The Northern Ḥeǧâz/Appendix 1
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX I
MA‘ÂN AND MA‘ÔN
Throughout almost the whole of the last millenium before Christ the international trade of Arabia was in the hands of the Šeba’ (Sabaeans) and Ma‘în (Minaeans), the rulers of southwestern Arabia. The Šeba’ and Ma‘în were blood relations and struggled for supremacy, not only in their own country but also in the oases through which the great trade routes passed. In every oasis of any importance there was a southern Arabian colony with a southern Arabian resident, who acted as an overseer over the native kings and chiefs, keeping watch lest they should do anything detrimental to the interests of his master, the Sabaean or Minaean king, accordingly as one or the other of the clans of Šeba’ or Ma‘în happened to be at the head of the feudal states of southern Arabia. We have reliable evidence about this arrangement in the oasis of Dajdân near the present settlement of al-ʻEla’. The remoter rulers of Syria and Assyria did not concern themselves with the political organization of the separate oases on the great trade routes; nor did they negotiate with the native kings and chiefs, but rather with the residents of the southern Arabian kings, whom they designated by the names of the latter. This explains why the Assyrian and Biblical records refer to the Sabaeans as being located southeast of the Dead Sea and either do not mention the large oases in that region at all or else mention them but rarely. In the second half of the eighth century before Christ an Assyrian army penetrated the environs of the oasis of Maʻân and even went far to the south; the Assyrian records, however, do not refer to the oasis at all. We may best explain this circumstance on the supposition that the oasis belonged to the masters of the great transport route, the Sabaeans of southern Arabia, as did the large oasis of Dajdân, to which also no reference has hitherto been found in the Assyrian records; and that both oases were included under the name of Šeba’, because the Sabaean residents administered their affairs.
ME‘ÛN AND MA‘ÔN OF THE BIBLE
In the Bible a number of references to the tribe of Maʻôn have been preserved, as well as to the inhabitants of Me‘ûn, which name we can also easily read in the Hebrew text as Ma‘ôn. These references are apparently derived from detailed and accurate sources, because, although they contain allusions to places mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, they nevertheless are in entire agreement with the topography. I hold the view that both “Ma‘ôn” and “Me‘ûn” designate the inhabitants of the oasis of Ma‘ân and its environs. Whether the name Ma‘ôn arose from Maʻîn or not, I cannot decide, because both are purely Semitic and both are frequently met with in northwestern Arabia.
In Judges, 10: 12, it is stated that the Israelites were oppressed by the Amalekites and Maonites. The tribe of Amalek, or the Amalekites, had their camps south of Judaea proper. Their territory was traversed by the great transport route leading from the oasis of Maʻân through the pass of an-Namala to Gaza and Egypt, and hence it is evident that they must have had economic and political relations with the inhabitants of the oasis of Maʻân, with whom they could ally themselves in an expedition against the southern tribes of Israel, who perhaps had disturbed the merchant caravans. The Septuagint, confusing Maʻôn with Madian, refers to the country southeast of the Dead Sea as their home.
The most important record for us in this connection is that in 2 Chronicles, 20: 1, 10, 22f. Joshaphat (Jehoshaphat), the king of Judea (873—849 B. C.), waged war against the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the people of Meʻûn, who marched against him along the southern shore of the Dead Sea. The report, however, also refers to the people of Meʻûn as hailing from the Seʻîr mountain range, which tallies with the situation of the oasis of Maʻân. This oasis is situated at the eastern extremity of the Seʻîr mountain range, through which two important branches of the transport routes used to lead. It is therefore highly probable that the people of Meʻûn maintained friendly relations with the inhabitants of the Seʻîr mountains and assisted them in their war against Joshaphat. Moreover, Joshaphat was endeavoring to renew the maritime trade of the harbor of ʻEsjôngeber at the northern end of the narrow arm of the present Gulf of al-ʻAḳaba to the north of the town of Elath. When ʻEṣjôngeber belonged to him, he must also have been in possession of the territory which was traversed by the branch transport route from Maʻân to Gaza, and thus his interests must have conflicted with those of the people of Meʻûn.
