Talk:Pyramid of Pepi I

Latest comment: 3 months ago by Mr rnddude in topic Pyramid Text 534

Pyramid Text 534

edit

I'm sure this is annoying, but these are issues that need to be addressed. I had to revert these changes. Most are explained in the edit summary, but the fourth one – that it introduced factual errors is worth explication.

You took the footnote applied to PT 534 and appended it to Hays statement at the end of the paragraph above it and also left the original references out. This introduces errors: 'In the passageway between the burial- and ante- chambers, are a set of four spells inscribed on the north and south walls that are exclusive to Pepi I's pyramid'. This is false. PT 534 is a single text, but there are four texts on those walls. Three exist in other pyramids: PT 463–464 are at least in Pepi I's, Ankhensenpepi II's, and Pepi II's pyramids; PTs 674 & 675 are in Pepi I's, Pepi II's, and Neith's pyramid. Only PT 735 has a sole instance in Pepi I's pyramid.

None of those are PT 534, which is nowhere near the passageway between the chambers. It is located on the east wall of the entrance corridor's northern section (just after the descending corridor; or just before the ascending passage). Direct quote from Allen (2005): '[T]he east wall contains a spell for protection of the tomb, addresses to the spirit, and a final imprecation against the guardian of the door at the corridor’s end (Spells 483–485)'. Briefly, Allen's spell numbers are not equivalent to PT numbers. To convert between check the index which lists Spell P 483 as PT 534. Consequently, the following statement that the passage texts are [a]n apotropaic text, its purpose is to ward off malignant gods, assist the king's passage to the sky, and curse anyone who damages the pyramid is also false. The texts of the passage are recitations, which Allen (2005) lists as 'spells for proceeding to the Akhet'. Note that Hays and Allen have vastly differing views on interpreting the function of the texts, best exemplified by Hays' rebuttal to Allen's article Reading the Pyramids (1994) with his own Unreading the Pyramids (2009).

The blockquote is an illustration, not a component of the prose. It was placed there because it is the mid-point of the section. Put it at the end, and it unbalances the whole section. I have nevertheless added a clarifying note appended to the end of the quotation. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply