Talk:Roman pharaoh

Constantius II
This page is incomplete. The cartouches of the emperors are not listed and this leaves the wrong impression. Constantius II is the latest known emperor to have a Pharaonic cartouche, many decades after Maximinus Daza died. GPinkerton (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources I worked with just went up to Maximinus, so if you have sources that extend the practice of recognizing the Romans as pharaohs further you're welcome to add to the article. The cartouches could of course be added as well (are you suggesting another column in the table? would get kinda crowded). Interesting that there would be recognition of Constantius seeing as he was Christian, but it makes sense seeing as the last known "ancient Egyptian" inscriptions are from the late 4th century. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , there's quite a few instances of "last Roman emperor to have X in Egypt" mentioned here. While Maximinus is said to be the final emperor to be officially acknowledged in hieroglyphic texts, Constantius II's cartouche appears on the stela commemorating the death and burial of the Buchis bull which died in 340, the last of its line: This is the last preserved royal cartouche and certainly the last interred Buchis as well.
 * The chapter also mentions the August 394 hieroglyphic commemoration of the birthday of Osiris at Philae, which was the last dated hieroglyphic inscription known at the time of publication in the 1990s and quite probably still is. It omits to mention any of the then-reigning trio of augusti. GPinkerton (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not doubting that the information is correct, just that I hadn't read this when I created the article. That only Constantius would be recognized in Egypt isn't very surprising since the other contemporary augusti ruled in the west; although Maximian for some reason was recognized in Egypt, his western successors such as Constantius Chlorus and Valerius Severus apparently weren't. The source (found a PDF version here) seems to suggest that the reign of Licinius was unrecognized as "Pharaonic" and doesn't say much about how Constantine the Great was perceived. There is a lot of info that could be added to the history sections above the list, but how do you think the list itself should be handled? Just a jump from Maximinus to Constantius with a note in-between that Licinius and Constantine were not accorded Pharaonic titles (as for the other non-recognized emperors)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , well, there is the problem that they probably were recognized, but evidence of that has since been lost. The chapter I linked says Licinius was actually unrecognized, but I struggle to believe that and suspect evidence was destroyed along with Licinius's positive legacy after the wars with Constantine, whom I can hardly believe reigned over Egypt for well over a decade without anyone needing to name him in an inscription but for whom I can well believe that evidence of pagan titulature was suppressed. (Constantine is known to have issued monetary tokens for the festival of Isis at Rome ...) GPinkerton (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They may very well have been recognized and the evidence lost, but we can't add made-up pharaonic titles or cartouches, especially if there isn't a source that says they were recognized. I ran into similar issues when working on the List of kings of Babylon - the last ruler recorded as a king in cuneiform sources is Phraates IV of the Parthian Empire, but the Babylonian temples were still active, in some form, until the early 3rd century which means that the actual last king of Babylon might have been a ruler as late as Ardashir I of the Sasanians (but there is no surviving source to serve as a basis for this). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If we want to add in images of the hieroglyphic titles, the could just be carried over from this site (where the content is creative commons-licensed), but it just goes to Maximinus. I'm not sure if there is a source for all the cartouches. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing
Pinging, as I have just realized this is a bigger problem than I thought. Apologies for simply undoing your revert without changing anything.

It's become clear to me that whoever wrote this massive chart for the emperors' pharaonic titles were simply copying them from the website pharaoh.se. Both the (incorrect) transliteration and translations of each entry are carbon copies of each emperor's page on pharaoh.se – and the citations for each entry are likewise exact duplicates of pharaoh.se's "sourcing." I have both Beckerath and Ridner's works in front of me as I'm typing this, and there is nothing there to support any of this. Both Pharaoh.se's entry for Augustus (https://pharaoh.se/roman-emperor/Augustus) and this page's Augustus entry cite the same source, Beckerath pp. 248-9. Page 248 of Beckerath's work deals with the royal titles of Ramses VI, there is no mention of Augustus. Likewise, this page's unique source, Ritner 1998, does not mention Augustus' royal titles on the page cited – in fact, no pharaoh mentioned in Ritner's work are listed, at any point, with their Egyptian titles as transliterations, only translations, so why the piece is being cited as a reference for each emperor's titularies is unknown to me. Likewise, at no point does Beckerath transliterate or translate any of the pharaonic titles in his book, he simply writes them as hieroglyphics. It seems we're in a feedback loop where someone has copy-pasted inaccurate information from a site which used imaginary citations. Zhomron (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added all of this (😔) in and looking it over you're completely correct. A enormous mistake to trust Pharaoh.se without going to the original source itself. I used Ritner to source these emperors being recognized as pharaohs (and not the titles) if I remember correctly. How do we correct this? I don't doubt your transliterations but don't they qualify as WP:OR? Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be ashamed about, we all make mistakes. Now, you are correct, it still technically qualifies as WP:OR as, obviously, I have not added a new source which explicitly supports my transliteration scheme. We are therefore left with three options: replace the transliterations with rewritten hieroglyphics (i.e. how they are rendered using English characters, which Beckerath does include in his work), find sources which transliterate each and every one of the titles, or remove the chart altogether. I'm more a fan of the first option, myself. Zhomron (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think having a chart adds so I also support the first option you mention in this case. If a source with complete transluterations turns up it'd be possible to consider that option as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

All the Roman Pharaohs catalogued by Lepsius
thanks for creating this excellent page. I thought you might find the below helpful - it is all the Roman Pharaoh plates from Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien. Best regards and good luck. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Onceinawhile (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Very nice! As per the previous discussion on this talk page the table needs a bit of a redo so I can also see if some of these can be incorporated. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s great to hear. As an aside, I recently created a similarly structured list article about Ancient Egypt at List of Egyptian obelisks – I find your table here to be better structured than mine.
 * On the topic of this article, I figure it must have been a huge discovery when Egyptologists first realized that the Romans had been Egyptianized in this way. Any idea who first published this discovery? Since Lepsius’s 1850s images were so thorough, there must have been many before him, but it can’t have been that long before as decipherment was only 30 years prior and I don’t think this was possible to see without reading the hieroglyphs. Perhaps it was first published by Champollion? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A translation of Champollion’s letter is here. So it was not just a “huge discovery” as I thought; it was the greatest discovery in all of Egyptology. In the very letter which marked the confirmation of the decipherment of hieroglyphics, the subject of this article functioned as a significant element of Champollion’s proof:
 * The reader will probably share too my great surprise when the same phonetic hieroglyphic alphabet applied to a crowd of other inscribed cartouches in the same work will give you the titles, names and sobriquests of the Roman emperors, expressed in the Greek language and written with the same phonetic hieroglyphs.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the Roman pharaohs came more from mutual benefit than Egyptianization; if the Roman emperors = pharaohs then the Egyptians can go about their normal religious business and the Romans have an easier time ruling Egypt; the role their rediscovery played in Egyptology is a fascinating story! I'm not sure the letter can be cited per WP:AGEMATTERS but if more recent sources discuss it it's definitely something that could be brought up in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wondered if you might say that so I have done some digging. The story is commonly reproduced in modern works which provide good secondary sources:
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well what do you know - I'll incorporate this as well in the future overhauled revision - fascinating stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well what do you know - I'll incorporate this as well in the future overhauled revision - fascinating stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well what do you know - I'll incorporate this as well in the future overhauled revision - fascinating stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The list
The List of emperor-pharaohs looks odd in its presentation on screen. In particular the column of "Pharaonic titles" seems very wide, while the column of "Notes" seems weirdly squashed into a narrow width. The excessive with of the column of "Pharaonic titles" could be justified by the various sub-columns for "Horus name", "Golden Horus name", "Prenomen" and "Nomen", but couldn't these be presented in a vertical format to give the column of "Notes" more space? 165.1.216.105 (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)