• 1 W. K. Prentice, Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria, 1899-1900. Part II (...)
• 2 For summaries of content and syntheses of reviews and critical remarks: SEG XXXII 1534, LXI 1480, (...)
• 3 Geographia v 15.8, 26: ὁ Αλσαδαμος τὸ ὄρος and τὸ Αλσαδαμον ὄρος respectively, mentioned in connec (...)

2After its treatment by Waddington, the Graeco-Roman epigraphy of the ancient Hauran had not been systematically revisited since the two expeditions of the turn of the 20^th century, the first on private American patronage, then that of Princeton University, which, though not aiming at a corpus, led to the revision of inscriptions after autopsy and new finds. 1 This IGLS XVI comes as the culmination of epigraphic fieldwork by its editors over decades, with a long gestation since 1969 spanning the Hauran in the large (modern) sense. Its published fruits began with IGLS XIII/1 for Bostra (1982), and have accelerated with XIII/2 for that city’s eastern chora (the plain of Nuqrah) and a supplement to the urban epigraphy (2011), XV for the basaltic Trachon to the north (2014), and XIV for the region of Batanaia and the neighboring city of Adraa and other sites of the modern Hauran’s southwest portion (2016). 2 The alignment of IGLS with the boundaries of the modern state of Syria are reflected in the reservation of what may be considered the southern limits of the ancient Hauran in I.Jordanie V, of which the first fascicle for modern Umm al-Jimal and environs appeared in 2009. Volume XVI itself is devoted to the ancient Hauran (alias (H)auranitis, (H)aurana) in the strict sense: the mountainous area centered on the Jebel al-ʿArab (alias Jebel Druze, perhaps the Alsadamos of Ptolemy 3) in the southeast corner.

• 4 AJ XV 116.

4The Hauran’s history, to which the general introduction then turns, is poorly known before Roman rule, epigraphically and otherwise. Dated inscriptions are said to range from 109 bce to 735 ce, but the corpus in general skews towards the later period. After notional control first by the Ptolemies, then the Seleucids, it is found divided between Herodians in the north and Nabataeans in the south, in terms of influence if not firm control. Kanatha, along with the rest of the loose and territorially discontinuous grouping of the Decapolis, entered Roman Syria early (65/64 bce) in connection with a re-founding under Pompey and Gabinius, but the rest of the region fluctuated between Roman, Herodian, Ituraean, and Nabataean hands, with even a brief interlude of restored Ptolemaic rule thanks to Marc Antony (the conclusion of the editors from the evidence of Josephus 4), before definitive subordination of everything north of the boundary of the Nabataean kingdom, somewhere to the south of Ḥebrān, to the Roman province of Syria towards the end of the first century ce, shortly followed by the annexation of that kingdom as the new province of Arabia. North and south were then reunited in Arabia in the provincial reform of Septimius Severus sometime between 193/194 and 214. Despite administrative separation and differences, which leave traces in epigraphy, the editors maintain an unbroken cultural unity in the region (p. 19). It flourished epigraphically especially in the later Roman and Late Ancient periods, with the establishment of new cities (including Soada as Dionysias, to rival nearby Kanatha), eventual bishoprics, and attestation of civic institutions down to a village level (πιστοί, προνοηταί, ἐπίσκοποι).

• 5 R. Mouterde and A. Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis : Organisation de la steppe en haute Syrie romai (...)
• 6 IGLS XIII/2, no. 9788; XIV, no. 148; I.Syrie PAES 725; see in general J.-B. Yon, L’histoire par le (...)
• 7 Chronographia anno 5990, 5994; PLRE II s.v. Ogarus, citing the Arabic sources.
• 8 “Antiquités syriennes 14. Nouveaux monuments palmyréniens des cultes de Bêl et de Baalshamin”, Syr (...)
• 9 E. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, London, 1863-1893, p. 2045.
• 10 J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Leiden, 1995, p. (...)
• 11 D. Schlumberger, La Palmyrène du Nord-Ouest : Villages et lieux de culte de l'époque impériale, Pa (...)
• 12 A category drawn by M. Sartre, “The ambiguous name: The limitations of cultural identity in Graeco (...)
• 13 G. L. Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions, Toronto, 19 (...)
• 14 Discussion: J. Naveh, “An Aramaic inscription from El-Mal – A survival of ‘Seleucid Aramaic’ scrip (...)

6Despite some illuminating comments dispersed throughout the volume (e.g. under texts nos. 270, 274, 359, 397), a synthesis on onomastics in the general introduction is missed, given the large set of data that might have contributed to historical questions. One still looks forward to the onomastic index to the entire Hauran promised in the introduction to IGLS XIII/2 (p. xi). Some refinements to the interpretation of personal names may be proposed in the meantime. Under no. 51 (cf. 52), [Μο]σαλλαμου (genitive) is restored but Σαλλαμου is also possible, cf. Σαλλουμας in northern Syria. 5 90: where the copy shows ΟΡΑDΟϹ (sic), a likelier correction is Ορα⟨λ⟩ος (as in I.Jordanie V 415) rather than Ορα⟨ιλ⟩ος. 90a: for what is claimed as a new name Οσεραθη, the photograph shows the attested Οτεραθη. 6 92: Σεμαθη Οβου is read with a note of Οβος as “inédit”, but the photo shows ΣΕΜΑΘΗΣΟΒΟΥ, so Σεμαθη Σοβου may also be considered; for the patronym, cf. the attested Σοβεος (e.g. I.Syrie 2046; IGLS XIII/2 no. 9908) and Σοβαιος (I.Jordanie V no. 269). 92a: there can be no question of Ουασηαθη for the name of the deceased, as the first preserved letter is χ (same form as in 88a): perhaps e.g. [Μαλι]χαθη. 166: Ταυηλος is emended to Τανηλος, an admitted hapax; variants like Σευῆρος alongside Σεουῆρος and Δαυίδ alongside Δαουίδ show that the spelling Ταυηλος is not a valid objection to the Arabic etymology proposed by Dain and Dunand, even if the most recent editors are correct that it would give in the first instance Ταουιλος in Greek. 237: of the two solutions Χαιλος and Σοραιλος, only the second would fit the drawing of Dunand; add Οραιλος, more common in the region. 289: the name of the craftsman (Aramaic ʾMNʾ as previous editors, not ʿMNʾ) is ḤWRW, so a vocalization Ḥūr in the translation is misleading, even if he is to be identified with the Ουρος whose name appears on an altar at the same site (282). 296: ΟΓΕΡΟΣ in Waddington’s copy (L. 1), if it does require correction, could be Ογε⟨γ⟩ος (cf. Ογαγος, I.Jordanie V 143) as well as Ο⟨ρ⟩ερος as proposed by editors, and the former might explain the copying error better: the cutter anticipated the first letter of the following Ῥουφείνου. The name could be kept without correction, however, as an Arabian Ωγαρος is on record in the late fifth century, the “Saracen” leader, son of Arethas, mentioned by Theophanes and identified with a Ḥuǧr on record in Arabic sources. 7 As for the Οραρος said to be found in the territory of Palmyra, the reference is to a publication of Seyrig, 8 but the reading is apparently that of the present editors; Seyrig, who admitted of the text, “il est difficile de restituer même les grandes lines”, interested himself in its attestation of “fasting” and a “holocaust-offering” (νηστεία, L. 6, and ὁλόκαυστος, L. 7, sc. θυσία, cf. IGLS XVII/1 no. 131) but left the line apparently in question (L. 2) in majuscules: Τ . . ΛΟΡΑΡΟΥΤΟΣΥΝΤ[ ]. Personal names could follow here the dative [Διὶ] ὑψίστῳ μεγίσ[τῳ] with which the text opens, but that that of a single dedicant (cf. ἑλών, L. 5) ended in the letter read as Λ by Seyrig and was followed by the patronym Οραρου seems doubtful. 328: the editors correct Χαλιπος into a Greek name, Κάλλιπος or Χάλεπος, following Lidzbarski and Clermont-Ganneau; the presence in the patronym of the unusually unaspirated Οδαινατου for Οδαιναθου supports the possibility of a variant for Χαλιφος (a relation to Safaitic Ḫalaf was already proposed in I.Syrie PAES 432d, but this form remains unattested in Greek transcription). The name should also be considered in relation to the Χαλειπας in the territory of Tyre (SEG LII 1669 with SEG LIII 1823). 345c: the patronym Οδαγου (genitive) is said to be new in the region, but an attestation from Arabia (Riḥāb) could be cited: SEG XLVIII 1926 (31). 382d: if Ασκαρα(ς) is a personal name, compare Arabic ašqar “fair-skinned”, “blond” rather than ʿaskar as editors (in fact “army” not “soldat”, and a Persian loanword 9); if a divine name, compare perhaps the Semitic verbal root SKR, usually “close up” or in the causative “deliver” 10 but apparently with a sense of reward or congratulations in Palmyrene Aramaic (IGLS XVII/1 no. 224 [PAT 1415], L. 2 of the Aramaic); cf. also SKR as a divine epithet in a dedication from the north-west Palmyrene. 11 390b: Κάσιος is taken as another exemplar of the “ambiguous name”, 12 either Latin Cassius or Arabic QS. If Arabic, QSY or QṢY would suit the vocalization better, and are both attested, 13 but why not the Greek Κάσιος, which suits better the spelling with single sigma? Τhe patronym Νασρου is referred to (modern) Arabic Naṣr, but there are ancient parallels with the same root NṢR in various Aramaic dialects 14 as well as Arabic. 403: Dunand’s Μ̣ο̣ν̣α̣ι̣|νος is unnecessarily corrected to Μ̣ο̣ν̣η̣⟨μ⟩ος; a comparable Μονενος (IGLS XV no. 209) is already mentioned in the commentary, in fact homophonous in Greek of this period. 434: for the name of a woman who is the sister of the dedicant according to the editors (L. 3, ἀδελφῇ ΝΝΑΜΤΗΝΙΟΥ Φιλίππ[ου], sc. ἅμα), but who may in fact be the sister of the dedicant’s wife as she has a different patronym from the dedicant, divide perhaps ἀδελφῇ{ν} Ναμτηνιου Φιλίππ[ου] (for ἀδελφῇ Ναμτηνιῳ), i.e. Ναμτηνιον, a hybrid of Greek suffix (cf. e.g. Ἀθήνιον) on a derivative of the Semitic root NʿM common in personal names. 452: a parallel for the name Δοεβος is cited from IGLS XIII/2 no. 9613, where Δοβου (genitive) had been read following Littmann, but his drawing as reproduced there in fact seems to show a gap consistent with Δο[ε]βου. 458: for the editors, -νασου “n’évoque aucun nom attesté en Syrie”, but cf. Βον̣ασου (genitive) in IGLS XIV no. 474; the name might also be complete as Νασου, for Νασαος (I.Jordanie V 501) and Νασεος (Steinepigramme IV 22/49/02) are on record in the region, as is Νασιος (SEG XXXVII 1448; SEG LXVI 1958) in greater Syria. The alternative Ὄνασος proposed in the commentary is a well-attested Greek name but otherwise unknown in the Near East. 461: Waddington’s copy shows ΡΑ . . ΔΟΥ, for which the editors rightly discard his otherwise unparalleled proposal Ρα[μα]δου, but their correction Ρα[ου]⟨α⟩ου is unnecessary as Ραθεδου (genitive) is on record in IGLS XIV 351 (where the proposed correction to Ραθε⟨λ⟩ου should be discarded). 470: the hapax Χαμεδος is referred to “l’arabe ḥamīd ‘digne de louange’”; closer to hand in antiquity is an Aramaic verbal root ḤMD “desire” with derived noun ḥamdāṯâ “something desired, precious”, suitable for the affect of parents towards a child.

