Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:19:39.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gentilics and appellatives: notes on Aḥābīš Qurayš

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

John Wansbrough
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The role of metaphor in the generation of descriptive terms is a commonplace of lexicography. Agency is usually identified as analogy, and the transfer itself analysed in terms of real or imagined similarity, e.g. ‘goth’ = barbaric, ‘gypsy’ = migrant, ‘vandal’ = destructive. Strictly defined, these exemplify metonymy, a species of metaphor found particularly in toponyms and gentilics. Development of such epithets as'‘arab’, ‘deutsch’ and ‘sūdān’ may be seen as a complementary process, wherein the common attribute is given a specific referent. Thought it is no longer, since Jakobson, deemed quite proper to define metonymy as metaphor, a symbolic and often arbitrary element in the transfer might be thought to justify that interpretation, as for instance in the gentilic Iberian or the appellative Qadariyya. While ultimately of less significance than context, etymology is seldom neglected in such investigations, may, indeed, become a dominant feature, as in the perennial discussion of ḫāpirū: 'ibrī = ‘hebrew’. It is my intention in the following lines to examine the incidence and possible origins of an appellative well known from early Arabic historiography.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 203 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See J. Wansbrough, ‘Antonomasia: the case for Semitic 'ṯm’, in Figurative language in the Ancient Near East (forthcoming).

2 Lammens, H. ‘Les “Aḥābīsh” et I'organisation militaire de la Mecque au siẻcle de I'Hégire’, JA, 1916 = L' Arabie occidentale avant l'Hégire, Beirut, 1928, 237–93Google Scholar; Watt, W. M., ‘The Aḥābīsh’, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford, 1953, 154–7Google Scholar (Excursus A); Hamidullah, M., ‘Les “Aḥāīsh” de la Mecque’, Studi Orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida, Rome, 1956, I, 434–7.Google Scholar

3 Ibn, Isḥāq, Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya(i'ibn Hishām), ed. al-Saqqā, M. et al., Cairo, 1375/1955, I, 372–3.Google Scholar

4 cf. apud Hamidullah, art. cit.: Ibn al-Kalbī, Al-Balādhuri, Al-Ya'qūbi, Al-Zubayri, Ibn Ḥabib, Zubayr b. Bakkaār, Ibn Sa'd.

5 SeeIbn, Isḥāq, op. cit. II, 61, 67, 93, 132, 134, (Uḥud), 220(Ḫandaq), 312, 314 (Ḫudaybiyya), 392 (Fatḥ Mekka); Wāqidi, Kitāb al-Maghāi, ed. Jones, M., Oxford, 1966. 200, 203 (Uḥud), 442–3 (Handaq), 532 (Anno 6), 579–81, 599–600 (Ḥudaybiyya), 784 (Fatḥ Mekka)Google Scholar; Ṭabarī, , Annales, Leiden, 1879–1901, I, 1384, 1418 (Uḥud), 1470 (Ḥandaq), 1538–9 (Ḥudaybiyya), 1635 (Fatḥ Mekka), 2495 (Anno 17).Google Scholar

6 Ibn Isḥāq, op. cit., II, 93.

7 ibid., II, 314.

8 ibid., II, 132.

9 ibid., II, 134.

10 ibid., II, 392.

11 Wāqidī, op. cit., 784; ibib., 600: in the report of Muḥammad's envoy to Mekka (supra n. 7) has man hunāka min qawmihi instead of aḥābiš.

12 T., Noeldeke, Delectus veterum carminum arabicorum, Wiesbaden, 1961 (1890), p. 79, line 7; ad poetam Blachêre, 601, ad ‘misr’, infra nn. 22,44.Google Scholar

13 Vloten, G. Van, Tria Opuscula, Leiden, 1968 (1903), p. 70, line 5Google Scholar; cfLewis, B., Race and color in Islam, New York, 1971, 15–18.Google Scholar

14 Nafḥ al-Tib, III, Būlāq 1279/1862, p. 683, line 10 (apud Dozy, Supplément, I, 245 s.v.).

15 MbtḪwarizmī, Mafātiḥ al-'Ulšm, ed. G. Vloten, Leiden, 1895, 127 (apud Bosworth, C., Medieval Arabic culture and administration, London, 1982, 30, 37–Google Scholar; Birūnī, , Al-aṯār al-Bāqiya, ed. Sachau, E., London, 1923, 328.Google Scholar

16 Lammens, op. cot., 264–77.

17 Cf. Kopf, L., ‘Das arabische Wörterbuch als Hilfsmittel füische Lexicographie’, VT, VI, 1956, 286–302Google Scholar; idem, The treatment of fóreign words in mediaeval Arabic lexicology’, in Scripta Hierosolymitana, IX, ed. Heyd, U., 1961, 191–205.Google Scholar

