V FRO M CARTHAGE INSCRIPTIONS IN THE PHOENICIAN CHARACTER, NOW DEPOSITED IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, DISCOVEKED ON THE SITE CARTHAGE, DURING RESEARCHES MADE BT NATHAN DAVIS, ES Q„ AT THE EXPENSE OF HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT, IN THE YEARS 1856, 1857, AND 1858. PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE TRUSTEES. 1868. PREFACE The Phoenician Inscriptions contained in the following volume were discovered during researches made by Mr. Nathan Davis in the years 1856, 1857, and 1858, on the site of ancient Carthage, at the expense of Her Majesty’s Government. Mr. Davis had been resident for many years previously in the Pashalic of Tunis, was personally on terms of intimate friendship with the Pasha, and had a thorough acquaintance with the spoken language (Arabic) of the natives. It appears that Mr. Davis made excavations, with more or less success, at some twenty different places, either on the presumed site of ancient Carthage, or in its immediate neighbourhood; and that the majority of the Inscriptions were found between the hill of St. Louis and the sea, not far from a ravine which divides that hill from a neighbouring eminence on which it has been supposed by many that the temple of Juno was placed. The Inscriptions thus discovered are 90 in number, and have been lithographed on 32 Plates. Besides these, a small number were obtained, which, in accordance with the practice of Continental scholars, may be termed Late-Phcenician. These are, for the most part, written in a character which is exceedingly degraded, and are often almost illegible. Some of these Late-Phcenician Inscriptions were purchased at different times by Mr. Davis, and are believed to have been originally discovered by M. Honegger, a German architect, formerly in the service of the Pasha of Tunis, who conducted several excavations for Sir Thomas Reade, late Her Majesty’s Consul at Tunis. It is proposed, at. some future time, to publish the Late-Phcenician Inscriptions in a supplementary volume. The material of the tablets on which these Inscriptions occur, is either a compact limestone, or a fine sandstone. To this statement, however, there is one exception, No. 71 : this is in white marble, and differs from the other tablets in its form, which is that of a quadrangular tile, with the Inscription carved along two of its edges. Generally, the front and back of these tablets are parallel, and the upper part terminates either in an acute angle, or in a pedimental form, with elevations at the corners like acrotena. There are, however, three exceptions, the marble tablet, No. 71, just noticed, No. 73, which is a cylindrical shaft of stone 18 inches high, with small niches carved upon it at intervals, and No. 90, which, though much shattered, exhibits the remains of a bevelled architectural ornamentation at its upper end. The front is worked to a smooth surface, and the Inscription is engraved on it by a sharp tool: the backs and sides are only hammer-dressed. It may be doubted whether any of the tablets are perfect, in their present state, many of them having lost the upper end, while nearly all of them were originally longer at the lower end. They generally vary from 5 to 12| inches in height; from 4 to 7 inches in width, and from 1| to 4 inches in thickness. With regard to the subject-matter of these Inscriptions, it may be stated that, with two exceptions, Nos. 71 and 90, they appear to be votive tablets, and not of tombstones. With respect to the period of their execution it is difficult to speak with precision; but as we have no reason for doubting that they are all purely Carthaginian, they must have been engraved either before the overthrow of that city, which is the most probable opinion, or be the work of some of the native inhabitants who may have lingered amono- its ruins. It will be observed that there are many discrepancies in the style of their engraving, naturally suggesting considerable differences in their date ; and that the character of the writing of Nos. 71 and 90 does not materially differ from that of the celebrated Inscription at Marseilles, which is unquestionably of the best Phoenician times: indeed those which exhibit the greatest rudeness in their execution, do not show any approach to the Late-Phcenician type. It will be further perceived that the names occurring in these tablets are, in almost all cases, purely Phoenician, while their forms and ornamentation connect them more nearly with late Greek than with Roman art. Thus, for example, the fleurons or honeysuckle ornaments on the upper portions of these tablets resemble those on the Greek \ ases of the 2nd or 3rd Century, b.c., but do not betray any Roman influence. With reference to the value of this collection of Phoenician Inscriptions, it should be remembered that, up to the time of Mr. Davis’s commencing his excavations, there were scarcely twenty Inscriptions unquestionably Carthaginian in the various museums of Europe; and that there have been, from time to time, considerable differences of opinion between distinguished scholars, owing to the uncertainty existing as to the form of particular letters of the Phoenician alphabet. The discovery, therefore, of this large number of inscriptions has afforded means for a complete collation and determination of all the Phoenician characters in use along the northern shores of Africa, and has thus set at rest any doubts as to the true value of the ordinary Phoenician letters. In fact, the present publication will form a standard of reference for the determination of any Inscriptions that may hereafter be discovered. There has been some doubt with regard to the best rendering of a formula of frequent occurrence, termed, for want of a better title, the benedictory formula. 4 The formula written at length, is generally (with slight variations) iO-Dfi or, more briefly- vbp yom. Gesenius has translated It, “Ubi audlverit vocem eorum benedlcat eis," in the case of a Maltese Inscription, where there are two. votaries; M. de Saulcy, “ Lots qu’ll a entendu leurs voix il les a benis M. Judas, “ Ex praeeepto maledixcrnnt ant benedixernnt.” In the following work the translation of Gesenius has been followed, as the one which, on the whole, appeared the most clear. The divinities to whom these tablets are addressed are invariably Tanith-Pen-BaM and Baal-Hamman, both of whom we know to have been Deities worshipped at Carthage. The former is shown by means of a bilingual Inscription, found at Athens (and formerly in the Museum of the United Service Institution, but now in the British Museum) to be identical with the Oriental Artemis, or Diana, who was called, as we learn from Plutarch (Artax c. 27) and other ancient writers, Anaitis, or Tanais. Only one instance occurs in these Inscriptions of a name compounded with Tanith—via, Abd-Tanith—Inscr. 62. The latter Divinity is doubtless the Belsamen mentioned in the Poenulus of Plautus, and may be the Jupiter Ammon whose worship prevailed so extensively in Africa. The names of the dedicators, in most cases, are of Semitic origin, and compounded of the names of various deities and of words denoting dependence or respect. Thus we find a series of names connected with Melkart, the Tyrian Hercules, such as Abd-Melkart, Bad-Melkart, Amt-Melkart, and Melkart-Halats ; and with Astareth, as Amt-Astarcth, Bad-Astareth, Ger-Astareth, &c. The names of Asman, the Phoenician jEsculapius, and Baal are also constantly found in composition, as, lor example, Abd-Asman, Bad-Asman, Asman-Shamar, See., and Baftl-Hanna, Han-Bak], Mahar-Baal, Azer-Baal, See. Other not uncommon names are those of Magon, Hanna, Abda, Acbar, Stc. A complete list of all these names is given below, with a reference to the Inscriptions on which they occur. It may be further remarked, that many of the names found in these Inscriptions are familiar to us from Carthaginian history, such as Han-Baal (Hannibal), Bad-Melkart (Bomilcar), Hamelcar, Stc. There is, however, no ground for assuming, as Mr. Davis has done in his “ Carthage and its Remains,” that these names actually belong to the historical personages ; though it is possible that they may, in some instances, refer to members of the same family. Lastly, it may be stated, that, as the chief object of the present publication has been to lay before scholars the lithographic copies and corresponding Hebrew transcript and Latin translation of the Inscriptions discovered by Mr. Davis, it has not been thought advisable to make such restorations of the text, where either wholly lost or only in part preserved, as would have required notes of more than ordinary length, if not special dissertations, for their confirmation. Both the Hebrew transcript and the Latin translation follow the original as nearly as possible; and the few subjoined notes contain only such explanations as were deemed absolutely necessary. In conclusion I wish to state that I am indebted to A. W. Franks, Esq. and Emanuel Deulsch, Esq., of the British Museum, for much assistance rendered to me during the deciphering and translating of these Inscriptions, and to record my best thanks to Professor Levy, oi Breslau, for many valuable suggestions. IV. S. W. VAUX. British Museum, March, 1803. PLATE I. No. 1. ' [i]inVi ^033 ronf 1 ? nm 1 ?] ntt vra wt* inn [tya 1 ?] . . in p ‘vany p [Dominie] Tanith faciei-Baal, (1) et domino [Baal]- Hamman 13 : {Sacrificium 9r ) quod vovit Adb (4> . . filius Azer-Baal (5> filii Han . . (1) We have represented the y throughout these inscrip¬ tions by a. (2) Following the most common transcription of the n in such names as Hannibal, Hamilcar, &c., we have not thought it advisable to render this letter by Kh, Hh, or Ch, as has been sometimes done. (3) There has been some doubt among Phcenician scholars as to the best mode of translating the usual formula TT3 Thus,Gesenius reads “virvovens" (Melit.i.p 90); Bourgade, “ ex voto obtulit ” (Cartliag. A. p. 5), and, where there is a repe¬ tition, as 113 t£W 113, simply “vovens;” Judas reads “ autel, monument votif,” p. 04, or, “basis sepulturas,” pp. 71, 72, &c.; Barges, “ votum arm vovit,” p. 3; and De Saulcy, “ (ceci est) ce qu’a consacre ” (Ann. de l’Institut. Arch. xvii. p. 70, 1845, and xix. p. 194, 1847). We would rather presume that, in all cases, the tablet bearing this inscription has been, originally, in close connection with the offering itself. An implied Sacri/icium would then form the subject of the whole sentence. (4) In the second line it is probable that owing to the similarity of the letters 1 (D) and 31 (B) in Phcenician, 311ft lias been cut by mistake for 131ft, which is, itself, more usually spelt liy. As there is room for at least three more letters, the name might be completed from other in¬ scriptions, IPti 131ft (Abd-Aser), a name of not unfrequent occurrence. Cf. Gesen. Melit. i. 2. Cit. 2. i. (5) This is the original form of the well-known name Asdrubai (not Hasdrubal)Cf. Hebr. PfOty, ‘wity, iTlty, lil'liy. The 1 is rendered throughout by Z, agree¬ ably with the English pronunciation. No. 2, ft 1 ?! I ?y33y3 J13/1 1 ? mib ft ii3 i£»ft pn bya 1 ? p . . ri3 mpPana Dominie Tanith faciei- a> Baal et domino Baal- Hannnan: quod vovit <5) Amt-Melkart® filia . . (1) 1J13 for the more usual 13. (2) The space left between the 1 of 113, and the ft of mpPrOft seems to have been originally intended for the ft which would form the feminine termination to agree with nn. (3) Amt-Melkart, servant of Melkart—a female name, like Amt-Astareth, which latter answers to the male Abd- Astaretli. Melkart is the Phcenician form of the Greek Mi*ixapfloc, according to Philo Byblius, the Hercules of the Phcenicians: Hesychius has, also, Mf^ixapSoc ° *«1 HpaxXic. According to the first Maltese Inscription (Gesen. p. 00) be was the Baal' or chief god of Tyre, IS *?y3 JVtpba. The name is derived from Jllp “Rex urbis"—and enters rather largely into the composition of other Phcenician names, such as Hamelcar, Bomelcar. No. 3. [ I ?y]3i33 ron 1 ? n3i[i 1 ?] [n]n byib d»[^i] 13 tOll 113 !£tf* i 13 mpbmny mynwym Domina; Tanitli faciei-Baal, et domino Baal- Hamman : quod vovit Hanna, filius Abd-Mellcart, filii Bad-Astareth. a> (1) Astnretli is written here with the second y (myrrzym) (Bad-Astareth), which is not usual. The more common form Bad-Astareth occurs in Classical authors under the contracted forms, Bodostor and Bostor. Thus Bodostor (BoSoirTKp) is found in Diodorus (v. Mai, Nov. Collect, ii. 53); and Bostor (Bueiuf), as Prmfect of Saguntum, in Polyb. iii. 38, Liv. xxii. 22. BostaruB (Basrapos) is also mentioned as the general of the Carthaginians against Regulus (Polyb. i. 30). Cf. BctSl^fcc, king of the Tyrians (Jos. c. Apion i. 18), and Bx&foc (Syncell. p. 345. ed. Dindorf), both of which are probably derived from the same original. ' . PLATE III. No. 7. No. 8. 33 run 1 ? roib 3 1 ? vmbi 13 ^on by 1013 P 333 1 333 n3n l ? n3i l ? n byib pabi by ItfJTDN 1013 WN ID rm3,p n3 mn Dominte Tanith faciei-BaAl et Domino 01 Baal- Hamman : quod vovit Nabag,® filius Pars. Domime Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman : quod 0> vovit Am- (2> Astareth, filia Abragak. (3> (1) The form of the N is that of the latest inscriptions, and the 1 very much resembles the 3. (2) 333 and KH3 are new Phoenician names ; the latter, ttH3, may be either the Hebrew word for “ rider,” or may have some reference to Persia, the name of which country, however, in the Bible, is spelt, DriB, with a D. (1) The form Mn3, instead of the usual TT3, is used in connection with the feminine n3. Cf. ante, Iuscr. 2. (2) This name is found on the Sidonian Inscript. (1. 14), as that of the mother of Asman-Azer, the king of Sidon. (3) H313P is a new name, possibly that of some African personage. The unusually large space left vacant on this tablet renders it likely that the inscription has not been completed : in this case, the first part of the last word might be connected with the root 13P- British museum. I'hceniciast inscriptions. pl.iv. PLATE IV. No. 10. n:sib na-i*? im 1 ?! bpais [i»]n inn Ijjp 1 ? i [njnpbma ytj P UI’VjP P a:n Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman : quod vovit Bad-Melkart, filius Baal- Itan, rt) filii Hanna. (1) We find tliis compound reversed, thus: I tun-Baal. infra, Inscr. 63. No. 11. ^jpp ronb /PI*? ion ‘yol? pn^i p Njn -rn CN ' ^jp p ‘wnuri p jp'pon p Dominte Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman: quod vovit Hanna, filius Han-Baal, (1) 2 filii Baal-Malak, filii Hamelcat,® filii. (1) Though this is the same name as that of the celebrated Carthaginian general, there is no reason to suppose that that personage is here referred to. The inscription is badly cut and of a later date. (2) This name occurs in an inscription published by Gese- nius (Mon. Pham. p. 181), and is, probably, a contraction for noSojn, “gratia regni,” or “gratia reginoi" (sc. Astartes). It is of very common occurrence in these inscriptions (vid. infra, Inscr. 20, DO, 51, 53, &c.), and must not be confounded (as has been sometimes done) with the names Hamilcar ('A^kKxr) and Himilco ('i/ziAsw); though there can be no doubt that the word forms the first part of all the names, Hamelcat, Hamelcar, Himilco, Hannibal, &c. PLATE V. No. 13. No. 14 ^ff raVinr* nil m pn ^ M imis Mm p nvmm pn , *Qy ttj m P 1QK/N Dominffi Tanith faciei-Baal* 1 ' et Domino Dominte Tanith faciei-Ball et Domino Baal- Baal-Hamman : quod vovit Bad-Astareth, filius Hamman : quod vovit Abd-Asman, filius Hanna. 1 -' (1) In the first, line the connecting 1 is omitted. (2) This Hanna may be either the son of the Magon of Inscr. No. 4, or the sou of Bad-Melkart, of Inscr. No. 12. This is one of the worst cut of these inscriptions, and the letters are very carelessly formed; so that, for instance, the first b in the Inscription looks almost like the JT This and the next inscription are badly cut, and late. mp^mnj? in irj^yn in Baal-Hammau: quod vovit Arisitl Melkart, filii Bad-Astaretb, filii Bar (I) Feminine of Aris, v. ante, Inscr. 6, uectod with the Hebrew JIlthN. l/" filia Abd- 1-Azer. perhaps, con- PLATE VI. No. 16. ~i2 nj ion a p mniyy JP p bjPiH OH£P Z33W 1 ? No. 17. [njjfi!? jp-i 1 2 3 ? tnVi tyajs inn by2b [)] . p Jin na -Hamman: [quod 11 *] vovit Bad-Astareth, filius Dominaa Tauith iaciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Adan-Baal, filii Baal-Saphat® Bsrm. (8) Hamman: quod vovit Zivag,' 1 * filius. . . (1) The relative 10N has been omitted here. (|) The name JV? is (2) Iu the fifth Carthaginian Inscription published by (iesenius (p. 177), we meet with Abd-Melkart 133IOT (Abd- Melkait Sufes); in which case there is no reason to doubt that the Abd-Melkart there commemorated did fill the well- known office of Sufes or Judge in Carthage ; but, both here and in the Inscr. 4ii, infra, only enters as part of the compound name of a person, and does not designate an office. (3) We can offer no explanation of these letters, which may, perhaps, express the title of the preceding Sufes; or, the name of some town to which he belonged. == No. 19. J3 run 1 ? nm|>] byib ty[n] mu inn [yi$%o rp jinn[s] PLATE VII. No. 20. ion byib paVi P N13 VTJ m tyaan p roVon Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamraan : quod vovit [A]risith, (1> filia Baal- I[tan], (1) This name occurs ante, Inscr. 18 and 15, and infra, Inscr. 42. There is no doubt about the reading in this place, though the first letter is lost. et Domino Baal-Hamman: quod vovit Bada, (1) filius Hamelcat, <2) filii Han-Baal. (1) This name does not occur elsewhere in these inscrip¬ tions. It may be an abbreviated form of N"DV, for which, see Inscr. 9, ante. (2) For this name, see ante PLATE VIII. No. 22. i tynjs run 1 ? /mb vh ion byib pa 1 ? /np^a-py n: • • • ND p No. 23. JS Jlj[fl^ i>2b pa^[i bjp] »ko pn[^] . t p /np^aiay] IfPpj^Dty p . . . Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman: quod vovit Abd-Melkart, films Ma ,l; • ■ . . [Dominse Tajnith faciei-[Baal et] Domino Baal-Hamman: quod obtulit" 1 2 3 [Abd- M]elkart, filius Z® . . . filii Az-Mel [kart].® (1) The rest of this name is lost. It may have been (1) This is a new word, for the usual TU; but its meau- 7VDND, Gesen. p. 152; or D^ND, Gesen. p. 187. ing is plain; it is the same as the Hebrew N1M, “ offerre." Cf. J7N!£?i2 2 Citron, xxiv. 6, 9; Marseilles Iuscr. 1. 3; and Inscr. 90, infra. (2) Owing to the broken state of the stone the rest of this name is hopelessly lost. (3) This is a new combination—but the name of the king [Az-Baal = Eth-Ba&l] on the coins of Gebal—and [Az-Malek] in 'a£.>* xo e , king of Tyre (Arrian, ii. 15), are analogous to it: Q? is, in fact, the same as the Hebrew ty—“ vis," “ robur." No. 25. as .nan 1 ? /mb ab n»bi bya *na ion by PLATE IX. No. 26. bjnas na/ib Jiaib [» i]on byab p»bi [my p] bynan ma v ■ ■ ■ 1D10N Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman: quod vovit. Dominffi Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman: quod vovit Han-Baal [filius 01 Abd- i Asman. (1) It is most likely that the third line ended with the words *py p (ben Abd-), and that the full name of the father of the dedicator was Abd-Asman (see ante, Inscr. 14. 24, &c.). The perpendicular stroke remaining in the fifth line may be the top of the b of nbp, the second word of the usual benedictory sentence. No. 27. n[jJ/ib /mb pNbi bynjs ion bynb ■ [n]VU /n byan . . Dominte Tanith a) faciei-Baal et Domino Batd- Hamman: quod vovit . . th <3) -Baa], filia. . . (1) The 3 is omitted in this name. (2) As the vower, in this case, is a woman, and as her name ends with j-|, the whole name may have been bya/ina (Amt-Badl), bya/iny Amt-Baal (v. infra, Inscr. 38), or by am, Bath-Bual (v. infra, Inscr. 47). This is one of the worst cut of the Inscriptions, and, except from the analogy of other letters, many of these might have been easily misinterpreted. . No. 28. [s njan 1 ? naif 1 ?] [a 1 ? byaj [k*vt]j wn ion by [o]Tay na na 1 ? mv p /npb Dominffi Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman: quod [vovit] Labat, 01 filia Abd-[Me]l- kart, filii Arem®. . . . (1) This is a new name, perhaps connected with Hebrew a^? “ cor,” or it may be a feminine form of pb [Genes, xxiv. 20 .] (2) It is not certain whether this word is entire, as given above; or whether the top of another letter, visible on the stone, belongs to it or not: in either ease it would be a new name, derived perhaps, from the Hebrew Dill. PLATE X. No. 29. nun 1 ? rui 1 ? rm 1 ?! 'wans Tanitb faciei-Baal et Domino V, " . ■ ■ British Museum, hhi.xhtan ixs< kiptioxs Pi-.XI PLATE XI. No. 31. aaa run!? rrn 1 ? n bio 1 ? p»Vi win -na wn p np!>troy n d M No. 32. run 1 ? rai 1 ? N*71 !>Pll[>] n *?va!> n *vu wn p [^]amD Dominie Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Dominie Tanitli faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamrnan : quod vovit Arism,"* filius Abd-Mel- Hamrnan: quod vovit Mahar-B[aal] (1) . kar[t]. . (1) This name occurs, infra, Inscr. 75. (1) There can be no doubt of the reading of this name, which occurs again (infra, Inscr. 80. 47, &c.), though the two last letters are in this instance lost. Mahar-Baal is a well- known Punic name(Liv. 31, 12). In Greek it is written either Ma.dpgcc>. (App. 7, 10), or Maapgae (Polyb. 3, 84). We also find it in a slightly modified form, as Mippaiioc, a General of the Aradians (Herod. 7, 98), and a Judge of the Tyrians (Jos. e. Apion. 1, 21). It is a compound of the Hebrew "7i!D and (1) The 17 has been, accidentally, omitted at the end of nm- British Museum. Uikkmctaiv inscriptions'. I’i. XH (1) This in tor; for which PLATE XII. No. 34. No. 35. N' TT3 VX ais ran 1 ? nan 1 ? [ya] 1 ? ]ixbi m3 va ian b [i]a nnniyyna n3 p ^yaini* Quod vovit Aris."' Domintc Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman: quod vovit Bad-Astareth,filius Allan-' 1 ’ Baal, filii tier.' 21 ription contains only the name of the dedica- (1) There is no doubt about the reading of this name, as see ante, Inscr. 0, and infra, Inscr. 77. the a is clearly formed, though many other letters are care¬ lessly cut. It occurs only on this Inscription ; hut the first portion, pN, in the sense of Stone, is met with on other Punic monuments. Cf. Gesen. pp. 108, 110, & c. Aban- Badl occurs here, we believe, for the first time, as the name of n person : we feel inclined to connect it with 3N (father), and to give it the sense of “ our Father Baal.” (2) Owing to the fracture at the bottom of this tablet, we cannot determine whether 13 (Ger) represents the whole name, or a contraction. On Inscr. infra, 49, 56, and 61, we meet with the name pDU (Ger-Sacau); and on Inscr. infra, 55, 58, and 06, with JTUH£fln3 (Ger-Astareth), to either of which it may, possibly, refer. It may be further remarked, that Ger is not unfrequently found forming the beginning of geographical names of places in northern Africa, ns Garama, GararoanUe, Garaphi, Garas, Garbatai, Garra, tier, a river in Mauretania, Girba iusula, Girgiris mons. &e., and that some connection with the Hebrew 13 (Ger) “ pere- grinus" may perhaps be traced in it. PLATE XIII. No. 37. [ty]:niy to wn in p tyaaia p mpte No. 38. [■pjajs] run 1 ? mi 1 ? [3 urn p]n tya 1 ? pm‘?’i [n]a “pya/iDy n . . quod vovit Azer-Ba[al,] filius Adan- Baal, filii Bad-Melkart. Dominse Tanith [faciei-Baal] et Domino Baal- H[amman: quod] vovit (1) Amt-Baal, filia (2) . . (1) The feminine termination X is omitted here. (3) Though the last letter of the third line of this In¬ scription is lost, we have no doubt about restoring it JP (bath), and not p (ben), as Amt (female servant) precedes it. The initial y is exceptional. ■ British museum, pikenician inscriptions, pi.xiv PLATE XIV. No. 40. ion [n]a rwby tu tt>N ‘j: p niyy^ya No. 41. [“71] tyais run 1 ? run 1 ? [im]3 vh ion p» ■ ■ ■ n m natenn ■ • • B P 13 et Domino Baal-Hamman: quod vovit Aalsith, (11 filia Baal-Aser,® filii Nal <3) Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal [et] Domino Baal- Hamman : quod [vovit] Hat-Melcat, 01 filia II... . . . [Ma]gon, ,2) filii M . . . (1) In Gesen. Monuni. Phcen., p. 451, is an inscription, which that scholar has transcribed TO t£>N (that is, quod vovit Aalsith). There can be no doubt that this is the same name as occurs on the present inscription, and that it is connected, as Gesenius has suggested, with the Hebrew roots or XT })—“ exultari.” We venture, however, to think that Gese¬ nius is in error when he rends TO, and that his inscription ought to be transcribed rwby KIT ; the name Aalsith being that of a female, and the N being attached to the verb, as on Inscr. ante, 2, S, to denote the feminine gender. If this reasoning be correct, we must suppose that the N of the verb has been accidentally omitted in the present in¬ scription, as in Inscr. 38, &c., and that the last word of the third line must be completed IP (bath, “filia"), and not p (ben, “filius”). (2) The first stroke of the 1 V in ~\*Dy (Aser), is lost in the preceding J?: the more usual form of this name is Azer (TJ?). Seo ante, Inscr. 1, 30, 37, &c. (3) The last name does not admit of completion, from the imperfection of the stone, but the second letter resembles the ^ more than any other letter. (1) This form is the feminine of (TOl?Dn) Hameleat, for which, see ante, Inscr. 11, Note 8. (2) It is most probable that the first syllable of this name has been, originally, as here supplied. PLATE XV. No. 43. Oiot>] • • 2v tu wn io[n] i3Dn pmn np^anay p n No. 44. byup nan 1 ? nan^ .... Ba£l efc Domino [Baal]-Hamnmii: Dominie Tamth ftciei-Baal quod vovit Abd-Asman, scriba, (1) filius Abd-Mel- kart. (11 For this title, see Gesen. p. 1H8, where the same office is mentioned. We may remark that there the “scriba" is named “ Gad-Astareth, filius Abd-Melkart," and that it is, therefore, possible that the Abd-Asman of the present inscription may belong to the same family. Geacnius points out the probable connection between "13D of the .Tews and Phcenicians and the Tfa/ifiaTurra* of the Persians (Herod, iii. 128). Cf. also, for the rank the Scribe held among the Jews, 2 Sam. xvii. 20; 2 Kings xii. 11; xix. 2. PLATE XVII. No. 49. aptoaa a PDU p n l/va^a p a^p yowa sna No. 50. b pa 1 ?! *?ya:i3 /ljn 1 ? a-6 nabon aa: wn ion ^va ns p xorr p Dominaj* 1 * Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- . Hanunan: quod vovit Hamelcat, filius Hanna, vovit Bad - Melkart, filius Ger - Sacan, (l) filii Badi (2 ' Malek-Itan. TJbi audiverit ejus vocem, ei benedicat.