Talk:First Dynasty of Egypt

message: The current table with estimated reign dates for the kings of the first dynasty is just plainly laughable : poor Hor-Aha is given 1 year (yes one year) of reign, probably to fit somebody's timeline according to which Narmer accessed the throne on the round date of 3100BC and got 50 years of life in retribution for his awsomeness. Given the remaining evidence, Hor-Aha's reign must have been 30 to 40 years long as well... Iry-Hor (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reign length of Hor-Aha 

message: or does that first sentence need to be re-written?--ViolinGirl♪ 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it just me?

message: ...Gardiner's Egypt of the Pharaohs to be exact. I know that it's old, but I see a very strong and comprehensive arguement that Menes is not Hor-Aha, on the basis of the way a ostricon writes the names of both Hor-Aha and Menes. Rather, he believes him to be Narmer. I have another book next to me, Ian Shaw's Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, which says that an identification of Menes with either Narmer or Hor-Aha is jumping the gun. And finally, I have a book, Grimal's A History of Ancient Egypt, which says that menes was probably Narmer, and might have been Hor-Aha.
Unless someone can come up with another verefiable source, specifically, one that argues against Gardiner's arguement that Menes is absolutely not Hor-Aha, I recommend that we put all three in the beginning of Dynasty I on this list, with a note that Menes may be narmer. At the very least, we have to eliminate the Menes->Hor-Aha connexion unless it can be verefied by a source of equal status as Gardiner which tries specifically to prove that his arguement, or an arguement like his, is wrong. Thanatosimii 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The seals of Den and Qaa are clearly establishing Narmer as the first king of the first dynasty, immediatly before Hor Aha, which strongly points to the equation Narmer = Menes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a book in front of me... 

message: The Egyptian state was formed prior to the existence of verifiable historical records. Conventional dates for its formation are based on the relative ordering of artefacts. This approach is no longer considered sufficient for cogent historical analysis. Here, we produce an absolute chronology for Early Egypt by combining radiocarbon and archaeological evidence within a Bayesian paradigm. Our data cover the full trajectory of Egyptian state formation and indicate that the process occurred more rapidly than previously thought. We provide a timeline for the First Dynasty of Egypt of generational-scale resolution that concurs with prevailing archaeological analysis and produce a chronometric date for the foundation of Egypt that distinguishes between historical estimates. 
See also . Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling 

message: Per , this edit established the usage of the page as . Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 03:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:ERA

message: Added "possible gap" to table in places where the linked article didn't specify that scholars know a direct succession occurred. If we're certain of no gaps or interregnums through the dynasty, feel free to remove them. — LlywelynII 04:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaps