the phoenician text from the etruscan sanctuary at pyrgi

18
The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi Author(s): Philip C. Schmitz Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 115, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1995), pp. 559- 575 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/604727 . Accessed: 18/10/2014 17:56 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Upload: philip-c-schmitz

Post on 24-Feb-2017

258 views

Category:

Documents


7 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at PyrgiAuthor(s): Philip C. SchmitzSource: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 115, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1995), pp. 559-575Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/604727 .

Accessed: 18/10/2014 17:56

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

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

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

THE PHOENICIAN TEXT FROM THE ETRUSCAN SANCTUARY AT PYRGI*

PHILIP C. SCHMITZ

EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

The Phoenician text written on a gold plaque discovered in an Etruscan sanctuary at the site of ancient Pyrgi in Italy continues to pose unresolved questions to the Semitist. The present study con- centrates on syntactic analysis, confirming previous interpretations of the text as three sentences and offering a new interpretation of the third and final sentence. Additional epigraphic attestation of the word m's and analysis of pronominal reference in the final sentence leads to a new translation free from the pragmatic problems of previous interpretations. The dialect of the text can be described as Mediterranean Phoenician.

THIRTY YEARS AFTER THEIR DISCOVERY, the Etruscan and Semitic texts from Pyrgi remain enigmatic. The two gold plaques inscribed in Etruscan script (figures 2 and 3) and the single gold plaque inscribed in Phoenician letters

(figure 1) were discovered in the summer of 1964 in the course of excavations at an Etruscan sanctuary at Pyrgi, an ancient coastal town about thirty miles north of Rome (Pallottino et al. 1964, 58-63). During the first decade after their discovery they were studied with an intensity

* This article has had the benefit of attentive readings in earlier drafts by M. O'Connor, comments from Y. Arbeitman, and the remarks of two anonymous readers and M. P. Maidman. I thank each of them sincerely. Any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions that remain are my responsibility.

The abbreviations used in this article are: Arm = Aramaic; BH = Biblical Hebrew; BybP = Byblian Phoenician; CID = Mosca and Russell 1987; CIS = Commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum 1881-; CypP = Cypriot Phoenician; Etr = Etruscan; FK3 = Amadasi Guzzo and Karageorghis 1973; Grk = Greek; KAI = Donner and Rollig 1966-69; Lamine = Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 1970; Larn 2 = Larnax tes Lapethou (Cyprus), inscription no. 2 (= KAI 43); Larn 3 = Larnax tes Lapethou (Cyprus), inscription no. 3 (= Honeyman 1938); Lat = Latin; LDM = Larnaca District Museum (see Yon and Sznycer 1991); NJPS = Jewish Publication Society 1985; NPun = Neo-Punic; O = Object; Phoen = Phoenician; Poen. = Plautus, Poenulus (= Lindsay 1903-11); Pun = Punic; REE = "Rivista di epigrafia etrusca" (published annually in Studi Etruschi); RES = Commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum 1900; S = Subject; TLE = Pallottino 1968; TSP = Tyrian-Sidonian Phoenician; Ug = Ugaritic; V = Verb.

of interest rarely lavished on ancient epigraphs.1 In the twenty years that followed, the attention of most Semi- tists turned elsewhere,2 although Etruscologists continued

1 The excavations and the epigraphic finds rapidly became the subject of numerous studies. The definitive publications of the site are Bartolini et al. 1970 and Colonna et al. 1992. Re- garding textual discoveries, note M. Pallottino, "Nota sui doc- umenti epigrafici rinvenuti nel santuario" (Bartolini et al. 1970, 730-43). On the find-spot of the gold plaques, see G. Colonna, "Il recinto delle lamine" (Bartolini et al. 1970, 597-604; an ex- cellent color photograph faces p. 604). For an English summary with a black-and-white photograph of the gold plaques, see Colonna 1966 (photograph, p. 23).

A bibliography through 1969 is appended to Lamine, 63-67. It is in three sections: on the archaeology of the site and the discovery of the sanctuary (by G. Colonna); on the Phoenician text (forty-six entries, by M. G. Amadasi Guzzo); on the Etr texts (by M. Cristofani).

A slightly reduced version of Amadasi Guzzo's bibliography on the Phoenician text appears in her handbook (Amadasi Guzzo 1967, 159-60; the entire discussion of the text [appendix 2] occupies pp. 158-69). The bibliography on the Phoenician text in KAI, no. 277 (2:330-31) is from 1968 and includes only one additional item not listed by Amadasi Guzzo. The long study by R. Werner (1973, 1974) offers some pointed criticisms of earlier interpretations but has no comprehensive bibliography. The bib- liography in Gibson (1982, 153-54) includes nine additions, the latest dated 1978. For a general survey, see Weeber 1985.

2 An exception is G. Garbini, who published the initial commentary on the Phoenician text (Garbini 1964), as well as a revised interpretation (Garbini and Levi della Vida 1965;

559

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.4 (1995)

Fig. 1. Phoenician inscription from Pyrgi (REE 6316 = KAI 277). Photograph courtesy of G. Schichilone, Diri-

gente Superiore Soprintendente, Ministero per i Beni Culturi e Ambientali, Soprintendenza Archeologica per l'Etruria Meridionale, Museo Villa Giulia, Rome.

partly reproduced, with minor changes and comments on the Etr texts, in Garbini 1980, 205-34) and a further study (Gar- bini 1968). For the twenty-fifth anniversary of the discovery of the texts, Garbini published a review of the most recent lit- erature with particular attention to five problematic points of

interpretation (Garbini 1989).

to dispute the meaning of nearly every word in the Etrus- can texts.3 Historians of religion have gone on discuss-

ing the questions of religious syncretism raised by the Phoenician text, which identifies the deity to whom the

sanctuary was dedicated as Astarte (Neppi Modona and

Prayon 1981); but such discussion is securely founded on neither the Etruscan texts nor the Phoenician copy, be- cause the interpretation of both remains open to con- siderable variation.

The readings of the Etruscan texts are well established, although the plaques continue to be examined (Mo- randi 1991); likewise the reading of the Phoenician text, established during the first decade of study, has gained universal acceptance. The problems facing interpreters of the Phoenician text are primarily philological. The mean-

ing of several passages is difficult to establish, and this

uncertainty has been viewed largely as a question of di- alect. Specialists have variously described the language of the text as Tyrian-Sidonian Phoenician (TSP), Cypriot Phoenician (CypP), and Punic (Pun). Appeal has more than once been made to the Phoenician dialect of Byblos (BybP) to explain alleged morphological peculiarities in the text (e.g., Knoppers 1992, 113).

In the following pages I shall partly assume and partly argue for a filiation of the Phoenician dialects along the following lines. The first major division separates the dialect of Byblos from that of Tyre and Sidon. The dis- tinctive morphology of Byblian Phoenician is generally recognized and is therefore best treated separately. The oldest examples of TSP are texts from Cilicia, but the di- alect is epigraphically attested in the Phoenician home- land from about the eighth century onward.

Other dialects descend from TSP. The language of the Phoenician colonies of the northern Mediterranean will

3 For a general introduction to Etruscan studies, see Pallot- tino 1984 and Cristofani 1991. In English, see G. Bonfante and L. Bonfante 1983; more briefly, L. Bonfante (1990; on the

Pyrgi texts, p. 28). Note the cautions of Briquel (1985, 111- 25, esp. p. 115).

On the dissemination of Etruscan literacy, consult Pandolfini Angeletti and Prosdocimi (1990). Agostiniani 1988 is a recent Etruscan lexicon.

Etruscan texts are generally referred to by their number in the series REE. The Pyrgi texts are REE 6314 (= longer Etr) and REE 6315 (= shorter Etr). (Note that REE 6316 = the Phoenician text.) They are also cited as TLE 874 and 875. A

complete corpus of texts is now available (Rix et al. 1991). In this corpus the Pyrgi texts are C[ae]r[e] 4.4, 4.5 (2:40).

Additional bibliography will be found in recent surveys (L. Bonfante 1991, 157-64; Serra Ridgway 1991, 5-27).

560

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

SCHMITZ: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

Fig. 2. Longer Etruscan inscription from Pyrgi (REE 6314). Photograph courtesy of G. Scichilone.

be referred to here as "Mediterranean Phoenician."4 This dialect is best attested in the Phoenician texts of Cyprus

4 The designation "Mediterranean Phoenician" derives from Huehnergard (1992, 157, chart LAN.01). The filiation I propose dif- fers from Huehnergard's in deriving Punic directly from TSP (Huehnergard's "Littoral" dialect), rather than from Mediterranean.

Fig. 3. Shorter Etruscan inscription from Pyrgi (REE 6315). Photograph courtesy of G. Scichilone.

but is also attested farther west. The language of Car- thage and its foundations derives from Tyrian and is gen- erally called Punic. This much is assumed.

I shall argue that Punic is distinguished by a small group of morphological and syntactic features from Med- iterranean Phoenician. In the period following the Ro- man destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C.E., the surviving language of Carthage and its environs is called Neo- Punic (NPun).

561

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.4 (1995)

I shall further argue that the language of the Pyrgi text is not Punic, as was assumed by some earlier scholars, understandably misled by later close ties between Italy and Carthage; nor is it a mixed dialect. Its language is rather the Mediterranean dialect of Phoenician. Similari- ties between the language of the Pyrgi text and CypP may preserve information about the history of the dia- lect's westward progress.

G. Garbini (1989, 179) recently inventoried five areas of difficulty in the text's interpretation: (1) the interpretation of the word(s) bntw; (2) the analysis of the verb, prepo- sition, and suffix pronoun in the clause 'rs bdy; (3) the syntax of Imlky; (4) the meaning of qbr 'lm; and (5) the final phrase km hkkbm '1. Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 are linguistic problems; item 4 is a cultural and historical problem.

