Introduction
The gods travel together with their worshippers; this is an undeniable fact. They appear far away from their original place of worship in foreign contexts among people who do not share the same linguistic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Such a situation led the deities to adapt to the new surroundings through the translation and explanation of new objects of worship for the local people, while at the same time maintaining their own religious and cultural identity.1 Inscriptions written in languages other than Aramaic present various spellings of divine names from Palmyra: Yarhibol – Hierobol, Iaribolos, Malakbel – Malachbelus, Malachbelos (Μαλαχβήλος), Malagbel, etc. This contribution is not exactly about the concept of bilingualism of religious inscriptions concerning Palmyrene deities in the western Roman Empire – given their very limited number and the wealth of recent, excellent studies on the topic –2 but rather about religious inscriptions related to the Palmyrene gods in multilingual contexts, approached through the lens of language contact theory, as reflected in both bilingual and monolingual texts.3 This chapter focuses on the social, cultural, and political contexts in which references to Palmyrene gods – such as Bel, Aglibol, Malakbel, and Yarhibol – appear, particularly in Rome and Dacia. Its main objective is to show linguistic interactions, the intentions of people and coping with the foreign names of Syrian deities in non-Semitic languages. It will also compare the contents of the rare bilingual inscriptions by looking at linguistic transpositions.
After a scrutiny of the available epigraphic material from the West, this work will try to answer a question: why are the Graeco-Aramaic, Latin-Greek (only in the case of the religious texts issued by the Syrians), or Latin-Aramaic inscriptions concerning the sphere of cults, so rare among the large Palmyrene and Syrian diaspora in the West?
Methodological Sketch
The latest paper by L. Pérez Yarza and C. Bonnet made a very important point within the study of divine onomastics in the bilingual environment of Rome.4 In the conclusion, they stated that:
The recourse to different languages also shows an effort to conceptualize the divine and share cultic habits, to a certain extent. (…) Our focus on bilingual religious communication shows, in fact, an accurate consciousness and knowledge regarding the complex, multifarious identity of the gods, activated by means of changing onomastic formulas.5
They point to more than mere multilingualism and translation practices, which leads me to treat the epigraphic material concerning the Palmyrene deities through the sociolinguistic concept of language contact.6
The idea of languages in contact was introduced by U. Weinreich in 1953, who assumed that linguistic interference is dependent on the socio-cultural conditions and geographical, political, and ideological factors,7 induced by mobility (e.g. migration and colonisation). In S. G. Thomason’s development of language contact theory, fluent bilingualism or multilingualism is not a prerequisite; rather, the theory assumes a certain level of communication between different language users.8 Recently, G. Tozzi presented various forms of bilingualism on the example of Latin and Greek inscriptions from Rome, showing the cultural and societal blend through the pragmatic scope of languages in contact.9 She questioned the very important work on this topic edited by J. N. Adams and S. Swain. The two scholars turned their attention to different aspects of language contact: biculturalism and bilingual literacy, challenging the common opinion that one language is always translating the other in the situation of bilingual texts.10 G. Tozzi’s approach, however, is compatible with the pragmatic analysis of language contact by P. Auer, who focused on the study of contexts, involving social identity, and particular needs and actions linked to the use of languages.11
Inscriptions in stone are always intended to be read – whether displayed publicly to a wide audience or directed at a more limited group of individuals. What matters is the intended audience and the reception of the text. Making an inscription in more than one language or introducing a new cultural code (e.g. the name of a deity), necessarily involves an assessment of the readers’ level of comprehension, their cultural identity, and the degree of accommodation on the part of the author. Furthermore, each language has its own strategies for presenting information, as well as epigraphic traditions.
Palmyrene Gods in Rome12
Numerous epigraphic attestations, supported by archaeological remains, attest to the presence of a Palmyrene community in Rome. In the region of Transtiberim (Trastevere), a shrine was dedicated to the gods Bel, Malakbel, Yarhibol, and Aglibol.13 The location of the sanctuary in this district is unsurprising, as it lay outside the pomerium and was inhabited by a population of Eastern Mediterranean origins. This area also hosted a temple dedicated to Dea Syria and a shrine to the Heliopolitan Triad.14 The two building inscriptions, documenting the construction of the Palmyrene temple, are written in Latin and Greek.15
CIL VI, 50 = IGUR I, 117
Pro salute Imp(eratoris) [Caes(aris) Nervae Traiani Augusti]
C(aius) Licinius N[— et Heliodorus]
Palmyrenus [aedem Belo Iaribolo Malachbelo]
constitu[erunt sua pecunia?].
ʽΗλιόδωρος ὁ [Παλμυρηνὸς καὶ Γ(άϊος) Λικίνιος N—]
τὸν ναὸν Βή[λῳ ᾿Ιαριβώλῳ Μαλαχβήλῳ θεοῖς]
Παλμυρην[οῖς ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀνέθηκαν].
Latin: For the well-being of the Emperor Cesar Nerva Trajan Augustus. Caius Licinius
N— and Heliodorus, the Palmyrene, constructed from their own purse the temple for
Bel, Iaribol, Malachbel.16 Greek: Heliodoros, the Palmyrene and Gaios Likinios N— dedicated from their own
purse the temple to Bel, Iaribol, Malachbel, the Palmyrene gods.
CIL VI, 51 = IGUR I, 118
[Pro salute Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) Nervae Traiani Augusti]
[C(aius) Licinius N— et Heliodorus Palmyrenus]
[ae]dem Belo Iaṛ[ibolo Malachbelo].
[ʽΗ]λιόδω[ρος]
[ὁ Παλμυρην]ὸς καὶ Γά(ϊος) Λικίνος [N— Βήλῳ]
[᾿Ιαριβώλῳ] Μαλαχβήλῳ θε[οῖς Παλμυρηνοῖς].
L(ucio) Lamia C̣[armin]ịọ [Vetere co(n)s(ulibus)].
Latin: For the well-being of the Emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan Augustus. Caius Licinius
N— and Heliodorus, the Palmyrene, (constructed) the temple to Bel, Iaribol and Malachbel.
Under the consulate of Lucius Lamia (and) Carminius Veteris. Greek: Heliodoros,
the Palmyrene and Gaius Likinius N— to Bel, Iaribol, Malachbel, the Palmyrene gods.
These texts present nearly identical content, despite lacunae that can be reconstructed through comparison with the other inscriptions. Nonetheless, slight differences between the two languages are observable. The Latin text opens with a reference to the well-being of the emperor Trajan (Pro salute Imp(eratoris) [Caes(aris) Nervae Traiani Augusti]), a feature absent from the Greek text.17 No comparable invocation appears in other inscriptions attesting Palmyrene religious activity in Rome. This can be related to the character of the inscription, which announces the construction of a new cult space and the introduction of a “foreign” form of worship. The invocation of the emperor’s well-being was a formal requirement, showing the connection between religious innovation and imperial politics and administration, especially in the case of CIL VI, 51, which contains a reference to the consuls.
Scholars have generally affirmed the Palmyrene origins of both Caius Licinius and Heliodoros, the two founders of the new sanctuary.18 However, only Heliodoros’ ethnicity is marked in both inscriptions and in both linguistic variants (Latin and Greek) as Palmyrenus/Palmyrenos (Παλμυρηνός).19 The Palmyrene origins of Caius Licinius, by contrast, are far less certain. On the one hand, E. Equini Schneider has linked this Roman citizen to a priestly family from Palmyra. Yet the Palmyrene evidence she cites dates later than the two inscriptions from Rome.20 Gaius Licinius Flavianus, son of Burrus (in Aramaic Borrepha), is attested in Palmyra around 130 AD, during the reign of Hadrian, whereas the activity of the Roman Caius Licinius N— is dated to 116 AD.21 On the other hand, the gentilicium Licinius is widely attested in the Latin sources, both among freedmen and ordinary Roman citizens. In this light, it is possible to consider Caius Licinius as a clerk in senatorial office, acting on behalf of the Palmyrenes, whose community was already strong and significant in Rome. The coupling of the Palmyrene Heliodoros and Gaius Licinus N— thus exemplifies a correlation with the religious politics of the state, marking the legal establishment of a new cultic site within the public space.22
According to the inscriptions, the gods worshipped in the temple were Bel, spelt as Belus/Belos (Βήλος); Malakbel, as Malachbelus/Malachbelos (Μαλαχβήλος); and Yarhibol, as Iaribolus/Iaribolos (᾿Ιαριβώλος). Notably, these deities are labelled as Palmyrene gods only in the Greek text. The spelling Malachbelos (Μαλαχβήλος) renders the Aramaic pronunciation of the divine name mlkbl, in which the K was spirantised. This follows the traditional Greek transcription of the theonym attested in Palmyra itself.23 Similarly, the theonym Belos (Βήλος) is written with an eta (η) rather than with an epsilon (ε), mirroring the epigraphic customs in Greek texts from Palmyra.24 Heliodoros must have influenced the rendering of the divine names, given his familiarity with the standard orthography of Palmyrene theonyms in his native city. The theonyms are left without interpretation as a sign of accommodation of the Palmyrene divine onomastics into a different language and script system.
A comparable situation regarding the rendering of names is found in two Graeco-Aramaic inscriptions from Rome. The first, an aedicula dated to 236 AD bearing a bilingual Greek-Aramaic text, is an offering to the Palmyrene gods: Aglibol – Aglibolos/‘glbwl and Malakbel – Malachbelos/mlkbl.
IGUR I, 119 = PAT, 0247
Ἀγλιβώλῳ καὶ Μαλαχβήλῳ πατρῴοις θεοῖ[ς]
καὶ τὸ σίγνον ἀργυροῦν σὺν παντὶ κόζμῳ ἀνέθη[κε]
Ἰουλιὸς Ἀυρελιὸς Ἡλιόδωρος Ἀντιόχου Ἁδριανὸς
Παλμυρηνὸς ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ὑπὲρ
σωτηρίας αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συμβίου καὶ τῶν τέκνων
ἔτους ζμφʾ μηνὸς Περιτίου
lˁglbwl wmlkbl wsmytˀ dy kspˀ wtṣbyth ˁbd mn kysh yrḥy br ḥlpy br
yrḥy br lšmš šˁdw ˁl ḥywhy wḥyˀ bnwhy byrḥ šbṭ šnt 547SE25 (= 236 AD)
Greek: To Aglibol and Malachbel, the ancestral gods and the silver image with the
entire decoration dedicated to Julius Aurelius Heliodoros, son of Antiochos, the citizen
of Hadriana Palmyra, from his own purse for the well-being of himself and his wife and his children.
In the year 547 SE (= 236 AD), in the month Peritios. Aramaic: For Aglibol and Malakbel
and the silver emblem and its decoration dedicated from his purse Yarḥai, son of Halipai,
son of Yarḥai, son of Lišamš Šoˁaddu for his own life and the life of his children
(lit. sons), in the month of Shebat, the year 547 SE (= 236 AD).
This inscription employs the Seleucid era dating system in accordance with Palmyrene traditions and labels the divinities as ancestral gods only in the Greek text.26 In the Greek version, the dedicator is named Julius Aurelius Heliodoros, son of Aniochos, from Palmyra Hadriana, while in Aramaic his name resounds as Iarhai, son of Haliphai, son of Iarhai, son of Lishamsh Sho’addu, without providing his ethnicity. A text in the dedicator’s own language and script, together with the extended genealogy, would have conveyed more meaningful information to an Aramaic-speaking community than a reference to his origins. The Greek designation Palmyra Hadriana is an honorific title granted to the city following the imperial visit of Hadrian. Abroad, especially in Egypt, the Palmyrenes identified themselves as Hadrianic Palmyrenes.27 It is a bow to the imperial connections between Rome and Palmyra and an expression of the city’s recognised status by the highest power.28
The second text appears on one of the fragments of a relief bearing a dedication to Bel, Iaribol, and, probably, Aglibol.29
IGUR I, 120 = PAT, 249.
[— lšm]š wšˁdw br tymˀ lšmšy wqrbw [—]
θεοῖς πατρῴοις Βήλωι Ἰαριβώ[λωι καὶ Ἀγλιβώλωι —]
α͗νέθηκαν Μακκαῖος Μαλῆ τ[οῦ Λισάμσου καὶ Σόαδος Θαίμου τοῦ Λισαμσαίου]
Aramaic: Lishamsh and Šoˁaddu son of Taima, son of Lishamshai and offered —; Greek: For the ancestral gods Bel, Iaribol and Aglibol — dedicated Makkaios, son of Male
son of Lisamsos and Soados, son of Thaimos son of Lisamsaios.
