Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pepi I Meryre/archive1

Pepi I Meryre

 * Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Pepi I Meryre third pharaoh of the Sixth Dynasty and arguably the most charismatic of this line of kings. Reigning for some 50 years in the late 24th century BC, Pepi faced the murder of his father, a possible usurper, several more conspiracies and the decrease of the pharaoh's power as the Ancient Egyptian society became more and more decentralized. In spite of this, he managed to be the most prolific builder of the Old Kingdom period, building temples and chapels throughout Egypt as well as at least 7 pyramids. Pepi's vigorous policies both internal and external as well as delicate power plays stabilized the situation allowing trade to flourish, asserting Egypt's power and influence abroad. This article is the fruit of extensive research over several months. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Aza24
Marking my place. Looks like a very well written and researched article – in good company with your previous articles. I'll get around to reviewing at some point soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am looking forward to your comments ! By the way, I saw that you are interested in early music, perhaps you know the youtube chain "Early Music Sources" and accompanying website, written by professional musicians specializing in Renaissance music from the 1500s and which details the complicated musicology of the time. Their website has an impressive quantity of original sources on that, including links to most of the original Renaissance era treaties on music. However, they don't go much farther back than 1500. It is regrettable, for example I wish they had something on Jacopo da Bologna, an italian composer of the 14th century, whose Wikipedia article is neglected but his music is really good (to me at least !). Iry-Hor (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have heard of that channel! I'll bring this to your talk page. Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Finally getting to this, comments:
 * Is there a reason he's referred to as a "king" rather than "pharaoh" – surely the former is the standard?
 * Done Actually I use both terms more or less freely to avoid repetitions, with "king", "ruler" and "pharaoh" being taken to be equivalent. The question came up in a past pharaoh FAC review (I don't remember which though) and it was settled that "pharaoh" was a widely accepted modern English term to refer to Ancient Egyptian kings and thus that it could be used as such, even though it is anachronistic (the term came into being no earlier than the Ramesside period and was really used to designate the king only from the Saite period onwards). I reformulated the first sentence to clarify.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The 2nd–4th sentences all start with "Pepi" – perhaps mix it up a little?
 * Fixed. Well spotted.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming with "the decline of the pharaoh's power at..." you're saying that the role of pharaoh was weakening, but at the moment it makes it sound like Pepi and the pharaoh were two different people – perhaps rephrase? Maybe something like: "At the expense of emerging dynasties of local officials, the role of pharaoh began declining in power; Pepi reacted with..."
 * Fixed I meant indeed several pharaohs, not just Pepi here as troubles started earlier than Pepi's reign. To clarify I wrote "Confronted with the protracted decline of pharaonic power..." which makes it clearer that Pepi was facing a long trend, not just something that sprung up during his reign.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Is relief in reference to Relief? Should link if so (same with Mastaba)
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The "as well as" in "as well as by inscriptions in her pyramid" seems unnecessary, clutters up the flow too
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Surely the sentence "She seems to have died..." should be after the " Iput may have been a daughter of..." sentence?
 * Done yes of course I don't know what caused the mix up.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "most likely Pepi's father then follows" – "then"? Did he stop being his father later? :)
 * Fixed ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The "Pepi's best attested wives..." sentence may be better combined (less choppy) into the next ("and Ankhesenpepi II,[note 2][22] both of whom bore future pharaohs..."
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Reading further it looks like the earlier sentence with "Six consorts of Pepi I have been identified by Egyptologists" would be better amended to something that implies that these 6 have been identified with more certainty ("reasonably identified"?)
 * Done You are right, I wrote "identified with near certainty" to clarify.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Two more queens have been proposed as Pepi I's consort" makes it sound like he can only have one consort?
 * Fixed I wrote "Two more queens have been proposed for Pepi I based on partial evidence." Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It may just be me but are you missing a word in "with and as yet unidentified consort..."?
 * Fixed I changed the sentence completely to "Another son of Pepi I was Teti-ankh, meaning "Teti lives", whose mother is yet to be identified".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait how can Neith be "likely the eldest daughter" if Meritites IV is the eldest daughter?
