Talk:Pyramid Texts

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilyrd98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Spelling of Pharoh?

Is there some reason why "pharaoh" is spelled "Pharao", or can I change that?

--Aurochs 17:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Just a typo. Leibniz 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

External link to pyramidtextsonline.com

Google's search results for "pyramid texts" returns a link to pyramidtextsonline.com with the following warning, "This site may harm your computer."

I'm no scholar and have nothing to add or debate on this wiki article, but should the link to a malicious site be removed?

Thanks,

Xian2393 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)xian2393

it may have been helpful if google would give more detailed info on what the problem is. i'll remove the link for now, and research the issue at my leisure (read: may never happen). --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

I've taken a look at this site. This does not appear to be a problem. From your description, it looks like the message you received is a pop-up ad made to look like a real computer message. These sorts of messages are fairly common if you don't use a pop-up blocker. Ads may appear to be real system messages but visually there are some subtle differences between ads and real messages. I'm going to restore the link, because it looks like it is a well constructed site with lots of good information.Jeff Dahl 01:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannibal Hymn

Unlike many of the ideas presented in the pyramid texts that were reused and elaborated by later pharaohs, the idea of ritual, symbolic cannibalism embodied in this hymn was quickly discarded.

Actually, no. The cannibal hymn reappears in the Coffin Texts as Spell 573. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

Vandalism

"The texts were first discovered in 1881 by Gaston Mastery, and translations were made by Kurt f--- (in German), Louis Sleepers (in French), Raymond O. Faulkner, and Samuel Alfred Browne Mercer."

Writing in the Fourth Dynasty

The section "In Popular Culture", discussing the movie Stargate, says "Writing did not appear until the Fifth Dynasty structures."

This conflicts with the known occurrence of writing on some of the blocks of the Great Pyramid. In the article Great_Pyramid_of_Giza, one finds "One of the stones in Campbell's Chamber bears a mark, apparently the name of a work gang, which incorporates the only reference in the pyramid to Pharaoh Khufu".

The issue appears to me to be whether the sentence first quoted refers to the fiction depicted in Stargate, or to the facts of ancient Egyptian history. As written, this distinction is not made clear. If the sentence I'm objecting to is intended to be factual, it is wrong — or possibly just carelessly phrased.

Perhaps some Stargate enthusiast can review the movie and see if that's the source of the objectionable sentence.

Either way, some clarification seems to be in order. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to sort out the issues and arrive at a definitive solution to them.

Floozybackloves (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no official writings, like the elaborate reliefs of late Old Kingdom mastabas or the New Kingdom royal tombs, in the Fourth Dynasty pyramids. People who like to argue that there's something weird about those pyramids—especially the Great Pyramid, which attracts most of the attention—like to repeat that fact to make it look like those pyramids couldn't have been intended as tombs. I think the Stargate film picked up that meme and mentioned it in passing. Then somebody apparently noted the existence of the Pyramid Texts and tried to rationalize the line in the film by saying "oh, they must have meant the Fourth Dynasty pyramids." This passage in the article is not only confusing but mostly irrelevant to the Pyramid Texts, so I think I'll just remove it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"to YOU father Geb," or "to YOUR father Geb"?

"Takes you into heaven, to you father Geb"

I would naturally assume that this should read "... to your father Geb." However, I hesitate to edit it, as I don't know whether this is an error introduced by an editor to this page, or if it is an error in the translation as quoted. Or am I in error?

(External links) navigation to: list of on-line resources (including translations) for further study

www.dpedtech.com provided the link for http://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/library.html#openbook list of on-line resources (including translations) for further study retrieved 19/09/2011Drift chambers (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Claim that the Pyramid Texts are possibly the oldest known religious texts

There is a passage in this article that claims that the Pyramid Texts are possibly the oldest known religious texts, with a note stating that some claim that the Kesh Temple Hymn is older. I believe that it's pretty clear that the Kesh Temple Hymn predates the Pyramid Texts. The oldest copies of the Pyramid Texts are found in the Pyramid of Unas. The accession of Unas is dated by the Oxford Project as ~2350 BCE based upon information gathered from radiocarbon dating. Relative dating places his accession at sometime between 2321-2105 BCE. No method of dating that I am aware of places Unas any earlier than this.

The oldest extant copy of the Kesh Temple Hymn found in Abu Salabikh was originally dated by Robert Biggs based upon lexicography and relative dating to ~2600 BCE.. Biggs is the source most commonly cited for the 2600 BCE dating of the Kesh Temple Hymn. Subsequently, samples of organic material gathered by two different excavations of the Abu Salabikh site were radiocarbon dated by two separate labs to between 2550-2520 BCE. Both methods of dating place the Kesh Temple Hymn two centuries earlier than the Pyramid Texts.

