Page images
PDF
EPUB

1849]
Greek Inscriptions in Syria.

389 wards. The first line is unintelligible. The rest is the passage occurring in Matt. 22: 32. Mark 12: 26. Luke 20: 37, 38, somewhat abridged. It stood thus probably: εγώ είμι ο Θεός 'Αβραάμ, Ισ[ε]άκ, Ιακώβ, ο Θεός Θεός ζώντων, ου νεκρών. [το ?]

14. The following is on the base of a column outside of the gate of Salamiyeh.

ΤΙ ΚΑΛΗ ΕΠ
ΥΔΝΤ ΟΥΟΙ
ωT AT OT ΠΕ
PIO NI€ PPI01
Κ Ε ΚΥΡΟΥ ΟΙ
Κ Ο Ν Ο Ν Ο ΥΓΕ
TONEN

This appears to be a Christian inscription. Although a number of words can be made out, I have nothing satisfactory to offer in explanation of it. I submit the following reading of the inscription in the hope that it may lead some one on a better track.

η καλή ... του όσιωτάτου. το έργον Σεργίου και Κύρου οικονόμου γέγονεν.

15. An inscription on a block of marble found near the castle of Sheizar (Seidjar, Burckhardt). This block was dug up by Burckhardt, and he has given the inscription in his travels in Syria, p. 146. It has been transferred to Boeckh's Corpus, Vol. 3. p. 224, No. 4477. Mr. Thomson's apograph is almost precisely like Burckhardt's.

16. Found at ed-Deisuniyeh (on a sarcophagus) by Dr. De Forest. Bib. Sac. p. 690.

+ EA MOVEΛO EDP () ΑΡΧ ΕΜΑΝΔΡ i. e. Σαμουέλ .... ο 'Αρχιμανδρ[ίτης.]

On the cover under a cross, the lower angles of which contain the letters A w, is the following inscription.

ΓΑΙΑ Η ΠΑ

Ν .. ΓΡ
Π Ρ Ε Κ Α Ν

17. Found at Ksair el-Gharb. See Bib. Sac. p. 692.

I W ΓΙΓΕ

N 9ΙΝ ΔΙΟ
IMAXOXA V

V
1. II E C A 1
ΓΤΕΥΕΖΑ
MHI-X 1 IT IT
R EIT, DY

I seem to read here something like this : Σωσιγένην Λυσιμάχου, απέθανεν έτους ZX (?) μηνός Περίε)ιτίου. The fact that the first word is tolerably well made out, and in the accusative, throws donbt on the rest. I believe that étɛlɛóta is the usual word on inscriptions and not απέθανεν.

18. From the base of a statue at Judeithah, a small village at the foot of Jebel Knisch, copied by Dr. De Forest.

IVNONI. REGINAE
PROSALVTE: IMP.CAES:T:
A ETIHADRIANI: ANTONI
NIA VG:PIIP:LIBERO
RVMQVE: EIVS:BABICA
IVS:FI:CEMFIL VSFRATES
EX: ESTA MENTOPE T III
EL V CIA E· Μ Α Τ RIS: Ε Ο R:

The necessary corrections are almost too evident to be noticed, viz. A ELI in line 3, BALBICANVS in line 5, ET for FI and FRA TRES line 6, supply T line 7, and read PETILIA E line 7.

19. The following was copied at “Kusr Wady, Hummara, Anti-Lebanon,” by Dr. De Forest.

Α ΑΩΘ Τ Υ Η

Η ΔΙΟ( Α Χ ΣΙΤΥΧ ΗΛΙ
Ε Π Α ΒωθέOYC ΔΙΝΑΡΙΟΥ ΑΡΧΙΕΡΕωε ε

Π
ΑΥΡΗ ΛΙΟΙ ΒΑΡΕΑ ΛΑ (ΦΙΛΙ Η ΟΥ ΚΑΙ Ο ΚΒ€ο (O KBEO
ΚΑΙ Β Η ΡΥΛΛΟ( Α Β ΡωΕ ΟΨC KAIA GIA NH C ΓΕΡμΑΝΟ
ΚΑΙμΑΚΕΔΟΝΙ( ΑΒΙμμ€ OYK KAIBEE ΛΙΑΚΟ Δ
€ ΠΕ με ΛΗΤΕ ΑΠΟ Κωμ HC AIN KAIHA( € KTIC ANT

«Two or three letters are wanting at the end of the last line. The Π over the third line was so in the original.” Dr. De Forest expresses doubt respecting letters 5 and 14 of line 1, letter 5 of line 2, letter 21 of line 3, the last letter of line 5, and letters 24 and 25 of line 6.

