Stable URL: http://ancientassociations.ku.dk/assoc/634Download as
PDFLast Updated on 23 Mar 2017
i. |
Geographical area |
The Near East and Beyond
|
ii. |
Region |
Syria
|
iii. |
Site |
Palmyra
|
i. |
Full name (original language) |
מרזח בעלתך ותימא (PAT 2807, l. 1-3)
|
ii. |
Full name (transliterated) |
mrzḥ b‘ltk wtym’
|
ii. |
Name elements |
Personal: | Taima (see comments below) | Theophoric: | Baaltak |
|
iii. |
Descriptive terms |
מרזחא, mrzḥ’
|
|
Note |
mrzḥ’: PAT 2807, l. 1-3
|
i. |
Source(s) |
PAT 2807 (I-III AD)
|
i.a. |
Source type(s) |
Epigraphic source(s)
|
i.b. |
Document(s) typology & language/script |
Unclear (entrance billet?), in Aramaic
|
i.c. |
Physical format(s) |
Tessera, showing a seated goddess.
|
ii. |
Source(s) provenance |
Sanctuary of Baalshamin (?)
|
i. |
Comments |
That b‘ltk is a goddess (and not "à ton autel" as Dunand 1959: 105 translates) is now generally accepted. More problematic is tym’. Milik 1972: 111 takes it as an abbreviation of tymrṣw; this would point to the bny tymrṣw, "sons of Taimarsu", a known clan from Palmyra. Kaizer 2002: 230 seems to accept this view without discussion. Smith 2004: 234 refers to this group without discussion as a cult association "to the goddesses Baaltak and Taima"; this latter goddess would not be otherwise known from Palmyra, and the tessera shows only one goddess. Taima is attested as a place name in Arabia, which would make little sense here. It is also a personal name in Palmyra, but then written as tym‘’. Could this mrzḥ’ perhaps be in honour of the goddess Baaltak and headed by the woman Taima?
|
iii. |
Bibliography |
Dunant, Chr. (1959), 'Nouvelles tessères de Palmyre', Syria 36: 102-10. Kaizer, T. (2002), The Religious Life of Palmyra. A Study of the Social Patterns of Worship in the Roman Period. Stuttgart. Milik, J.T. (1972), Dédicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases sémitiques à l’époque romaine. Paris. Smith, M.S. (2004), Identity, Community, and State Formation at Roman Palmyra. Diss. Univ. of Maryland.
|
i. |
Private association |
Possible
|
|
Note |
An evaluation needs to focus on the expression "day 5" in l. 4. If the tesserae were really entrance billets for cultic meals, a reasonable interpretation could take mrzḥ’ as a festive occasion that lasted at least five days; the holder of the billet would have entrance on the fifth day. But this is not a necessary conclusion; the mrzḥ’ of Baaltak and Taima could also be an association (as is probable in the case of the mrzḥ’ of [Ne?]bu: CAPInv. 633) that celebrates a feast that lasted at least five days (this seems to be Kaizer's view, but based on Milik's understanding of Taima as an abbreviated version of the group-designation).
|