Offprint From: “An Eye for Form” Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross Edited by JO ANN HACKETT AND WALTER E. AUFRECHT Winona Lake, Indiana EISENBRAUNS 2014 © 2014 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data “An eye for form” : epigraphic essays in honor of Frank Moore Cross / edited by Jo Ann Hackett and Walter E. Aufrecht. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-303-4 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Inscriptions, Semitic. 2. Inscriptions, Ancient. I. Hackett, Jo Ann, editor of compilation. II. Aufrecht, Walter Emanuel, 1942– editor of compilation. III. Cross, Frank Moore, honoree. IV. Machinist, Peter, Appreciation of Frank Moore Cross. PJ3091.E94 2014 492′.041—dc23 2014011285 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.♾™ Contents Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jo Ann Hackett and Walter E. Aufrecht An Appreciation of Frank Moore Cross . . . . . . . Peter Machinist Response by Frank Moore Cross to the Presentation of 80th Birthday Volume of Essays . . . . . . . Bibliography of Frank Moore Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii . . . . . . . . . . . . ix . . . . . . . . . . . . xii an . . . . . . . . . . . . xix . . . . . . . . . . . . xx Prolegomenon to the Study of Northwest Semitic Paleography and Epigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christopher A. Rollston A History of Northwest Semitic Epigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . André Lemaire 1 5 Reconceptualizing the Periods of Early Alphabetic Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Gordon J. Hamilton The Ugaritic Alphabetic Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 John L. Ellison The Iron Age Phoenician Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Christopher A. Rollston Prolegomenon to the Study of Old Aramaic and Ammonite Lapidary Inscriptions Walter E. Aufrecht Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Monumental Scripts David S. Vanderhooft . . . 100 . . . . . . . . . . . 107 On the Authenticity of Iron Age Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals Pierre Bordreuil† . . . . . . . . . 127 Phoenician Seal Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Philip C. Schmitz Aramaic and Ammonite Seal Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Larry G. Herr Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Seal Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Larry G. Herr v vi Contents Northwest Semitic Cursive Scripts of Iron II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Christopher A. Rollston Scripts of Post–Iron Age Aramaic Inscriptions and Ostraca . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 André Lemaire Paleo-Hebrew Texts and Scripts of the Persian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Gordon J. Hamilton The Aramaic Papyri Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Ryan Byrne Punic Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo Paleography of the Semitic Judean Desert Scrolls Esther Eshel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Northwest Semitic Scripts on Coins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 John W. Betlyon Indexes . . Index of Index of Index of Index of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Authors 363 Ancient Sources 369 Place-Names 379 Subjects 381 Offprint from: Hackett and Aufrecht eds., “An Eye for Form” Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross © Copyright 2014 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Punic Scripts MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO The only analysis devoted to the Punic scripts, including the study of Neo-Punic, which predominated after the fall of Carthage in 146 B.C.E., is Peckham’s Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts (1968). There are several reasons for the lack of comprehensive studies of the more than 6,000 inscriptions known from Carthage alone, of which the most important (already discussed by Peckham) is the uncertain chronology of the documents. To obtain a detailed and comprehensive analysis of Punic, it would be necessary to reproduce and study one-by-one a greater number of inscriptions than Peckham included in his study in order to delineate a relative chronology and to identify different scribal tendencies. It is an enormous task, needing external chronological controls and good photographs. Analysis of inscriptions is hampered by problems of dating. The majority of Carthaginian inscriptions are dated from the 3rd century to the first half of the 2nd century B.C.E. (a relatively short period) by archaeological evidence mostly from old excavations and by the typology of the stelae. 1 Dating earlier Punic inscriptions is very difficult because these archaic inscriptions (7th–6th centuries B.C.E.) are few and fragmentary, or they have letters that are difficult to see in detail because of the quality of the stone used (e.g., CIS nos. 5684, 5685, 3789 = Ferron 1964–65: 59; 1971: 1–15; Mazza 1977: 131–37). They are also difficult to date because inscriptions attributed with confidence to the 5th–4th centuries B.C.E. are rare (see below). Later, the manner of engraving texts manifests great variety for several reasons—not simply chronological. Without absolute dates, it is not always possible to distinguish when different letter-forms ref lect distinctions in chronology and when they are merely different writing styles during a period when literacy seems to have spread to a wide range of societies in the west. Malta, Sicily, the colonies of North Africa, Sardinia, and Spain provide us with a large number of documents exhibiting local script variants, of which only some of the later documents are dated. 2 These problems notwithstanding, progress 1. On the excavations and levels of the Carthage tophet, see Lancel (1992: 247–68) and Peckham (1968: 195–97), who is, perhaps, too confident about the typology of Carthaginian stelae. See also Bénichou Safar 2004. 2. As already noted by Peckham (1968:193–94), some of the Constantine inscriptions mention regnal years of Masinissa and Micipsa (end of the 3rd to 2nd centuries B.C.E.). Also see Berthier and Charlier 1955: 53–55, nos. 58–59, pls. 9A–B; 58, no. 62, pl. 10C; 59–61, no. 63, pl. 10A. On chronology, see Bertrandy and Sznycer 1987: 88–91. 