Talk:Ancient Egypt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).			Egyptology Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article is listed on this Project's core articles page.

WikiProject Echo has identified Ancient Egypt as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Serbian language Wikipedia.

This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Ancient Egypt is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

	To-do list for Ancient Egypt:	edit - history - watch - refresh
	Expand Check facts, add references from academic sources Rewrite more scientifically Check for marginal theories Add information pertaining to dress and fashion

Ancient Egypt was the Article Improvement Drive for the week starting on 29 May 2006. For more details, see the Article Improvement Drive history.

Ancient Egypt is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Polytheistic Ideology is a possible misclassification 3 Dental study referenced does not accurately reflect findings of study itself 4 Tag

[edit] Archives

[edit] Polytheistic Ideology is a possible misclassification

After much research into the actuall beleifs of the Ancient Egyptians - I have come under the impression that the following text : "Motivating and organising these activities were a socio-political and economic elite that achieved social consensus by means of an elaborate system of religious belief under the figure of a (semi)-divine ruler (usually male) from a succession of ruling dynasties and which related to the larger world by means of polytheistic beliefs." - may be incorrect.

The ancient egyptians did believe in a single entity that produced many groups of sub-gods..

This would suggest a different ideology. A possible reference to deism - [[1]] or Gnostic [[2]] due to it's mystery aspect - Henotheist [[3]] due to the different aspects of the religon in various locals of Egypt - Pantheism [[4]] Due to multiple aspects of relating nature with the divine "

Under the current definition of the above terms - it is my beliefe that the text in the original article should be changed to to "Motivating and organising these activities were a socio-political and economic elite that achieved social consensus by means of an elaborate system of religious belief under a general theist [[5]] belief system "

This is referenced in the book by Dr. Ramses Seleem "The Egyptian Book of Life" ISBN 1 84293 066 4 on page 5. The Creation - Atum-Raa (God) exsited before any notation of space or time.

I shall para phrase the idea..

Atum-Raa uttered the creation word to create sub-dieties or the eight primordials. These were the following: Kek & Keket - Heh & Hehet - Nunu & Nunit - Emen & Emenet -

These primordials in turn created offspring - Tehuty (Hermes) [[6]] - Ptah & Khnemu

With the reference to Atum-Raa - it is feasible to suggest that a monotheistic approach to the spiritual ideology is present. --Maa-Kheru 20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC) User:Templemaat

Archive 01

[edit] Dental study referenced does not accurately reflect findings of study itself

In the article it says: "A 2006 bioanthropological study on the dental morphology of ancient Egyptians shows dental traits most characteristic of indigenous North Africans and to a lesser extent Near Eastern populations. The study also establishes biological continuity from the predynastic to the post-pharaonic periods."

Actually the study only refers to the continuity from predynastic to post-pharaonic periods, not Near Eastern or North African matches. If anything the references are to ancient indigenous populations like the Badarians, not peoples from the Near East or North Africa. The findings of the study, and a weblink to them are shown below so all readers can verify the wording for themselves. This statement is misleading and will be modified to more actually reflect what the study actually says, versus what is claimed. Quote:

"These findings are contrasted with those resulting from previous skeletal and other studies, and are used to appraise the viability of five Egyptian peopling scenarios. Specifically, affinities among the 15 time-successive samples suggest that: 1) there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times." J. Irish, "Irish J (2006). "Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples", 2006) ^[1] Enriquecardova 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A further reference to the study is posted to a website here -> http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/051217_egypt1.htm -- "Study traces Egyptians’ stone-age roots" -- and is also a footnote in the article, but it too makes no mention of any Near Eastern or North American matches. Enriquecardova 07:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with academic journal articles? This is merely an abstract of the paper, but the actual paper can only be accessed from the journal [7]?! Dr. Irish wrote, "all 15 [Egyptian] samples exhibit morphologically simple, mass-reduced dentitions that are similar to those in populations from greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1998a–c, 2000) and, to a lesser extent, western Asia [ie. Near East] and Europe. Similar craniofacial measurements among samples from these regions were reported as well". This is what the section noted about the Egyptians' relationship with other populations before you deleted it. I'm reinstating that information.

