Talk:Ancient Egypt/Archive 2

Polytheistic Ideology is a possible misclassification
After much research into the actuall beleifs of the Ancient Egyptians - I have come under the impression that the following text : "Motivating and organising these activities were a socio-political and economic elite that achieved social consensus by means of an elaborate system of religious belief under the figure of a (semi)-divine ruler (usually male) from a succession of ruling dynasties and which related to the larger world by means of polytheistic beliefs." - may be incorrect.

The ancient egyptians did believe in a single entity that produced many groups of sub-gods..

This would suggest a different ideology. A possible reference to deism - [] or Gnostic [] due to it's mystery aspect - Henotheist [] due to the different aspects of the religon in various locals of Egypt - Pantheism [] Due to multiple aspects of relating nature with the divine "

Under the current definition of the above terms - it is my beliefe that the text in the original article should be changed to to "Motivating and organising these activities were a socio-political and economic elite that achieved social consensus by means of an elaborate system of religious belief under a general theist [] belief system "

This is referenced in the book by Dr. Ramses Seleem "The Egyptian Book of Life" ISBN 1 84293 066 4 on page 5. The Creation - Atum-Raa (God) exsited before any notation of space or time.

Atum-Raa uttered the creation word to create sub-dieties or the eight primordials. These were the following: Kek & Keket - Heh & HeheNunu & Nunit - Emen & Emenet -

These primordials in turn created offspring - Tehuty (Hermes) [] - Ptah & Khnemu

With the reference to Atum-Raa - it is feasible to suggest that a monotheistic approach to the spiritual ideology is present. --Maa-Kheru 20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC) User:Templemaat

Further to this I would suggest that as a fully fledged member of the pantheon the king was entirely divine, I believ the "semi" epithet should be removed. He was never seen as a demi-god. Either he is divine or he is not.

Dental study referenced does not accurately reflect findings of study itself
In the article it says: "A 2006 bioanthropological study on the dental morphology of ancient Egyptians shows dental traits most characteristic of indigenous North Africans and to a lesser extent Near Eastern populations. The study also establishes biological continuity from the predynastic to the post-pharaonic periods."

Actually the study only refers to the continuity from predynastic to post-pharaonic periods, not Near Eastern or North African matches. If anything the references are to ancient indigenous populations like the Badarians, not peoples from the Near East or North Africa. The findings of the study, and a weblink to them are shown below so all readers can verify the wording for themselves. This statement is misleading and will be modified to more actually reflect what the study actually says, versus what is claimed. Quote:


 * "These findings are contrasted with those resulting from previous skeletal and other studies, and are used to appraise the viability of five Egyptian peopling scenarios. Specifically, affinities among the 15 time-successive samples suggest that: 1) there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times." J. Irish, "Irish J (2006). "Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples", 2006) Enriquecardova 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A further reference to the study is posted to a website here -> http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/051217_egypt1.htm -- "Study traces Egyptians’ stone-age roots" -- and is also a footnote in the article, but it too makes no mention of any Near Eastern or North American matches. Enriquecardova 07:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with academic journal articles? This is merely an abstract of the paper, but the actual paper can only be accessed from the journal ?! Dr. Irish wrote, "all 15 [Egyptian] samples exhibit morphologically simple, mass-reduced dentitions that are similar to those in populations from greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1998a–c, 2000) and, to a lesser extent, western Asia [ie. Near East] and Europe. Similar craniofacial measurements among samples from these regions were reported as well". This is what the section noted about the Egyptians' relationship with other populations before you deleted it. I'm reinstating that information.

I'd further like to point out that spending oodles of megabytes editing the one small section about the people of ancient Egypt just to add information about their biological affinities is quite beyond the scope of this article and what it needs, which is more information about the material culture, history and belief system of this civilization. &mdash; [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   &middot;    ☥   20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I quite understood it was an abstract, but queried it in more detail, and oodles of megabytes have hardly been spent just a simple copy and paste from the journal abstract. It is a fair reference that should not have been initially taken out without some time allowed for response. Point taken. I think the reference should also stand alongside others that point to Saharan affinities as regards the peopling of Egypt. I will add a few sentences to that affect with associated reference. Shifts and population blends over time account for a lot of variability. As for more data being needed on maerial culture, history etc, that too is a fair point. Will add new material, although one wonders if there needs to be a separate Predynastic article when the information there could flesh out this one more.Enriquecardova 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * no more baroque discussions of the ethnic essence of the Ancient Egyptians here, please, this is out of proportion. This is our Ancient Egypt article. Compare "Ancient Egypt" entries in any respectable encyclopedia, and you will be sure to find they don't get sidetracked over dental studies and racial traits. We have Racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians for people who get their kicks out of this topic. dab (𒁳) 08:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But you yourself (correction: whoops- sorry Zerida)introduced racial characteristics with reference to a limited 15 sample dental study. The data I post is standard mainstream data current in the field on the peopling of Egypt by such respects mainstream scholars as Bruce Trigger. If anything it casts doubt on what you have written. As for overwhelming I dont see 7, 8 or 12 lines as "overwhelming". What you are really saying is that you want your limited reference to stay in, while excluding my mine because it contradicts yours. Sorry to do it, but unless there are better scholarly reasons as opposed to personal preference or a buddy system, I will have to revert..Enriquecardova 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I myself"? I've only just chimed in here. The less dental study cruft we have on this article, the happier I will be. dab (𒁳) 08:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Rather than start rounding up supporters for yet another edit war, I suggest a compromise. The main issue for me is scholarly. Do you quote one study as gospel, or do you present a balanced, scholarly discussion of the subject that does not ignore decades of solid, mainstream scholarship on the peopling of ancient Egypt? That's the main issue- to not have a one-sided view. The weight of scholarly opinion contradicts some of what is in the dental blurb, and that can be proven by objective review, and assessment of sources.


 * The "To Do" List for the article calls for Checking facts, adding references from academic sources, and rewriting more scientifically which is what I am doing. As for length, it could well be argued that the dental section blurb is too long anyway. The length issue cuts both ways. So a compromise. I will redit my discussion of the wider research to no more than 9 lines, which is the currently same as the dental blurb, and we will all call it a day, or alternatively we can zap all controversial references saving about 20 lines in the whole section. I prefer the 9-line settlement and we all can concentrate on adding to other sections, rather than start the edit dance. Again, scholarship is the issue. Enriquecardova 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * excellent. Now please feel free to address the remaining dodginess of this article, such as the "Ancient achievements" and "open problems" headers. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right about dodigness. The "ancient battery" in "achievements" and some other terminology appears dubious. I will remove the battery reference unless a citation is provided. The "open problems" section is another open problem so to speak. I think it should be boiled down to 4-5 blurb and linked to the "Unsolved Egyptopogy problems" article. Egypt attracts alot of interet from all over. Some folks are sincere, others sincerely misguided, and others are trolling, plugging in easily refutable info to score points againt "fringe" groups. Will look at the whle thing again. The whole article could use some work. Is it primarily a "shell" or "survey" type article that collects a bunch of links branching off elsewhere, or is the concept to provide in-depth content. Scratch head..Enriquecardova 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are still making inaccurate assumptions about a study that you're not familiar with and clearly haven't bothered to look up. The 15 samples are not the number of mummies examined, but 15 different locations across Egypt from successive times periods. The actual number of mummies is 996. It is at least a very recent study by an Egyptological bioarchaeologist published in a peer-reviewed journal that directly addresses the topic, not an arbitrary statement from a 1984 Britannica entry using outdated, discounted terminology like "Negroid". Even then, I have had to delete some of the information that was previously included in that section just to accommodate those "short" paragraphs you added.

