text:
Brahmi script

Brahmi (ISO: Brāhmī) is a writing system of ancient India that appeared as a fully developed script in the 3rd century BCE. Its descendants, the Brahmic scripts, continue to be used today across Southern and Southeastern Asia.

Brahmi is an abugida which uses a system of diacritical marks to associate vowels with consonant symbols. The writing system only went through relatively minor evolutionary changes from the Mauryan period (3rd century BCE) down to the early Gupta period (4th century CE), and it is thought that as late as the 4th century CE, a literate person could still read and understand Mauryan inscriptions. Sometime thereafter, the ability to read the original Brahmi script was lost. The earliest (indisputably dated) and best-known Brahmi inscriptions are the rock-cut edicts of Ashoka in north-central India, dating to 250–232 BCE.

The decipherment of Brahmi became the focus of European scholarly attention in the early 19th-century during East India Company rule in India, in particular in the Asiatic Society of Bengal in Calcutta.  Brahmi was deciphered by James Prinsep, the secretary of the Society, in a series of scholarly articles in the Society's journal in the 1830s. His breakthroughs built on the epigraphic work of Christian Lassen, Edwin Norris, H. H. Wilson and Alexander Cunningham, among others.

The origin of the script is still much debated, with most scholars stating that Brahmi was derived from or at least influenced by one or more contemporary Semitic scripts. Some non-specialists favour the idea of an indigenous origin or connection to the much older and as yet undeciphered Indus script, although this is not generally accepted by epigraphists.

Brahmi was at one time referred to in English as the "pin-man" script, likening the characters to stick figures. It was known by a variety of other names, including "lath", "Laṭ", "Southern Aśokan", "Indian Pali" or "Mauryan", until the 1880s when Albert Étienne Jean Baptiste Terrien de Lacouperie, based on an observation by Gabriel Devéria, associated it with the Brahmi script, the first in a list of scripts mentioned in the Lalitavistara Sūtra. Thence the name was adopted in the influential work of Georg Bühler, albeit in the variant form "Brahma".

The Gupta script of the 5th century is sometimes called "Late Brahmi". From the 6th century onward, the Brahmi script diversified into numerous local variants, grouped as the Brahmic family of scripts. Dozens of modern scripts used across South and South East Asia have descended from Brahmi, making it one of the world's most influential writing traditions. One survey found 198 scripts that ultimately derive from it.

Among the inscriptions of Ashoka (c. 3rd century BCE) written in the Brahmi script a few numerals were found, which have come to be called the Brahmi numerals. The numerals are additive and multiplicative and, therefore, not place value; it is not known if their underlying system of numeration has a connection to the Brahmi script. But in the second half of the 1st millennium CE, some inscriptions in India and Southeast Asia written in scripts derived from the Brahmi did include numerals that are decimal place value, and constitute the earliest existing material examples of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, now in use throughout the world. The underlying system of numeration, however, was older, as the earliest attested orally transmitted example dates to the middle of the 3rd century CE in a Sanskrit prose adaptation of a lost Greek work on astrology.

Texts

The Brahmi script is mentioned in the ancient Indian texts of the three major Dharmic religions: Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, as well as their Chinese translations. For example, the 10th chapter of the Lalitavistara Sūtra (c. 200–300 CE), titled the Lipisala samdarshana parivarta, lists 64 lipi (scripts), with the Brahmi script starting the list. The Lalitavistara Sūtra states that young Siddhartha, the future Gautama Buddha (~500 BCE), mastered philology, Brahmi and other scripts from the Brahmin Lipikāra and Deva Vidyāsiṃha at a school.

A list of eighteen ancient scripts is found in the early Jaina texts, such as the Paṇṇavaṇā Sūtra (2nd century BCE) and the Samavāyāṅga Sūtra (3rd century BCE). These Jain script lists include Brahmi at number 1 and Kharoṣṭhi at number 4, but also Javanaliya (probably Greek) and others not found in the Buddhist lists.

Origins
While the contemporary Kharoṣṭhī script is widely accepted to be a derivation of the Aramaic alphabet, the genesis of the Brahmi script is less straightforward. Salomon reviewed existing theories in 1998, while Falk provided an overview in 1993.

Early theories proposed a pictographic-acrophonic origin for the Brahmi script, on the model of the Egyptian hieroglyphic script. These ideas however have lost credence, as they are "purely imaginative and speculative". Similar ideas have tried to connect the Brahmi script with the Indus script, but they remain unproven, and particularly suffer from the fact that the Indus script is as yet undeciphered.

The mainstream view is that Brahmi has an origin in Semitic scripts (usually Aramaic). This is accepted by the vast majority of script scholars since the publications by Albrecht Weber (1856) and Georg Bühler's On the origin of the Indian Brahma alphabet (1895). Bühler's ideas have been particularly influential, though even by the 1895 date of his opus on the subject, he could identify no fewer than five competing theories of the origin, one positing an indigenous origin and the others deriving it from various Semitic models.

The most disputed point about the origin of the Brahmi script has long been whether it was a purely indigenous development or was borrowed or derived from scripts that originated outside India. Goyal (1979) noted that most proponents of the indigenous view are fringe Indian scholars, whereas the theory of Semitic origin is held by "nearly all" Western scholars, and Salomon agrees with Goyal that there has been "nationalist bias" and "imperialist bias" on the two respective sides of the debate. In spite of this, the view of indigenous development had been prevalent among British scholars writing prior to Bühler: a passage by Alexander Cunningham, one of the earliest indigenous origin proponents, suggests that, in his time, the indigenous origin was a preference of British scholars in opposition to the "unknown Western" origin preferred by continental scholars. Cunningham in the seminal Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum of 1877 speculated that Brahmi characters were derived from, among other things, a pictographic principle based on the human body, but Bühler noted that, by 1891, Cunningham considered the origins of the script uncertain.

Most scholars believe that Brahmi was likely derived from or influenced by a Semitic script model, with Aramaic being a leading candidate. However, the issue is not settled due to the lack of direct evidence and unexplained differences between Aramaic, Kharoṣṭhī, and Brahmi. Though Brahmi and the Kharoṣṭhī script share some general features, the differences between the Kharosthi and Brahmi scripts are "much greater than their similarities", and "the overall differences between the two render a direct linear development connection unlikely", states Richard Salomon.

Virtually all authors accept that regardless of the origins, the differences between the Indian script and those proposed to have influenced it are significant. The degree of Indian development of the Brahmi script in both the graphic form and the structure has been extensive. It is also widely accepted that theories about the grammar of the Vedic language probably had a strong influence on this development. Some authors – both Western and Indian – suggest that Brahmi was borrowed or inspired by a Semitic script, invented in a short few years during the reign of Ashoka, and then used widely for Ashokan inscriptions. In contrast, some authors reject the idea of foreign influence.

Bruce Trigger states that Brahmi likely emerged from the Aramaic script (with extensive local development), but there is no evidence of a direct common source. According to Trigger, Brahmi was in use before the Ashoka pillars, at least by the 4th or 5th century BCE in Sri Lanka and India, while Kharoṣṭhī was used only in northwest South Asia (eastern parts of modern Afghanistan and neighboring regions of Pakistan) for a while before it died out in the third century. According to Salomon, evidence of the use of Kharoṣṭhī is found primarily in Buddhist records and those of Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian, Indo-Parthian, and Kushana dynasty era.

Justeson and Stephens proposed that this inherent vowel system in Brahmi and Kharoṣṭhī developed by transmission of a Semitic abjad through the recitation of its letter values. The idea is that learners of the source alphabet recite the sounds by combining the consonant with an unmarked vowel, e.g., and in the process of borrowing into another language, these syllables are taken to be the sound values of the symbols. They also accepted the idea that Brahmi was based on a North Semitic model.

Semitic hypothesis
Many scholars link the origin of Brahmi to Semitic script models, particularly Aramaic. The explanation of how this might have happened, the particular Semitic script, and the chronology of the derivation have been the subject of much debate. Bühler followed Max Weber in connecting it particularly to Phoenician, and proposed an early 8th century BCE date for the borrowing. A link to the South Semitic scripts, a less prominent branch of the Semitic script family, has occasionally been proposed, but has not gained much acceptance. Finally, the Aramaic script being the prototype for Brahmi has been the more preferred hypothesis because of its geographic proximity to the Indian subcontinent, and its influence likely arising because Aramaic was the bureaucratic language of the Achaemenid empire. However, this hypothesis does not explain the mystery of why two very different scripts, Kharoṣṭhī and Brahmi, developed from the same Aramaic. A possible explanation might be that Ashoka created an imperial script for his edicts, but there is no evidence to support this conjecture.

The chart below shows the close resemblance that Brahmi has with the first four letters of Semitic script, the first column representing the Phoenician alphabet.

Bühler's hypothesis
According to the Semitic hypothesis as laid out by Bühler in 1898, the oldest Brahmi inscriptions were derived from a Phoenician prototype. Salomon states Bühler's arguments are "weak historical, geographical, and chronological justifications for a Phoenician prototype". Discoveries made since Bühler's proposal, such as of six Mauryan inscriptions in Aramaic, suggest Bühler's proposal about Phoenician as weak. It is more likely that Aramaic, which was virtually certainly the prototype for Kharoṣṭhī, also may have been the basis for Brahmi. However, it is unclear why the ancient Indians would have developed two very different scripts.

According to Bühler, Brahmi added symbols for certain sounds not found in Semitic languages, and either deleted or repurposed symbols for Aramaic sounds not found in Prakrit. For example, Aramaic lacks the phonetic retroflex feature that appears among Prakrit dental stops, such as, and in Brahmi the symbols of the retroflex and non-retroflex consonants are graphically very similar, as if both had been derived from a single prototype. (See Tibetan alphabet for a similar later development.) Aramaic did not have Brahmi's aspirated consonants (,, etc.), whereas Brahmi did not have Aramaic's emphatic consonants (), and it appears that these unneeded emphatic letters filled in for some of Brahmi's aspirates: Aramaic q for Brahmi kh, Aramaic ṭ (Θ) for Brahmi th , etc. And just where Aramaic did not have a corresponding emphatic stop, p, Brahmi seems to have doubled up for the corresponding aspirate: Brahmi p and ph are graphically very similar, as if taken from the same source in Aramaic p. Bühler saw a systematic derivational principle for the other aspirates ch, jh, ph, bh, and dh, which involved adding a curve or upward hook to the right side of the character (which has been speculated to derive from h, ), while d and ṭ (not to be confused with the Semitic emphatic ) were derived by back formation from dh and ṭh.

The attached table lists the correspondences between Brahmi and North Semitic scripts.

Bühler states that both Phoenician and Brahmi had three voiceless sibilants, but because the alphabetical ordering was lost, the correspondences among them are not clear. Bühler was able to suggest Brahmi derivatives corresponding to all of the 22 North Semitic characters, though clearly, as Bühler himself recognized, some are more confident than others. He tended to place much weight on phonetic congruence as a guideline, for example connecting c to tsade 𐤑 rather than kaph 𐤊, as preferred by many of his predecessors.

One of the key problems with a Phoenician derivation is the lack of evidence for historical contact with Phoenicians in the relevant period. Bühler explained this by proposing that the initial borrowing of Brahmi characters dates back considerably earlier than the earliest known evidence, as far back as 800 BCE, contemporary with the Phoenician glyph forms that he mainly compared. Bühler cited a near-modern practice of writing Brahmic scripts informally without vowel diacritics as a possible continuation of this earlier abjad-like stage in development.

The weakest forms of the Semitic hypothesis are similar to Gnanadesikan's trans-cultural diffusion view of the development of Brahmi and Kharoṣṭhī, in which the idea of alphabetic sound representation was learned from the Aramaic-speaking Persians, but much of the writing system was a novel development tailored to the phonology of Prakrit.

Further evidence cited in favor of Persian influence has been the Hultzsch proposal in 1925 that the Prakrit/Sanskrit word for writing itself, lipi is similar to the Old Persian word dipi, suggesting a probable borrowing. A few of the Ashoka edicts from the region nearest the Persian empire use dipi as the Prakrit word for writing, which appears as lipi elsewhere, and this geographic distribution has long been taken, at least back to Bühler's time, as an indication that the standard lipi form is a later alteration that appeared as it diffused away from the Persian sphere of influence. Persian dipi itself is thought to be an Elamite loanword.

Greek-Semitic model hypothesis
Falk's 1993 book Schrift im Alten Indien is a study on writing in ancient India, and has a section on the origins of Brahmi. It features an extensive review of the literature up to that time. Falk sees the basic writing system of Brahmi as being derived from the Kharoṣṭhī script, itself a derivative of Aramaic. At the time of his writing, the Ashoka edicts were the oldest confidently dateable examples of Brahmi, and he perceives in them "a clear development in language from a faulty linguistic style to a well honed one" over time, which he takes to indicate that the script had been recently developed. Falk deviates from the mainstream of opinion in seeing Greek as also being a significant source for Brahmi. On this point particularly, Salomon disagrees with Falk, and after presenting evidence of very different methodology between Greek and Brahmi notation of vowel quantity, he states "it is doubtful whether Brahmi derived even the basic concept from a Greek prototype". Further, adds Salomon, in a "limited sense Brahmi can be said to be derived from Kharosthi, but in terms of the actual forms of the characters, the differences between the two Indian scripts are much greater than the similarities".

Falk also dated the origin of Kharoṣṭhī to no earlier than 325 BCE, based on a proposed connection to the Greek conquest. Salomon questions Falk's arguments as to the date of Kharoṣṭhī and writes that it is "speculative at best and hardly constitutes firm grounds for a late date for Kharoṣṭhī. The stronger argument for this position is that we have no specimen of the script before the time of Ashoka, nor any direct evidence of intermediate stages in its development; but of course this does not mean that such earlier forms did not exist, only that, if they did exist, they have not survived, presumably because they were not employed for monumental purposes before Ashoka".

Unlike Bühler, Falk does not provide details of which and how the presumptive prototypes may have been mapped to the individual characters of Brahmi. Further, states Salomon, Falk accepts there are anomalies in phonetic value and diacritics in Brahmi script that are not found in the presumed Kharoṣṭhī script source. Falk attempts to explain these anomalies by reviving the Greek influence hypothesis, a hypothesis that had previously fallen out of favor.

Hartmut Scharfe, in his 2002 review of Kharoṣṭī and Brāhmī scripts, concurs with Salomon's questioning of Falk's proposal, and states, "the pattern of the phonemic analysis of the Sanskrit language achieved by the Vedic scholars is much closer to the Brahmi script than the Greek alphabet".

As of 2018, Harry Falk refined his view by affirming that Brahmi was developed from scratch in a rational way at the time of Ashoka, by consciously combining the advantages of the pre-existing Greek script and northern Kharosthi script. Greek-style letter types were selected for their "broad, upright and symmetrical form", and writing from left to right was also adopted for its convenience. On the other hand, the Kharosthi treatment of vowels was retained, with its inherent vowel "a", derived from Aramaic, and stroke additions to represent other vowel signs. In addition, a new system of combining consonants vertically to represent complex sounds was also developed.

Indigenous origin hypothesis
The possibility of an indigenous origin such as a connection to the Indus script is supported by some Western and Indian scholars and writers. The theory that there are similarities to the Indus script was suggested by early European scholars such as the archaeologist John Marshall and the Assyriologist Stephen Langdon. G. R. Hunter in his book The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and Its Connection with Other Scripts (1934) proposed a derivation of the Brahmi alphabets from the Indus script, the match being considerably higher than that of Aramaic in his estimation. British archaeologist Raymond Allchin stated that there is a powerful argument against the idea that the Brahmi script has Semitic borrowing because the whole structure and conception is quite different. He at one time suggested that the origin may have been purely indigenous with the Indus script as its predecessor. However, Allchin and Erdosy later in 1995 expressed the opinion that there was as yet insufficient evidence to resolve the question.

Today the indigenous origin hypothesis is more commonly promoted by non-specialists, such as the computer scientist Subhash Kak, the spiritual teachers David Frawley and Georg Feuerstein, and the social anthropologist Jack Goody. Subhash Kak disagrees with the proposed Semitic origins of the script, instead stating that the interaction between the Indic and the Semitic worlds before the rise of the Semitic scripts might imply a reverse process. However, the chronology thus presented and the notion of an unbroken tradition of literacy is opposed by a majority of academics who support an indigenous origin. Evidence for a continuity between Indus and Brahmi has also been seen in graphic similarities between Brahmi and the late Indus script, where the ten most common ligatures correspond with the form of one of the ten most common glyphs in Brahmi. There is also corresponding evidence of continuity in the use of numerals. Further support for this continuity comes from statistical analysis of the relationship carried out by Das.

Salomon considered simple graphic similarities between characters to be insufficient evidence for a connection without knowing the phonetic values of the Indus script, though he found apparent similarities in patterns of compounding and diacritical modification to be "intriguing". However, he felt that it was premature to explain and evaluate them due to the large chronological gap between the scripts and the thus far indecipherable nature of the Indus script.

The main obstacle to this idea is the lack of evidence for writing during the millennium and a half between the collapse of the Indus Valley civilisation around 1500 BCE and the first widely accepted appearance of Brahmi in the 3rd or 4th centuries BCE. Iravathan Mahadevan makes the point that even if one takes the latest dates of 1500 BCE for the Indus script and earliest claimed dates of Brahmi around 500 BCE, a thousand years still separates the two. Furthermore, there is no accepted decipherment of the Indus script, which makes theories based on claimed decipherments tenuous.

A promising possible link between the Indus script and later writing traditions may be in the megalithic graffiti symbols of the South Indian megalithic culture, which may have some overlap with the Indus symbol inventory and persisted in use up at least through the appearance of the Brahmi and scripts up into the third century CE. These graffiti usually appear singly, though on occasion may be found in groups of two or three, and are thought to have been family, clan, or religious symbols. In 1935, C. L. Fábri proposed that symbols found on Mauryan punch-marked coins were remnants of the Indus script that had survived the collapse of the Indus civilization.

Another form of the indigenous origin theory is that Brahmi was invented ex nihilo, entirely independently from either Semitic models or the Indus script, though Salomon found these theories to be wholly speculative in nature.

Foreign origination

Pāṇini (6th to 4th century BCE) mentions lipi, the Indian word for writing scripts in his definitive work on Sanskrit grammar, the Ashtadhyayi. According to Scharfe, the words lipi and libi are borrowed from the Old Persian dipi, in turn derived from Sumerian dup. To describe his own Edicts, Ashoka used the word Lipī, now generally simply translated as "writing" or "inscription". It is thought the word "lipi", which is also orthographed "dipi" in the two Kharosthi-version of the rock edicts, comes from an Old Persian prototype dipî also meaning "inscription", which is used for example by Darius I in his Behistun inscription, suggesting borrowing and diffusion.

Scharfe adds that the best evidence is that no script was used or ever known in India, aside from the Persian-dominated Northwest where Aramaic was used, before around 300 BCE because Indian tradition "at every occasion stresses the orality of the cultural and literary heritage", yet Scharfe in the same book admits that "a script has been discovered in the excavations of the Indus Valley Civilization that flourished in the Indus valley and adjacent areas in the third millennium B.C. The number of different signs suggest a syllabic script, but all attempts at decipherment have been unsuccessful so far. Attempts by some Indian scholars to connect this undeciphered script with the Indian scripts in vogue from the third century B.C. onward are total failures."

Megasthenes' observations
Megasthenes, a Greek ambassador to the Mauryan court in Northeastern India only a quarter century before Ashoka, noted "... and this among a people who have no written laws, who are ignorant even of writing, and regulate everything by memory." This has been variously and contentiously interpreted by many authors. Ludo Rocher almost entirely dismisses Megasthenes as unreliable, questioning the wording used by Megasthenes' informant and Megasthenes' interpretation of them. Timmer considers it to reflect a misunderstanding that the Mauryans were illiterate "based upon the fact that Megasthenes rightly observed that the laws were unwritten and that oral tradition played such an important part in India."

Some proponents of the indigenous origin theories question the reliability and interpretation of comments made by Megasthenes (as quoted by Strabo in the Geographica XV.i.53). For one, the observation may only apply in the context of the kingdom of "Sandrakottos" (Chandragupta). Elsewhere in Strabo (Strab. XV.i.39), Megasthenes is said to have noted that it was a regular custom in India for the "philosopher" caste (presumably Brahmins) to submit "anything useful which they have committed to writing" to kings, but this detail does not appear in parallel extracts of Megasthenes found in Arrian and Diodorus Siculus. The implication of writing per se is also not totally clear in the original Greek as the term "συντάξῃ" (source of the English word "syntax") can be read as a generic "composition" or "arrangement", rather than a written composition in particular. Nearchus, a contemporary of Megasthenes, noted, a few decades prior, the use of cotton fabric for writing in Northern India. Indologists have variously speculated that this might have been Kharoṣṭhī or the Aramaic alphabet. Salomon regards the evidence from Greek sources to be inconclusive. Strabo himself notes this inconsistency regarding reports on the use of writing in India (XV.i.67).

Debate on time depth
Kenneth Norman (2005) suggests that Brahmi was devised over a longer period of time predating Ashoka's rule:

"Support for this idea of pre-Ashokan development has been given very recently by the discovery of sherds at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka, inscribed with small numbers of characters which seem to be Brāhmī. These sherds have been dated, by both Carbon 14 and Thermo-luminescence dating, to pre-Ashokan times, perhaps as much as two centuries before Ashoka."

However, these finds are controversial, see.

He also notes that the variations seen in the Asokan edicts would be unlikely to have emerged so quickly if Brahmi had a single origin in the chancelleries of the Mauryan Empire. He suggests a date of not later than the end of the 4th century for the development of Brahmi script in the form represented in the inscriptions, with earlier possible antecedents.

Jack Goody (1987) had similarly suggested that ancient India likely had a "very old culture of writing" along with its oral tradition of composing and transmitting knowledge, because the Vedic literature is too vast, consistent and complex to have been entirely created, memorized, accurately preserved and spread without a written system.

Opinions on this point, the possibility that there may not have been any writing scripts including Brahmi during the Vedic age, given the quantity and quality of the Vedic literature, are divided. While Falk (1993) disagrees with Goody, while Walter Ong and John Hartley (2012) concur, not so much based on the difficulty of orally preserving the Vedic hymns, but on the basis that it is highly unlikely that Panini's grammar was composed. Johannes Bronkhorst (2002) takes the intermediate position that the oral transmission of the Vedic hymns may well have been achieved orally, but that the development of Panini's grammar presupposes writing (consistent with a development of Indian writing in c. the 4th century BCE).

Origin of the name
Several divergent accounts of the origin of the name "Brahmi" (ब्राह्मी) appear in history. The term Brahmi (बाम्भी in original) appears in Indian texts in different contexts. According to the rules of the Sanskrit language, it is a feminine word which literally means "of Brahma" or "the female energy of the Brahman". In popular Hindu texts such as the Mahabharata, it appears in the sense of a goddess, particularly for Saraswati as the goddess of speech and elsewhere as "personified Shakti (energy) of Brahma, the god of Hindu scriptures Veda and creation". Later Chinese Buddhist account of the 6th century CE also supports its creation to the god Brahma, though Monier Monier-Williams, Sylvain Lévi and others thought it was more likely to have been given the name because it was moulded by the Brahmins.

Alternatively, some Buddhist sutras such as the Lalitavistara Sūtra (possibly 4th century CE), list Brāhmī and Kharoṣṭī as some of the sixty-four scripts the Buddha knew as a child. Several sutras of Jainism such as the Vyakhya Pragyapti Sutra, the Samvayanga Sutra and the Pragyapna Sutra of the Jain Agamas include a list of 18 writing scripts known to teachers before the Mahavira was born, the first one being Bambhi (बाम्भी) in the original Prakrit, which has been interpreted as "Bramhi". The Brahmi script is missing from the list of 18 scripts in the surviving versions of two later Jaina Sutras, namely the Vishesha Avashyaka and the Kalpa Sutra. Jain legend recounts that 18 writing scripts were taught by their first Tirthankara Rishabhanatha to his daughter Bambhi (बाम्भी); she emphasized बाम्भी as the main script as she taught others, and therefore the name Brahmi for the script comes after her name. There is no early epigraphic proof for the expression "Brahmi script". Ashoka himself when he created the first known inscriptions in the new script in the 3rd century BCE, used the expression dhaṃma lipi (Prakrit in the Brahmi script: 𑀥𑀁𑀫𑀮𑀺𑀧𑀺, "Inscriptions of the Dharma") but this is not to describe the script of his own Edicts.

History
The earliest known full inscriptions of Brahmi are in Prakrit, dated to be from the 3rd to 1st centuries BCE, particularly the Edicts of Ashoka, c. 250 BCE. Prakrit records predominate the epigraphic records discovered in the Indian subcontinent through about the 1st century CE. The earliest known Brahmi inscriptions in Sanskrit are from the 1st century BCE, such as the few discovered in Ayodhya, Ghosundi and Hathibada (both near Chittorgarh). Ancient inscriptions have also been discovered in many North and Central Indian sites, occasionally in South India as well, that are in hybrid Sanskrit-Prakrit language called "Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit". These are dated by modern techniques to between the 1st and 4th centuries CE. Surviving ancient records of the Brahmi script are found as engravings on pillars, temple walls, metal plates, terracotta, coins, crystals and manuscripts.

One of the most important recent developments regarding the origin of Brahmi has been the discovery of Brahmi characters inscribed on fragments of pottery from the trading town of Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka, which have been dated to between the 6th and the early 4th century BCE, although these finds are controversial (see ). In 1996, Coningham et al. stated that the script on the Anuradhapura inscriptions is Brahmi, but stated that the language was a Prakrit rather than a Dravidian language. The historical sequence of the specimens was interpreted to indicate an evolution in the level of stylistic refinement over several centuries, and they concluded that the Brahmi script may have arisen out of "mercantile involvement" and that the growth of trade networks in Sri Lanka was correlated with its first appearance in the area. Salomon in his 1998 review states that the Anuradhapura inscriptions support the theory that Brahmi existed in South Asia before the Mauryan times, with studies favoring the 4th century BCE, but some doubts remain whether the inscriptions might be intrusive into the potsherds from a later date. Indologist Harry Falk has argued that the Edicts of Ashoka represent an older stage of Brahmi, whereas certain paleographic features of even the earliest Anuradhapura inscriptions are likely to be later, and so these potsherds may date from after 250 BCE.

More recently in 2013, Rajan and Yatheeskumar published excavations at Porunthal and Kodumanal in Tamil Nadu, where numerous both Tamil-Brahmi and "Prakrit-Brahmi" inscriptions and fragments have been found. Their stratigraphic analysis combined with radiocarbon dates of paddy grains and charcoal samples indicated that inscription contexts date to as far back as the 6th and perhaps 7th centuries BCE. As these were published very recently, they have as yet not been commented on extensively in the literature. Indologist Harry Falk has criticized Rajan's claims as "particularly ill-informed"; Falk argues that some of the earliest supposed inscriptions are not Brahmi letters at all, but merely misinterpreted non-linguistic Megalithic graffiti symbols, which were used in South India for several centuries during the pre-literate era.

Calligraphical evolution (3rd century BCE - 1st century CE)
The calligraphy of the Brahmi script remained virtually unchanged from the time of the Maurya Empire to the end of the 1st century BCE. Around this time, the Indo-Scythians ("Northern Satraps"), after their establishment in northern India introduced "revolutionary changes" in the way Brahmi was written. In the 1st century BCE, the shape of Brahmi characters became more angular, and the vertical segments of letters were equalized, a phenomenon which is clearly visible in coin legends and made the script visually more similarly to the Greek script. In this new typeface, the letter were "neat and well-formed". The probable introduction of ink and pen writing, with the characteristic thickenned start of each stroke generated by the usage of ink, was reproduced in the calligraphy of stone inscriptions by the creation of a triangle-shaped form at the beginning of each stroke. This new writing style is particularly visible in the numerous dedicatory inscriptions made in Mathura, in association with devotional works of art. This new calligraphy of the Brahmi script was adopted in the rest of the subcontinent of the next half century. The "new-pen-style" initiated a rapid evolution of the script from the 1st century CE, with regional variations starting to emerge.

