8/13/2019 Hall_JEA_10_1924

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/halljea101924 1/4

Egypt Exploration Society

De Egyptische Voorstellingen betreffende den Oerheuvel by Adriaan de BuckReview by: H. R. HallThe Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Jul., 1924), pp. 185-187Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3854255 .

Accessed: 09/03/2012 06:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

 Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

8/13/2019 Hall_JEA_10_1924

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/halljea101924 2/4

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 185

The name Puyemrris that which we usually spell Puamra,Puimre?,or Puyemre. Mr. Davies trans-

literates unusually at times; notably he usesj for q'. I have myself used tj for this 2, which is usually

representedby z. Of course z is a very poorrepresentativeof the Egyptian sound, which was presumablyrather S. If we do not use d in populartranscription,we should use ? rather than z. The Frenchj =; but

in English one cannot use the Frenchj, while the English j is almost as inefficienta representationof thesound as plain z. And in any casej has the fatal defect of being at once mispronouncednot only by every

German,Dutchman,and Scandinavian,but by all Slavs as well, and in their own way by the Spaniards.

Tj I have thought got over the difficulty,as it cannot be mispronouncedby the Teutons, whose tj- (= y-with ;y-consonantal)sounds very like our tch-, the transcription favoured by Sir Ernest Budge, which

however has the defect of representing one sign by as many as three. We cannot admit Mr. Davies's

plain j any more than the French dj, if we are to try at all to obtain a transliteration that is generally

intelligible by and conveys roughly the same sounds to the minds of all. One does not want dzh, which isas cumbrousas tch; z is usual: why not use the Slav X? But the Germans, he Slavs (and the Esperantists)

must themselves abandon their equally aggressive j for 9, and be content to adopt the y which is

understood by all the rest of the world as well as by themselves. They can rest assured that j in the

sense of y will never be adopted here in transliteration,popular or scientific. And as y means just thesame to them as it does to us, they might just as well adopt it and have done with it in Esperanto as wellas in Egyptian transliteration.

Mr. Davies will pardon this digression,which he has brought on himself by his writing the ancientname of Deir el-bahri in a way which a German would pronounce Yeser-yo8ru, hereas Tyeser-tyosruwould not have been so far from the truth.

I note that Mr. Davies, a proposof Puyemries representationsof foreigners, accepts Mr. Wainwright'sshifting of Keftiu from Crete to Cilicia, which I cannot wholly do, in view of the Minoan evidence. As Ihave often said, it seems to me that Mr. Wainwrightwas possiblyjustified in extending Keftiu to Cilicia,though we have as yet absolutely no archaeologicalproofthat he was; but that he was totally unjustifiedin shifting it away from Cretealtogether. We have no right to suppose that the Men of the Isles were not

Keftians, and the tomb of Rekhmirecshows us that both were Cretans as the foreigners of Sennemut'sand

Menkheperrecsenb'sombs were too, and as Puyemrecs foreignerwith the characteristic Minoanlonghair (Frontispiece)was too. The fact that another Minoan-seemingman on Plate XXXI carries a North-

Syrian vase is to my mind merely a proof of how the Egyptians confusedlyassigned to some of thesenorthernpeoples the productsof others, not of the presenceof Minoansin North Syria. We must alwaysrememberthat the Danuna, the Zakkarai,the Shardina,and the other seafaringtribes that frequentedthecoasts of Asia Minor and Phoeniciawere neither Keftians nor Minoans,possibly not any of them Cretans.But whence did Sennemut's < eftians and their vases come from but Crete? or Rekhmire('s Keftiansand Chiefs of the Isles ?

Mr. Davies has some interesting appendices: notably one on the Temples of Thebes, a comparison of

contemporary lists of temples with that given by Puyemrre. Those who are interested in religiousceremonieswill no doubt meet in his pages much that will arrest their attention. The proof-readingof thebookwouldseem to be above reproach. It is a worthy fellow to The Tombof Nakht.

H. R. HALL.

De EgyptischeVoorstellingenbetreffende en Oerheuvel, y ADRIAAN EBUCK. Proefschrift ter verkrijgingvan den graad van Doctor in de Godgeleerdheidaan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. 1922.

