From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain? A Theory on the Origins and Development of the Name Abdju

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain? A Theory on the Origins and Development of the Name Abdju Josef Wegner University of Pennsylvania

A

fter more than a century of archaeological activity at Abydos, Egyptology has assembled a detailed picture of the evolution of that site. From its origins in the Nagada I through a phase of growing political importance that culminated in the period of Nagada III–Dynasty 0, scholars now appreciate the role that Abydos had as the location of the burials of a series of late Predynastic rulers and the first pharaohs of the Early Dynastic Period. Subsequently, the emergence of the cult of Osiris and its impact in shaping the prominence of Abydos as a major Upper Egyptian ceremonial center is well documented. Despite the increasing sophistication of our archaeological picture of Abydos, it is perhaps surprising that the origins and meaning of the very name of Abydos during the pharaonic periods—AbDw—remain little understood. A majority of authors remain reticent on the issue of the origin and meaning of this place name. Part of the silence on the topic may derive from the relatively simple phonetic spelling of the name from its earliest attestation in the Old Kingdom, a factor that complicates analysis of the etymology of the toponym. A second issue which inevitably presents scholars with pause in discussing the original meaning of the name AbDw is the fact that we possess no certain attestation of the name prior to its appearance in the Old Kingdom. When Abydos first appears in Old Kingdom funerary prayers and in the Pyramid Texts it is already written with variants of the familiar orthography seen in subsequent periods. Was the historical toponym AbDw one that derived ultimately from the Predynastic place-name of the site? In view of the significant shifts in function of Abydos - from that of a royal necropolis, to that of ceremonial center integrally tied to Osirian religious practices - a continuity in use of the name AbDw from Predynastic times can by no means be assumed. The vacuum on the early toponyms associated with Abydos has been broken in recent years, stemming largely from the publication of the material from the Nagada IIIA period tomb U-j at Umm el-Gaab. Within the corpus of inscribed tags in that tomb occur a number bearing an elephant symbol atop a triple-peaked mountain hieroglyph. Günter Dreyer interpreted the text

473

Wegner

on these tags as an archaic writing of the toponym Ab-Dw, with meaning “Elephant-Mountain.” He argued that the historical place-name had its origins in the late Predynastic period through virtue of a king Elephant, a hypothetical predecessor of king Scorpion, the presumed occupant of tomb U-j (Dreyer 1998: 140–141, 173–180). The historical toponym Abydos thus meant in origin something akin to: “Mountain of (King) Elephant.” More recently, considerable doubt regarding Dreyer’s interpretation has emerged as a result of Jochem Kahl’s masterful reanalysis of the tomb U-j tags (Kahl 2003: 112–135). Calling attention to parallels with the writing of historically attested toponyms, Kahl has argued convincingly that many of the tags, including those with the elephant + cliffs combination, can be read as toponyms as well as designations of regions that form precursors to the historical nomes. Kahl reads the elephant and triple peaked cliff sign not as an archaic writing for AbDw, but rather simply the toponym Abw, Elephantine. Kahl suggests that designations for a number of Abydene locales are represented in the U-j tags. These include the “region of Khentiamentiu” (possibly the necropolis zone of Abydos) the “eastern cliff-land” and “western cliff-land;” and district of Horus (possibly Cemetery U). Nowhere represented, however, is an antecedent to the historical toponym AbDw. Seemingly, Abydos in the Tomb U-j label corpus was not constituted as a single overarching toponym but through a set of specific designations for subdivisions of what we may consider the wider entity of Abydos. Kahl’s reanalysis of Dreyer’s original suggestions helps to bring into clearer focus the issues surrounding the origins of the name AbDw. Despite its doubtful occurrence in the tomb U-j tags, we have to consider whether the toponym could in fact have Predynastic origins. Might it indeed have originally meant Elephant (Ab) Mountain (Dw), even while discarding the dubious reading of AbDw in the tomb U-j tags? Many other sites represented in the U-j inscriptions—including Elephantine (Abw), Hierakonpolis (Nxn), Letopolis (¢m), Bubastis (BAst), Buto (©bawt)—do employ early writings of their historically attested toponyms. Why not Abydos? This paper presents thoughts on the origins of the toponym AbDw considered in the context of the topography and landscape of the site itself. Although inherent limitations exist in the available data for the origins of the name Abydos, it appears that further consideration of the name’s potential origins may be fruitful, and at least offer some new avenues through which to understand early Abydos. One proposal is that AbDw is, in fact, to be identified as an archaic toponym for the site as a whole. The original meaning might well be Elephant (Ab(w)) Mountain (Dw)—with the literal meaning of “Elephant of the Mountain”—although for reasons other than those that Dreyer posited. One possible explanation is that this name derives from the immediate landscape of Abydos itself, and represents an expression of the way the physical setting of the site was conceptualized during the earliest periods of the site’s development. Abydos’ proximity to a cliff formation which has a distinctive zoomorphic and particularly elephantine appearance could potentially explain the earliest meaning of the name. If this is not the case, however, we have to consider the alternative: that the toponym AbDw is entirely a creation of the site’s Dynastic development: perhaps to be situated in the rise to prominence of the Osiris cult in the period subsequent to the use of Umm el-Gaab as a royal necropolis. This paper is offered as an appreciation to David O’Connor for his significant contributions to the study of ancient Abydos.

Elephant-Mountain?