Decipherment
Besides a few inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic (which were only discovered in the 20th century), the Edicts of Ashoka were written in the Brahmi script and sometimes in the Kharoshthi script in the northwest, which had both become extinct around the 4th century CE, and were yet undeciphered at the time the Edicts were discovered and investigated in the 19th century.

Inscriptions of the 6th century CE in late Brahmi were already deciphered in 1785 by Charles Wilkins, who published an essentially correct translation of the Gopika Cave Inscription written by the Maukhari king Anantavarman. Wilkins seems to have relied essentially on the similarities with later Brahmic scripts, such as the script of the Pala period and early forms of Devanagari.

Early Brahmi, however, remained unreadable. Progress resumed in 1834 with the publication of proper facsimiles of the inscriptions on the Allahabad pillar of Ashoka, notably containing Edicts of Ashoka as well as inscriptions by the Gupta Empire ruler Samudragupta.

James Prinsep, an archaeologist, philologist, and official of the East India Company, started to analyse the inscriptions and made deductions on the general characteristics of the early Brahmi script essentially relying on statistical methods. This method, published in March 1834, allowed him to classify the characters found in inscriptions, and to clarify the structure of Brahmi as being composed of consonantal characters with vocalic "inflections". He was able to correctly guess four out of five vocalic inflections, but the value of consonants remained unknown. Although this statistical method was modern and innovative, the actual decipherment of the script would have to wait until after the discovery of bilingual inscriptions, a few years later.

The same year, in 1834, some attempts by Rev. J. Stevenson were made to identify intermediate early Brahmi characters from the Karla Caves (c. 1st century CE) based on their similarities with the Gupta script of the Samudragupta inscription of the Allahabad pillar (4th century CE) which had just been published, but this led to a mix of good (about 1/3) and bad guesses, which did not permit proper decipherment of the Brahmi.

The next major step towards deciphering the ancient Brahmi script of the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE was made in 1836 by Norwegian scholar Christian Lassen, who used a bilingual Greek-Brahmi coin of Indo-Greek king Agathocles and similarities with the Pali script to correctly and securely identify several Brahmi letters. The matching legends on the bilingual coins of Agathocles were:

"Greek legend: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ / ΑΓΑΘΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ (Basileōs Agathokleous, 'of King Agathocles')

Brahmi legend: 𑀭𑀚𑀦𑁂 /  𑀅𑀕𑀣𑀼𑀼𑀓𑁆𑀮𑁂𑀬𑁂𑀲 (Rajane Agathukleyesa, 'King Agathocles')."

James Prinsep was then able to complete the decipherment of the Brahmi script. After acknowledging Lassen's first decipherment, Prinsep used a bilingual coin of Indo-Greek king Pantaleon to decipher a few more letters. James Prinsep then analysed a large number of donatory inscriptions on the reliefs in Sanchi, and noted that most of them ended with the same two Brahmi characters: "𑀤𑀦𑀁". Prinsep guessed correctly that they stood for "danam", the Sanskrit word for "gift" or "donation", which permitted to further increase the number of known letters. With the help of Ratna Pâla, a Singhalese Pali scholar and linguist, Prinsep then completed the full decipherment of the Brahmi script. In a series of results that he published in March 1838 Prinsep was able to translate the inscriptions on a large number of rock edicts found around India, and provide, according to Richard Salomon, a "virtually perfect" rendering of the full Brahmi alphabet.

Southern Brahmi
Ashokan inscriptions are found all over India and a few regional variants have been observed. The Bhattiprolu alphabet, with earliest inscriptions dating from a few decades of Ashoka's reign, is believed to have evolved from a southern variant of the Brahmi alphabet. The language used in these inscriptions, nearly all of which have been found upon Buddhist relics, is exclusively Prakrit, though Kannada and Telugu proper names have been identified in some inscriptions. Twenty-three letters have been identified. The letters ga and sa are similar to Mauryan Brahmi, while bha and da resemble those of modern Kannada and Telugu script.

Tamil-Brahmi is a variant of the Brahmi alphabet that was in use in South India by about the 3rd century BCE, particularly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Inscriptions attest their use in parts of Sri Lanka in the same period. The language used in around 70 Southern Brahmi inscriptions discovered in the 20th century have been identified as a Prakrit language.

In English, the most widely available set of reproductions of Brahmi texts found in Sri Lanka is Epigraphia Zeylanica; in volume 1 (1976), many of the inscriptions are dated to the 3rd–2nd century BCE.

Unlike the edicts of Ashoka, however, the majority of the inscriptions from this early period in Sri Lanka are found above caves. The language of Sri Lanka Brahmi inscriptions has been mostly been Prakrit though some Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions have also been found, such as the Annaicoddai seal. The earliest widely accepted examples of writing in Brahmi are found in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka.

Red Sea and Southeast Asia
The Khuan Luk Pat inscription discovered in Thailand is in Tamil Brahmi script. Its date is uncertain and has been proposed to be from the early centuries of the common era. According to Frederick Asher, Tamil Brahmi inscriptions on potsherds have been found in Quseir al-Qadim and in Berenike, Egypt which suggest that merchant and trade activity was flourishing in ancient times between India and the Red Sea region. Additional Tamil Brahmi inscription has been found in Khor Rori region of Oman on an archaeological site storage jar.

Characteristics
Brahmi is usually written from left to right, as in the case of its descendants. However, an early coin found in Eran is inscribed with Brahmi running from right to left, as in Aramaic. Several other instances of variation in the writing direction are known, though directional instability is fairly common in ancient writing systems.

Consonants
Brahmi is an abugida, meaning that each letter represents a consonant, while vowels are written with obligatory diacritics called mātrās in Sanskrit, except when the vowels begin a word. When no vowel is written, the vowel is understood. This "default short a" is a characteristic shared with Kharosthī, though the treatment of vowels differs in other respects.

Conjunct consonants
Special conjunct consonants are used to write consonant clusters such as or. In modern Devanagari the components of a conjunct are written left to right when possible (when the first consonant has a vertical stem that can be removed at the right), whereas in Brahmi characters are joined vertically downwards.

Vowels
Vowels following a consonant are inherent or written by diacritics, but initial vowels have dedicated letters. There are three "primary" vowels in Ashokan Brahmi, which each occur in length-contrasted forms: /a/, /i/, /u/; long vowels are derived from the letters for short vowels. There are also four "secondary" vowels that do not have the long-short contrast, /e:/, /ai/, /o:/, /au/. Note though that the grapheme for /ai/ is derivative from /e/ in a way which parallels the short-long contrast of the primary vowels (historically they were /ai/ and /a:i/). However, there are only nine distinct vowel diacritics, as short is understood if no vowel is written. The initial vowel symbol for /au/ is also apparently lacking in the earliest attested phases, even though it has a diacritic. Ancient sources suggest that there were either 11 or 12 vowels enumerated at the beginning of the character list around the Ashokan era, probably adding either aṃ or aḥ. Later versions of Brahmi add vowels for four syllabic liquids, short and long /ṛ/ and /ḷ/. Chinese sources indicate that these were later inventions by either Nagarjuna or Śarvavarman, a minister of King Hāla.

It has been noted that the basic system of vowel marking common to Brahmi and Kharosthī, in which every consonant is understood to be followed by a vowel, was well suited to Prakrit, but as Brahmi was adapted to other languages, a special notation called the virāma was introduced to indicate the omission of the final vowel. Kharoṣṭhī also differs in that the initial vowel representation has a single generic vowel symbol that is differentiated by diacritics, and long vowels are not distinguished.

The collation order of Brahmi is believed to have been the same as most of its descendant scripts, one based on Shiksha, the traditional Vedic theory of Sanskrit phonology. This begins the list of characters with the initial vowels (starting with a), then lists a subset of the consonants in five phonetically related groups of five called vargas, and ends with four liquids, three sibilants, and a spirant. Thomas Trautmann attributes much of the popularity of the Brahmic script family to this "splendidly reasoned" system of arrangement.

Punctuation
Punctuation can be perceived as more of an exception than as a general rule in Asokan Brahmi. For instance, distinct spaces in between the words appear frequently in the pillar edicts but not so much in others. ("Pillar edicts" refers to the texts that are inscribed on the stone pillars oftentimes with the intention of making them public.) The idea of writing each word separately was not consistently used.

In the early Brahmi period, the existence of punctuation marks is not very well shown. Each letter has been written independently with some occasional space between words and longer sections.

In the middle period, the system seems to be developing. The use of a dash and a curved horizontal line is found. A lotus (flower) mark seems to mark the end, and a circular mark appears to indicate the full stop. There seem to be varieties of full stop.

In the late period, the system of interpunctuation marks gets more complicated. For instance, there are four different forms of vertically slanted double dashes that resemble "//" to mark the completion of the composition. Despite all the decorative signs that were available during the late period, the signs remained fairly simple in the inscriptions. One of the possible reasons may be that engraving is restricted while writing is not.