The present study has two parts. The first is a trans- lation and commentary, and it has two objectives. Its primary objective is to show how syntactic features of the text support interpretations of items 1, 2, and 3 that have already been proposed by previous interpreters. A new interpretation of the last sentence (11. 9-11) is proposed, eliminating the problem of reference that so puzzled pre- vious interpreters. A secondary objective is to resolve sev- eral lexical difficulties. The second part of the study sets out to locate the dialect of the Phoenician text from Pyrgi more precisely within the Phoenician language group. Among the assumptions from which the linguistic argu- ments of this study will proceed is the well-established conclusion that the morphology of the Phoenician dia- lects, and its representation in writing, are remarkably consistent, at least until the late stages of NPun.

TEXT

1. Irbt lcstrt 'sr qds 2. 'z 'spCl w' ytn 3. tbry' . wlns mlk Cl

4. kysry'. byrh . zbh 5. sms bmtn 'bbt wbn 6. tw . k Cstrt . rs . bdy 7. Imlky snt sls /// by 8. rh krr. bym qbr 9. 'Im wsnt Ims 'lIm

10. bbty snt km hkkbm 11. 3l

(11. 5b-9a) And he built a chamber because As- tarte requested (this) from him, year three-3-of his reign, in the month Krr, on the day of the deity's interment.

(11. 9b-11) And (as for) the years of one who makes a gift to the deity in her temple, (may) these (be) years like the stars.

The text consists of three sentences,5 referred to here as S1-3. A transliterated Phoenician text with translation, syntactic analysis, and commentary is provided for each sentence.

THE FIRST SENTENCE

Text and Translation

S1 (1) Irbt lCstrt s'r qds (2) 'z ' pCl wDs ytn (3) tbry'. wlns mlk Cl (4) kysry'. byrh . zbh (5) sms bmtn 'bbt

For the Lady, for Astarte (is) this holy place which Thefarie Velunas, king over Kaysriye, made, and which he put in the temple in Mtn, the month of so- lar sacrifices.

Syntactic analysis

S1 is a complex sentence whose main clause is verbless. It governs a compound relative clause modified by three

prepositional phrases.

Commentary

Irbt lcstrt. The predicate of the verbless main clause is a prepositional phrase whose constituents are in apposi- tion. Repetition of the preposition and appositional syn- tax consistently indicate specification in Phoen and BH, particularly in cases where the first element is an epi- thet and the second element is a proper noun: (TSP) Irbty lC'trt "for my Lady, for Astarte" (KAI 17:1 [= RES 800.1]), from Tyre, second century B.C.E.; lcbdy Imsnzms "for his servant, for PN" (CID lB);6 (CypP) Cl bny Cl klky "on behalf of his son, on behalf of PN" (FK 3 A 30.3); (BH) Cm 'dnykm Cm s'wl "with your lord, with Saul"

TRANSLATION

(11. 1-5a) For the Lady, for Astarte (is) this holy place which Thefarie Velunas, king over Kaysriye, made, and which he put in the temple in Mtn, the month of solar sacrifices.

5 This structure is implicitly recognized by most interpreters. J. Friedrich was, I believe, the only scholar to draw attention to

this feature of the text's structure (1969a, 1:205). 6 Mosca and Russell (1987, 8), with additional examples.

562

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

SCHMITZ: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

(2 Sam. 2:5). This is the usual syntax of dedications in Phoen and Pun.7

'sr qds 'z. This phrase is the subject of the main clause. The demonstrative 'z, with initial 'alep, is found in texts from coastal Syria (Amrit; Dunand and Saliby 1985, 46- 47; Puech 1986, 331), Lebanon (Sarepta; Pritchard 1982, 84, 86), Cyprus,8 Italy (Pyrgi), Sardinia (CIS I 147.1-2), and Iberia (Amadasi Guzzo 1967, 150 [Sp. 19]; 1993). A demonstrative z is common to all dialects of Phoen and Pun.

The phrase's syntax requires closer attention. In most uses of 'z, a preceding noun phrase is not determined

by the definite article.9 This is true in cases where the

phrase is a single noun, e.g., ks' 'z (Amadasi Guzzo 1967, 150 [Sp. 19]; 1993, 166); mzbh '[z] (KAI 32.2); [s]mlt '[z] (KAI 33.2); msbt 'z (KAI 34.1); [sml] 'z (KAI 39.2); sml

'z (KAI 41.1); nsb 'z (RES 234.1);10 trpy 'z (LDM 1513.1), in cases where the phrase is a two-member construct phrase (mrqc hrs 'z [KAI 38.1]), and in cases where the phrase is a three-member construct phrase ([n]sb mlk bCl 3z [CIS I 147.1-2 = Amadasi Guzzo 1967, 98 (Sard. 17)]). Three exceptions to this pattern of deter- mination are text-initial: hmsbt 'z (CIS I 44.1; 57.1) and hsml 'z (line 1 of the Sarepta plaque).' A fourth, htrpy 'z (LDM 1513.4-5), involves anaphora; the definite arti- cle refers back to the earlier mention of the trpy in line 1 of the inscription, where the noun is anarthrous.12

Phoen and Pun more frequently employ the demon- strative z after a noun phrase determined by the definite article (e.g., hspr z [KAI 24.15]). In most positions, the phrases in which 'z and z occur are in complementary distribution with respect to determination of the noun phrase.'3 The significance of this syntactic feature in iden- tifying the dialect of the Pyrgi inscription will be dis-

7 Additional occurrences of the construction are cited and discussed by Fitzmyer (1966, 287). In cases where the proper noun precedes the epithet, the preposition is not repeated. For

example, lcnt mCz hym corresponds to Athenai Soteirai Nikei in KAI 42.1, a Grk-Phoen bilingual.

8 CIS I 29 (frag.); 44.1; 57.1; KAI 32.2; 34.1; 38.1; 39.2; 41.1; LDM 1513.1, 3, 4-5.

9 Noun phrases following 'z in predicative position may be determined: 'z hsml "this (is) the statue" (Puech 1986, 331).

10 See Peckham (1968, 130-31) and Puech (1986, 337). 11 Pritchard (1982, 86); Amadasi Guzzo (1990, 58-66). 12 Yon and Sznycer (1991, 805). The noun in bmqm 'z (LDM

1513.3) may be determined. 13 The demonstratives z and 'z can occur in the same text.

Note CIS I 88, a fourth-century statue base found in 1860 as part of the construction of the el-Leitum Mosque in Nicosia, its

cussed below. The Pun dialect of Carthage shows no trace of the demonstrative 'z in fifth-century and later texts.14 Constructions with determined noun followed by z are attested throughout Pun (hnsb z [CIS I 5632.5]; hmtnt z [CIS I 381b.2]; 'mtnt z [CIS I 5510.3, 7-8]).15

'spCl w's ytn. The repetition of the relative pronoun 's before each verb is unique.16

tbry3. wlns. The Etr name of the dedicator is given as thefarie veliiunas in the shorter Etr text (REE 6314), and as thefariei velianas in the longer text (REE 6315). The

ending -ie of Etr thefarie is one of three usual ter- minations of masculine gentilics in the nominative case (Cannelli 1992, 84). Etruscologists disagree whether the final -i of thefariei is an inflectional suffix (Pallottino et al. 1964, 87; Heurgon 1966, 13; Olzscha 1966, 68 [dative suffix]; 1969, 294-95), a phonological variant (Pfiffig 1965a, 28), or an error (Fischer and Rix 1968, 79). The representation of Etrf with Phoen b has occa- sioned considerable discussion.17 There is some evi- dence that b can represent a voiceless fricative in NPun spellings. For b = /f/ in intervocalic position, note NPun r'b' (KAI 131); cf. NPun (in Lat letters) rufe (Poen. 1006), "doctor." It is possible, as G. Bonfante has most clearly argued, that the Phoen spelling does not directly represent the Etr form of the name, but a Lat form.'8

The Etr spellings of the cognomen, veliiunas (REE 6314) and velianas (REE 6315), imply a palatal glide at the beginning of the third syllable. The Phoen spelling of the name, wlns, leaves the glide unrepresented. 0. Szemerenyi concluded (1966, 125) that the Phoen spelling is a mis- take for *wlyns. H. Rix explained the Phoen spelling in terms of Etr phonology, arguing that non-final palatal glides are syncopated in pronunciation, though they may

original provenience perhaps Idalion or Kition. The construction sml 'z occurs in line 1, and the construction hmpqd z in line 4.

14 The linguistic status of CIS I 147 (= Amadasi Guzzo 1967, 97-99 [Sard. 17]) is uncertain. Ferron (1964-65, 55-64) con- siders it Punic (p. 61), but its sixth-century date and Sardinian provenience suggest that it is a Phoenician dedication.

15 Neither demonstrative is attested in the inscriptions from Motya in Sicily. See Amadasi Guzzo 1986. Note also Amadasi Guzzo 1993, 167-69.

16 But, as Rollig observed (1969-70, 111), it is not anomalous. 17 See, for example, Lamine, 15-18; also Gibson (1982, 154).

Slunecko (1990) does not discuss this name. On the represen- tation of consonant voicing in Phoen spellings of Mediterranean

toponyms, see Schmitz (1994a, 7 and n. 37). 18 G. Bonfante (1969, 1:163). The Sicilian toponym 'grgnt in

a Pun inscription from Carthage reflects Lat (Agragant) rather than Grk (Akragas); see Schmitz (1994a, 6).

563

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.4 (1995)

continue to be spelled (Fischer and Rix 1968, 80-81; Rix 1981, 90, 101).

The Phoen spelling wlns represents Etr /s/ with Phoen sin. This is consistent with a broader pattern of Phoen

spelling: in personal and place names of Indo-European origin, sin commonly represents /s/.19

kysry'. The name of the city does not appear in the Etr texts. Considerable effort has gone into the reconstruction of the name (Tibilletti Bruno 1965, 547-48). The point of departure is Pallottino's citation of a marginal comment in the Veronian manuscript of Servius' commentary on the Aeneid that observes "Agylla [= Pyrgi] ... ab Etruscis

[... scili]cet nominata est Cisra" (Pallottino et al. 1964, 62).20 0. Szemer6nyi (1966, 122-25) derived the more common Lat Caere from an earlier *Cesra, from which he thought the Etr name Cisra also developed. Szemere- nyi argued that the first syllable of kysry9 must be Kais- (> *Ces- > Cis-), the second syllable a (because of the

cognate Caesar), the third syllable -rai- or -ri-, and the fourth syllable -e. Whether Caesar is indeed cognate is

disputed (G. Bonfante 1969), but most Etruscologists agree that the Etr name Ceizra is based on the same to-

ponym as ksry3 and holds the clue to the name's etymon (see Liou 1968, 257-58; Cristofani 1968, 258-62; De Si- mone 1976, 163-84; Briquel 1984, 171, n. 13).

yrh zbh sms. The same phrase occurs in CIS I 13.1, an

inscription from Kition first discussed by Paul Schroder (1880, esp. p. 426). A number of specialists have ob- served that the similar phrase zbh ssm in Larn 2 (KAI 43.4) may involve a mistaken writing of *zbh sms.21 The

19 For earlier examples, see Garbini 1971, 32-38. CID pro- vides seven new personal names and one toponym: 'zwss (CID 7B, C2), 'slprn (CID 1A), kls (CID 3B, 4A, 6B, C1), msn(')zms (CID 1B, 7B, 8B, C2), mts (CID 3B, 4A, 5B, 7A, C1), phlg (9B), phl's (CID C3); GN: ylbs (CID 1A).

20 Servius ad Aen. 10.183. The comment derives from Verrius Flaccus. For the text of Servius' commentary, see Thilo and

Hagen (1884, 2:282, 410). 21 Berger (1893-95, 77; photograph, pl. IV). Berger re-

mained uncertain about the proper reading of the letters. The

reading ssm was established by Clermont-Ganneau (1897). More recent comments on the month designation appear in van

den Branden (1964, 253) and Koffmahn (1966, 202-4). Note

the discussion by Rollig (1969-70, 113). On CIS I 13, see FK

3, 39; Avigad and Greenfield (1982, 126, n. 42; their comment

confuses the reading of CIS 13 with that of Larn 2); Knoppers (1992, 110, n. 27); Bonnet (1989, 97-115, esp. p. 104); and

Lipiriski (1991, 62).

fact that sms is anarthrous is not in itself an indication that the word should be understood as a divine name (on solar language in Phoen and Pun texts, see Schmitz 1990, 123-24).

mtn. The word division was established by Garbini.22 The word mtn is generally taken to be a common noun meaning "gift" otherwise attested once in Phoen (mtt) and abundantly in Pun (mtnt; Jean and Hoftijzer 1965, 172 s.v. mtnh). The form mtn is restricted to proper names23 and is unlikely to be a common noun.

The word mtn appears as the name of a month in Larn 3.3 (yrh mtn; Honeyman 1938, 286, 292). In line 5 of the same inscription (which includes a list of monthly offer-

ings) the month name krr appears.24 Thus the months mtn and krr are found in the calendar represented at Pyrgi, as well as in the calendar represented on Cyprus.25

The syntax of the phrase byrh . zbh sms bmtn now be-

comes clear as a case of apposition; the preposition (b-)

Olivier (1972, 56-57) compared the incomplete Ug month name yrh dbh [...] to Phoen zbh sms, equating at least the for-

mer with the month pgrm known from the Alalakh texts (ibid., p. 59). Cohen (1993, 380) considers the equation possible.

22 Garbini and Levi della Vida 1965, 41. Note the confirming comment of Moscati in Lamine, 11.

In his first treatment of the text, Garbini had divided the words thus: bmtn' bbt (1964, 70), treating the final 'alep as an

attenuated form of the feminine suffix. His second study (cited above in this note) proposed the word division followed here

(for a thorough discussion, see Fitzmyer 1966, 290-91).

Knoppers (1992, 112-13) has recently revived the word di-

vision bmtn' bbt. An explanation of the alleged form *mtn' is

cited by Knoppers from an unpublished paper by M. D. Coogan. Coogan's derivation proposes that *mtnm results from a "conge- neric assimilation" of two distinct words: mtn < ytn and mtn' <

tn'. The combinatory process presumed is without parallel and

highly unlikely. 23 Benz (1972, 143-46, 356-57). See further, Zadok (1988,

120-21 [?21331 s.v. Mattan]). Pun mtn (CIS I 4730.1) appears to be a pun on mtnbCl, the name of the offerant. Its uniqueness is telling.

24 Honeyman (1938, 293-94). Honeyman was of the opinion that the occasion of the offering listed was the annual season of

mourning for Osiris at harvest time, "and the month Mattan is thus fixed as falling some time before mid-summer."

25 The designation zbh ssm found in Larn 2 (KAI 43.4), may, as mentioned above, correspond to the designation zbh sms. In

that case, all of the calendric names attested in the Pyrgi text are

also attested in the calendar of Cyprus.

564

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 8: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

SCHMITZ: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

is repeated in a phrase of specification, as discussed above.

'bbt. The preposition 'b with prothetic 'alep is attested in Larn 2 (KAI 43.3, 7) and in a Sidonian text (RES 1200.3; Friedrich and Rollig 1970, 37 [?95b]; Segert 1976, 161 [?56.215]). The verb ytn governs a preposi- tional phrase introduced by the preposition b- here and in a CypP text: bbty. ytt "in his temple I put it" (Larn 3.5; Honeyman 1938, 286). In Ug and BH this construction can mean "put in"; note esp. Gen. 41:48, wayyitten 'okel beCarim "and he put in each city the grain" (NJPS).26

THE SECOND SENTENCE

Text and Translation

S2 wbn (6) tw . k C'trt . rs . bdy (7) Imlky snt ls /// by (8) rh krr. bym qbr (9) 'Im

And he built a chamber because Astarte requested (this) from him, year three-3-of his reign, in the month Krr, on the day of the deity's interment.

Syntactic Analysis

Most commentators have taken note of the unusual word order of this sentence. The coordinating conjunc- tion w- with following perfect verb is typical of past-tense narrative sequences in Phoen (Schmitz 1990, 181-88). The main clause, bn tw (see commentary below), is a sim- ple declarative sentence in V-(S-)O constituent order. The subordinate clause that follows, introduced by the conjunction k, is an adverbial clause of reason; it is fol- lowed by three adverbial phrases of time. The word order of the adverbial clause and the sequence of the preposi- tional phrases that follow it are explained in the commen- tary below.

Commentary

w-. The coordinating conjunction operates at the paragraph level. The sequence is temporal.

bn tw. The last letter of line 5 is partly obliterated by a nail hole (see figure 1), and at first there was some un- certainty about its reading. Garbini initially read the let- ter as mem (1964, 70), but later accepted the reading nun proposed by A. J. Pfiffig (1965a, 9, 15; Garbini and Levi della Vida 1965, 41).

26 On Ug ytn b-, "put into'" see Pardee (1975, 351; 1977, 215).

Garbini interpreted bntw as a 1 c.s. perfect from the root BNY, taking the waw as a 3 m.s. pronominal suffix. He explained the unusual suffix as a peculiar phonolog- ical development otherwise characteristic of BybP (e.g., Garbini in Lamine, 28). The acceptance of this analysis by Fitzmyer (1966, 292) and Amadasi Guzzo (1967, 165) gave it considerable currency.27

The word division wbn tw was proposed by Altheim and Stiehl (1967, 88-89), although their analysis of tw as a verb gained no following. Accepting their word divi- sion, J. Friedrich (1969a, 207-8) recognized in the Phoen word tw a cognate to BH ta(9), Arm tawwa, with the meaning "inner room" or "cella." The sentence wbn tw is then understood to mean "and he built a cella." This analysis has been accepted by many interpreters, includ- ing Garbini.28

G. Knoppers (1992, 113) prefers the older analysis of wbntw as a first-person perfect with a third-person pro- nominal suffix, spelled -w.29 He notes the BybP suffix pronoun -w, correctly observing that it is post-vocalic. The analysis, however, involves a difficulty: the suffix pronouns written -y elsewhere in the text (11. 6, 7, 10) cannot be interpreted as third-person forms without positing a dialect of Phoen having two different sets of morphemes marking the form.30 This difficulty can be circumvented by shifting the narrative voice from third to first person in lines 5-7.31 The suffix on bbty (1. 10) re- sists this shift, however, and the difficulty remains. Thus

27 It is still the interpretation preferred by, e.g., Gibson (1982, 154, 156-57).

28 Garbini (1980, 213). In his recent survey of the literature, Garbini calls Friedrich's proposal the most important contribu- tion to the philological interpretation of the text made before 1970 (Garbini 1989, 180).

29 Knoppers' reasons for rejecting Friedrich's analysis are two: (1) the word tw is otherwise unattested in Phoen and Pun; and (2) the divine request to build a chamber rather than the en- tire temple is odd. The uniqeness of tw is no impediment; nearly half of the Phoen-Pun lexicon is attested only once (Rollig 1983, 376). The deity's request may appear odd, but the question of morphology is better settled on linguistic grounds.

30 So also Gibson (1982, 140). The form ',tw (KAI 43.11) is puzzling. The reading of -w seems sound (Honeyman 1940, 64 and pl. xi). W. R. Lane (1969, 43-44) does not recognize the complementary distribution of Phoen suffix pronouns. I find the interpretation of the form as a dual most convincing.

31 The examples cited in support of this shift are problematic. Among the Phoen examples, KAI 14:1-3a reports first-person direct speech with a quotative frame involving a speech-act verb (dbr) and the infinitive (/Imr); that is, the change of narrator is

565

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 9: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.4 (1995)

the analysis of bntw as a 1 c.s. verb with 3 m.s. object suffix remains unconvincing.32

k C'trt . 'rs . bdy. The conjunction k introduces an

adverbial clause of reason.33 In interpreting this clause, scholars have previously directed their attention to the

meaning of the verb 'rs and its prepositional comple- ment bdy. These lexical questions are best addressed

after the syntax of the sentence has been described.

Some years ago Rollig (1969-70, 114) pointed out

the general similarity of the following passage from the

Karatepe inscription.

wbn 'nk hqrt z wst 'nk sm 'ztwdy k bCl wrsp sprm slhn Ibnt

(KAI 26 A II 9-11)

And I built this city and I established as its name Azati-

wadiya, because Baal and Reshep sprm sent me to build.

As R6llig indicated, the sentence is similar to the pas-

sage from the Pyrgi text under consideration. Both refer

to divine initiative for building activity. The passage is

also significant, however, because it illustrates a ne-

glected syntactic feature of this clause type. The usual constituent order in Phoen sentences is

V-S-O. The adverbial clause of reason, however, can

be marked by the inverted order S-V,34 as is the case in

both of the examples shown here:

S V

bCl wrsp sprm slh

highly marked. In CIS I 7 (= KAI 18) .3-4, the change of per- son is marked by juxtaposition and focus construction: the new

sentence in which the narrative voice changes is introduced

without coordination, and the object phrase precedes the first-

person verb. In LDM 1513.3-5, the shift from third-person to

first-person is marked with an adverbial phrase (bym h') pre-

ceding the verb. The Arm example from Hamath (KAI 202 A 1-2) marks the

change by juxtaposition and the first-person independent pro- noun in initial position. Samalian (KAI 215.19) uses coordina-

tion of the initial first-person pronoun. The Arm example from

Nerab (KAI 226.2) is perhaps admissible, although the sentence

is juxtaposed and its initial constituent is a prepositional phrase, not a verb.

32 Note also CypP bnty "I built it" (KAI 18.4; LDM 1513.3). 33 For a typology of adverbial clauses, see Thompson and

Longacre (1985). 34 Special word order is one of several marking devices of

adverbial clauses; see Thompson and Longacre (1985, 173).

In the sentence from the Pyrgi text the subject is a simple noun; in the Karatepe passage the subject is a compound noun phrase.35 The underlying constituent order S-V is

identical in both passages.36 Both of these examples introduce a new subject,

different from the subject of the main clause. In initial

position the subject has increased prominence, drawing attention to the change of subject and thereby decreas-

ing ambiguity.37 The constituent order of this subordinate clause is

unusual but functional, serving to mark it as an adver-

bial clause of reason.

'rs. Various interpretations of this verb, and the sen-

tence in which it occurs, have been proposed.38 Garbini

favors a derivation from a root 'RT, which he takes to

mean "possess" the stem being picel with a factitive

sense.39 This interpretation has not been accepted by more than a few other specialists (e.g., Hvidberg-Hansen 1988, 60; Grottanelli 1987, 102).

S. Moscati (1964, 258-59) interpreted 'rs as a 3 f.s. per- fect verb from the root 'RS, "desire, request." This in-

terpretation has won general acceptance. A third line of

interpretation was begun by J.-G. Fevrier (1965, 13-14). The putative root is 'RS, associated with Arabic 'ars

35 The verb 'rs is followed by a prepositional complement, whereas the verb Slh takes an object suffix.

36 The infrequency of S-V-O syntax in BH is discussed by

Jongeling (1991, esp. p. 105). 37 On the marking of subject change in adverbial clauses, see

Thompson and Longacre (1985, 187-88). In TSP, if the subject of an adverbial clause of reason remains the same as the subject of the main clause, the word order does not change. Note, for

example, k bn 'yt hsr bt 'Im "because he built the court of the

temple" (KAI 60.3), an adverbial clause of reason whose subject is the same as the subject of the main clause.

Not every case in which an adverbial clause of reason intro-

duces a new subject is marked by special word order. The fre-

quent conclusion to votive texts, for example, most often leaves

the subject implicit: k smC ql(m) "because he/she/they heard his/

her/their voice(s)." Even where the subject is a proper noun,

V-S-O order may be maintained: k gmC mlqr[t ql] "because

Melqart heard his voice" (CIS I 88.7). 38 A penetrating analysis and criticism of the translations

proposed by Garbini, Levi della Vida, Moscati, and F6vrier was

undertaken by Pfiffig (1965b). See further the discussion in

Lamine, 32-53. 39 Garbini 1964, 71-72; Garbini and Levi della Vida 1965,

42-44; Garbini 1968, 233-40 (and, with minor changes, Gar-

bini 1980, 214-19; summarized and reaffirmed in Garbini 1989,

181-83).

566

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 10: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

SCHMITZ: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

"blood price" and BH 'ere (picel) "espouse, betroth."40 Fevrier analyzed the form 'rs in the Pyrgi text as a pucal, translating "fiancee." The context, as F6vrier adum- brated it (1965, 14), would be a sacred marriage cere-

mony involving the ruler Thefarie Veliiunas and taking place on the day of the interment of the god Melqart. This interpretation won the allegiance of Delcor (1968; 1974), Lipiriski (1970; 1974), and Ferron (1965; 1972). More recently, C. Bonnet (1988, 289) is undecided.41

Northwest Semitic attestation of the root 'RS, "desire, request," is meager but sound. The verb 'rs occurs in Ug, where it governs the prepositions 1-, Ipn, and Cm (Pardee 1975, 378; 1977, 215-322). The derived noun 'iristu is found in Ug in alphabetic spelling (irst) and probably in

syllabic cuneiform (Huehnergard 1987, 110). The BH noun 'areset (Ps. 21:3) is cognate. The noun 'rst occurs twice in Pun texts (CIS I 5511.2; 5689.4-5) and is a common element in Pun personal names.42 The name

spelled in Lat letters Arisut or Arisuth is probably cog- nate (Vattioni 1979, 52; cf. Garbini 1968, 237-38; 1980, 217-18).

The verb 'rs occurs in Phoen only in the Pyrgi text

(Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995, 114-15 s.v. 'rsl). C. Krah- malkov has identified the verb in a late NPun funerary dedication incised in Lat letters, where he reconstructs the sentence CH[Y] AROS S[Y] (= Phoen *k 'rs z) "because he requested it."43 Even if the NPun evidence is left open to question, there is no compelling reason to doubt the interpretation of 'rs as the verb "she re- quested," as proposed by Moscati.

bdy. This complex preposition consists of the particle b and the noun yd "hand" (Friedrich and Rollig 1970, 122 [?252]). Note that the 3 m.s. suffix pronoun y follows

40 The etymological argument assumed in F6vrier's discus- sion of the Pyrgi text is not explained or cited in that article; it was made by him a decade earlier (1955, 56).

41 Mention should be made of Pfiffig's interpretation of 'rs as a verb meaning "she helped" (1965a, 22). He admitted that no etymological support for this translation could be provided, and it has convinced none except, briefly, Ferron (1968, 529-32).

42 On the Pun noun, see Schmitz (1990, 87-88). The onomas- tic evidence is collected in Benz (1972, 69, 276). To this corpus should be added the name 'rst' attested at Motya; see Coacci Polselli (1975). For a detailed discussion of Carthaginian ex- amples and parallels with Akkadian names having the element eristu, see Lipiniski (1989, 143-44).

43 The text was first published by Reynolds (1955, 141). Stu- dies include Levi della Vida (1963, 75-76); Vattioni (1966); Krahmalkov (1979, 176, 178-79). Garbini (1986, 79) rejects Krahmalkov's interpretation.

vocalic bases, thus supporting the analysis of bd as a

prepositional phrase (Schmitz 1994b). The preposition bd introduces the indirect object of

verbs that connote a transfer of objects or information. Thus, for example, Ibl gzly 'dm sd 'm krm bd sph kls "that a person should not take field or vineyard from (bd) the family of klf' (CID 6B). This preposition is therefore

appropriate to introduce the indirect object of a verb of

saying.44 Verbs of saying can take a direct object and an indirect

(or "datival") object (Waltke and O'Connor 1990, 174 [?10.2.3]). In the case of 'rs in the Pyrgi inscription, the absence of the direct object has been cited as an ob- stacle to its interpretation as a verb of saying.45 Moscati

pointed out (1964, 259; and in Lamine, 41) that this

difficulty is minor and cited an Akkadian text in which eresu takes no object. Analogous cases can be cited from BH involving a verb of saying with indirect object ex-

pressed but no direct object. The verb s l, for example, takes an indirect object in contexts implying oracular in-

quiry: wys'l s'wl byhwh "and Saul inquired of the LORD" (1 Sam. 28:6; cf. 30:8; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:19). The same syn- tax is found in a report of a conversation in 2 Kings 8:6: wys'l hmlk l'sh "and the king asked the woman." Ex-

amples such as these imply that the Phoen verb 'rs in a similar syntactic frame is not an anomaly.46

Imlky snt sls /// byrh krr . bym qbr I'm. In an indepen- dent clause, the expected order would be day-month-year (e.g., CIS I 88.1; 93.1; LDM 1513.2). The inverted order of this phrase is a clue to its meaning.47 Three transpo- sitions are involved: (1) movement of the year phrase to initial position; (2) inversion of the constituents of the year phrase with deletion of the preposition b-; (3) trans- position of the day and month phrases.

44 A similar point is made by Pardee (1977, 207). He inter- prets Phoen 'rs bd to mean "demand from," comparing Akka- dian eresu ina.

45 Initially by Garbini 1964, 71-72; Garbini and Levi della Vida 1965, 43; Garbini 1968, 233; note his statement, p. 240, that the object of 'rs is Imlky; Garbini 1980, 214; more force- fully, Garbini 1989, 182.