I'd further like to point out that spending oodles of megabytes editing the one small section about the people of ancient Egypt just to add information about their biological affinities is quite beyond the scope of this article and what it needs, which is more information about the material culture, history and belief system of this civilization. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I quite understood it was an abstract, but queried it in more detail, and oodles of megabytes have hardly been spent just a simple copy and paste from the journal abstract. It is a fair reference that should not have been initially taken out without some time allowed for response. Point taken. I think the reference should also stand alongside others that point to Saharan affinities as regards the peopling of Egypt. I will add a few sentences to that affect with associated reference. Shifts and population blends over time account for a lot of variability. As for more data being needed on maerial culture, history etc, that too is a fair point. Will add new material, although one wonders if there needs to be a separate Predynastic article when the information there could flesh out this one more.Enriquecardova 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

no more baroque discussions of the ethnic essence of the Ancient Egyptians here, please, this is out of proportion. This is our Ancient Egypt article. Compare "Ancient Egypt" entries in any respectable encyclopedia, and you will be sure to find they don't get sidetracked over dental studies and racial traits. We have Racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians for people who get their kicks out of this topic. dab (𒁳) 08:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But you yourself (correction: whoops- sorry Zerida)introduced racial characteristics with reference to a limited 15 sample dental study. The data I post is standard mainstream data current in the field on the peopling of Egypt by such respects mainstream scholars as Bruce Trigger. If anything it casts doubt on what you have written. As for overwhelming I dont see 7, 8 or 12 lines as "overwhelming". What you are really saying is that you want your limited reference to stay in, while excluding my mine because it contradicts yours. Sorry to do it, but unless there are better scholarly reasons as opposed to personal preference or a buddy system, I will have to revert..Enriquecardova 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"I myself"? I've only just chimed in here. The less dental study cruft we have on this article, the happier I will be. dab (𒁳) 08:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rather than start rounding up supporters for yet another edit war, I suggest a compromise. The main issue for me is scholarly. Do you quote one study as gospel, or do you present a balanced, scholarly discussion of the subject that does not ignore decades of solid, mainstream scholarship on the peopling of ancient Egypt? That's the main issue- to not have a one-sided view. The weight of scholarly opinion contradicts some of what is in the dental blurb, and that can be proven by objective review, and assessment of sources.

The "To Do" List for the article calls for Checking facts, adding references from academic sources, and rewriting more scientifically which is what I am doing. As for length, it could well be argued that the dental section blurb is too long anyway. The length issue cuts both ways. So a compromise. I will redit my discussion of the wider research to no more than 9 lines, which is the currently same as the dental blurb, and we will all call it a day, or alternatively we can zap all controversial references saving about 20 lines in the whole section. I prefer the 9-line settlement and we all can concentrate on adding to other sections, rather than start the edit dance. Again, scholarship is the issue. Enriquecardova 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

excellent. Now please feel free to address the remaining dodginess of this article, such as the "Ancient achievements" and "open problems" headers. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right about dodigness. The "ancient battery" in "achievements" and some other terminology appears dubious. I will remove the battery reference unless a citation is provided. The "open problems" section is another open problem so to speak. I think it should be boiled down to 4-5 blurb and linked to the "Unsolved Egyptopogy problems" article. Egypt attracts alot of interet from all over. Some folks are sincere, others sincerely misguided, and others are trolling, plugging in easily refutable info to score points againt "fringe" groups. Will look at the whle thing again. The whole article could use some work. Is it primarily a "shell" or "survey" type article that collects a bunch of links branching off elsewhere, or is the concept to provide in-depth content. Scratch head..Enriquecardova 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are still making inaccurate assumptions about a study that you're not familiar with and clearly haven't bothered to look up. The 15 samples are not the number of mummies examined, but 15 different locations across Egypt from successive times periods. The actual number of mummies is 996. It is at least a very recent study by an Egyptological bioarchaeologist published in a peer-reviewed journal that directly addresses the topic, not an arbitrary statement from a 1984 Britannica entry using outdated, discounted terminology like "Negroid". Even then, I have had to delete some of the information that was previously included in that section just to accommodate those "short" paragraphs you added.

The latest paragraph you introduced to the section, far from being a "balanced, scholarly discussion of the subject" (right!), is the definition of original research with its use of the words "Sudanic tribes" being the "primary peopling" element of Egypt. This is not suggested in any of the references you provided and to suggest that they were the primary group is misleading at best, not to mention it would also not make it indigenous as claimed. The people of the Sahara prior to its desiccation were a diverse group of peoples. Trigger (1978) never suggested that the lower Nile Valley was primiarly "peopled" by a "Negroid" or Sudanic population from south of the Sahara, nor did any other mainstream archaeologist, nor was that ever suggested by Lefkowitz. This is Trigger (1983) on the predynastic communities [8]. Egyptologist Frank Yurko summarized the archaeological findings in the latest volume edited by Lefkowitz (1996), saying:

Climatic cycles acted as a pump, alternately attracting African peoples onto the Sahara, then expelling them as the aridity returned (Keita 1990). Specialists in predynastic archaeology have recently proposed that the last climate-driven expulsion impelled the Saharans...into the Nile Valley ca. 5000-4500 BCE, where they intermingled with indigenous hunter-fisher-gatherer people already there (Hassan 1989; Wetterstorm 1993). Such was the origin of the distinct Egyptian populace, with its mix of agriculture/pastrolaism and hunting/fishing. The resulting Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985, Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990; Brace et al. 1993)... Language research suggests that this Saharan-Nilotic population became speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages... Semitic was evidently spoken by Saharans who crossed the Red Sea into Arabia and became ancestors of the Semitic speakers there, possibly around 7000 BC... In summary we may say that Egypt was a distinct North African culture rooted in the Nile Valley and on the Sahara.

Much of this information is actually already mentioned in the history section. It's also worth noting that none of the other articles on ancient civilizations, such as Ancient Greece, Ancient Libya or Ancient Rome have a section like the "People" section here, so I think there's no harm in eleminiating entirely. Brief archaeological information can be integrated into the history section or into a new origins section. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But you said 15 samples without specifying whether they were individual mummies rather than locations. Now you clarify that there were 15 locations. That is fine. However you say now that the Encyclopedia Britannica info is "arbitrary"? On what logical grounds? Also note it was not only Britannica given as a reference, but well established research on the ground by E. Strougal, and recent reanalyses, that confirms the Britannica statement. This is hardly "arbitrary". Do you somehow find that reference "arbitrary" because it may contradict some of the info you posted? As for the term Negroid it is very much in use in the literature, just as vague terminology like "Near Eastern" is in use. Some scholars discount race, others do not. In any event, you yourself had no problem referencing "tropical" which is sometimes used as a substitute for "Negroid" in the literature. See Keita reference. You yourself also use the term "Nilotic" which is also considered outdated by many. Is your use of these terms OK, but my use somehow "outdated"? As to "outdated" information, the Trigger reference I gave dates to 1982, and the Britannica article you object to dates at 1984, AFTER Trigger. The Trigger reference you yourself provide below dates to 1978, and 1983. The Yurco ref to only 1989. Somehow you don't appear to have a problem using these "outdated" references when if fits a certain approach.

Actually the reference you quote above confirms the questions I rose about earlier statements in the article regarding various tropical types. Quote: "Nilotic or tropical body characteristics were also present in some later groups, as the Egyptian empire expanded southward during the [[New Kingdom. OK, but your own Yurco reference shows that said tropical types were there from pre-dynastic times. That should be clearly stated, rather than the implied shifting of these elements to somewhere near the New Kingdom. Ironically, this Yurco quote (which is mainstream scholarship) appears more balanced than your truncated reference to the dental study, as regards the consensus in the field as a whole. That is the whole point- a balanced presentation of what is going on in the literature.

As for LEftkowitz, I did not suggest that the folks were solely Negroid, but only that Negroid or "tropical" elements were clearly there, whereas your statements implied they were not there at all, or merely happened to appear sometime later as part of a tropical group during the New Kingdom. Those outh of the Sahara would also include the missing Sudanic elements. I simply added balance to scales badly out of kilter. Leftkowitz noted the peopling of Egypt by groups south of the Sahara, and this would exclude any significant northern "Near Eastern" influx. Quote

"Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54" http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html

A new origins section, may cause the same issues to crop up but we'll see. As for zapping both, I have no problem eliminating the passages in question altogether. But I have a better idea. This discussion has acutally yielded something else we can agree on. Why not go ahead and post the Yurco quotation in full as the central blurb on the subject. Something like: "The people of Egypt have shown a range of types and characteristics over the millenia. In the worlds of one established scholar:.. --> then go ahead and quote the Yurco blurb.. In this way (a) the general consensus in the field is presented, (b) room is still in the Yurco quote to allow for all types of scenarios and mixes. Under this angle, we have hit the central consensus to date, and everyone walks away satisfied. Enriquecardova 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the tropical body stature study and I am not at all inclined to have a debate about this topic. No, I personally no longer think it is a good idea to include any information of any kind about the race or biological characteristics or types or origins of the ancient Egyptians in this article except in the most neutral archaeological terms (Saharan hunter-gatherers and pastoral agriculturalists), which are already mentioned in the history section. If the sad archive is any indication, or for that matter the history of the "racial characteristics" article, it is bound to be misunderstood, abused and will eventually lead more people to expand it to explain why the ancient Egyptians were actually black or white or some other nonsense on that order. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though I think the Yurco blurb would work, I will not add any material on that topic unless someone else does. Actually I endorse earlier comments that the article could use focus elsewhere. There are a number of questionable claims, and factual issues as to Egyptian achievements. I have left these in place for now but will look these up for possible editing. Some of the excellent info brought forward by you and others here in talk could be added to make it a much stronger article.Enriquecardova 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

I am removing the disputed tag once again as it has been added without discussion. We don't know why the article is disputed in the first place, so how are we supposed to correct the problem? This edit summary was included the first time it was added: "a large amount of page text appears to have been copied verbatim from other websites". Well, since it was copied verbatim it can be easily checked and there is an easy remedy for that problem, obviously by deleting the text. What are the web sites addresses from which the text was copied? — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 08:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)