User talk:Captmondo/Archives/2007/April

Pharaoh infobox sizes

Do you know why the pharaoh infoboxes for some Egyptian kings especially Smendes and Ramesses XI consume so much space compared to those for Ay or Ramesses VI. The first two occupy about 50 percent of the page which tends to severely 'cramp' or artificially compress the text beside it. Personally, I think the infoboxes for Ay and Ramesses VI is the ideal: it occupies perhaps 30-35% of the space and the text beside it is not that compressed. I sthere anything you can do to lessen the size of the pharaoh info boxes for Smendes and/or Ramesses XI? Just curious Leoboudv 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the pharaoh info-boxes, I guess that's the way it has to be then. I did see your comments on Ay and didn't know the source the anonymous IP'er was citing was fictitious. If what you say is true, the guy must be a hoaxter...unless of course this book has yet to be published. Since he/she has not replied to your comments, I'm assuming you are correct--the purported book is a probable hoax. Personally, I have no doubt about the conclusions of the NG team because they used the latest CT scan technology whereas RG Harrison only had a standard X-ray machine in the 1960's which could detect the bone fragments in Tut's skull but could not determine if they were not embedded in the embalmer's solidified liquid. While its unfortunate Harrison's work sparked a four decade long conspiracy theory about the circumstances of Tut's death, this is understandable due to the sudden death of Nibhururiya and the suspicious Dahamanzu episode as documented in the Hittite records.

One should note that Nibhururiya could either be a reference to Nebkheperure, Tutankhamun's prenomen or possibly to Neferkheperure, Akhenaten's royal name. I hope Reinhard Stempel's future GM 213 paper here will resolve the question about this pharaoh's identity once and for all. [1] IMO, the biggest problem with Nibhururiya being Tutankhamun is a matter of TIMING: Dahamanzu first writes to plead her case to Suppiluliuma I late in the autumn season (September/October) when the Hittite king was in the middle of besieging Carchemish. This tight time-frame would suggest the dead king is Akhenaten rather than Tutankhamun since wine from Akhenaten's royal estates was being bottled in the autumn when he died since a Year 17 wine label was actually erased to mark Year 1 of his successor's reign. I have seen William Moran's book on the Amarna correspondence and there are only 4 Hittite letters to the Egyptian court (EA 41-44): two are too fragmentary to read, one is from a Hittite prince Zitna to "the king of Egypt" while EA 41 is from Suppiluliuma himself to a certain pharaoh Huriya who could be Akhenaten, Tutankhamun, even Ankheperure Smenkhare. So, they are of no help in establishing this pharaoh's identity. In contrast, the Hittite records should prove who this dead king really was since Stempel is a highly competent German scholar who has published articles in various foreign philological journals on the Hittite language, etc. If it is Tut, then Stempel must have clear reasons for his conclusions here. Regards Leoboudv 05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom on Reserve heads

Hello,

Thanks for creating article on Reserve heads. Just for your information, I have nominated a DYK on this article, by having the following hook.

• ...that the Reserve heads (pictured), get the name from the prevalent theory put forward by a German Egyptologist that the head was to serve as an alternate home for the spirit of the dead owner should anything happen to its body?

Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 03:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! Makes lot of sense. Thank you! - KNM ^Talk 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your images for king Narmer, the probable first ruler of a united Egypt, are excellent. I didn't know you could take so many photographs of items naming him. Regards, Leoboudv 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for cathcing my error at Museum (TTC). Ground Zero | t 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article reserve head, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging articles

Can you merge or put a merge tag for the article on Malqata into the one with Malkata. They are the same place but many Egyptologists today spell it as Malkata. Also, the Malkata article, has an actual photo. The discussion on Malqata is interesting regards the archaeological history of this site which should be preserved in the pre-existing Malkata site. Right now its confusing when you have 2 names for this site with 2 mostly different content. Leoboudv 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ankhhaf

On 13 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ankhhaf, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs

I'll play with it and give it a try though I am a rank amateur too. Leoboudv 20:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Meketaten

Hi,

Your photos are beautiful! I will definitely use them in Hungarian wikipedia too (we have more and more Egypt-themed articles, that's one of the reasons I'm not very active in enwiki right now...)

Thanks for the nice comments on the articles! :) The problem with references is that many of the books I have are the Hungarian translations, and although I can find out the original title and publication data, and add them to the article, the page numbers probably won't match. (Also, I wasn't paying much attention to references when first writing articles; I recently had to update the amarna princess articles in Hungarian wikipedia; I'll try to update them in enwiki too.)

About the royal tomb's alpha, beta and gamma chambers: Both Aldred's Akhenaten and the Touregypt article says that either all three of them belonged to Meketaten, or only gamma was hers and alpha could be Kiya's (or possibly that of another royal woman). I was under the impression that the issue is far from decided; was it since then proved that Kiya was buried there? It would be interesting.

kind regards,

– Alensha ^talk 18:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)