Wadi el-Hol Hoax...

(This was a late-night thought, the basic premise of which is that Wadi el-Hol might more squarely fit the after-Sinaitic and before-Arabian writing period - placing it anywhere from possibly around 1400 to 1200 BC.  The inscriptions are not, per se, "a hoax" but they are not the first alphabet - I note that at the bottom and in my translation, which since it's been so long since I've worked on this should be taken with a slight grain of salt [to the writing and form and the dating, but not to the translation conclusions]).

I think, given what I feel to be the high consistency of my translation of Wadi el-Hol both internal to Semitic alphabetic scripts but also to our knowledge of the specific use of that area [of Wadi el-Hol] that the alphabetic inscriptions there are likely from a range closer to 1400-1200 BC rather than 1800 BC.

In fact, the presence of this distinct ḥ, arguably continuous with the Arabian (12th-9th centuries) ḥ probably should have indicated this possibility far earlier on.  Whereas I have argued, and will continue to do so, that a fish-ḥ is present in Sinai, this isn't found outside and neither is another (or arguably a) distinct ḥ.  However, that same [Wadi el-Hol] ḥ does occur as h in Sinai, Proto-Canaanite, Phoenician [and Greek and Latin E].  The confusion of an apparently less distinct Northern Semitic ḥ in contrast to the continuing distinction in Ethiopic, Arabian etcetera is one possible mode of transmission (a sort of Shibboleth confusion probably of similar names - ha[w]y and ḥa[w]y, perhaps).

Sinai, which can be more reliably placed within a range of 1700-1550 BC, squarely within the Hyksos and Intermediate periods, attests to none of this.  Neither do anomalous probably South Egyptian inscriptions purchased by Petrie in the early 20th century.  The one case [Thebes 1] of an anthropomorphic h is almost certainly pronominal and hence a clear indication that the h from Sinai (or for the sake of argument a common ancestor) had spread.  This is highly anomalous given the supposedly older presence of Wadi el-Hol.  Moreover, the 'Theban Inscriptions' also seem to foreshadow later-Arabian paleography with specific regard to S1 and Z.  In fairness, the one inscription [Thebes 1] that may contain an h is highly dissimilar to the other two [Thebes 4 and 6], which are likely in similar alphabets or the same one.

Nevertheless, they may suggest a key source of continuity between Wadi el-Hol and Arabia.  And that seems most likely if Wadi el-Hol is closer to the [late] 2nd millennium attested origin of Arabian scripts.  Additionally, the Wadi el-Hol h, possibly a precursor of North Arabian but not South Arabian variants, a one-arm-up and one-arm-down person, might be attested in an anomalous Yemeni inscription called Jamme 863 - which also attests the Arabian worshiping ḥ but upside down (in relation to Epigraphic South Arabian).  Jamme and Albright felt Jamme 863 was anomalous and probably archaic (I believe they singled out the patina) - and it is on a rock wall, though it is not clear if that might have [at one time] been [part of] a structure.

Moreover, the same one-arm-up and one-arm-down person may also have become the Ugaritic alphabet's ḥ, its h the more commonly post-Sinaitic h.  The Ugaritic alphabet evolved sometime between 1200 and 1150 BC in Coastal Syria.  It also possesses at least one partial abecedary (I think two) in the South Semitic [Arabian] order.  This connection is unusual.  One possibility is that there may have been some influence from Ugarit toward Arabia.  One obvious possibility is the Syro-Arabian desert; and caravans would have traveled between Syria and Arabia.
However, it is also possible that the post-Sinaitic developments in South Egypt (Wadi el-Hol & Theban inscriptions), may have been transmitted to the borderline of North Arabian and South Arabian territory earlier than thought (Jamme 863).  It is possible that Ugaritic was actually the result of a circuitous transmission from Arabia, which was then influenced by the prevailing Proto-Canaanite trend.  In support of that is both the cuneiform [culture at Ugarit] ([manifested] not just in [the method of producing] the letters [though not necessarily related to cuneiform logograms], but in the vocabulary and scribal training methods) and the apparent lack of importance of Ugaritic's 'second S', which is basically Canaanite samekh.  The primary presence of the Wadi-Theban-Arabian S1 (~shin) and the common  S2 (~sin) also suggests the possibility of significant Arabian influence, however seemingly unlikely.  [The relative unimportance at Ugarit of the common Canaanite S oddly suggests it might have been an external loan.] ...

The core question is whether the evidence for the dating of Wadi el-Hol to 1800 (or 1800-1700 or whatever) BC is strong - particularly given it is based on an unknown language and no agreed-upon translation, nor any physical evidence.  The original brief report by Darnell et al. (2005) made this determination, on [tentative and ultimately] flawed paleography and the presumption that traveling that path was common around 1800 BC.  It is significant they mention this was likely the cite of a Hathoric procession - and that the rock spur was likely the spot of or near a temple or religious place for a particular ritual.  [It is at least equally significant that other literature by Darnell and the longer survey suggest this area maintained Hathoric uses into the New Kingdom, the late 2nd millennium.]  To my mind, inferring from the several other Darnell papers I've read on this area (the area around Wadi el-Hol) and Hathoric celebration, if the inscriptions are related to that sort of 'best known' period, then the inscriptions are more likely from the New Kingdom or just before (given their anomalous presence).

In effect, I see these inscriptions as integrally related to a large number of the Egyptian inscriptions on that rock - Hathoric worship, probably in specific reference to a specific myth.  Based on my translation, I had always been perplexed at how the Wandering Goddess story could have been present by 1800 BC.  However at the beginning of the New Kingdom, there is now a philologically consistent story.

It may be the case that with the collapse of the Hyksos, random scribes were pushed primarily across Sinai into Palestine.  However, some no doubt remained in Egypt and/or as the Syro-Palestinian royal and aristocratic entourages returned to regular tutelage, it spread that way [possibly also].  Hiring Canaanite shamans was not unknown, so some scribes from the Sinaitic period might have found purpose there.  Two of the Petrie Theban inscriptions are likely invocations - one of which is a curse; another, I have argued with increasing personal skepticism may be a star chart.  The third is very unclear but is possibly an invocation to Set.

Having said all that, the Wadi el-Hol inscriptions are not a hoax.  However, they are likely not as old as has been commonly thought.  And they are probably not the earliest alphabets.  This was more or less inherent anyway given the Wadi dialect's use of the word QS1T for 'bow' despite the origin-dialect's use of S2N.T for bow (in the creation of the letter S2).  The Wadi Inscriptions do, however, represent one of the most important discoveries in the history of the study of the alphabet - in that they likely do reflect the earliest definitive common link between Sinai and Arabia.

They were clearly carved in transit - at the site of a Hathoric shrine or temple on a road between Hu and Thebes.  The later timing also explains why Athtar's name is written with an `ayin that is, effectively, a Ugaritic `ayn - they aren't separated by 600 years, they're separated by at most perhaps 200-250 years.  That leaves fewer interceding missing links.*

*Some of that interim can actually be found in poorly known cases: i.e. of 3 inscriptions from a Deir `Alla palace destroyed by earthquake in 1200 BC (not the 'Deir Alla Inscription'), and at least one presumably non-'workers' graffiti' inscription at Deir el-Medina published (only?) in an archaeological team's report.  The last is not definitive, in my mind.  The Deir Alla inscriptions - at least the first and possibly the third are arguably somewhat solid (the first I think is).  These also potentially provide another oddity - a point of transmission to Greek chi.  Greek itself, in its earliest forms, had also been transmitted by this point, and there have been some suggestions it does not match Proto-Canaanite perfectly.

Rejecting a Controversial Revision

Summary (tl;dr):

Basically, this writeup suggests that I was incorrect in suggesting that a specifically three-peaked character was D_ and not M.  I revisit two key inscriptions in reference to that - those at Wadi el-Hol and Sinai 345.  In the case of the latter, I find that this revision produces: M 'HB(B)cL[T] / Z NFK LBcLT : "From 'Beloved-of-the-Mistress'-/of-Turquoise, to The Mistress."  And at Wadi el-Hol, the resulting revision produces MN cT_TR=H QS1T KPT_ 'L / RB [ilu] DN M NH. NPS2=H' W=S.H_R : "What are for Athtar?  The bow and the scimitar.  Ilu / is the Powerful Lord [god] who intoxicates her soul and depletes [it]."  These still, then each reflect half the tone of the story of the return or renewal of Hathor or the Wandering Goddess, but essentially violence and then intoxicated pacification.

In some ways these revisions actually strengthen the posited grammar in both of these.  Since Sinai 345 is bilingual, the Egyptian may simply record the name of the devotee.  Though both inscriptions include a specific reference to a Mistress (or Hathor) of Turquoise, it is not clear if this is merely a clarification or part of the standard epithet to that aspect - or part of the name of the devotee.  In any event, it would seem that the phrase found in Egyptian - Meri-Hathar-Mafka3t - is directly analogous to 'ahubba`ltu-za-nafki.  The longer Semitic reflects a full dedication in the dialect of this person or their scribe, apparently.

//

M 'HB-[B]`L[T]-     "From Beloved-of-the-Mistress-
-Z-NFK L B`LT      "-of-Turquoise* for The Mistress."

