)[]bdb'l[

|

4) In°bnf | "t[ Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Imilk 2) ... the son of ... 3) ... Bodbal 4) ... Hr. Djebbara N 2 Bibliography: DussauD

1923, Ixxix-Ixxx.

Hr. Drombi

83

after Dussaud:

Text: 1) ti? “bn z Im'tnb'l

2) bn b'lynu P? 3) b'[ Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Matanbal 2) the son of Balyon, erected it for him his fath3)er...

OAK TIN [910 KP

] oy

rx70/]

*jx«?

Hr. Drombi Hr. Drombi

Cof?

N 1

Bibliography: TEMPLE 1835: 353; GESENIUS 1837: 219-220; WURM 1838: 32; BLAU 1849: 441; Levy 1857: 95-98, 6; SIEGFRIED 1863; Dussaun 1921: cclix-cclx; CHABOT

Translation: 1) Stele which bui2) It Yuratan,

1932-1933:

4) the son of hsm, on his own 5) costs completely

448;

LEvi

DELLA

VIDA

1964:

61; JoNGELING 1984: 10-12; 1995a: 68-70; NP 6; LPE: 35.

FERJAOUI

Illustrations:

182;

3) the son of Autifatan,

after Chabot: TEMPLE

1835:

no.

GEs-

ENIUS 1837: tab. 27, Ixvi; Dussaun 1921: cclx; CHABOT 1932-1933: 448; JoNGELING 1984: 10,11 (drawing). after Temple:

09 x KSPT 75%

Sry OITA AS’

Text: 1) mnsbt m? b*

2) 3) 4) 5)

m bn bn tm

ywrhtn *wtp'tn hsm bts btm

Remarks: For the editorial history of this text, cf. JONGELING 1984, and FERJAOUI 1995a, who points out that the text was found in Hr. Drombi. The reading seems without reasonable doubt; for line 3, cf. JONGELING 1984. The combination of the verbal root

84

3. Texts from Tunisia

bny and the object muisbt is also attested in Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1 and Metameur N 1. In line 4-5 LEvı DELLA VIDA (1963b: 79f., id. 1964a: 61) is the first to point to the use of nr as a marker of relativity (cf. also AMADASI (1980: 34), also quoting two editions of this text as relating to different texts; FERJAOUI 1995a reads Κ᾽, which seems

highly improbable), and he also established the reading btstm btm, generally accepted by now, against e.g. CHABOT (1932-1933: 448), who supposed a personal name /ismrtn. DUSsAUD (1921: cclix-cclx), reads the name hsm. He, however, proposes for the signs following the reading bn sqmbtm. The name

^wtp*tn was read by DussAauD (1921: cclixcclx), as ^w..*t, CHABOT

gave

“wrs“tn.

The

(1932-1933: 448),

existence

of Altifatan,

mentioned by Corippus, is in favour of the

reading ‘wrp‘tn (on the variation between / al-/ and /aw-/, cf. JoNGELING 1984: 90-91). FERJAOUI (1995a: 70) retains both possibilities, ^wtpls*tn.

2) db‘r [05] hmn wSm“ qP 3) bri? bym n‘m wbrk Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated tsd’r, the son of Ta$2) dabar to Bal Amun, because he heard his voice,

3) blessed him on a pleasant and blessed day. Remarks:

1990:

FERJAOUI

(FERJAOUI-M'CHAREK

123) draws attention to the strange

construction of the concluding formula, introduced by w instead of the expected k. Note, however, that the same combination is attested several times in e.g. Constantine and Guelma, cf. JoNGELING (1999a: 55, 60). For bym n*m wbrk, cf. the remark sub Teboursouk N 1. Hr. Ghayadha N 2 Bibliography: 123-124.

FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK

1990:

Hr. Ghayadha Hr. GhayadhaN Bibliography: 120-123.

Illustration: FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK ib (photograph).

1

FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK

Illustration: FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK ia (photograph).

1990:

1990: pl.

T [9 INST PROS X? oXKy Ix Wes ^ o»

Text: 1) ndr "3 ndr tsd?t bn t$

Text: 1) Pdn bl] hmn bf 2) q’ τᾷ bn [ 3) 4] brk?

1990: pl.

Hr. Ghavadha Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun b[ 2) .. Arish, the son of [ 3) his voice, blessed him.

Text:

1) nd'r § [n] 2) dr mtn?l[m]

3) [0] *m[n k§] 4) m qim

Remarks: The name in line 2 15 ’r$, as FERJAOUI notes once in his commentary, the other spellings used by him (*rs in the transcription of the text, and "Aris as translation in the commentary) are incorrect. [n the photograph presented we cannot discern any trace ofq in line 2 nor of φί in line 3. Hr. Ghayadha N 3

Bibliography: FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK 124-125. Illustration: FERJAOUI-M'CHAREK iia (photograph).

85

1990:

1990: pl.

Text:

1) [05] mn ?ySkt bd[ 2) qP bri?

Translation: 1) Votive offering which de2) dicated Muttunil[im] 3) to Bal Amun because he list4) ened to his voice. Remarks: In line 1 FERJAOUI (1990: 126) inadvertently prints ? instead of * (cf. however id., 131, where the correct reading is mentioned). FERJAOUI notes that there is room for the extra m at the end of line 2, although mtn?! would be equally possible as a name. Note, however, that mtl is only attested once, in Carthage, while mtilm is at least attested 14 times, cf. BENz (1972: 144—145), in Carthage and Constantine. The same name is also attested in several Latin texts, muthunilim (CIL viu 10525, IRT 873),

mutthunilim (CIL vii 23904). Translation: 1) to Bal Amun ’y3kt .. 2) his voice, blessed him.

Hr. Ghayadha N 5

Remarks: Traces of a line preceding the ones that have been preserved seem to be extant. FERJAOUI explains the name of the dedicant ?yskt as Libyan, comparing /asuctan in its various forms. As the latter is a name of the type y- + -fan this seems less probable, which, however, does not imply that the name is not Libyan. As the stone is damaged on the left side, one wonders whether one could not read bn/ instead of bd[ in line 1. Hr. Ghayadha N 4 Bibliography: 126-128.

FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK

Illustration: FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK iib (photograph).

1990:

Bibliography: 128-129.

FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK

Illustration: FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK iib (photograph).

1990:

1990: pl.

Text: 1) [nd]r ^3 ndr 2) k'zr' Ib

3) Ἵ hmn Sm’ 4) ql’ brk Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated 2) Kazro to B3) al Amun he heard 4) his voice, blessed him.

1990: pl. Remarks: FERJAOUI compares the name Á*zr? to kysr, although they seem distinctly differ-

86

3. Texts from Tunisia

ent: vowel /a/ versus /i/ or /ay/ in the first

syllable, /z/ versus /3/ (which, however, may be a scribal problem), and an ending in a vowel (-e ?) versus, most probably, a consonantal ending. Hr. Ghayadha N 6 Bibliography:

FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK

Remarks: The name Vitalus, to which the orthography points, is not a genuine Latin name, but it is attested in this form in North Africa (/LA i1, 2241, 4514, 7358 (Vi[t[alus)). CHABOT (sub Punica ix 1) renders the name as Vitalio, a name infrequent in North-Africa (cf. AE 1898, 88; 1985, 955; CIL viii 08121 (= ILA ii 277), 21268).

1990:

129-130.

Hr. Guergour N 2

Illustration: FERJAOUI-M’CHAREK 1990: pl.

Bibliography: CHABOT, SzNYCER 1983; GARBINI 143.

iib (photograph).

Punica ix 2; 1987b: 36; ΚΑΙ

Text: Illustrations: SZNYCER tograph).

1) nd‘r [

2) [0 hmn [

Text:

Translation: 1) Votive offering [ 2) to Bal Amun [ Remarks: FERJAOUI instead of * in ndr.

1983: pl. iva (pho-

1) “bn ^3 {π΄ Imtnb

inadvertently printed ?

2) Ἵ bt prym? ty? 3) s'trnyn? ^y SP * 4) *w* &nt ‘rbm whd Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Mutunb-

Hr. Guergour (Masculula)

2) al, the daughter of Primus, erected (it)

Hr. Guergour N 1

3) Saturninus, her husband, she 4) lived forty years and one.

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica ix SZNYCER 1983; GARBINI 1987b: 35-36. Illustrations: tograph).

SZNYCER

1983

l|;

pl. ivb (pho-

Text: 1) *bn^$ en?’ Im‘rys‘t

2) bt str tn’ P s*tr 3) bn wyt‘l? hw? Snt 4) ’rb‘m w’hd Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Marishat, 2) the daughter of Satur, erected it for her

Satur, 3) the son of Vitalus; she lived years 4) forty and one.

Remarks: νὰ is best explained as a case of haplography, whether the result of the pronunciation as ROLLIG (KA/ a.l.) maintains, or as a mechanical mistake, cf. e.g. SZNYCER (1983: 56), remains undecided. CHABOT (sub Punica ix 2) explains it as "γᾷ P, ‘the husband to her,’ which is less probable. ROLLIG (KA/ a.l.) supposes **w* in line 3-4 to be for Au“, although CHABOT'S solution of dittography is preferable. One wonders whether the stonemason found that he had made a mistake with ?v3P pro ?y3 SP, and made up for it by writing * in “w“ twice, to get the correct number of signs in the text (cf. e. g. JONGELING (1996a: 70) on counting the signs in a text).

Hr. Guergour (Masculula)

87

Hr. Guergour N 3

Hr. Guergour N 5

Bibliographv: CHABOT, Punica ix 3.

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica ix 5.

Text:

Text: 1) “bn ^3 tn“ Hay pwly[ ] 2) [ ]nb'l[ ]m[ ]g'[ Jb

1)[ |r 2) yw bn s‘tr ‘ws

3) [ Pb[ ]ki wet 1" 4) E Irf IT) 3) I Fd’n’f Inf ]mf ]

3) Smt “sr whms

4) tym P *bwy: Translation: 1) [This stone was erected for ...]r2) 1w, the son of Satur, he lived 3) fifteen years; 4) erected it for him his father. Remarks: CHABOT remarks that for the last word in this text, a reading without w is also possible: *5by*. The pronunciation indicated by this form seems to be /abuya/ or /abidl. Both forms are not easily explained because of the concluding /a/. Or should one suppose that in line 2 br instead of bn is to be read. Then both *w* and the suffix -y“ in line 4 may

6) [ In[ m* int

YUN) Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Lucius Pullius 2) .. 5) 6) .. years 7) .. Remarks: CHABOT remarks that he could not find any coherent meaning in the text after line |. ὅπ in line 6 might be for ‘years,’ but since the context 1s unclear, one cannot be sure.

be explained as feminine forms, indicating /awal, resp. /ya/.

Hr. Guergour N 6

Hr. Guergour N 4

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica ix 6.

Bibliography: CHABOT, 144.

Punica ix 4; Καὶ

Text:

1) *bn^$ t? Irw[p?] 2) bn mwnt‘n? w*w^ 3) ‘sr wS“lS

Illustrations:

CHABOT,

sub

[NK vy

Remarks: CHABOT notes that instead of rw[p?] at the end of line 1 rwp[yny] is also possible. He further remarks that a reading rwp[ ym] is less probable.

ix

MINER

9.

Snt

Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Rufus, 2) the son of Montanus, and he lived years 3) thirteen.

Punica

(drawing).

ον

VAX

[nur

Text:

1) pbly [ ]bn hgrly 2) hw? $nt $mnm whms

vy

6

88

3. Texts from Tunisia

Latin parallel: 1) Jivn vs [ Ji 2) f. Sail ]vs . 3) [ ]xit [ ] e.v.h.s.

Remarks: The only word recognisable in this text is bum, ‘his son.’

Translation:

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica ix 9; FEVRIER

1) Publius ......... the son of Egrilius

1967: 61-62; GARBINI 1987b: 36.

Hr. Guergour N 9

2) he lived eighty five years. Remarks: It is difficult to say if and how the Neo-Punic text and the Latin one are related. According to the Latin text the deceased reached the age of 105 (line 3 of the Latin

text may

be read:

1974b: 27; GARBINI

Text: 1) nd'r $$ ndr [05] °dr prh

2) [plyg blb tr [S]°t [S]ptm τῷ 3) bn gnt w[ ]d/^b? bn ipt

[vi]xit [a]mmos cv hic

situs). Because 85 is nearer to 105 than 25, CHABOT (sub Punica ix 6) chose the reading $mnm in the second line of the Neo-Punic text, although *$rm is also possible. The draw-

Translation: 1) Votive offering, which dedicated to Bal Addir Pro-

2) fugus with a pure heart, the year of the

ing, however, leaves not much doubt that a reading ‘srm, to be expected for twenty in Phoenician and Punic, is not very probable. The second line of the Latin text may be reconstructed as F. SATVRVS. One wonders whether in the Neo-Punic text pbly [bn str] bn hgrly is possible. The first sign of the name herly is a little awkward as far as the drawing can be trusted. It seems as if the stone mason first made an ? and then changed it into A. Could this already have been in the draft on which the stone mason based his work? Then it might be the result of some doubt by the writer of the text how best to express the /e/ of Egrilius in Neo-Punic characters.

suffetes Arish,

3) the son of gf and ...bus, the son of Shafot. Remarks: The interpretation of b/b tr, ‘with a pure heart,' was first proposed by DUSSAUD (1946: 380). He was followed by FÉVRIER in 1967, who, however, also proposed to divide

prh pyg? and to translate ‘he has offered a heifer.' The problem with this translation is that then no name of a dedicant seems to be mentioned in the text, cf. also GARBINI (1987b: 36). X in line 1 may be a mistake for *£, however, this seems to be an awkward solution. One wonders whether the reading nd*rm ?$ is perhaps possible.

Hr. Guergour N 7 Hr. Guergour N 10 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica 1x 7. Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica ix 10. Text: only a few signs remain

Text:

Hr. Guergour N 8

2) Sbtb’r[ ]

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica ix 8.

4) tt?^gmswh[ ]

1) [ Jbf |

3) rnbntl?d'rn Text:

DI Pmf ] 2) bd hSns bnm [w]hqrbt/n[ ]

5) 6) 7) 8)

p'rtsl‘t’w8[ ] ^n mkl*kmstl[ ] nfmtinm[ ]&[ ] whm[ ]

Hr. Hammam Zouakra, Hr. el-Hammi, Hr. Kasbat (Thuburbo Majus)

89

Remarks: CHABOT remarks that the width of the lacunae cannot really be established, however, line 3 seems to be complete. In line I the Jb[ might be the rest of [*/b[n z ti" | ], according to CHABOT. In line 3 the n’s might be /'s, while the first t in line 4 might be read as n. The ¢ in the same line might be read as bn. In line 5 t might also be read as n. In line 7 $rım could be read as Snr; the sign following could be ¢ or An. In the last

Illustration: graph).

line wAm[ should probably be emended to

2) the son of ?rx “rd, because he heard his

whms, the conclusion of the indication of the age of the deceased, thus proving this to be a funerary text. All remarks are CHABOT’s; a

photograph or drawing of this text might be helpful, but even this is doubtful.

Hr. Hammam Hr. Hammam

Zouakra Zouakra

Bibliography: BERGER

N 1

1893b: 72; RES 780

(cf. RES 782).

FERJAOUL

1997:

56

(photo-

Text: 1) Pdn [0] “mn ndr ^3 ndr br[

2) bn τ “rd K? &m* qP {Κ᾿ Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, a votive offering which dedicated br... voice, blessed him.

Remarks: FERJAOUI (1997: 57) thinks of a double name, ?r$ followed by the otherwise unattested name or name element ‘rd. It is, however, more attractive to think of an epithet of Arish, perhaps the indication of a function or something comparable, introduced by the article. FERJAOUI 1997 notes that instead of ?rx the reading ’ds is also possible, while the photograph also seems to admit the reading ’b$. In the photograph we were unable to discern the last two signs at the end of line | read by FERJAOU! 1997.

Text: 1) tn? “bn z Itsb

Hr. Kasbat (Thuburbo Majus)

2) If bt mtn bn brk bn

3) b'l[ ]S[ Hr. Kasbat N 1 Translation: |) This stone was erected for tsb2) I“, the daughter of Mutun, the son of Barik, the son of 3) Bal...

Bibliography: CHaBoT Illustrations: CHABOT Text:

1) Istr[ ]b[

Remarks: BERGER 1893b read 155b/“, while CLERMONT-GANNEAU (sub RES 780) notes that the reading with s is more probable, which seems an advisable solution because

2) ‘mdm bs[ ]b*tm w[ 3) hbtbh‘nns?

$ 1s infrequent in Libyan names.

Latin parallel:

Hr. el-Hammi

2) c]Jolvmni[ 3) Ja[ Jiner[

Hr. el-Hammi

Translation:

1) Jza[

N 1

1) For Ashtart .. Bibliography: FERJAOUI

1997: 55—57.

1924: 162-164. 1924: 163 (drawing).

90

3. Texts from Tunisia

2) w*zrb'l kynh w^dnb'l [ ]

3) w'zrb'l myndg[ ] Latin parallel: 1) |sthar Bardae Asdrvbal 2) Jecho Iddibal Mian anno Thaddac 3) b[ ]r Sider Mvthvmbal Avdasso Asdrvbal Mindig 4) Jaco Chvbvr cellam promam aedificandam 5) Jvm inponendum opere tectorio perficiendam 6) ]factast penes Mastlivam Svcan exactorem 7) ]cvzole et Miane qvae postea venit in 8) ]t Sapote Rvcem redemptoribvs is qvi supra scripti sunt 9) ]pona faciendum coeravit (or: coeraverunt)

2) columns ... 3)... Remarks: In line 2 one might reconstruct the well-known expression birm btm, however, with an unexpected vowel letter. For this expression, cf. the remark sub Constantine N 58. CHABOT (1924) notes that the first signs in line 3 may be explained as /ibt, ‘the temple,' while the last signs in this line may contain a form of the root 713". Hr. Kasbat N 2

Bibliography: PoiNssor 1938-1940: 394— 397. CHABOT 1938-1940: 397—399; LEVI DELLA VIDA 1965: 69—70; TEIXIDOR 1964— 1980: 15-16; GARBINI 1987b: 37; ILT 732; AE 1940: 16; ILPBardo 362.

Translation: 1) ..., which built and ... 2) and Azrubal kynh and Iddibal .. 3) and Azrubal myndg ...

Remarks: The first word in this text, “dr, may be explained as avariant of hdr, according to LEvı DELLA VIDA 1965 and followed by

e.g. KRAHMALKOV

(2000, s.v. smd,, tklt;;),

who (ibid.) for tk/t proposes the translation ‘storage of food.’ Is it possible that kyh and myndg are nicknames of the two Azrubals, used to differentiate between them? The names give the impression of being nonSemitic.

Hr. Kranfir Hr. Kranfir N 1

Bibliography: RES 363. Illustration: ILPBardo 362 (photograph). Text:

Text: Five lines, illegible.

1) “dr tklt ^$ b*r? ws“md/”T | Remarks: Text painted on earthenware.

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

9]

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

Hr. Maktar N 2

Hr. Maktar N 1

Bibliographv: BARGES 1852: 5; EWALD 1852: 1742, 16; Levy 1857: 66, A17; CHABOT, Punica xii 33 MENDLESON 2003: 38; TO 2; NP 36.

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 3-5; EWALD 1852: 1741-1742, 15; Jupas 1857: 20; LEvY

1857:

65-66,

Al6;

SCHRÖDER

1869:

266, nr. 13; CHABOT, Punica xii 2; MENDLESON 2003: 37; TO 1; NP 35; LPE: 35-36; CIL viii 1008.

Illustrations: TO 2 (drawing); MENDLESON 2003: NPu9 (photograph). Text:

Illustrations: TO 1; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvi 11 (drawing); MENDLESON 2003: NPu4 (photograph).

Jp P] RT nee Text:

1) Pdn 10 ndr °§ ndr 2) Crescens

3) Sm“ qP brl? Translation:

1) Pdn [05] nd 2) 'r^$ ndr [b']I

3) ng b't b'nk S[p] 4) t brk [...]n 5) kh S[mF [q]I[^] brk° Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal, votive off-

2) 3) 4) 5)

ering which dedicated Baloneg, the daughter of Bannak, while Barik was sufet ... because he heard her voice, blessed her.

Remarks: MENDLESON (2003: 38) presents the same reading as CHABOT (sub Punica xii 3). We have repeated it supra. The photograph published by MENDLESON 2003, however, gives the impression that part of the reading is the result of adapting the text to the well-known formulae. So, e.g., we

1) To the lord to Bal, votive offering which

read in line 5: khn $m“ mlm br.

dedicated 2) Crescens

more or less certain about kin. mlm for ql followed by a suffix might be for g//m (note, however, mf? for expected g? in Hr. Maktar N 5). In line 3, following b‘t b* we cannot discern any signs, while we have the feeling that the beginning of line 4 might be read pr. Following brk in the same line we think we are able to read bn ys[]n.Cf. also the remark sub Tunisia OU N 5.

3) he heard his voice, blessed him.

Remarks: The use of Neo-Punic script for most of the text and Latin script for the name of the dedicant probably indicates that this type of stele could be bought prefabricated including the inscripton, with only the name to be filled in. C7L a.l. describes the text as originating from Carthage, which is incor-

We are

Hr. Maktar N 3

rect.

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 5; EWALD 1852: 1742, 17; LEvv 1857: 67-68, A18;

92

3. Texts from Tunisia

Levy 1864a: 62-63; CHABOT, Punica xii 4; MENDLESON 2003: 38; TO 3; NP 37.

ing the element ms- has a downstroke which moves a bit to the left, and some thickness at

the top, which makes us think that reading Illustrations: TO 3 (drawing); MENDLESON 2003: NPu8 (photograph).

/ ——

b seems more attractive than either p or n. The next sign being a straight line without any extra element at the top is best explained as n, leaving us with the unknown Berber name msbnd‘t. Should we compare MSBDT (RIL 937), and posit a nasal vowel following B? However, we want to point out that the

drawing in TO also allows the reading ”$ ndr instead of the first part of the name msbnd‘t, leaving us with a personal name d“n/t. Note that CHABOT also accepted the possibility of the reading ’¥ at the beginning of line 2 and that the combination ndr ?€ ndr is very frequent. Text:

Hr. Maktar N 4

1) Pdn Ib*l ndr

Bibliography: BARGEs 1852: 6; EWALD 1852: 1742, 18; Levy 1857: 67, A19;

2) msbnd't bn 3) “bdmlart

CHABOT, Punica xii 5; TO 4; NP 38. Translation: l) To the lord to Bal offered 2) Masbandat, the son of 3) Abdmelgart.

Illustration: TO 4 (drawing). Text: 1) Pdn [05] ndr ^3 ndr

Remarks: MENDLESON (2003: 38) reads ms/

2) b^Png bt b*nk S[pt]..

Xngd't instead of m/’Sprd“n, as CHABOT (sub

3) E...

Punica xii 4) did, and *bdm[l]qrt instead of CHABOT’s

*bdmlqrt.

The

sign, or part of it,

interpreted by CHABOT as the / in *bdnilqrt is taken to be part of the letter g in the preceding line. As the name *bdmlqrt is well known and is normally be spelled with /, hence we follow CHABOT on this point. For the first two letters of line 2 we concur with MENDLESON (2003: 38), both because of the photograph and the very frequent initial /mas-/ in Berber names. The ending of the name might be -d‘n or -d't, names ending in -n or -f both being frequent, cf. JONGELING

(1984: 56-57, resp.

81—84). However, because of the photograph we are inclined to say that some difference between n and t is made by the scribe of this text, and that t is more probable as the reading of the last letter ofthe name. The sign follow-

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal, votive offering which dedicated 2) Baloneg, the daughter of Bannak ... 3) because ... Remarks:

OU N

Cf.

also

the

remark

sub

Tunisia

5.

Hr. Maktar N 5

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 6; 1852: 1742, 19; BOURGADE 1856: LEVY 1857: 67-68, A20; LEvy 61-62, n. 3; SCHRODER 1869: 266, CHABOT, Punica xii 6; JoNGELING TO 5; NP 39.

EWALD 19-20; 1864c: nr. 14; 1984: 5;

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

93

Illustration: TO 5 (drawing).

Hr. Maktar N 7

Text: 1) Pdn 105] ndr °§ ndr

Bibliography: BARGES

1852: 6—7; EWALD

1852: 1742, 20; Levy 1857: 69-70, A22; LEvv 1864a: 66, 4; CHABOT, Punica xii 8; MENDLESON 2003: 37; TO 6; NP 417113.

2) *bdml[q]rt bn b“Ihn’

3) khn khn 3m* ml’ 4) bdl? Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal, votive offering which dedicated 2) Abdmelgart, the son of Balanno 3) because he heard his voice 4) blessed him. Remarks: Note the two mistakes, m for ql’ (cf. however the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 2), and bdk for brk’. The second mistake resulting from the similarity of b, d and r in Neo-Punic script. For /kan/ as a conjunction, ‘because’, cf. e.g. JoNGELING 1986b.

Illustrations: TO 6 (drawing); MENDLESON 2003: NPu3 (photograph).

Y

AX

(rg MULA

rJr ^n Pu KJ MY pew Text: 1) dn [05] nd?r?^$ ndr hmlk 2) bn "zrb'l bn mtnb‘l Κη Κη 3) $m? qP wrk

Hr. Maktar N 6 Bibliography: Levy 1857: 68-69, A21; Jupas 1857: 20 n. 2; CHABOT, Punica xii 7; TO? 5b; NP 40; CIL viii 1012.

(som

Illustration: TO? 5b; Jupas

(drawing).

1857: 20 n. 2

Text:

1) qd? Latin parallel: 1) C. Decrivs. Celadvs 2) votvm solvit. libes 3) animo. Translation:

1) Celadus. Remarks: JUDAS (1857: 20 n. 2) notes that the drawing published in TO 15 not exact.

Translation: |) To the lord to Bal votive offering which dedicated Imilk, 2) the son of Azrubal, the son of Mutunbal, because 3) he heard his voice, blessed him. Remarks: MENDLESON (2003: 37) remarks upon the repetition of the preposition kn (translating: for ‘for [sic]'), but we are convinced that this repetition is intentional, probably for greater emphasis, cf. JoNGELING 1986b. In the last line MENDLESON reads brk’, against the accepted reading [b]rk’, for which see CHABOT (sub Punica xii 8). The photograph published by MENDLESON clearly shows that instead of the expected b, a w was written, so the reading

is wrk’, which may be a lapsus for whrk’, or for brk’. As both phrases are attested it is difficult to decide what is most probable, but the construction with w is only attested a few times and the other one is very common, cf. JoNGELING (19992: 55-56). For the sake of

94

3. Texts from Tunisia

completeness we note that the drawing in TO clearly presents the reading wt? . Hr. Maktar N 8

Bibliography:

BARGES

1852:

7-8; BOUR-

GADE 1852: 25; EwaLp 1852: 1742-1743, 21; Junas 1857: 22, 23-24; Levy 1857: 70; LEVY 1864a: 64; SCHRODER 1869: 267, nr. 15; CHABOT, Punica xii 9; MENDLESON 2003: 38; TO 7; NP 42.

Illustrations: TO 7 (drawing); MENDLESON 2003: NPul0 (photograph).

rer) op

for

NAY [ev pr

Mi]

be m). The introduction of the concluding formula is read K/it kit by CHABOT, and the horizontal line on top of the alleged t may be interpreted in this way, but the 7 in ’dn looks more or less the same, similar to those in ndr (twice); also MENDLESON (2003: 38) reads khn khn. Therefore we are also inclined to read the third sign of the name at the begin-

ning of line 3 as b/d/rSnsn, especially since n preceding the ending /-san / is attested in msnsn and mstnsn, while t in this position is not yet encountered. Hr. Maktar N 9

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 1743, 22; Levy 1864a:

64; CHABOT,

1852: 8-9; EWALD 1857: 70, A24; LEvy

Punica

xii

10; MEND-

LESON 2003: 40; TO 8; NP 43. Illustrations: TO 8 (drawing); MENDLESON 2003: NPul8 (photograph).

"-—

——

X] 7 A 4

Remarks: The reading of the name in line 3 remains uncertain. The first sign may be b, d or r; the second sign is read $ by CHABOT (sub Punica xii 9), which is confirmed by the photograph in MENDLESON 2003 (according to the drawing published in TO it could also

DE

^

=

-

“" urn

19

REI 149

Text: 1) Pdn [05] ndr ^$ ndr 2) y‘Iss‘n bn brkb'l bn 3) b/d/rst/ns‘n khn khn 3m* 4) qP brk? Translation: 1) To the lord, votive offering which dedicated 2) Yalas-san, the son of Barikbal, the son of 3) Bashtasan, because he heard 4) his voice, blessed him.

Mix

nrAgr NS L__-

oo”

|

Text: 1) dn [05] “mn n’qydS 2) nd'r^$ n'dr mtn 3) b'l bn b'lytn pyg 4)? Sm” ’tqwl? b'rk? Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, the holy one 2) votive offering, which dedicated Mutun3) bal, the son of Baliton, he fulfill-

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

MALKOV 2000, s. v. qd$,.), where ’qyd$ isthe article followed by an adjective ‘holy.’ The form may be explained as the result of vowel

harmony: /gadi$/ > /qidi8/, cf. PPG?, § 93bis. If the drawing in TO were to be trusted, the d in n’qyd$ would be improbable, but the photograph presented by MENDLESON 2003 shows the reading to be correct. The rest of the text is typical for this type of inscriptions, apart from pyg’, given as uncertain by CHABOT, however, already transcribed in this way by LEvv (1864a: 64). The reading of this word is without doubt according to the drawing in 7O and the photograph with MENDLESON 2003. One wonders, however, whether it is not possible to suppose the first sign to be not p but rather & and the signs read as yg to represent a misshapen ? repeated correctly as the first sign of the next line. Also the earlier editors of this text had their problems with the second half of line 1. LEvy 1857 reads n’syn, ‘these columns,’ but he proposes /Pdyr in 1864: 64, which he leaves without interpretation. It is interesting to note that the letters not only hang down from drawn lines, but that the longer ones also touch drawn lines.

vYowu ^IpoANlO erix At we Vo |

u

“ὦ

Remarks: ‘mn n’qyd$ should be explained as a dittography for “mn ?qyds (cf. also KRAH-

|

—

4) ed (his vow), he heard hts voice, blessed him.

95

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering which dedicated 2) Arısh, his priest, the son of Shalo, 3) because he heard his voice, blessed him Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xii 11) reads gl? instead of κ᾽ in line 2, which he explains as the name of a Libyan deity. This, however, gives bad grammar, as the article in hkhn cannot be explained. The reading with $ 1s, however, more probable according to the drawing in 7O, as g would have been much longer, we suppose this to be the relative particle 5, followed by the preposition ἰ and a suffix 3sg. masc., the proleptic suffix referring to Bal Amun, cf. JONGELING

(1984: 51). Hr. Maktar N 11

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 10-11; EWALD Hr. Maktar N 10

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 23; LEVY

BOURGADE 1852: 26-27; 9-10; EwaLnD 1852: 1743,

1857: 70-72; LEvy

1864a: 69 n. 2;

SCHRÖDER 1869: 267, nr. 16; CHABOT, Punica xii 11; JONGELING 1984: 51; TO 9; NP 44. Illustrations: TO 9; ScHRÓDER xvi 6 (drawing).

1869: Taf.

1852: 1743, no 24; LEvy 1857: 72-73, A26; JUDAS 1857: 9, 37; SCHRÖDER 1869: 264— 265, nr. 1; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 436-437, 3 C12,

Taf. xviii, 4; CHABOT,

iv A 5,

Illustrations: TO 10; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvi 9; JoNGELING 1986a: fig. 1; GARBINI 2006: 191 (drawing).

Text: 1) Pdn [0 ‘mn ndr ^$ n*dr

Punica

id. xii 12; JONGELING 1986a: 250; VATTIONI 1993a: 333; JoNGELING 1999b: 82; GARBINI 2006: 191; TO 10; NP 45.

Text:

2) τῷ hkhn SI?” bn SP

1) Pdn ὉΠ] hmn k* Sm“ qlm

3) kh Sm“ qP brk?

2) brkm DSP

hmkt rm ‘tr

3. Texts from Tunisia

porn

[po]

X C

x f XO 1x! rey

NYA?

[ort

pp

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard their voice, 2) blessed them, the citizens of Maktar, at the time of the officials 3) Ozerman, the son of Iastatan and Iashdabay, the son of 4) Masaalat, the president being Balshillek, the son of Ipshar. Remarks: *t r is best explained as ^t, ‘time’, followed by an abbreviation r, which may be the first letter of a derivation from the root rbb, cf. already BERGER (1886: 336), and further FEVRIER-FANTAR (1965: 48-49), JoNGELING 1999b, BARTOLONI-GARBINI (1999: 88, n. 45). It seems less probable to suppose it to be an abbreviation of rbm, as proposed by SZNYCER (1998: 51), because ofthe following official who is designated as

rb. Taking into account the rb Ai$ptm attested in Hr. Maktar N 75, one may suppose that the two persons mentioned following ‘t r are two suffetes. For the existence of two suffetes on the one hand and another official

on the other, cf. PoINssoT on the princeps Thuggae (1966 esp. 1270), where he relates the princeps and the rb h$ptm in Maktar. On the function of the rb, cf. also Huss (1979), HELTZER (2001). Note that it is not impossible that ^t r not always introduces the same officials, cf. e.g. $ptm Spt wednb‘l *t r ?dnb*'l bn ?¥mnhls in a punic text from Carthage (RANL viii/xx1 1966: 201 line 2). It is pos-

Hr. Maktar N 12

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 11-12; EWALD 1852: 1743, 25; LEvy 1857: 73-74, A275 Levy 1864a: 63—64; CHABOT, Punica xii 13; MENDLESON 2003: 39; TO 11; NP 46.

Illustrations: TO 11 (drawing); MENDLESON 2003: NPul5

(photograph).

x SN

0j(X252 foy

\poxlony

=

X /gox^

sible that in our text *t r means ‘the time of the officials’ while elsewhere one should translate ‘the time of the rb, the president.’ Ozerman, the son of lastatan is also attested in Hr. Maktar N 64, 46, and this may, of course, be the same person. GARBINI (2006: 191) reads ysrb^y instead of y¥db‘y. The traditional reading is to be preferred, because of the occurrence of /asidba in a Latin text (CIL viii 11434), and Sdby in a Punic one (CIS 2187).

>
/a-im/. CHABOT (sub Punica xii 30) notes that a personal name is expected following t? P, and ‘ym giving the impression to be a derivation of Ay he proposes to read /ymry, ‘his ...' However, as CHABOT (sub Punica

J. Texts from Tunisia

102

xii 30) also notes that the possible sign fol-

Illustrations: TO 30 (drawing).

lowing m might very well be a fault in the stone, the suffix -im being very well known, we suppose reading “ym is the best option.

Text: 1) (πῃ “bn z 2) Izik“ bt^$m 3) w*w* S§‘nt *s'r

Hr. Maktar N 29

4) wSS

Bibliography:

BaRGES

1852:

20; EWALD

1852: 1731; BOURGADE 1856: 40; JUDAS 1857: 53-55; Levy 1857: 84; SCHRÖDER 1869: 269, nr. 5; CHABOT, Punica xii 31; TO 29; NP 63. Illustrations:

TO 29; SCHRÖDER

1869:

Taf.

xvii 10 (drawing).

Vii

Translation: 1) This stone was erected 2) for Zileka, the daughter of Oshim, 3) and she lived ten years 4) and six. Hr. Maktar N 31

^ Nie

qa TO? P Kasse Text:

1) tn? “bn z It’ bn 2) str tn^ P *by? Translation: |) This stone was erected for To..., the son (?) of 2) Satur, his father erected it for him.

Remarks: ‘by’, ‘his father,’ probably stands for /abiyo/. The y may indicate the vowel,

or rather the glide y. PPG*, ὃ 240, 1, accept -y? as the suffix of the 3d sg. masc., although an explanation as a fem. suffix is, of course, also possible.

Bibliography:

BARGES

1852:

21; EWALD

1852: 1731, 28; LEvy 1857: 85-86, B29; SCHRÖDER 1869: 271, nr. 15; CHABOT, Punica xii 33; JoNGELING 1996a: 73; TO 31; NP 65. Illustrations: TO 31; SCHRÖDER ΧΝ 7 (drawing).

1869: Taf.

PAYA" 4X E Aare]

"Toy?

Text: 1) tn? ’bn z Ibrkb'l 2) bt b'l$m* w*wh

Hr. Maktar N 30

3) §nt °rb‘m

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 20-21; Boun-

Translation: |) This stone was erected for Barikbal, 2) the daughter of Balshamo, and she lived 3) forty years.

GADE 1856: 40; EwaLD 1852: 1731; LEvv 1857: 84—85; SCHRÖDER 1869: 270, nr. 11; CHABOT, Punica xii 32; JoNGELING 19962: 73; TO 30; NP 64.

Hr. Maktar (Mactar) Hr. Maktar N 32 Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 21-23; EWALD 1852: 1731-1732, 29; LEvv 1857: 86-87, B30, 103-104, n. 1; SCHRÖDER 1869: 271, nr. 17; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 436, 3 C8; CHABOT, Punica iv A 6; FÉVRIER 1958-1959: 25-31; TO 32; NSI 54; NP 66. Illustrations:

TO

*but tht ?bn st qbrt *but tft hbnt st qbrt sw?vt tht ?bn z *but qybr tht ?bn st *bn.

The texts N 32-34 commemorate a female, while N 35 was set up for a male, which makes it highly probable that the words ‘but, qbrt and sw?yt are fem. forms. qbrt has been

explained as a qal part. pass., cf. PPG’, § 139, which points to the explanation of the other forms as part. too. The parallel of /uikt and tht ?bn st, ‘here’ and ‘under this stone’ points to a meaning of the root ‘hn parallel to the

f. 99 3h x rrt "RI

JR ^» rper Xn

hinkt Anke Ankt Ankt

Taf.

1869:

ing).

"ry

32: 33: 34: 35:

1898: Taf. xx 6 (draw-

32; SCHRÖDER

xvii 4; LIDZBARSKI

N N N N

103

(TN FT

Vs EIXPR PD

meaning of qbr ‘to bury,’ e.g. ‘to lay to rest’ (a relation with the root biy (perf. hophal), as proposed by FÉvRiER (1958-1959: 26) is improbable). The order of elements being different in N 34 and 35, but the use of a form of qbr in N 35 (probably a qal part. pass.,

according to PPG?, $ 139: /qabir/ > /gibir/) Text: 1) tn’ ’bn z Phtmylkt bt bdmlq 2) rt °St y'skt'n bn s*ldy? Ὁ] 3) hmkt'rm whw? ὅπηι $Sm whms 4) hnkt *bnt tht ’bn st qbrt Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Ahotmilkat, the daughter of Bodmelq2) art, the wife of Iasuktan, the son of Salidio, citizen of 3) Maktar, and she lived sixty five years 4) here ... under this stone was she buried. Remarks: hnkt means ‘here’ as concluded by HARTMANN and HorruzER 1971 (and followed by e.g. KRAHMALKOV 2000 s. v., cf. also LIPINSKI 1997, 317-318), rather than ‘dead body’ as supposed by e.g. ROLLIG (sub KA/ 136, hnkt or nkt preceded by the article), or ‘cave’ as supposed by FÉVRIER (1958-1959: 29, hnkt from a root Aink). For the discussion, cf. also DNWSI s.v. hnkt. The following words are still enigmatic, and comparable syntagms are found in a few other texts:

indicates that sw?yt in N 34 must have more or less the same meaning, 'to bury/to be buried,’ cf. e.g. also KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. swy.), sw”’yr is a qal part. fem. of swy, to be buried. FÉvRIER 1958-1959: 29, proposes the meaning 'tomb' for this word and he compares syw*t in Cherchell N1, where, however, the reading syw*n seems to be more probable. For this meaning of ‘bn, cf also PPG’, ὃ 139. The verb cannot be a denominative derived from "bn ‘stone,’ as has been supposed earlier, because the spelling with * is consistent. The nifal of this verb also occurs, viz. in Kef Bezioun N 1 n“bn“ (fem.) and in Kef Bezioun N 2 n*bn (masc.). The use of hbnt in N 33 instead of ?bn as in the other texts 1s perhaps to be compared to the use of the word pairs s/m / simt in Phoenician and s/n?’ / slni? in Aramaic 'statue,' the fem. form being used for statues of females. Thus Abnt might be a variant of ?bn ‘stone,’ that can be used when the memorial stone is meant for a deceased woman, cf. also FÉvRIER (1958-1959: 28). So many words ending in - in this syntagm, one may also suppose a lapsus, of course. Note, however, that Abn and /ibiit are both followed by a different demonstrative pronoun, Z, resp.

104

J. Texts from Tunisia

st. The same distribution of demonstrative

pronouns is attested in this text (Hr. Maktar N 32), where "bn z and ?bn st are found. For these expressions, cf. also the remarks of DE Sımone (2003: 158), who maintains that

they are Punic renderings of Latin expressions like hic sepultus/-a est, hoc loco sepul-

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for lala, daughter of Abd2) eshmun, the wife of Gemellus, Selid3) io, citizen of Maktar, she lived 4) enty and five, here she was ...,

the the son of years twunder this

tus est, which seems quite possible. It should be noted that these texts originate from the same family. y'skt*n bn s*ldy?, the husband

5) one was she buried.

of ?"htmylkt buried beneath Hr. Maktar N 32,

Remarks: For *bd$mn LiDZBARSKI 1898: 333,

is himself buried beneath Maktar N 35. The father of y^skt*n, s‘/dy’, may be the same s“/dy’

supposed the reading “bdhnn, the reading -3was proposed by CHABOT (sub Punica iv A

st-

as the one mentioned in N 33, while s“/kny bn

7). For the end of line 4 and the beginning of

y*skt*n may very well be his grandson through y^skt*n mentioned in N 32 and 35. Note also the s*/dy? bn y'ski*n in N 82.

line 5, cf. the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 32.

Hr. Maktar N 33

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 23-24; EWALD

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 23; EWALD 1852: 1732, 30; Levy 1857: 87, B31; SCHRODER 1869: 271, nr. 18; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 436, 3 C9; CHABOT, Punica iv A 7; FEVRIER 1958-1959: 25-31; TO 33; NP 67. Illustrations: TO 33; LIDZBARSKI xx 4 (drawing).

95 arr

1898: Taf.

AXA

Hr. Maktar N 34

1852: 1732-1733, 31; Levy 1857: 87-88, B32; SCHRÖDER 1869: 272, nr. 19; LIDZBAR“ΚΙ 1898: 436, 3 C10; CHABOT, Punica iv A 8; FEVRIER 1958-1959: 25-31; JONGELING 1984: 6-7, TO 34; NP 68. Illustrations: TO 34; LIDZBARSKI 1898: Taf. xx 1; CHABOT Punica iv A 8; JONGELING 1984: 7 (drawing).

ΙΝ

err MA y emos |

B fy SIR

2M

Qf

ANG SI RN Text: 1) tn’ hbn z lylh bt “bd 2) §mn ’$t gmP bn s“Id 3) y? b'] hmkt'rm *w* Snt *

4) srm whmS hnkt *bnt tt h 5) bnt st qbrt

f Avevo

Text: 1) tn? 2) bt 3) bn 4) m

’bn z Phtmylkt ymlk ὉΠ] mkd* “St s“Ikny y“skt“n hw* S’nt SIS hnkt sw^yt tht

5) ’bn z *bnt

aid

Hr. Maktar (Mactar) Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Ahotmilkat, 2) the daughter of Imilk, citizen of Makda, wife of Salkani, 3) the son of lasuktan, she lived years thirt4) y, here .. under 5) this stone she was buried.

105

2) was interred here, under this stone, he was buried. 3) and he was sixty threc years of age, perfect in life. Remarks: For line 2, cf. the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 32. The first letter in line 3 looks

like w in the drawing in c.g. LIDZBARSKI Remarks: For the reading of this text, cf. JONGELING (1984: 6-7). In line 2 and 3 we follow the reading presented in the drawing of CHABOT (ad Punica iv A 8). For the enigmatic words in line 4, cf. the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 32. Hr. Maktar N 35

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 24-25; EWALD 1852: 1733, 32; LEvv 1857: 88, B33; SCHRÖDER 1869: 272, nr. 20; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 436, 3 C11; CHABOT, Punica iv A 9; FÉvRIER 1958-1959: 25-31; ADAMS 2003: 226; TO 35; NP 69; KAI 152; CIL viii 1048 (p. 2459) = CIL viii 23473.

1898. Through the comparison with the preceding texts CHABOT (sub Punica iv A 9) proposes to read /1], cf. also ROLLIG (sub

KAT 152) and Adams (2003: 226). When, however, “bn is a verb that takes the deceased as its subject, the form in this text should be masculine. Note the parallel of honeste and tm bhym. Cf. also DE SIMONE (2003: 158), who supposes that tm bhym is a Punic rendering of the Latin expression. Hr. Maktar N 36

Bibliography: BARGES 1852: 25-26; EWALD 1852: 1744, 26; LEvy 1857: 74, A28; EUTING 1871: p.33; CHABOT, Punica 11 2; xii 36;

FÉvRIER 1958-1959: 25-31; TO! 37; NP 70 Illustrations: TO 35; LIDZBARSKI

1898: Taf.

=NP

IIO.

xx 8 (drawing).

Y DANG 2 VOI Py o?

(PSII PLAN? AEN PEN

Illustrations: TO! xxxviii (drawing).

37;

EuTING

1871:

Taf.

Text:

1) dn [0] n *bd.? 2)... bn... k'n k'n 5m‘

3) qP bri?

Text: 1) y'skt'n bn s*ldy? b'l hmkt‘rm 2) hnkt qybr tht °bn st *bn 3) wbn $$m &t wilá tm bhym

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal brought Abd ... 2) ... son of ..., because he heard 3) his voice, blessed him.

Latin parallel: 1) Iasvcta Selidiv filius 2) vixit annis [xiii honeste

Remarks: Although the drawing published by EUTING shows the complete second line, it is impossible to propose a reading for the personal names. The repeated 4‘ seems to us quite clear, although CHABOT (sub Punica 11, 2, xi1, 36) did not recognize the element.

Translation:

1) lasuktan, the son of Salidio, citizen of Maktar,

3. Texts from Tunisia

106 Hr. Maktar N 37

Bibliography: EwALD 1852: Levy 1857: 74, A29; CHABOT,

37; MENDLESON

1744, 27; Punica xii

2003: 39; TO! 38 = TO?

37; NP 71.

Illustrations: TO!

38; TO?

37 (drawing);

Remarks: The reading is the one presented by CHABOT (sub Punica ii, 3; based upon a squeeze of the text). The drawing presented by EUTING 1871 shows a text contained within a clear border, in which the last sign of line 1 cannot be anything else than ?. Also the name at the end of line 2 and the begin-

ning of line 3 seems uncertain, according to

MENDLESON 2003: NPull (photograph).

this drawing.

Text:

Hr. Maktar N 39

1) § ’dnb‘l bn 2) *bdmiqrt Translation: 1) Of Adonibal, the son of 2) Abdmelqart.

Bibliography: TEMPLE 1834; TEMPLE 1835: 344; GEsENIUS 1837: 196-201; WURM 1838: 28-30; BENARY 1839; DE SauLcy 1845: 94-95, DE SauLcy 1846: 574—575; JUDAS 1847a, 50-52; EWALD 1852: 1736-1737, l;

Remarks: The marker of relativity at the beginning of the text, of course, relates the text to the stone upon which it is carved. Whether this is a votive or a funerary stele remains uncertain. MENDLESON (2003: 39) opts for a funerary nature of the text but does not rule out the other possibility.

37; LEvy 1857: 46-50, Al; SCHRÖDER 1869: 264, nr. 1; BERGER 1886: 335; CHABOT, Punica iv A 1; FEVRIER 1971; JONGELING 1986a: 249-250; GARBINI 1987b: 34; SZNYCER 1998; JONGELING 1999b: 82; MENDLESON 2003: 40; Numidica 1; NP 7; LPE: 36.

Hr. Maktar N 38

Illustrations: TEMPLE

BOURGADE

ENIUS Bibliography: BaRGES 1852: 26; EWALD 1852: 1744, 28; LEvy 1857: 74, A30; EUTING 1871: 33; CHABOT, Punica ii 3; TO! 39; NP 72 = NP 120.

Illustrations: TO! 39 (cf. TO? Ancienne 39); EUTING

1856:

11, 31, 45; JupAs

1835: no.

1835: pl. vi; GESENIUS

1857: 9,

142; GES-

1837: tab.

21, lvii; WURM 1838: 28-29; JupaAs 1842: pl. v; BOURGADE 1856: lere Numidique; SCHRODER 1869: Taf. xv 1; BARGES 1878, pl. 6 (drawing); Bist 1976: tav. 1, 1; SZNYCER 1998: 48 (photograph), 54 (drawing); MENDLESON 2003: NPu21 (photograph).

1871: Taf. xxxix (drawing).

Text:

1) [ἀπ [05] h[mn] ndr 2) '$ ndr mtn

3) b'l [b]n b'l[S]I[k] 4) [Sm“ qP br]k° Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, votive offering 2) which dedicated Mutun3) bal, the son of Balshillek 4) He heard his voice, blessed him.

OXNO ἊΝ

X

ΟἹ

[ix OX) aM

i Kann) Text: 1) Pdn b*l hmn Κ΄ Sm‘ 2) qlm brkm Db‘? hmkt'rm 3) “tr ’rSm bn msyr‘n w

4) y‘sktn bn msygr‘n

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

107

Illustrations: HAMAKER 1828: tab. i1, 2; GESENIUS 1837: tab. 23, Ix (drawing); HorTUZER 1963: pl. xxix, | (photograph).

5) rb m'rwz

6)? bn Ὁ] 7) SIk Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) their voice, blessed them, the citizens of Maktar, 3) in the time of the officials Arisham, the son of Masiran and 4) lasuktan, the son of Masigaran, 5) the president Maruz6) o, the son of Bal7) shillek. Remarks: The fifth to seventh line consist of a group of small signs in the lower left corner of the text. The first two signs are of the small type indicating 5, d or r. The reading rb follows from the comparable phrase in e. g. Maktar N 11, cf. JONGELING (1986a: 249-250, 1999b: 82). FÉvRIER (1958-1959: 30-31; cf. id. 1966: 98, id. 1971) reads bt, from a root bit, ‘to engrave,’ which is ingenious, but improbable. [n the same vein SZNYCER (1998: 56-57) proposes the reading br, to be explained as the qal perfect of a root brh/br?, which in Punic would have the meaning ‘to form, to engrave.’ The same

root, with this meaning he finds elsewhere, in two texts from Maktar (id.: 57, n. 68, of which the complete readings are not presented) and in Constantine N 5. TEIXIDOR (1977: 270) supposes miyr^n instead of msyr*n in line 3, and mSygr“n instead of msygr*n in line 4, less probable. For this text cf. further the introductory note.

Text: 1) msdys‘n [bn] *ykny msgzb/d/r'n 2) b'l w*zb/d/r [ ]^y [ Indr ’t ’n“dr 3) 105] hmn Sm“ qP brk? Translation: 1) Masdisan, the son of Aikanay Masgazban 2) citizen of Waz..., he dedicated the votive offering 3) to Bal Amun, he heard his voice, blessed him. Remarks: The reading ‘ykuy in line | is proposed by CHABOT (sub Punica iv A 2), who notes, however, that also the reading ‘pkny is possible. CHABOT supposes that ‘ykny might be the indication of a function. As ’ykn“ 7} ykn“ is attested as a personal name and the word follows directly after a possible bn, the explanation that it is a personal name seems most attractive. Is w“zb’ perhaps the Punic name of Uzappa (a name we have in another orthography, wzp‘n, in Hr. Maktar N 101) ? "t ?i*dr is best explained as ”r, nota objecti, followed by the article ? and the noun “dr, as was done by CHABOT (sub Punica iv A 1). HoFruzEn's (1963b: 338) proposition to read ndr "Ὁ n*dr, with the same meaning, but analysed as ndr followed by the nota objecti

with a proleptic suffix of the 3d masc. "P, and the logical object of the verb “dr seems less likely.

Hr. Maktar N 40

Hr. Maktar N 41

Bibliography: HAMAKER 1828: 21-37; GEsENIUS 1837: 206-210; WurM 1838: 28-30; EWALD 1852: 1738, 4; BOURGADE

Bibliography: JupAs 1845: 48; DE SAULCY

1856: 31; LEvy

1857: 52-54, A4; CHABOT,

Punica iv A 2; HorruUzER

1963a: 93-94, no

9: JoNGELING

Numidica

10.

1984:

13;

iv; NP

1845: 85-86; JUDAS 1847a, 56; JUDAS 1857: 47; EwWALD 1852: 1740, 7; LEvy 1857: 59, AT; SCHRÖDER 1869: 266, nr. 9; CHABOT, Punica iv A 3; SZNYCER 2000: 44-45; NP 16.

108

J. Texts from Tunisia

Illustrations: JUDAs 1847a, pl. 11; DE SAULCY 1845 pl. G; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvi 7 (drawing); SZNYCER 2000: 53, pl. ia (photograph).

Illustrations:

SCHRÖDER

1869:

Taf.

xv

6

(drawing); SZNYCER 2000: 53, pl. ib (photograph).

Text: Text: 1) Pdn b*l hmn ks*m

1) tn?’ °bn zi

2) lay bn b‘lytn

2) * ql’ watyr 3) Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he hea2) rd his voice, Victirus ... Remarks: According to CHABOT (sub Punica iv A 3) possibly a Latin name beginning with Vict- (Victirus pro Victrius ?). Having only the drawing by JUDAS, reprinted by SCHRÓDER, one might suppose that the

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for 2) Lucius, the son of Baliton. Remarks: SZNYCER (2000: 46) reads [I] for the last sign in line 1. The photograph provided in his article shows no traces of the sign, but the older drawing (SCHRÖDER 1869) does. Hr. Maktar N 43

sign transcibed as y was longer than shown in the drawing and meant to be a w. In that case on could think of a reading wgrwr[yJ°, Victorius, for which the spelling wyqtry? is attested in Teboursouk N 7. Note, however, that w for /o/ is infrequent. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. qtr), explains this word as the copula w followed by a piel perfect form with suffix of gtr, ‘to sacrifice.’ As part of the text is lost, it is impossible to ascertain whether the name of the dedicant was to be found in the third line of this text.

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xv 2. Text: 1) [t*]n? *bn Im‘rk 2) ? bn prn? 3) ’pytr“ w*w? 4) &nt mspr S't

Hr. Maktar N 42

Translation: 1) The stone was erected for Marc2) us, the son of Fronto, 3) the pytr*, and he lived 4) years, the number of years.

Bibliography: SCHRÖDER 1869: 66, 269, nr. 4; CHABOT, Punica iv A 4; HOFTIJZER 1963: 93: JoNGELING 1996a: 72-73, SZNYCER 2000: 45-47; NP 17.

Remarks: pytr*, which also occurs in the next few texts, remains without explanation; also the relation with ptr in RES 1535 is unclear. As the Fronto in Hr. Maktar N 43, 44 and

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

45 is probably the same person, one may conclude that the function or trade indicated by the term pytr* was hereditary in his family. In the last line CHABOT supposes that the example from which the stonemason worked was incomplete and incorrect. Instead of the actual number of years the deceased had lived, only a preliminary remark ‘number of years' was noted on the copy the mason worked from.

109

the number of years, introduced by 3nr. One wonders whether one might read ww” /mid?li $nty^,

‘and

years,’

he

lived

meaning

to the

to the

full

measure

of his

measure.

md’h

(/middo/ ?) may be explained as a derivation

of the root mdd. Hr. Maktar N 46

Bibliography: BERGER 1889a: 100; CHABOT, Punica iv B 7.

Hr. Maktar N 44 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xv 3. Text: 1) tn “bn Iprnt 2) bn b“In? hpytr“ w* 3) w? Snt ‘msm w'ms

Translation: 1) The stone was erected for Fronto, 2) the son of Balanno, the pyrr“, and he liv3) ed fifty five years.

Text: 1) tn? ’bn z lyt 2) ° {b]n wd'syn bn y‘lgm 3) b'l hmkt'rym Translation: 1) The stone was erected for Yola2) o, the son of Wadasin, the son of Yalgam, 3) citizen of Maktar Hr. Maktar N 47 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica iv B 8. Illustration:

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xv 4.

Translation: 1) The stone was erected for Gaius, the son of 2) Fronto, the pyti* 3) and he lived ... Remarks: The reading as presented supra is the one favoured by CHABOT (sub Punica xv 4). Following ww” in line 3 one expects

1954b:

tab.

cxx,

| OJ/X TO4 IX 7

10)) XIU ox" TO’ χατ)οχ ,!

Hr. Maktar N 45

Text: 1) tr? “bn Ig*^y bn 2) print? ’pytr“ 3) w*w? Imr/d^hstky?

PICARD

1025 (photograph). —

Remarks: Or divide in line I fn° bn? Perhaps it is better to suppose that [Ἢ “bn is a case of haplography for [π΄ “bn (this spelling is attested in Ksour Abd el-Melek N 4).

Text:

1) Pdn [05] hmn k* 2) Sm“ qP brk? db'r 3) bn m'rwz Ὁ] 4) [hmkt |'rm

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, because 2) he heard his voice, blessed him, Dabar, 3) the son of Marawzo, citizen of 4) Maktar.

Cb

110

3. Texts from Tunisia

Hr. Maktar N 48

Hr. Maktar N 50

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica iv C 7.

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica iv D4.

Illustration: Pıcarp 1954b:

Text: 1) tn? hbn z IS°prgm bn 2) db'r Ὀ1 hmktrm *w? int

tab. cxx, Cb

1024 (photo-

graph).

3) hmsm

Text: 1) tn’ ’bn z It 2) 1 ’st“bry bn 3) m'rk??st-bry Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Ti2) tus Staberius, the son of 3) Marcus Staberius.

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Shapurgam, the son of 2) Dabar, citizen of Maktar, he lived years 3) fifty. Remarks: A €prem bn db‘r is also mentioned in Hr. Maktar 64: 21, probably the same per-

son. Remarks: Note the prosthetic aleph in both occurances of the name ’st“bry.

Hr. Maktar N 51

Hr. Maktar N 49

Bibliography: 1916:

Bibliography:

BERGER

BERGER

130; VATTIONI

1890: 1994a:

39; CHABOT 116

1890: 39; CHABOT,

Punica iv D3.

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxiv, Cb 999

Illustrations: CHABOT 1916: 130 (drawing); PICARD 1954b: tab. cxv, Cb 1002 (d15) (photograph).

(photograph).

——À

ἌΣ

49?

UJ

v Do

mmu

o

d

xXx Ar)

Text:

1) dn ὉΠ hmn Κ΄ Sm“

2) qU brk® ῬΑ] 3) prym? ?mdyty Text: 1) Pdn Ὁ hmn k* Sm“ 2) ql? brk? m'rk?

3) bn gy q-mly Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Marcus, 3) the son of Gaius Canuleius.

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Optatus 3) Primus, the Maditi. Remarks: Berger (1890: 39) read the names as Optatius Primus. VATTIONI (1994a: 116) reads ?pr*ty/b? bn instead of "pr't[ ^. The sign following the second ¢ looks much more like

Hr. Maktar (Mactar) b/d/r than y, while of bn not a trace is to be

seen in the photograph. Chabot (sub Punica iv F) gave the first name as ?pt^t, Optatus, without an indication of a lacuna. VATTIONI (1994a: 114, 116) also erroneously reads

?mdyt instead of ’mdyty in line 3. Hr. Maktar N 52

Bibliography: Punica xv |.

BERGER

Illustrations: PICARD 1022 (photograph).

1890: 39; CHABOT,

1954b:

tab. cxx, Cb

1]

The freedman would be the man who paid for his release. In the text from Sousse the syntagm used is PN, ?$ sdn bd PN,, while in Ksiba Mraou as in this text the syntactical construction used is: PN, s(y)dn 3 ΡΝ... To explain the last mentioned construction FEVRIER (1951—1952c: 14) supposes that at a late period ?v£ sdn was shortened to sd, which seems doubtful. Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1 uses the same construction as the one in this text: the article followed by a derivation of the sdn followed by $. However, the person described being a female, and the reading sdt being a little bit more probable

than sdn, this reading is to be preferred, cf.

[X»2

Zor p17

xl»

oxn o)

| |

KJ\OXy "e^

y!

17 F

Text: 1) Pdn Ὁ hmn 2) k* Sm“ ql? 3) brk? m‘rk°

4) qrnly hsdn ὃ m'rk? Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun 2) because he heard his voice 3) blessed him, Marcus 4) Cornelius, the freedman of Marcus. Remarks: Note that the last ? was written above the line. For sdn (cf. also Sousse N 1; var. sydn, Ksiba Mraou N 2, Guelma

N 8) meaning ‘freedman’, cf. CHABOT (sub Punica xv 1), who supposes that by becoming a freedman, someone becomes a Sidonian (cf. also below). FEVRIER 1951-1952c maintains that the word is related to Arabic sad / saydan, ‘copper,’ resp. “copper, gold.’

also HOFTIJZER (1963a: 96). The fact that the female counterpart of the sdn is a sd, if read correctly, implies that the word sdn cannot be a nisbe adjective derived from the place name Sidon, as that would have been sdnt /sidonitl. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. V. sdn,) supposes the personal name known from Latin epigraphy as Siddin, Stiddin (for the several variants, cf. JONGELING 1994, s.v. siddin) to be the same word (cf. also BESCHAOUCH 1980a: 232, 233), which is less probable as Siddina is attested, which may be the feminine form of the name Sid-

din; sub sdn;, KRAHMALKOV adduces Sadith (RT 676) as the feminine form of Siddin, which is confusing. Note that in several instances, the person to whom the freedman is related is described as '(his) lord,’ cf. e. g. Huss 1987, while in this text the freedman has taken the name of his former master, as was Roman practice. Hr. Maktar N 53 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica v 1. Text: 1) Pdn ὉΠ hmn KE? 5m‘ 2) qP bri? wd'sn bn 3) hmy'l Ὁ hmkt‘rm Translation: 1) To the lord Amun, because he heard

112

J. Texts from Tunisia

2) his voice blessed him, Wadasan, the son of 3) Amial, citizen of Maktar. Hr. Maktar N 54

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xxv 3; CLERMONT-GANNEAU with CHABOT, Punica xxv 3, note; LEvı DELLA VIDA 1927: 20 n. 4; Marcy 1936: 67-81; FEVRIER 1949b: 85-

91: ALVAREZ

DELGADO

Illustrations: CHARLES-PICARD a (photograph).

reads in the Libyan text, translating *whom God loves,' which is highly improbable to say the least. FEVRIER 1949b, followed by

e.g. ALVAREZ DELGADO (1964: 237-239),

1999:

reads the name ’sPriy in line 3, cf. however CLERMONT-GANNEAU (Punica xxv 3, note), who divides as we have done (supra). He explains ?rnypyq? as the article followed by a Latin title ending in -ficus. We tentatively

1957: pl. vii

suppose that the word might be a rendering

1964: 228-245;

VATTIONI 1994a: 117-118; 60-63; RIL 31; KAI 153.

tion of this name, as it is also possible that only for the b'l/ur bn ypd't in this text a irregular shortened form was used). BÖHM (1999: 60,63) explains /imdyP as a shortening of the expression MDJT-H MNKD-H, which he

BOHM

of a Latin honorificus, with metathesis of n

and +. FÉVRIER explained pyq? as a renderText: 1) °bn z trot Ib‘Ihn’ bn 2) ypd't hmdyt tn? P 3d 3) br't bn ^St^rnypyq? b

4) &d Ibym yhw^bnymdb 5) ἃ

δ] Pxkmst

ing of Greek uvuxoc, which seems farfetched. VATTIONI (1994a: 117) accepts this same interpretation for the group of characters ypyq', while he explains the preceding ’$Prn as a rendering of the name Saturion. This is unprobable because a name of this type would not exhibit a prostethic vowel,

Libyan parallel:

as VATTIONI supposes. ÄLVAREZ DELGADO

1) BHNH

(1964: 230, 238) reads pyq'd, connecting this word with the following sign, read as 5 by most commentators. He translates it as *prefect.’ Combined with the following 3d, ‘the prefect of the country.' The first few signs in line 4 have been read sd /bym preceded by the preposition b in the preceding line. However, ALVAREZ DELGADO (1964: 239) explains /bym as the prepositions / and b, followed by ymy, the plur. of ywm with suffix of the Ist sing., the whole prepositional phrase meaning: *because during my days.' The following signs, y/w”, are translated by FÉVRIER as ‘may he (they) live.’ Then, bny cannot be anything else than a plural cstr. of bri. FÉVRIER realises himself that the spelling normally is br’ or bn for this form and he remarks that the unexpected orthography is occasioned by the necessity to avoid ambiguity with the sing., resp with a sing. followed by the suffix

WIPDT MDITH

2) MSW[H] MWLH MNKDH Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Banno, the son of 2) lafdat, de Maditi, erected it for him Shad3) barat, the son of Osht the honoured one, in 4) the area of the Libyans ... 5) ... citizen of Toshkamast. Remarks: The first part of this text is more or less clear, only from "3t in line 3 problems arise. Note how the Punic name b‘/hn’ is represented by bhnh in the Libyan text. This probably indicates an actual pronunciation of /banno/ or /bonnöl (Ibalhanno! > /balannöl > Iba’annöl > Ibannöl?). (Note that elsewhere we have rendered this name as ‘Balanno,’ as it is impossible to ascertain whether /bannö/ was the regular pronuncia-

3 sing. This type of reasoning is, of course, completely beside the point, because it supposes that those who composed these texts

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

113

had a range of different spellings at hand to choose from. The solution to take bny in the sense of ‘his son’ seems more attractive,

bn Sern vpyq? bid lbym vlw? bry $dbr*t *[d] "It ?$km st, “This tombstone was erected to

given as a possiblity by FÉVRIER (If this diffi-

son of SCrn re-erected it to him. Sdbr‘t found it in Lybia, restored «it» and erected it again on this ridge," (with small differences in the translation, cf. id., s. v. my, Skm, cf. also st).

culty is insurmountable for some, they might translate ‘his son Κ᾽), but then the relation with the preceding text becomes unclear. The uncertain m in the following word is read by FÉVRIER as $, although this reading is thought

Baalhanno son of Ypd't the Mdyt ite. Sdbr't

Hr. Maktar N 55

to be less probable by CHABOT (sub Punica xxv 3), who transcribed m. VATTIONI (1994a:

117), with less thought for correct Semitic grammar, reads y/iw? bnym dbr*t which he

translates ‘they will live/will be as (his) sons of dbr*t.' In his comment he notes that the h in yhw’ may be for A, which would leave us with a form of the root /wy, ‘to be,’ not otherwise attested in Phoenician or Punic. Then he remarks that -m in bnym may be a proleptic suffix. Though the proleptic suffix

is not infrequent in Punic, it is normally followed by the nota relationis $. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. wy, cf. id., s. v. *d;, pq, Sd Ibm, $km), reads vpyq? bid lbym yhw? bny $dbr“t [fd ?] *It ?km st, *$dbr*t acquired/found it (the stela) in Libya, restored «it and» re-erected it on this ridge,’ which seems highly speculative. Following the supposed 3dbr*t in line 4-5, FÉVRIER reads ‘rb “lt km st, which he translates: *while they are guarantors for this hypogeum.’ ^rh in this case, is supposed to be the same as ‘rb in the text from Piraeus: /Ant gw ‘rb “It msbt z, ‘in order that the community will be guarantors on the subject of this stele.' We are inclined to see at the end of line 5 the words 5*1 rskmst, ‘citizen of Toshkamast.' Note that many place names in Libyan speaking areas are fem. words beginning and ending with 1, see, however, the remark sub

Sabratha N I. ALVAREZ DELGADO (1964: 239—240) reads after /bym : hw? bny sdbr*t *[r bJ“lt ?€ kmst,

“my

son

Sodbirat

was

the

defender of the town of the people of the Moabites (Kemosites).' We will not discuss this impossible interpretation further. We finally mention the reading and translation of this text by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. bny): ?bn z tint ΠΡ πη’ bn vpd*t hmdyP tr’ P Sdbr*t

Bibliography: BERGER 1900: clxxxiv; LipzBARSKI 1908: 62-63; CHABOT, Punica iv E 7; RES 238. Text: 1) t? hbn z Ity‘l 2) ^mr bt k*m‘kt Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Tial2) omar, the daughter of Kamakat. Remarks: BERGER 1900 reads the two names

as ty mn. and kym‘kn, cf. also RES 238. The reading presented is the one given by CHABOT (sub Punica iv E 7). Hr. Maktar N 56

Bibliography: CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1900b: 332; BERGER 1901c: 324; CHABOT, Punica Iv Ε 8; RES 161; KAI 148. Text:

1) Én z Itw'lb bt bil 2) ytn bt $'nt hsrm 3) wSb*

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Tualab, the daughter of Bal2) 1aton, aged of twenty 3) and seven. Remarks: The stonemason apparently forgot

a few signs in line 1, pro fn read r ‘sanctuary’ (cf. also VAN DEN BRANDEN (1962: 290-291), Goop (1983: 23)); deriv-

117

ing the word from the same root, dwr, CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 325 n. 1) proposes ‘circle’ > ‘administrative subdivision of a town’ (cf. BERGER (1901d: 144, 149): ‘town’ (?), HALEVY (1901b: 269), SZNYCER (1972: 39): 'district'). The explanation as a geographical (LıinzBarskı 1902: 48) or a divine name (KRAHMALKOV 1975: 188-189) is less probable. At in line 2 according to LipzBARSKI (1902: 48), COOKE (1903 152-153), ROLLIG (sub KA/ 151), LiPeiNsK1 (1994: 128, n. 35), '(vaulted) room, crypte,' or rather, according to SZNYCER (1972: 40), a ‘depot.’ However, this necessitates the explanation of the preceding p as a linking word. The authors just mentioned suppose that p is a variant of ?p, ‘also,’ which is hardly probable. FEVRIER (1956: 16-17) relates it to Aramaic p, Arabic fa, which is, until now, not attested in Phoenician nor in Punic. The

supposition by HALEvY (1901b: 270), VAN DEN

BRANDEN

(1973a:

166-167),

KRAH-

MALKOV (1975: 190, 203), that pnt is an orthographical variant of the preposition put,

occurring in ΚΑΙ 69, 74 (cf. PPG’, § 250), is also highly uncertain. For the time being, it seems more appropriate to suppose that pint is a noun indicating some part of the temple building in Maktar, or an adjective describing the hsrt just mentioned. The following $rt may contain the nota relationis followed by a phonetical spelling of historical hr, “which is/are under,’ cf. however, CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 327), who compares Hebrew Set, plur. sator, ‘foundation’ or ‘column’ (cf. also COOKE 1903: 153). This explanation is less attractive because of the vowel /a/ indicated by * in the second syllable. The following ?/*rit at the end of line 2 Is considered by CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 327) to be the equivalent of Hebrew ?wIm / ?yIm, ‘entrance hall,’ in the plur., cf. also

SzNvcER

(1972:

410).

However,

sup-

posing the preceding words contain the word tht used as a preposition, it is difficult to understand what is meant by something ‘under the foundation’ or ‘under the pillars,’ especially in case mhzt really indicates

118

3. Texts from Tunisia

something like ‘windows.’ When ?/ is taken

as the plur. of the deomstrative pronoun, an enigmatic ^mt remains. COOKE (1903: 154), combining ?/ with preceding tt, which he translates as ‘pillars,’ explains ‘mt as the equivalent of Hebrew ‘mt, ‘besides,’ which

is not readily to be accepted, as the Hebrew word always occurs, apart from one instance, preceded by the preposition /. In line 3, *trt is most probably the normal word for ‘crown,’ here used for a unknown architectural element, ‘gable,’ ‘cornice,’ or possibly ‘lintel,’ cf. e.g. CLERMONT-GANNEAU

(1900b:

28-29),

FEVRIER

(1956:

17-18),

VAN DEN BRANDEN (1973a: 166, 168), KRAHMALKOV (1975: 188, 190-191; KRAHMALKOV 2000, s. v. *trt, translates ‘crown’). It is impossible to decide whether the word is used in the sing. or the plur. The next word is probably an adjective qualifying the 'crown(s),' of which the ending seems to have been realized as /-ot/, which, however, could be explained also as both sing. and

also still stands. The last word in line 4 has been read bswr by KRAHMALKOV (1975: 175, 187-188, 192, 200), which seems to be the correct reading, although we do not follow his interpretation of this word as a variant of bir, ‘flesh > offspring.” CLERMONTGANNEAU (1900b: 331—334), after a lengthy discussion, concludes that the second grapheme of this word must be s, instead of s (against BERGER (1901d: 143, 157), who

reads bswr, explained as in ‘Tsor’ or ‘on the rock’); he reads bswd, which he interprets as the preposition 5 followed by swd, ‘counsel, secret;' cf. also HALÉvYv (1901b: 274, 285), ‘assembly.’ GARBINI 1994, reading ’hr Smim bswd, explains these words as 'sister of heaven, as a foundation.' Most other commentators read bswb, explained by LipzBARSKI (1902: 46), COOKE (1903: 151, 1540, FÉvRIER (1956: 180), VAN DEN BRANDEN (1973a: 166, 168) as ‘celestial vault;' comparable is the explanation by ROLLIG of bswb as ‘round about.’ KRAHMALKOV (2000,

plur., cf. PPG?, § 228, 230. In line 4 several

s.v. mlk, rzn, Xmj), reads bswb mlk htr

commentators,

myskr rzn ymm, '«the god» htr rules the land, Mescar rules the seas,’ cf. also id., s. v. swb. Although possible, one does not expect a chiastic construction like this in a text, which, although not easily understood, is not a poetic text at all. Further, it seems awkward to translate swb as ‘land,’ where one has to suppose a development 'environment > land,’ at least in case swb is to be derived from the root sbb (KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. sw) notes that the etymology ts unknown). The deity hir myskr is also attested in Hr. Maktar N 65 (*tr mskr). On this deity, cf. also GARBINI (1994: 15-18), LiPINSKI (1995: 175—176). In the next line ymm is normally translated ‘days,’ rather than ‘seas,’ mainly because of Sm in the preceding line, but cf. also C/S 86 B (KAI 37), where the ’In hd, ‘the gods of the New Moon,’ are mentioned directly before the b‘/ ymm, 'the lords of the days' (thus already BERGER 1901d: 157). bl hrdt, ‘the lord of terror,’ i.e. ‘the lord inspiring awe.’ In line 6, the traditional reading ghrim, cf. Lipz-

(1900b:

e.g.

336-337),

CLERMONT-GANNEAU

FEVRIER

(1956:

18),

RóLLiG (sub Κα] 145), have supposed that Im hqyds (for this form, cf. Hr. Maktar N 9) and /$?t are parallel expressions, which necessitates the explanation of 3?f as a nominal form, viz. a qal part. sg. m. abs. of yf, ‘to place’: ‘to the holy god, to the one who places.' Note, however, that in Hebrew an infinitive preceded by the preposition / may be used as an epithet. VAN DEN BRANDEN (1973a: 166, 168), KRAHMALKOV (1975: 188, 191, 202, id., 2000, s. v. 1? ) have supposed /$’r to be the qal inf. cstr. of ns preceded by the preposition /, however, their explanation of the following words does not favour this hypothesis. FEVRIER (1956: 18), explains ’hr as the plural of ἡ}, known from Hebrew with the meaning ‘brazier.’ We accept the criticism of ROLLIG, that the ‘braziers of heaven’ as a poetic description of the stars is rather far-fetched, but his follow-

ing note, that the translation ‘sister(s) of heaven’

does

not

give

much

sense

either,

119

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

BARSKI (1902: 49), CooKE (1903: 150, 154), RóLLIG, seems less probable. BERGER (1901d: 142), reads eb[.]rtm, and FÉvRIER 1956: 19, KRAHMALKOV (1975: 187), read

gybrtm. Note, however, that KRAHMALKOV (2000,

s.v.

htr mskr,

$m;),

reads

°/ gbrtm,

‘because of his might.’ The following word

is read K*trty by FÉvRIER (1956: 19-20), and interpreted as the conjunction K, followed by a pi. perf. 2 sing. m. * suff. 3 sing. m. of the root ‘tr, ‘to grant.’ The traditional reading, k“tbty, also accepted by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. Xb*t), is explained as a qal perf. |

sing. Both explanations are difficult to combine with the rest of the text, although the reading with r seems more attractive than the one with 5 (cf. the photograph as published by BERGER 1901d). CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 335) proposes the reading kytbty, which remains unexplained. The next word, yinty, is explained by FÉVRIER as a qal. perf. 2 sing. m. + suff. 3 sing., combined with the following $b“t as one of the two objects, ‘he gave him abundance,’ a highly uncertain explanation. The second column is even more uncertain. The first word of line 7 may be smi, ‘statue’ attested in several Phoenician texts. Note, however, CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 337) remarking that sm! may be the equivalent of Hebrew sn’l, ‘left. The next word, read mr[n] by BERGER (1901d: 146, 159), mr[m] by FÉvRIER (1956: 21), and explained by both as the word mr, ‘lord, master,’ followed by the suffix of the 1 pl. BERGER, l.c., notes that one might also read mr[tn], the fem. counterpart of the other proposed reading. As n is only attested in Aramaic, it is less likely to be found in Punic. tm may be an adjunct to the preceding smi/, but it is also possible that it is used adverbially with the meaning ‘completely.’ FEVRIER (1956: 21), remarks that instead of p/P it is just possible to read ἀ or tir. He takes p/r as a Latin personal name (not a title as RÖLLIG

notes),

Pilatus, Plotus, Philetus, a person who was, according to FÉVRIER, a great benefactor of

Mactar, although he is not mentioned any-

where else. Thus this solution seems to be rather far-fetched. vrd in line 8 1s explained by ROLLIG as a yiphil of vrd, with the mean-

ing “leading down,’ as proposed by FÉvRIER (1956: 21). This meaning may be the correct one, however, in Hebrew the causative form of this verb normally has an animate subject. Highly improbable is KRAHMALKOV( 2000, s. v. m*br), who reads at the end of line 7 and

the

beginning

of line

8 ‘/ m‘br

yrd

b*mq, translating ‘through the pass he came down into the valley.' With reason he notes that the context is difficult and the translation problematic. /irst is combined by CLERMONT-GANNEAU with /irz in KAI 81 (cf. FEVRIER 1956: 21), a building term of uncertain meaning, translated as *upper part of the sanctuary or terrace,’ or as ‘parapet,

bastion.” FEVRIER

(1956:

21-24), accepts

this explanation and explains it as a certain building. His remark about the interchangeability of z and s in Phoenician, for which he adduces skr for τάν and st for zt 1s, however, inacceptable. skr is best explained as a secondary root analogically formed from the imperfect forms of the verb in which -zkassimilated to -sk- (PPG?, ὃ 46a), while the derivation of the demonstrative st from a base with original z is highly uncertain. 7^? in the next line is explained as a plur. constr. of rs ‘top,’ cf. e.g. CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 339), who remains uncertain about the meaning (proposing: ‘total expense,' ‘head (of a column),' or ‘best quality’), FEVRIER (1956: 26), choosing for the architectural element, while ROLLIG wisely leaves the question unanswered. This is the best way to deal with the problem, as long as we do not know the meaning of the following two (or three) words, s/q ?tm lytm (the second m was read ? by BERGER 1901d, for the reading m, cf. CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 339); the older reading is retained by RÖLLIG basing himself upon LIDZBARSKI (1902: 46). FÉvRIER (1956: 23) combines s/q’tm, explaining this word as a plur. or du. of s/qt, ‘column,’ which is highly uncertain. However, the explanations in which s/q is sup-

J. Texts from Tunisia

120

posed to be a form of a root meaning ‘to cut’ (BERGER 1901d: 144, 161), ‘to occupy oneself’ (yiph., VAN DEN BRANDEN 1973a: 166, 170), ‘to cry out in pain’ (KRAHMAL-

Kov 1975: 188-189, 195, 203), ‘to decorate’

lowing d'rkn is supposed to be an element explaining the preceding /irs, ‘gold,’ according to CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 340).

FÉvRIER (1956: 20, 25) proposes to explain the word as a qal perf. 1 pl. ofa verb drk ‘to

(qal / pi., HALÉvYv 1901b: 281, 285) also are farfetched. The following word is read by FÉvRIER (1956: 23) as Klytm, which he tentatively explains as a Punic plur. of a loan from Greek καλαθος, ‘the (corinthian) capital of a column,’ a highly uncertain reading and interpretation. The illustration provided

go, to enter.’ Both interpretations depend on the context that cannot easily be comprehended and they remain therefore highly uncertain. The interpretation as a personal name, as proposed by BERGER (1901d: 161) is to be dismissed. The next words are read

by BERGER, 1901d, is in favour of the supposition that a sign is extant preceding /yrm,

162) and explained as win’, ‘to us,’ hn, ‘grace,’ yr», ‘may he give.’ CLERMONTGANNEAU (1900b: 340) notes that ytn could be explained as a qal perf. | pl. ‘we have given’ and he then asks whether /’hn might contain a special late form of the independent pronoun of the Ist plur, which seems

however,

the reading

proposed

by KRAH-

MALKOV (1975: 188-189, 195, 203) plytm, seems to us more probable, although his explanation of this word as a pi. pf. 3 s. m. followed by a suffix 3 s. m. of plt, ‘to rescue,' is highly speculative. The next element, wdl, may be the preposition dl, preceded by the copula, which leaves us with *qsb hb*rt at the end of this line. The first of these is probably a derivation from the root qsb, *to cut,' but the context does not allow us to be more precise. We may easily derive hb*rt from a root /ibr, however, also in this case the precise meaning cannot be estab-

lished. FÉvRIER 'covering, VAN

(1956: 25-26) proposes DEN BRANDEN (1973a:

wlmhn ytn by BERGER (1901d:

142,

143,

highly improbable. FEvRIER (1956: 20, 2526), however, reads win? hn kwn, explaining these words as ‘he has established his grace for us,’ where kwn is expained as a piel perf.

3 sing. ROLLIG retains the earlier reading, adding

however

some

uncertainty:

wl

yin and remarking in his commentary that a certain explanation is impossible, with which we completely concur. The last word

of this line is read nptht or nktht, cf. BERGER

read ‘pt. Whether the /irs in line 8 is to be

(1901b: 162). As far as the meaning is concerned, BERGER only notes that tit could be the preposition ‘instead of,’ which leaves the other signs without explanation. CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900d: 340) opts for the reading with p, supposedly deriving the word from the root pth, although he also points to the enigmatic niptiam in a Latin inscription (CIL viii. 24267: Jaius [...] / [...Jm sol niptiam [...] 7 [... sol]vit libens animo). FEVRIER (1956: 26) also reads nptht, deriving it from a root pth, ‘to engrave,’ a supposition deemed possible by ROLLIG.

supposed to be the word for ‘gold’ or for ‘carved work’ is difficult to ascertain. The proposal of KRAHMALKOV (1975: 196) to explain /irs as a form of the qal of a verb hrs, 'to attack,' is highly unprobable in the context of a building inscription. The fol-

the word, however, without interpretation. Also the last line of this column, line 11, is not easily interpreted. The only word of which one would say that the interpretation is certain is p“/n, qal perf. 1 pl. ‘we have

166, 170) translates 'association, community.” The reading hp‘rt, as accepted by Cooke (1903: 151), LIDZBARSKI (1902: 46),

is less probable. BERGER (1901d: 161) notes that both readings, Ap^rt and hb‘rt, are possible. CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 339) accepts the reading hp“rt and divides these graphemes into two words, comparing /ip to Hebrew /iph, ‘plaque of gold,’ and combining “rt with a supposed ‘rt in ΚΑ] 10,1. 5, ‘pellicle.’ This last word, however, is now

LIDZBARSKI (1902: 46) reads nktht, leaving

Hr. Maktar ( Mactar)

made,’ as it is read and translated by FÉVRIER (1956: 20, 26). The same reading is also to be found with LIDZBARSKI (1902: 46), ROLLIG and with KRAHMALKOV (2000,

s. V.p*L.), who reads and translates line 11: kyln b’sr Ib p“In byt nitsbrt, ‘all of us with happy hearts composed the eulogy,' which seems rather improbable; the spelling ky/n for Al followed by a suffix of the Ist person plural is highly suspect, to say the least (note that id., s. v. $5*t, reads ... p“In bytt

Yb't,

“we

...

composed

the/this

bytt of

praise’). Note, however, that BERGER (1901d: 142, 143, 165) reads p‘/t, which is

possible, and combines it with the following bytn,

which

he translates

*the work

of our

house.' CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 340) also reads p‘/t, relating it to the name of the month as attested in Cyprus, cf. KA/ 37, 43, 112. The preceding words are read b’$r Ib, ‘in the happiness of heart’ by FÉVRIER (1956: 20, 26) following a suggestion of BERGER (1901d: 142, 143, 162), although he notes that the reading of a d instead of 3 is more probable. LIDZBARSKI (1902: 46) follows the reading with $, but he does not present an intrepretation, and ROLLIG follows FÉVRIER, but with much hesitation. For the following word, read as bytn in the early editions (cf. also the remark supra), RÖLLIG partly follows FEVRIER. He reads kytn, whereas FÉvRIER (1956: 20, 26) reads kyrt, explained as the conjunction k followed by the qal perf. 2 sing. *you have given.' If this were correct, the explanation of yrzity in line 6 as a perf. form of yrn seems less probable (note that this interpretation is accepted in PPG?, § 155), as one would not expect both a form with and one without assimilation of the third root consonant in the same text. RGLLIG’s translation of kytn, ‘because he gave us,' is, of course, very well possible. Note, however, that more or less the same expresison occurs in Hr. Maktar 76:4, where FEVRIER-FANTAR (1965: 50) read by'tn $b*t$, translating, ibid. 57, ‘by giving a contribution.' One wonders whether one should not read bytn in this instance too. KRAHMAL-

121

Kov (2000, s.v. Arm, mnht;;, nh, “zb, qr., $m), reads in the lines 12-13 Sarr hmzrh ?3 ?ykrnp t mnhit gr ..., ‘ are the names of «the members? of the mizrh-sodality who honored him. Read what is set down ...' Especially the interpretation of mmt as a yiph. pass. participle of n/ı, "to set down,’ seems highly improbable, while a relation with Hebrew minha, ‘present, gift,’ is much easier, therefore more

probable.

The

uncer-

tain Imdt t m“zrt in line 15 is read by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. mdt) as Imdtnm ‘zrt, translating ‘(read what is set down from top to

bottom;)

«the

names

are»

arranged

according to their [the members’] status «in the sodality2," which seems to be highly speculative, both with regard to the context and the supposed development of the meaning of mdt from ‘amount’ to ‘size, rank, status of an individual’ (note also that KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. 'zb), gives the same translation, reading, however, /mdtnm ‘zbt ). As far as the following names are concerned, COOKE 1903, without exception, follows LIDZBARSKI 1902, while RES presents the same text, with the improvements of CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1900b. RÖLLIG in KAI follows, where not otherwise stated

below, the readings preferred by FEVRIER 1956.

In line

16 (as in line 31)

BERGER

(1901d: 143) reads sh/ks, although his rendition in Neo-Punic type on 142 at least clearly shows the concluding -y, as correctly read by CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 341, 342), LIDZBARSKI (1902: 46). The same name occurs in line 20, where BERGER (1901d: 143) reads shlks, while his text in Neo-Punic type on 142 clearly shows the correct ending -ny (see below for sA/kny in line 28). In line 17 BERGER (1901d: 143) reads m‘syr; the correct reading is given by LIDZBARSKI 1902. The second name BERGER

(1901d:

143) reads plK^v, however, on 164

he remarks that the reading remains doubtful, because the second sign could also be read as *. BERGER then remarks that the name might be a derivative of Felix, CLERMONTGANNEAU (1900b: 342) proposes an,

122

J. Texts from Tunisia

according to him, unattested Felicius as counterpart to Felicia, note, however, that Felicius occurs several times in North African texts; cf., however, the onomasticon all. In line 18, as in line 31 and 43, BERGER

(1901d:143) reads m“sqglt, the correct reading with CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b:

Neo-Punic type text clearly shows rzby. The

reading rsy is given by FÉvRIER (1956: 29). In line 30 CHABOT (l.c.) read, inadvertently, ?y[.] m, LIDZBARSKI (1902: 47) ?y[.]n*, while

BERGER (l.c.), gave ?yqp*. The correct reading is also based upon the occurrence of this

342), LIDZBARSKI (1902: 46). In line 19 BERGER (1901d: 143) reads s/smyn. Lipz-

name elsewhere. The second name is read by BERGER (l.c.), CHABOT (l.c.) and LipzBARSKI (1902: 47) as m*rsnr. FÉVRIER (l.c.),

BARSKI (1902: 46) gives the reading s/smyn.

reads m“rz’. In line 31 In line 32 LIDZBARSKI

Note that the person mentioned this line is also attested in Hr. Maktar N 129. In line 20 LIDZBARSKI (1902: 46) reads γε instead of yst‘tn, only partly improving on BERGER (1901d:143) who read ystn. The correct

(1902: 47) reads ’r3?, the correct reading already proposed by CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900d: 342) and CHABOT (l.c.). The name

?r&m in line 32 is given as ?r? by BERGER (I. c.). In line 33 FÉvRiER (1956: 30) reads k“p°.

reading is given by CLERMONT-GANNEAU

CHABOT

(1900b: 342). The person mentioned in line 21, prem bn db‘r, is probably also mentioned in Hr. Maktar N 50. In line 23 BERGER (1901d: 143) reads m‘styb‘r; LipzBARSKI (1902: 47) reads m‘styb‘r. In line 26, as in line 41, BERGER (1901d: 143) reads y'sktn, LIDZBARSKI (1902: 47) reads y‘sktn. The second name in this line is partly mutilated. BERGER, l.c., reads .../. LIDZBARSKI (1902: 47) has read P*[..]I[.], while FÉVRIER, l.c., presents the reading /...]mlqrt, based on new photographs as he explicitly notes. In line 27 CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900b: 342), LIDZBARSKI (1902: 47) read y‘rkny instead of y^sktn, again only partly improv-

Κρ’, the first name he explains as Latin Cas-

ing

on

BERGER,

lc.

who

reads

y'rks,

although the y, at least, is clearly represented in his text in Neo-Punic type on p. 142; on p. 165 he notes the possible reading y‘rkny, and then notes that both names are unknown and that a reading with s instead of the first y should also be considered. The reading y'sktn is correctly given by CHABOT (sub Punica E iv, Liste des noms propres). In the next line LipzBARSKI (1902: 47), cf. also

(l.c., sub voce &**) reads A*? or

sus. LIDZBARSKI (1902: 47) reads K*3?, as BERGER (l.c.) did, also pointing to Latin Cassus. See, however, the onomasticon s. v. CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900d: 342) notes that before the first sign there seems to be a trace of another letter, while the sign interpreted as X by e.g. BERGER has a long leg and is best explained as p. In line 34 LipzBARSKI (1902: 47) reads g‘/gst and this seems to be the corect reading (cf. also BERGER, l.c., who reads g‘/gsr), also according to the photograph in FEvRIER 1956 (11). CHABOT (l.c.) reads gw/gst and FÉVRIER (1956: 30) elest. In line 37 BERGER (l.c.) reads b‘s’, where LIDZBARSKI (1902: 47) reads bs’. In line 38 the name m‘rwiny 15 read by CHABOT (l.c.), FEVRIER (1956: 30). LIDZBARSKI (1902: 47) reads [..Jrwiny,

while BERGER, l.c., gave msrwiny. The second name in this line is read m‘sys‘n by BERGER, l.c., mi‘sysn by LIDZBARSKI (l.c.), CHABOT (l.c.), while FÉvniER (1956: 30)

presents the reading m‘/.Jsn, where ROLLIG prints m°/.]s“n. The reading of the first name

CHABOT (l.c.), reads s/kny instead of s/kny,

in line 40 in highly uncertain, knrsn is the

for

reading of FEVRIER, (1956: 30). LIDZBARSKI (1902: 47) reads ks[.]pnl the same reading is given by CHABOT (l.c.), while BERGER (l.c.

which

cf.

FEvRIER

(1956:

29).

Also

BERGER, l.c., missed the ‘, reading s/ks, and presenting in Neo-Punic type, p. 142, siks. In line 29 CHABOT (l.c.) read the second name as r y, LiDZBARSKI (1902: 47) reads r[..]y, while BERGER, l.c., gives rsby, but his

145) read ksspnl, although his text in NeoPunic printing type on p. 144 presents the reading Knspn[.]. In line 42 LIDZBARSKI

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

(1902: 46) reads m*rws, followed by RÖL1.IG.

BERGER

(l.c.),

CHABOT

(l.c.)

and

FÉVRIER (l.c.) give the correct reading. In line 44, BERGER (1901d: 144, 145), reads e^gyrt, but why he represents this name in his translation by Gagucan, and, elsewhere (on p. 166) prints the name as g*25*n, is unclear. πάθη! in line 45 is rather to be

explained as an unknown

personal name,

according to BERGER (1901d: 166), than as the common noun £/iit preceded by the article, because bn hkhnt would be grammati-

cally incorrect, according to him. The reason for this statement remains unsaid. In line 46 BERGER (1901d: 144, 145), reads ySfnt (rendering the name, however, as Actanan, on p. 145, which form reappears on p. 166), while CLERMONT-GANNEAU (l.c. 342), LIDZBARSKI (1902: 47), CHABOT (l.c.) read ysrnt. The comparison with the different names mentioned sub yst*t leaves not much doubt about the reading. In line 47 the last name is given as m'syr^n by CHABOT (l.c.) while BERGER (1901d: 144, 145) reads ni‘syriin. Hr. Maktar N 65

Bibliography: CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1900a: 39-40; CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1900b: 342344; BERGER 1901d: 167-171; LIDZBARSKI 1902: 50-51; FEvRIER 1960-1961: 34-36; NSI 59B; KAI 146. Illustration: BERGER graph of squeeze).

1901d: pl. v 1 (photo-

Text: 1) nbn’ [k]’ hmqds s I*tr mskr 2) bny? ypt'n bn yp$r wbrk bn sldy 3)? wmtnb‘l bn brk wmtnb'l bn b'lytn 4) [ ]hsgn $ hmqm Sptm *wmzgw'r 5) bn tt*y wmnds'n bn ib'tn mswly 6) wmsyer‘n bn qp$y[ ]Ém* qlm

123

2) Built it Yaptan, the son of Yapshar and Barik, the son of Saldi3) o, and Mutumbal, the son of Barik, and Mutumbal, the son of Baliton, 4) the ... of the place. Suffetes were Aumazgwar, 5) the son of try, and Mandasan, the son of 3brtn, the Masulian,

6) and Masigran, the son of qpsv[ ]. He heard their voice. Remarks: FÉVRIER (1960—1961: 34) reads ... E hmqds in line 1, and he interprets these words as the object of the vcrb in line 2. The

brk bn sldy? mentioned in the lines 2-3 may be the same as the brk bn s'ldy? attested in Hr. Maktar N 77 as one of the suffetes of Mactar. The first word of line 4 he reads as bhsen/t, choosing for the reading with ¢ and explaining the whole as the preposition P, followed by the article // and a fem. word sgt with more or less the same meaning as late Hebrew soyag, *enclosure.' The whole expression b/iset § himqm he translates as ‘in the enclosure of the holy place.” Although possible as a translation, there remains some doubt. / for the article is not very frequent, while set and Hebrew soväg are also not so easily combined. ^wrizgw*r bn tty is also mentioned

in Hr.

Maktar

N

110, where

he

functions as rab. The unexplained expression at the beginning of line 4 is read as bhs ens hmqm by CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900a: 40). The first word remains unexplained, for the other he proposes the explanation as a partial translation of the Latin genius loci. Note that in lines 4 and 5 three suffets are mentioned against the normal practice in Hr. Maktar to name three officials, of whom one is characterized as rb (see e.g. the remarks sub Hr. Maktar N 11; cf. also Huss 19771978: 251).

Hr. Maktar N 66 Translation: 1) Here was built this sanctuary for “tr mskr.

Bibliography:

BERGER

1901d:

171-174;

HALEvy 1901b: 286; LipzBARSKI 51-52: NS] S9C; ΚΑΙ 147.

1902:

124 Illustration: BERGER graph of squeeze).

3. Texts from Tunisia 1901d: pl. v, 2 (photo-

Text: 1) hmzrh ὅς [ 2) gd hymm nd'r ndr 5$ II 3) &P tt? Pb brkt ml[ 4) hnd'r qP SPP *zb[

Translation: 1) The assembly .. [ 2) Fortune of the Days, votive offering they dedicated, .. [ 3) of him ... for the father, Birikt .. [ 4) the votive offering, her voice of her ... [ Remarks: Because of the photograph published by BERGER 1901d, and the epithet rzn ymm ın Hr. Maktar N 64 we prefer to read ymm in line 2 rather than Sm as proposed

by HALEvy (1901b: 286), Cooke (NS/ a.l.), RóLLIG (KAI a.l.). As translation ‘Days’ instead of ‘Seas’ seems preferable. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. mrzh ?Im) reads hmrzh ’s[p ... wn]gd hmm nd'r ndr? ... ?€ Pre lel ?bbrktm l[n], translating ‘the mrzh-sodality assembled, and before heaven they prayed: “May the god grant us of his blessing!",'

Hr. Maktar N 67

Bibliography: CHARLES-PICARD 1943-1945: 460; FÉvRIER 1946-1949a: 252; JONGELING 1984: 8. Text: 1) Jrnylmt/ndb[ 2) ]|bn?ykn'[ 3) h]mktrm Translation:

1)... 2) the son of Aykana[ citizen of 3) Maktar Remarks: FÉvRIER (1946—1949a: 252) reads the first line as: bn 3I mtn b[n, translating: ‘son of Mattan, son of ..,' which is both bad grammar and an improbable reading. The name ?ykn* seems certain as it occurs also elsewhere in Hr. Maktar (N 64: 30; 67; a.e., and in the variants “ykny, ^ykn*). FÉVRIER (1946-1949a: 52) read ’ybn‘, although the copy he used read ?ykn* according to him, which he, however,

correctly rendered in FEVRIER 1956 (29-30). Hr. Maktar N 68

(cf. also id., s. v. ngd;, ndr, $mm). This interpretation is unacceptable for a number of reasons. Several key words are based on an emended text. Further, the explanation of ?b as a form of the preposition b with prosthetic alef is difficult. This form of b is attested, but especially in later texts, it is very rare and the attestation of ?bmsbt in Constantine N 51 does not prove much as the context 15 not clear (the combination may stand for ’b + mnsbt or for ? + bmnsbt ). Praying before heaven seems to be a concept incongruous with the many Phoenician and Punic votive texts. The spelling [Ἢ for the preposition ὦ followed by the infinitive construct qal of yrn is also not very probable, as ? normally does not indicate the vowel /a/ (cf. KRAHMALKOV 2001: 203: P-tt /latet(t)/)

Bibliography: PICARD 1943—1945: 481. Text:

1) 1071 ]bpk*drm[

2) Itpl’mpgabs Remarks: Like the preceding text this one is only published in Neo-Punic printing type. The edition is probably not to be trusted completely. Hr. Maktar N 69 Bibliography: PiCARD 1945: 196. Illustrations: PICARD 1945: 196 (drawing). Text:

1) °b/rqwab/r’s.

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

125

Latin parallel:

have been expressed by rry. The last name

1) 715 filius et Bibba[

is read v&(p?)sd(r?) by FÉVRIER, however, ypsr being attested elswhere in Hr. Maktar, the reading yp$r seems the most attractive

2) a]nnis Ixxx hic [situs Remarks: The graphemes qb? might possibly be read bb’ and be explained as the NeoPunic equivalent of Bibba in the Latin text. The name in the Latin text may be longer, thus X could be a part of this personal name.

one. For the name qst/my?, FÉVRIER thinks of a Latin name ending in -aeus. Note, however, that all Latin names ending in -aeus are spelled with y as the last letter in Neo-Punic (cf. the onomasticon, sub o*d*y, gd‘y, “m’y) in case /*by? is not to be explained as Labbeus.

Hr. Maktar N 70

Hr. Maktar N 72 Bibliography: FÉVRIER 1952a: 111-112.

Bibliography: FÉVRIER 1952a: 113. Text:

1) [ ]khn[ ]

Text:

2) lySkt h° ’tm“wn[

1) [ PU)

]

2) [ ]Pzk°

Remarks: FEVRIER (1952a: 112) translates: 1) ...priest... 2) ...this room near the temple ... Iyskt is explained as an equivalent of Hebrew liska, ‘hall, religious building.’ Although possible, this solution remains uncertain. Note that the Hebrew /ixka is explained as a

by-form of nixka. I? is explained by FÉVRIER as the pronoun 3"! sing. fem. which is not attested in this form in Neo-Punic, but very well possible as an historical spelling. m^wn is compared to the Hebrew word of the same form, meaning ‘dwelling,’ used, however, in many instances for the heavenly abode of

3) [ ]ykn’ Remarks: One might think of reading ’/ykn? in line 3. Note, however, that although the spelling of the personal name ‘ykn* may vary as far as the first sign is concerned, in all certain attestations the last sign is *. Hr. Maktar N 73 Bibliography: FÉVRIER 1952b: 144. Text:

God. The fragmentary state of the text, how-

1) tn’ ’bn [ ?]

ever, prevents an acceptable interpretation.

2) St mtnb'[l ] 3) w*w* &*[n't

Hr. Maktar N 71 Translation: 1) Erected [this] stone [... wi-] 2) fe of Mutunba[! 3) and she lived ye[ars

Bibliography: FÉVRIER 1952a: 112-113. Text: 1) [ }?/t/n bn qst/my?

2)[

Hr. Maktar N 74

Ὀπ τ

3) [ }*t/n bn yp&r Bibliography: FÉVRIER 1952b: 144.

Remarks:

For

t? FÉvRiER

(1952a:

113)

points to the name rf, attested in RES 1507, and to the Latin names Tettius and Titus, of which the second one is, of course, the best candidate, as Tettius would normally

Text: 1) FII? bn m‘r[ 2) ]&t/n &n? qwP? b'r[k?]

3. Texts from Tunisia

126

Translation: |) IK", the son of Mar[ 2) ].., he heard his voice, bless[ed him] Remarks: FÉVRIER supposes the personal name in line | to be probably m‘r[q’], Mar-

2) 3)

[ ] tyP hykrt r^qym by‘tn Sb't [wm]tbt *Imyst milt $°bs ql'rnt

J

LJ

ge

LJ

f BB ]p3 arr] Y 13 57]

LÀ]

cus, while he represents the first personal

x

ORCS

"Ay Jf 199 59 oeZA o a

name as -alicus in his translation. Hr. Maktar N 75

Bibliography: 45-49; TEIXIDOR 1987b: 50.

FEVRIER-FANTAR 1964-1980:

1965:

17; GARBINI

bk] *n °§ lyd? *Inm t *trt

Text: 1) }b‘n’ hsrt § mhqm [ 2) ]qmmh rb hSptm Translation: 1) Jhas built the court of the (holy) place [ 2) ]qmmh, the president of the suffetes. Remarks: The interpretation of hsrt as a spelling variant of hsrt is proposed by

FEVRIER-FANTAR

np‘l bkwlbm ns?m by‘tn Sb‘t hykrm mqd'& ?np?l km p*lt nrsrt hy Ἵ h[m]*qm bkl b‘t Iknswlt

5) 6)

1965. For rb h$ptm, cf.

sub Hr. Maktar N 11.

8) 9) | 11) 12) 13)

wl ky hmzr °§ y“tn? t ^Sb't I'nt[ Pm[ ]§“qlt dr? kn? $Im w^& Inm zr? wSp*t w^? 8m?tm ^8 y*tr? t ’Sb°t [mz]P “ἢ “gr” bml'[kt] [ ]|bn?rám s’wr bn ‘rSqs 15) sw*w? bn brkb‘l 16) [ ] bn m'smk't mtnb'l bn Iq[y] 18) ’ykn“ bn [ 19) p^w[st vii 20) qwdr‘t’ bn g‘y 21) [ FI[ Jy’ bn mtnb'l

Hr. Maktar N 76

viii 22) byks?[ ]l bn g*y

Bibliography:

23) 24) 25)

Iqy bn m'grs*n ypt‘n bn ^bdmlqrt [ Jbn mtnb‘l

ix 26) 27)

°*ykn‘ bn hmlkt gmP bn rstty?

28) 29) x 30) 31) 32) xi 33)

pwst bn [ sikny bn tynb m*'ksm? bn brkb‘l p'rtn*t? bn m*ksm? >wtn? bn rmn! b'l[

FEVRIER-FANTAR

1965:

49-59; VAN DEN BRANDEN 1977: 55-65; KRAHMALKOV 1975; TEIXIDOR 1964-1980: 17-18; GARBINI 1987b: 50—52; LPE: 3638.

Illustrations: FEVRIER-FANTAR

1965 (pho-

tograph).

—J

Ly

ts

Fn loOMX PANT

Ly, FIAT

|

AMIS —|

P3 „old L3 obeoy A μη des An A V AL

RT Un rre

08 ¢

Translation: 1) JhSt the son of Yebat, who is in charge of the consulate,

2)

... by giving abundantly

3) Text: | 1)

4) [ ]hSt bn yhb‘t °§ “I knswl't

it was made with elevated ..., by giving abundantly,

Hr. Maktar (Mactar) 5)

he gave generously .. sanctuary .. as the work .. 6) ... the place in everything ... for the consulate 7) ...... which is next to the gods ... 8) and because the assembly who gave the abundance, 9) ... 10) ... progeny and clan,

11) and here follow their names, who gave abundantly 12) the assembly who ... in the work. 13) ... the son of Arishim, 14) Severus the son of Arsaces (?) 15) Suavus the son of Barikbal 16) ... the son of Masmakat 17) Mutunbal the son of Lucius 18) Aykna the son of ... 19) Faustus ... 20) Quadratus the son of Gaius 21) ... the son of Mutunbal 22) ... the son of Gaius 23) Lucius the son of Magarsan 24) Yeptan the son of Abdmelqart 25) ... the son of Mutunbal 26) Aykna the son of Imilco 27) Gemellus the son of Restitutus 28) Faustus the son of ... 29) Salkani the son of Taynab ? 30) Maximus the son of Barikbal 31) Fortunatus the son of Maximus 32) Avitannus (?) the son of Romana 33)... Remarks: The use of the Latin word consulate in this text points rather to a clumsy attempt to pose as Roman than an adaption of a Roman-style government. FEVRIERFANTAR (1965: 50, 57) translate Aykrt r*qym as ‘he established the foundations,’ explaining /rykrt as a yiph. of krt, which then would mean ‘to build by cutting,’ while gym is combined with Hebrew raqia* used here with the meaning ‘foundation.’ The whole idea seems highly uncertain. In case the next words mean ‘by giving in abundance,’ which seems attractive, one must suppose that the inf. cstr. of ytn in Phoenician-Punic is formed

127

in a way quite different from the Hebrew for-

mation. The supposition in DNWSI s. v. yin, that this word is a nominal derivation of the root y/n, meaning ‘presentation’ is a rather easy way out of the problem. $b“r is trans-

lated

‘contribution’

by

FÉvRIER-FANTAR

(1965: 51) and related, with reservations, to the root 3p*, ‘to flow abundantly,’ although a derivation from the root sb“ seems more attractive. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. br, Art, Sbt,, tly) reads ty? hykrt r*qym by*tn §b't, ‘he hanged [the culprits], he cut off the worthless, our terror came to an end’ (cf. also id.,

s. V. 7q,,). If such a poetic expression would occur in this context, which seems already far-fetched, it is even more unexpected to find this poetic description directly follow-

ing a dating formula. In line 3 FEVRIERFANTAR (1965: 51) propose to read wm]tbt, explained as the fem. form of mtbh, ‘altar.’ In case the reading mtbr is correct, there is no reason why this word should not be derived from

the root mb.

For the next words,

the

proposals of FEVRIER-FANTAR (1965: 51) do not help much, yet we do not have anything useful to add. For k/whm in line 4, FEVRIERFANTAR (1965: 52) think of a relation with Hebrew klwb, ‘basket,’ or Latin columna. Due to the following ns’m, one would rather choose the second solution, both when explained as a qal passive participle, *the elevated columns,' or as a qal active one, “the columns (that keep up something).' The spelling with -b- pro -m- is easily explained as hypercorrect use of 5 as in Xb* pro sm.

KRAHMALKOV

(2000, s.v. Klb;;, πρὶ, n3°)

reads in line 4 np‘! bkwlbm ns?m, ‘as for those who lay in prisons, he pardoned them, which seems out of place in a text like this. In

line 5, FEVRIER-FANTAR (1965: 52) proposes to read Aykrt instead of the extant hykrm. We would rather take hykrm as a yiph. of the root krm. This root occurs in Hr. Maktar N 64 (?ykrn t hmnht), where it is translated as ‘they offered generously the offering.’ The next words may mean ‘is fallen sanctuary,' but the wording seems to be awkward. mqd'*' may also be explained as a pl. cstr.,

J. Texts from Tunisia

128

of course, but this leaves us with a word

the copula

np?l of difficult interpretation. Perhaps mqd^3 without the article is construed with a pas-

*| which is then followed by the conjunc-

w followed

by the preposition

sive participle np?! preceded by the article, ‘the fallen sanctuary.’ p’/t is perhaps best

tion ky. This combination of preposition and conjunction is attested a few times in Hebrew (Dt. xxxi 17, Jud. iii 12, Jer. iv 28,

explained,

(1965:

Mal. ii 14, Ps. cxxxix 14), always meaning

52), as a derivation from the root p‘/, however, whether ‘srt really should be translated as ‘enclosure wall’ remains doubtful.

‘because.’ Note, however, that the conjunction ‘because,’ corresponding to Hebrew Ai, is normally represented as /ka/, /ko/ or /ka/ (see JONGELING 1986b). The following word is probably a variant form ofthe well-known mzrh, here showing the pronunciation of the word to be /mizre/. Of line 9 not much is left. The next column let us recognize some more words, but the translation given by FEVRIER-FANTAR (1965: 54): ‘they have named their family, which they have, and which is theirs (as) progeny) and (as) clan,’ for line 10 seems farfetched. Both $/m and °¥ Inm might be explained as the nota relationis followed by the preposition / + suf-

with

FÉvRIER-FANTAR

The Hebrew mäsör means 'siege-enclosure, siege,’ and mosüra

“siege-works,

rampart’

which seems somewhat out of place in the context of a building insciption relating to

a temple. Also the use of the vowel letter for /a/ following the first consonant poses a problem.

One

is inclined to suppose the

word to be a derivation from the root msr or sry, to explain the syllable mas-, rather than from the root swr. Both roots, however, do not yield a meaning that might have been used in this context. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. mrt, ‘ly) reads line 5 as hykrm mqd‘§

’npl km p?lt m“Srt, ‘he restored the ruined sanctuary as an act of public service.’ How-

ever, the reading of m‘srt instead of m‘srt is highly

uncertain.

Note

that KRAHMALKOV

(2000, s. v. p“lt;) gives the same translation, presenting, however, the reading ni‘srt. In line 6 ἐν *| may be explained as two words, as FEVRIER-FANTAR (1965: 52) do, but it is also possible that /ıy“/ 1s meant, which could be a yiphil of the root ‘/y, as 1s supposed by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. “/y), who reads line 6 γι] h[m]*qm bkl bt Iknswl't, ‘he raised the building completely in the time

of «his» consulship.’ br is compared by FEVRIER-FANTAR (1965: 52) with bt in KA/ 64, meaning ‘tariff,’ however, because of the highly uncertain contect it is also possible to explain the word as the prep. ἢ followed by the noun ‘¢ ‘time,’ however, the relation with the following word, knsw/‘t by means of the preposition / is awkward. ‘trv is translated ‘cornice’ by FÉvRIER-FANTAR (1965: 53), which is, of course, possible. Line 8 starts with w*/ky which may be divided in

fix 3 pl.masc., however, the two following each other only connected by w is not to be expected. $/m is therefore better related to the root X/m, ‘to be complete.’ The last word in this line, 3p*t, is connected to the root 3p/i from which Hebrew mispaha is derived. The parallel to z7* at least gives some plausability to this solution, note, however, also the existence of Hebrew $ifa, ‘multitude’ (of men in ii Reg. ix 17). KRAHMALKOV (2000,

s. v. mz, §lm., Xp't) reads dr? kn? Sim ws In mzi* wsprt, ‘in his time we were properous, yea, we possessed sown land and abundance.' The poetic style is suspect, and the first person plural is not met elswhere in this text. Further, the translation of $p“r with ‘abundance’ seems also less probable. In line

11 KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. $b°t, $mj.) translates $b“r as ‘eulogy,’ which seems difficult in the context. The names in the following part of the text are mainly without problems. It is interesting to see a person named /qy bi m“ers“n, mentioned in line 23, who may be a relation, possibly the son, of m‘grs‘n bn Iqy mentioned in Hr. Maktar N 57.

129

Hr. Maktar ( Mactar)

Hr. Maktar N 78

Hr. Maktar N 77

Bibliography: GARBINI

1987b:

FEVRIER-FANTAR

1965:

48;

50; JONGELING

1999b:

83;

LPE: 38-39. Illustration: PICARD 1954b: vol. i1, pl. exxit, Cb 1031 (photograph).

ON ho X2) OR CLC x0 7x NX Ay Ὁ OneX10

t

pe

ΟΝ Uu" n xy X $ 0x 0] (sehr

OX!

Text: 1) Pdn b*l hmn Κ΄ 5m‘ 2) glm brkm b

Bibliographv: BERGER

1890: 39.

Illustrations: CHARLES-PICARD 1957: pl. xv A; Bist 1972: tav. vi; KRINGS 1995: pl. 61 (photograph).

Ere

4% f

NR^j 5)

Text: 1) Pdn bhl “mn k* 2) Sm“ qP brk??p* 3) pr* bn °rs Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because

hmkt'rm

3) “tr “ykn“ bn ’drb‘] w 4) brk bn s*Idy? rb *ykn* 5) k* Sm“ qlm brkm St

2) he heard his voice, blessed him, Epa-

6) [

Hr. Maktar N 79

3) fra, the son of Arish.

Bibliography:

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun,

because he heard

2) their voice, blessed them, the citizens of Maktar 3) in the time of the officials Aykna, the son of Adirbal and 4) Barik, the son of Salidio, the president Aykna,

5) because he heard their voice, blessed them, the year 6)... Remarks: The fifth line seems a mistaken repetition of line 1 and 2, or it is part of another text, as $t seems to indicate another way of dating the text. For brk bn s‘ldy”, cf. the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 65.

BERGER

1890:

39; FEVRIER

1958-1959: 31. Illustration: PicarD 1954b: 1009 (d54) (photograph).

tab. cxvi,

ox po YIP 2) X

API RY IK A4 X 1 j Xx vıı9

Text:

1) Pdn Ὁ“ hmn k* Sm“ 2) ql? brk? skst 3) [b]n hmlkt ’ysr ὉΠ] A) hm*kum

19

Cb ^f

J. Texts from Tunisia

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Sextus, 3) the son of Imilco, the potter, citizen of 4) Mactar

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard his voice 2) blessed him, Felix, the son of Quintus 3) Julius.

Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica E iv, Liste des noms propres) mentions ?yz/srb'l as

Hr. Maktar N 82

occurring in this text, and, with a question

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: 1032 (d2) (photograph).

0X

Bısı

1978: 43; MENDLESON

2003: 40.

Illustrations: Bısı 1978: 43 (drawing); Bisi 1978: 43; MENDLESON tograph).

2003: NPu

oy ] X2 nz) o

EE ^T VA 2,.))) ** [7

Hr. Maktar N 80

Bibliography:

NZ —£

\7

TE

NZ

19 (pho-

Text:

1) Pdn If

1) Pdn b*l hmn Κ΄ Sm‘ 2) ql? brk? s‘Idy° 3) bn y'skt'n Ὁ“ ?mktrm

Translation:

Translation:

Text:

1) To the lord to ... Remarks: Bısı Pdn b'[I].

tab. cxxn, Cb

—————

mark, he notes also ?ysr for the same text. This is a good example of the difficulties in distinguishing between z, s and s in NeoPunic script.

cab

130

1) To the lord Bal Amun,

1978: 43, draws

and reads

because he heard

2) his voice, blessed him, Salidio, 3) the son of Iasuktan, citizen of Maktar. Hr. Maktar N 83

Hr. Maktar N 81 Bibliography: BERGER Bibliography: BERGER

1890: 39.

1890: 39. Illustration:

Illustration: Pıcarn 1954b: 1011 (c12) (photograph).

IKE x^ Ὁ)

tab. cxvii, Cb

X072 x

A9/*WN Jr) X A, 2 “2

PICARD

1954b:

tab. cxiii, Cb

994 (d6) (photograph). Text: 1) Pdn b*l hmn

k*

2) Sm“ qP brk? 3) p?rts bn pbly

nn

Translation: Text: 1) Pdn b*l hmn Κ΄ Sm“ qP 2) brk? p'lks bn qwynt

3) ywly

1) To the lord Bal Amun,

because

2) he heard his voice, blessed him, 3) Fortis, the son of Publius.

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

o]

V 2h

2) brk? qwdı“t’ bn n'br ^3

xwall

3)[ |twn't

Y ox

TOR X

131

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard his voice 2) blessed him, Quadratus, the son of Nabor, .. 3)...

Hr. Maktar N 84

Remarks: Bibliography: BERGER

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxi, Cb 986 (d9) (photograph).

Be

DLE

CHABOT

(sub Punica E

iv, Liste

des noms propres) presents a name ΚΠ,

1890: 39.

