MUZEUL JUDEŢEAN DE ISTORIE ȘI ARTĂ ZALĂU

ACTA
MVSEI POROLISSENSIS
XLI

Arheologie – restaurare – Conservare

ZALĂU
2019
EDITOR ȘEF: Dr. Corina BEJINARIU

COLEGIUL DE REDACȚIE

Dr. Horea Pop – redactor șef

Dr. Dan Deac – redactor responsabil
Dr. Dan Băcueț-Crișan – secretar de redacție
Dr. Sanda Băcueț-Crișan – membru
Dr. Ioan Bejinariu – membru
Dr. Emanoil Pripon – membru

COLEGIUL EDITORIAL

Prof. Dr. Gheorghe LAZAROVICI, Universitatea Eftimie Murgu, Caransebeş, România

Dr. Tiberius BADER, Hemmingen, Baden‑Wurttemberg, Germania
Prof. univ. dr. hab. Gelu FLOREA, Departament Istorie Antică şi Arheologie, Facultatea de Istorie şi Filosofie,
Universitatea „Babeş‑Bolyai”, Cluj‑Napoca (România)
Cercet. şt. I dr. hab. Coriolan H. OPREANU, Institutul de Arheologie şi Istoria Artei (Academia Română),
Cluj‑Napoca, România
Cercet. şt. I dr. Ioan STANCIU, Institutul de Arheologie şi Istoria Artei (Academia Română), Cluj‑Napoca,
România
Prof. univ. dr. Sorin MITU, Facultatea de Istorie şi Filosofie, Universitatea „Babeş‑Bolyai”, Cluj‑Napoca, România
Prof. univ. dr. Adrian IVAN, Facultatea de Istorie şi Filosofie, Universitatea „Babeş‑Bolyai”, Cluj‑Napoca,
România
Drd. Dan Octavian PAUL, Muzeul Banatului, Timişoara, România
Conf. univ. dr. Sorin NEMETI, Facultatea de Istorie și Filosofie, Universitatea „Babeș-Bolyai", Cluj-
Napoca, România.

Responsabilitatea pentru conţinutul ştiinţific al articolelor, pentru formulări şi calitatea rezumatelor în limbă
străină revine în întregime autorilor.

ACTA MVSEI POROLISSENSIS

Anuarul Muzeului Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă Zalău

Orice corespondenţă referitoare la publicaţie Toute correspondance sera envoyée à l’adresse:

va fi trimisă pe adresa: MUZEUL JUDETEAN DE ISTORIE SI ARTA
MUZEUL JUDEŢEAN DE ISTORIE ŞI ARTĂ ZALAU,
ZALĂU, RO–450042 Zalău. Str. Unirii, nr. 9
RO–450042 Zalău. Str. Unirii, nr. 9 Tel.: 004‑0260–612223,
Tel.: 004‑0260–612223, fax: 004‑0260–661706
fax: 004‑0260–661706 e‑mail: muzeul.zalau@gmail.com
e‑mail: muzeul.zalau@gmail.com

© EDITURA POROLISSUM A MUZEULUI JUDEŢEAN

ISSN 1016–2801

Tipar: S.C. MEGA PRINT S.R.L. CLUJ‑NAPOCA

 CUPRINS – SUMMARY – RÉSUMÉ

NEOLITIC
“OAMENI ȘI CIOBURI”. MORMINTELE NEO-ENEOLITICE DESCOPERITE ÎN SĂLA J.
REZULTATELE ANALIZELOR ANTROPOLOGICE ...................................................................... 9
SANDA BĂCUEȚ CRIȘAN, MIHAI CONSTANTINESCU
”PEOPLE AND SHERDS”. NEO-ENEOLITHIC BURIALS DISCOVERED IN SĂLA J. THE
RESULTS OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

PIESE DE PRESTIGIU DIN PIATRĂ ȘLEFUITĂ DIN NEOLITICUL ȘI ENEOLITICUL

TIMPURIU ÎN NORD-VESTUL ROMÂNIEI .............................................................................. 17
MIHAI DUNCA
PRESTIGE POLISHED STONE PIECES FROM NEOLITHIC AND EARLY ENEOLITHIC IN
NORTH-WESTERN ROMA NIA

DESCOPERIRI IZOLATE DE UTILA J LITIC ȘLEFUIT DE PE TERITORIUL JUDEȚULUI

SĂLA J ...................................................................................................................................... 29
MIHAI DUNCA
STRAY FINDS OF POLISHED LITHIC TOOLS FROM THE TERRITORY OF SĂLA J COUNT Y

EPOCA METALELOR
ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ANALYSES ON CHARRED MACROREMAINS FROM ȘIMLEU
SILVANIEI “ OBSERVATOR ” SITE (2015 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CAMPAIGN) ............................. 43
BE ATRICE CIU TĂ , IOAN BEJINARIU
COMUNITĂȚILE OTOMANI DIN BAZINUL CRIȘURILOR. O NOUĂ PER SPECTIVĂ DE LA
FRONTIERA ESTICĂ A COMPLEXULUI CULTURAL OTOMANI-FÜZESABONY (CCOF) .........53
GRUI A FA ZECA Ș, FLORIN GOG ÂLTAN
OTOMA NI COMMUNITIES FROM IN THE BA SIN OF THE CRIȘ RIVER S. A NEW
PER SPECTIVE FROM THE EA STERN FRONTIER OF THE OTOMANI-FÜZESABONY
CULTURAL COMPLEX (OFCC)

NEW GLASS FINDS FROM TRANSDANUBIA. NOTES ABOUT MIDDLE LA TÈNE GLASS
JEWELLERY FROM THE RÁBA AND MARCAL RIVER VALLEYS ............................................. 81
ANDREE A DR ĂG AN

EPOCA ROMA NĂ
THE POTTERY KILNS AT ȘIBOT-ÎN OBREJ (ALBA COUNTY) ................................................ 93
ADEL A BÂLTÂC, ALINA STREINU, ALE X ANDR A DOLE A
LIBER PATER FRUGIFER : UN GRAFFITE VOTIF DU CAMP AUXILIAIRE DE ROMITA
(DACIA POROLISSENSIS) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 113
DAN DE AC, DAN DANA
CERCETĂRI ARHEOLOGICE PREVENTIVE ÎN NECROPOLA ROMANĂ DE LA APULUM,
DEALUL FURCILOR- PODEI ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121
MIHAI GLIGOR , ANCU ȚA BOBÎNĂ , G ABRIEL BALTEȘ, ANA FETCU
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESCUE EXCAVATIONS IN THE ROMA N NECROPOLIS FROM
FURCILOR HILL – PODEI AT APULUM

A NEWLY DISCOVERED KÜNZING-TYPE ROMAN DAGGER FROM THE LIMES OF

DACIA POROLISSENSIS �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137
MONICA GUI, HORE A POP
A ROMAN RING WITH CARNELIAN GEM DISCOVERED AT POROLISSUM-SĂRATA ���������� 155
ANA CRISTINA HA MAT, DAN BĂCUEȚ- CRIȘAN
DESPRE INELE DE TIP CHEIE CU PLACĂ TRAFORATĂ ȘI SIMBOL CRUCIFORM DIN
DACIA ROMANà �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 163
ANA CRISTINA HA MAT, HOR AȚIU COCIȘ
IN REGARD OF THE KEY-T YPE ROMAN RINGS WITH PERFORATED PLATE AND
CRUCIFORM SYMBOL FROM ROMA N DACIA

THE FIR ST PALMYRENE ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION DISCOVERED AT POROLISSUM

(MJIAZ CC 799/2002) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 175
JERE MY HU TTON
THE POTTERY KILNS FROM POROLISSUM-SĂRATA AND THE PROBLEM OF THE
SETTLEMENT’S INNER DEFENSIVE LINE ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 185
LUCIANA NEDELE A , HOR AȚIU COCIȘ, DAN BĂCUEȚ- CRIȘAN
EPIGRAPHICA POROLISSENSIA (II) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 253
IOAN PISO, DAN DE AC
LES ESTAMPILLES MILITAIRES DE RĂZBOIENI-CETATE �����������������������������������������������������263
IOAN PISO, R ADA VARG A
Romans in the school� Notes on the Archaeological collection of the
Kuun College from Orăștie – Szászváros ��������������������������������������������������������������� 291
CSABA SZ ABÓ

RESTAURARE – CONSERVARE
VASE CU PICIOR DIN PER SPECTIVĂ PALEOTEHNOLOGICĂ ȘI EXPERIMENTALĂ ����������� 303
DAN ANGHEL
VESSELS WITH FEET FROM A PALEOTECHNOLOGICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL
PER SPECTIVE

CERAMICA NEOLITICĂ PICTATĂ – ÎNTRE ARTĂ DECORATIVĂ ȘI FUNCȚIE PRACTICĂ ��� 321
ANA MARIA ELEKES
PAINTED NEOLITHIC POTTERY – BET WEEN DECORATIVE ART AND PRACTICAL
FUNCTIONALIT Y
ZĂBALA TRACICĂ. OAMENI ȘI RĂZBOINICI ...................................................................... 331
TEODOR A JUGR Ă STAN
THE THRACIA N HOR SE-BIT. PEOPLE AND WARRIOR S

THE RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION OF NEOLITHIC POTTERY DECORATED

WITH A BLACK MIXTURE OF BIRCH BARK AND NATURAL BITUMEN .............................. 337
E MANOIL PRIPON

IN MEMORIAM
IN MEMORIAM DR. GABRIELA HORTENZIA RĂDULESCU (1952–2019) ........................... 345
 THE FIRST PALMYRENE ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION
DISCOVERED AT POROLISSUM (MJIAZ CC 799/2002)

JEREMY HUTTON*

REZUMAT: Până în present cinci texte palmyrene ara-
maice descoperite în Dacia romană au fost fost publicate;
toate au fost descoperite în castrul militar roman de la
Tibiscum. La acest restrâns catalog de texte se poate în
prezent adăuga prima epigrafă aramaică recuperată din
castrul roman de la Porolissum, aflat tot în Dacia. Acest
studiu oferă o perspectivă de ansamblu a corpusului ara-
maic din ambele situri și apoi examinează lectura noii
evidențe epigrafice, analizând ductus-ul său, evaluând
evidențele care oferă o mai bună înțelegere a identității cul-
turale păstrată de soldații palmyreni din armata romană.
ABSTRACT: To date, five Palmyrene Aramaic texts dis-
covered in Roman-period Dacia have been published; all
five were discovered at the Roman army fort Tibiscum. To
this sparse catalogue of texts, we may now add the first
Aramaic epigraph recovered from the Roman fortress of
Porolissum, also in Dacia. This paper provides a brief
overview of the Aramaic corpus from both sites, and then
examines the new epigraph’s reading, analyzes its ductus,
and evaluates the evidence it provides toward our under-
standing of the cultural identity retained by Palmyrene
soldiers in the Roman army.

CUVINTE-CHEIE: Porolissum; aramaica palmyreană; KEYWORDS: Porolissum; Palmyrene Aramaic;

epigrafie palmyreană; armata romană. Palmyrene epigraphy; Roman army.

I. INTRODUCTION1

It has long been recognized that contingents of Syrian archers were recruited and deployed dur‑
ing the Roman conquest and occupation of Dacia. This conquest took place in two campaigns under
Trajan in the early 2nd c. ce (101–102, 105–106 ce), as depicted in many panels of Trajan’s column in
Rome.2 During another period of conflict shortly thereafter (117–118 ce), Emperor Hadrian brought
Palmyrene soldiers into Dacia,3 stationing them in at least two major Roman camps: one unit resided in
Tibiscum (near modern‑day Jupa and Caransebeș, Caraș‑Severin County) and the other in Porolissum
(near modern Zalău, Sălaj County).4 A third unit was probably stationed in Voislova, between Tibiscum
* University of Wisconsin‑Madison, USA, e‑mail: jmhutton@wisc.edu
1
I am grateful to Dan Deac HACM, Zalău/ Babeș‑Bolyai University, Cluj‑Napoca, Romania for giving me permission
to publish this inscription. D. Deac provided me with the relevant provenance data contained in section II, along with
a variety of bibliographic references to aid in my contextualization of the epigraph in Porolissum. Prof. Andrew Gross
graciously read an earlier manuscript and prevented me from a few embarrassing errors. Work on this study has been
supported by a grant from the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s WARF fund (#AAG5453) during the summer, 2019.
2
See e.g., Țentea 2012a, esp. p. 105.
3
Țentea 2011; see also Piso, Țentea 2014, p. 479 argues that these groups may have been recruited as early as 114 ce, jud‑
ging from the dates of their grant of citizenship.
4
Țentea 2011 observes that the first written records of Palmyrene archers in Dacia are (a) two military diplomas deriving
from Cășeiu (120 ce; IDR I, 5) and Tibiscum (126 ce; in rough duplicate: IDR I, 8 and 9), in which they are called
Palmyreni Sagittarii (ex Syria) (see similarly IDR I, 6 from Porolissum, also 120 ce, where only Sy[ria] is preserved; see
also Russu 1969, p. 173; and Le Roux 1986, p. 358–360, esp. nos. 5–9, for lists of such diplomas); and (b) two comme‑
morative inscriptions in the Agora of Palmyra: (1) IGLS XVII/1, 201 = PAT 1405 (141 ce), an inscription to M. Ulpius
JEREMY HUTTON
N

and Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, if researchers have correctly identified the reference of the numerus
Palmyrenorum O[…].5 Palmyrene soldiers famously retired to Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (mod‑
ern Sarmizegetusa, Hunedoara County), erecting a temple to four Palmyrene gods6 and perhaps two
temples to Sol‑Malagbel(/Yarhibol).7 Other affiliates of the numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium were
commemorated in Potaissa, near Porolissum.8 Further, it is possible that Palmyrenes inhabited other
Roman‑era settlements in Dacia, such as Apulum (modern‑day Alba Julia, Alba County).9 Copious
numbers of Latin inscriptions commemorating Palmyrenes’ presence have been found at the three major
sites—Tibiscum, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, and Porolissum. Yet, until recently, no inscriptions in the
Palmyrene Aramaic script have been identified outside of Tibiscum. Even there, only five of the many
inscriptions contain any Palmyrene‑language text. The two most famous are the bilingual Guras (IDR
III/1, 154)10 and Nesus stelae (IDR III/1, 167),11 both of which contain relatively complete texts com‑
memorating soldiers of the numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium. Two others contain more fragmentary
bilingual texts: the Bar Tayma inscription (IDR III/1, 170),12 containing four lines of Latin and one of
Aramaic, and an illegible fragment containing only a Latin M and the whole or part of four Aramaic

Abgarus: Seyrig 1941, p. 230–231, no. 3; AE 1947, no. 169; Petolescu 1979, p. 107 n. 35; IDRE II, 413; Delplace, Yon
2005, p. 151 IA.01; and (2) IGLS XVII/1, 203, an inscription to T. Aelius: Seyrig 1941, p. 230, no. 4; AE 1947, no. 170;
Petolescu 1979, p. 107; Speidel 1984, p. 222–223; Piso 1985, p. 473–475; IDRE II, 414; Delplace, Yon 2005, p. 153 IA.04.
In the latter inscription from Palmyra, the Palmyrene units are described as a vexillation (in context: οὐηξί[λλ]ου). It is not
until nearly four decades later that we have records of organized numeri (159/160 ce) in these locations (see also Piso,
Țentea 2011, p. 111–112; Țentea 2012, p. 71–75).
5
IDR III/2, 366 = CIL III 1471; and IDR III/2, 416 = AE 1956, no.  217 (both reading N[umerus] P[almyrenorum]
O[…?]), and both from Sarmizegetusa. Although the traditional reading of the locale held that it was Optatiana (e.g.,
Russu 1969, p. 174; Petulescu 1979, p. 108 n. 44), compare Piso, Țentea 2011, p. 112; and Țentea 2011, p. 374, who dis‑
pute this identification. Citing Piso 1987, p. 163–170, esp. 163–164, no. 1, Țentea 2011, p. 374, argues that the numerus
“had been stationed nearby Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa.” Relatedly, Piso and Țentea 2011, p. 112 transcribe the name
of this numerus as numerus Palmyrenorum Orien(‑ – ‑) on the basis of IDR III/2, 348 (P]ALMYR.ORIEN[S?). See also
Țentea 2012, p. 75–76.
6
Piso, Țentea 2014: 479, referring to the temple erected by the former soldier P. Aelius Theimes and dedicated to the diis
patriis Malagbel et Bebellahamon et Benefal et Manavat (see IDR III/2, 18 = CIL III 7954). For further discussion, see
Schäfer 2008, p. 175–176; and Piso, Țentea 2011, p. 112 and n. 15.
7
Piso, Țentea 2014, p. 480, referring to the temple dedicated to deo sa[ncto] Malagbel (IDR III/2, 262 = CIL III 7955). This
may be the same temple alluded to by an altar or state base discovered near the amphitheater and dedicated to [d]eo Soli
[Mal]agbel (IDR III/2, 265 = CIL III 7956; Piso, Țentea 2011, p. 112 and n. 17). A recently discovered temple dedicated
to a possibly conflate manifestation of Yarhibol/Malagbel has been excavated recently to the west of the old forum; see
Piso, Țentea 2011, esp. p. 121. The building (Edifice Y) has yielded inscriptions dedicated to both dei [Solis Ierh]abolis
and to Malagbel (Piso, Țentea 2011, p. 116–121). As Piso and Țentea observe, none of the dedicators of this temple have
Palmyrene names, indicating that the Palmyrene cult may have mutated somewhat as it was picked up by members of
other ethnic groups.
8
Crețulescu, Mureșan 2013, p. 56, citing CIL III 907 = CIL III 7693; see also Russu 1969, p. 173; and Țentea 2012, p. 73.
9
See, e.g., the commemorative column from Apulum naming two Thracians who had been part of the Palmyrene numerus
from Tibiscum (IDR III/5, 559 = AE 1914, no. 102); Crețulescu, Mureșan 2013, p. 56; Russu 1967, p. 91.
10
IDR III/1, 154 = PAT 0251 = CIL III 7999 = CIS 3906 = HNE: 482 d. γ4. Editio princeps: Torma 1882, p. 120–122,
no.  72; see also Nöldeke 1890; Moga, Russu 1974, p.  59–60, no.  30; Sanie 1981, p.  361 and photograph in fig. 1/1;
Țeposu Marinescu 1982, p. 175, no. 58; Reuter 1999, p. 534, no. 164; Adams 2003, p. 255–256, no. 7; Kaizer 2004, p. 565;
Hutton, Greene 2016.
11
IDR III/1, 167 = PAT 0994. Editio princeps: Sanie 1970; see also Sanie 1970a, p. 240; Moga, Russu 1974, p. 70–73, no. 37;
Sanie 1981, p. 360–361 and photograph in fig. 1/4 (Sanie has inadvertently mislabeled IDR III/1 167 in the caption);
Țeposu Marinescu 1982, p. 134, no. 132; Reuter 1999, p. 533, no. 156; Adams 2003, p. 258, no. 11; Kaizer 2004, p. 565–
566; Hutton, Greene 2018.
12
IDR III/1, 170; see also Moga, Russu 1974, p. 80–82, no. 43; Sanie 1981, p. 360 and photographs in fig. 1/3 (Sanie
has inadvertently mislabeled IDR III/1, 170 in the caption). Russu read the name in Palmyrene as tyb[wl] (see IDR
III/1, 170 ad loc.; and Moga, Russu 1974, p. 81), but Kaizer (2004, p. 566) suggested reading tym[ʔ]; Yon (2013, p. 341,
no. 17) concurs with Kaizer. Reflectance transformation imaging performed by N. E. Greene and J. M. Hutton in June,
2016 demonstrates that the morphology of the last letter demands the reading proposed by Kaizer, but might include