The latter part of the first line I have not been able to decypher. The rest may have been as follows:

'Αγαθή τύχη
Επ’ 'Αβωθέους (3) Δεινάρχου (3) αρχιερέως,
'Αυρήλιος Βαρεάλας Φιλίππου, και Όκβεος Οκβέου,
και Βήρυλλος Αβραμέους, και 'Αειάνης Γερμάνου
και Μακεδόνιος 'Αβιμμέους και Βεελίακος δ (?)
επιμελήται από κώμης Αίν Καπήας (2) έκτισαν τούτο, or έκτήσαντο.

This inscription adds to the number of names appearing on Syrian inscriptions Abothes (if that be the reading), Barealas, Okbeus, Abrames, Aeianes, Abimmes and Beeliacus. The name of the village is uncertain, .as Dr. De Forest is in doubt respecting two of the letters. Can A after 1849.]

Layard's Nineveh.

391

Beeliacus denote that he is the fourth in descent bearing the same name? Comp. requarov B, i. e. dis, or in other words son of Germanus in Boeckh, No. 4648. Still more strange Syrian names occur in No. 4612 of Boeckh's collection.

In the Bibl. Sacr. for May, 1848, p. 253, the following line occurs in an inscription copied by Mr. Thomson at Ruad.

AITEONOC A6 KYOINHO

In attempting to restore the inscription of which this is a part I failed of ascertaining the name of the legion here mentioned. A little more experience would bave led me to what I now see to be the certain emendation in this case, viz. 1. Exu9ixñs, i. e. legionis quartae Scythicae. The traces of the letters, as given by Mr. Thomson, are followed nearly throughout, and the fourth legion with the same title, appears from at least one other Greek inscription, to have been stationed at one time in Syria. Comp. Boeckb. 3. No. 4460. Most sincerely yours,

T. D. WOOLSEY.

ARTICLE X.

NEW PUBLICATIONS AND MISCELLANIES.

LAYARD's Ninever. We wish to preserve on our pages a brief record of the explorations and discoveries of Mr. Layard wbich are very interesting in themselves and which seem destined to cast no inconsiderable light on the Old Testament Scriptures, as well as on other ancient histories.

Mr. Layard began his labors in Nov. 1845, and closed them in June, 1847. The results are published (English edition) in the best style of London workmanship, in two volumes, large duodecimo, pp. 399, 492. Besides a detailed and very interesting account of the excavations at Nimroud, there is also a narrative of a visit to some of the native Christians of Kurdistan, to the Yezidees (see Bib. Sac. Nov. 1847), and of several excursions among the surrounding tribes of Arabs. The narrative proper closes at the 149th page of Vol. II. The remainder of the second volume, about 330 pages, is devoted to a series of remarks on the Ancient History of Assyria, the Semitic origin of the people, the architecture, and other arts, military sygtem, manners and private life, religion, etc.