!

ar

lHEANIURUT

although it is impossible to ascertain a correct division of words or letters in the last line of this inscription. Therefore it is also impossible to decide whether ?$ is the noun ‘man’ or the marker of relativity. One may suppose an expression like ?3 b°m followed by a nomen loci, which BERGER (1890: 41) equates with Thaenae. Hr. Maktar N 86

Text: 1) Pdn ὉΠ hmn

Illustrations:

PICARD

1954b:

982 (d12); CHARLES-PICARD (photograph).

k^ Sm“

2) ql? brk? Iqy bn [ ]

3) qw'rtyl'

tab.

cx,

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Lucius, the son of

[ 3) Quartilla [ Remarks: BERGER (1890: 39) read the names as Lucius, son of N[.....] Cartilius; the read-

ing qu*rtyl* (Quartilla) is given by CHABOT (sub Punica iv F). We have accepted it although a feminine name is unexpected in a genealogy. Hr. Maktar N 85

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: 1026 (d11) (photograph).

tab. cxxi, Cb

Text: 1) dn bhi “mn 2) Κ΄ Sm“ qP brk 3)" p’sk” bn 4) mtnb‘l Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun 2) because he heard his voice, blessed

Text: 1) dn b'l hmn k* Sm“ ql?

3) him, Fuscus, the son of 4) Mutunbal.

Cb

1957: pl. xv C

J. Texts from Tunisia

132

a

Hr. Maktar N 87 Bibliography: BERGER

1890: 39.

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: 1008 (d13) (photograph).

tab. cxvi,

Cb

lor ΤΩΙ KY) K ép

eere

Text: 1) Pdn b‘l hmn Κ΄ 5m“ ql?

st"

2) brk? p'lqy? bn g'f Itl ] 3) b'[ Idf | Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard his voice 2) blessed him, Felicio, the son of Ga... 3) ... Remarks: BERGER (1890: 39) read the name as Policio, the son of Gaius Pompeius. CHABOT (sub Punica 1v F) gives p’/qy” for Felicio, but he does not mention the other names. They are also unrecognizable in the photograph. Hr. Maktar N 88

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: 1007 (d14) (photograph).

tab. cxvi, Cb

Text: 1) Pdn Ὁ hmn Κ΄ 2) Sm“ qP brk° 3) qwnt’ h’mny

4) αἱ PI Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because 2) he heard his voice, blessed him, 3) Quintus, the ... 4)... Remarks: h’mny in line 3 is most probably a nisbe-adjective derived from a tribal name or the name of a clan or a town. Hr. Maktar N 90

Illustration: PICARD 1006 (d24) A

dL

Ferne) [ nl Ἢ

9

tab. cxvi,

ANG

Mong fox

Text: 1) Idn b*l hmn Κ΄ Sm“ ql? 2) brk? τ

KY ROY

Translation: 1) To the lord, Bal Amun, because he heard his voice, 2) blessed him, r... Hr. Maktar N 89

Illustration: PICARD. 1954b: 1005 (d23) (photograph).

1954b:

Text: 1) dn bhl “mn k* 2) Sm“ qP brk? 3) [ Jbnwt? bn qwnt’

tab.

cxv,

Cb

Translation:

1) To the lord, bal Amun, because

p

Cb

133

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

2) he heard his voice, blessed him, 3) ..., the son of Quintus.

Text: 1) Pdn bhi *[mn k* Sm“

2) qP bri? I[ Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica E iv, Liste des noms propres) reads qwynf? instead of gwnr, on the photograph is, however, no trace to be found of the y, although there seems to be room for this extra sign. The first

Translation:

1) To the lord Bal Amun because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, L[

sign of the unidentified name at the begin-

Hr. Maktar N 93

ning of line 3 looks rather like z, but could be another sibilant.

Bibliography: VATTIONI

BERGER

1890:

39,

4l;

1996: 77.

Hr. Maktar N 91

Illustration: Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxi, Cb 988 (d29) (photograph).

Text: 1) Pdn ὉΠ hmn k* $T 2)... Translation: [ὴ To the lord Bal Amun because he heard.. 2)...

PICARD

1954b:

tab. cxxii, Cb

1030 (d31) (photograph).

liz"p OxN0 ho» + CUP s ΨΥ, V) R)P X

pr—À

LL

PrepXA RUN

eee

Text: 1) Pdn b'l hmn Κ΄ Sm“ ql 2) ° brk? pbly bn ‘n’y 3)^$ y$r hmkt'rm

Hr. Maktar N 92 Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxii, Cb 993 (d30) (photograph).

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard his vo2) 1ce, blessed him, Publius, the son of Annaeus

3) who ... Maktar. Remarks: V ATTIONI (1996: 77) reads ?$y$y? in line 3 and supposes it to be personal name derived from 3$, ‘six,’ comparable to Latin Sextus, Sextius etc. He also supposes Sisoi, Sissoi and related names to be this same Punic name, cf. onomasticon s. v. sys’y. BERGER (1890: 41) proposed to read °¥ vb? bhmkt*rm, ‘who has his residence in

Maktar.' However, this seems less probable, as no trace of the preposition 5 preceding hmkt'rm can be discerned in the photograph.

134

J. Texts from Tunisia

In case our reading

is correct one has to

suppose that ^f y$r” has a meaning in the same range as h*l or °5 b^m. KERR, personal communication, notes the use of Hebrew yosarım ‘the upright persons, the pious,’ (cf. Ps. xxxiii | a.e.). However, one would expect a preposition to express a meaning

BERGER (1890: 41) tentatively proposes derivation from Tamasga.

a

Hr. Maktar N 95

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxviii, Cb 1016 (d39) (photograph).

like *who is one of / among the pious of Maktar.’ Hr. Maktar N 94

Illustrations: PIcARD 1954b: tab. cix, Cb 978 (d33); CHARLES-PICARD 1957: pl. xv E (photograph).

(AMET

yox]

TEE

1r

[TXT

re?

Text: 1) Pdn b*l hmn Sm“ qP 2) brk? wrytnrt bn 3) b'wt hn/tmzky Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, he heard his voice, 2) blessed him wrytnrt, the son of 3) Baut, ...

Text:

DI 2) [ br]l? 3) [ In bn wryl3 4) b'] hmkt'rm Translation:

I) 2) .. blessed him,

3) ... n, the son of Virilis, 4) the citizen of Maktar. Hr. Maktar N 96

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cx, Cb (d40) (photograph).

Remarks: While the name wrytnrt is unknown, b‘wr occurs several times in texts from Hr. Maktar (cf. onomasticon), which

xy

leaves us with an uninterpreted /An/tmczky, where the / (where ἢ + n/t might also be read as /1) may be explained as the article (note that the ἢ in /imn in line | also consists of the R turned backwards, followed by a long stroke). The word following may be the indication of a profession, but also a noun derived from a tribal name, in which case we think of the tribal name Mazices and related names, cf. JoNGELING 1994: 90, s. v. mazic.

A

WF

SLE

Text: 1) I’dn ὉΠ hmn Kk

2) qil Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun, because [

Hr. Maktar ( Mactar)

2) voice[ Remarks: Further remains in line unrecognisable in the photograph.

2

are

135

Translation: I) To the lord Bal Amun, because 2) he heard his voice, blessed him, Ozerman, 3)...

Hr. Maktar N 97 Hr. Maktar N 99

Illustration: PicARD 1954b: 1028 (d 41) (photograph).

tab. cxxi, Cb Illustration: PICARD. 1954b: 1033 (d46) (photograph).

7

MEE] Z

oxr

ΟἽ ΧΟ

tab. cxxii, Cb

37

(2

VIT SL ἊΝ uox ^) |

Text: 1) [Pdn b*l hmn k*] 2) Sm“ ql’ [brk?] 3) *bdmlqrt bn ypt‘n b'l Text: 1) Pdn bl “mn k* Sm“ 2) ql’ brk? plyn bn 3) pbly ’stbry

4) hmkt'rm

Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun, because

2) he heard his voice, blessed him 3) Abdmelgart, the son of Yeptan, citizen of 4) Mactar. Hr. Maktar N 98

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: 1020 (d45) (photograph).

tab. cxix,

Cb

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, p/vr, the son of 3) Publius Staberius. Remarks:

Note

the

prosthetic

aleph

in

tab. cxvin,

Cb

^stbry. Hr. Maktar N 100

oO) PE OX!f)

ΝΕ

My ig MLL

Text: 1) [Pdn b*1] hmn k* 2) [Sm“ qP br]K^ °zrm‘n

3)

Illustration:

PICARD

1954b:

1017 (d50) (photograph).

077%) m

ETT oX^

/' LoT

Text: 1) Pdn ὉΠ] hmn k*

136

3. Texts from Tunisia

2) sm“ qP brk^

3) tplyl“t bn tsk'l Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because 2) he heard his voice, blessed him, 3) Taflilat, the son of tsk‘/. Hr. Maktar N 101

Bibliography: VATTIONI

BERGER

1890:

39,

41;

1993c: 459-460.

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxii, Cb 991 (d51) (photograph).

« XP

OF | x*)/6

aar

(77 DO. IP UX

UL

—

/

fo

Text: 1) dn b^] hmn Κ΄ Sm‘ 2) ql? brk? g^y bn 3) rstyq? bn *qwly? Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Gaius, the son of 3) Rusticus ... Remarks:

CHABOT (sub Punica ivF) read the

second name in line 3 as “qm ’v, for Latin Aquileius. However, the reading *qwly? seems more appropriate. Cf. also BERGER (1890: 39), who represented the name of the dedicant as Gaius, son of Rusticus, son of Aculeius.

Text: 1) Pdn ὉΠ] hmn

Κ΄ Sm‘

Hr. Maktar N 103

2) ql’ brk? pyd? bn 3) mntn? ὉΠ wzp'n

Bibliography: BERGER 1890: 39; VATTIONI 1994d: 466-467.

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Fidus, the son of

3) Montanus, the citizen of Uzappa. Remarks: FERJAOUI (19952: 63) reads wsp*, also explaining the name as Uzappa. Hr. Maktar N 102 Bibliography: BERGER

Illustration: PiCARD 1954b: 977 (d58) (photograph).

BRΧΟ95) /AKYΧ A Ya

1890: 39. OUTm

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxi, Cb 989 (d55) (photograph).

tab. cviii, Cb

Text: 1) dn ὉΠ hmn Κ΄ 5m‘

137

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

2) ql’ brk? syl*wk*n bn 3) b'l'm?

Hlustration: Picard 1954b: 976 (d 61) (photograph).

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun,

because he heard

2) his voice, blessed him, Silaukan, the son of 3) Balanno. Remarks: V ATTIONI (1994d: 466) reads ‘nin in line 1. Although Berger (1890: 39) compared sy/^wK^n with Seleucus, it is rather a Berber name, cf. the onomasticon. The name of the father, b*/l*r, is best explained as a

tab. cviii, Cb

RR

r^yNj morΤΙon ir) e 5 US yox (o9/)%] DRK TIX!

Text:

form of the Semitic name b‘/hn’, instead of a

1) Pdn bl hmn k* Sm“ qlm brkm Ὁ"

rendition of the rare Latin name Balanus (for this name cf. e.g. Balani (gen.) AE 2001: 1222), as supposed by Berger (1890: 39).

2) hmkt‘rym *t r hmlkt bn b^wt wm's 3) [ ]yw?n bn'?r3 In?tpn mtnb'l bn m's

Hr. Maktar N 104

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: 1029 (d59) (photograph).

al

JY)

tab. cxxi, Cb

^?DX

1% JA op JX)” pry

4) [ Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard their voice, blessed them, the citizens of 2) Maktar, the time of the officials Imilco, the son of Baut and Mas3) liwan, the son of Arish ... , Mutunbal, the son of Mas-

4)

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Marau3) kani, the son of Barikbal, the son of Aykna.

Remarks: The reading rb mtnb‘/ in line 3, proposed by JONGELING (1999b: 84) can hardly be correct. The photograph PICARD (1954b: tab. cviii, Cb 976 (d 61)), clearly shows bn or pn. ’r$ being a complete name, we are left with a name (?) /ni‘t or Inı“tpn, which is not introduced by any indication of a function. /m“tpn is mentioned as a personal name by CHABOT (sub Punica E ıv, Liste des noms propres). The relation to the following mtnb‘l remains obscure, or should we suppose that /m‘tpn is somehow the equivalent of rb, as used in texts which mention two persons following the function indication ‘tr?

Hr. Maktar N 105

Hr. Maktar N 106

Text: 1) dn b*l bmn kh Sm“ 2) qP brk? mw 3) kny bn brkb‘l bn ?ykn*

Bibliography: JONGELING

1999b: 84.

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cix, Cb 980 (d 62) (photograph).

138

J. Texts from Tunisia

ΤΟΝ

ἢ

[IN**IKIVIX ^T

Hr. Maktar N 108 Illustration: PICARD

1954b: tab. cxii, Cb 990

(photograph).

/22*AJ OK pi 70 3793 f

Text: 1) Pdn b‘l “mn Sm“ 2) qP brk? bs? bn 3) brkb‘l bn msgry‘n

ex^llrnvocp!y eyrxr3) ax”) VI RURAL!

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Basso, the son of 3) Barikbal, the son of Masgrian.

Text: 1) Pdn b‘l hmn k* 5m‘ 2) ql? brk? ypt^n bn 3) “bdmiqrt b/d/r^b/d/rqn?

Hr. Maktar N 107

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Yeptan, the son of 3) Abdmelgart ...

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxxiii, Cb 1035 M (photograph).

RSA

/oAX m

7

XI? fo oxr warf

m

XO

»

NX J\

Remarks: The last word (?) remains without interpretation. Hr. Maktar N 109 Illustration: PICARD

Ol

(photograph).

d

Text: 1) Pdn b*l hmn k* 2) Sm“ qP brk? 3) sdq bn bdmlqrt 4) b'] hmkt'rm Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun because 2) he heard his voice, blessed him, 3) Sadiq, the son of Bodmelqart, 4) citizen of Maktar.

Text: 1) Pdn bh 2) 1 “mn Κ΄ Sm“ qh

3) [ MI

1954b: tab. cix, Cb 981

139

Hr. Maktar ( Mactar)

Translation: 1) To the lord Ba2) 1 Amun because he heard his voice

Bibliography:

3)

JONGELING

Remarks: Since the photograph is not com-

Illustrations: FANTAR graph).

Hr. Maktar N 111

pletely clear, it is possible that the last sign of the first line is / instead of h. The rest of the / in line 3 1s just below the / in qP.

Illustrations:

1018;

PICARD

/!

Lirinskı

1995:

tab. cxix, Cb

opposite

110-111;

1993 ii: 403 (photo-

DIN

any

[| '"poxn

1999b: 82.

1954b:

1995:

ix 7 XT P ὀχ ον CA | Po fer ya yf yn

Hr. Maktar N 110 Bibliography: JoNGELING

Vattiont

1999b: 83; LPE: 39.

9

—

nor

ὃν.

y/r 2)

)ne).

title-page

(photograph).

Text:

1) Pdn ὉΠ] hmn Κ΄ Sm“ qlm

"y

oXN X») XL

2) brkm b'P hmkt'rym ‘tr 3) yr't'n bn mtnb‘l wbrkb'l bn

P (M39 "

A ox

0

4) b'ISIk rb m'syr bn 5) p'Sks't Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun,

1) 2) 3) 4)

I’dn b*l hmn Κ΄ Sm“ qin brkn b'P hmkt'rm *t r knb/d/ryb/d/r * wmsm*kt rb ‘wmzgw‘[r] bn tt^y

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard their voice, blessed them, 2) the citizens of Maktar, in the time of the officials ... 3) -a and Masmakat, the president Aumazguar, 4) the son of Tatay. Remarks: In Hr. Maktar N 65 the same person, *wnizgu*r bn ty, is mentioned. Note the suffix - in g/n and brkn. It is possibly a

tened to 2) blessed the time 3) Iuratan, bal, the

because he lis-

their voice, them, the citizens of Maktar, in of the officials the son of Mutunbal and Barikson of

4) Balshillek, the president Masir, the son

of 5) Pashkasat. Remarks: V ATTIONI 1995 reads the name in line 3 as Sb°tn, but the reading vr^r^n cannot

be doubted, cf. the other spellings in which this name appears: yw*r*n, vrhin (cf. onomasticon). In line 5 he reads a name p*3A*K*t, however, the reading p“sks“t, for which cf. JoNGELING (1999b: 83 n. 11), seems more probable.

variant of -m, the suffix of the 3% pl. masc. However, it might also be the suffix of the Ist pl., as in a few cases texts also feature the |* sg. One would like to find a name such as kndy“l in line 2.

Hr. Maktar N 112

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cix, Cb 979 (7 d 57) (photograph).

3. Texts from Tunisia

140

Text: 1) Pdn bhi “mn k* 2) Sm“ qP brk° .. 3) bn br

Text: 1) Pdn bhi[

Translation:

2) k* Sm“ 4

3) sdq bn mtn[

1) To the lord Bal Amun,

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal [Amun 2) because he heard his voice, [blessed him

because

2) he heard his voice, blessed him [ 3) the son of br[ Hr. Maktar N 115

3) Sadiq, the son of mitn[ Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxi, Cb 987 (photograph).

Hr. Maktar N 113

Illustration: PICARD (photograph).

N

1954b: tab. cx, Cb 983

/ YA Mf "D as

ax / |. »-

Se Text: 1) Pdn b‘l hmn kh Sm“ 2) ql? brk??rb'tk*n

3) [ Text: only traces of last line: 1) brk?.. Translation: 1) he blessed him

Hr. Maktar N 116

Hr. Maktar N 114 Illustration: PICARD

(photograph).

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Orbatkan.

Illustration: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxii, Cb 992 (photograph). 1954b: tab. cx, Cb 985. Text:

1) Pdn ὉΠ hmn Κ΄ 5m‘

2) glm brkm b'I? hmkt|

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

*X*

is correct (cf. also CHABOT, sub Punica ivE and the onomasticon, s. v. ywly). Jim? is best explained as an hypochoristic name derived from milk or hmik®.

Jj] X1í) frp N

A

141

oxy x ?

Hr. Maktar N 119

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) their voice, blessed them, the citizens of Maktar. Hr. Maktar

Illustration: PICARD 997 (photograph).

1954b:

ET

tab. cxiii, Cb

[J Ih 1/74

|

N 117

Illustration: PICARD 995 (photograph).

1954b:

tab. cxiii, Cb Text:

1) ]bn[ Text: only a few traces left.

2) " bn msmk‘n b'1? 3) mktrym

Hr. Maktar N 118

Translation:

I) Illustration: PICARD 1954b: 996 (d20) (photograph).

WD ox»?

ye

tab. cxiti, Cb

IN

v

2) ... the son of Masmakan, citizen of M3) aktar. Remarks:

See the remark

on msnık“n

Hr. Maktar N 120

N

VIN »

Illustration: PICARD 998 (photograph).

1954b:

tab. cxiv,

Text: 1) Pdn ὉΠ hmn Κ΄ Sm“ ql? 2) bri? hmP bn hm!’

3) ywPy Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard his voice, 2) blessed him, Amulo, the son of Amulo 3) Iulius. Remarks: ywPy

Note

for Julius,

the

unexpected

in case

this

in the

onomasticon.

spelling

interpretation

Text: 1) Pdn b‘l hmn k* 2) sm“ ql[ Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun because 2) he heard ...

Cb

142

J. Texts from Tunisia Hr. Maktar N 123

Hr. Maktar N 121 Illustrations:

PICARD

1954b:

tab.

cxiv,

Cb

1000; CHARLES-PICARD 1957: pl. xv B (photograph).

Kan

[719%

—7 7

Illustrations: PiCARD 1954b: tab. cxv, Cb 1003; CHARLES-PICARD 1957: pl. xv H (photograph).

ΧΗ OR oyxy?

$ 10 AXI"

K "P

Text:

1) Jb‘! hmn k* Sm“ qh Translation: 1) .. Bal Amun, because he heard his voice... Hr. Maktar N 122

Illustration: PICARD 1001 (photograph).

1954b:

tab. cxiv, Cb

Text: 1) Pdn ὉΠ hmn Κ΄ Sm“ 2) ql’ brk? gy bn ?tb?n

3) Spy" yt Translation: To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, Gaius the son of "tb?n 3)... Remarks:

For

the

name

of the

father

of

Gaius, ?tb/d/r?n, the reading ?tb?n seems the most probable, because of the occurrence of ?tbin in ΚΑΙ 100. For this name also Tabanis (gen. C/L viii 27146, found in Dougga, like KAI 100) may be compared, cf. e.g. MasSON 1976: 58. Note that y? is supposed to be a personal name in Palermo N |. Hr. Maktar N 124

Illustrations: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxxiii, Cb 1034; CHARLES-PICARD 1957: pl. xv F (photograph).

1) Í Sm“ ql? Translation:

JE [x22

NA

up

1) .. heard his voice. Remarks: The sign preceding $m“ might also be incomplete, as the preceding text is lost. Possibly after this one line more text followed.

|

6) |X"

OX o7.

“

Text:

Text: 1) Pdn b‘l hmn 2) k Sm“ qP

3

143

Hr. Maktar (Mactar)

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun 2) because he heard his voice .. Hr. Maktar N 125

Illustration: CHARLES-PICARD a (photograph).

1957: pl. xiv

Text: 1) (ἢ ’bn z

2) l'r..]b?. 3) yptn Translation: 1) To the lord Bal [Amun because he heard] 2) his voice bl[essed him .. 3).

Translation: 1) This stone was erected 2) for ... 3) Yeptan. Remarks: The photograph is too small facilitate a complete reading.

to

Hr. Maktar N 128 Bibliography:

Hr. Maktar N 126

Illustrations: PICARD 1954b: tab. cxxii, Cb 1013; CHARLES-PiCARD 1957: pl. xv G (photograph).

1982:

1984:

53; XELLA

1991: 75 n. 183.

667-668;

Illustration: ENNABLI (photograph).

KIM

Text: 1) Pdn ὉΠ hmn Κ΄ Sm“ qP brk?

FANTAR

VATTIONI

&

106-107;

GARBINI

PETIT

1987b:

1982:

107

POAN 0j/xo/399 [ego /

OUP DI°9° V9 [tere

XI PIRI Eu

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard his voice, blessed him ... Remarks: The photograph in PICARD does not show the text.

1954b

Text: 1) Pdn bhl “mn Κ΄ Sm“ ql brk? 2) b'ly*tn bn d'b'r bn ytnb‘l 3) b‘| hmkt'rym

Hr. Maktar N 127

Illustration: PICARD 1021 (photograph).

1954b:

tab. cxix, Cb

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard his voice, blessed him 2) Baliaton, the son of Dabar, the son of

Text:

1) Pdn b'l[

2) ql? δ 3) mnyf

Yatonbal 3) citizen of Maktar. Remarks: XELLA (1991: 75 n. 183) inadvertently prints k instead of k“ in line 1.

144

J. Texts from

Hr. Maktar N 129

Bibliography: FANTAR 1982: 107; VATTIONI 1984: 667-668; GARBINI 1987b: 53. Illustration:

ENNABLI-PETIT

1982:

107

Tunisia Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, ... son ..., 3) citizen of Maktar. Remarks: In the small photograph published

by PicARD 1954a the personal names in line

(photograph).

2 cannot be read with any certainty.

OY) x)s) 1X.

XE

\\

Hr. Maktar N 131

» Oxy

ἊΝ NE

Illustration: MOSCATI

1988: 168, 620.

Text:

1) .^yb/d/r Text:

1) Pdn ὉΠ] hmn k* 2) Sm“ qP bri? q‘pt? 3) bn slsm‘t ὉΠ hmktr“m

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because 2) he heard his voice, blessed him, Capito 3) the son of s/sm‘t, citizen of Maktar. Remarks: FANTAR inadvertently gives the name of the dedicant as Quintus. Instead of VATTIONI's reading qn? we suppose that g‘pr, for Capito, is preferable. The same person is mentioned in H. Maktar N 64: 19 as q'*p bn slsmyn/t. The photograph shows the clear difference between the sibilant in X» and those in the name of the father. Therefore the reading 3/Xm^t, as proposed by VATTIONI (cf. also XELLA 1991: 75 n. 183, who reads 3/$ m“r) 1s erroneous. Instead of hmkti*m one would expect hmkrrm.

Remarks: The two photographs of this text show that only the last line of this text is partly preserved. Hr. Maktar N 132 Illustration: MOSCATI

1988: 619.

Text: 1) l'dn ὉΠ hmn Κ΄ 3m? 2) qP brk? .k[ Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him ... Remarks: The photograph of this text does not allow us to propose a reading for the word or name following the space after bri.

Hr. Maktar N 133 Hr. Maktar N 130

Bibliography: GHAK1 Illustration: PICARD 1954a: pl. vi, 2 (photograph). Text: 1) I dn

Text: 1) tn ’bn z Is 2) ‘Ik...bn “m

ὉΠ hmn k* 5m“

2) ql’ brk? m.. bn Spt 3) ὈῚ1 hmkt'rm

3) *1...*] hmk

4) ..*...

1998: 1044.

145

Hr. Meded (Mididi)

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for S2) alk ... the son of Am3) ..., citizen of Mak4) tar...

name Urbanus. The sign following the second * might be 7, but the following sign cannot be read ”. Therefore he opts for a Libyan name beginning with Au-. The photograph presented by SZNYCER seems to show that

Hr. Maktar N 134

ing to VATTIONI (1994a: 119), the photograph published by SzNvcER leaves much to be desired, but he proposes to read ‘drb/‘1, which is not completely impossible, judging from the unhelpful photograph. However, BERGER and SZNYCER have both seen the squeeze, which induces us to side with the older reading. VATTIONI (1994a: 119—120) then remarks, that ^w* is normally used for

BERGER’s reading is not impossible. Accord-

Bibliography: GHAK1

1998: 1044.

Text:

1}

2)

3) ...b'l Remarks: The remaining b‘/ may be part of a personal name, or the common noun ‘citiZen.

,

a woman,

to be pronounced

/ava/, whereas

/avol is used for men. Note that ’drb‘/ is not attested as a feminine name. Hr. Meded N 2

Hr. Meded (Mididi) Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 328, nr. 2; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 66, H; SZNYCER 1986: 9, 2.; VATTIONI 1994a: 120, 2; RES 168.

Hr. Meded N 1 BERGER

1901c:

327,

nr.

LiDZBARSKI

1908: 66, G; SZNYCER

l; VATTIONI

1994a: 119-120, 1; RES 167.

1;

1986: 7,

Illustration: SZNYCER graph).

1986: pl. 11 (photo-

Hy ayol* » 27

(gop) ay Y. 0

1986: pl. 1 2 (photo-

ΟΠ 30 X|° 2

TryifLoy WF p! N| (pe Ὰ (N oil {

Xv

Text:

-

M

2

Illustration: SZNYCER graph).

Dm

Bibliography:

1) t “bn z ISwrb‘T |

2) *w* Snt[ Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Auraba.. 2) he/she lived years ...

Text: 1) im? “bn z ly 2) brnk[ | bn *y*$l 3) w bn *? *w* $nt mn

Remarks: BERGER 1901c reads ‘wrb‘/t] for the name in line 1. SZNYCER 1986 notes that the reading of the last sign 15 highly uncertain. Momentarily he thinks of the Latin

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Ia2) barnak.., the son of Ayashal3) u, the son of Ato, he lived eight years.

146

J. Texts from Tunisia of the squeeze

genealogy that seems too long for this type

presented by SZNYCER is rather difficult to interpret, therefore we repeat the reading

of text. This reasoning may be strengthened

Remarks:

and

The

photograph

translation as presented

by SZNYCER

(1986: 9). Note however that the reading of BERGER 1901c differs considerably: 7) rn? bn z I[y] 2) brnk[s] bn *y3[l] 3) w b[n] *P ^w* ἔμ $mn. The s proposed by him for the letter following brnk in line 2, is, according to SZNYCER 1986, improbable, and therefore also the interpretation of a name as /bernikos

is unlikely, thus SZNYCER. However, as the -s in the ending of Latin names is normally not expressed in their Punic renderings, the argument is not really strong. The next name seems suspect. BERGER compares /ssula,

which is inconsistent with the spelling of this name. VATTIONI (1994a: 120) reads the first two lines: /) fn’ *bn z (I)! 2) bn bn knp.., which is highly improbable; /bn gives a well-known name, of course, and knp[, ‘wing,’ is found in some geographical names. For *? SZNYCER supposes that it is a misspelling rendering Latin Avitus, which

further when we interpret the sign in line 2 read as y by most interpreters as w, resulting in a repeated sequence u“ nr in line 2 and line 3. Hr. Meded N 3

Bibliography:

BERGER

1901c: 328, nr. 3;

LIDZBARSKI 1908: 66, J; SZNYCER 1986: 10, 3; VATTIONI 1994a: 120, 3; RES 169. Illustration: SzNYCER graph).

|

| 7 c

1986: pl. 1 3 (photo-

go | Ü

JO

|

ο΄

should have been spelled ‘wr. This type of reasoning is methodologically weak, and we propose to explain “7, if it is there, as a Libyan name. However, if the photograph 15 to be trusted, it seems that it is possible to read ἐνὶ at the end of the first line, while bn brk as the start of line 2 seems equally clear. SZNYCER, following BERGER 1901c, notes that it is possible that a fourth line contained an m. We think that some remains of this m are still visible, followed by w. The last word of line 2 looks more like Snr than anything else, but the meaning of the whole remains obscure. We can make out

the following: /) nm’ *bn z lyl 2) bn brk ..k*y* $nt 3) w .. *P *w* $nt $mn 4) m w[ . 1) This stone was erected for Iulius, 2) the son of Barik ...... years 3) ...... she lived eighty years 4) and [ . For y/ as Iulius, cf. Guelma N 9. Is it possible that the stone commemorates two different people, both mentioned with their age? This would at least avoid a

Text: 1) tn ‘bn z

2) I'by bn SIk Translation: 1) This stone was erected 2) for Abi, the son of Shillek. Remarks: The reading presented above is the one proposed by SZNYCER (1986: 10). BERGER (1901c: 328) supposed /) tn “by z 2) Ib... [n$]lk, where “by was explained as a mistake for ‘bn. We wonder whether at the end of line 1 there is not a trace of a /, which would leave us with /‘by as the name of the deceased. This name can be compared to I‘by’ in Kef Bezioun N 1. The z following “bn

cannot be discerned on the photograph.

147

Hr. Meded (Mididi)

Hr. Meded

N 4

Hr. Meded

Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 328, LIDZBARSKI 1908: 66, K; SZNYCER 10-11,4; VATTIONI

1994a:

nr. 4; 1986:

120-121,4; RES

N 5

Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 328, nr. 5; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 67, L; SZNYCER 1986: 11,5; VATTIONI 1994a: 121, 5; RES 171.

170; KAI 154.

Illustration: SZNYCER

1986: pl. 11 4 (pho-

Illustration: SZNYCER tograph).

1986:

pl. i1 5 (pho-

tograph).

FIIR

Z|

Text: 1) tn’ ’bn z [1] 2) slkny bn y's 3) ΚΙ ἢ Text: 1) tn? “Ὁ 2)nzlpwly*

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for 2) Salkani, the son of Yasu-

3) hsdyq'

3) ktan

Translation: 1) Was erected this 2) stone for Pullia 3) the righteous one.

Hr. Meded N 6 Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 328, nr. 6; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 67, M; SZNYCER 1986: 13, 6; VATTIONI 1994a: 121,6; RES 172.

Remarks: SZNYCER 1986 notes that the text might be longer. In line | he inadvertently

prints /*j? ?b instead of the correct fr? *b. For BERGER’s reading pwly* SZNYCER

gives ywly^, VATTIONI

Illustration: SZNYCER tograph).

1986

1994a reads yw/y“.

The photograph by SZNYCER seems to indicate that BERGER’s reading 1s more probable.

On the loss of final -t, cf. e.g. PPG?, ὃ 42 n. 18, 229, JONGELING (1994: ix-x). KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. sdq;) supposes hsdyq“ to be a hifil perfect of sdq, 'to be good, righteous.' The use of / instead of the expected y as indication of the causative form is less probable, and an explanation as the article seems to be more straightforward.

Text:

[ ] 1) bn yst‘t'n *w* Snt 2) Smnm

wss

1986: pl. i1 6 (pho-

148

3. Texts from Tunisia Translation: 1) This stone was erected for ...

Translation: 1) the son of Iastatan, he lived years

2) eighty six. Hr. Meded Hr. Meded

N 9

N 7

Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 329, nr. 7; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 67, N; SZNYCER 1986: 13, 7; WATTIONI 1994a: 121-122, 7; RES 173. Illustration: SZNYCER tograph).

Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 329, nr. 9; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 67, P; SZNYCER 1986: 15, 9; VATTIONI 1994a: 122, 9; RES 175. Illustration: SZNYCER tograph).

1986: pl. iii 9 (pho-

1986: pl. iii 7 (phoText: 1) t? “bn z Ik[ 2) h[ Jr] bn g‘[ 3) b'l

Text: 1) [tn]h *bn z Islkny bn 2) [ ] "wh nt ‘msm SIS Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Salkani, the son 2) [of ], he lived fifty three years. Remarks: SZNYCER’s remark that w, normally connecting numerals, is accidentally left out between ‘mm and 3/3 is too easy, cf. PPG?, § 243bis: numerals from 21 onwards are constructed either as fens + w + units or as units + tens, i.e. without the copula w. This text may be an example of grammatical confusion rather than orthographical carelessness. (VATTIONI 1994a: 121) reads line

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for K.. 2) ..., the son of Ga[ 3) bal. Remarks: BERGER 1901c reads A[sr]l, but the reading of s (or s) is less likely according to SZNYCER 1986. SZNYCER supposes the word to be the indication of a function, preceded by

the article. BERGER reads in the third line f* or

2: g^wd wewh nt ‘msm sls.

bl, while SZNYCER translates his reading p^! as ‘has made,’ which does not make sense. At the end of line 2 SZNYCER reads ga/y, Gaius. However, as this name is the result of an emendation, we propose that the whole might be a Libyan name, Gaf ]pal, or Ga[ /bal.

Hr. Meded

JONGELING (1984: 45), in Libyan texts SHBL,

Several Libyan seem to end in -bal, cf. e.g. N 8

SBL, in Greek script ZaAßoA, in Punic script Bibliography: LIDZBARSKI

BERGER 1908:

13, 8; VATTIONI

67,

1) tn “bn z If

O;

SZNYCER

1986:

1994a: 122, 8; RES 174.

Illustration: SZNYCER tograph). Text:

1901c: 329, nr. 8;

1986: pl. ΠΙ ὃ (pho-

z°zbl and JONGELING (1994, s. v. bub(b)al, maubbal), or -pal, cf. e. g. JONGELING (1984: 131), tr*p*l in Constantine N 74, and cf. from Libyan texts TTIFL, IFL, MSFL. The photograph furnished by SZNYCER 1986 rather seems to favour the reading -b‘/. VATTIONI (1994a: 122) reads the second and third lines as follows: 2) h/g.wr/dl bn g'[y 3) pl? He accepts the emendation to Gaius, but does not venture to propose a solution for the first half of line 2.

Hr. Meded (Mididi) Hr. Meded

N 10

Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 329, nr. 11; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 67, Q; SzNYCER 1986: 15, 10; VATTIONI 1994a: 122, 10; RES 176.

149

the photograph published by SZNYCER 1986 rather shows m than d. He compares Gumez (C/L viii 17081), and gum=“/ in Ksiba Mraou N 1. However, there seems to be a small space following this m, which

points rather

to a complete name gw. Illustration: SZNYCER tograph).

1986: pl. iv 10 (phoHr. Meded

Text: 1) [π᾿ ‘bn z Islkny

N 12

Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 303, nr. 13; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 68, S; SZNYCER 1986: 17, 12; VATTIONI 1994a: 123, 12; RES 178.

2) bn mtnb‘l

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Salkani, 2) the son of Mutunbal.

Illustration: SzNYCER tograph).

1986: pl. iv 12 (pho-

Text: Hr. Meded

1) &nh ‘[bn z 1]

N 11

2) g'y bn γί Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 329, nr. 12; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 67, R; SZNYCER 1986: 15, 17, 11; VaTTIONI 1994a: 122-123, 11; RES 177. Illustrations: SZNYCER tograph).

1986: pl. iv 11 (pho-

Text: 1) ntdr nd[ 2) bn gwd [[01 ἢ] 3) mn brk?[ Translation: 1) Vow ... 2) the son of Gawd to Bal A3) mun, he has blessed him. Remarks: n*dr in line 1 may be a verbal form, but the rest of the context favours the interpretation as a noun. It is not possible to read Dabar as the name of the dedicant (dbr, also attested in Hr. Meded 16: d*br) in line 1, because between n“dr and d in line | there is the rest of another sign, not indicated

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for 2) Gaius, the son of I... Remarks: Both BERGER 1901c and SZNYCER 1986, followed by VATTIONI (1994a: 123) read y/w/y/ in line 2. This is, of course, possible, but there are many names beginning with y. Hr. Meded

N 13

Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 330, nr. 18; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 66, T; CHABOT, Punica v 5; JoNGELING 1984: 181; SZNYCER 1986: 17-18, 13; VATTIONI 1994a: 123, 13; RES 179; ΚΑΙ 155. Illustration: SzNYCER tograph).

1986: pl. v 13 (pho-

Text:

1) nd'r °§ n*d 2)r b' my

by Sznycer, which looks like the top of n.

3) ddm[

VATTIONI (1994a: 122) reads line l: “dr *...,and line 2 bn gwm ... [Ib*l. According to VATTIONI (1994a: 123) the m is certain, and

Translation: |) Votive offering which dedica-

150

J. Texts from Tunisia Illustration: SZNYCER tograph).

2) ted the citizens of Mi3) didi Remarks: SZNYCER (1986: 17) and VATTIONI (1994a: 123) give the third line as [ddr]. The citizens of Mididi (b*P (h)myddm) also in Hr. Meded 21 and 26. Hr. Meded

N 14

pou

V3er Jg oe ENT IX

Bibliography: BERGER 1901c: 330, nr. 15; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 68, U; SZNYCER 1986: 18, 20, 14; VATTIONI 1994a: 123, 14; RES 180. Illustration: SZNYCER tograph).

1986: pl. vi 17 (pho-

1986: pl. v 14 (phoText:

Text:

1) (πῇ *bn z Ib*b[

1) brkb'l 2) bn [y]wly

2) bn Sprgm *w* $*nt 3) $y$m w^m$

Translation: 1) Barikbal, 2) the son of [ulius.

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Bab..., 2) the son of Shapargam, he lived years 3) sixty and five.

Remarks: The w in ywly seems partly visible in SzNYCER's 1986 photograph, although both SZNYCER (1986: 18) and VATTIONI (1994a: 123) read /yw]/v. Hr. Meded N 15 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica v 1; SZNYCER 1986: 22, 18; VaTTIONI

1994a:

124, 18; KAI

156.

Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica v 2) reads, in

line 1, d(*b*r). He indicates that it is only a possible reading. SZNYCER 1986 reads d'br, while VaTTiONI (1994a: 124) gives d‘br without any hesitation, explaining the name as a Semitic one, meaning 'ape.' CHABOT'S reading is untenable when compared to the photograph presented by SZNYCER 1986. However, also SZNYCER’s reading is not likely, as the last sign rather looks like s or s.

The first sign of the name could also be read

Text: 1) nd‘r ^3 n‘dr ?my'l Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Amial.

b or r, because the downward stroke seems to be lost. À remnant might be left, but we are not certain, pointing to the reading b. Hr. Meded N 17

Hr. Meded

N 16

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica v 2; SZNYCER 1986: 22, 17; VATTIONI

157.

1994a:

124, 17; ΚΑΙ

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica v 3; SZNYCER 1986: 20-21, 16; VATTIONI 1994a: 124, 16; KAI 158.

151

Hr. Meded (Mididi)

Illustration: SZNYCER tograph).

(tig

1986: pl. vi 16 (pho-

LE

ART

NEL

119°

TAEeNT Ru“ Text:

1) t? “bn z Iswl“ bn 2) sid*m ‘wh S‘nt 3) *srm wd

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Sulla, the son of 2) Saldam, he lived years 3) twenty and one. Hr. Meded

N 18

Bibliography: SZNYCER

1986:

CHABOT, 23,

19;

Punica VATTIONI

v

4;

(1986: 23). VATTIONI (1994a: 124) proposes the following reading, based upon the drawing published by CHABOT: /) ............... nn/ tt 2) .nltk(?) w*mr 3) ?gpytt w*bd 4) msyw“l‘ bn $1 5) m” Xnt tym 6) w]$b*. The reading of line 1 and 2 seems in accord with the drawing, although one might read the last sign of line 2 as b instead of r. In line 3 the following signs may be discerned: ?ebyrtw*br. Like CHABOT, VATTIONI only translates lines 4—6. For the ?gpvtt he reads in line 2, he tentatively proposes to think of the personal name Agapitus. Because of both the reading and the spelling, this seems less probable.

1994a:

124-125,19.

Hr. Meded

Illustration: CHABOT, Punica v 4 (drawing).

Bibliography: BERGER SzNYCER

Text: 1)..3) illegible 4) msyw‘l bn SI[ 5) [w]'w? nt tyám 6) [w]Sb“

N 19

1986:

20,

1893b: 72; RES 781; 15;

VATTIONI

Illustration: SZNYCER tograph).

1986: pl. v 15 (pho-

Text:

Translation: 4) Masiwal, the son of Shal.. 5) and he lived ninety years 6) and seven.

1) In bn *rb[ 2) [$]m? ql? br[k? Translation: |) ..an, the son of Arb..

Remarks: We only have the illustration of CHABOT (Punica v 4) followed by SZNYCER

1994a:

123, 15.

2) he heard his voice blessed him.

152

J. Texts from Tunisia

Remarks: SZNYCER 1986 points to “rby in CIS 6025 (cf. also *rb[ CIS 1007). VATTIONI (1994a: 123) reads ‘nyb/ instead of *rb[ in line 1, translating Aniboni, but he remarks

that this reading is influenced by the existing of Aniboni, which in itself is a rendering of hnb‘l, and concludes his note with the words: e'una proposta come un 'altra, which is too much honour for this reading. Hr. Meded

N 20

Bibliography: GHAK1 1985: 175; FANTAR 1986: 26, 1; GARBINI 1987b: 55; VATTIONI 1994a: 125, 20; GARBINI 2006: 191.

Illustrations: GARBINI 2006: 191 (drawing); Ghaki 1985: 175; FANTAR 1986: pl. vii 1; FANTAR 1999b: 33, nr. 8 (photograph).

C

„I

ΧΩ

N

Translation: 1) Votive offering, which dedicated 2) Tashdabar, the son of A3) gasan to Bal Amun 4) he heard his voice, blessed him. Remarks: FANTAR 1986 notes that the lacuna at the end of line 2 might have contained more than one letter. However, there seems to be only room for just one small sign like b/d/r, and these three have their more complete form in this text. Reading Agasan, instead of /gsan as FANTAR did, one might

compare Acasan (CIL viii 16922), Acasanis (ibid), cf. also VATTIONI (1994a: 125), who further adduces "Ks! in EH 278 and Acasam (CIL viii 17277), Agasant (CIL viii 9206). GARBINI (2006: 191) reads ?gsr without any uncertainty, although instead of ’gsn the reading 2925/1 also seems a possibility. Hr. Meded

A

My (99° ay 6g fo ys

N 21

Bibliography: FANTAR

GHaKı

1986:

55; VATTIONI Illustration:

26,

28,

1994a:

1985: 1; GARBINI

174-175; 1987b:

125, 21; LPE: 39.

GHAKI

1985:

174;

FANTAR

1986: pl. vii, 2 (photograph).

Text: 1) nd‘r °§ n*dr b*P hm[ Text:

2) dm [0 hmn Sm’ qlm 3) Brkm

1) nd'r^$ n‘dr

2) t&db'r bn?

Translation:

3) gs“n [0] hmn 4) Sm“ qP brk?

1) Votive offering which dedicated the citizens of Mi-

Hr. Meded (Mididi)

Hr. Meded N 22

Bibliography: GHakt 1986: 28, 3; GARBINI 1994a: 125, 22.

1985:

176; FANTAR

1987b: 55; VATTIONI

Illustrations: GHAK1 1985: 1986: pl. vii, 3 (photograph).

176;

FANTAR

Text: 1) ]b*1 h[mn |

(

Balshamo, the son of Tamangum to Bal Amun, who blessed him, heard his voice. p—

| qo qp» I ^ WAHL

€"

Remarks: According to some there seems to be no room for the second d, expected in the name */middm, although SZNYCER (1986: 24, n. 67) remarks that he rather would read mddm instead of nıdm. However, the photograph published by GHAKI 1985 shows that the stone is broken on the left, so there is no problem in reading /um[d]/dm.

2) 3) 4) 5)

——

2) didi to Bal Amun, he heard their voice 3) blessed them.

153

oO

ne A X» KY 277) Ne

Remarks: The use of the nota relationis § preceding the formula containg brk and sn‘

2) FT ]yml

is only attested here. There cannot be, how-

Translation:

ever, any doubt about its reading. Instead of bn tmngm in line 2-3, GHAKI (1985: 176) renders bn mkgm.

1) .. Bal Amun .. 2)...

Hr. Meded Hr. Meded

Bibliography: FANTAR

N 24

N 23

1986:

GuHakt 28-30,

1985:

176-177;

4; ΝΑΊΤΙΟΝΙ

1994a:

Bibliography: GHAKI1 1985: 173-174; GarBINI 1987b: 54; FANTAR 1986: 33, 35, 1; VATTIONI

1994a:

126, 24.

125-126, 23.

Illustration: GHAKI 1985: 1986: pl. viii (photograph).

176;

FANTAR

Illustration: graph).

FANTAR

1986:

pl. ix (photo-

Text:

Text: 1) nd‘r ^$ nd'r 2) b‘ISsm’ bnt 3) mngm Ib*]l mn 3 4) b'rk? $n

Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated

1) t“nh “bn z Islkny 2) bn zygg ‘wh $nt

3) ‘rbm w'ms Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Selkani, 2) the son of Zigag, he lived years 3) forty and five.

154

3. Texts from Tunisia

Hr. Meded

N 25

Bibliography: GHAKI 1985: 174; FANTAR 1986: 35-36, 2; VATTIONI 1994a: 126, 25.

Illustration:

FANTAR

1986:

pl. x (photo/ !

graph). Text:

1) tl ] “bn z[ 2) bt γί 1011

]n/t wlh

3) y*g/zd" *w* Snt $b^m 4) wtS° Translation: 1) This stone was erected for ..., 2) the daughter of Y[ Jbal ... 3) ... she lived seventy years 4) and nine. Remarks:

VATTIONI

(1994a:

126), follow-

ing GHAKI (1985: 174), reads a / following z in line 1. In line 2 VATTIONI reads the first word as bn, followed by a name for which

he proposes y[tn]b*l, which is possible. The first word of the third line he reads as the personal name y^sd*, explained as a variant of yd’. y*.d* is clearly visible on the photograph published by FANTAR 1986, however, the third sign is unclear. It does not look like

Text: 1) mqd§ bn? I°St 2) rt St Ὁ

br?

3) ὉΠ hmyddm Translation: 1) Sanctuary built for Asht2) art, the consort of Bal; built it 3) the citizens of Mididi. Remarks: The translation concurs with the one by VATTIONI (1994a: 126), FANTAR (19992: 58). FERJAOUI proposed for $t μι] bi? in line 2 ‘the year of Balbano,’ which leaves the b*? hmyddm of line 3 without a relation to the rest of the text.

g nor z as proposed by FANTAR, but VATTIONI's proposal is also not acceptable. The first editor, GHAKI (1985: 174) read this text: /) ene “bn (z) l... 2) bn y(tn)b'l ... ἢ... 3) gd

Hr. Meded

N 27

Swe ἔμ! b*m 4) wts*.

Bibliography: FERJAOUI 1989: 56; VATTIONI 1994a: 127, 27.

Hr. Meded

TeXT:

N 26

1) [πῇ *bn z Iy“nw“

Bibliography: FERJAOUI 1990: 113-119; VATTIONI 1994a: 126-127, 26; FANTAR 1999: 58. Illustrations: FERJAOUI 1990: pl. xxi, xxii; Fantar 1992a: tav. iv; FANTAR 1999a: 61, nr. 9 (photograph).

2) r bt k*ksn *w* ‘nt

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for lanua2) r(ia), the daughter of K*Ksii, she lived years. Remarks: V ATTIONI (1994a: 127) reads A*khn instead of k*ksn and remarks that there is no doubt at all about this reading. As names

Hr. Medeine (Althiburus) ending in /san/ are very frequent, and with-

out being able to verify either reading, we abide with the reading by FERJAOUI. Hr. Meded

N 28

Bibliography: FERJAOUI 1989: 57; VATTIONI 1994a: 127, 28. Text: 1) tn? “bn 2) z lyzgg bn 3) ymstn *wh 4) &nt ySm. Translation: 1) This stone was erected 2) for Izgag, the son of 3) Yamastan, he lived 4) sixty (?) years.

Remarks: Instead of ymstn VATTIONI reads ymst, 1961: 1989 127), which

comparing this to Masat (LEGLAY 11, 311). yim is explained by FERJAOUI as a lapsus for 35m. VATTIONI (1994a: however, reads *y3ri, lapsus for *mysni, seems less probable.

155

2) nYry$ bn tbrsn wStmn bn yksltn wmshb? bn lyl*'y wggm bn Ssy‘t w 3) m’gm“ bn tbrsn wy*smzgr bn sbg w’dnb‘l bn yll wgzr bn knzrmn wnYrys 4) bn Ibw^ wz'lgm bn Stw‘n wy*stn bn mshb? whbrnm hmzrh w 5) nsmrn bn’t w^yspn “It mqd$m byrh krr St bll hzbh bn [ ]gt'n b 6) Sptm mshb? bn yzrm w‘zrb‘l bn brk ws[d]ksIn bn z'zbl wmbyw hsp’ 3 7) Ἵ kmr ny*tmn wkhn [05] hmn wrwsn bn "r$ K? Sm“ qlm brkm 8) “ὦ h*P [kP *It^w m[n]ht bmqd3 9) °§ [bd ]mlk [3m] ndr Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun in Althiburus a votive offering which vowed Abdmelqart kns, the son of Kansoan [ and 2) Marish, the son of Tabarsan, and Shatman, the son of Yakaslatan and Massevo, the son of Lilay, and Gagam, the son of Shasiyat and 3) Mogama, the son of Tabarsan, and Yasmezgar, the son of Sibag, en Adonibal, the son of Yelul, and gzr, the son of Anzrmun, and Marish, 4) the son of /bu”, and Zalgam, the son of $tw*n, and Yaston, the son of Masebo, and

Hr. Medeine (Althiburus) Hr. Medeine N 1 Bibliography: DERENBOURG 1874; HALÉvY 1874c; EuTING 1875: 235; BERGER with DE SAINTE-MARIE 1884: 108-110; BERGER 1887b; BERGER 1891; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 437, 3 Da; CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1900a; FEVRIER 1960: 170; VAN DEN BRANDEN 1973b; GARBINI 1994: 53-56, NSI 55; NP 124; KAI 159; LPE: 39-40.

their colleagues, the assembly, and 5) Nasmaran ... over the sanctuaries, in the month Karar of the year of BIl, the sacrificer, the son of [ ]gr^ under (?) 6) the suffetes Mashabo, the son of Yazram, and Azrubal, the son of Barik, and sdks/n, the son of z'zbl, and mbyw, the seer, who was 7) over the priests of Niatman, and the priest for Bal Amun was Urusan, the son of Aris,

because he heard their voice and blessed them 8) they who

have offered a holocaust

here,

Illustrations: EUTING 1875: next to 237; LiDZBARSKI 1898: Taf. xvii (drawing).

or a minHa-offering in the sanctuary 9) which ... his vow.

Text: 1) Pdn b'l hmn b'ltbr3 ndr ^$ ndr *bdmlqrt kn§ bn kns”n [

Remarks: Note that the last two lines are in another hand and probably a later addition to the text. kn¥ in line | has been explained as

156

3. Texts from Tunisia

a (cog)nomen, which seems not impossible as the name Kzis is attested in Punic 14 times

(CIS 417, 2070, 2549, 2652, 2700, 3963, 4281, 4354, 4521, 4556, 4561, 4745, 4881, 5098) and the name element occurs also in derivatives kn? (CIS 2668, 5591), kn&y (CIS 5885, Punica ΧΗΣ 7), knsyr (CIS 5823), knám

(CIS 2247, 2555, 3876, 4145, 4503, 4522, 5019, 5272), and cf. also kyn¥ (CIS 4745). Note that knsy is also attested in Phoenician, BASOR clxxxiii, 1966: 27-28. ROLLIG (sub KAI 159) notes all possible explanations:

relation with the personal names just mentioned, the possible reading knz, which can be explained as a personal name of Berber origin, cf. ΚΝΖ (RIL 125, 361 (?)), or the supposition that kn$ might be an unknown title, as brought forward by e. g. CLERMONTGANNEAU 1900a. This supposition is also found with KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. hbr, kn, mzrh), who translates ‘convener,’ 1.6. the ‘praeses of a sodality.' In line 3, COOKE (1903, sub 55) reads wy*smzgr. For the name yll, cf. onomasticon. In line 4 the reading whbrnm hmzrh was proposed by CLERMONT-GANNEAU. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. hbr) translates these words as 'their fellowmembers of the mrzh-sodality,' which seems to be bad grammar, which is not explained when he translates, s.v. mzrh, ‘their fellow members «of» the mzrh.' The first part of line 5 1s of uncertain interpretation. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. smr;) reads wn smrn, explaining the second word as piel (note, however, id. 2001: 162, where the verb is supposed to be qal) of the verb smr, ‘to nail,’ combined with the following bn’, ‘on it;’ an improbable solution. Cooke (1903: 146) has supposed that ?yspri might be a verbal form, hif. of the root spn. The explanation as a personal name seems more probable, however. Note also the solution presented by GARBINI (1994: 53-54), who divides bn Ἶ, explaining these words as 'belonging to the group of Attis. For the preceding ns mrn GARBINI, ibid., proposes tentatively the translation ‘thiase (??) of perfume (?).” KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. Vt... 11? 3pt..,iu tw) combines tw? yspn

It mqdXm, ‘we added his cella on to his sanctuary,’ which seems also less probable, especially because of the supposed verbal form in the Ist p. plural. b3ptm in line 5-6 is interpreted as ‘in the suffetship' by KRAH-

MALKOV (2000, s.v. Xpf;;) a word distinct from Sft, suffete. The ending -m must be explained as a proleptic suffix, according to idem 2001: 67-68. The explanation as plural absolute of Sfr, ‘suffete,’ seems much more natural, cf. also Huss (1977-1978: 251). The divine name ny‘tmn is only attested here. The first element has been connected to the Egyptian god Neith, cf. e.g. RÖLLIG, but

this remains highly uncertain. Perhaps more to the point is LipINsK! (1995: 373) who combines this deity with Niotmanio in CIL viii 2650, a name traditionally read as Mormanio. In line 7 the personal name wrwsn has been read wrwsn by several authors, cf. e.g. RóLLIG. We follow Cooke (1903, sub

59), because of the frequency of the ending /-san/ in Berber personal names. At the end of line 6 en the beginning of line 7 KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. Amr, sp) translates hsp’ SI kmr ny“tmn wkhn lb'lhmn wrwsn bn ?rs as follows: *X*/ was the watch-priest; my*tmn was the komer-priest, and wrwsn son of Aris was the kohen-priest of Baalhammon.' The explanation of 3*/ as a personal name seems less probable, it is not attested elsewhere, and even not mentioned by KRAHMALKOV 2000, s. v. The only advantage of this explanation is the possibility to get rid of ny*tmn as a Punic divinity. FÉvRIER (1960: 170) reads line 8-9: °§ /*P Κ΄ *IP wmnht bmqds ! °§ “αἱ mlk m παρ’, translating: ‘they (the members of the mizrah, who have offered here (or: thus) his (1.6. the god's) holocaust and a minha in the sanctuary (and) who have offered spontaneously there a molek offering,' a translation also accepted by FERRON (1971: 229). FÉvRIER (1955b: 53) notes that mlk here probably indicates an ordinary sacrifice. VAN DEN BRANDEN (1973b) reads line 8-9: °F ASP k *It ?w mnht bmqds | ?$ p'[T] mlk Sm ndr?, translating: ‘and someone who has offered a holocaust in the sanctuary or

Hr. Medeine (Althiburus)

an oblation, such a one has made the offering imposed by his vow.’ In case nılk in line 9 indicates a molk-offering, it is more likely that three types of offerings are mentioned, ‘It, mnht and milk, as there is no indication that m/k may be used as a hyponym for any type of offering, and its meaning seems rather to be restricted to a human sacrifice or its substitute. The form /i*? poses a problem. [n both the interpretations, of FÉvRIER and VAN DEN BRANDEN, the form is explained as a causative formation in the perfect. However, in Phoenician and Punic one expects a yiphil rather than a hiphil, as in Hebrew. Hr. Medeine N 2

3)[ 4)[

157

jic.tescu ]iet.Iovis

Translation: 1) ... wh]at they gave

2) 3) 4) ... Saturninus, the son of Satur 5) ... the year of Barikbal, the son of Mutun 6)... Remarks: Most of the text remains obscure, and we are in fact not much further than CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1909, who recognized the introductory formula ?€ yti? and names

str, s*trnym, mtn and brkb'l. Because of its Bibliography: PoiNssor 1908; CLERMONTGANNEAU 1909; VassEL 1913; VASSEL 19164; CHABOT 1943-1945b; FÉVRIER 1951-1952b; Apams 2003: 224-225; KAI 160; CIL viii 27774; ILPBardo 380; AE 1993: 1761. Illustrations: POINSSOT 1908: pl. xlv; VAsSEL 1913, 52, VASSEL 1916a; /LPBardo 380 (photograph). Text: 1) [ ]§ ytn? ly C*ktrt b'ym Sk'rnm

2)[ 3)[ 4) [

5)[

6)[

15 "γᾷ Ingsmy kytb wbyt $*t Js? nk’rtSwmywS kn$ S't ΤΌ s‘trnym bn s'tr

150 $°t brkb‘l bn mtn

Ἰξὶ

Latin parallel: fragment 1: 1) quod bonum fau[stum fe] 2) [I]ixque sit sod[alibus(?)] 3)[ ]isigne quis [velit] 4)[ 7134 Iovis[ ] S)[ ]templo po[nere] 6)[ ae]difici[ ]

even more fragmentary character, the Latin text cannot help us with the interpretation of the Neo-Punic one. ADAMS (2003: 224f.), who only discusses the Latin text, notes that it was written in an old formal style. VASSEL 1913 and especially VASSEL 1916a (9-10) notes that there is every reason to suppose that the text was originally comparable to the great Maktar text, which is a lintel containing several columns of text (cf. Hr. Maktar N 64). Also here much more text must have been extant on the right side of the preserved remains, wherefore, he notes, there is little hope ever to reach a certain interpretation. Note, however, CHABOT (1943-1945b: 289),

who maintains that the Latin text is complete on the left, nullifying the deduction of VASSEL. Also FÉvRIER (1951-1952b) and RóLLIG (sub KA/ 160) suppose only a few missing signs on the right, which, however, cannot be proven easily. We suppose that VASSEL's supposition at least merits consideration. FEVRIER (1951-1952b: 20-21) combines /yt with the root /wy, ‘to accompany,' and translates ‘society, association,’ explaining the form as a development /iwyat > liyyat. *ktrt may be the article followed

by ktrt, explained by FÉvRIER (1951-1952b: fragment 2: D[ ]ni.xl 2)[ ]animo

21) as ‘frankincense,’ like the Hebrew qtrt, but with the loss of the emphatic pronunciation of the word. As emphasis is mostly

158

3. Texts from Tunisia one,’ followed by ngSm, a variant of ngsm, derived from the root gsm ‘to divide.” yrb he explains as a piel form of Ath, ‘to write.’

$“t FEVRIER relates to Ugaritic i^y and South-

KiEro Wrry yr Were

| vwrxsf]

Hs

4 gor

IX

NXOT er?

TEE

/[—— E

INN “““5,

>>>

IQaVoDBONVAAFNY:

IXQVESITS / 412} ΙΕ ΝΙὸ

AYOYISI

1 [AAPIOP

expressed correctly, even

Arabian mit‘y(t) ‘offering of aromates;’ he translates the lines | and 2 ‘what the society of the frankincense has offered, with the surplus (?) of their gains; what (or: from what) everyone according to his part has inscribed, and for the House of the Aromates (he brought it).' However, note that ROLLIG points out that Ugaritic ry is only used for a ‘sacrifice.” KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. kth), cf. also bt $°r, §t, divides $my kytbw byt xt, ‘record my name in the clubhouse,” byr Xt, meaning ‘house of sodality, clubhouse,’ a

highly uncertain interpretation as the author in the late texts,

this seems less probable (cf. PPG? $ 39). Note also KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. Ktrt), who compares the word to Hebrew ketrer, and transates 'high turban,' reading the whole line as [wkP¥ ?]$ ytm? ly ?ktrt b*ym Skrnm, ‘as for every man who awarded me the turban , reward them during their life(times).’ KRAHMALKOV has every reason to note, as he does, that this translation is problematic, and cf. id., s. v. §kr, where he reads the same but translates ‘as for everyone who awarded me the crown, reward them with long life.’ The relation of b^ym with Hebrew b*ym in Jes. xi 15, which is explained as the preposition 5 follwed by *ayam, word of unknown meaning usually translated as ‘strength,’ *violance,' or ‘thirst,’ seems of limited value as it is a case of explaining the unknown from the uncertain. FÉVRIER ibid. tentatively translates *surplus.' The next word may be a

form of skr followed by the suffix of the 3" person plural, as supposed in PPG?, ὃ 48b; however, we need to accept another unexpected representation of a consonant then. Cf. FÉVRIER ib., who relates the word to Hebrew skr, translating ‘their gains,’ cf. also ROLLIG (sub KA/ 160). In the second line FÉVRIER proposes to translate ?y as ‘every-

himself also admits. In line 3, FÉVRIER (1951: 21-22) supposes hs’ to be a participle meaning ‘distributor.’ The next word he reads as "Κ᾽, which he compares with some

hesitation to the Hebrew word spelled in the same way and indicating according to some scholars *ladanum resin,’ here used for the raw resin of frankincense. The next word, Xwmyws, is a personal name, according to

FÉVRIER, ib., the ending -w$ is taken to indicate a Greek rather than a Latin origin. As

long as no Greek name is found that might be the origin of this name, the whole rea-

soning is not very fruitful. In Κηκ᾽ FÉVRIER, ib., sees a participle, in the plur. construct state, of a root Ans parallel to Hebrew

Kis,

‘to collect.’ He translates this line: ‘ being dis]tributor the resin of frankincense

Swmyws;

collectors of the aromates being

..' In line 4 the two personal names are read as §trnyn’, str. However, the photographs provided by VASSEL seem to indicate that the reading with s is more probable in both intances. At the beginning of line 5 he supposes h]sb or mh]$b xt, ‘accountant of the aromates.’ The same word, ¥f, 1s then found in the next line too. With reason RÖLLIG notes that the variation in sibilants is striking, hence this explanation and translation of the text remain uncertain. Note also that in some instances FÉVRIER supposes great deviations

159

Hr. Merah (Suo)

from traditional Hebrew spellings (Ktrt / qtrt, nqim « qsm), while at other moments he searches for equivalents in Hebrew that are spelled exactly as in this text (b^yr v. supra). To conclude, we suggest that at least in line 5 Xt may be the vocalized variant of sr, con-

ape

xP

ror™

SS

1

4

|o»

struct form of 3t, ‘year,’ which is sometimes

found directly preceding a personal name, cf. e.g. Hammam Derradji N 1, Hr. Meded N 26, Constantine N 54, 65 (?). The spelling with vowel letter * ıs also attested in Hr. Guergour N 9 ([3]*t ) and Hr. Maktar N 43. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. mii$b, cf. also s*t ), reads line 3-5 as ’nk ’t$wnıywS kns St [ty]P Stray’ bn Str[nyn?’ mh]ib Yt brkbrl bn mtn [...] St, ‘I, ?t$wmyws, was praeses of the sodality; Titus Saturninus, son of Saturninus was the accountant/treasurer of the sodality; Birrecbal son of Mytthun was the [...] ofthe sodality.' Apart from the fact that the lacuna where KRAHMALKOV restores the name [ty]? has space for at least one, perhaps two extra graphemes, it seems less probable that in a text like this someone refers to himself as "nk, ‘I Then, the name ?t$wmyws gives the impression of being just a number of graphemes, left over after delimiting the preceding and following words.

Hr. Merah (Suo) Hr. Merah N 1

Bibliography: FÉvRIER

1959-1960b:

131-

134; FANTAR 1975a: 69-74; GARBINI 1975: 261-264; GARBINI 1976: 21-22; GARBINI 1987b: 60-61; GARBINI 1994: 112-116.. Illustrations: FÉVRIER 1959-1960b: pl. π|ς; FANTAR 1975a: pl. iv (photograph). Text: 1) mnsbt 3 n*b? bn ?dnb'l 2) w$ nymm

bn

.m? *w?

3) Snwt ‘ms w ‘ms w n'b? 4) *w? $nwt $$8m

Translation: 1) Stele of Nabo, the son of Adonibal, 2) and of Nimam, the son of [ Jamao, he lived 3) fif five years, and Nabo 4) lived sixty years. Remarks: We mainly follow FANTAR 1975a. FÉVRIER (1959-1960b) read in line 2) wsk?m p rm? “wr, which is untenable. FANTAR [9758 read this line as follows: 2) ws nymnr bn pm? *w^, which 15 also difficult to accept. Between the second m and the ? in nymnr the space is so wide that it seems to be intentional, while we cannot see any trace of the p at the beginning of the patronimicum. ?bii for bn

is awkward,

however.

If this

name

were to be accepted, then it is probably a hypochoristicon of a name like pmyytn, pmyimr, pmyhwy’, or rather the rendering of a name like */pumihawol > */pumiaol, ‘Pumi is alive’ (qal perf. of the root /my). GARBINI 1976, repeated in GARBINI 1987b, reads w3twnmim ?tr*m? *w*?, explained as: ‘... and of his twin; they have become heroes, they lived years five and five.' Although ingeneous, we believe that the reading as given above results in an easier and therefore more probable text. Following the second ‘ms, FÉVRIER (1959-1960b) reads wih’ ‘rs l*nwk $lm, ‘and Nabo was my master, of me Shallum,’ which seems farfetched. GARBINI (1976, 1987b, 1994) mainly follows FÉVRIER and reads wrbr “rs l'nwk slm, translating, however, quite differently: ‘and ... stability (?) in offering a $/m-sacrifice.” FANTAR (19752) gives the probable reading for this part of the text: wzi&b? ^w? $nwt $m.

160

3. Texts from Tunisia

Hr. Oum Guerguer

Bibliography: GHAKI 1987b: 63-64.

1985:

GHAKI

1985:

173; GARBINI

173

Au

Hr. Oum Guerguer N 1

Illustrations:

PINA AERE] : EIN ———

(photo-

In T

graph).

($53 Text:

1) tn? Ὁ 2)nzlymrr bn

3) pS^[sP

Text: 1) [π΄ *bn z Itpr 2) *t bt “wth ’sd 3) t $ yst“tn bn ms 4) ly‘n “St prmh 5) *w* $nt [

4)*k3 ... 5) w'[w] [snt *]m3m Translation: 1) Was erected this st2) one for ymrr, the son of 3) Pash... 4) ... 5) and he lived fifty years. Remarks: The reading is the one of GHAKI 1985. GARBINI (1987b: 65) notes correctly, that the photograph is difficult to interpret.

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Tafr2) at, the daughter of Aute, the freedwom3) an of Iastatan, the son of Mas4) lian, the wife of Primus 5) she lived years ... Remarks:

Instead

of sdt the

reading

sdn

is also possible, according to HOFTIJZER Hr. Sidi Khalifat (Pheradi Maius) Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1 Bibliography: GESENIUS 1837: 445-449; WUuRM 1838: 30-31; JuDAS 1845: 54ff.; DE SAULCY 1847a, 8-10; JUDAS 1847a: 100; EWALD 1852: 1726, 2; BOURGADE 1856: 46-47, BLau 1849: 436; LEvy 1857: 75-76, Bl; SCHRODER 1869: 269, nr. 1; FEVRIER 1959-1960a: 64-66; HOFTIJZER 1963a: 95— 96; Numidica vi; NP 12; LPE: 40-41.

(1963a: 96); cf. the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 52. FÉvRIER (1959-1960a: 64, 66) reads msly*p instead of msly*n in line 3-4. The frequency of the ending -ar in Berber names and the form of the last sign in this name both favour the reading msl/y“n, as adopted by HorruzER (1963a: 96), JONGELING (1984: 68, 184); ScHRÓDER (1869: 269) supposed ms/y*t. Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 2

Bibliography: Illustrations:

GESENIUS

1837:

tab. 25, Ixii;

Junas 1845: pl. 4; DE SauLcy 1847c: pl. xxxvii, 3; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvii | (drawing).

BERGER

1903a;

FÉVRIER

1959-1960a: 61-63. Illustration: FÉvRIER 1959-1960a: 62, fig. 1 (photograph).

Hr. Zian, El Kef

161

El Kef

Text: 1) hmlk bn ?r$ bn hmlk hbs*

El Kef N 1 Translation: 1) Imilk, the son of Arish, the son of Imilk, the usurer (?) Remarks: bs‘ is translated ‘usurer’ by FÉVRIER (1959-1960a); cf. however BERGER (1903: 133): ‘carpenter.’ Both translations are, of course, based upon the meaning of the root bs“ in Classical Hebrew. The reading of the word remains uncertain. However,

when it is correct and when the relation to Hebrew bs* were also correct, the interpretation remains uncertain as it may indicate any profession in which ‘cutting’ forms a conspicuous part of the duties.

Hr. Zian

1998: 1676-1677.

Illustration: graph).

1998:

GHAKI

fig.

8

(photo-

Text:

1) Pdn b'l .mn ndr ^$ ndr m.ls... 2)... 3) $m* ql brk* Translation:

1) To the lord Bal Amun, votive offering which dedicated m./s[ 2)... 3) he heard his voice, blessed him. Remarks: The photograph does not offer the opportunity to check the reading of line 3 where one would rather expect Sm? qP br? than the text offered.

Hr. Zian N 1

Bibliography: BERGER 1905b; RES 558.

Bibliography: GHAK1

1905a;

BERGER

Text:

El Kef N 2 Bibliography: GHAKI

1998: 1677-1678.

Illustration: graph).

1998:

1) ]bt dgnl Translation:

GHAKI

fig.

9

(photo-

I)... Text:

Remarks: It is, of course, possible that this small fragment should be translated * |temple of Dagon[,' but the name Dagon does not occur elsewhere in North Africa as far as we know. Bal Amun, the epithet of Dagon (?), having supplanted his name (cf. also LIPINSKI 1995: 262-263). Note that den is also not attested as an element in personal names. BERGER 1905b notes that the words may mean ‘temple of Dagon’ or ‘house of grain.’

1) [ndr] °5 ndr mgn bn mtnb'l 2) [ ] bSt Snm Imlk°? dr^p ?mmlkt

3) [$]n? qP brk? Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Magon, the son of Mutunbal 2) ... in the year two of kingship of dı“p the king, 3) he heard his voice, blessed him.

Remarks:

GHAKI

notes

that

the

reading

of line 2 needs to be restudied, because it differs from other methods of dating texts known from Punic or Neo-Punic texts. The

162

J. Texts from

name of the king may perhaps also be read as "dr*p, leaving us with a word mik in the

construct state instead of a proleptic suffix, after which one would expect a marker of relativity.

Tunisia Text: 1) ym n‘m wb 2) rk 1 wds* 3) tn b'] "spl Translation: 1) A pleasant and blessed 2) day for wds* 3) tn, citizen of *spl.

Kélibia (Clupea) Kélibia N 1 Bibliography: FANTAR

1992b: 92.

as wds'tn, noting that the reading of the

Text: 1)$ mgnym Translation: 1) Of Magonim. Remarks: According to FANTAR, menym probably is a plural of mgn. See, however, the onomasticon s. v.

Kélibia N 2 Bibliography: FANTAR

Remarks: In the text presented by FERJAOUI he reads the name of the dedicant as wys‘ytn, however, in his comments he gives the name name is difficult, the first y having a small head giving the impression of a d, while the s looks more or less like q. He does not comment upon the second y. One, of course, thinks of the name wd‘sn, wd‘syn attested in Hr. Maktar, and therefore we followed the reading proposed by FERJAOUI in het comment.. The name of the town concluding the tekst is also difficult to read. FERJAOU! notes that instead ”sp/ the reading mÁ*spl is also possible.

1992b: 92.

Ksar Lemsa (Limisa)

Text: 1) br ^3 p'l?r$m bn bd'Strt

Ksar Lemsa N 1 Translation: 1) Grave which made Arishim the son of Bodashtart.

Bibliography: FÉvRIER GARBINI 1987b: 61.

1968b:

226,

Remarks: We reconstructed this text from the remark by FANTAR (1992b: 92), who only quotes the first word and then presents a translation of the whole. We did not include the names and words from this text in vocabulary and onomasticon.

Illustration: FÉVRIER graph).

Kesra (Chusira)

Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day 2) for ...tam, the daughter of Ligar. 3)...

KesraN

1

Bibliography: FERJAOUI

1993b: 127-129.

228;

1968b: fig. 3 (photo-

Text: 1) bym nm wb'rk

2) [ Intm bt lygr 3) [ ]b[ IT

163

Ksar Toual Zouameul (Vicus Maracitanus)

Remarks: Both names are highly uncertain. GARBINI (1987b: 61) notes that only the first line is comprehensible.

Remarks: GHAKI supposes the first line to be complete and he reads the name of the father of the deceased as “m. This seems, however,

Ksar Lemsa

Bibliography:

N 2

FÉvRIER

BINI 1974: 30; GARBINI

1968b: 228; GaR1987b: 61.

Illustration: FÉVRIER 1968b: fig. 4 (photograph). Text: 1) [bym n*m] wbrk tn? ^bn st Ilqy 2) [ Jwmyztl bnm

Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day this stone was erected for Lucius 2) ... and Mayzatal, his son. Remarks: Because of the missing first part of line two, the interpretation of the rest remains uncertain. GARBINI (1974: 30, 1987b: 61) notes that the translation of bim in line 2 with ‘his son’ or ‘the sons’ is much more probable than that of FEVRIER (1965-1966), who translated ‘the builders.’ Is it possible to read btm which sometimes is attested in a comparable context, i.c. in a votive text, cf. e. g. Tarhuna N 1? Ksar Lemsa

N 3

Bibliography: GHak1 Illustration: graph).

GHAKI

1990: 149-150. 1990:

Text: 1) msnsn bn *ml[ 2) ° tn?’ *bnt z Translation: 1) Massinissan, son of Aml[ 2) ?, has erected this stone

151

(photo-

less probable,

as the second

line

seems to end with z. One would expect a construction like "A son of B, C erected this stone.’ Otherwise we have to admit a construction ‘A son of B erected this stone,’ without indication of the reason for its erection. Between the concluding n of ?b in line 2 and the following = a small stroke is evident, according to GHAKI, who proposes to read ?biit, a variant of ’hn, pointing to hbnr in Hr. Maktar N 33, although the reading n is equally possible. Or could the stroke be accidental in some way ?

Ksar Toual Zouameul (Vicus Maracitanus)

Ksar Toual Zouameul

N 1

Bibliography: FEVRIER 1946-1949a: 252, 1. Text:

1) [ ]s/S? bn “tf ] 2) [ ]m*m?qw

b*T ]

Translation: 1) ... son of Adirbal (?) 2) ...... Remarks: FEVRIER (1946-1949a: 252) notes that the copy he worked from shows * where he reads d at the end of line l. His reading is, of course, prompted by the wish to find the name ?dr[b*l]. On line 2 he remarks that he does not trust the copy. If correct, however, he wants to connect ni'nr'qw to the

fem. name Mammonica. However, we would rather divide after 1°’. For a discussion see the onomasticon s.v ni nrqw. Ksar Toual Zouameul

N 2

Bibliographv: FÉvRIER 1946-1949a: 252, 2.

164

J. Texts from Tunisia

Ksour

Text: I) [ ]n/t ὃς

2) [ Inst Stt ]

Ksour N 1

Translation: |) ... years six2) ty ...

Bibliography:

BERGER

1906: ccxlvii-cxx-

lviii; LIDZBARSKI 1915: 62; GANNEAU 1924; RES 785.

Remarks: FÉVRIER notes that in line 2 the word Sf, ‘year,’ or possibly, Spr, 'suffet,' is to be found.

2) * bt p'k^y tyn?

Ksar Toual Zouameul

4) ylts bn hzrby

CLERMONT-

Text: 1) [t]? “bn z Ip“wst 3) P wyndks bn

Bibliography:

FÉvRIER

N 3

1946-1949a:

253,

3. Text:

I) [ byr]h mp* stf ]

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Faust2) a, the daughter of Pakay, erected it 3) for her Vindex, the son of 4) laltas, the son of Azarbay (?)

2) [ ]pmytn ml ]

3) [ ]n/P m3b? ‘Im m^?

4) [ ]byll mis?tf ] Translation: 1) ...in the month Mafa, the year 2) ...Pumiaton

...

3) .. ... eternity (?)

4) ... Remarks: For mp“, cf. e.g. KAI 43 and RÓLLIG's remark a.l. FEVRIER (1946-1949a: 253) translates in line 3: ‘his dwelling in eternity,’ noting that he reads mb’

“In, but

that the construction is incorrect as the suffix -? should have been following */m. He then remarks that there might be traces of a b before “Im. It is difficult to decide whether this reading is the result of the wish to present a translatable text. In line 4 y// is

Remarks: The reading presented supra is the one proposed by CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1924: 21), who had photographs and a squeeze of the text at his disposal. The reading of p instead of t (or n as supposed by BERGER 1906) in line | is based upon the well-known name resulting from this reading. Line 4 is highly uncertain. BERGER 1906 reads [m]l[k]s*n hn*dr, which may be acceptable as to the division of words. The name of the father of Vindex possibly was a Berber one of the type ending in -san, spelled s^ in this case. For the type of name cf. y“/ss“n in Hr. Maktar N 8. Note, however, that CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1924: 19) seems to be rather sure about his reading b/d/r. The last word is most probably an ethnicon, preceded by the article, which points to a read-

ing like hnzrby

translated with ‘sighing’ by FÉvRIER, which IS possible, although the precise dating in line 1 gives a different impression of the type of text at hand. The explanation of mis’r as a fem. plural noun, derived from the root "ls, ‘to oppress,’ meaning 'despondency,'

‘exhaustion,’ seems highly speculative.

Ksour Abd el-Melek (Uzappa) Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1 Bibliography: BERGER with PoınssoT 1884; CHABOT,

Punica

460—461; FERJAOUI

xx

1;

VATTIONI

1995a: 63-68.

1993c:

165

Ksour Abd el-Melek (Uzappa) Illustrations:

SAINTE-MARIE

1884:

776

Ksour Abd

el-Melek N 2

(drawing); FERJAOU! 1995a: pl. i fig. 2 (photograph)

Bibliography: BERGER with PoiNssor 1884; CHABOT, Punica xx 2; VATTIONI 1993c: 461. Illustrations:

MARIE

| POINSSOT

1884;

SAINTE-

1884: 77 (drawing).

AN Jo D ΠΑΡ Text:

1) mnsbt 3 btb‘l 2) bt ‘wl? hknt

3) hit mtnb‘l bn §*dbr 4) bn? b*'ny* btstnm 5) *w* Snt t$m whd Translation: 1) Stele of Batbal 2) the daughter of Aulo, the priestess, 3) the wife of Mutunbal, the son of Shadbar; 4) her sons built it at their own expense, 5) she lived ninety-one years. Remarks: The combination of bry and mnsbr also in Hr. Drombi N |, Metameur N | (cf. on this point FERJAOU! 1995a: 64-65). The reading of line 3 is based on the new edition of FERJAOUI. CHABOT (sub Punica xx), followed by VATTIONI (1993c: 460), rendered this line: ”$r mtnb‘l bn X*dbr[t], while the drawing published by DE SAINTE-MARIE 1884, clearly shows Xdbrw. For *wP, cf. the notes in the onomasticon.

Text: 1) [*]sr ἔπι wm 2) ‘kn t? br‘ 3) Ibrkb'l

4) [IE Is Translation: 1) ...fifteen years 2) the stone (?) erected her son 3) for Barikbal 4)... Remarks: The reading of the text is the one presented by CHABOT (sub Punica xx 2). It is based

on

a squeeze,

and

CHABOT

notes

expressis verbis that the drawing published by PoiNssoT 1884, and reproduced by DE SAINTE-MARIE in the same year, is inexact. CHABOT proposes to emend “An in line 2 to ‘bn (which reading is given as the correct one by VATTION! 1993c: 461). The verb being preceded by the object, the word

166

J. Texts from Tunisia

following should be a name expressing the subject. If correct, one might also explain bi* as the common noun bn followed by a pronominal suffix, *her (or his ?) son.' In line

we know, not otherwise attested in Punic.

example of a Latin name without an ending. CHABOT (sub Punica xx 4) reads rg‘r‘ wh, supposing haplography: ^w instead of ww. VATTIONI (1993c: 462) reads w[hw]h. CHABOT notes that the reading ‘s* is clear, and more probable than “s“. He supposes that ^s^ is a mistake either for “sr or ser. VATTIONI (1993c: 462) reads ‘s‘/r]; read, however, rather ‘sr.

Ksour Abd

Ksour Abd el-Melek N 5

4, VATTIONI (1993c: 461) reads s instead of

s as CHABOT did. Line 1, as read by CHABOT, presents a syntactical problem, as the order decade + counted element + unit is, as far as

el-Melek N 3

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica VATTIONI 1993c: 461—462.

xx

3;

Bibliography: GARBINI VATTIONI

Text: 1) tn^^bn z Iw^r/b/n

1968b:

29.; GARBINI

223-224; 1987b:

59;

1993c: 462-463.

Illustrations: tograph).

2) s'q bn tg'r

FEVRIER

1974b:

FEVRIER

1968b:

fig.

| (pho-

3) Sw? [ Jtb/r“[ ]r

4) [

Text:

Translation: |) This stone was erected for War2) saq, the son of Tagar; 3) He lived .. 4) ...

2) *ry* *zrm S°b 3) whn“ *w* Snt *[r]

1) tn’ “bn z ly‘nw

4) bm wSIS b*yb/rst

Remarks: See the remark in the onomasticon s. v. w“rs°q. VATTIONI (1993c: 461, 462) reads s instead of s in this name. Ksour Abd

el-Melek N 4

Bibliography: VATTIONI

| CHABOT,

Punica

xx

4;

1993c: 462.

Text: l)tn“ *bnzl 2) ret’ wh § 3) “nt “str! w*ms$

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for 2) Rogata, she lived ye3) ars fifteen. Remarks: Instead of rg“ wh, one might divide rg*t ‘wh and compare y“nm“r as an

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Ianu2) aria ... 3) ... she lived years for4) ty and three in ... Remarks: GARBINI (1987b: 59) notes that zrm in line 2 1s best explained as the plural of a word meaning ‘priest’ or something similar (cf. the remark sub Labdah N 13 on ?dr *zrm), followed by the relative marker $ and the word “bw/in“, perhaps the name of a

divinity. 5b or $“bw may also be a form of the root zbh (cf. also VATTIONI

1993c: 462),

for which spelling one may compare texts from Guelma. For “rm, cf. also the remark sub Guelma N 18. For the last word of line 4,

FÉVRIER (1968: 224) proposes, with reservations, to read /bayvabast/, on earth, which seems rather far fetched. This text possibly shows that a funeral could take place with a sacrifice being made, which, according to FÉvRIER (1968: 226) makes the interpreta-

Maghraoua, Metameur, Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi tion of ?zrm / *zrm as a human sacrifice an even more intricate question. /i/i^ in line 3 is explained by VATTIONI (1993c: 462) as the counterpart of Hebrew /inne, which seems less probable, as the concluding vowel /a/ in the Neo-Punic word is not easiliy explained. The last word of the text, b^yb/rst, is read b*yrit by VATTIONI (1993c: 462-463), and explained as preposition 5 + article © + vyr$t, ‘inheritance,’ which seems to be far-fetched as well.

167

Selicia is also attested several times in North Africa.

Metameur Metameur

N 1

Bibliography: BERGER Punica xxi.

1889c: 85; CHABOT,

Text: 1) mnsbt Im[ ] 2) winksp' | 3) bn’ HT]

Maghraoua Maghraoua N 1 Bibliography: GHAK1

1998: 1045.

Text:

Translation: 1) Stele for M.. 2) and for ... 3) they built it for him ...

1) tn 2) *bn I[ 3) ... Remarks: As the length of the lacunae is not indicated, it is uncertain whether ‘hn in line 2 is the substantive ‘stone,’ or the end of a personal name followed by the filiation. Maghraoua N 2 Bibliography: GHAKI

Remarks: As the combination of bay with mnsbt as object is also atttested in Hr. Drombi N I and Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1, the interpretation of br’ as a plural form of bny qal perf. seems attractive. Metameur N 2 Bibliography: BERGER

1998: 1045.

Text: 1) [π΄ °bn z Islky 2) “"

Illegible text.

Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi Sidi Ahmed

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Selicius 2).. Remarks: GHAKI proposes to compare s/ky with Latin Sulcius or Sulcinius, both of which are not attested in North African epigraphy. Selicius, however, is, cf. e.g. AE 1904: 119, CIL vii 26487 (from Dougga), AE 1980: 932. CIL viii 23519 (from Mactar), AE 1993: 1737 (from Ain el Asker / Sutunurca), while

1889c: 86.

el-Hachmi N 1

Bibliography: BERGER 1901a: cxcvi; LipzBARSKI 1908: 69—70; RES 306. Text: 1) bym n‘m work lygwrty bn s'd/r'yry 2) b[... Ptm ’n“dr I[b*] hmn] Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day for lagurti, the son of Sa...

168

3. Texts from Tunisia

2) ... completely, the votive offering for Bal Amun.

Remarks: One wonders whether the reading ygwrtn for the first name in line | is possible. For bym n“m wbrk, cf. the remark sub

of.’ It is less attractive to suppose both have this meaning, as a personal name “/ is rather short and otherwise unknown. mitwdqlt might be a Libyan name. Sidi Ali Belkassem

N 3

Teboursouk N 1. Bibliography: 939C.

CARTON

1908:

421;

RES

1908:

422;

RES

29-36;

Pıs-

Sidi Ali Belkassem (Thuburnica) Text: Sidi Ali Belkassem N 1

illegible

Bibliography:

Sidi Ali Belkassem

CARTON 1908: 421; RES 938.

Text: 1) q’gly *bdm! 2) q bn 3lsrs

Bibliography: 9390.

N 4

CARTON

Text: 1) mf Intl

Translation: 1) Caecilius Abdmel2) q, aged thirty ...

Translation:

I)... Remarks: It is not improbable should read $/$ym instead of $/$rs. only occasionally indicated by the tion bn/bt followed by the number

that one As age is construcof years,

one should perhaps read *bdnil 2) grt, rather than *bdml 2) q bn. However,

Sousse (Hadrumetum) Sousse N 1

in this inter-

pretation the expected /avo/ is absent before

Bibliography:

the number of years. Note that the also the expected nf is absent. Or should we suppose

ANO-TRAVAGLINI

a name,

Caecilius

Abmelqart,

followed

Bibliography: 939A.

2003:

1889e:

125, Tu 4; RES 906;

LPE: 41.

by

the nota relationis and an unknown word or expression ? Sidi Ali Belkassem

BERGER

Illustrations: BERGER 1889e: 30-31; PısANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 1 (both presenting the same two different drawings).

N 2

CARTON

1908:

421;

RES

Text: 1) m*sn *smm *bdmlqrt y’s ἢ sdn bd *bdmiqrt

2) °8 yt? $Ih Iw*It hmhb/d/rn ?&t Iny*pt Text:

I*b/d/rt‘l tm? ?Im

1) [ Jn/tn/tt 2) ptmnqbn'l 3) bnmntwalt Remarks: At least one of the combinations bn, in line 2 or 3, has the meaning ‘the son

Translation: 1) Urn of the bones of Abdmelqart ..., freedman by the hand of Abdmelqart 2) which erects ......... eternity (?)

169

Sousse (Hadrumetum)

u.

-

Pv

VN EXU

for

es

PSN X NACE

NY rey sett ar Sousse

Remarks: Slh possibly is a personal name, cf. BERGER a.l., BENZ (1972: 180, 416; cf. also PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 125). How-

ever, it is attested only in this text, while the sense of the second line of this text remains obscure. When the words ?3* and tm’ belong together the first means probably ‘wife,’ while the second one has the meaning also found for tm in Hr. Maktar N 35, where tm bhym corresponds with honeste ın the Latin parallel. Note that the two drawings differ as regards the position of the word read /nm*nt

in RES 906 (followed by Pısano-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 125) and in our transcription Iny‘pt. In one of the drawings this element precedes the supposed /*br*], while in the other one it follows tm’.

N I

Sousse N 3

Bibliography: BERGER 1889b: 102-104; BERGER 1889e: 201, 4; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 126, Tu 7; RES 945. Illustrations: BERGER 1889e: 206; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 2 (drawing). Text:

1) & *zrb'l bn °dnb‘l wkl[ ]tl[ P Translation: 1) Of Azerbal, the son of Adonibal and ... Remarks: According to RES a.l. the name *dnb‘l is the only certain element in this text.

Sousse N 2 Sousse N 4

Bibliography: BERGER 1889b: BERGER 1889e: 201, 4; RES 944.

102-104;

Text:

Bibliography: BERGER 1889b: 102-104; BERGER 1889e: 201, 4; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 126, Tu 8; RES 946.

1) $ *htmlqrt bt hr? ^t ?dnb'l msi? Illustrations:

Translation:

BERGER

1889e:

207;

PISANO-

TRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 2 (drawing).

1) Of Aotmelgart, the daughter of Anno, the wife of Adonibal, the ...

Text:

1) &?dnb'l bn “zrb‘] ?ywnkl Remarks: msP is probably the indication of a function or a trade, or are some signs lost at the end, and should we read ?m sl ?.., ‘the mother of...’ 7

Translation: 1) Of Adonibal, the son of Azrubal ... Remarks: For the reading *zrb'/ instead of $rb“l as given in RES (accepted by PISANOTRAvAGLINI 2003: 126), cf. JoNGELING

170

J. Texts from Tunisia

(1984: 23). One could also divide otherwise

and read bn “Zr b'l ’ywnkl, ‘the son of Ozer,

Illustrations: BERGER 1889e: 210; PisANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 2 (drawing).

citizen of the Isle of ...’. Text: 1) zq?/‘q?

Sousse N 5

2) 4 Bibliography: BERGER 1889b: 102-104; BERGER 1889e: 201, 4; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 126, Tu 9; RES 947A.

Remarks: signs?

Illustrations: BERGER

Sousse N 8

1889e: 209; PISANO-

Are

these

really

(Neo-)Punic

TRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 2 (drawing). Bibliography: BERGER 1889b: BERGER 1889e: 201, 4; RES 948.

Text:

102-104;

1) hl]sb*l hmt[

Text:

1) whsqn hb[ JIh[ It 2) "bdmiq[ ]rd( PE UEP

Translation: 1) Illesbal, the ..

3) Ipb?

Remarks: RES a.l. notes that hmt could be the rest of hmth attested in RES 952: .. b]n

men hmth wkl ΓΚ Fbr“lt[, ‘the son of Magon, the ..., and all who ...’

Translation: 1)... 2) Abdmelgart ... 3)...

Sousse N 6

Bibliography:

BERGER

1889b:

102-104;

BERGER 1889e: 201, 4; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 127, Tu 10; RES 947B.

Remarks: The name read in line 2 is possible, but not entirely certain. The rest is

completely indecipherable. Sousse N 9

Illustrations: BERGER

1889e: 210; Pısano-

TRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 2 (drawing);

Bibliography: BERGER 1887c; BERGER 1889e: 212-213; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 127, Tu 12; RES 949.

Text:

1) Jhn’l Illustrations: BERGER 1889e: 212; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig 2 (drawing).

Translation:

1) Anno... Text: Remarks:

Too

little is left of this text to be

sure about anything.

Sousse N 7 Bibliography:

BERGER

1889b:

102-104;

BERGER 1889e: 201, 4; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: Ti 11; RES 947C.

1) δ tn? 2) ‘smm[ ]br bn b'lslk bn [ Translation: 1) What was erected .. 2) The bones of ..., the son of Balshillek, the son of ...

Sousse (Hadrumetum) Remarks: The two lines seem to have been written by different hands, according to RES. The reading of the first line seems to be highly doubtful.

171

Sousse N 12

Bibliography: BERGER 1889e: 216-217, 15; Pısano-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 128, Tu 16; RES 950D.

Sousse N 10

Bibliography: BERGER 1889e: 215, 13; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 128, Tu 14; RES 950B. Illustrations: BERGER 1889e: 215; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 3 (drawing).

Illustrations: BERGER 1889e: 216; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 3 (drawing). Text:

1) m*Sn S‘s 2) mm ngf J nf ]

3) S[ ]w[ Ik Translation: 1) Urn of the bo2) nes of ... 3)...

Text:

1) ytl bdmik bn ?gg? Translation: 1) ... Bodmilk, the son of Ogago.

Sousse N 13

Remarks:

There

is no explanation

for the

enigmatic yl.

Bibliography: BERGER 1889e: 217-220, 16; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 435, 3 Cl; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: 128, Tu 17; RES 951.

Sousse N 11 Bibliographv:

BERGER

1889e:

216,

14;

PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 128, Tu 15; RES 950C.

Illustrations: BERGER 1889e: 217-218; LIDZBARSKI 1898: Taf. xvi, 1; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig 3 (drawing).

Illustrations: BERGER 1889e: 216; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 3 (drawing).

Text: 1) [m*3]n *smm § ytnmlk bn bdmlqrt bn

*bdmlqrt hp*y? Text:

Translation: 1) Urn of the bones of Iatonmilk, the son of Bodmelqart, the son of Abdmelqart, the

1) .. bn mgn[ Translation: 1) .. the son of Magon ... Remarks: The also possible.

reading bt instead of bn

is

Remarks:

The

function

indication

remains without explanation.

fmm

Afer Sousse N 13

p^y?

J. Texts from Tunisia

172

Sousse N 16

Sousse N 14

Bibliography: BERGER with DUHAR

1904:

185, n 1; LIDZBARSKI, 1915: 61; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: Tu 23; RES 895.

Bibliography: DussauD

Illustrations: DUSSAUD Illustrations:

DUHAR

1904

185;

PISANO-

1914: 343, 1; Pıs-

ANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 130.. 1914: 343; PISANO-

TRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 4 (drawing).

TRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 4 (drawing in both instances presented as mirror images).

1) [m]hsp ..kbn b/d/rIpt“b/d/r bn ‘zrb‘l bn [ ] bn *bdmlqrt bn *bd[ ] bn hnb‘l [ ]

Text: 1) mhsp P .. nrmt?m .. tmlqrt Translation:

1) Urn of ... mlqrt. Remarks: BERGER (with DUHAR 1904) reads mhsp [1] .. [nr]mt?m..tmlq[rt], this reading reprinted by PISANO-TRAVAGLINI (2003:

130). The reading mhsp was proposed by CLERMONT-GANNEAU in RES, cf. also LipzBARSKI (1915: 61), who reads s instead of s, but divides (and explains) differently.

Translation: 1) Urn of ..., the son of blpt r, the son of Azrubal, the son of ..., the son of Abdmelqart, the son of Abd ..., the son of Annobal ... Remarks: Instead of mhsp, the reading mhXp is very well possible. The name following the first bn has been read as b’rr, but it should be noted that both 5 and r are of the shortened variety, meaning that the reading bldlr is possible in both instances, while the

sign read as ? is rather a ligature of / p.

Sousse N 15

Bibliography: BERGER Punica xxii; RES 937. Illustrations: BERGER tograph).

Text:

1908a;

CHABOT,

1908a: pl. xliv (pho-

Sousse N 17

Bibliography: DussAuD 1914: 343—344, 2; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 131, Tu 25. Illustrations: DUssAUD 1914: 343; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 4 (drawing).

Text: 1) “sm? htmlqrt 2) bt grmlkt bn b'lp/3ls/k

Text:

3) bn *bd?s[mn] K’h“tm

1) [ Jmlqr{t] bn *bdmlart

Translation: 1) The bones of Otmelqart,

Translation: 1) ..d]melqart, the son of Abdmelqart.

2) the daughter of Germilko the son of Balshillek, 3) the son of Abdeshmun

...

Remarks: DUSSAUD'S reading, repeated by PISANO-TRAVAGLINI (2003: 131), seems rather uncertain.

Remarks: K’h’tm remains without explanation. BERGER (19082: clxvii) reads Amlkt instead of grmikt, but the latter reading is borne out by the photograph.

Sousse N 18

Bibliography:

DussAUD

ANO-TRAVAGLINI

2003:

1914: 344, 3; Pıs131, Tu 26.

Sousse (Hadrumetum) Illustrations: DUssAUD 1914: 344; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 4 (drawing). Text: illegible

173

Sousse N 21

Bibliography: DussAuD 1914: 345, 6; PisANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 131-132, Tu 29.

Sousse N 19

Illustrations: DussAuD 1914: 345; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 5 (drawing).

Bibliography: Dussaup 1914: 344, 4; PısANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 131, Tu 27.

Text: 1) [m]hsp [hm]Ik bn mhsn

Illustrations: DUSSAUD 1914: 344; PısanoTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 4 (drawing).

Translation: 1) Urn of Imilk, the son of Mesan.

Text:

Remarks: The first letter of the last name

1) [ ]bn [*bd]mlqrt

might be read as w, providing the drawing given by DUSSAUD is correct.

Translation: 1) ..., the son of Abdmelgart.

Sousse N 22

Remarks: The reading is hihgly uncertain.

Bibliography: Dussaun

1914: 346, 8; Pıs-

ANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 132, Tu 31. Sousse N 20 Bibliography: DussauD 1914: 344-345, 5; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 131, Tu 28.

Illustrations: DUSSAUD 1914: 346; PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 5 (drawing). Text:

1) &*bdb[l]bn

Illustrations: DUSSAUD 1914: 344; PısanoTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 5 (drawing).

2) *gldn

Text: 1) ]mlkt

Translation: 1) Of Abdbal, the son of

2) $ gf ]m[ ] bn?pn bn mtn

2) Agaldan.

Translation: 1) ... milko 2) Of ..., the son of Ofan, the son of Mutun.

Remarks: The reading of the first name 15 uncertain. The second one is probably Berber. Sousse N 23

Remarks: In line 2 the reading $gznm$ bn ?r$ bn mtn is at least possible, especially the reading ’r$ instead of "pii, although this latter name is attested in a Punic text from Constantine, cf. BENZ (1972: 62, 274).

Bibliography: Dussaup 1914: 346, 9; PısANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 132, Tu 32. Illustrations: DUSSAUD 1914: 346; PısanoTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 5 (drawing).

174

3. Texts from Tunisia MAVV

Text:

(Ny

I) [ IwI Jbnf ] a Translation: 1)...

QAI

yayy

Sousse N 24

Illustrations: DUSSAUD

TRAVAGLINI

ous WM"

X

Bibliography: Dussaup 1914: 346-347, 10-11; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 132-133, Tu 33-34.

2003:

1914: 347; Pısano-

fig.

6 (two

different

drawings). Text:

1) mikf ] bn pl 2) [ Im bn mlk[ytn] bn 3) “gldn Translation: 1) Milk..., the son of Pal2) ..., the son of Milkiaton, the son of 3) Agaldan. Remarks: Dussaup 1914: 346, notes that the two different drawings seem to represent the same text. Hence, the presentation of this text under two headings by Pısano-TRAVAGLINI (2003: 132-133), with the note that both inscriptions present the same text is surprising. Sousse N 25

Bibliography: Dussaup 1916: 163-165; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 133, Tu 35. Illustrations: DUSSAUD 1916: 163; PisANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 5 (drawing).

Ἵν

wA

$591)

Remarks: DUSSAUD supposes that five different texts, every one beginning with /-, have been painted on the same urn. His readings are highly uncertain. The last name of line

1, ebldirnit, has been read ern because this might be an abbreviation for grskn. In line 3 ?hb'ls is for ’bhls, according to DUSSAUD. A possible, but unattested name. For line 4 DUSSAUD gives as a possible interpretation: lrg]t[^ bn] Ksy bn tingng's, ‘of Rogatus, the son of Cassius, the son of T.. (or N..),' which, however, is highly uncertain. Instead of ksy, the readings kwy, nsy or even psy seem possible. Sousse N 26

Bibliography:

CHABOT

Pısano-TRAVAGLINI

1941—1942:

2003:

399a;

133, Tu 36.

Illustrations: CHABOT 1941-1942: 399; PısANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 5.

| VOYex Text: 1) °bn ysttn Translation:

1) Stone of lastatan Text:

1) [1g]rn b[n ]n[ m] bn grn

2) If Pn 3) Pb'ls 4) Id/rg[ ]t[ ]k/b/nw/sybn[ ]t/ng's 5) [γι [bn] °dnr-m

Remarks: CHABOT (1941-1942: 399) notes that the reading of the name /astatan results ‘by slightly modifying the copy,’ but the impression is that the reading is influenced by the knowledge of the existence of the

Tatahouine,

175

Teboursouk (Thibursicu Bure)

name found. The last two signs look rather

Remarks:

like -sn; the first two signs of the name may

same name.

be taken together and be read as s. One might think of a name like SDKSN (R/L 715), but the form of the sign to be read -k- is awkward,

Tatahouine

Sousse

N

28

and

29 contain

the

looking rather like w. A name sdwsn is not attested, but may, of course, exist.

Tatahouine N 1

Sousse N 27

Bibliography: BERGER 1901b; 1908: 63; RES 237, 1857.

Bibliography:

CHABOT

1941-1942:

399b;

PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 134, Tu 38. Illustrations: CHABOT

1941-1942: 399; Pıs-

ANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: fig. 4.

Vy

Text: 1) mnsbt p'lt*k*n bn 2) m'Sk'F't hm3b ty? 3) °§ b[...]’ y*pSd bn m'dr 4) ^t m[ J'tm btm

5) Ὑ {{ TT Imf Jim Translation: 1) Stele of Poltakan, the son of 2) Mashkalat, the ... 3) ... Yapshad, the son of Madr4) ot ..., at his own expense, 5)on ...

Text:

Remarks: CHABOT (sub RES 1857) reads fy’ at the end of line 2, where BERGER (1901b: 296) gave fg’. In line 3 BERGER (1901b)

1) [ ]ssn Remarks: Should these signs form a complete name, one could compare Sysan, attested in Wadi Umm el-Agerem (Aug. xvi 1976, 549, nr 53), but it is rather a longer one, a Berber name ending in /-san/ (?), or is the sign following the supposed n to be read as w ?. Sousse N 28 Bibliography: CHABOT

LIDZBARSKI

1941-1942: 400.

reads bsb’, however,

CHABOT

(sub RES

1857) notes that the three uncertain signs are too mutilated to be recognized. The readings m'"Xk lt and y“p$d originate from CHABOT (sub RES 1857), whereas BERGER (1901b) read m*3w*l't and g*psd. As the beginning of line 4 is unclear, the first signs may belong to the preceding name or be part of an unknown word. In case this is correct it may be a word preceded by the article spelled as ?.

Text:

1) s/hP

Teboursouk (Thibursicu Bure)

Sousse N 29

Teboursouk N 1

Bibliography: CHABOT Text:

1) s/hP?

1941-1942: 400.

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xix. Text: 1) bym n“m wbrk m

176

J. Texts from Tunisia Libyan text:

2) tnt ^3 tn? 3 3) qm hnsk lypynks

1) MSTRT [ ] RCH 2) UTKMLS 3) MS UH

Translation:

1) On a pleasant and blessed day, g2) ift, which erected Sha3) qoma, the founder ...

Translation: 1) Mastarat

Remarks: bym n*m wbrk is equivalent to the expression diem bonvm et favstvm in Latin texts, cf. FANTAR (1974: 12 n. 2).

Teboursouk N 3

Bibliography: FANTAR

The expression is limited to Dougga, Hr.

1987b: 56.

Ghayadya, Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi, Teboursouk, Ksar Lemsa, Constantine and Ksiba Mraou as far as Neo-Punic texts are concerned. The Latin expression is found in Teboursouk, Cherchell, Mila and Ksar Toual Zammeul, while a Greek equivalent is attested in Dougga. FANTAR (1974: 47; cf. id. 1992a: 71—72), describes the expression as a Libyco-Punic one, because of its geographical repartition, although there is no linguistic evidence to support this. On this expression, cf. the extensive discussion in FERJAOUI 1994. bym n*m (wbrk) refers to some highly important sacrifice the dedicant has offered. Note, however, also Dougga

N 3 & 4, where bym mm wbrk seems to be used in the context of a funerary text. For Shaqoma, CHABOT (Punica xix) points to Sacoma in Corippus viii 594 and, according

to him, /ypynks is the name of a metal, and the object of nsk, or it is the preposition /, followed by the name of an unknown deity. The second proposal seems to more probable, as no noun indicating a metal offers itself for comparison. Teboursouk

Bibliography:

N 2

ALVAREZ

DELGADO

208-210; RIL 12. Illustrations: RIL 7 (drawing). Text: 1) m'strt

1964:

1974: 397; GARBINI

Illustrations: FANTAR 1974: pl. viii 16 (photograph).

I

UETX [Ps won s

LX /7y XX?0 xy-jox o» —

—

—

—

—

—

——

--

—

—

— —

—

a

—

—

Text: 1) bym n?m wbrk mtnt °§ tn 2) * m'ksm* $m? ql’ Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day, gift which has er2) ected Maxima, he heard her voice. Remarks: The use of mtnt to indicate the votive monument (or rather the gift to the deity commemorated) is mainly restricted to Teboursouk, where it occurs in the texts 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, cf. however also Constantine N 49 and Les Andalouses N 1. The spelling tr” is best explained as the indication of the root trı? followed by ἃ phonetic complement, showing that the second syllable of the word was pronounced with the vowel /a/. qi is for /qula/ ‘her voice.’

Teboursouk (Thibursicu Bure) Teboursouk

177

by the photograph he publishes. As FANTAR corectly notes, it is also difficult from a

N 4

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 401; GARBINI

grammatical point of view. ?ge in line 2 is

1978: 7; GARBINI 1996b: 161-163.

read ?rnmt by FANTAR 1974, who supposes a personal name Anima, which for several reasons is untenable, the most important one being the inexplicable ending -r, as it is not to be expected that a Latin name would be integrated within the Punic gender system, even supposing that the feminine ending -t was still sounded at that time in Teboursouk. GARBINI 1978 reads ’n”. However, judging from the photograph, we think that the last two signs might also be read as g (JoNGELING 1996b), leaving us, in case it is a personal name, with a Libyan name ending in -gg, for which name type one may compare MGG in RIL 126. Autopsie of the stone might clear the question whether it is possible to read the last sign of this name as w. The downstroke to the left might be accidental, as it looks rather thin in the published photograph. The following verbs most probably have Rogatus and Abarzo, in line 3 as their subject. The resulting verb pgr at the end of line 2 remains without explanation. GARBINI (1978: 7) proposes *bry? instead of ‘brz/n’, which seems possible. bn sty may

Illustrations:

1987b:

FANTAR

56; JONGELING

1974:

pl.

viii

17;

FANTAR 1993b: fig. 1 (photograph).

Du otio

(

| IM

4

—

44%]

x4

P XXX RI

]»i$xi33ox* 87A

be explained as a plural of bn followed by a personal name, but the whole text remains enigmatic. For sty FANTAR points to Latin Sittius, but he also mentions Libyan sTH Text: 1) bym nm wb'rk *bnt t*n* 2) [ ]nd'r?ngg slmy pgny 3) rg?" w*brz/n? bn 3t

4) y Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day a stone was erected 2) .. a votive offering ..., fulfilled and ...-ed

(RIL 717). Teboursouk N §

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 403; GARBINI 1978: 7; GARBINI 1987b: 56-57; AMADASI 2002: 116; LPE: 41. Illustrations: FANTAR 1974: pl. viii 18 (photograph).

it 3) Rogatus and Abarzo, the sons of Sf

4)y Remarks: FANTAR 1974 reads ‘bn z in the first line, which is not borne out, however,

Text: 1) bym nm wbrk °§ t 2) yr? mtnt b/pd w*my bn 3) Κγη" 8m? qlm [Κη 4) Im *d mkprm

178

J. Texts from Tunisia Teboursouk N 7

Translation:

1) On a pleasant and blessed day, what has 2) erected as a gift b/pdw*my son of

Bibliography: FANTAR

1974: 408.

3) Kino, he heard his voice; may it be 4) for them as an expiation.

Illustrations: FANTAR 1974: pl. viii 20a, ix 20b; FANTAR 1992a: tav. 111 (photograph).

Remarks: A problem is formed by b/pdw*my

because he sees a plur. suffix in the -m fol-

Text: 1) bym nm wbrk mt 2) nt $ t? wy

lowing ql. At the same time, in a note, he points to the use of -m as a sing. suffix. For

3) qtry’ bn Pry? 4) [ ]P

in line 2. FANTAR explains the group of signs

as two personal names: b/pd and *my, partly

the interpretation of the last line, cf. AMADASI (2002: 116). KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. kpr,, tkl ) reads in line 3-4 rklm ‘dm kprm, ‘support them, help them up, forgive them’ (id., s.v. *d,, reading ‘dm and explaining this word as a polel imp. + suffix 3 pl.).

Translation:

1) On a pleasant and blessed day, gi2) ft that erected Vi3) ctorius, the son of Lurius, 4) ...

However, the 7 at the end of line 3 is quite clear on the photograph. Teboursouk N 6

Bibliography: FANTAR 1978: 7-8.

1974: 407; GARBINI

Illustrations: FANTAR 1974: pl. viii 19 (photograph). Text: 1) bym n*m wbrk mtnt ^3 2) ty? pylks mmy nd'r 3) °§ n'dr $m? qP Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day, gift that 2) has erected Felix Memmius, vow 3) that he vowed, he heard his voice. Remarks: FANTAR (1974: 29) reads pylks in

line 2, accepted by GARBINI (1978: 8), but the reading with s seems more probable and also possible. Otherwise this would be the only instance of the representation of Latin x with ks, cf. JONGELING (1984: 105), where I still accepted the reading with s.

Remarks: Note the unexpected ending -y’ in both Latin names, according to FANTAR's edition.. However, the photograph presented by FANTAR 19922: tav. iii, rather points to a reading wyqtry for the first personal name. The last two signs of the second name are not really distinguishable in the photograph. Read perhaps Pry. The third line seems to consist of only three signs: m, instead of FANTAR'S JP. Teboursouk N 8

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 409; GARBINI 1978: 8. Illustrations: FANTAR 1974: pl. ix 21 (photograph). Text: 1) bym n*m wb'rk mtnt

2) °S tyn’ q’Sy’ 3) bn str y‘n sls*n/t 4) Sm’ *t ql? Translation:

1) On a pleasant and blessed day, gift 2) which erected Cassius,

179

Teboursouk (Thibursicu Bure)

3) the son of Satur .. 4) he heard his voice.

|

EADY

A)

-

-—————

o

-—

ee —-.-

|

Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day

2) what erected as a gift Rogat3) a, the daughter of py/kys Dabar.

Remarks: We have mainly presented the reading of FANTAR (1974: 409). GARBINI (1987b: 57) notes that the name in line 2 is to be read qty". Although small, the second sign of this name has some features of t, although a disfigured * remains a possibility. In line 3 FANTAR reads the name s*try, while GARBINI, l.c., reads s“tr followed by y*plwit*n. The last name is, although long, of a well-known Libyan type. We are inclined to suppose that the reading s“tr instead of s*tr Is more appropriate. Teboursouk N 9

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 410; GARBINI 1978: 8-9; GARBINI 1987b: 57. Illustrations: FANTAR tograph). Text: 1) bym n’m wb'rk

2) 8 tn“ mtnt rg't 3) * bt pylkys dbr

1974: pl. ix 22 (pho-

Remarks: GARBINI name dbr at the end result of an incorrect scratches not meant the reading of br in uncertain. Teboursouk

1987b notes that the of the third line is the interpretation of some as graphemes, while the same line is highly

N 10

Bibliography: FANTAR 1978:

9;

GARBINI

1974: 411; GARBINI

1987b:

58;

JONGELING

1996b: 160; AMADASI 2002: 116. Illustrations: FANTAR

1974: pl. ix 23 (pho-

tograph). Text: 1) bym nm wb'rk mint ^$ 2) tyn? ^ymtn bn pyg? ^tm ’n“dr 3) Ib*] Sm“ *t qP wbrk? Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day, gift which 2) has erected [matan, the son of Pigo; he has fulfilled the vow 3) to Bal; he heard his voice and blessed him. Remarks: Although the text seems clear, one wonders whether after bn in line 2 the name of the father is not inadvertently left out, as

180

3. Texts from Tunisia

the following words remind one of expressions like pg? t nd'rm in Guelma

N 6 and

Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

1974: pl. x 25 (pho-

pyg^?t nd‘rm in Ksiba Mraou N 7; cf. AMADASI (2002: 116, n. 81). GARBINI (1979: 112)

reads ?ymtn sd pyg’; for sd he compares the combination zbh sd in the Marseilles Tariff (KAI 69). Another division of words has

been proposed by JONGELING (1996b: 160). The last few words of line 2 might be divided as pyg??t m’ n“dr, he fulfilled what he vowed. The word preceding pyg? may be minsd, a personal name of the same type as mtnb‘l.

The form of the verb at the beginning 2, tyr?y, may be explained as a piel of the verb tn’ followed by a suffix of person sing. Cf. also KRAHMALKOV

of line perfect the 3d. (2000,

s. v. m ), who reads the whole text as bym n*m wb'rk mtnt ?3 tym? ?ymtn bn pyg? ?t m n“dr

Text: 1) bym n‘m wbrk mtnt "ὃ tyr? hlk bn 2) qyq'l bn ?dymn'm sm? [ql] Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day, a gift

which erected h/k, the son of 2) qyq'l, the son of *dymn*m, he heard his voice. Remarks: FANTAR read the name in line | as hmlk, for the reading hik, cf. GARBINI 1987b: 58. qyq'l cannot easily be connected to a Latin name, although the use of two q's

rather points to a Latin origin.

lb‘ Xm* ?t qP whbrk, translating: *«this is> the stele that ’ymtn erected, «to Baal» on the

Teboursouk N 13

good and happy day, «on which» he fulfilled what he had vowed to Baal; «for» he heard his voice and blessed him.’

Bibliography: FANTAR

Teboursouk N 11

Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

1974: 414; GARBINI

1978: 9-10. 1974: pl. x 26 (pho-

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 412. Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

1974: pl. x 24 (pho-

Text: 1) bym n*m wbrk mtnt 2)$ t? g^y bn

Text: 1) bym πη wb'r[k ] 2) mtnt ‘wgryn? bn [ | 3) *sIn bn Pb'rzt[ ] Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day .. 2) gift of Augurinus, the son of .. 3) -oslan, the son of Lobarzat..

3) tyP Sm’ 4) ql Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day, a present 2) which erected Gaius, the son of 3) Titus, he heard 4) his voice.

Remarks: FANTAR 1974 reads ?sIn bn at the beginning of line 3. GARBINI 1978 supposes s may perhaps be read as $. The r at the end of this line seems uncertain. Teboursouk N 14

Teboursouk N 12

Bibliography: GARBINI

FANTAR

1978: 9; GARBINI

1974:

Bibliography: FANTAR

1974: 415.

Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

1974: pl. x 27 (pho-

413-414;

1987b: 58.

Teboursouk (Thibursicu Bure) Text:

Translation:

1) mtnt ^3 tn? °§

1) Of Qalbakan

181

2) mn?

Remarks: FANTAR 1974 reads: eg/3q'lypynit. However, the first sign seems to be a clear 3,

Translation: 1) Gift which erected Esh2) muno.

while the p + y read by him might be meant as one sign, namely k, which leaves us with

a Libyan name ending in /kan/, for which cf. Remark: For ?£mr, cf. onomasticon.

JONGELING (1984: 60-61). The sign read v by FANTAR 1974, preceding py/k, does not seem to show any characteristics of y, it is rather the well-known shortened form of b/ dlr. GARBINI 1987b: 59, reads this text as gnt “| bkr, which he translates as ‘a garden (offered) for the first-born.' Both the reading

Teboursouk N 15

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 416a. Illustrations: FANTAR 1974: pl. xi 28 (photograph).

and the interpretation seem far-fetched. Teboursouk N 17

Text: 1)?r$ hf

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 417a.

Translation:

Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

1) Arish, .. Remarks: FANTAR 1974 supposes the / to be the article after which a title or function has been lost.

1974: pl. xi 30 (pho-

Text:

1) [b]ym n*m [wbrk 2) mt]nt [ Sm“ 3) qh

Teboursouk N 16

Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day .. 2) ...... gift ... he heard 3) his voice

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 416b; GARBINI 1978: 10. Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

1974: pl. x1 29 (phoTeboursouk N 18

|

| [um \1 Text:

1) §q°lb/d/rkn

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 417b. Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

1974: pl. xi 31 (pho-

Text:

!

1) bym n*m wb[rk Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day ...

182 Teboursouk

3. Texts from Tunisia Text: 1) ndr °§ ndr gb/d/rb/d/r dn b‘l mn Sm’

N 19

Bibliography: FANTAR

2) [qH[ ] brk°

1974: 418a.

Illustrations: FANTAR 1974: pl. xii 32 (photograph). Text:

Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated gb/d/rb/ d/r to the lord Bal Amun, he heard 2) his voice, blessed him.

1) m[

Remarks: For the name in line 1 GHAKI (BEN YOUNES 1990) points to the Libyan names GRBH (RIL 8), GDD (RIL 269, 270), GD[ (RIL 213).

2) nt[ Teboursouk N 20

Bibliography: FANTAR 1974: 418b. Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

1974: pl. xii 33 (pho-

Zaghouan (Ziqua) Zaghouan N 1

Text:

Bibliography: 598.

1) bym n“m [

Translation: 1) On a pleasant day ...

HANNEZO

1904: 480; RES

Text: 1) gy’nd/b/r

Teboursouk N 21 Bibliography: FANTAR Illustrations: FANTAR tograph).

