From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ancient Egypt (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


I defined this article as a stub today. It should contain more about the subject, at least a presentation of the most important and best known egyptologists, and the different areas and topics of ongoing resarch. It should perhaps also contain a section on the history of egyptology. I am merely an interested layman in the field, but it seems unlikely that someone with a better grip on the subject matter, for instance the person or persons behind the portal to egyptology, should not be able to make this article into a real introduction to the subject. One of the objectives of this article should be to get more people interested in its subject. --Thorsen 09:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Only with knowledge of Egyptian writing and language was it possible to study Ancient Egyptian culture.

That's not correct, surely? And the line about `modern Egyptology starting in 1822'---is that true, i.e. is there a good reason for the statement, or is it just twee nonsense? Penfold 09:02, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course, it is possible to study ancient Egyptian culture without a knowledge of Egyptian writing and language, but it would make our understanding all the poorer. I think this is just a matter of wording and semantics..... Far too generalised a comment that needs changing. Perhaps better to say that such an understanding provided keys to studying the culture and provided a strong impetus for the same.
The bit about modern Egyptology starting in 1822 is reasonably valid - 1822 marks the announcement by Champollion of his general decipherment of hieroglyphics for the first time..... Which brings us back to the writing and language point..... I think we could let this comment stand - most professional Egyptologists, including myself, would trace the beginnings of the discipline back to this early point. Pjamescowie 10:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nice work. Ta. Penfold 12:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No worries. I'm looking to make quite a few other changes within the Wikipedia for archaeology topics within my own research domain.... Watch this space! Pjamescowie 13:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So, what meter is this article in? --Richard.lofberg 11:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

An old version of this article is a poem![edit]

Egyptology's the study of Egypt,
By looking at Egyptian antiquities:
They scientifically examine pyramid and the crypt
With an eye out for historical iniquities.

Egyptology's a regional and thematic division
Of the discipline of archeologist
And ancient historian; whose broader vision's
less regional and thematic than the Egyptologist.

Egyptology investigates the range
of Ancient Egyptian cultural change
(In language and writing,
Religion and fighting,
Art, Economics and rhetorical citing)
From the height of the 5th millennium BC
To the end of the Romans in 300 AD.

Modern Egyptology (as opposed to an antiquarian
Interest in Egypt and what is therein)
Is generally perceived as beginning in or on
1822, when Jean-François Champollion
Announced his general decipherment of the system
Of hieroglyphics (for those who'd previously missed them),
With the Rosetta Stone
All on its own
He was able to work out the symbols and list them.

But now we have a far more attractive academic tender
Of Egyptian writing, language, architectural splendour
And the study of Egypt
Is superbly well equipped
To proceed with a rigour that comprehension of written sources was able to engender.

Canals of the Sudan[edit]

It could prove interesting to extend your research into the canals of the Sudan which are equally thought to have been destroyed, like Egypt, by the original, physical, collision with Mars.

When debris rained down from Mars people threw themselves into the canals, as much was hot material. Later it was thought that this was some sort of battle or ritual execution, but it was, in fact the collision. (Hell fire and brimstone, etc.)

Recent edits[edit]

Can anyone explain what the [s]above[/s] deleted sections have to do with Egyptology? If not, then I will report them as vandalism. Cheers Markh 11:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I deleted them as Ian Chattan (talk · contribs) is spamming them or something very like them to several talk pages. Check his contributions list; I'm getting rid of the rambles if you want to deal with the reporting. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Stuff to work in[edit]

  • Methods: How did the Egyptians shape, form, and work granite?
  • Methods: When did Egyptians start producing glass?
  • Methods: Why is there not a neat progression to an Egyptian iron age? Why did the Egyptians take so long to utilize iron?
  • Methods: Were the Egyptians capable of long distant navigation in their boats? When did they become knowledgeable seamen?
  • Knowledge: Did Egyptians have some form of understanding of electricity? Did the Egyptians use batteries? What is the relief at Dendera?
  • Knowledge: What does the Tulli Papyrus describe? Did it come from the reign of Thutmosis III?

01:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Stuff to Work In--Worked On[edit]

  • Knowledge: What was the Saqqara Bird?
    • Just completed a major article overhaul. It still needs work, obviously, but is somewhat less sketchtastic now. Addition of cites please? Anybody? Zhukora (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy history[edit]

Egyptology may only study Egypt up to the 4th century AD, but thats NOT when Roman rule ended. Duh. Ever heard of the BYZANTINE EMPIRE? Check out the Byzantine-Arab wars (which for some stupid reason is in red), please, before you make me laugh. Gees. I changed this to save your sorry asses. Pardon the language and exression but...come on... Gees!! Tourskin.

Scope of this article[edit]

There seems to some confusion here. The article should be about the discipline of Egyptology, not about Ancient Egypt (that is, although it should describe what sorts of things Egyptology studies, it stops there and doesn't start to discuss them).Doug Weller (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Egyptology is not a serious discipline[edit]

I have A LOT to say about this, but dont have time right now,will do it later. Basically I want to point out at the statement saying it is a branch of archaeology - how can that be - archaeology is a science while egyptology is like an amateur hobby -lingering close to pseudo science -why do I say that? Well because egyptology is exclusively made up of guess work and assumptions - a discipline made up of just assumptions and guesses is no science and can't really be taken seriously. I say all this because Egyptology is illiterate in the sciences of astronomy and geology, which as many scientists and historians in the world know can prove or disprove any of the assumptions that the Egyptologist makes. Egyptology doesnt use astronomy and geology, making the discipline ultimately close to useless, Egyptology should be seen as a guideline for archaeology while using astronomy and geology!! The most important example here is the dating of the pyramids. Egyptology asserts the given date (by assumptions and guesswork, ignoring astronomers and geologist), while real scientists such as geologist and astronomers point out that they are far, far older (with proper, real evidence - which automatically gains more respect than egyptologists' claims, as the evidence by geologists and astronomers is based on real, factual science). Many, many, many people are aware of this, but this doesn't get mentioned a lot, why? I think this is completely ridiculous. Egyptology is given far more respect and acknowledgment than it really deserves, as a matter of fact, by understanding what I said above, you will see it deserves close to none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Handy tl;dr summary: Egyptology is bunk, Pyramidology is real science! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


A mature category exists called "Category:Pseudoegyptology". It imagines its primary article to be the currently-nonexistent "Pseudoegyptology" article, which I have no intention of writing (although another editor might choose to do so). Instead, I have:

  1. . Separated the last paragraph of this article to a section called "Egyptology#Pseudoegyptology" and
  2. . At "Pseudoegyptology", redirected the term to the aforementioned section.

I don't plan to remain involved here, but I did want to mention what I'd done.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The section has been deleted for lack of sources in the meanwhile. That said, is there any appreciable difference between Pyramidology and Pseudoegyptology at all? (Seeing that pyramidology covers all the range from assorted pseudoarchaeological to numerological speculations.) I suspect there would be no loss in deleting Category:Pseudoegyptology as virtually redundant with Category:Pyramidology (after moving the remaining articles from Category:Pseudoegyptology there) and redirecting Pseudoegyptology to Pyramidology. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Florian, Pyramidology is a specific brand of idiocy which encompasses the outrageous claims made about pyramids. We cannot simply apply the “Pyramidology” label to all ancient Egypt-related stupidity because doing so would be original research. (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, pyramidology is more like a subset of "pseudoegyptology". There are all sorts of mystical and pseudoarchaeological claims made about ancient Egypt. The pyramids are only the most popular subject for the mystics.
A bigger problem is that I've never seen RSes use the term "pseudoegyptology". Erik Hornung, in The Secret Lore of Egypt, dubs it "Egyptosophy". The term "alternative Egyptology" may have a slightly wider currency, although I prefer Hornung's word. See the discussion at Talk:R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz#Egyptologist, where Morgan Leigh and I settled on describing Schwaller de Lubicz as an alternative Egyptologist.
I keep track of Egyptosophical subjects a good bit, and I can tell you there really aren't a lot of good sources that analyze it. I have enough that I could write an anemic article on it, but I don't even have time for that right now. And without an article to support it, the category is on shaky ground. Pyramidology, the Dendera light, and the Saqqara bird would pretty clearly fit in such a category, as would the Hancock and Bauval book. But including the Book of Sothis is original research. Personally, I believe the book is a good example of the mysticism that has surrounded Egypt since Roman times, which is the direct forerunner of modern Egyptosophy, but I know of no sources that say so. The category should probably be scrapped for now. Put the Dendera light, Saqqara bird, the Hancock and Bauval book, and the Pyramidology category in Category:Pseudoarchaeology. Just leave the Book of Sothis out of it. The category may become viable someday, as I think scholars are beginning to pay more attention to the subject. A. Parrot (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I hadn't checked the Pyramidology article closely – I saw ancient astronauts and all kind of bunk in the table of contents and thought pyramidiocy is a random grab-bag of assorted speculation about ancient Egypt while missing that it's really all related to pyramids.
Those articles you name are already in that category. I've listed this category for deletion as it is now redundant. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)