The site of Abydos is located on the low desert on the western side of the Nile at a distance of some 15 kilometers from the river. The reason that the site developed in this particular locale remains ultimately uncertain, although from the time of its earliest origins, Abydos’ location may

474

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain?

have been influenced by the position of the associated town, and later nome capital, Thinis (Helck 1987; Kemp 1976: 28–29). The relative role of Abydos versus Thinis as the actual political center of the elites represented in the Predynastic burials at Umm el-Gaab is open to debate. It appears quite probable that Abydos’ origins lay as an elite cemetery site on the desert margin to the local west of the—currently unlocated—town of Thinis. Within the setting of its desert bay, one of the defining charFig. 1: Satellite view of the Abydos embayment showing position of the site acteristics of Abydos is in the southern half of the bay. the way the site grew up to occupy the southernmost section of that embayment. The greater bay that contains Abydos covers a total area of some 3 × 5 km. However, the town and cemetery fields of Abydos through all periods remained largely confined to the southern half of the bay (Fig.1). The early site extends from the position of the ancient settlement core, the Kom es-Sultan, westwards to Umm el-Gaab which occupies a low rise circumscribed by the low-desert wadi that served as natural route of approach to the necropolis. The position of Umm el-Gaab might originally have been related to the high desert wadi behind it as a symbolic western point of entry to the netherworld. Gravitation towards the southern end of the bay undoubtedly was solidified during the pharaonic period by the role of Umm el-Gaab as the symbolic tomb of Osiris with the low-desert wadi forming a ceremonial axis between the Osiris-Khentiamentiu temple precinct and that sacred site. Once this combination of ritual elements was formally established, tendency was for activity over long periods to nucleate tightly around this focal point of the site (Richards 2005; Pouls-Wegner 2002; Kemp 1975). Although these characteristics of the site are well known, the way this particular landscape might have related to early conceptions of “Abydos” as a place warrants further consideration. Naturally, the wider frame of the greater Abydos bay form a visual backdrop to the site. The disposition of the site at the southern end of this embayment, however, means that it is the gebel at the south end of the bay that physically defines the setting and location of Abydos proper (Fig. 2). The cliffs forming the south end of the embayment run in a local east-west line between the high desert wadi behind Umm el-Gaab until they reach a point 1 km. from the edge of the floodplain.

475

Wegner

Fig. 2: Satellite view of Abydos showing disposition of the Kom es-Sultan, Umm el-Gaab and core elements of the site to the cliff prominence.

Fig. 3: View of the cliff prominence as seen from the Kom es-Sultan (with Middle Kingdom cenotaphs and Portal Temple of Ramses II in the foreground).

476

There the cliffs turn abruptly towards the south-east. This turning point is characterized by a slight rise in elevation creating a distinctive rounded prominence. This area marks the closest part of the cliffs to Kom es-Sultan. It visually dominates that site as well as the wadi approach out to Umm el-Gaab (Fig. 3). It is important to observe that for ancient travelers who approached Abydos from the direction of the Nile, it may well have been this prominent turning point in the gebel that logically served as an effective means of finding Abydos’ location. Particularly in early periods when road and canal systems may not have been so permanently established, this feature of the Abydene landscape may have formed a prominent topographical symbol and visual marker of Abydos. For that reason, during the early periods in the site, Abydos itself and the cliff formation that dominates its location could well have become notionally linked. In addition, viewed from

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain?

the center of Abydosthe Kom es-Sultan- it is this cliff formation that forms the most prominent element of the landscape. As one moves from the Kom es-Sultan and approaches Umm elGaab, it is this natural landform that visually dominates that central east to west axis linking town and royal Fig. 4: Possible elephantine visualization of the Abydene cliffs. necropolis. Hence, both to people approaching from distance, as well as to the site’s permanent population, we may see this prominent cliff formation at the south end of the embayment as an indelible natural symbol and marker of Abydos. If this prominent cliff formation was so closely associated with Abydos, could it have served also in the formation of the name of Abydos? This possibility is suggested by the actual morphology of the cliff as it appears from the position of the Kom es-Sultan and along the wadi approach to Umm el-Gaab. The formation of the cliff-line at the south end of the embayment is such that it is broken in midpoint by a wadi descending from the gebel top. The local eastern section of the cliff—from the rounded turning point up to this break—together form a visually distinct section. Not only does this part of the cliffs stand apart, but it is divided into three separate subsections: (1) the turning point in the cliff line which rises up slightly to a rounded prominence, (2) a straight mid section, today heavily sanded at its base (and likely so-too in ancient times); and (3) the western section which is rises up in two highpoints to form two lobes before curving downwards at the point where the cliffs are broken by the wadi. An interesting feature of this combination of elements is that it takes no great leap of imagination to visualize this part of the cliffs as together forming a distinctive animal profile with the rounded rump, midsection and head oriented towards the local west. The entire shape is suggestive of the profile of a recumbent quadruped facing outwards towards the main wadi entrance behind the royal cemetery, and whose body extends parallel to the low desert approach to Umm el-Gaab. In particular we may observe that the “head” end, with its lobes and curving descent into the wadi, appears distinctively elephantine (Fig. 4). The lobes create the impression of the animal’s ears and the curve down to the wadi is evocative of the projecting profile of an elephant’s trunk. Certainly the silhouette created by this part of the cliffs would by no means need to be seen in this manner by the ancient population of Abydos. Nevertheless, it appears to the current writer that the impression is striking enough that it would be not at all surprising if they came to visualize the essential silhouette of a recumbent elephant, or some other quadruped, embodied in this area of the cliffs. Could it be this cliff formation that forms the origin of the toponym AbDw? In view of the way that this natural landform so visually dominates the landscape of Abydos and—as suggested above—may have served as the logical means of locating the site, we may entertain the possibility that the ancient Egyptians developed this association early in the development of the

477

Wegner

Fig. 5: Orthographic variations of AbDw: (1) standard writings; (2) use of a terminal t; (3) substitution of iAb sign (4) use of triplepeaked mountain sign; (5) use of ¦A-wr Osiris emblem for writing of ¦A-wr AbDw ("Thinite Abydos") and substituted in place of Ab (for full citations see: Gauthier 1925; Montet 1961; Zibelius 1978; Gomaà 1986).

site. It is perhaps unnecessary to point out the considerable interest evinced in Predynastic and Protodynastic artwork in animal life, particularly in depicting the association between animals, deserts and mountainscapes. It is that type of conceptual and artistic expression that could be fundamentally linked with the identification of such a landform as possessing animal attributes. Furthermore, we may note the fundamental role of animal emblems both in late Predynastic royal iconography and particularly as symbols of geographical entities. The animal-based emblems of many towns and the historical nomes can clearly be traced back to Predynastic origins (Helck 1974; Zibelius 1979). On that basis we may entertain the possibility that the toponym AbDw might indeed in this case have the original meaning “Elephant (Ab(w)) Mountain (Dw)” (or literally Elephant of the Mountain) and that its roots extend back into the formative period of Abydos.

Orthography and Meaning of the Toponym

In hypothesizing an origin of the toponym Abydos in a symbolic interpretation of the landscape early in the site’s development, we arrive at the issue of the writing of the name AbDw itself. One critical link in this model is how to interpret the name through its attested orthography (Fig. 5). The name of Abydos appears first in the textual record during the Old Kingdom and chronologically parallels the appearance of the designation ¦A-wr, “great/ancient land” for the Abydene (8th Upper Egyptian) nome (Helck 1974: 90-93; Zibelius 1978: 8-9; and for list of occurrences, Hannig 2003: 1542). From the point at which AbDw first appears, it occurs with variations on the familiar spelling. Writings of the name normally employ the chisel hieroglyph (Gardiner sign U23, mr or Ab) functioning as a biliteral Ab, accompanied by alphabetic A or b as phonetic complements (for Middle Kingdom variants, Gomaà 1973: 198-204). The name normally employs the Dw -mountain hieroglyph, often accompanied by an w phonetic complement, and ends with niwt town determinative. Variations include: (1) use of the triple-peaked xAst-desert hills symbol in place of the Dwmountain symbol or as a determinative, (2) use of a terminal t after the Dw-sign, (3) substitution

478

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain?

of either the iAb standard (Gardiner sign R15), or the ¦A-wr Osiris emblem (Gardiner sign R17) in place of the biliteral Ab-sign (Gauthier 1925: pp. 3–4; Montet 1961: 99–107). One key point of consideration lies in how to understand the occurrence of the Dw-mountain sign in the toponym AbDw. Logically one might read this as “mountain” or “hill,” with a suggested root meaning for the toponym as “Ab-mountain.” However, the manner in which the Dw-sign is used is that of a phoneme: a biliteral. It is necessary therefore to query whether it is being used in this case to connote the idea of “mountain,” or is functioning purely phonetically to spell a name that includes the consonant D and w-semi vowel. In standard spellings of AbDw the Dw-sign does not terminate the word, and it is never a determinative for the name. The toponym ends rather with the niwt-town sign. This contrasts, for example, with writings of Abw, Elephantine, where the desert land sign typically occurs as a double determinative in combination with the town-sign. We may witness, however, a hint that the connotation “mountain” does pertain to Dw in the periodic substitution of the triple-peaked desert cliffs sign as mentioned above (examples: Fig. 5:4). It is here that I would propose that in the case of AbDw we may witness a toponym that may have developed well prior to the period of its first occurrence in the textual record. Orthographically it is written using a combination of biliterals and phonetic complements suggesting the name itself was considered to form a single bound entity. Distinguishing the meaning of the constituent elements was not considered to be significant. Although difficult to demonstrate conclusively, it appears most probable that the toponym AbDw is in fact composed of a bipartite name Ab+Dw in which the root meaning is that of a “mountain” associated with the element Ab(w). How one interprets Ab defines how one understands the origins of the toponym for Abydos. Does the Ab element in AbDw denote the word Ab(w) elephant? In view of the fact that it occurs only phonetically, and is not explicitly written using the elephant-hieroglyph, one must hasten to stress that interpretation is not the only possibility. Other root meanings for Ab might be proposed. For instance, the verb Ab, “to pause/stop,” might potentially be combined with the mountain sign to indicate “place of stopping.” The suggestion made above that the cliff-prominence at Abydos was used as a visual means of locating the site might fit with such a reading. Also, the fact that at least from the time of the Old Kingdom, Abydos was the main terminus for the Khargeh oasis desert route, could have given rise to the notion of Abydos as a desert-edge stopping point. If the original meaning of Ab was “elephant,” it is not explicitly marked as such during the Dynastic period. Yet, we must also point out that the phonetic writing of this element of the name occurs in essentially the same format as frequently occurs in the writing of Abw, Elephantine. Although an elephant-hieroglyph is commonly used in the toponym of Elephantine, simpler phonetic spellings are equally common. These variants dispense with the elephant sign and employ the same combination of chisel-sign with phonetic complements as occurs in AbDw (indeed, for that reason, AbDw and Abw have occasionally in the past been mistaken for one another in some texts!). One should note that writings of both 3bw “elephant” and 3bw, “Elephantine,” typically include the w-semivowel (for Old Kingdom examples, Zibelius 1978: 3–4). This element does not occur in wrings of AbDw. However, writings of both “elephant” and “Elephantine” quite frequently dispense with the terminal w. Therefore, use of Ab without a following w may be equally tenable as “elephant.” An indication that a medial vowel may, in fact, have existed in the pronunciation of AbDw may be reflected in the Coptic writing for Abydos. The toponym is written as ebwt or abot in Coptic, also carried into Aramaic as abwd or abw¦ (Černy 1976: 344; Vycichl 1983: 39–40; Kemp 1975: 28). This may indicate the original presence in pronunciation of an u/o vowel between Ab and Dw (and it is the presence of this medial vowel that permitted the association of the originally unrelated Greek toponym ἌβυδοϚ with Egyptian Ab(w)Dw). Hence, although no w

479

Wegner

is written, it may have existed in pronunciation suggesting the Ab(w) element in AbDw could well originally have represented the word for elephant. Beyond the orthography, there also exists the issue of what grammatical construction may be represented in the Ab(w) + Dw combination. Unless the Dw element is an original determinative that became vocalized, the construction seems necessarily then to be a direct genitive. This would imply that if Ab(w) means elephant, a literal rendering of the toponym would be “Elephant of the Mountain.” This use of a direct genitive could additionally explain why a medial w was dropped in writing as it may have been vocalized not as a terminal w semi-vowel but as a short medial vowel. The preceding discussion has considered the issues surrounding identification of the meaning of the toponym based on the phonetic value and possible meaning of the elements Ab and Dw. There exists an additional possibility for interpretation of the Ab element which has been hinted at in the literature, although never fully articulated as an explanation for the etymology of AbDw. Writing in 1900, Petrie proposed that the Ab element in the toponym of Abydos is meant to articulate the idea of the Osiris reliquary or fetish. He suggests that where you see the toponym fully spelled in the Seti temple, it employs the Osiris reliquary in place of the Ab sign (Petrie 1900: 30). The implied meaning then is something like “mountain/hill of the Osiris reliquary.” This attractive proposition would base the origin of the toponym in the principal religious symbol of Abydos which also became the symbol for the Thinite nome: ¦A-wr. However, several orthographic and chronological issues complicate this suggestion. Examining the richest set of writings of AbDw-in the Seti temple- one finds that spellings of the word in that building’s largeformat inscriptions do not differ in any appreciable way from the standard orthography. The way in which the Ab sign is written in fact does not resemble depictions of the Osiris reliquary (contra Petrie). This is seen most clearly where detailed depiction of the reliquary and writing of AbDw occur in the same scene (see for example, Gardiner 1933: pl. 11). The Ab symbol lacks the distinctive ‘beehive’ shape of the Osiris reliquary, and uses a different decorative and color system. Where 19th Dynasty artists had an opportunity in the Seti temple for use of a more detailed Ab sign, they conspicuously did not substitute use of a clear reliquary symbol. We may note that there do exist writings of the toponym in which the Osiris reliquary / ¦A-wr emblem is substituted in place of the Ab sign. This practice appears almost certainly, however, to be a late orthographic development (Fig. 5:5). Already from the earliest occurrence of AbDw in the Old Kingdom the toponym was regularly preceded by the ¦A-wr emblem with the meaning of “Abydos of the Thinite nome” or “Thinite Abydos” (Helck 1974: 91). This writing is frequent in the Middle Kingdom (Gomaà 1973: 198–204) and implies that the substitution of the Osiris reliquary in place of Ab is a logical progression from the earlier juxtaposition of ¦A-wr and AbDw to a hybrid writing. Beside the orthographic evidence, however, there does exist an intriguing, undated funerary model in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Fig. 6) that shows the Osiris reliquary emblem attached to a three-dimensional Dw-mountain symbol (MMA 11.150.46: Winlock 1921: fig. 4). It appears improbable that this object is a three-dimensional spelling of the name of Abydos. Nevertheless it articulates the concept of the setting up of the reliquary upon a hill or mountain. Perhaps in this case the Ab element does refer to the Osiris reliquary in a different way. The phonetic value Ab alone could perhaps be the name of the emblem itself. Alternatively, a derivation again based on the verb Ab “to stop /rest” might create a topographical statement on Abydos as “mountain resting place (of the Osiris reliquary).” Although the orthography of the toponym makes it difficult again to establish any clear asso-

480

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain?

ciation of the Ab element with the Abydene Osiris reliquary, we may regard this as another possible etymology. Chronologically the period for the emergence of this toponym might appear logically to be the span of time following the use of Umm el-Gaab as a royal necropolis and the emergence of the Osiris cult at Abydos. The antiquity of the Osiris reliquary, however, is an issue that remains open to discussion. Although the bulk of our evidence for this Abydene religious symbol is late, some scholars have posited an early development of the symbol, associating it in origin with the Thinite nome god Anhur and with Khentiamentiu. It may have been only secondarily absorbed into the framework of the developing Osiris cult at Abydos through the syncretism of Osiris and Khentiamentiu (Winlock 1921: 21–25; Griffiths 1980). Conceivably, therefore, this explanation would not preclude an Early Dynastic and Predynastic antecedent to the toponym AbDw. This interpretation constitutes a second viable model in which AbDw originally was understood as the “mountain/hill resting place (of the Abydene emblem).” With the development of the Osiris cult, its meaning ultimately became the “mountain/hill resting place (of the Osiris reliquary).”

Evidence for the Late Predynastic–Early Dynastic Toponyms of Abydos

In searching for evidence for the early formation of the toponym AbDw, the logical timeframe to consider is the period from Nagada IIIA through the Early Dynastic Period. It is during this chronological horizon when Abydos reached the height of its political importance and during which one might expect its toponym to have become regularly written in administrative records such as tags and jar inscriptions as well as perhaps on commemorative monuments and rock inscriptions. It may partly be the expectation that we should theoretically be able to identify AbDw in the earliest written evidence from Abydos that underlay the interpretations advanced in 1998 with Dreyer’s publication of the material from Tomb U-j. Within the set of material from this tomb—which Dreyer identified as the tomb of a king Scorpion (“Scorpion I”)—are two prominent group of tags which he identified as bearing elephant signs (Fig. 7). The first group show a standing elephant placed atop a triple-peaked mountain symbol (sometimes with the mountain peaks merging into the elephant’s feet). Typically fronting the elephant+mountain combination are tree/ plant signs and crested birds (cranes or akh birds: Fig. 7, nos. 1–7). A second group which Dreyer also identified as being elephants consist of a recumbent quadruped with a long-curving trunk or snout, and one or two projecting ears or tusks (Dreyer 1998: 140–141). These occur invariably with an Upper Egyptian shrine symbol, leading Dreyer to hypothesize the existence of an elephant deity or shrine at Abydos (Fig. 7, nos. 8–13). In attempting to decode the meaning of these tags, Dreyer advanced two different interpretations. His first suggestion was that the image of the elephant records the name of a royal personage: a king Elephant. This follows his thesis that many of the prominent animal symbols in late Predynastic artwork and inscriptions represent royal names. He further argued that the occurrence Fig. 6: Osiris reliquary emblem atop a Dw-mountain symbol (MMA 11.150.46, after Winlock 1921, fig. 4).