® (X) The last stroke to the left of the D in this name is (1) The /I in /Oa has been omitted on this stone, lost, owing to a flaw in the stone. It is, however, certain, (2) This is a new name. Cf. ilHS and irPlS. from Inscr. 61, infra, that the Hebrew transcript in this place is correct It is a new name. (2) The 3 has been omitted in the word N3aa, by some accident, but space has beon left on the stone for it. PLATE XVIII. No. 52. byzusi nanb n:n^ fflori byzb payi No. 53. bynp rpi[^>] ion tya? p no^orr am yia p mpbiDin m[nty] Dominie Tanitli faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamrnan:. Dominie Tanitlj faoiei-Baal et Domino Baal- Harnman: quod vovit Hamelcat, filius Bad- Melkart, filii Bad-A[st]aretli. No. 54. b mi 1 ? [^Jypjs run Dominie Tanitk faciei-Baa[l.] . PLATE XX. No. 57. [in]n pa^i] p rp^an vu wn ‘ pan p m/myn bymna p .ns No. 58. n 1 ?! by[y] . ny m:. in in mflBpj p 'jjp aa^xn yaws /np^a et Domino Baal-Hamman: quod vovit Hamelcat, filius Bad-Astareth, filii Hamelcat, filii Mahar- Baal. [Dominm Tanitb faciei-B]aal et Domino [Baal- Hamman : quod] vovit Azer-Baal, filius Ger-As- tareth, filii Bad-Melkart. Ubi audiverit ejus vocem ei benedicat. - - British Museum, hkknktan Inscriptions. I'i. XXH PLATE XXII. No. 61. .n y p mp^Diay DU p pawn P No. 62. ‘pyaja nan 1 ? rp-ib n pn ^yab paVi a ptoNiay n: at romay ] vovit Abd-Melkart, filius Abd- Dominat Tauith facici-Baal et Domino Baal- liamman : quod vovit Abd-Asman, filius Abd- Asman, filii Grer-Sacan. 0 ' Tauith. 0 ' (I) This name occurs, ante, Inscr. 49, 50. (1) This name is not found elsewhere on these Inscrip¬ tions : but it occurs on a monument, formerly in the Military and Naval Museum, at Scotland Yard, but now in the British Museum. This monument has been published by Geseuius, p. 118, and is of considerable value, as it exhibits one of the few bilingual inscriptions which have been discovered. The name Abd-Tanitli is there rondered ’AfTEjUiSiifos. PLATE XXIII. No. 64. ‘ajpas nanb nan 1 ? l[»]n bya 1 ? pa^i [n]nnwr[a -na>x No. 65. px^i ‘ayaas na-ib] [nls’aon Tra »x ion [‘ays 1 ?] xanbya p ro’aon p Dominic Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- H[amman]: quod [vovit Ba]d-Astare[th] 01 . .[Dominas] Tanith faciei-Baal, et Domino [ Baal]-Hamman ■. quod 01 vovit Harnel- c[at], filius Hamelcat,' 21 filii Baal-Hanna. (I) Though the first and last letters are wanting, there is little doubt that this name must be completed as above. The only other name which could be substituted here (viz. Ger- Astareth), if the second letter be read 1 (r) instead of 1 (d). is of much less frequent occurrence. (1) The form of the !£’ in 10X is peculiar. (2) The D in Jp'ann has only one stroke. No. 66. • ib P^W • . . . na wx . . . tttjna p • rpon . y p ‘ayiaaix . dkgi am bv ■ ■ et Domino Ba[al-Hamman]: filius Ger-As[taretli] 01 . . Adan-Baal, filius A . . • cipis. (l1 Andias quod vovit. . . satelles 1 (2) 3 4 . [B]aal,® prin- (1) There is little doubt that this name must be restored as above; the only other combination of the first syllable (Ger) on these Inscriptions is Ger-Sacan. See Inscr. mile, 49, BO, 61. Eor Ger-Astareth, see Inscr. ante, 55 and 58. (2) rniO; in Hebrew, to slaughter or kill animals; whence the noun 1"QI0, Mactator, Coquus (1 Sam. ix. 23, 24), Car- nifex, Satelles Kegius (Gen. xxxvii. 36, &c.) (3) From the defective state of the stoue, which is broken off at both ends, it is not possible to restore with certainty the lost name. (4) Cf. Gesenius, Mon. Phcen. p. 179. British Museum. Phoenician inscriptions. Pl.xXV. N°71. N?72. PLATE XXVI. No. 73. *?jd is nun 1 ? nan 1 ? pn byzb n»bi nay ia mpbona m3 Dwa na'pan p mpba Nanan Nbp y Dominie Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hannnau: quod vovit Bad-Melkart, filius Abd- Melkart, filii Hamelcat. Ubi audiverit ejus vocem, ei benedicat.' 11 (1) The letter 1 (d) inserted before the lust word of the benedictory formula is a manifest error of the engraver of the stone, for n (t). ■ No. 74. [j>]339 ron 1 ? /mb ion bj?3b pybi b bj?3[3]n “na [wr] y p [by]33iR i[3] 133 Dominfc Tanitla faciei-Baal et Domino 01 Baal- Hamman: quod vovit Ha[n-]Baal, l2) filius Adan- B[aal], filii Acbar. <3) Domin; Hamm an Astareth, (1) pj?. The more usual form of this word is ]1R. (-2) The second letter in this name is entirely lost, by an injury of the stone; but there seems no reason to doubt that it has been completed correctly, as above. (3) This name occurs ante, Inscr. 71, infra, Inscr. 77, 78. (1) For (2) The the stone. PLATE XXVII. No. 75. Vi bjms Ji3/ib nm 1 ? in m ion by3b pR 13 /)1/U£»jn3 p D!tf1R 13 Rbp JtDttO 1D10R13 ie Tanitb faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- : quod vovit Arism, 0) filius Bad- filii Bad-Asman. Ubi audiverit ejus benedicat. (2) this name, see ante, Inscr. 31. two last letters of this word (R3) are lost upon British Museum, phienician inscriptions, pi..xxvhi. PLATE XXVIII. No. 77. No. 7S. ObJ/mb 233 ronb nfai 1 ?] 233 jij n tyab iin^i Nbi WIN 113 WN id ‘jyab it yi2i> 12 123y 12 3 WN ion Nbp y . . . . N3n n may [l]a Dominse [Ta]nith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal Hamman : quod vovit Hanna, filius Acbar. [Domimo] Tanith faciei-Ba[al] et Domino Baal-Hamman: quod vovit Aris, filius Acbar, filii Abdfi® .... ejus vocem. (l) The jsual form of this N12y (Abda). PLATE XXIX. No. 80. i Vyzns nunb n[an^] vh inn 'pya'? [pa 1 ?] /np^omy n[-ia] ny p mpbona i[n] Nbp yaws m . . . No. 81. . [bjyajs nafn 1 ? /mV . |-n]a ttt« pn b . • • ■ jon^yn m • • . . /n/myin p . . No. 82. mni> /ml? V byo JOE) No. S3. ^yaas nan 1 ? nan 1 ? pn bya 1 ? paV pWSTay NtM li’N x 1 ?? now nbs p Domintc Tanitli faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman : quod vovit Abd-Melkart, filius Bad- Melkart, filii Ab . . rt. 0) IIbi audiverit ejus vocem . (1) It is not possible to say, owing to tbe fractured state uf the stone, how many letters have been lost here; but it is likely that the name was Abd-Melkart. [Domintc Tajnitli faciei-Baal [et Domino Baa]l-Hamman: quod vovit. filia 1 Banl-Hanna, filii Bad-Astareth. (I) This stone has suffered so much injury, having been split off both at the beginning and end, that it is not pos¬ sible to restore the name of the dedicator. The word i"Q (bath) however, following, shows that she must have been a Dominte Tanitli, faciei'^-Baal et (l) The addition of N in JOE) may be compared with -ay,— KT9JJ,—&c. Dominse Tanitli faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Hamman: quod extulit (1) Abd-Asman, filius Tsilili. ■ Audias (3) ejus vocem. (1) See ante, luscr. 28, for this word. 12) This is a new name: cf. PlA’, prospere gessit. (8) NOW for the more usual yOW. Cf. ND1M ante, PLATE XXX. No. 84. . 3 1 2 ? paVi ty[a] . .... uvtya . - . . . DK p • No. 85. [j]s nant 1 ?J • [in]n fyu 1 ? p[x 1 Nia [Ba]ul et Domino Ba[Sl] Baal-Itan . filii® As (S) .... Dominic Tanith l'aciei-[Baal et] Domino Baal- H[amman]:.Bada." 1 (1) This has been translated “filii" instead of “ Alius," (|) This name occurs, ante, Inser. 20. because the length of inscription, of which a very small portion has been preserved, leads to the supposition that the name preserved is that of the grandfather rather than that of the father of the dedicator. (2) It is not possible to restore this name. PLATE XXXI. No. 87. No. 88. n inn pioi jn/iwjna tp v “pyajn p et Domino Baal-Hamman: quod vovit Bad-As- tareth, filius Han-Baal. (I) It is remarkable that this stone, which is nearly per¬ fect, contains this one letter only; and it is clear from its state of preservation, that it never lias contained any other. Is this letter intended as the initial of the name of the Goddess Tnnith ? PLATE XXXII. No. 90. . mdd cm nnMCDn nys 1 mm by3b nlMi Dunsb m . . . -2 m mtn byab .rn 3 .n 1 Dinob my • • 3 b cmh pi Dinsb Dtyn my pi mix • • 4 snob myn pi mis ox Dbbs b’M ana . . 5 Dio insb p> bs Njpo bp n . o pnM by II at *jdd yx2 ' . . i map insb p DbM nn Day' c . 8 . . . . iac nat *nyi na nat byl ncpp . 9 .byi nmoa nat byi sbn by 10 .nn t D3i nc bs 'm .11 No. oo. 1 • Tempore oblationum: quod constitu 2. . pellis sacerdotibus et [partes sect® ?] domino sa- crificii . . 3. . . pellis sacerdotibus et [partes sect® ?] domino sa- crificii . . 4. . . [si] sacrificium prsescriptum: pellis caprarum erit sacerdotibus; sacrificium vero erit . . 5. . [vel] ex hinnulco [capra] ; holocaustis [scil.] et si [sint] sacrificia necessaria: pellis erit sacerdotibus ().... pecora macra:—non erit sacerdotibus ex eis. 7. . pro alitibus argenti duo zar, pro singulis [scil.]. S. quod offeret coram Deis; sacerdoti erunt prosecta et . . . pro sacris [primitiisP] et pro. sacrificio alimen- torum et pro sacrificio olci 10. . pro adipe [lacte?] et pro sacrificio [incruento] et pro . . 11. . . [quod attinet ad sacrificium] peregrini qui non sit ex ea regione: det . The above rendering of this Inscription must be considered as simply tentative, it being impossible, in some coses, to pro¬ pose a satisfactory meaning to its words; since, although there are eleven lines of writing, and the individual characters are more elegantly engraved than those of any other Inscription in this collcctiou ; the commencement of the first line alone is preserved, while the sixth and seventh lines are the only ones which appear to he complete at the endings, all the others wanting both their beginnings and terminations. This Inscription, as will be seen at the first glance, bears a striking analogy with the celebrated one found at Mar¬ seilles in 1845, in which nearly all its words occur, and, some¬ times, In the same connection, with evidently the same sense. Yet the interpretation of the Marseilles Inscription, even admitting that it has been accurately accomplished by any of the different scholars who have studied it, does not, of itself, suffice for that of the Inscription before us. There are, indeed, many and important differences between the two Inscriptions, as well in the style of the engraving of the individual words, us in the general framing of their texts. Whether the Marseilles Inscription be the original decree issued for the regulation of the taxes connected with the sacrifices—or how far it and the one before us may have been severally adapted from one fundamental decree for the special use of the respective places in which they were found, must, owing to the scantiness of the materials which have hitherto been discovered, remain, for tho present, undetermined. Judging from the character of the writing, we have little doubt that the Marseilles Inscription is entitled to the priority As the Marseilles Inscription has been so frequently published, it did not seem necessary to reproduce, in all cases, the obvious parallel passages, to which we alludo from time to time, or to quote at full length the opinions of the different Savans whose readings we have occasionally adopted. Line 1.