18 In the standard lexica: Lisān al-'Arab (Ibn Manẓūr, d. 711/1311), VI, 278–9 s.v.; Al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ Fīrūzābādī, d. 817/1414), II, 277–8 s.v.; Tāj al-'Arūs (Zabīdī, d. 1205/1791), IV, 292–4 s.v.; the gist of this this remarkable literature, shorn of anecdote and humour, may be found apud Lane, E. W., An Arabic-English lexicon, London, 1863–77, I, 501Google Scholar; a laborious but conscientious survey apud Wild, S., Das Kitāb al-'Ain und die arabische Lexikographie, Wiesbaden, 1965, esp. 58–91.Google Scholar

19 Irvine, J. K., ‘On the identity of Habashat in the South Arabian inscriptions’, JSS, X, 1965, 178–96.Google Scholar

20 Altheim, F. and Stiehl, R., Die Araber in der alten Welt, Berlin, 1964–9, I, 114–16, II, 274–6, va, 340–5 (the last being a review of Irvine, with reference to the earlier sections).Google Scholar

21 Irvine, art. cit., p. 185, n.2; Altheim, op. cit., va, 342, but also II, 275, nn. 1 and 2 (where the reference to Conti Rossini is confused).

22 Irvine, art. cit., p. 189, n. 4; cf. infra n. 44.

23 Ahw(W. von, Soden, Akkadisches Handwōrterbuch, Wiesbaden, 1958–81) I, 357Google Scholar; CAD (The Assyrian dictionary of the University of Chicago, Chicago-Glöckstadt, 1956)IV, 241–2Google Scholar; Whitaker, R. E., A concordance of the Ugaritic literature, 1972, 278 (ḫbṯ) and 279 (ḫpṯ).Google Scholar

24 CTA (Herdner, A., Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques, Paris, 1963) 14.2.90–1Google Scholar; cf. Gibson, J. C. L., Canaanite myths and legends, Edinburgh, 1978, p. 84, 10.Google Scholar

25 CTA, 15.1.5–6; cf. Gibson, op. cit., p. 90 n. 3, and infra n. 33.

26 RS 24.247.32 = Ugaritica VII, Paris-Leiden 1981 (1978), 47Google Scholar/48/50; for a similar formula adducing ḫāpirū in the Hittite version of an Akkadian šumma izbu text, cf. M. P. Gray, ‘The Hābirū-Hebrew problem in the light of the source material available at present’, HUCA, 29, 1958, 154.

27 PRU (Le Palais royal d'Ugarit),Paris, 1955– II, 21. 1–2; ad p/b cf. infra n. 38.Google Scholar

28 RS, 34.124.7 = Ugaritica VII, Pl. VI: ACaquot in ACF, 1975, 430 ff. = Pardee, D., ‘A New Ugaritic letter’, BO, 34, 1977, 3–20, esp. 3 and 5Google Scholar; Brooke, G., ‘The textual, formal and historical significance of Ugaritic letter RS 34.124 (=KTU 2.72)’, UF, 11, 1979, 69–87, esp. 70 and 72.Google Scholar

29 PRU II 61.4; PRU V 80.8, 130.10, 15.15.

30 Giacumakis, G., The Akkadian of Alalaẖ, Paris, 1970, 78 (glossary s.v.)Google Scholar; Liverani, M., ‘Communautés de village et palais royal dans la Syrie du IIème millénaire’, JESHO, XVIII, 1975, 148 and 152Google Scholar; Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O., Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit II’, WO, 5, 1969–1970, 57–93.Google Scholar

31 M., Liverani, ‘Implicazioni sociali nella politica di Abdi-Aširta di Amurru’, RSO, 40, 1965, 267–77= Three Amarna Essays, Malibu, 1979 (MANE 1/5), 14–20; ẖupšu = ‘peasant’ after Winckler and Knudtzon.Google Scholar

32 See Dietrich, M., O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín, ‘Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (XI)’, UF, 6, 1974, 26–7(no. 44)Google Scholar; Loretz, O., Ugaritisch-Hebräisch ḨB/PT, BTḪPTT-ḤPJŠJ, BJT HḤPŠJ/WT, UF, 8, 1976, 129–31; Idem 'Die hebräischen Termini ḤPŠJ “Freigelas-Parallels, ed. L. R. Fisher, 1972), 2, II, no. 12 (T. Yamashita), III, nos. 19 and 29 (A. F. Rainey).Google Scholar

33 cf. Loretz, UF, 9, 1977, 164 and 166; and supra n. 25.

