Quote from the history section of article:
Some Thamudic inscriptions which were discovered in southern Jordan contained names of some individuals such as ʿAbd Mekkat (عَبْد مَكَّة, "Servant of Mecca").
If you check the source by Harding, this is not "some" inscriptions, it is one inscription. Specifically, this one. However, you can see in the apparatus for the inscripion,
TIJ: Harding commented: "There seems to be a z [what is now read as ʾ] missing at the beginning to judge from the style of the n (cf. 100). ʿAbd-mekkat is new”. Littmann commented: "If ʿbd mkt is correct it is a very interesting name: ʿAbd Mekkat ‘servant of Mekka’ (The Holy City). But a l might be supplied: ʿAbd Malikat" Milik 1958–1959: 355: ʿbdmkt in Harding 112A [=TIJ 112.1] would be "servant of the (king) Malikat". King GMH 1990: 141, n. 11: "The text is Thamudic D and from a photograph and copy I made in 1986, I would read the text as zn ʿbd mḥ and interpret it as an unfinished love text of the form zn N1 mḥb N2."
I don't have access to King's PhD thesis, but since the database uses his transcription, I think it's clear there's a consensus it says mḥ, not mkt. (My own discretion does not aid me, because the photograph is basically unreadable). Not sure if the sentence in the article should just be removed, or if the other reading should just be appended. Mzrvtfni (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
