Talk:Third Intermediate Period of Egypt

message: I believe there is a good case for removing the 25th Dynasty from this Third Intermediate Period and allocating it to the Late Period.... Intermediate Periods generally speak of division and weakness. The 25th Dynasty, in fact, re-unified the country, even if it was under 'foreign' (Kushite / Nubian) rule.... In fact, the Nubian kings prided themselves on being more Egyptian than the Egyptians! As regards weakness, the 25th Dynasty, amongst other things, led a valiant resistance to repeated Assyrian incursions. Such a re-allocation, although not shared by all modern chroniclers, would therefore better reflect the themes of Egyptian history - this schema is supported by Baines and Malek, however, in their authoritative Atlas of Ancient Egypt.... Comments? Pjamescowie 14:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well quite, I mean the whole concept of the 3rd intermediate period is a load of old rubbish isn't it? An overgeneralisation of a complex period, the characterisation actually inhibits understanding of the span it's meant to illuminate. e.g. was it really a period of division and weakness? Is the 21st dynasty really significantly different to the end of the 20th? Why not end the period with dynasty 26, since that represents the greatest break: namely Egypt's long running occupation by an external empire? As for 'the themes of Egyptian history', well that's just it isn't it? The Victorians were just aching for a decline and fall narrative and here's the period for the icing on the cake. But far better, surely, to address these questions in the historiography section of the article. I haven't the sources, personally. --Mr impossible 22:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: removing the 25th Dynasty

message: This article has fallen victim to some bizarre vandalism by anons. I just removed "the pogo stick" as a title of Osorkon III, but there are some other inane if slightly amusing insertions. If someone is caretaking this article, they should keep an eye out for this and possibly get the vandals blocked by reporting them the administrators' noticeboard. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The uncited and non-neutral statement that Napata was a "backwater" has been removed and will be removed at any time that is inserted.   It is common knowledge that Napata was the seat of a powerful civilization, the Kingdom of Kush, that periodically challenged Egypt for control of the Nile valley and in the case of the 25th dynasty conquered the entire Nile valley.  The 25th dynasty gave the Nile valley the largest empire that it had seen since the New Kingdom.  It was from this "backwater" that Nile valley pyramid construction was resurrected.  There are approximately 220 pyramids in Sudan and less than 150 in Egypt.   Art, religion, and temple construction were restored to their Old, Middle, and New Kingdom forms from Napata.  The sacred mountain of Jebel Barkal is there.  This mountain is referenced in iconography of Ramses II, as well as 25th dynasty rulers.  There are 13 temples and 3 palaces in the area.   There was a continuous civilization in the area for thousands of years.   It was at the center of a trade crossroads and the Ancient Egyptians were in continuous contact with this region from the beginning until the end of the Ancient Egyptian civilization.  The Egyptians built cities in the area, such as Pnubs and Doukki Gel.  The area has been extensively excavated by:
 
*George Reisner 
*The Univ. of Chicago team 
*The Boston museum and Harvard team 
*The Swiss team and Charles Bonnet 
It would be a waste of anyone's time to try to refute that the civilization based in Napata was one of the most important in world history.Rod (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the point of that sentence was simply to note Napata's position relative to Thebes and Memphis. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

text: And compared to Thebes or Memphis, that description is fairly accurate. It's not to imply that Napata had no meaningful culture at all, simply nothing that rivaled the Egyptian capitals. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

text: That seems rather like saying Karakorum rivaled Beijing because the former raised an empire that conquered the latter. Military power and the ability to absorb major cities doesn't make a site as developed and connected to the centers of trade and thought as the cities one conquers.  Thanatosimii (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Napata isn't a they, it's an it. It's not the civilization or the dynasty, it's the city. Most of the things you cite refer to the work done by the 25th dynasty or even later Nubian leaders, not the intellectual, economic, or demographic aspects of the city of Napata circa the Assyrian conquests. And I don't think you can make an argument that the resurrection of Pyramids indicates a great achievement on the part of the 25th dynasty, as opposed to their predecessors in the New Kingdom and 3rd intermediate who chose not to build them. The Nubian pyramids are rather small, and the style had simply fallen out of fashion in Egypt. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, the problem here is that you're including the accomplishments of the 25th dynasty and even later rulers into the prestige of the physical city circa the Assyrian invasion. We are not comparing the accomplishments of dynasties - that is not how "backwater" is defined. Thanatosimii (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Napata was no backwater

message: The map in the infobox is out of sync with the text of the article, and there aren't any good replacements on Commons. I'm not myself skilled enough at image editing to produce a replacement.
In more detail- admitting up-front that I am not really a subject-matter expert- my understanding is that the map is based on a now-outdated interpretation of the period, rooted in Kenneth Kitchen's work of the 1970s (the map was created in 2008, and  cites books from 1990 and 2002 for the information in it). It presents the 23rd dynasty as ruling part of the east-central delta, with its capital at Leontopolis, immediately adjacent to the concurrent and related 22nd dynasty. However, in the past few decades, consensus among Egyptologists has shifted to the view that the 23rd dynasty in fact ruled in Upper and Middle Egypt, with its power centers at Herakleopolis, Hermopolis, and Thebes, while the concurrent 22nd dynasty was predominant in Lower Egypt. The text of the article as it stands presents this current consensus view, and the shift in the historiography is explained in brief in the article Kenneth Kitchen. (The article Twenty-third Dynasty of Egypt seems to present the older interpretation in most of its article text (eg claiming Leontopolis as capital; the first paragraph of the "History" section represents the more current interpretation, however), but the newer in its infobox (which lists Thebes and Herakleopolis as capitals) and list of Pharaohs.) Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox map