Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros95Autres articlesTwo Palmyrene funerary busts in t...

Autres articles

Two Palmyrene funerary busts in the collection of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Mo

Jeremy M. Hutton, Hikaru Kumon, Margaret McLaughlin et Preston L. Atwood
p. 279-296

Résumés

Nous décrivons ici deux bustes funéraires précédemment non publiés de Palmyre et maintenant dans la collection du Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Mo. (inv. 73-50 et 48-13). Nous retraçons l’histoire de la propriété des bustes, et abordons une discussion théorique sur des questions liées à la publication d’artefacts sans provenance. Nous décrivons chaque objet et présentons leur iconographie et leurs données épigraphiques. Bien que nous jugeons les deux objets susceptibles d’être authentiques, nous suggérons que l’inscription de NA no. 73-50 est vraisemblablement authentique, alors que l’inscription de NA no. 48-13 est probablement une contrefaçon. Nous fournissons également une analyse onomastique détaillée de NA no. 73-50.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1A pair of funerary busts is held in the permanent collections of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Mo. The busts have not been previously published. In light of the current threat posed to the antiquities in Syria by looting and outright destruction—especially to those originating in Palmyra—it is gratifying to be able to make some small steps in publishing these two pieces. We hope that publication of these pieces will serve to increase our knowledge of Palmyrene funerary commemoration, including its iconography, paleography, onomastics, and prosopography.

  • 1 Cohon, personal communication with J. M. Hutton, May 17, 2017. The dates of Paul Mallon and the pe (...)

2On August 24, 2015, three of the authors photographed the two busts presented here: Nelson-Atkins no. 73‑50 and no. 48‑13. As implied by the objects’ respective registration numbers, the latter (48‑13) has been in the museum’s collection since 1948; according to the Museum’s spartan records on the relief, it was a gift of the Parisian art dealer, Mr. Paul Mallon (b. 1884 – d. Dec. 16, 1975), and his wife, Mrs. Margot Mallon. 1 The former has been in the Museum’s collections since 1973. Two factors significantly complicate our analysis of these objects: the history of the antiquities trade beginning as early as the nineteenth century ce, and the possibility of forgery. We discuss these issues, focusing on their implications for the study at hand, before proceeding to analysis of the busts themselves.

Illicit Trade in Antiquities

  • 2 Hillers and Cussini 1996.
  • 3 Firm counts of Aramaic inscriptions are difficult. In some cases (e.g., Berkshire 1903.7.3 = PAT 0 (...)
  • 4 See Daniels 1988.
  • 5 E.g., Brodie 2011, Gerstenblith 2014, Cherry 2014, Cuno 2008, Owen 2009, Boardman 2009.
  • 6 For the text of this convention, see http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOP (...)
  • 7 Cherry 2014, p. 240.

3The Palmyrene inscriptions under study here appear on funerary busts. While fairly heavy for a single individual to carry, funerary busts are relatively small and easily moveable in comparison to larger Palmyrene objects such as banquet scenes and even votive altars. As a result, many of these funerary busts were removed from Palmyra without formal documentation. D. R. Hillers and E. Cussini, who collected the great heft of the known corpus of Palmyrene inscriptions in 1996, 2 listed nearly 400 inscriptions in municipal and university museums outside of Syria. Of these, upwards of sixty busts and other inscribed objects have found their way to the United States through a robust antiquities market. 3 This frequent acquisition of the moveable items on which Palmyrene inscriptions are found through the informal (and increasingly illicit) trade in antiquities has had disastrous consequences for our understanding of Palmyrene society, and particularly for the relationships obtaining between script traditions, iconographic representations, and the funerary institutions and customs of Palmyra. Rarely if ever is a secure, precise, and dateable provenance available for the items that entered European and American collections during the lengthy time between the first glimmers of European interest in Roman-era Palmyra in the early 17th century 4 and the imposition beginning in the 1970’s of various boycotts and institutional regulations attempting to bring an end to the trade in looted and illegally-obtained antiquities. The most authoritative of these latter regulations was drafted in 1970 and is generally seen as normative across the field of epigraphy,5 although a vociferous debate continues to rage, especially concerning the legality of such acquisitions, and whether continued acquisition of un-sourced antiquities by Western collectors (including museums) has promoted further looting or not. In 1970 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) ratified its “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.” 6 This agreement prohibits the purchase and accession of antiquities after a rigid date of April 24, 1972. Frequently, one sees 1970 as the practical point of demarcation, since that date takes the signing of the accord as the effective date of implementation. Although both dates are arbitrary, 7 they provide a rough guideline for epigraphers wishing to publish pieces for the first time.

4It should be stressed that, with a few possible exceptions, most—if not all—Palmyrene pieces currently residing in the United States have been attained through a previously unregulated market in antiquities in which buyers purchased objects from merchants in the Middle East or Europe who themselves had purchased the objects from excavators. These excavators had performed their excavations with no legal government oversight—in short, they would constitute “looters” in our modern parlance. What has shifted in the interim is the legality of this practice in international courts. We dwell on this point because one of the pieces discussed below (Nelson-Atkins no. 73-50) bears an accession date after the April 24, 1972, cut-off date imposed by UNESCO’s 1970 declaration. However, this date (1973) is the date at which the piece was formally accessioned into the museum’s collection; it is not the date of the piece’s removal from Syria.

5The Museum staff was able to find a statement of authenticity (perhaps accompanied by a statement of price, which has been redacted) dated April 6, 1965, in which this piece and one other are described. Curator Robert Cohon explains:

  • 8 Cohon, personal communication with J. M. Hutton, Dec. 14, 2015. It is unclear to us where Cohon re (...)

73-50 was given to us in 1973 by Hallmark for our 40th anniversary along with several other gifts. My sense is that they were offered for sale at its [Hallmark’s] prime store in Kansas City and were not purchased.
We have a very faded copy of an April 6, 1965 document that mentions the relief. I assume that the document was part of the sale agreement with the dealer, Khalili Sarkis in Beirut. 8

6The pertinent description reads: “1 Bas-Relief, Palmyrian, 2nd/3rd century A.D. The sculpture on the stone represents two persons.” After a similarly brief description of the second piece, a piece of paper has been used to obscure a short passage—presumably the total amount paid?—in the photocopy. The next paragraphs read:

We certify the authenticity of the above two pieces that the first one is Palmyrian and the second one is Greco-Roman 2nd and 3rd century A.D. and that they have been discovered in this part of the world.
Museum lisence [sic] is included in this price.
Packing, shipping and insurance will be paid against delivery of the goods by the buyer.

  • 9 Receipt for Nelson-Atkins no. 73-50, generously provided to us by the staff of the Nelson-Atkins M (...)
  • 10 The identity of the gallery from which the bust was purchased is now lost. Terbovich recalled the (...)
  • 11 Terbovich, personal communication, May 10, 2017.
  • 12 Whitelaw 2014, p. 111.
  • 13 Terbovich, personal communication, May 10, 2017.
  • 14 Terbovich, personal communication, May 10, 2017.