— 176 —
 THE FIRST PALMYRENE ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION DISCOVERED AT POROLISSUM
N

graphemes (IDR III/1, 178).13 Finally, a fifth (and fragmentary) inscription containing only Palmyrene
script was published by S. Sanie in 1981.14 This fragment contained only a few graphemes occupying
two lines of text, and although it may have originally been part of a bilingual text, it is so fragmentary
that researchers have been unable to pair it with any extant Latin texts. To this very sparse catalogue of
Palmyrene Aramaic texts in Dacia, we may now add the first Palmyrene Aramaic epigraph to have been
recovered from the site of Porolissum. The purpose of this note is to publish this epigraph and make it
available for study, both as an example of Palmyrene Aramaic script distributed throughout the Roman
Empire and in the hopes that it will help, however minimally, to fill out our understanding of the Roman
army’s demographic composition and operation in the Roman province of Dacia.

II. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

On August 31, 2001, an oblong ostracon measuring approximately 128 mm × 60 mm was dis‑
covered in the municipium (i.e., the civilian portion) of the site of Porolissum. The results of the excava‑
tion, which was then under the direction of Alexandru V. Matei, have not yet been published. Therefore,
records of the ostracon’s find‑spot are fragmentary. It was discovered in a locale described by the excava‑
tors as “Sub Mănăstire” (Eng. “under the Monastery”) in quadrant 2, meter = 15.6, at a depth of 0.6 m.
The ostracon is currently held in the Muzeul Județean de Istorie și Artă (County Museum of History and
Art) in Zalău, inv. no. MJIAZ CC 799/2002.
The ostracon was inscribed before firing, as is demonstrated by the “damming” effects of drawing
the writing utensil through wet clay—thus pushing clay to the sides of the incisions. As we will see below
(sec. III), this mode of inscription gives the epigrapher some insight into the ductus of the inscription
(that is, the type of stylus used to make the inscription, the angle at which the stylus was held, and the
order of strokes that the artisan made when making the inscription). The vessel on which the inscription
was made cannot be identified, but wheel‑marks in the clay demonstrate that it was made professionally
by a potter. Somewhat oddly, the inscription does not run parallel to the direction of the wheel‑marks.
Instead, the direction of writing seems to be offset from the wheel‑marks by approximately 55 degrees
(see fig. 1). Therefore, the epigraph was written at an odd angle on the vessel before firing; the uncon‑
ventional angle of what would appear to be a planned and well‑implemented inscription is difficult to
interpret.

III. THE EPIGRAPH

The inscription consists of four well‑formed graphemes, of which the first and the fourth are bro‑
ken. The first, second, and third letters are clearly legible; the fourth grapheme is anomalously shaped,
and is somewhat difficult to identify. There are a few possibilities for the reading, as will be discussed
shortly, none of which are entirely satisfying. Because of the direction of the sherd’s breakage, there is
no visible text to the right—i.e., prior to the inscription, since Palmyrene was written in a sinistrograde
(right‑to‑left) direction. Following the inscription, the angle of fracture allows the conclusion that no
writing followed the fourth grapheme; the tops of any following letters should have remained visible,
had there been any on the same level as the preserved graphemes. After a brief discussion of the graph‑
emes’ respective morphologies, I will move to a discussion of the likely meaning of the lexeme preserved
in this epigraph.
tym[ʔ], tym[w], or any of several other personal names beginning with the element tym‑ “servant” (Stark 1971, p. 54–56,
p. 116–117).
13
IDR III/1, 178; see also Moga, Russu 1974, p. 82–83, no. 45; Sanie 1981, p. 361 and photograph in fig. 1/2; Kaizer 2004,
p. 566–567; Yon 2013, p. 341, no. 18.
14
Editio princeps: Sanie 1981 esp. p. 359–360; photograph and copy in fig. 1/5a, 5b.

— 177 —
JEREMY HUTTON
N

The inscription reads:

1. …]ʔgnx?
I will discuss the letters in the order they appear in the inscription. Figures 1 and 2 can be con‑
sulted to confirm the specific observations on the ductus of the inscription. In figure 2, gray shading
outside of the letter strokes indicates where wet clay has been pushed out of the incision and onto the
surface of the vessel.

Fig. 1. Photograph of ostracon MJIAZ CC 799/2002 © Dan Deac, HACM, Zalău

Fig. 2. Autograph of ostracon MJIAZ CC 799/2002 © J. M. Hutton, Wisconsin Palmyrene Aramaic Inscription Project

— 178 —
 THE FIRST PALMYRENE ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION DISCOVERED AT POROLISSUM
N

Aleph: About three‑quarters of the first grapheme, aleph (ʔ), remains. Several varieties of aleph
may be found throughout the Palmyrene corpus; this particular variety is written with a semi‑circular
bowl‑shaped stroke in the top half of the writing space, with two independently‑inscribed legs hanging
down and outward. This form is generally widespread in the Palmyrene corpus, and bears morphological
commonalities to the only other instance of aleph in the Palmyrene inscriptions from Dacia (compare
IDR III/1, 154 = PAT 0251). This morphology may have been considered to be more “cursive” in style.15
The letter stands ca. 18 mm high. The first stroke made seems to have been the bowl‑shaped upper por‑
tion. Beginning at the upper right, the scribe followed a nearly straight path to the southwest with a
blade‑shaped stylus (ca. 0.75 × 1.5) held at approximately 55 degrees above horizontal from the direc‑
tion of writing, at an angle somewhat below perpendicular to the writing surface. Because this initial part
of the stroke was parallel to the direction of the stylus’s blade, this portion of the stroke is thin. As the
nadir of the bowl is rounded the stroke widens, since the movement of the stylus is now perpendicular
to the angle at which it was held. Finally, at the northwest corner, the scribe gave the letter a slight north‑
eastward tic, where the stroke narrows again (and where some of the displaced clay has been deposited).
Only the left leg of the aleph is visible. The scribe began with the stylus inside the stroke of the bowl, pro‑
ceeding down and left at a ca. 45‑degree angle and gently curving the leg downward. The stroke widens
as it proceeds downward (again, because the angle of incision was increasingly brought perpendicular
to the angle of the stylus). The bottom of the ostracon is chipped, and the bottom of this leg is no longer
clear. The right leg of the aleph has been entirely damaged by the fracture of the ostracon.
Gimel: The second letter is a clear gimel (g). It consists of two strokes. The first, ca. 20 mm high
and positioned with its uppermost point about 4.5 mm above that of the aleph, begins in the northeast
corner of the letter. The stroke first slides down and to the left but eventually curves back towards the
right; it ends in the south‑eastern corner of the writing space, about 5 mm further right than the upper
terminus. The general shape of the curve is convex towards the left (i.e., in the direction of writing). The
stroke widens in the middle, maintaining the larger width throughout the entire second half of the stoke.
The displaced clay has gathered predominantly on the inside of the curve, which is to be expected, since
this would have been the trailing edge of the stylus. Clay has also been gathered at the flat southeastern
terminus of the stroke. The second stroke, a curved horizontal spanning ca. 15 mm, intersects the first
stroke in the letter’s center. Normally, we would expect the initiation of the stroke to be at the point of
contact, but here the scribe has begun slightly to the right of the first stroke, probably inadvertently. The
stroke proceeds left and, after a bit, curves gently upward to its terminus, ca. 4 mm above the rightmost
point. Displaced clay has been gathered here as well. This letter‑form is relatively common in Palmyrene
lapidary writing,16 and has a parallel in the Guras inscription from Tibiscum (IDR III/1, 167).
Nun: The third letter, nun (n), stands ca. 22 mm high and consists of two strokes in a backwards‑
“L” shape. The intersection of the strokes is at the bottom of the first stroke, and the scribe did not have
to lift the stylus between the vertical stroke and the horizontal stroke. The vertical stroke has a slight
back‑curve that allowed the scribe to begin the letter directly above the terminus of the gimel’s curved
horizontal stroke, sliding left and then right again as the stroke descends, ca. 20 mm. As earlier, the dis‑
placed clay has been pushed to the right side of the stroke, as would be expected towards the trailing end
of the stylus. A small bit of clay has gathered at the bottom of the vertical stroke. Without lifting the sty‑
lus, the scribe quickly made a nearly‑flat, left‑breaking horizontal stroke, ca. 8 degrees below horizontal.

15
For a comparable form (albeit slightly flatter and even more cursive in appearance), see the well‑known Bar’ateh inscrip‑
tion from the Arbeia Roman army fort in South Shields, UK (PAT 0246 = RIB 1065). Compare the exemplar in Klugkist
1983, p. 59, no. 3.
16
Klugkist (1983, p. 61, esp. no. 33) suggests that this form becomes prevalent in the third c. ce, which may give some indi‑
cation as to the period in which this inscription was made. However, our understanding of the paleographic series of the
Palmyrene script is still in its infancy, and it may be hazardous to place too much stock in a single letter‑form at this juncture.

— 179 —
JEREMY HUTTON
N

This stroke is slightly thinner than the vertical, since it was inscribed nearly parallel to the angle of the
stylus. The end of this stroke has been lost in the fractured edge of the ostracon, but ca. 17 mm of its run
have been preserved.
The fourth grapheme is difficult to identify. I have rendered it with x? in the transcription above,
signaling its difficulty. There appear to be two strokes preserved (although with the southwestern corner of
the grapheme missing, it is impossible to know whether these comprise the only two strokes of the letter).
The first stroke appears to begin in the northeastern corner of the grapheme’s writing space. It was inscribed
in a generally southwestern direction, at a ca. 35‑degree angle below horizonal, gradually steepening to a
ca. 60‑degree angle below horizontal. The stroke looks deep and almost flat‑bottomed, somewhat different
from the more elegant strokes of the first three graphemes. The second stroke runs from its intersection
with the first stroke at the northwest corner more directly downwards, at a ca. 5‑degree angle left of verti‑
cal. However, this stroke does not appear to have been made in a top‑downward direction. Rather, clay‑
damming at the point where it intersects the first stroke suggests that this stroke was made in an upward
direction, pushing clay into the left side of the intersection with the first stroke. This stroke, like the first,
appears to be flat‑bottomed and rougher than the strokes of the other graphemes, and displaced clay has
been forced out of the groove on both sides. Although this grapheme might be a somewhat anomalous
form of the letters waw (w), yodh (y), or lamedh (l), in all of these cases one would expect the first stroke
to be much shorter, terminating on the preserved portion of the ostracon.17 These considerations, in com‑
bination with this grapheme’s relatively rough manner of incision vis‑à‑vis the three preceding graphemes,
leads to the suspicion that it is not a letter. Therefore, the grapheme may be an abbreviation for the Latin
word centurio or centuria (usually in the shape of a rocked‑back “7”18), but the angle seems far too acute to
compare favorably with other exemplars of this siglum in the corpus of Dacian inscriptions. Alternatively,
this could also be an unfamiliar siglum such as a potter’s mark, a unit of measurement, or a decorative
geometric shape—note should be taken of the unidentified grapheme in IDR III/1, 202 in the shape of a
Greek “Λ.”19 But one final difficulty must be mentioned: if this grapheme was intended as anything other
than a letter, then we ought to expect the nun to be written as a final form (compare the exemplar from IDR
III/1, 167 = PAT 0994), since it seems to have been the last letter of the lexeme.20 Without having the bot‑
tom portion of the fourth grapheme preserved—and without more linguistic context from which to infer
a meaning—it is difficult to offer a compelling reading of this particular sign.

IV. THE READING

If the reading of ʔgn as a single, complete lexeme stands, there are a few possible interpretations.
The most likely is that the word names the vessel on which it was inscribed or the social occasion in
which it was put to use.21 For example, D. Hillers and E. Cussini point to the inscription of the term
on a large stone krater discovered in the Temple of Abgal at Khirbet Semrin (in the wider environs
of Palmyra) and dating to ca. 261 or 266 ce.22 Insofar as the term appears to refer to a vessel in this
17
See comparable (albeit lapidary) forms of waw in, e.g., PAT 0670 (Atwood et alii 2018, esp. p. 28, fig. 2).
18
See, e.g., IDR III/2, 366 = CIL III 1471, line 2; ILD 697, 707, and 714; a graffito from Buciumi (Dana, Petruț 2015); and
an inscribed bronze applique from Porolissum (Deac 2018); I thank D. Deac for calling my attention to many of these
references. For further discussion, see Sanie 1970, p. 405 n. 1, regarding IDR III/1, 167 = PAT 0994; Hillers and Cussini
1996, p. 159, ad loc.; de Luynes 1848, p. 704.
19
See the lamda-shaped grapheme in IDR III/1, 202.
20
See esp. Hutton, Greene 2018 for confirmation of the reading -n and for detailed photographs. For discussion of medial
vs. final nun, see Klugkist 1983, p. 67–68.
21
Ingholt, Starcky 1951, p. 151 trace the word’s etymology to Akkadian agānu, “basin.”
22
Hillers, Cussini 1996, p. 334, pointing to an inscription (PAT 1684) originally published in Ingholt, Starcky 1951, p. 151,
no. 21, frag. A line 1 (photograph: pl. XXV, 6, no. 36c). There the word, spelled ɁgnɁ or ɁgntɁ (with a “small t written
above line in ɁgnɁ,” Hillers and Cussini 1996, p. 241, ad loc.; the published photograph is insufficient to verify the claim)

— 180 —
 THE FIRST PALMYRENE ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION DISCOVERED AT POROLISSUM
N

particular instance, it shares the semantic domain of the same lexeme in other varieties of Aramaic.
The online Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL)23 lists several Aramaic dialects in which the word
appears with this material meaning. In Egyptian Aramaic (a variety of Imperial Aramaic), ʔgn refers to
a “basin” (TAD D7.57 7; late–3rd c. bce). The same meaning appears to be valid for uses of the term in
the Late Jewish Literary Aramaic of Targum Jonathan (see, e.g., TgJon Isa 65:11, where the phrase ‫וממזגן‬
‫לדחלתהון אגנין‬, “and (who) mix bowls for their deities,” was used to render Heb. ‫והממלאים למני ממסך‬, “and
(who) fill (cups with) a mixed drink for (the deity) Fate.” Similarly, compare Syriac ʔgnʔ (Peshiṭta 1 Kgs
7:27 [oddly, rendering Heb. ‫מכונות‬, “stands, foundations”] and John 2:6 [rendering Gk. ὑδρίαι, “(wine)
pitcher, bucket”24]) and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.25 The precise type of vessel indicated by the term is
difficult to identify and probably varied between dialects. Nominal derivations in the Aramaic dialects
include ʔgnh (/ʔaggānā/; emphatic ʔgntʔ, / ʔaggāntā/, “jug”) in Syriac.26 Furthermore, the generally
circular shape of the vessel(s) indicated seems to have occasioned the extension of the lexeme’s semantic
value to include other round objects, such as the “circle of the moon,” the “capital (of a column),” the
“tarsus of the eyelid,” and a “lamp receptacle.”27
The lexeme ʔgn took on a new meaning in the Palmyrene Aramaic corpus, where the vast major‑
ity of usages appear on tesserae. These were usually stamped clay chits, used as “entry tickets” for social
functions. The term ʔgn occurs in various constructions in, minimally, forty‑eight different tesserae (PAT
2082–2113; 2128–2131; 2134; 2136; 2139; 2140; 2143; 2144; 2146–2148; 2309; 2349; 2456): ʔgn bl
(e.g., PAT 2085–2096; 2098–2113; etc.); ʔgn bl bʕltk (PAT 2082; 2083); ʔgn bl qšṭʔ (PAT 2084; 2097);
ʔgn bl (w)ḥrtʔ (PAT 2139; 2140); ʔgn bl wnbw (PAT 2143); ʔgn bl (w)šmš (PAT 2144; 2146; 2147);
ʔgn bl šmš qšṭʔ (PAT 2148); ʔgn šmš (PAT 2309); ʔgn b<ʕ>ltk (PAT 2349); and ʔgn gdʕtʔ dy bl (PAT
2456). In these cases, it is likely that the term refers not to a particular vessel, but to a social event, a
“symposium.”28 If this interpretation of inscription MJIAZ CC 799/2002 is adopted, then, the epigraph
names the occasion of the vessel’s use rather than the vessel itself. This is the most likely interpretation of
the inscription, although it leaves uninterpreted the final grapheme.
Another interpretation might be to assume that the final grapheme was an anomalously written
waw, thus: …]ʔgnw. This lexeme means “shelter” in Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CAL cites Isa 25:4,
where ʔgnw, “shelter,” appears in parallel to msyʕn “helper”); compare also the lexeme ʔgnh (/ʔaggānā/;
emphatic ʔgnt, / ʔaggāntā/, “protection”29), which was homophonous with the word for “jug, basin”. But
we have no comparable usages in Palmyrene and this conjecture is decidedly less satisfying—it is not
clear why a vessel would be marked with a term meaning “shelter” or “helper.”

