Talk:Ancient Egypt/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't Ancient EGYPT and EGYPT be put together, after all, they are the same country,. time can not change that
Now I undestand that there is a limit to the length of an article.  however, these two should be formed together, as one article.
:Ancient Egypt is significantly different from the current Egypt. And you won't merge Persian Empire with Iran :\. Sum1else 11:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient is Current

message: Why did this just get tagged for wikification? It looks plenty wikified to me. It needs improvement in other areas, though. Maestlin 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it, it's not appropriate here. If the person who placed explains maybe we can put a better tag, but wikify is not needed. Piet 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify tag

message: The language links are a mess. One redirects to the main ancient egypt page, while the rest are basically stubs. Anyone who knows about this, it would be nice if someone did some work on those articles. Thank You! Tutmosis 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote some more information under the different language phases, but it might need more formatting and someone to fix the redirects. --Zerida 01:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages

message: Deleted:
  This, however, does not appear to have been the case in the Maghreb and Lower Egypt, the area in the North containing Alexandria and the Mediterranean region, which seem to have been continuously inhabited by Caucasoid peoples speaking Afro-Asiatic languages. Following the desiccation of the Sahara, most black Africans migrated South into East and West Africa.
 
Ummm is it just me or did the article above seem a little slanted. why do you describe the people of northern africa as caucasoid and not africoid or negroid considering they do have features of both races,also taking into consideration that the africans were the first human beings wouldnt it be more accurate to describe them as africoid or negroid  or an offspring of africans as opposed to propogating a false hood through verbal trickery.Northern Africans are still older genetically than europeans mantherefore you cant say theyre caucasoid thats backward logic.I know what your going to say Im just splitting hairs and it only a matter of verbage,of course you would say that thats because you just lost the argument.
How is it that black Africans were not in Lower Egypt, when the Great Sphinx of Giza is clearly black African?  Are you trying to say that Caucasoid North Africans erected a monument to a black pharaoh?  Absurd!  This is simply more of the same nonsense proliferated by those who would deny that ancient dynastic Egypt was, first and foremost, a black African civilization.  This article needs major help, but I have neither the time nor the patience at the moment.deeceevoice 12:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More lies

message: see New Chronology (Fomenko). this is a total nutcase theory if there ever was one. enough said. dab (ᛏ) 18:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Franck's edits

message: I have deleted the following unwikified "essay" and reverted to the original article.  Someone more knowledgeable than me will know where to incorporate this.        
        
Egypt started as a group of farmers who settled along the Nile, and yet managed to advance so much that they were the top civilization for 3 periods of time. How did they manage to rise to power from such a humble beginning? There were a number of important factors that allowed Egypt to rise. One of the most important, of course, was the climate of Egypt as well as how the land was formed in and around Egypt.
	The Nile was by far one of the most important land formations that allowed the Egyptians to live and prosper. It flooded regularly, not only providing the people of Egypt a base in which to form their calendar, but also with a place to farm. The Egyptians learned the reliable pattern of the Nile floods so that they were able to plant their crops near it. When the Nile flooded, it covered the crops with water, which were planted in the very fertile soil near the river. This allowed the Egyptians to have an unlimited supply of food for their people. They could also fish for extra food if for some reason there was a sudden famine.
	There were also other reasons for the prosperity of Egypt over time. The deserts around Egypt, mainly the Sahara and Arabian, prevented other countries from invading Egypt for a long time until they developed technology sufficient to cross them. Another barrier was the Mediterranean Sea. Back in the time when the Egyptians had just started their rise as a civilization, other people had not yet developed ships. It was only in their final fall that they were attacked by a civilization from the sea, and that was a long time after they first started out.
	The temperature also played a major role. It was always temperate, meaning that the temperature never grew to extremes. As you can see today in Egypt that changed over time, as now it is sweltering hot in the summer around Egypt. The climate back then, however, allowed them to plant their crops almost all year round. It also allowed them to build a lot without getting overheated. This helped them to construct the pyramids and also dry the Fayuum Basin, which you will find out about later.
	In addition, there were also pharaohs and important events that allowed the Egyptians to rule as a top civilization. Some pharaohs, of course, were noble, generous, and intelligent, while others plunged Egypt into civil wars and all those other nasty situations. 
	The first well-recognized pharaoh was known as Narmer, more commonly known as Menes. He came into power in 2900 B.C. He founded the city known as Memphis, locating it near the Nile River so that it would be easy to defend in the event of an attack. Luckily for him, Egypt was geographically isolated, so no enemies were able to get into Egypt, allowing them to develop and advance without disturbance. He also founded Crocodopolis and in that city he had a temple built to celebrate Ptah, a god that he thought was worthy of such splendor. Another accomplishment of his was hat he united Upper and Lower Egypt, and signified that he did so by wearing a double crown on his head. He died either by way of hippopotamus or crocodile attacks after about 62 years of ruling.
	Imhotep followed behind with a skill for building things in 2686. He designed the early Step Pyramid for the burial of himself and several other rich people. Although he was not pharaoh, he still was very well-known among the people of Egypt. He served the pharaoh Zoser during his life as chief architect and scribe.
	Probably the most famous pharaoh was known as Khufu, or Scheop. He was the pharaoh who designed the Great Pyramid at Giza. Some people think that he was a cruel ruler, and some don’t. His pyramid is the tallest pyramid in existence, even though his son’s pyramid seems taller. The reason for this is that his son’s pyramid is on top of a plateau, making the ground on which is standing higher up than his father’s. When he died, he was buried in the Great Pyramid, which, unfortunately, was entered by burglars who stole many things. In fact, the only artifact that we have of him is a 9cm statue found in an ancient home.
	Pepi II is a famous pharaoh for much different reasons than the other pharaohs listed here. He was the cause for Egypt’s first downfall, which plunged them into civil war. One of the reasons for this was that Pepi II was a very greedy and selfish pharaoh. He built things that didn’t need to be built, and spent more money on things for himself than he did for anyone or anything else. Another reason for their downfall was that Pepi II lived to be very old- almost 90! Some people labeled him “The Senile Pharaoh” because when he grew old he seemed to grow nuts. Because of the lack of money many people rebelled against him because of his weak spending. From his rule an economic depression sprouted, and from that a civil war sprang up, not only ruining Egypt’s great cities but also making many people die.
	Mentuhotep was the pharaoh who restored order. He gained economic stability, which wasn’t easy, considering the problems Pepi II caused. He formed internal development trading, which helped the economy of Egypt to rise. It was because of him that Egypt did not remain in the civil war. He was known by many to be a very strong pharaoh. After developing Egypt’s economy, he focused on repairing the damage done by Pepi II, and succeeded, allowing the people of Egypt to rise once again to power.
	At the very peak of Egypt’s second rise, Sesotris came into power as pharaoh. He focused mainly on the development of Egypt itself, mainly being the building of new structures and new land routes. During his rule Egypt managed to maintain internal stability. He built canals in Egypt for all the water from the Nile River, and also managed to erect forts in Egypt in case of an attack. His most famous accomplishment is the draining of the Fayuum Basin, which allowed people to cross safely. However, after his rule, Egypt almost immediately started declining again. 
	After attacks from the Hyksos tribes at the lowest point in Egypt’s 2nd decline,   a man called Ahmose became pharaoh. He drove out the Hyksos with chariots, and was thought to be a hero. He helped Egypt rise slightly, but other than that, he did not accomplish much more.
	Hatshepsut was the only female pharaoh that ever existed. She is famous for that, but that is not the only reason why she is famous. She established a trade route with Punt, which she personally saw to herself by joining in the expedition to it. She also built obelisks, which were sometimes used to bury the dead. Hatshepsut always wore a beard so that she would not seem to be a woman most of the time. She was the main person who helped Egypt rise for the 3rd and final time.
	Thutmose III was a pharaoh who loathed his mother, Hatshepsut. In fact, after she died, he erased her name from everything she ever did, replacing it with Thutmose I, Thutmose II, or Thutmose III. Following his erasing process, he became a war hero, and commanded a huge army. Because of his actions towards his mother, people stopped paying tribute to him, so Thutmose III led his army into their state so that they would pay to him again. In addition, he also led a total of 17 military campaigns during his rule in order to keep an orderly world, from his point of view anyway.
	Ramses II is famous not for his accomplishments, but rather for what happened during his reign. He had many slaves in his kingdom known as the Hebrews. According to historical records, he was forced to let them go because of impending plagues. This caused Egypt to decline for its final time, as its major source of labor and building people came from the slaves who they had normally forced to work.
	Ramses III was a pharaoh who tried his best to keep Egypt going. During his reign as pharaoh, Egypt was invaded a total of 3 times; twice by the Libyans and once by a tribe known as the sea people for their naval skills. Despite Egypt’s declining power, he still managed to defend Egypt from the invaders. If it wasn’t for his quick thinking in times of peril, such as when he Libyans invaded for the second time, Egypt would never have survived. It was him who thought of capturing the Libyan chief from their camp, forcing the Libyans to retreat from lack of authority. And it was also him who devised the plan of booby trapping the Mediterranean Sea shores so that they were able to sink the naval fleets of the sea people.
	After Ramses III fell from power, Egypt was invaded about 10 times, which pretty much destroyed its dynasty. Luckily for us today, many records survived the ages that tell us about the legendary civilization that ruled the world three times in a row.
--ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not so bad, for an essay directed at children. maybe they have use for it on :simple:Ancient Egypt, I'll post it there. dab (ᛏ) 12:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: the problem with this "debate" is the endless number of anonymous editors setting up strawmen arguments about clueless colonialistic European science and taking for granted terms like "black identity" or "African diaspora" that are meaningless either outside the USA, or outside a Modern context, certainly meaningless in the context of the 4th millennium BC. Who is being clueless here? There were no "Europeans" in the 4th millennium; of course the Egyptians were "African". Yes, African Americans are intelligent and courageous, it's just that this is all entirely beside the point. dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted the following unwikified "essay"

message: Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, but the Ancient Egyptian article has been revised more times than Joan Rivers' face. Most of the revisions non-surprisingly, have to do with the ethnic make-up of the nation, why do you keep editing it? Egyptians were in the beginning of African extraction, physically and culturally. Read SOY Keita. So whatever ideological leveys you're trying to pull, stop it. Keep the article the way it was, thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs) .
:We have Race of the Ancient Egyptians. And yet, people keep heaping genetic studies on this article. This article is about Ancient Egypt. Its culture. Its 3000 year history. Why is it "unsurprising" that people keep harping on the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians? It's offtopic. It's a red herring. If you want to split hairs over Egyptian genes, do it over at the "race" article. dab (ᛏ) 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Needs to Stop 

message: what is it with these 3D images? Can we just dump them on commons and put a commons link under "External links"? I mean, who is sitting in front of their computer with red-and-blue glasses on? dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly that is exactly the point. On Wikipedia:3D Illustrations there is an ongoing discussion how to treat the pictures. Right now it looks like we'll try to introduce the template . But issues have to be sorted out before moving the pictures. The insufficient capions are one of them. --Dschwen 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3D images

message: Can someone explain something to me.
WHen using DNA analysis, one assumes that the genetic markers found in the X and Y chromosomes of Europeans and Egyptians are indicators that the Egyptians looked like Europeans? The reason I ask is because, theoretically, one could take a black and white pair, and assuming the father is white, the mother is black, that pair could have children. All of their children would show the "white" father's Y chromosomal characteristics no matter how many Black marriages take place among the descendants. With X-chromosomes, you won't find that. So what gets me is, how can we assume that from the Y, that the Egyptians were predominantly "berber" or "north African"? Even more so, why do we assume that the genetic variation of Europeans and Africans should slide towards favoring a "white" or "european looking" mixed bag? 
Same with cranials. The skull shapes may vary, but I rarely have mistaken a black person for being white simply because his skull is more "Caucasoid". Some like Coon have classified Tutsi-Rwandans as Caucasoids because their skulls are similar in shape to Germans and Frenchmen. I have yet to see any meaningful divisions within ethnic groups based on skull shape and size. the Egyptians varied, or as the article itself says, "was an amalgram"... that means that Black Africans were at least a part of this group. Unfortunately this article plays down the African aspect to the point of where when reading it, one forgets that there is any Black heritage in Ancient Egypt at all. Maybe because Caucasoid has become such a broad "every other human with round eyes" classification. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dental/Cranial and DNA confusion 

