Egypt Exploration Society
De Egyptische Voorstellingen betreffende den Oerheuvel by Adriaan de Buck Review by: H. R. Hall The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Jul., 1924), pp. 185-187 Published by: Egypt Exploration Society Stable 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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS
185
The name Puyemrr is that which we usually spell Puamra, Puimre?,or Puyemre. Mr. Davies transliterates unusually at times; notably he usesj for q'. I have myself used tj for this 2, which is usually represented by z. Of course z is a very poor representative of the Egyptian sound, which was presumably rather S. If we do not use d in popular transcription,we should use ? rather than z. The French j =; but in English one cannot use the Frenchj, while the English j is almost as inefficient a representation of the sound as plain z. And in any case j 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- (= ywith ;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 is as cumbrous as tch; z is usual: why not use the Slav X ? But the Germans,the 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 the same to them as it does to us, they might just as well adopt it and have done with it in Esperanto as well as in Egyptian transliteration. Mr. Davies will pardon this digression, which he has brought on himself by his writing the ancient name of Deir el-bahri in a way which a German would pronounce " Yeser-yo8ru," whereas " Tyeser-tyosru" would not have been so far from the truth. I note that Mr. Davies, a propos of Puyemries representations of foreigners,accepts Mr. Wainwright's shifting of Keftiu from Crete to Cilicia, which I cannot wholly do, in view of the Minoan evidence. As I have often said, it seems to me that Mr. Wainwright was possibly justified in extending Keftiu to Cilicia, though we have as yet absolutely no archaeologicalproof that he was; but that he was totally unjustified in shifting it away from Crete altogether. We have no right to suppose that the Men of the Isles were not Keftians, and the tomb of Rekhmirec shows us that both were Cretans as the foreigners of Sennemut's and Menkheperrecsenb'stombs were too, and as Puyemrecs foreigner with the characteristic Minoan long hair (Frontispiece) was too. The fact that another Minoan-seemingman on Plate XXXI carries a NorthSyrian vase is to my mind merely a proof of how the Egyptians confusedly assigned to some of these northern peoples the products of others, not of the presence of Minoans in North Syria. We must always remember that the Danuna, the Zakkarai,the Shardina,and the other seafaring tribes that frequented the coasts of Asia Minor and Phoenicia were neither Keftians nor Minoans, possibly not any of them Cretans. But whence did Sennemut's "