46 Note, to similar effect, Knoppers 1992, 114. 47 In a brief note, Peckham observed (1987, 98, n. 100) con-

cerning the Pyrgi text that it appears to follow a Byblian chro-

nological system, mentioning the latest event first and other events in sequence. In the absence of other evidence of Byblian usage in the text, I am hesitant to endorse this view. The dating system employed in Mediterranean Phoenician and Punic texts of this period is based on Persian administrative models (on this, see Schmitz 1990, 197-99, with examples and literature).

567

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 11: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.4 (1995)

This unusual order would appear to serve two pur- poses. Movements (1) and (2) highlight the resumption of the subject of the main clause; movement (3) marks the entire sequence of phrases as embedded; that is, they modify the subordinate clause, not the main clause. In other words, the date being specified is the date on which the divine request was communicated to Thefarie Velii- unas, not the date of his compliance with it.48

krr. The month name occurs in the Alalakh tablets as arah ki-ra-ri (Wiseman 1953, 40.2; 52.26; 245.17; 251.32; cf. Cohen 1993, 373). Its religious significance has been discussed at length by others (Delcor 1974, 68-74; Xella 1984). It appears to follow mtn in the calendar.

THE THIRD SENTENCE

Text and Translation

S3 (9) wsnt Im's 'lm (10) bbty snt km hkkbm (11) I3

And (as for) the years of one who makes a gift to the deity in her temple, (may) these (be) years like the stars.

Syntactic Analysis

The sentence has three diagnostic syntactic features. The first of these is its nominative absolute or casus pendens construction.49 The second is apposition: the two parts of the sentence are juxtaposed without a coordinating con- junction. The third is the predicate-subject order of the main clause.

The basic predication is a tautology: "(may) these (years be) years";50 subject and predicate are each mod- ified by prepositional phrases; the subject is copied by a demonstrative pronoun. The constituent order is as follows:

(As for) years of a m's of the deity in her temple (FO- cus), years (PREDICATE) like the stars (may) these (SUB-

JECT) (be).

48 This was the opinion of Levi della Vida (apud Garbini and Levi della Vida 1965, 42).

49 "The nominative absolute construction serves to highlight or focus one element of the main clause; ... it is [also] called the casus pendens construction, the focus construction, and the

topic-comment construction ...." (Waltke and O'Connor 1990, 76 [?4.7]; cf. Jouon and Muraoka 1993, 2:588 [?156j]).

50 Note the similarly tautological structure of KAI 24 C V 5-6.

The predicate-subject order of the main clause marks it as a classifying sentence (Waltke and O'Connor 1990, 130-35, 298 [?16.3.3d]), of a type with BH sentences such as Lev. 15:2b: 'fs Isk ki yihyeh zdb mibbesaro zo6b tame' hi' "When any man has a discharge issuing from his member, he is unclean" (NJPS). The position of the focus phrase as the first constituent of the sentence, and the juxtaposition of the main clause, can be understood as marking the optative mood of the predication.51

Interpreters who take 'l to be a demonstrative assume that its antecedent is the immediately preceding noun. The phrase hkkbm 'I is thus usually translated "these stars." There is no grammatical problem with this inter- pretation, but it faces the pragmatic problem of identify- ing the specific stars indicated by the demonstrative.52 The pragmatic problem disappears if 'l is identified as a pronominal copy of the subject.53 For further discussion of the demonstrative, see the commentary below.

Commentary

snt 1-. The nuance of this periphrastic genitive con- struction requires comment. In BH, such constructions

generally indicate the non-uniqueness of the first mem- ber of the construct phrase. Thus, bn dwd "the son of David" contrasts with bn Idwd "a son of David" (Waltke and O'Connor 1990, 157 [?9.7b, nos. 7-8]; Joion and Muraoka 1993, 2:474 [?130b]). Consequently, it is inac- curate to translate Phoen snt Im's 'lm as "the years of the statue of the deity" (assuming for the moment the gen- erally accepted interpretation of m's), because the phrase is generalizing: "years of a/the m's of the deity."54 This point of syntax would appear to render the consensus as

51 On apposition sentences generally, see Andersen (1974, 36-38; concerning apposition in curses and blessings, ibid., p. 54).

52 The following is by no means an exhaustive list of studies devoted to the question: Garbini (1964, 74); Pugliese Carratelli

(1965); Neppi Modona (1968); Pfiffig (1969); Lamine, 54-61; Colonna in Neppi Modona and Prayon (1981, 35-37); Gibson

(1982, 158-59); Garbini (1989, 185-86). Dahood (1965) differed in taking '3 as the divine name El, translating "the stars of El." Dahood's grammatical analysis, involving the broken construct with enclitic -m, has been considered by many a seri- ous impediment to this interpretation.

53 For examples of pronominal copying in Pun, see Schmitz 1994c (forthcoming).

54 Gibson's translation, "the years (granted) to the statue of the deity" (1982, 154), indicates his awareness that the syntax is not straightforward.

568

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 12: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

SCHMITZ: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

to the meaning of S3 even less stable than it has been up to this point.

m's. Garbini (1964, 73) directed scholarly attention to the homographic phrase ms 'Im in a NPun inscription from Tripolitania (KAI 118.1), and a consensus rapidly emerged that the word m's in the Pyrgi text, as in the Tri- politanian inscription, is a noun meaning "statue." Else- where in Phoen the word translated "statue" is spelled ms,55 in Pun ms,56 and in NPun m's.57

One of the problems with the consensus is that it must account for the spelling of m?s with medial 'alep in a Phoen text.58 Another is that the abrupt introduc- tion of a new topic-a statue-in the inscription's final sentence is jarring.

Both of these problems are cited by Knoppers (1992, 117) as reasons for abandoning the consensus. His preferred analysis follows the word division first pro- posed by F6vrier (1965, 14-15), separating Im's as Im and vs, Im being understood as a preposition and 'S as the relative pronoun. The resulting phrase, snt Im 's, is trans- lated "as to the years during which" (Knoppers 1992, 117). Knoppers is correct to perceive the weaknesses of previous interpretations of the phrase, but the alternative he adopts remains problematic. In the first place, the preposition Im is hypothetical, and I consider it a dubious addition to the Phoenician lexicon; in the second place, the syntactic analysis underlying Knoppers' translation is eccentric.59 A third problem is that Knoppers' solution

55 Absolute: KAI 5.1; 6.1; 43.1 (?), 2; Larn 3.2; construct: KAI 43.7. The sequence of letters 's'lm'g on a Phoen seal in the Brit- ish Museum (BM 48507) is probably to be read (with Lipiiiski 1974, 54-55) X? 'Im ', not 's'l m's (contra Bordreuil 1984, 79-80). For a different interpretation, see Puech (1986, 341).

56 CIS I 3777.1. For another proposed occurrence, see Rocco (1970). Rocco's reading m's at the beginning of one of the Grotta Regina graffiti from Sicily does not appear to be supported by the photograph published in the preliminary report (Bisi, Ama- dasi Guzzo, and Tusa 1969, pl. XXIII). Note also the arguments of Garbini (1968, 232-33; Lamine, 57; 1980, 209-11). For ad- ditional citations, see Hoftijzer and Jongeling (1995, 589-90, s.v. m'l).

57 KAI 118.1; 119.1, 4; 127; 161.3; 172.4 (// statuam). See Jean and Hoftijzer 1965, 168-69, s.v. ms.

58 Comments to this effect have been made by, among others, Fitzmyer (1966, 294), Friedrich (1969a, 209), and Garbini (see n. 56). In the NPun spelling m's, the medial 'alep is a vowel letter.

59 If Knoppers' morphological analysis is granted, the syntax of the proposed clause wsnt Im ' 'Im bbty must be explained. Knoppers' analysis, if I understand it correctly, is: "As to years

does not consider other Northwest Semitic attestations of the root 'w/YS.

There is no need to abandon the generally accepted word division, but the word m's must be reconsidered.60 It is certainly to be derived from the root 'w/YS, meaning "to give."61 In Phoen, Moabite, BH, and Arm, words de- rived from the root are generally (but not exclusively) restricted to the onomasticon.62 The personal name m's in epigraphic Hebrew is of particular interest in this context (Bordreuil 1975). As in Moabite, epigraphic He- brew m's is a verbal element, and corresponds, as Lip- iriski has pointed out (1986, 154 n. 22), to West Semitic names of the type written in Akkadian cuneiform mMe- 'i-su (Tallqvist 1914, 137a; Dalley and Postgate 1984, nos. 10.11, 66.70).

In the Pyrgi text, m's is ambiguous. In keeping with the onomastic evidence that the form is a verbal noun, I take it to be a verbal noun here also. I prefer to ana- lyze it as a participle of the causative stem (cf. BH

to/of/for which (a/the) deity (is) in his house/temple" (compar- ing the translation in Knoppers 1992, 106 with the grammatical analysis, ibid., p. 117). The syntax implied by this analysis is unattested elsewhere in the Phoen-Pun corpus. A more prosaic statement might be expected, such as the following: *wsnt 's h'lm skb bbty "As for the years during which the deity lies in his house/temple..."

60 I should mention the proposal of B. Peckham, who offers the following analysis (1987, 98, n. 100): wsnt + I (precative lamed) + m's II "elapse" (he cites Job 7:5, 16). His translation (ibid.) is: "The years may elapse, may the years of the god in his temple be like the stars of El."

61 Gesenius (1987, 28). The root is attested in the Central Semitic languages: in the Northwest Semitic branch, Amorite, Ug, Phoen, Hebrew, Moabite, Arm; in the South Semitic branch, Old South Arabic and Classical Arabic.

