Arabian Epigraphic Notes
Volume 2
2016
Leiden Center for the Study of Ancient Arabia
Editor-in-Chief:
Ahmad Al-Jallad
Managing Editors:
Marijn van Putten
Benjamin Suchard
Editorial Board:
Alessandra Avan ini
Holger G ella
Michael C. A. Macdonald
Ali al-Manaser
Mohammed Maraqten
Laïla Nehmé
Alessia Prioletta
Petra Sijpesteijn
Peter Stein
Suleiman Theeb
For further information on the journal:
http://www.arabianepigraphicnotes.org
For submission instructions:
http://www.arabianepigraphicnotes.org/authors/
Cover image: Tracing of Nabataean inscription dated to Malichus II by Z. AlSalameen (published in this issue).
This journal was typeset in Charis sil, Gentium Plus and Scheherezade. These
fonts are released under the sil Open Font License, © sil International.
Terms of usage: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/. © the authors.
URL: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/44946
ISSN: 2451-8875
A publication of the Leiden Center for the Study of Ancient Arabia.
http://www.hum.leiden.edu/leicensaa/
Table of Contents
Ahmad Al-Jallad
Foreword
Sarah Rij iger
The Kāniṭ Museum collection (Yemen)
Phillip W. Stokes
A new and unique Thamudic Inscription from northeast Jordan
Ali al-Manaser & Sabri Abbadi
Remarks on the etymon trḥ in the Safaitic inscriptions
Ahmad Al-Jallad & Ali al-Manaser
New Epigraphica from Jordan II: three Safaitic-Greek partial
bilingual inscriptions
Fokelien Kootstra
The Language of the Taymanitic Inscriptions & its Classiication
Hekmat Dirbas
ʿAbd al-Asad and the Question of a Lion-God in the pre-Islamic
Tradition: An Onomastic Study
Ze ad Al-Salameen
A New Dedicatory Nabataean Inscription Dated to ad 53
Hani Ha ajneh
Dadanitic Graiti from Taymāʾ Region Revisited
iii
v
1
33
45
55
67
141
151
161
Foreword
The second issue of Arabian Epigraphic Notes opens with an important edition
of South Arabian texts by S. Rijziger from the Kanit Museum in Yemen. Complete with high-resolution photographs, the article preserves these important
texts for future reference and study. The next article contains an edition of an
important and unique Thamudic inscription, discovered by G.M.H. King during the Badia Rescue Surveys and re-discovered and photographed by Michael
Macdonald in the ociana Badia survey of 2015. P. Stokes undertakes a close
philological study of the text and raises important questions about the classiication of the Ancient North Arabian scripts. A. al-Manaser co-authors two
articles in this issue, the irst with S. Abbadi on new Safaitic inscriptions from
Jordan. These texts motivate the authors to bring the enigmatic epitaph trḥ under further scrutiny. The second contribution was written with A. Al-Jallad and
edits three new bilingual Safaitic-Greek inscriptions, among which is the irst
to contain an actual translation of prose rather than simply personal names.
These articles lead to the essential contribution of F. Kootstra, ‘The Language
of the Taymanitic Inscriptions & its Classiication’. This is the irst comprehensive study of the texts carved in the Ancient North Arabian alphabet of
the north Arabian oasis of Tayma. The article is packed with important philological and linguistic insights and will no doubt stand as important reference
for years to come. H. Dirbas contributes an article demonstrating the importance of the epigraphy in answering questions of Arabic philology. By utilizing
epigraphic evidence, from the Arabian sphere and beyond, he tackles the question of the existence of a lion-god in Arabia based on the personal name ʿabd
al-ʾasad, proving in fact that the evidence for such is scarce and other explanations for this name are more likely. Z. Al-Salameen contributes the irst edition
of a Nabataean inscription to our journal, studying an unpublished inscription
dated to the reign of Malichus II. The issue concludes with an invaluable note by
H. Hayajneh on Dadanitic graiti from the environs of Tayma, published originally by Eskoubi in 1999. The key insight here is the fact that the Dadanitic
texts from this region seem to exhibit a dialectal variant not attested on the
oasis of Dadan. This issue puts on display the rich epigraphic landscape of
Arabia, bringing together Arabian, Aramaic, and Greek epigraphy from both
ends of the Peninsula, and will no doubt provide an important foundation for
future studies on the history and language of the region.
Ahmad Al-Jallad
Leiden, December 20, 2016.
v
Arabian Epigraphic Notes 2 (2016): 1-32
The Kāniṭ Museum collection (Yemen)
Sarah Rijziger (Independent Scholar)
Abstract
The Kāniṭ Museum is the newest, smallest, and least-known of all Yemeni
museums. In this paper, the Sabaean inscriptions that are displayed here
are published so as to preserve them for future reference and to add to the
so far limited knowledge of Kāniṭ in general.
Keywords: Yemen, Kāniṭ, Ancient South Arabian, Sabaic
1 Introduction
The Museum of Kāniṭ, opened in 2010, consists of one large hall in which
are displayed the artefacts so far discovered in Kharāb ʿĀd and its environments. There are some incense burners, two ancient saws, a couple of tiny
bronze camels, stone-carved ibex heads, funerary stones, jars, columns, and 24
inscriptions—the latter being the subject of this publication.
Kāniṭ (ancient name: Ukāniṭ) is situated on the outskirts of Arḥab in the
governorate of ʿAmrān, district of Khārif, of Bilād al-Ṣayd in Khamīs al-Qāyifī.1
From Sana'a it is approximately 60 kilometers to the north. By 10 kilometers
to the south-west lies Nāʿiṭ. Several fertile valleys make it an agricultural settlement. Kāniṭ lies 2320 meters above sea-level.
Although nearby Nāʿiṭ has been visited by a number of scholars (among
whom E. Glaser, Christian J. Robin and Petr A. Grjaznevič) ,2 only Robin has
visited Kāniṭ. Shortly before the building of the museum, a short excavation
was carried out by ʿĀd Institution for Culture, Tourism, and Social Development.3 No further studies have so far been conducted.
Kāniṭ belonged to the so-called Samʿī federation, which probably was an independent kingdom between at least the 7th and 4th centuries BC – the period
of which we have epigraphic evidence of the presence of a King of Samʿī (see
Arbach & Schiettecatte 2012: 56). After this, Samʿī must have lost its independence and subsequently came under the rule of the Sabaean Kingdom. Apart
from the small Robin-Kāniṭ 12, the script of which tends already towards Late
Sabaic, none of the inscriptions from Kāniṭ date from after the 3rd century AD.
Unless future discoveries prove otherwise, we may for now conclude that with
the end of the kingdom of Saba, Kāniṭ also lost its importance.
1 For a description of the ancient site and its previous research history, see Robin (1976: 178179) and Robin (1982: II: 43-44).
2 Cf. the references given by Robin (1976: 168 note 1). Glaser’s visit is described in Glaser
(1884: 211-212).
3 The organisation was founded in 2007. Their short excavation in Kāniṯ was their irst and
has so far been their only one. Unfortunately, no academic report has been published. They did
help establish the museum, though.
1
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
Figure 1: The “temple” site of Kharāb ʿĀd. It seems that many stones have
been taken away since Robin’s visit, which may be the reason that SR 1-Kāniṭ
1 became visible.
The ancient site (cf. Figs. 1–4), now called Kharāb ʿĀd, was built on a
slightly raised rocky outcrop of Jabal Kāniṭ. One can still see heaps of debris
where buildings must have stood, as well as the foundations of several structures and a number of cisterns. The city of Ukāniṭ had a rectangular shape of
approximately 750 by 500 m, was walled all around, and probably had three
gates (ʿĀd Institution).4 Ruins of round buildings resembling watchtowers are
still visible, and it seems that a road leading to the western side of the city was
paved.
Figure 2: Underground water basin at Kharāb ʿĀd.
The main temple must have been Ḫḍʿtn since many of the inscriptions make
mention of Taʾlab Riyāmim lord of Ḫḍʿtn. The majority of these texts may
be dated to between the irst century BC and the irst century AD (e.g. CIH
347, CIH 349, Robin-Kāniṭ 7, Robin-Kāniṭ 8; two exceptions are Robin-Kāniṭ 1,
which seems to be considerably older, and Robin-Kāniṭ 17, which may be dated
to the 3rd century AD). The exact location of this temple is so far unknown.
4 Information
by the institution’s local representative in personal communication.
2
S. RIJZIGER
The same applies to the location of a building (perhaps a temple?) called Rbḫm
(see Kāniṭ Museum 4 for a comment on this).
Figure 3: Wall of the temple of Ḥdṯm.
ʿĀd Institution has identiied, on the south-east side of the city within the
city walls, the building of a temple with the name Ḥdṯm. This name had so
far been attested in only two inscriptions.5 The irst (Ry 505=Ja 2140) reads
in line 4: w-rṯdw mqbr-h[m]w bʿl ḥdṯm w-ʿṯtr s²r(q)[n…] “They entrusted their
tomb to the Lord of Ḥdṯm and ʿAthtar Shāriqān”,6 while the second, from the
Wadi al-Jawf (YM 2402), is a dedication of a woman addressed to an ʾlh-hw bʿl
ḥdṯm “her(!) god, the lord of Ḥdṯm”.7
Three bronze inscriptions were found on the temple site, of which I was
kindly shown hand-written copies.8 They all mention bʿl ḥdṯm, which makes
it likely that here stood indeed a temple with this name.
5 These two inscriptions do not seem to be related with Kāniṭ, though. Banū Gdym may be vassals of Banū Sḫymm (cf. CIH 889; although DASI (http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?
id=37&prjId=1&corId=0&colId=0&navId=792404408&recId=114&mark=00114%2C003%2C005,
accessed February 29, 2016.) states that Gdym is here a personal male name, it could be that the
w before Gdym comes from the word bnw, since line 2 is much shorter than line 1; unfortunately,
no photo is available to check this proposition). Anyway, the inding places of Gr 75 and YM
2402 make it likely that there is no relation with the bʿl ḥdṯm of Kāniṭ.
6 This inscription, irst published by G. Ryckmans (1953: 274-275) and later again by Jamme
(1970: 121), has recently been joined with another fragment (Gr 75) by Bron (2002-2007: 120121). While this latter fragment has been found in Shibām al-Ġirās, the origin of the irst is
uncertain.
7 For the text, see Shuʿlān (2005).
8 I was, however, not allowed to photograph them. The bronze plaques themselves are kept in
a safe and are not displayed in the museum. Two of the inscriptions make mention of a certain
Ddkrb.
3
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
Figure 4: Mason mark on the wall of the temple of Ḥdṯm.
The building measures 25 m from north to south and 28 m from east to west
(ʿĀd Institution), with the entrance on the western side. Two to ive rows of
stones, with a length of 1,8–2,5 m each and belonging to the outer wall of the
temple, are still visible. The stones have broad margins at the top and bottom
but seldom on the sides. They are roughly pecked in the middle. The middle
stands out. Although some are worked to the same level as the margins, these
may recently have been taken from somewhere else (a nearby building?) and
placed on top of the remains of the outside wall. The stones that are surely still
in their original place are not worked to the level of the margins. Mason marks
(ṯ and r) are found on many of the building stones. These pecked stones seem
to date from around the fourth to the second centuries BC (cf. van Beek 1958).
The shape of the mason marks, on the other hand, seems to date from period
C2 in Stein (2013), i.e., around the turning point of the Christian era. Inside,
thin walls are visible which separate the space into small rooms, as well as the
bottom part of some stairs.
Al-Hamdāni mentions a palace (qaṣr) called Sinḥār in Ukānit (al-Iklīl 8 +
10)9 – the old name of Kāniṭ that is also used in inscriptions and was obviously
still in use in his time. In al-Iklīl 10 there is also mention of Qaṣr Ysḥm and Qaṣr
Sḫy.10 Neither of these names have so far been found in any of the inscriptions.
Several columns on the site of Kharāb ʿĀd, mentioned by Robin (1976: 179)
and thought to be the remains of a temple, could also be the ruins of a palace.
A great number of wells and cisterns can be found. One of these cisterns,
also seen by Robin, is cut out of the underground rock and covered with big
stone slabs (cf. Fig. 2).
9 Al-Hamdāni,
10 Al-Hamdāni,
3, respectively).
Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan b. Aḥmad (2008: VIII: 125 note no. 8 and X: 104)
Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan b. Aḥmad (2008: X: 99 note no. 4 and 31 note no.
4
S. RIJZIGER
Figure 5: Entrance to the Kāniṭ Mu-Figure 6: Saws displayed in the museum.
seum.
Figure 8: Row of carved ibex heads displayed in the museum.
Figure 7: Incense burner displayed in
the museum.
Several points make the publication of the Kāniṭ Museum collection worthwhile. First, there is the security situation. Yemen has been involved in a
regional war since March 2015, with devastating efects. Daily airstrikes target literally everything; in May 2015, the Dhamār Museum, which contained
12.500 artefacts, of which over a hundred inscriptions, was completely destroyed in an air strike. Barāqish, the Mārib Dam, Ṣirwāḥ, and many other
historical sites have been badly damaged. It is, therefore, essential to preserve
as much tangible knowledge as possible before it is too late. The collection
itself presents some interesting points, which can be summarized as follows:
• It adds important information to the text corpus from the site as published
by Robin (1982 II). Not only has the corpus of Sabaic texts from Kāniṭ
been increased by 16 new inscriptions, but also can the reading of some
of the older texts be improved by the help of new and better photographs.
• It widens the historical horizon of ancient Ukāniṭ considerably. While
practically all previously published inscriptions date from approximately
the 1st century BC – 3rd century AD, the new corpus contains a considerably older inscription (Kāniṭ Museum 11), supporting an occupation of
5
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
the site as early as the 6th – 5th century BC. Another text (Kāniṭ Museum
10) goes back to about the 3rd century BC.
• It provides important information on the topography of the ancient city
of Ukāniṭ, such as the irst evidence for a sanctuary of the local deity
Shams (Kāniṭ Museum 5) and for a representative building named Rbḫm
(Kāniṭ Museum 4).
• Several new words and names occur in the texts.
Finally, it may be noted that small regional museums (like the one in Kāniṭ,
but also in Ẓafār, Baynūn, etc.) play an important role in preserving and displaying local heritage. They face, however, severe inancial diiculties. In
Kāniṭ, this is clear from the absence of any information for the visitor.
When Robin visited the site in August/September 1975, he found and published 27 inscriptions (Robin 1982 II: 43–72), mostly fragmentary, some of
which are now in the museum: Robin-Kāniṭ 6, Robin-Kāniṭ 12, one part of
Robin-Kāniṭ 13+14, Robin-Kāniṭ 16, Robin-Kāniṭ 22, and Robin-Kāniṭ 23, in
addition to Robin-Kāniṭ 10 and Robin-Kāniṭ 11. These last two inscriptions
were not completely visible in the pictures that Robin was able to take and I
have published them again with some additions under the sigla Kāniṭ Museum
1 and Kāniṭ Museum 2, respectively. On my visits to Kāniṭ in early 2015, I
also found a short graiti-like inscription in-situ, which is published under the
siglum SR 1-Kāniṭ 1.
I am greatly indebted to Dr. P. Stein, without whose support I would not
have been able to publish this paper. His proofreading and numerous suggestions have certainly given the paper a more thorough character.
6
S. RIJZIGER
2 Short Catalogue of the already published texts
by Robin (1982 II) that are currently displayed
in the Kāniṭ Museum.
2.1 Robin-Kāniṭ 6
Figure 9
Seemingly a juridical text, but the stone is heavily eroded. Although Robin
does not ind it logical to restore the end of line 2 to [tʾ]lb / b[ʿl / ḫḍʿ] | tn
(without the epithet rymm), this still seems to be the correct restoration. I see
in my photo the traces of bʿl / (after [tʾ]lb) with a possible ḫ after the dividing
stroke.
Robin found the inscription in a goat shed in the village. I was told the
women used the stone to mash tomatoes and spices.
7
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
2.2
Robin-Kāniṭ 12
Figure 10
A graiti-like inscription consisting of the names of one or two persons. The
incision of the letters, of strange shape, is very irregular. The particular shape
of the letter b, with an inscribed hook, reminds of the Late Sabaic stage in
palaeography. The w and m, on the other hand, do not. Consequently, I do
not see strong evidence to date this inscription to after the 3rd century AD –
a period of which we do not have local epigraphic evidence yet. According to
Robin it is a funerary stone.
2.3
Robin-Kāniṭ 13+14
Figure 11
Only the short fragment of the two, consisting of one word, has been moved
to the museum.
8
S. RIJZIGER
2.4 Robin-Kāniṭ 16
Figure 12
Fragment.
2.5 Robin-Kāniṭ 22
Figure 13
Fragment.
9
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
2.6
Robin-Kāniṭ 23
Figure 14
Fragment of a building text in relief, with a monogram on the left (Robin did
not publish a photograph of this inscription).
2.7
Kāniṭ Museum 1 = Robin-Kāniṭ 10
Figure 15
Dedicatory inscription. The new photo gives us a more complete transcription
of lines 6 and 7 (additional text in bold). On the other hand, the stone suffered damage at the beginning of lines 5–8 after being seen and photographed
by Robin. The text from Robin’s photograph which has now disappeared is
rendered in italics.
10
S. RIJZIGER
2.7.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(rymm / )[…]
rym / wbn(h)[…hqny]
w / tʾlb / r[ymm…]
n / ḥgn / wqhh[mw / … / ʾḏk]
rwm / hnʾm / wwf(y)[ … / ʾṯm]
r / wʾfql / ṣdqm / ʿdy / kl / ʾrḍhmw / wms²ym[thmw / …]
w / hnʾm / ʿdy / bythmw / wl / wḍʿ / ḍrhmw / ws²[nʾhmw / … h]
mw / btʾlb / rymm
2.7.2 Comments
The translation stays the same except for the following additions:
Line 6: … good (fruits) and crops in all their cultivated land and (their) valleys
Line 7: … healthy … in their clan (?) and that he may humiliate their foe
and their enemy……
2.8 Kāniṭ Museum 2 = Robin-Kāniṭ 11
Figure 16
Dedicatory inscription. In the new photo, a few additional letters are legible
at the beginning of the lines, which sheds a new light on line 2 in particular.
The additional letters are printed in bold.
2.8.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.
4.
[…]md / w(b? )r(g? ) / w[…]krb / bnw / yrm […]
[… frs¹n](h)n / wrk(b)hmy / ḥ(g)n / wqhhmw / tʾlb / […]
[…]m / wbry / ʾʾḏnm / wmqymtm / wmngt [/ ṣdqm …]
[… m]s²ymthmw / bs²ym(hm)w / tʾlb / r(y)[mm]
11
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
2.8.2
1.
2.
3.
4.
Translation
[…] and Brg and […]krb, sons of Yrm [… have dedicated …]
[…] the two [horses] and their riders as Taʾlab had ordered them […]
[…] and soundness of faculties and strength and [good] luck […]
[…] their ields. By their tutelary deity Taʾlab Riyāmim.
2.8.3
Comments
Line 1: w(b? )r(g? ): The reading of brg is not sure. The b could also be read
as a ḏ (unlikely), and the g could very well be a d. This would give us the form
brd – which is unknown as a personal name. The name Brg seems, however,
most likely.
Krb is probably the last part of the name Ns²ʾkrb. After the w there is space
for three letters and the traces that can still be seen seem to form ns²ʾ.
3
New Inscriptions
3.1
Kāniṭ Museum 3
The inscription, consisting of two lines, is complete and very well preserved.
Letters are incised. Date: 2nd–1st century BC
Figure 17
3.1.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.1.2
1.
2.
s²ʿṯmm / wʾḫhw / wbnyhmw / bnw / ẓrb / ʾdm
bny / hmdn / hnklw / wqyḥn / mqbrhmw / ẓrbm /
Translation
S²ʿṯmm and his brother and their descendants, of Banū Ẓrb, clients of
Banū Hmdn , have inished of and completed satisfactorily their
burial place Ẓrbm
12
S. RIJZIGER
3.1.3 Comments
Line 1: The name S²ʿṯmm is attested in Qatbanic, mostly following the word
bn (e.g., RES 3566, VL 32, and YBC 2425). In Sabaic, a personal name S²ʿṯmm
is attested in some graiti from the Khawlān (see Al-Salami 2011: 73 and 118).
Banī Ẓrb has not been attested as a clan/tribesname in Sabaic yet, and nothing
is known about it. For a place name Ẓrbm, cf. Robin (1982 I: 52).
3.1.4 Note
I was told that this stone had been found near the new dam, a little distance
outside the village.
3.2 Kāniṭ Museum 4
The right part of the inscription, consisting of two lines, is broken of so that
only the last word of each line is left. To the left is the igure of a bull. Text in
relief.
Date: 2nd–3rd century AD
Figure 18
3.2.1 Transcription
1.
2.
[…] / s²msm
[…] w / rbḫm
3.2.2 Translation
1.
2.
[…] S²msm
[…] Rbḫm
3.2.3 Comments
Line2: This is the irst attestation of the name Rbḫm in Kāniṭ. In several
inscriptions, Rbḫm occurs as the name of a grave (e.g., CIH 286 probably from
Sirwaḥ-Arḥab, the ancient Mdrm, CIH 20 from Shibām al-Ghiras, and Nāmī 51
from Nāʿiṭ).
13
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
3.2.4
Notes
Residents of Kāniṭ said that the inscription was found during construction
works on the new dam, a little distance outside the village. Although ʿĀd Institution suggests that Rbḫm was a temple, this cannot be taken as a fact. Since
Kāniṭ Museum 3 was found in the same area, it is likely to have been a burial
place. If, however, we assume that Rbḫm was a temple, and that the stone was
still in its original place when found, this temple would have been situated
outside the city walls. Another possibility is that Rbḫm was here the name of a
private house or palace, if we restore the text to: [[…]s²msm (2) [[…bythm]w /
rbḫm (cf., as a parallel, the restored text of Robin-Kanit 23, which only misses
the name of the house at the end).
3.3
Kāniṭ Museum 5
Part of a building inscription, broken at the right and left sides. The right side
is damaged. Text in relief.
Date: 2nd–3rd century AD
Figure 19
3.3.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.3.2
1.
2.
[…br](ʾ) / (w)hs²qrn / byt / s²mshmw […]
[…tʾlb / r]ymm / wbs²mshmw / wmnḍ[ḥhmw…]
Translation
[…] (built) and completed the temple of their patron god […]
[…] (Taʾlab R)iyām and by their patron god and their tutelary deity
[…]
14
S. RIJZIGER
3.4 Kāniṭ Museum 6
Part of a building inscription broken of at the right and left sides. Text in
relief.
Date: 2nd–3rd century AD
Figure 20
3.4.1 Transcription
1.
2.
[…bn]yw / whwzʾn / wbrʾ/ w[…]
[…bm]qymt / ʾmrʾhmw / nṣ[…]
3.4.2 Translation
1.
2.
[…they] built and enlarged and erected and […]
[…] by the power of their lords Nṣ[…]
3.4.3 Comments
Line 2: Could it be that these lords are Nṣrm Yhʾmn and Ṣdq Yhṭl (bny Hmdn)
as in RES 4994 and (partly) RES 4995, which come from Nāʿiṭ? In RobinKāniṭ 7, we encounter the same names (of the dedicators) as in RES 4994. This
means that there certainly was a connection between Kāniṭ and the subjects of
these lords, and possibly between Kāniṭ and the lords themselves as well. The
palaeography of Robin-Kāniṭ 7 and Kāniṭ Museum 6 is similar.
3.5 Kāniṭ Museum 7
The right and left sides of the stone are broken of. Text in relief.
Date: 2nd–3rd century AD
15
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
Figure 21
3.5.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.5.2
1.
2.
3.5.3
[…](rf) / bmqm / s²ymhmw / tʾlb / ry[mm…]
[…h]grn / ʾknṭ (/) w(ʾ)dm / fʿrn / wrṯd[w…]
Translation
[…] by the power of their patron god Taʾlab Riyā[mim …]
[…] the city of ʾknṭ (Kāniṭ) and the clients of Fʿrn; and [they] entrusted […]
Comments
Line 2: Fʿrn is also mentioned in Robin-Kāniṭ 3, but without context. In Gl
1217 = Gr 194, Fʿrn is a personal name, according to Solá Solé (1964: 18-19).
3.6
Kāniṭ Museum 8
Fragment. The stone is broken from the right and left sides and slightly at the
bottom. Most of the letters are damaged or eroded. Text in relief.
Date: 2nd–3rd century AD
Figure 22
16
S. RIJZIGER
3.6.1 Transcription
1.
2.
[…n]s²ʾ(k)rb / […]
[…] ḏt / bʿdnm / […]
3.7 Kāniṭ Museum 9
Dedicatory inscription. The left side of the stone is broken of. Text is incised.
Date: 1st century BC–1st century AD
Figure 23
17
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
3.7.1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Transcription
[.]h(bl)t / ynʿm / bn […]
ʿm / wkrbʿṯt / yfr[ʿ / …]
s³ḥryn / wḥmym / b[… / tʾ]
lb / r<y>mm / bʿl / ḫḍʿ(t)[n /… b]
n / mlthmw / bn / hg[rn / … / bḏ]
t / s¹ʿdhmw / hrg / m[… / tʾ]
lb / ġnmm / ws²ym / wf [yhmw…]
hmw / bny / hmdn / ws²[ʿbhmw / …]
hmw / wwḍʿ / ḍrhmw / w[s²nʾhmw / …]
According to the parallel CIH 349 (cf. the note, below), the text may be restored
as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
3.7.2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
3.7.3
[w]h(bl)t / ynʿm / bn […]
ʿm / wkrbʿṯt / yfr[ʿ / bn / … / wbnyh(m)w(?)]
s³ḥryn / wḥmym / b[n(?) / … / hqnyw / s²ymhmw / tʾ]
lb / r<y>mm / bʿl / ḫḍʿ(t)[n / ḏhgrn / ʾknṭ / ḏn / ṣlmn / b]
n / mlthmw / bn / hg[rn / … / bḏ]
t / s¹ʿdhmw / hrg / m[hrgt / ṣdqm / wlḏt / yzʾn / tʾ]
lb / ġnmm / ws²ym / wf [yhmw / wsʿdhmw / rḍy / ʾmrʾ]
hmw / bny / hmdn / ws²[ʿbhmw / ḥs²dm / …]
hmw / wwḍʿ / ḍrhmw / w[s²nʾhmw / btʾlb / rymm]
Translation
[W]hblt Ynʿm, son of […]
ʿm, and Krbʿṯt Yfr[ʿ, son of …, and his/their sons(?)]
S³ḥryn and Ḥmym [… have dedicated to their patron god]
Taʾlab Riyāmim, master of Ḫḍʿt[n of the city of Ukāniṭ, this statue]
from their war booty from the city [of …, because he]
has granted them to kill [in great numbers, and that Taʾlab may continue]
(to give) booty and assure [safety to them and to grant them the favor
of their lords,]
the Banū Hamdān, and [their tribe Ḥāshidum …]
and (that he may) humiliate their foe and [their enemy. By Taʾlab
Riyāmim.]
Comments
Line 1: The reading of hblt is not sure. If correct, it may be restored to Whblt.
Ynʿm is a well-attested name in Sabaic.
Line 2: Krbʿṯt is a well-attested name in Sabaic.
18
S. RIJZIGER
Line 3: This is the irst attestation of the name S³ḥryn. For the personal
name Ḥmym, which is for example attested in Gl 1636 and in Ḥaḍramitic in
RES 4181, cf. Tairan (1992: 103-104).
Line 5: For restoration of the last word, cf. e.g., Fa 75/3, Ja 632/3, Ja 634/4,
and CIH 349/4.
3.7.4 Note
The text is restored after CIH 349 (also from Kāniṭ), of which both the wording
and palaeography is very similar, although the dedicators are diferent.
3.8 Kāniṭ Museum 10
The stone is broken from the right and left sides, and possibly the top. Text is
incised.
Date: 3rd century BC
Figure 24
3.8.1 Transcription
1.
2.
[…hw]fyhw / ḏt / tnbʾhw / wrṯd / ʾw […]
[…w]b / ḏt / ḥmym / wb / s²ymhw / tʾlb / wb / s²ʿ(b)[…]
3.8.2 Translation
1.
2.
[…] he has fulilled him what he had promised him and he has entrusted […]
[…and] by ḏt Ḥmym and by his tutelary deity Taʾlab and by [his /
their(?) tribe …]
19
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
3.9
Kāniṭ Museum 11
Dedicatory inscription. The stone is heavily damaged at the top and on the left
side, and slightly on the right. Text is incised.
Date: 6th–5th century BC
Figure 25
3.9.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
[…]qm[…]
yʿṯt / […/ nw(?)]
s²m / ṯbt(n) […] w[hqny / n]
(w)s²m / nfshw / w(w)[ldhw]
wqnyhw / wb /? […t]
ʾlb / wnws²m / wb […]
s³kkm / wmḍrhw / […]
20
S. RIJZIGER
3.9.2 Translation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
[…]
yʿṯt […]
Nws²m(?) the sanctuary and [has dedicated to]
Nws²m his self and [his children]
and his possessions and […]
Taʾlab and Nws²m and […]
S³kkm and his/its mḍr.
3.9.3 Comments
Line 2: The name is probably either Lḥyʿṯt or Hḥyʿṯt. Because in lines 3–4, it
seems that the missing text is w[hqny N]ws²m, another verb must already have
occurred in line 2 (and therefore the conjunction w-).
Line 5: After wqnyhw follows wb. However, when starting the names of gods
in an invocation, the irst name is preceded by b only. So maybe this wb is the
start of another noun (wb_ _ hw). On the other hand, it may be the scribe’s
mistake and what is meant is a b followed by the name of the irst god of the
list.
Line 7: S³kk occurs once in a Minaic inscription (as-Sawdāʾ 91), see Arbach,
Audouin, & Robin (2004: 37). There, it may be part of the epithet of the god
S¹mʿ. If this could be the case for the word S³kkm in this inscription as well is
unclear; the name could it in the damaged space before it. But was this god
venerated in Kāniṭ? There are some inscriptions from Rayda with the mention
of S¹mʿ (RES 3144 for example) but all the other instances are from the Jawf.
Or could S³kkm be the name of a tribe? Some time after my visit to Kāniṭ, I was
shown a picture of a broken inscription from an unidentiied place in Arḥab.
The inscription mentioned bythmw / ḏs³kk at the end of a line. The beginning
of the next line was missing, but an m could be expected. In our inscription,
there may have been a ḏ before s³kkm on the line before it as well. Then we
may initially conclude that s³kkm was the name of a place or possibly tribe
somewhere in Arḥab.
The word mḍrhw is attested here for the irst time (as far as I can see). It
seems to come from the root ḍrr. However, this implies a negative meaning
(war, enemy, mischief). Here, the word refers back to s³kkm and whatever
comes before it, so it is either something that belongs to a tribe/place or to a
god. Maybe what is meant is mdr “territory/ground” (Beeston et al. 1982: 83).
3.10 Kāniṭ Museum 12
Fragment of a (funerary?) stone with the carving of a vase on the right. Letters
in relief.
Date: 2nd–3rd century AD
21
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
Figure 26
3.10.1 Transcription
1.
3.11
ġyl […]
Kāniṭ Museum 13
Fragment. Letters are incised.
Date: 2nd–3rd century AD
Figure 27
3.11.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.
4.
[…]ḏrḥ / b(n) […]
[…](w?)rthw / w(s²/w?)z […]
[…b]mqymt / ʾmr[ʾh(m)w…]
[…]r(… /) s²ʾ […]
22
S. RIJZIGER
3.11.2 Translation
1.
2.
3.
4.
[…]ḏrḥ , son of […]
[…] and […]
[…] (by) the power of (his / their) lords […]
[…]
3.12 Kāniṭ Museum 14
Fragment. The stone is heavily eroded/damaged on the left. Under the three
lines there are the traces of a fourth line, perhaps originating from a former
inscription, after which the stone was re-used. The letters on this line are
smaller and stand closer together than those in the preceding lines. This may,
however, also be explained as lack of space for the remaining text. Letters are
incised.
Date: 1st century BC–1st century AD
Figure 28
3.12.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.
4.
[…]hw […]
[…] bnyw […]
[…]ddn / w […]
[…](g)nbh(my) […]
3.12.2 Translation
1.
2.
3.
4.
[…]
[…] they built […]
[…] Ddn and […]
[…]
23
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
3.13
Kāniṭ Museum 15
Funerary stone with the image of a human igure and a bull (?) to his left.
Date: 1st–2nd century AD
Figure 29
3.13.1 Transcription
1.
3.13.2
rbbm
Comments
The personal name Rbbm (cf. e.g. Hayajneh 1998: 146) is also mentioned in
Gr 15 and other Sabaic inscriptions.
3.14
Kāniṭ Museum 16
The stone is broken and heavily eroded. Letters are incised.
Date: 1st–2nd century AD
24
S. RIJZIGER
Figure 30
3.14.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
[…]w[…](.n) / hqn(yw?) / hq[n]yw[…]
[…]ṣlmn / ḥmdm [/ bḏt] / hwfy(hm)w / b[…]
[…]w [/ ḍ]r(m) / b(ʿ)br / ʾ[mrʾhmw] / ʾmlk / […]
[…] ḥmyrm / wbḏt / [hw](f)yhmw / bḍr / s²[…]
[…]mm / wbḏt / hwf[y / ] kl / ḍmr / wʿs³b(t) […]
[… ʾwldm] / ʾ(ḏ)krm / h[nʾ]m / wʾṯmr / ṣ(d)[qm / …]
[ … / ʾmrʾ]hmw / bn(y) / [h]mdn / ws²ʿbhmw [/ ḥs²dm / …]
[… / w](l) / (g)ybhmw / b[n…]
[…] (mlʾ / ..)[…]
3.14.2 Translation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
[…] … have dedicated […]
[…] a statue out of praise because he has granted them (or: he has
saved them) […]
[…] a war against [their lords], the kings [of …]
[…] Ḥmyrm (Ḥimyar) and because he has granted them safety in the
war […]
[…] and because he has protected all ḍmr and pastureland […]
[…] pleasing male [ofspring] and healthy fruits […]
[… their lords], the Banū Hamdān, and their tribe [Ḥāshidum …]
[…] and that he may protect them against […]
[…]
25
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
3.14.3
Comments
Line 2: Ṣlmn could be part of the plural form ʾṣlmn, and so it would become
'statues'.
Line 5: The meaning of ḍmr in this context is unclear. Since ʿs³bt means
“pastureland”, ḍmr may have a similar meaning, like “grassland” or the like
(?). The common meaning of the noun, however, is some kind of inancial
contract (cf. Beeston et al. 1982: 41).
Line 7: Although the h looks more like a ʾ, it is expected to read hmdn. For
restauration of the passage, cf. e.g. CIH 349/7.
Line 8: The g of gybhmw is fairly big. However, the size of this letter corresponds to other broad letters such as r in this inscription.
3.15
Kāniṭ Museum 17
Figure 31
This stone contains three separate texts quite close together, broken at the
top (upper left) and right below line 3 of Text C. Since the letters are rather
irregularly incised within and outside a couple of frames of lines, this may
perhaps be a stone on which a student-mason practiced his skills. On the other
hand, it resembles the messy Robin-Kāniṯ 1 and could therefore be some kind
of personal graiti.
3.15.1
Transcription
At the top, inside a frame (text A):
1.
2.
3.
4.
[…]
bn / b[…]
s¹(..w?) / tʾlb
/ r(y)mm / […]
26
S. RIJZIGER
Beneath it, outside a frame (text B):
1.
[…]h(ḏ) / t
At the bottom, inside a frame (text C):
1.
2.
3.
n(s²)ʾ(k)rb
ʾk[.]s³ / b
n / ʾnʿm /
On the right, between the second and third texts, there are two more lines
visible with text between them, of which only a t at the end is clear.
3.15.2 Comments
All the texts consist of proper nouns.
Text C: ʾnʿm as a male personal name occurs for instance in Gr 15. As a clan
name, it would be the irst attestation.
3.16 Kāniṭ Museum 18
Figure 32
Stone incense-burner, somewhat square in shape, with a dedicatory inscription
incised on at least two sides of the upper part, and all around on the lower
part. At least one side contains a picture of a crescent and disc, of which the
lower part is visible, with some decoration below it. It was not possible to
photograph all sides of this item so that no complete interpretation can be
given. The transcription shows only what is visible on the extant photograph
(Fig. 32).
Date: approx. 3rd–2nd century BC
27
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
3.16.1
1.
2.
3.
3.17
Transcription
[…]ḥ / hqny
[…]dy / byt
[…](ḏ?)[..]nh(.)[…]
SR 1-Kāniṭ 1
The inscription is incised in a pillar that lies among the ruins of Kharāb ʿĀd
(see Fig. 1 for the approximate inding place).
Figure 33
3.17.1 Transcription
1.
2.
3.17.2
1.
2.
S¹ḫym /
bn / ydm /
Translation
S¹ḫym
son of Ydm
28
S. RIJZIGER
3.17.3 Comments
The m and d are dextrograde. This may indicate that this inscription is so-called
graiti. Both names are attested although the name S¹ḫym is usually written
as S¹ḫymm. This name represents irst of all an important Sabaic clan, while
instances for a personal name are rare (see, for example, Ja 616+622/2). Ydm
is also mentioned in Robin-Kāniṭ 3 and 5 (see Fig. 34 for Robin-Kāniṭ 3).
Figure 34
Address for Correspondence: s.rijziger@openmailbox.org
29
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
Sigla
CIH
Fa 75
Gl 1217
Gl 1636
Ja
Ja 2140
Gr 15
Gr 75
Gr 194
Nāmī 51
RES
Ry 505
VL 32
YBC 2425
YM 2402
Robin-Kāniṭ
See CIH in bibliography.
Fakhry (1952: 108f., ig. 56); Ryckmans (1952: 49f.)
= Gr 194, Solá Solé (1964: 18f., pl. 5,2); Bauer & Lundin
(1998: 61, foto 175a–b)
Höfner (1973: 52f., pl. 10,2)
Jamme (1962)
= Ry 505, Jamme (1970: 121)
Grjaznevič (1978: 22–24, ig. 15)
Bauer & Lundin (1998: 16, foto 81a–b)
= Gl 1217
Nāmī (1943: 66f.)
See RES in bibliography.
= Ja 2140; Ryckmans (1953: 274-275)
Bron (1992: 29–31)
Renfroe (1990: 156f.)
Shuʿlān (2005)
Robin (1982)
References
Al-Hamdāni, Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan b. Aḥmad 2008. Kitāb al-Iklīl, vol. 8
and 10, al-Akwaʿ al-Ḥiwālī, M.b.ʿA. (ed.), Ṣanʿāʾ: Maktabat al-Irshād.
Al-Salami, M. 2011. Sabäische Inschriften aus dem Ḫawlān, (Jenaer Beiträge zum
Vorderen Orient 7), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Arbach, M. & Schiettecatte, J. 2012. Inscriptions inédites du Jabal Riyām, in:
New research in archaeology and epigraphy of South Arabia and its neighbors.
Proceedings of the “Rencontres Sabéennes 15” held in Moscow, May 25th–27th,
2011, A. Sedov, ed., Moscow: The State Museum of Oriental Art / Institute
of Oriental Studies RAS, pp. 37‒68.
Arbach, M., Audouin, R., & Robin, C. 2004. La découverte du temple
d’Aranyadaʿ à Naššān et la chronologie des Labuʾides, Arabia, 2: 23‒41,
205‒216.
Bauer, G.M. & Lundin, A.G. 1998. Epigraičeskie pamjatniki drevnego Jemena,
(Južnaja Aravija 2/2), Sankt-Peterburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie.
van Beek, G. 1958. Appendix V: Marginally drafted, pecked masonry, in: Archaeological discoveries in South Arabia, R.L. Bowen & F.P. Albright, eds., Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.
Beeston, A.F.L., Ghul, M.A., Müller, W.W., & Ryckmans, J. 1982. Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic), Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Bron, F. 1992. Mémorial Mahmud al-Ghul. Inscriptions sudarabiques, Paris:
Geuthner.
30
S. RIJZIGER
——— 2002-2007. Notes d’épigraphie sudarabique III, Semitica, 52-53:
111‒124.
CIH 1881-1962. Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Pars IV Inscriptiones ḥimyariticas et sabæas continens, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Fakhry, A. 1952. A., An Archaeological Journey to Yemen (March–May, 1947).
Part I, (Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte), Cairo.
Glaser, E. 1884. Meine Reise durch Arḥab und Hâschid, Petermann’s Mitteilungen aus Justus Perthes’ Geographischer Anstalt, 30: 170‒183, 204‒213.
Grjaznevič, P. 1978. Južnaja Aravija. Pamjatniki drevnej istorii i kul’tury. 1.
Hayajneh, H. 1998. Die Personennamen in den qatabānischen Inschriften, (Texte
und Studien zur Orientalistik 10)., Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.
Höfner, M. 1973. Inschriften aus Ṣirwāḥ, Ḫaulān (I. Teil), (Sammlung Eduard
Glaser 8), Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Jamme, A. 1962. Sabaean Inscriptions from Maḥram Bilqîs (Mârib), (Publications of the American Foundation for the Study of Man 3), Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press.
——— 1970. The pre-Islamic Inscriptions of the Riyâdh Museum, Oriens Antiquus, 9: 113‒139.
