Wikipedia:Peer review/Egyptian mythology/archive2

Egyptian mythology
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to send it to FAC. I've incorporated suggestions from the previous review where possible, like adding images and working to simplify difficult wording. I simply don't have enough sources to write a decent section on influences in other cultures, but I've added a section on origins of myths and elaborated on some other things.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Attempts at definition
 * The text says that important narratives are mostly about gods, yet "actual' narratives about godly events are rare. Is the intention to say that there are other less rare types of discourses about gods, or simply that (surviving) narratives are in general rare, and that there are therefore few concerning the gods (even though these are rare, too)? If the latter, the "Actual narratives" sentence might start "Yet even narratives..." or clarify in some other way.
 * It partly means there are other discourses, and partly it's referring to the problem of fragmentary-ness that other parts of the article address more directly. How about "complete" instead of "actual"?
 * "Most references to such events are mere mentions or allusions; complete narratives of the gods' actions are rare, particularly in early texts." ?


 * It might be helpful to include some of Assmann's arguments/evidence for the (difficult to substantiate) claim that myths did not exist in the early period.
 * I don't know most of the details of his argument, because the original source is inaccessible to me. This statement is sourced to Baines' paper, which is a sort of survey of scholarly approaches to mythology. The paper does say that the main support for this argument was that the earliest source (the Pyramid Texts) simply doesn't contain whole stories. Maybe I can make that a little clearer.


 * I like the new perspective from Tobin and Bickel. I wonder if we can even broaden 'statements that convey ideas' (particularly based on the definition @ mythology of mythology as simply a collection of myths, since it seems possible to talk about a mythology that underlies or generates individual statements available to the present-day researcher.
 * Not quite sure what you mean by that.
 * This is definitely a minor point, but I was trying to say that, especially given the fragmentary nature of our sources, perhaps we should define mythology not as an aggregation of statements, but as the structure that underlies and generates individual statements.

Origins
 * Great section, very interesting and informative.
 * Are there examples of rituals that might be pre-mythic? (Generally a fascinating topic, the page about which is a list theories from dead, white, & mostly male anthropologists.)
 * A couple of my sources mention offering rituals as an example, because they're so basic. I'll add a little about that soon.


 * The "origin myths" section doesn't belong (unless we have reason to believe that these origin myths were involved in the origination of myth).
 * What I was trying to do in this section was list the ways that particular myths, or parts of them, are believed to have arisen. I could try to word the sentence so it's more clearly tied to that purpose. The only other section to move it to is "Content and meaning", which would probably complicate whatever reorganization goes on there (see my response near the bottom of this page).
 * Ah, so the connection would be: "Egyptians wanted to explain the world around them so they came up with origin myths." Seems obvious in retrospect but wasn't obvious my first time or so around. Curious to know the reactions of other readers. (Also maybe titling the section "Sources" would decrease chances for confusion.)

Content and meaning
 * "The events in mythology are symbolic of events that take place in the realm of the gods" <--- a little confusing. Symbolic of? (Should this be "symbolic of events that take place in the earthly realm"?)
 * It's meant to say that humans can't understand the realm of the gods and have to express what goes on there through symbolism. Would it be clearer if it said, "The events in mythology symbolize events that take place in the realm of the gods and that, therefore, are beyond direct human understanding"?
 * This idea is very interesting. If you're saying what I think you're saying, maybe make this idea more clear at the start, saying something along the lines of: 'The true realm of the gods is mysterious and inaccessible to humans. Mythological stories use symbolism to make the events of this realm comprehensible.'


 * This second part of this section could almost be its own section: "Ambiguity and inconsistency"
 * See my response near the bottom of this page.

Sources
 * Do we know how oral tradition was generally transmitted? Priests, parents (mothers? fathers?) to children, everyday language, etc.
 * Well, we just don't know. Even the existence of an oral tradition is conjecture.


 * How does one classify a nonreligious text which addresses mostly a religious topic?
 * Are you referring to a particular text, or just speaking generally? Either way, I'd say that texts are classified by the purpose they're guessed to have been made for. For example, "The Contendings of Horus and Seth" deals with a lot of serious religious subject matter, but it was found in a village rather than a temple or tomb, and it makes the gods look so ridiculous that everyone assumes it was meant as private entertainment. So it's classed as a non-religious text.
 * Just speaking generally. That answer makes sense. It is kind of a funny distinction when you think about it :-)

Cosmology
 * Very cool section
 * I notice again that outsiders are grouped with natural surroundings. If these are really always treated together in the myths, that's fine, but if they're sometimes separate maybe they could be separate in the article. (It would also definitely be interesting & worthwhile to include more detail about "outsiders" or nine bows.)
 * In folktales and in real Egyptian life, the position of foreigners was more complicated, but in religious cosmology, they're usually part of the hostile surroundings. They don't even appear in mythology except in some minor, borderline cases. My main purpose in including them was to indicate that Egyptian mythology is overwhelmingly about Egypt and rarely involves other places or peoples. A lot more could be said about the Nine Bows, but I don't know how much of it is relevant here.
 * Check. My quick search of "nine bows" makes it seem like a pretty secular concept that wouldn't necessarily be front & center mythology. Although looking back at the definition, what could be more culturally central than the general narrative of a society's enemies? But this type of narrative seems to exist on a different plane from the gods, and would perhaps be real 'mythology' only according to a very expansive view. (Like one could argue that "9/11" is currently a major part of the USA mythology, but this might be controversial... I don't know...) I don't think I really want to push for a 'secularization' of the article, especially when I'm not capable of doing the grunt work myself. But, you know.... just putting it out there.


