Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Archive 3

Chronology issues more broadly

Not sure if this is the right place to bring it up, but there's a lot of problems with our ancient near eastern chronology, over all. In both List of Pharaohs and Conventional Egyptian chronology we list Ramesses II's reign as beginning in 1279. In Ramesses II, it is said to begin in 1290. Battle of Kadesh uses a date of 1299 for the battle, indicating a start of Ramesses's reign in 1304. Muwatalli II uses 1285 (i.e. Ramesses II starting in 1290) for the Battle. I think that we need to a) outline all of the different chronologies in use; and b) decide to use one as the main one for all articles, so that it all fits together and we're not constantly contradicting ourselves. john k 17:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check out /archive1#Egyptian chronology, and related sections (such as /archive1#What to do about dates (mechanically)?), for extensive prior discussion of the chronology issue. I think we all agreed that we really ought to select one, and use just that for consistency (although we'll always be cleaning up after new editors who don't know about our system). Noel (talk) 22:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I was talking more broadly than Egypt, I'll note. We need to be sure that the New Kingdom chronology works with our Hittite, Assyrian, and Babylonian chronology, as well. john k 02:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if there's any really clever way to use templates to ensure that whenever absolute dates are mentioned, they all come from the same central source, so that chronology is consistent throughout Wikipedia (and easily updatable). Rd232 20:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232, take a look at the link above to archive1, where Noel & I discussed this very issue. IMHO, the reason this hasn't been attempted yet is because there isn't a firm consensus in favor of any one well-known set of dates, although there is weak support for the dates in Ian Shaw's The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. And to set this up on any sizable scale would require a lot of manual work that might lead to some nasty arguments. But if you want to tackle this, I'll be glad to help. -- llywrch 19:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that the advantage of a template system is that you could have several chronologies, and refer to them in articles, with links explaining their derivation (eg who's behind them). (Some articles already give multiple dates, without really explaining.) So we wouldn't need to settle on a single chronology - we could have two or three (or more, though less is obviously better in terms of nto being confusing for readers). It would require a lot of manual work of course, but that could hopefully be done gradually (linking articles into the system). I just can't conceive how it would work technically. Rd232 20:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232, I don't quite understand what you want to do with these templates -- & why. For most of the dates in Egyptian history, only one or two methods have been used to determine what they are -- which is then tweaked so many years up or down the timeline by each authority for various reasons -- both serious & trivial. There are a few events for which two or more widely different possible dates have been assigned due to contrasting arguments (possibly the best known is the mainstream dates for Rameses II & David Rohl's proposed dates, but I believe that there are others) -- but in most cases, authorities will differ over the dates of a given ruler because one ends up adding 5 years to the calculation while another subtracts 10. And as I wrote elsewhere, when we start considering dates prior to the New Kingdom, it really doesn't matter if we say, for example, Cheops came to the throne in 2589 BC, 2650 BC or 2490 BC -- because we are ignorant of what else was happening in the world at this time. As long as his dates are consistent with the rulers before & after him, the fact that one or another Egyptologist offer dates a few years earlier or later isn't significant.

I still believe that the best way to handle dates in articles about Ancient Egypt would be to say (returning to my example) Cheops ruled in the 26th century BC, & mention that the The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt offers one set of dates & The Cambridge Ancient History offers another, then try to explain how these dates were determined. Then in the article, instead of giving an absolute date for the events of the reign, date them according to the regnal year (e.g., "in the 5th year of Cheops' reign, this & that happened"). But that's just my opinion. -- llywrch 03:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. How about removing absolute dates from articles altogether, provide a vague statement eg "26th century BC", and make that a link to a page collating discussion of dates (specific to that dynasty, Kingdom, whatever). My main concern is to avoid misleading readers with a false certainty by scattering dates around with an implied certainty they don't bear, and avoid different articles contradicting each other. Rd232 07:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice, though, to try to synchronize absolute dates starting with the 18th Dynasty period, when you start to have synchronisms with other places in the Near East (starting with the Amarna period, especially). john k 05:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the template, and I have seen something similar on another site (unfortunately I can't remember the Google string that led me to it, otherwise I would cite it here) that had the pharoah's name followed by the dates various scholars had assigned to him in a table format, something like the following:

Pharoah (Name)

Scholar A (Date range 1)

Scholar B (Date range 2)

aditional entries...

For more information, see

Egyptian chronology

The names of the various scholars would be linked back to a page outlining their methodology. Having a methodology should also be a criterion for including them in this table in the first place.

