THE LARGE NEO-PUNIC INSCRIPTION (K41 159) FROM IIENCHIR

MEDEINE (ALTHIBURUS)
TRANSLATED AND INTERPRETFI)

Philip C. Schncitz

The present study* concerns one of the NeoPunie inscriptions of which

t took squeces at Hr, Medeine (Althiburus)
Gustasus Wilmanns 2 in Tunisia in 1873
74. Announced by the elder Derenbourg in 1874, the text quickly became the subject of
a sudy by Flalévy (184) Julius Euting (1875) published a reading ssith his partal
hand copy as Neopumca I 24. Philippe I3erger’s studies (1887: 1891) advanced the
material readmg further. Not much later. Lidzbarski published his transliteration of the
text (1898: 1 437) with an excellent hand copy (1898: 2, p1. xxii). Cooke (‘SJ 144 no.
55) reproduced thic sersion of the consonantal text. Slightly but signflcan(1y altered in
the editions of K.’J. the consonantal text has reached near stasis st ith the signtticant
study by Jongeling il-i VPJ 155). although Bron (200h) has recently proposed sex eral
next readings. one ofsxhich is accepted belost.
The process of interpreting and translating a text such as thts one is partly
tntuitive. The cx erd ndr in the first line implies that the inscription is dedicatory. but
not all of the expected elements of the lbrm are readily apparent. \\ord division has
heei a persistent challenge to interpieters. stith lexical and syntactic analysis posinv
additional perplexittex. Largelr as a result of such difficult qualities. the text in its
entirety 5 Prescnie1 belosx is ntv translation and
continues to ec.ipe full comprehension
it terpretat ion of lines I

ltibiiogr iphic ihhres i hior appear iCe reference list \b[ r

in t arc of peilodiSat I ties cod senes
15’ iw 1h 5731 11(01db i k 0 . /i li foi 40(1 ‘of \ cm J’a ,r
5 B ii, md I So I C hi is (loll
Sidi ed P tI Alexander. F Kiiisko J. D Fri est S C ecker locke. and 1) L Petersen
(Pcall dy Ms I)) I ‘I/l05i00i0 a t alsAr iiti pc.ir:n tIc t d of
adj cc i ,a ci c comrr genoc c x. iL ricia, ci I
ni aculine 0. aoun: part participle perf pert ‘c p1. r br, I rep [r positi rn roii
prom an sing. sirgc Fir, v serb. I anguage names are ,tiNc iated hrm (Ar.im iii.), Bt I (Ilibli ‘at
((chic sj Fptlcb F r mh Ilehrccs : ( k (Gieck) I i inn’ ‘lush (Middle tlcbrc s the 5cr
1 5
stems i c referred to with (3 ‘x, 0 and K in ngoistic eontcxts.
Lidibarski (1505 43 2) cc rrected Eteigei s itt i it to ( S ‘, I this hod to NI de ha nt
\I,irie, a 1- as i ly rstrumentil in con ‘vin[ th i cr e stone c 1 o e sxherc
ttie it
remaiils

(Sn the creupatona N stirn. of the s te,Kid ala ci ci (2005

we

F I led e S -1 5. i s iiu,it CS thus puhl canon n F 01,04 1 nat log career

The teSt im.nwrft anna’ earlier puhi.shed Cs K. ,rngehcg and
t K. 51. Kerr iS’i05 373.
a K 51 Kerr gra c’,,ds eammenied at same engih en ci Cd1 15 rraft at this ‘ted,. Ocr ‘go
concerning the ‘pg 51 aOar ie\’s reis’am d’siinei but his hepta’ Criti(1501 sharpened aix ,ii’a’, so

r hOt hr the ess exprewed here rcrn,,lns nOire 5 ms (lISP

0
sill ‘m discuss ‘ac’ S and 0 n the present contest. The dOers ire s ,‘rn and er’ diftieii ‘0
:i.teiprei There s cersiderabbe sari ution am’ne publ:shed mcdirg

SEL 27. 20(0, pp. 3° 5

40 Ph. C. Schmitz

Hr. Medeine N 1 (Althiburus)

7

Neo-Punic Text
Pdn b9 1nin b’1tbr ndr ndr bd mlqrt k n bn kns nw
2. m’rytls bn tbrsn wHmn bn yksltn wmshb’ hn lyIy wggrn bn tsyt w
3, mgm bn tbrsn wysmzgr bn sbg wdnb1 bn yll wgzr bn knzrmn wrn’ryIs
4. bn lbw’ w?lgm bn twn wyst’n bn mshb wbbrnm hmzrb w
5. nsm rn bn tw ‘yspn 1t mqdm byr[i krr t bil h7bb bn bg ft b
6. ptrn mshb bn yzrm w’zrb9 bn brk wsk [w]ks In bn 7zb1 wmby whyp t
7. ‘1 krnrn ymn wkhn 1b1 lmn wrwsn bn k> qirn brkm
8 h9 [k]’ ‘it 3
w m[n]bt bmqd
9. ‘S...

Translation
(1) To the lord Bal (H)amon in Althiburus, a sow that the servants of Meiqart vowed
when his humble assembly loaned (to) us (2) Marius son of thr,sn and .trnn son of
ks1tn and rnshb’ son of IvI”y and ggm son of ffyt and (3) m’grn” son of tbrsn and
y.srnzgr son of sbg and ‘dnbI son of yII and gzr son of Anirmn and Marius (4) son of
Ibw>and z’igin son of fwn and y’.stn son of rnshb and their friends thc mzrh and (5)
their standard, The builders of the celia that we adjoined to the sanctuaries rejoiced in
the month of Krr, At night they held this sacrifice in it, They bore a feast in behalf of
(6) the suffetes Macebn con of v/un and Azi ‘thai son of Bank (67) And Zi’zehui and
those brought by him built a tabernacle [and] a canopy for us. And the cloak that was
upon our kmrpriest concealed him from us. And the priest of Bal (lj)amon was
L.rusan son of Ari, Because he listencd to their voice. lie blessed them.
(8 9) lh,, man that offers hue burnt offerings or oblations in thc sanctuary
thc man

Commentar

Below is the Punic text, analyzed by sentence ith translation and philological
commentary A complete glossary of lines I and S7, listed in Phnenician alphabetic
ordcr, appears in table 1. The personal names in lines 24. 6, and 7 appear in table 2.

3 ‘bd mlqrt k nk bn knc’ ‘ow

S 1 (1) INn b’7 limo 6 ‘Itbr, ndr N ndr
To the Lord Bal (H)amon in Althiburus, a vow that the servants of N4elqart vowed
when his humble assembly loaned (to) uc

ndr’ v. ( 3pl. /nadrfi’ (they) sowed’

.
5

ihis is the text’s designation in Jongelmg. HNPI 155.

S Concerning I ate Punic orthography employing ‘for d see Kerr (2010 4748).
The Large Neo-punici Inscription KAI 159. 41

k adv. ‘when’ (DNJJ’SI 482): cf. EpHeb. BE-I /d ‘vhen’ (H.4LOT 471): Ug. k ‘when’
(DUL 422-423; (‘LUC 180 s.v Ac 3).
n (n--y) G 3m.sing. ‘lend. loan’: cf. BR nb- lend out’ (1L1L0T728 s.v. n i).
hn /bônu/ prep. b- + lcsing. suffix ‘(to) us’
.
5
kns’(kn.s) n. ms. f 3m.sing. suffix: /kmnusu, ‘his assembly’ Note the Punic name AnsI
(Benz 1970: 132)bs. Compare MReb kInnds n.m. ‘gathering; retirement for prayer’
(Jastrow 1985: 633); cf AnisiP n, f. ‘gathering, assembly (ibid.. 649). Ken’ (2010:
48) discusses examples of the spelling of the third-person masculine pronominal
suffix (ui) with alpt. The word’s semantic range possibly includes the group
assembled and the place of assembly.
nw(nw) adj. Iãnaw/ ‘humble, bowing, pious’. Compare BR ‘)inJw ‘bowing. humble’
(HALOT 855)12, MI-leb and(y)w ‘submisstve, meek, kind pattent’ (Jastrow 1985:
1094).

One of the innovations of the present interpretation is the word dtvision hd mlqrt
‘sers ants of Melqart’ instead of the generalls followed interpretation of ‘hdmlqrt as a
personal name A warrant for the word division is pradnialte: the absence of a
patronymic following the putative personal name Another is grammatical: the verb
spelled ndr’ in line I is best construed as plural, gtvtng ndr ‘ nelr’ ‘the vow that they
J 39S s.v ndr)
vowed’ (so Jongeling HAi
2
The verb phrase ni’ ho ‘(the’,) loaned to us’ confinus and continues the plurality
of the grammatical subject. In Biblical I lobrew, the word de’tgnating the tee tptent of a
loan (n-i’-’is preceded by the preposttton 6- (e.g. Exod 22:25: Deut 15:2. 24:10-11 >.
The character of interactions between adherents of \leloart and adherents o Hal
(l-I)anion requires explanation, but grammatical patterns in the text havc hermencutteal
priority

On the socalizai,on, see Kerr’ 0131. t45-’ai 4 2.

0 The entry hn in PP[) 226 .s.’ ii voi esa,iven!eni rea,fine 1-re’r the nh,.tanrah. it .i ra,ii,e
Anc, foun’t ii .,.,Si..j..,.i
editw ot the es’, appe.’r a arr,ilte,i Then.. r’e e”r for .1 P1’!’

‘[he length of the sowel s mdci mm r

12 Gerstenberger (200+ 2 42) notes tF i tor cc terd ‘ncy II b V US 101 i n to hi In
deviut’. (onccrning the occu rcr cot 01 jr \mr 2 sec F cir 392 0) 1)5)
The name c’,bI (line (ii has no Patron> 0 i iccor’iir:g to v intetprc Icr of its c r tc’sf. I ‘‘ a
soti’, dedication, howeser, .sh’Js ii PI,,’ercia,’.Pi,n,c ic’ri’iaiis r .ao’’i .i ca .

the ted!cators name SO’,netimes iVt11 aJOtIeflaI UCPeiOia, as 5’ C. Sole ,at.’. cofllmenia!crs
,

resols ed this tcnon ii, ntcrnret’n the strlnU (uS as ca unnarkeO n5’rn\ mm e p t tales
593). hut the probicnatic character a Rio-element caine ri Punc ss Irma th’ nerd lu ‘a,’n ‘51]•1
d d not escape notice ([forger 1$8: 4504 F thcr rat ona eatior , (cUP m itt ‘ (Roll r tJ
3 (Jongeli g H”JPI 15() as 21
vol 2 pp 148-149); a cognomen read cat koi’ intr i 1)
Berger [ihid] and noted by RUlle [o’ ill ,nd Jonc1i [6 d] 1 i ci the d I (N
14 Note the orthography of 3 pl ndr’ ‘Ithc’,) owed’ L Ic
.
N 2; 1 1-Flida N 1 I. fir Nd 1) N
2i.lt
.\rabme 0:1n.i ‘a ‘sd, is th delayed pas scant smiiamS mark, the ree.p.ent cc th it e :‘rerosi’c’

(I ane 15(0-1593 ‘f(u s.c : 55 dr 07a 1=5

42 Ph. C. Schmitz

The final letter of ‘nw arises from Bron’s reading (2009: 142). The letter w is
clearly visible in the published photograph (Bron 2009. 147). My translation depends
on a different division of words than Bron proposes.
The verb-initial syntax of the temporal clause k nI ho kns’ ‘isis “when his humble
assembly loaned (to) us” is usual. Another example of verb-initial constituent order in a
temporal clause occurs in K ln Ia ‘Ii lb “is hile they spent the night in happiness of
heart” (hr. Maktar N 64 [ VSJ 59a: K.41 145). 11 )6
The nature of the loan implied by the verb phrase n4 b- loan to’ is not explained
in the text. If, as I advocate, An.s’ carries the third—person pronoun suffix ‘his’, the
notional antecedent is Bal (H)amon, because a deity ‘,s ould be associated is oh an
‘assembly’. and ‘nw ‘humble, pious’ is a religiously charged adjective hence a loan ‘a ‘is
made by the assembly of Bal (&-l)amon to the ‘servants of Melqart’. It appears etther to
hose bccn a ‘loan’ of personnel to assist with a construction project or their
contributions in cash or materials toward the same end.
From this admittedly hypothetical scenario, sic can conclude that the purpose
of the inscription was to record the circumstances of a ceremony of dedication
undertaken as a gesture of good is ill for and in partial repayment of the loan itself’.
The names of the lenders are prominentls inscribed, and the finlirre to name an
important participant, the (mr-priest. is explained (line 7).
From the beginning of line 2 to the end of line 4 there is a list ofelei en names with
patronvmics, fohlosi cd h an obscure three—constituent noun phrase In rn’,
interpretation, these are the creditors being honored

(2) in ‘iy.Ac s bn thrsn w,Atrnn hn kslln nm.shh’ his l1’v wggin his As 9 ii (I) in
,

bn tbrsn wy.sin/gr ho sbg s ‘dnh’l ho ,ll isgir ho kn,’rmn isrn’iv, c (4) ho lhis
ss,’isnss ho AtrVn ssyfst’st hn isa ish> sshhi’it,n lnnirh w(5)nsm

the 1it f names is bards translaiable c\ccr>t for the corsmen ‘a ords SdfJI_ log
names.
(2) M:iriu’, on of thrsn and Atsno son of i k.slrss and mshh’ son of Ii l” and csini son
of fsr’t and 5 3 so ‘uns son of thr.n and i”csn’rr son of sh and ‘dish’! son of and ‘

o/y sOn ot kfl/j mis and Mona’, (3) son of ibis and
/9001 son ui Arts o and i’st i son
of mchh ‘and their friends the snub and (5) their it(ls7,/sss’C/.

Table 2 offers a tentatiso linguistic analysis of the names The follo’aing rtotes
conecrn the soeabulary that is not onomastie
Ishi n.m. ‘friend all’,’ (D.\ Ifs1 346-347, ef. 1/VP! 389 s.s hhr, IJALOT 2872$:
CLUC’ 153).

P Krahmaikos reads and tiansl,0es As In h0r lb “all ot’ us a iii> h:r>pr hc,uts” (PT’!) s I’’!.
form Ac/as .s raprc>ent.rtiosl of is a c!ogwat koll ‘oil. es Cr is duboi:s he’s es Cr lace lISP>’
‘

en tto ph’nooes Kerr 2i) I 0: 5 4_55 5. Phoenician purpose ljuses sho,s e’n’r 5500 S\’ ore’ Per
.

the ads erbial eornplnment:ier, s in A ‘On ‘: hd “because ,\siorie red cOed (5105) It On] h,m (K 11
277.6 05 rgiJ) and A hO ts rAp sprm A/he 1I’,st “because BoO and Redo1 pro sent ale to hO cl’
(IsA 1 26 A It I t: see Sctirnitz t 995. 566).
 The Large Neo-punici Inscription KAI 159. 43

mzrh (zrh) n. Ilalévy (1901: 265) analyzed Punic rnzri with reference to Biblical
Hebrew e 3zriii ‘indigene’. translated in LXX as OOT
XOWV (cf. JIALOT 28 s.v.
6
>czi’ali). Punic in,rh is probably equisalent to Lat. turma in this instance as also in
Ilr. Maktar 64.1, 1617.
n.sm n. (në.s) m. sing. -+ 3pl. suffix nissom/ ‘their standard’.
18 Compare Bli ns. p1.
nissan ‘standards’ (HALOT 701-702); Arm nec, nicc5( > (DJP4 352a; DJBA 752a;
Jastrow 1985: 915; DJsWSI 760; ES 2 427). Probably also nshn (p1.) ‘standards’ (Hr.
Maktar 76 4). Detachments from a cavalry or infantry unit normally traveled with a
standard for each decurio. In Roman military jargon, a cas aIry standard was called a
vexillum; a standard-bearer attached to a sub-unit of a cohort (such as a to, ma) was
called s’ex,llarius, I assume that Punic ns corresponds to Latin iexiilum
,
t9

It is not insignificant in the emergent context of this inscription that, in Roman

military administration, the .signferi of infantry units and the vesrllarii of casalry units
oversaw financial transactions (Vegetius, Epitome, 2.20). I he mention of a us in line 5, if
its association with vcxillariuc is sound, perhaps alludes to the source of the loan
mentioned in line 128,
Grammatically, the entire passage above serves as the object of the serb n.s’(n-4-
‘p4’) lend, loan’ in line 1, and forms with it a single if impraeticaily long sentence.
—

The (humorous?) conceit of the opening sentence is conceivably that the parties listed
had been loaned to the ‘servants of Melqart’ (a religious sodality?), evidently to assist
in or finance a construction project, some details of which emerge in the next sentence.
Beyond this point the text becomes a narrative of eight sentences (S2-9) about the
construction of cu tic installation5 and the performance of a acri lice
t

S2 (5) in ln’tw ‘yspn ‘Itmqd4m h 5 kr’r

The builders of the celia that we adjoined to the sanctuary s ci iced in th month
of K;,

ir v (rn-ri) G 3pi. /ran(n)u’ ‘(they) rejoiced’ The serb in ocurs in CIS 1 6000bis.4, a
inc n c iption from 11 ‘lienistic Carthage (Schmitz 2009 (7) On Bil t it n e
HALO!, 121 421

I itin tu inc ds’cnates ‘the snialle. t un t of an ala or mounted coninirent of a ohons ai itala
comm aided by a Ecu; io and probably containing thirty’tsso men (P Southern The Ri man
Ti ij iii om Sc it, us to Con ‘tan/inc [I ondon 20011 341) lines 16 47 of fIr. Maktar (4 ( KA
48) Ii t the signatures of thirty to men and its na ratsc (i’nes 5 ci ore n military 5cr ice,
the. dci ils imply that Punic airS is an equis ilent term for I it tin mc
The soc ii ration ft lIoo, Biblical IIebre iics nis I (hAl OT ‘0 02). Qi the 3pl 5 ittix am n
Late Pnie, see Kerr (2010. 143).
l I’he rhet
5 neal figure ofmetonymy may be in play, insofar as ‘stand ird’ implies ‘standard-bearer
20 A late Roman portrayal of ponrayal of a sacrificial rite on the distance s .ib fr m Bndgencss (RIB
2 3.)) (ht p www.athenapub.com rib2 I 39.htm; also asail iblc at ScotlandsPlace
lilt1 sp2 seam c.uk footer index.php?’u.t on siir&id 4) include, ,he sign fri and the ‘iyn an
ithin a, mall ‘iediule.
Fi fenth_r r:ai rtm r’n the s_rh, ae Schmiti (71103, 145 and 3
22i
44 Ph. C. Schmitz

hnv. (b-n-v) G part. p1. constr. /bune ‘builders (of)’

.
t
tw n. ‘celIa, chamber’ (K.41 277.5: DVJJSI 1204: PPD 488 s.v.; cf. Uc. Ui < 1(w) >7
DLL 855: CJ.UC 335336).
deL art. (H,VPI 381 s.v.; 388 s.v. ii).
vsp *v-p) qal pert. icpl. /yasapnu/ ‘we added (DVJCS’l 462: cf. H 1L07 418). The
1
syntax of the relative clause ‘vspn ‘that we added’, employing the definite article
as a relative complemenlizer, is matched in Hr Maktar 64.3: ‘vkb ‘that dwells’.
“It prep ‘to, onto’ (PPD 375 s.v. ‘It iii.8) Note the parallel phrase wyspnnin “It gbl ‘rs
‘we added them to the boundaries of the land’ (KAJ 14). The construction ,>,sp ‘It
seems to imply an addition that increases the size, area, or complexity of a thing:
hence my translation, ‘adjoined’.
mqdsm (qdc) n p1. mtqdatm/ ‘sanctuaries’
,>ihr month (D,\14’51469-470).
kit n name of a month in the Phoenieian calendar (K41 277 8). The month krr (line 8)
probably began sith the first ness moon after the summer solstice, approximating
the hetunning ofiulsm,

S3 5 2r hii h,’hh ha
‘\t night they held this sacrifice in It.

t pl. ‘place. pitt. establish’ D\ 1151

tTv1) v. ‘
t 30-41: cE II.ILOT 1483-86: hg. l.
DLI. 848-851: CLLC 335).
6 prep. Bran 2fl0°: 1.12> reads here. but he reeLls ed reading I’ is isible to me n the
photograph.
ii. night (D \‘114’! 5’—07S ,,ilsa .\mad at Gozza 200”: 206).

ha prep 3in7 cut fix hiflu: ‘in it’ ‘PPG’ ‘S 204aI. The antecedent of the
prep i 1w ‘celIa in 52. the i t e 11 the tiarratis c is the dedi ‘ation of
ew a an 4 ti’at lexical item a e tin the immediate context

I aid’ h ii r t hi
quene o sei Ic he type of month year d ite
a a 0ih1i I Lie CI [ I .15 ‘

i terpr ted is a date iiul by a t y evious irkrfreters I3ut the strirg 611 is difficult
ooitreasd natigas ar, idail i rfrtai n ofthe sequenceasadate

1 i I I Ida to , pi ‘it mig i d c ed . a [Hal 11 amon ‘S a to F temple

(1’, J 48). the a ijUn(tOi a. at the he,n ‘ i h a aitauon does not oei r in any critical
cdamn 0! Fe test I ‘dzbarck hand iS’iX p1 a> a I e1ar1a reads ‘aLa at this point. anct
the san-’ aLinO a canted ‘s R’1i,c K I! ‘ a d f/VU (155’. koth rourrer 00 cited do, dc
the’ word’ ‘w ‘t ii’ cpu
2> Tim saifLa in ci’u’d m,iik either a piural n: lmmc or the thud pemon protlominci ruffla iso
Krahn lk a, I’ll) 35: an the morpholoes. f’pa 11, . 5 o234. Kerr 2’tIO: 40-4
K ,ff’t’ai-r I °0’S , St’ee ia I 0,5. 20(1, fL05 The Phee t’,c;a’i month Ri’, corresponds It

9 the I le
rei’ c_ic oLir (ROad
0 .p ad r;22 R,h’js’r and Xelia 99>’
The Large Neo-punici Inscription KAI 159... 45

formula are vague on this point. More problematic is the faulty syntax: usually,
Phoenician-Punic appositional constructions repeat the preposition, so the expected
sequence would be *b,,.rh . The analysis as txso sentences presented here is more
6
b4t
...

defensible.
I have placed the phrase hn ‘in it’ in S3 in viess of Phoenician-Punic and Biblical
Hebrew constructions invols ing the verb f-v-f s ith a locative complement introduced
by b—. In prose, the locative complement normally folloss s the verb, as in these
examples: in Phocnician, y4t bmqdf mlqrt ‘I placed it [a statue] in the sanctuary of
Melqart’ (KAJ 43:7); in Biblical Hebrcss, wat&fItLhd hd,dqd ‘and she placed it [her
infant] in her bosom’ (Ruth 4:16)-’. In the following example of Biblical Hebrew verse,
fr2fIthrnô Idcarîzn b&ko)-hii’hres “you will appoint them as princes in all the land” (Ps
45:17), note that the locative complement (bd-) follows the adverbial complcm’nt (574,
which is also the case in S3 above While this comparison is not absolutely conciusise. it
demonstrates the normalcy of this Northsest Semitic syntax.

S4 (5) (‘n 6(6) .fpfm maSh’ hn virm ti ‘z,hJ hn hrk

They bore a feast in behalf of the suffetes ,tlaseho son of cnn and .4:rnboi son
of BariA

ic’ (hag n.m. hag ‘Ocast’ te: I14LOT 289 29fl Nahatean hgh c7 Ii 2158), if tt
means ‘pilgrimaoe’. might b related (DA (451348).
f(fl (t-cm) ‘load, carry’ G 3pl tanu: Compare BR t- n ‘load’ (1141 OT 3784 .

b prep. In BR the syntagm ig h ‘eelebr tc a lea t (or specilics the occasion or

purpose of the celebration (1 Sam 30 16 H410J 290 s v hgg). In the resent
sentence, the prepositional com let ient cern indicate that t
. o sn/f s eted
as sponsor and sscre , h s
, guests o

S5 (6) i’ skJajk.s In hn/zh! ts,nh’.

.sk (skk nm. sdk ‘tabernacle. hut’ (ci’. BR aJk ‘hut. refuge’ J-LILOT “53: Ig ak
‘ihmckct’) CLCC 295 sv. cf Di L ‘:56 ‘den. eose’).

26 for examples, see Schmi / 1995 5(-56V

27 The same construction occurs m f’gar (C. aOn hhsi r I stall put li n the a c 1 1 c guds
of the underworld’ ((TI L5-V t’ (LI C 5
28 The reading is based on my exatrinati t of tte ptotograpt The traces n I dibarsk s F r,d cop
(($98: 2, tab xs ii) are also comatibt’ w di this read ng. Bron gv s no ro di g ii di ‘ett
The reading (‘n originated ith Bcreer s hand cofy (18S7 460) and has be n rprcdc ed in ad
subsequent editions of the text
I restore the parily obscured lcttcr & horn the ph ‘tograph and I diharski s hand cop 1895 2. p1.
as it)
46 Ph. C Schmitz

[w] conjectural restoration.

(s (k,sj) nm. ikasri? ‘canopy’ (cf. 1313 kiksdy, Num 4:6, 14 HALOJ 488; prob. also
Arm ksv’ ‘cover, lid’ Assur 7.2 (Aggoula 1985; DIIVSJ 521)’.
In prep. with lcpl. pron. suffix /ldnãl ‘for us’.
ha (h-ny) v. G 3pl. /banfl ‘they built’,
iL’hI This personal name is probably Punic (Schmitz 2007),
mhy(b..w.)) yuphul part with 3m.s suffix muThyo/ ‘(those) brought (by) him (ef. 1311 ‘

mdbi?Im, HALOT 114 s.s. bw’hof.).

The architectural and ritual components of the installation described in sentenccs

Ti5 call to mind biblical parallels The mqd4 (itself probabls comprising isit
‘enclo.,ures’, as in W. \laktar 64 [ KAI 145].l) is augmcntcd ssith a ter, charabr
apparently large cnough for a saciifice to take place within it, if the sentence ‘s correctly
construed Somehow associated with the tw is a .sk ‘tabernacle, pastlion’ and a ks
‘coscring (probably a canopy) for the participants
. The biblical descriptions of thc
T2
tabernacle (Exodus 36, 40) appear to envision a similar layout
Credit for the construction of these lattcr installations goes to a certain iL’hI and
mby, The person named zL’bI is the onls agent mentioned in the inscription without a
patronym The reason for this omission is not readily app ircnt, but i’,bI was gossibly
thought to be familiar to the intended audicncc of thc inscription The ssord xnLs is a
passive causatise participle 01 the serb h-w go’ cognatc to I3iblical llebrcss rnOhO
‘what is brought’, a tcrm sshich can specify’ donations to the temple (2 Kgs 1’ 10, 14,
irm 349, 14) but is aLe cd of people ‘sh are brought .‘tevhcre (c:
2”4, 2 11 ‘

Gen 431$’ Lick 23’52), including large groups (Lick 30 1) The coordinate phrase
zL’hI wmhy serves as the subject of the verb ha ‘thes built’ hence, the scm’ n ic
tgencv imply th It nib proba(ly signific thosc wha sscr broutil t 2 h 1 tin
iply g op r’ th r than h t w hr igh t 2 Tv n Ay .
b ct

56 (6) whsp ‘s (71 Ikinrn ‘t ma

\nd th do ik F at v as pon ou km’ prie t CO IC mlc hi ii r 202 s

yp n f cloak, tunic toga Ihc p1 sp(Labdah N 19 [JI\f I Ti28 KAJ 126]))

corr sponds to 1 ato cIas( (a ssidc purple stripc’ [DVWS 372 PPI) 41), 11W 1
4 3]) in the L tin porno o Fe mscr ption

i arski 5( 5 55
he ft r Ti Ast (LI 415 59 S ousd / I 4 : o 4 C S ii I
rb (ci [II) ‘0” v ) hg A t ‘s A t [il-c scijl that en ers t (t e enj tar r st r ii II
Kial-malkos s lr, tese th’ a t N! ft scor Is, t “ra cmi i al ger icr 5 fIT 10 1 e) On th d
pers in ten mine sews ii alL ed object suflix cc Smaoas sill! l99 9
32 i I ic grammar implie th’ elcsn named men ssere not iicnibcr t th in, Ii, md ‘ss II ng
mdc stand,rd bearer (ns). the a semb y could have beer oallcr t.T’n hits rn U’pr Ti
‘0 Bron (2(09. t42 reads pi at If I pe ml the reading a rather than s N SC$ tron hi ,ie eptanee
he arguiner t b1 C,crn t Cia r mu (1900- 33! 3321 concernIng im cading ii d Clerniur
ri ecu’ rgun cii uncr uasm do Tot see tic letter r tic I TO graph tBr 21 C Ii y -

The e a cursed flaw :r the ton immediately bell r’ tie mop

- 1,, TI str 2k’ 1 ‘1 hat
IT lo id ibis ma’, h Se bc’i rnt’rprcted the heid ía -
Tin’ Laige “veo-pll1llLI Jnscuipnon KAI 159... 47

‘. rd. ‘which, that’.

‘I prep. ‘upon. over’ (D.VlJ’SJ 844-846: H.4LOT 825-826: cf. Ug. ‘I DUL 155-156:
CLUC 78).
Amr ii. m. sing. a type of priest tD,Vi1S1 515-516: cf 1L4L0T482).
(y--4) . K 3sing. 3ms sf’x. ‘yam < ‘y!)afu (with loss of laryngeal) ‘it cosered
him’ (1-311 vet, HALOT420 cf. 813-814 s,v. th i)14, Kerr (2010: 25-38) discusses
the loss of laryngeals in Late Punic.
nut prep. mm -1 1 cpl. suffix min(n)u/’ from us’.

This sentence seeks to explain sshy the name of the kmr-priest does not appear in
the text, which identifies a number of participants by name, and specifically the kim
priest in tl xt scritenco I infer that the kait —priest svor tbe cloak os er his head,
preventing observers from identifying him in the poor light of the nocturnal ceremony
(cE 611 ‘at night’, line 9). It seems odd that the text’s author ssould not ha\ e learned the
priest’s identity after the fact, and this oddits raises the question shether concealing
the identity of officiating Amr-pricsts nn as an eec rsional or routine practice at this time.

S 7 iT) uk/ni 16’! 1mm wrw,cn ho ‘r.

And the pliest for Hal t H)amen ssas Lumen son of 4,c

kim n ‘priest’ tI).\ iIISJ 400-492: of. In kIm, DL.!. 4: ‘•I ( 841
tin so On the ucafi ‘alien I n,catr. see !I.VPI 156 concernine the lrequcnt element —

sun in Ret ber rame

’.
3

58 (7)k
1 in fir

Becaa e he I sten d to their oiec.

59 1 )hkrr

T’ a a hiJ ‘he t’tles of cnl’U lTce oev ‘v”+t ha\e S near v”

significance I he kmr (S6 [hne 7] is a type ( I priest ssliese duties arc not t
clear and ,

f90 trh ii Bit onis rn 61 1. ;ndii Lqa y it in lint a clink of riehteousncss h’

has con nod me
r’ prccrt or t0r’orts gl0een esantlen of sari in \orrh ,\i1c.sn n,ImCn a rifler ‘.51 harm arc
J, .natelini I -i9_t. : retrormdc mndeaf P,s.s:hk related olerr:eritn Ire -cr0 I 4s. 1. .14 I al
- cl
Ciii 2s . The Borae or ne [i’i]s,nrs;sim:i (IL ‘iii 2261-b: Jongeling ‘4-14 6-77 beizins ntt.
element inli i;aei:n: 190 I a.’... -nc.. iii. Four s-mm:.. leers s.. rh the oIntment mm,- miclcI.. 1.19.
‘ ‘ce’mdrre o. 4 kg’. 23 :. kin of Rr idl appo:nted k4n,7r,i, to make (0000no. I ,siieringc 1,00
[ii’.. m’. ‘CC Coga and L drrmr 9: 295-2361 1 he aamc lea. ji ,rd adflt,ii’t
1
‘ir’ s y’ be a fragmentars rnorI test tn Cent- age ‘41cc /901 out Ci’. (rUin’
and nec’..:. or rot frankinccnae, set en kn’
r-nt -c’.’
1 of f’[’[) 2a3 s.t Ihntl 1
48 Ph. C. Schmitz

the khn (S7 [line 7]) is also a type of priest in ancient Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Israelite
rituals. In the Marseilles tariff (KAJ 69.3-15). a Carthaginian temple mscription, khn
priests are associated with sacrifice (Pun. zbi), as implicitly in this text. in the biblical
system of sacrifice, only the khn officiated in the slaughtering of animals. Sentence 6
describes the attire of the kmr-priest but does not mention priestly ritual duties’
. Can
8
we presume that the khn, introduced by name immediately following these lines, carried
out the ritual slaughter?

ReIigiousHistorical Observations

Althiburus is located 175km southeast of Carthage, By the mid second century

BC1. its territory formed the eastcrn boundary of the rst t.4’k t (KAI 141.1), 6k. ywa
suarov (Appian, Lh. 59). Latin pagus Thus ‘a, the southeastern administratise diOric’
of Carthage (Manfredi 2003’ 443-447) At some distance from Carthage, Althiburus
nevertheless sustained considerablc Carthaginian influence (for example, a lop/wi)
dcspite its remotc location.
Ihe inscription studied above is dedicated to the god Bal (ll)amon, as stated in
line I A Ahn priest of this god appears in line 7 According to the interpretation
presented above, ‘hd rnlq t servants f Melqart’ (linc I spon r d th sacr lice that ti
inscription commemorates. rhe occasion 01 thc sacrifice is the construction of a (is
‘celIa’ (S2, line 5) and a ceremony that involves a sacnlicc during the month An (53, line
5), apparently sponsored by or for an assembly fAns, linc I, apparently devoted to Bal
(H)amon
‘Iwo elements of the narratis’ havc broader implications about the continuity of
Pfocnician religious practi e in lat’ oinar p nod AIth bu us Ife construction of Its
celIa dur ni I c n out Are I nks I na r t ye th I a e si. I t try r e rI Ii I
ccn . v B Phocnic an i sc o F r s ci r rI y hich als
.

mentions thc building of a w (K 112 7 5 6) durink the m nth Ire lire 8) 1 he Pyigi
te t further specifies a day as a’ qhr ‘len ‘tI’c dcits s burial da (lire 9) Scholar’
dcrtil II d ity 81 q 1 r M ‘lq r r d 1 I d h ta t h

two Phi erician dip nto ir cripti 1 1 1 noss ost amphora s id to [a crc c Ira tomb
Amatl ort n Cyprus appearc to be i dcdcat r s a km pr cs 1’ h’i fur Ii i I shbau
mr p st ot Bal Shamem (RL S a I Ic is o dc S ou I id a, Mascor (1993)
oss cr has calkd this read ng of th text rtc s is quc t in Or he ill ccl ics f reading th
cx urid et ian ng t c iiginal oc’it sc Fri . r id, s ( 1 F ) c ,s’ ,oer tly re is
8r id I Goz,o 2004 21 1 1 hr cx ot RI a ‘p 5 , Ma r,inin 13 3 1)43
Pisar and Tras igl ni (20 3 S 3 ( P 1 3, Is ir c s o f RI. 1513 (200’ 1)
prceede Smadasi (Ju//o s anim idvcrsior.
The tar If wenti ins a hr 69 spn te nple if Bal Sahor’ (KA (9
n the present cortext e mr ot addicss n ore fundamental issue’, ii ols 0 tcr a n ny he
functions and roles ot cu tie operato s For riethodolog.c’il gu dance 1 ha e onsulted Tella 2006).
I ipi iski (1970 1446 4-48)’ Ribichini ‘984 163 t93)’ Bonnet (1988 ‘828S)’ An’,dasi
Gui’o (13)0’ 96) [ibiehini ar,c Xclia ( 094’ ‘31 Sm’th ‘9 .,‘ 5272 O r A 2- )
Melqart]; 282-286 [Adon’sj 28(-289 [1 yrgi] 84 ‘tiirger (2001, it ap 3 [Mclq ii ; chip. $
[A Ion s] ‘hap 6 1
0,iris])
The Large Neo-punici Inscription KAI 159... 49

death of the Handsome (one)’ (KA! 277.5) appears to evoke a theme from the classical
myth of Adonis (Schmitz 2007a; 2009: 65-66).
Line I indicates that the vow being fulfilled ssas made to Bal (l-I)amon by
devotees of Melqart, as discussed above. The explicit association of Melqart with the
ritual structure (tw) and calendar date (yr Arrf that in the Pyrgi text evokes the myth of
Adonis provides us with possible warrant for associating and perhaps identifying the
two deities Adonis and Melqart
.
40