314 Punic Scripts 315 has been made in the analysis of Punic inscriptions. In the following, I illustrate this progress in an outline of their development. The place to begin is with a definition of what can be called a Punic script in relation to a Punic language. Conventionally, we call “Punic” the writing typical of Carthage, which spread to other colonies when the “New City” became the “capital” of the Phoenician west. Judging from the existing data on the history of the region, Carthage became leader of the other colonies toward the middle to the end of the 6th century B.C.E., when we first know of symbola with the Etruscan cities, the first treaty with Rome (ca. 509 B.C.E.), and the first Carthaginian involvement in wars in Sardinia and Sicily (Huss 1985: 57–65; Gras, Rouillard, and Teixidor 1989: 227–31). One can suppose that, before this period, the Phoenician language, written according to Phoenician orthographic and paleographic conventions, was still in use in the west, with some local changes in the scripts from region to region or from city to city (see table 1). The most ancient inscriptions (8th century B.C.E.), generally engraved on objects such as pendants, bowls, and statuettes, were presumably imported from the east, including Cyprus: e.g., the Pontecagnano bowl (Amadasi Guzzo 1992: 98–99), the Palestrina bowl (CIS I no. 164), and the statuette of “Ashtart from Seville” (see fig. 1:1 here; Puech 1977; Amadasi Guzzo 1993). These exhibit scripts which can be safely called “Phoenician,” because they follow the general development observed in Phoenicia itself, even if their place of origin cannot be detected. 3 Some archaic inscriptions of the 7th to 6th centuries B.C.E. are engraved locally on stelae from Malta (fig. 1:2; CIS I no. 123 [2×] = KAI nos. 61A–B), Carthage (fig. 1:3; KAI no. 73), and Sardinia (after the isolated Bosa and Nora inscriptions), 4 and consist mainly of dedicatory texts from the tophet. 5 Here we have attestations of the local manner of writing, but the quality of the stone used often causes some oddities in the shape of the letters. On the whole, however, the attested scripts follow the Phoenician tradition, even if it seems impossible to establish their cities of origin. 6 It must be remembered that the Phoenician east has few inscriptions that can be attributed to the 7th–6th centuries B.C.E., compared with documents from the west. 7 They come mainly from Akzib of the 7th–6th centuries B.C.E. (Delavault and Lemaire 1979: 3–5, nos. 2–7, pls. 2–3); an inscription dedicated to Tanit-ʿAshtart from Sarepta from the end of the 7th to the beginning of the 6th centuries B.C.E. (Pritchard 1982; 3. They follow the development traced in the “General Series” of Peckham (1968: 103–75). 4. For the Bosa inscription, see CIS I no. 162. For the Nora inscriptions, see CIS I nos. 144 (= KAI no. 46) and 145. Also compare a stela from Sulcis (CIS I no. 147 = ICO 97–99, no. 17, pl. 33), dated to the 6th century B.C.E. (fig. 1:4). 5. A fragment of a golden plaque from the Sulcis tophet (ICO 121 no. 38, pl. 46) is earlier and could be dated to the beginning of the 7th century B.C.E. Although not enough letters are preserved to allow a classification, its script is more formal than the script attested on the Palestrina bowl (CIS I no. 164). 6. A Cypriot origin for the Nora Stone (KAI no. 46) has been proposed by Dupont-Sommer (1974: 84–85), who identifies it as a dedication to the supposed Cypriot god Pumay. 7. The so-called northern tradition represented by the inscriptions from Byblos and Amrith does not seem to me to have played a specific role in the west. 316 MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO Table 1. Phoenician Scripts from the Western Mediterranean (8th–5th Centuries B.C.E.) Fig . Name Reference Script 1:1 Ashtart of Seville (Spain) Amadasi Guzzo 1992 Phoenician 1:2 Votive stelae (Malta) KAI no 61AB Phoenician 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9 Gold pendant (Carthage) Sulcis stela (Sardinia) Motya 24 (Sicily) Motya 37 (Sicily) Motya 20 (Sicily) Motya 39 (Sicily) Pyrgi (Latium) KAI no. 73 ICO Sar. Ph. 17 Amadasi Guzzo 1986 Amadasi Guzzo 1986 Amadasi Guzzo 1986 Amadasi Guzzo 1986 KAI no. 277 Phoenician Phoenician West Phoenician West Phoenician West Phoenician West Phoenician West Phoenician Century (B.C.E.) ca. 700 7th–early 6th century 7th century 6th century 6th–early 5th 6th–early 5th 6th–early 5th 6th–early 5th ca. 500 Amadasi Guzzo 1990: 62–66); Sidon, especially Tabnit (KAI no. 13), Eshmunazor (KAI no. 14), and Bodashtart (KAI nos. 15–16; André and Bordreuil 1990: 493–500 with dates still being discussed; Xella and Zamora López 2004; Mathys 2005); and from Egypt, especially Abu Simbel (CIS I nos. 111–12). Tyre begins to yield inscribed funerary stelae, with uncertain dates, based until now on the shape of their letters, and these seem in some cases to have been reworked in some way (Sader 1991; 1992; Lemaire 2001; Sader 2004; 2005). From Cyprus, we have a fairly large number of inscribed texts. The few that are very ancient include an unprovenienced grave inscription (KAI no 30); the Kition Bowl (Amadasi Guzzo and Karageorghis 1977: 149–60, no. D 21; Yon 2004: no. 1100); and a short inscription on a Cypro-Archaic I jug (Nys and Briquel-Chatonnet 2001: 62–64). Most, however, are difficult to date or are dated from the 5th to the end of the 4th centuries B.C.E. and seem too late to be used safely in comparisons that might help to establish when the Punic scripts first appeared. 8 As for language, the Phoenician-Punic grammars (the authors of which generally do not agree on the classification of the different phases and dialects of Phoenician) make a distinction between Phoenician and Punic (Harris 1936: 9; Segert 1976: 30; PPG 3–4). They lack precision, however, when they attempt to define the characteristics of Punic and the period in which it originated. 9 Only Krahmalkov, in his Phoenician-Punic grammar, describes Punic as “a dialect or dialects of Phoenician from a part or parts of Greater Phoenicia other than the region of Tyre and Sidon” (Krahmalkov 2001: 10) and lists a number of features that characterize this dialect, 8. Useful for comparisons with western inscriptions from the end of the 6th to the beginning of the 5th centuries B.C.E. are a tablet from Kition (Amadasi Guzzo and Karageorghis 1977: 103–26, no. C1; Yon 2004: no. 1078), and a fragmentary dedication from Paphos (Kouklia; Masson and Sznycer 1972: 81–86, no. 2, pl. 1:3) that is attributed to the 3rd century B.C.E. but is certainly earlier; and coins from Lapethos (Masson and Sznycer 1972: 97–104, no. 8, pl. 11:1–9). 