Sinai 357: a Northwest Semitic votive inscription to Tessob.

• Author: Wilson-Wright, Aren Max
• Position: Essay

1. LOCATION AND DATE OF THE INSCRIPTION

   At twenty-seven letters, Sinai 357 is one of the longest and best-preserved alphabetic inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadem. Unfortunately, these characteristics have not made it any easier to interpret. Most scholars read it as a command from a mining foreman to his subordinates, but this reading runs into logical and contextual problems. In this article, I offer a new reading that better accounts for the context and genre of this inscription. In particular, I argue that Sinai 357 is a votive inscription that uses language similar to later Northwest Semitic dedicatory inscriptions and reflects the cultural diversity of the Egyptian turquoise mining expeditions in the Sinai Peninsula. Ultimately, Sinai 357 is the product of cultural and linguistic contact between speakers of Egyptian, Hurrian, and a Northwest Semitic language.

   Sinai 357 is one of approximately forty early alphabetic inscriptions from the Egyptian mining district at Serabit el-Khadem. It was found in situ at the entrance to Mine L and remains there to this day. (1) Whoever wrote Sinai 357 used a thin metal implement, probably a knife or the tip of a chisel, to scratch the letters into the cave wall. They also prepared the rock face before executing the inscription: there are tool marks both above and alongside the inscription, reminiscent of marks from a round-tip chisel. (2) The text of Sinai 357 descends from the top of the cave wall for fifteen signs, before turning right and continuing horizontally for an additional twelve or so signs. Because the inscription has been exposed to the elements for more than eighty years since its discovery, older pictures may actually provide a more accurate representation of the inscription than more recent autopsies and traces. For this reason, the photographs taken by Romain Butin in 1930 and Blake and Lake in 1935 have been used in this paper (see section 3 below). (3)

   The date of Sinai 357 is harder to pinpoint. Based on paleography Gordon Hamilton suggests that it was written between 1700 and 1500 B.C.E., but his methodology is open to question. (4) He assumes--not without reason, of course--that the oldest inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadem are the most pictographic and that later inscriptions became progressively more stylized. (5) This observation allows him to place the Sinaitic inscriptions in chronological sequence by working backward from more securely dated early alphabetic inscriptions found elsewhere, such as the Lahun heddle-jack and the Bet Shemesh plaque. None of these early alphabetic texts, however, is dated absolutely. A change in a single date could affect the entire sequence.

   Moreover, the Sinaitic inscriptions were not subject to the same standardization that characterizes the national scripts of the first millennium. The size, shape, and orientations of the signs vary dramatically, often within the same inscription (see for example Sinai 346). The direction of writing was not fixed either: left-to-right (e.g., Sinai 345), right-to-left (e.g., Sinai 349), vertical (e.g., Sinai 367), boustrophedon (e.g., Sinai 346), and combination (e.g., Sinai 357) orders are all attested. Thus, it is difficult to discern a linear, temporally conditioned development in the welter of different forms at Serabit el-Khadem. The lack of institutional involvement may explain this high degree of variance. As Orly Goldwasser notes, this "is why individual re-creations of the signs differ so widely, even though they always preserved their fundamental iconicity." (6)

   The actual dates that Hamilton assigns to Sinai 357 also prove problematic. Ever since Benjamin Sass demonstrated that Sinai 345, the small sphinx in the British Museum, was consistent with Egyptian statuary from the Middle Kingdom, most scholars have dated the Sinaitic inscriptions to the Twelfth dynasty (1985-1773 B.C.E.). (7) But the period 1700-1500 B.C.E. falls after the Twelfth dynasty, when there is little evidence of mining activity at Serabit el-Khadem, except for four inscriptions from the reigns of Ahmose (1550-1525 B.C.E.) and Amenhotep I (1525-1504 B.C.E.). (8) If Hamilton's dating is correct, then the circumstances surrounding the genesis of Sinai 357, as well as the other inscriptions that he assigns to this period, are left unaccounted for. Who produced these inscriptions, if not members of the royal expeditions? Are they graffiti? Did anyone even travel to the mining districts other than expedition members? Therefore, it is preferable to date the Sinaitic inscriptions based on context as Alan Gardiner did and assign all but the most stylized examples (e.g., Sinai 375c) to the reigns of Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV (1831-1777 B.C.E.). (9)