This inscription presents a distinctive case of code-switching, incorporating Palmyrene names transcribed into Greek with the grammatical gender suffix -os (Makkaios – MQY, Lisamsos – LŠMŠY). Both bilingual inscriptions relate to donations made by the Palmyrenes and employ a formula typical of their mother city. In addition to these, another Aramaic text from Rome appears in a different religious context. Situated in front of the temple dedicated by Gaius Licinius and Heliodoros stood a monumental altar bearing two inscriptions: one in Latin and the other in Aramaic, written in the Palmyrene script.
CIL VI, 710 = PAT, 248
Side A: Soli sanctissimo sacrum
Ti(berius) Claudius Felix et
Claudia Helpis et
Ti(berius) Claudius Alypus fil(ius) eorum
votum solverunt libens merito
Calbienses de coh(orte) III
Side B: ˁltˀ dh lmlkbl wˁlhy tdmr
qrb ṭbrys qlwdys plqs
wtdmryˀ lˁlhyhn šlm
Latin: To the Saintest Sacred Sol. Tiberius Claudius Felix and Claudia Helpis and
Tiberius Claudius Alypus, their son dedicated in the fulfillment of the vow. Calbienses
of the III cohors.
Aramaic: This altar for Malakbel and the Palmyrene gods, offered Tiberius Claudius
Felix and the Palmyrenes, for their gods. Peace!
These two texts differ significantly both in their content and in their mode of execution.30 The dedication to the god Sol was made by a family: the dedicators of the Latin inscription are Tiberius Claudius Felix, his wife, and their son, following the conventional formula of Latin votive inscriptions and concluding with the customary phrase votum solverunt libens merito. The Latin text is visually monumental, featuring large, ornamental letters and executed with precise craftsmanship.
The Aramaic text makes no mention of the family of Tiberius Claudius Felix. Instead, it records a dedication to Malakbel (mlkbl) and the Palmyrene gods made by this Roman citizen with the Palmyrenes. Inscribed on the side of the monument, the Aramaic text is executed in simplified, small characters, lacking a horizontal alignment. Furthermore, the Latin text is laid out within a carefully planned rectangular field, whereas the Aramaic version is engraved directly beneath the relief on side B of the altar. These differences suggest that the Semitic text was added at a later stage, beneath the image of the Sun’s chariot. Tiberius Claudius Felix is transcribed into the Semitic script as ṭbrys qlwdys plqs. He is said to act together with the Palmyrenes (tdmry’), in honour of Malakbel (mlkbl) and the gods of Palmyra (wl’lhy’ tdmr). As in the case of Gaius Licinius N—, the origins of Tiberius Claudius Felix and his family remain uncertain. While he clearly participated in a cultic gesture alongside the Palmyrenes, this does not necessarily indicate Palmyrene descent.31 C. Bonnet has rightly observed that he was likely an imperial libertus, possibly working with or residing in proximity to the Palmyrenes.32 To this, B. Fowlkes-Childs adds:
The wording of the inscription, however, separates him clearly from “the Palmyrenes” about whom no additional information is provided. The possibility that they were slaves of the imperial household may explain Claudius Felix’s role as a facilitator of the dedication if he were an imperial freedman, but does not indicate that he was necessarily a Palmyrene himself. In any case, whatever his ancestral origins actually were, his specific desire to identify himself with a Latin name separately from the “Palmyrenes” is clear.33
By adding the Aramaic inscription to the side of the monumental altar, the donor enabled the Palmyrenes to worship their homeland deity. The joint appearance of Malakbel and Sol on the same monument is no coincidence: it represents an instance of interpretatio Palmyrena, translating the Roman god Sol into a culturally resonant form for those unfamiliar with Roman religious traditions. The subsequent reference to the Palmyrene deities further expanded the ritual possibilities for non-Roman participants.
To summarise, the inscriptions from Rome follow the Palmyrene epigraphic conventions known from Palmyra itself. As the following section will show, this pattern was far less common in other places, such as Dacia.
Palmyrene Deities in Dacia
Dacia yields a significantly larger corpus of inscriptions dedicated to Palmyrene deities than any other region in the western Roman Empire. In contrast to Rome, bilingual texts (Latin-Aramaic) in Dacia are almost exclusively confined to the funerary sphere.34 In the religious domain, inscriptions appear solely in Latin. Following Trajan’s victory and throughout Hadrian’s reign, the province hosted Palmyrene soldiers (numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensium), particularly an auxiliary unit of archers stationed at various garrisons across Dacia, including Porolissum, Sarmizegetusa, Potaissa, Tibiscum, Apulum, and Optatiana.35
Bel
In Porolissum, there was a temple dedicated to Bel36 and subsequently restored in the 3rd c. AD by the Palmyrene archers, between 212 and 217 AD.37 The inscription commemorating the reconstruction of the sanctuary refers to the deity worshipped within as deus patrius Belus.38
Piso 2005, 476
Pro salute [I]mp(eratoris) M(arci) Aur[elii]
Antonini Aug(usti) Pii Fel(icis) deo
patrio Belo n(umerus) Pal(myrenorum) sagit(tariorum) tem-
plum vi ignis consumptum pecunia sua restitueront dedic-
ante [[C(aio)]] I[[ul(io) Sept(imio) Casti]]no
co(n)s(ulari) III Daci[ar(um) M(arco)?] Ulpio Victore
proc(uratore)Aug(usti)provi[nc(iae) Por]ol(issensis) cura agen-
te T(ito) Fl(avio) Satu[rnino (centurione) le]g(ionis) V
Mac(edonicae) P(iae) C(onstantis).39
For the well-being of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, Pius Felix,
to the ancestral god Bel, the regiment of Palmyrene archers that reconstructed by
their own costs the temple after the destruction of fire, dedicated under the Caius
Iulius Septimius Castinus, the consul of III Dacia, Marcus Ulpius Victor, the imperial
procurator of the province Porolissensis, under the charge of Titus Flavius Saturninus,
centurio of the legion V Macedonica Pia Constantis.
