Dadan was situated on a strategic site on the incense trade route between the south of the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, and the Levant to the north (Macdonald 1997, 335â336). Map 1 (p. 6) shows the location of the oasis in relation to some of the other important sites in the region. The presence of a major Minaean settlement at the site underscores its international importance.1
Besides being an important trading hub, agriculture also played an important role in the economy of the oasis. Date palms (nḫl, e.g., Al-Ê¿Uá¸ayb 071), grain (ṯbrt. U 112; U 069), and other seasonal crops (dṯʾ, AH 107; ḫrf, U 059) are commonly mentioned in the dedicatory inscriptions from the oasis. The agricultural fields were likely fed though a subterranean canal system that was found at the oasis (Nasif 1988).
While most of the Dadanitic inscriptions are found in and around the oasis, the area can be divided into several different sites as identified in Map 3. Most of the monumental inscriptions have been found close to the site of the ancient settlement known as al-Ḫuraybah (spelled Khuraybah on Map 2 and Map 3), but also a few kilometres further to the north at a site called QubÅ«r al-JundÄ« (in the valley connecting al-Ḫuraybah to the site of MadÄʾin á¹¢Äliḥ) and at Jabal Iṯlib. Map 2 (p. 11) offers an overview of the distribution of the inscriptions across the main sites.
Jabal Iṯlib is connected to the ancient town of ḤegrÄ (modern MadÄʾin á¹¢Äliḥ), known as âthe âsouthern capitalâ of the Nabataean kingdomâ (Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 303). It seems that Jabal Iṯlib was mainly used as a look-out spot, and most Dadanitic inscriptions found in this location are graffiti mentioning the guarding activities of the individuals posted there.2 Among the monumental inscriptions, especially the location of the áºll inscriptions stands out, commemorating the performance of an enigmatic ritual called the áºll for the main local deity á¸Ä¡bt.3 These inscriptions are only attested at two sites near the ancient settlement: at al-Ê¿Uá¸ayb or Jabal Ê¿Ikmah (Stiehl 1971; Sima 1999) and at Umm Daraj (Nasif 1988; AbÅ« l-Ḥasan 2002, 25â162). Their concentration at these two locations probably marks them as cultic sites. At Umm Daraj, this is supported by the finding of cultic items such as incense burners and statues (AbÅ« l-Ḥasan 2005, 29). Dadanitic graffiti are found beyond these environs, with some as far away as the vicinity of TaymÄʾ (see Hayajneh 2016), another oasis town about 150â¯km to the North-East of al-Ê¿UlÄ as the crow flies (see Map 1).4
The dating of the Dadanitic inscriptions is problematic. They are generally assumed to have been produced between the sixth and first centuries BCE. However, because the inscriptions themselves do not refer to any datable historical events, their dating has mostly relied on epigraphic material and outside references to Dadan. Recently, new finds at TaymÄʾ of Aramaic inscriptions mentioning kings of LiḥyÄn (Stein 2020), as well as analysis of the material uncovered in the ongoing excavations at MadÄʾin á¹¢Äliḥ and the site of ancient Dadan (Rohmer and Charloux 2015), are starting to provide us with increasingly secure dates for the period under discussion.5 Ongoing archaeological work in the area will likely continue to contribute greatly to our understanding of the chronology of ancient Dadan in the years to come, especially the Dadan Archaeological Project of the Royal Commision for al-Ê¿UlÄ and the CNRS under the supervision of Jérôme Rohmer and Abdulrahman Alsuhaibani, which started in 2020. Below, an overview and discussion of the main arguments concerning the dating of the inscriptions will be presented, starting with the evidence present in the Dadanitic inscriptions themselves and in the contemporary Minaic inscriptions found at Dadan, followed by a discussion of the use of paleography in dating the inscriptions. The discussion will then turn to the attestations of Dadan and LihyÄn in other corpora, and end with a presentation of the latest insights from the ongoing archaeological work at the site of ancient Dadan and its surroundings. It will become clear that none of the traditional methods of dating the corpus has yielded absolute, or in some case even reliable, results.
1 The Dadanite and Liḥyanite Kingdoms
It is generally assumed that the Liḥyanite kingdom followed the Dadanite kingdom and that the end of the Liḥyanite kingdom coincides with the end of the production of Dadanitic inscriptions (e.g., Winnett and Reed, 1970, 116; Farès-Drappeau, 2005, 117â122). The division of the period in which the Dadanitic inscriptions were carved into two subsequent kingdoms is based on the mentioning of both kings of Dadan and kings of LiḥyÄn in the inscriptions. A change in the ruling elite seems to be supported by the names of the kings found in the inscriptions. In the Dadanitic inscriptions we find five names connected to the title mlk ddn: kbrʾl as a personal name in JSLih 138 and as a patronymic in two inscriptions recently published by al-Theeb (inscriptions 1 and 2 in al-Theeb 2020, 23â24); mtʿʾl as a personal name in JSLih 138 and as a patronymic in the two previousy mentioned inscriptions published by al-Theeb; Ê¿á¹£y in Al-SaÊ¿Ä«d 2011.1 and 2011.2; and, finally, á¸bbt and ḫḫnt (inscriptions 5 and 6 in al-Theeb 2020, 27â28). For the Liḥyanite kings, five names connected to the (at least) eight individual kings are attested: hnʾs1 (e.g., AH 202; AH 222); s2hr (AH 053); tlmy (e.g., AH 226); lá¸n (e.g., JSLih 082); and gs2m (Rabeler 001).6 Based on the Aramaic inscriptions from TaymÄʾ we can add pá¹£gw s2hrw to this list (Teima 20), who identifies himself as br [m]lky lḥyn âson of the kings of LiḥyÄnâ rather than as a king himself (Stein 2020, 23). Another inscription has been found mentioning a man who does identify as king of LiḥyÄn and who was identified as the son of the author of Teima 20 by Stein. Unfortunately, his personal name is missing in the inscription and only the phrase â⦠son of pá¹£g, king of [LiḥyÄn]â is preserved. However, the two texts seem paleographically closely related, confirming the possibility that they were written by members of two consecutive generations (Stein 2020, 23). Even with the addition of the name pá¹£g from the Aramaic inscriptions from TaymÄʾ, the royal house of LiḥyÄn seems to have employed a restricted set of regnal names that was not used by the kings of Dadan nor by the general public.7
Map 3
The main archaeological sites of Dadan. The map is adapted to show additional sites (QubÅ«r al-Jundi, Jabal Iṯlib, TalÊ¿at al-ḤammÄd, and Wadi MuÊ¿tadil). The grey areas represent sandstone massifs. Jabal Ê¿Ikmah corresponds to the area called al-Ê¿Uá¸ayb in Stiehl (1971) and Sima (1999)
Courtesy of Rohmer and Charloux (2015)1.1 Regnal Years and the Chronology of the Inscriptions
Several scholars have tried to use the royal lineage and the inscriptions dated to regnal years to gain insight into the length of the period over which the inscriptions were produced (Farès-Drappeau 2005, 123; Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 299). J. Rohmer and G. Charloux conclude that there were at least 12 different kings over 199 regnal years. They combine this with the fact that in the royal chronicle of Nabonidus, who resided in TaymÄʾ from 552 to 543â¯BCE (Beaulieu 1989, 150), reference is made to a âking of Dadanâ, suggesting that the kingdom of LiḥyÄn did not yet exist at that time. Based on this, they establish 552â¯BCE as a terminus post quem for the beginning of the LiḥyÄnite kingdom and conclude that it must have existed until at least 353â¯BCE (Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 299â300). P. Stein pushes the beginning of the Liḥyanite presence at TaymÄʾ to the second half of the fifth century BCE, to accommodate an intervening Achaemenid presence at the oasis (Stein 2020, 21), which would push the earliest end-date of the Liḥyanite kingdom to the middle of the third century BCE.
Farès-Drappeau (2005, 126) has taken the information provided by the royal lineages even further, using it to provide a line of succession of the different kings. If it is indeed possible to establish such a family tree, this would provide us with a relative dating of at least these inscriptions, which could be a valuable tool in understanding internal linguistic and paleographic developments of the corpus. Unfortunately, the genealogies provided in the inscriptions are never longer than two names (the name of the king and his father), and occasionally do not even mention the name of the father (e.g., AH 063; Rabeler 001; AH 222). Due to the short genealogies and the repetition of names across generations, there are a great many different options when attempting to reconstruct a family tree, especially if we allow for the possibility that not every new king represents a new generation, and that consecutive kings may have been brothers.
The following reconstruction (Figure 2) rests on a number of assumptions. First, it assumes that our list of kings is complete and that there are no gaps in our attestation of rulers. Based on the Aramaic evidence from TaymÄʾ, mentioned above, we now know this not to be true.8 Second, it assumes that the inscriptions sought to clearly identify the kings, which implies that every mention of the same name with the same patronym refers to the same person. This is of course not a certainty with genealogies going back no further than one generation. Moreover, optimal clarity was not something the authors of the inscriptions were overly concerned with, as we can see from five inscriptions that mention only the name of a king without his patronymic (AH 064 and AH 063 tlmy; Rabeler 001 gs2m; AH 202 and AH 222 hnʾs1). Assuming that every king with the same name and patronymic is the same person has as an advantage in that it reduces the possible number of outcomes and, additionally, yields the most conservative time depth. Such a short chronology is not necessarily closer to the true royal lineage of the LiḥyÄnite kings of course; based just on the additional Aramaic evidence from TaymÄʾ we know it was longer. However, using the inscriptions to determine the minimum amount of time the LiḥyÄnite kings ruled the oasis, as Rohmer and Charloux (2015, 299â300) did, is the only conclusion they can provide reliable evidence for.
Figure 2
Possible royal lineage, as presented in Farès-Drappeau 2005
This can be supplemented by looking at the reigns reported in the inscriptions. Most kings are mentioned in dating formulae, counting the years of the reign of the king. It seems safe to say that if tlmy son of hnʾs1 reigned for at least 42 years (al-Ḫuraybah 10), it is less likely that he was succeeded by his brother lá¸n son of hnʾs1 who reigned for at least 35 years (JSLih 082) and therefore they likely belong to different generations and their father is not the same hnʾs1. When used in conjunction with accounting for the number of regnal years, this most constrictive method yields the genealogy as presented in Farès-Drappeauâs work (2005, 126), represented here in Figure 2.9
Without changing any of these underlying assumptions, however, it is also possible that s2hr was the brother of lá¸n (JSLih 082), as shown in Figure 3. If this is correct, then we seem to enter a period of messy succession in which the sons of each brother reigned for short periods of time: only year one is attested of tlmy son of lá¸n (Müller, D.H. 1889, 63â64 no. 8); only year seven of his brother gs2m is attested (JSLih 085); and for their nephew hnʾs1 son of s2hr no specific regnal year is mentioned (JSLih 053). Since this is already a difference of three generations for s2hr son of hnʾs1, accepting one or the other would have serious implications for the relative chronology of the inscriptions.
Supplementing the Dadanitic data with insights from the Aramaic inscriptions from TaymÄʾ that mention Liḥyanite kings shows, however, that the proposed lineage in Figure 2 is at least incomplete. The addition of the son of pá¹£g (TA 6233) was already mentioned above. Based on paleography and the fact that his father did not overtly present himself as âking of LiḥyÄnâ but as âson of the kings of LiḥyÄnâ, Stein places them at the beginning of the list of Lihyanite kings that are attested at TaymÄʾ and keeps the possibility open that pá¹£g s2hr did not have the same kind of power over TaymÄʾ as his descendants did (2020, 23â25). If the interpretation of his self identification as âson of the kings of LiḥyÄnâ is correct,10 this could also suggest that there were at least two preceding generations of âkings of LiḥyÄnâ who are not attested in the Aramaic record at Tayma, nor in the Dadanitic record known to us.11
Another important emendation to the lineage proposed by Farès-Drappeau, as represented in Figure 2, concerns the position of lá¸n. A king with this name is attested in TA 964. Based on paleography and the inclusion of the later form of the relative dy (< *á¸y) in TA 2382/1, which mentions tlmy (who can probably be identified with tlmy son of hnʾs1 from the Dadanitic inscriptions), Stein concludes that lá¸n must have preceded him, as TA 964 retains the more archaic z reflex of *Ḡin zkyr and zʾ (Stein 2020, 25). Based on the identification of lá¸n with lá¸n son of hnʾs1 (JSLih 082) and the tlmy from the Aramaic inscriptions (TA 2550; 2382; 4916; 4915) with tlmy son of hnʾs1 (JSLih 045, 077; Al-SaÊ¿Ä«d 1420/1999: 3â14, no. 1 (lacking bn); al-Ḫuraybah 10), Stein suggests that they were brothers and that the older lá¸n held the throne before his brother succeeded him (2020, 24â26). Since the 35th regnal year of lá¸n bn hnʾs1 is recorded (JSLih 082), as is the 42nd regnal year of tlmy bn hnʾs1, this would necessitate a substantial age gap between the two, which is not impossible and might suggest that lá¸n bn hnʾs1 did not have any suitable heirs of his own. Another option, based on the Dadanitic record, would be to insert three intermediate kings in between (the brothers tlmy and gs²m, sons of lá¸n, followed by hnʾs1 son of tlmy), as in Figure 4.
Figure 3
Possible royal lineage, with maximum restrictions
In summary, the number of possible orderings of the kings shown above makes it clear that it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the relative chronology of the inscriptions based on the royal lineages. In fact, they are unreliable even for determining the overall duration of the LiḥyÄnite kingdom. Of most kings we only have one inscription mentioning a specific year of their reign, making it very possible that tlmy son of lá¸n ruled far longer than the one year that has been recorded in the inscriptions.
On top of this, not all kings may be represented in the epigraphic record as we know it today. Combining the Aramaic record from TaymÄʾ with the Dadanitic record suggests that we need to add several generations preceding s²hr bn hnʾs¹ to accommodate the son of pá¹£g (TA 6233) and the claim of pá¹£g s²hr (Teima 20) that he is the son of the kings of LiḥyÄn. Following Steinâs list of royal names, the later end of the lineage can also probably be extended by at least two generations to incorporate ms¹ʿwdw and s²hr mentioned in the latest Aramaic inscriptions (TM.Tar.004 and TA 1743; Stein 2020, 27).
