¹ See François Lenormant, Essai sur la Propagation de 1'Alphabet Phénicien, I, p. 87.

² Nöldeke, Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 124–136; Lidzbarski, ‘Die Namen der Alphabetbuchstaben,’ Ephemeris, II, 125 ff.; Sayce, ‘The Origin of the Semitic Alphabet,’ PSBA, 31, pp. 215 ff.; Gardiner, op. cit.; Grimme, Althebräische Inschriften vom Sinai, 25 ff. Sethe has gone over the field again in a series of articles which deserve all praise: ‘Der Ursprung des Alphabets,’ in Nachrichten, Göttingen Academy, Geschäftliche Mitteilungen, 1916, 88–161Google Scholar; ‘Die Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift und die Entstehung der semitischen Schrift,’ Ibid., 1917, 437–475; ‘Die wissenschaftliche Bedeutung der Petrie'schen Sinaifunde,’ ZDMG, 80, 24 ff. The older works of Praetorius should not be forgotten. More recently Jensen, Hans has published his Geschichte der Schrift, Hannover, 1925Google Scholar; see the bibliography there given. To forestall misunderstanding of the necessarily controversial discussion of technical questions which follows in the present article, I would emphasize that the criticism by other scholars of Grimme's translation of the inscriptions has given to many an inadequate impression of the value of the rest of his work. His application of genuine scholarship to the problem has shown the way to further progress, and from his publications on the Sinai inscriptions there is much to be learned.

³ The principle of Lenormant has been rejected by Bauer-Leander, , Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache, 1922, pp. 62 ff.Google Scholar; but the correctness of the acrophonic principle is emphasized by the new inscriptions. In these, in all cases where we are sure of the meaning of the name, we find that it corresponds accurately to the object designated. There are obscurities yet remaining, but where two thirds of the letters verify the hypothesis and agreement is being reached for the others, the hypothesis passes into moral certitude.

⁴ See the remarks of P. Ronzevalle, S. J., ‘Note sur le Texte Phénicien de la Flèche publiée par M. P. E. Guigues,’ in Mélanges de l'Université Saint Joseph, XI, 329 ff.; Lidzbarski, Theol. Lit.-Zeitung, 1921, p. 50. Arguing on this principle, some scholars have proposed for some of the Sinaitic signs a phonetic value which has now been abandoned. Thus the fish of our Sinaitic inscriptions (samekh) was given the value of daleth, first letter of Hebrew נר ‘fish’ the sign which we read as shin was read as qoph, because it was thought to be a bow, Hebrew חשק. See Cowley, ‘The Origin of the Semitic Alphabet,’ in JEA, III, 17 ff. The services of Cowley in the decipherment of the Sinai inscriptions should have received more recognition than has generally been given them.

⁵ Gardiner, Sethe, and Grimme in the writings cited above; also Grimme in his Die Lösung d. Sinaischriftproblems: die altthamudische Schrift; Ullman, ‘The Origin and Development of the Alphabet,’ in American Journal of Archaeology, 1927, pp. 311 ff.

⁶ It is very questionable, however, whether there is any justification for distinguishing in the Thamudean script two successive stages, one ancient and the other recent. As Savignac points out (Revue Biblique, 1927, p. 275 ff.), there is not a single inscription written in its entirety in the so-called Old Thamudean. The Old Thamudean alphabet has been elaborated by selecting signs from a number of inscriptions in which they occur along with other signs classified as New Thamudean. It is also questionable whether any of the Thamudean inscriptions are really ancient. PP. Jaussen and Savignac are of opinion that the Thamudean inscriptions are later than the Mineo-Sabean or than the Liḥyanitic. The Midianite inscriptions on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqabah have never been collected. It is probable that the Semites of our inscriptions came in contact with the Midianites, as we read at a later date in the history of Moses, and it is greatly to be hoped that an expedition can soon be organized. The two Dominican scholars have often planned one, but hitherto political circumstances have prevented it.

⁷ See below, the Remarks on the Sinai Alphabet. Waw, yod, zain are some of these controverted signs.