 * Fixed well spotted, this is an issue of Egyptologists having competing hypotheses on the matter. The hypothesis that Neith was the eldest is not the current dominant one (Meritites), so I included this in a footnote.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "as we do today" sounds somewhat un-encylopedic, perhaps it could be altered or taken out completely (During the Old Kingdom period, the Egyptians recorded time by counting years... ?)
 * Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Lol did not expect to see that much text after hovering over note 6
 * Yup actually this discussion made up the majority of the article on Pepi I before I started editing it. Such technical digressions on reign lengths are typical of user Leoboudv. I thought it was worth keeping in a footnote as it is entirely correct although perhaps too technical for the main text...Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The South Saqqara Stone is already introduced in the above paragraph and is probably best without the "The Sixth Dynasty royal annals, now known as... and dating to the reign of Pepi II," part
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Got to the Reign section; damn, I meant to read through this in one sitting but my slow reading combined with ignoring how late it is here seems to have prevented that. I will be back tomorrow to review the rest, looking good so far and a very enjoyable read. Aza24 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2nd batch:
 * "important increase" doesn't really explain why the increase was important by itself, would perhaps "significant" (implying that it was a rather large increase) or "notable" (implying that the increase could have been in response to his father's death) be more appropriate?
 * Fixed this is actually a poor French to English translation of what I had in mind. The English word "significant" is exactly what I meant in the original French.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "who could therefore be behind the regicide" sounds like it's referring to only Seankhuiptah, but I'm assuming its meant to be referring to all 3 people?
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "or occupied the throne in the interregnum" well... I mean he did occupy the throne during the interregnum (right?) – so I'm unsure what the intended meaning is
 * Clarified Actually either he really did just occupy the throne to keep the seat warm, or he claimed himself to be a kind. This is the distinction that is meant here in the sources. I changed the sentence to clarify.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The "Further archeological evidence lending credence to the idea that Userkare was illegitimate in the eyes of his successor Pepi I is..." seems unnecessary and may be better replaced with something more to the point like "Further archeological evidence of Userkare's illegitimacy is..." (if change were to happen then the following part "the absence of mention of Userkare in" may fit better as "Further archeological evidence of Userkare's illegitimacy is his absence in...")
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Miroslav Bárta has an ill link (here)
 * Fixed as recommend.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As someone largely unfamiliar with Ancient egyption history, I have no idea what a "Ka-chapel" is, is there anything this could be linked to? (I'm talking about in the first mention in the "Policies and power play" section)
 * Fixed. I changed to " He gave such an exemption to a chapel dedicated to the cult of his mother located in Koptos" which clarifies what is meant here. What is a Ka-chapel is explained in details later in the article, in the relevant section.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "At some point in his reign, either early[49] or late,[note 12] around his 44th year on the throne" this sentence is rather ambiguous. If there's no agreed upon general time maybe just stating that the time was unknown and having a note mention varying estimates would suffice
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * After reading further it looks like you go in to detail about different views of when it may have happened, so a note like I suggested above would not be necessary; consider still simplifying the opening sentence of the paragraph though
 * Actually I did a footnote I think it is a good idea at this point and it makes the first sentence simpler.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I may have missed something but who is "Re" in "with Pepi incorporating Re's name into"?
 * Fixed I wrote "incorporating the sun god Re's name ". Re was the sun god and the dominant god of the Egyptian pantheon at the time. So much so that during the preceding Fifth Dynasty, Re was essentially "the" official state-god of Egypt. I clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there something that nomarch and/or Abydos could link to?
 * Fixed I can't add a link here because nomarch is already wikilinked earlier in the main text, in the section on Pepi's family. I changed to "provincial governor" to make it understandable. Same problem with Abydos, which is wikilinked earlier in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "is further suggested by the fact that" may be less awkward as "is furthered by the fact that"
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The whole "The political importance of these marriages..." sentence has 5 commas, making it rather choppy to read, rephrasing would be worthwhile here I think
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "This part of Pepi's rule may not have..." –> "This end of Pepi's rule may not have..." or something, I wouldn't rely on the reader to read the header and carry it over as context of the first sentence
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * link for Canaan?
