Esk. 169

Eskoubi 1999: Line 1: zn rather than ʾn; Line 3: yʿnm b-flt; Translation: '...came with the 'eunuch' so that he graze in Flt close to Bdt, (and he is) greedy.'

Hayajneh 2001: Line 3: nm b- fls¹; Translation: '...came with the RBS¹RS¹ [or: 'army leader'] (so ?) ----nm in the attack/invasion [or: 'in the emigration'; 'for inspection/supervision'] behind the bare (?) desert'.

Kootstra 2016: Line 3: {ʿ}nm b fl{ʾ}; Translation: '{ʿ}nm in fl{ʾ}'

Livingstone 2005: Line 3: nm bfls¹; Translation: '...I came with the commandant in order to advance ---- to hold (the enemy) back'

Müller and Al-Saʿīd 2001: Line 3: nm bfls¹; Translation: 'so that he deployed in Falas (or: with the help of Fals) in pursuit of the Beduins from Laʿaq (or: for deterrent).'

OCIANA 1: Line 3: {ʿ}nm / b- fl{ʾ} / tlw / b{d}t / lʿq; Translation: '{in the waterless wilderness} beyond {the desert of} Lʿq'

The reading of the first two lines is clear. The third is divided between scholars who take the fourth glyph of the second word as an ʾ and those as an s¹. Based on a close examination of the photograph in light of other alifs in the text, the former reading seems impossible. It is almost certainly an s¹. There are two symbols at the beginning of the line, which can be read as an effaced ṣ or ʾ, and ʿ. The first symbol is much larger than the letters of this text and therefore should probably not be interpreted as writing. What comes after it is a filled-in circle, which can naturally be taken as an ʿ. But looking at the situation globally, I would suggest both of these symbols were on the rock before mrdn inscribed his text and they prevented him from producing three justified lines. It is probable that he hammered out the symbols so that they are not mistaken for part of his inscription. As such, the third line should begin with nm. This differs from all previous editions, which either take the glyph before it to be an ʿ, without accounting for why it has been filled in (OCIANA 1; Kootstra 2016), or consider it to be the final part of an obliterated word (Hayajneh 2001). Müller and Al-Said (2001), followed by Livingston (2005), take the nm to be the final component of a prefix conjugated verb beginning on the previous line, producing ytnm, which they understand as deriving from the root nmy 'to climb or advance from one place to another.' However, Macdonald's (OCIANA 1) reading of kyt as the name of the chief officer (rbs¹rs¹) is most convincing. This results in the third line beginning with the independent word nm. I would suggest identifying it as Thamudic B particle nm, which I have argued should be understood as 'from' (Al-Jallad, forthcoming). This makes good sense in the context of an inscription describing movement. The use of nm here may suggest that Mrdn was a speaker of something closer to what was inscribed in Thamudic B, as the corresponding particle in the Taymanitic language is lm. This is not unexpected as Mrdn was not a local and came to Taymāʾ with Nabonidus from elsehwere.

If this interpretation is correct, then bfls¹ should be interpreted as a toponym. Perhaps it is a region named after a group, bi(n)-fls¹, or an abbreviated form of bayt, bē-fls¹, as found in many Lebanese toponyms today, e.g. bʿabdāt < bayt ʿābidāt).

The meaning of what comes next is impossible to substantiate. The root tlw generally means 'to follow', so it is plausible to take bdt lʿq as 'the orders' (buddat 'wish') of lʿq, a personal name (attested twice in Safaitic, but rare). Naturally, this is only a speculative suggestion. The absence of further texts containing these lexemes means any interpretation offered at this stage cannot be definitively proven or disproven, thus demanding considerable caution.