The Arabo-Hebraic Translation of Jamme 863

Redux: The Arabo-Ugaritic Translation of Jamme 863

Jamme 863 is a little-known "South Arabian" inscription from Yemen. My drawing of Jamme's drawing is displayed above. The drawing and their translation were published in 1955; their transliteration and translation read as follows:

5	4	3	2	1
b					1. Šarḥum,
’	y	y	ḏ	š	2. he of [the family of] Barlum,
ḏ	ḥ	‘	b	r	3. respects [and]
n	m	ẓ	r	ḥ	4. protects
ḏt	y	m	l	m	5. in obedience to Ḏât-Ḥ[imyâm].
ḥ			m

Their use of a logogram is unideal, and their reading from right to left is unusual given the picture of the worshiping man and the higher column on the left.  I read it from left to right.  I also read it in essentially a midway script that is on some level close to Arabian but bears unusual similarities both to Ugaritic and Wadi el-Hol.

This is my new suggestion, in very archaic Hebrew:

1	2	3	4	5
b					1. In the Inner Tent
’	y	y	h	s1	2. (He) shall be delighted
h	ḥ	‘	b	r	3. (He) shall be strengthened
l	m	ẓ	r	ḥ	4. He, by songs (of)
ṭ ?***	d	m	n	m	5. The Merciful One.
ḥ			m **

     "In the inner tent, may he be delighted and strengthened by the songs of the Merciful One."

     (bi ’uhal ṭaḥ / yaḥmad / ya`aẓam / hû bi-rannî-ma / šê raḥûm)

As I noted in a comment to my previous post, this can be read as a single dialect of Northwest Semitic, closely related to a northern variant of Hebrew (noting the s1 rather than d_ or z).  The word order probably means this isn't Hebrew as such, but the prospective phonology indicates the same thing.  Like at Sinai, given the use of the bow for S1, I'd bet this script lacked a way to render a distinct T_.

However, the paleography is on some level very close to South Arabian (noting the Alephs, down-pointing H.'s,**** B's, and R's).  However, the H (upturned/downturned arm characters) shows affinity with Wadi el-Hol and possibly drawings found at Thebes just over a century ago.  In other words, the script is arguably liminal between odd variants found outside of Sinai in South Egypt and this script found in Yemen (but in a non-Yemeni language).  To wit, it appears to use the bow-S1 as at Ugarit and Sinai, but not the H/H. sibilant shift found at Ugarit but not found in Arabia.  That is absolutely astonishing, and this inscription could be, for instance, or could be a part of the exact script that led to that transmission to Arabia - retained at least in principle from the trend found at Wadi el-Hol.  Yet it also lacks the distinctly present sibilants also found at Wadi el-Hol (which retains S1, S2, and T_) and in Arabia.  So perhaps, it's a variant offshoot somewhere from the middle of that evolution.  But broader conclusions are for a later day.

As to the specific language, it's far more unremarkable (to some extent...), but is basically a variant of a Northern Dialect of Hebrew, or could be thought of as a variant dialect of Southern Syrian - i.e. not exactly Ugaritic.  For instance, I am not sure if it is known whether early Hebrew retained the Z-type emphatic sibilant (I say this because, for instance, it is known that Hebrew retained a Ghayn).*

Though obscure and unusual, the vocabulary is evidenced in archaic Hebrew.  For instance, RH.M appears as rh.wm in Exodus 34:6 (referring to Merciful God); thus the form here is exactly the archaically condensed form expected.

Similarly, although `Z.M (`S.M) appears as "to break the bones" in the Bible, it also appears as "to make mighty" -   (Psalms 105:24).  In this context, the Bible appears to be summarizing God's covenant with prior Prophets and then refers to God making God's people too mighty for their enemies.

The form of RNM (songs) is unusual, but also expected.  Psalms 32:7 preserves רני פלט - "songs of deliverance," which loses its -M in the plural as regens in the construct state (I think that terminology is correct).  Thus, the archaic Hebrew form of "songs" was RN(Y)M, precisely what's found here.  (Update:  Though it could be read as the plural, I still think it's more likely as an enclitic; and so the form is on some level what's found in the construct state in the Bible (RN(Y)) but contains an enclitic here not found in that biblical example.)

'HL can mean tent, and commonly does, including in the Bible.  See Genesis 4:20.

The weakest support is for H.MD which I initially interpreted as "praise."  However, that meaning is not preserved in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Ugaritic, all of which generally preserve a meaning of "desire" or "covet."  This root is the source of the infamous biblical thou shalt not "covet" language.  However, the substrate Biblical meaning, found explicitly in Song of Songs 2:3 and Proverbs 1:22 is "to delight."  It can also be translated "pleasant," and is found that way in slightly altered grammatical form (n-h.-m-d) in Genesis 2:9; it is found without the prefix in Isaiah 32:12 and Ezekiel 23:6, 12, and 23.

I should also mention that this inscription was apparently on a broken down rock wall in the middle of nowhere in Wadi el-Beihan in Yemen.  I do not believe it is metaphorical or allegorical.  I think this was the site of a tent - possibly evidencing early monotheistic worship in Yemen - and that this wall memorialized a ceremony in the tent - or something of that nature.

