Memorial of Memphite theology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Memorial of Memphite theology (Schabaka stone)
unframed
material Green breccia
Dimensions H. 92 cm; W. 137.5 cm;
origin probably Memphis
time Third Intermediate currently Schabakas (716-706 v. Chr.)
place London , British Museum , EA 498 (formerly 135)

The memphite theology memorial (also known as the Schabaka stone ) is a black plate made of green breccia with an ancient Egyptian inscription, which is now in the British Museum , where it is listed under the inventory number EA 498. According to his own statements, the Kushitic Pharaoh Shabaka found a worm-eaten papyrus in the Ptah Temple in Memphis , the contents of which he had chiseled on the plate so that it would last for eternity. The inscription is the most important source of Memphite theology , the creation myth of Egyptian mythology developed in Memphis . At the center of this creation story is the god Ptah , who created the world with the help of heart and tongue (i.e. knowledge and language). It is the earliest known theology based on the principle of the Logos , creation through the word and speech, and thus recalls the beginning of the Gospel of John . The inscription also addresses the myth of Horus and Seth , which is viewed as a mythical representation of the unification of Egypt .

The text is still a major problem for research. Because it was reused as a pillar or mill stone, the middle part of the inscription was rubbed off and is no longer legible. The dating of the original text, from which Shabaka had the inscription copied, varies by over 2000 years. Early editors assumed a time of origin in the Old Kingdom or even earlier; more recently, the Ramesside period or the beginning of the third intermediate period is assumed. According to another opinion, it is a creation of Shabaka himself, the report of the find of the worm-eaten papyrus is therefore a legend of discovery with the intention of giving greater weight to the content as the "work of the ancestors".

Origin and description

The inscription is carved on a rectangular block of black hard rock measuring 92 × 137.5 cm . The rock is often referred to as granite , sometimes also as basalt . In response to inquiries from the British Museum, Benedikt Rothöhler received the answer that it is a conglomerate- like rock, which is usually mineralogically referred to as "green breccia " and was mined in Wadi Hammamat . A quarry expedition under Shabaka from the 12th year of the reign is actually documented there.

The exact origin is unknown, the block may have come from the Temple of Ptah in Memphis . In 1805, George John 2nd Earl of Spencer donated it to the British Museum , where it is listed under the inventory number EA 498. The Earl of Spencer brought the Shabaka stone along with other flat and weighty objects from Alexandria , which were brought onto the ships as ballast - for the purpose of calm seafaring and not as an antique. El Hawary suspects that these monuments were transported to Alexandria from Memphis or Heliopolis in ancient times.

The inscription consists of two horizontal lines and below 62 vertical columns. When it was later re-used, a rectangular recess was worked into the middle part and the surrounding part was heavily rubbed off and is therefore no longer legible from columns 24 to 47, apart from a few remains of characters. These traces of use have long been attributed to the use as a millstone, El Hawari assumes, however, that the stone was later used as the foundation of a column or a pillar.

The contextual connection between the left and right part remains unclear despite partial points of contact. Further destruction is the erasure of the maiden name Shabakas and the name of the god Seth, which Psammetich II had carried out in ancient Egypt.

Dating

The Cushitic Pharaoh Shabaka , who allegedly had the inscription copied from a worm-eaten papyrus.

The colophon presents the inscription as a recreated copy of a worm-eaten papyrus that Shabaka found in the Ptah Temple in Memphis:

“His Majesty (Shabaka) rewrote this text from the temple of his father Ptah-south-of-his-wall. His Majesty found it to be the work of ancestors and eaten away by worms, and because it was no longer understood from beginning to end, [His Majesty (or similar)] copied it anew and even better than before, with it his name will be immortalized and his monuments will last as long as eternity in the temple of his father Ptah-south-his-wall. Made by the son of Re [Shabaka] for his father Ptah-Tatenen - may he act by being given eternal life. "

- Memorial of Memphite Theology

The dating of the copy to the time of Shabaka is undisputed, that of the text, which Shabaka called "the work of the ancestors", is still highly controversial today. James H. Breasted suspected the origin in the New Kingdom or shortly before. For Adolf Erman , the text was written at a time when Memphis became the capital of the Old Kingdom. Kurt Sethe dated it even earlier , namely to the 1st Dynasty , although certain parts should have been made in prehistoric times. This dating was kept for a long time, and the memphite theology monument was used as a source for religion, literature and spiritual life in the Old Kingdom. The early dating was primarily based on linguistic and content-related arguments; unmistakable features of late language were blamed on the Cushitic copyist.

