ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS—MOCATTEB MOUNTAINS.
The principle of decyphering propounded for the Nineveh inscriptions (Vol. iv., p. 220.) is available equally, and with better prospect of speedy solution, in the case of those of Mocatteb. A very interesting narrative is given of these in Laborde's Mount Sinai and Petra (p. 248). The site of them is seventy miles direct distance south-east from Suez, and they extend on the rock three miles and more in length, at a height of ten or twelve feet, and in the line of route to Sinai, which is distant fifty miles south-east from Mocatteb. They also lie not only in the usual caravan route, but almost in a direct line drawn from Ethiopia to the cities of Nineveh and Babylon. Nimrod is represented as an Ethiopian (Gen. x. 8.), "Cush begat Nimrod" = "Nimrod was an Ethiopian by descent." The whole of this invaluable monument of the most ancient geography, the tenth of Genesis, must be read with reference to nations, and not individuals.
Both the valley and the mountains are named from these "Inscriptions" = Mocatteb in Arabic; that fact alone indicates considerable antiquity, especially in a country like Arabia, where the fashion of changing any usage, especially that of names of places, has never prevailed. The vicinity of these inscriptions to that portion of the world wherein the Mosaic law had its origin, and probably, as a necessary consequence, the invention of an alphabet also; and likewise the great question of ancient intercourse between Egypt, Ethiopia, Assyria (Chaldea), and India, have rendered the interpretation of the Mocatteb inscriptions a problem of paramount interest, insomuch that Bishop Clayton offered a considerable sum of money for a copy of them. In the Royal Society's Transactions, vol. ii. part vi. 1832, are specimens of 187 of these, whereof nine are Greek and one Latin. Some of them are doubtless of the sixth century.
Coutelle and Roziere (Antiquities, vol. v. p. 57.) copied seventy-five of them, and Pococke and Montague give a few specimens. Seetzen, Burkhardt, and Henneker saw them; and Niebuhr may be said to have been sent out expressly on their account, but the result was nil. Cosmus, Montfaucon, Neitzchitz, Monconys, Koischa, and others, mention them, and they have been seen by a caravan of persons familiar with Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Armenian, Turkish, English, Illyrian, German, and Bohemian, to all of whom they were equally inexplicable. Since the discovery of Daguerre, we are placed in a position to obtain a real fac-simile of the whole of these inscriptions, at a small expense of time or money. Any person familiar with the use of the daguerrotype (the less learned the better) could now speedily furnish what the good Bishop so fervently longed after, were he only provided with the small sum of a few hundred pounds to take him thither and bring back his invaluable treasures. Although the Mocatteb are graven with an iron pen in the rock (Job xix. 24.), they are not everlasting, for the rains have had some effect in obliterating them, being cut, not on granite, as was formerly thought, but on red sandstone. It is worth remark, that although Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, he rejected entirely the hieroglyphic system of writing, and that no mention or allusion is made to the art of writing till 1491 B.C., in Ex. xvii. 14.,[1] just prior to the delivery of the law, and in connection with the account of Jethro, his father-in-law; subsequently, constant allusion is made to writing. There is only one reference to this art in Homer (Il. z. 168.). The author of Job, who appears to have had a much more enlarged knowledge of art and science than Moses, speaks of the cutting and painting (for so the Arabic and Hebrew words should be rendered, and not printing) on a roll, i.e. with the style and brush; also of the cutting (felling) with a chisel (in Arabic, a digger) on lead, or on a rock.[2]
[1] "Jehovah said to Moses, Write this as a memorandum on a roll, and let it be read to Joshua, that I intend to obliterate entirely the memory of Amalek here below. And Moses built an altar and called it Jehovah Nissi (Jehovah is my banner). The reason he assigned for the name was that a hand (power) opposed to the throne of Jah was (the cause of) Jehovah's perpetual warfare against Amalek." This is the sense of the Hebrew as it stands, in the current language of our day, and not a copy of the words merely,—an error, it is conceived, into which most of the translators, from the Seventy downwards, have often fallen. If a conjectural criticism might be offered, let כ, caf, be inserted for נ, nun, and instead of Jehovah Nissi (banner), read Jehovah Cissi, "Jehovah is my throne;" then the reason assigned by Moses for the name becomes intelligible, which it certainly is not in the existing text, undoubtedly very ancient, being confirmed by the Samaritan.]
[2] The word, correctly translated for ever, according to the Masoretic system, means "as a witness or testimony," if pointed with Tsereh instead of Pathach. The general sense of this chapter, in some respects obscure, appears to be, "I seek for justice, but cannot obtain it. Every obstacle is put in my way. Neither my own kindred nor servants obey me. Look at my most wretched condition; although I call you friends, you all hate me. You are not satisfied with persecuting my body, but you afflict my soul also. Oh that I could make an impression upon you. I would set forth my petition for relief from your persecutions on a roll, on lead, or on a rock, as a constant memorial in testimony of my sufferings and your hate; as I know that my Goel (Redeemer or Avenger) lives, and will at length ascend from the dust (sand or soil). (In his approach he raises a cloud of dust.) Then arise and destroy this (memorial), for, living, I shall get a judgment on my case, being personally present and not by representative, although I may be hardly able to attend from mental anxiety. Then you will say, why did we persecute him, we were all wrong. And you will fear punishment because you will learn that justice must be satisfied."
Divested of its highly poetic diction, the above gives the subject matter in the vernacular.]
The examination of the copies of the inscriptions already in our possession will probably determine whether the language is hieroglyphic, syllabic, or alphabetic. The principal point is to enumerate the characters found to be clearly distinct from each other. Should there be found two to three hundred decidedly distinct characters—assuming it to be one language and one uniform character of that language, for many nations (peoples) use more than one character—the language à priori must be hieroglyphic. If 70 to 90, it will be syllabic; but if only 20 to 50, it may be safely concluded that it is alphabetic. The letters distinct from each other may be less than 20, inasmuch as in the Arabic, most probably the language which will solve this problem, one character represents several sounds, the points, usually omitted, alone distinguishing the difference between be, te, tse, nun, and jod, between jim, ha and cha, between dal and zal, between re and se, sin and shin, zad and dad, fe and kaf, &c. &c. On the other hand, the language has increased the number of its characters, by distinguishing initial from medial and terminal letters, having retained only thirteen originally distinct characters in its alphabet.
The Ethiopic, written from left to right, has manifestly furnished the Arabs with their cursive character, the one uniformly printed, written from right to left, or otherwise both have derived them from a common source. Of the intimate relation early subsisting between the Ethiopians and their Shemitic congeners in Asia, one remarkable instance is the former retaining to themselves exclusively "the exalted horn," so often mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, the wearing of which has been long abandoned by every other family of that race.
T. J. BUCKTON.
Lichfield.