MEDES AND MINAEANS IN EGYPT – M 247:WHO, WHERE, AND WHEN?1

S?ren Lund S?rensen and Klaus Geus Freie Universit?t Berlin

Introduction

An often-quoted Minaean inscription from Barāqish (ancient Yathill) in Yemen,M247,2M 247 = B-M 257 = RES 3022 = Hal. 535 + 578 = Gl. 1155.referring to Medes and Minaeans in Egypt has been dated variously to the 19th dynasty of Egypt (c. 1270 BC),3Glaser 1890, 62–66, 452; Hommel 1892, 5, 10, 124–128.the Egyptian campaigns of Cambyses(525 BC),4Mlaker 1943, 97.the revolt of Inarus (c. 460 BC),5Lemaire 1995, 55 (Inarus, 463–454 BC). See also Lemaire 1996, 44–47 (422 BC, 414–413 BC,411–410 BC). Cf. Lemaire 2010, 383 (beginning of the fourth century BC).the revolt of Amyrtaeus (c. 410 BC),6Gnoli 1996, 23–34; Lemaire 1997, 128–129 (Amyrtaeus, c. 405 BC). Cf. Avanzini 2016, 160.the war of Euagoras of Salamis against the Persians (390–380 BC),7Multhoff 2019, 239–262.Artaxerxes III Ochus (343 BC),8Winnett 1939, 8; Albright 1950, 15; Robin and de Maigret 2009, 71, n. 22; Robin 2015, 101;Agostini 2015, 9; 2020, 3.the Battle of Raphia (217 BC),9Pirenne 1956, 211–215. Cf. Robin 1990, 143: “[I]l faudrait supposer que ses Mèdes sont les Seleucides, hypothèse que beaucoup de spécialistes jugent peu vraisemblable.”and the invasion by Philip V of Macedon and Antiochus III (c. 202 BC).10Ryckmans 1961, 58 (invasion by Philip V of Macedon and Antiochus III, c. 202 BC).

In the present article we opt for a still lower date, proposing that the inscription refers to events during the second invasion of Antiochus IV of Egypt in 168 BC during the Sixth Syrian War.

M 247

Here is our own version of the relevant passages of the inscription.11In transcribing proper nouns we follow the principles laid down by Stein 2013a, 38.

‘Amm?adiq, son of ?am?a?t, (of) the clan Yaf‘ān and Sa‘d, son of ‘Ilg, (of)the clan ?afgān, the twokabirsofM?rnand the Minaeans ofM?rn, those ofM?r, and who traded together with both of them in Egypt, Assyria and Transeuphratene, in thekabirate…12The name is illegible.(of) the clan of Rada‘, when he was kabir for the first time, consecrated, built and vowed the wall13On this particular Minaean meaning of ??ft, cf. Arbach 1993, 119, s.v.; Rossi 2014, 114.Tn‘m14We have excluded a list of specifications of this wall with no bearing on the context of the inscription.to ‘A?tar ?ū-Qab?im … when ‘A?tar ?ū-Qab?im, Waddum, Nakraum and their oracle15’mrsm, cf. Arbach 1993, 7; Robin 2015, 101; Multhoff 2019, 244, ns. 39–40. The meaning is most likely that the Minaeans were warned – and thus saved – by the oracle of their gods.protected them and their possessions and warned them of the attacks, which Saba’ and ?awlān launched against them, their possessions and their beasts of burden on the road between Ma‘īnum and Ragmatum and of the war that took place between the one of the south and the one of the north, and when ‘A?tar ?ū-Qab?im, Waddum and Nakraum protected them and their possessions in the midst of Egypt during the conflict that took place between Media (M?y) and Egypt. And ‘A?tar ?ū-Qab?im guaranteed them and their possessions peace and safety until they returned to their city Qarnāwu …

The overall meaning of the text is clear: two protagonists, whose names we may transliterate as ‘Amm?adiq and Sa‘d, consecrate an architectural element in Yathill (in Barāqish, present-day Yemen) to their god ‘A?tar ?ū-Qab?im as a sign of gratitude for their salvation. Not only had the two so-calledkabirs,16On this office, cf. Schiettecatte 2011, 56, n. 64.who were engaged in international trade, suffered attacks from the neighbouring powers of Saba’ and ?awlān, they had also found themselves in the midst of large-scale conflicts, such as a war between “south” and “north” as well as engagements between Egypt and Media. Surely, ‘Amm?adiq and Sa‘d had every reason to be grateful.

