User talk:Khruner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Ramesside trouble

I responded to your message on wiki commons. Since I am not sure where you check your messages, I paste it here as well:

I can definitely read Usermaatra-Sekheperenre-Ramesissu-Amun-[her-khepesh]-f but note, there are no signs for her and khepesh. Such short forms are not unheard of though. This is certainly not Ramses X here since there is no Setep sign to be seen and the Sekheperenre is very clearly visible. That everything is inside a single cartouche is also not unique, although I don't have photos of other examples at hand. However what is remarkable to me is that the obelisk is very crude, an unmistakable sign of the decline of Egypt during the 20th dynasty. Also it is the first time I see Usermaatre written with only two signs (with the user sign on the knee of Maat, forming a single sign with it.) By the way, where was the photo taken ? EDIT: I just realized you took the photo at the museum of Bologna. The museum has a number of remarkable stele and statuettes from the 2nd intermediate period which would nicely illustrate the articles of certain pharaohs of the period (e.g. Merkawre Sobekhotep VII). Do you have photos of objects from the second intermediate period, which you could upload ? Iry-Hor (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sobekhotep I

Hello Khruner ! Thanks for your help, I responded to you on my talk page, just click here. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Dear Khruner, I hereby award you this barnstar for you numerous contributions illustrating articles on Ancient Egypt. I hope this will encourage you to continue your fine work. Thanks to you, people from all over the world can see the traces left by the pharaohs. Iry-Hor (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate a lot  :) Khruner (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Amenemhat III

There is a pectoral of Amenemhat III that you can use on which Wikipedia you are on if you wish:

• File:Pectoral_of_Amenemhat_III.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, a splendid masterpiece of the Middle Kingdom. I love the almost perfect symmetry and moreover its slight elegance, light years away from the heavy jewelry that will be made some centuries later. Khruner (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

CG 20044

So Ryholt has CG 20044, but it is listed as unattributed. Ryholt says that since it only bears the name Merhotepre, it cannot be attributed with certainty to any one king. Personnally, I would find it far more likely that it belongs to Merhotepre Sobekhotep V rather than Merhotepre Ini given that the former lived just after Sobekhotep IV at the apex of the 13th dynasty power while Merhotpre Ini is poorly attested and succeeded Merneferre Ay, of whom Ryholt says that at the end of its reign "the administration [of the Egyptian state] seems to have completely collapsed". Iry-Hor (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, just as I thought. Your reasoning makes sense, but the stele comes from Abydos, which should be in a territory ruled by the official 13th dynasty even in its late stage, if I am not wrong. Besides, I guess that any reasoning in this regard should be considered as original research... I've uploaded the stele yesterday and I've categorized it under both the Merhotepre, specifying its status of uncertain attribution in the description. Khruner (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are entirely right, this is original research and should not be included on wikipedia. I just thought interesting to share opinions regarding the stele owner. In any case, both Merhotepre indeed ruled over Abydos so we cannot use provenance as an argument. Now that I see the stele, I can see that it is of poor worksmanship and I find its ressemblance with the stele of Dedumose II troubling. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I just realized that the same situations occurs in the stele CG 20601 which depicts an unspecified king Neferhotep worshipping a god. Attestations of the two later Neferhotep are poor, but the crude quality gives me hope that does not belong to Khasekhemre. Khruner (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I would certainly like it to be Neferhotep III. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with scarabs

Hello Khruner! While uploading scarabs drawn by Petrie in his 1897 study of the history of Egypt, I found the following scarabs which I do not know to which king they belong. I thought you might be able to help me:

Petrie attributed this scarab to Wepwawetemsaf whose prenomen is "Sekhemreneferkhau". However this attribution is certainly false: Wepwawetemsaf is apparently not attested by scarabs and furthermore, the hieroglyphs don't really read Sekhemreneferkhau. What do you think ?

Petrie attributed this scarab to a Sehotepibre (which one ? Amenemhat ?), but I am not sure about the reading.

Another scarab attributed by Petrie to Sehotepibre. Here again, I am unsure about the reading.

Iry-Hor (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid but I'm not able to interpretate those names...

• 1) I guess that Petrie read the Y-shaped sign as a , and could the black irregular spot be a ? In that case I can only read , but I'm not even able to read it!
  
• 2) Could be a but I'm very uncertain about the. And who is a Nebhotepre Seib-something?
• 3) Would be perfect for a Sehotepibra if not for the lacking of and theinstead of a .

Curiously, I've uploaded the last two on Commons since I found them on Petrie's Scarabs some time ago, but that was before I'd stop believing to Petries's claims as if they were a law of physics... In particular I'm confused by the

sign in both. The fact that those last two scarabs appears pictured and not drawn on Scarabs, suggest me that they belongs to the Petrie Collection, and I'm searching on its catalogue right now! Khruner (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Found it:
2) is UC11524, "...inscribed in hieroglyphs giving no clear connected sense, perhaps derived from Sehetepibra";
3) is UC11525, "...inscribed in hieroglyphs derived from Sehetepibra".
If you want you can check by yourself here, simple-searching "Sehetepibra" (not "-re"). I just noticed that the pics on this online catalogue are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported; this could be interesting for Commons... Khruner (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry for interrupting here. None of these scarabs belong to a king. They are just a collection of hieroglyphs. Petrie thought that these are kings, but later it became clear that many of them are just hieros with magical meaning, used as amulets. Ryholt discusses these types in his book on pp. 62-65. He only sees king's name, where there is a cartouche with royal titles. bw -- Udimu (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the information. Looks like I have to recheck all the PD seals without cartouches I've uploaded from Petrie and not... I really should have the full Ryholt's SIP in some manner. Khruner (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow thanks guys, this was a very thorough answer. I will edit the wikicommons note for these scarabs, stating that they do not belong to a king.@Khruner about the license of the Petrie catalog: I thought so some time ago but Leoboudv noticed that the license is NonCommercial which is not allowed by wikicommons, because pics on commons could be downloaded and used by private companies for commercial purposes. For these reasons, all the pics from the catalog which I had uploaded were removed by commons admin. This is very unfortunate as they have tons of scarabs and artefacts form the SIP. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

well, Petrie is amazing, but nevertheless, that is a long time ago. So there are some ghost kings'. Ryholt is quite good for these points and scarabs. There are also articles by Daphna Ben-Tor (do not have the exact reference in the moment). She shows that scarabs with king's names only start in the second half of the 12th Dynasty. That means, that all scarabs with earlier kings are either in honor of these earlier kings (such as scarabs of Kheophs = great pyramid = great magical power!) or are just again amulets with hieros identical to some king's names. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting cause I remember Ryholt contesting that Pepi III was a king of the SIP based on the style of his scarab (uploaded by Khruner!). Rather he posited that Pepi III was a king of the FIP. I would be surprised if such a shadowy king of the FIP would be honored by scarabs made in his name 500 years later so I guess Ben Tor's study vindicate von Beckerath and other who think Pepi III lived during the SIP. This might warrant a discussion on the subject in Pepi III's article. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly why I never added the scarab picture of Pepi III on en.wiki :) despite Beckerath seems to confirm Petrie's attribution, but I was not aware of Ben-Tor's deductions. Khruner (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

compare Daphna Ben-Tor: Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections, Fribourg 2007, pp. 36-37 (earliest scarab of a king, made under that king belongs most likely to Senusret III). I have no idea what is going on with Pepy III. He does not has any royal titles! A ghost king??? -- Udimu (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Found in the library of my university, this monday I'll check it, thanks! I don't know wery well about the things on Pepi III. One day I noticed the scarab and I uploaded it, but I never added the image on en.wiki due to Ryholt's statements that I've found there. According to Beckerath's Handbuch he is attested - with royal titles - also on another scarab and on something in the British Museum (BM 3925). I checked the scarab on Newberry's Scarabs and the cartouche is not present, despite Beckerath's claims. For the object at the BM I simply don't know. Khruner (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

the BM collection is online: http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=177619&partId=1&searchText=3925&page=1 They think 3925 (a scarab) belongs to Apepi (=Apophis); Ryholt reads BM 3925 as Sheshi and puts the scarab under that king: Ryholt, p. 371. Seems that nobody realy knows what is going on. -- Udimu (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks so. Even many scarabs once (Petrie) attributed to Pepi has later joined the already great amount of scarabs belonging to Sheshi. If even Newberry's scarab and 3925 have been attributed other kings then the only attestation is the troublesome Seneferankhre scarab. If, for example, one day somebody finds out that the name on the scarab is actually an epithet of Ra, or something similar, then it would seem possible that this king never existed. Khruner (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well may I point out that the scarab also has "Pepy" written on it, so that even if Seneferankhre is some epipeth of Ra, you still have to explain Pepy. Also, it would not be surprising for a short lived king of say the end of the 16th dynasty to be attested by a single scarab. Many kings of the Turin canon have no contemporary attestations at all. I am surprised that Beckerath would say that Pepy III is given royal attributes on an artifact that do not show any: I would not expect him to lie and even less to have misread such a thing. Are you sure he is talking about the very same object ? Iry-Hor (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I cite Pepi III attestation for Beckerath (pp. 118-119):

1)

, Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 22 n. 7
2)

, Newberry, Scarabs, pl. 43 n. 14, but here I read

or

3)

, BM 3925.

OT: I'm glad you've created an article for Intef the Elder, although I believe that his attribution to a Pharaoh is maybe excessive...! Khruner (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised by Ben Tor's affirmation that no scarab seal dates to earlier than Senusret III. Looking at Petrie's cylinder seal and scarabs here, there are many scarabs clearly belonging to kings of the 5th and 6th dynasties for example. Have they all been made much later to honor them ? @Khruner: I did not write that Intef the Elder was a pharaoh ?! he was a theban nomarch alright. It is true that I included him in the list of pharaohs since he is considered the founder of the 11th dynasty, so maybe he should be removed from there. But in his article, I never wrote that he was royal. If I did, I will correct it (I have removed the category Pharaohs of the Eleventh Dynasty). In any case, please don't hesitate to edit any of my contributions if you spot an error ! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I was referring to the succession template but now I see you corrected it, I'm uncertain also of his insertion in the Pharaohs template. I'm not sure about that: I knew of Intef being a simple nomarch who was later considered an ancestor of the 11th dynasty; then Mentuhotep I being a simple nomarch too who was later considered as the founder of the 11th dynasty and thus honored with a fake titulary, and then Sehertawy Intef I, a nomarch who self-declared pharaoh and thus the real founder of the dynasty.

But I have to say that I didn't know that Intef the Elder had his name written inside a cartouche in at least one occasion (obiously a posthumous honor, anyway) Khruner (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed him from the template and I have updated the list of pharaohs article, stating explicitely that he was only a nomarch and setting him apart from the subsequent rulers of the dynasty. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know if you know but there is a very convenient link to see all edits on Ancient Egypt articles on wikipedia HERE. This is basically the watchlist of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know it, thanks :) And about Intef, the current situation is IMHO the best compromise! Khruner (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Senewosret-Ankh (vizier), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, mr. bot. I know you can't read me or understand me, but it won't happen again :) I'll keep this post as an admonition. Khruner (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

your request

Hi. The inscription gives the wife's name, but not the owner's one. The wife's name goes

. It reads Ta-nj-jwn.t, meaning "the greatest of On". Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mmhh... as good as all Middle- and New Kingdom tomb reliefs are interchangable, because their decoration concept and relief layout were always the same. ;)) Some kind of artistic norm. As long as the tomb owner's name is missing, the risk of interchanging keeps high. ;) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I can help you find some source, if you like. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oi, nuthin' against mah German! :-D Even if, I could translate it for you. The book I found beyond your link, is interesting. I could extract some neat stuff, if you like. ;-) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the Menkheperraseneb-article a little and I hope it's ok. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have my problems with the en.Wiki boxes. See, with your boxes you can't unify hieroglyphs and personal informations, so you had to use two or even three boxes in one article. Furthermore, I don't like how many redundant stuff these boxes provide - these informations are mentioned and explained in the article anyway. It would be cool if someone could technically solve and fix that. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Indeed, Dorman goes a bit helterskelter with his analysis. I'll see what I can do next time. ;o) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

About your question

Hi. I have edited and moved the page "Wakhare Khety I", because this is incorrect. The ruler's name was Wahkarê Khety I. Your theory about the nomarch is right. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have consulted W.G. Waddell's book Manetho, in which Manetho's royal chronic is faithfully translated. I added the interesting anecdote about the king and I hope you enjoy. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right, there is no consense about the actual number of kings in the First Intermediate Period and their time on the throne. The problems result from the contradictions between archaeological evidences and ramesside king lists and the chronic of Manetho. The FIP was very chaotic, the state system had crushed and several local rulers may have ruled at the same time. Only a few nomarchs survived and established their own "governments". Unfortunately, it is unknown how many local rulers ruled and their names surely became intermingled in later king lists. Other names got lost. Many scholars therefore call for caution against any try to build up a straight chronical time line. If there were several royal houses bitching about the throne at the same time, it was simply impossible to build a straight time line. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way: Did you already notice this one? ;-) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Eeeek!^^ Thanks for your hint, I corrected the name immediately!^^ After I finally found some literature about the coptos decrees, I'm gonna put some infos from theese into the articles of the mentioned kings. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

About a priest named Amenhotep

Hi. Ummm... I klicked the page and found a priest named Amenhotep! I will copy the text here:

Amenhotep, The vizier, great confidante of his mater, first prophet of Amun-resonther, Ramses IX - XI. Son of Ramessesnakht. During the reign of Ramesses XI, the Viceroy of Nubia attacked Thebes to restore order. Paneshy besieged the high priest at the fortified temple of Medinet Habu. It is not known if the High Priest, Amenhotep, survived this attack. See: The Suppression of the High Priest Amenhotep, by Edward F. Wente, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1966 Morales, A. J., The Suppression of the High Priest Amenhotep: A Suggestion to the Role of Panhesi, GM 181 (2001), 59-75.

Picture.

Niwinski, A., Bürgerkrieg, militärischer Staatsstreich und Ausnahmezustand in Ägypten unter Ramses XI. Ein Versuch neuer Interpretation der alten Quellen, in: Gegengabe Brunner-Traut, 235-262. Discusses HPA Amenhotep, Panehesy and Herihor.

Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I will consult my literature. Let's see... ;o) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to sweat... ;)) There's no match. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be extremely unusual, that a high priest would officially report the mummification and burial of a pharaoh - it was forbidden to talk about it. It was common, that a high priest was allowed to mention the death of a king. But all a priest (or any official) was allowed to add to a death note were prayers and blessings. About the article: It can be easily re-written and then kept. Maybe I can do it the following days. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The FIP

I saw your courageous contributions to the First Intermediate Period, and I must congratulate you for tackling some of the problems plaguing this period. I considered working on it in the past but was so dismayed by wikipedia's complete chaos of seeming confusions, lack of articles and even lack of sources that I went for the SIP instead. As you must have seen, there is quite a bit of work to be done on the FIP on wiki, I don't even know how many pharaohs are missing! In any case, your contribs on this are more than welcomed. Thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Gemen...blah^^

I have proofed the article of this unwritable ruler. Not bad!^^ Just two dimunitive corrections, dat's all. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

I like the historical article. This is a gift from me. Keep writing such articles. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 20:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

new Minister of State for Antiquities

Got Mamdouh Eldamaty imported from simple.wiki and added talk page and categories, but needs a lot of work. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hm, never heard of him before. I also see that it's a biography of a living person. I'm sorry, but I'd prefer not to deal with BLPs expecially on en.wiki, I find working on it too much delicate and exhausting, even in my native language wiki... Khruner (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I don't blame you! Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Osorkon IV is likely Usermaatre Osorkonu

From this 2014 new book where only chapter 1 is posted online, A. Dodson convincingly argues that a king Usermaatre Osorkonu (named on 2 blocks at Tanis)—who is not given the epithet Si-Ese is likely Osorkon IV. I believe he is likely right since Osorkon III uses the epithet Usermaatre Osorkon Si-Ese to show that he was an Upper Egyptian king and to distinguish himself from Usermaatre Setepenamun Osorkon II. King Osorkonu's blocks at Tanis have no such epithet. Therefore, Usermaatre Osorkonu cannot be Osorkon III and should be the later king Osorkon IV instead. You have to scroll through the pdf file to see the first and only free chapter...and consider saving it or printing the paper. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Leoboudv I read; does it means that if this proves to be correct, all the monuments naming an Aakheperre Osorkon should be attributed to Osorkon the Elder instead? Maybe it could be the case of the Louvre small aegis of Sekhmet here. But is good to know that in exchange we have some extra monuments about the poorly attested and unfortunate Osorkon IV (as far as I can see, even his dynastic belonging is disputed). I also thought there were no more doubts about whether the Osorkon subdued by Piye was him. Thanks, I'm going to sligtly expand the article about him with this chapter.
EDIT: But why the Osorkonu of the two tanite blocks could not be Usermaatre Osorkon II? Khruner (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• The 2 monuments of an Aakheperre Osorkon should belong to Osorkon the elder. As for why the 2 Tanite blocks couldn't belong to Osorkon II, their style dates them to the 3rd dynasty which Osorkon II did not use in his reign. He also didn't use the nomen Osorkonu in his titles. Since Osorkon II and Osorkon III are not possibilities, only Osorkon IV is left.

PS: That image of the Louvre headpiece used in Osorkon IV's article which you mentioned must belong to Osorkon IV since it names his mother as Tadibast. Osorkon the elder, Osorkon I, II and III's mothers are known and their mothers are not named Tadibast. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I checked a pubblication about the aegis of Sekhmet this afternoon; it simply reports "The son of Ra, Osorkon" (without praenomen) and "The mother of the God, the royal wife Tadibast", indeed. I have no other objections: it seems that everything fits with Dodson's hypothesis. Wery well, henceforth I can assume each object bearing the name of Aakheperre Osorkon, as belonging to Osorkon the Elder. Khruner (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The identification of Osorkon the Elder's mother as Mehtenweshkhet (English) or Mehytouskhe (French) was made by J. Yoyotte in a BSFE 77-78 (1977) pp.39-54 article titled "Osorkon, fils de Mehytouskhe', un pharaon oublie?" KA Kitchen says in his TIPE 3 (1995) book on S437 or pages 534-535 that Yoyotte identified Mehtenweshket as Osorkon the Elder's mother based on his careful restudy of now lost inscriptions from the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak in Upper Egypt. Since Osorkon I's mother was Karomamat A while Osorkon II's mother was Kapes and Osorkon III's mother was Karomama F, this king Osorkon can only be Osorkon the Elder.

Why? Because as Piye notes in his Victory stela, Osorkon IV only ruled in the Delta region of Egypt--deep in Lower Egypt which is far away from Karnak. In contrast, Osorkon the Elder was a king of the 21st dynasty which ruled over all of Egypt. So, Mehtenweshket was certainly not Osorkon IV's mother since Osorkon IV did not control any part of Upper Egypt. Please feel free to update Osorkon IV's article if you wish with Dodson's paper. Hopefully, you have saved it or printed it as I have. I'm afraid that I may be a bit busy with work tomorrow. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the paper, I will update Osorkon IV's article today or tomorrow, as well as Osorkon the Elder's article. Khruner (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Leoboudv I've updated both the articles of Osorkon IV and Osorkon the Elder; for the latter, I managed to get a picture of one of the two reattributed objects mentioned by Dodson. Thanks, and please check if I did some mistakes. Khruner (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the Osorkon IV article looks quite correct. Thank You for your help. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

High priest Nebwawy

Hi! The line in row 2 says: "High priest of Osiris, Nebwawy, who gives orders for His Majesty, who purifies (his? their?) soul and spirit for (of?) his lord and who opens...?..." (I can't make out what the very last word is). The "arrow sign" is that of an bundle of harpoons. ;o) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The hieros for Nebwawy:

Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

GA-Nomination for Peribsen

Hi! You never gonna believe this, but besaid article is currently reviewed by an competent author and has a very good chance to pass! The author left some notes on the article's discussion page and I'm already working on it. Unfortunately, my English is not good enough to fully understand some of his arguments n' questions. Could you pleeaase help me? It would be our very first early Egyptian ruler with a star! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nephiliskos Uh, I'm not sure at all that my english could help, as it is nearly as scant as my hieroglyph, but I'll check tomorrow morning all that bunch in the article's talk page! Khruner (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yay, thanks!^^ --Nephiliskos (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nephiliskos Well, as I can see the "referencing" paragraph is quite clear: there are some claims that need referencing, so we can find references for it, or erase the claims. The problem is, having just the author's name, I have no clue about what could have been the unsourced claims... Do you have an idea about the missing sources? If so, maybe I can find these in the library of my university.
The other points are quite simple and partially already solved. The other real problem is that the opening section should be rewritten in a more summarizing and exaustive form which essentially touch all the significant events and peculiarity about him: if I'm not mistaken, in this kind of articles a person should already know in broad terms what it is about, after reading the opening and before starting the real article. (this would have been handy to me too: I know little about ancient Egypt before the civil war, and about Peribsen too...) Khruner (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Khruner: Yo! Today I'm gonna expand the article's entrance, no problem! About the missing sources: It would help alot, if the questioned passages were marked, so I could find and ref them. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nephiliskos Hm, I did not understand this last thing... Maybe you want me to mark with a "citation needed" all the authors that actually are sourceless, as well as the unsourced passages? If so, I can do that. Khruner (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be awesome. ;o) Meanwhile, I have expanded the article's entrance. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nephiliskos I've put some cns. I think that this section also requires at least a source within, not just at the end... Khruner (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm done!^^ Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well done, I did only two little fixes, clearly the article has some German ancestry :). I'm also impressed that so much is known about a pharaoh who is so ancient... Khruner (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers. Well, let's be careful with the term "know". Egyptologists often sound so secure and convinced when talking about certain kings and dynasties - fact is, that as good as nothing is known about that. Sure, seal impressions and vase inscription give us hints and informations, but "certain" is imho nothing... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

PERIBSEN GOT ITS GREENIE!!! AWESOME!!!! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice work :) Khruner (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5