The dates would themselves be links, so that it something else did happen in year BC, it can be correlated to other events from other civilizations, astronomy, climatology etc. Captmondo 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found the example Web page I mentioned previously with sample chronology template I like: [- Pharaoh Huni]. Now that I see it, I like the addition of Manetho and the Turin King List in addition to the various scholars that follow. Captmondo 18:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's an issue here that both John K & Captmondo overlook that needs to be emphasized: the experts in Egyptian chronology (well, with a few understandible exceptions) admit that there is an increasing margin of error for dates the earlier one goes in Egyptian history. IIRC, this is given as within a year or less back to 650 BC, within 10 years to the beginning of the 18th dynasty (with some differences of opinion for the Third Intermediate Period), within 50 years to the start of the Middle Kingdom (the material for the 12th dynasty is abundant enough to provide an accurate relative chronology between its rulers), & a century to the start of the Old Kingdom. The Chronology of Mesopotamia is more exact, but it too begins to lose precision around 1100 BC, with events being accurate within 10 years from 1100 BC back to where the problem of High, Middle & Low Chronology begins to raise its head.

This is a different situation than, say, with the kings of Israel & Judah, where I provided the dates of two different authorities as an indication to the reader that there were multiple informed opinions on the matter -- & Captmondo's approach would not only work quite well with, but address the problem that there are actually more than two scholarly opinions on that chronological problem. (Since the time I made my contributions to those articles, I have discovered at least two more proposed chronologies, at least one of which should be added for balance.)

Probably the best way to approach this problem would be to modify Captmondo's table as follows:

Pharoah (Name)

Lived: [here state date as [[X century BC]] or [[XX00's BC]] or [[XX00's BC|circa XXXX BC]]

Length of reign: or Highest known regnal year:

aditional entries...

For more information, see

Egyptian chronology

This way the material is presented as factually as possible, while indicating that there is a great deal of uncertainty here. Do my comments make sense to anyone else? -- llywrch 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I think this is good to an extent. On the other hand, a date like 1279 BC for the accession of Ramesses II is quite commonly given. So long as we indicate that dates before a certain period are not exact, I don't see what harm is done by giving commonly used figures like 1279 BC for Ramesses II, or the traditional dates for the Middle Assyrian kings, or similar figures. john k 18:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea about the uncertainty ranges. We could pick a central year in the range of scholarly estimates and say X BC ± Y years, and link to a page on the details of different chronologies. If the central year differs from well-known dates, we could identify those separately (but try and avoid listing as many as that Pharaoh Huni does - I think that's too much detail for a main Pharaoh article (eg Tutankhamun) - that detail should be in a separate chronology article. Rd232 20:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch brought up a good point when he mentioned that I didn't explicitly tie in any uncertainlty as to dates (a point later taken up by John Kenney and Rd232. I believe the table of dates could include that uncertainty in dates. There's a decent article by Leo Depuydt in the July/Aug 2005 edition of Archaeology Odyssey magazine called "How to Date a Pharaoh", which would be a good reference source for anybody wanting to write up on chronology issues (hmm, somehow I think I may have nominated myself ;-). A footnote at the end of the article might be sufficient to include with any dating table to be included. The footnote reads: "The margin of error of dates obtained from Sothic dating is roughly 10 - 20 years for the second half of the second millennium B.C., 40 - 50 years for the first half of the second millenium B.C., and one to two centuries for the third millennium B.C." If we include: "+/- 10-20 years", or "+/- 40-50 years" etc at the bottom of the table and link explcitly to the Egyptian chronology article, that would likely cover the issue well. Captmondo 15:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captmondo, almost any contribution would be an improvement on what's currently at Egyptian chronology, which is little more than a rant that we can't be 100% certain about what mainstream Egyptologists have written, & therefore should seriously consider other theories. I've been trying off & on for almost 2 years to write something that truly explains the subject, but haven't been able to come up with something that explains the issues adequately -- or could be considered orignal research. -- llywrch 19:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reign of {{{name}}}

Date Source	Length of Reign
Manetho	reigned for {{{time1}}}
Turin King List	reigned for {{{time2}}}
Nabil Swelim	reigned for {{{time3}}}
Ian Shaw	{{{year1}}} BCE - {{{year2}}} BCE
Peter Piccione	{{{year4}}} BCE - {{{year5}}} BCE

Margin of error: {{{Period}}}

See Egyptian chronology for background info

Ugh, I've taken a hard look at Egyptian chronology as it currently exists, and it *is* a complete mess. It's a mix of seemingly pseudo-Biblical nonsense mixed with something that may be unbiased and scholarly, but without a decent-enough reference for me to check properly. I'm inclined to say its time to re-start the article from scratch. Either that or perhaps concentrate more on Sothic cycle.