   With twenty-eight known ventures to his credit, Amenemhat III organized more expeditions to the Sinai Peninsula than any other Twelfth-dynasty monarch. So in terms of sheer numbers, the reign of Amenemhat III provides the most likely context for the composition of the Sinaitic inscriptions. Moreover, the numerous Egyptian inscriptions dated to his reign mention Asiatics, men of Retenu, foreign dignitaries like Habidadu(m), brother of the prince of Retenu, and at least eight different translators. (10) If we include the reign of Amenemhat IV as well, then this total increases to nine translators. The Middle Kingdom onomasticon from Serabit el-Khadem contains nine non-Egyptian names, five of which correspond to known Semitic names. An additional four names are neither Egyptian nor Semitic (see Table 1). Several reliefs from the temple compound adjacent to the mining district depict Semites taking part in the expeditions (Sinai 103W, 115, 465SE). (11)

2. PREVIOUS INTERPRETATIONS

   Although earlier scholars, like A. E. Cowley and Romain Butin, treated Sinai 357 as a memorial inscription, nearly all later scholars interpret it against the background of the Egyptian turquoise mining operations conducted at Serabit el-Khadem. (12) In his 1966 monograph, W. F. Albright reads: "Thou, O Shapan, collect from Ababa eight minas (of turquoise). Shimea, groom of the chief of the caravaneers" (nt tpn dkm l-bb mn VIII sm" mr rb [prm]). (13) Most subsequent interpreters offer only slight variations on Albright's interpretation. Anson Rainey, for example, modifies Albright's reading to "You, Thapan, crush (hammer out) for Ababa from you (i.e., from your ore); (signed) Shim a , the squire of the chief of the mi[ners]" (nt tpn dkm l-bb mnk sm" mr rb n?q?[bnm]), which Izthak Beit-Arieh, in turn, tweaks to "You, Shaphan, collect for Abimelek. Shimea, the squire of the region" (nt tpn dkm l-bbmlk sm mr rb). (14) Meindert Dijkstra also draws on Albright and Rainey when he reads: "You, superintendent of the pestle, give a full quantity to the gate of the king. Simc a, the mayor of the region" (nt sgn dk ml bb mlk sm mr rb). (15) More recently, William Shea has offered a twist on this "occupational" reading. He argues that Sinai 357 records the dismayed response of a mining crew to an order from King Thutmoses: "We continued mining for [the month of] Abib. The King Thutmose heard and said 'Four [more months]'" (n ytpn dkm l-mlk {dtmt} sm mr rb). (16)

   All of these interpretations run into linguistic problems. Albright, for example, interprets the consonantal sequence on the basis of the Old Babylonian verb deku, which refers to the collection of taxes and should have a third consonant in West Semitic, if it had any cognates there. Albright and others who treat as a verb must insert an enclitic -ma at the end in order to fit the orthography of the inscription, but they do not specify how this morpheme functions in context or adduce any parallels. (17) Shea derives yatapanu from the verb YSP, which contains the wrong fricative. Personal names also present problems for interpreters of Sinai 357. Beit-Arieh interprets the consonantal sequence as a variant spelling of abimalku 'My father is king', which should not have a second bet. (18) Similarly, Rainey treats as an etymologically opaque and otherwise unattested personal name Ababa. (19)

   In addition to the linguistic difficulties, it does not make logical sense to treat Sinai 357 as an "inter-office memo." A mining foreman would not take the time and effort to inscribe his orders in stone any more than an office supervisor today would write her emails in haiku. In a hectic work environment, bosses usually give their orders in the most efficient way possible--in this case, face to face. An inscription would be unnecessary. (20) Such readings also assume that alphabetic literacy was widespread at Serabit el-Khadem, but this assumption can be neither proven nor disproven with the information that is currently available. Nor does context favor an occupational setting. None of the contemporary Egyptian inscriptions record orders and the Semitic inscriptions that can be read are more concerned with securing divine favor than meeting quotas and filling work orders. Sinai 345, for example, declares that "This inscription is for the Lady" (hnd wz l-b lt) and Sinai 363 mentions "the [g]ift which he gave [to] El" ([m]tn d ntn ...l). (21) For these reasons, a new interpretation of Sinai 357 is needed.

3. PALEOGRAPHICAL CONCERNS

   Before offering a new reading, however, it is necessary to discuss the paleography of the inscription. Seven letters deserve comment: signs 2, 3, 8, 15, 23, 26, and 27. (22)

   Sign 2: Most scholars interpret sign 2 as a nun, but Hamilton holds out the possibility that it may be a lamed: "The reading of the second letter of the column is uncertain. Only its open head is clear on published photographs. Usually identified as nun, its open head contrasts with that of the clear 'one horned viper' type of n four letters below it. Its body is largely obscured by an imperfection in the semi-prepared rock surface, while its tail may be one of the many chisel marks surrounding this text. If the latter is excluded as not...