EXPLORATIONS AT SERABIr EL-KHADIM - 1977

Itzbaq Beit Arieh, Raphael Giveon and Benjamin Saas

In February 1977 a team from the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology
conducted a week-long expedition to Serabf! el-Khcidim in 'cooperation with the
Archaeological Staff Officer (Sinai). The expedition had a two-fold objective:
Prof. R. Giveon intended to ch~ k on some recently discovered inscriptions in the
temple area and to clarify several points connected with its building history, for which
purpose he was joined by Mr. Benjamin Sass, Assistant Archaeological Staff Officer
(Sinai). The objective of Dr. Itzhaq Beit Arieh was to explore Mine L and to
authenticate its oft-published Proto-Sinaitic inscription.
It was during an impromptu reconnaissance tour east of Mines A-E (Fig. 1) that
Mr. Sass, together with Surveyor Judith Dekel, discovered the long-lost hieroglyphic
inscription "Sinai 60" with its previously unknown additions, as well as two hitherto
unknownProto-Sinaitic inscriptions.
.The following three articles present the outstanding results of the expedition: "Sinai
60" with its new additions, discoveries in Mine L and the two "new" Proto-Sinaitic
inscriptions.

A LONG-LOST INSCRIPTION OF THUTMOSIS IV

Raphael Giveon

Sinai Inscription No.60 was first discovered in 1859 "at the entrance of a
mine ... two miles south east of the temple" [of Senibft el-Khadim] .(Birch 1869: 188).
Several times thereafter extensive efforts were made to locate the inscription, e.g. by
Petrie in 1904 (1906:157) and by Cerny in 1935 (Siruzi 11:82), but to no avail. The only
record of this inscription for more than a century has been the squeeze in the British
Museum prepared by Birch's expedition.
In February 1977, when Sinai 60 was rediscovered by our expedition (Fig. 1), it was
immediately apparent that the text of this squeeze published and translated in
Inscriptions of Sinail-II respectively (Sinai I:PI. 19; Sinai 11:82) is only the upper part
o( the inscription, giving merely the date, royal names and epithets. Moreover, the
drawing reproduced by Cemy gives the impression that the inscription contains a
number of lacunae (probably the result of the squeeze paper not adhering properly to
the rock-face), whereas, actually, there is hardly any disfigurement at all to the upper,
"royal" part of the inscription (pI. 44: 1-2). Underneath this "royal" inscription, where
the rock-face has a slight slant, appears an additional "private" inscription; presumably
explaining why this part was not included in the squeeze prepared· by the Birch
expedition. A small uninscribed rock stela is cut out beneath the inscription and a little .

170
 Beit Arieh, Giveon and Saas: Explorations at Serabft el-Khadim

Fig. ~1 Map of Serabq el-Khadim showing location of new discoveries.

to the right. A similar anepigraphic stela appears to the left of another mine inscription
of Thutmosis IV, Inscription No. 58.
Welll (1904:205), who listed this inscription as No. 101, has reproduced it inverted.
There are more signs in his copy than in Cerny's, but even in the "royal" text'- some
signs are missing which may be clearly seen on the rock itself. On the other hand, there
is one sign given by Weill which does not exist in reality, Le., an n under IJ,m in the
uppermost line (Fig. 2).
Following is a translation of the "royal" text, based on Cerny (Sinai //:82); additions
resulting from OUI: re-examination of the inscription in situ are printed in italics:
Year Seven, under the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt,
Menkheperure' Beloved of Hathor,lady of the turquoise,
The good god, Menkheperure', endowed with life,
Son of Re: a,se omtu~D, Khakau,!oreverb

171
 Beit Arieh, Giveon and Saas: Explorations at Serabft el-Khadim

TWO PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN PROTO - SINAITIC INSCRIPTIONS

Benjamin Sass
The prize find of the expedition to Senibq el-Khadim was undoubtedly the two
Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions discovered a few metres apart above the entrance to an
ancient turquoise mine located several hundred metres east-southeast of Mine A-E
(PI. 50: 1-2).
The facsimiles (Figs. 8;10) were traced on transparent polyethylene sheets stretched
over the rock surface. The copying was done only after thoroughly examining the signs,
both in day-light and with side-lighting at night, thus minimizing the chance of cracks
and chisel marks being inadvertently included, which is almost inevitable when hand
copies are made from photographs and rubbings without collating them against the ori-
ginal inscription.
The following discussion is primarily concerned with identifying the signs and
reviewing the possible direction{s) of the writing.
Inscription 1 (Fig. 8; PI. 51: 1).
Where the rock face is damaged above the first mem, there may possibly have been
one or more additional letters; the he, however, is undoubtedly the final letter.

Fig. 8. Inscription No. 1.

183
 Tel Aviv 5 (1978)

The second letter thickens at its right end, in this respect being suitable for a
serpent's head, but is otherwise not similar to the indisputable nuns of our Inscription 2.
Preferably, it could, with very little restoration, take the shape of the Egyptian
c (=forearm; cf. Gardiner 1969:sign D36), which is the prototype of the Proto-Sinaitic
yod.
If so, this is the earliest more-or-Iess clear occurrence.of this letter (Fig. ;9). Two of
the four alleged yods of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, Le. those appearing in
Inscriptions 346a and 367 (Albright 1969: 17; Fig. 6; ibid.: 27; Fig. 7), require
considerable restoration in order to resemble the Egyptian c. The third, from
Inscription 353 (ibid. :22; Fig. 5), is probably intact but differs substantially from the
Egyptian c, whereas one would expect it to follow its prototype more closely at such an
early stage. of development. The fourth suggested yod, from Gerster No. 1 (Cross
1967:16*-17*), is definitely a lamed, as interpreted by Albright (1969:·29) and re-
affirmed by Rainey (1975:110).

<L-.c>
2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fig. 9. Suggested yods through the 13th century B.C.E.

1. Sinai 346a (after Albright 1969 :Fig. 6).
2. Sinai 367 (after ibid. :Fig. 7).
3. Sinai 353 (after ibid. :Fig. 5).
4. Nagila sherd (after, Leibovich 1965).
5. St. Louis seal (after Goetz~ 195 3:Fig. 2).
6. Lachish ewer (after Cross 1954:Fig. 2, IV).
7. ·Hypothetical Proto-Sinaitic yod (after ibid. :Fig. 2, 11).
8. Our yod slightly restored.

The next yods in the chronological sequence appear on the Nagila sherd (Amiran and
Eitan 1977, photograph reversed; about 16th century), the St. Louis seal (Albright
1969:11; Cross 1967:10*; 14th/13th century) and the Lachish ewer (ibid. end of Late
Bronze Age). The Nagila yod was correctly identified by Leibovitch (1965). Amiran
and Eitan (1977) do not offer any reading, but in a previous publication (Amiran and
Eitan 1970) waw was suggested; an open waw is, however, unacceptable for such an
early inscription. While both the Nagila and the Lachish yods correspond to the
Egyptian c, the (chronologically midway) St. Louis yod does not. Our Sinai letter, if
correctly restored, and the Nagila and Lachishyods - although not identical- are quite
similar in shape, thus casting doubt on the identification of their presumed counterparts
in Sinai Inscription 353 and on the St. Louis seal, which differ considerably.1
1 In another article I shall try -to show that the available evidence does not rule out, and to a
certain extent even supports, a Middle Kingdom date for the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. The
Nagila sherd is therefore considered here later that the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions.

184
 Beit Arieh, Giveon and Saas: Explorations at Serabit el-Khadim

Regarding the reading of our one-line vertical inscription, the obvious direction
would be from top to bottom; however the consonant he, although quite common in
the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, has not appeared as a fmal consonant in any reading so
far offered.
Prof. A.F. Rainey suggests that one possibility would be to read this group as
[sI m y' mh, *Samaymah, taking the he as an adverbial suffIX, as in Ugaritic (Gordon
1965: 102). However, he points out that such a reading would be extraordinary since the
diphthong would be thus preserved, whereas in all known West Semitic dialects of the
late second millennium, the diphthong ay is reduced (Albright 1969:32-33).
Inscription 2 (Fig. 10; PIs. 51 :2;52: 1).
Letter 1: Although the outline is clear, the form does not correspond to any known
letter. Albright's qofis nearest in shape.
Letter 8: This is an (unidentifiable) tall, quite broad letter. An upright cayin does
not seem impossible, judging from the facsimile. The original, however, gives the
impression that the two parallel lines are part of the "body" of the letter, while the
upper right stroke is not part of its body but protrudes from it.
Letter 9: Possibly resh, but if the small stroke inside be ignored, bet becomes
possible.
Letter(?) 10: Judith Dekel thinks that there are traces of a letter here, while the
author believes this mark to be a natural blemish in the rock-face.
Letter 11: Taken without the semi-circle at its right, this letter is similar to that
interpreted as bet in Sinai Inscription 361 (Albright 1969:25; Fig. 8). Or do we have
here two occurrences of the previously unidentified tet, to be restored as a cross within
a square?2
The other letters do not pose problems of identification.
If letters 10, 11 and 12 really belong to the text (which seems more probable than
the contrary), then they ate out of line, but this may have been caused merely by the
inscriber's desire to avoid the oblique concavity beyond the great crack to the right of
Letter No. 9 (PI. 51 :2).
Inscription 2 should probably be read in the direction of the numbering of its letters
(Fig. 10), like Sinai Inscription 357 in Mine L (Albright 1969:23-24; Fig. 4). The text
would then read:
Q N M N M T L ? Rtf, ? t ?:»
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 all b 12