• 15 In L. 5, read Σειηνοί as in the drawing and introduction (“ethnique Σειηνοί”) in place of Σεηνοί.

10Among dedications, that of a statue in honor of Herod at Seeia (262) gives a rare epigraphic mention of this monarch in a region where his activity is otherwise well-known. A series of Greek-Nabataean bilinguals (261, 264-265, 268, 289) probably use the Seleucid era instead of Nabataean regnal years, such eponymy being reserved, revealingly for the history of the region, in one case (268) for the reign of the tetrarch Herodes Philippos. A new dedication from the same site on behalf of Agrippa II probably belongs to a series (269, 269a-b) set up by a centurion in the king’s army, an officer who may appear once again at Ḥebrān (431a). The dedication of a divine image (ξόανον) in connection with the imperial cult at Kanatha may be mentioned (190), and that of part of a “sacred plaza” (ἱερὰ πλατεία) by the citizens of Seeia in the same city (191). 15 A dedication to Zeus “savior and light-bringer” (σωτὴρ καὶ φωσφόρος) in thanks for rescue from shipwreck (310) gives a glimpse of the movements of the residents of this landlocked region, and that of an altar (160) set up in thanks for salvation in connection with anonymous “savior gods” (θεοὶ σωτῆρες) may reveal a cult specifically oriented towards healing: read perhaps νοσῶν ἴ⟨α⟩σιν from what is left in majuscules as ΝΟΣΩΝΙΙΣ|ΙΝ (L. 8-9). Among res sacrae there is also a sculpted lintel with labels for a mythological scene, the Judgment of Paris (304), where the editors rightly reject previous interpretations as a Greek gloss on indigenous myth.

• 16 It cannot have been “mgharat” as cited: the consonants would rather be MʿRTʾ, though transcription (...)

11Representations of the Christian period include a rare epigraphic citation of 1 Corinthians 8:6 (2), a metrical building inscription of the bishop of Kanatha Cassius Epiodorus (212), and two reflections of the central position of that city to a network of Christian communities in the region, in the form of epitaphs for Paulos (225) and Petros (226), bishops of Dionysias and Maximianopolis respectively, but buried at Kanatha. An enigmatic epitaph may mention the burial of a martyr (236), and a dedication from the same city refers to the “commandment and prayer” (ἐντολὴ καὶ εὐχή) of a prophet (213), probably Job, which may reflect a tradition of that figure’s residence in the area and is certainly consistent with his cult there. At the site of Kafr in the interior of the Jebel, there is a dedication of a Christian sanctuary for St. Sergios, which the dedicant describes as a μάγαρον (408): in addition to a variant spelling for μέγαρον “hall” (supported by the same form in I.Smyrna 734), the editors offer the possibility of a relation to an Aramaic word for “cave”. 16

• 17 The syntax of the Aramaic is closer to that of the Greek than the translation of the former “Nefes (...)
• 18 In 80, L. 1 (of stone and verses) both drawings show ὁρᾶις not ὁρᾷς.

12Funerary epigraphy is well represented, whose chiefly onomastic contribution remains to be exploited. Other notable features include a Greek-Nabataean bilingual (346); 17 a series of epitaphs from Selaima in which the monument is internally designated as στήλη (81, 84a, 85, 87, 89), which seems to be a style particular to the village (but note also I.Jordanie II 180-182 from Dibon); an epitaph for a woman “struck by the god’s thunderbolt” (κεραυνωθεῖσα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, 343a), whose origin, Καπαρ Αυσαια, is identified with a village Kafr ʾWŠY on record in Syriac; a novel address from the deceased (or the tomb?), “Here I await you” (ὧδέ σε μένω, 386a); novel expressions on a double epitaph for two men as “bridegrooms who died together” (ὁμοῦ θανόντες νυμφίοι, 443), and for the builder of a tomb as having “gathered and buried the remains of his parents” (τὰ λείψανα τῶν γονέων συναγαγὼν κατέθαψεν, 467). Some metrical epitaphs, 18 in general held up as revealing the social world of elite families (1 p. 21), include one for a man who served as ambassador to Rome (πρεσβεύσας εἰς Ῥώμην, 82), possibly related to the public inscription edited under no. 321, in part a copy of a letter from the governor of Syria Sulpicius Iulianus, which lists a homonym among ambassadors from Soada–Dionysias, perhaps in connection to its promotion to a city. A pigeon-tower, whose construction is commemorated by an epigram, is also to be identified as funerary according to the editors (127); the patronym of the builder who provided for these “long-winged doves”, by his epic turn of phrase (τανυπ⟨τ⟩ερύγεσσι πελείαις), may be completed with the epic genitive Ἀ̣ρ̣ί̣οιο from the copy of Bankes (L. 3; vs. 2) in place of the [ ]ΕΙΟΙΣ printed from the copy of Dussaud and Macler.