Which, then, are the notable events and toponyms referred to in the inscription?The Minaeans were active, particularly from Dedān (modern al-‘Ulā in Saudi Arabia), as traders by the Red Sea, the Levant as well as the Mediterranean Sea,as is attested to in several inscriptions in the Minaean language.17Ma‘īn 7 (mentioning Egypt, Gaza, and Syria); Ma‘īn 10 (mentioning Egypt, Tyrus and Sidon);Ma‘īn 93 (mentioning Gaza, Egypt, Ionia and Sidon); Ma‘īn 114 (mentioning Gaza and Egypt);Ma‘īn 115 (mentioning Sidon); M 152 (mentioning Egypt, Assyria and Transeuphratene); M 349(found in Delos). In addition, Rossi (in press) reads Edom (’dm) in Ma‘īn 115; Sperveslage 2019,178–179. On Minaean trade and chronology, see also Stein 2017, 100–103; Arbach 2019, 63–65.In addition,there was substantial Minaean activity in Egypt,18M 338 (perhaps from the Fayyum). Cf. Sperveslage 2019, 179–180; 213–215.as is also referred to in the present inscription. Scholars do not, however, agree on the interpretation of the wordsM?rn w M‘n M?rn ?sd M?r(translated by us as “M?rnand the Minaeans ofM?rn, those ofM?r”) in line 1 of the present inscription. DoesM?rnsignify the Ancient South Arabian word for “caravan,” “expedition”19Robin 1992, 59; 1994, 290; Lemaire 1997, 128; Robin 2015, 100.in the determinative,to a locality near Dedān,20Ryckmans 1961, 53, 56–57; Müller 1985, 663, n. b; Lipiński 2000, 286, n. 210; Vittmann 2003,186. On this question, see now Multhoff 2019, 243–244.or perhaps even to Egypt (M?r)?21Avanzini 2016, 160–161; Multhoff 2019, 243.This textual problem is, however, not of crucial importance to the proposed date of the inscription and may be dismissed with at present.

André Lemaire, who has dealt intensively with the chronology of this inscription, argues for a date around the turn of the fourth century (405/404–399/398 BC) on the basis of a reference not to a war (?r) but rather a “révolte”(mrd) of Egypt against Media, thereby excluding the invasion by Cambyses or the Fifth Syrian War.22Lemaire 1995, 55; 1997, 129.Lemaire’s candidates may all be classified as revolts, but we must keep in mind that as yetmrdis only attested once in all of the Ancient South Arabian languages, and that the interpretation of this word rests on its use in Arabic and Hebrew in particular.23Id. 1996, 46; 2010, 382.Surely, Lemaire is not alone in assigning this meaning tomrd, but in his commentary onRES3022 (=M247) Gonzague Ryckmans added the more neutral translation “guerre,”24Ryckmans 1929, 308.and in Ge?ez a similar meaning is attested.25Dillmann 1865, 169–170, s.v.: “impetus, impugnatio, incursio vel excursio bellica.”An actual war or a series of battles do, thus, not appear to be entirely excluded from the historical context ofM247.26The preposition byn in the sentence mrd kwn byn M?y w M?r seems to imply reciprocity rather than inferiority between the two agents, cf. also Gnoli 2009, 295.

Another lynchpin of Lemaire’s argument concerns the identification of the Medes (M?y, a word similarly attested only once in all of the Ancient South Arabian languages), whom he categorically identifies with the Achaemenid Persians by analogy with Herodotean language,27For this use, see Graf 1984.and accordingly Lemaire dismisses the low date of Pirenne (217 BC).28Lemaire 1996, 44–45.If a word is only rarely attested in the Ancient South Arabian languages, it is reasonable to look at parallel languages. Commenting onB-L Nasqh/Demirjian1 Lemaire thus insists thatK?dmmay only designate the Neo-Babylonians. The Achaemenids do not come into question as these are referred to asM?yin the present inscription.29Bron and Lemaire 2009, 21–22.This argument is somewhat circular and may be dismissed by the recurrence ofK?dmin the inscriptionMaraqten1, certainly of a later date, period C 2 according to Stein’s paleography, as well as inRES4859, a ?a?ramitic inscription from period D.30According to the paleographical chronology of Stein 2013b, 186–195. Cf. id. 2017, 107.Thus, it seems not impossible to argue for a later date on the basis of the reference to Medes in the present inscription.31A similar argument against Lemaire’s interpretation of M?y and K?dm, albeit with a different aim,is found in Multhoff 2019, 247–250.Already Jacqueline Pirenne suggested dating the conflict mentioned inM247 to the time around the Battle of Raphia, during the Fifth Syrian War (202–194 BC),32Pirenne 1956, 211–215.a theory that did not win acceptance. Nonetheless, in the following we argue for an even later Hellenistic date, during the Sixth Syrian War (170–168 BC). Before doing so it would be wise to briefly describe the events and chronology of this war.

Antiochus IV in Egypt

After both kingdoms had been preparing for war, the Ptolemies appear to have initiated hostilities in the hope of regaining Coele-Syria, which had been lost in the previous war. Antiochus IV met the Egyptian forces and defeated them between Mount Casius and Pelusium sometime in the winter of 170/169 BC.33FGrHist / BNJ 260 F 49a; For the date, cf. Hu? 2001, 547; Mittag 2006, 164; Grainger 2010, 296.After the flight of the Egyptian army and the surrender of Pelusium,34Polyb. 28.18; Diod. 30.18.Antiochus occupied most of Egypt, reaching Naucratis, presumably in April 169.35Polyb. 28.20. Cf. Grainger 2010, 297.From there he proceeded to besiege Alexandria.36Liv. 44.19.Making peace with Ptolemy VI Philometor, one of three simultaneous regents, he lifted the siege and traversed,as attested by an astronomical diary, victoriously through the cities of Egypt in August/September 169 before returning to Syria.37Polyb. 28.22–23; BM 41581 = Sachs and Hunger 1989, 470–471. The event was celebrated with a procession in Babylon, cf. Gera and Horowitz 1997, 242–243.Apart from Alexandria,Egypt remained in his grasp.38Liv. 45.11. Seleucid soldiers are attested in Thebes on 1 October 169 BC, cf. Hu? 2001, 554;Mittag 2006, 171. Factional fighting between pro-Ptolemaic and pro-Seleucid Egyptians appears to have arisen after the departure of Antiochus as attested to by a papyrus, cf. P. K?ln 4.186. Cf. also Hu? 2001, 552–553; Grainger 2010, 303.Sometime in the winter of 169/168 the Seleucid fleet deprived the Ptolemies of Cyprus, and Antiochus marched toward Egypt anew in the spring of 168.39Liv. 45.11: primo vere.Meeting with Ptolemaic ambassadors at Rhinocolura Antiochus demanded that Cyprus and Pelusium with its environs be handed over to him. As expected, the Ptolemies turned this unattractive offer down, and the Seleucid king invaded Egypt once more, sending his fleet toward Pelusium, while he himself led his army across the Arabian desert to Memphis. Livy declares that the city as well as the rest of Egypt received him partly out of fear, partly voluntarily.40Livy’s text, 45.12, is corrupted at this point. Cf. Briscoe 2012, 637–638.The documents, which indicate that Antiochus had been crowned Pharaoh at Memphis, are most likely to be dated during this second invasion.41FGrHist / BNJ 260 F 49a; Pap. Teb. III 698. Cf. Mittag 2006, 174–175. Furthermore, Antiochus installed a governor in Memphis. See H?lbl 1994, 133. Not all scholars have, however, accepted Porphyry’s account, cf. M?rkholm 1966, 80–84, and see now Blasius 2011, 161–185; Bernhardt 2017, 200–203.From Memphis he proceeded to Eleusis on the outskirts of Alexandria,42Liv. 45.12. Cf. Mittag 2006, 171–172; Grainger 2010, 306. For a different date of these documents,cf. Hu? 2001, 558–559; Bernhardt 2017, 213.where Popilius Laenas met him in July 168 BC, thereby ending his hope of annexing Alexandria and Egypt.43Polyb. 29.27; Diod. 31.2; Liv. 45.12; Iust. 34.3.1–4; FGrHist / BNJ 260 F50. For the exact date, cf.Mittag 2006, 216.On 30 July 168 BC Antiochus IV left Egypt for good.44Confirmed by O. Hor 3 verso, 13–14, an ostracon from the so-called Archive of Hor. See Ve?sse 2004, 29; Smith 2018.