7The phrase “this part of the world” naturally suggests that the receipt itself was drafted in Beirut, Lebanon, which is included in the document’s header (“Aschrafié – Beirut / Liban”). 9 The third paragraph lends the impression that the piece remained in Beirut as of April 6, 1965. However, there is a strong likelihood that the piece was already in the country by as early as late 1963. A hand-written note on the document names George Terbovich, one of the former Trustees of the Nelson-Atkins Museum, and an executive in the Hallmark Corporation, with no further indication of his involvement. One of the authors (Hutton) was able to contact Terbovich, who related that the relief was in the country already by late 1963 or early 1964. It was purchased from a gallery in New York City 10 in order to serve as part of the exhibition held in the People-to-People Pavilion at the 1964 World Fair in Flushing Meadows. 11 Terbovich asserted that Carl Fox, “manager of The Gallery Shop at the Brooklyn Museum of Art,” 12 would have made the purchase. At the time, Fox was acting as a retainer to Mr. Joyce Hall, the founder of the Hallmark card company, which was sponsoring the People-to-People Pavilion. As part of this assignment, Fox was tasked with serving as curator of the Pavilion’s collection. After the closure of the World Fair (in 1965), this collection was moved to Kansas City, Mo., where it became the center of the Folk Art collection of the Halls Gallery, in Kansas City. 13 Here, Terbovich’s account connects with that related by Cohon: acting as curator of the Folk Art collection, Terbovich recommended that the relief (along with two other pieces) be donated to the Nelson-Atkins Museum in recognition of its 40th anniversary in 1973. 14

  • 15 Cherry 2014, p. 240.

8Thus, although the dates of the bust’s acquisition would initially appear to raise the issue of legality, the bust had in all likelihood been transported out of Syria, at the latest, by 1964. We strongly suspect that the official purchase of the bust was completed in 1965, with the closing of the People-to-People Pavilion. Although the bust has changed ownership within the United States since it was first brought here in the mid-1960’s, its presence in this country during that period is relatively secure. We are therefore dealing with what might be termed an as-yet unpublished “legacy collection.” 15 Accordingly, we do not assert the propriety of the bust’s removal from its original archaeological provenance—it was, after all, acquired through the same type of unscientific excavations as most other Palmyrene reliefs currently in American collections. Nor do we claim to offer here an air-tight case for the legal acquisition of the bust with respect to any Syrian national legal statutes protecting Syrian heritage that were established before 1970. We assert merely our conformity with normal standards of practice in epigraphy dictating that an object must have been accessioned into a collection outside of its country of origin by the time of the signing of UNESCO’s 1970 declaration (and thus before its official 1972 date of implementation) in order to ensure the legality of publication.

Possibility of Forgery

  • 16 We have been unable to find any studies specifically addressing this topic. Perhaps the closest di (...)
  • 17 E.g. Rollston 2003, Rollston 2004.

9The lack of provenance for both reliefs discussed below raises another equally complicated issue: the possibility that one or more component of each bust (including its associated inscription) may have been added by a forger after the initial date of the object’s manufacture. (This remains a separate problem from whether or not inscriptions were added at the time of the sculptor’s completion of the likeness. 16) As many recent studies have shown, forgery—pious or not—continues to confound and aggravate experts in the discipline of Northwest Semitic epigraphy. 17 The proliferation on the black market of unprovenanced materials (and demonstrated forgeries) should raise our suspicions. The authors are therefore reluctant to assert with absolute certainty the authenticity of the funerary busts studied here. Nonetheless, aside from the abnormal positioning of the portraits in NA no. 73-50, both funerary monuments studied below show sufficient commonalities with the artistic conventions and material execution of standard Palmyrene funerary portraiture so as not to arouse lingering suspicions. We propose that the currently available evidence provides some corroboration for the assumption that the iconographic portrayals of both pieces discussed below were commissioned and executed in the environs of Roman-era Palmyra, although experts in Palmyrene iconography may eventually determine otherwise.

10This judgment of the iconographic representations’ authenticity notwithstanding, the execution of the commemorative inscriptions can and must be evaluated as a separate act of composition. That is to say, the judgment of the inscriptions’ authenticity must remain independent from the assessment of the authenticity of the funerary reliefs on which they appear. As will be discussed in further detail below, we see no obvious reasons to assert the inauthenticity of the inscription(s) associated with Nelson-Atkins no. 73-50. Conversely, we adduce two significant reasons to judge the inscription on Nelson-Atkins 48-13 a forgery. First, the nonsensical morphology of the letters suggests that the inscriber did not have a background in any of the attested Palmyrene scribal traditions. This odd morphology may bear certain resemblances to other forged, putatively “Palmyrene” inscriptions in American and European museums. Second, the relatively shallow inscription of the letters, highlighted by our Reflectance Transformation Imagery, suggests an unskilled hand working with inappropriate tools. We suggest that one of the people in possession of the bust shortly after its looting added the present, nonsensical inscription in order to increase the bust’s value on the antiquities market. We publish our account here so as to begin a discussion of the methods and networks employed by forgers of Palmyrene inscriptions.

Nelson-Atkins No. 73-50

The Relief

  • 18 Ploug 1995, p. 103–105 no. 30.
  • 19 Ploug 1995, p. 101–103 no. 29.

11This white limestone funerary relief depicts the busts of two individuals; both representations have been performed from a rigidly frontal perspective (fig. 1). The limestone slab measures c. 81 cm high by c. 36 cm wide at its widest point. Whereas most such relief portraits of a married couple depict the individuals side-by-side (see, e.g., Ny Carlsburg Inv. No. 1026 18 and 1028 19), this relief depicts them with the wife, ʿAliyat, positioned above her husband, ʿAtē-nūrī. Both are depicted only as busts, with ʿAliyat’s hands positioned immediately above ʿAtē-nūrī’s head, and her arms and elbows ending abruptly at the blank panels flanking her husband’s head. ʿAtē-nūrī’s head overlaps with the female’s waistline and he is centered slightly to the right of where the female’s hands meet. The two parts of the inscription flank either side of ʿAtē-nūrī’s head. One wonders whether this “stacked” relief was intended to provide an accurate representation of the couple’s final disposition in the two funerary loculi that this double-height relief would have covered. Yet, because the woman’s bust is not flanked by blank panels, its tapered shape would likely not have been sufficient to fully cover a rectangular burial niche. Unfortunately, the removal of this relief from its archaeological context prior to any official excavation means that this data has been permanently lost.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

NA 73-50, full object

© J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.

  • 20 Colledge 1976, p. 67–68.
  • 21 Several busts include objects that perhaps revealed the professional affiliations of the deceased, (...)
  • 22 The eyes, in addition to the ears, were usually overlarge (Colledge 1976, p. 68).
  • 23 Ploug 1995, p. 27.
  • 24 Colledge 1976, p. 68.

12The position and attributes of the male are typical for Palmyrene busts created during the first three centuries ce20 He wears a tunic demonstrating typical features of Palmyrene portraiture; likewise, his hands exhibit a typical posture and in his left hand most likely holds a book-roll. According to Colledge, this feature does not allow us much access into the professional life of the deceased. 21 The man’s face is clean-shaven with a neutral expression, thin lips, and a prominent nose. The eyes consist of two engraved concentric circles forming the iris and the pupil. They are roughly proportional to the rest of the figure, although perhaps slightly over-large, as is the case in the majority of Palmyrene busts. 22 Locks of hair form tight groups of vertical striations across the forehead with thick locks, straight hairline, and lack of a part.23 In combination, these iconographic elements —posture, dress, and facial features— suggest that this figure was most likely produced between 50–150 ce24

  • 25 Colledge 1976, p. 69–70.
  • 26 Ploug 1995, p. 27–28.
  • 27 Ploug 1995, p. 27–29.

13The female is positioned above the male and is centered slightly to the left of his medial line. She wears a tunic, cloak, and veil, again featuring conventions typical of Palmyrene portraiture. The woman’s posture is similarly conventional; she holds a spindle and a distaff in her left hand. Curly locks of hair fall onto each shoulder from behind her ears. No hair can be seen above her ears, because it is covered entirely by the veil. Like her male counterpart, the woman’s gaze and facial expression are neutral, the ears are overly large, and the pupil and iris are formed by two concentric circles, touching the upper eyelids. She wears a simply-decorated diadem, with a large band in the center flanked by several narrower vertical bands. On top of the diadem rests the veil, gathered into four strands tied in a knot in the middle. Uncharacteristically, the woman lacks any discernable jewelry. A brooch and rings are noticeably absent. Even when considered separately from the male figure carved below, the female’s prominent shoulder locks, large ears, and empty left hand would also suggest that the figure was carved between 50–150 ce25 Her eyes are overly large and the upper lids are highly curved. The eyes are wide open and rounded —these features are characteristic of the same period— and they appear only slightly elongated. Elongation of the eye began in the late first century ce but did not become popular until c. 140 ce26 Other busts produced between 50–150 ce depict a similar flare in the bottom part of the earlobe. 27

  • 28 Colledge 1976, p. 123–124.
  • 29 E.g., Colledge 1976, p. 78.

14In summary, both the male and female figures are characteristic of the busts produced between 50–150 ce; Nelson Atkins 73-50 was most likely produced during that time frame. Like other busts produced during this time period, Nelson Atkins 73-50 exhibits features that are primarily Roman in style and which lack a clear Near Eastern and Mesopotamian influence, as found in other funerary art. 28 Including two or more figures in one banquet relief was not uncommon. Normally in such cases, the woman was either the widow or sister of the deceased man. 29 It is slightly more uncommon, but still not unheard of that two figures would occupy a single funerary slab that was designed to span two or more loculi. In these cases, the woman is usually identified in relation to the man. As the inscription makes clear, this particular woman was the wife of the man depicted below her.

The Inscriptions

15Two related inscriptions are present on this piece. On the left side (above the man’s right shoulder), we find the inscription commemorating the man himself (fig. 2–3). This text covers an area of approximately 10.3 cm in width and 6.5 cm in height. Some text is directly next to the ear, but all the graphemes can be seen when viewed directly from the front. It reads:

(Left)  
1. ʿtnwry br 1. ʿAtē-nūrī son of
2. mqymw 2. Moqīmū
3. br ʿtnwry 3. son of ʿAtē-nūrī.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

NA 73-50, left inscription (photograph)

© J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

NA 73-50, left inscription (autograph)

© H. Kumon.

16This inscription follows a standard pattern of Palmyrene funerary inscription, tracing the decedent’s lineage back two generations. As we see ubiquitously throughout the Palmyrene onomastic and prosopographic corpus, he was named after his grandfather (papponymy). Both names, ʿAtē-nūrī and Moqīmū, are known from the corpus and will be discussed briefly below. The common funerary exclamation, ḥbl (“Woe!”) is not present in the text.

17On the right side of the funerary monument, above the man’s left shoulder, stands an inscription commemorating the woman whose likeness appears at the top of this double-bust (fig. 4–5). This text covers an area of 12.6 cm in width and 8.3 cm in height. Some text is hidden behind the man’s ear and cheek, and cannot be viewed directly from the front. It reads:

(Right)  
1. ʿlyt brt 1. ʿAliyat daughter of
2. ydyʿbl 2. Yǝdīʿ-bēl (son of)
3. ʾḥlḥys ʾtth. 3. ʾḤLḤYS, his (i.e., ʿAtē-nūrī’s) wife.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

NA 73-50, right inscription (photograph)

© J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

NA 73-50, right inscription (autograph)

© H. Kumon.

18As is the case with the accompanying text, this inscription identifies the two paternal members of the generations preceding the commemorated individual (father and paternal grandfather), and then describes her as “his (i.e., ʿAtē-nūrī’s) wife.” The woman’s name and the name of her father are known from the Palmyrene corpus, but her paternal grandfather’s name is previously unknown in the corpus of Palmyrene inscriptions. We discuss all three onomastica below. As with its accompanying inscription, this text does not use the normal Palmyrene interjection, ḥbl. One wonders whether this omission signals that one or both of the individuals portrayed here was still alive at the time of the relief’s manufacture. But this would be pure speculation.

19The text has been written in three lines, directly mirroring the position of the lines in the accompanying inscription. We believe the desire to provide similarly sized inscriptions may have led the stone-cutter to write a longer than normal line in line three. This led to a smaller than normal incision of several of the graphemes.

The Script

20Together, the two inscriptions of Nelson-Atkins 73-50 contain forty-four letters, but only fifteen different graphemes. The script of these epigraphs comprises an elegant monumental script, showing all the hallmarks of traditional Palmyrene lapidary practice (back-curved verticals, slightly-flaring serifs at the ends of letter segments, and so forth). The sizes of the letters are relatively consistent, with the exception of yod, lamed, and samek. With the exception of yod and lamed, all the letters stand between 1.8 cm and 1.2 cm in height, and 1.6 cm and 0.8 cm in width.

21Only one letter requires significant comment in the present context. The yod on line 3 of the right inscription resembles a waw in some ways: First, it is written on the ceiling-line (rather than floating below the ceiling-line). Second, there is a deep scratch running down and rightward from the yod, resembling the spine of a waw that connects with the foot of the preceding ḥet. Several considerations lead us to conclude that this is indeed a yod. First, the fact that the letter is on the roof line can be explained by its proximity to the preceding ḥet; the yod is kerned upward in order to fit the nine graphemes of line 3 into the space. Second, the shape of the yod’s head, opening to the southwest, is more typical of yod than waw, as judged by the six other yods in the right and left epigraphs. Thirdly, our initial reading upon inspection of the bust was that this letter was a yod. Indeed, our Reflectance Transformation Imagery shows that the scratch between the ḥet and yod is narrower and shallower than most of the intentionally-carved segments of the two epigraphs on NA 73‑50 (fig. 6; contrast the conventional photo in fig. 4, where the scratch resembles an intentional stroke). It is most likely a chip that occurred in the process of inscribing these two letters so close to one another.

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

NA 73-50, ḥet-yod sequence in right inscription, red oval marks the two letters, with chip between them

© J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP, RTI derivative using Specular Enhancement filter by J. M. Hutton.

The Names

22Five different names appear in the two inscriptions of NA 73-50. Four of them (ʿAtē-nūrī, Moqīmū, ʿAliyat, and Yǝdīʿ-bēl) are very well known from the Palmyrene corpus. We discuss each of these only briefly here, since they are reasonably common and widely described elsewhere.

  • 30 Stark 1971, p. 108.
  • 31 Stark 1971, p. 46; Piersimoni 1995, p. 433–434, s.v. ʿtnwry. The shorter variant ʿtnwr is found in (...)

23The name ʿAtē-nūrī (left inscription, lines 1, 3) is a masculine personal name. It means “(The deity) ʿAtē is my light.” 30 We have a case of papponymy here—quite common in Palmyra—in which a man had been named after his paternal grandfather. The name is found in several inscriptions, namely, PAT 0066:2; PAT 0094:2; PAT 0326:3; PAT 0341:2; PAT 703:2 (ʿ reconstructed); PAT 0858:4; PAT 0859 (this and the preceding funerary bust likely exhibit a case of papponymy); PAT 1484:1, 3 (another case of papponymy); PAT 1538:5; PAT 1614:2, 6; PAT 1860:2; PAT 2033: rev. 1; PAT 2109: rev. 1; PAT 2116: rev. 1; PAT 2453: rev. 1 (r reconstructed); PAT 2559 (-ry reconstructed); PAT 2616: rev. 1; PAT 2658:2; PAT 2771:2, 3; and PAT 2808: rev. 1. 31

  • 32 Stark 1971, p. 96.
  • 33 RES 2210 = PS 341 (i.e., Ingholt 1928, p. 128 n. 10 = no. 341); Schroeder 1884, p. 439 no. 5 (inco (...)
  • 34 For dates at Palmyra, see Taylor 2001; PAT 0066 is included on p. 211.

24The name of ʿAtē-nūrī’s father is Moqīmū (left inscription, line 2), another masculine personal name meaning “He who causes to arise.” 32 This name is so pervasive in the Palmyrene onomasticon as to be ubiquitous, and listing its appearances would be extraneous. Somewhat surprisingly, however, we know of an “ʿAtē-nūrī son of Moqīmū” from the so-called “Tomb of Three Brothers” (PAT 0066; likely now destroyed in the wake of IS’s occupations of Palmyra during 2015–2017) and from the funerary stele of “ŠGL daughter of [ʿA]tenūrī son of Moqīmū” (PAT 0703; Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzesi, inv. no. 3713T). 33 Whether these inscriptions were intended to refer to the same ʿAtē-nūrī we cannot say because of the lack of provenance, both of PAT 0703 and of NA 73‑50. Furthermore, the patronymic chain in the dedication inscription only goes back one generation; in PAT 0703, the list is three generations deep, again ending with Moqīmū. As far as we can determine, only three of the individual loculus reliefs of the Tomb of the Three Brothers were discovered in situ (PAT 0068–0070), none of which name the major figures related to the tomb’s construction. The foundation inscription of that tomb dates the tomb to the year 445 (= 133 ce), 34 and this is consistent with the latter end of the date-range that we proposed on the basis of the relief’s iconographic features. It is therefore possible that NA 73‑50 is the funerary bust of the same individual named in PAT 066 (and PAT 0703 that of his daughter), although this identification is hardly assured, since both ʿAtenūrī and Moqīmū were common enough names that different people might be named here.

  • 35 Stark 1971, p. 106; Piersimoni 1995, p. 424.
  • 36 Stark 1971, p. 90.
  • 37 Stark 1971, p. 24–25; Piersimoni 1995, p. 231–237. Piersimoni lists over seventy occurrences of th (...)

25The name ʿAliyat (right inscription, line 1), meaning “Exalted (f.),” is a predominantly feminine personal name known from PAT 0615.D:1; PAT 0616:1 (the same individual as in the preceding); PAT 0771:1 (t reconstructed); PAT 0772:1 (who, oddly, shares the same patronymic with the individual of PAT 0616); PAT 0861:3 (perhaps masculine?); PAT 1213; PAT 1214; and PAT 2821. 35 Her father’s name is Yǝdīʿ-bēl (right inscription, line 2), a typically masculine name meaning “Known by Bēl.” 36 This name, too, is so widely used as to be unnecessary to list its occurrences. 37

  • 38 These names were gathered by manual scanning of the database of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Name (...)

26This brings us to the final name: ʿAliyat’s grandfather’s name is ʾḤLḤYS (right inscription, line 3). We provide no vocalization here because we have been unable to determine the origin and etymology of this name. If it were Semitic, we might be able to isolate the element aḥ, “(divine) brother.” But the remainder of the name is not easily assigned a Semitic background. We have also attempted to find a Persian derivation of the name, to no avail. The ending of the name (‑ys) resembles the (typically uninflected) endings of Aramaic transcriptions of Latin and Greek names, as in ywlys ʾwrlys = Ἰούλιος Ἀυρήλιος (< Iulius Aurelius; e.g., IGLS XVII.1.519 = PAT 0057) and ʾlksdrys = Ἀλέξανδρος (IGLS XVII.1.403 = PAT 1135). Here, too, we have reached an impasse: the phonology (with a velar or pharyngeal fricative ) does not conform easily to Latin phonology. The remaining option is to attribute the name to Greek, comparing it to names such as Ἀχέλης, Ἀχελώϊχος, Ἀχιλλαῖος, Ἀχιλλᾶς, Ἀχιλλεύς, Ἀχιλλῆς, Ἀχίλλιος, or Ἀχόλιος. 38

  • 39 Drijvers & Healey 1999, p. 211 no. Cm3; they cite Payne Smith 1879, p. 177, 181, where ʾKLWS and ʾ (...)
  • 40 For Dura-Europos, see Grassi 2012. For Hatra, see Abbadi 1983 and the index of Aggoula 1991.
  • 41 Cantineau (1932, p. 61).
  • 42 See also Negev 1991, p. 12 no. 83.