Remarks: HANNEZO 1904 speaks of fragments of a Neo-Punic inscription. He presents the text only in Neo-Punic printing

1974: 419a. 1974: pl. xii 34 (pho-

type.

Tunisia OU

Text: 1) ] “st

2)

Tunisia OUN

1

3) PI Remarks: Only traces of signs remain.

Thibar Thibar N 1

Bibliography: 1990: 28.

GHAKI

with

BEN

YOUNES

Bibliography: FALBE 1833: Atlas, pl. v; GESENIUS 1835: 76ff.; GEsENIUS 1837: 202204; WuRM 1838: 28-30; BENARY 1839; DE SAULCY 1845: 78-85; JUDAS 1847a: 46-49; EwALD 1852: 1737-1738, 2; BOURGADE 1852: 12; BOURGADE 1856: 31, 32; JUDAS 1857: 26; LEvy 1857: 50, A2; SCHRÓDER 1869: 265, nr. 3; SZNYCER 2000; Numidica ii; NP 8. Illustrations: GESENIUS 1835: pl. vi, D; GEs-

ENIUS 1837: tab. 22, lviii; DE SAULCY 1845:

183

Tunisia OU

pl. F.; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xv 2 (drawing); SZNYCER 2000: 54, pl. 11 (photograph).

tain. In case the name is of Latin origin, this stele exhibits a dedicant bearing a Latin

name, his father bearing a Punic one, and his

| o K^?)

J| xx7751

ΠΟΙ [PATH

| Ne

JI foryy1

Text: 1) Pdn b‘l hmn Κ΄ 5m‘ 2) qP bri? sw^w? bn 3) brkb'] bn m'sg^bn Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Hammon, because he heard 2) his voice, blessed him, sw^w? son of 3) Barikbal son of Masgaban. Remarks: This inscription was found in 1833 somewhere between Beja and El Kef, cf. SZNYCER (2000: 47). The reading presented here mainly follows SZNYCER (2000: 48) apart from the first personal name. The use ofthe vowel letter * in the name read as sw“ for Severus, by SZNYCER, as indication of /e/ is not as easily explained as SZNYCER supposes when he writes: ‘the use of “ayın, which normally indicates the vowel a, does not strike me as unusual in this late period in which the indication of vowels was rather flowing' (ibid. 50). The name Severus is attested in H. Maktar N 27 as swr? and ibid. N 76 v | as s’wr?, whereas in the next line of the same text sw^w?, explained as a Latin

name by FÉVRIER (from Suavis via a nonexisting Suavus). In H. Maktar N 22 sw*?/w occurs, which seems to be the same name (JONGELING 1984: 192). Although the explanation proposed by FÉVRIER seems awkward, the three names should probably all be read sw“w”, while the explanation remains uncer-

grandfather a Berber one. SZNYCER, ibid., explains this as characteristic for a Numidic family “already strongly acculturated.’ However, genealogies in which a different order is extant can hardly be used as proof of backsliding to the indigenous Berber culture, cf. e.g. m*rwz bn yskt*n bn brkb“l in Tunisia OU 18, the deceased and his father bearing Berber names, the grandfather, however, bearing a Punic one. The reading m‘sg‘rn advocated by SZNYCER 2000, for the last name in line 3 is, of course, possible, comparing it to msygr“n in H. Maktar N 39 and 65 (both names may be supposed to indicate /masigaran/), but the reading m“sg“bn, to be compared to Masgaba, Masgabam and Masgabes (cf. JONGELING 1994: 85), is equally possible. Tunisia OU

N 2

Bibliography: HAMAKER 1828: 11—21; GEsENIUS 1835: 77ff; GEsENIUS 1837: 204-206; WuRM 1838: 28-30; DE SAULCY 1845: 9596; EWALD 1852: 1738, 3; BOURGADE 1856: 31; Levy 1857: 50-52, A3; HOFTUZER 1963a: 93; JoNGELING 1984: 12; Numidica iii; NP 9; LPE: 41-42. Illustrations: HAMAKER 1828: tab. i, 1; GESENIUS 1835: 77; GESENIUS 1837: tab. 23, lix (drawing); HoFTUZER 1963a: pl. xxix 2 (photograph).

ERE (X VGN o

XR

KG

p»

Owe

KR SUI ers IQ

Text: 1) Pdn b‘l hmn k*

Nee

en

|

184

J. Texts from Tunisia

2) Sm“ qP brk? m 3) h n'dr rdybt°

Illustrations: GESENIUS 1837: tab. 24; JUDAS 1845: pl. 3; DE SAULCY 1847c: pl. xxxvii, 2

4) wtyty“

(drawing); MENDLESON tograph).

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, because 2) he heard his voice, blessed him, what 3) has dedicated Redemtus 4) and Titia.

AU

Remarks: The name at the end of line 3 has been read r’dybr’, which may be for Redemtus, which is attested as a personal name in North Africa (both in a masc. and a fem. form) in CIZ viii 11964 (/Red]emta), 13674 (Red]emta), 18350 (Red[e]mtus), 24803 (Redem(tus), Redemtus), 25152 (Redemta),

944] (p 1984; Redempto), 17116 = ILA i, 833 (Redempta). KERR (2006a, 130) proposes to explain the name as Redivitus. The third sign in line 4 has been read as k by HOFTIJZER (1963a: 93), following LIDZBAR-

SKI (1898: 283), who gave as his reading tkty‘, word of unknown meaning. However, although the upper part of k might look like

this sign, the downward stroke is completely missing. Therefore, we suppose that the sign

is better explained as an ill-formed y. R.M. Kerr (2006a, 130) notes that one might read

PX)

PRAXUK

2003: NPul

(pho-

40) ROY A)

ryby

Text: 1) nd'r^$ n'dr hn? bn mtnb'l 2) Syp3 pg^^zrm h'$ Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Anno, the son of Mutunbal,

2) client of yp; fulfilled the ?zrm-sacrifice of a male.

Remarks: There is a space between the first and second words of line 2 that is clearly intended. Perhaps it is best to suppose that $yp$ means the client of yp$, even though one would not expect a father's name for the dedicant (cf. also the remark sub Ain Zakkar N 1). Less probable is the supposition that $ is a semantic vatiant of bn, as supposed by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. pg“ ). ROSCHINSKI (1988: 619n) explains yps as yiph. perf.

trty*, for Tertia. The signs in the lines 2 and

of pws, ‘to complete,’ and he translates the

3, read mhr’nt, ‘gift? by HOFTUZER (1963a: 93), are better transcribed mh n‘dr, to be explained as mh, relative pronoun, cf. PPG?,

2d line as follows: ‘when he performed the redemption (of the vow) of a male lamb.' Note, however, that the name is also attested in Bir bou Rekba N 1. The meaning of the word ’zrm, often attested as a sacrificial term (and sometimes read as ”Srm), has been discussed several times. FÉvRIER (1960: 171) has put forward the hypothesis that it means ‘a sheep.' Most probably, however, it is a

§ 124, and a form of the root ndr, probably 3 sg. m. perf. qal. wryty^ seems to have been added, as an after-thought, in the lower border of the text region. Tunisia OU

N 3

technical term indicating some sort of human Bibliography:

GESENIUS

1837:

210-212;

Wurm 1838: 30; DE SAULCY 1847a: 7-8; JUDAS 1845: 61; JUDAS 1847a: 105-107; EWALD 1852: 1738-1739, 5; BOURGADE 1856: 31-32; LEvv 1857: 54-57, AS; CHABOT, Punica xi 35c; SCHRÖDER 1869: 265, nr. 4; ROSCHINSKI 1988: 619; MENDLESON 2003: 37; Numidica v; NP 11.

sacrifice, cf. the remark sub Guelma N 18. Tunisia OU

N 4

Bibliography: JupAs 1857: 20-21; LEvY 1857: 108; Mayr 1909: 102-103; GARBINI 1963: 223, n. 3; /CO Malta NPu 1; JONGELING 1984: 9; GARBINI 1987b: 40; NP 76.

185

Tunisia OU

Illustrations: JUDAS 1857: pl. 3; JoNGELING 1984: 9 (drawing).

4) dmigrt k‘n Κη brk? ὃ 5) nv ql

Text: 1) Pdn Ib‘! ndr ^3 2) ndr mtnb‘l bn * 3) zrb'l bn hqln 4) Sm’ qP brk?

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal, votive offering, which de2) dicated Baloneg, the daugh3) ter of Shafot Anobal, the son of Ab4) dmelqart, because he blessed her. he5) ard her voice.

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal, votive offering which

2) has dedicated Mutunbal, the son of A3) zrubal, the son of Aglan, 4) he heard his voice, blessed him.

Remarks: Line 3 poses a problem, because $pt and hnb‘l are not related to each other by any usual connecting element. CHABOT (sub

Remarks: The name at the end of line 3 has

rather than Spt bn hnb‘l, which would make the genealogy unexpectedly long. MENDLESON (2003: 38) notes both possibilities, without choosing. However, as the name h“Png Is very infrequent, there is reason to suppose that the texts Hr. Maktar N 2, reading in line 2-4 [br]l // ?ng brt b*nk §[p] // t and Hr. Maktar N 4, reading in line 2 b*Png bt μπῇ X[pt].., originate from the same person. Note that in Hr. Maktar N 2 the affiliation is indicated by b*r, for normal br, as in this text. [n both texts from Maktar the name of the father is followed by the word $pr, probably referring to a date. We therefore suppose that line 2-3 of this text should be read: b°Png bft

Punica xvii 2) notes that he reads Spr ?$t hnb‘l been read $qIn, based on the drawing published by JUDAS (1857: pl. 3) and repeated by JONGELING (1984: 9); however, the photograph of this text shows a sign which rather looks like / than anything else. Tunisia OU

N 5

Bibliography: CHABOT,

38;

Levy

1864a:

64-65,

Punica xvii 2; MENDLESON

2;

2003:

NP 111.

Illustrations:

ΓΞ

MENDLESON

2003:

NPu6

(photograph).

ΧΩ 91A /o1XM yt?

β ΠΩ: 1977 hs?)

«brnk» Spt hnb“l. If this reasoning is correct, this text is to be classed with those from Hr. Maktar. Tunisia OU

Bibliography: LEvy 1864a: 64, 1; SCHRODER 1869: 265, nr. 6; CHABOT, Punica xvii 1; BIS! 1978: 35-36, 59-60; MENDLESON 2003: 42; NP 110. Illustrations: (photograph).

Text: 1) Pdn Ib“ πα τ ὃ n 2) “dr b'Png b* 3) t Spt hnb‘l bn *b

N 6

MENDLESON

Text:

1) n[d]r ^3 n'd'r Sm? qP b'rk?

2003:

NPu29

186

J. Texts from Tunisia

Translation:

4) " Sm“

1) Votive offering which dedicated, he heard his voice, blessed him.

5) 4}

Remarks: Both the name of the dedicant and the name of the deity to whom the stele is

Translation: 1) Votive offering for Bal, 2) Messucius Carti3) lius Cesti4) us, he heard 5) his voice, 6) blessed him.

6) bri?

dedicated are missing in this text. Nevertheless it is complete. Tunisia OUN

7

Bibliography: Levy 1864a: 65-66, 3; CHABOT, Punica xvii 3; MENDLESON 2003: 37; NP 112; LPE: 42.

Remarks: The spelling ksty’ for Cestius is unusual, especially with the two preceding

Latin names, alsc ending in -ius, spelled with Illustrations: (photograph).

MENDLESON

2003:

NPu2

only -y. However, CHABOT (sub Punica xvii 5) notes that between ksty and the following ? no trace of k is to be found, which renders

the reading *ksty k impossible, or should we

Text: 1) Pdn [05] ndr °5 ndr 3) bn ?dnb'l bn °drb‘l 4) kh Sm“ qP brk?

read ksty // ’ ? MENDLESON (2003: 38) notes s in the names risqy and ksty in her text as s, but in her comment and in note 2, 48, as 5, where she gives ks? instead of ksty”.

Translation:

Tunisia OU

2) g^y y'ly r$

N 9

1) To the lord to Bal votive offering, which dedicated 2) Gaius Iulius Arish, 3) the son of Adonibal, the son of Adirbal, 4) because he heard his voice, blessed him.

Bibliography: Levy 1864a: 66-67, 6; CHABOT, Punica xvii 6; MENDLESON 2003: 39; NP 115.

Remarks: Note the use of three names by the dedicant to imitate the Roman Tunisia OU

Punica xvii 5; MENDLESON 2003: 37-38; NP 114.

Text: 1) ndr [05] 2) msqy qrt 3) ly ksty

2003:

NPul4

Text: 1) Pdn Ibf‘l ] 2) mtnhyb‘l bt mf ] 3) Sm“ qP b[rk?]

N 8

MENDLESON

MENDLESON

/ria nomina.

Bibliography: Levy 1864a: 66, 5; CHABOT,

Illustrations: (photograph).

Illustrations: (photograph).

2003:

NPu

5

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal ... 2) Matanaybal, the daughter of M.. 3) he heard her voice, blessed her. Remarks: Note the feminine name with infixed -y-, on which see JONGELING 1984: 42—44; cf. also the onomasticon s. v. mtnb“l.

187

Tunisia OU

—

Illustrations:

MENDLESON

2003:

NPu6l

(photograph).

!

\

apn B |

Bibliography: LEvv 1864a: 67, 7; CHABOT, Punica xvil 7; MENDLESON 2003: 39; NP 116.

Text: 1) t ^bn zl 2) tty* bt 3) kIny bt Snt 4) XXX

Illustrations: (photograph).

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for

Tunisia OU

N 10

MENDLESON

2003:

NPul3

2) Titia, the daughter of

Text:

3) Clonius, aged 4) 30.

1) § ‘zr

2) Ὀ bn 3) ylgm

Hr. Maktar N 37. For y/gm, cf. the note in the onomasticon s. v. y*/gni.

Remarks: It 1s interesting to note that for the indication of the age of the deceased thc Latin method to indicate numbers by means of letters of the Latin alphabet 1s used. C/onius may be very well the name meant by Alny, as it occurs at least once in North Africa (C7L vill 5085 = /LA 1 1505, from Hr. Khamissa (Thubursicu Numidarum)). Note, however, that also a name Calinius is attested a few times, although not in North Africa.

Tunisia OU N

11

Tunisia OU N 12

Bibliography:

Levy

Translation: 1) Of Azru2) bal, the son of

3) lalgam. Remarks:

Punica

117.

For $ in line

xvii

8;

|, cf. the remark sub

1864a:

MENDLESON

67; 2003:

CHABOT, 48;

Bibliography: EuTING

1871: 33; NP 121.

NP Illustrations:

(drawing).

EuTING

1871:

Taf.

xxxix

188

3. Texts from Tunisia

C

a

Remarks: Until now $ypk has been taken to be a personal name preceded by a verbal form. However, it seems more attractive to suppose ndr is the noun ‘vow,’ followed by the nota relationis. ypk as a name is of unknown origin, but probably a member of the large group of Berber names starting with y-. The name of the father of the deceased in line 2 is read with $ as the concluding sign by most scholars. The sign, however, seems to differ from the other $-signs, which points to a reading s. CHABOT (sub Punica xvii 9) reads ῥ᾽ Κ᾽ in line 3, MENDLESON (2003: 38) reads b/r]k’, while we think that on the photograph a small rest of r may be discerned.

Text: 1) t‘n’ [ 2) m‘[

Tunisia OU

N 14

Translation:

1) Was erected ... 2)...

Bibliography:

Tunisia OU

Illustrations:

MENDLESON

N 13

CHABOT,

Punica

xvii

10;

2003: 39. MENDLESON

2003:

NPul2

(photograph). Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica MENDLESON 2003: 38; LPE: 42.

xvii

9; Text: 1) Pdn b*l mn ndr

Illustrations:

MENDLESON

2003:

(photograph).

L

2) m^hP bn hbk 3) tyz? k Sm’ qh

— 1 n

NPu7

wi (PT

wh fi^

T y

EM

eee

4) brk? Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, what dedicated 2) Malo, the son of Abka3) tiza, because he heard his voice 4) blessed him.

2) bt tz“bs Sm“

Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xvii 10) reads bXlm instead of b“Imn, the reading given by MENDLESON (2003: 39). The photograph published by MENDLESON 2003 shows a sign that may be interpreted as an * open below (while

3) qP brk?

all other examples of * in this text are com-

Text: 1) Pdn Ib‘! hmn ndr Sypk

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal Amun, vow of Ifak, 2) the daughter of Tazabas, he heard 3) her voice, blessed her.

plete), or as X, but a $ differing from the one in line 3. The name AbK//ty[z]^, thus MENDLESON (2003: 39), is read by CHABOT (sub

Punica xvii 10) as hbk//ryz°. Unfortunately it can only partly be traced on the photograph, we only discern Aibk//t[.]*[.]*.

189

Tunisia OU

Tunisia OU N Bibliography:

15 CHABOT,

MENDLESON

Punica

xvi

11;

Text: 1) t bnz Im'rwz 2) bn yskt“n bn brkb‘l

2003: 39-40.

Illustration: MENDLESON (photograph).

2003:

NPul7

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Marauzo, 2) the son of Iasuktan, the son of Barikbal.

Text:

Remarks:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

read ri? bn or tn ?bn.

Pdn I[b'l] ndr ^3 [ndr] *bdmiqr[t bn] mtn kh S[m* Ἢ] ql? br[k?]

Tunisia OU N 18 Bibliography: Bısı 1978: 69-70.

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal, 2) votive offering, which dedicated 3) Abdmelaart, the son of 4) Mutun, because he heard his v5) oice, blessed him.

Illustrations: Bisi 1978: 69 (drawing); Bisi 1978: 69, 70 (photograph). Text:

1) Rogatvs V S d/r L^ Ar

Remarks: The photograph presented by MENDLESON (2003: NPu 17) only shows a few traces of the first two lines. Tunisia OU

N 16

Bibliography: MENDLESON

CHABOT,

Punica

xvii

12;

NPu

16

2003: 39.

Illustrations: MENDLESON (photograph).

It is difficult to decide whether to

2003:

Text: illegible

Remarks: The signs mentioned appear, lightly incised, among the letters of the Latin inscription on this monument: Rogatus votum solvit libens animo (CIL viii 1144). It seems not impossible that the first intention was to write the same name in Latin and in Neo-Punic. For the Neo-Punic text one would expect something like rg‘r’, of which the r is still visible, while the g is perhaps lost in the Latin A. Between L and À something is visible what might have been °, The rest of the name is, however, not visible anymore, at least not in the photograph provided. Tunisia OU N 19

Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xvii 12) notes that only a few isolated signs may be read, while MENDLESON (2003: 39) speaks of a illegible four line inscription. We discern only: 7) ...t/mbldlr bldirnitst 2) ...lb/dl rnitw. 3) ..? 4) ... Autopsy of the text might reveal more. Tunisia OU

Bibliography: LEMAIRE 1994: 71—72. Illustrations: (photograph).

LEMAIRE

1994:

Text: 1) phlks *w? Snt Sbt

N 17

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xxiii.

Translation: 1) Felix, he lived seven years.

tav.

iia,

b

190

J. Texts from Tunisia 72) prefers the

Remarks: The two inscriptions Tunisia OU

reading spi or 3pt, which he interprets as a variant of Xbt for $b“t. We are convinced that

N 19 and 20 are incised on the same jar. LEMAIRE (1994: 74) supposes a relation,

Remarks:

LEMAIRE

(1994:

the reading $br is without much doubt cor-

either an equation of Felix and Namatgiddo,

rect. The next text is incised on the same jar.

(in which case the names

Cf. also the remark a.l.

tically equivalent), or a father-daughter or

Tunisia OU N 20

mother-son relation. However, the different success with which the texts are incised

are also seman-

leads us to the supposition that the texts were Bibliography: LEMAIRE

1994: 73—74.

Illustrations: LEMAIRE 1994: tav. ii, iv (photograph). Text: 1) n‘mtgd? bt

2) hmikt htb* Translation: 1) Namatgiddo, the daughter of 2) Imilco the ...

at least not made at the same moment by the same person, so there is no reason to equate the names Felix and Namatgiddo. The fact

that Namatgiddo is mentioned without the name of a husband need not mean, we suppose, that in case she was the mother of Felix, she was a widow. LEMAIRE (1994: 73) supposes that tb“ may be explained as a variant orthography of tbh, ‘butcher.’ As the dif-

ferentiation between ¢ and f seems normally observed, also in Neo-Punic texts, this solution is not easily accepted.

4. Texts from Algeria Ain el-Kebch

Ain Youssef

Ain el-Kebch N 1

Ain Youssef N 1

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xxv 4; Marcy 1936: 86-90; ALVAREZ DELGADO 1964: 214-219; RIL 451; LPE: 42-43.

Bibliography: DERENBOURG 1876: 175-179;

Illustrations: Marcy 451 (drawing).

1936: pl. 5; RIL sub no

DE

SIMONE

2003:

160; NP

128;

CIL

viii

4636; CIL viii 16811; /LA 1 1186. Illustrations: CIL viii sub 4636 (incompetent drawing); DERENBOURG 1876: 177 (photograph)

MN: , Text: 1) z‘nn bn yrn‘bt hnmrsy Libyan parallel: 1) ZNN RCH 2) W IRNBT

᾿ Ww Mas

duy fnDu X) RY

3) NMRSH 4) MSWH

Translation: Zanan, son of Yarnabat, the Namarsite. Remarks: ALVAREZ DELGADO (1964: 217) explains the name 2‘nn as a participle of the Semitic root Xni, which is highly improbable, even though Marcy (1936: 86, 87) reads the first sign of the name as $ and CHABOT (sub Punica xv 4) accepts this reading as a possibility. The Libyan text, however, seems to settle the problem.

XXV P a

f; T UY

Text: 1) ]n’rsmikhn/t‘m[ 2) l'kmn'rtlrsm[ 3) ]dr Pwlm m[ Latin parallel: 1) JAzrubal ar[ 2) ]tanus templum[ 3) ]de sua pecunia facere curavit votumq[ue

3. Texts from Tunisia

192 Translation:

photograph). For wr- as the first element of

1) .. 2) 3) his family for ever ..

Libyan names, cf. e.g. wrskn (KAJ 100) and

Remarks: Up to now no more or less acceptable interpretation of this fragmentary text has been given. DERENBOURG'S reconstruction is not acceptable, only the two words in line 3, di? Pwim, are reasonably certain. The Latin text indicates that this is a building inscription, according to the last line of the Neo-Punic text a memorial for someone. Note also the remark of DE SIMONE (2003:

160), who supposes that it is not impossible the stone was not related to from Latin to ever, seems to

reused and one another. Neo-Punic indicate the

the two texts are The neat change in this text, howtexts were made,

wrwsn (Hr. Medeine N 1). Although it would be attractive to read a Libyan name ending in -sn, as the editors did, we cannot find a trace of this supposed last sign -n. This text was previously published as originating from Oran. FÉvRIER (with VUILLEMOT 1965) read mtnt € wrtgrs, while GARBINI (1987b: 69) noted that the reading of this text should be mtnt ?wbldlrngbldirz, ‘gift of ?wbngbz.' The

reading by FÉVRIER is repeated by BELABED and LAPORTE in ARN: 71, nr. 68, without diacritica however, the first word is given as mntnt, probably by mistake. The gift may

be the stone itself, or the stone may be a commemoration of a sacrificial gift, cf. also Teboursouk N 3 etc.

and intended to be read, together. Arseu Les Andalouses (Castra Puerorum?)

ArseuN

Bibliography: JUDAS 1857: 36; JuDAs 1860— 1861: 25; LEvy 1857: 108-109; SCHRÖDER

Les Andalouses N 1

Bibliography:

FEVRIER

with

VUILLEMOT

1965: 220; GARBINI 1987b: 69; HoRNRUGER 1979: 546; ARN: 71, nr. 68; JONGELING 2004. Illustrations: HORN-RÜGER 90; ARN:

1

1869: 265, nr. 5; NP 78.

Illustrations: JUDAS 1857: pl. 4, no | (drawing), cf. DELLA MARMORA 1854: 186 (drawing of the complete stone).

1979: 547, Taf. Text: 1) ndr ^3 n‘dr bt? bn m3gw'n 2) [0 Ὁ km?

71, nr. 68 (photograph)

Text: 1) mtnt Sw‘rg‘s

Translation: Translation:

1) Votive offering which dedicated Beatus,

1) Gift of Wargas.

the son of Mashguan, 2) to Bal Bal because he heard (him).

Remarks: The editors in HORN-RUGER (1979) translate: ‘Stele of Masop, son of NG'SN,' and they note that some of the Neo-Punic signs have a strange form, seemingly to have been turned around. Most signs, however,

seem to be straightforward Neo-Punic ones, if the photograph (HORN-RUGER

1979) is to

be trusted (our reading is solely based on this

Remarks: b‘l b‘l is probably a mistake for b‘l hmn. Sm”, /Samo/, may be explained as a form of the verb sm‘, qal perf. 3 p.s.m. followed by the suffix of the 3'* m. s. However, one may also explain this form as an incorrect rendering of the historical spelling of the verb $m“, with ? pro *: §m’, followed by?

Cherchel (lol Caesarea)

193

KOMA ri.

po-

ET

—

Arseu N 2

indicating the sound /ö/, cf. yn? in the next inscription. The reading riXgw*n is already found with LIDZBARSKI (1898: 318).

Illustrations:

EUTING

1876;

LIDZBARSKI

1898: Taf. xix 2 (drawing). Text:

Arseu N 2

Bibliography: JUDAS 1857: 36; LEvy 109; JUDAS 1860-1861; JoNGELING 162; NP 79; LPE: 43.

1) skr dr PSt nmt

1857: 1984:

Illustrations: JUDAS 1857: pl. 4, 2; JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 10, xxi (drawing); cf. DELLA MARMORA 1854: 186 (drawing of the complete stone).

mhrt tr? t hmnsbt b/d/

rsb‘t 2) “bd’Smn bn “ΖΓ Pmm It*wnt *hr ^$ p'l syw'n 3) Ihhym h’s SI? *zrb*l hyld/b/rsd/b/rhd/b/ rb‘! b*n 3gln 4)?m? 1§b/d/rt Snt hm$m d/b/r’yhSd/b/rd/b/r Ithrt nktbt 5) wn$mr d/b/rtmyqn’ w?ydr lymb/d/r m'Sd/b/rt 6) kmSlm [ ] *P hnskbt bt mnm St

Text:

1) ndr °§ nd[r] gtm ySm” gl’ Translation: 1) Votive offering, which gfm vowed, may he hear his voice. Remarks: Note the spelling y3nr? for /yismöl; for the double ?, cf. the remark sub Arseu N I; the y may also be the last sign of the name of the dedicant, of course, but names ending in -y are not frequent. Instead of ’ the reading pw is also possible, and combining with the next two signs one might find the name (element) pwmy, which leaves one, however, with an inexplicable g.

Cherchel (Iol Caesarea) Cherchel N 1 Bibliography: DERENBOURG 1875; EurING 1876: 284-287; BLau 1876: 738-741; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 438, 3 D dl; FÉVRIER 1952c; NSI 56; NP 130; LPE: 43-44.

Translation: 1) As a remembrance of her family for a pleasant and quick woman has erected the ... stele 2) Abdeshmun, the son of Azrubal for his mother, for Tawnat, after which he made the tomb monument 3) for the ‘living’, her husband Azrubal, the .. Shaglan 4) His mother, to serve fifty years ... prescribed purity

5) 6) ...who passed away at the age of eighty years. Remarks: For skr dr’, cf. the remark sub Hr. Gen Rieime N |. mhrt is read as mhbt, a pual participle of the root ?/ib by FÉvRIER (1952c: 19, 20), VATTIONI (1993b: 452), which, however, is less acceptable, because one expects the qal passive participle when the meaning ‘loved’ is needed. DE SIMONE (2003: 162) accepts this reading and translation and supposes it to be a calque of an expression like uxori dolcissimae in Latin texts. b/d/r$b't in

194

4. Texts from Algeria

jo MULTIS p

fj d

AM

aep OWAG WR

'j ^.

pape Ἢ M LOU "f

PD f DAL UA AG i Re joie ilMYR punc

pn Dans

line 1 is most probably an adjective qualifying the preceding mnsbt, meaning unclear. The traditional explanation as ‘Rash, the daughter of ..' seems less probable, as in these texts it is usually a man who erects such important monuments. FEVRIER (1952c: 20) explains bsb‘t, as ‘with abundance, with sumptuousness,' which is at least a possibil-

ity, while VATTIONI (1993b: 452) explains it as ‘because of a vow.’ /hhym brings to mind the designation of the cemetary as byt /iym in Hebrew, or does it rather mean ‘while still alive,’ cf. e.g. DE SIMONE (2003: 162), who proposes to take /hhym as the Punic equivalent of Latin se vivo, attested in Latin texts. The last word in line 2 we read as συν", to be compared to Hebrew syw“n, as already Cooke (NS/ a.l.). FEVRIER (1958-1959: 29), reads syw*t, with the same meaning. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. sur), reads syw*t and translates *order(s), instruction(s).' "hr ?¥ pel syw*t Ihhym he translates as ‘after (he) had given instructions to the living,’ i.e. he settles his estate on his deathbed, which seems farfetched. 5*1, the word preceding 3q/n in line 3 is probably not to be explained as a deviant

spelling of bi, cf. bn in line 2. Could it be a form of the root buy: ‘Shaqlan built (it)' ? In line 4 the last two words, t/irt nktbt, may very

De well be translated, with FEVRIER (1952c: 21), as ‘the prescribed purity’, but the explanation of the preceding signs d/b/r?^yhisdlblrdlblr las

b?yhzr dl, prep. b, followed by ’yhzr, yiph. inf. of hzr, ‘to take care,’ and the preposition dl seems less attractive. The first word of line 5 may very well be read wnsmi?. FÉVRIER (1952c: 21) translates: ‘she took care.’ gn’ he translates as ‘the creator,’ leaving in between b’tmy. Whether this is correctly explained as the prep. b, followed by the inf. yiph.of tnr, ‘to pray, to invoke,’ is doubtful. The same holds true for his reading and explanation of the following w?ydr ?lym as w followed by the inf. piel of ’dr, ‘to magnify.’ The translation of ?/ym with ‘god’ is, of course, possible. However, the division of words being unclear, it remains highly uncertain. The reading of the next word as b’m“Srt, ‘in happiness,’ or ‘in justice,’ is also uncertain, and

the explanation of this word as the prep. ^ followed by the well-known m“$rt, which does not take into account the ? at the beginning is also very doubtful. In line 6, the last few words probably contain the nifal of ἔκ, which

in Hebrew

means

‘to lie down,’

‘to

fall,’ and, according to the context, may be used here in the sense of 'to pass away.'

KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. /in;), divides /in

Cherchel (lol Caesarea)

Skbt bt mnm St, “here she lies at the age of eighty years,’ which seems rather awkward as a statement on a tombstone. Cherchel

11) made (it) the son of ...

195 Arish, the son of Abdo,

Remarks: qmm in line 1 probably means person, cf. Labdah N 2. SZNYCER (ARN: 114, nr 94) translates miyqds qim as ‘funerary sanc-

N 2

Bibliography: BERGER 1888; HALEvy 1888;

tuary.' KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. Hiyy, qmi),

LIDZBARSKI 1898: 439, 3 D d2; DussAUD 1924: cxlvi; FEVRIER 1951a: 138-150; VAN DEN BRANDEN 1974: 143-145; GARBINI 1974b: 33; ROSCHINSKI 1979; GARBINI 1987b: 67; NSI 57, KAI 161; ARN: 114, nr.

not believing in the existence of a pronoun qmm, divides myqd$ qi? mhy hym mkwsn, "«this 1s the mortuary> temple of the zealous one, sustainer of the living, Micipsa.' He compares gn’ with Hebrew qanna?/qanno", ‘zealous,’ which at least merits consideration. myll in line 2 has been variously explained, as a part. of the pu. of y//, ‘the lamented one,’ cf. CooKE (1903: 149), FÉvRIER (1951a:

94; LPE: 44-45.

Illustrations: ROSCHINSK!

1979:

113 (draw-

ing); LIDZBARSKI 1898: Taf. xvi 4; ΚΑΙ Taf. xxviii; HoRN-RÜGER 1979: 575, Taf. ARN: 114, nr 94 (photograph).

104;

Text: 1) myqd§ qn’m hy hym mkwsn mlk [m]Slyym 2) hmyll mysr ’rst rbt mmlk?t h3b n*m 3) P ti? t hm’ st bmbw ^hdr dl ?qbr? yzm 4) bn yzggsn bn bg?t bn msnsn myqm “Im

5) skr kbd ‘] gm ?dr tm? ?dP km? t bnm 6) w t'khnym "ὃ “I mrm kl’ n‘sp P Imh[ ] 7) t bnm “Im *kbrt [ ] blhb't zT

8) wi*wtm bd b'l [ ]lbn[ Jim? hin

9) rb? sm? bkl hwt bm? bmt“ | 10) rst hmhsrt SP t bnm rb [ 11) p‘l "τῷ bn “bd? b[n Translation: 1) Shrine of the most living person, Makausan, king of the Massylians, 2) the lamented one, who did justice to many countries, benevolent king; 3) erected for him this statue in the entrance

of the tomb chamber Yazam 4) the son of Yuzgagsan the son of Bogut the son of Masinissan, the one who makes the god stand; 5) an honourable memorial of enormous majesty, enormous perfection, ... the builders 6) and the priests that were over the 7) .. 10)

142), less probable, is the derivation from the root hll. FÉvRIER (1951a: 142), ROLLIG (sub KA/ 161), SzNvcER (ARN: 114, nr. 94), combine br with the following mmlkt, ‘lord of kings,' but the sing. masc. of rb is rb, not rbt, while the plural, also masculine, may be rbt, as in KA/ 101, line 2, rbt nrt, compared to rb nrt ibid. line 3. Therefore the combination with the preceding ?rst is more probable, as is done already by e.g. BERGER (1888: 40), cf. also KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. V. rb,,). h¥b n*m as a title gives the impression of being a translation from some Latin (or Greek) phrase. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. mmlkt), adds the first word of line 3 to the phrase: mmlk’t hib n*m P, ‘a king reputed for his excellence.' This is perhaps an attractive solution, as the position of the prepositional phrase /? preceding the verb ti? is not to be expected. In line 3 KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. mqm ?lm), without reason emends mbw "hdr. The same author, s.v. dly, mgm ’Im, divides *hdr dP gbr?, ‘the chamber containing his tomb,’ dP then being a qal participle of the root d/y meaning ‘to possess.’ However, it seems that the use of a verb meaning ‘to possess’ is out of place in a context like this, although it neatly explains the ?. Others, who see the preposition d/ in this phrase, connect this ? to the next word, but this word gives the impression to be construed with a suffix pronoun, wherefore a preceding

196

4. Texts from Algeria

article is less attractive. Or should we sup-

?sp, ἐγ Κι) reads kl ?n*sp P Imh[nt, translating

pose a development of qbr as follows: /gabr/ > /gbarl > Igbörl > laqborl, thus explain-

‘everyone who had been gathered to him [Micipsa] in the army.' This is ingeneous, but difficult within the context of this funerary monument. At the beginning of line 10

ing this ? as a prostethic alef ? The expression mygm ?lm has been debated by many authorities, cf. the discussion in DNWSI, sub qwm, (pp. 1002-1003). gm in line 5 is

explained

by

FEvRIER

(1951a:

143-144,

148) as a derivation from the root gmm and meaning ‘totality,’ *majesty.' The interpretation is accepted e. g. RÖLLIG (sub KA/ 161), but with some reserve. Less probable is the

[’]rs’t might be read. If correct hmhsrt most probably is an epithet describing the preceding noun, followed by XP^, ‘of him.’ Cherchel N 3

Bibliography: DussauD 1924: cxlvi.

proposal of KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. gm), that em might be an abbreviation for gbrtm, ‘his might.’ Abbreviated names are found sometimes, but until now no abbreviated words within a longer text such as this one is. tm? ?di? km is divided by KRAHMALKOV

(2000, s. v. drk;,, tmn? drkm) as tm? ?dr? km .., ‘the commanders of the foot troops,’ which seems highly uncertain. The last word of this

Text: ι)ὴ.... 2)... °/ml[ 3) m't/n .[ 4) w'g .[ 5) pm .[ 6)^..[

7) pm .[

line is read ?trnm by FÉvRIER (1951a: 143144) and explained as the pl. of trn, preceded by the article, compared to Hebrew toren, ‘mast, pole.” ROLLIG (sub Κα] 161) accepts this reading and tentatively translates with FEVRIER: ‘shaft of a column.’ However, the fact that in the next line the word khnym, whatever its meaning, is preceded by the preposition, f, makes it most probable that the t in?trnm should be explained in the same way. This may be done by supposing that the ? is the last sign of the preceding word, km’, which may be for /komo/. This leaves us with a word that may be read as rnm, but the reading bnm is equally possible, and makes

good sense. The meaning of the word group, therefore, is best interpreted as ‘the build-

ers and the priests.' The same reading was adopted by LiIDZzBARSKI (1898: 439) without explanation, and by ROSCHINSKI (1979: 112, 115), but he combines thnm, ‘building,’ which seems less probable. The same word perhaps also at the beginning of line 7 and in line 10. mrm in line 6 is explained by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. mm), as ‘high place,' which seems to be a possibility. At the end of line 6 KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v.

Remarks: Not enough is left of this text to attempt an explanation.

Constantine (Cirta) Constantine N 1

Bibliography: Jupas 1860-1861: pl. 5, xi; NP 96. Illustration: (drawing).

JUDAS

1860-1861:

pl.

5,

xi

197

Constantine (Cirta)

2)*| Iit hd 3) {

Text: 1)... nd]r^3 ndr 2) ... §m] * qP brk°

Translation: 1) Votive offering for Bal Amun

Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated .. 2) .. he heard his voice blessed him.

2)... 3) ..

Constantine N 2

Bibliography: JupAs 1862: pl CHABOT, Punica xviiv/i 3; NP 106. Illustration: (drawing).

JUDAS

1860-1861:

xu,

1;

pl. xu,

|

Remarks: The few signs remaining in line 2 cannot be related to any of the formulae frequent in these texts. On the other hand, however, the sign group /$ is not attested in any name in the Neo-Punic corpus, up to now. The two signs, $m, at the beginning of

line 2 drawn by Junas, were presumably not recognized as such by CHABOT.

Text: Constantine N 4

1) ndr ^$ ndr mlktn

2) [ P wsm“ qi[ Translation: 1) Votive offerring which dedicated Milka-

Bibliography: Jupas 1860-1861: pl. 2, 11; LEVY 1864a: 76; CHABOT, Punica xvıu/i 12; NP 88.

ton Illustration: (drawing).

2) .. and he heard [his] voice .. Remarks: The reading is the one given by CHABOT (sub Punica xvui/i 3). JUDAS’s drawing can only be erroneous.

JUDAS

1860-1861:

X3)

pl.

2,

iii

0

Constantine N 3

Bibliography: Judas 1860-1861: pl. 3, vii; CHABOT, Punica xvili/i 7; NP 92. Illustration: (drawing).

JUDAS

1860-1861:

pl. 3, vii

Text: 1)

y*

p

Remarks: Possibly two abbreviated names. Several Latin names begin with p and end in ? in Punic, as e.g. p’sk’, p’rtn“P, etc. y* could be a Latin feminine name, as e.g. yhly‘, ynw“ry‘, cf. however also yg*. The first sign Is absent in JUDAS' drawing. Constantine N 5

Text: 1) ndr [05] hmn

Bibliography: Levy 1864a:

Jupas 68-71;

1860-1861: 49-56; EwALD 1864: 32;

198

4. Texts from Algeria

BLAu 1864: 639; SCHRÖDER 1869: 268, nr. 19; LiDzBarskı 1898: 433, 2 Dd 1; CHABOT, Punica xviii 1 15; FEVRIER 1958-1959: 3031; FEvRIER 1956: 17; JONGELING 1996a: 71; TPI 233; NP 87.

ktb n“mt p*n? hn’, translating ‘they wrote down (for him) good things, and his steps they favoured.’

Illustrations: JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 1, 1; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xiv 7; LIDZBARSKI 1898 Taf. xv 4 (drawing).

Bibliography: JUDAS 1860-1861: 35-36; Levy 1864a: 73-74; CHABOT, Punica xvili/i 17; SCHRÖDER 1869: 268, nr. 23; NP 100.

Text: 1) (Fdn 10 nd‘r ^3 ndr 2) ykn3lm bn b‘d§ hrp Ib'l 3) Itnt b‘lm SP sm? ? 4) t qP) ktb n?mtp'm? hd/b?

Illustrations: JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 7, xv; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvi 4 (drawing).

Remarks: The text between {} is in Punic characters, the rest in Neo-Punic script. We only comment upon the Neo-Punic text. Instead of /id/b? the reading /irb’, ‘the physician,’ might be possible. SZNYCER (1998: 57, n. 69) thinks of hbr’, the engraver, comparing Hr. Maktar N 39, where he finds the root, br”, with this meaning.

AR BL (3

Translation: 1) To the lord Bal, votive offering which dedicated 2) Yakonshallum, the son of Badis, the physician, to Bal 3) to Tinnit, his lords, they heard 4) his voice. Namefamo ... wrote [it].

same

Constantine N 6

FÉVRIER

(1956: 17) reads kth n*mt/n pn’ hm for the second part of line 4, translating: ‘has engraved n“mt/n and with him Hannon,’ explaining p‘nr as p, ‘and,’ followed by the preposition ‘m with suffix. Because of the frequence of the name n“mtp“m? this is a less probable solution. LEvy (1864a: 70-71),

dividing otherwise, reads ktbt *mtp*nr hm, but the name n“mtp“nr is too frequent not to be read here. For b*lm $P, cf. Hr. Maktar N 58. FÉvRIER (1958-1959: 31) reads n*mtp'nr he, “N. his sister,’ in which case the verbal form has to be translated not as ‘she wrote’ but ‘she had someone write,’ which 1s highly implausible. Ingenious is the solution presented by SLouscHz (ΤΡΙ a.l.), who read

4

Ayaan«7

Text: 1) ndr ^3 ndr hnb‘l bn 2) b'Ibrk [ἀπ Ib] S[m] 3) ql’ brk^ Translation: 1) Votive offering which vowed Annobal, the son of 2) Balbarik to the lord to Bal, he heard 3) his voice, blessed him. Constantine N 7

Bibliography: JuDas 1860-1861: 34; LEvy 1864a: 73; CHABOT, Punica xvili/i 18; SCHRODER 1869: 268, nr. 22; NP 99. Illustration: (drawing). Text: 1) [ndr°] 2) [$ n]dr 3) b*1S

JUDAS

1860-1861:

pl. 6, xiv

Constantine (Cirta) 4) m“ bn 5) [b]‘ly 6) tn bn * 7) [b]dk&: 8) Pdn b'l 9) Sm“ ql 10) ? brk°

199

Remarks: Note that the drawing of Jupas (1860-1861: pl. 6, xiv) on which our drawing is based, clearly gives ‘/b]?mn instead of *[b]ks* in the lines 6-7, however, the drawings presented by Jupas are notoriously unreliable, while most readings of CHABOT are normally reliable and based upon renewed inspection of the texts. Constantine N 8 Bibliography: JuDas 1864a:

73;

SCHRÖDER 45-46.

CHABOT,

1860-1861: 34; LEvv Punica

xviii

20;

1869: 268, nr. 21; NP 97; LPE:

Illustrations: JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 5, xii; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvi 5 (drawing).

aan Translation: 1) [Votive offering wh] 2) [ich vo]wed 3) Balsha4) mo, the son of 5) [B]alya6) ton, the son of A 7) [b]dkasha 8) for the lord Bal 9) he heard his v10) oice, blessed him.

rer

Text: 1) ndr ^$ ndr Ssp bn 2) b'lytn Pdn ὉΠ] “mn 3) Sm“ ql’ brk^ Translation: 1) Votive offering which vowed Shasap, the son of 2) Balyaton to the lord to Bal Amun, 3) he heard his voice, blessed him. Constantine N 9 Bibliography: JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 5, xiii; LEvy 1864a: 76, 19; NP 98.

200

4. Texts from Algeria

Illustration: (drawing).

AY C

JUDAS

1860-1861:

pl. 5, xiii

ΥῚ

X

Gy ofpA A

CjM

v7

20A |" wy

——

χλυχί

|

v7

OFAN

8 Translation: 1) Votive offering ... Gaius, the son of Gaius; 2) he heard his voice, blessed him.

Text:

1) ndr °§ ndr ^w* 2) τί |d/b/r [05] Sm“ ql? 3) brk^?

Remarks: We follow CHABOT’s reading. Constantine N 11

Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Ova2) ... to Bal, he heard his voice, 3) blessed him. Remarks: The reading is based upon the drawing by Jupas (1860-1861: pl. 5, xiii), whose drawings, however, are often unreliable. Should this drawing, however, be more or less correct, the last word of line 2 should be read g/m rather than gl”.

Bibliography: JUDAS 1860-1861: 1864a: 74, 15; CHABOT,

Text: 1) ndr ... g^y bn gy 2) Sm“ ql? bri?

Pah fy

1860-1861:

sii

pl. 9, xviii;

Punica xviii/i

22; NP 103. Illustration: JUDAS (drawing).

Illustrations: JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 4, x; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvi 2 (drawing).

OKT yj ΟΝ

Constantine N 10

LEVY

Bibliography: Jupas 1860-1861: 17ff.; Levy 1864a: 75-76; CHABOT, Punica xvili/i 28; SCHRÖDER 1869: 268, nr. 20; NP 95; LPE: 46.

pl. 9, xviii

EL,

Ae

x

Text: 1) dn Ib“] hmn brk 2) bn bd'Strt k’ Sm“ 3) qP brk^ Translation:

1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, Barik,

J

201

Constantine (Cirta)

2) the son of Bodashtart, because he heard 3) his voice, blessed him.

Remarks: The translation ‘vow of Imilco ..’ is, of course, equally possible.

Remarks: The reading of brk at the end of the first line 1s confirmed by the & as written ink in line 2.

Constantine N 14

Constantine N 12

Bibliography: Jupas 1860-1861: pl. 3, vi; Levy 1864a: 72, 10; CHABOT, Punica xviti/1 29; NP 91. Illustrations: (drawing).

Jupas

f a

NP PUE

1860-1861:

Bibliography: Judas 1860-1861: pl. 9, xix; LEvv 1864a: 74-75, 16; CHABOT, Punica xviii/1 32; NP 104.

Illustration: JUDAS

1860-1861:

pl. 9, xix

(drawing).

pl. 3, vi

SU oS J^ X

Text:

1) ndr ^$ ndr 2) mtnb‘l bn τῷ Text:

Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated 2) Mutunbal, the son of Arish. Remarks: LEVY (1864a: 72) reads ?d/rm in line 2, which is in accordance with the drawing published by Jupas. Constantine N 13

1) *rtm&yk 2) &Im ?t hndr

3) [ IK? ἽΓ Ib 4) “I PC) Translation: 1) *rtm$yk (?) 2) fulfilled the vow 3)... 4) ...

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xviti/1 30. Remarks: In case the signs in line 1 indiText: 1) ndr hmlk[ Translation:

1) Imilco vowed [

cate a personal name, one wonders whether there is any relation with the Greek goddess Artemis.

202

4. Texts from Algeria

Constantine N 15

Bibliography: JUDAS, 1860-1861: pl. 3, viii; Levy 1864a: 72, 11; CHABOT, Punica xviii/1 33; NP 93.

Illustration: (drawing).

JUDAS

1860-1861:

pl. 3, viii

Text: 1) l'dn [06] hmn

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering 2) which dedicated [ ]‘q[ ]ml, the son of 3) Arish, because he heard his voice, blessed him Remarks: The reading of line the drawing of JupAs. We the reading of bn ’r$ in the uncertain because CHABOT

3 is based upon have indicated lines 2-3 to be has not consid-

ered it likely, although the drawing by

2) ndr mtnb‘l bn hmlk 3) tám qP brk?

JUDAS

leaves not much doubt. At the end of line 2, JUDAS' drawing clearly indicates, preceding bn, b‘l, which is not impossible given the great number of names ending in -bal.

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun 2) vow of Mutunbal the son of Imilk3) o, he heard his voice, blessed him

Constantine N 17 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xviij/1 36.

Remarks: Several signs that were recognised

by CHABOT are not visible in the drawing by JUDAS.

Text: 1) ndr ^3 ndr b'li&m*t (Ib?]l

2) brk? 5m? qP Constantine N 16 Bibliography: JuDAs 1860-1861: 34; LEvY 1864a: 75; SCHRÖDER 1869: 267, nr. 17; CHABOT, Punica xviil/1 34; NP 94. Illustrations: JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 4, ix; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvi 1 (drawing).

—

^J,

/rns)Ral

po f

E ΩΣ (d y^ A)

XA

1) dn Ib*l hmn nd'r

2) *$ n'dr [ 'a[ ]ml bn 3) ^r$ k Sm? qP brk?

Constantine N 18 Bibliography: Jupas 1860-1861: pl. 2, iv; Levy 1864a: 76; CHABOT, Punica xviii/1 39; NP 89. Illustration: (drawing).

kıX

Text:

Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Balshamo to Bal, 2) he blessed him, heard his voice.

JUDAS

1860-1861:

pl.

2,

iv —

yy

»

203

Constantine (Cirta) Text:

Text:

1) P/mtiny?/m

1) ndr ^$ ndr bd[mllqrt bn h[nP §[m]* 2) qP brk°

Remarks: This text may contain a name following /. If the drawing published by JupAs is to be trusted, the form of the 3 is suspect. Or should this sign be combined with the next stroke and read as /ı ? The whole text is perhaps to be read as Prhym/?, ‘for *thym.’

Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Bodmelqart, the son of Anno, he heard 2) his voice, blessed him. Constantine N 21

Constantine N 19

Bibliography: Jupas Bibliography: Jupas 1864a: 77; NP 108. Illustration: (drawing).

JUDAS

1860-1861: 59; LEvy

BLET-GAUCKLER

Punica xviii/1 44; NP

1860-1861:

pl.

13, iv

1) Sykn§lm bn

2) bdmiqrt bn [ Translation: 1) Belonging to Yakinshalum, the son of 2) Bodmelqart, the son of .. Remarks: The reading is based upon LEvy 1864a. Constantine N 20

Bibliography: JuDas 1860-1861: 35-36; CHABOT, Punica xviii/143; SCHRÖDER 1869: 268, nr. 24; NP 101. Illustrations:

SCHRÖDER

RL Xp |

83-84;

Text:

1) Spt 2) bn brk Translation: 1) Shafot,

2) the son of Baric.

CHABOT,

107.

Illustrations: JUDAS 1860-1861: (drawing); DouBLET-GAUCKLER iii, 5 (photograph).

Text:

JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 7, xvii; 1869: Taf. xvi 10 (drawing).

1862: pl. 12, 11; Dou-

1892:

pl. 12, ıi 1892: pl.

4. Texts from Algeria

204

Remarks: The reading presented above was already proposed by DOUBLET-GAUCKLER (1892: 84). CHABOT proposes mgn for the second name, which, however, is hardly

Text: 1) hn hn 2) ndr °§ ndr hnb'l 3) bn ’dnbl Pdn [05] Sm“ ql?

justifiable when looking at the photograph published by DOUBLET-GAUCKLER. Constantine N 22

Bibliography:

Jupas

1862:

pl.

13,

v;

CHABOT, Punica xviii/i 45; NP 109. Illustration:

JUDAS

1860-1861:

pl.

13, v

(drawing).

Translation: 1) Grace, grace 2) Votive offering which dedicated Annobal, 3) the son of Adonibal to the lord to Bal, he heard his voice.

Remarks: Note that the expression hn hn is written at both sides of a round symbol (sun ?), outside the textfield.

Text:

DI 2) {

Constantine N 24

3) Ém*?t qP

Bibliography: Jupas 1860-1861: pl. 2, v; CHABOT, Punica xviii/i 55; NP 90.

Translation:

]).. 2).. 3) he heard his voice.

Illustration: (drawing).

JUDAS

1860-1861:

pl.

2,

v

Text:

Constantine N 23

1) *hts[ 2) tPIh

Bibliography: JUDAS 1860-1861: 37-38; [Εν 1864a: 74; SCHRÖDER 1869: 269, nr. 25; NP 102; LPE: 46. Illustrations: Jupas 1860-1861: pl. 8, xvii; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvi 3 (drawing).

Remarks: According to CHABOT, instead of h in line 1, the reading yg is also possible. Constantine N 25 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xvii/i 57. Text: 1) ndr °§ ndr ytnb‘l bn 2) *bdk&r Im/n/gd/r'r iny*b

P DATAT.

pA qd

ay

3) [0 hmn brk°? wSm“ ql 4)? Translation:

1) Votive offering which vowed Yatonbal, the son of 2) Abdkasher ...

205

Constantine (Cirta)

3) to Bal Amun, he blessed him and he heard his voi4) ce

Constantine N 28

Remarks: The latter part of line 2 probably contains an epithet of the dedicant.

SPC 91; LPE: 46.

Illustrations: LipzBARSKI 1898: Taf. xv 14 (drawing); SPC 91 (photograph).

Constantine N 26

Bibliography: RIL 145.

CHABOT,

Punica

xvii/1/59;

Text:

Only

fragments

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xviii/ii 7; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 434, D 412; RES 1565;

of three

unrecognisable

|

1 ΠΧ

TU

RN

signs remain. Libyan text: 1) BZLM Remarks: Because the Punic text is illegible, a possible relationship between the Punic text and the Libyan one cannot be estab-

lished. Constantine N 27

SPC 73.

Text: 1) Pdn Ib*l hmn ndr °§ ndr 2) hmlkt bn ytn Sm“ qP brk?

Translation: | 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering which dedicated 2) [milco, the son of Yaton, he heard his voice, blessed him. Constantine N 29

Illustration: SPC 73 (photograph). SPC 96. Text: 1) ndr ^$ ndr hmlkt bn

Illustration: SPC 96 (photograph).

2) brk b'l gylzdr

3) °y[ HE H[ ]$mh 4) ql Translation:

1) Votive offering which dedicated Imilco, the son of 2) Barik, citizen of gylzdr 3) ... he heard 4) his voice. Remarks: The reading is that of SZNYCER (sub SPC 73); one wonders whether the reading dbr instead of brk in line 2 might be possible.

Text: 1) Pdn Ib‘l hmn 2) ndr ^$ ndr hmlk bn 3) hr? bn b'Ihn 4)? kin? ql? 5) wbrk?

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, 2) votive offering which dedicated Imilco, the son of 3) Anno, the son of Balann4) o, because he heard his voice 5) and blessed him.

206

4. Texts from Algeria

Constantine N 30

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica viii 3, xviii/ 11,12; SPC 113. Illustration: SPC 113 (photograph).

Text: 1) Pdn 105] hmn [w]tnt ndr 2) '$ ndr Spt bn αἱ ]y kin 3) ql’ bri? Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun and Tinnit,

votive offering

Text: 1) Pdn 10 hmn °s 2) ndr hmikt bn b'Ihn

3)’[ PS qPbrkl Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, which 2) vowed Imilco the son of Balann3) o, because he heard his voice, blessed him. Remarks: SZNYCER (sub SPC 113) remarks that 3° in line 3 is certainly a fault for Sm“. Perhaps the ? preceding 3° is the second sign of A’, ‘because,’ as attested elswhere in this position.

2) which dedicated Shafot, the son of g/../y, because he heard 3) his voice, blessed him.

read ἜΝ instead of [w]tnt ndr in line l, and following bn in line 2: [...]yn $m* . The phrase Pdn Ib“l hmn went, without the epithet of Tinnit, is not attested elsewhere and remains suspect. Perhaps the reading mnt st for [w]tnt ndr should be preferred. Constantine N 32

Bibliography:

SPC 78. Constantine N 31

Illustration: SPC 78 (photograph).

LipzBARsKI 1898: 434, D dll: RES 1564: SPC 126. Illustrations: LipzBARSKI 1898: Taf. xv, 13 (drawing); SPC 126 (photograph).

— Win [n^mu vl PM B. EB.

I

AT]

LOT:

PX

TEE"

X)^À 1 ^ "t[!

| Ln att gum Jo A Text: 1) Pdn Ib‘! hmn ndr °5 ndr *zrb'l 2) bn Iqy Sm“ qP brk° Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, votive offering which dedicated Azrubal, 2) the son of Lucius, he heard his voice, blessed him

207

Constantine (Cirta)

Remarks: Instead of /qy in line 2, CHABOT read /sb. It seems that in the space for a third line some remains of Punic are to be seen. Constantine N 33

2) votive offering, which dedicated Bodmelgart, 3) the son of Namal, because he heard his voice, 4) blessed him.

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xviii/ii 26; SPC 127; ARN: 123, nr. 114. Illustrations: SPC (photograph).

127; ARN:

joel

py

123, nr. 114

Text: 1) dn [0] witynt 2) pr? b*l ndr ᾿ξ 3) ndr mtn 4) $mh qP brk°

rf Dee "τ |

Kar p

AT

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal and to Tinnit 2) Fane Bal, votive offering which 3) vowed Mutun, 4) he heard his voice, blessed him. Remarks: Note that this is one of the few Neo-Punic texts presenting us with the quality of the first vowel in the divine name Tinnit. The other one is also from Constantine (N 56). The second vowel is indicated in tnyt, attested twice in Tirekbine N 1.

Remarks: |f the reading ’n instead of ’dn, as it is supposed by CHABOT and BERTRANDYSZNYCER, is correct, it is probably a misspelling, or another mistake, and it should not be adduced as a proof of the weakening of /d/ in pronunciation. All other material adduced as proof of this development,

Constantine N 34

cf. PPG?, 8 41, is to be found in personal names.

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xviii/ii 27; SPC 135. Illustration: SPC 135 (photograph). Text: 1) Pdn Ib*] hmn 2) ndr ^$ ndr bdmlqrt 3) bn nml k Sm“ qP

Constantine N 35

Bibliography: SPC 79.

CHABOT,

Illustration: SPC 79 (photograph). Text:

4) brk?

1) [ ] Sm‘ qh

Translation:

Translation: 1) .. he heard his voice.

1) To the lord, to Bal Amun,

Punica xviii/ii. 33;

4. Texts from Algeria

208 Constantine N 36

Constantine N 37

SPC 64.

SPC 89. Illustration: SPC 89 (photograph).

JA

MP LA vr "[]Xr x

7.’

oe

Text: 1) [b]rkb‘l bn τῇ

2) h[ Translation: 1) Barikbal, the son of Arish 2) the ... Remarks: CHABOT

reads in line 2: ἢ... ἢ

Text:

1) Pdn 105] hmn “In hmik

Constantine N 38

2) bn hmlkt Sm“ qP 3) brk°

SPC 104. Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun the god (?), Imilk 2) the son of Imilko, he heard his voice 3) blessed him. Remarks: Although the epithet ?/n ıs attested elsewhere in Constantine, in the Punic

inscriptions RES 327 and 328: Pdn Pin hqds bl hmn, resp. Pdn Pin lb'l hmn, we think that this reading here, accepted by SZNYCER (SPC a.l), both because of the different phraseology and the missing verb preceding the name of the dedicant, is highly uncertain. FANTAR (1993d, 122) proposes to explain ’/n as the noun ?/ followed by the suffix of the Ist person plural, ‘our god.’ However, as ?/ is only attested once (if at all) in Punic, cf. CIS 4943, while ?In is rather frequent, this solution seems less attractive. It seems more probable that ? is the first letter of the marker of relativity ᾿ξ, which word might be fol-

lowed by 7i, while the expected dr are either missing or indistinct.

Illustration: SPC 104 (photograph). Text: 1) Pdn Ib°l[

2) [ 3) |n*m[ 4) °§ ndr bdmlqrt k brk? Sm“ ql?

5) 6) Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal [

2) 3) ]pleasant[ 4) which vowed Bodmelgart, because he blessed him, he heard his voice 5) 6) Remarks: Both CHABOT and SzNYCER (sub SPC 104) note that this virtually completely preserved text is written in almost illegible characters. We were unable to discern the words mlk birm, read by SZNYCER (SPC 8.1.) in line 2, in the photograph.

209

Constantine (Cirta) Constantine N 39

Constantine N 40

SPC 42.

SPC 84.

Illustration: SPC 42 (photograph).

Illustration: SPC 84 (photograph). Text: 1) ndr b'ISIk bn ‘zrb‘l

2) n? brh kám*

3) [qP brk]? Translation:

1) Votive offering Balshillek, the son of Azrubal, 2) brought ... because he heard 3) his voice, blessed him. Text: 1) Pdn 105] hmn wl[tnt pn]

Remarks: The second line is mostly preserved, but difficult to read; CHABOT (sub

2) b*1?8 ndr ‘zrb‘l bn gr“Strt

Punica xviii/ii 379) reads: n$? ykr .. knr',

3) Sm“ qP brk? °qtn

while SZNYCER (sub SPC 84) only reads ] brh (7) kXm*. The reading proposal for line 3 1s CHABOT’S.

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun and to Tinnit Fane 2) Bal, which dedicated Azrubal the son of Gerashtart 3) he heard his voice, blessed him. The small one.

Constantine N 41

Bibliography:

CHABOT,

Punica xviti/1i 66;

SPC 65. Illustration: SPC 65 (photograph).

Remarks: Supposing that the stone-cutter worked from a written order on paper or a wax-tablet, it 1s conceivable that some remark at the end of the order, that did not form part of the text to be cut in stone, found its way onto the stone. ?qt might be a nickname, consisting of the article followed by a substantivized adjective (cf. also KRAH-

Text:

1) ndr ^$ ndr[

2) [ 3) Ib'l[ Translation: |) Votive offering which vowed [

MALKOV (2000, s. v. qtn ), ‘the thin / small

2)

one’). However, as the personal name *qptn is attested in Constantine N 42, it is also conceivable that instead of ¢ one should read pt. Note that a “zrb“! bn gr*3trt also occurs in Constantine N 75.

3) to Bal Constantine N 42

Bibliography: CHABOT, SPC 44; LPE: 47.

Punica xvili/ii 82;

4. Texts from Algeria

210 Illustration: SPC 44 (photograph).

NA

1

yh (71

E

ΑΙ Ψ J pen

ha ok pape nx χίγονν ppt. ΧΙ)

XY

AA Mar] Text: 1) Pdn Ib*l hmn wltn[t]

2) p'n Ὁ °§ ndr ?drb'l bn 3) *bdmlqrt bn *qptn 4) k$m' qP brk°

ἃ i

qQHix py FAM

1) To the lord, to Bal Amun and to the lady Tinnit 2) Fane Bal, votive offering which dedicated [

3)

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun and to Tinnit 2) Fane Bal, which dedicated Adirbal, the son of 3) Abdmelgart, the son of Aqfatan, 4) because he heard his voice, blessed him.

Remarks: SZNYCER (sub SPC 70) does not read the first sign of line 3.

Remarks: The photograph published in SPC gives the impression that the concluding sign of line 1 was forgotten by the stonemason, rather than indistinctly preserved. In the name ’drb‘/ the photograph gives the impression that r was written twice, perhaps to realise the correct number of signs.

332; TPI 223; SPC 82.

Constantine N 43

SPC 70. Illustration: SPC 70 (photograph). Text:

1) Pdn Ib*l hmn wlrbt tnt 2) ρ΄ η΄ [b*1] ndr °§ ndr [ 3) If

Constantine N 44

Bibliography: CHABOT, xviii/ii 103; LIDZBARSKI

Punica xi, 35bis, 1902: 40, 4; RES

Illustration: SPC 82 (photograph). Text: 1) Pdn 105] hmn wltnt p*r? b‘l 2) ndr ^$ ndr τῷ hmyStr 3) bn kn? zbh Sm“ qP 4) brk^ Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun and to Tinnit Fane Bal, 2) votive offering which dedicated Arish the officer, 3) the son of Kinito, he made an offering; he heard his voice 4) blessed him. Remarks: The term mystr, also spelled mstr, occurs several times in Punic texts from Con-

Constantine (Cirta)

211

stantine (EH 41, 78, 79, 81); for the meaning ‘official,’ cf. the literature mentioned in

Illustrations: DE SAuLcy 8470: pl. H; JUDAS 1847a: pl. 24; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf.

DNWSI sub mstr. Note also the abstract noun

xv 4; LIDZBARSKI

mstrt (EH 74, 75, 76) in the combination rb (h)mStrt “the head of the administration.’ Whether these words indicate the notion

ing)

1898:

Taf.

xvi

6 (draw-

of ‘military official/administration’ as has been supposed cannot be deduced from the

meaning of Hebrew Str; a Soter being an ‘administrator,’ whether civilian or not. The space between bnknr and zbh pleads against the reading bn knt ’zbh, as proposed by e.g. SLOUSCHZ, TPI a.l. Constantine N 45

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xviii/i1, 134; SPC 60.

1) Pdn Ib‘! hqd 2) § bym n“m Imlk

Illustration: SPC 60 (photograph).

Translation: 1) To the lord, to the holy Ba2) l, on a pleasant day for Malik.

Text: 1) ndr ^3 ndr y’dr 2) bn ?pt[ ] Sm“ qP Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Yodir, 2) the son of Opt[ ] he heard his voice. Remarks: Several Latin names beginning with Opt- are attested in North Africa, cf. e.g. Optatus/-a, Optatianus/-a, Optantius/a, Optatulus/-a, Optatina, Opta and perhaps

also Optimus/-a. Note, however, also ?pt/nhr in Constantine N 52.

Constantine N 46 Bibliography: DE SAULCY 1847b: JUDAS 1847a: 63; EWALD 1852: Levy 1857: 62; SCHRODER 1869: 11; LipzBAnskKI 1898: 438, 3 Dc;

195-197; 1741-42; 266, nr. CHABOT,

BERTHIER-CHARLIER EH sub 116; FÉVRIER 1967: 63; GARBINI 1974b: 32; GARBINI 1987b: 63; ROSCHINSKI 1988: 620; AMADASI 2002: 109; NP 30.

Remarks: The form of the m in ym being quite different from the one in the alleged n“m, one wonders whether one should not read n‘h, pro wh, also meaning ‘pleasant,’ as SCHRÖDER (1869: 266) and LIDZBARSKI (1898: 438) did. This ἢ looks somewhat like the one in line | (although this first ἢ in the text may turn out to be an ? if ever the original were to be recovered). DUSSAUD (1946: 380 n. 8), and FEvRIER (1967: 63) found in rilk the well-known sacrifice, and ROSCHINSKI (1988: 620) translates line 2: ‘on a favourable day for a mlk-sacrifice,’ with some hesitance also accepted by AMADASI (2002: 109), cf. also KRAHMALKOV

(2000, s.v. m/k,.). Such a translation leaves the text without a dedicant, which is possible but less probable. Moreover, the construction bym n“m I- followed by a personal name is also found in EH 116B, where text 116A indicates that mgn cannot be anything other than a personal name: ym n*m hym z Imgn. CHARLIER (1953: 18), BERTHIER-CHARLIER (sub EH 116) therefore opted for the translation given above, cf. also FERJAOUI (1994:

4. Texts from Algeria

212

11). Compare also bym n*m wbrk lygw[rty]

Translation:

in Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi N 1. For bym n*m

1) This gift of Mutunbal, the son of Shafot 2)

wbrk, cf. the remark sub Teboursouk N

1.

Remarks: FÉVRIER (1967: 63) translates line 2: ‘mercifully he has granted him (rather

Constantine N 47 Bibliography: SCHRÓDER

1869: 263, xxviii.

than: he will grant him) a favour.' nm is a late spelling of n“m, and yrhm he explains as a perf. yiphil of the root rhm. CHABOT

Text: 1) Pdn 105] ?mn ndr °§ 2) ndr hmlk bn bd'strt 3) [b]n *bdmlqrt Sm“ ql? 4) brk?

ybldlrhmhnm. Constantine N 50

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, votive offering

which 2) vowed Imilk, the son of Bodashtart,

3) the son of Abdmelqart, he heard his voice 4) blessed him.

Bibliography:

FEVRIER

1953a,

161-167;

VAN DEN BRANDEN 1972: 195-200 (cf. GARBINI 1974b: 32; GARBINI 1987b: 66); FERRON-AUBET 1974: 153 n. 198; JONGELING 1989b: 127-134; KAI 162; LPE: 47. Illustrations: JoNGELING 1989b: 134 (drawing); FÉvRIER 1953a: pl. I; ΚΑΙ, Taf. xxix (photograph).

Constantine N 48

NP 131; RES 1934. Text: 1) Pdn [05] hmn ndr °§ ndr 2) mtnb‘l bn yS8d? K? 8n? 3) qP wbrk°

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering which dedicated 2) Mutunbal, the son of Yashdo, because he heard 3) his voice and blessed him.

a,

He 3uy oppaenVx er WormPp [5 TT

Constantine N 49

FÉVRIER

1967: 63—64; GARBINI

Text: 1) hmtnt st $ mtnb‘l bn Spt 2) yrhmh nm

WA

"Δὲ 4 wee EG fen x y Ne “| X fL

RT

1987b: 65.

Ἵς

SEO

M

APR xi. ἢ

NOV ad

7 ALR

Avy dr

213

Constantine (Cirta)

Text: 1) Igd??dn rzn b'] hmn pl “bdk$r bl 2) bt tmt bsmh t[ ]spt bs°rm

The whole of lines 2 to 5 he translates ‘in exchange for a sprout of ..., in exchange for her flesh (i.e. her child). To the pleasant god and his Beloved, to the holy Lady. Certainly she (i.e. the deity) has agreed to the prayer; she has made her (i.e. the lady who supposedly placed this votive monument) pregnant with a descendent for her, in exchange for a cursed offspring. She has engraved (?) with beauty (?) the basins, that will be for her (i.e. the deity) a magnificent perfection (?).' Also the interpretation of the use of the preposition b seems uncertain. The reading and translation of lines 3 and following presented by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v.

3) Plm nmm wmhb/d/rt? Iqd&t

4) Ἢ °P ?tplt *brtm nn 1" btrbt 5) $ qlt thIqn't bnm btt ^3

6) Ikn P t*mt drt

Translation: 1) To Gidde, the lord, prince of Bal Amun, made (it) Abdkasher, citizen of 2) Bat Tamet ...

3) to the pleasant gods, and to ... for the holiness 4) .. 5) 6) to be for him a mighty ... Remarks:

GARBINI

hbb resp. ?tm;, n°mt,, “δά, qny,), Plm n*tmm

1974b correctly rejects

the translations of VAN DEN BRANDEN 1972 and FERRON-AUBET

1974 as untenable.

In

line 1 and the beginning of line 2, FÉVRIER (1953a: 162) read Py? ?dnb..t δε] hmn bl *dr bsrbl b't mn, translating ‘To ... the lord .. Baal Hammon Baal Addir, Bissarba‘al, daughter of Tamn.’ However, the reading is partly influenced by FEvRIER’s combination of this text with the following one, where he supposed to be able to read ?y?. We have discussed the problems of this first line in

JoNGELING

wimhbt ?l gd3t ?p ?tm ?tplt *bdtm tn P btrbt 3qlt th lqmt bnm bnt ?3 [kn P n*mt ?drt, ‘to/for the good gods and to/for the holy beloved one(s) of God/Il. You grant «her» supplication. Give her some weighed-out increase. Permit/enable her to bear sons, and daughters who shall be a great satisfaction to her’ (cf. also id., s.v. 3ql;, tplt, trbt Sqlt ), is, especially as far as the translation 15 concerned, highly speculative and not convincing, while the reading is also insecure. Constantine N 51

1989b. In the rest of line two

only the words bsmh and b3?rm seem reasonably certain, as far as the reading is concerned. smh may be the same as the Hebrew word meaning ‘sprout,’ and rm a word similar to Hebrew §?r, ‘flesh,’ as supposed

by FÉvRiER. In the following line only the third word remains uncertain. FÉVRIER read wImhbld/rP. However, no trace of the sup-

Bibliography: KAI 163. Illustrations:

FÉvRIER

FEVRIER

1953a:

1953a:

Text:

1) ^tm t&k? kntm Itt P y? bl 2) *bmsbt br? ’Im bd'&trt

3) d/&l trbt $ qlt kbl P bsmh $’rm 4) k^? bit t*wyt bt[ ]k/m? If

read £. Although FÉvRIER's reading of the

5) Pdm n°m ?sml[

λεκάνη, ‘basin,’ to explain /gn’t in line 5.

pl. n; ΚΑ]

(photograph)

posed / seems to be extant, while the sign tentatively read as w, is also very doubtful, and with some good will one may also rest of the text is very well possible, the interpretation remains uncertain. FÉVRIER needs succour from the infrequent and not quite certain Hebrew verb ’wr to explain ?P ın line 4 (1953a: 163) and from Greek

161-167;

Remarks: lt is impossible to give any coherent translation of this difficult text, as it deviates considerably from the customary formulae. Some words and names are discernable. At the end of line 1: 5*/ *Bal;' at

214

4. Texts from Algeria

————

7L yel

A) A

pin

ὌΝ ἢν ΩΝ A

mar

KY

POT

ax f£

In line 3 the reading of the word smh 1s certain, the rest remains debatable. KRAHMALKov (2000, s. v. kn;, cf. also smh), reads line 1-3 as ’tm t$ I? kntm [tt Py?bel ^bmsrt bi? ?lm bd'trt dl trbt Sqlt k bl P bsmh rm, translating ‘You should be ashamed (?), for you were to place /’y’b“! under the protection of the gods. Bostar (? ’y’b‘I 's mother) is without weighed out increase [offspring], because she has no scion of her own flesh' (cf. also id., s. v. Pr, Sql., trbt Sqit ). With

reason, KRAHMALKOV notes that the translation is problematic, as this explanation results in a text which one cannot suppose to have ever been inscribed as a votive text.

the beginning of line 2: msbt ‘stele,’ in which word the assimilation of the n must be noted; at the end of line 2: bd‘Strt

' Bodastart;' at the end of line 3: Sm ‘progeny;' in line 4: bst ‘in the year of;’ in line 5

n*m ‘pleasant.’ FÉvRIER (1953a: 166-167) ?tm δἰ kntm Itt Py? bel ?*bmsbt bm ?Im bd*strt dis! trbt $ git kbl P bsmh rm, translating "Tuscus has fulfilled his proclamation (? i.e. his promise ?) by giving to ^y? Ba'al, through the stela, his mute son Bod'astart, belonging to a cursed (or: disgraceful ?)) offspring, as an offering for him (i.e. the god), in exchange for the offspring of his flesh.' The

first problem with this interpretation is the reading of some words. In line ] one rather should read ?t/nm tk pkt/nm Itt P y? bil. Apart from the reading of the third word, the space between P and y! may very well be intentional. Perhaps one should explain y? bl as ‘O Bal,’ which means that the preced-

Id., s. v. bL, reads bd*'strt dl trbt Sqlt k bl P bsmh &rm in lines 2-3, translating ' Bostar is without weighed out interest, because he/

she has no offspring of his/her own flesh,’ which is possible as far as the reading 1s concerned (apart from the uncertain d in dl). The interpretation nonetheless seems farfetched. We only would point out that it is highly improbable that a preposition dl, meaning *without,' exists in Phoenico-Punic.

KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. ?tm;), proposes to read ?tm t3? k? kntm Itt Py?berl ?bmsrt br’ ?lm in lines 1-2. He translates, *you all should be ...ed, because you were to place Py?brl under the protection of the gods,' remarking, however, that this translation is problematic, which is certainly an understatement. Constantine N 52 Bibliography: EH 10.

ing || (if this is the correct reading) could be for ‘to give to him.” However, the rest remains obscure to us. The reading of line 2

Text:

is acceptable and the words msbr and bd'strt

2) Spt bn ?pt/nhr

are acceptable as 'stele,' and the well-known personal name. The translation ‘his mute

4) brk?

1) Pdn 105] ?dr ndr 3) tSm* qP

son’ for bi 21m, however, seems less certain.

In the direct proximity of msbt the following

Translation:

bi? may very well be a form of the verb bny,

1) To the lord, to Bal Addir vowed

‘to build’ (cf. e.g. Hr. Drombi N 1, 1-2: mnsbt m? b*m). The first sign of line 3 does not look like d, while also $ ıs less probable.

2) Shafot, the son of Oftar 3) may you hear his voice, 4) he blessed him.

Constantine (Cirta)

Remarks: BERTHIER-CHARLIER (sub EH 10)

read ’pr/nh at the end of line 2 and remark that there is room for a Neo-Punic r following /l. For the combination of perfect and imperfect in the concluding formula, cf. 6. g. JoNGELING 1999.

215

Translation: 1) To Bal and to Tinnit Fane Bal and dhrnm 2) vowed Olash, the son of Kalbo, in the year of $rm and Shallum 3) may you bless him ... Remarks: dhrnm as name of a deity is still

Constantine N 53 Bibliography: EH 11. Text: 1) Pdn Ib'l 2) "dr ndr 3 3) °$Im bn s/gl 4) *[ P

an enigma, but the interpretation of

FEVRIER

(1953a: 165; id. 1955-1956: 155): dhrnm = dr, ‘family’ + suff. 3 p. pl., ‘their family’ standing for ‘their offspring’ is not easily accepted. Because dhrnm is not preceded by the preposition /, this word does not seem to be on the same level as /b'l wltnt; cf. also d‘/hrm in the next inscription. It is con-

ceivable that dhrnm is an epithet of Tinnit, combined with the preceding eptithet by w,

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal 2) Adir, vow of 3) Ashlam, the son of .. 4) .. Remarks: BERTHIER-CHARLIER (sub EH 11) suppose that 3? in line 2-3 is a form of the demonstrative and the object of the verbal form ndr in line 2: ‘Sallum has vowed this

while d‘/Arm in the next text is preceded by the preposition / because it refers to another deity (perhaps Tinnit) than the preceding b‘/.

The name ?/'$/?/m, if read as "3, might be related to 7/3? (CIS 3546). For 7/8? and related names, see BENZ (1972: 379), who remarks upon the name element 4/3 that, although it 1s unexplained, it can be compared to the wellknown name Elissa.

(?).' One wonders whether 3?$/nmi can be a per-

Constantine N 55

sonal name: ‘to the lord Shoshlam vowed,’ which would result in the same syntax as in text N 52. However, the easiest solution is

Bibliography: EH 23.

probably to explain mdr as a noun and ὃ at the

Text:

end of line 2 as the nota relationis and then take ’$/mı as a personal name.

2) mtnb‘l [05] wId“Ihrm

1) ndr °§ ndr hbd$ bn 3) bri? w8m??t qP

Constantine N 54

Bibliography: FÉvRIER 1955-1956: 155; EH 21; LPE: 47.

Illustration: EH pl. viD (photograph). Text:

1) Ib“ [w]ltnt pé? b'l wdhrnm 2) ndr ’I%$//m bn klb? bit $rm wSlm 3) tbrky? msy? Ἵ tt“ wmbdnm

Translation: 1) Votive ofering which dedicated Abdes, the son of 2) Mutunbal to Bal and to d*/hrnm 3) he blessed him and he heard his voice. Remarks: hbd$ might be an abbreviation of the name Abdeshmun, in which the first pharyngeal is lost and the first vowel /a/ is indicated by h, note, however, that BERTHIERCHARLIER (sub EH 23) prefer the reading

4. Texts from Algeria

216

s. d'Ihrm is possibly related to dhrnm in the

preceding inscription, cf. the remark a.l. Constantine N 56

Text: 1) Pdn [105] hmn ml]k °dm bs 2) ‘rm btm °§ ndr hmlkt 3) hkhn bn *bdmiqrt Κ᾽ 4) Sm“ qP brk?

Bibliography: EH 24; KAI 164. Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, the sacrifice of

Illustration: EH pl. xviB.

a human being, instead of his chText: 1) Pdn 105] hmn wirb’t tynt pr? [b°1] 2) ndr ^3 ndP *kbrt bt html[ ] 3) Ihgw 5m“ qlm brkm

2) ild in completeness, which dedicated Imilco 3) the priest, the son of Abdmelgart,

because 4) he heard his voice, blessed him.

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun and to the lady Tinnit Fane Bal 2) votive offering which dedicated Akbarat,

the daughter of hrml/ 3) ... he heard her voice, blessed her. Remarks: BERTHIER-CHARLIER (sub EH 24) translate /hgw by ‘for the community; this interpretation is also accepted by RÖLLIG (sub ΚΑΙ 164); cf. also KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. gw), who reads *J//lhgw, ‘on behalf of the community.’ The reading of the h, however, being highly uncertain, and the context rather pointing to a personal vow than one related to the community, this interpretation

Remarks: The expression milk ?dm, together

with the parallel expressions mik b“l and milk ?mr which are only attested in Punic texts, has brought about an extensive discussion. For older explanations, cf. e.g. CHARLIER (1953: 5—6), who in a lengthy discussion (ibid. 21-27) maintains the view that mlk

’dm means ‘the King of Man(kind)' i.e. ‘of the people.' However, there is every reason to believe that m/k is a sacrificial term, with an indication of the object sacrificed following. The etymology of this term 15 also still under discussion. DUSSAUD (1946: 375) thinks of a derivation from the root mlk, *possession,' indicating that the object

seems to be unlikely. If correct, this is one of

sacrificed is the possession of the god. Oth-

the few examples of the article expressed by h following one of the proclitic prepositions,

ers, cf. e.g. GARBINI (1994: 70), suppose mlk to be a derivation of the root ylk/hik (part yuphal), something like ‘what is send on its way.’ In this text, and the next two, it seems that a substitute sacrifice is described in which a human being is offered to favour the health of the child of the dedicant. For the discussion on this type of texts, cf. e.g. EISSFELDT (1935), FEVRIER (1953c, 1955b), ISRAEL (1990), GARBINI (1994: 70-72), AMADASI (2002), LiPINSKI (2002), cf. also BROWN (1991) and further DNWSI s. v. mlk;,

a feature especially attested in late Punic texts. The reading of the name *kbrt remains uncertain, as for both 5 and r the short stroke is used that can be interpreted as b/d/r. The last sign of the name may be t or n. html[ may be completed as html[k or html[qrt, of course, but the element hr remains obscure. Constantine N 57 Bibliography: CHARLIER Illustration: EH pl. 118.

1953: 17; EH 29.

LIPINSKI in DCPP, s. v. molk.

217

Constantine (Cirta)

tion of the journal (Karthago iv, 1953, 49, cf. also BERTHIER-CHARLIER sub EH 28). bsrm is explained by most scholars as the noun bir, ‘flesh,’ followed by the suffixed

Constantine N 58

Bibliography: EH 30.

of the 3"d person singular, cf. e.g. RÖLLIG

Illustration: EH pl. ivD.

ony

M

|

pop) »

xix AN

(sub KA/ 79, 104), ROSCHINSKI (1988: 607). FÉVRIER (1953c: 9-16, 1955b: 54, 56), however, supposed that br should be explained as the preposition 5 followed by a form of the noun S’r, ‘flesh,’ b$rm meaning ‘in exchange for his offspring.' The overwhelming number of texts which spell bsr, or, less frequently, bX^rm, compared to the very few times bXrm is written, is in favour of the

former

interpretation,

cf. also

EISSFELDT

(1935: 13-14), who (in n. 60) specifically chooses for br and against $’r. Others have thought of a derivation of the root bsr, ‘to

rejoice,’ cf. e.g. C/S sub 3822 and LIPINSKI Text:

1) Pdn Ib‘l hmn mik 2) ’dm bsrm btm °§ 3) ndr mtnb‘l bn mbt k $m

4)" qP bri? Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, the sacrifice of 2) a human being, instead of his child in completeness, which 3) Mutunbal, the son of mbt, vowed because he hea4) rd his voice, blessed him. Remarks: The expression b3rm btm, which is also attested in Constantine N 57, 59 (b3*rm btm), 60, 89, and perhaps in Hr. Kasbat N | (bX[ ]b*tm), apart from several attestations in Punic texts, has been differently explained. The older explanation as preposition 5 followed y a nomen geog! aphicum as advo100) was abandoned by the same author in his comment on C/S 3822. CHARLIER (1953: 6, 30-48) in a lengthy comment tries to uphold this view, but at the end of his study it is correctly refuted in a note of the redac-

(1975: 252), which also seems a possible solution. btm is probably the same expres-

sion as the btm used in building inscriptions, where it means ‘at his own expense.’ In this text btm, originally meaning ‘in completeness,’ may indicate the completeness of the gift to the god, i.e. without holding back anything, or, otherwise, completeness in the sense that the sacrifice presented to the god was not in any way blemished. ROSCHINSKI (1988: 608) supposes that btm indicates that the sacrifice was brought in the correct way. Note the Punic form of ἢ in the first line, the use of a small vertical stroke for * and m, while b in lines 2 and 3 has a form similar to * in most other texts. Constantine N 59 Bibliography: EH 36.

Illustration: EH pl. ıvB. Text: 1) Pdn 105] hmn ndr ^3 ndr 2) τῷ bn ?dnb'l bn *nzr mlk 3) ?dm b&'rm btm k? &m* qP brk?

218

\

4. Texts from Algeria

KYL

7 ey

PY

NORE

N

T

NID UTA

2) vowed Akbaras the son of Ammon3) 10s, instead of his child in completeness, because 4) he heard his voice, blessed him. Constantine N 61

474 799%) χὰ

Bibliography: EH 66.

Illustration: EH pl. xıvB.

Translation:

1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering, which dedicated 2) Arish, the son of Adonibal, the son of Anzar, the sacrifice of 3) a human being, instead of his child in completeness, because he heard his voice, blessed him.

Text: 1) Pdn Ib*l hmn ndr ?[3 ndr] 2) *bd?$mn hrb hk‘n b[n]

3) *bdmlgqrt t$m* qP bri? Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering which dedicated

Constantine N 60

2) AbdeSmun the high-priest, the son of

Bibliography: EH 49.

3) Abdmelqart, may you hear his voice, he blessed him.

Illustration: EH pl. viC.

^y à y) 4) open!

δὰ A qj y

D ADS,i" 1) 2) 3) 4)

Pdn ndr yw& Sm“

Ib‘! hmn ndr 3 ?kbrs bn ^mn birm btm Κ᾿ qP brk?

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering which

Remarks: hrb hk‘n for ‘the high-priest’ is strange syntax, even for Late Punic. The expression must be compared to rb /ik*n in the Punic text EH 65 and rb khn in CIS 244. One must suppose that /ik^n is used as an apposition to Arb. Constantine N 62 Bibliography: EH 72. Illustration: EH pl. xivD. Text: 1) Pdn 105] hmn °§ ndr 2) hmlkt bn hmlky hk‘nt 3) k$m* qP brl? Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, which dedicated 2) Imilco, the son of Imilke, the priestess, 3) because he heard his voice, blessed him.

Constantine (Cirta)

219

2) ndr bb‘lytn hspr 3t bp/k 3) s Sm“ qP brl?

Constantine N 63

Bibliography: EH 73. Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun which 2) vowed Baliaton, the scribe, the year of bp3) δ΄, he heard his voice blessed him.

Text: 1) ndr ^$ ndr mlkytn bn 2) hmlkt bn b‘l Sm‘ 3) qr Translation:

1) Votive offering which dedicated Milkyaton, the son of 2) Imilco, the son of Bal, he heard 3) his voice. Constantine N 64

Remarks: Between ? $ at the end of line | there is a small sign, b/d/r, which seems to have no function in the text. The name bb‘/ytn is probably a mistake for b‘/ytn. Note that the two preceding signs, dr, are also of the shortened type commonly found in Neo-Punic script. So, instead of three short strokes, the

Bibliography: FEVRIER 1955-1956; EH 84. Text:

1) Pdn I{b‘l] hmn [ndr] 2) °§ ndr mgn bn "d

3) nb'l rb hmkrm k? [8m*] 4) qP br? Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering 2) which dedicated Magon, the son of Ado3) nibal, the head of the mikrm, because he heard 4) his voiced, blessed him.

stonemason wrote four strokes of this type. The word following 3t is explained as a personal name by BERTHIER-CHARLIER (sub EH 90). One wonders, however, whether it is possible to explain ¥ as the nota relationis, and tbp/ks* as a personal name. Baliton, in that case, would be the client of tbp/Ks* (cf. e. g. Ain Zakkar N 1); otherwise one would perhaps expect a genealogy. Constantine N 66

Bibliographv: EH 91. Text: 1) Pdn [05] hmn ndr

Remarks:

GARBINI

(1968:

17) reads mgnm

instead of mkrm, rb hmgnm being ‘the head of the family of the Magonids.’ FÉVRIER (1955-156, 157) translates mkrm as merchants (a pl. part. qal of mkr), which seems to be the more attractive solution. Note, however, that the plural form mgnm is possibly attested elsewhere (cf. Kélibia N 1).

2) °§ ndr *bd'$mn bn 3) zrb‘l hspr k ám: 4) qP brk'[ Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering 2) which dedicated Abdeshmun, the son of 3) Azrubal, the scribe, because he heard

4) his voice, he blessed him. Constantine N 65 Constantine N 67 Bibliography: EH 90. Bibliography: EH 96. Text: 1) Pdn 105] hmn Ἵ ]S

Text: 1) ndr °§ ndr b‘lytn ’ngr

4. Texts from Algeria

220

Text: 1) dn [06] hmn ndr °§ ndr Spt 2) htmy? *$ bgd/r/bgs/zn/t k* Sm“ qP

2) bn ba’strt & Ins

3) [k]8{m*] qP

3) bri?

Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Baliton the carpenter, 2) the son of Bodashtart, of Lanash, 3) because he heard his voice.

Remarks:

Whether

Lanash

is indeed

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering

which dedicated Shafot an

indigenous name, as supposed by BERTHIERCHARLIER (sub EH 96) uncertain. In case the

nota relationis should indicate the clientship of Baliton, one would not expect to find the name of the father of Baliton mentioned. It

is also conceivable that S/‘n®¥ is an epithet of Bodashtart consisting of the nota relationis X followed by the preposition /, and completed

with an unknown word or name !n°$, (of which the first ^ may be the article). Constantine N 68 Bibliography: EH 98. Text:

2) the chief who is in Gargasan, because he heard his voice 3) blessed him. Remarks: Since the reading -sn for the last two signs in the enigmatic bed/r/bgs/zni/t is possible, and the relationship between people is sometimes expressed by the preposition §, while further the ending /-san/ is rather frequent in Libyan personal names, one wonders whether one should not translate: ‘Shafot, the chief, the client of Bagargasan.’ Note that people who are described as other people’s clients normally do not mention their father’s name, as in this inscription. On the other hand, one may suppose there is a contradiction in Shafot being both a chief and someone’s client.

1) n/tn/t[ ] 2) mlqrt hs? 3) * k’ Sm“ qP b[rk] 4)? ym nm Translation: 1) ... [Abd2) melqart, the s’3) * because he heard his voice, blessed

Constantine N 70 Bibliography: EH 241. Text:

1) ndr °§ ndr “bd‘Strt 2) [b]n * Ib*I ?dr wsd/b/r3/z*l 3) ? brk Ipn SIb/d/r ws[ ]

4) him, a pleasant day. Remarks: One or two lines are lost before the first, incompletely preserved, line. s?* (reading correct? the repetition of ? may be the result of dittography?) might be the indication of a function, or something like it, but remains without accepted explanation. Constantine N 69

Bibliography: EH 104

Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Abdashtart

2) the son of * to Bal Addir ..... 3) ...... Remarks: BERTHIER-CHARLIER (sub EH 241) suppose * to be a personal name. If the reading is correct, it is rather an abbreviated name than a complete one. One might think of a frequently occurring Libyan name like ’ykn“. As the editors remark one would

22]

Constantine (Cirta)

expect wm‘ following Bal Addir and the first two signs being ws while the last letter in this line combined with the ? at the beginning of line 3 seem to represent [q]P, we suppose that at least /b*] ?dr wsm* qP was meant, if not actually written. The next word, brk, strengthens this explanation even though what then follows is not completely clear. We suppose that the meaning must be something like: ‘he was blessed in the presence of Sh..'

Text: 1) Pdn I[b]*] hmn °§ 2) ndr “bdmlart bn *[r]§

3) t$m* qP brk? Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun which 2) vowed Abdmelaart, the son of Arish 3) may you hear his voice, he blessed him. Constantine N 73

Constantine N 71

Bibliography: EH 268.

Bibliography: EH 263.

Text:

Text: 1) hmlkt bn bn

1) Pdn Ib[*l ] 2) *bdmiqrt[ ]

3) m‘ qP bf ]

2) knt mrqh Translation: 1) Imilco, the son of {the son of} 2) Kinit «the son of> Marcus. Remarks: It is improbable that bn bn 1s to be translated as ‘grandson,’ as BERTHIERCHARLIER (sub EH 263) did. The text meant was: hmlkt bn knt bn mrqh; when the stonemason found he made a mistake in line 1, by forgetting to insert the name Kf, he just chiselled out the remaining name to complete his text. The resulting text then had the correct number of signs, and the lapicide was controlled most probably by means of this count, cf. e.g. JoNGELING 1996a. If this reasoning is correct, this is possibly

Translation: 1) To the lord to B[al 2) Abdmelqart[ 3) he heard his voice blessed him. Constantine N 74

Bibliography: HoRN-RÜGER 269. Illustration: HORN-RÜGER 100,1.

1979: 566; EH

1979: 567, Taf.

Text: 1) Pdn Ib‘! hmn °§ ndr 2) msbl“In bn ttyp‘! bn °rsm 3) bn mtll Sm“ qP brk?

an example of the use of ἢ to indicate the ending -us of Latin names, when rendered in Punic. Compare perhaps also the variation kyn? — kynh, and cf. onomasticon a.l. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. mrqh), avoiding the problem, reads hmlkt bn knt mrqh, and translates the last word as ‘ointment-mixer (perfumer),' which seems less probable.

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun which dedicated 2) msbl'In, the son of Tatifal, the son of Arisham, 3) the son of mtll, he heard his voice blessed him. Remarks:

BERTHIER-CHARLIER

(sub

EH

Constantine N 72

269) read the first name in line 2 as mzbl“In.

Bibliography: EH 267.

According to the edition of this text in HORNRÜGER (1979: 567), the reading msbl'In 1s

222

4. Texts from Algeria

certain. Regrettably, the photograph of this text is indistinct. BERTHIER-CHARLIER read the second name in line 2 as tfp‘l. How-

Constantine N 77 Bibliography: EH 2772.

ever, the reading proposed in HORN-RUGER (1979: 567), seems to be correct.

Text:

Constantine N 75

2) b'Ihn? bn yr bn 3) pn/tn Kk? 5m“ qP brk?

1) Idn Ib“] hmn ndr °§ ndr

Bibliography: EH 270. Text: 1) Pdn [0] hmn wltnt 2) pr? Ὁ °§ ndr ‘zrb‘l

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun votive offering which dedicated 2) Balanno, the son of yr, the son of

3) bn gr'strt k Sm“

3) pnn, because he heard his voice, blessed

4) qP brk?

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun and to Tinnit 2) Fane Bal which dedicated Azrubal 3) the son of Gerashtart, because he heard 4) his voice, blessed him. Remarks: Some signs in this text have a Punic form, others are Neo-Punic. Note that a “zrb“l bn gr*Xtrt occurs also in Constantine N 39. Constantine N 76

Bibliography: EH 271. Text: 1) Pdn Ib“] hmn wirbtn tnt 2) pr? bl ndr ^$ ndr hr? 3) bn b'Ihn? mn k$m* qP

him. Constantine N 78

Bibliography: EH 273. Text:

1) Pdn 181 hmn ndr 2) hmlkt bn ?rstn k? ἔπη: 3) qP wbrk? Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, votive offering of 2) Imilco, the son of Arishtan, because he heard 3) his voice and blessed him. Remarks: See the remark in the onomasticon

S. v. ?rStn. Constantine N 79

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun and to our lady Tinnit 2) Fane Bal which dedicated Anno 3) the son of Balanno, ... because he heard his voice.

Bibliography: EH 2774. Text: 1) Pdn Ib*l hmn wirbt tnt pn Ὁ“ ndr

2) °§ ndr *bdmlqrt bn ?dnb'l bn *z'y 3) k’ Sm’ qP brk?

Remarks: The two letters nm in line 3 remain

without explanation. Perhaps the enigmatic mn in Constantine N 82 should be compared. Note also the absence of an expected br&.

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun and to the lady

Tinnit Fane Bal, votive offering

Constantine (Cirta)

2) which dedicated Abdmelgart, the son of Adonibal, the son of Ozay, 3) because he heard his voice, blessed him.. Remarks: See the remark in the onomasticon

S. V. *z^y.

Constantine N 80 Bibliography: EH 275. Text: 1) Pdn [05] hmn ndr 2) $ ndr *dnb‘l bn “bdmiqrt 3) k Sm“ qP brk? Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun, votive offering 2) which dedicated Adonibal, the son of

Abdmelgart,

223

3) ^$ ndr b‘l mn 4) ?pl tám? ql? Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, 2) and to Tinnit Fane Bal 3) which dedicated Bal .. 4) ... may you hear his voice. Remarks: BERTHIER-CHARLIER (sub EH 277) note that the reading b‘/mn ’plt, * Balmn/t, the plt,’ is possible, but without an explanation for pit. And a personal name b‘/mn is unattested. Therefore this solution remains uncertain. Cf. also FUENTES ESTANOL (1980: 87), who notes ?p/ as a word of uncertain meaning. Another solution might be to suppose a mistake of the stonemason, writing mn at the

end of line 3 instead of bn. In that case ?plt or

3) because he heard his voice, blessed him.

?pl is an otherwise unknown personal name, which perhaps could be compared to rpl yl".

Constantine N 81

Constantine N 83

Bibliography: EH 276.

Bibliography: EH 2778.

Text: 1) Pdn *bd'Strt bn °psn 2) [05] hmn Sm“ q 3)P

Text: 1) Pdn Ib'l 2) hmn ndr 3) °§ ndr?

4) psnh Translation: 1) To the lord, Abdashtart, the son of Apshan,

2) to Bal Amun, he heard his v3) oice. Remarks: Note that the normal word order used in texts of this type is confused here.

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal 2) Amun, votive offering 3) which dedicated A4) fsan .. Remarks: For ’psn, cf. the remark in the onomasticon.

Constantine N 82 Constantine N 84

Bibliography: EH 277. Bibliography: EH 279 Text:

1) Pdn 105] hmn 2) witnt p*r? bel

Text: 1) Pdn [05] hmn ndr ἢ ndr

2)

4. Texts from Algeria

224 Translation:

1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering which dedicated

2) the son of Imilco, the son of Mutun, he blessed him 3) and heard his voice.

2) Remarks: LIDZBARSKI (1902: 41; cf. also e.g. SLOUSCHZ, ΤΡ] a.l.) reads the name at

Constantine N 85

the end of line 1 as y/k& and m[t]n instead Bibliography: EH 280.

of mtn in line 2. Note the use of A in this text

Text:

for /a/ in Ihan and bhrk, while in Xm it 1s either used to render the vowel /o/ or due to

1) Pdn [05] hmn ndr

hypercorrect spelling.

2) Constantine N 88

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal Amun, votive offering

Bibliography:

2)

337; TPI 236; SPC 124; ARN: 122, nr 112.

LiDZBARSKI

1902:

Constantine N 86

Illustration: SPC (photograph).

124; ARN:

122,

42; RES

nr

112

Bibliography: EH 281. Text: 1) Pdn Ib‘l hmn ndr °§ ndr 2) mtnb‘l bn *nzr t$mh qP 3) brk? bhm$ Imlky

Text: 1) [bn] hmlkt rb hsprm 2)bs Translation: 1) son of Imilco the head of the scribes; 2)bs Remarks: b s most probably is an abbreviation of which the meaning remains obscure. Constantine N 87

Bibliography: LipzBARSKI 340; TPI 232; SPC 81;

1902:

41; RES

Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun votive offering which dedicated 2) Mutunbal, the son of Anzar, you hear his voice 3) bless him, in the fifth (year) of his reign. Remarks: For the combination of imperfect and perfect in the concluding formula, cf. e. g. JoNGELING 1999, Constantine N 89

Illustration: SPC 81 (photograph). Bibliography: Text:

LipzBARSKI

1902:

333; TPI 231; SPC 125.

1) Ihdn [05] hmn "ὃ ndr y“lmk 2) bn hmlkt bn mtn bhrk? 3) wSmh qP Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal Amun what dedicated ySlmk

Illustration: SPC 125 (photograph). Text: 1) ndr ^3 ndr hnb'l bn b'lhn? 2) [05] hmn bsrm btm Κ᾿ 3) br? $m* 4}

41; RES

225

Dellys (Rusuccuru) Translation: 1) Votive offering which dedicated Annobal, the son of Balanno 2) to Bal Amun instead of his child in completeness, because 3) he blessed him, heard his voice.

[oy 7), fog! n 99

MALAM

Bibliography: HoRN-RÜGER

1979: 564.

Illustrations: HoRN-RÜGER 99.2 (photograph).

1979: 565, Taf.

Text: illegible. Remarks:

Only the lower right half of the

stele has been preserved, on which the beginnings of four lines of text are to be found. Of the first lines only a few signs seem to be preserved, while of the fourth line perhaps three-quarters may be extant, however, we are unable to read any of these signs. [Constantine NP 86 This text has been classified as NP 86, although the character of the script is clearly Punic, not Neo-Punic. For the sake of completeness we present the text below. Bibliography: JuDAS 1858; EwALD 1858; Levy 1859; JUDAS 1860-1861: 41-48; Lev v 1864a: 72; BLAU 1864: 638—639; CHABOT, Punica xviii/1 31; SCHRODER 1869: 204, n. 1, 267, nr. 18; AMADAS!I 2002: 109-110; NP 86.

2j

$54

153 XR 25 X7

Remarks: For bXrm btm, see the remark sub Constantine N 58. Constantine N 90

24,0) x5 Y

' 2) 3) 4) 5)

dn Itnt p*n? b* 1 SImty ^t ndr y ’nk hn’ bmly kt

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal and to the lo2) rd to Tinnit Fane Ba3) 1, I have fulfilled my vo4) w, 1 Anno, as rily

5) kt Remarks: Note the incorrect use of ?dn (spelled *dn) also for the female deity Tinnit, or was perhaps ‘dt meant ? This is one of the few texts of this type in which the dedicant refers to himself by means of a pronoun of the 1° sg. The word(s) following /u? in line 4 were read as b[n] mlykt by CHABOT (sub Punica xviii/1 31), cf. however AMADASI (2002: 109), who supposes bmlykt to be somehow a variant of the expression bmlk, attested frequently elsewhere. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. $/m;) reads b[n] mlydt, son of mlydt].

Dellys (Rusuccuru)

Illustrations: LEVY 1859; JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 1, 1; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xiv, ὃ (drawing).

Dellys N 1 Bibliography: DussauD

Text: 1) Pdn Ib*l hmn wF*

Illustrations: DUSSAUD 1917: 162, LAPORTE 1995: 2257 (drawing).

1917: 161-163.

226

4. Texts from Algeria

Gouraya (Gunugu) pottery marks Gouraya N 1 Bibliography: RES 1979. Text:

1)? Gouraya N 2 Bibliography: RES 1980. Text: 1) gt

Gouraya N 3

Bibliography: RES 1981. Text: 1) ks Text:

Gouraya N 4

1) hmtb'l bt g* 2) rgm tn? I by]

Bibliography: RES 1982.

3)?th[ 4) t/nS$tmglt[ 5) bg[ J/m'zr[

Text: 1) hm

Translation:

Gouraya N 5

1) Amotbal, the daughter of Ga-

2) rgam erected (it) for [her father 3) .. 5) Remarks: As DussAubD (1917: 162) remarked, one would expect the age of the deceased somewhere in the lines 4 or 5, but it seems impossible to give such an interpre-

Bibliography: RES 1983. Text: Ih Gouraya N 6

tation of the legible signs. With DussAUD,

Bibliography: RES 1984.

one may suppose that line 3 contained the remark ‘this stele’ or, more probably, ‘this stone,’ reading in line 2-3 ΡΥ} t h[bn st].

Text: 1) Smts/k Gouraya N 7 Bibliography: RES 1985.

Gouraya (Gunugu) pottery marks Text:

Text:

1)?

l)w

Gouraya N 8

Gouraya N 15

Bibliography: RES 1986.

Bibliography: RES 1992.

Text: 1) t/ng

Text:

Gouraya N 9

Gouraya N 16

Bibliography: RES 1987.

Bibliographv: RES 1993.

Text:

Text:

1) zbygys

1)?

Gouraya N 10

Gouraya N 17

Bibliography: RES 1988.

Bibliography: RES 1994.

Text:

Text:

1)?

1) mrzy

Gouraya N 11

Gouraya N 18

Bibliography: RES \98bis.

Bibliography: RES 1995.

Text:

1)?

Text: 1) gns

Gouraya N 12

Gouraya N 19

Bibliography: RES 1989.

Bibliography: RES 1996.

Text: 1) mgws

Text:

Gouraya N 13

Gouraya N 20

Bibliography: RES 1990.

Bibliography: RES 1997.

Text:

Text:

1) yeySwm

1) ..Y*K

Gouraya N 14

Gouraya N 21

Bibliography: RES 1991.

Bibliography: RES 1998.

l) m

1) enmis

227

ἽΝ

4. Texts from Algeria

228 Text: 1)’b

Gouraya N 22

Δ}

Bibliography: RES 1999. Text: 1)

Thee f^

22

Gouraya N 23 Bibliography: RES 2000.

Remarks: Note the construction with a proleptic suffix in line 2: ?Xtm $+ PN. zw’sn is a Libyan name of the type ending in /-san/, also attested elsewhere. The reading ¥b‘°m in line 3 is based upon the drawing published by JuDAS (1847a). CHABOT (sub Punica xi, 1) reads s (also mentioned by PPG?, § 48a, but as uncertain), which is also possible according to the drawing, but less probable, of course.

Text:

1) hr.. 2)g

Guelma (Calama) Guelma N 1

Bibliography:

DE SAuLcv

1847a:

12-13;

Jupas 1847a: 102-103; EWALD 1852: 1726, no 3; BOURGADE 1856: 46-47; LEvy 1857:

Guelma

76-77; SCHRÖDER

Bibliography: DE SAULCY 1847a: 15; JUDAS 1847a: 99; EwALD 1852: 1726-1727; LEvy 1857: 77; CHABOT, Punica x1, 2; JONGELING 2003a: 123; NP 23.

1869: 269, nr. 2; Lipz-

BARSKI 1898: 437, 3 D bl; CHABOT, Punica xi, 1; JONGELING 2003a: 123; GARBINI 2006: 192; NP 22; LPE: 48. Illustrations: DE SAULCY 1847c: pl. xxxvii, 6; Jupas 1847a: pl. 16; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 187, 2; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvii 9; LipzBARSKI 1898: Taf. xvili 7; GARBINI 2006: 192 (drawing). Text:

1) t? “bn z Itb

2) b^ ^Étm $ zw’s 3) n bn mtnbl Sw?

4) Snt Sb'm w*ms$ Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Tabi2) ba, wife of Zuos3) an, son of Mutunbal, she lived 4) 75 years

N 2

Illustrations: DE SAULCY 1847c: pl. xxxvii, 10; Jupas 1847a: pl. 17; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 187, 4 (drawing).

Guelma (Calama) Text:

1) ISdbr bn s 2) Idy? Sw? 3) &nt ‘rbm

4) w*ms Translation: 1) for Shadbar, son of Sa2) lidio, he lived 3) forty years 4) and five Remarks: Whether the incompletely preserved elements above line 1 form part of

a previous line, as CHABOT (sub Punica xi 2) supposes, is not quite clear. The drawing presented by e.g. DELAMARE is not easily explained in this way. The rendering of the second personal name is based on its form in a Latin inscription, Selidiu (CIL viii 01048 (p. 2459) = 23473). In Libyan inscriptions it is attested as SLDIU (RIL 269, 586), SLDIH (RIL 780), SLDUH (RIL 454). CHABOT (sub Punica xii 2) reads ^w* instead of ^w?, however, the drawing by Jupas 1847a clearly shows the ?, wherefore we suppose that CHABOT inadvertently printed *. The w at the beginning of line 5 follows to CHABOT'S reading. Guelma

N 3

Bibliography: JupAs 1847a: 98-99; DE SAULCY 1847a: 11-12; EWALD 1852: 1727, no 5; LEvy 1857: 77; SCHRÖDER 1869: 270, nr. 9; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 437, D b2; CHABOT, Punica iii, x1, 3; JoNGELING 2003a: 123-124; NP 24; NSI 58; Καὶ] 169; LPE: 48. Illustrations: DE SAULCY 1847c: pl. xxxvii, 5; JUDAS 1847a: pl. 18; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 187, 1; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvii 8; LipzBARSKI 1898: Taf. xviii 6 (drawing). Text: 1) “bn z [π΄ IS 2) blt bt m'll ^w 3) * &nt^s

rv une oj og A

jo 97211 D

AU

Tor

RAND

3] TF 5) Stm Sypt‘n bn 6) kndy‘l

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Shi2) bbult, daughter of Malal, she live3) d twenty ye4) ars and five, wi5) fe of Ieptan, son of 6) Kinidial Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica 111) reads in line 4-5: ?st mSykt“n, wife of MaSiktan, cf. the earlier reading by SCHRODER (1869: 27) °$t mSykt“h. leptan is a well-known name and the construction with a proleptic suffix

is also attested in Guelma N 1 (?Xtm $zw’sn). CooKE reading Punica remarks Guelma

(sub NS/ 58) still retains the older ?irm instead of ?srm, CHABOT (sub 111) 1s, however, quite clear when he that the reading ?$rm is impossible. N 4

Bibliography: 1847a:

Jupas 1847a: 99; DE SAULCY

13; EwALD

1852:

1727; BOURGADE

1856: 46, 47; LEvy 1857: 77; SCHRÓDER 1869: 270, nr. 6; CHABOT, Punica xi, 4; JONGELING 2003a: 124; NP 25; LPE: 4849.

230

4. Texts from Algeria

Illustrations: DE SAULCY

1847c: pl. xxxvii,

Guelma

N 5

7; Junas 1847a: pl. 19; DELAMARE 1850: pl.

0j 9i,x99, 187, 3; SCHRÖDER

1869: Taf. xvii 2 (draw-

ΓΝ

Bibliography: DE SAULCY 1847a:

101;

EwALD

1847a: 14; JUDAS

1852:

1727,

m

(€

AUT

1) °bn tn[ ] ImSr 2) bn $bm £nt 3) [ ] wsms

Translation: |) This stone was erected 2) for Yartan, son of Man3) kalat, he lived year4) s sixty and one

transcribe

m“nkb“l,

δὶ

Text:

4) t 55m wd

Remarks: LEVY (1869: 270) and

7;

Illustrations: DE SAULCY 1847c: pl. xxxvii, 9; JUDAS 1847a: pl. 20; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 187, 7 (drawing).

) (Arv Text: 1) “bn z [π΄ 2) Iy‘rtn bn mn 3) kit *w? n

no.

JUDAS 1857: 15 n.; CHABOT, Punica xi, 5; JONGELING 2003a: 124; NP 26.

Translation: 1) Stone erected for Mashar, 2) a man of seventy years 3) [ ] and five

(1857: 77), ScHRÓDER LipzBARsKI (1898: 314) which

is unacceptable,

according to CHABOT (sub Punica xi 4), who

reads mnki*t or m‘nkrén (see also the onomasticon s. v. m“nkl“t). LEvy and SCHRÓDER explained wd in the last line as w followed by d to express the number ‘four;’ an ingeneous but unnecessary explanation. The development Pahad/ > la-ad/ > lad! (or Pahad/

> /had! > lad!) seems perfectly reasonable for Late Punic. The possible sıgn in line 5 remains without explanation. Note that it is not mentioned by CHABOT.

Remarks: Although bn $bm 3°nt may very well mean ‘a man of seventy years of age,’ the fact that the third line ends in w*m¥, which in many cases is the ending of the complete age of the deceased, as e.g. in Guelma N 1, 2, 3, one might also suppose that 3bm is the name of the father of Mashar. Note also that the reading of ‘wr is rather difficult, assuming that the drawing has any value. Instead of * there is a clear 5, while also the concluding ¢ is highly doubtful. However, when we accept that the concluding w*mis is part of the indication of the age of the departed, it is difficult to decide which decade is mentioned before it. Moreover, one has to assume then that a form of

231

Guelma (Calama)

hwy inadvertently has been omitted. Note also the reading proposed by CHABOT (sub

by JUDAS ts incomplete. For yrılg[, see the onomasticon a.l.

Punica xi 5): /) ?bn tn[*] Im&r 2) bn 3bm[h] bn p 3) pdg*ms. CHABOT explicitly notes that

Guelma

the reading 3 for the sixth sign in line 2 is impossible. The last sign in the same line is, according to CHABOT, p, or possibly s. Guelma

N 6

N 7

Bibliography: JUDAs 1845: 71; JUDAS 1847a: 98; DE SAULCY 1847a: 13-14; EwALD 1852: 1727, no 9; Junas 1857: 54; LEvv 1857: 78— 79; SCHRÖDER 1869: 270, nr. 7; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 437—438, 3 D b 3; CHABOT, Punica ΧΙ.

Bibliography: DE SauLcY 1847a: 16; JUDAS 1847a: 101; EwaLD 1852: 1727; CHABOT, Punica xi, 6; JoNGELING 2003a: 125; NP 27.

7; JONGELING 2003a: Illustrations: 1847c:

Illustrations: DE SauLcy

1847c: pl. xxxvii

12; JUDAS 1847a: pl. 21; DELAMARE pl. 187, 6 (drawing).

1850:

125; NP 28; KAI 166.

JUDAS 1845: no. 6; DE SAULCY

pl. xxxvii,

8; JUDAS

1847a:

pl. 22;

DELAMARE 1850: pl.185, 6; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvii 5; LIDZBARSKI 1898 Taf. xviii 5 (drawing).

vlog [ou [39 iQxn

25/31

RR

T2

XT/]1Xn9)9XT

Text:

Text: 1) °bn z tn“ | 2) tbb* ^st yml

3) ql EIE

1) “bn tr? Ib‘ly 2) “tn bn D'S? tn 3)* P ty'lty? w 4) tm bp'sm nltm

4) [ ]SI*]

Translation: 1) Stone erected for Baly-

5) [nt] SlS[m w ]

2) aton, son of Basho, erec-

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for 2) Tabuba, wife of Imil-

3) al 4) yle5) ars] thirt[y] Remarks: The reading is the one presented by CHABOT (sub Punica xi 6). The drawing

3) ted it for him Tialtio and 4) completed (it) with its inscription z/tri Remarks: The combination of tm (twice) in line 4 reminds one of the root (mm, but it is rather difficult to find a correct reading and solution. FEVRIER (1961: 7-8) reads and explains km bp?s mnltm (which might be vocalized as /komo bofas minalatim/) “according to (what is indicated) in the tablet

232

4. Texts from Algeria

of his heritage,’ mınltm being for *mnhltm. This solution is very ingeneous but not really acceptable, apart from his reading of bp's, because of the meaning. One is inclined to take ry*/ty? (Tialtio) as the name of the one who erected the stone, followed by w and another verb: *Tialtio erected it for him and completed it with an inscription ...,' or Tialtio erected the stone and someone else had the inscription made, in which case the concluding signs form the name of the second contributor. Guelma

N 8

Bibliography: DE SAULCY 1847a: 15; JUDAS 1847a: 102, 104, no 22; EwALD 1852: 1728, no 10; BOURGADE 1856: 46, 47; LEvy 1857: 79; HALEVY 1874a: 111-112; CHABOT, Punica xi, 8; JoNGELING 1984: 7-8; JoNGELING 2003a: 126; NP 29. Illustrations: DE SAULCY 1847c: pl. xxxvii, 11; Jupas 1847a: pl. 23; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 187, 5 (drawing).

Text:

1) “Ὅη z tm

2) Ihysp hs 3) dn 3 d*br bn ym 4) r*w

Translation: 1) This stone was erected

2) for Hisap, the cli3) ent of Dabar, son of Yam4) raw Remarks: For the reading of this text, see JONGELING (1984: 7-8). LEvy (1857: 79) reads:

/) *bn z tm 2) Ihysn hz 3) *nsd'bd bn

ym 4) r* w, translating: ‘this stone has been erected for the here slumbering Ensadebed, son of Jomra ...' HALEvy (1874a: 112) reads the same, but he divides the text differently in the lines 2 to 4; hz 3) “nsd ‘bd bn ym 4) r *w[?], translating: ‘this stone has been erected for the old man Azansed "Abd, the son of Imir, he lived ...;’ CHABOT (sub Punica xi 8) reads 7) *bn = ti? 2) Ih/hysplkhr 3) dnXd*brsym 4) r*w. Guelma

N 9

Bibliography: JupaAs 1847a: 152-153; EWALD 1852: 1728, no 11; JUDAS 1857: 53; BOURGADE 1856: 47; LEvv 1857: 63-65; SCHRÖDER 1869: 270, nr. 8; CHABOT, Punica xi, 9; JONGELING 2003a: 126; NP 32; ΚΑ] 168; LPE: 49.

233

Guelma (Calama)

Illustrations: JUDAS 1847a: pl. 26; Jupas 1854-1855: pl. vi; SCHRÖDER 1869: Taf. xvii 12 (drawing).

example of a loan of this type in Phoenician or Punic (cf. however Rome N 1). Guelma

N 10

Text:

1) gy yl m 2) nwP tn 3) * P *bn 4)

Bibliography: BERGER 1893b: 71; CHABOT 1916; CHABOT, Punica xi, 10; JONGELING 2003a: 127; RES 779.

n'$^y?