“South” and “North” in M 247

Having summed up the events we may return toM247 to look for further evidence in support of a date during the Sixth Syrian War. Not only is ‘Amm?adaq and Sa‘d’s votive inscription dated according to the “conflict” between Egypt and the Medes, but the merchants were also delivered from a war that took place between the one of the “south” and the one of the “north.”

Christian Robin has surveyed the whole gamut of texts including cardinal directions, and the two terms (ymnt/??mt) may not be rare but are seldom found together.45Robin 2013, 120–121. See also Beeston 1948.In the present inscription Robin sees a vague reference to the southern Arabian Peninsula (south). The north, however, could refer variously to Arabia Deserta, the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula, or even Asia. According to Robin, “south” is, however, only used, if at all, to refer to a political entity such as“Yemen” from the third century AD onwards.46Robin 2013, 131, 137.There are apparently no instances of “south” and “north” being used to refer to ethnic groups, e.g. Saba’, in the Old South Arabian languages in pre-Christian times, but even if the inscription were describing events in the Arabian Peninsula, e.g. a war commenced by Saba’, then it is a somewhat vague way of doing so. Why specifically mention attacks carried out by the Sabaeans, who were based south of the Minaeans, only later to refer to them anonymously as those of the south? The compositional pattern of the inscription is somewhat opaque. Nonetheless, the protagonists of this war do not appear to be any of the political entities of the southern Arabian Peninsula.

A number of Old South Arabian inscriptions postdating Robin’s study use the term north when speaking of powers north of the Arabian Peninsula.47Maraqten 1.9: ’hgr ?’mt; Ja 772.4: ?’mt w-Rm(n); Ma’īn 116: ?’mt. See also Arbach and Schiettecatte 2017, 688–689.The enigmatic language ofM247 may thus be referring to foreign powers, with whom ‘Amm?adaq and Sa‘d came in contact not in the Arabian Peninsula proper but only during their journey to Egypt. Coming back to the terms “north” and“south,” Robin already noted the similarity with the Book of Daniel 11–12,48Robin 2013, 121.which speaks of the King of the North waging war on the King of the South.Famously, Porphyry identified these mysterious kingdoms with the Seleucids and Ptolemies, respectively49Porph., FGrHist / BNJ 260 F 42–56.– an identification espoused by modern scholarship.50Wildgruber 2013, 99–133.

By analogy with the Book of Daniel we shall identify the “north” and “south”ofM247 with the main protagonists of the Sixth Syrian War, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.51Other less plausible candidates for “north” and “south”:– The rebel state in Upper Egypt with its capital set up in Thebes in 206 BC. The rebels were, however,defeated in 186 BC, i.e. prior to the Sixth Syrian War. Cf. H?lbl 1994, 135–140; Ve?sse 2004, 11–26.– The well-known distinction between Upper and Lower Egypt, e.g. Polyb. 29.2.1. Cf. Hu? 1995, 76.Already Glaser 1890, 62–66 and 452, and Hommel 1892, 5, 10, 124–128 sought to identify north and south with Upper and Lower Egypt, however, dating the inscription to the 19th Dynasty, c. 1270 BC.

Conclusion

Coming back to the reference to Media and Egypt in the inscription, scholars have rejected a Hellenistic date, as the Seleucids are not known to have identified themselves with the Medes.52Gnoli 1996, 24–26.While this may certainly be true, the present inscription represents the view of Minaean outsiders, who have unwillingly been caught up in international politics. We cannot demand of the Minaean text that its terminology corresponds to the official terms used by foreign powers, be they Achaemenid Persians or Hellenistic kingdoms.53In a Greek context, Strabo 11.9.2 C 515 does, however, describe the Seleucids as the kings of Syria and Media, and the author of 1 Maccabees (14.2) styles Arsaces king of Persis and Media.