34 ibid. 165; Loretz, UF, 8, 1976, 130–1; Gibson, op. cit., p. 66 n. i; cf.p. Grelot, ‘ḤOFŠI (PS. LXXXVIII 6)’, VT, 14, 1964, 256–63.

35 See Lemche, N. P., ‘Ḥofšsī in I Sam. XVII 25’, VT 24, 1974, 373–4Google Scholar; ‘The “Hebrew slave”: comments on the Slave Law Ex. xxi 2–11’, VT, 25, 1975, 129–44; and earlierGoogle Scholar, Pedersen, J., ‘Note on Hebrew Ḥofši’, JPOS, 6, 1926, 103–5Google Scholar; W. F. Albright, ‘Canaanite Ḫapši and Hebrew Ḥofšī again ’, ibid. 106–8.

36 E.g. Lemche, VT, 25, 1975, 144 n. 63: reference to W. von, Soden, ‘Muškēnum und die Mawāli des frǼhen Islam’, ZA, 22 (56), 1964, 133–41Google Scholar; andKienast, B., ‘Zu Muškēnum = Maulā’, BAW 75, 1972, 99–103 (XVIII, RAI, Munich 1970), though neither of these authors deals with the ḫupšu problem.Google Scholar

37 e.g. Gray, art. cit. (supra n. 26); Lemche, art. cit. (supra n. 36); but cf. Vaux, R. de, Le problème des Ḫapiru aprés quinze annés’, JNES, 27, 1968, 221–8, who prefers for ḫāpirū the gentilic option.Google Scholar

38 See Moscati, S. et al., Comparative grammar of the Semitic Languages, Wiesbaden, 1964, para. 8. 8–9Google Scholar; Fronzaroli, P., La fonetica ugaritica, Rome, 1955, 52–3Google Scholar; Gordon, C. H., Ugaritic textbook, Rome, 1965, para.5.13 and 28; but cf. Dietrich et al., UF, 6, 1974, 26–7 (supra n. 32).Google Scholar

39 Moscati, op. cit., para 8.46 and 59–60; Gordon, op. cit., para. 19. 930 (ḫbṯ), 995 (ḫpṯ), 835 (ḥbš), 888 (ḥpš); Albright, JPOS, 6, 1926, 107 (supra n. 25)

40 e.g. Lane, Lexicon, I, 501; cf. Wright, W., Grammar of the Arabic language, Cambridge, 1955 (1896), I, 207–8, esp. ad fa'il.Google Scholar

41 See Gray, HUCA, 29, 1958 (supra n. 26), 169–73; but cf. Dhorme, P., ‘Les ḫabiru et les hébreux’, JPOS, 4, 1924, 162–8: ḫabiru = ḥābēr.Google Scholar

42 de Vaux, art. cit. (supra n. 37), 226–8; incidentally, in despite of his thesis that Ugaritic is as closely related to (classical) Arabic as it is to Canaanite, I. Al-Yasin, , The lexical relation between Ugaritic and Arabic, New York, (Shelton College), 1952, lists ḫpṯ = ‘freeman/soldier’ under ‘Ugaritic words lacking Arabic cognates’ (119 s.v.).Google Scholar

43 See Wright, Grammar, I, 233–4 and the classical lexica adduced supra n. 18.

44 See references nn. 19–22; the rare occurrence of triptote miṣr = Egypt may be worth at least mention (cf. Wright, Grammar, I, 243).

45 Cf. Gray, art. cit., 163–5; de Vaux, art. cit. 227.

46 See Ward, W. A., ‘Two unrecognized ḪUPŠU -mercenaries in Egyptian texts’, UF, 12, 1980, 441–2, where the Egyptian epithet (examples A-C) seems to be blended with or contaminated by cuneiform ḫupšu; cf. Irvine, JSS, 10, 1965, 182 and references n. 4.Google Scholar

47 See Albright, W. F., ‘Canaanite ḤOFŠĤ, “free”, in the Amarna tablets’, JPOS, 4, 1924, 169–70Google Scholar, ad Amarna 147. 12, rejecting Ebeling's Egyptian etymology, but later modified in JPOS, 6, 1926, 107–8 (supra n. 35) and JEA 23, 1937, 190–203; Gevirtz, S., ‘On Canaanite rhetoric: the evidence of the Amarna letters from Tyre’, Orientalia, 42, 1973, 164 and 176 seems to me to beg the question.Google Scholar

48 cf. Gray, art. cit., 145 on the Susa text Ha-bi-riki, 160 on the Ugaritic ḫlb 'prm, with the statement 167 that no toponym Ḫabir is attested; it is of course true that aḥābīš is as such not attested as a toponym.