Talk:Turin Papyrus Map

A fact from Turin Papyrus Map appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 June 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Turin Papyrus, prepared about 1160 BC for Ramesses IV's quarrying expedition to Wadi Hammamat near the Red Sea, is the earliest known geologic map?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/June.

Wikipedia

Maps Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Egypt

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Good article, if anyone can provide an illustration, that would be great. Also, there seems to be another Turin Papyrus which portrays something very much like porn: [1] Eixo 28 June 2005 04:33 (UTC)

Yup, your Turin papyrus is more interesting, if less informative about Egyptian maps Zyzzy 28 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)Zyzzy

Eixo, do you have any details about the other Turin papyrus?

Two Turin Papyri?

There appears to be a name collision here. The Turin Papyrus that I know of is a historical text that provides the names and length of reigns for the ancient Egyptian pharaohs; this Turin Papyrus appears to be a different one. Or is the text of one written on the opposite side of the other? -- llywrch 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that we have Turin Papyrus Map and Turin Canon, and the some of the redirections point to this article by mistake Markh 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So they are different manuscripts? Good. I converted Turin Papyrus from a redirect to a disambiguation page. If they are the same manuscript, please correct me. -- llywrch 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrangement considered incorrect

This statement reeks of academic rivalry. The key claim here to be verified is "This arrangement of the map fragments is currently considered incorrect however."

But we only have three sources. The first two are primary sources and as such can only support the claim "A new reconstruction was proposed by Harrell and Brown in 1992", and that THEY consider it more accurate.

The third source, Klemm and Klemm, does not even mention the museum or its arrangement. As far as I can see the key phrase there is Finally, through direct assessment with modern topographic maps, the particular entries on the papyrus are now known and conclusively assigned to localities in the area around Bir Umm el-Fawakhir and Wadi el-Sid (Klemm and Klemm 1988 ; Harrell and Brown 1992). This could be used to support a statement such as "The new reconstruction proposed by Harrell and Brown is more accurate", but it remains completely silent on the configuration used by the museum.

What is needed to support the current language would be a source that verifies the museum is using an older less accurate configuration, ideally one that also establishes that this view is shared with the scientific community at large, and even more ideal allows the museum to defend their chosen configuration.

Rephrasing to not make accusations not supported by the provided sources. 84.217.39.2 (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]