From an unexpected angle, a Demotic graffito published almost fifty year ago appears to come to our aid. This graffito, which is dated to 164 BC, describes Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who attacked Egypt in 168 BC, as a Mede (Mtj):54Editio princeps in Lüddeckens 1971, 203–206. On the identification of the Mede with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, cf. Vittmann 1997, 268, n. m, and 278–279; Vittmann 2003, 186–187; Ve?sse 2004, 43;Mittag 2006, 167, n. 41; Quack 2011, 111–116 has, however, argued against this interpretation of the graffito on paleographical and contextual grounds, but Vittmann 2015 retains the identification.“The Mede has arrived.” Seemingly unique, this graffito attests to at least one Seleucid ruler being identified, or at least associated, with the Medes. A distant parallel may be noted in the Book of Daniel, a work referred to earlier in this article. Here the seer dates hisvaticinium ex eventuof the attacks of Antiochus IV Epiphanes on Egypt, and eventually Jerusalem, to the first year of a fictional “Darius the Mede.”55Dan 11:1. See Rowley 1964, 12–60; Koch 1995, 125–139; Segal 2016, 159–162.Although no formal identification is made between the two by Daniel they are found in the same context.56Mittag 2006, 172, n. 76 refers to other apocalyptic texts, e.g. the Oracle of the Potter and the Sibylline Oracles, which may similarly hint at Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Seen in this light, Livy may provide additional information when relating,albeit in a poorly preserved passage, how Antiochus IV upon his second invasion abstained from entering Egypt via Pelusium. Instead, the Seleucid king led his armies from Rhinocolura across the “Arabian desert” (per deserta Arabiae)and arrived at Memphis.57Liv. 45.12.For all we know, the Minaeans ofM247 may have witnessed these troop movements.

Perspectives

We have argued, mainly on the basis of external evidence, for a late, Hellenistic,date for this inscription, i.e. during the Sixth Syrian War (170–168 BC). The proposed date forM247 does not contribute much to scholarship on Antiochus IV or his invasion of Egypt. It may, however, signal a complete re-evaluation of Minaean chronology, a notorious issue in scholarship of the kingdoms of the ancient south Arabian Peninsula.58This will in turn imply a reappraisal of the inscriptions (e.g. Y.92.B.A. 21 + 30) found in the excavations of Barāqish and dated according to 14C results, cf. de Maigret and Robin 1993, 458.Recently, the beginning of Minaean political influence has been dated to the seventh century BC,59Arbach 2013, 15–26.whereas the end of the political entity at Qarnāwu has been placed around the turn of the first century BC/AD at the latest.60A survey of dates may be found in Robin 1998, 177–188.Peter Stein has diligently established a new paleographical chronology of the ancient South Arabian script on the basis of a number of anchor points.61Mainly DAI Sirwāh? 2004–12 – fragm. a synchronism by which the paleographical step C 2 may securely be dated to 7/6 BC, cf. Stein 2013b, 190 and Nebes 2006, 10.In addition, we have argued for the dating of a prominent Sabaean inscription,B-L Nasqh/ Demirjian 1, to 390–380 BC.62S?rensen and Geus 2019.The script of the Sabaean inscription resembles step B of Stein’s chronology. The date argued for by the present authors does, however, imply that Stein’s date in the early seventh century BC must be lowered by at least 200 years. This has consequences for a paleographical dating ofM247. Recently, Stein has conveniently arranged the letter forms ofB-L Nasqh/ Demirjian 1 andM247 in synoptic columns thereby arguing for an almost identical date for both inscriptions, i.e. c. 400 BC.63Stein in Multhoff 2019, 248 and 261.Stein’s table indicates thatM247 fits step C 1. The anchor point of C 1 is an inscription from Marib referring to the second year of a king Seleucus.64Ry 547 = RES 3605, cf. Stein 2013b, 189–190. Cf. also Robin and Prioletta 2013, 167–169.Another inscription,A-20-216, similarly belonging to C 1, is dated according to year 7 of king Seleucus.65A-20-216, 5. Cf. Prioletta 2011, 283–294.Stein identifies this king with Seleucus I, who reigned from 312/311 to 281 BC, and arrives at a date for C 1 around 300 BC. Seleucus did, however,only commence antedating his reign after 304, for which reason no inscription could have been dated during his second or seventh regnal year. Accordingly,Stein’s step C 1 must be of a younger date, thus not too far removed from the date proposed by us forM247 on other grounds.66An article in which we expand on the chronological implications of the above is in preparation.

Bibliography

Agostini, A. 2015.