Figure 4
Possible royal lineage, incorporating the Aramaic evidence that suggests that lá¸n ruled before the tlmy for whom 40 regnal years are attested in the epigraphic record from TaymÄʾ
The Aramaic inscriptions do shed some new light on the general dating of the reign of the Liḥanite kings, partly because the paleographic dating of these inscriptions from TaymÄʾ is much more secure than that of the Dadanitic inscriptions, as there are several inscriptions that can be more securely dated relative to each other. Based on a recently discovered Aramaic inscription that can be dated to the time of Nabonidusâ presence at the oasis12 (552â543â¯BCE) and a better understanding of the apparently smooth transition of Aramaic to Nabataean writing at TaymÄʾ, Stein suggests, on the basis of a combination of paleographic grounds and known regnal years, that the Aramaic inscriptions mentioning the kings of LiḥyÄn from TaymÄʾ were likely made between the sixth or fifth and the second or first centuries BCE (Stein 2020, 27â28). This would push back the fourth century BCE date suggested by Farès-Drappeau (2005, 123) by at least a century.
2 Philological Arguments
Using philological arguments to date the inscriptions, F.V. Winnett refers to the title fḥt ddn, used in JSLih 349, which he translates as âgovernor of Dadanâ (Winnett and Reed 1970, 115â116). Based on when this, originally Assyrian, word was thought to have been introduced into western Arabia he proposes dating the text to the Persian period of the sixth to fourth century BCE (Winnett 1937, 51; Winnett and Reed 1970, 115â116).13 D.F. Graf, however, showed that the first occurrence of the Aramaic title pḥt, which is probably the source of the Dadanitic term, is much earlier, in the Adon-Papyrus from Egypt, dated to the early Neo-Babylonian period (604/603â¯BCE) (Graf 1990, 140; and most recently Rohmer forthcoming).
In a similar way, W. Caskel (1954) uses the formula âEs werde seiner im Guten gedacht!â á¸bẠ(JSLih 082; Müller, D.H. 1889: 63â64, no. 8). He believes these three letters are an abbreviation of the phrase á¸ukir bi-áºayr in which he sees a parallel to the Nabataean formula dkyr b-á¹b (Caskel, 1954, 76),14 which is first attested in inscriptions from the first century BCE (Caskel, 1954, 36). However, this argument is built upon several assumptions that are difficult to verify. The formula does not occur in a written-out form in the corpus, none of the other frequently used formula in the Dadanitic corpus are abbreviated like this, and one would have to assume that the Nabataean formula was not adopted directly but in translation. Moreover, the archaeological record from both Dadan and ḤegrÄ (MadÄʾin á¹¢Äliḥ) does not show any clear and unquestionable evidence for direct contact between the Nabataeans and the LiḥyÄnite kingdom (Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 309), although this cannot prove that none existed, of course.
3 Minaean Presence at Dadan
Another historical anchor for the inscriptions may be found in the presence of Minaic inscriptions at Dadan. Minaic inscriptions mentioning the title kbr ddn, found at Dadan, were initially taken as proof the Minaeans took political control of the oasis (Winnett 1939, 6). In his 1970 publication with W.L. Reed, however, Winnett pointed out that this was likely not the case, as kabÄ«r is also used in other Minaean settings in which they did not exercise political control (Winnett and Reed 1970, 117).15 Instead, Winnett assumed that the Minaeans and Dadanites were contemporaneous. This is supported by an inscription in the Dadanitic language and script, in which a priest of Wadd, the main deity of the Minaeans, presents á¸Ä¡bt, the main deity of the Dadanitic inscriptions, with a young boy (JSLih 049).
Even though it is difficult to establish exact dates for the beginning and ending of the Minaean kingdom, it is roughly estimated that Minaean kings ruled in the north of modern-day Yemen between the sixth and the first centuries BCE.16 Nevertheless, one of the most recent studies on the chronology of the Minaean kingdom, by J. Schiettecatte and M. Arbach (2020), which relies on the attested royal names in the Minaic inscriptions, suggests that Minaean kings appeared on the political stage of South Arabia as early as the eighth century BCE. References to known historical events in the Minaic inscriptions are scarce, however, which has made it challenging to tie any relative chronology of the Minaic inscriptions to absolute dates.
One Minaic inscription that has featured prominently in the search for datable events is RES 3022; in particular, the mention of a conflict (mrd) between má¸y and Egypt has been the focus of many studies attempting to date the inscription and the events it describes. The event has commonly been linked to the invasion of Egypt by Artaxerxes II Ochos in 343â¯BC (Winnett and Reed 1970, 119; and more recently in Garbini 2006, 291). A. Lemaire, however, points out that the inscription talks about a mrd and not a á¸r: the word á¸r is commonly used to refer to a war, whereas mrd usually means ârevoltâ. This led Lemaire to date the inscription to the period between 482 and 345â¯BCE, during which there were several Egyptian revolts against Persia (first proposed in Lemaire 1996, 46; and repeated by the same author in 2010, 381â383). He further adds that the inscription most likely refers to one of the two major revolts, either that of Inaros (between 463 and 461â¯BCE) or that of Amyrtaeus (405â¯BCE), giving slight preference to the latter date (Lemaire 2010, 383).
More recently, A. Multhoff convincingly ties the events in RES 3022 to those described in a Sabaic inscription BL-Nashq? = Demirjian 1, which also mentions LiḥyÄn (Multhoff 2019). She based the link between the texts on idiomatic and lexical parallels (Multhoff 2019, 244â246), and parallels between the events described in both texts (246â250). This allowed her to date both to the period of âtensions at the fringes of the Achaemenid Empire around 400â¯BCEâ (252), confirming earlier proposals for the date of BL-Nashq? = Demirjian 1 put forward by Stein (2017) and S.L. Sørensen and K. Geus (2019). Such an interpretation also supports a connection to the 405/404â¯BCE revolt in Egypt (Multhoff 2019, 251; Lemaire 2010, 383).17 This would place the reign of the Minaean king AbÄ«yadaÊ¿ YaṯÄÊ¿, mentioned in RES 3022, at the end of the fifth century BCE (Schiettecatte and Arbach 2020, 249), making it an important anchor for the dating of the Minaean royal lineage in this period.
A set of Minaic inscriptions that directly hint at relations between the Minaens and Dadanites have been found at the Temple of Ruá¹£Äfim, just outside the ramparts of QarnÄw (al-Said 2009, 93). These include the names of women from outside MaÊ¿Ä«n, marrying a Minaean man.18 Both Dadan and LiḥyÄn are mentioned in these examples: Dadan as a toponym and LiḥyÄn as an anthroponym (Farès-Drappeau 2005, 119).19 The dating of the texts is still disputed, since the inscriptions themselves are undated, and do not explicitly mention historical events (e.g., Lemaire 1996, 35â48; Bron 1998, 3:102â103; Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 302). Most attempts to gain some insight into this issue have been based on paleography. This led J. Pirenne (1956, 212) to assume that the inscriptions were gradually compiled sometime between 320 and 150â¯BCE (Lemaire 1996, 39â40). Lemaire, however, came to a different conclusion based on the place names mentioned in the inscriptions. Based on the absence of any mention of Edom and the Nabataeans, as opposed to the explicit mentioning of Sidon and the presence of the Qedarites, he concludes that the inscriptions were probably produced before the fourth century BCE (Lemaire 1996, 44). Since it seems likely that the inscriptions were indeed added over a longer period, it is not clear whether we can take them all as representative of the international relations of the Minaeans at one specific point in time. Based on the more recent research on the chronology of the kingdom of MaÊ¿Ä«n and its presence at Dadan (e.g., Rohmer and Charloux 2015; Schiettecatte and Arbach 2020), a date before the fourth century BCE seems too early, at least for a more permanent Minaean presence in Dadan.
Final proposed datings worth noting came from A.F.L. Beeston, who proposed that the Minaean presence at Dadan probably lasted from about the fourth century BCE (1979, 8) until a little before the decline of the kingdom in the south, which can probably be placed in the first century BCE (Robin 1998, 184â185; Arbach 2003, §â¯24â25).20 In contrast, Schiettecatte and Arbach date the first Minaic inscriptions at Dadan that are dated to the reign of a Minaean king and local official (kbr) to the third and second centuries BCE (their groups 6 and 7). They show, based on the inscriptions, that in this period there was an official and institutionalized Minaean presence at the oasis (Schiettecatte and Arbach 2020, 263) and that there were no signs of decline of the kingdom throughout the third century BCE (265). They date the decline of the Minaean presence in Dadan to around the second and first centuries BCE (Schiettecatte and Arbach 2020, 268).
4 Paleography
Another way in which the Dadanitic inscriptions have been used to establish at least a relative chronology of the inscriptions is through paleography. Dadanitic exhibits variation in its letter shapes, which has motivated scholars to use this method for dating the inscriptions (Grimme 1932; Winnett 1937; Caskel 1954; Farès-Drappeau 2005). This approach to Dadanitic paleography has been present in the field since the earliest treatment of the inscriptions and has been the most commonly accepted approach to the corpus since it was first proposed (Grimme 1932). More recently, Macdonald (2015) has persuasively argued, however, that the use of paleography to arrive at a relative chronology of inscriptions is untenable without the presence of firmly dated inscriptions to anchor the development of the letter shapes.
All theories concerning a script-based order of the inscriptions distinguish a âDadaniteâ followed by a âLiḥyÄniteâ period, although there are several theories as to the exact number of stages of development of the script that can be distinguished, and the dates attributed to these stages. This division was first proposed by Grimme (1932) and is based on the âaltertümliche, an das Minäische erinnernde Formungâ of the glyphs of an inscription mentioning mlk ddn âking of Dadanâ and the direction of writing21 of a part of the corpus displaying the same type of âarchaicâ letter-forms on the one hand, as opposed to the âmore developedâ letter-forms of the inscriptions mentioning the tribal name lḥyn (755) on the other. Grimme extensively discusses the reading of what he called âDadaniteâ g 
, which he distinguished from the âLiḥyÄniteâ g 
(1932, 754â755). It was assumed that the letters with a square base developed to become more triangular, until some even became disconnected (see Table 1 on p. 47 for an example). At the same time, letters with a basic circular form were said to change into diamond shapes. Also, the mim underwent a particularly significant change from two small triangles on top of each other 
towards a crescent shape 
.22
While Grimme (1932) focused mainly on the script and its stages of development, Winnett (1937) and Caskel (1954) discussed the dating of the periods in further detail. Winnett proposed what is known as the âlong chronologyâ of the inscriptions, placing the Dadanite period between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE and the LiḥyÄnite period between the fourth and second centuries BCE (1937, 49â51). Caskel proposed the less accepted âshort chronologyâ, which places the Dadanite inscriptions between 160 and 115â¯BCE and the LiḥyÄnite phase between 115â¯BCE and 150â¯CE (1954, 35â37).
Caskelâs âshort chronologyâ of the Dadanitic texts is largely based on the development of the script in which he distinguishes three script phases: Dadanite, early LiḥyÄnite, and late LiḥyÄnite. Based on the more pronounced differences he found between the Dadanite and early LiḥyÄnite scripts he concludes that early LiḥyÄnite should be considered a completely new script, in which he saw evidence for a regime change at the oasis. Since the differences between early LiḥyÄnite and late LiḥyÄnite are less pronounced, he assumed that this points to a mere âdisturbanceâ in the power structure at the oasis (Caskel 1954, 35).23 Caskel believed the Dadanitic script first developed as a symbol of independence after the collapse of the Minaean kingdom and Minaean control of the oasis ended (1954, 36; but see §â¯3 on the relationship between the Minaeans and Dadanitic people). Farès-Drappeau (2005, 113â124) discusses the paleography of the inscriptions at some length in her work on Dadanitic, which offers an overview of the main theories on the dating of the stages of different phases of script.24 Her own paleographic analysis largely follows the proposal by Winnett (Farès-Drappeau 2005, 116â125).
As Macdonald (2015, 17â18) very carefully discussed, however, it is problematic to use paleography to date inscriptions in corpora like our Dadanitic example. The most fundamental problem in using this methodology to date the Dadanitic inscriptions is that none is securely dated; neither in absolute terms nor relative to each other. Even the chronological division of the script into two phases, Dadanite and LiḥyÄnite, seems untenable. First, no distinction can be made between a Dadanite and a LiḥyÄnite script: so-called Dadanite letter-shapes occur in LiḥyÄnite inscriptions and vice versa.25 There are no inherent reasons to believe that a change in political power went hand in hand with a change in script as Caskel concluded (1954, 35), even if one would assume that there are different âstagesâ of the Dadanitic script. One can imagine a scenario in which a foreign group conquers a region and brings their own, new script with them, but it is much harder to imagine why the new rulers of Dadan would choose to only slightly alter the existing script when they came to power. As there is no logical reason or proof that script phase and regime should be equated, doing so only risks blurring our understanding of the relation between the texts and variation in script (Macdonald, 2000, 33).
Second, the fact that different forms of the same letter are often found in the same inscription, shows that these developments must have happened in parallel to each other (Macdonald 2010, 14), instead of one set of letter shapes replacing the other. This makes it problematic to use paleography to draw any firm conclusions about the relative chronology of the Dadanitic texts, althoug it may be possible to distinguish a general trend going from old letter forms to inscriptions in a âmiddleâ variety with mixed letter forms and, finally, to inscriptions with mostly late letter forms (Macdonald 2000, 33). The fact that old letter forms continued to be used after the development of the late letter forms makes it impossible, however, to conclude with any certainty that a single inscription with old letter shapes must be older than one containing later shapes. Until we know more about how the old and late forms are distributed across the corpus, we need to bear in mind that motivations of prestige may have been involved in the choice of letter shape, similar to the use of archaic linguistic forms (see Chapter 8 for the analysis of variation in linguistic features across the corpus).
4.1 The Writing Surface and Development of the Script
The development of the variation in letter shapes was likely the result of writing on soft materials, as argued by Macdonald (2010, 12). He clearly shows how, for example, the alif develops from a square form with two small lines coming out the top, through a triangle shape with two lines on top, eventually to two inverted chevrons above each other (see Table 1; Macdonald 2010, 13â14 and fig. 3).26 These kinds of developments usually only occur when writing in pen and ink, or similar materials such as paint or charcoal, to facilitate speedy writing (Macdonald 2015, 7). There are even some examples of ligatures in the Dadanitic inscriptions, another hallmark of writing in pen and ink or similar material (Macdonald 2010, 14). Macdonald also suggests that the fact that almost all Dadanitic inscriptions are written from right to left could indicate that the Dadanitic script had been used to write on soft materials for some time before it was used to carve inscriptions in stone (Macdonald 2010, 13â14 and fig. 3), since unidirectional writing, as opposed to boustrophedon, is only beneficial to someone writing with pen or possibly a blade (Macdonald 2010, 12).
Table 1
Schematic overview of the development of the letter alif shown in Macdonald (2010, 12)
|
|
|
|
|
Interaction between different uses of writing may explain how the variant forms all ended up in the inscriptions carved in stone. Macdonaldâs (2015) distinction between the purpose of a text and the register of its script27 is very helpful in understanding how scripts used on different materials could come to interact. He distinguishes texts that were meant for private useâlike personal or business letters, aides-memoires, and business accountsâfrom those meant for public useâlike inscriptions on gravestones, inscriptions announcing a law, and published books (Macdonald 2015, 3). Macdonald distinguishes a formal register, generally used for inscriptions in stone (including graffiti) and public documents on soft materials, and an informal register, used mostly for writing texts on soft materials, for example with pen and ink, or those cut into wax or wood with a stylus or a blade (2015, 4).
Features from writing on soft materials are likely to be transferred to writing in stone by someone who is more used to writing on the former and tries to transfer their reading knowledge of the formal script to writing on stone; for example, when leaving a graffito (Macdonald 2015, 7). In Dadanitic, however, we sometimes see different forms of the same letter co-occurring even in inscriptions executed in relief (e.g., AHÂ 23528). This shows that the mixing of script registers was not only due to imperfect writing knowledge of the formal registerâwe can assume that a trained stone mason would be highly familiar with the formal registerâbut that mixing forms from the informal and formal registers of the script had apparently become perfectly acceptable in official inscriptions as well (Macdonald 2010, 14). Thus, while interference from the informal register may explain the point of contact between the two registers, it does not explain all the mixing of letter forms attested in Dadanitic.
4.2 Scribal Schools and Paleography
The need for firmly dated inscriptions and uniformity of writing material is not the only prerequisite for the establishment of a reliable chronology of the development of letter shapes Macdonald identifies in his article. He also stresses the importance of the presence of an established writing tradition âin which a tradition of writing in a particular way has been passed on from one generation to the nextâ (Macdonald 2015, 17). The existence of a scribal school for tracing the developments of the scripts ensures the establishment of a stable environment, promoting consistency and stability in letter forms and writing materials in the production of writing. When trying to establish a relative dating of letter shapes, a stable tradition of writing is necessary to ensure that when we compare variation in the letters shapes it produced, it is in fact due to development of the script and not to a number of other uncontrolled varying features whose outcome is difficult to predict. Such variables can be due to the individual scribe, like their mood or personal taste, or their level of learning; they can be due to differing local traditions; or they can even be attributed to minor variations in the writing material available (Macdonald 2015, 23).
The likely presence of a writing tradition at Dadan (see the introduction, above) sets this corpus apart from other ANA corpora in which writing skills seem to have been passed on in a more informal manner (Macdonald 2010, 15; Al-Jallad 2015, 2â10). This gives us the opportunity to approach Dadanitic letter shapes as a coherent whole showing internal development. This has enabled Macdonald, for example, to divide the general letter shapes into different developmental stages (2000, 33). The likely use of different writing materials within the oasis and the use of different surfaces to produce inscriptions, ranging from prepared slabs to rough rock face, and the lack of securely datable inscriptions, make it unlikely, however, that we will ever be able to establish a comparative dating of the Dadanitic inscriptions based solely on their letter forms. This study will be an important step, however, towards understanding the writing culture that produced the inscriptions, laying the groundwork for future inquiries into Dadanitic paleography.
5 Dadan in Other Corpora
Besides epigraphic evidence from the two contemporary corpora of Minaic and Dadanitic inscriptions found at the oasis of ancient Dadan itself, the LiḥyÄnite kingdom and the placename Dadan are also mentioned in sources from outside the oasis. We have already encountered the mentioning of LiḥyÄnite kings in Aramaic inscriptions from TaymÄʾ, but the oasis is also mentioned in inscriptions from TaymÄʾ in the local Taymanitic script. Beside these, Dadan is also mentioned in the Bible, and in Sabaic and Safaitic inscriptions. Such literary and inscriptional evidence can give us important clues regarding the role of Dadan and the kingdom of LiḥyÄn in relation to the outside world, and when other corpora are more securely dated such references can add important anchors for dating the Dadanitic corpus. Unfortunately, it is often unclear from the non-Dadanitic sources whether they are contemporary to the production of the Dadanitic inscriptions. Moreover, most of the other epigraphic corpora, such as Safaitic and to a lesser extend Taymanitic and Sabaic, cannot be securely dated themselves either. Below, evidence from Aramaic and Taymanitic inscriptions will be discussed, followed by references to Dadan in the Bible. The discussion will end with the evidence from the Sabaic and Safaitic epigraphic record, which probably postdate the production of the Dadanitic inscriptions, but which mention the LiḥyÄnites, or LiḥyÄnite territory.
5.1 Aramaic Inscriptions
Three Aramaic inscriptions found close to TaymÄʾ have been used to date the end of the LiḥyÄnite kingdom (JSNab 334, 335, 337). The author of these inscriptions calls himself âking of LiḥyÄnâ (Winnett and Reed 1970, 120). Based on paleographic considerations, several datings of the inscriptions have been proposed. Jaussen and Savignac (1914â1922, 221) consider the script an evolution of the Aramaic script, which eventually resulted in the Hebrew square script and the Nabataean script. They very cautiously propose dating it to the second century BCE.
Caskel, on the other hand, saw parallels with the Palmyrene script and proposed dating them to the first century BCE (1954, 42 and note 125). Some take the inscriptions as evidence that the LihyÄnites were overthrown by the Nabataeans, who then came to occupy the oasis. (e.g., Caskel 1954, 42). When Winnett put forward the hypothesis that the author of the inscriptions was probably not a Nabataean king but more likely an adventurer from the âNabataean cultural zone north of Dadanâ acting on his own behalf (Winnett and Reed, 1970, 120),29 he based this on the evidence available to him at the time, which only included these three graffiti. Since then, however, an official inscription in the TaymÄʾ Aramaic script, mentioning a LiḥyÄnite king with the same name (MasÊ¿Å«dÅ«) has been discovered (TM.TAr.004, published in Macdonald and Al-Najem 2021) confirming the official status of his title. In addition, Macdonald (forthcoming) has since identified the script as a local variety of Aramaic, âTaymÄʾ Aramaicâ, which developed at the oasis in the last third of the first millennium BCE, showing that these inscriptions cannot be attributed to Nabataean influence at Dadan (Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 301).
An actual Nabataean inscription attested in Dadan, is a grave inscription, dated to the first year of Aretas IV (CIS II, 1, 332), which corresponds to the year nine BCE (Caskel 1954, 35). Caskel interprets this inscription as an indication of a brief Nabataean presence at the oasis, which marks the âdisturbanceâ between the early and late LiḥyÄnite period. According to Caskel, this âpolitical disturbanceâ explains the slight shift in the letter shapes used in each period (1954, 36).30 However, as will be discussed in more detail below, there does not seem to be any definite archaeological evidence showing direct contact between the Nabataeans and the LiḥyÄnite kingdom, suggesting the LiḥyÄnite kingdom may already have collapsed by the time the Nabataeans established their presence in the area (Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 309).
New evidence suggests, however, that the production of Dadanitic inscriptions may have continued into the first century BCE and overlapped with some type of Nabataean presence at the oasis. Specifically, a recently published Aramaic/Dadanitic bilingual inscription, whose photo was published by al-Theeb (Nehmé, and Alsuhaibani 2019, 79), is dated to ywmt ḥrṯt mlk nbá¹w âthe days of Aretas, king of the Nabataeansâ. The caption specifies that the inscription was found in the Dadanitic Sanctuary (al-Ḫuraybah). The Aramaic inscription is executed in relief and takes up most of the surface of the block, while the Dadanitic one is also carved in relief, but with much smaller and more irregular letter shapes, seemingly squeezed below the Aramaic. Although the Dadanitic inscription is damaged, it seems to be a translation of the Aramaic text. If the Dadanitic inscription is at least secondary to the Aramaic one mentioning the Nabataean king, this would suggest that Dadanitic was still written at least in the mid-second century BCE, when Aretas I ruled. Unfortunately, it does not tell us much about the power relations between the Nabataeans and the local population at Dadan when the inscription was made. The person who commissioned the Aramaic text might have been visiting the oasis, and Dadanitic might have continued to be written in certain contexts after the LiḥyÄnite kings lost power.
5.2 Taymanitic Inscriptions
Dadan is also mentioned several times in the Taymanitic inscriptions, another ANA corpus. The Taymanitic inscriptions are found in the nearby oasis of TaymÄʾ. It is assumed that at least part of the Taymanitic corpus was written around the second half of the sixth century BCE, based on several inscriptions found around TaymÄʾ, which mention nbnd mlk bbl (Esk. 169 and Esk. 177) or only mlk bbl (Esk. 025), identified as âNabonidus king of Babylonâ, who resided at TaymÄʾ for ten years in the middle of the sixth century BCE.
The Taymanitic inscriptions also mention a âwar of Dadanâ á¸r ddn (e.g., WTay 20). This can at least tell us that Dadan was inhabited at the time these Taymanitic inscriptions were produced. From the attestation of the LiḥyÄnite kings in the Aramaic inscriptions from TaymÄʾ that post-date Nabonidusâ stay at the oasis, and the mention of a mlk ddn during his stay at TaymÄʾ, it is probably safe to conclude that the Taymanitic inscriptions likely pre-date the Dadanitic inscriptions produced during LiḥyÄnite rule, although we cannot rule out that Dadanite and LiḥyÄnite self-identification did not always line up with their neighborsâ view or identification of them.
5.3 Dadan in the Bible
Not all clues to the dating of the Dadanitic inscriptions come from epigraphic data, as there are also several Biblical references to Dadan. For instance, Dadan is mentioned in the Biblical genealogies in Genesis and Chronicles,31 in which it is represented as a sibling of Sheba. This is generally assumed to refer to close relations between the twoâeither commercial (Macdonald 1997, 337â338) or tribal (Winnett and Reed 1970, 113). In another example, a century or more after the inscription by Yariris (eighth c. BCE), Ezekielâs prophecy mentions Dadan as part of a network of trading relations,32 probably as middlemen for the trade in goods, possibly from Egypt, and as producers of saddle cloths (Macdonald, 1997, 342). In addition, there are several other references to the place name.33 Based on these references Winnett assumes that the oasis flourished in the sixth century BCE (Winnett and Reed 1970, 113â114 and note 6).
5.4 Sabaic Inscription Jabal RiyÄm 2006â2017
Even after the end of Liḥyanite control over Dadan, and the likely demise of the written tradition in the local script, there are some mentions of lḥyn in the epigraphic sources. A Sabaic inscription, first published by Schiettecatte and Arbach (2016), mentions ʾrḠlḥyn âthe land of LiḥyÄnâ as a travel destination on a diplomatic mission, probably a part of ʾrḠs²ʾmt âland of the northâ (178â179). This text can be dated to the first to third century AD based on paleographic considerations (Schiettecatte and Arbach 2016, 177). The considerable time gap between LiḥyÄnite control over ancient Dadan and the production of this inscription, however, makes it unclear how the lḥyn mentioned in this text relates to the LiḥyÄn that we find in the Dadanitic inscriptions. Schiettecatte and Arbach (2016) tentatively suggest three possible locations for the âland of LiḥyÄnâ mentioned in the text. The first suggestion is that the area around the oasis of al-Ê¿UlÄ, ancient Dadan, simply continued to be referred to by its old name, in which case the term should merely be seen as a toponym for the area âsqueezed between GhassÄn and Nabaá¹â rather than the location of a diplomatic meeting (Schiettecatte and Arbach 2016, 183). This seems unlikely, as adding such a location would do little to clarify the itinerary since the Nabaá¹ and GhassÄn are also featured in the list. The second option they suggest is to locate the land of LiḥyÄn between al-Ê¿UlÄ and Mecca (183â184), which is where the Islamic genealogical and historical sources (written down in the eighth/ninth centuries CE) place them as a branch of the Huá¸ayl, in the sixth century CE. Muslim tradition does not seem to have preserved any accounts of their history beyond their name, unfortunately (Drewes and Levi Della Vida 1986),34 making it unclear how the LiḥyÄnite tribe remembered in the eighth and ninth centuries CE relates to the land of LiḥyÄn mentioned in this text about 500 years prior, and to the LiḥyÄnite kingdom of Dadan about a millennium before the Islamic sources that have come down to us. Their third suggestion is based on the mention of lḥyn in several Safaitic inscriptions, which will be discussed in more detail below, and places the land of LiḥyÄn further north on the desert fringes between northern Arabia and southern Syria. They find support for the argument inside the text itself, noting that â[t]his scenario would be consistent with the hypothesis that the author of RiyÄm 2006â2017 listed the territories he visited in chronological orderâ, but they generally dismiss the possibility due to lack of evidence (184). Wherever exactly the land of LiḥyÄn was located at this time, the inscription forms an important testament to the continued survival of at least the tribal name LiḥyÄn well past the time the LiḥyÄnites lost control over ancient Dadan and apparently ceased to produce Dadanitic inscriptions.
5.5 Safaitic Inscriptions
The Safaitic inscriptions that mention the LiḥyÄnites (BRenv.B 1; BRenv.A 2) come from WÄdÄ« ShÄm in southern Syria. The inscriptions mention a sudden attack by the ʾl lḥyn âthe family/tribe of LiḥyÄnâ on the âsettlements/settled areasâ35 (Macdonald, Al-Muʾazzin, and Nehmé 1996, 458). There are other Safaitic inscriptions that mention lḥyn in a dating formula (WH 641.1; KRS 2287; KRS 2327; KRS 234236), but in those contexts it may have been a personal name.37 Unfortunately, these texts are of little help with the exact dating of the Dadanitic inscriptions.
The Safaitic inscriptions are generally assumed to have been written roughly between the first century BCE and the fourth century CE, but this dating is uncertain, and their production might have started centuries before this and continued long after (Al-Jallad 2015, 17â18). They may have been contemporary to the namesakes of the ʾrḠlḥyn mentioned in the Sabaic inscription, discussed above (Jabal RiyÄm 2006â2017), but neither the Safaitic inscriptions nor the Sabaic one gives enough information to be sure. Even if they were contemporary, the fact that both are a reference to outsiders, means that we could not be sure both sources imagined them in the same way.
6 Archaeological Evidence
As shown in the discussion above, the epigraphic data and historical sources have not produced any secure or precise dating so far. Therefore, the King Saud excavation at the site of ancient Dadan (modern al-Ḫuraybah) and the results of the joint Saudi-French excavations of the residential area and necropolis at ancient ḤegrÄ (modern MadÄʾin á¹¢Äliḥ) carried out over recent decades have been crucial in finding new evidence for our understanding of the history of the area (al-Said and al-Ghazzi 2013; Al-Theeb 2013; Nehmé, al-Talhi, and Villeneuve 2010; Nehmé 2011). This understanding will surely be expanded further in the years to come, as a result of the abovementioned Dadan Archaeological Project of the Royal Commision for al-Ê¿UlÄ and the CNRS, which started in 2020. Based on a synthesis of the results of past excavations, Rohmer and Charloux suggest that there was a disruption in the history of Dadan in the third century BCE (2015, 313). In this period the site of tall al-Kaṯīb (al-Zahrani 2007) and the rural area of Ḫīf al-Zahrah (Bawden 1979), which were connected to the oasis of Dadan, seem to have been abandoned (Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 311). It is unclear if a similar period of abandonment occurred at the same time at al-Ḫuraybah. However, the very low number of coins found at the site, especially compared to the high number of coins struck between the late third and late first centuries BCE found at the site of ancient ḤegrÄ led Rohmer and Charloux to suggest that the site entered a phase of decline in this period, and that it no longer played a major role in the region by this time (Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 310â311).
Very little evidence for Dadanitic presence has been found at the site of ancient ḤegrÄ. The only material pointing to Dadanitic presence at the site is some Dadanitic painted ware, found in the first layer of occupation dated between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE. The inscriptions at Jabal Iṯlib seem to point to a military presence rather than occupation of the site (Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 309), although new evidence suggests the Dadanitic ná¹r âguardingâ inscriptions found at the site may be connected to funerary structures on the outcrop (Nehmé et al. 2021, 14â19). Based on the very low number of coins found at al-Ḫuraybah in contrast to the fairly high number found at ḤegrÄ,38 they tentatively suggest that the heyday of ancient Dadan must have preceded the spread of coins in the Arabian Peninsula in the third/early second century BCE. They even suggest, based on the absence of clear evidence for a Nabataean presence at ḤegrÄ until the second half of the first century BCE, that Nabataean control of ḤegrÄ may have been preceded by another tribal entity (Rohmer and Charloux 2015, 312).
7 Summary of the Dating Evidence
Combining these different strands of evidence, the Aramaic inscriptions from TaymÄʾ provide the widest time frame and suggest Liḥyanite influence at the oasis between the sixth/fifth centuries and the second/first centuries BCE (Stein 2020, 27â29). If this is correct, this means that the actual production of Dadanitic inscriptions at Dadan likely started even earlier, during the reign of the kings of Dadan. A continued use of the Dadanitic script until at least the second century BCE seems confirmed by the bilingual Aramaic/Dadanitic inscription mentioning âthe days of Aretas, king of the Nabataeansâ (photograph published in Nehmé and Alsuhaibani 2019). Even though the variation in letter shapes in the Dadanitic corpus makes it interesting for paleographic study, the lack of secure dates for any of the inscriptions, even relative to each other, currently prohibits reliable use of paleography to date the inscriptions, unfortunately. The archaeological evidence provides some additional insight and suggests that the oasis flourished around the fourth or third centuries BCE, after which it entered a phase of decline (Rohmer and Charloux 2015). The most recent reassessment of the chronology of the Minaean kings places the heyday of the Minaean presence at the oasis in the third to second centuries BCE and suggests it continued until the second or first centuries BCE (Schiettecatte and Arbach 2020, 263â268).
See §â¯3 for a more elaborate discussion of the interaction between the Dadanitic population and the Minaeans and the implications for the dating of the inscriptions.
The structure on top of the outcrop where the inscriptions were found was initially interpreted as a look-out post, partly because of the topography of the site and partly based on the contents of the Dadanitic inscriptions. Re-examiniation during the 2020 season of the MadÄʾin SÄliḥ archaeological project, however, revealed the structure to be a tomb, which was dated to 471â366 Cal BC. It is currently unclear exactly how the inscriptions and the tomb relate to each other, and if they were contemporaneous (Nehmé et al. 2021, 14â19).
See note 17 in the Introduction on the interpretation of this ritual.
To get to TaymÄʾ one would have to go around the mountain range to the north of al-Ê¿UlÄ, however, making the actual journey closer to 200/250â¯km.
The article by Rohmer and Charloux (2015) includes a thorough discussion of the main epigraphic and historical sources used to date the Dadanitic corpus up to 2015.
For an overview of the kingsâ names and a suggested lineage see Farès-Drappeau (2005, 126). For a brief discussion of the Aramaic inscriptions mentioning a âking of LiḥyÄnâ see §â¯1.1.
The names hnʾs1 and tlmy are never mentioned outside the context of dating formulae or royal lineage in the Dadanitic corpus; s²hr is mentioned once in a context that may not be a royal lineage, but it appears in broken context at the end of a dedicatory inscription; someone named lá¸n bn gs²m occurs once in what seems to be a graffito (AH 309). The use of the names of kings of Dadan also seems to have been fairly restricted: kbrʾl only occurs once as a royal name; mtʿʾl and Ê¿á¹£y occur once together in a broken monumental inscription (AH 214); ʾṣy further occurs in another fragmentary inscription in relief (JSLih 323); while mtʿʾl seems to have been more widespread and occurs in several other inscriptions in which it does not seem to be connected to a royal lineage (JSLih 186; JSLih 187; Nasif 1988: 98, pl. CL; Nasif 1988: 91, pl. CXXX/d).
Note that the first king in this sequence s²hr bn hnʾs¹ (AH 013) occurs without the title mlk lḥyn. However, it occurs in the dating formula at the end of the inscription, which is generally based on the regnal years of the king mentioned.
Note that Farès-Drappeau does not make these choices underlying her reconstruction of the royal genealogy explicit, nor does she discuss any alternative reconstructions (2005, 122â126).
Sima (1999, 55â56) interprets mlk as a personal name followed by z lḥyn âof the lineage of LiḥyÄnâ, based on the idea that it would be unlikely that a person would only name the title of his ancestors instead of the name of their father, as is common in such genealogies. While giving a title of multiple ancestors instead of a name is indeed unusual, there are Dadanitic inscriptions in which names are given according to the scheme: PN PN bn PN (e.g., U 120). Moreover, Stein concludes that the reading z lḥyn is not supported by the photographs of the inscriptions (Stein 2020, 23 nt. 9).
It should be kept in mind, of course, that such a backwards projection of ancestral power does not necessarily reflect the historical reality but could merely be an attempt to claim longstanding legitimacy.
The inscription was discovered by Macdonald during the TaymÄʾ Hinterland Survey and is still awaiting publication. It was written by a government official of king Nabonidus (Stein 2020, n. 6).
Caskel (1954, 102) acknowledges Winnettâs arguments but dates the text to the second century BCE, based on his dating of the Dadanite period. He argues that the term could have lingered in the region after the Persian period.
Note that this formula is also found in other forms of Aramaic, such as Palmyrene. For an overview of its use and variations with bibliography see Hoftijzer and Jongeling (1995, 324â329).
Norris (2018, 78) discusses an ANA inscription from DÅ«ma which he reads l ṯwb h-kbr âby ṯwb the kabÄ«râ. If his interpretation is correct, this is the first discovery of the mention of a kabÄ«r in northern Arabia outside of Dadan (Norris 2018, n. 20).
See, for example, Winnett (1939) for a general discussion of the chronology of the Minaean kingdom. See Robin and De Maigret (2009) for a discussion of early archaeological evidence of the Minaean kingdom.
But cf. Multhoff (2019, n. 69) on Lemaireâs identification of the má¸y as the Medes. She argues that the use of the otherwise unattested word mrd likely suggests that the Minaeans viewed this ârevoltâ as an internal Egyptian affair. According to her, such an interpretation suggests no large powers such as the Chaldeans or the Medes were necessarily involved.
I would like to thank one of the reviewers for pointing me to this article on this genre of inscriptions that published several new ones of the same type.
A âfree woman from LiḥyÄnâ MaÊ¿Ä«n 93 side B line 46 and women from Dadan (MaÊ¿Ä«n 93 West side lines 31; 36;9/10; 16; 42/43; North side line 8; MaÊ¿Ä«n 94 line 4; MaÊ¿Ä«n 95 line 15/16; MaÊ¿Ä«n 98 line 5/6) occur in the texts. Note that most of the publications that refer to these inscriptions refer to them as one list, often called âthe Hierodules listâ, while in fact they are many short entries most of which occur on one block of stone and are spread out across the four faces of the block. Additionally, several other fragments were found in the vicinity of the main blockâthese may have belonged to similar blocks that are now destroyed (al-Said 2009, 96).
Arbach argues for the entry of Arabian tribes from the north in the beginning of the second century BCE, based on changes in the epigraphic record, where different deities start to be mentioned (hlfn and á¸s1mwy), the political titles change, and some linguistic changes can be observed (Arbach 2003, §â¯24). He argues that the arrival of the Roman army in the Jawf at the end of the first century BCE truly meant the end of the Minaic realm (Arbach 2003, §â¯25).
According to Grimme it is typical of the earlier Dadanite inscriptions that they could not only be written from right to left (as were the Lihyanite inscriptions), but also from left to right (Grimme 1932, 755).
For a complete overview of letter shapes and their subdivision into Dadanite and Lihyanite forms see Caskel (1954, 33â34) and most recently Farès-Drappeau (2005, 109â111).
He identifies a brief Nabataean presence at the oasis as this disturbance (Caskel 1954, 35), see §â¯4.
See Macdonald (2010a; and 2018) for the latest treatment of the Dadanitic paleography.
E.g., JSLih 071, in which several different forms of the alif and s1 occur. See Macdonald (2010, 12â14) for an explanation of the developments of the letter forms and examples.
Note that the chronology of the development is the same as that used for the paleographic chronology of the inscriptions by earlier scholars (e.g., Grimme 1932; Caskel 1954). However, Macdonald (2015) shows that this is connected to a different medium than the inscriptions on stone and, therefore, cannot be used to date the inscriptions relative to each other.
Note that the âscript registerâ that Macdonald distinguishes is different from the âregister of the inscriptionsâ I will distinguish in the quantitative analysis of the variation in Chapter 7. While both have to do with the perceived formality of a text, Macdonaldâs distinction focusses on the writing material and tools used for inscribing. In contrast, the registers distinguished in Chapter 7 do not relate to the tools or techniques used to make an inscription, but focus on its content and purpose.
In line 1 the legs of the alif are not touching at the base, but in the next line they form a closed triangle.
Charloux and Rohmer caution that, since this person is only attested in Aramaic inscriptions from outside Dadan we cannot conclude he ruled in Dadan in the same way as the kings that are mentioned in the Dadanitic inscriptions (2015, n. 6). Given the more complete list of Aramaic inscriptions from TaymÄʾ bearing the names of LiḥyÄnite kings that was recently published by Stein (2020) and the attestation of names in them that are also well-known from the Dadanitic record (such as hnʾs¹ and tlmy) it seems very likely that at least some of the mlk lḥyn mentioned in the Dadanitic inscriptions overlap with those found in the Aramaic inscriptions from TaymÄʾ (see §â¯1).
See §â¯4 for a more elaborate discussion on the attempts to use paleography to establish a relative chronology of the inscriptions.
Gen. 10:6, 7; 25:3 and Chron. 1:9.
Ez. 25:13; 27:15, 20; 38:13.
Jer: 25:23, 49:8.
The word ʾs¹kn is left untranslated in Macdonald, Al-Muʾazzin, and Nehmé (1996, 458) and the OCIANA database. The translation âsettlement/settled areasâ is based on Al-Jallad (2015, 341).
Note that all three inscriptions with the KRS siglum seem to refer to the same event, s¹nt ws¹q Ê¿bdrb{ʾ}l lḥyn âthe year Ê¿bdrbʾl confronted lḥynâ (OCIANA, accessed 22-04-2018).
lḥyn is more commonly found as a personal name in the Safaitic inscriptions. Compare for example (KRS 185) l-lḥyn bn s¹ny bn s¹lm bn s¹ʿd âby lḥyn son of s¹ny son of s¹lm son of s¹ʿdâ (OCIANA, accessed 22-04-2018).
Since the publication by Rohmer and Charloux, Th. Bauzou (2016) has published an overview and chronology of the imitations of Athenian owl tetradrachms found at ḤegrÄ. He concluded that these coins were of local production and suggested calling them âthe owls of ḤegrÄ.