186 Dr. Hager on the Name and Origin of the Pyramids. [O@ober 1, 
salled Karl, Karolus, ov Charles*. But 
now a-days, if the Germans choofe to 
{peak of a perfon of mean extraction, or 
of vulgar manners and behaviour, they 
cail him Karl, or, after the modern dialeét, 
Kerl. M. Witte, alearned of that country, 
has therefore very lately adopted again the 
etymology of piromi, for the pyramids, 
fince Herodotus, an eye-witnefs, attefts that 
the Egyptian priefts called to him the 
Coloffus (rovg xororcovs) which reprefented 
their ancient fovereigns, Prromit. And 
thus the pillars, which were placed onthe 
borders of the roads; were called Herma, 
from Mercury, who prefided over the roads ; 
although the fiones themfelves were not 
Mercuries. But fince Wspousg is written 
with an zoffa, inflead ofan zp/lon ; and, as 
there is perhaps a better etymology to 
produce than pzromi, we fhall pafs to other 
derivations. 
Wilkins, in his Diflertation on the Coptic 
Laaguage, thought that Mupayte ought to - 
be derived from the Coptic word MoYPo, a 
king, and MII, a generation, asa building 
defignated only for perfons of a royal de- 
feendance; and Iablon/ky, in his Paniheon 
Egyptium, derives it, with la Croze, from 
Pire or Pira, the fun, in Coptic, and mue, 
fplendour ; fuppofing that the obelifes an- 
ciently were called pyramids. 
But M. deSacy is difpleafed with both ety- 
molegies ; the one for being too forced, as 
he fays, and the other ill-founded; and 
thus he is likewife difpleafed with the ety- 
mology of Mr. Adler, who derives it from 
pi, the Egyptian article, and rama, height ; 
becaufe rama is not Egyptian. Finds 
ing therefore no convenient derivation in 
the Egyptiax or Coptic language, he pafles 
ever to the Arabic. 
It is well known that the 4rqbic \an- 
guage is at prefent as dominant in Egypt, 
as once the Egyptian. Now, in Aratic,a 
pyramid is called Haramt ; and this word 
mutt be written with a 4e, in order to dif- 
tinguifh it from another very ufual, which 
is written with ha—Haram is derivated 
from a root, which fignifies to be very an- 
cient or decrepit—it confequently ought 
to fienify a very ancient monument ; and 
both Herbelot and Michaelis, quoted by 
M. de Sacy, were of the fame opinion. 
But here, M. de Sacy enters, and de- 
clares, that the word Tupaute ought to be 
derived from hbaram indeed, but not writ- 
* Adelung’s Worterbuch. 
+ Witte, Vertheidigung des Verfuchs tiber 
den Urfprung der Pyramiden, &c. Leipzig, 
£792, p. 62, et feq. 
{ Golius. 
ten with a fe, but with a ha, after which 
root, which fignifies to be facred, it ought 
to fignify a facred building or monument. 
M. de Sacy then fuppofes, 1. That the 
modern Arabian fe ought to be changed 
into ha. 2. That the ancient Egyptians 
made ufe of the fame expreffion. 3. That 
the Egyptian article pz ought to be prefixs 
ed. 4. That the 4 ought quite tobe fup- 
preffed for pronouncing pram, inftead of 
pibram or pibaram. 5. That the ipfilon of 
Tlupauts was only introduced by the Greeks, 
and that originally it was not fo*. 
But, with all the deference which I 
have for M. de Sacy’s eminent learning 
and chara&ter, I beg leave to obferve, that 
it muft be firft better proved that the an- 
cient Egyptians ufed fucha word. For 
Hermes, which he adduces, is not a proof 
that this word was derived from haram ; 
and, if it were, it would not follow that the 
pyramids were likewife called from ha- 
ram. If we cannot find an original name 
for pyramis in the Egyptian-language, we 
muit fearch for it fomewhere elle. If the 
Arabians, their neighbours, had pyramids, 
we might derive this name from Arabia. 
But no fuch monument ever is mentioned 
by any hiftorian. Let us then fee whether 
there is not another neighbouring country, 
whence pyramids, as well as obelifes, could 
have been derived. 
On cafting a look towards Affria or 
Chaldea, which, under the reign of Se- 
miraimis, extended as far as Egyptt, 
and, by its natural fituation, was little 
ciltant from that country, I am of the 
firm opinion, that both obelifks and pyra- 
mids were derived to Egypt from Babylon. 
That Babylon had a fquare pyramid, of 
the fame height, if not higher, than the 
Egyptian ones, we know by the teftimo- 
nies of Herodotus and Strabot. Strabo 
openly calls the tower of Bel a fquare 
pyramid, Tlupapets TETPLYOVOS. It was built 
of brick, indeed, not ot fone, like the pyra- 
mids of Ghize. But the pyramids of Sak- 
bara, in Egypt, which are more ancient 
than thofe of Ghize, are likewife built of 
bricks§. It confilted of feveral ftories ; 
but there are pyramids in Izdia, now-a- 
days extant, which havea ftriking fimi- 
larity with the Egyptian ones, and yet © 
* Obfervations fur les Pyramides, P+ 255 
et feq. 
Tt See Polyenou Stratagemata, in Semiramis 3 
and Freret, Effai fur [ Hift. de la Chronolog. des, 
Affyriens. tom. s5,des Mém. de 2 Acad, des Infeript. 
{ Herodot. lib. i. Strabo, lib. xvi, 
§ Grobirt, Defcrigption des Pyramiaes, Parisy 
Ai ik. p. Jo 
confit 
