Marginal Notes on: Inscription 259 in Khraysheh 2002

This belongs to a series of “marginal notes” I will post on recently published Safaitic inscriptions.

Fawwāz Khraysheh published in 2002 an edition of Safaitic inscriptions from Biyār al-Ghusayn, Jordan. The 512 texts contain a good mix of genres, mostly conforming to the established formulae, but attesting a few new lexical items and constructions. A few of these texts have figured into my grammar (2015), and more will be used in the second edition. My reluctance to draw on this particular edition comes from the fact that there are virtually no photographs of the inscriptions in the book. While such a weakness is forgivable for older editions, there is no reason for such an omission in modern works. Thus, we are made to rely on the tracings of the author. Even the most experienced epigraphist can trace glyphs incorrectly, as a large number closely resemble each other even in ideal conditions, and so drawings are not the best source to establish the attestation of new vocabulary or constructions. Khraysheh passed away nearly a decade ago and the location of his photographs is unknown. It is hoped that his estate can make his field material available to scholars in the future or that his texts will be re-discovered by a future expedition to Biyār al-Ghusayn.

The inscription of interest is no. 259, which Khraysheh draws as follows:

2017-01-20-PHOTO-00003014

Khraysheh’s reading and translation:

KhBG 259

l ʾḫʾl bn gd h-dr w ṣyr b- ḏʿṯr m- m[dbr]

‘this is the campsite of ʾḫʾl son of Gd and he set off in the month of Ḏū ʿAṯṯar from the desert’

In his short commentary he states:

“It is not strange that some of the Safaites would use the names of the South Arabian months, despite the fact that this is the first time that ḏʿṯr is attested as a month name in Safaitic” (my translation)

In fact, it is rather odd that a South Arabian month would appear in the Safaitic inscriptions, given that there is no evidence for South Arabian influence otherwise. Moreover, at least three Babylonian months have been attested so far, knn (=kānūn), s¹bṭ (=šubāṭ) and nṣn (= nīsān). Month names, however, are exceptional and the normal way of reckoning time is through the use of a zodiac star calendar (Al-Jallad 2016).

Assuming that Khraysheh copied the inscription correctly, ḏʿṯr can refer to a month or celestial body connected with the deity ʿAṯtar. ʿAṯtar is a proto-Semitic deity, worshipped in South Arabia as ʿṯtr, but also found in Ugaritic as ʿṯtr, Mesopotamia Ishtar, Canaanite, ʿštr, and Aramaic ʿtr. Thus the presence of this name alone does not require a connection with South Arabia. ʿAṯtar has not yet –to my knowledge– appeared as a deity in the Safaitic inscriptions, so at the very least the term would seem to be foreign.

A month with the divine name ʿṯtr occurs in the Minaic calendar as ḏʿṯrt and in Sabaic as ḏʿṯtr (see Beeston 1956). Neither for these names matches perfectly the Safaitic attestation and therefore there is no a priori reason to assume a borrowing from one of these calendars. While the change of ʿaṯtar to ʿaṯṯar is trivial, there is no reason to assume that it is necessary in Safaitic, nor is there any reason to assume the deletion of the final t if the form was borrowed directly from Minaic. Thus, to account for these oddities we must appeal to one or more ad-hoc phonological changes during the borrowing process, or a pronunciation that differed from the spellings of the Ancient South Arabian texts.

In possible support of the South Arabian origin is the use of the relative pronoun with the month name. This practice extended to calendars outside of South Arabia as well: some of the month names of the Arabo-Islamic calendar contain this pronominal element, e.g. ḏū l-ḥiǧǧah, and possibly the calendar of Ancient Dadān (this will be argued in the Leiden University thesis of Fokelien Kootstra).

Based on the Safaitic evidence, ʿAṯtar was not worshipped in the Ḥarrah and the deity is not mentioned by ibn al-Kalbī in his Book of Idols. As far as I know from the Thamudic inscriptions, none of the variants of ʿAṯtar has appeared in prayers. However, at Dūmat al-Ǧandal the deity ʿtrs¹m /ʿattar-samā/ ‘ʿAttar of the heavens (lit. sky)’ is encountered in a single text:

h rḍw w nhy w ʿtrs¹m sʿd-n ʿl wdd-y

O Rḍw and Nhy and ʿtrs¹m help me in the matter of my love!

ʿtrs¹m is attested in a few Thamudic inscriptions from North Arabia (e.g. Winnett and Reed 1973: 136, 160, 161). Positing a connection with the present attestation, however, is problematic for the same reasons as the South Arabian connection – the name is not an exact match.