(* 'HB-B`LT or Meri-Hathar or Beloved-of-the-Mistress (B`LT/Hathor) are, presumably, the name of this devotee.)

I am unclear exactly on exactly why Sinai 345 was rejected as bilingual - or seems to generally have been.  The first reason seems to have to do with the implied gemination - potentially indicated by the dot in the first B.  I should point out that this is by no means an attempt at an academic paper.  I'm more or less just thinking out loud.

So the "controversial revision" alluded to above refers to the first character being a D_ (I'm not doing special characters, sorry).  This pertains to a hypothesis related to the Wadi el-Hol Inscriptions and some of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions.  There are valid reasons to consider this, even if they have no antecedent evidence.  But regardless, let's assume that's wrong and these three-peaked characters are just M's.

Does that in any way actually tank the broader implications of my translations?  I would argue basically no.  The D_ I posited retains the role (solely) of a relative or demonstrative pronoun in the cases where I have found it - a detail that is highly significant.  But having rejected this theoretically, the Semitic M is also a widespread pronoun - "who?".  And its use is effectively versatile, sometimes similar to that of D_.

My original translation for above was D_ 'HB(B)cL[T]=/Z=NFK LBcLT - "This is 'The-Beloved-of-the-Mistress'/-of-Turquoise for the Mistress."  The orthography 'hb also occurs in Sinai 350.**  But it is worth noting that one of the probable reasons for the rejection of the bilinguality of the inscription is also that M'HB is not a known orthography for 'beloved,' and therefore this is probably coincidental.  At least that's what I basically got from Sass's synthesis.  The problem is that that's not the orthography we're supposed to be looking for, but rather 'hb.

So again, if we simply ignore my D_ hypothesis, what we get here is: M 'HB(B)cL[T]=/=Z=NFK LBcLT.  "From the 'Beloved-of-the-Mistress'/-of-Turquoise, to the Mistress."  In many ways this is actually a lot less ambiguous.  The person offering is 'ahubbaclt[u] (probably the fusional inflection was lost - hence the gemination), and the goddess is is 'The Mistress,' but specifically 'of Turquoise' which is apparently the namesake of the devotee.  None of this is probably surprising because of the widespread use of that name or title - Bclt - for the deity apparently juxtaposed with Hathor.

This is effectively confirmed by the Egyptian inscription, which says, simply, mry h.t-h.r mfk3.t, which is embellished in translation (presumably based on external evidence, but I really don't know why) to "Beloved of Hathor [Lady] of Turquoise" or something very similar - though actually it means Beloved of "Hathor of Turquoise."  That may have been 'ahubbaclt[u]'s Egyptian name, though it isn't clear who she (or he**) was - 'ahubbaclt- being juxtaposed with Meri-Hathar.

So what kind of wrench does this throw into the Wadi el-Hol hypothesis?  Again really none.  If you don't accept my hypothesis (effectively) that Egyptian paleography seems not to have been singularly influential in the earliest period of alphabetic development, then maybe none of this matters.  But if the issue again is this apparently concocted new character that crops up as a demonstrative/relative, the basic premise remains in tact:

MN `T_TRH QS1T KPT_ / 'L...    "What are for Athtar?  The bow and the scimitar.  Ilu is..."

The initial three-peaked character is still bisected by an N but in addition to M-, MN is also a common and widespread Semitic term for "who."  However, though Wadi el-Hol is unique, this would mark the only early alphabetic occurrence of MN (that I am aware of), and I think in context also the (also) common Semitic MN [Akkadian minu] - "what" pronoun fits better here.  So here, we come to a similar revision: MN cT_TRH QS1T KPT_ 'L - "What are for `Athtar? The bow and the scimitar.  Ilu..."

And the same character appears without that -N in the Horizontal Inscription a few feet to the left of this right-to-left Vertical Inscription (on the same rock spur).  They're the only known inscription in this alphabet and so separating them particularly given the overt connection of two modal halves of a singular cosmological story common both to Semitic speakers and Egyptians, and celebrated particularly in the area of Wadi el-Hol - and Wadi el-Hol itself is probably the site of at least one chapel specifically related to a holiday devoted to this story.

RB [ilu] DN M NwH. NPS2=H' WS.H_R    "...the Powerful Lord who intoxciates her soul and depletes it."

So the same revision herein yields: RB DN M NH. NPS2=H' W=S.H_R - "...the Powerful Lord [ILU] who intoxicates her soul that it is depleted."  It's worth noting that the variant orthography S.H_R may have been influenced by the cuneiform orthography (which would have lacked the root -G/- that is transformed to H_ here) - in which case the term S.G/R to refer to depleting the soul of the violent goddess may have been influenced by Akkadian (where I anyway found this meaning originally).

