The rock inscription discussed here was discovered during the first season of the El‐Khḍerī archaeological and epigraphic survey project in north‐eastern Jordan. The inscription comes from as‐Samrūnīyyāt (site number S5), located 12 km south‐west of Qaṣr Burquʿ, and was the only text found at the site. In terms of archaeological remains, the site contains a tailed tower tomb on its southern slope and a number of stone‐circle structures scattered on its northern side. These ancient structures have been reused in recent times as seasonal camps by nomadic pastoralists. The inscription consists of a four‐word early Arabic graffito, perhaps from the sixth or seventh century, accompanied by a cross. The text contains several unique palaeographic features and a reference to a certain yzydw ʾl‐mlk or ‘Yazīd the king’. The present article will provide a reading and interpretation of the inscription, a discussion of its palaeographic and linguistic features, and an attempt to identify the historical figure mentioned in the inscription.

In other respects, the r resembles one of the allographs of the sixth century but is to my knowledge not attested in the seventh‐century Islamic graffiti and inscriptions. The alif lacks a tail, like the sixth‐century inscriptions, in contrast to the seventh‐century Islamic graffiti and monumental texts. The seventh‐century book hand, however, has a vertical line alif (e.g. the Ahnas Papyrus), and therefore this cannot be a diagnostic feature.

The script and orthographic features discussed above underscore the uniqueness of the present inscription. Whether we regard it as from the sixth or seventh century, it contains a combination of features not attested in either corpus of Arabic texts:

An archaic feature of the present inscription's orthography is wawation 9 on the name yzydw . While this is extremely common in pre‐Islamic Arabic inscriptions, it is virtually unattested in the Islamic period aside the name ʿAmr. Nevertheless, in the earliest dated papyrus from the Islamic period, the Ahnas Papyrus of 643 CE (Karabacek, 1894 : 139; Grohmann, 1924 ), the scribe signs his name as ʾbn ḥdydw , with wawation on the name ḥadīd or ḥudayd . This suggests that, although rare, wawation did persist into the Islamic period, at least until the middle of the seventh century. Its appearance on the name Yazīd, however, is unexpected. Wawation is almost always used on triptotes, while Yazīd, at least according to the rules of Classical Arabic grammar, is a diptote. 10 This may suggest that the exact function of wawation at the time that this inscription was composed was not completely understood, bolstering a later date. 11

The formula dkr ʾl‐ʾlh is unique to sixth‐century Christian Arabic inscriptions, probably attested in the Zebed inscription 5 and in a new mid‐sixth‐century Arabic inscription from Dūmah. 6 The verb dkr would appear to be an Arabic calque of the Nabataean dkyr , common in Nabataean and Nabataeo‐Arabic graffiti. 7 The divine name ʾl‐ʾlh is only attested in sixth‐ or perhaps late fifth‐century Christian Arabic inscriptions, 8 and is therefore probably a calque of the Greek ho theós . We can compare the cross accompanying the benediction to the Dūmah pre‐Islamic Arabic inscription (Nehmé, forthcoming, b) and to the crosses associated with the Ḥimā Arabic and Nabataeo‐Arabic inscriptions (Robin, al‐Ghabbān, & al‐Saʿīd, 2014 ).

While the existence of the Proto‐Hamza remains a contested issue, such dots, whatever may have been their exact function, are not found in the pre‐Islamic Arabic inscriptions, at least not yet. This, in combination with the dots on the dāl , makes the text unique from the standpoint of sixth‐century Arabic‐script inscriptions discovered so far.

If this interpretation is correct, then the dot above the alif may be a variant of Imbert's proposed ‘Proto‐Hamza’ (Imbert, 2012 ). In his study, he identifies four inscriptions where dots are found following or above letters that would act as the seat for the hamza in Classical Arabic orthography. In three cases, two dots mark the alleged hamza , yet in the case of the phrase lā ʿazāʾa in the poetic graffito from Qāʿ Banī Murr (Saudi Arabia), 4 a single dot follows the alif . If there was allography in the representation of the hamza , between a single and a double dot, then the single dot in the present inscription could reflect the former allograph. The reason that the dot of the present inscription does not follow the letter may be due to the fact that the lām is the second component of the ligature. Thus placement above the arm representing the alif was required. The Umayyad milestone from Palestine (Imbert, 2012 : 124) dated to 692 CE, however, shows the placement of the double‐dot hamza above the wāw in the term muʾminīna , indicating that there was not yet a fixed orthographic practice regarding the placement of the Proto‐Hamza.

Unlike the previously attested examples of this ligature, the lām‐alif in the present inscription carries a dot above the right arm. The patina is identical to that of the main inscription and its shape, perfectly round and similar in size to the dot of the dāl , suggests that it was deliberate rather than a result of damage to the rock. While in Classical Arabic orthography, the right arm belongs to the lām , at face value it would seem that it should belong to the alif . This is because if we take it as a lām , the letter would be written backwards, the loop opening towards the beginning of the text rather than the end. If we take the left arm as the lām , then the loop opens in the right direction and is connected immediately to the alif which leans towards the beginning of the text. This reading of the ligature is further supported by the shape of the alif in Nabataean. Given that the ligature was in existence at the same time as the Classical Nabataean alif , the shape of the latter should guide our interpretation of the ligature. The Classical Nabataean alif leans to the right and has a loop that could be connected to a lām , producing the attested shape. In fact, the Namārah inscription has both next to each other and their relationship is fairly clear (Fig. 3 ).

The combination of the lām and alif to form a single ligature is attested as early as the Namārah inscription, and in the Nabataeo‐Arabic text UJadh 367, as well as in Ḥimā‐Sud PalAr 8 (late fifth–early sixth century) and the Zebed inscription (early sixth century) (Table 5 ).

The alif consists of a single vertical stroke, common to sixth‐century Arabic inscriptions, but not typical of the seventh‐century Ḥigāzī hand. One should hesitate, however, to confine such a form to the sixth century as it is, according to Nehmé's ( 2010 : 49) relative chronology of the letter, more evolved than the seventh‐century Ḥigāzī form, which still retains a vestige of the Nabataean loop. This issue will be further discussed below when we consider the subject of ‘writing schools’ in section 4 of this article.

The r/z has a rather atypical form from the point of view of the sixth‐ and seventh‐century Arabic inscriptions. 2 In these texts, the r/z is almost always lunate. The exception seems to be the r of the word br ‘son’, which can sometimes take the shape of a slightly curved line. This form of the r is found in Ḥimā‐Sud PalAr 1 in the words yrḥ ‘month’ and brk ‘a month name’ and in Ḥimā‐Sud PalAr 2 in the name ʿmr /ʿumar/. 3 The lunate shape, however, is attested in Ḥimā‐al‐Musammāt PalAr 1 (dated 513 CE), as well as in the common name mrʾlqys (= imruʾ‐l‐qays) in Ḥimā‐Sud PalAr 7 and 8 (Table 2 ).

The letter forms are completely Arabic as opposed to the Nabataeo‐Arabic script, suggesting a sixth‐century date at the earliest. The dāl s, however, have a dot, a survival of an Aramaic practice of distinguishing the two phonemes but a completely unnecessary relic given that the r at this time has a distinct shape. This practice is still found in the Nabataeo‐Arabic script but has not yet been attested in the Arabic script proper until now. 1 The dot is not used to distinguish ḏāl from dāl , as in the later Arabic script (Table 1 ).

3 YAZĪD‐W THE MLK

The identity of Yazīd the king is open to several interpretations, ranging from the early sixth to the late seventh century. We will discuss all possibilities and allow the historical evidence to arbitrate between the choices. But before attempting to focus on the historical identity of yzydw, a short discussion of the term mlk in the pre‐Islamic Arabic and Nabataeo‐Arabic inscriptions is in order.

