DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45612#0029
Khurebat
397
αετός is used in this sense here. Unfortunately, no clue can be obtained from the verb,
for the compound εμποιεί might denote the process either of building in a pediment,
or of putting an eagle into a recess. It seems equally impossible to base any con-
clusion on the appearance of the stone itself. The extension of the inscription to the
left side of the block, instead of to the right as one would expect, seems to show that
the latter side was in, or against, a wall, but its position might have been either at a
corner of the building below the pediment, or at the corner of the base of a votive-
offering, one side of which was in a recess or against a wall. On the other hand,
the smallness of the letters makes it evident that the stone was near the ground.
This points to the belief that it supported a votive-offering, rather than that it recorded
the construction of a pediment. The fact that eagles are common as votive-offerings
{v. inf^ would strengthen this belief, and it seems to us highly probable that αετός, as
used here, denotes a stone or bronze figure of an eagle dedicated to the god.
This inscription has a close parallel in an inscription from Dfer idj-Djuwanl (no. 8oi2)
reading: Θεώ Ληκούργω Μανος Σοαό'ου τ«ν Νείκην εύσεβζί(ς) .χά[ριν[ ε’ποίησεν. The name of the
donor is identical in both inscriptions, and the fact that both contain the same erroneous
formula of dedication and similar mis-spellings of the god’s name, makes it evident
that the same man dedicated both objects. The distance between Khurebat and Der-
idj-Djuwam is short enough to permit the supposition that one of the stones has been
carried from one settlement to the other, and the fact that Khurebat has long been
uninhabited and has evidently been used as a stone-quarry strengthens this hypothesis.
On the other hand, other inscriptions from D£r idj-Djuwani mention a dedication to a
god and a building erected by a ίερεύς (nos. 8oiG and 8011), and hence it seems more
probable that the god Lykourgos had temples in both places, and that Man dedicated
a. votive-offering in each. The god is known, furthermore, from a fragmentary inscription
from Hebran (no. 663), reading Θ]εω Λυκούργω and giving the correct spelling of the
name. The combined testimony of the three stones makes evident that a deity named
Lykourgos was worshipped in at least two places in the Djebel Hauran and Ledja.
The evidence of these inscriptions agrees strikingly with the statement of Nonnos
that there was a cult of Lykourgos in Arabia; see Dionysiaka xx 180 f. and xxi 15 5 f.
This statement is made in connection with the relation of the myth of the conflict
between Dionysos and king Lykourgos, and the overthrow of the latter (Dionys. xx-xxi).
The myth, as here related, represents Lykourgos as ruler in Nysa, as in the generally
current version, but locates Nysa, not in Thrace, but in Arabia. Lykourgos is described,
sometimes as son of Ares, sometimes as son of Dryas, and as a μ/αιφόνος ανόρ who kills
strangers at the altar of Zeus Xenios; the poet then adds, without much apparent
connection : βίαζόμενοί $
narrative then proceeds to tell how this Lykourgos attacked Dionysos on his triumphal
progress to India, and forced him to take refuge in the sea, but was finally overcome
by becoming entangled in a vine, into which the nymph Ambrosia was changed.
Lykourgos then succumbed to Dionysus, but Hera rescued him, όπως εναρόΘμίος scVj /
however, punishes the presumptuous Lykourgos with blindness.
In this narrative the poet seems to have combined two things — the well-known
myth dealing with the conflict between the king Lykourgos and Dionysos, and the
Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria, Div. Ill, Sec. A, Pt. 7.
397
αετός is used in this sense here. Unfortunately, no clue can be obtained from the verb,
for the compound εμποιεί might denote the process either of building in a pediment,
or of putting an eagle into a recess. It seems equally impossible to base any con-
clusion on the appearance of the stone itself. The extension of the inscription to the
left side of the block, instead of to the right as one would expect, seems to show that
the latter side was in, or against, a wall, but its position might have been either at a
corner of the building below the pediment, or at the corner of the base of a votive-
offering, one side of which was in a recess or against a wall. On the other hand,
the smallness of the letters makes it evident that the stone was near the ground.
This points to the belief that it supported a votive-offering, rather than that it recorded
the construction of a pediment. The fact that eagles are common as votive-offerings
{v. inf^ would strengthen this belief, and it seems to us highly probable that αετός, as
used here, denotes a stone or bronze figure of an eagle dedicated to the god.
This inscription has a close parallel in an inscription from Dfer idj-Djuwanl (no. 8oi2)
reading: Θεώ Ληκούργω Μανος Σοαό'ου τ«ν Νείκην εύσεβζί(ς) .χά[ριν[ ε’ποίησεν. The name of the
donor is identical in both inscriptions, and the fact that both contain the same erroneous
formula of dedication and similar mis-spellings of the god’s name, makes it evident
that the same man dedicated both objects. The distance between Khurebat and Der-
idj-Djuwam is short enough to permit the supposition that one of the stones has been
carried from one settlement to the other, and the fact that Khurebat has long been
uninhabited and has evidently been used as a stone-quarry strengthens this hypothesis.
On the other hand, other inscriptions from D£r idj-Djuwani mention a dedication to a
god and a building erected by a ίερεύς (nos. 8oiG and 8011), and hence it seems more
probable that the god Lykourgos had temples in both places, and that Man dedicated
a. votive-offering in each. The god is known, furthermore, from a fragmentary inscription
from Hebran (no. 663), reading Θ]εω Λυκούργω and giving the correct spelling of the
name. The combined testimony of the three stones makes evident that a deity named
Lykourgos was worshipped in at least two places in the Djebel Hauran and Ledja.
The evidence of these inscriptions agrees strikingly with the statement of Nonnos
that there was a cult of Lykourgos in Arabia; see Dionysiaka xx 180 f. and xxi 15 5 f.
This statement is made in connection with the relation of the myth of the conflict
between Dionysos and king Lykourgos, and the overthrow of the latter (Dionys. xx-xxi).
The myth, as here related, represents Lykourgos as ruler in Nysa, as in the generally
current version, but locates Nysa, not in Thrace, but in Arabia. Lykourgos is described,
sometimes as son of Ares, sometimes as son of Dryas, and as a μ/αιφόνος ανόρ who kills
strangers at the altar of Zeus Xenios; the poet then adds, without much apparent
connection : βίαζόμενοί $
narrative then proceeds to tell how this Lykourgos attacked Dionysos on his triumphal
progress to India, and forced him to take refuge in the sea, but was finally overcome
by becoming entangled in a vine, into which the nymph Ambrosia was changed.
Lykourgos then succumbed to Dionysus, but Hera rescued him, όπως εναρόΘμίος scVj /
however, punishes the presumptuous Lykourgos with blindness.
In this narrative the poet seems to have combined two things — the well-known
myth dealing with the conflict between the king Lykourgos and Dionysos, and the
Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria, Div. Ill, Sec. A, Pt. 7.