DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45606#0025
'Amman (Philadelphia}.
I I
350. All the fragments are about 100 cm. wide. The letters are huge and well carved;
when they were new they must have been visible for a long distance. In the upper
line the letters are 21—23 cm. high, ω is 29 cm. wide. In the lower line, which is
almost entirely destroyed, the letters are 19 cm. high. Only a few letters in this line
could be read, and they only with the utmost difficulty. — Copy of the author.
De Saulcy, Voyage en Terre Sainte, I, p. 247; Conder, The Survey of Eastern Palestine, p. 33.
[ Υπέρ σωτηρίας] τώ·ι κυρ[ίων ήυ,ών αυτ'Λορατόρων Μα'ρκ]συ Αΰρηλίου Αν[τ]ωνει[νου ν.αΐ ΑονΑου
Ουηρου.ω]ν Ρουμ.ε3ων εχοφ'σα[τ]ο ....
Abr the safety of ottr lords
(and) emperors Marcus Aurelius y
Antoninus and Lucius Verus . . . n
Rumethon donated....
The readings © for 0 and T
for Γ in fragment C are due to
Professor Keil.
A comparison of this inscrip-
tion with N°. 11 below, from Dje-
rash-Gerasa, will show that they
are most likely to be both of the
same period. We should therefore
restore here Λουκιου , or
perhaps simply θύ</5ου as in Dje-
rash, without the first name. Both
temples were probably finished in the first years of Marcus Aurelius.
With regard to the name Ρουυ,εθων, Professor Keil refers me to the feminine name
‘Ρουμαθα in C. I. G. 6912. This Ρουμαθα came from Antioch ('Ρουμαθα Μενιππου ’Αντώχισσα),
and it is natural that we should look for a Semitic prototype of this name. Ρουοιαθα
may be the Aramaic form of the Hebrew Reumah (Ra’uma), the name of a concubine
of Nahor, Gen. XXII, 24. The explanation of the form Ρουμεθων, however meets
with certain difficulties. The vowal e instead of a is easily explained (cf. above p. 9);
but the ending is unusual since the Syriac deminutive ending -on is in Greek ordinarily
rendered by -ώνης. Moreover, we would not expect -on after the feminine -at, unless
we assume that -at is here the hypocoristic affix found elsewhere in Semitic 1 2 and that
aton (here -εθών) might be a double deminutive as in Babylonian -atiya and ayatum ~.
This is, however, quite uncertain.
The more important question is this: to whom was the great temple dedicated?
The temple at Djerash, which corresponds to the one under discussion, was probably
a temple of Zeus, as Dr. Lucas suggested in his publication of the Djerash inscriptions 8.
Furthermore, we know from inscr. n°. 2 above that an altar at 'Amman was dedicated
to Jupiter Conservator. It would then be a very plausible conclusion that this temple
also, on the Akropolis of 'Amman, was dedicated to Jupiter-Zeus.
1 Lidzbarski, Ephemeris fur semit. Epigraphik, II, p. 19; Ranke, Early Babylonian Personal Names, p. 14.
2 Ranke, I. c., pp. 17 sq. 3 Mitteil. u. Nachr. des Deutsch. Palast. Ver. 1901, p. 58.
I I
350. All the fragments are about 100 cm. wide. The letters are huge and well carved;
when they were new they must have been visible for a long distance. In the upper
line the letters are 21—23 cm. high, ω is 29 cm. wide. In the lower line, which is
almost entirely destroyed, the letters are 19 cm. high. Only a few letters in this line
could be read, and they only with the utmost difficulty. — Copy of the author.
De Saulcy, Voyage en Terre Sainte, I, p. 247; Conder, The Survey of Eastern Palestine, p. 33.
[ Υπέρ σωτηρίας] τώ·ι κυρ[ίων ήυ,ών αυτ'Λορατόρων Μα'ρκ]συ Αΰρηλίου Αν[τ]ωνει[νου ν.αΐ ΑονΑου
Ουηρου.ω]ν Ρουμ.ε3ων εχοφ'σα[τ]ο ....
Abr the safety of ottr lords
(and) emperors Marcus Aurelius y
Antoninus and Lucius Verus . . . n
Rumethon donated....
The readings © for 0 and T
for Γ in fragment C are due to
Professor Keil.
A comparison of this inscrip-
tion with N°. 11 below, from Dje-
rash-Gerasa, will show that they
are most likely to be both of the
same period. We should therefore
restore here Λουκιου , or
perhaps simply θύ</5ου as in Dje-
rash, without the first name. Both
temples were probably finished in the first years of Marcus Aurelius.
With regard to the name Ρουυ,εθων, Professor Keil refers me to the feminine name
‘Ρουμαθα in C. I. G. 6912. This Ρουμαθα came from Antioch ('Ρουμαθα Μενιππου ’Αντώχισσα),
and it is natural that we should look for a Semitic prototype of this name. Ρουοιαθα
may be the Aramaic form of the Hebrew Reumah (Ra’uma), the name of a concubine
of Nahor, Gen. XXII, 24. The explanation of the form Ρουμεθων, however meets
with certain difficulties. The vowal e instead of a is easily explained (cf. above p. 9);
but the ending is unusual since the Syriac deminutive ending -on is in Greek ordinarily
rendered by -ώνης. Moreover, we would not expect -on after the feminine -at, unless
we assume that -at is here the hypocoristic affix found elsewhere in Semitic 1 2 and that
aton (here -εθών) might be a double deminutive as in Babylonian -atiya and ayatum ~.
This is, however, quite uncertain.
The more important question is this: to whom was the great temple dedicated?
The temple at Djerash, which corresponds to the one under discussion, was probably
a temple of Zeus, as Dr. Lucas suggested in his publication of the Djerash inscriptions 8.
Furthermore, we know from inscr. n°. 2 above that an altar at 'Amman was dedicated
to Jupiter Conservator. It would then be a very plausible conclusion that this temple
also, on the Akropolis of 'Amman, was dedicated to Jupiter-Zeus.
1 Lidzbarski, Ephemeris fur semit. Epigraphik, II, p. 19; Ranke, Early Babylonian Personal Names, p. 14.
2 Ranke, I. c., pp. 17 sq. 3 Mitteil. u. Nachr. des Deutsch. Palast. Ver. 1901, p. 58.