 * There's probably a really great image that could accompany "Time"
 * Finding images that are both relevant to the text and available under Wikipedia's licensing requirements is surprisingly hard for this article. I can think of three Egyptian images that could work, but two of them are reliefs (photographs of which are not inherently public domain) that have no image on Commons. The third is fully two-dimensional, so I can freely plunder images of it from the web. Look at the first image on this page and see what you think. It's used in at least two of my sources to illustrate the Egyptian concept of time, and I can use these sources to explain the picture's symbolism in the caption, but the image quality isn't ideal.
 * That image looks cool, but maybe it would be better to just avoid redundancy and make sure there's a link to the place with the image & explanation. (And wait until another viable image falls into our lap.)

Major myths
 * Nice treatment/organization of change over time in the creation myth. At the risk of complications, these types of changes would be interesting to include for other myths as well. Can you shed any light on the development of a "monotheistic" Egyptian theology based around Ra? (Is there any truth at all to this narrative about Egyptian religion, which I think I get from Moses and Monotheism?)
 * Although the connections with Judaism that Moses and Monotheism proposes are roundly rejected, the book does refer to a real monotheistic (or monolatrous) period in Egyptian religion, called Atenism. It centered on the Aten rather than Ra himself, although it was an outgrowth of the traditional beliefs about Ra and his life-giving power. Because it was only about one god, it didn't have any myths of its own. Its descriptions of the sun's journey resemble the traditional Ra-centric version of the same thing, but the Atenist version is stripped of all other deities and all but the vaguest mythic imagery. If you think it's necessary, I could add something about how "non-mythic" Atenism was, as scholars have often remarked upon it, but I don't see a natural place to put it.
 * Good to know. Yes, I think Atenism's lack of myths is definitely worth noting, even if only for the particular category of ignoramuses I represent.
 * "Although the connections with Judaism that Moses and Monotheism proposes are roundly rejected" Really? Jan Assmann writes “Freud’s ingenious observation links up perfectly well with the relationship between the Biblical account of the Exodus and what has to be considered the historical evidence for it….his [Freud’s] fascinating and brilliantly written article.” (p. 150) He also notes that “The literature on Freud’s book on Moses is rapidly growing” with an extensive listing given (p. 252). (Moses the Egyptian, 1997, ISBN 0-674-58739-1) "I could add something about how "non-mythic" Atenism was, as scholars have often remarked upon it." Vincent Tobin writes “The ultimate result of Amarna royal myth was a virtual identification between Akhenaton and the Aten, the king being only slightly below the Aten in stature. Some scholars have seen various expressions of Trinitarian myth in the Amarna system, but there is no agreement on any one official Amarna trinity. Mention should also be made of the city of Akhenaton, a mythic expression of the divine presence on earth. This concept of a sacred city constituted what could almost be regarded as a type of realized eschatology. Amarna teachings were not myth free-free dogmatic assertions, but rather statements that used a modified form of myth to create an intellectual and abstract religious system.” The Oxford Guide to Egyptian Mythology, Edited by Donald B. Redford, P. 244, ISBN 0-425-19096-X Yt95 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If the Osiris myth and some of these other intermediate sections still take place during linear/mythical time, you might consider separating out "The Destruction of Mankind" and moving it down, maybe to before "The end of the universe".
 * That's the problem with chronological order in Egyptian mythology. But the last paragraph of "The reign of the sun god" does make the chronological contradictions clear (I think), and the order that the myths are arranged in now is based on the one in Pinch's book. I'd rather not alter it.
 * That's just fine.


 * A little more on Coffin Texts vision of the end?
 * The Coffin Texts version is pretty vague. (The relevant portion just says: "I have placed millions of years between me and that Weary-hearted one, the son of Geb [Osiris]; then I shall dwell with him in one place. Mounds will be towns. Towns will be mounds. Mansion will destroy mansion.") I mostly mention it because it's the first known occurrence of the idea. All the detail is in the Book of the Dead spell.
 * OK.

