From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain?

A Theory on the Origins and

Development of the Name Abdju
Josef Wegner
University of Pennsylvania

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 IIIDynasty 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 periodsAbDwremain 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. Gnter 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: 140141, 173180). The historical toponym Abydos thus meant in origin
something akin to: Mountain of (King) Elephant.
More recently, considerable doubt regarding Dreyers interpretation has emerged as a result
of Jochem Kahls masterful reanalysis of the tomb U-j tags (Kahl 2003: 112135). 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.
Kahls reanalysis of Dreyers 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 inscriptionsincluding
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
names 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 Mountainalthough 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 sites 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 sites 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 OConnor 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: 2829).
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
thecurrently unlocatedtown 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 sites 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 clifffrom the rounded turning point up to this breaktogether 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 animals ears and the curve down to the wadi is evocative of the projecting profile of an
elephants 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 andas suggested abovemay 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; Goma 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 sites 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, Goma 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. 34; Montet 1961: 99107).
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: 34). 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 (erny 1976: 344; Vycichl 1983:
3940; 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 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 buildings 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 (Goma 1973: 198204) 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: 2125; 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 PredynasticEarly

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 Dreyers publication of the material from Tomb U-j. Within the set of material from this
tombwhich 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 elephants feet). Typically fronting the elephant+mountain combination are tree/
plant signs and crested birds (cranes or akh birds: Fig. 7, nos. 17). 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: 140141). 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. 813).
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:
173182). The presence of king
Elephants 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. 17) and recumbent "ele
his name might occur as a comphant" with Upper Egyptian shrine (nos. 813), 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: 140141).
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 faade
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 Dreyers 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

Dreyers entire model led
to the suggested revised
readings which Kahl proposed in 2003 (for summary of his antithesis,
Kahl 2003: 116118, 120
121 and 133135). 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 14), and tags possibly designating Abydene
emblems employed in the
locales (58), 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 symbolismthose with recumbent elephant and shrineare 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: 120121, Taf. 30: 6269). 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: 5157, 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. 57). 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. 12). 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: 126129, 134135).
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 Dreyers 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: 1922). 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: 1619, 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
(= Dreyers king Scorpion I) who made use of the Alamat Tal route. Largely accepting Dreyers
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 Elephants 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 sites name from the Old Kingdom forwarddevoid
of any use of elephant sign or indeed any other symbol that defined the meaning of the 3b(w)
elementimplies 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, Vhala 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: 1365; Griffiths 1980; Wegner 1996: 159). 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: 3640) 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: 426429). 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: 1718). Although
the elephantine visualization imparted by the cliff sillouette seems a more literal interpretation
and might have inspired the original name AbDwelephant 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 sites overall
landscape was conceptualized as a burial site for Osiris: Abydos which conceals her lord (Otto
1968: 3034).
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: 4249). 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 dataas Abydos it
appears surprising that we remain unable to trace conclusively the origins of the toponym AbDw
back into the Early Dynastic and Nagada IIIProtodynastic 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. Au!s
Gk. Au!s

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 sites 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 sites 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 gods 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:
erny, 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 frhzeitlichen Knigsnekropole von Abydos. MDAIK 43: 3640.
1995 Die Datierung der Min-Statuen aus Koptos. In R. Stadelmann and H. Sourouzian (eds.), Kunst des Alten
Reiches, pp. 4956. DAI Sonderschrift 28. Mainz am Rhein.
1998 Umm el-Qaab 1: Das prdynastische Knigsgrab U-j und seine frhen Schriftzeugnisse. DAI
Archologische Verffentlichungen 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 Gographique. Cairo (1925).
Goma, F.
1986 Die Besiedlung gyptens whrend des Mittleren Reiches (volumes I and II). Wiesbaden.
Griffiths, J. G.
1980 The Origins of Osiris. Leiden.
Hannig, R.
2003 gyptisches Wrterbuch I. Mainz.
Helck, W.
1974 Die altgyptischen Gaue. Beihefte zum Tbinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Nr. 5.
Wiesbaden.
1987 Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit. gyptologische Abhandlungen Bd. 45. Wiesbaden.
Kahl, J.
1994 Das System der gyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie. Gttinger Orientforschungen
IV. Reihe, gypten Bd. 29. Wiesbaden.
2001 Die ltesten schriftlichen Belege fr den Gott Seth. GM 181: 5157.
2001a Hieroglyphic Writing during the Fourth Millennium BC: an Analysis of Systems, Archo-Nil 11:
116126.
2002 Frhagyptisches Wrterbuch. Wiesbaden.
2003 Die frhen Schriftzeugnisse aus dem Grab U-j in Umm el-Qaab. Cd LXXVIII: 112135.
Kaplony, P.
1963 Die Inschriften der gyptischen Frhzeit. gyptologische Abhandlungen Bd. 89. Wiesbaden.
Kemp, B.
1975 Abydos. L I: 28-41. Wiesbaden.
Montet, P.
1961 Gographie de lgypte 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: 99110.
Vhala, F.
1970 Der Elefant in gypten und Nubien. ZS 98: 1, 8183.
Vicichyl, W.
1983 Dictionnaire tymologique 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 Egypts First Hidden Royal Tomb. Expedition 48: 2, 611.
2007 The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos. Publications of the PennsylvaniaYaleInstitute 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. 419435, 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 altgyptischer Orte. In XIX Deutscher Orientalistentag, pp. 4046.
1978 gyptische Siedlungen nach Texten des Alten Reiches, Beihefte zum Tbinger Atlas des Vorderen
Orients. Reihe B, Nr. 19. Wiesbaden.
1979 Zu Form und Inhalt der Ortsnamen des Alten Reiches. In Festschift Elmar Edel, pp. 456477.
1979a Function of Ancient Egyptian Place Names. In Acts 1st ICE, pp. 693698.

491