⁸ See Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, p. 86 ff.; on ‘and ġ, see p. 37; see also the bibliography given by the author. When speaking of t and t, we do not refer to the double sounds of the Beḡaḏkepaṯ; these are not different letters, but only different pronunciations of the same letter according to its relation to a preceding vowel; see E. A. Speiser, ‘The Pronunciation of Hebrew,’ JQR, 1926, pp. 370 ff.

⁹ Sethe, Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, pp. 459 f.

¹⁰ Sethe, Ursprung des Alphabets, p. 134.

¹¹ Althebräische Inschriften vom Sinai, p. 32. In this he was followed by Furlani in at least one instance; see the review of Grimme's work in Rivista degli Studi Orientali, X, 693 ff.

¹² Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik, pp. 128 f.

¹³ Flinders Petrie, Researches, pp. 129–181.

¹⁴ Gardiner, p. 13; Sethe, Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, pp. 465 ff.; Wissenschaftliche Bedeutung, p. 40.

¹⁵ Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, p. 465.

¹⁶ Flinders Petrie, Researches, pp. 62 ff.; Gardiner and Peet, Inscriptions of Sinai, Plate LXXXIV.

¹⁷ Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, p. 466.

¹⁸ See, however, Spiegelberg, Orientalische Literaturzeitung, 1926, 735 ff. On the Aḥiram inscription, see among others H. Vincent, Revue Biblique, 1925, and the bibliography there given.

¹⁹ See Guigues, ‘Pointe de flèche en bronze,’ in Mélanges de l'Université Saint Joseph, XI, 325; Ronzevalle, ‘Note sur le texte phénicien de la flèche publiée par M. P. E. Guigues,’ Ibid., 329 ff.

²⁰ If von Bissing had known the inscription of Aḥiram, he could not have assigned such a relatively late date to our inscriptions as he does in his Die Datierung der Petrie'-schen Sinaiinschriften, 1920; see the criticism by Sethe, Wissenschaftliche Bedeutung, p. 40.

²¹ See Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, pp. 465 ff.; Wissenschaftliche Bedeutung, pp. 40 ff.

²² Whether the word ‘A’amu is derived from the Semitic םע, as is commonly believed, or is a genuine Egyptian word from םאע ‘boomerang,’ as maintained by W. Max Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, pp. 121 ff., it is apparently certain that the word was pronounced ‘A’ ami, plur. ‘A’ amiw, as is attested by Coptic ‘ame,’ plur. ‘amīou’ ‘herdsman.’ In either case, it must have been a gentilicium, ‘member of the people’ or ‘boomerang-thrower.’ On the presence of the Semites, see nos. 24, 85, 110, 112, in Gardiner and Peet, Inscriptions in Sinai.

²³ See Flinders Petrie, Researches, pp. 116 ff.; and no. 85 in Gardiner and Peet's Inscriptions of Sinai.

²⁴ See Ullman (cited above, note 5), pp. 324 ff. Ullman reaches the same conclusion as the one advocated here; he also maintains that the Sinai inscriptions are not the first attempt at writing in this script. His interesting article presents other considerations which tend to show that our alphabet is older than 1500 B.C. This section of Ullman's article deserves particular attention.

²⁵ The bibliography on this point is too extensive to be given here. Of the scholars who have written on this problem since the publication of the inscriptions, nearly all have already been mentioned, Gardiner, Sethe, Cowley, Sayce, Eisler, Bruston, Grimme. We may add here Schaefer, ‘Die Vokallosigkeit des phönizischen Alphabets,’ in Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache, 1916; Lehmann-Haupt, ‘Zur Herkunft des Alphabets,’ ZDMG, 73, pp. 51 ff.; Kalinka, ‘Der Ursprung der Buchstabenschrift,’ in Klio, XVI, pp. 302 ff.; Cook, in Cambridge Ancient History, III, pp. 416 ff., 739; Jensen, Geschichte der Schrift, pp. 109 ff. Jensen still has doubts about the Egyptian origin of the Semitic alphabet; he does not seem to have been acquainted at the time of writing with the latest discoveries at Byblos.

²⁶ Ursprung des Alphabets, pp. 126 ff.; Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, pp. 455 ff.; Wissenschaftliche Bedeutung, pp. 31 ff.

²⁷ Sethe, Ursprung des Alphabets, pp. 118 ff., 151 ff.