One of the most interesting creation-myths of the world,one that exists in the mythologies of manynations, is that which explains the first emergenceof dry land from the primevalwaste of waters, in theform of a hill. This Oerheuvel, as Mr. de Buck calls it in Dutch (in German Urhiigel ; we, havinglost the convenient prefix ur if we ever had it, can only translate the term clumsily by some such

phrase as primeval hill or mount, if it is translatableat all), is often regarded as the centre of the

universe, the navel of the world, oPqfaXeosyjv, and conventionally as its highest point, though it is

obviously often nothing of the kind. The world-navel however ought to be its summit, and is so

officially. As a matter of fact it may be a low island, like Delos, a rock as at Delphi, or a citadel likethat of Jerusalem. In all cases it is a specially holy place, an abode of divinity from most ancient times.

Delos, surroundedby the Cyclades,was the holy isle that had arisen from the waves, Delphi the centre of

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 185

The name Puyemrris that which we usually spell Puamra,Puimre?,or Puyemre. Mr. Davies trans-

literates unusually at times; notably he usesj for q'. I have myself used tj for this 2, which is usually

representedby z. Of course z is a very poorrepresentativeof the Egyptian sound, which was presumablyrather S. If we do not use d in populartranscription,we should use ? rather than z. The Frenchj =; but

in English one cannot use the Frenchj, while the English j is almost as inefficienta representationof thesound as plain z. And in any casej has the fatal defect of being at once mispronouncednot only by every

German,Dutchman,and Scandinavian,but by all Slavs as well, and in their own way by the Spaniards.

Tj I have thought got over the difficulty,as it cannot be mispronouncedby the Teutons, whose tj- (= y-with ;y-consonantal)sounds very like our tch-, the transcription favoured by Sir Ernest Budge, which

however has the defect of representing one sign by as many as three. We cannot admit Mr. Davies's

plain j any more than the French dj, if we are to try at all to obtain a transliteration that is generally

intelligible by and conveys roughly the same sounds to the minds of all. One does not want dzh, which isas cumbrousas tch; z is usual: why not use the Slav X? But the Germans, he Slavs (and the Esperantists)

must themselves abandon their equally aggressive j for 9, and be content to adopt the y which is

understood by all the rest of the world as well as by themselves. They can rest assured that j in the

sense of y will never be adopted here in transliteration,popular or scientific. And as y means just thesame to them as it does to us, they might just as well adopt it and have done with it in Esperanto as wellas in Egyptian transliteration.

Mr. Davies will pardon this digression,which he has brought on himself by his writing the ancientname of Deir el-bahri in a way which a German would pronounce Yeser-yo8ru, hereas Tyeser-tyosruwould not have been so far from the truth.

I note that Mr. Davies, a proposof Puyemries representationsof foreigners, accepts Mr. Wainwright'sshifting of Keftiu from Crete to Cilicia, which I cannot wholly do, in view of the Minoan evidence. As Ihave often said, it seems to me that Mr. Wainwrightwas possiblyjustified in extending Keftiu to Cilicia,though we have as yet absolutely no archaeologicalproofthat he was; but that he was totally unjustifiedin shifting it away from Cretealtogether. We have no right to suppose that the Men of the Isles were not

Keftians, and the tomb of Rekhmirecshows us that both were Cretans as the foreigners of Sennemut'sand

Menkheperrecsenb'sombs were too, and as Puyemrecs foreignerwith the characteristic Minoanlonghair (Frontispiece)was too. The fact that another Minoan-seemingman on Plate XXXI carries a North-

Syrian vase is to my mind merely a proof of how the Egyptians confusedlyassigned to some of thesenorthernpeoples the productsof others, not of the presenceof Minoansin North Syria. We must alwaysrememberthat the Danuna, the Zakkarai,the Shardina,and the other seafaringtribes that frequentedthecoasts of Asia Minor and Phoeniciawere neither Keftians nor Minoans,possibly not any of them Cretans.But whence did Sennemut's < eftians and their vases come from but Crete? or Rekhmire('s Keftiansand Chiefs of the Isles ?

Mr. Davies has some interesting appendices: notably one on the Temples of Thebes, a comparison of

contemporary lists of temples with that given by Puyemrre. Those who are interested in religiousceremonieswill no doubt meet in his pages much that will arrest their attention. The proof-readingof thebookwouldseem to be above reproach. It is a worthy fellow to The Tombof Nakht.

H. R. HALL.

De EgyptischeVoorstellingenbetreffende en Oerheuvel, y ADRIAAN EBUCK. Proefschrift ter verkrijgingvan den graad van Doctor in de Godgeleerdheidaan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. 1922.

One of the most interesting creation-myths of the world,one that exists in the mythologies of manynations, is that which explains the first emergenceof dry land from the primevalwaste of waters, in theform of a hill. This Oerheuvel, as Mr. de Buck calls it in Dutch (in German Urhiigel ; we, havinglost the convenient prefix ur if we ever had it, can only translate the term clumsily by some such

phrase as primeval hill or mount, if it is translatableat all), is often regarded as the centre of the

universe, the navel of the world, oPqfaXeosyjv, and conventionally as its highest point, though it is

obviously often nothing of the kind. The world-navel however ought to be its summit, and is so

officially. As a matter of fact it may be a low island, like Delos, a rock as at Delphi, or a citadel likethat of Jerusalem. In all cases it is a specially holy place, an abode of divinity from most ancient times.

Delos, surroundedby the Cyclades,was the holy isle that had arisen from the waves, Delphi the centre of

8/13/2019 Hall_JEA_10_1924

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/halljea101924 3/4

186 NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Greece,Jerusalemthe citadel that seemed to be the crown and summit of the Judaeanhills. And all were

early cult-centres. The idea of the op(aXos y'seas at Delphi has been specially studied by ROSCHERn theAbhandlunqen of the philosophical class of the Saxon Academy, 1913 and 1915, and at Jerusalem andelsewhere in the Semitic worldby WENSINCK,he Ideas of the Western emitesconcerning heNavel of the

Earth, in the Verhandlingen f the Dutch Academyat Amsterdam,1916. The ideas of the Jains, Brahmans,and Buddhists with regardto the central mountainof the earth (MountMeru)have been treated in con-nection with the Greek conceptions of the o'laaXds by Roscher. Other writers have also dealt with the

subject.Mr. de Buck has taken as the subject of his doctorate-thesis the search for a similar idea in Ancient

Egypt. He has not been unsuccessful,although the available data are scanty and by no means so clear as

among the Greeks and Semites. The profanemight say that one can find anything one likes in Egyptianreligious texts if one looks long enough, or at least that one can make anything one likes of anything inthem. This would be an exaggeratedview. The interminable cosmogonicaland theological texts contain

of courseany numberof confused and contradictorystatements, but hard sifting (if it is considered worththe trouble) will usually result in the critic being able (or believing himself able) to put forwarda theoryof what the normal Egyptian view was on this or that point of belief. Mr.de Buck considers that he has

been able to winnow out certain beliefs of the Egyptian concerning the o'?aXdos,and his view has much

probability in its favour. He finds an oerheuvel in the myths of both Heliopolis and Hermopolis,aswell as at Thebes. The yearly recurrenceof the inundationand its subsidence naturally gave rise to the

conception of the first creationof land as a mound rising from the waters of Nun. The mound on whicheach great holy place was built was naturally regardedby its priests and inhabitants as the real original

oerheuvel, the iy or high place, the hey or riser, whereonthe gods first appearedafter thetend ofthe reign of Chaosand Old Night. The sign Q does not representthe rising sun, but, as is clear fromthe way in which it is printed in coloured texts and from its oldest forms, is a round hill from behindwhich the sun's rays stream upwards: it representsthe first stream of sunlight rising at dawn beyond the

mountain of the horizon, the hill of the earth, ID0.. the mound...that raises its

headfromout the waterof Ret. Theword ( meaning mound derives ts meaning rom he

verb to appear, and the ideograph of appearing and so of the king appearing on the throne(eventually coming to mean crown or diadem ) was originallythe picture of the oerheuvel, he hey

of earth on which Ree originally appeared:v

nj#A^~w4| 9D 0. svv

G)AAQQ' <B^, I purify myself on that 'Riser' of land on which ReY purified himself (Pyr. Texts,

542). And Pepy is himself as god the isle that rises in the midst of the sea, vrawv auQpvrrJ,Sod '

o/aXos6s art OaXado-(rosOd., I, 50), (D TA: he is the centre of the

world.

At Heliopolis we find the word Kiy strongly localised as the name of the holy navel-hill. In Pyr.

Texts 1652 we find Atum Kheprer invoked as ,Gja , thou hast raisedthyself

like the Height, and in the Book of the Dead he is v- d, lord of the High Place. This

high place to which one ascended by steps Mr.de Buck identifies as the place known as The High Sand

ZI Zl[t m0

to whichking Pieankhirepaired o make his offeringswhen he entered

Heliopolis to see his father Ree in the sacredBenben-chamber nd thus legitimize himself in the North as

rightful pharaoh. It is significant that he went to the High Sand after he had bathed in the Nile,

representing the Stream of Nun from which the oerheuvel had risen 01 . Mr.de Buck

considersthat this high-place was the original , the mound with its obelisk on it, from which the Fifth

Dynasty sun-shrines at Abusir were copied. After he had made the offeringon the hill Pitankhi ascended

the great stairway and entered the Benben-chamber.

8/13/2019 Hall_JEA_10_1924

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/halljea101924 4/4

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 187

The importance of the High Place at Heliopolis is obvious, but it is not so easy to identify it as anodfAaX\osijs or even as a simple oerheuvel with no suggestion of a central navel unless, with Mr. de

Buck, we assume that almost every holy place was in general belief an oerheuvel, that the holy placewas also a high place upon which Rec first appeared,and wherethe king took his seat uponhis throne, as at

Heliopolis. In Babyloniathe zikkurrat,which was designedly an imitation of a mountain, is consideredbyDombart to have been also the seat of the sun-god. On the cylinder seals we often see the god climbingthe steps of his zikk?urrat.

At Hermopoliswe find more definite idea of an oerheuvel ; Rec when he began to appear as king

1^< uLH0 ? wasupon hek of Hermopolis, Iq ak

9S f {}

--k__ C. This mound is also described as the Isle of Flame, z in

the PyramidTextscZ

A 1Q (4 9, which remindsus of the e-island behind which rose the flame

of the sun-god'srising. The 17th chapter of the Book of the Dead refers to the Hermopolitanbelief: see

GRAPOW,n Urkunden, v.

At Thebes we find Karnak describedon one ofHatshepsuts

obelisks as zALq(,1i

J

the noble Mound of the First Time, or as we should say, of the earliest ages, of the beginning of

things : de eerwaarde heuvel van het oerbegin. Karnak was then distinctly an oerheuvel. Othertexts convey the same idea: Thebes is the Mound(dky)placed in Nun at the beginning, and this mound

was the central point where creation began (IP I I --; see SETHE, Thebanische

Tempelinschriften, assim).FollowingLef6bure,Mr. de Buck points out the oft ignored importance of the god Tanen or Tatenen

(T?tnn)as an earth-godand so the colleague of Qeb,with whom he is sometimes implicitly identified,ashe is constantly and openly with Ptah as Ptah-Tanen. With the Nubian Dedun, the original of theTith6nos of the Greeks,he had nothing to do. The spelling of the name of the god with the symbol uswas no doubt a comparativelyancient hieroglyphic pun, so to speak, in view of his function as the god of

the earth(tt): it couldalsobe spelt U-4 or ci 44- . Sethe supposes hat the syllabic

spelling as _ .4-- points to a foreignorigin,and that he was the god of Sinai (wherehe often occurs

in inscriptions: GARDINER-PEET,nscr. of Sinai, I, No. 53) and presided over metal working: hence hisidentification with Ptah-Hephaistos the smith. This may well be, but Ptah himself, the Opener, s

probablyof Semitic origin, and like him, Tanen may have been introduced into the Egyptian pantheon in

very early days. He is often referredto as the most ancient of gods. Ptah-Tanen is the god who formed

the oerheuvel into dry land after it emerged from the waters: --

vho <fom3 Fha......

hhh sthou hast formed the land......when thou wast in thy activity as Tatenen, in thy manifestation as the

uniter of both lands...... thou hast drawnit (the land) fromout the waters of Nun.Mr. de Buck concludes his study with a section on the oerheuvel in connection with the royal

ascension of the throne and the Sed festival, which is interesting.I have endeavouredabove to give the outline of Mr. de Buck's thesis in my own wordsand with a few

addedremarks. The generalcomment that I should be inclined to make is that while he has conclusivelyshown the existence of the oerheuvel idea in Egypt, this does not altogether correspondto what theGreeks meant by the o/baXbo yis. There is no strictly analogous idea of a world navel, no umbilicus,properly speaking,with its connection with the underworldand its life-giving properties connected withthe function of the navel-cord,in Egypt: no navel word is used. The nearest approach is when Pepyas a god is invoked as himself the central island of the earth, rising from the sea. The idea of the sacredfirst land is there, certainly.

Mr. de Buck's work is interesting, and he has well utilized his various authorities, both ancient and

modern. H. R. HALL.