5) brkt bt

Text:

6) rect’

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Translation: 1) Gaius Julius Ma2) nulus. Erect3) ed for him the stone 4) elevated it 5) Berict, daughter of 6) Rogatus Remarks: SCHRODER (1869: 270 n. 3) translates ‘bn n*X*y? as ‘the promised stone.’ We do not follow CHABOT’s reading (sub Punica xi 9), and read n“$“y’ instead of n*s^y?. Forms of n? are attested elsewhere in these texts and hence we need not search for a family relation in this word. However, in case our translation is correct, one must assume that the form of the 3 person fem. perfect had lost its concluding ¢ even when a suffix followed. Partly comparable is the tanslation of KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. ns‘), ‘Gaius Iulius Manulus. Birict daughter of Rogatus re-erected to him «this» tombstone which they had pulled up.' The meaning supposed for ns‘, ‘to pull up, pull out,’ however, leads to an awkward translation, as it 1s not to be expected that, when a tombstone were pulled up a new stone with a new text would be put up. When y/ is correctly explained as an indication of the Latin name Iulius, it is an abnormal spelling, as one would expect yly, which is not attested, or yw/y, which is attested several times in Neo-Punic texts, or even ywP’y, attested once (cf. the onomasticon). One might suppose that y/ is an abbreviation of the name Iulius, as it is attested in Latin inscriptons, but this would be the only

’bn z tn? I'bdkSr bn * bd’Smn tn? | ? *bdámn w’r$ m w&dbr't w’r $ bn’ hym

Translation: 1) This stone was erected 2) for Abdkishor, son of A3) bdeshmun, erected it for 4) him Abdeshmun and Arish5) im and Shadbarat and Arish 6) the sons of his brother Remarks: 'The reading presented by BERGER (1893b: 71) is based, according to CHABOT (1916: 246), on an imperfect cast. Guelma

N 11

Bibliography: CHABOT, JONGELING 2003a: 127.

Punica

xi,

11;

Text: 1) ’bn z tr? Imtn bn

2) hn? t? hym y 3) hnb‘l wb‘ls1k 4) bn hr? Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Mutun, son 2) of Hanno, erected it his brothers Ya3) honbal and Balshillek, 4) sons of Hanno Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica ΧΙ 11) divides hymy hnb‘l wb’SIk in the lines 3-4. On hymy

234

4. Texts from Algeria

he remarks that this might be for ?hymy, his

brothers, which seems grammatically awkward. Also PPG?, $ 240, 2, notes hym as a

plural of ’h. with suffix 3 sing. masc. Note

A Ne

that the infrequent name yhnb‘l is attested in several Punic texts, cf. the onomasticon. Guelma

N 12

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica JONGELING 2003a: 127-128.

xi,

12;

Translation:

I) 2) [and li]ved years twen3) ty and one, 4) monument for him

Text: 1) ’bn z tr? Imlkt

2) h[ ]sd’ tn? 3) P *bdsmn [bn]

Remarks: The reading ’hd in line 3 has been accepted since CHABOT (sub Punica xi 13) proposed it. However, the sign read as ἢ is comparable in form to the ἢ in line 3 of Guelma N 26, although one may also compare the combination on a coin from Oea read as pr by some, but explained as h by us, cf. below, coins, the one with the text ms / wy*t.

4) [ ]by'l Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Milkat 2) the [ ], erected it 3) for her Abdeshmun, [son of] 4) [ ] her father Remarks: As we have neither a photograph

nor a drawing at our disposal, the reading of

Guelma

the first half of line 2 remains enigmatic. As this is one of only very few attestations of this name, it is possible that the first signs in line 2 form part of a longer name, that

Bibliography: CHABOT, JONGELING 2003a: 128.

begins with m/kr. The suffix in *by* gives the impression of being feminine, for which rea-

son we suppose mikt to be a feminine name.

N 14

Punica

xi,

14;

Text: 1) °bn Ζ tn? [0] 2) SIk [bn

3) tm [ Jl Guelma

N 13

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xi, 13; JONGELING 2003a:

Illustrations: (drawing);

4) bt b'lytn ?p 5) elf 6) m[

128.

CHABOT,

Text:

DI 2) [w*]w? S’nt "sr 3) m w’hd 4) mnsbt P

Punica

xi, sub

13

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Bal2) shillek, [son of 3) erected it [ 4) daughter of Balyaton 5) .. 6) Remarks: For the signs following Balyaton

in line 5-6 one might think of the article expressed by ? followed by a participle of p“!,

235

Guelma (Calama)

but one should expect p*/ without the article and the logical object of p‘/ following in a construct chain.

Text: 1) ’bn st lbrk’ bn 2) τῷ *w* S'nt

3) SISm w'ms Guelma

N 15

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica JONGELING 2003a: 128-129.

xi,

15;

Text: 1) tn??bn Imgr

Translation: 1) This stone for Bariko, son of 2) Arish, he lived years 3) thirty and five. Remarks: The reading is based upon the drawing printed by CHABOT (sub Punica xi 16). CHABOT only reads the first word of line | and lines 2 and 3.

2) bn yhnid tyn

3)? P^[ ]hyml

4) &*pn

5) mf ISI Guelma

N 17

Translation:

1) Stone erected for mgr,

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica JONGELING 2003a: 129; NP 80.

2) son of Yaonlid, erect3) ed it for him his brother 4) .. 5)

7

ΔΙ)90

word divisions and without any interpretation.

Im )) ὦ; ^ Cp

Guelma

L

N 16

Punica

xi,

J

16; Text:

Illustrations:

CHABOT,

Punica

xi,

sub

16

1) *bn[

2)

(drawing).

AX YAIR 7/3x Sp forme Loy IA NA

OX

17;

Illustrations: DELAMARE 1850, pl. 185, 8; cf. also CHABOT, Punica xi, sub 17 (drawing).

Remarks: The name yhnid remains highly uncertain. If read correctly, the first part, yhrı, may be the Semitic name element also found in e.g. yhnb‘l, attested e.g. in Guelma N 11. CHABOT (sub Punica xi 15) only presents the reading as presented above, but without

Bibliography: CHABOT, JONGELING 2003a: 129.

xi,

XY

KAT.

3) Spt I Translation: 1) Stone [ 2)... 3) Shafot [ Remarks: In line 1 read possibly ‘bn st.

236 Guelma

4. Texts from Algeria

19, which may be the same or a related word

N 18

Bibliography: Jupas 1847b: 189—194, no. 4; no 6; BOURGADE 1856: CHABOT, Punica xi, 18; RoscHINSKI 1988: 618; 130; NP 15.

1847a: 74; Jupas EwALD 1852: 1739, 29; LEvy 1857: 57; FÉvRIER 1955b: 59; JoNGELING 2003a:

Illustrations: Jupas 1847a: pl. 10; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 178, 18 (drawing).

(cf. FÉVRIER (1963: 261), cf. also AMADASI (1986: 203), who speaks of ?zrm and variant

spellings). The readings of CHABOT for this word were the following: hzrm in Guelma

N 18, 26, °$rm in Guelma N 19, 22, 24, 31, ?zrm in Guelma N 20, 25, 30 ?zr[m] ), 32, and hir[m] Guelma N 21, while he gives [?z]rm, [?Jzrm, ?[z]r[m] and ?zr]m in resp. Guelma N 23, 27, 28, and 33. A lapsus seems to occur in Guelma N 34, where CHABOT read ?zm. The remaining difference is to be found in the first character: h or ?. A variation of this type is not difficult to accept in Late Punic. Comparable e. g. is the orthography Asrm for *srm, twenty in Hr. Maktar N 56, the use of ? instead of Ah for the article, ?/k in Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1, in case it is correctly explained as a derivation from the root h/k. The mean-

ing of ?zrm is still debated, cf. the remarks in DNWSI s.v. mik,. Note also ROSCHINSKY (1988: 609) supposing that ?zrm is a Berber Text: 1) Fdn Ὁ mn zwb[*] 2) bmik hzrm h§{t]

3) Igy tty 18m?

4) gll]

word meaning ‘lamb’ (comparing tentatively modern Berber izimer). The word following ?zrm and variants is sometimes explained as a demonstrative pronoun, cf. e.g. MENDLESON (2003: sub NPul). However, the two variants, ’$ (attested in the forms ἢ Guelma

N 20, hy$ N 19, 31, γῇ N 27, "πῇ N 26, γῇ Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun, offered 2) as a molk-offering a female hzrm 3) Lucius Titius; that he may hear 4) his voice Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xi 18) remarks that his reading, based upon a new study of the original, differs considerably from earlier editions, that were based only on the drawings, listed supra. The word hzrm is attested in several orthographies, if we follow the reading of the texts from Guelma as presented by CHABOT (sub Punica xi). As, however, the form of z and X in these texts are only differentiated with difficulty, we propose to read z in all instances, because of the word *zrm attested in Labdah N 13, 16,

N 24) and 37 (?Xt Guelma N 22, 25, ^st N 28, hi[t] N 18, $t N 21), give the impression that something male, resp. female is indicated. The easiest explanation is to suppose that the nouns *?X resp. ᾿ξ, ‘man’ / ‘woman,’ are meant, as proposed by FÉvRIER (1955b: 59), and followed by RöLLIG (sub Κα] 98). CHABOT (sub Punica xi 18) did not recog-

nize the particle / preceding the verbal form $‘m’ as such and supposes a

lapsus for w.

For the interpretation as a particle, cf. e.g. SZNYCER (1967: 61), PPG?, ὃ 257f, who translate *verily, he has heard.’ However, it seems more probable that the particle is to be read /lu/, or that it has at least the same shades of meaning as Hebrew /u, which may be used preceding a perfect form to express an optative.

237

Guelma (Calama) Guelma

N 19

Guelma

Bibliography: Judas 1842: 47; Junas 1845: 50-51; DE SAULCY 1845: 86-91, 96; DE SAULCY 1846: 573—574; JuDAS 1847a: 5657, 74 n. 14; Jupas 1847b: 189-193, nr. 3; EWALD 1852: 1741, no. 8; BOURGADE 1856: 30; LEvy 1857: 59; Jupas 1857: 47; SCHRÖDER 1869: 265-266, nr. 8; LIDZBARskı 1898: 438, 3 D b5; CHABOT, Punica xi, 19; AMADASI 2002: 117; JoNGELING 2003a: 130; NP 18; LPE: 49—50. Illustrations: GUYON 1838: pl. 1 6; JUDAS 1842: pl. x; JuDas 1845: pl. 1; Jupas 1847a: pl. 12; DE SAuLCY 1845: pl. H; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 178, 11; ScHRÓDER 1869: Taf. xv 5; LIDZBARSKI 1898: Taf. xvi 8 (drawing).

DON

(x^ui [NA

X4 JM VUA on vU T$

XAT

N 20

Bibliography: Jupas 1845: 51; DE SAULCY 1845: 91-97; DE SAULCY 1847b: 200-204; Jupas 1847a: 56-57, Junas 1847b: 189193,

nr

1;

BourGADE

1852:

11;

EWALD

1852: 1740, no. 9; BOURGADE 1856: 30; JUDAS 1857: 47; LEvy 1857: 59; SCHRODER 1869: 266, nr. 10; LIDZBARSKI

D b7; CHABOT, 2003a:

130; NP

1898: 438, 3

Punica xi, 20; JONGELING 19.

Illustrations: JUDAS 1845: pl. 1845: pl. I; Junas 1847a: pl. 1850: pl. 185, 4; SCHRÖDER LIDZBARSKI 1898: Taf. xvi 7

2; DE SAULCY 13; DELAMARE 1869: Taf. x 3; (drawing).

nns x^

AKIKIAIKIKTI

Y &V]X XXon onte

x

X\AY PPX KU

Text: 1) I'dn ὈῚ mn zb? m 2) ylk‘tn bn b'lytn bm 3) Ik ?zrm hyS ws‘ 4) m??t qwP

Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun, offered M2) ilkaton, son of Baliton, as a hzrm m3) olk-offering of a man, and he hea4) rd his voice Remarks: KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. mlk,.), reads mylk*mn instead of mylk*tn; cf. also the remark in the onomasticon on the name mylk'tn.

Text:

1) Pdn ὉΠ] hmn zbh 2) bwm'r? bmlk ?zrm ἢ 3)'$ wim??t qwP Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun offered 2) Bumano as a hzrm molk-offering of a 3) man and he heard his voice Remarks: For the reading bwm*n? instead of rwm*'n^, as read by CHABOT (sub Punica xi 20; explained as a rendering of Latin Romanus, also accepted by HARRIS 1936: 146), cf. JoNGELING (1984: 154, s.v. bwm*m). The reading bwm‘n’, explained as a personal name, already with several authors in the 19th century, e.g. JUDAS (1845: 51, id. 1847a: 57, 1847b: 189, 193), EwALD (1852: 1740); BOURGADE (1856: 30). DE SAULCY 1845 gave the same reading, but divided the text otherwise. LEvy (1857: 59) also divided

4. Texts from Algeria

238

the text differently, reading: /) ... $bh s 2) bwm“n ?bmlk ..., in which he recognized a name Zebuman. SCHRÖDER, who favours more or less the same word division as LEVY reads a name zbwm“n (this name also with

LIDZBARSKI (1898: 265): zbwm'n), but he accepts the reading ἢ for the last two signs (h + z) in line 1 as a possibility, leaving the name bwm‘n (SCHRÖDER 1869: 81, n. 14). ScHRÓDER explains the name bwni“n = Bomon as evolved from b‘/hmn (id., 94). This name of unknown, but possible Berber,

origin may be compared to BMN (R/L 467). Guelma N 21 Bibliography: Jupas 1847a: 74; Jupas 1847b: 189—193, nr. 2; BoURGADE 1856: 30; LEvy 1857: 59-60; CHABOT, Punica xi, 21; JONGELING 2003a: 131; NP 20. Illustrations: JUDAS 1847a: pl. 14; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 178, 9 (drawing).

JMA(o

fa or

^ ys

Bas:

Jfidn GR Text: 1) dn

b‘l mn zb

2) ? *bdky&r bmlk 3) hzr[m] St [w]5°

4) [m* 41

Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun offer2) ed Abdkishor as a hzrm 3) molk-offering of a woman and he he4) [ard his voice Remarks: In view of the oftentimes difficult differentiation between $ en z in Neo-Punic script, we feel that the reading zb’ should be adopted against the traditional reading Sb”.

Guelma

N 22

Bibliography: Judas 1847a: 60; JUDAS 1847b: 189-193, nr. 5; EwALD 1852: 1740, no. 11; BOURGADE 1856: 30; JuDas 1857: 33-35; Levy 1857: 60, 105; Jupas 18601861: 25-32; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 437—438, 3 D b4; CHABOT, Punica xi, 22; ROSCHINSKI 1988: 618; AMADASI 2002: 117; JONGELING 2003a: 131; NP 21; ΚΑ] 167; LPE: 50. Illustrations: JUDAS 1847a: pl. 15; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 185, 9; LIDZBARSKI 1898: Taf. xviii 2; GARBINI 2006: 192 (drawing).

tv XIX M f

IA IX) MDR xt

DANA p

LEXX mt

Text: 1) l'dn b'l mn n'$? pn 2) tn? bn mgnm bmik 3)?zrm^Sc m$

4) wSm’ qly Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun presented Pon2) tanus son of Magonim as a molk-offer-

ing, 3) a female hzrm, he presented it 4) and he heard his voice Remarks: According to the drawing presented a.o. by LIDZBARSKI 1898, the read-

ing qi’ is also possible, and this is the reading accepted by Amapası (2002: 117). The name Pontanus is attested only a few times, while Pontianus is frequent, also in North Africa. The latter name has been chosen as a translation by several scholars studying this text, cf. e.g. ROSCHINSKI (1988: 618).

239

Guelma (Calama)

However, in case the last mentioned name had been meant, one would expect pntyn’. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. mlk,.) supposes m? in line 3 to be a faulty repetition.

CHABOT, Punica xi, 24; FEVRIER 1960: 172; ROSCHINSKI

1988:

Illustrations: Guelma

JONGELING

2003a:

JUDAS

1847b:

188;

JUDAS

1857: 28 (drawing).

N 23

Bibliography: 1854-1855: 6; Levy 1857: 63, 23; JONGELING

Jupas EwaLD no. 13; 2003a:

Illustrations: GUYON 2 (the same

618;

132; NP 34.

1847a: 152; JUDAS 1852: 1741, no 13; CHABOT, Punica xi, 131-132; NP 31.

1838: pl. 2, no 1 &

inscription

presented

twice);

Text:

1) n°S° Sdbr Id 2) n b'] mn bmlk ?zr 3) m γῇ Translation: 1) Presented Shadbar to the lor-

Jupas 18472: pl. 25; Jupas 1854-1855: pl.

2) d Bal Amun as a molk-offering, a hzr-

v (drawing).

3) m of a male. Remarks:

Why

(KRAHMALKOV

2000,

s.v.

mik,,) emends $dbr is unclear. Guelma

N 25

Bibliography: 1860-1861:

Levy

1857: 1857:

32

n;

JuDAs

107;

LEvY

1864a: 76-77, DOUBLET-GAUCKLER 1892: 81—82; CHABOT, Punica xi, 25; ROSCHINSKI 1988: 619; Amapası 2002: 117; JONGELING 2003a: 132; NP 74-105.

Text:

1) [ ]yb*t $ b'l mn ’tm? 2) | Ipyrm? bn prot’ 3) [ bm]I[k ?z]rm °S

4) |sd/b/r Translation: 1) ... of Bal Amun fulfilled 2) Firmus son of Fronto 3) as hzrm molk-offering of a man

4) Remarks: It is, of course, possible that "νη in line | is derived from the verbal root tmm, but both the reading and the context are uncertain. Guelma

Jupas 32;

N 24

Bibliography: Jupas 1847b: 189-193, nr. 6; JUDAS 1857: 28; EWALD 1852: 1744, no. 29;

Illustrations: JUDAS 1854-1855: pl. v; JUDAS 1860-1861: pl. 10, no xx (drawing); DOUBLET-GAUCKLER 1892: pl. 111, 1 (photograph).

UN

! 8

GENE NEAE

TE | R A EMPIT RAINE 7

240

4. Texts from Algeria Text: 1) Fdn bl mn z 2) b? ‘rs/stn bn my!

Text: 1) Fdn ὉΠ] mn zwb bmlk

2) ’zrm ^st &*dbr't bn yh 3) [n]sd wem’ ?t qwP

3) k'tn bmlk hzrm

4) ^h$ wS'm? *t qwP Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun offered as a molk-offering

Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun, offer2) ed Arstan son of Mil3) katon as a hzrm molk-offering of 4) aman and he heard his voice

2) a female hzrm, Shadbrat son of yh3) [n]sd and he heard his voice Remarks: For the reading zwb, cf. e.g. DouBLET-GAUCKLER (1892: plate ii1 no 1), the traditional reading also accepted by AMADASI 2002 is z?b (cf. also DOUBLET-GAUCKLER 1892: 81-82, who read b). Pro yh[n]sd CHABOT (sub Punica ii and xi 25), followed e.g. by AMADASI (2002: 117), reads [yhns]d, the drawing published by Jupas clearly shows yi at the end of line 2, which is more or less corroborated by the photograph in DOUBLET-GAUCKLER. The first letter of line 3 1s lost, but s and d are clearly visible on the photograph. Guelma

Remarks: The reading of the name *rs/stn as *ds/stn, cf. JoNGELING (2003a: 132) is mistaken. It should be noted that according

to CHABOT (sub Punica xii 26) the reading 5 instead of s/s in this name, as given by LipzBARSKI (1898: 346), is impossible. Guelma

N 27

Bibliography: Jupas 1857: 32 n.; LEvy 1857: 106; BERGER-CAGNAT 1889, 262; CHABOT, Punica xi, 27; JONGELING 2003a: 133; NP 77.

N 26

Illustrations: DELAMARE Bibliography: DE SAULCY 1847b: 200-204; JUDAS 1857: 28; LEvv 1857: 105-106; SCHRODER 1869: 265-266, nr. 7; LIDZBARSKI

1898: 438, 3 D b6; CHABOT,

Punica xi,

ol. KOT 72 oM Wn ὁ7

26; JoNGELING 2003a: 132-133; NP 75. Illustrations: DELAMARE 1850: pl. 185, 7; JUDAS 1857: pl. 2; ScHRÓDER 1869: Taf. xvi 8; LIDZBARSKI 1898: Taf. xviii, 3 (drawing).

o 9 |à SayAn

KUNA

f

AXX ORTH 93,V

1850: pl. 190, no.

12; GRELLOIS 1852: pl. vii; JUDAS 1857: pl. 3 no. 2; PAPIER 1887: pl. xli, fig. 45 (drawing).

nt i X

δ

x

f

X D

aru

Text: 1) Fdn I[b] mn [ 2)1[ ]z°b’ 3) ] bmik [?]zrm I? 4) ys Translation: 1) For the lord, for Bal Amun 2) offered

“2

24]

Guelma (Calama)

3) ... as an hzrm molk-offering 4) of a male

Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xi 29), reading [3{. notes that this may be part of the

Guelma

often recurring expression ?zrm, which word seems to be completely visible in the draw-

N 28

ing presented by DELAMARE. Bibliography: JONGELING

CHABOT,

2003a:

Illustrations: (drawing).

Punica

xi,

28;

133; NP 84.

CHABOT,

Guelma

Punica

xi sub

28

')9"X/o0[(Q9^

Ar IES Py x (AT

N 30

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica JONGELING 2003a: 134; NP 83.

xi,

Illustration: DELAMARE 23 (drawing).

178, no

1850:

pl.

30;

Qp37h* 3) ..°zr[m]

...

Text:

1) [ἀπ bl mn n ] 2)?[ ]lks bmlk ?[z]r[m]

Translation: 1) ] for the lord [

3) “St w&m? t q[w]l’

2) 3) hzrm

Translation: 1) For the lord, Bal Amun pres[ent2) ed Fe]lix as a hzrm molk-offering of a 3) woman, and he heard his voice

Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xi 30) notes

that the original drawing on which DELa-

Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xi 28) notes that the end of line 1 and the beginning of line 2 may be restored to 5^3? pylks. CHABOT reads line 3 as ‘st w3*m[?] ?t qwP’, the drawing he published, however, justifies the reading presented here. Guelma

N 29

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica JONGELING 2003a: 133; NP 82.

xi,

Illustration: DELAMARE 21 (drawing).

178, no

Text:

1) [ 2) [

3) Pz{

1850:

pl.

29;

MARE'S edition is based, is preserved in the collection of the Sorbonne (MS 279, fol. 158). This drawing is on a better scale than the published one. Guelma

N 31

Bibliography: Jupas 1866: 264, 278; CHABOT, Punica xi, 31; JONGELING 2003a: 134; NP 85. Text: 1) Pdn b'*l hmn zbh mgnm 2) bn “bdk[§]r bmlk °zrm 3) hy$ br°k? wSmw 4 4)P Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun offered Magonim 2) son of Abdkishor as a /izrm molk-offering

4. Texts from Algeria

242 3) of a man and he heard his vo4) ice

2)

Guelma

Guelma

3) ] heard his voice

N 32

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xi, 32; ROSCHINSKI 1988: 618; JONGELING 2003a: 134-135.

N 34

Bibliography: CHABOT, JoNGELING 2003a: 135. Illustration: DE (photograph).

Text: 1) ISdn 2) ὈῚ mn

PACHTERE

Punica

1909:

xi,

34;

pl. ii, 5

Text: 1) [01 b‘l mn zb mtnb'l 2) bn/t yg bmlk ?zm “ἢ w 3) $im??t qh?

3) zb’t

4) y p 5) ISwy ?[r]b?n 6)? bmlk °zrm °§

Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun, offered Mutunbal 2) son of yg as a hzrm molk-offering of a man and 3) he heard his voice

7) [t] wSm? ql? Translation: 1) For the lord 2) Bal Amun 3) offered Ti4) tus F5) lavius Urban6) us as a molk-offering a female /izrm 7) and he heard his voice

Remarks: Cf. the note on yg in the onomasticon. We have presented the reading as advocated by CHABOT (sub Punica ΧΙ 34), the photograph being not quite clear.

Remarks: ROSCHINSKI (1988: 618n) explains urbanus not as a personal name, but as a noun indicating the roman citizenship of the dedicant, wich may be correct. However, the three names might also be explained as an attempt to produce a name of a construction similar to the Roman fria nomina.

Guelma

N 35

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica ix, 9b; Punica xi, 35; FÉvRIER 1967: 62-63; GARBINI 1987b: 67; JONGELING 2003a: 135. Illustrations: DELAMARE

1850: pl. 185, 5;

GRELLOIS 1852: pl. viii (drawing). Guelma

N 33

Bibliography: CHABOT, JONGELING 2003a: 135.

Punica

xi,

33;

Text: 1) lF'd?n Ὁ] m’n 2) zb^h blb 3) Ur

Text:

2) [bmlk ’sr]m ?

Translation: 1) For the Lord Bal Amun

3) [$ w]Sm“ qP

2) offered with a pure

DI

3) heart Translation:

I)

Remarks: The reading of different sibilants in Guelma is problematic, which follows

243

Guelma (Calama)

again from FEVRIER (1967: 62) reading $°b’h instead of z*b^h. The spelling of the word certainly points to a pronunciation like /zabo/, which is best explained as a qal per-

Guelma

N 37

Bibliography: CHABOT, JONGELING 2003a: 136.

Punica

xi,

37;

fect 3 sing. masc. (against KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. /b), who reads s“b’h, a word not repeated elsewhere in his dictionary, trans-

Text:

lating ‘sacrifice’). The translation of bib Pr was first given by DussAup (1946: 379) and

2) Pn Ὁ πη tn[

1) g/z/$' d bn qyt'n 3)

followed by FEVRIER (1967: 62). Guelma

Translation: 1) God son of Qiton 2) For the lord Bal Amun

N 36

Bibliography: Junas 1852:

1741,

14;

1847a:

155; EWALD

JUDAS 1857: 52; LEVY

3)

1857:

65; JUDAS 1858: 133; SCHRÖDER 1869: 266, nr. 12; CHABOT, Punica xi, 36; JONGELING 2003a: 136; NP 33.

Remarks: For the name qyrn, cf. the onomasticon. Guelma

Illustrations: JUDAS 1847a: pl. 26bis; DELAMARE 1850: pl. 178, no 10 (drawing).

N 38

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xi, 38; JONGELING 1984: 149-150; GARBINI 1987b: 67; ROSCHINSKI 1988: 620; JONGELING 1996b: 159-161; JONGELING 2003a: 136. Text: 1) gwdb'l bn hnb‘l

2) tyn mb't Ib? 3) wpg! t nd'rm

Text: 1) [01 Ὁ mn p'l 2) ’qlms bn'?r

3)

IT

Translation: 1) For the lord Bal Amun made 2) ?glms son of Ari3) [sh Remarks: LiDZBARSKI (1898: 225) reads ^qlmPn instead of ?glms. The use of b‘/ instead of "dn may be intentional, but it seems more probable that the stonemason forgot the epithet ’dn and then repeated b‘/ to get the correct number of signs.

Translation: 1) Gudbal son of Anobal 2) erected a stone (?) for his daughter 3) and fulfilled his vows Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xi 38) reads line 2: tyn ?mb*tlbt, which may be divided, according to him, in two different ways, viz. tyn ’mb“t IbP, i.e. *erexit the ... filiae suae,’ or tyn ?mb'tl br, i.e. ‘erexit Imbatal, filia eius.' The text remains enigmatic, because a form of the verb rn’ points to a funerary character of the text, whereas pg? and ndr in line 3 indicate the votive character of this text. Neither our translation nor the one given by CHABOT explain this difficulty, or do we have to suppose that this stele commemorates a (m/k)-offering, as ROSCHINSKI (1988:

244

4. Texts from Algeria

620) indicates, and is this the reason that the name of the daughter is not mentioned? ROSCHINSKI (1988: 620) reads tyr? mb‘t Ihr, translating: *.. put up «the stele> for his

Guelma N 40 Bibliography: RIL 657.

daughter.’ On the otherwise not attested mb‘t

Text:

he remarks: ‘mb‘t remains uncertain, but the meaning may be concluded from the context. Perhaps it is a lapsus for m/s]b‘t.’ As no drawing or photograph is extant, one can only propose as a hypothesis that instead of mb‘t one perhaps should read ’b‘n, bearing in mind that in many texts m and’, resp. t and n, are not easily distinguished. KRAHMALKOV

Only a few traces are left. Libyan (parallel?) text: 1) IRTN 2) [T]GwH 3) RCH

(2000, s. v. pg* ) leaves mb*'tlb?? untranslated.

Hr. Bou Atfan

The last line offers a few small problems. Should one divide pg ’r or pg? t ? The interpretation remains the same, of course. The last word may be explained as a plural, as done by GARBINI (1979: 110-111, 113), or

as a singular with a suffix of the 3 sing.; ‘he fulfilled vows,’ or ‘his vow.’ The second explanation seems a little bit more attractive,

Hr. Bou Atfan N 1

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica x 1. Illustrations: ing).

mainly because the noun ndr is normally

Text:

used in the singular form.

1) ’bn ?[3 tn] 2) * In‘[mtp‘m]

Guelma N 39 Bibliography: BERGER 1910a: cexxiv; CHABOT, Punica xi, 39; JoNGELING 2003a: 136. Illustration: LESCHI 1952: 24 (photograph).

2x79 mr Text: 1) tbrkt bt τῷ

Translation: 1) Tabarkat daughter of Arish

CHABOT,

Punica

x

| (draw-

3)?bt yg? b 4) n *dksr *w* 5) Snt mr? Translation: 1) Stone that was erect2) ed for Namepham3) o, the daughter of Yaga, the so4) n of AdkiSor, she lived 5) eight years Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica x 1) notes that the name of the deceased can only be restored as n*mp*nr or n“mtp“m’. CHABOT chooses the first one, because of the length of the lacuna; the second name is, however, more appropriate for a woman. The whole reconstruction remains uncertain. [n case the drawing published by CHABOT is to be trusted, the reading of the father's name 15 more or less certain, although CHABOT reads

yg.

Kef Bezioun

CHABOT,

245

3) yn bn l'by? hw? int 4) §b‘m hnkt n*bn*

Hr. Bou Atfan N 2

Bibliography: 50.

(Zattara)

Punica x, 2; LPE:

Text: 1) ’bn °§ rm 2) Ibdmlgrt bn

Translation: 1) This stone was erected for Solul, 2) the daughter of Barikbal, the wife of Bal3) in, the son of Labio; she lived years 4) seventy; she was buried here.

3) Ibn hym hw? 4) Sb'm whms Translation: l) Stone that was erected 2) for Bodmelqart, the son of 3) Laban his life he lived 4) seventy five. Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica x 2) notes that the expression hym hw” is unexpected, while the absence of Xn(*)t is also problematic. One wonders whether the stonemason wrote hw’ hw" instead of hw” Snt, thus writing the correct number of signs and not bothering to correct the text. On the practice to count the number of characters in a text as a control procedure, cf. e.g. JONGELING 1996a. However, hym may easily be explained as the pl. of hy, ‘life,’ as in Hebrew, or it may be the

pl. cstr. followed by the suff. 3:4 sing. masc. of the same word.

Kef Bezioun (Zattara) Kef Bezioun N 1 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica vi, l; FEVRIER 1959-1960a: 25-29; HoRN-RÜGER 1979: 578; KAI 171; LPE: 50—51. Ilustrations: HoRN-RÜGER 1979: 579, Taf. 106, 1 (photograph). Text: 1) t? “bn z Is*Iwl 2) bt brkb‘l ?Stm 3b'l

Remarks: Both RóLLiG (sub Κα] 171) and the editor in HORN-RUGER (1979: 578) suppose the meaning ‘dead body’ for the enigmatic /nkt, for which see the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 32. FÉvRIER (1958-1959: 25, 29) supposes that n“bn“ is a perfect 3™ sing. fem. of bny to build, which is less probable, because e.g. he has to suppose that n“bn in Kef Bezioun N 2 is the same form, while the difference in spelling points to a relation to the gender of the deceased, feminine in this text, masculine the next one. Kef Bezioun N 2

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica vi, FÉVRIER 1959-1960a: 25-29; LPE: 51.

2;

Text:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

t “bn z Im“gryn’ bn b'lyn Sw? ὃ “nt *srm wSb° hnkt nbn

Translation: 1) This stone was erected 2) for Macrinus, 3) the son of Balin, he lived ye4) ars twenty-seven; here 5) he was buried. Remarks: For hnkt, see sub Hr. Maktar N 32. For n“bn cf. also the preceding text. Macrinus may have been the son of Balin and his wife Solul, mentioned in Kef Bezioun N 1.

4. Texts from Algeria

246

[OTRO

Kef Smaar (Columnata) Kef Smaar N 1 Bibliography: CADENAT

1972: 37.

Illustrations: CADENAT 1972: 35, fig. 6, 1 (drawing); id. 40, fig. 11 (photograph).

Translation: 1) The stone erected (was erected ?) 2) son of ............ 3) ... Balrom ...

Remarks: The first few words of line 1 and the name b‘/rm, Balrom, in line 3, are almost the only recognizable elements in this text. Text: 1) z b/d/r b/d/rb/d/r

Kheneg (Tiddis) Remarks: The text is inscribed on pottery, after baking. The a/ef is the only sign readily recognisable. The first sign may be a z, or just an ornament.

Khallik

Kheneg N 1 Bibliography:

25-26 (a).

Illustration: 1a.

BERTHIER-LEGLAY

BERTHIER-LEGLAY

1958:

1958:

pl.

Khallik N 1 Text:

Bibliography: GESENIUS 1837: 452-455; WuRM 1838: 31; DE SAULCY 1847a: 10-11;

illegible.

Levy

Remarks: The photograph of the stele does not show much of the text.

1856: 26-27; Numidica viii; NP

Illustrations: Ixxxiv;

DE

GESENIUS SAULCY

1837:

1847c:

pl.

14.

tab. xxxvii,

47, 4

Kheneg N 2

(drawing). Bibliography: (c).

Text:

BERTHIER-LEGLAY

1958: 26

1) “bn (ἢ ttb? 3) ?nml 4) n “tm?

b‘Irm....w

Illustration: IC.

BERTHIER-LEGLAY

1958:

pl.

247

Ksiba Mraou (Civitas Popthensis) 2) zal, she lived forty years; ere3) cted it for her Gumzal her husband.

Text:

1) ndr [ 2) bn hn’ bn mt“m[ ]brk?

Remarks:

Translation: 1) Vow [ 2) son of Anno, son of mi“m[ ]he blessed him.

See

the onomasticon

for an note

on the name ὅδ].

Ksiba Mraou N 2 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xiv, 2.

Remarks: We present the text as given by BERTHIER-LEGLAY

(1958: 26), because the

photograph of the text is too vague to allow further study.

Text: 1)^bn^3 tn“ 2) lp'lyks hsy 3) dn Sb'lám*

Kheneg N 3

Bibliography:

BERTHIER-LEGLAY

1958:

25-27d. Illustration:

BERTHIER-LEGLAY

1958:

Translation: 1) Stone that was erected 2) for Felix, the freed3) man of Balshamo.

pl.

id.

Ksiba Mraou

Text: illegible

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xiv, FEVRIER 1960-1961: 36; LPE: 51-52.

Remarks: The photograph of the stele does not show much of the text, deemed to be illegible by BERTHIER-LEGLAY, although it

Text: 1) °bn “δ [π΄ Isysy 2) bt qwynt? “Swy *w*

seems possible to discern nd[ at the beginning of line 1 and brk at the beginning of line 3.

4) ’n b?mqm st n'sp? “5

Ksiba Mraou (Civitas Popthensis) Ksiba Mraou N 1 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xiv, 1; LPE: 5].

3) nwt

3) m P gwmz*‘l h’s 3P

3;

whms

5) my“ bhrs [ ly’

Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Sisoi, 2) the daughter of Quintus ..., she lived 3) eighty-five years. 4) .. To (?) this place were collected her b5) ones in the earth (7) Remarks:

Text: 1) “bn °§ tn? ISblt ^$t gwm 2) ΖῚ hw? Snt ’rb“m ty

$mnm

N 3

The

second

peculiar, but the words

part of this text is

mgm,

n'sp?, and

*smy* seem to be without much doubt, the first and third ones also recognized as such by CHaBor. The letters Ἢ at the begin-

ning of line 4, CHABOT (cf. also FEVRIER Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Shibbult, the wife of Gum-

(1960-1961:

36) and KRAHMALKOV

(2000,

s. V. Ini), who translates ‘here’) explained as the deictic particle in, which seems uncer-

248

4. Texts from Algeria

tain. For bhrs we suggest the translation ‘in the earth.” As we do not have an illustration of this text at our disposal, it is diffi-

Ksiba Mraou N 6 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xiv, 6.

cult to decide whether eventually a reading bh'rs is conceivable. FÉvRIER (1960-1961: 36) explains hrs as the Punic equivalent of Hebrew haris, 'town-moat' (occurring only in Da ix 26), ‘pit,’ but the supposition that the the word sounded something like /ars/ and that it is the equivalent to Hebrew ’rs seems more probable. Ksiba Mraou N 4 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xiv, 4. Text: 1) °bn ° [π΄ Pnb/r*

2) bn b'lytn *w? 3) Snwt ’hd Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for ’nb/r“ 2) the son of Balyaton, he lived 3) years one. Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xiv 4) notes that the number of decades preceding ’hd has been left out. It is, of course, possible that the deceased lived only for one year and that the fault lies in the use of the plural §nwr instead of the singular Sr. Ksiba Mraou N 5 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xiv, 5. Text:

1) [’b]n °§ [π΄ Infmp*m bt 2) [ ] *w[*] S’nt “sr w hms Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Namfam, the daughter 2) of .., she lived fifteen years.

Text:

1) ’bn[ Translation: 1) Stone ... Ksiba Mraou

N 7

Bibliography: BERGER 1901a: cxcv-cxcvi; CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1903; LIDZBARSKI 1908: 68; CHABOT, Punica xiv, 7; RES 303, 305; TPI 240. Text: 1) bym n*m wb'rk[ ] pyg“ ^t nd'rm 2) k'[ ] Ib Sm’ ’t qh? 3) wb‘rk° Translation: 1) On a pleasant and blessed day .. has fulfilled his vow 2) Ka... to Bal, he heard his voice 3) and blessed him. Remarks: BERGER (19012) read in lines 1 and 2: bym n*m wb“rk“ ps“ ?t ndr 3 rm II kt Ibrl ... (i.e. ‘on a favourable day and a day of blessing has pronounced his vow Ramkath;' followed by SLouscHz, ΤΡ] a.l.), while CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1903: 105106) read line 1 as bym n*m wbrk *psls* ?t ndr zrm[. CLERMONT-GANNEAU compares *ps/s to Hebrew hf$ or hfs. One wonders how BERGER and CLERMONT-GANNEAU could read 3/z at the end of line 1 which CHABOT did not see. Ksiba Mraou N 8 Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica xiv, 8. Text: 1) ’bn ^3 [π΄ Is*dq

249

Oudjel (Uzelis), Oalat Abi s-Siba

2) bn Sb? *w? St 3) ’rb'm w’hd

Translation: |) Votive offering, which dedicated Adonibal, the son of ..., to Bal Amun 2) he heard his voice, blessed him.

Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Sadiq, 2) the son of Shabo, he lived years 3) forty and one.

Qalat Abi s-Siba

Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1

Ksiba Mraou N 9 Bibliography: CHABOT

1934-1935: 203.

1) ’bn °§ [πη΄ Ibrkb'l 2) ty P bn? Sw? 3) Snt Sb“m [wh]ms Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Barikbal, 2) his son erected it for him, he lived 3) seventy and five years.

Bibliography:

Illustrations: (drawing)

1934-1935:

d

203-

204.

|

xvi,

CHABOT,

Punica

xvi,

l;

sub

TA

en Voxx

SATIN UI (V2

qmm

X^ A

toe

3) Snt Slám wSmn

x XK

| RVPOMITATI ST.

| NVAN HONOI [VIX C ANNIEFECE TH kePE !

Oudjel (Uzelis) Oudjel N 1 Bibliography: RES 783.

1) ndr ?$ ndr °dnb‘l bf Jzbnkypn [81 hmn

438

|

Translation: 1) Stone that was erected for Zu2) naz, the son of Guzay, he lived 3) thirty and eight years.

Text:

(Rey

ee

Text: 1) ’bn °§ tn? Izw 2) nz bn gwzy *w^

2) Sm“ ql? brk°

Punica

Y cU xr

N 10 CHABOT

CHABOT,

FEVRIER 1954a; Levi DELLA VIDA 1965: 59-62; TEIXIDOR 1964-1980: 16; VAN DEN BRANDEN 1975: 145-146; GARBINI 1987b: 68; JONGELING 1996a: 74—77; ADAMS 2003: 213-215; KAI 165; LPE: 52-54; CIL wii 17467; ILA 1446.

Text:

Ksiba Mraou

Bibliography:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

sbq y??lk yqr t p's^$ “1 hmnsbt st tk! bn “dm kn nhr w*Ik Iktm m's? Pqmt tsdt bn mt't bn gwt'l

|

|

250

4. Texts from Algeria

6) hngry dl *trt wdl $m 7) t'smt Sw? $*nt ‘msm 5ΚῪ 8) dr Plm

to be a divider by Levi DELLA VIDA (1965: 65). The comparison with other w-signs in the text makes FEVRIER’s reading less probable. As texts normally do not contain elaborate

Latin parallel: 1) Rvfo . Metatis . filio 2) Nvmidae . honorato 3) vixit . annis |. fecerunt 4) fili . hoc . loco . sepultus . est 5) Ossa Tibi Bene Quiescant

word-dividers, the sign most probably is an alphabetical sign. In our opinion it is rather a very strange y than anything else. If correct, yqr? must be a iussive form of the root qn, ‘to read.’ This type of funerary inscription, which, as it were, speaks to people passing

by and asks them to read the text on the stone Translation: 1) Stay still, passer by, and read 2) the text which is on this stel3) e; man trusts when he is young 4) and he goes his way, but finds opposition. 5) Tasdat, the son of Matat, the son of Gautal 6) the Nagarite, owner of a crown and owner of a name 7) of heroism, he lived fifty years; a monument of 8) his family for ever. Remarks: In the first line CHABOT (sub Punica

xvi 1) read sbqy,, noting that the inclination of the downstroke of the first letter is comparable to the one of the s in line 2. This reading, which seems most preferable, is also fol-

lowed by LEvı DELLA VIDA 1965. FÉVRIER (1954a: 40), followed by VAN DEN BRANDEN 1974, KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. bqy, cf. also

hik.., ps, qr?^;), reads tbqy. CHABOT does not give an explanation of this first word in line l. LEvı DELLA VIDA (1965: 65) divides otherwise and reads sbq, imperative of an otherwise unknown verb meaning something like ‘to stop, to stand still.” FEVRIER (1954a: 40, 41), combining ?/k, supposes this to be

for the article followed by a participle of the root h/k, ‘passer by’ (cf. below the Latin parallels viator and preteriens). LEvı DELLA VIDA (1965: 65) combines y", a vocative particle like Arabic ya, not attested elsewhere in Phoenician or Punic leaving ?/k, which

he explains as FÉvRIER did. The next sign, interpreted by CHABOT as a word-divider, by FÉvRIER (1954a: 40) as a w, is again taken

are well known in the Roman world, cf. texts stating: Resta viator et lege ... (ILS 2783), te rogo, preteriens, cum legis ut dicas ... (ILS 81831), cf. further LEvi DELLA VIDA (1965: 64-65), JonGELING (1996a: 75-76). The second line does not present any problems. FEVRIER (1954a: 40-41) discusses the meaning of p‘s, normally meaning ‘tablet.’ He supposes a shift in meaning from ‘tablet’ via ‘inscribed tablet’ to ‘inscription,’ which seems not improbable. The meaning coincides with that of Latin tabula. The third and fourth lines are difficult and have found different interpretations. CHABOT does not offer a translation, FÉvRIER (1954a: 41—42) divides t kl bn *d mkn nhr w*l kl ktmm “ST ?qmt. t Kl bn consisting of the object marker, the noun kl, ‘all, and bn, the preposition b combined

with the suff. of the 3% sing. masc., referring to the tablet. nar FÉvRIER (1954a: 41) derives, tentatively, from the verb hwr, ‘to be white,’ nir together with mkn meaning ‘blanc

space.’ The following words FÉvRIER (1954a: 42) translates ‘and on the ktmm besides the tumulus.’ For ktmm he proposes hesitantly the translation ‘stone with an inscription,’ which he relates with Hebrew miktam, of uncertain meaning, traditionally sometimes explained as ‘something written’ but now translated otherwise. ‘s’/ is supposed to be a variant spelling of Hebrew ’s/, ‘side,’ and used as preposition ‘next to.” However, both vowel indicators, * and ’ remain unexplained in such a case, as in Phoenician and Punic the double closed syllable at the end of a word is not rendered with an epenthetic vowel, while at the beginning of the word a vowel /i/ was to be expected.

251

Oalat Abi s-Siba FEVRIER’S (1954a: 42) remark: ‘it will be noted that the Neo-Punic spelling seems to

indicate a pronunciation asil,' describes the problem but does nothing to resolve it. ?qnit he divides in ?, the article, followed by qnit, which he relates to Hebrew goma, ‘height.’ VAN DEN BRANDEN 1974 in the main follows FEVRIER’S interpretation. mkn he explains as ‘pedestal,’ and n/ir he relates to Akkadian and Ugaritic nhr, ‘dolphin.’ Because of this interpretation VAN DEN BRANDEN supposes that

the pedestal of the monument was ornated with the image of a dolphin. Although the animal is well-known in Punic iconography, it seems a less attractive solution. ktm he derives from the root ktm, ‘to cover,’ the noun meaning ‘cover, plaque.” As with FÉVRIER's interpretation, we must suppose the previous existence of more tablets with inscriptions, of which nothing remains and which seems rather uncommon pratice. ROLLIG (sub KA/

the infinitive of the same root with suffix of the 3 sing. For Pgmt we have proposed, with some hesitance, a nominal derivation of /qm.

for which one may compare the Arabic root of this form, that can be translated with ‘to

hinder.’ The word dl, occurring twice in line 6 is explained by KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. dl v. cf. ms? .,)), as a qal participle of a root dlv, of unknown etymology, meaning ‘to possess.’ The traditional explanation as the preposition dl, ‘with,’ seems more attractive. For sK*r dı?, cf. the remark sub Hr. Gen Rieime N 1. Qalat Abi s-Siba N 2 Bibliography: MÉLIx 1886: Punica xvi, 2; LPE: 54.

107; CHABOT,

Text:

1) tny’ P b^nm 2) "w? &nt $S$m w

165) does offer some of FEVRIER’s propo-

3) *m& hn‘kt skr

sitions in his comment, but accepts in fact only his explanation of ‘s’/. LEvi DELLA VIDA (1965: 65) connects f kl with the preceding verb gr”. The following words LEvi DELLA VIDA translates: ‘when a man is (still) young,’ bii “dm being equivalent with Hebrew bn ?dm and nhr with Hebrew n‘r. The next line LEvı DELLA VIDA (1965: 65) divides in the following way: w*/ Al ktm m*s P qmt, ‘and over all the Ketam he finds for himself preeminence.’ For the tribal name Ketam he compares the name well-known from Arabic sources: Katama. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v.

4) [dr]? Pwlm Translation: 1) Erected it for him his son. 2) He lived sixty years and 3) five, here is the memorial of 4) his family for ever.

kn... kl. kl ?dm, kt;, msi, qmt ) divides kl bn

Remarks: CHABOT (sub Punica xvi 2) notes that ἢ in line 3 may also be read as ἢ! + n, but that the reading /in‘kt is more probable, as it can be explained as a variant of the enigmatic /ikt found elsewhere (cf. the discussion sub Hr. Maktar N 32). This argument is

“dm kn nhr w*l kl ktm ms? P qmt, “he treated

also accepted by FEVRIER (1960-1961: 36

every person honestly, and because of all his

truthfulness / honesty he acquired respect for

remark). We agree with HorrUZER (1961: 347-348), that the context in which /mikt

himself." kt, *honesty,' being related to Akka-

occurs there is quite different from this text.

dian Kittu, qmt, ‘respect,’ to Hebrew goma, ‘height,’ both words seem rather doubtful. We are inclined to follow mainly LEvı DELLA VIDA, but to combine ¢k/ in line 3, comparable to Akkadian and Aramaic (Syriac) rkl, ‘to trust.’ kr is a perfect form of kwn. For the following w*/K [ktm we propose ‘and he goes his way,’ “Ik being a perfect qal of A/k and /ktm

He also remarks that [dr]? at the beginning of line 4 is impossible. We are inclined to suppose that it should be there somehow. The reading [3m]? might have been good conjecture, were it not for the occurrence of sk]r d? Pwlm m Hr. Gen Rieime N 1, sK*r dr? Plm in Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1, ]dr? Pwlm in Ain Youssef N 1 and also skr dr? P$t n*mt in

252

4. Texts from Algeria

Cherchel N 1. For the last word he notes that the reading /[?w]Im is to all appearances the most probable, which strengthens our previous remarks. For the meaning of skr dr’, cf. the remark sub Hr. Gen Rieime N 1. CHABOT supposes fny’ to be a plural form. We wonder

whether it cannot be a singular followed by a suffix, in which case b‘nm is also a singular, of course. If this reasoning is correct, we are left with a memorial stone in which neither the name of the deceased nor the one of the person who erected the monument are mentioned. Most probably some text containing the name of the deceased preceding line 1 has been lost, probably in a traditional opening line: this stone was erected for NN.

Souk Arrhas (Thagaste) Souk Arrhas N 1

Bibliography: CHABOT, Punica ix, 6b. Text:

1) ’bn °§ r 2) n°? lywnly *w

3) ° €nt §§

Remarks: This 1s an enigmatic text in which several Neo-Punic signs are to be discerned. VUILLEMOT (1971: 46) notes that one may recognize several signs from the classical Punic alphabet, and also some of the western Neo-Punic alphabet, but all attempts to decipher the inscription have remained without success. HoRN-RÜGER (1979: 586) thinks of an imitation of a tapestry used as wall-hanging, instead of an inscription, which seems a rather desperate solution. The (Neo-)Punic

signs seem to be used more as ornamentation among geometrical devices, or should

Translation: 1) This stone was erec2) ted for Iunilius, he liv3) ed six years.

we suppose that the unconnected letters had some magical function ?

Remarks: As ?bn is in many cases seconded by a demonstrative adjective we rather read "s in line ] than ?¥ as CHABOT (sub Punica ix 6b) proposed.

Ténés N 1

Takembrit (Siga)

Bibliography: 1895: 89.

Takembrit N 1 Bibliography: VUILLEMOT

Ténés

BERGER

Illustration: GAUCKLER tograph) 1971: 46-47. Text:

Illustrations: VUILLEMOT 1971: 47; HoRNRÜGER 1979: 586 (photograph).

1) Pdn Ib[“]l Ἴ Jari 2) t kn? qP brk°

with

GAUCKLER

1895: pl. 11, 4 (pho-

Tiffech (Tipasa in Numidia), Tipasa (in Mauretania), Tirekbine Translation: 1) To the lord, to Bal ... 2) .. because he heard his voice, blessed him.

253

Translation: l) Stone which erected Ri2) daeus for ysl, the son of Aug3) atshan ... 4) .. 6)

Remarks: As we have only the transcription of BERGER at our disposal, because the text is indistinct on the photograph (which shows the complete monument), we can not be sure of the reading, and therefore we do not know whether this text has not been published Pdn Ib[“]I ?[$ ndr ml]qr[t]......... [bn 3p] in line 1, but in note 3 he remarks that it is also possible to emend the ? following b‘/ to ?mn.

Remarks: We only have at our disposal the text as published by ViGNARD in 1853. This drawing was republished in JONGELING 1986a. The main interest of this text lies in the fact that it uses a point or small stroke as a word divider. The name of the father of the deceased, ^wg*t3*n, cannot be read with s instead of 3 if the drawing by VIGNARD can be trusted.

Tiffech (Tipasa in Numidia)

Tipasa (in Mauretania)

Tiffech N 1

Tipasa N 1

Bibliography: VIGNARD 1853: pl. xv; JoNGELING 1986a: 251-252; NP 73.

Illustration: BARADEZ ing).

Illustrations: VIGNARD 1853: pl. vx; JoNGELING 19862: fig. 2 (drawing).

Text:

elsewhere. BERGER with GAUCKLER

v1

Q^ X19 X

AIS

Farroh

J^x*2v I

reads

rIV

1968: fig. 3d (draw-

1) n/t? Remarks: Graffito on a the backside of a pottery dish. Some other small strokes may be intended graphemes.

LEN? 0 i7:

Tirekbine Tirekbine N 1

141:

ey

^m^ Bibliography: CHABOT,

Xe Text: 1)" bn °§ tyn’ ry 2) d^y IymSl bn “wg

(X

1943-1945c:

464; LPE: 54.

Text: 1) P[dn] Ib‘! witnyt p‘n 2) ? ὈἽ ndr ’yn“h 3) IPdn] 105] wltnyt pm? ὉΠ]

4) h[ ] $m? qP

3) *t$'n [ ]yml ] 4)? k'n[ ]y$mt

5) { }° df Ir 6) ° I[ }°/mn

Translation: 1) To the lord to Bal and to Tinnit Fan2) e Bal vowed Aynah

463-

254

4. Texts from Algeria

3) to the lord to Bal and to Tinnit Fane Bal 4) because he heard his voice. Remarks: The name in line 2 may be yrı“h,

in which case the preceding verb is nd?” and the name

a feminine one. It is, of course,

also possible to explain ndr as a noun in the construct state, ‘the vow of Aynah.' The repetition of the formula Pdn Ib‘! witnyt pn? bl indicates that something went wrong when the stonemason copied the text. Perhaps two different texts got mixed up.

5. Texts from Morocco Banasa Banasa

N 1

Bibliography: IAM 14.

derivation from the root $n, ‘to be quiet, to be prosperous' (cf. also BENz 1972: 412). As the first sign may also be explained as the marker of relativity, the name may also be read as yn‘k or possibly yn'k[, for which one might compare Berber INKT (R/L 778).

Illustrations: IAM pl. iv 14; GiRARD 1984: 67 (photograph). Melilla Text: 1) Syn‘[

Melilla N 1

Translation:

Bibliography:

1) Of yntn/k.

Y

Banasa N 2

Ruiz CABRERO 1998: 57-60; IAM 18; CIFE 11.01; LPE: 54.

Bibliography: [AM 15. Illustration: IAM pl. iv 15 (photograph).

PEDRERA

FERNANDEZ 1945:

DE

TaRRADELL

CASTRO 1954;

Illustrations: IAM 105; CIFE 11.01 (drawing), Ruiz CABRERO 1998: 65, fig 3 (photograph).

Text:

1) Syn‘n/k Translation:

Of yn nik. Remarks: According to FÉvRIER the two inscriptions Banasa N I & 2 were written by the same person. The last (?) sign is only preserved in Banasa N 2, and it may be read as k or n. FÉVRIER does not choose between the two possible readings, but points to the existence of the name £nn in CIS 3843, which is listed by BENZ (1972: 191) among the names of Berber origin (note the existence of SNN (RIL 6)), while HALFF (1963-1964: 143) explains the name as a hypochoristicon, possibly comparable to Sn (CIS 309), a

230,

Text: 1) bd'Strt Translation:

1) Bodashtart.

256 Remarks: bakıng.

4. Texts from Algeria A mark stamped on pottery before

Melilla N 2

Bibliography: Ruiz CABRERO 1998: 55-56; CIFE 11.02. Text: 1) bn3

Remarks: The reading bd$ as advocated by FUENTES EsTANOL (1986a, sub 11.02), seems also possible. Ruiz CABRERO (1998:

Text: 1) m/tnkn bn .[

56) reads bnsz, which with regard to the con-

Translation:

cluding sign seems

1) .., the son of...

less probable.

In case

the lines explained as z were really written by the one who incised the rest of this small text, it may also have been meant as ‘, since round lines are difficult to execute on pottery after baking.

Remarks: The photograph shows that the copy (by the hand of FÉVRIER ?) is not to be trusted completely. FÉvRIER reads, with reservations, mnnktt, and he notes that it is also possible to read mankt bt, *mnnkt has written.' As the several occurrences of the verb

Thamusida

btt supposed by FÉvRIER seem to be non-

Thamusida N 1 Bibliography: IAM 12. Illustration: IAM

pl. 11 12 (photograph).

existent, this solution seems less attractive. The photograph shows that the reading as presented above is the most probable. Hence we probably have a Berber name ending in /-kan/, followed by bn. For this name one might compare MTNK (R/L 580).

Text:

1) Ihqybl

Volubilis

Remarks: The reading of FÉVRIER is rather

Volubilis N 1

uncertain. Instead of his / one might also read r. Only y and b seem to be reasonably certain. FÉVRIER's tentative hypothesis to explain the text as a Latin name ending in -ecius, followed by b[n, ‘the son of,’ is not of much use. Thamusida N 2 Bibliography: IAM 13. Illustrations: IAM 101 (drawing); ibid. pl. iii 13 (photograph).

Bibliography: IAM 5. Illustration: IAM pl. 111 5 (photograph).

s

193

257

Volubilis

Text: 1) mr“wz’

Translation:

Translation:

Remarks: The reading presented is the one

1) Marauzo.

by FÉvRIER,

1) bx

Remarks: For this Libyan name, see the onomasticon S. v. m*rwz.

sub IAM

7, who

compares

Libyan BSKH (R/L 1080). However, the first preserved sign looks more like /i than b.

Volubilis N 4 Volubilis N 2 Bibliography: IAM 8. Bibliography: IAM 6.

y

Illustration: [AM 99 (drawing) Illustration: IAM

pl. i 6 (photograph).

Text: 1) mn‘y

Remarks:

FÉVRIER notes that the reading

mt^y is also possible. In ing were correct one may 194), otherwise it may be i.e. the one from Menae The name is scratched on of Italian origin.

case the last readcompare MTI (R/L for Latin Menaeus, (a place on Sicily). a pottery fragment

Text:

1) kf FT] Remarks: FEVRIER notes that he only had a copy at his disposal, which does not seem to be very accurate. If, however, the drawing is correct, it 1s very well possible to read Art or knn.

Volubilis N 3 Volubilis N 5 Bibliography: [AM 7. Illustration: IAM pl. in 7 (photograph).

Bibliography: IAM 9; TEixipoR 1964-1980: 118. Illustration: IAM 100 (drawing).

Text: D) re? Remarks: The reading of this above can only be reached that the text was written from mirror writing. FÉVRIER (sub

text as given by supposing left to right in /AM 9) notes

that, in case the reading is correct, one may

Text: 1) bk?

compare the Berber name rSı (R/L 371). TEIXIDOR (1964-1980: 118) points to the attestation of r in C/S 3778. The biggest problem which remains when one opts for this reading, is the archaic form of the ?, but we admit that we have no other solution.

5. Texts from Morocco

258 Volubilis N 6

Morocco OU

Bibliography: [AM 10.

Morocco

Illustration: IAM pl. i 10 (photograph).

Bibliography: IAM 19.

Text:

Illustration: IAM 107 (drawing).

1) [ Prk bt brk

OUN

1

J? xM

Translation: 1) .?rk the daughter of Barik.

Remarks: FEVRIER notes that the reading of the first two signs is uncertain. The first sign looks like a Punic z, the second one a 1 or a s. If the next word is read correctly, the first name must be that of a woman. The photograph published in /4M is clear but does not

concur with FÉvRIER's reading, however, we

Text: 1) wrd? bn [ ] Remarks: The reading of the first two signs Is, according to FÉvRIER uncertain. He thinks of a Latinname, because of the ending -, but only proposes an unattested Viridus for

Viridis, which seems less likely. FEVRIER

are not able to propose anything better.

also points to Berber URTU (RI/L 884).

Volubilis N 7 Morocco

OU

N 2

Bibliography: IAM 11 Bibliography: IAM 20. Text: illegible

Illustration: IAM 107 (drawing).

Remarks: FÉVRIER does not provide an illus-

tration of this small graffito. Volubilis N 8

Bibliography: EL-KHAYARI 2000; SZNYCER 2003. Illustration:

EL-KHAYARI

2000:

fig.

3,

Text: 1) t/nb/d/run't/nm 4

(photograph). Text: 1) .. 3)

Remarks: The text remains enigmatic. Also SZNYCER 2003 speaks of a Neo-Punic text, although he does not propose any reading.

Remarks:

FEVRIER notes that he does not

dare to give an interpretation of the drawing. Apart from the reading presented above one might also read Kr/n*t/nm. We also have no clue as to the meaning of this text. Morocco

OUN

3

Bibliography: IAM 21.

Morocco

Illustration: IAM 108 (drawing).

X

J

QU

259

Text:

Remarks: FÉVRIER notes that this is probably

the last part of a Latin name ending in -cus, although one would expect -q in that case.

6. Text from Greece Delos Delos N 1

Bibliography: BERGER 1887: 294; LPE: 13. Text: 1) *zrb'] 2) kt

Translation: 1) Azrubal 2) kt‘

Remarks: kt* may be a cognomen of Azrubal, but it may also be an unknown indicating a function.

word

7. Texts from Malta and Pantelleria Malta

Illustrations: GARBINI

1964: tav. 33, 3; ICO

fig. 4 (drawing). Malta N 1

Bibliography: Malta Npu 2.

FERRON

1967b:

17-19; [CO

Text: illegible signs and traces.

Remarks: Two complete and two fragmenIllustrations: ICO tav. xi (photograph).

tary signs of the fragment of a vase.

Text:

Malta N 3

1) z/$p[ ]ytn[ Remarks: The inscription is incised above the entrance of a rock tomb. FERRON (1967b: 17-19) reads: z msb ytnw sty, ‘this is the cave which Sittius gave.’ AMADASI (sub ICO Malta Npu 2) notes that this reading is highly uncertain, as the second sign seems to be certainly ?. With AMADASI it seems not unlikely that the text begins with $, ‘belonging to,’ followed by a personal name. AMA-

DASI points to the existence of the name ?psytn. Malta N 2

Bibliography: Malta Npu 3.

GARBINI

1964:

93-94;

ICO

Bibliography: GARBINI Malta Npu 4. Illustrations:

GARBINI

1965c:

tav. 35; [CO

fig. 4 (drawing). Remarks: Although not much more can be detected than a number of oblique strokes, and it seems uncertain whether any NeoPunic signs were meant, GARBINI (1965c: 79-80) proposes, with reserve, to read /b‘/ hmn wtnt. As AMADASI notes (sub /CO Malta Npu 4) this would be the only attestation of the cult of Bal Amun in Tas Silg, and from a grammatical point of view, one might expect the repetition of the preposition /.

UO Malta

1965c: 79-80; ICO

N 1

NEU

7. Texts from Malta and Pantelleria

262

WIVIK

Malta N 4

Bibliography: GARBINI 1965c: 160; /CO Malta Npu 5; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: M Npu 2. Illustrations: GARBINI 1965c: tav. 72, 1; /CO fig. 5 (drawing); PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: tav. xxviii (photograph).

Text: 1) ’ntgn$

Translation: 1) Antigonos. Remarks: Although

NY

Amapası

remarks that

the reading is uncertain, the drawing shows rather clearly the text as read by GARBINI

(1965c: 85). Malta N 7

Bibliography:

GARBINI

1965c:

85;

/CO

Malta Npu 8. Remarks: Two, perhaps incomplete, signs. AMADASI (sub /CO Malta Npu 5) notes that the one on the right could be a ¢ or an n, while the sign on the left might be a religious symbol. The drawing permits to suppose a reading Μη followed by ?, followed by another, only partially preserved, sign.

Illustrations: ICO fig. 5 (drawing); GARBINI 1965c: tav. 40, 2 (photograph);

VS

YN

Malta N 5 Text:

Bibliography:

GaRBINI

1965c:

58;

/CO

1) ’gsiw[

Malta Npu 6; LPE: 55. Translation: 1) Agesilaos.

Text: 1) Spt

Remarks: The reading of this name is highly

1) Shafot

uncertain, as AMADASI (sub /CO Malta Npu 8) notes.

Malta N 6

Malta N 8

Translation:

Bibliography: Malta Npu 7.

GaRBiNI.

1965c:

85;

ICO

Illustrations: ICO fig. 5 (drawing); GARBINI 1965c: tav. 40, 1 (photograph).

Bibliography: Malta Npu 9.

GARBINI

Illustrations: Barnett (photograph).

1965c:

1963-1964:

85;

(Ὁ

tav. xl, e

263

Malta

Text: 1) Iqny kh

Malta N 11

Remarks: GARBINI (1965c: 85) has taken this text as his point of departure for the decipherment of the next two texts.

Bibliography: Malta Npu 10.

GARBINI

1965a:

86;

ICO

Illustrations: ICO fig. 5 (drawing); GARBINI 1965a: 86, tav. 40, 4 (photograph).

Malta N 9 Bibliography: Malta Npu 9.

GARBINI.

1965c:

85;

(Ὁ

Illustrations: ICO fig. 5 (drawing); Barnett 1963-1964: tav. xl, e; GARBINI 1965c: tav. 40, 3 (photograph).

ZN

Remarks: AMaDası (sub /CO Malta Npu 10) does not attempt to present a reading for this and the next text, which seems to be the same. GARBINI (1965a: 86) proposes ..skp.. / sw, which seems hardly acceptable. Malta N 12 Bibliography: GARBIN!

1965a: 86

Illustrations: GARBINI (photograph).

1965a: tav. 40,

1, 5

Remarks: See the preceding text.

Text:

1) l]any kh Malta N 13 Remarks: According to GARBINI (1965c: 85) the text might mean: ‘for the one who possesses the strength,’ which seems rather surprising. The reading of this text and the next one is highly uncertain.

Bibliography: GARBINI Malta Npu 11.

1966:

56-68;

/CO

Text:

1) ndr km[.] hygn ‘lt Malta N 10

Bibliography: GARBINI Malta Npu 9.

1965a: 85-86; /CO

Illustrations: ICO fig. 5 (drawing).

ny 1^

Remarks: The reading is the proposed by GaRBiNI (1966: he translates as ‘has dedicated struction.' The text is incised tural element. Malta N 14

Bibliography: GARBINI 1966: 58; [CO Malta Npu 12. Text:

1) E Iz{ Text: 1) Iqny kh

one tentativily 56-58), which the upper conon an architec-

264

7. Texts from Malta and Pantelleria

Illustrations: ICO

Malta N 15

fig. 5 (drawing).

Bibliography: GARBINI 1966: 65; (Ὁ Malta Npu 13.

Illustrations: GARBINI 1966: tav. 41, 7 (photograph). Text: Text:

1) bn's[

1) ’mi[ Remarks: Both this text and the next one were incised on pottery. GARBINI (1966: 65) combines this text with the next one and reads both as bn‘sst, tentatively explaining it as a votive text meaning '(grace requested) for an illness,’ which is possible but uncer-

tain.

Remarks: Inscription incised on a cup. Malta N 18

Bibliography: GARBINI 1966: 65; /CO Malta Npu 15. Illustrations: GARBINI 1966: ICO tav. xii (photograph).

Malta N 16

tav.

41,

10;

Bibliography: GARBINI 1966: 65; ICO Malta Npu 13. Illustrations: GARBINI tav. xii (photograph).

1966: tav. 41, 8; ICO

Text: 1) m b/d/r ?/m

Remarks: Text:

Inscription

incised

on

a

large

vase.

1) ]n'sst Malta N 19

Remarks: See the preceding text.

Bibliography: GARBINI 1966: 65; ICO Malta Malta N 17

Npu 16.

Bibliography: ICO Malta Npu 14.

Illustrations: GARBINI 1966: tav. 41, 11; /CO fig. 5 (drawing)

2777 Via ἡ

265

Malta

Remarks: Inscription incised on the concave side of a plate. GARBINI (1966: 65—66) tentatively proposes the meaning 'a pure vase' for nbl zk, which seems highly uncertain. Malta N 21 Bibliography: GARBINI 1966: 66; (Ὁ Malta Npu 18.

1) mm’s Remarks: Inscription incised on a large vase. GARBINI (1966: 65) does not exclude the reading b^mm, which becomes possible when the inscription is turned upside down. The reading presented above and also advocated by Amapası (sub /CO Malta Npu 16) seems to be the more probable one, but both readings remain without explanation.

Illustrations: GARBINI 1966: [CO tav. 13 (photograph).

tav. 41,

13;

Malta N 20 Bibliography: GARBINI Malta Npu 17.

1966:

Illustrations: GARBINI 1966: [CO tav. xiii (photograph).

65-66;

tav.

41,

(Ὁ

12;

Text:

D [T3 hl

2)[lz[] 3I] Remarks: Inscription incised on the concave side of a plate. Malta N 22 Bibliography: GARBINI 1966: 60; AMADASI 2000: 182; /CO Malta Npu 19; PisANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: M Npu l. Text:

1) nbl zk?[ |

2) [ ]pt[ ]

Illustration: AMADASI 2000: fig. 6.

266

7. Texts from Malta and Pantelleria

1) Skhn (?)

Illustrations: AMADASI 1972: tav. 36, 3 (photograph).

Translation: |) of the priest

Text: 1) Iqny kh

Remarks: Inscription painted on a fragment of a jug. [n case it is a votive inscription the

Remarks:

meaning may be ‘of the priest.’

(cf. supra 8, 9, 10). In this text presented by

Text:

Malta N 23 Bibliography: AMADASI Illustrations: AMADASI

1969a: 75. 1969a: tav. 12, 3.

Several

presumably

inscriptions on pottery

present us with the same

AMADASI (1972: 126), only the last sign, A, is certain. In Malta N 27, the first two signs seem to be /q. The type of the script is rather Punic than Neo-Punic. Malta N 25 Bibliography: AMADAS!

E _—

text

1972: 127.

UN

NNI

Illustrations: AMADASI

1972: tav. 35, 7 (pho-

tograph). Text:

1) khn

Remarks: On two pieces of pottery (cf. also the next entry), one containing the text kh/,

read by AMADASI (1972: 127) as Kh[, howText: 1) n/tps/sn/t

ever, the k seems quite clear in the photograph. The other one is not illustrated and read as k/nhk/n by AMADASI.

Malta N 26

Remarks: AMADASI (1969a: 75) notes that the name may be Berber in case the reading is correct, and she compares the Berber name nnpsn, attested in Dougga (KA/ 100). The reading, however, seems uncertain. The

Bibliography: AMADasi 1972: 127.

photograph favours the reading ¢/nbs/st/n,

1) k/nhk/n

which might be read as a (Berber ?) name tbst or nbsn. Both these possible names are of a type attested in Berber onomastics, the prefixed and suffixed ¢ on the one hand and the ending -san on the other.

Text:

Remarks: The reading khn, beased on the preceding text, is advocated by AMADASI

(1972: 127). Malta N 27

Malta N 24 Bibliography: AMADASI

1972: 127.

Bibliography: AMADAsiI 1972: 126-127. Illustrations: AMADASI 1972: tav. 36,4 (photograph).

267

Pantelleria

Text:

Illustrations: BoRG-Rocco

1) Iq...

(drawing); foto 11—14 (photograph).

Malta N 28

Text:

1972: fig. 1, 3

1) mShd Bibliography: AMADASI

1972: 127.

Illustrations: AMADASI 1972: tav. 36, 5 (photograph). Text: 1) tm/t

Remarks: The reading remains highly uncertain. Instead of both 7 's one might also read k (twice).

2) k 2 3) hs ’b 4) Κ᾿.

5) ... Remarks: We had at our disposal only the presentation in PISANO-TRAVAGLINI (2003: 100). Therefore we repeat the translation given, without comment: ‘1) in the strength

of the gift offered by you 2) that you be strong 3) be quiet, spirit 4) keep away ...’ Both reading and translation need revision.

Malta N 29 Malta N 32

Bibliography: AMADASI

1973: 94.

Illustrations: AMADASI 1973: tav. 62, 7 (photograph).

Bibliography: BorG-Rocco 1972: 72-74; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: M Npu 4. Illustrations:

Text:

Bonc-Rocco

1972:

fig.

2

(drawing); foto 15 (photograph).

1) Iq ...[h] Remarks: See Malta N 23.

Text: 1) qm

Malta N 30

Remarks:

the Bibliography: AMADASI 1973: 94. Illustrations: AMADASI 1973: tav. 62, 8 (photograph). Text:

We

had

presentation

at

in

our

disposal

only

PISANO-TRAVAGLINI

(2003:100). There-fore we repeat the translation given, without comment: ‘Stand up.' Both reading and translation need revision.

Pantelleria

1) pl.hbr‘k Pantelleria N 1

Remarks: The photograph gives the follow-

ing impression: Pp/klmPbldlrblidlrk. Of the supposed “ preceding the concluding X nothing can be discerned on the photograph.

Bibliography: LENORMANT 1870: 13; CIS 181; LPE: 55. Illustrations:

Malta N 31

Bibliography: BorG-Rocco 1972: 67-72; Pısano-TRAVAGLINI 2003: M Npu 3.

LENORMANT

1870: Taf. 2 (drawing).

1867;

1867,

64;

LEvy

LEvy

268

7. Texts from Malta and Pantelleria 4) y bn *bd 5) mlart

(3)

Translation: 1) Stele

| ^2-K

2) and grave of 3) Balyah4) 1, the son of Abd5) melqart.

7,2».

tion is a spurious one that cannot have been

β ]aí2/ o?

found on Pantellaria. The wording of the text is unexpected, msbt wqbr 1s not attested else-

IP IX

D

270 FA w—

umb

|

Remarks: According to C/S 181 this inscrip-

where. However, as the name b‘/yhy is not attested elsewhere, but of a probable construction, we are inclined to suppose that the text is genuine (y/ty as a second element in a personal name is attested in the uncertain mr yhy and in km$yhy). The form ofthe letters, very easily drawn, may also raise suspicion,

but we do not know whether the drawing published by LENORMANT is made by him after the orignal of his informant, or whether it is a reproduction of this original drawing.

For the time being, we are inclined to accept the name D‘/yhy as a genuine one among the names in Neo-Punic inscriptions.

8. Texts from Sıcıly Favignana

could also read ‘s‘t Xt, while the second line might also start with wk, followed by one or two uncertain elements, after which one may discern a q and a 5, while it is uncertain whether the next signs were meant as graphemes. However, this reading does not

Favignana N 1

Bibliography: Bısı 1969. Illustrations: Bısı

and drawing);

Bısı

1969: tav. i (photograph

1970:

lead to an acceptable interpretation.

tav. xvii, xviii

(photograph).

Grotta Regina Grotta Regina N 1 Bibliography: AMapası 1969b: 45 POLSELLI-AMADASI 1979: 45 (29A); ANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: Si 28.

(v) Pis-

Illustrations: AMADASI 1969b: tav. xix, xx; POLSELLI-AMADASI 1979: tav. xiv-xvi, fig.

30.

D) ...]k

2) ὃς Remarks: Reading of the text remains uncertain. Text: 1) “s* n3't

Grotta Regina N 2

2) skn[ ]g/h[ 1: Remarks: Inscription at the entrance of a tomb chamber. The reading presented above is the one proposed by Bısı (1969: 556). She combines ‘s° with Hebrew ^s, ‘wood,’ and derives nt from the root ns”, ‘offering,’ the combination of the two words meaning ‘the offered wood.’ GARBINI (with Bisi 1969: 557) proposed to read: *s*t ζῆ, for “st kst, ‘the pieces of wood are covered.’ The

readings and interpretations of both scholars seem rather hazardous. In the first line one

Bibliography: AMapası 1969b: 51 (xii); POLSELLI-AMADASI 1979: 60 (40); PısanoTRAVAGLINI 2003: Si 13. Illustrations: AMapası 1969b: fig. 21; POLSELLI-AMADASI 1979: tav. xxvi, fig. 39, 39 bis. Text:

ι)} ἀκ 2) mht.’m 3) °.

270

8. Texts from Sicily

an

M

1}.

t ATX

Palermo N 1

Remarks: Reading of the text remains uncertain.

Palermo Palermo N 1

Grotta Regina N 3

Bibliography: AmaDası 1969b: 56-57 (xxi); POLSELLI-AMADASI 1979: 77-78 (58); PısANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: Sı 17. Illustrations:

AMADASI

POLSELLI-AMADASI

1969b:

1979:

tav.

tav.

xxvili;

xxxiv,

fig.

Bibliography: PELLEGRINI 1891: 79; GARBINI 1963; AMADASI 1990: 91; GARBINI1994: 47-49; GanBiNI 2006: 195; /CO Sicilia Npu

1; C/S 134; LPE:

55.

Illustrations: ICO tav. xxii; (photograph); GARBINI 2006: 195 (drawing).

57. Text: 1) Phy y?ql bn ye wbny

Text: 1) ]h 2) ]h/k.s[

Translation:

1) ...] his brother, y’g/, the son of y? and his son.

3) h/kt/nm[

4) h s[ 5) hl

Bibliography: AMADASIı 1969b: 45 (xxvi); POLSELLI-AMADASI 1979: 45 (64); PISANOTRAVAGLINI 2003: Si 20.

Remarks: Funerary inscription on a limestone slab. The word division and translation is the one proposed by AmMaDas! (1990: 91). GARBINI (1963: 223-224) supposed a personal name ?/yy?ql, (cf. also ıd., 1994: 48-49; 2006: 195). LipINsk! (1995: 372) proposes to read ?/t yy’q/, ‘alas, Iyogolo,’ but a name beginning with two y-signs seems less probable.

Illustrations: AMADASI 1969b: PoLsELLI-AMADASI 1979: fig. 60.

Sicily OU

Remarks: Reading of the text remains uncertain.

Grotta Regina N 4

fig.

33;

Text:

Sicily OU N 1

2) Itf ]t/wwpt

Bibliography: GARBINI 1965: 205-206; /CO Sicilia Npu 2.

1) JikIf ] hnmw

Remarks: Reading of the text remains uncertain.

Illustrations: GARBINI xxi (photograph).

1965: tav. 1; /CO tav.

Sicily OU

271

emphasising the imper., while /igs may be

reconstructed as /iq3[b], ‘attention.’ A highly uncertain interpretation. AMADASI (sub ICO Sicilia Npu 2) remarks that sr is only attested

once

in Biblical

Hebrew,

while

;?

is not attested until now in Phoenician. The second text remains without interpretation. Text:

1) sbtn’hasl | 2) [ ]w/kPT ]t/n[ ] Remarks: Two apparently unconnected inscriptions on the fragment of a vase. GAR-

BINI (1965: 205-206) tentatively suggests to explain sbr as an qal. imper. of sbt, ‘to hold out,’ ‘to offer,’ followed by 7’, particle

UC MOE

Al yf» J

lj

9. Texts from mainland Italy Pompei

Text: 1) Smn tzbr

Pompei N 1 Translation:

Bibliography: GARBiNI 1977: 146; Bisi INGRASSIA 1977: 152, 2; GaRBiNI 1978: 1, 2; GARBINI 1987b: 19; LPE: 55-56. Illustrations: Bısı INGRASSIA 1977: tav. lxix, 45 (drawing). Text:

1) Jdgm/” Remarks: GARBINI (1977: 146) reads mgr, which he explains as a Latin personal name Mager or Magrus. Bist INGRASSIA (1977: 152) accepts this reading, mgr, and supposes that this is a common noun, ‘villa rustica,’ related to the well-known magalia, a less probable solution. In addition, this reading presupposes that this text should be read from left to right which is improbable.

Oil of tzbr. Remarks: The reading remains uncertain; GARBINI (1977: 145) proposes 3mn t3/zbr. Bist INGRASSIA (1977: 152) also proposes to combine Xmnt zbr, translating: ‘eight cups,’ but noting that this interpretation is less probable, cf. also GARBINI (1977: 145). The sign following this short text is described by Bis! INGRASSIA (1977: 152) as non-alphabetic, although is may be explained as a normal ayin crossed by a line that originally did not form part of the text. In that case the oil originated from Tazbara. Or, perhaps, the sign is a ligature of * and 7i. In that case the inscription is better explained as the marker of relativity, 5, followed by a Berber personal name ending in /-an/. Pompei N 3

Pompei N 2 Bibliography: GARBINI 1977: 145; Bisi INGRASSIA 1977: 152, 3; GARBINI 1978: 1, 3; GARBINI 1987b: 19; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: Cam Npu 3. Illustrations:

CIL

iv 5863;

Bist

INGRASSIA

Bibliography: GaRBINI 1977: 145; Bisi INGRASSIA 1977: 152, 3bis; GARBINI 1978: 2, 4; GARBINI 1987b: 19; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: Cam Npu 2. Illustrations: Bist INGRASSIA 1977: tav. xin, 14d (drawing).

1977: tav. Ixix, 44 (drawing).

Ἱ[]ΠΡΤΊχ f

Text:

1) &mn pk Translation: Oil from the phial.

273

Rome

Remarks: GARBINI (1977: 145) and Bisi INGRASSIA (1977: 152) read pd. GARBINI (1978: 2; id., 1987b: 19) proposes pk. Both readings remain highly uncertain.

1977: 152, 1; GARBINI 1978: 1, 1; Mazza, 1983; GARBINI 1987b: 19; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: Lazio Npu 1; LPE: 56. Illustration: FABIANI 1880, fig. 1; Bisi INGRASSIA 1977: tav. Ixvii, 36 (drawing).

Pompei N 4 Bibliography: Bısı INGRASSIA 1977: 152153, 4; GARBINI 1978: 2, 5; GARBINI 1987b: 19; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: Cam Npu 1. Illustrations:

Bist INGRASSIA

1977:

[to fans

tav. lix,

3c (drawing). Text: Text:

1) dmtry

1) q’yql‘yn’ Translation:

Translation:

1) Caecilianus.

Demetrius.

Remarks: GARBINI (1977: 145) and Bisi INGRASSIA (1977: 152-153) read dmytry, however, the signs they read as yt are rather to be combined and read as only r.

Rome Rome

N 1

Bibliography: FABIANI 1880, 1-7; CIL xv 4898: GARBINI 1977: 146; Bis! INGRASSIA

Remarks: The interpretation presented above follows e.g. GARBINI (1977: 146). Bist INGRASSIA (1977: 152) reads qdy ql ‘yn’ translating: *Quday the voice, his eye,’

which is improbable. MAZZA (1983: 63-64) accepted by GARBINI (1987b: 19), reads y‘yg vr, for Caec. Laetus. One wonders whether this perfectly normal Latin abbreviation, Caec., is to be expected in a Neo-Punic text. Further it should be noted that the normal rendering of Latin /t/ in Neo-Punic texts is f, t is only used in the combination sr, cf. e.g. JONGELING (1984: 98).

10. Texts from Sardinia Antas

Cagliari N 3

Antas N 1

Bibliography: FILIGHEDDU

Bibliography: FANTAR Illustrations:

FANTAR

Illustration: FILIGHEDDU tograph).

1969: 9]. 1969:

tav.

1994: 810. 1994: tav. 1 (pho-

xxxvilll

Text:

(photograph).

I) Text: Remarks: FILIGHEDDU does not attempt a reading and the photograph leaves even a small doubt whether it is really a Neo-Punic text.

l)s

Cagliari Cagliari N 1

Capo di Pula Bibliography: SPANO Sardegna Npu 4.

1875; CIS

141; JCO Capo di Pula N 1

Illustrations: SPANO 1875: 6 (drawing); /CO tav. lii (photograph).

Bibliography: SPANO 1855: 146; ICO Sardegna Npu 3.

Text:

Text:

1) °Sm[ ]5m[ ]

1)Π]]

Remarks: In case the reading is correct one

Capo di Pula N 2

43

n. 2; CIS

has to suppose that a Punic form of m has been used.

Bibliography: ICO Sardegna Npu 7.

Cagliari N 2

Illustrations: ICO fig. 14 (drawing).

Bibliography: FILIGHEDDU

n

1994: 810.

Text:

1) Inswk tk?z w?zmn t[ Text: Remarks: This text needs to be restudied.

1) $sp?

Chia

6) ....««νννννον l'tyn gy p’mp‘y phlys win’m T) Tree lyn ws'twrnynh *nbrys

Translation:

1) Of sp? Remarks: If the reading ıs correct, this may be an owners mark. The name sp? is possibly a hypochistic one derived from a name beginning with the element sp.

1934-

Translation: 1) ... ] the altars that are before him, which the whole community of Bitia made at its own expense and completely 2) ... Impe]rator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus 3) ... ] the rim of the cisterns in the year of the suffetes bb‘l, the Roman, 4) ... ] the suffete, and Marcus Peduceius Plautius 5) ... ] ... the cistern ... of the place

1990:

6) ... ] Gaius Pompeius Felix, and were

Chia Chia

1

Bibliography:

Levi

DELLA

Vıpa

1935; /CO Sardegna Npu 8; Amapası

48, 81-82; ΚΑΙ 173. Illustrations:

ICO

placed 7) ... | and Saturninus *ibr ys. fig.

15;

ΚΑΙ,

(drawing); Levi DELLA VipA 188; /CO tav. lv; Amapası (photograph).

E

Taf.

10

1934-1935: 1990:

fig.

14;

jp 50 s Gs er ood

fene one netur fr

7

95 $8) |o HOIST DENN

n9 §

PO

275

sq 530 end" Whag ] o9] "M 9 Mae

Text: 1) hJmzbhm 5$ ‘1 p'ny °§ ΡῚ kl “m byt‘n bts°t wtkPt 2) ?mp]r'tr q’ysr m‘rgh “wrhly *ntnynh

']wgsth

3) ...... lt hqs?h Shbhrm bit Sptm bb‘ hPmy A) ......... ]h hSpt wnYrqh phdwq*yh pl*wty 5} «ον νννννννον Ἰννγίγη hb“r hdbr immqm ἢ

Remarks: A commemorative inscription inscribed on a chalk plaque. The type of script used in this text is normally described as Neo-Punic, cf. e.g. AMADASI (sub /CO 133), presenting the text among the NeoPunic ones from Sardinia, and ROLLIG (sub KAI

173), who also counts this texts among

the Neo-Punic texts he publishes. Note, however, that according to Levi DELLA VIDA (1969: 317 n. 3) the script is better described as Punic. For the sake of completeness we have included the text, although we are inclined, with LEvi DELLA VIDA, to describe the script used as a form of Punic. GARBINI (2006: 195) describes the type of script as a local, highly developed, form of the Punic script. On the problem, cf. also SZNYCER (1978b: 262), who does not take a stand either way. The text can be dated with certainty either in he reign of Marcus Aurelius or Caracalla, while Sardinia came under Roman administration in the 3" century B.C. This makes it easy to understand why the Punic script in Sardinia displays a development differing from the one in North Africa. In line 5 KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. br, dbr.,, cf. also mgm, ) explains b?r hdbr Ymmqm as 'the cella of the holy place caught fire.' In case ^wyty*n

MALKOV

is a personal

is probably

correct

name,

KRAH-

in taking the

10. Texts from Sardinia

276

h as the last letter of the name. KRAHMALKOv himself (ibid.) is uncertain about the interpretation of dbr. b?r is explained by

KRAHMALKOV

S. Antioco S. Antioco N 1

(2000, s.v. b‘r ), as a piel

of br, ‘to set on fire, burn down,’ while he translates it as if it were a passive form. It remains uncertain whether ‘nbrys in line 7 is a personal name.

Bibliography: DELLA MARMORA 1833: 129; JUDAS 1847a: 187; DE SAULCY 1847b: 204; Movers 1850: 574, n. 64; LEvy 1857: 9899, 17; [CO Sardegna Npu 1; C/S 150. Illustrations:

JUDAS

1847a:

pl.

28;

DE

Olbia

SAULCY 1847b: pl. I, VON MALTZAN 1869: 539; CIS tab. xxxiii (drawing); CIS tab. xxx-

Olbia N 1

iii; /CO tav. | (photograph).

Bibliography: VATTIONI 1994c.

Text: 1) τί }[ ]hbrk bn sdq

Illustration: PANEDDA 1954: tav. ii, 2; following D’ORIANO 1994, pl. iib (photograph). Text: 1) S°z‘r

Remarks: This text is published by VATTIONI (1994c: 815) as a Neo-Punic text. However, if his reading is correct, the text must be

Punic, as is shown by the W-form of the X. If the text were in Neo-Punic script one would have to interpret the first sign as ἢ (compare the form of this sign in the ostracon from Al-Qusbat). VATTIONI explains the name ‘zer as a shortened form of ‘zrb‘/, quoting the Latin form of this name as known from North-African Latin texts: Asdrubal. He fails, however, to explain the vowel between the second and third consonants. We suppose that apart from the form /‘azruba‘l/, where -u- may be a remnant of the nominative ending or a connecting vowel, the noun ‘zr, in a form that may be described as normal for at least Punic, was also used as a personal name. For the development of a vowel between the second and third consonants, cf. PPG?, ὃ 96, and KERR’s forthcoming dissertation (2007).

Translation: 1) ... the son of Sadiq. Remarks: The inscription is incised on the convex side of a round marble pedestal. JUDAS (1847a: 187) reads [^]dn γ᾽] nbbrk bn sdq, translating: basim proposuit sibi

Nabubarach, filius Sodeq. LEvy accepts the reading of the dedicants name, but proposes to read [P]dn y’b“l instead of the first two

words. He supposes that the fifth sign is a ligature of b‘/. The only acceptable reading proposed in C/S, according to AMADASI (sub ICO Sardegna Npu 1), is rp[y]?3 hbrk bn sdq, Rafias ... filius Sadiqi. The photograph published in /CO tav. 1, only gives a clear view of the signs following ?, which makes

it difficult to interpret. The sign following ?, is read by most commentators as $, might also be read as m, or be understood as a division marker, according to AMADASI (/CO: 126). The reading $, however, seems the most probable solution. Although hbrk may be a derivation of the root brk preceded by the article, the first solution which comes to mind is to explain it as (part of) a personal name. The reading hbrk was first proposed in CIS. As we noted above, earlier editions read a personal name nbbrk, *Nabu has blessed.’

277

5. Antioco

The photographs and drawings published all favour this earlier reading, although, of course, the problem noted in C/S, that the Mesopotamian god Nabu is not to be expected in a text from Sardinia, still holds true. We are inclined, though, to retain the earlier reading and, for reasons of method,

1899, no. 201; CLERMONT-GANNEAU 9]

(n. 2); FÉvRIER

1958;

PıLı

1906:

1980; XELLA

2001: 32-33; CIS 151; RES 669; [CO Sardegna Npu 2. Illustrations:

MALTZAN

Junas

1847a:

pl.

1869: pl. 1; HALEvy

29;

VON

1876: pl.

not to accept a doubtful reading based on

3; LipzBaRSKI

historical soning.

CIS tab. xxxiii (photograph of cast); C/S tab.

rather than palaeographical

rea-

xxxiv; [CO tav. li (photograph). Text: 1) Iplks khrhsy.

S. Antioco N 2

Bibliography: 1847a:

188-191;

1898: Tav. xvi, 3 (drawing):

DE

SauLcy

Movers

1845;

Jupas

1850: 574, n. 64;

Von MALTZAN 1869: 554-568; HALEVY 1876; LiDZBARSKI 1898: 434, 3 A2; LANDAU

2) p'l t hm” ’st phly? 3) ?gbr ^tm? bn mqrm 4) [Κη P wPmm

b'*m

5) k'bd mh't Imthbt 6) km tp/ndss Ibntm Im

278

10. Texts from Sardinia

Translation: 1) For Felix ... 2) made this ... Pullius 3) Agbor, the leader (?), the son of ... 4) to be for him and for his mother a construction 5) of honour ... 6)... Remarks: This commemorative inscription is inscribed on a marble slab. The reading is based mainly upon the photograph published

in /CO. It is strange that a text, looking straightforward at first glance, poses so many reading problems. Therefore we first discuss some of the proposed readings before proceeding to the context. In line 1 the sixth sign is read by most commentators as k, although both the photograph published in /CO and the photograph of the squeeze in

CIS at least indicate a possible reading P. The last sign of the line is left without inter-

pretation by most commentators, although is looks somewhat

like a z. One of the more

important problems is to be found in line 2, where the reading ..t ἢ m” ?.. is possible although the first of the three alef signs seems to be different from the other two. In the drawing published by LIDZBARSKI in 1898, the first? differs considerably from the other attestations of this grapheme in the text: te left top ends in a round line, looking like the top of the r as in line 1. The right top seems to be turning downwards to the left more than the other ? 's. The right top seems to be turning downwards to the left more than the other ? 's. PıLı’s (1980) supposition, that the sign is a ligature of t and r is unlikely, as we have no other examples of two long-legged signs crossing each other.

If the drawing is correct, and this is corroborated by the photograph published in /CO, one might think of the small variant of b/d/r followed by /i. Or is it possible that the stone cutter forgot a sign between the first two ? 's

and tried to make up for his fault by marking the head of the sign he forgot at the top left corner of the ? . [n that case the reading

would be ?d/b/r?. In line 3 most commentators read bn after "tm", even though the expected round head of the 5 is almost invisible, at least, the sign read by many as & in the first line looks more like 5 than does this

sign. The reading X for this sign is certainly not impossible. The last sign in this line is normally read as ?, though it seems smaller than several other alef signs in its direct vicinity (directly above, resp. below), while on the other hand, it is bigger than the m in tn? in the same line. The double m in line 4 forms a ligature, noteworthy because ligatures do not occur much in Neo-Punic script. The paenultimate sign is normally transcribed as , although the line forming this sign seems to curve to the left below, which rather indicates a reading b or K. In line 5, the word following K*bd is rather to be read

nıh’t. Note that the third sign of this word has a rather long line stretching down to the left, while the line stretching down to the right is short because it would otherwise have touched the preceding h. The characteristic downstroke from the top right is discernable over the head of the preceding A. The paenultimate sign in this line is again interpretable as k or b. In line 6, the last sign may be m or ?. Due to the difficulties involved in reading this text, its interpretation is rather problematic. The first name in line 1 is read p/k by FÉvRIER (1953b: 466), following e.g. C/S, sub 151, but afterwards he adopted the accepted reading (cf. FÉVRIER 1958: 442). The second name in line | is read by FEVRIER (1958: 442), as khrhsyh for Ceresius, which should be a vulgar form of

Cressius, while previously (FEVRIER 1953b: 466) he explained the same reading as a possible rendering of the Latin name Carisius. The intrusion of a spurious vowel in an initial consonant cluster is not a real surprise, of course. A greater problem, however, is caused by the use of s for Latin /s/ where one would expect s. The name s‘tr has been supposed in Teboursouk N 8, where we are inclined to read “tr. PiL1 1980 reads phrhsy (s 2). The reading p instead of k

279

S. Antioco

is not

impossible.

Most

&-signs

have

a

clearly forked upper part, while this sign only shows a trace of the fork, or perhaps rather a closed round element, which would lead to the reading b. We are inclined to favour this last mentioned reading, although we have to admit that we cannot furnish a better explanation than the traditional one, which supposes another uncertain name. LIDZBARSKI (1898: 434) reads the last sign in line 1 as h, which seems less probable, while AMADASI (sub /CO Sardegna Npu 2) does not give an interpretation for this sign. As we are not able to give an interpretation for the second part of this line we cannot propose a reading for this last sign, which, however, looks more like = than anything. else. Note that LANDAU (1899: 75, n. 1) proposes that khrhs.. might be an abbreviation for khn hrbt hs.., ‘the priest of the Lady H...'. In line 2, the word division and interpretation were proposed by CLERMONTGANNEAU (1906: 91 n. 2, id., sub RES 669). ^st as a variant of the demonstrative st is attested elswhere. The supposition that m” is a lapsus for m’$, supposed by LIDZBARSKI (1898: 305), CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1906: 91, id., sub RES 669), FÉvRIER (1958: 443), AMADASI (sub /CO Sardegna Npu 2), and again discussed by XELLA (2001: 32), is, of course possible. However, the supposition that nr? is a lapsus for mb’ seems equally possible. In that case one might suppose that the first ? 1s more or less changed in a ἢ that was forgotten, followed by a new ? in its correct place, and mb’ can easily be

(/CO, sub Sardegna Npu 2) is not certain. The interpretation as a name, Pullius, by FÉVRIER gives good grammar and may be correct. Note, however, that normally in Punic and Neo-Punic texts, the Latin ending

-ius in names is represented by -v. For the few exceptions, see e.g. JoNGELING (1984: 96). The first word of the next line has been read as "gbr by LIDZBARSKI (1898: 434), a reading accepted by FEVRIER (1958: 443,’gbr), who, however, also proposed the

alternative

reading

’ery,

which

he

had

adopted earlier (cf. FEVRIER 1953b: 465), as a reflection of Latin Agrius. With AMADASI (sub /CO Sardegna Npu 2) we are of the

opinion

that

this

reading

is impossible.

ing, seems highly improbable (for this word, see also below). p/ily? is read by modern commentators, cf. e. g. FÉVRIER (1953b:

AMADASI (/CO a.l.) is cautious and reads ’eb/rr, which more or less expresses the possible readings. Pırı 1980, combining with the following ?, reads ?erq?. The clear space between the second r (or supposed 4) speaks against this division of words, while the reading q is also less probable. The name Agbor (CIL viii 26701) has been adduced to explain this word, and this may very well be correct. The following "tv? has been explained as the article followed by a word meaning ‘chief,’ also attested in KA/ 1. Although the derivation is still in discussion (cf. DNWSI s. v. 191.) the supposed meaning seems to be quite possible. On the other hand, one should not exclude the possibility that ?tni? is a verbal form derived from the root tmm. The following word is read bn by most commentators, although we cannot be certain. This reading leaves us with another personal name following. Note, however, FEVRIER (1958: 445), who reads bt mar, where nıqr? is a word meaning 'timberwork,' ‘a house of timberwork’ being the object of the verbal form b‘n’ (qal. perf. 34 s.m. of bny, to build) in the next line. This line, however, is better explained as meaning 'to be for himself and for his mother’ followed by a noun that might be introduced by the preposition 5, or rather a nominal derivation from the root buy. Like FEVRIER (1958:

465, 469, id. 1958: 443), although AMADASI

445),

explained as a derivation from the root bw",

meaning ‘entrance.’ [n addition, should b^? in line 4 mean ‘construction,’ an explanation of line 2 based on the reading mb? is perhaps more in line with the rest of the text than the supposed statue. The reading mgr? instead of m? as proposed by KRAHMALKOV (2000,

s. v. niqr;, *bd), meaning ‘a kind of build-

KRAHMALKOV

(2000,

s.v. mqr;, *bd),

280

10. Texts from Sardinia

reads niqr^, but he explains the word as a personal name. The first words of line 4 are certainly to be read /kn P wPmm, where the last two signs, mm, form a ligature. Accord-

ing to KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. mqr;;, *bd), the following b“n? is the name of the mother. However, the word b‘n? seems most proba-

bly derived

from

the root bny, possibly

Text: 1) [Ih]mikt bn ?dnb'l bn hmlkt

2) hprt “1 mytb? r? hslky 3) Ibn’t t hmgdS st Ihrbt Plt 4) tyr? t hm'$ st br? hmlkt Latin parallel: 1) Himilconi Idnibalis fi/io

meaning 'construction,' or something com-

2) quei hanc aedem ex senatus consulto

parable.

faciendam 3) coeravit Himilco fi/ius statvam [posuit]

In lines 5 and 6 KRAHMALKOV

(2000, s.v. bss, *bd), basing himself upon

the reading proposed

in FÉvRiER

(1958:

445—446), but dividing differently and not

taking into account the remark of AMADASI (sub /CO Sardegna Npu 2) that the reading of FÉvRiER (1958) should be discarded, reads k “ba? hmt P th[n]t kmt bfss Ibntm Im, translating “because they did a favour for him, so did he undertake to build it for them.' Both the reading and the interpretation seems highly improbable. Most commentators refrain from interpreting the last two lines.

Remarks: In line 2 KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. h, prt, $m, t), supposes prt to be a

verb (qal ?) meaning ‘to undertake’ (‘to do something’), which is possible in this context. The supposition that ἢ in this case

S. Antioco N 3

Bibliography:

Translation: 1) For Himilco, the son of Idnibal, the son of Himilco, 2) who ... with the approbation of the senate of Sulcis 3) to build this sanctuary for the lady, the goddess, 4) erected his son Himilco this statue.

DILLMANN

1881: 429-433;

RENAN 1881; LIDZBARSKI 1898: 434, 3 Al; LANDAU 1899, no. 199; FRIEDRICH 1935— 1936: 82-83; LEvı DELLA VIDA 1964: 310; AMADASI 1990: 47, 80-81; ADams 2003: 212-213; AT 100; NSI 60; CIS 149; ICO Sardegna Npu 5; KA/ 172; LPE: 56; CIL x 7513; CIL 1 2225 (p 1096); ILLRP 158 (p. 320); ZuccA 1996: 1466-1468. Illustrations: DILLMANN

1881: 429; Lipz-

introduces a verbal form in the perfect tense seems less atractive, and there is no reason not to explain the form as a participle. The reading myth’ γ᾽ hslky seems more attrac-

tive than mytb γ᾽ hslky which would leave us with an awkward article preceding 7$. Note, however, the word divider following my. Perhaps it is better to suppose ?/t to function as a name, /lor, rather than the common noun, ‘goddess’ (otherwise ROLLIG, sub ΚΑ]

172).

BARSKI 1898: Taf. xviii | (drawing); CIS tav. xxxiv; /CO tav. liii; AMADASI (photograph).

1990: fig. 13

ENTE

NIS PTI πο

BAUR PAIS

SRH WIA TE RAL APS

S. Antioco N 4

Bibliography: EuTING 1882; CIS 152; ICO Sardegna Npu 6; Amapası 1990: 46-47,

79-80 Illustrations: EuTING 1882: 421 (drawing); CIS, tab. xxxv; (Ὁ tav. liv; AMADASI 1990: fig, 12 (photograph).

S. Antioco

281

3) of Abdmelqart, the son of Bod[ 4) the son of ”h$bn was this stone 5) erected; erected it for him his three sons

6) Bodmelqart and Magon and *.. 7)-8) ...

“Ee

/

png payee CY

oss

xryt AK) | 4p. ay

A"

nx

RA

;

4

Remarks: The first line and the lines 2 to 8 seem to be unrelated, cf. EuTING (1882: 422). As a few traces of signs are to be seen

between the lines I and 2 and perhaps also following the last line, it is very well possible that the stone was reused. Of the original text only part of the first line remains, while the rest is the right side of the later text. In case this is correct, this explains the three forms of the root tn? instead of the expected two. We presented the reading as given by AMADASI (sub /CO Sardegna Npu 6). However, the reading of st and $/$/r in line 5 seems uncertain. At the beginning of line 6 *bdmlqrt seems more attractive, while the reading nmm instead of nm’ is not impossible. This word may be a derivation from the root ^m, but both the reading and the context remain uncertain. S. Antioco N 5a Bibliography: PiL1 1990: 12-13. Illustrations: Pitt (photograph).

Text: 1) tn? h[^bn st]

2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

l'bdmiqrt bn *bdmiqrt bn *bdmilqrt bn bd? ] bn ^h3bn tr? [h’bn] st tny? P SIS[t bny?] bdmlqrt wmgn wT ]

7) δ (ht ] 8) hm?

hy?

Translation: 1) This stone was erected ... 2) For Abdmelqart, the son of Abdmelqart, the son

1990:

12 (drawing),

14

ASI Text: 1) ’ntyks S. Antioco N 5b Bibliography: Pitt 1990: 12-13.

Illustrations: Pitt (photograph).

1990:

12 (drawing),

14

282

10. Texts from Sardinia Text: 1) S’rkrh

Translation:

n3

1) Of’rkrh. Remark: For this name, see the onomasticon.

Text: 1) ’ntyks

Tharros N 2

Translation:

Bibliography: ICO Sardegna Npu 10.

1) Antiochus Illustration:

ICO

tav. lvi (photograph).

Remarks: The two inscriptions are found on the same object, a small lamp. Note that the reading is not as certain as the editor wants us to believe. The last sign but one seems

more like p in the drawings of S. Antioco 5a and 5b (although less so in 5a). In the photograph of 5a the sign might be interpreted as t, while in the photograph of 5b it is not very

clear, yet there the head of the sign looks more like p than k. Reading p would lead to the name ’ntyps, Antipas, leaving us with several interesting problems.

Tharros Tharros N 1 Bibliography: ICO Sardegna Npu 9. Illustrations: ICO tav. lvi (photograph).

Text: 1) Smt/nhqrr Remark: This owners mark seems to have been incised

later than the large Latin A.

ΩΝ

QS

Tharros N 3

Bibliography: GARBINI 1993: 223—225; PısANO-TRAVAGLINI 2003: 167, Sa Npu 1. Illustrations: GARBINI 1993: fig. 2; 1d. 2006: 195, fig. b.

Villaperucciu

283

Text: 1) z kd npl ngrt hsbl

Text:

Translation: 1) This jug has fallen, its load is spilled.

Remarks: Levy (1864a: 46) reads Ikırdr. ‘(Seal of) Kynadir,’ which is at least more

1) ?w^?^dr ?

probable than SPANO's assumption that the Remarks: Both reading and interpretation by GARBINI (1993), which we have rendered here, seem rather fantastic.

Villaperucciu Villaperucciu N 1

text should be read Ik Pdrh, ‘for you, magnificent lady.” Von MALTZAN (1869: 543) reads ἐκ’ ‘dn, translating: “happiness for the bride.” AMADASI (sub /CO Sard. 11) does not give a reading apart from the ? in thc centre of the text, which seems to be a name engraved upon a stone that was used in a signet ring. The letter read as k by SPANO,

Levy and Von MALTZAN looks rather like Bibliography: SPANO 1862; SPANO Levy 1864a: 45-46; Von MALTZAN 542—544; ICO Sard. 11. Illustrations: SPANO

pl. 6, Von 13, 11.

MALTZAN

1863: 43; LEvy

1863; 1869:

1864a:

1869: 542; ICO Fig.

a Neo-Punic w.

ll. Texts from Spain Almeria

Text: l) ’tn II k[d]

Almería N 1

Bibliography: SiRET 1906: 93, 452; SOLA SOLE 1960: 289 n.8; ICO Spagna Npu 1; CIFE 02.05. Illustrations: SiRET

Remarks: The reading presented is the one of SANMARTÍN Ascaso (1989: 94). How-

ever, the reading of the second sign as t 15 not very probable, while the last three signs are perhaps better interpreted as br.

1906: tav. iv, 11; SOLA

SoLÉ 1960: fig. 12; /CO fig. 18; CIFE 02.05

Cartagena N 2

(drawing).

Bibliography: 04, 1.3.2.

Text:

SANMARTÍN

AscAso

1989:

1)? Illustrations: SANMARTÍN AscAso 1989: 921 6 (drawing) ib. 100, foto 7 (photograph).

Cartagena Text:

Cartagena N 1

Bibliography: 94, 1.3.1.

1) *zrb[

SANMARTÍN

ASCASO

1989:

Illustrations: SANMARTÍN ASCASO 1989: 92 1.7 (drawing) ib. 99, foto 6 (photograph).

Remarks: The reading of SANMARTÍN Ascaso (1989: 94) seems fairly dubious. The supposed z is rather big in comparison to the other signs, while normally = is small in comparison with other characters.

Ibiza Ibiza N 1

Bibliography: SOLA SOLE 1955: 51-52; ICO Spagna Npu 2; C/FE 07.04; Hispania 6. Illustrations: SOLA SOLE 1955: fig.6, 7; ICO fig. 18; CIFE 07.04 (drawing).

Malaga

ka

285

Ibiza N 4 Bibliography: CIFE 07.18. Illustration: CIFE 07.18.

Text:

Text:

1) bs

1) ἃ

Translation:

Remarks: An abbreviated name ?

1) bPs. Ibiza N 5 Remarks: FUENTES ESTANOL (sub C/FE 07.04) compares the name ’sb‘/. The earlier reading pl mgn, 'Magon made it,’ (still accepted by ROLLIG 1986: 55) seems less probable if the drawing presented by FUENTES ESTANOL is correct.

Bibliography: RAMON-Diaz ESTEBAN 1978: 257-282; PISANO-TRAVAGLINI Npu 6; CIFE 07.19.

2003:

Illustrations: R&éMON-DÍAZ ESTEBAN fig. 1; CIFI 07.19 (drawing).

Sp

1978:

Ibiza N 2

Bibliography: SOLA SOLE

1960: 277-279;

ICO Spagna Npu 3; Hispania TRAVAGLINI 2003: Sp Npu 5.

7; Pısano-

Illustrations: SOLA SOLE 1960: fig. 1,2; /CO tav. Ixii (photograph). Text: 1) Sht?/mwsl Remarks: The reading of this text is, as AMADASI (/CO a.l.) notes extremely uncertain. Most probably it is an owners mark, consisting of the marker of relativity, followed by a personal name (AMADASI ib.). Ibiza N 3

Text: 1) 1...“ 2) bd‘Strt 3) bdmlart 4) ’by. hzkn 5) "dn^smy bd'strt Translation: 1)... 2) Bodashtart 3) Bodmelgart 4)... 5) ... Bodashtart. Remarks: Perhaps line 4 and the first half of line 5 also contain names, not attested elsewhere. As this seems to be a list of names, the interpretation of ’by as ‘his father’ is not very probable.

Bibliography: CIFE 07.17. Illustration: CIFE 07.17.

Malaga

Text:

Malaga N 1

1) °g Bibliography: SZNYCER Remarks: An abbreviated name ?

1985: 57-59.

11. Texts from Spain

286

10.03 (drawing); FUENTES EsrANOoL 1983:

Text: 1) bd

TN

tav. iv-l; GUERRERO-FUENTES (photograph).

Malaga N 2 Bibliography: SZNYCER

1985: 57-59.

Text:

1) ]gr

1984:

94

Mallorca 1) gr Strt Mallorca N 1 Translation:

Bibliography: FUENTES ESTANOL GUERRERO-FUENTES 1984: 90, CIFE 10.02.

1983: 40; CING-1;

Illustrations: GUERRERO-FUENTES 1984: 93;

1) Gerashtart Remarks: The reading seems certain, although the form of the $ is rather awkward.

CIFE 10.02 (drawing); FUENTES ESTANOL 1983: tav. v-1; GUERRERO- FUENTES 93 (photograph).

1984:

py

Mallorca N 3

Bibliography: FUENTES EsTANOL 1983: 39— 40; GUERRERO-FUENTES 3.

1984: 90, CING-

Illustrations: GUERRERO-FUENTES 1984: 95 (drawing); FUENTES ESTANOL 1983: tav. v-2; GUERRERO-FUENTES 1984: 95 (photograph).

Text:

1) Sb'Ihn?

Text:

1) .d/r Translation: 1) Of Balanno Remarks: Note that the h seems to be more Punic than Neo-Punic in form. Mallorca N 2 Bibliography: FUENTES ESTANOL 1983: 39; GUERRERO-FUENTES 1984: 90, CING-2; CIFE 10.03.

Remarks: GUERRERO-FUENTES (1984: 90) propose with hesitation the reading ‘sr, although it seems that the points below the two graphemes are rather an embellishment than the indication of an *, of the same type as in CING-12, cf. the photograph ibid. 104. Mallorca N 4

Bibliography:

GUERRERO-FUENTES

91, CING-7; CIFE 10.06. Illustrations: 1V-2;

FUENTES

EsTANOL

GuERRERO- FUENTES

1984:

1983: 94;

tav. CIFE

1984:

287

Villaricos Illustrations:

99;

CIFE

FUENTES

1984:

Remarks: Nothing can be made of this text,

GUERRERO-

painted on a jar. GUERRERO-FUENTES (1984: 102) read: 1) .y.: 2) dni[ . The reading is highly uncertain. The second sign in line 2 looks more like g, while / for the third sign

GUERRERO-FUENTES

10.06

(drawing);

1984: 99 (photograph).

(C (C

Ü

seems less attractive. In the first line only = seems to have been read correctly.

Villaricos 1) bd‘Str[t

Villaricos N 1

Remarks: FUENTES ESTANOL (sub C/FE 10.06) reads bd‘tt, possibly the abbreviation of bd‘Strt. However, we think that the sign following * is rather a ligature of $ and t than anything else.

Bibliography: CHABOT Text:

1) §d/b/rr/d/b‘z/Sn/tt/nh[ | Illustrations: (drawing).

Mallorca N 5

GUERRERO-FUENTES

1984:

AN

Illustrations: GUERRERO-FUENTES 102 (drawing); GuERRERO-FUENTES 102 (photograph).

1984: 1984:

mirrored:

Bibliography:

1932-1933: 501.

by

CHABOT

1932-1933:

AD

501

i y

9], CING-10.

W \ (fre

AS

Text: 1) n/t.[

2) .&.[ Remarks: Not much is left of this text, painted on a jar. GUERRERO-FUENTES (1984:

102) read: 1) .t/ 2) &z[ . Mallorca N 6

Bibliography: 91, CING-11.

GUERRERO-FUENTES

1984:

Illustrations: GUERRERO-FUENTES 103 (drawing); GUERRERO-FUENTES 103 (photograph).

1984: 1984:

Remarks: Nine copies of this text, which was pressed with a mould into soft clay before baking, have been found. Only when mirrored, the text gives the impression that it was written in Neo-Punic characters. Both the reading and the purpose of the text remain unclear. Villaricos N 2

Text:

1)... 2)...

Bibliography: 9].

SANMARTÍN

Ascaso

1986:

Illustrations: SANMARTIN ASCASO 1986: 92, i 5 (drawing); ib. 99, foto 5 (photograph).

288

11. Texts from Spain results from the arbitrary use of the vowel letter ^ which indicates here a sound between /o/ and /u/. If reading and translation are cor-

Text: 1) *b'r

Remarks:

SANMARTIN ASCASO (1986: 91)

translates

‘grain,’ comparing

Aramaic

and

Hebrew ‘bwr, and notes that the spelling

rect, one has to suppose a realisation /abar/ instead of /abör/.

However,

might also be read as t.

the last letter

12. Text from Wales Holt

Text: 1) m'qryn?

Holt N 1 Translation:

Bibliography:

GUILLAUME

DELLA

1940a;

VIDA

1940;

Levi

1) Macrinus

THACKER-WRIGHT

1955; COLLINGWOOD-WRIGHT nr.2502.14; LPE: 57.

1995:

Illustrations: GUILLAUME 1940; THACKER/ WRIGHT 1955 (photograph), COLLINGWOOD/WRIGHT 1995: 4 (drawing).

AR

Remarks: The only Neo-Punic inscription found north of the Alps, incised on a pottery sherd. The name m*qryr? was read for the first time correctly by LEvı DELLA ViDA (1940a: 577) and again by THACKER-WRIGHT (1955: 90), followed by COLLINGWOOD-WRIGHT (1995, sub 2502.14). For the name, cf. the remark sub m‘qr in the onomasticon.

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends This overview is mainly based on ALEXANDROPOULOS 2000 and MANrREDI 1995, but some earlier overviews, of which we mention especially MÜLLER 1861, 1862, 1874, were also used. It is less profuse in its comment when compared to the inscriptions, as we did not want to enter

into the discussions on these artefacts, apart from the texts preserved on them in Neo-Punic script. The overview is ordered alphabetically according to the Neo-Punic texts, coins with

Neo-Punic text on the front side precede those with Neo-Punic text only on the verso; the indications about the front side are separated from those about the other side by a slash. References to different editions of comparable coins are separated by commas, references to clearly differing coins with the same text are separated by a semi-colon. It should be noted, however, that these comparisons were made by someone who is not a specialised numismatist.

/

3

; abbrev. ? PIBB 44.

CCAESAR AVG GERMANICVS / ?yb$m ins avg CCAESAR AVG GERMANICVS; Ebusus INS AVG PIBB 42.

Coin from Ebusus.

CCAESAR GERMANICVS; ’ybSm ins avg °/’ybsm abbrev. ” / Ebusus. PIBB 13, SNG K xliii 95, 96. Cf. b / ?ybsm. /^btkw or ’pnkw / ’btkw

CCAESAR GERMANICVS / Ebusus INS AVG SNG K lxiii 521. Cf. b/ ’ybsm. TI CAESAR AVG PP / ’ybSm ins avg TI CAESAR AVG PP;Ebusus INS AVG PIBB 41.

PIBB 197; PIBB 198. Sub PIBB 197, 198, MANFREDI, inadvertently prints ?pwkw instead of ?pnkw as she did on 134. Most probably ’brkw (or whatever the correct reading is) is a name.

Ph} /°ybsm ’h abbrev. / Ebusus. PIBB 15; cf. b | ?ybim. ?h in Punic script, ?yb$m Neo-Punic. Cf. b |? yb$m. /’ybsm / Ebusus

PIBB 35; PIBB 36; PIBB 38; PIBB 39.

’ybSm INS AVG / ?yb8m INS AVG Ebusus, INS AVG / Ebusus INS AVG PIBB 43. /’yksm /°yksm NB 99, MAA 3 140, CNNM 541, SNG K xlii 678; NB 100, MAA 3 140b, CNNM 542. MANFREDI 1995 (sub NB 99) reads ?yks(m); but elsewhere (sub NB 100) she reads ?yksm although she presents the same drawing for both coins. JENKINS (sub SNG K xlti 678), ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 140, 140b) read ?wyksm. The drawings presented by MANFREDI (vide supra) and Maz-

29]

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends ARD 1955 (sub CNNM 541) rather point toa reading ’yks. It seems that MANFREDI, l.c., explains the sign next to the right hand of the male figure twice, once as a Neo-Punic m, then as a bunch of grapes; whatever is meant by it, it 15 rather some object other than a grapheme. Note that MANFREDI (1995: 82) remarks that the m cannot always be discerned clearly. The character of the signs is rather Punic although leaning towards the Neo-Punic forms, and the Neo-Punic form of m is unexpected (on the character of the sign, cf. MANFREDI 1995: 83). /?^y mb‘l sks / abbrev. (° y), civic administration of Sexi PIBB 75; PIBB 76; PIBB 78. For mb‘/ v. mb‘l tyn[g?]. For the reading of the name sks, see the remark s. v. / sks. / "| *Ibt

[ ^ *Ibt. PIBB 189, SNG K xliii 74. JENKINS (sub SNG K xlii 74) reads ]/ !br. This unexplained name must be related to */bP, also attested with prefixed preposition /: /*/bt?, should the reading be correct. MANFREDI (1995: 236) supposes that the name mentioned is “/hr, preceded by a preposition and sometimes followed by an unexplained ?. The name remains, however, enigmatic. / ?^mgsn

/’mgsn (?)

/? mb‘l / ? (abbrev.) civic administration. SNG Καὶ xliii 60. For mb‘/, v. ml*l tyng?. /? mb'l sks / ? (abbrev.), civic administration of Sexi PIBB 64. MANFREDI (1995, sub P/BB 64) reads ? mb‘ sks. For mb‘l, v. mb‘l tyng?. For the reading of the name sks, see the remark s. v. / sks. /? mb'l sks mb'l sks / ? (abbrev.), civic administration of Sexi (bis) PIBB 77. MANFREDI 1995 (sub P/BB 77) reads? ml*l sks mb‘l sks v. In PIBB 75, 76, 78 (mainly in Punic script), MANFREDI (1995 a.l.) reads ? mb‘l y. Several of these coins show the abbreviation ? (in Punic script) or a star symbol on top and different formed moon symbols below. It seems therefore easier to suppose that the small sign below on P/BB 75, 76 and 78 should not be interpreted as the grapheme y, which in that case would not be very well formed, but as an astral symbol.

For mb“l, v.

/ mb‘ tyng?. For the reading of the name sks, see the remark s. v. / sks. /? sks / ? Sexi. PIBB 80; SNG K xlii 61, 62, 63.

? in Punic script. For the reading of the name sks, see the remark s. v. / sks.

SNG Καὶ xlii 78; SNG K xliii 79. Highly uncertain reading; cf. / ?mgs*n. / ^mgs'n / ^mgs'n (?) SNG K xliii 80. Highly uncertain reading. If the reading is correct, the same name as ?mgsn, cf., however, SOLA SOLE (1965: 33), who reads y’rsn. The different names may all be explained as Libyan ones ending in /-san/.

’pwn / tp‘tn Hippo / tp'tn NB 88, MAA 3 116, CNNM 544, NAA Numidia 63, SNG K xlii 672. MAZARD (1955, sub 544) reads ykz (?), in Punic characters, instead of "pw, in NeoPunic ones, supposedly an indication of the town Icosium. He notes, however, (ibid. 164) that both the reading and interpretation are highly uncertain. LANCEL and LIPINSKI

(DCPP

s.v.

Bizerte)

accept

the reading

νη", but suppose it to be a personal name,

292

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

comparable to Greek wtmwv. The name on the reverse is read tp*tn by MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 88, 90), MÜLLER (sub NAA Numidia 63, 65). ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 116, 118) read tp'rit, while MAZARD (1955: 165) only speaks of indistinct Neo-Punic characters. Both readings, tp“tn and tp*nt, seem possible. The meaning of the word,

or perhaps rather, the explanation of the

?t[...], and MÜLLER (NAA, sub Byzacium 5)

proposing */pP [ Pr[. Lirinskı (DCPP s. v. Alipota) reads “/b/pr, and he proposes to explain this expression as the preposition “, followed by the name B/Pota, which might

be the same as lada. The explanation seems less probable, */ not being attested on other coins, while lada seems to have no direct relation to b/pf.

name, remains uncertain. MANFREDI (1995:

77) notes that the partly uncertain tslp*tn in ?pwn | tslp*tn, might be the complete form

b / ’yb5m abbrev., Ebusus.

of rp*tn. The reading, however, of ts/p‘tn is

PIBB 36. The name ’ybsm is connected with dif-

highly uncertain, and is also without explanation. LANCEL and LIPINSKI (DCPP s.v. Bizerte and s.v. Tipasa) read tp*tn, which they explain as Tipasa. ’pwn / tslp'tn (?) Hippo / tslp*tn (?) NB 89, MAA 3 117, CNNM 543, NAA Numidia 64, SNG 673. MAZARD (1955, sub 543) reads ’kz / ? ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 117) reads "pwn / tp*nt (2) and MULLER (NAA sub

Numidia 64) ?pwn / tp“tn (?) ; cf. ?pwn / Ip'tn.

ferent abbreviations (?, ?h, b, g^, gm, gq, z^, IP, n, q, ry, 5, q), which are most probably indications of personal names. In all instances where the name ’ybsm is found on coins published in SNG K xliii, JENKINS

reads ?ybsm. The signs normally explained as 10, 20, 50, on the coins PIBB 31-40, have sometimes been explained as Punic signs, cf. the remarks by MANFREDI (1995: 118-119). However, the signs are not easily recognised as Punic ones and they cannot be interpreted as Neo-Punic ones, while the name ’ybsm is written in what we may call

‘classical’ Neo-Punic script. Therefore the / ’Slyt / Zilis. NB 153, MAA 3 164, CNNM 627, NAA Mauretania 233, SNG K xlii 743; NB 154, CNNM 629; NB 155, CNNM 628. MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 154) reads "[3ly]t. MAZARD (1955, sub 629) ?[...]t, in which case the reading ?[3]][y]t seems most acceptable. For this name, cf. M. LE GLAY (DCPP, s.v. Dchar Djedid): ? + S/yt, ‘the Fishery.' / t/n[ *Ib/d/rn / Pt/n[ *lb/d/rn. NB 79, MAA 3 62, NAA Byzacium 5, SNG 49. This coin has been ascribed to Alipota,

but the reading is highly uncertain. MANFREDI (1995: 71-72) giving ‘/s *(...)?t, ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 62) reading ‘/br

interpretation as e. g. numerical symbols is to be preferred.

/ bb‘l / bb'rl NB 87, MAA 3 180, CNNM 515, 516, NAA Numidia 66, 67, SNG K xlii 668. MANFREDI (1995: 76-77) refers to MÜLLER (1862: 58), who proposes to see in bb'l a contraction of byt b'l, which was then further shortened to Bulla. Others, among whom MAZARD (1955, sub 515, 516), followed (cf. also with hesitation Y. THÉBERT in DCPP,s. v. Bulla Regia). However, the vowel /u/ in Bulla cannot very well be explained in

this way, as was noted by SOLA SOLE (1958: 12 n. 9), who proposes to explain bb‘l as a personal name. BOUBE (1992: 257) stresses the fact that the coins of this type are mainly

found in Morocco. CALLAGARIN-EL

HAR-

293

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends RIF (2000: 25-31) attrıbute these coins to Volubilis. They suppose that the indigenous name of the town was Bolibili / Bababili. Also ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000: 342, n. 36) wants to find a Mauretanian place name in

/ b*b'l

bb‘l and proposes Babba, or rather Volubi-

/ Ὁ

lis. The hypothesis that bb‘/ represents Bulla

is correctly refuted by SOLA SOLE on pho-

PIBB 128, 130, 131. Coins from Asido

nological grounds. That the name

in ques-

b*b'l. The existence of the coin legend ‘Sdn

tion might indicate Volubilis seems to us a

of the first -/- in the pronunciation may be accepted, but how the vowel /a/, which can-

b*b'l makes the explanation of the element b*b'l as a name probable. As these coins stem from Spain and those containing the name bb'l are from North Africa, there seems to be no reason to suppose these names indi-

not easily be doubted, is to be brought in line

cate the same

with the /i/ in Volubilis, remains unclear. For the time being the explanation of bb‘l as a

same name. Another problem is posed by the existence of the coin legends / ‘Sdn bl, / b'l dn and / Y br] *dn. From the first and second ones, the element b(‘)/ may easily be explained as an abbreviation of b‘b‘/. However, δ 04] gives the impression of a marker of relativity, followed by a form of the root bl, where the reading b‘b‘/ would have been most attractive. As derivations from the root b*l as nouns on coins only rib'l and b‘lt are attested, but it is hardly possible to relate these to b°b‘/ or $°b“l. In the heading of the description of the PIBB 128, MANFREDI inadvertently gives as the legend *b*b'l (?), the drawing only shows 5b*b“l.

hypothesis that is also untenable. bb“! may

indicate something like /voval/, and the loss

personal name seems most attractive. In case this is correct, cf. the remark on the personal name bb‘/ in the onomasticon as attested in Chia N 1. Cf. also / b°b‘/. /[ ]bzm / [ ]bzm NB 207. by /?ybsm abbrev. (by) / Ebusus. PIBB 26. Cf. b / ?ybfm. byrdt tlytn / mqm? byrdt tlytn / Macoma.

NB 91, MAA 3 136, CNNM 520, NAA Numidia 77; NB 92, MAA 3 136b, CNNM 521, NAA Numidia 78. This is the reading given by MANFREDI (1995: 136, and sub NB 91), who gives byrdt tlytn (bwrsn tpytn). Both readings seem highly uncertain, and neither of them have an explanation. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 136) only reads //tn, while MAZARD (1955 a.1.) and MÜLLER (NAA a.l.) do not attempt a reading of the front side, or even suppose the indistinct lines to be part of the head of the divinity depicted rather than Neo-Punic signs. On the identification of mqnr with Macoma, Hr. el-Mergueb, MAN-

FREDI (1995: 173) notes that it seems to be sufficiently ascertained, cf. also LANCEL & Lirinskı (DCPP, s. v. Macomades, sub 3).

person

?, cf. ASIDO /

or even

“$dn

represent

/ b‘l tpn (?) bailo Bailo ... BAILO PIBB 120 MANFREDI (1995, sub PIBB

the

120) reads

b*yl tpn (tny), but this reading may be influenced by the wish to read the name into it. / Ὁ Sdn / b*l Asido PIBB 129. See the remark sub / b‘b‘/ / brit / civic administration

NB 138, CNNM 594.

Bailo

294

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

Comparable to NB 139, which shows the more complete text b‘/t tyng?. For brit, v. brit tyng.

REX BOCCHVS SOS FI / bqs hmmlkt REX BOCCHVS SOS FI / king Bocchus (ii 38— 33). NC 65, MAA

/ b‘lt tyng / civic administration of Tingi. NB 131, MAA 3 153, CNNM 589, SNG 721; NB 132, CNNM 598; NB 139; NB 141, CNNM 610; NB 142, CNNM 611; NAA Mauretania 217, SNG K xlu 722, 723. MANFREDI (1995, sub 139, 142) reads zb‘/ tyng’, on which see JONGELING 2001, while for NB 141 she only reads ... tyng’. MAZARD

(1955, sub 611) proposes the reading (m)b‘It tyng’. MULLER (NAA sub Mauretania 217) reads b“lt ttg[?]. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000: 332, 333-334) reads p‘/t. However, if KERR (2006b) is correct in connecting mb‘/, also found on coins, with mibil attested in several Latin texts from North Africa, used for a body of officials connected to the administration of the town, it 1s highly probable that this word is derived from the same root. The geographical name Tingi is attested in

several variant forms in Neo-Punic script: tn’, tng (also in belt tng), tng’? (also in brit ing’, mb'l tng’). / b'lt tng

/ civic administration of Tingi. NB 133, CNNM 590. For δ΄, cf. / belt tyng?. / b'It tng?

/ civic administration of Tingi. NB 134; NB 135, CNNM 592, 593; NB 137; NB 140, CNNM 599. MANFREDI (1995) reads tug? blt in NB 135, 140, while MAZARD (1955, sub 599) gives the erroneous reading fyng? mb'T). For belt, cf. / belt tyng". bqs hmmikt King Bocchus 11 (38-33). MAA 2 45a, NAA Mauretania 13; MAA 2 45d; MAA 2 45b, CNNM 116; MAA 2 45c; CNNM 117, SNG K xlii 542; CNNM 114.

2 60, CNNM

119, NAA

Maure-

tania 16, RPC 874. MÜLLER (sub NAA Mauretania 16) reads ... SOS FI /?...; RPC 874 reads the Latin text aS REX BOCCHUS SOSI F. REX BOCCHVS SOSI FI DD / bqs hmmlkt REX BOCCHVS SOSI FI DD / king Bocchus (ii 38-33). NC 64, MAA 2 63, CNNM 118, NAA Mauretania 15; RPC 873. MÜLLER (sub NAA Mauretania 15) reads hqnw hmmlkt / REX BOCCHVS SOSI F DD. RPC sub 873 leaves out the two D’s read as such by the other editors. bqs hmmlkt mqm [§]m[§] King Bocchus ii (38-33), Shamsh. NC 62.

the

place,

bqs hmmlkt / $m$ King Bocchus i1 (38-33), Shamsh. NC 49, MAA 2 45, CNNM 113, 114, 115; NAA Mauretania 12, SNG K xlu 539, 540, 541; NC 50; NC 52, NAA Mauretania 14; SNG K xlii 542; cf. NC 53. REX BOCCHVS SOSI / bqs hmt REX BOCCHVS SOSI / king Bocchus (11 3833). NB 66, MAA 2 61, CNNM 120bis. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 2 61) gives the reading bqs limmlkt, of which last word /imt is the abbreviation. bqs / mqm Sms Bocchus 11 (38-33) / the place, Shamsh. NC 51; 63. bqs / syg‘n Bocchus ii (49-33), Siga.

NC 43, MAA 2 42a, CNNM 107, NAA Numidia 9; NC 44, MAA 2 42, CNNM 109, NAA Numidia 10; NC45, MAA 2 42d, CNNM

295

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends Π1: NC 46, CNNM SNG Καὶ xli 538.

112, NAA

Numidia

11,

bqs / $m$ Bocchus 11 (38-33) / Shamsh. NC 54; cf. NC 58; 59.

gq /°ybsm abbrev. (gq) / Ebusus. PIBB 29; PIBB 30; cf. b / ’ybsm. /gt

/ gt NB 201.

g Gunigun NB 120.

/ d$/yn / dyl$n.

PIBB 201. g’ /’ybSm abbrev. (g°) / Ebusus. PIBB 14; cf. b / ?ybim.

The reading $ instead of v seems both in this coin and the next the more probable

one.

gm /^ybim abbrev. (gm) / Ebusus. PIBB 20; cf. b / ’yb$m. Apart from the ’, the signs are Punic. en Gun(igun) MAA 3 150, CNNM xxxvil. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, reads en (2), while MAZARD xxxvii) reads g.

/ d$/y*n dyls*n PIBB 200. [hmm]Ikt / Sms King (Bocchus ii (38-33)) / Shamsh. NC 61.

sub 3 150) (1955, sub

hmm / Sms King (Bocchus 11 (38-33)) / Shamsh. NC 55; 56.

/ gn / Gun(igun) NB 118, CNNM 570.

REX BOCCHVS / hmt REX BOCCHVS / the king. NC 67, CNNM 120.

gngn / gn Gunigun / Gun(igun)

REX BOCCHVS REX BOCCHVS NC 68, MAA RCP reads hmt.

NB 126, MAA 3 150a, CNNM 568; NB 117, MAA 3 150b, CNNM 569; NB 119, MAA 3 150, CNNM 571. MAZARD (1955, sub 568) reads enen, g. MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 119) and MAZARD (1955, sub 571) only read the front side. On the identification of Gunigun, cf. MANFREDI (1995: 83). The hypothesis of LiPINSKI (1992-1993: 302), that Gunigun 1s a Libyan name, because of its ending, which he identifies with the ending -kn in many personal names, is untenable. The variation of g and k in this ending is not attested elsewhere while there is overwhelming evidence for a vowel /al between k and n.

SOSI F / hmt SOSI F / the king. 2 62, CNNM 121, RCP 876. the Neo-Punic text as /[bqs$]

wy*t Oea. NB 33, MAA 3 36, NAA Syrte 30, SNG K xlii 21, 22, RPC 836; NB 34, MAA 3 23, NAA Syrte 29; NB 36, MAA 3 32, NAA Syrte 31, SNG Καὶ xlıı 23, 24; RPC 837. / wy‘t / Oea. NB 35, MAA 3 33, RPC 839; NB 38, MAA 3 37, NAA Syrte 32, SNG K xlii 25, RPC 838;

296

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

NB 48, MAA 3 31, NAA Syrte 34, SNG K xlii 33; NB 49, MAA 335, NAA Syrte 35, SNG K xlii 34, RPC 833.

wy‘t / m*qr pyln Oea, m'qr pyln

/ TI / TI NB 30, 37,

not yet been explained conclusively. MAN-

NB 32, MAA 3 29, NAA Syrte 42, RPC 831. The two names on the reverse side have

CAESAR AVGVSTVS Wy*t CAESAR AVGVSTVS Oea. 46, MAA 3 30, NAA Syrte 36, SNG K xlii RPC 834; NB 47, MAA 3 34, NAA Syrte SNG K xli 31, 32; RPC 832.

/ wy't tty swq / Oea tty swq. NB 40, RPC 827; NB 41, MAA 3 25, NAA Syrte 40; MAA 3 25a; NAA Syrte 39, RPC 827. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 235, 25a), and MÜLLER (sub NAA Syrte 39, 40) read zwq instead of swq. The name fty has been explained as a nomen loci, and has

been compared by some with Zitha (e.g. MÜLLER

1861:

21). JENKINS

(19??,

256),

FREDI (1995: 66) notes that m*qr may be identified with Macarea (cf. already MULLER NAA 11 24). pyIn, which was read byln by MULLER (NAA 1i, 24-26) remains without any plausible identification, cf. also MANFREDI (1995: 66). RPC: 206, explains both

m'qr and pyln as personal names of suffetes, which seems possible considering the pos-

sible pyln in Labdah N 13. /wy‘t m‘qr pyln / Oea m‘qr pyln NB 37, MAA 3 28, NAA Syrte 41, SNG Καὶ xlii 26, RPC 830. For the names m‘qr, pyln, cf. sub wy't / m'qr pyln.

who explained st as Zitha, supposed tty to be a personal name. According to MANFREDI (1995: 67) s(*)wq may be compaired to Zuchis, as was done already by MÜLLER (1861: 21). She explains the name as a derivation from the root Xwq, attested in Aramaic. However, the attestation in Aramaic and, until now, absence of this root in Canaanite, seems against this supposition, while also the equation of q and ch is less attractive, q normally being rendered by c, whereas ch is rather used as the rendering of k, and the variation s / X is also less easily accounted for than MANFREDI (1995: 67, n. 37) proposes on account of FRIEDRICH-RÖLLiG (1970: 18-20). RPC (sub 206) explains both try and s(*)wq as names of suffetes. If correct fty may be Latin Tertius.

/ wy't tty s'wq / Oea tty s*wq MAA 3 24; MAA 3 24b; NB 39, NAA Syrte 38; RPC 826. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 42b) reads zwq instead of wg. MÜLLER (sub NAA Syrte 38) reads §wq. For the names tty and s*^wq, cf. wy't tty swq.

/wy‘t pylIn m*qr / Oea pyln m'qr NB 42; MAA 3 26, NAA Syrte 43, SNG K xlii 27. For the names m‘qr, pyln, cf. sub wy‘t / m'qr pyln. ARSA / w'r 9 (pb'l/b) ARSA / Wr S?

PIBB 112. This reading is highly uncertain. Until better preserved specimens of these coins are found, it seems not really worthwhile to try to interpret the text on them as if it were written in (Neo-)Punic script. The reading presented is the one given by MANFREDI

(1995:

125 and sub P/BB

112). It seems

mainly occasioned by the wish to find a Punic counterpart of the name ARSA. /w{ ]Sky / Vesci.

PIBB 106, SNG K xlii 122. For this and the next coin, JENKINS (1979, sub 122 & 123) only proposes the reading v2a??s (?). The reading proposed is mainly

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

297

based on the Latin indication vesci on P/BB 107. MANFREDI (1995: 123) mentions several other proposed readings (whyn, w’hSk),

/ tvrirecina try* blt rkn ??

but these readings are as uncertain as the

The readings of both P/BB 118 and 119 are highly uncertain. If correct it looks as

one presented by MANFREDI.

One wonders

/ Turri Regina try* blt rkn

PIBB 118; PIBB 119.

whether the signs are really to be described

if Regina 1s rendered in Punic twice, once

as (Neo-)Punic.

transcribed as rkn and once translated as bit for b'It. Note the rendering of Turri by ıry“, or is the * intended as the article preceding

v. / w| ]Sky

/ w[ ]Sky VESCI

bit ?

/ Vesci VESCI.

PIBB 107, SNG Kxliii

123.

ly / I(uba i, 60-46)

Z /°ybsm abbrev. (z°) / Ebusus. PIBB 23; cf. b / ’yb$m.

NC 38, NAA Numidia 54. / yb'dw'$y* (?) or IPT VCI.

h’ / Pybsm}

abbrev. (h?) / Ebusus. PIBB 25; cf. b / ’yb$m. If the reading is correct, ? in /? ıs in NeoPunic script, the rest is in Punic script.

hms five NB xlii

/ wy't / Oea. 31, MAA 20.

tp‘tn /’pwn tp*tn / Hippo

90,

MAA

This reading is highly uncertain. Until better preserved specimens of these coins are found, it seems not really worthwhile to try to interpret the text on them as if it were written in (Neo-)Punic script.

3 22, NAA Syrte 28, SNG K

MULLER (NAA sub Syrte 28) read przms. This reading was retained by MANFREDI (1995: 65 and sub NB 31, cf. also id. 2003: 373-374), who explains prz as the name of a coin, comparing prs in Al-Qusbat N 1, line 5, and pointing to the exchangeability of z and 5 (without going into the question whether this is a problem of the writing system or a phonetic shift). ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 22) reads pb[ ]’[ ]. The reading presented supra, hms, was proposed in JONGELING 2001. For another example of h formed with a long downstroke followed by something looking like b or r, cf. e.g. Guelma N 13, although one might also prefer the reading "hd instead of ’hd, cf. the remark a.l.

NB

/ yb'dw*Sy* (?) or IPTVCI. PIBB 110; PIBB 111.

3

118,

CNNM

545,

Numidia 65, SNG K xlii 675.

For both names, cf. ?pwn / tp“tn.

NAA

yl yl CNNM 98, NAA Numidia 87, SNG K xli 520. Countermark on CNNM 94, a highly uncertain reading. If the reading is correct it may be an abbreviation of a name like Iulius. REX IUBA / ywb‘y hmmlkt / Tuba (1 60-46), the king. MAA 2 29, CNNM 85; NC 35, MAA 2 29a, CNNM 84, NAA Numidia 50, SNG K xlii 523, 524; NC 36, MAA 2 29, NAA Numidia 51; NC 37, MAA 2 30, CNNM 87, NAA Numidia 52, SNG Καὶ xlii 525. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub MAA 2 29, 30) inadvertently proposes the reading Xywb*y hmmlkt for all these texts.

/ [ ]y$ / [ ]y3 NB 123.

298

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

MANFREDI 1995, sub NB 123, reads syg (reversed legend), which seems mainly to be based upon the supposition that the coin originates from Siga.

krtn / bdmlqrt w hn? Cirta / Bodmelqart and Hanno.

NB 96, MAA 3 128, CNNM 527, NAA Numidia 71, SNG K xlii 669; NB 97, MAA 3 129, MAZARD

NB 121, MAA 2 53, CNNM 572, NAA Mauertania 214, SNG

573;

529, NAA

Numidia 73, SNG

K xlii 670.

/ km’ / Cama(rata) ?? K xlii 676, 677; CNNM

CNNM 574; MAA 2 54, CNNM 575.

krtn $5ptm bdmlqrt w hn? Cirta, the suffetes Bodmelqart and Hanno.

NB 94.

The interpretation of km’ as an abbrevia-

tion of Camarata is mentioned as a possibility

already

by

MÜLLER

(1862:

143),

and taken up by e.g. MAZARD (1955, sub 572-575), MANFREDI (1995: 83, 181, 288). ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000: 198) accepts the

/Ptg / of Olontigi.

PIBB 132, SNG K xlii 167, 168; PIBB 133; PIBB 134; PIBB 145. Uncertain interpretation.

possibility, but, quoting GsELL (1913, i1, 164 n. 5) remains very much in doubt.

ItpSr / AVGVSTV.

krtn / ’Ibt

NB 82, MAA 3 65, NAA Byzacium 36, RPC 792.

Of Thapsus / Augustus. Cirta / *Ibt.

NB

98, MAA

3

130,

CNNM

528,

NAA

Numidia 72, SNG K xlii 671. As bdmlgrt w hn’ occurs on NB 96, 97, in the same situation as ?/bt on this coin, it seems more appropriate to explain this word

as a personal name, cf. MAZARD (1955: 157), SOLÁ SoLÉ (1958: 10 n. 3). The comparison with */bt (preceded by / or ‘/) on coins from the Iberian peninsula, with a reference to the unpredictable spelling of the Neo-Punic texts (cf. MANFREDI 1995: 80-81) is less attractive. The variation between ¢ and t especially is rather unusual. Could ?/ and bt be two abbreviations of personal names ? In that case bt might be for bdmlqrt.

krtn bdmiqrt w hn? Cirta, Bodmelqart NB 95, MAA 3 Numidia 70. We accept the POULOS (2000, sub

and Hanno. 127, CNNM

523,

NAA

reading of ALEXANDRO3 127). MANFREDI (1995,

sub NB 95) reads krtn bdmlqrt w ...bn; MAZARD (1955, sub 523) reads krtn bdmlqrt whn’, while MULLER (NAA, sub Numidia 70) gave the reading Artn bdmlqrt ...n’.

MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 82) reads / tpsr; ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 65) reads $ tpsr. If tp$r really indicates Thapsus, the spelling with ¢ corresponding to Latin th is unexpected. Note also that the /a/ 1n Thapsus may have been a nasalized vowel, cf. the epigraphically attested T(h)ampsitani., cf. T]ampsitanorum in CIL 1 585 (p. 723, 910,

739, 832; - AE 1990 18, 1998 58, 2001, 64, 65, 206). IMP AVG p p / Itpsr IMP AVG P P/ of Thapsus. NB 81, MAA 3 64, NAA Byzacium 35, RPC

793. MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 81) reads / tpsr; MÜLLER (NAA, sub Byzacium 36) and ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 65) read $ tpsr. Because of the coin with the text 3 1p$r, in which the two signs indicating a sibilant are more or less identical, we suppose the name of the town to be 1p$r. A supposed varlation ας is not frequently attested, therefore in other cases the same reading is chosen as the more probable one.

299

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends / Ik$ mb'l / Lixus, civic administration. NB 156; NB 159; NB 160; NB 162, CNNM 631, NAA Mauretania 234; CNNM 632; CNNM 632v. For mb‘l, v. / mb‘l tyng’.

lascvt / llSkw*t (?) / of Lascuta. PIBB 115. For the reading, ll&kw*t.

cf.

the

remark

sub

/

/ l'Ibe LIX / Ik$ mb'l LIX / Lixus civic administration. NB 157, MAA 3 174b, CNNM Mauretania

241,

SNG

K

χ

/ of ‘Ibt’.

PIBB 188, SNG K xli 73, cf. ^l *Ibt. 641, NAA

704;

MAA

3

174, CNNM 642; CNNM 632v. For mb‘l, v. / mb‘l tyng’.

/ lpq / Lepcis (Magna) NB

10, NAA

Syrte

11; NB

13.

Abbreviated form of Ipqy. LIXS / Ik$ mb'l LIXS / Lixus civic administration. NB 158, MAA 3 170, CNNM 638, NAA Mauretania 239, SNG K xlii 701. We follow MULLER (NAA, sub Mauretania 239), MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 158). MAZARD (1955, sub 638) reads /ks mb‘l. JENKINS (sub SNG K xlii 701), ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 170) read mp*'l Ik$. For ml, v. / mb‘1 tyng?. Ik$ / mqm Lixus, the place.

NB 169. /1Skw‘t (?) / of Lascuta. PIBB 116; PIBB 117. The reading, proposed by MANFREDI (1995: 126 and sub P/BB 115-117), seems highly uncertain, especially as far as the first three signs, //$, are concerned. The reading Is, of course, inspired by the name LASCVT

on PIBB

115, SOLA SOLE reading //skwt,

and GARCIA-BELLIDO //skw*t, according to MANFREDI (1995: 126). The same name, without the preposition /, is read on P/BB 113, 114, cf. MANFREDI, l.c. However, the text on P/BB 113 is, as far as we can discern, illegible, what can be read of the text on PIBB 114, is rather a name consisting of two elements of two resp. three signs, connected by a small horizontal line as in P/BB 108, 109 (see sub / pw-b‘/).

Ipqy Lepcis (Magna).

NB 4, MAA 3 19, NAA Syrte 4, SNG K xlii 5, RPC 851.

/Ipqy Lepcis (Magna). NAA

Syrte 20; MAA

3 6, MAA

3 10a; MAA

3 21, NAA Syrte 3c; MAA

3 8a; NB

3 16, NAA

847; NB 6; NB

MAA

Syrte

3 7, NAA

13, RPC

1, MAA 7,

Syrte 7, SNG K xli 7; NB 8;

NB 9, MAA 3 4, NAA Syrte 6, SNG K xlii 6; NB 11, MAA 3 8, NAA Syrte 10, SNG K xlii 8; NB 12, NAA Syrte 12; NB 14, MAA 3 5, NAA Syrte 3b; NB 15; NB 16, NAA Mauretania Syrte 9, RPC 852; NB 17, MAA 3 20, NAA Syrte 8, SNG Καὶ χ 9; NB 18, MAA 3 9, NAA Syrte 5a, SNG K xlii 10, RPC 840; NB 19, MAA 3 9a; NB 20, MAA 3 10, NAA Syrte 5b, SNG K xlii 11, RPC 841; NB 21, MAA 3 11, NAA Syrte 14, SNG K xlii 12, RPC 842; NB 22, MAA 3 14, NAA Syrte 18, SNG K xlii 16, RPC 846; NB 23, NAA Syrte 19; NB 24, MAA 3 12, NAA Syrte 15, SNG K χὶ 13, RPC 843; NB 25, MAA 3 13, NAA Syrte 16, SNG K xli 14, RPC 844; NB 26, MAA 3 15, NAA Syrte 17, SNG K xlii 15, RPC 845. DIVOS AVGVSTVS / lpqy DIVOS AVGVSTVS / Lepcis (Magna).

MAA 3 17, NAA Syrte 21, SNG Kxlii 17.

300

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

IMP CAESAR AVG COS III / AVGVSTA MATER

DIVOS AVGVSTS / Ipqy DIVOS AVGVSTS / Lepcis (Magna).

PATPIA lpqy

NB 27, NAA Syrte 22, RPC 848.

IMP CAESAR AVG COS III / AVGVSTA MATER

/Ipqy mpqd

MAA 3 18a, cf. MAA 18b.

PATRIA, Lepcis (Magna). / Lepcis (Magna), treasury.

NB 2, MAA 3 1, NAA Syrte 1, SNG K xlii 1; NB 3, MAA 3 2, NAA Syrte 2, SNG K xlii 2, 3. MANFREDI of mpqd

is 'treasury'

or 'treasurer.'

For the interpretation, it would perhaps be easier to read mpqd lpqy, as 1s done, in fact, by ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub MAA 3 | and 2), MANFREDI (1995: 65), but the two words are in the reverse order on both coins. Note that DNWSI, s.v. mpqd., states the word is in the abs. state, at the same time quoting the phrase mpqd lpqy with

the meaning ‘the administration of Lepcis.' MANFREDI (1995: 65) identifies this word with the mpqd in IPT 31 (KAI 119), which, however, is explained as a pass. participle (pual or yophal) by most commentators, cf. DNWSI s. v. pqd,. IMP TIB MATER IMP TIB PATRIA, NB 29,

Lepcis (Magna) / Lepcis (Magna). NB 5, MAA 3 3, NAA Syrte 3, SNG K

xlii 4.

(1995: 65, cf. also id. 2003:

389) notes that the most probable explanation

Ipqy / Ipqy

CAESAR AVG COS III / AVGVSTA PATPIA Ipqy CAESAR AVG COS III / AVGVSTA MATER Lepcis (Magna). NAA Syrte 26, RPC 850.

IMP CAESAR AVG / AVGVSTA MATER PATPIA

Ipqy IMP CAESAR AVG / AVGVSTA MATER PATRIA, Lepcis (Magna). NB 28, MAA 3 18, NAA Syrte 23, 24, SNG K xlii 18, 19, RPC 849. IMP CAESAR AV / AVGVSTA MATER PATPIA

Ipqy IMP CAESAR AV / AVGVSTA Lepcis (Magna). NB 30.

MATER

PATRIA,

P TERENT BODO / ISkw‘ L NVMBIT BODO. P TERENT BODO / Lascuta L NVMBIT BODO. PIBB 114.

The reading of the place name

seems

rather uncertain, cf. further sub / /IXkw*t (?). lascvt (2) / ISkw't (?). Lascuta / Lascuta.

PIBB 113. Both readings seem rather uncertain, cf. further sub / //Xkw*t (7). / mb'l lix / civic administration of Lixus. NB 167, MAA 3 172, CNNM 636. MAZARD (1955, sub 636) and MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 167) read mb*l(t) Lix, the t, however, seems highly uncertain, the two words used in this context being b‘/t and mb'l. For mb‘l v. / mb‘l tyng’. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub MAA 3 172) reads mp‘l IkS, and notes that this coin is CNNM 636, the photograph (on pl. 16), however, is rather to be read / Lix mb‘l, and this coin differs from the one described by MANFREDI and MAZARD. / mb'l Iks / civic administration of Lixus. NB 161, MAA 3 167, CNNM 630, NAA Mauretania 234, SNG K xlii 692; NB 164, MAA 3 168b, CNNM 634, NAA Mauretania 236, SNG K xlii 697; NB 168, MAA 3 168, CNNM 633, NAA Mauretania 235, SNG K xlii 694. JENKINS (sub SNG Καὶ χ 692, 694, 697), ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 167, 168),

read mp'l, instead of mb'l, advocated by MÜLLER

(sub NAA

Mauretania

234, 236),

301

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends MAZARD (1955, sub 630, 633), MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 161). Mazarp (1955, sub 634) reads ἐκ mb*l. MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 168) reads mb‘t (?) IkS, which corresponds to her drawing, but seems highly improbable. MÜLLER (sub NAA Mauretania 235) reads mp^m Ik. For mb‘l, v. / mb“ tyng?. LIX / mb'l Ik$ LIX / civic administration of Lixus. NB 163; NB 165, MAA 3 171, CNNM 635, NAA Mauretania 238, SNG K xlii 700; NB 166, MAA 3 173, CNNM 639, NAA Mauretania 240, SNG K xlii 703; MAA 3 175. MAZARD (1955, sub 635) reads /ks mb*lt. / mb'l sks / civic administration of Sexi.

PIBB 61, 62, 63, SNG K xliii 54, 55; PIBB 71, 72, 73, 74, SNG K xli 56, 57, 58, 59, 60. For mbfl, v. / mb‘/ tyng?. For the reading of the name sks, see the remark s. v. / sks. / mb'l tyng / civic administration of Tingi. NB 136, MAA 3 153b, NAA Mauretania 220, SNG K xlii 720. On the different coins on which mb‘/, or another derivation from the same root, b‘lt, occurs, the grapheme indicating the first root consonant in many instances looks like p. ALEXANDR-OPOULOS (2000: 334 (n. 11)), remarks that the sign never looks like 5, which, however, is incorrect. KERR 2006b connects this word with mibil attested in several Latin texts from North Africa, used for a body of officials connected to the civic administration. Note also the coin, probably from Panormos, Sicily, offered for sale in 2001 (Edgar L. Owen, Ltd., www. edgarlowen.com, cf. now KERR (2006b, 93) for a photograph of this coin), which clearly shows the Punic text mb“! sy[s]. avgvst ivl tin / mb'l tyn[g?] August(us) Iul(ius) Tin(gi) / civic administration of Tingi.

NB 151, MAA 3155, CNNM 623, NAA Mauretania 231, SNG K xlu 741. MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 151) reads $b“l tyn[ , cf., however, the remark sub M AGRIPPA IVL TIN / mb‘] tyn[g?!]. MAZARD (1955, sub 623) reads avGvs[ ]TIN / mb*l [ ] ty[ ]. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 155) reads mp‘l t[ ] / AVGVSTVS ISL TIN. MÜLLER (sub NAA Mauretania 231) reads mb‘/ ty[ . For mb‘l, v. / mbrl tyng’. M AGRIPPA IVL TIN / mb'l tyn[g?] M. Agrippa Iul(ius) Tin(gi) / civic administration of Tingi. NB 152, MAA 3 156, CNNM 624, NAA Mauretania 232, ΝΟ Καὶ xli 742. MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 152) reads Sb‘l tyn... However, the sign read as $ looks rather like an old-fashioned m. MAZARD (1955, sub 624) read mb‘l tt[, MULLER (NAA sub Mauretania 232) mb‘/ tytg?, and ALExANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 156) mp‘/ t[ . For mP*l, v. /mb*l tyng?. / mb'l tng? / civic administration MAA 3 154, CNNM 221, SNG K xli 725, For mb‘l, v. / mbrl

of Tingi 597, NAA 727. tyng’.

Mauretania

mwlk? Malaca. PIBB 93; cf. mlk’. The reading mw/k? is generally accepted. However, the drawing presented by CAMPO (1986: 144) rather suggests mglk’. Supposing this reading is correct, it may be explained as an attempt to represent a lateral sound different from a normal Punic /. One could think a palatalized sound. If milk is a name of Semitic origin, this may be due to influence of a non-Semitic substratum, but it is, of course, very well possible that the name is a local one (adapted to the Punic language ?). mik’ Malaca.

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

302

PIBB 85; PIBB 86, 87; PIB 88; PIBB 89, PIBB 90; PIBB 91; PIBB 92 (for PIBB 85— 92. cf. SNG K xliii 36-43); PIBB 94; PIBB 95 (for PIBB 94, 95, cf. SNG K xliii 44, 45); PIBB 97, PIBB 98, SNG K xliii 49, 50; PIBB 99: PIBB 101; PIBB 102; PIBB 103; PIBB 104; PIBB 105. The name m/k occurs also in the variant form mwIk? (cf. the remark a.l.). mlk? / m$ Malaca / SmS.

NC 57. / m*qr pyin / m*qr pyln

NB 43, NAA Syrte 46, RPC 829; NB 44, MAA 3 27, NAA Syrte 46, SNG K xlii 28, RPC

829; MAA

3 27b, MÜLLER

Syrte 47,

SNG K xlii 29. MÜLLER (sub NAA Syrte 46, 47) reads m'qr byln, ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 27) reads pyln m‘qr. For both names, cf. wy't / m*qr pyln.

PIBB 96, SNG Καὶ xlii 46-48. mmikt / mStns king / Mastanesosus (81-48) NC 30, NAA Numidia 60, SNG K xlii 522; NC 31, MAA 2 41, CNNM 99, NAA Numidia 61; NC 32, MAA 2 41, CNNM 100.

The

lengthy

discussion

by

MANFREDI

(1995: 100-104) whether the different coins on which the name m$/stnsn is to be

found should be ascribed to the same king or not, does not concern us here. MANFREDI (1995, sub NC 30, 31, 32) ALEXANDROPOULos (2000, sub 2 41) MÜLLER (NAA, sub Numidia 60, all read mStns, MAZARD (1955, sub 99, 100) reads mstns; JENKINS (sub SNG K xlii 522) reads mStnsn. The κα in this name seems to be without doubt, although one would rather expect s, as part of the often attested name element /mas-/ normally spelled ms- or m“s-. The ending is best connected to the well-known Berber ending /san/. The phoneme /s/ seems to be strange in Libyan, therefore the reading with s, which

Is a good possibility bearing in mind its form in the drawings supplied by MÜLLER, MAZARD and MANFREDI. The complete name of this (these) king(s) appears on NC 33 and 34 where MANFREDI reads mstnsn. MAZARD, sub 101, reads mstnsn in NC 33, where ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000 sub 2 39) gives [mstnsn].

For

NC

34

MAZARD

(1955,

102) reads mstns(n). mm / §m§ King (Bocchus i1 (38-33)), Shamsh.

sub

mqm the place NB 179. / mqm / Macomada (?).

NB

93,

MAA

3

137,

CNNM

522;

NAA

Numidia 79. According to MANFRED! (2003: 467) mqn is an abbreviation of mqm hdi, which remains uncertain. / mqm mqm / the place, the place. NB 190; NB 191. When compared to other coins, presumably from Lixus, with the text mgm ms, one wonders whether on these coins one should not read mgm $m$ too. mqm $m$

the place, Shamsh. NB 189 mqm / §m§ the place / Shamsh. NB 178, cf. NB 176 MANFREDI (1995, sub 178) reads mXm (?), but the drawing allows the supposition that mqn

was meant.

/ mqm $m$ / the place Shamsh. NB 183; NB 188; NB 192, MAA 3179, CNHNM 645, 646, 648, 649, NAA Mauretania.

303

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends 245, 248, 249, 251, 252, SNG 709,710, 711; NB 193; NB 194.

K xlu 707,

REX IVBA / mqm §m§ King Iuba (ii, 15-23) / the place, Shamsh.

NB 69, CNNM 386, NAA Mauretania ΝΟ K xlii 632.

107,

mqm $m$ / mqm ὅπλ the place, Shamsh / the place, Shamsh. NB 170; NB 181; NB 182; NB 184, SNG K xlii 704. mqm $mi / $m$ the place, Shamsh / Shamsh. NB 171; NB 172, MAA 2 52a, CNNM 643, NAA Mauretania 246, SNG K xlıı 705; NB 173, MAA 2 52, CNNM 644, NAA Mauretania 247, SNG K xlii 706; NB 174; NB 175; cf. NB 177: [mqm $m]$ 1 [S] ms. mStnsn / tbrk‘n Mastanasan / Tabraka. NC 34, MAA 2 40, CNNM 102, NAA Numidia 62. For the reading of the name on the front side, v. sub mmikt / mitis. The name on the other side is read thrktn by MANFREDI (1995, sub NC 34, and on pp. 138, 198). An ending -t7 is, however, not really to be expected in a Berber name, whereas the ending /-kan/ is not infrequent. The small circle with a point inside is read as t by MANFREDI also in other instances where the reading * is more appropriate. Note, however, that MANFRED! (1995: 104) gives rbrk*n as the correct reading. MAZARD (1955: 56) reads tbrs, on which he notes: Tabraca (?). The reading tbrk*n strongly suggests that this interpretation may be correct. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 2 40) reads rb[...]s[...], without

interpretation. Also LIPINSKI (DCPP, s. v. Tabarka) does not favour this interpretation. m$tnsn hmmlkt / bn mstnbl kbrsw bn msin (?) Mastanasan the king / the son of Mastanabal kbrsw the son of Maslan (?).

NC 33, MAA 2 39, CNNM 101, NAA Numidia 59. MANFREDI (1995, sub NC 33, id. 2003 452) reads mstnsn hmmlkt bn ms(t)nbl kbrsw

bn msl (?), ALEXANDROPOULOS MAA, sub 2 39, [mstnsn] hmmlkt [...] bn ms[...]. In two long notes ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000: 190191, nn. 12, 13) remarks on the difficulties,

both in the reading and the interpretation of these coins with the name ms/stns/sn, and the text on the verso. MAZARD (1955, sub 101) reads on the front side mstnsn hmmilkt, while for the other side he only mentions that MÜLLER rendered the characters on this side with *Balmuzelan son of Cabirzo, son of Muzelan.' MULLER (NAA iti, 48) reads mstnsn I blms.n bn kbrsw bn msl., noting ibid. 50, that one might read bilms(I)n bn kbrsw bn msl(n). In case the reading presented, cf. MANFREDI (1995: 101-102), is more or less correct (and MÜLLER was

wrong in supposing that the two concluding letters of the first name are to be read bn, indicating the filiation), the word kbrsw following the name mstnbl must be explained as an epithet to this name. Whether the next two

words,

bn

msin,

can

be

explained,

as

MANFREDI (1995: 103), does for the reading bn msl, as ‘belonging to the people of the Massilians’ is not easily decided. In the genealogies found in Arabic literature, e. g. on North Africa such as the work of Ibn

Khaldun, it is normal to end a, mostly long, genealogy with ?bn followed by the name of the supposed eponymous ancestor of the tribe someone belongs to. However,

in clas-

sical Hebrew, it is customary to indicate the tribal relation by means of a nisbe adjective. In a short genealogy such as the one under discussion, one would rather suppose the third person mentioned to be the grandfather and nothing more. The name ms/n may be compared to ms/m and also to msy“In. n /’ybS5m abbrev. (n) / Ebusus. PIBB 33; PIBB 40; cf. b / ’ybSm.

304

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

/sbr / Sabr(atha). NB 54, MAA 3 46b, NAA Syrte 52; RPC 825. MÜLLER (NB 54 and 68) read sbr, for the reading with s, cf. sbrt.

caesar / sbrt‘n g CAESAR / Sabratha g.

sbrt Sabratha.

NB 65, MAA 3 40, NAA Syrte 60. All editors, apart from ALEXANDROPOU-

CAESAR CAESAR NB 59, xlii 39;

Los (2000: 269 (n. 51)), read the s as s in coins from Sabratha (sbrt*n and its shortened forms sbr, sbrt). We suppose the reading with s to be more probable, both because of the form of the letter and because s is less

names of the officials are read gdd syn‘n (gbr syr?l) by MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 59, 61). ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 43c) reads gdd syt mn. MÜLLER (sub NAA Syrte 58a)

usual in Libyan names (cf. already JoNGE-

transcribes only the first few signs: gbr[, and

LiNG 1984: 191). The half moon in front of the nose of Augustus is read by most editors as Latin C, although it seems rather an embellishment of some sort than a Latin character.

JENKINS, sub SNG K xlii 39, gives gdrs.., cf. also RPC (sub 820): gd rs. Although the reading remains uncertain, these name are probably the complete forms of the abbreviations attested in sbrf‘n gd sy.

sbrtn

sbrt'n gd sy

Sabratha

Sabratha, gd sy NB 66, MAA 3 44a, NAA Syrte 61, SNG K xlii 43, RPC 821. For the reading sbrt*n, cf. sub sbrt. The abbreviations of the names of officials are read gd sy by most editors. MÜLLER (sub NAA Syrte 61) read gr Xy, followed by RPC (sub 821), which seems less probable. Probably gd and sy are abbreviations for gdd and syn'n.

RPC 811; 822; 823; 824. sbrt‘n Sabratha

NB 68, MAA 3 45, NAA Syrte 62, SNG K xlii 44, 45; NB 69, MAA 3 41, NAA Syrte 64, SNG K xlii 46; NB 70, NAA Syrte 63; RPC 812. For the reading sbrt*n, cf. sub sbrt. The unexplained line on the right side is read as p by MÜLLER (sub NAA Syrte 64), while MANFREDI (1955, sub NB 69) asks whether this might be a Latin letter C, which seems highly improbable, as it curves the wrong

way. /sbrt‘n / Sabratha.

NB 50, MAA 3 38, NAA Syrte 48, SNG K xlii 35; NB 51, MAA 3 39, NAA Syrte 49, SNG K xlii 36; NB 53, MAA 3 46, NAA Syrte 51. For the reading sbrr*n, cf. sub sbrt.

NB 56. For the reading sbrt*n, cf. sub sbrt. The

abbreviation g may be related to the gdd and gd in the following coins. / sbrt‘n gdd syn‘n / Sabratha, gdd syn‘n MAA 3 43c, NAA Syrte 58a, SNG K NB 61, RPC 820.

For the reading sbrt*n, cf. sub sbrt. The

CAESAR / sbrt‘n dy ms CAESAR / Sabratha dy ms NB 62, MAA 3 43b, NAA Syrte 56, SNG K xlii 40, 41, RPC 815. For the reading sbrt*n, cf. sub sbrt. The first of the two abbreviations is transcribed zy by MÜLLER (sub NAA Syrte 56), JENKINS (sub SNG K xlii 40, 41) and RPC (sub 815), $y by ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 43b), while the reading we favour is the one of MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 62).

305

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

CAESAR / sbrt‘n dy sw

CAESAR / sbrt‘n mn sy

CAESAR / Sabratha dy sw.

CAESAR / Sabratha mn sy NB 57, MAA 3 42a, NAA Syrte 53, SNG K xlii 37, RPC 813. For the reading sbrr‘n, cf. sub sbrt. sy is probably an abbreviation of syr“n (cf. supra sub sbrt‘n gd sy).

NB 63, NAA Syrte 57. For the reading sbrt*n, cf. sub sbrt. The abbreviations are read zy $w by MÜLLER (sub NAA Syrte 57). CAESAR / sbrt*n hm? *kbr CAESAR / Sabratha hm3? *kbr.

NB 55, MAA 3 42c, RPC 816; NB 60, MAA 3 43d, NAA Syrte 59, SNG K xlii 42, RPC 817. For the reading sbrt‘n, cf. sub sbrt. The reading

/ims? *kbr is given

by MANFREDI

(1995, sub NB 55, cf. id. 2003: 390), who explains the combination as the numeral hm in its fem. abs. form, followed by the article and a form of the adjective kbr, ‘the five great ones,’ indicating a college of five magistrates, the quinqueviri monetales, attested elsewhere ın the Roman world. The explanation is ingenuous, but seems rather

speculative (and one would expect a plural form of kbr as MANFREDI herself notes). However, the explanation of the two words as two personal names, accepted by RPC 1: 204, ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000: 272 (n. 62) and sub 3 42c) presents us with two new personal names, which seems to be equally problematic. KERR, in a personal communication, tentatively proposes to translate hm *kbr as ‘the five of the multiplication,’ where kbr indicates the repeated act of minting coins (cf. Hebrew kbr which in the hiph. may mean ‘to mutliply’). sbrt‘n hn‘n Sabratha, hn‘n NB 67, MAA 3 44b, RPC 818. For the reading sbrt*n, cf. sub sbrt. The abbreviated names (or name) of official(s) are (is) read μη / πη by MANFREDI (1995, sub NB 67). RPC (sub 818) and ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 44b) read hm *k, which, if correct, must be an abbreviation of hm? *kbr.

CAESAR / sbrt'n nghyb (?) CAESAR / Sabratha nghyb (?).

NB 58, MAA 3 42b, NAA Syrte 54, SNG K xlii 38, RPC 819. For the reading sbrt*n, cf. sub sbrt. The reading of the name (?) nghyb (?) is highly

uncertain. MÜLLER (sub NAA Syrte 54) reads gr Xy, JENKINS (sub SNG and ALEXANDROPOULOS gdd syt mn. Perhaps also ated names edd and syn‘n

K xlii 38) gdr..., (2000, sub 3 42b) here the abbreviare meant.

CAESAR / sbrt‘n r CAESAR / Sabratha r NB 64, MAA 3 43a, NAA Syrte 58; RPC 814. For the reading sbrt*n, cf. sub sbrt. / syg / Siga.

MAA 2 44, CNNM 578. Probably an abbreviated form of syg‘n. / syg'n / Siga. NC 47, MAA 2 42b, CNNM MAA 2 42c, CNNM 108.

110; NC 48,

/ sks / Sexi SNG K xlii 51; SNG K xliii 52, 53; SNG K xlii 64; PIBB 60; PIBB 65; PIBB 66; PIBB 67; PIBB 68; PIBB 69; PIBB 70; PIBB 81; PIBB 82. The reading with 5, twice, is advocated by MANFREDI (1995: 120-121), following SoLÁ SoLE (1957: 18-23) and AcQUARO 1987. Note, however, that RUIZ-FERNANDEZ and ACQUARO 1983, render the name

306

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends

with s (twice). For a more complete overview, cf. ALFARO AsiNS (1991, 119-120),

the reading with -/ cannot be excluded. It

and MANFREDI, l.c. The reading with s is preferable, both because of the form of the sign on most coins, and because the s is less probable in a name that has no Semitic

(DCPP s. v. Abdére).

etymology. / sks * / Sexi‘ PIBB 79. For the reading of the name sks, see the remark s. v. / sks. /

€

9

/ abbrev. NB 85, MAA 3 138, CNNM 517, 518, NAA Numidia 75; NB 86, MAA 3 139, CNNM 519, NAA Numidia 76. It is well-nigh impossible to explain this type of abbreviated information, cf. the lengthy discussion by MANFREDI (1995: 74-76). MANFREDI (1995: 76) notes that stylistically these coins belong to the issues from Cirta. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000: 319) also supposes that the coins originate from Cirta, and that they are somewhat anterior to those which are inscribed with the name of the town. As other coins from Cirta are inscribed with personal names, probably those of officials connected with the civic administration, the inscription(s) on these coins is/are perhaps rather to be explained as abbreviation(s) of personal name(s). / *bdrt / Abdera. PIBB 47, 48; 49; 50, SNG K xliii 69, 70, 71; 51; 52; 53; 54, SNG K xliii 72; 55; 56; 57; SNG K xliii 66, 69, 68. In PIBB 51 and 55 the legend is reversed. In all instances the concluding sign is an oblique stroke, which may be interpreted as f or n. MANFREDI (1995: 120) chooses t, quoting ALFARO Asıns (1991, 123-124). However, as both the Punic endings -ar and -an may be represented by Latin -a and the etymology of the name remains uncertain,

is in fact accepted by MOLINO

FAJARDA

TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS / *bdrt abdera TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS / Abdera ABDERA SNG K xlii 470.

| bt / *Ibt?. PIBB 190, SNG K xliii 75, cf. ?1 *Ibr. τ / abbrev.

NB 204. / ‘Sdn bl / Asido bl PIBB 123; PIBB 127. See the remark sub / b‘b‘l. asido ASIDO PIBB See

/ ‘Sdn b'b'l / Asido b‘b‘l 122. the remark sub / b‘h‘/.

/ *$d'n b'l / Asido b'l PIBB 125. See the remark sub / b*b1l. asido ASIDO PIBB See

/ ‘Sd‘n b'l / Asido δ] 121, SNG K xlii 107, 108. the remark sub / b°h‘/.

/ pw-b'l / pw bil. PIBB 108; PIBB 109. MANFREDI (1995: 124 and sub P/BB 108, 109) reads p/n/tw-b*l. Supposing the signs to be Neo-Punic, or derived from Neo-Punic signs, the reading proposed by MANFREDI seems more attractive than other readings mentioned by her, which are partly due to the wish to read something comparable to the

307

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends name Oba in this text. Both pw and b‘/ may be abbreviated personal names.

as proposed by MANFREDI (1995, sub P/BB

/ pyln m‘qr wy't / pyln m*qr Oea. NAA Syrte 44; NB 45, NAA 828.

/ r$?dr / Rusaddir. NB 124, MAA 2 46, CNNM 580, SNG K xlii 713; NB 125, MAA 2 46a, CNNM 579, NAA Mauretania 215a, SNG K xlii 714. MAZARD (1955, sub 580) reads rs ?[ .

MÜLLER

byln. pyln.

(sub

For pyln

NAA

and

Syrte

Syrte 45, RPC 44,

45)

reads

nmrqr, cf. wy't / m'qr

/ psky| |

38).

§ /^yb$m abbrev. (3) / Ebusus. PIBB 34; cf. b | ?ybim.

/ psky[ ]. PIBB 195; PIB 196. The reading remains uncertain, peks[ ]

/ Sdn bl

being also possible.

/ Asıdo bl PIBB

123.

q /^ybs$m

abbrev. (q) / Ebusus.

/ $8 tpsr

PIBB 39; cf. b / ^ybim.

/ of Thapsus. NB 80, MAA RPC 794.

qsnt

qsnt (?). NB 209, SNG K xlu 751. The uncertain reading is taken from MANFREDI (1995: 97). JENKINS (sub SNG K xlii 751) proposes ’nsgt III, which seems highly speculative.

qrtgs mb'l qrtgS, civic administration.

NB 202. The origin of this coin is not established

with any certainty. MANFREDI (1995: 94—95, 192-193, id. 2003: 463) points, with much reserve, to Thagaste or Tigisi, explaining grte$ as Punic qrt, ‘town,’ followed by an indigenous name fe’. However, in case the drawing presented by MANFREDI is to be trusted, the reading of g in the name is uncertain, as is the reading of r. One might think of a name qr^t/n[.]. For mb‘l, v. / mb‘l tyng?. ry /?yb$m abbrev. (ry) / Ebusus. PIBB 38.

Cf. b / ?yb$m. As the downstroke of r is curved, this seems a better reading than b

3 63, NAA

Byzacium

34,

Sywb‘y hmmlkt Of Yubay, the king NC 40, MAA 2 34, CNNM 91, NAA Numidia 57, SNG K xlii 534, 535. MAZARD (1955, sub 91) notes that the text is followed by a sign looking like a reversed S, read by MANFREDI (1995, sub NC 39, 40) as y, which seems highly improbable, especially since in NC 40 the sign is as high as the two lines of text. MAZARD 1955 notes that this concluding sign is also found elsewhere (see MAZARD 34 sub 36.) The same sign is also found on coins without text: CVNM 89 (7 MAA 2, 32). See also ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 2 34). / $Sywb*y hmmlkt / Of Yubay, the king

NC 39, MAA 2 33, CNNM 90, NAA Numidia 55, SNG K xlii 528; NC 41, MAA 2 35, CNNM 92, NAA Numidia 56, SNG K xlii 529, 530; NC 42, MAA 2 36, CNNM 93, NAA Numidia 58, SNGK xlii 532, 533; SNG K xlii 531.

308

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends 39, 41, reads

Pkt

$ywb‘y hmmikty, cf. the remark sub Sywb‘y

{Κι

hmmlkt.

CNNM 586.

[]/ $m$ / Shamsh

MAZARD (1955, sub 586) reads Pdh but his drawing seems to favour our reading. MAZARD ascribes the coin to Thamuda.

MANFREDI

1995, sub NC

NC 60.

/ tgylt / Tagilit.

/ [δ] πιΐ / Shamsh. NB 180. MANFREDI

PIBB 46. / tglt (1995,

sub

NB

180)

reads

(...)m3.

/ tgrn / Tagura (?) CNNM xxxvi, MAA 3 184, NAA Numidia 76a. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 3 184) reads tern (?).

$m$ / mqm Sms Shamsh / the place, Shamsh.

NB 185. $m[3] / mqm $m$ Shamsh / the place, Shamsh. NB 186. MANFREDI (1995, sub NB / mqm sms.

/ Tagilit.

PIBB 45.

186) reads Xm

twS twS

CNNM 97, NAA Numidia 88, SNG K xli 521.

$m$ / mqm 8m[$3] Shamsh / the place, Shamsh.

Countermark. The reading is uncertain, MAZARD (1955, a.l.) read twz, MÜLLER (sub Numidia 88) read twn (?), and JENKINS (sub SNG K xlii 521) gives tws / twn / tn..

NB 187. / &*b'l (?) ‘Sdn

/ &b'] Asido. PIBB 124. Reading remains highly uncertain. / Sit / Sala. NB 195, MAA 2 51, CNNM 650, NAA Mauretania 244, SNG K xlıı 715; NB 196, CNNM 649, NAA Mauretania 245, SNG K xlu 717; NB 197. $q /?yb$m abbrev. (§q) / Ebusus. PIBB 32, 33. Only the X in $q in Neo-Punic PIBB 33; v. b / "ybim.

tm^*n tm”n NB 126, CNNM 585. MANFREDI (sub NB 126) reads tms*t, and MAZARD (1955, sub 585) proposes tm’ht. The drawings rather point to the reading as given above. Both MANFREDI and MAZARD ascribe the coin to Thamuda. / tmd't / Thamuda NB 127, MAA

2 47, CNNM 581, 583, NAA

Mauretania 242, SNG K xlii 718; NB 128, script in

MAA 2 47a, CNNM 582, NAA 254, SNG K xli 719.

Mauretania

309

13. Coins with Neo-Punic legends For the identification with Thamuda, cf. MANFREDI (1995: 85).

MAA

2 49,

224, SNG K

CNNM

607,

xlii 734; MAA

NAA

Mauretania

2 50, NAA

Mau-

retania 230, SNG K xlii 238; CNNM 608. tmdt Thamuda NB 129, MAA 2 47b, CNNM 584. ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, sub 2 47b) reads tmd*t. For the identification with Thamuda, cf. MANFREDI (1995: 85).

/ tmky / Timici (?) NB 122, MAA 2 55, CNNM 577, NAA Mauretania 215.

tynt Thaena. NB 73, MAA 3 51b, NAA Byzacium 2; MAA 3 56, RPC 805. / t^ynt / Thaena. NB 76, MAA 3 49, NAA Byzacium 3, RPC 803. t^ynt / P.A. VIBI. HABITI PRO.COS

tmt

Thaena / P.A. VIBI. HABITI PRO.COS

Thamuda NB 130, CNNM 583. Abbreviated form of tmd‘t, cd. MANFREDI (1995: 85).

NB 78, MAA 3 55, RPC 810.

/tmtsn / tmtin PIBB 191; PIBB 193. Variant of tmts*n.

CAESAR / t‘ynt CAESAR / Thaena. NB 74, MAA 3 51, RPC 804. CAESAR CAESAR NB 77, xlii 48,

DIVI DIVI MAA RPC

F / t^ynt F / Thaena. 3 50, NAA Byzacium 4, SNG K 806.

/ tmts‘n / tmt£n

PIBB 192. / tm / Tingi CNNM 605. In case the information from MAZARD (1955, sub 605) is correct, an abbreviated form of t(y)ng".

t^ynt / t‘ynt Thaena / Thaena. NB 75, MAA 3 53, NAA 807.

Byzacium

1, RPC

ttg

ttg CNNM 595. Countermark, abbreviated form of /tgn ?

Both the reading ‘tg and ttgn seem doubt/ tng / Tingi

NB 150, CNNM 606. / tng / Tingi. NB 143, CNNM 604; NB 144; NB 145; NB 146, MAA 2 48, CNNM 600, 601, NAA Mauretania 227, SNG K xlii 728; NB 147, CNNM 602; NB 148, CNNM 609; NB 149; MAA 2 48a, CNNM 603, NAA Mauretania 228;

ful. Both countermarks on the front side of coins, which bear the text b*/t on the reverse. ttgn

ttgn CNNM 596. Countermark, cf. ttg. / tts°n / tt£n

PIBB 194

Appendices

Onomasticon Only names of which a more or less complete reading is possible were included.

’btkw

’dnbl

Coins: / ?btkw.

Constantine N 23.

v. ’dnb‘l

See the remark al.

"dnb'l ’g’dr Sabratha N 16, Latin parallel: A(g)iaduris.

Name of unknown origin. ’gbr S. Antioco N 2.

Name of unknown origin. ’gg’

Sousse N 10. Name of unknown origin, cf. VNPT:

147.

?gslw Malta N 7,?gslw[ . A Greek name, Αγεσιλαος ? ’gs'n Hr. Meded N 20, ?gs*n. Berber name of the type with concluding /sanl, cf. e.g. NNPI: 61-64. Cf. the remark sub Hr. Meded N 20. *"dymn*m Teboursouk N 12. Semitic nominal phrase name, ‘’Adim is pleasant.’ (FANTAR 1974: 414, n. 2), points to *bd'dm (CIS 295), explained by HALFF (1963-1964: 127) as a possible lapsus for *ba?dn, although she also mentions *bd?dwm (i1 Sam. vi 10); cf. also PNPPI: 260. The y in this name makes the direct comparison to "bd?dwm difficult, of course.

Labdah N 9; 13 (Latin parallel: iddib[a]le); Hr. Aouin N 1, ’dnb[“l]; Hr. Kasbat N 2; Hr. Maktar N 37; Hr. Medeine N 1; Hr. Merah N 1; Sousse N 2; 3; 4; Tunisia OU N 7; Constantine N 59; 64; 79; 80; Oudjel N 1; S. Antioco N 3, Latin parallel idnibalis. Variant: ’dnbl. This name is also frequent in Phoenician and Punic sources, cf. PNPPI: 56-59, 260—261, who supposes that the /-i-/ attested between the two elements represents the suff. | sg.; ‘Bal is my lord.’ The /-i-/ may, however, also be explained as a connecting vowel, comparable to the so called icompaginis in Classical Hebrew. Note that in the representations of this name in Latin script, the vowel between /-d-/ and /-n-/ is always lost: Adnibali (dat.; AE 1967, 546), Idnibalis (gen.; Latin par. of S. Antioco N 3),

Iddibal (Latin par. of Hr. Kasbat N 2; C/L v 4919; IRT 273; 300; 324; ILT 732); Iddibalis (gen.; CIL v 4920; AE 1995, 1663); /ddibale (abl.; Latin par. of Labdah N

14); /ddibal-

ius (lengthened with Latin ending, C/L viii 859 = 12376); Hiddibal (CIL viii 18068.43; cf. also AE 1989, 884). The name Adombal, Aug. xvi 547, no 39, is attested in a LatinoPunic text and is possibly to be read Adonibal (cf. NNPI: 254 n. 15). One must suppose a development */aduniba‘l/ > Jadniball > /idniball > liddiball. The oldest stage is attested in cuneiform representations of this

314

Appendices

name, as noted by PNPPI: 261. The h- pre-

ceding the first vowel in one instance (Hiddibal) should not be explained as an audible remain of the ?, but only as an indication of the pronunciation of words beginning with a vowel. If any conclusion can be drawn from this spelling, it will be about the phonology of dialectal Latin rather than of Punic. °dnr’m Sousse N 25. A Semitic verbal sentence name with the verbal predicate being a perfect qal, or a nominal sentence name, the verbal element being a participle qal, cf. PNPPI: 215, NNPI:

254, n. 8, ‘the Lord is exalted.’ Although both name elements are well attested both in Phoenician and in Punic (cf. PNPPI: 260-261, for ?dn and id., 408-409, for rm), Sousse N 25 1s the only text where this specific name is attested. "drb'l Labdah N 11; Tripoli N 3; 4, ’drb’[; Hr. Maktar N 59, [?/drb[‘l]; 64, 37; 77; Tunisia OU

N 7; Constantine N 42, ?drb*l. Semitic name, ‘Bal is mighty.' The first element of this name 15 attested in transcription as adar and ader/adher. The second form is probably to be explained as an adjective, compare Hebrew "addir. Whether the first form should be explained as a verbal form, viz. a qal perf., remains uncertain. In Hebrew, no verbal forms of this root are attested, cf. NNPI: 22-23. The name is frequently attested in Punic, PNPPT: 60 enumerates 62 occurrences.

Adherbal

1s, of course

well-known from literary sources (Livy, Sallust; for Adherbal, cf. e. g. G. Camps

1985),

Adarbal (ILA 11 6753), Adarbalis (Karthago viii 1957 p.78), Aderbalo (AE 1905 95) are forms founds in epigraphical sources. Forms with a in the second syllable seem to be absent from literary sources. For "dr, cf. also FANTAR 1985.

^wtn? Hr. Maktar N 76, 32,?wti".

The name has been compared by FEVRIERFANTAR

(1965:

57)

with

Latin Avitannus

(CIL viii 215692). ?zrm^n

Hr. Maktar N 11; 64, 46; 98. Probably a Berber name ending in -an, cf. NNPI: 56-57, cf. also Masson 1976: 55-59. *htmylkt

f

Hr. Maktar N 32; 34.

Semitic

construct

phrase

name,

cf.

PNPPI: 231, ‘sister of Milkat.' For -y- as a diminutive infix used in feminine names, cf. NNPI: 42-44,

*hSbn S. Antioco N 4. Name of unknown origin. The beginning of the name, ”h, might be Semitic, but the second element then remains unexplained. It may also be a Berber name ending in /-an/. In that case ἢ probably indicates /a/, leading to the pronunciation /aSban/, but one wonders whether to expect Berber nomenclature in Sardinia.

*tb’n Hr. Maktar N 123, ?tb/n. See the remark a.l.

y'sdn Wadi el-Amud N 1. Possibly a Berber name. Levi DELLA Vıpa, IPT sub 79, compared IZDNM (R/L 122), 1IZDGM (RIL 134), IzGNM (RIL 133), of which the first name might be the same, but lengthened with -M. Note that IZGGSN (RIL 1109), IzacuDiz (R/L 857) begins with i followed by emphatic z. When one divides the name otherwise, sd" remains a correct looking Semitic name, and perhaps the first element might be compared to ?y- in ?yb'l, cf. ?yspn.

315

Onomasticon

?yb$m Coins: "ybim; CCAESAR AVG GERMANICVS / ?yb$m INS AVG; CCAESAR GERMANICVS; ?ybSm INS AVG; TI CAESAR AVG PP / ’yb$m INS AVG; ’yb$m INS AVG / ?ybim INS AVG; ? / ?ybim; ?h [| ?ybsm; b / ?yb$m; by / ’ybSm; g? / ?ybim; gm I ’ybSm; eq /?ybim; 2 / ?ybsm; Ir / ?yb$m; n [ ?ybim; q / )ybim; ry / ’ybSm; &/ ybim; ὅφ / ?vbm. Nomen loci, Ebusus. Semitic name, ‘the balsam island.’ The old explanation of bim as related to the name of the god Bes, depicted on most coins from Ebusus (cf. e.g. SOLA SoLÉ 1956: 331-334; Campo 1976; MANFREDI 1995: 118), seems difficult to maintain, due to the ending -m. The hypothesis of FANTAR (1993c, 94-95), that this name exhibits an ending -im as the names md(d)m, hmktrm, ?tm, ?ksm, does not strengthen this idea, mainly because it seems quite certain that Amktrm is a plural preceded by the article. ?"ykn*

’yspn Hr. Medeine N

1.

Berber name ending in -an, cf. NNPI: 56-

57; cf. also MASSON (1976: 55-59). ROL16 (sub KA/ 159) compares ’yb‘/ (EH 141), explained by PNPPI: 265, as ‘where is Bal,’ cf. however BERTHIER-CHARLIER (1952, sub

EH 141), who propose that ?yb‘/ may be an abbreviated ’dnyb“l. As spn is not attested as a Semitic name element, the explanation as a Berber name is more probable. See also the remark sub Hr. Medeine N |. ?ySkt Hr. Ghayadha N 3. Cf. the remark a.l. "kbrs Constantine N 60. NNPI: 149, notes that, as the name of the father of ?kbrs is ?mnyws/$, Αμμῶωνιος, the origin of this name is perhaps to be found in Greek rather than in Semitic or Berber onomastics.

Hr. Maktar N 64, 30; 67; 76, 18, 26; 104.

variant: ^ykiy, ^vkjr. Berber

564,

716,

name,

889,

cf.

890).

e.g.

IKNH

(RIL

345,

| Labdah N 10.

In Hr. Maktar N 40

The god El, in the combination P/ gn rs,

CHABOT (sub Punica iv a 10) reads ^ykny in

also attested in the well-known text from Karatepe (KA/ 26 A iii 18). For other attestations, cf. ROLLIG (sub KA/ 26).

line 1, which is an uncertain reading, see the remarks a.l.

’Ibt

’yksm Coins: / ?yksm. Nomen

loci,

Icosium,

see,

however,

the

remark in the chapter on coins sub / ’yksni. The name is explained as the ‘ısle of owls' by SZNYCER (1977c: 173), as was done previously by LE GLAy (1968: 13-14), who also noted as possible explanations ‘isle of thorns’ and ‘isle of gulls.” LANCEL and LIPINSKI (DCPP s.v. Icosium) propose, apart from ‘isle of owls,’ the translation ‘isle

of full moons.’ °’ymtn Teboursouk N

10.

Name ? See the remark a.l.

Coins: krtn / "lbt For the interpretation of ?/bt as a personal name or a combination of two abbreviations, cf. the remark in the chapter coins sub Arti / ^Ibt.

"Ipqy Labdah N 19 (bis); Sabratha N 2, ”Ipqy.

Place name, Lepcis. The origin of this name, whether Semitic or Berber, is still a matter of discussion. On coins the form used is /pgy (or abbreviated /pg). Because of the difference between /pqy and ?/pqy, GARBINI (1993: 220 n. 6) has proposed to explain the formations ’edr, ?krly, hkrP, hslqy and

316

Appendices

’Ipgy as ethnic nouns preceded by the article, which may be correct in some cases, but which seems less probable in the case of ?edr, found in this spelling and on its own on several coins. In addition, ?/pqy, which occurs not only in the combination “m ?lpqy, where it could be an adjective, but also in the combination ?d7? ?/pgy, which cannot be anything else than the name of the town preceded by a noun in the plural construct state. As long as no acceptable etymology can be established for this name, the nature of the (preformative ?) ? is a mute issue. *Itbrs Hr. Medeine N 1. Geographical name, A/thiburus. ’mdrn Memphis N 1 (bis) Probably a Berber name ending in -n, cf. NNPI: 56-57; cf. also MASSON (1976: 55-59).

The Greek name Auuwvıog, cf. BERTHIERCHARLIER (sub EH 49). ?mtb'l

- Labdah N 25, ?mib[. Variant: hmtb‘l. The name in Labdah N 25 may be completed as ’mtb‘l, once attested in Phoenician and five times in Punic, according to PNPPI:

62, although not (yet) in Neo-Punic texts; cf., however, ?mtbrlhsry.

the variant

hmtb‘]

and

also

*mtb'Ihsry Labdah N 24 Semitic construct phrase name, cf. NNPT: 26. The name means, of course, ‘the handmaiden of the Tyrian Bal.' ’nb‘

Ksiba Mraou N 4, ’nb/r“. Name of unknown origin, probably Berber, according to CHABOT (sub Punica xiv

4). ΠΥ

Hr. Meded N 15. Variant: hmy“l. Berber name ending in -/, for which cf. MASSON (1976: 59-60; cf. also NNPI: 266269). In case “my! (CIS 1 4911) is the same name, the Semitic etymology proposed by HALFF (1963-1964: 136, cf. also PNPPI: 379) is less likely. Apart from Amy‘! and *myl, VATTIONI (1994: 124) also mentions ?ml (CIS 1 5510) as a variant of this name.

"myk

ἢ

Bordj Bou Chateur N 2. Name of unknown origin. Perhaps Berber, and to be explained as the counterpart of ?nkn, but without the ending /-an/. ’nkn Bir Bou Rekba N 1 (ter). Berber type name ending in /kan/, cf. NNPI: 60—61; cf., however, also the remark s. V. ?nyk.

’mn

Breviglieri N 1. Divine name Ammon.

’mny Hr. Maktar N 89. Probably a nisbe adjective derived from the name of a town or clan. ’mnyws Constantine N 60, ’mnyws/$.

"ntgn$ Malta N 6. A Greek name, Avtıyovoc. ?ntyks S. Antioco N 5a, 5b. Is this a rendering Avuoxog ? ’spt‘In Hr. Maktar N 23.

of the Greek

name

Onomasticon

Berber name ending in //an/, cf. NNPI: 64-65. On the reading, see the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 23. *stbry v. ’st‘bry Hr. Maktar N 99.

correct, cf. ?pXn, as remarked by BERTHIERCHARLIER (sub EH 278). This name is, most probably incorrectly, described as a variant of *bd?inin by KRAHMALKOV 2000, s. v. *bd?Xmn. p

’stbry Hr. Maktar N 48 (bis). Variant: ?stbry. Cognomen, Latin Staberius.

Nomen

pr

Hr. Maktar N 78. Latin name Epaphra, attested a few times in North Africa, cf. e.g. CIL viii 1791 (p. 1559). CHABOT sub Punica E iv, Liste des nomes propres, renders the name as Epaphber.

**spl

Kesra N

317

1. loci ?

’pwn Coins: ?pwn / tp*tn; ?pwn I tslp'tn (?); tp“tn / ?pwn Nomen loci, Hippo. For this possible identification cf. e. g. MANFREDI (1995: 7778), yet note LANCEL and LIPINSKI, DCPP s. v. Bizerte, who explain ?pwn as a personal name (see the remark on the coin with the text ’pwn / tp*tn).

psn Bir Bou Rekba N 1; Constantine N 81. Berber type name ending in /san/? If so, cf. NNPI: 61-64 and ?psn. This name occurs also in some Punic texts, from Dougga, ΚΑ] 101, parallel with Berber PSN, and from Con-

*pthr Constantine N 52, ?pt/nhr. Name of uncertain reading and unknown origin.

pte Hr. Maktar N 51, ?pr't[ 7. Latin name, Optatus. We suppose that the reading ?pt*tb/dlr? is either incorrect, the sign read as b/d/r being a flaw in the stone, or that the stone mason made a mistake. See also the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 51.

"qwl^y Hr. Maktar N 102.

Latin name, Aquileius. For the reading, see the remark a.l. "qtn

Constantine N 39. Possibly a name, cf. the remark a.l.

*pkn

Memphis N 1, ’pkn Berber

type name

ending

in /kan/,

cf.

NNPT: 60-61.

’qyl’

Hr. Brighita N 1. Latin name, Aquila.

’pn

Sousse N 20, ?pn. This name

15 also attested in a Punic text

"psn

Constantine N 83, ?psn. Berber type name ending in /san/, cf. NNPI: 61-64. In case the reading of p is

*gqlms Guelma N 36. Name of unknown origin. ’rb‘n’ Guelma N 32, ’[r]b‘n°. Latin name, Urbanus, but see the remark. a.l.

318

Appendices

’rb‘tk°n Hr. Maktar N 115. VATTIONI (1996: 76) relates the personal name ?rb*'tk*n to the word γ΄, ‘four,’ describ-

ing -tkn as a derivational suffix comparable to -illa in the Latin name Quartilla. We are still convinced that it is a Berber name of the type ending in /kan/, cf. NNPI: 60-61; cf. ibid., 215, supposing a relation with Berber BRTKN (RIL 206), because both in the Neopunic and in the Libyan script b and r are easily confounded.

Ibid. Arisia, Arisio, Arissani, Arisu, Arisus), the pronunciation of this name must have been something like /aris/. The name has been explained as Semitic by many scholars, cf. e.g. PNPPI: 276, NNPI: 35-36, VATTIONI (1994b: 42 (n. 77)). ROSSLER (sub Κα! 34) tentatively suggests that it may be a short-

enend name consisting of a divine name, compairing “Ῥω γᾷ. Others have thought of a Berber explanation. However, because of the relation with ?rt and especially the attestation of the name ?r3tbf] the Semitic explanation seems the most attractive. For a remark

’rkrh

on the possible Latinisation of this name to

Tharros N l. Possibly a Semitic name, as it is attested in Phoenician in C/S 97 (in a text from Memphis) and in Punic in C/S 2434 (from

be found in Aristo, see ROWLAND

Carthage), although it remains unexplained, cf. PNPPI: 335. Harrr (1963-1964: 93)

BERTHIER-CHARLIER (sub EH 273) remark that a name Ariston is very well possible, but they note that instead of t the reading p/kn/t

translates, with a question mark, 'nkrh is my light,’ the deity nkrh being attested in

South Semitic. LEvy (1864c, 70, id. 1864b, 6) divided the name in ?rk + rh, which translated ‘the patient one,’ comparing combination of the two words in Qohelet 8, "erek rüah, ‘patient in spirit,’ which is interesting explanation.

he the vii an

"rst Labdah N 62. Most probably a misspelled ’r$r, thus e. g. LEVI DELLA VIDA & AMADASI (sub IPT 72.) For this type of name, v. γῇ.

1977.

’r$tn Constantine N 78, stn.

is also acceptable. VNPT: 152, therefore asks whether the reading of a double name might be possible: ’r$ pun. The father of the dedicant would then have used a Semitic and a Berber name. FUENTES-ESTANOL (1980: 73) proposes to divide "r$ tn and to translate ‘(with) desire has erected,’ which is highly improbable. ’rSm Labdah N 9; 58; Wadı el-Amud N 1; 2; 3; Carthage N 14; Hr. Maktar N 25; 39; 64, 32; 76, 13; Kelibia N 2; Constantine N 74;

Guelma N 10 ’r$mı. TS Labdah N 9; 13 (Latin parallel: Arinis); 15; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Hammam Derradji N 1; Hr. el-Hammi N 1 (cf. the comment a.l.); Hr. Ghayadha N 2;Hr. Guergour N 9; Hr. Maktar N 10; 64, 27; 78; 105; Hr. Medeine N 1; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 2; Teboursouk N 15; Tunisia OU N 7; Cherchel N 2; Constantine N 12; 16, ?r$; 37; 44; 59; 72, "[r]X, Guelma N 10; 16; 39. Due to the attestation in Latin texts of Aris (and variants, cf. JONGELING 1994, s. v. Arinem, Arini, Arinis, Aris, Arisi, and cf. also

Semitic name, related to ’r$, known

from

classical sources as Arisim. The ending -m is still unexplained, cf. JONGELING (1994: XXI-XXI1). rst f Labdah N 15; 27; Carthage N 2. Variant: ‘rt. Semitic name, feminine counterpart of ’r$. Once this name seems to have been misspelled: ?rst. The feminine ending in this name contains a vowel, as is shown by the Latin rendering of this name: arisut, aris-

319

Onomasticon

uth, arrisut, for which names cf. JONGELING 1994, s. v. The development of the fem. sing. ending was most probably /at/ > /at/ > /ot/ > [utl. ’SIyt Coins: / ?$lyt. Nomen loci, Zilis, modern Dchar Djedid. This identification is already found with MÜLLER (sub NAA Mauretania 133). The name has been explained as ‘fishery,’ cf. LIPINSKI, DCPP, s.v. Toponymie 2; LE GLAY DCPP, s.v. Dchar Djedid. The name seems to have been retained in the name of the nearby Azila/Asila. LE GLAY, o.c., writes the name as °a-Selit, which gives the impression that he thinks of the (Berber ?) article, followed by a Semitic name. This is less probable. The formation ’aslit, from the root $/y, is perfectly correct as a Semitic formation. *"&lm Constantine N 53. See the remark sub Constantine N 53.

"m Hr. Maktar N 30. Name of unknown origin. VNPT: 152, tentatively suggests a shortening of a name of which the first element was ?imn, in which case it is comparable to ?3mr. "mm Teboursouk N 14. Semitic hypochoristic name, cf. NNPT: 36. The name is not (yet) attested in Phoenician nor Punic texts. St Hr. Maktar N 54. This possible name of unknown origin occurs in a highly uncertain context, cf. the remarks sub Hr. Maktar N 54. b?r$ Ain Zakkar N

1, bm/’r$.

See the remark all.

bb* Dougga N 5 Name of possible Berber origin, comparable to bby, attested in KA/ 100, with Berber parallel ΒΒΙ. bby occurs also in C/S 3108; cf. further bb’ (CIS 3025), bbw (RES 1545), BB (RIL 708), Bibai (IRT 729), Bibi (IRT 873), Bibba[ (Hr. Maktar N 69). It is not impossible that also the names Baebius, Bebius, Bibius (AE 1993 1740a: Bibius Mustulus, a text from Henchir Kasbat; the same person seems

to be mentioned

in AE

1999

1821),

Baebia, Bebia are related. In that case would be another example of the use Latin name that sounded more or less a local one. For pairs of Berber names and without initial 7-, cf. NNPI: 83-84, note that apart from bb“ a name rhb* is attested.

this of a like with and also

bb‘l Chia N l. ROLLIG, sub KA/ 173, notes that the name may be the same as bdb‘/, with assimilation

of db > bb or the same as bnb'l, with assimilation of nb > bb. VaTTION! (1979, 64) notes s.v. Bubal that this might be a shortenend form of ?bb'l. We are still inclined to explain this name as a representation of

Greek βουβαλος, Latin bubalus, a certain type of gazelle (note also Bubalus qui et Taurus in ICVR 1773), used as a personal name, cf. NNPI: 153, or as a Berber name with ending -/, cf. JoNGELING (1994: 28; cf. also NNPI: 266-269), later associated with Latin bubalus. In Latin texts, we encounter Bubal (CIL viii 22644, 21099); the first of these two texts is found on a stele with the relief of a bubalos. bb‘l Coins: / bbfl. For a discussion, see coin legends a.l. be’t Cherchel N 2. Berber name with final -r, cf. NNPI: 81— 84. The person mentioned in Cherchel N 2

Appendices

320 is the son of Masinissa,

in classical sources

bd’strt

v. bd‘Strt.

Constantine N 67, ba?strt. bdb‘l Hr. Djebbara N 1; Hr. Maktar N 12. Semitic name, originally a prepositional phrase: ‘in the hand of Bal,’ cf. PNPPI:

227, 283-286 and NNPI: 28-29, who both describe

this

name

This

name

is normally

explained

as a

lapsus for bdmlgrt, which is, of course, a

known as Bogud.

as a construct-phrase

name.

quite plausible solution, but, in view of the rendering of this name in the Latin parallel, one wonders whether the author of this text really knew the historically correct spelling of this name. The rest of this short text exhibits two other spelling problems: q/?y for Clodius, and hrb’ for hrp?. bd'strt Wadi el-Amud N 3; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Carthage N 2; 5; 11, bd‘Strrt (line2/3 bd*str/ rt); Kélibia N 2; Constantine N 11; 47; 51,

bdmlk

bd'trt; Melilla N 1; Ibiza N 5 (bis); Mal-

Sousse N 10. Semitic name, originally a prepositional phrase: ‘in the hand of Malk,’ cf. PNPPT:

lorca N 4. Variant: ba’strr. Semitic name, originally a prepositional phrase: ‘in the hand of Ashtart,' cf. PNPPI: 227, 283-286, NNPI: 28-29, who both describe this name as a constructphrase name. The name has been rendered

227, 283-286 and NNPI: 28-29. bdmiqrt

Labdah N 14 (bis); 17 (bdmlqrr); Hr. Maktar N 32; 107; Sousse N 13; Constantine N 19; 20, bd[m]lqrt; 34; 38; Hr. Bou Atfan N 2; S.

Antioco N 4, J//bdmlqrt; Ibiza N 5. Coins: krtn bdmlqrt w hn’; krtn ! bdmlqrt w hn’; krtn $ptm bdmlqrt w hm. Semitic name, originally a prepositional phrase ‘in the hand of Melqart,' cf. PNPPT: 227, 283-286 and NNPI: 28-29, who both

describe this name

as a construct-phrase

name. The rendering of this name in classical literary sources normally retains the liquid, while d is normally lost, apart from changes at the end of the name to make it fit in the Latin or Greek declination system: Bomilcar (Sallust, Livy, etc., passim; not attested in Latin epigraphical sources),

BojuAxag (Polybius), Βομιλχαρ (Appian); cf, however, Bodmilkaris (gen.; CIL vii 9618); in epigraphical sources also Boncar (Labdah N 5 (cf. below sub bd*'lqrt); CIL

viii 68) and Boncarth (CIL v 4920; IRT 294) are attested. bd‘lqrt Labdah N 5, Latin parallel: Boncar, Greek parallel: Bo[vxao].

in Greek

script as Bodootwp

(cf. Riese,

RE 111, 789: Diodorus, cf. Fragm. xxiv 9), Bovóaoroaroc (PNPPI: Paton & Hicks, Cos. 1.2), Bwotagı (Appian Han. 185, note), Βωσταρον (Polyb. 1 30.1, 79.2), Bootoo (Polyb. iii 99.8), Bootooa (Polyb. 11 98.5) and in Latin script as Bostar (Livy xxii 22.10, Sil.It. 11 6), Bostaris (CIL viii 9450, Livy xxii 22.9, cf. also /LAf 634 (= ILM 116), IAM 11 448), Bosiharis (pro (or lege ?) Bostharis, CIL v 4919), Bostari (Livy xxii 22.12), Bostarem (Livy xxii 22.9), Bostare (Livy xxii 22.18). Note also that in KA/ 100 *bd'itrt in the Punic text corresponds with WDSTR in the Berber parallel, while BSTR (RIL 7) represents same name. Therefore the names bd‘Strt and ‘bd‘strt seem to become indistinguishabele.

bhl *mn Hr. Maktar N

v. ΟἽ hmn 109;

128.

See the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 109. bwbyl Hr. Maktar N 64, 25, bwby/“l.

32]

Onomasticon

The reading bwby/! is from BERGER (1901d: 165), although his text on p. 143

This word may be a name, see, however, the remark on the coin with the text / b‘h‘/.

only gives bwbyl. CHABOT (sub Punica iv, Liste des noms propres) provides the two possible readings bwbyl / bwb*[ ]. Lipz-

b‘wt

BARSKI (1902: 47), reads bwb'[.]. In case

Probably a Berber name of the type with concluding -t, cf. VNPT: 81-84.

the reading with final / is correct, one may compare

the Berber names

ending

in -/, cf.

NNPI. 266-269. For bwb*l one may compare bbfl. bwm‘n’ Guelma N 20. For a discussion of the reading and origin of this name, cf. the remarks a. |.

bhi ‘mn

Hr. Maktar N 64, 24; 94; 105.

v. b‘Ihmn

Hr. Maktar N 78; 86; 90; 92, bhl *[mn].

b‘l SabrathaN 16; Bir Bou RekbaN 1; Bir Tlelsa N 1; Carthage N 3; 10; 12; 14; Dougga N I; Hr. Guergour N 9; Hr. Maktar N 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8; 12; 36; Hr. Meded N 26; Teboursouk N 10; Tunisia OU N 4; 5; 7; 8; Constantine N 6; 7; 9; 23; 33 (bis); 39; 41; 44; 46; 51; 52; 53; 54 (bis); 55; 70; 75; 76; 79; 82; Ksiba Mraou N 7; Tirekbine N 1 (ter); 1, b°//). Divine apellative used as a name. In the

Latin parallel of Sabratha byt‘n Chia N 1. Nomen loci, Bitia. The name has been explained as Phoenician, meaning ‘the house of the source,’ cf. e.g. TORE, DCPP s. V. Bitia, however, this explanation remains uncertain, since the loss of -y- in ‘yn is difficult to reconcile with its retention in byr, both words being of the type CYC. If one of the supposed diphtongues /-ay-/ was lost, one would expect this to happen to the first one in the construct chain. bkkr Zaiuet el-Mahgiub N 2. Name (?) of unknown origin. bil Hr. Medeine N | The context of Medeine uncertain.

N

1 remains

bn'trt El-Djem N. Name of unknown origin, cf. however the remark sub El-Djem N 1. b‘b‘l Coins: / b'b*T, / * b'b'T; ASIDO / *Xdn beb‘l.

N

1 rendered

by Sapurno, pro Saturno, extended with bX'ntsty, of uncertain interpretation. In Bir Tlelsa N 1, Hr. Guergour N 9, Constantine N 52, 70, bl is followed by the epithet ’dr. In Carthage N 3, 10, 12, 14, Constantine N 33, 39, 44, 54, 75, 76, 79, 82, Tirekbine N | (twice), b‘/ is part of the epithet of the goddes Tinit, pn? b“l. This combination has been rendered in Latin by Baliddiris (CIL viii 19122), Baliddiri (CIL viu 19121 = ILA n 6486, 19123, AE 1989 850), Baldir (CIL viii 5279), cf. JoNGELING (1987: 129), CAMPS (1990: 135-136), Camps 1991, VATTIONI (1994b: 36). b'l Constantine N 63. Most probably a shortened form of a name containing the divine name Pf, cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 99), NNPI: 36. HALFF, l.c; mentions, with question mark, this name as occurring in C/S 4997, although PNPPI does not mention the name. From a Latin inscription one may quote Bal (CIL viii 27474a: Secu(n)dus / fil(ius) Bal). Cf. further the name of a Tyrian king mentioned by Josephus (A 1 156) as Βααλ, probably a Hebraized form of /ba‘l/. Because of the

following 3m* in Constantine 63, it is, of

Appendices

322

course, also possible to explain the name as the result of a haplography: b‘/ $m* pro b“Ism“ Sm“.

b‘l mn

v. b'1 hmn

Constantine N 47; Guelma N 37. b‘Png Hr. Maktar

N

2, [b']Png;

4; Tunisia

OU

N 5. In all instances 5*P?ng may also be read as

b*Ptg. CHABOT (sub Punica xii 5) supposes it to be a Libyan name, but one may also think

85; 87; 88; 89; Constantnie NP 86; Guelma N 20; 31; Oudjel N 1. Variant: b*/ ?min, bol “mn, bhl *mn, bhl *mn, bel mn, bel mn. The ‘Lord of Khamon,' the most important male deity in the Punic speaking mediterranean area, cf. DCCP, 57—58, XELLA 1991, MÜLLER (2005: 287—289). For the pronunciation one may compare in Greek script Bak Auovv (KA/ 175 = El-Hofra GP 1), and a Latin text from Hr. Kasbat (AE 1954, 53): Balamoni / Augusto sacrum / ... Marcius / Mansuetus / miles cohortis / I urbanae /

of a Semitic origin, b*/ combined with a form

[C]enturia Kapitonis / stationarius / votum

of the root ‘ng, “Bal finds pleasure.’

solvit libens animo (on this text, cf. e. g. FERRON 1953).

b‘l b'l Arseu N |. Possibly a mistake for 5b“! hmn, although an intended meaning ‘the lord Bal’ cannot completely be excluded. b'Ibrk Constantine N 6. Semitic sentence name, ‘Bal has blessed,’ cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 99), NNPI: 20. The name consists of two frequently attested name elements, cf. PNPPI/: 288—291, 291292, but in this combination they occur only once in Neo-Punic texts, and twice in a Punic text from Carthage (C/S 2859).

b*l hmn Carthage N 2; 3, [bl] hmn; 6; 9; 10; 12, brl h[m]n; 14; Dougga N 2, bl hm[n]; 5; Elles N 1; 2; Hr. el-Blida N 1; Hr. Ghayadha N 1; 2; 5; 6; Hr. Maktar N 11; 38, b°/ h[mn]; 39; 40; 41; 47; 49; 51; 52; 53; 77; 79; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 87; 88; 89; 91; 93; 94; 96; 100, 101; 102; 103; 104; 105; 107; 108; 110; 111; 115; 116; 118; 120; 121; 123; 124; 126; 127 bl [hmn]; 129; 130; 132; Hr. Meded N 20; 21; Hr. Medeine N 1 (bis); Tunisia OU N 1; 2; 13; Constantine N 3; 11; 15; 16; 25; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 34; 36; 39; 42; 43; 44; 48; 50; 56; 58; 59; 60; 61; 62; 65; 66; 69; 72, [b]*l hmn;

74, 75; 76, 77, 78; 79; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84;

b‘Ihn’ Labdah N 7; Bir Bou Rekba N 1; Hr. Maktar N 5; 54, Berber parallel BHNH; Constantine N 29; 30; 76; 77; 89; Mallorca N

1.

Variant: b'l*iP, blir. Semitic name, ‘Bal has favoured.’ PNPPI: 224, explains the element An? as a verbal form, qal perfect 3 sg. m, followed by the suffix of 3 sg. m. As there are no other clear examples of this suffix in personal names (see also the remark s. v. ‘zrb‘/ ), this is not a priori the most attractive explanation. It is also difficult to find a reason for the differentiation between b‘/yhn and bh’. Why should the perfect form always be followed by a suffix and the imperfect form never? Another strange aspect of this name is, that, although it is extensively attested in Punic (PNPPI: 90-92 lists 420 occurrences), there is no accepted rendering in Greek or Latin texts. Note, however, the Libyan parallel BHNH in Hr. Maktar N 54 and the existence of Banno, Bannonis in Latin sources, and Bavvov in Greek texts, cf. NNPI: 144, JONGELING

(1994:

18). For this name,

cf. perhaps also bnn in a Punic text from Bekalta (Thapsus), as FANTAR 1978b notes, although he explains the name as Libyan, cf. also FANTAR (1993c, 114). The spelling variants b'l'iPlbrlm point to a realisation / balannol.

323

Onomasticon

b'lyhy

Variant: b‘/y*tn.

Pantelleria N 1. Semitic sentence name, ‘Bal will give life,’ in which the element y/ıy is probably an imperfect piel form, cf. PNPPI: 308, NNPI: 19 (who also thinks it possible to explain yhy as a qal form: *Bal lives’). For the problems surrounding the text Pantelleria N 1, see the remark al. b'lyn Hr. Djebbara N 2; Kef Bezioun N 1; 2. Most probably the Semitic name b‘/y/in, a name attested in Phoenician (RES 1306) and Punic (C/S 1171, 3876, 4874, 5125), with loss of the laryngeal ἢ both in pronunciation and spelling: /balyon/ < /balyahonl, cf. NNPI: 156-157, and PPG?, ὃ 18, although the // seems to have been retained for some time in North Africa, cf. from Latin inscriptions Baliahon (CIL viii 10785 (= 18677), 15275 (p. 2577), IRT 689), Baliaho (CIL vill 14738, 25571), Baliahonis (CIL viui 12169), Baliahons (CIL vin 17659) next to Baliao (or Baliaon; CIL vii 17666), Baliaonis (CIL viii 27192). Or is the ἢ in these names rather an hiatus-tilger originating in the Latin speaking world ? The same name also attested once in Carthage (C/S 1294), on which Harrr (1963-1964: 100) remarks: for b‘/y(t)n or b“Iy(h)n, but it seems less appropriate to explain the name as partly abbreviated. KRAHMALKOV 2000, s. v. b‘/ytn, supposes D‘/yn to be a misspelling of b°/yrn, which is less probable.

sentence

thonis (ILT 678, BAC 1946-1949: 683 (bis), CIL vii 1211 (p. 2522; = ILPBardo 181 = [LT 1188 = AE 1939 30) 16760, 16922, ILA 1 899, 1000), Baliaton (CIL viii 16011, LEGLAY

1 268, no. 8), Baliatonis (CIL vin

17252 (= ILA 1977), 27491, ILA 1 593, 695), Balithon (CIL viu 1211), Balithonis (CIL v 4920), Baliahaton (ILA 1 593), Baliatho

(CIL viii 5075 (= ILA 1 1833), BAC 19361937: 219, 1946-1949: 683, BAC NS xii-xiv 1976-1978: 249), Baliato (CIL viii 5136 (= ILA 1 1432), 16306, 25953, AE 1982 931), and cf. also Zayxovvıadwv (Philo (Euseb. Praep. Evang.) 28), Zayyovvıadwvog (ibid. note), Σαγχωνιαθων (ibid. note), Sidiathones, Sidiatho[, and cf. also mlkytn.

b‘l m’n

v. b‘l hmn

Guelma N 35.

b‘l mn

v. b‘l hmn

Hr. Ghayadha N 3; Hr. Meded

name,

‘Bal has added,’

b‘In°

v. b'Ihn?

Hr. Maktar N 44.

v. b'] hmn

Carthage N 7; Hr. Ghayadha N 4, b°/ *m[n]; Hr. el-Hammi N 1; Hr. Maktar N 9; 10; 99;

cf. PNPPI: 216, 323-324.

103;

b'ly*tn v. b‘lytn Guelma N 7; Ksiba Mraou N 4, P*xly*tn.

bin

b'lytn Labdah N 14; 18; Hr. Maktar N 9; 42; 56; 64, 25, 33, 35, 41; 65; 128; Constantine N 7, [bJ“Iytn, 8; 65; 67; Guelma N 14; 19.

N 23; Thibar

N 1; Tunisia OU N 14; Guelma N 18; 19; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27, [b]“! mn; 28; 32; 34; 36.

b‘l ‘mn

b'lysp Sabratha N 4. Semitic

Semitic sentence name, ‘Bal has given.’ PNPPT: 329 leaves open the choice between perfect or imperfect qal of the verb, but the frequent rendering by /-iatom/ points to a perfect form, cf. NNPI: 135, cf. e.g. Baliathon (Karthago vii 1957, 78, 79), Balia-

106; Constantine N 8.

v. b‘Ihn’

Hr. Maktar N 103.

bipg

f

Carthage N 7. Semitic

sentence

name,

‘Bal

came

to

meet,’ pg? being a qal perfect of the root pg’,

Appendices

324

cf. NNPI: 20, 45. The name is not attested in the Phoenician and Punic material collected in PNPPI.

b‘ISm’

v. b‘ISm‘

Hr. Meded N 23.

Hr. Maktar N 26. Semitic nominal sentence name, ‘Sid 15 the lord,’ cf. PNPPI: 398, NNPI: 24 and

b‘ISm‘ Hr. Maktar N 18, b’[Is]m‘, 31; 64, 18, 42; Constantine N 7; 17; Ksiba Mraou N 2. Variant: b°/§m’. Semitic sentence name, ‘Bal has heard,’ cf. PNPPI. 100, 212, 421, NNPI: 20, not often attested in Phoenician (C/S 87), or Punic (CIS 656, 669, RES 1216 and in the form b'lán? CIS 3358, 3440), but known from Latin renderings (Balsamo (CIL xii 10024

especially 48—49.

n. 358), Balsamonis (CIL viii 12331, ILA i

b‘Ipd’ Carthage N 5. Semitic sentence name, ‘Bal has somed,’ cf. PNPPI: 210-213, 389.

b'Isd

ran-

f

b*Irm Khallik N 1. This Semitic sentence name, is also attested in Phoenician epigraphy (C/S 88, 90, RES 1206) and on coins (cf. PNPPI: 98), ‘Bal is high.” The element rm may be explained as a qal. perfect or participle, cf. PNPPI. 408.

1105, Karthago viii 1957, 78; for other, possibly related, names see JoNGELING (1994: 17, s.v. balsamius)). The pronunciation of this name must have been something like

/balSamol, as shown by the Latin renderings and the spelling with -”, and not /baalisamal,

as supposed by FANTAR (1986, 30 n. 9). b'ngr

Sabratha N 7, b‘n/t/per. b‘ISylk

v. b‘Islk

Bir Tlelsa N 1.

b'ISIk Labdah N 4, Latin parallel: Balsilechis (gen.), Greek parallel: Βαλσιλληχ; 28 (bis; cf. however the remark a.1.); 40; 58; Sabratha N 2; Carthage N 13; Hr. Maktar N 11; 38, b'i[]l[k], 39; 64, 40; 111; Sousse N 9; 15, b'lplsIls/k; Constantine N 40; Guelma N 11; 14. Variant: b°/Sylk, belstllk. Semitic sentence name, 'Bal has provided,’ cf. PNPPI: 211, 416-417, NNPI: 20. The form of this name in Latin and Greek script point to a pronunciation /balsillec/.

For the spelling b‘/Sl/k, see the remark sub Sabratha N 5. For the name element S/k, cf. also CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1888b. b’ISIIk

v. b’ISIk

Sabratha N 5, b®/§//k.

b*nwk Dougga N 3, b'[n]wk. Variant: ben. Name of unknown

origin.

The

variant

without w indicates that this grapheme is used here as a vowel letter, the name sounded probably like /banuk/. b‘nk

v. b'nwk

Dougga N 4, b'nk; Hr. Maktar N 2; 4, bfnk. b‘s° v. δ᾽ Hr. Maktar N 64, 37. b‘s Hr. Maktar N 22; 106; Guelma N 7. Variant: b‘s?. This name has been explained as a rendering of Latin Bassus, cf. CHABOT sub Punica xii 24. We have noted, JONGELING (1984: 158), that a comparison with Berber BSN

325

Onomasticon

(RIL 1016) and BUSN (RIL 630) is also possible. A variant of this name is probably b‘s’, but as there is variation in the two Berber names adduced between s and $, as in the Punic names, it is also conceivable that two different names are preserved, and that both occur with and without the Berber ending -n. In NNPT: 158, we noted that it is also an albeit remote possibility that 553? is a shortened form of a name like bd*strt. b't Arseu N I. Possibly a rendition of the Latin name Beatus. bps* Constantine N 65, bp/ks“. Name of unknown origin, cf. the remark a.l.

bay Labdah N 29.

bqs Coins: bqs hmmlkt; REX BOCCHVS SOS FI / bqs hmmlkt; REX BOCCHVS SOSI FI DD / bqs hmmlkt; bqs hmmlkt mqm [s]m[3]; bqs REX

BOCCHVS

or Punic, best explained as an abbreviated form of brkb‘l. Frequently attested in Latin texts Baric (CIL viii 2564 b 26, 4730, etc.), Barhic (CIL vin 19141), Barich (CIL vii 27600), Barih (CIL vii 11941, 11971, etc.), Barig (ILA τὶ 4938, AE 1976 724), Baricis (CIL viii 8743, 10475, etc.), Barichis (CIL viii 16996, 17018), Barihis (CIL viii 27600, 27891); also lengthened with Latin suffixes, cf. Baricus (ILA i 2278), Baricio (CIL viii 2564 c 96, 3248, etc.), Baricione (CIL viii 17258), Bariciolus (CIL vii 14917), Baricissus (AE 1986 562), cf. JONGELING 1988, and NNPI: 36-37. brk’ Guelma N 16, rk. Hypochoristic name, derived from a name

Latin name: Boccius.

hmmlkt | m$,

brk Hr. Hammam Zouakra N 1; Hr. Maktar N 2; 65 (bis); 77; Hr. Medeine N 1; Constantine N Il; 21; 27 (see remark a. 1.); Volubilis N 6. Variant: br yk. Semitic name, not attested in Phoenician

Sos! / bqs hmt;

bqs | mqm SmS; bqs I syg*n; bqs I ms. This well-known name of at least two kings from Numidian dynasties 15 represented on coins as the name of king Bocchus

II, who reigned from 38-33. The bilingual coins leave no doubt about the identifica-

such as brkb‘l, cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 103), PNPPI:

235. The name is attested twice in

Punic (C/S 4913, IAM 123 - RIL 881). The reading of the letter b in ever, is uncertain and the as mrk’. The name br& least attested twice, mrk

Guelma N 16, howname might be read is infrequent but at as a representation

of Latin Marcus is not attested, but m“rk? occurs in Maktar N 43, 48, 49, 52, although one would expect a rendering with g rather than A.

tion.

brk’t brt

v. brkt

Labdah N 31.

Djebel Mansour N 1 (hrf), Latin parallel Brutione. Latin name: Brutus. Note the difference between the Punic and Latin texts, Brutus versus Brutio. bryk v. brk Labdah N 30.

brkb‘l Sabratha N 3; Hr. Maktar N 8; 31; 64, 22, 36, 39, 44; 76, 15, 30; 104; 106; 111; Hr. Meded

N

14; Hr. Medeine

N 2; Ksour Abd

el-Melek N 2; Tunisia OU N 1; 17; Constantine N 37, [b]rkbl, Καί Bezioun N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 9.

Appendices

326

Semitic sentence name: ‘Bal has blessed,’

cf. PNPPI: 211, 292-293, NNPI: 36-37, id. 1988; apart from the names quoted in the publications just mentioned, one may add baricbal,AE 1997 1736; baricbalis,AE 1997

1739; [b]aricbalo, CIL xii 281 (p 808); baricbali (gen.), ILA 1 1862; baribal[is] (gen.) CIL vii 23113 (= ILT 781); baribgal AE 1998 1532. The frequent barigbal- shows the partial assimilation of /k/ preceding voiced /D/. brk‘l Hr. Maktar N

brktgd’ Zaiet el-Mahgiub N 1. Semitic construct phrase name, ‘blessed one of Gado, Fortune.’ The name is not attested in Phoenician and Punic, but a name of the same construction, brktmlqrt, is. bsk’ Volubilis N 3. FÉvRIER, sub IAM 7, thinks of a Berber name, comparable to BskH (R/L 1080), but one might also think of a Latin name endIng in -us.

17.

See the remark sub Hr. Maktar N

17.

brkt Labdah N 4, Latin parallel: Bvrverh, Greek parallel: Βυρυχθ; 32; Hr. Maktar N 66; Guelma N 9. Most representations of thıs name point to vocalisation of this name with two front vowels, cf. JONGELING 1988. We note, apart from Byrycth, Berect (CIL viii 20499, 25507, 275601, 27713), Berecth (CIL vin 15774, ILA 1 2238), Berecte (CIL viii 27529), Berecthe (CIL vii 27714), Berict (CIL vin 4924), Berregt (CIL vin 2300), Beret (? CIL viii 17065), Birict (CIL vii 17019, 17222), all fem. names. Cf. possibly also the fem. names Berec (CIL viii 17017) and Biric (CIL vill 6845, 6892), Birich (CIL vii 27559), Birichi (lege Biricht ? CIL viu 16035). The name may be explained as a one word name, ‘blessing,’ or as a shortened form of a name of the type brkt + divine name, cf. e.g. brktmlqrt, brkted’ and also Birictbal (CIL viii 5392), representing brktb‘/, a name not (yet) attested in Phoenician or (Neo-)Punic. We suppose that Boroct (CIL viii 28011) is another name, the back vowel possibly pointing to an original passive participle, ‘the blessed one.’ brk’t also seems to be another name, as all the names just mentioned

have

no vowel between their third root consonant and the fem. ending -r. The ending is easily explained as */-at/ > /-ot/, cf. JONGELING (1994: ix), PPG*, § 150.

btb'l f Ksour Abd el-Melek N I. Semitic construct phrase name, 'daughter of Bal,’ cf. VNPT: 27-28. The name element bt is only attested once in Neo-Punic. brb‘l occurs several times in Punic texts (C/S 469, 727, 775, 792, 887, 1077, 1385, 4652, 4654, 4796, 5966, 5988, LIDZBARSKI 1898, 432, 16, NAA τι 77a), and the name element br is also attested in Punic in combination with nm, n“mt, lm. In all instances the namebearer is a female. The only exception on this point is bPsmn (CIS 2362) used for a male, PNPPI: 102, supposing misspelling for bd?$mn, and HALFF (1963-1964: 104) translating this name as 'temple of Esh-

mun.’ Whether βαθβαλ (CIL vii

12508),

possibly the indication of a female demon, is a rendering of this name in Greek script is uncertain. g’ml’ Hr. Maktar N

19; 76, 27.

Variant: gm" Latin name, Gemellus. ggm Hr. Medeine N 1. A name containing the Berber name element gm, as mentioned s. v. sprem ? ed Hr. Maktar N 66.

327

Onomasticon

Divine being, ‘Fortune,’ in the combination gd hymm, cf. the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 66. The character of gd is proved by the occurrence of the equation of Felix and Goddos in a text from Haouli (Africa proconsularis, AE 1932, 20 (1933, 55)) in which several people are mentioned among whom Felix: Fl(avius) Acotius Storacis / Silanius

Polionis / Felix qui et Goddos / Marsus f(ilius) laderis scripsi / Asmun Fausti / Rogatus Mamonis / L(ucius) Octavi(us) Victor / Cocceius Bargbalis / Celer Hilari. V ATTIONI (1979: 75) proposes a possible relationship with the root qd3, which seems less probable then a relation to the name element gd. Note also the remark in JoNGELING (1994: xxivxxv, and cf. also gd").

GHD two the Hr.

(R/L 811) can be related to either of the types, */gawd-/ or */eud-/. Cf. however remark on the reading of this name sub Meded N 11.

gwdb'l Guelma N 38. A Semitic nominal sentence name, ‘Bal is Fate,’ cf. e.g. HALFF (1963-1964: 104) explaining gd‘strt as ‘my Gad is Astarte,’ a name supposed by PNPPT: 102 to be a misspelling of g/*strt. Or should it be explained as a Berber name ending in /-bal/, as several other Berber names, cf. the discussion in

NNPI: 45. For the supposed parallel in Latin script, Gudubal, only attested as the name of a plant, cf. JONGELING (1994: 52). gwzy Ksiba Mraou N 10. Name of unknown origin.

gd v. gdd Coins: sbrt*n gd sy.

gd gwt'l Guelaa bou sba N 1. Probably a Berber name ending in -/, cf.

Constantine N 50.

Divine being, cf. gd. gdd Coins: CAESAR / sbrt*n gdd syn. Name, possibly containing the element gd. Also attested in the abbreviated form gd. gdsn Bir Bou Rekba N 1. Berber type name

MASSON (1976: 59-60), NNPI: 266-269. A relation with Gantal (Corippus iv 642) has been supposed, cf. VATTIONI (1979, 74),

NNPT: 91. gwmz'l Ksiba Mraou N 1

ending

in /san/,

cf.

(bis).

Berber name with concluding -/, cf. VNPT: 266—269.

NNPT: 61-64. gdrhs Bordj Bou Chateur N 2. Name of unknown origin. See the remark sub Bordj Bou Chateur N 2. gwd Hr. Meded N 11. This name may be a variant of g^wd, or the Punic spelling of the name, and name

element, /gud/, which is frequent in different forms in the onomastics of North Africa, cf. JONGELING (1994: xxiv-xv). Also Libyan

gzr Hr. Medeine N | This name might be related to gusura (CIL viii 4406), which VATTIONI (1979b: 77)

relates

to

the

Semitic

root

gzr,

‘to

decide,’ (or to ἀξ", ‘to be proper’); however, according to KAJANTO (1966: 31) it is a barbaric name of uncertain origin, and according to HOLDER (1896: 2045) it might be Celtic. Another possible comparison is cusoris (CIL viii 23908; cf. VATTIONI (1979: 69), but the reading of this name is highly uncertain). However, none of these names

328

Appendices

gives the impression to be the same as gzr. Cf. also KOR in RIL 1071.

gm Arseu N 2, gtm or gpwm. Name of unknown origin.

g'd'y Hr. Brighita N 1, g'[d]^y, Gadaeus. Variant: g*dy. Latin name: Gadaeus.

Latin

parallel:

g^wd Dougga N 3; 4. Most probably a Berber name, */gauda/, cf. Gauda (Sallust Ixiii), Gaudae (CIL viii

gylzdr Constantine N 27 . Probably a nomen loci.

17159, ILA11242), Gaudo (CIL viii 9774); a relation to the names containing the element /gud-/, cf. JoNGELING (1994: xxiv—xv), is less probable. The relation with gwd is not

gmP v. g'mP Hr. Maktar N 33.

clear. Note that in both texts the last letter

gn v. gngn Coins: gn.

of this name as b or r.

gngn Coins: engn / gn. Nomen loci, Gunigun. gr, as abbreviation for this name occurs also on its own on coins: gn; / gn. Even further abbreviated g Occurs on a coin from the same place. The name might be Semitic or Berber, cf. MANFREDI (1995: 83). The explanation of the last two signs, -gn, as the Berber ending /-kan/, cf. LipINsK1 (1992-1993: 302), is improbable, both because of the vowel /u/ in the Latin representation of the name and the fact that the ending is, as far as we know, always written with a sign indicating a voiceless

might be read, apart from d,

g tyt Wadi el-Amud N 1. Name of unknown origin, probably Berber, both the son and grandson bear Berber

names.

gy Labdah N 18 (quater; Latin parallel (once): C); Hr. Maktar N 27; 45; 49; 76, 20, 22,

^y; 102; 123; Hr. Meded N 12; Teboursouk N 11; Tunisia OU N 7; Constantine N (bis); Guelma N 9; Chia N 1. Latin name, Gaius.

stop. The name gives rather the impression of being a reduplicated form of a root *gn,

gl

which may be related to the Semitic gnn, ‘to protect, to shield.’

Djebel Mansour N 1. Nomen loci, Gales.

root

gnt

Hr. Guergour N 9, ent. Name of unknown origin.

10

g‘lgst Hr. Maktar N 64, 34. Probably a Berber name of the type with concluding -/, cf. VNPT: 81-84.

g'gyrt

Hr. Maktar N 64, 44.

Probably a Berber name of the type with concluding -t, cf. NNPT: 81-84. g'dy v. σ' αὙὟ Hr. Brighita N1, Latin parallel: Gadaeus.

grgm Dellys N l. Berber name with concluding element -gm, cf. NNPI: | 79-81, also attested as GRGM (RIL 175). If the remark s. v. Xprgm IS correct, g°r might be a Libyan deity. DusSAUD 1917 remarks that the name grg$ (CIL

329

Onomasticon

405, 622), is now in doubt, which, of course, is not the case as this name is also attested

in CIL 1513, 2466, 3230, 3886, 3981, 4481, 4482, 4570, 5736, 5766, while it 1s related

to grgiy (CIS 1573, 4663) grgsm (CIL 673, 1328, 1384, 1493, 4483, 4484, 4485, 5895) and grgst (CIS 4664, 4665, 4666, 4667, 4668, 4885). PNPPI: 299, notes that ergs (girgis) 15 attested in Ugaritic, both as a personal and as a geographical name. DUSSAUD also combines g^rgm with the name grg (CIS 306), which, however, may be also a shortened form of any of the names just mentioned that begin with greg.

grp Tarhuna N 1. For the problems in this text, see the discussion sub Tarhuna N 1.

g'tydn Wadi el-Amud N 1. Most probably a Berber name ending in -n, cf. NNPI: 56-57; cf. also MASSON (1976: 55-59). ermlkt Sousse N 15. Semitic construct phrase name, cf. NNPI: 29, ‘client of Milkat.’ grm‘nyqs Labdah N

14

(ter),

14

(f[gr]m*nyqs),

14

([grm*ny]qs).

CIL xii 3488, an inscription from Amiens, Gesaco is rather the name of a deity: Gesaco Aug(usto) / Saturninus / Secci fil(ius) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). The same holds true for C/L xii 3197 from Evreux: [AJug(usto) deo Gisaco / [TaJuricius Agri/ [co]la de suo po/suit. Perhaps one should consider the names of the type without a vowel between sibilant and velar as distinct from those with a vowel /a/ between them. The latter is rather a further unknown Gallic/ Celtic deity. It is, however, also noteworthy that the dedicant in the text from Amiens is called Saturninus, a name frequently attested in North Africa. We thus have only representations of this name in Latin script in which both a following s and r preceding it are lost, thus we may suppose a development /gersakon/ > /gerskon!/ > lgeskonl. gr^strt Constantine N 39; 75; Mallorca N 2. Semitic construct phrase name, 'the client of Ashtart,’ cf. PNPPI:. 228, ΝΝΡΙ: 29, 47, 121. In classical sources this name 15 rendered as Γεράστρατος (Jos. A 1 157, Latin variant: Gerastartus), Γηροστρατος (Appian i1 20.1). gt Arg el-Ghazouanı N 1. Abbreviated (?) name of unknown origin. In case it is an abbreviation one may think of grmigrt.

Latin name, Germanicus. db'r

grskn Labdah N 33. Semitic name, construct phrase name: ‘the client of Sakkun,’ cf. PNPPI: 298, 365, NNPI: 29, 47. The name Gisaco (CIL iii 12014.290, on a domestic implement found in Germany) is normally seen as a Latin rendering of this name, cf. also from classical literature D'ioxov, Feoxov, Tıoywv, Gisgo (for references,

see e.g. JoNGELING

(1994:

s. V.), VATTIONI (1979a: 176)). Cf. however also the remark s.v. skn. and note that in

v. d‘b‘r

Hr. Maktar N 47; 50; 64, 21, 39. dbr

v. d’b‘r

Teboursouk N 9.

dd^y Labdah N 29 (dd/r^y). Several names occurring in Latin inscriptions may be compared; from Tripolitania,

Dida (IRT 291, 572, also in C/L viii 12580), from the rest of North Africa, Didda (CIL

viii 811), Duda (CIL vii 27836), Dudda

Appendices

330

(CIL viii 5918), Dudde (ILA i 2483 ?), Didei

(gen., IAM ii 454). For other variations on a

ber name, cf. NNPI: 42, cf. also FÉVRIER (1956: 28), HALFF (1963-1964: 107). DBR

(1994: 42, s. v.

is attested five times in Berber inscriptions,

Probably personal name. Text of uncer-

viz. RIL 339, 445, 532, 642, 862. Also in Latin script the name occurs, Dabar (CIL viii 15480, Sallust), Dabaris (gen., CIL viii 6704, 15481, 17357). The vocalization in the Neo-Punic texts is consistent with the Latin

theme dud-, cf. JoNGELING duda). dws Djebel Massoud]

1.

tain interpretation.

renderings, so the name must have sounded

dy

/dabarl. For a Semitic word *dbr, ‘bee,’ one would expect the pronunciation */dabor/ or */dobor!.

Coins: CAESAR sbrt*n dy sw.

/ sbrt*n

dy ms;

CAESAR

/

Abbreviated name.

d'br

v. d'b'r

Guelma N 8.

dydr? Labdah N 63. Corresponds to Latin (« Greek) Diodorus,

dr’ss

which is used as rendering of the Semitic

Lepcis N 14 (ter), 14 ([dr?]ss), 14 (dr^ss).

name mtnb‘l in Labdah N 23.

See also the remark a.l.

Latin name, Drusus.

dmtry

dryds

Pompei N 4. Greek name, Δεμετριος.

Labdah N 22. Cognomen of uncertain derivation. LEVI DELLA VIDA has thought of a Greek name *D.rides, cf. IPT sub 32.

dmyr

Saniat ben Howedi N 2, dmyr. If the reading is correct and if this is a name, it may be compared to Libyan DMR (RIL 812), cf. GARBINI (1976: 13).

dnt Labdah N 9.

origin,

cf. also the

h*ytly

Variant: diff. Latin name, Donatus.

dnt

dr‘p El-Kef N 2. Name of unknown remark a.l.

Labdah N 7 The name looks like a Latin one ending in -ilius, a name like Haetilius 1s not attested, however.

v. dnt

Al-Qusbat N 1 (bis). hbktyz*

Tunisia OU N 14, Abktyz*.

d‘b‘r Hr. Maktar N 128. Variant: dbr, db‘r, d'br.

Although

a name

Name of unknown origin, remark sub Tunisia OU N 14.

dbr

is attested

in

Phoenician (RES 611) and Punic (C/S 974, 2806,

3762),

explained

as

the

cf. also the

common

noun meaning ‘bee,’ cf. PNPPI: 239, 300, it is not improbable that at least some of the attestations in Neo-Punic reflect a Ber-

hgrly Hr. Guergour N 6. Latin name, Egrilius. This name ts not infrequent in Latin inscriptions from North Africa.

331

Onomasticon

hysp Guelma N 8. Name of unknown origin, cf. the remark a.l. hksny Labdah N 55: hksnity. Name of unknown origin. Like most names without an etymology, it is usually considered Berber, cf. LEvi DELLA VIDA sub IPT 64. hmy‘l

v. my‘l

wd'syn Hr. Maktar N 46. Possibly a variant of the name wd‘sn, cf.

NNPI: 61, 63. wd'sn Hr. Maktar N 53. Possibly a Berber name ending in /-san/, cf. NNPI: 61-63, cf. also wdsyn. wzp‘n Hr. Maktar N 101. Nomen loci, probably Uzappa.

Hr. Maktar N 53.

wytP hm'nt Djebel Mansour N 1 (ter), hnın/tt/n, Latin parallel Mantis (?), Maniu. Name of unknown origin.

Hr. Guergour N 1. Latin name, Vitalus, cf. the remark Hr. Guergour N |.

sub

wyndks hmtb'l f v.^mtb'l Dellys N 1.

Ksour N

hn‘n Coins: sbrt*n hin. Possibly a personal name, or rather two abbreviated names: {11 and ‘n.

wy't Coins: wy‘t; / wy't; / TI CAESAR AVGVSTVS Wy*t; / wyt tty swq; / wyt tty stwq; wytt / nigr pyln; / wyst m*qr pyln; / wyt pyln m'qr; hms / wy't; | pyln mf*qr wy“t. Nomen loci, Oea.

hqin Tunisia OU N 4. Berber name ending in -/n, cf. NNPI: 64— 65. For the reading Aqín instead of Sgln, cf. the remark sub Tunisia OU N 4. w'ls Djebel Mansour N 1, /w/?/s/¥, Latin parallel Valente. Latin name, Valens. The absence of n

probably points to a nasalized pronunciation of the preceding vowel.

1.

Latin name:

Vindex.

wyqtry" Teboursouk N 7. Latin

name,

Victorius.

Note

the

unex-

pected ending -y?, cf. however the remark a.l. wll's Ellés N

1; 25; 3.

Nomen loci, possibly related to the ethnicon Ululen[ses] as attested in CIL viii 12552.

w’sp‘sy‘n°

Labdah N 19. Latin name, Vespasianus. wds‘tn Kesra N I. For the reading, see the remark 8.1].

w'zb? Hr. Maktar N 40, w*zb/dl/r?. Probably a nomen loci, cf. comment a.l. w'rg's Les Andalouses N

1.

Appendices

332

Probably a Berber name with initial / war-/, cf. the remark sub Les Andalouses

zwnz Ksiba Mraou N 10.

N lI.

Name of unknown origin.

w'rs'q Ksour Abd el-Melek N 3, w*r/b/ns*q.

In case the reading is correct, one might compare wrskn / URSKN (KA/ 100; cf. also NNPI: 261—262, n. 50), although the use of q as a rendition of Libyan kK is strange. wqtyr Hr. Maktar N 41.

zybq Arg el-Ghazouani N 2. Mostly considered to be a Berber name,

cf. PNPPI:

188,

198, RóLLIG

(sub KA/

62), who notes that this is the same name as Syphax mentioned in classical literature, NNPI: 118, also PPG? 1999, $ 23, against GELB (1929-1930: 214), who maintains that it is a Semitic name. Apart from the vari-

ants zbg (CIS 499, 676, 1278, 3336, 4461,

Cf. the remark al.

5510), zywg (CIS 341, 460), cf. also zybqm wrd’ Morocco OU N Probably a

(CIS 132, 423, 652, 823, etc.), and zybq? 1. Berber

name

with

initial

/war-l.

(CIS 981, 2717, 3977, 4366). As we have a name Zabog (ILAf 448), the comparison with Syphax is at least hazardous. The striking difference in the rendering of the labial

wrwsn

in this name points to a non-Semitic ori-

Hr. Medeine N 1. Berber name with concluding /-san/, cf.

gin. The dispersion in space and time, on the other hand, leads to the supposition of a Semitic origin.

NNPI: 61-62, and possibly the initial element /war-/. See also the remark sub Hr. Medeine N

1.

zygg Hr. Meded N 24.

wryl$ Hr. Maktar N 95. Latin name, Virilis.

Ghaki 1985, 174, compares this name to ZGH (ΚΠ, 899) and zccs (RIL 405). VATTIONI (1994: 126) also supposes a Libyan origin. See also yzgg.

wrytm't Hr. Maktar N 94. Name of unknown origin. Possibly a Berber name with the initial element /war-/. zw’sn

Guelma N

zwt

name of the 61-64. The inscriptions zusn (RIL

type ending in /-san/, same name is attested as ZUHSN (RIL 208, 217, 497, 711, 980).

[

Wadi el-Amud N

Labdah N 43.

Possibly the Berber name of the person who officially used the Latin name Marsus. Levi DELLA VIDA compared ZTH (RIL 891, 913, 1053) and ZT (RIL 236, 488, 814); cf.

1, zw*sn.

Berber cf. NNPI: in Berber 209, 210),

zt

1.

Probably a Berber name, cf. τ΄.

also zwt. The

use of t 1s unexpected,

how-

ever. zlk* Hr. Maktar N 30. Probably a Berber name, cf. the names Sileca (CIL vii 11873) and Sileha (CIL viti 11845), both from Latin inscriptions found in Hr. Maktar, and further SL KH (R/L 1026), Silleha (MAH Ixxxı 1969, 556), and

333

Onomasticon

the shorter (masc. ?) form Silec (CIL viii 17300), Silecis (CIL viii 16989) and possibly Sillecas (CIL 22644.310).

without mentioning HALEvy. Also HARRIS (1936, 99) relates mskr to the root skr/zkr. FÉvRIER proposes as translation for the combination

z’zbl Hr. Medeine N 1. Probably a Berber name ending in -/, cf.

MASSON (1976: 59-60), NNPI: 266-269. z’Igm Hr. Medeine N 1. Berber name with concluding element -em, cf. NNPI: 79-81. If the remark s. v. prem is correct, z“! might be a Libyan deity. znn

Ain el-Kebch N 1, zi Berber parallel ZNN. Berber name with concluding -n, cf. NNPI. 56-57. See also the remark sub Ain el-Kebch N 1.

hbds Constantine N 55, hhdé. Name of unknown origin.

htr myskr Hr. Maktar N 64, 5.

Variant: “tr mskr. Name of a deity with a sanctuary in Hr. Maktar. The name, spelled htr mskr, occurs also in some texts from Carthage, where this deity had his own temple too, as in C7S 253, 254, 4838 an *bd bt htr mskr, ‘servant of/in the temple of A.-M.,' is mentioned. The first element of this compound name has been explained as the Semitic word for ‘sceptre,’

the second one as ‘herald,’ cf. e.g. LIPINSKI (1992, s. v. Hoter Miskar and id. 1995: 174— 176). For the explanation of the first element as ‘sceptre,’ cf. also HALEvy (1901b, 276),

who explains mskr as a noun derived from the root skr (Hebrew zkr), ‘remembrance,’ and ROLLIG (sub KA/ 145), who, however, does not explain the second element. Also FEVRIER (1956: 18-19), relates Atr to the

word ‘sceptre,’ and mskr to the root skr,

mlk

htr myskr,

in Hr.

Maktar

N 64, 5: ‘the king, the Sceptre of Mescar.'

His hypothesis that it might be acceptable to see in htr a participle, derived from the same root, and to translate the sceptre-bearing, i. e. the monarch Mescar, seems very far-fetched. As this deity seems to be restricted to North

Africa, the whole name might be indigenous. The name element mskr in names like grmskr (occurring 20 times in Carthage), *bdmskr (occurring 3 times in Carthage, but also once

in Phoenician) is probably the same. In case this deity is of Semitic origin, this name, name element, should be kept apart from the Berber name MSKR (RIL 356). The vocalization with /-i-/ in the first sylable indicated by the spelling myskr also points to a different origin, as MSKR is best explained as a Berber name with initial syllable /nas-/; at the same time indicating that this word should not too easily be compared the the substantived hiph. participle mazkir in Hebrew, meaning ‘herald.’ The older hypothesis, to connect htr / “tr with the Egyptian goddess Hathor, as supposed by BERGER (1901d, 156), and accepted by Cooke (1903, 154), is doubted by LIDZBARSKI (1902, 49) and dismissed by HARRIS (1936, 101).

hik Teboursouk N 12. Name of unknown origin, see the remark sub Teboursouk N 12. hisb‘l Sousse N 5, [hl] sb‘/. Semitic sentence name, ‘Bal has saved,’ cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 109), PNPPI: 311, NNPI. 20. The verb is probably a form of the piel perfect. The restoration in Sousse N 5 is possible, but by no means certain. See also the remark sub Carthage N 4.

hmP Hr. Maktar N 118 (bis).

Appendices

334

Name of unknown origin, perhaps best explained as an hypochirstic name derived from /milk or hmilkt.

tioned

hmlk Bir Bou Rekba N 1 (bis); Bou Grara N 1; Dougga N 2, hmlk[; Hr. Djebbara N 1; Hr. Maktar N 7; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 2 (bis); Constantine N 13, hmik[; 29; 36; 47. Semitic name, construct phrase name, cf. PNPPI. 263-264. mlk is the epithet of the king of the gods, or of the god who is the king of the town, i.e. Melgart, cf. PNPPT.: 344—345. The initial ? of the first name element is lost in most instances. KRAHMALKOV 2000, s. v. ?/?mn, ?hmlk, etc., supposes these names to be nominal sentence names.

Carthage N 11. Lapsus for b‘/ hmn.

in the Punic

Western

Mediterranean

areas.

hmn

hmlky

f

Constantine N 62. The feminine counterpart

of hmik,

cf.

NNPI. 42-44. hmlkt Labdah N 13; 16; 22; Djebel Mansour N 1, Latin parallel: /milcone; Dougga N 5; Hr.

Maktar N 25; 63; 76, 26, hmlKt; 79; 105; Tunisia OU N 20; Constantine N 15, hnilkt; 27; 28; 30; 36; 57; 62; 63; 71; 78; 86; 87; S.

Antioco N 3 (bis); 3, [h]mikt, Latin parallel Himilconi. Semitic name, nominal sentence or construct phrase name, cf. PNPPI. 263-264, mlkt may be explained as 'queen, goddess,' or as the noun 'kingship,' cf. PNPPT: 345-346. Due to the vowel -/ preceding the second element in all renderings in Latin or Greek script, cf. e.g. the Latin parallel in Djebel Mansour N |, we suppose these names to be construct phrase names, cf. NNPI: 34-35: ‘the brother of the queen.’ For the several attestatons in Latin inscriptions, see JoNGELING (1994: 67).

hn? Labdah N 9; 10; 13; 14; 18, Latin parallel: Annonis; 18; 22; Al-QusbatN 1; Tripoli N 7; Carthage N 11, A[n]?^, Sousse N 2; Tunisia OU N 3; Constantine N 20, A[n]^; 29; 76; Guelma N 11 (bis); Kheneg N 2. Coins: krtn bdmlqrt w hm krtn | bdmlqrt w hn’; krtn Sptm bdmlqrt w him. Semitic name, shortened form of names like Anb‘l, cf. PNPPI: 235, NNPI: 38. The name is attested in Latin inscriptions in the form Anno (CIL vin 23129, ILT 732, Karthago x 1959: 94), Annonis (gen. CIL viii 22889) etc. (cf. also Latinized forms Annonius (CIL viii 18087, 26068), Anonius (CIL viii 25402)), while in literary sources Hanno ıs the usual rendering (cf. JoNGELING 1994: 57). hnb‘l Labdah N 6; 9; 13, Latin parallel: A/nnobalis; 13; 16, Latin parallel: Annobal; 44; Bou Grara N |; Carthage N 4; Sousse N 16, hnb‘l; Tunisia OU N 5; Constantine N 6; 23; 89; Guelma N 38. Semitic name, most probably a sentence name, 'Bal has favoured,' although explanation as a construct

state name,

cf. PNPPI:

225, or a nominal sentence name, cf. NNPI: 32-33, 1s also possible (cf. also JONGELING 1994: 56). Note the usual rendering in Latin inscriptions as Annobal(is) (cf. JONGELING 1994:

9), while

Hannibal 57).

etc.

the

(cf.

literary

sources

JONGELING

1994:

prefer

56-

hsm hmiqrt Labdah N 36. Name of the same type as hnilkt. Melgart

is the chief god of Tyre, also frequently men-

Hr. Drombi N 1. Name of unknown origin. See the remarks sub Hr. Drombi N |.

335

Onomasticon

htmiqrt f Sousse N 15. Semitic construct phrase name, sister of

Latin name,

7itus.

tyty"

Melqart, cf. NNPI: 34, ΡΝΡΡΙ: 263, 265.

Tunisia OU N 2, ryty*.

tbhpy

Variant: try“. Latin name, 7itia; see, however, also the remark sub Tunisia OU N 2.

Labdah N 3: thh[py, 9; 13; 14; 15; 16; 20:

tbh[py; Name of an important family or clan in Tripolitania in the Roman period, cf. e.g. AMADASI 1983a. The name is attested in several Latin inscriptions: Tapapius, IRT 273, 319, Tapapi (gen.), ITR 321, Tapafıus, IRT

745, Typafı, IRT 828. tbry v. tybry Labdah N 14 (bis).

thmn Dougga N 6. In case this is really a personal name, cf. TMN (RIL 36, 1035), T.MN (RIL 1), which implies that A indicates /a/ in this name.

Po

Hr. Maktar N 48; 71.

tty 18.

Latin name, 7itius.

tty Coins: / wy*t tty swq; / wyt tty s*wq. By most commentators explained as an unidentified nomen loci, see the remark with the coins legends sub / wy*t tty swq.

ty — v.tyty Tunisia OU N

tslp*tn Coins: ?pwn / tslp*tn. An FREDI Other other

uncertain reading supported by MAN(1995: 77), cf. the coin legends a.l. editors find here the same name as on coins from ?pwn: tp'tn.

tp'tn

v. tyP

Guelma N

tmngm Hr. Meded N 23. Berber name with concluding -gm, cf. NNPI. 79-81, id. 1994: xviii—xix. In case the remark s. v. Y*prgm is correct, tmn might be a Libyan deity. For this element VATTIONI (1994: 126) compares /irtmn (CIS ı 3909).

11.

tybry Labdah N 19. Variant: tbry Latin name, Tiberius.

tyt Teboursouk N 11; Guelma N 32. Variant: ff.

Coins: ?pwn / tp*tn; tp*tn / )pwn. Although the reading is not tain, see the coin legends a.l., the not impossible and reminds one which might be explained as a name of which the first element ending -/n of this name (?) points a Berber origin.

really cerreading is of ‘w¢p‘tn, compound is ^w. The at least to

tpsr Coins: / tpXr / AVGVSTV; IMP AVG P. P/ I fp3r; / 3 tpsr. The identification 1p$r with Thapsus is advocated by MANFREDI (1995: 73), ALEXANDROPOULOS (2000, 283-284) and earlier by e.g. LANCEL & LIPINSKI, DCPP, s. v. Thapsus. The various etymologies proposed for this name, both from Semitic and Berber, are highly suspect (cf. on this point MAN-

FREDI 1995: 73). LIPINSKI argues for a Berber origin. For the reading, see the remark on the coin imp avg p p / I tpir.

Appendices

336

Name of unknown origin, remark sub Palermo N 1.

trtl* Hr. Maktar N 20.

cf. also the

Latin name, Tertulla. ybrnk

Hr. Meded N 2, ybrnk[.

ydr Constantine N 45.

Name of uncertain reading and origin, cf.

Probably a Berber name with initial y-,

the remark sub Hr. Meded N 2.

cf. NNPI. 71—79. CHAKER (1985, 490-491)

supposes the name to be a form of the Berber

yg

root dr, to live: *he lives, may he live.' The

Guelma N 34.

Name

name has also been explained as Semitic, cf. PNPPI: 262, who supposes a derivation from the Semitic root ?dr, cf. also VATTIONI (1979: 78). Note, however, that the name is only attested in Constantine, once in NeoPunic and three times in Punic (Punica xviii,

of unknown

origin. NNPI:

170,

proposes a possible relation to the uncertain name yg* in Hr. Bou Atfan N 1. It may be an

abbreviated Berber name, cf. the following few names in this overview.

ygw'kny name are frequent. It would be the only name in which the Semitic root ?dr appears with prefixed y-. The name is best compared with

the following names ladar (ILA

from Latin sources:

i 1634), ladir (CIL viii 9923),

lader (CIL v 4921; viii 23041; /LA 1 2985; TA xxiii 7; Augustine Contra Don., De Bapt. vii.ix.16 (350.4; variant: iadir); ActConc 1 ed. HARDUIN (d.d. 255) 171; EpEcclAfr 384; MartAfr 542), laderi (CIL viii 16739;

MartEcclAfr 372, 10 Sept.), Jaderis (CIL viii 12207; 22897; BAC 1932-1933: 204; TA iii 25, vil 8, 13, xiv 7, xxx 4); cf. also /idir (CIL

viii 21539), lider (CIL viii 9835) and the Berber name IDR (R/L 260). The frequency in later times may be explained as a proof of the indigenous

character of the name,

or is

this due to the (re-)interpretation of the name as a derivation of the Semitic root ’dr.

yly Tunisia OU N 7. Latin name, /ulius.

Bordj Helal N 1, y/g]w*kny, Berber parallel

IGUKNH Berber name with initial y-. cf. NNPT: 71-79. IGUKNH is also attested in R/L 592. See also the remark s. v. m^r^wkny.

ygwrty

]

Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi N 1, ygwrty. Berber name with initial y-, cf. NNPT: 71—79. The name may be related to the wellknown personal name /ugurtha, cf. also Jugurtam (CIL viu 20718), /ucartae (MAH Ixiv 1952, 100), /agurte (CIL viii 25325). The last mentioned name, /agurte, gives the impression that the vowel -4-, normally attested in the first syllable in this name, 15 the result of vowel assimilation.

ygm'k Labdah N 9. This unexplained word may be a Berber cognomen, as many Berber names begin with y-, or it may be explained as a title or function.

yl?

Hr. Maktar N 46.

Possibly a Berber name containing an element y’/-, cf. NNPI: 79-81.

yg Hr. Bou Atfan N

Name 98.

y’ql Palermo N

1.

1, yg*.

of uncertain

origin, cf. however

Onomasticon

337

yers

ywly‘

Carthage N 6, yer.

Hr. Meded N 4.

ygr$ has been explained as a shortened form of ygr?snin, attested once in C/S 111. PNPPT. 321, quotes Harris (1936, 106), who explains both these names as construed

Latin name remark a.l.

with the root ygr, 'to fear' Both BENZ (PNPPI l.c.) and ROLLIG (sub KA/ 94), however, also compare the Hebrew name gerson. As Libyan names beginning with y- are very frequent, a Libyan origin of this name cannot be ruled out a priori. yhb't Hr. Maktar N 76, 1.

Berber of the type with initial y- and concluding -r., JONGELING 81-84, 89).

(1984:

71-79,

see,

however,

the

ywnly Souk Arrhas N 1. Latin name, /unilius.

ywnthn Sabratha N

16, [y]wnthn,

Latin parallel:

lu[—]hn. If the reading is correct, probably a Berber name of the same construction as ywrhtn. ywrhtn Hr. Drombi N 1. Cf. ywr*t*n. ywr*tn

yhly‘ Labdah N

El-Amruni

14.

Latin name, Julia.

ywbz'l'n El-Amruni N 1, Latin parallel: /uzale. Berber name with initial y- and concluding /-lan/, cf. NNPI: 64, 72, 88, 118.

ywb'y Coins: rex iuba / ywb‘y hnmmlkt; $ywb‘y hmmlkt; I $ywb*y hmmlkt. The king indicated on these coins is Iuba I (60-46). Berber name with initial y-. ywly

N

27;

1: ywrZ/t]/“n, Latin parallel:

by Ibn Khaldun, cf. VNPT: 260 n. 19.

118.

ywly Maktar

N

Jurathe. Variant: ywrhin, yr*t*n. Berber name of the type beginning with /y-/ and ending in /-tan/. In Libyan inscriptions it is attested as IRTN, R/L 48, 114, 179, 376, 657, 923, 927, 928. [n classical sources one finds: /uratha, BAC 1946-1949: 683 (cf. also /I]uratha, ILA 1 1759); lurathae (gen.), Karthago vii 1957, 78; /urathe (gen.) CIL viii 22758; lurathani (gen.), [RT 239; luratani (gen.), CIL viii 22678. An abbreviated form of this name perhaps in /urat, BAC 1934-1935: 258. The same name probably

also in the tribal name 31), ,:,, mentioned

v. ywly

Hr. Maktar N

Hr.

Julia,

81;

Hr.

Meded

N

14,

[y]wly. Variant: yw/’y, yl. Latin name, /ulius. The variant y/, without ending -y is strange but the name g^y y/ mnwP in Guelma N 9 is best explained as Gaius lulius Manulus. The variant ywPy is also unexpected. Should we suppose a variant /iuleius/ parallel with /iulius/ ?

Y7g8£ Hr. Meded N 28. A Berber name, the same name as /uzgagis (CIL viiil1919) and, with final element /-sanl, yzggsn in Cherchel N 2. VATTIONI 1994: 126, notes that SZNYCER compares yzeg and zygg. According to VATTIONI iuzgag is a yophal imperfect of a root zgg.

338

Appendices yksltn Hr. Medeine N 1. Berber name with initial y- and concluding /-tan/, cf. NNPI: 58-60. According to ROSSLER (KA/ 11 109) this name is construed on the base of a root k$/, ‘to help.’

yzgesn Cherchel N 2. See the remark s. v. yzgg. yzrm Hr. Medeine N 1. Berber name with 71-79.

initial y-, cf. NNPT: yl v. ywly Guelma N 9.

yhn Labdah N 37, yhnit. A name supposed to occur in this text, not attested elsewhere, see the remark sub Labdah N 37. yhnb'l Guelma N 11. Semitic sentence name, ‘Bal will show favour.' HALFF (1963—1964: 115) notes that yhn may be explained as a qal imperf. or a yiphil perfect of the root hnn. PNPPI. 313 (cf. also VNPT: 19), favours the first explanation, but points to NOTH (1928: 29 n. 3), who suggest a parallel root yin with the same meaning as hnn. The name occurs also in Punic (C/S 175, 1155, 1289, 2049). For the

ylgm v. y'Igm Tunisia OU N 10.

yh

f

Hr. Maktar N 33 Name of unknown origin, cf. however NNPI: 79, who maintains its probable Berber origin. yll Hr. Medeine N | Berber name, probably

to be compared

to the tribal name j,i κω (BEKRI 80, IBN

reading in Guelma N 11, cf. the remark a. |.

KHALDUN vi 257); in Latin texts, with the same vowel in the second syllable: /y/ul ΚΤ 906, IRTS 20), Iyllul (IRTS 24), all pointing to a realisation /yolul!.

yhnsd

ylts

Guelma N 25, yA[n]sd. Semitic sentence name, ‘Sid will show favour. For the element yn, cf. yhnbfl, while sd is attested in b“/sd and sdXmr. The name is not attested in Phoenician nor Punic. For the reading, see sub Guelma N 25. ykn$lm Constantine N 19. A Semitic verbal sentence name, ‘may Shallum establish,’ cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 115), PNPPI: 209. BENZ (PNPPI a.l.) notes that the verbal form ykn may also be a yiphil perfect, which seems the more probable explanation. The same name occurs in the

Punic

part of Constantine

N

5, and

in

Phoenician (C/S 10, 13) and Punic (CIS 484, 1224, 3547, 3765, 4837, RES 1551, EH 164, 202, 260).

KsourN 1, yits. Berber name with initial y-. cf. NNPT: 71-79. Cf. however the remark a.l. ymlk Hr. Maktar N 34. In the combination yrılk b*l mkd*. CHABOT, sub Punica iv À 8, notes two possible explanations: *yrmlk citizen of mkd“,’ or ‘ymlkb‘l, mkd“. As ymlkb‘l is not attested as a personal name elsewhere and the root m/k is not attested in any other name in the imperfect qal, the first explanation seems more attractive. ymlk 1n that case may be explained as a Berber name of the type beginning with y-, cf. NNPI: 172, 71-79. Otherwise, it may be explained as a form of hmik, in which the loss of the pharyngeal ἢ shows in the spell-

339

Onomasticon

ing (/himilk/ > /imilk/, cf. the rendering of this name in Latin texts by /milco / Imilcho.

ysmwsk Sabratha 24. For the reading, see the remark a.l.

ymlq Guelma N 6, ymlg/ Perhaps this name is best explained as ymiq[rt], a rendering of hmigrt: /himilgart/ > limilqartl, cf. NNPT: 172. ymstn Hr. Meded N 28. Berber name with initial y-, cf. MNPI: 71-79. If the reading is correct (see also the remark sub Hr. Meded N 28), the concluding

-tn might be explained as an unusual rendering of the frequent Berber ending /-tan/, see

also $b'tn. For this Berber name, cf. also CHAKER

1987

ymr*w Guelma N 8. Berber name of the type beginning with y, cf. NNPI: 71-79. ymrr Wadi el-Amud N 1; Hr. Oum Guerguer N 1. Berber name of the type beginning with y, cf. NNPI: 71-79. ymsSl Tiffech N 1, ymsl. A Berber name with initial y- and concluding -/, cf. NNPI: 71-79, 266-269. ynkd'sn Wadi el-Amud N 1, yr/tkd'sn. Berber name of the type ending in /-san/,

cf. NNPT: 61—64. yn‘n Banasa N 2, yn‘n/k. See the remark all. yskt‘n v. y'skt‘n Hr. Maktar 64, 41; Tunisia OU N 17.

yst'tn v. ysttn Hr. Maktar N 11; 64, 20, 46, ysr'in. yst't'n Hr. Meded N 6; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N I. Variant: ysftn, ysttn. Berber name with initial y- and ending in /-tan/, cf. NNPI: 58-60. This name is also attested in Latin inscriptions, as /statan

(CIL viii 23373), Isstatani (ILA 1 95), and cf. possibly also /statianu[ (CIL vi 27851) Compare further possibly the name of the Berber tribe mentioned by IBN KHALDUN, Sun gu (VI 302, 307), a name, however, that may be related but is probably not identical with /statan, cf. NNPT: 260 n. 23. ysttn v. yst't'n Sousse N 26. The reading is highly uncertain, cf. the remark a.l. y'zm Cherchel N 2. Berber name 71-79.

with

initial y-, cf. NNPT:

y‘lgm Hr. Maktar N 46; 58. Variant: y/em. Berber name containing the elements γι] and gm, cf. NNPI: 79-81. In case the remark s. V. §prem is correct, y^/ may be a Libyan deity. See also the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 58. y'Imk Constantine N 87. Probably a Berber name with initial y-. The first part may be the element γι], for which see y*/gm.

y‘Iss‘n Hr. Maktar N 8.

Appendices

340

Berber name of the type ending in /-san/, cf. NNPI: 61-64, 88. ynw'r

v. y'nw'ry“

Hr. Meded N 27.

ynwry

f

Ksour Abd el-Melek N 5. Variant: y^w*r. Latin name, /anuaria. y'sktn v. y'sktn Hr. Maktar N 39; 64, 27. y'skt'n Hr. Maktar N 32; 34; 35, Latin parallel /asucta; 57; 64, 26; 82; Hr. Meded N 5. Variants: yskt‘n, ysktn. Berber name with initial y- and ending in /-tan/, cf. NNPI: 58-60. In Latin texts, apart from the bilingual Hr. Maktar N 34, we encounter Jasuctan (Karthago viii 1957, 77), lassuchtan (CRAI 1979, 448), Easuctan (CIL viii 2638 = ILA 1 2693, reading however /TJasuctan) and in Berber ISKTN (RIL 251, 562). y'smzgr Hr. Medeine N 1. Berber name with

initial y-, cf. NNPT:

71—79. y'stn Hr. Medeine N 1. Berber name with initial y-, cf. NNPT: 71-79. As? in many instances indicates /o/ or /e/, -?n does not seem to be the same as the concluding element /-fan/.

y'Sdby v. γα Hr. Maktar N 17. y*Sdb^y BedjaN 1 Variant: ySdb‘y. Berber name, cf. NNPI: 73, 77; an explanation as Semitic, (BENZ 1972, who notes $dby among

initial y-, cf. NNPT.

the Semitic names,

and HALFF

(1963-1964: 142), who wants to relate Sdby to the Semitic root Xdd) is highly improbable. The proposal of VATTIONI (1979b: 80) to explain this name as a representation of ysdb'l, ‘established by Bal,’ is also unattractive, because of the variation between $ and s and between / and y. The name is probably best compared to /asidba, which VATTIONI ibid. tentatively relates to a Semitic name ysdb'l. Note, however, that this name is read Issidba by the editor in CIL viii 11434. ypd't Hr. Maktar N 54, Berber parallel vPDT. Berber name beginning with y-, and ending in - cf. NNPI: 71-79, 81-84, 89.

ypk

y'psd Tatahouine N 1. Berber name with 71-79.

y'rtn Hr. Maktar N 20. Variant: y“rtn. Berber name with initial y- and concluding /-tan/, cf. NNPI: 58-60. One may compare Berber IRTN (ΚΠ, 48, 114, 179, 376, 657, 923, 927, 928), and possibly from Latin sources /artis (CIL vii 15277), larti (Corippus v 122); cf. also MASSON (1976: 58, 60-61); cf. LIPINSKI (1995, 371-372) on a Libyan deity larta.

f

Tunisia OU N 13. Name of unknown origin, see the remark a.].

yps y'rtn v. y'rtn Guelma N 4.

Bir bou Rekba N 1; Tunisia OU N 3. Most probably a Berber name of the type with initial y-, cf. VNPT: 71-79.

341

Onomasticon

ypsr Most probably a Berber name of the type with initial y-, cf. VNPT: 71-79, esp. 73-74.

argue that a shortened form of a Berber name that could be understood as a Semitic one by means of some explanatory folk etymology is not inconceivable.

yptn

ySdb‘y

Hr. Maktar N 65; 76, 24; 97; 108; 125; Guelma N 3. Berber name of the type with initial y- and concluding /tan/, cf. NNP[: 59—60.Cf. in Libyan IFTN (RIL 100, 203-207, 443, 923) and in

Hr. Maktar N 11.

Hr. Maktar N 11; 65, ypsr; 71, ypsr.

v. γα

yt Palermo N 1. Name of unknown origin.

Latin texts Jeptanis (gen., CIL viii 17200) and probably also, with loss of final -n, Jeptha,

leptae, lepthae, for which see JoNGELING (1994: 65); cf. also Masson (1976: 57-58). yr Constantine N 77. Name of unknown origin. It may be a shortening of any Berber name with initial yr-.

ytn Constantine N 28. Semitic name, abbreviated form of a name like yrnb“l, cf. PNPPI: 235, HALFF (1963-1964, 116), NNPI: 38. This name is also attested in classical sources, /atunis (CIL viii 2186), Iavovic (BAC 1889: 223). The vocalization in these forms points to a perfect form of the qal, analogous to Hebrew natan.

yrn‘bt Ain el-Kebch N 1, Berber parallel IRNBT. Berber name with initial y- and concluding -t, Cf. JONGELING (1984: 71-79, 81-84, 89). yrtn v. ywr*t*n Hr. Maktar N 111. ysd° Bir bou Rekba N 1; Constantine N 48. This name has been explained as a Semitic one by PNPPT: 323, a hypochoristicon based on the root ysd, ‘to establish.’ HALFF (1963— 1964: 116) remarkes that ySd’ is perhaps a hypochoristicon of y$d’$mn, ‘Eshmun is mighty,’ based on the root Xdd. The number of attestations of this name in Carthage (C/S

697, 1247, 2633, 3283, 3911, 4002, 4280, 4305, 4611, 4489, 5146) points to a Semitic origin. However, a Berber origin should not be ruled out, especially because names with initial y- are highly frequent among Berber names, cf. NNPI: 71-79. In NNPI: 174, we were of the opinion that the explanation of this name as a shortening of the Berber name y(*)Xdb(*)y is less probable. Now, we would

ytnb'l Labdah N 15 (bis); Hr. Maktar N 128; Constantine N 25. Semitic verbal phrase name. Whether the element ytn represents the perfect or imperfect qal of ytn cannot be determined, 'Bal gives’ or ‘Bal has given,’ cf. NNPI: 21, see however also the remark s. v. ytn. ytnmlk Sousse N 13. Semitic verbal phrase name, for the form, cf. the remark s. v. ytnb‘/.

kbb Labdah N 56. Name of unknown origin. kbrsw Coins: mstnsn hmmlkt ! bn mstnbl kbrsw bn msln (?) See the remark a.l. kyw Dougga N 3; 4.

342

Appendices

Probably a name of Berber origin, cf. KIH (RIL 299, 529), Kıu (RIL 372, cf. however CHaBor RIL a.l.). kyn’ Teboursouk N 5. Name of unknown origin. It may be the same as the cognomen kyvth.

kynh Hr. Kasbat N 2. Epithet of one of two Azrubals

in this

inscription, to differentiate him from Azrubal myndg. Cognomen of unknown origin. See also Ayn’. ky$r

Carthage N 14, £[y]&r. The reading is uncertain in Carthage N 14. According to the editor in C/S the reading kb/d/rsb/d/r is not to be discarded, and this is supported by the published photograph. GARBINI (2006: 189) reads kbSd, explaining it as a shortened form of kbdsd. However, kbd$d is, as far as we know, not attested elsewhere. The name element kbd, which underlies GARBINI's proposal, combined with a second element ıs only found in kbdmlqrt (attested only in the Punic inscriptions C/S 364, 2416) and kbd*strt (attested in the Punic text C/S 5945). The second element

then, would

be a variant of

Yd? , attested in *bd3d? (CIS 4556, 5098, EH 37, 88) / “ba’sa?’ (CIS 4555), while the Sd is not attested in names. ky$r, on the other hand, is attested 10 times in Punic texts from Carthage (CIS 336, 589, 2150, 2687, 4010, 4685, 4908, 5727, 5771, 5824). The name ky$r has been related to the deity Kusor (Xovowe / Xovoweos), Ug. ker (cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 117), LipINsKI (DCCP s. v. Chousor), cf. also e.g. LIPINSKI (1997: 212), parallel with Arabic kawtar, 'generous’), although the Phoenician and Punic names containing this name element are mainly spelled with y, kyXr, kyXrm (CIS 1019, 3764), mtnkysr (CIS 3261), *bdky$r (Guelma N 21), apart from k$ryrn (CIS 4358), “baksr (CIS 4835, 4875, 5636, Constantine N 25, 50, Guelma N 10, 31). PNPPI. 336 s.v. kr, concurs with the just given explanation, be it with some doubt. Ibid., 330 s. v. kysr, BENZ notes that the origin of this name element is uncertain. He refers to kXr, but also notes the Punic word

for elephant, for which see especially CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1888a (cf. also HARRIS (1936: 110), LipiNski (1997: 550); GSELL (1920: 312-313) mentions caesa / caesai). These authors refer to several classical authors, cf. AELIUS SPARTIANUS (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, ii 2 3), SERVIUS (Servianorum in Vergilii Carmina Commentariorum, vol. 11, I 286), JOANNES Lvpus (De mensibus iv 102). Although these authors are mainly late, the story is possibly confirmed by the existence of coins minted by Iulius Caesar, exhibiting an elephant trampling a snake or serpent with below the ani-

mal

SAR au Vv

the legend

Caesar.

Although

CLER-

MONT-GANNEAU'S explanation seems at first sight far-fetched, the problem of y in kysr and its relation to /u/ in Xovocogo is even more difficult to set aside. Perhaps we have to posit two different name elements, ky3r, related to or the same as a (Punic or indigenous ?) word for elephant, and K3r, a deity to be related to or the same as the Ugaritic deity ktr. Perhaps two different names have coalesced in Punic. KRAHMALKOV 2000, s. v.

343

Onomasticon

kysr, kSr, just equates kuor and Kisor, without any discussion. klb? Constantine N 54. Semitic hypochoristic name, based on a name like k/b’Im, cf. HALFF 1963-1964: 117, PNPPI: 235, NNPI: 38-39, 175. klb as an indication of a servant is well-known in Semitic, cf. PNPPI: 321. This name occurs also in Punic. PNPPI: 331, compares Χελβης (Jos. A1157), cf. further XaAßnv (Scholia in Apoll. iv 1396 ( 316), which would favour an element */kalb-/, as expected. Note, however,

the

existence

in a Latin

inscrip-

tion of the name Cullube (CIL vii 23926), which is connected to Semitic kalb, ‘dog,’ by VATTIONI (1979: 69), a connection rendered unlikely by the two back vowels in this name. kIny Tunisia OU N 1I. Latin name, Clonius ? Clonius is infrequent in North Africa, we only found Clonius Colonicus (CIL vii 5085 = ILA 11505). kltn Labdah The tain, it Berber

N 38, klt/nt/n. reading of the name remains unceris possible, however, that this is a name of the type ending in -tan.

kndy'l Guelma N 3 Berber name with concluding -/, cf. VNPT: 266-269. Compare KNDIHL (R/L 280), KND:L

(RIL 196, 197, 1000), KNDIL (RIL 168, 223, 252, Latin parallel Chinidial). knz

probably

a Semitic

name.

Relating

these

names to the Aramaic root Κη, Hebrew kns,

‘to assemble,’ cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 117, 118, s. v. kyn$, Κη). seems less appropriate, however. knzrmn Hr. Medeine N 1 According to Cooke (1903: 145), the element knz may be compared to Hebrew qz. a (tribal) name in Genesis, and the element rmn to the Arabian deity Rammanu (CIS iv p. 203). A highly uncertain explanation, cf. possibly Libyan ΚΝΖ, ΚΠ, 125, 361, KNS[R],

RIL 922. We found just two Libyan names ending in -MN, viz. BBTSMN MZGMN (RIL 999).

(R/L 411) and

kns”n Hr. Medeine N 1. Probably Berber name with concluding -n (/-an/), cf. NNPT: 56-57. Perhaps the Berber name

KNSUN

(RIL 7) is to be compared,

as both spellings may indicate a realisation /kansowan/, or something similar. The com-

parison with KNISN (R/L 89), NNPT: less attractive.

56, is

knrd't Bord) Helal N |, Berber parallel KNRDT.

Berber name with -r ending, cf. NNPI: 81-84. knrsn

Hr. Maktar N 64, 40, knrsn. Uncertain

name,

see the remark

sub

Hr.

Maktar N 64, a.l. If the reading is correct, it is then a Berber name with concluding /-sanl, cf. NNPI: 61-64. Note that a name NRSN exists (R/L 989), cf. also Nersanis (gen., C/L viii 5132).

Carthage N 4, Anz. Compare

KNZ

(R/L

125,

361),

or

read

kn$, a name attested several times in Punic texts from Carthage and related to kynS, Ans, knsy, kn$m, kn&yt, all attested in Punic texts from

Carthage

Hr. Medeine

(cf. the remark

N

on kn$,

sub

1). In that case it is most

kn$ Hr. Medeine N

l.

See the discussion ad Hr. Medeine N knt Constantine N 71.

1.

344

Appendices

Possibly a Berber name. C/S sub 3638 compares Chiniti (CIL vii 4807); cf. also ROLLIG (sub KAI 77), PNPPI. 333. The name is also attested in Punic (C/S 3638, 3921, 3145 (?)). The same name or name

krtn

element is found probably also in ku, and

Coins: krtn / ?lbt; krtn bdmlqrt w hm; krtn | bdmigrt w hn’; krtn Sptm bdmlqrt w hm. Nomen loci, Cirta. The name has been explained as a Berber one by e. g. BERTHIER (1981: 197), who compares modern Berber

cf. also kntr’. Note that HALFF (1963-1964:

kart,

118) also points to Safaitic Ant and Greek

BERTRANDY also advocate a non-Semitic etymology, but without further explanation, cf. DCPP, s.v. Toponymie, resp. Constantine). ROSSLER (1979: 90) notes that also

Kevvadoc. knt

v. knt

‘stone outcrop’ (both

Constantine N 44.

krtt, instead of krtn, occurs.

kntt Memphis N 1 As the other names in this text are probably Berber, this name is best explained as a Berber one. Possibly related to Κη, knt.

krr

ksty’ Tunisia OU N 8. Latin name, Cestius, see the remark sub Tunisia OU N 8. k‘zr’

Hr. Ghayadha N 5.

LIPINSKI

and

Hr. Medeine N 1 name of a month, also attested in Phoenician.

Pb'rzt Teboursouk N 13, Pbrrzt[ Name of unknown origin. Pry? Teboursouk N 7. Latin name, Lurius. Note the unexpected ending -y’, cf. however the remark 8.1].

Cf. the remark a.l.

k^m'kt Hr. Maktar N 55. Berber name ending in -r, cf. NNPI: 81— 84. The reading is not completely certain, cf. the remark a.l.

Ibw’ Hr. Medeine N 1. Name of unknown origin, related to /by (attested 20 times in Carthage and once in Constantine, EH 136), and/or /b’ (only attested in C/S 147)? PNPPI: 337-338, explains /by as a nisbe formation, 'the Libyan’ (cf. also HALFF 1963-1964: 119), and BENZ supposes that /b’ may be a variant spelling of the same, or that it might be a different name, meaning ‘the lion.' See also by’.

kp Hr. Maktar N 64, 33, Κρ".

Ibym v. lwbym Hr. Maktar N 54.

k*ksn Hr. Meded N 27. Berber name with concluding /-san/, cf. NNPI: 61-64. See also the remark sub Hr.

Meded N 27.

FEVRIER (1956: 30) tentatively explains this name as a nickname derived from Latin capus, ‘cap,’ which seems highly uncertain, as Latin c, (/k/) is nearly always rendered

in Punic by q. See also the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 64:33.

Ibn Hr. Bou Atfan N 2. Probably a Semitic name, derived from the root /bn, ‘to be white,’ cf. CHABOT, sub Punica x 2. A relation with /by, ‘Libyan,’

345

Onomasticon

suggested probable.

by NNPI:178,

seems

much

less

Semitic, meaning ‘lion,’ cf. however PNPPI: 337-338, who supposes /by to be an ethnic name ‘Libyan.’ If correct one might suppose

Iwbym Breviglieri N 1. Variant: /bym. Indication of the nation of the Libyans, in the combination Sd I(w)bym, the area of the Libyans.

two different names, as the ethnicon Libyan most probably had a palatal vowel in the first syllable and /“by? in this text is vocalized with /a/ in this syllable. Cf. also the remark on a possible /“by in Hr. Meded N 3. l'yly*n?

Iwq ’myl Labdah N 39. Latin name: Lucius Aemilius. Note that both names remain without the expected

ending -y.

Labdah N 12. Latin name

Laelianus,

ıf the reading

is

correct. lpq

ν. “Ipqy

Coins: / Ipq.

Iwqy *yly l'my* Breviglieri N 1. Latin name: Lucius Aelius Lamia; he became legatus of Africa Proconsularis in the year 19 BC. lygr

Ksar Lemsa N

1, /ygr.

Highly uncertain name, be complete.

which

may

not

Ipqy

— v.'lpqy

Coins: /pqy; / lpqy; Divos AVGVSTVS / Ipqy; DIVOS AVGVSTS / lpqv; / lpqy mpqd; IMP TIB CAESAR AVG COS III / AVGVSTA MATER PATPIA /pqy; IMP CAESAR AV / AVGVSTA MATER PATPIA /pqy; IMP CAESAR AVG / AVGVSTA MATER PATPIA /pqy; IMP CAESAR AVG COS II / AVGVSTA MATER PATPIA /pqy; Ipqy / lpqy.

lyl'y Hr. Medeine N 1. One may compare the divine name Lilleo in C/L viii 4673, which name has been compared by Camps (1990: 141) with Berber lilu, ‘what is brilliant, proper.’

Iqy

IkS Coins: / Ik$ mb'T; Lıx / Ik$ mb'l; Lixs / Ik$ mb'T, Ik$ | mqm; I mbrl Ik; Lix / mb ARS. Nomen loci, Lixus.

ISkw* Coins: P TERENT BODO / lkw* L NVMBIT BODO. Perhaps the place name Lascuta (with variant /Skw“r).

l'by Kef Bezioun N l. This name has been explained as a ren-

ISkw't

Hr. Guergour N 5; Hr. Maktar N 28; 42; 57;

61; 64, 34; 76, 17, Iq [y], 23; 84; Ksar Lemsa N 2; Constantine N 32; Guelma N 18. Latin name, Lucius. For Constantine N 32, cf. the remark a.l.

Coins:

v. 1ISkw‘ LASCVT

(7) / Iskw“t (?); / ll$kw*t (?);

LASCVT / llskw*t (?).

dering of Latin name (thus e.g. ROLLIG in KAI, sub 171, Labeo (cf. C/L viii 7040); ΝΝΡΙ: 179 compares Labbeus (cf. CIL vii 532 = 11674)). The editor of Kef Bezioun N 1 in HORN-RUGER (1979: 578) supposes a relation with the /by, which he explains as

m'gm* Hr. Medeine N 1. Possibly a Berber name with initial m-, cf. NNPT: 65-68.

Appendices

346 m’Ir

Labdah N 48: nr'l/mr. The stonemason seems to have corrected / from m, or m from /. Unknown cognomen.

(1966: 16—17) explains this name as a nominal derivation of the same root, ‘benefactor, suzerain.' FEVRIER (mentioned by PNPPT: 339) derives the name from the root gui, ‘to

protect.' The other possibility to render the mnzm'r Hr. Maktar N 64, 16. Possibly a Berber name with inital m-, cf.

name mgn is by Miggin and related forma-

tions (cf. e.g. JONGELING 1994: 94, s. v. mig-

NNPI. 65-68.

gin), which has been explained as the same verbal form of the same root mgn, however,

mbt

used in the piel instead of the qal, cf. PPG’, $8 88, 89, PNPPI: 339, NNPI: 39 (for the problematic migginniatunis, cf. e.g. GSELL,

Constantine N 58. Name of unknown origin. Taking into account the occasional interchange of labials, one might compare the name mit, were it not that both attestations of this name are uncertain (C/S 1538, EH 5), cf. PNPPI: 349. HALFF (1963-164: 122) does not comment

mgn seems to be limited to Carthage and

on nmt.

from Punic Magon.

mbyw Hr. Medeine N 1. Berber name with initial m-, cf. NNPI:

mgnym v. mgnm Kélibia N 1.

65-68.

To be connected

to MUIH

(R/L 632,

779), and cf. the variation w — b attested in several names of Berber origin, on which see NNPT. 118.

ILA ı sub 2952, JoNGELING 1994: 94, s. v.). FERRON (1968: 711) insists on the fact that people related to this metropole. Note also the existence of the Latin names Magon-

ius and Magonianus, which may be derived

FANTAR (1992b: 92) supposes nignym to be a plural of the name mgn. However, a plene spelling of mgnm seems more probable. mgnm

mgn

Guelma N 22, menm; 31.

Dougga N 2, mgn[; Hammam Derradji N |; El Kef N 2; SousseN 11; Constantine N 64; S. Antioco N 4. Semitic name, /magon/, as one may conclude from the frequent classical renderings of this name as Maywv, Magon (cf. e.g. ILT 745), Magonus (CIL viii 9515). The literary

form of the name in Latin is Mago-Magonis, etc., passim with Livy, Pliny a.o. quent muggun (attested in the gen. (BAC 1946-1949: 683)) may be as a form of the same name, but the vowel change /o/ > /u/ and a

The infremuggunis explained exhibiting change of

the first vowel as a result of vowel harmony, cf. JonGELING 1987. The name Magon has been explained as a shortenend name derived

of the root men, ‘to bestow,’ qal. perf. 34 person sing, cf. e.g. PPG’, 89, PNPPI: 339, VATTIONI

(1979:

87), ΝΝΡΙ:

39. DAHOOD

Variant: mgnym. The name nıgn extended with enclitic -mı. mgr

Guelma N 15, mer. Should the reading be correct, one might think of an abbreviated Semitic name, possibly a shortened form of a name like nigrb‘l (CIS 5765), cf. NNPI: 180. Fora note on this still unexplained name element, cf. PNPPT: 339-340. HALFF (1963-1964: 120) connects the name element with Akkadian magaru, ‘to grant.” Note, however, that the name element mer also occurs in Berber, cf. ni‘grs‘n, and probably also MGRU (RIL 394), which is perhaps also to be connected to Punic mgrw? (CIS 1459), listed by PNPPI: 189, among

his Berber names. The less probable mgr in Pompei N 1 is explained as a personal name

347

Onomasticon

by e.g. GARBINI (1979: 1). However, Bisi 1977 translates mgr as ‘factory,’ ‘villa ruslica, and compares magalia. GARBINI, ibid., also mentiones a Latin name Magrus.

which the name is derived. See for the reading also the remark sub Sousse N 21. mwik’

v. milk?

Coins: nivwilP.

mdyt v. mdyty Hr. Maktar N 54, Berber parallel MDITH. mdyty Dougga N 3; Hr. Maktar N 5l. Variant: mdty, mdyr. An ethnicon attested in Dougga

and

Hr. Maktar, once with the Berber parallel: MDITH (Hr. Maktar N 54). The preformative

h or? is best explained as the article. According to ROSSLER sub KA/ 153 this is a Berber nisbe form, with the prefix m-, and the Berber status determinatus ending -’, based on the (tribal ?) name dyr. A highly uncertain explanation. The easier explanation, mdyty

mwnt‘n’ Hr. Guergour N 4. Latin name, Montanus. Note the not infrequent variant, attested also in North Africa, Muntanus (CIL viii 551, 6640 (p. 1843 = ILA i1 10051), AE 1995 1673, IAM 60 (= AE 1951 242, ILA 11 6283)), Muntani (gen.) CIL viii 2272 (p. 950, 1677 = ILCV 1636 = ILCV 02441 = AE 1937 70), 6641 (= ILA ii 10052), 8139 (= ILA 11 303)), and in a fem. form Muntana (CIL viii 14621) mzky

Hr. Maktar N 94, mzky.

being a Semitic nisbe formation based on a

Probably a nisbe adjective. See the remark

(tribal ?) name mdyt, although mdyr poses a problem for this hypothesis. ALVAREZ DELGADO (1964: 233-235) derives mdyr

a.l.

from the root mdd, meaning

Sabratha N

‘to be grand, to

measure.’ t is explained as a plur. maiestatis,

which is, of course, untenable. Another possibility, according to the same author, would be to derive the word from the root dyn, with assimilation of n + ¢ > tt. Whatever the derivation, the meaning is, according to ÁLVAREZ DELGADO, an epithet meaning something like ‘protector.’ See further below, sub myddm. mdm v. myddm Hr. Meded N 21. Or read md[d]m. mdty see mdyty Dougga N 4. mhsn Sousse N 21, mlısn. Probably a Berber name ending in /-san/, cf. NNPI: 61-64. If this name is also clas-

sified as one with prefixed m-, cf. NNPI: 65-68, not much room is left for a root from

mthqs’ |.

Latin name:

Metaxus.

myddm Hr. Meded N 13, myddm; 26. Variant: mdm. VATTIONI (1994: 114) thinks of deriving the geographical name myddm from the Semitic root mdd, “to measure.’ myddm 15 explained as a plural, while ?mid( v)ty is called the singular (this word is attested in Dougga N 3: ^mdyty, ib. N 4: ’mdty and in Hr. Maktar N 51: ?mdyty, ib. N 54: hmdyr). In all instances ’mdyty is an epithet following a masculine personal name, which means that the -ἰ- needs explanation too. It seems attractive to suppose that the word is a nisbe adjective, derived from mdyr, the preceding ? or h being the article, but Amdyr makes this solution a bit awkward. It is, of course, not impossible that myddm is a plural indicating the citizens of the town mdyr, in which case -t may be the feminine ending (with assimilation of the second of the two d’s in

Appendices

348

myddm ?). The unexpected spelling (h)m// dm in Hr. Meded N 21, line 1-2, may be the result of haplography.

myztl Ksar Lemsa N 2.

The name may be a Berber of the type ending in -/, cf. Masson (1976: 59-60), NNPI: 266-269. myk?

f

Labdah N 40 Name of uncertain origin, cf. also AMADASI sub IPT 49. Perhaps it is a hypochoristic name based on a name comparable to Hebrew mika’el. mylk*tn Guelma N 19; 26. Variant: mlktn The name m/k“tn is explained by PNPPI: 388, as a combination of the well-known divine name Milk combined with an unexplained name element “n, and we suppose mlktn and mylk'tn to be the same name. For the pronunciation one may compare Milcatonis (CIL viii 10525) and Milchatonis (CIL vill 68). The name nılktn is also attested twice in Punic texts from Carthage. Those cases are explained by PNPPI: 140 and HALFF (1963-1964: 121) as misspellings of mikytn, which seems unnecessary. PPG’, § 34, explains all the names mentioned as late forms of mikyrn, although the name element yrn in b'lytn is rendered as /-iaton/ or /-iton/, never as */-atonl. myndg

Hr. Kasbat Mindig.

N

2, myndg,

Latin

Names containing the element *macer are normally written with q not with X. mkd‘ Hr. Maktar N 34. Possibly a nomen s.v. ymik.

loci, see the remarks

mkwsn Djebel Massoudj 1; Cherchel N 2. Berber name of the Numidian king known from classical sources as Micipsa, who reigned from 139-118 BC. For the intial m- and concluding /-san/, cf. NNPI: 61-64, 65—68. mkt'rym Hr. Maktar N 46; 105; 111; 119; 128. Variant: mkt*rm, mktrm. The indigenous name of Maktar, always preceded by /i-, most probably the Semitic article. The ending has been explained as a Semitic plural ending, which is possible. An indigenous (tribal) name may have been adapted to the Punic nominal declension, and then used also for the town the tribe was living in or near, although, in that case one would not expect the article . FERRON (19672: 36) supposes that this name is the plural of a nisbe derivative of the name of the town that is not attested by itself in (Neo-)Punic texts. The name usually occurs in combination with 5b*/ or bP, cf., however, Hr. Maktar N 93, where the context in unclear. mkt'rm v. mkt‘rym Hr. MaktarN 11; 32; 33; 35; 39; 47, [mkt]“rm; 53; 58; 59; 77; 93; 95; 97; 107; 110; 130.

parallel

Cognomen of one of two Azrubals in this inscription, to differentiate him from Azrubal kynh. The name is of unknown origin.

mktrm v. mkt‘rym Hr. Maktar N 50; 67; 82. mktr‘m Hr. Maktar N

mk Labdah N 41. In case this is an abbreviated name, one might think of a Berber name like mkwsn.

129.

See the remark sub Hr. Maktar N mlk Constantine N 46.

129.

349

Onomasticon

See the discussion sub Constantine N 46. Semitic name, also attested once in Punic (CIS 4849). The name is an abbreviation of a name like mikytn, mlkhls, cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 121).

Semitic abbreviated name, containing the element m/kt, ‘queen’ or ‘kingship,’ cf. NNPI: 40. HALFF (1963-1964: 121) mentions the name as possibly attested in C/S 5059, and tentatively suggests that it may

be a hypochoristicon of m/kytn. PNPPI does milk? Coins: mwlk; milk; ml? I mx. Nomen loci, Malaca (Spain). The variant mwilk points to a pronunciation /mawlaka! or /mulakal, according to MANFREDI (1995: 122, cf. however the remark a.l.). In Latin, the name is represented by Malaca and Malacha, modern Malaga in Spain. The explanation of the name as development of mahlakat, ‘passage,’ cf. LIPINSKI, DCPP, s.v. Toponymie 2, is ingeneous but

less likely. For the older period, one would expect that the original ending - would have been retained, and several of the coins bearing this legend originate from the 2d century B.C. If, however, correct, one would rather posit a form *mawlakat in view of the variant form mwlk? and the fact that Phoenician and Punic forms of this root seem to waver between *hlk and *ylk, cf. PPG?, §§ 158, 163. The name has the aspect of an abbreviated Phoenician or Punic name and one wonders whether the concluding -? should not be explained as a hypochoristic ending, in which case one may compare mqm’. mikytn Constantine N 63. Semitic verbal sentence name, ‘Milk has given,’ cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 121), PNPPT: 328-329, 344-345, NNPT: 21. PNPPI: 215216, notes that the verbal element may be a perfect or imperfect form, but the rendering of this name as MiAxıadwvog (CIS 89), and the form of this name element in other names containing /iaton/ are in favour of an explanation as a perfect form, cf. s. v. b‘/ytn.

miktn

v. mylk‘tn

Constantine N 2. ml'sklm Ellés N

1, mlsklmP.

See the remark all.

mmy Teboursouk N 6. Latin name, Memmius. mn Coins: CAESAR / sbrf‘n mn sy. Abbreviated name. mndkn Bir Bou Rekba N I. Berber type name ending in /-kan/, cf. NNPI: 60-61. See also the remark sub mndsn. mnds‘n

Hr. Maktar N 65, mnds‘n. Berber name of the type with concluding /-san/, cf. NNPI: 61-64. The endings /-san/ and /-kan/ may probably be used in combination with the same element, cf. mndkn. mnwP

Guelma N 9. Latin name, Manulus.

mntn’ Hr. Maktar N 101. Latin name, Montanus, cf. mwntn’?. mnik

mikt Guelma N

not mention this name.

12.

Sabratha N 18, mn/tlk. Name of unknown origin, cf. mnlq ?

350

Appendices

mniq

Carthage N 3, mn/tlq. Name of unknown origin, cf. mnlk ? msbl'In Constantine N 74. Berber name with initial /mas-/ and concluding /-/an/, cf. NNPI: 64-65, 68-71. See also the remark sub Constantine N 74. msbnd't

mswly Hr. Maktar N 65. Semitic nisbe adjective formed Berber name, ‘the Massylian.’

from

a

msygr^n Hr. Maktar N 39; 65.

Berber name ing in /-an/, cf. is also attested (RIL 545, 641).

with initial /mas-/ and endNNPI: 57, 68, 87. The name in Berber texts, cf. MSIGRN See also m'sg*bn.

Hr. Maktar N 3, misbnd't. Berber name, see the discussion a.l. msgzb‘n Hr. Maktar N 40, msgzb/d/r*n. Berber name with initial /mas-/ and ending in /-an/, cf. NNPI: 56-57, 68-71, 183. CHABOT sub Punica iv, Liste des noms propres, s.v. msgy[b]*n reads y instead of z (for which he compares Masgivini, CIL viii 9835). This reading is highly improbable, cf. also HOFTIJZER (1963: 94), who reads msnzb'n, but without interpretation, and NNP!I: 6. msgry‘n Hr. Maktar N 106. Berber name with initial /mas-/ and concluding -r, cf. NNPI: 57, 68, 87, 89. Compare possibly Berber MSIGRN (R/L 545, 641), although the vocalization of these names seems to be different. msdys‘n Hr. Maktar N 40. Berber name with initial /mas-/ and ending in/-san/, cf. NNPI: 62, 68, 86. This name

msyw‘l Hr. Meded N 18. Berber name with initial /mas-/ and concluding -/, cf. NNPI: 68-71, 266-269. msy‘in Bordj Helal N 1. Berber name with initial /mas-/, cf. NNPI: 68-71. For the supposed ending -/n in Berber names, cf. ıd., ibid., 64-65, 86, and for the combination of initial /mas-/ and y-, cf. id., ibid., 87. msyr‘n Hr. Maktar N 39. Variant: m“syr“n. Berber name with initial /mas-/ and concluding -n, cf. NNPT: 57, 68, 87, 89. It is also attested in Latin texts, as Masiran (IRTS 20, LibAnt 1 1964, 52f.) and Massiranis (ILAf 107). Compare further the frequent MSIRN ın Berber texts (R/L 20, 86, 344, 566, 688, 795, 803, 836, variant MSIRHN R/L 156, MSIHRN, cf. RIL 152), and the name ni‘syr, which seems to be the same, but without the endIng -an.

occurs also in Berber texts, MSDISN (R/L 226,

531). mshb° Hr. Medeine N 1 (ter). We have connected mshb’ with Massiva as e.g. COOKE (1903: 145) did (cf. NNPI: 68; for Massiva, cf. JONGELING (1994: 87), where we also compared the tribal name 42.2, mentioned by Ibn Khaldun).

mskr Bir bou Rekba N 1. Berber name with the initial element / mas-/, cf. NNPI. 68-71; cf. also id., ibid., 84 for the comparison with „u 9 (Bekri 141). msly‘n Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1.

351

Onomasticon

Berber name with initial /mas-/, cf. NNPT: 68-71; cf. the remark al.

msqy Tunisia OU

N 8.

Latin name, Messucius. msim Hr. Gen Rieime N |. The name is best explained as a Berber one, beginning with the element /mas-/, cf. NNPI: 68-71.

msql't Hr. Maktar N 11. Variant: nm'sqlt. Berber name with initial /mas-/ and end-

ing in -/, cf. VNPT: 68—71,81,87. In case the msin Coins: mstnsn hmmlkt / bn mstnbl kbrsw bn msln (?) Reading uncertain, cf. the remark a.l. msmk*n Hr. Maktar N 119. Berber name with initial /mas-/ and concluding /-kan/, cf. NNPI: 60-61, 68-71, 86. The reading of this name is the one proposed

by CHABOT (sub Punica E iv). He compares Masmaco, attested as Masmaconis (gen., CIL viii 23452). However, as t and n are often difficult to keep apart from each other,

the reading msmkK*t, variant of msm‘kt cannot be excluded. Masmaconis can be the Latin rendering of msmk‘n, but without much difficulty also of msm*Kt, cf. e.g. the regular relation of /milco and hmikt. msm‘kt Hr. Maktar N

14; 110.

Variant: m^smk't. Berber name, /*masmakat/, with

initial

/mas-/,

and

ending

of the type in

-r,

cf.

NNPI: 69, 81, 82, 87, 89. See the remark s. v. msmk*n. msnsn Ksar Lemsa N 3; Cherchel N 2.

In Cherchel N 2 the Numidian king, known from classical literature as Masinissa | Maoavvaooag - Maoavvaoor] is meant. Berber name with concluding element /-san/, cf. NNPI: 61-64. Whether the first two consonants of the name form the element /mas-/ is uncertain, cf. NNPI: 86.

loss of -/ at the end of a word is not restricted to Punic, one might suppose that m“sgP is the same name. This last name is also attested in Latin texts: Masclo (CIL viii 21169), Masclonis (CIL viii 27498). The name has also been adapted to the Latin case system in Maschulus, Masculi, Masclus and Masculas (cf. JoNGELING 1994: 84). Also a shorter variant, without ending, is attested in Latin texts, Mascel (CIL viu 7161, 18065, 20608 etc.), Masceli (which may be a genitive of Mascel or of *Mascelus; BAC 1950: 46 n. 3), Mascal (CIL vii 9806, 9813). This shorter form is also attested in Berber inscriptions: MSKL (RIL 713). VATTIONI 1979, 89, derives Mascal from the Semitic root Xq/, which seems improbable. mstnbl Coins: m$tnsn hmmlkt I bn mstnbl kbrsw bn msln. In case the reading is correct this 15 the name known from Latin sources as Mastanabal, a Berber name with initial element

mas-, and ending in -/, cf. also JoNGELING (1994: 87, s. v. mastanabale).

mst'tn Hr. Maktar N 16. Berber name with concluding /-tar/, cf. NNPI. 58. Due to the interchangeability of y- and m- in several Berber names (cf. VNPT: 84-85) and the existence of ys’r“n and variants, it is uncertain whether the initial /mas-/

is of the same order as in other names beginning with ms- and m‘s-. The reading with s is based on the relation with ysr“rn and it is equally possible as the reading 3 which was given by CHABOT (sub Punica xii 17).

Appendices

352

m'grs*n Hr. Maktar N 13; 57; 76, 23. Berber name, ending in /-san/, cf. NNPI:

61-62. The same name is probably also attested in Punic, mgrsn (CIS 1481). For a remark on the Berber name element MKR, of which this name is derived by addition af the ending /-san/, cf. JONGELING 1994: xxvixxvii. From Latin texts, one may compare Magarsae (CIL viii 2200); note, however, that GsELL (sub /LA 1 2975) divides the text differently and reads a name Smagarsae.

CLERMONT-GANNEAU

sub RES

162 men-

m*m'qw

Ksar Toual Zouameul N 1: m'n?qw. This group

of signs in the second

line

of this inscription is compared to Mamonica by the first editor of this damaged text. Mamonica is attested at least twice (CIL viii 27185, 27207); note, however, that the mas-

culine counterpart of this name, Mamonicus, is also attested (CIL viii 14961, 15307). Both names should be related to a group of names related to Mamo (CIL viii 17001): Mamon (Mamonis), Mamonia, Mamonius, Mamonimus, Mamus, cf. JoNGELING (1994:

80). One is inclined to suppose that, in case

tions both names, without reference, possibly referring to two different editions of the same text. For this text, cf. LASSERE (1979: 227-228).

there is a relation between the names quoted and m‘m’qw, it is more attractive to divide

m‘dr°t

tus—Quarta.

otherwise and to read m*n? (= Mamo) qwb* or perhaps qwr[ , a Latin name like Quar-

Tatahouine N 1. See the remark a.l.

m‘nki‘t

Guelma N 4, m'nklt/n (or m*nkr*t/n). For m^nkl*t one may

m‘hP

Tunisia OU N 14. Name of unknown origin. m'ksm?

v. m’kSm’

Hr. Maktar N 76, 30,31. m'ksm*

f

compare

(CIL viii 18068.34) and „SL

mangala

(Ibn Khal-

dun vi 262). m'sg^bn Tunisia OU N 1 (cf. the remark a.l.). Berber name with initial /mas-/, Cf. NNPI: 68-71.

Teboursouk N 3. Latin name: Maxima.

m^ksm? El-Amruni N 1: m‘k[$m]? (bis), Latin parallel: Maxssimus, Maxsimus. Variant: mks’ Latin name: Maximus; for § as representation of Latin /s/, cf. also Pwr, Str, try, Strnyn’, X(h)qnd*, pwdn§, wri$. m'll Guelma N 3. Probably a Berber name. NNPI: 66, compares MLLH (R/L 86) and MaAXvAag (SEG xxv1 1847), Μαλυλος (SEG xx 740b); for a relation with γί, cf. id., 84; for the relation with MHL (RIL 776), cf. ıd., 266.

m'sys*n Hr. Maktar N 64, 38. Berber name with initial /mas-/ and ending in /-an/, cf. NNPI: 61-64, 68-71, 86. m'syr Hr. Maktar N 64, 17; 111. Berber name, related to msyr“n, cf. NNPT. 69. On -n as a separate element, cf. id., 56. m'syr^n v. msyr‘n Hr. Maktar N 64, 47. See the remark a.l. m‘smk‘t

v. msm'kt

Hr. Maktar N 76, 16.

353

Onomasticon

Berber name of the type beginning with /mas-I, cf. NNPI: 68-71. m'snk*w Breviglieri N 1. Berber name of the type beginning with /mas-I, cf. NNPI: 68-71.

1962: 29—34) makes this explanation less probable. On the other hand, it should be

m’sql’ v. π|541 Hr. MaktarN 15; 18. m'sqlt v. πι54ᾳ Hr. Maktar N 64, 18, 31, 43. m'styb'r Hr. Maktar N 64, 23. Berber name with initial /mas-/, cf. NNPI: 68-71. m'strt Teboursouk N 2, Berber parallel: MSTRT. Berber name with initial /mas-/, cf. NNPI: 68-71. MSTRT is also attested in R/L 664, cf. further MSTRT (RIL 284, 473). The explana-

tion by ALVAREZ DELGADO (1964: 209-210) as a name containing the divine name ?strf, preceded by an element “m, which he relates to ^n (supposedly meaning 'mother' and *people") and ?rit, is highly improbable.

m'swkn Wadi el-Amud N I. Berber name of the type ending in /-kan/, cf. NNPI: 60-61. For this name, cf. Masauchan (IRTS 24, IRT 906 (Masau[cha]n), IRTS 20 (M[asa]uchan) and probably also Masauca (CRAI 1972: 334). Whether this is the same name as m*XwkKk*3*n is diffcult to decide. m‘qr Labdah N 2; 18; 18 (Latin parallel: Macri). Latin name: Macer. The name element */makVr-/ (where V may represent a, e, o, or u) being not infrequent in names from North Africa (cf. e.g. the Libyan names MKR,

RIL

651,

MKRN,

xxvill)) it seems possible that a Latin name seemingly beginning with the same element was chosen because of the existence of this Berber name element with unknown meaning. BESCHAOUCH 1980b and PFLAUM 1980 classify this name as a Berber one, but the occurrence of Macer and Maccarus in e.g. a list of Gallo-Roman pottery marks (LEGLAY

RIL

386, cf. also JoNGELING

650,

(1994:

MKRH,

RIL

xxvi

and

noted that Pausanias tells us of the Libyan heros that came to Sardinia and gave the island his name, viz. ‘Sardus the son of Macer' (Pausanias x 17,2). Whether the name of the martyr Macorus (gen. Macori; cf. ActaSanct 17 April (ii 480), MartEcclAfr 365, 17 April; note that Macer (vel Macarius) 1s also found among the martyrs in Africa, ActaSanct 7 Jun. (ii 7)) should be included here is difficult to say. On Macer

/ Macur as a Libyan deity, cf. also LIPINSKI (1995:

366—369).

m'qr Coins: wy't / m'qr pyln; / wy“t m'qr pyln; / wy't pyln m'qr; I m'*qr pyln; I pyln m*qr Wwy't. This name has been explained as a nomen loci, most probably Macarea, not far from Tripoli, cf. however the remark on the coin legend, sub wy*t / m*qr pyln. m‘qryn’ Κεῖ Bezioun N 2; Holt N 1. Latin name: Macrinus. Cf. s. v. m‘qr.

m'rg'ryt Labdah N 52: m‘rg‘ryt[‘].

Latin name, Margarita. The name Margarita 3549. might text is

is not infrequent, cf. e.g. /LA 1 3217, The male counterpart, Margaritus, be attested in CYL viii 13781, but the highly uncertain.

m'rwz Hr.

Maktar

N

14;

Tunisia OU N 17. Variant. mr*^wz?.

16; 23;

39;

47;

64, 42;

354

Appendices

Probably a Berber name, */marawzo/, cf. NNPI. 67. m‘rwiny Hr. Maktar N 64, 38. The concluding -y and the more or less complete vocalisation (*/marulni/) reminds one of a Latin name, but which one ? Should we compare Marullianu{u}s (AE 1933, 53), and comparable names like Marulus, Marullus, Maruleius, Marullius, Marullinus, Marulina, and posit a name Marulinius ? m'rz

Hr. Maktar N 64, 30, m‘rz?. [n case the reading is correct and the name Is complete, probably to be compared with m'rwz.

name. Note also VATTIONI (1979a: 180 s. v. Marisa), who remarks that it is still impossible to decide whether this is a Semitic or a Berber name quoting PFLAUM (/LA i sub 502) as an advocate of a Punic origin and Harris (1936: 122) as an advocate of its Berber origin. m‘rySs‘t f v. m'ry$ Hr. Guergour N 1. m'rl? Hr. Maktar N 43; 48; 49; 52 (bis). Latin name, Marcus. Note that the rendition of Latin c with & instead of q is surpris-

ing. m‘rs°

Labdah N 43; 61. m'ry Labdah N 42.

Latin name: Marsus.

Latin name: Marius.

m‘rys Hr. Medeine N 1 (bis) This name is probably the same one as

mrs, attested in several Punic inscriptions (CIS 390, 799, 2245, 3723, 3772, 4607, (= SPC 56)) and m‘rys (EH 228). m“rys has been explained as a possible representation of Latin Marius (BERTHIER-CHARLIER 1952, sub nr. 228; FRIEDRICH 1957: 292, 293), but as in the same text Lucius is represented by /qy, this is a highly improbable explanation. PNPPTI: 190, lists mr$ among the Berber names. The name Maris in ILA 1 1017, JRT 300, Cyprianus, Ep. xxii 3, may also be compared. The existence of a fem. counterpart with the ending /-at/, mrys‘t (Hr. Guergour N 1), also attested in Latin texts as Marisath (CIL viii 27581), Marisat (CIL viii 17505), Marisa (CIL vii 5098, 5440 (= ILA 1 502), 5473, 5592, 5320, 9086, 16127, 17181, JLA 1 1754, 2213, ILA ui 5860, BAC 1936-1937: 217; and possibly also Marsa, CIL viii 18842,

19708, 27554),

points to a Semitic or Berber origin for this

m'r^wkny Hr. Maktar N 104. Berber name, cf. MRKNH (ΚΠ, 558, 569). For the concluding -kny cf. yew*kny, with the Berber parallel IGUKNH in Bordj Helal

N 1; cf. further the following pair of names: IGUZKNH (RIL 182), IRKNH (RIL 291). If -kny / -KNH is a variant of the ending /-kan/ one perhaps might compare the names SDKSN (RIL 715) and SDKSNH (RIL 126) with comparable variation in the concluding element /-san/, and -TNH as variant of /-tan/, attested in FZTNH (RIL 403). m'rprtn Ghzaizya N l.

Probably a Berber name ending in -fan, (cf. NNPI: XV).

57-60,

JONGELING

m‘rq° Bir Tlelsa N 1. Variant: m“rgh. Latin name: Marcus. m'rqh v. m'rq? ChiaN 1 (bis).

1994:

xv-

355

Onomasticon

m'rqy Hr. Aouin N 1, Latin parallel: Greek parallel: Maoxıoflc]. Latin name: Marcius.

Marcif[us],

m'S$wkk'$*n Wadi el-Amud N 3. Most probably a Berber name of the type ending in /san/, cf. NNPI: 61-62. Cf. also m'swkn. m‘Sk‘I‘t Tatahouine N

1.

ogy of the name is not completely clear. It is, of course, most probably a derivation of the Punic word mgm, (holy) place, but the ending is not easily explained. One might think of a hypochoristic ending, but we only know of these in personal names. In case

this is correct, nigm’ might be an abbreviated form of a name like mgm sms, in which the second element is omitted. The same etymology, of course, is possible for the mqne that possibly indicates Macomada, although it is unclear why this name is lengthened with -da in Latin.

A Berber name of the type ending in -r, cf.

NNPI: 79-81.

mqm $ms$

m‘tnb‘l v. mtnb‘l Hr. Djebbara N 2.

mr*wz v. m'rwz Volubilis N 1.

mp“

Bir bou Rekba N 1; Ksar Toual Zouameul N 3. Name of a month. In Bir bou Rekba N |

mp“ Ipny is attested, ‘the first month Mapa.’ ms

v. $m$

mrqh Constantine N 71. Possibly the Latin name Marcus, or should it be explained as a Libyan one ? The name MRKH in the Libyan texts R/L 1058 and 1059 may also be explained as a Libyan or as a Latin one.

Coins: CAESAR / sbrt*n dy ms. An abbreviated name.

msly Wadi el-Amud N 1, hnısly. A nisbe adjective, derived from the name of a tribe ? Related to mswly ?

mqm Coins: /k$ / mqm; mqm; | mgm mqm. The coin with the text /k$ / mqm gives the impression that Lixus must be equated with mgm, while the typology of the coins speaks for a relation between mqm on the coins mentioned and mam mx. mqm’ Coins: byrdt tlytn / mgm’; | mqm’. Nomen loci, Macoma (byrdt tlytn / mqm?), Macomada (/ mgm’) Although both reading and identification in the case of Macoma (Hr. el-Mergueb) seem assured, the etymol-

mrqy Sabratha N 18: mrqy. Latin name: Marcius.

mrS v. m'ry$ Dougga N 2, mrs[ . The name mr$ is attested several times in Punic, so it is possible that this name 15 meant here.

mSgw‘n Arseu N 1. Berber name ending in /-an/, cf. NNPT: 56-57. The initial γι may be a variant of the frequently attested intial /mas-/. Cf. Masguen, Corippus v 310.

mSdygn° Labdah N 54, msdven/r. The name may be Berber and comparable to the many names with initial ms-, mas-.

Appendices

356

The spelling of this name element with m$ instead of the more common ms seems to be attested elsewhere, cf. e.g. m$tnsn on coins. Levi DELLA VIDA (cf. /PT sub 63) compared MZDG (RIL 724). mSlyym Cherchel N 2, [m]slyym. Tribal name, ‘the Massylians.’

highly improbable, because of the expression ofthe double // in the Latin name by the doubling of / in the Neopunic text, and also due to the absence of the final ? that normally

ms‘rt Ain Zakkar N

1.

corresponds with the Latin case ending -us.

See the discussion al.

msr Guelma N 5 Probably a Berber name with cf. NNPI: 67. In case mXrt really the counterpart of this name, with otherwise cf. MSRT (RIL 413), cf. ms$tns Coins: mmlkt / mStns. Shortened or incomplete

mtn

initial m-, exists, it is ending -r, id. 82.

form

of the

name mStnsn.

mStnsn Coins: mStnsn / tbrk*n; mStnsn hmmlkt / bn mstnbl kbrsw bn msln. For the reading of this name, especially

with regard to the sibilants, see the remarks on the various coins. mstnsn is a Berber name, with initial element m3$-, most prob-

ably the equivalent of the well-attested ms-, and concluding -sr. In Latin the name has been rendered by Mastanesosus, cf. also JoNGELING (1994: 87 s.v. mastanesosi). According to some, it is probable (cf. DCPP s. v. Mastanesosus) that this king is identical with Sosus, the father of king Bocchus. mtby El-AmruniN

A

nisbe

1.

adjective

unknown (tribal ?) name. mtll Constantine N 74.

A Berber name with initial m-, comparable to TLL (R/L 630) without this initial consonant, cf. NNPI: 67, and note also the frequency of Berber names ending in -/, cf. Masson (1976: 59-60), NNPI: 266-269. The explanation of this name as a rendering of the Latin name Metellus, which BERTHIER-CHARLIER (sub EH 269) posit, is

derived

from

an

Labdah N 13; Al-Qusbat N 1 (see also the remarks sub Al-Qusbat N 1); Hr. Hammam Zouakra N 1; Hr. Medeine N 2; Sousse N 20; Tunisia OU N 15; Constantine N 33; 87; Guelma N 11. Semitic name, meaning 'gift.' The name is quite frequent as a one word name, and there Is no reason to suppose these names to be abbreviated construct phrase names of which the divine name forming the second part has been cut off. For the name, cf. PNPPI: 356357, NNPT: 29-32, id. 1987, id. 1994: xxiii,

and also PPG?, ὃ 137. For the rendering in Latin script, cf. Maten (CIL vii 27994e, ILAf 187), Matenii (CIL viii 21517), Matun (IAM ii 379), Matuni (BAC 1946-1949: 88), Mathun (ILAf 107), Mithini (CIL vni 23238), Mithimi (CIL viii 23239), Methun (CIL viii 10732), Metun (CIL viii 20492), Metuni (CIL vii 11298), Mettun (CIL vii 16741), Mettuni (CIL vii 7924), Mettunis (CIL viii 26050), Metumus (CIL viii 20474), Mitun (CIL vii 27527), Motthun (CIL viii 2567.29), Mutunis (CIL viii 233172), Mutum (CIL viii 8716, Libyca 1 1953, 171), Muthun (CIL vii 15797), Muthune (CIL viii 17702), Muttun (CIL vii 8714), Mutthun (CIL viii 16714, 19169, 23383, LEGLAY 1961, i1 275), Mutthunis (CIL viii 23783, ILA 1 2004), Milthun (Karthago vii 1957: 78), Milthunis (Karthago vii 1957: 79), Muithun (CIL viii 16918, but see GsELL sub /LA 1 577: lege Mutthun), Muthunos (CIL viii 22805 =

357

Onomasticon

ings of the name as muthumbal (and vari-

ILPBardo 157 = ILT 80), Mustu (Karthago viii 1957, 78). Note that the readings with

ants, cf. NNPI:

-il- and -ui- preceding the dental are suspect.

explained as *matiin + ba'l, ‘the given one

Possibly -u- or -ut- was intended.

of Bal,' where the first vowel has changed through vowel assimilation. The same name

mtn’lm Hr. Ghayadha N 4, mtm’![m]. For the reading, cf. the remark a.l.

might be read in Tripoli N 2, where one

mtnbl

v. mtnb'l

Guelma N

1.

102, s.v.) are perhaps better

reads: nır/n[ ]b[ . mtnhyb‘l f v. mtnb‘l Tunisia OU N 9. mt't

Guelaat bou Sba N 1, Latin parallel Metatis

mtnb'l

Hr. Gen Rieime N

parallel:

1; Labdah N

Muthumbalis;

17, Latin

23, Latin parallel

(gen.).

Probably

a Berber name,

with

initial

Diodoru; Sabratha N 8; Tripoli N 8; Hr. Guergour N 2 (f); Hr. Maktar N 7; 9; 26 (bis); 38; 58, mtnb‘l; 62; 64, 22, 24, 28; 65 (bis); 73, mtnb*[l]; 76, 17, 21, 25; 86; 105; 111; Hr. Meded N 10; El Kef N 2; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; Tunisia OU N 3; 4; BedjaN 1; Constantine N 12; 15; 48; 49; 55; 58; 88; Guelma N 34. Variant: mtnbl, m“tnb“l, mtnhybfl. mtnb‘l is a frequent name in Punic and Neo-Punic texts, cf. PNPPI: 229, 356-357, NNPI: 29-32, JoNGELING (1994: xxiii). BENZ (in PNPPT) lists 103 occurrences in Punic, of which 76 are certainly feminine. The variants minyb“l and mtn’b‘l, both feminine names, listed in PNPPI resp. 5 times and once, are probably examples of the feminine infix -y-, cf. NNPI: 42-44. One might suppose that /matanaybal/ (mtnyb‘l, mtnhyb‘l) and /mataneball (mtmb'T) existed side by side. The name is, of course, an example of the construct phrase name, meaning 'gift of Bal,' as is exemplified by the bilingual text Labdah N 26. VaTTIONI (1994: 122) remarks about the name mtnb‘/ that it is not, as SZNYCER translates ‘dono di Ba“al,’ but

m- and concluding -ἰ, cf. NNPI: 67, 82, 89. The name is also attested in Berber as MTT (RIL 774) and in other Latin inscriptions as Methat (CIL vii 5049), Mitatis (ILA 1 1913, 1678); for Matut in CIL vii 21272, see mitt.

"donato di BaCal". It seems that VATTIONI

nus and Matutina better related to the Mater Matuta, female deity, Aurora, related to the

supposes mtn to be a passive participle ofthe root yfn rather than a noun derived from the same root. One may think of a differentiation

mtt f Labdah N 56, mt/nt/n. Although the name is not attested in PNPPI nor in NNPT: it is easily explained as a Semitic one-word name, the feminine counterpart of mtn, where the n is lost through complete assimilation to the feminine ending -f. For this word with and without assimilation and the existence of mtt in an early period, cf. the remarks in AMADas! (2005: 101). The name Matut (CIL viii 21272) may be a rendering of this name in Latin script, rather than a variant of Met(h)at / Mitat (see mi“t), and one may suppose a development mattant > mattat > mattat > mattot > mattut. Note that Classical Hebrew uses both mattan and mattana with the meaning ‘gift.’ The name Matuta, attested e.g. in Algeria (cf.

ILA 1 2915, 2916, 3165) is, with Matuti-

light of dawn, or perhaps rather more properly a goddess of childbirth.

along these lines, for a name like m“tnb‘l is probably best explained as *mat(t)an + ba‘l, ‘gift of Bal,’ while the many Latin render-

nglby Wadi el-Amud N

1, An/tglby (bis).

Appendices

358

A nisbe adjective, derived from the name of a tribe ?

ngry Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1. A nisbe adjective, derived from the name of a tribe ?

ny*tmn Hr. Medeine N 1. Deity, connected to the Egyptian goddess Neith, cf. e.g. RóLLIG sub KA/ 159; cf, however, LiPiNski (1995: 373), who

compares Motmanius mentioned in CYL viii 2650, noting that possibly this name should be read Niotmanius. nymm Hr. Merah N 1. Name of unknown remark a.l.

origin.

See also the

nymr*n Wadi el-Amud N 2; 3, [ny] mi*n; 3. Berber name, cf. in Latin texts Nimira (/RT 886g, 899), Nimmira (CIL vii 2564c, 104), Nimmire (CIL vii 8694, IRT 898), cf. possibly also NHMRUH. On this name, mainly attested in Tripolitania, cf. also

ΝΝΡΙ: 57, 89. nksp v. nkspn Breviglieri N 1, n/tksp. nkspn Labdah N 60: n/tkspnit. An unknown name possibly nitksp.

related

to

nitm Guelma N 7. Possibly a name, see the remark a.l.

Semitic 360-361,

one-word

name,

meaning

‘ant,’

(1963-1964:

125),

PNPPI.

239,

NNPI:

nmrsy Ain el-Kebch N 1, Berber parallel NMRsH.

Nisbe

adjective

based

upon

a Berber

name, probably indicating the membership ofa tribe or tribal confederation. NMRSH also occurs in several other Berber inscriptions as an epithet (R/L 507, 510, 596), but at least once (R/L 501) it seems to be a personal name. ALVAREZ DELGADO (1964: 218-219) explains this epithet as consisting of nm = nm + rs —r$ + nisbe-ending, 1.e. the ‘benevolent chief,’ which is, of course, incompatable with the rules of Phoenician and Punic grammar.

nsmrn Hr. Medeine N 1. Berber name ending

in -n,

cf.

NNPT.:

56-57. n*b? Hr. Merah N 1 (bis). NNPI: 190 tentatively compares Nabis (SıLıus ITALICUS xv 672). As the names mentioned by SILIUS ITALICUS are not really a collection of North African names, this seems to be a hazardous comparison. n‘br Hr. Maktar N 85. Probably a Berber name, cf. NBR (R/L 819). This name also occurs lengthened with -t, NBRT (R/L 667), and with -n, NBRN (R/L 246); for these endings, cf. NNPI: 56-57, 81-84. In Latin inscriptions, several names

are found seemingly built on a root nbr, cf. Nabor (CIL viii 2127, 5107, 19053, /RT 894,

nml

Constantine N 34. HALFF

in Punic, 10 times at Carthage (C/S 635, 725, 827, 4546, 4547, 4663, 4854, 5079, 5491, 5835) and once in a Punic text from Constantine (EH 132). A Berber origin seems therefore less probable, although NMLU (R/L 749) is possibly attested in Berber and may be related.

42. The same name

occurs

EpEcclAfr 387, MartAfr 544, ActaSanct 12 April (11 80), 26 Sept. (vii 263), in Africa 14 Mart. (11 346), 10 Jul. (ii 31), Alexandriae

359

Onomasticon

24 Apr. (iii 265), Mediolonai et Coloniae 12 Jul. (111 28), Romae 23 Apr. (iii 165), 3 Jun.

(1 287), 12 Jun. (11 511)), Naboris (CIL viii 5045, 23285, MartEcclAfr 363, 366, 370), with a feminine counterpart Naburu (CIL viii 17072, 17127), and with a palatal vowel in the second syllable, or loss of the vowel between b and r, Nabira (CIL vii 7509,

15765, 25430, ICVR viii 22570), Nabra (CIL viii 9617, ILA 1 938), Naberi/a (ILA 1 1776), lengthened with an ending -im, Naberim (MAH xiv 1894, 586; on this ending, cf. also JONGELING 1994: xxi-xxil) and with the Latin ending -ianus, Naborianus (CIL

vill 23919). n°mp‘m

f v. nmtpm?

Ksiba Mraou N 5 n'mp*m* v. n“mtpm’ Djebel Mansour N 1, rmp[*nr], parallel, /NJam[f]amone.

n'mtpm? f Labdah N 44.

Variants: n“mtpm’,

393, remarks that p*r 1s an unidentified deity or appellative, only known from Phoenician and Punic names. As is the case whith n*m(t)gd? the name is particularly frequent in

Latin texts, cf. Namfamo (CIL viii 23359, AE 1983, 963), Namphamo (CIL viii 642, 15774, etc.), Nampham (AAf xxv 1989, 225 no 26), Nampamo (CIL viu 17092, 19576, etc.), Namefamo (CIL vin 9111), Namephamo (CIL viii 9146), etc., cf. JONGELING (1994: x), where I supposed that names with a vowel -e- between the two name elements represent n“mtp“m, whereas the other ones represent ri^mp*m. Although not unlikely, it

is difficult to prove a hypothesis like this. Cf. Latin

also LIPINSKI (1995: 215-217). n'mtp*m?

n“mtgd’ f Labdah N 35; 54; Tunisia OU N 20. This name is difficult to interpret, cf. ΝΝΡΙ: 25-26. Note that apart from rmtgd? also the name n‘megd? is attested (C/S 717,

1520), cf. also PNPPI: 362, 294-295. The name is attested in Latin texts as Namcido (Karthago x 1959, 94), Namgeddae (ILA ı

2385), Namgeddo

(BAC

1938-1940:

cf. further amp tm,

n*mp*n'. A name comparable to /imitgd?. PNPPI:

82),

Namgede (CIL viii 27491), Namgidde (CIL

v. n’mtpm’

Constantine N 5.

n'mrr Breviglieri N 1: n/tmrr. Name of unknown origin, possibly Berber. npthn Djebel tanis.

v. npt‘n Mansour N

1, Latin

parallel

Nvp-

viii 17659, 23634, etc., CIL xiii 3147, 4), Namgiddo (BAC 1952: 240), Namgide (CIL viii 15749) etc., cf. JoNGELING (1994: x), and further Namgvdde AE 1996 1689. The name, mainly borne by women, has been related to childbirth (cf. however e. g. Migin Namgidenis filius CIL viii 15794). If the second element of this name 15 really a form of gd, Fortune, one wonders why the vowel in this element is in all instances a front vowel lil or /e/, while in Hebrew ‘fortune’ is gad, cf. also the Hebrew name gaddi’el. Cf. also LIPINSKI (1995: 62-63).

npt'n Labdah N 59. Variant: npthn. Berber name, ending in -tan (cf. NNPI: 57-60, id. 1994: xv-xvi), cf. NFTN (RIL 529, cf. 528). npthn occurs in Djebel Mansour

N l, in a bilingual inscription, the Latin text giving Nyptanis. One may also compare Nifaten (acc.) in Corippus viii 481. s’wr’

v. SW?

Hr. Maktar N 76, 14.

360

Appendices

s’Iwl f Kef Bezioun N 1.

Probably a Berber name, with concluding -I, cf. NNPI: 265-269. Compare possibly the highly uncertain SLL (RIL 52), and sL (RIL 443, 529), sLH (RIL 1095, uncertain). sbg Hr. Medeine N l. sbg probably belongs to the complex of Libyan names consisting ofa sibilant, a labial and a velar consonant. From Punic texts we know zbg (CIS 499, 676, 1278, 3336, 4461, 5510), zybq (CIS 569, 1380, 3091, 3885, 4429, 4907, 5019, EH 188), zybq? (CIS 981, 2717, 3977, 4366), and probably also zywg (CIS 341, 460) and lengthened zybqm (CIS 132, 423, 652, 823, 1197, 1470, 2019, 2040, 2521, 2655, 3763, 3882, 4207, 4502, 4503, 4504, 4577, 4720, 4923), zybqt (CIS 3800, 4676, 4677), cf. ROLLIG (sub KA/ ii 78-79), who, however, does not mention the name used in this text: sbg. In Latin sources we encounter Zabog, Zabucius, Zebbocis, Zebuciani, Zibuc, Zibucis, Zoboc and Zobicus (for references, cf. JoNGELING 1994, s. v.). RÓLLIG and BENZ (in PNPPT) have advocated a Libyan origin for this name-type, although GELB (1929-1930: 240) in his study on mimation and nunation in Semitic, has stressed its Semitic origin, cf. PNPPI: 198, n. 5. Also VATTIONI (1979a: 190) thinks of a Semitic origin, and mentions the possible derivation from Xbq or sbk. The frequency of the name, especially in Carthagenian texts, may be adduced to support GELB's explanation. On the other hand, however, one may point to the divergent spellings (cf. on this point PPG’, § 23) of the name, or its basic element, and conclude that this rather points to a loan from another language (probably Libyan) into Punic (cf. also NNP!: 118). Or

sbrt

Coins: sbrt. Abbreviated form of sbrt*n.

sbrt‘n Coins: sbrt*n; / sbrt*n; CAESAR / sbrt‘n g; CAESAR / sbrt*n gdd syn‘n; sbrt*n gd sy; CAESAR / sbrt*n dy ms; CAESAR / sbrt*n dy sw; CAESAR / sbrt*n hm8& *kbr; sbrt*n hn*n; CAESAR / sbrt*n mn sy; CAESAR / sbrt*n nghyb (?); CAESAR / sbrfn r. Nomen loci, Sabratha, also attested in abbreviated form sbrt, sbr. For the reading, cf. the remark on the coin with the text

sbrt. The name is without a Semitic etymology and supposed to be of Berber origin, cf. LieiNsKiI (1983: 179), who refers to the termination /-tan/, cf. also MANFREDI (1995: 68). sdksin Hr. Medeine N 1, s/d/ksIn. Berber name with concluding /-/an/, cf.

NNPI: 64-65. shldy’ v. sIdy’ Hr. Maktar N 19. shlkny v. slkny Hr. Maktar N 64, 16, 20. swl‘ Hr. Maktar N 63; Hr. Meded N 17. Name of unknown origin, but probably Berber according to CHABOT (sub Punica iv E 15), SZNYCER (1986: 21), cf. also NNPT: 191. One may compare the uncertain SLH (RIL 1095) and possibly sLuT (R/L 924), SLT (RIL 618, 771, 894). Note, however, that the Latin name Sulla is also attested in North Africa (cf. e.g. CIL viii 2323, Sullae, CIL viii 14940 (= JLPBardo 170), 20852).

should one suppose two different names, one of Semitic, the other of Libyan origin ? sbr Coins: / sbr. Abbreviated form of sbrt*n.

sw^w?

Hr. Maktar N 76, 15; Tunisia OU N 1. FÉVRIER-FANTAR (1965: 55) think of a mistake for sw*^ws (Latin Suavis) or a substandard form *Suavus, which is not attested

Onomasticon

361

in Latin. Compare perhaps the name SUH

should be accounted for, when the name is to

(RIL 708). For the reading of the name in Tunisia OU N 1, see the remark a.l. Cf. also sw*[ ]?/w in Hr. Maktar N 22.

be explained as Semitic, remains, however,

swq Coins: / wy‘t tty swq. For a remark on this probable nomen loci, see the coin legends, sub / wy“r tty swq. The same name occurs also in the variant form s^wq: I wy't tty s*wq. swr’

Hr. Maktar N 27. Variant: sw, Pw’r. Latin name: Severus. Syg v. Syg'n Coins: / syg. sygn Coins: bqs / syg*n; / syg*n; / syg. Nomen loci, Siga. The name occurs also abbreviated as syg. syl'wk'n Hr. Maktar N 103. Berber name with concluding /-kan/, cf. NNPI: 60-61. In Berber texts SLUKN (RIL 367), SLKN (RIL 1028) occurs and in Latin texts Selaucha (CIL viii 16864), Selauchanis (gen., ILAf 104); cf. also the name SLKH (RIL 1026).

sysy

| f

Ksiba Mraou N 3. VATTIONI (1994: 115, 1996, 77) explains sys’y and its counterpart in Latin script Sisoi (CIL viii 6426, 15779, 16271, 17563, ILA ii 7085), Sissoi (CIL viii 4955, 6136, 10918, 1121, 15779, ILA11500, AE 1985, 983), asa derivation of $$, an improbable explanation. Compare also further from Latin texts: Sisso (CIL viii 4956, Libyca iv 1956, 92), Sissioi ULA τι 3217), Sissi ILA 11 2547), Sissonies (CIL viii 15779) and the fem. name Sissonia (CIL viii 12777, 16054, 16587, ILA 1 1567, 3213). How the vocalization of these names

unclear. See also the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 93.

skn Bir Gebira N 1. For the reading cf. the remark a.l. In case

the reading 1s correct, this 1s the only example of this name. As a name element it is attested in several Phoenician and Punic names, cf. PNPPI: 365-366: it occurs both as a divine name and as an epithet. In Latin epigraphy Sacco- is attested, but the name seems to be European rather than North African, cf. e.g. Sacco from Italy (CIL x 6392); Gallia (CYL xiii 3129, 3183.27), Germania (CIL xii 11885 = AE 1911, 234), Saco in Pannonia (RIU 3, 921); Sacconis (gen.) from Gallia (4E 1995, 1071; CIL xii 1176; xiii 3183.27), from Italy — Istria (CIL v 5896), Saconis (gen.) from Pannonia (AE 1940, 5: Sacon(is); RIU 3, 895 (Sa[c]onis); Sacconius from Italia — Istria (CIL v 707; 5493; Inscrlt x 4, 326; CIL x 2198); Gallia (CIL xiii 1807); Germania (CIL xin 11774); Sacconio (dat.) from Istria (CIL v 2453); Noricum (ILLPRON 1014); Sacconia from Italy-Istria (CIL v 6127); Noricum (ILLPRON 1014); Sacconiae (gen.) from Italia (CIL xiv 1564). Cf. also grskn. sks Coins: / ? y mb‘! sks; | ? mb'l sks; | ? mb‘l sks mb‘l sks; | ? sks; I mb‘l sks; / sks; I sks 5; Nomen loci, Sexi (Spain). For the reading, cf. the remarks on the coin with the text / sks. skst

Labdah N 63; Hr. Maktar N 79. Latin name: Sextus. sldy’ v. s’Idy’ Hr. Maktar N 13; 65; Guelma N 2. sld‘m Hr. Meded N 17.

362

Appendices

A Berber name, cf. SLDM (R/L 640), possibly related to s“/dy”. siky S. Antioco N 3, siky. Nomen loci, Sulcis.

The name is preceded by the article A- in this inscription, the only time it is attested thus far. This may be taken as an indication that the

name is of Semitic origin. In classicial sources the name is sounded ZvAxoı, Sulci. siky Maghraoua N 2. Explained by GHAKI 1998 as the Latin name Sulcius. The text remains uncertain. sikny Hr. Maktar N 64, 31; 76, 29; Hr. Meded N 5; 7,10; 24. Variants: shlkny, slkn’, s“Ikny, slk*ny. Probably a Berber name, cf. NNPI: 192193. The explanation of this name as a ren-

28), who reads s/smyt (sic). Cf. also Selsum (CIL viii 17563) and SL$M (RIL 723) and the fact that -/ is attested as ending in Berber names, cf. NNPI: 81-84. VaATTIONI (1996: 76) explains the name as a derivation of 3/5, ‘three,’ a personal name of the same type

as Tertius in Latin. This is a highly improbable explanation, as the adduced parallels from Latin sources, Selsumis, Sesum, Sessum, Salsa and Salsula cannot easily be connected to the supposed pronunciation of the word for three in Punic, /$alü$/, the vowels of which are ascertained through St. Augustine's testimony. See also s/sm‘t. sism‘t Hr. Maktar N 129. The same name as s/smyt, for the reading see the remark a.l.

Slpqy

Labdah N 64. Latin name: Sulpicius.

dering of Latin Selicanius is to be found with e.g. RÖLLIG, sub KA/ 145, FUENTESEsTANOL (1980, s.v. shlkny, slkny, slk*ny, slkny), VATTIONI (1994: 121). SZNYCER (1986, ad Hr. Meded N 5) notes that s/kny should not be taken as the rendering of the Latin name Sulcinius, as was done by BERGER 1901c, and followed by others, but as the rendering of Selicanius. On account of the variant spellings of this name, sAlkny, s‘lkny, slk*ny, we suppose that the pronunciation of this name must have been something like /salkani/, which might, perhaps, be compared to Latin Se/icanius, but 1s probably

s byn?

better explained as Libyan; cf. also Selcheni

Saturum; Hr. Guergour N 1 (bis); 3; Hr. Maktar N 15; 29; Hr. Medeine N 2; Teboursouk N 8. Latin name: Satur / Saturus. For Hr. Medeine N 2, Djebel Mansour N | and Teboursouk N 8, cf. the remarks a.l.

(BAC 1946-1949: 683); cf. also JoNGELING (1994: 130-131, s. v. selcheni). sik‘ny v. slkny Hr. Maktar N 64, 28, slA‘ny sismyt Hr. Maktar N 64, 19, sIsmyt. Perhaps this is a Berber name related to SLSMT (RIL 966). Thus e.g. FEVRIER (1956:

Labdah N

15; 20.

Latin name, Sabinus. s‘wq Coins: / wy‘t tty s*wq. Variant of swq, vide s. v.

s'twrnynh Chia N 1.

v. S'trnyn?

str

Djebel Mansour N

1 (sfr), Latin parallel

s'tr^

Labdah N 3 Latin name: Saturus.

363

Onomasticon

s‘try Hr. Brighita N 1, Latin parallel: Saturio. Latin name, Saturius, for the reading cf. the remark a.l..

*bdb'l

Sousse N 22, 'bdb*[I]. Semitic construct phrase name, ‘the servant of Bal,’ cf. PNPPI: 229-230, 288-290, 369-372,

s'trnyn? Labdah N 14; Hr. Medeine N 2; Hr. Guergour N 2.

Variant: s“twrnynh, Strnyn’. Latin name: Saturninus. The names derived from the divine name Saturnus are very frequent in North Africa, due to the syncretism of Saturn with Bal Amun, cf. LE GLAY (DCPP s. v. Saturne Africain).

NNPI:

26-27,

45. Although

both

name elements are frequent, this combination is not. It is only attested once in Neo-Punic texts thus far, while PNPPT: 153-154, mentions 3 Phoenician attestations and 19 Punic ones; on the other hand the name “bd’$mn is attested 457 times in Punic according to PNPPI: 150-153. ‘bdkysr

Guelma N 21, ‘bakysr. s‘Idy° Hr. Maktar N 32; 33; 35, Latin parallel Selidiu; 77; 82. Variant: shidy’, sldy”. Berber name attested in different spellings in Berber texts: sLDIU (RIL 269, 586), SLDIH (R/L 780), SLDUH (RIL 454), SLDIH (RIL 929), SLDUH (RIL 684). Possibly related to s/d*m. s'Ikny v. slkny Hr. Maktar N 34. sqnd* Hr. Brighita N |, Latin parallel Secundi. Latin name, Secundus, cf. &hqnd*. srwy Labdah N 64. Latin name: Servius.

Semitic name, ‘the servant of ky$r,’ for which element see s. v. kysr. "bdks* Constantine N 7, °/b] dks. CHABOT (sub Punica xviiv/i 18) wonders whether ‘bdks* might be a fault for *bdksr. See also the remark sub Constantine N 7. *bdk$r Constantine N 25; 50; Guelma N 10; 31, *bdk[s]r. Semitic construct phrase name, 'the servant of kXr,' for which element see s. v. kysr. See also *dksr. *bdmiq Sidi Ali Belkassem N 1. The name seems complete, probably for *bdmiqrt. See also the remark sub Sidi Ali Belkassem N 1.

“bd?

Cherchel N 2. Semitic hypochoristic name

‘bdmlgrt Labdah N 6: [*b]dmiqrt, 9; 10; 13; Tripoli

N 1, *bdml[qrt]; 2, *bdmiqrt; 6, *bdmiq[rt]; ‘bd’Smn Carthage N 11, *bd?[$m]n; 13, *ba?$[mn]; Sousse N 15, *bd?$ [mn]; Cherchel N 1; Constantine N 61; 66; Guelma N 10 (bis). Variant: *bdXmn. Semitic construct phrase name, 'the servant of Eshmun,’ cf. PNPPI: 229-230, 278279, 369—370, NNPT: 26-27, 44.

Carthage N 3; 4, *bdm[l]qrt; Hr. Aouin N 1; Hr. Maktar N 3; 5, *bdml[q]rt; 37; 64, 35; 76, 24; 97; 108; Hr. Medeine N 1; Sousse

N 1 (bis); 13; 16; 17, *bdmlqrt; Tunisia OU N 5; 15, *bdmlqr[t]; Constantine N 42; 47; 57; 61; 72; 73; 79; 80; Pantelleria N 1; S. Antioco N 4 (ter).

364

Appendices

Semitic construct phrase name, ‘the servant of Melgart,’ cf. PNPPI: 229-230, 347,

369-370, ‘bdmlq. “θα

NNPI:

26-27, 46-47.

See also

γί

"brz Teboursouk N 4, *brz/m. Name of unknown origin, for the reading of this name, see the remark al.

"Byz

Carthage N 3; Constantine N 70; 81. Semitic construct phrase name, ‘the servant of Ashtart,’ cf. PNPPI: 229-230, 369-

Sabratha N 2.

Cognomen of unknown origin, cf. however the remark a.l.

372, 386-387, NNPI: 26-27, 47. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS represents this name in Greek as Αβδασταρτος (Contra Apionem 1 122; vari-

“gl

ant reading Αβδαστρατος), but this form of the name may be influenced by the author's Jewish/Hebrew background. Cf. also the

A cognomen of unknown origin. Cf. Hebrew *egel ‘young bull’?

remark s. v. bd'strt.

*gldn Sousse N 22; 24.

Labdah N 51.

"bdspn Labdah N 53. Semitic construct phrase name, ‘the serv-

ber with concluding -n, cf. NNPI: 56-57. Related somehow to ‘g/, or to gld attested

ant of Safun,' cf. PNPPI: 229-230, 369-372,

in KAI 101?

Name of unknown origin, possibly Ber-

401, NNPI: 26-27, 49.

"grypyn *bdrt Coins: / AVGVSTVS Nomen this name, inscription ‘bdSmn

*bdrt; TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F / *bdrt ABDERA; loci, Abdera. For the reading of cf. the remark on the coins with / ‘bart. v. *bd^$mn

u

Labdah N 14, *erypyn[*], 14, ‘grypyn[‘]. Latin name: Agrippina. *dymn Labdah N 9. Most probably a cognomen, and in case it ends in -an, it is probably a Berber one, cf.

NNPT: 201.

Hr. Maktar N 33, *bd$mn; Guelma N 12. *dyt "by

Hr. Meded N 3. SZNYCER (1986: 10) thinks of an uniden-

tified Latin name ending in -ius. VATTIONI (1994: 120) points to Abus (CIL viii 2272) and Abius (CIL vii 27825c). The second proposal seems the better candidate, because

of the regular correspondence of the ending -y in Punic for Latin names ending in -ius. However, we rather think of a shortened form of a Semitic name, beginning with ?b (of which Abius can very well be a Latin adaptation, of course).

f

Ain Zakkar N

1.

See the discussion a.l. dkSr Hr. Bou Atfan N 1. Possibly a lapsus for *bdksr, cf. CHABOT (sub Punica x 1). Note however CHABOT (ibid. note) remarking that the loss of b may be the result of Berber influence on the pronunciation.

"wgsth v. *wgsts Chia N 1, [*]wgsth.

365

Onomasticon

“wgst*

Labdah N 14. Latin name, Augusta.

This name is also attested in Latin script: Aumasgari (dat. CIL viii 2200 (p. 946) = ILA 1 2975 = AE 1979, 681). The first element, /au/, might be the same as Libyan u,

*wgsts

‘son of,’ as attested in the Libyan inscrip-

Labdah N 8; 13; 14 (quater), 14 ([^wes]ts),

tions.

14 (‘wests). Variant: ^wgsth. Latin name: Augustus. Ὑνρδ ἢ

“wrb‘ Hr. Meded N 1, ‘wrb‘/. Reading highly uncertain, cf. remark sub Hr. Meded N 1.

Tiffech N 1. Probably a Berber name with concluding element /-san/, cf. NNPI: 61-64. "wgryn? Teboursouk N 13. Latin name, Augurinus.

‘wrhly Chia N 1. Latin name, Aurelius. *zmlk Dougga N 5. Semitic nominal

sentence

name,

'Milk

‘wth

is strength,’ cf. ΡΝΡΡΙ: 222 (cf. also 218,

Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1. Comparable, perhaps, to “r, perhaps to be compared to the uncertain UTH (RIL 331).

219), NNPI: 24. The two elements (sometimes ?) seem to be connected by a vowel, cf. Αζεμιλκος (ARRIAN ii 24.50), but the name ‘zyb‘/ (CIS 2632) cannot be adduced as proof, as the infixed -y- is probably an indication of feminine gender, cf. VNPT: 42-44.

“wtp‘tn Hr. Drombi N 1. Berber name, ending in -/an, comparable to Altifatan (CoRIPPUS viii 419), cf. NNPT: 11, 58, 90. See also rp'tn. ^wy'ny

Bir Tlelsa N

1.

Latin name: Avianius. Ἄν}

f

Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1.

Name of unknown origin. Perhaps it is a Berber name to be compared to ULH (RIL 748, cf. e.g. FERJAOUI 1995: 65). BERGER (with PoINssoT 1884) thought of the Latin name Aulus. Aula is attested in Hr. Maktar (C/L viii 23444) and Dougga (CIL viii 27347), but Aulus is not attested in North Africa. "wmzgw'r Hr. Maktar N 64, 47; 65; 110, ^wmzgw"[r].

“zy

Constantine N 79. Name of unknown origin. NNPI: 196, rejects a relation with the Semitic name element *z. However, as the ending -y is frequently attested as e.g. a hypochoristic ending, cf. PNPPI: 241-242, and as the pronunciation of this element may have been /-ay/, there is no definite reason to exclude that this name is a hypochoristicon of a name

like ‘zb‘/. ‘zrb‘l

Hr. Kasbat N 2 (bis), Latin parallel Asdrubal (bis); Hr. Maktar N 7; Hr. Medeine N 1; Sousse N 3; 4, ‘zrb‘/; 16; Tunisia OU N 4; 10; Cherchel N 1 (bis); Constantine N 32; 39; 40; 66; 75; Delos N. Semitic nominal sentence name, ‘Bal is succour,' cf. PNPPI: 222, NNPI. 23. The forms of this name from Greek and Latin

Appendices

366 sources

normally

have

/-u-/ between

the

name elements, which makes an explana-

Name (?) of unknown remark sub Hr. Meded N 2.

origin,

cf.

the

tion of the element ‘zr as a verbal form, thus HALFF (1963-1964: 134), awkward; cf. Azrubal (CIL v 4920, vin 16811 = Sidi Youssef N 1, 23875), Azrubalis (CIL v 4920), Azzrubalis (CIL viii 68), Zrubalis (Karthago x 1959, 94), Azdrubal (CIL v 4919), Ασρουβας (Greek historians, for attestations cf. NNPI: 227—228), Hasdrubal (Latin historians, for attestations, cf. VNPT:

‘kbrt f Constantine N 56, *kb/d/rb/d/rtin. Possibly a Semitic one word name, ‘mouse,’ also attested in Punic (C/S 4747, 5699), cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 137), PNPPI: 239, NNPI: 41. The reading, however, remains uncertain.

228). Asdrubal, as in the Latin counterpart

“Ibt

of Hr. Kasbat N 2, also in Justin (xix 1 & 2). PNPPI: 224, explains /-u-/ in these names

Coins: / ?l *Ibt.

Name, related to “/hr.

as suffix 3% person sg. masc. As this suffix rather sounded /o/ than /w/ it 1s strange that no *Azrobal is attested. The only deviating name that probably renders a Semitic ‘zrb‘/ is Οζερβαλος mentioned in WADDINGTON

"bt v. “Ibt Coins: / *IbP?

(1870: 1854d).

Dougga N 4. Possibly a name derived from the root ‘ms, ‘to be strong,’ for which cf. PNPPI: 380. However, in case the names *ms, y^ms, are both verbal forms of this root, one would not expect a fem. formation. When ‘mst is a nominal derivation of ‘ms the name bearer must be a female. See also the remark a.l

"htmiqrt

v. htmlqrt

Sousse N 2, “htmlart. ee

Hr. Meded N 2. Name of unknown origin, cf. the remark

“mst

a.]. and cf. als ‘wth. “ny

‘tr mskr v. htr myskr Hr. Maktar N 65. ‘yg°

Labdah N 2 This name has, until now, found no explanation from Semitic, therefore it is most probably best explained as Berber (cf. per-

haps the uncertain yg’). ‘ykny

Hr. Maktar N 93. Latin name, Annaeus. “nzr Constantine N 59; 88. Possibly a Semitic one word name, ‘wild pig,’ also attested in Punic texts from ConPNPPI: 381. According to SLOUSCHZ TPI 236) *nzr is a variant form of ‘zr.

v. °ykn‘

Hr. Maktar N 40, °ykny. ‘ykn‘ v. ’ykn‘ Hr. Maktar N 77 (bis).

“nt

ny‘

Labdah N 14. Latin name, Antonia.

"ntnynh “y‘Slw Hr. Meded N 2.

Chia N

1.

Latin name, Antoninus.

(sub

367

Onomasticon

‘sly‘n f Wadi el-Amud N 1, ‘s/y‘n/t. Probably a Berber name, ending in -n, cf. NNPI: 56-57; cf. also MASSON (1976:

Cf. FÉvRIER-FANTAR (1965: 55). The name

Arsaces is attested in Karthago viii 1957: 78; cf. also Arsacenis (gen. CIL viii 26887,

27406).

VAN

DEN

BRANDEN

(1977:

63)

55-59).

explains the name as a Semitic one, consist-

ec]

qs, not attested seems probable.

ing of a root “r$ followed by a divine name Carthage N 6. Misspelling of 57.

rst

‘pwP’y° El-Amruni N |

Latin name, Apuleius.

"qptn Constantine N 42. NNPT: 59, mentions this name as a Berber name with ending /-tan/. Note, however, that q 1s infrequent in Berber names. Cf. also the remark sub Constantine N 39. ‘rd Hr. el-Hammi N 1. Name or name element in the combination ’r$ ‘rd. Note that the reading of ’r$ is uncertain. ‘rks Labdah N 44. This cognomen was borne by a man with the Punic name /inb‘/, which leads to the supposition that this is a Berber name, although is has a Latin flavour by seemingly ending in -x. It is, of course, also possible that * is the article, but the meaning of rks then remains obscure.

elsewhere,

rsqs Hr. Maktar N 76, 14. This name has been explained as the rendering of Arsaces, a name of Parthian origin,

hardly

v. rst

Labdah N 46. ‘Sdn

Coins: / *Xdn bl; Asipo / *Xdn bbrl, I $cbel Sdn. Nomen loci, Asido, as is proven by the bilingual text asido / *Xdn b“b“l. The name is also attested in the form “$d“n, and shortened to Xdn. “Sdn Coins: / *Xd*n b'l, Asipo / *Xd'*n bfl. Cf. *Xdn. “Strt

f

Hr. Kasbat N 1, *3rr[t]; Hr. Meded N 26. Female deity, well known, cf. LIPINSKI (1992, s.v. Astarté), in Hr. Meded N 26 called Xt bl, ‘wife of Bal,’ see the remark sub Hr. Meded N 26. "t

Labdah N 45, “Μη. *t may be an abbreviation of a name beginning with * and ending in f, like “bamlgrt, *bd*Xtrt, cf. LEvi DELLA VIDA (1963: 476),

IPT sub 54. ‘rstn Guelma N 26, *rs/stn. Berber name with the ending /-tan/, cf. NNPT: 57-60. For the reading, cf. also the remark a.l.

which

p'lyks v. plks Ksiba Mraou N 2. p'lks v. plks Hr. Maktar N 81.

p’lqy’ Hr. Maktar N 87.

Latin name, Felicio.

368

Appendices

p’It‘k'n Tatahouine N I. A Berber name with concluding /-kan/, cf.

NNPI. 60-61.

phiks

pw Bordj bou Chateur N 1.

p’mp‘y Chia N l. Latin name, Pompeius.

v. plks

Tunisia OU N 19.

Highly uncertain reading, see the remark a.]. pwdns

p’sk’

El-Amruni N 1; Latin parallel: Pudens.

Hr. Maktar N 86. Latin name, Fuscus.

p’rts Hr. Maktar N 83. Latin name, Fortis.

Latin name, Pudens.

pwly Hr. Guergour N 5. Latin name, Pullius.

pwiy“ prtn't

Hr. Maktar N 76, 31, p?rtn'r.

Hr. Meded N 4 (?). Latin name, Pullia; see the remark 8.1].

In case the reading is correct, this name represents Latin Fortunatus.

phl’n

pbly Hr. Guergour N 6; Hr. Maktar N 83; 93; 99, Latin name, Publius.

Hr. Brighita N 1. Probably a Berber name ending in -/an, cf. NNPI: 64-65. Related to pyln ?

pyd’ phdwa‘yh Chia N 1. Latin name, Peduceius.

phly’

S. Antioco N 2, phly”. Probably the Latin name Pul/ius. phlys Chia N 1. Probably the Latin name Felix. RóLLIG (sub KAI 173) notes that the name exhibits the vulgar Latin development of /ks/ > /s/, cf. also AMADASI (1967: 135). FÉVRIER (1953b: 466) has proposed to explain the name as Pullius, which seems 1mprobable as the other Latin names in this text were written without the ending -5; cf. probably also the spelling of this name in S. Antioco N 2 phly".

Hr. Maktar N 101. Latin name, Fidus.

pyl Labdah N 57, py. An unknown name that may be related to the presumably Berber name pyln. pylkys v. pylks Teboursouk N 9. According to FANTAR (1974: 410) the Latin name Felix, which seems, with GARBINI (1986: 57), hardly tenable. pylks v. plks Teboursouk N 6. Note that fi/ix pro felix is attested in ILA 11 326. However, the name easily may be a variant of pylkys. pyln

Labdah N 13: pyln.

Onomasticon

Probably a Berber cognomen ending in -lan, 64-65. Related to plyn or phil*n ?

plk$ v. plks Hr. Brighita N 1, Latin parallel: Felicis.

pyIn Coins: wy't / m‘gr pyln; ! wy't m‘gr pyln; / wy't pyln m'qv; ! m*qr pyln; I pyln m*qr wyt.

pl'wt Labdah N 64. Latin name, P/autus.

According to several authors a nomen loci, formerly read by/n. However, the name

pl’wty

remains without identification, and it is possible that it is rather a personal name, cf. the remark sub wy*t / m*qr pyln.

369

Chia N 1. Latin name, P/autius.

pl’wy

Guelma N 32, pl^wy. Latin name, Flavius.

pyrm’

Guelma N 23. Latin name, Firmus.

plyn Hr. Maktar N 99. Lapsus for pyln ?

plyqr

f

Labdah N 47. Latin name, Felicula. piks Hr. Maktar N 24; S. Antioco N 2. Variants: plks, p?lks, p?lyks, pylks, phlks, phlys. Latin name, Felix. For phlys, cf. supra, the remark s.v.; unconnected seems the name pylkys, for which see the remark s. v.; cf. also the remark s. v. pylks.

plk^y Hr. Maktar N 64, 17. CHABOT, sub Punica iv, liste des noms propres, suggests, with question mark, that this name may represent Latin Felicio (cf. also FRIEDRICH (1953: 106), with the same reservation). Note that Felicius is attested several times in North Africa (CYL vin 1351, 3609, 10662 (= 17602, ILA 1 3862), ILA u 1140). The use of *, normally indicating /a/, however, makes both Felicio and Felicius difficult to accept.

pmytn Ksar Toual Zouameul N 3. This Semitic sentence name, ‘Pumay has given,’ is of the same type as b‘/ytn. The y in

this name is probably lengthened, containing both the concluding consonant of the divine name and the begin consonant of the second element, cf. e.g. pmyytn (CIS 11, 12, JRAS 1960: 111). For Pumay in personal names, cf. e.g. JoNGELING (1984: 47—48). pm“ Hr. Merah N l. Probably a hypochoristicon of a name like pmyytn, pmy3mr, pmyhwy’, or rather the rendering of a name like */pumihawol > */pumiao/, ‘Pumi is alive’ (qal perf. of the root hwy). pntn’ Guelma N 22. Latin name, ROSCHINKSI (1988: 618) renders it with Pontianus instead of Fontanus; AMADASI 2002 renders the name with Pontanus, as CHABOT did in his translation, while, however, he thinks of a Funtanus for Fundanus (attested in C/L viii 5316). FÉVRIER (1955b: 60) represents pnti? with Fundanus (?). All these names, apart from Funtanus, are attested in Latin epigraphy, however, Pontanus is an infrequently attested name.

Appendices

370 pnn

Constantine N 77, pnitn. Probably a Berber name. BERTHIERCHARLIER (sub EH 272) point to FNN (R/L

800), although

in their text edition they

chose the reading ptn instead of prin. In case the reading with 7 is correct, perhaps one may compare Aq0av (SEG 1x 463, AAf x 1976: 56), Αφθανι (SEG ıx 466), as noted by NNPI: 200. See also ?r3tn.

prnkn Bir Bou Rekba N 1. Berber type name

ending

in /kan/,

cf.

NNPT: 60-61.

prtmq' Hr. Aouin, prt[mq?], Latin parallel: Protomacus, Greek parallel: IIowto]uaxoc. Greek name: Πρωτομαχος. prym’

pbyt

ἢ

Tarhuna N 1. For the problems in this text, see the dis-

Labdah N 47; Hr. Guergour N 2; Hr. Maktar N 51. Variant: prmh. Latin name, Primus.

cussion a.l.

p^wit Labdah N 48. LEvı DELLA VIDA (1963: 477, IPT sub 57), supposes an incorrect spelling of the Latin name Plautius, highly uncertain. p’wst’ Hr. Maktar N 24; 76, 19, p^w[sP], 28. Latin name, Faustus.

prmh v. prym? Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1.

prnt Hr. Maktar N 43; 44; 45; Guelma N 23. Latin name, Fronto.

sdq

p'k'y

Labdah N 23; Hr. Maktar N 26; 60; 61; 107; 112; S. Antioco N 1. Variant: s*dq. Semitic name, cf. NNPI: 41, attested in neither Phoenician nor Punic. The name element sdq, however, occurs in sdqmik, cf. also spnysdq.

Ksour N 1. Name of unknown origin, comparable to

sdSmr

p^wst

Ksour N 1, pwsr. Latin name, Fausta.

Pacai in CIL viii 22741. p'$ks*t Hr. Maktar N 111. Berber name with concluding -r ? For this name type cf. NNPT: 81-84.

Labdah N 9. Semitic name, ‘Sid has kept,’ cf. PNPPI: 213, 421-422.

SW Coins: CAESAR / sbrt*n dy sw.

Abbreviated name. prgryn’

Labdah N 53. Latin name, Peregrinus.

sy v.syn’n Coins: sbrt*n gd sy; CAESAR / sbrt*n mn sy.

prhpyg’

sywk

Hr. Guergour N 9, prh[p]yg’. Latin name: Profugus.

Wadi el-Amud N 1. Probably a Berber name.

371

Onomasticon

qwd'rt v. qwdr*t Hr. Maktar N 85.

syn'n

Coins: CAESAR / sbrt*n gdd syn‘n. Name,

also attested

in abbreviated

form

qwdr‘t’

Sy.

Hr. Maktar N 76, 20, qudı“r. smyr'n

Bir Gebira N 1: smyr“n. If the reading is correct most probably a Berber name, cf. also AMADASI sub IPT 81. 5.64 v.sdq Ksiba Mraou N 8.

Variant: qwd'rr Latin name, Quadratus.

The

variant

qwd*rP? is best explained as a lapsus for qwdr*n.

qwynt Tarhuna N 1; Hr. Maktar N 81; Ksiba Mraou

N 3. Variants: qwnt?, qynt.

sp’

Capo di Pula N 2.

Latin name: Quintus.

See the remark al.

spt Labdah N 49: spnit. The name spr (f) ıs attested three times in Punic, according to PNPPI: 178, viz. in

CIS 967, 2535, 3466. Both PNPPI: 400, and Harrr 1963-1964: 141, explain this name as a hypochoristic one based on the root spy, ‘to keep watch,’ or as a fem. derivation of a

hypochoristic name formed with the name element spn. In the latter case, one would expect a masculine counterpart spn, which is, however, not attested. Note that this name is still only based on the list of names published by CHABOT in Punica iv, the texts themselves remain unpublished. sr Sabratha N 4. A Semitic one word name, probably related to the name of the town Tyrus, sr, cf. PNPPI: 238-239, 402. HALFF (1963-1964: 140), rather explains the name as a hypochoristicon based on the root ysr, ‘to form.’ sry Labdah N 37. A name supposedly occurring in this text, see the remark a.l. This name occurs once in Phoenician, cf. PNPPI: 178. Note also sry in Hebrew, 1 Ch 25:3 // ysry ini Ch 25:11.

qwnt v. qwynt Hr. Maktar N 89; 90.

qw'rth Djebel Mansour N 1, [/q]w*r[t]h, Latin parallel Quarta. Latin name: Quarta.

qw'rtyl Hr. Maktar N 84. Latin name, Quartilla.

qytn Guelma N 37. Semitic name, cf. NNPI: 42, derivative of the root qtn, 'to be small,' as the Punic names qti (CIS 619) and qtn[ (CIS 3921), cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 141), PNPPI: 403.

qynt

— v.qwynt

Hr. Aouin N 1, Latin parallel: Greek parallel: Kovivxtoc.

Q(uintus),

qyqi Teboursouk N 12. A comparison with Latin Caecilius is difficult, as FANTAR (1974: 413), notes, who wisely does not choose whether this is a Latin, Punic or Libyan name.

ql”y

Labdah N 5, Latin parallel: Clodius.

Appendices

372

Latin name: Clodius (< Claudius). Cf. NNPI: 107-108, supposing that the two names, indicating the same person, should not be explained differently, as FRIEDRICH-

q’ndd’ Labdah N 9; 10 (bis). Latin name, Candidus.

RóLLIG

q’nkm Labdah N 50: g‘n/tkm. Unknown cognomen.

1970

did (q/^*y

being

a lapsus

for qí?dy and © indicating the diphtongue /au/, and q/?y showing the loss of /d/; cf. also AMADASI sub IPT 12). Two different mistakes by the stonemason should not be excluded: forgetting to write d, and only partly writing the same character. ql^*y

Labdah

V.

ql^?y

N 4, Latin parallel:

Clodi

(gen.),

Greek parallel: Κλωδιου.

q'pt Hr. Maktar N 64, 19 (qrr/pP ); 129. Read g‘pr, the Latin name Capito, with CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1900d: 342), CHABOT (sub Punica iv, Liste des noms pro-

pres), FEVRIER (1956: 28) or read g‘rr, cf. BERGER (1901d: 143, 164), CooKE (1903: 151, cf. however 156: or q*pP = Capito), as a rendering of Latin name Quartus. As Latin qu- is normally expressed by qw- the first reading is to be preferred. For the reading in Hr. Maktar N 129, see the remark al.

qi‘d’ Hr. Maktar N 6, Latin parallel Celadus. Latin name, Celadus. qir

Djebel Mansour N 1 (bis, once gir), Latin

q'qly

parallel Celeris (bis). Latin name: Celer.

Sidi Ali Belkassem N 1. Latin name, Caecilius.

qmd? Labdah N 18 (Latin parallel: Commodus). Latin name, Commodus.

q'$y?

Teboursouk N Latin name, ending -y? and for which see

q'ysr

8. Cassius. Note the unexpected the uncertainty of the reading, the remark a.l.

Labdah N 8; 13 (bis); 14, q*ysr; 14, g’ys[r]; Chia N l. Latin name, Caesar.

qpsy

q’yql‘yn’

qrnt

Rome N l. Latin name, Caecilianus. remark sub Rome N l.

See

also

the

q'Ibkn Teboursouk N 16, g‘/b/d/rkn. Berber name with concluding /kan/, cf. NNPT: 60-61; cf. the remark a.l. q’n’Py

Hr. Maktar N 49. Latin name, Canuleius.

u

Hr. Maktar N 65, qpsy[ .

Hr. Maktar N 12. One may think of the Latin names Corentus, Cornutus, Coronatus, as CHABOT noted sub Punica. xii 13. qrnly Hr. Maktar N 52. Latin name, Cornelius.

qrtgs Coins: grtg$ mbfl.

373

Onomasticon

Possibly a nomen loci beginning with qrt,

‘town,’ followed by an unknown element tes, cf. however the remarks a.!l.

ret

of

Ksour Abd el-Melek N 4; Teboursouk N 9.

Latin name, Rogata. See also the remark sub Ksour Abd el-Melek N 4.

qrtly Tunisia OU N 8. Latin name, Cartilius.

rwp’

Djebel Mansour N 1, rwp?, Latin parallel [R]u[f]o;

Hr.

Guergour

N

4, rw[p?];

Hr.

Maktar N 64, 23.

ret

Hr. Maktar N 64, 45. Latin name, Rogatus.

Variants: rwps, Ips. Latin name, Rufus. For Hr. Guergour N 4, cf. remark a.l.

r’dybt’ Tunisia OU N 2. Possibly the Latin name Redemtus, as proposed by e.g. HOFTIZER (1963a: 93), cf. also the remark a.l. For the use of b to

indicate the sound /m/, cf. PPG? ὃ 38. r’my

Chia N 1 (r?my). Nisbe adjective nomen loci Rome.

derived

from

the Latin

r’m‘n‘

Hr. Maktar N 76, 32 Latin name, Romana.

r'sttyt Hr. Maktar N 76, 27, r?^sttyP. Variant of r?styr??

rwps

v. rwp?

Labdah N 13. ry Dougga N l. Abbreviated name ? Ridaeus ? See also the remark a.l. Perhaps the same abbreviation is to be found on a coin from Ibiza which is inscribed: ry / ?yb$m. ryd‘y El-Amruni N 1: Latin parallel: Rideus; Tiffech N 1. A Latin name: Rideus, which is not attested epigraphically elsewhere ? Cf. also the remark sub El-Amruni N 1.

Hr. Maktar N 64, 29. Latin name, Restitutus.

rm’ Labdah N 14. Latin name, Roma, used in Labdah N 14 preceded by the article, thus used as a common noun.

r’ps v. rwp? Labdah N 16.

rsy Hr. Maktar N 64: 29, rsy.

rgyn’

In case the reading is correct, cf. possibly the Berber name RSy (RIL 371). Cf. also the remark a.l.

r'stytt

Labdah N 51. Latin name, Reginus. rgt

Djebel Mansour N 1, Latin parallel Rogato; Teboursouk N 4; Guelma N 9. Latin name, Rogatus.

rstyq’ Hr. Maktar N 28; 102. Latin name, Rusticus. rs ’dr Coins: /r$ dr.

Appendices

374 Nomen

loci, Rus Addir, modern

Rusad-

dir, ‘the mighty cape.’ Note the well-known classical representations of this name (cf. e.g. M. PonsicH, DCPP, s.v. Rusaddir): Ρουσαδειρον, (variants Ρυσαδειρον, Ρυσσαδιρον, Ρυσσαδειρον)ὴ PTOLEMY iv 1 3, Rhysaddir, PLINY NH v 18, Rusadder / Rusaddi, ItAnt 11, 3-6. The different orthog-

raphies seem to result from two developments, the one leading to the pronunciation /rus addir! (development of a? > à» 0» iin rus/ ), the other to /rasaddir/, with reduction of the vowel in the first syllable. In the latter

case the name has become a compound noun in which the stress on /ru/ is lost. The modern name of the site, Rusaddir, indicates that the first pronunciation was the more successful one, probably because compound nouns were not a common element in the grammar of Punic, even in its latest form. Pwr v. SW? El-Amruni N 1: 3?w?«w?»r?, Latin parallel: Severus. Latin name, Severus. Sb’ Bou Grara N Name

?

name

$b*

f

Hr. Maktar N 57. The feminine name $b“ may be compared to the Hebrew name Sheva. As Phoenician and Punic do not have epenthetic vowels in this nominal type, one would expect an original pronunciation /$ib“/ with loss of /*/ > /$ibl. See also Sbh.

Sb'tn Hr. Maktar N 65, Xb°rn. VATTIONI (1996: 77) explains this name as a derivation of 355, ‘seven,’ relating it to a name $b“f“n, which, however, does not exist, cf. the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 111. Sdby

Labdah N 17. For this possible name, see the remark a.l. Sdbr Guelma N 2; 24. A Berber name related NNPI: 82. See also 3*dbr.

|.

Sbh Dougga N 2. Name of unknown origin, cf. perhaps $°b°, Xb*, SBI (RIL 366). PNPPI: 413, remarks on the Punic

be explained as a berberisation of a Semitic name. The frequent attestation of Spicula (also meaning ‘ear (of corn)’) as a personal name in Latin inscriptions from North Africa favours the traditional explanation.

Sb‘ (only attested once, cf.

PNPPI. 180) that it may be derived from the root Sb‘, ‘to swear,’ or that it may be a misspelling for Sm“.

Sdbr‘t

to dbr“t,

cf.

v. Sdbr‘t

Hr. Maktar N 54.

Sdn Coins: / bel §dn; / Xdn bl. Cf. *Xdn.

Sdrp° Sbit f Guelma N 3; Ksiba Mraou N | This name is also attested in Punic (C/S 5948) and explained as Semitic by e.g. Harrr (1963-1964: 144), ROLLIG (sub Κα] 92), PNPPI: 413, translating it as ‘ear (of corn).' NNP!: 84, notes the possible relation between Xb/t and TSBLT (R/L 110, 322), and opts for a Berber origin. However, TSBLT may

Labdah N 17. Divine name of Semitic origin, Xd + rp’. For the name and the divinity, cf. e.g. LIPINSKI 1992 (s.v. Shadrapha), 1995: 195[99, and litt. mentioned there. Shqnd* f Hr. Brighita N 1, Latin parallel Secunda. Latin name, Secunda, cf. squd*.

375

Onomasticon

Stw'n

The

Hr. Medeine N 1. Probably a Berber name ending in -n, cf. NNPI: 56-57; cf. also MASSON (1976: 55-59). See the remark s. v. $tmn.

EovuoeAnnov (KA/ 159) suggest that the element may be a verbal form, piel 3" sing.

Stmn Hr. Medeine N 1. Probably a Berber name ending in -n, cf.

NNPI. 56-57; cf. also MASSON (1976: 55— 59). Could this name be a variant of $tw“n,

exhibiting the well-known variation between mand w, as described in PPG? § 38, which is

latter name

and

its Greek

rendering

masc., translated as *has given in exchange,

sc. for a dead child’ by HALFF (1963-1964: 77, 141). Note, however, PNPPI: 417, who remarks that the meaning of the piel of $/m in Hebrew is ‘to make complete, to recompense.' The name may also be explained as a noun in a construct phrase name ¥/mb‘l, ‘peace of Bal.’ One should also compare the Hebrew personal name of the one word type: Sallüm.

mainly attested in non-Semitic names.

Sypk

sit? Ellés N 1.

fv.ypk

See the remark a.l.

Sl Arg el-Ghazouani N 1. An abbreviated (?) name of unknown origin.

sid Hammam Derradji N 1, S/d. In case the reading is correct, perhaps a Berber name related to s/dy?. lk Hr. Meded N 3. This name may be a shortened form of any Semitic name containing the element

$Ik. VATTIONI

1994: 120, points to names

from Latin texts like Silec (CIL viii 17300), Sileca (CIL viui 11873), Silecis (CIL vii 16989). Compare further Sileha (CIL viii 11845), Silleha (MAH Ixxxi 1969, 556), the uncertain Sillecas (CIL viii 22644.310). It is,

of course, also possible that the whole group of names represents one (or more) names, cf. SLKH (R/L 1026).

Berber

Slm Constantine N 54. Semitic one word name, cf. HALFF (1963— 1964: 77, 142), PNPPI: 417-418, NNPI: 41.

Smrb‘l Hr. Maktar N 62, Xm[r]b'l. Semitic sentence name, ‘Bal has kept,’ cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 143), PNPPI: 213, NNPT: 20. The name is not attested in Phoenician, but in Punic there are 47 attestations, according to PNPPI: 181. Sms Coins: bqs hmmlkt mqm [X]m[&]; bqs | mqm ms; bqs 1 Sms; [hmm]lkt / mx, hmm | Sms; ml

I m,

mm

I mx; mqm

$m, mqm

| Xm;

/ mqm 3m3; REX IVBA / mgm 3m3, mqm 3ms3 / mqm Sms; mqm $m3 | Sms; $m3 I mqm Sms; Xm[5] / mqm kms, SME I mqm 3m[3]; [ ] !/ sms; 1 [X]ms. The interpretation of $m$ on the coins from Malaca remains a problem; some see

in it the name of the sun-god Shamash, others suppose it is a geographical name, cf. the discussion in MANFREDI (1995: 122, 229). Since names of divinities are rare on coins, the second interpretation seems to be the more probable one. The coins with the text mgm Sms have been related to Lixus, cf. e.g. MAZARD (1955: 189), followed e.g. by MANFREDI (1995: 88-91, 186-187), who

The name may be explained as a shortening

gives a lengthy discussion on the problem in

of a name like X/mb*l (CIS 6011), brlslm (CIS 338, 1248, 3261, 5556), "imnxlm (KAI 159).

which she concludes that the combination of mqm m with Lixus is probable. ALEXAND-

Appendices

376

ROPOULOS (2000 197—198) retains, however,

his earlier point of view that $m$ or mqm $m$ is distinct from Lixus. He remarks that it would be very attractive to think of Volubilis as the place of origin of these coins. It seems that most authors suppose mqm $m$

to indicate the (holy) place of the sun-god Shamsh, which is quite plausible. Speculations whether some town was called thus, because the sun sets in the west, as BONNET has supposed, or the name only indicates

the temple of the sun-god are without much use (cf. MANFREDI

S‘It Coins: / Xt. Nomen loci, Sala. S‘sydw‘sn

Breviglieri N 1: Ssydw*sn/t. Most probably a Berber name of the type ending in /-san/, cf. NNPI: 61-64, id. 1994: xvi-xvil.

Spt

ν. Spt

Dougga N 5.

1995: 89 for references),

especially as long as we do not know for sure

$‘prgm

which town was meant by mqm sms. On the

Hr. Maktar N 50; 64, 21, 36. Variant: fprgm. A Berber name. NNPI: 79-81, supposes that the concluding element -gm is preceded by a divine name. Earlier the same

question, cf. also LiPiNsK1 (1995: 266—268). Ssy‘t Hr. Medeine N 1. Probably a Berber name ending in -t, cf. NNPI: 81-84, who compares, without the ending, sys’y.

conclusion was drawn by FEvRIER (1956:

Sb

28-29), based on the occurrence of Sp‘r in Breviglieri N 1, explained as a nomen dei; cf. also SZNYCER (1986: 22). This explanation is, however, highly uncertain, cf. the

Ksiba Mraou N 8. Name of unknown origin, comparable to the names noted sub $bh ?

VATTIONI (1994: 124), the name is Semitic, a less acceptable explanation.

S‘dbr

Spt

Ksour Abd el-Melek N

1.

Or read sdbrw ? See the remark a.l.

remarks sub Breviglieri N 1. According to

Bou Grara N 1; Hr. Guergour N 9; Constan-

tine N 21; 31; 49; 52; 69; Guelma N 17 (?); Malta N 5.

S‘dbr‘t Guelma N 10; 25. Variants: Sdbr*t.

Berber name ending in -r, cf. NNPI: 81— 84; related to Xdbr, cf. ibid. 82.

S‘tr

v. str

SP Hr. Maktar N 10. Name of unknown origin. The same name appears probably in Latin characters as Salo (CIL viii 20557, 25467). The name Salus (CIL vin 10817, 20495, 20551; BAC 1949-1953: 380 n. 17) could be the same but adapted to the Latin case system.

Variant: pr. Semitic name, shortening which cf. PNPPI: 215, who element Spt in Sptb‘l may be verbal form (qal perfect) or as

of Sprb‘l, for notes that the explained as a a noun (3ipr-).

HALFF (1963-1964: 144), and NNPT: 41, only mention the first possibility. The Latin rendering of this name, Safotis (CIL vin 23997), must be explained as a qal perfect form. The form without the vowel letter, Spr, is frequent in Punic, PNPPI: 182-184 lists more than 335 occurrences.

Sptysr Carthage N 8.

377

Onomasticon

In the Phoenician and Punic material studied by PNPPI: 423, the name element §pt is only combined with 5*7. If the name is of the same construction as 3ptb'l, y3r is to be explained as the name or appallative of

a deity and one could think of ?Xr, whether indicating Osiris or the male counterpart of Ashtart, as mentioned by PNPPT. 280. Another possibility is the supposition that the adjective yXr, righteous, is used as an epithet of a god, although yasar in Hebrew is not used of God.

$rm Constantine N 54. Name of unknown origin. The name is attested once in Punic (C/S 1278) and explained as a misspelling of Sr, cf. HALFF (1963-1964: 144), PNPPI: 185. NNPI: 209, also notes the existence of Berber skm (R/L 655).

Sty Teboursouk N 4. Name ? One may think of a Latin name like Sittius, but cf. the remark al.

$p^w^

tSkmst

Labdah N 55. sidered to be a Berber name by Levi DELLA

Hr. Maktar N 54. Possibly a nomen

VIDA (sub /PT 64).

context.

Sprgm v. Yprgm Hr. Meded N 16.

tbb'

Ssp

NNPI: 84.

Cognomen of unknown origin. It is con-

f

Guelma N 1; 6. Probably a Berber name with initial r-, cf.

Constantine N 8. Probably a Semitic

name,

HALFF

144),

(1963-1964:

loci, highly uncertain

according

PNPPI:

to

425,

and related to the noun ssp, ‘certain type of sacrifice.” The name is attested 23 times in Carthage, see PNPPI: 185. The name element occurs also lengthened with ?, m or t,

and with prefixed ?, °$sp and Sspry. ὅ4]η v. hqin Cherchel N 1. Berber name ending in -/an, cf. NNPI: 64-65. The name has been compared to sgIn (CIS 3472), which CHABOT (sub Punica vit), also proposes to read in Tunisia OU N 4. Sqm‘

Teboursouk N 1, qm. CHABOT, sub Punica xix, compares Sacoma (Corripus viii 594), which, however, is rather to be viewed in the context of names like Sacco, Sacon, Sacconius, and perhaps Saccanis, Sagganis, Saggin, names that are, when explained as Semitic, related to the root skn, cf. VATTIONI (1979: 104).

tbg'g Dougga N 2; 5. Indigenous nomen loci, Dougga. tbrk‘n Coins: mStnsn I tbrk*n. Nomen loci, Tabraca, or a personal name of the type ending in /-kan/, cf. the remarks on the coin with the text mStnsn / tbrk*n. tbrkt Guelma N 39. Most probably to be classified as a Berber name of the type with initial and concluding f, cf. NNPI: 83. Whether it is based on a loaned Semitic name element, viz. brk, or a genuine Berber root remains uncertain. tbrsn Hr. Medeine N 1 (bis). Berber name with concluding /-san/, cf. NNPT: 61-64.

378

Appendices

tgylt Coins: / tgylt. . Variant: telr. Nomen loci: Tagilit, cf. MANFREDI (1995: 119-120). The name occurs also without the vowel marker y: viz. tglt. tglt v. tgylt Coins: / tglt.

tynt f v. tnt Constantine N 33; 56. ty' mr f Hr. Maktar N 55. Since the name was borne by a female and the first consonant is f, one is reminded of a Berber name. Cf. also the remark a.l.

ty'Ity tgrn Coins: / tgrn Nomen loci Tagura ? The reading remains uncertain.

Guelma N 7. If this is a genuine name, the initial segment may be related to the first part of ty'Pmr.

tw‘lb f Hr. Maktar N 56. Since the name was borne by a female and the first consonant is f, one is reminded of a Berber name.

tmd't Coins: / tmdt. Nomen loci, Thamuda. The name occurs also in a shorter form: tmdt, and further abbreviated to rmt.

tzbr

tmdt

Pompei N 2.

Coins: tmdt. See tmd't; cf. also the remark on the coins with the text tmdt.

Nomen loci of unknown origin. tz’bs Tunisia OUN 13. For the reading, cf. the remark a.l. MENDLESON (2003: 48 note 4) compares Thusa-

tmky Coins: / tmky. Possibly the nomen loci Timici.

biae (Karthago vii 1957, 77), which may be related.

tmt Coins: tmt.

tynb

Abbreviated form of tmd‘t.

Hr. Maktar N 76, 29, tynb. Probably a Berber name, to be compared to TINB (RIL 184, 185).

tmtsn

tyng’

tmt$*n Coins: / tmts*n. Probably a nomen loci. tmt$n is a variant of this name, as is probably also "δ...

Coins: / belt tyng?; / mb‘l tyng’?; AVGVST IVL TIN / mb*l tyn[g?]; M AGRIPPA IVL TIN / mbfl

tyn[g?]. Indigenous nomen loci, Tingi. The name occurs also in shorter forms, tng, tg? and

perhaps also in the abbreviated form tm”. Whether ? indicates just a vowel or stands for /o/ remains uncertain.

v. tmts‘n

Coins: / tmtén

tn? Coins: / tm. Probably an abbreviated form of tyng’.

379

Onomasticon

tng Coins: / belt tng; / tng. Nomen loci, Tingi, cf. tyng’.

tsk'l

Hr. Maktar N 100, tsf¢/.

Probably a Berber name with concluding -I, cf. NNPT: 266-269.

tng’ Coins: / belt tng’; / tng’. Nomen loci, cf. tyng’.

tg'r Ksour Abd el-Melek N 3. Name of unknown origin.

tnyt f v. tnt Tirekbine N 1 (bis). tnsmt

Bir Bou Rekba N Il. Place name, probably classical Thinissut,

cf VasseL

1920, cf. also e.g. ROLLIG sub

KAI 137.

t^wnt f Cherchel N 1. Probably a Berber name with initial and concluding r, cf. NNPI: 81-84. t^wn't Hr. Maktar N 85. Name ? See the remark a.l.

tnt f Bir Bou Rekba N 1; Carthage N 3; 6; 10; 11; 12; 14; Constantine N 5; 13; 31, see remark a.l.; 42, tn[t]; 43; 44; 54; 75; 76; 79; 82. Variants: tynt, tnyt. Female deity, in many instances followed

Cynt Coins: “ynt; / tfynt; t*ynt / P.A. VIBI. HABITI PRO.COS;

CAESAR /

fynt;

CAESAR

DIVI

F /

ynt; t*ynt fynt. Nomen loci, Thaena.

by the appellative pn b‘/, cf. e.g. HVIDBERGHANSEN 1979, LIPINSKI 1995: 199-215).

(1992:

438;

id.

tsbI‘ f Hr. Hammam Zouakra N 1. Name of unknown origin. A feminine name with initial ¢- and ending in /-a/ would seem to be Berber. tsd°t v. tsdt Hr. Ghayadha N1. tsdt Guelaat bou Sba N 1. Variant: fsdt. The name is rendered in the Latin part of the bilingual text with Rufo. Note that when this name is explained as of Berber origin, cf. NNP/: 83, one must assume that names with initial and concluding 7 are not necessarily feminine. The name occurs also spelled as tsd?t, and in a Berber text: TSDT (RIL 240).

t'nbr* f El-Amruni N 1; Latin parallel Thanubra. Berber name, cf. NNPI: 84. t'Sdb'r v. t$db'r Hr. Ghayadha N |. tplyl't Hr. Maktar N 100. Berber name with initial and concluding r, cf. NNPI: 82-83. tpm

Labdah N 57: t/np m?. Name of unknown origin. AMADASI (sub IPT 66) thinks the reading with p instead of b more probable. The ending pnr, if read correctly, brings to mind Semitic names with the second element p‘m, but it is difficult to find an explanation of the first letter, ¢ or n, that fits this solution. tpr‘t f Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1.

380

Appendices

Probably a Berber name with intial and concluding t, cf. VNPT: 81-84. tSdb‘r Hr. Meded N 20. Variant: Sdb‘r. Berber name; GHAKI pares TZDBR (RIL 731).

of unknown

origin,

cf. however

Berber names ending in -/. The same name is to be found in R/L 632: TTIFL. For the reading, see the remark a.l. (1985:

175) com-

tSk‘t

Djebel Massoud]

Name

MASSON (1976: 59-60), NNPI: 266-269 on

1.

Nomen loci, most probably of Berber ori-

tt^y Hr. Maktar N 65; 110. Name of unknown origin. Names beginning with a repeated consonant are infrequent. For fry one may in this respect compare fettal in an inscription from Cherchel,

gin, Thusca.

AE 1997 1739.

ttyp‘l Constantine N 74.

Coins: / ttn.

ttS‘n

v. tmts‘n

Vocabulary >

vf.

n. m. sg. abs. ?b Hr. Gen Rieime N 1; Hr. Maktar N 66; + suff. 3 sg. m. ?by? Wadi elAmud N 1; ‘by’ Hr. Maktar N 29 (or suff. 3

sg. f. 2); *bwy' Hr. Guergour N 3; ?b? ? Hr. Djebbara N 12 (?); N 2; pl. + suff. 3 pl. father,

N 1; + suff. 3 sg. f. *by* Guelma + suff. 3 pl. *br?m Wadi el-Amud suff. 3 sg. m.?btm Labdah N 19; + m. ?b*thm Hr. Brirht N 1. pl. parents.

"bn

n. f. sg. abs. *bn Ain Barchouch N 1; Djebel Massoudj | (ter); Hr. Djebbara N 1; 2; Hr. Maktar N 13; 15; 18; 27; 25 Cb[n]); 28; 31; 32 (bis); 34 (bis); 35; 42; 46; 48; 54; 60; 62; 73; 125; 133; Hr. Meded N 5; Hr. Oum Guerguer N 1; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; Ksar Lemsa N 2; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 3; Maghraoua N 2; Tunisia OU N 11; Bedja N 1; Guelma N 5; 6; 10; 11; 12; 14; 15; 16; Hr. Bou Atfan N 1; 2; Ksiba Mraou N 2; 3; 4; 6; 8; 9; 10; Souk Arrhas N 1; Tiffech N 1; *bn Dougga N 3; 4; Hr. Guergour N

1; 2; 4; 5; Hr. Ham-

mam Zouakra N 1; Hr. Maktar N 19; 20; 22; 24; 26; 29; 30; 43; 44; 45; 58; 59; Hr. Meded N 1; 2; 3; 4; 7; 8 9; 10; 16; 17; 24; 25; 27; 28; Ksour N 1; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 2 (see remark a.l.); 4; 5; Maghraoua N 1; Teboursouk N 4; Guelma N 1; 3; 4; 7; 8; 9; 17; Hr. Hammam Zouakra N 1; Kef Bezioun N 1; 2; Khallık N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 1; hbn Hr. Maktar N 14; 23; 33; 50; 55; 63; ?b*n Guelma N 38 (see the remark a.l.); bn Tunisia OU N 17 (see the remark a.l.); ’b Hr. Maktar N 61 (see remark a.l.); hb Hr. Maktar N 16; ’n Hr. Maktar N 17; cstr. ?*bn Sousse N 26 (highly uncertain); pl. abs. ’bnm Bordj Helal N 1.

stone, passim for memorial stone; in Bord] Helal N 1 the plural is used with the same function; in Djebel Massoudj 1 the stone is best described as a mile-stone. It is difficult to decide whether ἢ in hbn is the article, or is used to indicate the vowel /a/, but h’bn being unattested the second solution seems more probable. ’bnt

v. hbnt

"d v. "hd ’dm n. sg. abs. ?dm Constantine N 57; 58; 59; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1. man, human being, bn ?dm, person, Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; in the combination milk ?dm, a molk-offering of a human being, Constantine N 57, 58, 59. *dn n. m. sg. abs. ?dn Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 10; 17; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Carthage N 2; 3:6: 10; 11; 12; DouggaN 1; 2; 5; EllésN 1; 2; Hammam Derradji N 1; Hr. el-Blida N 1; Hr. Ghayadha N 2; Hr. el-Hammi N 1; Hr. Maktar N 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8; 10; 11; 36; 39; 41; 47; 49; 51; 52; 53; 77; 78; 79; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86 587; 89; 90; 91; 92; 93; 94; 96; 99; 100; 101; 102; 103; 104; 105; 106; 107; 108; 109; 110; 111; 112; 114; 115; 116; 118; 120; 123; 124; 126; 127; 128; 129; 130; 132; Hr. Medeine N 1; El Kef N 1; Thibar N 1; Tunisia OU N 1; 2; 4; 5; 7; 9; 13; 14; 15; ConstantineN 6; 7; 8; 11; 13; 23; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 36; 38; 39; 42; 43; 44; 46; 47; 48: 50; 52; 53; 56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 61; 62; 64; 65; 66; 69; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76; 78; 79; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 88; NP 86; Guelma N 20;

Appendices

382

30; 31; Tenes N 1; “dn Carthage N 7; Hr. Maktar N 9; Constantine N 15; 16; 33; NP 86; GuelmaN 18; 19; 21; 22; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 32; “Pn Guelma N 35; hdn Labdah N 3; hdn Constantine N 87; dn Carthage N 14; Hr. Maktar N 38; 88; Constantine N 77; ?n Constantine N 34; Guelma N 37.

lord; used as epithet of a god in Labdah N 10, 17, Bir bou Rekba N 1, Carthage N 2 et passim; in Constantine NP 86 ’dn is

used for the god Bal Amun and once in the form *dn for the goddes Tinnit (cf. however the remark a.l.). 4don can also be used as

"hd adj./num. m. sg. abs.’hd Hr. Guergour N 1; Guelma N 13; Ksiba Mraou N 4; 8; /id Hr. Guergour N 2; *d Hr. Meded N 17; hd Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; d Guelma N 4; f. sg. abs. ?ht Labdah N 13; Djebel Massoudj 1 one, p*mt “sr wht, eleven times, Leptis Magna N 13. "hr n./prep. Labdah N 2; Cherchel N 1. after, afterwards, for Labdah N 2, see the remark a.l.

a divine name, as may be inferred from a Latin text beginning with Adoni Aug(usto) sac(rum) (CIL viii 24031 = ILT 825), and another mentioning Muthumbal Baliathonis Labreconis Thisitanus sacerdos Adonis (CIL viii 1211 (p 2522) = ILT 1188 = /LPBardo 181) (cf. e.g. FANTAR 1990b: 81).

"ht n. sg. cstr. "t Labdah N 15 sister, Pht ?mm Labdah N 15, for the sister of his mother.

"dr adj. m. sg. abs. Bir Tlelsa N 1; Cherchel N 2; Hr. Guergour N 9; Constantine N 52; 53; 70; sg. cstr. ’dr Labdah N 13; 16; 19; pl. cstr. ?dr? Labdah N 19; f. sg. abs. *drt Ain Zakkar N 1; "di? Cherchel N 2 strong, mighty, illustrious; said of gods: b‘l ?dr the mighty Bal, Bir Tlelsa N 1, Hr. Guergour N 9 (cf. Constantine N 52, 53, 70), and of people: hknt ‘drt, the illustrious priestess, Ain Zakkar N 1; substantivised, ?dr *zrm, chief of the “zrm-sacrifices, Labdah N 13, 16 (Latin parallel praefectus sacrorum), 19 (Latin parallel id.); "d? ?lpqy, the notables of Lepcis, Labdah N 19.

uncertain

^w conj. Hr. Medeine N Or.

y n. Ὗ Labdah N 22. island, Labdah N 22, highly interpretation, see the remark a.l.

Ἵ n. pl. abs. ’Im, Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 8; 13, 14 (bis); Cherchel N 2; Constantine

N 50. plur. god, ‘wests bn Im, Augustus son of god, Labdah N 13 (Latin parallel Augustus divi filius (cf. Labdah N 8)); "Im *wgsts, the deified Augustus, Labdah N 14 (bis); in Constantine N 50 ?[m seems to indicate a plural, gods.

Ἵ |

dem. pl. ?/ Bir bou Rekba N 1 (quater); ?" Labdah N 9; Bordj Helal N 1. these. P v. ?l

Ἢ n. m. sg. + suff. 3 sg. m. "hy Palermo N 1; ym Guelma N 10; 11; 15; ‘ym Hr. Maktar N 28; pl. (sg. ?) + suff. 3 sg. m. "y? Labdah N 2. brother.

*In n. pl. abs. ?/nm Bir bou Rekba N 1; pl. abs. ‘lnm Hr. Maktar N 76; cstr. */[^n]? El-Amruni N I (for this reading, cf. the remark a.l.).

Vocabulary

383

god, divine being, in El-Amruni N | in the

forty; ?rb*m w"hd, forty-one, Hr. Guergour

combination */[?n]? r?p?m with Latin parallel D(is) M(anibus). The construct combination is to be understood as an example of a genitivus explicativus, as argued by CLERMONT-GANNEAU (1895: 161); on this word, cf. also JONGELING 2003b. This word also in

N 1, Ksiba Mraou N 8, (cf. Hr. Guergour N 2); *[r]bm wsI$, forty-three, Ksour Abd elMelek N 5; *rbm w*ms, forty-five, Hr. Meded N 24, Guelma N 2.

Constantine N 36 (In) ?

num. + suff. 3 pl. ’rbtnm Wadi el-Amud N I.

"It n. sg. abs. ?/t S. Antioco N 3. goddess. ’m n. sg. cstr. m Labdah N 4, Latin parallel: mater, Greek parellel: untnp; sg. pron. 3 sg. m. ’mm Labdah N 15; Wadi el-Amud N 1; S. Antioco N 2; Cherchel N 1; ?r? Cherchel N 1 (?). mother.

’mny nisbe adj. ? Hr. Maktar N 89. meaning unknown. "nk pron. | sg. nk Hammam Derradji N 1; Constantine NP 86. I, me, for Hammam Derradji N 1, see remark all.

’rb‘t

four. ’rs n.sg.abs. ’rs Labdah N 10; 16; 19 (bis); Ars Ksiba Mraou N 3; pl. abs. ?rst Cherchel N 2; cstr. ’rst Djebel Massoudj 1. earth, Labdah N 10, Ksiba Mraou N 3; country, Labdah N 19, v. hbb; ?rst t$k“t, the

land / region of Tushkat, Djebel Massoudj 1, probably translates pagi Thuscae in a Latin text; for this text and the administration unit pagus, cf. PICARD-MAHJOUBI-BECHAOUCH 1963, MANFREDI (2003: 443—447). E: n. sing. abs. ΓΚ Labdah N 2; Cherchel N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 1; ’y$ Hr. Guergour N 2; cstr. °F Sousse N |. man, husband; in the combination h’s $P, her husband, Ksiba Mraou NI, ’y$/’ Hr. Guergour N 2 (cf. the remark a.l.); ᾿Κ sdn, freedman, Sousse N 1.

*stv. st "sp

nif. pf. 3 pl. n*sp? Ksiba Mraou N 3, n‘sp?. to gather. ’rh‘

num. Labdah N 9, 13; Bir bou Rekba N 1. four; p*nrt ‘sr w’rb Labdah N 13, fourteen times. °’rb‘m num. Djebel Massoudj I; Hr. Guergour N 1; Hr. Maktar N 31; *rbm Hr. Guergour N 2; Hr. Maktar N 26; Hr. Meded N 24; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 5 (*[r]bm); Guelma N 2; Ksiba Mraou N 1; 8.

E: n. m. sing. abs. 7 Guelma N 20 (/P$); 23; Tunisia OU N 3 (/?3); y¥ Guelma N 19 (Ay); 24 (γᾷ); 31 (Ay); ?*y$ Guelma N 27 (/ryS); h$ Guelma N 26 (?h3); Guelma N 34 (53 ); f. sing. abs. 4t Guelma N 18 (A3[t]); 21; 28 (^t); °¥t Guelma N 22; 25; 32 ("3[t]). possibly the same word as in the lemmata ?X, man, and ?st, wife, in the expression bmlk ’$rm I? X Guelma N 20, and, in different spellings, in Guelma N 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 31, 34, and with the female counterpart ?3t, also in different spellings, in Guelma N 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 32. The masc. form ?* seems to be preceded by the article in most instances,

sometimes, however, it is difficult to decide

Appendices

384

how to divide the group of characters. ?y3 in Guelma N 24 may be explained as the word ?f written with a vowel-letter y, as in Guelma

N 27, where the same spelling is attested, preceded by the article: h’y$. However, it is also conceivable, that ? was intended as indication of the article, leaving y$ for the noun. We encounter the same problem with the spelling “$, where * is probably the indication

of the article, although it is just possible that * as a whole renders the word ?3. The same problem presents itself with the fem. forms hst and ‘St. vs

"rm

v. zrm

"St n. f. sg. abs. ”5r Cherchel N 1; cstr. ᾿ξ Labdah N 40; 44; 54; 56; Hr. Maktar N 32; 33; Guelma N 6; “ἔξ Hr. Maktar N 26; 34; 57; Xt Hr. Meded N 26; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 1; Sousse N 2; Ast Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; + suff. 3 sg. m. *Xr[?] ElAmruni N 1; ?sty Wadi el-Amud N 1; ?tm Hr. Brirht N 1 (°$/t]m); Guelma N 1; 3; Kef Bezioun N |. wife. δέν. °S

in, with local meaning: Labdah N 9: 1, b*m ?lpqy, in the people of Lepcis, Sabratha N 2; bkr*b, in the written text, Bir Tlelsa N 1; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Hr. Maktar N 54; with temporal meaning: Labdah N 9: 1; Bir bou Rekba N 1; bst ?srm w^ht, in the year 21, Djebel Massoudj 1; bym im?m wbrk, on a pleasant and blessed day, Dougga N 3, 4 (according to some indicating the day of a child sacrifice), cf. Hr. Ghayadha N 1, Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi N 1, Teboursouk N 1, 3 etc.; bhym, during life, Hr. Maktar N 21, cf. Hr. Maktar 24, 35; with circumstantial meaning, bt?rm, according to its plan, Labdah N 13, 16, Bir Tlelsa N 1; bib tr, with a pure heart, Hr. Guergour N 9, cf. Guelma N 35; *P bbn, he entered (in the family) as a son, 1.6. he was adopted, Labdah N 18; introducing a logical object following *bd Labdah N 19; for Labdah N 6, v. mhy; for Labdah N 10, Hr. Drombi N 1, v. rs?t; for the expression birm btm, see the remark sub Constantine N 58; for bmlk, see the remark sub Constantine N 57; for btm v. tm.

bd

't

prep. Labdah N 18; Bir bou Rekba N with, to.

Ksar lemsa N 1; Sidi Ahmed al-Hachmi N 1; Teboursouk N 1; 3; 4; 556; 7; 8 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 18; 20; Cherchel N 2; Constantine N 46; 50 (ter); 51 (bis); 54; 57 (bis); 58 (bis); 59 (bis); 60 (bis); 89 (bis); Guelma N 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 31; 32; 34; 35; Ksiba Mraou N 3; 6; Chia N 1 (ter).

|.

tvt

b prep. Breviglieri N 1 (quinquies); Labdah N 6; 9 (quater); 10 (bis); 12; 13; 16; 18; 19 (bis); 58; 63; Sabratha N 1; 2; Wadi el-Amud N 1 (quater); Tarhuna N 1; Bir bou Rekba N 1 (bis); Bir Tlelsa N 1 (quater); Djebel Massoudj 1; Dougga N 3; 4; Hr. Drombi N 1 (bis); Hr. Guergour N 9; Hr. Maktar N 21; 24; 35; 54; 64 (bis); 76 (quater); Hr. Ghayadha N 1; Hr. Medeine N 1 (ter); El Kef N 2;

Sousse N l. prep. by the hand of, through. bw? qal. perf. 3 . pl. b’ Bir bou Rekba N perf. 3 sg. m. ’yb’? Labdah N 22. qal. to go; yiph. to bring. bn n. m. sg. N 1; Bir Hr. Gen (bis); 10 (quater); (ter); 8;

1; yiph.

cstr. bn Memphis N 1; El-Amruni Gebira N 1; Breviglieri N 1 (bis); Rieime N 1; Labdah N 6; 7; 8; 9 (ter); 13 (quinquies); 15; 16; 17; 18 19; 23; 28; 39; 58; 63; SabrathaN 4 16; 18; Tripoli N 2; 5; 8; Wadi el-

Vocabulary Amud N | N

(bis); 3 (bis); Arg el-Ghazouani

1; Bir bou Rekba N

|

(7 times); Bir Tlelsa

N 1; Bordj Helal NI (bis); Bou Grara N | (bis); Carthage N 3 (bis); 4 (bis); 5; 11 (bis); 13; 14; Djebel Mansour N 1 (ter); Djebel Massoudj 1; Dougga N 2 (bis); 3 (bis); 4 (bis, see however the remark a.l.); Ghzaizya N 1; Hammam Derradji N 1; Hr. Brirht N 1 (bis); Hr. Djebbara N 1; 2; Hr. Drombi N 1 (bis); Hr. Ghayadha N 1; 2; Hr. Guergour N 1; 3;

4; 6 (bn) 9 (bis); Hr. Hammam Zouakra N | (bis); Hr. el-Hammi N 1; Hr. Maktar N 3; 5; 7 (bis); 8 (bis); 9; 10; 11 (ter); 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 18 (bis); 19; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 32; 33; 34; 35 (bis); 37; 39 (ter); 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 53; 54 (bis); 57; 58; 60; 61; 63 (bis); 64 (31 times); 65 (7 times); 67; 71 (ter); 74; 76 (19 times); 77 (bis); 78; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 90; 93; 94; 95; 97: 99: 100; 101; 102;103; 104 (bis); 105 (ter); 106 (bis); 107; 108; 110; 111 (ter); 112; 118; 119; 123; 128 (bis); 129; 130; 133; Hr. MededN 2 (bis); 3; 5; 6; 7; 9; 10; 11; 12; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 23; 24; 28; Hr. Medeine N | (septiesdecies); 2 (bis); Hr. Merah N 1; Hr. Oum Guerguer N 1; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; 2 (bis); El Kef N 2; Kélibia N 2; Ksar Lemsa N 3; Ksar Toual Zouameul N 1; Ksour N l; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; 3; Sidi Ahmed elHachmi N 1; Sidi Ali BelkassemN 1; Sousse N 3; 4; 9 (bis); 10; 11; 13 (bis); 15 (bis); 16 (6 times); 17; 19; 20 (bis); 21; 22; 24 (ter); 25; Tatahouine N 1 (bis); Teboursouk N 5; 7; 8; 10; 11; 12 (bis); 13 (bis); Tunisia OU N 1 (bis); 3; 4 (bis); 5; 7 (bis); 10; 14; 17 (bis); Ain el-Kebch N 1; Arseu N 1; Bedja N 1; Cherchel N 2 (quater); Constantine N 6; 7 (bis); 8; 10; 11; 12, 15; 19 (bis); 20; 21; 23; 25; 27, 28; 29 (bis); 30; 31; 32; 34; 36; 37; 39; 40; 42 (bis); 44; 45; 47; 48; 40; 52; 54; 55; 57; 58; 59 (bis); 60; 62; 63 (bis); 64; 66; 67; 7] (bis); 72; 74 (ter); 75; 76; 77 (bis); 78; 79 (bis); 80; 81; 87 (bis); 88; 89; GuelmaN 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8; 10; 11 (bis); 15; 16, bn; 19; 22; 23; 25; 26; 31; 36; 37; 38; Hr. Bou Atfan N1; 2; Hr. Hammam Zouakra N 1 (bis); Kef Bezioun N 1; 2; Khallik N 1; Kheneg

N 2 (bis); Ksiba Mraou

N 4; 8; 10;

385

Qalat Abi s-Siba N | (ter); Tiffech N 1; Thamusida N 2; Morocco OU N 1; Pantelleria N 1; Palermo N 1; S. AntiocoN 1; 2; 3 (bis); 4 (quater); "bn Hr. Merah N 1; sg. + suff. 3 sg. m. bn’ Ksiba Mraou N 9; S. Antioco

N 3; bny Palermo N 1; "by Wadi el-Amud N 1; bum Labdah N 18 (bis); Ksar lemsa N 2 (see the remark a.1.); b’nm Qalat Abi s-Siba N 2; bn“ Ksour Abd el-Melek N 2 (uncertain interpretation); pl. cstr. br’ Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 19 (bis); Al-Qusbat N | (uncertain context); Guelma N 10; bn Teboursouk N 4; + suff. 3 sg. m. bny? Labdah N 6; bi?m Wadi el-Amud N 1; + suff. 3 sg. f. b’ny“ Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; + suff. 3 pl. (or sing. ?) m. b*n[m] El-Amruni N I. son; passim; bn bnm, his grandson, Labdah N 18; bn’ “m, citizens (Latin parallel civium), Labdah N 19 (bis); bn X$m st wsls, at the age of sixty three, Hr. Maktar N 35; bn $nt nm, two years of age, Hr. Maktar N 63. bn n. sg. abs. br? Bir bou Rekba N 1; sg. cstr. btn’ S. Antioco N 2. building, construction, S. Antioco N 2; mlkt hbn’, the building work, Bir bou Rekba N 1; for this word, cf. e.g. PPG?, ὃ 83, where it is described as a verbal noun. bny qal pf. 3 sg. m. bn’? Labdah N 10; Hr. Maktar N 64; b'i» Hr. Drombi N | (for the reading, see the remark a.l.); Hr. Kasbat N 2 (or pl. ?); Hr. Maktar N 75; b? Breviglieri N 1; ben Labdah N 7 (see however, the remark a.l.); + suff. 3 sg. m. bny? Hr. Maktar N 65; 3 sg. f. bi? Djebel MansourN 1; 5^* El-Amruni N 1 (Latin parallel fecerunt); 3 pl. bi? Hr. Meded N 26; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; h“n?’ Metameur N 1; inf. br?t S. Antioco N 3; act. part. sg. m. abs. br? Labdah N 15; 22; 58; pl. m. abs. b^nym Djebel Mansour N 1 (see, however, the remark a.1.); bim Cherchel N 2; pass. part. sg. m. abs. bi" Hr. Meded N 26; nif. pf. 3 sg. m. nbn’ Hr. Maktar N 65; f. nbn* Hr. Maktar N 57.

Appendices

386

qal. to build; part. builder; the object is in several cases the object onto which the text has been fixed, as is the case with the mausoleum in El Amruni N 1; the expressed object may be an exedra and portico, Labdah N 10; a memorial stone, Hr. Drombi N 1; nif. fo be built, said of a memorial stone, Hr. Maktar N 57, of a sanctuary, Hr. Maktar N 65. b‘l n. sg. abs. b“/ Guelma N 34; 36; cstr. b°/ Labdah N 13; Carthage N 13 (highly uncertain context); Djebel Mansour N 1; Hr. Maktar N 32; 33; 34; 35; 40; 46; 47; 50; 53; 58; 59; 62; 79; 82; 95; 97; 101; 107; 119; 128; 129; 130; Kesra N 1; Constantine N 27; bl Constantine N 50; pl. cstr. b*? Djebel Mansour N 1; Dougga N 2; 5 ([b]*) ; Ellés N 1; 2; 3; Hr. MaktarN 11; 39; 77; 105; 110; 111; 116; Hr. Meded N 13; 21; 26; Hr. el-Blida N 1; 5*/ Bir bou Rekba N 1. citizen; b‘l gl, citizen of Gaulos, Djebel Mansour N 1; bl? tbe‘g, the citizens of Dougga, Dougga N | (cf. Dougga N 5); br hmkt*rm, citizen of Maktar, Hr. Maktar N 32 (cf. Hr. Maktar N 33, 34, 35 etc.); lord, overseer, b'l §lm, the overseer of the §/m-sacrifice, Labdah N 13; cf. also Guelma N 34, 36 (if not a mistake for ’dn in both instances). b'lt n. sg. abs b“lr coins: / b“lt; cstr. coins: / b/t tyne’, | belt ing, / belt tng’. probable meaning civil administration, cf. mb*rl. b‘n

v. bn.

b't n. sg. b*t Al-Qusbat N 1. word of unknown meaning, in Al-Qusbat N11.3 possibly to be connected to P't, tariff, list, cf. also the remark sub Al-Qusbat N 1.

bry’t n.sg. ? Labdah N 2. word of unknown meaning N 2, see the remark al.

in Labdah

brk v. gal perf. 3 sg. m. brk Carthage N 2; + 3 sg. m. br? Labdah N 10; Carthage N 8; 9; Dougga N 1; Ellés N 1; Ghzaizya N 1; Hr. Ghayadha N 1; 2; 3; Hr. Maktar N 1; 8; 10; 12; 40; 47; 49; 51; 52; 53; 78; 79; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 92; 93; 94; 99; 100; 101; 102; 103; 104; 106; 107; 108; 113; 114; 115; 118; 123; 126; 128; 129; 130; 132; Hr. Meded N 11; 20; El Kef N 2; Teboursouk N

10; Thibar N

1; Tunisia OU

N

1; 2; 4; 7;

8; 14; ConstantineN 1; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 15; 16; 17; 20; 25; 28; 29; 30; 32; 33; 34; 36; 38; 39; 42; 44; 47; 48; 52; 55; 57; 58; 59; 60; 61; 62; 65; 66; 69; 72; 74; 75; 77; 78; 79; 80; 88; 89; Kheneg N 2; Oudjel N 1; Ténes N 1; b‘rk Hr. Maktar N 9; Hr. Meded N 23; Ksiba Mraou N 7; Tunisia OU N 6; bi*k’? Guelma N 31; bhrk’ Constantine N 87; misspellings or misreadings wrk’ Hr. Maktar N 7; bdk? Hr. Maktar N 5; brk* El Kef N 1 (cf. the remark a.l.); brk Hr. Ghayadha N 5; + 3 sg. f. bri? Carthage N 7; Hr. Maktar N 2; Tunisia OU

N 5; 13 (brk’); brkm Constantine N 56; + 3 pl. m. brkm Dougga N 2 (brk[m]); Ellés N 2; Hr. MaktarN 11; 39; 77 (bis); 105; 111; 116; Hr. Meded N 21; Hr. Medeine N 1; brkn Hr. Maktar 110; impf. 3 sg. m./pl. + suff. 3 sg. m. tbrky’ Constantine N 54; pass. part. sg. m. abs. brk Dougga N 3; 4; Hr. Ghayadha N |; Kesra N 1; Ksar Lemsa N 2; Sidi Ahmed elHachmi N 1;Teboursouk N 1; 3; 5; 6; 7; 11; 12; b’rk Ksar Lemsa N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 7; Teboursouk N 4; 8; 9; 10; 13 (b“r[k] ). qal. to bless, Labdah N 10 et passim; bym nm wb‘rk, on a favourable and blessed day, Ksar Lemsa N 1, cf. Hr. Ghayadha N 1, Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi N 1, Teboursouk N 1, 3 etc.

br

n. sing. abs. br Kélibia N 2; b?r Chia N 1; pl. abs. bhrm Chia N

1.

cistern, Chia N 1; tombal pit, Kélibia N 2.

bsm n. sg. abs. b$m Bir Tlelsa N 1. perfume, as an offering Bir Tlelsa N 1.

387

Vocabularv b$r n. sg. + suff. 3 sg. m. birm Constantine N 58; 60, bXrm; 89; b§rm Constantine N 57; 59. word of uncertain interpretation in the combination b3(*)rm btm see the discussion sub Constantine N 57. The same expression perhaps in Hr. Kasbat N 1 bS/ ]b*tm. bt n. sg. cstr. bt Labdah N 4, Latin parallel: f(ilia), Greek parallel: @vyatnp; 15; 27; 32

(bt) 47; Tarhuna N 1; Wadi el-Amud N 1

LEvı DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (1987: 64), KRAHMALKOV (2000, s.v. gnn) = to cover, which seems the more likely translation,

in view of the Latin parallel colvmnas cvm svperficie. 52 n. sg. abs. g^: Sabratha N 1 possibly carver, see the remark a.l.; to be compared to gyz in Sabratha N 2 ?

(bis); Ain Zakkar N 1; Bordj bou ChateurN 1; Carthage N 2; Djebel Mansour N 1; Hr. Brirht

dbr n. pl. cstr. db? Labdah N 18. affair, dbr? bt, the affairs of the house,

N 1; Hr. Guergour N 1 (bf); 2; Hr. Hammam

Labdah N 18.

Zouakra N 1; Hr. Maktar N 4; 17; 20; 22; 26; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 55; 56 (bis); 57; Hr. Meded N 25; 27; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; Ksar Lemsa N 1; Ksour N 1; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; Sousse N 2; 15; Teboursouk N 9; Bordj Bou Chateur N 2; Tunisia OU N 9; 11 (bis); 13; 20; Cherchel N 1; Constantine N 56; Guelma N 3; 9; 14; 39; Hr. Bou Atfan N 1; Kef Bezioun N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 3; 5; Volubilis N 6;

b¢t Hr. Maktar N 2; Tunisia OU N 5; + suff. 3 sg. m. b? Guelma N 38. daughter; bt X*nt wsb‘, at the age of twenty seven, Hr. Maktar N 56, cf. Ain Zakkar N 1, Tunisia OU N 11; bt mnm St, at the age of eighty, Cherchel N 1. bt n. sg. abs. br Labdah N 18; 22; pl. + suff. 3 sg. m. br’y Breviglieri N 1 (uncertain interpretation, cf. the remark a.l.).

house, family. gyz

v. gZ

gm n. sg. abs. em Cherchel N 2 majesty ? gnn yiph. perf. 3 sg. m. ygn Labdah N 18. verb of unknown meaning, LEvi DELLA ViDA (1964c: 402), possibly = to repair, cf., however, RóLLIG (sub KAI 124), cf. also

dwh / dhy / dhh / ndh ? yiph. 3. sg. to N 58

perf. 3 sg. m. ’ydh Labdah N 58; yuphal f. "dht Sabratha N 2 remove; see the remarks sub Labdah and Sabratha N 2.

dh? n. sg. abs. dir’ Sabratha N 16. libation; ks dh’, libation bowl, Sabratha N 16. dl prep. Hr. Maktar N 27; 64 ?; Cherchel N 2; Qalat Abi s-Sba N 1 (bis). with, dl m n“m Hr. Maktar N 27, with a good name; dl *trt wdl §m fsmt, with a crown and with a name of heroism, 1. e. honoured and famous, Qalat Abi s-Siba N I. dit n.pl.abs. d/hr Labdah N 14. door; dlht € nh$t, bronze doors, Labdah N 14. dn'ry? n.sg./pl.abs. (cf. the remark sub Labdah 9) Labdah N 9 (ter). denarius (« Latin). d't n. f. sg. cstr. (? see below) d*t Labdah N 16; 19.

Appendices

388

knowledge, d‘t htmt, perfect knowledge, Labdah N 16, 19 (Latin parallel, concordia); d‘t htmt may be a construct state connection, it is, however, also possible to explain trt as an adjective, in which case d“r is in the absolute state; for the combination of a noun without the article, followed by an adjective with the article, cf. ?/nim hqdm ?l, these holy gods, KAI 14. dr

hik v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. */k Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; inf. cstr. + suff. 3 sg. m. /ktm Qalat Abi sSiba N I. to go; w*Ik Iktm, he goes his way (uncertain context), Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1. hlk n. sg. abs. (or qal part. act. m.g. abs. of /ilk, to walk ?) ?lk Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1. traveller

n. sg. + suff. 3 sg. m. dr? Hr. Gen Rieime N 1; Ain YoussefN 1; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1;

+ suff. 3 sg. f. d? Cherchel N 1. family, skr: [sk]r (1. e. built Qalat Abi

mainly in the combination with dr, the memorial of his family by them), Hr. Gen Rieime N 1, cf. s-Siba N 1.

drt n. sg. / pl. abs. drt Hr. Maktar N 64. Word of unknown meaning, see remark a.l.

hnkt adv. Hr. the

N 33. in the same syntagm as ?bii 32; see remark sub Hr. Maksame word meant in Ksar

Lemsa N 3, spelled ”bnt (both reading and interpretation uncertain).

hy pron./dem.

N 76 she, that.

sg. f. Labdah

Maktar

N

32;

33;

34;

35;

Kef

Bezioun N 1; 2; /in*kt Qalat Abi s-Siba N 2

h article ἢ El-Amruni N 1; et passim; ? Hr. Maktar N 9 (see the remark a.l.); 40; 43; 45; 51; 79; 82; 119; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; El Kef N 2; Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi N 1; Sousse N 2; Teboursouk N 10; Cherchel N 2 (bis); Constantine N 39; Ksiba Mraou N 3; S. Antioco N 2; * Chia N 1; // Labdah N 14. the; note /hbt, to the temple, Labdah N 22, b’mqm, in the place, Ksiba Mraou N 3; Ymmqm, of the place, Chia N 1. hbnt hbnt Hr. Maktar A word, used in Hr. Maktar N tar N 32. Is the

hn decitic adv. ?n Ksiba Mraou N 3; ?m Hr. Maktar N 76. behold! the context of Ksiba Mraou N 3 is uncertain.

N 9; Hr. Maktar

(uncertain interpretation). here. Ww El-Amruni N 1; Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 10 (ter), passım. copula, and; connecting two nominal constituents, f *ksndr* w t “rpt st Labdah N 10, cf. also Labdah N 9; connecting two verbal constituents, bi? w ?yqds, Labdah N 10; on tombstones, introducing a new clause which indicates the age of the deceased: rn? *bn z lplks ... wkn $nt $I$, this stone was erected for Felix ... and he was three years, Hr. Maktar N 24; tnh ‘bn z lzlk* ... ww“ X'nt, this stone was erected for Z. ... and she lived (number) of years, Hr. Maktar N 30; comparable is the construction in which the age indication is nominal in character: ‘hn wbn Xm Xt wsls, he was laid to rest, and his age was sixtythree, Hr. Maktar N 35; introducing the verbal form in the concluding formula of votive texts in Guelma: wn?’ ?t qwP, and he heard his voice, Guelma N 20.

389

Vocabulary wrdm word of unknown meaning and uncertain reading in Hr. Maktar N 58 (see the remark a.l.) and 59. Ζ dem. sg. z Labdah N 17; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Djebel Mansour N 1; Djebel Massoudj 1 (bis); Hr. Djebbara N 1; Hr. Hamma Zouakra N 1; Hr. MaktarN 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34 (bis); 42; 46; 48; 50; 54; 55; 56; 57; 58; 60; 61; 62; 125; 133; Hr. Meded N 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8; 9; 10; 16; 17; 24; 25; 27; 28; Hr. Oum

Guerguer N 1; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; Ksar Lemsa N 3; Ksour N 1; Ksour Abd el-Melek N3;4; 5; Maghraoua N2; Tunisia OUN 11; 17; Bedja N 1; Guelma N 1; 3; 4; 6; 8; 10; 11; 12; 14; Hr. Hammam Zouakra N 1; Kef Bezioun N 1; 2; z Hr. Maktar N 20. this. There is no reason to suppose that ?z

is an orthographical variant of z occasioned by a initial consonant cluster /zd/ as supposed by e.g. KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. 2);

a development /zV #C/ > /z #C/ > /Vz ΠΟΙ, where the vowel following z has already been shortened in a position without stress, seems more probable.

some type of vessel; cf. also the remark sub Bir bou Rekba N 1. Zr* n. sg. abs. Hr. Maktar N 76. seed, progeny. hbb v. yiph. part. m. sg. abs./cstr. mhb N 16; 19 (ter).

Labdah

to love; mhb d't htmt, who loves the perfect

knowledge (Latin parallel amator concordiae), Labdah N 16, 19; mhb ?rs, who loves the country (Latin parallel amator patriae), Labdah N 19; mhb bi? *m, one who loves the sons of the country (i.e. the citizens; Latin parallel amator civium), Labdah N 19.

hbr n. pl. + suff. 3 pl. m. hbrnm

Hr. Medeine

N. colleague

hdr n. sg. abs. hdr Cherchel N 2. chamber.

hd§ v. pi. 3 sg. m. hyd$ Bir Tlelsa N 1.

zbh v. qal. pf. 3. sg. zbh Hammam Derradji N 1; Constantine N 44; Guelma N 20; 31; zb?

Guelma N 21; 32 (zb? ); z°b’h Guelma N 35; z°b? Guelma N 19; 26; 27; zwb[*] Guelma N 18; zwb Guelma N 25; zb Guelma N 34; 3 pl. zb/? Dougga N 5.

to sacrifice, slaughter. zbh n. sg. (or qal part. act. of zbh, cf. e.g. SZNYCER 1978: 590) abs. zbh Labdah N 13; 16 (Latin parallel famen); 19 (Latin parallel id.); Hr. Medeine N 1; pl. abs. zbhm Labdah

N 13. sacrificer.

to renew.

hwy v. qal. perf. 3 sg. m. hw” Hr. Gen Rieime N 1; Hr. Guergour N 6; Hr. Bou Atfan N 2; *w? Hr. Guergour N 4; Hr. Maktar N 18; 19; 27; 43; 44; 45; 50; Hr. Meded N 18; Hr. Merah N 1 (bis); Ksour Abd el-Melek N 3; Tunisia OU N 19; Bedja N 1; Guelma N 2, 4; Hr. Bou Atfan N 2; Kef Bezioun N 2; Ksiba Mraou N 4; 8; 9; 10; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; 2; Souk Arrhas N 1; ‘wh Hr. Brirht N 1; Hr. Maktar N 25; Hr. Meded N 7; 17; 24; ‘w* Hr. Guergour N 3; Hr. Meded N 1, ‘w*; 2; 6; 16; Hr. Oum GuerguerN 1 (*/w/^); Guelma N 16; ‘wh Hr. Meded N 28; 3 sg. f. Aw? Djebel Man-

sourN 1; Hr. GuergourN 1; Hr. MaktarN 32; zbr n. pl. abs. zbrm Bir bou Rekba N

1.

Kef Bezioun N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 1; hw“ Hr. Maktar N 26; hw“ Hr. Maktar N 34; ^w? Hr.

Appendices

390

Brirht N 1; Hr. Maktar N 21; 22; Guelma N 1; ey“ Hr. Maktar N 17; 20; 30; 33; 57; 73; Hr. Meded N 25; 27; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; 5; Guelma N 3; Hr. Bou Atfan N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 3; 5 (‘w/*/); */*w* Hr. Guergour N 2; ‘wh Hr. Maktar N 31; wh Ksour Abd el-Melek N 4; 3p. sg. m. or f. *w* Hr. Brirht N 1. to live.

fifty; hm&m wslI$, fifty-three (Latin parallel liii), Labdah N 17; ‘msm δἰ, fifty-three, Hr. Meded N 7; ‘mm w*ms, fifty-five, Hr. Maktar N 44; ‘mS w*ms Hr. Merah N |. hn n. sg. abs. in Constantine N 23 (bis).

grace.

hsrt

hy

n. sg. abs. hsrt Hr. Maktar N 75; cstr. hsrt Labdah N 14 (/h]srt ); sg / pl. abs./ cstr. hsrr Hr. Maktar N 64. court; [h]srt hmgd$ Labdah N 14, the

adj. sg. cstr. hy Cherchel N 2; pl. abs. hym Cherchel N 1 (?); 2. living.

court of the sanctuary; hsrt

hym

$ mhqm

Hr.

Maktar N 75, the court of the (holy) place; for hsrt phnt Hr. Maktar N 64, see the remark

n. pl. abs. hym Hr. Maktar N 21; 35; Hr. Bou Atfan N 2 (see the remark a.l.); ^ym Hr. Maktar N 24; life; bhym, during life, Hr. Maktar N 21, cf. Hr. Maktar N 24, 35.

hrpt

v. *rpt

hs

hyt

n. sg. cstr. hyt Wadi el-Amud N 1; + suff. 3

interj., Wadi el-Amud N alas.

1.

sg. m. hytm Labdah N 19; + suff. 3 pl. m. hytum Wadi el-Amud N |. life; kl hytm, all his life (Latin parallel semper), Labdah N 19.

v. qal part. sg. m. abs. h$b Cherchel N 2. to think, to devise.

hib

hms

htm

num. Ams Labdah N 13; Al-Qusbat N 1; Hr. Guergour N 3; 6; Hr. Maktar N 32; 33;

v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. htm Labdah N 18. to seal, to complete.

Hr. Bou Atfan N 2; Ksiba

Mraou

N 3; 5; 9

({h]ms); “m$ Hr. Maktar N 17; 21; 44; Hr. Meded N 16; 24; Hr. Merah N 1; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 2; 4; Bedja N 1; Constantine N 88; Guelma N 1; 2; 3; 5; 16; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 2. Coins: hms / wy*t (cf. the remark a.l.). five; bhmás, in the fifth (year), Constantine N 88.

thr adj. sg. m. abs. tr Hr. Guergour N 9; rr Guelma N 35. pure, blb tr, with a pure heart, Hr. Guergour N 9, cf. Guelma N 35.

thrt n. sg. abs. Cherchel N 1. purity.

hmsm num. /imi$m Labdah N 9; 17; Hr. Maktar N 19; 50; Cherchel N 1; ‘mm Djebel MansourN

|

tysm

v. {δ πὶ

(‘m&m); Hr. Maktar N 44; Hr. Meded N 7;

tn’

Hr. Oum Guerguer N 1 (/*/minm); Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; “ms Hr. Merah N |.

v. qal / pi. pf. 3 sg. m. tn’ Tarhuna N 1; Djebel Massoud) |; Hr. Djebbara N 2; Hr. Guergour

391

Vocabulary N 1; Hr. Maktar N 28; 54; Ksar Lemsa N 3; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 2; Teboursouk N 1; 7, 11; 14; Cherchel N 1; 2; Guelma N 7; 10; 11; 12; 14; tyr" Labdah N 15; 17; Hr. Guergour N 2; 3; Ksour N 1; Teboursouk

bara N 2 et passim; in Bordj Helal N I the subject is a pl.: μ᾽ "bum ?P these stones were erected. t5°m

N 5; 6; 8; 10; 12; Guelma N 15, tym; Ksiba

num.

Mraou N 1; 9; Tiffech N 1; S. Antioco N 3; 4; tyn Guelma N 38; tn* Hr. Maktar N 29; 3 sg. f. tn’? Dellys N 1; rn“ Teboursouk N 9; Guelma N 9; rn” Teboursouk N 3; 3 sg. or

N 18.

pl. Djebel Massoudj

1; pl. ? tny? Qalat Abi

s-Siba N 2 (or sg. m. * suff. 3 sg. f. ?); qal

fyim

Hr.

Maktar

N

21;

Hr.

Meded

ninety. y

inter). (voc. particle) y’ Qalat Abi s-Siba N oh!

|

pass. part. sg. f. abs. trı’r Hr. Maktar N 54 (or pu perf. 3 sg. f. Ὁ); pl. m. rmm

Chia

N | (ὦ); pu. pf. f. 3 sg. tn’ Ain Barchouch N 1; Dougga N 3; 4; Hr. Djebbara N 2; Guergour N 4; Hr. Maktar N 13; 14; 15; 22; 23; 24; 26; 27; 31; 32; 33; 34; 42; 46; 48; 50; 55; 59; 60; 61; 62; 63; 73; Meded

N

Hr. 19; 45; Hr.

pl. cstr. yd? Hr. Maktar N 76. hand. yll v. pu. part. sg. abs. ? myll Cherchel N 2.

to be regretted.

1; 5; Ksar Lemsa N 2; Ksour Abd

el-Melek N 5; Sousse N 9 (context uncertain); Tunisia OU N 11; 17 (see the remark a.l.); GuelmaN 1; 8; 10; 11; 12; 14; 15; Kef Bezioun N 1; 2; Ksiba Mraou N 1; 10; im“ Hr. Maktar N 58; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 3; Bordj Bou Chateur N | (uncertain context); tnh Hr. Maktar N 25; 30; i^m Hr. Guergour N 1; Hr. Hammam Zouakra N 1; Hr. Maktar N 18; 20; 28; 29; 125; Hr. Meded N 2; 4; 9; 10; 17; 28; Hr. Oum Guerguer N 1; Tunisia OU N 12; Guelma N 7; Hr. Bou Atfan N 2; Hr. Hammam Zouakra N 1; Souk Arrhas N 1;

S. Antioco N 4 (bis); n° Hr. Guergour N 2; 5; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 4; Maghraoua N 2; Teboursouk N 4; Bedja N

yd

1; Guelma N 3; 4; 6; Ksiba Mraou N 2; 3;

4: 5; 8; 9; nh Hr. Meded N 12; 16; 24; 27;

ym n. sg. abs. ym Dougga N 3; 4; Hr. Ghayadha N 1; Kesra N 1; Ksar Lemsa N |; Sidi Ahmed el-Hachmi N 1; Teboursouk N 1; 3; 4; 5: 6: 7; ὃ: 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 17; 18 (ym ); 20; Constantine N 46; 68; Ksiba Mraou N 7;

pl. abs. yrım Hr. Maktar N 66. day, in the combination ed hymm, Fortune of Days, Hr. Maktar N 66; bym n“m Hr. Ghayadha NI, Constantine N 46, Ksiba Mraou N

7, etc., on a favourable day; with-

out the introductory preposition: Kesra N 1. ysr n. sg. abs. ysr Hr. Maktar N 79. potter.

i^n Hr. Maktar N 43; 56, rn; t?n Hr. Maktar N 17 (or rather (^); in Hr. Maktar N 133; Hr.

Meded N 3; 8; r? Hr. Maktar N 16; 3 pl. rn? Bordj Helal N 1; imperf. 3 sg. m. * suff. 3 sg. m. yu’ Sousse N 1. qal / pi. fo erect; the object (expressed or not) may be a statue, Labdah N 17, a memorial stone, Labdah N 15, Hr. Djebbara N 2 et passim; pu. to be erected; the subject (expressed or not) may be a memorial stone, Ain Barchouch N 1; Dougga N 3; Hr. Djeb-

yrh n. sg. abs. yrlı Al-Qusbat N 1; cstr. yt bou Rekba N

1; Hr. Medeine N

Bir

I.

month; yrh mp“ lpny, the first month Mappa, Bir bou Rekba N |; in Al-Qusbat the context is highly uncertain. ySb n. pl. y$bm Labdah N 9 (bis). seat, bench.

392

Appendices

ysm num. Hr. Meded N 28. lapsus for t3m ? ysr

v. yif. part. sg. m. cstr. mysr Cherchel N 2; f. abs. mhs*rt Hr. Maktar N 21. to do justice, Cherchel N 2; to be honest, Hr. Maktar N 21, see the remark a.l. ytn

is thought possible by LEvı DELLA VIDA (1935: 27-28), LEvI DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (1987: 59)); Cherchel N 2; kbd S. Antioco N 2. honour, skr kbd, honourable memorial, Labdah N 15, cf. Cherchel N 2. kd n. sg. abs. kd Al-Qusbat N 1 amphora; see the remark sub Al-Qusbat

NI

v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. ytn Hr. Aouin N 1; 3 pl. ytr? Labdah N 19; Hr. Medeine N 2; y'ti? Hr. Maktar N 76 (bis); niph. perf. 3 pl. ntn Bir bou Rekba N 1. qal. fo give; probably with object in Hr. Aouin N 1; with following inf. to permit Labdah N 19; niph. to be given, nntn ?t ..., they were presented to ..., Bir bou Rekba

N 1; the niph. is derived from the root ntn

khn n. sg. abs. khn Hr. Medeine N 1; Hr. Maktar N 10; Constantine N 57; k“n Constantine N 61; Malta N 22; 25 (uncertain reading); pl. abs. khnm Bir bou Rekba N 1; khnym Cherchel N 2. priest, hrb hk*n Constantine N 61, the high priest.

rather than yt. ytn n. sg. y°tn Hr. Maktar N 76 (bis). presentation, see the remark a.l. k conj. k Labdah N 10; Hr. Maktar N 41; Tunisia OU N 14; Arseu N 1; Constantine N 16;

29; 31 (k); 34; 38; 40; 42; 58; 62; 66, k; 75; 76; 80; Tenes N 1; & Hr. el-Hammi N 1; Hr. Maktar N 53; Hr. Medeine N 1; Constantine N 11; 48; 57; 59; 60; 64; 68; 77; 78; 79; 89; k* Hr. Maktar N 11; 39; 47; 49; 51; 52; 77 (bis); 78; 79; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 91; 93; 96; 98; 99; 100; 101; 102; 103; 105; 107; 108; 109; 110; 111; 112; 116; 118; 120; 121; 123; 124; 126; 128; 129; 130; 132; Tunisia OU N 1; 2; Constantine N 69; kh Tunisia OU N 7; kh Hr. Maktar N 2; 10; 104; 115; Tunisia OU N 15. see also ky. because, passim in the construction k $m‘ qP, Labdah N 10.

kbd n. sg. abs. kbd Labdah N 15 (thus rather than supposing kbd to be an adjective, as

khnt n. f. sg. abs. knt Ain Zakkar N 1; Djebel Mansour N 1; Hr. Maktar N 64, 45; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; &*it Constantine N 62. priestess; hknt *drt, the illustrious priestess, Ain Zakkar N 1 (cf. the remark a.l.); in Djebel Mansour N 1 the word following hknt is only partly preserved, and it 15 unclear which element, if any, corresponds to the adjective in the Latin parallel: sacerdos magna. kwlb n. pl. abs. kw/bm Hr. Maktar N 76 column ?? kwn v. qal. perf. 3 sg. m. kn Hr. Maktar N 24; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1 (uncertain context); f. kn“ Ain Zakkar N 1; 3 pl. kn’ Labdah N 9; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Hr. Maktar N 76; impf. 3. sg. f. tkn Teboursouk N 5; inf. cstr. kn Labdah N 2; Al-Qusbat N 1; Constantine N 50 (?); S. Antioco N 2. qal. to be; kwn *l, to be over (1. e. in charge), to be an overseer, Bir bou Rekba N l.

Vocabulary

393

kh Malta N 8; 9; 10; 24 (in all attestations reading uncertain). strength.

ks n. sg. cstr. ks Sabratha N 16 bowl

ky

n. pl. abs. ks?t Labdah N 14, see the remark

? conj. Hr. Maktar N 76. because (uncertain interpretation).

a.l.

kkr n. pl. cstr. kk? Al-Qusbat N 1 talent (weight).

k'v.k

ks?

seat, throne.

kl n. m. sg. abs./c. kl Labdah N 2; sg. cstr. kl Labdah N 19; Hr. Maktar N 76 (bis); Chia N 1. each, every, all; for Labdah N 2, see the remark a.l. km

k's v. qal (?) perf. 3 sg. m. k*s Labdah N18. verb of unknown meaning, k‘s Ip“! Labdah N 18 probably corresponds to the Latin parallel f(aciendum) coeravit; cf. the remark a.]. kpr n. sg. + suff. 3 pl. kprm Teboursouk N 5 (?) expiation.

prep. Bir Tlelsa N 1; Hr. Maktar N 76, km. as; km bkt‘b slm, as in the design, Tlelsa N 1.

Bir

kmr n. sg. ΠΡ]. cstr. kmr Hr. Medeine N | priest (of a foreign god). kn coni. kn Hr. Maktar N 5; 7; 36; Tunisia OU N 5; khn Hr. Maktar N 8. because, only attested reduplicated, introducing the construction 3m* qP br&. kndr word of unknown meaning in Labdah N 9 (bis), probably indicating a monetary unit, for the reading and interpretation see the remark a.l. knswF't n. sg. abs. Answi*t Hr. Maktar N 76 (bis). consulate (« Latin consulatus). knt

v. khnt

kry v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. kr? Sabratha N to cut out, to hew.

1.

krm

v. yif. pf. 3 sg. m. hykrm Hr. Maktar N 76, hykrm; 3 pl. ?ykrm? Hr. Maktar N 64. to offer generously. krs n. sg. abs. krs Al-Qusbat N 1. vase; see the remark sub Al-Qusbat N 1

ktb v. qal pf. 3 sg. m. ktb Constantine N 5; nif. part. f. sg. abs. nktbt Cherchel N 1. qal to write; nif. to be prescribed. ktb n. sg. cstr. kb Bir Tlelsa N 1. document. ktbt n. sg. cstr. ktbt Labdah N 18. document.

394

Appendices

l prep. El-Amruni N 1; Breviglieri N 1 (bis); Hr. Gen Rieime N 1 (bis); Labdah N 1; 2 (quater); 3; 6 (bis); 9; 10 (bis); 13; 14; 15; 17; 18 (ter); 19 (sexies); 21; 22; Al-Qusbat N | (quinquies); Sabratha N 16; 17; 19; Wadi el-Amud N 1 (quinquies); 2; Bir bou

Rekba N 1 (quater); Bir Tlelsa N 1; Bordj bou Chateur N 1; Bordj Helal N 1; Carthage N 2 (bis); N 3 (bis); 6 (ter); 7 (bis); 9; 10 (ter); 11 (ter); 12 (quater); 14 (ter); Djebel Massoudj 1 (bis); Dougga N 1; 2 (bis); 3; 4; 5; Ellés N 1 (bis); 2 (bis); Ghzaizya N 1; Hr. el-Blida N 1 (bis); Hr. Brirht N 1; Hr. Djebbara N 1; 2 (bis); Hr. Ghayadha N 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; Hr. Guergour N 15; 2; 4; 5; 9; Hr. Hammam Zouakra N 1; Hr. el-Hammi N 1 (bis); Hr. KasbatN 1; Hr. MaktarN 1 (bis); 2 (bis); 3 (bis); 4 (bis); etc., etc.; + suff. 3 sg. m. P Hr. Djebbara N 2; Hr. Guergour N 3; Hr. Maktar N 28; 29 (or f. ?); 54; Cherchel N 2; Guelma N 7; 10; 12 (or f. 7); 13; 15; Qalat Abi s-Sıba N 2; S. Antioco N 2; /m Tebour-

souk N 5; + suff. 3. sg. f. ? Hr. Guergour N 1; Cherchel N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 1. for, to; with local meaning: //ibt st, to this temple, Labdah N 22; on tombstones set up

for the deceased, Bordj Helal N 1; Hr. bara N 1; 2 et passim; b'sr w$b* lyrh, seventeenth of the month, Bir bou N 1, cf. Al-Qusbat N 1, bh$l$m lyrh, thirtieth of the month; with temporal ing: Pwim, for ever, Hr. Gen Rieime; ducing inf. cstr. /kn, to be, Labdah N Labdah N 19, Al-Qusbat N 1; /mlkm, kingship, Djebel Massoudj 1.

Djebon the Rekba on the meanintro2, cf. of his

Imb

compound prep. Labdah N 6; 9; 18 (bis); 19; Djebel Massoud] 1. during, according to; Imbmhy’, during his life, Labdah N 6; Imbsm ^y, in the name of Gaius (Latin parallel nomine [Cai]), Labdah N 18; Imbmiktm, according to its work, 1. e. the work necessary for it, Labdah N 18, 19; for Labdah N 9,3, Djebel Massoudj 1, see the remarks a.l. Ipny adj. sg. abs. /pny Bir bou Rekba N I. earlier, former, previous; mp“ lpny, the earlier (month) Mp‘; Bir bou Rekba N 1; the use of the original combination of prep. / followed by the cstr. st. of pnm as an adjective is illustrated by the Phoenician construction hmlkm hlpnym, the earlier/ former kings,

KAI 24, cf. PPG? $ 204a.

igh nif. perf. 3 pl. n/gh’ Labdah N 14 nif. to be taken; the meaning in Labdah N 14 is difficult to ascertain, Levı

DELLA

VIDA (1935: 24, 27 (n. 1)), to be

bought, or rather to be taken up again, to include ? FEVRIER 1951b, 8, to be offered or to be bought ? RóLLIG (KAI sub 122), to be taken or to be brought ? LEv1 DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (1987: 57), to be offered rather than fo be taken up again. Iqmt n. sg. abs. Pqmt Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1. opposition, adversity (uncertain interpretation).

l m

prec. particle Guelma N 18. would that!

prep. only in the compound forms /mb, nri,

V. S. V. Ib n. sg. abs /b Hr. Guergour

N

9; Guelma

N 35. heart, blb tr, with a pure Guergour N 9, cf. Guelma N 35.

m pron. m? Tarhuna

heart,

Hr.

N

1; Hr. Drombi

N

1; mh

Tunisia OU N 2. rel. pronoun, which,

sub Hr. Drombi N 1.

what; see the remark

Vocabulary

395

m’s n. pl. cstr. m’s’ Labdah N 19; pl. (or sg., cf. LEvı DELLA VIDA—AMADASI 1987: 69) pron. 3 sg. m’sm Labdah N 19. merit, n?s ?btm wnr'sm, the merits of his forefathers and his own merit(s) (Latin parallel merita maiorvm eivs et ipsivs), Labdah N 19.

with the text / mb‘/ tyng’. Another derivation from the same root, »*/t, is used in the same context, probably with the same meaning.

m'sp

v. qal. pf. 3 sg. f. mr“ Ain Zakkar N 1; part. sg. m. abs. (?) mr Hr. Gen Rieime N 1. to die; mit“ bt X'nt, she died at the age of .., Ain Zakkar N 1.

mhr adj. f. sg. abs. m/irt Cherchel N 1. quick. mwt

n. sg. abs. m’sp Labdah N 14. collection, wm’sp Shnskt lm *wgsts, the collection of statues of the deified Augustus,

Labdah N 14. mzbh m$

n. sg. abs. m’$ Labdah N 17; Cherchel N 2;

n. sg. abs. mzbh Labdah N 19 (Latin parallel aram); Bir Tlelsa N 1; pl. abs. mzbhm Chia

S. Antioco

N 1.

N

3; sg. cstr. ms

Breviglieri

N.

altar.

statue; on the word, cf. XELLA 2001.

mzrh mt num. Labdah N

9.

hundred.

n. sg. abs. mzrh Hr. Maktar N 64 (ter); 66; Hr. Medeine N 1; mzr Hr. Maktar N 76. certain assembly, board or community, see the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 64.

mtm

num. Djebel Massoud} 1. two hundred. m't compound preposition, nt Labdah N 18. with.

mhz n. sg. abs. mhz Labdah N 18 (Latin parallel forum). marke-place, forum.

mhz n.pl.abs. mhzm Labdah N 9

mb? n. sg. cstr. mbw Cherchel N 2.

(bis).

aedilis, inspector of the market Labdah N 9.

entrance. mhzt mb'l n.sg.abs. coins: / ? mb‘l; cf. also / Ik$ mb‘; LIX / ἱκᾷ mb'T,; Lixs / Ik$ mb'l; qrtg$ mb‘; sg. c. on coins: / ? y mb‘ sks; /? mb‘l sks; /?

n. sg. pl. abs. m/izt Hr. Maktar N 64. window,

light,

uncertain

interpretation,

see the remark a.l.

mb“l sks mb‘l sks; I mb“ vix; / mb‘ (ks; vix /

mhy

mb*l Ik; | mb'l sks; |! mb‘l tyng?; AVGVST IVL TIN / mb*l tyn[g?]; M AGRIPPA IVL TIN / mb‘ tyn[g?]; / mbel tng?. civil administration; for the reading mb‘/ instead of mp'l, cf. the remark on the coins

n. sg. pron. 3 sg. m. mtv? Labdah N 6. life, Imbhy’, during his lifetime, Labdah N 6 (see also the remark a.l.).

Appendices

396 mhnt n. sg. abs. mhnt

Breviglieri N

1; Labdah

m. mlkm Djebel Massoudj 1; m/ky Constantine N 88. to reign; Imlkm, of his kingship, Djebel

N 13. army, for rb mhnt, see rb.

mhsp n. sg. abs. Sousse N 16 ([m]hsp ); ([m]hsp ); cstr. Sousse N 14. funerary urn.

mik v. qal inf. cstr. milk El Kef N 2; + suff. 3 sg.

21

Massoudj 1, cf. Constantine N 88 /mlky. For El Kef N 2, see the remark a.l. mik n. sg. abs. mik Cherchel N 2. king.

mth

n. sg. abs. mth Bir bou Rekba N 1. plastering, mlkt hmth, the plastering work, Bir bou Rekba N 1. my pron. my Labdah N 19. relative pronoun, who; Imy, for the one who (Latin parallel cui), Labdah N 19, cf. PPG?, ὃ 124.

mytb n. pl. cstr. mytb’ S. Antioco N 3.

milk n. sg. cstr. m/k Constantine N 58; 59; Guelma N 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 31332; 34. certain type of sacrifice, see the remarks sub Constantine N 57. mikt n. sg. abs. mlkt Sabratha N 1; m/*kt Hr. Maktar N 76, ml'[kt]; cstr. Labdah N 1; Bir bou

Rekba N 1 (bis); sg. pron. 3 sg. m. mlktm

approbation.

Labdah N 18; 19. work.

mynkd

n. sg. abs. Labdah N 13 (ter), once parallel with Latin imperator. leader, equivalent to Latin imperator; on

the word (possibly a Libyan loan word), cf. the remark a.l. mkpr

n. sg. + suff. 3 pl. m. mkprm Teboursouk N 5. expiation. mkr v. qal impf. 3 pl. m. ymkr? Al-Qusbat N

1;

part. m. pl. abs. mkrm Constantine N 64. to sell, Al-Qusbat N 1 (highly uncertain context); the possible part. in Constantine N 64: merchant. mlykt n. sg. abs. mlykt Constantine NP 86. word of unknown meaning, see remark a.l.

mmikt n. sg. abs. mmlkt Djebel Massoudj 1; El Kef N 2; on coins: bqs hmmlkt; REX BOCCHVS 505 FI / bqs hmmlkt; REX BOCCHVS SOSI FI DD / bqs hmmlkt; bqs hmmlkt mqm [X]m[3] ; bqs hmmlkt 1 Xm; [hmm]lkt I m3; REX IUBA / ywb*y hmmlkt; mmikt / mStns; mStnsn hmmlkt ! bn mstnbl kbrsw bn msln (7), Sywb^y hmmlkt; | $Sywb‘y hmmlkt; mmik’t Cherchel N 2. The word is also attested in abbreviated form as mt, on coins with the text: REX BOCCHVS Sos! / bqs hmt; REX BOCCHVS / hmt; REX BOCCHVS SOSI F / Amt; and as mm, on coins with the text: hmm / mx; mm / $mS. king; for the use of this originally feminine noun as a masculine word with the mean-

ing king, cf. PPG?, $ 306.2; mkwsn hmmikt, Micipsa the king, Djebel Massoud 1. mnht

the

m[n]ht Hr. Medeine N minha-offering.

1.

397

Vocabulary

mnsbt

ms’

n. sg. abs. msbt Constantine N 51 (?); Pantelleria N 1; mnsbt Tarhuna N 1; Wadi el-Amud N2;3; Hr. Drombi N 1; Hr. Merah N 1; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; MetameurN 1; Tatahouine N 1; Cherchel N 1; Guelma N 13; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; mnbsbt Hr. Maktar N 57. stele, memorial stone, mausoleum.

v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. m“s’ Qalat Abi s-Siba N.

mswyt n. pl. abs. mswy’t Labdah N 14

vestment.

to find.

msbt

v. mnsbt

mqd§ n. sg. abs. mgd$ Labdah N 14; Hr. Maktar N 64; 65; Hr. Meded N 26; Hr. Medeine N |; S. Antioco N 3; mqd*$ Hr. Maktar N 76 (cf. the remark a.l.); sg. cstr. mgd$ Breviglieri N 1 (cf., however, the remark a.l.); myqds

mspt

Cherchel N 2; pl. abs. mgdsm Bir bou Rekba

n.sg.cstr. mspt Labdah N 14, mspt/n.

N 1 (ter); Hr. Medeine sanctuary.

roof, ceiling; the reading mspn is also possible, however, the existence of mspnt in KAI 10 rather points to the supposition of a development /mispant/ > /mispat/, cf. LEVI DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (1987: 56); the reading mspn

and the supposition of another word for roof, cf. e.g. LEvı DELLA VIDA (1935: 23), RÖLLIG (KAI sub 122), DNWSI s.v. mspn, KRAHMALKov (2000, s. v. mspn), 1s less attractive.

N 1

mqm n.sg.m.abs. mqm Labdah N 3; Chia N 1; m'*qm [m]*qm; m*q'm Labdah N 65; mhqm Hr. Maktar

N 1; Ksiba Mraou Hr. Maktar N 76, N 18; Hr. Maktar N 75.

place, for Labdah N 1, see the remark a.l.; with the article in Chia N 1: *mmqm; the same word possibly in Al-Qusbat N 1, pre-

mspr

ceded by the article, Amgm, context highly

n. sg. cstr. mspr Hr. Maktar N 43. number; note the sing. following: mspr §t, the number of years, Hr. Maktar N 43.

uncertain.

m'$n n. sg. abs. m*$n Sousse N l.

Sousse

N

12; cstr. m*3n

urn. m'$r adj. sg. or pl. abs. m“$rt Labdah N 15. righteous; the adjective is derived from the root ysr, and explained as a yiph. part. by Levi DELLA VIDA (1935: 29), LEvi DELLA VIDA-AMADASI (1987: 59), RÖLLIG (sub KAI 123).

mqnt n. sg. abs. mqnt Bir Tlelsa N 1; mqmt Wadi el-Amud N 1 property, cattle; hmzbh § hmgnt, the altar for cattle, Bir Tlelsa N 1; [q]b?r mqmt ?tm’,

tomb, absolute property, Wadi el-Amud N mrs

n. pl. abs mrsm Djebel Massoud] 1. mile, measure of distance; the supposition of FÉvRIER 1954c, that the Greek measure

stadium is meant by this word seems less probable.

mSh mpqd n.sg.abs. coins: / ραν mpqd. administration; on the choice to take mpqd as a word in the absolute state, cf. the remark a.l.

I.

see the remarks sub Djebel Massoudj

mStr n. sg. abs. mystr Constantine N 44. administrator.

1.

398

Appendices

ms] n. pl. abs. ms/m Labdah N 13.

ruler; wtht m< “sr hmslm, in the place of the authority of the ten rulers, Labdah N 13, cf. the remark a.l. msSIt n. sg. constr. ms/t Labdah N 13. authority.

ndr

n. sg. abs. ndr Dougga N 1; Ellés N 1; Hr.

mtby adj.sg.abs.m. El-Amruni N |. nisbe-adjective of unknown meaning, possible derived from the name of a clan, tribe of place; cf. also the remark al. mtnt

n. sg. abs. mtnt Teboursouk N 1; 3; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; Les AndalousesN 1; Constantine N 49.

gift. nbl n. pl. cstr. nbl Bir bou Rekba N N 20 (highly uncertain reading). certain type of vessel.

a.l.); Hr. Meded N 23; n“d“r Tunisia OU N 6; 3 sg. f. ndr? Carthage N 7; Hr. Maktar N 2; 4; 66; Constantine N 56; i*dr? Tunisia OU N 5; 3 pl. ndr? Ellés N 1; 2; Hr. el-Blida N 1; Hr. Medeine N 1; n“dr? Hr. Meded N 13; 21. to vow.

1; Malta

Ghayadha N 1; Hr. el-Hammi N 1; Hr. MaktarN 1; 4; 5; 8; 10; 12; 38; Hr. Medeine N 1; El Kef N 1; Thibar N 1; Tunisia OU N 4; 6 (n[d]r), 7; 8; 13; 15; Arseu N 1; 2; Constantine N 2; 35 6; 8; 9; 10; 12; 14; 15; 17; 20; 23; 25; 27: 28; 29; 31; 32; 33; 34; 40; 41; 43; 44; 45; 47; 48; 53; 55; 56; 59; 60; 61; 63; 66; 67; 69; 70; 76; 77; 78; 79; 80; 83; 84; 85; 88; 89; Oudjel N 1; Tirekbine N 1; rid*r Sabratha N 3; Carthage N 7; 15 (uncertain context); Hr. Ghayadha N 4; 6; Hr. Guergour N 9 (see the remark a.l.); Hr. Maktar N 2; 7; 9; 66 (bis); Hr. Meded N 13; 15; 20; 21; 23; Teboursouk N 4; 6; Tunisia OU N 3;

5. Constantine N 16, nd'r; nd?r Ellés N 2; n*dr Hammam Derradji N 2 (see the remark a.1.); Hr. Maktar N 40; Hr. Meded N 11; Sidi Ahmed

ngr n. sg. abs. ngr Constantine N 67. carpenter. ndr

el-Hachmi N

1; Teboursouk N

10; +

suff. 3 sg. m. ndr? Hr. medeine N | (uncertain contect); nd’rm Guelma N 38; Ksiba Mraou N 7; + suff. 1 sg. ndry Constantine NP 86. vow, votive offering.

v. qal pf. 3 sg. m. ndr Labdah N 3; Sabratha N 16; Carthage N 3; 6; 10; 11; 14; Dougga N 1; Hr. Ghayadha N 1; 4 [njdr; 5; Hr. Guergour N 9; Hr. el-Hammi N 1; Hr. Maktar N 1; 3; 5; 7; 8; 12; 40; EI Kef N 1; 2; Thibar N 1; Tunisia OU N 4; 7; 14; Arseu N 2, nd[r]; Constantine N 1; 2; 6; 8; 9; 12; 13; 17; 20; 23; 25; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 38; 39; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 47; 48; 52; 54; 55; 57; 58; 59; 60; 62; 63; 64; 65; 66; 67; 69; 70; 72; 74; 75; 76; 77; 79; 80; 82; 83; 84; 87; 88; 89; Oudjel N 1; Malta N 13 (uncertain reading); n*dr Hr. Maktar N 9; 10; 38; Hr. Meded N 15; 20; Teboursouk N 6; Tunisia OU N 2; 3; Arseu N I; Constantine N 16; nd‘r Hammam Derradji N 2 (see the remark

nhst n. sg. abs. nist Labdah N 14 bronze; dlht € nht, bronze doors, Labdah N 14. nsk v. qal. part. m. (or n.) sg. abs. nsk Arg el-

Ghazouani N 2, nsk; Teboursouk N 1. to pour, to cast (iron); hnsk, the founder (of iron), Arg el-Ghazouani N 2, cf. Teboursouk N 1.nskt n. sg. abs. nskt Bir bou Rekba N nskt Labdah N 14 (bis)

1; pl. abs.

399

Vocabulary cast iron; nbl nskt, vessels of cast iron, Bir bou Rekba N 1; statue, something cast; Levi DELLA VIDA (1935: 21, 22 n. 2), Levi DELLA VIDA — AMADASI (1987: 54, 55) suppose nskt to be a singular, because, according to them the fem. pl. is always written 2t in Labdah; the number of attestations, however, is low (we found mswy?t (once), p“m’t (once), *rp?t (bis)), hence cannot easily be used as an argument against nskt being

interpreted as a plur. form. n^m

adj. sg. m. abs. n“m Hr. Ghayadha N 1; Hr. Maktar N 27; Kesra N 1; Sidi Ahmed elHachmi N 1; Teboursouk N 1; 3; 6; 7; 8; 10;

Guelma N 24; 3 sg. f. ns? Carthage N 2; 3

sg. f. + suff. 3 sg. f. μεν Guelma N 9; part. pass. (act.?) pl. abs. ns’m Hr. Maktar N 76. to elevate, Hr. Maktar N 76; Guelma N 9; to bring (as an offering) Carthage N 2; Hr. Maktar N 36. ntn

v. ytn.

S dem. s Hr. Maktar N 65; Bordj Bou Chateur N I. this; cf. the remark ad Bordj Bou Chateur N I.

11; 12; 13; 17; 18 (rim); 20; Cherchel N 2;

sbq v. qal ? imp. sg. 2 m. sbq Qalat Abi s-Siba

Constantine N 46; 51 (?); 68; Ksiba Mraou

N.

N 7; mnm

to stand still, both reading and interpretation are uncertain, cf. the remarks a.l.

Dougga

N 3; 4; Teboursouk

N 9;

nm Ksar Lemsa N 1; Teboursouk N 4; 5; f. sg. abs. n“mt Cherchel N 1; pl. m. abs. n“mm Constantine N 50.

good, pleasant; dl Sm n*m, with a good name, Hr. Maktar N 27; ?/m n*mm, the pleasant gods, Constantine N 50; for ym n'm, v. ym. n'r n. sg. abs. nhr Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1

young man. npl v. qal to fall; a form of this root (qal part. pass. m. sg. np?l) in Hr. Maktar N 76 ? np$ n.sg. Hr. Gen Rieime N |. Noun ? of unknown meaning, remark a.l.

see the

nsb v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. nsb Ain Zakkar N | to erect; for the context of Ain Zakkar N 1, cf. the remark a.l. ns’ v. qal 3 sg. m. n3? Hr. Maktar N 36; Constantine N 40; μ᾽ Guelma N 22 (bis); n‘$

syw't n. sg. syw*t Djebel Massoud) tombstone,

memorial

|

stone.

sk’ n. sg. masc. abs. sk’ Hr. Maktar N 63. possible meaning innocent, as the person described by this word died at the age of two; see the remark al. skr n. sg. cstr. skr Hr. Gen Rieime N 1 /sk/r; Labdah N 15 (see kbd); Cherchel N 1; 2; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 2; sk*r Qalat Abi s-Siba N. memorial, skr dr’, memorial of his family, Hr. Gen Rieime N 1, cf. Cherchel N 1; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1, 2; skr kbd, honourable memorial, Labdah N 15. sim word

of unknown

meaning

in

Carthage

N 15. sp n. pl. abs. spm Bir bou Rekba N bowl, basin.

1.

Appendices

400

spr v. qal part. m. sg. abs. spr Constantine N 65;

to, *d ?t, unto, Djebel Massoudj N 1, uncertain interpretation.

66; pl. abs. sprm Constantine N 86. to write, part.: scribe.

*dn

v. dn

st

“dr

v.’dr

dem. sg. st Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 10; 22; 58; Hr. Maktar N 27; 32; 33; 35; Ksar Lemsa N 2; Cherchel N 2; Constantine N 49;

Guelma N 16, st; Ksiba Mraou N 3, st; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; S. Antioco N 3 (bis); 4; ?st Ain Barchouch N 1; Hr. Maktar N 63; S. Antioco N 2. this.

“bd v. qal. inf. cstr. ‘bd Labdah N 19. to use; with prep. b introducing the logical object, Labdah N 19 (Latin parallel uti). ‘bn qal part. pass. sg. m. ‘bn sg. f. “bnt Hr. Maktar N sg. m. n“bn Kef Bezioun Bezioun N. to lay to rest ?, see Maktar N 32. ‘bn

? Hr. Maktar N 35; 32, 33, 34; nif. pf. 3 N 2; sg. f. n“bn“ Kef

‘zrm

n. sg. abs. “zrm Labdah N 13; 16; 19; cstr. 2zrm Tunisia OU N 3; Guelma N 19; 20; 22; 24; 25; 27, [’Jzrm; 28, "[z]r[m]; 30, ?zr[m]; 31; 32; lizrm Guelma N 18; 21, hzr[m]; 26; ?zm Guelma N 34. sacrificial term, mainly in the combination bmlk ’zrm I? (and variants) Guelma N 20, of uncertain meaning; see ?X (second entry) and the remark sub Guelma N 18. In Labdah N 13,16, 19 in the combination ?dr *zrm. "Zr n. pl. abs. *zrm Ksour Abd el-Melek N 5 ?. Word of unknown meaning, indication of function ? See the remark a.l. "trt

the remark sub Hr.

v.?bn

n. sg. abs Hr. Maktar N 76; Qalat Abi s-Siba N I. crown; dl *trt, with a crown, 1.6. honoured, Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; > cornice, Hr. Maktar N 76.

"br

n. sg. abs. “br Bir Tlelsa N 1 (for this reading cf. the remark a.l.). cereals, as a commodity offered on an altar.

that

can

be

“δ᾽

sg. abs. *g* Bir Tlelsa N 1. cake, as a commodity that can be offered on an altar. "d n. sg. cstr. *d Teboursouk N 5. witness, testimony, *d mkprm, the testimony of his expiation, Teboursouk N 5. ‘d prep. *d Djebel Massoudj

l.

‘ydls n. sg. abs. ‘yd/s Labdah N 21. aedilis (< Latin aedilis). ‘ksndr‘ n.sg.abs. Labdah N 10. exedra, communal hall (< Greek e&edpa > Latin exedra). 1] prep. El-Amruni N 1; Labdah N 1; 9; 15; Sabratha N 2; Djebel Massoudj 1; Hr. Maktar N 76 (ter); Hr. Medeine N 1; Cherchel N 2 (bis); Qalat Abi s-Sıba N 1; Chia N 1; S. Antioco N 3. on, p's ?€ “I hmnsbt st, the inscription which is on this stele, Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1;

Vocabulary with, Labdah N 9; together with, El-Amruni N 1; because of, Labdah N 15; over; ?$ “I ?rst tSk“t, who is (set) over the land of Tushkat, Djebel Massoudj 1; */ knır, who is (set) over the priest(s) of ..., Hr. Medeine N 1; ‘/ pny Chia N I, before him; for the context of Labdah N 1, v. remark a.l.; for kwn 4l, v. kwn. ‘ly

v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. *" 3 pl. /*P Hr. Medeine interpretation). to go up; “P bbn, he a son, Labdah N 18;

Labdah N 18; hif. perf. N | (highly uncertain entered (the family) as hif. to offer as a burnt

offering, Hr. Medeine N

I.

‘lm n.sg.m. ?/m Ksar Toual Zouameul N 3 (uncer-

401

ns n.pl. abs. “n$m Labdah N 9 (bis). fine, or contribution Labdah N 9, sce the remark a.l. ‘sr

num. sg. abs. “sr Labdah N 13 (quater); AlQusbat N 1; Ain Zakkar N 1; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Hr. Guergour N 3; 4; Hr. Maktar N 27;

Ksour Abd el-Melek N 2 ([*]sr ); 4 (*s'r^); Bedja N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 5; ^s*r Hr. Maktar N 30. ten; “sr wl, thirteen, Hr. Guergour N 4; ‘sr whms, fifteen, Hr. Guergour N 3, Ksıba Mraou N 5, cf. Ksour Abd el-Melek N 4, Bedja N 1; *s“r w33, sixteen, Hr. Maktar N 30; [*]sr nt w*m$, fifteen years, Ksour Abd el-Melek N 2.

tain context); Sousse N 1 ?; Qalat Abi s-Sıba

N 1; ’wIm Hr. Gen Rieime N 1; Ain Youssef

"erm

N 1; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 2 Gwin); wim S.

num. ‘srm Djebel Massoudj 1; Hr. Maktar N 33; Hr. Meded N 17; Guelma N 13; Kef Bezioun N 2;?srm Hr. Maktar N 17; Guelma N 3; Asrm Hr. Maktar N 56. twenty; *srm w?d, twenty-one, Hr. Meded N 17, cf. Djebel Massoudj 1; Guelma N 13; ^srm w*ms, twenty-five, Guelma N 3; *srm w3b“, twenty-seven, Kef Bezioun N 2.

Antioco N 2. eternity, Pwim, for ever, Hr. Gen Rieime N 1, Ain Youssef N 1, cf. Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1, PIm, S. Antioco N 2: /wPm. “It n. sg. abs. “/r Hr. Medeine N | burnt offering.

“pst

“It prep. Bir bou Rekba N1 (bis); Hr. Medeine

word of unknown meaning N 62, see the remark al.

in Hr. Maktar

N | into; b? I’lnm ?l “lt hmgdsm ?l Bir bou Rekba N I, these gods went into these sanctuaries (cf. the remark a.l.). ‘m n. sg. abs. ‘m Labdah N 19 (bis); cstr. “m Labdah N 19; 22; Sabratha N 2; Chia N l. people, especially the people belonging to the assembly (of citizens). *md n. pl. abs. “mdm Labdah N 18 (Latin parallel columnas); Hr. Kasbat N 1. column.

‘sm

n. pl. abs. “smm Sousse N 1; 9; 12; 13; cstr. ‘sn’ Sousse N 15; + suff. 3 sg. f. *smy* Ksiba Mraou N 3. bone. rkt

n. sg. Labdah N 9. valuation. “rpt

n. sg. abs. ‘rpt Labdah N 10; 14 (‘rp/t] ); pl. abs. *rp?t Labdah N 14; Arp’t Breviglieri N 1 (see the remark a.]1.). portico.

Appendices

402 "t

n. sg. cstr. t Labdah N 14; Al-Qusbat N 1 (? uncertain context); Hr. Maktar N 11; 39; 77; 105; 110; 111. time, ‘tr PN, in the time of the presidency of PN, Hr. Maktar N 11, 39; cf. also *t r $ptm, Labdah N 14.

p'dy n. sg. abs. p’dy Labdah N 19 (Latin parallel podium). podium (< Latin podium). pgy v. pi. perf. 3 sg. m. pyg? Hr. Maktar N 9; pyg* Ksiba Mraou N 7; pg? Guelma N 38; pg* Tunisia OU N 3. to fulfill; cf. also pgny in Teboursouk N4?

bine N 1; p“n Constantine N 42; 79; pn’ Constantine N 43; 44; 54; 76; 82; NP 86; Tirekbine N 1; pny Labdah N 19; + suff. 3 sg. m. pny Chia N 1; f. p“ny“ Sabratha N 2. face; frequently in the epithet *pn b‘/, face of Bal; in the compound preposition /priy Labdah N 19; **/ pny Sabratha N 2; Chia N 1; see also /pny.

py p‘y’ Sousse N 13. word of unknown meaning.

pi

v. qal. pf. 3 sg. m. p*/! Labdah N 2; 16 (Latin parallel faciendum coeravit); 18; 19 (Latin parallel faciendum coeravit); Sabratha N 1; Kélibia N 2; Cherchel N 1; 2; Guelma N 36; Chia N 1; S. Antioco N 2; pl Constantine

N 50 (2); 3 sg. m. + suff. 3 sg.m. p“P Labdah

phnt word

of unknown

meaning

ın Hr. Maktar

N 64.

N 6; 12; Bir bou el-Amud sg. cstr.

63; p*lm Wadi el-Amud N Rekba N 1; »“P Labdah N 2; phP Hr. Brirht N 1 p^| Labdah N 13; niph.

1; 3 pl. p*/ N 9; Wadi (bis); part. pf. 3 sg. f.

py n. sg. cstr. py Labdah N 19. mouth; compound preposition /py, according to, Labdah N 19.

npl* Wadi el-Amud N 1, 3 pl. mp‘? Labdah

pytr“

p'lt n. sg. abs. p*!t Hr. Maktar N 76; sg. or pl. abs. p“lt Labdah N 15. deed, action, work, “| p“It m*Xrt, because of righteous deed(s), Labdah N 15.

n. sg. abs. Hr. Maktar N 43; 44; 45. indication of function or trade, remark sub Hr. Maktar N 43.

cf. the

pn n. sg. abs. pn/t Labdah N 58. sun-dial, see the remark a.l. pk

n. sg. abs pk Pompei N 3 (pk). phial; the reading of this word is highly uncertain. pnm n. pl. cstr. pn Bir bou Rekba N |; Carthage N 3; 6 (for this reading, see the remark a.1.); 10; 14; pi? Constantine N 33; 56; 75; Tirek-

N 9; np'l Bir bou Rekba N 1; Hr. Maktar N 76. qal. to make; niph. to be made.

pm n. sg. abs. p^m Labdah N 22; pl. abs. p“mt Labdah N 13, p“m’t Labdah N 13 (bis) step, Labdah N 22; time, turn, Labdah N 13. Note that in Hebrew, as in Phoenician, p^m has two plural forms, scil. p^mm and p'^nit.

p's n. sg. p^s Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; + suff. 3 sg. f. p‘sm Guelma N 7.

tablet, inscription.

403

Vocabulary

p'r n. sg. abs. p*r Breviglieri N 1. (young) bull, Breviglieri N ever, the remark a.l.

1, see, how-

prb

sw^yt word of unknown meaning in Hr. Maktar N 34, cf. the remark sub Hr. Maktar N 32. syw'n n. sg. abs. syw*n Cherchel N 1.

Labdah N 9.

tomb monument.

word of unknown meaning, cf. the remark a.l.

sim n. sg. cstr. sim Bir Tlelsa N 1.

prf

design; bkr'b slm, in the document of the design, Bir Tlelsa N 1.

S. Antioco N 3. word of unknown meaning, cf. the remark a.].

smh

n. sg. cstr. smh Labdah N 22. prs n. pl. abs. prsm Al-Qusbat N 1. some sort of coin? see the remark a.l.

offspring; this word might also be attested in Constantine N 50, 51.

a form of this root probably in Al-Qusbat

smq sg. abs. smq Al-Qusbat N | dried raisins / dried olives, uncertain con-

N.

text.

pth

pth

snn

n. sg. abs. pth Sabratha N 2 door:

word (?), reading possible, meaning unknown, Hammam Derradji N 1.

sd n.sg.abs. sd Labdah N 9. side; bsd, aside, Labdah N 9.

Spy v. qal part. m. sg. abs. sp Hr. Medeine N 1. to watch, to see.

sdn n. sg. abs. sdn Hr. Maktar N 52; Sousse N 1; Guelma N 8; sydn Ksiba Mraou N 2. freedman, client, hsdn € m‘rk’, the freedman of Marcus, Hr. Maktar N 52; ?3 sdn, freedman, Sousse N |.

spt n. Sg. (or pl. ?) abs. sp’r Labdah N 19. toga with purple stripe, (Latin parallel lato clavo), Labdah N 19.

sdq adj. sg. f. abs. sdyg“ Hr. Meded N 4. righteous. sdt n. sg. abs sdt Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1. freedwoman, client, ?sdt € yst't*n, the freedwoman of lastatan, Hr. Sidi Khalifat N.

spr n. pl. abs. syprm Al-Qusbat N | bird, the context of Al-Qusbat highly uncertain

N 1

is

qbr v. qal part.pass. sg. m gybr Hr. Maktar N 35; f. gbrt Hr. Maktar N 32; 33. to bury.

