ANES 42 (2005) 318-333 The Genre of the Bitnoam Inscription Joseph AZIZE Faculty of Arts University of Sydney NSW 2008 AUSTRALIA E-mail: [email protected] Abstract It is suggested that while the Bitnoam text belongs to the genre of the ‘Phoenician royal funerary inscription’, it extends that genre in three telling ways: fi rst, it makes no reference to any afterlife; second, it directs no curses to potential dese- crators who rob the sarcophagus or reuse it; third, it describes how sumptuously the lady is decked out. Together, these suggest that the deceased may have been indifferent to what might happen to her sarcophagus and even her corpse, after her burial, and was perhaps sceptical that there was any afterlife. This points to a perhaps surprising intellectual sophistication in pre-Hellenistic Byblos. Since its discovery in 1929, the Bitnoam inscription has been the subject of several studies.1 These have been so few and short, and the text itself so individual, that a concise review of the major studies is possible, and even desirable. The inscription itself, with Gibson’s translation, reads: bˆrn zn ˆnk btncm ˆm mlk czbcl mlk gbl bn pl†bcl khn bclt skbt bswt wmrˆs cly wmÌsm ÌrÒ lpy kmˆs lmlkyt ˆs kn lpny In this coffi n lie I Batnoam, mother of King Azbaal, king of Byblos, son of Paltibaal, priest of the Mistress, in a robe and with a tiara on my head and a gold bridle on my mouth, as was the custom with the royal ladies who were before me.2 1 In transcribing the name of the deceased, I follow the vocalization in Krahmalkov 2000, p. 132. This is based partly upon a study of Latin-letter Phoenician texts: Krahmalkov 2001, p. 134. 2 Gibson 1982, p. 99. I have transliterated his Hebrew characters into Latin script with standard diacritic marks, in accordance with the usage in Krahmalkov 2000. THE GENRE OF THE BITNOAM INSCRIPTION 319 The editio princeps was published by Dunand in 1933, who noted that the inscription was so well carved as to comprise “un beau monument de l’art en Phénicie…”.3 The sarcophagus is made of very fi ne grain white marble, and the interior was carefully prepared. Dunand summed it up by observing that: “La rectitude des plans, l’harmonie des proportions, la mat- ité des surfaces suffi sent à donner au monument un réel aspect de calme beauté.”4 Line drawings of Dunand’s photograph of the sarcophagus, and copies of his cross-section of the transverse and the inscription comprise Figures 1, 2 and 3, at the end of this article respectively. The sarcophagus was measured at 2.2m in length, 0.735m in width, and 0.8m in height with its cover.5 The inscription comprises but one short line of 0.94 metres, and the letters are only about one centimetre in height.6 Dunand initially construed the last words as: lmlk ytˆskn lpny.7 He later abandoned this reading. One can clearly discern the differences in reading if the last four words of the text are reproduced as read by Gibson and oth- ers, using dotted underlining to show the letters which were construed by Dunand as one word, providing him thus with only three words, in contra- distinction to later scholars: lmlkyt ˆs kn lpny His reading caused Dunand to translate the fi nal segment of the text as “de même que [pour] les rois qui ont été enterrés avant moi.”8 It will be seen that the divergent reading leads only to an understanding that Bit- noam is referring to ‘kings’ as opposed to ‘queens’ and an explicit statement that these predecessors were interred. Not surprisingly, in view of the numbers of masks found in Phoenician contexts, Dunand took the mÌsm to be a mask of gold for the face or mouth alone.9 He found it surprising that the text would refer to the name bclt without the geographic complement gbl.10 Other matters dealt with by Dunand do not call for review. This understanding of the term mÌsm was challenged by Friedrich in a 1935 article. In respect of this word, he argued: Bei mÌsm wirkt der vom Verfasser angenommene Bedeutungsübergang von “Zaum” oder “Maulkorb” (so hebr. mÌswm) zu “Gesichtsmaske” etwas 3 Dunand 1933, p. 151. 4 Dunand 1933, p. 152. 5 Dunand 1933, p. 151. 6 Dunand 1933, p. 152. 7 Dunand 1933, p. 152. 8 Dunand 1933, p. 153. 9 Dunand 1933, p. 154. 10 Dunand 1933, p. 153. 320 J. AZIZE gewaltsam. Ehelolf schlägt daher vor, in mÌsm lieber eine “Mundplakette” zu sehen, ein Lippenblech, was man den Toten über den Mund tut, viel- leicht, um bösen Geistern das Eindringen in den Mund und damit in die Seele des Toten zu verwehren. Diese Deutung passt beber zur Etymologie von mÌsm und auch zu den Textworten lpy “an meinem Munde”.11 As we shall see, the translation of mÌsm as “Zaum” (“bridle”) or “Maulkorb” (“muzzle”) has much to recommend it, but is still only a hypothesis. We sim- ply cannot be sure of the meaning of the word mÌsm in Phoenician, and no oral or facial item at all was found in the sarcophagus. DNWSI simply states that here it means an “implement to close lips, bridle, clip, leaf of metal”.12 Friedrich took strong objection to Dunand’s reading of the text from the word kmˆs onwards. It was his suggestion to see the fi nal words as they are now accepted by scholars. This argument had two prongs: fi rst, he exposed the weaknesses in Dunand’s reading ytˆskn, and second, he pointed out the suita- bility of his alternative reading lmlkyt ˆs kn, especially the congruence of the comparison of Bitnoam the king’s mother to the queens before her.13 Friedrich translated the text so that after the reference to the priest of Baalat, the queen lies “(nur) mit einem Gewande und einer Haube auf mir und einem goldenen Lippenblech”: “(only) with a robe and a bonnet upon me, and a gold lip-sheet”.14 That is, Bitnoam is understood to declare that she lies in the tomb only with the items in question. In this respect, Frie- drich states: Der Sinn des Textes ist offenbar: Auber der erwähnten Ausstattung liegen keinerlei kostbare Beigaben in diesem Sarge, die einen Grabräuber reizen könnten: störe also den Frieden meines Grabes nicht.15 In support, Friedrich cites the similar sentiments of the funerary inscrip- tions of Tabnit and Eshmunazor of Sidon, together with another text from Nerab.16 I read the inscription in a diametrically opposite fashion, but shall deal with this later. Maisler weighed in to support Friedrich’s reading of the term mÌsm as a “Mundplakette, ein Lippenblech”.17 Maisler noted Friedrich’s arguments, and adduced some confi rmatory archaeological fi nds from Mycenae and 11 Friedrich 1935, p. 349. Once again, I have transliterated his Hebrew characters. 12 DNWSI vol. 2, p. 614. 13 This is a simplifi cation: the full argument will be found at Friedrich 1935, pp. 349-350. 14 Friedrich 1935, p. 350. 15 Friedrich 1935, p. 350. 16 Friedrich 1935, p. 350. 17 Maisler 1936-1937, p. 239. THE GENRE OF THE BITNOAM INSCRIPTION 321 Enkomi of the late Aegean Bronze Age, and from Beth-Shan (where the mouth piece bore a hole so that a string could be attached to the head of the deceased) dating to c.1200 BCE, and from Tell Halaf of between 1100 and 1000 BCE. Maisler concluded that: Dieser Brauch had sich demnach aus der ägäischen Welt nach Phönizien, Palästina und Westmesopotamien im 12. und 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. verbre- itet und lebte auf Kypern und in Phönizien bis zum Anfang der hellenis- tischen Zeit fort.18 Shortly afterwards, Dussaud made a telling, and in my view, unanswer- able criticism of Friedrich’s interpretation of the text. Dussaud pointed out that the inventory, far from deterring would-be thieves, would be calculated to excite their cupidity. He concluded: “Aussi le nur qu’introduit M. Frie- drich dans sa traduction… nous paraît aboutir à un contresens.”19 When Dunand came to publish the Fouilles de Byblos, he accepted Frie- drich’s revised reading of the last words of the inscription, but disagreed with his overall interpretation, pointing in support to Dussaud’s recent note. Dunand went on to note of Bitnoam that: Elle en tire vanité et point ne se soucie d’un profanateur éventuel, puisque faisant graver sur son sarcophage dans quel appareil royal elle repose, elle ajoute que tel était celui des personnes royales qui furent avant elle.20 Later on, I shall be expanding upon this otherwise overlooked insight. Since then, scholarship has concentrated upon the lexicography and syntax of the inscription. The editors of KAI accept the reading of mÌsm as “Lip- penblech”, adding that at Carthage, silver masks were found with the dead from the sixth century BCE. They do not, however, add a “nur” before the list of items.21 Indeed, this reading has not — so far as I can tell — been revived since Dussaud’s 1936 article. In 1980, Swiggers revised previous readings in that he construed the text as two sentences: a nominal clause followed by a verbal clause commencing with skbt.22 Swiggers was silent as to Friedrich’s suggestion of “nur”, and there is nothing similar in his own translation. He takes mrˆs as “head-gear” or “head-covering”,23 and accepts that the mÌsm is of the type known from 18 Maisler 1936-1937, p.