Talk:Incense/Archive 2

Production section needs citations
I'm very concerned about several aspects of this article, particularly the "Production" section. It is completely unsourced, and it appears to contain considerable original research at best. It includes seemingly arbitrary claims like "Ideally the incense should burn slowly and evenly with no trace of the supporting core after burning". Even the picture "Poor quality incense sticks are uneven in thickness and the supporting cores remain after combustion". Says who? These claims may well be true, but I have no idea why. I have some incense sticks like that - some are uneven a little, but they burn just fine and smell just as good as the even ones. Same with the "supporting core" issue - sometimes there is a stringy residue in the ashes. So what? There is no effect on the smell, nor on the disposal of the ashes. It just seems to me that there is equal probability that this is a marketing gimmick - in fact it reeks of competition between incense manufacturers: "Oh Oh!  Brand X incense is uneven and leaves ugly core residues!  Boo!  But T-dot Premium Incense sticks are always even - and only leave a pure white ash powder - perfect for proper and effective meditation!  Yes!  Your ancestors will be So Proud of you!" ... or whatever. I am suggesting a citation needed tag is required, and a general cleanup of the article. I am sure that incense making and using experts wrote this article, especially the Production section, and I am far from an expert: I simply burn some from time to time (for the fragrance), and I have no problem with finding uneven sticks (adds hand-made character!) or with occasional stringy core residues in the ashes (ditto), as long as it smells good and doesn't burn down the house or whatever. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

First Nation peoples used incense as well red cedar and tobacco for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.202.252 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hindus and Egypt
I have doubts about this sentence: "About 3600 BC, Hindu travelers brought the use of incense to Egypt." It was supported by a citation to this book, page 169. The source is from Cambridge University Press, so I'm hesitant to question it, but I think I can at least say that the author is not an expert on ancient Egypt. The passage that supports the statement says, "It was the early Hindus who opened up the first trading routes to the west and particular to Arabia where only the cherished frankincense grew. There seems every reason to believe that the ancient Egyptians acquired the incense cult from the Hindu traders sometime around 3600 BC, for the earliest record of an Egyptian expedition to the incense land occurs in the notice of King Assa, Tet-ka-Ra, a king of the Eleventh Dynasty (3580–3536 BC), who sent an expedition through the desert to the Red Sea."

Now, the Eleventh Dynasty of Egypt is not dated to the fourth millennium BC except in woefully outdated chronologies; more recent ones put it around 2000 BC. No written records or names of kings survive from Egypt from as far back as 3500 BC. Tet-ka-ra sounds like a plausible pharaonic prenomen, but I can't find a king by that name, certainly not in the Eleventh Dynasty. Even if there were sea contact between the inhabitants of India and the Egyptians, it seems very anachronistic to call them Hindus before the Vedic period. And finally, I doubt that the Indian traders introduced the use of incense to Egypt, even if they did open up a trade route for frankincense. There was a god specifically connected with incense, Dedwen, as far back as the Pyramid Texts (from around 2400 BC, well after 3600 BC but well before the Eleventh Dynasty). This sentence just rings too many alarm bells, so I removed it. A. Parrot (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This will likely be a good call on your part. -- Sjschen (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I find it odd. Also I dont think there was too much contact with ancient Egyptians to ancient "Hindus" (pre Vedic period). At least I would think you would hear more about archeological evidence supporting such contacts. Well we do know Egyptian mummies were partly perserve with frankincense resin. So I assume ithey were also used as an incense as well. Now in terms of references. I have run into a case where suppose quotes from a particular book was totally fabricated ( I actually checked through the book myself and couldnt find any such qoutes. Dishonest huh?). (If someone has the actually book of the above qoute I hope they can verify.) So one should be aware of such acts. When and where ever possible one should double check qoutes and references. One also should keep in mind the credibility of certain authors. Some of them have questionable moltives or political agendas etc it happens unfortunatly.

Henry123ifa (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)