Talk:Tutankhamun/Archive 5

7.3 In fiction

The discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb appears in Elizabeth Peters' novel Tomb of the Golden Bird (2006). Dnbwatts 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tutankhamun was originally spelled 'Tut Ankh Amun' as people became lazy they stopped placing the spaces between his name. He was know as Tutankhaten (or better still 'Tut Ankh Aten') before he changed his name to reflect the new god he believed in. (Exchange (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

I hope this is a joke -- and if it is, it's a bad one. I hate to burst the poster's bubble, but the Egyptians didn't use our alphabet and the spaces thing...agh!--Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

skin tone

The following has been repeatedly added. It is, of course, totally inappropriate in style and barely literate. It is special pleading and makes tautological claims ("depicted African phenotypes which were the common phenotypes throughout Africa"). These assertions are totally unreferenced and largely meaningless. They are, of course, garbled versions of standard Afrocentrist claims. The text of this section was arrived at after much discussion. This material is surely wholly unacceptable here. Paul B 09:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is important to know the first reconstruction by English, Australian and American scientist actual depicted African phenotypes, which were the common phenotypes throughout Africa during that time. Currently on display in the UK at the Science Museum: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/tutankhamun/index.asp

Tutankhamen’s Grandfather at the British Museum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BM%2C_AES_Egyptian_Sulpture_%7E_Colossal_Granite_head_of_Amenhotep_III_%28Room_4%29.jpg

Tutankhamen’s father: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GD-EG-Caire-Mus%C3%A9e061.JPG http://touregypt.net/featurestories/akhenaten.jpg

Reconstruction of KingTutankhamen’s mother Nefertiti: http://www.usatoday.com/life/graphics/nefertiti/flash.htm

I have hidden the above entries from the article as they are at the very least badly formatted. Markh 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, those images were badly formatted and a few mislabeled. However, at the very least images of the additional reconstructions of the King should be provided next to the existing National Geographic Image. This is the best compromise to aleviate the concerns of readers that detect a bias in the use of that particular image. (which happens to be the most European Looking of the reconstructions done so far) This should be done as soon as possible to eliminate the implicit POV in using the National Geographic image but not also showing the others. 24.189.140.253 22:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The National Geographic image is flawed in that it has little resemblance to the many ancient sculptures and portraits of Tutankhamun. Both the gilded sculptures and the fairly realistically painted ones resemble each other as well as the mummy of Tut himself. A much more accurate image can be found here: http://www.associated content.com/article/536835/what_did_king_tut_really_look_like.html and another article about it here: http://www.associated content.com/article/456544/king_tuts_likeness_recreated_using.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graffixguy (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the "fact" that in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim texts, Moses was in Egypt, probably before King Tutankhamun, as slaves. The story is that Jewish slaves were in Egypt. Also, it is commonly belived that Tutankhamun's mother was not his father's wife, rather a servant of some sort, or a non-royal, possibly Kiya. If his mother was Kiya, and Kiya wansn't royal, possibly not native Egyptian, then Tutankamun may have been 1/2 Israelite. Doesn't this fit in with a depiction of ancient Egyptians having a full range of skin tones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.223.190 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Racial comments in the article

It seems odd to me this keeps getting erased or hidden from the public. If the true reason is formatting why not format it for me. I will continue to change this article, because I feel it is my duty to ensure the truth is depicted. Egypt is in Africa, North Africa is not a separate continent from the rest of Africa. At one point people claimed aliens made the pyramids, now since this is considered utterly ridiculous by the educated community, people try to remove Egypt from the African continent. I am not denying the fact the Egyptians became a mixed race of people as invaders from the North began to envy and admire that African culture. It is important to know the Pharos in question where Africans as where the rest of there families. Of course by the time Cleopatra came along Egypt was as mixed as it is now, it was also the beginning of the end for the Egyptian empire it was very weak and on its way down. I love your website and I am a bit disappointed, in what I think may be racism ( I hope Im wrong)

Thank you for calling me a racist. Markh 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You may think you know "the truth", but the fact is that policy states that we report on what experts say. No actual scholarly expert has ever suggested that aliens made the pyramids. The fact that Africa is a continent means no more than that it is a big lump of land. Asia is a continent. That doesn't mean that everyone in Iraq must look like the Chinese. Egypt was at the height of its power in the reign of Tut. It is very clear that Africa was already very mixed, as the Egyptians's own images from the period indicate.(Image:Seti1a.jpg) Egypt had already been under the rule of Caananites for 100 years and there was intermarriage at the royal level with the Mitanni and Hittites. Of course there were also Nubians too. Your argument that Egypt decined because it lost racial purity is just the Nazi-like ideology of "March of the Titans" in reverse. Paul B 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kwabena, your behavior is totally unacceptable here. Your addition was badly formatted, not encyclopedic in tone, misleading, and a violation of WP:RS/WP:NOR/WP:A. Accordingly, it was removed. You do not get to accuse people of racism simply because they are following the rules. Thanatosimii 00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians were not a black race, because they called their southern neighbours, the Nubians, the black people. So they considered themeselves white people. The Nubian pharaohs were the real African people, unlike the Egyptians. Egyptzo 09:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the Egyptians considered themselves "white people." That would be an anachronistic application of modern labels. They depicted the Nubian's as darker than themselves and the Lybians as lighter than themselves (see Image:Seti1a.jpg), and without doubt they considered themselves superior to both. I also doubt they considered "African" as a distinct categorization of peoples; most likely, they considered the Lybians just as foreign as the Syrians. Also, the first entry in this section states, "by the time Cleopatra came along Egypt was as mixed as it is now." Actually, it was less mixed than it is now; the Arab conquest lent a great deal to the mixed ancestry of most Egyptians today. MishaPan 17:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Egyptians did not consider themselves either black or white. Asiatics were consistently portrayed as white. Nubians were portrayed as black. As a general rule Egyptians portrayed themselves as red-brown. High status women prior to the 18th Dynasty were portrayed as white (See Rahotep's wife from the Old Kingdom). By the 18th Dynasty, even high status women (eg Akhenesamen on Tutankhamon's throne) were portrayed the same colour as the men,

Regarding the "negritude" of the Egyptians, they are considered to be similar to the modern Egyptians, showing a mixture of Mediterranean features with a more robust Eurasian genome. "Blacks" in the negro sense appear in art especially from the New Empire period as Nubians, where the seem to be associated with the arrival of Noba X Group people from the Sudan, John D. Croft 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very least the section regarding the reconstructions of the Pharaoh should include images of ALL the renditions made , not just the National Geographic (and coincedentally most European looking) of the constructions. This is the best compromise to alleviate the bias concerns of some readers. Adding images of Tye and other relatives is inappropriate. Simply providing the other images for view next to the current one will reduce the POV implication of the National Geographic image currently being displayed. 24.189.140.253 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick name

Can we stop with the silly nickname? My guess it is only used because it fits headlines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the nickname "King Tut" is mostly used in the United States, and not a global nickname. Should the article reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgroen (talk • contribs) 12:11, July 4, 2007 (UTC)

It's common in Britain and other English speaking countries, and "Roi Tut" is also common in French. It's not used in some other languages, but this is the English Wikipedia. Paul B 12:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

king tut is a great man♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.163.136 (talk) 16:17, July 12, 2007 (UTC)

In any case, he wasn't a king but a pharaoh and his name wasn't Tut but Tutankhamun. It's a silly nickname and I'd rather see it go. Wikipedia doesn't refer to G.W.Bush as 'Dubya' or 'Shrub' either, does it? Rien Post (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem.

• List of United States Presidential names
• List of nicknames used by George W. Bush

Although I agree Tutankhamun should generally be referred to by his proper name in the article itself. --Sturm 14:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course nicknames are listed or indexed but that's not what I meant. "Dubya is the forty-third President of the United States of America" doesn't sound very encyclopedic, does it? ;-) Rien Post (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is your point? The article never says "Tut was a pharaoh of the 18th dynasty" or any such thing does it? No-one is suggesting that it should. The nickname is only used with reference to his role in popular culture. Paul B (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of uses of "King Tut" not related to popular culture were in the article before Rien Post removed them: see this version. --Sturm 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They both specifically referred to an article in National Geographic entitled "The New Face of King Tut", which is part of his role as a cultural icon. There is always some ambiguity about where popular culture begins and history ends. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul: The article never says "Tut was a pharaoh of the 18th dynasty" or any such thing does it? No, not anymore. It did in previous revisions, though. Some quotes: "There is no consensus on King Tut's skin tone", or "in response to some protesters of the King Tut reconstruction", etc. That's why I brought it up. If they'd been quotes from the Nat Geo article, okay, but they weren't. Rien Post (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume I haven't, okay? Rien Post (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox too wide

I can't figure out how to fix the too-wide infobox. Kat, Queen of Typos 22:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Typos and Errors...

I've found some major typos in this article. I noticed the big picture box was taking up WAY too much room. If you've found ANY typos, please can you correct them? Thanks so much! --Rzwiefel345 03:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The big "picture box" is the pharaoh infobox, standard to any the majority of the pharaoh entries on Wikipedia. Just because you do not understand something please do not simply delete it!

And if you do find typos, please feel free to correct them in situ. Captmondo 03:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such word as 'typo' in english, the correct term is 'typing errors'! (Exchange (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

Actually, the OED disagrees with you. And since we're getting pedantically picky, it's "English". ;-) Captmondo (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 discoveries

I checked Hawas's official website, and fixed the new info to reflect only that which is on his official site. The source that had been provided seems a little unreliable. Also mentioned that the objects had been originally discovered by Carter, who left them in place unopened. What a discovery! Will have to wait for more info to be released though. Jeff Dahl 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How are we sure that this is what he looks like?

How can people be sure that this is what he looks like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.129.198 (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The National Geographic image is flawed in that it has little resemblance to the many ancient sculptures and portraits of Tutankhamun. Both the gilded sculptures and the fairly realistically painted ones resemble each other as well as the mummy of Tut himself. A much more accurate image can be found here: http://www.associated content.com/article/536835/what_did_king_tut_really_look_like.html and another article about it here: http://www.associated content.com/article/456544/king_tuts_likeness_recreated_using.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graffixguy (talk • contribs) 05:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My teacher told me that for the wealtheir egytians had the sarcaugus made to the shape of there body, so we should be able to look at the sarcaugus and see a general idea about what he looks like —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMSfootball64 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We know it's true, because his Mummy said so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

2005 research and findings

Why is this under the king tut in popular culture section? The section on his cause of death should reflect these findings, and not be in the pop culture section. How does this have anything at all to do with pop culture? You can't have a section about the cause of death and not state what is currently believed to be the most likely cause of death. Medic8613 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some True Believer in the murder theory has tried to bury the 2005 evidence to promote the fringe blow-on-the-head claim. Paul B 07:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have edited it myself, but for some reason I can't edit this particular page even thougth there is no icon indicating that this article is locked. Medic8613 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has really been semi-protected for awhile, but it looks like the icon image wasn't there. The little lock image can be added and removed but that doesn't actually add/remove the protection, which has to be done by an administrator by a different process. The article almost certainly needs to stay protected against vandalism; once your account is four days old you'll be able to edit it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely should not be removed, and I agree with Jeff Dahl that there are some people who want to insist that Tutankhamun was murdered, though the evidence supporting that viewpoint is now considered scant. The "murdered" theory should be retained for historical purposes (as this idea was current for a long time), but deprecated in the light of new information.

There is a more recent theory, based on the 2005 findings which seems to be gaining ground, that Tutankhamun died as the result of horse kicking him in the chest, instantly killing him. This would explain the absence of the sternum and the deliberate cutting away of much of the ribcage, as well as the broken leg. There is a thorough explanation of this viewpoint in the recent issue of Minerva, and am surprised it hasn't appeared here yet. Will add a paragraph with citations when I have some spare time. Captmondo (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Namebox

I moved the titulary out of the main infobox and into a new separate namebox, template:PharaohNamebox. I did the best I could to copy over the hieroglyphs/translation, but since this is pretty complex and my browser's a little sluggish on this page, please double check for errors.--Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

Can someone please update with the information from below, User=DJH

http://news.lycos.co.uk/int/071104232554.d4heqg39.xml.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.254.141 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tut's Death?

At the end of "Cause of death" it says he died of a murder...soooo, in "2005 findings" they found out he died of gangrene...couldn't we just say that in "cause of death" and get rid of "2005 findings" altogether? it would save a lot of space...Sirkad(Talk) 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

He almost certainly wasn't murdered, but some people evidently want to believe he was, for whatever reason, and keep inerting statements that confuse the issue. The 2005 findings are the most important study on his body, so I don't think they should be removed. Paul B (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be removed, I'm just simply saying because of the longivity of the article, you can just include the 2005 findings with cause of death, it would stop people from just reading the cause of death and going on to a different article assuming he was murdered and it would also shorten up the article and possibly enticing people who dont like to read long articles but want to read about Tut. Sirkad(Talk) 15:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is a topic of continual interest and given the length of the existing section (which I propose above ought to include the recent 2007 theory about death resulting from a horse's kick) it might make the most sense to split that section off into a separate article, and just provide a summary of the key points of each theory and its assessed validity within this article. Captmondo (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It would, but the page would have to be substantial enough so it doesn't get a speedy delete...however if that is what is done the "cause of death" section would have to be expanded to include the ACTUAL cause of death instead of just a theory. Sirkad(Talk) 02:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt speedy deletion would be a problem, as the article would be substantial, come with citations and be longer than a typical stub. I don't see any basis for speedy deletion in any of those points. Given the nature of the subject, it would have to be about theory, since the "actual" cause will probably never be fully determined to everyone's satisfaction. There is ample precedent for this sort of thing on Wikipedia, see: Shakespeare#Speculation_about_Shakespeare as a good example of this sort of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captmondo (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said that there wasn't enough information I said there would have to be...and besides there will always be speculators, but scientists are very thorough especially with all the technology in this day and age, they won't publish something without ample evidence. You are right about one thing, it will always be a "theory" because there is no recorded history about his actual cause of death...but if your saying THAT is only a theory then I'm saying that gravity is only a theory...because it is... Sirkad(Talk) 06:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't mix the fact that I am mentioning yet another theory with the idea that I necessarily believe in it. It is a credible theory, and given the plethora of theories over the years, it might make sense to split the "Cause of death" into its own section. Over the years the leading theories have been: 1) murdered by court intrigue, using the bone slivers still in his head as evidence, 2) death from a fall from a chariot, resulting in a gangrenous leg that killed him, and 3) death from the kick of a horse that crushed his rib cage and incidentally broke his leg. There are undoubtedly more, but those are all of the major theories (and that's all they can be). Arguably the theory on the weakest legs these days is #1 given the injuries noted in #2 and #3, but there are still who hold out for poison being a factor, as his tissues have not been tested for that. There have been other theories along the way, such as a fall mixed with his supposed scoliosis killing him, but that has been pretty much ruled out thanks to the recent investigations. None of the major theories are definitive as yet because of the fragility of the mummy, and the "one shot" nature of most of the investigations, though hopefully within our lifetimes something approaching a definitive answer will be had. In the meantime, documenting the various theories over time is a useful thing to do. (Haven't tracked down my copy of the Minerva that has that article, though for the record there seems to be a version of the "killed by horse's kick" theory spelled out at: http://archaeologyrocks.com/cultures-countries/ancient-egypt/12). Captmondo 14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then its quite clear we sould make a theories page and just take out 2005 findings in this article to shorten it up just make sure that the 2005 findings are included in the cause of death. Sirkad(Talk) 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that it is too long, this means i have to edit it down to 3000 words when i cut and paste it into my egyptology assignment for school, which is a real pain in the ass! i dont know what to delete and what to keep without actually reading it!

