Talk:Flinders Petrie

Death & head

There seems to be an error with the dates on this page- did he die in 1939 or 1942?

But mostly, I really hope the story of Flinders Petrie's head is added to this page as it is updated. —k.a.l. 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Petrie's Head

Because you asked for it, its here! This strange, but true fact is verifiable in the Callaway article listed in Further Reading. Em-jay-es 01:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

family

His son John Flinders Petrie was a boyhood friend and occasional collaborator of H. S. M. Coxeter, according to Siobhan Roberts's biography of the latter. —Tamfang 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fellow of the Academy

Google Cache of the "Neglected British History article that was published in Proceedings of the British Academy Volume VIII, Issue 28 pp 251-278. (1918) indicates he was a Fellow. Is that OR or a sensible leap of reasoning. John Vandenberg 10:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tu-tu

I don't know where I read it, and I can't find it, but I believe I once heard a story that Flanders Petrie surveyed the Pyamrids at Giza in a tu-tu. Why? Because the native people around there were hostile to people messing with their sacred monuments. But they would not bother "insane" people. So he did this to avoid problems with them. Perhaps it is apocyphal. Bigmac31 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just and I mean just heard the same thing on a history international show so it is probably is true. Cryo921 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I also just NOW saw mention of it on a history international show by two different archeologists. I think I will add it. Bigmac31 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:PROVEIT, I've removed that statement. Until you get a source, it should not go on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I understand the position. Hopefully, if I (or someone else) see it again on History International I can write down the names of the archaeologists who stated it. Would that be good enough? Granted it is verbal, but it would be two people, and moreover there IS a reasonable explanation for such odd behavior. And I could have sworn I saw a photo, too, but I can't find it (and in these photoshop days, I'm not sure how reliable those are!)....Bigmac31 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

History International as in the channel? There is a {{cite episode}} template, but because it is much harder to verify than a book, article or news clipping, I'm reluctant to use or endorse it. Still, it's bad faith to assume an editor is faking a reference without good cause. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, History International the channel. I still haven't caught it again. Still looking. Again, I think it would be good if I could cite the gentlemen who said it. It would still lend authority to the story if these guys are eminent archaeologists, as I think they are. Bigmac31 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One thing important to know about archaeologists is that we are pronne to irreverant jokes. They were probably joking. Also, these days the History Channel is not an RS for anything history-related. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

...and conservation of archaeology objects.

Should it be preservation or conservation? We talk more about preservation really. Also, should archaeology objects be changed to artifacts (US) or artefacts (UK)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Chronicle of the Britons

There is a curious absence of any reference to Petrie's paper on the Chronicle of the Early Britons and Walter of Oxford's "ancient book in the British language" about which he suggested it could contain references to forgotten pre-Roman history from a Brythonic point of view.... a telling absence... Aetheling1125 00:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not significant to his biography. We went over this two years ago at Brut y Brenhinedd. All Petrie did was suggest that the so-called Brut Tysillo derived from an unknown Breton work, and that it was a source of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae. Subsequent research has proven this suggestion wrong; the Brut Tysillo, like all the Welsh Bruts, derives ultimately from Geoffrey. And Petrie never used the title "Chronicle of the Early Britons"; that was invented by amateur translator William Cooper in a self-published work. Nothing about this is important enough to be in his encyclopedia article.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Book of History

Extremely conspicuous to both the articles on Petrie and James Bryce (1838-1922) is any reference to The Book of History, a massive 18-volume tome of prolific illustration, and available via archive.org

A hislory of Egypt Rating (4) ISBN-13 978-1854170590 Publisher Michael s Sanders Edition 3rd Edition Publication Date February 1, 1991

Rhedey de băbeni (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Rhedey de băbeni (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Rhedey de băbeni (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Rhedey de băbeni (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flinders Petrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104131948/http://books.google.ca/books?id=6lDgYxV0DN8C&pg=PA77 to http://www.books.google.ca/books?id=6lDgYxV0DN8C&pg=PA77

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Anne

The article says this: "Anne was the daughter of Captain Matthew Flinders, who led the first circumnavigation of Australia, spoke six languages and was an Egyptologist." Who is it that spoke 6 languages and was an Egyptologist? Surely no the Captain and Anne seems unlikely. Flinders was the Egyptologist. I'm deleting this bit for now. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Legacy

Referencing "Legacy" in the article: "Budge's contention that the religion of the Egyptians was essentially identical to the religions of the people of northeastern and central Africa was regarded by his colleagues as impossible, since all but a few followed Petrie in his contention that the culture of Ancient Egypt was derived from an invading Caucasoid "Dynastic Race" which had conquered Egypt in late prehistory and introduced the Pharaonic culture". It appears that Petrie and his followers had trouble believing that early black people alone, could've built such a sophisticated civilization as Egypt. My guess is that their sense of superiority didn't leave room in their spirit for such a conclusion. So lets explore it.

1) Petrie says that the southern people are inferior to those of the north, which contradicts his claim that the superior Dynastic Caucasoid race who he supposes conquered and civilized Egypt, actually came from the south. He can't have it both ways can he?

2) Any nation coming from the south to conquer Egypt had to come across land. So where was that Caucasoid original homeland and it's artifacts that were introduced into Egyptian culture? Certainly not the Sudan. Did Petrie assume that they brought every bit of their culture with them down to every man and artifact? Was their original homeland and all of its monuments and culture wiped from the face of the earth as they made their trek toward Egypt? Were they so selfless that they recorded none of themselves in the early Egyptian culture they supposedly created? Where is the Archaeology to support his conclusions? If Petrie were alive today, would he still be looking for this assumed superior dynasty white race? A white race that would not only have to have been south of Egypt, but south of even the Sudan. Well away from his claimed superior people of the north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:2303:4C00:9D84:661B:81D2:7B17 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

F. Wainwright

He has workt with a mr. Wainwright in egypt. Who knows more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.230.79 (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Flinders Petrie entry does not mention his wife's contribution to the work he is remembered for, relegating her to 2 lines of having given birth to two children under personal life. In her entry Hilda Petrie is acknowledged as the Egyptologist she was but the fact that she was married to Flinders is stated in the first sentence. This is sexism and perpetuates a distorted vision of the achievements of men and women in history. 92.18.65.162 (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the protection from this article, so you are welcome to make changes to address this issue directly. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Political Bias

The use of the word's "far right" to describe his racist eugenics is meaningless. Prejudice does not have a political classification based on the political spectrum. Nazi eugenics could be easily described as left-wing socialist views thus proving the meaninglessness of trying to classify prejudice this way. I would urge that someone edit out those words and replace them with something more objective. 164.152.133.155 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Describing "nazi eugenics <...> as left-wing socialist views" is a "political bias" itself. The bias of today's nazis trying to falsify history, it is. --Amga (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)