Social and Political Observations

According to S4, which mentions ptin ‘suffetes’, the sacrifice involved the
cooperation of seseral social group a group of \lelqart dcsotccs an assembly (kns
line 1) presumed to havc included the eleven men named in lines 2-5, devotees of Baal
(H)amon, a mzrh (line 4), which I suggest is probably a Roman cas aIry unit called in
I atm turma, an implied standard-bearer (sec nc, line 5); sonic or all of cshon sponsor a
feast in conjunction ssith thc sacnfice; and thc two 4ptin (linc local go\ernors
11 ,

Personal names communicate s cry limited information about social histor, so

deduct ons concermnti th ethnic co lgosition f the group of dc cn dedicators in this
inscription must be restrained \s can bc scen from table 2, nmc of the eleccn mci ibers
are sons of men ith Libyco Berber narncs, The tsso fathers whose names arc probably
Pitnic Ia ath has sons with I ihvc a kiher names Altog ciher mehi af ihe members h ice
-

I ibyco-Bcrbcr nanacs wo hasc Latin ramcs, and tw includint z’/hI) havc inic
names The names ol the tsso s iffctcs rcflcct thc two ancestral lineages of the
c tulunit ,Lby ‘3cr ndPti 1

F on the in itcd ccl n r cc c c a c o PF nc c ti h c lcd c I t fci er

macic tc Mel
art orb
0 I e earn ig pcri ci it h F
4 f100
1 )n c let o V 0 Ork i ( nun to
M rch) in I d ifl0 Its ccu tenon A iii 1 JunO: offc r g t 0 is r 91 tIe br n tIn. s ii
pcriod of thc eonstcllati MO Or, ii (Jo y Dcc mo’ Thc cia dcdceted Mc qart \doi s ii ring
A (Ju 0 in ii Pyri t xt cr0 r Mc Icine A 5 rjscs one sc red qi csti in ft it tic
msoc dm05 of then. dc Ii s v if Osni I amirce cv il’ Bonnct 1)8 103-10 p if a ucgrcc of
ssner t cmi, cidcnt Th c m,n local cor cs rdcnccs supo r this ,nfvrence (ii I, I
B m lo ( 00() iterf rcts 01 c r ags of r it s ,crificc I in Ann! f a.
‘
iit Ac bc,, ,1 1 , 0 C
50 Ph. C. Schmitz

Table 1: Glossar of Words in Hr. Medeine (Aithiburus) N I ( KAI 159)

Form Line Root Definition Philological and Linguishe (‘onirnenk

5 the def. art. ILVPI 381 s.v.; 388 .

1.6,8.9 ishich, relatisc complementiier

that
h 5 in prep in, for In Blithe syntagm Iigg h- ‘celebrate a feast
for’ specifies the occasion of the celebration (I Sam 30.16;
IL)! UT 290 S.S
ho 6 h—w— go yuphil part. ss ith 3m.s. suffix mublyo ‘(those) brought him’
(cE 1311 inOhJ>im, JI1I,UT 114 xv, his’ hof.)
ho 5,6 h, (hoe 5) part p1 construct ‘builders’. (line 6) s. ( 3
pl. kanli
t1,e built’
hn 5 in it prep f 3sing suffix binno ‘in it’ (P16 182 (254a3

h 6 the def. art.

hhr 4 Jibr friend (DVWS’I 346-347, ci 11’sP! 389 s

ii. 10 hhr 11 1LUT 287-
288 CLUE’ 153)
hg 5 hag feast n m. hag ‘feast (ci I/Al UT 289-290)

5 1— ‘—n’ bear ‘load, be,r G p1 ‘, t a’ nO F. ompare 1311

- 2 ‘load’
‘—n
(1J,410T378>
S Sfi S i-s p add qal pen. I epl. vas,ipnu ‘s c added’ (JO VII’S! 462 Cf. /1.11.01’
418)
coser K lsing. 3nis six. SatO y “‘ti s’ tb loss of—

lrsngeaI) ‘it cosered him’ ([311 s’l. Iii! (.iT 126, cf’. 813-8(4
xi. ‘lb 3. 1311 only in isa (,l lb. no’’,? cO,IiqO 3i’’,Jt;fliJ ‘lint
a clo,ik -f riahteocsness lie ins cm ered me’
3 rh S ii], monih n mouth’ D\ U 5/ 4f,9_47(i(

P I Ki ) ‘.shen ad’ hen’ UVIi’.SJ 45”:: el hO ich. 1311 i’ :,Fen’ 1/ f/UT

n
V’. I, ‘‘sEen’ (/i(’/ 2247. (IF ( Is’) K, 3)
K’ thi A.,o’ ,OVhnJ4”'4’\’

lAin k(;, priest .

t’. 4. t:r c). F a. Fl,,, I’Ll. ‘ill: c/F ( I sI

kntr 7 I,mr prteet n.m. ‘-Op a ixpe ufpriest lIs\ (Li! 515-5 ii: C 113/.i)T452(

Lu’- kits ,issemni’, n. ms. 3 ms. suffix k,nn(tsc ‘E ,ie’-en:l-

‘ C i’nipi:e .

511 led Kin ti,, nathan n a rei’r’a1,’i 1 .r a, Cr’ i last r’ ‘‘.5

- , .:‘

‘985. 633) f L”niEi n ) ‘gathetin,’. s’.en,iPs i’,,I 616, .

As 6 As, coserina ram. k,,s 1 1 ‘osenirg (a)’. 1311 FOOt. ‘Join 4 6. I 4.

/1,1/UT-i 8)
is), Ion piep s,ih api. pri n. sr,lfi\ !4u7 Out u’

Ii ngit J5”-5”S
5
DVU’

nibs’ see ho’

nO? — nut ruin prep u,,u, “‘nif’\ n::i’i ii t’a ‘iron’ ,is’

tuilrll 4 7-n-lu I,,, ci’. 1!. (LHT 28 s.s ‘airOi

nOt 6
nAn’ I n-A-n . nadrd Oars ,o’,sed’.

its’ 5 mis standard it m Cot npar. 811 ,uds ii) it is slut st,iu’clends’ (/6-11(3 T
- -

“02); \rna uPs, i’i.ssjt “ ([lIP.) “52:,: 1)1161 752:,; Jnstru.s

1)85 9 5, PSI) (/7(0, 15420
F ri(-’y lend, ioan ( 3m sing ci 811 oF 6- ‘lend tint (JLILUT “28 s s ns’ii
The Large A’eo-punici Inscription KAI 159... 5I

S skk hut n.m. ‘41k ‘tabernacle, hut’ (cf. 1311 s6k ‘hut, refuge’ !f1LOT
753; Ug. sk ‘thicket”? CLCC 295 s.u skk i: cC DL.’L 756
‘den. cocci
I ‘—b-J sers tnt ‘ •
‘ ‘serc ants’
rj 7 upon, ocer prep (D.VI5SI 844-846; IL4LOT 825-826; cC 13g. ‘1 [3(1.
155-156; CLUC 7$
‘if 5 7 (5flo prep. ‘to, onto’ PPD 3’5 cv. )t irS).

