Talk:Fayum mummy portraits

message: "Most of the portraits depict the deceased at a relatively young age, and many show children. According to Walker (2000), "CAT scans of all the complete mummies represented [in Walker (2000)] reveal a correspondence of age and, in suitable cases, sex between mummy and image." Walker concludes that the age distribution reflects the low life expectancy at the time. The wax portraits were completed during the life of the individual and displayed in their home,..."
- is there not a contradiction here? How did they know they were going to die young?  Johnbod 02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I don't see the contradiction. C.A.T. scans of the mummies revealed that the age represented by the portraits (which is fairly young overall) corresponds with the actual age at death as can be discerned from the C.A.T. scans themselves—hence, the low life expectancy. There is further evidence, however, from Roman censuses at the time. Also, some 2nd-century portraits indicated age at death. — Zerida 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The contradiction is with them being completed during the subject's lifetime and displayed in the home. Then they apparently die fairly soon afterwards.... Johnbod 03:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you mean. The last statement appears to be a misunderstanding and should be corrected. The view that the portraits were completed during the person's lifetime was often widely held, but it *cannot* be reconciled with the findings based on the C.A.T. scans and the other aforementioned sources, nor with portraits painted directly on a part of the coffin. — Zerida 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  side point 

message: "The dental morphology[8] of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of dynastic Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.[9]"
^Wrong.. Who ever wrote this misinterpreted the reports on the said time period and the Fayum portraits are from the Greek period.. "Greek-Egyptian"(in the words of the author) samples are assessed from the time period stretching from 332 B.C. to 30 B.C... This is from Citation# 9, direct quotes from Irish.. 
:the narrow river valley and its thin strip of habitable land would quickly be populated during the late predynastic expansion. In other words, Egypt ‘‘became a melting pot’’ for the founding groups (Hassan, 1988, p. 135) by the predynastic period and beyond. This is not to say that all the Egyptian samples are dentally homogeneous. The significant MMDs (Table 4) and distribution of samples (Figs. 2, 3, 5) show that there are 4–5 evident outliers: Gebel Ramlah, Lisht, the Greek Egyptians, and perhaps El Hesa or Saqqara.
And
:the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, five-cusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). 
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/who_were_egyptian.pdf
There you have it and the appropriate corrections were made..Taharqa 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but firstly please note the first part of your edit was ungrammatical. Secondly it seems the most relevant sample is HAW which consists of teeth from 51 individuals of AD 50-120 (Table 1), from "a burial ground for elite members of the Fayum oasis population", so just coming to the start of the period of the portraits.  The GEG sample were 400 or so years older, though quite physically close, being mostly from Saqqara. On page 11 it does indeed say that HAW was "much more closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and especially Hawara are most similar....".  I note that two skulls, with matching portraits, from Hawara belonging to the British Museum are the stars of the "Proportion and personaily..." paper cited in the article notes (with link). They are dated to AD 55-70 and 80-100. Since the HAW/Hawara teeth were collected by Petrie, the two skulls may very well also have been in this sample. Johnbod 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem - I certainly didn't accuse you of being disruptive.  Johnbod 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have something to add to what John already explained about the study, but I appreciate the spirit in which this was said, Taharqa. — Zerida 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The subjects of the paintings

message: Can someone be so kind as to provide a link, page, or direct reference to a quote that disagrees with the notion of classicists and others that that these aren't mostly greek/roman settlers? I've added another source, where is the view that contradicts it, and if there is another view, why isn't it summed up as such? Why should it out weigh the mainstream view provided?Taharqa 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page has consensus that this is agreed view by Egyptologists, which you admitted on this talk page when you apologized for your very poor behavior. Please stop being so disruptive all the time. Egyegy 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they were (which may well have been the case), the relevant samples of teeth seem to have been collected from the same "elite" burial ground as many of the portraits, so they remain highly relevant. You seem to have changed you position 360 degrees since your last eruption on the scene, but are behaving in a similar fashion. Johnbod 23:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And unfortunately, Taharqa once again has misrepresented the source, and conveniently left out from the quote above the relevant part that contradicts the original research he just inserted in the article. This is what immediately follows the above quotation: The colonists [in the Ptolemaic period] settled and married local women, adopting Egyptian religious belief. By the time of the Roman conquest [400 years later], the population of the Fayum was very mixed. To Roman eyes, the descendants of the colonists were Egyptians, but in their own view the colonists were Greeks, and they represented themselves as such to the Roman authorities... And, of course, we had already discussed these points in the previous threads. — Zerida 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory source?