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Got to Building activities section, more soon – finding less and less things to comment on
 * Thanks for all your inputs !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. The changes you have made thus far look good. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Last batch:
 * "the Egyptologist Flinders Petrie considered in 1900" – considered seems like an odd word to use here. Maybe "so much so that in 1900 the Egyptologist Flinders Petrie stated/suggested that"
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The thing with this line: "contemporary sources to have stood in Hierakonpolis,[176][177] in Abydos, [178][179][note 26] two[182] in Bubastis,[171] one or more Dendera,[note 27] and in the central Nile Delta region" is that I'm unsure whether how many stood in Hierakonpolis, Abydos and the central Nile Delta region. I'm assuming that the implication is that at least one was in these places, but then why is Dendera specified as "one or more"? At the moment the sentence remains somewhat ambiguous.
 * Fixed. I made two sentences: the first one listing places where one chapel stood and the second giving the two location where two or more stood.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "A further chapel" in this context makes it almost sound like it was "further away" perhaps "Another chapel" or "A chapel may have also..." would be better
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Missing word in "for example that at Abydos was likely" ?
 * Fixed. I changed the sentence completely.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Beneath the floor of Hierakonpolis Ka-chapel of Pepi, in an underground store, –> "In an underground store beneath the floor of Hierakonpolis Ka-chapel of Pepi, – to avoid the extra commas
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I almost feel silly for point this out but you seem to be rather consistent with have "Egyptionologist so and so said/did..." but this is absent before James Quibell
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Confused with "comprised a 95 m × 60 m (312 ft × 197 ft) enclosure wall and, near its north corner, the small Ka-chapel made of rectangular building housing 8 pillars." – not sure the line makes sense. If you're meaning to say that it comprised a small Ka-chapel then surely "a small Ka-chapel..." would be correct?
 * Done. Yes it is a typo, probably a remnant of something I wrote before. I wrote "...enclosure wall with, near its north corner, a small rectangular Ka-chapel housing 8 pillars".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait he's referred to as "Son of Hathor of Dendera" for Khenti-Amentiu's chapel too? (if so an "also referred to" the second time would be helpful) – also why is "son" capitalized the second time?
 * Yes this is correct. Pepi liked to be called this way (why?! I don't know obviously), he is given the title of son of Hathor of Dendera on inscriptions found throughout Egypt and abroad, even on cups, pots, and whatnots. I removed the capital S in Son.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "a direct evidence of the consolidation of the Heliopolitan cults at the time" could be a lot more to the point as something like "direct evidence for the consolidation of the Heliopolitan cults at the time"
 * Done. Thanks that reads much better indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "witness royal interest" – "suggest" instead of "witness" not sure "witness" makes sense since who is witnessing?
 * Fixed. Ah my bad, my use of "witness" isn't good, I meant testify but I guess this would require a person too.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be ignorant, but as someone who is unfamiliar with Egyption history, the line "gave rise to a novel designation for the nearby capital of Egypt originally called Ineb-hedj, designation which ultimately gave Memphis in Greek." makes little sense to me...
 * Fixed. I clarified with: "The diminutive name Mennefer for the pyramid complex progressively became the name of the nearby capital of Ancient Egypt—which had originally been called Ineb-hedj. In particular, the Egyptian Mennefer ultimately gave Memphis in Greek, a name which is still in use for this ancient city". Amazingly, this means that a city such as Memphis, Tennessee owes its name to Pepi's pyramid complex since Pepi Mennefer gave Mennefer which was adopted as the name of capital of Egypt located nearby, which the Greek read "Memphis". Now the US settlers of Tennessee wanted a name for a large city located near a river and took the Greek name for Egypt's capital, on the Nile, as a template.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Pepi's mortuary complex was surrounded on its south-west corner by a necropolis built during the reigns of Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II." Would begin this sentence with "Pepi 1" to avoid confusion with Pepi II later in the sentence. I'm confused, if it was built during the reign of Pepi I that means it was built during his own regin, among others, right? This should be said if so ("during his own reign and those of, Merenre and Pepi II" ?)
 * Clarified. Yes you are right. I changed the sentence as you suggested.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "fashion as others since" – the "as others" is probably unnecessary as it's implied
 * Done.


 * link to Jamb and Obelisk?
 * Done.


 * I think that's it for me... great job here, I'll go through your responses to my earlier comments now Aza24 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, once you feel like you have finished the review, could you please indicate whether oy support or oppose the nomination ? This would help me keep track of what is finished and what needs work.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for reminding me. My comments have been fully implemented or addressed, I support this article for FA. Gosh I hope this nomination picks up more reviewers, would be a shame for it to stay in limbo... Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot
Very sorry I haven't gotten to this earlier. I haven't been able to focus on the article as much as I should, but having taken so long I decided to post some initial comments. I'm concerned with the prose, a lot of which is awkward. These are the first few prose problems I noted; I'll have more once I've looked through the article more thoroughly. A. Parrot (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's acceptable to write "Old Kingdom period" (and the like, for the other two kingdoms) once, to make it clear to readers that "kingdom" in this context refers to a time period, but it's not standard Egyptological usage and shouldn't appear more often than once in the lead and once in the body.
 * You mean that "Old Kingdom period" should be used only once in the lede and once in the body or "Old Kingdom" should be used only once ? At the moment "Old Kingdom period" appears only once in the lede and once in the body, but "Old Kingdom" appears multiple times.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Words should be capitalized when used as titles: "Prince Hornetjerkhet", as opposed to "a prince named Hornetjerkhet".
 * Done. I fixed all instances of "prince" and "queen" followed by a proper name.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Pepi II was the last great pharaoh of the Old Kingdom period." That's a matter of opinion.
 * Fixed well yes, I removed the sentence. That said I am fairly sure I read this somewhere. But this is irrelevant to the present article anyway.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "While Pepi's wider necropolis witnessed continuing burials until the Late Period, Pepi's cult stopped early in the Second Intermediate Period." I think the first half the of the sentence can be excised. Intrusive burials really aren't that relevant to Pepi himself.
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * …with lime production resuming later…" Most readers probably won't be aware of the connection between lime production and the dismantling of Pepi's monuments, and the lead isn't the place to explain it, so it makes sense to just say that the dismantling of the monuments resumed later.
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well here I must disagree. I see this as relevant encyclopedic information on Pepi. After all, taken together there aren't so many evidences that listing them all is cumbersome, and this information is important to appraise the relation between Pepi and Iput, which itself is profoundly important for the various hypotheses regarding Pepi's early reign.
 * It seems there's enough evidence that Iput was Pepi's mother that you really don't need to list all the individual attestations for it.
 * "…she may be the queen who was referred to as the queen of the west by the Ancient Egyptians, the owner of a pyramid west of Pepi's." I think I can tell what this means, but it's not clear.
 * Done I simplified the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for your help.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "He was the son of his second predecessor Teti, ascending the throne only after the brief and enigmatic reign of the shadowy Userkare." I do not think "second predecessor" is widely understood term, and you do not need "enigmatic" and' shadowy. Maybe "He was the son of the founder of the dynasty, Teti, and ascended the throne after the brief reign of the shadowy Userkare."
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "to place her son as heir to the throne" What does this mean? To have her son designated as heir or to usurp the throne?
 * Fixed, it means to have her son as designated heir. I clarified the sentence: "Pepi faced a harem conspiracy hatched by one of his queens who tried to have her son designated heir to the throne".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Continuing Teti's policy, Pepi created a network of warehouses". What policy of Teti? If it was creating a network of warehouses, then Pepi must have expanded not created it.
 * Done Well Pepi did create lost of warehouses but it is true that the network itself was initiated under Teti. Pepi is clearly the dominant builder of the two so I wrote "largely expanded".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "landing troops directly on the coast thanks to Egyptian transport boats." Which coast? Also, I assume you mean that he invaded by sea rather than taking a long way round by land, but it is not clear.
 * Done I wrote " landing troops directly on the Levantine coast using Egyptian transport boats". Is this clearer or should I write that a seaborne invasion occured ? Because the source talks about of transport boats and all but does not say "seaborne invasion".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would leave out "directly". What would landing indirectly mean? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok Done both in the lede and in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Excavations revealed a bundle of viscera and a mummy fragment, both presumed to belong to the pharaoh." If this was all that survived of his mummy, you should say so.
 * I can't tell: the source is ambiguous on this, I suppose it is all that was found but the source does not explicitly state this. It talks only about viscera and a fragment. Should I make the jump to the obvious conclusion that this was all there was ?Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that if the source is ambiguous then it is best to keep the wording as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok !Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Sixth Dynasty necropolis at Saqqara was used as a stone quarry from the New Kingdom up until the end of the Late Period with the dismantling of the necropolis' monuments resuming later in the Mamluk era of the Middle Ages." Why is this relevant? If his monuments were dismantled, you should say so.
 * Done I added " when most of Pepi's pyramid complex was destroyed" at the end of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Made a start. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for your comments, I am looking forward to more!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am confused about the conspiracy by a queen. In the lead it is to get her son named heir, although that is what most mothers would do and I do not see how it could be a conspiracy. Under 'Consorts' it is a conspiracy against Pepi with no details. In the 'Conspiracy' section, the nature of her crime is unknown.
 * Fixed 1) The original text in Weni's tomb goes to great lengths to not tell the queen name nor her crime but she is judged for something and by the context, it can only be a conspiracy against the king (Weni says he was chosen because the matter was delicate). So in the conspiracy section and the consort section, it is said there was a conspiracy but we do not know which one. Many sources see her as trying to have a son designated heir, but this is not said by Weni who judged her. So I toned down the lede, writing that "she may have tried to have her son designated heir to the throne". As the king always chose his heir personally and he had a designated heir at all times, it would have been a crime to have someone else designated heir, especially if the way to achieve this is as a coup. This is a common issue in Ancient Egypt history, Ramses III was murdered for this very reason: having someone else be the heir and inherit the throne at the pharaoh's death in a coup.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Egyptologist is usually capitalised.
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "The first, Meritites IV,[note 4] was the king's eldest daughter". No change needed, but this sounds odd. If Pepi II was born near the end of Pepi I's 50 year reign then Pepi I's eldest daughter would presumably have been much older than her husband.
 * This does not seem to surprise the sources, and actually it does not surprise me either given the Ancient Egyptians kings routinely married their sisters, or the wives of their fathers. Most of the case, I suspect these marriages were related to prestige and position, and thus power by association.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "During the early Sixth Dynasty, this count might have been biennial" "might have been" is indefinite. Elsewhere you are stronger, for instance in the note, saying "probably"
 * Done I wrote "probably" in the instance were there was a "might have been". Depending on the source you get "was biennial", "was probably biennial", "might have been biennial", "was irregular" (but close to biennial...) Most of the sources say that it was biennial or very close to it, but this remains one of the most important and (I quote) "vexing" problems in Ancient Egyptian chronology. An entire chapter is devoted to this in Hornung's hanbook of Egyptian chronology.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "At the opposite the Turin King List gives only 20 years on the throne to Pepi I while his successor Merenre I is said to have reigned 44 years. This latter figure contradicts both contemporaneous and archaeological evidences, for example the royal annals mention no further cattle count under Merenre I beyond his fifth, which might corresponds to his tenth year of rule. The Egyptologist Kim Ryholt suggests that the two entries of the Turin king list might have been interchanged." As this reign length is generally rejected, I suggest relegating it to a note. Also, "At the opposite" is clumsy. I would delete.
 * DoneIry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "For example, numerous ointment alabaster vessels celebrating Pepi's first Sed festival have been produced." Presumably they have been discovered rather than produced by archeologists.
 * Fixed yes sure, but initially I meant produced by the Ancient Egyptians.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Pepi was by then perhaps too young a child to reign." This is clumsy. Perhaps "Pepi may have been too young to be king."