62 Rocco (1970, 398-99) discusses the following Phoen names as examples of the verbal element >'wYS: 'fdr, '?Sdr', 'b'l, 'sdn (< 'dn), 'sdnbCl (<sdnbCl), 'y, 'stnt. For other ex- amples and a more nuanced appreciation of the ambiguity of these names, see Benz (1972, 277-78). The Moabite name kmsm's is found on a seal in a private collection (Avigad 1970; on its interpretation, see Bordreuil 1984, 79). On BH 'w/YI, see Zadok (1988, 25 [? 1111 h s.v.]). The following Hebrew names have a verbal element probably derived from the same root: (BH) y(h)w?s (Zadok 1988, 25, 44, 248), ywsyh(w) (ibid., 40); (epigraphic) 's' (ibid., 136), 'syhw (ibid., 30), y's, y'ws, ywsh (ibid., 133); y'syh (ibid., 40); m's (ibid., 14, 119). The root is also found in the Old and Imperial Aramaic onomasticon (Ma- raqten 1988, 125 s.v. >w/YS) and in Amorite (see Zadok 1993, 319-20 s.v. 'W/Y).

569

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 13: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.4 (1995)

me'ir).63 The word would mean "one who causes a gift (to be made/brought)," or, more compactly, "donor." I translate the form as masculine singular, understanding it as a politely self-effacing reference to the dedicator; but it could be masculine plural (see Friedrich 1969b, 229-34).

'Im. The deity referred to is probably Astarte, to whom the holy place has been dedicated. The noun 'lm agrees with singular and plural antecedents, both masculine and feminine.64 The construct phrase, m's Dlm, "donor of

(the) deity," may be accusatival ("donor of [an image of?] the deity") or datival ("donor to the deity"). I prefer the latter interpretation because it makes better sense of the sentence as an oblique reference to the dedicator of the inscription. The theme of S and S2, votive construc- tions of Thefarie Veliiunas, is thereby continued and developed.

bbty. The prepositional phrase is a locative comple- ment to the clause embedded in the preceding participial phrase. The pronominal suffix could refer either to the phrase m's 'lm or to 'lm alone. Pragmatic considerations favor the latter antecedent, because a shrine and deity have already been mentioned in the inscription, as well as a bt or temple (1. 5).

The focus phrase can now be analyzed in its entirety. The

following schematic representation is intended to illus- trate the grammatical analysis:

snt l(msV 'lm bbty) "Years of (one-who-causes-a-gift-to-be-made [to the] deity in-her-temple)"

The implication of the phrase is that donations to the

deity in the temple make the donor a candidate for an ex- tended lifespan, not that being a donor will cause one to

spend years in the temple.

snt. As argued above, this is the predicate of the main clause.

km. The preposition km takes an arthrous object only here and in Lar 2: km hdlht hnhst (KAI 43.12). In both cases the reference is exophoric, that is, to objects in the real (or conceptual) world rather than to previous pas- sages of text.

63 Bordreuil (1984, 79) analyzes the same element of the Mo- abite name kmsm's as /ma'is/, "donor." Note also Timm (1993, 164, n. 7; 174-75).

64 On the number, see Fitzmyer (1966, 294); on the gender, Rollig (1969-70, 115 and n. 36).

hkkbm. The noun is plural and in the absolute state. Note that in Gen. 15:5 it is precisely the determined noun hkwkbym in the absolute state that is used to refer to the stars in the sky. The natural symbolism is, of course, their vast number. In the biblical passage this corre- sponds to the numerous descendants of Abraham. In the Pyrgi text the simile is innumerable years of life.

Il. Use of the demonstrative as a copy pronoun is not common but can be found in at least one other Northwest Semitic example: the Aramaic gloss at Jer. 10:11. Like S3 of the Pyrgi text, this sentence is a nominative abso- lute construction, optative in mood, and employs the de- monstrative ('lh) to copy the subject.

'elahayya(') di-emayyd(') we'arqda la() Cdbadi

yeP)badi me'arca' umin-teh6t semayyd() 'elle

(As for) the deities that did not make heaven and earth, may these perish from the earth and from under heaven.

W. L. Holladay is certainly correct to argue that the ante- cedent of the demonstrative is 'elahayyd () "deities," and not .emayya(') "heaven" (Holladay 1986, 323 [transla- tion], 334-35 [commentary]). The versions (and the modem translations dependent on them) misunderstood the anaphora and rendered "these heavens," giving rise to pragmatic questions not unlike the ones that arose from previous translations of the Pyrgi text.

THE DIALECT OF THE PYRGI TEXT

Linguistic features of the Phoenician text from Pyrgi permit the following conclusions to be drawn concern-

ing its dialect.

1. It is Phoenician. The use of the plural snt + nu- meral (followed by the number symbol) in a date formula is characteristically Phoenician. Punic reg- ularly uses the singular st following the numeral.65

2. It is not Byblian Phoenician. The 3 m.s. suffix pro- noun affixed to singular nouns in the genitive is -w in BybP (Segert 1976, 97-98 [?51.221]). Thus

65 Garbini 1964, 72; Garbini and Levi della Vida 1965, 44; Garbini 1968, 244-45; cf. Moscati 1964, 259; Fitzmyer 1966, 293. On Punic date formulas, see Schmitz 1990, 197-99. Ferron (1965, 196; 1968, 535-36) cautions that neither snt nor st is at-

tested in the most archaic texts from Carthage. Note, however, the construction Csrm st in CIS I 5632.2, a Carthaginian text whose paleographic date would appear to be ca. 450 B.C.E.

570

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 14: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

SCHMITZ: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

BybP 'dtw (in apposition to a genitive, KAI 6.2), contrasts with Imlky in line 7 of the Pyrgi text.66

3. It is not Punic. This conclusion is implied by the evidence mentioned in point one above. Further support can be seen in the apparent absence from Pun of the anarthrous noun phrase with demon- strative 'z.

4. It is the Mediterranean dialect of Phoenician.67 The demonstrative 9z links the Pyrgi text with coastal Syria (Amrit), southern Lebanon (Sarepta), Cy- prus, Sardinia, and Iberia, and distinguishes it from the Littoral dialect of Plain Cilicia (Sam'al, Kara- tepe, Hasan Beyli) and Rough Cilicia (CID), as well as from other varieties of Littoral Phoen writ- ten in the Phoenician homeland.

5. It is similar to the Mediterranean Phoenician dia- lect of Kition (Larnaca) in Cyprus. The preposition

66 See the paradigm of BybP suffix pronouns in Garbini 1988, 55. For a demonstration that the BybP suffix pronouns of the third person masculine singular are found in a pattern of com- plementary distribution, /-ol (not written) following consonant bases and -w (vocalization unattested) following vocalic bases, see Krahmalkov (1993, 25-32).

67 The distribution of 'z leads Garbini (1988, 59) to speak of a northern dialect of Phoen that he labels "Arwadian" (p. 62). I prefer the broader terminology employed by Huehnergard (1992, 4:157 [chart LAN.01]).

R

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. 1970. Le Lamine di Pyrgi. Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura, Quaderno 147. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.

Agostiniani, L. 1988. Lessico etrusco cronologico e topografico, dai materiali del Thesaurus linguae etruscae. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.

Altheim, F., and R. Stiehl. 1967. Die phonizische Inschrift aus Pyrgoi. Anatolica 1:87-92. (Reprinted in Die Araber in der alten Welt, 4:224-33. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1964-67.)

Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1967. Le Iscrizionifenicie epuniche delle colonie in occidente. Studi Semitici, 28. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente.

. 1986. Scavi a Mozia: Le iscrizioni. Collezione di studi fenici, 22. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

.1990. Two Phoenician Inscriptions Carved in Ivory: Again the Ur Box and the Sarepta Plaque. Orientalia, n.s., 59:58-66.

.1993. Astarte in trono. In Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel in Honor of Moshe Dothan,

'b is written with prothetic 'alep in the Pyrgi text (line 5) and Lar 2 (KAI 43.3, 7). In each of these texts it alternates with b- (Pyrgi, 1. 10; KAI 43.8).

The linguistic evidence is consistent with the implica- tions of cultural elements in the Pyrgi text. As a dedi- cation to Astarte, the text is to be grouped with other such dedications from the Mediterranean.68 The time- reckoning system of the text links it to Cyprus. The date formula in the order day-month-year, found in Phoen texts from Cyprus, is implied in the Pyrgi text by its inversion. The calendar of the Pyrgi texts, in which krr and mtn occur in conjunction with zbh sms, was still in use in Hellenistic Cyprus. It would seem that Levi della Vida was correct in his impression that the Pyrgi text is linked to Cyprus (Garbini and Levi della Vida 1965, 51).

The linguistic and cultural affinities of the Pyrgi text raise broader questions. Of what significance are con- nections between a temple in Etruria and the Phoenician settlements on Cyprus? In the present context further re- marks are not possible. In a sequel to this linguistic and philological study, I shall offer some historical and cul- tural observations on the Pyrgi text, in the hope of stim- ulating further research.

68 Garbini 1964, 66-67; Fitzmyer 1966, 287-88; Lamine, 27-32; Neppi Modona and Prayon 1981; Delcor 1986; Day 1992, 493; Amadasi Guzzo 1993.

EFERENCES

ed. M. Heltzer, A. Segal, and D. Kaufman. Pp. 163-80. Haifa: Haifa Univ. Press.

Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., and V. Karageorghis. 1973. Fouilles de Kition, vol. 3: Inscriptions pheniciennes. Nicosia: Depart- ment of Antiquities.

Andersen, F. I. 1974. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton.

Avigad, N. 1970. Ammonite and Moabite Seals. In Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, ed. J. A. Sanders. Pp. 290-91. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Avigad, N., and J. C. Greenfield. 1982. A Bronze phiale with a Phoenician Dedicatory Inscription. Israel Exploration Journal 32:119-28.

Bartolini, G., et al. 1970. Pyrgi: Scavi del santuario etrusco. Notizie degli scavi di antichita 24, H Supplemento: 1-769.

Benz, F. L. 1972. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Studia Pohl, 8. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

Berger, P. 1893-95. M6moire sur une inscription ph6nicienne de Narnaka dans l'ile de Chypre. Revue d'assyriologie 3:69-88.