In a recent study, Robin illustrated that the title mlk, from the fourth century onwards, is applied without specification of territory or tribe, as opposed to before that date (Avner, Nehmé, & Robin, 2013: 249–250). Five kings belonging to this category are so far known from the epigraphic record. Thus, the title need not refer to a sovereign ruling ‘over a clearly defined territory with a capital, armed forces at his command, a financial administration, etc.’, it was applied to phylarchs as well. This seems to be clearly the case in the Thaʿlabah inscription (2013: 249–250), which is in the transitional Nabataeo‐Arabic script and probably dates to the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. Clearer yet is the use of mlk in the Jebel Usays inscription. This graffito was carved by a Ghassanid soldier stationed at Usays in southern Syria and mentions that he was dispatched there by ʾl‐ḥrt ʾl‐mlk, almost certainly al‐Ḥāriṯ son of Jabalah (r. 528/529–569). The term mlk here clearly refers to the leader of the Ghassanids, and is possibly a recognition of the title of phylarch given to him by emperor Justinian (Macdonald in Fiema et al. 2015: 412), but cannot signify an absolute monarch, as the term comes to mean in Classical Arabic usage.

The translation of mlk as ‘king’ in pre‐Islamic texts such as these is therefore not entirely accurate and does not seem to capture the sense of the word. Instead, a translation along the lines of ‘leader’ would seem to be more appropriate.

3.1 A pre‐Islamic yzydw ʾl‐mlk 3.1.1 Yazīd son of al‐ʾAswad There are no known Ghassanid or Lakhmid kings or phylarchs bearing the name Yazīd in the sixth century (or earlier). The only Yazīd known in the Classical Arabic sources belonging to Ghassān is a certain Yazīd son of al‐ʾAswad, a descendant of Kaʿb son of ʿAmr son of Muzayqiyāʾ. He is said to have entered into Roman territory with Jabala, the Ghassānid king, at the time of the battle of Yarmouk (636 CE) and returned a Muslim.13 The present inscription seems highly unlikely to refer to this individual, as he was neither a king nor a phylarch. 3.1.2 Yazīd son of Qays the Ḥujrid The second option is a Yazīd mentioned in Nonnosus cited by Photius, Bibliotheca 3, early to mid‐sixth century. Nonnosus, a Roman diplomat, wrote an account of his missions around the Red Sea, which survives in fragments in the Chronicle of John Malalas and in the Bibliotheca of Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century (Edwell, 2015: 238). He was sent as ambassador to a certain Kaisos, a Ḥujrid14 ruler called chief of Chindēnoi (Kindah) and Maadēnoi (Maʿadd), but whose exact identity remains unknown. Nonnosus claims to have achieved his mission, and Kaisos, before setting off for Byzantium, divided his phylarchy between his two sons, Ambros (ʿAmr) and Iezidos (Yazīd). It is possible, then, that the present Yazīd could be identified as the son of Kaisos; the title of mlk would in this case refer to his status as a phylarch. Nevertheless, the territory of this Yazīd would have been quite far from Burquʿ, in south‐central Arabia. While there is no epigraphic evidence to suggest the presence of Ḥujrids in the area, Kaisos, his father, was eventually given control of Palestine, still quite a way from Burquʿ. If we wish to identify the present Yazīd with Yazīd b. Qays the Ḥujrid, we would have to imagine that a member of Kaisos's entourage ventured far into the eastern desert and carved an inscription asking for blessings upon the son of his master. Not an impossible scenario, but certainly an unlikely one. 3.1.3 Yazīd son of Kabaśat, ḫlft of Kindah Another Yazīd connected to Kindah is known. The late Sabaic inscription CIH 54115 mentions that Abraha, the Ethiopian ruler of South Arabia, appointed Yzd bn Kbs2t (= Yazīd bin Kabaśat) as ḫlft (governor16 or deputy17 ) over Kindah.18 This Yazīd eventually rebelled against his master but was ultimately unsuccessful and renewed his allegiance to Abraha at a place called Nbṭm. While it might be tempting to see this as evidence of a northern connection, Nbṭm here most certainly refers to a local place, somewhere north of Ṣirwāḥ.19 Even though the title mlk would seem appropriate for this Yazīd, his identification with the Yazīd of the present inscription faces the same geographic challenges as the previous candidate.