481

Wegner

of an elephant standing on triple peaked mountain on the Coptos colossus in the Cairo Museum (JdE 30770), records this same individual. On that monument the partially preserved image of an elephant on triple-peaked mountain sign occurs along with a number of other animal emblems, including a possible writing of Narmer. All are understood as late Predynastic rulers commemorated in sequence on the Coptos colossus (see reconstruction of sequence of Predynastic kings, Dreyer 1998: 173–182). The presence of king Elephant’s name on tags in Tomb U-j, in his view, implies that Elephant must be a predecessor of Scorpion. Dreyer posited that king Elephant was a major ruler of the Nagada IIIA period Fig. 7: Tags from Tomb U-j with use of elephant symbols: Elephant centered at Abydos. Writings of atop triple peaked mountain sign (nos. 1–7) and recumbent "ele­ his name might occur as a comphant" with Upper Egyptian shrine (nos. 8–13), after Dreyer 1998. bination of elephant + mountain symbol signifying something like “Elephant who tramples on the cliffs.” The name AbDw he suggests means, in fact, “Elephantmountain,” and is a toponym that developed through the memory of an influential king Elephant that ruled from Abydos during the critical Nagada III A period (Dreyer 1998: 140–141). On the one hand, while reading the combination of elephant + mountain sign as a royal name, Dreyer also posits that the two signs function together as hieroglyphs with phonetic value as a writing of the toponym Ab-Dw, “Elephant Mountain.” This is one of a group of sign combinations on the U-j tags which he argued can be taken as toponyms. Two others understandable in this way are the combination of stork and seat as a writing for BA-st:”Basta”, and ibis atop a façade as a writing for ©ba-wt: “Buto” (Dreyer 1998: 139). Dreyer noted that the mode in which the desert-hills symbol is employed on other tags suggests it can occur with phonetic value. Particularly, where it occurs in combination with the D-snake symbol both double and triple-peaked mountain signs appear to have the value of Dw (see Dreyer 1998: 143 and Taf. 33). If it is being used in this way, it appears quite viable that the combination of elephant + triple peaked mountain sign in the Tomb U-j tags can be understood as an archaic writing for AbDw: Abydos. An early writing of the toponym in this format might presage the later phonetic writing of AbDw. One must immediately observe that there is a degree of ambiguity in Dreyer’s dual understanding of the elephant + desert cliffs symbol. Can it truly function both as a royal name and as a bipartite toponym with the two symbols possessing phonetic value? One must also consider this against the wider usage of the cliff/desert land symbol in combination with animal signs.

482

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain?

This problem and others in Dreyer’s entire model led to the suggested revised readings which Kahl proposed in 2003 (for summary of his “antithesis,” Kahl 2003: 116–118, 120– 121 and 133–135). The notion that a majority of the animal symbols in the late Predynastic represent the names of kings cannot be defended, particularly when many of them corFig. 8: Tags from Tomb U-j showing use of double and triple peaked respond with the animal mountain symbols (nos 1–4), and tags possibly designating Abydene emblems employed in the locales (5–8), after Dreyer 1998. historically attested toponyms and Dynastic nome symbols. It is this problem which applies to the elephant atop mountain which Kahl convincingly suggests should be read as Abw, “Elephantine.” The writing of the name in the U-j tags closely parallels the historically known orthography which employs both of these signs. In addition, Kahl has convincingly argued that the second group of U-j tags with possible elephant symbolism—those with recumbent “elephant” and shrine—are not accurately identifiable as elephants. Some of these appear distinctively elephantine with projecting “tusks” and long curving trunk. Others appear less so, with a more stylized mode of rendering (Dreyer 1998: 120–121, Taf. 30: 62–69). Although some in this group do appear strongly elephantine, the morphology of the symbol appears quite likely to be an early form of the Seth-animal. The tags may be identifiable as a writing of the temple of Seth of Ombos (Kahl 2001: 51–57, 2003: 125; Darnell 2002: 21). In dismissing the evidence both for a “king Elephant” as well as the suggested etymology of the toponym AbDw, what remains in this early set of evidence? The clearest result is that there are a series of other entities recorded in the tomb U-j tags which may be identifiable as institutional or toponymic designations associated with Abydos during Nagada IIIA (Fig. 8). Tags with the emblem of a standing or recumbent canine deity, sometimes occurring with the plant/tree symbol, are likely identifiable as Khentiamentiu, and could indicate use of the Khentiamentiu sign itself as a designation for Abydos or part of Abydos (Fig. 8, nos. 5–7). The attestation of Khentiamentiu on the early Dynastic necropolis seals at Umm el-Gaab may imply that the earlier Nagada IIIA identification here lies with the Abydene necropolis proper, but not the entirety of the site. A second group of tags employ a falcon atop a rectangular district sign and may be read as S ¡rw, “ district of Horus” (Fig. 8, no. 8). Kahl hypothesizes these should designate a royal necropolis and may specifically be identifiable as Cemetery U. Two other sets of tags designating “eastern” and “western” mountain land may denote administrative areas on the desert edge in the Abydene region (Fig. 8, nos. 1–2). Finally, one designation which is otherwise not locatable, but could potentially also fall in the Abydene area, is the “district of Scorpion” recorded in ink inscriptions and tags in tomb U-j. Discounting its reading as a king Scorpion, Kahl suggests this is the designation of a settlement site associated with the scorpion symbol as a sign of royal power and possibly also divinity. He hypothesizes this might be located in Hierakonpolis, but

483

Wegner

the prominence of the symbol in tomb U-j might also suggest it as a local Abydene designation (Kahl 2003: 126–129, 134–135). In light of the Tomb U-j evidence we may conclude (1) that is there no direct antecedent to the toponym AbDw represented in the inscriptional evidence from tomb U-j, but also (2) that there appears to exist no alternative toponym which can be comfortably construed to be the designation for the site as a totality. This might appear puzzling in view of the fact that many other toponyms as well as precursors to the Dynastic nome symbols do occur in the U-j tags. Perhaps, however, this is an artifact of the system of provisioning and supply of the materials contained within tomb U-j. Much of the material appears to have had its origins in non-Abydene locales and is so-labeled with the relevant toponyms such as Abw, ¤ti and Nxn. Within the immediate environs of Abydos, the mode of labeling may have been based upon separate institutions rather than through the agency of “Abydos” as a whole. For that reason, I would suggest that unless we identify the Khentiamentiu symbol as itself constituting the earliest toponym of Abydos proper, we simply do not have “Abydos” represented in the tags (or for that matter in any of the other early tags, seals and ink inscriptions of the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic period). AbDw may yet exist as an early toponym, but due to techniques of provisioning and labeling remains unrepresented in the earliest inscriptional corpus. Here we are presented with a conundrum: does the Dynastic toponym AbDw have Predynastic origins and might it yet in origin have meant “Elephant of the Mountain”/”Elephant-Mountain,” even if we discard Dreyer’s interpretation of the Tomb U-j tags? If so, we might hypothesize that the earliest writings of AbDw would not have employed the phonetic sign combination seen in the Dynastic period, but rather a writing that incorporated an elephant + Dw mountain sign. Are there any instances of use of an elephant symbol in the late Predynastic that differ from the probable writings for Elephantine, and which might potentially be linked with an early occurrence of AbDw with the meaning Elephant-mountain? Likely contemporary with the Nagada III material from tomb U-j are two rock inscriptions incorporating elephant symbols at Gjebel Tjauti south of Abydos on the ‘Alamat Tal route leading to the Nagada region. Gebel Tjauti Inscription 2 includes an elephant atop a double peaked mountain, overlain by a serekh of probable 1st Dynasty date (Darnell 2002: 19–22). A similar combination occurs in Gebel Tjauti Inscription 28 which is positioned immediately below (and likely associated with) the “Protodynastic tableau” (Gebel Tjauti Inscription 1, Darnell 2002: 16–19, 72). This inscription includes the combination of a scorpion and striking man (probably of Middle Kingdom date) cut adjacent to a preexisting elephant that stands again atop a double-peaked mountain. The main “Protodynastic tableau” Darnell theorizes is the record of a military conquest of the Naqada region by a king Scorpion (= Dreyer’s king “Scorpion I”) who made use of the ‘Alamat Tal route. Largely accepting Dreyer’s suggestions regarding the existence of a king Elephant, Darnell speculates that the elephant upon mountain combination might suggest that king Elephant already had used this route and left inscriptions at Gebel Tjauti. These were added to, or even partially erased, by Elephant’s successor Scorpion. If one considers there to be a relationship between the elephant + mountain combination in Gebel Tjauti Inscriptions 2 and 28 and the use of elephant hieroglyphs in the Tomb U-j tags, one must observe a small but perhaps significant distinction. The Gebel Tjauti inscriptions both employ a double-peaked rather than triple-peaked mountain symbol. Kahl has suggested that these two symbols are not interchangeable during the Nagada III period, as Dreyer originally assumed (Kahl 2003: 123, 127). An additional problem lies in the fact that the double-peak symbol occurs frequently in these Predynastic rock inscriptions and may not necessarily be

484

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain?

taken as a hieroglyphic sign. If, however, we posit use of the elephant and double peaked mountain should be read as hieroglyphs, it may suggest that the phonetic Dw element could be understood here. Despite this difference with the U-j tags, Darnell read the sign combination as denoting king “Elephant trampling on the mountain-land,” eschewing the second possibility originally advanced by Dreyer: that with use of the mountain sign we may already witness a writing of the place name Ab-Dw, “Abydos.” Since, however, Kahl has convincingly argued that the elephant+triple peaked mountain sign denotes Abw, “Elephantine,” we might consider the possibility that elephant over double-peaked mountain in the Gebel Tjauti inscriptions could be understandable as writings of the toponym Elephant-mountain (AbDw): employing the typical combination of bi-consonantal phonograms which are so prominent in the Nagada IIIA writing system evidenced in the U-j tags. While the above reading is admittedly tenuous, it at least suggests the possibility that the early occurrence of Abydos as a toponym might exist in the written record. I would hypothesize that we may continue to search for the earliest occurrence of AbDw with the meaning “Elephant of the Mountain”/“Elephant Mountain.” The basis for this toponym is almost certainly not attributable to a “king Elephant.” More relevant to the identity of Abydos as a geographical entity would be distinctive features of its natural setting and recognizable features of its landscape that would have defined it to the minds of the Predynastic Egyptians. The concurrent emphasis on animal symbols, particularly in combination with the landscape signifier of the mountain symbol, provides a reasonable possibility that the distinctive cliff formation at the southern end of the Abydos embayment formed the basis for the emergence of the toponym, AbDw.

Anubis Mountain: A Dynastic Reinterpretation of Abydos’ Symbolic Landscape?

If as theorized in the preceding discussion, the toponym for Abydos has its origins in the designation Ab-Dw “Elephant of the Mountain”/”Elephant Mountain,” we must conclude that this was an archaic identification and one that ultimately lost its relevance early in the Dynastic period. The evidence for the phonetic spelling of the site’s name from the Old Kingdom forward—devoid of any use of elephant sign or indeed any other symbol that defined the meaning of the 3b(w) element—implies that the toponym had by the Dynastic period moved beyond its original meaning to become primarily a place name understood independent of any original root meaning. Lack of elephant determinative implies that the Dynastic Egyptians did not regularly conceive of the name as denoting a mountain associated with elephant symbolism. One must observe that if elephant symbolism was involved in the early formation of the toponym such a change in perception of the name would not be surprising. During the Dynastic period, elephant symbolism played no part in religious iconography (on the representational evidence Schott 1971; on the physical evidence, Váhala 1970). How might this have been reflected in changing conceptions of Abydos landscape? Clearly the major transformation which effected Abydos in the periods following the burials of the Early Dynastic pharaohs at Umm el-Gaab, was its emergence as the perceived burial site of the ancient god-king Osiris (Otto 1968: 13–65; Griffiths 1980; Wegner 1996: 1–59). Precisely when and how the Osiris cult emerged at Abydos is an issue open to further investigation. Certainly, however, by the end of the Old Kingdom, Osiris-Khentiamentiu was fully established as the principal deity associated with the site. The concomitant development of the low-desert wadi as a processional route linking the Osiris-temple and the symbolic burial place of Osiris appears to have occurred during the Old Kingdom. Ultimately this central processional axis structured the Dynastic

485

Wegner

development of the site with ritual buildings and cemetery areas clustering on either side of the sacred route to Umm el-Gaab. It is this development of the cemetery fields symbolically attached to this cult site for Osiris that may have been the basis for a “latter-day” reinterpretation of the gebel prominence that so defines the Abydos landscape. A recent discovery made in excavations of the mortuary complex of Senwosret III at South Abydos is the official stamp seal associated with the tomb enclosure of Senwosret III (Fig. 9). Repeating impressions of a shield shaped stamp seal occur in contexts that relate them with the period of construction and use of that tomb enclosure, prior to its intentional removal which occurred not long after the completion and closing of the subterranean tomb of Senwosret III (Wegner 2006; Wegner and Abu-elYazid 2006). This 12th Dynasty stamp seal functioned as a form of royal necropolis seal, albeit so far only linked with the tomb of Senwosret III, rather than a wider royal mortuary area. The text on the stamp seal has a symbol of a recumbent Anubis seated on his shrine. Below this emblem occurs the double-peaked Dw or mountain hieroglyph. Together read here as Dw-Inpw, “AnubisFig. 9: The Dw-Inpw, Anubis Mountain, necropolis seal Mountain.”1 This designation appears to be one that is at once from the Senwosret III tomb both a form of toponym as well as once that expresses the enclosure. notion of Anubis as a protective cemetery god who effects his apotropaic influences via his mountain abode. Namely, the seal appears to express the idea of Anubis tpy Dw.f, “who-is-upon-his-mountain.” In the context of the Senwosret III tomb enclosure, the use of this particular stamp seal is suggestive of continuities with both earlier and later royal necropoli. The Early Dynastic royal cemetery at Umm el-Gaab with its symbolic relationship with Khentiamentiu as protective canine deity (Dreyer 1986: 36–40) offers a precursor to the later notion of Anubis, also a canine deity, as protector of the royal burial place. The various versions of the Valley of the Kings necropolis seals are most directly relevant with their imagery emphasizing Anubis a protective cemetery god (Wegner and Abu el-Yazid 2006: 426–429). In the case of the Senwosret III complex it appears probable that the term Dw-Inpw is related to the positioning of the subterranean tomb directly beneath the gebel prominence that marks the south end of the Abydos embayment. Seen from the location of the Senwosret III tomb this prominence takes on the visual form of a free standing natural pyramidal peak. Understood as Anubis-Mountain, this landform may have been visualized as the physical abode of Anubis literally surmounting and protecting the royal tomb which was thereby placed directly below it. It is quite possible the Anubis-Mountain concept represents a newly minted conceptualization of the Abydene landscape which occurred only in association with the design and construction of the Senwosret III mortuary complex. In that case the mountain peak to that point had no prior associations with Anubis. The nature of the designation, however, brings up the possibility that the Senwosret III complex was positioned and constructed with reference to preexisting notions of the landscape. In this case it may be that the gebel prominence already had assigned to it the designation Dw-Inpw prior to the planning of the Senwosret III tomb. Architects of the later 12th Dynasty may have expanded upon religious symbolism of the Abydene landscape.

486

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain?

Fig. 10: Possible visualization of the Abydene cliff formation as a recumbent Anubis, view from the Kom es-Sultan.

One possibility which I have proposed elsewhere is that the recumbent animal form imparted by the appearance of the cliff prominence from the Kom es-Sultan may have become (re)interpreted already prior to the late 12th Dynasty as Dw-Inpw (Wegner 2007: 17–18). Although the elephantine visualization imparted by the cliff sillouette seems a more literal interpretation— and might have inspired the original name AbDw—elephant symbolism would have been largely irrelevant during the Dynastic period and could well have been supplanted by other religious symbolism. The general notion of a recumbent quadruped dominating the landscape of Abydos might by the Dynastic period have been reinterpreted as being Anubian in character (Fig. 10). Terminology associated with later stele suggest that not just Umm el-Gaab, but the site’s overall landscape was conceptualized as a burial site for Osiris: “Abydos which conceals her lord” (Otto 1968: 30–34). From that angle, as well as the concurrent emphasis in Egyptian funerary religion on Anubis as a general cemetery protector, the idea may have emerged that this landform which dominates the Abydene necropolis was the place of Anubis tpy Dw.f. This transformation in the significance of the mountain might thereby represent a quite literal visualization of Osirian funerary concepts in connection with the landscape. The epithet of Anubis tpy Dw.f tends to be understood as a generalized statement of Anubis’ position as necropolis protector sitting recumbent upon his mountain (see discussion of Spiegel 1973: 42–49). Might not the Egyptians have adapted such a divine concept in a more tangible manner: the mountain of Abydos in this case conceptualized as the Dw of Inpw from which the god oversaw the Abydene necropolis ?

Two Models

For an Upper Egyptian center as prominent -and with such a rich set of data—as Abydos it appears surprising that we remain unable to trace conclusively the origins of the toponym AbDw back into the Early Dynastic and Nagada III–Protodynastic record. In part this may derive from the formative factors in the corpus of available texts (tags, jar labels and seals) and the way this reflects systems of documentation and supply of commodities. At the same time it presents us with a real possibility that the historical toponym of Abydos did not develop from a Predynastic or early Dynastic antecedent. In this situation we may consider multiple viable explanations. There appear, however, to exist two primary models (Fig. 11). The first is that AbDw did develop during the formative period of the site as its principal toponym. This name did not derive from a Predynastic king Elephant. Quite

487

488

Early Dynastic

Early Dynastic

AbDw

Middle Kingdom

Old Kingdom

development of Osiris cult

AbDw (

Middle Kingdom

?

New Kingdom

New Kingdom

Late Period

Late Period

"hill of the Osiris reliquary" ?)

gebel reinterpreted as Dw-Inpw (Anubis-Mountain) Senwosret III

AbDw (= "hill of the Osiris reliquary" ?)

Old Kingdom

development of Osiris cult

?

Fig. 11: Two models for the origins and development of the toponym AbDw.

Model 2.

Nagada IIIProtodynastic

"Region of Khentiamentiu" "western cliff-land" "District of Horus"

ORIGINAL TOPONYM ?

Model 1.