571

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 15: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.4 (1995)

Bisi, A. M., M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, and V. Tusa. 1969. Grotta Regina, I: Rapporto preliminare. Studi Semitici, 33. Rome:

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Bonfante, G. 1969. Caere, citta di Caesares? In Studi linguistici

in onore di V. Pisani. Vol. 1, pp. 161-65. Brescia: Paideia. Bonfante, G., and L. Bonfante. 1983. The Etruscan Language:

An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press. Bonfante, L. 1990. Etruscan. Reading the Past. London: British

Museum Publications. .1991. Recent Books from Italy on the Etruscans.

American Journal of Archaeology 95:157-64. Bonnet, C. 1988. Studia Phoenicia, VIII: Melqart: Cultes et

mythes de l'Heracles tyrien en Mediterranee. Biblio-

theque de la Facult6 de philosophie et lettres de Namur, 69. Leuven: Peeters; Namur: Presses universitaires de Namur.

.1989. Le Dieu solaire Shamash dans le monde

ph6nico-punique. Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 6:97-115. Bordreuil, P. 1975. Inscriptions sigillaires ouest-s6mitiques, II:

Un Cachet h6breu recemment acquis par le Cabinet de medailles de la Bibliotheque nationale. Syria 52:107-18.

1984. Attestations in6dites de Melqart: Baal Hamon et Baal Saphon a Tyr (Nouveaux documents religieux ph6niciens II). In Studia Phoenicia, IV: Religio Phoenicia, ed. C. Bonnet, E. Lipiriski, and P. Marchetti. Pp. 77-86. Collection d'lttudes Classiques, 1. Namur: Societe des etudes classiques.

van den Branden, A. 1964. L'Inscription ph6nicienne de Larnax

Lapethou II. Oriens Antiquus 3:245-61.

Briquel, D. 1984. Les Pe'lasges en Italie: Recherches sur l'his- toire de la legende. Bibliotheques des Ecoles franqaises d'Athenes et de Rome, 252. Rome: lfcole Francaise de Rome.

.1985. Perspectives actuelles sur la langue 6trusque. Ktema 10:111-25.

Cannelli, N. 1992. I suffisi dei gentilizi etruschi arcaici. Rendi- conti dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di sci- enze morali, storiche e filologiche, 9th ser., 3:75-86.

Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1897. Les Mois ph6niciens de Zebah chichchim. Etudes d'archdologie orientale, vol. 2. Biblio-

theque de l'lcole des hautes etudes, IVe section, sciences

historiques et philologiques, 113. Pp. 157-58. Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Coacci Polselli, G. 1975. L'Onomastica punica di Mozia. Rivista di Studi Fenici 3:75-76.

Cohen, M. E. 1993. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press.

Colonna, G. 1966. The Sanctuary at Pyrgi in Etruria. Archae-

ology 19:11-23. Tr. L. Casson. Colonna, G., et al. 1992. Pyrgi: Scavi del santuario etrusco

(1969-1971). Notizie degli scavi di antichita 42-43

(1988-1989), Supplemento: 1-336. Commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. 1881-.

Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum ab Academia Inscrip- tionum et Litterarum Humaniorum conditum atque diges- tum, pars prima. Paris: Republicae typographeo.

Commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. 1900. Reper- toire depigraphie semitique. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

Cristofani, M. 1968. Rivista epigrafici etruschi (Volsinii). Studi Etruschi 36:258-62.

.1991. Introduzione allo studio dell'etrusco. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.

Dahood, M. 1965. Punic hkkbm 'I and Isa. 14,13. Orientalia, n.s., 34:170-72.

Dalley, S., and J. N. Postgate. 1984. The Tablets from Fort Shal- maneser. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Day, J. 1992. Ashtoreth (Deity). In Freedman, et al. 1992, 1:493. Delcor, M. 1968. Une Inscription bilingue 6trusco-punique

recemment d6couverte a Pyrgi: Son importance religieuse. Le Museon 81:241-54.

.1974. Le hieros gamos d'Astarte. Rivista di Studi Fenici 2:63-76.

.1986. Astarte. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae 3.1 (addendum): 1077-86. Zurich: Artemis.

Donner, H., and W. Rollig. 1966-69. Kanaandische und arami- ische Inschriften, 2d ed. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Dunand, M., and N. Saliby. 1985. Le Temple d'Amrith dans la

peree d'Arados. Bibliotheque arch6ologique et historique, 121. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Ferron, J. 1964-65. Inscription punique archaique a Carthage. Cahiers de Byrsa 10:55-64.

.1965. Quelques remarques a propos de l'inscription ph6nicienne de Pyrgi. Oriens Antiquus 4:181-98.

.1968. La D6dicace a Astart6 du roi de Caere, Tiberie Velianas. Le Museon 81:523-46.

.1972. Un Trait6 d'alliance entre Caere et Carthage contemporain des derniers temps de la royaut6e trusque a Rome ou l'6evnement commemor6 par la quasi-bilingue de Pyrgi. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini. Vol. 1.1, pp. 189-216. Berlin: Walter

deGruyter. Fevrier, J.-G. 1955. Le Vocabulaire sacrificiel punique. Journal

asiatique 243:49-63. . 1965. L'Inscription punique de Pyrgi. Comptes rendus

des seances de l'Academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres.

Pp. 9-18. Fischer, W., and H. Rix. 1968. Die phbnizisch-etruskischen

Texte der Goldplattchen von Pyrgi. Gotting'sche Gelehrte

Anzeigen 220:69-94.

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1966. The Phoenician Inscription from Pyrgi. Journal of the American Oriental Society 86:285-97.

Freedman, D. N., et al., eds. 1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday.

Friedrich, J. 1969a. Nochmals die ph6nizische Inschrift von

Pyrgi. In Beitrage zur alten Geschichte und deren Nach- leben: Festschrift fir Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968, ed. R. Stiehl and H. E. Stier. Vol. 1, pp. 205-9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

.1969b. Der Wert semitischer Versionen in Ent-

zifferungs-Bilinguen. Ugaritica 6:229-34. Friedrich, J., and W. Rollig. 1970. Phonizisch-Punische Gram-

matik. 2d rev. ed. Analecta Orientalia, 46. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

Garbini, G. 1964. L'Iscrizione punica. In Pallottino et al. 1964.

Pp. 66-76.

572

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 16: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

SCHMITZ: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

. 1968. Reconsiderando l'iscrizione di Pyrgi. Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia, Universita di Napoli 18:229-46.

1971. The Phonetic Shift of Sibilants in Northwest Semitic in the First Millennium B.C. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 1:32-38.

.1980. I Fenici, storia e religione. Istituto Univer- sitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici, series minor, 11. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

.1986. Venti anni di epigrafia punica nel Magreb. Rivista di Studi Fenici, suppl. to vol. 14. Rome: Concilio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

.1988. 11 Semitico nordoccidentale. Studi Semitici, n.s., 5. Rome: Universita degli Studi <La Sapienza>>.

.1989. L'Iscrizione di Pyrgi. Rivista di Studi Fenici 17:179-87.

Garbini, G., and G. Levi della Vida. 1965. Considerazioni sull'iscrizione punica di Pyrgi. Oriens Antiquus 4:35-52.

Gesenius, W. 1987. Hebraisches und aramaisches Handwor- terbuch iiber das Alte Testament. 18th ed., ed. R. Meyer and H. Donner. Berlin: Springer.

Gibson, J. C. L. 1982. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3: Phoenician Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Grottanelli, G. 1987. Servio Tullio, Fortuna e l'Oriente. Dialoghi di Archeologia 7:71-110.

Guzzo Amadasi. See Amadasi Guzzo. Heurgon, J. 1966. The Inscriptions of Pyrgi. Journal of Roman

Studies 56:1-15. Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling, eds. 1995. Dictionary of North-

West Semitic Inscriptions. Handbuch der Orienatalistik, 1st Abt.: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, 21.1-2. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Holladay, W. L. 1986. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Honeyman, A. M. 1938. Larnax tes Lapethou: A Third Phoe- nician Inscription. Le Musdon 51:285-98.

.1940. Observations on a Phoenician Inscription of Pto- lemaic Date. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 26:57-67.

Huehnergard, J. 1987. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Tran- scription. Harvard Semitic Studies, 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

.1992. Languages (Introductory Survey). In Freedman et al. 1992. 4:155-70.

Hvidberg-Hansen, K. 0. 1988. The Pyrgi Texts Seen in an East- West Perspective. Acta Hyperborea 1:58-68.

Jean, C.-F., and J. Hoftijzer, eds. 1965. Dictionnaire des inscriptions sdmitiques de l'ouest. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Jewish Publication Society. 1985. Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

Jongeling, K. 1991. On the VSO Character of Hebrew. In Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. K. Jongeling, H. L. Murre-van den Berg, and L. van Rompey. Pp. 103-11. Studies in Semitic Languages and Literatures, 17. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Jouon, P., and T. Muraoka. 1993. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Subsidia Biblica, 14. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical

Institute.

Knoppers, G. N. 1992. "The God in His Temple": The Phoenician Text from Pyrgi as a Funerary Inscription. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51:105-20.

Koffmahn, E. 1966. Sind die altisraelitischen Monatsbezeich- nungen mit den kanaanaisch-phonikischen identisch? Bib- lische Zeitschrift 10:197-219.

Krahmalkov, C. R. 1979. The Neo-Punic Dedication of the Mausoleum of Iyllul. Rivista di Studi Fenici 7:175-79.

.1993. The Byblian Phoenician Inscription of Cbdsmn: A Critical Note on Byblian Grammar. Journal of Semitic Studies 38:25-32.

Lane, W. R. 1969. The Phoenician Dialect of Larnax tes Lapethou. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 194:39-45.

Levi della Vida, G. 1963. Sulle iscrizioni 'latino-libiche' della Tripolitania. Oriens Antiquus 2:65-94.

