Talk:Population history of Egypt/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Michinori

Why do we have this? "Michinori nevertheless asserts in 2000 that external influence from Nubia on the formation of Ancient Egypt in the pre-dynastic period to the dynasty period predates influence from eastern Mesopotamia. He notes an increase in the appreciation of the contribution of Nubia in the south to Ancient Egyptian culture at the time of his writing. According to him, chiefs of the same cultural level as Upper Egyptian powers existed in Lower Nubia and exhibited pharaonic iconography before the unification of Egypt. The archaeological cemeteries at Qustul are no longer available for excavations since the flooding of Lake Nasser."

Besides the fact that we should not use "nevertheless", it's editorial, it seems to be off-topic. What does it have to do with population history? Or the inability to excavate somewhere? In fact I'm wondering if I've wasted my time even dealing with Williams at all, as again that seems to be about cultural influence. Also, I note that the sources for the rejection of the Qustul material mainly postdate Michinori, which I see as a problem (and again, the "nevertheless" might easily be read as despite all those sources that hadn't been written when Michinori wrote.... Doug Weller talk 10:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug WellerWhy did you include the sentence in relation to the archaeological cemeteries ?. Qutsul was in Aswan, Egypt. That is from a separate source.@C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena can provide his rationale for its inclusion ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There was evidence of Egyptian royal iconography at Abydos in Naqada I. Qustul dates from Naqada III. There is a lot of Egyptian material still at Qustul, which was imported from Egypt and beyond. It is clear that the royal iconography was imported from Egypt to Qustul. The theory that Qustul influenced the formation of Ancient Egypt in the pre-dynastic period is now understood as Egypt influenced Ancient Qustul in the pre-dynastic period. Like Petrie, Williams made the best deductions he could from the evidence at hand, and then later discoveries proved him wrong. Archaeology works like that - its not rocket science. Wdford (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Petrie cannot be equated with Williams. His hypothesis was grounded in colonialist, eugenic views. Williams excavated his findings in 1966 before the Qutsul region was flooded. Obviously, the Qutsul items would be out of date since that region has been closed off whereas ongoing excavations and new evidence could be found in Abydos over the last 50 years. On a separate point, when will you be finished with your revision of the article. Could we fastrack this, so we can progress onto reviews and discussion of possible additions ?.WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Qustul also says Lower Nubia, and the Aswan Governorate is of course a current political region of Egypt. Surely since we are talking about prehistory, we should say Lower Nubia and not refer to modern Egypt? That would be a bit confusing.

Qustul looks out of date:" Bruce Williams argued in 1987 that his discovery of the Qutsul incense burner advanced no claim of a Nubian origin or genesis for the pharaonic monarchy but that the archaeological data shows Nubian linkages and influence in helping to "fashion pharaonic civilization", including detailed excavations of the burial place of the Nubian rulers with date stamps well before the historical First Dynasty of Egypt. The size and wealth of the tombs were also described as vastly greater than that of the well-known Abydos tombs in Egypt." Doug Weller talk 14:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller That is a sentence that was originally featured in the "Population History of Egypt" prior to the recent edits over the last week. Those were William's arguments about the archaeological findings and hence relevant to the Qustul article page. I'm not sure what your point ?. Please, read the source. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that the article doesn't need updating? I've read the source. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller It definitely needs updating. It is lacking in content. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

To help provide the requested rationale, the author is particularly relevant as similarly to Gatto (who postdates him), he highlights close associations between Nubian and Egyptian populations and their culture (same pharaonic quality). He also points out that the influence from Nubia predates influence from eastern Mesopotamia (a valuable observation). The outstanding value of the inclusion is that it helps situate predynastic Egyptian population geographically, and reinforces its cultural context with respect to a neighboring population (Nubia). That the "rejection of the Qustul material mainly postdates Michinori" is key here. The so-called "rejection" is irrelevant to Michinori's work. He doesn't make a case for a Nubian origin of pharaonic civilization, rather a case for close population relations, i.e., shared culture and contributions of Nubia to the formation of Egypt. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Michinori is OK, although others say it better. Williams' conclusions have been debunked by later findings, so there is no point in even mentioning him. Of what relevance to the topic is the sentence "The archaeological cemeteries at Qustul are no longer available for excavations since the flooding of Lake Nasser"??? Wdford (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford Its directly relevant to the sub section on archaeological data, the material culture of Qustul and the hypothesis proposed by Williams. It should remain to provide wider historical, context about the Qustul case. WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for appraising Michinori. It's likely better to keep him even if others say it better, for the sake of representation. I am not opposed to adding more sources that add to his excellent scholarship. And also @WikiUser4020 and @Wdford, I see two elements to consider with respect to Williams and Gatto. In both cases, it wouldn't be reasonable to deny that random people who happen onto the present page might feel the urge to add to the conversation if they see that parts of the conversation which they consider important is missing. Removing the references might invite a cycle of re-adding the same sources and re-adding extensive rebutals again in the case of Williams in particular. That is why I would believe that for the sake of stability of the article addressing Williams and the rebuttal might remain valuable. The same is true with respect to Gatto. WikiUser4020 I think your proposal to move Gatto is admirable and demonstrates your commitment to collaboration. Based on what I saw in the present article, and the Qustul and A-Group culture, in my opinion both articles would benefit greatly from contributions (neither mention Michinori for e.g.). @WikiUser4020 I vote keep both based on what I mentioned, and I shall yield to consensus (just please keep Michinori, it took me a good while to read). C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena Thanks and I do agree that it is better to have content featured than left out or omitted. Otherwise, new users in the future will just keep adding in material. I just want a final consenus on the article that the group can agree upon as this review process has dragged on for over a week. Originally, the revisions was intended to reduce the perceived bloating of content but it seems like roughly the same length in content. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)