• 19 Fr. 18, L. 2 has a good chance of containing [εὐδα]ι̣μονία; fr. 20, L. 2, perhaps e.g. [τὸ]ν or [τ (...)
• 20 For the specification cf. 129: no reading is given for fr. a, but the drawing allows [στύλ]ο̣υ̣ς σ (...)
• 21 For the Nabataean equivalent of ἀνάπαυμα established by a bilingual inscription, correct the refer (...)

13Besides offering a lush crop of new texts, the editors, through revision after autopsy, new archival documentation, or simple reconsideration, offer many improvements to the readings and interpretations of inscriptions previously published. The editorial principles, organization of texts, and conventions of commentary laid out in the preface to IGLS XIII/2 continue to be followed. Some suggestions towards further progress are offered here. We may note first some numbered items for which the texts themselves have been omitted (e.g. 245, 266a, 275, 319b, 349a, 376, and several of the fragments of 266, a public inscription mentioning the emperor Claudius 19), another whose language has not been identified, which can be recognized beyond doubt as Nabataean Aramaic once the photograph is turned right side up (62a), and a few more in which two items may be joined: 8 and 23 as left and right halves of a tabula ansata (allowing τὰ πό|λλα and βαλόμενοι to be completed overline); 24 and 38 (the latter, a fragment in secondary use presented as an ineditum, may be the right edge of the former, which was not located); 79 and 103 (giving in the last line [το]ὺς δύο στύλους ἀνέγειρε[ν], 20 and in the preceding perhaps a patronym for the ἀγορανόμος, such as [Γ]οδαιου); 248 and 251 (a possibility already raised in the commentary); 360 and 361 (the restoration in L. 4 of the latter [τοῦτο] ἀνάπαυμα is not required, 21 perhaps instead, if a join is accepted, [ᾠ]κοδόμησεν | [τοῦτο ἑ]α̣υτ̣ῷ (…) [καλὸν] ἀνάπαυμα or similar, or a further specification of the φίλο⟨ι⟩ς—the copy of Bankes shows ΦΙΛΟΥΣ not ΦΙΛΟΙΣ—such as [πᾶσιν]).

• 22 IGLS XIII/1 no. 9315; XIII/2 nos 9531b, 9548, 9741; XIV nos 28a, 526; XV no. 230; I.Jordanie V 157 (...)
• 23 In Arabia cf. SEG XXXIX 1672-1673 (Steinepigramme IV 21/23/02); and elsewhere e.g. IG V.1 731; IvO(...)
• 24 Cf. IGLS XIII/1 no. 9393, τύμβος ἔχει ⟨μ⟩ὲ οὗτο[ς]· φίλε, εἴ που ἀκούεις̣ Ἀσιανὸν καλ̣ούμ̣ενον.
• 25 Cf. IGUR III 1163, χρησμοσύνην δ’ ἔλιπεν πολυκήριον ἐν νεκύεσσιν.
• 26 The reference is to be corrected to Syria 7, 1926, p. 332.
• 27 Cf. Αυσαλλαθος, which may be read in IGLS XIV no. 607 (with SEG LXVI 2205).
• 28 For a collection of attestations and discussion: B. Isaac, “Bandits in Judaea and Arabia”, HSPh 88 (...)