Project ideas

what is a good project idea about king tut in general. I need to make a 3-D model and i need a good idea. Please help

RMSfootball64, December 3 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMSfootball64 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

HIS DEATH?

Some jerk put something stupid under his death like he had STDS and stuff I mean who is this guy he should be removed from Wikipedia immediatley!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.239.162 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked after he made that edit. Woody (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

the o2

the exhibition section should be changed to show the exhibition at the o2 in london. Techo (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Skin tone again

Moved from topWoody (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT COLOUR DID TUT ANKH AMUN PAINT HIMSELF? http://members.fortunecity.com/robstravel/jpg/tut.jpg http://z.about.com/d/philadelphia/1/0/N/p/4/tutankhamun_004.jpg http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tutpics2.jpg

Why don't we just use that skintone? Tut Ankh Amun portrayed himself a very similar skintone to the rest of his relatives. These include:

Queen Tiye http://web.ukonline.co.uk/gavin.egypt/images/scribe23.jpg http://www.paleolithicartmagazine.org/Tyie.jpg

Amenhotep III http://wysinger.homestead.com/amen8.jpg

Akhenaten http://www.gotoegypt.org/images/Tell03s.jpg

That would be a basic common sense approach. Not every African is pitch black, African skin comes in a multitude of tones. Furthermore everyone in the world is mixed to a degree. If the King commanded his skin to be painted dark brown on his tomb walls and on his possessions, then picture the man as dark brown as he was. What is the problem?

Tut Ankh Amun Throne http://www.arealles.com/ae14.jpg

Tut Ankh Amun Walls http://www.odysseyadventures.ca/articles/ramesses/tut_tomb.jpg

It is very hard for the colonized mind to absorb the fact that he looked as 'African' as someone from Zimbabwe or Nigeria or Sudan - or anyone else indigeneous to Africa. The ancient Egyptians wrote that they originated from a lands they called Ta Seti & Ta Neteru (Sudan/Somalia) Tut's skin tone CAN be substantiated if you look at him - not the figment of an photoshop reconstruction. The Egyptians did not think of themselves as white - white symbolized death in their belief system. Ancient Egyptians referred to themselves as Kememu (Black People) and ancient Egypt was referred to as Kemet (Black land). Ancients Egyptians distinguished themselves from other nations and they certainly knew what colour they were, and used paint to illustrate it.

Syrian, Nubian,Libyan Egyptian,(Left to right): http://www.catchpenny.org/images/seti1a.gif

Egyptian Builders: http://wysinger.homestead.com/wallimage.jpg

Back to Tut; check Tut Ankh Amun's tomb walls to see what skin tone he was.

http://mutiarahidup.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/image001.jpg

Then someone call in some real scientists not sponsored by some pompous organization with 'supremist' agendas. The evidence is everywhere you look so lets do away with the scary looking reconstruction designed to frighten you into believing nonsense commissioned by organizations that should be silenced for propagating racist ideology and/or plain stupidity.

Last note please refer to the height of Ancient Egypt then known as Kemet which lay in the Upper Nile Vale Kingdom (Deep South Egypt today). Note how the ancient Egyptians/Kememu saw their civilization flow South/Upper to North/Lower Kingdom the same direction as flow of the Nile. This correlates with the origin of the ancient Egyptians who originated from southern African kingdoms of the Ta Seti and the Ta Neteru also refered to as Kush, Nubia and Punt. Civilzations that predated ancient Egypt/Kemet. Kemetic civilization fell into decline as the Kememu were invaded by Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and Persians to form the peoples modern day 'Egypt' - so named by the Greeks. Let us celebrate our world history and origins, and never, ever allow a racists to assume the responsibility of educators...they refuse to be educated themselves. So in short:

King Tut Ankhamuns own artifacts express more than a thousand words....enjoy!

http://treasuresofkingtut.com/images/exhibits/full/ex5.jpg

http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/Beheaded/king_tut.jpg

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/killtut3.jpg

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/e/images/egypt_tut.wife.thron.lg.jpg

NEFERTITI

89.240.33.20 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is almost an article! I just want to point out that the Egyptians didn't call themselves Kememu or even Kemu as I've seen elsewhere. That isn't an Egyptian word. To quote an Egyptologist friend of mine, "No, the Egyptians referred to _themselves_ as /rmt/, "the men/mankind" (Faulkner: 149), as can be found in Gardiner's _Ancient Egyptian Onomastica_ [an explanation of names], translated directly from Egyptian." They also referred to themselves as /rmTw n kmt/ 'people of Kemet'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

King tut

They said that king tut was around 19 when he died. If anybody knows " How old was his wife and how old was he when he had his first child?" Alyssa Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.9.24 (talk) 21:40, April 11, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone knows. Records are scanty from the late Amarna period into the early period of the restoration of Amun ... Thanatosimii 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

She was older than Tut, onely that is known. Egyptzo 09:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually she was one year older than Tut -- seems to be an established fact (from Dr. Bob Brier). The couple produced no known live children, but two fetuses found buried with Tut are probably miscarriages. Abbatangelo (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My advice would always be to use another source other than Brier I'm afraid. Here is what a friend of mine says:

"Smith and Redford (1976) in studying the Gem-Pa'aten temple in Karnak, which was built before the move to Tell el-Amarna, noted that the order and presence of representations of daughters on this structure seemed to be an indication of their birth order. Further, based upon when and the number of images which appeared, a general idea of their birth dates could be surmised. As the authors put it:

The percentages of occurrences are as follows: one daughter 91 percent; 2 daughters 8 percent; three daughters 1 percent. The gap separating the first and second in frequency may be put down to either (1) the tenacity of the artistic tradition which had early group up of depicting but one daughter behind her mouther, or, more likely, a sizeable difference in age between Meretaten and Meketaten, perhaps as much as four years. Provisionally, we may place Meretaten's birth no later than the 1st year of the reign, Meketaten's in the 4th, and Ankhsenpaaten's in the 5th. (Smith and Redford 1976: 85)

Now, assuming that Smith and Redford are correct, Ankhsenpaaten/amun would have been about age 12 by the end of her father's reign in Year 17. Assuming there followed a 3 year reign by "King Neferneferuaten" and a 1 year reign of Smenkhkare as independent kings (also very speculative, when all is said and done), Ankhsenpaaten/amun still would have been at least 15-16 years old by the date of Tutankhamun's accession to the throne, with the young king being about 9-10 years of age (we get this by backtracking the age of the remains and information that Tutankhamun had a 10-year reign). So, I think it fair to say that Ankhsenpaaten/amun was older that Tutankhamun. If you track the dates backward, Tutankhamun was born about Year 11 or 12 of Akhenaten's reign, while Ankhsenpaaten/amun, using the Smith and Redford data, would have been born 6-7 years earlier.

Reference: Smith, R. W. and D. B. Redford 1976. The Akhenaten Temple Project. Vol. I: Initial Discoveries. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Williams, A. R. 2005. Modern Technology Reopens the Ancient Case of King Tut. National Geographic (June 2005): 2-19." Of course, that is all ORDoug Weller (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

I'm stunned by the amount of vandalism this page attracts. Virtually everyday some IP d*ckhead messes up the article. Shouldn't this page be protected from IP editing for (quite) a while? Rien Post (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm told page protection requests generally work better when made close to a sequence of nonconstructive edits. It's now been nearly 20 hours since the last lot, so I don't think there's much sense in making a request now. --Sturm 18:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, one can see vandalism is causing a lot of traffic over a long period of time, anywhere from 5-10 edits per day and very few constructive edits. I'd say this volume, spread over a period of days and weeks, would justify protection. The page has been protected a number of times in the past, so 2-4 weeks expiry is probably appropriate. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, protection has taken place. This is one of those rare occasions when it's a pleasure to be proven wrong. --Sturm 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there are no protection tags/banners here I didn't realize the article was protected .... I am copy editing, but also noticed a lot of OR, synthesis, and POV that would be nice to work on.(olive (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

The protecting admin chose to use the dinky protection tag which should be visible at the top right-hand side of the page. It's very easy to miss. --Sturm 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry missed it . Too bad would love to get my editing hands on this article lots of room for adjustment and a favourite topic. (19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

But... You can edit the page – I've seen you make edits. Protection is only there to keep out vandalism from IP editors and those with new user accounts. The restriction doesn't apply to you. --Sturm 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I was the protecting admin. If you can edit the page then you are fine. It has only been semi-protected to keep out the vandals who seem to be attracted to this page. Those who wish to improve the article are warmly invited to do so, it needs it in places. (And if you want the larger tag then that is fine, just remove the |small=yes from the protection template). I will defer to the major page authors. Woody (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Glyphs

In side box - nomen name suggests the heiroglyphs read "Tutankhamun Hekaiunushema" - it just reads Tutankhamun. You'd have thought you would be able to change inaccuracies - isn't that the basis for a wiki in the first place - but there appears to be a level of protection on this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veryunknownuser (talk • contribs).

Editing and rearranging

I have started to edit and copyedit . There seems to be redundancy and overlapping of info and so I'll start to sort that out. This is just a preliminary run so don't panic if things are not left in a holistic state. There is still OR here in the lineage section, too . This means the section reads more like a research paper than an encyclopedia . I will try to fix that but I am not an Egyptologist although I love the area, so I will take some time to study the info. If anyone can sort this out faster than I can please go ahead.(olive (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

The article is wrong in suggesting that the exhibition started in the US. It was first in Basel and the in Bonn and started in 2004 not 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J Beake (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello J Beake. This article is semi protected so if you are a new user you may not be able to edit .... However, if you have a source for the exhibtion info .... point me there or paste it here and I'll be happy to make the changes for you.(olive (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I have a source for your information so I'll add another paragraph for the European tour, Tutenkahmun:The Golden Hereafter(olive (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Reign

1343 BC – 1323 BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.3.122 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC) He was reigned for 9 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.36.130.195 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Name

The article gives a reconstruction of his name as *tuwt-ʕankh-jama:n. However, the Coptic descendent of twt ("image") is ΤΟΥωΤ (don't know how to type coptic characters here, so please excuse the greek) indicating that twt would have been pronounced something like *tVˡwa:t (Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction, Loprieno, 1995), where V is an undetermined vowel (one of e, a, or u in Tut's time). Likewise `nx ("living") here is an active participle, probably perfective, so the reconstruction of this should be *ʕa:nix (Loprieno, 1995). As for "jama:n", Loprieno indicates that the change j > ʔ / #_V began in the early Middle Kingdom. This suggests that jama:n was realized as ?ama:n by the time of Tutankhamun. I therefore propose the reconstruction of his name be changed from *tuwt-ʕankh-jama:n to *tVwa:t-ʕa:nix-ʔaˡma:n, where V is a vowel of undetermined quality. --205.221.82.11 (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC) His birth name mean the living image of Aten change to include and it transformed it to the living of Amun ruler of heliopolis and this becouse he issued an ediect to restore the traditional cults of Amun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.36.151.79 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Full name

Will someone give me all five of his (king) names, their translations, and what type of names they are? Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit - spelling error

sorry, no idea how to do or propose a spelling edit, so i'll try here. Under Parentage, last line, the word 'whether' is mis-spelled.Andypakpoy (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Condition of the tomb at Discovery

The first part of the page says that the tomb was 'intact', but in fact it had been partially robbed out in antiquity. Most of the portable valuables had been taken. The stuff in the Cairo Museum mostly came from the mummy. As the article says later Carter thought the tomb had been robbed twice, probably by the workers involved in its construction. Dizzydalek (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tutankhamun in Transformers

Someone said that Frenzy in the Transformers movie mostly says Tutankhamun in his Decepticon language. Having just watched the film, this just isn't true. Sinkvenice (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Channel

OK, there were three separate teams of independent researchers who reconstructed the face of Tut. The US researchers were not told whose skull it was, precisely because of concern that they would be biassed by fear that they would be vilified by Afrocentrists if they made him look too "Caucasian". They all came to the conclusion, based on the shape of the nasal ridge, that he had a narrow nose, though there was some variation.[1] [2] This is unsurprising, since East Africans of the area, including dark skinned Sudanese and Ethiopians to the south, typically have narrow noses. The golden tomb mask made during his lifetime also shows a narrow nose. The Discovery Channel, which has a commercial rather than purely scholarly interest in the matter, then chose to wholly ignore these findings by generating a "reconstruction" the face with a wider nose, while also choosing darkish skin.[3] This has little scientific value because it is heavily influenced by commercial and ideological pressure. Paul B (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point may be that the Discovery Channel can hardly be considered an appropriate source in this field. One could potentially check out the researchers who did the research and which the Discovery Channel used and possibly financed, but the Discovery Channel itself in not a good source . We have to remember this is a relatively researched area, so there is no reason to use less than good sources.(olive (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, the point is precisely that the Discovery Channel are not an objective or reliable source in this case, for the reasons given. In addition, the Discovery Channel are known to have suppressed facts to suit their commercial interests [4]. Paul B (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Names

With regard to Nibhurrereya, the reconstructed form of this name would probably be along the lines of *nib-xuperwə-ˡre:ʕə (Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction, Loprieno, 1995). This reconstruction reflects the neutralization of posttonic vowels and the change /ˡi/ > /ˡe/, which Loprieno indicates occurred early in the new kingdom.

While I'm at it, I'd like to call for the following change to be made (slightly modified from my previous appeal):

The article gives a reconstruction of his name as *tuwt-ʕankh-jama:n. However, the Coptic descendent of twt ("image") is ⲧⲟⲩⲱⲧ indicating that <twt> would have been pronounced something like *tVˡwa:t (Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction, Loprieno, 1995; Die Nominalbildung Des Aegyptischen, Osing, 1976), where V is an undetermined vowel (one of e, a, or u in Tut's time). Likewise `nx ("living") here is an active participle, probably perfective, so the reconstruction of this should be *ʕa:nəx, including the effect of posttonic vowel neutralization (Loprieno, 1995). As for "jama:n", Loprieno indicates that the change j > ʔ before an unstressed vowel began in the early Middle Kingdom. This suggests that jama:n was realized as ʔama:n by the time of Tutankhamun. I therefore propose the reconstruction of his name be changed from *tuwt-ʕankh-jama:n to *tVwa:t-ʕa:nəx-ʔaˡma:n, where V is a vowel of undetermined quality. I have no idea where "tuwt" and "ʕankh" came from. These just look like modified Egyptologistese to me. 192.133.84.6 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to make this change, but I'll wait a few days in case there is some discussion on this. I assume you can't make the change your self because the article is semi protected. I'm not an expert in this area, just interested editor so don't feel I can make any judgments on this. Thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

I would appreciate an expert checking the addition on the reconstruction of the name. I don't have the font to deal with this so this is a copy and paste effort. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2008 jfjf

Tut's height

Under the section on 2005 research and findings, the fourth sentence of the second paragraph reads "He was slight of build, and was roughly 170 cm(5'7") tall and whad 500 pounds." Then further down the last sentence in this section ends by stating Tutankhamun's "height to be 180 centimetres or 5 feet 11 inches tall". The active links (citations) in this section both point to separate articles that each state a height of 5 feet 11 inches. Is there someone to verify height and make a correction if it's a typo or, offer a reason or background history as to why a discrepency of 4" should exist in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armchair23 (talk • contribs) 04:23, July 15, 2007 (UTC)

hello[: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.150.86 (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC) >>>>>>>>>IM WAY TOO COOL!!! AND WAY TOO AWESOME!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.165.108 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Section without context

The entire paragraph under "Events following Tutankhamun's death" is a non-sequitur. I can't see what any of it has to do with Tutankhamun. Could someone provide some context in that paragraph? (I added a "context" tag.) ye ai aggre and i dont know but this is stupid. Tempshill (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

skin colour

The addition of "Black people" is a weasel addition which means that it is a generalization that is not referenced. Unless you have polled all of the researchers of all skin colours who are researching this topic not just black and white concerning this point, such a statement has no place in an encyclopedia. The discussion on skin colour is contentious and scholarly and requires good sources. You might also check the archives since I believe this is not a new discussion. Please remember Wikipedia isn't a place for our opinions, but information must be sourced so that readers know they are getting the best information available in the field.Thanks. (olive (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Orthodontic age

I'm removing the statement "though expert orthodontists have now studied his teeth and have estimated the King died in his early twenties" as it is uncited and presented in a parenthetical manner. If anyone knows of such a study that took place after the 2005 scan, a source would be appreciated. If it is the case, the information should be added as a proper counterpoint, not as an aside. -Verdatum (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Average

The relevant quotation makes it clear that the choise is a median (not a mean) averaging from North Africans (North Africans, we know today, had a range of skin tones, from light to dark. In this case, we selected a medium skin tone, and we say, quite up front, 'This is midrange.'). This is one system of averaging, as most of us learned in school. In any case, deleting a sentence because you don't like it is inappropriate. If it is imprecise you can rephrase with greater precision. Paul B (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the language on two counts. 1) It is misleading. As I indicated in the edit note, "average" commonly connotes frequency of occurrence. When read with that meaning, the sentence is flat-out inaccurate. 2) It repeats information already contained in the article itself -- in a caption that is already overly long. The caption is better with the ambiguous language omitted completely. deeceevoice (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely not inaccurate. If it is removed again, it will be re-added.--KatelynJohann (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the caption so that it is not misleading/inaccurate -- though it remains redundant of material already included in the article. If you have an objection to the wording as it stands, then state why. This tit-for-tat silliness is not helpful. Nor is tag-team edit-warring. deeceevoice (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tut and Nabta Playa

The statement by Bauval (he of the 12000-year-old Sphinx) does not accurately state the true facts about Nabta. The actual report by those who did the excavations, namely Wendorf et al, admits that there is “uncertainty about the identity of the Neolithic Nabta Playa inhabitants”, and recommends that the interpretations of race “should be viewed with caution”. This caution is seemingly because the “identification” was based on partial samples of only three individuals, and because there was a lot of population movement in the area in those days, so the three samples might not be representative of the bulk of the Nabta population. Bauval glossed over this in his effort to undermine Hawass. In any event the connection between Tut and Nabta is non-existent - Nabta was more than 3000 years before Tut, and there is no evidence that links Tut to Nabta any more or less than links him to Palestine or Yemen. Wdford (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding "race"

Discussion archived

The above link archives the discussion under this heading, as it is not really a discussion on improving the article. Markh (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hip Hop: tutting

There should be in the Popular Culture section a redirection towards Tutting due to the fact it is based on King Tut, yknow?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.55.138 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) do you know when king tut was uried —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.14.161 (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Discovery of Tomb

Under section 2, "Discovery of the Tomb", there is, strangely enough, no mention made of Howard Carter's discovery of the tomb in 1922. I think it would be good to add a few sentences about what happened, otherwise the heart of the section is missing. 190.152.148.234 (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)David Graham 30 Oct 2009

Yes, some mention might seem appropriate here, David, but Carter's discovery is well highlighted at the article's top. The discovery section is prefaced "Main article: KV62", ample reason not to unduly duplicate what is detailed elsewhere at hand. I note, though, that the Discovery section comprises mostly unsubstantiated views and argument which are either not very relevant to the subject or need to be reduced to verifiable statements of fact. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Tutankhamuns "Nachleben"

An addition for Tut's list of appearance in popular culture: Dating from just one year after Carters discovery of the tomb: the funny 1923 song "Old King Tut" by Billy Jones & Ernest Hare".

Can some established wikipedian add it on this semi protected page? I can't myself I just registered.

BTW, pity that Tut being of negroid race or not seems such a big issue to people. That's "Black Athena's" heritage. For me, he was just of the human race, like myself. Cornicularius (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)corniculariusCornicularius (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Kiya

The 2010 article in JAMA by Hawass et al. also appears to rule out the possibility that Kiya was Tut's mother. If Kiya was actually a full sister (or even a half-sister) of Akhenaten, her titles would be quite different from what we see. As many Egyptologists have observed, no mention of Kiya ever calls her a King's Daughter or King's Sister -- she is simply a Noble Lady or Greatly Beloved Wife. So this page should also be revised to say that the Kiya-is-Tut's-mother meme has been refuted.

Also, the article currently describes a relief in the Amarna Royal Tomb as depicting Kiya's death. This is pure speculation and always has been. One relief in this tomb depicts the death of a princess who is plainly identified as the King's Daughter Maketaten. Another, in an adjacent chamber, depicts a similar death scene -- but the name of the deceased is not preserved. Absolutely no evidence indicates that Kiya has a connection with the Amarna Royal Tomb.Thuvan Dihn (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dolichocephaly

Dolichocephaly is mentioned a few times in this artivle I belive it should link through to the article for Dolochocephaly. As I didnt know what this was and I assume a large proportion of general users dont either. Obviously I cannot do this edit myself as the page is protected so *FLAG* 86.151.82.12 (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. There's a single reference I could find to Dolichocephaly in the article, and I wikilinked it (which redirects to Cephalic index. Will have to double-check the recent genetic test results because I thought they indicated that Tutankhamun did not have an "extreme" condition of this. Will check... Captmondo (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent cause

Broken leg\foot and Malaria. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8518584.stm Simply south (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe this article needs to be rewritten a bit due to new DNA findings. Parentage more defined, diseases he suffered, and cause of death. See [5] and [6]. And many other studies. If someone finds the original study, please post the link here. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 18:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary source for this is apparently the "Journal of the American Medical Association" (JAMA) and the reference is as follows: Hawass Z, et al "Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun's family" JAMA 2010; 303: 638-47. The current issue of JAMA listed on their Web site is from last Wednesday, so presumably it will be posted tomorrow. Captmondo (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the references should be addressed to the original journal article rather than popular media. Hawass, Zahi, Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family, JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.187.71 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The section on the cause of death needs to be re-written, as the recent reports need to be placed last, not first. The DNA evidence of the cause of death needs to be placed within the article in a better way too. John D. Croft (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about references and such, but it must all be out there. As many of you have seen with the show on Discovery and the DNA reports that have come out, there are a couple of sections that need to be reset. The 'cause of death' area and the '2005 findings' seem much out of date. The new info 'DNA findings' could be the emphasis, with the other areas as a sub-note. We have to take into consideration though, that Dr. Zahi Hawass stated in 2000 DNA testing was not accurate.Tvashtar2919 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Tis has been semi-protected again for 6 months. When users learn to not edit war, we won't have to do this for we like to kill. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:57, 2 November 2008

Perhaps the time has come to open this up again. I would like to add that the final city for the separate exhibition called "Tutankhamun and the World of the Pharaohs" is/was at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO), Toronto, Canada. It is open from November 2009 to April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.215.213 (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The official site says the following about current/future exhibition dates (apologies for caps, it's copypasta from the site) TUTANKHAMUN AND THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE PHARAOHS: SAN FRANCISCO, DE YOUNG MUSEUM, JUNE 27, 2009 - MARCH 28, 2010; NEW YORK CITY, DISCOVERY TIMES SQUARE EXPOSITION, APRIL 23, 2010 - JANUARY 2, 2011

TUTANKHAMUN THE GOLDEN KING AND THE GREAT PHARAOHS: ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO (AGO), TORONTO, CANADA, NOVEMBER 24, 2009 - APRIL 2010; DENVER ART MUSEUM, DENVER, COLORADO, JULY 1, 2010 - JANUARY 2, 2011 76.116.249.173 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tutankhamun's parentage is uncertain?

