Jump to content

Talk:Ancient Egypt/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

proper name of land of Cannan

I noticed what I believe is an error in this article. Under the Predynastic Period it says:

“By about 5500 BC, small tribes living in the Nile valley had developed into a series of cultures demonstrating firm control of agriculture and animal husbandry, and identifiable by their pottery and personal items, such as combs, bracelets, and beads. The largest of these early cultures in upper Egypt, the Badari, was known for its high quality ceramics, stone tools, and its use of copper.[12]

In Northern Egypt, the Badari was followed by Amratian and Gerzian cultureswhich showed a number of technological improvements. In Gerzian times, early evidence exists of contact with Palestine and the Byblos coast.”

The problem with this is that during the Predynastic Period the land referred to as “Palestine” was known as the Land of Cannan until the Hebrews conquered it. Then it was changed to the Land of Israel or sometimes called Judaea. The first use of the name Syria Palaestina (from which the name Palestine comes from) didn’t happen until after the Bar Kokhba revolt of the Israelites against Roman rule in 132-136 AD.

Ancient Egyptians would not have had any idea what you were talking about if you said Palestine. As such I believe that this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.123.121 (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above IP, Palestine is anachronistic, please write CANAAN (Cana'an or Canaan, whichever you prefer), who is allowed to edit this page? thanks, --Hope&Act3! (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Hope&Act3! (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

egyptian medician

iam doing a project for my school but need information about the egyptian medicine? how can i get that information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.162.142 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian medicine. Contains links to other useful sources too. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Intermediate Period

Quote the article: "The reigns of both Kushite kings Taharqa and his successor, Tanutamun, were filled with constant conflict with the Assyrians, against whom the Nubian rulers enjoyed several victories."

While this is true it is also misleading, as the histories relate that the Assyrians generally defeated the Kushite Egyptians in battle. (Essarhedon appears to have been defeated by them at least once, however.) The primary advantage the Kushites had was that they were far from the base of operations of Assyria, which was also fighting campaigns on the other extreme of its empire, so the Assyrians would defeat the Egyptians but then be unable to remain in occupation, so the Egyptians would rise up when the Assyrian armies marched out. This is not the sense that is conveyed by the text. I would suggest that it is not NPOV and should be revised accordingly. Larry Dunn (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dynasty changeover

How did Egyptian dynasties change over? Was it generally through war or was there no pattern at all? I cannot find any information on this. Wakablogger2 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. When the dynasties were organized, Manetho grouped the pharaohs into dynasties based partly on family ties or major shifts in the ruling authority, and sometimes Manetho's groupings were based on what he thought had happened rather than reality. Sometimes a new dynasty would begin when a pharaoh who was unrelated to the previous ruling class assumed the throne. But, during the 18th dynasty, a succession of pharaohs after Tutankhamun were not related but are still grouped into a dynasty. So in part it was family or ethnic ties but there are many other factors involved. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was bored...kinda

ok....so i didn't want to read the whole thing..... can anybody write what ancient egypt irrigation (farming) was like? Please? i have to do my school project....-.- 안녕하세요....제가 이글들을 읽기가 싫어서.....이집트의 농사 짔는 거에 대해서 쫌 적어주세여.... 제가 캐나다에서 4년을살아서 그래머가 많이틀렸을겄....--207.81.12.56 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Lina Lee Gr. 7

Shesh -- just look at the section *in this article* on agricultural practices. See here. Captmondo (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Guest: I can't find anything like the challenges of war that Ancient Egypt faced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.212.116.123 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians

Ancient Egyptians redirects to this page. What's notable about this is that one would most likely search for this if looking for direct information concerning the people of ancient Egypt as a discrete topic. There are currently two articles that discuss this as a discrete topic, one is the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and the other is the Population History of Egypt. Of those two, the latter struck me as by far the more informative and is linked under the header of a subarticle within this article, which is good.

The problem, as I see it, is that it takes a bit of hunting around to really find this specific information. Possibly a minor quibble, but looking in the first two places I generally look when I don't get an immediate, comprehensive article on my search (Contents of the article I do get, and See Also) actually did not take me where I needed to go just to solve the minor mystery (to me) of "who were the ancient Egyptians, population wise, and what happened to them?".

Long story short, although I don't think I'm qualified to do it myself, especially on a featured article, I might suggest at least some small commentary within this article referencing the Population History of Egypt material that suggests that modern Egyptians are, genetically speaking, predominantly the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. I was actually relieved when I finally found an answer to this...this article doesn't really mention it and the race controversy article is very uninformative when it comes to direct answers.

The other possibility might be to redirect Ancient Egyptians to the population history article? 76.177.4.57 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians - Population

Tried to find any sort of information relating to how many was living in ancient egypt at any one time there might be scope to add this as a section and cover
- changes of population over time (as well as it has been discovered) and ruler
- population demography
- occupational breakdown.
- ethnicity
The reason for my curiosity was to evaluate the number of people that the land was suporting and what an influx of people as described by the bible would mean......

it might be that all this is unknown(just found a page on internet, org.il ,that shows that it is not) , and in that case that could be added to the entry for the above questions/facts potential sources
Bagnell roger " the demography of ancient roman egypt"
a.a. Aperghis " the finances and financial administration

it looks like the number i am looking for is 1-3 millions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Source references about ancient Egypt.

I failed to find source references for the topic, matrilineal succession to the throne in Ancient Egypt, and so had to remove all mention of ancient Egypt from the Matrilineality article. (I'm now placing this identical section on the Talk pages of these two articles plus a third, the Pharaoh article below.)

Then I learned the above topic was in the article Pharaoh, a whole paragraph in the latter's section Pharaoh#Titles. When the link in the last sentence of this Titles paragraph is followed, which verifies said sentence, then in my opinion the whole paragraph becomes self-documented by its own integrity and factual details. But WP needs actual sources for important content, instead, which are unfortunately not there.

I'll be able to add this content (matrilineal succession to the throne in ancient Egypt) in both articles, Ancient Egypt and Matrilineality, if someone can find and insert such source references into the article Pharaoh (and notify me on my talk page).