The text was not issued by the Palmyrene regiment of archers, but by the governor of the province Dacia Porolissensis. Like the two inscriptions from Rome discussed above, it opens with a prayer for the well-being of the emperor (pro salute Imperatoris…), a feature commonly found in texts related to Palmyrene cults in Dacia. The Palmyrene cults were foreign to the Romans, and praying for the safety and life of the emperor to the ancestral deities demonstrates the legal and appropriate way of dealing with foreign cults, as a proof of religio and not superstitio. The collaboration between Palmyrene individuals and representatives of the Roman administration (both public and military) underscores the officially sanctioned and lawful establishment of the cultic site.
Besides Porolissum, Bel received cultic worship in his own sanctuary at Tibiscum. An inscription commissioned by two men – Aelius Zabdibol, surely a Palmyrene based on his cognomen, and Aelius, whose cognomen is not preserved – refers to the deity as Bel, the Palmyrene god (Belo, deo Palmyreno).40 In addition to Bel, other gods from Palmyra were also addressed/worshipped at Tibiscum. A veteran named Publius Aelius Servius honoured the Genius of the Palmyrene unit (Genio numeri Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium) stationed at this site. This formulation reflects a non-Palmyrene habit of naming the deity and a way of coping with a god whose identity may have been unfamiliar to the dedicator or the intended audience of the inscription.
Malagbel – Malakbel
Tibiscum has also yielded an inscription dedicated to the god Malakbel, referred to as deus Sol Malagbelus:
IDR 3.1, 148
Au[ribus]
d[ei Solis]
Malg[beli]
Ael(ius) V[…]
To the ears of the god Sol Malagbel, Aelius V—.
This text stands out among the textual and iconographic evidence relating to Palmyrene cults more broadly. The tablet features a carved, monumental ear, visually corresponding to the inscription. Such an iconographic motif – signifying divine receptivity to prayer – is unattested in Palmyra. There, divine attentiveness is instead conveyed through the Aramaic formula qr lh w‘nnh (“he called upon him, i.e. the deity, and he answered him, i.e. the supplicant”) and through the epithet epekoos in the Greek inscriptions.41
A second dedication to Malakbel from Tibiscum gives the god’s name in the Latin form Malachbelus,42 a spelling already noted in the case of Rome. The primary centre of Palmyrene religious activity in Dacia, however, was Sarmizegetusa (Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa), the provincial capital. A Palmyrene named Publius Aelius Theimes, serving as duumvir, restored a cult site “on the order of the gods.”43
IDR 3.2, 18
Diis Patriis
Malagbel et Bebellaha-
mon et Benefal et Mana-
vat P(ublius) Ael(ius) Theimes IIviral(is)
col(oniae) templum fecit solo et
inpendio suo pro se suisq(ue)
omnibus ob pietate ipsorum
circa se iussus ab ipsis fecit
et culinam subiunxi.
To the ancestral gods: Malagbel and Bebellahamon and Benefal and Manavat. Publius
Aelius Theimes duumvir of the colony, made the temple himself and from his own purse,
for himself and his (people), by the piety and the order of (the gods). He made and
added the kitchen.
The temple was dedicated to his homeland deities (diis patriis): Malakbel (Malagbel), Belhammon (Bebellahamon), Benefal, and Manawat (Manavat). However, the inscription does not explicitly identify them as Palmyrene. What is striking in this dedication is the use of undeclined divine names. The theonyms Belhammon and Benefal seem to present particular challenges in their transmission across different scripts and language systems. The inscription also exhibits morphological difficulties, notably in the declension of the names. The author left them in the nominative case, rather than employing the dative case, which would have been the more grammatically appropriate form in this context.
Apart from this inscription, Malakbel is attested several times at Sarmizegetusa under the form Malagbelus. He received an altar from Titus Flavius Aper, who is identified as the scribe of the colony.44 Another text records a dedication made by an imperial libertus named Primitivos, who offered it to the Holy (Sancto) God Malakbel (Deo Malagbelo) for the well-being of Emperor Severus Alexander and his mother, Iulia Mamaea.45 I. Piso and O. Tentea have noted that the capital of Dacia housed at least three distinct temples dedicated to Malakbel.46 One of these was located near the Forum, within the city limits, and yielded a highly fragmentary tablet listing two names of the cultores of the god Sol Malagbel, along with twenty-nine names of members belonging to a newly established cultic collegium in Sarmizegetusa.
Piso & Tentea 2011, 119-120, n. 3.Cult[ores Dei Solis(?) Ma]- lagb[eli – – – Pro]- culụ[s(?) – – -]a(?) [- – – exst]rux(erunt) quo[rum nomina subscripta] sunt Sped(ius) V[- – -]col(oniae)Marcu[s – – -]M(arcus) Aur(elius) Iu[- – -]Sped(ius) [….]anu[s]S[ped(ius?) ….] Aug(ustalis) col(oniae)Pom[p(onius)? Avitus]Val(erius) […]nusSped(ius) Prim[anus] REX ?Aurel(ius) Aqui[linus]Aurel(ius) ZopyrusComini(us) MaximinusAurel(ius) ViatorAnt(onius) BarbasAel(ius) Geminus[- – -][- – – M]arcus[- – – Val]entinus[- – -] Antipater[- – -] Crescentio[- – -] EutychesVal(erius) RufusAurel(ius) V[i]talianus EsurioDomitius I?[- – -]The worshippers of the God Sol Malagbel — Proculus —built, of whom the names are written below: Spedius V—, of the colony, Marcus —, Marcus Aurelius Iu—, Spedius —anus, Spedius —Augustalis of the colony, Pomponius Avitus?, Valerius —, Spedius Primanus —, Aurelius Aquilinus, Aurelius Zopyrus, Cominius Maximinus, Aurelius Viator, Antoninus Barbas, Aelius Geminus —. —Marcus, — Valentinus, — Antipater, — Crescentio, — Eutyches, Valerius Rufus, Aurelius Vitalianus Esurio, Domitius I —.