9. For the different dialects, see also Garbini 1988: 61–68; and Schmitz 1995: 560–61, 570–71. Punic Scripts 317 ʾ b g d h w z ḥ ṭ y k l m n s ʿ p ṣ q r š t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Fig. 1. (1) Ashtart of Seville; (2) Malta CIS I, 123; (3) Carthage CIS I, 5684; (4) Sulcis CIS I, 147; (5) Motya no. 24 (G, no. 32); (6) Motya no. 37 (S, no. 28); (7) Motya no. 20 (H, no. 16; Q, no. 1); (8) Motya no. 39 (Ṣ, no. 40); (9) Pyrgi; (10) Carthage CIS I 5510; (11) Malta CIS I 124; (12) Montetirai ICO Sard. 39; (13) Antas no. 4 Fantar 1969: 70; (14) Villaricos ICO Spa. 3 (Hispania 3); (15) Ibiza KAI 72 A (Hispania 2). which according to him, begins in the 5th century B.C.E. (Krahmalkov 2001: 10–15, 18). However, not all the features held as typical of Punic by Krahmalkov should be 318 MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO evaluated in the same way: some do not seem to be specifically Punic, and others are typical of the later phase of the language and are attested only in documents of the 3rd to 2nd centuries B.C.E. (Amadasi Guzzo 1999). We are able to distinguish Punic from Phoenician (in part) because of the orthography of the written language. The first linguistic characteristic we can recognize is the tendency to drop the pronunciation of the laryngeal ʾalep, followed by he (in Punic), and finally, the whole series of laryngeals and pharyngeals (in late Punic). This tendency may already have been present in Phoenician (PPG §102), but it is only in the west that the dropping of ʾalep leads to writing this letter as a simple vowel marker (PPG §104). This use is systematic in the genitive and accusative 3rd-person-singular masculine or feminine suffixed pronoun when it is only vocalic (PPG §112, and bibliography xxxiv–xxxv); but it is more irregular when it indicates a final (and, eventually, internal) long vowel—a phenomenon that is typical of later Punic (Amadasi Guzzo 1995; Krahmalkov 2001: 18). The dropping of he in the pronunciation resulted in the frequent writing of the definite article as ʾalep instead of he. 10 There are some early indications that ʾalep was used as a vowel, or had replaced he in the orthography of the article. The first examples come from Motya (now Mozia), Sicily, in texts dating from the beginning of the 6th to the beginning of the 5th centuries B.C.E., and in a series of inscribed coins with the name of the town, ranging from ca. 480 B.C.E. (only one type of inscription) to ca. 397 B.C.E., with the conquest of the island by Syracuse (Manfredi 1995: 347–51). 11 In the Motya documents, we have the term ʾmtnt ‘the gift’ with ʾalep (if not prosthetic) indicating the article (Amadasi Guzzo 1986: 41 no. 39:1), perhaps belonging to stratum three (end of the 6th century B.C.E.). On coins, the name of the town (in Greek, Μοτυη) is written mwʾ (with ṭ omitted), mṭwʾ, hmṭwʾ, ʾmṭwʾ, and in one case, ʾmṭw. The presence of the article (written with both he and ʾalep) demonstrates that the toponym was originally a common noun, as in the case of gdr ‘Gades’, meaning ‘enclosure’, which is generally written on coins as ʾgdr or, less frequently, hgdr (Manfredi 1995: 410–19). So it is possible, that the name of Motya was a noun with prefixed mem from a root *ṭwy, as once proposed and then rejected for orthographic reasons (Sznycer 1977: 169–70). If this is the case, the final ʾalep represents the final [ē] of a word *maṭway → moṭwē (PPG §102 and 75c for a → o), the meaning of which is still being discussed (Amadasi Guzzo 2005). At any rate, even if the toponym were not Semitic, the Greek writing shows that Phoenician ʾalep represented a final open [ē]. A second linguistic characteristic of the western language is the dissimilation of nun before taw. For example, the noun mtnt ‘gift’, previously mentioned, is found as 10. The use of ʾalep as a mater lectionis for the vocalic suffixed pronoun of the 3rd-person-singular masculine and feminine is attested later. The reason is that, in the archaic inscriptions, the formularies do not have the expressions that predominate later and that need the vocalic suffix—i.e., kšmʿ qlʾ brkʾ ‘because he heard his/her voice, he blessed him/her’. The most ancient formulary is kšmʿ ql dbry ‘because he heard the voice of his/her words’. The new expressions at the end of dedicatory texts are attested approximately in the 4th/3rd centuries B.C.E. 11. Another possible indication of the use of ʾalep as an internal mater lectionis is attested at Pyrgi (ca. 500 B.C.E.), where the word mš ‘statue’, appears for the first time written mʾš (Krahmalkov 2001: 18). However, the etymology of this word is uncertain; its ancient attestation is mš at Byblos, ca. 900 B.C.E. (KAI no. 6). Punic Scripts 319 early as the 6th century B.C.E., while in Phoenicia, only mtt is attested. The noun mnṣbt ‘stela’, appears in late western texts, but mṣbt is only attested in Phoenicia and on Cyprus (Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995: 676–77). The graphic representations of these phonetic peculiarities in western inscriptions give us the possibility of classifying the inscriptions as non-Phoenician or West Phoenician and of calling them, conventionally, “Punic.” This does not mean, however, that they originated first at Carthage but that Carthage along with the other western colonies adopted the new orthography, which could have begun elsewhere. As already indicated, the earliest examples containing the dissimilation of nun before taw in the word mtnt can be dated to the 6th century B.C.E., and appear on inscriptions from strata 5–3 of the tophet of Motya. In fact, the two most ancient examples, from stratum 5 (Amadasi Guzzo 1986: nos. 14:4 and 36:3–4), can be dated archaeologically to the first half of the 6th century B.C.E. (Ciasca 1992). In short, we may conclude that a first stage of a western dialect that we can call conventionally “Punic” was already attested, at least by the middle/end of the 6th century B.C.E. (see tables 1–2). 12 A further step in the analysis of Punic inscriptions consists of determining whether the inscriptions showing these new linguistic features with respect to Phoenician also present new letter shapes that are similar to the shapes found in the later Punic inscriptions. Again, we must return to the documents from Sicily. The letters from the Motya stelae (fig. 1:5–8) show many varieties, which are not always easy to identify. This is because, as on contemporary inscriptions from Carthage, the quality of the stone used was poor and quite difficult to engrave. On the whole, two tendencies appear: one more accurate and lapidary, and the second more cursive. Both kind of scripts, however, find good comparisons with those attested in Phoenicia itself and especially with inscriptions from 6th-century B.C.E. Egypt (Amadasi Guzzo 1986: 83–94). These inscriptions do not show the peculiarities considered typical of the Punic script. They share common features with the archaic Carthaginian inscriptions (fig. 1:3), however, and with some archaic inscriptions from Malta and Sardinia (figs. 1:2, 4). Moreover, the tendency toward a triangular shape of the head of bet, with a sharp angle on the top right, and the horizontal bar of taw that cuts through to the left of the vertical (fig. 1:5) are two features that will be typical of Punic and that do not develop in the eastern scripts. Finally, there are two interesting texts with letters resembling Neo-Punic letters—mem and taw in Motya 37 and one taw in Motya 20 (fig. 1:6–7)—features that indicate, as already supposed by Peckham (1968: 220–21), that Neo-Punic was a cursive script variety that was already in use in ancient times, probably for documents written in ink. 13 As for coins (fig. 2:1–5; Manfredi 1995), one must contend with peculiarities generally present on small inscriptions. On the whole, the script attested is quite accurate: 12. Although the question of the place of origin of Punic has yet to be studied, by the end of the 5th century B.C.E., the dissimilation of nun before taw and the use of ʾalep instead of he for the article is present at Carthage in the word ʾmtnt (see fig. 1:10 here; CIS no. 5510). As Krahmalkov (1974) has shown, this inscription mentions the fall of Agrigentum in 406 B.C.E. 13. That this is at least possible is shown by the ostraca found in Sidon and Elephantine (Vanel 1967; Peckham 1968: 110–11, pl. 10:4–7). 320 MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO Table 2. Punic Scripts from the Western Mediterranean (6th to 3rd Centuries B.C.E.) Fig . 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 Name Agrigentum (Carthage) Benhisa Inscription (Malta) Monte Sirai bronze (Sardinia) Antas 4 bronze (Sardinia) Hispania 3 (Spain) 1:15 2:1–5 2:6–9 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:13 Hispania 2 (Ibiza) Coins (Sicily) Coins (Carthage) Selinus bullae (Sicily) Antas 2 (Sardinia) Antas 8 (Sardinia) Antas 14 (Sardinia) Reference CIS no. 5510 CIS no. 124 ICO Sard. Pu. 39 Fantar 1969: 70 ICO Spa. Pu. 3 Script Early Punic Early Punic Early Punic Early Punic West Phoenician KAI 72A Early Punic Manfredi 1995: 348 Early Punic Manfredi 1995: 242 Punic ICO Sic. Pu. 7 Punic Fantar 1969: 61 Punic Fantar 1969: 78 Punic Fantar 1969: 84 Punic Date (B.C.E.) ca. 406 4th 4th 4th 5th ca. 400 5th ca. 410 ca. 400 3rd 3rd 3rd sometimes waw is reversed (a peculiarity that is also present on stone inscriptions); ʾalep is the formal type, but the variant with only the upper line breaking through the shaft is present (as on the stelae inscriptions and in later Punic); and ṭet is greatly simplified, generally drawn as an oval that is open on top, frequently with a single dot at its center. 14 On the whole, the script is vertical and not slanted, as is typical of Punic, but the letters already have quite long shafts. Around 500 B.C.E., the Phoenician dedication to Ashtart in Temple B at Pyrgi was engraved (fig. 1:9; ICO 158–59 no. 2, pl. 66). 15 There has been a great deal of discussion about whether the gold plaque evidences relations with the east, perhaps with Cyprus (KAI no. 277), or with the west, especially Carthage (Huss 1985: 66, with bibliographical references). The political situation of this period seems to favor the hypothesis of a Carthaginian origin, and thus this document can safely be called Punic, in the specific sense of being culturally related to Carthage. But here too, the classification of its language and letter forms is not accepted by all scholars. The language does not show specifically Punic elements, except possibly mʾš ‘statue’, if ʾalep is a mater lectionis (line 9). Note that for ‘gift’ the word mtn is used (line 5), not mtnt. As for the script, the document is accurate and formal, and the letters are related to the letters at Motya but 14. Only on one type (with the inscription hmṭwʾ dated between ca. 405 and 397 B.C.E.) does the central sign consist of an inverted “V” with a dot at its center, according to a Punic variant attested on tariffs, dated by Peckham to the first half of the 3rd century B.C.E. (CIS I no. 170), and at Gozo (CIS I no. 132 = ICO 23–25, no. 6, pl. 3), attributed to the end of the 3rd century B.C.E. (Peckham 1968: 180–81, pl. 13:4, 8). 15. See Schmitz 1995, with complete bibliography. Punic Scripts 321 Fig. 2. (1)–(5) Legends on coins from Motya (Manfredi 1995: 348); (6)–(9) legends on coins from Carthage (Manfredi 1995: 242); (10) bulla from Selinus ICO Sic. 7; (11) detail from Antas II; (12) detail from Antas VIII; (13) Antas XIV. without the cursive tendency of that script. They also show more developed elements, probably signifying a slightly later date. In particular, there are two kinds of lamed: the first is the archaic one (only attested at Motya), with a straight and oblique or more rounded foot; the second is more developed, with a downward tick at the lower end of the shaft. Taw has a variant that is well attested in Phoenicia, particularly at Sidon (Tabnit, Eshmunazor, and Bodashtart); but there is also a tendency for the horizontal line to cross the shaft to the left (as seen at Motya) and to add a tick downward to the upper end of the shaft. This sort of taw will develop later and will be characteristic of Punic. On the other hand, kap is of the type attested in Tabnit and Eshmunazor, which 322 MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO Table 3. Punic and Local Punic Scripts from the Western Mediterranean (4th to 2nd Centuries B.C.E.) Fig . 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4–5 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9 Name Marseille tariff (Carthage) Carthage tariff (Carthage) Hadrumetum (Tunisia) Cirta (Algeria) Antas 9 (Sardinia) Cagliari (Sardinia) Antas 3 (Sardinia) Bronze trilingual (Sardinia) 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:13 Lilybaeum (Sicily) Tas Silg Sanctuary (Malta) Gaulos (Malta) Hispania 5 (Ibiza) Reference KAI no. 69 KAI no. 76 Lancel & Lipiński Bertrandy & Sznyer Fantar 1969: 80 ICO Sard. Pu. 36 Fantar 1969: 65 ICO Sard. Pu. 9 Script Punic Punic Local Punic Local Punic Local Punic Local Punic Late Local Punic Late Local Punic 2nd ICO Sic. Pu 5 Local Punic Amadasi Guzzo 1969 Local Punic KAI no. 62 Punic KAI no. 72B Punic / Neo-Punic 2nd Date (B.C.E.) 4th–3rd 4th–3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd post-3rd 3rd 3rd ca. 200 is drawn with a wedge-shaped head or as a broad stroke into the shaft. This sort of kap does not seem to be present on the earliest Punic inscriptions, and it is the variant more frequently found at Motya. To summarize, from the middle to the end of the 6th century B.C.E., a new tendency in the development of the Phoenician script arose in the west, along with a specific dialect, the origin of which has yet to be found. 16 From the end of the 5th to the beginning of the 4th centuries B.C.E., a “canonical” Punic formal tradition can be detected (table 3). It becomes particularly clear on some official inscriptions from Carthage of the 4th–3rd centuries B.C.E. and is present also outside the North African capital, especially in Malta, Sicily, and Sardinia. This script 16. Perhaps, as suggested by Krahmalkov (2001: 8), the new orthography and some features of the script, along with Tyro-Sidonian features, can be found in the Phoenician texts from Egypt (see also Amadasi Guzzo 1996: 1061). Furthermore, the Pyrgi inscription (fig. 1:9) confirms the data from the Motya stelae and coins and links the new tendencies in the script tradition to Carthage. We can partially follow the development of this script on the first inscribed Carthaginian coins, dated ca. 410, bearing the legends qrtḥdšt and mḥnt (fig. 2:6–9; Manfredi 1995: 242–43), and on the socalled Agrigentum inscription of 406 B.C.E. (fig. 1:10; CIS no. 5510; note that the same letter shapes are found on CIS no. 5511). The coins and the inscription show letters that are already inclined to the left; some shading of the shafts which are elongated; taw with the head breaking through