Nāmī, .Y. 1943. Našr nuqūš sāmīya qadīma min ǧanūb bilād al-ʿarab wa-šarḥuhā,
al-Qāhira.
Renfroe, F. 1990. South Arabian Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection,
Le Muséon, 103: 155–165.
RES 1900-1968. Répertoire d'Épigraphie Sémitique, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Robin, C. 1976. Résultats Épigraphiques et archéologiques de deux bref séjours
en République Arabe du Yémen, Semitica, 26: 167‒193.
——— 1982. Les hautes-terres du Nord-Yémen avant l’Islam. I. Recherches sur la
géographie tribale et religieuse de Ḫawlān Quḍāʿa et du pays de Hamdān. II. Nouvelles inscriptions, İstanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.
Ryckmans, G. 1952. Epigraphical Texts, in: An Archaeological Journey to Yemen
(March–May, 1947). Part II, A. Fakhry, ed., (Service des Antiquités de
l’Égypte), Cairo.
——— 1953. Inscriptions sud-arabes. Dixième série, Le Muséon, 66: 267‒317.
Shuʿlān, A.M. 2005. Dirāsa taḥlīlīya li-naqsh sabaʾī jadīd min al-matḥaf alwaṭanī bi-Ṣanʿāʾ, in: Sabaean Studies. Archaeological, Epigraphical and Historical Studies in honour of Yūsuf M. ʿAbdallāh, Alessandro de Maigret and Christian
J. Robin on the occasion of their 60th birthdays, A.M. Sholan, S. Antonini, &
M. Arbach, eds., Naples / Ṣanʿāʾ: University of Naples / University of Ṣanʿāʾ.
Solá Solé, J.M. 1964. Inschriften aus Riyām, (Sammlung Eduard Glaser IV), Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
31
THE KĀNIṬ MUSEUM COLLECTION
Stein, P. 2013. Palaeography of the Ancient South Arabian script. New evidence
for an absolute chronology, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 24: 186‒195.
Tairan, S.A. 1992. Die Personennamen in den altsabäischen Inschriften, (Texte und
Studien zur Orientalistik 8), Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.
32
Arabian Epigraphic Notes 2 (2016): 33-44
A new and unique Thamudic Inscription
from northeast Jordan
Phillip W. Stokes (University of Texas at Austin)
Abstract
This article is an edition of an inscription in a variety of Thamudic that
contains several glyph shapes that have not been found together in the
same inscription, and are typical of inscriptions from central and southern
Arabia. Interesting glyph shapes include the glyph shapes for ʾ, w, and g.
A personal name formed on a morphologically H-Causative verb, familiar
from the South Arabian, as well as Dadanitic inscriptions, is attested in
this inscription. The formula found in the inscription is paralleled most
closely by those typical of Thamudic C inscriptions. Finally, the article
discusses the implications of the combination of these features, typically
associated with diferent scripts and geographic distribution, for the ield
of ANA epigraphy.
Keywords: Ancient North Arabian; Thamudic
1 Introduction
The inscription under discussion was originally discovered by Geraldine King
between Tell al-ʿAbid and Qāʿ Umm al-ʿUwāǧīl in northeastern Jordan during
the Basalt Desert Rescue Survey in 1989.1 While short, the inscription is noteworthy for several reasons. First, whereas most of the inscriptions found in
this region are composed in the Safaitic script, this inscription is written in a
version of the North Arabian script that, while attesting glyph shapes found
elsewhere in Thamudic inscriptions, does not fall into one of the established
categories (see the script chart in Macdonald 2000: 34). Second, several of
the glyph forms, as well as a personal name, are more typical of “Southern”
Thamudic inscriptions, occurring rarely if at all in inscriptions this far north.
2 Transcription and Translation
wlt ng
ʾbṭlw/wdd/ʿmt bnt yhbkr
‘ʾbṭlw loves ʿmt daughter of Yhkbr…O Lt, deliver!’
1 The
Safaitic inscriptions below the drawing are KRS 2606-2608.
33
A THAMUDIC INSCRIPTION FROM NORTHEAST JORDAN
Figure 1: Inscription from between Tell al-ʿAbid and Qāʿ Umm al-ʿUwāǧīl, Jordan (Copyright Google Maps)
Figure 2: Photograph by M.C.A. Macdonald
34
P.W. STOKES
Figure 3: Tracing by A. Al-Jallad
The irst portion of text is written together using word dividers, whereas the
second portion is written above and to the left and is no word dividers are
present. It is diicult to determine whether the inscription represents one inscription or two. Indeed, such inscriptions raise interesting questions about the
applicability of notions of textual unity when carved on rock. In any event, the
waw glyph is identical in both, the hand and patina appear to be the same, and
a fairly natural interpretation of the two together is forthcoming (see below),
so I have read the two portions together.
3 Script
Three glyph shapes in this inscription deserve special comment.
ʾ - This glyph is very similar to the corresponding glyph in the ASA script,
but in this text the arm branches out to the right and then back to the left like
half of a diamond. This shape is foreign to Safaitic and Hismaic. Similar shapes
are attested in what Macdonald (2000) has called “Dispersed North Arabian.”
Virtually identical glyphs are attested in several Thamudic inscriptions from
Ḥail (Winnett & Reed 1973: nos.14-15, 80), as well as in a few “Southern”
Thamudic texts from Wadī Khushayba, near Najrān in Saudi Arabia (KhShB
234). It is also possible that the glyph represents s¹, but as this shape for ʾ is
attested elsewhere, and the name s¹bṭlw2 is as of yet unknown, a reading of ʾ is
virtually assured.
w - The shape of this glyph is also noteworthy. The w in this text is written as
a circle with a + intersecting it. A rectangular form with a + or x intersecting
is attested in Thamudic B (Macdonald 2000); an exact parallel is found in a
few inscriptions from Ḥail (Winnett & Reed 1973: nos. 43, 156; for a square
variant, see ibid: nos. 43, 88).
g/ṯ - This glyph is used to represent /ṯ/ in the majority of the ANA scripts,
but represents /g/ in Hismaic, as well as in Thamudic C (Al-Jallad 2016). It is
of course possible to read the glyph as a /ṯ/, which would produce the reading
2 The
name could be interpreted as an S-Causative from the root √bṭl, but the absence of any
evidence for S-Causatives in the languages represented in the North Arabian scripts, as well as the
attested shape of the ʾ in southern Thamudic inscriptions, makes the ʾ reading all but certain.
35
A THAMUDIC INSCRIPTION FROM NORTHEAST JORDAN
w lt nṯ. As the inscription ends with this glyph at the edge of the rock, and
it is possible that the rock was broken here, this reading cannot be ruled out.
However, there is no apparent damage to the rock, and reading the glyph as a
/g/ produces a very sensible reading for which we have some parallels in other
ANA inscriptions, as a D-stem imperative from the root √ngy, ‘to be saved,
delivered’ (see discussion below).
The inal /r/ of the name yhkbr faces toward the beginning of the inscription, which is the norm in Thamudic B inscriptions (see e.g., Winnett & Reed
1970: 207, no. 3).
Finally, the lower inscription is divided logically by means of vertical word
dividers. As indicated in the transcription above, they occur between ʾbṭlw
and wdd, and between wdd and ʿmt bnt yhkbr. The size and shape of the word
dividers in this inscription resemble those found in ASA inscriptions, as well as
the Dadanitic monumental inscriptions, but are much larger and longer than
those typically found in the other ANA inscriptions, which are typically smaller
marks resembling apostrophes (for further examples, mostly from Taymaʾ, but
occasionally in scattered ‘Thamudic’ inscriptions in Arabia, see e.g., Winnett &
Reed 1970: 222, no. 2).
4
Grammatical Features and Orthography
This inscription contains several interesting points of grammar that merit brief
consideration. First, the name ʾbṭlw could relect an elative form from the root
√bṭl, probably “most heroic.” The inal w could be interpreted as “wawation,”
the suixing of /ū/, usually to personal names and words for relatives (see AlJallad forthcoming, for discussion of this feature in context of early Arabic).
In Nabataean, this feature is quite commonly attached to personal names (e.g.,
mnkw).3 It is impossible to accurately determine the distribution of this morpheme in the languages attested in the north Arabian scripts given that most did
not make use of matres lectionis.4 The one exception to the non-representation
of monophthongs is Dadanitic, where /ū/ and /ā/ are often represented word
inally (/ū/ by w, and /ā/ by h - Macdonald 2004: 495; Sima 1999). Thus the
representation of /ū/ with a mater lectionis here is intriguing. The representation of long vowels is common in middle and late Sabaic, as well as other ASA
script traditions (Stein 2011: 1049). There was a Minaean trading colony at
Dadan, and some Minaic inscriptions have been discovered there (Rossi 2014).
The phenomenon at Dadan could potentially be connected to the Minaic scribal
tradition. If the reading ʾbṭlw is correct, then such a practice in this inscription
strongly suggests some kind of connection with a script tradition that utilized
matres lectionis, at least word inally, although the exact source of inluence is
impossible to determine.
We may also interpret the inal w glyph on personal names as a calque of the
name from another script, the most likely candidate being Nabataean Aramaic.
3 Interestingly, wawation does not typically occur on elative forms in Nabataean, cf. the ʾaṣlaḥ
inscription from Petra, ʾṣlḥ instead of ʾṣlḥw; see however the same name with wawation in an inscription from Sinai in the Nabataean script, ʾṣlḥw (Healey 2009: 55; also Al-Khraysheh 1986: 42).
I thank Ahmad Al-Jallad for bringing this point to my attention.
4 South Arabian names normally take mimation and thus do not show any evidence of this
feature (Stein 2011, but cf. the deity name ʾlmqhw as a possible example of /ū/ on a deity name).
36
P.W. STOKES
Possible examples can be found in Safaitic ʿmrw (KRS 127) or qymw,5 as well as
Hismaic ʿkrw (HIn428) inscriptions. Calquing implies knowledge of multiple
scripts among at least some of the authors of the ANA inscriptions. This is in
fact already quite well established by a number of bilingual inscriptions, which
are written in a variety of ANA script, as well as another language, frequently
Greek, but also Palmyrene and Nabataean Aramaic (Macdonald 2009 II: 347;
Hayajneh 2009).
Another possibility6 is that ʾbṭlw relects a compound name made up ʾb ‘father’, and the root √ṭlw (cf. Arabic ṭalwun ‘gazelle’; Lane:1876),7 similar in
form and meaning to ʾabū Ẓabi. It is also possible to read the second element
of the compound as ḥlw (cf. Arabic ḥulwun, “(of a man) one who is excited to
briskness, liveliness, or sprightliness,” Lane: 634), since the glyph read here as
ṭ represents ḥ in a number of ANA inscriptions (most notably Safaitic, as well
as Thamudic C and D). Compound names with the element ʾb are known well
attested in ANA inscriptions (Harding 1971: 7-18).
The second word of the inscription, wdd, admits of several interpretations.
It is possible that the form represents a G-stem verb, perhaps /wadida/ ‘he
loved’ (cf. Arabic /wadda/ with the same meaning). This root is commonly
found in Thamudic C, where some examples of PN wdd PN are attested, although it is not the usual formula (Tsafrir 1996: 143). Tsafrir follows Littmann
in translating wdd as ‘to greet’; Winnett interprets it as a noun ‘love’ (vocalized
/widād/ – Winnett 1937: 25). The root is attested in relatively clear contexts
with the meaning ‘love’ in the Hismaic inscriptions (KJA 23.105) If the interpretation of a G-stem verb in this inscription is correct, it would imply that
geminate verbs in the G-stem had not undergone metathesis, i.e. C₁aC₂vC₃ >
C₁vC₂C₃(v) when C₂ = C₃ in the language underlying this inscription. It is also
possible to understand the verb here as a D-stem, /waddad(a)/. If the interpretation of wdd as a verb is correct, then the word order of the inscription is SVO,
a word order found in Hismaic, Dadanitic and Taymanitic, but rarely ever in
Safaitic (Al-Jallad 2015: 171f.; Sima 1999). Given our limited understanding
of the ‘Thamudic’ inscriptions, we must remain agnostic as regards word order.
It is also possible to interpret wdd as a substantive passive participle /wadīd/
‘beloved,’ in which case the text would be understood as ‘ʾbṭlw, beloved of ‘mt
bnt yhkbr.’ The passive participle is found throughout the corpus of ANA inscriptions, and reading a participle here would produce an unremarkable syntax vis-à-vis the other ANA inscriptions. However, it would be quite unusual in
the context of ANA and ASA inscriptions for a man to claim to be the beloved
of a woman; rather, we would expect a man to declare that he loves a certain
woman.8
Finally, we may interpret wdd as an active participle /wādid/. Depending
on the aspectual signiicance of the participle in this variety, it could either be
understood as ‘lover of ʿmt’ or ‘the one who has loved ʿmt.’ If this form represents an active participle then it would suggest that the /i/ vowel was not
syncopated as has happened in some Arabic dialects (such as in Hawrani Arabic; see Behnstedt 1997: 384-385) and potentially attested in an unpublished
5 From unpublished inscription discovered by members of the OCIANA Badia project, May
2015. The inscription will appear in the author’s upcoming Leiden University dissertation.
6 I thank Jérôme Norris for this suggestion.
7 Possibly attested in HIn 389
8 I thank Michael C. A. Macdonald for this important point.
37
A THAMUDIC INSCRIPTION FROM NORTHEAST JORDAN
Safaitic inscription - nqʾt b-wd ḏ-ẖbl h-s¹fr ‘may whosoever would eface this
inscription be thrown out (of his grave) by one who loves (him) ’.9
The second portion of text, which either represents a continuation of the
same inscription or another by the same person (or perhaps an inscription by
a diferent person in the same script), contains a brief petition to the goddess lt
for deliverance, ‘O Lāt, deliver!’ The petition is introduced by the conjunction
w. It is likely that the construction is an unmarked vocative phrase, ‘O Lāt...’10
The command ng is probably to be read as a D-stem imperative from the root
√ngy, ‘to deliver.’11 If this interpretation is correct, and if the /w/ in ʾbṭlw is a
mater, the absence of /y/ here could imply a short vowel, naggi. This root is
found in Safaitic inscriptions, both with the meaning ‘to be delivered, saved,’
and ‘to announce’ (Macdonald 2014: 155-156). The closest parallels in in the
Safaitic corpus with this root are found in WH135, lqny f h lt qbll ʾhl s¹lm f nngy,
which Al-Jallad translates ‘By Qny so, O Lt, let there be reunion with (my)
family that we/I may be saved’ (Al-Jallad 2015: 284); also WH153, l s²mt bn
cbd bn ġṯ bn s²rk bn s¹krn w ngy m-ḥwlt f h lt s¹lm l-ḏ s¹r w ‘wr l-ḏ y‘wr h-s¹frt,
‘By S²mt son of ‘bd son of Ġṯ son of S²rk son of S¹krn and he escaped from
the Ḥwlt so, O Lt, may he who would leave (this inscription) untouched have
security but may he who would eface this writing go blind’ (ibid: 284). Both
ngw and ngy are attested in Sabaic, but only with the meaning ‘to announce’
(Stein 2012: 83).12
It is also possible to read the inal glyph as a /ṯ/, and the root √nṯṯ is attested
in the Arabic lexica with the meaning ‘to exude (oil or liquid substance),’ as well
as, ‘to spread, disperse (what was talked about)’ (Lane: 2823). The root √nṯw
is also listed in several lexicons with the same meaning (Steingass 1884: 1101;
Hava: 741). If we read the glyph as a /ṯ/ instead of a /g/, then it is probably
best to interpret the inal portion as ‘O Lāt, reveal/make known!’
5
Discussion
The co-occurrence of a number of interesting epigraphic, orthographic, and
onomastic features in this inscription merits discussion. First, the name yhkbr
9 It is possible,
of course that the author here simply neglected to write the second d by mistake.
example from Safaitic provides a structural parallel to the present inscription: C1341
w rḍw ‘wr m ʿwr-h ‘and Rḍw, blind whosoever would eface it.’ Al-Jallad (2015: 176) cites this
inscription as an example of an unmarked vocative, which precedes the request, which is often
morphologically an imperative (as here). Similar constructions are found in the Qurʾān, e.g. 10:88,
wa-qāla mūsā rabbanā ʾinnaka ʾatayta irʿawna wa-malaʾahu zīnatan wa-ʾamwālan ‘and Moses said:
Our Lord, indeed you have given Pharaoh and his establishment splendor and wealth.’ I thank
Ahmad Al-Jallad for this reference.
11 As argued recently in Macdonald (2014), there were probably two roots, ngy ‘to be delivered’
and ngw ‘to announce’ (the latter attested in Sabaic and Minaic – see Beeston et al. 1982: 93). AlJallad (2015: 331) has suggested that these roots were merged in Safaitic, leading to the ambiguity
with which Macdonald (2014: 155-156) discusses. This verb meaning ‘to be delivered’ is attested
in Arabic as ngw. If the arguments advanced by Macdonald and Al-Jallad are correct, that would
suggest that root confusion led to Arabic ngw ‘to be delivered’ (though see below).
12 Biella (1982: 292), following Beeston and Ryckmans, suggests that the nominal form mngwn
be understood as ‘satisfactory outcomes’ or ‘good fortune,’ connected with religious practices to
ensure protection from the evil eye. If true, the root √ngw could have, in some varieties, had the
meaning of ‘to be saved, delivered,’ in which case perhaps both roots merged to √ngw, the opposite
of Al-Jallad’s suggestion for the Safaitic development. Indeed, if the root represents a loan, this
could explain why Arabic has √ngw instead of √ngy.
10 An
38
P.W. STOKES
alongside a basically south Arabian alif glyph could suggest some connection
with southern Arabia and the script and writing traditions in use in the south.
The name yhkbr presumably is morphologically a H-Stem imperfect from the
root √kbr. In most of the languages represented in the north Arabian scripts,
the C-stem shifted from /h/ to /ʔ/, whereas in Sabaic the C-stem is still /h/.13
Additionally, the H-stem causative is attested fairly frequently in the onomastica of south Arabian, e.g., S²mr Yhrʿs².
Second, the formula used here deviates from attested formulae in other
Thamudic inscriptions. Ahmad Al-Jallad has recently advanced persuasive argumentation for connecting the transmission of how to write (i.e., knowledge
of, and ability to use the script) with what to write about and how to write
about it (Al-Jallad 2015: 2-10). He notes, for example, that the authors of
inscriptions in the Safaitic script, with a few exceptions, wrote about certain
topics using oft-repeated vocabulary and formulae, while the graiti attested
in the Hismaic script are by and large expressions of love using formulae and
vocabulary rarely attested in the Safaitic inscriptions (Al-Jallad 2015: 6).
Most inscriptions in the various scripts labeled Thamudic are quite brief
and enigmatic, and convincing interpretations of the precise meaning of the
formulae used have so far been elusive. As noted above, a direct parallel to the
formula attested in this inscription (PN + wdd + PN) is found in Thamudic C.
Whether the precise meaning of wdd is ‘love’ (following Winnett) which I have
adopted, or ‘greeting’ (following Littmann and Tsafrir), the parallel structure is
clear. Unlike Thamudic C, however, this inscription contains a prayer (Divine
Name + Impv) more reminiscent of those attested in Safaitic (see Al-Jallad
2015: 208f. for examples). Thus a formula attested mostly in Thamudic C and
a prayer most similar to those in Safaitic meet in an inscription that is neither.
Finally, the value /g/ for usual ANA /ṯ/ is attested in the Hismaic inscriptions (King 1990: 19f.; Macdonald 2000), and Thamudic C (Macdonald
2000: 34; Al-Jallad 2016). If the interpretation ng as a D-stem imperative from
the root √ngw is correct, then this inscription furnishes evidence that such a
realization may have been more widespread among the various scripts labelled
‘Thamudic.’
It is important to remember that ‘Thamudic’ as a script category is only
a catch-all into which those scripts for which we lack suicient attestation
are placed. It is so far only negatively deined; that is, it stands in for the
variety of ANA scripts that are not those for which we have ample attestation
and convincing decipiherment, such as Safaitic, Hismaic, Taymanitic, etc. The
inscription under discussion is not written in the Safaitic or Hismaic script, nor
is it in one of the scripts of the oases of north Arabia. We are thus forced to label
it with the catch-all ‘Thamudic.’ The fact that this current inscription combines
a number elements not previously attested within the same inscription is thus
natural and should serve as a reminder that current subdivisions of Thamudic
(i.e., Thamudic B, C, D) are still only tentative and in need of further revision,
modiication or even replacement in light of new discoveries.
Though the variation in glyph shapes attested in this inscription is natural
13 Fokelien Kootstra informs me (personal communication) that personal names in Dadanitic
based on h-causative stems do occur (e.g., JSLih 125 yhḏkr) though relatively infrequently. Thus
we must be cautious of automatically assigning h-causatives as PNs with a South Arabian origin. However, the fact remains that this inscription is not written in the Dadanitic script, and, as
discussed above, several glyphs are indicative of forms common in southern contexts.
39
A THAMUDIC INSCRIPTION FROM NORTHEAST JORDAN
given the lack of speciicity inherent in the catch-all ‘Thamudic’ classiication,
the question of whether we can detect a connection with other script traditions
remains. The alif glyph closely resembles the ASA glyph, and is attested in
‘Southern’ Thamudic as well as some Thamudic B inscriptions. Also, the PN
yhkbr could suggest a connection with southern Arabia. Further, it is unlikely
that the ANA scripts originally made use of matres lectionis to represent long
vowels, thus, if the reading of the irst name as ʾbṭlw is the correct reading,
the use of the w glyph as a mater lectionis to represent /ū/ would connect the
tradition standing behind this inscription with southern Arabia, or possibly
Dadan.
The w glyphs resemble forms from ‘Thamudic’ texts found in central and
southern Arabia. This shape, however, is not attested in the ASA script tradition, and could represent mixing of several south Arabian features (ʾ glyph, PN
yhkbr, and the form of the word dividers) with two others attested (so far) in
farther northwest, in NW Saudi Arabia and southern Jordan (ṯ glyph representing /g/, /w/ glyph shape). We should note, however, that the combination of
features attested in this script, while possibly representing a mixture of earlier
traditions, cannot be considered a mixed script (for a general discussion, see
Macdonald 1980: 188). Rather, what we have in this inscription is a heretofore
unique combination of features that must remain unclassiied (except for the
somewhat unfortunate ‘Thamudic’ label) for now.
Aside from issues of script and orthography, the goddess Lt, a north Arabian
goddess not found in the South Arabian pantheon, suggests a northern religious
milieu for the author of this inscription. Perhaps the most intriguing thing
about this inscription is its provenance, in the Syrian Desert among nomadic
groups much farther north than where one might expect to ind a script with
these features. The presence of an inscription in a script that presents a unique
combination of glyphs and formulae, but whose glyphs and orthography show
clear connections with southern Arabia and central Arabia, illustrates that these
scripts and writing traditions were transmitted and transported quite a distance
from their likely origins.
Address for Correspondence: pwstokes84@gmail.com
40
P.W. STOKES
Sigla
Hava
HIn
JSLih
KhShB
KJA
KRS
Lane
Hava (1899)
Harding (1971)
Dadanitic inscriptions in Jaussen & Savignac (1909-1922)
Thamudic Inscriptions from Wādī Khushayba in Kawatoko
et al. (2005)
Inscriptions from Wādī Judayyid Site A in King (1990: 172252)
Safaitic inscriptions recorded by G.M.H. King on the Basalt
Desert Rescue Survey; published online in the OCIANA
database.
Lane (1863-1893)
References
Al-Jallad, A. 2015. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions, (Studies
in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 80), Leiden & Boston: Brill.
——— 2016. . “The Thamudic C (wdd f ) Inscriptions”, presentation Handout,
NACAL 44, UT Austin.
——— forthcoming. Old Arabic: An Evidence-Based History.
Al-Khraysheh, F.H. 1986. Die Personennamen in den nabatäischen Inschriften
des Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Ph.D. thesis, Philipps-Universität Marburg/Lahn.
Beeston, A.F.L., Ghul, M.A., Müller, W.W., & Ryckmans, J. 1982. Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic), Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Behnstedt, P. 1997. Sprachatlas von Syrien, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Biella, J.C. 1982. Dictionary of Old South Arabic, Sabaean Dialect, (Harvard
Semitic Studies 25), Chico: Scholar’s Press.
Harding, G.L. 1971. An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and
Inscriptions, (Near and Middle East 8), Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Hava, J.G. 1899. Arabic-English dictionary for the use of students, Beyrut:
Catholic Press.
Hayajneh, H. 2009. Ancient North Arabian-Nabataean bilingual inscriptions
from southern Jordan, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 39:
203‒222.
Healey, J.F. 2009. Aramaic inscriptions and documents of the Roman period, (Textbook of Syrian Semitic inscriptions, vol. IV), New York: Oxford University
Press.
Jaussen, A. & Savignac, M.R. 1909-1922. Mission archéologique en Arabie, vol.
1-5, Paris: Leroux/Geuthner.
41
A THAMUDIC INSCRIPTION FROM NORTHEAST JORDAN
Kawatoko, M., Tokunaga, R., Iizuka, M., & Chūkintō Bunka Sentā (Japan)
2005. Ancient Islamic Rock Inscriptions Of Southwest Saudi Arabia I: Wadi
Khushayba, Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia
and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
King, G.H.M. 1990. Early North Arabian Ḥ ismaic. A Preliminary Description Based
on a New Corpus of Inscriptions from the Ḥ ismā Desert of Southern Jordan and
Published material, Ph.D. thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies.
Lane, E.W. 1863-1893. An Arabic-English Lexicon, London: Williams & Norgate.
Macdonald, M.C.A. 1980. Safaitic Inscriptions in the Amman Museum and
Other Collections II, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 24:
185‒208.
——— 2000. Relections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia, Arabian
Archaeology and Epigraphy, 11: 28‒79.
——— 2004. Ancient North Arabian, in: The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Ancient Languages, R.D. Woodard, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 488‒533.
——— 2009. Literacy and Identity in Pre-Islamic Arabia, (Variorum Collected
Studies 906), Farnham: Ashgate.
——— 2009 II. Nomads and the Ḥawrān in Late Hellenistic and Roman Periods:
A Reassessment of the Epigraphic Evidence (1993), in: Macdonald (2009).
——— 2014. Romans go Home? Rome and other ‘outsiders’ as viewed from
the Syro-Arabian Desert, in: Inside and Out. Interactions between Rome and the
Peoples on the Arabian and Egyptian Frontiers in Late Antiquity, J.H.F. Dijkstra
& G. Fisher, eds., (Late Antique History and Religion 8), Leuven: Peeters.
Rossi, I. 2014. The Minaeans beyond Maʿīn, in: Languages of Southern Arabia,
O. Elmaz & J. Watson, eds., (Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies),
Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 111‒124.
Sima, A. 1999. Die lihyanischen Inschriften von al-Udayb (Saudi-Arabien),
(Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 1), Leidorf: Rahden/Westf.
Stein, P. 2011. Ancient South Arabian, in: The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, S. Weninger, G. Khan, & J. Watson, eds., (Handbücher zur
Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36), Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton, pp. 1042‒1072.
——— 2012. Lehrbuch der sabäischen Sprache Teil 2: Chrestomathie, (SILO 4.2),
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Steingass, F.J. 1884. The student’s Arabic-English dictionary, London: W.H.
Allen.
Tsafrir, N. 1996. New Thamudic Inscriptions from the Negev, Le Muséon, 109:
79‒93.
42
P.W. STOKES
Winnett, F.V. 1937. A Study of the Liḥyanite and Thamudic Inscriptions, (University of Toronto Studies — Oriental Series 3), Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Winnett, F.V. & Reed, W.L. 1970. Ancient Records from North Arabia, Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
——— 1973. An Archaeological-Epigraphical Survey of the Ḥāʾil Area of Northern Saʿudi Arabia, 22: 53‒114.
43
Arabian Epigraphic Notes 2 (2016): 45-54
Remarks on the etymon trḥ in the Safaitic
inscriptions
Ali Al-Manaser (Oxford University)
Sabri Abbadi (University of Jordan)
Abstract
This paper discusses four new Safaitic inscriptions from Jordan. Two of the
funerary inscriptions shed light on the enigmatic grieving term trḥ, which
could have both a passive meaning “perished” (lit. grieved for) and an
active meaning “grieving intensely”.
Keywords: Ancient North Arabian, Safaitic, Funerary Inscriptions
1 Introduction
The stones under study in this article were discovered in Wādī Al-Ḥašād, near
Wādī Sārah, by Dr. Sabri al-Abbadi. Wādī Al-Ḥašād is situated about 45km
north-east of the village of as-Safawi (see ig. 1). There are two areas in the
northeastern Badia of Jordan that are named Al-Ḥašād. In the dialect of the
local Bedouins, Al-Ḥašād refers to any area where small, black stones are found.
Many researchers have surveyed in Wādī Sārah and Wādī Al-Ḥašād (Ḥarāḥšah
2010: 73; Abbadi 2013: 119).
The irst stone bears three inscriptions, the last of which is funerary and,
by number of glyphs, is one of the longest Safaitic inscriptions known to date,
consisting of eight lines of closely written text. The second stone contains only
one text, which is also funerary in nature.
2 The Inscriptions
2.1 Stone 1
The lengthier text is in the middle of the stone with the two shorter inscriptions
“framing” it above and below. The top inscription is covered in scratches, yet
despite the damage the reading is certain. In the bottom inscription, the name
s¹rr (the fourth name in the genealogy) is interesting because, although the
reading is sure, the same name is known from other inscriptions on the same
stone as s¹r. It also seems that the following word, which at irst glance may
resemble kwd with the k below the line, should be read as bn wd with the b and
n written too close together. Macdonald (p.c.) suggests that the author forgot
to include bn and then inserted it below the line.
45
REMARKS ON THE ETYMON ṬRH
Inscr. 1:
l wd bn tm bn wd bn s¹r bn wd bn s¹r ḏ- ʾl ms¹kt
‘By Wd son of Tm son of Wd son of S¹r son of Wd son of S¹r of
the lineage of Ms¹kt’
Inscr. 2:
l s¹r bn tm bn wd bn s¹rr <<bn>> wd bn s¹r ḏ- ʾl ms¹kt
‘By S¹r son of Tm son of Wd son of S¹rr son of Wd son of S¹r of
the lineage of Ms¹kt’
Inscr. 3:
l ʿm bn tm bn wd bn s¹r bn wd bn s¹r bn ʿbds²ms¹ ḏ- ʾl ms¹kt w wgm
ʿl- ʾb -h trḥ w ʿl- dd -h trḥ w ʿl- ʿmt -h w ʿl- tʿmr trḥt w ʿl- wd bn ddh w ʿl- ys¹lm s¹by w ʿl- tm s¹by w ʿl- mḥlm w ʿl- tmlh w ʿl- t[[]]m
rġm mny w ʿl- ys¹lm rġm mny w ʿl- s¹ʿr qtl w ʿl- s¹r qtl w ʿl- tm w
ʿl- ʾs²mt w ʿl- ḫl w ʿl- ḫlt -h w ʿl- ḫl -h w ʿl- ḫṭs¹[[]]t w ʿl- ṣʿd qtl w
ʿl- s¹hm {w} {ʿ}-l tm s¹by w ʿl- s¹ryt w ʿl- zbdn qtl w ʿl- s¹r qtl w ʿl{f}s¹ln w ʿl- mḥlm
‘By ʿm son of Tm son of Wd son of S¹r son of Wd son of S¹r son
of ʿbds²ms¹ of the lineage of Ms¹kt and he grieved for his father
who had perished and for his paternal uncle who was dead and
for his grandmother and for Tʿmr who was dead and for Wd son
of his paternal uncle and for Ys¹lm who was captured and for
Tm who was captured and for Mḥlm and for Tmlh and for {Tm}
struck down by Fate and for Ys¹lm struck down by Fate and for
S¹ʿr who had been killed and for S¹r who had been killed and
for Tm and for ʾs²mt and for Ḫl and for his maternal aunt and
for his maternal uncle and for {Ḫṭs¹t} and for Ṣʿd who had been
killed and for S¹hm {and} {for} Tm who was captured and for
S¹ryt and for Zbdn who had been killed and for S¹r who had
been killed and for Fs¹ln and for Mḥlm’
2.1.1
Further Commentary on Inscription 3
Michael Macdonald (p.c.) has kindly commented on the text of this inscription.
He notes that tʿmr is clearly a woman here (as in C 893) because trḥt is feminine,
which is interesting because the same name is also found as a man’s name in C
1900, and in KRS 602 and 815 (where it may be the same person). Concerning
the word t[[]]m, he points out that after the t the author wrote a letter which
he then erased before continuing with the m. In the word Ḫṭs¹[[]]t, the author
appears to have carved a l between the s¹ and the t and then scratched over
it, and in {w} {ʿ}l tm part of the w and the whole of the ʿ have been obscured
by damage to the surface. The irst letter of {f}s¹ln is obscured by damage to
the surface and it is diicult to identify it; indeed, it may be two letters. He
suggests that it could be a f turned at 90º to its normal stance (which is quite
common) followed by a clear s¹ and then ln carved very close together.
46
A. AL-MANASER & S. ABBADI
2.2 Stone 2
Inscr. 4:
l s²ḥl bn tm bn s²ḥl w wgm ʿl- ʿqrb w trḥ -h l- ʾbd w bʾs¹ m ẓl
‘By S²ḥl son of Tm son of S²ḥl and he grieved for ʿqrb and he
was sorrowful forever, for those who remain despair.’
3 Remarks on the etymon trḥ
The content of inscription 3 suggests that it was written in the aftermath of an
attack on the writer’s family or tribe by another group. It is evident that some
of his family members were killed, while others were taken prisoner; some are
simply described as having died, without being speciically killed, a nuance
which is open to interpretation. The latter sense seems to be conveyed by the
common epitaph trḥ, and the feminine trḥt.1 The precise meaning of this word
is hard to pin down, and has been discussed by many scholars (e.g. Al-Jallad
2015: 114, 348, who translates it neutrally as “perished”). The present inscription raises the possibility that the verb in fact has multiple meanings: though
the from is usually the passive participle when used as an epitaph, it is possibly
attested as an active verb in inscription 4, which would be understood, as in
Classical Arabic, as the II-form which means “it made him sorrowful”, therefore suggesting that he actively grieved for a long time. However, it is equally
possible that the phrase w trḥ -h l- ʾbd in inscription 4 should be taken as a nominal sentence, where trḥ simply means something like ‘sorrow’ or ‘sadness’, and
the entire phrase is to be translated as ‘and his sorrow is everlasting’.2
A major theme of the Safaitic inscriptions is the expression of grieving or
mourning for the dead, and several verbs are used in the compositional formula
used for this genre of inscription. We ind it useful here to gather all such verbs,
with their conventional translations, in a table for comparison.
1 On
2 We
the meaning of the root trḥ and its derivations in Classical Arabic see Lane 302.
thank Ahmad Al-Jallad for this suggestion.
47
REMARKS ON THE ETYMON ṬRH
Translation
wgm he grieved
wlh he mourned deeply
he despaired
he was distraught
he grieved passionately
wgʿ he mourned
he grieved in pain
wny he became depressed
ndm he was devastated by grief
ngʿ
he grieved in pain
he sufered
he was sad
bky he wept
ʾtm
he was sad
ʾll
cry, complain
bʾs¹ to be miserable
to make miserable
ṯql
he became weighed down [with grief]
ḥwb he wept with grief
ḥyb he lamented greatly
dmʿ he shed tears
s¹qm he was sick [with grief]
ʿbs¹ he frowned
qṣf
he was miserable
ʾs1f regret, sadly, be sad, feel sorry for
ʾgʿ
to cause pain
ʾnf
cry, be angry
ʾnn
howl, cry aloud (?) Complain
dwy He was miserable, be depressed, being sick
Siglum
HCH 5
HCH 71
SIJ 118
C 25
WH 164
JaS 30
SIJ 119
KRS 17
KRS 2300
C 763
WH 239
KRS 142
ANSWS 59
WH 376
LP 1300
C 2544
C 4010
KRS 1435
WH 73
WH 116
CSNS 895
KRS 776
NST 2
HaNSB 217
LP 718, WH 2017
KRS 3074
C 1475
WH 345
KRS 15
Address for Correspondence: ali.al-manaser@orinst.ox.ac.uk,
sabri.abbadi@ju.edu.jo
48
A. AL-MANASER & S. ABBADI
Figures
Figure 1: Map of Jordan showing the location of Wādī al-Hašād (Source:
Google Earth)
49
REMARKS ON THE ETYMON ṬRH
Figure 2: The stone which bears the inscriptions 1‒3
Figure 3: Digitally enhanced image of the inscriptions 1‒3
50
A. AL-MANASER & S. ABBADI
Figure 4: Tracing of the inscriptions 1‒3.
Figure 5: The stone which bears inscription 4
51
REMARKS ON THE ETYMON ṬRH
Sigla
ANSWS
C
CSNS
HaNSB
HCH
KRS
NST
JaS
Lane
LP
SIJ
WH
Abbadi 2006.
Ryckmans 1950-1951.
Clark 1979 [1983]
Ḥarāḥšah 2010.
Harding 1953.
“King Rescue Survey”. Inscriptions recorded by Geraldine King
on the Basalt Rescue Desert Survey in north-eastern Jordan in
1989.
Harding 1951.
Unpublished inscriptions recorded by the SESP 1995 at Jabal
Says (to appear on OCIANA)
Lane 1863-1893
Littmann 1943.
Safaitic Inscriptions in Winnett 1957.
Safaitic Inscriptions in Winnett & Harding 1978.
References
Abbadi, S. 2006. Nuqūš ṣafawiyyah min wādī salmā (al-bādiyah al-urduniyah),
Amman: Badia Research and Development Center.
——— 2013. King Rabbel II in a Safaitic Inscription: An Analytical Study,
Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 145: 119‒125.
Al-Jallad, A. 2015. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions, (Studies
in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 80), Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Ḥarāḥšah, R.M.A. 2010. Nuqūš ṣafāʾiyyah min al-bādīyah al-urdunīyah alšimālīyyah al-šarqīyah — dirāsah wa-taḥlīl, Amman: Ward.
Clark, V.A. 1979 [1983]. A Study of New Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan, Ph.D.
thesis, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Melbourne.
Harding, G.L. 1951. New Safaitic Texts, Annual of the Department of Antiquities
of Jordan, 1: 25‒29.
——— 1953. The Cairn of Haniʾ, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of
Jordan, 2: 8‒56.
Lane, E.W. 1863-1893. An Arabic-English Lexicon, London: Williams & Norgate.
Littmann, E. 1943. Safaïtic Inscriptions, (Syria. Publications of the Princeton
University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–1905 and 1909. Division IV. Section C), Leiden: Brill.
Ryckmans, J. (ed.) 1950-1951. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum Pars V, Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale.
Winnett, F.V. 1957. Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan, (Near and Middle East
Series 2), Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
52
A. AL-MANASER & S. ABBADI
Winnett, F.V. & Harding, G.L. 1978. Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns, (Near
and Middle East Series 9), Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
53
Arabian Epigraphic Notes 2 (2016): 55-66
New Epigraphica from Jordan II:
three Safaitic-Greek partial bilingual
inscriptions*
Ahmad Al-Jallad (Leiden University)
Ali al-Manaser (Oxford University)
Abstract
This paper publishes three new Safaitic-Greek bilingual inscriptions. One
of them is the irst to contain a translation of the Old Arabic prose into
Greek. In addition to their decipherment and translation, the paper ofers
a few grammatical observations on the Arabic and Greek and remarks on
the growing evidence for Arabic-Greek bilingualism in the Harrah.
Keywords: Safaitic; Greek inscriptions; Literacy; Bilingual inscriptions; GraecoArabica
1 Introduction
This paper deciphers and comments on three new Safaitic-Greek partial bilinguals. These inscriptions add to the small corpus of such texts1 and stand as
important witnesses to Greek-Old Arabic bilingualism in the Syro-Jordanian
Desert. In addition to this, they add to our fragmentary knowledge of the
phonology of Old Arabic, as the phonetic realizations of the vowels and consonants can be deduced from the Greek spellings. The inscriptions are carved on
three stones. Stones 1 and 2 were discovered during a 2004 survey in Wadi alḤašād (see Fig. 4) lead by Ali al-Manaser and Sabri Abbadi to collect material
for al-Manaser’s PhD dissertation. The texts were not included in al-Manaser’s
dissertation, but were kindly made available to Ahmad Al-Jallad to study in
2016. The third stone was discovered by the OCIANA Badia Survey of 2015
at Tell al-ʿAbed in northeastern Jordan, and was kindly made available to be
published in the present study by M.C.A. Macdonald.
* This study was made possible by the support of the AHRC-funded OCIANA project at Oxford
University. We thank M.C.A. Macdonald and Chiara Della Puppa for reading and commenting on
an earlier draft of this article, and Dr. Robert Daniel for his help with matters of Greek philology.
1 See Al-Jallad (2015: 293‒294) for a list of examples.
55
NEW EPIGRAPHICA FROM JORDAN II
2
Stone 1
Figure 1: Stone 1, tracing by A. Al-Jallad
This stone bears three Safaitic texts and a Greek inscription. 1Saf.a and 1Grk
comprise the bilingual text, while the other two Safaitic texts are independent
compositions.