‘ow I ‘ma humble. adj. ‘3n3cc ‘humble. boss ing, pious’. Compare 1311 ‘a,tan
hocvin, humble’ (JL4LOT 8551.
ds out
‘p 6 cloak n F. a toga cc nIt a purple stripe’ (Jongcling, 1/VP! 403 s.c.)

lit 5 r-xt-tt rejoice Ci 3pi ‘thc rejoiced’

5 c-v- set, place c. Ipi. ‘place, put, e-tablih (D.VIt’[J 1130-31, cf JJ-tLCT
483-86; Ug DCL 548-851: CLL’C 335)
5 lii ceCa . ‘celIa. chamber’ (1/1i 2 5: D\JtL/ 1204: DPI) 485 cc.;
Ci Ug. to K t( )‘? DC’!. 655: CLLC 335-336)
52 Ph. C. Schrnitz

Table 2: Personal Names n Hr. Medeine (Aithiburus) N I (= KAI 159)

tine Name Language Patronm Language FtmoIog Title

3 gr Berber Isn7rrnn Berber
3 rn’gm’ Berber thrsn Berber
2 mshh’ Berber Itley Berber
6 nmhh’ Berber 17r,n Berber 4pt
3 vesrnzgr Berber shg Berber
4 y’st’n Berber rnshb’ Berber
,Cjg
4 Berber 4tvmn Berber
2 mery4 Tat thrsn Berber
3 4 rnrrt4 Tat Ibts I3erber
jjCI
Pun II Berber
2 gszrn Berber 4s r Pun 4 5 3 ITOS13’atLt/ she
plunders hun’
2 Ttmn Berber )ksItn Pun <k-s4/yiksalatnt/ she
made rue confident
7 rsrwsn Berber ‘rT Pun Aim
6 ?lhdi Pun brA Pun
6 ic/hI Pun
The Laie Neo-punici inscription KAI 159... 53

References

Aggoula. B.
1985 Inscriptions el gm/flies araméens d’Assour. AION Suppl. 45.2. Naples:
Islituto Orientale di Napoli.
Amadasi Guzzo. N’l. G. (see also Guzzo Amadasi, M. G.)
1990 lscrCionifenicie e puniche in Ira/ia. Itinerari 6. Rome: Librena clello
Stab.
1997 “L’accompli ala 3e personne du feminine singulier ci Ic pronom suffixe S
l’accusatif de Ia 3e personne du singulier: note de grammaire
phdnicienne”, in Ana IadILabnini Iü allik: Beitrdge zu alrorientalischen
und rniue/rneerischen Ku/wren, Fe.ctschrifr/ur Wolfgang Rd/hg, ed. B.
Pongratz-Leisten, H. Ktihne, and P. Xella, 1-9. Kexelaer: Butzon &
Bercker: Neukirchen-Vluyn. Neukirchener.
2004 “Annexe I: Misc a jour bibliographique des inscriptions publiées dans
Kition III (1977)”, in Kition dons lea testes, Kition—Bamhou/a V, ed. M
Yon. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 204 15.
2007 “Une lamelle magique a inscription phdnicienne”, VU 13: 197-206.
Benz, F. L.
1972 Pci cone! A’nnes in the PhoLnklan and Poole Inscriptions Studia PohI R
Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
I3erger. Ph.
1887 “Note sur Ia grande inscription néopunique ci sur un autre inscription
dAliiburos’’. .1.4 8—9: 457—71 (excerpted in F. de Sainte-Maric. llission d
carthage [Paris. 1884]. 108—110).
1891 1n.c ipnnn ,ic:opji,iio,e d ‘.4lrihuro L,g;’cs .5 U Ri. Paris.
Bonnet. C
1988 ,Ik’lqari: C’idtes ci n,t’thes i/c lIfdraciic Ti rico en SIéJlIcrra!iéc. Studia
Phoenicia 8. F3ihliothéquc dc Ia Facuité ile Philosophic ci 1.ettres dc
Namur 69. Leu en: Peeters: Presses Umx ersitaires de Namur.
brockeimann, u.
1928 Lesicon hi’r,ac ion. 2nd ed. Haile: Max Nieme\er,

Bulb. S.
2006 “Attori del sacrificio privati nd Nerd-Africa d’ctS romana: Ira rib
romano e tradizioni locali”. Pp. 151-6° in Rocchi. Xella. and Zamora.
eds. 2006.
(Z4L Comprehens tie .4ra,naic L.svicon
‘—

(..‘IL = Corpus i iscriptianum latinanim

C7.5’ = C’oipu.c in.ccripltonuin
Cogan. M.. and H. Tadmor
1988 H Kings. AB Ii. Garden City. NY. Doubleday Anchor.
CTU — NI. Dietrich, 0. Loretz, and J, SanmartIn
54 Ph. C. Schmitz

1995 The Cioiei/orm .4lphahetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras lhn Ilani, and Other
Places. MOnster: Ugarit Verlag.
DJB4 = Sokololl, M.
2002 Dictionart’ of Jewish Bahi’lonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic
Periods’. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Unix Press.
.

D.VJt’Sl Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongelmg

1995 Diciionart of the .Vorth—west Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. 110 1.21.
l.eiden: E. J. Brill.
DIaL = Olmo Lete. 0. del. and J. Sanmartin. eds.
2003 .4 Dictionars oft/ic L.)zaritic Language in the .4lphahcnc Tradition. tr. Vs.
Ci. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill.
Euting. J.
1875 “lnschriftliche Nlittheilungen”, ZDSIG 29: 235-240.
Gerstenherger. F. S.
2000 9inhh. TDOT ii: 242
(IUZZO Amadasi. \1. Ci., and V. Karageorghis
977 Fondles de Kition Ill: Jnsci’iptiunc phenicicnnec. Nicosia: Department ot
A ii t I qu ties.
Ilalayqa. 1. K. H.
2(308 .1 C onipai’atii’c l.c.s icon of C garnic and Ccoiaanie. Alter )rient und
Altes Testamen 3(14. \lunscer: Lgant—Veria
11alhv. J.
1874 “Appendice aux inscriptions libyqucs. Inscription d’Altiburos 11 7 no.
4: 592-595.
114L0T Keehler, L.. and W. Ban iartner t al eds
.

2001 The Hcbreo andAix ii of Le i efti Old Jr men!. I eiden l3r’iil.

lIcales. 3.
2004 Sicherheit des \ugcs [he Contributi 30 to Semitic Lpigraphv of the
Explorer Jolt is Futin (1839-1913)’ in Biblical a id .Vcar Eastern
Es sa,t s Stod c a lB i ii [K s Ii at, cd. C Mc( arths and 3.
.