27The name Ἀχιλλεύς (Achilles) is represented at Palmyra in a mosaic picturing several semi-divine and heroic figures (including also Odysseus and Cassiopia; see IGLS XVII.1 no. 332). Similar instances of the name applied to the epic hero (Ἀχιλεα) are found in a mosaic in Madaba, Jordan (IGLS XX1.2 no. 126), and in an unprovenanced Syriac mosaic (ʾKLYS) from northern Syria, again depicting heroic figures. 39 In none of the inscriptional cases is the name attested as the name of a historical person, and we have been unable to find instances of the personal name at contemporary sites such as Dura-Europos and Hatra.40 To complicate matters, the spelling ʾKLYS assumes spirantization of kaph (representing the voiceless velar fricative of Greek χ; judging from perusal of Payne Smith 1879, this seems to be the regular phonological correspondence in early Syriac). One wonders if the same correspondence might be represented in Nabatean ʾKLWŠW, which Cantineau considered difficult, 41 comparing it to Arabic ʾKLS ‘greyish’. 42

  • 43 Should the correspondence Gk. χ = Palm. prove to be attested here, it may be the only such attes (...)

28Of the other available names—and assuming that Greek χ does in fact correspond to Palmyrene ḥ 43—our preference for identification with ʾḤLḤYS would be something approximating Ἀχελώϊχος, even though its simplified ‑ος ending would seem to lack motivation for the insertion of the y in the Aramaic transcription. All the other names lack a second guttural fricative letter (represented in the Aramaic by the second ). Barring the loss of an underlyingly present guttural fricative in some of these names, Ἀχελώϊχος would appear to be the closest name, phonologically, to what our inscription seems to represent. In any event, our investigation of NA 73-50 has added a personal name to the Palmyrene onomasticon; it seems that the addition of this name to the Palmyrene repertoire may point to additional cultural connections between Palmyrenes and their Hellenistic environment.

Nelson-Atkins No. 48-13

The Relief

29The relief NA 48-13 depicts a female frontally from the waist up on a white limestone slab which measures c. 50.0 cm high by 39.8 cm wide. The majority of the panel above the woman’s right shoulder (i.e., the viewer’s left) is missing. The right panel contains an inscription at the level of the woman’s neck and face.

30The woman wears a tunic, cloak, and veil. A trapezoidal brooch holds together the tunic just under the left shoulder, where her left lock of hair ends (see below). Her left hand rests at her abdomen; she holds a spindle and a distaff, although, interestingly only the handle of the spindle is clutched by her thumb and index finger. The index finger is extended almost horizontally, with a slight downwards point. The distaff, the handle of which cannot be seem, appears to be pinned between the woman’s thumb and her body. The woman’s right hand is raised—the tip of her index finger parallel with her neck—and she grasps her cloak and veil, which covers her head. Curly locks of hair fall below each ear. The locks on her right continue behind her shoulder, but the hair on her left is swept forward, continuing onto her chest and ending just above the brooch. The woman’s hair is covered by the veil, with only a small wavy lock visible above each ear. She wears a headband that is simply decorated with a large band in the center flanked by several narrower vertical bands. The woman has large, circular eyes with drill holes forming the pupils; her irises touch her upper eyelids, but are separated from the lower eyes by a few millimeters. The woman’s lips are full, exhibiting a neutral expression, and she has large ears with bulging lobes, in which she wears circular earrings.

  • 44 Ingholt 1928; Colledge 1976, p. 69–71.
  • 45 Colledge 1976, p. 69–71.

31NA 48-13 was most likely produced during the early- to middle-second century ce. This relief displays several characteristics of Group I (50–150 ce) and a few of Group II (150–200 ce), as these groups have been defined by Ingholt and refined by Colledge. 44 The folds of the cloak are a mix of the two groups; they are rigid in places, like the folds of the Group I busts, but quite fluid in other places, which is more characteristic of Group II. However, unlike the majority of Group II busts, the folds are simple and the woman retains the long-sleeved tunic of Group I instead of the short-sleeved tunic of Group II. The raised right hand is found in both middle/late Group I and early Group II. Also characteristic of Group I is the simple headband, trapezoidal brooch, and circular earrings. Group II prefers a more elaborate headpiece, a polygonal or circular brooch, and “dumbbell” earrings. Although common of Group II busts, it was not unprecedented for Group I busts to have a shoulder lock on only one side. 45

  • 46 Ploug 1995, p. 28–29.
  • 47 Colledge 1976, p. 70–71.
  • 48 Ploug 1995, p. 28–29.
  • 49 Ploug 1995, p. 27–28; Colledge 1976, p. 69–71.

32The full lips with down-turned corners are characteristic of the early second century 46 and the pursed lips belong to Group I, as technological advances with the drill allowed craftsmen to introduce parted lips in Group II. 47 Similar advances helped to free the earrings, however NA 48‑13 retains the relief earrings of Group I. 48 Also characteristic of Group I, the iris and pupil are concentric circles and the eyes are rounded, but the upper lids are not as curved as those found on early Group I busts and the bottom lids are barely curved, which is more characteristic of early Group II. 49 Whether this relief is an innovative Group I bust or a conservative Group II bust is not discernable. However, given the characteristics discussed here, this particular female bust was mostly likely sculpted c. 125–175 ce.

Figure 7.

Figure 7.

NA 48-13, full object

© J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.

The Inscription

33A series of shallow smoothing grooves was used to prepare the panel for inscription. These grooves, covering the panel, have analogues in other inscriptions, and were probably original to the artwork. Yet, because of the shallowness of the inscription, these smoothing grooves can make it difficult to discern the epigraph’s strokes, particularly when a stroke runs parallel to the shallow smoothing grooves. The inscribed strokes of NA 48‑13 differ in their width, depth, and clarity (see fig. 8). In order to inform the reader of these differences, and also to indicate our degree of confidence that a stroke exists, the autograph of the inscription has been produced in a way that distinguishes between three types of strokes, based on the criteria of depth and width of the strokes (fig. 9):

  • Solid outline with internal solid line: The depth and width are uniform.
  • Solid outline: A stroke is clearly visible but not uniform as the preceding category.
  • Dashed outline: The presence of a stroke is questionable, but the groove is deep enough to justify consideration. This includes sections that seem to merge into the stone, as the depth decreases steadily until the stroke can no longer be distinguished from the surrounding shallow grooves.

Figure 8.

Figure 8.

NA 48-13, inscription detail (photograph)

© J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.

Figure 9.

Figure 9.

NA 48-13, forged inscription (autograph)

© H. Kumon.

34Although the distinction is subjective, we believe that such a distinction is justified based on examination of images we produced through the process of Reflectance Transformation Imaging. As an example of our use of these conventions, we represent the right-most letter in the second line with a dashed line because this stroke is difficult to distinguish from the shallow grooves running on either side. Thus, the reader should be aware that the clarity presented by the trace is illusory. In actuality, the epigraph is comprised of a collection of scruffy strokes shallowly inscribed on a messy surface.

  • 50 We thank here N. E. Greene for his observations (personal communication).