According to 2 Chronicles, 26: 7, King Uzziah (779—740 B. C.) destroyed the Arabs that dwelt in Gûr Baʻal, and the people of Meʻûn. The Bible refers to the Arabs as dwelling south and southeast of the Dead Sea, and it is in these regions that our oasis of Maʻân is located. The records of the political and economic affairs of the time of Uzziah point in the same direction. Uzziah’s father, Amaziah, subjugated the people of Edom and Seʻîr (2 Chron., 25: 14). Uzziah took advantage of this victory and established sway over the harbor of Elath, the present-day al-ʻAḳaba. This circumstance would seem to show that he was the ruler of all the eastern half of the peninsula of Sinai with the rift valley of al-ʻAraba as far as the actual frontier of Edom along the foot of the Seʻîr mountain range; for only thus could the communication with Elath be insured.
Having firmly occupied the eastern part of the peninsula of Sinai and the harbor town of Elath, Uzziah held sway over two important branches of the international trade route from southwestern Arabia to Syria and, just as his predecessor Joshaphat had done, came into contact, either on good or bad terms, with the rulers of the oasis of Maʻôn, whence branch roads led to Gaza and Elath respectively. It was easier for Uzziah to maintain authority over the branch road to Gaza than over that to the harbor of Elath. The latter was perhaps more important than the former to the people of Meʻûn, because it connected them with Egypt and gave them an opportunity of avoiding the territory of Judea and of reaching Gaza of the Philistines either from the south or the southwest. When Solomon and Uzziah established maritime trade at Elath, the masters of southwestern Arabia certainly also had trade relations there. Goods conveyed by sea were dispatched from there partly to Egypt and partly to Syria. The main trade center for Damascus and the great Syrian harbors could only be the oasis of Maʻân, to which place a transport route leads from Elath through the valley of al-Jitm. This route runs to the foot of the aš-Šera’ mountain range, ascends the latter through the Štâr pass, proceeds to the east of the formerly inhabited territory, and so reaches Maʻân. As long as Uzziah did not control this route, he was not master of the trade of Elath, because ships could land at the Gulf of al-ʻAḳaba, and from there the goods could be conveyed to the main transport route, and so to Maʻân. Having obtained control over the branch route from Elath to Maʻân, Uzziah could interfere with the communication between Maʻân and the south and thus force the people of Meʻûn to come to an agreement.
According to our interpretation of the report quoted, Uzziah endeavored to gain authority over the branch route from Elath to Maʻân. He therefore waged war against the people of Meʻûn and the Arabs at Gûr Baʻal (Codex Amiatinus [C. de Tischendorf], loco collato, has Tûr Baʻal). Many would prefer to read Ṣûr Baʻal, but since the Septuagint has ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας, which in our opinion is entirely correct, I prefer the reading Gûr Baʻal for the following reasons. The word Gûr I take to be the Hebrew transcription of the Arabic ḳûr, which designates isolated rocks of tabular form with steep sides. There is an abundance of these east, northeast, and southeast of Elath as far as the foot of the aš-Šera’ mountains, while to the north and northwest this configuration is unknown. Not far from the branch route between Elath and Maʻân there rises among other rocks the ḳûr of Mount Iram. In Islâm this is associated with legends supplying evidence that on it, or near it, the surrounding population had a temple of Baʻal, which would account for the name Gûr Baʻal. Biblical report assigns the locality or region of Gûr Baʻal to the Arabs, and this tallies with its situation to the east and northeast of Elath, because for the most part the Biblical accounts locate the Arabs east and south of ancient Edom.
The most detailed Biblical report about the people of Meʻûn is contained in 1 Chronicles, 4: 39—43. Under Hezekiah, king of Judea (727—699 B. C.), several clans of the tribe of Simeon migrated and proceeded to a place from which Gedor can be reached, seeking pastures for their flocks as far as east of Gai’. They found rich and fat pastures, and on both sides the region was wide, peaceful, and safe. It had formerly been inhabited by the Hamites. The men of Simeon destroyed their tents, as well as those of the people of Meʻûn who were there, and settled in their place. There were five hundred of the men of Simeon who proceeded to the Seʻîr mountain range, slew the last remnants of the Amalekites, and remained there. The Septuagint does not read Gedor but Gerar; Gai’ is translated as if it were the common appellation of a valley. The whole report is generally interpreted as meaning that the men of Simeon migrated westward to a place from which Gerar could be reached and that they arrived at the east of the valley hag-Gai’, i. e. the border valley between the Promised Land and Egypt, which formerly belonged to the Hamites. The phrase “from which Gerar can be reached” does not seem appropriate in this interpretation, because the territory of the men of Simeon was also traversed by a road leading to Gerar. Their dwelling places were located to the east of the border valley, which, furthermore, was generally known as “Nahal,” not “Gai’.” For a distance of seventy kilometers eastward from the border valley the bulk of the region is covered with sand and contains but scanty water or pasture. It is difficult, therefore, to understand why the men of Simeon should have migrated to so poor a country. Moreover, according to this interpretation a part of the men of Simeon left their new dwelling place near the border valley and proceeded to the Seʻîr mountain range, which is at least two hundred kilometers to the southeast, although from the context it would appear that Seʻîr was near the new settlements of the men of Simeon.
The Hebrew text of the Septuagint translators had also Gedor, but, as frequently elsewhere, they read r instead of d. The Hebrew text contains the place names Gedor, Gai’, and Seʻir. Gedor I propose to identify with the Arabic Keḏâr (al-Masʻûdi, Tanbîh [De Goeje], p. 338), the modern Kḏûr. (The Arabic k is often transliterated in Hebrew as g.) This is the name of the southeastern portion of the aš-Šera’ mountain range, the ancient Seʻîr, and also of the ruins of al-Mṛejjera. Thus, according to our interpretation, Gedor borders on Seʻîr or is located in its southeastern portion. I connect the place name Gai’ with the reference in Ptolemy’s Geography, VI, 7: 29, where the place is recorded as Gaia. Ptolemy locates it, however, in Arabia Felix instead of in Arabia Petraea; but this is not the only occasion on which he confuses the two Arabias. The territory to the north of Tejma, where Ptolemy places the town of Gaia, is a complete wilderness in which no town was ever built. Glaucus in his Arabic Antiquities refers to the town of Gea as being near Petra in Arabia (Stephen of Byzantium, Ethnica [Meineke], Vol. 1, p. 200). Thus both Ptolemy and Glaucus would seem to bring us to the southern half of the Seîr mountain range, where, amid the very ruins of the town of Petra, has been preserved the settlement of al-Ǧi, which must be identical with the Biblical Gai’. At a distance of twenty-seven kilometers east of al-Ǧi is the oasis of Maʻân, the inhabitants of which we identify with the people of Meʻûn, and which tallies exactly with the situation of the other localities mentioned.
Our view is corroborated also by the interpretation of an Assyrian inscription which has been preserved. During the reign of King Hezekiah an attempt was made by the great Assyrian king Sargon II to subdue Egypt. Frequent battles ensued in the neighborhood of Gerar and the Egyptian border valley. Consequently the men of Simeon who migrated could not have found any safe and peaceful dwelling places there. A different state of affairs prevailed in southern Seʻîr and in the Gedor region. In the year 715 B. C. Sargon II had dispatched his army into southern Seʻîr and thence to the south along the great transport route leading from Syria to southwestern Arabia (Cyl. Inscr. [Rawlinson, Cuneiform, Vol. 1, pl. 36], 1. 20; Lyon, Keilschrift., p. 4; Peiser in: Schrader, Keilinschr. Bib., Vol. 2, p. 42). The army destroyed the camps and settlements of the tribes there, took many of the people prisoners, and transported them to Samaria. Many settlements and territories lost all their inhabitants. It is certain that the men of Simeon heard about this and for that reason set out thither after the departure of the Assyrian army. They marched “as far as the place from which Gedor is reached, seeking pastures for their flocks as far as east of Gai’” (1 Chron., 4: 39f.). According to this the road to Gedor passes through Gai’. Gedor must therefore be sought in the same direction as Gai’. But Gai’ is situated by the branch road leading from Gaza (not far from the former settlements of the men of Simeon) through the pass of an-Namala to the oasis of Maʻân and to the main transport route from Arabia to Syria. The men of Simeon, therefore, must have passed along this branch road, journeying on it as far as a point east of Gai’, or the modern al-Ǧi; here they must have left it and proceeded more to the south on a road leading to Gedor (or the modern al-Kḏûr) and the ruins of al-Mṛejjera.
The Biblical record relates that the Hamites had lived there before them. The Hamites are of the same kindred as the Kushites, akin to the Sabaeans, and the Bible mentions the Kushites as masters of the main transport route as well as of the separate oases situated upon it. At the end of the eighth century the Sabaeans were the masters. Their resident dwelt at Dajdân and directed the political affairs not only of the Sabaean settlements in the separate oases but also of the tribes encamped by the transport route. The southern Arabian colonists dwelt both in fixed abodes and in movable tents, because they had to look after the camels which they needed for the transport of goods. On the road to Gedor the men of Simeon destroyed some of these southern Arabian encampments, which must have belonged to the Kushites (or Hamites), and they met with the settlers from the oasis of Maʻân, or people of Meʻûn, who defended their kinsmen. But both the people of Meʻûn and the tribes encamped along the transport route had been weakened by the recent inroad of the Assyrian army and consequently had to retreat before the men of Simeon, who then settled down in the deserted dwelling places to the southwest of the modern oasis of Maʻân. Some of the men of Simeon then proceeded to the southwestern spur of the Seʻîr mountain range, where they destroyed the last remnants of the Amalekites. Thus, this Biblical record would seem also to justify our identification of the tribe of Maʻôn and the people of Meʻûn with the inhabitants of the oasis of Maʻân.
ARABIC AUTHORS ON MAʻÂN
The classical authors do not allude to Maʻân, for in their time all trade was concentrated in the town of Petra. Among the Arabic authors, it is referred to by al-Iṣṭaḫri, Masâlik (De Goeje), p. 65, who states that Maʻân is a township and stronghold in the district of aš-Šara’ and that it is inhabited by the Omayyads and their clients.
Ibn Ḥawḳal, Masâlik (De Goeje), p. 124, states that Maʻân is a township on the edge of the desert, inhabited by the Omayyads, from whom wayfarers can obtain supplies.
Al-Bekri, Muʻǧam (Wüstenfeld), pp. 501, 549, records that Maʻân is a large stronghold in Palestine, five days from Damascus on the road to Mecca. He relates that Farwa ibn ʻAmr, of the tribe of al-Ǧuḏâm, was governor in the stronghold of Maʻân and its environs in the Byzantine period. Having become a Moslem, he sent the Prophet a white she-mule. When the Byzantines heard about this, they captured and imprisoned him and then killed him by nailing him to a cross.—The territory of the tribe of al-Ǧuḏâm extended from the present position of the railway station of al-Muʻaẓẓam on the south as far as Maʻân on the north, and it would be possible for the chief of this tribe to be the governor of the frontier stronghold of Maʻân situated in the province Palestina Tertia.
Ḥaǧǧi Ḫalfa, Ǧihân numa’ (Constantinople, 1145 A.H.), p. 539, relates that the stronghold of Maʻân belongs to the district of aš-Šera’ and was built and provided with an aqueduct at the command of Sultan Suleiman, but that there is no good water there.
According to Meḥmed Edîb, Menâzil (Constantinople, 1232 A. H.), pp. 70 f., Maʻân was originally called Maʻâl and belongs to the district of aš-Šera’. This prosperous settlement has two strongholds, of which one was built during the reign of Sultan Suleiman. the southeast of Maʻân there are several thorny trees known as umm ʻAjjâš. This kind of tree does not thrive north of Maʻân. Besides them nothing grows there, and therefore all articles are made from a wood similar to that of the acacia.—Meḥmed Edîb was perhaps thinking of the ṭalḥ trees, which grow in every valley of any size southeast of Maʻân; whereas nothing is to be seen of them to the northeast.