Talk:Gebelein predynastic mummies

Initial

• Memoir of the discovery (p. 360)
• Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis (1920), By Nile and Tigris: A narrative of journeys in Egypt and Mesopotamia on behalf of the British Museum between the years 1886 and 1913. By Sir E. A. Wallis Budge. With numerous Illustrations, John Murray, OCLC 558957855 — Fæ (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Red hair

It was pointed out to me that the mummification process likely to have been used could have lead to the red hair. However I have no sources to add so this may be pure speculation.

I note that Ramesses II's mummy also appears to have red hair (The Encyclopedia of Mummies) and red hair may not be that unusual if people with red hair were associated with the god Seth... so why would the staff at the BM nickname this mummy Ginger if it was not that unusual? Fæ (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Noticed an article about the study of Peruvian mummies where there was a theory that hair reddening was part of a melanine deterioration process. The article seemed a bit thin as evidence to me, as the conclusion was not definitive so I'm dropping this as a potential article topic. Fæ (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

the mummification process surely does redden hair. Just look at all the mummies in South America. In China. We already know that red hair is the rarest on Earth. So why does everyone start having red hair? In the ancient past??? Hmmmmm mmk I wonder. Ramses II, died 93 years old. But he's a RED HEAD SamuelRoth79 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Peer review actions

Y P1 The article needs an improved lead section that is an actual summary of the article - see WP:LEAD - and more article sections. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.

Footnotes removed from lead and rephrased. Needs further re-think once more is added to the body. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Y P2 Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.

Body significantly re-written along with the lead, particularly after page re-name. Fæ (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Y P3 As it currently reads, the lead is about the mummy itself, while the Exhibition history section is decent. I would make the current lead into a section on Discovery or something similar.

Description and Excavation sections now added and expanded. Fæ (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Y P4 Add a ref for The body, which was nicknamed "Ginger" because of its red hair, was excavated from a shallow sand grave in the Egyptian desert at the end of the nineteenth century, and found to be exceptionally well-preserved.

References improved, particularly after reviewing Dawson & Gray's volume. Fæ (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Y P5 Make sure refs are complete - for example the Hi Mummy I'm home article lists the author and so should the ref. {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V.

Tidied citations, added author and made date format consistent. Note that sources section uses citation template as this is needed for {{harv}} to work. However non-harv footnotes can use whatever is most appropriate. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Y P6 The article could be expanded - who discovered the mummy (looks like Wallis Budge, but say so more clearly). When did Ginger get put back on display after being removed in 1987? What kind of work was done in the 1987 restoration? What is known about the culture that produced Ginger? What objects and other mummies were found with him? Do we know what kind of person he was in life? That sort of thing.

Article expanded. Clarified Budge's excavation detail. There is no published record about the 1987 restoration (probably just very basic cleaning) so it is unlikely that more detail can be validly added. Some detail added about artefacts but Budge's account is limited, potentially more could still be said about the Predynastic period but this may deviate from the bodies and excavation. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Y P7 File:Ginger (mummy) 1920.png: You could really crop this down to the actual photographic plate. This means that more detail is viewable at a smaller resolution; plate info, numbers can be put in the description template.

Photo cropped on commons. Position of plate in book added. Fæ (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Y P8 Ruhr is right on the money with most comments, but really the lead should be rewritten after any more content is added. Google Books suggests some places for starters (if you sort through the Jim Crow books), but I think going to a good library and using their resources will be the best bet to find good scholarly sources.

I think the re-write in the last few days has made significant in-roads. Most of the detail available in the BM guide (Strudwick) and the 1967 scientific analysis (Dawson & Gray) that could be of value has been added. Other sources may have more detail to add on the exhibition history or possibly restoration methods, though as the bodies have had as little intervention as possible this is likely to be limited. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Y P9 Hyphens in the article should be replaced by em-dashes (see WP:DASH).

Done. Fæ (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

Ginger is the common name for the mummified body, however the BM no longer encourage the nickname out of respect for human remains. Should we follow the same principle and move to a new name? Please add your suggestions if you have any. Fæ (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• How about moving to Gebelein predynastic mummies? This would need a slight re-write of the lead, but the article could still mention the Ginger nickname and this would open content to being more about all six bodies excavated rather than just one. Fæ (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd support this move to reflect the BM's naming of it. It's also more likely to be expandable up to GA/FA level if it's dealing with more than one mummy. Claritas § 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Without pre-empting later discussion, I'll move and start copy-editing to this name. Happy to move again based on later consensus for an alternative (perhaps more layman-friendly) name. Fæ (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work guys, thanks! :-) Witty Lama 10:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)