Friedrich Junge took a completely different dating approach in 1973. He considers the text to be an original creation of the 25th dynasty in that he recognizes archaic tendencies in the language that do not differ significantly from neo- Middle Egyptian texts of the 25th and 26th dynasties. In his opinion, the linguistic elements that were used as criteria for old age are indicative of archaic tendencies or influences of New Egyptian , which is typical of the archaism of the late period . The report of the find of the worm-eaten papyrus is therefore a legend of discovery with the intention of giving the content greater weight as the "work of the ancestors". As a result, Junge's thesis had largely prevailed as a doctrine , even though HA Schlögel and Jan Assmann suggested a possible development in the Ramesside period .

Benedikt Rothöhler came to the conclusion that a dating is ultimately not possible due to content and linguistic arguments. Especially for religious texts in ancient Egypt it was by no means the rule that they were written by an author at a certain point in time, but that they "developed" over a longer period of time until a clearly independent text emerged. In addition, the texts were often compiled from elements of older texts, which often referred to these origins in the language rather than to the final editing. The archaic or archaic expressions can be understood as an attempt by a late-time author to write a text in an older Egyptian, or as an attempt by a late-time copyist to reproduce a difficult-to-understand ancient Egyptian text. An exact dating of the "original text" is therefore not possible. Most likely it was made towards the end of the third intermediate period (23rd or 24th dynasty), perhaps a little more than 50 years before the copy by Shabaka.

Reading direction

The hieroglyphs of the inscription face to the right, which usually implies a right-to-left reading direction, as is common practice. Accordingly, the inscription should begin with the column on the far right. However, the reading direction is controversial. James H. Breasted and the following editors mostly assumed a retrograde (clockwise) reading direction, after which the text begins on the left side of the horizontal columns. After this reading, the hieroglyphs look towards the end of the text, as is known from the Papyri of the Dead . In addition, retrograde texts from ancient Egypt are rare. Breasted's assumption of a retrograde reading is based on the fact that in some places a group of words clearly continues from the end of a column to the beginning of the column adjacent to the right.

For Benedikt Rothöhler, various indications speak against a retrograde reading. He assumes that the "shifted column ends" go back to an ancient transcription error. When copying the text from an original with longer columns to the copy with shorter columns, the copyist has therefore fluidly wrapped the text from left to right: That the scribes often worked "automatically" and without grasping the content, and that therefore the "shifted." Column ends "do not necessarily have to match the reading direction of the original, can be proven by many clear examples. Content-related problems and the investigation of the late Egyptian conception of creation have shown for him that various indications speak against a retrograde reading. The non-retrograde reading is therefore simpler, has fewer requirements and is more plausible in terms of content. Despite these hints, Jan Assmann sticks to the retrograde reading (from left to right).

content

The Shabaka stone in epigraphic copy by Breasted

The colophon gives the title of King Shabaka. Tradition has it that Shabaka found a worm-eaten papyrus in the temple of his father Ptah-south-of-his-wall in Memphis, which he had copied anew in order to preserve it for eternity.

Reading from left to right

The following table of contents is based on the reading direction from left to right (retrograde) as understood by Breasted, Junker and others and, according to the most recent translation, according to this view of Carsten Peust and Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi.

The left part is dubbed by Junker as the "political doctrine of Memphis". The introductory words name Ptah as the one "who thought up the significant names of these (things or gods)", united Upper and Lower Egypt, appeared as nsw and bjt and created himself. But it is Atum who gave birth to the unity of the gods. He ends the quarrel between the gods Horus and Seth by making Seth the King of Upper Egypt and Horus the King of Lower Egypt. Both are happy with it. Geb is now displeased that Horus' and Seth's shares are the same, since he sees Horus as the rightful heir, and requests that all of Egypt be awarded to him. Geb then proclaimed Horus as king before the ninth , who now ruled over all of Egypt with Memphis as the capital alone: Horus appeared in Memphis, where the two countries unite, as king who unified the two countries. Then it is reported about the burial of Osiris in Memphis and that he was pulled out of the water by Isis .

After the destroyed middle section, the right half, which Junker calls the "Gods of Memphis", describes the creation of the world by Ptah. For reasons unknown, the eight manifestations of Ptah are enumerated which have become the heart and tongue in the form of Atum . Ptah creates the world by means of the creation principles "heart and tongue" (i.e. knowledge and language):

“Through it (the heart) is Horus, and through her (the tongue) Thoth came forth from Ptah. Thus came the predominance of the heart and tongue over [all other] members, and it shows that he (Ptah) stands at the head of every body and mouth of all gods, of all men, [of all] animals and of all worms that live, where he thinks and commands everything he wants. Thus all gods were born, and his divine unity was complete. And from what the heart thought out and the tongue commanded, all the sacred texts arose. "

- Monument to Memphite theology

At the end the Osiris myth is taken up again. Horus orders Isis and Nephthys to fish Osiris out of the water. After being rescued, Osiris enters the glory of the Lord of Eternity through the secret gates, on the trail of him who rises on the horizon, on the paths of Re in the High Throne . He connects with the court of the realm of the dead and joins the gods of "Tatenen, Ptah, the Lord of the Years". Then it is reported about the burial of Osiris in Memphis, and that Horus is now king of all Egypt.

Reading from right to left

Benedikt Rothöler decided for various reasons to read from right to left (non-prograd) and interpreted the course of the inscription as follows:

After an introductory praise from Ptah, it is explained that Ptah's city of Memphis is also the burial place of Osiris, the following story of "pulling out of the water" is the more detailed explanation. When the gods and “their kas” are gathered for the funeral in Memphis, Ptah creates the cult images for them. On this basis Ptah sets up the world as a cult topography: temples for the cult images, cities for the temples, districts to supply the cult, etc. Ptah's creative works are compared with those of Atum. In response to his creative acts, the litany of his manifestations follows in his honor.

At the beginning of the left-hand part, the wording is slightly different from how Osiris was pulled out of the water. After that he is given a grave in Memphis. In this place Horus and Seth are gathered and fraternized, both are satisfied. Geb proclaims Horus as heir. The responsibilities are distributed: Horus in Upper Egypt and Seth in Lower Egypt. With that the desired end situation is reached, the ninth and the two king gods are satisfied. As a summary, reference is again made to the creators Atum and Ptah, the latter, as Lord of Memphis, is also the actual king of both countries.

The doctrine of creation

Memphitic theology extends the family tree of the Ninth of Heliopolis to include the god Ptah-Tatenen.

First of all, Ptah gives rise to the eighthness of Hermopolis , which personifies the preexisting original state. Ptah even precedes pre-existence. The doctrine of the Ninth of Heliopolis served as an important basis for the Memphite doctrine of creation . In this oldest ancient Egyptian doctrine of creation, the god Atum appears as the god of creation. The divine two sexes Schu and Tefnut emerge from it through separation , from which rule passes from one generation of gods to the next, until Horus takes over rule in the fifth generation and is embodied in every ruling pharaoh. The Memphite doctrine of creation tries to surpass the Heliopolitan one by completing it and expanding the family tree: It puts "Ptah-Tatenen" before Atum as the first generation of creators or rulers.

Ptah creates the world through the principles of the heart and tongue (that is, knowledge and language). The memphite theology memorial is the most elaborate ancient Egyptian representation of creation through the word. It recalls the beginning of the Gospel of John (1.1–18 EU ):

In the beginning ( ἀρχή ) was the word ( λόγος )
and the word was with God ,
and the word was God.
In the beginning it was with God.
Everything came into being through the word
and without the word, nothing came into being. :

In contrast to the biblical representation, the heart also plays an important role in Memphite theology, as a planning element of creation, and on the other hand also the writing, the hieroglyphs, which reproduce the shape of things that the heart invents. The heart thinks things up, the tongue vocalizes them and the hieroglyphic writing brings them into visible form. Ptah, the god of artists and craftsmen, is responsible for designing things. Thoth, the god of the tongue, and therefore also the god of hieroglyphic writing, realizes the thoughts of the heart in spoken and written form.

M. Görg assumes that “the word theology of Ptah worshipers” in Greco-Roman times comes from Memphite theology, which could well have had points of contact with the Gospel of John. The city of Alexandria in particular was the intersection of Greek, Egyptian and Jewish traditions. In Philo of Alexandria , for example, a theologically overloaded concept of logos appears, but this is fraught with theological questions, the reception of which in early Christianity is not proven.

The totality of creation is called "all things and all hieroglyphs". Jan Assmann sees in this dichotomy of creation similarities to the philosophy of Plato, in which a distinction is made between a sphere of archetypes (ideas) and a world of infinitely reproduced images: In Egyptian "hieroglyphic" thinking, there is a similar relationship between things and characters as between things and Term in Greek. By conceiving the archetypes of things, Ptah also invented writing with them, which Thoth only needs to record, just as, as a tongue, he only needs to pronounce the thoughts of the heart.

The interaction of Ptah, who conceives things, and Thoth, who records them, has certain similarities with the interaction of God and Adam in Paradise, as described in Genesis:

“The Lord God formed all the animals in the field and all the birds in the sky from the soil and brought them to man to see what he would call them. And as man named every living being, so it should be called. Man gave names to all cattle, the birds of the sky and all animals of the field. "

- Genesis 2: 19-20

Adam's naming of things corresponds to the connection of things and words, as Thoth makes, and since it is a creation through the word, Adam and Thoth “read” things from what they say or write down.

Interpretations

Kurt Sethe saw similarities in the inscription with the "Dramatic Ramesseumspapyrus", which he edited. The "Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus" contains the ritual for a cult ceremony, which Sethe interpreted as an accession rite. The individual scenes of the mythical acts are equated with the Osiris saga, so that the cult act appears as a mirror image of the mythical process. Accordingly, the memphite theology memorial is also a text that deals in a dramatic form with the myths of Osiris and Horus, more or less comparable to the medieval mystery plays. He considered the exchange speeches to be instructions for the protagonists of the roles of gods in the staged performance. Most of the subsequent editors agreed with this view.

For Jan Assmann, the monument represents a return to the past. The text glorifies the city of Memphis: “Obviously it belongs to the political program of the Ethiopian kings to rebuild Memphis not only architecturally, but above all spiritually and religiously, and to make it the capital of Egypt to make that sees itself as the rebirth of the Old Kingdom. ”A reference to the time of Shabaka is obvious. Before Shabaka's time, the empire was divided into various Libyan principalities. Although his predecessor Pije undertook a campaign in Egypt, it had not yet come down to this to reunite Egypt. Only Shabaka took this step. He tried to renew the classical pharaonic monarchy. The monuments in the area around Memphis in particular bear witness to the heyday of the earlier pharaohs, hence the endeavor to tie in with Memphite traditions.

Jan Assmann sees something like the myth of "unification" in the myth of Horus and Seth. The dispute between Horus and Seth is carried out as a legal dispute, the decision ultimately rests with Geb. Overall, the process runs in three phases: The dispute, the arbitration through division and peace through union. With the union there is reconciliation: Seth is overcome, but not excluded, but integrated. When the accession to the throne, the union is carried out ritually every time. The text thus draws on a very old myth that tells of Egypt's turn towards political unity.

