Page 14 - Arabian Studies (II)

4 Arabian Studies II
means of the gaming arrows (though admittedly this could be
interpreted to mean simply that he himself abstained from the feast
which he provided for others).
Somewhat different is Wilfred Thesiger’s account (.Arabian Sands,
1959, p. 71 and Penguin ed., 1964, p. 85), describing what happened
when one of his party had shot an ibex:
The cooked meat was set apart. Sultan then divided it into seven
equal portions. Tamtaim took seven twigs and named each twig
after one of us. Musallim, whose back had been turned, then
placed a twig on a heap of meat, saying as he did so, ‘Here is for
the best man’. This lot fell to Bin Turkia. ‘Here is for the worst’, as
he laid down another twig. This was for Mabkhaut, which was not
fair. ‘This is for the man who won’t get up in the morning.’ It was
mine and apposite, as the laughter reminded me, but the laughter
was redoubled when Musallim called out, ‘This is for the man who
pokes the girls’, and Tamtaim picked up the meat which had fallen
to him. Bin Anauf grinned at the old man, and said, ‘Evidently,
uncle, you will have another son next year’. Musallim went on
until each of us had drawn his share of meat. There is always
trouble if meat is not divided by lot. Someone immediately says
he has been given more than his share, and tries to hand a piece to
someone else. Then there is much arguing and swearing by God,
with everyone insisting that he has been given too much, and
finally a deadlock ensues which can only be settled by casting lots
for the meat — as should have been done in the first place. I have
never heard a man grumble that he has received less than his share.
Such behaviour would be inconceivable to the Bedu, for they are
careful never to appear greedy.
It is curious, but perhaps only accidental, that the participants on
this occasion were the traditional seven in number. As in Thomas’
account, the twigs were ‘named’ for the participants before the
randomizing process. Randomization was ensured by the fact that
Musallim did not know whose twig he was putting on each piece of
meat, because his back had been turned during the ‘naming’ of the
twigs.
But Thesiger’s account has an extra dimension to it. The
procedure for distributing the meat by lot is accompanied by another
game ‘on the side’. This is of the same nature as a game often played
in England at Christmas. A small silver coin and some small trinkets
(miniature thimble, miniature shoe, etc.) are mixed in the Christmas
pudding before it is cooked; when it is served out, laughter and
good-natured chaffing are occasioned by the special appropriateness
or inappropriateness of each symbol in relation to the person in
whose portion of pudding it turns up. Musallim’s ignorance of the