message: The ancient Egyptians had only one term to designate themselves:
I6:X1-A1*B1:Z2 = kmt = the Negroes.
It is the strongest term existing in the pharaonic tongue to indicate blackness (Cheikh Anta Diop in General History of Africa II, Unesco, page 41).
You can check this in the Dictionary: Woerterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache, Vol. 5, pp. 127.
reachable online after registration here: http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/
kmt(kemet): die Ägypter. (Wb 5, 127.18-20)
A pic of "Wb 5, 127.18-20", look at the last Translation in C, it is in german.
http://people.freenet.de/freezama/mop/egyptien.jpg
:we know. it's in the article. we've discussed it ad nauseam. kmt means "Egypt". A translation of "the Negroes" is speculative. Can we talk about something else soon? dab (ᛏ) 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People! could one of you read hieros ? This hieros are for the people, not for the land, and it also translate to kemet.I6:X1-A1*B1:Z2 = kmt = the Negroes or the blacks, what you want.
Or let us try it your way, translate it in your own words, N.B. this "kemet" has nothing to do with land.
--84.130.50.207 07:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we can quote you on that? "according to 84.130.50.207 on a Wikipedia talkpage, kmt has nothing to do with the land of Egypt". Great, problem solved then. Never mind that the addition of the "people" ideogram modifies kmt to mean 'people of kmt '. dab (ᛏ) 07:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please look at it again. The idiogram means People of the "black", not black people.
Come on, this is medu netjers basic grammar, people
the people- and nation-idiograms dont represent words of its own, they're only determinatives.
They give the reader an idea of the meaning of the word they come after(follow).
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieroglyph
"Hieroglyphs consist of three kinds of glyphs: phonetic glyphs, including single-consonant characters that functioned like an alphabet; logographs, representing morphemes; and determinatives, or ideograms, which narrowed down the meaning of a logographic or phonetic word."
And km.t(phonetic) means: Black, the different idiograms narrowed down, the meaning of this km.t (black).
Therefore:
In the case of the people-idiogram, this means: Black, the people.
In the case of the nation-idiogram, this means: Black, the nation.
--84.130.30.248 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Km.t the egyptians

message: The eurocentric claims there were no blacks in Egypt the Afrocentric claims there were only black in Egypt, the reality is two parts and in the middle.  
-Ancient Egypt did not extend as far south as modern egypt.  Ancient egypt was taken over by tons of people including black africans.  The moderate main stream view is that ancient egyptians were a racial mixture of blacks and non-blacks.  I understand that americans will take it as egyptians are black and europeans will take it as eyptians were not black, either way you view it those are the facts.
:Why should a non-black civilization portray its Gods as Blacks ?
:Examples: 
:Kem-wr: or (Black-BIG) the big black, for OSIRIS.
:Kem(black) is used with all of them: Hathor, Thot, Min, Apis, Isis...
:the really name of his wife Isis means the Black Woman(see Amélineau).
:Why should a white-civilisation depict its devil as white ?:In african languages white people are called red, so is seth the red.
:And the ancient egyptians called themselves Kemet or the blacks like their own Nation (which means the black nation)
:There is no traces of white-population in the sahara region until 1300-1500 before jc. 
:It is impossible to become white in this region.
:Concerning the White-Libyans (Temehu).
:The Egyptians always regarded the Libyans as true savages, rebels to any civilization.
:And never want to be mixed with them, they were only ready to use them as mercenaries in the army like the whites in america with the apaches or other native americans.--84.130.53.101 19:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentric, Afrocentric and Moderate 

message: Greetings- I am interested to know the source of the (DNA) idea above that "everyone knows that there is no human being on earth living or dead that ever existed that didnt posses African DNA..." This is the 'Out of Africa' theory of Evolution and Migration. I'm sure there are many writers and supporters of this view on human origins. One reference that confounds assumptions about human paleontological records, that I find most intriguing, is Michael Cremo's Forbidden Archeology which is a challenge to Darwinismand traditional evolutionary theories. I would like to trace some of the early ethnologists, anthrologists, and biologists who supported this theory and based on what kind of evidence? (paleo-ontological records, theory...). I know this appears offtrack for an article on Ancient Egypt; but considering the importance for establishing talk about 'origins' in Ancient Egypt, I believe it necessary to highlight some research into the politics of archeological/anthropological scientific communities (in a Thomas Kuhn sense of scientists protecting their theories). Does Egyptology utilise physical anthropology and human paleontology to form inferences about ancient egyptian tribes, architecture, worship, agriculture, society?... Maybe this discussion point would be better consigned to the wiki-section 'Controversy over the race of Ancient Egyptians'. Can Ancient Egypt be combined with talking points on 'Evolution' or 'Darwinism'? Please excuse my rhetoric... Just looking for some interdisciplinary insight into this complex matter. - Drakonicon 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA and the 'Out of Africa' Theory?