“The text can be understood very well as a mythical figuration of a historical situation in which a period of two rival sub-kingdoms is ended by the establishment of an encompassing unity in which one party has proven to be victorious, but great importance is attached to the integrate inferior party. Horus of course stands for the Horus kingdom of Hierakonpolis and Seth for the kingdom of Naqada. Naqada / Ombos is the home of this god, he has been at home there since time immemorial. "

- Jan Assmann

literature

  • James P. Allen : Genesis in Egypt. The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts. (= Yale Egyptological Studies, 2) New Haven, 1988, pp. 43-47.
  • Hartwig Altenmüller : Article Monument Memphitischer Theology. In: Wolfgang Helck , Eberhard Otto (Hrsg.): Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Volume I, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1975, columns 1065-1069.
  • Jan Assmann : Egypt. A story of meaning. Hanser, Munich 1996, ISBN 3-446-18522-4 , pp. 55-59 and 382-396.
  • Jan Assmann: Reception and interpretation in Egypt. The "Memorial of Memphite Theology" as an interpretation of the Heliopolitan cosmogony. In: Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Thomas Krüger (Hrsgg.): Reception and interpretation in the Old Testament and in its environment. A symposium on the occasion of the 60th birthday of Odil Hannes Steck (= Orbis biblicus et orientalis. Volume 153). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Freiburg (Switzerland), Göttingen 1997, pp. 125-138.
  • Horst Beinlich: Comments on the Schabaka stone. In: Göttinger Miscellen . (GM) Vol. 122, 1991, pp. 15-20.
  • James H. Breasted : The Philosophy of a Memphite Priest. In: Journal for Egyptian Language and Antiquity . Volume 39, 1901, pp. 39-54 ( online )
  • Adolf Erman : A monument to Memphite theology. In: Session reports of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences. Volume 43, 1911, pp. 916-950. ( online )
  • J. Gwyn Griffiths: The Origins of Osiris and his Cult (= Studies in the History of Religions. Volume 40). Brill, Leiden 1980, ISBN 90-04-06096-0 , pp. 107-113.
  • Amr El Hawary: word creation. The Memphite theology and the victory stele of Pije - two witnesses of cultural representation in the 25th Dynasty. (= Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 243) Freiburg (Switzerland) / Göttingen, 2010. ( Online )
  • E. Iversen: Egyptian and Hermetic Doctrine (= Opuscula Graecolatina. Volume 27). Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen 1984, ISBN 87-88073-78-5 .
  • Friedrich Junge : On the misdating of the so-called monument of Memphite theology or The contribution of Egyptian theology to the intellectual history of the late period. In: Communications from the German Archaeological Institute. Cairo Department. (MDAIK) Volume 29, 1973, pp. 195-204
  • Hermann Junker : The gods teaching of Memphis. In: Treatises of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. 1939, Phil.-hist. Class No. 23, Berlin 1940.
  • Hermann Junker: The political lesson of Memphis. In: Treatises of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. 1941, Phil.-hist. Class No. 6, Berlin 1941.
  • Miriam Lichtheim : Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkley 1973, pp. 51-57
  • Carsten Peust, Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: The “Monument to Memphite Theology” . In: Texts from the environment of the Old Testament . Supplementary delivery (TUAT EL), Gütersloh 2001.
  • Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Monument to Memphite Theology. (Submitted on September 21, 2004 as a dissertation at the Philosophical Faculty of Heidelberg University) ( Online ).
  • Kurt Sethe : Dramatic texts on ancient Egyptian mystery games. The "Memorial of Memphite Theology", the shabacostone of the British Museum. In: Studies on the history and antiquity of Egypt. Volume X, 1, Hinrichs, Leipzig 1928.
  • J. Yoyotte: Le martelage des noms royaux Ethiopiens par Psammétique II. In: Revue d'Égyptologie. (RdÉ) Volume 8, 1951, pp. 251 ff.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Memorial of Memphite Theology Heidelberg 2004, p. 11, on request from Dr. Andrew Middleton from the British Museum.
  2. ↑ Quack: Monument Memphitischer Theology. 2018 with reference to J. Couyat, P. Montet: Les inscriptions hiéroglyphiques et hiératiques du Ouâdi Hammâmât. (= Mémoires publiés pas les Membres de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire 34), Cairo 1912, p. 96.
  3. ↑ El Hawary: Word creation. 2010, p. 76.
  4. ↑ El Hawary: Word creation. 2010, p. 75.
  5. ^ A b Carsten Peust, Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: The “Memorial Memphitischer Theologie”. Gütersloh 2001, p. 166.
  6. ^ Carsten Peust, Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: The “Memorial Memphitischer Theologie”. Gütersloh 2001, p. 170.
  7. ↑ James H. Breasted: The Philosophy of a Memphite Priest. In: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 39 , 1901, p. 43
  8. ^ Adolf Erman: A memorial memphitischer theology. In: Session reports of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences 43 , 1911, p. 924.
  9. ^ Carsten Peust, Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: The “Memorial Memphitischer Theologie”. Gütersloh 2001, p. 167.
  10. ↑ Friedrich Junge: On the misdating of the so-called monument of Memphite theology or The contribution of Egyptian theology to the intellectual history of the late period. P. 198.
  11. ↑ HA Schlögel: The god Tatenen (= Orbis biblicus et orientalis. [OBO] vol. 29). Freiburg (Switzerland) 1980, pp. 110-117.
  12. ↑ Jan Assmann: Egypt. A story of meaning. Munich 1996, p. 392.
  13. ↑ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Memorial of Memphite Theology Heidelberg 2004, p. 184.
  14. ^ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Memorial of Memphite Theology Heidelberg 2004, p. 187.
  15. ↑ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Memorial of Memphite Theology Heidelberg 2004, p. 202.
  16. ↑ Carsten Peust, Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: The “Memorial Memphitischer Theologie”. P. 166ff. and James H. Breasted: The Philosophy of a Memphite Priest. In: Journal for Egyptian Language and Antiquity. Vol. 39, 1901, pp. 39ff.
  17. ↑ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Monument to Memphite Theology. Heidelberg 2004, p. 207.
  18. ↑ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Monument to Memphite Theology. Heidelberg 2004, p. 11.
  19. ↑ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Monument to Memphite Theology. Heidelberg 2004, p. 12.
  20. ↑ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Monument to Memphite Theology. Heidelberg 2004, pp. 203ff.
  21. ↑ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Monument to Memphite Theology. Heidelberg 2004, p. 12, note 19.
  22. ^ Carsten Peust, Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: The “Memorial Memphitischer Theologie”. Gütersloh 2001, p. 171.
  23. ^ Carsten Peust, Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: The “Memorial Memphitischer Theologie”. Gütersloh 2001, p. 173.
  24. ^ Carsten Peust, Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: The “Memorial Memphitischer Theologie”. Gütersloh 2001, p. 168 ff.
  25. ↑ Benedikt Rothöhler: New Thoughts on the Monument to Memphite Theology. Heidelberg 2004, p. 16.
  26. ↑ Jan Assmann: Egypt. A story of meaning. Munich 1996, p. 383ff.
  27. ↑ Jan Assmann: Egypt. A story of meaning. Munich 1996, p. 387ff.
  28. ↑ Gerhard Müller (Ed.): Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Volume 36. Berlin 2004, p. 308.
  29. ↑ Jan Assmann: Egypt. A story of meaning. Munich 1996, p. 391.
  30. ↑ Genesis 2.19  EU
  31. ↑ Jan Assmann: Egypt. A story of meaning. Munich 1996, p. 392.
  32. ↑ Hans Wilhelm Haussig , Dietz Otto Edzard (ed.): Gods and Myths in the Middle East (= Dictionary of Mythology . Department 1: The ancient civilized peoples. Volume 1). 2nd edition, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1983, ISBN 3-12-909810-0 , p. 322 with reference to Kurt Sethe: Dramatic texts on ancient Egyptian mystery games. In: Studies on the history and antiquity of Egypt. (UGAÄ) Vol. 10, Leipzig 1928.
  33. ↑ Peust, Sternberg-el Hotabi: Monument Memphitischer Theologie. In: TUAT, EL , p. 169 with reference to Kurt Sethe: The Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus. A game about the accession of the king to the throne. In: Studies on the history and antiquity of Egypt. Vol. 10. Leipzig 1928, pp. 83ff.
  34. ↑ Jan Assmann: Egypt. A story of meaning. Munich 1996, p. 382.
  35. ↑ Jan Assmann: Egypt. A story of meaning. Munich 1996, p. 386.
  36. ↑ Jan Assmann: Egypt. A story of meaning. Munich 1996, p. 56f.
  37. ↑ Jan Assmann: Egypt. A story of meaning. Munich 1996, p. 57.