"Let No One Wonder at This Image"
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HESPERIA 74 (2OO5) "LET NO ONE WONDER Pages 427-449 AT THIS IMAGE" A Phoenician Funerary Stele 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 Astarte 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 Carthage 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, city 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. "heaven") 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 steles 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 Hannibal, 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 Baal 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.