Surprisingly, none of the individuals named bears a Semitic name. The excavators have suggested that the inscription points to an official cult that was accessible to non-Palmyrenes.47 While it is clear that many of the worshippers were not of Palmyrene origin, the fragmentary nature of the inscription means that we cannot entirely exclude the possibility that some members of the cultic community did in fact originate from Palmyra. Moreover, names such as Antipater and Eutyches are attested in the Palmyrene epigraphic record.48
Yarhibol
Another deity connected to the Palmyrene community in Dacia was Yarhibol. His name appears in inscriptions from Apulum, Tibiscum, and Sarmizegetusa, attested in various spellings: Ierhabol (Tibiscum, Sarmizegetusa),49 Hierobolus (Sarmizegetusa),50 Hieribolus (Apulum),51 and Ierhibol (Apulum).52 In none of these inscriptions is Yarhibol identified as a Palmyrene deity. However, such identity markers were not necessarily employed as an epigraphic rule in reference to gods.
The individuals who dedicated these inscriptions were predominantly Dalmatians, with the addition of one Roman veteran;53 only a single dedicator can be attributed to Palmyra based on his name.
IDR, 3, 5, 102.54
Deo
[I]erhibol(i)
Ael(ius) Nisa
sacer(dos)
posuit.
To the god Ierhibol, Aelius Nisa, the priest, made (it).
The dedicator of this inscription, Aelius Nisa, also served as priest (sacerdos). His cognomen Nisa is a Latinised form of the Aramaic name nš.
Interferences and Linguistic Interactions
The set of Palmyrene deities worshipped in Rome and Dacia closely corresponds to those attested in inscriptions from Cos, Egypt (Berenike), Emesa, and Dura-Europos.55 These deities appear to have played a significant role in marking the religious and cultural identity of the Palmyrene diaspora. Bel – whose sanctuary in Palmyra was the largest and served as a space for civic activity – was the divine patron of the city. In Palmyra itself, both epigraphic and iconographic evidence tend to present Yarhibol and Malakbel as accompanying deities, despite the existence of separate sanctuaries dedicated to each within the city.56 However, their position and hierarchy change in the dedications of Palmyrene expatriates, where they rise to a primary position.57 This may reflect not a change in their status abroad, but rather the recognition of their already elevated standing in Palmyra itself – as divine patrons of key features of the oasis landscape, such as the spring and the sacred grove.
As the material analysed above demonstrates, foreign – specifically Aramaic – names posed considerable challenges in terms of spelling. The Palmyrene Aramaic theonyms often proved difficult for communities unfamiliar with Semitic writing and phonological systems. Conversely, composing a text in Latin presented its own difficulties for the Palmyrenes, especially in the use of vowels – issues that are in some ways comparable to the challenges faced by modern Arabic speakers when engaging with English or other Indo-European languages.
For this reason, the variety of spellings of Malakbel and Yarhibol is particularly noteworthy. On the one hand, the evidence from Rome provides the form Malachbelus/Malachbelos (Μαλαχβήλος), which follows the Palmyrene convention. On the other hand, inscriptions from Dacia attest to the form Malagbelus. Both orthographic variants show how the Aramaic theonym was heard and pronounced by different communities. The Latin Malagbelus is also found in inscriptions from North Africa (e.g. in Numidia). It is possible that the Semitic kaph was perceived as a guttural and spirantised sound, similar to the way the letter K is pronunced by Tiroleans today.58 Alternatively, or additionally, this variation may point to a general lack of distinction in Latin between the sounds represented by the letters C and G, as is well attested in the interchangeable use of Caius and Gaius.
Furthermore, the various spellings of the name Yarhibol in Latin inscriptions bear witness to the linguistic challenges that arose in the context of language contacts. The form Ierhibol is the most accurate rendering of the original Aramaic yrḥbwl, and it appears in the dedication from Dacia by Aelius Nisa, whose Palmyrene origin is certain. Other variants, such as Hierobolus and Hieribolus, result from association with the Greek hieros (sacred, holy). In addition, there is no agreement about which declension should be used. In Latin, the names Malakbel and Yarhibol can be declined according to either second- or third-declension rules.59
A similar challenge was encountered by Publius Aelius Theimes in Sarmizegetusa, who commissioned the construction of a temple dedicated to his homeland deities: Malakbel, Belhammon, Manawat, and Benefal (pn’ b‘l?). The orthographic variants of the theonyms Malagbel, Bebellahamon (sic), and Benefal (whose identity remains a subject of scholarly debate) reflect the linguistic and cultural effort involved in transposing his Palmyrene gods into a foreign system.60
It is particularly noteworthy that Palmyrene deities and cults are among the relatively few foreign gods to be adopted and made visible in the epigraphic and archaeological record of the western part of the Roman Empire. While this does not match the same scale of the cults of, for example, Isis and Serapis, Jupiter Dolichenus, or Dea Syria, it nevertheless marks a significant point on the religious landscape of the Empire. The visibility of Palmyrene deities in the western provinces cannot be attributed solely to the influence of traders or military movements, as is often suggested in scholarship. Rather, it should be seen as the result of sustained political interaction. As M. Sommer has argued, the ties between Palmyra and Rome gradually intensified, and Palmyrene diplomacy –situated inter duo imperia – was particularly skilful.61 In light of this, we can see the interplay of the Palmyrene local culture and religion in the analysed regions and the discernibility of own traditions in the Roman Empire through the elites.62 The Latin inscriptions that name Palmyrene gods are not composed in the “native” language of the Palmyrenes, but rather in the language of the Empire.63 By employing this language, dedications rendered the deities visible and intellegible to outsiders, just as they had already been accessible to the Palmyrenes through Aramaic and Greek. Ultimately, this strategy served to promote one’s own identity and culture while also providing material evidence of the achievements attainable by foreign communities.64
Conclusions
The introduction to this chapter raised the question of why religious inscriptions featuring an Aramaic version are so rare in the western part of the Roman Empire. Several possible explanations emerge from the analysis presented above. First, this rarity may be attributed to individual choices and the limited intended readership. The inclusion of an Aramaic counterpart alongside a Latin inscription is far more common in funerary epitaphs commemorating Palmyrene expatriates. Such inscriptions belong to the private and personal sphere and are often addressed to family or community members who may not have been literate in Latin. This contrasts with the nature of the religious texts discussed here. The examples from Rome demonstrate that the use of Aramaic in religious dedications tends to be confined to the act of dedication itself, rather than associated with temple construction. A striking case is the monumental altar dedicated by Tiberius Claudius Felix, which included an Aramaic inscription. This addition can be interpreted as an act of recognition of the Palmyrene community, effectively incorporating them into the ritual performance through the use of their own language on a publicly visible cultic object.