“The Excavation of the Temple of ?Athtar dhu-Qab? in Barāqish. Stratigraphic Data and Historical Reconstruction.”Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies45: 1–14.—— 2020.

“Seasonal Offerings among the Minaeans. The Case of Ancient Yathil.”Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy32: 1–13.

Albright, W. F. 1950.

“The Chronology of Ancient South Arabia in the Light of the First Campaign of Excavation in Qataban.”Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research119: 5–15.

Arbach, M. 1993.

Le madhabien: Lexique – Onomastique et Grammaire d’une langue de l’Arabie méridionale préislamique.t. 1:Lexique madhabien compare aux autres lexiquessudarabiques. Paris: Universite? d’Aix Marseille I.—— 2013.

“La date d’apparition du royaume de Ma‘īn d’après une nouvelle inscription du début du vIIesiècle avant J. C.” In: F. Briquel-Chatonnet et al. (eds.),Entre Carthage et l’Arabie heureuse.Mélanges offerts à F. Bron. Paris: De Boccard,15–26.—— 2019.

“L’Arabie du Sud au VIe siècle avant l’ère chrétienne et le synchronisme avec le Levant.” In:Ex Oriente lux. Collected Papers to Mark the 75th Anniversary of M. B. Piotrovsky.Saint Petersburg: The State Hermitage Publishers, 58–67.

Arbach, M. and Schiettecatte, J. 2017.

“Premiers échos de l’expédition romaine d’Aelius Gallus dans la documentation sudarabique.”Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.: 675–700.

Avanzini, A. 2016.

By Land and by Sea. A History of South Arabia before Islam Recounted from Inscriptions. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Beeston, A. F. L. 1948.

“East and West in Sab?an Inscriptions.”The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland2: 177–180.

Bernhardt, J. C. 2017.

Die Jüdische Revolution. Untersuchungen und Ursachen, Verlauf und Folgen der hasmon?ischen Erhebung. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Blasius, A. 2011.

“Antiochos IV. in ?gypten – Ptolemaios VI. in Syrien. Die sp?te Rache des Pharao?!” In: A. J?rdens and F. Quack (eds.),?gypten zwischen innerem Zwist und ?u?erem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios’ VI. bis VIII. Internationales Symposium Heidelberg 16.–19.9.2007.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 161–185.

Briscoe, J. 2012.

A Commentary on Livy. Books 41–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bron, F. and Lemaire, A. 2009.

“Nouvelle inscription sabéenne et le commerce en Transeuphratène.”Transeuphratène38: 11–29.

Dillmann, C. F. A. 1865.

Lexicon linguae Aethiopicae. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.

Gajda, I. 2009.

Le royaume de ?imyar à l’époque monothéiste. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.

Gera, D. and Horowitz, W. 1997.

“Antiochus IV in Life and Death. Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries.”Journal of the American Oriental Society117: 240–252.

Glaser, E. 1890.

Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens von den ?ltesten Zeiten bis zum Propheten Mohammad.Berlin: Weidmann.

Gnoli, G. 1996.

“Il sincronismo mineo-persiano.” In: C. J. Robin and I. Gajda (eds.),Arabia antiqua. Early Origins of South Arabian States. Proceedings of the First International Conference of the Conservation and Exploitation of the Archaeological Heritage of the Arabian Peninsula Held in the Palazzo Brancaccio, Rome,by IsMEO on 28th–30th May 1991. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 23–34.—— 2009.

“Ancora sui ‘Medi’ in RES 3022.” In: A. M. Sholan et al. (eds.),Sabaean Studies.Archaeological, Epigraphical and Historical Studies in Honour of Y. M. ‘Abdallāh,A. de Maigret, C. J. Robin on the Occasion of their Sixtieth Birthdays. Paris: De Boccard, 295–300.

Graf, D. 1984.

“Medism. The Origin and Significance of the Term.”Journal of Hellenic Studies104: 15–30.

Grainger, J. D. 2010.

The Syrian Wars. Leiden: Brill.

H?lbl, G. 1994.

Geschichte des Ptolem?erreiches. Darmstadt: WBG Theiss.

Hommel, F. 1892.

Aufs?tze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts. Munich: G. Franz.Hu?, W. 1995.

“Memphis und Alexandreia in hellenistischer Zeit.” In: N. Bonacasa (ed.),Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano: Atti del II congresso internazionale Italo-Egiziano. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 75–82.—— 2001.