Back to the original topic of how to list chronologies properly per King, how about something like the table to the right?

If people think this is a good idea, I suspect we can all agree upon Manetho and the Turin King List (though Manetho could be further broken down to the specific dates referenced by Eusebius or Africanus) for inclusion. I suspect we'll want to include Shaw, but I don't have the references by the other authors, so am open to other suggestions.

Thoughts? Captmondo 01:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could this template be extended – alternative names, etc. Markh 12:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. I'd like to establish a "base" version first that everyone can agree upon, but it should be possible to come up with alternate templates that list different dating sources. Still need to agree upon the format and who should be included in the listing for the base version first though. Have anybody specific in mind in terms of other references? Captmondo 14:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with Shaw, but who are the other two (Swelim, Piccione)? Rd232 15:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we also include, in addition to Manetho and Turin, a "highest attestation on monuments" line. I would also suggest that the particular Egyptologists used need not be used throughout Egyptian history. For the Third Intermediate Period, for instance, Kitchen should probably be one of the sources. john k 16:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both good ideas. I was going to make the latter point but hadn't got round to it. Rd232 17:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earlier to the question as to whom the other suggested sources in the chronological table are. In a number of papers Swelim seems to have concentrated chronology, such as a King and Monument list for the Third Dynasty, and a similar piece on the eighth. Peter Piccione works (worked?) at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and had an online course which referenced the chronology of Ancient Egypt, though unfortunately I cannot track it down now.

In any event, I too like the idea of keeping the template as open and flexible as possible, perhaps on a dynasty-by-dynasty basis if possible. After all, in the end we are just recycling electrons, so we can have as many templates as are applicable (and can easily be remembered/managed). Am also all for the "highest attestation on monuments", and would argue it is worth having in there even if it reads "Unknown" -- best to state the known facts.

Should we just start with Manetho, Turin King List, Highest Attestation and Shaw and go from there? Captmondo 20:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Perhaps we could have an Other heading to make space for Swelim etc where appropriate (adding the source in brackets after the date). Rd232 21:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two other important names/sources for this template would be the Palermo stone (a primary source for dates in the Old Kingdom, probably more important than the Turin List for this period), & Richard A. Parker's chronology of the Twelfth dynasty; Parker's dates if for no other reason than for historic interest.

Otherwise, I think Captmondo has a great plan. Kudos. -- llywrch 18:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but I should have thought that the easiest would be to allow specific dates from any source (although preferring one source), require a citation of the source, and add a template to relevant article saying "The chronology of Ancient Egypt is a matter of debate: see Egyptian chronology" or similar. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramses/Rameses/Ramesses

The articles are currently at Ramesses (the dab page), Ramesses I, Ramesses II, Ramses III, Ramesses IV, Ramses V, Ramses VI, Ramses VII, Ramses VIII, Ramses IX, Ramses X, and Ramses XI. (Rameses, preferred by Shaw, doesn't get a look in.) Are there likely to be any howls of objection if I find an idle moment and standardize on "Ramesses" across the board? There's some earlier discussion on which is the most appropriate option at Talk:Ramesses. –Hajor 17:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems good to me. john k 18:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institution uses Ramses or Rameses. Google [1]. Do we have a national varieties of English issue here? Gene Nygaard 20:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was demonstrated before that both the British Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art use Ramesses. Supposedly, "Ramses" derives from the French... See Talk:Ramesses. john k 21:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to note: there are a bunch of names which are in common use - it's hard to say which is more common. I don't see much value in arguing back and forth about which version might be slightly better. We should just choose one way and go with it. "Ramesses" seems perfectly fine for this purpose, and certainly no worse than the other options. john k 21:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, when we last discussed standardizing on spelling, "Ramesses" was one of the exceptions to following Shaw because it was more familiar than the alternates. And from the carouche, it appears that the Egyptians spelled it with two s's. -- llywrch July 1, 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Thanks for that last one, User:Llywrch; that clinched it. Setting to the task now. –Hajor 2 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)

So, if they "spelled" it with two s's, why should we use three? Gene Nygaard 2 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

I believe they mean consecutive s's. -JCarriker July 2, 2005 13:57 (UTC)

(editconflict with JCarriker) Two medial s's -- from "r‘-ms-sw" -- is what I understood (the final s is what, a leftover from hellenization?). I take it you're still not happy with the move to Ramesses? Allaying your expressed fear, I'm pretty sure this isn't a "national varieties" issue, from what I know of the nationalities of the editors supporting Ramesses. –Hajor 2 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)

Looking at my copy of the Loeb Manetho, the Greek version of Ramesses was spelled either (transliterating) "Ramesses" or "Rampses": Syncellus spells this with two sigmas, Eusebius with a single psi. In the translation I own, Herodotus (2.121) calls him "Rhampsinitus". All 3 examples add -es, because, I suspect, that is the nominative masculine ending. -- llywrch July 2, 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Even if it was a national varieties of English issue, I don't see how that would even matter. We should use one spelling for the same name. john k 2 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in Egyptology

I just encountered this article, & added some comments to its Talk page about how this could become a much better article. Does anyone have the time to do the appropriate research to clean this article up & make it a useful survey of the real unresolved problems of Egyptology? -- llywrch 17:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hatshepsut FAC

Hatshepsut was selected to be this WikiProject's example article. After almost a year of work I have nominated the article. Yet no one from this project—despite having participated the articles creation—other than myself has shown up to support the FAC. There has only been one other participant so far, who opposes the nomination on a techinicality. If her candidacy fails, I will be very, very, disapointed. Please voice your support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hatshepsut. Thanks. -JCarriker 03:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Portal ?

I was thinking that we need an Ancient Egypt portal - Portal:Ancient_Egypt - to act as a starting point and central reference. I might try and build a basic one over the weekend - just like the Portal:Archaeology portal. This would allow recent updates, did you know, etc. Any suggestions? Markh 14:51, September 2, 2005 (UTC) (mistakenly put this on the archive page!)

Nice. I like. For recent news I would suggest keeping tabs on [http://touregypt.net/news.htm Ancient Egypt News] and perhaps subscribe to the Egyptologists' Electronic Forum if you are not already a 'member'.

Anyways, good concept, and I suggest you run with it. Captmondo 21:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just moved the portal to be Egyptology rather than Ancient Egypt, as this seems to be what we are aiming at! Markh 20:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Egyptian Chronology write-up

I've put up a proposed re-write of what's currently at Egyptian chronology at Egyptian chronology/temp. Admittedly it's a rought draft & incomplete (I left off work on it months ago), but I think it's an improvement over what we currently have & everyone here is at least as qualified as me to improve it. Please have a look & -- as I wrote elsewhere -- edit the hell out of it. -- llywrch 20:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch - given the utter horribleness of the current article at Egyptian chronology, would you think it appropriate to simply replace the current article with the rewrite? It's a vast improvement. john k 21:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also support John Kenney in his opinion of your re-write. The original article is pretty much hopeless, and your revision, even incomplete, is much better. I feel I would have a much easier time contributing to something along this vein than with the old version of the page. Captmondo 21:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While we are all encouraged to be bold on Wikipedia, in this case I felt it was best to put my text up for everyone to see & act on it as they saw fit. I want both to build a consensus for this drastic re-write, & offer a chance for people to salvage anything worthwhile from what's currently in the article. If everyone else likes it, then would someone replace the current article with my text?

And I've fought enough battles in the past with certain individuals who fiercely insist that their own idiosyncratic interpretations be shown to be "current thinking", & I've grown a bit gunshy at this writing. Speaking honestly (& I'm not making any threats here), one more flamewar like that & I end up taking a long Wikivacation. -- llywrch 17:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. No contest -- L's verson is far superior. I swapped them over, so the old article is at Egyptian chronology/temp (do we leave it there, or tag it for deletion?). Now, more importantly, we have to expand it, improve it, and defend it. Then maybe we can do something about reclaiming the Great Pyramid of Giza. –Hajor 18:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed Egyptian chronology/temp at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, just to try to tidy things up. If you want to keep it, speak up now or hereafter look in the History of Egyptian chronology. -- llywrch 02:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akhenaten

Heads-up over an anon's recent edits at Akhenaten. They don't necessarily look bad (ok, I'm no expert), but much deletion of maybes, believed-tos, and uncertains. –Hajor 01:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look mostly for the better to me - a lot of false certainty removed, and good instincts on the Velikovsky nonsense. john k 04:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todo list

I was think about adding a TODO list subpage to this discussion (as noted in the actual project page, to point new contributors to places that need expansion and additions. Any thoughts on what could go in there (apart from fix Great_Pyramid_of_Giza article)? Markh 11:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this some thought, & there's a few different collections of tasks we should focus on in a TODO list:

Needed articles. We should have an article on every Pharaoh & every nome in Ancient Egypt. Let's check to see if every important Egyptologist has an article. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup. To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology. A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting, anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting. This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Any of these ideas look like fun? Or does anyone have better ones? -- llywrch 01:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should try and standardise (for use) the chronology, the Conventional Egyptian chronology article no longer matches the dates of many of the dynasty lists or individual kings Markh 11:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]