Talk:Ahmose I

GA Nomination Straw Poll
I'm all for this, but I'm very busy in real life. I'd like to take a straw poll to see exactly what our various opinions are, so we can fix things, and/or pick a good time to nominate this during which we can defend our work. Therefore...
 * Support nomination but not too soon if it's all the same with the rest of you. I don't have the time to adress things at the drop of a hat, what with schoolwork being particularly heavy right now. Thanatosimii 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Undecided for now. It still needs some work. I think once it's been improved some more it'll make an excellent GA nominee. — E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Ah, what the heck. Go for it! After seeing some other articles that made GA I'd say this one'll do well. And if it doesn't make it, we'll at least have some good recommendations on what to fix up. — E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support nomination but I agree with Thanatosimii on the "not too soon". I am very busy at the moment myself, for much of this month and the start of November. Having gone through the ordeal of getting an article through for Featured Article status, I would hope that the one for Good Article status would be considerably less of a fuss. But there's no rush as I see it, and there have been some additional good contributions by others of late as well. Captmondo 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support nomination – I would just go for it, and if it gets shotdown in flames, renominate later. Markh 11:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there it goes. Let's see how well this goes. Thanatosimii 04:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know how a GA nomination proceeds... Do we have to defend it anywhere, like for FA? Thanatosimii 04:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I passed the article, after making some very minor edits, all to do with language. I cant make any suggestions for improvement, since I'm not an expert in the field, but I see no reason why it shouldnt make FA as is. Great work! Druworos 14:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mechanical trouble
For some reason, the tomb equipment of Ahhotep is not showing up, even though it's still in the actual code of the page... Does anyone know exactly why? Thanatosimii 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the footnotes was missing a forward slash so it was hiding both the image and the next two paragraphs. Maybe the rest should be checked as well. &mdash; [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   &middot;   ☥  01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Is a creepy mummy photo really the best thing to use for the front page image of this guy? I mean, sure, its him... but thats kinda like putting a jar of ashes as the photo for Gandhi, aint it? Murple 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The shabti isn't a free image and cannot be on the main page. It's fair use, but Today's featured article can't use free use images. I'd prefer to use the shabti picture too, but such is life. Thanatosimii 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really make any sense to me... free use isn't free to use? That seems rather silly, but OK... Murple 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use is only free to use solely to illustrate the subject in question (i.e. on the Ahmose I article page), so that having such a picture on related pages (i.e. the main page) may not qualify as fair use, if I'm right in thinking this...--HisSpaceResearch 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. As soon as I saw this I was a little creeped out. It's like using autopsy photos of JFK off of rotten.com for his article. 68.55.58.183 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree all you like, but as I have said, nothing can be done about that. The Shabti is not a free image. If any of you live in brookyln and want to go take and GFDL a picture of the shabti in the Brooklyn museum, please do. However, we don't live there, and can't do anything about it. Thanatosimii 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in the Brooklyn museum then? In that case, I intend to contend that it's replacable... Nil Einne 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see "one of which resides in the Brooklyn Museum of Art, the other in the Khartoum Museum". I'll be tagging it as soon as it's unprotected if an admin doesn't earlier. Nil Einne 15:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is quite unreplaceable. First of all, the other images are of colossal statuary, what we need is that shabti, that's only in brooklyn I believe (or perhaps it was in the british museum). Second, that tag says "It should be possible for someone to create or find a freely licensed replacement for this fair use work". Find; no. All such images are copyrighted. Create an adequate replacement; also no. Any replacement is likely to be a cruddy duplicate at best. It is not practically possible to replace that image. Thanatosimii 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er you seem confused. Given that the shabti is in a public museum in Brooklyn, there is absolutely no reason why someone can't photograph the one in Brooklyn museum and freely license the image rather then use using a photo taken from some British museum under fair use as we currently do. No one is talking about replacing the shabti itself, there is absolutely no need since the info we have suggests there are two shabti's in exitance, publicly viewable and we assumeable photographable... The shabti itself can't be copyrighted since it was create several thousands years ago and thankfully even with the current insane copyright laws on the US, they don't consider such a work copyrighted Nil Einne 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is only one shabti, and it is in the british museum, now that I check it. The other two are colossi. I am not certain that any of them are publically viewable at any given time. We would love a free image replacement, however the chances that it can be done are very low. That is, unless wikipedia wants to finance a several thousand dollar trip to britain for either myself (A native minnesotan), a Portlander or a denzien of Toronto. My objection is that the fair use argument stands on sound legal footing – the statement that the image should not be replaceable is wikipedia's requirement, not the law's, and recall that one of the highest rules is ignore most of the rules if they interfere with wikipedia's best interest. With no legal qualms, while a free image is better, no such image is avalable within reason. The tag you wish to put on says that the image may be deleted if progress is not made within a reasonable amount of time, and the demands being asked of us are unreasonable; yet some delete-happy admin is surely going to come in and delete the image anyhow, if you put that tag up. Thanatosimii 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, there's more apparently. The wikipedia rules say, "not reasonably repeatable," thus establishing that my position is actually in alignment with the letter of the law for wikipedia too! Thanatosimii 20:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I work 5 minutes walk from the British Museum, do you want me to get anything photoed ? Markh 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, Nil Einne, forget all that; I forgot Markh was british (slinks off sheepishly) Thanatosimii 20:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends if the British shabti is photographable. The implication of suggests that it is part of a special collection not typically on show to the public, and whether or not they would allow Markh to come in and take a photo for Wikipedian purposes is unlikely. Captmondo 15:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can probably get to see it, but taking a photo is probably out of the question. Is there any other depiction of him available ? Markh 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah okay now I understand what all this British Museum stuff was about. Anyway as I've explained all over the place, I withdrew the tag because of the museum restrictions. But no image is in fact better then fair use when the image is resonably replacable and even if you don't agree, policy dictates it is as does precedent so it should have been deleted were it not for the museum policies. Nil Einne 13:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll probably leave this for ever after this. But I just wanted to point out that this case perhaps illustrates why the policy is effective. Although this image is not replacable, this FA went on the main page with a picture of a mummy with from what I can tell, limited or nor consideration for replacament of the fair use photo which would have been better on the main page were it not fair use. Only when I pointed out it was in violation of policy and suggested it be deleted (which I know realise was wrong) did anyone really start to consider to replace it. I don't think this is unique either. I'm pretty sure there have been other cases when we've survived with fair use photos for a long time. Only when they were deleted or tagged for deletion were they replaced. Nil Einne 14:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your "policy" - which as I read more, the way you are implementing it does not exist - almost got a vital image deleted because the a group of deletionists obstinatly refuse to actually do themselves what they want others to do. Thanatosimii 14:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dab repairing
Could someone fix the Ahhotep dab? I'm not sure which queen is supposed to be. --Brand спойт 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanatosimii 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

