Talk:Umm El Qa'ab

}

fahd_abydos
abydos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.187.135.153 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) فهد عبد النعيم ابراهيم من قرية ابيدوس العرابة المدفونة هزة موقع ابيدوس بلد الحضارة —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.15.231 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

فهد عبد النعيم ابراهيم من قرية ابيدوس العرابة المدفونة هزة موقع ابيدوس بلد الحضارة —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.15.231 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of medical practice
A highly controversial, and widely disputed, conclusion is that the burials were evidence of early medical practice of anatomy as attested by Manetho in Aegyptiaca. For example, if a subject accepted for medical assistance did not recover, the subject might be used in the continued study of anatomy, as evidenced by the burials of 338 individuals of various ages. This alternative conclusion, though less provocative than the theory of human sacrifice, does explain the increasing popularity of this dynasty of physician-kings among their subjects, particularly the nobility, as evidenced by the increasingly grand scale of the funerary monuments. For the subjects admitted, if one could not be healed, then one might hope at least to be buried next to the king. Based on these early references to the study of anatomy, it can therefore be argued that the early medical studies of these physician-kings, formed the basis for the traditional medicine practiced by Imhotep decades later.

Additionally, it has been hypothesized that some of Djer's the courtiers were strangled and placed in their tomb near the king, though the allegation that these individuals were intentionally sacrificed, and not merely victims of foul play, is conjecture. Moreover, the evidence that these individuals died as the result of 'strangulation' is tenuous. The article in its present form bears witness to a time fraught with battles amoung various groups, as can be seen in the Narmer palette. There is more than one possible conclusion which explains the burials at Umm el-Qa'ab, in addition to a form of early traditional medicine, there remains the possibility that some of the individuals may have died as the result of warfare, internal political turmoil, accident, or even uncurable contagious disease. These individuals died over 4000 years ago, and though the desert environment has done much to preserve their corpses, forensic investigation is limited by their current state of preservation.

It is suggested that this article be reworded to acheive neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.10.203 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is getting tiresome. Your footnote 4, which you use to reference the statement " For example, if a subject accepted for medical assistance did not recover, the subject might be used in the continued study of anatomy, as evidenced by the burials of 338 individuals of various ages." says nothing of the sort. I have the book and what page 68 says is that those burials are evidence of human sacrifice. It says nothing about the continued study of anatomy. I keep telling you that your personal opinions do not belong here (eg your comments about the forensic evidence). Our Neutral point of view policy at WP:NPOV says articles should present all significant views - "that have been published by reliable sources." For the umpteenth time, where is your reliable source that these burials are something to do with a form of traditional medicine? Or anything else? Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Manetho in Aegyptiaca specifically indicates the 'study of anatomy,' in addition to the fact that 'serpent on the pole' symbolism has practically universal association with medical practice, even in ancient times. (see Serpent (symbolism)) This article in its current form, goes too far to assume definitive knowledge of the cause of the death of these individuals who died over 4000 years ago, and presents this opinion as 'indisputable fact.'  Morover, the assumption that that all of the individuals buried with these kings were the 'victims' of 'human sacrifice' is presented in such a manner as to preclude all other possibile assessments. The forensic science conducted in recent investigations which are referenced in this article does reveal much about the burials in Umm el-Qa'ab, yet the same evidence presented in these sources does not preclude alternate interpretation of that same evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.10.203 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Issue taken to No original research/Noticeboard Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tombs
Are the tombs spread out or are they positioned like in the tomb map? From what I can tell through satellite maps, is that they aren't positioned exactly like in the map drawings. There is no mention of this, and it's a bit misleading. JanderVK (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)