<<

HESPERIA 74 (2OO5) "LET NO ONE WONDER Pages 427-449 AT THIS IMAGE" A Phoenician Funerary in Athens

ABSTRACT

An autopsy of the Hellenistic grave stele of SM[.]/A.vr?TcaTpo? ,discovered in the 19th century in the Kerameikos inAthens, reveals that its textual (Phoe nician and Greek) and visual components differ significantly from previously published descriptions. The author reexamines the morphology of the monu also its sacred address and the that a monument ment, considering force such exerted on its context. This single monument to a Phoenician buried inAth ens engages issues of bilingualism, religious symbolism, and, most impor tantly, self-definition, which structured the complex social interactions in Athens in the late 4th-2nd centuries b.c.

An enigmatic grave stele found in the Athenian Kerameikos in the 19th century commemorates the death of an Ashkelonite seafarer, SM[.]/'Avri TtaTpo?.1The stele consists of three components: a Graeco-Phoenician bi a a lingual epitaph, sculpted relief, and six-line Greek epigram (Figs. 1,2). On the basis of the Phoenician letter forms, Frank Cross dates the stele to the late 4th-3rd centuries B.c., and on the basis of the Greek letter forms,

as 1. IG II 2836; IG IP 8388; CIS I "the stele of 'Avtltcoctpoc." I refer to agree, however, on how to reconstruct no. the deceased as in the KAI 115, pi. 21:23, 120; SEGXXXlll SMfJ/'AvrijiaTpoc name, and some, notably in 54, order to retain the as name 217, XL 223, XLI1543, XLII203; relevant duality of take SM (Shem) the full of the KAI 54; GKZT601; CEG 596; Henzen both the deceased and the stele that deceased. A distinct space after the 1861; Sybel 1881. For a longer bib memorializes the circumstances of his mem and before the bet of the next see Conze no. death. I transliterated word BN as liography, 1893, 1175, have, however, may support reading SM Kaltsas no. 190. the Phoenician in the interest of one his name pi. 258; 2002, 376, p. clarity. name, separating from his The stele W. 0.48 is to (H. 1.42, m) Damage the right side of the stele patronym. Cross notes the space after now in the National obstructs a of the Phoenician the mem as Archaeological reading significant, but cautions Museum inAthens For text. If there was a letter after the mem that the name a (NM 1488). SM without compound the circumstances of its see of this letter is no is uncommon. The exam discovery, SM, longer pre only known Clairmont vol. 314. served. Names with SM as a name 1993-1995, 3, p. compounded ple of Shem personal is the The bilingual epitaph on the stele are common in Phoenician, and allow name of the first son of Noah in the to as for the reconstruction a name name refers the deceased SM[.] in of longer Hebrew Bible. Whether the of as Phoenician and 'AvrtTiaTpo? in (F.M. Cross, pers. comm.; Bonnet the deceased should be read as SM or Greek. Most scholars, including those 1990, p. 42; Hoftijzer and Jongeling SM[.] cannot yet be determined, but the Phoenician ele this not analyzing only 1995, pp. 1157-1158; Palmer and San ambiguity does affect the have referred to the Scholars do not ments, gravestone dys 1872, pp. 49-50). interpretation presented here.

? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

Figure 1. Stele of SM[.]/'Avr?7raTpo?, full view. NM 1488. PhotoM. Mauzy to notes Stephen Tracy dates it the late 3rd-2nd centuries; Tracy also that were the epitaph and epigram carved by different hands.2 The grave marker was created toward the end of a millennium of mutually beneficial and culturally formative competition and exchange among Phoenicians and Greeks. The historiography of the stele itself is fragmented by academic specialization and often driven to excessive liter an to alism in effort rationalize the sacred. In the following reexamination, as I parse the stele's visual and verbal components they collectively narrate one to the life and death of individual and relate the socioreligious history eastern of the Mediterranean maritime economy. In particular, the role of the goddess in Graeco-Phoenician religion and in the iconogra phy of the stele is examined. Finally, I explore the layers of cultural legibil ity built into the monument and the ways inwhich these layers worked to create and delineate various cultural groups. Read in its entirety, this bilingual monument belies the reified cultural categories active in the broader Mediterranean at this time. Its hybrid na ture simultaneously establishes and undermines accepted modes of social demarcation. In what I take these broader issues of follows, up bilingual 2. F. M. V Cross (pers. comm.); S. address, and cultural definition in with see religious symbolism, conjunction Tracy (pers. comm.); also Bonnet the reexamination and explication of the memorial. 1990, p. 40. A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS

2. Figure Stele, three-quarter-length view. Photo M. Mauzy

THE EPITAPH

a 3. My translation. The absence of two The Greek lines of the epitaph (Fig. 3) read: dative object for ?v?oyjxe is unusual. On the the disappearance of expected AvT?7T0CTpo?Acppo?ia.oo A.oxocX[covity]?] case in the lan markings secondary AofiaocXcb? Aouavcb Di?covio? ?v?Qr\xe of or guages bilingual multilingual see Adams 2003. The son stelai, unaspi Antipatros, of Aphrodisios, the Ashkel(onite). rated Greek 'Aax cannot the reproduce Domsal?s, son of Doman?, the Sidonian, dedicated (this stele).3 internal /S/ sound of the Phoenician Ashkelon. I thank David The two Phoenician lines place-name, directly below the Greek read: M. Goldstein for this observation. 4. Trans. 3NKSM[.] BN CBDCSTRT'SQLNY J. Hackett. Although the DSYTNT DNKDCMSLH BN DCMHND SDNY aleph suggests the vocalization of dcmhn:> as Domhana, the 4th by century I son of CBDCSTRT the Ashkelonite. the Phoenician in the termi (am) Shem[.], (Abdashtart), b.c., aleph nal was as a is the which the son of position pronounced mid (This stele) I, DcMSLH(Domseleh), back vowel, i.e., lo:l. Numerous exam DCMHN3 (Domhan?) the Sidonian, erected.4 from in ples of Hanno both notes the strokes of the and the Greek and Phoenician demonstrate this Tracy curving sigmas suggestion of serifs in the Greek of the Scholars have ascribed various change (F.M. Cross, pers. comm.). lettering epitaph.5 5. S. V. b.c. to consensus Tracy (pers. comm.). dates from the 4th century onward the stele, with prior 430 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

3. Stele, Photo on the mid-4th Cross notes that the small Figure epitaph. centering century.6 although M. Mauzy curve right tail of the shin and the of the kaph of the Phoenician inscrip tion first appear in the 4th century, the yod "looks peculiar" and may indi cate the 3rd century B.c.7 Tracy also suggests the 3rd century (see above). Comparison of the two texts brings to light the degrees to which the Phoenician names were modified in the Greek text. SM[.] (Shem, lit. "name") became Avr?TOrcpo?, DCMSLH8 became AofjiaocAcoc,DCMHN39 became Aojjlocvg?, and CBDCSTRT became Acppo?iaiou. The translation from Astarte to 'Acppo?inr] conforms to the tradition linking these two was a one. goddesses and indicates that this equation conventional a common means CBDCSTRT, Phoenician name, literally "the servant of Astarte." SM[.]/A\m7rocTpo?, the deceased son of this "servant of Astarte/ hailed from the Phoenician inwhich Herodotos 'Acppo?LTYj," Ashkelon, 6. Clairmont (1970, p. 116), for asserts there was a cult center for the to (1.105) worship of'Acppootxy] Oupocvioc, example, dates the stele the latter as half of the 4th b.c. on the basis known in Semitic Astarte Shemayim (lit. "") and sometimes called century of the and the rounded "Syrian Acppo?mr]." pediment shape corners sunken name upper of the relief As with the of the goddess, the patron, DcMSLH/Aou panel; Bonnet (1990, p. 42), without transliterated his Phoenician name and in the Greek aocAco?, into cites a combina patronymic delving specifics, but Greek versions of these text, presented names, thereby demonstrating tion of epigraphic and stylistic the proficiency of these Phoenician speakers in Greek and rendering the evidence. more 7. F. M. Cross comm.). inscription accessible to viewers unfamiliar with Phoenician proper (pers. 8. D MSLH means "the one whom names. The in -w? and -to, however, are non-Greek for masculine endings causes to the god Dom prosper"; SLH names and mark these men as non-Greek.10 means "to prosper" (Benz 1972, p. 400). I use Throughout this article, deliberately avoid the of the word "hel 9. D MHN means "the one on even in the shift from a Phoenician lenization," discussing specific proper whom the god Dom confers favor"; name a as HN means "to show favor" to Greek version. Indeed, I demonstrate in my analysis, this (Benz 1972, 312). The name , for stele counters the terms reductive implications about culture.The unquali p. means "the one whom the fied of the term "hellenization" the of Greek example, god application (colloquially, spread favors." The Dom is to move god only culture its borders) broad cultural interaction and names beyond stylistic attested in personal (Benz 1972, ment a of unilateral at bilateral cultural and perpetuates myth or, best, p. 301). matter 10. Threatte 25. stylistic transfer. No how reflectively this expression is used, its 1996, p. A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 431

na implication of linearity falsely simplifies the complex and multifarious ture of cultural interaction. In the context of material culture, the imputa consumer con tion of hellenization typically effaces the agency of the and as structs the producing culture (Greek) active agent and the receiving culture as west. (the East) passive recipient of ideas generated and developed in the a In contrast to the other Phoenicians, the deceased, SM[.], adopted different name, A\m7iocTpo<;, in the Greek text. A number of scholars have a attempted to construct concrete linguistic relationship between SM[.] no one and AvTL-Torcpoc in order to explain this pairing of names, but has so a done convincingly.11 Although neat transformation would be satisfy names a ing, the two are, in fact, just that. The deceased answered to name a name Phoenician among Phoenician speakers and to Greek among Greek speakers.12 Unlike the other Phoenicians mentioned, who retained own markedly foreign but Greek versions of their names, the deceased appears to have used an unmarked Hellenic name when inHellas.13 an a J. N. Adams has analyzed example of dual naming in bilingual neo-Punic/ funerary inscription from Guelaat bou Sba inNumidia.14 In that inscription, the father's name, mltct, becomes the Latinized genitive Metatis, while the son's name, tsdt, is replaced in the Latin text with an son unmarked Latin name, Rufas, indicating that the answered to each name in the appropriate cultural context.15 The epitaph expresses increased one acculturation from generation to the next. Adams cites several other name use examples of dual from North . One stele records four gen erations, of which the oldest two retain African names, the third genera uses uses tion marked but Latinized names, and the fourth generation unmarked Latin names.16 As in these examples from , the stele of SM[.]/AvT_7tocTpo? stresses the deceased's cultural duality in con trast to his comrade and the previous generations, who retained versions names of their Phoenician in both languages.17

11. On to a man is names SM[J referring noted, the adoption of English who is named "after the father" non-native ('Avtl by English speakers. These see 7tocTpo?), Hoftijzer and Jongeling individuals retain both their birth names and 1995, pp. 1157-1158; KAI 54. On both English names, deploying names the of them as in expressing concept genea appropriate different situ see logical descent, Bonnet 1990, ations. pp. 42-44. Bonnet reconstructs SMY, 14.KAI 165; CIL VTII17467; as which she takes a diminutive of the Adams 2003, pp. 215-217. as divine father SM. She cites parallels 15.Adams (2003, p. 214) notes text hypostatic epithets of Baal, PN B L, that the Punic includes this multi of to "face Baal," which refers , generational record, while the Latin and SM B L, "name of Baal," which includes the filiation of the deceased, refers to On the of as was Astarte. relationship typical of Semitic and Latin Tanit and see also n. 34 Astarte, below. funerary inscriptions. Bonnet takes 'AvriTtocxpo? as a trans 16. KAI 117. See also IRT229 lation of the theophoric SM compound (= IPT 5a), IRT246 (= IPT 5b); IRT as meaning "after the father." 654, IPT 13;KAI 117, cited in 12. Joseph. AJ 1.21;Millar 1983, Adams 2003, pp. 213-218. 55. 17. p. On the prevalence of dual iden 13. A common in see practice today tity among Latin-Punic bilinguals, as one the Anglo-American context, Adams 2003, p. 213. of the reviewers anonymous Hesperia 432 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

Whereas the Greek uses the third person, the Phoenician text of the am a ac epitaph begins with the first person, "I Shem," convention that centuates the Phoenician origin of the deceased.18 Leading with the Greek s to mem text, however, emphasized the deceased ties Hellas and solicited bers of the Greek-speaking audience, who would have been the most fre to quent viewers of the stele inAthens.19 The choice render the epitaph in both Phoenician and Greek demonstrates that these Phoenicians were ac

customed to bilingual thinking and that DcMSLH/Ao[xaocXco? chose to on display this bilingualism his friend's funerary stele.20 The presence of two languages does not confirm true bilingualism in every context.21 Francophilia, for example, does not necessarily imply franco even a or can phonia, when phrase two be readily deployed for effect. In name this particular stele, however, the sophistication of the transfers, the dual naming of the deceased, and the length of the Greek epigram dem onstrate sufficient linguistic proficiency to apply the term bilingual. as a The epitaph identifies the deceased in perpetuity Phoenician more as an speaker, and specifically Ashkelonite, while emphasizing the a degree towhich he moved in the Greek-speaking world, adopting Greek name and, in death, a permanent home in Athens.

THE IMAGERY

In the sculpted relief of the stele, the corpse of SM[.]/AvT.7rocTpo? lies across a over stretched bier (Fig. 4).22 A beast looms the left side of the deathbed and lifts the corpse's head to its mouth. The scruff of fur visible a at the animal's thick neck identifies it as lion, and the epigram below confirms this identification. While its body is rendered in profile, the lion turns his head toward the viewer.23 on a man Opposite the lion, the right side of the relief, naked lunges across the frame to fend off the attacking beast. This figure presumably one who rescued the of the as men represents of the cpiXo. body deceased, man tioned in the epigram. The figure of the may represent DCMSLH/ AojjiaocXcoc himself, but it also functions as an iconic metonym for the collective cpiXoi.Damage to the stele has obscured the man's head and man arms, but he appears to push against the head of the lion. The so lunges forcefully that his left heel steps outside the boundary of the pic torial a associated with move frame, representational practice vigorous

19. rests on 18. On the first person in Phoeni For bilingual inscriptions lead his head the left side of the cian see CIS I 46 in scene funerary inscriptions, ingwith the Phoenician the Greek (Baughan 2004, p. 244). On the see KAI 60. distinction between or and (=TSSI35); CIS 1157; KAI 57 (= IG speaking world, 59, "bier," bed, = a IP 3075); KAI59 (= /GIF 3319 20. On the display of bilingualism kline, which specifies type of couch one see in used CIS 1119). Only Attic inscription by Phoenicians, particularly abroad, used banqueting (although also in see (CEG 80) employs the first person in Adams 2003, pp. 32,212-218; Millar funerary contexts), Baughan the the use of the 60-61. 247. epitaph, although 1983, pp. 2004, p. am to one of the Hes 23. On first person in the epigram is typical 21.1 grateful frontally facing funerary readers for this lions of the mid-4th see (CEG 2, p. 48). Several Greek epitaphs peria anonymous raising century b.c., use the first Clairmont vol. from Imperial per point. 1993-1995, 3, p. 6, son (GVI606, 607, 610,611). 22. In contrast to Attic conventions, nos. 3a-b. A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 433

4. Stele, relief. Figure sculpted ment.24 His muscular twice the size of the seems an Photo M. Mauzy body, nearly corpse, mans con adequate match for the similarly robust lion.25 The nakedness forms to Greek visual tradition.26 man arcs reverse Above the bent shoulders of the the S-shape of part of a and a standard. Its S-curve resembles a stern more than a ship prow, as a but the epigram below specifically identifies it the prow of ship.27 The on prow is carved in lower relief than the three figures the bier. on Although the earliest scholarship the stele correctly distinguished between the prow and the man, in 1888 Ulrich K?hler interpreted the

see 24. On this practice, Hurwit the dead corpse. 1977, esp. pp. 6, 9. 26. On Greek nakedness, see 25. Usener (1965, p. 447) took the Stewart 1997, pp. 24-34; Bonfante man as size of the lunging evidence for 1989. In am to his divinity. this instance, however, 27.1 grateful C. Greenewalt in size out visual the difference simply distin for pointing the ambiguity the man guishes between living and of this ship part. 434 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER man as one no ac and prow entity.28 He described the stele but provided a companying image. Following K?hler, Paul Wolters introduced drawing to this effect, which circulated among the scholarly community and took on an a authenticity of its own.29 Marcello Barbanera, working from cast at of the stele the Museo delTArte Classica in Rome, correctly separated man the prow from the and published his findings with photographs of a the cast and corrected drawing in 1992, but versions ofWolters' drawing an continue to appear in scholarly publications, often without accompany ing photograph, and the majority of subsequent scholars have followed s man as a K?hler andWolters reading of the prow and the mixed form.30 man The conflation of the prow and the is incorrect. If this interpre were tation accepted, the ship's standard would protrude from the defender's back. As mentioned above, the figures in the foreground, including the are man, sculpted in higher relief than the comparatively shallow prow and standard. Given that the stele would originally have been painted, one presumably further distinguishing the prow from the man, may dis a on card this theory of conflated figure purely formal grounds.31 on Although the combination of imagery the stele of SM[.]/'Avri seem izaiQoq does not to have been duplicated elsewhere,32 individual ele contexts. ments have parallels in Phoenician Votive stelai erected by Phoenician seafarers often included nautical imagery?in particular, depic or at tions of ships parts of ships.33 The Punic sanctuary ofTanit (Astarte) a context a Carthage, although highly particularized (namely, sanctuary of numerous buried child sacrifices to the goddess Tanit), contained stelai a combining both the symbol of the goddess and the image of part of no or ship.34While there is direct functional relationship between sacrificial stelai and this funerary example, the juxtaposition of divine im

a to 28. IG 11.3, p. 227: quam dextra 31.1 would like thank Marcello 33. Hours-Mi?dan 1951, pp. 67-68; rostrum Navis Barbanera for his kindness in homo nudus, qui pro capite great Brody 1998, p. 135, figs. 18,19. me 34. On the of the habet. Henzen (1861), Lenormant sending copies of his photographs conflation god the desses Astarte their (1864), Palmer and Sandys (1872, of cast, which clearly distinguish Tanit and through as pp. 49-54), Kekul? (1869), Usener between the man and the prow. Bar status consorts of Baal in the west as a see (1965), and CIS (1115) all distinguish banera (1992, p. 97, fig. 9) cites and east, respectively, Finkielsztejn man. the b.c. of between the prow and the parallel 5th/4th-century stele 1992; Stager 1991; Bonnet 1990, p. 42, nos. 29. Wolters 1888, p. 311. Demokleides (NM 752, JG IP 11114), 11-14. A number of coins minted a at in 2nd A.D. 30. Barbanera 1992. IG 1128388; which depicts prow emerging from Ashkelon the century ocean. must an female with GVI1601; CIA II2836; CEG II 596; the The stele have been depict images of armed On in Greek the a transliteration .0/54; Kurtz and Boardman 1971, painted. polychromy art, epithet Oocve?ocXoc, see Brinkmann pp. 264-265, fig. 57; Woysch-M?autis 2003; Brinkmann, of the Semitic PN B?L (lit. "face of an in the Punic 1982, p. 76; Bonnet 1990, p. 46. Clair W?nsche, and Wurnig 2004. Baal"), epithet of Tanit no. an of the see mont (1970, pp. 114-117, 38, 32. Phoenician burials display world. For images coins, vol. eclecticism that makes it difficult to XI pi. 19; 1993-1995, 3, pp. 314-315, Finkielsztejn 1992, pp. 53-58, pis. no. so as to their A 3.410) goes far interpret the generalize about imagery. frag XII. Meshorer (1985, p. 27) andTei as a of . stele from both mixed form symbol mentary bilingual funerary xidor (1977, p. 96) misidentify con the as a male The in Boardman (1994, p. 50, fig. 3.1), repro the (PM 5380), roughly goddess deity. on of ducingWolters drawing (from Clair temporary with that of SM[.]/'Avri scription the King mont as a man near a at I TSSI 1993-1995), treated it evi Tcorcpo?, depicts standing Eshmunazar (CIS 3; con a of the to as dence of Greek and Phoenician tree, holding scroll. Fragments 28; KAI 14) refers Astarte SM to a survive. "name of On an in tact, but ascribed all agency Greek Greek and Phoenician epitaph B?L (lit. Baal"). to from the creator and failed mention the Phoe Sarcophagi, anthropoid sarcophagi, scription employing text or stelai were the choices used same for see Gibson in nician the active participation and among epithet Astarte, as 113. of Phoenicians in the creation of this Phoenician funerary monuments; TSSI, p. monument. for a survey, see Tore 1995. A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 435

a agery (the Tanit symbol) with nautical imagery (the prow) evidently had place in Phoenician-Punic religious iconography.35 The prow had religious and cultural connotations for Phoenicians, particularly seafarers. In addition to worshipping deities associated with the and seafaring at port and coastal sanctuaries, Phoenician seafarers worshipped deities aboard ship.36 Such worship took place at the prow, by which the deity guided the vessel and inwhich the deity appeared.37 The a on inclusion of the prow of ship the grave stele of the seafarer SM[.]/ 'AvTLTiocTpo?corresponds with Phoenician iconographie practices, and it had specific religious connotations in this funerary context. as a The depiction of the deceased corpse differs significantly from repre sentations of the dead in Attic grave reliefs after the late 4th century B.c. From the Middle Geometric through the Late Classical period, the de was on a mourners scenes ceased shown laid out bier and surrounded by in as on a of Tcp?Osaic, exemplified well-known (Athens NM 804) to dating the 8th century B.c.38 Beginning in the late B.c., scenes or some however, imagery shifted to related to in way inspired by contem the life of the deceased.39 To survey style inAttic graves roughly one porary with the stele of SM[.]/AvT?7iaTpoc, need only observe the next to other examples that stand it in the National Archaeological Mu seum a in Athens. These depict female dancer holding castanets (NM a a 1896), young huntsman with his dog (NM 829), poetess seated with an a on her scribal tools (NM 817), and athlete bouncing ball his knee in the TTocXai'crcpa(NM 873). In addition, while the Totenmahl relief depicts a on a as some person reclining bier, the figure is shown active in way.40 After the late 5th century B.c., Greek funerary scenes rendered the de ceased as animate rather than inanimate.

Phoenician anthropoid sarcophagi, in contrast, emphasize the libera tion of the soul (or nonbody) from the physical body confined in the an mummylike sarcophagus. A Hellenistic grave relief from Tyre depicts a women. anthropoid sarcophagus atop bier flanked by two mourning Like on a the pallet which SM[.]/AvTiTcocTpo? lies, pillow cushions the head (in this case, the head of the sarcophagus). As this grave stele indicates, as a Phoenician burial iconography included images of the dead person corpse laid out for burial.41 The depiction of the corpse of SM[.]/Avtl to an Tcocxpo? thus corresponds Phoenician funerary practices, albeit in manner. altered visual The other components of the imagery, the attacking are a lion and the lunging man, without known precedent in either Greek or are Phoenician burial context. Although the lion and the prow rendered in Greek sculptural style, they had particular symbolic relevance to the Phoenician-speaking dedicator and audience of the stele.

35. On with religious symbolism of associated Greek burial practices, Katja Lembke for bringing this aspect Phoenician-Punic see Hours see Kurtz and Boardman of to stelai, 1971, esp. Phoenician iconography my Mi?dan 1951, pp. 23-38. pp. 219-246; Hagemajer 2003. attention. The traditional burial with 36. 61. 40. Dentzer 2004. in Brody 1998, p. 1982; Baughan anthropoid sarcophagi practiced 37. 64. For Totenmahle from Athens and the in the Brody 1998, p. Phoenicia proper through 4th see see b.c. 38. For pro thesis, Zschietz Piraeus, Dentzer 1982, pis. 66-80, century may have contributed to R100-229. to schmann 1928; Boardman 1955; the Phoenician impetus render the as Baughan 2004, pp. 242-256. 41. Lembke 2001, p. 54; Parlasca deceased such. 39. For a am to survey of image making 1982, p. 8, pi. 5:4.1 grateful 436 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

THE EPIGRAM

was The six-line epigram below the carved only in Greek, of no fering alternative Phoenician inscription (Fig. 5). Tracy considers the difference between the epigram's tall, ungainly sigma with short strokes and the epitaph's sigma, with slightly curving strokes and sugges as were tion of serifs, evidence that the two Greek inscriptions carved by different hands.42 It is, unfortunately, not possible to determine whether were the inscriptions both carved at the time of the initial production (but or a amount by two different people) whether significant of time elapsed between the carvings. as The epigram reads follows:

fjnqOd??cvOpc?mcov Oocoua??xco six?voc tyjv?s cb? 7T?pi [lev [is X?cov 7T?pi dey 7rpc5-p' lyxTSTavooTai YjX0?y?p ?{i}x6poX?cov xana O?Xcovoizop?oai ?XX? cp-Xoi t' r?[j.ovav xa? [loo xx?pioocv x?cpov o?tyjl 5 oo? ?Oekov cpiX?cov lep??, octc? vyj?? ?ovts? OoLV-XYjv8' eXitzov teI?z Y0ov! G(b[ia x?xpov[iai

no man on one me a Let wonder at this image that side of depicts me a lion and on the other side of depicts the prow of ship. For the to hateful lion came, wishing destroy my things, but my friends warded [the lion] off and buried me here in this tomb, the [friends] as whom I loved and for whom I wished, they departed from the a am sacred ship. I left Phoenicia and I, body, buried in this land.43

This narrative, cast in the voice of the dead man, presents itself as a scene to verbal explication of the depicted above. The choice render the narrative only in Greek, yet to set it in the voice of the Phoenician de ceased, implies that the deceased and dedicator spoke both Greek and as Phoenician, also revealed in the epitaph, and that the Phoenician-speak ing audience addressed by the stele did not require the verbal explication 42. S. V comm.). of the imagery that the narrative ostensibly offers. Tracy (pers. 43. translation. In line 2, the y The first line of the narrative indicates that whoever commissioned it, My in is Threatte (1980, some ??y peculiar. and his understood that an possibly DcMSLH/Ao(jiaocXa)? companions, p. 489) suggests that this is intru of the viewers would find the of the lion and the or an error. He also imagery prow strange. sive nasal, simply to in as a The reference these components of the imagery the epigram empha (p. 143) interprets lyxTZTavooiaL of exTET?cv?crcai. In sizes their importance and obscurity. misrendering line 3, the author intended At least two audiences were intended for the stele, a nucleus of indi ?x?poX?cov (Threatte 1980, p. 302); no other viduals who understood the the Phoenician commu imagery, presumably exists. known example of onop?oai inAthens and the and a for whom the on nity Piraeus, larger group imagery, In line 5, commenting cpiX?wv, was not in particular the lion and the prow, immediately intelligible. De Threatte (1996, p. 510) notes that "after no one at 400 b.c. uncontracted forms are fre spite the plea of SM[.]/AvTiTOCTpo?;, "Let wonder this image," in metrical texts of all one wonders indeed, for the Greek text does not explain much. The epi quent periods when they facilitate scansion." gram conceals the explicit meaning of the lion and the prow from the 44. On the deliberate withholding non-Phoenician audience. the larger, Although formally Greek, imagery of information from one or more of the stands in for an second Phoenician text and reveals more to those as expected social groups intended the audience able to read it than does the Greek epigram alone.44 of a stele, see Adams 2003, p. 40. A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 437

5. Photo Figure Stele, epigram. The stele of MevocpiXioc from Sardis exemplifies the kind of explicit M. Mauzy epigrammatic explanation of imagery absent from the stele of SM[.]/Avri iz a a a an zpo?.45The imagery includes basket, bundle of rolls, lily, a as alpha, and wreath. The epigram explains the symbolism of each image follows:

are on a an a a Why there carved the stele lily and A, book, basket, and besides these awreath? Wisdom is the book, the wreath worn one an about the head signifies public office and the number only child; well ordered virtue doth the basket betoken and the flower that bloom which fate filched away.46 on to Although the epigram the stele of SM[.]/A\mTOCTpo? purports clarify the scene in this manner, the text foils a clear and precise understanding of the imagery.