3.2 Summary of the pre‐Islamic evidence The pre‐Islamic evidence does not yield a candidate who would have both carried the title mlk and ruled a territory covering north‐eastern Jordan, or at least had strong political connections with this area. Thus, if any of these men are the object of this inscription's benediction, the text must have been carved by a drifting subject passing through the area. While possible, this would be the first example of a South Arabian presence in the region. It is also necessary to consider the possibility that the inscription refers to a local ruler named Yazīd who is simply absent from the historical record. If this is the case, then he would be the first mlk attested in the inscriptions from the fifth and sixth centuries lacking a plausible identification. Given these difficulties, we would like to consider another Yazīd who better fits the criteria of our present inscription but would require us to push its date to the seventh century.

3.3 An Islamic‐era yzdw ʾl‐mlk The next possible Yazīd is none other than the Umayyad caliph, Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah.20 This identification is supported by the following facts: mlk would have been an appropriate title for the ruler of the Umayyad state; he ruled from Damascus over a territory covering Burquʿ; and Burquʿ itself was the site of an Umayyad fort, converted from an earlier Roman one.21 This identification would place the inscription in the late seventh century, 680 at the earliest and, as such, would result in a series of ‘firsts’: (1) it would be the first Christian‐Arabic inscription from the seventh century;22 (2) it would be the first epigraphic reference to an Umayyad caliph as a malik in Arabic; (3) it would contain the first attestation of pre‐Islamic Christian Arabic formularies in the seventh century. Nevertheless, each of these ‘firsts’ is plausible and further bolsters the case for the present identification in the face of other options.

3.4 Yazīd I When he [Muʿāwiyah] died, the son Yazīd took his place for 3 years; [He was] a most pleasant man and deemed highly agreeable by all the peoples subject to his rule. He never, as is the wont of men, sought glory for himself because of his royal rank, but lived as a citizen along with the common people. (Hoyland, 1997: 620, §28).23 Yazīd was Muʿāwiyah b. Abī Ṣufyān's—the founder of the Umayyad dynasty—favourite son and was groomed for the caliphate from a young age. His mother was a Christian of the tribe of Kalb called Maysūn. Yazīd himself married two Ghassānid princesses, Umm Ramla, a rather obscure figure and, more notably, the daughter of Jabala b. al‐ʾAyham, the last Ghassanid king. He seems to have been held in high esteem among the Christians of the early Umayyad state. The Byzantine‐Arab Chronicle of 741, most certainly going back to an earlier source, expresses this positive sentiment: In Muslim sources, Yazīd's warm relationship with Christians is best illustrated by his friendship with Sarjūn, the father of John of Damascus. Sarjūn managed the affairs of the caliph (ṣāḥib ʾamrihī) and was, along with the Christian poet al‐Akhṭal, his drinking companion.24 The combination of these factors—his family ties, his positive reception by Christians, and the presence of high‐ranking Christian officials in his court—would suggest that Yazīd I was well regarded by Arab Christians during his reign. This is especially significant since a sizable component of the Umayyad Syrian army was Christian; troops from the tribe of Kalb, a Monophysite tribe dominating the Syrian steppe, comprised an important contingent of the Syrian army. It is therefore logical to conclude, as Donner did, that Yazīd's pedigree would have endeared him to the military.25 These facts help contextualise the association of a Christian Arabic inscription with Yazīd I in the vicinity of Burquʿ. Given its location near the Umayyad qaṣr, it seems most likely that the text was carved by a Christian soldier of the Umayyad army, or someone connected with the residence at Burquʿ, asking God to protect his leader (Figs. 4 and 5). Figure 4 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint A Google Earth photograph showing the location of the site (S5) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com Figure 5 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Ancient structures found at the site (photograph Z. al‐Salameen) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com