Baums identifies seven different punctuation marks needed for computer representation of Brahmi:
 * single (𑁇) and double (𑁈) vertical bar (danda) – delimiting clauses and verses
 * dot (𑁉), double dot (𑁊), and horizontal line (𑁋) – delimiting shorter textual units
 * crescent (𑁌) and lotus (𑁍) – delimiting larger textual units

Evolution of the Brahmi script
Brahmi is generally classified in three main types, which represent three main historical stages of its evolution over nearly a millennium:
 * Early Brahmi represented in the Ashokan script. (3rd-1st century BCE)
 * Middle Brahmi also known as "Kushana Brahmi" (1st-3rd centuries CE)
 * Late Brahmi represented in the Gupta script (4th-6th centuries CE)

Early Brahmi or "Ashokan Brahmi" (3rd–1st century BCE)
Early "Ashokan" Brahmi (3rd–1st century BCE) is regular and geometric, and organized in a very rational fashion:

Consonants
The final letter does not fit into the table above; it is.

Some famous inscriptions in the Early Brahmi script
The Brahmi script was the medium for some of the most famous inscriptions of ancient India, starting with the Edicts of Ashoka, c. 250 BCE.

Birthplace of the historical Buddha
In a particularly famous Edict, the Rummindei Edict in Lumbini, Nepal, Ashoka describes his visit in the 21st year of his reign, and designates Lumbini as the birthplace of the Buddha. He also, for the first time in historical records, uses the epithet "Sakyamuni" (Sage of the Shakyas), to describe the Buddha.

Heliodorus Pillar inscription
The Heliodorus pillar is a stone column that was erected around 113 BCE in central India in Vidisha near modern Besnagar, by Heliodorus, an ambassador of the Indo-Greek king Antialcidas in Taxila to the court of the Shunga king Bhagabhadra. Historically, it is one of the earliest known inscriptions related to the Vaishnavism in India.

Middle Brahmi or "Kushana Brahmi" (1st–3rd centuries CE)
Middle Brahmi or "Kushana Brahmi" was in use from the 1st-3rd centuries CE. It is more rounded than its predecessor, and introduces some significant variations in shapes. Several characters (r̩ and l̩), classified as vowels, were added during the "Middle Brahmi" period between the 1st and 3rd centuries CE, in order to accommodate the transcription of Sanskrit:

Descendants
Over the course of a millennium, Brahmi developed into numerous regional scripts. Over time, these regional scripts became associated with the local languages. A Northern Brahmi gave rise to the Gupta script during the Gupta Empire, sometimes also called "Late Brahmi" (used during the 5th century), which in turn diversified into a number of cursives during the Middle Ages, including the Siddhaṃ script (6th century) and Śāradā script (9th century).

Southern Brahmi gave rise to the Grantha alphabet (6th century), the Vatteluttu alphabet (8th century), and due to the contact of Hinduism with Southeast Asia during the early centuries CE, also gave rise to the Baybayin in the Philippines, the Javanese script in Indonesia, the Khmer alphabet in Cambodia, and the Old Mon script in Burma.

Also in the Brahmic family of scripts are several Central Asian scripts such as Tibetan, Tocharian (also called slanting Brahmi), and the one used to write the Saka language.

The Brahmi script also evolved into the Nagari script which in turn evolved into Devanagari and Nandinagari. Both were used to write Sanskrit, until the latter was merged into the former. The resulting script is widely adopted across India to write Sanskrit, Marathi, Hindi and its dialects, and Konkani.

The arrangement of Brahmi was adopted as the modern order of Japanese kana, though the letters themselves are unrelated.

Possible tangential relationships
Some authors have theorized that some of the basic letters of hangul may have been influenced by the 'Phags-pa script of the Mongol Empire, itself a derivative of the Tibetan alphabet, a Brahmi script (see Origin of Hangul). However, one of the authors, Gari Ledyard, on whose work much of this theorized connection rests, cautions against giving 'Phags-pa much credit in the development of Hangul:

"I have devoted much space and discussion to the role of the Mongol ʼPhags-pa alphabet in the origin of the Korean alphabet, but it should be clear to any reader that in the total picture, that role was quite limited. [...] The origin of the Korean alphabet is, in fact, not a simple matter at all. Those who say it is 'based' in ʼPhags-pa are partly right; those who say it is 'based' on abstract drawings of articulatory organs are partly right. ... Nothing would disturb me more, after this study is published, than to discover in a work on the history of writing a statement like the following: 'According to recent investigations, the Korean alphabet was derived from the Mongol ʼPhags-pa script' ... ʼPhags-pa contributed none of the things that make this script perhaps the most remarkable in the world."

Unicode
Early Ashokan Brahmi was added to the Unicode Standard in October, 2010 with the release of version 6.0.

The Unicode block for Brahmi is U+11000–U+1107F. It lies within the Supplementary Multilingual Plane. As of June 2022 there are two non-commercially available fonts that support Brahmi, namely Noto Sans Brahmi commissioned by Google which covers almost all the characters, and Adinatha which only covers Tamil Brahmi. Segoe UI Historic, tied in with Windows 10, also features Brahmi glyphs.

The Sanskrit word for Brahmi, ब्राह्मी (IAST Brāhmī) in the Brahmi script should be rendered as follows:.

title: Brahmi script


text:
Talk:Mummy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Britogissel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Split
I propose that the section "In popular culture" should be split to a new article called "mummy (undead)". It is the only section that talks about fictional, undead mummies where the whole rest of the article talks about real, quite very dead mummies. Additionally, it would allow for greater expansion on fictional mummies and remove the quite out-of-place category Category:Corporeal undead from this article. J I P | Talk 16:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point about a split to distinguish between real mummification and the fictional representation of mummies. I think there are a lot more points that could be included in an article about fictional mummies and how they relate to the popular culture of the eras in which they gain popularity. Could make an interesting page, if there is enough verifiable data. I would suggest an article title more along the lines of mummy (fiction) since it seems more academic. Saint Soren (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont think that is a good idea. The article on actual mummies should also have a section on how they have been represented. Written in summary style and with a "main article" link to an article about the fictional kind of mummies. It is not as if there isn't a relation between the two. The former inspired the latter.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the page for the undead version of is created, it should also be reserved for the mummies that have appeared in reanimated form like the ones seen in TV shows and movies. They already got a page made for the skeletons. Any objections? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Major overhaul needed
After spending some time trying to edit this article, it is obvious that it needs some major overhauling. Looking at the talk page makes it even more obvious. There are suggestions made years ago that have yet to be addressed. This is a very important subject that I believe needs a much better page. I am willing to take up this work, but I would love to have some collaboration and guidance on what needs to be done. Specificity of what needs to be done to each section would be great. Please let me know if I'm overstepping any boundaries as a contributor, I just want to make this article the best it can be! Saint Soren (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

 * The entire section on the Egyptian mummification process is a huge mess. I think the only way to consolidate it is to rewrite it, which I am now in the process of doing. This section is linked to by several other articles on Ancient Egypt and it definitely needs to be the best it can be. Saint Soren (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I have added a list of done/to-do activities related to the current overhaul on my userpage. Saint Soren (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Considering the major elements of the overhaul complete as of today -- Saint Soren (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 * The '"Most Perfect" method' section says brains were removed via iron hooks, as per Herodotus' writing on the subject; the Egyptian Mummies section directly contradicts that assertion, directly saying Herodotus was incorrect: "This discovery helped to dispel the claim within Herodotus' works that the rod had been a hook made of iron.[26]" Do you want to handle that? I know you put a lot of time and effort into rewriting the article. Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed on section Egyptian mummies
In the seventh paragraph (starting "Through various methods ... ") it is stated "The only organ left behind was the heart ... " yet in the subsection "Most Perfect" method it only refers to the removal of the brain and the abdomen, either by liquefying or direct removal. There is no mention of going beyond the abdomen into the thorax, so it would appear that the lungs remained intact, as well. If the liquefying agent dissolved the diaphragm and lungs as well, would not the heart be at least badly damaged, if not liquefied, as well? If the direct removal technique is used, it would appear a much larger incision would be needed, and a more detailed knowledge of internal anatomy. This reflects on the larger question I'm looking for which is: just how detailed was the ancient Egyptian knowledge of anatomy? Based on what I see so far, it would appear to be far less than what I expected.

Yet again, the article Canopic jar states that there were four jars per body, and that they included lungs. This seems to make more sense, with a jar for each lung, one for the digestive organs, and the fourth for remaining organs, liver, spleen, etc. This implies the more extensive knowledge of anatomy that I associate with the Egyptians, but is incompatible with the preservation techniques described. Also, it would seem that the liquefying technique would be incompatible with the use of canopic jars ... there would be nothing left to dry out and preserve. Presumably this technique would belong to the "Avoiding expense" subsection.

Could an Egyptologist review this and rewrite this section accordingly?

73.219.226.54 (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Mummy Article Evaluation
Looking at this article, we can see that there has been an abundance of work done to cover most, if not all, of the aspects that surrounds the subject of mummies. With all the information, this article accomplishes its purpose on Wikipedia, to combine and present knowledge by using several channels. This Mummy article covers the meaning behind the term to the history and popular culture. The article does a great job in covering mummies in different parts of the world as well as informing the audience about discoveries made without being biased. The diction presented in the article maintains the neutrality that Wikipedia greatly endorses. The article simply lays out the facts and is able to display their scholarly sources and provide links to these sources which allows the article to be verified and enforce reliability.

To go on, with the plentiful information presented in the article, I would suggest to create an enhanced layout in order to better navigate the topics of the article. Implementing a better layout would in my opinion create a better consistency for the article and prevent confusion and frustration for Wikipedia readers. Also by creating a better layout for the article, it would allow all kinds of readers to follow along easier.