the shaft; and lamed with a downward tick. Šin on the stone inscriptions and on some coins preserves the ancient triangular type (now rounded; fig. 2:7; and one example in fig. 2:8, which still shows the archaic shape). On the coins, šin is often drawn as a mem with a shorter shaft as later in Punic (fig. 2:6, 9). Mem has the central bar breaking through the horizontal one forming the head of the letter, a feature that generally disappears later. Punic Scripts 323 ʾ b g d h w z ḥ ṭ y k l m n s ʿ p ṣ q r š t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Fig. 3. (1) CIS I 165 (“Marseille”); (2) Carthage CIS I 166; (3) Hadrumetum (Cintas 1947: figs. 60 + 59); (4)–(5) Cirta (Bertrandy and Sznycer 1987: nos. 8, 45+54); (6) Antas IX + 5 + 288; (7) Cagliari ICO Sard. 36; (8) Antas III; (9) Sardinia, S. Nicolò Gerrei, KAI 66; (10) Lilybaeum, CIS I 138; (11) Malta, Tas Silg (ivory, Amadasi Guzzo 1969: pl. 11:2); (12) Gozo, CIS I 132; (13) Ibiza, KAI 72 B. 324 MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO is the one attested on the so-called Carthaginian tariffs, which seems to reproduce on stone a script previously written with ink on perishable material (probably papyrus). This may have been the official writing of the bureaucracy. Two bullae inscribed in this sort of Punic script from Selinus, Sicily, have been published (fig. 2:10; ICO 59, no. 7, pl. 15). 17 The shading and occasional curve of the shafts are typical (fig. 3:1–2; CIS I nos. 165, 166 = KAI nos. 69, 76) and demonstrates the origin of this tradition from the script used by the cultivated and well-trained scribal school at Carthage in the 4th to 3rd centuries B.C.E. 18 Outside Carthage, we lack good documentation, especially for the 5th century B.C.E. A few examples can be attributed to the 4th century B.C.E. What we have shows some letters differing from the script of North Africa, especially the letter kap. Good examples are the Benhisa inscription from Malta (fig. 1:11; CIS I no. 124 = ICO 17–19, no. 2, pl. 2); the Monte Sirai inscribed bronze plaque from Sardinia (fig. 1:12; ICO 121–23, no. 39, pl. 47); and a bronze plaque from Antas, Sardinia (fig. 1:13; Fantar 1969: 70, pl. 25:2, no. 4). This evidence of a mixed tradition outside the “capital,” gives more weight to the hypothesis that the script typical of the tariffs is really the Carthaginian bureaucracy’s script. By the 3rd century B.C.E., this script had spread throughout the west and represents the specifically Punic tradition. Unfortunately, its diffusion in North Africa is not well attested. But despite unsure chronology, the script (with some peculiarities) is found on inscriptions from Tunisia at Hadrumetum (now Sousse; e.g., fig. 3:3; Cintas 1947; Lancel and Lipiński 1993; see now Bénichou Safar 2010). 19 Good examples of the same script are found outside North Africa. Several examples come from Sardinia. First, from the Sid/Sardus Pater temple at Antas, there are now 30 inscriptions, mainly from the 3rd century B.C.E., some later and one or two earlier (Fantar 1969; Garbini 1997a; 1997b). Well-accentuated shading and occasional curving of the shafts are present on inscriptions Antas 2 and 5, but less evident on Antas 7–9, 14, 23, and 24; and on the bone plaque from Antas (fig. 3:6:288; Garbini 1997b: 112–13, 288, no. 288). These texts are certainly executed by different hands, but the same script tradition is followed: ticks at the end of the shafts of lamed and taw (and on the ṭet on the bone plaque); a form of kap that has developed from its squareheaded ancestor (Peckham 1968: 209); and a mem, the central bar of which does not always cross the head, as in the Carthaginian tariffs: ʿm hkrlʾ (fig. 2:11), kšmʿ (where kap resembles nun, fig. 2:12), and kšmʿ (fig. 2:13). 20 Typologically later inscriptions seem to develop in a local way. Compare Antas 3 (fig. 3:8), with a peculiar ṭet; two types of kap: one with a nearly horizontal bar (line 1) and the second, square-headed (line 3); a 17. The documents sealed by the bullae found by the German mission at Carthage were also written in this type of script (Berges 1993; 1998). 18. These features are especially well attested on Carthaginian official documents during a period when Carthage was certainly the leading urban center of the Phoenician west. 19. The inscriptions from Algeria found at Cirta (now Constantine) belong on the whole to the 2nd century B.C.E., and represent a later Punic script and a locally developed tradition (fig. 3:4–5; Berthier and Charlier 1955; Bertrandy and Sznycer 1987). 20. For the mem, also see Antas 23 and 25. Punic Scripts 325 simplified cursive lamed (lines 1–4); and a very large, open ʿayin (lines 2–3). None of these letters is Neo-Punic. Antas 25, also engraved on a bronze plaque, seems to have been inscribed by an unskilled hand on the basis of the 3rd-century tradition, with variations that seem individual but clearly are not Neo-Punic. The same can be observed for the letters of the inscription on the base of an ex-voto (Garbini 1997b: 107, 113, 289, no. 289). On the other hand, Antas 18 (fig. 4:1) exhibits some Neo-Punic letters: ʾalep (lines 1–2), mem (line 2), and the word bn (line 2), while the other letters follow the Punic tradition on the whole: for example, ṣade (line 1), nun (line 1), and dalet and reš (line 1; Garbini 1997a: pls. 9–10). Second, the Punic tradition, with its accentuated shading of the shafts and the same letter forms as in the 4th- to 3rd-century Carthaginian inscriptions, is found in a document from Cagliari (fig. 3:7; ICO 116–20, no. 36, pl. 44), but with some individual characteristics: for example, the tracing of ʿayin first from upper right, then from upper left, rejoining at the bottom right side; and mem, with central bar always breaking through the head line (Peckham 1968: 180–83, pls. 13–14). One peculiarity that deserves special mention is the form of taw, the horizontal bar of which does not cross the shaft. The same feature can be noted in the Olbia inscription (ICO 113–15, no. 34, pl. 42) which, on the whole, shows letter shapes that are a little more developed than those at Cagliari. 