404

Appendices

qbr

n. sg. abs. qb*r Hr. Gen Rieime N 1; [q]b?r Wadi el-Amud N 1; cstr. qbr Pantelleria N 1; suff. 3 sg. m. qbr? Cherchel N 2. grave, tomb. qbrt n. sg. abs. Cherchel N 2.

grave, tomb.

qdryg n. sg. abs. Labdah N 14. chariot drawn by a team of four horses (< Latin quadriga.) qds

v. hitp. pf. 3 sg. m. Atqds Bir Tlelsa N 1; yiph. pf. 3 sg. m. ’ygd$ Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 10; 16 (Latin parallel dedicavit); Bir Tlelsa N 1. hitp. to consecrate for oneself, yiph. to

consecrate. qds n. pl. abs. gd$m Hr. Maktar N 64. shrine. qds adj. m. sg. abs. qd Constantine N 46; gyd¥ Hr. Maktar N 9. holy, divine epithet, Constantine N 46, Hr. Maktar N 9 (for this text, see the remark a.l.). qdst

n. sg. abs gdst Constantine N 50, qdst (?). holiness. qwm v. hif. part. m. sg. cstr. mygm Cherchel N 2. hif. to raise, to establish, myqm ?lm, who raises the god, Cherchel N 2.

quattuorvir, member of a gremium four (« Latin quattuorvir).

of

qtn adj. m. sg. abs. qtn Constantine N 39. small, cf. the remark sub Constantine

N 39. ql n. sg. m. pron. 3 sg. m. gi? Labdah N 10; Carthage N 8; 9; Dougga N 1; Hr. Ghayadha N 1; 3; 5; Hr. el-Hammi N 1; Hr. Maktar N 1; 7; 8; 10; 12; 36; 40; 41; 47; 49; 51; 52; 53; 78; 79; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 92; 93; 94; 97; 99; 100; 101; 102; 103; 104; 106; 107; 108; 109; 112; 114; 115; 118; 121; 122; 123; 124; 126; 127; 128; 129; 130; 132; Hr. Meded N 19; 20; 23; El Kef N 2; Teboursouk N 6; 8; 10; 11; 17; Tunisia OU N 1; 2; 456; 7; 8; 14; 15; Arseu N 2; Constantine N 1; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 15; 16; 17; 20; 22; 23; 25, 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 38; 39; 42; 44; 45; 47; 48; 52; 55: 57; 58; 59; 60; 61;

62; 63; 64; 65; 66; 67 (qP); 68; 69; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76: 77, 78; 79; 80; 81; 82; 87; 88; 89; Guelma N 31; 32; 33; 34; Ksiba Mraou N 7; Oudjel N 1; Ténés N 1; Tirekbine N 1; qwP Hr. Maktar N 9; 74; Guelma N 19; 20; 25; 26; 28, q[w]P; q’P Guelma N 18, q?I[]; qly Guelma N 22 (or read g/w ?); φίς El Kef N 1; mP Hr. Maktar N 5; g/m Sabratha N 16; Hr. Ghayadha N 4; Teboursouk N 5; φί Hr. Ghayadha N 2; sg. + suff. 3 sg. f. qP Hr. Maktar N 66; Teboursouk N 3; Tunisia OU N 9; 13; Carthage N 2; 7; qlm Teboursouk N 5; Constantine N 56; φί Tunisia OU N 5; suff. 3 pl. m. qim Dougga N 2; Ellés N 1; 2; Hr. Maktar N 11; 39; 65; 77 (bis); 105; 111; 116; Hr. Meded N 21; Hr. MedeineN 1; gin Hr. Maktar N 110. voice, in most instances indicating what a supplicant has promised to a deity.

qw'trbr n. sg. abs. qw*trbr Labdah N 21 (Latin parallel iiiv[ir]).

qnm n.sg.abs. Labdah N 2; Cherchel N 2. person, someone, cf. the remark sub Labdah N 2.

405

Vocabulary

qny v. qal. part. m. sing. cstr. qn Labdah N 10; qny Malta N 8; 9; 10; 24 (in all texts from Malta reading uncertain). to possess, to create; for the meaning in the epithet of ?/, qn ?rs see the remark ad. Labdah N 10.

hsprm, the head of the scribes, Constantine N 86. rb’

v. rp’.

rbd

v. qal / piel 3 sg. m. rbd Labdah N 18. to pave.

qs't n. sing. abs. qs?h Chia N 1. rim.

rds n. sg. abs. rds Labdah N 2.

qr

a.].

word of unknown meaning, cf. the remark v. qal impf. 3 sg. m. yq? Qalat Abi s-Siba

N 1, yqr. to read. r abbrev. Labdah N 14; Hr. Maktar N 11; 39; 77,105; 110; 111. administration; r is probably an abbreviation of a word derived from the root rb(b). rs pl. cstr. r3? S. Antioco N 3. head, chief administrator. rb adj. m. sg. abs. rb Breviglieri N 1; Hr. Maktar N 11; 39; 77; 110; 111; Constantine N 61; cstr. rb Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 13; Hr. Maktar N 75; Constantine N 64; 86; f. sg. abs. rbt Carthage N 2; 3; 6 (for the reading, see the remark a.l.); 10; 11; 12; 14; Constantine N 43; 79; S. Antioco N 3; rb’t Constantine N 56; + suff. | pl. rbtn Constantine N 76; f. pl. abs. rbt Cherchel N 2. great, important, used for divine beings and people; rbt is the most common epithet, used as a noun, of the goddess Tinnit, sometimes the name Tinnit is (inadvertently ?) left out: Carthage N 2; rb mhnt, Latin parallel consul, commander of the army, i.e. consul, Labdah N 13; rb tht rb mhnt, proconsul, Breviglieri N 1; in Hr. Maktar N 11, 39, the most important member of the local government, which consisted of three people; Arb hk'*n, the high priest, Constantine N 61; rb

rzn n. sg. abs. rzn Constantine N 50. prince. r*s

v. rds.

r°s° n. sg. “8 Ain Zakkar N 1. word of unknown meaning, remark a.l.

see

the

rp

n. pl. abs. »’p’m El-Amruni N 1. manes, souls of the deceased, v. ?In. rp? n. m. sg. abs. rb? Labdah N 4, Latin parallel: medici, Greek parallel: vaxpov; Labdah N 5,

Latin parallel: medicus; Hr. Aouin N 1. doctor. $ $ El-Amruni N 1; Breviglieri N 1; Labdah 14 (undecies); N 18; Tarhuna N 1; Ain Zakkar N 1; Bır Tlelsa N 1; Hr. Ghayadha N 4; Hr. Maktar N 37; 52; 64 (?); 65; 75; Hr. Meded N 23; Hr. Medeine N 1; Hr. Merah N 1; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; Kelibia N 1; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; Sousse N 2; 3; 4; 12; 13; 20; 22; Teboursouk N 16; Tunisia OU N 3; 10; 13; Les Andalouses N 1; Constantine N 19; 49; 53; 67 (7); Guelma N 1; 3; 8; Kef Bezioun N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 2; Banasa N 1; 2; Malta N 22; Chia N 1 (bis); Tharros

Appendices

406

N 1; ’$ Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 2; 9 (ter); 18; 22 (bis); Sabratha N 2; Wadı el-Amud N 1; Bir bou Rekba N | (bis); Bir Tlelsa N 1; Carthage N 3; 6; 7; 10; Djebel Massoudj 1 (bis); Dougga N 1; 5; Ellés N 1; 2; Hr. el-Blida N 1; Hr. Ghayadha N 1; 5; Hr. Guergour N 1; 2; 4; 5; 9 (see remark a.l.); Hr. el-Hammi N 1; Hr. Kasbat N 2; Hr. Maktar N 1; 2; 4; 5; 7; 8; 9; 10; 12; 38; 64 (ter); 76 (sexies); Hr. Meded N 13; 15; 20; 21; 23; Hr. Medeine N | (ter); EI Kef N 1; 2; Kélibia N 2; Sousse N 1; 9; Teboursouk N 1; 3; 5; 6 (bis); 7; 8; 9; 10;11; 12; 14; Thibar N 1; Tunisia OU N 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; Arseu N 1; 2; Cherchel N 1; 2; Constantine N 1; 2; 6; 8; 9; 12; 16; 17; 20; 23; 25; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 38; 39; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 47; 48; 55; 56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 62; 63; 64; 66 ($ ); 67; 69 (bis); 70; 72; 74; 75; 76, 77, 79: 80; 82; 83; 84; 87; 88; 89; Hr. Bou Atfan N 2; Ksiba Mraou N 1; 2; 3; 4: 5, 8; 9; 10; Oudjel N 1; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; Souk Arrhas N 1; Tiffech N 1; Chia N 1 (bis); combined with prep. /, + suff. 3 sg. m. X" Hr. Maktar N 10; 58; 59; + suff. 3 sg. f. XP Cherchel N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 1; Hr. Maktar N 66 (bis). Coins: 5, / καὶ tpsr; Xywb*y hmmikt; I $ywb°y hmmilkt. nota relationis; used to indicate the relation of a client to his patron, b’r$ X *dyt, B. the client of A., Ain Zakkar N 1 (cf. the remark

a.l.; cf. also Tunisia

OU

N

3, and

perhaps Constantine N 65); mir? qrnly hsdn X m“rk’, Marcus Cornelius, the client of Marcus, Hr. Maktar N 52.

Vk n. pl. abs. $’knı Sabratha N | word of uncertain meaning, container ?

S$b*m num. Xb*m Ain Zakkar N 1; Hr. Maktar N 18; 25; Hr. Meded N 25; Guelma N 1; Hr. Bou Atfan N 2; Kef Bezioun N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 9; $bm Guelma N 5 (see comment a.1.). seventy; Sb'm w*m$, seventy-five, Guelma N l,cf. Hr. Bou Atfan N 2, Ksiba Mraou N 9; Sb*m wt", seventy-nine, Hr. Meded N 25. Sb‘t num. $bt Tunisia OU

N

19.

seven. Sb‘t n. sg. abs. Sh*t Hr. Maktar N 76 (ter). abundance?

Sd n. sg. abs. $d Al-Qusbat N 1; sg. / pl. cstr. $d Breviglieri N 1; Hr. Maktar N 54. field, territory, the context of Al-Qusbat N 1 is highly uncertain; Sd /wbym Breviglieri N 1, the territory of the Libyans, Hr. Maktar N 54: $d lbym.

sh n. pl. abs. $/1m Labdah N 13. word of uncertain meaning, marks sub Labdah N 13.

cf. the re-

Skb nif. part. sg. f. abs. nskbr Cherchel N 1. to lie; the nif. in Cherchel N 1 probably means fo be laid to rest, to pass away. SIk V. pi. part. sg. abs./cstr. m$/k Labdah N 19. pi. fo save; m$Ik br? “m, one who saves the citizens, Labdah N 19. sim

Sb‘ num. $b“ Ain Zakkar N l; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Hr. Maktar N 27; 56; Hr. MededN 18; Kef Bezioun N 2. seven.

v. pi. pf. 3 sg. m. $lm Constantine N 14, $Im; + suff. 3 sg. $/my Teboursouk Xlmty Constantine NP 86. to fulfill (a vow). Sim n. sg. cstr. X/m Labdah N 13.

N 4; |

sg.

407

Vocabularv §lm-sacrifice; bel $Im hr$t[, the one presiding over the $/m-sacrifice of the firstling(?), Labdah N 13.

smnsSS

SIS num. §/§ Labdah N 9; 17; Hr. Maktar N 24; 35; Hr. Meded N 7; Ksour Abd el-Melek

sm‘

N 5; X I3 Hr. Guergour N 4.

three.

num. $rın$$ Hr. Gen Rieime N

|.

eighty-six.

v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. $m* Labdah N 10; Carthage N 2; Dougga N 1; Ellés N 1; 2; Hr. Ghayadha N 1; Hr. el-Hammi N 1; Hr. Maktar N 1; 5; 8; 10; 11; 36; 39; 40; 47; 49; 51: 52; 53; 65; 77 (bis); 78; 79; 81; 82; 83; 84;

$Ism num. §/§m Labdah N 9; Al-Qusbat N 1; Hr. Maktar N 22 (3[l]$m); 34; Guelma N 6, $I$[m]; 16; Ksiba Mraou N 10. thirty; Slim w*ms, thirty-five, Guelma N 16; $/$m w&mn, thirty-eight, Ksiba Mraou N 10. SISt num. $/$/t] S. Antioco N 4. three. Sm n. m. sg. abs. $m Hr. Maktar N 27; cstr. Xm

Labdah N 18; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; pl. + suff. 3. pl. in?tm Hr. Maktar N 76. name; Imbsm g‘y, in the name of Gaius (Latin parallel nomine [Cai]), Labdah N 18;

85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 93; 94; 97; 99;

100;

101; 102; 103; 104; 105; 106; 107; 108; 109; 110; 111; 112; 114; 115; 116; 118; 120; 122; 123; 124; 126; 128; 129; 130; Hr. Meded N 20; Hr. Medeine N 1; Teboursouk N 10; 17; Tunisia OU N 1; 2; 7; 8; 9; 13; Constantine N 2; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 15; 20, §/m]*; 22; 23; 25; 28; 31; 32; 34; 36; 39; 40; 42; 44; 45; 47; 56; 57; 59; 60; 62; 63; 65; 66; 68; 69: 73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 80; 81; 89; Guelma N 33; Oudjel N 1; 3»? Carthage N 9; Hr. Ghayadha N 5; Hr. Maktar N 7; 12; 41; Hr. Meded N 21; 23; Teboursouk N 3; 11; 12; Thibar N 1; Tunisia OU N 4; 5; 6; 14; Constantine N 16; 17, &°; 29; 48; 55; 58; 79; Guelma N 22; 32; 34; Tenes N 1; Tirekbine N 1; $m® Teboursouk N 6; $m” EIKefN 1; Yn

Carthage N 7; Hr. Maktar N 9; 74; 132;

$m n*m, a good name, Hr. Maktar N 27; dl $m

Teboursouk N 5; 8; Guelma N 18 (n°); 19;

smt, with a name of heroism, i. e. famous as a hero, Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1.

20; 25 (X*n); 26; 28; Ksiba Mraou N 7; mw Guelma N 31; 3*m* Constantine N 35; $rıh Constantine N 27; 33; 87; [$]'mh Dougga N 2; im? Arseu N 1; [$/m Hr. Ghayadha N 4; $° Constantine N 30; impf. 3 sg. m. ym? Arseu N 2; 2 sg. m. tim* Constantine N 52; 61; 72; tin? Constantine N 82; t3mh Constantine N 88. to hear.

$mn n. sg. cstr. mmn Pompei N 2; 3. oil, mn tzbr, oil from tzbr, Pompei N 2. smn num. $rın? Hr. Bou Atfan N 1; $mii Ain Zakkar N 1; Hr. Meded N 2; Ksiba Mraou N 10.

eight.

$mr A form of this root in Cherchel N 1 ?

Smnm num. $nınm Labdah N 9; Hr. Guergour N 6, §mnm; Hr. Meded N 6; Cherchel N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 3. eighty; Smnm w hms, fifty-five, Ksiba Mraou N 3, cf. Hr. Guergour N 6; $mmm w*, eighty-six, Hr. Meded N 6.

$nm

num. Xnm Labdah N 9; 17; Bir bou Rekba N I (ter); Hr. Maktar N 63; El Kef N 2. two.

408

Appendices St n. f. sg. abs. 31 Labdah N 9; Bir bou Rekba

St

n. sg. abs. $°t Hr. Medeine N 2 (ter). word of remark a.l.

unknown

meaning,

see

the

Spt

v. gal part. sg. abs. $pr Labdah N 13; 16 (Latin parallel sufes); Chia N 1; pl.m.abs. Xptm Labdah N 9; 13; 14; 17; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Hr. Aouin N 1; Hr. Guergour N 9 ([X]ptm); Hr. Maktar N 65; 75; Hr. Medeine

N 1; Chia N 1; $ptym Leptis Magna N 17. Coins: pl. abs. krtn Sptm bdmlqrt w hn’.

sufet, magistrate. Sp‘t n. sg. abs. $p“t Hr. Maktar N 76. clan, uncertain interpretation, cf. the remark a.l. Sql

v. qal. impf. 3 pl. m. ySg/[?] Al-Qusbat N 1; yiph. part. s. abs./cstr. my$ql Labdah N 16 1 (see the

remark a.l.); yiph. to adorn, mysql ?rs, who adorns the country (Latin parallel ornator patriae), Labdah N 16, 19. SS num.

§§ Labdah

1;

Djebel

Massoudj

1;

Hr.

Maktar

Bedja N 1; Guelma N 2; 3; 4; 5, Yt; 13; 16;

(cf. the remark a.l.); 19.

qal to weigh, Al-Qusbat N

N

N 35; Cherchel N 1; sg. cstr. 3t Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 9; Bir bou Rekba N 1; Ellés N 1 (bis); 2; Hammam Derradji N | (see the remark a.l.); Hr. Aouin N 1; Hr. Maktar N 77; Hr. Medeine N 1; El Kef N 2; Constantine N 54; 65 (cf. the remark a.l.); Chia N 1; X*t Hr. Guergour N 9 ([$]*t ); Hr. Maktar N 43; Hr. Medeine N 2 (uncertain interpret.); pl. abs. nt Hr. Guergour N 1; 6; Hr. Maktar N 24; 26; 27; 31; 32; 33; 50; 63; Hr. Meded 2; 25; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; 2; 5; Tunisia OU N 11; 19; Cherchel N 1; Guelma N 1; Hr. Bou Atfan N 1; Kef Bezioun N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 1; 9; 10; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 2; $“nt Ain Zakkar N 1 (bis); Djebel Mansour N 1; Hr. Brirht N 1; Hr. Guergour N 2; 4; Hr. Maktar N 17; 18; 19; 20 (n[t]); 21; 22; 25; 30; 34; 43; 44; 56; 57, Hr. Meded 6; 7; 16; 17; 24; 27; 28; Hr. Sidi Khalifat N 1; Ksour Abd el-Melek N 4;

N 9; Hr. Maktar N 30; Hr.

Meded N 6; Souk Arrhas N 1; §? Hr. Brirht N I. Six.

sim num. $$m Labdah N 17; Hr. Maktar N 32; 35; 57; Hr. Merah N 1; Guelma N 4; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 2; $y$m Hr. Brirht N 1 (Sy[$]m); Hr. Meded N 16. sixty; Xm wd, sixty-one, Guelma N 4; $$m wsnm, sixty-two (Latin parallel /xii), Labdah N 17; Sy[S]m w3°$, sixty-six, Hr. Brirht N 1; Sym w“mS, sixty-five, Hr. Meded N 16, cf. Qalat Abi s-Siba N 2.

Kef Bezioun N 2; Ksiba Mraou N 5; Qalat Abi s-SibaN 1; Souk Arrhas N 1; nwt Ksiba Mraou N 4; Hr. Merah N 1; Sn? Hr. Brirht N I, for[t]; Hr. Guergour N 3; Ksiba Mraou N 8; $°nwr Hr. Merah N 1; Ksiba Mraou N 3; $nht Hr. Brirht N 1;. year; bh$t hy Labdah N 9, in that year; bn $nt Snm Hr. Maktar N 63, (a boy) two years of age; br Snt §b°m Ain Zakkar N 1, a female seventy years of age; Xt ptm Hr. Aouin N |, the year of the (following) suffetes. t

prep. 1 Labdah N 10 (bis); 18 (ter); 22; 58; SabrathaN 1; 2; Bir Tlelsa N 1; Djebel Massoudj 1; Hr. Maktar N 76 (bis); Cherchel N 1; 2; Guelma N 28; 38; Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1; S. Antioco N 3 (bis); ?t Al-Qusbat N 1 (quater 7); Sabratha N 3; 16; Ellés N 1; 2; Hr. Maktar N 9; 40; Teboursouk

stantine 25; 26; sg. f. ’P nota

N 8; 10; Con-

N 14; 22; 55; Guelma N 18; 19; 20; 34; Ksiba Mraou N 7 (bis); pron. 3 Carthage N 2; Djebel Massoud} |. objecti.

Vocabularv tr n. sg. pron. 3 the reading, Tlelsa N 1. form, plan; Labdah N 13,

sg. m. Prm Labdah N 13 (for cf. the remark a.l.); 16; Bir berm, according to (its) plan, 16, cf. Bir Tlelsa N 1.

tht prep. thr Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 13; Hr. Maktar N 32; 34; 35; rt Hr. Maktar N 33;

64 (bis ?). under, tht ?bn st, under this stone (cf. Hr. Maktar N 33, 34), Hr. Maktar N 32, 35; in

409

sive pronoun and carrying the same possessive pronoun, expressing the reflexive possessive (Lat. suus or ipsius); s. v. btm, he has noted that one has to accept that in several instances the first word in combinations as Imbmlktm btm, berm btm, btgtm btm, btkltm btm, has been left out, leaving btm on its own with the meaning ‘at his own expense;’ on account of this, the explanation seems untenable. The same word, preceded by the article, Atm, possibly in Al-Qusbat N 1, context, however, highly uncertain.

the place ofi wtht mit ‘sr hmslm, in the place of the authority of the ten rulers (parallel

tm

with Latin tribunicia N 13; see also rb.

f. abs. tn" Wadi el-Amud N 1; Hr. Maktar N 21. complete, perfect; tm bhym, perfect in life (Latin par. honeste), Hr. Maktar N 35, cf. Hr. Maktar N 21, 24; mgn’t ?tnr’, absolute property, Wadi el-Amud N 1. A form of this word (f. sg. abs. tnr) in Khallik N I ?

potestate),

Labdah

tkl v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. tkl Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1 (uncertain division of words, see the remarks a.l.). to trust.

tklt n. sg. abs. r&Pt Chia N 1. completion, btkPt, completely, Chia N 1; cf. possibly also Hr. Kasbat N 2. tly? n. pl. abs. t/y?m Sabratha N 2. curtain ? tm

n.sg.abs. Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 9; 10; 12; 16; 18; 19; 58; 63; Tarhuna N 1; Bir Tlelsa N 1 (bis); Hr. Drombi N 1; Tatahouine N 1; Constantine N 57; 58; 59; 60; 89; pron. 3 pl.m. tmnm Labdah N 9 (ter). completeness; btm, completely, at ones own expense, Breviglieri N 1, Labdah N 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 58, 63, Tarhuna N 1, Bir Tlelsa N 1, Hr. Drombi N 1, Tatahouine N 1,

Constantine N 57, 58, 59, 60, 89; for Labdah N 19, cf. the remark a.l.; price Labdah N 9;

according to KRAHMALKOV (2000, s. v. δέ). bt means

*own', in apposition to a posses-

adj. m. sg. abs. tm Hr. Maktar N 24; 35;

tmy’ n. sg. abs. tmy’ Constantine N 69; tm? S. Antioco N 2. chief, for S. Antioco N 2, see the remark a.l. tmm

v. qal perf. 3 sg. m. tm Guelma N 7; iph. perf. 3 sg. m. ?tm Teboursouk N 10. to complete; forms of this verb in Hammam Derradji N 2, Guelma N 23, S. Antioco N 2? see the remarks a.l. tmr

n. sg. abs. “nr Al-Qusbat N | palm tree; the interpretation of Al-Qusbat N I is uncertain. tmt

n. (cf. the remark s. v. εἰ) sg. abs. tmt Labdah N 16; 19; rn? Cherchel N 2. perfection, mhb dt htmt, who loves the perfect knowledge (Latin parallel amator concordiae), Labdah N 16, 19.

410

Appendices

t'smt n. sg. abs. Qalat Abi s-Siba N 1. heroism. ts‘t

n. sg. abs. 197 Chia N 1; cstr. fs’t Labdah N 14; + suff. 3 sg. m. ts’tm Breviglieri N 1; Labdah N 10; 58; tsty Wadi el-Amud N 1; tstm Hr. Drombi N 1; + suff. 3 pl. m. tstrim Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1.

expense; btgtm btm, completely at his own expense, Labdah N 10 (cf. Breviglieri

N 1; Hr. Drombi NI, Ksour Abd el-Melek N I, and probably also Labdah N 14). ts‘ num. 13° Labdah N 9; Hr. Meded N 25. nine.

t5°m num. /$m Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1; ty3m Hr. Maktar N 21. ninety, t$m whd Ksour Abd el-Melek N 1,

ninety-one. Cf. also t3^m.

Bibliography For the sake of completion we have also presented quite a number of, especially older, publications we had not the opportunity to view for ourselves.

Modern Authors ACQUARO, E., 1987, ‘Le monete neopuniche di Sks, nota epigrafica,’ Bollettino di Numismatica, suppl. iv, 235-237. ACQUARO. E., L.I. MANFREDI, A. TUSA CUTRONI, 1991, Le monete Puniche in Italia, Roma. ADAMS J. N., 2003, Bilingualism and the Latin language, Cambridge. ALEXANDROPOULOS, J., 2000, Les monnaies de l Afrique Antique, 400 av. J.-C.—40 ap. J. C., Toulouse ( = MAA). ALFARO ASINS, C., 1991, *Epigrafia monetal pünica y neopünica en Espafia, ensayo de sintesis,' in: R. MARTINI, N. VISMARA (eds.), Ermanno A. Arslan, Studia Dicata, vol. 1, Milano, 109-156. ALVAREZ DELGADO, JUAN, 1964, Inscripciones Libicas de Canarias, Ensayo de interpretación Líbica, Tenerife. AMADASI 1967, MARIA GIULIA GUZZO AMADASI, Le iscrizioni Fenicie e Puniche delle Colonie in Occidente, Roma. (Studi Semitici 28).

-, 1969a, MARIA GIULIA GUZZO AMADASI, 'Le iscrizoni puniche e neopuniche,' in: Missione Archeologica Italiana a Malta, Rapporto Preliminare della Campagna 1968, Roma (Publicazioni del Centro di Studio per la civiltà Fenicia e Punica 9, Serie Archeologica

17), 67-75. -, 1969b, MARIA GIULIA GUZZO AMADASI, ‘Le iscrizoni puniche,’ in: Anna Maria Bisi, Maria GIULIA GUZZO AMADASI & VINCENZO TUSA, Grotta Regina i, Rapporto Preliminare della Missione congiunta con la Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Sicilia Occidentale, Roma (Studi Semitici 33), 39-62. -, 1972, MARIA GIULIA GUZZO AMADASI, ‘Le iscrizoni puniche e neopuniche,’ in: Missione Archeologica Italiana a Malta, Rapporto Preliminare della Campagna 1969, Roma (Serie Archeologica

18), 121—127.

-, 1973, MARIA GIULIA GUZZO AMADASI, ‘Le iscrizoni puniche,’ in: Missione Archeologica Italiana a Malta, Raporto Preliminare della Campagna 1970, Roma (Serie Archeologica

20), 87—94. -, 1979, Maria GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘Osservazioni sull’iscrizione Tripol. 32,' StudMager xi, 27-35. -, 1980, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI Guzzo, ‘my pronom relatif en Punique,’ GLECS xxiv-

xxviii, 1979-1984, 31-37.

412

Appendices

-- 1982, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘Il Vocabolo m’hd/mhz in Ugaritico e in Fenicio,’ in: Materiali Lessicali ed Epigrafici, 1 (= Collezione di Studi Fenici 13), 31-36. —, 1983a, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘Una grande famiglia di Lepcis in rapporto con la ristrutturazione urbanistica della città (I sec. A. C.-I sec. D. C.),’ in: Architecture et société, de l'archaisme Grec à la fin de la République Romaine, Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre national de la recherche scientifique et l'École francaise de Rome, Rome (7 CEFR 66), 377—385. -- 1983b, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, 'Osservazioni su alcune iscrizioni di Lepcis,’ Atti del I Congresso internazionale di Studi fenici e punici, iii, Roma, 789—796. —, 1984, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘Les divinités dans les inscriptions puniques de Tripolitaine: essai de mise au point,’ BAC NS xvii, 1981 [1984], 189-196. - 1985, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, “Inscriptions phéniciennes sur cadrans solaires," in: Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Matthias Delcor, Kevelaer-Neukirchen/Vluyn (7 AOAT 215), 1-12.

- 1986, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘La documentazione epigrafica dal Tofet di Mozia e il probleme del sacrificio molk,’ in E. LieiNski, C. BONNET, P. MARCHETTI (eds), Reli-

gio Phoenicia, acta colloquii Namurcensis habiti diebus 14 et 15 mensis Decembris anni —, —, -

-

1984, Louvain (Studia Phoenicia iv), 189-207. 1988, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘Iscrizioni Fenicie e Puniche in Italia,’ Bolletino d'Arte 39-40, 1986 [1988], 103-118. 1990, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, Iscrizioni Fenicie e Puniche in Italia, Roma. 1992a, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘Varia Phoenicia,’ RSF xx, 95-104. 1994, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘Nomi latini in iscrizioni puniche,' in: P. FILIGHEDDU (ed.), / Convegno Internazionale di Linguistica dell'area mediterranea sul tema Circolazioni culturali nel mediterraneo antico, 1991, Cagliari, 13-19. 1995a, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘Aleph Mater Lectionis en Punique,’ Actes du IIle Congrés International des Études Phéniciennes et Puniques, Tunis, 11-16 novembre 1991, Tunis, 71—76.

—, 1995b, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, 'Expériences épigraphiques,' in: 1 Fenici: feri oggi domani, Ricerche, scoperte, progetti (Roma 3—5 marzo 1994), Roma, 153-162. —, 2002, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI, ‘Le iscrizioni del tofet: osservazioni sulle espressioni di offerta," in: WAGNER & RUIZ CABRERO 2002, 93-119. - 2005, MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO, ‘Les phases du Phénicien: Phénicien et Punique,'

in: P. FRONZAROLI & P. MARRASSINI, Proceedings of the 10th meeting of Hamito-Semitic (Afroasoiatic) Linguistics (Florence 2001), Firenze 2005 (Quaderni di Semitistica 25), 95-103. ANGELI BERTINELLI, M. G., 1981, 'Ancora in tema di titolatura imperiale romana in ambiente punico,' in: Scritti sul mondo antico in memoria di Fulvio Grosso, Roma, 13-22. ANONYMOUS 1836, ‘Lettre à M. Quatremére ... sur une inscription latino-phénicienne de Leptis,’JA 111/2, 142-176. - 1853, *Explication [ofNP 73],' ASAC 1853, 143 and pl. xv. - 1854-1855, ASAC 1854-1855, pl. 5 (NP 74) & 6 (NP32). ARRI, M. L'ABBÉ,

1837, ‘Nouvelles observations sur l'inscription latino-punique de Leptis,’

JA ni/4, 301- 315. AURIGEMMA, SALVATORE, 1916, 'Iscrizioni Latino-Neopuniche scoperte presso 1] forte del faro in Tripoli,’ Notiziario Archeologico 11, 383-393. BADiA, DOMINGO (ALI BEY) 1814, Voyage d’Ali-Bey el Abbassi en Afrique et en Asie pendant les années 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 et 1807, rédigé par Roquefort, Paris, 4 vols.

Bibliography BARADEZ,

J., 1968,

‘Les nécropoles

413

de Tipasa: Tombes

du cimetiére occidental cötier,’

AntAfr ii, 77-93. BARGES,

L.,

1837,

‘Lettre

à M.

le baron

Silvestre

de

Sacy

...sur une

inscription

latino-

punique,’JA 11/3, 534—555. - 1847, *Note sur une inscription bilingue trouvée à Lella-Maghrnia, dans le courant de

l'année 1846,'JA iv/ix, 210-217. -

1852, Mémoire sur trente-neuf nouvelles inscriptions Puniques expliquées et commentées, Paris. BARGES, J.-J.-L., 1878, Recherches archéologiques sur les colonies phéniciennes établies sur le littoral de la Celtoligurie, Paris.

BARNETT,

R.

D.,

1963-1964,

‘A Review

of Acquisitions

1955-1962

of Western

Asiatic

Antiquities ii,’ BMQ xxvii, 79-88. BARTOLONI, P. & G. GARBINI, ‘Una coppa d'argento con iscrizione Punica da Sulcis,’ RSF xxvii, 79-91. BENARY, F., 1839, Review of GEsENIUS 1837 in Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik

1839 11, col. 539—583, col. 585-596. BENZ, F. L., 1972, Personal names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions, (Studia Pohl 8), Rome (= PNPPN). BERGER, PHILIPPE, 1884, ‘La nécropole phénicienne de Mehdia,’ RevArch iii/iv (1884/2),

166-168. -

1886, ‘[Lecture sur cinq inscriptions néo-puniques οὐ se trouve le nom de Makteur],’ JA

viii/vii, 334—336. —, 1887a, JA vii/ix, 294. —, 1887b, ‘Note sur la grande inscription néopunique et sur une autre inscription d' Altiburos,'

JA vin/ix, 457-471. —, 1887c, ‘[Note sur trois nouveaux vases funéraires avec graffiti néo-puniques provenant des environs de Sousse],' JA viii/x, 535—536. - 1888, ‘Inscripion Néopunique de Cherchell, en l'honneur de Micipsa,’ RA 1, 35—46. —, 18892, ‘Inscriptions Libyques et Néo-Puniques provenant de Maktar,’ BAC 1889, 98—

101. —, 1889b, ‘Rapport sur sept inscriptions puniques peintes,’ BAC 1889, 102-104. —, 1889c, ‘[Deux inscriptions néo-puniques trouvées aux environs de Kesseur Métameur],'

CRAI 1889, 85-86. -, 1889d, ‘[Le déchiffrement d'une partie de l'inscription punique gravée sur la base de la statue du roi Micipsa],' CRAT 1889, 197-198. —, 1889e, ‘Inscriptions céramiques de la nécropole d'Hadruméte,' RevArch 111/xiv (1889/2),

21-41, 201—228. - 1890, ‘Les inscriptions de Maktar,’ CRAI 1890, 35-42. - 1891, Inscription néopunique d Altiburos (Lignes 8 et 9), Paris. —, 1892, Histoire de l'écriture dans l'Antiquité, Paris.

—, 1893a, CRAI 1893, 6-7. -, —, -, -,

1893b, *Trois inscriptions néo-puniques,' BAC 1893, 71-73. 1895, ‘Le mausolée d'El-Amrouni,' RevArch i11/xxvi, 71-83. 1900 ‘[Stéle trouvée à Maktar],' BAC 1900, clxxxiv. 1901a ‘[Note sur l'inscription de Ksiba-Mraou],' BAC 1901, cxcev-cxcvi. 1901b, ‘Note sur l'inscription Néo-Punique du Mausolée de Tatahouine,’ BAC

296-298. -- 1901c, ‘Notes sur quelques inscriptions néo-puniques,' BAC 1901, 324-331.

1901,

414

Appendices

-, 1901d, ‘Mémoire sur la grande inscription dédicatoire et sur plusieurs autres inscriptions

néo-puniques du temple d'Hathor-Miskar à Maktar,’ MAIBL xxxvi/2, 135-178 (cf. CRAI 1898, 272, 338, 348, 402-403). -. 1903a, BulSocArchSousse 1903, 133ff. -, 1903b, ‘[Rapport sur deux inscriptions, l'une libyque, l'autre néo-punique],’ BAC 1903, cxl-exli. -, 1905a, '[Rapport sur un texte épigraphique punique trouvé à Ziane],’ BAC 1905, ccvi. - 1905b, ‘[Une inscription néopunique relevée à Ziane],’ CRAI 1905, 388-389. —, 1906, BAC 1906. ccxlvii-cexlviii [ad Ksour N 1]. -, 1908a, ‘[Rapport],’ BAC 1908, clxvi-clxviii. —, 1908b, *[Rapport],' BAC 1908, cexxxvii-cexxxix. -, 1908c, '[Rapport],' CRAT, 362. - 1908d, (R. DussAup), RHR lviii, 155-156. -, 1910a, ‘[Rapport sur deux inscriptions puniques],' BAC 1910. cexxili-ccxxiv.

-, 1910b, '[Graffite néo-punique],’ BAC 1910. ccxl. - 1910c with A. MERLIN, Le sanctuaire de Baal et de Tanit, prés de Siagu, Paris 1910. BERGER, P. ἃ R. CAGNAT, 1889, “Le Sanctuaire de Saturne à Ain-Tounga,’ BAC 207-265. —, 1899, ‘L’inscription trilingue d'Henchir Alaouin,’ CRA/I 1899, 48-54. BERLINER, E., 1916, “Le mois intercalaire de calendrier punique,’ RevAss xiii, 55-61. BERTHIER, A., 1981, La Numidie, Rome et le Maghreb, Paris.

BERTHIER, A., & R. CHARLIER,

1889,

1952-1955, Le sanctuaire punique d'el-Hofra, Paris (=

EH). BERTHIER, A., ἃ M. LEGLAY, 1958, ‘Le sanctuaire du sommet et les steles à Ba al-Saturne de Tiddis,' Libyca vi, 23-58. BESCHAOUCH, A., 1980a, ‘[Présentation d'une inscription latine inédite de’Ain-Djemala],’ BAC NS, fasc. B, xii-xiv, 1976-1978, 232-233. -, 1980b, Note on his communication ‘Dieux de Rome et divinités libyco-puniques,’ BAC NS, fasc. B, xii-xiv, 1976-1978, 249. Bist, A. M., 1969, * Iscrizione neo-punica inedita da Favignana,’ AJON xix, 555—558 (tav. 1). —, 1970, *Recente scoperte puniche in Sicilia,’ OA ix, 249—258. - 1972, ‘Le stele neo-puniche del Museo Nazionale di Napoli,’ AJON xxxii, 135-150. - 1976, ‘Su un gruppo di stele neo-puniche del British Museum,’ RSF iv, 23-40, tav, i- v. - 1977, ANNA MARIA Bist INGRASSIA, “A proposito di alcune iscrizioni puniche su anfore di Pompei,’ in: M. ANNECHINO e.a., L instrumentum domesticum di Ercolano e Pompei ( = Quaderni di cultura materiale 1), 151-153. - 1978, ‘A proposito di alcune stele del tipo della Ghorfa al British Museum,’ AntAfr xii, 21-88. BLAU, O., 1849, ‘Die Inschrift von Eryx, Versuch einer Erklärung,’ ZDMG iii, 429-449.

- 1858, ' [Review of LEvv 1856, LEvy 1857],’ ZDMG xii, p.p 723-728. -

1864, ‘Neuere Literatur phónikischer und punischer Inschriften und Alterthümer 1,’ ZDMG xvili, 633—643. - 1865, ‘Neuere Literatur phónikischer und punischer Inschriften und Alterthümer ii,’ ZDMG xix, 351-357. - 1876, *Phönikische Analekten 5. Neopunica 130. Elegie der Theona,’ ZDMG xxx, 738741. BÖHM, G., 1999, Sprache und Geschichte im kanarischen Archipel, Band iii, Epigraphik, Wien (= Beiträge zur Afrikanistik, Band 64).

Bibliography

415

BoNNET, C., 1988, Melgart, cultes et mythes de l'Héracles Tvrien en Méditerranée, Louvain (Studia Phoenicia viii). BonG, v.-Rocco, B., 1972, *L'ipogeo di Tac-Caghki a Malta,’ SicArch xviii-xx, 61-74. BouBE 1992, ‘La circulation monétaire à Sala à l'époque préromaine,’ in: Lixus. Actes du colloque organisé par l'Institut des sciences de l'archéologie et du patrimoine de Rabat avec le concours de l'École F. rancaise de Rome, Larache, 8-11 novembre

1989, (=

CEFR

166), Rome, 255-265. BourGADE, F., 1852, Toison d'or de la langue Phénicienne, Paris; 2" edition, Paris, 1856; review LEvy 1858. BOURGADE 1856, see BOURGADE 1852. BROGAN, O., 1964, “The Roman remains in the Wadi el-Amud,’ LibAnt 1, 1964. BRON, F., 1977, *Waw conversif en Phénico-Punique?,’ GLECS xviii-xxiii, 1973-1979, 607-610. BRUSTON, CH., 1919, * L'inscription néo-punique de Bir Tlelsa (Tunisie),’ RevArch v/9, 179-182. CADENAT, P. 1972, ‘Un établissement pré-romain dans la région de Tiaret (Oranie),' AntAfr vi, 29-58. CALLAGARIN, L.& F.-Z. EL HARRIF, 2000, ‘Ateliers et échanges monétaires dans le Circuit du Detroit,’ in: M. P. GARCIA BELLIDO & L. CALLEGARIN (eds.), Los Cartagineses y la monetizacion del Mediterraneo occidental, Madrid, 23-42. CAMPO, M., 1976, Las monedas de Ebusus, Barcelona.

- 1986, ' Algunas cuestiones sobre las monedas de Malaca,' AuOr iv, 139-155 (= GREGORIO DEL OLMO LETE & MARÍA EUGENIA AUBET SEMMLER, Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Iberica, vol. 11, 139-155, Barcelona). Camps, G., 1985, ' Adherbal,' EB τι, 125-126. -, 1990, ‘Qui sont les Dii mauri,’ AAf xxvi, 131-154. —, 1991, *Baldir / Balidir,’ EB ix, 1318. - 1995, ‘Dougga,’ EB ix, 2522-2527. CAPUTO, G., 1938, ‘Il Teatro Augusteo di Leptis Magna secondo le ultime scoperte e un'iscrizione bilingue in Latini e Neo-Punico 1,’ Africa Italiana vi, 92-103. CARTON, 1908, ‘Notes sur des fouilles exécutées à Thuburnica et à Chemtou,’ BAC 1908, 410-444. CHABOT, J.-B., Punica v. Punica. —, 1916, ‘Sur deux inscriptions puniques et une inscription latine d’Afrique,’ CRA/ 1916, 246. —, 1924, ‘Mélanges épigraphiques et archéologiques,’ Le Muséon xxxvii, 1924, 162-164. —, 1932-1933, ‘[Inscription néo-punique trouvée a Henchir-Djerou],’ BAC 1932-1933, 447449. —, 1936-1937, *[Communicatıon],” BAC 1936-1937, 170-171. -- 1938-1940, ‘[Note sur une inscription bilingue de Thuburbo Majus],' BAC 1938-1940, 397-399. -, 1941-1942, ‘[Notes sur des inscriptions néo-puniques de Sousse], BAC 1941-1942, 399—400. —, 1943-1945a, ‘Note sur l'inscription punique d'une borne-limite découverte en Tunisie,’ BAC 1943-1945, 64-67. —, 1943-1945b, ‘Plusieurs inscriptions carthaginoises,’ BAC 1943-1945, 289-290. -, 1943-1945c, ‘Sur une inscription de Tirekbine,’ BAC 1943-1945, 463—464.

416

Appendices

CHAKER, S., 1985, ‘Onomastique berbére ancienne (antiquité / moyen-äge): rupture et con-

tinuité,” BAC NS xix, 483-496. - 1987, ‘Amastan / MSTN,' EB iv, 561. CHARLES-PICARD, GILBERT, 1943-1945a, *Rapport sur l'Activité du Service des Antiquités et Arts de la Tunisie dans le second trimestre 1945,’ BAC 1943-1945, 454—462.

-, 1943-1945b, ‘Rapport sur I’ Activité du Service des Antiquités et Arts de la Tunisie du 1° juillet au 31 octobre 1945, BAC 1943-1945, 474—482. -- 1957, ‘Civitas Mactaritana,' Karthago viii, 1-156. CHARLIER, R., 1953, ‘La nouvelle série de stéles puniques de Constantine et la question

des sacrifices dits 'Molchomor' en relation avec l'expression *birm btm’,’ Karthago iv, 3-48. CINTAS, PIERRE, 1951, ‘Deux campagnes de fouilles à Utique,' Karthago ii, 1—88.

CLERMONT-GANNEAU, CH., 1888a, “César et le nom Punique de l'éléphant,' RAO 1, 230234. —, 1888b, ‘Le mot CHILLEK, sauver en Phénicien et dans l'Arabe vulgaire,! RAO

1, 165-

166. -

1895, ‘L’inscription d'El-Amrouni et les Dieux Manes de Sémites,’ EAO i, 1880-1895,

156-164. —, 1899, v. CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1900b. - 1900a, ‘Le Mazrah et les Curiae ou Ordines carthaginois dans le Tarif des sacrifices de Marseille et dans les inscriptions néo-puniques de Maktar et d’Altiburos,’ RAO 111, 22-40

(cf. CRAI 1898, 348—368). —, 1900b,

‘Les inscriptions néo-puniques

de Maktar,’ RAO

τ|, 323-347

(= CRAI

1899,

525-538). —, -, -

1903, ‘Inscriptions néo-puniques,' RAO v, 105-109. 1905a, ‘Inscription néo-punique,’ RAO vi, 212-213. 1905b, ‘Inscription bilingue néo-punique et latine,’ RAO vi, 377—390. 1906, ‘Une inscription néo-punique datée du proconsulat de L. Aelius Lamia,’ RAO vii,

86-114. - 1909, Annuaire du College de France, 1909, 64, n. 3. —, 1915, CH. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, with VASSEL 1915, 4-6. —, 1924, ‘Inscription néopunique,’ RAO viii, 15-21. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. & R. P. WRIGHT, 1995, The Roman inscriptions of Britain, vol. ii, Instrumentum domesticum, ed. by S.S. FRERE et al., fasc. viti: Graffiti on coarse pottery ..., Gloucester. CONSTANS, L.-A., 1915, '[Communication],' BAC 1915, clxx-clxxii.

CookE, G.A., 1903, A Textbook of North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Oxford (= NST). DAHOOD, M., 1966, Psalms, vol. 1, (Anchor Bible), Garden City-New York. DANIELS, C. M., 1975, ‘An Ancient People of the Libyan Sahara,’ in: J.-T. Bynon (ed.), Hamito-Semitica, The Hague-Paris, 249-265. DE PACHTERE, F.-G., 1909, Musée de Guelma, Paris (= Musées et collections archéologiques de l'Algérie et de la Tunisie). DE SAINTE-MARIE, E., 1884, Mission a Carthage, Paris. DE SAULCY, F., 1845a, ‘Recherches sur les inscriptions votives, phéniciennes et puniques,’ Annales de l'Institut Archéologique, xvi, nouv. ser. i1, 68-97, tab. E-I. - 1846a, ‘Rectification de la valeur alphabétique d'un caractére de l'écriture punique,’ RevArch ii, 567-575.

Bibliography

417

—, 1846b, ‘Lettre à M. Ch. Lenormant, de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettrres, sur

un point de l'épigrphie Puniqe,' RevArch iii, 629—634. —, 18472, ‘Recherches sur les épitaphes puniques,' Annales de l'institut archéologique, xix, nouv. série iv, 1-16. —, 1847b, ‘Nouvelles inscriptions votives, trouvées à Carthage et à Constantine,’ Annales de l'institut archéologique, x1x, nouv. série iv, 193-204, pl. G-I. —, 1847c, Monuments inédits, publ. par l'Institut de Correspondance Archéologique iv, Tab. 37. DELAMARE, AD. H. AL., 1850, ‘Archéologie,’ in: Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie pendant les années 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844 et 1845, Paris. DELAPORTE, J. D., 1836, “Mémoire sur les ruines de Leptis Magna (régence de Tripoli de Barbarie) adressé en 1806 à M. le Prince de Bénévent, ministre ...,’ JA 1/1, 305-337. DELLA

MARMORA,

A., 1833, ‘Le Nuraghe di Sardegna, lettera al dott. Ambrosch,' Bollettino

dell 'Instituto di correspondenza archeologica, sett.-ott. 1833, 129.

- 1854, ‘Sopra alcune antichtà Sarde ricavate da un manoscritto del xv secolo memoria,’ Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, serie 11, tom. xiv, scienze morali storiche e filologiche, 101—252. DERENBOURG, H., 1875, ‘Sur une nouvelle inscription néopunique de Cherchel,’ CRA/ ser. iv, t. 3, 259- 266. DERENBOURG, J., 1874, ‘[Communication],’ CRA/ 1874, 306. —, 1876, ‘Inscription bilingue de Ain-Youssef,' RevArch 11/xxxi, 1876/1, 175-179. DESANGES, J., 1997, *Thugga dans les sources litteraires,’ in: M. KHANOUSSI & L. MAURIN (eds.), Dougga (Thugga) Études Epigraphiques, Paris, 21-25. DE SIMONE, R., 2003, “Traduzioni nelle epigrafi neopuniche nordafricane?' in: GIUSEPPE REGALZI (ed.), Mutuare, interpretare, tradurre: storie di culture a confronto, Atti del 2 Incontro "Orientalisti" (Roma, 11-13 dicembre 2002), 155-168 (URL = purl.org/net/orientalisti/atti2002.htm, active May 2006). DILLMANN, A., 1881, “Über eine neuentdeckte punische Inschrift,” Monatsberichte der K. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 429—433. Di Vita, A., G. Di VITA-EVRARD & L.BACCHIELLI, 1998, La Libye Antique-Cites perdues de l'Empire romain, Paris (translated into German, English, Dutch, Cologne 1999). Di Vita,

A., ἃ

G. GARBINI,

1984,

‘Elementi

alessandrini

a Sabratha,

a proposito

di due

nuove tombe dipinte di età protoimperiale,’ in: N. BONACASA & A. Di VITA. Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano, studi in onore di A. Adriani, Roma (= Studi e Materiali. Istituto di Archeologia, Università di Palermo, 4-6). Di VITA-EvRARD, G., 2004, ‘Sur deux inscriptions votives ‘bilingues’ de Sabratha et de Lepcis Magna,’ AAf xxxvii-xxxix, 2002-2003, 315-324. DONNER, H., ἃ W. ROLLIG, 1962, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, 1-11, Wiesbaden, 1966(2), 1968(2), 1969(2) (= KAT) (review: G. LEvi DELLA VIDA, RSO xxxix, 1964, 295—320). —, 2002, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, 5., erweiterte und überarbeitete Auflage,

i, Wiesbaden (= KAP). DouBLET, G., & P. GAUCKLER, 1892, Musée de Constantine (= Musées et collections archéologiques de l' Algérie), Paris. DuSSAUD, R., 1914a, ‘[Review of VASSEL 1914],' RAR, 1, 424-425. —, 1914b, ‘Inscription Néopunique de Bir-Tlelsa relatant la construction et la consécration d'un autel,’ BAC 1914, 618—620. -, 1914c, ‘Trois stéles votives Néopuniques de Dougga,' BAC 1914, 44-45.

418 -

Appendices

1915, ‘[Texte bilingue néo-punique latin trouvé à Gigthis],’ BAC 1915, cxcv. 1917, ‘Inscriptions néopuniques d'Algérie et de Tunisie,’ BAC 1917, 161—167: i Inscription néopunique trouveé à Dellys, 161-163, 11 Inscriptions néopuniques d'Algérie et

de Tunisie, 163-165, iii Note additionelle sur l'inscription néopunique de Bir-Tlelsa, 165-167. -

1921, ‘Rapport sur une inscription néo-punique,' BAC 1921, cclix—cclx.

- 1923, ‘[Deux textes néopuniques funéraires ... de Djama],' BAC 1923, Ixxix-Ixxx. - 1924, ‘[Fragment néopunique découvert à Cherchel],’ BAC 1924, -, 1925a, ‘[Quelques explications touchant les fragments de plátre BAC 1925, Ixxxv-Ixxxvi1. —, 1925b, '[Sur une inscription néopunique, Henchir-el-Bled],’ BAC - 1946, *Précisions épigraphiques touchant les sacrifices puniques

cxlvi. découverts à Gigthis],' 1925, cclii. d’enfants,’ BAC

1946,

371—387. EISSFELDT, O., 1935, Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch, Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums iti, Halle; reprinted in WAGNER & RUIZ CABRERO 2002, 1-44 and translated in Spanish, ibid. 45-86, cited as EISSFELDT 1935, but according to the re-edition 2002.

EL-KHAYARI, A., 2000, ‘Une stéle funéraire portant une inscription néopunique découverte dans le temple C à Volubilis,’ Semitica 1, 55-68. ELMAYER, A. F., 1982, “The Libyan God Gurzil in a Neo-Punic Inscription from Tripolitania,’ Libyan Studies xii, 1982, 49-50. -, 1996a, ‘Statues of Libyans dedicated to one of the ancient Libyan gods in the area of Tripolitania,’ B/CS xli, 109-114.

-, 1996b, „N 78-86. -

Hall

dain

(à Aal

LH

AAN

aa

Las.

gel

Shs, TSR xvi,

1997, Tripolitania and the Roman Empire (B.C. 47-A.D. 235), Tripoli 1997 (= TRE).

- 1998, 8}

Jis]! Gh

(3 δας

Sl

Slalassı, 7Sh xvin, 93-102.

ENNABLI, A., & J. PETIT (eds.), 1982, De Carthage a Kairouan: 2000 ans d’art et d’histoire en Tunisie, [catalogue d'une exposition:] Musée du Petit Palais de la Ville de Paris, 20 octobre

1982-27

février 1983, Paris.

EuTING, J., 1871, Punische Steine, St.-Pétersbourg (= Mémoires de l'Académie [mpériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, viie série, tome xvii, no. 3). - 1875, ‘Inschriftliche Mittheilungen, 1, Neop. 123-127,’ ZDMG xxix, 235-240. - 1876, ‘Inschriftliche Mittheilungen, iv, Neop. 130. (Inschrift von Scherschel),! ZDMG xxx, 284-287 (mit lithogr. Tafel). - 1882,, with G. FIORELLI, ‘Notizie degli scavi di antichita,’ ARAL x, 402-428, see 420-

422. EWALD,

H.,

1852, H. E[WALD],

'Entzifferung der neupunischen

Inschriften,’ GGA

1852,

1712-1745. -

1853, ‘Kurzer Bericht über den Vortrag des Prof. Dr. von Ewald am 30. Sept. 1852 aus der Entzifferung der Neukarthagischen Inschriften,’ ZDMG vii, 92-93. -, 1858, ‘Erklärung einer neuen Punischen Inschrift,’ Nachrichten der Gesellschaft zu Gottingen, 137-154. FABIANI, E., 1880, Di un anfora aramaica del castro Pretorio, Roma. FALBE, C. T., 1833, Recherches sur l'emplacement de Carthage suivies de renseignements sur plusieurs inscriptions puniques inédites, Paris. FANTAR, MH. H., 1969, Ricerche puniche ad Antas, Roma. - 1972, ‘Une inscription exposée au Musée d'Utique,' CT xx (79-80), 9-15.

Bibliographv —, —, -

v

—, —, —, —,

419

1974, ‘Steles anépigraphes et stéles à inscriptions néopuniques,’ MAIBL xvi, 379—431. 1975a, ‘La Stéle Néopunique de Suo,’ Semitica xxv, 69-74. 1975b, *Présence punique au Cap Bon,’ Kokalos xviii-xix, 1972-1973 [1975], 264-277. 1978, ‘La cité punique de Thapsus,’ in: Proceedings of the ii^ International Congress of Studies on Cultures of the Western Mediterranean, vol. i1, Algiers, 67. 1982, [edition of Hr. Maktar N 128-129], in: ENNABLI, A., & J. PETIT (eds.), 1982: 106-107. 1985, ‘Adir / Addir,’ EB 11, 127-129. 1986, ‘Nouvelles stéles a épigraphes néopuniques de Mididi,' Semitica xxxvi, 2542, pl. vil- x. 1988, ‘Que savons nous des institutions municipales dans le monde de Carthage,’ REPPAL iv, 205-214. 1990a, ‘Une inscription punique de Bulla Regia,’ Semitica xxxviii, 107-112, pl. xix, xx. 1990b, ‘Baal Hammon,’ REPPAL v, 67-105.

-, 1992a, ‘L’épigraphie punique et néopunique en Tunisie (1987-1992),’ in: A. MASTINO

»

(ed.), L'Africa Romana, atti del ix convegno di studio, Sassari, 65-72. —, 1992b, ‘La Tunisie punique 1,’ SEAP xi, 87-105. —, 1993a, Carthage, Approche d'une civilisation, 2 vols., Tunis. —, 1993b, ‘Formules propitiatoires sur des stéles puniques et neopuniques,’ in: J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, Leuven (= Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55), 125-133. —, 1993c, ‘La Tunisie punique 11,’ SEAP xu, 93-129. —, 1993d, ‘A propos des stéles Puniques de Constantine conservées au Musée du Louvre,’ REPPAL vii-viii, 117—125. —, 1995, ‘L’épigraphie punique et néopunique: la Tunisie et la Sardaigne,' in: Rapporti tra Sardegna e Tunisia dall étà antica all'età moderna, Cagliari, 35—39. —, 1999a, ‘L’archéologie Punique en Tunisie 1991-1995,’ REPPAL xi, 49-61. —, 1999b, “aus gl us UazM Js, REPPAL xi, 1-35. FERCHIOU, N., 1989, ‘Le mausolée de Q. Apuleus Maxssimus à El Amrouni,' PBSR lvii, 47-76. FERJAOUI, A., 1989, ‘Nouvelles inscriptions néopuniques de Mididi,’ BT/AAT in, 55-61, pl. 1,2. -- 1990, ‘Dédicace d'un sanctuaire à "Ashtart découverte à Mididi (Tunisie),” Semitica xxxviii, 113—119, pl. xxi, xxii. -, 1993a, Recherches sur les relations entre l'Orient phénicien et Carthage, (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 124), Fribourg-Góttingen- Carthage. -, 1993b, 'Stéles votives et funéraires trouvées à Kesra,’ REPPAL vii-viii, 127-129. - 1994, ‘A propos de la formule bym n*m wbym brk dans les inscriptions néopuniques,' in: YANN LE BoHEc (ed.), L'Afrique, la Gaule, la Religion à l'époque romaine, Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay, Bruxelles (Collection Latomus 226), 9-12. —, 1995a, ‘Dédicaces néopuniques d'édifices funéraires,! REPPAL ix, 63—72. —, 1995b, ‘Les inscriptions néopuniques. Remarques d'un épigraphiste de terrain,’ in: / Fenici: leri oggi domani, Ricerche, scoperte, progetti (Roma 3—5 marzo 1994), Roma, 162-169. —, 1996, ‘Une Épitaphe néopunique d'une grande prétresse de Cérés provenant de ‘Ayin Zakkar (Tunisie),' Semitica xlvi, 25-35. -- 1997, ‘Stéles du sanctuaire de Ba‘al Hammon-Saturne de Henchir el-Hammi,' REPPAL x, 55-61.

420

Appendices

- 2002, *Nouveaux fragments de stéles néopuniques de Mididi,’ REPPAL xii, 65-72. FERJAOUI, A., & A. M’CHAREK,

1990, ‘Le sanctuaire de Ba“al-Hammon-Saturne à Henchir

Ghayadha: les inscriptions,’ REPPAL v, 117-148. FERNANDEZ DE CASTRO Y PEDRERA, R., 1945, Melilla prehispanica, Madrid. FERRON, J., 1953, ‘Dédicace latine a Baal Hammon,’ CB iii, 113-118. -, 1964-1965, * L'inscription dite bilingue des disques en plomb de Carthage,’ Mélanges de Carthage (= CB x), Paris, 65-83. —, 1967a, ‘A propos d'une expression employée sur les stéles funéraires néopuniques de Mactar,' CT xv (75-60), 33-37. —, 1967b, ‘Inscription néopunique à Malte,” ZDMG cxvii, 17-19. -- 1968, ‘Review of A. JoDIN, Mogador, comptoir phénicien du Maroc Atlantique, Tanger 1966,' Latomus xxvii, 708-712. - 1971, ‘L’épitaphe punique CIS 5980,' CT xix (75-76), 225-230. -, 1975, Mort-dieu de Carthage, Paris.

- 1987, "Restauration de l'autel et gravure d'une image sacrée dans un sanctuaire sahelien de Ba‘al ^Addir,, REPPAL ii, 193-227.

- 1993, ‘La formule "BYM N'M WBRK" des stéles votives puniques ou néopuniques de

Ψ᾿

l'Afrique du nord,’ CEDAC xiii, 36-53. FERRON, J., & M. E. AUBET, 1974, Orants de Carthage, Paris. FERRON, J. & M. PINARD, 1960-1961, ‘Les fouilles de Byrsa (suite),’ CB ix, 152-253, no 456. FÉVRIER, J.-G., 1946-1949a, ' [Rapport sur des inscriptions néo-puniques trouvées à Mactar et à Ksar Toual Zouameul par M. Gilbert Picard],’ BAC 1946-1949, 251-253. FEVRIER, J.-G., 1946-1949b, Les Phéniciens en Sardaigne, BAC 1946-1949, 415-419. - 1949a, ‘A propos de Ba'al Addir,' Semitica 11, 21-28. —, 1949b, ‘L’inscription Punico-Libyque de Maktar,’JA ccxxxvii, 85-91. —, 1949c, ‘Magistratures et sacerdoces puniques,' RA xlii, 83-87. —, 1951a, ‘L’inscription funéraire de Micipsa,’ RA xlv, 138-150. -, 1951b, ‘Notes de lexicographie punique,’JA cexxxix, 5-11. —, 1951-1952c, ‘Vir Sidonius,' Semitica iv, 13-18. —, 1951-1952b, ‘Une corporation de l'encens à Althiburos,' Semitica iv, 19—24. —, 1952a, ‘[Note sur trois inscriptions néo-puniques trouvées à Maktar],' BAC 1950, 1952, 111-113. —, 1952b, ‘[Note sur des inscriptions néo-puniques],’ BAC 1950, 1952, 143-144. —, 1952c, ‘L’inscription neopunique Cherchell 1,’ RHR cxli (NS Ixx), 19-25. -« 1952d, * "Fils adoptif" en punique,’ GLECS vi (1951-1954), 12-13.

—, 1953a, ‘Un sacrifice d'enfant chez les Numides,' Mélanges Isidore Lévy (= AIPHOS xiii), 161-171.

-,

II

-

-, 1953b, ‘La prononciation Punique des noms propres Latins en -us et en -ius,’ JA ccxli,

1954a, ‘La bilingue de Guelaa bou Sba,’ BAC

1951-1952,

1954, 38-43.

ν᾿ » » »

—, —, —,

»

v

—,

465-471. 1953c, ‘Molchomor,’ RAR cxliii (NS Ixxii), 8-18. 1954b, 1954c, 1954d, 1954e, 1955a,

‘L’épitaphe de Milkpillés,’ BAC 1951-1952, 74-80. ‘La borne de Micipsa,’ BAC 1951-1952, 116-120. ‘La deuxiéme stéle punique du Cap Djinet,’ RA xlviii, 86-88. ‘Sur une bévue de lapicide,’ BAC 1951-1952, 261—264. ‘Epitaphe néopunique d'une prétresse,' Semitica v, 63-64.

»

-, 1955b, ‘Le vocabulaire sacrificiel punique,’JA ccxliii, 49—63.

Bibliography ‘[review of BERTHIER-CHARLIER

1952-1955],' BAC

42]

—,

1955-1956,

-

1956, “La grande inscription dédicatoire de Mactar,’ Semitica vi, 15-31. 1957, ‘La borne de Micipsa,’ CB vii, 119-121.

1955-1956,

152-159.

-

1958, ‘La Sulcitana Secunda,’ JA cexlvi, 441-446.

-,

1958-1959,

-

1959-1960a, ‘Deux Inscriptions Néopuniques, i Stéle néopunique de Pheradi Majus, Karthago x, 61-63; 11 La néopunique 12 (Numidia Sexta),' Karthago x, 64-66. 1959-1960b, ‘Stéle néopunique de Suo,’ Karthago x, 131-134. 1960, ‘Essai de réconstitution du sacrifice Molek,' JA ccxlviii, 167-187. 1960-1961, *Paralipomena Punica (suite), CB ix, 33-36. 1961, “Textes puniques et néopuniques relatifs aux testaments,' Semitica xi, 5-8. 1963, ‘Remarques sur l'épigraphie néopunique,’ OA ii, 257-267. 1964-1965, ‘A propos de l'épitaphe néopunique d'une prétresse,’ Mélanges de Carthage (7 CB x), 93-95.

—, —, —,

*Paralipomena Punica,’ CB viii, 25-31.

- 1966, ‘Inscriptions puniques et neo-puniques,' in: L. GALAND, J.-G. FÉVRIER, G. VAJDA, Inscriptions antiques du Maroc, vol. 1, Paris (= IAM 1), 81-132. -- 1967, *Glanes Néopuniques,' JA cclv, 61-64. - 1968a, ‘Recherches archéologiques et épigraphiques récentes dans le domaine punique et néopunique,' BAC NS i-11 1965-1966 [1968], 195-198. —, 1968b, ‘Inscriptions puniques et néopuniques inédites, BAC NS 1-11 1965-1966 [1968], 223—229. -- 1969, ‘Etudes diverses d'épigraphie punique et néo-punique,' BAC v, 269-273. —, 1971, ‘Le waw conversif en punique,’ in: A. CAQUOT ἃ M. PHILONENKO (eds.), Hommages à A. Dupont-Sommer, Paris, 193—194. FÉVRIER, J.-G., & MH. H. FANTAR, 1965, ‘Les nouvelles inscriptions monumentales néopuniques de Mactar,' Karthago xii, 45-59, pl. i-ili. FÉVRIER J.-G. & G. Lev! DELLA VIDA, 1953, ‘La ligne néopunique de l'inscription bilingue: IRT 305,’ Revue des Études Anciennes lv, 358-360. FILI, F., 1990, ‘Iscrizione Neopunica e bollo Punico inediti," Speleologia Sarda, n. 75, anno xix, 11- 16. FRESNEL, F., 1846, ‘Inscriptions trilingues trouvées, en Mai 1846, à Lebdah (Leptis Magna),' JA iv/viii, 349- 355. - 1847, ‘Réponse de M. Fresnel à la lettre de M. A. Judas,’ JA iv/ix, 260-282. FRIEDRICH, J., 1935-1936, ‘Zu zwei neupunischen Inschriften,’ AfO x, 82-83. - 1951, Phönizisch-punische Grammatik, (= Analecta Orientalia 32), Roma. —, 1953, ' Vulgárpunisch und Vulgärlatein in den neupunischen Inschriften,’ CB i11, 99-111. —, 1957, ‘Punische Studien,’ ZDMG cvii, 282-298. FRIEDRICH, J. ἃ W. ROLLIG, 1970, Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik, 2. Auflage (= Analecta Orientalia 46), Roma. FRIEDRICH, J. ἃ W. RóLLIG & M. G. AMADASI Guzzo, 1999, Phónizisch-Punische Grammatik, 3. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo (= Analecta Orientalia

55), Roma (= PPG?). FUENTES ESTANOL, M.-J., 1980, Vocabulario Fenicio, Barcelona. - 1983, *Nuove iscrizioni puniche scoperte a Maiorca,' RSF xi, 39—40. - 1986a, ‘Corpus de las inscripciones fenicias de Espafia,’ AuOr iv, 5-30 (= G. DEL OLMO LETE ἃ M. E. AUBET SEMMLER, Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Iberica, vol. 11, 5-30, Barcelona) (= C/FE).

422 -

Appendices 1986b,

4

,

Corpus de las inscripciones P

.

fenicias,

punicas

y neopunicas de Espana, Barce-

lona.

GARBINI, G., 1963, ‘In margine a un’iscrizione neo-punica di Palermo (CIS 1 134),' Kokalos Ix, 221-224.

, 1964, ‘Le iscrizioni puniche,' in: Missione archeologica a Malta, rapporto preliminare

,

»

»

»

-»

.

,

-, -, -

della campagna 1963 (Serie archeologica 5), Roma, 93-94. 1965a, ‘Note di epigrafia punica 1,’ RSO xl, 205-213. 1965b, ‘[Review of Semitica xii 1962],' AJON xv, 338-339. 1965c, ‘Le iscrizioni puniche,’ in: Missione archeologica italiana a Malta, rapporto preliminare della campagna 1964, Roma, 79-87 (Serie Archeologica 9). 1966, ‘Le iscrizioni puniche,' in: Missione archeologica italiana a Malta, rapporto preliminare della campagna 1965, Roma, 53-67 (Serie Archeologica 11). 19672, ‘Note di epigrafia punica 11,’ RSO xlii, 1-13. 1967b, ‘Une nouvelle interprétation de la formule punqiue bSrm btm,’ GLECS xi, 144— 145. 1968, ‘Note di epigrafia punica iii,’ RSO xliii, 5-17: 9—mlk b‘l e mlk ’mr a proposito di CIS i 123 B, 5-11; 10-Su una nuova iscrizione cartaginese, 11-13; 1 1—Associazioni cittadine nel mondo punico: KAI 141, 13-17. 1969, ‘Le iscrizioni puniche di Antas,’ AJON NS xix, 317-331. 1974, ‘Dieci anni di epigrafia punica nel Magreb (1965-1974),’ StudMagr vi, 1-36. 1975, ‘Due iscrizioni neopuniche dalla Tunisia,’ AION NS xxv, 258-264. 1976, ‘Epigrafia punica nel Magreb (1975—1976),' Stud Magr viii, 11-24. 1977, (with C. PANELLA), ‘Anfore tripolitane a Pompei,’ in: M. ANNECHINO e.a., L instrumentum domesticum di Ercolano e Pompei ( = Quaderni di cultura materiale 1), Roma, 135-149. 1978, ‘Epigrafia punica nel Magreb (1977—1978),' StudMagr x, 1-12. 1979, ‘Treminologia sacrificiale fenicia: pg‘,’ BeO xxi/2, 109-113. 1983a, ‘b) L’iscrizione Neopunica,' LibAnt xiii—xiv, 17-19, in: M. Rossi & G. GARBINI, ‘Nuovi documenti epigrafici dalla Tripolitania romana, | Dedica bilingue a Ba al-Saturno su labrum marmoreo da Sabratha,’ LibAnt xii-xiv, 7-19. 1983b, ‘2. Dedica Neopunica a Caelestis da Tarhuna,’ LibAnt xiii-xiv, 19-20, in: M. Ross! & G. GARBINI, ‘Nuovi documenti epigrafici dalla Tripolitania romana,’ LibAnt xiii—-xiv, 7—20. 1983c, ‘Nuovi documenti di epigrafia punica,' Epigraphica xlv, 102-107. 1984 (with A. Dri VITA), “Elementi alessandrini a Sabratha. A proposito di due nuove tombe dipinte d'età protoimperiale,' in: Allesandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano, studi in onore di Achille Adriani in, Roma, 858-877. 1987a, ‘L’iscrizione tombale neopunica,' LibAnt xv-xvi, 1978-1979 [1987], 64-67, in: G. MABRUK, A. Di VITA & G. GARBINI, ‘La tomba del efunto erroizato a Sabratha,’ LibAnt xv—xvi, 45-67, tav. 11—xil. 1987b, ‘Venti anni di epigrafia punica nel Magreb (1965-1985),’ Supplemento della Rivista di Studi Fenici, xiv, 1986 [1987], 1—90. 1992, *Nota sulla neopunica di Tarhuna,’ RSF xx, 105-106. 1993, ‘Tharros xviii-xix, Iscrizioni fenicie a Tharros-ıi,’ RSF xxi, 219-230. 1994, La religione dei Fenici in occidente, Roma (= Studi Semitici NS 12). 2002, ‘Terminologia finanziaria in Punico (a proposito di KAI 119),’ in: M. G. AMADASI GUZZO — M. LIVERANI — P. MATTHIAE, Da Pyrgi a Mozia, Studi sull'archeologia del

Bibliography

423

Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca, (= Vicino Oriente — Quaderno 3/1), Roma.

245-251. - 2006, Introduzione all 'epigrafia semitica, Brescia. GAUCKLER, P., 1895, Musée de Cherchel, Paris (7 Musées et collections archéologiques de

l'Algérie et de la Tunisie). -

1900, ‘Note sur quelques inscriptions latines découvertes en Tunisie,’ BAC

1900, 92-

114. -

1905, *[Une inscription trouvée au Djebel-Mansour],” BAC 1905, clix-elxit.

—, 1909-1910, P. GAUCKLER et al., Catalogue du Musée Alaoui (supplément), Paris (textes 1909, planches 1910) ( = Catalogue des Musées et collections archéologiques de l'Algérie et de la Tunisie). GELB, I., 1929-1930, ‘La mimazione e la nunazione nelle lingue Semitiche,' RSO xii,

217-265. GESENIUS, W.,

1835, W. GESENIUS (ed.), Paläographische Studien über phönizische und

punische Schrift, Leipzig. -

1837, Scripturae linguaeque Phoeniciae monumenta quotquot supersunt edita et inedita ad autographorum optimorumque exemplorum fidem edidit additisque de scriptura et lingua Phoenicum commmentariis illustravit Guil. Gesenius, Leipzig; reviews: QUATREMERE 1838; WURM 1838; BENARY 1839; HitTzic 1839. -- 1915, F. BUHL (ed.), Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch

über das Alte Testament, Leipzig 1915'*. GHAKI, M., 1985, ‘Textes libyques et puniques de la haute vallée de l'Oued El Htab,’ REP-

PAL 1, 169-178. - 1993, ‘Les stéles d’el Ghzaizya,’ REPPAL vii-viii, 165-178. - 1997, ‘Epigraphie Libyque et Punique à Dougga (TBGO),' in: M. KHANOUSSI & L. MAURIN (eds.), Dougga (Thugga) Études Epigraphiques, Paris, 27-45. -- 1998, ‘Nouveaux textes libyques et néopuniques de Tunisie,’ in: M. KHANOUSSI, P. RUGGERI, C. VISMARA (eds.), L'Africa Romana, atti del xii convegno di studio, Sassari,

1037-1045. -, 2002, ‘Steles libyques et néopuniques de Tunisie,’ in: M. KHANoussI, P. RUGGERI, C. VISMARA (eds.), L Africa Romana, atti del xiv convegno di studio, Sassari, 1661—1678. GIRARD, S., 1984, ‘Banasa préromaine. Un état de la question,’ AA/ xx, 11-93. Goop, R. M., 1983, The sheep of his pasture, a study of the Hebrew noun ‘am(m) and its Semitic cognates, Chico (7 Harvard Semitic Monographs 29). GRELLOIS, E., 1852, ‘Etudes archéologique sur Ghelma,' Mémoires de l'Académie Nationale de Metz, xxxiii, 1851-1852, le partie, 259-312. GSELL, ST., 1920, Histoire ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord, 1, Paris. GUERRERO, V. M. & M. J. FUENTES, 1984, ‘Inscripciones de "Na Guardis" (Mallorca), AuOr n, 85-104. GUILLAUME, A., 1940, “The Phoenician graffito in the Holt collection of the National Museum of Wales,’ /raq vii, 1940, 67-68. GUYON 1838, Quelques inscriptions de la provence de Constantine, Alger. Ηλι ἕνυ, J., 1874a, Mélanges d’epigraphie et d'archéologie sémitiques, Paris. - 1874b, ‘Etudes berbéres, premiere partie, essai d’épigraphie libyque,’ JA vii/iv, 369-416. —, 1874c, ‘Appendice aux inscriptions libyques, inscription d’Altiburos,’ JA vii/iv, 592-

595. -

1876, ‘Inscrition carthaginoise de Sulci,’ in Congres international des Orientalistes, compte-rendu de la premiére session, Paris 1873, Paris 1876, 250—25].

424

Appendices

-, 1888, ‘[Le déchiffrement et l'interpretation de l'inscription funéraire de Micipsa, roi de Numidie],’ CRAI serie iv, vol. xvi, 309-310. -, 1901a, ‘Notes et Mélanges (suite), vi Quelques formules puniques instructives,’ RevSem

ix, 265-267. -, 1901b, ‘Notes et Mélanges (suite), vii Inscriptions néo-puniques de Maktar,' RevSem ix,

268-287. HALFF, G., 1963-1964, ‘L’onomastique punique de Carthage,’ Karthago xii, 63-146. HAMAKER, H. A., 1828, Miscellanea Phoenicia, sive comentarii de rebus Phoenicum, quibus inscriptiones multae lapidum ac nummorem, nominaque propria hominum et locorum,

explicantur, item Punicae gentis linguae et religiones passim illustrantur, Leiden. HANNEZO, G., 1904, ‘Stéles votives découvertes à Zaghouan,’ BAC 1904, 478-482. Harris, Z. S., 1936, A grammar of the Phoenician language, New Haven. HARTMANN, B., & J. HOFTIJZER, 1971, ‘Ugaritic hnk-hnkt and a Punic formula,’ Le Museon Ixxxiv, 529—535. HELTZER, M., 2001, *The rb (rab) in Punic and Phoenician Cities and in the Israelite Kingdom,' Michmanim xv, 24*—30*. ΗΙΤΖΙΟ, 1839, Review of GESENIUS 1837 in Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur 1839,

833-855. HoFTiJZER, J., 1958, ‘Ein Notiz zum Punischen Kinderopfer,’ VT viii, 288-290. - 1961, ‘Notes sur une épitaphe en écriture néopunique,' VT xi, 344—348. -, 1963a, ‘Liste des pierers et moulages à textes Phéniciens/Puniques du Musée des Antiquités à Leyde,’ OML xliv, 89-98. —, 1963b, ‘Deux vases à inscription identique," VT xiii, 337-339. HOorTUZER, J., ἃ K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Leiden

1995. HOLDER, A., 1896, Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz, ı, Leipzig. Horn, H. G., ἃ C. B. RÜGER (eds), 1979, Die Numider, Reiter und Könige nördlich der Sahara, Kóln-Bonn. Huss, W., 1977-1978, ‘Zu punischen Datierungsformeln,' WdO ix, 249-252. - 1979, ‘Die Stellung des rb im karthagischen Staat,” ZDMG cxxix, 217-232. —, 1987, *DNJ-ein Punischer Personenname ?,' RSF xv, 133-134. - 1989, ‘Die westmassylischen Könige,’ Ancient Society xx, 209-220.

HVIDBERG-HANSEN,

F. O., 1979, La déesse TNT: une étude sur la religion canaaneo-

punique, Copenhague. ISRAEL, F., 1990, ‘Materiali per ,’ RSF xviii, 151-155.

JENKINS, G. K., 1969 Sylloge Nummorum

Graecorum,

The royal collection of coins and

medals, Danish National Museum, vol. 42, North Africa, Syrtica Mauretania, Copenhagen

1969 (= SNG K 42). -

1979, with the assistence of A. KROMANN, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The royal collection of coins and medals, Danish National Museum, vol. 43, Spain-Gaul, Copenhagen

(7 SNG K 43). JONGELING, K., 1983, *Neo-punisch-latijnse inscripties uit Lepcis Magna (Libye), in: K. ΚΕ. VEENHOF (ed.), Schrijvend Verleden, documenten uit het oude Nabije Oosten vertaald en

toegelicht, Leiden-Zutphen, 411—417. - 1984, Names in Neo-Punic inscriptions, dissertation Groningen (= NNP!). —, 1986a, ‘Remarks on Some Punic Texts,’ Vicino Oriente vi, 249—254. —, 1986b, “K and variants in Punic”, in: H.L.J. VANSTIPHOUT e.a. (ed.), Scripta Signa Vocis, studies ... presented to J.H. Hospers, Groningen 1986, 101-110.

Bibliographv

425

- 1987, ‘Vowel assimilation in Punic,’ JEOL xxix (1985-1986), 124-132. -, 1988, “The name element BRK in Latin epigraphical sources,’ Vicino Oriente vii, 223241. —, 1989a, Survival of Punic, in: H. DEVıJvEr and E. LipinsKi (eds), Punic Wars, Proceedings of the Conference held in Antwerp November 1988, Studia Phoenicia x, Leuven, 365-373. —, 1989b, ‘A remark on a votive text from Constantine KAI 162,’ SEL vi, 127-134. - 1990, ‘On the reconstruction of the phoneme inventory of Later Punic,’ OLP xxi, 141168. - 1994, North-African names from Latin sources, Leiden. —, 1996a, ‘I wrote forty-three characters,’ DS-NELL i1, 69-80. —, 1996b, ‘A few remarks on some Neo-Punic Texts,’ DS-NELL n, 157-167. —, 1997, ‘The Neo-Punic text from Ain Zakkar,’ DS-NELL ni, 39-44. —, 1999a, ‘The concluding formulae in Punic Votive Inscriptions,’ DS-NELL iv, 39-79. —, 1999b, ‘A note on the inscription H. Maktar N 39,’ DS-NELL iv, 81-85. —, 2001, ‘Some Neo-Punic coin legends,’ DS-NELL iv, 189-191. —, 2003a, ‘Use of Vowel Letters in Neo-Punic Texts from Guelma,’ DS-NELL v, 117-136. —, 2003b, ‘Deos deasque,’ in: M. F. J. BAASTEN & W. TH VAN PEURSEN (eds.), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, (= Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118), Leuven, 309-312. -- 2004, ‘A Remark on Late Punic Syntax,’ DS-NELL vi, 41-46. JONGELING, K. ἃ R.M. Kerr, 2002, ‘A Personal Phoenico-Punic Dictionary,’ Or. Ixxi, 173-181. —, 2005, Late punic epigraphy, an introduction to the study of Neo-Punic and Latino-Punic inscriptions, Tübingen (= LPE). Jupas, A. C., 1842, Essai sur la langue phénicienne avec deux inscriptions puniques inédites, Paris. -- 1845, ‘Mémoire sur plusieurs inscriptions phéniciennes et particulierement sur celles qui ont été trouvées en Numidie,’ JA iv/v, 39-73. —, 1846, ‘Lettre relative aux inscriptions phéniciennes de M. Fresnel,’ JA 1v/8, 565—569. - 1847a, Etude démonstrative de la langue phénicienne et de la langue libyque, Paris. Review: RODIGER 1848. —, 1847b, ‘Note sur quelques inscriptions puniques (dont une inédite) trouvées à Ghelma,’ RevArch iv, 188-194. —, 1854-1855, ASAC 11, pl. v. -, 1856-1857, ‘Lettre à M. le professeur Cherbonneau ... sur les inscriptions numidicopuniques ... insérées dans les 2 premiers cahiers de l'Annuaire,' ASAC in, 1-24. - 1857, Nouvelles études sur une série d’inscriptions numidico-puniques dont plusieurs sont inédites, spécialement au point de vue de l'emploi de l'Aleph, Paris. - 1858, ‘Sur une inscription punique récemment trouvée à Constantine,' RevArch xv, 129— 136. —, 1860-1861, ‘Sur dix-neuf inscriptions numidico-puniques découvertes à Constantine,’ ASAC 1860-1861, 1-102, pl. 1-11 = A. JUDAS, Mémoire sur dix-neuf inscriptions numidico-puniques inédites, trouvées à Constantine, en Algérie, Constantine 1861, 102 pp., 11 pl. - 1862, ‘Addition au Mémoire sur les inscriptions numidico-puniques de Constantine,’ ASAC 1862, 57-67, with pl. 12-13.

426

Appendices

—, 1866, ‘Seconde addition au mémoire sur dix-neuf inscriptions numidico-puniques ou mémoire sur diverses inscriptions phéniciennes, carthaginoises et néo-puniques,' ASAC x,

1866, 262-309. Kerr, R. M., 2006a, ‘Miscellanea Punica Leidensia, of Leiden en de bestudering van het Punisch,’ in: P. HOFTUZER e.a., Bronnen van kennis, wetenschap, kunst en cultuur in de collecties var de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek, Leiden 2006, 122-131. —, 2006b, ‘Mibil—A Latin reference to Punic curiae?," WdO xxxvi, 83-93. M. KHANOUSSI & L. MAURIN (eds.), 2000, Dougga, fragments d'histoire. Choix d’inscriptions latines éditées, traduites et commentées, Bordeaux - Tunis, (= Dougga). KRAHMALKOV, C.R., 1975, “Two Neo-Punic Poems in Rhymed Verse,’ RSF iii, 169—205. -, 2000, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary, (= Studia Phoenicia 15, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analacta 90), Leuven. - 2001, A Phoenician-Punic grammar, (= Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/54), Leiden. KRINGS, V., 1995, V. KRINGS (ed.), La civilisation phénicienne et punique, Manuel de recherche, (7 Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/20), Leiden. LA BLANCHERE, R. DU COUDRAY, & P. GAUCKLER, 1897, Catalogue des musées et collections archéologiques de l'Algérie et de la Tunisie, Musée Alaoui, Paris (7 Déscription de l'Afrique du Nord, 7). . LANDAU, W. FREIH. V., 1899, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde des Orients ii, Die phónicischen Inschriften, Leipzig. -, 1903, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde des Orients iii, Die Stele von Amrith-Die neuen phónicischen Inschriften, Leipzig.

LAPORTE, J.-P., 1995, 'Dellys,' EB xv, 2255-2261. LASSERE, J.-M., 1979, ‘Onomastica Africana i-iv,’ AAf xiii, 227-234. LECERF, J., 1952, ‘Inscriptions puniques et Libyques du Cap Djinet,’ AIEO x, 428-433. LEEMANS, C., 1842, Beredeneerde beschrijving der Asiatische en Amerikaansche monumenten van het Museum LEGLAY,

-

van Oudheden te Leyden, Leyden.

M., 1961, Saturne Africain, Monuments,

11, Paris.

1962, Les Gaulois en Afrique, Bruxelles-Berchem (= Collection Latomus 56).

- 1984, ‘Les religions de l'Afrique romaine au 115 siécle d'aprés Apulée et les inscriptions,’ in: L'Africa Romana, Atti del i convegno di studi, Sassari, 47-61, pls. i-viii. LEMAIRE, A., 1994, ‘Nouvelle Inscription néo-punique sur jarre,’ RSF xxii, 71-74,

tav.

11-1V. LENORMANT

1867, CRAI 1867, 64f.

LESCHI, Louis,

1952, Algérie Antique, Paris.

Levi DELLA VIDA, G., 1927, ‘Le iscrizioni neopuniche della Tripolitania,’ Libya i (Rivista della Tripolitania ni), 91-116. —, 1929, ' Iscrizioni neopuniche nelle terme di Lepcis,’ in: R. BARTOCCINI, Le Terme di Lepcis (Leptis Magna), Bergamo (Africa Italiana iv), 181—187. —, 1934-1935, ‘L’iscrizone punica di Bitia in Sardegna,’ Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino lxx, 185-198. —, 1935, ‘Due iscrizioni neopuniche di Leptis Magna,’ Africa Italiana vi, 1-29. - 1938, ‘Il Teatro Augusteo di Leptis Magna secondo le ultime scoperte e un'iscrizione bilingue in latini e neo-punico 11,’ Africa Italiana vi, 104-109. —, 1940a, ‘A Neopunic Inscription in England,’ JAOS lx, 578—579. -, 1940b, with S. AURIGEMMA, 'Sculture del foro Vecchio di Lepcis Magna raffiguranti la dea Roma e principi della casa dei Giulio-Claudi,’ Africa Italiana viii, 1—93, esp. 35-43. —, 1942, ‘The Phoenician god Satrapes,’ BASOR xxxvii, 29-32.

Bibliography

427

- 1944, ‘El 'Elyon in Genesis 14 18-20,’ JBL lxiii, 1-9. - 1949, *Iscrizioni neopuniche di Tripolitania,’ RANL viii, iv, 399—412. —, 1951, ‘The Neo-Punic dedication of the Ammonium at Ras el-Haddagia,’ PBSR xix, 65—68. —, 1953 v. FEVRIER-LEVI DELLA VIDA 1953. - 1959, ‘Tracce di credenze e culti fenici nelle iscrizioni neopuniche della Tripolitania,’ in: R. voN KIENLE e.a. (ed.), Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, Heidelberg, 299-314. —, 1963a, ‘Frustuli neopunici tripolitani,’ RANL viii, xviii, 463—482. -, 1963b, ‘Sulle iscrizioni ‘latino-libiche’ della Tripolitania,’ OA ii, 65-94. —, 1964a, ‘Le iscrizioni neopuniche di Wadi El-Amud,' LibAnt i, 57-68. —, 1964b, ‘Ostracon neopunico dalla Tripolitania,’ Or NS xxxiii, 1—14. -, 1964c, ‘[Review of DONNER-ROLLIG 1962],’ RSO xxxix,1964, 295-320. . —, 1965, ‘Parerga Neopunica,’ OA iv, 59-70: 1. Aggiuntee correzioni a Oriens Antiquus ii

65 sgg., 59-62; 2. A proposita della bilingue latino-punica di Guelaa bou Sba, 62-68; 3. Ancora sul vocabulo frk/t, 68-70. —, 1967a, ‘Su una bilingue latino-punica da Leptis Magna,’ Atti dell Academia delle Scienze di Torino, 1967, 395—409. —, 1967b, *Qualche osservazione a AION, n.s., 16, 37-55,’ AION NS xvii, 259-260. —, 1968, *Un'inedita iscrizione neopunica da Leptis Magna (Tripol. 52),' in: M. FLEISCHHAMMER (ed.), Studia orientalia in memoriam Caroli Brockelmann, Halle (Saale) 1968, 127-132. - 1971, *Magistrature romane e indigene nelle iscrizioni puniche tripolitane,' in: L. ARU e.a. (ed.), Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra vi, Milano, 457—469. Levi DELLA VIDA, G., ἃ M. G. AMADASI GUZZO, 1987, Iscrizioni Puniche della Tripolitania (1927-1967) (= Monografie di Archeologia Libica xxii), Roma (= /P7). Levy, M. A., 1856, Phönizische Studien, Erstes Heft, Breslau; (review BLAU 1858). - 1857, Phönizische Studien, Zweites Heft, Breslau; (review BLAU 1858). - 1858, ‘[Review of Bourgade 1856 & Judas 1857],' ZDMG xii, 548-552. -

-, ---, -

1859,

‘Erklärung

einer neuen

neuphönizischen

Inschrift

aus Constantine,’

ZDMG

xin,

651-658. 1860, ‘[Review of ASAC 1853-1860],” ZDMG xiv 747-754. 1864a, Phönizische Studien, Drittes Heft, Breslau. 1864b, Phönizisches Wörterbuch, Breslau. 1864c, ‘Ueber eine lateinisch-griechisch-phónizische Inschrift aus Sardinien,’ ZDMG xviii, 53-64. 1870, Phönizische Studien, Viertes Heft, Breslau.

LIDZBARSKI,

M.,

1898,

Handbuch

der

Nordsemitischen

Epigraphik

nebst

ausgewählten

Inschriften, 1-11, Weimar. -, 1902, Ephemeris für semitischen Epigraphik 1, 1900-1902, Gießen. - 1908, Ephemeris für semitischen Epigraphik i, 1903-1908, Gießen. - 1915, Ephemeris für semitischen Epigraphik iii, 1909-1915, Gießen. LINDBERG, J. C., 1828, De inscriptione Melitensi Phoenico- Graeca, commentatio quam pro magisterii honoribus inter publica ob auspicatissimas celsissimorum principum Friderici Caroli Christiani et Guilielmae Mariae nuptias gaudia, rite obtinendis publico eruditorum examini in auditorio Collegii Elersiani, d. VII Nov. h. X., Havniae, 1828. LIPINSKI, E., 1975, ‘Nordsemitische Texte,’ in: W. BEYERLIN (ed.), Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, Góttingen, 245—284.

428

Appendices

—, 1983, ‘La Méditerranée cenrtale d'aprés le Pseudo-Skylax,’ JMS 111, 175-197. —, 1992 e.a., Dictionnaire de la civilisation Phénicienne et Punique, [Louvain] (= DCCP). -- 1992-1993, Sites "phénico-puniques" de la cóte algérienne, REPPAL vii-viii, 287—324.

- 1994, ‘L’aménagement des villes dans la terminologie phénico-punique,' in: ATTILIO MASTINO & PAOLA RUGGERI (eds), L'africa romana, Atti del X convegno di studio, Oristano, 11-13 dicembre 1992, Sassarı, 121-133. -, 1995, Dieux et déesses de l'univers phenicien et punique, (= OLA 64), Leuven. -, 1997, Semitic languages, outline of a comparative grammar, (= OLA 80), Leuven. - 2002, ‘Le sacrifice molk dans le cadre des cultes sémitiques, in: C. G. WAGNER & L. A. RUIZ CABRERO 2002, 141-157. MANFREDI, L.-I., 1993, ‘Leggende monetali puniche: gli emporia,’ RSO Ixvii, 39-54. —, 1995, Monete Puniche, repertorio epigrafico e numismatico delle leggende puniche, Roma (= Bolletino di Numismatica, monografia 6), NA = Carthaginian coins; NB = coins from autonomous cities; NC = coins struck in the Numidian and Mauretanian kingdoms; PIBB

= [berian peninsula, autonomous cities. - 2003, ‘La politica amministrativa di Cartagine in Africa,’ AANL serie ix, vol. xvi, fasc. 3,

329-532. MARCY, G., 1936, Les inscriptions libyques bilingues de l'Afrique du Nord, Paris (7 Cahiers de la Société Asiatique premiere série, v). MASSON, OLIVIER, 1975, ‘Libyca, 1 Quelles sont nos sources pour les noms d'hommes en Libyque ?, 11 Quelques noms Libyques en Egypte, 111 Un prince Libyen chez Hérodote, iv Un nom Libyque, du Maroc à la Cyrénaique: Ieptan,’ Semitica xxv, 75-85.

- 1976, *Grecs et Libyens en Cyrénaique, d’apres les témoignages de l'épigraphie,' AAfx, 40—62. - 1977, ‘Libyca, v. Inscriptions libyques au Musée du Louvre,’ Semitica xxvii, 41-45. MATTINGLY, D., 1996, e.a. (ed.), Farming the Desert, The UNESCO Libyan Valleys Archaeological Surcey, Volume Two: Gazateer and Pottery, Paris-Tripoli-London 1996. MAZARD,

Mazza,

J., 1955, Corpvs nvmmorvm

F., 1983,

Nvmidiae Mavretaniaeque, Paris (= NNM).

‘A proposito di une iscrizione neopunica dipinta su anfora,’ OA

xxii,

61-65. M’CHAREK, A., 1988, ‘Maghrawa, lieu de provenance des stéles punico-numides dites de la Ghorfa,’ MEFR c, 731-760.

MELIX, 1886, Bulletin de l'Académie d'Hippone xxi, 107. MENDLESON, C., 1995, ‘Punic Stelae in the British Museum,’ in: Actes du [Ile Congres International des Etudes Phéniciennes et Puniques, Tunis, 11-16 novembre 1991, Tunis. - 2003, Catalogue of Punic Stelae in the British Museum, London (= The British Museum Occasional Papers No. 98).

MERLIN, A., & R. LANTIER, 1922, Catalogue du Musée Alaoui (2e suppl.), Paris (= Catalogue des musées et collections archaeologiques de l'Algérie et de la Tunisie). MONCEAUX, P., 1905, Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique Chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu 'à l'invasion Arabe, vol. iii, Paris (reprint Bruxelles 1966). MORCELLI, S. A., 1816, Africa Christiana, vol. 1, Brixiae. - 1817, Africa Christiana, vol. 11, Brixiae. Mosca, P. G., 2005, “The independent object pronoun in Punic,’ Or. Ixxiv, 2005, 65-70. Moscari, S., 1988, The Phoenicians, Milan. Movers, F. C., 1845, Phönizische texte, erklärt von .., vol. i1, die Punische Texte im Poenulus des Plautus kritisch gewürdigt und erklärt, Breslau.

Bibliography

429

- 1850, Das phönizische Alterthum, ii, Geschichte der Colonien, Berlin (= Die Phönizier, 11/11). MULLER, L., 1861, Numismatique de l Ancienne Afrique, vol. ii, Copenhague. - 1862, Numismatique de l'Ancienne Afrique, vol. iii, Copenhague. - 1874, Numismatique de l'Ancienne Afrique, Supplément, Copenhague. NOTH, M., Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, Stuttgart (reprint Hildesheim 1966). PAPIER, A., 1887, A M. A. Heron de Villefosse, Lettres sur Hippone, Böne.

.

PECKHAM, J. B., 1968, The development of the late Phoenician scripts, Cambridge (Mass.). PELLEGRINI, A., 1891, Studii d’epigrafia fenicia, i Fenicii nelle loro epigraft, note ed appunti sulle iscrizioni fenice del Corpus, Palermo (Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Palermo). PFLAUM, H.-G., 1980, ‘[Observation],’ BAC NS, fasc. B, xii-xiv, 1976-1978, 249. PICARD, G. CH., 1945, ‘La basilique funéraire de Julius Piso a Mactar,’ CRA/ 1945, 185212. - 1954a, ‘L’archéologie romaine en Tunisie (2° semestre 1950). BAC 1951-1952, 1954, 93-108. —, 1954b, Catalogue du Musée Alaoui, Tunis [1954], 2 vols. PICARD, C., 1972, ‘Notice sur les fouilles de la mission archéologique franco-tunisienne dans le temple de Hoter Miskar à Mactar,' Semitica xxii, 45-48. —, 1990, ‘Les sacrifices Molk chez les Puniques, certitudes et hypothéses,’ Semitica xxxix, 71- 88. PICARD, G., A. MAHJOUBI & A. BECHAOUCH, 1963, ‘Pagus Thuscae et Gunzuzi,’ CRAZ 1963, 124-130. PIL, F., 1980, ‘L’iscrizione neopunica ‘Sulcitana Secunda’ (CIS i, 151),' BeO xxii, 213-218 (published previously in Speleologia Sarda xxx, 1979). -- 1990, ‘Iscrizione Neopunica e bollo Punico inediti,’ Speleologia Sarda, xix, 11- 16. PISANO, G., & A.TRAVAGLINI, 2003, Le iscrizioni Fenicie e Puniche dipinte, Roma (= Studia

Punica 13). PoGNON, H., 1887, JA 1887, 291—293. PoinssoT, L., 1884, Bulletin trimestriel des Antiquités africaines ni, fasc. 1x, juillet 1884, 234-236. -- 1908, ‘Note sur les foulllies a Medeina, l'ancine Althiburos,' BAC 1908, ccxxix-CcxxXV. -- 1924, ‘[Une plaque de marbre et trois fragments d’enduits sur lesquels sont des graffites],' BAC 1924, ccxv-ccxvi. -, 1938-1940, ‘Une inscription bilingue de Thuburbo Majus,' BAC 1938-1940, 394-397. PoınssoT, C., 1966, ‘Sufes maior et princeps civitatis Thuggae,’ in: R. CHEVALLIER (ed.), Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire offerts à André Piganiol, vol. i11, Paris, 1267-1270. POLSELLI, G. C., M. G. Guzzo AMapasi & V. Tusa, 1979, Grotta Regina ii, Le iscrizoni puniche, Rapporto della Missione congiunta con la Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Sicilia Occidentale, Roma (Publicazioni del Centro di Studio per la civiltà Fenicia e Punica 19, Studi Semitici 52), 39-62. QUATREMERE, É., 1838, review of GEsENIUS 1837, Journal des Savants 1838, 624—637, 1842, 513-531. RENAN, E., 1881, with G. FIORELLI, ‘Notizie degli scavi di antichita,’ ARAL vii, 237-258, see 256-258. REYNOLDS, J. M., 1951, ‘Some inscriptions from Lepcis Magna,’ PBSR xix, 118-121. - 1955, ‘Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, a supplement,’ PBSR xxiii, 124-147.

430

Appendices

REYNOLDS, J.M. & J.B. WARD PERKINS 1952, Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, London (= IRT). Rocco, B., 1971, ‘La Grotta Regina: osservazioni paleographice e nuove traduzioni,’ AJ/ON NS, 1-19. -, 1974, ‘La Grotta Regina, osservazioni paleografiche e nuove traduzioni, AJON NS, 469-486. RODIGER, E., 1848, Review of JUDAS 1847a, [Hallische] Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung 1848 11, col. 773-778.

ROLLIG, W., 1980, ‘Das Punische im Römischen Reich,’ in: G. NEUMANN AND J. UNTERMANN, Die Sprachen im Römischen Reich der Kaiserzeit, Köln-Bonn, 285-299 (= Bei-

hefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 40); an updated version of this article appeared in W. Huss (ed.), Karthago, Darmstadt 1992 (Wege der Forschung 654), 76-94. -, 1983, “The Phoenician Language: Remarks on the present state of research,’ in: S. F. Boni (ed.), Atti del I Congresso internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Roma 1979, vol 11, 375-385. - 1986, “Contribuciön de las inscripciones fenico-pünicas al estudio de la protohistoria de Espafa,’ AuOr iv, 51-58 (= G. DEI. OLMO LETE & M. E. AUBET SEMMLER, Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Iberica, vol. 11, 51-58, Barcelona). ROMANELLI, P., 1922, ‘La città morta dei Severi: Leptis Magna,’ in: Rassegna d'arte antica e moderna, 1922, 317ff. - 1925, Leptis Magna, Roma. ROSCHINSKI, H. P., 1979, ‘Die Mikiwsan-Inschrift aus Cherchel,’ in: Horn-RÜGER, 1979, 111-116. - 1988, ‘Punische inschriften zum MLK-Opfer und seinem Ersatz,’ in: C. BUTTERWECK (e.a.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Band ii, Gütersloh, 606-620. ROSSLER, O., 1979, ‘Die Numidier, Herkunft, Schrift, Sprache,’ in: Horn-RÜGER, 1979, 89-97. ROWLAND, R. J., 1977, “Aristo and Mutumbal Ricoce,’ Beiträge zur Namenforschung NF xii, 286-287. Ruiz CABRERO, L. A., 1998, ‘Dos graffiti punicos de Melilla (antigua Rusaddir-Espana),’ SEAP xvii, 55-65. RUIZ FERNANDEZ, A., ἃ E. ACQUARO, 1983, ‘Monete in bronzo di Sexi,’ Rivista Italiana di Numismatica e Scienze Affini xxxiv, 43—46. SANMARTÍN ASCASO, J., 1986, ' Inscripciones fenicio-pünicas del sureste hispánico (1),' AuOr iv, 89-103 (= G. DEL OL Mo LETE ἃ M. E. AUBET SEMMLER (ed.), Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Iberica, vol. i1, 89-103,

Barcelona).

SCHRÖDER, P., 1869, Die phönizische Sprache. Entwurf einer Grammatik nebst Sprach- und Schriftproben. Mit einem Anhang, enthaltend eine Erklärung der Punischen Stellen im Pónulus des Plautus, Halle (reprinted Wiesbaden-Nendeln, 1979). SEGERT, S., 1976, A grammar of Phoenician and Punic, München. SIEGFRIED, C., 1863, De inscriptione Gerbitana, Programm des Magdenburger Domgymnasiums. SHIFMAN, I. SH., 1963, Puniceskajanadpis’ iz el'-Chofry, Semitskie Jazyki 1, 166—170.

-, 1965, *Epigraficeskie zametki. 2. ‘Me evoj' kamen’ iz rajona Maktara (Tunis), KSINA -

Ixxxvi (Istorija 1 filologija Bli nego Vostoka), 122-124. 1976, Epigraficeskie zametki. 11 5. K voprosy o sposobach izobraZenija glasnych v novopunijskoj grafike, Semitskie Jazyki iii, 192-194...

Bibliography

43]

-

1981, *Gegenseitige Beeinflussung der punischen und der römischen Kulturen in Nordafrıka zur Zeit der römischen Herrschaft,’ K/io Ixiii, 423—428. SIRET, Luis, 1906, Villaricos y Herrerias. Antigüedades punicas, romanas, visigöficas v arabes, Madrid. SLOUSCHZ, NAHOUM, 1942, Thesaurus of Phoenician inscriptions, Tel-Aviv (in Hebr.; =

TPI). SOLA SOLE, J. M., 1955, ‘Inscripciones Fenicias de la Peninsula Iberica," Sefarad xv, 41—

53. —, 1956, ‘Miscellanea Punico-Hispana 1,’ Sefarad xvi, 325-355. - 1957, ‘Miscélanea Punico-Hispana ii,’ Sefarad xvii, 18-35. -, 1958, ‘Los rótulos monetarios pünicos de Numidia y Mauretania,’ Numisma xxxv, 9-23.

-, 1960, ‘De epigrafia,’ Sefarad xx, 277-294. - 1965, ‘Miscellanea Punico-Hispana 111,’ Sefarad xx, 27-48. SPANO, G.. 1855, ‘Lapide fenicio-sarda,’ BAS i, 43.

- 1862, BAS vin, 157. -, 1863, * Anello d'oro con iscrizione punica,' BAS ix, 43-45. - 1875, ‘Scoperte archeologiche fattesi nell'isola in tutto l'anno 1875,’ Rivista Sarda 11/3,

6-7. SZNYCER, M., 1963, ‘Sur l'inscription néopunique "Tripolitaine 27",' Semitica xii, 45-50. - 1967, Les passages puniques en transcription latine dans le ‘Poenulus’ de Plaute, Paris (Etudes et Commentaires 65). —, 1972, ‘Quelques observations sur la grande inscription dédicatoire de Mactar,' Semitica xxii, 25-43. —, 1974, ‘La vocalisation des formes verbales dans l'écriture néopunique,’ in A. CAQUOT & D. COHEN (eds.), Actes du premier congres international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitique, Paris 16-19 Juillet 1969, The Hague- Paris, 209-219. -, 1975, ‘L’assemblée du peuple dans les cités puniques d'aprés les témoignages épigraphiques,' Semitica xxv, 48-68. - 1976, * Antiquités et épigraphie nord-sémitiques (1974-1975), Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études, ive section, 108, 167—183. -, 1977a, ‘Le texte néopunique de la bilingue de Bord] Hellal,’ Semitica xxvii, 47-57. -, 1977b, * Antiquités et épigraphie nord-sémitiques (1975-1976), Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études, ive section, 109, 177—186. —, 1977c, ‘Recherches sur les toponymes phéniciens en Méditerranée occidentale,’ in: La toponymie antique, Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 12-14 juin 1975, Leiden, 163-

175. —, 1978a, ‘Carthage et la civilisation Punique,’ in: C. NICOLET (ed.), Rome et la conquete du monde méditerranéen, 264-27 avant J.-C., tome second, Genese d'un empire, Paris,

545—593. —, 1978b, ‘L’emploi des termes "phénicien", "punique", "néopunique" (problémes de méthodologie),’ in: P. FRONZAROLI (ed.), Atti del secondo Congresso Internazionale di linguistica Camito-Semitica Firenze 1974, Firenze, 261—268 (Quaderni di Semitistica 5). - 1980, ‘Observations sur l'inscription néopunique de Bir Tlelsa,’ Semitica xxx, p.p 33-

4]. -

1983, ‘Deux inscriptions funéraires néopuniques de Henchir Guergour (Masculula),' Semitica xxxiii, 51—57. - 1985, ‘Trois graffites puniques et néopuniques de Malaga,’ Semitica xxxv, 57-59. - 1986, ‘Les Inscriptions Néopuniques de Mididi,' Semitica xxxvi, 5-24.

432

Appendices

—, 1988, "Observations sur deux inscriptions néo-puniques de Trioplitaine récemment pub-

lige,’ BAC NS xviii, 1982 [1988], 195-197. -, 1993, *Bréves remarques

sur les anthroponymes

libyques dans les inscriptions néopu-

niques de Mididi (Tunisie),' Semitica xli-xlii, 123-131.

-

1994, ‘A propos de la stéle néopunique de Tarhuna en Tripolitaine Romaine,’ in: Y. LE

BoHEC (ed.), L Afrique, la Gaule, la Religion à l'époque romaine, Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay, (Collection Latomus 226), Bruxelles, 27-33.

- 1995, ‘L’etat ectuel et les perspectives des études phéniciennes et puniques: réflexions critiques d'un épigraphiste,’ in: 1 Fenici: leri oggi domani, ricerche, scoperte, progetti (Roma 3—5 marzo 1994), Roma, 215-224. —, 1997, ‘Note sur le mot syw*t dans l'inscription du Djebel Massoudj,’ REPPAL x, 133-

139. —, 1998, ‘Une inscription néopunique de la région de Maktar conservée au British Museum de Londres,’ Semitica xlvii, 41-59. —, 2000, ‘Les inscriptions néopuniques conservees au Musée National de Copenhague,’ Semitica |, 41-54. - 2003, ‘A propos de l'inscription néopunique de Volubilis (Maroc),’ Semitica li, 139-140. TABORELLI, L., L’area sacra di Ras Almunfakh presso Sabratha, Le stele, Roma 1992 (= Supplemento della Rivista di Studi Fenici xx). TARRADELL, M., 1954, in: Primo Congreso Arqueolögico del Marruecos Espano 1953, 253-256, Tetuan. TEIXIDOR, J., 1964-1980, Bulletin d’epigraphie semitique (1964-1980), Paris 1986 (= Bibliothéque Archéologique et Historique cxxvit). TEMPLE, SIR GRENVILLE T., 1834, ‘Copy of a letter from Sir Grenville Temple, Bart., to Lieutenant General Benjamin Forbes ... relative to a Phoenician Tombstone found in Maghráwah in Tunis,’ Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society 111, 548—549, pl. 23. - 1835, Excursions in the Mediterranean, Algiers and Tunis, London, vol. ii. THACKER, T.W., ἃ R.P. WRIGHT, 1955, ‘A new interpretation of the Phoenician graffito from Holt, Denbighshire,’ /raq xvii, 1955, 90-91. TRIEBEL, L., 2004, Jenseitshoffnung in Wort und Stein, Nefesch und pyramidales Grabmal als Phänomene antiken jüdischen Bestattungswesens im Kontext der Nachbarkulturen, Leiden-Boston. ULBRICH, H.-J., 1999, ‘Gibt es neupunische Inschriften auf den Kanarischen Innseln?,’ Almogaren xxx, 1999, 65-75. VAN DEN BRANDEN, A., 1962, 'L'inscription phénicienne de Nora,’ Al-Machrig lvi, 283-

292. —, —, —,

1969, Grammaire phenicienne, Beyrouth. 1972, ‘*L’iscrizione neopunica KAI 162,’ BeO xiv, 195-200. 1973a, ‘L’inscription néopunique de Mactar, KAI 145,’ RSF i, 165-172. 1973b, ‘Il sacrificio umano presso i Punici,’ BeO xv, 197-208.

—, 1974a, ‘Quelques notes concernant le vocabulaire Phénico-punique,' RSF ii, 143-145. —, 1974b, ‘Inscription de Guelat bou Sba,’ RSF 11, 145-146. - 1977, *L' inscription néopunique Février-Fantar B de Mactar,' RSF v, 55-65. - 1979, ‘Le ’$ sdn,' BiOr xxxvi, 157-160. VAN

SELMS,

A.,

1971,

‘Akkadian

dullu(m)

as a Loan-Word

JNSL 1, 51-58. VASSEL, E., 1906, ‘Cinq steles puniques,’ BSAS iv, 176-184.

- 1907, CRAI 1907, 262-265.

in West

Semitic

Languages,’

Bibliography

433

-

»

-, 1913, ‘Sur le texte néopunique de l'inscription bilingue d'Althiburos,' in A. MERLIN, Forum et maisons d Althiburos, Paris (Notes & documents publieés par la Direction des Antiquiteés et Arts, 6), 51—59. -, 1914, ‘La dédicace néopunique de Bir-Tlelsa, Cahiers d’Archeologie Tunisienne, 2e série, Tunis, 5-16 (= Etudes Puniques 1). -, 1915b, ‘Encore l'inscription de Bir-Tlelsa,’ RevTun xxii, 277-286 (= Études puniques 111). - 1916a, ‘Sur la bilingue d’Althiburos,’ RevTun xxiii, 143-150 (= Etudes puniques v). -, 1916b, ‘Un passage de la dédicace de Bir-Tlelsa,’ RevTun xxiii, 150-151 (= Etudes puniques V1). -, 1916c, ‘Quatriéme note sur la néopunique de Bir-Tlelsa,’ RevTun xxiii, 278-286 (= Etudes puniques vii). —, 1920, ‘Sur l'orthographe punique du nom de Thinissut,’ BAC 1920, 475—477. VATTIONI, F., 1965, ‘A proposito di ?dr “zrm delle iscrizioni neopuniche,’ Biblos-Press vi, 9-11.

1966, ‘Appunti sulle iscrizioni puniche tripolitane,' AJON NS xvi, 37-55.

ΝΣ

Ψ

- 1971, *Tripolitana | et Tobie, 111, 6,’ RB Ixxvin, 242-246. - 1977, ‘Onomastica punica nelle fonti latine nordafricane,’ StudMagr ix, 1-7. -, 1979a, * Antroponimi fenicio-punici nell'epigrafia greca e latina del Nordafrica,’ Annali del Seminario di Studi del Mondo Classico, Sezione di Archeologia e Storia Antica 1, 153-191. -, 1979b, ‘Per una ricerca sull'antroponimia fenicio-punica i,’ Stud Magr xi, 43-123. -, 1980a, ‘Per una ricerca sull'antroponimia fenicio-punica il,’ StudMagr xii, 1-82. -, 1980b, ‘Aspar ἃ nome libico o fenicio-punico?,' Die Sprache xxvi, 191—194. —, 1980-1981, ‘La bilingue latina e neopunica di El-Amrouni,' Helikon xx—xxi, 293-299. - 1984, 'Saggio di bibliografia semitica 1983-1984,’ AIUON xliv, 639—688. —, 1993a, ‘Un antroponimo di Mactar,' AJON NS liii, 331-333. - 1993b, ‘La radice in Sb“ ‘giurare’ neopunico,' A/ON NS liii, 451—454. —, 1993c, ‘Le iscrizioni di Uzappa,' AJON NS liii, 459—463. —, 1993d, ‘Varia Semitica,’ AJON NS lii, 464—467. —, 1994a, *Mididi e le sue epigrafi,’ SEL xi, 113-128. -, 1994b, * Appunti africani,’ in: Y. LE BoHEc (ed.), L Afrique, la Gaule, la Religion a l'époque romaine, Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay, (Collection Latomus 226), Bruxelles, 34—45. -, 1994c, *Un'iscrizione neopunica da Olbia,’ in: A. MASTINO & P. RUGGERI (eds.), L ‘africa romana, Atti del X convegno di studio, Oristano, 11-13 dicembre 1992, Sassari, 815816. - 1995, ‘Varia Semitica xxvi, Un altro testo neopunico da Maktar,’ AJON NS lv, 110-111. —, 1996, ‘Gli ordinali nel fenicio-punico,’ SEL xiii, 75-77. VOLTERRA, E., 1952, ‘L’adozione testamentaria ed un'iscrizione Latina e Neopunica della Tripolitania,! RANL VoN MALTZAN,

vii, 175-188.

H. FREIHERR,

1869, Reise auf der Insel Sardinien, nebst

einem

Anhang:

über

die phónicischen Inschriften Sardiniens, Leipzig. VUILLEMOT, G., 1971, 'Siga et son port fluvial,’ AAf v, 39-86. - 1965, Reconnaissances aux échelles puniques d 'Oran, Autun. WADDINGTON 1870, PH. LE Bas ἃ W. H. WADDINGTON, Voyage archéologique en Gréce et en Asie Mineure M: Inscriptions grecques et latines, vol. 3/1, Paris.

434

Appendices

WAGNER, C. G., & L. A. Ruiz CABRERO, 2002, C. G. WAGNER & L. A. RUIZ CABRERO (eds.). Otto Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch / Molk como Concepto del Sacrificio Punico y Hebreo, y el Final del Dios Moloch, Madrid. WURM, JUL. FR.,1838, Review of GEsENIUS 1835 & GESENIUS 1837, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik xxiii, 3-35.

XELLA, P., 1978, ‘Remarques sur le panthéon phénico-punique de la Sardaigne sur la base des données onomastiques,' in: M. GALLEY (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Studies on Cultures of the Western Mediterranean, M, Algiers, 71-77. -, 1990, ‘“Divinites doubles’ dans le monde phénico-punique,' Semitica xxxix, 167-175. - 1991, ‘Baal Hammon, recherches sur l'identité et l'histoire d'un dieu phénico-punique,' Collezione di Studi Fenici xxxii, Roma. -, 2001, ‘Fenicio M(')S, «statua»,' in: K. GEUs & K. ZIMMERMANN (eds.), Punica, Libyca,

Ptolemaica : Festschrift für Werner Huß zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen, Leuven (= Studia Phoenicia 16, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

104). ZUCCA, R., 1996, Inscriptiones latinae liberae rei publicae Africae, Sardiniae et Corsicae, in: M. KHANOUSSI, P. RUGGERI & C. VisMARA, L Africa romana, Atti dell'xi convegno di studio, Cartagine, 1425-1489.

Classical And Arabic Sources ActaSanct. BOLLAND, JEAN, Acta sanctorvm quotquot toto orbe coluntur, vel à catholicis scriptoribus celebrantur, que ex Latinis et Grecis, aliarumque gentium antiquis monumentis collegit, digessit, notis illustrauit loannes Bollandvs; Supplementum, volumen complectens auctaria Octobris et tabulas generales, cura et opere L.M. RIGOLLOT, Paris 1875. ActConc. Acta Conciliarum et Epistola Decretales, ad Constitutiones summorum Pontificum, vol. i-x1, Parisiis 1715. ARRIAN. A.G. Roos (ed.), Flavii Arriani, quae exstant omnia, |, editio stereotypa correctior, addenda et corrigenda adiecit G. WRIGHT, Leipzig 1967. AUGUSTINE, Contra Don. M. PETSCHENIG (ed.), S. Aureli Augustini, Scripta contra Donatistas, pars 1 (Psalmus contra partem Donati, De baptismo libri septem, e.a.), Vindobonae/Lipsiae 1908 (= Corpus scriptorum Eccl. Lat. li = Opera S. A. Augustini, sect. vii 1). BEKRI

4325al aX SI 8 Gall

SUSE

5051} soe co al ace suse gal, ed. M. G. de Slane,

Alger 1911 (translated: Description de l'Afrique septentrionale par Abou-Obeid-el-Bekri, par M. G. DE SLANE, Alger 1913). IBN KHALDUN Beyrouth 1968, vi vols. , 4 US 5 sts ol (partly translated: IBN KHALDOUN, Histoire des Berbéres, traduite de l' Arabe par le baron de SLANE, nouv. éd. PAUL CASANOVA, Paris 1925-1956 (1968-1969), iv vols).

Bibliography

435

CORIPPUS Il. DIGGLE & F. R. D. GOODYEAR (edds.), Flavii Cresconis Corippi, lohannidos Libri viii, Cambridge 1970. CYPRIANUS G.F. DiERCKS (ed.), Sancti Cypriani episcopi epistularium, vol. i [Epistulae 1-57], ad fidem codicum summa cura selectorum necnon adhibitis editionibus prioribus praecipuis edidit (= Sancti Cypriani episcopi Opera, pars 3), Turnholti 1994. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS DAGMAR LABOW (ed), Flavius Josephus, Contra Apionem, Buch I, Einleitung, Text, textkritischer Apparat, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Stuttgart 2005 (— Beitrüge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament 167). ItAnt. Itinerarium Antonini, in: P. GEYER (ed.), /tineraria et alia geographica, Turnholti 1965, 2

vols. (7 Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 175—176). PAUSANIAS

M. H. RoCHA-PEREIRA (ed.), Pausaniae Graeciae descriptio, vol. 3, Libri IX-X, Leipzig 1981. PLINY NH

C. MAYHOFF (ed.), Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae Libri xxxvii, Leipzig, vol. 1 1906, ii (ed. altera) 1909, 111 1892, iv—v 1897. PTOLEMY C. MULLERUS (ed.), Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia, \\ vol., Parisiis 1883, 1901. SILIUS [TALICUS J. D. Durr

(ed.), Silius Italicus,

Punica,

with an English translation,

Cambridge (Mass.) 1927-1934 (reprinted 1961-1968).

i1 vols., London

-