1Saf.a:
l tm bn gḥl
‘By Taym son of Gaḥfal’
1Grk:
Θαιμος Γαφαλου
‘Taimos son of Gafalos’
Commentary The name tm bn gḥl appears only in one other Safaitic inscription, as the father of the author:
KWQ 83:
l qḏ[[y]] bn tm bn gḥl w rʿy ḥrt f h rḍw s¹lm
‘By [Qḏy] son of Tm son of Gḥl and he pastured the Ḥarrah
so, O Rḍw, may he be secure’
56
A. AL-JALLAD & A. Al-MANASER
With only two names, it is impossible to know if the two Taym son of Gaḥfal’s are one and the same. The inscription does not provide any new information about the phonology of Old Arabic. As expected, the word-internal
diphthong [ai] continues to be unmarked in Safaitic orthography (Al-Jallad
2015: 37‒38), while being clearly represented in the Greek spelling.2
The other two Safaitic texts on the stone read and translate as follows:
1Saf.b:
l khl bn tm bn ʿrd bn khl
‘By Khl son of Tm son of ʿrd son of Khl’
1Saf.c:
l hnʾ bn ʿwḏn bn hnʾ w rʿy h-ḍʾn {f} h bʿls¹mn rwḥ
‘By Hnʾ son of ʿwḏn son of Hnʾ and he pastured the sheep {so},
O Bʿls¹mn, send the winds!’
3 Stone 2
Figure 2: Stone 2, tracing by A. Al-Jallad
2 While it has been assumed that the digraph αι had come to be pronounced as [e] in the Koiné,
we cannot be sure that this was the case in the Greek of the Near East. Moreover, as I have argued
elsewhere, the fact that this digraph is not used to represent the plain [e] vowel in transcriptions
suggests that it was an attempt by scribes to approximate a diphthong in Old Arabic (see Al-Jallad
forthcoming: §4.2.4). As we shall see below, the fact that the diphthong *aw was represented
consistently with αυ would further suggest that the diphthongs did not collapse.
57
NEW EPIGRAPHICA FROM JORDAN II
The second stone bears an atypical, non-formulaic Safaitic inscription, accompanied by a unique Greek text. The exact meaning of the Safaitic is unclear,
and the Greek, unlike all of the other known bilingual texts, is not simply a
rendition of the names but rather an attempt to translate the Old Arabic into
Greek language. The possible limitations of the writer’s Greek, however, complicate this, and raise more questions about the meaning of both texts than
provide answers. Let us begin with the Safaitic.
2Saf:
l ġṯ w tḥll ʾfwh ʿql s¹r
‘By Ġawṯ and he departed (this place) into the foremost part of
the protected area of Sayr.’
The text opens in the typical manner with the lam auctoris and a common
personal name, ġṯ, the vocalization of which is /ġawṯ/, based on the Greek
portion. Every term in the narrative that follows is a hapax legomenon. The
verb is tḥll, which would appear to be a t-stem (probably the tD or tG) of the
common verb ḥll. The latter generally means “to camp” in the Safaitic inscriptions (Al-Jallad 2015: 322).3 The tD-stem in Classical Arabic, taḥallala, covers
the semantic range of being broken down, e.g. “it passed away by becoming
dissolved”; “it became reduced by analysis to it”. The meaning of going away
or exiting is attested, however, in “it (a disease) went away by degrees” or “he
became ḥalāl, meaning he inished his prayer” (Lane 621‒622). The Gt is not
attested in Classical Arabic. Looking at the Greek portion of this inscription,
the corresponding verb is ἀπῆλθεν “he went away”, suggesting in fact that the
Safaitic tḥll corresponds closest in meaning to the reduplicated stem of Classical Arabic, taḥalḥala ʿan makānihī ‘he removed from his place’ … ‘and went
away’ (Lane 621a).
The crux of the entire text is the meaning of the word ʿql. If we take tḥll as
leaving a place, then ʾfwh ʿql s¹r must be understood as some sort of toponym
or description of a location. In this context, ʾfwh does carry the meaning of
“the foremost part” of an area if we connect it to Classical Arabic ʾafwāh (Lane
2465c),4 namely, the part that one enters into an area through vs. the ʾarǧul,
which is the point of departure from an area.
While Classical Arabic uses
the preposition fī before this term, this preposition is rather rare in Safaitic;
location and goal of travel are usually indicated by the accusative. Finally,
if we take literally the equation of ʾfwh with the term εἰς “into” in the Greek
section, then it may be the case that the former should be taken as a preposition,
the plural of the rare f */pī/, Classical Arabic fī (Al-Jallad 2015: 150).5 Plural
biforms of prepositions of nominal origin are attested, e.g. Levantine Arabic
bayn and baynāt or Hebrew bên and bênôt, but these usually occur with plural
pronominal suixes (Waltke & O'Conner 1990: 199).
The term ʿql has not yet appeared in the inscriptions with a clear toponymic
signiication. The word is attested, as far as I know, only twice, and on both
occasions there are diiculties in connecting the term with the present attestation. The irst is in JaS 52, where the author states ḫyṭ l- ʿqlt ‘he journeyed
3 Also with the same meaning in Sabaic (Beeston et al. 1982: 67). Note that the author has
carved the t as an X rather than a cross, which is its typical shape in Safaitic.
4 daḫalū fī ʾafwāhi l-baladi wa ḫaraǧū min ʾarǧulihī (Lane 2465c)
5 ʾafwāh is of course one of the plurals of the word “mouth”, fam, which itself is the source of
the preposition fi ̄.
58
A. AL-JALLAD & A. Al-MANASER
quickly to ʿqlt’. The second, Is.H 744, states: l ʾws¹d bn yṯʿ h- ʿq{l}. If ʿql is correctly read, then the syntax would indicate that it is an area or an installation
(Al-Jallad 2015: 201‒202). Thus, both contexts prefer the interpretation of
ʿql(t) as a toponym, although its exact meaning cannot be determined through
the texts themselves. In search of toponyms in the Classical Arabic lexica, one
inds the term maʿqilun “a place to which one betakes himself for refuge, protection, preservation, covert, or lodging”; also maʿāqilu l-ʾarḍi “fortresses of the
land” (Lane 2116a‒b) or ʿāqūl/ʿaqūl (Lane 2115c‒2116a) “a place of bending”,
and to “a land in which one will not ind the right way, because of its many
winding places”. The root gives rise to some suitable terms in Gəʿəz as well,
e.g. ʿaql ‘lake, pool’; məʿqāl ‘pool, pond, cistern, reservoir’ (Leslau 1987: 67b).
Nevertheless, the Safaitic term ʿql – vocalized as /ʿāqel/ or /ʿaqel/ based
on the Greek portion – does not match perfectly any of the relevant etyma in
Classical Arabic or Gəʿəz. Therefore, there is no a priori reason that the term
carries an identical meaning to the aforementioned terms. The basic sense
of the root ʿql refers to “binding”, which gives rise to meanings having to do
with protection or fortiication. It is possible that /ʿāqel/ is an equivalent of
ḥmy */ḥemay/, “a protected area of pasturage” (Al-Jallad 2015: 322) or some
other area that is placed under tribal protection. I would therefore suggest the
loose translation of ʿql as “protected area”, either of pasturage or to a place of
water such as a lake or pool. The fact that this was such a culturally speciic
term may have prevented the author from inding a suitable translation in
Greek, and so he resorted to simply transcribing the word.6 Like ʿql, the term
s¹r is simply transliterated in the Greek, and so it is likely a proper name,
referring to the group who owned or managed this protected area. Curiously,
the r is carved facing the beginning of the boustrophedon line. While this
is common in Thamudic B, it is rare in Safaitic. According to this sequence
of interpretation, we may suggest the following translation: ‘By Ġawṯ and he
departed (this place) into the foremost part of the protected area of Sayr.’
2Grk:
Γαυτος ἀπῆλθεν [ε]ἰς τόν Ακελον Σαιρου
‘Gawtos departed into the Akel of Sayr’
Let us begin with the personal name. Greek Γαυτος corresponds to the
Safaitic ġṯ, conirming two important issues in the phonetics behind transcriptions and Safaitic orthography. First, it is clear – beyond any doubt – that
Safaitic preserved the diphthongs in pronunciation word internally but did not
indicate them in writing. While the diphthong *ay has appeared in other bilingual texts, always represented with αι, one could always doubt the realization
of this sequence in the Greek of this period, and suggest that it in fact stood for
/ē/ in transcription. However, Greek αυ, as I have argued before, never came
to represent /ō/, and so its usage here can only signify that the diphthong *aw
obtained and was realized as [au]. Safaitic orthography therefore treated diphthongs as long vowels [ai] and [au] rather than a sequence of a short vowel
and a consonantal glide [ay] and [aw], as other Semitic scripts seem to have.
6 It is certainly tempting to see here a connection with Proto-Semitic *ḥaqlu, Arabic and Aramaic ḥaq(e)l, ‘a ield’. The word is transcribed in the Acts 1:18–19 as Akel, in the place name
Ἁκελδαμάχ in the Greek New Testament. However, even if we consider the term a loan, it is diicult to explain the rendering of Aramaic ḥ with Safaitic ʿ. I thank Benjamin Suchard for bringing
this verse to my attention.
59
NEW EPIGRAPHICA FROM JORDAN II
Second, it has been hypothesized in the past that the use of Tau to represent etymological *ṯ was an indication that the latter had merged with the
stop [t] (Sartre 1985: 192‒193). The Safaitic spelling, however, indicates that
the interdental obtained, suggesting that Tau was used to approximate ṯ [θ],
probably on the basis that both were not aspirated.
The verb following is ἀπῆλθεν, the 3rd singular aorist indicative, meaning
“he went away, departed from”. This, as I have suggested above, must correspond to Safaitic tḥll. The rest of the inscription reveals an awareness of
Greek grammar beyond the usual Hellenization of personal names. On the
photograph available to me, the last part of the second line reads most easily
as γιστον. This would not seem to render anything meaningful. The inal τόν
is probably the deinite article, and so that leaves us with γις. It is possible,
although not immediately recognizable on the photograph, that γις actually
renders εἰς “into”, which would correspond very nicely with ʾfwh, “the point
of entry into a place”. Given the equivalence between the two, it would seem,
if the resemblance between the Epsilon and Gamma is not the result of a law
on the photograph, that the author simply erred. The following two nouns are
Hellenized transcriptions of the Old Arabic: τόν ακελον, the accusative Hellenized form of ʿql, and Σαιρου, the genitive of Safaitic s¹r. This indicates that
ʿql and s¹r in the Safaitic form a genitive construction, and the spelling out
of both in Greek supports the idea that they are either proper nouns or too
culturally speciic to translate.
4
Stone 3
Figure 3: Stone 3, tracing by A. Al-Jallad
This one consists of only names, but unlike the other known bilingual texts,
the Greek portion is longer than the Safaitic.
3Saf:
l bls¹ bn ʾnʿm
‘By Bls¹ son of ʾnʿm.’
3Grk:
Βαλεσος Αναμου τοῦ Καδαμου
‘Balesos son of Anamos son of Kadamos.’
60
A. AL-JALLAD & A. Al-MANASER
The extra component in the Greek seems to refer to the author’s grandfather,
as in the bilingual inscription WH 1860 + Greek 2:
l whblh bn ẓnʾl bn whblh
Ουαβαλλας Ταννηλου τοῦ [] Ουαβαλλου
If this interpretation is correct, then the same man composed two other inscriptions, WH 27 and SIJ 159, where in both he gives the name of his grandfather as qdm.
5 Concluding remarks
All of the newly discovered bilinguals further conirm the phonological reconstruction of Safaitic as described in (Al-Jallad 2015: 39‒47). The Greek of 2Grk
suggests that bilingual authors had various commands of the language. This
writer’s Greek is not as developed as the author of A2 (Al-Jallad & al Manaser
2015), but appears to be more capable than the author of A1 (ibid.), if the
interpretation that the prose component of that inscription was composed in
Arabic because the author had exhausted his knowledge of Greek is correct.
It may be signiicant that Grk1 and Grk2 are incised in a much thinner manner than their Safaitic counterparts, suggesting perhaps that their authors were
used to writing Greek with a pen. This, combined with the fact that all three
inscriptions are composed in the book hand, may suggest that these authors
acquired Greek through a more deliberate form of education, rather than casually picking it up from examples of Greek epigraphy that abound in the vicinity
of the settled areas.
Finally, 3Saf-3Grk encourages caution when it comes to using the inscriptional evidence at face value for deducing things like the extent of cultural
contact between the settle peoples and nomads.7 Were it not for its chance discovery, there would be nothing in the two other texts composed by the same
man to suggest that he knew some Greek or that he would have had contact
with the settled world. If the composition of Safaitic inscriptions belonged to a
tradition of rock art, which also included visual carvings as well, then the rarity of Greek epigraphy in the desert would not necessarily relect an absence
of knowledge of the language or script, but rather the fact that Greek did have
a position in the rock art tradition of the nomads. Of course, this is not to say
that every man in the desert knew Greek, but that the example of 3Saf-3Grk
simply shows that one cannot say for sure who did based on the kinds of texts
they produced.
Address for Correspondence: a.m.al-jallad@hum.leidenuniv.nl
7 For an excellent treatment of the evidence for contact between the nomads and neighboring
settled peoples, see Macdonald 2009 II; 2014.
61
NEW EPIGRAPHICA FROM JORDAN II
Figures
Figure 4: Location of Wadi al-Hashad and Tell al-ʿAbed, map by Ali al-Manaser,
source: Google Earth
Figure 5: Stone 1, photo by Ali al-Manaser
62
A. AL-JALLAD & A. Al-MANASER
Figure 6: Stone 1, photo by Ali al-Manaser
Figure 7: Stone 2, photo by Ali al-Manaser
63
NEW EPIGRAPHICA FROM JORDAN II
Figure 8: Stone 3, photo by Michael Macdonald
Figure 9: Stone 3, photo by Michael Macdonald
64
A. AL-JALLAD & A. Al-MANASER
Sigla
Is.H
JaS
KWQ
SIJ
WH
Unpublished inscriptions recorded by the SESP 1995 survey at
Site no. 40, the hill south of the well at al-ʿĪsāwī. (to appear
on OCIANA).
Unpublished inscriptions recorded by the SESP 1995 at Jabal
Says (to appear on OCIANA).
Unpublished Safaitic inscriptions from Wadi Qattai recorded
by G.M.H. King.
Safaitic Inscriptions in Winnett 1957.
Safaitic Inscriptions in Winnett & Harding 1978.
References
Al-Jallad, A. 2015. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions, (Studies
in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 80), Leiden & Boston: Brill.
——— forthcoming. Graeco-Arabica I: The Southern Levant, in: Arabic in Context, A. Al-Jallad, ed., Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Al-Jallad, A. & al Manaser, M. 2015. New Epigraphica from Jordan I: a preIslamic Arabic inscription in Greek letters and a Greek inscription from northeastern Jordan, Arabian Epigraphic Notes, 1: 51‒70.
Beeston, A.F.L., Ghul, M.A., Müller, W.W., & Ryckmans, J. 1982. Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic), Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Leslau, W. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Macdonald, M.C.A. 2009. Literacy and Identity in Pre-Islamic Arabia, (Variorum
Collected Studies 906), Farnham: Ashgate.
——— 2009 II. Nomads and the Ḥawrān in Late Hellenistic and Roman Periods:
A Reassessment of the Epigraphic Evidence (1993), in: Macdonald (2009).
——— 2014. Romans go Home? Rome and other ‘outsiders’ as viewed from
the Syro-Arabian Desert, in: Inside and Out. Interactions between Rome and the
Peoples on the Arabian and Egyptian Frontiers in Late Antiquity, J.H.F. Dijkstra
& G. Fisher, eds., (Late Antique History and Religion 8), Leuven: Peeters.
Sartre, M. 1985. Bostra. Des Origines à l’Islam, (Bibliothèque Archéologique et
Historique, 117), Paris: Institut français du Proche-Orient.
Waltke, B. & O'Conner, M. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax,
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Winnett, F.V. 1957. Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan, (Near and Middle East
Series 2), Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Winnett, F.V. & Harding, G.L. 1978. Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns, (Near
and Middle East Series 9), Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
65
Arabian Epigraphic Notes 2 (2016): 67-140
The Language of the Taymanitic Inscriptions
& its Classiication
Fokelien Kootstra (Leiden University)*
Abstract
This work comprises a linguistic survey of the Ancient North Arabian (ANA)
epigraphic material from Taymāʾ, conventionally known as Taymanitic
(Macdonald 2000: 28-9). A grammatical sketch, based on the linguistic
features in the Taymanitic corpus is presented, followed by a discussion
of the linguistic features of Taymanitic that are relevant to its linguistic
classiication. After that, follows a compilation of all previously published
inscriptions with grammatical content. Finally, an appendix with a glossary follows.
Keywords: Ancient North Arabian, Taymanitic, Classiication
1 Introduction
Taymanitic1 is the name given to an Ancient North Arabian (ANA) script employed in and around the northwestern Arabian oasis of Taymāʾ.2 ANA is
an umbrella term for all of the non-Ancient South Arabian manifestations of
the South Semitic alphabet. It has been hypothesized that these form one
group, descending parallel to Ancient South Arabian from a putative protoSouth Semitic script. Nevertheless, a paleographic connection between all of
the ANA scripts has yet to be demonstrated (Al-Jallad 2015: 10).
When the Taymanitic inscriptions were irst discovered they were called
Thamudic, together with several other, now separately distinguished, script
types.3 In the 1930s Winnett (1937) divided the Thamudic inscriptions into
* I owe thanks to Jérôme Norris, Dr. Marijn van Putten, and Prof. dr. Hani Hayajneh for their extensive comments and corrections on an earlier version of this paper. I thank Dr. Ahmad Al-Jallad
for his thorough comments and corrections on this paper and for advising the Master's Thesis upon
which this is based. I owe a special thanks to Michael Macdonald for not only commenting on and
correcting an earlier version of this paper, but for also kindly giving me access to his photographs
and his personal database of the inscriptions of the Tayma survey prior to their publication for my
MA thesis. Without his generosity, this project would have been impossible. I reference his notes
and translations from the database with (db). All errors are my own.
1 Michael Macdonald has kindly given me access to his photographs and his personal database
of the inscriptions of the Tayma survey prior to their publication for my MA thesis, of which this is
a reworked version. I would like to thank him very much for his generosity. Whenever translations
or notes put forward in the database are used, these will be referenced as (db).
2 The oasis was an important stopping point for the caravans travelling along the frankincense
route. See Hausleiter (2010: 219-261) for a more detailed discussion of the ancient history of
Taymāʾ.
3 In this period, the term Thamudic encompassed Hismaic as well. The collection of Thamudic
inscriptions started in de mid-19th century, when several travelers and scholars made copies of
67
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
5 subgroups based on script and content: Thamudic A, B, C, D and E. Since
the features distinguishing Thamudic A consistently occur in the inscriptions
found in the Taymāʾ region, Winnett coined the name Taymanite for this script
type (Winnett & Reed 1970: 90 and Winnett 1980: 133). The name Taymanitic
was later established by Macdonald in an efort to systemize the wide array of
names that had been created by diferent scholars for the various corpora of
ANA inscriptions4 (Macdonald 2000: 33).
Even though it is impossible to dertermine when Taymanitic irst started to
be written, there are some historical references in the Taymanitic inscriptions
that provide us with a clear time frame for at least part of the corpus. A few
inscriptions found around Taymāʾ mention nbnd mlk bbl (Esk 169 and Esk 177)
“Nabonidus king of Babylon”or mlk bbl (Esk 0255 ) “king of Babylon”,6 placing
the writing of these inscriptions sometime in the middle of the irst millennium
BCE, when Nabonidus occupied Taymāʾ for ten years of his rule (552-543 BC)
(Beaulieu 1989: 150).7
The corpus of ANA inscriptions has generally been considered a relatively
homogeneous group of linguistic varieties (e.g. Macdonald 2000: 31). This
is primarily based on the scripts used, and not on linguistic features.8 Even
though some scholars have emphasized the diference between Arabic and ANA
(e.g. Müller 1982, Macdonald 2008: 179), ANA as a whole is often considered
to be either very closely related to, or even the direct predecessor of Arabic
(e.g. Knauf 2010; Lipiński 1997; Müller 19829 ). Until recently, the main linguistic feature used to distinguish ANA from Arabic was the deinite article,
which was identiied as h(n)- for ANA as opposed to ʾl- for Arabic varieties.
some of the Thamudic inscriptions they found on the Arabian Peninsula (e.g. Wellsted 1838; Wallin
1850). Also larger collections of Ancient North Arabian inscriptions and graiti found in the same
area started to be published around that time (Doughty 1884; Huber 1884 and Huber 1891, Euting
1914; Jaussen & Savignac 1909-1922).
4 Macdonald proposes to use –ic for languages and scripts, -ite for peoples and cultures;
consistent with the way in which these morphemes are generally used in the English language
(Macdonald 2000: 33).
5 Esk 169 is certainly written in Taymanitic script, although the f in line three has a Safaitic
shape. Esk 025 contains two non-Taymanitic letter shapes, but seems to have been written in the
Taymanitic script otherwise. The ʾ in the personal name has a Safaitic shape, while the ṭ in nṭrt
looks like two # signs glued together, closely resembling the ṭ sign proposed for “dispersed ONA”
or in fact Taymanitic ḍ (Macdonald 2000: 34). For Esk 177 it is hard to determine exactly in which
script it was written partly due to the angle at which the photograph was taken (Macdonald in
comments, db).
6 Several inscriptions mentioning Nabonidus in other scripts have also been found at the oasis:
one fragmentary cuneiform inscription on stone with the name of Nabonidus was found during the
Saudi-German excavations of Taymāʾ (Hausleiter 2010: 253, no. 101) and an Imperial Aramaic
graito the author of which said that he had accompanied Nabonidus king of Babylon has been
found at al-Muqayil south of Taymāʾ (I would like to thank Michael Macdonald for pointing this
out to me).
7 The reason for Nabonidus’ presence at Taymāʾ has been a matter of debate; among the suggested reasons have been economic considerations, sickness, and political/religious tensions. The
fact that he stayed at Taymāʾ during this period, however, has been accepted as an historical fact.
Therefore, at least part of the Taymanitic corpus can safely be dated to the second half of the
6th century BCE. For more detailed discussions of the topic see e.g. Beaulieu 1989; D'Agostino
1994: 97-108 and Lambert 1972.
8 This is largely due to the relative paucity of the material; since the short, formulaic inscriptions make it hard to get a clear grasp of the full grammar of any of these varieties.
9 Müller does recognize that the use of Arabic for the interpretation of ANA texts might be one
of the reasons the two look so alike (Müller 1982: 18).
68
F. KOOTSTRA
Since the deinite article is not a shared morphological innovation10 for Arabic or for ANA,11 this cannot be used as a feature to determine their linguistic
ailiation.12
If we take an approach which focusses on morphological innovations to determine linguistic relationship (e.g. Hetzron 1976; Huehnergard & Rubin 2011)
it can be established that Hismaic and Safaitic form a dialect continuum with
Old Arabic (Al-Jallad 2015: 12). Based on our current knowledge it is impossible to establish what the ailiation of Dadanitic and the languages expressed
in the Thamudic scripts would be. Even though several striking features of the
Dadanitic grammar are known (e.g. both ʾ- and h- causatives are attested, and
it uses independent 3rd person pronouns as anaphora (Al-Jallad, forthcoming))
our knowledge is too fragmented to be able to classify it at the moment.13 This
study will set out to establish the linguistic ailiation of the language of the
Taymanitic inscriptions in relation to the Old Arabic dialect continuum and its
surrounding Semitic languages.
When looking at possible cultural ties between ANA corpora, Taymanitic
seems to have had its own script tradition. First of all, the content of the
Taymanitic inscriptions is very diferent from, for example, Safaitic. This it
partly due to the obvious fact that the Taymanitic inscriptions were written
by a sedentary community, so there are no inscriptions mentioning nomadic
activities such as pasturing like in Safaitic. However, other, more general topics, such as grieving or longing for a loved one, or funerary texts which are
also common themes in Safaitic (Al-Jallad 2015: 22) are similarly unattested.
Moreover, even when compared to inscriptions from other sedentary communities such as Dedan, Taymanitic remains clearly distinguishable. There are for
example, no attestations of texts relating a speciic religious ceremony called
the ẓll ceremony for ḏġbt which features in many of the Dadanitic inscriptions
(Sima 1999: 90-95); the only deity that is mentioned in the Taymanitic inscriptions is Ṣalm;14 there is no mention of ḏġbt, rḍw/y or lt who appear often
in other ANA corpora. Instead, Taymanitic mainly seems to discuss military
activities: a few writers list their military ranks (e.g. Esk 031) and one of the
common formulae is nṣr l-ṣlm ‘he gave aid on behalf of ṣlm (the main deity of
the oasis)’ seems to refer to military service (for a complete discussion see 4.6
for nṣr l-Ṣlm inscriptions). Other inscriptions are purely religious in nature and
are also dedicated to ṣlm (e.g. HE 24).
Even though the formula used in the Taymanitic inscriptions generally follow the basic structure also used in other ANA varieties: ‘introductory particle genealogy – statement’; there seems to be little overlap with other corpora oth10 Cf.
Hetzron 1976; Huehnergard & Rubin 2011
usage and relevance of the deinite article for the classiication of ANA is extensively
discussed in Al-Jallad (2014: 5-6 and 2015: 11-12).
12 When examining the evidence, it becomes clear that the situation is more complex than this:
while Al-Jallad classiies the language varieties found in the Safaitic inscriptions as forms of Old
Arabic” (Al-Jallad 2015: 11), a variety of diferent forms of the article is attested in the Safaitic
inscriptions. The most frequently attested form of the article is h-, but hn- and ʾ(l)- articles have
also been attested (Al-Jallad 2015: 11). This illustrates how the form of the article cannot be used
to indicate how closely related any linguistic variety is to Arabic or any another Semitic language.
13 In recent years, two extensive monographs have been published on Dadanitic: Sima’s MA thesis, which was published in 1999 and Farès-Drappeau’s (2005) study. However, Sima’s work does
not cover the complete corpus and Farès-Drappeau’s study does not ofer a reliable comparative
approach.
14 There is one exception to this: ʾlht ‘[the] goddesss’ is mentioned in TM.T.020
11 The
69
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
erwise: there are no attestations of curse formula for example (e.g. in Safaitic
KRS 1551 (part): …h lh rwḥ w mḥltn l-ḏ yʿwr h-s¹ fr ‘… O Lh, grant relief and
dearth of pasture to him who would scratch out this inscription’).15 The fact
that diferent scripts come with diferent composition formulae suggests that
they were produced within independent writing traditions and cultural contexts. Therefore, the Taymanitic inscriptions will be considered as an independent corpus both culturally and linguistically and it will only be compared to
other ANA corpora when relevant, since the semantics and grammar of other
corpora can often not be used as a starting point for interpreting the Taymanitic
inscriptions.
This paper will focus on the language represented in the Taymanitic inscriptions. It presents a grammatical sketch, based on the linguistic features
in the Taymanitic corpus, followed by a discussion of the linguistic features
of Taymanitic that are relevant to its linguistic classiication. Two Appendices
follow: a compilation of all previously published inscriptions with grammatical
content, including a discussion of any new interpretations; and a glossary.
2
Grammatical sketch
In order to establish the relationship between Taymanitic and the other ANA
variaties or Arabic, a better understanding of the Taymanitic grammar itself
is required. Below, a grammatical sketch of Taymanitic will be ofered, discussing the linguistic features that are most signiicant to answering the question ‘what kind of Semitic language do the Taymanitic inscriptions express?’
This means that some of the features it has in common with most Semitic languages, or for which we simply do not have evidence in the epigaphic material
from Taymāʾ, will not be discussed speciically.
2.1
2.1.1
Orthography
Vowels and Dipthongs
Taymanitic is a consonantal script. Diphthongs were occasionally represented
graphically, e.g. ʾtw-t /ʾatawt(u)/ ‘I came’ (Esk 169).
There are however, several examples of diphthongs going unrepresented,
e.g. Taymāʾ written as tmʾ (Kim CIMG 0759 Tay. (unpublished)) and possibly:
tmnyt */taymāniyyat/ ‘Taymanite’ (Liv. Tay1) (but cf. Macdonald 1992: 31).
In the same inscription as in which the form tmʾ is attested however, we also
ind the form bʿly which was probably pronounced /baʿalay/ ‘owners of’ (Kim
CIMG 0759 Tay.). This diferentiation in spelling of diphthongs could be due to
uncertainty on the part of the writers as to the interpretation of these sounds.16
In the examples cited above it could also represent a diference in the orthographic representation of internal as opposed to word inal diphthongs similar
to that in Safaitic (Al-Jallad 2015: 38), the spelling of ʾtwt, however seems to
contradict this. When comparing the spelling of tmʾ /taymāʾ/ to that of ʾtwt
15 Translation
following Al-Jallad (2015: 260).
Dutch speakers would for example consider diphthongs ee [ej] and oo [ow] as single
vowels. If some speakers treated diphthongs similarly as long vowels in the language represented
by Taymanitic, these would have gone unrepresented in the orthography.
16 Most
70
F. KOOTSTRA
/ʾatáwtu/ one might suggest that only stressed diphthongs are represented orthographically. The presence of the –y in bʿly (Kim CIMG 0759 Tay.) however,
demonstrates that this is not the case, since bʿly is in construct position and
therefore unstressed. At the moment there are too few certain attestations of
diphthongs to distinguish a pattern in their distribution with any certainty.
2.1.2 Word Dividers
Word dividers are used in many of the Taymanitic inscriptions,17 but their
usage seems to have been inconsistent. In some inscriptions they are used to
separate every word, while in others the placement of word boundaries seems
more phrase or stress-based; and inally there are inscriptions that do not use
any word dividers at all. Two of the inscriptions that use word dividers to
separate every word seem to have been more formal inscriptions, engraved
deeply into a smooth and possibly prepared, surface.
TA 09302:
ḥ{s³}y / fʿl / ḥmd / l-ḥdh / b-ym / blbd
‘Ḥs³y attained glory by guarding the border in the battle of blbd’
TA 09303:
----{l}y / fʿl / r[ʾ]s¹ / ḥm{d}
‘…(?) attained foremost glory’
There are also inscriptions that seem pegged or pounded on rocks in the
desert that separate every word of an inscription.
Esk 026:
l bʾm / b n{ʾ}dr / fʿl / nk
‘by Bʾm son of Nʾdr engaged in battle’
Other inscriptions that use word dividers seem to use them to separate
phrases or stress units, like construct phrases, from each other. This would
explain, for example, why b ‘son of’ is never separated from the following personal name in genealogies.
Esk 023:
yfʿ / b b{s²}mt / {f}ʿl {n}k
‘Yfʿ son of Bs²mt engaged in battle’
Esk 064:
ṣmdʿ / b s²mt / ʾl trḍlt
‘Ṣmdʿ son of S²mt of the tribe of Trḍlt’
17 Other
ANA scripts that use word dividers are Dadanitic, Dumaitic (of which only three inscriptions are attested) (Macdonald 2008: 186) and occasionally Thamudic D (Ahmad Al-Jallad,
pc.). Of these, only monumental Dadanitic uses them consistently (Macdonald 2008: 176).
71
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Esk 013:
<l> l bʾrl / rḍw ṣlm18
‘by Bʾrl, may Ṣalm be pleased’
Esk 083 (part):
ʾl / b-zy ṣlm
‘Strength is with those of Ṣalm’
WTay 3:
nṣr / bʿgl / hlk / znk rfty /h- rkb
‘nṣr son of ʿgl died, that is Rfty the riding camel’
HE 41:
lm {y}ʿzrl / b lrm / mn s¹mʿ / l- ṣlm l twy
‘by Yʾzrl son of Lrm, whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish’
Some authors seem to have used word dividers mainly to separate their
name from the rest of the inscription.
WTay 2:
lm / hbʾl b ʿgl / mn s¹mʿ l- ṣlm l tw[y]
‘by Hbʾl son of ʿql, whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish’
There are two inscriptions in which a clear construct chain is separated by
a word divider.
WTay 11 :
fḥk b ḥgg nṣr l- {ṣ}lm // b-ḍr / nbyt
‘Fḥk son of Ḥgg kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm in the war of Nbyt’
Esk 169 (line 1):
ʾn / mrdn / {ḫ}lm / nbnd /mlk / bbl
‘I am Mrdn, servant of Nabonidus king of Babel’
A similar break within a probable construct chain can be found in the following inscriptions.
Kim CIMG 0759. Tay (unpublished) (part):
ʾs¹ bʿly / tmʾ
‘The chief of the inhabitants of Taymāʾ’
Al-Anṣāry 35:
lm wdd / b lḥm / ḥll/ b-zy s²nʾ /ʿm ṣlm
‘by Wdd son of Lḥm he acted as a soldier against those of enmity of/against
the people of Ṣalm’
18 For
the analysis of rḍw as a verbal form see section 2.4.2.
72
F. KOOTSTRA
Finally, the majority (about 250 out of the 375) of Taymanitic inscriptions
does not employ word dividers at all; these also include more elaborate inscriptions containing verbal phrases.
Esk 059:
bmrt ḥl b {ʿ}ft
‘Bmrt was a soldier at ʿft 19 ’
WTay 20:
bhs²rkt nṣr b- ḍr ddn yr{ḫ} l- ṣlm
‘Bhs²rkt kept watch during the war of Dadan for a month on behalf of Ṣalm’
2.2 Phonology
2.2.1 Consonant system overview
Scholars have argued that Taymanitic employed at least 26 diferent letter
shapes, which means it probably had at least 26 distinct phonemes. PS *ḏ
and *z have merged and are respresented as z; Taymanitic does not distinguish
a phoneme *ẓ, which seems to have merged with *ṣ. There are several features
in the inscriptions that could point to a merger of *s³ and *ṯ. As there are no
bilingual inscriptions, loan-names and the interpretation of the inscriptions are
key to our understanding of Taymanitic phonology. Below, only the phonemes
of which the pronunciation is open to debate will be discussed.
19 For
a discussion of the verb ḥl(l) see 2.5.1.
73
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
PS
Transcription
*ʕ
ʿ
*ʔ
*b
*d
*ɬʼ
*p
*g
*ɣ
*h
*ħ
*x
*k
*l
*m
*n
*kʼ
*r
*s
*ɬ
*ts͡
*ts͡ ʼ
ʾ
b
d
ḍ
f
g
ġ
h
ḥ
ḫ
k
l
m
n
q
r
s¹
s²
s³
ṣ
*t
t
*w
w
*tʼ
*y
*d͡z
ṭ
y
z
Table 1: script table20
20 The
script table is based on (Macdonald 2000: 34).
74
Taymanitic glyph
F. KOOTSTRA
2.2.2 *p
The relex of *p is traditionally transcribed as f. However, this is a transcription based on a sound change in Arabic. There is no reason to assume that
Taymanitic had undergone the same sound change. Following convention however, this phoneme will be transcribed as f.
2.2.3 The interdental fricatives
In Taymanitic the interdental fricatives seem to have systematically merged
with their sibilant (or africate) counterparts.
*ḏ, *z
*ṯ, *s³
*ṯ,̣ 21 *ṣ
>z
> s³
>ṣ
After a discussion of the evidence pointing to a merger of these phonemes,
several misspellings and loanwords or renderings of foreign words into Taymanitic script will be discussed to gain some insight into their possible phonetic
realization. As the evidence is fragmentary and open to several interpretations
the exact realization of the sibilants will remain uncertain however.
ḏ and z The interdental fricative ḏ [ð] merged with z.22 They share the same
sign, which is used to represent z in Hismaic, several varieties of Thamudic
and Dadanitic as well; we ind forms like the distal demonstrative znk < *ḏnk
(WTay 3); and the personal name zʾb < *ḏʾb (e.g. WTay 1.2) and zʾbt < *ḏʾbt
(e.g. Esk 018) in Taymanitic for example.
ṯ and s³ = PS *[ts͡ ] The existence of a 27th letter, a separate sign for s³, is generally included in the Taymanitic script tables (e.g. Winnett & Reed 1970: 205)
but it is often mentioned with some cautionary notes (e.g. Macdonald 1991: 25).
Sholars have identiied six glyphs, all occurring in personal names that could
qualify as a separate letter signifying the independent relex of s³. This glyph
has a circular center as opposed to the star-like shape which was interpreted as
ṯ. The etymology of most of these names is problematic, but they seem point to
a merging of the two phonemes. Knauf (2011) already proposed that ṯ and s³
had merged in Taymanitic, and that ṯ was either realized as [t͡θ] (which would
suggest a merger of ṯ and s³ to ṯ), or [ts͡ ] (which would suggest a merger of ṯ
and s³ to s³) (Knauf 2011).23
Based on the etymologies of the personal names; variation in attested letter
shapes that have been interpreted as ṯ and s³; several lexical items; and the
21 This glyph is generally transcribed as ẓ, the transcription ṯ is used here to show its etymological
̣
relation to the interdental and sibilant series.
22 This merger in Taymanitic has already been widely recognized. See for example, Winnett &
Reed (1970: 94) and (Macdonald 2008: 191).
23 In the same paragraph he argues that the s³ and ṯ merged in a similar fashion in Dadanitic.
Based on the spelling of roots with etymological s³ in Dadanitic however, it is clear that in Dadanitic
s³ merged with s¹, as it did in the other well understood ANA varieties (Safaitic and Hismaic) and
Arabic as well (Compare for example Dadanitic s¹fr (e.g. AH 123; AH 220) ‘inscription’ to Heb.
sēper both from *s³pr).
75
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
general structure of the Taymanitic phoneme inventory, it will be argued that
ṯ and s³ seem to have merged to s³ in Taymanitic.
ʿbds³r
s³rṣ
s³gʿdhd
bys³ʿhls³ 24
ys³m
ṣms³mk
(HU 501)
(WTay 4)
on the Vienna seal (RES 2688)
(Esk 123)
(TM.T. 035)
(TM.T. 001B)
Table 2: The attested personal names previously read with s³ and their sigla
Macdonald considers ʿbds³r (HU 501) to relect *ʿabd Osiris (Macdonald
1991: 17). He compares the name to other Osiris names in Phoenician inscriptions (ʿbdʾsr) and the the name Pṭsry with the theophoric element Osiris
in Aramaic on the Louvre Stela in (Macdonald 1991: 17). Macdonald mentions
that “the phoneme represented by s³ in South Semitic alphabets is cognate to
Aramaic /s/” (ibid.) but since the name Osiris was an Egyptian goddess, the etymological correspondence is of less relevance than their pronunciation at the
time the name was borrowed. Since s¹ seems to have represented [s] in Taymanitic, which is based on a more certain borrowing (see paragraph 1.2.2.1
s¹ or *s), it seems unlikely that Osiris would end up being represented with
an s³ instead. Another issue is the loss of the glottal stop at the beginning
of the theophoric element. This would only be possible if the name entered
Taymanitic from another language which dropped the glottal stops in this position.25 The name ʿbds³r (HU 501) may better be interpreted as a transcription
of the name ʿabd ḏūśaray instead; a theophoric name based on the Nabataean
deity ḏūśaray.26 The assimilation of the *ḏ to the preceding *d in this name is
also attested in Safaitic (e.g. Mu 836) and Greek (e.g. IGLS XIII 9266) in Taymanitic, the name was probably taken from a language in which this happened
as well since Taymanitic d and z (< *ḏ) would probably not assimilate in the
same way; we know that in ḏū śaray the lateral was preserved, because Safatic
used its lateral s², rather than its plain sibilant s¹ to transcribe it (Macdonald
2000: 48). If the interpretation of the verb bḥs² (Kim CIMG0759 Tay (unpublished)) is correct, Taymanitic did not preserve a lateral pronunciation of s²
(see 2.2.4). Transcribing a lateral with a ṯ is not unlikely however as the two
are phonetically very similar (Ball et al. 2001: 5).27 This approximation may
have a precedent in two cuneiform abecedaries in the hlḥm order discovered at
24 Based on a very uncertain reading, unfortunately there is only a copy available of this inscription by Jaussen and Savignac, the photograph of the inscription in Eskoubi (1999) only shows the
irst three letters of the inscription. The copy by Jaussen and Savignac, shows the third letter,
while the last letter, transcribed as s³ looks
traditionally transcribed as ṯ, as a star-shaped sign
like a circle with four lines coming out of it .
25 There are many examples of personal names that entered Taymanitic without a glottal stop,
e.g. Esk 290: s¹mrl (cf. 2.2.5)
26 If we are indeed dealing with a theophoric name mentioning ḏūśaray this would either be a
very early mention of the deity, or an indication that Taymanitic was written well after the sixth
century BCE.
27 Other approximations that were recorded were fricatives, including velar fricatives; and combinations of a (velar) fricative with a lateral (Ball et al. 2001: 4).
76
F. KOOTSTRA
Ras-Šamra (RS 88.2215)28 and Bēt Šemeš (KTU 5.24),29 where the glyph for ṯ
occupies the position of the lateral s² [ɬ] which may indicate a similar phonetic
confusion between the two (Al-Jallad & al Manaser 2015: 9-10).