LITERAL AND SACRED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE STELE

an Some scholars have suggested that actual lion attacked the deceased narrator and attempted to rend him limb from limb.47The first-person of as a no the epigram describes the lion "hateful," using word found in other as a context, s{ l JxOpoX?wv, generally taken compound of?xOpo? and X?cov. one This lion wished to scatter or destroy xocfjia,which in this context may on read as "my limbs." Literalist interpreters of this sentence have focused a creating possible scenarios whereby the deceased crossed paths with lion, a as an animal not native to Attica.48 In order to conjure lion the agent of

1993 45. Istanbul Archaeological Palmer and Sandys (1872), Clairmont and Clairmont (1970, p. 116; Museum 4033. See Hanfmann and (1970,1993-1995, vol. 3), and Bonnet 1995, vol. 3, p. 315) attempt to circum no. vent this last that Ramage 1978, p. 164, 245, fig. 425. (1990). point by suggesting 48. the absence in Atti did not die imme 46. Trans. Hanfmann and Ramage On of lions SM[.]/'AvT?7Ton:po? no. 1978, p. 164, 245. ca, seeWelcker [1844-1867] 1973, diately, but that his friends rescued no. n. 2. Henzen situates him from the of death and nursed 47. Those who interpret the action 2.199, (1861) jaws on outside on the basis him aboard as to described the stele literally include the action of Attica ship they journeyed Henzen (1861), Lenormant (1864), of the lion. Palmer and Sandys (1872) Athens. See Bonnet 1990, p. 46. 438 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

some a death, have postulated stop inNorth Africa, Asia Minor, Macedonia, or any other lion-infested land. Another interpreter speculates that the a lion escaped from his cage at circus menagerie in the Piraeus.49 monument no The provides evidence for the latter explanation, and save the former implies that the seafarers, having managed to themselves rescue and the mangled body of their dead comrade from the jaws of the beast, then carried the deceased's rotting corpse back to Athens rather than burying him where he died.50 Each literal explanation requires the addition of details to the narrative not present in the monument. Had an more such attack occurred, the event could have been conveyed using specific language. The omission of crucial details in the text augments rather than mitigates one's wonder at this image. one a The epigram itself indicates that should reject literal interpreta as tion, it highlights two elements of the visual imagery: the prow and the lion. The prow had known religious significance. The additional reference in the epigram to the .sp? voc?? suggests that the prow not only refers to a or sa the nautical career of SM[.]/AvTL7rocTpo?, but possibly to th?orie cred component of his ship's journey.51 K?hler first introduced the idea of an ancient theoria in 1888 (IG II 2836), interpreting the conflated prow man as and the personification of the sacred ship. A number of scholars have followed K?hler in relating the lepa voe?c on the stele of SM[.]/AvTi7rocTpo? to a Phoenician theoria.52Two other in B.c. scriptions include the word iepovabiai. A 3rd-century inscription (CIS were 114) refers to sacred sailors from Tyre who dedicating images of Sidon on a.D. and Tyre to Apollo (Phoenician Resef) .53 A 3rd-century to dedication from the Black Sea refers sacred sailors dedicating images to a , the Egyptian counterpart of Astarte, when launching sacred ship.54 If the ship described in the epigram had been engaged in sacred travel, a this would certainly support sacred reading of the grave stele's symbol one ism.55 The religious association of the prow indicates that need not an accept excessively literal explanation for the second component of the to imagery.56 The voice of SM[.]/AvTi7cocTpo? draws attention both the are prow and the lion because these two elements of related importance for reading the imagery.

He the lion as a Near Eastern 49. Lenormant 1864. and A. J. S. Spawforth). reads to 50. On the unlikelihood of keeping 52. Wolters 1888; Woysch-M?autis deity of the underworld (equivalent a see Hades and with a sailor's corpse aboard ship, Brody 1982; Bonnet 1990; Barbanera 1992. Orcus) battling the over 1998, p. 93. 53. On the relationship between genius bonus, lunging nude, the 51. Palmer and Sandys (1872, p. 51) Apollo and Resef, seeKAI 34; Cooke spirit of the deceased. Although his a suggest that lepa is revived archaism 1903, p. 57; Stager 1991, pp. 34-35. interpretation is poetic, Usener does not offer sufficient evidence for the meaning "great" rather than "sacred," 54. Vidman 1969, pp. 82, 304. to cur deification of the naked man or com which Usener aptly replies: Esto, 55. Although Bonnet (1990) dis non Alexan cusses at the th?orie for this over soul enim Domsalos negotiator length component paranda struggle the evil. driae olim studiis Homericis vacaverit? of the stele, she interprets the action between good and Barbanera If the reads the lion as the deceased's (1965, p. 447). journey during literally. (1992) met a in seems an which SM[.]/AvTL7raTpo? his 56. Those who offer symbolic ?gzTf\, but this like overly were a of the stele include Hellenic It also leaves reward already of sacred nature, terpretation Usener, personification. as one to this would only underscore the sacred who condemns the literalists follows: explain why SMtJ/'AvTiTuocTpoc in the monument. Hab es refers to his own as "hateful" and symbolism present sagacitatis specimina digna profecto apSTrj see libros sacros rationaliter the intends the deceased On theoria in general, OCD3, eorumplausu, qui why ocpeTY] p. 1506, s.v. theoria (J. E. Fontenrose interpretan sibi videntur (1965, p. 446). harm. A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 439

Figure 6. Silver coin from , 4th century B.C. Scale 1:1. M. L. DeVoe, after Moscati 1988, p. 72

ASTARTE, THE LION, AND THE PROW IN PHOENICIAN ICONOGRAPHY

Numismatic evidence provides considerable insight into the relationship between the lion and the prow. Coins from Phoenicia in the late 5th and b.c. a on one 4th centuries often depict ship face, symbolizing the mari time focus of the Phoenician economy and the religious significance of the or ship in Phoenician culture. Many of the ships have theriomorphic 57. See the of Phoenician depiction theomorphic prows.57 A number of coins include images of ships with with horse-headed on the ships prows horse-headed and several coins from Phoenician reliefs from the prows, Byblos depict ships Balawat gates, palace with lion-headed 6).58 The lion-headed on of Sargon II at Khorsabad (Botta and prows (e.g., Fig. prow pictured these coins affiliates the and the with a for whom Flandin 1849, pi. 114), and an 8th ship city specific deity an century seal (Avigad 1982). the lion is attribute. The identification of the deity to which the prow 58. Naster 1992; Brody 1998, refers has significant implications for the interpretation of the stele of p. 136, fig. 21;Moscati 1988, p. 72. SM[.]/AvT_7iocTpo?, for these ships incorporate two of the unexplained 59. On the prominence of Astarte elements of the stele?the lion and the prow. in Phoenicia, see Baurain and Bon the of the Phoenician in the 1st millen net 1992, p. 67; R?llig 1992. On Astarte, queen pantheon was sea Asherah "of the sea" as the queen of nium b.c., associated both with the and the lion.59 The hundreds the Bronze Canaanite names Age pantheon of Phoenician personal that include the suffix -astart, along with and of seafarers and on patron goddess the many inscriptions, monuments, and temples dedicated to Astarte, Tinnit as a Phoenician-Punic (= Tanit) confirm her Her leonine affiliation arose her confla see popularity. through goddess with similar associations, tion with Ishtar, an Akkadian in Brody 1998, pp. 26-33. goddess prominent Mesopotamia through the 6th b.c. and associated with the lion. To the west 60. On the westward expansion of century strongly see as the goddess, Paus. 1.14.7; Fitzmyer of Mesopotamia, Ishtar became known Astarte.60 The Akkadian istar 1966, 287-288; Teixidor 1977, are was pp. and the Hebrew castarot cognates.61 Ishtar's astrological symbol 36. On the dedication of cakes to p. the star and she was called sarrat same or "Queen of Heaven" in of see Astarte/Queen Heaven, Stager Akkadian. The of Heaven" mentioned in refers to 2000. "Queen Jeremiah likely Astarte.62 The cult of Astarte at has also been linked with that of 61. Fitzmyer 1966, p. 287. 62. Olyan 1987. the "Queen of Heaven," and (Met. 11.2) calls Astarte the regina For at 63. the cult of Astarte Kition, cae/i.63Astarte's astral powers made her divine favor an essential aspect of see Peckham 1987, p. 84; for the refer navigation. ence in see Teixidor Apuleius, 1977, on a b.c. me Images of Ishtar/Astarte group of late-6th-century lead p. 36. dallions found at Samos, and Chios recall from the 7th 64. Boardman 1980, pp. 75-76, Ephesos, images such as those on a silver disc from figs. 70, 71; Golani and Sass 1998, century b.c., Zinjirli (ancient Sam'al) 2. and a silver medallion from a p. 71, fig. Ekron.64 These images include worshipper 440 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