I'd like to change the line that reads "They are possibly the oldest known religious texts in the world" to "They are often claimed to be the oldest known religious texts, though the oldest known version is predated by the Kesh Temple Hymn by about two centuries." I'd also like to remove the note "A claim has also been put forth for the Sumerian Kesh Temple Hymn, which may be older." which no longer applies to the new line.

Acleverpseudonym (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of the reference to the fact that the Pyramid Text is often cited as the oldest religious text

It seems relevant to note both that the Pyramid Texts are often cited as being the oldest known religious texts and that this commonly held conception is incorrect. This is something that is often repeated and I believe that it should be addressed specifically. Acleverpseudonym (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with A Parrott that the view of a source saying this is incorrect, is problematic and disputed at best since thereis no way the cuneiform hymns are as old as the Old Kingdom hieroglyphic texts. Philip Mexico (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's true that Old Kingdom heiroglyphics are older, but aren't Old Kingdom Heiroglyphics placed into the same category as the proto-Sumerian writing found (for example) on the Kish tablet(c.3500 BCE)? Regardless, the claim that is often made is that the Pyramid Texts are the oldest extant religious texts, citing the dates of the texts found in the pyramid of Unas. As A Parrot mentions, there may be religious texts older than the Kesh Temple Hymn, but there are no known versions of the Pyramid Texts that predate it that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of dispute over the dating of the Abu Salabikh KTH, particularly after radiocarbon dating of several samples of organic material found near them agreed with Robert Biggs' dating based on lexical clues.

I'm fine with not stating that the KTH is the oldest religious text, but I think that it's important to note that that the Pyramid Texts are often claimed to be the oldest religious texts despite the existance other religious texts that are dated older than the oldest known copy of the Pyramid Texts. Acleverpseudonym (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I was thinking Early Dynastic, not Old Kingdom. The generally accepted chronology of Sumer places these tablets somewhere between 2600-2500 BCE, which is within the old kingdom. Are you saying that you believe that the generally accepted chronology of Sumer is incorrect along with all the radiocarbon dating supporting it? For example, the Abu Salabihk KTH dating done by Biggs was supported by the radiocarbon dating of 5 samples from the site by two different labs with results that all returned as pre 2500 BCE. Am I misunderstanding you?Acleverpseudonym (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no radiocarbondating on unas as you claimed. If you look into it, the conventional dating for the entire end of the old Kingdom hinges entirely on old kingdom artifacts that were found in ancient museums in Byblos and Ebla. They found these artifacts in layers corresponding to ca. 2400 BC so they assumed solely from that, the later old Kingdom dynasties were contemporanous with rulers in byblos and ebla, but as Michael Astour points out, in fact these artifacts were quite possibly already several centuries old in the layers they were found. So 'generally accepted' date of the end of the Old Kingdom never had as much weight behind it as advocates repeating that it is 'generally accepted'. Philip Mexico (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to radiocarbon dating of the most archaic version of the Kesh Temple Hymns, not to the Pyramid Texts because I assumed that you were saying that the KTH wasn't as old as stated generally. It sounds like you're saying that the dating of the Pyramid Texts in in question and that the dating is not based on radiocarbon dating. That may have been true previously, but in the last few years the Oxford Project radiocarbon dated 17 samples from the Old Kingdom and established a chronology that they believe is accurate to within about 80 years. This includes a dozen samples from kings who predate Unas and one from a sample of an object that is associated with his reign. This chronology based upon radiocarbon dating places the accession of Unas to 2350 BCE. . Detailed information on this can be found in Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt, Oxbow books, 2013. Some general information can be found here. Acleverpseudonym (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That recent report would bring the end of the 6th dynasty all the way as late as 2153 BC, making it contemporaneous with the Heracleopolitan 9th dynasty, which I should think would be rather controversial, seeing as it is fairly clear the Old Kingdom was already long gone well before the Heracleopolitan era. Philip Mexico (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also was the object they tested for Unas, by any chance the alabaster vase found at Byblos? Philip Mexico (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have sources that date the Pyramid Texts to significantly earlier than 2400 BCE? Acleverpseudonym (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't pay attention to what your revision said; in fact, I didn't realize you had made a revision. I just wanted to get rid of the problematic claim that the PT are the oldest, because I did see that you had raised this issue on the talk page.

I am sure the PT do not qualify as the oldest religious texts. The old wording, which Acleverpseudonym replaced, was the product of a compromise between me and another editor who favored a very low Mesopotamian chronology and was therefore dubious that the Kesh hymn really is older. However, I've since found that there are substantial Sumerian religious texts even older than the Kesh hymn. According to the article on the religious history of Mesopotamia by Paul-Alain Beaulieu in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, fairly sophisticated lists of deities in Sumer date back as far as Early Dynastic I—well before the Fifth Dynasty, even according to the short chronology—and they were an important means of expressing Sumerian theology. So not only is it wrong to make that claim about the PT; it's wrong to mention the Kesh hymn as its competitor, because the theological lists beat them both out.

I've said elsewhere on WP that to say which texts are or might be the oldest, we'd need a source that examines other religious texts up to that time, from Egypt and Mesopotamia, and says exactly what was new about the PT. I don't think anybody has actually done that. The closest thing I've seen is a couple of passages by Harold M. Hays in The Organization of the Pyramid Texts (Brill, 2012). He says "Today commonly called ‘Pyramid Texts’ after the title of Kurt Sethe’s edition of texts in the kingly pyramids, this corpus is the oldest substantial body of religious texts from ancient Egypt, and in the world" (p. 1). A footnote to that statement says there are older religious texts in Egypt, but they are not "collections of texts". Later he says: "Here one has the oldest substantial documentation of religious beliefs and practices in the world" (p. 4), which is considerably less sweeping and more credible. But Hays still does not directly compare the PT to Mesopotamian texts. So I don't know what we should say about this question. A. Parrot (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

the problem is it would be WP:SYNTH if you don't have a rs making the specific claim, that the tablets are older relative to the PT. And there is no agreement, you as a wikipedian think the tablets are older, I as a wikipedian think Pyramid Texts are older, but the only sources making comment support my position, and until an RS makes that claim it is synth. Philip Mexico (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The WP:CALC says that basic arithmetic calculations are explicitly not synthesis so long as the calculation is "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." The "SYNTH is not numerical summarization" section of WP:SYNTHNOT covers this as well. It says "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue." These sections explicitly mention that ordering and addition and subtraction of dates is not synthesis. If we have sourced dates, ordering them is not synthesis. I have listed reliable sources for all of the dating claims that I've made, including new radiocarbon dating information on the Old Kingdom from Oxford. It sounds like a large part of your objection is that you support an older date for the Pyramid Texts that is not currently reflected in the PT article. Acleverpseudonym (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am still curious to resolve in my own mind how the Old Kingdom pharaohs could have possibly existed so late and coexisted with the Heracleopolitans as your source suggests. I am also curious if the artifact for Unas was the one from Byblos. Philip Mexico (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the information on the specific artifacts that were dated for this (though I do for the KTH). I did however link you to both the book and a web page that discusses the project that may have contact information if you'd like more information. Even if the specific artifact for Unas was completely wrong, it generally agrees with a dozen other datings of other artifacts that are ascribed to previous kings. It seems unlikely more than a dozen samples were not only wrong, but wrong in a way that is both internally consistent and also reasonably consistent (+-85 years) from the most commonly cited chronology. This dating would have to be off by much more than a century for the Pyramid of Unas PT to predate the Abu Salabikh KTH. Acleverpseudonym (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply! I'm interested in those older god lists. I wonder where they were found. I'm familiar with the Fara God List, but I believe that was dated to ~2600 BCE by Anton Deimel in the 1920s. I'm also really interested in more information about the short chronology favored by the other editor. How much off did (s)he believe the standard chronology was off by? Did (s)he address the issue that radiocarbon dating seems to support the traditional chronology? If this is an established theory I'd love for you to point me in the direction of more info!

To address the edit, I'm fine with not saying that the KTH is the oldest religious text, but I think it's worthwhile to note that the PT are often claimed to be. How about something like:

"The Pyramid Texts are often claimed to be the oldest known religious texts despite the fact that we have examples of religious texts from both Egypt and Sumer that predate the oldest known copies."

I'd love to see a note attached that gives some examples. What do you think?

Acleverpseudonym:The source that discusses the god lists is referring primarily to Fara, though it also says "contemporary fragments of these same lists were found at Abu Salabikh, Ur, and Uruk".

The user who favored the low chronology was User:Til Eulenspiegel. Unfortunately, you can't discuss it with him because he's since been banned for unrelated behavioral problems. The caption to a map of Mesopotamia on an old version of his userpage talks about his reasons for preferring a low chronology. I don't think he ever discussed the age of the Kesh temple hymn in depth.