²⁸ Idem, Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift. pp. 472 f.

²⁹ Sethe, Ursprang des Alphabets, p. 127; Wissenschaftliche Bedeutung, pp. 29 ff.

³⁰ Idem, Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, pp. 461 ff. This practice has survived in many of the subsequent Semitic inscriptions, both in the South and North; see Jaussen and Savignac, Mission Archéologique en Arabie, vols. I and II, passim; Grimme, Die Lösung des Sinaischriftproblems, pp. 33 ff.; Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik, p. 125. On all this section see Sethe, Wissenschaftliche Bedeutung, pp. 33 ff.

³¹ Flinders Petrie, Researches, chapter xiii.

³² See Jensen, Geschichte der Schrift, pp. 102 ff.

³³ Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, pp. 454 f.

³⁴ Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, p. 467.

³⁵ Althebräische Inschriften vom Sinai, pp. 19 ff. He thus revives the system of de Rougé.

³⁶ ‘Di una iscrizione paleoebraica Sinaitica del Museo Egiziano del Cairo,’ in Rivista degli Studi Orientali, X (1925), pp. 593 ff.Google Scholar See Sethe, Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift, p. 452.

³⁷ Proceedings Soc. Bibl. Archaeology, XXX, 1908, 243.Google Scholar

³⁸ Revue de Théologie, Montauban, XX, 177; XXI, 176.

³⁹ JEA, III, 17. See above.

⁴⁰ Zur Entzifferung der neuentdeckten Sinaischrift, 1918.

⁴¹ Internat. Monatschrift, XV, 248 ff.

⁴² Theol. Litztg., 1921, 49. It is difficult to do justice to everyone, as the work has been a slow process, in which many have had a share.

⁴³ ‘Die Neuentdeckte Sinai-Schrift,’ 1917.

⁴⁴ Die Kenitischen Weihinschriften der Hyksoszeit, 1919.

⁴⁵ ‘Les plus vieilles inscriptions Cananéennes,’ in Revue Archéologique, Série V, XIV (1921), 49 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Althebräische Inschriften vom Sinai, 1923. This was severely criticized by Sethe in the article referred to several times already, ZDMG, 80 (1926), pp. 24 ffGoogle Scholar. To this criticism Grimme made answer in an article in the same Review, ‘Hjatsepsu und die Sinaischriftdenkmäler,’ ZDMG, 80, 137 ff, with a Nachwort by Sethe, p. 151. In the same year Grimme also published a more lengthy justification: Die Lösung des Sinaischriftproblems, 1926. Further criticism is found in Schaumberger, ‘Die angeblichen Inschriften vom Sinai,’ in Biblica, VI (1925), 26 ff.Google Scholar, 156 ff., and Smith, J. M. P., ‘A New Disclosure from Sinai,’ in Journal of Religion, 1926, 195 ff.Google Scholar; the main criticism is that Grimme read as letters what was not there. Grimme in his answers has hardly answered his critics on this point, and we shall see that they were right. Yet Grimme has added a great deal to our knowledge and his merit should not be minimized.

⁴⁷ ‘Mose oder Menassae? Neue Beiträge zu den hebräischen Inschriften der mosaischen Zeit vom Sinai,’ in Nieuw Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1925, pp. 215–244. Völter has also published a monograph in which he draws what proved to be hasty historical inferences from Grimme's translation: Die althebräischen Inschriften vom Sinai und ihre historische Bedeutung, Leipzig, 1924.Google Scholar On the whole controversy see Furlani, ‘Yahu. Sapdu e una presunta Iscrizione di Mose,’ in Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana, New Series, I, pp. 1 ff.

⁴⁸ As to Nos. 354 and 355, nothing can be said, because of our lack of acquaintance with their contents.

⁴⁹ It is hard to form an opinion on the relation of this workshop to Mine L. Was the mine under operation when the tablets were written? Had it been closed, or had it not yet been opened? If we knew the exact position of this workshop we might venture an opinion, but the front of the mine has evidently crumbled down (Petrie, Researches, p. 130). Our tablets lie among fallen rocks, and they themselves may also have fallen from the cliff above the mine; if so, they may have been there long before the mine was in operation.