Talk:Teti

Untitled
2008.11.11 Y! news article upon the discovery of the pyramid in Saqqara of Queen Sesheshet mother of Teti http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_new_pyramid;_ylt=AlwNxMEvv5CHn1lLyw6hnHcDW7oF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithaca (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

good link
I dont have the time, but if someone wants to expand this, this is a good link: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/teti.htm. I think some of the information in this article was taken from it, but it has a lot more

Ice Truck Killer (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Teti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081202045056/http://www.cnn.com:80/2008/WORLD/meast/11/11/egypt.pyramid.discovery.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/11/egypt.pyramid.discovery.ap/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Outdated sources cause confusion
Recently some sentences were added to the lead section that is sourced to a book from 1854: The Monumental History of Egypt, Volume II: From the Visit of Abram to the Exodus, by William Osburn, Jr. This is an outdated source that we should not rely upon. First of all, Egyptology was very shaky in the 1850s. The last basic features of the ancient Egyptian writing systems and language were nailed down around that time, and any study of Egyptian history would have depended mostly on cross-checking classical sources, like the passages quoted from the work of Manetho by subsequent authors, with ancient Egyptian king lists and cartouches found on scattered monuments. Detailed studies of Egyptian history that analyzed pharaonic sources were still in the future. Second, Osburn doesn't seem to have had Egyptological qualifications (very few people did at the time), and the title of his book, and that of another of his, show that he was pushing an agenda, trying to prove the Bible true using Egyptian sources. (Things didn't work out well for that agenda in the century and a half that followed.)

More relevant to this article, here are the passages based on Osburn:

The position of this king in the Chamber of Karnak shows him to have been the father of Saites. He takes the place of his son in the sucession of the Memphite kings, while his son sits in the honourable post assigned throughout the Chamber to the conqueror of Memphis. There is a similar interchange between Amenemes and his son.

He is the great-father of Aphophis.

The personal names in these passages are all Hellenized, no doubt because Osburn was drawing on Manetho. The "Chamber of Karnak" must be the Karnak king list. Unfortunately, the Karnak king list seems prone to cause confusion. Certainly, Osburn misread it, for he says:

"In the lists his [Teti's] name appears at the head both of the 5th and 6th dynasties in the copies of Eusebius and Africanus… Othoes is made the head of a dynasty in both the entries of his name, as we have seen. In both also Aphophis follows him, under the name of Phiops… Othoes was the last of the Heracleopolitan or Sebennyte Pharaohs of the 10th Dynasty, the father of Saites and, by consequence, the founder of the Shepherd [ Hyksos ] dynasty which, by some inexplicable confusion, appears as the 15th, 16th, or 17th dynasty of the different copies of the lists."

Osburn has jumbled up chronologies here, quite possibly aided by problems in the source material, and conflated some of the basic time periods in Egyptian history with each other. Notably, he confused Pepi I Meryre, who really was Teti's son, with Apepi or Apophis, a Hyksos ruler from nearly 800 years later. His work simply is not a source that Wikipedia can rely on. A. Parrot (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How can I corroborate that (Osburn isn't a reliable source)? Thanks for the information. Tajotep (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't point you to a reliable source that says Osburn is unreliable. In years of collecting sources on ancient Egypt, I'd never even heard of him until I came across these additions to the Teti article. But a reliable scholar would be referred to by other scholars in the field; Osburn, as far as I know, isn't, and certainly no Egyptologist today would have reason to cite him except perhaps as an example of past errors.


 * More generally, in most scholarly fields that I can think of it's a bad idea to cite works as old as Osburn's. It certainly is in Egyptology, which took a long time to develop a decent understanding of the society it studies. I can't give you an RS that makes this general point, but I can give an example. E. A. Wallis Budge's works are in the public domain and are widely reprinted for that reason, but a current Egyptologist, Edna Russmann, said of them, "Unfortunately many have been kept in print long after their usefulness has been exhausted" (Eternal Egypt: Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum, 2001, p. 59). Budge was a rather sloppy scholar compared with other Egyptologists of his time, but his knowledge was half a century more advanced than Osburn's!


 * For a fairly cut-and-dried subject like Egyptian chronology and general history, I think sources from the past 60 years or so are generally OK (although newer sources are always preferable, because discoveries or reevaluations of evidence can change many of the details). Sources earlier than that are best used in combination with more recent ones, where the recent ones provide a general understanding of the topic and the older ones supply you with details that you can't find elsewhere. Works from the 19th century should be treated with great caution. A. Parrot (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Queen Naert alias Nearit
Spelled Naert:
 * 50 ancient coffins uncovered at Egypt's Saqqara necropolis: Wooden sarcophagi discovered at site south of Cairo along with funerary temple of Queen Naert. On: theguardian.com, 17 January 2021
 * Mortuary temple for Queen Naert: 52 sarcophagi unearthed in Egypt. On: archyde.com. 17 January 2021

Spelled Nearit:
 * 13-foot-long 'Book of the Dead' scroll found in burial shaft in Egypt. On: LiveScience. 19 January 2021

Seemingly Teti 2nd (this one here, english article for Teti 1st [de]  is missing). Seemingly another wife? --Ernsts (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)