F Ilealey. JSOTSupp 375 [London]

Jastrow, M.
.4 Di ‘,‘onny a/the B., g.imini, Sr ll,nad 0th!, and Yi o,’h. ‘.ni and ‘h
.f,thashic / telature New York 1903. Repr. New York’ Judaica Press
Jongcltng, K.
1994 Var/h 4Jiixan Same. Jioni latin Souices ctden Rcsc’irch achool
CNWS
Hans/hook oJ Wa I unic Inscriptions Itibtngcn Mohr Stebeck.
Jongcltng, K.. and R. M. Kerr
2005 Late Panic hpigraphs. 1 Obingen’ Mohr Sieb ck
The Laige A’eo-punici Inscription KAI 159... 55

K.41 Donner. H.. and \V, Rdlliiz

2002 Kanaandi.cche nod arwniiisehc Inschri/Ien. 2d ed. 3 vols. \Viesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1966. 3rd-4th ed.. 1973-79. Vol. 1, 5th, enlarged and
revised ed.
Kallala, N. Ct al.
2008 “Recherches stir I occupation d’Althihuroc (region di Ke1 Tunisie) et ses
environs a l’Cpoque numide”, Pyrenae 39: 67-113.
Kerr, R. M.
2010 Latino-Punic Lpigruphy. FAT ser. 2 42. Tilbingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Koffmahn, E.
1966 “Sind die Altisraelitischen MonatsbeLeichnungen mit den kanaanäisch
phonikischen identisch?”, BZ 10: 197-2 19.
Krahmalkov, C. R.
1974 “A Carthaginian Report ol the Battle of Agrigentum 406 B.C. (CIS I
5510.9 11)”, Rivista di Soc/i Fenici 2 171—177.
1975 “Two Nco-Punic Poems in Rh’med Verse”. 1/u ida di Soc/i Fenici 3
169-205.
2001 A Phocn,cian—Piinic Grammar. Handbook of Oriental Studies 1:54:
Leiden: Boll
Lane. h \V.
1863—1893 Amble—Fog/Rh Li.ico,z, l,ondon. Reprinted Cambridge. 1984.
l.idzbarski, M.
1 898 JImu/buc Ii det ,‘toris cm /0 c/,eii L,ographik, 2 vol s. We mar.

Hildesheim: Cieorg OIms. 1962.

1902 Ephcmcii’ f/ic cemitfcci,e //riirapi0k crMc’r Ra,id, 1900-1902. Gesen:
RI/red Topelmann,
Lipinski, F
1970 ‘Ia fête d eneve1isscnient ci de Ii resurrection de Meiqart’, in I Its de
Ia XVIJe Rcncont,e Ass iriologique Intel nationaL’, ed A. F met 30-58
Ham stir Flenre Connie B Ige dv reche ches n MCsopotamic
LSJ Liddell, If 6., and R. Scott eds,
1996 A Gieek-Lngli.sh I csicoiz is ith Supplement Res ised and augmented
throughout by Sir Henrs Stuart o ses vith th assistance of Rode ick
McKenzie O\ford Clarendon Press.
Magnanini, P
1973 Ic isv, ion fenicie d i/f), zvnI I 51 I ‘oduzioni do.s.so i. R mc
Istituto di Studi dcl \‘icino Oriente
Man fredi. F. 1.
2003 La VOi:ilL’U u,00ilnl.c!rutiui d Cai’taOjl?i’ Ill .4fi’ica Sonic. ylemoriz
deIl’Aceademia nazionale dci Lncei, ser. 9. vol. 16. l’asc 3 Rome:
Accademia Nazionale dci Emcee
Masson. 0.
1993 “Encore sur Fume phCniciennc A. F. Cesnola de Kitiun’ Sen:’tica 41-42:
,

101-105.
56 Ph. C. Schmitz

Mettinger, T. N. D.
2001 The Riddle of Resurrection. Stockholm: Almqvist & \Viksell.
Niehr, Herbert
2003 Ba ‘alSa,;;em: Siudien .—u Herkunfi, Ge.shichie, mid Rezepiionsge.vchichic
cities phOnizichc’n Goites. OLA 123. Studia Phoenicia 17. Leuven:
Uilgevcrij Peeters en Depar1nent Oosterse Studies.
Pisano. G.. and A. Travaglini
2003 Jccriiooifenicie e puniche dipinte. Studia Punica 13. Rome: Universith
degli Studi di Roma “br Vergata.”
Pleins, i. D.
1992 Poor. Poverty. ABD 5: 412-13
2001 The Social I isio,is of the hebrew Bible: A TheoloEgcal lnt,odiict ion
Louisville: Westminster.
FED Krahmalkov. C. R.
20(30 Phoenician—Punic Dicflonclfl Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 90. Siudia
Phoenicia 15. Leusen: Peeters.
Ribichini. S.
1981 Adonis: .1.cpetti ‘orientaL’ di tin mb grcco. Collezione di Studi Fenici
‘‘

18. Rome: Consiglio Naiionale delie Ricerche

Rihichini. S.. and P. Xella
1994 La rcligionc /i’oicia c punica in ha/ia Ronie. Libreria del Ia Stab.
Recchi, M., P. Xelia. and J A. Zamora, eds.
2006 Cli Operator! (ultuall: .3 t dcl II Inc. o1tro di studio oIgaiiie:ato d
1
0
‘Gruppo di cootatto per Jo studio del/c religIon! /f[ mire Romo,
JO-Il maggio 2005 S’LL 23 Verona Ussedue
Slousch,, N.
1042 Thosaurus of Pho’ ii ion Inset iptions [lid re met usalem 1)s r
Schmitz, Ph C.
1995 “The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pvrgi Journal of
the American Oriental 5ociet 115: 559—575.
I G a R a 2 9 J iii o/ Li/i/tea!
Literature 122 145-149.
2007a “Adonis in the Phoenician Text from Pyrgi
9 A New Reading of KAI
277.5 ‘,Etruscan 2veisc 8.9, 13.
2007b “The Phoenician-Punie Personal Name 7zbT DS5 -NELL f.2 1 2.
,

2009 “The Owl in Phoenician Mortuary Practice Journal o/ Incicot Neat

.

Eastern Religions 9: 51-85

Smith, M. S.
1998 “The Death of Dying and Rising Gods’ in the Biblical \Vorld: An
Update. with Special Reference to Baal in the Baal (ycle. SlOT 12:
257-313.
i/iL’ Laige Nco-punici Inscription KAI 159... 57

Stieglitz. R. R.
1997 “Phoenician-Punic Menology”, in Boundaries of i/ic Ancient Near
Eastern World: A Tribute to Gyrus H. Gordon, ed. M. Lubeiski, C.
Gottheb. and S. Keller, 211-221. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
2000 “The Phoenician-Punic Calendar”, in Actas del IV C’ongrcso
Internucional de L,studios Fenicioc y Pdnicoc, Cddiz, 2 a! 6 Octubrc (IC
1995, ed. M. E. Aubet and M. Barthélemy, 2: 69 1-696. Cádii: Servicto
de Publicaciones, Universidad de Cádii.

th
4
4 Dictionaic of Modern Written Arabic (Arabic-English,), ed. Edited
by J. M. Cowan Ithaca, N.Y.: Foreign Languages Press.
XelIa, P
2006 ‘Per una ricerca sugli operatori cultuali. lntroduzione m.todo1ogica c
lcmafica” Pp. 3-8 in Rocchi, Xclla, and Zamora, eds. 2006