14As for readings and interpretations of the rest, in 13 one sees with difficulty how the text can begin as printed with the particle γάρ in first position, and the punctuation Μάγνος. Ἀγριππίνου τοῦ καὶ Ογεδελου is counterintuitive; we should perhaps understand a concrete act, rather than a gnomic sentiment about ὁ βίος: that the text begins with a personal name, Πα⟨τ⟩ρόβιος, subject of ἐκτήσατο, as a later possessor of the tomb, and that Μάγνος Ἀγριππίνου τοῦ καὶ Ογεδελου is the subject of the verb of the original construction (L. 5) of the ἡρῷον. In 43, mention is made of the joint beneficiary of a tomb construction, the wife (ἀλόχῳ) of the builder Maximos, preceded by a sequence ΑΓΑΡΜΙ in the copy of Bankes and ΑΙΑΡΗϹ in that of Waddington; the conjecture αἰ̣⟨δύ⟩η⟨ι⟩ seems rather violent and condemns the wife to anonymity, while the Semitic name Αγαρη (or better, Αγαρηι) recognized by Waddington is well paralleled in the vicinity. 22 In the funerary epigram 194, the benefaction of the deceased’s homeland, apparently the city of Kanatha, is cited in recompense for his service as ambassador: πάτρη is printed, after which there is said to be “un petit signe en forme de sigma” to mark the end of a verse, but that sign is not used to mark any of the other verses; one may therefore consider also πατρής as a phonetic spelling for πατρίς. In 222, for some regulations on burial, the reconstructions in L. 4 are difficult to follow: the line is complete at the beginning, so [αὐτήν] cannot be restored there, rather the verb ἀνῦξε (ἀνοῖξαι) is used absolutely; the photograph shows ἕτερον without any loss of text, and then only two letters before the apodosis of the conditional with δώσι: not βολίθῃ but simply θῇ “places”, that is, a penalty for placing another corpse in the tomb after opening it. The photograph of the funerary epigram 234 shows in the first line not οὐδεὶς ἀνειπὸν but οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι “no one would say”; in L. 3 where ἀλλὰ ἑ is printed and rendered “mais… le (Destin)” (in commentary, “ne pas corriger l’article”), there is no question of an article, but rather an enclitic pronoun: ἀλλά ἑ “but (Fate destroyed) him”. In 284a, if the Nabataean Aramaic text is indeed a version of the Greek, and the opinion of A. Zerbini cited in the commentary has been accurately reported (“peut-être le teth”), one can restore with confidence nṭ[y]mw (nt[.]mw, for the editors) to match the Greek Νοταιμου (genitive). In 285a, for [ ]νὸς ἑκα[τόνταρχος], the photograph shows Ι between the first and second letters, so the name of the dedicant ended in -νιος and might be added to the series of dedications by the centurion Lucius Obulnius (269-269b, 269c?); note the similar four-barred Σ. In the new funerary epigram 341, of which a poor copy by Bankes is unfortunately the only witness, the deceased is acclaimed as a distinguished orator. The form can be recognized more specifically as a dialogue, a series of questions and answers about the deceased and his feats: 23 so in L. 1, divide ἔνε τίνας (for τίνος) δόμος; “Whose house is it?”; L. 1-2 rather εἴ που ⟨ἀ⟩κ[ού]|ει⟨ς⟩ τὸν Νίνο⟨υ⟩ than ⟨ἀ⟩κ[ούετ’] | ἐγ το̑ν Νίνο⟨υ⟩ (the deceased is son of a Ninos rather than descendant of the mythical Ninos24), and in the right ear and external field, where Πατρίη | εἰπές | ἐγένετο is printed, the dialogue may continue, εἰπέ{ς}· πατρίη ἐγένετο “Say, ‘His native land was…’”, but the toponym is missing. In 343, the editors propose some new readings and discard various hazardous corrections; for the unresolved [ ]κήριον (L. 2) complete perhaps [πολυ]κήριον “very deadly”, 25 and for Α[. . .]ΑΣ (L. 3) perhaps ἀ[φορ]ᾷς “you are looking upon”, sc. the monument. In 344, ὑπὸ δένδρεσι σοῖς ἐνὶ τύμβῳ is maintained against the correction τύμβοις of previous anthologies of epigrams, but it has yet to be reflected in the translation: not “dans une tombe comme si, encore vivant, tu étais sous les arbres”, but with δένδρεσι σοῖς together, a more concrete reference to a tomb situated in a garden or grove (as already suggested in the commentary, “(you sleep) as if still alive, in a tomb under your trees”. The editors are right to discard the arbitrary dating to the second century by Peek, but their affirmation that it is certainly Christian because it refers to the immortality of the souls of the especially pious (τῶν ἄγαν εὐσεβαίων) seems unsafe. In 349, the photograph of this new building inscription shows that what was built was not τὸ κτε̑μα but τὸ κτίσμα. In 350a, the photograph shows a vacat after the last letter of L. 3, and it is possible that nothing is lost at right, and that the short text is a series of names of local officials, Δαδος, Εδμο|ος καὶ Γαβρε|ων οἱ πει(στοί). In 358, the reading Γαλαζ̣ων is difficult, and the photograph shows for the second letter an angular form closest to the first υ in Εὐνόμου below (L. 4-5) but closed at the top: perhaps a correction of Γυλαζων to Γολαζων, both of which are phonetically closer to the modern name of the village Uṣluḥa with which the editors would connect the toponym. In 362, two new fragments are added to I.Syrie 2298; L. 10, col. 2, the photograph shows not the hapax Εζηος but Εζμος, comparable to Εσεμος (I.Jordanie V 277); L. 7, col. 4, [. .]δια Χειλου, which one would otherwise expect to be a female name and patronym, fits poorly the onomastic pattern of the rest, and we should consider the role of an agent, διὰ Χειλου, especially if the list concerns liturgists who have contributed to some public construction. No. 382a is devoted to an inscription described by M. Dunand without text, 26 said to mention Athena or Allath as patron of the temple discovered in this village, which has not been recovered. Dunand’s photograph (pl. LXV) shows at bottom left an apparently inscribed altar in the background to the stone lion (the latter pictured here too at the head of the introduction to the site of Meṣʿad-Tell Aḥmar, 2 p. 117): L. 1-2 may be read Ἀθη|νᾶς; the rest is mostly obscured by the lion in the foreground, but at least ΑΡ[ ] in L. 3 and ΚΑΙ in L. 4 can be made out, which may be enough to identify the inscription now re-published as no. 388, for which the provenance, variously said to be Raḥa and Kafr, is now further complicated. There is further interest in that the photograph shows part of the statue on top of the altar (but unfortunately only the lower part, and not very clearly), apparently lost by the time of the publication by Dunand when it was in the museum of Suweida and said to be of unknown provenance; according to the most recent editors it would have borne “une image ou une statue d’Athéna d’Arra et des sources”. In 391, the name of the deceased in the nominative Λαυδαν[ης] and a patronym are restored followed by ηὐψ[ύ]χη “courage”, a rather unusual spelling for εὐψύχει; better the proposal of Mouterde, dismissed without explanation, ἡ ψ̣υ̣χή in the last line preceded by genitives, but Λαυδαν[ου] in preference to his [Κ]λαυδ⟨ι⟩αν[οῦ]. In 405, L. 3 ΓΟΣΑΛΑΘΟΝ in the copies of Waddington and Littmann is assumed (following previous editors) to conceal the object of the construction (ἔκτισεν) by the protector Maximus, ⟨τ⟩ὸ σαλαθον, whose meaning remains obscure; a personal name might be considered instead, that of the opponent of Maximus, Γοσαλαθος, 27 object of ἐπολέμισεν. This verb seems stronger and more specific than “a servi à l’armée” (cf. στρατεύομαι); the lack of object of ἔκτισεν is no obstacle (cf. e.g. 407). The context could be an irregular warfare against nomadic incursions, running intermittently over a period of some years. 28 In 438 (and 29), if ἱεροτομία is corrected to ἱεροταμία in 396, it can hardly be maintained that “il n’ya aucune raison de corriger” the related ἱεροτομεῖς here. Treasurers (well attested in the region: see 2 p. 209 n. 38) would in fact have more direct access than “sacrificateurs” to the sacred treasury from which the latter dedication was made (ἐκ τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ). In 460, St. George is asked with respect to the dedicant, Σχολαστίκιον τὸν προσενεγκόντα εὐχαῖς σου διατήρησον, which is rendered “considère favorablement Scholastikios, qui t’adresse ses prières”; the point is rather that the saint should act as intercessor, “watch over with your prayers (i.e., to higher powers) Scholastikios, who has made the offering”.

• 29 Among these testimonia, p. 145 I. 2 (IG XIV no. 2532; IG France 141), L. 9, the deletion of {δ} se (...)

15The presentation of photographs alongside the editions rather than in the back-matter is a welcome innovation in the recent volumes of IGLS, as are, in the most recent, the systematic, numbered presentation of testimonia (with French translation) and external epigraphic attestations for the city of Kanatha (1 p. 141-154). 29 A concordance with previous publications of inscriptions is provided for the first two fascicles; links to bibliography and further indices online are given in advance of final versions planned for the last fascicle.