?gypten in hellenistischer Zeit. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Koch, K. 1995.

“Dareios, der Meder.” In: id. (ed.),Die Reiche der Welt und der kommende Menschensohn. Studien zum Danielbuch. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 125–139.

Lemaire, A. 1995.

“La fin de la première période perse en Egypte et la chronologie judéenne vers 400 av. J.-C.”Transeuphratène9: 51–61.—— 1996.

“Histoire du Proche-Orient et chronologie sudarabique avant Alexandre.” In:C. J. Robin and I. Gajda (eds.),Arabia antiqua. Early Origins of South Arabian States. Proceedings of the First International Conference of the Conservation and Exploitation of the Archaeological Heritage of the Arabian Peninsula Held in the Palazzo Brancaccio, Rome, by IsMEO on 28th–30th May 1991. Rome:Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 35–48.—— 1997.

“Les Minéens et la Transeuphratène à l’époque perse: Une première approche.”Transeuphratène13: 123–139.—— 2010.

“Chronologie sabéenne et minéenne et histoire du Proche-Orient.”Orientalia79:379–389.

Lipiński, E. 2000.

The Arameans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. Leuven: Peeters 2000.Lüddeckens, E. 1971.

“Das demotische Graffito vom Tempel der Satet auf Elephantine.”Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch?ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo27: 203–206.

De Maigret, A. and Robin, C. J. 1993.

“Le temple de Nakrah à Yathill (aujourd’hui Barāqish), Yémen. Résultats des deux premieres campagnes de fouilles de la mission italienne.”Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres137: 427–496.

Maraqten, M. 2014.

“On the Relations between Bilād al-Shām and Yemen in the Pre-Islamic Period.”In: Z. Kafafi and M. Maraqten (eds.),A Pioneer of Arabia. Studies in the Archaeology and Epigraphy of the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula in Honour of M. Ibrahim.Rome: Università di Roma ?La Sapienza?, 97–114.

Mittag, P. F. 2006.

Antiochos IV. Epiphanes. Eine politische Biographie.Berlin: De Gruyter.

Mlaker, K. 1943.

Die Hierodulenlisten von Ma‘īn nebst Untersuchungen zur altsüdarabischen Rechtsgeschichte und Chronologie. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.

M?rkholm, O. 1966.

Antiochus IV of Syria. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

Multhoff, A. 2019.

“Merchant and Marauder – The Adventures of a Sabaean Clansman.”Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy30: 239–262.

Müller, W. W. 1985.

“Altsüdarabische und frühnordarabische Inschriften.” In: D. Conrad et al. (eds),Historisch-chronologische Texte. Rechts-und Wirtschaftsurkunden. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 1/6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 651–668.

Nebes, N. 2006.

“Eine datierte nabat?isch-sab?ische Bilingue aus Sirwāh.”Jemen-Report37: 10.

Pirenne, J. 1956.

Paléographie des inscriptions sud-arabes. vol. 1. Brussels: Presses de la Académie.Prioletta, A. 2011.

“The Sabaic Inscription A–20–216. A New Sabaean-Seleucid Synchronism.”Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies41: 283–294.

Quack, J. 2011.

“Ist der Meder an allem Schuld? Zur Frage des realhistorischen Hintergrundes der gr?ko?gyptischen prophetischen Literatur.” In: A. J?rdens and id. (eds.),?gypten zwischen innerem Zwist und ?u?erem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios’ VI.bis VIII. Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 16.–19.9.2007. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz, 103–131.

Robin, C. J. 1990.

“Première mention de Tyr chez les Minéens d’Arabie du Sud.”Semitica39: 135–147.—— 1992.

“Quelques épisodes marquants de l’histoire sudarabique.” In: id. (ed.),L’Arabie antique de Karib??l à Mahomet. Nouvelles données sur l’histoire des Arabes graces aux inscriptions.Aix-en-Provence: édisud, 55–70.—— 1994.

“L’Egypte dans les inscriptions de l’Arabie méridionale préislamique.”In: C. Berger et al. (eds.),Hommages à J. Leclant. Cairo: Institut Fran?ais d’Archéologie Orientale, 285–301.

—— 1998.

“La fin du royaume de Ma‘īn.” In: R. Gyselen (ed.),Parfums d’orient.Leuven:Peeters, 177–188.—— 2013.

“à propos de Ymnt et Ymn: ‘nord’ et ‘sud’, ‘droite’ et ‘gauche’, dans les inscriptions de l’Arabie antique.” In: F. B. Chatonnet et al. (eds.),Entre Carthage et l’Arabie heureuse. Mélanges offerts à F. Bron. Paris: De Boccard, 119–140.—— 2015.

“Before ?imyar. Epigraphic Evidence for the Kingdoms of South Arabia.” In:G. Fisher (ed.),Arabs and Empires before Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 90–126.

Robin, C. J. and Maigret, A. de. 2009.

“Le royaume sudarabique de Ma?īn: nouvelles données grace aux fouilles italiennes de Barāqish (l’antique Yathill).”Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres153: 57–96.

Robin, C. J. and Prioletta, A. 2013.

“Nouveaux arguments en faveur d’une identification de la cité de Gerrha avec la royaume de Hagar (Arabie orientale).”Semitica et Classica6: 131–185.

Rossi, I. 2014.

“The Minaeans beyond Ma‘īn.”Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies44: 111–124.—— in press.

“Nouvelles listes des femmes étrangères des Minéens et première mention d’édom en Arabie du Sud.” In: F. Briquel-Chatonnet and I. Gajda (eds.),Mélanges en l’honneur de C. J. Robin.Paris: De Boccard.

Rowley, H. H. 1964.

Darius the Mede and the World Empires in the Book of Daniel. A Historical Study of Contemporary Theories.Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board.

Ryckmanns, G. 1929.

Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique.vol. 5. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.

Ryckmans, J. 1961.

“Les ‘Hierodulenlisten’ de Ma?īn et la colonisation minéenne.” In: é. van Cauwenbergh (ed.),Scrinium Lovaniense. Mélanges historiques. Louvain: Université Catholique.

Sachs A. J. and Hunger, H. 1989.

Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia.vol. 2:Diaries from 261 B.C. to 166 B.C.Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Schiettecatte, J. 2011.

D’Aden à Zafar. Villes d’Arabie du Sud préislamique.Paris: De Boccard.

Segal, M. 2016.

Dreams, Riddles and Visions. Textual, Contextual and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Smith, M. 2018.

“A Further Demotic Source of Evidence for the Expulsion of Antiochus IV from Egypt: O. Hor 3 verso, lines 7–25.” In: K. D. van Heel et al. (eds.),Hieratic,Demotic and Greek Studies and Text Editions. Of Making Many Books There Is No End. Festschrift in Honour of S. P. Vleeming. Leiden: Brill, 7–25.

S?rensen, S. L. and Geus, K. 2019.

“A Sabaean Eyewitness to the War of Euagoras against the Persians. Synchronising Greek and Ancient South Arabian Sources.”Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik209: 196–204.

Sperveslage, G. 2019.

?gypten und Arabien. Ein Beitrag zu den interkulturellen Beziehungen Alt?gyptens.Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Stein, P. 2013a.

Lehrbuch der sab?ischen Sprache. vol. 1:Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.—— 2013b.

“Palaeography of the Ancient South Arabian Script. New Evidence for an Absolute Chronology.”Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy24: 186–195.—— 2017

“Sab?er in Juda, Juden in Saba. Sprach- und Kulturkontakt zwischen Südarabien und Pal?stina in der Antike.” In U. Hübner and H. Niehr (eds.),Sprachen in Pal?stina im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 91–120.

Ve?sse, A.-E. 2004.

Les ‘révoltes égyptiennes’. Recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Egypt du règne de Ptolemée III à la conquête romaine.Leuven: Peeters.

Vittmann, G. 1997.

“Das demotische Graffito vom Satetempel auf Elephantine.”Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch?ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo53: 263–281.—— 2003.

?gypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend.Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.—— 2015.

“Elephantine, Satis Temple.” In: S. P. Vleeming (ed.),Demotic Graffiti and Other Short Texts Gathered from Many Publications (Short Texts III 1201–2350).Leuven: Peeters, 61–65.

Wildgruber, R. 2013.

Daniel 10–12 als Schlüssel zum Buch.Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Winnett, F. V. 1939.

“The Place of the Minaeans in the History of Pre-Islamic Arabia.”Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research73: 3–9.