The colophon of BD supplementary chapter 166 states that the text had been found at the neck of Ramses II’s mummy. Dahms, Pehal, and Willems had argued in JEA 100 (2014) that the original document had not formed part of the original tomb equipment of Ramses II, but had been added in the course of the Twenty-First Dynasty after the tomb robberies in the Valley of the Kings. In 2016, J. Quack raised fundamental criticism against this interpretation, arguing that the text dates to the early Ramesside Period and had probably been applied in Piramesse to the mummy of Ramses II. The present article offers a critical reassessment of Quack’s paper. The linguistic register of funerary texts, the development of the negative aorist, and contextual indications strengthen the idea that the text was written in Thebes in the Twenty-First Dynasty in the social context of the Amun priesthood.

中文翻译：

---

从底比斯到皮拉米斯——再回到《亡灵之书》第 166 章补充章节的文本历史

BD 补充章节 166 的版权页指出，该文本是在拉美西斯二世的木乃伊脖子上发现的。Dahms、Pehal 和 Willems 在 JEA 100 (2014) 中争辩说，原始文件不是拉美西斯二世原始墓葬设备的一部分，而是在第二十一王朝的过程中添加的帝王谷。2016 年，J. Quack 对这种解释提出了根本性的批评，认为该文本可以追溯到拉美赛德时期早期，并且可能在皮拉美斯被应用于拉美西斯二世的木乃伊。本文对 Quack 的论文进行了批判性的重新评估。丧葬文本的语言记录，否定不定过去时的发展，