*  I suppose it's not certain that the character is actually a Z. rather than an S. - though there is no evidence that the latter looked like this, and this sibilant is otherwise pretty close to both North and South Arabian paleographic variants.  Given that this is more or less the spitting image of the South Arabian character, and Z. is the correct orthographic choice for that root (which would later merge into S. in some dialects, including Hebrew), I think it's more likely that this is in fact Z. and simply predates that merger as with a number of contemporary dialects including Ugaritic.

**  This seems like it must be an enclitic M.  See Gen. 14:6 (בהררם שֵׂעִיר - "in the[ir] mountain Seir" (ב-הרר-ם שׂעיר)); Isaiah 10:5 (בידם זעמי - "in the hand of my rage" (ב-יד-ם זעמי)).

***  I initially interpreted this as an offshoot of the 'L logogram found in the vertical Wadi el-Hol inscription.  This would clearly be the most problematic aspects of the read, but I note that there is a weird substrate of this character permeating Sinaitic, Wadi el-Hol and then plausibly this.  Alternatively, it could be a variant T., however.  There is a Hebrew root very obscurely present in the Bible: Job 38:36 - מי-שׁת בטחות חכמה ("Who has put in the 'inward parts' wisdom?"), and Psalms 51:8 הן-אמת חפצת בטחות ("Behold truth you desired in the 'inward parts'...").  It can also mean bowshot, but more interestingly means "plaster" more commonly in the Bible, including with a secondary meaning of something like "smeared" or maybe "blocked" or - perhaps "covered" figuratively: Isaiah 44:18 - כי טח מראות עיניהם ("Because the sight of their eyes is blocked.").

***  I think the root meaning is essentially "cover" and here referring to a "covered place."  Though 'HL in theory can mean "dwelling," it really does not extend semantically beyond "tent" in the Bible, and I think it's reasonable to restrict it to that meaning.  Thus, I suggest that this refers really to an inner or further enshrouded tent.

**** Update: I misspoke here; I was referring to certain variations in North Arabian scripts.

Wadi el-Hol Translation Thought

It's been a very long time.  I'm not sure if I'll revisit this.  However, in addition to the translation possibility I previously offered, it's possible and maybe more plausible to read the two as:

(Read as an alphabetic Proto-Ugaritic** script:)

MN`-(`)T_TRH QS3T KPT_ 'L
RB DN M N(w)H. NPS1H' WSH_R

Who* is Athtarah?  The bow and kupthu (scimitar) of El (-
-) the Powerful Lord (is) who pacifies her soul, and [it] abates.

The kupthu reference is an epithet to Anat later (?) at Ugarit, where she is also associated with bows.  I'm sure I've noted that previously somewhere.  However, this would be a much earlier representation, found in Egypt but plausibly written by a Syrian, but prior to the reorganization of Anat within Egyptian religion during the later New Kingdom.  So the associational displacement (of kupthu and the bow) is not implausible.

My concentration on the epithet relation is that this grammar, rather than considering the -h a suffix, would make this essentially a grammatically embellished epithet - which is orthographically also highly plausible.

Interestingly, then, is the -h feminine suffixation of Athtar(ah) but -t (presumably) feminine suffixation of qst (bow).  It is possible that one or the other term is borrowed (though is that highly plausible...?).  But it is also possible that this demonstrates that the language was fusional...  Athtara(t) occurring at the end of a sentence might lack inflection, whereas qst could not as it would be the nominative beginning of a new sentence.  [I'm not sure this would have a totally meaningful comparison with Akkadian, so I'd be curious what evidence of how inflection was handled (essentially) poetically outside of Arabic - which traditionally handles it this way.]

On the other hand, and perhaps more plausibly, either the character used for Sh in Qashtu or in Napsh(iha) is wrong.  Because I've shifted my view on this being the earliest alphabet, if this reflects the distinction often found in Ugaritic, then napsh may reflect the genuine orthography of S1 in the scribe's dialect whereas Qashtu might reflect a foreign loan - perhaps from the dialect of the commissioner of the inscription (if this were an early example of that essentially system of foreign Canaanite scribes in Egypt known in the New Kingdom)...

I actually think, rereading the script's paleography more strictly, that it is plausible the horizontal inscription was a tacked on inscription by another scribe in a very similar but slightly different script (noting the variation in the N's (the vertical's sole and faintly present N has a more rounded top loop and a perpendicular offshoot at the bottom end that aren't present in the horizontal inscription).

There are plausibly two puns within this - nwh. in Egyptian referred to intoxication expressly associated with these Hathoric festivals.  Thus nwh. "to cause to rest" or "quiet" or "stop" probably was a pun on a known word for Hathoric intoxication.  Additionally, nps1 may have contrasted with other meanings of that word such as "desire" - thus 'quieting Athtarah's desire' may have been a euphemism for Il having sex with her.

* Or "what?"  Since this sets up sort of a call response as to her epithet.  I'm not sure the distinction really matters.
** As noted in my much earlier longer paper, Ugaritic seems to have reversed the paleography of the H and H. characters here, a reversal which - in Ugaritic - also matches Sinaitic (in my and most observers' opinions).  However, the usage at Wadi el-Hol of the three-lines upturned (two upturned hands and a neck) is preserved in South Arabian, which does not preserve the one-arm-down H; however it is possible Old North Arabian trends might preserve that; additionally Jamme 863 may be early evidence of the preservation of this trend.  Thus, this alphabet may be more plausibly from the 10th or 11th century, making it a potential immediate precursor to Arabian scripts.