The problem with your proposed wording is that, as Philip Mexico says, it constitutes original synthesis, which Wikipedia discourages. It may be a mild, excusable instance of synthesis, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea. I really wish a reliable source would examine this claim in detail. For now, I think the most we can say is that the Pyramid Texts are the oldest substantial collection of religious texts from Egypt. A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This type of chronology seems to be allowed by WP:CALC, which says that basic arithmetic calculations are explicitly not synthesis so long as the calculation is "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." The "SYNTH is not numerical summarization" section of WP:SYNTHNOT covers this as well, saying "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue" Since this is essentially just summarizing the ordering of dates (summaries of numeric data are also explicitly allowed), it seems that unless someone contests the source of the dating as being invalid, this conforms to Wikipedia policies. Acleverpseudonym (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

All right. Maybe something like this:

The Pyramid Texts are the oldest collection of religious texts from ancient Egypt, predated only by a few individual temple texts, and they contain extensive information about beliefs and practices in the Old Kingdom. They have been claimed as the oldest religious texts in the world, although there are several Sumerian texts that may be older.[insert a note with detailed examples]

A. Parrot (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That looks perfectly reasonable to me. I can provide sourcing for the dating of a couple of examples, particularly the Abu Salabikh KTH and the Fara God list. I found the sources that should contain specific info for some of the the early Uruk tablets, but I don't have access to them. The book you mentioned, "Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide" mentions them (though not in a level of detail that I find comforting). You had also mentioned some older Egyptian texts? Acleverpseudonym (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hays mentions the fragmentary texts on the surviving blocks from a temple in Heliopolis built by Djoser, and a papyrus from the Thirteenth Dynasty whose text may go back to Djoser's time. Offering formulas and other texts were inscribed in mastabas in the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties. Hays doesn't seem to count them, apparently because of the strong circumstantial evidence that the PT originated long before they were inscribed in Unas's pyramid—see [1] (another work by Hays), pages 119 to 120. A. Parrot (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting. I personally suspect that both the PT and the KTH significantly predate the oldest known copies. The version of the KTH from Abu Salabikh was not actually a single copy, but rather 3 copies. These copies were almost identical to the copies from 800 years later (aside from differences in writing). The implication is that the KTH was a widely copied, standard text that was already such in the 26th century BCE. That's all speculation though at this point still.

Looking more closely, I believe that the God Lists being referenced in "Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide" are the same ones I was aware of. He dates them to 2700 BCE, but it was my understanding that the finds from Fara and Abu Salabikh are contemporary to each other (26th century BCE). The 2600 BCE dating commonly given for the KTH was based upon strong similarities to tablets found in Fara which had been dated to 2600 BCE since the 1920s. That info is based on a source from 1974 though, so there may be new evidence. There are tablets mentioned from Ur and Uruk that are considerably older, but I haven't found much info yet.

I think that the important Sumerian texts to mention are the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Fara God List and the early offering lists to the Goddess Inanna. I want to look further into the dating of the Fara God List. Acleverpseudonym (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'm attempting to get clarification from Dr. Beaulieu on a statement about the dating of the Fara God List made in "Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide" that isn't specifically sourced and is contradicted (n great depth) by several other reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acleverpseudonym (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

---

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pyramid Texts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://cas.memphis.edu/~pbrand/Egypt%20Texts/Pyramid_Texts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pyramid Texts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050923100652/http://cas.memphis.edu:80/%7Epbrand/Egypt%20Texts/Pyramid_Texts.htm to http://cas.memphis.edu/~pbrand/Egypt%20Texts/Pyramid_Texts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible Edits and Additions

I am a student at the University of Miami and I have chosen to work on improving this article for my class assignment. The link to the class can be found here. I am planning on making a few small addition to the leading section as well as adding a section on the Unis pyramid texts. Copied below are a few of the sources I will be using. If anyone has any recommendations for improvement or additional helpful sources please let me know! Also feel free to look at my Sandbox so see my ideas for improvement. Thanks! Emilyrd98 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Allen, James P. (2015). The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature.

Hornung, Erik. (1999). The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife. Ithica and London: Cornel University Press.

Mark, Joshua J. (2012). The Pyramid Texts: Guide to the Afterlife. Ancient History Encyclopedia.

Mercer, Samuel (1956). Literary Criticism of the Pyramid Texts. London: Luzac & Company LTD.

Willems, Harco (2008). Historical and Archaeological Aspects of Egyptian Funerary Culture. Boston: Brill.

Verifiability

Pyramid Texts were also discovered on fragments of wood within the tomb of queen Meretites IV. - I'm not doubting that this is true, but I can't find a damn thing on the subject. The only work that even mentions her is Dodson (2016) and he has less than a sentence to say about her. Google searching just brings up results for Meritites I, wife of Khufu. If anybody has a source for this, that'd be nice. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)