Secondly, the abandonment of Aramaic may also be explained by official issues. Building inscriptions from sanctuaries in Rome and Dacia reflect actions undertaken with the sanction of higher authorities. In these cases, the Palmyrenes appear to have acted in coordination with the Roman clerks in the establishment of their cultic spaces. Such newly founded sanctuaries were expected to meet certain standards of transparency, in line with broader expectations concerning the visibility and regulation of religious practices. An inscription in Aramaic – unintelligible to most of the imperial audience – could have raised suspicions of superstitio.
Last but not least, the cases from Dacia demonstrate that non-Palmyrenes likewise paid homage to deities of Palmyrene origin. This provides clear evidence of a polytheistic religious system that was accessible to outsiders and capable of accommodating cults beyond the confines of a single city or region65. Finally, the examples discussed shed light on cultural perceptions as mediated through written language in a context of linguistic contact. The numerous orthographic variants of divine names should not be viewed as errors, but rather as phonetically rendered forms that reflect local pronunciation and spelling conventions. Significantly, the names of Palmyrene deities were not assimilated into Greek or Roman equivalents, either in Dacia or in Rome. Yet names such as Sol or the Palmyrene god served as interpretative bridges, enabling the Romans to understand foreign deities. This underscores the integration of polyglot and multiethnic communities within the religious landscape of the Roman Empire. In this context, the agency of Palmyrene elites in the diaspora is particularly noteworthy. Through their economic, military, and social influence, they succeeded in making their religious traditions visible across linguistic boundaries.
Abbreviations
| CIL | Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. |
| IDR | Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. |
| IGLS | Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie. |
| IGUR | Inscriptiones Graece Urbis Romae. |
| MAP | Mapping Ancient Polytheisms, [online] https://base-map-polytheisms.huma-num.fr/. |
| PAT | = Cussini & Hillers 1999. |
| RTP | = Ingholt et al. 1955. |
University of Wrocław, aleksandra.kubiak-schneider@uwr.edu.pl. This research has been funded within the project Al-At People of the Gods with the agreement of the grant Polonez Bis 1 No. 2021/43/P/HS3/02595, co-funded by the National Science Centre and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 945339. (MSCA COFUND). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.
Bibliographie
Adams, J. N. (2003): Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge.
Adams, J. N. and Swain, S. (2003): “Introduction”, in: Adams, J. N., Janse, M. and Swain, S., ed.: Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text, Oxford, 1-20, [online] https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199245062.003.0001 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Auer, P. (2020): “Language contact: pragmatic factors”, in: Adamou, E. and Matras, Y., ed.: The Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Rountledge handbooks in linguistics, London-New York, 147-167, [online] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351109154-11/language-contact-peter-auer [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Beard, J., North, J. and Price, S. (2006): Religions de Rome, Antiquité synthèses 10, Paris.
Bonnet, C. (2018): “Gli dèi di Palmira nel cuore di Roma“, in: Bonnet, C. and Sanzi E., ed.: Roma, la città degli dèi. La capitale dell’impero come laboratorio religioso, Studi superiori 1117, Rome, 235-250.
Cussini, E. and Hillers, D. H. (1999): Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, Baltimore.
Dirven, L. (1999): The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos. A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria, Religions in the Graeco-Roman world 138, Leiden.
Equini Schneider, E. (1987): “Il santuario di Bel e delle divinità di Palmira. Comunità e tradizioni religiose dei Palmireni a Roma”, Dialoghi di Archeologia, 5, 67-85.
Fowlkes-Childs, B. (2019): “Palmyrenes in Transtiberim: Integration in Rome and Links to the Eastern Frontier”, in: Slootjes, D. and Peachin, M., ed.: Rome and the Worlds beyond its Frontiers, Impact of Empire 21, Leiden-Boston, 193-212, [online] https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004326750_011 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Gorea, M. (2010): “Considérations sur la politisation de la religion à Palmyre et sur la dévotion militaire des Palmyréniens en Dacie”, Semitica et Classica, 3, 125-162.
Houston, G. W. (1990): “The Altar from Rome with Inscriptions to Sol and Malakbel”, Syria 67(1), 189-193, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/4198796 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Hutton, J. M. and Greene, N. E. (2018): “A New Reading of the Latin – Aramaic Neses Bilingual (DR III1 167 = PAT 0994), Aramaic Line 2”, Analele Banatului S.N. Arheologie – Istorie, 26, 11-25, [online] https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/article?articleId=3030967 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Ingholt, H., Seyrig, H. and Starcky, J. (1955) Recueil des tessères de Palmyre, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 58, Paris.
Kaizer, T. (2002): The Religious Life of Palmyra: A Study of the Social Patterns of Worship in the Roman Period, Oriens et occidens 4, Stuttgart.
Kaizer, T. (2004): “Religious Mentality in Palmyrene Documents”, Klio, 86, 165-184, [online] https://doi.org/10.1524/klio.2004.86.1.165 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Kaizer, T. (2020): “Oasis-polis. Tadmur-Palmyra as Greek city in the Roman world (or not) in five episodes”, in: Sommer, M., ed.: Inter duo Imperia. Palmyra between East and West, Oriens et occidens 31, Stuttgart, 23-36.
Kubiak-Schneider, A. (2021): Des dédicaces sans théonyme de Palmyre. Béni (soit) son nom pour l’éternité, Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 197, Leiden-Boston, [online] https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004465305 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Minets, Y. and Nowakowski, P., ed. (2023): Shaping Letters, Shaping Communities: Multilingualism and Linguistic Practice in the Late Antique Near East and Egypt, Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 33, Leiden-Boston, [online] https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004682337 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Mitchell, S. (1999): “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews and Christians”, in: Athanassiadi, P. and Frede, M., ed.: Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 81-149, [online] https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198152521.003.0005 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Mitchell, S. (2010): “Further Thoughts on the Cult of Theos Hypsistos”, in: Mitchell, S. and van Nuffelen, P., ed.: One God. Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire, Cambridge, 167-208, [online] https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511730115.010 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Noy, D. (2000): Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers, London.
Onofrei, C. (2016): “Publius Aelius Theimes from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa”, Ephemeris Napocensis, 26, 201-204.
Opreanu, C. H. and Talos, F. (2020): “The Cult Complex of Bel at Porolissum. A Historical and Architectural Perspective”, Ephemeris Napocensis, 30, 101-136.
Parker, R. (2017): Greek Gods Abroad: Names, Natures, and Transformations, Sather classical lectures 72, Oakland, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pb6299 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Pérez Yarza, L. and Bonnet, C. (2024): “Divine Names and Bilingualism in Rome: Religious Dynamics in Multilingual Spaces”, in: Palamidis, A. and Bonnet, C., ed.: What’s in a Divine Name? Religious Systems and Human Agency in the Ancient Mediterranean, Berlin-Boston, 759-779, [online] https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111326511-039 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Piso, I. (2005): An der Nordgrenze des Römischen Reiches. Ausgewählte Studien (1972–2003), Habes 41, Stuttgart.
Piso, I. and Tentea, O. (2011): “Un nouveau temple palmyrénien à Sarmizegetusa”, Dacia N.S., 55, 111-121.
Piso, I. and Tentea, O. (2014): “Die palmyrenischen Truppen in Dakien”, in: Eck, W., Funke, B., ed.: Öffentlichkeit – Monument – Text. XIV Congressus Internationali Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae 27 – 31. Augusti MMXII, Berlin-Boston, 469-480, [online] https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110718881-039 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Sander, A.-C. (2020): “On the edge of empire. Elite representation and identity building in Roman Palmyra”, in: Sommer, M., ed.: Inter duo Imperia. Palmyra between East and West, Oriens et occidens 31, Stuttgart, 95-108.
Sanie, S. (1989): “Die syrischen und palmyrenischen Kulte in Dakien”, in Haase, W., ed.: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Volume 18/2: Religion (Heidentum: Die religiösen Verhältnisse in den Provinzen), Berlin, 1165-1271, [online] https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110855708-007 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Sidebotham, S. E. (2014): “Religion and Burial at the Ptolemaic-Roman Red Sea Emporium of Berenike”, The African Archaeological Review, 31, 599-635, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/43916708 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Sommer, M. (2020): “Tadmur. The beginnings of Palmyra’s long-distance trade”, in: Sommer, M., ed.: Inter duo Imperia. Palmyra between East and West, Oriens et occidens 31, Stuttgart, 37-46.
Szabò, C. (2018): Sanctuaries in Roman Dacia: Materiality and Religious Experience, Oxford, [online] https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvndv53c [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Szabò, C., Kubiak-Schneider, A. and Libiță-Partică, M. (2024): “A God in the Garden. Notes on the Cult of Yarhibol in Apulum”, Cercetări Arheologice 31(2), 431-444, [online] https://doi.org/10.46535/ca.31.2.09 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Taylor, D. G. K. (2003): “Bilingualism and Diglossia in Late Antique Syria and Mesopotamia”, in: Adams, J. N., Janse, M. and Swain, S., ed.: Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text, Oxford, 298-331, [online] https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199245062.003.0012 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Teixidor, J. (1979): The Pantheon of Palmyra, Leiden, [online] https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004295599 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Terpstra, T. (2016): “The Palmyrene Temple in Rome and Palmyra’s Trade with the West”, in: Meyer, J. C., Seland, E. H. and Anfinset, N., ed.: Palmyrena: City, Hinterland and Caravan Trade between Orient et Occident. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Athens, December 1-3, 2012, Oxford, 39-49, [online] https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxrq0dc.9 [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Thomason, S.G. (2001): Language Contact: An Introduction, Edinburgh.
Tozzi, G. (2019): “Epigrafi bilingui a Roma: traduzione, compresenza e trascrizioni tra greco e latino”, Axon 3(2), 411-428, [online] https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/media/pdf/article/axon/2019/2/art-10.14277-Axon-2532-6848-2019-02-023_CLl6ZXf.pdf [accessed on 05/06/2025].
Weinreich, U. (1953): Languages in Contact, The Hague.
Yon, J.-B. (2002): Les notables de Palmyre, Beirut.
Yon, J.-B. (2018): L’histoire par les noms. Histoire et onomastique de la Palmyrène à la Haute Mésopotamie romaines, Beirut.
Notes
- Vid. the preface to this volume by C. Bonnet.
- The bilingual texts, concerning Palmyrene cults, from Rome were the subject of numerous papers. Vid. e.g. Adams 2003, 247-253; Bonnet 2018; Fowlkes-Childs 2019. As West I define all Roman provinces to the (north-)west from Asia Minor, Cyprus, Aegean islands, and Egypt.
- In the context of studies on the ancient world, theories from the field of language contact are used in the examination of terms such as bilingualism, multilingualism, code-switching, diglossia, etc. Vid. Tozzi 2019 and the recent volume on this topic: Minets & Nowakowski 2023.
- Pérez Yarza & Bonnet 2024.
- Pérez Yarza & Bonnet 2024, 776.
- Pérez Yarza & Bonnet 2024, 762-763.
- Weinreich 1953, 83-110.
- Thomason 2001, 1.
- For four types of bilingualism in the Roman context, vid. particularly Tozzi 2019, 414-415.
- Adams & Swain 2003, 6-7; Taylor 2003, 321. Already J. N. Adams makes such a remark in the example of the inscription of Tiberius C. Felix: Adams 2003, 250. For commentary on the volume by J. N. Adams and S. Swain, vid. L. Pérez Yarza, J. Herrera Rando and S. Bianchi Mancini in this volume. For the inscription, vid. below.
- Auer 2020, 148-150. For the role of context in a multilingual environment, vid. also G. Marano in this volume.
- This epigraphic material is also discussed in the contribution of G. Benedetti in this volume. She presents these inscriptions in a broader set-up and in a different context than the present chapter.
- For the temple, vid. Equini Schneider 1987; Adams 2003, 248; Terpstra 2016, 39-41; Bonnet 2018, 245; Fowlkes-Childs 2019, 209-211. Two Greek inscriptions for Astarte and Ares were found within the temple, but it is not certain if they were issued by the Palmyrenes.
- Beard et al. 2006, 262; Bonnet 2018, 245.
- CIL VI, 50 and 51 (= IG XIV, 969-970; IGUR I, 117-118).
- In the translated versions, I retain the distinctive spellings of the Palmyrene Aramaic theonyms rather than adopting the traditional renderings of names such as Yarhibol and Malakbel.
- At least in the first place. We cannot exclude that the destroyed part of both Greek texts once had a Greek equivalent (hyper hygieias or hyper soterias).
- Adams 2003, 248; Fowlkes-Childs 2019, 196.
- For the epithet Palmyrenus/Palmyrenos, vid. Yon 2002, 74-75. If both individuals were Palmyrenes, this would typically be marked using the appropriate grammatical form: Palmyreni/ Palmyrenoi (Παλμυρηνοῖ).
- Equni Schneider 1987, 71-72; Bonnet 2018, 246; Fowlkes-Childs 2019, 196.
- For Gaius Licinius Flavianus, vid. IGLS, 17/1, 254. His father, Licinius Burrus, is attested on the Palmyrene tesserae (small tokens of various functions, mostly related to temple life): RTP, 700, 776 and 835.
- According to Beard et al. 2006, 209, Rome was never a place of total religious freedom; non-Roman cults were subject to evaluation, particularly to ensure they posed no threat to the state or the ruling elites (Beard et al. 2006, 222).
- E.g. IGLS, 17/1, 306 (140 AD) and 352 (under Trajan or Hadrian).
- E.g. IGLS, 17/1. 6 (193 AD 21 (175 AD), 37 (undated) and 67 (258 AD).
- Seleucid era, the chronological system used in Palmyra.
- PAT, 0247.
- E.g. SEG, 34, 1585 (236 AD).
- For Palmyra Hadriana, vid. Kaizer 2020, 29-30. This title appears in the inscriptions from Palmyra, e.g. Tax Law of Palmyra PAT, 0259 (137 AD) or IGLS, 17/1, 245.
- Vid. Adams 2003, 252; PAT, 249. I would be cautious in following J. N. Adams’ reconstruction of the name of Astarte (2003, 252). While the goddess’ name is attested both in Palmyra and in Rome, specifically in connection with the sanctuary of the Palmyrene gods, she does not function as a marker of Palmyrene identity abroad. More generally, for the Palmyrene gods abroad, vid. below.
- Houston 1990, 193; Bonnet 2018, 239.
- Adams 2003, 250; Equini Schneider 1987, 77. Contra Noy 2000, 243; Dirven 1999, 179.
- Bonnet 2018, 240.
- Fowlkes-Childs 2019, 208.
- For bilingual funerary texts from Dacia, vid. Hutton & Greene 2018; Gorea 2010. An exception is a dedication to Atargatis written exclusively in Palmyrene script. Vid. Sanie 1989, 1167; NodeGoat DB Al-At project #20 [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14609864]. In addition, there is no known Greek inscription directly associated with Palmyrene religion. While Greek dedications to Theos/Zeus Hypsistos are attested, S. Mitchell has convincingly argued that this represents a widespread religious or epigraphic phenomenon, rather than one tied to any specific city. Vid. Mitchell 1999 and 2010.
- Gorea 2010, 136-137; Piso & Tentea 2011, 111; Szabò 2018, 67; Yon 2018, 46-47.
- Piso & Tentea 2014, 479.
- Opreanu & Talos 2020, 102-103. These authors argue, based on the results of archaeological excavations and findings, that no replacement of sanctuaries took place. Drawing on stratigraphic data and architectural modifications, they propose that the first temple was constructed in the 2nd c. AD, subsequently destroyed by fire, and later rebuilt by the Palmyrenes in the early 3rd c. AD.
- Gorea 2010, 144; Piso 2005, 476.
- Piso 2005, 476.
- Gorea 2010, 145.
- For a discussion on this, vid. Kubiak-Schneider 2021, 158-162 and 163-164.
- IDR 3.1, 149 by a veteran of the Palmyrene regiment.
- IDR 3.2, 18. For the person, vid. recently Onofrei 2016; Yon 2018, 57.
- IDR 3.2, 264.
- IDR 3.2, 262
- Piso & Tentea 2011, 114-116.
- Piso & Tentea 2011, 121.
- Stark 1971.
- IDR, 3.1, 137 – Tibiscum, Piso, Tentea 2011, 116 n. 1 – Sarmizegetusa.
- Piso & Tentea 2011, 116-117 n. 2. The forms Hierobolus and Ierhobol are attested in North Africa (Numidia, el-Kantara).
- IDR, 3.5, 103.
- IDR, 3.5, 102
- Gorea 2010, 149.
- For the recontextualisation of the inscription, vid. Szabò et al. 2024.
- Cos: PAT, 1616 (Bel, Yarhibol and Aglibol); Berenike: Sidebotham 2014, 612 (Yarhibol, spelled Hierabolos), MAP DB#1370; Emesa: IGLS 5, 2220 (Yarhibol and Aglibol, both reconstructed); Dura-Europos: Dirven 1999.
- Teixidor 1979, 58; Kaizer 2002, 124-147; Kubiak-Schneider 2021, 74.
- For the cult of Malakbel among expatriates, vid. Dirven 1999, 170-175.
- My own observation.
- Malakbel in third declension: IDR 3.2, 264 (Deo Malagbeli), Piso & Tentea 2011, 116-117 n. 2 (Malagbeli). Malakbel in second declension: IDR 3.2, 262 (Deo Malagbelo). Yarhibol in third declension: IDR 3.1, 137 (Deo Soli Ierhaboli), IDR 3.5, 102 (Deo Ierhiboli), Yarhibol in second declension: IDR 3.5, 103 (Deo Soli Hieribolo).
- Kaizer 2004, 182-183.
- Sommer 2020, 44-46.
- The social power of the Palmyrenes is well explained by Sander 2020.
- Kaizer 2004, 182.
- This illustrates the concepts of interactions of religious expressions and identities. Vid. L. Pérez Yarza, J. Herrera Rando and S. Bianchi Mancini in this volume.
- It was recently confirmed by the study of the cult of Atargatis in and beyond the Near East. Vid. Kubiak-Schneider and Mazurek 2025.