The conquest of Nineveh by Cyaxares, the Persian, is satisfactorily ascertained as having occurred about 606 or 607 B. C. It will be readily admitted, says Mr. L., that all the monuments hitherto discovered in Assyria are to be attributed to a period preceding the Persian conquest, for among the Assyrian ruins no trace has been found of the Persian variety of the cuneiform character, which is so common on the monuments in Persia and Armenia. Had the kings, who ere.ted the edifices at Nimroud been Persians, they would hardly have failed to record their deeds in their native tongue. To what period anterior to 606 B. C. the monuments at Nimroud belong, is not yet determined. Several individuals are now earnestly engaged in deciphering the inscriptions which have been brought to light. The cuneïform character has been divided into three branches, the Assyrian or Babylonian, the Persian, and the Median. To one of these three divisions, may be referred all the forms of arrow-beaded writing with which we are acquainted. The three together occur in the trilingual inscriptions, containing the recorda of the Persian monarchs of the Achamenian dynasty. “Several proper names in these trilingual inscriptions, particularly those of kings and countries, have given us the undoubted value of many letters, and have enabled us to find corresponding geographical names on the Assyrian monuments.” Mr. Layard informs us in a note that “ Major Rawlinson has succeeded in deciphering the inscription on the obelisk found at Nimroud. It contains, according to bim, the annals of the reign of the son of Ninus. He has obtained, moreover, fifteen royal names. From several arguments and facts, Mr. L. comes to the conclusion, that on the most moderate calculation, we may assign a date of 1100 or 1200 years B. C. to the erection of the most ancient palace at Nimroud, but the probability is that it is much more ancient.” The general conclusions which are drawn, are as follows: 1st, that there are buildings in Assyria which so far differ in their sculptures, in their mythological and sacred symbols, and in the character and language of their inscriptions, as to lead to the inference that there were at least two distinct periods of Assyrian history. 2d. That the names of the kings on the monuments show a lapse even of some centuries, between the foundation of the most ancient and the most recent of the edifices. 3d. That from the symbols introduced into the sculptures of the second Assyrian period, and from the Egyptian character of the small objects found in the earth, above the ruins of the buildings of the oldest period, there was a close connection with Egypt, either by conquest or friendly intercourse, between the time of the erection of the earliest and latest palaces; and that the monuments of Egypt, the names of kings in certain Egyptian dynasties, the ivories from Nimroud, the introduction of several Assyrian divinities into the Egyptian pantheon, and other evidence, point to the 14th century B. C. as the 1849.]

Site of Ancient Nineveh.

393

probable time of the commencement, and the 9th as the period of the termination of that intercourse. 4tb. That the earlier palaces of Nimroud were already in ruins, and buried before the foundation of the later; and that it is probable they may have been thus destroyed about the time of the 14th Egyptian dynasty. 5th. That the existence of two distinct dynasties in Assyria, and the foundation, about 2000 B. C., of an Assyrian monarchy, may be inferred from the testimony of the most ancient anthors and is in accordance with the evidence of Scripture, and of Egyptian monuments.

The following are Mr. Layard's conclusions in regard to the site of ancient Nineveh. Strabo says that the city stood between the Tigris and the Lycus or Great Zab, near the junction of these rivers. Ptolemy places it on the Lycus. These notices would identify it with the ruins at Nimroud. Strabo makes the area of the city larger than even that of Babylon. Diodorus Inakes it a quadrangle of 150 stadia on the two longest sides, and 90 on the opposite, the square being 480 stadia, or about 60 miles. Jonah calls it an “exceeding great city of three days' journey,” and the number of people who did not know their right hand from their left, was 120,000; if this number formed one fifth of the population, the whole number would be 600,000. The evidence afforded by the examination of all the known ruins of Assyria seems to identify Nimroud with Nineveh. From its close proximity to the junction of two large rivers, no better site could have been chosen. It is probable that the great edifice, in the north-west corner of the principal mound, was the temple or palace, or the two combined, the smaller houses being scattered around it over the face of the country. To the palace was attached a park or paradise for the preservation of game. Perhaps this enclosure, formed by walls and towers, may be still traced in the line of low mounds branching out from the main ruins. Succeeding monarchs erected the centre palace at the side of the first. As the people increased, the dimensions of the city increased also. A king, founding a new dynasty, or solicitous for faine by erecting a new palace, may have chosen a distant site. The city, gradually spreading, may at length have embraced such additional palaces. The son of the founder of Nimroud seems to have added a second palace in the centre of the mound, also the edifice at the great mound of Baasheikha, as the inscriptions on the bricks prove, and to have founded a new city at Kalah Sherghat. A succeeding monarch added to the palaces at Nimroud, and recorded the event on the pavement slabs. At a much later period, when the older palaces were already in ruins, edifices were erected on the sites now marked by the ruins of Khorsabad and Karamles. The son of the founder of the last two, built the great palace at Kouyunjik, more magnificent than any of the earlier palaces. His son raised one

« PreviousContinue »