Talk:First Dynasty of Egypt

Reign length of Hor-Aha
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)

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

I have a book in front of me...
...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)
 * 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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested Mike Cline (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First dynasty of Egypt → First Dynasty of Egypt relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC) – 03:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Second dynasty of Egypt → Second Dynasty of Egypt
 * Third dynasty of Egypt → Third Dynasty of Egypt
 * Fourth dynasty of Egypt → Fourth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Fifth dynasty of Egypt → Fifth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Sixth dynasty of Egypt → Sixth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Seventh and eighth dynasties of Egypt → Seventh and Eighth Dynasties of Egypt
 * Ninth dynasty of Egypt → Ninth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Twentieth dynasty of Egypt → Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Twenty-first dynasty of Egypt → Twenty-first Dynasty of Egypt
 * Twenty-second dynasty of Egypt → Twenty-second Dynasty of Egypt
 * Twenty-third dynasty of Egypt → Twenty-third Dynasty of Egypt
 * Twenty-fourth dynasty of Egypt → Twenty-fourth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Twenty-fifth dynasty of Egypt → Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt → Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Twenty-eighth dynasty of Egypt → Twenty-eighth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Twenty-ninth dynasty of Egypt → Twenty-ninth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Thirtieth dynasty of Egypt → Thirtieth Dynasty of Egypt

– The capitalized form seems to be more common (see http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=first+dynasty%2CFirst+Dynasty&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3). As well, it is preferred by The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (p. 165). It also seems more correct since they are proper nouns.

For anyone curious, I generated the list using the following Python code (with a manual fix for 20 and 30): Inverse Hypercube 02:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose per MOS:CAPS, lacking evidence that they are "proper nouns". They seem not to be widely used terms, but more descriptive and/or the terms used by one main author.  No evidence they have been accepted as proper names.  nb: the Strongly is only here to call attention to and balance the other meaningless Strongly below; the matter is actually routine.  Dicklyon (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I also do not see any reason for the capitalisation of "dynasty". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've definitely seem them used with capitals, but you may need to provide some evidence here as Dicklyon says. Rennell435 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I wouldn't consider them to be proper nouns and I've seen both usages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. On further reflection and research on this issue, I think I'm convinced by the nominator's arguments. Given that both types of usage are common enough to support usage here, I can support the change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support    per WP:COMMONNAME. This idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:MOSCAPS is not what the guideline says; in this case, it is not what most writers of English use. These are  proper names, the names of particular set of rulers, as much as Han Dynasty is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCScaliger (talk • contribs)
 * Indeed, as reading the articles will show, there are real arguments as to whether the names are correct. Was the First Dynasty actually first? Probably, but it has been disputed. Was the Eighth Dynasty actually a dynasty? Probably not. These are marks of a proper name. WP:TITLE cites Boston Massacre as a name we adopt because it is usage; although it is both tendentious and inaccurate, even those who say that "the Boston Massacre was not a massacre" call it that. But they don't call it the "Boston massacre." This is the same question. JCScaliger (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You mentioned Han Dynasty. While the Chinese dynasty articles tend to capitalize "Dynasty", most other dynasty articles in other "countries" do not. See contents of the subcategories of Category:Dynasties by country. Such usage may or may not be preferred by certain editors, but the current name format is certainly the more common of the two possibilities throughout WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. On the Han, it follows reliable sources. JCScaliger (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not citing it as a reliable source; I'm merely pointing out that the Han Dynasty example was a cherry pick. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- While I agree that "First Dynasty" may be used as a proper noun (e.g., "a First Dynasty pharaoh"), the full title "First Dynasty of Egypt" is not. The title of this page is general (i.e., the first dynasty of Egypt), not a particular name for that dynasty (e.g., First Dynasty or Dynasty I).  The title should either be left uncapitalised, or replaced with a used proper noun, perhaps with a necessary disambiguation term (e.g., "First Dynasty (Egypt)"). gergis (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is no excuse for the present titles; as descriptive titles, they are mistaken. Nor does any guideline say that disambiguation has to be in parentheses; our article title guideline prefers to have natural and idiomatic forms of disambiguation when they exist. JCScaliger (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And First Dynasty of Egypt remains more common than the present title. That would seem, therefore, to be the reasonable description. JCScaliger (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your linked ngrams are strange and defective, JCScaliger. Try these instead. That's how to do a proper comparison. (Note the recent trend; and note the later date that is now available: 2008.) N oetica Tea? 12:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which still show that the proposed name is more common. JCScaliger (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support all. Current names are arguably inaccurate and certainly ambiguous, eg the Thirtieth Dynasty was not necessarily the thirtieth dynasty. It is exactly this sort of ambiguity that capitalisation avoids in English. Opposition is yet another legalistic misinterpretation of WP:CAPS, which badly needs tweaking. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support. Consistency is impossible here. The Egyptian dynasties are comparable with the Islamic and non-Chinese Asian dynasties that are uncapitalized on Wikipedia, but they are also comparable with the Chinese dynasties and, for that matter, the royal houses of Europe, whose names are always capitalized. I have seen "First Dynasty" and the like many, many times, and that may well be the more widespread form in Egyptological writing. And as JCScaliger says, their numbering is probably very inaccurate and the names are used simply by convention. Also, my Chicago Manual of Style, which has a strong preference for lower-case forms in areas of ambiguity, uses capitals (apparently because the dynasties represent historical periods, comparable with terms like "Fifth Republic"). So if people need evidence that the dynasties are proper nouns, there it is. A. Parrot (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia naming of Chinese dynasties isn't relevant, as it doesn't follow common usage among historians of China, who tend to write "Han dynasty", etc. Kanguole 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Although the Chinese example is mistaken, these names of Egyptian dynasties seem to be acting as proper nouns.  Kanguole 18:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Follow the nominator -Ilhador- (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling
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)

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

Gaps
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. — Llywelyn II   04:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion tag added to Talk page, July 2024
Please see the tag for link to discussion on relevant talkpage. Neatly95 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)