35As a look at fig. 9 shows, the morphology of only some of the letters approximates the typical forms of Palmyrene graphemes. Approximants include ḥet/ṣade (left-most letter of the top line), an ayin (right most letter on the second line), a mem (second letter on the second line) and two zayins (the left most letters on the second line). But these identifications may only be made if we read the evidence graciously. The other graphs do not approximate any letters with any reasonable stretch of the imagination, and even these letters show morphological anomalies that prohibit these identifications. The difficulty in discerning familiar grapheme morphologies, coupled with the scruffy nature of the inscription, raises the question of whether the inscription is a forgery. The problem cannot simply be reduced to a product of erosion. Many of the letters, or the parts of the letters, that are legible approximate no known graphemes, and the ones that do approximate letters are badly executed. Moreover, the wide variation in the depth and width of strokes also gives the impression that whoever inscribed these letters lacked sufficient experience and had little knowledge of the Palmyrene script. Therefore, while we see no obvious reasons to suggest that the bust itself was forged, we can only conclude that the inscription on NA 48‑13 is a forgery, most likely a modern one effected with the purpose of raising the value of the bust. We note in passing that the left panel has been broken off, raising the possibility that an authentic inscription may have appeared there originally. The panel may have broken off accidentally, either in antiquity or in modernity (perhaps as part of its removal from its funerary context). A third possibility exists, of course—namely, that the panel was broken off intentionally so as to separate the inscription from the relief. In this case, the inscription would presumably have garnered its own interest on the antiquities market apart from the relief, and the relief’s value could have been enhanced through the addition of a second, forged inscription (i.e., the one currently occupying the sole surviving panel). 50 This possibility awaits further confirmation through comparison with other forged inscriptions on Palmyrene objects.

Conclusion

36In this study, we have offered our analysis of two Palmyrene reliefs in the collection of the Nelson-Atkins Museum, nos. 73‑50 and 48‑13. The former is an anomalously-shaped relief inscribed with epigraphs identifying the two individuals represented by the relief. Five individuals are named (with four unique names, one of which is otherwise unknown from the Palmyrene corpus). The latter relief (NA 48‑13) shows commonalities and continuities with the canon of Palmyrene iconography, but the associated inscription does not appear to be genuine. The anomalous morphologies of the inscribed signs, in combination with the poor quality of the inscription, suggests that the inscription was added subsequent to the relief’s original manufacture, likely in the modern period. It is our hope that this study provides more data for the study of Palmyrene portraiture, onomastics, and scribal habit—as well as of forgeries on Northwest Semitic inscriptions in the modern period.

We gratefully acknowledge research support generously granted by several agencies. The team’s travel was made possible by the support of the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Vilas Associates Fellowship, administered to Hutton during the academic years 2015–2017 (grants #MSN188670 and #MSN199119). The Wisconsin Alumni Research Fund, administered by the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Office of the Vice Chancellor of Research and Graduate Education, supported the purchase of some photographic equipment. A grant from the Middle Eastern Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin–Madison was used to purchase additional photographic equipment (grant #MSN165105). We would also like to express our appreciation to Robert Cohon, Curator of Art of the Ancient World, for his generosity in organizing the photographic session and providing additional information concerning the acquisition of the objects under study.
The editor thanks Dr Chadi Hatoum for the abstract’s and keywords’ Arabic translation.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

IGLS XVII J.-B. Yon, Palmyre (Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie XVII-1, BAH 195), Beirut, Institut Français du Proche-Orient, 2012.

IGLS XXI P.-L. Gatier, Inscriptions de la Jordanie, vol. 2: Région Centrale (Amman – Hesban – Madaba – Main – Dhiban) (Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie XXI-2, BAH 114) Paris, Geuthner, 1986.

LGPN Fraser & Matthews 1987–2013.

 

Abbadi (S.) 1983 Die Personnennamen der Inschriften aus Hatra (Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 1), Hildesheim, Olms.

Aggoula (B.) 1991 Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes (BAH 139), Paris, Geuthner.

Anonymous 1878 « Notes on Art and Archaeology », The Academy (2 Nov), p. 438‑439.

al-Asʿad (K.), Gawlikowski (M.) & Yon (J.-B.) 2012 « Aramaic Inscriptions in the Palmyra Museum: New Acquisitions », Syria 89, p. 163‑184.

Boardman (J.) 2009 « Archaeologists, Collectors, and Museums », Cuno 2009, p. 107‑124.

Brodie (N. J.) 2011 « Congenial Bedfellows? The Academy and the Antiquities Trade », Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27, p. 408‑437.

Butts (A. M.) 2016 « The Integration of Consonants in Greek Loanwords in Syriac », Aramaic Studies 14, p. 1‑35.

Cantineau (J.) 1932 Le nabatéen, vol. II, Paris, Leroux.

Chabot (J.-B.) 1922 Choix d’inscriptions de Palmyre, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale.

Cherry (J. F.) 2014 « Publishing Undocumented Texts: Editorial Perspectives », Rutz & Kersel 2014, p. 227‑244.

Colledge (M. A. R.) 1976 The Art of Palmyra, London, Thames & Hudson.

Comstock (M. B.) & Vermeule (C. C.) 1976 Sculpture in Stone: The Greek, Roman and Etruscan Collections of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts.

Cuno (J.) 2008 Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Cuno (J.) éd. 2009 Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Daniels (P. T.) 1988 « ‘Shewing of Hard Sentences and Dissolving of Doubts’: The First Decipherment », Journal of the American Oriental Society 108, p. 419‑436.

Drijvers (H. J. W.) & Healey (J. F.) 1999 The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene: Texts, Translations and Commentary (HdO 42), Leiden, Brill.

Fraser (P. M.) & Matthews (E.) éd. 1987–2013 Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, 5 vol., Oxford, Clarendon.

Gerstenblith (P.) 2014 « Do Restrictions on Publication of Undocumented Texts Promote Legitimacy? », Rutz & Kersel 2014, p. 214‑226.

Grassi (G. F.) 2012 Semitic Onomastics from Dura Europos: The Names in Greek Script and from Latin Epigraphs (History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs 12), Padua, S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria.

Hillers (D. R.) & Cussini (E.) 1996 Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon), Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hutton (J. M.), Atwood (P. L.), Bonesho (C. E.) & Greene (N. E.) 2018 « Divergent Script-Styles on a Single Palmyrene Monument: The Case of Berkshire 1903.7.3 [PAT 0670 and 0672] », Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt, vol. 23, p. 33‑70.

Ingholt (H.) 1928 Studier over Palmyrensk Skulptur, Copenhagen, Reitzels.

Klugkist (A. C.) 1983 « The Importance of the Palmyrene Script for Our Knowledge of the Development of the Late Aramaic Scripts », M. Sokoloff (éd.), Arameans, Aramaic, and the Aramaic Literary Tradition, Ramat-Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press, p. 57‑74.