on a a moon approaching the goddess, who stands lion; and the Pleiades rise in the background. Seals from , Ashdod, Beth-Shean, Megiddo, and Dor fur ther corroborate Ishtar/Astarte s status as "Queen of Heaven." These seals are incised with images of the goddess surrounded by her nimbus, the Pleiades, the Venus star, the moon, or some combination of the three.65 An amethyst gemstone from Sidon, roughly contemporary with the grave stele of SM[.]/AvT?7iccTpoc, depicts Astarte enthroned with the winged disc, the Pleiades, and a crescent moon above her.66 to A temple the "Queen of Heaven" in Egypt during the 6th century B.c. associates Astarte with the lion, presumably through her Egyptian to counterpart Isis.67 A Phoenician dedication dating the 2nd-lst centu B.c. ries from the Astarteion inMemphis (KAI 48) reads, "To my lady the noble deity Isis, the deity Astarte."68 two women An archaic cult stand from Pella portrays naked standing on women are lions' heads. These may represent Astarte; their depictions on related to the "Astarte plaques" that worshippers probably placed the exterior of shrines.69 Astarte plaques, found in Corinth, , and Ath ens, show a naked woman who either has her arms at her sides or is cup one on a ping breast. A graffito (SEG XXXVI 316) the base of black vase glazed (late 5th century B.c.) from Corinth reads AcrcapTa in the Corinthian epichoric and confirms the presence of her cult in conjunction with that of 'Acppo?ivq at Corinth.70 Astarte's association with navigation and marine activity expresses it as self in her specific manifestation Acppo?ixY] O?pccvioc/Astarte Shema were a yim.71 Her cult center and temple based atAshkelon, Philistine city b.c. destroyed in 604 and resettled by Phoenicians under the aegis of the Persians in the late 6th century B.c.72 Both Herodotos and men at tion the cult and temple of Acppo?ixy] Oopocvioc/Astarte Shemayim as Ashkelon.73 Herodotos describes the temple at Ashkelon the oldest in the cult of'Acppo?LTY]O?pavioc/Astarte Shemayim. He asserts that the Cyp riots derived their temple and cult from Ashkelon and that Phoenicians traces from the Levantine coast built her temple at Kythera.74 Pausanias to the westward expansion of the goddess from Assyria Athens. Begin as a ning in the 3rd century b.c., with the emergence of Delos major reli to gious center, Phoenicians erected many dedications there 'Acppo?ivq O?pocvicc/Astarte Shemayim.75 was Astarte Shemayim the Phoenician goddess of maritime activity. own Ashkelon, the patron city of the goddess, minted its coins continu b.c. to a.D. were ously from 375 235.76 Ashkelons earliest coins decorated

For of see Keel 86. 65. images the seals, 67. Jer. 44:15;Milik 1967; Barre 71. Lipi?ski 1992, p. 1996. andUehlinger 1998, pp. 292-293, 1983, p. 69. 72. Ps.-Scylax 104; Stager figs. 286-288. of Byblos also 68.Milik 1967, pp. 563-564; Basiez 73. Hdt. 1.105; Paus. 1.14.7. mentions that Astarte found a fallen 1986, p. 302. For further confirmation 74. Hdt. 1.105. On the cult of see star and dedicated it atTyre (FGrH 790 of the conflation of Isis and Astarte, 'AcppooiTYj Oopav-oc/Astarte Shemayim coins from the 3rd cen Mor. in see Basiez F2, 31). Tyrian LD?los 2158,2101,2132; Plut. Boiotia, 1986, p. 300, b.c. of star 5.104. n.85. tury include depictions this (Baumgarten 1981, p. 220). 69. Keel andUehlinger 1998, 75. See LD?los 1719,2305; IG XI 66. Parrot, Chehab, and Moscati pp. 99-100. 817,818. 1975, p. 110, fig. 115. 70. SeeWilliams 1986, pp. 13-14. 76. Meshorer 1985, p. 28. A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 441

with the head of Athena on the obverse and her owl and A0E on the

reverse, but this Athenian prototype gave way to specifically Ashkelonite images and text. The crowned image of Astarte often replaced the head of nun Athena, and the Phoenician letters aleph and (the first and last letters some in "Ashkelon") often replaced A0E, although examples retained Athe or on one on nian iconography text side and Ashkelonite the other.77 One more common on of the images Ashkelonite coins is that of the goddess one Astarte and her marine attributes; coin, for example, shows Tyche on a a a Astarte standing prow, wearing turreted crown, and holding stan an or dard and acpXaaxov, prow decoration.78 or A number of coins from Ashkelon portray images of lions lions' a heads. One depicts goddess standing atop three lions, while several oth ers as depict the lion's head amid emblems associated with Astarte, such the spray, palm branch, and crescent moon.79 These coins from to Ashkelon add the substantial evidence linking the lion, maritime activ ity, the goddess, and the city. They show that the lion-headed prows de on are was picted Phoenician coins images of the goddess Astarte, who the obvious choice for worship by Phoenician sailors seeking safe passage. on A Greek inscription carved an altar erected on Delos in the 2nd B.c. century confirms Acppo?rar) O?pocvioc/Astarte Shemayim's preeminence among seafarers, in particular those from Ashkelon. The altar is inscribed as follows:

All OopLCOLxoc! Aotocptyjl IlaXaLOTLV^L AcppO?LTYjLO?pOCVLOCL 0?OL? ?-TYJXOOL? Aafjicav Ay)fjiY]TpLOOAoxocXcovltyj?

acaOsl? ?izo TOLpaxwv

o? ??[jllt?v ?? 7rpoaay?LV odyELOV,uLx?v, ?ooc OrjXda?

To Zeus Ourios and Astarte Palestine-Aphrodite Ourania,80 to son an the gods who listen prayer,81 Damon of Demetrius, vow. Ashkelonite, having been saved from pirates, (offered this) or It is not right to sacrifice goats, pigs, cows.82 an This altar, dedicated by Ashkelonite seafarer in gratitude for his divine rescue, attests to AcppoOLXY]OopocvLoc/Astarte Shemayim's role in ensuring a seafarers safe passage.

77. Gitler 2-7. 79. 8-9. cows 1996, pp. Gitler 1996, pp. but the prohibition of sacrificial 78. Finkielsztejn 1992, p. 53, 80. The relationship between Zeus is unknown from any other Greek nos. 5-8. See also Meshorer source. pi. XI, Ourios and Astarte Palestine is striking. Sokolowski associates the pro nos. 1985, p. 26, 41-45. On the coins of The Near Eastern counterpart of Zeus hibition of pigs and cows with the cult con coastal , theTyche is depicted Ourios is Baal Sam?n/Sam?m, the of Astarte Palestine/'A(ppo5iTirj Oupocvioc a crown and with sort of Tanit and sometimes Astarte and links to wearing city standing these prohibitions specific one foot on the or rudder of a in prow (Teixidor 1977, pp. 36-37). dietary restrictions the Levant. These or she be shown a 81. On Astarte as the "hearer of not , may holding dietary restrictions, however, did or a rudder see Teixidor 8. cornucopia (Barre 1983, prayers," 1977, p. prohibit the sacrifice of cows, only of In the case of the 82. p. 69). Ashkelon, My translation. See LSCG, pigs. See the " Tariff" (Ro is n. on Tyche 'Acppo?ix?] Oupocv?oc/Astarte p. 110, 55, the ritual prohibitions senthal 1969, pp. 656-657; CIS 1165; Shemayim (Meshorer 1985, p. 26, included in this dedication. The pro Delcor 1990). nos. 41-45). hibition of goats and pigs is familiar, 442 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

A REINTERPRETATION OF THE STELE

SM[.]/AvTL7rocTpo? hailed from the city of which Astarte Shemayim is on a the patron goddess. The imagery his stele depicts both prow (the a sacred portion of the ship) and lion (a symbol of Astarte). As discussed above, Astarte, in particular Astarte Shemayim, embodies both the nauti cal and the leonine elements pictured in the stele of SM[.]/AvT?7tocTpo?, and I suggest that the imagery of the stele therefore refers to the goddess. even In this context, the epitaph with its reference to CBDCSTRT, the fa new ther of the deceased, takes on significance. on The prow depicted the stele perhaps refers to the nautical life of SM[.]/AvTi7iocTpo? and perhaps to the th?orie nature of his journey, but it oc may also refer to the way inwhich he died. A safe passage and landing curred only with proper navigation. Phoenician seafarers solicited divine favor for sea travel with the divine prows of their ships, the apotropaic eyes on painted their prows, and the rituals that they performed aboard ship and at coastal sanctuaries throughout the Mediterranean. Divine refusal a to grant safe passage could manifest itself through storm, unclear skies, or a any other impediment to proper navigation. The prow, the fulcrum of s or ship navigation and the place in which the deity made himself herself a a manifest, played decisive part in failed voyage. The prow, therefore, or sea. may refer to SM[.]/AvT?7rocTpo?'s death while traveling at was to Astarte the primary goddess whom Phoenician seafarers prayed for safe passage, and she refused to grant it to these Phoenicians. The a attacking lion may constitute metaphor for divine malevolence. The de not ceased suffered the displeasure of the "Queen of Heaven," who did protect SM[.]/AvTL7rocTpo?;. A storm or accident, the manifestation of Astarte swrath, may have killed him. SMtJ/'Avr?TrocTpo?s friends, so the epigram tells us, rescued his body, buried him in Athens, and preserved on the episode in perpetuity his grave stele. to a Phoenicians worshipped Astarte in order procure long life, yet over as as she had equal jurisdiction death.83 Just deities have benevolent a pects, they also have capacity to inflict harm.84 This duality is fundamen a sea tal aspect of religion and motivates religious worship.85 Although farer may have prayed toAstarte for safe passage, she need not have granted b.c. it to him. A 7th-century Akkadian text, the Treaty of Esarhaddon to with Baal of Tyre, captures the power of Baal (Zeus) and Astarte inflict harm on seafarers. Those who break the treaty are threatened as follows:

Baal-sameme, and raise an evil wind May Baal-malage, Baal-saphon 83. On the accrual of life years to undo their tear out their on against your ships, moorings, mooring through the worship of Astarte and a sea.... life as one of her see Peck pole, may strong wind sink them in the May Astarte break attributes, ham 86. your bow in the thick of battle, and have you crouch at the feet of 1987, p. as an a 84. On afflictions expression your enemy, may foreign enemy divide your belongings.86 of divine wrath, see Versnel 1990, Herodotos, Pausanias, and Jeremiah each discuss the wrath of Astarte p. 202. 85. On the of the divine, Shemayim/Acppo?LTY] Oupocvux. Herodotos (1.105) describes how the god polarities see Carman 1994. dess their who looted her at punished Scythians (and descendants) temple 86. Reiner 1969. The Akkadian Ashkelon with the "female disease." Pausanias refers to the wrath (1.14.7) Baal-sameme is the Phoenician Baal of as the cause of childlessness. Israelite 'AcppoS?TY]OopocvLoc perceived Sam?n, the Greek Zeus Ourios; see women in Jeremiah 44:17-19 believe that failure to worship the "Queen above, n. 80. A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 443

to as of Heaven" properly caused the Israelites suffer exiles in Egypt. A on a bilingual inscription funerary stele from (KAI 44, TSSI 39) as refers to the deceased the bridegroom of Astarte and points to Astarte's role in the Phoenician conception of death. Greek religion often captured the sinister, death-oriented aspects of seems the divine in the form of negative epithets.87 Hades, for example, to an an be epithet meaning the "invisible one."88 ElyOpoX?gov may be epi thet-like circumlocution used to capture the dire aspect of Astarte. Instead of associating the goddess directly with evil, an epithet, dyOpoX?cov, was to deployed distance Astarte from the manifestation of her wrath. This use explains both the unusual of dvOpoX?cov, which is not found else never names where, and the fact that the text explicitly Astarte. Those to as dedications that refer the benevolent mercy of the goddess, such the name Delian altar, freely her, whereas those that refer to her malevolent aspect sometimes employ negative epithets.89

RELIGION, BILINGUALISM, AND CULTURAL IDENTITY IN 4TH-2ND CENTURY ATHENS

Within increasingly cosmopolitan Athens, the metaphorical conventions for addressing divine wrath demarcate communities of interpreters, each access re with differential to the stele's meaning.90 Xenophon (Vect. 2.3) counts, and inscriptions corroborate, that the resident alien community in a Athens included many Levantines who formed thriving, multilingual, acculturated population.91 Although foreigners remained marked, open ness to seems new their religions and cultures to have reached heights B.c. from the 4th century onward. Phoenicians inhabiting the Piraeus and Athens retained aspects of their political and cultural organization, yet they also obtained the economic rights of Athenian citizens.92 Those seek to build a to a could do so with from 87. Henrichs 1991. ing temple foreign god permission the to the land and a of to build the 88. Weid, from *w?/(Watkins 2000, buy grant ?yxTqoiq temple. An b.c. p. 96). Athenian inscription from 333/2 (IGII2 337) records that the 89. Henrichs 1991. orator Lykourgos supported the request of Phoenician from 90. On interpretive communities, a Kition for permission to acquire piece of land in order to build a temple see Fish 1980. On the heterogeneity to on Acppo?LTY] OopocvLoc in Athens.93 The exxkr\oia granted the request of Greek culture, see and Dougherty to Kurke 2003. the grounds that they had previously allowed the Egyptians build the of Astarte's In the 3rd 91. See Garland 1987, pp. 64-66. sanctuary Isis, Egyptian counterpart. century b.c., 92. On the retention of Phoenician SocpocmaaTocL, worshippers of Sarapis and Isis, applied for permission to while in a political organization living build temple at Rhamnous, and the deme gave them the land in recogni Athens, see TSSI, p. 147. set a tion of their piety. The cultic group up stele detailing this gift in front 93. See also Versnel 1990, p. 122, of the entrance to their temple.94 n. 108; p. 128, n. 140. The demonstrates that the Athenian state con 94. SEGXL 199.1 am grateful to Lykourgos inscription to are Ronald S. Stroud for bringing this sidered the temple Acppo?LTY] OopocvLoc foreign, yet there at least six to attention. to inscription my known dedications Acppo?LTY] OopocvLoc inAthens.95 The ordinary Acppo 95. See IG IP 1261,1290,1337, an ?LTY]certainly occupied established position in the Greek pantheon, 4586,4636,4637. whatever her eastern connections.96 Her manifestation asAcppo?LTY] Oupoc 96. (Symp. 180c-181b) dis v.ocmay have been less conventional, but there were no tinguishes between 'Acppodivq and apparently grounds to for her Pausanias does not that 'Acppo??TY] OupocvLoc without referring restricting worship. imply only foreigners the eastern of either in or was origins goddess. used her temple Athens that there any stigma attached to her 444 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

cult. The status of Acppo?iry] and Acppo??TY] O?pocvioc in the Greek pan to theon blurred the boundaries of "foreignness" and the extent which in dividuals drew such distinctions in religious practice and daily life. a The decree of Strat?n (IG IP 141) exempted Sidonian (often meto nym for Phoenician) metics from the official Athenian metic tax, indicat ing that the Athenian state not only tolerated but also accepted the B.c. Phoenician-speaking community in Athens.97 A 3rd-century bilin a gual inscription from the Piraeus (KAI 60, TSSI41) includes lengthy Phoenician text that details Sidonian civic service in Athens.98 The in a scription highlights community of self-governing Sidonian property owners who lived in the Piraeus and participated in Athenian civic life, a but retained the political organization of the Phoenician city-state and distinct non-Greek identity.99 on con The last line of the Greek epigram SMfJ/AvTiTraxpoc's stele trasts his homeland of Phoenicia with the land in which he was buried, Athens. Here the epigram elides his specific city-state identity, Ashkelonite, maintained in both the Phoenician and Greek texts of the epitaph, with one not the broader label "Phoenician," that he would have applied to himself in the Levant.100 The label transforms the deceased and, by exten a sion, his comrades from members of subculture determined by city-state to a boundaries (e.g., Sidon, Ashkelon) members of unified cultural group. were Although the city-states along the Levantine coast interdepen a common seem dent and shared language and pantheon, they to have one or an remained relatively autonomous, despite city-state (e.g, Sidon) other (e.g., Tyre) holding political sway. For the people of these city-states as a residing cultural minority inAthens, individual city-state identity gave an way, at times, to externally determined collective identity, "Phoenician." SM[.]/AvT?TcaTpo? identified himself foremost as an Ashkelonite, an a identity that implied, but did not necessarily stress, that he shared lan a guage and pantheon with individuals from neighboring city-states along the Levantine coast. The label "Ashkelonite," used in both the Phoenician

see 97. Strat?n is the Greek version of "the decision-making body of Sido Age Canaanites, Kuhrt 1995, Semitic nians in the 401. On the of the Sidonian kings name, living Piraeus probably p. political organization own see CBDCSTRT (Abdashtart), and recalls comprised of Sidonian property coastal Phoenicia, Maier 1994, m?t the element CSTRT (Astarte). For ers" (TSSI, p. 150). On the preservation p. 319. On the persistence of Canaanite to see in and onymie references the Phoenicians of Sidonian political structure, identity the Hellenistic Roman as see Matt. "Sidonians," see, e.g., II. 22.743; Garland 1987, p. 66; TSSI p. 147. On periods, 15:22; August. Epi status in ad Romanos Od. 4.618,15.118,425. On the acculturation by Sidonians living the stolae inchoata expositio 13; versus in see and n. of Sidon Tyre the Iron Age, Piraeus, Basiez Briquel-Cha Teixidor 1977, p. 22, 10;Millar 1983, tonnet 1991. 58. On the between the seeAubetl993,p.25. p. relationship 98. Although this portion of the 100. The cultural label "Phoenician" term Phoenician in Homer and the is written in it comes to us Homer coastal Canaanities to whom the label inscription Phoenician, from (II. 6.288, a see follows Greek model for such dedi 23.740; Od. 4.617,13.272,14.287, refers, Muhly 1970. On the reduc with tive of Phoenicians in Ho cations (TSSI pp. 148-149). The in 15.415) and corresponds the later depiction a of the Levantine coast. seeWinter 1995. On alternatives scription identifies Sidonian, named "Canaanites" mer, Aio The Canaanites shared a and to the common in the one-line Greek inscription language "red-dye" (from (polviQ a but referred to of the see TzziQr\?(Ht. "obeying Zeus"), which may pantheon, generally explanation label, Aubet to name smcbcl themselves their 5-16. For direct to correspond the Semitic by particular city-state 1993, pp. opposition see as on as the see (Ht. "Baal has heard"); TSSI p. 150. of origin, this stele, rather than "red-dye" explanation, Paraske men of a the naidou 1991. 99. The Sidonian assembly part larger cultural group. On Iron tioned inKAI 60 and TSSI 41 refers to continuity between Bronze and A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 445

as and the Greek of the epitaph, marked him non-Greek, but overpar a ticularized his cultural affiliation to Greek-speaking audience. In the clarifying epigram, however, his Ashkelonite identity gave way to and merged with the broader cultural category, from "Phoenicia."

THE STELE IN ITS CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

monument a The of SM[.]/AvTi7iocTpo?; fits within history of competi tion, interaction, and acculturation among Phoenicians and Greeks. Reli was a gious exchange significant component of this interaction. The mi gration of divine cults and the conflation of various deities characterized the religious developments of the B.c. The cult of Astarte Shemayim/Acppo?LTY] O?pocvioc moved from Ashkelon throughout the as a Phoenician and the Greek worlds. Astarte's role patron goddess of seafarers ensured that dedications to her traversed the Mediterranean. The complex reference to Astarte Shemayim/Acppo?iTY] O?pocvioc on to the stele of SM[.]/AvTi7iocTpo? points conventions for addressing divine wrath and for soliciting yet demarcating cultural groups within an increas re ingly heterogeneous urban space. The deity to whom the stele refers 101. On the mains unnamed. used an in system/practice debate, DcMSLH/Ao[xaocXco? epithet, ev)(?poXe(x>v, place see Sewell and Kurke 1999; Dougherty of the divine name. The Phoenician text is spare and the Greek dedication 2003, esp. Ober 2003. names to modified the Phoenician varying degrees. The visual language of 102. There are at least 29 Greek in the stands in for a Phoenician text. The Greek erected on Delos Ashkelo imagery longer cryptic epi scriptions by recalls traditional verse. nites. to gram Greek As noted above, the These refer Apollo, Asklepios, although epigram to the non-Greek elements of the stele to a Greek audi Artemis, Astarte/Aphrodite, Athena, purports explain and Dionysos, Poseidon. ence, it provides little straightforward information. 446 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

This verbal obfuscation served as both a delineation of access and a seems convention for addressing divine wrath. Although Athens to have absorbed the influx of non-Greeks and their languages and religions, these cultures remained marked as non-Greek. If DcMSLH/Ao[jiaocXco? rest commissioned the epigram along with the of the monument, he may have exercised particular caution in explicitly recounting the negative power a of the goddess to Greek-speaking audience, thereby protecting her repu com tation for the future. The imagery and epigram, both explanatory ponents of the stele, reveal different amounts of information to different a viewers. The monument constitutes kind of unequal bilingual, weighted not toward the Greek reader, despite the greater abundance of Greek text, but toward the Phoenician reader, to whom the full message of the imag was ery directed.103 The stele of SM[.]/AvrL7cocTpo? is amaterial expression of the cultur was ally heterogeneous context in which it produced. The stele conveys as this heterogeneity it simultaneously marks, solicits, and defines various some subcultures, allowing only partial penetration. The stele character izes the deceased, his comrades, his divinities, and his viewers with de scriptively bounded terms and implications: Ashkelonite, Phoenician speaker, Greek speaker, SM[.], AvTL7rocTpoc;,Astarte, 'Acppo?LTY],bilingual, or bicultural, and those who read the iconography and texts fully, partially, minimally. Each party, however, constantly slips the bonds of these terms, weaving in and out of categories and communities, and in doing so, par terms construct. tially effaces the very boundaries the While memorializ one vectors across ing man, this monument unifies the diverse cultural which he moved. The words cast in the voice of the deceased, "Let no one rest create wonder at this image," when read along with of the stele, the very grounds for this wonder.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

to I am indebted to many for the experiences and guidance that led this was article. Iwould like to thank Ronald Stroud, who present at this project's at am inception in Athens in 1999 and its completion in Berkeley. I very at grateful to my supervisor at Harvard, Albert Henrichs; my supervisor Oxford, R. R. R. Smith; and my current supervisor at the University of California, Berkeley, Andrew Stewart. I have benefited greatly from the specific comments and broader counsel of Aaron Brody, Frank Cross, Crawford Greenewalt, Jo Ann Hackett, Ron Hendell, Nino Luraghi, David as as Mitten, Gloria Pinney, Stephen Tracy, IreneWinter, well Margaret Miller, who chaired the session at the Associazione Internazionale di Arche in a ologia Classica (AIAC) conference in Boston 2003 where I presented short version of this paper (Stager, forthcoming). For this opportunity I thank Amy Brauer and Karen Manning. in Hugh Sackett and A. T Reyes inspired my initial interest intercul tural The article also benefited from conversations with exchange. present 103. On unequal bilinguals in purely Elizabeth who shared of her and with David Baughan, portions dissertation, textual terms, see Adams 2003, pp. 36 Goldstein, David Small, Daniel Master, and Boris Maslov. I would also 40. A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 447

like to thank Shelby White and the late Leon Levy, without whose sup never port and friendship Iwould have had the many experiences of which a this work is product. I thank Marcia DeVoe for the excellent drawing and Marie Mauzy for the exceptional photographs used in this article. I am to to the edi grateful the anonymous Hesperia reviewers and journals Norton Trav tor,Tracey Cullen, for helpful suggestions. The Charles Eliot eling Fellowship and the Joseph Pulitzer, Jr., '36 Beneficiary Fund funded I several trips to Athens and the cost of the photographs. Finally, would me like to thank my family members, who have encouraged and advised throughout.

REFERENCES

N. 2003. and the 1992. Les Adams, J. Bilingualism Baurain, C, and C. Bonnet. Marins des trois Latin Language, . Ph?niciens: conti Aubet, M. E. 1993. The Phoenicians and nents, Paris. the West, trans. M. Turton, Cam Benz, F. L. 1972. Personal Names in the and Punic bridge. Phoenician Inscriptions: N. 1982. "A Hebrew Seal De A Grammatical and Avigad, Catalog, Study, a BASOR Rome. picting Sailing Ship," 246, Glossary of Elements, pp. 59-62. Boardman, J. 1955. "Painted Funerary 1992. sulla stele on Barbanera, M. "Ancora Plaques and Some Remarks di Ascalona: funeraria di Antipatros Prothesis," BSA 50, pp. 51-66. messa a NumAntCl -. Una punto," 1980. The Greeks Overseas: 87-103. and New 1992, pp. Their Early Trade, Barre,M. 1983. The God List in the York. between Hannibal and -. 1994. Classical Treaty Philip The Diffusion of V Baltimore. Art in Princeton. ofMacedonia, Antiquity, et as a Basiez, M.-F. 1986. "Cukes d?vo Bonfante, L. 1989. "Nudity Cos tions des Ph?niciens en Gr?ce: Les tume in Classical Art," AJA 93, in Phoe divinit?s marines," Religio pp. 543-570. Acta Namurcensis nicia: colloquii Bonnet, C. 1990. "Antipatros l'Asca habiti diebus 14 et 15 mensis Decem lonite d?vor? par un Hon: Com bris anni 1984 (StudiaPhoenicia 4), mentaire de CIS 1,115," Sem?tica 38, E. ed. C. Bonnet, Lipi?ski, and pp. 39-47. P. Marchetti, Namur, pp. 289 Botta, P. E., and E. Flandin. 1849. 306. Monument de Ninive 2, Paris. and F. 2003. Die Basiez, M.-F., Briquel-Chaton Brinkmann, V. Polychromie net. 1991. "Un der und exemple d'int?gra archaischen fr?hklassischen tion au monde Munich. ph?nicienne grec: Skulptur, Les Sidoniens ? Pir?e ? la fin du IVe Brinkmann, V, R. W?nsche, and Atti del II inter Bunte Die si?cle," in Congresso U. Wurnig. 2004. G?tter: nazionale di antiker Munich. studifenici epunici: Farbigkeit Skulptur, 9-14 novembre 1987 Man Out Roma, (Col Brody, A. J. 1998. 'Each Cried lezione di studi fenici ed. toHis Godn: 30), The Specialized Religion E. et 229 and Phoenician Sea Acquaro al., Rome, pp. ofCanaanite 240. Atlanta. farers, E. P. 2004. "Anatolian Fu B. 1994. and Meek Baughan, Carman, J. Majesty Klinai: Tradition and Iden ness: A Contrast nerary Comparative Study of Univ. of and in the tity" (diss. California, Harmony Concept of God, Berkeley). Grand Rapids. A. 1.1981. The Phoenician CEG = P. A. Carmina Baumgarten, Hansen, epigra bios:A Commen saeculorum Vlll-Va. History ofPhilo ofBy phica graeca tary, Leiden. Chr. ?., 1983. 448 JENNIFER M. S. STAGER

CEG 2 = P. A. Carmina G. M. and N. H. Ram F. G. 1994. and Phoe Hansen, epi Hanfmann, A., Maier, " saeculi IVa. 1978. Sardis: in The Ancient graphica graeca Chr. n., age. Sculpture from nicia," Cambridge VI: Fourth Berlin 1989. The Finds through 1975, Cambridge. History The Century b.c., Clairmont, C. W. 1970. Gravestone and Henrichs, A. 1991. "Namenlosigkeit ed. D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, Greek Memorials the und Zur Ambiva S. and M. Epigram: from Euphemismus: Hornblower, Ostwald, Archaic and Classical Period, Mainz. lenz der chthonischen M?chte im pp. 297-336. -. in 1985. Eretz 1993-1995. Classical Attic attischen Drama," Fragmenta Meshorer,Y. City-Coins of 9 dram?tica: zur Israel and the in the Roman Tombstones, vols., Kilchberg, Beitr?ge Interpreta Decapolis tion der Switzerland. griechischen Tragikerfrag Period, Jerusalem. mente und T 1967. "Les ara Conze, A. 1893. Die attischen Grab ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte, Milik, J. papyrus Berlin. ed. H. Hoffman and A. m?ens et les cultes reliefs, Harder, d'Hermoupolis G. A. 1903. A Text-Book 161-201. B?blica Cooke, of G?ttingen, pp. syro-ph?niciens," 48, G 1861. "Iscrizione 556-565. North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Henzen, greco pp. Hebrew, Phoenician, , Naba fenicia d'Atene,"yf?//33, pp. 321 Millar, F. 1983. "The Phoenician Cities: A of Helleni taean, Palmy?"ene, Jewish, Oxford. 327. Case-Study 55-71. Delcor, M. 1990. "Le Tarus dit de Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling, eds. sation," PCPS 209, pp. 1995. North-West ed. 1988. The Marseilles (CIS 1165): Aspects du Dictionary of the Moscati, S., Phoenicians, sacrificial Sem? Semitic Leiden. Milan. syst?me punique," Inscriptions 2, "Les D. 1970. "Homer and the tica 38, pp. 87-93. Hours-Mi?dan, M. 1951. repr? Muhly, J. 1982. Le du ban sentations sur les st?les de 19-64. Dentzer, J.-M. motif figur?es Phoenicians," 19, pp. et in de P. 1992. "Tr?sors de monnaies quet couch? dans le Proche-Orient le Carthage," Cahiers 1, Naster, au avant IVe s. av. trouv?s monde grec du VIIe IVe si?cle Paris, pp. 15-160. de Byblos du J.-C. Frame in ? in et his J.-C, Rome. Hurwit, J. 1977. "Image and Byblos," Numismatique and L. eds. 1-30. toire et Dougherty, C, Kurke, Greek Axt; AJA 81, pp. ?conomique ph?niciennes Ancient Actes du tenu ? 2003. The Cultures within IPT= G. Levi Delia Vida andM. G. A. puniques: Colloque Greek delta Tri 13-16 mai 1987 Culture: Contact, Conflict, Gusso, Iscrizionipuniche Louvain-la-Neuve, Rome Phoenicia ed. T. Hackens Collaboration, Cambridge. politania (1927-1967), (Studia 9), 1967. and G. Finkielsztejn, G. 1992. "Phan?bal, Moucharte, Louvain, in IRT = M. and B. Ward 11-19. d?esse d'Ascalon," Numismatique J. Reynolds J. pp. et histoire et The 2003. ?conomique ph?niciennes Perkins, eds., Inscriptions of Ober, J. "Postscript: Culture, Actes du tenu ? Roman Rome 1952. Thin and the Persis puniques: Colloque , Coherence, = tence in and Louvain-la-Neuve, 13?16 mai 1987 KAI H. Donner and W. R?llig, Ka of ," Dougherty 237-256. (Studia Phoenicia 9), ed. T. Hackens naan?ische und aram?ische Inschriften, Kurke 2003, pp. M. 1987. and G. Moucharte, Louvain, Wiesbaden 1966-1969. Olyan, S. "Some Observa N. 2002. in theNa tions the of the pp. 51-58. Kaltsas, Sculpture Concerning Identity a tional of Fish, S. 1980. Is There Text inThis Archaeological Museum, Athens, Queen Heaven," UgaritF 19, trans. 161-174. Class? TheAuthority ofInterpretive D. Hardy, Los Angeles. pp. 1998. E. and E. 1872. Communities, Cambridge, Mass. Keel, O., and C. Uehlinger. Gods, Palmer, H., J. Sandys. and God inAn "Athenian Fitzmyer, J. A. 1966. "The Phoenician Goddesses, Images of Bilingual Inscription," 49-55. Inscription from Pyrgi,"JAOS 86, cient Israel, Minneapolis. AJP 4, pp. H. 1991. "The pp. 285-296. Kekul?, R. 1869. Die antiken Bildwerke Paraskenaidou, A. zu Garland, R. 1987. The Piraeus: From im Theseion Athen, Leipzig. Name of the Phoenicians: Some to First A. 1995. The Ancient Near in Atti del II Con the Fifth the Century b.c., Kuhrt, East, Considerations," c. b.c. di e Ithaca. 3000-330 2, New York. gresso internazionale studifenici D. Boardman. 1971. 9-14 novembre 1987 Gitler, H. 1996. "New Fourth-Century Kurtz, C, and J. punici: Roma, b.c. Coins from Ascalon," NC156, Greek Burial Customs, London. (Collezione di studi fenici 30), ed. E. et pp. 1-9. Lembke, K. 2001. Ph?nizische anthro Acquaro al., Rome, 1998. "Three 523-529. Golani, A., and B. Sass. poide Sarkophage (Damaszener pp. b.c.e. Mainz. K. 1982. Seventh-Century Hoards of Forschungen 10), Parlasca, Syrische Grabreliefs F. 1864. de la hellenistischer und r?mischer Silver Jewelry from Tel Miqne Lenormant, Monographie Zeit, Ekron," BASOR 311, pp. 57-82. voie sacr?e ?leusienne, de ses monu Mainz. GVI=W. Peek, Griechische Vers-In ments et de ses souvenirs, Paris. Parrot, A., M. H. Chehab, and Berlin 1955. ?d. 1992. Dictionnaire de la S.Moscati. 1975. Les Ph?niciens: schriften, Lipi?ski, E., 2003. the civilisation et Hagemajer, A. K. "Becoming ph?nicienne punique, L'expansion ph?nicienne, Carthage, 'Other': Attitudes and Practices at Paris. Paris. in LSCG = F. Lois sacr?es des B. 1987. "Phoenician and the Attic ," Dougherty Sokolowski, Peckham, and Kurke 2003, pp. 207-236. cit?s grecques, Paris 1969. Religion of Israel:The Epigraphic A PHOENICIAN FUNERARY STELE IN ATHENS 449

in Ancient Israelite Reli L. E. 1991. Ashkelon Discovered: L. 1969. Evidence," Stager, Vidman, Sylloge inscriptionum inHonor Frank Moore From Canaanites and Philistines to Isiacae et Berlin. gion: Essays of religionis Sarapiacae, Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, P. Hanson, Romans and Moslems, Washington, Watkins, C, ed. 2000. The American and S. D. D.C. McBride, Philadelphia, Heritage Dictionary of Indo-Euro -. pp. 79-100. 1996. "Ashkelon and the Ar pean Roots, 2nd ed., Boston. 604 Reiner, E. 1969. "Treaty of Esarhaddon chaeology of Destruction: Kislev Welcker, F. G. [1844-1867] 1973. with Baal of in AncientNear 62-74. Kleine Osnabr?ck. Tyre," B.c.E.," Erlsr25, pp. Schriften, repr. Eastern Texts to Old -. 2000. "In the C. II. 1986. "Corinth and Relating the Queen's Image," Williams, K., Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, R&^28,pp.3-ll. the Cult of Aphrodite," in 533-534. A. F. 1997. and the Corinthiaca: Studies inHonor Princeton, pp. Stewart, Art, Desire, of W. 1992. in Diction inAncient DarrellA. M. A. R?llig, "Astarte," Body Greece, Cambridge. Amyx, ed. Del naire de la civilisation et L. von. 1881. der and R. ph?nicienne Sybel, Katalog Sculp Chiaro W. Biers, Columbia, ed. E. turen zu Berlin. punique, Lipinski, Paris, Athen, pp. 12-24. pp. 46-48. Teixidor, J. 1977. The Pagan God: Pop Winter, I. J. 1995. "Homer's Phoeni 1969. and ular in Greco-Roman Near or Rosenthal, F. "Canaanite Religion the cians: History, Ethnography, Aramaic in Ancient Princeton. on Inscriptions," East, Literary Trope? A Perspective Near Eastern ed. B. Prit L. L. 1980. The Grammar in The Texts, J. Threatte, of Early ," Ages of 653-662. Attic 1: Berlin. Homer: A to Town chard, Princeton, pp. Inscriptions Phonology, Emily W. 1999. "The Con -. 1996. Grammar Attic send ed. B. Sewell, H, Jr. The of Vermeule, J. Carter and of in 2: Berlin. S. P. cepts) Culture," Beyond the Inscriptions Morphology, Morris, Austin, pp. 247-271. Cultural Turn: New Directions in the G Tore, 1995. "L'art: Sarcophages, relief, Wolters, P. 1888. "Der Grabstein des and ed. V. E. in La Civilisation et von Study of Society Culture, st?les," ph?nicienne Antipatros Ashkalon," yfM 13, Bonnell and L. Manuel de ed. V 310-316. Hunt, Berkeley, punique: recherche, pp. 35-61. New 473-492. D. La pp. Krings, York, pp. Woysch-M?autis, 1982. repr? = et Stager, J.M. S. Forthcoming. "Let TSSI ]. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian sentation des animaux des ?tres No One Wonder at This Semitic Oxford 1982. sur les monuments Image': Inscriptions 3, fabuleux fun?raires A Phoenician Stele in H. 1965. "De Iliadis carmine De ? du Funerary Usener, grecs: l'?poque archa?que lafin in Common Ground: Ar in Kleine av. Athens," quodam Phocaico," Schriften, IVe si?cle J.-C, Lausanne. and Humani chaeology, Art, Science, ed. L. Radermacher, F. Koepp, and A. Zschietzschmann, W. 1928. "Die Dar ties. the 16th Interna 411-459. der in der Proceedings of Wilhelm, Osnabr?ck, pp. stellungen Prothesis tional Classical Archaeol H. S. 1990. Ter Dio AM Congress of Versnel, Unus:Isis, griechischen Kunst," 53, ogy, ed. A. Brauer, A. A. Donohue, nysos, Hermes: Three Studies inHeno pp. 17-47. and C. C. Mattusch, Oxford. theism, Leiden.

Jennifer M. S. Stager

University of California, Berkeley department of history of art 416 DOE LIBRARY 6o20 CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, 94720

[email protected]