Influence in Egyptian culture
 * Interesting idea about the relationship of myth to religion/kings/government. It makes me curious about a whole many things surrounding the relationship of the myths/religion to everyday life. How much did people 'believe' versus 'obey'? Were there folk versions of the religion that differed from the official version? Maybe there aren't answers... and maybe these questions pertain more to Ancient Egyptian religion.
 * Yes, I would say they belong at that article, at pharaoh, and at a yet-to-be-written popular religion in ancient Egypt article. Those are very important questions that have produced a lot of scholarly debate, and I'll have to address them when I get around to those articles. But because they are both very complicated and marginally relevant to mythology, I'd rather not go into them here.
 * Great, looking forward to it.


 * First section of the "In religion" section could be clarified. "Because the Egyptians rarely described theological ideas explicitly, the implicit ideas of mythology formed much of the basis for Egyptian religious belief." (a) Might it moreso be the case that these ideas implicitly formed the basis for religion? (b) "ideas" -> "themes"? (c) Is there even evidence for the existence of theology or "religious belief" beyond myth, or might this be our own perspective and concept of religion expressing itself?
 * (a) Yes, it might as well say that. I've changed it. (b) Not sure which word choice is better. ( c ) If myths are any statements about the gods, then probably not. But if myths are stories of any length, the answer is definitely yes. Egyptian texts list groups of deities and stated their relationships to each other, hymns state what gods do in the present, and so on. I suppose I can elaborate on that, as Baines talks about it a good bit.
 * (b) Your choice, that word just popped into my head, I think.
 * (c) This also relates to the comment under "Attempt at definition" about mythology as statements vs. structure. But I must have been reading "religion" as some sort of pure theology, which really is different from what the section describes. It's almost like there's a conceptual triangle of myth, religion, theology (a conceptual structure of the religion, perhaps expressed by myth...) Anyway, it's complicated, I'm guessing your planned additions will be helpful and clarifying.

Lead & overall
 * "All Egyptian myths, however, are meant primarily as symbols, expressing the behavior and essence of the mysterious deities in metaphorical terms. Each variant of a myth represents a different symbolic perspective, enriching the Egyptians' understanding of the gods and the world." Confusing, similar to "symbol" statement above.
 * I can see how it could be, but at the moment I can't think of a way to rephrase it. I suppose I have a lot of trouble with these essential sentences.
 * The explanation above helps. I think the second sentence is good, but a rewording of the first would clarify the meaning of "symbolic". Possible: "Egyptian myths are primarily metaphorical, translating the essence and behavior of deities into terms that humans can understand. Each variant..."


 * Any reason not to make "works cited" a subsection of "Notes and citations" (or similar, retitled)?
 * I don't know. I've used this organization for previous featured articles and one Good Article, and I'm sure it's used in many other articles. I'm willing to change it if you or somebody else thinks it's important.
 * Shrug.


 * The "Content and meaning" section doesn't fit all that well when considered with the overall page. You don't really know what to expect if you click the link in ToC and it's not really clear why the order is Origins - Content - Sources - Myths. Splitting this section up, with some into origins and some into myths might be a good idea. Forgive me if I'm missing something essential!
 * The section does sort of sprawl, subject-wise, and I'm not sure how to organize its content. The first four paragraphs might be integrated into "Origins", but given my original purpose for that section—listing the ways that particular myths are believed to have arisen—the two wouldn't fit together very well without some significant reworking. The "Major myths" section is meant as a list/very loose narrative of specific myths, so I'm reluctant to put content in it that serves as an overview of all myths. The latter four paragraphs of "Content and meaning" might be split into an "Ambiguity and inconsistency" section, as you suggested above, but that still leaves the issue of where to put the first half. The main subject of the section is the meaning and purpose of myths, so would titling it "Meaning" or "Meaning and purpose" help?
 * Splitting seems like a good idea. "Meaning and purpose" for the first half makes sense. From above, "meaning and purpose" is (if I read correctly) the "origin" of "origin stories", so maybe these can be grouped together somehow. Possibly as a next-level header under Origins, reflecting that the desire for meaning is an origin. (History, natural surroundings, and ritual might then also be sub-headers). Maybe with this option (and it's just one option), "Origins" could become "Origins and purposes" and this subsection would just be "meaning". The second half, on ambiguity/inconsistency, might combine well with content up in "attempts at definition", for a slightly broader section about the position of the Egyptologist in relation to the whole domain of mythology.


 * On the whole, a well-constructed and also crucial article, which sheds important light on the overall themes of Egyptian mythology!

Comments from Casliber

 * ZOMG what a topic to choose....comments below.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I must say I am not a fan of the title Attempts at definition - I'd have thought Scope or Definition and scope was better...?


 * Would some discussion of where Egyptian mythology concludes (how it segues into Hellenistic Egypt) go well here?


 * My sense is that the article sorta jumps into things. The para that comprises the Attempts at definition feels like it should have some more basic info before it...just my sense. I think it would sit nicely after the origins section.


 * Coming into this article cold, I forgot there was a Ancient Egyptian religion article (which upon finding it made this article make a lot more sense!). Given this would be a search term, I think some more prominent navigation or explanation between the two is warranted (more than a bluelink in para 3 of lead as is currently)