Why does Tutankhamun's article claim that Tutankhamun's parentage is uncertain, and then just a few lines down, state "Recently however Zahi Hawass has definitely confirmed that Tutankhamun is the biological son of Akhenaten due to the recovery of a part of a limestone block that identifies both him and his wife Ankhesenpaaten as children of the king's body.". If it has been definitely confirmed that Tut is the son of Akhenaten, his paternal lineage is not "uncertain" at all. Whilst Tut's mother may still be unknown, is his father "definitely" Akhenaten or not? The part of the article needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J2briggs (talk • contribs) 11:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Excellent point. I hope I've fixed it.(olive (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

The following article appeared recently discussing this, with a news conference scheduled for mid-feb 2010, might be something that would add to the article.Neonblak ^talk - 00:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

At the parentage it says that he's Akenathen's father and then at the "2005 findings" section of the cause of death it says "Akenathen (possibly his father, certainly a relative)". I think we should delete what's between the brackets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyawh (talk • contribs) 13:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Parentage

Do be careful in writing up the DNA results. The article only says that Tut's father was the mummy from KV55, not that it was Akhenaten. It's still possible (given the young age for the KV55 mummy claimed by many who have examined it) that that mummy is in fact Smenkhkare. Either that, or we have a lot of things about Akhenaten very wrong too... :-) I was pretty stunned to find that Tut's mother was a daughter of Tiye and Amenhotep III - there have been many theories about who his mother was, but that was not one of them! Noel (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hawass et al. have established that Amenhotep III and Tiye were the parents of a son and a daughter, who were in turn the parents of Tutankhamun. The son is the mummy from KV55, found in a coffin with intentionally destroyed cartouches. That makes it highly likely, but not 100% certain that the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten - he could still be Smenkhkare. (This would mean that Smenkhkare was a brother of Akhenaten, a prince during the reigns of his father Amenhotep III or his older brother Akhenaten. It is possible that no monuments mentioning Smenkhkare as a prince have survived to our time.)

A summary of the article by Hawass et al. in JAMA is at http://www.saqqara.nl/news/tutankhamun-family-dna-results - maybe a registered user would like to add this link to note 9 or 10? — comment added by C vZ 3 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

I have since obtained a copy of the article (but not yet the lengthy appendix which contains much of the content, sigh), and the article makes it clear that they think the KV55 mummy is much older (40s, IIRC) than many previously thought. Their evidence for that age sounded pretty good to me, so I would now lean towards thinking that's Akhenaten there. Noel (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify

...subsequently noted by Zahi Hawass that the mummy found in KV55, provisionally identified as Tutankhamun's father, exhibited several similarities to that of Tutankhamun — a cleft palate, a dolichocephalic skull and slight scoliosis (also found on one of her stillborns),....

-The her referenced here being Tutankhamum's mother? Please clarify. Thanks. J. Van Meter (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume the stillborns being talked of are the two mummified fetuses (children of Tut and Ankhesenamun) found in his tomb. Noel (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cause of Death

Now that two major studies in a row -- the one in 2005 and the one just being reported in 2010 as I write -- have established that Tut was *not* killed by a blow to the head, can we please simply remove all this speculation from the article? The idea that Tut was murdered by being whacked upside the head was never widely accepted among specialists in the 18th Dynasty. It was kept alive primarily by popular books of the fact-shy persuasion, as well as by cheesy TV documentaries. The evidence was never good, and now we have much better evidence that other factors were involved in Tutankhamun's death.

I think the discussion of the blow to the head can be reduced to one or two sentences, down from the two paragraphs it now occupies.Thuvan Dihn (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He died from Dehydration, have a look at the liver and kidney samples. The colon and intestine had been cleared as part of the mummification process. You should find no E951 Astempene, as they said he was too thin and weak to eat meat. They also said he was too small to drink milk.

With no protein he could not break down NaCL into KCl and died at the age of 10 being dehydrated since the age of 2. It's chronicled that he had yellowing under his fingers at the age of 5, with yellowing of his skin at 10. They thought he had content dissentry, it was the colon leaching salt water into the intestine, dieing a year later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.5.20 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

An article on New Scientist just published today seems to suggest that King Tutankhamen died from sickle-cell disease. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19094-tutankhamen-killed-by-sicklecell-disease.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.230.26 (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Remants of the re-write

I know its not polite to just delete a bunch of stuff en masse, so I kept a copy of everything removed. You can find it here.--*Kat* (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Talk:Tutankhamun/Cause of Death -- I fully intend to turn this into a separate article after I get a bit of shut eye.
• Talk:Tutankhamun/stuff removed

I'd like to say what an excellent rewrite this is turning out to be! If you're the one doing it all, then I'd note that the restoration stela text isn't there. You may already be aware of that, though. Good job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph.nobles (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Tutankhamen’s Name in Unicode

As some of you may know (or are ecstatic to learn, as I was), Egyptian Hieroglyphs are now encoded into Unicode, although at the moment they are only supported by one font, “Aegyptus”. I have taken the liberty of inserting the appropriate Unicode characters next to each of Tutankhamen’s names in the name table. Firefox seems to display them properly, as should Internet Explorer. Unfortunately, the glyphs are somewhat faint; I believe the font may have been designed for printing and not for on-screen display. Also, I do not know if the font supports stacking of glyphs, or even if that’s possible. Wikilackey (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm finding that these aren't working in Firefox currently even after following both options given in the page about how to make it show unicode. The just show as squares with numbers in them.

76.116.249.173 (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to where the information about pronunciation came from. There's no reference, and last I heard the convention was to insert e between consonants. If whoever posted that has updated information I'd be interested to look at it, and probably it should be linked to in the page. JohnDillinger43 —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

The insertion of e's is a purely artificial convention adopted by scholars because Egyptian hieroglyphs represent consonants only (group writing excepted). My reconstruction of his name, which is discussed on one of these pages, follows Loprieno (Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction).Nabaati (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

King Tut's DNA is CHADIC

In human genetics, Haplogroup R1b is the most frequently occurring Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe, parts of central Eurasia (for example Bashkortostan), and in parts of sub-Saharan Central Africa (for example around Chad and Cameroon).The Chadic-speaking area in Africa is dominated by the branch known as R1b1a (R-V88).

What made the editor of this topic speculate to say that 99,6% of Tutankhamun's genome matches Western-European not Chadic ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.175.173 (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Merging in Exhibition pages

I am suggesting that the following exhibition pages be merged into this article or a sub-article covering exhibitions of Tutankhamun's artifacts, due to the poor notability of each of the exibitions:

• Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs
• The Treasures of Tutankhamun
• Tutankhamun Exhibition

Please comment, Sadads (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think those three articles should be merged together (along with existing material on this page) into a separate article on exhibitions of Tutankhamun artifacts, linked to by a "see main". If we merge in all the info in the three articles, this section will be disproportionately long and involved relative to the length of this page, and will contain at least some information relating more to the subject's possessions (or things buried with the subject) than the subject himself. If we don't merge in all the info, we will be excluding from the encyclopedia some information that might be of interest to readers. bd2412 T 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of these are encyclopedic. None of them establish notability, and I would suggest nominating them for speedy deletion. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"The U.S. leg of The Treasures of Tutankhamun tour attracted more than eight million visitors". Not a speedy candidate, at least. bd2412 T 15:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would still consider afd or maybe prod, though I'm assuming prod would be taken down quickly. I don't really have a policy behind me, but honestly articles about museum tours about King Tut don't seem up to snuff. "The Treasures of Tutankhamun" gets 75.1k hits on google. I'm not sure that's notable. Mentioning these in a sentence in this article seems far more reasonable to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The coverage currently in the article seems reasonable, without further coverage. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The coverage currently existing in the article is almost enough to stand on its own as an article. The information which I think would be usefully merged in from the other articles is the list of venues where the artifacts were displayed. bd2412 T 00:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the value in it, but I'll defer to your judgement. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, in many ways the Exhibitions, proportionally, is to long compared to the rest of the article. That could be summarized even more precisely in the main article and the sub-article could go into more detail about venues, objects on display, attendance, etc.Sadads (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put the information from this article together with the articles proposed to be merged at Exhibitions of artifacts from the tomb of Tutankhamun. The materials need to be presented more consistently, but I am confident that this can be accomplished without too much effort. bd2412 T 03:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just leave it as it is? Each of the articles is independantly interesting and if you combine them all together it would make from one really, really long article, wouldn't it? That would be a hassle to read through just to get to the bits that you are interested in. Republic of Texas (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But they aren't really independently notable per se, they are relevant for a short period, and have no other useful information, including a large context, Sadads (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. These articles are, individually, not particularly notable. Brought together, they are threads in a tapestry of the notable history of the exhibition of these artifacts. bd2412 T 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Treasures of Tutankhamun at least was effortlessly notable, breaking all records in the UK, and reciving massive coverage, although one would not know it from this stub. Same in the US I think. It began the modern style of blockbuster museum exhibitions. Why do you think the little chap is so famous? You would have a snowball's chance in hell with that at Afd. The recent one was much less significant but still got plenty of independent coverage. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Therefore lots of news coverage in a PR advertising sort of way, but doesn't seem to really meet notability on it's own and makes more sense inside a macro-article for exhibitions of Tutankhamun artifacts, Sadads (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself! Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have found a substantial number of sources covering these exhibitions, mostly regarding the 1970s exhibition. That being said, although an article on the 1970s exhibition alone is supportable, what would we then do with the materials relating to the other exhibitions? We could have a still-relatively short article on the 1970s exhibition, and another equally short article on the other exhibitions generally, or we could have a single article on the exhibitions generally, with an extensive section discussing the 1970s exhibition, and shorter sections discussing the other, less notable exhibitions in the context of a sweeping history of these artifacts and their travels. Have a look at Exhibitions of artifacts from the tomb of Tutankhamun, and tell me if that doesn't work for you. bd2412 T 22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the discussion seems to be centering on the 1970s The Treasures of Tutankhamun exhibition, let me ask plainly, does anyone object to merging the other two articles on exhibitions, Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs and Tutankhamun Exhibition, into Exhibitions of artifacts from the tomb of Tutankhamun; and as a separate matter, does anyone object to merging The Treasures of Tutankhamun into that page at least until enough has been written on it to carry a separate article? bd2412 T 03:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not I. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If the exhibitions are not independently notable, they won't become notable in the aggregate when merged together. Articles are not simple lists - the notability of an article which summarizes a lot of smaller things depends on the notability of the whole, not just the notability of the sum of its parts. An article on exhibitions of Tutankhamun's tomb goods will require an additional explanation of the significance of exhibitions in general to achieve notability, which will require general sources. You can't synthesize conclusions about why these exhibits are significant from a bunch of sources that examine only one exhibit individually - synthesis of that sort violates OR and isn't considered acceptable for demonstrating notability. However, if general surveys of these exhibits do exist, any such survey would of necessity contain specific references to these exhibits, which in combination with the press these exhibits got at the time would be enough to probably warrant an individual article. Either these exhibits are cruft or they aren't, and they won't become less crufty if you merge them. I rather doubt they're cruft from looking at them, so let them stand. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at the edit histories of the three articles proposed to be merged. All of them were created at the same time some three years ago. None of them has developed beyond being a stub since then, and in fact none of them has seen any sourced additions in over a year (and barely any work at all in that time). Merging the articles may provide a better opportunity to draw people to edit the general exhibitions article, with its broader coverage, which may yield sufficient improvement that one of those sections will grow to merit breaking out again into a separate article. bd2412 T 14:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That really doesn't address the objection. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the pure number of people effected by these events, the subject of each event is notable for their scale. Their notability increases when treated in the context of the popularity of Tutankhamun for the public and scholars,Sadads (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not notability. Notability is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. It doesn't increase or decrease; it just is or isn't based on whether there were or were not significant independent reliable sources written on the exhibitions. If these articles are notable, they deserve their own pages. If, on the other hand, there do not exist significant reliable sources on any of these exhibitions individually, there will not exist significant reliable sources when you add the three together. Beyond this, additional sources would be needed to address the exhibitions as a group, which cannot simply be synthesized from a bunch of exhibit-specific references. Thanatosimii (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If that were a correct statement of policy, then we wouldn't be able to have any "list of" articles unless they referenced sources containing the entire list at issue. Articles such as List of NHL mascots and List of United States federal courthouses would be impermissible. bd2412 T 23:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists aren't articles. They're lists. Hence we have Featured Articles and Featured Lists. Thanatosimii (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a moot point, as there are sources which discuss multiple exhibitions collectively, here for example, and here, and here. Although "Tutankhamen: The Golden Hereafter" and "Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs" are separate exhibitions, they are occurring in the same time frame, and with much the same distribution of artifacts. It seems, therefore, that we are speaking of only two exhibition periods, the one in the 1970s and the other beginning in 2005 and still going on, which are discussed in some sources as being related in terms of their artifacts, scope, and impact. bd2412 T 03:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Such sources, as I argued earlier, would be claimable by the individual articles, supporting the notability of the parts as well as the whole. Thanatosimii (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If we include sources that discuss the exhibitions comparitively, or as interconnected portions of a greater whole, then we will end up needlessly duplicating effort and material among the articles. In any case, as easy as the sources are to find, no one has bothered to use them at all to this point. I intend to use these and other sources to bring Exhibitions of artifacts from the tomb of Tutankhamun to featured article status. I don't see anyone volunteering to do the same for articles on the individual exhibtions. bd2412 T 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not anyone ever has or ever will write something has no impact on an article's notability. Notability only concerns whether an article can be written. If they sit unedited as stubs for the next hundred years, notability still states that they deserve their own articles if the sources exist for such an article to be written. If you believe an aggregate article can be written, do so to your heart's content, but in doing so you are going to dredge up enough sources to legitimize the individual articles. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We now have some 3.4 million articles, some of which very well may remain barely sourced and barely notable stubs for the next 100 years. I certainly hope they don't. However, we also have a policy of being bold in taking action when that is what is best for the encyclopedia. Now, you can help or not with the development of this article, but what's done is done. bd2412 T 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make? Are we running out of internets? So why not just have the different articles with links to each other in case someone wants to know more then what that particular article has to say? Republic of Texas (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why have three thus-far perpetual stubs? No one has taken the initiative to develop them - will you? bd2412 T 01:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly support in a drive to develop Exhibitions of artifacts from the tomb of Tutankhamun to at least GA if not FA, seems silly to develop each of the articles separately, when they can be treated as a single unit. Sadads (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Developing one article rather than three isn't exclusive. Develop one article and later if someone wants to develop one of the exhibitions further they can. I support developing one article at this point while keeping the door open for developing the individual exhibitions later if desired. (olive (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Can someone merge the histories of the articles before we throw in redirects? We have already added significant information about each of them, and have found omitted coverage of exhibitions (which appear not to have clear cut begin and end information, sometimes being augmented for tours in new regions, etc. Sadads (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Children

The side bar shows him having two daughters. Seeing as (a) there is only genetic evidence is that one of the mummified foetuses is his and (b) they did not come to term, is this correct? Tattooed Librarian (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Stela, hey Stela!

Where is the inscription text at the end of the section DOMESTIC POLICY...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.192 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DNA does NOT prove Tutankhamun is the son of Akhenaten

The DNA tests put forth by Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities and Vice-Culture Minister for Egypt, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, 6/23-30/2010) does NOT prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten and, consequently, the father of Tutankhamun. In fact, the DNA evidence allows for alternative possibilities that are equally valid.

The idea that the KV55 (paternal) and KV35YL (maternal) mummies are the parents of Tutankhamun is not in dispute. What is is in dispute is whether it has been conclusively proven that they are full blood siblings. That conclusion is only one possibility because the JAMA paper fails to take into account the effects of incest on consanguinity since it is equally possible for the KV35YL mummy, the so called Younger Lady, to be the daughter of the KV55 mummy. While father/daughter incest is not unprecedented with respect to the Egyptian royal line, it is not absolute, either.

In order for Hawass to prove his theory correct, he must make exceptions to non-DNA evidence. The assertion that the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten makes exception to the fact that the fetuses buried with Tutankhamun are his children from someone other than Tutankhamun's wife, Ankhesenamun. Hawass asserts without ANY proof to corroborate his conclusion that the fetuses could derive from another wife other than Ankhesenamun since the non-DNA, historical and archeological evidence does NOT support the conclusion of a royal wife other than Ankhesenamun. Without the mummy of Ankehesenamun, there is no way to contradict the non-DNA evidence and exclude her maternity of those fetuses. Furthermore, there is no precedence for pharaohs being buried with children whose authentic, royal paternity is in doubt.

An alternative view of the paternity of Tutankhamun based on the DNA, as well as the historical and archeological evidence, is the probability that the KV55 mummy is NOT Akhenaten but is related to Akhenaten. In this scenario, KV55 is Smenkhare and related to Akhenaten as a full brother. The DNA evidence does NOT preclude this as a possibility and Hawass has no evidence, whatsoever, to contradict Smenkhare as a valid alternative to the identity of KV55; and, therefore, the father of Tutankhamun. In which case, Akhenaten is not only Tutankahum's uncle, but also his father-in-law with Smenkhare as the paternal uncle/spouse of Tutankhamun’s mother the Younger Lady, KV35YL, i.e. Akhenaten's daughter, Meritaten, who was married to Smenkhare according to the historical and archeological evidence (paternal uncle and niece marriages were practiced as late as the first century AD as evidenced by the Herodians of Israel).

With Smenkhare as the usurper of his heretical brother, Akhenaten, and as the true father of Tutankhamun, the fetuses buried with Tutankhamun can be validated as his offspring with Ankhesenamun, but only if Ankehesenamun is the sister (albeit younger) of the Younger Lady (Meritaten) since the fetuses are genetically related to the KV35YL mummy. This represents a shift in Tutankhamun’s incestuous profile such that his relationship with Ankhensenamun cannot be viewed as brother/sister incest, but rather a maternal aunt/cousin to a nephew/cousin, probably, of similar age. Nevertheless, the conclusion that KV55 is Smenkhare and therefore the father of Tutankhamun is not only consistent with the DNA evidence but also the historical and archeological evidence.
Pvsalsedo (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, of all the Amarna pages, this one seems to be the most opinionated. A shame, and likely due to Tut's status in popular stories, SciFi and Fantasy.132.229.224.57 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have heard that King Tut was the son of Horus.S.V.Taylor (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

It is stated in the text: "Although it is unknown how he meet his death, the Amarna letters indicate that Tutankhamun's wife, recently widowed, wrote to the Hittite king Suppiluliuma I, asking if she could marry one of his sons, saying that she was very afraid, but would not take one of her own people as husband." HOWEVER: New researches have been carried out and they have stated that the writer of the letters was actually Akhenatons widow, not Tutankhamons. Suppiluliuma I had been dead for some years before Tutankhamon met his fate so there would have been no sense in sending this kind of request to a dead ruler... Also the letter mentioned here was sent in Autumn while Tut died in Spring. There would have been no sense in waiting so long before sending the letter if the situation was so bad. Akhenaton died "when grapes were harvested" so that makes also more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.141.106.164 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Product of incest - five years ago

A few days ago, User:Comet Tuttle added a {{Clarify}} tag to a poorly worded phrase describing research that began "five years ago". This verbiage was added as part of this edit (diff with previous) by User:Republic of Texas in late August 2010, so I simply did the math and changed the problematic bit to "2005", and changed the {{Clarify}} to {{citationneeded}}. However, the edit in question all seems to be based on the September 2010 issue of National Geographic.

I don't have the September 2010 issue of National Geographic and can't get it, but perhaps an editor who does have it can confirm from the article which scientists began what research "five years ago", determine whether or not this really means 2005 or not, and perhaps put it all into a ref.

Thanks, Eniagrom (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems I was correct. The article in question is on-line here (warning: printer-friendly version that will try via javascript to print on load). Here's the relevant bit:

There are some secrets of the pharaohs, however, that can be revealed only by studying their mummies. By carrying out CT scans of King Tutankhamun's mummy, we were able in 2005 to show that he did not die from a blow to the head, as many people believed. Our analysis revealed that a hole in the back of his skull had been made during the mummification process. The study also showed that Tutankhamun died when he was only 19—perhaps soon after he suffered a fracture to his left leg. But there are mysteries surrounding Tutankhamun that even a CT scanner cannot reveal. Now we have probed even deeper into his mummy and returned with extraordinary revelations about his life, his birth, and his death.

It seems User:Republic of Texas was trying to paraphrase and inserted the five years ago himself.Eniagrom (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Transliteration issues

Why is that for the names section I see a bunch of boxes for the transliteration but elsewhere in the article the transliteration is fine? Is there some way that this can be standardized so that the transliteration is visible for everyone throughout the entire article? Nabaati (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

age of death

Did he die at 18 or 19? There is conflicting information in the incest section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.75 (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Raejada, 16 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Can you please update the Exhibitions part of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Suggested new text to change tense, add the New York closing date and include the Australian tour follow:

In 2005, Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, in partnership with Arts and Exhibitions International and the National Geographic Society, launched the U.S. tour of the Tutenkahamun treasures and other 18th Dynasty funerary objects this time called "Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs". It was expected to draw more than three million people.[27]

The exhibition started in Los Angeles, California, then moved to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Chicago and Philadelphia. The exhibition then moved to London[28] before finally returning to Egypt in August 2008. Subsequent events have propelled an encore of the exhibition in the United States, beginning with the Dallas Museum of Art in October 2008 which hosted the exhibition until May 2009.[29] The tour continued to other U.S. cities.[30] After Dallas the exhibition moved to the de Young Museum in San Francisco, followed by the Discovery Times Square Exposition in New York City, closing on 16 January 2011.[31]

In 2011 the record-breaking exhibition will visit Australia for the first time, opening at the Melbourne Museum in April for its only Australian stop before Egypt's treasures return to Cairo.

Raejada (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Although I only included the first citation for the Melbourne showing, as I don't think we need two to verify this fact, and I took out the phrase "record-breaking" as being unnecessarily promotional. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tutankhamun/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Though long enough and in most ways good enough for A class, this article is not extremely good since the consistant editwar and threats of editwar have increased the size on skin tone much more than it deserves to be increased. When the article is a real GA, and no sooner, should it be considered for A. Thanatosimii 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC) It is spelled: Tutankhamen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpgirlchristie (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)