—[Compare Mars. Inscr., Line 1, 2.]—nnMCDIP Plural form, traces of which are to be found also in Mars. Inscr , L. 1.— MN3— to fix. erect, constitute; in Hebrew, (obsol.), only in the sense to weave, braid ; Arab. The end of this line was probably filled with the name or names of the Sufetcs under whose auspices these taxes were fixed, as in Mars. Inscr.— CM. id quod—as iu the foregoing tablets.— 2.—[Mars. Inscr., L. 8, 4. — nyiX DM bbl t)bM3] .. yn pi]—man from rro = Arab. to break, cut; Cf. JT)“Q, “cibus.” (Lam, iv. I; Psalm lxix. 22.) 8.—[Mars. Inscr., L. 5, G.— ... n pi - nyimi bbi b’M3 dm - bny3i.] The M at the end may be completed: nDP CM — Mars. Inscr., L. 15. 4 —[Mars. Inscr., L. 7. DM bbs H’D DM b3'3 ] — CM = nfM (Numb. vi. 5.) 5.—[Mars. Inscr., L. 0, 10. — 2 DM MTQ DM PDM3 ] ms = ? epC ; cf. Prov. xvi. 27: — a suggestion, which further discoveries may corroborate. — obbs. Plur. with re¬ ference to the preceding animals. (1.—[Mars. Inscr. L. 15. — DP CM rOT bDD] — bp. Neither the most received translation of the corresponding line iu the Mars. Inscr. “one poor in cattle"—rejected by Munk, on the ground that one may be poor iu cattle or birds, and yet able to purchase them ; nor the translation suggested by himself, “ Le maigre du be tail,” are quite satisfactory, although the latter has more in its favour.— DID = DHM = DIPO. i. c. for all those mentioned. 7.—[Mars. Inscr. L. 11 (7, 9).— 1 p.lM P13SD] — j‘S = Y’S “wing”—“winged animal.” Cf. Gen. vu. 14, bl PISS bD, —It. I-Iebr. •* foreign," also “ profane "—as op¬ posed to “ sacred "— either of which significations may refer to the word, “ Shekel," found in Mars. Inscr., L. 7, but omitted here, as in Mars. Inscr., L. 9 and 11. [PI nebe ym *|D3]. We have, however, preferred rendering the word simply “Zar - ." 8, —[Mars. Inscr., L. 18 —M JiyiS PDD] DOy- to lift up, carry, dole out, present. Cf. Ps. lxviii. 20 ; DID we un¬ hesitatingly read for jPIS (Cf. Mars. Inscr. L. 13), rejecting the two meanings, “ daughter ” or “ temple,” which would suggest themselves at first sight—[JP^S’] 1 JHPSp. These two words occur three times together in the Marseilles Inscrip¬ tion, viz, L. 4, 10, and 13. Px’p appears to b^ akin to PO — to cut off—while nbs is tho Hebrew, to roast. Munk, who has left both words untranslated, has suggested “ prosecta ” and “ assata.’’ 9. —[Mars. Inscr. L. 12.— jPDPp by PSJt]. For the corresponding conjunction DM of the Marseilles Inscription. by has been substituted here throughout the line. 10—[Mars. Inscr., L. 14. — 1 3bn byi *? t ?3]. The corresponding words in the Marseilles Inscription — mtb dpm cm ipdt Pd byi — have been contracted hero into rat byi. — nrua in the Mosaic Law, chiefly for un¬ bloody sacrifices ns opposed to IPDt, — vegetable food and drink offerings. 11.—i Mars. Inscr.,L. 18. — CM jPMCabl] “With respect to the sacrifice of a man who is not a native.” Cf. Munk, Mars. Inscr. —[CM jPDJPDn ’3b 1] JP31— “he shall give according to the written decree which. ..." This line pre¬ sents no new features whatever; the first CM may be either C'M “mau,“ or PCM “oue who;" the second, however, is plainly. PCM; we must, however, wait for further discoveries to complete this reference, as well as to fill up the many other gaps which our Inscription bus failed to fill up in the pro¬ vince of Phoenician antiquities profane and sacred. I ■ . - • • The following List contains the names which occur in these Inscriptions, with the number of the Inscriptions in which they are found. Those names, which are given only doubtfully in the Transcripts, have been omitted:— Aalsith . . AbaU'Baul . Abda . . . Abdd . . . Abd-Asman . Abd-Melkart. Abd-Tanith . Aberrath . . 40. 35. 9,45. 78. 14, 24, 39, 43, 59, Cl, 02, 83. 3, 15, 81, 22, 28, 31,43, 51,00,01, 73, 80. 79. Acbar . . . 71, 74,77, 78. Adan-Baal . 10, 37, 00, 74. Adb. . . . 1. Am-Astaretb. 8. Aint-Mclkai't. 2. Axem ... 28. Aris ... 6, 34, 78. Arisrn ... 31, 75. Arisith. . . 13, 15, 19, 42. Asinan-Halats 72. Asman-Itan . 0. Asman-Sbainar 5. Astareth-Itan 5. Azer-Baal. Az-Melkart Ba&l-Aser. Baal-Azer . 1, 30, 37, 61, 58. 23. 15. Baal-Halats . BaM-Hanna . Baal-Itan . . Baal-Malak . BaH-Malek . Baal-Sapbat . Baill-Sbelek . Bada . . . Bad-Asman . 80. 30, 33, 59, 05, 81. 10, 19, 00, 84. 30, 61, 55. 20, 85. 40, 75. Bad-Astaruth. Bad-A stare th 5, 13, 15, 10, 21, 35, 53, 57, 59, 04, 75, 81, Badorn. . . Bad-Melkart. Bath-Baal . 47. Brsm ... 10. Cabdith . . 9. Gadnaam. . 42. Ger. ... 35. Ger-l^taretli. 55, 58, 00. Ger-Sacaa . 49, 50, 01. Halats-Bail . 18. Haiuelcat. Hamelkart Han . . Hanna. . 10, 12, 18, 24, 30, 33, 37, 39, 48, 4 58, 04, 07, 69, 73, 80, 80. 11, 20, 50, 53, £ Hau-Baal Hat-Melcat Ican-Salem I tan-Baal . Labat . . Magon. . Mabur-Baal Malek-ltan Melkart-Halats 30. Meten-Baal 50, 03. Nabag 3, 4, 0, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 79, 89. 11, 20, 20, 30, 74, 87. 4, 12, 41, 42, 09. 32, 30, 47, 57, 08, 89. 49, 08. Nal . Padi Sapbat Xsilib 40.