Talk:Tutankhamun/Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019
CURRENT IMAGE 310Mark (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What changes are you asking for? If there is a freely licensed image you want to see in the article, please provide it.  RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Adventures in Egyptian pronunciation
All right, let's see what we can do with the pronunciation stuff. I'm starting with Vycichl, in which three pages are cited corresponding to the etyma for the three elements of the royal name:


 * This is the 𓇋𓏠𓈖 part: "La forme originale peut être reconstituée comme *'Iammānaw" (Vycichl 1983:10)


 * This is the 𓏏𓅱𓏏 part which gets reconstructed as "prob. *tawāt-īy" (Vycichl 1983:224)


 * This is the 𓋹 part and here several reconstructed forms are offered depending on grammatical function, it's not immediately obvious to me which would be most relevant to us. (Vycichl 1983:250)

So, can I get directly from this information to the reconstruction in the article? No, but it could back up elements of the other sources. Note in particular that the long ā is in the right place in the first and third element. Haukur (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And that's as far as I can get with this at the moment since my university library has neither of the other books and they don't seem to be available online. If you manage to get the pages (e.g. at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request) I'll happily help you work through them but I'm inclined to believe that whoever added the pronunciation (who was it? do you want to ping them?) based on these three high-quality scholarly sources knew what they were doing. I would not want to remove this information or tag it as problematic at this stage. Haukur (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is actually a huge start and might help me immensely.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now I am running through journal papers listed as notes at Pre-Late Egyptian Reconstruction/Egyptian Pronunciation to see if anything might be useful or if there is something pointing to another source.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking into this from other sources, it seems there may have been some advances in reconstructing Egyptian from the 18th dynasty beginning around 2016ish. I need to get a better understanding of this as many sources are calling these discoveries decisive. As I research this further, I will work on the other GA criteria issues to get them out of the way before continuing on the second opinion review.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I found where the sources came on Wikipedia and the editor that added the original content on another article. I believe the three sources do not stand on their own as you demonstrated with the Vycichl source and may require other sourcing to get to the full claim. But it does seem, for the most part, these author's work are still very much considered the leading research on this subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Break for formatting
I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. The composition of the name is entirely transparant, and hypotheses on its pronunciation hardly belong here, details on Middle Egyptian phonology should be added to the Middle Egyptian page. Please just use Egyptological transcription. Please do not give lengthy explanation on basic topics in footnotes, this is what wikilinks are for. The WP:BOMBARD in the *[taˈwaːt ˈʕaːnxu ʔaˈmaːn] is just atrocious. Which of the dozen footnotes contains the attribution to the claim? Please just cite one authoritative reconstruction, using the name of the author, or else just drop this altogether. Furthermore,
 * "the name Tutankhamun (1341–1323 BC) was written in Egyptian as twt-ꜥnḫ-ı͗mn"

No it wasn't. This is a phonological representation using the Latin alphabet. The entire point of a phonological representation of an extinct language is that it can be correct without having to bother with intractable questions on how the individual phonemes may or may not have been pronounced.
 * "Experts have assigned generic sounds to these values as a matter of convenience, which is an artificial pronunciation and should not be mistaken for how Egyptian was ever pronounced at any time."

This would be too low brow even for simple:, imho. Please don't treat your readers as children. Give a terse summary of expert opinion (not pointing out that it is the opinion of "experts", that is implied in the fact that we bother to reference it in the first place). If you use a technical concept like Egyptological pronunciation, use a wikilink when it is first introduced, so interested readers can go there to learn more. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Aloha and thank you for your comment. I don't believe the above was especially helpful. I asked for your assistance on this exact issue some time ago and did not get a response. If you read through my comments and concerns this was simply an attempt to save the reconstruction content and source it as best I could. The content is not mine. It comes from the Egyptian language article as it apears there and I have already stated that the information needs to be basically unpacked and the stack of citations needs to be gone through to place next to claims they support if they support those claims. Originally this was an attempt to figure out how non English sources were being used until I found that section from a search under the German author's name and found that you had originally used that German source at the Egyptian Language article.


 * Thank you for your accusations of bad faith. I really do not believe I deserved that but perhaps this is just your manner. If so, thank you for responding but I would rather not accept further assistance from you. I agree that this article is very "low brow" but I didn't write that portion. In Fact, my second opinion was that the review should not have started but it did and I attempted to bring it up to - at least what I understand to be GA criteria. I am not here to write the article, just make any changes to paraphrasing, non reliable sources and claims not supported. In some areas I attempted to expand on mentions that the sources discuss but the article did not for breadth of coverage and had to find sources for the names because the section had only one. So, the name section is entirely written by me and I accept any criticism for that. I attempted to get it to MOS criteria and spent a good deal of time researching the names.


 * I doubt anything I put in is completely accurate but I am following Wikipedia guidelines and summarizing the sources not using original research. I don't know how much you read before you went off on me above but, "Egyptological pronunciation" is linked and the quote: "the name Tutankhamun (1341–1323 BC) was written in Egyptian as twt-ꜥnḫ-ı͗mn" also comes from the Egyptian language article. I apologize if you mistook my original request on your talk page as some kind of accusation. Clearly you and another editor had a good deal to do with the section but I just didn't and still don't know to what extent and it apears this is not something you are pleased to be dealing with. Thank you for at least taking time to address your concerns and I believe in your good faith even if your tone seems far harsher than it need to be. This isn't an edit war. This isn't a dispute. I'm not trying to get my version of history in the article, just get this review finished. I believe you have at least made it clear that we have no sources for a reconstruction claim (as I feel) and I will consider your comments agreement to that aspect, as well as it being inappropriate to have a long explanation in notes, especially with editors having bombed the claims.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Smoothing out Geneology and Death sections
I'll be working on smoothing out these sections over the next few days (especially the Death section) as currently they are choppy and repeat each other. Hopefully a sense of cohesion will be achieved. I know that a large amount of content related to old theories of his cause of death was trimmed during the review but I feel it still needs a very quick summary of his theorised illnesses/syndromes/diseases and previous theories on causes of death (chariot accident, murder etc) that were disproved with the CT scans. Currently the giant list of his theorised syndromes and diseases seems very out of place, and the sentence about his death not being caused by a blow to the head seems like a throwaway line. I'll also try to update sources where I can with the scholarly articles because currently Nat Geo articles are cited a lot. Please let me know what you think of this as a plan of attack! I'm still very new here. Merytat3n (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes please and thank you very much. I continue to work on the initial issues from the second opinion review and believe I have found references to the spelling of the name and pronunciation. The German sources are very old but their work is still considered accurate and up to date.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Names
According to the one source for the digital hieroglyphs, Tutankhamun had several types of names as follows;
 * Horus name: Kanakht Tutmesut
 * Nebty name: Neferhepusegerehtawy
 * Golden Falcon name: Wetjeskhausehetepnetjeru
 * Prenomen: Nebkheperure
 * Nomen: Tutankhamun

Perhaps this should be incorporated into the article and further researched and sourced.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The Five Names of the King
(to be transferred to the article at completion)

This source is pretty good for the title/names of the pharaohs; The Great Name: Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary

The Golden Falcon name might also be referred to as the Golden Horus name. See source above.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved from article to be sourced
At the reintroduction of traditional religious practice, his name changed. It is transliterated as twt-ꜥnḫ-ỉmn ḥqꜣ-ỉwnw-šmꜥ, and according to modern Egyptological convention is written Tutankhamun Hekaiunushema, meaning "Living image of Amun, ruler of Upper Heliopolis". On his ascension to the throne, Tutankhamun took a prenomen. This is transliterated as nb-ḫprw-rꜥ, and, again, according to modern Egyptological convention is written Nebkheperure, meaning "Lord of the forms of Re". The name Nibhurrereya (𒉌𒅁𒄷𒊑𒊑𒅀) in the Amarna letters may be closer to how his prenomen was actually pronounced.

The section on the name Tutankhaten is excellent!! But I feel having a section on his five fold titulary is perhaps a bit bulky when his five-fold titulary is already on the side bar under 'Royal Titulary'. It is not a bad thing to have though, especially when it is so carefully researched and cited! Merytat3n (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually agree. It was meant to add context because I could not find a Wikipedia page but I found it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Autumn Criste
autumn has 330 followers on instagram @cristeautumn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.183.199.105 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019
Please remove the word "heretical" from the statement "His father was the heretical king Akhenaten, believed to be the mummy found in the tomb KV55." It should be reworded as "His father was the Egyptian king Akhenaten, believed to be the mummy found in the tomb KV55." or "His father was the alleged heretical king Akhenaten, believed to be the mummy found in the tomb KV55." 69.55.198.2 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think it best to remove the word "heretic". Egyptologists often use it as a shorthand for Akhenaten's radical and disruptive religious changes, but it's misleading. The concept of heresy didn't exist in Akhenaten's time because the concept of orthodoxy didn't exist. A. Parrot (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the subject matter, I have no interest in the outcome. -  FlightTime  ( open channel )

I don't think this reversion was justified. I'm well aware of the rejection of Akhenaten's actions after his death, but that doesn't mean the Egyptians had a concept of heresy. Moreover, this IP editor's complaint, requesting the use of the word "alleged", seems to suggest that calling somebody a "heretic" is non-neutral. I agree with that, too. If we grant that "heretic" is an applicable term for what the Egyptians thought of Akhenaten, using the word "heretic" in Wikipedia's voice means an implicit endorsement of conventional Egyptian religion. For an analogy, scholars of early Christianity avoid using the word "heresy" to describe forms of Christianity such as Marcionism that were rejected by proto-orthodox Christianity, because doing so implicitly takes a side in a religious dispute. A. Parrot (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. When I reverted I also pointed out that our article on Akhenaten does not describe him as a heretic or his ideas as heresy. You'd have to start there to call him a heretic elsewhere, and as has been said, we should not do it in Wikipedia's voice.  Doug Weller  talk 14:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, January 6th 2020
Spelling mistake in "Curse of the Pharaohs." An extra "e" in the word "Earle" needs to be removed: "His doctor recommended a warmer climate so in 1903 the Carnarvon's traveled to Egypt where the Earle became interested in Egyptology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.29.80 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021
please notice the birth and death of Tutankhamen birth is mentioned 1342 BC and death 1325 BC I think it should be vice versa please acknowledge 171.61.50.178 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most people are born before they die. 1342 BC is before 1325 BC, so the years given are correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021
Hi, I am a Japanese Wikipedian of Egyptology. The word "Armana" in 「Reign」 must be "Amarna" Thanks. -Sethemhat (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for pointing out this typo. A. Parrot (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Mr., I also found the next one "End of Armarna period". That is also be Amarna...--Sethemhat (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Typo in section header ✅ Thank you, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 06:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Add new 2020 DNA study, Zahi Hawass researchers, Egypt
BOOK CHAPTER Maternal and Paternal Lineages in King Tutankhamun's Family YZ Gad; S Ismail; D Fathalla; R Khairat; S Fares; AZ Gad; A Moustafa; E ElShahat; NHA Mandil; M Fateen; et al. '''Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass. Volume I,''' pp.497-518; 2020 Handle http://hdl.handle.net/10863/16388

(for full text search: Maternal and Paternal Lineages in King Tutankhamun's Family PDF )

Abstract

In this study, analysis of the mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal haplogroups was used to provide information about the phylogenetic groups of Tutankhamun’s family members, and their presence among the reported contemporary Egyptian population data. The mitochondrial  and  Y-chromosomal  DNA  analysis  of  Tutankhamun’s family confirms our previous data of the royal family pedigree, with  multiple  controls  authenticating  all  results. The proposed  sibling  relationship between Tutankhamun’s parents, KV55 (Akhenaten) and KV35YL, is  further  supported. '''The royal  lineage  is  composed  of  the  Y-chromosome  haplogroup  R1b  and  the  mitochondrial  haplogroup  K.  Population  genetics  point to a common origin at ca. 14. 000–28. 000 years before present locating to the Near East.'''


 * Tutankhamun YDNA R1b / mtDNA K
 * Akehenaten YDNA R1b / mtDNA K
 * Tiye mtDNA K
 * Amenhotep III YDNA R1b / mtDNA K
 * Yuya G2a / mtDNA K
 * Thuya mtDNA K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central16 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Amenhotep III YDNA R1b / mtDNA K
 * Yuya G2a / mtDNA K
 * Thuya mtDNA K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central16 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thuya mtDNA K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central16 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thuya mtDNA K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central16 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Tutankhamen
He become a king when he was 9 years old and he dies when he was 19 years old Marineelsntresy (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Reuse of burial goods
"Almost 80% of Tutankhamun's burial equipment originated from the female pharaoh Neferneferuaten's funerary goods, including the Mask of Tutankhamun."

This claim seems dubious, or at least in need of qualification. The sources for this sentence are these:. The first, by Reeves, says "Not merely a proportion of Tutankhamun's core burial items—shrines, sarcophagus, coffins, mask, mummy trappings—had originally been prepared for Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten; it now seems probable that most of it had." I can't tell what the second link, a National Geographic article, says, as it won't let me read the entire page without entering my email address, which I don't want to do because my inbox gets far too much spam as it is.

Reeves says most of the "core burial items" were "probably" originally Neferneferuaten's. I expect many Egyptologists would doubt that statement—at least some of these items are often thought to have belonged to Smenkhkare instead—but even if we take it as definitive, which we shouldn't, it doesn't amount to "nearly 80%" of the "core burial items". Moreover, the sentence in our article is ambiguous; does "burial equipment" refer to those "core burial items", or to all the goods in the tomb? The latter seems impossible, given how many items in the tomb are specifically marked as Tutankhamun's, or are even designed around the shape of his throne name. If it's the former, the article needs say so explicitly. Obviously, a great deal depends on what the National Geographic source says, but even if it uses the 80% figure, and even if it's drawing upon the assessment of an Egyptologist (quite possibly Reeves again, given that the article is about his hypothesis about a hidden tomb behind the wall of Tutankhamun's burial chamber), it doesn't follow that all or most Egyptologists agree with that assessment.

All Egyptologists seem to agree that many of the tomb goods were reused from the ephemeral reigns of Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare, and it's safe to say that much in this article. But reconstructing which items were reused from whom is another matter entirely, and I think the article needs to treat such reconstructions with more caution than it currently does. A. Parrot (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Following up, I managed to wrangle with the National Geographic page enough to determine that the 80% figure does indeed come from a quotation from Reeves in that article. But it also says that Reeves considers Nefertiti/Neferneferuaten to be the same person as Smenkhkare. That is not the view of most Egyptologists, who regard them as two different people, and in that article Reeves acknowledges that many archaeologists do not see the history of the Eighteenth Dynasty the way he does. Therefore, I think this passage needs to be reworked. If there are no objections, I will do so when I have time. A. Parrot (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Upon still more examination, I find that the article barely mentions Smenkhkare and treats Neferneferuaten as Tutankhamun's immediate predecessor, which is far from certain—the final years of Akhenaten's reign and the period between that reign and Tutankhamun's accession are very murky. The text also treats the recent DNA tests as definitive, when their reliability has been seriously questioned (mostly on the grounds that it's difficult to obtain a good sample from a mummy). If no one objects, I'd like to add some sources to the article that discuss these uncertainties, and to rework the text accordingly, as soon as I have the spare time. A. Parrot (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this! You do great work but let me know if I can be of assistance. It is a little frustrating that Reeves is the most easily accessible source for this, as well as perhaps the most recent. His conflating of Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten is compounded by older sources that just list the items as belonging to 'Smenkhkare' or 'Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten'- show me the cartouches damn it! I remember reading an article in which a jeweler(?) refuted the claim that the face of the death mask has been changed without damaging the surrounding inlays. If you don't have it already I can see if I can find it again :) Merytat3n (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Never mind, it's a blog post with some weird takes in addition to the suggestion! Ignore. Would be great if this could actually be studied and published properly but I assume it is because of cost and the fact Reeves' ideas aren't generally taken seriously by most Egyptologists. Merytat3n (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm working on a rewritten version of the article on the tomb, and one of the books I've collected on the subject (an updated 2018 edition of Tombs, Treasures, Mummies, Book Four by Dennis C. Forbes) addresses Reeves's recent claims. It says Christian Eckmann, the conservation expert who restored the mask in 2015 after the damage to the beard and chin, says the mask bears no signs that the face plate was made separately or that the cartouches have been changed. While both his opinion and Reeves's should be mentioned in the article on the mask itself, I'm inclined to think that the question of the mask's reuse is a bit too detailed to be including here or in the article on KV62. What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The mask's page currently has one whole sentence dedicated to the proposed reuse so I think a discussion of it could easily be included there! Merytat3n (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I reduced the emphasis on reuse of burial goods several days ago, and just now I expanded the section on family to better explain the historical background and the genealogical uncertainties. A. Parrot (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021
I want to add stuff FLASH1234567890 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Favonian (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tutankhamun and his wife.jpg

Untitled

 * Done, thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you fix this. I usually try and fix these, but I know you probably didn't mean for your post to be here. Thanx, - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Egyptian Anthropological Study Removal

 * Copied from: User_talk:Austronesier

Hi Austronesier,

You removed the scientific, peer-reviewed publication from Robins and Shute which examined the limb proportions of 18th and 19th century New Kingdom pharoahs with the justification that the terminology was out of date. Although, the terminology is exact of date, the results of the study have not been discredited by other scholars. Hence, I can easily re-write the sentence to reference Sub-Saharan affinities rather than "negroid" as this is a valid article and should be featured in the relevant articles.WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for bringing this up. Please note that it is not just about "terminology", but about exactly what I have written in my edit summaries, viz. the outdated framework of human biological races. You cannot translate "negroid" into any meaningful concept at all in modern anthropology (nor "caucasoid", "mongoloid" and whatsoever; races are discredited). To do so would be misleading and violate WP:OR. The paper by Robins and Shute is historically relevant which is why I don't object to its use in Population history of Egypt where it is featured in proper context. But it should not be used to promote factoids in articles about individual ancient Egyptian rulers. It would be of much greater benefit for this encyclopedia if you have modern (e.g. genomic) research that properly links the ancestry of individual ancient Egyptian rulers to specific Sub-Saharan populations (without lumping the diversity of Sub-Saharan peoples under the rac(ial)ist term "negroid").


 * Btw, is it ok for you if we copy this discussion to the talk page of one of the concerned articles (e.g. Tutankhamun as the most visible one) in order to get wider input from other editors? –Austronesier (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Austonesier,

Yes, please do copy the discussion to other talk pages for wider input from other editors in related talk pages. Although, I have seen other recent articles featuring modern anthropologists still make reference to this terminology. An example is with Joel Irish in 2006 making this statement "Henneberg et al. suggest that the Nabta Playa people may have been most similar to Negroes from south of the Sahara. The present qualitative dental comparison tentatively supports this conclusion" and Zakrzewski (2003) described her sample as "super-negroid". Although, DNA studies could greatly assist in determining population affinities, these studies have also in turn been criticised for having biased, pre-fixed methodologies.WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-2000, such usage is a red flag, post-2010 an embarrassment. Yes, genomic research still is in its formative stage and has to be read properly; it's one of the worst-covered topics here in WP due to mass editing by a few less-than-competent (and mostly banned) editors (remember my TNT advice for the genetics section in Ancient Egyptian race controversy). And its result clearly depend on the selection of input data and samples. But there's some very good research going on in this field, so we shouldn't totally avoid to make use of it. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I share partial agreement with your view on DNA studies. However, I noticed that several articles on individual pharonic rulers still reference the views of Gaston Maspero from 1892. Also, the article on Rameses II describes an anthropological study from 1987 which presumes the pharoah had fair skin because his hair was determined to be of a red-ginger and wavy texture. However, this overlooks the fact that red hair is common to some degree among dark-skinned populations in Oceania and North-Eastern Africa. Hence, is this description not an example of an "outdated" framework ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. In Ramesses II, there is a lot older material cited that directly addresses the physical appearance of the person, so Robins and Shute (1983) could be a legitimate addition.
 * Note however that neither Maspero nor Ceccaldi are cited in order to "racialize" the mummy; they are just cited for hair and skin color. In the case of Maspero, he just the described the immediately visible colors which is perfectly fine. Ceccaldi's inferred skin color is however indeed problematic, and falls within the range deletable factoids. In fact, his skin-color "prediction" entirely rests on his racial classification of the mummy as being of the "Berber type" (non only based on hair color, but also skeletal characteristic, see p. 122), which is of course bunk.
 * In most other cases like Amenhotep III or Siptah etc, where no other discussion of physical appearance (other than talking about age and health) is found at all, I nevertheless strongly object to citing Robins and Shute (1983) for the reasons mentioned before. –Austronesier (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Austronesier I do largely agree with the point above but I think Robins and Shute (1983) can still be featured as a historical study with rephrased/appropriate terminology. I think we can reach a consenus decision on this, once we have the views of other editors. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is not about terminology, but methodology. Robins and Shute's reference groups are "American whites" and "American negroes" (check for yourself, I'm not making this up!)—absurd as it may sound in 2022, except maybe in Pioneer Fund-sponsored circles. If Robins and Shute had used more meaningful reference groups (e.g. ancient/modern people from northern Africa, the Levant, and eastern Africa), their work would be still useful beyond historical/anecdotical interest. –Austronesier (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Austronesier That is a sound point. In that case, we can leave the study in the Population history of Egypt article and close this thread. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If this study is not acceptable here, why would it be acceptable in any other article? Surely it should be removed completely? Wdford (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wdford The study still has historical relevance and the results of the study have not been discredited by other scholars. Austronesier was not arguing that the study should be removed in totality, but it should not be featured on specific articles featuring individual rulers which do not mention their physical appearances. Various anthropological studies which are featured in related pages still used that terminology as I mentioned above Joel Irish, Sonia Zakrzewski, Ceccaldi and even UNESCO History scholars still used that terminology however we would not remove them all from related wikipedia pages due to their historical relevance. This study has not been deemed unacceptable, in fact there is not even a consensus on that. The study is peer-reviewed in a scientific journal however it is dated. It is still perfectly relevant for the article I cited above as Austronesier originally agreed on its inclusion in the article on the "Population History of Egypt" as it is placed in its proper context. Neither of us are disputing that. I have withdrawn my original proposal so this thread no longer needs to exist. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

death
king tut more than likely died in an accident as 6 chariots were found in his tomb. Xrays also revealed he had broken bones. poop samples are also keen findings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:3077:E00:B1B2:8244:BB37:5FB4 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

this is funny
Kings were venerated after their deaths through mortuary cults and associated temples. Tutankhamun was one of the few kings worshiped in this manner during his lifetime.

how could he have been the few worshipped after death during his lifetime… 2603:6010:3206:B64:DA9:979D:AAAB:AB79 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What it is saying is that the norm was to worship a king via cults and temples after death. Apparently, Tutankhamun seems to have been already worshiped through cults and temples while still alive, which was very unusual. The text notes that there were very few known kings for which this happened. CuriosumScriptor (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Last lead paragraph
The last lead paragraph seems completely out of place and far too much information for a brief summary of the article. I suggest it be deleted entirely, perhaps preserving the "Some of his treasure has traveled worldwide with unprecedented response" line. I know very little of the subject, so I come to the talk page instead of removing it myself.  Aza24  (talk)   23:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a subsection "International exhibitions" where all the details belong. As a summary in the lede, I agree that we can simply leave the one sentence as suggested by . –Austronesier (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022
Ymrion (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Fast
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Editor has been blocked. Doug Weller  talk 20:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Short Tandem "Report"?
I'd have fixed the glaring typo were the page not locked.2600:1702:2670:D6A0:21E:C2FF:FEC4:4A51 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now fixed, thanks. Barry Wom (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add picture gallery
I propose to add a pic gallery at the bottom of the page. Tut left too many amazing artifacts to fit inline with the text without ruining the article's aesthetics. Lay readers need to see other Tut images from museums around the world.

For example:

Gallery
EditorfromMars (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Image galleries hold no real encyclopedic content and are no longer considered of value much in articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What complete nonsense! Most articles on visual subjects have them, and this article would be very suitable.  There are also some gaps in the text where pics could be added. What exactly is the "real encyclopedic content" of the picture of the de Young museum here?    Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The images are compelling and I agree with the picture gallery, thank you. It looks like damage was attempted in the usual spot (luckily wood is not so brittle). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this gallery suggestion. Those three images (the bust, throne & treasure chest) depict his most salient artifacts. They are often recreated as memorabilia (I actually own a replica of each of those three artifacts in my personal collection) and are a prudent representation of Tutankhamun. SmoovOpr8r (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Tutankhamun and the Keita STR article

 * Copied from: User_talk:Merytat3n

Hi Merytat3n,

I wanted to raise the issue of including the Keita (2022) STR analysis on Tutankhamun’s family in his main page. The article was originally removed because it said that the theme of the paper was viewed to be more relevant to the article on the AE race controversy rather than any genetic conclusions. However, upon further inspection and reviewing Keita’s commentary on the Amarna family, he discussed his findings in relation to their population affinity rather than any racial categories in the modern sense. Hence, can this article be re-included ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there WikiUser4020,
 * I'm going to copy this to the Tutankhamun talk page instead to get wider input because I am just one editor and this is about changes to an article.
 * Keita does mention that the available DNA of the ancient Egyptian royals has "affinities with Sub-Saharan Africans" he then later goes on say that this broad category (and the other two options in his analysis) is still a racial category but going by a modern name.
 * I have absolutely no interest in the specifics of the DNA studies done on Ancient Egyptians as it is, in my personal opinion, still trying to place them into one box or another and such isolated studies of narrow scope on damaged ancient DNA will never accurately reflect the population diversity present in Egypt. The point of the Gad et al paper was to demonstrate that the family tree proposed by Hawass et al (also demonstrating relatedness) was supported by the X and Y haplogroups, not the population histories or affinities of those haplogroups themselves. If I had my way, the article would not even mention the haplogroups, because it only invites more racial interpretations, POV-pushing, and false dichotomies. But luckily Wikipedia is the product of consensus (scholarship, users), hence my moving this to the article talk page for the input of others :) Merytat3n (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Merytat3n Yes, he does mention the categories but he also cautions the reader about the nature of the interpretations and himself criticises typological thinking. The fact his STR analysis was made in relation to modern day populations rather than racialist categories of the past should still permit it's inclusion. I think considering Keita makes this balanced view and this article is a peer-reviewed, reliable source then it should be fine to feature this in the article. WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * His STR analysis is in relation to modern populations, yes, but the scope was far too narrow, having only three possible broad groupings. For his STR evidence to be useful to Wikipedia, it would need to be narrowed down to more specific groups within Sub-Saharan Africa or compared to more groups (that include modern Egyptian, North African, etc populations). He would also need to say which rulers group with which populations if it is appearing on the pages of individual rulers. Because his STR deals in such broad categories and doesn't mention specifics, I feel it is better suited on a more general page, where it can be placed within a wider context. Merytat3n (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Merytat3n The problem with that response is that it is very subjective and is based on a very stringent criteria for the inclusion of articles onto a general page.
 * This criticism could arguably be applied to the Hawass 2020 paper which has a number of limitations such as the fact the authors do not specify the R1b clade and only obtained a partial genetic profile for Tutankhamun.
 * The main page for Tutankhamun is a general page and hence the Keita paper should be featured. It was originally permitted on the page from November 2022 until December 2022 before it was removed due to the later proposition that it was not relevant to the familial relationships.
 * In that case, a compromise position could be to move the Keita paper to another sub-section in the Tutankhamun page rather than outright remove it. The paper still has relevance due to the focus on population affinity and has a critical view on drawing strong conclusions based on this singular analysis. WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, and that is why I also removed the haplogroups in this edit but it was reverted by another user who disagreed
 * Yes, place it in a sub-section, we'll just have to be careful with wording to give it proper context :) Merytat3n (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! I’ll look for another sub-section to input the article and include the in citation text from the source. Feel free to amend the wording ! WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Capital relocation to Memphis or Thebes?
The article states that Tutankhamun relocated the capital of ancient Egypt to Thebes, does not, however, back it up with a source. The articles concerning Thebes and Memphis both state that the capital was in fact relocated to Memphis, with the article for Thebes also mentioning that building projects in Thebes were renewed (this is backed up by a source).

This should probably be fixed if no contradicting evidence can be found. 2003:EE:CF2F:E900:3125:95:3EFD:36FB (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The article body does have a citation for the claim that the capital moved back to Thebes—but it's cited to Akhenaten and the Religion of Light by Erik Hornung, which actually says the court went to Memphis.
 * A deeper question is how meaningful it actually is to speak of a single capital in ancient Egypt. As Garry Shaw puts it in The Pharaoh: Life at Court and on Campaign, "Because the king and his entourage travelled frequently between residences, and because various cities could be important for different reasons simultaneously, we cannot really speak in terms of a single 'capital' city—though Memphis in most periods came closest to the meaning of this word" (p. 138). According to Hornung, even under Akhenaten Amarna's dominance was not absolute, and much of the royal administration remained in Memphis, where earlier Eighteenth Dynasty rulers had increasingly placed it because its more central location made it more workable than Thebes.
 * My guess would be that Tutankhamun's court reverted to the previous status quo, with Memphis as the main administrative center and Thebes as the greatest religious center and the next-most-important royal residence and burial site, and that this division in status is the reason why we get conflicting accounts of where the "capital" was after Amarna. I'll take a thorough look at my sources later today to see if any of them give more specifics. A. Parrot (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the insight. I am, sadly, completely out of my depth on this topic, a friend of mine and me just noticed the contradiction in the various articles, which is why I put it up for discussion :) 2003:EE:CF2F:E900:8085:695E:E39D:A9CD (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Citation error
[I'm a complete newbie and have no idea how to edit an article that's 'semi-protected due to vandalism', so I'm trying this.] I followed the reference #4 to a page 206 in Leprohon (2013) on Tut's Horus name, but it was to the Nebty name: the right one is on page 227. Can someone please fix this for me? Thanks, stranger. 95.150.44.129 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you for pointing this out. A. Parrot (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Typo
"Resotration Stela" should be "Restoration Stela" (second paragraph of the introduction, just before the link to citation 13). Smjst (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Barry Wom (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023
Just a small fix: change "pharoahs" to "pharaohs" (end of 1st paragraph). I'm a newbie and so can't do it myself. Thanks :-) ShayHacohen (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks —&#8288;PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Birth and death
how can he have been born in 1341 and then died in 1323? 2603:6081:7A00:3AE8:EDE5:64D8:9DB0:2E88 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The aliens who built the pyramids also introduced the Egyptians to time travel. Barry Wom (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, BC and BCE dates are counted backwards from the year 1 AD/CE, rather than forwards A. Parrot (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Spoilsport. Barry Wom (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Deceptive And Misleading Use Of Genetics
"Genealogy and population affinities"

"A genetic study, published in 2020, revealed Tutankhamun had the haplogroups YDNA R1b, which originated in western Asia and which today makes up 50–60% of the genetic pool of modern Europeans, and mtDNA K, which originated in the Near East."

This is highly deceptive. First of all, haplotypes are not the best evidence available. That would be the DNA Tribes study, and the prof. Keita and Anselin study, which go well beyond haplotypes - which may have been the best evidence 20 years ago, however today we have PCA or Principal Component Analysis, it tells a very different picture than what is presented here. Haplotypes are a very small part of dna, and only show deep male or female descent wich can go back 1,000s or 10,000s years, not the actual makeup of the person's dna, which can change within a generation.

For instance, there is a population in Africa that has a very high incidence of Haplogroup R1b, the Hausa, who left the Nile Valley 4,000 years ago, during the pharaonic period. Their haplogroup subclade is R1b1b (formerly R1b1a2) or R-V88, which is different and older than the European subclade, R1b1a1b or R-M269. To therefore conclude that Tutankhamun's R1b "makes up 50–60% of the genetic pool of modern Europeans" is 'original research'. And irrelevant if his haplogroup subclade is R1b1b rather than R1b1a1b.

It is also irrelevant that R1b "originated in western Asia" - according to Wikipedia, "between 12,500 and 25,700 BP". It long predates the Indo-European expansion of the Bronze Age 4,000 years ago which spread the current European R1b R-M269, and was already present among the Western Hunter Gatherers of the Paleolithic 12,000 years ago and earlier. From the same Wikipedia page, there are two versions of how R1b (R-V88) spread in Africa. "D'Atanasio et al. (2018) propose that R1b-V88 originated in Europe about 12 000 years ago and crossed to North Africa by about 8000 years ago...", which is 4,000 years before the spread of modern R1b R-M269 into Europe. The rest of the genome can change a lot in that period - witness the Hausa, who have extremely high levels of R1b R-V88.

The problem with the continued use of haplogroups and the ignoring of PCA, is that PCA shows a very different picture, and shows near identity between the Amarna Dynasty and the Bantu population, specifically the Eastern Bantu. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D108:E292:4ECE:682B (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Succession section
I agree the page would benefit from a small section on Tutankhamun's successors, however I reverted your edit because it was waaaaaay too much info. Readers can go to the Dakhamunzu, Zannanza, Ay, and Horemheb pages to learn specifics.

I suggest the section be split off from "Death" and be titled "Succession" or something similar, and that it very briefly mention the aftermath of Tutankhamun's unexpected death, like Ay's succession including Dakhamunzu and Zannanza, then Horemheb and his erasure of the preceding rulers. Something the size of your current summaries before each sub-section would be sufficient I reckon. Let me know what you think! Merytat3n (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I see. I will add a concise section on throne succession to the Tutankhamun page and will absorb the more in-depth information that I previously wrote into the appropriate other Wikipedia pages. Cerebrality (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)