Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Gitton Michel verifications[edit]

I'm going to post all of the material attributed to Gitton below with their current citations. I'll attempt to resolve the citation issues myself, but as Gitton is in French, I'm welcoming input regarding the correct location for the statements. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The mummy emitted such a bad odor that Brugsch had it reburied on museum grounds in Cairo until the offensive smell abated. Exposed to ambient air, the mummy decomposed and was lost cited to Gitton 1973, p.23
I believe the relevant quote from Gitton 1981, p. 23 is: La momie débarrassée de ses bandelettes, s'est révélée celle d'une femme âgée (186), à la peau blanche. Mis au contact de l'air, le corps s'est décomposé. La momie mesurait 1,61 m. But cannot see where it says that the mummy (as a whole) was lost, only decomposed.
I can confirm the interpretation of the statement in Gitton, according to which the body of the mummy decomposed only (and was not lost). The primary source for the statement is Maspero (1889). That the mummy was not lost is further substantiated by additional descriptions (and photographs currently featured in the article) in Smith (1912), according to whom her skin is blackened like the majority of the mummies of the period. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
resolved by Charles
In the tomb of Tetyky (TT15), the queen is depicted wearing a brow ornament with two ureaei instead of a double gazelle cited to Gitton 1973, p. 14
Failed verification. Does not appear to be on p. 14 of either source. The tomb of Tetiky is mentioned on pp. 11–12 of Gitton 1981, but I cannot determine the bit that may be relevant.
Concerning "In the tomb of Tetyky (TT15), the queen is depicted wearing a brow ornament with two ureaei instead of a double gazelle cited to Gitton 1973, p. 14",
"A.N. y est representée sur le tympan au-dessus de l'entree de la chapelle en train de rendre un culte a Hathor nbt'Iwnyt, la reine est vetue d'une longue robe fourreau, coiffee de la lourde perruque tripartite et porte une curieuse couronne faite de deux rangees de cobras, avec sur le front deux uraeus [A.N. is represented on the tympanum above the entrance to the chapel worshiping Hathor nbt'Iwnyt, the queen is dressed in a long sheath dress, wearing the heavy tripartite wig and wears a curious crown made of two rows of cobras, with two uraeus on the forehead]"—Michel Gitton, L'épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary, p. 11 (1981)
"In the tomb of Tetyky (18.3/2; pp. 123a and 129b) Ahmose Nefertari does not wear a brow ornament with a double gazelle, but with two uraei (see N. d. G. Davies, JEA 11 [1925], p. 14 and pl. II)"—Peter Dils, Review of Patterns of Queens hip in ancient Egyptian Myth and History (1989)
Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Michel Gitton notes that while in most artistic depictions of the queen, she is pictured with black skin cited to Gitton 1973, p. 84
No idea, both sources have a p. 84, I'm not sure where to look.
Concerning, the instance where "Michel Gitton notes that [...] in most artistic depictions of the queen, she is pictured with black skin", indeed he admitted that he wasn't able to check the colors on location himself, and defers to Davies' figure. He provides Davies' figure according to which AN is depicted much more frequently in natural black skin (including purplish-black) than red and yellow, and he does not give one himself. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Gitton does not 'defer to Davies' figure, he states that his survey (sondage personnel) indicates a figure much lower (nettement moins forte) than Davies' 4:1 but cannot provide a general figure (chiffre général) because he cannot verify the colours on site (faute d'avoir pu vérifier les couleurs sur place) and particularly in places where the publications are inaccurate or uncertain (les publications sont inexactes ou incertaines). I quoted the latter half of the sentence which says all this already.
There's a provided page number, if the statement exists it will be either on the page cited or not. If no, just say no.
I can rewrite the sentence to quote Davies figure, acknowledge that Gitton thinks the figure is too high, and leave it at that. E.g.: 'Gitton acknowledges Davies estimate that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted with dark skin four times more often than light skin, though indicates that his own survey suggests a much lower figure, but also notes there are other cases in which she is shown with a pink, golden, [dark] blue,* or dark red complexion'. I can do that, because that is what Gitton actually says about the matter on pp. 74–75.
*Gitton says bleu foncé/noir rather than bleu. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, acknowledged and deferred to provide a figure himself, only providing Davies' figure. I agree with making the article more faithful to all of the reliable and notable source material. There is no need to conceal the colors and terminology (i.e. complexion) that Davies is referring to, in Gitton's direct reference to Davies' statement. I prefer : 'Gitton acknowledges Davies' estimate that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted with dark complexion (black) four times more often than light complexions (red and yellow). He indicates that his own survey suggests a much lower figure although he could not provide a general figure as he could not verify the colors on site. He also notes there are other cases in which she is shown with a pink, golden, dark blue, or dark red skin color.' Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is "complexion" the correct translation? It seems that "representations" is the closer word? Wdford (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Complexion comes from Davies. Gitton says representations. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
resolved by citation swap
there are other cases in which she is shown with a pink, golden, blue, or dark red complexion cited to Gitton 1973, pp. 74–75
Appears to match comments on pp. 75 of the 1981 source: Notons pour finir que ce ne sont pas deux couleurs qu'il faut opposer, mais qu'il y a en réalité au moins quatre teintes possibles pour représenter le corps de la reine.
In 1981 Gitton called the issue of Ahmose-Nefertari's black color "a serious gap in the Egyptological research, which allows approximations or untruths" very questionably cited to Gitton 1973, p. 2
I've confirmed this bit to be on p. 2 of the 1981 source.
He pointed out that there is no known depiction of her painted during her lifetime (although she is depicted with the same light skin as other depicted individuals in tomb TT15, before her deification); the earliest black skin depiction appears in tomb TT161, circa 150 years after her death - cited to Gitton 1973 pp. 74–75
Charles has pointed this out previously, that on p. 23 Gitton simply states that there is no contemporary portrait of her during her lifetime: Malheureusement nous n'avons jusqu'à présent aucun portrait contemporain de la reine
Regarding 'TT161' I am able to find this on p. 75 of the 1981 source: Par contre, nous pouvons essayer de déterminer la première apparition de la couleur sombre. Il semble qu'on puisse dater les premiers documents qui la comportent (ch. I, 34 ; III, TT 161) du règne d'Aménophis III ou au maximum du règne de Thoutmosis IV.
Regarding 'TT15' the material on it is on pp. 11–12

There appears to be an error in formatting as well, as 'refname=Gitton 1981' points to Gitton 1973: <ref name="gitton81">{{Cite journal|last=Gitton|first=Michel|date=1973|title=Ahmose Nefertari, sa vie et son culte posthume|journal=École Pratique des Hautes études, 5e Section, Sciences Religieuses|volume=85|issue=82|page=84|doi=10.3406/ephe.1973.20828|issn=0183-7451}}</ref>. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

off-topic
"Fringe" is determined with reference to scholarship, not your personal interpretations.
Nowhere does Gitton say AN was literally a black person - in fact totally the opposite. Nowhere does Gitton suggest that Davies may have been correct - in fact, totally the opposite. The fact that more tombs showed her as a goddess than a human, does not change anything.
Who disputed the identification of the mummy of AN - and on what grounds? Reference?
Nowhere does Yurco even mention AN, far less discuss her colouring.
The fact that some people in the New Kingdom were depicted realistically, does not mean all portrayals were automatically realistic, and that symbolism had been abandoned. This was the age of Armana, where artistic conventions were radically different, but Armana came long after AN.
Modern day Egyptians are not black, so if they looked then as now, your thesis is meaningless. Even "white" people are not actually white, especially if they live outdoors in a hot climate, so if portrayed accurately they will be some shade of brown.
Nowhere do the reliable sources support the POV that AN was depicted with natural black skin. Please stop with the deluge method, and cite specifically an instance where a reliable source supports the POV that AN was depicted with natural black skin.
Wdford (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section has one purpose and one purpose only. To confirm that Gitton says what the article says it does. What fails verification needs to be removed, what passes verification needs to have the correct details in the citation. It does not matter if Gitton is right or wrong for this purpose. That can be dealt with in the above section. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replaced Gitton, Michel (1973). "Ahmose Nefertari, sa vie et son culte posthume". École Pratique des Hautes études, 5e Section, Sciences Religieuses. 85 (82): 84. doi:10.3406/ephe.1973.20828. ISSN 0183-7451. with Gitton, Michel (1981). L'épouse du dieu, Ahmes Néfertary : documents sur sa vie et son culte posthume (2 ed.). Besançon: Université de Franche-Comté. ISBN 2-251-60172-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help). There's only one possible citation to the 1973 article. There's an isbn warning, but I've checked several times that I've copied the isbn from here correctly. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mr rnddude, maybe this discussion on my talk page could help with this Gitton quest. Khruner (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the sentence, Gitton never claimed that depictions of A.N. are unknown in her lifetime (as incorrectly understandable from the clumsy Google translation), but rather that A.N. is always depicted as "non-black" during her lifetime - Khruner this causes more confusion than anything, because it raises a new question. Elsewhere, on p. 23 Gitton says Malheureusement, nous n'avons jusqu'a present aucun portrait contemporain de la reine, which both Iry-Hor and Charles informed us meant that there are no contemporary portraits of the queen. So which is it? Do we have no contemporary portraits of the queen, or no contemporary portraits in black of the queen. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed the two claims are apparently irreconcilable. The broader quote of Gitton, p. 23 is Le fait qu'A. Ν . était de pigmentation claire infirme définitivement l'hypothèse d'une ascendance nubienne fondée sur des représentations, d'ailleurs très postérieures, d'A.N. avec les chairs noires. On aimerait comparer ses traits avec ceux des statuettes votives qui lui sont consacrées. Malheureusement, nous n'avons jusqu'a present aucun portrait contemporain de la reine. which translates in The fact that A. Ν. was of pale pigmentation definitively invalidates the hypothesis of a Nubian ancestry based on - moreover much later - representations of A.N. with black skin. We would like to compare her features with those of the votive statuettes dedicated to her. Unfortunately we have so far no portrait contemporary of the queen. I don't want to force a conclusion, but it may be interesting to note how in Google translate the French word "portrait" can be translated with the English "statue portrait" which would also fit the context (the votive statuettes). If this were the case, there would be no disagreement between Gitton's claims: 1) We have no contemporary statue(tte)s of the queen; 2) We have not contemporary depictions of the queen with black skin (for example, she is depicted as "pale" as the others in TT15, which dates to the late reign of Ahmose I when the queen was still well alive and kicking). Khruner (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gitton Michel mummy reference[edit]

Concerning the mummy of Ahmose-Nefertari, the conclusions which Gitton drew from Maspero (1889) are quite fringe and inconsistent with the literature which already addressed AN's phenotype and genealogy. The Maspero reference in the explanatory notes could be removed. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue here is not Gitton's conclusions, but the conclusions of Barbara Lesko.
Per your "disputed" reference:
A) Dylan Bickerstaffe is hardly a reliable source, and
B) The contestation of his article is not about the coffin, but the ownership of the tomb. Since dozens of mummies were found stashed in that tomb, it is not disputed that most of them were brought in from elsewhere. This article has no bearing on the ownership of the coffin, in which Lesko noted the coffin portrait of Ahmose-Nefertari.
Once again, it seems that you are misapplying sources. Wdford (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Referencing a copy of 'The Royal Tombs of Ancient Egypt' (2016) by Aidan Dodson, his comment on TT320 is thus: However, the earliest known potential queens' tombs are around Deir el-Bahari, where a long corridor-tomb (TT320 - fig. 20a) ... has been argued to have originally been that of Ahmes-Nefertiry, wife of Ahmose I.82 on (p. 79). Footnote 82 points to 'Porter and Moss 1960-64: 383, 658-67; Graefe and Belova (eds) 2010; on original ownership, see Aston 2013, the riposte in Graefe and Bickerstaffe 2013 and Aston's reply (2015).'. I'll see if I can find any of those sources, particularly the more recent ones. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aston 20131 and 20152 (see p. 27 onwards) are easily accessible and affirm what Wdford says above. Graefe & Bickerstaffe (2013) is in Gottinger-Miszellen, a German journal which I have no access to. The article is 'Die sogenannte konigliche Chachette TT320 was keinesfalls das Grab der Ahmose-Nofretere' by Graefe & Bickerstaffe. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your helpful clarifications about the Graefe and Bickerstaffe reference. I was surprised that you would support the identification of the mummy. With regard to Gitton's choice of primary source, I suppose some technologies and their applications were still relatively unfamiliar in his time. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive[edit]

Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena has been blocked from this page for a month. Discussion has quieted down in his absence, so the extremely long talk page section titled "Article neutrality" has stopped expanding. I've taken the liberty of archiving it, and the sections that preceded it, simply because this page was becoming too long to navigate. If discussion starts up again once the block expires, as seems likely, the page will then be easier to read. A. Parrot (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To comment on content, the extent of the archiving seemed excessive, and rushing to archive ongoing and evolving content (directly following unilateral external involvement) hardly appropriate. Certain situations appear unlikely to recur (apparently and importantly, "there is no fixed limit for how many edits you can make to a talk page"). It seems to me that great care should be applied when taking discretionary actions, and that intervening in matters of subjectivity should not be confused with limiting the expression of objective truths (however inconvenient). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statuette[edit]

A photograph of a statuette was added to the section which discusses the mummy and actually replaced the photograph of the mummy itself. The photograph of the mummy is valuable and the identification of the mummy is not disputed. I added a photograph of a statuette in the section beneath instead, where a statue is discussed. I used the statuette reflecting the most common depiction (with black or purplish black complexion). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rollbacking edits to pre-April 10th[edit]

I did a spot-check of the major edits that Charles conducted on April 10th, and some are not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Two specific edits that needed reversion are: this attempt to obfuscate the unreliability of Bernal as a source. this misrepresentation of Gitton as a source (the claim that Gitton backs Davies has been repeatedly debunked, see the above section).. There are other edits after these that do not appear controversial, however I was forced to use a manual rollback as the issues that were introduced could not be undone without it. I will attempt to reinstate those. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've double checked each edit, and I was mistaken regarding Gitton. Charles does note the fact that Gitton does not agree with Davies' estimate later in the same section of that edit. My apologies. I have thus reinstated that edit as well. A couple edits I did not reinstate:
Supposing the queen to be Kamose's daughter instead of the later prevaling view that she is Seqenenre Tao's daughter - Needs an inline citation, as this can't obviously be cited to Gardiner himself.
Any edits in which references were removed, these were only partially reinstated to include the added citations. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Martin Bernal's Black Athena being controversial[edit]