Considering all of the evidence, I believe that Khraysheh’s suggestion of a South Arabian origin to be the most plausible, but if so, the source was most likely the Minaean trading colony at Dadān in North Arabia rather than South Arabia proper. This month name could have diffused to surrounding Arabian tribes, like the Ḥawīlat, Liḥyān, or Ruhay. During the diffusion process, the final t could have been lost – perhaps because it was subject to common sound change of at to ah and ultimately ā. While this did not happen in Minaic or Safaitic, it did happen in the local Arabian dialect of Dadān, at least in some conditions. Just as the Babylonian month names diffused to the Safaitic writers of the Ḥarrah, nomads of North Arabia may have taken over the names of months from oases such as Dadān and Taymāʾ.

While the North Arabian tribes I have mentioned above do not usually carve Safaitic inscriptions, contact with them is well attested in the Safaitic corpus, e.g. WH 736.a (Al-Jallad 2015:60). Thus, the Safaitic writer could have learned this month name from interaction with North Arabian tribes as they migrated into the Ḥarrah, a phenomenon also well attested in the Safaitic inscriptions. It is also possible that the author belongs to one of the North Arabian tribes I have mentioned above – Safaitic inscriptions were composed by diverse groups and a few inscriptions were in fact composed by men from the Ḥawīlat tribe of North Arabia (Al-Jallad 2015: 18-21).

I would suggest the following translation for the text:

l ʾḫʾl bn gd h-dr w ṣyr b- ḏʿṯr m- m[dbr]

‘By ʾḫʾl son of Gd, in this region, and he returned from the inner desert to a place of water during (the month of?) Ḏū ʿAṯṯar’.

References

Al-Jallad, A. 2015. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions. (SSLL 80). Leiden: Brill.

Al-Jallad, A. 2016. An Ancient Arabian Zodiac: the constellations in the Safaitic inscriptions, Part II. AAE 27: 84–106

Beeston, A.F.L. 1956. Epigraphic South Arabian calendars and dating. London: Luzuc.

Khraysheh, F. 2002. Nuqūš ṣafawiyyah min biyār al-ġuṣayn. Irbid: Yarmouk University Press.

Winnett, F.V. and W.L. Reed. 1973. An Archaeological-Epigraphical Survey of the Ḥāʾil Area of Northern Saʿudi Arabia, 22: 53‒114.

 

Marginal Notes on: “BNʿTM ROCK INSCRIPTIONS AN ANALYTIC STUDY OF NEW DISCOVERED SAFAITIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM DEIR AL-KAHF IN THE NORTHEAST OF JORDAN”. By H. Qudrah, I. Sadaqah, and M. al-Zoubi, in: Acta Ant. Hung. 24, 2014 55-72

This belongs to a series of “marginal notes” I will post on recently published Safaitic inscriptions

The present edition of inscriptions was published without photographs or tracings so it is impossible to verify the readings from the rock. Nevertheless, two of the inscriptions can be read in a more satisfying way, and these can potentially shed light on a new shade of meaning for the word ṣrt ‘enclosure’.

Inscription 2

Ed. pro.: l bnʿtm bn qym twlh ṣrt

‘By PN (and he) deeply grieved and cried/afflict of grief’

 

Suggested reading and translation:

l bnʿtm bn qymt w l-h [h-]ṣrt

‘By PN and [the] enclosure is his’

twlh > w l-h: The edition took the four letters following the name qym as a T-stem verb derived from the root wlh ‘to grieve’, Classical Arabic waliha. This would be strange as the narrative is almost always connected to the name with a conjunction. It is more likely that the t belongs to the previous name, which the addition acknowledges but does not give as their primary reading. Thus, the name of the father would be qymt, which is well attested in Safaitic and found in Greek transcription as Καιαμαθος /qayyāmat/. The narrative would then give the common ‘building’ or ‘ownership’ formula, w l-h [h-]ṣrt.  The spelling of the clitic pronoun and following definite article with one h is common (Al-Jallad 2015:49).

 

Inscription 4:

Ed. pro.: w ndm ʿl- bnʿtm wlh ṣrt

‘and he anguished for Bnʿtm, (he) grieved and cried strongly’

 

Suggested translation:

w ndm ʿl- bnʿtm w l-h [h-]ṣrt

‘and he was devastated by grief for Bnʿtm, and the enclosure is his’

The referent of the clitic pronoun is unclear; it could be Bnʿtm or it could refer to the author, who has now claimed the enclosure.

 

Remarks on the meaning of ṣrt

Inscription 4 is a funerary inscription and so it could be argued that ṣrt ‘enclosure’ here functioned in a similar way to rgm, ‘funerary cairn’ (Al-Jallad 2015: 337). This would moreover suggest that inscription 2 was a burial text, so: for Bnʿtm son of Qymt is the burial (?) enclosure. The other texts published in this article contain expressions of grief for Bnʿtm, similar in fact to the types of rituals associated with the rgm and ṣwy, e.g. bny ʿl- Bnʿtm lit. ‘he built over/for Bnʿtm’

References:

Al-Jallad, A. 2015. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions. (SSLL 80). Leiden: Brill.