Conversely, the variant orthography NPS2 instead of the expected NPS1 may have precedent in Amorite but suggests this is a very early use and maybe borrowing of a word (originally meaning to breathe or a breath) for a progressive meaning that would later become the more widespread common Semitic form - that likely speaks to the genuine antiquity of these inscriptions.  And the entire thing would read:

MN cT_TRH QS1T KPT_ 'L / RB DN M NH. NPS2=H' W=S.H_R

"What are for Athtar?  The bow and the scimitar.  Ilu / is the Powerful Lord [god] who intoxicates her soul and depletes [it]."

I suppose if one were really against reading them together, one could read: "What are for Athtar? The bow, the scimitar, and Ilu.  The Powerful Lord [is] who intoxicates..."

The grammar does not make as much sense, in my opinion, read that way - but we have no examples of this dialect (that we know of now) other than this.  Ultimately, read either way, in my opinion the meaning is overtly clear - violence and intoxicated rest.  This is the story of the Wandering Goddess - possibly the earliest extant version (predating Egyptian?; I'm not sure about that claim).

In some ways this revision both reduces tension between my hypothesis and extant literature, though it doesn't really reconcile the general conflict, but it also strengthens the translations of both Sinai 345 and the Wadi el-Hol Inscriptions.  I guess I'm prepared to admit that without additional evidence, my hypothesis was spurious and I was wrong there.

** It's actually worth noting my hypothesis on Sinai 350, because even though the inscription is badly fragmented, reconstructed as in Hamilton 2006, 341 the first two lines can be reconstructed in full with a high degree of certainty (because they contain a standard format found elsewhere) as: R: ’L . ṢṮ . [Ẓ?]B[Ṭ?] . NQB / L: ’HB . [---]T –... preceding the T is arguably BcL- though I had also contemplated 'RH_; but in any case it is very likely an epithet to 'the Goddess' involved in many or most of the Proto-Sinaitic corpus.  This inscription seems to say, then: “The god Set is the [Keep]er? of Naqab / The-Beloved-of–[the-Mistr]ess [?]...”  In the context of other inscriptions, these titles are basically unremarkable, but they suggest that 'hb[bclt] may have commonly referred to Set and therefore in Sinai 345 it may refer to a man's name.  This is not spurious despite the uncertainty, as Sinai 350 contains the only other reference to 'hb that I have thus far found among Proto-Sinaitic.

The Wadi el-Hol Translation

I removed the previous versions of this paper because of a somewhat more specific approach I've taken (largely on philological grounds) over the past few weeks.  I will shortly post the paper in full.  I will also fix the presence of spell-check on the Wadi plates.

The primary distinctions (in the broader paper) result to an earlier structural sibilant/fricative usage present at Wadi el-Hol and in later Arabian script systems (but latent elsewhere), and the reinterpretation of a single character in Thebes 6, but the reinterpretation of dialect relations in some of the inscriptions as well.

With regards to Wadi el-Hol, my working hypothesis is currently that the dialect is closely related to Amorite.  This actually explains the structural sibilant confusion, directly reversed in Ugaritic; and the fricative (H) confusion is probably the result of a relatively early process of pharyngealization of H (although it is possible that there was a de-emphasis or glottalization of the pharyngeal).  In terms of graphemes, Ugaritic preserves all three 'H graphemes,' but reversed the usage of the pharyngeal and glottal.

Little regarding the translation or proper interpretation of Wadi el-Hol has changed.  I can now explain, however, why 'to intoxicate,' as a D-stem, lacks an explicit medial W.  I have also included vocalization with respect to the Northwest Semitic (Amorite-related) interpretation of verbs some of whose forms are best explained with respect to Akkadian (regardless of inflection patterns - which would then be NW Semitic).  This identification, along with some Proto-Siniaitic inscriptions will likely help clarify the apparent paucity of non-Canaanite Northwest Semitic languages (other than Ugaritic) through their more common attestation in the 2nd millennium BC, particularly in early alphabetic texts.

[From 'The Syro-Arabian, West Semitic Origins of the Alphabet in Egypt'] 

The Wadi el-Ḥôl Translation Hypothesis (1830-1800 BC South Egypt)

In 1999, two presumably alphabetic inscriptions were found on a desert trade road forty or so kilometers northwest of Luxor.  They have been dated tentatively to 1850-1700 BC.[i]  This translation is basically unexceptional, with a single Egyptian loanword.  There is some consensus between this study and previous identifications[ii] over the letters ’, B, Ḫ, P, R, Ṯ, and T.  Most previous readings omit a character before P in the Vertical Inscription.  This examination will thus concentrate on identifying the characters on which there is not the aforementioned agreement over identification:

Vertical: ?ṮTRH??T[?]PṮ’L
Horizontal: RB?N?NḤNP?H’??ḪR

Vertical Inscription:

The first character in the Vertical Inscription (see, Plate III) appears (partly) with only three-peaks in the Horizontal Inscription (see, Plate IV).  In the Vertical Inscription, these peaks are joined to a fourth, and the third is bisected.[iii]  Upon closer examination, the third peak is actually bisected by an N, and the three-peaked character is Ḏ.  The fourth peak is then actually ^c.  A smaller, equally de-stylized wedge occurs above the following Ṯ, below which is a line; there is a line also below the first character group (see, also Plate Va).  This then spells ^cṮTRH, the H possibly specifically being styled after Gardiner C10 – Ma’at.  The next character is a Q flattened on its left side, followed by S₁, and T.  The inscription continues K, P, and Ṯ, and ends with ’, L.

The text thus begins with a 3^rd person dual demonstrative, ḎN.  In South Arabian ḏyn occupies this function,[iv] and a 3^rd person dual demonstrative can be theoretically reconstructed in Akkadian as šunā.[v]  The non-feminized divine name ^cṮTR might reflect similarity with Ištar, probably present in Amorite,[vi] whose name could also connote ‘goddess’ in Akkadian.[vii]  Her name has also been traced to Proto-Semitic “*?aθtar- ‘morning/evening star’”.[viii]  This is followed by an enclitic locative/directive –h, found in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,[ix] and meaning ‘for Aṯtar/the goddess.’  This grammar also explains the physical connection of Aṯtar’s name to the demonstrative.  The flattening of the left side of the Q may reflect it being styled as a “bow,” which is the word it begins QS₁T (qaštu).[x]  A bow is in fact drawn (partly cut off in photographs) to the left of the depicted figure in the Vertical Inscription.

The next word, KPṮ may then be the staff to the right of that depicted figure.  It is probable that the K occurs above the T so that QS₁T is not misread ‘archer,’ but rather that both are read together.  In Ugaritic, kpṯ occurs in an epithet to Anat.  Juxtaposed with “the high heavens”, some have argued kpṯ means “earth”.[xi]  It has also been linked with an Akkadian kub/pšu “headdress” and occurs among terms connoting authority.[xii]  The root kbʃ may also mean “Amor … lamb, young sheep; Akk … =; Arab … ram; chef; ram, pillar, buttress; Mhr … lamb; Soq ram…”,[xiii] though kpṯ may have reflected a different, if parallel, root at this time.  Indeed, the shape of the Egyptian xpS-scimitar has been described as the “foreleg of an ox”,[xiv] and Gardiner F23 (xpS) may also appear this way.  The Egyptian xpS (scimitar) has been connected with Greek κόπις (kopesh) of similar meaning.[xv]  The divine-royal object can now be connected with Anat’s Ugaritic epithet and this usage.  The last word is ’L,[xvi] meaning god or Ilu.

Horizontal Inscription

The bow and kopesh are known symbols, but the Vertical Inscription’s grammar disconnects Ilu from them.  The Vertical and Horizontal Inscriptions are paleographically unique, they are in the same location, and they probably come from a single time period.  They are also on the same rock spur – only several meters apart.[xvii]  These facts at least suggest the possibility that the inscriptions represent a single text.[xviii]  A line beneath the Vertical Inscription changes orientation at the end, maybe indicating the scribe ran out of space and continued writing several meters to the left (in the direction of the writing) on another inset surface of the same rock spur.  They were likely carved by the same scribe, and paleographic differences may partly result from fatigue or frustration in having to find a new spot and begin an even longer part of the text, possibly at night.[xix]

The first two words of the Horizontal Inscription (see, Plate IV) occur above a logogram (see, Plate Vb).  The first of these two words is RB,[xx] in Akkadian connoting “large… main, principle, chief”.[xxi]  But the logogram suggests a divine title known in Classical Arabic, and perhaps implicitly extant in analogy to the Ugaritic “rbt ’ṯrt ym … lady ’Athir(a)t of the sea”.[xxii]  The next word, DN should be compared with Amorite “/dnn/ be strong; /dunn/ strength”,[xxiii] also present in Amarna Canaanite and as Akkadian dannū “powerful”.[xxiv]  RB DN then means “Powerful Lord” in reference to the god of the Vertical Inscription.  Next, Ḏ is a relative pronoun, i.e. “who,” like Ḏ in Ancient North[xxv] and South Arabian,[xxvi] usually D in Ugaritic.[xxvii]

The following word, NḤ, is one of only four suggested cases in this paper of Semitic borrowing from Egyptian.  It may be connected with Egyptian nwḥ, “drunk,” reinforcing a connotation of Hathoric drunkenness.[xxviii]  The context and grammar demand a causative verb, and W may be drawn on the “arm” of Ḥ (see, Plate Vc).  The connotation fits rituals to appease Hathor through “drunken, nocturnal revels… [to appease] the fiery power of the solar deity, an unquenchable flame to destroy the souls of the damned and a brilliant torch to illumine the paths of the blessed dead in the necropolis”.[xxix]    The offering of alcohol to the returning goddess Sekhmet was also probably not uncommon.[xxx]

The next word is NPS₂, regardless of hesitancy over the last letter being S₂.[xxxi]  This is not an improper orthography, but rather a variant Amorite orthography naps, alongside napš, “breath, life”.[xxxii]  The semantic development to ‘soul’ is not implausible.  The enclitic -H’, “her [soul],” and the locative case also mark this dialect as West Semitic.  Two unknown characters remain: W and an archaic Ṣ, then finally Ḫ and R.  Though perhaps not explicitly present in Amorite, the Ḫ may reflect Ġ, thus reflecting the Babylonian-influenced orthography[xxxiii] of ṢĠR ‘(to be) small.’

At Ugarit, ṣġr is the name of a son of Baal and either Anat or a mysterious cow.[xxxiv]  There are thematic similarities between this story and the return of the oft-bovine Hathor to Abydos, resulting in the “conception, birth, and care of the child god”.[xxxv]  But the lack of stylization or logograms around ṢḪR, and its inclusion nondescriptly at the end of the inscription cast doubt on its divinity.  Akkadian ṣuḫḫuru means “to make smaller, to reduce (in size or number)”.[xxxvi]  NWḤ (‘drunk’) would have probably offered false(?) connections with the Semitic root NWḪ (‘rest’), in which case the former’s borrowed D-stem would be nuḥḥu, comparable to Akkadian nuḫḫu, explaining the written form.[xxxvii]

The lack of an explicit object for ṢḪR is explained by the unusual early presence of the conjunction W.  It serves to connect the subject-object relationship of NWḤ to the following verb ṢĠR; probably also suggesting parallel gemination.  It would appear that this scribe observed or participated in Hathoric celebrations.  It is thus not surprising that their inscriptions are on a path “ideally located to be integral in processions… welcoming… the returning goddess of the wandering eye of the sun”.[xxxviii]

^Vḏn  ^cṯtrh . qs₁t kpṯ . ’l   ^Hrb dn . ḏ n^wḥ . nps₂h’ . w ṣḫr

^Vḏunā ^caṯtarah . qaštu kupṯu / ’ilu . ^Hrabbu dannu . ḏa nuḥḥa . napsahā(’) . wa ṣuḫḫura

^V“These are for Aṯtar (the goddess), the bow and the scimitar.  Ilu (the god)... ^H…[is] the Powerful Lord who intoxicates her soul and reduces it (of violence).”

Hence, the first inscription (part) depicts a warrior-goddess, the second a powerful god who intoxicates her, placating her violence of spirit.  Additional drawings, such as the bow and scimitar occur on both sides of the ‘figure’ drawn in the Vertical Inscription.  The stylization of the Q as a bow probably corresponds with the depiction of two scimitars to the left of KPṮ (see, Plate Vd), bounding the two words ‘bow and scimitar’ with two pictures of those symbols.  The Egyptian divine-determinative nṯr is certainly placed above Ilu’s name, and may unclearly be drawn next to Aṯtar’s name.

The Horizontal Inscription also evidences a probable simplification of the cuneiform divine determinative.  Hamilton speculated it may be a “subscript y?”.[xxxix]  However, there are two comparable cases (see, Plate Vb): in Sinai 365, and likely in the ‘South Arabian’ Jamme 863 where Albright and Jamme suggested it was a monogram of ḎT.[xl]  The Horizontal Inscription is also so far the only explicit evidence of an anthropomorphic origin for H.  But not least of all, this is the first actual text found in a dialect apparently related to Amorite – though not all of the vocabulary is known through Amorite names.

The Vertical inscription depicts neither an “ankh-sign”[xli] nor a woman.[xlii]  Though the figure does have a vaginal slit at its base, it is undoubtedly the goddess whose name appears directly below the figure itself.  Both inscriptions contain graphemes that stylistically might relate to nearby Egyptian prototypes from regnal years 26-30 of Amenemhat III.[xliii]  The content may relate to Middle Kingdom holidays[xliv] and to a Hathoric myth perhaps originating in the XIII^th Dynasty.[xlv]  They are most likely from 1830-1800 BC, well-preceding the Lachish Dagger of possibly 1750-1700 BC.[xlvi]

Addendum, A Sphinx Shaped Rosetta Stone:
I feel I should also post Sinai 345, as I slightly misinterpreted that inscription in my earlier paper.  The Egyptian hieroglyphs literally read mry ḥw.t-ḥr mfk3.t ("Beloved-of-Hathor [of?] Turquoise").  The Semitic alphabetic inscription reads (on both sides of the sphinx):

ḏ 'h[bb]^clt
z nfk l b^clt

The doubling of the b's is indicated both by context and possibly by a very unusual, possibly somewhat unique dot in the middle of the 'b'.  A similar dot occurs within the second ^c and both may suggest essentially consonantal reduplication.  This is only plausible if the first line refers to a very common epithet (which it does), in which the construct state had lost its inflection, probably due to common (perhaps cross-dialect) usage.  The epithet/title is thus in the simple nominative rather than in the genitive (through a construct state).

Then, similarly, the second occurrence of 'the Mistress' must actually be treated as a D-stem verb meaning 'to wed'.  The inscription is thus sort of bilingual, with the Egyptian actually being perhaps more ambiguous than the Semitic, and with the Semitic reflecting a mythological union between Set (most likely), The-One-of-Turquoise and The-Beloved-of-The-Mistress, and The-Mistress herself.

Sinai 345 also appears to be unique in using an 'Egyptian viper' (f ) to render this phoneme (/f/).

ḏu 'ahu[bb]a^cltu 
za nafki la ba^ccilat

"This is The-Beloved-of-the-Mistress.
The-One-of-Turquoise does she wed."

Thematically, this inscription has at least one parallel.  This is from Note 199 in the larger paper: "Sinai 350 – ^R’L . ṢṮ . [Ẓ?]B[Ṭ?] . NQB / ^L’HB . [---]T – “The god Set is the Keeper? of Naqab / The-Beloved-of–[the-Mistr]ess.”"  It appears to reflect the sexual relationship perceived between Set and Zat Baalti, in the latter's aspect as a 'Mistress.'  The relationship with turquoise is unclear, but is apparently associated with Set.  I note elsewhere in the larger paper that Set's name is surprisingly similar to a Semitic root found basically in Akkadian (as well as Hebrew) meaning 'to shine.'

Sinai 345 also appears to evidence a monogrammed signature suggesting it was written by a scribe named Bin Surr, or more likely originates from a 'tribe of Surr,' quite possibly related to the city of Tyre.  A 'tribe of Surr' (most likely, i.e. BN ṢR or Bani Ṣur), occurs in several inscriptions.

---

[i]  John Coleman Darnell, F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Marilyn J. Lundberg, P. Kyle McCarter, Bruce Zuckerman, and Colleen Manassa, “Two Early Alphabetic Inscriptions from the Wadi el-Ḥôl: New Evidence for the Origin of the Alphabet from the Western Desert of Egypt,” AASOR 59 (2005): 90, accessed October 4, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3768583

[ii]  Primarily, Darnell et al. 2005; Gordon J. Hamilton, The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 40 (Washington, DC, 2006).

[iii]  See also, Hamilton 2006, 327.

[iv]  Norbert Nebes and Peter Stein, “Chapter 7: Ancient South Arabian,” in The Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, ed. Roger D Woodard (Cambridge, MA, 2008), 154.

[v]  See, Robert M. Whiting, Jr. “The Dual Personal Pronouns in Akkadian.” JNES 31, no. 4 (1972), accessed May 2, 2012, http://www.jstor.org/stable/543790.  The presence of this feature may make this one of the most archaic attested Semitic dialects ever recorded, certainly the most archaic West Semitic dialect.

[vi]  Herbert Bardwell Huffmon.  Amorite personal names in the Mari texts (Baltimore, MD, 1965), 107.

[vii]  CAD, I, 271-4, accessed April 30, 2012, http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/cad_i.pdf

[viii]  John Huehnergard, “Appendix 1: Afro-Asiatic.” in The Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, ed. Roger D. Woodard (Cambridge, MA, 2008), 243.

[ix]  Dennis Pardee, “Chapter 1: Ugaritic,” in The Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, ed. Roger D. Woodard (Cambridge, MA, 2008), 26.                                                                          

[x]  CAD, Q, 147, accessed April 30, 2012, http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/cad_q.pdf                                   

[xi]  Aïcha Rahmouni, Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1, The Near and Middle East. tr. J.N. Ford (Leiden, 2007), 110, accessed October 4, 2011, http://books.google.com/books?id=j0SxrpjbwiEC&lpg=PP1&dq=divine%20epithets%20in%20ugaritic&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

[xii]  ibid, 111.

[xiii]  A. Murtonen, Volume 3, Sections Bb. Root System: Comparative Material and Discussions. Sections C, D and E: Numerals under 100, Pronouns and Particles, Hebrew Material, vol. 3 of Hebrew in its West Semitic Setting. A Comparative Survey of Non-Masoretic Hebrew Dialects and Traditions. Part 1. A Comparative Lexicon (Leiden, 1990), 227.

[xiv]  William C. Hayes, “The Tomb of Nefer-khēwet and His Family.” MMAB 30, no. 11 (1935): 34, accessed October 4, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3255037

[xv]  D. H. Gordon, “Scimitars, Sabres and alchions.” Man 58 (1958): 24, accessed October 4, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2795551

[xvi]  Darnell et al. 2005, 85.

[xvii]  Some authors of Darnell et al. (2005) repeatedly stressed to me that the inscriptions were far apart.  However, Plate II (Darnell et al. 2005: 116) suggests they are at most two or three meters apart.

[xviii]  And for first causing me to seriously consider this possibility, I must thank Brian Colless.

[xix]  Could the suggested connection (below) to nocturnal drunken rituals suggest these were carved at night by torchlight?

[xx]  Hamilton 2006, 325.

[xxi]  CAD, R, 26, accessed April 30, 2012, http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/cad_r.pdf.

[xxii]  Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, Revised Reprint 1998, Volume 1 Part 2, Analetica Orientalia 38 (Rome, 1965), 75.

[xxiii]  Murtonen 1990, 151.

[xxiv]  John Huehnergard, “Review: A Grammar of Amarna Canaanite.” BASOR 310 (1998): 66, accessed October 4, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357578

[xxv]  Michael C. A. Macdonald, “Chapter 6: Ancient North Arabian,” in The Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, ed. Roger D Woodard (Cambridge, MA, 2008), 199.

[xxvi]  Nebes and Stein 2008, 162.

[xxvii]  Pardee 2008, 16.

[xxviii]  See, John C. Darnell, “Hathor Returns to Medamûd.” SAK 22 (1995): 54, accessed October 4, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25152711

[xxix]  John C. Darnell, “Volume 1: Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscriptions 1-45 and Wadi el-Ḥôl Rock Inscriptions 1-45.” UCIOP 119 (Chicago, 2002), 133.

[xxx]  John Coleman Darnell, “The Apotropaic Goddess in the Eye.” SAK 24 (1997): 47, accessed October 4, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25152728

[xxxi]  Hamilton 2006, 325.

[xxxii]  Herbert Bardwell Huffman, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: a structural and lexical study, (Baltimore, Maryland, 1965), 240 ("Na-ap-su[d]IM . . .").

[xxxiii]  Interchange of Semitic ġ and Egyptian ḫ may not be unknown either (Wolf Leslau, “Semitic and Egyptian Comparisons.” JNES 21, no. 1 (1962): 48, accessed October 4, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/543552).

[xxxiv]  Peggy L. Day, “Anat: Ugarit’s ‘Mistress of Animals.’” JNES 51, no. 3 (1992): 181-190, accessed October 4, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/545543

[xxxv]  Darnell 1995: 48.

[xxxvi]  CAD, Ṣ, 123.

[xxxvii]  In other words the borrowed verb’s structure would parallel Akkadian nâḫu ‘rest’ > nuḫḫu ‘appease’ (CAD, N, 143-50, accessed May 3, 2012, http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/cad_n1.pdf.).  While tempting to simply identify this verb with the Akkadian, the Semitic orthography is wrong (Sem. nwḫ vs. nwḥ).

[xxxviii]  Darnell 2002, 133.                    

[xxxix]  Hamilton 2006, 325.

[xl]  A. Jamme and W. F. Albright, “An Archaic South-Arabian Inscription in Vertical Columns,” BASOR 137 (1955): 34, accessed October 4, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1355555 .  But based on their identifications (in Jamme 863) of the composite letters of the monogram, this hypothesis makes little sense.

[xli]  Hamilton 2006, 328.

[xlii]  Eric L. Altschuler, “Gloss of One of the Wadi el-Ḥôl Inscriptions,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 39 (2002).

[xliii]  See, Darnell 2002, 195-204.

[xliv]  ibid, 129-38.

[xlv]  Darnell 1995: 47.

[xlvi]  Hamilton 2006, 391.