Someone, please find and insert them.

We're all working together to help WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman Empire in 31/30 BC

  • The rule of the pharaohs officially ended in 31 BC when Egypt fell to the Roman Empire and became a Roman province. (Second paragraph of the intro section): This is inaccurate as the beginning of the Empire is 27 BC.
  • Later on the date is referenced as 30 BC (Egypt became a province of the Roman Empire in 30 BC, following the defeat of Marc Antony and Ptolemaic Queen Cleopatra VII by Octavian (later Emperor Augustus) in the Battle of Actium.). --Nk (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
For the first point, the dating is about the time when Egypt became a province of the Roman Empire, not when the Roman Empire began. The Battle of Actium is dated on Wikipedia as 31 BC, there is variation between scholars, we are going with what the sources say. If anybody has access to the sources, perhaps they will be able to shed some light on it.--Tærkast (Communicate) 16:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Punt????????

Again, it is not know whether it meant ethopia or hejaz in arabia? So therefore, it should be removed until there is decisive proof of either place. Because there is a reference that "they considered it the place of god and their place of origin" so it is a major fact which should be studied carefully. --MasriDefend (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Bactrian?

does it look like this?

What are the chances that the camel in the photo in the Legacy section is in fact a Bactrian camel imported from Central Asia? Egypt has innumerable dromedaries, used as riding animals there for some millenia. It seems more probable that it is one of those.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Economy?

its been found that they did actually use coins before the late period. Coins have been found that actually validate the existence of the Biblical Joseph as well as suggesting that they used coins far earlier than previously thought. This should probably be added to the article about the economy of Ancient Egypt. sources: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133601 http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=111091 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.70.59 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Legacy Section

The legacy section only briefly covers Ancient Egypt's impact on global architecture and popularity among people. It does not even mention Egyptian hieroglyph's influence on Phoenician, and therefore Latin, script. I'm no expert, but a legacy section on this particular civilization should be at least three times as large. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

I agree. What about coming up with the first monotheistic religion for a start? 2.97.164.136 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Atenism isn't necessarily monotheistic - that's disputed. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article

Normally I do not revert major edits outside of vandalism, but I really do feel that the changes in this article over the past few days, although well-intentioned, have compromised its quality. Before these edits, the article was little changed from when it received FA status, and even taking into account the lower FA standards of four years ago, I thought it was in pretty good shape. I am open to discussing these changes, but until they are discussed, I have reverted them.

Because this reversion is so significant, I am listing several of my specific objections below.

  • First, there is the excessive bolding, in section headings and in several linked terms. The only usual place to use boldface in an article is on the article title at the start of the lead section; see WP:MOSBOLD.
  • Use of alternative terms with slashes, like "Menes/Narmer" and "Napatan/Kushite/Nubian". This is a clumsy way of writing alternative names for things. Usually we don't need to give alternative names in article text except in the article on that particular thing. The links take care of the rest; instead of saying "Khufu, also known as Cheops, built the Great Pyramid", we can say "Khufu built the Great Pyramid", and the link will show to anyone who is confused that Khufu and Cheops are the same person. With these particular examples, the different terms actually mean different things. Menes is a legendary figure who may represent a distorted memory of one of the early pharaohs or a composite of several. Narmer is a single early pharaoh who may have unified the country, may have lived before or after the actual unification, or may have been part of a gradual process of unification. "Nubia" is a general term for the land south of the First Cataract and "Kush" and "Napata" are names for the culture of Nubia in particular periods.
  • Most importantly, there is the addition of excessive detail for an overview article on a massive subject. See WP:Summary style, and keep in mind that this article was already long before the major tinkering started. For example, an entire section on the "Napatan/Kushite/Nubian Renaissance" is not necessary, because Nubia is outside the purview of this article except where it interacted with Egypt. Nubia did interact with Egypt a lot, and the story of the Twenty-fifth dynasty needs to be told in detail—but not in this article, where it should be described very briefly. A century is not a very long span in the history of a civilization as long-lived as Egypt, and history is only a portion of this whole article. Egyptian history has a lot of sub-articles where such information could more usefully be placed, whereas the information about Egypt's technology and societal structure is equally important and often lacks sub-articles.
  • There is also an issue of outdated information. I have never heard, for instance, of the Anu culture. The only source provided for it is a book by Flinders Petrie, who was a brilliant archaeologist for his time, but who is now long out of date. Some of the Predynastic cultures he identified are now dismissed as illusory. More recent analysis would be needed before we can even begin to decide if and where to mention the Anu culture in Wikipedia.
  • Finally there are aesthetic problems: images and white space. User:Drift chambers added a huge amount of white space without explanation. Subsequent edits have since removed it, but I would like to know what he or she was attempting to do. There were a lot of images, and it's therefore possible that the text looked really crowded on his or her screen. If crowding needs to be eliminated, I'm open to discussing which images should stay and go. That said, I would like to keep the Giza pyramid image at the top of the screen. There's no rule that the lead should have only one image, and because of the space provided by the table of contents, image crowding is less of a problem at the top. And what more iconic image of ancient Egypt could one imagine than the pyramids surrounded by sand?

I am open to discussion on any of these points, but please, discuss before you edit. A. Parrot (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Most of your points are well taken. I appreciate the civility and tone of your commentary.