message: Folks, please take a look at Help:Reverting. Last month, Edwy attempted to "revert" 61.88.131.189's vandalism, but instead ended up mangling the article and permanently removing important sections of text – no one ever noticed their absence, apparently. [] From now on, please go to the actual previous version and save that over the current version, after examining the changes in diff. Do not attempt to restore the deleted text manually, as this only causes headaches for anyone trying to make heads or tails out of the article afterwards.
This has been a public service announcement; please return to your regularly scheduled wikibreaks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mangled reversions 

message: I changed it so it's not redundantly exclusive of the Black contribution. Egypt is a blend of contributions of the North (considerd non-black berber by the mainstream), Asian (considered non black semetic by the mainstream), and East African (black)... not "northeast" (redundantly implying non-black north/asian amalgram by the mainstream).  This is an example of why Afrocentricists have to go to the extremes. The "silent omission" tactic is always used to exclude the Black contribution which is obvious. Everyone can read between the lines. 
Just to prove it... who here thinks that the "northeast" contribution in the article implies "black"? No one. So I changed it. There was a substantial Black contribution. I have the first edit. I will win the three edit revert rule, don't try to reuse it. I have offered evidence and a non POV rationale. I will win the 3 edit revert. Do not try to underpin it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything but the first sentence in the People section ought to be moved to Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians. --JFK 21:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of North, East, and Asian 

message: The article was using both the BC and BCE notations for dates.  Since the BC is used more frequently on this article I will replace all the BCE with BC.--Konstable 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC / BCE 

message: First of all, whoever nominated this page for a Good Article forgot to tag it with , but there was in fact a nomination.
Overall this article seems well written and mentions all the important aspects.  I commend you all for your work.
However I am not satisfied that it goes into enough detail on some very important specifics.  The Culture section in particular needs to be seriously expanded, especially since there is no other article (as far as I know) on Wikipedia about Ancient Egyptian Culture.  Right now this section is little more than a stub - the paragraphs are not connected with each other and only offer little bits of information.  It seems to me, for a topic like Ancient Egypt, this should be one of the most important sections.
Just off the top of my head, some important aspects missing: burial rites (perhaps incoroporating some bits from Egyptian burial rituals and protocol), importance of religion, impact on modern popular culture, some maps (eg. location and size at various states in history), monetary system, mention of their military activities, slavery, etc.
Also, even though there is a list of refrences at the bottom of the article and some inline citations are used here and there, I think there should be more inline citations.  For example: "Archaeological evidence indicates..." or "There is evidence of pastoralism and cultivation of cereals..." - you need a citations here to say what this evidence is.
I hope you get there!--Konstable 02:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: Thinking about Konstable's drive for Ancient Egyptian Culture, I'm sure there are numerous films and documentaries that could demonstrate the impact Ancient Egypt has on the imagination. Of course there the old B&W film versions of 'The Mummy' (Boris Karloff), American and British pulp writers on Egyptian Mysteries in the 1920's, '30's, '40's. The recent Brendan Fraser movies The Mummy, the Mummy Returns- maybe a brief sentence about the use of Imhotep as the antagonist in the film compared to his documented role in historical texts. Maybe a Popular Culture section would appear too kitsch to be included with scholarly insight into Ancient Egypt; however, i would like to see all the psychological ramifications, ideologies, symbologies included. Video Game references? I'm sure there is much more that could be covered here. Maybe this section is better off being explored in the Culture of Egypt section? Drakonicon 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact on Modern Popular Culture?

message: I seem to remember something on the news a couple of years ago that lead to the conclusion that there was trace amounts of cannabis within the bones or marrow or whatever of a pharoah or something. 
I think this is important as its not a commonly grown substance around the Nile (unless your in "Denile". Ah-ha!) It leads to fact that the egyptions explored to very distant borders, or at least people from very distant borders travelled to egypt. Failing that, it means that those British egyptologists were toking the reefer when they excavated the tomes. Hmm. 
If anyone can remember such an incident within the news and has any refences and links to it would you be able to post them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by False messiah uk (talk • contribs).
:You know, I think i've heard something similar... but it was tobacco that I heard it about.  Personally I think it was more likely the south-Americans who came to Egypt then the other way around.  Who knows... I'll look to see if I can find some sources for the either the cannabis or the tobacco theories. ---J.S (t|c) 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't they toke? 

message: It seems that most of the dicsuuion are not based on any Scientific facts. Just check the picture of King Ramses II mummy, “look at his hair”. Also here is apicture for a boy from the south of Egypt. Egypt is continued civilization and did not vanish after the pharaohs. 
Look at his hair.  While you are doing that, look at his skin too.  Look at that nose.  Look at east Africans and even some Sudanese.  Look at many Africa from east to west and you get that look as a result of mixing.--69.182.212.22 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptians are Africans but not blacks