2 In which case, Inscription 361 will have to be read anew, as well as Inscription 360 (AIbright
1969:24-25; Fig. 9), where the same letter should perhaps be inserted in the empty space
between the! and bet.
In this connection it may be interesting to note Albright's interpretation of the first sign on the
Lachish dagger as fet (1969:11); although otherwise different, this sign shares the semi-circle to
the right of our No. 11. (Albright's reading is, however, hypothetical and did not win general
acceptance; see, e.g. Cross 1967: 10* n. 12).
It is also possible that the. semi-circle in our inscription is an independent letter or the traces
thereof.

185
 Tel Aviv 5 (1978)

12

~DB

Fig. 10. Inscription No. 2.

Alternatively, as we have lamed and taw (Nos. 7 and 6), it is tempting to reverse the
direction and (accepting the less plausible interpretations of Nos. 9 and 8), read 7t or
bit. Letters 11 and 12 (and 10, if indeed a letter) wouldin that case most probably read
in the same direction, and letters 1-5 would have to be read from bottom to top, which
is unlikely since they are not part of a boustrophedon.
I am inclined to favour the first possibility, namely the one indicated in Fig. 10, even
though this combination has no parallels in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. Logically one
would expect that if the inscriber had begun with No. 12, he would have continued
straight across after letter 11 (or 10); since the rock-face continues smoothly to the left,
there would not have been any reason for him to drop down to a lower level. On .the
.other hand, if he had started with No. 1, he would have realized that after No. 9 there
was not enough space remaining on the same line (due to the concavity at the right
mentioned above) and would have continued on the nearest available flat surface-
which he found slightly higher up.
Our inscriptions - the first to come to light since Gerster made his discovery at Bir
en Nasb some twenty years ago- show once again 3 that even after so many decades of
exploration, the· Egyptian turquoise mining region in Sinai has not yet yielded all its
secrets.

Acknowledgements:
I am grateful to Prof. R. Giveon and Prof. A.F. Rainey for reading the manuscript
and for their valuable advice.
Photographs are by Michal Roche (pIs. 50:2; 51: 1-2) and the author (PIs. 50: 1;
52:1). Drawing of inscriptions are by JudithDekel.

3 To mention but two very recent finds: the rediscovery of the second Sekhemkhet relief at
Maghara (Giveon 1974) and the discovery of ancient turquoise mines at Gebel 'Adediyah,
halfway between Maghara and Serabq el-Khadim (Had. Arch. 57-58:47).

186
----
Beit Arieh, Giveon and Saas: Explorations at Serabit el-Khadim

REFERENCES

Albright, W.F. 1969. The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and their Decipherment. (Harvard
Theological Studies 22). (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.
Amiran, Ruth and Eitan, A. 1970. Tel Nagila. Enc. Arch. Exc. 11:590.(Hebrew).
Amiran, Ruth and Eitan, A. 1977. Tel Nagila. Enc. Arch. Exc. 111:896.
Cross, F.M. 1954. The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet. BASOR 134: 15-24.
Cross, F .M. 1967. The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet. El 8:8*-24*.
Gardiner, A. 1969. Egyptian Grammar. (3rd ed.). London.
Giveon, R. 1974. A Second Relief of Sekhernkhet in Sinai. BASOR 216: 17-20.
Goetze, A. 1953. A Seal Cylinder with an Early Alphabetic Inscription. BASOR
129:8-11.
Gordon, C.H. 1965. Ugaritic Textbook. (AnOr 38). Rome.
Leibovitch, J. 1965. Le tesson de Tell Nagila. Le Museon 78:229---231.
Rainey, A.F. 1975. Notes on Some Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions. IEJ 25: 106-116.

187
 PLATE 50

J. The mine entrance, looking northwest.

...
.~
:.J-

':

- . ;'~
...::
" ,~ ...'. '""""":\....-6_
-
" ' ..........
/'1... ...... ;-'-
,..
.. ';1'

2. Position of inscriptions above mine entrance, looking northeast.

EXPLORATIONS AT SERABiT EL·KHAoIM

 PLATE 51

1. Inscription No. 1. O
......m'5:. _~ ~_

2. Inscription No. 2.

EXPLORATIONS AT SERABi, EL-KHADIM

 PLATE 52

1. Inscription No. 2 photographed at night, showing Letter No. 11 more clearly.

EXPLORATIONS AT SERABiT EL-KHADIM

2 3

2. A foundation deposit tablet, Side A; 3. Same, Side B (3.8x2.4 cm.); 4. A finger-ring (2.3x1.3 cm.)

EGYPTIAN INSCRIPTIONS