We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
The inscriptions described in this article were discovered in the course of a short journey which I made in the vilayet of Urfa, Turkey, in May–June, 1952. It is my pleasant duty to thank those who made this journey possible— the School of Oriental and African Studies, who granted me leave to travel to Turkey, and the officials of the Turkish Department of Antiquities, who accorded me facilities to operate in that remote area of the country. I am especially grateful to Mr. Seton Lloyd, Director of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, for his generous encouragement and help; Mr. Lloyd had visited Sumatar Harabesi during the previous year, and it was he who drew my attention to the monuments there.
page 13 note 1 See Anat. Studies, 118Google Scholar. (A list of the principal abbreviations used in this article appears on p. 35.)
page 13 note 2 21st February, 1953.
page 14 note 1 Pognon, 23 ff.
page 14 note 2 C. E. Sachau mentions ancient sites in the Tektek mountains, but did not inspect them; Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien, 1883, 224Google Scholar. Guyer, S. passed through this area in 1910, but did not visit SumatarGoogle Scholar; My journey down the Tigris, 1925, 84 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 14 note 3 See, for example, Anat. Studies, 104.
page 14 note 4 This is dated 385, i.e. A.D. 73–4. See Moritz, 158 ff., and Pognon, 15 ff.
page 14 note 5 See Appendix, p. 30 below.
page 14 note 6 See inscription No. 3, 1. 7, note (a) (p. 19), and No. 11, 1. 3, note (a) (p. 25).
page 14 note 7 They are the inscription of G‘W (?), the inscription on the column of Urfa citadel, and the mosaic floor whose text is given below as No. 14. Also pagan may be the mosaic inscription of the tomb of Aphtūḥā the two inscriptions discussed by Renan, E. inJA., 02.–03, 1883, 240 ffGoogle Scholar., and the inscription from Urfa referred to in the note on No. 1, 1. 1 (p. 17). See Anat. Studies, 116 fGoogle Scholar. I have there regarded the inscriptions on the tomb of Amašmeš as Syriac (following Sachau and Pognon). But it is probable that they are in Palmyrene; see below, n. 1, p. 31.
page 15 note 1 At Harran I obtained the texts of two unpublished inscriptions in Syriac, through the good offices of Dr. D. S. Rice. One is from a church; the other, a tombstone, is in a more archaic script and may be pagan. Both will be published shortly.
page 15 note 2 Anat. Studies, 97.Google Scholar
page 15 note 3 See below, No. 2, 1. 3, and perhaps No. 3, 1. 11.
page 15 note 4 A close connexion between the heathens of Harran and those of Edessa is certain. That ‘ Sabian ’ rites were also practised at Edessa may be shown by a passage in Cureton, 
The pagan festival on 8th Nisan described there suits well the Harranian festival on the same day described by al-Nadīm, Ibn (Chwolson, 2. 23 f.).Google Scholar
page 15 note 5 Bickell, G., S. Isaaci Antiocheni ‖ opera omnia, 1873, 201, 1. 78.Google Scholar
page 15 note 6 See Seyrig, , ‘ Antiquités syriennes ’, Syria, 14, 1933, 246 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Février, 107 ff.
page 15 note 7 Seyrig, op. cit., 248; Février, 125; cf. Starcky, 159, 170.
page 15 note 8 For this reason I have not discussed the pictorial representation of the planets at Palmyra in Anat. Studies. On this see Seyrig, op. cit., 255.
page 15 note 9 See below, n. 1, p. 31.
page 16 note 1 Cantineau, , Gram., 8, 32 ff., 164.Google Scholar
page 16 note 2 Edessa is called ‘ city of Edessa of the Parthians ’ (Cureton, 
, last line) and ‘ daughter of the Parthians ’ (Cureton, 
, 1. 12).
page 31 note 1 The text used is that of Lidzbarski, ii. Taf. xliii, No. 7. The two undated inscriptions to Amašmeš (one is bilingual) at Dêr Ya'qūb, near Urfa, are commonly regarded as Syriae of the 1st century A.D.; so Sachau, 145, and Pognon, 19 f., 105 f. I have followed this view in Anat, Studies, 116. A closer examination of these inscriptions, however, has led me to believe that they are not in Syriac but in Palmyr. characters. The close resemblance between many letters in Syriac and the corresponding letters in lapidary and cursive Palmyr. is shown in the table on p. 32. The form of the letters 
and 
57 in the Amašmeš inscriptions are, however, clearly lapidary Palmyr. and not Syriac. Moreover, the spelling of 
his wife, in the bilingual inscription would be irregular for Syriac (which retains the 
); it is the usual form in Palmyr. (Cantineau, cf., Gram., 46, 100Google Scholar).
page 31 note 2 The text used is that of Pognon, Planche xiv, No. 2; cf. his comments on p. 19 ff.
page 31 note 3 Nos. 4, 11, and 18 of the present article.
page 31 note 4 Hill, G. F., Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia, 1922, 91 f.Google Scholar; see alsoBellinger, A. E., Yale Classical Studies, 12, 1951, 264.Google Scholar
page 31 note 5 Above, p. 13 f.
page 31 note 6 No. 14 of the present article.
page 31 note 7 The text used is Pognon, pi. xlii, no. 118.
page 31 note 8 In Cols. Ill and IV letters are taken from the Sumatar inscriptions only where the reading is certain.
page 31 note 9 The text is from Pognon, Planche xxii, nos. 36 and 37; see his p. 77, and Moritz, 161.
page 31 note 10 The text used is that of Littmann, , Publications of the Princeton University Expeditions to Syria in 1904–5 and 1909Google Scholar, Div. IV, Semitic Inscriptions: Section B, ‘ Syriac Inscriptions’, 1934, 39 f.
page 31 note 11 From the tables in Cantineau, , dram., 34, and opp. p. 30.Google Scholar