message: Thank you for hearing me out.. I swear I wasn't trying to cause trouble and will admit that sometimes I can be overbearing in my approach.. You worded it much better than I did, and yes it reflects what is stated. In the future I hope that we can see eye to eye, at least on some things and not clash. I only saw what I read, and realize that it was omitted from the article and I didn't know why. This is all I ask for. I don't just edit articles and not explain my rationale, and if I'm confused, just point out where like last time, I'm logical and grown enough to accept when I'm mistaken.. Thanx again.. I may or may not continue to discuss Irish and the "predominance claim" of the Egyptians, but as for now, I think we're on common ground.. Thanx Zerida, I admittedly underestimated you..Taharqa 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay Zerida, I agree with your edits

message: Hi again. I have changed the gallery a bit, so as to avoid images that are in the article itself also turning up in the gallery. I have also added the museums for all the images, with the exception of the bearded young man with the sword-belt. If anyone has an idea where he's on display, can you add that detail? Thanks. athinaios 13:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: I think you should nominate this article for Good Article status. It'll need a few more citations, but other than that, it looks ready. -Oreo Priest 12:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. athinaios, would you up for this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captmondo (talk • contribs) 12:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. athinaios 12:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should certainly pass (after the usual review changes), but since GA needs a "stable" version, you should not nominate for a while. In particular, we have not seen (I think) any comments on the new version from Zerida, Taharqa, Yom & Ghaly in particular, who were the main editors before.  As you can see from above, there has been a lot of contention on this page, mostly about issues about which I myself know & care very little.  I'd welcome their comments on the new version - If they don't turn up after a while you might ask, Zerida especially, on their talk pages - if they are still active. Johnbod 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems eminently sensible. Andf the stability is most certainly an important issue. Let's give it till late November, and then see what the situation is. athinaios 15:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be stable now. Give 'er a try! -Oreo Priest 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, she's stable alright. What does one need to do? athinaios (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations. Best of luck! Captmondo (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Good luck! I agree now is the time. I'll keep an eye out.  Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The article looks good to me, Johnbod. The issues were resolved (at least in my mind) a while ago, but seeing the article again now, it's even better and more accurate, with plenty of citations. Good job, everyone! — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: I had to remove the image of the mummy with the portrait still on it from the Metropolitan, as I could not work out where the file (on my computer) came from (I assume a scan), and apparently the legal situation for a mummy as a whole is different from that for just the portrait (as the latter is a two-dimensional work with long-expired copyright). So, does anyone have a good image of a complete protrait mummy, perhaps even the Met one? It would certainly be useful for this article. athinaios (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: ًWould you please consider this article?
FACE the Ancestors
Fayum Portraits
By
Wael Nawara
Also, See This Video
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=6986840567&oid=4938696444
- very long, so removed, but can be seen in the page history. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: Are the large eyes naturalistic or a formula?
Is it specific of funeral portraits?
--Error (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Eyes

message: If anyone has access to secure information about which of the included portraits are done in encaustic and which in tempera, it would greatly enhance the article to include this information in the captions. Wareh (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encaustic vs. tempera - labeling of images sorely needed 

message: Unfortunately, I do not feel inclined to rewrite large sections of this article for clarity, but that is precisely what needs to happen. Aside from that, certain words are used redundantly. Also, many sections include very poor grammar. Can anybody help?
65.100.48.249 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar and Sentence format 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fayum mummy portraits. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808184841/http://www.egyptologyonline.com:80/mummy_portraits.htm to http://www.egyptologyonline.com/mummy_portraits.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:79.143.142.219 -- You have added content about a 2017 primary source about genetics,
* here, 
* here, and 
* here, 
the last with an edit note .   Don't know what that means, but when I noted when I removed the content, it is a) based on a recent, primary source and probably more importantly, b) the source does not discuss the Fayum mummy portraits, so its inclusion here is some kind of [{WP:SYN]].  Please explain why you think content based on this source belongs here at all.  We can discuss specifics of content if there is something that makes sense here.... Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2017 paper on genetics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Fayum mummy portraits. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808184841/http://www.egyptologyonline.com/mummy_portraits.htm to http://www.egyptologyonline.com/mummy_portraits.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227064609/http://library.case.edu/ksl/ecoll/books/petrom00/petrom00.html to http://library.case.edu/ksl/ecoll/books/petrom00/petrom00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121223091730/http://www.encaustic.ca/html/history.html to http://www.encaustic.ca/html/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227064609/http://library.case.edu/ksl/ecoll/books/petrom00/petrom00.html to http://library.case.edu/ksl/ecoll/books/petrom00/petrom00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Orangearnie (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Ancient Egypt