However:

  • Any article on Ancient Egypt should include an image of the sphinx at Giza. The sphinx at Giza is easily in the top 3 most recognizeable icons of the Ancient Egyptian society. It's the largest monolithic statue on Earth and a pic should be included. I added a small pic of the sphinx at Giza in the tourism section at the bottom of this article and I think that the world community would agree that a pic of the sphinx at Giza is reasonable for an article on Ancient Egypt. Therefore, I will add this small pic back immediately.
  • North Africa is a geopolitical entity, as opposed to just a region. It's misleading and inappropriate to link to North Africa in the context of an article on Ancient Egypt, as there was no such geopolitical entity as North Africa during Ancient Egyptian history. The people that have recently occupied North Africa (Arabs in 7th century and Turks in 14th century) were not responsible for the Ancient Egyptian civilization. The statement implies that Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania, etc. played some significant role in Ancient Egypt and that somehow ancient egypt was disconnected from sub-saharan africa, which we know is not true due to extensive trade with sub-saharan africa (for ivory, gold, incense, etc.) throughout Ancient Egyptian history. I will allow some time for you and others to comment, but I think Northeastern Africa is a more accurate and fair statement than the current "eastern North Africa" phrase. The formatting seems strange to most English speakers, as we wouldn't say eastern North United States. We would say Northeastern United States. It's cleaner.
  • There are a sufficient number of Egyptian towns, fortresses, temples, etc. in Northern Sudan to say that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was located in what is now the modern country of Egypt, as well as Northern Sudan. Egyptian towns in modern Sudan, such as Pnubs, attest to this fact. Abu Simbel and Qustul straddle the border with Sudan.
  • Mention of the Great pyramids at Giza and the sphinx should be included in the Old Kingdom section, as these are the crowning achievements of the Old Kingdom. A short statement that they were built during the Old Kingdom should suffice, as the links to the Great Sphinx of Giza and Giza pyramids will tell their story in more detail.
  • I am concerned that the Menkaura pic is exceedingly large for a survey page and doesn't allow space for other important figures. Menkaura isn't even mentioned by name in the Old Kingdom section so the uninformed reader has no way of knowing why Menkaura deserves such a large and prominent pic in the article. I propose that we replace the existing Menkaura pic with one of Khufu. Khufu built the largest pyramid at the Giza necropolis and Menkaura built the smallest one. Representation in the article should be proportionate to contribution to the society.
  • The architecture section would benefit from a picture of Hatshepsut's temple. It preceded the Parthenon and is one of the world's greatest examples of symmetry in architecture.
  • The architecture section has a misleading and false statement about the abandonment of pyramid building after the Middle Kingdom. It's true that pyramids were built during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. However, it is also a fact that pyramids were built by Ancient Egyptian pharaohs during the Late period by the Napatan, or 25th dynasty. There are a tremendous number of pyramids in Sudan that were built by Ancient Egyptians. According to all accounts that I have read, there are more Ancient Egyptian pyramids in Sudan than in Egypt.
  • I agree with your commentary that discussion of the Napatan dynasty was too long for a survey article. However, I disagree with the current structure and will cite my work when a much shorter rewrite is added back to the article. Many Egyptologists do not place the 25th dynasty in an intermediate period. Jean Vercoutter is an example. The 25th dynasty expanded the Ancient Egyptian territorial claims to an area that was as large as it had been since the New Kingdom. They reunited upper and lower Egypt, as it was clear that preceding dynasties had little control over upper Egypt even in the area of Thebes. They had the support of Thebes and were viewed as returning Egypt to the cultural, artistic, architectural, and religious norms of the Old, Middle, and New kingdoms. The 25th dynasty rebuilt and restored temples in the traditional ancient egyptian style, including additions to the Temple at Karnak. They were mentioned in the bible. This was one of Egypt's high periods of imperialism and renaissance. This is hardly an intermediate period and deserves its own paragraph in the Intermediate or Late section of this article. Since I agree that the first stab at it was too long, I will focus next time on rewriting the existing verbage on the 25th dynasty and consolidating the new information into a few short sentences.




Dailey78 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)dailey78


I don't disagree with most of this. A few more points to consider:
  • If scholars disagree about which period the 25th dynasty belongs in, that puts us in something of a bind: how do we stay neutral when we have to choose to put it in one section or the other? Maybe we could combine the Third Intermediate and Late Period sections; the resulting section wouldn't be terribly long, although it might seem a little out of balance compared with the limited space given to the three kingdoms. I don't know.
  • Egyptologists generally see Napata as a separate civilization from Egypt, although of course closely linked with it and ruling over it for several decades. The Napatan pyramids would not, therefore, count as entirely Egyptian. But the Egyptians did build (much smaller) pyramidal structures after the Middle Kingdom, including one as a royal tomb (Ahmose I). Maybe the article could say that after the Middle Kingdom they ceased to build large-scale pyramids, but the pyramid motif remained important in Egyptian architecture.
  • The image of Menkaure is inconveniently long, but Khufu's statue isn't in good shape. I suggest the image at Khafre Enthroned, which is sensibly short. Khafre's building achievements were similarly grand (pyramid nearly as big as his father's, pyramid temple way bigger, plus sphinx). And the statue itself is regarded as a masterpiece of Old Kingdom artwork—the epitome of pharaonic deification and timelessness.
  • The architecture section is already a bit cramped, so I wouldn't advise adding another image. The column image shows the massive nature of Egyptian architecture and the Edfu image shows a distinctive Egyptian architectural form, the pylon. Perhaps a better image of the Edfu pylon can be found (see this category), but it is very symmetrical. And—forgive me for being an architectural philistine—to me the temple of Hatshepsut at a distance just looks like several rows of very large slots.
  • A very niggling point, but I would prefer not to have two images in the small legacy section. The photo you added has only one tourist, and the camels-by-pyramids one doesn't have many, so it might be preferable to have one image that has more of a sense that sightseers are flocking. This is the best I could find. It's not an especially good shot of the sphinx, but at least it's there. A. Parrot (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we're in agreement on practically every point, so we shouldn't have to spend much more time on this. I don't think it's worth the trouble to reorganize the intermediate and late period sections. I will leave the 25th dynasty text in its current location, although I may rearrange and tweak the text a little. It will be very short and a couple of sentences max. I will wait a little longer for more discussion first.
  • However, I still feel that we are doing a disservice to the Ancient Egypt survey article if we do not include some image of the sphinx. I'm not partial to any particular section. I'm not partial to any particular image. I strongly feel that somewhere in the article we should find space to include an image of the sphinx. Dailey78 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)dailey78
  • Made the pics in the legacy section smaller to address A. Parrot's aesthetic concerns. The smaller pics allow the "Notes" section to regain the full width of the page using Chrome as my browser. This also addresses my concern that the entire Ancient Egypt article does not have a single pic of the sphinx. Hopefully, this is an agreeable compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailey78 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I will leave the decision to A. Parrot and Wdford. Do what you think is best. I've said enough. My two cents is that the previous picture of all pyramids at the Giza necropolis was a particularly beautiful pic of the pyramids. I know that it doesn't address the sphinx concern. Whatever you guys come up with, I will not touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailey78 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Can we get the image of the Giza pyramids reinstated somewhere in the article? This one: . It is easily one of the most beautiful images in the article, and the pyramids are unquestionably the symbol of Ancient Egypt. I appreciate that some people are such enthusiastic advocates for the sphinx, but we have two images of it in the article already, and no image that shows the pyramids in their entirety! This is a featured article about Ancient Egypt, and we have a featured image of the pyramids readily available, so there is absolutely no reason at all why it shouldn't have a very prominent place in the article.--76.121.180.74 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.81.202 (talk)
  • Most importantly, there is the addition of excessive detail for an overview article on a massive subject. See WP:Summary style, and keep in mind that this article was already long before the major tinkering started. For example, an entire section on the "Napatan/Kushite/Nubian Renaissance" is not necessary, because Nubia is outside the purview of this article except where it interacted with Egypt. Nubia did interact with Egypt a lot, and the story of the Twenty-fifth dynasty needs to be told in detail—but not in this article, where it should be described very briefly. A century is not a very long span in the history of a civilization as long-lived as Egypt, and history is only a portion of this whole article. Egyptian history has a lot of sub-articles where such information could more usefully be placed, whereas the information about Egypt's technology and societal structure is equally important and often lacks sub-articles.
  • There is also an issue of outdated information. I have never heard, for instance, of the Anu culture. The only source provided for it is a book by Flinders Petrie, who was a brilliant archaeologist for his time, but who is now long out of date. Some of the Predynastic cultures he identified are now dismissed as illusory. More recent analysis would be needed before we can even begin to decide if and where to mention the Anu culture in Wikipedia.
  • Finally there are aesthetic problems: images and white space. User:Drift chambers added a huge amount of white space without explanation. Subsequent edits have since removed it, but I would like to know what he or she was attempting to do. There were a lot of images, and it's therefore possible that the text looked really crowded on his or her screen. If crowding needs to be eliminated, I'm open to discussing which images should stay and go. That said, I would like to keep the Giza pyramid image at the top of the screen. There's no rule that the lead should have only one image, and because of the space provided by the table of contents, image crowding is less of a problem at the top. And what more iconic image of ancient Egypt could one imagine than the pyramids surrounded by sand?

I am open to discussion on any of these points, but please, discuss before you edit. A. Parrot (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Most of your points are well taken. I appreciate the civility and tone of your commentary.

However:

  • Any article on Ancient Egypt should include an image of the sphinx at Giza. The sphinx at Giza is easily in the top 3 most recognizeable icons of the Ancient Egyptian society. It's the largest monolithic statue on Earth and a pic should be included. I added a small pic of the sphinx at Giza in the tourism section at the bottom of this article and I think that the world community would agree that a pic of the sphinx at Giza is reasonable for an article on Ancient Egypt. Therefore, I will add this small pic back immediately.
  • North Africa is a geopolitical entity, as opposed to just a region. It's misleading and inappropriate to link to North Africa in the context of an article on Ancient Egypt, as there was no such geopolitical entity as North Africa during Ancient Egyptian history. The people that have recently occupied North Africa (Arabs in 7th century and Turks in 14th century) were not responsible for the Ancient Egyptian civilization. The statement implies that Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania, etc. played some significant role in Ancient Egypt and that somehow ancient egypt was disconnected from sub-saharan africa, which we know is not true due to extensive trade with sub-saharan africa (for ivory, gold, incense, etc.) throughout Ancient Egyptian history. I will allow some time for you and others to comment, but I think Northeastern Africa is a more accurate and fair statement than the current "eastern North Africa" phrase. The formatting seems strange to most English speakers, as we wouldn't say eastern North United States. We would say Northeastern United States. It's cleaner.
  • There are a sufficient number of Egyptian towns, fortresses, temples, etc. in Northern Sudan to say that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was located in what is now the modern country of Egypt, as well as Northern Sudan. Egyptian towns in modern Sudan, such as Pnubs, attest to this fact. Abu Simbel and Qustul straddle the border with Sudan.
  • Mention of the Great pyramids at Giza and the sphinx should be included in the Old Kingdom section, as these are the crowning achievements of the Old Kingdom. A short statement that they were built during the Old Kingdom should suffice, as the links to the Great Sphinx of Giza and Giza pyramids will tell their story in more detail.
  • I am concerned that the Menkaura pic is exceedingly large for a survey page and doesn't allow space for other important figures. Menkaura isn't even mentioned by name in the Old Kingdom section so the uninformed reader has no way of knowing why Menkaura deserves such a large and prominent pic in the article. I propose that we replace the existing Menkaura pic with one of Khufu. Khufu built the largest pyramid at the Giza necropolis and Menkaura built the smallest one. Representation in the article should be proportionate to contribution to the society.
  • The architecture section would benefit from a picture of Hatshepsut's temple. It preceded the Parthenon and is one of the world's greatest examples of symmetry in architecture.
  • The architecture section has a misleading and false statement about the abandonment of pyramid building after the Middle Kingdom. It's true that pyramids were built during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. However, it is also a fact that pyramids were built by Ancient Egyptian pharaohs during the Late period by the Napatan, or 25th dynasty. There are a tremendous number of pyramids in Sudan that were built by Ancient Egyptians. According to all accounts that I have read, there are more Ancient Egyptian pyramids in Sudan than in Egypt.
  • I agree with your commentary that discussion of the Napatan dynasty was too long for a survey article. However, I disagree with the current structure and will cite my work when a much shorter rewrite is added back to the article. Many Egyptologists do not place the 25th dynasty in an intermediate period. Jean Vercoutter is an example. The 25th dynasty expanded the Ancient Egyptian territorial claims to an area that was as large as it had been since the New Kingdom. They reunited upper and lower Egypt, as it was clear that preceding dynasties had little control over upper Egypt even in the area of Thebes. They had the support of Thebes and were viewed as returning Egypt to the cultural, artistic, architectural, and religious norms of the Old, Middle, and New kingdoms. The 25th dynasty rebuilt and restored temples in the traditional ancient egyptian style, including additions to the Temple at Karnak. They were mentioned in the bible. This was one of Egypt's high periods of imperialism and renaissance. This is hardly an intermediate period and deserves its own paragraph in the Intermediate or Late section of this article. Since I agree that the first stab at it was too long, I will focus next time on rewriting the existing verbage on the 25th dynasty and consolidating the new information into a few short sentences.




Dailey78 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)dailey78


I don't disagree with most of this. A few more points to consider:
  • If scholars disagree about which period the 25th dynasty belongs in, that puts us in something of a bind: how do we stay neutral when we have to choose to put it in one section or the other? Maybe we could combine the Third Intermediate and Late Period sections; the resulting section wouldn't be terribly long, although it might seem a little out of balance compared with the limited space given to the three kingdoms. I don't know.
  • Egyptologists generally see Napata as a separate civilization from Egypt, although of course closely linked with it and ruling over it for several decades. The Napatan pyramids would not, therefore, count as entirely Egyptian. But the Egyptians did build (much smaller) pyramidal structures after the Middle Kingdom, including one as a royal tomb (Ahmose I). Maybe the article could say that after the Middle Kingdom they ceased to build large-scale pyramids, but the pyramid motif remained important in Egyptian architecture.
  • The image of Menkaure is inconveniently long, but Khufu's statue isn't in good shape. I suggest the image at Khafre Enthroned, which is sensibly short. Khafre's building achievements were similarly grand (pyramid nearly as big as his father's, pyramid temple way bigger, plus sphinx). And the statue itself is regarded as a masterpiece of Old Kingdom artwork—the epitome of pharaonic deification and timelessness.
  • The architecture section is already a bit cramped, so I wouldn't advise adding another image. The column image shows the massive nature of Egyptian architecture and the Edfu image shows a distinctive Egyptian architectural form, the pylon. Perhaps a better image of the Edfu pylon can be found (see this category), but it is very symmetrical. And—forgive me for being an architectural philistine—to me the temple of Hatshepsut at a distance just looks like several rows of very large slots.
  • A very niggling point, but I would prefer not to have two images in the small legacy section. The photo you added has only one tourist, and the camels-by-pyramids one doesn't have many, so it might be preferable to have one image that has more of a sense that sightseers are flocking. This is the best I could find. It's not an especially good shot of the sphinx, but at least it's there. A. Parrot (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we're in agreement on practically every point, so we shouldn't have to spend much more time on this. I don't think it's worth the trouble to reorganize the intermediate and late period sections. I will leave the 25th dynasty text in its current location, although I may rearrange and tweak the text a little. It will be very short and a couple of sentences max. I will wait a little longer for more discussion first.
  • However, I still feel that we are doing a disservice to the Ancient Egypt survey article if we do not include some image of the sphinx. I'm not partial to any particular section. I'm not partial to any particular image. I strongly feel that somewhere in the article we should find space to include an image of the sphinx. Dailey78 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)dailey78
  • Made the pics in the legacy section smaller to address A. Parrot's aesthetic concerns. The smaller pics allow the "Notes" section to regain the full width of the page using Chrome as my browser. This also addresses my concern that the entire Ancient Egypt article does not have a single pic of the sphinx. Hopefully, this is an agreeable compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailey78 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I will leave the decision to A. Parrot and Wdford. Do what you think is best. I've said enough. My two cents is that the previous picture of all pyramids at the Giza necropolis was a particularly beautiful pic of the pyramids. I know that it doesn't address the sphinx concern. Whatever you guys come up with, I will not touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailey78 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Can we get the image of the Giza pyramids reinstated somewhere in the article? This one: . It is easily one of the most beautiful images in the article, and the pyramids are unquestionably the symbol of Ancient Egypt. I appreciate that some people are such enthusiastic advocates for the sphinx, but we have two images of it in the article already, and no image that shows the pyramids in their entirety! This is a featured article about Ancient Egypt, and we have a featured image of the pyramids readily available, so there is absolutely no reason at all why it shouldn't have a very prominent place in the article.--76.121.180.74 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No chariots

Both hands are needed to drive a chariot, so they are out of the military.Turtleguy1134 (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Chariots were used in Ancient Egypt's military.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Km.t (Kemet/Khemet)

Shouldn't the most predominant native name for Ancient Egypt be mentioned in the lead? Namely the hieroglyphs km.t, usually transliterated as kemet or khemet?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Mummy

a mummy is a dead body that has been preserved the egyptians believed that a mummy was needed to have an afterlife the egyptians believed that the soul was made up of three parts; the Ka',the Ba ', and the Akh


the ka was an invisible twin that lived inside the body

the ba could leave the body but had to return to it the akh made the journey to the underworld

if any part was destroyed the soul would be destroyed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.54.118 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


There were numerous recent changes made to this featured article by another editor. Many of them are uncited. Most of them make chauvinistic and unnecessarily biased points. What does everyone think of these changes?Rod (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the changes are uncited and present a non-neutral point of view, then they should be removed, possibly with an edit summary stating that these changes should be cited at the very least.--Tærkast (Discuss) 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Upper and Lower Egypt

Please correct geographic reference in FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD summary (second paragraph). In this section, UPPER EGYPT is described as "in the north" and LOWER EGYPT "in the south." In fact, this is reversed. Modern map viewers conventionally place "north" at the top of a printed map, and hence think of northern features as being "up" and southern features as "down." However, the terms UPPER and LOWER EGYPT predate this convention by many centuries, and in fact refer to the elevation of the ground (LOWER EGYPT consisting of the flat, low-altitude deserts and UPPER EGYPT of the mountainous highlands to the south). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeghead the Bold (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, but I'm not sure why you didn't do it. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are so many sources of how Egyptian pioneers settled into new lands, just like settlers visiting the new world, and just like the Greeks settling near Crete and of the coast of western Canaan, the Egyptians are also one of the first sea people. There are many traditional rumored reports the Egyptians would settle near Libya ( the colonists became ancient Libyans), Algeria, Tunisia, and possibly as far as Morocco. There have been some reports even before the expeditions to the Land of Punt, there have been traditional reports of ancient Egyptian settlers and pioneers settling throughout the Arabian coast, from the beaches of the Red Sea, as far south to the Gulf of Aden, and as far east to the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea.--GoShow (...............) 01:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Modern history

This section is full of blanket statements,outright generalizations and anti-Muslim bigotry. Most of it seems to be written by Copts, no doubt trying to claim the legacy of ancient Egypt to the detriment of their Muslim countrymen. Anyhow, I don't think this stuff even falls within the scope of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.111.87 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone should get rid of this nonsense comment that appears to me to be attacking my brother and sisters. ~EgyptKEW9~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is why you should just ignore it, like the rest of us have done... Ckruschke (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

That made no freaking sense ~EgyptKEW9~ 19:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)EgyptKEW9~EgyptKEW9~ 19:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs)

Tomb Curses

Mysteries say that Tutakmen's tomb is cursed. Fact or Faked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlentyfulO'Knowledge (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Fake, no tomb is actually cursed, Ancient Egyptians were supersitious just like other ancient civilizations at that same time, but there was a ruby, know to lie in one of the tombs. People have been searching for it for century, but could never find it, sadly. Its out there somewhere! ~EgyptKEW9~— Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 December 2012‎

Ancient Egyptian Foods

In the old days of Egypt, fish were either caught and eaten right away, or caught and mummified. After most of the fish had decayed they would unwrap it, grind it up into powder and then sprinkle it onto foods. In other parts of Egypt, fish were sacred and were never caught or eaten. Because of their differences, there were wars between towns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlentyfulO'Knowledge (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 November 2012‎

You want to try to back that up with some facts? ~EgyptKEW9~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/ancient-egyptian-food.html fish, bread, beer, wheat, honey, figs, and dates, don't mislead people, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Project Traditional Medicine

Currently there is no Wikipedia page for traditional eygptian medicine, please help alleviate this by supporting the creation of Wikiproject Traditional Medicine, which aims to increase coverage of traditional medicine topics. The goal is to create pharmacopoeia of all traditional medicines for the purposed of anthropological education on the history of medicine. With your assistance we can have this important historical topic be considered the social science of anthropology and not a pseudo science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Weird paragraph

Also could someone please remove the following paragraph:

"It is important to realize that the dates given, are mostly based on speculations rather than facts. The further historians delve into the past, the harder it is to date the events in relationship with others. Since it is hard to date stones with radiocarbon dating, we must not give an absolute importance to exact dates. The further we advance in dating technology, the more we realize that Ancient Egypt is probably more ancient than history gives it."

It is unsourced, vague and contentious (and written in a different voice than the rest of the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.151.185.45 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


Brilliant work. It was added here by Fady Lahoud (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Shaw 2002/2003

I'm translating the article to Swedish at the moment, and I noticed that the notes cite Shaw (2002), but the bibliography only lists Shaw (2003). There seems to be several editions, so which one is actually cited in the article?

Peter Isotalo 18:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible source mismatching

Find "white kilt class" -- it links to [87] Billiard ( Billard, Jules B. (1978). Ancient Egypt: Discovering its Splendors. Washington D.C.: National Geographic Society.)

Please note that the above source Ancient Egypt: Disc... National Geo... points to:

Butzer, Karl W., and Thomas J. Abercrombie. Ancient Egypt: Discovering Its Splendors. Washington: National Geographic Society, 1978. Print. Note Billard, Jules B indicated as additional source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.25.50 (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Simplifying Headers

See also, Notes, References, Further reading, and External links belong together. Maybe a new header like "More information" could be made, and they could become secondary headers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.109.203 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt’s Lost Legacy? The Buduma Culture of Lake Chad

Ancient Egypt’s Lost Legacy? The Buduma Culture of Lake Chad (by Guy Immega). I think this might help. Komitsuki (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dating system

It is important to realize that the dates given, are mostly based on speculations rather than facts. The more we go in the past, the harder it is to date the events in relationship with others. Since it is hard to date stones with radiocarbon dating, we must not give an absolute importance to exact dates. The more we advance in technology, the more we realize that Ancient Egypt is probably more ancient then history gives it.

If we investigate on who gave these dates and how exactly did they obtain them, we will probably learn that the so called professional Egyptology "Authority" from the 18-19-20 century were a bunch of amateurs doing guest work, with archaic tools and incomplete data. Where the academic field in general took these guest work and declared them LAW by indoctrinating students on believing that these dates are "Real" without asking questions.

I seriously recommend serious and mature people with objective minds to investigate the dates for themselves and REVISE if possible the dates given. Or at least give a warning on not to take the dates as facts. Because it is clearly not facts but arbitrary guest work. It is a fact that in the official history they mention probably these dates, but it HAS to be pointed out that these are taken from history books and that they could be ERRORS on the dates.

Plus if you continue your investigation in that direction, you will probably learn that in order to build even the first pyramid with all it's mathematical, physical, astronomical, chemical, geological, geographical, architectural, mechanical, artistic etc. aspects, they had to have more then one millennium to develop all these fields of expertise. Not counting the trail and errors.

Now, the more science evolve the more they are discovering that Egypt had to be much more older than that. From the erosion marks of the Sphinx, the position of the Sphinx in relationship to the Leo (Zodiac). The Great Pyramid could have been built easily before 10500 years before Christ. That means Egypt could have been around 17000 years before Christ. Back then the desert was a tropical forest.

So, I would really suggest to you to UPDATE your dates or at least give a special notice on them. Like I did, but some editor decided to delete it instead of supporting it and working with it.

The Future will hold many changes, and change is the only constant in the Universe.

--Fady Lahoud (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a point here that can actually be instituted on this page other than to tell us that we need to independently go out and do our own testing and research, get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then put that in Wiki thereby discarding what you are claiming are incorrect dating methods? I mean I disagree with many of the standard Egyptian dates too, especially when it comes to their effect on Biblical Archeology and its chronology, but even I can see your suggestions are pretty naive and unworkable. Ckruschke (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

What do you mean by naive and what is so unworkable. If you have enought imagination and a Will of steel to work on it you can atcheive what ever you can conceive. Do something about it.--Fady Lahoud (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

By now we all know about Wikipedia:No original research. Yes, scientific research is difficult and important. Many people do it, and many ought to do it. But Wikipedia is for something else. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


I would suggest to split this article in two, one would be Ancient Egypt viewed from the 19th century and Ancient Egypt viewed from the 21st century. The difference would be mostly on the dating. Wikipedia is lacking new findings and The main article is outdated. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Qustul Incense Burner

In the Predynastic period section it refers to the evcavations at Qustul, which claims that this is where the oldest known Egyptian iconography is found:

"Royal Nubian burials at Qustul produced artifacts bearing the oldest known examples of Egyptian dynastic symbols, such as the white crown of Egypt and falcon."

This is not correct, according to Kathryn A. Bard:

“Bruce Williams (University of Chicago) has proposed that a fragmented stone incense burner from Qustul Cemetery L has iconographic evidence of the earliest king, who was Nubian. Part of the scene carved on the incense burner is of a seated ruler in a boat holding a flail and wearing the White Crown (two symbols of Egyptian king-ship). The more recently excavated evidence by German archaeologists, at Cemeteries U and B at Abydos, however, suggests that the earliest royal burials were there – in Egypt. The Qustul incense burner was probably imported into Nubia, where it was buried in a tomb that belonged to a very high status Nubian.”

-Bard, Kathryn A. Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Blackwell Publishing: Malden, 2007. Print. p 104.

This should be updated.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

I would like to change the picture of the sphinx ._. so plz help me! -.- :) :( :\ -/- Gallium the VII (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used.
Please note that the picture must not be copyright, which excludes almost all images that you find on the internet, in magazines etc., and you will need proof that it is not copyright, just saying it is not copyright is not acceptable. - Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity and race

Why this article doesn't have "Ethnicity" (or race/antropology) section? Perhyl (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It links to Population history of Egypt. This article is long enough. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think because scientists have yet decided what their race was. We already know their ethnicity "Egyptian" Or to be more precise. Kemet. Allanana79 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a dedicated article for this issue, Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Maybe it should be mentioned somewhere in this article.
The definition of "white" as an ethnic category is heavily contested, and there is no objective delimitation. Natives of the north of India, and people with predominantly North Indian ancestry, used to be classified as "Caucasian", "Europid" or "Caucasoid", but due to their relatively dark skin, laypeople generally do not recognise them as "white" (same with Roma people, by the way, who are of North Indian ancestry as well). In Germany and the US at least, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who thinks of North Africans as just as unambiguously "white" like those with Northern European roots; some North Africans may "pass" as white, but most are too dark-skinned to conform to the image of "white people" people usually have in mind. Same, these Copts are far too dark-skinned to pass as white. So, in practice, people split the difference, and North Africans and Copts are usually lumped under some vague category of "brown people", who are neither truly "black" nor really "white". Because, let's face it, in practice they are not treated as white, or fully white at least, because they are visibly "different", at least in Europe and countries predominantly colonised from there (such as the US). Sure, North Africans may not like that, and insist they are white despite their skin colour, but they can insist as much as they want, Europeans are not going to listen – and continue to treat them as essentially "brown". And white supremacists are going to laugh in your face if you, as a North African, claim whiteness for yourself. They couldn't care less what you think, they'll treat you as an "inferior race" anyway. (This also demonstrates how arbitrary, self-serving and hypocritical these racial definitions are: white people are eager to claim ancient civilisation XY as "part of their heritage" so they can keep the archaeological remains they've effectively stolen and never given back, while they could care less about the modern descendants, formerly outright justifying that by saying "the ancients were white, the moderns are mixed at best").
So, considering that the "anthropological" (read: pseudoscientific) definition of "white/Caucasian/Europid/Caucasoid" is subjective and contested, and in practice pretty much ignored anyway, some anti-racist activists use a more restricted, simpler and less subjective definition of "white": Only people of predominantly European ancestry are "white", no others. And the consequence of this definition is obvious: Regardless of what native Ancient Egyptians may have looked like precisely, they were not white. Even if they could all have passed as white, they were not. Thus, Ancient Egypt was a fully African, non-white civilisation. I believe this conclusion should be satisfying for people who identify as black, derive pride from Egypt as an African civilisation, and are angry about white people claiming Ancient Egypt as "theirs", even though Egypt is in Africa, viewing this as some form of "historical imperalism" – an intellectual form of colonialism all over again. Interestingly, this definition makes other ancient civilisations such as Sumer, Phoenicia or Assyria, even the Hittites and Mitanni, let alone ancient India, non-white as well – and Asian, in these cases at least. The only really ancient civilisation that white people can justifiably claim for themselves, then, remains Minoan Crete. (Considering that Cleopatra was of Greek descent, however, by the same definition, she was white, regardless of her actual appearance.)
Sure, Afrocentrism is pseudoscientific and mirrors white racism, but this is due to the racial categories forced on black people, and the grievances on which sentiments like "white people stole Ancient Egypt and don't give Africans nearly enough credit for advancing human civilisation" are based are very much justified. Many European scholars were formerly very eager to claim that Africa has always been nothing but tribes of primitive savages and all civilisation came from outside, in order to justify slavery, and this sentiment has proved very tenacious in the general population. No wonder black people are still pissed. Afrocentrism, thus, is a pushback against European pseudoscience whose influence is still acutely felt. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You continue to perpetuate the racist myth that "if it ain't white, then its black". Ancient Egyptians - and modern Egyptians - certainly were not white. However they were not black either. If you want to believe that there are different "races" among humans, then you need to accept that there are more than two different races. This applies to Africa as much as anywhere else - just because it originated in Africa doesn't mean Ancient Egypt was black. Definitely African, but not black - there is a profound difference. The Ancient Egyptians understood this, as they emphasized in their art, and in the 21st Century everyone else knows this too. Please try to keep up. Wdford (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


@ Florian Blaschke

I agree, and I am Irish ...I believe the ancient Egyptians - before all the invasions and migrations - were various shades of black and brown indigenous Africans. Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in their art as such. Various shades of rich brown and dominantly reddish-brown - very like the reddish-brown people in certain parts of Africa (Forget the particular area)and coiled hair. Funny how some claim not black, when, if the Egyptians in these paintings were alive today, they would most definitely be classed as black people, never mind the fact that they were Africans. Anyway, that is what I see when I look at all the art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.251.95 (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2016

Why is there a link to http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/? The design is from the 90s and has virtually no content...

Tashi4w (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Site seems to work for me and has content. The navigation is a little painful and outdated, but the current external list description is accurate. -- ferret (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed"

user:Editor_357 has disputed the neutrality of this article on 15th January 2017. Would he care to elaborate on his concerns a bit further? What is actually wrong with this article? Seems pretty good to me. JJohannes (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted it as it requires an explanation here. Doug Weller talk 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2017

hieroglyphs is Egyptians type of writing wrote on papyri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.208.138 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

population update

There have been studies signifying the population diversity of ancient egypt. Some can be collectively found on the 'population history of egypt' page of wiki. Although there is plenty of research out currently of the makeup of this ancient group, the date on the wiki page (population history of egypt) should be included for starters. [1]

 Not done Please provide a specific suggested change in "X to Y" format. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_Egypt

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

In the first sentence of the lead, please replace ...in the place which is now the country Egypt -with- ...in the place that is now the country Egypt (without my added emphasis). See: English relative clauses & Restrictiveness in English 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8C81:A23:E9F2:E55E (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. RivertorchFIREWATER 23:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

This edit changes:

Nile River - geographically Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt, in the place that is now occupied by the countries of Egypt and Sudan

to

Nile River in the place that is now the country Egypt.

The edit summary says "Ancient Egypt did at well extend well to parts of modern Levant and Iraq, but that won't make either Levant or Iraq or Sudan part of ancient Egypt. In this case, these areas were just foreign colonies." This rather incoherent summary doesn't seem to explain why it un-wiki-links the Nile, or omits the mention of the important division into Upper and Lower Egypt, but also the idea that Kush was just a foreign colony makes little sense; Kush conquered Egypt, and Kushite pharaoahs ruled Egypt. The map in the article correctly shows Kushite cities, major cities of Ancient Egypt, which lie in modern-day Sudan. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I question whether the Egyptian relationship with Nubia is enough grounds to claim that ancient Egypt extended into land that now belongs to modern Sudan. Keep in mind that the modern border between Egypt and Sudan is a little way north of where the Second Cataract used to be; the First Cataract, which was originally considered the southern frontier of ancient Egypt, is well within modern Egypt's borders. At the height of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt controlled the Nile as far south as Semna with a series of forts; whether the land between the cataracts was thought of as Egypt proper I do not know. The rule of most New Kingdom pharaohs (beginning with Thutmose III and ending with Ramesses IX) extended to the Fourth Cataract or slightly beyond, and that was the period when Egyptian settlement in and cultural influence on Nubia was greatest. That period lasted maybe 350 years, a fairly small proportion of ancient Egypt's 3,000-year history. Kushite rulers adopted a great deal of Egyptian culture and ruled Egypt for about 60 years, but Kushite culture was never the same as that of Egypt. (Its language was completely different, Kushites didn't build temples of the Egyptian type until Taharqa had them adopt the practice, mummification was only adopted by the Kushite and Meroitic elite, and only some Egyptian deities came to be worshipped by the general populace.)
The article text says "concentrated along the lower reaches of the Nile", a wording that doesn't specify a border and implies that ancient Egypt extended beyond the river. This kind of qualification makes sense, given that hard borders didn't exist in the ancient world and this article must discuss a broad sweep of time during which the extent of Egyptian culture and political control changed greatly. With that qualification, I think it's reasonable to leave out explicit mention of Sudan. The core of ancient Egypt was contained within the borders of modern Egypt. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the detailed explanation. (Just to be clear, I presume you have no objection to the wikilink to the Nile, or the mention of Upper and Lower Egypt?) Pinkbeast (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The Nile link obviously needs to be there, but Upper and Lower Egypt is linked a little later in the lead section. Yes, it's a separate article from Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt, and no, I don't know why we have the redundancy. We only need to mention the Two Lands once in the lead, but I'm not sure which place works better. A. Parrot (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the wikilink and will leave the rest be. Thank you again for taking the time to give so clear an explanation. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please Correct the Following

I don't want to make random changes to this page but the following sentences are flat wrong:

"The third-century BC Egyptian priest Manetho grouped the long line of pharaohs from Menes to his own time into 30 dynasties, a system still used today.[20] He chose to begin his official history with the king named "Meni" (or Menes in Greek) who was believed to have united the two kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt (around 3100 BC).[21]"

The wrong aspect is the "(around 3100 BC)". If removed the section would be essentially correct. According to Africanus' Manetho Meni united Egypt 5376 years before Alexander, while Eusebius' Manetho claimed it happened 4748 years before Alexander. Either way long before 2800 years before Alexander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.122.228 (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

68.148.122.228: Thank you for pointing this out. I looked into how to rework this passage of the article and found that, in addition to the problem you pointed out, it slightly misrepresented the sources it cited. I've corrected both problems. A. Parrot (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please also correct the typo in the "New Kingdom (1549–1069 BC)" paragraph, where it says: "(...) and sent trading expeditions to Punt and the Sinai." [please correct wrong spelling of the word expedition, thank you]

done Greece666 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019

156.201.208.165 (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I need to remove wrong information

As stated in the template above, please specify what text should be removed and someone will see if it needs doing. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Note! Pre-dynastic period needs dates

How did this get thru the F.A. process and miss this? At the least, there should be two date-range approximations in this section.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Egypt/Archive_4&oldid=1022354310"