Another area of improvement would be to expand on the modern use or ideas of mummies. This would help readers better analyze how times have changed and altered through the years. Britogis (TALK) 11:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britogissel (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, this article does have a pretty extensive coverage, though the section on Egyptian mummies does contradict itself, which is certainly a major problem. It can also use better presentation, and it probably is a bit too big, as it sits, and should be broken into sub-articles.  I'm looking into this article, and will be editing / re-structuring it soon, as part of a larger project.  Do you have any specific ideas in mind??  Thanks!  Hi-storian (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mummy. 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/20131113091947/https://www.routes.co.za/naturereserves/baviaanskloof/ to http://www.routes.co.za/naturereserves/baviaanskloof/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly how important is it that "mummies are more dead than zombies"?
In the In popular culture section, it mentions that "mummies are more dead than zombies". How important is this (not to mention how can something possibly be "more dead" than another dead thing). Should it be removed? NightlyG (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. That sentence seems like a bit of a prank to me. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mummy. 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/20131103051319/http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/khoi.htm to http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/khoi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112060653/http://archaeology.asu.edu/teo/notes/JL/notes1_3.htm to http://archaeology.asu.edu/teo/notes/JL/notes1_3.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mummy. 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/20131023202442/http://www.utexas.edu/courses/medworld/herodotus_mummies.html to http://www.utexas.edu/courses/medworld/herodotus_mummies.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208160451/http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/greenland.htm to http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/greenland.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015193124/http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/melanesia.htm to http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/melanesia.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204030056/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/mummified-maori-head-returned-to-nz-after-136-years.htm to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/mummified-maori-head-returned-to-nz-after-136-years.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ramesses II mummy in profile (colored picture).jpg

corpses encased in plaster casts / Plaster corpses (of Pompeii)
I am seeking information about this topic but I find it nowhere in the Wikipedia universe ... ? Do I have the wrong search terms? This is what I mean: Greetings from Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 *
 *
 *

 * If no soft tissue was preserved, they are not mummies. —Tamfang (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020
This page should mention the natural mummies located in the Nicolas church in Wiuwert, The Netherlands. Suggested text:

The basement of the Nicolas Church of Wiuwert, The Netherlands, contains four natural mummies dating back to the seventeenth century. The cause of the mummification is natural, but further details are unclear. Contributing factors such as the constant low temperature, high humidity and continuous airflow have been mentioned, but never proven. DutchWikipediaUser (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This does not appear to be a reliable source. Please reopen this request when you find a reliable source.   Aasim 21:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I linked the official website of the Nicolas Church basement (http://mummiekelder.nl/english/), why is that not a reliable source? The page you linked mentions that self-published sources about themselves are acceptable under certain conditions.

 * Would this be better: (https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/het-wonder-van-wieuwerd-is-nooit-ontrafeld~b7366fea), Trouw is one of the largest newspapers in The Netherlands.

 * Or perhaps this: (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43498865.pdf), a published book that mentions the mummies.

DutchWikipediaUser (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 * - The official website is an unreliable source because its purpose is to advertise the mummies as an attraction, which makes it a conflict of interest issue. That last source might suffice if it’s a book, but you should cite the source yourself in Wiki format, including the page number(s). You should also state specifically where in the article you think this text should be inserted. — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - The official website is an unreliable source because its purpose is to advertise the mummies as an attraction, which makes it a conflict of interest issue. That last source might suffice if it’s a book, but you should cite the source yourself in Wiki format, including the page number(s). You should also state specifically where in the article you think this text should be inserted. — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Mummy
What about Yemeni mummy? There are some things that discovered since 1983 رياض الفرح (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Unhuman
Mummies should never be removed from their places of rest. If it has to occur for some reason, they should be burried back with respect. Why are the people doing it? Would they like their relatives bodies to be removed from the graves and exposed to the public? It should be forbidden. Is there any one person who would like to be put after his death to the museum and be presented to the public forever? It is unhuman, it is a crime. If a human remains are removed/stolen from a cemetery today it would be punished as a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.87.33 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Gottfried Knoche section
I'm suspicious of that section possibly being a hoax. It sounds like something out of fiction to me.  Invalid OS talk  12:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Canary Islands in Africa not Europe
The Canary Islands are off the coast of Africa so the paragraphs about mummies there should be placed in the Africa section, especially since the people doing the mummification were Africans. I'll move them in a few days unless someone provides a good reason not to.

Lenbrazil (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 * The Canary Islands are a unique part of Spain. Geographically, the islands are part of the African continent; but, from a historical, economical, political and socio-cultural point of view, they are completely European. As I believe more in Geography than in Politics, go ahead!!! He-he-he! George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

8,000 years-old mummy in Portugal
Keep an eye on this, please, to update this article. I do not know if this is official and that is why I won't make any changes.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/worlds-oldest-mummies-2081946

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023
change every continent to every continent besides antartica 66.211.228.226 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Animal mummification by natural extreme cold processes on Antarctica. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024
Add a subsection to the "Asia" section for "Korea". Include with the caption "A Korean mummy from the 17th century. "

For the body of the section, add the text:

Mummies have been discovered in Korea that have been dated to around the 15th to 19th centuries, during the Joseon period. This possibly began because of the rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea, which prescribed certain burial practices that created conditions favorable to mummification. However, this mummification was likely unintentional, and even culturally seen as ominous and undesirable.

Mummification likely occurred due to a number of factors. One such factor was the airtight seal (especially as the Korean climate is unfavorable to mummification) around the bodies, which was achieved using a mix of lime, clay, and sand. Recreations of the sealing process found that chemical reactions with the lime possibly caused a high and prolonged release of heat, which killed bacteria in the bodies. In addition, a large amount of clothing was usually placed inside tombs, which led to a shortage of oxygen inside. Mummies buried using the lime mixture sealing technique reportedly have especially excellently preserved soft skin and hair, which has enabled medical and genetic studies to be performed. Insights have been offered into the lifestyles and pathologies of Korean people during this period. Specific diseases for each individual have been identified. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 * ✅ Jabster28 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Mummy


text:
User:Nineohtwooneoh

Green boy Greg from Toronto, Canada.

title: User:Nineohtwooneoh


text:
Talk:Church of Scientology

Long footers/captions of pictures
Long texts under pictures can stretch the picture frame sideways, much broader than actual pictures, and in some cases so much that on some monitors almost no text can be flowed by it's side.

I have tested putting line breaks   on suitable places in those lines and because in preview it reclaimed the wasted monitor space, published them.

User: Grorp reverted one of those with comment Revert caption changes. they looked good on a cell phone but awful on a computer web browser. long captions automatically wrap

It seems my solution was not suitable for every configuration, but at the same time it seems his remark is not true in all environments. I worked on comp screen; before my change (and after revert) in my case long captions didn't. (and don't) automatically revert. It seems the problem (no automatical varp for long captions), which I fudged by inserting newline tags, might be environment (e.g. browser, and maybe even version) dependant. I used and older version of firefox at the time.

And you (Grorp) seem to have been right: in Opera on the same comp long captions do seem to get automatically warped, so I am reverting my other recent patchy picture caption changes.
 * edit: he already reverted all of them before I could. In Firefox 115.4.0esr, and are again looking awful on this version of this computer web browser. When I am at some other comp I'll see if it's just this version or FF in general.

Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I checked 3 computer browsers (Firefox, Edge & Brave) looking at the current version (wrapping captions) and your version with the line-breaks in them. I tried it logged in and logged out, and tried two Wikipedia skins: Vector 2022 (default) and Vector legacy 2010 (my preference). The non-line-break version wraps correctly in all cases.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  18:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Unused sources from "Works cited" section
All of the sources mentioned in the "Works cited" section are not actually referenced in the article itself. I'm putting them here in case anyone needs to use or restore them. I'm leaving one, Lamont 1986, in "Further reading" because it is focused on the organization(s) and most closely matches the subject material.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

German “Sekte” mistranslated as “sect”; false friend; should be “cult”
Please change the word “sect” in the top summary in the sentence of how the German Government defines COS to “cult”.

This is a false friend: the German word “Sekte” is translated as “cult”, not “sect”. “Sect” means something different in English (as in a subgroup, an offshoot of smth.) - the German gov. actually sees COS as a full on “cult” (i.e. fanatic high-control-group working against liberal-democratic fundamental order). 2A0C:D242:3880:B500:89A3:75E8:92EE:5839 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2024
Thomas Cruise should be added to the Celebrity Section to bring awareness on powerful people who are associated with the church. 205.215.209.250 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There's already a main article at Scientology and celebrities, which does mention Tom Cruise. Per WP:SUMMARY, it's unnecessary to replicate all the contents of the article in this section. Liu1126 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Church of Scientology


text:
Megasthenes

Megasthenes (Μεγασθένης, died c. 290 BCE) was an ancient Greek historian, diplomat, ethnographer and explorer in the Hellenistic period. He described India in his book Indica, which is now lost, but has been partially reconstructed from literary fragments found in later authors that quoted his work. Megasthenes was the first person from the Western world to leave a written description of India.

Biography
While Megasthenes's account of India has survived in the later works, little is known about him as a person. He spent time at the court of Sibyrtius, who was a satrap of Arachosia under Antigonus I and then Seleucus I. Megasthenes was then an ambassador for Seleucid king Seleucus I Nicator and to the court of the Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta Maurya in Pataliputra (modern Patna). Dating for his journey to the Mauryan court is uncertain; Seleucus I reigned from 305 to 281 BCE for the loose range of years that Megasthenes' mission might have begun.

As ambassador
Megasthenes was a Greek ambassador of Seleucus I Nicator in the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Arrian explains that Megasthenes lived in Arachosia, with the satrap Sibyrtius, from where he visited India:

"Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus, the king of the Indians."

Megasthenes visited Pataliputra sometime during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya but it is not certain which other parts of India he visited. He appears to have passed through the Punjab region in north-western India, as he provides a detailed account of the rivers in this area. He must have then traveled to Pataliputra along the Yamuna and the Ganga rivers. The exact dates of his visit to India, and the duration of his stay in India are not certain. The dates of Megasthenes' visit or visits to India is uncertain and disputed among scholars. A.B. Bosworth argued for an early date pre-Seleucus. This is contested by Stoneman and others who argue for a date following the Mauryan-Seleucid settlement of c. 303 BCE. Arrian claims that Megasthenes met Porus; this implies that Megasthenes accompanied Alexander the Great during the Macedonian invasion of India.

He then compiled information about India in the form of Indica, a document which is now a lost work. It partially survives in form of quotations by later writers.

Other Greek envoys to the Indian court are known after Megasthenes: Deimachus as ambassador to Bindusara, and Dionysius, as ambassador to Ashoka.

Assessment
Among the ancient writers, Arrian (2nd century CE) is the only one who speaks favorably of Megasthenes. Diodorus (1st century BCE) quotes Megasthenes while omitting some parts of his narratives. Other writers explicitly criticize Megasthenes:

 * Eratosthenes (2nd century BCE) accuses Megasthenes of engaging in falsehood, although he apparently borrowed much of his content about India from Megasthenes.
 * Strabo (1st century CE) calls Megasthenes a liar for writing fabulous stories about India; he also brands as liars the other earlier writers on India, including Deimachus, Onesicritus, Nearchus. According to Strabo, "no faith whatever can be placed in Deimachos and Megasthenes".
 * Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) criticizes Megasthenes's description of the fabulous races of India, and his account of Herakles and Dionysus.

Modern scholars such as E. A. Schwanbeck, B. C. J. Timmer, and Truesdell Sparhawk Brown, have characterized Megasthenes as a generally reliable source of Indian history. Schwanbeck finds faults only with Megasthenes's description of the gods worshipped in India. Brown is more critical of Megasthenes, but notes that Megasthenes visited only a small part of India, and must have relied on others for his observations: some of these observations seem to be erroneous, but others cannot be ignored by modern researchers. Thus, although he was often misled by the erroneous information provided by others, his work remained the principal source of information about India to subsequent writers.

title: Megasthenes


text:
User talk:Anchi~enwiki

+886911030030 MSN: anchi@bigfoot.com

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Anchi. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Anchi~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anchi~enwiki


text:
Talk:Lower Canada Rebellion

Street fight
I remember seeing on TV (CBC, I think) that the physical disturbance began with a street fight (or a series of fights, as this chronology indicates). How does this fit into the pre-emptive strike of Gosford -- whose purpose seems to be prevent a planned Patriote attack and not to supress the street fight or arrest the culprit of fight (traces back to Papineau, presumably)? --Menchi 00:33, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Les Patriotes & Les Fils de la Liberté
Are Les Fils de la Liberté a subgroup of Les Patriotes? I get the impression from reading this article that they are the same thing. --Menchi 00:33, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

 * Probably the street fight led to the pre-emptive arrests...there was probably some violence going on that may have only been remotely connected to the Patriote party, even before 1837. I don't know who the Les Fils are though. (I really only know details from the Upper Canada rebellion, unfortunately.) Adam Bishop 00:42, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Bravo!
I was so impressed by this article! It is the first time in my life I read a mostly non-biased report of these events in English. Congratulations! I will try to feed you with all the information you need to make this article even more precise. I can't do it myself because English is not my first language an I don't write it well. Here are some links you will be interested in.

Speech of Louis-Joseph Papineau at the Institut Canadien

Do you read French? All the details are at :

Les Patriotes de 1837-1838

The Fils de la liberté were an organization with two branches: A civil one and a military one. The Fils de la liberté was set up in 1837 as the answer to the Doric Club, the reborn British Rifle Corp. For many months, the Doric Club tried to provoke the Fils de la liberté and other patriotes to break the law. The leader of the Doric Club was a Smith I think. He was the Editor of the Montreal Herald and the author of some racist junk known as The Anti-Gallic Letters. Papineau was the leader of the Patriot party, not the Fils de la liberté. Papineau organized a wide-scale boycott of all British products. At one point (can't remember the date exactly) Gosford orders the arrest of Papineau and other leaders for no good motives. He resigned pretty much at the same time and took a boat back to Britain. Also, it is good to remind readers that around that time, many other nations were freeing themselves from the colonial yoke. For example, many countries in South America and also Greece and Belgium in Europe. --Mathieugp

Bias
JillandJack, why did you insert the "bias" template on this page? What is the problem? Adam Bishop 07:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
This entire article is a deliberate distortion.

This article says:
 * 1) Indeed, a first armed conflict occurred in 1837 when the 26 leaders of the Patriote movement chose to resist their arrest by the British army of John Colborne.
 * Q: What were they being arrested for?

 * A: The mendates of arrest were emitted by the Governor of the colony, Lord Gosford. Officially, they were arrested for something called "high treason". One little problem: Under British law, "high treason" meant attempting to kill the King (or Queen) of Great Britain. This is the heritage of the reign of King Eduard III. But, was Victoria in Lower Canada at the time? No. How could they have attempted to kill her in America? 108 men were prosecuted for a crime they could not possibly have committed.
 * Article could probably stand to mention the grounds of arrest. This isn't a POV issue, though, just "not enough information". Bearcat

 * 2) These events are often misreported,
 * Q: How so and if so, by whom?

 * A: This is a vague statement. The events were and still are misreported by all those who have interest in seeing this period of history forgotten by the population of Quebec and the rest of Canada. The knowledge of these events stimulated Quebec nationalism and is therefore a threat to Canadian unity. Since it is quite a contentious subject to deal with, I suggest we simply remove it for now and work on a neutral way to present this reality.

 * 3) and the unelected British executive and legislative bodies
 * Q: It then contradicts itsef by saying:  Reformer Louis-Joseph Papineau was elected speaker of the colonial assembly in 1815. The assembly, while elected, had little power; its decisions could be vetoed by a legislative council and governor appointed by the British government.
 * A: The Legislative Assembly was elective. The Executive Council and the Legislative Council were not elective. This is an accurate statement.
 * Agreed with Mathieu, but perhaps the wording could be made a bit less ambiguous. Bearcat

 * 4) The movement for reform took shape in a period of economic disenfranchisement of the French-speaking majority. In banking, the timber trade, and transportation, Anglophones were disproportionately represented (for example, Anglophones accounted for 5% of the population of Rimouski in 1842, but 50% of the businessmen).
 * Q:Really? If true, why? -- This is an opinion, an encyclopedia is supposed to provide facts. The population of Rimouski in 1842 was how many? How is this example relevant to anything? Statements like this sound eerily familiar from 1933-1945 about another group of people who "owned" everything.
 * A: You say why? Because the goverment policies in place at the time shamelessly favored the development of the British minority in Lower Canada. It is a relevant example (although admitedly we need more such examples and ideally province-wide stats) because it illustrates the inequality between the two groups. Your assertion that this statement sounds like a common negative perception of the Jews during 1933-1945 is absolutely unfounded. The British in Canada were a colonizing force: they were using the power of their state and their laws to control the destiny of Lower and Upper Canada. They were in a situation of power (unlike the Jews in Europe who were stateless).
 * The fact that Anglo-Quebecers were disproportionately represented in Lower Canada's elite over French Canadians is an undisputed matter of historical record. This didn't fundamentally change until the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s. Bearcat

 * 5) At the same time, many among the increasingly Anglophone business elite were pushing for a union of Upper and Lower Canada, a plan favoured by the British-appointed governor, George Ramsey, Earl of Dalhousie.
 * Q:''Today, this is called lobbying and the business “elite” pays professionals millions of dollars a year to promote their interest with the government.
 * A: Some things have not changed...
 * Lobbying, pushing for, tomato, tomahto. Not POV, just difference in word choice. Bearcat

 * 6) However, Papineau continued to push for reform. He petitioned the British government to bring about reform, but in March of 1837 the government of Lord Russell rejected all of Papineau's requests.
 * Q: What requests? - And why were they rejected?
 * A: The requests are in the 92 resolutions. In short, the Parti patriote demanded that Lower Canada get the same kind of political institutions that Great Britain had. The official reasons for their rejection are in the Russell's resolutions.
 * Could be made clearer. Again, though, more "not enough information" than POV, per se. Bearcat

Fact: Historical records show Paineau was mentally unstable: Quote a French history professor from the link herewith to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online :  "The thinking of a man so unstable as Papineau, and a politician into the bargain, is not easy to describe."

 * Not fact: Your assertion that your quote is 1) a historical record and 2) a proof that Papineau was mentally unstable is a logical fallacy. Please read Logical Fallacy and especially Appeal to authority. Historian Fernand Ouellette's contribution to Quebec historiography is important, but his opinion of Papineau is not the only one. Historian Robert Rumilly made a famous bio of him and more recently, Papineau's political thought was analyzed by Claude Corbo and Yvan Lamonde. Reading and understanding Papineau is a lot more difficult than just point out the fact that his opinions changed over time.

 * Even if Papineau was mentally unstable (and JillandJack's quote only proves that some people believe he was), I don't see how it's relevant to the matter at hand. Bearcat

 * 7) In November of 1837, Lord Gosford, governor of Lower Canada, ordered the arrest of 26 Patriote leaders. This marked the beginning of the armed rebellion as many leaders chose to resist arrest or try to escape by crossing the US border.
 * Q: Why did he order their arrest?
 * A: You want the real answer or the official reason of the government? The government ordered the arrest of all the Patriote leaders who organized the boycotts and the protests. The government wanted to avoid loosing the two Canadas the way they had lost the colonies of the south. They decided not to wait for the people to be ready for war this time.
 * Yet again, not NPOV, just "not enough information". Could be made more clear. Bearcat

 * 8) The rebellion of the Patriotes Canadiens of Lower Canada is often seen as the example of what could have happened to America if the American Revolutionary War had failed.
 * Q:Really? How so? And, based on what facts does this get included in an Encyclopedia?
 * A: Is it that difficult to see a parallel between a the American Revolutionary War and the Lower Canada Rebellion?
 * Can a reference be provided? Bearcat

SEE: http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=39325&query=Papineau

JillandJack 20:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- Mathieugp 18:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FOR: User:Oven Fresh You have removed my NPOV label three times. Do not do it again. The purpose of an NPOV notice is to effect change of an article with actual facts, not an argument on its talk page. Please refrain from your actions and abide by Wikipedia policy and good manners. If not, we can take this to Dispute resolution -- JillandJack 22:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * An "argument" on the talk page is the mechanism for discussing and resolving NPOV concerns. Wikipedia quite explicitly has a policy against people flagging an article for NPOV and then refusing to discuss their concerns on the talk page; an NPOV notice can be removed from the article if you refuse to discuss the matter. You also cannot pick and choose who you'll discuss it with; you must engage in constructive, civil discussion with all parties who express interest in the discussion whether they "perpetrated" the POV or not. Furthermore, repeated NPOV tagging without discussion is considered a form of vandalism. Bearcat 19:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, most of the items on the list above do not seem to be POV issues, and certainly not "deliberate distortions." I would suggest: 1. This is not a POV issue.  If you want to add more information, please do so.  2. This statement is vague, not POV, and should be expanded or deleted.  3.  No contradiction.  Besides, contradictions do not in themselves constitute a POV.  4. If you doubt the stastistic, you should ask for a source, rather than comparing the author's contribution with anti-Semitism. 5. Call it "lobbying" if you want.  Call it "pushing for" something.  Neither choice of words violates the NPOV guidelines.  6. Again, if you want more information, add it.  Don't label the entire article as violating the NPOV guidelines.  7.  Ditto.  8. This is a silly bit of historical speculation that should just be deleted.  In summary, I think the POV tag is overkill.  There are problems with the article, but few of them are "deliberate distortions," a phrase that violates the Wikipedia guideline that say we should assume good faith on the part of our fellow contributors.  HistoryBA 00:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment
I'm giving this a B-class mark just to remain consistent with how it's already been assessed by the Canadian workgroup; it does, however, need a military conflict infobox. Looks kinda bare and empty to my eye without it. LordAmeth 08:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Added an infobox, although some information (esp. Patriote strength) is an estimate, taken by adding the known strength of all documented Patriote formations. 67th Tigers 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

US involvement?
Not a word of the alledged 40,000 men that participated in the fight. Whats up, are we too ashamed that there was a defeat here or what?Tourskin (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who would be ashamed, Americans? I suspect they just don't know about it. I've never heard of it and we relish American defeats! Also, if it is "alleged", perhaps it is not true? Do you have any info about it? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look back in the article history at the edit war between RepublicanJacobite and an IP. The number appears to come from the high-end estimate of the Patriot Hunter's Lodge membership. Whether the entire membership of the US lodges should be factored into the combat strength of the rebellion I leave for others to discuss. Choess (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was me, and the ref was the first supporting *internet* reference I could find. 67th Tigers (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is what I found in French concerning the enrolment in the Frères chasseurs:
 * "Le nombre exact de personnes impliquées dans l’Association reste problématique : Colborne parle de 200 000 membres, ce qui est certes un chiffre exagéré, alors que dans sa déposition, Loop Odell affirme que Côté lui aurait dit que 40 000 personnes avaient prêté le serment chasseur (FORTIN, 1988 : 58; STATE TRIALS, vol. 2 : 54)."
 * Which translates to:
 * "The exact number of people involved in the Association remains problematic: Colborne speaks of 200,000 members, which is a rather exaggerated figure, while during his deposition, Loop Odell asserted that Côté would have told him that 40,000 people had sworn in (FORTIN, 1988 : 58; STATE TRIALS, vol. 2 : 54)"
 * I doubt very much that 40,000 is even remotely close to the number of people who participated in the actual gun fights. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just a little confused: if the US government itself was not involved but rather individual Americans, why is the US listed as a belligerent? Wouldn't that be the same as listing the US as a belligerent in the Spanish Civil War, when there were only American volunteers in the International Brigades?--69.123.112.18 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisionism
I am absolutely astounded by the amount of revisionism in this articles and those related to it. As discussed above in the talk page, the first armed conflict was an act of self-defense from unwarranted accusations. The entire first rebellion was nothing short of the English settlers attacking the French population after the colonial military leader baselessly accused the members of the legislative assembly of treason after the governor's resignation. There was no organized rebellion being prepared, there was no plan to expel the English, there was not even a thought about firing a weapon towards anyone from the "Patriotes" until they had to defend themselves from hysterical mobs and soldiers. It's in fact why Papineau was simply exiled instead of being executed: They never managed to prove he did anything wrong, and god knows they tried to find something.

The entire thing needs to be rewritten. There are plenty of historical sources explaining what happened, from both sides of the coin. This current version is nothing but a disgusting whitewash attempt. 142.83.68.58 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lower Canada Rebellion. 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/20081011033836/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/52/bonthius.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/52/bonthius.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lower Canada Rebellion


text:
Peter Bartholomew

Peter Bartholomew (Pierre Barthelemieu, Pierre Barthélemy, c. 1075 – 20 April 1099) was a French soldier and mystic who was part of the First Crusade as part of the army of Raymond of Saint-Gilles. Peter was initially a servant to William, Lord of Cunhlat.

Mysticism
In December 1097, during the siege of Antioch, Peter reportedly began to have visions, mostly of Saint Andrew. Peter claimed Saint Andrew took him to the Church of St. Peter, inside Antioch, and showed him where the relic of the Holy Lance could be found. Saint Andrew instructed Peter to tell the Crusade leaders about this and to give the Lance to Raymond of St. Gilles when it was found. Peter did not immediately inform Raymond or the other leaders and was visited four more times before June 1098. He began to lose his sight in February 1098, probably because of the famine afflicting the Crusaders, although he believed Saint Andrew was punishing him.

After the Crusaders captured Antioch, Peter and Raymond began excavating the floor of the church. On 14 June 1098, Peter apparently discovered the Lance and claimed to have been visited once more by St. Andrew that night, who told him to establish a feast day in honor of the discovery. Many people, including the papal legate Adhemar of Le Puy, believed Peter was a charlatan and had simply brought a piece of iron with him to "find." After Adhemar's death later in 1098, Peter said Adhemar visited him to confirm the authenticity of the Lance.

The discovery of the Lance was at first considered to be a good omen, and it boosted the morale of the Crusaders when they were besieged by a Muslim army. The Lance was credited with ensuring the Crusader victory in this siege, just as Saint Andrew had promised. Nevertheless, Peter's reputation was tarnished because many of the nobles still did not believe him. Without the theological force of Adhemar to unify the Crusaders, their forces were split into groups with differing opinions, some of which supported the legitimacy of the miracles experienced on the way to the Holy Land and some who did not. In this time, charlatanry and false miracles were common. He later claimed Christ had visited him and instructed the Crusaders to march barefoot to Jerusalem, although this was largely ignored. Other visions, from Christ, Saint Andrew, Adhemar and others, revealed divine anger at the various sins and vices of the Crusaders.

On 8 April 1099, Peter went through an ordeal by fire by his own choice in an attempt to prove himself. It is very likely that he was severely burned in the process, although he claimed he was uninjured because Christ had appeared to him in the fire and that he had been hurt afterwards when a crowd rushed to him and was rescued by Raymond Pilet d'Alès. He died on 20 April.

In film
In the 2001 film The Crusaders, Peter Bartholomew was portrayed by Flavio Insinna.

title: Peter Bartholomew


text:
User:GlennAnsley

Welcome. This is my first day (07.29.03) on Wikipedia. I'm still getting the hang of it.

I am a second year graduate student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC. I am attempting to obtain my MDiv within the next couple of years.

I love to discuss Religion and have developed a website for that purpose. It is mainly geared towards students, but feel free to drop by.

title: User:GlennAnsley


text:
User talk:GlennAnsley

Hi and welcome, by the way. :-)

I'll have a go at rewriting that bit on differences and let you know when I've got a draft for you to look at. Maybe in half an hour, if you're around.... Evercat 00:42, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sounds Good.

Actually, to tell you the truth, most of the rest of the page is about how different religions differ. :-) I don't know if I can really write much without being redundant... Evercat 00:52, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if you would object to just removing the bit on why Christianity is special. In emphasising Christianity, ignoring the very many reasons why other religions are special, it seems to favour Christianity...

Perhaps the fact that God's "paying the price" is special to Christianity out could be reasonably added at Christianity? How does that sound? Evercat 00:56, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I was gone for a bit... that sounds good. Do you know how to do that... or did you already?

No, I was hoping for your agreement. :-) I'll move it over though. Evercat 01:08, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:GlennAnsley


text: Talk:Dover Castle

title: Talk:Dover Castle