User talk:Iry-Hor/Archive 5

Sobekhotep I
Hi Iry-Hor. Have a Happy New Year! For the tomb of Sobekhotep I. The press reports are not that clear whether this Sobekhotep is the owner of the newly discovered tomb. Ryholt for example labels Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep as Sokekhotep I, while he puts Khaankhre Sobekhotep (on Wiki: Sobekhotep I) more into the middle of the Dynasty. I would remove the part of the article with the tomb, till more evidencec is published. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for the intrusion but I found this where is said that "this is the first complete monument found to Sobekhotep. Nothing has been discovered of him except his name found among the king’s list engraved on the wall at Abydos and the Turin manuscript [...]. They mentioned that Sobekhotep ruled Egypt for four years and six months ..." Through these statements, is it possible to better understand which Sobekhotep was the owner of the tomb? --Khruner (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks yes, I responded to Udimu on his talk page, the Sobekhotep whose tomb was recently discovered is and can only be Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep. He is known as you indicate by a few architectural elements (3 lintels, a door jamb), a couple of Nile records showing he reigned at least until into his 4 year, a few small artefacts, the Kahun papyrus and is attested on the Turin canon. Furthermore Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep is the Sobekhotep thought to be the founder of the 13th dynasty, so what the minister of antiquity says identified him. The confusion came from outdated theories by von Beckerat and a scribal error in the Turin king list. The first name on the Turin list for the 13th dynasty is Khutawyre, which is the name of Wegaf. Thus it was long thought that Wegaf founded the dynasty, while Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep would have been its 20th pharaoh, reigning after Khaankhre Sobekhotep, which means Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep would be Sobekhotep II. However, Kim Ryholt and others updated the theory thanks to excavations at Abydos in 1990s and a new reading of the original Turin canon. It appears the scribe mistook "[Sekhem]Re Khutawy" for "Khutawyre" (the two are really similar with hieroglyphs) and thus inverted Wegaf and Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep. This is proven, among other things, by the fact that Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep explicitely makes reference to his father Amemhemhat IV, penultimate pharaoh of the 12th dynasty. Thus, with Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep founding the dynasty, and Wegaf as its 20th ruler, Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep becomes Sobekhotep I and Khaankhre Sobekhotep is Sobekhotep II. Now the minister says the tomb belongs to the founder of the dynasty Sobekhotep I. But either this Sobekhotep is Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep other otherwise the founder would have been Wegaf. Thus the tomb is that of Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep. The fact that Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep is Sobekhotep I is now widely accepted in Egyptology. The problem was that both the german and english wikis still had the old identification with Khaankhre Sobekhotep as Sobekhotep I and people were editing Khaankhre Sobekhotep as if the new tomb was his. We have now resolved the issue by changing article titles, creating a few redirect and editing articles appropriately. Now if you type Sobekhotep I it will give you Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep. Be careful: I just noticed that the italian wiki suffers from the same mistake.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...just another confirmation that the ordinal numbering of the pharaohs with the same name is one of the greatest crimes committed by Egyptologists... --Khruner (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes ! Especially when they don't even agree with one another on the numbering!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ryholt
I made an edit here Ryholt's dating of Sheshi to the early 13th dynasty cannot be based on the Uronarti evidence. D. Ben Tor's paper can be downloaded from academia.edu for free if you have registered into that web site as an independent researcher. She has placed that paper on that website. Don't forget your password to academia.edu This is a list of articles by some scholars at academia.edu: Ben Tor, or Ryholt. If it says "(Download).pdf", that means a paper for that article is available for download. If not, then it is not available. At any rate, Ben Tor's 2010 paper here is available: http://www.academia.edu/1566952/Sequence_and_Chronology_of_SIP_royal-name_scarabs Both Ryholt here and Ben Tor published in the publication. Ryholt's arguments about the Uronarti evidence is not possible today as I said in my edit...based on Ben Tor's 2010 paper. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, the editor Amunnakht started to modify the article on Ryholt discussing these things. Also I am trying to make the presentation of the SIP and its kings consistent on wikipedia that's why I chose to follow Ryholt and Baker. I would be happy to change Sheshi's chronological position and all, but we must try to avoid confusion and contradictions at all cost. Tons of articles on the SIP contradict each other at some point, so changing Sheshi's position means changing a good dozen articles, all of which should include a discussion of the various possibilities. Foremost among these are the List of Pharaohs and the Fourteenth Dynasty of Egypt articles.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I made a reply here Just try to download Ben Tor's paper. You can also get Ryholt's paper on academia.edu by typing up 'Kim Ryholt' there if you wish but Ben Tor is certain that YaqubHar and Khyan reigned close in time with each other since their seals are very similar. I have to go now. Goodbye. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply on Ryholt's views. Ryholt stands by his ground in his 2010 article. But one must read Ben Tor's 2010 paper to get a different perspective. Also, don't forget to download Ben Tor and the Allen's BASOR 315 (1999) pp.47-74 here: http://www.academia.edu/2012903/Seals_and_Kings_with_James_and_Susan_Allen_ Ian Shaw, the editor of 'The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt', cited this BASOR paper for not accepting Ryholt's SIP chronology for those SIP kings who are known only from scarabs. (ie. Sheshi, Yaqubhar). Ryholt's theory that the 16th dynasty was Theban is accepted by many Egyptologists today--even Ian Shaw accepted this in his book--but it is Ryholt's proposal concerning the chronology of the 14th dynasty which is not accepted by many Egyptologists. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will read Ben Tor's paper tonight or tomorrow at the latest, then we can discuss further on what to do. Nonetheless, I still can't believe that Sobekhotep IV and Khyan could have been contemporaries. Unless Khyan was part of the 14th dynasty...&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I may not be available since I have to work but Khyan, like Sakir-Har, were 15th dynasty Hyksos kings since their seals used the formal title heka-khaset. Khyan initially used the heka-khaset title in his long reign and later abandoned it in favour of a formal Egyptian titulary: Seuserenre Khyan. From Ben Tor's 2010 paper, my only question is whether Yaqub-Har was also a Hyksos king--perhaps a successor to Khyan if Khyan ruled in the early 15th dynasty as his Shikomana scarab suggests or just a 14th dynasty king who ruled close in time to Khyan. I don't know and Ben Tor does not speculate here since her expertise is in studying seals/scarabs, not Egyptology. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Josef W. Wegner
Please add your source. And the pharaoh is called here Seneb Kay.Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! Also I did not know wikipedia has an article on Seneb Kay, thanks!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nile Level Texts
So, do we have an article about the correct Nile Level Texts? (They sound interesting in their own right.) RJFJR (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No there is no article on the Nile level records made during the late 12th and early 13th dynasty. As far as I can tell, these are inscribed on rocks in Nubia (Semna/Kumna mostly) and not on papyri. Ryholt has a list of them in his book and there aren't so many. They run in apparently chronological order from Sobekneferu down to Nerikare I think.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which Ryholt book? (So I can see if my library has it.) RJFJR (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the reference book regarding the second intermediate period: K.S.B. Ryholt: The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c.1800–1550 BC, Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications, vol. 20. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997, excerpts available online here.. I hope this helps!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I started reading it and it is very interesting.  RJFJR (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A new tomb for a new pharaoh
Those Penn researchers are in a rampage :D http://luxortimesmagazine.blogspot.nl/2014/01/abydos-dynasty-tomb-discovered.html (unrelated to Sekhemra-khutawy Sobekhotep) Khruner (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazing ! I don't think we even have an article on this guy.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone on EEF (Grajetzki) today suggested that the Abydos Seneb-Kay might be 'identical to king Sebkay known from a magical wand, also found at Abydos. The name on the magical wand was evidently written wrongly, with the 'n' missing. The magical wand is now in Cairo (JE 34988; CG 9433). It was first published in Randall-MacIver, Mace, El-Amrah and Abydos, London 1902, 69, 87, 92, 96, 100, pl. XLIII. Compare, Ryholt, Second Intermediate Period, p. 341'  The text of the wand according to the Randall-MacIver book  says: ["The good god, lord of the Two Lands, lord of doing things, son of the Sun Seb-Kay beloved of Isis the goddess (?)" (p.96)]'

I don't know anything about this wand--unless Seneb-Kay is Sedjefakare. If true, then Seneb-kay was perhaps Kay Sedjefakare. But I know nothing of him. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more information will come out on this king soon by Wegner and we will know if he was a 13th dynasty or an Abydos king. I don't know sadly. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I understand the Senebkay whose tomb was discovered is thought by Wegner to be a different king that Sedjefakare. In a press release he seems to say that he was a ruler of the Abydos dynasty, which by the way, shows that he shares Ryholt opinion that such a dynasty existed.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. Hopefully more information will come out on this newly discovered king soon as I don't know these little known pharaohs sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was told by someone on EEF that this magic wand is the one mentioned by Grajetzki but that it belongs to king SebKay--and not Sedjefakare Kay Amenemhet. (My message was not posted on EEF) SebKay, I assume would either be a separate 13th dynasty king and the father or grandfather of Sedjefakare Kay Amenemhet...and perhaps identical to the new Abydos king Seneb-Kay OR someone totally unconnected to the Abydos king Seneb-Kay, as Wegner writes. Anyway, the magic wand, at the least, does not belong to Sedjefakare per se. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: It now seems clear that this Senebkay is not related to Sedjefakare Kay Amenemhet since Wegner dates him to the 1650's according to this article or this short one Senebkay even used some of Sobekhotep's funerary equipment for his own tomb, Wegner states. Oh well, it was a nice try! Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a link to a 2010 Polz article in the same publication as Ben Tor and Ryholt. The paper is Polz, Daniel (2010) "New archaeological data from Dra' Abu el-Naga and their historical implications", in: Marée, Marcel (Hrsg.): The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth - Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Projects. Leuven-Paris-Walpole 2010, pp. 343-353. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta ; 192) Polz's information is mostly on Wikipedia now. I don't know if you are on EEF like Udimu or me. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for these precisions. There seems to be some confusion between all these kings, I will try to do some work to distinguish Sedjefakare, Seb Kay and Seneb Kay, who by the way, actually has an article: Seneb Kay. P.S: What's EEF? &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is EEF If you want to subscribe to EEF, you can send also send a message to the Moderator, Mr. Aayko Eyma at this address: ayma@tip.nl
 * Udimu and I are on EEF. So, is DougWeller Have to go now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr. Ayma got Ryholt's permission to post this online Interesting is it not that the first 2 kings have the prenomen "Woser...re" while Seneb Kay's prenomen was Woseribre. On page 203 of Ryholt's SIP, he has TK 11/27: 2 years, TK 11/28: 2 years; TK 11/29: 4 years; TK 11/30 [...]hebre(?): 3-4 years & TK 11/31 [...]webenre 3-4 years. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes well I was reading just this bit yesterday when I wrote the article for Wepwawetemsaf and noticed the same thing! A shame that we cannot know which Woser[...]re of the Turin canon he was. Also, does that confirm the existence of the Abydos Dynasty ?&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I forgot to say that Ryholt's Abydos chronology table above is on page 203 of his 1997 SIP book. I would say that Wegner's discovery--suggests that such a dynasty existed at Abydos since where 1 king is buried, more kings should be buried around him. At least this is Wegner's belief. I make a cautious statement here since Wegner has to make more finds of royal tombs at Abydos but the Allens in their BASOR 1999 paper criticized Ryholt's theory of an Abydene dynasty since Abydos was mostly a religious centre of Egypt rather than a political centre such as Memphis or Thebes. But Wegner's discovery undermines this belief. If Wegner finds 3-6 more modest local Abydos royal tombs, then it would confirm Ryholt's theory that the Abydos dynasty existed for certain. However, whatever happens, no evidence supports Ryholt's chronology of the 14th dynasty--but that is a matter for a different day. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I was surprised to read him when he proposed that the 14th dynasty emerged c. 1805 BC. That seemed a lot too early, and since Nehesy is well dated to around 1700 BC, I would think the 14th dynasty might have emerged c. 1710 BC, after Sobekhotep IV. &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will be away today and maybe to morrow since I have work to do. I hope you signed up to EEF. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just sent an email to join EEF!!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You should get an E-mail from Aayko Eyma, the moderator. Best Regards --Leoboudv (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in! &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! --Leoboudv (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Too many Khahotepra
Hi! I noticed an extra Khahotepra Sobekhotep: Sobekhotep VI and Sobekhotep V. I guess the latter should be replaced by Merhotepre Sobekhotep (thus, in the end there is one extra page). I would try to do that by myself, but I'm quite confused by the order here, which is different from what I remembered (Khaneferra IV -> Khahotepra V -> Wahibra -> Merneferra -> Merhotepra VI) Khruner (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right there is a problem, Sobekhotep V was Merhotepre. The order of the wiki articles seem to follow Ryholt who has Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV --> Merhotepre Sobekhotep V --> Khahotepre Sobekhotep VI. Do you know what was the source of the order you mentioned (Beckerath?). Because it is important to mention the various possibilities in the articles.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess mine is the somewhat "classic" order that is in use on it.wiki and yes, I've just checked von Beckerath and the order is the same. These discrepancies cause me some little mess when I link the articles from different wikis on Wikidata (i.e. ; a pharaoh who has a different ordinal numeration on the various wikis, etc) :) Khruner (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know! I think we should all use complete proper names rather than numbers...&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wonderful utopia! Khruner (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes. But you see how difficult it is with the SIP already, can you imagine how it must be to sort out the FIP?!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's really impossible and perhaps always will be... Khruner (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Khruner: I just noticed a problem with a picture you put in the italian wiki. You put the picture of a scarab reading "Djedneferre" (who is Dedumose II) in the article on Djedhotpre Dedumose I. Look at the titulary in the italian wiki article where you put the scarab, it reads Djedhotepre (Dedumose I). This is yeat again due to numbering the pharaohs...&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, at least this time is not about the numeration: this is due to the fact that the it.wiki article supports the theory of the existence of a single Dedumose which changed praenomen during his reign. However, I don't know who is the author of this theory... Khruner (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah alright! I did not know there was such a theory. If you find a reference, I would be happy to cite it and include a discussion in the English articles on Dedumose I and II.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I found something, but I'm quite disappointed. It's a work of an italian Egyptologist, Franco Cimmino, on which is based most of the order and the descriptions of the it.wiki pharaohs, probably because of this structure, an ordinate succession of dynasties and of pharaohs within, with a description of the single pharaohs. The author simply wrote that "The most careful studies exclude that these are two different rulers", but any references citing those studies is missing. Given that, the author argues that Djedneferra was the first prenomen, since it is mentioned in the coronation stele Cairo CG 20533. I'm a little reluctant to accept these assumptions, also because I know this work and many statements seems odd to me (one for all, the equivalence Salitis=Sharek=Sheshi, but that's another story). Khruner (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, von Beckerath, Ryholt and Baker believe they were different rulers. Also it seems to me that a ruler changing his name during his reign do indeed happen, but it is always due to momentous event in the ruler's life, like Mentuhotep II reunifying Egypt at the end of the FIP or Amenhotep IV becoming the monotheist (in some sense) Akhenaten. I don't know of any event of similar importance at this time, althought I realize that this is no proof that none happened.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Apophis, one of my all-time favorite pharaohs :). Apart from that, the supporters of the existence of two pharaohs are overwhelming: I'm going to split in two the it.wiki Dedumose. Khruner (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I just remembered that Khendjer also got two names Nimaatre and then Userkare. It may not be that uncommon for a king to change his titulary during his reign after all.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Egyptology resource
N. Strudwick sent an E-mail on EEF in mid-December about this U. of Memphis link which works to get the PDF of some articles and some books--but not all of them. It is a 'New collection of PDF resources' for students of Ancient Egypt which is free but there are some errors since some of the links don't let you access the cited book. It is just a start. The latest articles date to 2009 or 2010. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazing! And there is von Beckerath's Handbush. My German is rusty but this makes me ready to work on it! These days I am trying to systematically include Beckerath opinion in articles on the SIP, besides that of Ryholt.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * * cough! cough!* need help with translations? *cough!* ;)) --Nephiliskos (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad to help with the link. Kaper & Demaree's paper on 'A Donation Stela in the Name of Takeloth III from Amheida, Dakhleh Oasis' was good too though his data on Takelot III is already on Wikipedia. I have to work today so I will be away. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Nephiliskos: thanks, I might ask you to help translate a paragraph or two if I can't make sense of what is said. Otherwise, if you feel like translating, there is plenty of stuff to translate from the german wiki to the English one, in particular concerning various pyramids (see a list of pyramid articles in need of work on my user page). @Leoboudv: I don't like working on anything more recent than the NK. In fact, my original motivation was predynastic times, but then I got into the SIP and found it very interesting. I am now trying to include more sources so Beckerath and Schneider will do well to balance against Ryholt and Baker.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's good. Hopefully Strudwick's link will help a little. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Khufu drawings
Hi. As promised, I edited the pic you sent me. Unfortunately, I dunno how to upload hee, so I send them to you via e-mail. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pics are on their way. Please inform me when received and tell me your opinion. ;) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I may have misunderstood. Did you just cut the original pic into two ?&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I cut them because each single relief was -in my humble opinion- represented much better in this way. it looks mor tidy and each relief can be described for its own now. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I get it! However, the two where carved next to each other in the original, so the pic with both better represents the original inscription in the Wadi Maghara. I guess the separated pics are better to illustrate the article on Khufu himself.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And THAT'S what I had in mind. ;-))) One shows Khufu's title, the other represents his political activity at Wadi Maghara! ;o) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, I put up the pics in Khufu's article.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Layer Pyramid
I have edited the article, using useful sources (I'm terribly sorry, but the before-used sources were awful). Hope, you like it. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right the sources are terrible, also for Khaba. In general the wiki articles on pyramid are just as ruined as the pyramids themselves...&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * : -D Good one... Ok, then I gonna re-write Khaba, if that's ok. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice findings
Hi, great job finding the two catalogues linked in your last Commons uploads, I was looking for some of these illustration for a long time! Also, in one of those there are some few royal-naming steles which could be interesting (many cited on von Beckerath's Handbuch, too). For example, I'll be very grateful if you could search any mentions of a stele CG 20044 on Ryholt's work, as it seems to me to be royal, and depicting a king (possibly of the SIP) with an unclear name. Khruner (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And you too, now I go everyday to your upload pages to see new things! Actually I found the entire catalogue generale des antiquites egyptiennes. All links are gathered there: http://www.egyptologyforum.org/EEFCG.html and most publications date back to well before 1923 and can be uploaded. Feel free to upload anything you might find interesting, there are litterally thousands of photos in all these pdfs. I am particularly proud of the image of the statue of Senusret IV. I have not located yet 20044 and I might do it this week end, but take a look and you might find it! I am really hoping that at some point we will have at least one picture per article. Also the entire Lepsius Denkmaller is available copyright free online here http://edoc3.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/lepsius/tafelw.html This also has tons of drawing by Lepsius, some of which are unique because the originals have since been lost. This is the case for the stele of Nerikare and the Beni Hassan grafitto of Wepwawetemsaf. We just have to dig these things!! Also I can confirm that the stele reading Sekhemkare Horus Sankhtawy is not mentioned on any recent work on the SIP. I am now convinced it has been overlooked/forgotten. I will send the email to Ryholt this week end after showing it to you.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link! About 20044, I've located it on the catalogue and I find it interesting, that's why I'm asking if, when you have time, you could check this number into Ryholt's SIP, since I don't have his work! Thanks again for the Denkmaler link, but I already have all of it in pdf (thanks to it I could find an image for Sethnakhte some time ago). It's ok for the mail, I really hope that Ryholt will reply! Khruner (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright I will check Ryholt's book tonight!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok nevermind, is a stele from Abydos naming a Merhotepre, but seems impossible to determine which Merhotepre is! Khruner (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Sehetepre"
Hi. There is no such pharaoh called "Sehetepre". There was pharaoh named "Setep-ib-rê" in 13th dynasty. Thus, the stub shall be edited and moved or deleted. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright so that was an error then. Glad to hear it. I will propose it to deletion. Thanks !&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Look Sehetepibre. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have replied to your question. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: If you want an article from Schneider, if you ask him politely, he may E-mail it to you. But just ask for one or two a year--to be fair to him. I will be away on Wednesday. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the help! I CNRS contact just gave me a link with many articles on Karnak free of access. That's tons of stuff to read !&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I did ask Schneider for 1 or 2 of his recent papers 1-2 years ago and he did E-mail it to me but then he knows me on EEF. Best Regards and Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good, this way more refs will be on wikipedia and better articles can be written. The task is immense nonetheless, every time I go on wikipedia, I see things that needs editing/creating/copy-edit etc... Good night! and good morning from the UK.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Rohl
Alright, let’s hear it. Tell me why New Chronology (Rohl) needs to be a WP:COATRACK for attacks against Kenneth Kitchen. And please tell me why David Rohl is entitled to “rebut” radiocarbon dating despite the fact that he’s not a scientist. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @76.107.171.90:No no I have absolutely no argument, I don't care in the least about David Rohl and his chronology. However large removal of material, especially from an anon, always seems suspicious so I checked if this was discussed in the talk page or explain in the edit summary. Since you did neither, I check what your removed, and without entering the debate of knowing who says what about what etc., it seemed clear to me that the removal was largely one sided. Now I have nothing against you removing this material as long as you explain why at least in the edit summary and preferentially inthe talk page. Finally, I personally think Rohl's chronology is wrong, but my personal opinion has no relevance here.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

King Khaba...
...is reborn (literally). ;-) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow good! I will look at the English if you don't mind.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why, thanks for the flowers.^^ Yes, please read over the article, I would appreciate it. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Finally, Khaba's article has reached its final state, it's simply PERFECT now, even much better than the german version! I recommend you to read again and I hope you enjoy. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Nephi, the article is great but the English less so. Furthermore, I suggest that we go for GA status on this article and perhaps other, such as Sekhemib-Perenmaat. To this end, we simply need some copy-editing by a native English speaker (I am not!). Thus I propose to put the article up for copy-editing on the board of wikipedia copy-editors. This will not require any effort on our part and will prepare the article for GA. If you agree, let me know! GREAT JOB AGAIN!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, buddy! No, I have no problem with that idea, on contrast! I'd be happy if a professional would cleansweep the articles grammatically. Just go on, Iry, please ask them for preparing. I'm so looking toward the GA-nominations! Best wishes;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I put up Khaba and Seth Peribsen for copyedit on the notice board of the guild of copyeditors. It might take time though, because there seems to be at least one month of waiting queue. &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sankhtawy Sekhemkare
Hi. Scanning a work by Wallis Budge, I found an interesting picture of a stele of the 13th dynasty. The curious thing is that it mentions a "Horus Sankhtawy, nesut-bity Sekhemkare", and I can't find anything of him outside the it.wiki (, the horus name and nesut bity are written here in the same manner of the stele). Knowing that you have a good documentation on the SIP, I thought to ask you what do you know about this pharaoh. --Khruner (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well this is very interesting! Also, it seems like you have spotted yet another problem on the English wiki regarding the SIP. Ryholt has only two kings named Sekhemkare during the SIP, which are confused and mixed together into one Amenemhat V Sekhemkare Senebef by mistake on the English wiki:


 * Mehibtawy Itisekhemef Sekhemkare Senebef was the 2nd king of the dynasty and its horus name is Mehibtawy. Ryholt says he is attested by 2 blocks from Tod, a cylinder seal and scarab seal and a couple of Nile records.
 * Horus [UNKNOWN] Sekhemkare Amenhemhat V (he has no page on the English wiki due to the confusion with the above king), was the 4th king of the 13th dynasty. Ryholt has only 1 attestation for this guy and its is a statue from Elephantine.

Now I don't see any stele nor any Reference to Budge in Ryholt's list for these two kings, but given that Senbef's horus name is Mehibtawy, either you happen to have found an eitherto unnoticed stele for Sekhemkare Amenhemhat V giving his horus name as Sankhtawy or it is not a king of the SIP but of the late period and is an error from the italian wiki. In his Book of the Pharaohs, Jean Yoyotte says Sankhtawy Sekhemkare was an obscure kinglet in Tanis during the late period, see here. I would go for this hypothesis, namely that your stele dates to the late period and not to the 13th dynasty. Meanwhile, I now have more work on my list of stuffs to fix on the English wiki regarding the SIP.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I am fixing the confusion between the two Sekhemkare now so soon there will be 2 articles for these 2 kings. Thanks again !!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC) EDIT 2: I fixed the English wiki bu the german one also confuses the two Sekhemkare.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm... The primary source for the it.wiki page that I linked cite him as Sekhemkara Amenemhat-senebef and affirm that his attribution to the Horus Mehibtawy was without evidence thus still invalid, although it does not provide any Horus name, neither Sankhtawy.
 * Anyway I think that the book you linked refers to the Horus Sankhtawy, Shepeskare-Irienre Gemnefkhonsubak, a local ruler of Tanis after the fall of Osorkon IV and the 22nd dynasty. Also, Gemnefkhonsubak is known for a stele indeed, but it's located in Turin, while Budge's stela should be in the British Museum (n. 1343).
 * I tend to think that Budge's stele is (almost) unattested. This monday I'll check for Gemnefkhonsubak's stele: a picture or drawing will confirm/reject the hypothesis that the two stele are the same. Khruner (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The confusion between the two 13th dynasty kings comes from the fact that Sonbef did call himself "Amenemhat['s son] Sonbef" so that his complete egyptian name would be "Sekhemkare Amenemhat [Sa] Sonbef" which looks very similar to "Sekhemkare Amenemhat" of Amenemhat V. Ryholt and Baker both agree that Mehibtawy is the horus name of Sonbef and so I would find it more plausible that Sankhtawy be the horus name of Amenemhat V instead if the stele is unattested or almost unknown. A similar situation occurred about a year and a half ago, when Udimu dug up a stele Cairo 36346 from a publication c. 1900 which explicitely says that Mentuhotep II was the son of Intef III. But Gae Callender, who wrote the chapter on the Middle Kingdom in the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, says that we cannot be sure Mentuhotep II was the son of Intef III because there is no direct attestation of the filiation. In other words, she was not aware of this obscure stele (largely uninteresting, published only once in 1900 and now probably buried in the basement of the Egyptian Museum). Thanks to the first publication, available copyright free online now, we could update the wiki article with a reference backing our claim. But the case here is not so clear. Does Budge identifies the owner of the horus name ?&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He simply calls him Sekhemkara and put him in the very beginning of the 13th dynasty. But feel free to check by yourself here, pp 86-89. I bet that Budge's stele is actually buried in the basements of the British Museum, too! Khruner (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Beautiful stele. I am really really curious now. Who that be ? Here are the only kings with a Sankhtawy, or close, in their titulary which I know:

Ryholt has no Horus name Sankhtawy in his book, he also has no stele 1343 listed in his attestations of the SIP in the British Museum. The closest he has is stele 1348 but it refers to Wahibre Ibiau, clearly not our guy here. I HAVE NO CLUE WHO HORUS SANKHTAWY SEKHEMKARE IS. Are we sure he is SIP ? Anyway even outside of the SIP I don't know any horus Sankhtawy (but I barely know anything after 1000 BC, although the stele looks quite old).&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sekhemre Sankhtawy Neferhotep III, but here Sankhtawy is part of the prenomen.
 * Senusret IV, whose two ladies title is Sankhtawy.
 * Amenemhet VI had a horus name Sankhibtawy.
 * I only found this (scroll to Sekhemkare), which basically adds nothing. Is only remarkable that the same stele is showen here. I don't know any king after the New Kingdom with those names, apart of Horus Sankhtawy Gemnefkhonsubak and the kushite king Sekhemkare Malonaqen but it is virtually impossible that an unattested stele belonging to him has come up to Athribis... I'll check in some older works in the few next days. Khruner (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But I don't understand Yoyotte says (I quote): "Horus Sankhtawy (alias Sekhemkare)". What does he mean ? Is Gemnefkhonsubak also called Sekhemkare, or does he thinks that Gemnefkhonsubak=Sekhemkare Malonaqen? As for the link you gave, I don't know if it is reliable, but the cylinder seal they show is referenced in Ryholt' book alright. I do not know why Ryholt does not mention the stele at all, also I don't know why he gives the Horus name as Mehibtawy and this site as Sankhtawy. Also I just found out this website here where the Horus name of Amenemhat V is given as Sankhtawy and that of Sekhemkare Sonbef as Mehibtawy. The author(s) of the website even explicitely say the stele belongs to Amenemhat V. The likeliest explanation is that Ryholt completely missed the stele (?!)&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't want to sound arrogant, but I think that Yoyotte maybe wanted to write: "Horus Sankhtawy (alias Shepseskare[-Irienre]) Gemnefkhonsubak", respectively: the Horus name, the throne name and the sa-Ra of Gemnefkhonsubak. And obviously he was unrelated to Malonaqen.
 * It seems to me that these websites are based on old publications which should mention this stele in some way; perhaps the stele was forgotten or even lost in later times. Is possible to me that Ryholt may have not seen it, considering the enormous amount of works that a book as his SIP required. Now I'm going to say a jokish-but-not-so-much thing: do you think that is so absurd to get the picture of the stele to mr. Ryholt himself, via mail? :) Khruner (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We/you should definitely do it !! I can help your English, but it is definitely worth sending him a question regarding the owner of the stele. We should ask him, why the Stele BM 1343, published by Wallis Budge (we can give the link to the publication), is not in his book and whether he thinks the stele belongs to Amenemhat V or not. I am REALLY curious to see what he would say.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think is better if you send the mail. Not for laziness :) but your english is superior (as you can see, I always avoid to write sentences on en.wiki articles) and your comprehension of the SIP too (is since 2012 that I try to get my hands on the only public copy of Ryholt's SIP in my town but I now think that it was lost or stolen; is due to that that I bought Kitchen's TIP instead). I can commit myself to find any possible information about the stele, by the few next days (I need my libraries). Khruner (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All right! It's an honor for me to write the email. I am not sure however, that Ryholt will respond.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but we can give it a try. Just let me some few days to gather information to be eventually integrated in the email! Khruner (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure ! We will make the best email Ryholt has received in years.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was searching for something totally unrelated, and coincidentally I've solved the mystery; unfortunately, the reality is different from what I was hoping... http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=111461&partId=1&searchText=amenemhat&object=20160&page=1 . Khruner (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Khruner: That's not too bad, look they say the stele is in the style of the 13th Dynasty, so weren't fools to think it could a 13th Dynasty original. Furthermore, they still say that "perhaps utilising the name of Amememhet V", i.e. Amememhet V may have been Horus Sankhtawy. I wonder if this is enough to include in the article on Amememhet V that his horus name may be this. Also a BIG question that they do not answer is why on earth a prince of the Napatan period would fancy putting up the name of an ephemeral king who reigned for 3 years almost 1100 years before him. This is ridiculous. It is like us signing legal documents in the name of Louis the Stammerer or Arnulf of Carinthia. This idea seems utterly far-fetched to me.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't know... I'm not sure it's a good idea to assign the stele to Amenemhat V also because who is Amenemhat V? Talking about him, I've uploaded this file, described as "Amenemhat V (?)" and then? He could be at least 2-3 distinct pharaohs depending to the scholars.
 * Maybe writing to Ryholt is still a good idea, pointing out that it could be the only attestation of Sekhemkare's Horus name, but I'm not sure even of that: it's a clue too tenuous, and as you said is unlikely that Napatans knew that ephemeral pharaoh. Probably they invented a brand-new pharaoh mixing an horus name and a prenomen... Khruner (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I will still write him, after all the Napatans could have copied an ancient stele which was still up at their time. That would explain why they still knew him, even though they probably had no record of his reign. About Sekhemkare Amenemhat V, I think it is rather clear who he is: as far as I can tell, von Beckerath, Ryholt and Baker see him as the first Amenemhat of the 13th dynasty and give him the prenomen Sekhemrekhutawy. Franke also has Sekhemrekhutawy being Amenemhat V, even though all von Beck / Ryholt = Baker / Franke disagree on the precise chronological position.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. On it.wiki "Amenemhat V" links to Sekhemkare indeed, but this identification is somewhat more unclear due to Sonbef and - in a lesser extent - to other Amenemhat-named pharaohs of the very early 13th dynasty. Khruner (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Khruner: Well Franke, Ryholt Beckerath and Baker all have Sonbef before Sekhemkare but do not give Sonbef the number V. As far as I can tell, this is because Sonbef's nomen, Amenemhat-Sonbef, is understood as a double nomen (like today's double names), which was common in the late MK to early SIP period. At the opposite Sekhemkare only nomen is Amenemhat, which warrants his numbering V. If another king had existed after Sekhemkare and Sonbef with the name Amenemhat-Sonbef, then he would be Amenemhat-Sonbef II not Amenemhat VI etc. It is like Juan-Jose. If a king's name was Juan-Jose and if a Juan and a Jose reigned before him, he would still not be called Juan II, nor Jose II, but Juan-Jose I.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks you're right. Once again I've been misled by Cimmino's book (I already mentioned him to you) which simply merges Amenemhat V and Sonbef into an unique "Sekhemkara Amenemhat-Sonbef" and referring to him as the "improperly named Amenemhat V". Khruner (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you...
...mind if you'd join this discussion I started? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have started a project conerning besaid article, look here. This is how I imagine the later look-alike of the article. Hope, you like it. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks awesome ! About the birth name, perhaps you could include that it is called nomen as well. And about the Niswt-Bity title, I would change the title of the section from "Niswt-Bity" to "Prenomen". Anybody not accustomed to Ancient Egypt won't be able to read "Niswt Bity" let alone understand its meaning. So I thought keeping "Prenomen" would sound more familiar with lay people. Do you have good sources to fill all these paragraphs?&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for the flowers. As I often mention, I have good books for the history of each title from its historical introduction up to the Old Kingdom period. For anything after that I would appreciate any help and work of my colleagues. I have already started to write and I changed some headlines. Just take a look. ;-) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you are making continuous progress! Just let me know when you want me to look at the English.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can imagine now what kinda mass of information this article may contain when ready. >:-)) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it is definitely going to be better than the old version that is currently online!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Layer Pyramid again
Hi there. I'm done with this article, there is nothing else to write about. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC) PS: I replied to your message on my discussion page.
 * Very nice! I shall complement it a bit with material from Lehner's book and we shall consider it complete!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Two little things
Hello, in my wanderings I've found, and I'm wondering if you are able to read the glyphs on the yellow scarab (below the one with Ptahhotep's name)... Another thing: did you ever heard of a phantomatic 35th dynasty of Egypt? Just look at the categories of this rebel ruler. I guess that is a some kind of hoax, but I wanted to hear your opinion first. --Khruner (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Khruner: Well it seems to be "Sa Ra Sobekhotep" (I am quite sure about the Sobekhotep), I am less sure about the signs on the left, I read from top to bottom: Sign1: ?, Sign2: n, Sign3a (left): m or a, Sign3b (right): nswt, Sign4: k, Sign5a (left): p or i, Sign5b (right): m. Could it perhaps be mentioning the king's mother Kema ? (and Sobekhotep would be Sobekhotep IV). Indeed see the scarab on the right of this picture: here
 * I will look at Ryholt's book tonight as this scarab must be listed as an attestation of one of the Sobekhoteps. Statistically, it is most likely to be Sobekhotep IV and the reading to be indeed mentioning Kema.
 * Also the scarab on the right of this one reads Djeserkare (Amenhotep I?), but is really similar in style to early SIP scarabs (see Sheshi). Maybe this scarab is indeed early SIP and would then be non royal and mean "Holy is the Ka of Ra"? About the 35th dynasty, I have never heard of it (but really I not a useful reference for anything after 1000BC). I must say I laughed a bit when I read the weird name "Hugronaphor"....
 * About Sobekhotep: I was able to read "Sobekhotep" (besides the two extra glyphs in the cartouche, likely an A42 and a X1) but I have to say that you had a fine intuition, as it looks like it could refers to Khaneferre and his mother indeed;
 * About Djeserkare, I guess there may be several possible explanations: a symple "epithet of Ra" (very likely), another - earlier and unattested - king Djeserkare (quite impossible :) ), or a very late example of this kind of scarab decoration (unlikely?). I do not know exactly when this type of decoration was abandoned, maybe I could search for it in some Ben-Tor works this afternoon;
 * About Hugronaphor: yes, it's a quite funny name, surely his true name "Horwennefer" sounds much more egyptian. I don't like the ptolemaic period so much but I'm naturally attracted by shadowly egyptian rulers :) Khruner (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A new...
...pyramid!!! ;-)) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Nephiliskos: Amazing! Sorry for the delay, I am very busy these days. This is awesome, please don't hesitate to use the userbox of the Egyptian Pyramid Project, you would honor it!.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok... I hope, I did it right. ;o) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Two new princes
Meet Baka and Setka. ;o) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE Copyedit request
Good afternoon,

I have just finished a copy edit of Peribsen as requested on the GOCE page. Feel free to review changes and give feedback. I deleted very little original content, but just as a word of advice: the article may not reach GA status without some redirection of the thesis. You spend a lot of time writing about different historical theories of multiple versus single rulership of Egypt during Peribsen's reign. This might be good material for another article on state divisions in Egyptian dynasties (I'm just guessing). The parts about Seth versus Horus in his naming and the description of those theories was very very interesting! Thank you!

TheFurorDivinus (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your incredible work and advises! I will see with @Nephiliskos shortly on how to implement the changes you advocate. Thanks again!!!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pissed off. --Nephiliskos (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Nephiliskos: Why what is happening ???&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Now... for fist: most of this article was written by me. Thus, I'm the main author. Normally you would expect users to contact the main author for discussing any issues. So, why the xxx is User "The FurorDivinus" avoiding me??? For second: Many of his edits were raising quality and I'm pleased with that. No problem so far. But most of his edits are catastrophic. Just study the edit history! Since when do we put questions(!) into encyclopedic articles??? And since when do we fatten sentences??? In sum, the user made an encyclopedic article into an tabloid article with boulevard niveau. A shere catastrophe! He better should be stopped! --Nephiliskos (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I think TheFurorDivinus contacted me only because I was the one who posted the request on the copy-editor guild (as we discussed). I don't think he has anything against you and on the contrary he praised the article which you wrote! Second, his edits are not set in stone and can be changed, his main task was to make the article more readable and with a better English, which he did correct. We can of course change sentences again so as to conserve their scientific content without compromising with their writing quality. This is a slow process, which I am sure, will eventually converge to a very good GA article.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're surely right, Iry... But something on his behaviour tells me, that this won't end up well, if he keeps on. User:WANAX is cleansweeping, too. I have nothing against grammatic and linguistic refinements, you bet I do. But I don't want that users start to turn hard-work articles into tabloid trash. I yet do not think that the user meant bad, though... --Nephiliskos (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 14:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that TheFurorDivinus finished his work already and won't modify the article again. However, I think you are being harsh and TheFurorDivinus did a pretty good job on the grammatical and syntaxic points of view. Also it is natural to try to make an article more reader-friendly. Finally, I guess that TheFurorDivinus is not an expert in egyptology and it is only normal that he may make modifications that also change the meaning of the text without him realising this. Knowing this, I find that he did help the article get a lot more reader-friendly and thus easier to read and appreciate. Obviously, writing wikipedia is a progressive, constructive, process and it is to be expected that the article can be made even better, e.g. by making it both scientifically rigorous and reader-friendly.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nephiliskos: I personally think that he did a fine work. There is always bound to be some grammar/syntax errors when a non-native speaker (like you or me) writes in a foreign language, I think he did a good work fixing those. Yes, he did some stylistic mistakes like the questions, but those can be easily corrected. --WANAX (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you both are right, I'm sorry for my harshness. I couldn't handle that situation better, I just felt -somehow- ripped off. Again: I'm always happy for myself, if native peoples cleansweep our articles. I hope to find a tolk with besaid user, as I already wrote earlier, I don't think he did mean bad. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Iry-Hor, on Wikipedia a conflict of interest doesn’t typically refer to just an opinion. Saying that you don’t have a conflict of interest because you don’t agree with Rhol is a rather unusual use of the expression. Usually on Wikipedia a conflict of interest refers to a monetary interest or possibly a familial relationship. If you were the owner of a publishing company that was publishing one of Rohl’s books then you would have a conflict of interest. If you read WP:COI I think you’ll see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the precision! I know what a conflict of interest is but chose the term rather poorly here (and you are right to point that out!). I only meant that I wasn't just defending my own personal opinion, but rather that I was aiming for neutrality of the article, even if this goes against what I personally think on the subject matter.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE Request comments
Hi,, Tezero has left a message for you  here. I'm moving the conversation to your talk page because I'm about to remove it for archiving purposes. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

About a vizier
Hello, sorry for bothering you, but could you check a little thing for me on Ryholt's SIP? I'm looking for a mysterious "vizier Ibiaw" or "Ibiau" who seems to me to have lived during the mid-late SIP... Never heard of him? (needless to say, on wiki is unknown) PS: about Sobekhotep's Austrian scarab, I haven't uploaded it already because I'm not sure about the procedure of attribution. I'll proceed as soon as I realize how to do it in these cases. Khruner (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello @Khruner, sorry for the delay, I have a very busy schedule these days, but it should be alright next week. Ryholt has plenty of things on a vizier Ibiaw, who held his office during the reign of king Ibiaw of the late 13th dynasty c. 1715-1704 BC. Vizier Ibiaw's career and family is well attested thanks to a stele from Thebes. The arch of stele is inscribed with vizier Ibiaw's title in mirror symmetry with the titles of his king Ibiaw. Vizier Ibiaw started as Overseer of the Compound under king Ibiaw before being promoted to vizier, either late during Ibiaw's reign of early in Merneferre Aya's reign. His son, Sonbhenaf A also started as Overseer of the Compound and finally inherited the vizierate after the death of his father, some time during Aya's reign. The vizierate then passed on to another family during Ini's first reign on the throne. Vizier Ibiaw's grandaughter Mentuhotep, a daughter of Sonbhenaf A, was later married to king Djehuty of the early 16th dynasty c. 1645 BC. In addition to these informations, Ryholt points to another stele from Lisht and which mentions an Overseer of the Compound then vizier named Sobka Bebi (double name). Ryholt believe that this type of career succession (overseer of the compound -> vizier) is characteristic of Ibiaw's family. Since furthermore Sobka Bebi's stele is dated on stylistic grounds to the mid 13th dynasty, Ryholt concludes that Sobka Bebi might well have beeen Ibiaw's father. In this case, using the two stelae, Ryholt pieces together the following family tree:
 * 1) Sobka Bebi fathered Ibiaw who married with a Lady Ankhesiref, of unknown parentage. With Ankhesiref, Ibiaw fathered Sonbhenaf A, the Overseer of the Compound then Vizier, himself father of queen Mentuhotep, spouse of king Djehuty, with a Lady Sobekhotep (given the title Iry-pat, so she must have been part of the royal family).
 * 2) Ibiaw also maried a Lady Ressonb. Ressonb's father was the Herald Anhurnakht Idi. With Ressonb, Ibiaw fathered Sonbhenaf B who held the lesser positions of Chief of the Office Hall and Overseer of the Fields. He was maried to a Lady Abtib of unknonw parentage. &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you very much for your comprehensive reply :) It seems that this vizier Ibiaw was anything but mysterious. My doubt has arisen with a statuette at Bologna depicting a dignitary called Seneb/Sonb (maybe a short for Sonbhenaf?), claimed to have lived under king Djehuti and to have been the son of a vizier Ibiaw. The idea of ​​identifying the vizier cited on the statuette with yours is tempting... Khruner (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes it seems that this Sonb would be Sonbhenas A, however Ryholt dates this guy to Merneferre Ay's reign and a little bit of Ini. If we follow Ryholt, Sonbhenas would not have been vizier under Djehuty.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but he could be Sonbhenaf B too, and thus stepbrother and contemporary (possibly even younger, since he was not appointed vizier?) of king Djehuti's father-in-law. The timing sounds ok to me. Of course these are speculations, unfortunately I don't believe there is a publication regarding this statuette. Khruner (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I see it ? Also did you upload the scarab of Sobekhotep IV? It would illustrate the article on Kema and Haankhef nicely.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the statuette. Unfortunately the glyphs aren't clearly visible, so I had to trust the caption and two different guides to the museum collection. The scarab is still in my "to upload" folder because, basically, I don't know the procedure to say "this image is taken from another image on Commons, the original is here, share alike etc etc". I need to find a similar, pre-existing and, above all, correctly done case, then I can learn from that. Khruner (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nice statuette! For the scarab, you can upload it as your own work since you take the photo. I would think it is simpler to upload directly as if you had taken this photo separately from the other.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * About the statue: I've found a study about the vizier Ibiaw [Habachi, "The family of the Vizier Ibia and his place...", Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur II (1984), pp 113ff] which includes a comprehensive discussion of this statuette, on which the owner claimed to be the son of Vizier Ibiaw and born from the lady of the house Ressonb; thus this makes him the Sonbhenaf B cited by Ryholt (for Habachi, otherwise, he is likely to be the one which later became vizier, i.e. Djehuti's father-in-law, i.e. Ryholt's Sonbhenaf A). Also, no name of kings were cited on the statuette. Now I would be interested in writing a little something about this Vizier Ibiaw on en.wiki...
 * About the scarab: sadly, the photo wasn't taken by me, otherwise the problem would not have existed. Khruner (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe that there enough material to write something about vizier Ibiaw. I look forward to seeing the article if you write it !&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I would ask you to check if the page of Ryholt's SIP is correct, as I quote him basing on third-party sources. Khruner (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nice! I don't have access to my Ryholt book until next Friday, but as soon as I am back, I will check the page number and add whatever I can find from the book that isn't in the article if there is anything. It's great to see wikipedia's quality progress over time this way!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)