Zamora (2013) - FsXella (AOAT 404) - Laurita's inscription.pdf

5/27/2018 Zamora (2013) - FsXella (AOAT 404) - Laurita's inscription.pdf

Ritual, Religion and Reason

Studies in the Ancient Worldin Honour of Paolo Xella

Edited byOswald Loretz, Sergio Ribichini,

Wilfred G.E. Watson and Jos . Zamora


Alter Orient und Altes TestamentVerffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients

und des Alten Testaments

Band 404

Herausgeber

Manfried Dietrich Oswald Loretz Hans Neumann

Lektor

Kai A. Metzler

Beratergremium

Rainer Albertz Joachim BretschneiderStefan Maul Udo Rterswrden Walther SallabergerGebhard Selz Michael P. Streck Wolfgang Zwickel

2013Ugarit-Verlag

Mnster


Ritual, Religion and Reason

Studies in the Ancient Worldin Honour of Paolo Xella

Edited byOswald Loretz, Sergio Ribichini,

Wilfred G.E. Watson and Jos . Zamora

2013Ugarit-Verlag

Mnster


Ritual, Religion and Reason.Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella

Edited by Oswald Loretz, Sergio Ribichini,Wilfred G. E. Watson and Jos . Zamora

Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 404

2013 Ugarit-Verlag, Mnster

www.ugarit-verlag.de

Alle Rechte vorbehaltenAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,

without the prior permission of the publisher.Herstellung: Hubert & Co, Gttingen

Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-86835-087-6

Printed on acid-free paper


Paolo Xella

(photo by Gesualdo Petruccioli)


Contents

Introductory

Ritual, Religion and Reason: Rarefied regions of research ..................................... xi

Publications of Paolo Xella ..................................................................................... xv

Section I. Archaeology Art History Numismatics

Paolo MatthiaeLa desse nue et le dieu au panache.Aux origines de liconographie de lIshtar dbla .................................................... 1

Gabriella Scandone MatthiaeHathor e il cigno. Su un reperto egiziano dallipogeo reale di Qatna ..................... 25

Claude Doumet-Serhal Jwana ShahudA Middle Bronze Age temple in Sidon. Ritual and communal feasting ................. 33

Valrie Matoan Du vin pour le dlice de lassoiff .................................................................... 61

Mara Eugenia AubetCremation and social memory in Iron Age Phoenicia ............................................ 77

Roald DocterBichrome ware amphorae from Al Mina, Kition, and Carthage ............................. 89

Cecilia BeerAmulettes phnico-puniques entre vie et mort (entre quotidien et tophet) ........... 103

Gioacchino FalsoneSul culto dei betili a Mozia. A proposito di un cono sacro ................................... 125

Francesca SpataforaLa necropoli di Palermo tra primo ellenismo ed et repubblicana.

Nuovi dati preliminari ........................................................................................... 137

Francisca Chaves Tristn M Luisa de la Bandera RomeroPequeo hallazgo de plata en Boos (Valdenebro, Soria, Espaa),finales del s. III a. C. ............................................................................................. 149

Nabil Kallala

propos dune attestation nouvelle du signe de Tanit el-Gouisset(lantique Vcubi), dans la rgion du Kef, au NO de la Tunisie ........................... 163


Contentsviii

Section II. Philology Epigraphy

Maria Giovanna BigaAncora sul sacrificio umano nel Vicino Oriente antico ........................................ 167

Francesco PomponioA fragment of a Neo-Sumerian barley record ....................................................... 175

Giuseppe F. Del MonteDue note sul Canto di Ullikummi ...................................................................... 181

Pierre BordreuilBaal laccusateur ................................................................................................... 189

Gregorio del Olmo LeteKTU 1.107: A miscellany of incantations against snakebite ................................ 193

Manfried Dietrich Oswald LoretzMustertext einer Beschwrung gegen Zauberer (KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20) ........ 205

Dennis PardeeOn the edge again .................................................................................................. 229

Josef Tropper Juan-Pablo VitaVerschlissene Kleider in Ugarit.Bemerkungen zu den Wirtschaftstexten RS 19.104, KTU 4.168 und 4.182 ........ 237

Kevin J. CathcartOffences and curses in Northwest Semitic inscriptions ........................................ 243

Maria Giulia Amadasi GuzzoRe dei Sidonii? .................................................................................................. 257

Rossana De SimoneUn alfabetario punico da Selinunte ....................................................................... 267

Josette ElayiUn nouveau sceau phnicien inscrit ...................................................................... 271

Mhamed Hassine FantarPropos sur la toponymie dAfrique du Nord ......................................................... 277

Andr Lemaire!Ozibaal de Byblos ? (XIes. av. n. .) ................................................................... 289

Herbert NiehrDie phnizische Inschrift auf dem Sarkophag des Knigs E!munazor II.aus Sidon (KAI 14) in redaktionsgeschichtlicher und historischer Sicht ............. 297

Wolfgang RlligDie phnizische Inschrift der Reliefstele von Ivriz, Trkei .................................. 311

Hlne SaderTwo Iron Age stamp seals from Tell el-Burak, Lebanon ..................................... 321


Contents ix

Wilfred G. E. WatsonLoanwords in Phoenician and Punic ..................................................................... 327

Jos . ZamoraThe Phoenician inscription on an alabaster urn from the Laurita Necropolisin Almucar (Granada, Spain). A new edition and interpretation ...................... 347

Paolo MerloLiscrizione presunta fenicia AHI 8.015 di Kuntillet "Ajrud. Un riesame dei dati 371

Fiorella ScagliariniLalfabetizzazione nella religione araba preislamicae nei primi secoli della civilt islamica ................................................................. 381

Section III. History History of Religions Historiography

Anna Maria Gloria CapomacchiaI temi eroici nelle religioni del Vicino Oriente antico .......................................... 387

Maria Grazia Masetti-RouaultLe dieu de lorage, la grle et le Grand Froid .

Notes sur la continuit de la culture syrienne antiqueet ses relations avec la civilisation du Proche-Orient ancien ................................ 397

Marie-Claude TrmouilleRemarques sur Comana de Cappadoce et sa desse ............................................. 407

Simon Wyatt Nicolas WyattThe longue durein the beef business .................................................................. 417

Paola Negri ScafaLambito religioso a Nuzi. Questioni concernenti il personale cultuale ............... 451

Franois BronDivinits fminines en Arabie du Sud prislamique .............................................. 461

Sergio RibichiniAgros e Agruheros. Immagini e gente dun tempo che fu .................................... 467

Federico MazzaA proposito di letteratura fenicia e punica.Riflessioni su alcuni aspetti della produzione intellettualenel mondo fenicio e punico e sul ruolo della cultura ellenistica ........................... 479

Marie-Franoise BaslezDu marzea#aux confrries joyeuses .La commensalit sacre dans le Proche-Orient hellnis ..................................... 491

Giampiera Arrigoni

Il giuramento di Cidippe nellArtemision di Delo ................................................ 505Marisa Tortorelli GhidiniUovo, tunica splendente e nuvola. Una triade orfica in Damascio ....................... 519


Contentsx

Giuseppe GarbatiTradizione, memoria e rinnovamento. Tinnit nel tofetdi Cartagine ..................... 529

Mohamed TaharDe la prosternation des Carthaginois .................................................................... 543

Giuseppe Minunno

A note on Ancient Sardinian incubation ............................................................... 553

M Cruz Marn CeballosLa diosa astral ibrica y sus antecedentes orientales ............................................ 561

Francisco Marco SimnSalpina, Proserpina?A propsito de un texto execratorio de Crdoba (AE1934, 23) ........................... 581

Nicholas C. VellaVases, bones and two Phoenician inscriptions.An assessment of a discovery made in Malta in 1816 .......................................... 589

Massimo Cultraro

Angelo Mosso e la religione mediterranea.Alla ricerca delle radici del sacro tra materialismo e scienze neurobiologiche .... 607

Riccardo Di DonatoIl giovane Pettazzoni, lantico e le religioni. Premesse di storia della cultura ..... 619

Nicola CusumanoAspetti della storiografia moderna su ethnee religioni nella Sicilia antica .......... 629

Hedwige Rouillard-BonraisinAlberto Giacometti et lesBa"alimdu Levant.Rveries sur une possible inspiration .................................................................... 643

Indices

Topics .................................................................................................................... 659

Texts ...................................................................................................................... 663

Words .................................................................................................................... 674


The Phoenician inscription on an alabaster urn from the

Laurita Necropolis in Almucar (Granada, Spain)A new edition and interpretation

Jos . Zamora, Madrid

The nature, significance and chronology of the presence of the Phoenician people inthe Iberian Peninsula have been reviewed in the last few years. Fresh archaeologicalfinds have caused known evidence to be re-examined and reinterpreted. In parallel,new discoveries of inscriptional material have prompted the restudy andreassessment of the entire corpus of peninsular Phoenician epigraphy, consideredmeagre and of little significance until recently1. Consequently, it is now possible toclarify some as yet obscure documents and to draw relevant information from them

for the historical understanding of a crucial period in western proto-history2

.This paper deals with the elucidation and interpretation of a hitherto obscure find.In what is now called the Laurita Necropolis in Almucar (Granada), aPhoenician inscription came to light about half a century ago (a text actually paintedon the outside of an alabaster urn). It gave rise to several debates on the chronologyand nature of the necropolis and, consequently, on the type of Phoenician presence towhich it bore witness. Despite several attempts at reading and interpreting thisdocument, no clear and satisfactory proposals have been submitted. After a recent in-depth analysis of the piece we can now propose a complete reading of theinscription. Here it is presented with photographs, copies, data and arguments thatconstitute a new detailed edition. Its historical implications are also examined.

The Laurita necropolis was one of the burial grounds for a settlement on thesouthern Mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula. The ancient name of the lo-

cation appears assksin late coinage with legends in the Punic and neo-Punic alpha-bets. At that time, it was presumably pronounced Seks, as deduced from variousGreek and Latin transcriptions. The living quarters of this settlement must have beensituated in the central area of modern Almucar, where archaeological remains

1This work is part of the research project Study and edition of unpublished or little knownPhoenician and Punic inscriptions from the Iberian Peninsula and publication of the corpus of

peninsular epigraphs, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness(FFI201017342). Its results become part of the CIP: Corpus Inscriptionum Phoenicarumnecnon Poenicarum (cf. Xella Zamora 2007). This work has been possible thanks to the

permission granted by the Delegacin Provincial de Cultura de la Junta de Andaluca enGranada(BC 03.50/09). The photographs and drawings in this paper made by the author arealso published with the permission of the Delegacin and the Museo Arqueolgico y

Etnolgico de Granada. I am grateful to the staff of the Museum and in particular to itsdirector, D. Isidro Toro Moyano, for their kindness and collaboration. A preliminary versionof this paper is to appear in the Proceedings of the VIIme congrs international des tudes

phniciennes et puniques, Hammamet (Zamora 2009 forth.). I extend my cordial thanks toWilfred G. E. Watson for his critical reading of the manuscript and for checking the English text.2See, for example, Zamora 2005.


Jos . Zamora348

provide evidence for an indigenous settlement from at least the Late Bronze Age aswell as a nearby Phoenician settlement active from at least the first half of the eighthcentury BCE. Since then, the city maintained notable continuity at least up until theRoman period, when sources refer to it as having been founded by Phoenicians. Atthat time, it claimed to be older than other western centres (as part of the competitionfor prestige for self promotion) stressing its remote origin and oriental heritage, as

deduced from traditions recorded by classical authors3

. The inscription we areanalysing here could belong to the earliest stages of the town and, consequently, to aperiod close to the one to which these traditions refer, although the archaeologicalevidence for that period is neither abundant nor clear. We can therefore consolidatethe information that archaeology provides by comparing late and indirectly trans-mitted legendary data with directmaterial and textualevidence: the epigraph onan urn from the Laurita Necropolis.

While acknowledging that any attempt to honour Paolo Xella could not match thedepth of his knowledge, his generosity or his friendship, I presume to offer him thismodest contribution.

1 Discovery of the piece

In late 1962 and early 1963 near the town of Almucar (Granada)on the easternside of the so-called Cerro de San Cristbal [Fig. 1] which was being levelled forthe construction of a residential estateseveral pits were found containing alabasterurns, pottery vessels and the remnants of jewels clearly corresponding to ancient

burials. The area was excavated soon afterwards by Manuel Pellicer Cataln.Following local suggestions, he named it Necrpolis Laurita (in honour ofD Laura de Prieto Moreno, the custodian of some of the earliest remains). In thatsame year, Pellicer published the results of his work4: the area was a westernPhoenician necropolis eventually datedthough this is still debatedto the firstthree quarters of the seventh century BCE. Two of the objects brought to light havePhoenician inscriptions: agraffitoon a plate5and a painted text on an alabaster urn 6which soon became the subject of epigraphic and historical discussion.

3

Strabo (III 5.5.417) recordsperhaps following Posidonius in this passagea traditionfrom Cadiz where Seks is mentioned as the first westernmost place reached by the Tyrians.According to this foundation legend, neither Seks nor Onoba later (modern Huelva) wereactually settled after these initial arrivals and it was Cadiz where the first settlement wasfounded. It is reasonable to presume that the Cadiz tradition wished to defend this version asopposed to other stories from Seks or Onuba about an older settlement in these places (tradi-tions which are reinterpreted and reassessed by the Cadiz tradition); see already Presedo 1983,3031. Regarding classical sources on the settlement of Seks, see the summary and referencesin Pellicer 2007, 1920, 7374; see also pp. 2932, on the excavations by Molina Fajardo inAlmucar (see below), and conclusions. Regarding the use of the past in the ideologicalcompetition for greater antiquity amongst cities in Hispania that defended their Phoenicianorigin in the Roman period, see now lvarez 2012. Concerning the minting in the city, whichspans from the late third century to the second half of the first century BCE, and the legendson its coins (through which Seks wished to show the continuity of its Phoenician cultural heritage,

since they are examples of an official use of Punic) see Alfaro 1983; 1986 and Sol-Sol 1957.4Pellicer 1963a; Pellicer 1963b; see the recent updated edition Pellicer 2007. News of the findhad already been broadcast widely (see for instance Maluquer de Motes 1963) and the

publication helped to give it international resonance (see immediately after Leclant 1964 andHeurgon 19651966).5Pellicer 1963a, 24.


The Phoenician inscription on an alabaster urn from the Laurita Necropolis 349

2 Epigraphic studies

After the initial archaeological publication of the urn, including photographs andpictures of its inscription7[see Fig. 3.A], the document was soon specifically studied.F. Daz Esteban was the first to study the published pictures and photographs [Fig.3.B]8. He did not venture a specific reading though he did put forward some

hypotheses: restoring the first word as qbr, grave, sepulchre, reading the personalname Hannibal or Magon; and even restoring the presence of both (Magon benHannibal) though with considerable hesitation.

Soon afterwards, M. G. Amadasi Guzzo included the document in her collectionof inscriptions from western Phoenician colonies (number 13 amongst the Spanishinscriptions). As her analysis (and even her drawing [Fig. 3.C]) was based on the

published reproductions, the author sensibly proposed to discern only one y in thefirst line and the sequence mbas the third and fourth sign in line two9.

The first direct investigation was conducted by J. Ferron, who saw the inscriptionin August 196810. He then also read the first word also as qbr, grave11. However,Ferron requested some photographs of the epigraph from the museum (includingsome infrared images) on which he based his final reading12. He showed this readingin his epigraphic drawing [Fig. 3.D]13. He considered the first word to be !ryt a

hapaxhe interprets in a convoluted way as the qal participle of the root!

rh, arrancarcon fuerza (to pull off) which would refer al hacer pedazos el cuerpo por lacremacin (to taking the body to pieces through cremation) and, by furtheretymological connotations, to the restos quemados (burnt remains) of thedeceased. According to him, the second line ought to be read mgn bn ![l]". Thisreading is quite surprising, to say the least. For the first line we can only understandup to a point Ferrons greater trust in his vision of the photographs than in hisanalysis of the piece; as for the second line, he made an incredible error: he noted

6Despite being painted and not engraved, the text we are considering in this article will bereferred here to as an inscription or epigraph, following the common standards in this area ofspeciality. Likewise, the material the urn is made of will be referred to as alabaster (a termwhich is sometimes considered ambiguous and therefore avoided), see below.7

Pellicer 1963a, 2324, figs. 9.19.2, lm. VI.1; see also in Pellicer 1963b.8Daz Esteban 1965, 284286. He thanks Pellicer for sending him his work (p. 283) whoseprints are reproduced: Daz Estebans fig. 1 corresponds to fig. 9.2 in Pellicer 1963a (thoughthe left side is cut off!) while the photograph is reproduced as cortesa del Dr. Pellicer Cata-ln. Some information implies that Daz Esteban has not seen the piece: La inscripcin correen dos lneas pintada de negro, al parecer,y est muy deteriorada (p. 284; emphasis added).9Guzzo Amadasi 1967, 147148. Her drawing (fig. 17, n 13) was an adaptation of Pellicer1963a, fig. 9.2.10His study was published in Spanish and in French: Ferron 1970, 177190; Ferron 1970b:249265.11 In Ferron 1970, 178 it is erroneously published as QPR, which however has the correctform QBR in Ferron 1970b: 250.12Habindonos permitido estas imgenes descubrir, gracias a un examen detenido y atento,la identidad y trazado de todos los caracteres, nos proponemos exponer en este artculo la

lectura e interpretacin a las cuales hemos llegado, Ferron 1970, 178; in note 3: Merced alos clichs normales [i. e. not the infrared images!] hemos conseguido resolver las dificultadesdel texto.13Ha sido ejecutado en tamao natural bajo nuestra direccin por el Sr. Abdelhamid Bouden,

profesor de grafismo y de artes decorativas en la Escuela de Bellas Artes de Tnez, Ferron1970, 179.


Jos . Zamora350

and restored only eight signs when in fact many more could be easily observed evenin the first drawings of the epigraph. It is quite striking that the sequence of eightsigns read by Ferron is in the epigraph in our opinion, but not where the author readsthem: he inexplicably moves them and ignores up to five more signs interspersed

between those he identified14. Ferron also dated the epigraph to the end of the eighthcentury BCE, on the basis of its palaeographic features. There were no other

chronologically defining elements in grave 3A and the burial thus became the oldestamongst those which could be dated. Consequently, the epigraph was used tosupport the idea that the entire necropolis was older than thought. Ferron alsoemphasised the relationship between the text and Carthage, given the formula and

personal names used15, and thus maintained that the hypogeum was neither Cypriotnor Phoenician, but of Carthaginian origin. He decidedly opted for this interpretationagainst those who already maintained a directly oriental Phoenician origin for allthese remains from Almucar16.

Ferrons study had great repercussions due to the authors prestige and to the wayit was published (in two languages and for various academic disciplines). It also

provided the first comprehensive interpretation of the epigraph, considering it asource of far-reaching historical value. Even today, Ferrons drawing and interpreta-tion continue to be displayed alongside the urn in the Museum of Granada and only

these are included in the recent update of the archaeological study of the necropolis17.After these initial studies, J. M Sol-Sol made another reading18. He claimed to

have seen the inscription (also in 196819) and to have studied it both directly and inphotographs (once more unquestioningly trusting these in several of his apprecia-tions). He read qbrzwith absolute certainty in the first line, that is, the noun gravefollowed by a postpositioned demonstrative. Despite the fact that this constructionwas unknown up until then, Sol-Sol argued that it was possible (something whichis, however, unclear within a formula which continued with a syntagm as a nouncomplement).In the second line, with some misgivings, he readmgn bn b!d"b!n !"[l]!".As we shall see, this reading by Sol-Sol is the closest to what we believe to be thecorrect proposal. Consequently he translated: Sepulcro (es) ste / de MGN, hijo deBD!, hijo de "L#. Like Ferron, he maintained the Punic nature of the text, thoughhe dated it to the sixth century BCE (believing it was possible, given the cursive

writing, to date it to the seventh century, as archaeologists had indicated).

14 There must have been some kind of slip, perhaps when matching his initial notes to thereceived photographs. Though it may have been merely coincidental: in fact, several scholarsconsider the first two characters at the beginning of the second personal name to be a very

blurred !eth.15 This argument was later recorded in various, even non-epigraphic, bibliography, see forinstance Gamer-Wallert 1978, 24, 4416 Amongst whom he quotes Leclant 1964. He could not have known the simultaneousCulican 1970. It must be remembered that Ferron, who had lived in Tunisia from the 1930s,was in charge of the Muse de Carthage from 1947 to 1965, and remained closely linked toit afterwards: he signed his papers on the inscription in Almuecar from the Museum.17

Pellicer 2007, 157, fig. 75.18Sol-Sol 1976, 193196; fig. 3. The author had announced this study several years earlier:Sol-Sol 1968, 109, n. 11. He incorporated the inscription into his series Hispania, as no. 19.19 Perhaps after Ferron, as the latter knew about Sol-Sols study, apparently, just through

bibliography (while he could have been informed at the museum of a potential investigationin progress).



This study was followed, after a brief interval20, by one by E.Lipi$ski, who hadalso seen the piece. He even provided his own drawing [Fig. 3.E]21. According toLipi$ski, the reading ought to be m#rt / mgn bn ![n]m! [l]q!rt, Hypoge de Magn, filsde "anni-Melqart. He understood that m#rt, occurring only as a divine epithet inPhoenician, to refer to a hypogeum; he based his arguments on Palmyran evidenceand reinterpreted Phoenician texts. Palaeographically, he dated the text to the

seventh century BCE. Furthermore, his article was particularly directed towardsrebutting earlier arguments linking the necropolis (archaeologically, epigraphicallyor onomastically) with Carthage. Instead, he defended a direct oriental relation22and

particularly contested Ferrons reasoning concerning the necessary relationshipbetween the personal name Magon and Carthage, pointing out that it was an old andcommonly used oriental name (as was !nmlqrt).

Only two years later, M. J. Fuentes Estaol included the inscription in her corpusof Phoenician and Punic inscriptions in Spain23. She provided a drawing [Fig. 3.F]which seems to be based on the original archaeological drawing, as she must nothave seen the piece. With no added comments, she read and translated [q]br / [m]gnbn ![ ], [Ente]rramiento de [m]gn hijo de ![ ] (restoring signs which doappear in her drawing). The author seems to have been strongly influenced by

previous readings: in the first line she follows Daz Esteban and partially Sol-Sol,

in the second line she accepts the interpretation of the first signs given by Ferron,without going into the subsequent signs.

In her notes on various Phoenician epigraphs from Spain, M. G. Amadasi Guzzoonce more took into consideration the text from Almucar24. This scholar, who wasaware of all the earlier studies, revised the boldest of all recent proposals: Lipi$skis.She pointed out the problems involved in interpreting m#rt as hypogeum; sheagreed with Lipi$ski, that the patronymic after Magon could be a compound ofMelqart, but also of Astarte; and, describing the difficulties in the palaeographicanalysis, she pointed out that, in any case, the inscription could not be older than the

20 Guzzo Amadasi 1978, 34 mentioned the inscription again, without going into a detailedstudy of it yet. Instead, in the epigraphic rapport completed by Sznycer in the first

International Conference of Phoenician and Punic Studies of 1979 (Sznycer 1983) amongstSpanish finds only an express mention was made of Hispania 14 (the epigraph on theAstarte statuette found in El Carambolo almost at the same time as the inscription of thenecropolis Laurita was found; p. 389, n. 13); only in his next rapport (Sznycer 1991) didthe author mention the finds of Almucar, though generically (p. 539, n. 31), referring toMolina Fajardo 19831986 and Lipi$ski 1984.21Which reflected the grounds for his interpretation: Lipi$ski 1984, 126130; Plate XV.22 This was the background of his entire paper. Ultimately, it upholds an intensification ofPhoenician colonisation in the Iberian Peninsula just around the middle of the seventh centuryBCE (linked to Assyrian pressure on the eastern Levant). In the section dealing with the

painted inscription from Laurita, Lipi$ski prefaced his epigraphic study with a series ofconsiderations on toponyms which made him believe Seks to be a foundation of !uks(u) (aPhoenician town corresponding to the modern site of Tell S%k&s, on the coast of Syria), underAssyrian control in the period concerned. As for the deceased, he preferred to propose a

Tyrian provenance, without further comments (Lipi$ski 1984, 132).23Registered under number 06.01 both in Fuentes 1986a, 9 and in Fuentes 1986b: 16, wherethe author added plates with photographs of the pieces though she did not include any of theurn from Almucar. She may have been unaware of Lipi$skis work, although she did

provide references to previous studies.24Amadasi Guzzo 1994, 199203.


Jos . Zamora352

seventh century BCE, and could even be more recent. However, Amadasi Guzzo didagree with Lipi$ski in denying the Carthaginian provenance of the deceased.

Almost a decade later, A. Mederos and L. A. Ruiz Cabrero revised the chronol-ogy of the calcite urns (as they prefer to call them) found in the necropolis. Forthat purpose, they reviewed the most relevant archaeological and epigraphic stud-ies25. They accepted Ferrons palaeographic dating (to the late eighth century BCE,

the oldest dating provided up to then, even if they agreed to extend it to the earlyseventh century) and the reading given by Lipi$ski (m#rt / mgn bn ![n]m! [l]q!rt). Atthe same time, however, they admitted that it was difficult to support such a readingfrom the published drawings and photographs. They could only assert that there werefour letters in the first line, the third letter being a re$, and that in the second line,after the seventh sign, the rest of the signs were highly dubious (they actually read,like Sol-Sol, a $inwhere Lipi$ski had seen a mem, without noting a space for the

preceding nun; they accepted, however, the presence of a possible final taw).Soon afterwards, the document was included in the collection of painted

Phoenician inscriptions compiled by G. Pisano and A.Travaglini26. These scholarsquoted the difficulties in the reading noted by Amadasi Guzzo27and listed most ofthe relevant epigraphic bibliography, though they only quoted, in a note, the readingmade by Fuentes. However, they proposed a reading almost identical to Lipi$skis

(m! #r!t! / mgn bn ![n]m! [l]q!rt) although they did point out that the first term wasexceptional in Phoenician epigraphy. They also expressed doubts about the actualfunerary nature of the text.

Consequently, half a century after the discovery of the inscription and despite theintervention of renowned researchers, the reading remains obscure. Yet, in myopinion, a complete and satisfactory reading of the epigraph is possible, providingsolid ground for further interpretations. Here, we attempt a fresh edition of the text.

3 Context

The area in question28 corresponds to the eastern side of a hill less than onekilometre away from the central elevation of modern Almucar. At the time of the

burials these places corresponded respectively to a necropolis and an urban centre.They were separated from each other by the sea, and faced each other from N-NW toS-SE. The functional distribution and physical shape of the territorynear the

25Mederos Ruiz 2002, 44.26Pisano Travaglini 2003, 170171.27 They mention an Amadasis publication of 1990, unquestionably a mistake for Amadasi1994, wich they later quoted correctly.28 On the general archaeological context, materials and dating, see the aforementioned

publications by Pellicer: initially Pellicer 1963a; 1963b; 1964, 393403, later Pellicer 1985and, above all, his recent Pellicer 2007 (see 22: tomb 3, cf. fig. 16A; 5253, on the inscription;6972, chronology of the various materials; 109, fig. 16B; 152, fig. 69C; 157, fig. 75:inscription according to Ferron; 179, plate V, B: photograph of the urn) with subsequent

bibliography. It may be noted that the chronology of the burials has been the expected centre

of attention (see for instance studies, with further references, by Negueruela 1981, 211216;1985, 191210; 1991, 199207 or the aforementioned Mederos Ruiz Cabrero 2002) alongwith their very funerary nature (see for example Ramos 1990; Jimnez 1996, 3542) and theirhistorical relevance in general (see, for instance, the various contributions by Molina Fajardo,

particularly in Molina Fajardo 19831986; 1985). See also studies regarding the support itselfquoted in the next section.



mouth of two rivers, in a sheltered area with a rich hinterlandmatches the typicallayout of other western Phoenician settlements [Fig. 1].

The vessel with the painted text was found in tomb 3, excavated beforePellicers intervention. Whereas the preserved material from the grave does notallow us to obtain any independent chronology, the ensemble must be dated to thegeneral period defined by the rest of the burials: the first three quarters of the seventh

century BCE29

. Tomb 3 was a pit with a double burial. The urn was found in thenorthernmost burial, identified as A30; it consisted of a small lateral niche in thebottom of the pit, on its northern side, which held the vessel and was closed by a slab[Fig. 2]. The container acted as a funerary urn, as part of an incineration ritual typicalof the entire necropolis.

4 Support

The urn31 is an amphora-type vessel, approximately 50 cm high, with an ogivalprofile32. The shape, originating in oriental pottery containers known from the LateBronze Age, was identified by Pellicer as de torpedo or ojiva (torpedo-like or

29 See previous note. A recent study by F. Nez Calvo has analysed chronologically

significant materials from the Laurita necropolis (paying special attention to materials intomb 19) stressing their typological relationship with contemporary oriental materials. Theauthor confirms the aforementioned dating; more precisely, he maintains that tomb 19 belongsto the central decades of the seventh century BCE (in probable synchrony with stratum II fromTyre). He points out, on the other hand, the typological connections of these materials withsome of those found in Carthaginian funerary contexts (Nez 2003). On the relationship ofthe necropolis with Carthage, however, see below.30A burial which is perhaps later than B, Pellicer 2007, 71. In the description of tomb 3 (p.22) letters are not assigned to the burials in the pit though they are appropriately identified bytheir topographic orientation: the piece with the inscription comes from the northern burial(the first to be described). The aforementioned drawings in the original publication only

presented the materials of the grave, without sorting them by burials. However, figure 16 ofPellicer 2007 [which is included in our Fig. 2] joins the plan and elevation of the grave to theseparate presentation of the materials, which could lead to confusion: on the plan he delimits

the cutting line defining the elevations using letters AB, placing letter B close to the burial A(the one with an epigraph, on the northern side). The urn is also identified within the figure asitem B, by case. Yet, as Pellicer points out (see also p. 52) the inscribed urn is that from grave3A, while that from grave 3B does not contain any epigraph.31 Pellicer 2007, 4751. Alabaster urns from the necropolis, both those found by Pellicer(which were highly relevant in the aforementioned work by Culican 1970) and those lateridentified by Molina Fajardo, were fundamentally relevant in understanding the cultural rela-tionships of the settlers. They were also, thanks to the presence of hieroglyphic inscriptionswith royal cartouches, an important dating element (at least as terminus post quem, with, bythe way, some difficulty; see Padr 1975). See Molina Fajardo Padr 1983, 3536; MolinaFajardo Huertas 1983, 131158 or Padr 1983a: 215225; 1986, 526529 (besides theaforementioned works). A summary on the ensemble of this type of vessel found in Andalusiacan be found in Martn Ruiz 1995, 172177, with colour pictures of the urn we are dealingwith: figs. 177178 (though the photograph of the epigraphic detail only shows an incomplete

part of the inscription). Regarding the contextualization of the finds within the ensemble ofEgyptian and Egyptianizing remains in the Iberian Peninsula, see Gamer-Wallert 1978.32Stout and pointed with no handles, it has two straight horizontal shoulders; the neck is shortwith slightly out-curving brims. It is about 51 cm high, its mouth measures about 11 cm (109110 mm internal opening; the outer diameter of the neck is about 129131 mm) according toour measurements.


Jos . Zamora354

ogival), and was classed as type 8B. It is currently housed in the Museo Arqueo-lgico y Etnogrfico de Granada, with the catalogue number 8322 (CE08322)33. Itwas carved from a solid piece of yellowish-white alabaster. An irregular hole in thelower-middle part of the body of the vessel (on the opposite side of the writing) wascaused by an old break; remains of repairs using another type of alabaster and tin canstill be noted. This damage and restoration are consistent with the supposed long and

eventful life of these vessels34

. Despite the fact that the particular details of this lifeare dubious and to a large extent impossible to prove35, it was unquestionably usedas an object of trade in the hands of Phoenicians. The text, in ink, must have beenwritten on the support shortly before it was buried, given its contents. The inclusionof an epigraph was therefore incorporated into the burial process, giving additionalsignificance to the distinctiveness and status of the deceased. His family could affordto dedicate an expensive vessel to him, unmistakably identified with a text, written

by a scribe or by a literate member of the community.

5 The inscription

5.1 Position and features

The two lines of Phoenician graphemes painted in black can be noted near the

shoulder of the urn [Figs. 4 and 5]. The text clearly stands out against the brightbackground of the alabaster, although the paint has faded considerably and is almostinvisible in some cases (as in the centre and at the end of the second line); variousstains surround the inscription36.

The text takes up over 13 cm along the wall of the vessel [Figs. 5 and 6]37 inparallel to the shoulder of the piece and slightly below it. In line 1 (rising very

33Alongside the catalogue number 8322 in ink (placed on the left side of the urn, in a positionfor the reading of the inscription) the piece also presents (on the back, underneath the only

broken fragment) a code in three almost illegible lines in pencil: SC / 73 (the first 7 isdubious) / 3 (inside a circle).34It has been proposed that its manufacture and first use were Egyptian (between the middleof the ninth century and the first quarter of the eighth century BCE). It was then transported

after possible pillaging (middle of the eighth century) and reused in the west, having become aprestigious item, as a funerary urn (in the first three quarters of the seventh century BCE, asmentioned); see the bibliography quoted in notes 31 and 35.35Besides the aforementioned bibliography, see for instanceOggiano 2010, on the problemsin trying to establish the Egyptian or Levantine manufacture of this type of stone amphora.Consequently, potential vicissitudes involving pillaging, purchase or delivery as well as anydetails on its trade are also unclear. Some proposals (Mederos Ruiz Cabrero 2002, followingPadr, see for instance Padr 1983b) even defend the arrival of these vessels in the Peninsulain the same period that they were manufactured (ninth century BCE, the dates traditionallyassigned to pharaohs whose names appear in the cartouches of some of the amphorae).According to these theories, the vessels would have been Egyptian diplomatic gifts possiblycontaining wine (though this type of vessel is not ideal for the proper transport of this drink).36A thick black irregular stain slopes from the shoulder to the first line of the inscription. It isnot an alabaster vein but appears to be an ink or charcoal stain of a similar colour to that of the

inscription, but deeper and with no traces of brushstrokes. A dubious sign to the left of thisstain has no clear traces of brushstrokes either and must be the result of the spread of pigment.Other blackish and more faded stains can be noted on the rest of the body of the urn.37The sequence of signs takes up about 13 and a half cm of the surface of the vessel (from 136to 137 mm, measured from end to end of the second, longest line); its curve projected straighton a tangent, the text measures about 13 cm (approx. 131132 mm) [Fig. 6].



slightly as it continues) three signs can clearly be noted as well as the remains ofwhat seems to be another sign. In the second line (starting more to the right than forthe first line) 13 signs can be clearly identified. The tallest graphemes are hardlymore than 2 cm high and only some of the signs are over 1 cm wide38.

5.2 Reading

The following sequence can be read in the text [Fig. 6]:

1: q!b!rt!2: mgn bn %r!$bn !l!"

This must be translated as:

Burial / of Magon, the son of Arish, the son of Hilles39.

6 Palaeography

6.1 Justification and comment

The text was originally written quite cleanly and skilfully, which reveals a well-

trained and expert hand (either the hand of a specialised scribe or of a member of thefamily or community who had learned the art of writing and probably frequentlypractised it). The use of what seems to be a paintbrush or similar tool for ink or paint(as can be noted along the borders of many of the signs) as well as the use of this

pigment (instead of making incisions on the alabaster) indicate the inevitablepresence in the place of writers and writings on perishable supports on which textwas written using this very technique.

In the first line, three clearly visible signs and a fourth less obvious sign appear ina sequence slightly sloping upwards.

Grapheme 1.1: The lower part of the vertical stroke can be clearly noted (endingin a slanted edge with clear traces of the paintbrush) and an extension to the leftlong, dense and slightly flattenedin the top part. It is not, however, a re$ or asimilar sign (as we shall show below) or even less a mem. To the right, on the other

side of the perpendicular stroke, there are very faded traces of black paint, merelyfaint shadows. As the entire vessel is full of these types of stains it may not be statedwith certainty whether they belong to remnants of the sign, though all the indicationsare that the sign may have contained more elements on its right side (which is very

poorly preserved). Few signs are compatible with the clearly visible traces; onlyqophcould also fit in with these final considerations.

Grapheme 1.2: The second sign is very faded, although its top part is perfectlyvisible. It is an almost circular space (an eye of a letter) wide and well defined.

38The signs (which we will number by line and position in reading order: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 2.12,2.13) are between 56 mm high for grapheme 2.8 (a $in, as we shall see) and almost 21mmhigh for sign 2.3 (a nun, the first in this line; the second, grapheme 2.5, is practically the same

height). As regards their width, signs range from approx. 13mm wide for sign 2.8 ($in) to 1213mm for 2.2 (gimel) and approx. 7 mm for 1.3 (the first re$in the inscription) and similar (orperhaps smaller) width for 2.6 (%aleph) or the visible part of 2.12 ( lamed) [Fig. 7]. The unevenbeginning of the lines places signs 1.11.3 over graphemes 2.32.5 [Fig. 56].39 Personal names are transcribed conventionally in a simplified manner in the translationsand comments.


Jos . Zamora356

The beginning of a lower vertical stroke is also clearly visible, though either it isvery short or its lowest part has been lost. The letter may have been dalethor beth.There is no other dalethin the rest of the inscription, so the preserved part can only

be compared with the definitive beth on the second line, directly underneath.Whereas the rotation is slightly diverse (as a result of the upward slope of the firstline) these letters are identical in their preserved traces. Even if this does not rule out

the possibility of reading the sign as daleth (which would then be wide and open,which is not very common in painted inscriptions) it is more probably a beth. (Inaddition, a strong magnifier reveals slight remains of ink in the lower zoneagain,inconclusive though indicativewithin the alabaster pores).

Grapheme 1.3: The third letter seems to have been drawn with just onebrushstroke, making a curve on the top part and continuing uninterrupted with a longvertical stroke. On closer examination, this vertical line actually goes on beyond themost visible stain and constitutes a long, thick, practically vertical line: though itseems to lean forward in the lower part, this is actually the result of the continuousupward slope of the line of script. The top curve is very tight and it also forms a typeof inclined curved tip pointing downwards, which corresponds more or less to theeye of a letter. The eye is open on the top part (with no traces of original paint in theopen part) though sufficiently closed and compact as to discard the reading as waw

or similar. The most probable reading is, without a doubt, re$.Grapheme 1.4: A stroke can be observed more to the left, underneath the large

stain on top of this part of the vessel. Unlike other shadows and stains surroundingthe inscription, it clearly seems to have been made with a paintbrush. Its position andappearance coincide with the lower points of the former signs. An accidental touchof the paintbrush with the vessel after writing the previous sign could be considered,though it actually seems to be a deliberate stroke, totally identical to the strokes thatform other graphemes. Some remains of paint (very slight and faded, thoughnoticeable) can also be found upon the preserved stroke, giving it continuity (in anarea otherwise deleted and blurred due to its proximity to the stain). Judging fromwhat can be seen, it must be admitted that it is a grapheme. Given the texture andinclination of the preserved stroke, its layout and distribution with respect to

previous letters, it must be a taw, whose top part has been almost totally erased.

In the second line, as we said, there are 13 signs in sequence. The first five signsare clear, even the sixth sign; the seventh is visible though more faded; the eighthsign is very clear, with well preserved ink and the two following signs (especially theninth) are very faint though visible. A wide group of strokes (which at first sightcould be erroneously seen as more than one grapheme) makes up the eleventh letter;the twelfth letter, visible but with hardly any ink, is clearly placed between theeleventh and the last, the thirteenth letter, which is not as clear as the letters on theright side of the line though it can be noted better than most in this final part.

Grapheme 2.1: The first sign on this line is clearly mem, with a long intermediatevertical stroke (reaching to the stroke on its right, curved forward in the lower part).As in other letters in the inscription, especially in this second line, some of theoriginal strokes (where fibres of the paintbrush used are visible) have lost intensity inthe central part and their edges are better preserved (to be accurate, the outer ends of

the paint strokes). On the upper and left part of this memthis is clearly noticeable.Graphemes 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4: As in the case of the previous sign, the three

following signs are certain. The second is clearly gimel, quite large, with a longvertical curved stroke, slightly faded and with quite an open angle. The third is also



clearly nun, with longer lines upwards and downwards. The fourth sign is veryobviously beth, with visible strokes though uneven in intensity.

Grapheme 2.5: Some of the strokes of the fifth sign are more faded though theletter can be easily read as nun. The lower, highly visible stroke is longer than in the

previous nun.The sign is instead very faded in the central and upper part, whose topdoes not seem to raise much.

Grapheme 2.6: The sixth sign, according to the most visible parts (a vertical lineand a tip or angled eye in the middle/upper part), can only be %aleph. The remains ofthe upper strokes and the possible remains of a stroke slightly to the right, introducesome doubts about its actual writing but not about its reading.

Grapheme 2.7: The seventh sign is a grapheme with a long stroke and an uppereye. It resembles the third sign of line 1, with its vertical line going backwards in thelower part but with a very similar design (this time the eye is clearly closed on theupper part). It consists of a re$(which to a large extent confirms the same reading inthe previous line, especially if the inclination upwards in the similar sign of this

previous line is allowed for).Graphemes 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10: The eighth sign is a low and long grapheme,

written on undulations (which have retained a greater amount of paint). It is placedhigh in the writing-line. The final stroke (up and right) subtly goes on longer than it

seems. The letter can be nothing else but a $in. After $in the ninth sign can be madeout, very faint, though it can be seen in full. It is a beth. Its top part is identical tothat of the previous beth (sign 2.4) although its lower part is slightly shorter andthicker (which could be also consistent with what is preserved of sign 1.2). Thecentral part of the tenth sign is slightly less subtle. This sign is also faded in the top

part (and in the lower part, longer than it looks to the naked eye). It is a nun, whosecentral part seems to be more curved than in the other nuns in the inscription thoughit is actually very similar to all of them.

Grapheme 2.11: Sign number 11 seems to consist of three vertical lines, themiddle one a broken or zigzag line. This pattern is reminiscent of the more advancedcursive !eth though it is actually an optical illusion, caused by the similar way ofdrawing both types of letters (the one in the inscription and the later form) and theway that the ink has faded in our case. As in other parts of the inscription, the outer

profile of the paint strokes can be more clearly noticed and the intensity is lower orhas disappeared within, now presenting two thick vertical lines, the left line being

particularly wide. This gives the impression of being a double parallel line. Its rightprofile is irregular and contains the start of at least two perpendicular lines, with athird line vaguely noticeable. It consists of a wide and not too inclined !eth.

Grapheme 2.12: Following !eth, a higher sign, the 12th, is a very faded smalllamed, thick and typically raised though not too high at the top. Its lower part iscurved and closed, short and with no apex.

Grapheme 2.13: The final sign of the inscription is clearly "ade. It is the mostvisible of all these last letters, only slightly faded at the right end.

6.2 Date

With regard to the date of the epigraph, given the particular nature of palaeographicdating40and considering the complex roots of the chronological problems, it is more

40 See for example reflections on a recent case in Zamora 2010, 139145; see also Zamora2010b: 8.


Jos . Zamora358

useful to assign initially the dates provided by archaeology to the signs in theinscription (and draw some implications) than directly to produce an isolated

palaeographic study for chronological purposes. Thus, the palaeography of theinscription of Almucar [Fig. 7] would reflect a type of cursive script used by somewestern Phoenicians in the first three quarters of the seventh century BCE (and

perhaps rather at a late stage in this timeline if, as the excavator believes, the

inscribed urn was placed after the adjacent burial in the same pit). Nonetheless, andgiven that archaeological dating is also subject to limitation and discussion, somearguments based on datable graphic parallels may contribute, to a certain extent, tothe chronological contextualisation of the document.

Some signs on the inscription (sign 2.1, initial memon the second line, which isone of the most clearly visible signs) put limitations on a very early date (as already

pointed out by Sol-Sol and Amadasi Guzzo). Indeed, the general shape of graph-eme 2.1 does not have matching parallels until well into the late eighth centuryBCE41and its design actually indicates a period which could be much later. Since itis a painted shape (which could be looser and more advanced than incised contempo-rary equivalents) it is perfectly feasible to date this grapheme to the seventh century;

but the chances of placing it in earlier periods diminish. To outline the chronologicalinterval at the most recent end, grapheme 2.8 is perhaps interesting: it consists of a

type of $inwhich begins to be replaced by a new form at least by the end of theseventh century BCE, the new shape being probably common in the next century andfast becoming widespread42. Parallel signs therefore suggest that a date before thesixth century BCE is more likely than a later date (which once more becomes theless probable the more recent it is), also in harmony with the archaeological dating ofthe burial to the first three quartersor the middleof the seventh century BCE.The rest of the signs on the inscription, less relevant for chronological purposes

either because their morphology is hardly significant or due to their state ofpreservationdo not clash with the proposed chronological span.

7 Interpretation and comment

As we have said, the reading qbrt/ mgn bn %r$bn !l"could be translated in principle

as Burial / of Magon, son of Arish, son of Hilles. The structure of the inscription,therefore, follows a common formula in funerary Phoenician-Punic epigraphy.

Some remarks must be made, however, on certain aspects of this inscription. Letus consider first the initial term which links the text with a concrete reality. Themasculine form qbrnot feminine qbrtis the proper form attested in Phoenician todenote a grave or sepulchre. The feminine form is epigraphically attested, for certain,

41 The earliest example that can be dated with the most certainty of the change of acontinuously-drawn mem, in the ancient tradition, into a design with a secondary verticalstroke on the upper part (which would continue for a long time afterwards) is from Karatepe,even if there are occurrences of this design which could be older; see for instance Friedrich Rllig Amadasi Guzzo 1999, Taff. I.1113; II.14 (with the unfortunately difficult instance

in II.1, the Nora Inscription); see also Peckham 1968, 104105 (pl. VII).42As we have seen, the letter $in in the Almucar inscription still consists of a continuous,doubly curved line, as opposed to the later discontinuous shapes already found, for instance, inAnatolian inscriptions from the late seventh century BCE (although there may be olderexamples without such a definite date), see Friedrich Rllig Amadasi Guzzo 1999, Taff. I,III, esp. I.13, III.6ff; Peckham 1968, 106107, pl. VIII).



only in Hebrew (in agreement with occasional instances in the bible) and in part ofthe Aramean world43. If we accept the presence of the form qbrt in the text fromAlmucar (where nothing else, either from a graphic or from a linguistic point ofview, links the inscription to other non-Phoenician cultural areas) we must also ac-cept that this form also existed in Phoenician. It is not implausible that feminineforms of the noun are present in neo-Punic44and even in some Punic45 funerary in-

scriptions, but possible occurrences are certainly dubious, scarce and almost all very late.In any event, there are no doubts as to the general meaning of the term: as is wellknown, the best documented noun for this root in Phoenician and Punic, namely, themasculine form qbr, refers to the place of burial of a deceased person. The feminineform could have the same meaning46. If it did have a different meaning, it must have

been close, more specific or more abstract (within inevitable lexical variety andvariability, in parallel with the rich material diversity of archaeology shown by theactual burials)47. There are numerous instances of the use of the root in epigraphs

placed on containers used for the remains of a deceased person48. In such cases, the

43Hoftijzer Jongeling 1995, 985986.44 This has been suggested, for instance, for the interpretation of qbr% in the celebratedinscription of Micipsa in Cherchel, edited for the first time by Berger (Berger 1888),

corresponding to KAI 161 (Donner Rllig 19621964, Nr. 161) and catalogued as CherchelN 2 in the recent corpus by Jongeling 2008, 195196 (who considers the possibility of afeminine noun, see also 404). Unfortunately, the interpretation of the word is not clear, alreadyfrom the segmentation of the passage: the term could be preceded by an %aleph, as %qbr% (ifthis is not taken as the final grapheme of the previous term) and the initial %alephshould then

be understood as part of the article or as a prosthetic vowel, always conditioning this choice tothe possible value of the final %aleph; the latter could indeed correspond to the remnants of afeminine ending or to a suffixed pronoun (or even be part of the following personal name); onthe other hand, the use of a feminine ending -%in this word would need to be explained, sincein other passages of the text the final -t of some certainly feminine forms is preserved. Asequence qbrt(with a clear final consonant, ending the phrase and the text) appears in anotherlate epigraph from Maktar: it is the inscription known as NP 67 (following the series initiated

by Schrder 1869) corresponding to Punica IV A 7 (Chabot 1916, 93) and to Hr. Maktar N 33(Jongeling 2008, 104). Nonetheless, this qbrtcould also be a feminine verb form, or at most a

nominal form, of the root qbr. See also below. On the Phoenician feminine ending and itsevolution in late Punic, as well as on pronoun suffixes graphically represented by %aleph, seeFriedrich Rllig Amadasi Guzzo 1999, 144, 149150 (esp. 229) and 6567.45 It is possible to propose an occurrence of the same feminine form in an inscription on aGreek krater from Torre Uchea (Albacete; first half of the fourth century BCE, see Hoz 2002,79; see below), which was also used as a funerary urn. Its inscription must be read qbr%qtn%.Here, the %aleph that follows the sequence qbrcannot be a pronoun suffix within a constructchain and could be thus interpreted as the graphic trace of a feminine vocalic ending, althoughthis is obviously not the only possibility (since the absence of spaces or word dividers and theconstruct chain itself make segmentation and interpretation unclear).46Note, for instance, the parallel use of mlk / mlkt in the epigraphy of the tofet, Hoftijzer Jongeling 1995, 640644; Amadasi Guzzo 2002, 93119.47In fact, the common form qbr is already attested to in Phoenician referring to various places,structures or elements, see for instance the selection of testimonies compiled by Hoftijzer

Jongeling 1995, 985986. Conversely, the funerary lexicon in Phoenician (in spite of itsdifficulties) is rich and of course not confined to derivations from the root qbr; see for instanceRibichini 1987, 148151.48Remember, for instance, also in the Iberian Peninsula and already in the Punic period, theinscription on a funerary urn from Torre Uchea, one of the aforementioned where the formcould be feminine, see note 45.


Jos . Zamora360

term is obviously not the specific name of the vessel but the name of its function orthe name of the object when serving that function. One of these two senses musthave corresponded to qbrtin the text from Almucar. In the first and more abstractsense, the translation burial could be proposed, which is close to attested uses ofqbr. In the second, more specific sense (which would give qbrt a different meaning)this word could be something like funerary vessel49, though the scarcity and

uncertainty of available evidence make this proposal more dubious50

.The following sequence (nominal complement syntagm) poses no morphologicalor syntactic problems and its meaning (the identification of the deceased who is

buried) is clear. We could highlight the double patronymical sequence used. Thedeceased person is identified by going back to his grandfather, which may well have

been a deliberate attempt to stress his roots beyond the immediately previousgeneration. The ancestor Hilles mentioned may therefore have had particularrelevance to the family. Was he perhaps the first member to arrive in the place? Or

perhaps was he the person who linked the group to their motherland by remainingthere? These hypotheses, in any case, cannot be proved and more banal proposals areequally or even more likely.

As shown in previous interpretations, the personal names in the inscription areimportant elements of information, though they must be dealt with cautiously. The

first, mgn, the only one which could be read clearly practically since the discovery ofthe piece, has given rise to various considerations on the provenance of the deceased.This is a well-known name, as is also the case of %r$; as regards !l",it is much lesscommon though not unknown (and not surprising at all). The first two are particu-larly abundant in the Punic region, though not only there: as we have already pointedout, there is Phoenician evidence for the name Magon in the East, where their pres-ence can be traced back to the Bronze Age51. There is a high recurrence of the nameArish in Punic (not as frequent as Magon, though also abundant) and also in a small

but still significant group of oriental texts. Even if its possible precedents are morecomplex, there are no doubts about its solid etymological background in NorthwestSemitic52. Collections of names show that !l" occurs exclusively in Phoenicia, asdefinitely present but rare53. Nonetheless, it is a hypocoristic name, which must al-most always correspond to the more common form !l"b#l, a name by no means un-

known in the West (just as !l"b#land the related form b#l!l"occur frequently in Punic54).

49When Fvrier studied the aforementioned funerary inscription of Micipsa, he proposed that%qbr% should be understood as a feminine form (preceded by an article) with the meaning offunerary urn (Fvrier 1951, 142). However, as we saw earlier, the context is complex. Inaddition, see his opinion on qbrt in the aforementioned inscription of Maktar, NP 67, Fvrier19581959, 29.50The proposal also has to take into account the existence of another term which could conveya similar meaning, namely %rn.It is present above all in Carthaginian inscriptions engraved onfunerary vessels, frequently understood as urn (again, see for instance again Ribichini 1987,148). It seems obviously close to the Latin term urna, but the use and etymology of this word(which refers to the material nature of the box, from which the certain meanings ossuaryand sarcophagus originate, see Marcus 1975; Hoftijzer Jongeling 1995, 109110) differ-

entiate it from a possible qbrt with the proposed meaning of vessel for funerary remains.51 Benz 1972, 133137; 339; Grndahl 1967, 156; Lipi$ski 1984, 128129; Del Olmo Sanmartn 2004, 532.52Benz 1972, 6468; 276277, n 2; Del Olmo Sanmartn 2004, 108, sub. / '-r-(/.53Benz 1972, 109.54See Benz 1972, 90; 109110; 212, 311.



Consequently, while Punic evidence for the first two personal names, Magon andArish, is abundant (and both, particularly the former55, are popular in Carthage) thesenames also occurred in the East as well as the name Hilles (which must have beenalso a possible name in the Punic area). On the other hand, we must not forget thatthe preponderance of Carthaginian occurrences must be understood and pondered inthe light of the general imbalance of preserved sources (since most of the known

personal names in Phoenician-Punic originate from the inscriptions of the tophetofCarthage). All in all, however, it is the chronological background to add to the maincomplexity, as it is not possible to ascertain what the general tendency regarding

personal names was in Carthage at the timeif it existed as an independent culturalfeatureor what the grounds were for such a tendency (such grounds may have beencommon or close to those in some way suggested by the text from Almucar) orwhat influences and circumstances were involved in the evolution towards latersituations better known to us.

8 Conclusions

The alabaster urn of grave 3 in the Laurita Necropolis was thus the finaldestination, probably around the central decades of the seventh century BCE, of the

remains of a Magon, son of Arish and grandson of Hilles. He must have beenwealthy as his family dedicated to him (as was the case elsewhere in the samenecropolis) a dignified grave and a high quality urn (a recipient brought from theEast, identical to those used to keep refined products in Egyptian graves for thenobility). In the case of Magon, the family wished to have a text written on the urnand was in a position to do so56. The text was intended to identify without any doubtthe person who lay in the carefully protected burial in tomb 3 of the necropolis,using a double patronymic sequence. This act of going back two generations beforethe deceased underlined the importance of family relations in the life (and death) ofan individual and his community and may have had the added intention of anchoringthe ascendency of the deceased to an ancestor who was particularly important to thefamily or to the group.

The text on the urn, which must have been written soon before the vessel was

used for the last time, may have been commissioned to be written by a specialisedscribe or may have been written by a literate member of the family or of the settle-ment. In any event, the writer of the text proved to be well trained and skilled in theart of writing, revealing an extended use of the Phoenician alphabet on perishablesupports in this settlement (in all probability linked to administrative or trading activities).

The graphemes used in the inscription are consistent with others used elsewherein the Phoenician world at the time, including areas in the east. Up to now, the formof the term used for the burial (or perhaps the funerary urn itself) had not beenclearly attested in Phoenician. Yet, the text unquestionably corresponds toPhoenician epigraphy (the language and scriptincluding formulae and practicesare typical amongst Phoenician peoples) and consequently to Phoenician culture.The same could apply to the very mention of the deceased and of his ancestors. Evenif their names, especially the name of the deceased and of his father, were later

55In the case of Magon, it has also been suggested that it may have been particularly popularin Carthage, at least at a certain point, due to the prominence of the Magon family in the cityfrom the late sixth century BCE onwards (Lipi$ski 1984, 129).56This did not happen in other cases or at least no traces have been preserved.


Jos . Zamora362

widespread in the Punic West, these personal names come from the East and have adefinite presence in the Phoenician area of the Levant. Perhaps this is where some ofthe persons mentioned (possibly Hilles, the grandfather of the deceased?) or in anycase some of his ancestors, may have originated from (although the old Levantineroots of some of the names attested to opens the possibility of their use inand laterexpansion from any other place with a Phoenician presence or influence).

In any event, to carry out an interpretation simply based on origins would be toolimited in the light of the certain complexity of the relations (largely unknown)between the motherland and western settlements and within those settlements. Allthe more so with regard to the early chronological stages, even though not extremelyancient, when the balance between historically common cultural elements andinnovative local developments must have resulted in distinctive features amongst thevarious areas with a Phoenician presence, though not to the point of making it

possible to determine and evaluate them with any accuracy.

Bibliography

Alfaro, C., 1983: Las monedas de Seks del Museo Arqueolgico Nacional, in

Boletn del Museo Arqueolgico Nacional12, 191197.Alfaro, C., 1986: Observaciones sobre las monedas de Sekssegn la coleccin delM. A. N., in F. Molina Fajardo (ed.), Almucar, Arqueologa e Historia, III.Granada, 75103.

lvarez Mart-Aguilar, M., 2012: Turdetania fenicia: pasado y prestigio en elOccidente romano, in B. Mora G. Cruz (ed.),La etapa neopnica en Hispania

y el Mediterrneo centro-occidental: Identidades compartidas. Sevilla, 3558.Amadasi Guzzo [as Guzzo Amadasi], M. G., 1967: Le iscrizioni fenicie e puniche

delle colonie in Occidente, Roma.Amadasi Guzzo [as Guzzo Amadasi], M. G., 1978: Remarques sur la prsence

phnico-punique en Espagne daprs la documentation pigraphique, in M.Galley (d.),Actes du deuxime congrs international d'tudes des cultures de la

Mditerrane occidentale / Proceedings of the second international congress of

studies on cultures of the western Mediterranean (Malta, 1976), II.Alger, 3342.Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., 1994: Appunti su iscrizioni fenicie in Spagna in A.

Gonzlez J.-L. Cunchillos M. Molina (eds.), El mundo pnico: Historia,Sociedad y Cultura, Murcia 1994, 193203.

Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., 2002: Le iscrizioni del tofet: osservazioni sulle espressionidi offerta, in O. Eissfeldt,Molk als Opferbegriff im punischen und hebrischenund das Ende des Gottes Moloch / El molk como concepto del sacrificio pnico yhebreo, y el final del dios Moloch (eds.: C. Gonzlez-Wagner L.-A. Ruiz-Cabrero). Madrid, 93119.

Benz, F. L., 1972: Personal names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. ACatalogue, grammatical study and glossary of elements(Studia Pohl 8). Rome.

Berger, Ph., 1888: Inscription nopunique de Cherchell, en lhonneur de Micipsa,inRevue dassyriologie et darchologie orientale 2, 3546.

Chabot, J.-B., 1916, Les inscriptions nopuniques de Maktar, inJournal Asiatique(1916), 87103 (=PunicaIV).

CIP: Corpus Inscriptionum Phoenicarum necnon Poenicarum(cf. Xella Zamora 2007).



Culican, W., 1970, Almucar, Assur and Phoenician Penetration of the WesternMediterranean, in Levant 2, 2836 (= Opera Selecta:From Tyre to Tartessos.Gteborg 1986, 673684).

Del Olmo, G. Sanmartn, J., 2004, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in theAlphabetic Tradition,2 vols. (Handbuch der Orientalistik I/48). Leiden.

Daz Esteban, F., 1965: Dos nuevas inscripciones pnicas hispnicas, in Sefarad

25/2 (1965), 283288.Donner, H. Rllig, W., 19621964:Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften, IIIT. Wiesbaden.

Ferron, J., 1970: La inscripcin cartaginesa pintada en la urna funeraria deAlmucar, in Trabajos de Prehistoria 27, 177190.

Ferron, J., 1970b: L'inscription carthaginoise peinte sur lurne cinrairedAlmucar, inLe Muson83/12, 249265.

Fvrier, J. G., 1951: Linscription funraire de Micipsa, inRevue dassyriologie etdarchologie orientale45, 139150.

Fvrier, J. G., 195859: Paralipomena punica VVII, in Cahiers de Byrsa8, 2536.Friedrich, J. Rllig, W. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1999: Phnizisch-punische

Grammatik, 3. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo unterMitarbeit von Werner R. Mayer(Analecta Orientalia 46). Rome.

Fuentes, M. J., 1986: Corpus de las inscripciones fenicias de Espaa, in AulaOrientalis8, 530.

Fuentes, M. J., 1986b: Corpus de las inscripciones fenicias, pnicas y neopnicas deEspaa. Barcelona.

Gamer-Wallert, I., 1978: gyptische und gyptisierende Funde von der IberischenHalbinsel. Wiesbaden.

Grndahl, F., 1967:Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit(Studia Pohl 1). Rome.Guzzo Amadasi: see Amadasi Guzzo.Heurgon, J., 196566: A propos des fouilles rcentes Almucar (Sexi,

Espagne), in Bulletin Archologique du Comit des travaux historiques etscientifiques n. s. 12, 165166.

Hoftijzer, J. Jongeling, K., 1995: Dictionary of the North-West SemiticInscriptions, 2 vols. (Handbuch der Orientalistik I/21). Leiden New York.

Hoz, J. de, 2002: Grafitos cermicos griegos y pnicos en la Hispania prerromana,inArchivo Espaol de Arqueologa75, 7591.

Jimnez, A. M, 1996: Ritual Funerario y Sociedad en las Necrpolis Fenicias depoca Arcaica de la Pennsula Ibrica. cija.

Jongeling, K., 2008:Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions. Tbingen.Leclant, K., 1964: Rev.: M. Pellicer Cataln, Excavaciones en la necrpolis pnica

Laurita del Cerro de San Cristbal (Almucar, Granada), in Orientalia33,403404.

Lipi$ski, E., 1984: Vestiges phniciens d'Andalousie, in Orientalia LovaniensiaPeriodica15, 81132.

Maluquer de Motes, J., 1963: Descubrimiento de la necrpolis de la antigua ciudadde Sexi en Almucar (Granada), inZephyrus 14, 5761, pl. IIV.

Marcus, D., 1975: The Term Coffin in the Semitic Languages, inJournal of the

Ancient Near Eastern Society7, 8594.Martn Ruiz, J. A.,1995: Catlogo documental de los fenicios en Andaluca, Sevilla.


Jos . Zamora364

Mederos, A. Ruiz Cabrero, L. A., 2002: La fundacin de Sexi-Laurita(Almucar, Granada) y los inicios de la penetracin fenicia en la vega deGranada, in SPAL11, 4167.

Molina Fajardo, F. Padr, J., 1983: Nuevos materiales procedentes de lanecrpolis del Cerro de San Cristbal (Almucar, Granada), in F. MolinaFajardo (dir.), Almucar: Arqueologa e Historia (I). Granada, 3536

[= Nuevos materiales procedentes de la necrpolis del Cerro de San Cristbal(Almucar, Granada), inAmpurias4546 (19831984), 284293].Molina Fajardo, F. Huertas, C., 1983: Tipologa de las nforas fenicio-pnicas,

in F. Molina Fajardo (dir.),Almucar: Arqueologa e Historia (I). Granada, 131158.Molina Fajardo, F. (dir.), 19831986: Almucar: Arqueologa e Historia,

III vols., Granada.Molina Fajardo, F., 1985: Almucar a la luz de los nuevos hallazgos fenicios, in

Aula Orientalis 3, 193216.Negueruela, I., 1981: Zur Datierung der westphnizischen Nekropole vom

Almucar, inMadrider Mitteilungen 22, 211228.Negueruela, I., 1985: Sobre la fecha de la necrpolis Laurita de Almucar, in

Noticiario Arqueolgico Hispnico 22, 191210 (cf. Negueruela, 1981).Negueruela, I., 1991: Sobre la fecha de la necrpolis Laurita de Almucar, in

IIV Jornadas de Arqueologa fenicio-pnica (Ibiza 198689). Ibiza, 199207.Nez, F., 2013: De Tiro a Almucar. Conexiones metropolitanas de un contexto

colonial fenicio, inMadrider Mitteilungen54, forthcoming.Oggiano, I., 2010: Nuovi dati sul ruolo degli artigiani fenici nella produzione delle

anfore in pietra tra Egitto e Levante, in Quaderni di Vicino OrienteIV, 181205.Padr, J., 1975: Precisiones sobre la identificacin del cartucho de un rey Sheshonq

en Almucar, inXIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueologa, Zaragoza, 751758.Padr, J., 1983a: Las inscripciones egipcias de la Dinasta XXII procedentes de

Almucar (Provincia de Granada), inAula Orientalis1/2, 215225.Padr, J., 1983b: Los fenicios y la distribucin de objetos egipcios en el extremo

occidente mediterrneo, P. Bartoloni et al. (edd.),Atti del I Congresso interna-zionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Roma, 510 Novembre 1979) (Collezione diStudi Fenici 16). Roma, 6775.

Padr, J., 1986: Las importaciones egipcias en Almucar y los orgenes de lacolonizacin fenicia en la Pennsula Ibrica, inActas del Congreso Homenaje aLuis Siret (19341984)(Cuevas de Almazora 1984). Sevilla, 526529.

Peckham, J. B., 1968: The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts (HarvardSemitic Studies 20). Cambridge MA.

Pellicer, M., 1963a: Excavaciones en la necrpolis pnica Laurita del Cerro deSan Cristbal (Almucar, Granada) (Excavaciones Arqueolgicas en Espaa,17). Madrid.

Pellicer, M., 1963b: Ein Altpunisches Grberfeld bei Almucar (Prov. Granada),inMadrider Mitteilungen 4, 938.

Pellicer, M., 1964: Relaciones de la necrpolis pnica del Cerro de San Cristbal,de Almucar en el Mediterrneo occidental, in VIII Congreso Nacional de

Arqueologa (Sevilla-Mlaga 1963). Zaragoza, 393403.

Pellicer, M., 1985: Sexi fenicia y pnica, inAula Orientalis3, 85109.Pellicer, M., 2007:La necrpolis Laurita (Almucar, Granada) en el contexto de la

colonizacin fenicia(Cuadernos de Arqueologa Mediterrnea 15). Barcelona.



Pisano, G. Travaglini, A., 2003: Le inscrizioni fenicie e puniche dipinte (StudiaPunica 13). Roma.

Presedo, F. J., (1983): Identidad e integracin de la Espaa antigua, in Unidad ypluralidad en el mundo antiguo. Actas del VI Congreso Espaol de EstudiosClsicos (Sevilla. 611 de abril de 1981) Vol. 1, Ponencias. Madrid, 1335.

Ramos, M L., 1990: Estudio sobre el ritual funerario en las necrpolis fenicias y

pnicas de la Pennsula Ibrica. Madrid.Ribichini, S., 1987: Concezioni delloltretomba nel mondo fenicio e punico, in P.Xella (ed.),Archeologia dellinferno. LAldil nel mondo antico, vicino-orientalee classico. Verona, 147161.

Schrder, P., 1869: Die phnizische Sprache. Entwurf einer Grammatik nebstSprach- und Schriftproben mit einem Anhang enthaltend eine Erklrung der

punischen Stellen in Poenulus des Plautus. Halle.Sol-Sol, J. M, 1957: !K!, #K#o SKS?, in Sefarad 17, 1823.Sol-Sol, J. M, 1968: Textos epigrficos de Toscanos,Madrider Mitteilungen9,

106110.Sol-Sol, J. M, 1976: A propsito de nuevas y viejas inscripciones feno-pnicas

de la Pennsula Ibrica, inHomenaje a A. Garca y Bellido, vol. I (=Revista dela Universidad Complutense25). Madrid, 175198.

Sznycer, M., 1983: Rapport sur lpigraphie phnicienne et punique, in P.Bartoloni et al. (edd.), Atti del I Congresso internazionale di Studi Fenici e

Punici (Roma, 510 Novembre 1979) (Collezione di Studi Fenici 16). Roma,387395.

Sznycer, M., 1991: Rapport sur lpigraphie phnicienne et punique (19791987),in E. Acquaro (ed.),Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici(Roma 914 novembre 1987). Roma, 535543.

Xella, P. Zamora, J. ., 2007: The Phoenician Data Bank: The InternationalProject Corpus Inscriptionum Phoenicarum necnon Punicarum, in Ugarit-

Forschungen39, 773790.Zamora, J. ., 2005: La prctica de escribir entre los primeros fenicios peninsulares

y la introduccin de la escritura entre los pueblos paleohispnicos, in J. Velaza F. Beltrn C. Jordn (eds.), Acta Palaeohispanica IX. Actas del IX Coloquio

Internacional de Lenguas y Culturas Palaeohispnicas (Barcelona, 2024Octubre de 2004). Zaragoza, 155192.

Zamora, J. ., 2009 forth.: Nuevo estudio de la inscripcin fenicia de la necrpolisLaurita (Almucar, Granada): presentacin preliminar, in A. Ferjaoui (d.),

Actes du VIIme congrs international des tudes phniciennes et puniques(Hammamet, Novembre 2009). Tunis, forthcoming.

Zamora, J. ., 2010: Lengua y escritura fenicias, in M. M. Aldn J. P. Monferrer(eds.),Lenguas y escrituras en la antigedad. Crdoba, 123168.

Zamora, J. ., 2010: Epigrafa y cronologa: el nuevo grafito fenicio procedente delsolar de la calle Ancha de Cdiz y su eventual datacin paleogrfica, in A. M

Niveau V. Gmez (eds.),La arqueologa gaditana hoy: Homenaje a FranciscoSibn. Cdiz, 419442.


Jos . Zamora366

Figures

Fig.

1

Locationo

fAlmucar(Granada,

Spain)andofthe

LauritaNecropolis



Fig. 2 Plan and elevation of the necropolis, indicating the position of tomb 3(based on Pellicer 2007, figs. 12; 16)

Fig. 3 Published drawings showing the two lines of letters


Jos . Zamora368

Fig. 4 Alabaster urn from tomb 3A, with two lines of painted Phoenician letters

Fig. 7 Graphemes on the inscription



Fig. 5 The two lines of painted Phoenician letters

Fig. 6 Profile of the vessel in the zone of the inscription (indicating its length in projectionand actual size on the surface of the alabaster) and tracing of the text (on the surface)

Documents

Zamora (2013) - FsXella (AOAT 404) - Laurita's inscription.pdf