W.Bāyir-YU 2

An archaic Thamudic B inscription containing a prayer against the depletion of the wells of Bāyir due to over-extraction.

Script

The editio princeps did not definitively identify the script of W.Bāyir-YU 2. The downward facing m's as well as the two-horned alif are compatible with Thamudic B. However, it is the H-shaped ḏ, which was not recognized in the editio princeps, that is the strongest indicator of this classification. The parallel right-to-left orientation is also typical of Thamudic B. The shape of the ṭ, however, requires comment. Although Macdonald’s (2000) script chart includes this specific shape, J. Norris notes that Thamudic B typically uses a form more similar to Safaitic—consisting of three lines intersected by a crossbar. The version found here actually resembles the Hismaic glyph; regardless, it represents a straightforward adaptation of the Dumaitic form, created by simply removing the bottom bar of the rectangle (Macdonald 2023: 81).

Datation

This is perhaps one of the oldest roughly datable Thamudic B texts yet discovered. The other is an inscription dated to Nabonidus' invasion of Arabia in the mid-6th century BCE (STThamB 1). The date of the inscription hinges on the significance of the triple deity invocation. The gods are the tutelary deities of the Iron Age kingdoms of the southern Levant: Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Their joint invocation likely indicates that the inscription was produced when these kingdoms were the major regional powers, and hence their gods carried importance beyond their borders.

According to Hayajneh et al. (201: 86-87), the worship of these gods goes back to the Bronze Age, before the regional territories known by these names were organized into formal states. While such an early date is within the realm of possibility, there is no evidence directly in support of such a proposal. Rather, the political ties between the Arabs of this region and the Iron Age Levantine kingdoms are securely attested in the Kurkh Monolith inscription, which describes the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. The Arab king Gindibu was part of an alliance of Levantine kings who campaigned against Assyrian expansion. While Moab, Ammon, and Edom are not named directly, some scholars hypothesize that Ahab’s forces were bolstered by a coalition of regional allies.

An invocation to the gods of the three local powers, with whom the local Arabs had a direct relationship, would make the most sense before the subjugation of these kingdoms by the Assyrians and Babylonian (one might even speculate that a subject of Gindibu himself was responsible for the carving of W.Bāyir-YU 2). Another piece of evidence that can inform the dating of this text is the Canaanite inscription placed below it. Based on superimpositions, the latter inscription must have been carved after the Thamudic B one. This inscription features an Arabic name—possibly lʾy bn zd (Luʾay bin Zayd)—written in an archaic script, the palaeographic characteristics of which are comfortable in the 8th or 9th centuries BCE (an edition of this text is forthcoming). Thus, a date before the 8th century BCE is most defensible. Nevertheless, one cannot rule out with absolute certainty that the inscription was not carved in the Persian period, although it should be emphasized that only Qos (Qaws) seems to survive as an object of veneration in the Arabian inscriptions of the region during the latter half of the 1st millennium BCE. For a Persian period date to be more tenable than one from the Bronze Age, further evidence from this period demonstrating the veneration of these deities beyond their original borders would be necessary and one would have to provide an explanation for the archaic nature of the later Canaanite inscription.

Language of W.Bāyir-YU 2

The short text follows the isolated prayer formula known from Dumaitic, Thamudic B, and Safaitic. The phrase ʿwḏ b- 'to seek refuge in', 'to put under protection', is characteristic of Arabic, surviving well into the 7th century in the Quranic invocation ʾaʿūḏu bi-DN 'I seek refuge in + Divine Name'. The prefixing article, h-, rules out any South Arabian connection and firmly ties it to the Dumaitic-Thamudic B-Safaitic complex. The broken plural ʾs¹ḥy 'wells' also confirms we are dealing with an Arabian language and not a Canaanite dialect. Finally, the lexical isoglosses madd with the meaning 'to draw (water from a well)' (madda mina l-biʾr (Lane, 2695c) and the isolated Arabic root ṭys 'referring to being 'excessive, 'much,' as in ṭāsa š-šayʾu yaṭīsu ṭaysan ʾiḏā kaṯura (Lisan, 2738a), align the language closely with what we know as Arabic. Considering the script-cum-formula commonalities as well as these linguistic compatibilities, the language of this text would appear to be a close antecedent of Safaitic, and belong to a continuum of Old Arabic that includes the Dumaitic "King of Dūmat" inscription, spanning across North Arabia and perhaps into the Sinai in the first half of the first millennium BCE.

Word-by-word Commentary 

mlkm: The tutelary deity of Ammon, attested in Kings 11:33 as מִלְכֹּם /milkōm/. 

kms¹: This god is attested as the patron deity of Moab in the Mesha stele, 𐤊𐤌𐤔‎ kmš. Kings 11:33 records כְמוֹשׁ as the god of the Moabites, but the vocalization is pejorative, based on the word bəʾôš 'stink.' While the Moabites are attested as a people in Safaitic, ʾl mʾb KRS 1304, the deity itself has not appeared in any invocations. The personal name kms¹, however, is well attested. The pronunciation of the name is unclear as Thamudic B does not employ matres lectionis. It is possible that the Canaanite shift was not observed in the Arabianized version, giving /kamās/ (cf. Arabic ʿammān for Canaanite ʿammōn).

qws¹: This is the only deity of the three previously attested in the ANA inscriptions. It appears in the Dadanitic personal name mrʾqs¹ 'man of Qōs.' The internal w in the present inscription indicates that the diphthong obtained in pronunciation, /qaws/ rather than /qōs/. This would speak again circumstantially to the inscription's archaic character as all later attestations of the name exhibit the collapse of the diphthong. 

ʿwḏ: This is a nominal form, perhaps an infinitive ʿawḏ or ʿawāḏ. Its syntactic relationship -- whether in construct or taking a direct object -- with its logical object is unclear.

h-ʾs¹ḥy: As Hayajneh et al. (2015: 84) have demonstrated, this word is cognate with the Moabite ʾšwḥ. If the initial ʾ is part of the singular noun in Arabic, then we are dealing with a broken plural form of the type ʾasāḥiy-. 

m-: This is the preposition min 'from' with n-assimilation, a feature common in Safaitic and other North Arabian varieties. 

md: This should be interpreted as a nominal form madd 'withdrawing (water from a well)', but with the basic meaning of 'to extend' (Lane, 2695c). 

ṭs¹: An adjective or adverb meaning 'excessively' or 'much', perhaps ṭīs, from the rare Arabic root ṭys 'to multiply, be plentiful' (Lisan, 2738a). Together with madd, the phrase could be translated literally as: withdrawing excessively or excessive withdrawal. The root exists in Safaitic as a personal name.