query dominant info box
Is it possible to put the info box on the right? Some pharoah articles have these and it seems a neater way to get to the textual information quickly. If this wall-to-wall layout is not 'style' and putting it on the right is, can someone change it and explain how it's done please? Julia Rossi 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it can be done until Markh finds the free version of the image we need in the near future. Thanatosimii 04:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for the layout change is due entirely to someone adding the replaceable fair use image request in the pharaoh infobox, which screws up the layout. When that request goes away (possibly taking the image with it) then the infox will return to the usual right-aligned formatting. Captmondo 15:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, people... Julia Rossi 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahmoses, and Moses?
Has this connection ever been entertained? certainly a Pharoah under the name Ahmoses, leading nearly 100,000 semites thru the desert to Canaan might possibly have lead an impression on later generations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.215.154.31 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC). --71.215.154.31 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It has not been seriously entertained by scholars, although some non scholars produced a documentary about it. Further, Ahmose's army could not have been near 100,000. Minor raid at best. Thanatosimii 05:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the history channel special on Moses being during this pharoah's reign? "The Exodus decoded"
 * I've heard enough about it to know it's totally unscholarly and pretty ridiculous. The History Channel can rarely be trusted. Thanatosimii 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Moses of the Bible was seen as a liberator of the Hebrews. Amoses I, was seen as a liberator of the Egyptians.

Moses freed the Hebrews from bondage, and led them through the desert to Canaan. Amoses I, freed the Egyptians from Semite bondage, and expelled the Semites from Egypt through the desert into Canaan.

The names "Amoses", and "Moses" are identical names. Historical Kernels indicate we are talking about the same man, a figure who had profound effect on the ancestors of the Hebrews and Canaanites--and was reshaped for religious and political needs of the time. --71.215.154.31 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That would never be accepted as sufficient to make a historical claim, especially because the claim that Moses and Ahmose are the same name is quite... false. They share the word ms, but that's a common word in over half the names of kings in the new kingdom. Four Thutmoses, and eleven Rameses... all these names contain ms. Add to that viziers and archetects like Ramose and Minmose, and you've got a plethora of names that share as much in common with moses as Ahmose does. Thanatosimii 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jehovas Eyewitness
Jehovas Eyewitness have said the exode was in 1513 bevor our timeline. But the name mose and Ahmose are not the same. In the new translation the pharaons are not named.

Rene nguyen 2008-04-14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.229.47 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we have factual inaccuracy now?
The new photo of Ahmose's statue looks great now, however the location where it says it comes from is not one of the three places which have statues according to the article. I have to wonder, is it the source which is incorrect, and has the wrong locations, or is it simply out of date and this is a fourth piece of statuary? Thanatosimii 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hard to say. The plaque that accompanied the display of the statue head at the Metropolitan mentioned that it was a "recent acquisition" from 2006. I have no idea if this is a coincidence or not, but the Brooklyn Museum's example was not there, and there was no sign explaining its absence. Perhaps the two museums did a deal recently? (Though the plaque mentioned it was a gift from a particular donor). Can't say with any certainty either way however, as I haven't seen any pictures of what was/is in the Brooklyn Museum. And of course it could also be a recently identified piece by the Met as well. Captmondo 02:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you've changed the reference on the page with regard to the number of statuary images, yet I suspect it still to be true. While at the Metropolitan in NYC I also picked up the catalog to the recent Hatshepsut exhibition (which had already come and gone from that particular venue). However there is an updated piece by the same author cited in the original reference who talks about the statuary of the early 18th dynasty, and the image of the Ahmose I statue which is now in the Met is listed in the illustrations as a privately owned piece. I suspect that the piece currently on show at the Met is in fact a loan from the Brooklyn Museum and/or the individual who owns the piece. The book also mentions an additional statue currently in a Scottish museum as quite possibly representing Ahmose I as well, which would add another to the known total. Will track down that section in the book and will post the info accordingly. (Did you want a scan of the section in question for reference?)


 * Cheers! Captmondo 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It'd be nice to have somthing for reference, but if you know how to get the facts straightened out with the fourth object as well, I think you understand what's going on better than I. Thanatosimii 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Time allowing, will hopefully sort it out this evening (a pending snowstorm may change that, however). I may also ask the EFF listserv to see if anyone there can add anything further.


 * Have been largely spending my time of late sorting out the pictures I took as well as those of others over at Wikimedia. Probably by the end of the week I'll have added the rest of other potentially useful images.


 * One other thing you might want to consider adding to articles is an image gallery, like the one I recently added to the article on KV54. Take a look at the listing at: or  for examples of hitherto used/unused images which could be used an a gallery at the bottom of the page.


 * Cheers! Captmondo 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I've set the record straight now. I looked up both references, and it turned out that earlier one referenced the statue head in the Brooklyn Museum, and also had a black and white illustration of it. And voila! it is the same one I saw at the Metropolitan Museum and took the photo of. So either the Met has fully acquired it from the Brooklyn Museum, or it is simply on loan. I would guess the latter, since it was evidently part of the touring Hatshepsut exhibition, but playing things conservatively, have identified its location where I actually saw it, at the Met. It is, however, the same statue, so the confirmed number stays the same. I also mentioned another possible 3D representation of him currently residing in a museum in Scotland as well. Everything is referenced, so we're good. Captmondo 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The image was recently changed for unspecified reasons. I put it back to the statue, since generally 3d is better than 2d, lest there is a reason to change. Thanatosimii 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed from main page
"It was he who confronted Moses, many evidence are found in cairo museum today... most shocking is his stela,now lies in the basement of Cairo museum, which tells the whole incident of darkness, hail ,sea turning to blood, locust ,and in wich order it came just as the bible state.. evidence sorrounding his pyramids tombs ,his empire basicaly, concludes that the Exodus indeed happen... also he kept a journal like monument telling the whole story in his point of view... by the way if you translate Ahmose in hebrew, it means the brother of Moses"

Any reason to keep this anon. contribution to the sum of human knowledge? Lou 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that the original posting used a contact email address for the supposed sender (check a few edits back), that there was no citation to back it up, and the poor spelling/punctuation, this is clearly stating a personal opinion and definitely not a scholarly posting. Delete with impunity as far as I am concerned. Captmondo 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clearly from a Jacobovici supporter... who doesn't realize everything Jacobovici says is wrong. Brother of Moses, for instance, would be Senmose or Senmessu depending on what period of the Egyptian language the name was created during. Thanatosimii 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

info/pic box
Is it possible to have a normal size info box...I came to this page and looked really wrong 172.213.201.227 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hebew Meaning of Name - Exodus Decoded
I'm just putting this up for future reference. I'm hoping this doesn't actually warrant a discussion. This thing came up in the thoroughly debunked 'Exodus Decoded' documentary. Apparently, in Hebrew 'Ah' means brother, and 'Mose' means Moses, which is used to support the conjecture that Ahmose I was the pharaoh of the Exodus. There are numerous problems with this claim: 1. The actual hieroglyphics in the guy's name read  The name is traditionally read by Egyptologists today as Yahmes. 'Ahmose' is a mangled obsolete misreading of the name, still used traditionally. The actual pronunciation during the pharaoh's lifetime could have been different. Still, Yahmes has nothing to do with Hebrew Ah Mose, and means something like 'moon born' or 'moon is born', etc. 2. Even the very Hebrew conjecture is suspect, since Moses is an English version of the Greek variant of the traditionally Hebrew Mosheh. Egyptian would have differentiated between 's' and 'sh' in Mose / Mosheh. '''---

3. Absolutely no other research points to Ahmose's reign of 1550–1525 BC as the supposed time of the Exodus, and research used by the documentary has been universally rejected not just by the scientific community, but even by biblical scholars convinced that each word of the Bible is the literal truth.

It's really sad that the History Channel continues to run this fiction. Nice production values, but a complete mockery of science. It's mind boggling. Sad to see wikipedia get polluted with this nonsense. Flyboy Will (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC) '''---


 * See my edit here on Exodus Decoded. Doug Weller (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you cannot assume what the ancient Egyptians would do. And not "traditioanlly Hebrew", just "Hebrew". Mosheh has a meaing in Hebrew, and the name was given to him by the Egyptian princess to indicate the baby's withdrawal from the Nile waters. Mosheh = this person was pulled out of the waters. All this is according to the Bible. Moses became a prince of Egypt, a member of the royal family, with a father pharaoh that could have named one of his sons Ahmose, using Hebrew and not the Egyptian language, to show affection/love to Moses.''' John Hyams (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is this: Do you believe in the Exodus story? In no, then your remarks are worhtless. If yes, when then? When did it happen? If King David already established his kingdom at around 1000BC, then the Exodus should have occured around 500 years before that, according to the same bible and historians. And, by the way, even of you think the documentary is nonsense, you should not delete the link to its Wikipedia article. Readers are entitled to know that there is a History Channel documentary suggesting that Ahmose I was the pharaoh of the Exodus, regardless of whether it's correct or false. The existence of the documentary should be mentioned in "See also".''' John Hyams (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * John, please don't put your comments in side someone else's. And why not say 'If you believe in the Exodus story your comments are worthless because they are motivated by your belief?' My point being please don't make comments like that.  In Egyptian, 'Mose', 'Moses', 'Mes' etc. means 'son of' and 'Ah' is a common part of Egyptian royal names referring to the moon god Iah. Shaw, Ian, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2003, page 209 Doug Weller (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * John, let's not get into beliefs and more complex stuff. Let's review the actual claim here. It makes absolutely no sense for a very simple reason, and that the Pharaoh of the Exodus simply could not be Moses' brother. That's according to the Bible itself. First of all, the Bible says absolutely nothing about the old pharaoh dying, and his son and Moses's old buddy becoming the new king of Egypt. That's the Hollywood version. Bible simply talks of a Pharaoh, and whether there's one pharaoh here and another one there is pure conjecture unsupported by any evidence, biblical or otherwise. Secondly, Moses is fished out of the Nile by the pharaoh's daughter, and it was her who adopts Moses, not the pharaoh. Therefore, Moses is the Pharaoh's adopted grandson. And you have to agree that it's a giant stretch to assume that while Moses was away, the old Pharaoh died, his son replaced him (Moses' uncle), who also died, and was finally replaced by the old Pharaoh's grandson, and Moses' brother. Too many generations there. Your "Moses became a prince of Egypt, a member of the royal family, with a father pharaoh" is pure fantasy. The Bible says nothing of the sort. Whether it worked in a Charlton Heston movie doesn't mean anything.
 * Secondly, it's just silly to assume that a royal family would name an heir to the throne in reference to an adopted kid, and make his name a foreign language pun no less. Remember, in those pre-Christian days, monogamy wasn't very popular with royalty, and pharaohs had multiple wives and lots of children. One of the pharaoh's daughters adopting a kid wouldn't be such a huge deal at court that when a legitimate heir was born, the adopted kid would be remembered when the heir was named. If it's hard to picture how things were like thousands of years ago, just try to imagine the queen of England naming her son and the future king after an orphan the Countess of Wessex fished out of a river. Now, seriously.
 * Finally, regarding Ahmose specifically, he was preceded by his full brother named Kamose. Notice the -mose? Ahmose's mom's name was Ahhotep. Notice the Ah-, moon? If Ahmose's name was a pun, it was a pun on his mom being 'Peace of the Moon', and on his big brother being a Ka-mose. He's an Ah-mose, a link between Ah-hoten and Ka-mose. I mean, I can't believe I just wrote this whole thing about a completely insane theory based on the fact that a English-mangled version of an Egyptian name sounds like a Greek-mangled version of a Hebrew name. We might as well then claim that the old president of Russia was a CIA sleeper agent who was 'Put-in' there in a wide-reaching conspiracy. Give me a break. Flyboy Will (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, we'd need to ignore all we know about Kamose and Ahmose chasing out the Hyksos and in one sense 'liberating' Egypt, or reclaiming it, or whatever, for this to make any sense. Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Egyptian name is spelled in Egyptian hieroglyphs with a crescent moon, which makes it clear that it refers to the Egyptian word for Moon, certainly not to the Hebrew word for "brother" (which is akh - with a guttural sound that is not in the Egyptian name). Furthermore, the name is given to Egyptian nobility of both genders and various centuries. In short: The claim of the name being related to Moses is nonsensical. Das Baz 17:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Flyboy that the History channel broadcasts fiction as ffact. So does Discovery channel.

4.248.217.40 (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Kamose, then Ahmose
OK, folks, (men, women, (and the young and bold)), here are some facts: first, there was "Kamose", pharaoh-(Ka-Mes) then, there was Ahmose-(Ah-Mes) I was going to start defending the name 'Moon-Born', but here is my Epiphany (feeling), (which is actually: Epiphany (realiazation)). ...Since these two fellows followed one another:  'Ka-Born' , then  'Ah-Born' , there was probably some focus on some society changes. "Ka-(spirit)-Born", implies this 'heavenly', ethereal, untouchable stuff, but switching to something we see, and feel, a monthly moon that goes through its changes of getting brighter and weaker (during its closest approaches in orbits, I think the recent numbers given are: up to 14 percent larger (at close approach), and 30 percent brighter)),.... ...it might be totally easier to think of "Moon-Born" as a return to Earthly problems and responsibilities. (If a society only focusses on the religion, and untouchable, ethereal stuff, then the problems of an organized, agricultural, political, human society, may get ignored). I am Not saying the Moon-Born is a better name for "Ah-mose I". I am saying: His name is 'Moon-Born'; he followed a predecessor named: 'Spirit-Born' . An evaluation of these pharaohs, their "states of the Union"-(of ancient Egypt), could sway opinions, ..about their names. (From the HotDesert..SonoranDesertArizona)..Mmcannis (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I fixed the link problems that a bot was complaining about at the top of this page. I removed the references to Iah, because while iah may be the Egyptian word in Ahmose's name, it's not necessarily the specific moon god intended; I've seen scholars wonder if the "moon" in question might really be a reference to Thoth, given the later Thutmosids. There also doesn't seem to be a specific place in mummy which it would be appropriate to section-link, so I removed the broken section links entirely. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re removal of Iah: What source says that it does not refer to Iah? I find references to the fact that Ahmose (Iah-ms) is a reference to the moon god Iah is every reliable source I can find: Bierbrier (Historical dictionary of ancient Egypt 2008), Hornung and Bryan (The quest for immortality: treasures of ancient Egypt 2002), Wilson (Understanding hieroglyphs: a complete introductory guide 2005), etc. That seems like more than enough to warrant inclusion in the article. --AnnekeBart (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dates and Ahmose
A 2010 article in Archaeometry shows that the Hyksos expulsion comes very near the time of the explosion of Thera. For Ahmose to be involved, he cannot have reigned in the 1500s BCE. If you can get hold of the following in a university library or through interlibrary loan, read it. I paid to get a copy and it was worth every penny. Manning, S.W., and B. Kromer, “Radiocarbon Dating Archaeological Samples In The Eastern Mediterranean, 1730 To 1480 Bc: Further Exploring The Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration Record And The Archaeological Implications”, Archaeometry, Vol. 53, Issue 2, pp. 413-439, April 2011 4.248.217.40 (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article states that the Tell el-Daba site seems to be older as suggested by Bietak. But it does not follow that this means Ahmose I lived during an earlier period. An article by Ramsey et al in Science (Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Ramsey, et al., Science 18 June 2010: 1554-1557.) shows that the conventional dating of the reign of Ahmose is consistent with the data from carbon 14 dating. This article by Ramsey is quoted several times by Manning and Kromer and not put in doubt. Bruins published an article in the same issue of Science (Dating Pharaonic Egypt Science 18 June 2010: 1489-1490.) Bruins mentions the discrepancies between the Bietak and Manning/Kromer studies. Ultimately either one of the C14 dates could be wrong, or Tell el-Daba has a slightly different history as proposed initially. Alternative issues mentioned in the articles include the fact that the strata in tell el-Daba were rather disturbed and the association of certain layers with time periods may not be as they first appeared? Non of the articles draw the conclusion Ahmose I reigned earlier than stated in the article here on Wikipedia. --AB (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would be intersting to look at new evidence. It seems that now the tempest stela and ahmose reign could be linked to the Thera axplosion. : Ritner, R.K. and Moeller, N. 2014. The Ahmose ‘Tempest Stela’, Thera and Comparative Chronology, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73: 1-19. : — Preceding unsigned comment added by RigOLuche (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Article by Moeller on Tempest Stele from 2014: https://www.academia.edu/6683011/The_Ahmose_Tempest_Stela_Thera_and_Comparative_Chronology

100.15.117.207 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Born of Iah, not Born of the Moon
The syllable Ah in the name Ahmose is a theophoric syllable. Ahmose I. was the first pharao in the ruling dynasty which was named after him, the Ahmosides. The deity of this ruling dynasty was Iah, a moon deity.

Theoporic syllables were very common in ancient Egypt. See: Ramesses_I Ra-moses -> Born of Ra and not Born of the Sun

--Basti Schneider (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see your point, but isn't it a little misleading or suggestive to put Jah to the right of the pipe, instead of Iah? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree on two grounds. This rendering leaves the name untranslated and overly specific. Iah is the moon. To argue that the name is not to be rendered "born of the moon," but "born of the god Iah" wouldn't make sense to the Egyptians - the moon is the god Iah. Egyptian doesn't have separate words for the god and the astronomical feature, cf. Sol and Luna in Latin. "Born of Iah," thus, leaves untranslated a word which must be conceived of as being, strictly speaking, the common noun "moon." Secondly, since Iah simply is Egyptian for moon, all moon gods are Iah, in much the same way all sun gods invariably end up being bundled together into Ra somehow. It is thus uncertain whether the moon god in question here is the moon god whose name simply means moon god, or the moon gods par exellence of the 18th dynasty, Iah-Thoth and Iah-Khonsu. I stated here a few years back that I had read someone argue that the Iah in question may very well be taken as a reference to Thoth due to the use of Thoth as the theophor of the Thutmosids of the same dynasty, and I spent the morning looking for that source without success, but I am for this reason not particularly comfortable with the claim the article presently makes, at least not until someone comes around with a paper demonstrating that Ahmose must be a reference to the vanilla moon deity because of late 17th or early 18th dynasty connections to the cult of Iah as a distinct entity from the other moon gods to which he was melded in the early New Kingdom. And, being honest, I am even more concerned that this is a sideways attempt to insert material from The Exodus Decoded into this page. For those who aren't following the state of modern crackpotism, Iah is taken by a certain documentary to be the origin of the name of Yahweh, since Iah is presently pronounced the same as its first syllable, and laypersons view this as significant. All else held equal, this article probably shouldn't say things that might reinforce all the nonsense which has been manufactured about Ahmose over the last decade. If not "born of the moon," "born of the moon god" is a perfectly acceptable translation, and won't dangle a false cognate in front of the crackpots for them to grab onto. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong picture for Ahmose vs Hyksos
The picture for the Conquest of the Hyksos section is not Ahmose I and the Hyksos, but actually a depiction of Ramesses II at the battle of Kadesh, taken from a modern mural. It also appears incorrectly labelled in a few other articles, there I’d suggest changing ‘Hyksos’ to ‘Hittites’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.93.152 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Number
After it is clear now, that Senakhtenre had the nomen Ahmose, we should rename the article to Ahmose II. 82.16.170.193 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. We don't decide those things. If the majority of published sources start using that nomenclature, sure. But this isn't the first time a new discovery screws up the established number system, and scholars don't necessarily renumber when these kinds of discoveries are made. It tends to cause confusion in the literature because two different books may be referring to two different people by the same name. Cf. Sobekhotep and Intef Thanatosimii (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Scholars are not a uniform bunch, and some already renumber this Ahmose (as well as the one in the 6th century BC, "Amasis"), while some do not. To leave the number uncorrected is ultimately as problematic as correcting it, since either can cause confusion, and in different ways and to different extent over time. While surely correctness ought to be preferred, I think it is worth pointing out that in such instances recourse to including the throne name would be advisable, especially as it is not shared with the other two kings named Ahmose. So perhaps it would be most accurate and preferable to name the article "Nebpehtyre Ahmose." Moreover, the article ought to indicate the numbering issue in some way. Similar issues have cropped up with the numbering of kings named Shoshenq (to the point of a coalition of Egyptologists actually declaring a standard, with some counterfactual implications!) and Osorkon (with the Osorkon in Dynasty 21 labeled variously "Osokhor," "Osorkon the Elder," or "Osorkon I"). StefThrax (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ahmose I. 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/20100731124906/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/755/he1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/755/he1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731124906/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/755/he1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/755/he1.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) 11:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the ancient Historian Manetho, Ahmoses I was the pharaoh during the Exodus.
Should we add an Ahmose in Literature section, or put it in its own section, or...  something? I'm not sure erat the usual protocol here is. It's a very interesting claim from a very ancient source (and interestingly, Ahmose's Crown Prince did predecease him,  just like according to Moses.)  I don't want to make this into a theological discussion,  I just think that it's  an important enough claim (thousands of years old, and from an ancient historian) to add to his page, but I'm not sure how/where to do it. Tabbycatlove (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Josephus tells us that according to Manetho the Hyksos were finally expelled I in the reign of Misphragmuthôsis. Josephus actually says it's in his sons reign, Thummôsis, but he does not realize that Misphragmuthôsis is Thutmose III, and his son was Amenhotep III. He implies that they were defeated by Ahmose I but expelled by Misphragmuthôsis.  If you allow that the whole story of the Hyksos Is political propaganda, the parallel is obvious that the Hebrews are subjugated by Ahmose I or perhaps Amenhotep I, but are expelled by Misphragmuthôsis, which corresponds to the date of the Exodus given by the Bible.

The official accepted scholarship here ignores most of this information from Manetho. Even here in the article it says "all we know about this comes from the mathematical papyrus", which is false, much more is learned from the Manetho epitome than goes in to the conclusion reached by the scholars presented here on the matter. The relation between the Hyksos and Joseph and his people sojourning in egypt and their expulsion with the Exodus it is blatant, and it is systematically downplayed by scholars. The biblical chronology places Joseph the sojourn and the Exodus exactly parallel to where the Egyptian chronology places the story of the Hyksos. I have never seen people so afraid that something so obviously true might actually be true. 2600:1004:B05B:1D18:15E3:7AD6:EC65:9B24 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Citations needed
G'day all, there appear to be a few parts of this article that aren't referenced. Given that the article is currently rated as a featured article, I think it is pretty important that this gets rectified, if possible. As such, I have marked where I think more citations are needed with Cn tags, with this edit: If there is anyone who is able to assist with adding these, I am sure the effort would be greatly appreciated. G'day, not sure if you can help, but figured I'd ask given that you may have some references applicable to this area based on other articles you have edited in the past. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC) are you interested in returning to address the rest of the citation needed templates? If not, would you like to notice this and start the FAR process? Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have begun work. Would probably be good for someone to check over the formatting of my citations, as I'm not used to the style. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For the but these were rejected by the majority of Egyptologists even before the radiocarbon date was published in 2010. bit, the New Chronology (Rohl) article provides citations for both the fact that a lot of people disagreed with Rohl, and that the radiocarbon date didn't back it up, but I've been unable to find a source which says both. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this. The citation style seems a little different to the ones I am used to, also, I'm sorry. Regarding the point about 2010, I wonder if potentially the sentence in the article could be reworded slightly to match the sources you mention above (if you have access to them to verify)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (Apologies for the long wait) I think the uncited material could be fairly easily removed, my major concern is, with the age of the article, how many of the refs may have been muddled, and how current scholarship is, etc. I'll have to take a deeper look to see if it can be made "good enough for now" or if the whole article would be better served by being completely scrubbed. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)