Musée Impérial Ottoman 1895 Antiquités himyarites et palmyréniennes: Catalogue sommaire, Constantinople, Mihran.

Negev (A.) 1991 Personal Names in the Nabatean Realm (Qedem 32), Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University.

Owen (D.) 2009 « Censoring Knowledge: The Case for the Publication of Unprovenanced Cuneiform Tablets », Cuno 2009, p. 125–142.

Payne Smith (R.) 1879 Thesaurus Syriacus, 2 vol., Oxford, Clarendon.

Piersimoni (P.) 1995 « The Palmyrene Prosopography », unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, London, University College London.

Ploug (G.) 1995 The Palmyrene Sculptures, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.

Rollston (C. A.) 2003 « Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests », Maarav 10, p. 135‑193.

Rollston (C. A.) 2004 « Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status of Non-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus of Northwest Semitic », Maarav 11, p. 57‑79.

Rutz (M. T.) & Kersel (M. M.) éd. 2014 Archaeologies of Text: Archaeology, Technology, and Ethics (Joukowsky Institute Publication 6), Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Scharrahs (A.) 2014 « Two Layers of Authenticity: The Damascus Room at Shangri La », Shangri La Working Papers in Islamic Art 8, Nov. 2014 (online: http://www.shangrilahawaii.org/globalassets/research/working-papers/anke-scharrahs-no-8-nov-2014.pdf).

Schroeder (P.) 1884 « Neue Palmyrenische Inschriften », Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 4, p. 417‑441.

Stark (J. K.) 1971 Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions, Oxford, Clarendon.

Taylor (D. G. K.) 2001 « An Annotated Index of Dated Palmyrene Aramaic Texts », Journal of Semitic Studies 46, p. 203‑219.

Whitelaw (A.) 2014 « From the Gift Shop to the Permanent Collection: Women and the Circulation of Inuit Art », J. Helland, B. Lemire & A. Buis (éd.), Craft, Community and the Material Culture of Place and Politics, 19th–20th Century (Histories of Material Culture and Collecting, 1700–1950), Surrey, England, and Burlington, VT, Ashgate, p. 105‑123.

Wright (W.) 1878a « Note on a Bilingual Inscription, Latin and Aramaic, Recently Found at South Shields », Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 6, p. 436‑440.

Wright (W.) 1878b « The South Shields Inscription », The Academy (9 Nov.), p. 454.

Wuthnow (H.) 1935 « Eine palmyrenische Büste », R. Paret (éd.), Orientalistische Studien: Enno Littmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag am 16. September 1935, Leiden, Brill, p. 63‑69.

Yon (J.-B.) 2013 « L’épigraphie palmyrénienne depuis PAT, 1996–2011 », Studia Palmyreńskie 12, p. 333‑379.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Cohon, personal communication with J. M. Hutton, May 17, 2017. The dates of Paul Mallon and the personal name of Margot Mallon were collected from the obituary of the former, published in the New York Times (Dec. 18, 1975, p. 48; online: http://www.nytimes.com/1975/12/18/archives/paul-mallon-91-art-dealer-ancient-sculpture-specialist.html), and from the records of the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection (https://www.doaks.org/resources/bliss-tyler-correspondence/annotations/paul-mallon), both accessed May 17, 2017.

2 Hillers and Cussini 1996.

3 Firm counts of Aramaic inscriptions are difficult. In some cases (e.g., Berkshire 1903.7.3 = PAT 0670 + 0672), a single item contains two inscriptions, each of which has been catalogued under its own publication number (see, e.g., Hutton et al. 2018). In other cases, the inscription was found in the country where it is currently located (e.g., PAT 0246 = RIB 1065; see, e.g., Anonymous 1878, p. 438; Wright 1878b, p. 454; Wright 1878a, p. 436–40). Moreover, there is the question of how one counts Palmyrene Aramaic inscriptions from Dura Europos (e.g., Yale University Art Gallery’s collection, comprising PAT 1078; 1085; 1089; 1094; 1095; 1096; 1097; 1098; 1099; 1100; 1113) or Greek inscriptions from Palmyra (such as the funerary bust of Aththaia, which bears a Greek inscription, currently on display at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Comstock & Vermeule 1976, p. 257 no. 401). Some sources preserve record of such items being lost during transport, as was the case with a bust lost in the Black Sea during transportation (Wuthnow 1935, p. 63). Additionally, Hillers and Cussini’s index is not comprehensive, and more inscriptions have received publication in the interim (see al-Asʿad, Gawlikowski & Yon 2012, Yon 2013). Needless to say, these factors complicate our count immensely.

4 See Daniels 1988.

5 E.g., Brodie 2011, Gerstenblith 2014, Cherry 2014, Cuno 2008, Owen 2009, Boardman 2009.

6 For the text of this convention, see http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed July 13, 2015).

7 Cherry 2014, p. 240.

8 Cohon, personal communication with J. M. Hutton, Dec. 14, 2015. It is unclear to us where Cohon received the name of Khalili Sarkis from, but presumably this is the Khalil John Sarkis, son of Jean Sarkis (d. 1955) mentioned by Scharrahs 2014, p. 6 n. 31. Net-based searches suggest that the eponymous “Khalil John Sarkis Museum” remains involved in the antiquities trade.

9 Receipt for Nelson-Atkins no. 73-50, generously provided to us by the staff of the Nelson-Atkins Museum. Cohon credits the imaging department especially with being able to draw a legible file from the faded document.

10 The identity of the gallery from which the bust was purchased is now lost. Terbovich recalled the name of a gallery in New York, which J. M. Hutton immediately contacted. The owner of the gallery responded that he did not recognize the object (personal communication, May 10, 2017); accordingly, the name of the gallery has been withheld here.

11 Terbovich, personal communication, May 10, 2017.

12 Whitelaw 2014, p. 111.

13 Terbovich, personal communication, May 10, 2017.

14 Terbovich, personal communication, May 10, 2017.

15 Cherry 2014, p. 240.

16 We have been unable to find any studies specifically addressing this topic. Perhaps the closest discussion can be found in Colledge 1976, p. 62: “There are depictions of different persons, whose features are identical; there exist pairs of representations of the same person with entirely different features; and a priest who died at 76 looks half that age. The conclusion seems inevitable: these busts, these figures, are not portraits. The sealing blocks of plaster, terracotta or stone must be dwelling-places, as inscriptions indicate, and any figures on them are merely symbolic approximations to the actual appearance of the deceased.” Colledge’s observation opens into further questions, which cannot be discussed in detail here: If the funerary portraiture was not normally intended to represent the deceased, is it possible that images were carved in stereotyped modes and retained on display until a customer purchased one for a (recently) deceased relative? If so, we might expect a chronological gap—perhaps even an extended one—between the carving of the piece and its dedication to a specific individual. Furthermore, one wonders whether we must accord special consideration to those inscriptions bearing the term ṣlm(t): might this indicate that the commemorated individual actually sat for the portrait while still alive? Although speculative, this line of questioning has important implications for the process and labor force involved in the funerary portraiture trade.