Another name Macdonald discusses in his 1991 article is s³rṣ, which he
compares to Aramaic srṣn, generally assumed to come from *(w)sīr ṣawn ‘Osiris
is protection’ (Macdonald 1991: 19). In this case it is more problematic to argue
for the loss of the glottal stop as it is diicult to imagine why an initial vowel
would not be represented as such in Taymanitic. Moreover, one would have to
explain why the inal n disappeared and we are still confronted with [s] being
represented with s³ rather than with s¹. As ṯrṣ and srṣ do not yield any plausible
roots for a personal name it may be compared to CAr. ṣurṣūr ‘cricket or roach’,
after dissimilation of the irst consonant, since the non-emphatic equivalent of
ṣ would have been s³. This of course leaves us again with a inal consonant to
get rid of, and a name that is not very common.30
After the discussion of the Osiris names Macdonald briely discusses the
name s³gʿdhd (on the Vienna seal, RES 2688), but he concludes that there are so
many uncertainties surrounding the interpretation of the text in which it occurs
that it is unwise to base any conclusions on this name (Macdonald 1991: 21).
The inal three names can be interpreted with a little more certainty. Even
though the reading of second part of the name bys³ʿ{h}l{s³} (Esk 123) is unsure,
based on the irst half of the name it seems to represent a theophoric name with
the deity yṯʿ.31 In this case s³ would represent *ṯ. It is diicult to be certain
what the origin of the name ys³m is. It may be compared to CAr. wasīm, ‘to be
beautiful’ from *√ws³m (compare Akk. (w)asāmu(m) ‘to be suitable’or Ugaritic
ysm ‘pleasant’ (Cohen 1976: 569)), with *w- > y- which seems to have been
active in Taymanitic (cf. paragraph *w- > y- under sound changes).
In one of the inscriptions currently in the Tayma museum, the theophoric
name ṣms³mk appears (TM.T. 001B). Macdonald (Macdonald & Al-Najem forthcoming) interprets the name as ‘Ṣalm supports’ and connects s³mk to Hebrew
sāmak. In this case the Taymanitic form relects the etymological s³. So, if
the interpretations put forward are correct, the glyph under discussion represents etymological *s³ in some personal names (ys³m, ṣms³mk) but *ṯ in others
(ʿbds³r,32 bys³ʿ{h}l{s³}).
Even though the letter shapes seem clearly distinguishable in the ANA script
charts (e.g. as published in Macdonald 2008: 187) their shapes seem to have
merged in (at least some of) the actual inscriptions. The visual confusion between the two signs may be an indication that the two phonemes had merged
or that there was some confusion as to the distinction of the two.
ṯ as in the script charts
s³
ṯ as attested in several
inscriptions
33
34
Table 3: contrasting the attested letter-forms with the reported forms.
28 Cf.
Bordreuil & Pardee 1995; Hayajneh & Tropper 1997; Sass 2005.
the most recent discussions of these inscriptions see Bordreuil & Pardee 1995; Hayajneh
& Tropper 1997; Sass 2005.
30 Harding (1971: 371) reports one attestation in Sabaic.
31 compare for example yṯʿʾl; yṯʿʾmr; yṯʿkbr (Harding 1971: 658-9).
32 ṯ here as an approximation of the foreign lateral.
29 For
77
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Figure 1: tracing of s³ in Wtay 004
Figure 2: tracing of s³ in HU 50135
Figure 3: tracing of ṯ in JSTham 50836
Figure 4: Tracing of ṯ in Esk 020.1
The merger of s³ and ṯ is found in other Arabian languages as well, e.g.
Ḥadramitic and the Amīritic dialect of Sabaic; in Ḥadramitic interdentals and
africates/sibilants seem to have merged, suggesting the sound change [θ] >
[ts͡ ] or [s]. In Amīritic s³ and s¹ merged to s after which *ṯ was written with
the s³ glyph; this either indicates a sound change ṯ > [ts͡ ] or a reassignment
of the s³ sign to ṯ while it kept its phonetic value. The fact that in a newly
discovered Thamudic B abecedary in the South Semitic hlḥm order the glyph for
ṯ was written in the place of s³ may indicate that the latter explanation is what
happened in Amīritic, especially since the abecedary was probably written after
recitation of the values of the letters rather than being a transcription of the
written form of the other alphabet (Al-Jallad & al Manaser 2015: 11-2).
There are no unambiguous attestations of etymological ṯ in lexical items.
The sign for s³/ṯ appears in two other inscriptions, Esk 272 and TA 09302. In
Esk 272, ʾs³r (written with the sign ) (Esk 272) could possibly be read as *ʾs³r,
‘captivity’ (Esk 272), although *ʾṯr ‘place or trace’ is also possible, while s³ġ ‘to
be accessible’, which is attested in the same inscription with a similar sign (Esk
272) should probably be read with a *s³ (√s³wġ).
Another example of the rayed disk letter shape is the word ḥs³y in TA 09302.
The inscription is very clear and deeply inscribed on a prepared surface, giving
it a much more formal appearance than most other Taymanitic inscriptions.
TA 09302:
ḥs³y / fʿl / ḥmd / lḥdh / b ym / blbd
‘Ḥs³y attained glory by guarding the border during the battle of blbd’
Macdonald (forthcoming) has tentatively suggested the translation ‘honored be the deed of Ḥmd (done) by him alone in the day of the son of Lbd’,
interpreting ḥmd as a tribal name and ḥs³y as ‘to show much honor’ from the
Arabic root √ḥfy. Based on an irregular sound change f > ṯ.37 This substitu33 Esk
272, Esk 020.1, JSTham 508
272
35 For the complete tracing of the photograph of the inscription see Macdonald (1991: 13).
36 The trace was made based on a photograph taken during the Tayma survey; Michael Macdonald has kindly granted me permission to use these photographs.
37 There are examples of such substitutions, Macdonald gives Classical Arabic dafaʾiyy and ANA
dṯʾ ‘season of the later rains’ (Macdonald forthcoming).
34 Esk
78
F. KOOTSTRA
tion would require *p to have become f in Taymanitic, but so far it is unclear
whether this sound change has taken place. If the new interpretation ofered
above is correct (TA 09302), ḥs³y should probably be interpreted as a personal
name. Unfortunately it is unclear what the etymology of ḥs³y would be as a
personal name.
Finally there is a structural argument for the merger of ṯ and s³ since z
and the voiced fricative interdental ḏ have clearly merged in Taymanitic, it
would naturally follow that the loss of the interdentals would have afected
the voiceless series as well.
ṯ ̣ = PS *[θʼ] and ṣ = PS *[ts͡ ʼ] As demonstrated in the previous discussion the voiced and unvoiced interdental fricatives in Taymanitic seem to have
merged with their sibilant (or africate) counterparts. It therefore stands to
reason that the same process would have afected the emphatic series as well,
resulting in a phonological system very similar to Canaanite.
The only lexical items in which ṣ appears in the Taymanitic corpus are ṣlm,
the main deity of the oasis (e.g. Esk 013; JSTham 352; WTay 1.2) and the verb
nṣr (e.g. WTay 9.1; WTay 11; WTay 14). Otherwise it only occurs in personal
names (e.g. ṣby (e.g. Esk 012), ṣḥm (Esk 024) and ṣwq (JSTham 541)).
The verb nṣr occurs in the formula nṣr l-ṣlm b-ḍr Ddn38 (WTay 20; HE 32;
WTay 33.1; WTay 11) which has generally been translated as ‘he gave assistance to Ṣalm in the war against Dadan’ (Winnett & Reed 1970: 99) and taken
to be related to for example CAr. naṣara ‘to aid or assist’ (Lane: 2802c) or
Sabaic nṣr ‘to provide support’ (Beeston et al. 1982: 100).39
If we consider the merging of ẓ (*ṯ)̣ and ṣ however, nṣr could represent *nẓr
‘to watch, to guard’ (cf. CAr. naẓara ‘to look at’ (Lane: 2810c); Old Aramaic
nṣr ‘watch, protect’; Of. Aramaic, Nab. nṭr ‘to watch, to protect’ (Hoftijzer &
Jongeling 1995: 754-5); Heb. nṣr (HALOT: 718)). We ind relexes of this verb
in several other ANA corpora (e.g. Safaitic (e.g. C49; BHT 228) and Dadanitic
(e.g. AH 312; JSLih 007; JaL 158)).
There is one Taymanitic inscription in which the form nṭrt ‘I kept watch’ is
attested.
Esk 025:
{ʾ}n ʾ{n/r}ds¹ / s¹{ s¹}n / mlk / bbl / n{ṭ}rt
‘I am ʾnds¹ oicial of the king of Babylon, I kept watch40 ’
This could be taken as an argument against reading nṣr as ‘to guard’. Hayajneh (2001: 89) interpreted nṭr as an Aramaicized form, but also noted that
the absence of a glyph for ẓ in Taymanitic might point to the fact that both ṭ
and ẓ were represented by the same glyph in Taymanitic orthography.41 Given
38 Variations with b-ḍr Msʾ or b-ḍr Nbyt are also attested: WTay 16 and WTay 11; WTay 13;
WTay 15 repectively.
39 If Ṣalm was indeed the deiication of Nabonidus at the oasis (Winnett & Reed 1970: 92-3), this
could be compared to ASA inscriptions in which chieftains recorded that they aided their lords in
wars as suggested by Beeston in Winnett & Reed (1970: 99). However, Dalley (1986: 86) argued
convincingly against this interpretation.
40 Hayajneh (2001: 89) reads the word following the personal name as s¹dn, which he translates
as ‘overseer, guardian’.
41 Müller and Said propose a reading ns³rt, which they connect to Sabaic mns³rt ‘vanguard’
79
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
the fact that the author of this inscription identiies himself as being close
to the king of Babylon, inluence from Aramaic would not be surprising. In
addition to that, the unusual formula used in this inscription is very similar to
another inscription in which the author also identiies himself as ailiated with
the court of Nabonidus (Esk 169). A merger of ẓ and ṭ in Taymanitic seems
unlikely however, since no Semitic languages merge the plain interdentals to
the sibilant, while merging the emphatic one to the stop.
Esk 169 (line 1 and 2):
ʾn / mrdn / {ḫ}lm / nbnd / mlk / bbl // ʾtwt / mʿ / rbs¹rs¹ / kyt
‘I am Mrdn servant of Nabonidus king of Babylon, I came with chief Kyt’
Since Aramaic and Neo-Babylonian were most likely the main languages
that were in use at the court of Nabonidus, it is likely that nṭr is a loan from
Aramaic in which *ṯ ̣ (the origin of CAr. ẓ) and ṭ merged to ṭ. The form nṭr
possibly came to indicate a speciic kind of guard or guarding in this neoBabylonian setting as opposed to guarding in general for which the local nṣr
was still in use.
the phonetic realization of ṣ and s³ Below, alternative spellings of nṣr and
s¹mʿ will be discussed in light of their relevance to our understanding of the
pronunciation of ṣ. A hypothesis about the realization of ṣ will also impact our
assumptions about the values of the other sibilants; therefore the realization
of s³ and ṣ will be discussed together. Since the examples are open to several
explanations it remains unclear what the exact phonetic realization of ṣ and s³
was.
There is one instance in which ṣ seems to be confused with s³ (Wtay 17).
This may indicate that ṣ still represented an africate [ts͡ ʼ] or [ts͡ ˁ] in Taymanitic.
WTay 17:
ʿlʾl b ʾs¹gt ns³r b-ḍr ----k---‘ʿlʾl son of ʾs¹gt kept watch during the war ---?---’
The verb ns³r was translated ‘he fell in battle…’ by Winnett, from the root
*nṯr (Winnett & Reed 1970: 102). Based on the frequency of the formula nṣr
b-ḍr it seems more likely however, that this is a misspelling of some sort. The
confusion of s³ for ṣ could indicate that the relex of s³ was in some way similar
to that of ṣ.
If ṣ was indeed still realized as an africate, it may suggest that s³ still represented an africate as well, in which case only the feature of emphasis would
have been misinterpreted in the inscription.42 As we will discuss below however there is some evidence that seems to rule out an africated realization of
ṣ and s³.
It should be noted however, that only a copy is available for this inscription. Winnett indicates in his commentary that he might have miscopied the
(Müller & Al-Said 2001: 113). Given the clear reference to the king of Babylon in the inscription
however, assuming Aramaic inluence seems preferable.
42 This could also be interpreted to indicate that ṣ was still realized as an africate [t͡sʼ] or [t͡sˁ]
in Taymanitic, which was confused with the fricative [θ]. The merger of s³ and ṯ to an interdental
ṯ seems unlikely however, as the voiced counterpart merged with the sibilant, ḏ > z.
80
F. KOOTSTRA
inscription (Winnett & Reed 1970: 102). Adding one line at the bottom of the
letter could make it into a ṣ ( > ). He might have doubted his copy because
he was expecting to ind a ṣ instead of a s³.
In another inscription, ṣ seems to have been confused with s¹. In this inscription the form ṣmʿ appears (Facey unpublished 00856). It is unclear what
the verb ṣmʿ means in this inscription. In Lane, ṣmʿ is recorded to mean ‘to
be small, compact, slender’. It is also used to mean courageous “because the
courageous is described as compact in heart” (Lane: 1728). Another option
is that the author confused s¹ and ṣ. This may be preferable, as it would turn
this unique and diicult to interpret inscription into one of the regular Taymanitic formulae. A confusion between s¹ and ṣ could indicate a de-africation
of emphatic ṣ, as the author would only need to misinterpret one phonological
feature (pharyngialization or glottalization, depending on how the emphatics
were realized) to get from s¹ to ṣ. Reading ṣ as s¹ would give us the very common verb in the Taymanitic corpus s¹mʿ ‘he listened’.
It is diicult to combine the attestation of the confusion between s³ and
ṣ (WTay 17) and that of ṣ and s¹ (Facey unpublished 00856, 00806); while
the irst could point to an africated realization of ṣ, the confusion of ṣ and
s¹ seems to point to the loss of africation in the realization of ṣ. Moreover,
assuming that the sibilants and fricatives had been de-africated would point
to a realization of [s] for ṯ and s³. This would seem to indicate that s³ and s¹
had merged, which begs the question why they were still distinguished in the
orthography, especially since there is no evidence for any confusion between
s¹ and s³ in Taymanitic. Therefore, if africation was not the distinguishing feature, it seems they difered in some other way (for example dental as opposed
to alveolar sibilants). If ṣ and s³ were indeed no longer africates, the form ns³r
should probably be considered a writing, or copying error. It is not entirely
clear what the spelling of the personal name ʿbds³r tells us about the realization
of s³. It seems to indicate that s² was no longer realized as a lateral fricative, but
borrowing a lateral fricative with [s] does not seem the most obvious choice
either. Possibly the name was adopted into the Taymanitic onomasticon before
ṯ and s³ merged. Based on the data available at the moment it is impossible to
determine the exact values for the complete sibilant and fricative series.
2.2.4 Realization of the plain sibilants
s¹ = PS *[s] The pronunciation of s¹ was probably close to a plain sibilant
[s]. In the inscription Esk 169, s¹ occurs in the word rbs¹rs¹.43 This is identiied as a compound of rab ša rəši by Hayajneh (2001) and Müller & Al-Said
(2001) which was borrowed from Neo-Assyrian into Aramaic as srs (Hayajneh
2001: 83).44 Aramaic likely formed the source of the form in the Taymanitic
text (Hayajneh 2001: 83). This indicates that s¹ was the closest equivalent to
the plain sibilant [s] available to the writer of this inscription.45
43 Regardless
of whether this word is an actual borrowing into Taymanitic or not, the fact that
the author of the text rendered a foreign word in the Taymanitic script can tell us something about
the realization of the glyphs.
44 In borrowings into Aramaic, the Neo-Assyrian glyph š would be written with simkat, indicating that is was pronounced as [s].
45 There is one personal name which looks like a phrasal name, which could shed more light
on the realization of s¹: bḥs¹lʾmnt (HU 413). Unfortunately the etymology of the name is currently
unclear.
81
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
s² = PS *[ɬ] The interpretation of the phonetic realization of s² is dependent
on the interpretation of the etymology of the verb bḥs² (Kim CIMG0759 Tay
(unpublished)). Since bḥs² does not seem to be a productive root in Semitic, the
Taymanitic form probably comes from the root *√bḥṯ ‘to search’. This verb is
attested as bḥš in Aramaic (Cohen 1976: 57).46 If this were a native Taymanitic
verb one would expect it to appear with s³ (cf. 2.2.3, pg. 75) but not with s².
The s² can be explained if one assumes that bḥs² is a borrowing from Aramaic
or Canaanite, and s² was the closest equivalent to Aramaic š, pointing to a
possible realization of s² as a palato-alveolar fricative in Taymanitic.47
2.2.5
Glottal stop
Outside of the onomasticon, the glottal stop was preserved in all positions in
Taymanitic. In some ʾĒl-based theophoric names, the glottal stop has been
elided e.g. Esk 290: s¹mrl. This seems to suggest that at least the theophoric
part of the name was drawn form a language in which the initial glottal stop
was dropped, like Akkadian ilum for example. There are several names attested
in which the /ʾ/ in the name of the deity ʾl is gone, but it is preserved in the
irst part of the name: bʾrl (Esk 013), yʾws¹l (e.g. Esk 076), yʾrs²l (e.g. Esk 068
+ 069) indicating that the loss of the glottal stop was probably conditioned in
the source language. There are also theophoric names with ʾĒl as a compound
attested that do preserve the ʾ for example: kfrʾl (e.g. Esk 001; JSTham 521),
ydʿʾl (Esk 079 and Esk 237) and wddʾl (Esk 087).
Since the theophoric ʾĒl names without the glottal stop must be considered
loans, they may be helpful in determining the phonetic values of, for example,
the sibilants in these names. So far 5 diferent ‘non-native’ theophoric names
with ʾĒl containing a sibilant have been attested in Taymanitic.
yʾws¹l48
ys¹mʿl
s¹mrl
yʾrs²l
nṣbl
(Esk 076; Esk 081; Esk 178)
(Esk 183)
(Esk 290)
(Esk 068+069; Esk 072; JSTham 431; JSTham 530)
(JSTham 411)
An accurate understanding of the phonology of these names in their source
language is required before they can contribute to our reconstruction of Taymanitic phonology. Unfortunately it is diicult to determine which language
this was, given the small set of forms available to us. Since both the ʾ and the ʿ
are still represented in the irst part of the names (e.g. yʾws¹l and ys¹mʿl), they
could not have come from Akkadian names. The name yʾrs²l probably comes
from a C-stem of the root *wrṯ ‘to inherit’ (compare CAr. wariṯa ‘he inherited’
(Lane: 2934a) or Hebr. yrš (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 471)). This could not
have been the source of a form such as ys¹mʿl however, which one would expect
46 Since Aramaic merged its interdentals with its stops, the expected relect of *bḥṯ would be
*bḥt, therefore the form bḥš in Aramaic is likely a loan from Hebrew or another Canaanite language.
47 If the personal name ʿbds³r indeed represents ʿabduśaray it seems that the lateral [ɬ] in
Nabataean dūśaray was borrowed into Taymanitic with s³, in which case a lateral pronunciation
of s² in Taymanitic can probably be ruled out (cf. ṯ and s³ = PS *[t͡s] above).
48 The name Yʾws¹ʾl, with the gottal stop in the ʾĒl element, occurs in Minaic in and several
times in Sabaic as a personal name (e.g. as-Sawdāʾ 37 = M 293A = RES 3306A; YM 18344).
82
F. KOOTSTRA
to have been borrowed with the same sibilant as yʾrs²l, given the merging of *s¹
and *ṯ to š in Hebrew, in addition to that, Hebrew does not have a ʾ-causative.
Another option could be to consider a language in which the ṯ obtained as
the source of yʾrs²l: *yʾrṯl. Since ṯ seems to have merged with s³ in Taymanitic,
s² may have been perceived as the closest equivalent to an interdental ṯ. It
has to be kept in mind however, that we do not have written evidence of all
linguistic varieties that were spoken in the area, and these names might have
come from a language unknown to us. It is also a possibility of course that
not all names containing an ʾĒl element and lacking the glottal stop in the
theophoric part, come from the same source.
2.2.6 Sound changes
N-assimilation One of the characteristic features of Taymanitic is the writing
of the word ‘son’ as b instead of more common bn. This orthographic feature
seems to be an example of n-assimilaton, a conditioned phonological sound
change common in other ANA corpora and NWS. However, there is one clear
example in which this does not happen: ntnt /natantu/ ‘I gave’ (JSTham 352)
in which the /n/ is clearly directly followed by the stop /t/.49
If this inscription is representative of the language of the rest of the corpus,
this seems to indicate that /n/ does not assimilate to a following consonant
in all environments, but only in proclitic position in which it is per deinition
unstressed. This hypothesis could also explain the diference between m ‘from’
and mn ‘who’; since m never occurs without an object it may have been treated
as a proclitic similar to the prepositions b- and l-.
WTay 9.2:
m- s¹mw
‘from S¹mw’
TA 02669.1:
m-lmq
‘from Lmq’
Mn ‘who’, is not proclitic and is always written with the n.
WTay 2; WTay 1.2; HE 31:
mn s¹mʿ l-ṣlm
‘whoever obeys Ṣalm’
While the examples are limited it seems safe to suggest that /n/ assimilates to any directly following consonant when it is the coda of an unstressed
syllable.
49 If
Winnett’s reading of Ṣlm ʾnkd (JSTham 546) as ‘(Oh) Ṣalm (grant) ofspring’ (unpublished,
Study I: 6) is correct, this form would be another example of an unassimilated /n/ in stressed
position.
83
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
L-assimilation The assimilation of l in theophoric names with the element
Ṣlm suggests a similar pattern of assimilation to that of n: when it is used
in proclitic position the l assimilates to the following m. For example in the
names: ṣmnʿm (Esk 058), ṣmntn (Esk 004), ṣmrʿ (Esk 050). There are other
names with a Ṣlm element in which the l does not assimilate, but there Ṣlm
is the second part of the name e.g.: ʾmrṣlm (TM.T. 024) and lṣlm (WTay 30).
All other occurrences of ṣlm refer to the deity, in which case it is usually a
prepositional object and has its own stress: b ṣlm ntnt ‘by Ṣalm I gave’ (JSTham
352; BIT p.336), nṣr l-ṣlm ‘he he kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’ (WTay 32).50
Winnett (1937: 23) already suggested that the element ṣm- in the Taymanitic
personal names came from the theophoric name Ṣalm, but he does not connect
the assimilation of the l in these names to the assimilation of l and n in the rest
of the inscriptions.
The assimilation of the l in Ṣalm additionally indicates that CvCC nouns
probably did not undergo epenthesis, as the l of ṣlm could only have assimilated
if the consonant cluster remained.
*w-> y- Taymanitic seems to have undergone the Northwest Semitic sound
change *w- > y-. There are several lexical items in the Taymanitic inscriptions
with initial y- which come from forms with an initial w- originally: yrḫ ‘month’
(WTay 20); ydʿ ‘he knew’ (Kim CIMG 0759. Tay, unpublished) and the verb yrr
‘he guarded’ (compare CAr. warwara ‘to guard, to watch and modern Arabic
wry ‘to show, to let s.o. see’ (Kurpershoek 2005: 349) (Esk 052)).
Words with initial w- are attested in the corpus, but they are all personal
names, e.g.: ʾl wnʿ ‘the tribe of Wnʿ’ (Esk 272), wdd (e.g. JSTham 552), and wtr
(Esk 233). Since personal names are often borrowed along with their phonology (cf. 2.2.5), or relect archaic pronunciations, this cannot be used as proof
against a sound change *w- > y-.
Reduction of inal triphthongs In Taymanitic inal triphthongs had probably not collapsed completely. There is one attestation of a inal weak verb in
–w which preserves its inal weak root consonant in the suixing conjugation:
rḍw ‘may he please’ (Esk 013). Since Taymanitic did not make use of matres
lectiones, this form suggests a pronunciation /raḍiwa/. The form rḍw additionally shows that the sequence –iwa did not shift to –iya as it did in Arabic. Since
vowels are not represented in Taymanitic, the inal triphthong could have collapsed to a diphthong in Taymanitic. There are no clear attestations of other
triphthong sequences in Taymanitic.
*-at > -ah Two possible feminine nisbah forms ending in -t seem to indicate
that Taymanitic did not undergo the sound change of inal –at to –ah (cf. section
2.3.3 for the gentilic suix (pg. 88 and the morpheme -t (pg. 87). It should be
noted however, that both these forms occur in genealogies.51 Therefore they
50 CvCC nouns probably did not undergo epenthesis, because the l of ṣlm could only have assimilated if the cluster remained. However, it cannot be ruled out that epenthesis emerged following
the assimilation rule (ṣalm > ṣamm). Ṣamm would not be afected anymore in this case, as the
l-assimilation rule was no longer active, and ṣamm was realized with a geminate.
51 The beginning of WTay 37 is broken, therefore it is not entirely sure that h-mṣryt is part of a
genealogy, however since it has the same form as ḥdryt (HE 17; 40) and is also preceded by the
84
F. KOOTSTRA
may not have been perceived as actual nisbah forms, but simply as personal
names, possibly representing an archaic form.
WTay 37:
h-mṣr-y-t
‘the Egyptian woman52 ’
HE 17 and HE 40:
h-ḥḍr-y-t
‘the settled woman/the woman from Ḥḍr’
2.3 Nominal Morphology
2.3.1 Number
Plural There are no attestations of an unbound plural suix in Taymanitic.
There is one possible attestation of a bound plural suix –y, which will be
discussed in more detail below in the paragraph 2.3.2. There is one possible
attestation of a broken plural, but it can be explained equally in many other
ways (on which see section 2.4.4):
WTay 22:
----lm b-ḍrr ddn
‘…lm in the wars of Dadan/ by waging war against Dadan’
The phrase b-ḍr ddn (e.g. WTay 20, and WTay 33.1) ‘in the war of Dadan’ occurs in four other inscriptions (Wtay 20; WTay 21; WTay 33.1 and WTay 33.2),
so this single occurrence might be better explained as a writing error. Moreover, the present form could still relect an external plural in the construct state
/ḍararē Dadān/ ‘the wars of Dadan’ (compare for example Heb. malkē ‘kings
of’ (Gzella 2011: 440)) (cf. section 2.3.2). This reading would additionally suggest a process of /a/ insertion, typical in the plural formation of CvCC nouns in
NWS (e.g. Hebrew keleb < *kalb ‘dog’; pl. kəlābîm < *kalab-īma (Huehnergard
1995: 2129)), to explain the fact that both r’s are represented. Another possibility is to interpret it as an ininitive or participle denoting a simultaneous
action. Given the formulaic nature of most of the inscriptions mentioning ḍr
Ddn, the most likely scenario seems to be that it is a dittography.
2.3.2 State
Deinite article
tives.
A preixed deinite article h- marks deiniteness in substan-
letters bh- it seems to be a similar type of inscription.
52 Slaves were often named after the place they came from, in PPII (17.66) we ind, for example
a female slave called Αλ-μασια (from al-maṣiyya). If the author of this inscription was indeed the
son of a slave this could explain why he identiies himself by his mother rather than his father,
as he would have no right to inheritance (Macdonald, pc) and his status would be determined by
that of his mother (Koenen 2013: 114).
85
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Philby 279 ay:
kfrʾl b tʾn h-rm h-ġlm
‘Kfrʾl son of Tʾn, the lancer, the junior’
Esk 031:
h-ḍ{b}ʾ / {h/ḥ}{r}{ʿ}{y}
‘the soldier, the chief’
It is used substantivize verbal forms.
WTay 3:
Znk rfty h-rkb
‘that is Rfty the riding camel’
If the following examples are indeed nisbah forms referring to the mothers
of the authors of the texts, they illustrate the use of the article to substantivize
adjectives. It could be the case however; that the h- has become a part of the
personal name and its usage here does not relect the grammatical usage of the
article.
WTay 37:
----bdwd b h-mṣryt
‘{PN} son of the Egyptian woman’
HE 17:
Ns²w b h-ḥḍryt
‘Ns²w son of the sedentary woman/the woman from ḥḍr’
HE 40:
ḥkrn b ns²w b h-ḥḍryt
‘Ḥkrn son of Ns²w son of the sedentary woman/the woman from ḥḍṛ’
Construct chains In Taymanitic construct chains consisting of as many as
three nouns have been attested. There are no attestations of analytical genitive
constructions.
Al-Anṣāry 35 [part]
ḥll
/
b-zy
s²nʾ
/
ʿm
ṣlm
be.a.soldier.SC.3MS WD against-REL.MP enmity.CNST WD people.CNST Ṣalm
‘he was a soldier against those of enmity of/against the people of Ṣalm’
Esk 169 [line 1]53
ʾn
/
mrdn /
{ḫ}lm
/
nbnd /
mlk
/
bbl
IPRO.1CS WD Mrdn WD servant.CNST WD Nbnd WD king.CNST WD Babel
‘I am Mrdn, servant of Nabonidus king of Babel’
86
F. KOOTSTRA
There is one attestation of a construct chain that suggests that in Taymanitic
bound masculine plural nouns could be marked by a suix -y, like in Aramaic
and Hebrew (Gzella 2011: 440) or like Sabaic masculine nouns in the oblique
case with a plural suix (Stein 2003: 82).
Kim CIMG 0759. Tay (unpublished):
ʾ[s¹] // bʿly tmʾ
‘chief of the of landowners/residents of Taymāʾ’
There is damage above the irst letter of the second line which makes it
impossible to tell for sure whether there were any lines coming out on top
of it, causing the uncertainty in reading a ʾ, b or s¹. Reading ʾʿly as a broken
plural form of the root √ʿlw ‘the nobles’ (suggested by Macdonald in comments,
db) is tempting; however, this is an Arabic form in which *-iwa > -iya. Since
rḍw does not become rḍy in Taymanitic the expected relex of ʾʿlw would not
be ʾʿly. Therefore bʿly ‘the inhabitants or landowners’, forms a more likely
reading. A similar phrase with the construction ‘bʿly + place name’ occurs in
the Aramaic part of the trilingual Lycian, Greek, Aramaic inscription found at
Xanthos (dated 358 B.C.) (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 183-4). There it can be
translated as ‘landowners’ (Teixidor 1978: 182). The same formula occurs half
a century earlier (408 B.C.) in a petition to the governor of Judaea (Cowley
1923: No.3022 ) in which the phrase bʿly yb can be translated similarly, as ‘the
inhabitants of Yeb’ (Ibid. 114).54
As was already mentioned in the section on the assimilation of l and n, it
seems that all bound forms were marked by a change in stress pattern. It is
unclear what impact this might have had on possible vowel reduction.
2.3.3 Nominal derivation
Morpheme -t It is not certain whether the following forms respresent feminine personal names or feminine nisbah forms. Either way, they are clearly
derived from nisbah forms with a feminine -t (see the section on the gentilic
suix below, pg. 88).
WTay 37:
h-mṣr-y-t
‘the Egyptian woman’
HE17 and HE40:
h-ḥḍr-y-t
‘the settled woman/the woman from Ḥḍr’
53 See
also Hayajneh (2001) for a discussion on this inscription.
form bʿly, followed by a toponym also occurs in Sabaic inscriptions but bʿly is always a
dual form in these (e.g. C 155; 457; Ja 559). I would like to thank Michael Macdonald for pointing
out the diference in number between the forms.
54 The
87
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Aside from the feminine marker -t, the suix can also be found on masculine
names. This means that the gender of the bearer of a particular name can only
be determined by features such as the patronyms (b ‘son’ or bt ‘daughter’) and
verbal agreement. Taymanitic masculine names with -t endings include:
JSTham 426:
mṣrt b
‘Mṣrt son of’’
IMA 2:
zʾbt b
‘Zʾbt son of’
TM.T. 042:
ḥnkt b
‘Ḥnkt son of’
WTay 33.1:
mntt nṣr
‘Mntt kept watch’
Gentilic suix -y The use of the gentilic suix -y is attested in two personal
names probably indicating the mother of the author of the text. The women
who are mentioned seem to have been named after the place from which they
came. Since there are only three examples of such names in the corpus, these
forms might have been personal names, not directly referencing a place of
origin anymore.
WTay 037:
----bdbwd b h-mṣr-y-t /ha-miṣriyyat/
‘{PN} son of the Egyptian woman’
HE 17; 40:
PN b h-ḥḍr-y-t
‘son of the settled woman/from ḥdr’
qattāl pattern In Esk 031 the noun rʿy ‘leader/shepherd’ seems to relect the
agentive qattāl pattern, /ra‘‘āy/.
Esk 031:
ʾs¹ b dmg / l ʾṣ{r/n} / hḍ{b}ʾ / {h/ḥ}{r}{ʿ}{y}
‘ʾs¹ son of Dmg to/for ʾṣr the soldier the chief’
The presence of the -y on h-rʿy indicates that it cannot have been the nominal form rāʿī ‘leader’ since Taymanitic orthography does not represent inal
vowels.
88
F. KOOTSTRA
Hypocoristic names All examples of diminutive forms in Taymanitic are
only attested in personal names, this makes it uncertain what the active linguistic devices to construct diminutives were in Taymanitic.
Suix -n The suix -n is commonly attested on personal names and could
have functioned as a diminutive.55
rttn (Esk 049)
s¹lmn (e.g. Esk 271)
ġnmn (Esk 017.2)
s²btn (Esk 006 and Esk 067)
rʾs¹n (e.g. Esk 081)
s³rbn (e.g. Esk 166.1)
< *rtt
< *s¹lm
< *ġnm
< *s²bt
< *rʾs¹
< *s³rb or *ṯrb
Suix -y There is one attestation of a suix -y on the name of an animal: rfty
(WTay 3).
This name is not attested elsewhere, but rft is (Harding 1971). The form rfty
is probably a hypocoristic name. Compare for example other personal names
with a hypocoristic -y: Phoen. klby, šlmy (Benz 1972: 235) Ug. pdry, rḥmy,
ʾarṣy56 (Tropper 2000: 283).
There may be one example of the diminutive fuʿayl pattern.
Esk 049:
kfrʾl / b ʾrs² / bny hṣy / b rb{.} // b rttn
‘kfrʾl son of ʾrs² little son of(?) Hṣy son of rb. son of Rttn’
The form bny might be a diminutive, but this reading is very uncertain. It
looks like part of the genealogy, however, there are no names attested with
the root hṣy (Harding 1971). Even if such names were attested we would still
be looking at an aberrant form bn for son in Taymanitic in the middle of a
genealogy in which the usual b forms are also used. Its position in the middle
of the genealogy also seems to rule out a possible reading as a tribal name,
banī, or a verb /banaya/ ‘to build’. Therefore the most plausible interpretation
of bny seems to be a diminutive form of b ‘son’, which could have been used
to indicate ‘little’ or ‘youngest’ son. This interpretation also faces some issues;
even though formerly unattested names are encountered every now and again,
a diminutive form of ‘son’ to indicate ‘youngest son of’ would be unique in the
widely attested phraseology of genealogies, to my knowledge.
55 Enclitic -n’s are also commonly found on personal names in the Aramaic inscriptions from
the Taymāʾ area. For the use of -n as a diminutive in other Semitic languages see Brockelmann
(1908-1913: 394). Hayajneh (1998: 21) mentions several other possible functions of -n on personal names: the creation of concrete nouns out of abstract ones; the markation of singulatives as
opposed to collective; and ascribing the quality of an adjective to a speciic individual, following
Goetze (1946: 130).
56 Even though Tropper considers it likely that these are hypocoristic feminine names, he discusses the -y suix as a feminine marker (Tropper 2000: 282-283).
89
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
2.4
2.4.1
Verbs
Form of the Suix Conjugation
The Taymanitic corpus is relatively small and the inscriptions are generally
short, therefore no full verbal paradigm is attested in the inscriptions. Most
inscriptions are written in the third person masculine singular. There are four
attestations of the irst person singular with a suix -t (Esk 169; JSTham 352);
Esk 052 and JSTham 403.
Esk 05257
lm
hkdl /
b
s³rbn /
b
lb /
b
ʿrt{m}ʾ /
LmA Hkdl WD son.CST S³rbn WD son.CST Lb WD son.CST ʿrt{m}ʾ WD
{y}rrt
guard.SC-1CS
‘by hkdl son of S³rbn son of lb son of ʿfyʾ, I guarded.’
Esk 169 [part]
ʾn
/
bbl
// ʾtw-t
mrdn /
{ḫ}lm
/
nbnd
/
mlk
/
IPRO.1CS WD Mrdn WD servant.CNST WD Nabonidus WD king.CNST WD
/
mʿ
/
rbs¹rs¹ /
Kyt
Babel LB come-SC.1CS WD with WD rbs¹rs¹ WD Kyt
‘I am Mrdn servant of Nabonidus king of Babylon, I came with chief
Kyt’
JSTham 352
b-ṣlm ntn-t
by-ṣlm give-SC.1CS
‘on behalf/by means of ṣlm, I have made an ofering’
II w/y In R²-weak verbs, the middle triphthong is not represented. Therefore
it seems that it collapsed to a long vowel: s³ġ ‘he opened’ (Esk 272) from the
root √s³wġ; ḥl (e.g. Esk 055) from the root √ḥwl (cf. section 2.5.1, pg. 94).
There is one attestation of a irst person singular form of the G-stem form
of ḥl.
JSTham 403:
Mr{ʾ}l{ṣ} // ḥlt
‘Mrʾlṣ, I was a soldier’
III w/y In R³-weak verbs, the inal glide is preserved in the G-stem (cf. paragraph 2.2.6 on inal triphthongs): rḍw ‘he was pleased’ (Esk 013).
57 For a discussion of the verb yrr ‘to guard, to watch’ see paragraph *w- > y- under Sound
changes.
90
F. KOOTSTRA
R² = R³ It is unclear whether forms like ḍrr (HE 39) and yrr-t (Esk 052) relect
the G-stem or the D-stem of these verbs, making it impossible to tell whether
Taymanitic treated its verbs from geminate roots as regular verbs from strong
roots, or whether the inal syllable was metathesized to create forms like for
example in CAr. (C¹vC²C²v).
2.4.2 Function of the Suix Conjugation
There are a few instances in Taymanitic in which the perfective is used with
an optative mood (For the ending -w in rḍw see section 2.2.6).
Esk 013:
rḍw ṣlm58
‘May Ṣalm be pleased’
2.4.3 Preix conjugation
There is only one attestation of a verb in the preix conjugation.
JSTham 549:
f ys²hd
‘so that it/he will bear witness (?)’
The form ys²hd occurs in a very short inscription, consisting of only a personal name and the phrase f ys²hd (the third line of JSTham 545+546+549),
providing no context to help determine the function or exact TAM features of
the verb.
All other attestations of forms that could formally be interpreted as preixconjugated verbs are personal names. Examples include yfrʿ (e.g. JSTham 426)
yʾrnl (Esk 014) and ykfrl (e.g. Esk 044.2).
2.4.4 Ininitive
There seem to be only three possible attestations of an ininitive in Taymanitic,
one of which is attested in an uncertain context.
Form Most of the attested forms of the ininitive are not distinguishable from
the third masculine singular perfective form in the consonantal script of Taymanitic. In these cases, the ininitive has to be deduced from its syntactic
context.
It seems that the ininitive could be used to denote a simultaneous action,
but the reading of the following text is open to several other interpretations
(cf. section 2.3.1).
58 Rḍw
might also be interpreted as a nominal form (I would like to thank one of the anonymous
reviewers for pointing this out); this seems less likely however, given the general structure of the
Taymanitic inscriptions, and the lack of a preposition or vocative particle in the inscription.
91
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
WTay 22
----lm b-ḍrr
ddn
in-war.INF Ddn
‘…lm in the wars of Dadan/by waging war against Dadan’
Cognate ininitive construction
initive is used for assertion.
In the following example the cognate in-
WTay 32
b----ʿ nṣr
l-ṣ[l]
<//> {m} nṣr
b----ʿ keep.watch.SC.3MS for-Ṣalm <LB>
hzb
keep.watch.INF strong.ADJ
‘b…ʿ kept watch vigilantly on behalf of Ṣalm’
While it may be tempting to interprate ʾḫr ʾḫrt in TA 02669.2 as a cognate ininitive construction as well, the interpretation of such a construction is
problematic.
TA 02669.1 + 02669.2
{----} ḥmd
---
b-hm
/
ʾ{ḫ}r
ʾ{ḫ}//rt
{ḥ}{l}{l}
/
glory.INF WD end.CST posterity.<LB> be.a.soldier.SC.3MS? WD
m-lmq
against-CPRO.3MP from-lmq
‘{----}glory until the end of posterity {having performed his duties as a
soldier} against them from Lmq(?)’
The interpretation of ʾḫr ʾḫrt as a cognate ininitive construction would render an interpretation of the verb ‘to retreat, go back’ with an etymological
object ‘he retreated quickly’, but writing about defeat does not seem to it an inscription beginning with the word ‘glory’. Instead it may be read as ‘the end of
posterity’ indicating that all of the descendants of the person being praised will
share in his glory. Compare ʾḫr for example to Arabic ʾāḫir ‘the last’ (Lane: 32a)
and ʾḫrt to Dadanitic ʾḫrt ‘ofspring’ (e.g. U6) or Nab. ʾḥr ‘posterity’ (Hoftijzer
& Jongeling 1995: 38).
fʿl + ininitive In the following examples the ininitive is indicated by the
use of the verb fʿl.
Esk 023, 026
fʿl
nk
do.SC.3MS smite.INF
‘he engaged in battle (lit. did (the) smiting)’
92
F. KOOTSTRA
TA 09302
ḥ{s³}y /
PN
b-ym
fʿl
/
ḥmd
/
l-ḥd-h
/
WD do.SC.3MS WD glory.INF WD for-guard.INF-CPRO.3MS WD
/
blbd
in-battle.CST WD blbd(?)
‘Ḥs³y attained glory by guarding the border during the battle of blbd’
Comparing the phrase fʿl ḥmd to fʿl nk ‘he engaged in battle’ in Esk 023 and
Esk 026, it would seem that fʿl ḥmd belongs to a similar light verb construction
‘he did X’. The second element ḥmd is an ininitive or verbal noun of the
common root, ḥmd ‘praise’ or ‘glory’ (e.g. Sab. ḥmd ‘praise, thankfulness, glory’
(Beeston et al. 1982: 68) or CAr. ḥamd ‘praise, eulogy, commendation’ (Lane
639b)). I would then suggest the translation ‘he attained glory’ (lit. he made
glory).
TA 0930359
----{l}y /
…
fʿl
/
r[ʾ]s¹
/
ḥm{d}
WD do.SC.3MS WD irst.CNST WD glory.INF
‘… attained foremost glory’
twy The form twy occurs ive times in the Taymanitic corpus as part of the
the phrase mn s¹mʿ l-Ṣlm l twy ‘whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish’ (WTay 1.2;
WTay 2; HE 24; HE 31; HE 41). Knauf (2011) already proposed the translation
‘whoever listens/is obedient to Ṣalm will not perish’, but does not ofer further
discussion on its grammatical structure.
Since the second root-consonant of middle weak verbs was not represented
in the Taymanitic G-stem of the suix conjugation (see paragraph on II w/y
verbs in section 2.4.1, pg. 90), twy probably represents a nominal form; possibly /tiwāy/. Compare for the construction lā + ininitive for example CAr. “lā
tawā ʿalā māli ʾamriyyin muslimin” ‘there shall be no perishing of the property
of a man that is a Muslim’ (Lane: 323c).
2.5 Verb stems
2.5.1 D-stem of geminate roots
The only verbs in which a D-stem could be visible are verbs with a weak second
consonant and in geminate verbs (cf. 2.4.1, pg. 91).
HE 3960
{ʾ}z ḍrr
ddn
{ʾ}z war.SC.3MS Ddn
‘{ʾ}z went to war (against) Dadan’
There are two other forms which could be interpreted as D-stem verbs; the
form ḥdd (WTay 12) and the widely attested form ḥll (16 times, e.g. Eskoubi
2007: no. 234; Esk 289; Esk 167).
59 For
60 Cf.
a complete discussion of the inscription see section 4.1.
section 2.3.1 for other possible interpretations of this form.
93
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
ḥdd The form ḥdd appears once in the corpus as a verbal form (but see note
on inscription TA 09302 in section 2.8.1, pg. 99). It should probably be read
as a D-stem of the verb in the suixing conjugation /ḥaddada/.
WTay 12
yʿzrl b
ḥ{g}{g} ḥdd
Yʿzrl son.CNST Ḥgg
l-ṣlm
be.a.border.guard.SC.3MS for-Ṣalm
‘Yʿzrl son of Ḥgg was a border guard for Ṣalm’
Winnett ofers the interpretation ‘Yʿzrl son of Ḥgg is keen for Ṣalm’ (Winnett
& Reed 1970: 100). The Translation ‘keen’ can be found in the Arabic lexicon
(compare also Heb. ḥdd ‘sharp’ and Akk. edēdu ‘to be sharp, pointed’ (HALOT:
291)). Given the military character of the rest of the corpus, I would suggest
a translation ‘to act as border guard/patrol’, based on the meaning ‘boundary
or edge’ of ḥdd (e.g. in Arabic, Lane: 524-526) seems more itting. If this
interpretation is correct this inscription would be similar to the nṣr l-Ṣlm ‘he
kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’ inscriptions.
II-weak roots - ḥll Generally ḥll is translated with its Arabic cognate ḥalla
‘to take up abode or settle somewhere’ (Lane: 620) or ‘to camp’ probably from
its primary meaning ‘to untie’ (cf. Lane) based on the idea of unpacking your
animals before settling for the night (e.g. Eskoubi 1999: 115). While it may be
argued that ḥll should be taken as a reference to an army setting up camp, this
meaning generally does not seem to it the sedentary environments of either
Taymāʾ or Dadan.
Even if we bleach the meaning of ḥll ‘to camp’ to ‘to stay’ the translation
seems problematic. The inscriptions do not work as the typical ‘X was here’
type of graiti, since we do not ind these inscriptions at Dadan. People seem
to have written them when they were close to Taymāʾ after ḥll-ing at Dadan.
It seems that a diferent root should be considered for the interpretation of
ḥll. I would suggest that the term derives from the root √ḥwl, cognate to Hebrew
ḥayl ‘armed forces, strength’ (HALOT: 311) (cf. CAr. ḥawl ‘strenth’ (Lane: 675c),
and Of. Aramaic and Palm. ‘force; armed foce, army’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling
1995: 369); Eth. ḫayala ‘to strengthen’ (HALOT: 311) from *ḫyl). The verb ḥll
could then be interpreted as a denominal verb in the D-stem ‘to serve in the
army, to be a soldier’.This meaning works well in the diferent environments
in which it is attested and it would place this phrase into the same tradition as
the inscriptions mentioning military ranks (e.g. Esk 031), and military duties
like nṣr ‘to guard’ (e.g. HE 32) and ḥdd ‘to guard the border’ (Wtay 12).61
Considering the use of Aramaic among the ruling elite of Taymāʾ, ḥll might
be considered a loan formation from Aramaic, along with other military terms
such as nṭr (Esk 025) and the rendering of the military term rbs¹rs¹ in the Taymanitic script (Esk 169). This would explain why the root appears in Taymanitic as ḥyl instead of *ḫyl. If this interpretation is correct, Taymanitic seems
to have formed the D-stem forms of its II-weak roots by reduplicating its inal
consonant, instead of the middle weak one, similar to Hebrew. Compare for example Heb. qômēm ‘he raised up’ (from √qwm) (Joüon & Muraoka 2009: 198) to
61 For
a complete discussion of the interpretation of the ḥll forms see section 4.7.
94
F. KOOTSTRA
CAr. qawwama-hu ‘he made it straight’ (from √qwm) (Lane: 2995b). The reduplication in the D-stem formation could have been a native feature if only the
noun ḥwl ‘army’ was borrowed, which then formed the base for a denominal
verb formation following native morphological processes.
The semantic diference between the G-stem form of this verb (ḥl) and the
D-stem (ḥll) remains unclear. Both ḥl and ḥll forms appear in identical contexts.
Esk 055:
lm rḥml / b bs¹rt / ḥl / b ddn
‘by Rḥml son of Bs¹rt he was a soldier at/against Dadan’
Esk 104:
lm ʾs²{w/ṭ} [sign] b d b lḥd // ḥll b-ddn
‘by ʾs²{w/ṭ} [sign] b d son of Lḥd he was a soldier at/against Dadan’
The D-stem could possibly have an intensive meaning ‘to be a soldier for
a longer period of time/repeatedly’ or there could be no semantic diference
between them at all (compare CAr. balaḥa and ballaḥa ‘to be weary, tired’ or
jadala and jaddala ‘to throw out, topple’ (Corriente 2004: 40-41 after Kazimirski
1860)).
2.6 Adverbs
The most common adverbial forms in Taymanitic are nouns used as temporal
adverbs: s¹nt ‘year’ and yrḫ ‘month’. One adverbial phrase is attested.
2.6.1 Temporal adverbs
WTay 2062
bhs²rkt nṣr
ddn yr{ḫ}
b-ḍr
l-ṣlm
Bhs²rkt keep.watch.SC.3MS in-war.CNST Ddn month.ADV for-Ṣalm
‘Bhs²rkt kept watch during the war of Dadan for a month on behalf of
Ṣalm’
HE 3263
S³ʿl /
b
ʿlw /
nṣr
/
s¹nt
/
l-ṣlm
S³ʿl WD son.CNST ʿlw WD keep.watch.SC.3MS WD year.ADV WD for-Ṣalm
‘S³ʿl son of ʿlw kept watch for a year on behalf of Ṣalm’
62 For
the interpretation of the verb nṣr as ‘to guard’ see paragraph 2.2.3.
battles would likely not have lasted a whole month or even a year, these inscriptions
might indicate that there was some sort of military service in Taymāʾ for which one could serve set
periods of time. On the other hand, all nṣr inscriptions are found either at an ancient watch tower
called Bani Manṭar ʿAtiyah, or at a place called Jabal Ghunaym, which would also have made a
good look out place. This could mean that the periods of time mentioned in the inscriptions refer
to the time someone would be stationed at one of these watch posts (I would like to thank Michael
Macdonald for pointing this out to me).
63 Since
95
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
2.6.2 Adverbial phrases
The only attested adverbial phrase in Taymanitic is a cognate object construction. This is a very common construction in, for example, Arabic: iqtatalū
qatalan šadīdan ‘they fought with one another a hard ight’ (Wright & Caspari
1859: Part III, 56 par. 26B rem.a.).
WTay 32
l-ṣ[l]{m} nṣr
b----ʿ nṣr
hzb
b----ʿ keep.watch.SC.3MS for-Ṣalm keep.watch.INF strong.ADJ
‘b…ʿ he kept watch vigilantly on behalf of Ṣalm’
2.6.3
Negation
The negative adverb l, probably /lā/, is attested in the following common expression.
HE 2464
w
mn
s¹mʿ
l-ṣlm
l
twy
CONJ REL.INDF listen.SC.3MS to-Ṣalm NEG perish.INF
‘and whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish’
2.7
2.7.1
Pronouns
Personal pronouns
Independent personal pronouns The only attested independent personal
pronoun is the irst person singular: ʾn.
Esk 169 (line 1):
ʾn / mrdn / {ḫ}lm / nbnd /mlk / bbl
‘I am Mrdn, servant of Nabonidus king of Babel’
Esk 025:
{ʾ}n ʾ{n/r}ds¹ / s¹{s¹}n / mlk / bbl / n{ṭ}rt
‘I am ʾnds¹ oicial of(?) the king of Babylon, I kept watch’
Enclitic personal pronouns An only slightly wider range of enclitic forms
of the personal pronouns are attested.
Singular:
Plural:
64 Translation
{ʾ}s³r-h
b-hm
‘his captivity’ (Esk 272)
‘with them(?)’ (TA 02669.1)
after Knauf (2011). For a discussion of the phrase l twy see section 2.4.4, pg. 93.
96
F. KOOTSTRA
2.7.2 Demonstrative/Relative pronouns
Demonstrative A distal form of the demonstrative znk is attested in the following inscription:
WTay 3
nṣr /
b
ʿgl /
hlk
/
znk
rfty /
nṣr WD son.CNST ʿgl WD go.SC.3MS WD DEM.SG.DIST rfty WD
h-rkb
DEF.ART-riding.camel
‘Nṣr son of ʿgl died, that is Rfty the riding camel’
If the phrase znkrfty would be parsed as zn krfty this would be the only
attestation of a zn demonstrative. Instead, based on the name following it, this
should probably be read as a distal form znk ‘that’ rather than ‘this’. Compare
other demonstratives with a -k element: Biblical Aramaic (dēk), Geʾez (zeku)
(Hasselbach 2007: 1). Moreover, the name krfty would be very diicult to
parse, whereas the name rft is an attested name in Taymanitic and Qatabanic
(Harding 1971), probably from the word rīf ‘countryside’ (CAr.). The inal –y
could be a diminutive (see section 2.3.3, pg. 89).
Relative Taymanitic had a z-based relative pronoun. The relative seems to
decline for number; there is no evidence for a feminine relative. Relative pronouns are mostly attested in combination with the locative preposition b- ‘here;
in these, with these’ or in combination with the verb ḥll ‘against these’.
The plural form zy is attested in the following inscriptions:
Esk 083 [part]
ʾl
/
b-zy
ṣlm
strength WD with-REL.PL.CNST Ṣalm
‘Strength is with those of Ṣalm’
Esk 058
lm ṣmdʿ /
b
ṣmnʿm /
b
s³rbn /
LA ṣmdʿ WD son.CNST ṣmnʿm WD son.CNST S³rbn WD
ḥll
b-zy
ḫyr {l}-ddn
be.a.soldier.SC.3M.SG against-REL.PL.CNST good in-Dadan
‘by Ṣmdʿ son of Ṣmnʿm son of S³rbn he acted as a soldier against those
who aided Dadan’
Al-Anṣāry 35
lm wdd /
b
lḥm /
ḥll
/
LA Wdd WD son.CNST Lḥm WD be.a.soldier.SC.3MS WD
b-z{y}
s²nʾ
/
ʿm
ṣlm
against-REL.PL.CNST enmity.CNST WD people .CNST Ṣalm
‘by Wdd son of Lḥm he acted as a soldier against those of enmity
of/against the people of Ṣalm’
97
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Hayajneh (2011) interprets bzy s²nʾ as ‘in this (time of) enmity’ Hayajneh
(2011: 765), with zy as a singular demonstrative. He explains the -y as possibly representing case inlection due to the preceding preposition (Hayajneh
2009b: 83). Since Taymanitic orthography did not represent vowels, this seems
unlikely. If zy is interpreted as a plural form, on the other hand, the inal -y
comes either from the dual or genitive form and probably represents a diphthong. Compare also Esk 083 (part), in which zy clearly functions as a plural relative. For a complete discussion of the diferent interpretations see AlAnṣāry 35 in section 4.7.
Indeinite relative The indeinite relative mn is attested in the formula mn
s¹mʿ l-ṣlm l twy ‘whoever obeys Ṣalm, will not perish’ (e.g. WTay 1.2) in which
it functions as the subject of the sentence.
2.8
Prepositions
2.8.1 b-
The preposition b- is used as both a spacial and temporal locative and it could be
used as a benefactive. Together with the verb ḥll it can also indicate opposition
‘against’.
Locative or indicating opposition
Esk 103 [line 2]
b-ddn
ḥll
be.a.soldier.SC.3MS in-Dadan
‘He was a soldier at/against Dadan’
Al-Anṣāry 35
lm wdd /
b
lḥm /
ḥll
/
LA Wdd WD son.CNST Lḥm WD be.a.soldier.SC.3MS WD
b-z{y}
s²nʾ
/
ʿm
ṣlm
against-REL.PL.CNST enmity.CNST WD people.CNST Ṣalm
‘by Wdd son of Lḥm he acted as a soldier against those of enmity
of/against the people of Ṣalm’
The name of the oasis Dadan (ddn) is widely attested in the inscriptions, and
there is little doubt about its meaning. It is unclear from the context of this
formula however whether the preposition should be interpreted as a locative
‘he was a soldier at Dadan’; or to indicate the enemy against whom the soldiers
were deployed65 ‘he acted as a soldier against Dadan’.
65 Depending on the interpretation of the preposition the inscriptions may even be interpreted
as Taymanitic men signing up for the Dadanitic army, although that seems unlikely.
98
F. KOOTSTRA
Comitative Close to the locative function, when used referring to people bmay have a comitative meaning. The interpretation of the last part of the
phrase is very unsure however.
TA 02669.1 [part]
{ḥ}{l}{l}
/
b-hm
m-lmq
be.a.soldier.SC.3MS WD with-CPRO.3MP(?) from-Lmq(?)
‘he was as a soldier with them(?) from Lmq(?)’
Temporal The reading of the following two examples is unsure in places, but
they both seem to use b- followed by a noun to indicate ‘at a time’.
TA 09302
ḥ{s³}y /
Ḥs³y
b-ym
fʿl
/
ḥmd /
l-ḥd-h
/
WD make.SC.3MS WD glory WD by-border.guard-CPRO.3MS WD
/
blbd
in-battle WD blbd(?)
‘Ḥs³y attained glory by guarding the border during the battle of blbd’
TM.T. 041
ḥll
b-s¹nt // …
be.a.soldier.SC.3MS in-year LB …
‘he was a soldier in (the) year…(?)’
Benefactive or instrumental In the following inscription the exact meaning
of b- remains open to interpretation. It could be used as a benefactive, to
express doing something for, or on behalf of someone else, or possibly as an
instrumental to indicate that the deity made the ofering possible.
JSTham 352
b-ṣlm
ntn-t
for-Ṣalm give-.SC.1CS
‘by Ṣalm I have made an ofering’
2.8.2 mThe preposition m-, which is probably an assimilated form of the preposition
*mn ‘from’, is only attested twice and both times in an unsure context.
TA 02669.1 [part]
{ḥ}{l}{l}
/
m-lmq
b-hm
be.a.soldier.SC.3MS WD with-CPRO.3MP(?) from-Lmq(?)
‘he was a soldier with them(?) from Lmq(?)’
WTay 9.2 [part]
----m m-s¹mw
…m from-S¹mw(?)
‘… from S¹mw ((tribal) name)(?)’
99
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
2.8.3 lThe preposition l- is used both as a benefactive when used with the verb nṣr ‘to
guard’ and it can be used to introduce a dative. It is also attested introducing
a dative in combination with the transitive verb s¹mʿ ‘to listen’. In TA 09302
l- is used with an instrumental meaning.
Benefactive
HE 25
l-ṣlm
nṣr
keep.watch.SC.3MS for-Ṣalm
‘he kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’
Dative
WTay 2
mn
s¹mʿ
l-ṣlm
REL.INDF listen.SC.3MS to-Ṣalm
‘Whoever obeys Ṣalm’
Instrumental
TA 09302
ḥ{s³}y /
Ḥs³y
b-ym
fʿl
/
ḥmd /
l-ḥd-h
/
WD make.SC.3MS WD glory WD by-border.guard-CPRO.3MS WD
/
blbd
in-battle WD blbd(?)
‘Ḥs³y attained glory by guarding the border during the battle of blbd’
2.8.4 kThe preposition k- seems to have been used as an instrumental. It is only
attested once, in the following inscription, where it is used to indicate ‘by
means of surrounding (it)’
Esk 272 [part]:
nʿml / b lbd // hrg / ddn {/} ʾl wnʿ // s³ġ {b}-h k-dwrt
‘Nʿml son of Lbd the destroyer of Dadan66 of the lineage of Wnʿ; he took the
town by surrounding (it)’
66 The translation of this phrase ‘destroyer of Dedan’ was proposed by Macdonald (Macdonald
& Al-Najem forthcoming: appendix 1).
100
F. KOOTSTRA
2.8.5 mʿ
This preposition is only attested once in the following inscription with a comitative meaning.
Esk 169 (line 2)
ʾtw-t
mʿ rbs¹rs¹ kyt
come-.SC.1CS with chief
‘I came with chief Kyt’
kyt
Note that the Taymanitic preposition mʿ resembles CAr. maʿa ‘with’ and not
the more commonly found form ʿm (e.g. Sab. ʿm; Heb. ʿim; Aramaic ʿim; Syr.
ʿam (Brockelmann 1908-1913: vol. I, 498) Ug. ʿm (Pardee 2008: 27)). It is
unclear how these forms relate to each other exactly.67
2.8.6 l(m) auctoris
Many of the Taymanitic inscriptions begin with an introductory particle l- or
lm-, also called the lam auctoris (LA or LmA respectively in glosses). Almost
all Safaitic inscriptions and some Hismaic inscriptions also begin with this particle (Macdonald 2008: 209-2010). The lm- variant is unique to Taymanitic
(Winnett 1980: 135-136).
The introductory particle has been connected to the preposition l-, which
can also indicate authorship ‘by’ in Arabic (Macdonald 2008: 209). It has been
suggested that the characteristic m of the Taymanitic variant might be connected to Hebrew ləmō (< */li-mā/(?)) which occurs in the book of Job, a
text often connected to Northern Arabia because of its many linguistic oddities
(Guillaume 1963 and Hofman 1996). The m is probably an enclitic –m also
found in other Semitic languages (e.g. Wright & Caspari 1859: vol. I paragraph
70 Rem F, paragraph 84 Rem a; Gianto 2011: 37).
There is some uncertainty about the meaning of this particle l(m)-. It is
generally interpreted as a lam auctoris to indicate authorship, and translated
as ‘by’ (e.g. Macdonald 2008: 209; Winnett & Reed 1970: 96). However, there
are contexts in which a translation ‘by’ does not work; inscriptions that are
part of burial cairns (e.g. WH 329, 938, 1936, 3420) and tomb inscriptions
(e.g. the tomb inscriptions at Dayr al-Kahf, Macdonald 2006) are also introduced by a particle l- (Macdonald 2006: 294-295). In these cases it is unlikely
that the name on the inscription was also its author, as this type of texts is
more likely to commemorate the deceased for whom the grave was built than
its builder (Eksell 2002: 115). In these cases a translation ‘for’ seems more
appropriate. Based on examples from bilingual Safaitic-Greek inscriptions and
a longer narrative Safaitic inscription, Al-Jallad (2015) demonstrates how the
introductory particle can be used for diferent purposes; sometimes with a clear
commemorative function, yet other times simply as a reference to the author of
the inscription (Al-Jallad 2015: 5-6). Given the range of meanings in diferent
contexts Macdonald (2006: 294-5) proposed to leave the particle untranslated
in the cases where it is mainly introducing the subject of the inscription.
67 It
has been proposed that the ʿm forms come from ʿam(m) ‘people’ or ʿamma ‘to be common’
Lipiński 1997: 465-466) or possibly Akkadian /ʿimm/ ‘gemeinschaft’ (Tropper 2000: 263) and that
the Arabic preposition is a metathesized form (Lipiński 1997: 465-466).
101
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Currently there are six known Taymanitic burial inscriptions (TM.T 016;
019; 025; 028; 037 and 042) all of which begin with l-,68 while inscriptions
that do not mention the name or subject of the inscription consistently occur
without an introductory particle. On top of that, one inscription with an introductory particle has been attested, which was probably written by the person
giving his name at the beginning. It is an inscription with a verb in the irst
person singular which starts with lm (Esk 052). Therefore it would seem that in
Taymanitic indication of authorship seems to have been the main function of
the lam auctoris. On the other hand, all types of inscriptions that do start with
a personal name also occur without lam auctoris. This seems to indicate that
it can also be left untranslated (as suggested by Macdonald 2006: 295). For
the sake of completion however, I would propose to translate the introductory
particles that are expressed in the inscriptions as ‘by’, except in cases where the
author clearly could not have been the person mentioned in the inscription, as
would be the case for the burial inscriptions mentioned above.
The particles l- and lm- seem to exist in free variation in Taymanitic. Both
introductory particles (l- and lm-) and the lack of an introductory particle do
not seem to be restricted to speciic contexts. As an exception to this, there are
two types of inscriptions which systematically occur without an introductory
particle: those that do not mention a personal name; and the nṣr l-ṣlm inscriptions, regardless of whether a name is given or not and in what position in the
inscription the name is mentioned.
2.9
2.9.1
Conjunctions
w-
The conjunction w- ‘and’ can be used to introduce verbal clauses after the statement of the author’s name.
TM.T. 012
----{b/s¹/k} ʿd b tyr /
…s¹d
son tyr WD CONJ-listen(?).SC.3MS
w-ṣmʿ
‘… s¹d son of Tyr, and he listened’
2.9.2
f-
Conjunction f- signiies a resultative relation, similar to its usage in, for example, CAr (Lane: 2321b).
Kim CIMG 0759, line 3
w
bḥs²
/
f
ydʿ
/
{ʾ}ns¹
and examine.SC.3MS WD and know.SC.3MS WD Mankind
‘… and he examined and (so) he knew mankind’
68 I
would like to thank Michael Macdonald for pointing out these important inscriptions to me.
102
F. KOOTSTRA
2.10 Syntax
2.10.1 Nominal sentences
Equational sentences can be expressed by a verbless clause, as in most Semitic
languages.
Esk 169 (line 1):
ʾn / mrdn / {ḫ}lm / nbnd /mlk / bbl
‘I am Mrdn, servant of Nabonidus king of Babel’
WTay 3 (part):
znk rfty /h- rkb
‘that is Rfty the riding camel’
Nominal sentences can also be used to express existential clauses.
Esk 083 (part):
ʾl / b-zy ṣlm
‘Strength is with those of Ṣalm’
2.10.2 Verbal sentences
Basic word-order Most Taymanitic inscriptions have an SVO word order.
HE 39
{ʾ}z ḍrr
ʾz
ddn {w}
war.SC.3MS Ddn CONJ(?)
‘ʾz went to war (against) Dadan and(?)’
This seems to be the result of the structure of the inscriptions, which usually
begin by stating authorship. There is one inscription in which the subject of
the verb is mentioned separately from the author, in which VS order is used,
hinting that this was probably the unmarked word order in Taymanitic.
Esk 01369
<l> l
bʾrl rḍw
ṣlm
<l> LA Bʾrl please.SC.3MS Ṣalm
‘By Bʾrl, may Ṣalm be pleased’
Topicalization Aside from the topicalization of the subject when it is equal
to the author, there is one common formula in which the subject is consistently
fronted.
69 Translation
as proposed by Macdonald (db).
103
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
WTay 2
lm /
hbʾl b
mn
ʿgl /
s¹mʿ
l-
ṣlm
LA WD Hbʾl son.CNST ʿgl WD REL.INDF listen.SC.3MS to-Ṣalm NEG
l
perish.INF
tw[y]
‘by Hbʾl son of ʿgl, whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish’
Generally Taymanitic is relatively free in its word order and it seems that
any constituent can be fronted. Compare the following two inscriptions, each
with a prepositional phrase.
WTay 12
yʿzrl b
l-ṣlm
ḥ{g}{g} ḥdd
Yʿzrl son.CNST Ḥgg
be.a.border.guard.SC.3MS for-Ṣalm
‘yʿzrl son of Ḥgg was a border guard for Ṣalm’
JSTham 352
b-ṣlm
ntn-t
for-Ṣalm give-.SC.1CS
‘on behalf of Ṣalm I gave’
There are other examples in which diferent parts of the more regular formula are mixed up. The following example might actually represent the spoken
word order more closely.
Esk 01370
<l> l
bʾrl rḍw
ṣlm
<l> LA Bʾrl please.SC.3MS Ṣalm
‘By Bʾrl may Ṣalm be pleased’
The following inscription is another example in which even parts of a formula are interrupted by the name of the author.
WTay 15
nṣr
l-ṣlm
ʿrm b
fs¹ḥ b-
ḍr
keep.watch.SC.3MS for-Ṣalm ʿrm son.CNST Fs¹ḥ in-war.CNST Nbyt
nbyt
‘he kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm, ʿrm son of Fs¹ḥ, in the war of Nabaioth’
3
Taymanitic in its Semitic context
3.1
Discussion
In the following, Taymanitic will be deined based on a set of linguistic features
speciic to the language of the Taymanitic inscriptions. Taymanitic’s relevant
linguistic features will then be placed in a wider Semitic context and an attempt
will be made to determine the relation between Taymanitic and its surrounding
70 Translation
as proposed by Macdonald (db).
104
F. KOOTSTRA
languages. Special attention will be given to the relation between Taymanitic
and other ANA varieties in order to review some of the general assumptions
concerning the linguistic make-up of ANA.
3.1.1 Taymanitic innovations
Merging of the fricatives There are a few phonological traits which distinguish Taymanitic from other linguistic varieties written in ANA scripts. Most
descriptions of Taymanitic mention that it uses all three PS non-emphatic sibilants (Macdonald 1991: 16-17; Winnett & Reed 1970: 96). These are generally
transcribed as s¹ for PS *[s], s² for PS *[ɬ] and s³ for PS *[ts͡ ]. Instead, the
dental fricative series seems to have merged with their sibilant counterparts,
giving Taymanitic a system in which s³ represents both *ṯ and *s³.
ḏ; z
ṯ; s³
ẓ (*ṯ)̣ ; ṣ
>z
> s³
>ṣ
Regardless of the phonetic value of s³ and ṯ, their merger sets the phonemic
inventory of Taymanitic apart from both NWS and Arabic; Arabic merged s¹
and s³, Ugaritic s¹ and s², and Aramaic s² and s³ (Gzella 2011: 433). The same
applies to the merger of ṯ ̣ and ṣ; Arabic kept both apart, Ugaritic merged the
emphatic counterparts of *s² (*ṣ́) and *s³ (*ᵗṣ) to ṣ, whereas Hebrew merged
the entire emphatic series (*ṣ́, *ᵗṣ and *ṯ)̣ to ṣ.
Conditioned assimilation of l and n to following consonants Another feature that characterizes Taymanitic is the conditioned assimilation of l and
n to following consonants in unstressed position (see paragraph 2.2.6 on Nassimilation (pg. 83) and L-assimilation (pg. 84). This sound change gives
Taymanitic its characteristic b form (instead of bn) for ‘son’, for example. One
of the minor features of NWS is a general assimilation of n to any following
consonant (e.g. Gzella 2011: 432).
3.1.2 Taymanitic and Northwest Semitic
Aside from the features discussed above, which are speciically Taymanitic,
there are three linguistic features that could connect Taymanitic to NWS. The
irst is the sound change of word-initial *w- > y-, with the exclusion of the
conjunction /wa-/ ‘and’ (Gzella 2011: 432). This sound change is attested in
three lexical items: Yrḫ (WTay 20) ‘month’ < *wrḫ; the verb ydʿ (Kim CIMG
0759. Tay (unpublished)) ‘he knew’ < *wdʿ and yrr (Esk 053) ‘he guarded’ <
*wry.
One form might even point towards a shared morphological innovation between NWS and Taymanitic. The phrase ʾ{s¹} {b}ʿly tmʾ (Kim CIMG 0759. Tay
(unpublished)) ‘chief of the residents of Taymāʾ’ seems to contain a construct
plural similar to that in Canaanite and Aramaic which replaced their bound
masculine plural ending –ī with –ay (> -ē in Hebrew and Aramaic) as in Hebrew malkē ‘kings of’ (Gzella 2011: 440). The phrase ‘bʿly + place name’ is
also found in two Aramaic inscriptions (Cowley 1923: No. 30²² and Teixidor
105
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
1978: 182). The fact that a similar phrase occurs elsewhere and that it may
have had a legal function to do with ownership rights,71 could indicate that this
is a loan-phrase in Taymanitic, as the language used for oicial purposes at the
oasis, at least during Nabonidus’ stay, seems to have been Aramaic (Macdonald
2010: 11). Finally, bʿly could also relect a plural ending –āy and simply relect a Taymanitic plural suix. This may be compared to Sabaic, where the
masculine plural suix on oblique forms is –y (Stein 2003: 82), giving us a
construction which looks orthographically the same.
Lastly, if my interpretation of ḥll is correct, then Taymanitic forms the Dstems of II-w/y roots by reduplicating the third consonant of the root as can be
seen in the form ḥll ‘to be or act as a soldier’ from the root √ḥwl (e.g. Esk 104).
This strategy is similar to that used in Hebrew (Joüon & Muraoka 2009: 198).
These three isoglosses are the only features which could be used to establish
a genetic ailiation between Taymanitic and any of its surrounding languages.
As there are no further distinguishable features to be found in Taymanitic that
would establish such a connection more closely, a discussion of some features
that could disprove a close ailiation between Taymanitic and NWS is in order.
One of the NWS innovations is its system of plural formation in which
nouns with the form CVCC (qitl, qatl, qutl) get an a inserted between the two
last consonants and a plural suix, leaving them essentially doubly marked
(Huehnergard 1995: 2129). The innovation of this system of plural marking
also entailed the loss of broken plurals (Huehnergard 1995: 2129). As the Taymanitic scripts is purely consonantal, it is impossible to see whether it had
the same type of doubly marked plural formation as NWS, but among the few
plural nouns that are found in the corpus, there are no clear examples of any
broken plurals. The form ḍrr, which is attested in WTay 22 and He39, could be
interpreted as a broken plural /ḍurūr/ ‘wars’ in WTay 22. However, it occurs
in one of the standard Taymanitic formulae which in all other cases reads: b-ḍr
ddn (e.g. WTay 20 and WTay 21) ‘in the war of Dadan’. Because of the formulaic nature of the texts, the form ḍrr is likely a writing error. Even if ḍrr was
written deliberately there are many explanations other than a broken plural
to account for its form. As we do not know the word’s vocalization, it might
have been an ininitive ‘while/by warring Dadan’, or even another construct
plural, with /a/ insertion, as diphthongs do not seem to have been written
consistently: /bi-dararay Dadān/ ‘in the wars of Dadan’ (see section 2.1.1).
Another obstacle to connecting Taymanitic to NWS that has been suggested
is the lack of general n-assimilation to following consonants, which is sometimes mentioned as one of the shared features of NWS (e.g. Gzella 2011: 432).
However, since the core-NWS languages were in close geographic contact, it
is impossible to say if n-assimilation was in fact a feature of Proto-NWS, or
simply an areal feature that spread after the diversiication of the branch. If
Taymanitic was a variety of NWS, then it could have seperated rather early
and may not have been afected by the spread of this feature.
71 Land ownership and the status as resident of a city often came with certain rights and priviledges in ancient Mesopotamian cities (Oppenheim 1969: 15)
106
F. KOOTSTRA
3.1.3 Taymanitic in relation to Old Arabic72
As all of ANA has traditionally been closely associated with Arabic, the features
Taymanitic shares with NWS are quite unexpected. Moreover, there are several
Arabic innovations that Taymanitic clearly did not undergo. It did not undergo
the inal –at > –ah shift which Arabic did, in its unbound forms. In addition
to this, Taymanitic seems to have preserved the –iwa ending in its stative verbs
and did not change them into -iya as happened in Arabic (cf. rḍw ‘may he
please’ e.g. Esk 13). Other Arabic isoglosses are diicult to evaluate, as there
is no context in the Taymanitic inscriptions for most of them.73
3.2 Conclusion
To sum up, Taymanitic underwent two very typical phonological innovations,
the merger of the dental fricatives with their sibilant counterparts and a stressbased assimilation of l and n to following consonants. These indicate that the
language expressed in the Taymanitic script can be regarded as an independent language variety. Three linguistic features attested in Taymanitic could
point to an ailiation with NWS; one of which (the sound change *w- > y) forms the primary argument for the classiication of Amorite as part of the
NWS branch. Even though none of these features are conclusive, there is no
evidence which rules out a NWS ailiation. Moreover, there are several (Proto)Arabic innovations that Taymanitic did not undergo, which seems to rule out
a close ailiation with Arabic and the other two better understood ANA varieties, Hismaic and Safaitic. Also, Taymanitic has some features that rule out
considering it a form of proto-Arabic despite its early attestation, such as its
merging of the sibilant and interdental series; the changing of initial w- to yand several other innovations that Arabic did not undergo.
It has to be kept in mind that a linguistic comparison is complicated by
the fact that not all deining features of either Arabic or NWS can be found in
Taymanitic, and that the NWS features found in Taymanitic could also be explained as contact induced changes (if we were to interpret the sound-change
*w- > y- as an areal feature, and the one clear example of a construct plural
with –y as a loan phrase), so all these data should be evaluated with caution.
Even though the data are not conclusive, it is clear that Taymanitic script expressed a distinct linguistic variety that is not Arabic and not closely related
to Hismaic or Safaitic, while it can tentatively be suggested that it was more
closely related to NWS.
72 Hismaic and Safaitic are considered to be forms of Old Arabic here, following Al-Jallad
(2015: 11) see the discussion of internal ANA relations in section 1. Introduction (note 7).
73 For an overview of Arabic isoglosses see: Huehnergard (forthcoming) and Al-Jallad
(2015: 12).
107
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
4
4.1
Inscriptions
Monumental Inscriptions
TA 09302:
ḥ{s³}y / fʿl / ḥmd / l-ḥd-h / b-ym / blbd
‘Ḥs³y attained glory by guarding the border in the battle of blbd’
This inscription should probably be read in relation to two other inscriptions,
TA 09303 and TA 02669.1 + 02669.2. TA 09303 was found in the same wall
of a building as TA 09302 in which they were probably used secondarily as
building material (Macdonald forthcoming); all three inscriptions were deeply
inscribed on what seem to be smooth prepared surfaces, which is quite rare
for Taymanitic inscriptions. Given their strong similarity in style it may not
be a coincidence that all three contain the word ḥmd which occurs only in two
other inscriptions as a personal name in the corpus, and that in two of the three
inscriptions ḥmd seems to be part of the phrase fʿl ḥmd which seems to mean
‘to attain praise/glory’.
For a discussion of the phrase fʿl ḥmd see the paragraph on fʿl + ininitive
2.4.4, pg. 92.
The form ḥd is interpreted here as a nominal form from the root ḥdd, which
we ind in WTay 12 as a verb ‘to act as a border guard’ (compare CAr. ḥadd
‘limit or boundary of a land or territory’ (Lane: 525b)). The suixed pronoun
speciies that the author of the inscription attained glory through his actions
as a border guard (lit. his guarding of the border). The preposision l- should
be interpreted as an instrumental here. For the discussion of the verb ḥdd see
section 2.5.1, pg. 94.
Given the content of the rest of the inscription, and the general military
character of the Taymanitic inscriptions, I would suggest to interpret ym as
‘battle’ here (see also Macdonald forthcoming). Compare for example CAr.
yawm ‘battle’ or ʾayyāmu l-ʿarabi ‘conlicts of the Arabs’(Lane: 3064c).
TA 09303:
----{l}y / fʿl / r[ʾ]s¹ / ḥm{d}
‘…(?) attained foremost glory’
The form r[ʾ]s¹ is interpreted here as standing in construct with the ininitive
ḥmd, indicating that the author or dedicant of the inscription achieved ‘irst or
foremost glory’. Compare e.g. the usage of raʾs in CAr. as ‘the principal or most
essential part of something’ or raʾsu s-sanati ‘the beginning or irst day of the
year’ (Lane: 995c).
The lack of the ʾ in the inscription is likely a writing error, as the glottal stop
is generally represented in the orthography. If this inscription is compared to
the similar phrase fʿl ḥmd in TA 09302, an interpretation of r[ʾ]s¹ in construct
with ḥmd, qualifying the kind of praise or glory seems to work very well. If
the glottal stop was really dropped in this position it might indicate that there
was a conditioned environment in which this happened in Taymanitic. Based
on the available evidence at the moment it is not clear what this conditioning
environment would be.
108
F. KOOTSTRA
TA 02669.1 + 02669.2
{----} ḥmd
---
b-hm
/
ʾ{ḫ}r
ʾ{ḫ}//rt
{ḥ}{l}{l}
/
glory.INF WD end.CST posterity.<LB> Be.a.soldier.SC.3MS? WD
m-lmq
against-CPRO.3MP(?) from-lmq
‘{----} glory until the end of posterity {having performed his duties as
a soldier} against them from Lmq(?)’
Macdonald (forthcoming) reads the irst line and the irst two letters of
the second line as a separate inscription from the rest of line 2, based on the
diference in carving technique. The middle line of the ḥ is deeply incised
like all the letters before it however, the two small lines coming out of the
middle are not as deeply carved, similar to the rest of the following glyphs.
This seems to suggest that the shallow lines were the draft of the inscription,
which was simply not inished for some reason. The fact that the ḥ contains
both techniques seems to support this idea.
Following the uninished ḥ two vertical lines are clearly visible, each with
a hook on its top. The irst vertical line might have a zigzag at its bottom, but
this might be damage. Since the glyph following the word divider is a b, a
reading ḥll b-… seems appropriate, as this is one of the well known formulae
used in the Taymanitic inscriptions.
For a discussion of the phrase ʾḫr ʾḫrt and a possible alternative interpretation see the paragraph on cognate ininitive constructions in section 2.4.4, pg.
92.
The translation of the inal phrase is very unsure. For the interpretation of
ḥll see section 2.5.1, pg. 94.
4.2 fʿl nk inscriptions
Esk 026:
Lb{ʾ/s¹}m / b n{ʾ}dr / fʿl / nk
‘Lb{ʾ/s¹}m son of N{ʾ}dr engaged in battle’
The left leg of the ʾ in the second personal name in Esk 026 nʾdr is curved and
sticks out above the horizontal stroke of the letter, rendering its interpretation
somewhat unsure.
The inscriptions with the phrase fʿl nk have previously been translated as
‘he had intercourse’ (Eskoubi 1999: 72 and 75). A seemingly similar phrase
is attested in the Hismaic inscriptions (transcription and translation following
King 1990).
KJA 24:
L-ġṯlh w rb s¹qm s²rr b-ġlmt f nkh s¹rr
‘by ġṯlh; and a young girl feels sickness of happiness and he had sex with her
happily’
109
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
KJA 6:
Nk rhs¹ ʿzz w nyk
‘Rhs¹ had sex with ʿzz (or a loved one) and made love repeatedly’
In these inscriptions, however, the woman involved is often explicitly mentioned as well, whereas they are completely missing in the Taymanitic context.
In addition to this, there are several formulae in Hismaic expressing emotions
and loving people, e.g. wdd ‘to love’ (e.g. KJC 120) and inscriptions mentioning
s¹qm ‘sickness’ (e.g. KJC 45; KJC 79) and s¹rr ‘happiness’ (e.g. KJA 46), while
there are no such Taymanitic inscriptions. Given the general content of the
Taymanitic inscriptions, which mainly include military context, the original
meaning of the root √nky ‘to hit; to smite’ may it better. Compare for example
the Aramaic usage of the root: ‘blow, hit’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 730).
Esk 023:
yfʿ / b b{s²}mt / {f}ʿl {n}k
‘Yfʿ son of Bs²mt engaged in battle’
4.3
Military ranks
Esk 031:
ʾs¹ b dmg / l ʾṣ{r/n} / h-ḍ{b}ʾ / {h/ḥ}{r}{ʿ}{y}
‘ʾs¹ son of Dmg to/for ʾṣr the soldier the chief’’
The forms hḍ{b}ʾ and {h/ḥ}{r}ʿ}{y} should probably be interpreted as nouns
with a deinite article h- in apposition to the personal name, similar to the use
of nicknames. In that case I would propose to read them as ‘the soldier, the
chief’. A similar construction is found in another inscription (Philby 279 ay)
in which the personal name is followed by the words h-rm h-ġlm ‘the lancer,
the youth/junior. ḍbʾ is attested in NWS with the meaning ‘army’ (Hoftijzer &
Jongeling 1995: 955). The Akkadian equivalent ṣābu could be used to indicate
a group of people in general, workers, or soldiers (CAD, vol.16, 46).
The root √rʿy means ‘to pasture’ in Arabic (Lane: 1103); it is also used with
the meaning shepherd in Hebrew (Clines 1993) and in Amorite names (Knudsen
1991: 870, the name i-la-ra-ḫi-a < ila-rāʿīya ‘ʾĒl is my shepherd’). In Akkadian,
rʿy could be used to refer not just to shepherding cattle, but it could also be
metaphorically extended to mean guiding or leading people (CAD, vol.14, 309).
In combination with the word ṣābu it could be used to refer to a ‘foreman of
the team, shepherd of the team’, re-ʾ ṣā-bi (CAD, vol.16, 46b). In this light it
seems most likely that the author of the text gave his military class (h-ḍbʾ ‘the
soldier’), which may have referred to a speciic type of soldier, and his rank
(h-rʿy ‘the chief’).74
Philby 279 ay:
kfrʾl b tʾn h-rm h-ġlm
‘Kfrʾl son of Tʾn, the lancer, the junior’
74 For
a complete discussion of the form of rʿy see the paragraph 2.3.3, pg. 88.
110
F. KOOTSTRA
Similar to Esk 031, the personal name is followed by what seems to be
military ranks. Rm probably comes from the root √rmy ‘to throw’. In light of
the interpretation of the previous inscription (Esk 031) this may be interpreted
as a form /rāmī/ ‘the thrower’ which could by extension mean ‘the lancer’.
Such a title would it well with the genre of military terms and ranks in parallel
to ‘the soldier’ h-ḍbʾ in Esk 031.
If the following identiication marker h-ġlm is also part of his military rank
the basic meaning of ġlm ‘the youth’ may have been used to indicate a junior
position in his unit. It is unclear how this ġlm would relate to the ḫlm mlk bbl
in Esk 169.
Esk 001:
kfrʾl / b ṣʿn / h-rg/ h-ġlm
‘Kfrʾl son of ṣʿd, the rg, the junior’
The inscription seems to follow the same formula as the previous two (Esk
031 and Philby 279 ay) ‘PN son of PN the X, the Y’ indicating the military
function and rank of the inscriber. While the photograph clearly reads hrg
after the personal name, it is unclear what kind of unit this would refer to.
4.4 ʾs¹ inscriptions
Esk 044.2:
Ykfrl // ʾs¹ ʾtw
‘Ykfrl chief of ʾtw75 ’
Esk 263:
[sign] l <.> ms¹{s²/ḫ}l / ʾs¹ bḥbs¹ [sign]
‘[sign] . Ms¹ḫl chief of Bḥbs¹ [sign]’
Esk 147:
l ṣmrfʾ / ʾs¹ / s¹mw
‘by Ṣmrfʾ chief of S¹mw’
4.5 ḍr inscriptions
WTay 33.2:
b- {ḍ}r ddn
‘in the war of Dadan’
The phrase ḍr Ddn ‘the war of Dadan’ is generally interpreted as referring to a
(military) conlict between the oases. The only historical source we have that
is supposed to mention this event is an Akkadian inscription (Royal chronicle
BM 34167+, col v: 20) in which the words ‘the king of Dadan’ can be found.
75 For
the interpretation of ʾs¹ as ‘chief, leader’ see Macdonald (1992: 31).
111
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
However the context of these words is damaged (Macdonald 1997: 336, note
12), so we do not know exactly what happened to the king of Dadan. The
reason it is assumed that there was a conlict is that the general content of the
inscription relates military activities (Macdonald 1997: 336, note 12). Winnett
rightly points out that an oasis and trading station such as Taymāʾ would have
been dependent on peace in the area to allow traders to pass safely, making
it unlikely that the inhabitants would go on military campaigns in the region
“unless the circumstances were very unusual” (Winnett & Reed 1970: 90-1).
He concludes that the coming of Nabonidus from Babylon might have provided
such an unusual situation, as Nabonidus would have tried to establish himself
in the region by going on military campaigns (Winnett & Reed 1970: 90-1).
Ephʾal adds to this that the ‘wars’ mentioned in the inscriptions might simply
refer to competition between the two oases, as they were situated on competing
routes of the frankincense trading route (Ephʿal 1982: 184). It should also be
kept in mind that the basic meaning of ḍr, in Arabic, is not war, but more
generally ‘aliction, necessity, want’ (Lane: 1775-1777).
WTay 13:
yʿzrl b ḥgg ---- b ḍr nbyt
‘Yʾzrl son of Ḥgg … in the war of Nabaioth’
The nbyt can probably be identiied with the Nabayoth (Winnett & Reed
1970: 99), who are mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions as Nabayati (KUR Na-baa-a-ti76 ) (Ephʿal 1982: 183). The Old Testament similarly mentions a people
called the Nəbāyôṯ (Nebaioth77 ). Winnett and Reed propose that the nbyt mentioned here and in WTay 13 and WTay 15 are the same people. The nbyt
mentioned here cannot be equated with the Nabataeans (nbṭ(w) CAr. nabaṭ,
ʾanbāṭ) (Winnett & Reed 1970: 99 and (Ephʿal 1982: 222)) for one would have
to explain both the loss of the y and the change from t > ṭ.78
WTay 22:
----lm b-ḍrr ddn
‘…lm in the wars of Dadan/by waging war against Dadan’
See section 2.3.1 for a discussion of the possible interpretation of ḍrr as a
plural form rendering the irst proposed translation, and section 2.4.4, pg. 91
for a discussion of the alternative interpretation.
HE 39:
{ʾ}z ḍrr ddn
‘{ʾ}z served in the war of Dadan’’
See section 2.5.1 for a discussion of the verb ḍrr.
76 In
the annals of Ashurbanipal (Oppenheim 1969: 298-300).
25:11 (= chron. 1:29), 28:9, 36:3; Isa. 60:7.
78 For more on the possible location of the Nabaioth in ancient times see Winnett & Reed
(1970: 100).
77 Gen
112
F. KOOTSTRA
WTay 21:
----{y}{ʾ} b- // ḍr dd[n]
‘… in the war of Dadan’
WTay 23.1:
ḍr ddn
‘the war of Dadan’
4.6 nṣr l-Ṣlm inscriptions
HE 17:
{n}s²w b h-ḥḍryt nṣr l- ṣlm
‘Ns²w son of the sedentary woman/the woman from Ḥḍr kept watch for Ṣalm’
For a complete discussion of interpretation of the verb nṣr see section 2.2.3,
pg. 79.
Esk 025:
{ʾ}n ʾ{n/r}ds¹ / s¹{s¹}n / mlk / bbl / n{ṭ}rt
‘I am ʾnds¹ oicial of(?) the king of Babylon, I kept watch’
The word s¹s¹n can probably be compared to Akk. šušānu which means
‘horse trainer or groom’ but more likely in the meaning of ‘title of deputies of
the king or of other oicials’ (CAD), possibly referring to a cavalerist. Compare
also CAr. Sāʾis ‘groom who has the care and management of a horse’ (Lane:
1466). The term likely followed a similar path as rbs¹rs¹ (Esk 017) which was
probably borrowed from Neo-Assyrian into Aramaic and into Taymanitic from
there (see section 2.2.4, pg. 81 for the complete discussion of rbs¹rs¹).
For a discussion of the interpretation of nṭr as the equivalent of nṣr ‘to keep
watch’ see section 2.2.3, pg. 79.
WTay 17:
ʿlʾl b ʾs¹gt ns³r b-ḍr ----k---‘ʿlʾl son of ʾs¹gt kept watch during the war ---?---’
HE 40:
ḥkrn b ns²w b h-ḥḍryt nṣr l-ṣlm
‘Ḥkrn son of Ns²w son of the sedentary woman/the woman from Ḥḍṛ kept
watch for Ṣalm’
WTay 32:
b----ʿ nṣr l- ṣ[l] // {m} nṣr hzb
‘b…ʿ kept watch vigilantly on behalf of Ṣalm’
113
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
For the discussion of the syntax of the inscription see section 2.6.2. The
adverb hzb can be compared to CAr. hayzab ‘strong, iery’ (Cohen & Cantineau
1999; Lane: 2893).
The n and the r of each line are facing in the same direction, which might
suggest that the text of both lines is running in the same direction as well.79
This could have been a decision made on aesthetic grounds however, as the
nṣr forms are written right above each other. Since nṣr is part of the common
formulae of the Taymanitic inscriptions, while reading the top line from right to
left would yield a phrase that is more diicult to interpret, the reading proposed
above seems preferable.
WTay 20:
bhs²rkt nṣr b-ḍr ddn yr{ḫ} l-ṣlm
‘Bhs²rkt kept watch during the war of Dadan for a month on behalf of Ṣalm’
HE 34:
bhs²rkt nṣr l- ṣlm
‘Bhs²rkt kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’
HE32:
S³ʿl b ʿlw nṣr s¹nt /l- ṣlm
‘S³ʿl son of ʿlw kept watch for a year on behalf of Ṣalm’
WTay 11:
fḥk b ḥgg nṣr l- {ṣ}lm // b-ḍr / nbyt
‘Fḥk son of Ḥgg kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm in the war of Nbyt’
HE 25:
nṣr l-ṣlm
‘he kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’
WTay 15:
nṣr l-ṣlm ʿrm b fs¹ḥ b- ḍr nbyt
‘he kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm, ʿrm son of Fs¹ḥ, in the war of Nabaioth’
WTay 33.1:
mntt nṣr b- ḍ[r]// ddn
‘Mntt kept watch in the war of Dadan’
WTay 16:
ṣr nṣr b- ḍ[r] // ms¹{ʿ}
‘Sr kept watch in the war of Massāʾ’
79 I
would like to thank Michael Macdonald for pointing this out to me.
114
F. KOOTSTRA
Winnett identiies the ms¹ʾ mentioned here with the Massāʾ mentioned in
Gen. 25:14, he connects it to a town Masʾa mentioned in an inscription of
Tiglath-pileser III as URU Ma-as-ʾa-a-a (Winnett & Reed 1970: 101).80
WTay 9.1:
fḥk b ḥgg nṣr l- ṣlm
‘Fḥk son of Ḥgg kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’
WTay 14:
ṣmrfʾ b ḥgg nṣr {l-}ṣ{l}m
‘Ṣmrfʾ son of Ḥgg kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’
WTay 35:
hkdl b mkʾl nṣr//l-ṣlm
‘Hkdl son of Mkʾl kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’
WTay 42:
{.}ḥm nṣ//r l-ṣlm//
‘.hm kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’
HE 21:
ṣmkfr / b ʿgl {/} nṣr // l- ṣlm
‘Ṣmkfr son of ʿgl kept watch on behalf of Ṣalm’
4.7 ḥl(l) inscriptions
JSTham 403:
Mr{ʾ}l{ṣ} // ḥl-t
‘Mrʾlṣ, I was a soldier’
For a complete discussion of the form of the verb see the paragraph on II-weak
roots - ḥll under section 2.5.1, pg. 94. For the inlection of the verb ḥl(l) see
the paragraph on inlection of II w/y roots under 2.4.1, 90.
The verb ḥll occurs in several variations of a similar phrase. The most common phrase containing ḥll mentions ddn, the oasis Dadan (e.g. JSTham 513;
Esk 167). Other places are mentioned sporadically, all such variations occur
only once. Other forms that are mentioned in the same position as Dadan are:
ʿft (JSTham 511); m (possibly an uninished inscription) (JSTham 343); ʾdd
(TS_13_Al-Mushayrifah Tay 1) and ʾṯ{m}{m} (TS_13_Al-Mushayrifah Tay 2).
Even though the above mentioned phrases could work with an interpretation of ḥll as ‘to stay’, or even ‘to be encamped’, if one wants to pull the
meaning closer to that of the inscriptions mentioning ḥdd ‘to act as a border
80 For an extensive survey of the Biblical and Akkadian sources mentioning the Massāʾ see Ephʿal
(1982).
115
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
guard’ and nṣr to guard’, the following examples have a much clearer sense
when interpreting ḥll as ‘to be a soldier’.
Al-Anṣāry 35:
lm wdd / b lḥm / ḥll / // b-z{y} s²nʾ / ʿm ṣlm
‘By Wdd son of Lḥm he was a soldier against those of enmity of/against the
people of Ṣalm’
For a discussion of zy as a plural relative pronoun see the paragraph on
relative pronouns in section 2.7.2, pg. 97.
The y of b-z{y} is carefully hammered over, obliterating the circle at the
top, but preserving the outline of the letter, leaving it still recognizable. This
could indicate that the author was not sure on how to write what he wanted
to express. This could be due to the ambivalent nature of diphthongs, if we
assume a vocalized form /zay/ for the plural relative.
B-zy s²nʾ seems to form a headless relative clause similar to, for example,
the name of the deity ḏū-šara (lit. that/he of the Šarā mountain range). If this
interpretation is correct, the phrase can be interpreted as ‘(he served as a soldier) against those of enmity (of/against Ṣalm)’. This phrase in turn, seems to
stand in construct with the following phrase ʿm Ṣlm ‘the people of Ṣalm’ (compare CAr. ʿamm ‘a company of men, or of a tribe, a numerous company’; Of.
Aramaic ʿmm ‘world population, mankind’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 865)).
JSTham 517+512:
lm ṣmdʿ / b ṣmnʿm / b s³rbn / ḥll b-z // y ḫyr {l}-ddn
‘by Ṣmdʿ son of Ṣmnʿm son of Ṯrbn he acted as a soldier against those who
aided Dadan’
This inscription is very similar in structure to Al-Anṣāry 35. In this inscription the y was not hammered over. The phrase b-zy ḫyr should be read as a
headless relative clause; with b- indicating opposition together with the verb
ḥll ‘to serve as a soldier against’ (see section 2.5.1, pg. 94) and zy as a plural
relative pronoun. If this interpretation is correct the phrase could be interpreted as ‘he served as a soldier against those who aided Dadan’ lit. ‘those of
goodness to Dadan’. This interpretation has the beneit of itting the content
of the other inscriptions mentioning the war at Dadan (e.g. WTay 33.2) and
being a soldier at/against Dadan (e.g. Esk 055).
There is some uncertainty concerning the reading of the l before ddn: in
between the l- and Ddn in the inal line, the top of the l and the d are connected
to each other and seem to form a ligature together. In writing the name of his
grandfather s³rbn, in the irst line, the author connected the b and the n in a
sort of ligature as well.
Esk 059:
bmrt ḥl b-{ʿ}ft
‘Bmrt was a soldier at ʿft’
116
F. KOOTSTRA
Esk 055:
lm rḥml / b bs¹rt / ḥl / b-ddn
‘by Rḥml son of Bs¹rt he was a soldier at/against Dadan’
Esk 104:
lm ʾs²{w/ṭ} [sign] b d b lḥd // ḥll b-ddn
‘by ʾs²{w/ṭ} [sign] b d son of Lḥd he was a soldier at/against Dadan’
Even though it is a little curious that the author chose to write a sign in
between the b- and his father’s name, his father was probably called bd. This
name is attested abundantly in Safaitic (Harding 1971).
WTay 9.2:
w-ḥr b nml b m ----m m s¹mw
‘and Ḥr son of Nml son of m… from S¹mw ((tribal) name)(?)’
Esk 020:
Lm l{ṭ} ḥl{l} b-{n}dr {b/ʾ}{ḫ/s²}r h-ḥwl
‘by Flṭ he was a soldier at/against Ndr in the last part of the year (?)’
The n in {n}dr seems damaged, but given how narrow the letter is and the
angle that is clearly visible on the left side of the glyph it should probably be
interpreted as n. Based on the context of the inscription Ndr should probably
be interpreted as a toponym or a tribal name. The penultimate word as ʾḫr
appears to stand in construct with the h-ḥwl ‘the year, or cycle’ (cf. Esk 272).
The root √ʾḫr (CAr. ʾuḫur) means ‘the back, latter part’ or ‘the last part’ (Lane:
31b). This could render ‘the last part of the year’ (Hayajneh 2011: 765). As
seen in the nṣr b-ḍr inscriptions it is common in Taymanitic to add a temporal
clause without a preposition (HE 32 and WTay 20).
JSTham 343:
ḥll bm
‘he was a soldier bm’
In most inscriptions the verb ḥll is followed by the preposition b-, the only
exception to this is JSTham 403 and possibly the inscription at hand. The inscription seems to be complete so m is probably not the remnant of a damaged
place-name; unless the author did not inish the inscription. Since most inscriptions include at least a personal name, it could be that the author of this
text chose to diverge from the standard formula and wrote his name after the
statement, similar to the author of the Esk 289.
Esk 289:
ḥll b-ddn lm yws¹l
‘he was a soldier at/against Dadan by Yws¹l’
117
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Esk 185:
lm s¹mh / b qny / ḥl---‘by S¹mh son of Qny he was a soldier…’
Esk 167:
ḥll b-ddn
‘he was a soldier at/against Dadan’
Esk 054:
lm yʿzn ḥl b ddn
‘by Yʿzn he was a soldier at/against Dadan’
Esk 055 :
lm rḥml / b bs¹rt / ḥl / b ddn
‘by Rḥml son of Bs¹rt, he was a soldier at/against Dadan’
4.8 l twy inscriptions
HE 41:
lm {y}ʿzrl / b lrm / mn s¹mʿ / l- ṣlm l twy
‘by Yʾzrl son of Lrm, whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish81 ’
For the discussion of the form of twy see section 2.4.4, pg. 93.
WTay 2:
lm / hbʾl b ʿgl / mn s¹mʿ l- ṣlm l tw[y]
‘by Hbʾl son of ʿgl, whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish’
HE 24:
w mn s¹mʿ l-ṣlm l twy
‘and whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish’
WTay 1.2:
lm zʾb mn s¹mʿ l- ṣlm l twy
‘by Zʾb, whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish’
HE 31:
bʾrl b klb // mn s¹mʿ l ṣlm l twy
‘Bʾrl son of Klb whoever obeys Ṣalm will not perish’
81 This
translation was irst proposed by Knauf (2011).
118
F. KOOTSTRA
4.9 Assorted inscriptions containing verbal sentences
TM.T. 020:
----kfrl b zbd // [n]ṣb [b-]yd-h ʾlht
‘… Kfrl son of Zbd set up a stele with his (own) hand [representing the]
goddess82 ’
Even though there is a chip at the beginning of the second line, the edge of the
n seems to be visible.
The y following nṣb in the second line is written up side down, with its leg
coming out the top of the circle instead of the bottom. While this is unusual
for Taymanitic, there is one other example, similarly carved onto what seems
to be a prepared surface (TM.T 013 s¹m{s³/ʾ} b ḥry [wasm]). The y in znk rfty
(WTay 3) can also be interpreted as ‘up side down’ but since the inscription
coils around the rock, this might have more to do with the position of the
inscriber in relation to what he was writing, making it diicult to determine
what would be ‘right side up’. On top of this, the proportion of the letter seems
a little odd –a little short with a big circle and the circular base is very much in
the middle of the line instead of to the bottom – but these are probably stylistic
choices of the author of the inscription.
The translation proposed here largely follows that proposed by Macdonald
(Macdonald & Al-Najem forthcoming) and interprets the verb as a third person
masculine singular in the suix conjugation, with the author of the text as its
subject. The verb nṣb seems to have been a transitive verb, taking the deity
for/of which the stele was being set up as its direct object (compare Wadi alZaydāniyyah Tay 020). In order to understand the function of yd-h one may
need to amend an instrumental proposition b- ‘by or with his hand’.83 If it really
needs to be amended I would consider it a writing error. The preceding b of
nṣb may seem to suggest a word boundary spelling, in which the preposition
assimilated to the previous word, but there is no evidence for this practice
in any ANA corpus outside of Safaitic.84 Another option might be that the
instrumental was marked by case, but since prepositions are used for this in
the other Taymanitic inscriptions, this seems unlikely as well.
WAMT 59:
s¹qʿ / s¹ʾl ṣl // m f {w}ʿl b mkʾl
‘S¹qʿ asked Ṣalm and Wʿl son of Mkʾl (too)’
s¹qʿ is attested as a personal name in two other inscriptions (HE 36 and
WTay 36). Although no other inscriptions with this form are attested, f should
probably be interpreted as a conjunction and wʿl b mkʾl as a personal name,
meaning that they petitioned Ṣlm together.
82 The
translation follows Macdonald (Macdonald & Al-Najem forthcoming).
would like to thank Michael Macdonald for this suggestion (pc.).
84 Al-Jallad, pc.
83 I
119
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
JSTham 545+546+549 :
lm s¹ʿʾs¹ / b ns²{/}ʾt / // ṣlm / ʾnkd // {f} ys²hd
‘by S¹ʿʾs¹ son of ns²ʾt, may Ṣalm provide ofspring (so) that it/he (posterity?)
will bear witness(?)’
Winnett connects ʾnkd with Hebrew nkd ‘progeny, posterity, grandson’ (Winnett, unpublished, Study I: 6), in which case ʾnkd can be interpreted as a C-stem
verb with an optative meaning ‘may he make/provide ofspring’.
Hayajneh (2009b) proposes to connect ʾnkd with CAr. nakad ‘misfortune,
to bring evil upon someone’ and nakida ‘to give sparingly, to be hard’ and
to translate Ṣlm ʾnkd as ‘Ṣalm did evil’ (Ṣlm tat unheil) (Hayajneh 2009b: 80).
Given the content of the other Taymanitic inscriptions, in which Ṣalm seems to
function as the main deity of the oasis, it seems unlikely that someone would
express their grief with him in such a public way.
Hayajneh (2009b: 76) reads the second part of Esk 083 (= JSTham 548) ʾl
b-zy ṣlm as part of this inscription,85 but the second part of the line seems to
have been carved by a diferent author (see commentary on Esk 083 (part) in
section 4.10).
The form ys²hd looks like a preix conjugation of the root s²hd ‘to witness’
(compare CAr. šahada ‘to bear witness’; Sab. s²hd (Beeston et al. 1982: 132); šhd
‘to give testimony’ Imp. Aramaic and Palm. (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 1112).
It is not entirely clear what this would mean in this inscription.
Esk 013:
<l> l bʾrl / rḍw ṣlm
‘by Bʾrl, may Ṣalm be pleased’
For the meaning of rḍw as ‘may he be pleased’ compare other ANA corpora
e.g. Hismaic (Tdr 9 (King 1990)); Heb. rṣy and Of. Aramaic rʿy (Hoftijzer &
Jongeling 1995: 1082); CAr. raḍiya ‘to be pleased, content’ (Lane: 1099b). See
the paragraph on the reduction of inal triphthongs in section 2.2.6, pg. 84
and section 2.4.2, for more on the form and function of rḍw. For the meaning
of rḍw as ‘may he be pleased’ compare other ANA corpora e.g. Hismaic (Tdr 9
(King 1990)); Heb. rṣy and Of. Aramaic rʿy (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 1082);
CAr. raḍiya ‘to be pleased, content’ (Lane: 1099b). See the paragraph on the
reduction of inal triphthongs in section 2.2.6, pg. 84 and section 2.4.2, for
more on the form and function of rḍw.
WTay 3:
nṣr / bʿgl / hlk / znk rfty /h- rkb
‘Nṣr son of ʿgl died, that is Rfty the riding camel’
Even though hlk seems to be used more neutrally as ‘to go’ in Esk 272 (see
2.2.3, pg. 75) using the speciic meaning ‘to die’ (cf. hlk ‘to die’ in CAr. for example) seems to it this inscription better, as it would be diicult to understand
85 Hayajneh proposes either ‘so may god witness this Ṣalm’ (und daraufhin möge Gott in diesem
Ṣlm Zeuge sein) or ‘so may god ʾīl (as judge) be a witness (in the matter of) Ṣalm’ (und daraufhin möge Gott ʾil (im Sinne von Richter) in der (angelegenheit) des Ṣlm Zeuge sein) Hayajneh
(2009b: 83) for the combined lines: f-ys²hd ʾl b-zy ṣlm.
120
F. KOOTSTRA
why someone would leave without his camel. If hlk is indeed to be interpreted
as ‘to die’ here, the camel may have been left as a burial ofering, known as
baliyyah (CAr.) or bly in Safaitic (Al-Jallad 2014: 222). The inscription is found
on top of a rubble hill, which the camel would not have been able to reach.
This might explain the distal demonstrative even if the camel was left as an
ofering.
There is also a drawing of a camel next to the inscription. In most cases inscriptions referring to drawings on the same rock use the basic form of the
demonstrative for this. The usage of a distal demonstrative for this is not
unique however (e.g. in Safaitic WH 516).
Esk 272:
nʿml / b lbd // hrg / ddn {/} ʾl wnʿ // s³ġ {b}-h k-dwrt / {f} hl // k / b{ʾ}s³r-h
/ ḥwl[-h]
‘Nʿml son of Lbd the destroyer of Dadan of the lineage of Wnʿ; he took the
town by surrounding it, and (so) and [its] army was destroyed during its
capture/ it remained in his captivity for a year’
The translation of the phrase hrg ddn as ‘destroyer of Dadan’ was irst proposed by Macdonald (forthcoming: appendix 1).
The form s³ġ in line 3 should probably be interpreted as a third person
singular verb in the suixing conjugation. Taymanitic s³ġ from the root *√s³wġ
is comparable to Arabic sāġa which can signify ease of entrance, thus suġ fī
l-ʾarḍi mā waǧadta masāġan ‘Enter thou into the land while thou indest a place
of entrance’ (Lane: 1468b). In this inscription, the verb is transitive with the
preposition b- introducing the direct object (compare e.g. ġzy b-X (e.g. C2732)
or ġzz b-X (C 4452) ‘he raided X’ in Saf.). The diference in transitivity between
the CAr. form and the Taymanitic form is probably due to the underlying stemvowel; while the intransitive form probably came from a form *s³ayiġa, the
form underlying the transitive form was likely *s³ayaġa. Due to the collapse of
the triphthong in middle-weak verbs in both languages the formal distinction
between the two was lost. The subject of the verb in this inscription would be
the author of the inscription. The suixed pronoun –h refers back to the city
of Dadan, which was already mentioned in line 2.
The preposition k- would be used as an instrumental ‘by means of’. The
form dwrt could be taken as a noun meaning ‘surrounding’ indicating that they
took the city by means of surrounding (it), from the root √dwr ‘to turn, to
revolve, to circle’ in CAr. (Lane: 930a) or ‘cycle’ in Heb. (HALOT 2028).
If the city of Dadan remains the subject of the verb hlk ‘to go’ (cf. Hoftijzer &
Jongeling 1995: 280-3), the following word ʾs³r could be interpreted as a nominal form ‘captivity’ from the root *√ʾs³r meaning ‘to take captive, be bound’
(CAr. Lane: 57-58; Sab. Beeston et al. 1982: 8) or ‘prisoner’ (e.g. KAI 18125f ).
The suixed pronoun –h would in this case refer to the author in whose captivity the city was. For the verb hlk to it into this interpretation it would have
had to have undergone some kind of grammaticalization in this context, to go
from meaning ‘to go’ to indicate being in a prolonged state of something ‘to go
on’ or ‘to continue’ to end up in this context with the meaning ‘to remain’. The
inal word ḥwl ‘year’ can be interpreted as a temporal adverb, indicating for
how long he had control over Dadan (compare CAr. ḥawl ‘year’ (Lane: 675c)).
121
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Another option would be to interpret ḥwl as the subject of the verb hlk. In
this case ḥwl is interpreted as ‘army’ and taken to have a meaning comparable
to that in CAr. ḥawl ‘strength’ (Lane: 675c) and Of. Aramaic and Palm ‘force;
armed force, army’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 369). In this case ḥwl would
be connected to the vebs ḥl and ḥll in Taymanitic. Interpreting hlk ḥwl[-h] as
‘its army was destroyed’ would require the restoration of a suixed pronoun
–h however, at the end of the inscription, referring back to Dadan and making the army deinite. The interpretation of b-ʾs³r-h remains the same in both
interpretations.
Esk 169:
ʾn / mrdn / {ḫ}lm / nbnd / mlk / bbl // ʾtwt / mʿ / rbs¹rs¹ / kyt// {.}{ʿ}nm /
b- {f}lʾ / tlw / b{d}t / lʿq
‘I am Mrdn servant of Nabonidus king of Babylon, I came with chief
kyt.????86 ’
The inscription starts with a irst person singular personal pronoun ʾn ‘I’.
Thus far, there is only one other Taymanitic inscription known which starts
like this (Esk 025). Such an introduction to an inscription is relatively rare in
ANA in general (Müller & Al-Said 2001: 106). However, this is also attested
in Safaitic (WH 1403b), Hismaic (KJC 646) and Thamudic C (e.g. Esk 2007
no. 095) and D (JSTham 637) (Hayajneh 2001: 82).87 The fact that the author
used this diferent introductory particle and does not follow any of the known
Taymanitic formulae, together with his association with Nabonidus could be
an indication that he was not from Taymāʾ.
Müller & Al-Said (2001), and Eskoubi (1999) propose to translate ḫlm as
‘friend’.88 According to Müller & Al-Said (2001: 107) this meaning is attested
in Arabic (Lisān: s.v.) and Ḥadramitic. In CAr. the semantics of the word
are restricted to ‘friend of women’ however, and the attestation in Ḥadramitic
seems to be a personal name on a pendant, which is not helpful for our understanding of the lexical item in Taymanitic. Hayajneh proposes to translate ḫlm
as ġlm ‘youth, servant’ based on the usage of the glyph ḫ to represent foreign
ġ in Akkadian (Hayajneh 2001: 82-83). While this confusion does not seem to
occur in any other Taymanitic inscription, it is not unlikely that this is also the
origin of the CAr. meaning of the word ḫlm as ‘friend of women’, if we connect this to ġlm ‘youth’ or ‘boy slave’with a possible semantic shift to eunuch.
Therefore I will follow Hayajneh’s translation of this word.
The verb ʾtwt /ʾatawt(u)/ means ‘to come’ (Lane: 14) and is probably a irst
person singular suixing form. The inal weak root letter w is written out, in
addition to forming evidence for the orthographic representation of diphthongs
in certain environments, this also shows us that the verb was still ʾtw and not ʾty
86 Reading of the inal line is doubtful cf. Hayajneh (2001: 82-86) and Müller & Al-Said
(2001: 106-109).
87 For a comparison to this practice in Babylonian and Syriac inscriptions see Müller & Al-Said
(2001: 106).
88 As additional evidence for the translation of ‘friend’ for ḫlm Müller & Al-Said (2001: 107)
mention an Old Sabaic title ‘Friend of X’ with the name of a king using the word mwd. This was in
a diferent cultural context however, and as the author of this text presents himself as a friend of a
Babylonian king, one would expect him to rather use a calque of a Babylonian title, than a Sabaic
one.
122
F. KOOTSTRA
as attested in Thamudic (Euting 306 = Hub 267), in late Sabaic and in Arabic
(Müller & Al-Said 2001: 108).
For a discussion of the form rbs¹rs¹ see section 2.2.4, pg. 81.
Esk 052:
lm hkdl / b ṯrbn / b lb / b ʿrt{m}ʾ / {y}rrt
‘by hkdl son of ṯrbn son of lb son of ʿrt{m}ʾ, I guarded’
For the interpretation of yrr as ‘to guard’ see section 2.2.6, pg. 84.
JSTham 352:
b-ṣlm ntn-t
‘By Ṣalm, I have made an ofering’
Winnett (unpublished: Study I, 6) translated this inscription as ‘Oh Ṣalm,
thou hast given’. It seems to have been quite rare however to refer to a person,
mentioned within the inscription in the second person however. Most often
Ṣalm would be the subject of the inscription. On top of that, the preposition
b- has not been attested elsewhere in the Taymanitic corpus with a vocative
meaning. In Safaitic a number of vocative particles are attested: h-; ʾy; hy; ʾyh;
y (Al-Jallad 2015: 158-9) CAr. uses a vocatice wā (Fischer 2001: 96), but b- does
not seem to have been used as such. There are other inscriptions that start with
the preposition b- followed by a Theonym, but these are mostly interpreted as
instrumental or benefactive: e.g. b-rḍw ʿz bn Bhmt (Esk 098) ‘(may) ʿz son of
Bhmt be (entrusted) by Rḍw’ or b-Nhy h-s¹rr (Eskoubi 2007: 178) ‘By (the power
of) Nhy is the happiness’ (Hayajneh 2011: 770).
WTay 12:
yʿzrl b ḥ{g}{g} ḥdd l-ṣlm
‘Yʿzrl son of Ḥgg was a border guard for Ṣalm’
For a discussion on the interpretation of ḥdd as ‘to guard the border’and the
form of the verb see section 2.5.1, pg. 94.
4.10 Assorted inscriptions containing nominal sentences
Esk 083 (part):
ʾl / b-zy ṣlm
‘Strength is with those of Ṣalm’
Eskoubi (1999) reads this as part of Esk 083, Hayajneh (2009b) proposes to
link all of Esk 083 to JSTham 545 and 546 to form one long inscription. Even
though the technique of the beginning of Esk 083 is close to that of JSTham
545 and 546 and could be read together, JSTham 548 was inscribed using a
very diferent technique from the other lines, and should therefore probably
be considered a separate inscription (Macdonald, commentary db).
123
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
In order for the inscription to form a complete sentence ʾl should be read
as a noun or a verb here. Translating ʾl as ‘strength, might’ like Hebrew ʾel
(HALOT: 48) its very well with the role Ṣalm had, as main deity of the oasis.89
For more on the plural relative zy see the paragraph on relative pronouns
in section 2.7.2, pg. 97.
WTay 37:
----bdbwd // b h-mṣryt Wasm [?]
‘----(PN?) son of/with the Egyptian woman Wasm’
See section 2.3.3, pg. 88: h-mṣryt may have been a personal name.
Esk 049:
kfrʾl / b ʾrs² / bny hṣy / b rb{.} // b rttn
‘kfrʾl son of ʾrs² youngest son of(?) Hṣy son of Rb. son of Rttn’
See the section 2.3.3, pg. 89 for a discussion on bny as a diminutive form.
WTay 9.2:
w ḥrḍn mlk m ----m m s¹mw
‘and Ḥrḍn king/PN(?) m ----m from S¹mw(?)’
Address for Correspondence: f.kootstra@hum.leidenuniv.nl
89 This
translation was irst suggested to me by Adam Strich (pc.)
124
F. KOOTSTRA
Appendix: Glossary
ʾ
ʾḫr
ʾḫrt
ʾl
ʾl
ʾns¹
ʾs¹
ʾs³r
ʾtw
ʿ
ʿft
noun. end, last part. sig: Esk 020.
CAr. ʾuḫūr ‘the back, latter part, last part’ (Lane: 31b) or ʾāḫir ‘the last’ (Lane:
32a). See also Hayajneh (2011: 765) for the translation ‘last part of the year’
for ʾḫr h-ḥwl.
noun. posterity, ofspring. sig: TA 02669.2 = DAI Tayma I.3.
Compare Dadanitic ʾḫrt ‘ofspring’ (e.g. U6 Sima, 1999: 7) or Nab. ʾḥr ‘posterity’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 38).
noun. strength. sig: Esk 083 (part).
Heb. ʾel ‘might, strength’ (HALOT: 48)
noun. family, lineage. sig: Esk 083 (part); Esk 272; DAI Tayma II.3;
JSTham 426; Esk 111; Esk 128; JSTham 521.
CAr. ʾahl ‘family’(Lane: 121a); Saf. ʾhl ‘family’ (e.g. AbaNS 1128; C 88; HaNSB
307 cf. Al-Jallad 2015)
noun. mankind. sig: Kim CIMG 0759. Tay (unpublished); TM.T.024.
CAr. nās ‘men, mankind’ (Lane: 113); Aramaic ʾnš (Hoftijzer & Jongeling
1995: 85).
noun. chief. sig: Kim CIMG 0759. Tay (unpublished); TS 13 Al-Khabu
al-Sharqi Tay unp 1; TM.T.011; Esk. 044.2; Esk. 263; TM.T.023; Esk.
147.
Heb. ʾîš; Sab. ʾys. This translation was irst suggested by Macdonald
(1992: 31) see his article for an elaborate discussion (cf. Hayajneh 2009a: 7880 for an alternative interpretation).
ininitive or noun. (to be) captive; or trace, place. etymological root:
*ʾsr or *ʾṯr. sig: Esk 272.
CAr. ʾasara ‘to take captive, be bound’ (Lane: 57-58); Sab. ʾs³r ‘to take captive,
be bound’ (Beeston et al. 1982: 8); Ug. ʾasr; Can. ʾāsar ‘to capture’; Aramaic
ʾsr ‘to capture’ (Cohen & Cantineau 1999: 28). OR Of. Aramaic ʾtr, Pun. ʾšr
‘place; trace’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 125-127); Sab. ʾṯr ‘on (b-) the track
of someone’ (Beeston et al. 1982: 9).
verb. to come. sig: Esk 169.
CAr. ʾatā the root ʾtw (marked as a dialectal variation of ʾty) (Lane: 14b) and
ʾty (Lane: 15c) are both attested; Tham. ʾty (Eut 306 = Hub 167); Also ʾty in
late Sabaic (Müller & Al-Said 2001: 108).
toponym. ʿft. sig: Esk. 059.
The reading of the irst letter of the toponym is uncertain
125
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
ʿm
B
b
bʿl
bḥs²
bny
D
ddn
dwrt
Ḍ
ḍbʾ
ḍr
noun. people. etymological root: *ʿmm. sig: Al-Anṣāry 35.
CAr. ʿamm ‘a company of men, or of a tribe, a numerous company’; Of. Aramaic ʿmm ‘world population, mankind’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 865).
noun. son. etymological root: *bn. sig: e.g. TA. 09302; WTay 37; Esk
052.
CAr. ʾibn; Heb. bin; Aramaic bar.
noun. (land) owner. sig: Kim CIMG 0759. Tay (unpublished).
In this inscription bʿl occurs in a speciic construction bʿly Tmʾ ‘landowners of
Taymāʾ’. The construction ‘bʿly + place name’ occurs in the Aramaic part of
the trilingual Lycian, Greek, Aramaic inscription found at Xanthos (dated 358
B.C.) (Teixidor 1978: 182) and in a petition to the governor of Judaea (Cowley
1923: No.30²²) in which it can be translated as ‘landowners’ or ‘inhabitants’.
The phrase bʿly + toponym also occurs in Sabaic (e.g. C 155; 457; Ja 559).
verb. to examine? sig: Kim CIMG 0759. Tay (unpublished).
probably a borrowing from Aramaic bḥš ‘to examine’ (cf. 2.2.4, pg. 82) compare CAr. baḥaṯa ‘to search for, or after something’ (Lane: 155bc)
noun. little son? etymological root: *bn. sig: Esk 049. See: b.
toponym. name of the ancient oasis of Dadan - modern-day ʾal-ʿUlāʾ,
near Tayma. sig: Esk 017.1; WTay 20; HE 39; WTay 22; WTay 21;
WTay 23.1; WTay 33.1; WTay 33.2; Esk 104; Esk 289; Esk. 054;
TM.T.024; Esk. 055.
noun. surrounding etymological root: *dwr. sig: Esk 272.
CAr. √dwr ‘to turn, to revolve, to cycle’ (Lane: 930a); Heb. √dwr ‘cycle’
(Koehler et al. 1995-2000: 2028).
noun. soldier. sig: Esk 031.
Heb. ṣāvāʾ ‘to go forth to battle, to wage war’ (HALOT: 994), ṣbʾ ‘army’
(Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 955); In Akkadian ṣābu could be used to indicate a group of people in general, workers, or soldiers (CAD, vol.16, 46).
noun. war, aliction. etymological root: *ḍrr. sig: WTay 20; WTay 21;
WTay 23.1; WTay 33.1; WTay 33.2; WTay 11; WTay 13; WTay 15;
WTay 16; WTay 17.
CAr. ḍarrah ‘necessity, need; hardness, distressfulness, or alictiveness of a
state or condition’ (Lane: 1776b) Variant: ḍrr? (WTay 22).
126
F. KOOTSTRA
ḍrr
F
fʿl
Ġ
ġlm
H
verb. Go to war. sig: HE 39.
D-stem See: ḍr.
verb. do. sig: Esk 023; Esk 026; TA. 09303; TA 09302.
CAr. faʿala ‘to do’
noun. junior, youth. sig: Philby 279 ay; Esk 001.
CAr. ġulām ‘a young boy, youth, boy, or male child’ (Lane: 2286b)
hlk
verb. die, go. sig: WTay 3; Esk 272.
hrg
participle. destroyer. sig: Esk 272.
hzb
Ḫ
CAr. halaka ‘to die’ Arabic is the only language in which halaka came to mean
solely ‘to die’ a euphemism based on its original meaning ‘to go’. Compare
e.g. Nabataean, Phoenician, Palmyrene where both meanings ‘to go (away)’
and ‘to die’ are attested (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 282).
Uncertain interpretation CAr. haraga ‘to kill’ (Lisān: s.v.); Sabaic hrg ‘to kill’;
Old Aramaic hrg ‘to kill’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 293). Reading proposed
by Macdonald (Macdonald & Al-Najem forthcoming).
adverb. strongly, zealously. sig: WTay 32.
CAr. hayzab ‘strong, iery’ (Cohen & Cantineau 1999; Lane: 2893).
ḫlm
noun. servant sig: Esk 169.
ḫyr
noun. good. sig: Esk. 058.
Ḥ
ḥdd
CAr. ḫilm ‘friend of women’ (Lisān: s.v.); probably connected to *ġlm ‘youth,
servant’ (see Hayajneh 2001: 82-83). For an alternative interpretation of ḫlm
see Müller & Al-Said (2001: 107)
CAr. ḫayr ‘good’
verb, D-stem. act as border guard. sig: WTay 12.
CAr. ḥadd ‘a limit or boundary of a land or territory’ (Lane: 525b, c)
127
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
ḥḍryt noun. the settled woman, the woman from ḥḍr. sig: HE 17; HE 40.
ḥl
ḥll
ḥwl
L
lmq
M
Could be a personal name instead of a proper noun. Feminine nisbah form.
CAr. ḥaḍarīy ‘urban, settled’ is the opposite of badawīy ‘nomad, desert dweller’
(Lisān: s.v.); Heb. ḥṣr ‘enclosed area or pasture, village’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling
1995: 400). Note that ḥṣr occurs in Teixidor (1962) he read it as ḥṣryʾ ‘settlers’
but changed this in 1963, when he read ḥṣdyʾ (line 2) as ‘the harvesters’ after
the root hṣd ‘to harvest’, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that this
should be read as harvesters rather than as settlers (<√ḥṣr). His argument
is based on the fact that the inscription was found in a very fertile area, but
this would encourage settling as well. Therefore the original interpretation
seems preferable. Ḥḍr is also used as name for towns, so it could refer to
a woman from a speciic town called Ḥḍr. There are two places in Yemen
that are called al-Ḥaḍrāʾ, one in Jawf area and the other in Ibb. There is also
one in Egypt in the Alexandria region (Ḥaḍrah) (geonames.org, accessed on
13-4-2014).
verb, G-stem. to be a soldier. etymological root: *ḥwl. sig: TA 02669.1
= DAI Tayma I.3.
CAr. ḥawl ‘strength’; Of. Aramaic and Palm. ‘force; armed force, army’
(Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 369) See: ḥll.
verb, D-stem. to be a soldier. etymological root: *ḥwl. sig: Esk 104;
Esk 020; Al-Anṣāry 35; JSTham 403; JSTham 343; Esk 289; Esk 185;
Esk 167; Esk. 059; Esk. 054; Philby 279 ap; TM.T.024; TM.T.041;
Esk. 055.
CAr. ḥawl ‘strength’ e.g. lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata ʾillā bi-llāhi l-ʿalliyi l-ʿaẓīmi
‘there is no strength or power but in (or by means of) God, the High, the Great’
(Lane: 675c); Of. Aramaic and Palm. ‘force; armed force, army’ (Hoftijzer &
Jongeling 1995: 369). See: ḥl.
noun. year. sig: Esk 272; Esk 020.
CAr. ḥawl ‘year’ (Lane: 675c)
toponym(?). Lmq. sig: TA 02669.1.
uncertain interpretation
mlk
noun. king. sig: WTay 9.2; Esk 169.
ms¹ʾ
proper name. Massāʾ. sig: WTay 16.
mṣr
CAr. Mālik; Heb. Malk.
Winnett identiies the ms¹ʾ mentioned here with the Massāʾ mentioned in Gen.
25:14, he connects it to a town Masʾa mentioned in an inscription of Tiglathpileser III as URU Ma-as-ʾa-a-a (Winnett & Reed 1970: 101) (For an extensive
survey of the Biblical and Akkadian sources mentioning the Massāʾ see Ephʿal
1982).
toponym. Egypt. See: mṣryt.
128
F. KOOTSTRA
mṣryt feminine adjective, nisbah. Egyptian (woman). sig: WTay 37.
Could be a personal name. See: Mṣr.
N
nbyt
proper name. Nebaioth. sig: WTay 11; WTay 13; WTay 15.
This form cannot be a reference to the Nabataeans (nbṭ(w) CAr. nabaṭ, ʾanbāṭ)
for one would have to explain both the loss of the y and the change ṭ > t. (For
more on the possible location of the Nabaioth in ancient times see Winnett &
Reed 1970: 100).
ndr
nk
toponym. Or tribal name {N}dr. sig: Esk 020.
verb. smite. etymological root: *nky. sig: Esk 023 ; Esk 026.
nṣb
verb. set up a stele. sig: TM.T 020.
nṣr
nṣr
in NWS Semitic commonly ‘to hit’, or ‘to smite’ e.g. Old Aramaic nky ‘to strike,
to hit’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 730).
Of. Aramaic nṣb; Nab. nṣb; Palm. nṣb ‘to erect, to raise’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling
1995: 749)
ininitive. watch; guard. etymological root: *nṯr.
̣ sig: WTay 32.
CAr. naẓara ‘to look at’ (Lane: 2810c); Old Aramaic nṣr ‘watch, protect’; Of.
Aramaic, Nab. nṭr ‘to watch, to protect’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 754755). See: nṭr; nṣr.
verb. guard, watch. etymological root: *nṯr.
̣ sig: WTay 20; HE 32;
WTay 33.1; WTay 11; WTay 15; WTay 16; WTay 9.1; WTay 14; WTay
32; WTay 35; WTay 42; HE 17; HE 40; HE 21; HE 25; HE 34.
CAr. naẓara ‘to look at’ (Lane: 2810c); Old Aramaic nṣr ‘watch, protect’; Of.
Aramaic, Nab. nṭr ‘to watch, to protect’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 754755). See: nṭr; nṣr. Variant: nṯr (WTay 17).
ntn
R
rʿy
Given the formulaic nature of the inscriptions it seems that the author was
intending to write nṣr. The ṯ could be a misreading of a ṣ, especially since
only a copy is available of this inscription (see Winnett & Reed 1970: 102). If
we should indeed read a ṯ, the confusion of ṯ and ṣ could indicate that ṣ was
still realized as an africate [ts͡ ] in Taymanitic, which was confused with the
fricative [θ]; or that the relex of ṯ had the same pronunciation as that of ṣ.
verb. give. sig: JSTham 352; Philby 279 ap.
Heb. ntn ’to give’
noun. chief. sig: Esk 031.
129
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
CAr. riʿy ‘pasture’ (Lane: 1109b); the root can also be used with the meaning
shepherd in Hebrew (Clines 1993) and in Amorite names (Knudsen 1991: 870,
the name i-la-ra-ḫi-a < ila-rāʿīya ‘ʾel is my shepherd’). In Akkadian, rʿy could
be used to refer not just to shepherding cattle, but also metaphorically extended to mean guiding or leading people (CAD, vol.14, 309). In combination with the word ṣābu it could be used to refer to a ‘foreman of the team,
shepherd of the team’ (CAD, vol.16, 46) (re-ʾ ṣā-bi (Lu II, iii, 11’f)).
rbs¹rs¹ noun. chief. sig: Esk 169.
rḍw
rkb
rm
originaly a compound noun from Akkadian rab ša rəši which referred to a
high administrative and military oicial in Assyrian and Babylonian . This
title was borrowed from Neo Assyrian into Aramaic with a simkat as srs. It is
also attested in Biblical Hebrew as rab sāris (Hayajneh 2001: 83).
verb. to please, to be pleased. sig: Esk 013.
In other ANA corpora e.g. Hismaic (Tdr 9 (King 1990)); Heb. rṣy and Of.
Aramaic rʿy (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 1082); CAr. raḍiya ‘to be pleased,
content’ (Lane: 1099b)
noun. riding camel. sig: WTay 3.
CAr. rukūb can refer to any animal that one rides, but in particular to a shecamel (Lane: 1144a).
noun. lancer. etymological root: *rmy. sig: Philby 279 ay.
CAr. ramā ‘to throw’
r[ʾ]s¹ noun. chief. etymological root: *rʾs¹. sig: TA 09303.
An alif shoud probably be amended in the inscription: r[ʾ]s¹. CAr. raʾs ‘head’
and raʾīs ‘head, chief, commander’ (Lane: 996a)
S¹
s¹ʾl
s¹mʿ
s¹nt
S²
s²bt
s²nʾ
verb. ask. sig: WAMT 59; TM.T.039; TM.T.027.
verb. listen. sig: WTay 2; WTay 1.2; HE 41; HE 31; HE 24.
noun. year. sig: HE 32; TM.T.041.
noun. Saturday? sig: Philby 279 ap.
uncertain context
noun. enmity. sig: Al-Anṣāry 35.
Hayajneh (2011: 765) irst suggested this interpretation.
S³
s³ġ (b-)verb. to open (it). etymological root: *s³wġ. sig: Esk 272.
130
F. KOOTSTRA
Compare CAr. sāġa ‘to be easy, accessible, lawful’ (Lane: 1468b). The Taymanitic form is probably derived from a transitive base *sawaġa, as opposed
to the intransitive Arabic form from *sayiġa.
Ṣ
ṣlm
T
tmʾ
twy
Y
ydʿ
yrḫ
yrr
proper name. Ṣalm, the main deity of Taymāʾ. sig: Esk 083 (part);
JSTham 352; Esk 013; WTay 20; HE 32; WTay 11; WTay 15; WTay
9.1; WTay 14; WTay 35; WTay 42; HE 17; HE 40; HE 21; HE 25; HE
34; Al-Anṣāry 35; Philby 279 ap; WTay 2; WTay 1.2; HE 41; HE 31;
HE 24; WAMT 59; TM.T.039.
toponym. Taymāʾ. sig: Kim CIMG 0759. Tay (unpublished).
noun. perishing. sig: WTay 2; WTay 1.2; HE 41; HE 31; HE 24.
CAr.: compare the phrase lā tawā ʿalā māli ʾamriyyin muslimin ‘there shall be
no perishing of the property of a man that is a Muslim’ in a tradition (Mgh.)
(Lane: 323c). This translation was irst proposed by Knauf (2011).
verb. know. etymological root: *wdʿ. sig: Kim CIMG 0759. Tay (unpublished).
CAr. wadaʿa ‘to know’ ; Heb. yādaʿ ‘to know’
noun. month. etymological root: *wrḫ. sig: WTay 20.
Heb. yereaḥ (HALOT: 437-8); Sab. wrḫ ‘month’ (Beeston et al. 1982: 162).
verb. guard. etymological root: *wrr. sig: Esk 052.
CAr. Warwara ‘to watch, to stand guard’ (Lisān: s.v.); Mod. Ar. waraya ‘to
show, to let s.o. see’ (Kurpershoek 2005: 349).
131
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Sigla
AH
Al-Anṣāry
BHT
BIT
BM 34167
C
CAD
EALL
Esk
Euting
Facey
HALOT
HCH
HE
HU
Hub
IGLS
IMA
Ja
JaL
JSTham
JSLih
KAI
Kim CIMG
KJC
KTU
Lane
Liv.
Mu
Philby
RES
Taymanitic inscriptions in Abū al-Ḥasan (2002).
Taymanitic inscriptions in Al-Anṣāry & Abū al-Ḥasan
(1423/2002).
Van den Branden (1960).
Inscriptions in Van den Branden (1950).
Royal Chronical, published by Lambert (1968/1969).
Ryckmans (1950-1951).
Roth et al. (1956-2010).
Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics (electroning
edition).
Eskoubi (1999).
Euting (1914).
Inscriptions discovered in and around Tayma before 1985 and
photographed by William Facey during the construction of the
Tayma Museum.
Koehler et al. (1995-2000).
Harding (1953).
Inscriptions published in Parr, Harding, & Dayton (1970).
Inscriptions copied by C. Huber and re-numbered in Van den
Branden (1950).
Huber (1891).
Sartre (1982).
Institut du Monde Arabe. An exhibition held there in which
two unpublished Taymanitic inscriptions were exhibited.
Jamme (1962)
Dadanitic (formerly Lihyanite) inscriptions published by
Jamme.
Thamudic inscriptions in Jaussen & Savignac (1909-1922).
Dadanitic (former Liḥyanite) inscriptions in Jaussen & Savignac (1909-1922).
Donner & Röllig (1996)
Photographs taken in and around Taymāʾ by Dr Kim. The photos were subsequently sent to M.C.A. Macdonald.
The Hismaic inscriptions from site C in King (1990).
Dietrich et al. (1976).
Lane (1863-1893).
Inscriptions from Tayma published by Alasdair Livingstone in
Livingstone et al. (1983)
Inscriptions recorded on the SESP surveys 1996–2003 (to appear on OCIANA).
Philby (1957).
See RES in bibliography.
132
F. KOOTSTRA
TA
TM.T
no.
TS
U
WAMT
WH
WTay
ZeWa
+
The registration numbers of the inscriptions discovered during the Saudi-German excavations at Tayma (Macdonald
forthcoming).
The number of the inscription in the Catalogue of the Inscriptions in the Tayma Museum (Macdonald & Al-Najem forthcoming).
Inscriptions in Jamme (1967).
Inscriptions from al-Uḏayb in Sima (1999)
Taymanitic, Hismaic, and "Thamudic" inscriptions in Winnett
(1971)
Winnett & Harding (1978).
Taymanitic inscriptions in Winnett & Reed (1970).
Zeinaddin, F. (2002). Unpublished inscriptions on fax to
M.C.A. Macdonald.
References
Abū al-Ḥasan, A. 2002. Nuqūš Liḥyāniyyah min Minṭaqat al-ʿUlā, Riyadh: Ministry of information, Department of antiquity and museums.
Al-Anṣāry, A. & Abū al-Ḥasan, A. 1423/2002. Taymāʾ. Multaqā al-ḥaḍārāt.,
Riyadh: Dār al-qawāil.
Al-Jallad, A. 2014. On the genetic background of the ʿgl bn hfʿm grave inscriptions at Qaryat al-Faw, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
77 (3): 1‒21.
——— 2015. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions, (Studies in
Semitic Languages and Linguistics 80), Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Al-Jallad, A. & al Manaser, M. 2015. New Epigraphica from Jordan I: a preIslamic Arabic inscription in Greek letters and a Greek inscription from northeastern Jordan, Arabian Epigraphic Notes, 1: 51‒70.
Ball, M.J., Müller, N., & Munro, S. 2001. Patterns in the acquisition of the
Welsh lateral fricative, Clinical linguistics and Phonetics, 15 (1): 3‒7.
Beaulieu, P. 1989. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556–539 B.C., Yale
Yale Near Eastern researches 10, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Beeston, A.F.L., Ghul, M.A., Müller, W.W., & Ryckmans, J. 1982. Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic), Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Benz, F.L. 1972. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions, Rome:
Biblical Institute.
Bordreuil, P. & Pardee, D. 1995. Un Abécédaire du type sud-sémitique découvert en 1988 dans les fouilles archéologiques françaises de Ras ShamraOugarit, Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres, 139 (3): 855‒860.
Van den Branden, A. 1950. Les inscriptions thamoudéennes, (Bibliothèque du
Muséon 25), Louvain: Institut Orientaliste de l’Université de Louvain.
133
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
——— 1960. Histoire de Thamoud, Beirut: al-Jamiah al-Lubnaniyah.
Brockelmann, C. 1908-1913. Grundriss der vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.
Clines, D.J. 1993. The dictionary of classical Hebrew, Sheield: Sheield Academic Press.
Cohen, D. 1976. Dictionnaire des Racines Sémitiques; ou attestés dan les langues
sémitiques, Paris: Mouton.
Cohen, D. & Cantineau, J. 1999. Dictionnaire Des Racines Sémitiques Ou Attestées
Dans Les Langues Sémitiques, Leuven: Peeters.
Corriente, F. 2004. Geminate imperfectives in Arabic masked as intensice stems
of the verb, Estudios de dialectología nortefricana y andalusí, 8: 33‒57.
Cowley, A.E. 1923. Aramaic papyri of the ifth century B.C., Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
D'Agostino, F. 1994. Nabonedo, Adda Guppi, il deserto e il dio Luna : storia, ideologia e propaganda nella Babilonia del VI sec. a.C., (Quaderni di orientalistica,
2), Pisa: Giardini.
Dalley, S. 1986. The God Salmu and the Winged Disk, Iraq, 48: 85‒101.
Dietrich, M., Loretz, O., & Sanmartín, J. 1976. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus
Ugarit: Einschlieslich der keilalphabetischen Texte ausserhalb Ugarits. Teil 1.
Transkription, (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 24), Kevelaer/NeukirchenVluyn: Verlag Butzon und Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag.
Donner, H. & Röllig, W. 1996. Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Doughty, C.M. 1884. Documents épigraphiques recueillis dans le Nord de l'Arabie
par M. Charles Doughty, edited by R. Ernest, Paris: Imprimerie nationale.
Eksell, K. 2002. Meaning in Ancient North Arabian carvings, Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell international.
Ephʿal, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs : Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent,
9th-5th Centuries B.C., Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Eskoubi, K.M.A. 1999. Dirāsah Taḥliyyah Muqārinah li-Nuqūš min Minṭaqat
(Ramm) Ǧanūb Ġarb Taymāʾ, Riyadh: Wazārat al-Maʿārif.
——— 2007. Dirāsa Taḥlīliyyah Muqārinah li-Nuqūš min Minṭaqat Ramm bayna
Ṯlēṯuwwāt wa-Qīʿān al-Ṣanīʿ, Riyadh: Dārat al-Malik ʿAbdalʿazīz.
Euting, J. 1914. Tagebuch einer Reise in Inner-Arabien, Hamburg: SOLDI-Verlag.
Farès-Drappeau, S. 2005. Dédan et Lihyan: histoire des Arabes aux conins des
pouvoirs perse et hellénistique, IVe–IIe s. avant l’ère chrétienne, (Travaux de la
Maison de l’ Orient 42), Lyon: Maison de l’ Orient et de la Méditerranée.
134
F. KOOTSTRA
Fischer, W. 2001. A Grammar of Classical Arabic: Third Revised Edition. Translated by Jonathan Rodgers, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gianto, A. 2011. Ugaritic, in: Languages from the world of the Bible, H. Gzella,
ed., Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, pp. 28‒54.
Goetze, A. 1946. The Akkadian Masculine Plural in –ānū/ī and its Semitic Background, Language, 22: 120‒130.
Guillaume, A. 1963. The Arabic Background of the Book of Job, in: Promise
and Fulilment: Essays Presented to Professor S.H. Hooke, F.F. Bruce, ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, pp. 106‒127.
Gzella, H. 2011. North West Semitic in general, in: Languages from the world of
the Bible, H. Gzella, ed., Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, pp. 425‒451.
Hayajneh, H. 2001. First evidence of Nabonidus in the Ancient North Arabian
inscriptions from the region of Taymāʾ, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian
Studies, 31: 81‒95.
Harding, G.L. 1953. The Cairn of Haniʾ, Annual of the Department of Antiquities
of Jordan, 2: 8‒56.
——— 1971. An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions, (Near and Middle East 8), Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Hasselbach, R. 2007. Demonstratives in Semitic, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 127 (1): 1–27.
Hausleiter, A. 2010. The Oasis of Tayma, in: Roads of Arabia; Archaeology
and History of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, A.I. Al-Ghabban, B. AndréSalvini, F. Demange, C. Juvin, & M. Cotty, eds., Paris: Musée du Louvre,
pp. 219‒261.
Hayajneh, H. 1998. Die Personennamen in den qatabānischen Inschriften, (Texte
und Studien zur Orientalistik 10)., Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.
——— 2009a. Ancient North Arabian-Nabataean bilingual inscriptions from
southern Jordan, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 39: 203‒222.
——— 2009b. Die frühnordarabischen taymānischen Inschriften und die Frage
der Antipathie gegen den Gott Ṣlm in der Region von Taymāʾ, in: Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien un Sokotra; Analecta Semitica In
Memoriam Alexander Sima, W. Arnold, M. Jursa, W. Müller, & S. Procházka,
eds., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 73‒104.
——— 2011. Ancient North Arabian, in: The Semitic languages: an international
handbook, S. Weninger, ed., Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 756‒781.
Hayajneh, H. & Tropper, J. 1997. De Genese Des Altsudarabischen Alphabets,
Ugarit Forschungen, 29: 183‒198.
Hetzron, R. 1976. Two principles of genetic reconstruction, Lingua, 38 (2):
89‒108.
135
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Hofman, Y. 1996. A Blemished Perfection. The Book of Job in Context, (Journal
for the Study of Old Testament Supplement Series, 213), Sheield: Sheield
Academic Press.
Hoftijzer, J. & Jongeling, K. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions I-II, with Appendices by R.C. Stein, A. Mosak Moshave and B. Porten,
(Handbuch der Orientalistik. I. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 21), Leiden:
Brill.
Huber, C. 1884. Inscriptions Recueilles Dans L’ Arabie Centrale, Bulletin de la
Société de Géographie, 7 (5): 289‒303.
——— 1891. Journal d’un voyage en Arabie, 1883-84, Imprimerie Nationale:
Paris.
Huehnergard, J. 1995. Semitic languages, in: Civilizations of the ancient near
east, J.M. Sasson, ed., New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 2117‒2134.
——— forthcoming. Arabic in its Semitic context, in: Arabic in Context, A. AlJallad, ed., Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Huehnergard, J. & Rubin, A. 2011. Phyla and waves: Models of classiication
of the Semitic languages, in: The Semitic languages: an international handbook,
S. Weninger, ed., Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 259‒278.
Jamme, A. 1962. Sabaean Inscriptions from Maḥram Bilqîs (Mârib), (Publications of the American Foundation for the Study of Man 3), Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press.
——— 1967. Thamudic Studies, Washington, D.C.
Jaussen, A. & Savignac, M.R. 1909-1922. Mission archéologique en Arabie, vol.
1-5, Paris: Leroux/Geuthner.
Joüon, P. & Muraoka, T. 2009. A grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Rome: Biblical
Institute.
Kazimirski, A. 1860. Dictionnaire Arabe-Français, contenant toutes les racines de
la langue arabe, leurs dérivés, tant dans l'idiome vulgaire que dans l'idiome littéral,
ainsi que les dialectes d'Alger et de Maroc, 2 vols, Paris: Maissonneuve.
King, G.H.M. 1990. Early North Arabian Ḥ ismaic. A Preliminary Description Based
on a New Corpus of Inscriptions from the Ḥ ismā Desert of Southern Jordan and
Published material, Ph.D. thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies.
Knauf, E.A. 2010. Arabo-Aramaic and ʿArabiyya: from Ancient Arabic to Early
Standard Arabic, 200 CE – 600 CE, in: The Qurʾān in context: Hisotircal and literary investigations into the Qurʾānic milieu, A. Neuwirth, N. Sinai, & M. Marx,
eds., Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 197‒254.
——— 2011. Thamudic, in: Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
L. Edzard & R. de Jong, eds., Leiden/Boston: Brill, vol. 4, pp. 477‒483.
Knudsen, E.E. 1991. Amorite grammar. A comparative statement, in: Semitic
Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Eighty-Fifth Birthday, A.S.
Kaye, ed., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 866‒885.
136
F. KOOTSTRA
Koehler, L., Baumgartners, W., Richardson, M.E.J., & Stamm, J.J. 1995-2000.
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament I–V, Leiden: Brill.
Koenen, L. (ed.) 2013. The Petra papyri II, Amman: American Center of Oriental
Research.
Kurpershoek, M.P. 2005. Oral poetry and narratives from central Arabia, vol. 5;
Voices from the desert, Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Lambert, W.G. 1968/1969. A New Source for the Reign of Nabonidus, Archiv
für Orientforschung, 22: 1‒8.
——— 1972. Nabonidus in Arabia, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 5: 53‒64.
Lane, E.W. 1863-1893. An Arabic-English Lexicon, London: Williams & Norgate.
Lipiński, E. 1997. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar, (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80), Leuven: Peeters.
Livingstone, A., Spaie, B., Ibrahim, M., Kamal, M., & Taimani, S. 1983. Taimāʾ:
Recent Soundings and New Inscribed Material (1402 AH — 1982 AD), Atlal,
7: 102‒116.
Macdonald, M. & Al-Najem, M. forthcoming. Catalogue of the inscriptions in
the Taymāʾ Museum; I: Inscriptions not found in the Saudi-German excavations.
Macdonald, M.C.A. 1991. HU 501 and the use of s³ in Taymanite, Journal of
Semitic studies, 36 (1): 11‒25.
——— 1992. North Arabian epigraphic notes – I, Arabic archaeology and epigraphy, 3: 23‒43.
——— 1997. Trade routes and trade goods at the northern end of the ʻincense
roadʼ in the irst millennium B.C., in: Profumi d’Arabia., A. Avanzini, ed.,
Roma: L'Erma' di Bretschneider, pp. 333‒349.
——— 2000. Relections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia, Arabian
Archaeology and Epigraphy, 11: 28‒79.
——— 2006. Burial between the Desert and the Sown: Cave-Tombs and
Inscriptions near Dayr Al-Kahf in Jordan, Damaszener Mitteilungen, 15:
273‒301.
——— 2008. Ancient North Arabian, in: The Ancient Languages of SyriaPalestine and Arabia, R.D. Woodard, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 179‒224.
——— 2010. Ancient Arabia and the written word, in: The development of
Arabic as a written language, M.C.A. Macdonald, ed., Oxford: Archaeopress,
pp. 5‒28.
——— forthcoming. Taymāʾ Aramaic, Nabataean, Dadanitic, and Taymanitic inscriptions from the Saudi-German excavations at Taymāʾ 2004–2015.
137
THE TAYMANITIC LANGUAGE & CLASSIFICATION
Müller, W.W. 1982. Das Altarbische und Klassisch Arabisch, in: Grundriss der
arabischen Philologie, W. Fischer, ed., Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 19‒29.
Müller, W.W. & Al-Said, S.F. 2001. Der babylonische König Nabonid in
Taymāʾnischen Inschriften, Biblische Notizen, 107: 109‒119.
Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. Mesopotamia – Land of many cities, in: Middle Eastern
cities, I.M. Lapidus, ed., Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press,
pp. 3‒18.
Pardee, D. 2008. Ugaritic, in: The ancient languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia., D. Woodard, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5‒35.
Parr, P.J., Harding, G.L., & Dayton, J.E. 1970. Preliminary Survey in NW Arabia,
1968, London: Institute of Archaeology.
Philby, H.S.J.B. 1957. The land of Midian, Ernest Benn Limited: London.
RES 1900-1968. Répertoire d'Épigraphie Sémitique, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Roth, M.T., Biggs, R.D., Brinkman, J.A., Civil, M., Farber, W., Reiner, E.,
Stolper, M.W., Gelb, I.J., Landsberger, B., Oppenheim, A.L., & Jacobson,
T. (eds.) 1956-2010. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, vol. 1-21, Chicago/Glückstadt: Oriental Institute/J.J.
Augustin Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Ryckmans, J. (ed.) 1950-1951. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum Pars V, Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale.
Sartre, M. 1982. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. tome XIII, fasc. 1.
Bostra, no 9001 à 9472, (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, 113),
Paris: Geuthner.
Sass, B. 2005. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium. The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150-850 BCE. The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian
Alphabets, (Tel Aviv. Occasional Publications 4), Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire
Yass Publications in Archaeology.
Sima, A. 1999. Die lihyanischen Inschriften von al-Udayb (Saudi-Arabien),
(Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 1), Leidorf: Rahden/Westf.
Stein, P. 2003. Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabäischen, (Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel, 3), Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf GmbH.
Teixidor, J. 1962. The Syriac Incantation Bowls in the Iraq Museum, Sumer,
18 (1): 63‒64.
——— 1978. The Aramaic text in the trilingual stele from Xanthus, Journal of
Near Eastern Studies, 37 (2): 181‒185.
Tropper, J. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatic, Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Wallin, G.A. 1850. Notes Taken during a Journey through Part of Northern
Arabia, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 20: 293‒344.
138
F. KOOTSTRA
Wellsted, J.R. 1838. Travels in Arabia, London: John Murray.
Winnett, F.V. 1937. A Study of the Liḥyanite and Thamudic Inscriptions, (University of Toronto Studies — Oriental Series 3), Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
——— 1971. An Arabian Miscellany, Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 31
[N.S. 21]: 443‒454.
——— 1980. A reconsideration of some inscriptions from the Tayma area, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian studies, 10: 133‒140.
——— unpublished. Studies in Thamudic.
Winnett, F.V. & Harding, G.L. 1978. Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns, (Near
and Middle East Series 9), Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Winnett, F.V. & Reed, W.L. 1970. Ancient Records from North Arabia, Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Wright, W. & Caspari, C. 1859. A grammar of the Arabic language: translated
from the German of Caspari, London/Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate.
139
Arabian Epigraphic Notes 2 (2016): 141-150
ʿAbd al-Asad and the Question of a Lion-God
in the pre-Islamic Tradition:
An Onomastic Study
Hekmat Dirbas (Leiden University)
Abstract
This article investigates the pre-Islamic name ʿAbd al-Asad and the alleged
lion-god in the Arabic tradition through the onomastic evidence of two
ancient Semitic languages (Eblaite and Amorite) as well as the ancient epigraphic languages of Arabia. The study suggests that the name has no
association with the god Yaġūṯ under the form of a lion. Alternatively, it
relects either an ‘archaic’ astral cult related to Leo or a traditional namegiving practice known especially in the northern parts of the Arabian Peninsula. According to this practice, the individual, whether being a child or
an adult, could have been named ʿAbd-of-X after the person who took care
of him (i.e. a patron) or the tribe he belonged to.
Keywords: animal names, onomastics, ancestor cult, namegiving
1 Introduction
The personal name ʿAbd al-Asad, lit. “Servant of the Lion”,1 was connected to
a lion cult by Smith (1907: 224). It is worth quoting the relevant passage in
full:
According to Zamakhsharī on Sur. 71 23, the Arabs worshipped
their god Yaghūth under the form of a lion; and the existence of a
lion-god is independently proved by the name ʿAbd al-Asad among
the Coraish. That the Coraish worshipped Yaghuth we know from
the names ʿAbd Yaghūth and ʿObaid Yaghūth.
Nöldeke (1913: 662) is more cautious about this hypothesis:
In the case of the Lion-god, whose existence is proved only by the
mention of a man named ʿAbd al-Asad, ‘servant of the Lion’, belonging to the tribe of Quraish, such a supposition would be especially
hazardous, since asad is a comparatively modern word for ‘lion’,
not the old word common to the various Semitic languages.
1 Two pre-Islamic individuals bore this name: ʿAbd al-Asad b. Hilāl and ʿAbd al-Asad b. ʿĀmir
(Caskel 1966 2: 122), but more information is available on the former in the narrative sources.
141
ʿABD AL-ASAD AND THE LION-GOD
Since this discussion, nothing has been written on the name ʿAbd al-Asad
and the alleged lion-god. In my approach of this topic, I will irst examine the
element *ʾaš/ś(a)d- in the ancient Semitic languages and then discuss Classical
Arabic theophoric names containing ʿAbd as the irst element in light of the
Ancient Arabian onomasticon and the classical narrative sources.
2
The question of *ʾaš/ś(a)d-
This element appears as an appellative and as a divine name in two Eblaite
names: Ašda-Il “Il is A.” and Ḥinna-ʾašda “Have mercy, A.”, where it is translated as “lion” in view of Arabic asad- (Pagan 1998: 324; Krebernik 1988: 76).
The element is much more common, however, in the Amorite onomasticon
(Gelb 1982: 52, sub ʾAŚD), e.g. Aśda-aḫī “My brother is A.”, Aśdum-abī “My
father is A.”, Aśdu-rābi or rāpi “A is great” or “healer”, and so on. Both Gelb
(1982: 13) and Millet Albà (2000: 480f) adopt the same meaning, “lion”. Other
scholars, on the other hand, suggest “warrior” (Hufmon 1965: 169; Durand
1991: 82 fn. 4; Streck 2000: §5.7) in view of Old Sabaic ʾs1 d “men, soldiers,
warriors” (Beeston et al. 1982: 7). As for the Ancient Arabian onomasticon,
ʾs1 d occurs as a theophoric element only in Old Sabaic2 and as a one-word
name in the other languages/scripts.3 In addition, the element is attested as a
deity’s name in a Nabataean inscription from Dēr el-Mešqūq ʾšdw ʾlhy ʾlh mʿynw
“Aś(a)dū is (my) god, the god of Maʿīnū” (mentioned by Cantineau 1932: 68a).
The particular association between the deity and mʿynw here seems to point to
a Minaean community in the Nabataean realm and consequently to a South
Arabian cult regarding the same divine element found in Old Sabaic. This inscription thus cannot be taken as proof of a lion-god.
The earliest occurrence of ʾs1 d as a name of the animal is in the Safaitic
inscriptions, where it is attested some twenty times in the OCIANA corpus. For
example:
• By Flṭt son of Tm son of Flṭt son of {Bhs2 } son of ʾḏnt and he camped on
the edge of an area of sand, then the lion injured him, so, O Lt, let there
be security (Al-Jallad 2015: 266).
• By S1 l is the lion (ʾs1 d); a rock drawing of a lion accompanies this inscription (Ababneh 2005 inscr. #121).
2 ʾs1 dʾmn “The (divine) warrior has given trust” (i.e. to the name-giver), ʾs1 dḏkr “The (divine)
warrior has mentioned” (i.e. the name), ʾs1 dkrb “The (divine) warrior has recognized” (Tairan
1992: 61–64).
3 Nabataean ʾšdw (Negev 1991: 165); Palmyrene ʾšd, ʾšdw (Stark 1971: 73); Safaitic ʾʾs1 d, ʾs1 d,
ʾs1 dw, ʾs1 dy, ʾs1 dn; ʾs1 d in Dadanitic and Thamudic (Harding 1971: 7, 43); ʾs1 dt as a masculine
name in Thamudic, Minaic, Qatabanic, and as a feminine name in Sabaic (Shatnawi 2002: 646;
Schafer 1981: 296).
142
H. DIRBAS
Figure 1: Tracing of inscription #121 by M. Ababneh
In view of this analysis, it seems likely that the sense “warrior” is secondary
and that Arabic preserved the original meaning. The sense “warrior” could
have emerged from a legend in which a king, an eponymous ancestor, or the
like was associated with the lion. Over time, probably, the epithet replaced the
concrete term and became a theophoric element with a particular reference to
a class of ‘divine’ warriors. This proposition can be supported by the fact that
other animal names in Semitic languages are used as designations of leaders,
nobles, and warriors.4 One could also assume that the Eblaite and Amorite
names belong to an astral myth, in which Leo, as a deity, plays a heroic role.
This might be relected by two Amorite names formed with maṭar- “rain” (Aśdīmaṭar) and √y-p-ʿ “to irradiate” (Aśdī-ēpuḫ < yapuʿ). The rain and irradiation
are two characteristics of nawʾ al-asad “Leo” in Arabic (Ibn Qutayba 1988: 53f).
As a constellation name, hʾs1 d/ʾs1 d is early recorded in Safaitic inscriptions (AlJallad 2014: 227a).
Given this information, is the element al-Asad in the pre-Islamic name ʿAbd
al-Asad used as a divine epithet? Does it indicate Leo? Or does it belong to a
diferent naming tradition? I will try to answer these questions in the following
two sections.
3 Al-Asad: a divine epithet?
The hypothesis that this element denotes Yaġūṯ (see the introduction) or an
anonymous god seems less likely for two reasons:
First, classical Arab scholars who dealt with onomastica from an etymological point of view, such as Ibn Durayd (1991: 401), or wrote on the religion
of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic times, such as Ibn al-Kalbī (1995: 10, 57), are
silent on the association between Yaġūṯ and the lion. In addition, a certain
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Asad was a companion of the Prophet (Ibn al-Aṯīr 1996
4: 170; 3: 506), and the latter is reported to have changed many names that
do not agree with the Islamic instructions, especially the ones referring to idols
(Kister 1975), but there is no Hadith concerning the name of ʿAbd al-Asad or
the cult of Yaġūṯ in the form of a lion, even though the idol is mentioned in
the Qurʾan (71: 23).
Second, as far as we know from the classical narrative sources, animal
names do not occur as divine names/epithets in Arabic. In this context, one
should be careful in dealing with the deity Nasr (Qurʾan 71: 23), for it occurs
4 For some examples in Ugaritic and Hebrew, see Miller (1970). As for Arabic, in the Najdi dialect, for instance, the term tays/tēs “he-goat” is an honoriic title for elite persons (Hess 1912: 13).
143
ʿABD AL-ASAD AND THE LION-GOD
as early as the Hatrene and Ancient South Arabian inscriptions.5
4
ʿAbd al-Asad and names of the ʿAbd-X type
An examination of the onomastic evidence in Caskel (1966 2: 103-134) suggests that the pre-Islamic names of the ʿAbd-X type “Servant of X” are formed
with the following elements:
1. a name of a deity: Allāh, Manāt (f), Ḏū-Šarā, al-ʿUzzā (f), Manāf, al-Dār,
Ğadd, al-Qays, and so on;
2. divine beings: al-Ğān and al-Ğinn;6
3. a name of a sanctuary: al-Kaʿba, al-Bayt, and al-Dār;
4. a kinship term: ʿAbd ʿammih “Servant of his paternal uncle” or “ancestor”
and ʿAbd ahlih “Servant of his family/clan” (the latter might iguratively
denote a deity, Littmann 1948–1949: 52);
5. a name of a celestial body: ʿAbd Šams “Sun” (also Safaitic ʿbdšms, Harding
1971: 399), ʿAbd al-Ṯurayyā “Pleiades”, and, possibly, ʿAbd Ṯābir, provided that it is related to Safaitic ṯbr “Sagittarius” (Al-Jallad 2014: 227);
6. personal names: ʿAdī, ʿAmr, ʿĀmir, al-Aswad, ʿAwf, al-Aws, al-Ašhal,
Bakr, al-Ḥāriṯ, Kaʿb, ʾUmayya, al-Nuʿmān, Ğaḏīma, Ğarīš, Ġaṭafān, Hind,
Yazīd, etc.
In view of the three names in group 5, it is possible that ʿAbd al-Asad refers
to Leo and consequently indicates an ‘archaic’ astral cult.7 If our interpretation
of the element aś(a)d- in the Eblaite and Amorite names is correct, i.e. Leo, the
pre-Islamic name could represent a continuation of this tradition.
Alternatively, one can also approach the name through group no. 6, which
deserves a thorough discussion. It has been assumed that some names in this
group, like al-Ḥāriṯ, al-Ašhal, etc. were originally names of archaic idols,
but they later subsequently became names with the widest circulation (Kister
1975: 7). However, Ibn al-Kalbī himself (1995: 30) is not certain whether
names like ʿAbd Yālīl/Ġanm/Kulāl are based on idols or not, since there is no
information on them in the older reports. In order to understand the names in
group 6 and subsequently ʿAbd al-Asad, I will irst consult the ancient Arabian
evidence.
As is known, some names of the ʿAbd-X type are basileophoric, i.e. the divine element is replaced by that of a Nabataean monarch, e.g. ʿbdḥrtt/ʿbdḥrṯt
“Servant of Aretas”, ʿbdʿbdt and its parallel tymʿbdt/tmʿbdt, meaning “Servant
5 Nasr is used as a theophoric element in Sabaic, e.g. rbns1 rm “N. is the god/great” and Qatabanic, e.g. šfnns1 r (f) “N. has looked down at me/us” (Sholan 1999: 148f). It is more observed,
however, in the Hatrene onomasticon in the Aramaic form Nešrā: brnšrʾ “Son of N.”, ʿbdnšrʾ “Servant of N.”, nšryhb “N. has given”, nšrʿqb “N. has protected”, nšrlṭb “May N. do well”, nšrntn “N.
has given” (Beyer 1998: 149, sub nešrā).
6 These seem to be related to Dura Aβιγγιναιος, likely transcription of ʿbdgny “Servant of Ginnai”,
and its semantic parallel Bαργινναος brgny “Son of Ginnai” (Aramaic), where Gny/Ginnai is a deity
known from Palmyra (Grassi 2012: 117, 161–162).
7 For more information on astral cult, see Montgomery (2006: 91f).
144
H. DIRBAS
of Obodas”, ʿbdmlkw/ʿbdmk “Servant of Malichos”, ʿbdḥldw “Servant of (the
queen) Ḥuldū”, ʿbds2 qlt “Servant of (the queen) Šaqīlat”, and ʿbdrbʾl “Servant
of Rabbēl” (Milik 1976: 145-146; King 1990: 76; Al-Jallad 2015: 59). This
type of basileophoric names relects an ancient Near Eastern onomastic tradition (without the element ʿabd-)8 and seems to have survived in the pre-Islamic
ʿAbd al-Nuʿmān, ʿAbd Ğaḏīma, and ʿAbd al-Aswad,9 which are mostly based on
names of Lakhmid rulers.10 Yet, there are some Nabataean names which are
formed neither with a monarch’s name nor with a divinity’s, i.e. ʿbdmnnw, ʿbdʿdnwn, ʿbdʿmnw, ʿbdʿmrw. For Milik (1959–1960: 150) these are based on names
of tribal eponyms. This hypothesis seems probable, especially that two of them,
ʿmnw and ʿmrw, are attested as tribal names in Safaitic inscriptions in the forms
ʿmn and ʿmrt (Al-Jallad 2015: Index of Tribes). This type of ʿAbd+tribe name
might also apply to the pre-Islamic ʿAbd Ġaṭafān and ʿAbd al-Aws, whose second elements are found as both tribal and individual names (Caskel 1966 2:
123–124).
The last Ancient North Arabian group of the ʿAbd-X type is unclear, like
Hismaic ʿbdgns1 , ʿbdḍn, and ʿbdḥwr, with the possibility that the latter refers to
either a star (the third star [ɛ] of the tail of Ursa Major, next to the body) or the
toponym ḥwrwʾ and ḥwrwy (King 1990: 77). If the latter hypothesis is correct,
the toponym can be interpreted as an originally tribal name or a ‘cultic’ place.
I would also hypothesize that some of the unidentiied Ancient North Arabian and pre-Islamic names of the ʿAbd-X type (group no. 6) relect a kind of
ancestor cult in the broad sense, including the ones based on eponyms and
tribal names. This hypothesis is based on the fact that the Semitic onomastic
traditions represent a kind of continuity. In modern Shiite names, for example,
the element ʿabd- is added to one of the Shiite Imams’ names: ʿAbd ʿAlī/alḤasan/al-Ḥusayn/al-ʿAbbās/al-Aʾimma (i.e. imams), and even ʿAbd al-Zahrāʾ
(i.e. the nickname of Fāṭima, the Prophet’s daughter) (Al-Sāmirrāʾī 1983: 266).
These imams in the Shiite creed are simply ancestors with an exalted position.
Such a naming tradition would seem to have roots in an older Arabic tradition
in particular and inds parallels in other Semitic cultures as well. For example,
Old Babylonian names compounded with names of mortals or masters: AmatBēltani “Slave-girl of Bēltani”, Awīl-ilim-erībam “Awīl-īlim restituted to me”,
and Ea-tukultī-qarrād, “Ea-tukultī is a hero”. Bēltani, Awīl-ilim, and Ea-tukultī
are normal names but here they appear as if they had a divine status (Stol
1991: 203). Despite the speciic linguistic features of the modern Shiite names
compared to the Old Babylonian ones, from a semantic point of view, they
are both based on the same principle. Given this, the Ancient North Arabian
and pre-Islamic names of the ʿAbd-X type should not be seen as an ‘exceptional’
case. The question of names and ancestor cult, however, still needs an in-depth
approach in view of the archeological and textual evidence (which is outside
the scope of this article).
Still, we have the pre-Islamic name ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, lit. “Servant of the
demanding one” (i.e. the grandfather of the Prophet), which appears to have
no association with a monarch, social group, or ancestor cult. In order to
8 The practice of using the name of the king as a theophoric element goes back to ancient
Mesopotamia (Edzard 1998: 109).
9 According to (Fahd 1968: 46–47), there was a god and a mountain (between al-Ḥijaz and
Najd) known as al-Aswad, meaning “the greatest, chief” and also “black” (Lane 1863-1893: 1463b).
10 On these rulers, see ʿAlī (2001: 210).
145
ʿABD AL-ASAD AND THE LION-GOD
understand this name, I will highlight two classical reports concerning it and
see if they ofer us a clue to decode our ʿAbd al-Asad as well as some of the
unidentiied names of the ʿAbd-X type in their Ancient Arabian context. The
irst report mentions that the birth-name of ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib was Šayba “Grayhaired” and that he spent his early infancy with his mother among her tribe.
After some years his paternal uncle, al-Muṭṭalib11 came to take him back to
Mecca. When the people of Mecca saw the boy sitting behind him on the camel,
they thought he was his servant and therefore called him ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib
“Servant of al-Muṭṭalib” (Ibn Hišām 1995: 184–185). This report also indicates
a kind of ailiation through manumission (walāʾ) if we apply it to names which
are based on tribal names. In other words, if a person was ailiated to a tribe
(i.e. became a mawlā), he would be consequently identiied as its ‘servant’.
The other report mentions that ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib was named so because he
was fatherless and brought up by his paternal uncle. Arabs in the pre-Islamic
times used to name the fatherless boy ʿAbd-PN after the man who took care
of him (Al-Ḥalabī 1875: 4–5). Conceptually, both reports indicate a kind of
patronage and protection towards the named individual, regardless of their
historical veracity.
Considering ʿAbd al-Asad in view of this information, we can trace a branch
of his family tree (Caskel 1966 1: 22) and see which hypothesis applies to his
case:
ʿAbd Allāh
Asad
ʿUṯmān al-Muġīra ʿĀ’id Ḫālid
Hilāl
PN PN PN PN ʿAbd al-Asad
As we can see in the chart, ʿAbd al-Asad appears to have been the only son
of Hilāl, whereas his uncle Asad (or al-Asad) had four. Most probably, Hilāl
died early and his son, like ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, was brought up by his uncle and
consequently bore his name.
Summing up, the literal approach of compound personal names is quite hazardous and can easily lead to fanciful conclusions. The pre-Islamic name ʿAbd
Bakr (Caskel 1966 2: 123) would evoke a camel cult if we treat the element
bakr literally as “young camel” and not as a personal or tribal name. Similarly,
the element ʿawf in ʿAbd ʿAwf (group 6 above) would indicate a bird cult12 if
interpreted as a divine name.
5
Conclusion
An investigation of the onomastic evidence of two ancient Semitic languages
(Eblaite and Amorite), the Ancient Arabian inscriptions, and the classical narrative sources suggests that the element al-Asad in the pre-Islamic name ʿAbd
al-Asad should not be interpreted as a divine name/epithet (i.e. Yaġūṯ or an
11 The name is attested 7 times in Caskel (1966 2: 439). We also have another name from the
same root: Ṭālib (2 times, ibid, 556) and its diminutive Ṭulayb (3 times, ibid, 559).
12 On the etymology of *ʿawp- “bird” in Semitic languages, see Militarev & Kogan (2005, no. 48).
146
H. DIRBAS
anonymous god). Rather, the name could relect either an ‘archaic’ astral cult
related to Leo or, more probably, an ancient name-giving practice. According
to this practice, recorded also in the Ancient North Arabian onomasticon, the
child was not only named ʿAbd-X in reference to a deity, ruler, or sanctuary,
but also after (1) the person who took care of him, (2) his original tribe or the
tribe with which he became ailiated (as a freed slave or refugee), or (3) a
‘divinized’ eponymous ancestor, with a high probability of ancestor cult.
Address for Correspondence: dirbas.hek@hotmail.com
147
ʿABD AL-ASAD AND THE LION-GOD
References
Ababneh, M.I. 2005. Neue safaitische Inschriften und deren bildliche Darstellungen,
number 6 in Semitica et Semitohamitica Berolinensia, Aachen: Shaker.
Al-Jallad, A. 2014. An Ancient Arabian Zodiac. The Constellations in the
Safaitic Inscriptions, Part I., Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 25:
214‒330.
——— 2015. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions, (Studies in
Semitic Languages and Linguistics 80), Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Al-Sāmirrāʾī, I. 1983. Fiqh al-luġa al-muqāran, Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm, third edition.
Al-Ḥalabī 1875. al-Sīra al-ḥalabiyya, 3 vols., Cairo.
ʿAlī, Ǧ. 2001. al-Mufaṣṣal fī tārīḫ al-ʿarab qabl al-islām, 20 vols., Beirut: Dār
al-Sāqī.
Beeston, A.F.L., Ghul, M.A., Müller, W.W., & Ryckmans, J. 1982. Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic), Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Beyer, K. 1998. Die aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra und dem übrigen
Ostmesopotamien (datiert 44 v. Chr. bis 238 n. Chr.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Cantineau, J. 1932. Le Nabatéen. II. Choix de textes — Lexique, Paris: Ernest
Leroux.
Caskel, W. 1966. Ǧamharat an-Nasab: das genealogische Werk des Hišam ibn
Muḥammad al-Kalbī, 2 vols., Leiden: Brill.
Durand, J.M. 1991. L’emploi des toponymes dans l’onomastique d’époque
amorrite (I): Les noms en Mut-, Studi epigraici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente
antico, 8: 81‒97.
Edzard, D.O. 1998. Namen, Namengebung (Onomastik). B. Akkadisch, Reallexikon der Assyriologie, 9 (1–2): 94‒116.
Fahd, T. 1968. Le Panthéon de l’Arabie centrale à la veille de l’Hégire, number 88
in Institut Français d’Archeologie de Beyrouth; Bibliothèque Archeologique
et Historique, Paris: P. Geuthner.
Gelb, I.J. 1982. Computer-aided Analysis of Amorite, number 21 in Assyriological
Studies, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Grassi, G.F. 2012. Semitic Onomastics from Dura Europos: The Names in Greek
Script and from Latin Epigraphs, number 12 in History of the Ancient Near
East Monographs, Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N.
Harding, G.L. 1971. An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and
Inscriptions, (Near and Middle East 8), Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Hess, J.J. 1912. Beduinennamen aus Zentralarabien, Heidelberg: Winter.
148
H. DIRBAS
Hufmon, H. 1965. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and
Lexical Study, Baltimore: John Hopkins.
Ibn al-Aṯīr 1996. Usd al-ġāba fī maʿrifat al-ṣaḥāba, ed. ʿA.M. Muʿawwaḍ and
ʿA.A. ʿAbd al-Mawǧūd, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
Ibn al-Kalbī 1995. Kitāb al-aṣnām, ed. A. Zakī Bāšā, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub alMiṣriyya.
Ibn Durayd 1991. al-Ištiqāq, ed. ʿA. Hārūn, Beirut: Dār al-Ğīl.
Ibn Hišām 1995. al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. M.F. al-Sayyid, 5 vols., Tanta: Dār
al-Ṣaḥāba.
Ibn Qutayba 1988. al-Anwāʾ fī mawāsim al-ʿarab, Baghdad: Dār al-Šuʾūn alṮaqāiyya al-ʿĀmma.
King, G.H.M. 1990. Early North Arabian Ḥismaic. A Preliminary Description Based
on a New Corpus of Inscriptions from the Ḥismā Desert of Southern Jordan and
Published material, Ph.D. thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies.
Kister, M.J. 1975. Call Yourselves by Graceful Names, in: Lectures in Memory
of Professor Martin M. Plessner, P. Shinar, F. Klein-Franke, & M.J. Kister, eds.,
Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Krebernik, M. 1988. Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: eine Zwischenbilanz,
number 7 in Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, Berlin: Reimer.
Lane, E.W. 1863-1893. An Arabic-English Lexicon, London: Williams & Norgate.
Littmann, E. 1948–1949. Asmāʾ al-aʿlām fī al-luġāt al-sāmiyya, Maǧallat
Kuliyyat al-Ādāb, 10.
Milik, J.T. 1959–1960. Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie Jordaniennes,
Liber Annuus, 10: 147‒184.
——— 1976. Une inscription bilingue nabatéenne et grecque à Pétra, Annual
of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 21: 143‒152.
Militarev, A. & Kogan, L. 2005. Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Volume 2:
Animal Names, number 278 in Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag.
Miller, P.D. 1970. Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,
Ugarit-Forschungen, 2: 177‒186.
Millet Albà, A. 2000. Les noms d’animaux dans l’onomastique des archives de
Mari, in: Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux
époques historiques, number 2 in Topoi suppléments, Paris: De Boccard, pp.
477‒87.
Montgomery, J.E. 2006. The Empty Hijāz, in: Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy: From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank, J.E.
Montgomery, ed., Louvain: Peeters, pp. 37‒98.
149
ʿABD AL-ASAD AND THE LION-GOD
Nöldeke, T. 1913. Arabs (Ancient), in: Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,
J. Hastings, ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, vol. I.
Pagan, J.M. 1998. A Morphological and Lexical Study of Personal Names in the
Ebla Texts, number 3 in Archivi Reali di Ebla, Rome: Missione Archaeologica
Italiana in Siria.
Schafer, B. 1981. Tiernamen als Frauennamen im Altsüdarabischen und Frühnordarabischen, in: Al-Hudhud: Festschrift Maria Höfner zum 80. Geburtstag,
R.G. Steigner, ed., Graz: Karl-Franzens-Universität, pp. 295‒304.
Shatnawi, M.A. 2002. Die Personnenamen in den ṯamudischen Inschriften. Eine
lexikalisch- grammatische Analyse in Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, Ugarit-Forschungen, 43: 619‒784.
Sholan, A. 1999. Frauennamen in den altsüdarabischen Inschriften, number 11 in
Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik, Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
Smith, W.R. 1907. Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, London: Black, second
edition.
Stol, M. 1991. Old Babylonian Personal Names, Studi epigraici e linguistici sul
Vicino Oriente antico, 8: 191‒212.
Streck, M.P. 2000. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, number 271 in Alter Orient und Altes testament, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Tairan, S.A. 1992. Die Personennamen in den altsabäischen Inschriften, (Texte und
Studien zur Orientalistik 8), Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.
150
Arabian Epigraphic Notes 2 (2016): 151-160
A New Dedicatory Nabataean
Inscription Dated to ad 53
Zeyad Al-Salameen
(Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, Jordan)
Abstract
This paper presents a new Nabataean inscription dedicated to the Nabataean chief god Dushara and dated to the thirteenth year of the reign of
the Nabataean king Malichus II (ad 40–70). It mentions the dedication of
ʿlyʾ, a cultic feature rarely attested in Nabataean.
Keywords: Nabataean inscriptions, cultic practice, Dushara
1 Introduction
The photograph of the text that is discussed here was sent to me for identiication by a person who claimed that he saw it in Petra. Despite repeated
attempts to visit the site where the text was seen, it has not been possible to
ind it. The author was able to study the text depending merely on the available
photographs.
The inscription is of the dedicatory type. Dedicatory inscriptions are attested on Nabataean architectural remains including temples, altars and other
cultic features and they record dedications made by individuals and corporate
groups to deities and rulers. A considerable number of dedications were made
to Dushara (Healey 2001: 86, 105; Zayadine 2003: 59) who is normally linked
with the royal family (Dijkstra 1995: 313). Dedications ofered to this god were
referred to in several Nabataean texts found in the Negev (Negev 1963: 113–
117), Arabia (Savignac & Starcky 1957), the Hauran (Healey 2001: 98), Petra
(cis II, 443), Miletus (Cantineau 1930–1932: 46), and even as far away as Italy
(cis II, 158) and southern Arabia (Nebes 2006). Nabataean marble bases for
statues have been found also in Pozzuoli in addition to many Latin inscribed
fragments that mention dvsari sacrvm, meaning “sacred to Dushara”, dated
probably to the end of the irst century bc and the beginning of the irst century
ad (Schmid 2004: 420–421).
Several Nabataean temples were built for the worshipping of Dushara and
these include the temple of Qasr al-Bint (Zayadine 1986: 243, 245). An important example of the Petraean dedications made to this god is found in the
Turkmāniyyeh tomb inscription from Petra which refers to dedications of properties to Dushara. The texts states:
… and all the rest of the property which is in these places are sacred
and dedicated to Dushara, the god of our lord, and his sacred throne
151
A NEW NABATAEAN DEDICATORY INSCRIPTION
and all the gods, (as) in the documents of consecration according
to their contents. (Healey 1993: 238)
The stone was incised with straight lines, probably by the engraver. These
incisions indicate that the engraver made mistakes that he corrected by rewrote some letters again (see igure 1), indicating that the engraver may not
have prepared fully for his work.
2
The text
The text consists of three lines engraved on a broken piece of well-cut and
smoothed sandstone (20 cm by 5 cm). The letters are irregular in size but
with identical spacing. They can be clearly read except on the right-hand side
which has been defaced and the beginning of the second and third lines which
are missing. The form of the letters resemble texts that have been dated to the
reign of Malichus II and Rabbel II.
Figure 1: Photograph of the inscription
152
Z. AL-SALAMEEN
Figure 2: Drawing of the inscription (drawn by Z. al-Salameen). Grey indicates
breaks in the stone and blue shows the scratches that represent writing mistakes
made by the writer.
2.1 Transliteration
The text reads as follows:
d[nh] ʿlyʾ dy qrb brʿtʾ ldwšrʾ dy
.....šnt ʿšr wtlt lmlkw mlkʾ
...ʿl ḥyy npšh wbrth
2.2 Translation
Th[is is] the high place / platform which brʿtʾ dedicated to Dushara who…
…the year 13 of (the rule of) Malichus the king
…for his own life and his daughter
2.3 Commentary
d[nh]: “this” (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 333f). The second and parts of the
third letters are not clearly visible but our reconstruction of this word, which
is common in Nabataean, is almost certain.
ʿlyʾ: Nehmé has already published a Nabataean text with ʿlyʾ. This is an
inscription from Mṣayfra in Hauran dedicated to Baalshamin and dated to the
reign of Rabbel II (Nehmé 2010: n. 3). The text mentions šrkw ʿlyʾ which has
been translated as “le participant/associé de la hauteur (du haut lieu ?)”. The
exact meaning of this word in this text does not correspond to the meaning of
ʿlyʾ which is attested in the text that is being dealt with here.
153
A NEW NABATAEAN DEDICATORY INSCRIPTION
The word appears in Aramaic with the meaning “height, that which is situated on high” (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 843). Words derived from the root
ʿlʾ are attested in Nabataean inscriptions and they are found in texts referring
to cultic dedications that represent ”high features”. The word ʿlytʾ “the high” is
attested in a Nabataean inscription from Hauran (cis II, 164). It may be compared with the word ʿlwtʾ “the altars” that is attested in a text engraved on an
altar found in Hauran and mentions a dedication made to the god Baalshamin
(Healey 2009: 207).
dy: the well-known relative pronoun meaning “which, that”.
qrb: This is the standard verb used in Nabataean to dedicate objects to gods
and goddesses, “to ofer, dedicate”. It occurs frequently in Nabataean Aramaic,
Hebrew, Palmyrene and Hatraean (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 1029).
brʿtʾ: This is the name of the dedicator. The name appears in the form of
brʿtw, in Nabataean texts found in Sinai (Negev 1991: 17), but has not previously appeared in Nabataean in its current form. This compound name consists
of br “son of” and ʿtʾ which is derived from the Arabic root ʿt that means “to
importune, tease” (Harding 1971: 404). The name is attested in Palmyrene
(Stark 1971: 12) and North Arabian inscriptions (Harding 1971: 120).
ldwšrʾ: “to/for Dushara”. Dushara was the major Nabataean deity. His
name, which means “the one of the Shara mountains”, is mentioned frequently
in Nabataean and North Arabian inscriptions, and was given several epithets in
the Nabataean inscriptions, including “Lord of the House (i.e. temple), “Lord
of heaven and earth”, “God of our Lord (the king)” and “the one who separates
night from day” (Zayadine 2003: 59).
šnt ʿšr wtlt: “year thirteen” of the rule of Malichus II (ad 40–70), which
corresponds to ad 53.
lmlkw mlkʾ: “to Malichus the king”. There were two Nabataean kings who
are known to have borne this name: Malichus I (59–30 bc) and Malichus II
(ad 40–70). The forms of the letters indicate that it should be dated to the
Malichus II who ascended the throne in ad 40. He was the son of Aretas IV
(9 bc–ad 40) as mentioned in Nabataean inscriptions.
Our understanding of the Nabataean history during Malichus II’s reign is not
clear and the only historical reference that mentions Malichus II is Josephus.
He talks about the Jewish war against the Romans that took place in ad 67
and mentions that Malichus sent 1000 cavalry and 5000 infantry to support
the Romans (War III, 68).
ʿl ḥyy: “for the life of”. This formula is common in Nabataean, Palmyrene,
Edessan and Hatraean dedicatory inscriptions of the irst three centuries ad
(Healey 2001: 178–180; 2009: 53). Healey concluded that the inscriptions that
include this formula are mostly expressions of political loyalty (2001: 178).
Dijkstra says that the employment of ʿl ḥyy “suggests that whoever reads the
text is invited to pay his respect to the Nabataean royal family. In arguing such
an attitude on this part of the reader, the dedicator shows his allegiance to his
legitimate overlords” (1995: 65). Anderson (2005: 124) considers that this
phrase “which seems to be an honoriic akin to the Greek euergetistic terms
τιμῆς χάριν and τιμῆς ἕνεκεν, commemorates the dedicator’s allegiance to the
honored”.
There are few ʿl ḥyy Nabataean inscriptions with beniiciaries other than
royalty and those include an inscription that contains the formula ʿl ḥyyh npšh
“for the life of himself” (Milik 1958: 247). One dedicatory text from Taymāʾ
154
Z. AL-SALAMEEN
alludes to a dedication to Manāt ʿl ḥyy “for the life of his soul and the soul of
his ofspring in eternity” (Dijkstra 1995: 74).
npš-h: “self”, with 3rd masculine singular pronoun.
w brt-h: “and his daughter”, with 3rd masculine singular pronoun.
3 Nabataean dedications: Discussion
There are only two historical sources that provide us with limited information
on Nabataean oferings and dedications. The irst is Strabo who said that the
Nabataeans worshipped the sun and they used to burn frankincense in their
cultic rituals (Strabo XVI.4.26). This has been conirmed by the discovery of
incense burners the remains of burnt frankincense (Hammond 1996: 132–133;
Farajat & Nawaleh 2005: 381).
The second historical source that alludes to similar practices is the Byzantine lexicon the Suda, which refers to pouring out the blood of sacriicial animals as a libation (online at http://www.stoa.org/sol). The ofering of sacriicial animals while practicing certain cults has been conirmed archaeologically and Nabataean discoveries in Sinai have conirmed that some animals
were sacriiced within the temple complex (Struder 2007: 267). In addition,
the relief found near al-Deir, which represents two camels being led to a betyl
by worshippers, indicates this practice (Dalman 1908: 276). The discovery of
terracotta igurines representing animals may be linked with sacriicial activities (El-Khoury 2002).
Our main source of information on Nabataean oferings and dedications is
epigraphy. The Winged Lion inscription mentions that payments made to the
temple as oferings, and these normally consisted of silver or gold, or currency
either bronze or silver (Hammond et al. 1986).
Many Nabataean inscriptions provide us with a series of religious constructions and cultic dedications made or inanced by ordinary citizens such as:
ṣlmʾ and ṣlmtʾ “statue” (Cantineau 1930–1932: 6; Littmann 1914: 103), ps[ylw]
“sculpture”? (Littmann 1914: 18), msgdʾ “cult-stone, a cult-niche with a betyl,
altar” (Littmann 1914: 24; Healey 2001: 78), ḥmnʾ “ire-altar” or “temple”
(Littmann 1914: 27; Healey 2001: 78), bnynʾ “building” (Littmann 1914: 28),
bytʾ, byrtʾ and mḥrmtʾ “temple” (cis II, 182; Littmann 1914: 100; Savignac &
Starcky 1957), rbʿtʾ and ʾrbʿnʾ ”cella, rectangular sanctuary” (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 1058), qṣr “cella, camp” (Healey 2001: 78), ʾrktʾ “pillar or portico”
(Healey 2001: 78), mwtbʾ “part of an altar” (Healey 2001: 79), mṣbʾ “image in
bas-relief” (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 675), mgmr dhnʾ and wkpt kyṣʾ “the
oil-burner (or oil-burning lamp?) and the summer vessel (?)” (Al-Salameen
& Falahat 2014), mnr and mnrtʾ “lamp” (Al-Salameen 2014, Al-Salameen &
Shdaifat 2014).
Names of dedications derived from the roots ʿlʾ and ʿlh are attested in Nabataean. These include ʿlwtʾ “the altars” and ʿlytʾ “the high” that are attested in
Nabataean dedications found in Hauran (Healey 2009: 207; cis II, 164). The
feature that is mentioned in our current text is ʿlyʾ which seems to be a form of
altars to which this stone fragment was seemingly ixed. This word is parallel
to the Canaanite and Hebrew bāmâ which was used to mean raised platform
or high place (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 167; Gesenius 1844: 119). This
word occurs many time in the Hebrew Bible and was used to describe a raised
155
A NEW NABATAEAN DEDICATORY INSCRIPTION
construction, which is similar, in terms of its linguistic meaning to ʿlyʾ “high,
rising ground or platform” that occurs in our current inscription.
Address for Correspondence: zeyad.mahdi@gmail.com
156
Z. AL-SALAMEEN
Sigla
cis
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Pars Secunda, Inscriptiones Aramaicas Continens, 1889.
References
Al-Salameen, Z. 2014. A Nabataean Bronze Lamp Dedicated to Baalshamin,
Studi Epigraici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico: Ricerche storiche e ilologiche sulle culture del Vicino Oriente e del Mediterraneo antico, 31: 63‒72.
Al-Salameen, Z. & Falahat, H. 2014. An Inscribed Nabataean Bronze Object
Dedicated to Obodas the God from Wadi Musa, Southern Jordan, Palestine
Exploration Quarterly, 146 (4): 293‒307.
Al-Salameen, Z. & Shdaifat, Y. 2014. A New Nabataean Inscribed Bronze Lamp,
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 25: 43‒49.
Anderson, B. 2005. Constructing Nabataea: Identity, Ideology, and Connectivity,
Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan.
Cantineau, J. 1930–1932. Le Nabatéen, 2 vols, Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Dalman, G. 1908. Petra und seine Felsheiligtümer, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
Dijkstra, K. 1995. Life and loyalty: a study in the socio-religious culture of Syria
and Mesopotamia in the Graeco-Roman period based on epigraphical evidence,
Leiden: Brill.
El-Khoury, L.S. 2002. The Nabataean Terracotta Figurines, number 1034 in bar
International Series, Oxford: Archaeopress.
Farajat, S. & Nawaleh, S. 2005. Report on the al-Khazna Courtyard Excavation
at Petra (2003 Season), Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 49:
373‒393.
Gesenius, W. 1844. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Boston:
Crocker and Brewster.
Hammond, P. 1996. The Temple of the Winged Lions, Petra, Jordan: 1973-1990,
Fountain Hills, AZ: Petra Publishing.
Hammond, P., Johnson, D., & Jones, R. 1986. A Religio-Legal Nabataean Inscription from the Atargatis/Al-‘Uzza Temple at Petra, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 263: 77‒80.
Harding, G.L. 1971. An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and
Inscriptions, (Near and Middle East 8), Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Healey, J.F. 1993. The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Madaʾin Salih, (Journal
of Semitic Studies Supplement 1), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——— 2001. The Religion of the Nabataeans: A Conspectus, number 136 in Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, Leiden: Brill.
157
A NEW NABATAEAN DEDICATORY INSCRIPTION
——— 2009. Aramaic inscriptions and documents of the Roman period, (Textbook
of Syrian Semitic inscriptions, vol. IV), New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoftijzer, J. & Jongeling, K. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions I-II, with Appendices by R.C. Stein, A. Mosak Moshave and B. Porten,
(Handbuch der Orientalistik. I. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 21), Leiden:
Brill.
Josephus, T.F. 1976. The Jewish War, volume III–IV, number 487 in Loeb Classical Library, translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Littmann, E. 1914. Nabataean Inscriptions from the Southern Ḥaurân, (Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in
1904–1905 and 1909. Division IV. Section A), Leiden: Brill.
Milik, J.T. 1958. Nouvelles inscriptions nabatéennes, Syria, 35 (3–4): 227‒251.
Nebes, N. 2006. Eine datierte nabatäisch-sabäische Bilingue aus Sirwah, Jemen
Report, 37: 10.
Negev, A. 1963. Nabataean Inscriptions from ‘Avdat (Oboda) [II], Israel Exploration Journal, 13: 113‒124.
——— 1991. Personal Names in the Nabataean Realm, number 32 in Qedem
Monograph of the Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Nehmé, L. 2010. Les inscriptions nabatéennes du Ḥawrān, in: Hauran V: La
Syrie du sud du Néolithique à l’Antiquité tardive, recherches récentes. Actes du
colloque de Damas 2007, M. Al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, & J.M. Dentzer, eds.,
number 191 in Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, Beirut: Institut
Français du Proche-Orient, pp. 451‒492.
Savignac, R. & Starcky, J. 1957. Une inscription nabatéenne provenant du Djôf,
Revue Biblique, 64: 196‒217, pl. 5.
Schmid, S. 2004. The Distribution of Nabataean Pottery and the Organisation
of Nabataean Long Distance Trade, Studies in the History and Archaeology of
Jordan, 8: 415‒426.
Stark, J. 1971. Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Strabo 1930. The Geography of Strabo, books 15–16, number 241 in Loeb Classical Library, translated by H. L. Jones, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Struder, J. 2007. Animal Exploitation in the Nabataean World, in: The World
of the Nabataeans. Volume 2 of the International Conference ‘The World of the
Herods and the Nabataeans’ held at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001, K.D.
Politis, ed., Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, pp. 251‒272.
Zayadine, F. 1986. Recent Excavation & Restoration at Qasr el Bint of Petra,
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 29: 239‒250.
158
Z. AL-SALAMEEN
——— 2003. The Nabataean Gods and Their Sanctuaries, in: Petra Rediscovered, G. Markoe, ed., London: Thames & Hudson, pp. 57‒64.
159
Arabian Epigraphic Notes 2 (2016): 161-168
Dadanitic Graiti from Taymāʾ Region
Revisited*
Hani Hayajneh (Yarmouk University)
Abstract
This article re-examines three graiti published in Eskoubi (1999) and argues that they are examples of the Dadanitic script being used away from
the area of al-ʿUlā.
Keywords: Ancient North Arabian, Dadanitic
This contribution is devoted to four Dadanitic graiti from the Region of
Taymāʾ – North-West Arabia and will provide a new philological treatment
of them. They were published by M. Kh. Eskoubi in his work entitled Dirāsa
Taḥlīlīya Muqārina li-Nuqūš min Minṭaqat (Ramm) Ğanūb Ġarb Taymāʾ, which
appeared in al-Riyāḍ in 1999. It is worth mentioning here that the Taymāʾ
region witnessed a diversity of written epigraphical types that can be called
Ancient North Arabian.1
Eskoubi 74
Figure 1: Photo by M. Eskoubi
* This contribution was composed during my two-month stay as a visiting scholar at the Leiden
Center for the Study of Ancient Arabia (Leiden University) in Summer 2016. I am deeply thankful
to Dr. Ahmad Al-Jallad, Dr. María del Carmen Hidalgo-Chacón Díez, and Dr. Marijn van Putten
for valuable comments on an early version of this article.
1 See Macdonald (2000; 2004) and Hayajneh (2011).
161
DADANITIC GRAFFITI FROM TAYMĀʾ REGION REVISITED
Figure 2: Tracing by H. Hayajneh
1. Mzn z
2. t‹‹/››qṭ
“Mzn, who incised / wrote (the inscription)”
The personal name Mzn occurs often in Safaitic (Harding 1971: 543). A
misplaced dot as a word divider ‹‹/›› is recognizable in the second line after
the letter t, separating it from the rest of the word, qṭ. Given that the word
tqṭ is well known and attested elsewhere (for examples, see Farès-Drappeau
2005: 264), this is likely a writing mistake. The sign for z at the end of the irst
line can be considered as a variant of the relative pronoun “who”, cf. Arabic
ḏū, which precedes here the verbal form, tqṭ. In the inscriptions from oasis
of al-ʿUlā, this relative pronoun is written with the ḏ sign. Although some
scholars derive the verb from the root qṭṭ,2 no verbal form qṭ or qṭṭ is attested
in Dadanitic. Macdonald (2004: 512–513) considers a possible derivation from
nqṭ or wqṭ and interprets it as a t-inix stem (ftʿl).
2 See
Sima (1999) for discussion.
162
H. HAYAJNEH
Eskoubi 115
Figure 3: Photo by M. Eskoubi
Figure 4: Tracing by H. Hayajneh
1. ʿlwt ḥfr
2. h-rs1
“ʿlwt engraved this/the [. (?)]”
For onomastic derivatives and parallels related to the personal name ʿlw,
see under the names ʿlym and ʿlyn in Hayajneh (1998: 195f). The verbal form
ḥfr “to dig, engrave, carve, dig” is known in Safaitic (Clark 1979 [1983]: 23;
163
DADANITIC GRAFFITI FROM TAYMĀʾ REGION REVISITED
cis 777) and other Semitic languages (see Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 396f
and Cohen 1970–2012: 906f). There could be traces of a deteriorated letter
after the s1 .
Eskoubi 154 = JSLiḥ 382
Figure 5: Photo by M. Eskoubi
Figure 6: Tracing by H. Hayajneh
1. Ṣlmyḥb / ẓll
“Ṣlmyḥb performed the ẓ/ṭll-ceremony / has ofered”
The inscription was already identiied as Dadanitic by Jaussen & Savignac
(1909–1922: 532).
ṣlmyḥb: Hidalgo-Chacón Díez (2010: 193) translates Ṣlmyḥb, which is the
name in the present text, as “Ṣalm hat beliebt”. It is not attested in the Dadanitic onomasticon from Dadan itself, but we encounter the name Ṣlmgd in
a Dadanitic graito from from Talʿat Al-Ḥammād (Mrʾlh bn Ṣlmgd), where the
theophoric element Ṣlm, the divine name venerated in Taymāʾ itself,3 is used
as part of the name. The nature of the name and presence of the graiti
in Taymāʾ itself leaves us with some speculations regarding his origins and
whether he belongs to the Taymanite community. In the Dadanitic inscriptions, the root ẓll produced the verbal causative form ʾ/hẓll. Its etymology
3 See Hayajneh (2009) on the worship of Ṣalm in the Tayma’ region as relected in the Taymanitic inscriptions.
164
H. HAYAJNEH
and semantic ield is disputed, however its conventional unanimous meaning
is “ofer, sacriice”, “perform ẓll-ceremony” (Farès-Drappeau 2005: 264–265),
or, as Sima (1999) constantly translates, “(er) hat gedeckt den unterirdischen
Wasserleitungskanal”. In contrast to the Dadanitic inscriptions from Dadan,
the verbal form in the present graiti is ẓll (1st or 2nd stems) not in the typical Dadanitic causative stem. It is not easy to decide whether the bearer of
the name Ṣlmyḥb belongs culturally and linguistically to the Dadanitic realm
or not, to explains his usage of the of ẓll instead of ʾ/hẓll.
Eskoubi 253
Figure 7: Photo by M. Eskoubi
Figure 8: Tracing by H. Hayajneh
1. S1 ʾln / s1 yt z
“S1 ʾln placed this (inscription)”
Eskoubi reads (ʾ)s1 ʾlns1 qt. For the etymology and parallels of the PN S1 ʾln,
see the name s1 ʾlm in Al-Said (1995: 117). The word-divider is lightly incised
on the rock and seen close to the n glyph. The reading of the following three
letters is certain, especially the y. A small diagonal short stroke is seen on the
right side of the rhombus, however a reading such as q or ṯ is not eligible; for
a q, the stroke is expected to be longer and straight and for a ṯ, another stroke
on the left side is expected. In addition, Semitic has no root clusters that begin
with s and ṯ. As for the last sign, which appears as an inverted triangle with
protrusions at the points of interchange of the upper two acute angles, it is best
identiied as a z. It is unlikely that this igure represents a drawing, e.g. of the
165
DADANITIC GRAFFITI FROM TAYMĀʾ REGION REVISITED
head of the deity Ṣlm. Following these epigraphical remarks, I would take the
cluster s1 yt as a form of suix conjugation from the root s1 -y-t, cf. Ugaritic št
‘to place, set, set up’ (Del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2003: 848), Phoenician št
‘to place, to put, to establish’ (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 1130), Hebrew šyt
‘to set, stand, place’ (Koehler & Baumgartner 1967–1990: 1375f). In a similar
semantic contextual usage, i.e. “placing an inscription, name” we encounter
this verb “to place, to put, …”, cf. Phoenician w hspr z št phlʾš hspr “and this inscription P. the scribe has set down” and w’m ʾbl tšt šm ʾtk “and if you don’t put
my name beside your own” (Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995: 1130f); see Koehler
& Baumgartner (1967–1990), pages 1375f. for more Semitic derivatives, especially in the Old Testament, e.g. šāt “to set, stand, place”. The inal z should
be identiied as a demonstrative pronoun.4
Concluding remark
While the shape for z in the irst inscription (Eskoubi 74), which we dealt
with above, has a regular “H” form, it has the evolved triangular form “∇” in
Eskoubi 253.5 This would mean that we are dealing with two shapes of the
grapheme z used in the same region. This is applicable to the letter ḏ as well
but from other texts in Dadan proper. No paleographic or chronological order
on the basis of these undated graiti can be drawn. We may assume that with
these letters, as Macdonald (2010: 13f) observed for the glyphs of s1 and ḏ,
the informal shapes must have evolved in parallel with the use of the formal
ones, since we regularly ind them used side by side in the same Dadanitic
inscriptions. It is strange, but it appears that the stonemasons of the oicial
inscriptions and those who employed them, considered the informal shapes
to be valid alternatives to the formal ones, even within the same text.6 This
could be applicable for the forms in this collection, i.e. both shapes were used
in graiti in an unoicial context.
Address for Correspondence: hani@yu.edu.jo
4 See
Macdonald (2004: 518) for the demonstrative adjectives in Dadanitic and Taymanitic.
letters ʾ, ġ and s1 are encountered in a triangular form in Dadanitic.
6 See Macdonald (2010: 14) and Farès-Drappeau (2005: 109f) for the development of the letter
shapes in Dadanitic.
5 The
166
H. HAYAJNEH
Sigla
cis
JSLiḥ
Safaitische Inschriften, in: Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.
Pars V. Paris, 1950–1951.
Dadanitic inscriptions, in Jaussen & Savignac (1909–1922).
References
Al-Said, S. 1995. Die Personennamen in den minäischen Inschriften: Eine etymologische und lexikalische Studie im Bereich der semitischen Sprachen, number 41 in
Veröfentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission der Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur in Mainz, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Clark, V.A. 1979 [1983]. A Study of New Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan, Ph.D.
thesis, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Melbourne.
Cohen, D. 1970–2012. Dictionnaire des Racines Sémitiques ou attestés dans les
langues sémitiques, Paris/Louvain: Mouton/Peeters.
Del Olmo Lete, G. & Sanmartín, J. 2003. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language
in the Alphabetic Tradition, number 67 in Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden
& Boston: Brill.
Eskoubi, K.M.A. 1999. Dirāsah Taḥliyyah Muqārinah li-Nuqūš min Minṭaqat
(Ramm) Ǧanūb Ġarb Taymāʾ, Riyadh: Wazārat al-Maʿārif.
Farès-Drappeau, S. 2005. Dédan et Lihyan: histoire des Arabes aux conins des
pouvoirs perse et hellénistique, IVe–IIe s. avant l’ère chrétienne, (Travaux de la
Maison de l’ Orient 42), Lyon: Maison de l’ Orient et de la Méditerranée.
Harding, G.L. 1971. An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and
Inscriptions, (Near and Middle East 8), Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Hayajneh, H. 1998. Die Personennamen in den qatabānischen Inschriften, (Texte
und Studien zur Orientalistik 10)., Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.
——— 2009. Die frühnordarabischen taymānischen Inschriften und die Frage
der Antipathie gegen den Gott Ṣlm in der Region von Taymāʾ, in: Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien un Sokotra; Analecta Semitica In
Memoriam Alexander Sima, W. Arnold, M. Jursa, W. Müller, & S. Procházka,
eds., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 73‒104.
——— 2011. Ancient North Arabian, in: The Semitic languages: an international
handbook, S. Weninger, ed., Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 756‒781.
Hidalgo-Chacón Díez, M.d.C. 2010. Die theophoren Personennamen in den
dadanischen Inschriften, Ph.D. thesis, Philipps-Universität Marburg.
Hoftijzer, J. & Jongeling, K. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions I-II, with Appendices by R.C. Stein, A. Mosak Moshave and B. Porten,
(Handbuch der Orientalistik. I. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 21), Leiden:
Brill.
167
DADANITIC GRAFFITI FROM TAYMĀʾ REGION REVISITED
Jaussen, A. & Savignac, M.R. 1909–1922. Mission archéologique en Arabie, vol.
1–5, Paris: Leroux/Geuthner.
Koehler, L. & Baumgartner, W. 1967–1990. Hebräische und aramäische Lexikon
zum Alten Testament, Leiden: Bril.
Macdonald, M.C.A. 2000. Relections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 11: 28‒79.
——— 2004. Ancient North Arabian, in: The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Ancient Languages, R.D. Woodard, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 488‒533.
——— 2010. Ancient Arabia and the written word, in: The development of
Arabic as a written language, M.C.A. Macdonald, ed., Oxford: Archaeopress,
pp. 5‒28.
Sima, A. 1999. Die lihyanischen Inschriften von al-ʿUḏayb (Saudi-Arabien),
(Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 1), Leidorf: Rahden/Westf.
168
Arabian Epigraphic Notes