Talk:Prehistoric Egypt

Untitled

It's disputed whether this began 4000 BC (beginning of Naqada culture) or in the Lower Paleolithic? That seems quite suspicious, as the Lower Paleolithic ended 120,000 years ago. Even the Upper Paleolithic is 4500 years older than that. Could somebody back this up? Nickptar 00:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Paleolithic is merely being confused with Neolithic. --Wetman 02:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paleolithic or Predynastic?

It's disputed whether this began 4000 BC (beginning of Naqada culture) or in the 
Lower Paleolithic? ... Could somebody back this up?

Every book I consulted on this question (e.g. Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, among others) starts the Predynastic at either c.5300 BC (as in Oxford History of Ancient Egypt) or c.4400 BC at the time of the Badari culture (for upper Egypt). The paleolithic should not be placed in the predynastic. I know there will always be some dispute, but Oxford History of Ancient Egypt is an authoritative reference.

I propose that what is currently in Predynastic Egypt (which mainly covers the paleolithic and up to 4th and 5th millenia BC) be placed in its own, new article called the Paleolithic Period (Egypt) or something similar, and that the Predynastic Egypt article contain detailed chronology of the Badari and Naqada I-II cultures (at a minimum), consistent with the Oxford History and most other standard references. I have already written quite a bit of material (offline) about Badari through Naqada III and I would be willing to make the changes on Wiki, and expand the stubs or write new pages if needed.

If anyone has any opinions on this, I'd like to hear it, and I would like to know what the ramifications are of making such a change. I won't make any changes until I hear some input. --Jeff Dahl 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gardiner puts the paleolithic in the predynastic. So does Grimal. The predynastic isn't a really quite well defined term, it's just basically everything before the dynastic. Thanatosimii 23:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Check that-- Egyptologists usually treat the stone age during the predynastic, although the predynastic proper starts with the Tasian and Baderian culture groups. Thus, the section "Precursors to the Predynastic" has been created, and treats the stone age still in this article, but the predynastic itself should be differeniated. Thanatosimii 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Origins

Has anyone an idea about the ethnic origins of the ancient Egyptians??

It was there at that time, a copy of which is in the library of Syracuse University in New York, and I quote from the hieratic writing, "We came from the beginning of the Nile where God Hapi dwells, at the foothills of The Mountains of the Moon." "We," meaning the Egyptians, as stated, came from the beginning of the Nile. Where is "the beginning of the Nile?" The farthest point of the beginning of the Nile is in Uganda; this is the White Nile. Another point is in Ethiopia. The Blue Nile and White Nile meet in Khartoum; and the other side of Khartoum is the Omdurman Republic of Sudan. From there it flows from the south down north. And there it meets with the Atbara River in Atbara, Sudan "also kilimanjaro means foothills of the mountain of the moon"

my brief reading is that the proto Semetic-Hamitic orginated in the Green Sahara if so Egyptians would have started to separate out as distict group when the Sahara started to dry up.Dejvid 17:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit help

Over time, I will be attempting to "clean up" the Egyptian pages that are interlinked, but with so many contributors, there is a lack of cohesion in the way common terms are written. For example: pharaoh should not be capitalized unless it proceeds the pharaoh's name, as in his title. Otherwise "pharaoh" is a a general term. Also, the term "dynasty" (and the number associated with it) is written in a number of ways...I prefer to use the proper name spelled out. Instead of 5th dynasty..it is Fifth Dynasty (though the "master" wikipedia pages regarding each dynasty are spelled with a lowercase "d"). At some point, I would request a change for a capital on the masters, as the official and/or proper name for any dynasty includes the word "Dynasty." Lastly, use the character of a number when referring to years (2, 3, 4)(except one, which is always spelled out). Spell out all other numbers in sentences up to 99. At 100 or more, use the characters (100, 101, 102). I would appreciate everyone's help in getting the Egyptian pages under control with a more consistent format. Thanks Brina700 02:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Nabta Playa

Can someone verify the edits regarding Nabta Playa ? I refer you to User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Wizzy…☎ 09:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have done a major revert of the main page back to September 22nd. 4.241.* anon addresses are also Roylee IP addresses. I have had no confirmation from my previous request that these edits are legitimate. Wizzy…☎ 08:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

...and many reasons in fact to assume they are not. — mark ✎ 09:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Folks, Historians, I need some help here. You can see (from the diffs) the large amount of material added by Roylee - the 4.241.* IP addresses convince me that it is all the same user. I am not an Egyptologist, I think we are fighting a low-level POV pusher. Roylee never enters dialog on Talk pages. I see this as vandalism that is particularly tiresome to remove (if it is vandalism). Roylee starts a page (this time Nabta Playa) and then makes lots of small, self-referential edits that support his position to many surrounding pages - if you say it three times it is true. He has pushed POV about Ancient Egyptians and Shipbuilding, Ancient Egyptians and Electricity, and now we have this. Wizzy…☎ 19:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Question: is this page (with its many references to Nabta Playa) a NPOV encyclopedic work ?

I concur, we really need fact-checkers and expert editors here. I have just reverted Roylee's addition of his material again because I think it is very important that Roylee take part in the discussion of this specific edits, but also of his editing pattern in general (the latter discussion can probably better take place somewhere else). — mark ✎ 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal

I removed this sentence until verified. See also Talk:Silk Road: There is evidence that ancient Egyptian explorers may have originally cleared and protected some branches of the Silk Road. --JFK 09:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for doing that. For more information on who added it, see User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee. — mark ✎ 11:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pigs cause Sahara desert?

The Late Neolithic section of this entry points to the Sahara Desert (ecoregion) section of the Wikipedia in reference to the theory that pigs helped cause the desertification of the Sahara, however that information was removed from that section in July. So, should it be added back to that section (with references) and any contradictions in other articles cleaned up, or should the reference be removed from this section? I would guess that the answer depends on whether the claim can be justified. Anyone want to tackle this one? -- 70.20.151.239 12:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the references in this section

Interestingly, the domestication of the pig (see  
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pigs.htm]) in the Sahara and ancient Egypt has been  
cited as a likely primary contributor to the desertification of the Sahara (see [[Sahara Desert 
(ecoregion)#Settings|Sahara Desert (ecoregion)]]).

actually point to a primary source confirming this. In an article "Pigs and their prohibition" in Int. J. Middle East Stud. 26 (1994), 57-75 Richard A. Lobban, Jr., states that "the desert began to encroach upon the narrow river valley habitat" as early as 7000 BC, but that domestication of the pig began as early as 5000 BC. This seems to indicate that the "primary contributor" to the desertification of the Sahara was not domesticated pigs, because the dessication began before domestication of the pig. This is not to say, however, that the pigs had no effect on the environment.

I am going to remove this claim because it does not have any citation(s), other citations show that dessication was not due to the domesticated pig, and because it is merely speculation. --Jeff Dahl 21:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultures, not dates.

It is customary to refer to a culture type, not a date. Dates are quite estimated. Egyptology may dispute when a culture happened quite vigorously, but people don't dispute what happened during a culture nearly as much. So the dates are eventually going to need to be changed to tasian, badarian, amratian, and gerzean cultures, or Naqada I and II for the last two depending on what source to use. Thanatosimii 23:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Storage

Whoever wrote this, by all means put some of this back in. However, dates don't help me when trying to put this into the article, because dates are not agreed on. If you know what culture group to put these things in, however, by all means do so. Thanatosimii 03:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Late Neolithic

Evidence indicates human habitation in the southwestern corner of Egypt, near the Sudan border, before 8000 BC.

Climate changes and/or overgrazing around 8000 BC began to desiccate the pastoral lands of Egypt, eventually forming the Sahara (c. 2500 BC), and early tribes naturally migrated to the Nile river where they developed a settled agricultural economy and more centralized society.

There is evidence of pastoralism and cultivation of cereals in the East Sahara in the 7th millennium BC.

Domesticated animals had already been imported from Asia between 7500 BC and 4000 BC (see Sahara: History, Cattle period).

The earliest known artwork of ships in ancient Egypt dates to 6000 BCE (reference: 'Britannica subscribers only').

6th millennium BC

By 6000 BC predynastic Egyptians in the southwestern corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings.

Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in ancient Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture: cattle, goats, pigs and sheep [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Tanning animal skins, pottery and weaving are commonplace in this era also [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. There are indications of seasonal or only temporary occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC, with food activities centering on fishing, hunting and food-gathering [1]. Stone arrowheads, knives and scrapers are common [2].

Burial items in this era include pottery, jewelry, farming and hunting equipment, and assorted foods including dried meat and fruit [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. The dead are buried facing due west [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm].

Baskets of exceedingly high quality date to circa 5000 BC [3].

5th millennium BC

Items dating to this era of the Al Fayyum (5200 BC-4000 BC) include: axes of basalt, dolerite and limestone [4]; a diorite mace head; dolerite vase; a wooden sickle [5] and sickle blades [6]; arrowheads [7]; stone palettes and grain rubbers; silos [8]; dishes, cups, bowls and pots [9]; as well as beads of amazonite (feldspar) [10].

The Badarian way of life centered mostly on agriculture, fishing and animal husbandry (see Badarian). Foreign artifacts indicate distant contacts as far away as Syria [11]. Furniture, tableware, decorated pots and vases, combs and figurines all appear around this time [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Social stratification has been inferred from the burying of more prosperous members of the community in a different part of the cemetery (see Badarian).

Around 4500 BC the Naqada culture begins, with geometric, human- and animal-shaped designs adorning pottery, both carved and painted [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Shapes of vessels become specialized depending on function [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Models of rectangular houses (included in grave goods) also appear in this era [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm].

A finely woven linen fragment in the Al Fayyum dates to 4400 BC [12].

By 4000 BC we have evidence of pre-dynastic alchemists having invented the use of mortar (masonry) (see Alchemy in Ancient Egypt) via one of the oldest known of chemical reactions (see calcium oxide).

4th millennium BC

By 4000 BC human, animal, and other designs on pottery become more realistic [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Tomb-building appears in the Gerzean culture, including underground rooms with furniture and amulets [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Gerzean practices would later evolve into the Osiris cult of ancient Egypt [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm]. Symbols on Gerzean pottery resemble traditional hieroglyph writing [http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm].

By the beginning of the 4th millennium BC, ancient Egyptians in Maadi were importing numerous items of pottery from south Naqada and Canaan [13]. The economy of Maadi seems to have centered on metallurgy and foreign trade [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/maadi.htm]. Many vessels made of black basalt also appear at this time [14]. There is evidence of the use of wooden posts in Maadi, maybe for buildings and/or fences. Also found are fire places and pits [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/maadi.htm].

The earliest known buildings of stone to appear in ancient Egypt date to this era in Maadi, including one subterranean building that was constructed by covering walls of stone with Nile mud, another building thats entrance seems to have been fashioned by carving the local bedrock, and other building designs which also reveal distant southern Canaanite contact [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/maadi.htm].

Lapis lazuli was being traded from its only known source in the ancient world – Badakshan, in what is now northeastern Afghanistan – as far as Mesopotamia and Egypt by the second half of the 4th millennium BC. Between 1979 and 1985, charcoal samples found in the tombs of Nekhen, which were dated to the Naqada I and II periods, were identified as cedar from Lebanon [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hierakonpolis.htm].

A few comments.....

It looks like eurocentrism is rearing its ugly head again in certain sections of the Foreign Contacts piece. Why would something like recessed panel architecture have to be foreign in origin? Couldn't it be simply independently invented and simply due to indigenous cultural evolution? And writing was definitely not an area of influence since heiroglyphics PREDATE Sumerian cuneiform. I feel like a big deal is being made of foreign influences, like asiatic influences were definitive in the establishment of dynastic egypt. Of course foreign motifs are going to appear in late dynastic times simply due to trade and interaction and even migration, but they weren't wide-scale. The Dynastic Race theory shouldn't even be mentioned here, because it was torn apart so many times and so long ago. Peace. Get back to me. Teth22 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The material you have a problem with is cited by the preeminant scholar in the western hemisphere. If you have a problem with the state of scholarship, become a scholar and publish things yourself, don't try to get your views promulgated on wikipedia. This is not a forum for discussion of what is true or not, and statements in the article do not need to be defended here as true, but simply as cited by Reliable Sources, which they are. Concerning your objection to the Dynastic race theory, does not the text explicitly say "In recent years however, this theory has been discounted."?
Quite simply, although you may call this "Eurocentric," it is the state of modern legitimate scholarship. Eurocentric has become nothing but a pejorative term used to silence the fact that scholarship is inconveniently entierly contrary to what some would like it to say. Thanatosimii 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Early Religon?

Does anyone have any info on the religon of this period? I mean, was Horus and Seth (or their earlier forms) worshipped? Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Year 3411 BC

Under the section on the El-Omari culture, the date "3411 BC" was given for the start of the archaic period. This is obviously inaccurate (the archaic period began around 3100 BC), but seemed oddly specific. I thought maybe it was the date of a volcanic eruption, or something else that could be easily pinpointed using radiocarbon dating or geological evidence. I decided to google it ("3411 BC" archaic period of Egypt), and only three pages of results came up; on every single one, the exact text of this article was simply being reiterated. There was absolutely not a single site with any independent claim that the archaic period began in the year 3411 BC (or, for that matter, any reason to believe that ANYTHING of import occurred in 3411 BC). The date appears to be randomly invented and thrown into this article, without any supporting statements or reasoning. Until any is provided, I think it should be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionboy-Renae (talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Better

if you want to further improve this article you could translate the wiki Lusophone.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed "Israel" Back To "Palestine" And "Turkey" To "Anatolia"

"Israel" refers to the modern nation, and the jewish people, which did not exist in the region prior to about 1200 BCE, when Joshua arrived and seized it from the Canaanites, and certainly no earlier than about 2000 BCE, when Abraham arrived. "Palestine" refers simply to the region, and is not used here in a politically divisive way. It should therefore be retained.

Turkey also did not exist prior to about 1400 CE. "Anatolia" refers to the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionboy-Renae (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. Palestine was a politically created designation to describe the area which geographically and culturally is know and Israel, or the land of Israel. So you have really three choices. The most correct being Israel. Next correct, Judaen Hills or Judeah. Or the Levant, which broadly defines the entire costal region from Gaza to Lebenon. Palestine is NOT a geographical work, but a political designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Israel" refers to the jewish patriach Jacob Israel. "Judeah" refers to the jewish tribe of Judah. "Levant" refers to the jewish personnage Levi. You cannot logically use a jewish name to refer to a region prior to jewish existence in that region. It would be like saying "Julius Caesar conquered France." It's just not correct; "France" refers to the modern nation which descends from the frankish kingdoms; Julius Caesar conquered the gauls, not the french. Likewise, "Palestine" and "Canaan" refer to the region; specifically they refer to the original inhabitants, known in the Bible as "philistines" or "canaanites", who were kicked out by Joshua and his successors. "Palestine" and "Canaan" are the only acceptable names to use when referring to the region prior to the invasion of the israelites in the second millennium BCE. If you've edited the article to reflect your etymological ignorance, I am now going to edit it back. Good day, sir. Lionboy-Renae (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Grammar and Language

"The vast majority of Predynastic archaeological finds have been in Upper Egypt, because the silt of the Nile River was more heavily deposited at the Delta region, completely burying most Delta sites long before modern times.[1]" though useful, is another example of syntax and comfortable language seamlessly making concepts of Upper and Lower Egypt confusing to intuition. A better statement could be made with a reference footnote such as: "The vast majority of Predynadtic arcahelogical finds have been in Upper Egypt." Aside from language concerns, and the quasi-academic grammar of the quoted reference, the "because" statement presumes sites existed of any significance which could be excavated. The statement is opinion, not empirical fact, misleading, and confusing.

Predynastic Period.

I am unsure as to why this page is titled Prehistoric Egypt. In Egyptological parlance, Egyptian history prior to the beginning of the First Dynasty is typically called the Predynastic Period. You'll find this usage in any text on the subject. It was titled that way when I wrote much of the article and gave it its present form using the sub-periods of the Predynastic as sub-headings, stopping it cold right before the beginning of the Dynastic periods. Prehistory, contrarily, is a somewhat ill defined term, which, if we take it to mean the period before writing or written history, can variously be said to not quite aptly describe the Naqada III period, or to still aptly describe the first two dynasties. We should probably stick with the standard title. Thanatosimii (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the article history for Predynastic Egypt, User:Dbachmann moved it to the present title in 2011 because it has "wider scope". I can sort of see that, as "predynastic" seems a rather silly term to apply to the millennia when the only signs of human habitation are bones and stone tools. But it is definitely the usual term for the thousand years before the start of the First Dynasty.

I don't know that there's a firm delineation between "predynastic" and whatever came before it. Because the term is the product of an Egyptological viewpoint that's based in dynastic civilization and focuses primarily on its origins, the term feels like its meaning is concentrated in the Naqada periods and fades out as one looks backward. It may sometimes be applied to the whole Neolithic, or to all of Egyptian prehistory. If "Predynastic Egypt" does apply to all prehistory, that should definitely be the article title. If not, I would still weakly support a move back there, both because of your arguments and because most of what we know about Egyptian prehistory is from the predynastic periods. A. Parrot (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my rationale. "Predynastic" means "before the dynasties", and treats anything before the First Dynasty as a prelude. You can view the Neolithic period under this aspect, but it is sort of pointless to call the Paleolithic "predynastic", you might as well call it "pre-modern". You can move it back if you like, but then I would advocate that this page should be about the Neolithic period exclusively. The Mesolithic and Paleolithic cultures discussed here have little or nothing to do with the emergence of Egyptian culture, they just happened to be located in the general region, and if this is to be "Predynastic Egypt", they should be exported to a more general treatment of the "North African Stone Age". E.g. the proper context of Harifian is a "Circum-Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex" and not "Predynastic Egypt" specifically. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be overlap? Naqada I and II could be construed as part of a "Prehistoric Egypt" article and part of a "Predynastic Egypt" article, so put them in one article with the other treating them like this treats Naqada III? — Darekun (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Most probably a Predynastic Egypt article should be cobbled together by taking the text herein which covers the cultures typically considered predynastic and simply summarizing it in this page. Predynastic Egypt is a standard entry in any Egyptological encyclopedia, and it bothers me not to have it, but I can accept the rationale for not putting cultures outside of the Baderian-Naqada periods under that heading.

As an aside, I really hope I wasn't the one who wrote the Tasian paragraph in its present form, because as I understand it Tasian sites are commonly considered to merely be Badarian sites happenstantially lacking chalcolithic remnants, and not a discrete culture group. That was the prevailing current in the most recent literature I read, at least. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Stone tool technologies (Illustrations)

Many casual, non-specialist readers will be quite unfamiliar with the specifics of the various stone-tool technologies referred to in this article. It would be extremely useful if this omission could be remedied, by the inclusion of appropriate additional illustrations and/or cross-referencing to other articles. 86.183.237.37 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The scope of this article is prehistoric Egypt, not predynastic Egypt. — kwami (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Prehistoric Egypt → Predynastic Egypt – This is also being discussed as a CFD [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_27#Category:Predynastic_Egypt Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

• Support. The first two dynasties can be considered legendary, so this is more precise. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the pre-dynastic period may be construed to cover Dynasty 0, the Scorpion Kings, and the era where writing was first developed, and not all of prehistory. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Pre" just means "before." Perhaps you are thinking of protodynastic? ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"pre-dynastic" is also used to cover a more defined period, of which protodynastic is the end of that period. (see AParrot's response) So, a split of the article can probably be done as well. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Predynastic is more descriptive than Prehistoric. RO^(talk) 22:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support But "predynastic" should apply only to part of the period that's covered in this article, and Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic sections should be moved to Prehistoric North Africa. I've never seen anybody refer to the Paleolithic or Mesolithic as "predynastic". A. Parrot (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Split -- Applying the move to the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic eras would be a lack of common sense. These periods should be considered prehistorical. What "Pre" should refer to are the emerging cultures which "had patterns of civilization that displayed characteristics deserving to be called Egyptian". -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose In common use, "prehistoric" means anything and everything before recorded history. By definition it includes the periods covered by this article. "Predynastic" is a much narrower term, usually applied to the period just before the emergence of the first dynasty. It doesn't begin to cover all of Egyptian prehistory, so moving the article there would create confusion where the current title creates none. Also, I have no idea what ConstitutionalRepublic means by the comment about the first two dynasties. If by "legendary" he means "fictional", then he's clearly contradicted by more than a century of archaeology, demonstrating that most or all of the kings grouped by Manetho into the first two dynasties were historical persons, even if we're not sure about all the details of their lives. But if he's proposing that the first two dynasties are prehistoric, and that prehistoric is synonymous with predynastic, then we're creating a semantic trap by which we say that the first two dynasties are predynastic, and that the earliest historical accounts of Egypt are prehistoric. Wikipedia shouldn't treat ordinary English as an impenetrable language, with words that seem to mean one thing arbitrarily being used to mean the exact opposite. P Aculeius (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM closure

An RM should be closed after a discussion dies down. To close a discussion right after a lengthy rank against me is posted strikes me as a sharp tactic. No, it is just not true that, ""Predynastic" is a much narrower term, usually applied to the period just before the emergence of the first dynasty." In Britannica's "Egypt, ancient" article, the "predynastic" section covers both the Neolithic and Protodynastic periods. The editor here has confused the terms protodynastic and predynastic. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)