Archaic Sovereign as Primeval God

\

Soruilerilruch aus

T_,tr-,ITSCHRIFT FUR

ACVPTISC}TE SPRACHtr UND

ALTERTUMSKUNDE VON EERAUSGEGE B EN

MOB'ENZ t FB,ITZ HIN AZfr IJND SIEGFB'IED

98.

BAND

EB,STES

IIEI'T

1970 B E RLIN AKAD EMIE -VERLAG' LElPZlG MIT J'C' HINRICHS VERLAG'

II.{ ARBEITSGEMEINSCHAFT

I

84

lliszelle

Iliszelle - Dr'. lf ds,rr,rrls has d.iscussctl the intcrnni superrstruct,ule of thtr -\r'chaic royal masf abas: It, is not tlifficult to imagine tliat' the leason for this development, lr'as the supposed resemblance of tlie mouucl to the Primeval Hill . . . - the so-called High Sand - and on rrhich the creator-god had manifesteri himseif at the creation . . . the mound above the grave, notwithst,anding it,s purely 1:ractica,l origin, rvoulcl. it, was believed, acquire thc same vit,al por,r-er as the Primoval HilI and thus be a.ble 1,o impart iife to the Arehaic Sorereign as Primeval Gotl?

corpso lying beneath it,r.

But, another interpleta.tion presents itself . \\:e kno*- that, tho King ri.'as conceivecl as thc highest god (e. g. the ,,Cannibal IIvmn", the NI{ t,exts assert,ing the rrrler's om.nipotence and powel over the elenents, ancl such leferences as the addressing of Senwosret, I as ,,Lord of A11" in tlie ,,fnstructr'on of -\n:renernJr6t I"). ?erhaps in thc early peliod it v,as imaginerl that the departed King took his piace on the Prirl,er-al Hillock" as the creator-god in the beginnilg of tirrrc. Sub.qequentlv, it rrorrld not be di{ficult, for t}ris belief to becoue suborclinated to, and confounded lrit'h, tlie prevalenl, iclea of a journey to a celestial }leaven (anc1 celestial beliefs were cerl,ainly very old); but the Plimer.trl Morried symbol w-as retained. The later application of the Priiner.al Mound to thc der:eased monarch, as in the reno'wnec1 ceuotaph oi Sethy I, is certainly the outgrowth of another line of beiief, in the Osjrian faith, anrl a mr.ich ltrtel one; I cl,, not believe that, it can be viev,ecl as a manifestation of the vely early concept suggested herc:. 'Ihere are admittediy no di.rect inciications, but perhal-rs the Jiypothesis thzr,t in Protoc.lynastic time-< the departcd ruler rvas envisioncr'l as the primcval creatol on his mouncl heips to jlluminate the development ol t'he innel superstr:ttctut'c,

Eclmruci S. ]leli,zer

I I. E. S. Edwalds, 'l'he }iarly Dynastic Periocl in Egypt, Yc,l. L Chap. XI oI the reviseci Cambliclge Ancient Hist,ory, Cambridge Ilniversity Prc-qs 1964, pp. 50-51. : trT" F::arrhiort, A. rle Buck, B. Gr-run, The Cenotapir of Seti 1 at Abydos, Yol. I, 39-iir Jft:rnoil oi the Iigypt, Exploration Societ)," Lontlon 1933, pp. 27-31 .