A note regarding my edit-summary stating that the OEAE refers to Bernal's work as controversial. Quotes:
More problematic was the increasing tendency to deny profundity and insight to the Egyptians in contrast with the Greeks, a development that has been explored in Martin Bernal's controversial work (1987) pg.450 and Afrocentrist claims have recently received a detailed and sympathetic discussion by Martin Bernal in his controversial work Black Athena, and in the late 1980s and 1990s Afrocentric issues are being addressed by mainstream Egyptologists pg. 455 of the entry on Egyptology by Edmund S. Meltzer.
A much less charitable discussion of Bernal's work is made by Rene van Wanselm on pg. 177-178 of the OEAE in the entry 'Interpretation of Evidence' which reads: Afrocentrism is one of the most influential but disputable off-shoots on the burgeoning tree of pseudo-Egyptology, and the most recent and manipulative in this respect in Martin Bernal's Black-Athena thesis, which claims that Greece was twice "colonized" from Egypt and that, consequently, the Greek civilization originates from "black" Egyptians. Such assertions are based on interpreting out-of-context materials and attaching unbalanced weight to select passages of, for example, Herodotus. This continues further but is no longer about Bernal.
There is also the entry on 'Afrocentrism' where Ann Macy Roth (an Egyptologist I am eminently familiar with because of her contributions to works on the topic of Hatshepsut) describes Lefkowitz and Roger's compilation (1996) as an uneven but cumulatively devastating collection of critiques of Bernal's arguments pg. 30. Mr rnddude (talk)
I'm thinking that the whole section following Bernal's comments about Ahmose-Nefertari, are beyond the scope of the article proper. I am not proposing removal, but it might be more appropriate as a footnote. The question is where to put the footnote. It'd appear odd to follow on from footnote c and since it's entirely about Bernal's work and its legitimacy or illegitimacy as Egyptology it may be best to have it follow the word 'controversial'. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not attempt to censor this page, Charles. The discussion relates to Bernal's work, which is cited in the article, and which you have made significant attempts to support whilst undermining Egyptological consensus regarding its nature. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's important generally to remember to comment on content, not editors, to stay on topic (the present section is largely, if not completely irrelevant to the article) and not issue threats to other editors (please see WP:UNCIVIL, WP:HTBC). As should be maintained and as quoted (below), if there is an insistence on Citing works or passages of works which make no mention of AN or her kin, dealing exclusively with Bernal (whether for or against his work), then of course WP:NPOV should prevail, including content exclusively dealing with, Lefkowitz, criticising her work as well. Likewise, attempts to edit characterization of criticism of Bernal's work out of the article proper and into a footnote and then proceed to delete the footnote to invite reintroducing irrelevant criticism of Bernal's work into the article proper should be discouraged. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Citing works or passages of works which make no mention of AN or her kin, dealing exclusively with Bernal (whether for or against his work) is inappropriate in the context of the article - Everything you added to the article about Lefkowitz, is citing sources not mentioning, but exclusively dealing with, Lefkowitz. According your statement, this is not appropriate for the article and should be removed. To be clear, the footnote may not have been necessary at all, if you'd stop presenting Bernal's work as a legitimate scholarly source. It has been rejected by Egyptologists. It is present in the article because his view is still notable and comes with the caveat that it is not a mainstream view. I would ideally prefer that the article simply states Bernal's view and clarifies that it is a controversial one. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • From a third-party outsider perspective peering in at this subject, I think the body of criticism on the Black Athena article page raises profound issues about the academic reliability of this work. There are clearly huge problems with the scholarly liberties that Bernal has taken in overemphasizing anecdotal cultural and literary artefacts at the expense of the wider body of archaeological evidence. The controversy around Black Athena is such that it seems to almost have become the defining feature of the work. Bernal's work is clearly not mainstream and may very well fall far enough outside of the mainstream to constitute WP:FRINGE. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Outside Wikipedia, the words I most hear in descriptions of Bernal's work are "shitty" and "unhinged", but Wikipedia tries to give him an air of respectability. In any case, is "pseudo-Egyptology" distinct from the typical pseudoarchaeology and its fanciful claims?Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bernal is clearly not a reliable source on this topic. By now seeking to make this article a discussion on Bernal vs Lefkowitz etc, C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena is demonstrating clearly that he is more interested in pushing a racial POV than he is in building a meaningful article on the topic. Since Bernal is massively FRINGE, he should actually be excluded completely. However if he is left out then other POV-pushers will add him back, so we have compromised by mentioning him - with an unambiguous caveat that he is not a reliable source. If C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena is not prepared to accept the caveat, then Bernal should perhaps be removed altogether as a non-reliable source. Wdford (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bernal is provided that air of legitimacy by a common (in my experience) misinterpretation of the N in NPOV that leads to a false balance. Neutral means we do not present our (as editor's) biases in the article, but only the views of reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. If the view of Egyptologists is that Bernal is a pseudo-Egyptologist – and it is – than that is how we present it. It is NPOV. Regarding action, if Bernal is removed, then footnotes c and d serve no purpose and may as well be removed as well. If Bernal is kept with the necessary caveat, then I think we need to work out what to do with footnote d. Should we keep it, reduce it, remove the quotes and instead summarize the views? I mean, let's be real here, it's effectively a quotefarm created by two editors (myself and Charles). It alone accounts for 16% of the article's citations (43-51), which is ridiculous for just addressing Black Athena. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bernal is clearly not a reliable source on this topic, and the article must say this clearly. I think we should polish up footnote "c" for now, to ensure the caveat is clear. Footnote "d" should be moved to the separate article Black Athena, and incorporated there to the extent that the material is useful. Wdford (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2022

(UTC)

Respect for the dead[edit]

The photograph of what some claim to be the mummy of the Queen is imo very bad taste. In my own culture it is considered by many people as gross desecration. Anyone who wants to see such imagery can be directed to the media section of wikipedia. Would anyone object to its removal?

You need to achieve WP:CONSENSUS before the removal. By the way, Wikipedia is not censored. Lone-078 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
::Does this mean you object? May I ask why? - preferably not just on wiki legalistic terms - as I would genuinely like to understand what are the ethical and moral issues a person may object to this request.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:1641:FF00:241D:175A:A311:CA9F (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody has raised objection so will go ahead and delete. Thank you for your consideration.
Nice try. WP:CONSENSUS was never achieved, and WP:CENSORED was evidently not worthy of a reading. Lone-078 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari&oldid=1092538695"