21 In Sicily, after the Motya stelae, Punic inscriptions are few. Two inscribed bullae from Selinus, previously mentioned (see fig. 2:10) and two dedications to Baʿl Hamon from Lilybaeum (now Marsala) can be dated paleographically to the 3rd century B.C.E. 22 They all seem to follow the Carthaginian school tradition but have some local peculiarities: on the bullae, taw has an upper tick, and the bar of the head that crosses the shaft curves upward at the end. The taw is different at Lilybaeum, with no upper tick, and the head with curving line cutting the shaft to the left. On both stelae, ʾalep is the sort that is exemplified in Peckham (1968: 182–83, pl. 14:1a) and is more developed on CIS I 138 = KAI no. 63 (fig. 3:10), where the bars of the head do not join to the left of the shaft. Later, a Neo-Punic inscription on stone follows the North African tradition, as far as it is possible to judge, considering the bad condition of its text (CIS I no. 134 = ICO 68–69, no. 1, pl. 22). Additionally, a sherd with an undated inscription shows a local schematization of the letters, partly differing from the typical Neo-Punic tradition but partly following it (fig. 4:2a; ICO 69–70, no. 2a, pl. 21). From Malta, a fragmentary text from the Ashtart sanctuary at Tas Silg, engraved on an ivory plaque (fig. 3:11), should probably be dated in the 3rd century B.C.E. (Amadasi Guzzo 1969: 67–72 [new ivory inscribed fragments in Amadasi Guzzo 2012]). It shows the same carefully-executed script present on the Antas inscribed bone plaque 21. A similar script, which seems typical of the carefully executed stelae from Sulcis, appears on CIS I no. 176, which comes perhaps from that city and not from Carthage (Cecchini and Amadasi Guzzo 1990: 109–10). A similar but more developed script appears on a 3rd- to 2nd-century inscription (CIS no. 139 = ICO 101–2, no. 23, pl. 35), and on a 2nd-century (?) trilingual inscription (fig. 3:9; CIS I no. 143 = ICO 91–93, no. 9, pl. 30). 22. The texts are: ICO 60–61, no. 10, pl. 16; and ICO 57–58, no. 5, pl. 15 = KAI no. 63 (see fig. 3:10).New inscriptions appear in De Simone 1997a; 1997b; 2010; corpus of inscriptions in 2013. 326 MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO Table 4. Local Punic and Neo-Punic Scripts in the Western Mediterranean (3rd to 1st Centuries B.C.E.) Fig . 4:1 4:2a 4:2b 4:3 Name Antas 18 (Sardinia) Sherd (Sicily) Sherd (Sicily) Tas Silg (Malta) 4:4 4:5 Tas Silg (Malta) Tas Silg (Malta) Reference Fantar 1969: 87 ICO Sic. N.P. 2A ICO Sic. N.P. 2B Amadasi Guzzo 1969 ICO Malta Pu. 34 ICO Malta Pu. 9 Script Local Punic / Neo-Punic Neo-Punic Local Neo-Punic Local Punic / Neo-Punic Date (B.C.E.) post-3rd post-3rd post-3rd 2nd–1st Local Punic / Neo-Punic Punic + Neo-Punic + Local Punic 2nd–1st 2nd–1st (Garbini 1997b: no. 288). At Tas Silg this “official” tradition continues on stone (compare ICO 27–28, no. 9, pl. 4, perhaps from the 2nd century B.C.E.). On pottery, well-executed inscriptions (fig. 4:3), both incised and painted, exhibit a formal but locally modified style of script (Amadasi Guzzo 1969: 74–75). Note, as an individual feature, the ʾalep with the extremely long upper bar of the head cutting the shaft to the left and curving to the right to join the lower bar, not cutting the shaft. (This is a variation of the same form attested at Lilybaeum, where, however, the upper bar shortens and sometimes does not cross the shaft.) This style is attested until the 2nd–1st centuries B.C.E. (chronology based on the type of pottery). For example, an inscribed sherd from the same sanctuary (fig. 4:4; ICO 40–41, no. 34, pl. 9) shows a typical mem, with a long central bar breaking through the horizontal (see also ICO 41, no. 35, pl. 10). Already in the 3rd century B.C.E., short inscriptions on votive pottery attest a schematized script, with Punic, Neo-Punic, and local letter shapes, without exact parallels elsewhere (fig. 4:5; table 4). 23 From Malta, an inscription found at Gaulos (now Gozo) that is dated paleographically to the end of the 3rd century B.C.E. (fig. 3:12; CIS I no. 132 = KAI no. 62) belongs to the same line of development as the Punic tariffs (Peckham 1968: 180–81, pl. 13:8). In contrast, the two bilingual dedications to Milqart (CIS I no. 122 [2×] = KAI no. 47), dated to the 2nd century B.C.E. on the basis of the Greek letters, show a script that is attested in the region of Tyre, the Umm el-ʿAmed inscriptions (KAI no. 19). Perhaps they originated in that area (Amadasi Guzzo and Rossignani 2002). It is not easy to establish how far the Carthaginian tradition of writing was transmitted to the other colonies. Spain has a small number of inscriptions dating from the 5th to 2nd centuries B.C.E. Hispania 3 (fig. 1:14; ICO 139–40, no. 3, pl. 57) should probably be dated to the 5th century B.C.E. (new evidence in Zamora López 2005; from Ibiza in Estaniol I Fuentes 2010 to be reviewed). The ʿayin is closed; šin has the triangular shape with central bar; taw has the bar that does not cross through the shaft; 23. But compare, perhaps, face B of the previously mentioned sherd from Sicily (fig. 4:2b; ICO 69–70, no. 2b, pl. 21). Punic Scripts 327 Fig. 4. (1) Antas XVIII; (2) Sicily, ICO Sic. Np. 2 A–B; (3) Malta, Tas Silg, Amadasi Guzzo 1969: pl. 12.1; (4) Malta, Tas Silg, ICO Malta 34; (5) Malta, Tas Silg, example of lʿštrt inscription. but lamed is the developed type with lower tick; samek seems to have the developed shape with the horizontal bars joined by diagonals but is still vertical (samek slants to the left in the Tyro-Sidonian script). Hispania 2 (fig. 1:15; KAI no. 72A), ca. 400 B.C.E. (Peckham 1968: 219–20 n. 31) does not show all the letters of the alphabet: it represents a tradition (with local peculiarities) similar to that of the Monte Sirai bronze plaque (fig. 1:12) and the more formal Antas 4 (fig. 1:13). Hispania 5 (fig. 3:13; 328 MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO KAI no. 72 B), from the 2nd century B.C.E. (Peckham 1986: 204), is a development from the Punic tradition: it exhibits exaggerated shading of the shafts, rendered by a double engraving of their contour; taw, which seems to continue the earlier form; and Neo-Punic letters (he, mem, closed ʿayin, and šin). Further developments of this Punic script are difficult to follow. As already noted, most of our documents come from Carthage but are not well dated. Peckham (1968: 182–87, pls. 14–16) ably reproduces the 3rd/2nd-century letter forms, especially from Cirta. These forms represent a development from a formal and accurate way of writing, to a less-formal cursive executed by not particularly well-trained scribes. It is also possible to note a general chronological development that does not lead to Neo-Punic, though sometimes Punic shapes are replaced by shapes that are Neo-Punic. Two different tendencies can be observed: letter shapes are either a simplification or an exaggeration of the original form. Simplifications can be seen in some types of zayin (Peckham 1968: pl. 15:6–7), ṭet (Peckham 1968: pl. 14:7–9), and qop (Peckham 1968: pl. 15:7–8). Exaggerations of specific features are clear, especially in various examples of taw (Peckham 1968: pls. 14:5, 7b; and 15:1b, 4, 5, 9), in some ʾaleps (Peckham 1968: pls. 15:4 and 16:1, 2), and bets (Peckham 1968: pls. 14:6 and 15:4). In conclusion, a script differing from the Phoenician tradition of writing is first attested in the west toward the middle to the end of the 6th century B.C.E., when a specific dialect begins to appear in writing. Its links with Carthage are ascertained by the Pyrgi inscription, while its origin is still not clear. The distinctive features of this script continue to be represented by the few Carthaginian documents of the late 5th century B.C.E., while outside Carthage, alongside a somewhat similar development in Phoenicia itself, local variants are not rare. It is with the 4th century B.C.E., though perhaps as early as the end of the 5th century B.C.E. (fig. 1:10; CIS nos. 5510, 5511; Motya coins [fig. 2:1–5]), that a specific Carthaginian tradition of script seems to be established. This tradition, probably originating from an official calligraphy on perishable material, was transferred to stone and is represented mainly by the tariffs, the official documents of sanctuaries (Peckham 1968: 180–81, pl. 13). It was adopted by the 3rd century B.C.E. (probably even as early as the 4th century B.C.E.) by the other Phoenician colonies: it is particularly well attested at Sardinia, and it also appears at Malta, Sicily, and perhaps Spain. The characteristic Carthaginian script showed variations—chronological and local/ individual—in Carthage itself and in the other colonies, certainly by the 3rd century B.C.E. In Carthage and North Africa, the “official” tradition developed with more schematic or elaborate letters according to the tendencies and culture of the various scribes. In the other colonies, local styles of writing arose from the Carthaginian tradition. 24 At the same time, local schematized scripts for common use probably developed everywhere. 25 From the beginning of the 2nd century B.C.E., if not before, Neo-Punic letters were sometimes used with Punic letters on the same inscription. After 146 B.C.E., Neo-Punic replaced the Punic script everywhere, this being a ref lex of the fall of Carthage and its scribal schools. As observed above, Neo-Punic 24. This seems especially true for Sardinia, but it may be an impression created by the fact that discoveries there have produced more inscriptions than from other western Phoenician territories. 25. The Tas Silg inscriptions from Malta are a good example (figs. 4:3–4). Punic Scripts 329 was certainly a cursive script style already present in Phoenicia. The date of its earliest development is not known. It is certain that, from the 1st century B.C.E. to the 1st century C.E., nearly every center or region used a local Neo-Punic script, the best known of which is the monumental Neo-Punic of Tripolitania (Peckham 1968: 192– 93 n. 5; Levi Della Vida and Amadasi Guzzo 1987). 26 The lack of corpora and good photographs of Neo-Punic inscriptions (with some exceptions) prevents a detailed or comprehensive picture of Neo-Punic writing. The long-awaited edition of the Mactar inscriptions by M. H. Fantar and M. Sznycer, and of the Neo-Punic stelae in the British Museum by C. Mendleson will help to advance the realization of this larger work. 26. The origin of the mid-2nd-century C.E. Bitia Inscription from Sardinia (KAI no. 173 = ICO 133–36, no. 8, pl. 55, fig. 15 = HNPI [Chia 1]) is still unknown. In any case, the inscription is not Neo-Punic. References Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1969 Le iscrizioni puniche. Pp. 67–75 in Missione archeologica italiana a Malta: Rapporto preliminare della campagna 1968. Pubblicazioni del Centro di studio per la civiltà fenicia e punica 3. Serie archeologica 17. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. 1986 Scavi a Mozia, le iscrizioni. Collezione di Studi fenici 22. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. 1990 Two Phoenician Inscriptions Carved on Ivory: Again the Ur Box and the Sarepta Plaque. Orientalia 59: 58–66. 1992 Varia Phoenicia. Rivista di studi fenici 20: 95–104. 1993 Astarte in trono. Pp. 163–80 in Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel in Honour of Moshe Dothan, ed. M. Heltzer, A. Segal, and D. Kaufman. Haifa: University of Haifa Press. 1995 Aleph mater lectionis en punique. Pp. 71–76 in Actes du IIIe Congrès international des études phéniciennes et puniques: Tunis, 11–16 novembre 1991, vol. 1, ed. M. H. Fantar and M. Ghaki. Tunis: Institut national du patrimoine. 1996 Su tre iscrizioni fenicie dall’Egitto. Pp. 1047–61, pls. 1–7 in Alle soglie della classicità— Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione: Studi in onore di S . Moscati, ed. E. Acquaro. Pisa-Rome: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici. 1999 Quelques spécificités phonologiques du punique tardif et la question de leur chronologie. Pp. 182–90 in Numismatique, langues, écritures et arts du livre, spécificité des arts figurés: Actes du VIIe colloque international réuni dans le cadre du 121e congrès des Sociétés historiques et scientifiques, ed. S. Lancel. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques. 2005 Ancora sul nome di Mozia. Pp. 575–78 in Atti del V Congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici: Marsala-Palermo, 2–8 ottobre 2000, ed. A. S. Giammellaro. 3 vols. Palermo: Università degli studi di Palermo-Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia. 2012 Frustuli in avorio con iscrizioni puniche da Tas-Silg. Scienze dell’Antichità 18: 131–38. 330 MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., and Karageorghis, V. 1977 Fouilles de Kition, vol. 3: Inscriptions phéniciennes. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities of Cyprus. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., and Rossignani, M. P. 2002 Le iscrizioni bilingui e gli agyiei di Malta. Pp. 4–28 in Da Pyrgi a Mozia: Studi sull’archeologia del Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca, ed. M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, M. Liverani, and P. Matthiae. Vicino Oriente, Quaderno 3. Rome: Università degli studi di Roma, “La Sapienza.” André, B., and Bordreuil, P. 1990 BAALIM II.6. Syria 67: 493–500. Bénichou Safar, H. 2004 Le tophet de Salammbô à Carthage: Essai de reconstitution. Collection de l’École française de Rome 342. Rome: École française de Rome. 2010 Les inscriptions puniques du sanctuaire de Sousse. Semitica et Classica 3: 99–123. Berges, V. D. 1993 Die Tonsiegel aus dem karthagischen Tempelarchiv. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen der deutschen Archäologischen Instituts . Rom . Abteilung 100: 245–68. 1998 Los sellos de arcilla del archivo del templo cartaginés. Quadernos de Arquelogía Mediterráneas 4: 111–32. Bernardini, P.; D’Oriano, R.; and Spanu, P. G., eds. 1997 Phoinikes B SHRDN: I Fenici in Sardegna . Nuove acquizioni. Oristano: S’Alvure. Berthier, A., and Charlier, R. 1955 Le sanctuaire punique d’el-Hofra à Constantine. Paris: Arts et Métiers. Bertrandy, F., and Sznycer, M. 1987 Les stèles puniques de Constantine. Notes et documents des Musées de France 14. Paris: Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, Édition de la Réunion des musées nationaux. Cecchini, S. M., and Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1990 La stèle C. I. S. I, 176. Pp. 101–11 in Carthage et son territoire dans l’antiquité. Colloque international sur l’histoire et l’archéologie de l’Afrique du Nord 4, Strasbourg 1988. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques. Ciasca, A. 1992 Uno sguardo d’insieme sul tofet. Vicino oriente 8/2: 113–55. Cintas, P. 1947 Le sanctuaire punique de Sousse. Revue africaine 91: 1–80. CIS 1881 Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, pars prima: Inscriptiones phoenicias . Paris: Academia Inscriptionum et Litterarum Humaniorum. Paris: Reipublicae. Delavault, B., and Lemaire, A. 1979 Les inscriptions phéniciennes de Palestine. Rivista di studi fenici 7: 1–39, pls. 1–14. De Simone, R. 1997a Un graffito punico da Solunto. Pp. 109–10 in Archeologia e territorio. Palermo: Palumbo. 1997b La stele punica “dell’Acquasanta.” Pp. 447–50 in Archeologia e territorio. Palermo: Palumbo. 2010 Selinunte punica. Pp. 181–89 in Selinunte, ed. S. Tusa. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. 2013 Minima epigraphica punica. Nuove iscrizioni di Sicilia. Palermo: Il Palindromo. Punic Scripts 331 Dupont-Sommer, A. 1974 Les phéniciens à Chypre. Annual Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 75– 94, pl. 15. Estaniol I Fuentes, M. J. 2010 Deux nouvelles inscriptions puniques provenant d’Ibiza. Pp. 237–40 in Carthage et les autochtones de son empire du temps de Zama: Hommage à Mh . H . Fantar, ed. A. Ferjaoui. Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine. Fantar, M. H. 1969 Les inscriptions. Pp. 47–93 in Ricerche puniche ad Antas: Rapporto preliminare della Missione archeologica dell’Università di Roma e della Soprintendenza alle Antichità di Cagliari. Studi semitici 30. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma. Ferron, J. 1964–65 Inscription punique archaïque à Carthage. Pp. 55–64 in Mélanges de Carthage, ed. C. Saumagne, L. Poinssot, and M. Pinard. Cahiers de Byrsa 10. Paris: Geuthner. 1971 Offrande à Carthage d’un autel à Baʿal-Hammon. Studi magrebini 4: 1–15. Garbini, G. 1988 Dialetti del fenicio. Pp. 51–68 in Il semitico nord-occidentale: Studi di storia linguistica. Studi semitici n.s. 5. Rome: Università degli studi “La Sapienza.” 1997a Nuove epigrafi fenicie da Antas. Rivista di studi fenici 25: 59–67, pls. 9–10. 1997b La testimonianza delle iscrizioni. Pp. 110–13 in Phoinikes B SHRDN—I Fenici in Sardegna: Nuove acquisizioni, ed. P. Bernardini, R. D’Oriano, and P. G. Spanu. Oristano: S’Alvure. Gras, M.; Rouillard, P.; and Teixidor, J. 1989 L’univers phénicien. Paris: Arthaud. Harris, Z. S. 1936 A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. American Oriental Series 8. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. HNPI = Jongeling, K. 2008 Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hoftijzer, J., and Jongeling, K. 1995 Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/21. Leiden: Brill. Huss, W. 1985 Geschichte der Karthager. Munich: Beck. ICO = Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1967 Le iscrizioni fenicie e puniche delle colonie in Occidente. Studi semitici 28. Rome: Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma. KAI = Donner, H., and Röllig, W. 1971 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [5th ed. 2002] Krahmalkov, C. R. 1974 A Carthaginian Report of the Battle of Agrigentum 406 B.C. Rivista di studi fenici 2: 171–77. 2001 A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/54. Leiden: Brill. Lancel, S. 1992 Carthage. Paris: Fayard. 332 MARIA GIULIA AMADASI GUZZO Lancel, S., and Lipiński, E. 1993 Hadrumète. Pp. 203–4 in Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique, ed. E. Lipiński. Turnhout: Brepols. Lemaire, A. 2001 Phoenician Funerary Stelae in the Hecht Museum Collection. Michmanim 15: 7*–23*. Levi Della Vida, G., and Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1987 Iscrizioni puniche della Tripolitania (1927–1967). Monografie di archeologica libica 22. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Manfredi, L.-I. 1995 Monete puniche: Repertorio epigrafico e numismatico delle leggende puniche. Bollettino di Numismatica Monografia 6. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello stato. Masson, O., and Sznycer, M. 1972 Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. Hautes Études Orientales 3. Geneva: Droz / Paris: Champion. Mathys, H.-P. 2005 Die phönizische Inschriften. Pp. 273–318 in R. A. Stucky, Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon: Architektur und Inschriften. Basel: Vereinigung der Freunde Antiker Kunst. Mazza, F. 1977 Su alcune epigrafi da Cartagine. Rivista di studi fenici 5: 131–37. Nys, K., and Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 2001 A Cypro-Archaic I Jug with a Phoenician Inscription in Mainz. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 31: 59–65. Peckham, J. B. 1968 The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts. Harvard Semitic Studies 20. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. PPG = Friedrich, J.; Röllig, W.; Amadasi Guzzo, M. G.; and Mayer, W. R. 1999 Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. 3rd ed. Analecta orientalia 55. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Pritchard, J. B. 1982 The Tanit Inscription from Sarepta. Pp. 83–92 in Phönizer im Westen, ed. H. G. Niemeyer. Madrider Beiträge 8. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Puech, É 1977 L’inscription phénicienne du trône d’Astarté à Séville. Rivista di studi fenici 5: 85–92. Sader, H. 1991 Phoenician Stelae from Tyre. Berytus 39: 101–26. 1992 Phoenician Stelae from Tyre. Studi epigrafici e linguistici 9: 53–79. 2004 The Stelae. Pp. 383-94, in The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre–Al-Bass: Excavations 1997– 1999, ed. M. E. Aubet. BAAL Hors Série 1. Beirut: Ministère de la Culture. Direction Générale des Antiquités. 2005 Iron Age Funerary Stelae from Lebanon. Cuadernos de Arqueología mediterránea 11. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Schmitz, P. C. 1995 The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi. Journal of the American Oriental Society 115: 559–75. Segert, S. 1976 A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. Munich: Beck. Punic Scripts 333 Sznycer, M. 1977 Recherches sur les toponymes phéniciens en Méditerranée occidentale. Pp. 163–75 in La toponymie antique, actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 12–14 juin 1975. Strasbourg: Centre de recherche sur le Proche Orient. Vanel, A. 1967 Six “ostraca” phéniciens trouvés au temple d’Échmoun, près de Saïda. Bulletin du musée de Beyrouth 20: 45–95, pls. 1–4. Xella, P., and Zamora López, J. Á. 2004 Une nouvelle inscription de Bodashtart, roi de Sidon, sur la rive du Nahr al-Awwāli près de Bustān ēš-Šē. BAAL 8: 273–300. Yon, M. 2004 Kition dans les textes, Kition Bamboula: Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions. Paris: Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations. Zamora López, J. Á. 2005 El nuevo Corpus epigráphico fenicio y las inscripciones fenicias halladas en la Península Ibérica: Estado actual y primeras consideraciones. Pp. 511–17 in El periodo orientalizante . Actas del III Simposio internacional de Arqueología de Mérida: Protostoria del Mediterráneo occidental, ed. S. C. Pérez and J. Jiménez Ávila. Mérida: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.