Nagada IIIProtodynastic

"Region of Khentiamentiu" "western cliff-land" "District of Horus"

Ab-Dw="Elephant Mountain"

loss of original meaning ( phonetic spelling)

change of toponym

ebwt / abot

Greco-Roman Period

ebwt / abot

Greco-Roman Period

Gk. Aßu!µs Gk. Aßu!µs

Abydene gebel landmark as marker of site

Wegner

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain?

possibly, however, it was the visual appearance of the cliffs that mark the location of Abydos that formed the basis for the place name “Elephant of the Mountain”/“Elephant-Mountain.” As one crosses the threshold from Predynastic to Dynastic Egypt, however, this original meaning may have ultimately become irrelevant. The site’s name was written with a combination of biliterals and alphabetic signs that provided no direct indication of the root meaning behind the toponym. It appears that the prominence of the Osiris cult and co-writing of the Osiris reliquary/Thinite nome emblem alongside that of AbDw may have given rise to a hybridization in which AbDw was now conceived as the “hill of the (Osiris) reliquary.” Our second model then is one in which we may propose that this latter meaning was the basis for the toponym, already from the time of its earliest occurrence, and that the genesis of the name AbDw is linked with the emergence of the Osiris cult at Abydos. If so, we face a marked gulf between the toponyms associated with Predynastic/Early Dynastic Abydos and the Abydos of later periods. This understanding produces certain theoretical difficulties: particularly, how and when did the site’s toponym shift from its unknown original name to AbDw? What indeed was the original toponym, or was the site known through multiple toponyms (cf. Zibelius 1977)? Was there a period of overlap during which one (or more) earlier names fell out of use and were gradually supplanted by Abdw, or was the change rapid and intentional? Did the symbol of Khentiamentiu, usually interpreted as being associated with the royal necropolis serve as a wider designation for the site at this time? What of the “district of Scorpion” which is clearly so prominent in Tomb U-j? These issues appears to be important ones in future investigations of early Abydos. Although we must continue to entertain all possible explanations, I propose that it may be to the actual landscape of Abydos that we may look for the earliest origins of the name AbDw. In view of the Predynastic Egyptians’ penchant for combining animal and landscape symbolism, the etymology Ab(w) Elephant + Dw Mountain, “Elephant of the Mountain,” may yet prove the basis for this familiar, yet puzzling, toponym.

Note: 1 The text on this seal can be rendered directly as Inpw-Dw. However, the superimposition if Inpw over the Dw sign might be seen to represent an honorific transposition of the god’s name and graphic rendition of the idea of Anubis surmounting his mountain. It is for that reason transliterated in reverse as Dw-Inpw, “Mountain (of) Anubis. The transliteration Inpw-Dw is, however, equally tenable.

References Cited: Černy, J. 1976 Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. Crum, W. E. 1939 A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford. Darnell, J. 2002 Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert 1 Oriental Institute Publications vol. 119. Chicago.

489

Wegner Dreyer, G. 1986 Ein Siegel der frühzeitlichen Königsnekropole von Abydos. MDAIK 43: 36–40. 1995 Die Datierung der Min-Statuen aus Koptos. In R. Stadelmann and H. Sourouzian (eds.), Kunst des Alten Reiches, pp. 49–56. DAI Sonderschrift 28. Mainz am Rhein. 1998 Umm el-Qaab 1: Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. DAI Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 86. Gardiner, A. 1933 The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos (copied by Amice Calverley with the assistance of Myrtle F. Broome), vol. 1. The Egypt Exploration Society, University of Chicago Press. London and Chicago. Gauthier, H. 1925 Dictionnaire des Noms Géographique. Cairo (1925). Gomaà, F. 1986 Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches (volumes I and II). Wiesbaden. Griffiths, J. G. 1980 The Origins of Osiris. Leiden. Hannig, R. 2003 Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I. Mainz. Helck, W. 1974 Die altägyptischen Gaue. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Nr. 5. Wiesbaden. 1987 Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen Bd. 45. Wiesbaden. Kahl, J. 1994 Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie. Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe, Ägypten Bd. 29. Wiesbaden. 2001 Die ältesten schriftlichen Belege für den Gott Seth. GM 181: 51–57. 2001a Hieroglyphic Writing during the Fourth Millennium BC: an Analysis of Systems, Archéo-Nil 11: 116–126. 2002 Frühagyptisches Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden. 2003 Die frühen Schriftzeugnisse aus dem Grab U-j in Umm el-Qaab. CdÉ LXXVIII: 112–135. Kaplony, P. 1963 Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen Bd. 8–9. Wiesbaden. Kemp, B. 1975 Abydos. LÄ I: 28-41. Wiesbaden. Montet, P. 1961 Géographie de l’Égypte Ancienne: 2e Partie. Paris (1961). Otto, E. 1968 Egyptian Art and the Cults of Osiris and Amun. London. Petrie, W. M. F. 1900 The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty: Part I. London. 1901 The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties: Part II. London. Pouls-Wegner, M. 2002 The Cult of Osiris at Abydos: an Archaeological Investigation of an Ancient Egyptian Sacred Center during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Richards, J. 2005 Society and Death in Ancient Egypt: Mortuary Landscapes of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge University Press.

490

From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain? Schott, E. 1971 Ein Stempelsiegel in Form eines Elefanten. MDAIK 27: 99–110. Váhala, F. 1970 Der Elefant in Ägypten und Nubien. ZÄS 98: 1, 81–83. Vicichyl, W. 1983 Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Copte. Leuven. Wegner, J. 1996 The Mortuary Complex of Senwosret III: A Study of Middle Kingdom State Activity and the Cult of Osiris at Abydos. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 2006 Beneath the Mountain-of-Anubis: Ancient Egypt’s First Hidden Royal Tomb. Expedition 48: 2, 6–11. 2007 The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos. Publications of the Pennsylvania–Yale–Institute of Fine Arts Expedition to Abydos, vol. 8. New Haven. Wegner, J. and Abu el-Yazid, M. 2006 The Mountain-of-Anubis: Necropolis Seal of the Senwosret III Tomb at Abydos. In E. Czerny et al. (eds.), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak I, pp. 419–435, Leuven-Paris. Winlock, H. E. 1921 Bas-Reliefs from the Temple of Rameses I at Abydos. Metropolitan Museum of Art Papers 1:1, New York. Zibelius, K. 1977 Zur Mehrnamigkeit altägyptischer Orte. In XIX Deutscher Orientalistentag, pp. 40–46. 1978 Ägyptische Siedlungen nach Texten des Alten Reiches, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Nr. 19. Wiesbaden. 1979 Zu Form und Inhalt der Ortsnamen des Alten Reiches. In Festschift Elmar Edel, pp. 456–477. 1979a Function of Ancient Egyptian Place Names. In Acts 1st ICE, pp. 693–698.

491