The latest paragraph you introduced to the section, far from being a "balanced, scholarly discussion of the subject" (right!), is the definition of original research with its use of the words "Sudanic tribes" being the "primary peopling" element of Egypt. This is not suggested in any of the references you provided and to suggest that they were the primary group is misleading at best, not to mention it would also not make it indigenous as claimed. The people of the Sahara prior to its desiccation were a diverse group of peoples. Trigger (1978) never suggested that the lower Nile Valley was primiarly "peopled" by a "Negroid" or Sudanic population from south of the Sahara, nor did any other mainstream archaeologist, nor was that ever suggested by Lefkowitz. This is Trigger (1983) on the predynastic communities. Egyptologist Frank Yurko summarized the archaeological findings in the latest volume edited by Lefkowitz (1996), saying:

"Climatic cycles acted as a pump, alternately attracting African peoples onto the Sahara, then expelling them as the aridity returned (Keita 1990). Specialists in predynastic archaeology have recently proposed that the last climate-driven expulsion impelled the Saharans...into the Nile Valley ca. 5000-4500 BCE, where they intermingled with indigenous hunter-fisher-gatherer people already there (Hassan 1989; Wetterstorm 1993). Such was the origin of the distinct Egyptian populace, with its mix of agriculture/pastrolaism and hunting/fishing. The resulting Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985, Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990; Brace et al. 1993)... Language research suggests that this Saharan-Nilotic population became speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages... Semitic was evidently spoken by Saharans who crossed the Red Sea into Arabia and became ancestors of the Semitic speakers there, possibly around 7000 BC... In summary we may say that Egypt was a distinct North African culture rooted in the Nile Valley and on the Sahara."

Much of this information is actually already mentioned in the history section. It's also worth noting that none of the other articles on ancient civilizations, such as Ancient Greece, Ancient Libya or Ancient Rome have a section like the "People" section here, so I think there's no harm in eleminiating entirely. Brief archaeological information can be integrated into the history section or into a new origins section. &mdash; [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   &middot;    ☥   23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But you said 15 samples without specifying whether they were individual mummies rather than locations. Now you clarify that there were 15 locations. That is fine. However you say now that the Encyclopedia Britannica info is "arbitrary"? On what logical grounds? Also note it was not only Britannica given as a reference, but well established research on the ground by E. Strougal, and recent reanalyses, that confirms the Britannica statement. This is hardly "arbitrary". Do you somehow find that reference "arbitrary" because it may contradict some of the info you posted? As for the term Negroid it is very much in use in the literature, just as vague terminology like "Near Eastern" is in use. Some scholars discount race, others do not. In any event, you yourself had no problem referencing "tropical" which is sometimes used as a substitute for "Negroid" in the literature. See Keita reference. You yourself also use the term "Nilotic" which is also considered outdated by many. Is your use of these terms OK, but my use somehow "outdated"? As to "outdated" information, the Trigger reference I gave dates to 1982, and the Britannica article you object to dates at 1984, AFTER Trigger. The Trigger reference you yourself provide below dates to 1978, and 1983. The Yurco ref to only 1989. Somehow you don't appear to have a problem using these "outdated" references when if fits a certain approach.


 * Actually the reference you quote above confirms the questions I rose about earlier statements in the article regarding various tropical types. Quote: "Nilotic or tropical body characteristics were also present in some later groups, as the Egyptian empire expanded southward during the [[New Kingdom. OK, but your own Yurco reference shows that said tropical types were there from pre-dynastic times. That should be clearly stated, rather than the implied shifting of these elements to somewhere near the New Kingdom. Ironically, this Yurco quote (which is mainstream scholarship) appears more balanced than your truncated reference to the dental study, as regards the consensus in the field as a whole. That is the whole point- a balanced presentation of what is going on in the literature.


 * As for LEftkowitz, I did not suggest that the folks were solely Negroid, but only that Negroid or "tropical" elements were clearly there, whereas your statements implied they were not there at all, or merely happened to appear sometime later as part of a tropical group during the New Kingdom. Those outh of the Sahara would also include the missing Sudanic elements. I simply added balance to scales badly out of kilter. Leftkowitz noted the peopling of Egypt by groups south of the Sahara, and this would exclude any significant northern "Near Eastern" influx. Quote
 * "Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54" http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html