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Kanawati has argued that Userkare's reign length—at no more than five years—is too short for a regency". I do not understand this. Why should not Pepi have been five years short of the age of majority when his father died?
 * Major problem fixed thanks for posting this, of course this makes no sense. It seems like I mixed several sentences and garbled their meaning at some point beyond recognition. I corrected everything going back to the source. So here is what I wrote (and this is what the source says, I can send you the book pdf if required): "Against this view however, Kanawati has argued that Userkare's short reign—lasting perhaps only one year—cannot be a regency as a regent would not have assumed a full royal titulary as Userkare did nor would he be included in king lists. Rather, Userkare could have been an usurper and a descendant of a lateral branch of the Fifth Dynasty royal family who briefly seized power in a coup, possibly with the support of the priesthood of Re." I also added the following footnote attached to the word "usurper": "Pepi's claim to the throne, as the son of queen Iput and thus a male descendent of Unas was the strongest in Kanawati's view, implying that Userkare was an usurper." I apologize for this terrible mix-up.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Bárta and Baud point to Pepi's decision to dismantle his paternal grandmother[85] Queen Sesheshet funerary complex, reusing the block for his own mortuary temple." Why state this interpretation as fact and the alternative in a note? Is the alternative less credible? Also it should be "grandmother's". Why "the block"? A complex cannot have been made of only one block.
 * Done I added the missing "s" at the end of "block" and move the footnote to the main text. But I don't understand the "grandmother's", because the sentence is "paternal grandmother Queen Sesheshet funerary complex", so shouldn't it be "paternal grandmother Queen Sesheshet's funerary complex".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "In any case," This phrase does not serve any purpose and I think you should delete it.
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "all of these events and evidences suggest". This is ungrammatical. Maybe "the evidence suggests"
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again I hope my modifications address all your concerns.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Bárta and Baud point to Pepi's decision to dismantle his paternal grandmother[85] Queen Sesheshet's funerary complex, reusing the blocks for his own mortuary temple.[86][74] At the opposite, Wilfried Seipel thinks these blocks bear witness to Pepi's foundation of a pious memorial to his grandmother." 1. You are right on "Sesheshet's". 2. "At the opposite," is ungrammatical. You could say "One the other hand" or "However". 3. I still do not understand what you are saying. How could dismantling his grandmother's funerary complex bear witness to his foundation of a pious memorial to her?
 * Done I wrote " on the other hand". Look the seeming lack of clarity here comes from Egyptologists contradicting each other because the evidence is ambiguous. For Barta and Baud, the blocks have been reused by Pepi as building material so this means he dismantled a previously existing structure to build his own and did so because he had no problem desecrating his grandmother's temples. For Seipel, the blocks have not be re-used by Pepi rather they show that a structure dedicated to Pepi's grandmother once existed, and given the location of the blocks, it is likely that this structure was built by Pepi himself who thus held his grandmother in high regard. The ambiguity comes from the poor state of Pepi's necropolis which was used as a limestone quarry so blocks from all structures lay mixed-up on the ground, some having been displaced to be thrown into furnaces in the Middle ages. To clarify I wrote "For the Egyptologist Miroslav Bárta, further troubles might have arisen directly between Pepi and relatives of his father Teti. Bárta and Baud point to Pepi's apparent decision to dismantle his paternal grandmother Queen Sesheshet's funerary complex, as he reused the blocks for his own mortuary temple. On the other hand, Wilfried Seipel disagrees with this interpretation of the blocks as having being reused by Pepi, he rather thinks the blocks bear witness to Pepi's foundation of a pious memorial to his grandmother."Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "by creating true local dynasties". What does "true" mean here?
 * Done I removed "true". Here I wrote "true dynasty" (this is used by the source, you will see why) in the sense that you normally understand "dynasty" in ordinary English. For Egyptologists this is in contrast to the Egyptian royal dynasties, which were invented by Manetho, and were not recognized by the ancient Egyptians themselves. So in fact, here we are talking about local dynasties with male successions, whereas the case of the king is different as kingship was perceived to be eternal and passing from person to the next. As such, Teti was not seen as the first founding member of a new line of king, he was just the successor of Unas, the passing incarnation of divine royal power.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "The concurrent rise of small provincial centers in areas historically associated with the crown may prove that pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty tried to diminish the power of predominant regional dynasties by recruiting senior officials outside of them." This is clumsy and hard to follow. Maybe "Small provincial centers in areas historically associated with the crown became more important, suggesting that pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty tried to diminish the power of regional dynasties by recruiting senior officials loyal to the pharaoh."
 * Done I modified your sentence slightly to "Small provincial centers in areas historically associated with the crown became more important, suggesting that pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty tried to diminish the power of regional dynasties by recruiting senior officials that did not belong to them and were loyal to the pharaoh".Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "This territorial mode of organization disappeared nearly 300 years after Pepi I's reign, at the dawn of the Middle Kingdom period." So it continued in the First Intermediate Period?
 * Yes. This is not surprising, it was helpful for all rulers and the FIP wasn't quite as chaotic as the reputation of the period says. Rulers of the 9th, 10th and 11th Dynasties had taxes to levy too.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "this at least shows that the person of the king was not untouchable anymore" Surely the murder of his father had already shown this.
 * No because the murder of his father is not established with certainty: it is a tale told by Manetho, who wrote almost 2000 years after the events. Some Egyptologists like Kanawati see good reasons to believ this on archaeological evidences, but we do not have any contemporary document telling us this happened. Thus, perhaps it is true, perhaps not. But the conspiracy against Pepi is different: it is mentioned by his contemporary Weni, so it is established fact, especially in view of the Criterion of embarrassment.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "the queen concerned could have been Userkare's mother and Teti's wife rather than Pepi's." Does this mean that Userkare may have been a son of Teti?
 * Yes, the text says that, at minima, the relation of Userkare and the royal family is uncertain. The problem is complicated and detailed in the article on Userkare. It would be too long to discuss all possibilities in this article I think, only the hypothesis by Kanawati is stated (that he was a descendant from a lateral branch of the royal line of the 5th dynasty), because this could explain why Pepi chose the name Meryre later in his reign in an agreement with the priesthood of Re. This is stated in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Consequently, to the failure of this conspiracy, Pepi I would have taken the drastic step of crowning Merenre during his own reign," I think I understand this, but it is unclear.
 * Fixed, I wrote "As a consequence of this failed conspiracy, Pepi I would have taken the drastic step of crowning Merenre during his own reign..."
 * Do you mean "may have taken"? Also why was it a drastic step? If it was very rare, you should say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed I wrote "may". I wanted to say that he may have done something that may have led to something which may have happened. I thought the "would" would convey this degree of uncertainty: the original cause is uncertain (the conspiracy), the causal relation is uncertain (that the conspiracy aimed at replacing the heir and that Pepi wanted to secure his chosen heir in consequence) and the consequence is uncertain (that he decreed a corency (which remains only an hypothesis). Regarding "drastic", I would like to keep it. The step is not just "very rare" it is the first time this ever happened (as far as we know), while numerous examples exist in later Middle and New Kingdom Egypt. The step is really drastic with respect to the Old Kingdom perception of kingship, which posited that kingship stemmed from one permanent divine manifestation/being embodied in a physical person for a short while, and then passing onto another at the death of the person. So having two kings at the same time makes almost no sense in this view: the godly existence of the king appears to be in two people at the same time. The source actually says "drastic" for these reasons, I thought this was right so I kept it. For Pepi to have done that (if he did!) really means something was amiss.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC) #
 * I think you need to explain these points in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done this is now footnote 17.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Sixth Dynasty Royal annals bear no trace either for or against it, but it makes it more likely that Merenre did not count his year of reign until after the death of his father." What makes it more likely?
 * Clarified. The royal annals ! I clarified with " The Sixth Dynasty Royal annals bear no trace either for or against it, but the shape and size of the stone on which the annals are inscribed makes it more likely that Merenre did not count his year of reign until after the death of his father". This is a common argument in Egyptian chronology: reign lengths can be estimated even on erased or damaged stone fragments from royal annals by estimating the maximum space that could have been devoted to a king's reign on the stone.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to add a note explaining how the size of stones is used to estimate reign length. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * More to follow. The language seems to become more clumsy later in the article. Has it been the subject of copy editing which was not completed? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No there was no copy-editing, but I think the issue is that 1) there is a lot of information on Pepi in good sources because there is a lot of archeological material and he was an important pharaoh; 2) most of these informations are contradictory. These two facts make it hard to expose all opinions on any one subject without writing a lot more text (Kanawati has an entire book just on the possible archeological traces of conspiracies involving Teti - Userkare and Pepi). These issues arise later in the text of the article because of what is discussed there (conspiracies, policies etc.), which have been the subject of so many competing hypotheses.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Merenre did not count his year of reign until after the death of his father". This is unclear. Maybe "Merenre started his reign when his father died".
 * Clarified Actually what you propose does not mean the same thing as what I want to say here: the Ancient Egyptian calendar restarted at 0 everytime a king ascended the throne, so the question arises when there is a coregency if the coregent dated all documents related to him with the number of years (or cattle counts) since the coregency started, if he used the number of years of his father's reign or if instead he started at 0 again at the death of his father. Here Baud and Dobrev say simply that Merenre did the last, i.e. his official year 0 started (soon) after Pepi's reign. I clarified with "Merenre did not start to count his years of reign until soon after the death of his father".


 * "Titulary" is a specialist term which will be unfamiliar to many readers. Why not titles?
 * The royal titulary is the ensemble of 5 names used by the pharaoh and not an ensemble of titles. The names of the pharaoh are not earned, cannot be given or taken away from him and do not correspond to any charge be they fictitious or honorary, all contrary to titles. They really are just proper names (Did you know ? you can see all names of Pepi in hieroglyphics with transliteration and translation in the infobox by clicking [show] button on the right of the "Royal Titulary" title). I would be happy to wikilink "titulary" to Ancient Egyptian royal titulary if I could see where the word titulary appears in the article but an automatic look-up did not produce any instance of it (?).Iry-Hor (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The arrangement of the sections looks a bit curious to me. You have sections '3. Reign', '4. Building activities' and '5. Pyramid complex and surrounding necropolis', but these are all part of Pepi's reign and pyramid building is part building activities. Also 'Political situation' does not sound right as a sub-section as it is about the politics in the whole reign, not the situation at one time. There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to any arrangement, but one possibility is '3. Politics', with '3.1 Ascending the throne' ... '3.4 End of reign: coregency', and  'Military campaigns' moved into this section as 3.5; '4. Economy', '4.1 Foreign trade and mining' (You do not appear to cover the domestic economy. Is no information at all available about this?). '5. Building activities', with the 'Pyramid complex and surrounding necropolis' heading deleted, and pyramids etc as sub-sections of this section. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks let me think about this for a day or two, I will try to pick a better layout. Note that regarding the domestic economy I do cover it a bit, when I present Pepi's policy (which expanded upon Teti's) of creating a network of special warehouses to help levy taxes and which played a new role in the territorial organization. We discussed it briefly when you asked if it continued during the FIP. The trouble is that there is much less to say on domestic policies because they are mostly continuous in Egypt throughout the Old Kingdom. Ancient Egyptian society is one of the most stable mankind ever produced.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you still need a paragraph on the domestic economy for a complete picture, making clear of course that it did not change from before his reign. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
I've added this to the Urgents list hoping for more feedback. As this has been open for well over a month and not much activity has occured in recent weeks, it will need to be archived soon if it doesn't gather some more consensus for promotion. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said on Iry-Hor's talk page (here), I think the article has more prose problems than I feel able to deal with within the time constraints of an FAC. I'm not sure I want to outright oppose, but I think withdrawing, copyediting, and renominating at some later point might be Iry-Hor's best course of action. A. Parrot (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, I will put this up for a copy-edit at the guild of copy-editors. Once the copy-edit is done and I have updated the layout as per ' suggestions, I will put it up at FAC again. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)