17 E.g. Rollston 2003, Rollston 2004.

18 Ploug 1995, p. 103–105 no. 30.

19 Ploug 1995, p. 101–103 no. 29.

20 Colledge 1976, p. 67–68.

21 Several busts include objects that perhaps revealed the professional affiliations of the deceased, such as a modius hat and a ritual vessel for a priest (Colledge 1976, p. 67–69). Unfortunately, the book-roll does not seem to have been so diagnostic.

22 The eyes, in addition to the ears, were usually overlarge (Colledge 1976, p. 68).

23 Ploug 1995, p. 27.

24 Colledge 1976, p. 68.

25 Colledge 1976, p. 69–70.

26 Ploug 1995, p. 27–28.

27 Ploug 1995, p. 27–29.

28 Colledge 1976, p. 123–124.

29 E.g., Colledge 1976, p. 78.

30 Stark 1971, p. 108.

31 Stark 1971, p. 46; Piersimoni 1995, p. 433–434, s.v. ʿtnwry. The shorter variant ʿtnwr is found in PAT 0257 and al-Asʿad, Gawlikowski & Yon 2012, p. 172 no. 25.

32 Stark 1971, p. 96.

33 RES 2210 = PS 341 (i.e., Ingholt 1928, p. 128 n. 10 = no. 341); Schroeder 1884, p. 439 no. 5 (incorrectly transcribed); Musée Impérial Ottoman 1895, p. 69 no. 163; Chabot 1922, p. 124 no. 2.

34 For dates at Palmyra, see Taylor 2001; PAT 0066 is included on p. 211.

35 Stark 1971, p. 106; Piersimoni 1995, p. 424.

36 Stark 1971, p. 90.

37 Stark 1971, p. 24–25; Piersimoni 1995, p. 231–237. Piersimoni lists over seventy occurrences of the name, although this does not necessitate seventy different individuals (if some inscriptions refer to the same individual).

38 These names were gathered by manual scanning of the database of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, online: http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/database/lgpn.php (accessed May 19, 2017). Further confirmation was then sought from the five volumes of Fraser & Matthews 1987–2013: Ἀχέλης (LGPN IV:62c), Ἀχελώϊος (LGPN I:97c; III.A:87b; IV:62c), Ἀχελώϊχος (LGPN III.B:83b), Ἀχιλλαῖος (LGPN IV:63a), Ἀχιλλᾶς (LGPN I:97c; II:85a; III.A:87b; IV:63a; V.B:80b), Ἀχιλλεύς (LGPN I:97c; II:85a‑b; III.A:87b–c; III.B:83c; IV:63a–b; V.A:94c–95a; V.B:80b–c), Ἀχιλλῆς (LGPN III.A:87c), Ἀχίλλιος (LGPN III.B:83c; V.B:80c), or Ἀχόλιος (LGPN V.A:95a–b; V.B:80c).

39 Drijvers & Healey 1999, p. 211 no. Cm3; they cite Payne Smith 1879, p. 177, 181, where ʾKLWS and ʾKYLWS are catalogued from early classical Syriac. We thank here an anonymous reviewer for challenging us to pursue the name’s attestations further and providing some bibliographic references cited in this discussion.

40 For Dura-Europos, see Grassi 2012. For Hatra, see Abbadi 1983 and the index of Aggoula 1991.

41 Cantineau (1932, p. 61).

42 See also Negev 1991, p. 12 no. 83.

43 Should the correspondence Gk. χ = Palm. prove to be attested here, it may be the only such attestation in Palmyrene. Stark (1971, p. 133) notes the normal correspondence of Greek “ch” (χ) with Palmyrene k in names such as Ἐυτύχης, Ἀντίοχος, and Χρύσανθος; compare Palm. ʾ(W)Ṭ(Y)Kʾ, ʾ(N)ṬY(W)Kʾ/WS/YS, and KRYSTWS. To Stark’s list we may add the Palmyrene names Ὀχχαίσος ~ ḤKYŠW (IGLS XVII.1 18 = PAT 0269) Χειλος ~ KHYLW (IGLS XVII.1 259 = PAT 1382). For further discussion of the normal correspondence Gk. Χ = Palm. k in Syriac, see Butts 2016, p. 28–29 (We thank Butts, personal communication, July 18, 2017, for suggesting this particular line of inquiry).

44 Ingholt 1928; Colledge 1976, p. 69–71.

45 Colledge 1976, p. 69–71.

46 Ploug 1995, p. 28–29.

47 Colledge 1976, p. 70–71.

48 Ploug 1995, p. 28–29.

49 Ploug 1995, p. 27–28; Colledge 1976, p. 69–71.

50 We thank here N. E. Greene for his observations (personal communication).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1.
Légende NA 73-50, full object
Crédits © J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/7040/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 151k
Titre Figure 2.
Légende NA 73-50, left inscription (photograph)
Crédits © J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/7040/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 258k
Titre Figure 3.
Légende NA 73-50, left inscription (autograph)
Crédits © H. Kumon.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/7040/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 139k
Titre Figure 4.
Légende NA 73-50, right inscription (photograph)
Crédits © J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/7040/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 268k
Titre Figure 5.
Légende NA 73-50, right inscription (autograph)
Crédits © H. Kumon.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/7040/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 130k
Titre Figure 6.
Légende NA 73-50, ḥet-yod sequence in right inscription, red oval marks the two letters, with chip between them
Crédits © J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP, RTI derivative using Specular Enhancement filter by J. M. Hutton.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/7040/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 120k
Titre Figure 7.
Légende NA 48-13, full object
Crédits © J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/7040/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 348k
Titre Figure 8.
Légende NA 48-13, inscription detail (photograph)
Crédits © J. M. Hutton, P. L. Atwood, and H. Kumon, WPAIP.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/7040/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 368k
Titre Figure 9.
Légende NA 48-13, forged inscription (autograph)
Crédits © H. Kumon.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/7040/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 85k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Jeremy M. Hutton, Hikaru Kumon, Margaret McLaughlin et Preston L. Atwood, « Two Palmyrene funerary busts in the collection of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Mo »Syria, 95 | 2018, 279-296.

Référence électronique

Jeremy M. Hutton, Hikaru Kumon, Margaret McLaughlin et Preston L. Atwood, « Two Palmyrene funerary busts in the collection of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Mo »Syria [En ligne], 95 | 2018, mis en ligne le 01 mai 2021, consulté le 13 mai 2021. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/syria/7040 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/syria.7040

Haut de page

Auteurs

Jeremy M. Hutton

University of Wisconsin–MadisonUniversity of the Free State (Bloemfontein, South Africa)

Hikaru Kumon

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Margaret McLaughlin

Northwestern University

Preston L. Atwood

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

© Presses IFPO

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search