 * A new origins section, may cause the same issues to crop up but we'll see. As for zapping both, I have no problem eliminating the passages in question altogether. But I have a better idea. This discussion has acutally yielded something else we can agree on. Why not go ahead and post the Yurco quotation in full as the central blurb on the subject. Something like: "The people of Egypt have shown a range of types and characteristics over the millenia. In the worlds of one established scholar:.. --> then go ahead and quote the Yurco blurb.. In this way (a) the general consensus in the field is presented, (b) room is still in the Yurco quote to allow for all types of scenarios and mixes. Under this angle, we have hit the central consensus to date, and everyone walks away satisfied. Enriquecardova 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the tropical body stature study and I am not at all inclined to have a debate about this topic. No, I personally no longer think it is a good idea to include any information of any kind about the race or biological characteristics or types or origins of the ancient Egyptians in this article except in the most neutral archaeological terms (Saharan hunter-gatherers and pastoral agriculturalists), which are already mentioned in the history section. If the sad archive is any indication, or for that matter the history of the "racial characteristics" article, it is bound to be misunderstood, abused and will eventually lead more people to expand it to explain why the ancient Egyptians were actually black or white or some other nonsense on that order. &mdash; [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   &middot;    ☥   05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Though I think the Yurco blurb would work, I will not add any material on that topic unless someone else does. Actually I endorse earlier comments that the article could use focus elsewhere. There are a number of questionable claims, and factual issues as to Egyptian achievements. I have left these in place for now but will look these up for possible editing. Some of the excellent info brought forward by you and others here in talk could be added to make it a much stronger article.Enriquecardova 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some Pharaohs are depicted with blue eyes in museums in egypt & their are many other artefacts that depict egyptians with blue eyes shouldn't this be included.

Race
Hello. I am also a newcomer. I would like to adress the fallacy of Egyptian being Europeans or people who today would be considered white. Clearly, from the Egyptian peoples depictions of themselves they are a people who by todays standards would be defined as black. Though I find the issue alone unimportant, in the context of the current state of the racialization of people around the globe this point should be noted. There are far too many films, movies and books published by academics that may be perceived as propoganda spreading the notion that somehow these people could not be "black". My point is not made on the grounds of biology as race is not a biological category recognized by any credible scientific body, but rather an acknowledgement from a "white" person that had these people been living today they would be considered "black". To those would will inevitably argue that this point is unimportant to the understanding of who the Egyptians were, please consider the psychological effect that the "whitenening" of arguably one of the greatests civilizations to grace the earth has on a "black" child when he/she looks at the drawings and statues of other "black" people. In my opinion the closests match to the facial features, as well as the style of art of the Egyptians would have to be the modern day Ethiopians.

Certain Kings or Pharaohs & noble egyptians are depicted with blue eyes in the Museums in cairo & in other Museums, I can email you some pictures. Usually the africans were depicted as shall I say africans & quite often they were depicted as servants, my email is mantra@spraci.zzn.com - I can send you some pictures, I have been studying egyptology for 20 years, certain kings & pharoahs were depicted with dazzling blue eyes, even jewels were used to exemplify their blue eye colour at times & we can not deny this, note only 1 in 6 americans have blue & green eyes anyway & we should not deny their culture & I am not a american either, I live in Australia & have a greek & italian background, note very close to egypt & I have green eyes, though some of family has blue eyes & brown eyes ? Also I am not saying that all egyptians were caucasian, but many of the ruling egyptians were, their is a great variety of evidence which proves this, but most of all the egyptians themselves depicted themselves, for eg: noble classes of egyptians as having blue eyes. Their is also evidence which suggests that certain Pharaohs & Nobles had a nubian african background, darkish hair, eyes & skin & evidence also suggests that certain Pharaohs & Nobles had a mediteranean background with fair to olive skin with brown eyes & brown hair. We note that their is 10,000 years of history here to deal with in regards to ancient egypt & egypt is North Africa, near the middle east, close to the levant being israel-lebanon-Jordan-Syria also a boats ride to southern europe for example italy & greece where my family come from. And dont be hard on the so called whites after all only 1 in 6 americans are white anyway & they should not be ignored even though they are a minority in this world. Egypt was a multicultural society, much evidence suggests that the ruling classes were often white but they were not exclusively white. Note the original wooden statue of the Egyptian King Hor (circa 1783 - 1633 BC) is inlaid with striking blue eyes.(On display at the Cairo Museum), face showing the Nordic eye coloring.

Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.52.137.206 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I would first argue that there is just one human race. Perhaps you should be talking to what ethnic group or groups did the people that live in that area in that historical period belong to first? Francisco Valverde 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

i thought color in egypt was symbolic? did the color blue have any symbolic meaning?

Page vandalized between sections 1 and 2
This page was vandalized but the section cannot easily be removed. Please see the nonsense text about pyramids between sections 1 and 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.56.222.73 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC). This has already been fixed 80.56.222.73 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for expert advice
Hi there, I'm one of the editors involved with the influenza page. We are looking for some academic references or discussion of ancient Egyptian animal agriculture. In particular, any information on if they had pigs and waterfowl/fishfarms in the same areas. If anybody has information on this, please drop a note on the [talk page]. Thank you. TimVickers 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No maps?
Shouldn't there be maps in this article? I think I've seen maps of ancient Egypt in other articles (if only Seleucid Egypt Ptolemaic Egypt Upper and Lower Egypt).... Xaxafrad 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I found one: Egypt at the height of the Hittite Empire. Most of the other images in the Egypt section of commons are in German, and those are the better ones. Xaxafrad 05:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean-Up
This article does require clean-up. --Der4 10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Culture & Diet
I noticed a short mention in the Culture section about the diet. I had heard that terrible dental health was a direct consequence of their diet. The sandy environment and their technique for making flour caused the bread to be very coarse, so over time their teeth would be worn down. This happened to everyone, whether they were common folk or nobles. I could probably find some decent sources and write something up, then add it to the culture section. Any objections? Thanks. --Wtt 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC) hi your site is not bad All thi swas by Rachael xx

Photographs
Have been visiting egypt recently and taken some high definition photographs you can find them on my userpage [] if they are of any use... Merlin-UK 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this really contentiously disputed?
From the article:
 * It is also contentiously disputed as to whether or not the Egyptians had some understanding of electricity and if the Egyptians used engines or batteries. The relief at Dendera is interpreted in various ways by scholars. The topic of the Saqqara Bird is controversial, as is the extent of the Egyptians' understanding of aerodynamics. It is unknown for certain if the Egyptians had kites or gliders.

I have no real egyptological knowledge, but this seems really like one of those widely debunked pseudoscience things. I would remove it, but I'm not qualified to say for sure. Am I right? Atropos 21:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't belive it, I've never heard a thing about anchient egyption batteries. Duck 17 Sept 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.170.14 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you describe the agricultural side of the ancient Egyptians.
I'm doing a report for highschool and I noticed ther was no heading for agriculture. I was just wondering if you could put one in for ease of access.

From a concerned yr 8 student.

deletion of recent development
The following section was recently deleted from the article by a user:

The sarcophagus found in the great pyramid has been recently re-examined. According to the author Nigel Appleby ('Hall of the Gods') the holes drilled in the sides were considered to have been drilled at a speed and bore rate that cannot be reproduced today. Independent published corroboration by scientists and engineers is awaited for both of these claims.

I didn't add the section but I'm not sure I understand the reason for the deletion.--Markisgreen 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because this kind of stuff comes up frequently and is always pseudohistorical and pseudoscientific nonsense which is not corroborated by Egyptology. Thanatosimii 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

why is there a redirect?
Why is there a redirect from "Ancient Egyptian Warfare" to this page? I don't think that there should be a redirect, as there is nothing on this page about ancient egyptian warfare. could someone please fix this? --Onceonthisisland 14:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

grain as money
got any info on this? I've only got some info in Dutch language. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Looking at the edit history, this page seems to be getting a lot of vandalism, some of which is not getting caught right away. I would like to request protection for this page. Jeff Dahl 23:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is now protected for two weeks. After that time, we'll see how much vandalism continues. The last time the page was protected was in November 2006 and was unprotected in January 2007. After the page was unprotected in January, the edit history shows the vandalism picked right back up again, though. Jeff Dahl 17:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Steel in pyramid claim
I removed a claim about steel being invented and found inside the great pyramid. The statement was cited, but if you read the cited article, at the very end, author Larry Orcutt states "It would seem, then, that the iron plate found by J.R. Hill in 1837 is not contemporary with the construction of the pyramid, but rather dates to the post-medieval (Islamic) period sometime between the 16th and 18th centuries." Jeff Dahl 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing claim about granite
The article claimed:
 * "It is unknown how the Egyptians shaped and worked granite. A clue is found in the exquisite granite carvings of the Yoruba in West Africa. For years researchers could not fathom how they were carved so smoothly until contemporary workmen demonstrated the simple system of rubbing the quartz with sand and water."

The answer to the question is right there in the statement, they polished with sand. And how was the granite cut? There is obvious evidence, such as the unfinished obelisk, that workmen used pounder stones made from granite or diorite to simply hammer and grind their way through the material, it is not some unsolved mystery. Jeff Dahl 15:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You removed a section that you deemed "pseudo-science" that was in fact unscientific. You removed a historical interpretation, without providing the evidence that contradicts the section (no evidence does, it is an historical theory, if it is pseudo-science, then article on ancient greece must be removed). Unfortunately, the article is locked so I cannot revert it for now. Please be more careful in your reversions. YousefSalah 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this in reference to the edit about granite working, or is this in reference to one of my other edits? I am always very careful in my edits, and I will be especially so in this article. A word of caution however, simply reverting people's good faith edits without addressing any of the concerns that led them to make that edit may hamper good communication and cooperation. Jeff Dahl 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand there are a variety of historical theories, but not all historical theories deserve to be given the same weight. Those theories that are well tested with lots of good evidence and accepted by more than just a few mainstream historians deserve to be mentioned in the article, while those theories that are untested, untestable, or not substantiated by good archaeological evidence do not. Jeff Dahl 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Economy section
I have made an "economy" section and grouped the "agriculture" and "taxation" sections under it. Is it good this was or was it better before? -Icewedge 04:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As of now, it seems OK to me. But I restored the Dynasty infobox that you deleted, I'm not sure if it was your intent to delete it. I think the infobox is better than the inline text list, which could be removed. Jeff Dahl 16:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Heiress theory"
I am going to remove the bit in the intro that makes mention of the "Heiress theory," an old theory that the pharaoh derived his right to rule from marrying the daughter of the previous pharaoh. This idea has been debunked repeatedly, just do a google search on "Heiress theory" if you need to be convinced. Although some pharaohs did marry their full or half sisters, probably to cement their foothold as pharaoh (especially those would be pharaohs that were not of royal origin), there are quite a few pharaohs that did not, instead choosing non-royal chief wives. This is an old theory that is no longer considered accurate. Jeff Dahl 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Article ancient Egypt
Thanks for your efforts cleaning up ancient Egypt. I removed an image you put on the article because it is really low quality and does not really reflect wiki's best work. I would like to include images in the article that exemplify more than a single idea at once. For the art section, I was thinking of having an image of Hatshepsut, which would show the distorted 2-D perspective and the use of art for a political purpose all at once. I am hoping we can find a really good quality image on the commons for this purpose. This same logic should hold true for other images on the article, but we don't want to end up with too many, or it will seem crowded.

I appreciate your efforts, and don't hesitate to ask questions or to discuss content. Jeff Dahl 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was looking for an image that combined aspects also and thought it would cover art, royalty, and the musical instrument. Will be intersted in what you select and will look for a better one also. She would be a good subject since she did so much building, so I will look for images of her also. 83d40m 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I was thinking of using an image from Hatshepsut's temple at dier el-Bahari showing her expedition to punt for the trade section. If we can find a nice, crisp image of the scene of them transporting those incense trees, or something like that, it would be nice. Otherwise, an image of porters transporting boxes/platters of trade goods on their shoulders would be another choice. Jeff Dahl 02:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you have been doing some work on the religion section of ancient Egypt. Do you have any books we can cite for this section? Thanks, Jeff Dahl 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[Prefer keeping discussions about articles at the talk pages for them, so I have moved this discussion to here.] I will be inserting my references soon -- still have improvements to provide and usually wait until I have the entry polished to know what references are still needed. The images for Ancient Egypt are so scattered it takes a great deal of searching, but that is to be expected for such a popular topic. 83d40m 13:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 83d40m 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)