Lindsay, W. M. 1903-11. T. Macci Plauti Comoediae. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Liou, B. 1968. Rivista epigrafici etruschi (Volsinii). Studi Etruschi 36:257-58.

Lipiriski, E. 1970. La Fete d'ensevelissement et de la resurrection de Melqart. In Actes de la XVIIe rencontre assyriologique internationale, ed. A. Finet. Pp. 30-58. Publications du Comit6 belge de recherches historiques, 6pigraphiques et arch6ologiques en Mesopotamie, 1. Ham-sur-Heure: Co- mite belge de recherches historiques, 6pigraphiques et arch6ologiques en M6sopotamie.

.1974. From Karatepe to Pyrgi: Middle Phoenician Miscellanea. Rivista di Studi Fenici 2:45-61.

.1986. Scribes d'Ugarit et de Jerusalem. In Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East Presented to J. H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, ed. H. L. V. Vanstiphout, K. Jongeling, F. Leemhuis, and G. J. Reinink. Pp. 143-54. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.

.1989. L'Element 'RS dans l'anthroponymie cartha- ginoise. In Studia Semitica necnon Iranica Rudolpho Macuch septuagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicata, ed. M. Macuch, C. Muller-Kessler, and B. G. Fragner. Pp. 141-48. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

. 1991. Le Culte du soleil chez les S6mites occidentaux du Ier millenaire av. J.-C. Orientalia Lovaniensia Perio- dica 22:57-72.

Maraqten, M. 1988. Die semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reichsaramaischen Inschriften aus Vorderasien. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik, 5. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

Morandi, A. 1991. Die Goldbleche von Pyrgi: Indizien fur eine neue Lesung. Antike Welt 22:119-26.

Mosca, P. G., and J. Russell. 1987. A Phoenician Inscription from Cebel Ires Dagi in Rough Cilicia. Epigraphica Anatolica 9:1-28.

Moscati, S. 1964. Sull'iscrizione fenicio-punica di Pyrgi. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 39:257-60.

Neppi Modona, A. 1968. 'Queste stelle' o 'stelle di El' nella lamina punica di Pyrgi? Studi Etruschi 36:65-66.

Neppi Modona, A., and F. Prayon, eds. 1981. Die Gottin von

573

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 17: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.4 (1995)

Pyrgi: Archdologische, linguistische und religionsge- schichtliche Aspekte. Biblioteca di Studi Etruschi, 12. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.

Olivier, J. P. J. 1972. Notes on the Ugaritic Month Names, II. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 2:53-59.

Olzscha, K. 1966. Die punisch-etruskischen Inschriften von Pyrgi. Glotta 44:60-108.

1969. Etruskischer Literaturbericht, 2: Die Goldplat- ten von Pyrgi. Glotta 47:284-304.

Pallottino, M. 1984. Etruscologia. 7th ed. Milan: Hoepli. (German ed. Etruskologie: Geschichte und Kultur der Etrusker. Tr. S. Steingraber. Basel: Birkhauser, 1988.)

Pallottino, M., ed. 1968. Testimonia Linguae Etruscae. 2d ed. Biblioteca di Studi Superiori, 24. Florence: Nuova Italia.

Pallottino, M., et al. 1964. Scavi nel santuario di Pyrgi: Relazione preliminare della settima campagna, 1964, e scoperta di tre lamine d'oro inscritte in Etrusco e in Punico. Archeologia Classica 16:49-117.

Pandolfini Angeletti, M., and A. L. Prosdocimi. 1990. Alfabetari e insegnamento della scrittura in Etruria e nell'Italia antica. Biblioteca di Studi Etruschi, 20. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.

Pardee, D. G. 1975. The Preposition in Ugaritic. Ugarit- Forschungen 7:329-78.

.1977. Attestations of Ugaritic Verb/Preposition Com- binations in Later Dialects. Ugarit-Forschungen 9:205-31.

Peckham, B. 1968. The Development of the Late Phoenician

Scripts. Harvard Semitic Series, 20. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

.1987. Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel: The

Epigraphic Evidence. In Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Pp. 79-99. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Pfiffig, A. J. 1965a. Uni-Hera-Astarte: Studien zu den Gold- blechen von S. Severa/Pyrgi mit etruskischer und puni- scher Inschrift. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissen- schaften, phil.-hist. KI., Denkschriften, 88.2. Vienna: Hermann Bohlau.

.1965b. Zur Interpretation von Zeile 6-9 des puni- schen Textes von Pyrgi. Anzeiger 18:313-28. Osterreich- ische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl. 102.

.1969. 'Wie diese Sterne hier' km hkkbm 'l LP I 10f: Der Sternenschleier der Astarte? In Hommages a M. Renard, ed. J. Bibauw. Vol. 3, pp. 461-73. Collection Latomus 103. Brussels: Latomus.

Pritchard, J. B. 1982. The Tanit Inscription from Sarepta. In Phonizier im Westen, ed. H. G. Niemeyer. Pp. 83-92. Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Madrider Beitrage, 8. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Puech, E. 1986. Les Inscriptions ph6niciennes d'Amrit et les dieux gu6risseurs du sanctuaire. Syria 63:327-42.

Pugliese Carratelli, G. 1965. Le Stelle di Pyrgi. La Parola del Passato 20:303-5.

Reynolds, J. R. 1955. Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania: A Supplement. Papers of the British School at Rome 23:124-47.

Reynolds, J. R., and J. B. Ward Perkins. 1952. The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania. Rome: British School at Rome.

Rix, H. 1981. Pyrgi-Texte und etruskische Grammatik. In Neppi Modona and Prayon 1981, pp. 83-102.

Rix, H., et al., eds. 1991. Etruskische Texte: Editio minor. 2 vols.

ScriptOralia, 23: Reihe A: Altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe, 6. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr.

Rocco, B. 1970. Alla ricerca di un'etimologia (m's/ms). Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia, Universita di Napoli 30:396-99.

Rollig, W. 1969-70. Beitrage zur nordsemitischen Epigraphik (1-4). Die Welt des Orients 5:108-26.

.1983. The Phoenician Language: Remarks on the Present State of Research. In Atti del I? congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, Roma, 5-10 novembre 1979. Pp. 375-85. Collezione di studi fenici, 16. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

Sass, B., and C. Uehlinger, eds. 1993. Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 125. Freiburg, Switzerland: Univ.-verlag; Got-

tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schmitz, P. C. 1990. Epigraphic Contributions to a History of

Carthage in the Fifth Century B.C.E. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of

Michigan. .1994a. The Name "Agrigentum" in a Punic In-

scription (CIS I 5510.10). Journal of Near Eastern Studies 53:1-13.

.1994b. Prepositions with Pronominal Suffixes in Phoenician and Punic. In Fortunate Are the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebra- tion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. A. Bartelt, A. Beck, C. Franke, and P. Raabe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

. Forthcoming. A Problem of Punic Morphology: The Third Person Singular Feminine of the Suffixing Con-

jugation with Affixed Object Pronoun. Journal of Semitic Studies.

Schr6der, P. 1880. Phonicische Miscellen, 4: Funf Inschriften aus Kition. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 35:423-31.

Segert, S. 1976. A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Serra Ridgway, F. R. 1991. Etruscan Art and Culture: A Biblio-

graphy 1978-1990. Journal of Roman Archaeology 9:5-27. de Simone, C. 1976. Ancora sul nome di Caere. Studi Etruschi

44:163-84. Slunecko, V. 1990. Etrusky onomasticky system. Listy filo-

logicke 113:272-92. Szemer6nyi, O. 1966. Linguistic Comments on the Pyrgi Tablets.

Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 1:121-27.

Tallqvist, K. 1914. Assyrian Personal Names. Acta Societatis Scientarum Fennicae, 43.1. Helsingfors: Finnish Scientific

Society. Thilo, G., and H. Hagen, eds. 1884. Servii Grammatici qui

Feruntur in Vergilii Carmina Commentarii. 3 vols.

Leipzig: Teubner.

Thompson, S. A., and R. E. Longacre. 1985. Adverbial Clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed.

574

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 18: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

SCHMITZ: The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi

T. Shopen. Vol. 2, pp. 171-234. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Tibilletti Bruno, G. 1965. Caere, caerites, caeretes. Studi Etruschi 33:547-48.

Timm, S. 1993. Das ikonographische Repertoire der moabit- ischen Siegel um seine Entwicklung: Vom Maximalismus zum Minimalismus. In Sass and Uehlinger 1993. Pp. 161-93.

Vattioni, F. 1966. Appunti sulle iscrizioni puniche tripolitane. Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia, Universita di Napoli 16:54-55.

.1979. Per una ricerca dell'antroponimia fenicio- punica. Studi Magrebini 11:43-123.

Waltke, B., and M. O'Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Weeber, K.-W. 1985. Die Inschriften von Pyrgi: Eine Bilanz 20 Jahre nach ihrer Entdeckung. Antike Welt 16.3:29-37.

Werner, R. 1973. Die phoinikisch-etruskischen Inschriften von Pyrgoi und die romische Geschichte im 4. Jh. v. Chr. Grazer Beitrage 1:241-71.

. 1974. Die phoinikisch-etruskischen Inschriften von

Pyrgoi und die romische Geschichte im 4. Jh. v. Chr. Grazer Beitrdge 2:263-94.

Wiseman, D. J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

Xella, P. 1984. Sul nome punico Cbdkrr. Rivista di Studi Fenici 12:21-30.

Yon, M., and M. Sznycer. 1991. Une Inscription ph6nicienne royale de Kition (Chypre). In Comptes rendus des seances de l'Acaddmie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Pp. 792- 823.

Zadok, R. 1988. The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 28. Leuven: Peeters.

.1993. On the Amorite Material from Mesopotamia. In The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg. Pp. 319-20. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press.

575

This content downloaded from 67.193.15.144 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:56:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions