Reflections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia - Khalili ...

(on which we have much less data) will inevitably
follow that of the scripts in which
they are habitually expressed, except
where there is evidence to the contrary.
There is an increasing recognition that
the distinction between the ‘Dedanite’ and
‘Lihw yānite’ scripts is artificial and that they
represent the same script at different stages
of development. Moreover, the chronological
limits of these different stages do
not necessarily coincide with the kingdoms
of Dadan (see note 1) and Lihw yān, after
which they are named. However, if we
abandon the term ‘Dedanite’ it would still
be anachronistic to talk of ‘Lihyanite’ before
the kingdom of Lihw yān. It would seem
to be more sensible to name the script (at
all stages of its development) after the oasis
in which it developed, rather than after a
specific kingdom. I would therefore suggest
that, from now on, the labels ‘Lihyanite’
and ‘Dedanite’ be abandoned and
the script and language throughout their
history be referred to as ‘Dadanitic’. It
would then be possible to distinguish different
phases within the development of
the script (‘early’, ‘middle’, ‘late’, etc.)
without tying them to political events, the
dating of which is anyway uncertain.
Similarly, I would refer to the scripts
which developed in the oases of Taymā $
and Dūmā (modern al-Jawf) as ‘Taymanitic’
(30) and ‘Dumaitic’ (31) respectively.
These terms would also refer to the dialects
normally expressed by these alphabets.
The scripts of the Early Dadanitic, Taymanitic
and Dumaitic texts, together with
those of the so-called ‘Chaldaean’ inscriptions
(of which more below) are very close
in form, and it is often difficult to assign a
short text to one or other type (see Fig. 3).
It therefore seems to me useful to think in
terms of an ‘Oasis North Arabian’ [ONA]
script, which was employed, with small
local variations in letter-form and orthographic
practice, in the three major oasis-
THE LINGUISTIC MAP OF PRE-ISLAMIC ARABIA
towns of North Arabia: Dadan, Taymā $ and
Dūmā, and probably also among the Arab
communities settled in Babylonia and elsewhere
(32). I would suggest that Oasis
North Arabian be subdivided into Dadanitic,
Taymanitic, etc. only when there is
clear evidence to justify this (33).
A new name is also urgently needed for
the so-called ‘Chaldaean’ inscriptions, the
brief texts in the ONA script, on seals, pottery,
bricks, etc. which have been found in
various parts of Mesopotamia and elsewhere
(34). They are clearly in no sense
‘Chaldaean’ (35) and Burrows’ description
of the script as ‘Old Arabic’ is equally misleading
(36). While it is likely, although in
most cases unprovable, that at least some
of these texts are to be associated with the
Arab communities settled in Babylonia,
others appear to be connected with Syria
and Transjordan (37), and yet others seem
to be from Arabia itself (38). They therefore
do not form a homogeneous group. I
would suggest that this be reflected in a descriptive
term such as ‘dispersed Oasis
North Arabian inscriptions’, failing a
more concise and elegant title.
The name ‘Thamūdic’ was the invention
of western scholars even though there is
virtually no evidence to connect any of the
texts gathered under this rubric with the
ancient tribe of Thamūd (39). However, the
label is far too well established to be
changed and its very inappropriateness,
when recognized, serves to emphasize the
artificiality of the category. For ‘Thamudic’
is no more than a Restklassenbildung (a term
I owe to E. A. Knauf, ZDPV 97, 1981; 189,
n. 7), a sort of undetermined’ pigeon-hole
into which one can put everything which
does not fit into one of the better-defined
categories. In a field such as Ancient North
Arabian, in which so much of the evidence
is uncertain and so much work still needs
to be done, this serves a useful purpose.
However, while this is, or should be,
33