SUMMARY

This short note has attempted to provide a contextualization and preliminary interpretation of
the first Palmyrene Aramaic inscription discovered at the Roman army fort in Porolissum. As such, it
provides meaningful evidence to archaeologists specializing in the Roman‑era settlement and history of
stands slightly separate from the surrounding text. The date is calculated based on the Seleucid‑era date of 573 or 578
given by Hillers and Cussini (cf. 5.100 + [.] + 3) by subtracting 312 (for which, see Taylor 1996, p. 208, 217). The crater
appears to be a dedication by or on behalf of Odainathus the king of Palmyra (Ɂdynt mlkɁ); this dating makes sense, since
Odainathus was assassinated in ca. 268 (see, e.g., Ingholt, Starcky 1951, p. 151; and Andrade 2018, p. 143–144).
23
Online: http://cal.huc.edu.
24
For ὑδρία as “pitcher, bucket” and “wine pitcher,” see Montanari 2015, p. 217, 8a–b.
25
DJBA, 79b.
26
E.g., Sokoloff 2009, 8a (“small jug”).
27
CAL, s.v. ʔgn, ʔgnʔ. See also Payne Smith 1902, 3a (“a large bowl or wine vessel; a waterpot; the crater of a volcano; the capi-
tal of a pillar; the base of a vessel.” It is possible that the usage in P‑Kgs 7:27, mentioned above, anticipates this usage.
28
Hillers and Cussini 1996, p. 334.
29
DJPA, 34b; Jastrow 1996, p. 13b.

— 181 —
JEREMY HUTTON
N

Dacia. Although the inscription is short, its contents signal two things: First, the inscription of Palmyrene
Aramaic script and linguistic material indicates that the Palmyrenes who were stationed in Porolissum
retained a culturally‑specific scribal tradition and that, minimally, one member of the army unit was
capable of at least modestly competent writing. This discovery gives additional hope that Palmyrene
funerary inscriptions such as those discovered at Tibiscum will also appear eventually at Porolissum
(not to mention other sites in the Roman‑era province of Dacia). Second, if I have correctly interpreted
the inscription’s lexical information, it may point to the continuing practice of the symposia gestured
to by the many tesserae from Palmyra. These symposia were of a religious nature, as indicated by their
dedication to various deities of Palmyra. The discovery of a possible reference to such a symposium at
Porolissum further confirms that the Palmyrene soldiers at Porolissum retained some of the religious
practices to which they were accustomed in their Syrian homeland. Accordingly, these soldiers were
likely not tremendously different from their congeners at Tibiscum about whom I. Crețulescu and
L.‑M. Mureșan provide the assessment that “the Palmyrene community located here [i.e., in Tibiscum]
was reluctant to abandon their ethnic heritage.”30 I would provisionally extend this assessment to the
Palmyrenes at Porolissum as well.
From the standpoint of the Northwest Semitic epigrapher this discovery is exciting as well. Not
only does it provide further insight into the global spread and identity‑forming purposes of Palmyrene
Aramaic writing, it also yields additional data for the scribal conventions—especially the ductus—in
which Palmyrene scribes were trained. We seldom receive this kind of detailed data from official com‑
memorative inscriptions, which had to be chiseled into stone.

A BBRE V I ATIONS

DJBA = M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods,
Publications of The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project, Ramat‑Gan 2002.
DJPA = M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, second ed., Publications
of The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project, Ramat‑Gan 2002.
CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, I–XVII, Berlin.
CIS = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, I–V, Paris.
HNE = M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik, Weimar, 1898.
IDR = D.M. Pippidi, I.I. Russu, Inscripțiile Daciei Romane, I–III, Bucharest, 1975–.
IDRE = C.C. Petolescu, Inscriptions de la Dacie romaine: Inscriptions externes concernant l’histoire de la Dacie
(Ier –IIIe siècles), I–II, Bucharest, 1996–2000.
IGLS = Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, vol. XVII.1: J.‑B. Yon, Palmyre, Bibliothèque archéologique
et historique 195, Beirut, 2012.
ILD = C.C. Petolescu, Inscripții Latine din Dacia, Bucharest, 2005.
PAT = Hillers, Cussini 2006
RIB = R.G. Collingwood, R.P. Wright, Roman Inscriptions of Britain, I–III, Oxford, 1965–2009.
TAD = B. Porten, A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, I–IV, Jerusalem,
1986–1999.

BI BLIO GRA P H Y

Adams 2003 J.N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge, 2003.
Andrade 2018 N. Andrade, Zenobia: Shooting Star of Palmyra, Women in Antiquity, Oxford, 2018.
Atwood et alii 2018 P.L. Atwood, J.M. Hutton, N.E. Greene, C.E. Bonesho, A New Reading of PAT 0670 (= CIS
4313), in: KUSATU 23, 2018, p. 9–31.
Crețulescu, Mureșan 2013 I. Crețulescu, L.‑M. Mureșan, Barbarian Presence on Roman Funerary Monuments Belonging
to Military Personnel Stationed in Dacia (2nd – 3rd Centuries A.D.), in: Tibiscum, N.S. 3, 2013,
p. 53–64.

30
Crețulescu, Mureșan 2013, p. 56.

— 182 —
 THE FIRST PALMYRENE ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION DISCOVERED AT POROLISSUM
N

Dana, Petruț 2015 D. Dana, D. Petruț, A Military Graffito on a Pottery Plate from the Auxiliary Fort at Buciumi
(Roman Dacia), in: Tyche: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, Papyrologie und Epigraphik 30, 2015,
p. 19–24, pls. 3–4.
Deac 2018 D. Deac, An Inscribed Bronze Applique (tessera militaris) from Porolissum (Roman Dacia), in:
ZPE 208, 2018, p. 268–272.
Delplace, Yon 2005 Ch. Delplace, J.‑B. Yon, Les inscriptions de l’agora, in: Ch. Delplace, J. Dentzer‑Feydy, L’Agora
de Palmyre, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 175; Paris, 2005, p. 151–234.
Hillers, Cussini 2006 D.R. Hillers, E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, Baltimore, 1996.
Hutton, Greene 2016 J.M. Hutton, N.E. Greene, A Note on the Aramaic Text of the Bilingual Guras Inscription (PAT
0251 = CIL 3.7999 = CIS 3906), in: Dacia N.S. 60, 2016, p. 293–300.
Hutton, Greene 2018 J.M. Hutton, N.E. Greene, A New Reading of the Latin–Aramaic Neses Bilingual (PAT 0994),
Aramaic Line 2, in: AnBan 2018 (forthcoming).
Ingholt, Starcky 1951 H. Ingholt, J. Starcky, Recuil épigraphique, in: Schlumberger 1951, p. 139–177.
Kaizer 2004 T. Kaizer, Latin-Palmyrenean Inscriptions in the Museum of Banat at Timișoara, in: L. Ruscu,
C. Ciongrad, R. Ardevan, C. Roman, C. Găzdac (eds.), Orbis Antiquus: Studia in Honorem
Ioannis Pisonis, Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 21, Cluj‑Napoca, 2004, p. 565–569.
Klugkist 1983 A.C. Klugkist, The Importance of the Palmyrene Script for Our Knowledge of the Development of
the Late Aramaic Scripts, in: M. Sokoloff (ed.), Arameans, Aramaic, and the Aramaic Literary
Tradition, Ramat‑Gan, 1983, p. 57–74.
Le Roux 1986 P. Le Roux, Les diplômes militaires et l’évolution de l’armée romaine de Claude à Septime Sévère:
Auxilia, numeri et nationes, in: W. Eck, H. Wolff (eds.), Heer und Integrationspolitik: Die
römischen Militärdiplome als historische Quelle, Köln–Wien, 1986, p. 347–374.
de Luynes 1848 H. de Luynes, Lettre à M. de Saulcy sur une inscription bilingue trouvée en Afrique, in: Revue
Archéologique 4, 1848, p. 702–705.
Montanari 2015 F. Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Leiden, 2015.
Moga, Russu 1974 M. Moga, I.I. Russu, Lapidarul Muzeului Banatului: Monumente Epigrafice Romane, Timișoara,
1974.
Nöldeke 1890 Th. Nöldeke, Zu der lateinisch-palmyrenischen Inschrift von Karánsebes, in: AEM 13, 1890,
p. 180.
Payne Smith 1902 J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, Oxford, 1902.
Petolescu 1979 C.C. Petolescu, Palmyreni sagittarii qui sunt in Dacia Superiore, in: Studii și Cercetări de Istorie
Veche 30.1, 1979, p. 105–110.
Piso 1985 I. Piso, Zur Entstehung der Provinz Dacia Porolissensis, in: E. Weber, G. Dobesch (Eds.),
Römische Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Epigraphik: Festschrift für Artur Betz zur Vollendung
seines 80. Lebensjahres, Archäologisch‑Epigraphische Studien 1, Vienna, 1985, p. 471–481.
Piso 1987 I. Piso, Prosopographia coloniae Dacicae Sarmizegetusae (I), in: Acta Musei Napocensis 24–25,
1987–1988, p. 163–170.
Piso, Țentea 2011 I. Piso, O. Țentea, Un nouveau temple palmyrénien à Sarmizegetusa, in: Dacia 55, 2011,
p. 111–121.
Piso, Țentea 2014 I. Piso, O. Țentea, Die palmyrenischen Truppen in Dakien:
Monumente und Öffentlichkeit, in: W. Eck, P. Funke (eds.), Öffentlichkeit – Monument – Text,
Berlin, 2014, p. 479–480.
Reuter 1999 M. Reuter, Studien zu den numeri des römischen Heeres in der Mittleren Kaiserzeit, in: BerRGK
80, 1999.
Russu 1969 I.I. Russu, Elementele syriene în Dacia carpatică și rolul lor în “colonizarea” și romanizarea pro-
vinciei, in: Acta Musei Napocensis 6, 1969, p. 167–186.
Sanie 1970 S. Sanie, Inscriptio bilinguis tibiscensis. A. Pars palmyrena, in: Dacia N.S. 14, 1970, p. 405–409.
Sanie 1970a S. Sanie, L’onomastique orientale de la Dacie romaine, in: Dacia N.S. 14, 1970, p. 233–241.
Sanie 1981 S. Sanie, Un nouveau fragment d’inscription palmyrénienne de Tibiscum et quelques considérations
sur les épigraphes palmyréniennes de Dacie, in: Dacia N.S. 25, 1981, p. 359–362.
Schäfer 2008 A. Schäfer, Syrische Heiligtümer in der römischen Provinz Dakien, in: Das Altertum 53, 2008,
p. 165–178.
Schlumberger 1951 D. Schlumberger, La Palmyrène du Nord-Ouest, Bibliothèque archéologique et Historique 49,
Paris, 1951.
Seyrig 1941 H. Seyrig, Antiquités syriennes: 38. Inscriptions grecques de l’agora de Palmyre, in: Syria 22,
1941, p. 223–270.

— 183 —
JEREMY HUTTON
N

Sokoloff 2009 M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update
of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum, Winona Lake, Ind., 2009.
Speidel 1984 M.P. Speidel, Palmyrenian Irregulars at Koptos, in: Bulletin of the American Society of
Papyrologists 21, 1984, p. 221–224.
Stark 1971 J.K. Stark, Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions, Oxford, 1971.
Taylor 2001 D.G.K. Taylor, An Annotated Index of Dated Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, in: Journal of Semitic
Studies 46.2, 2001, p. 203–219.
Țentea 2011 O. Țentea, Some Remarks on Palmyreni Sagittarii: On the First Records of Palmyrenes within the
Roman Army, in: I. Piso, V. Rusu‑Bolindeț, R. Varga, E. Beu‑Dachin, S. Mustață, and L. Ruscu
(eds.), Scripta Classica: Radu Ardevan Sexagenarii Dedicata, Cluj‑Napoca, 2011, p. 371–378.
Țentea 2012 O. Țentea, Ex oriente ad danubium: The Syrian Units on the Danube Frontier of the Roman
Empire, Center for Roman Military Studies 6, Cluj‑Napoca, 2012.
Țentea 2012a O. Țentea, Strategies or Tactics or Just Debates? An Overview of the Fighting Style and Military
Equipment of Syrian Archers, in: Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai: Historia, 57.1, June 2012,
p. 101–115.
Țeposu‑Marinescu 1982 L. Țeposu‑Marinescu, Funerary Monuments in Dacia Superior and Dacia Porolissensis,
BARIntSer 128, Oxford, 1982.
Torma 1882 C. Torma, Inschriften aus Dacia, Moesia superior und Pannonia inferior, in: AEM 6, 1882,
pp. 97–145.
Yon 2013 J.‑B. Yon, L’épigraphie palmyrénienne depuis PAT, 1996–2011, in: Studia Palmyreńskie 12,
2013, p. 333–379.

— 184 —