Talk:Early Dynastic Period (Egypt)

[Untitled]

I have moved this article from Early Dynastic Period to Early Dynastic Period of Egypt for the simple reason that the terms is not exclusive to Egypt and is also used in (e.g.) Mesopotamia —Nefertum17 13:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Distinction between Old Kingdom and Early Dynastic

Shouldn't this article include the reasons why egyptologists draw a distinction between the Early Dynastic period and the Old Kingdom? I'm unclear on those reasons myself. There was a rise in prosperity and in the scale of constructions (pyramids), but that alone doesn't seem enough to divide the two periods. If anyone has this information, please add it. A. Parrot (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the origin of the divide between the Old kingdom and the early dynastic period. On top of that, certain Egyptologists include the 3rd dynasty in the early dynastic period when others put the 3rd dynasty in the Old kingdom. I think the division is a purely modern thing and egyptians of the time would surely not have recognized it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iry-Hor (talk • contribs) 11:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation?

Several wordings in this article are highly identical with the passage "The Emergence of the Egyptian State" in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (edited by Ian Shaw, first published in 2000, ISBN 0198150342).

From The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt	Article's latest version
With the 1st Dynasty, the focus of development shifted from south to north, and the early Egyptian state was a centrally controlled polity ruled by a (god-)king from the Memphis region. (p.64)	With the First Dynasty, the capital moved from Abydos to Memphis where an Egyptian god-king ruled a now unified polity that extended from the Nile Delta to the first cataract at Aswan.
...the Early Dynasty state that emerged in Egypt was unique and indigenous in character. It is likely that a common language, or dialects of that language, facilitated political unification, but nothing is really known about the spoken language... (p.64)	State formation in Egypt was primarily indigenous in character, and it is likely that a common language, namely Egyptian, was spoken in Upper and Lower Egypt in variant dialects, which facilitated the unification.

At this stage, I will just list out the book in the reference section. Anyone is welcome to rewrite those lines.--Onlim (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Southern Levant less political than Canaan?

I changed Palestine to Canaan, and User:AnnekeBart changed to to Southern Levant. The problem with this term is that it's quite vague and, according to the map in its article, covers a much larger area. Now, Canaan is a rather NPOV term that is used by Arabs as well (Kanaan is an Arabic surname) and also by mainstream archeologists. TFighterPilot (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First King of the first dynasty

The article contains the sentence: "The earliest recorded king of the First Dynasty was Hor-Aha". I think this is in blatant disregard for the king lists found on sealings dating from the reigns of Den and Qaa. See the list of Den here : http://egyptology.blog.com/files/2011/07/merneithlist.jpg and that of Qa'a here: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/qaalist.jpg It seems that the kings of this period recognized Narmer as the founder of their dynasty, which is also a strong argument in favor of its identification with Menes. In both Den and Qaa seals, Hor Aha is second on the list.

I thus suggest that we change the article to clearly state that "The earliest recorded king of the First Dynasty was Narmer" and that "he was recognized by the kings of this period as the founder of their dynasty".

Remark that this does not mean that the predecessors of Narmer where not kings or that Narmer took the throne illegally thus breaking a previous local dynasty. Indeed, one should look at the example of Mentuhotep II, who, even though he is not the founding father of the 11th dynasty, was recognized as the founding father of the Middle kingdom by the kings of this period, as can be seen from the many references and honors given by 12th and 13th dynasty kings to Mentuhotep, the restorer of Maat.

In short the seals of Den and Qaa identify explicitely Narmer as predecessing Hor-Aha and as the founder of their dynasty, i.e. at least in the sense that he achieved something sufficiently momentous to be considered as the founding event of the following period by the people of this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I updated the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Surprising statement

The article says : "It seems certain that Egypt became unified as a cultural and economic domain long before its first king ascended to the throne in the lower Egyptian city of Memphis where the dynastic period did originate" This goes against the cultural differences between Upper and Lower Egypt during the Early Dynastic period as discussed in Toby Wilkinson's book and I believe we should be more cautious and not "certain that Egypt became unified as a cultural and economic domain" and even less "long before its first king ascended the to the throne". Also the statement "in the lower Egyptian city of Memphis where the dynastic period did originate" is somewhat misleading or plain false since the first capital was Thinis and Memphis was founded during the early first dynasty, that is after or concurrently with unification. It seems thus more plausible that the throne of the Upper Egyptian kingdom at the time was in Thinis while the capital of the Northern kingdom would certainly not have been in an inexistent city (Memphis) but rather maybe in Buto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)