Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:44, 23 November 2023

Template:Vital article

	Tutankhamun has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2019 Good article nominee Listed
	Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 26, 2004, November 26, 2005, November 26, 2006, February 16, 2011, February 16, 2013, February 16, 2017, February 16, 2019, and February 16, 2022.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Egypt Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list: edit history watch purge Needed articles. We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have. Cleanup. To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates? Standardize the Chronology. A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563) Stub sorting Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Misplaced Pages, but if you believe it needs to be done . . . Data sorting. This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Misplaced Pages than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Egypt High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Archaeology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disability Tutankhamun is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Steven Winn (2008-10-06). "King Tut to make triumphal return to S.F." San Francisco Chronicle.

	Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: July 19 to 25, 2015 (6th)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. ] The anchor (#2012 Ramesses III) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

Done, thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@IdreamofJeanie: Can you fix this. I usually try and fix these, but I know you probably didn't mean for your post to be here. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add picture gallery

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

For example:

Gallery

• Tutankhamun, Cairo Museum
• Tutankhamun chair, 18th dynasty, Cairo museum
• King Tut charging enemies, 18th dynasty

EditorfromMars (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Image galleries hold no real encyclopedic content and are no longer considered of value much in articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

What complete nonsense! Most articles on visual subjects have them, and this article would be very suitable. There are also some gaps in the text where pics could be added. What exactly is the "real encyclopedic content" of the picture of the de Young museum here? Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The images are compelling and I agree with the picture gallery, thank you. It looks like damage was attempted in the usual spot (luckily wood is not so brittle). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with this gallery suggestion. Those three images (the bust, throne & treasure chest) depict his most salient artifacts. They are often recreated as memorabilia (I actually own a replica of each of those three artifacts in my personal collection) and are a prudent representation of Tutankhamun. SmoovOpr8r (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please notice the birth and death of Tutankhamen birth is mentioned 1342 BC and death 1325 BC I think it should be vice versa please acknowledge 171.61.50.178 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Most people are born before they die. 1342 BC is before 1325 BC, so the years given are correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Add new 2020 DNA study, Zahi Hawass researchers, Egypt

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Tutankhamen

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

Reuse of burial goods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add stuff FLASH1234567890 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Favonian (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tutankhamun and his wife.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

this is funny

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

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

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

Egyptian Anthropological Study Removal

• Copied from: User_talk:Austronesier#Egyptian_Anthropological_Study_Removal

Hi Austronesier,

You removed the scientific, peer-reviewed publication from Robins and Shute which examined the limb proportions of 18th and 19th century New Kingdom pharoahs with the justification that the terminology was out of date. Although, the terminology is exact of date, the results of the study have not been discredited by other scholars. Hence, I can easily re-write the sentence to reference Sub-Saharan affinities rather than "negroid" as this is a valid article and should be featured in the relevant articles.WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi WikiUser4020, thank you for bringing this up. Please note that it is not just about "terminology", but about exactly what I have written in my edit summaries, viz. the outdated framework of human biological races. You cannot translate "negroid" into any meaningful concept at all in modern anthropology (nor "caucasoid", "mongoloid" and whatsoever; races are discredited). To do so would be misleading and violate WP:OR. The paper by Robins and Shute is historically relevant which is why I don't object to its use in Population history of Egypt where it is featured in proper context. But it should not be used to promote factoids in articles about individual ancient Egyptian rulers. It would be of much greater benefit for this encyclopedia if you have modern (e.g. genomic) research that properly links the ancestry of individual ancient Egyptian rulers to specific Sub-Saharan populations (without lumping the diversity of Sub-Saharan peoples under the rac(ial)ist term "negroid").

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

Hi Austonesier,

Yes, please do copy the discussion to other talk pages for wider input from other editors in related talk pages. Although, I have seen other recent articles featuring modern anthropologists still make reference to this terminology. An example is with Joel Irish in 2006 making this statement "Henneberg et al. suggest that the Nabta Playa people may have been most similar to Negroes from south of the Sahara. The present qualitative dental comparison tentatively supports this conclusion" and Zakrzewski (2003) described her sample as "super-negroid". Although, DNA studies could greatly assist in determining population affinities, these studies have also in turn been criticised for having biased, pre-fixed methodologies.WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Post-2000, such usage is a red flag, post-2010 an embarrassment. Yes, genomic research still is in its formative stage and has to be read properly; it's one of the worst-covered topics here in WP due to mass editing by a few less-than-competent (and mostly banned) editors (remember my TNT advice for the genetics section in Ancient Egyptian race controversy). And its result clearly depend on the selection of input data and samples. But there's some very good research going on in this field, so we shouldn't totally avoid to make use of it. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I share partial agreement with your view on DNA studies. However, I noticed that several articles on individual pharonic rulers still reference the views of Gaston Maspero from 1892. Also, the article on Rameses II describes an anthropological study from 1987 which presumes the pharoah had fair skin because his hair was determined to be of a red-ginger and wavy texture. However, this overlooks the fact that red hair is common to some degree among dark-skinned populations in Oceania and North-Eastern Africa. Hence, is this description not an example of an "outdated" framework  ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. In Ramesses II, there is a lot older material cited that directly addresses the physical appearance of the person, so Robins and Shute (1983) could be a legitimate addition.

Note however that neither Maspero nor Ceccaldi are cited in order to "racialize" the mummy; they are just cited for hair and skin color. In the case of Maspero, he just the described the immediately visible colors which is perfectly fine. Ceccaldi's inferred skin color is however indeed problematic, and falls within the range deletable factoids. In fact, his skin-color "prediction" entirely rests on his racial classification of the mummy as being of the "Berber type" (non only based on hair color, but also skeletal characteristic, see p. 122), which is of course bunk.

In most other cases like Amenhotep III or Siptah etc, where no other discussion of physical appearance (other than talking about age and health) is found at all, I nevertheless strongly object to citing Robins and Shute (1983) for the reasons mentioned before. –Austronesier (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier I do largely agree with the point above but I think Robins and Shute (1983) can still be featured as a historical study with rephrased/appropriate terminology. I think we can reach a consenus decision on this, once we have the views of other editors. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not about terminology, but methodology. Robins and Shute's reference groups are "American whites" and "American negroes" (check for yourself, I'm not making this up!)—absurd as it may sound in 2022, except maybe in Pioneer Fund-sponsored circles. If Robins and Shute had used more meaningful reference groups (e.g. ancient/modern people from northern Africa, the Levant, and eastern Africa), their work would be still useful beyond historical/anecdotical interest. –Austronesier (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier That is a sound point. In that case, we can leave the study in the Population history of Egypt article and close this thread. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If this study is not acceptable here, why would it be acceptable in any other article? Surely it should be removed completely? Wdford (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford The study still has historical relevance and the results of the study have not been discredited by other scholars. Austronesier was not arguing that the study should be removed in totality, but it should not be featured on specific articles featuring individual rulers which do not mention their physical appearances. Various anthropological studies which are featured in related pages still used that terminology as I mentioned above Joel Irish, Sonia Zakrzewski, Ceccaldi and even UNESCO History scholars still used that terminology however we would not remove them all from related wikipedia pages due to their historical relevance. This study has not been deemed unacceptable, in fact there is not even a consensus on that. The study is peer-reviewed in a scientific journal however it is dated. It is still perfectly relevant for the article I cited above as Austronesier originally agreed on its inclusion in the article on the "Population History of Egypt" as it is placed in its proper context. Neither of us are disputing that. I have withdrawn my original proposal so this thread no longer needs to exist. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

death

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

Last lead paragraph

The last lead paragraph seems completely out of place and far too much information for a brief summary of the article. I suggest it be deleted entirely, perhaps preserving the "Some of his treasure has traveled worldwide with unprecedented response" line. I know very little of the subject, so I come to the talk page instead of removing it myself. Aza24 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a subsection "International exhibitions" where all the details belong. As a summary in the lede, I agree that we can simply leave the one sentence as suggested by Aza24. –Austronesier (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ymrion (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Fast

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Short Tandem "Report"?

I'd have fixed the glaring typo were the page not locked.2600:1702:2670:D6A0:21E:C2FF:FEC4:4A51 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Now fixed, thanks. Barry Wom (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Tutankhamun and the Keita STR article

• Copied from: User_talk:Merytat3n#Tutankhamun and the Keita STR article

Hi Merytat3n,

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

Hi there WikiUser4020,

I'm going to copy this to the Tutankhamun talk page instead to get wider input because I am just one editor and this is about changes to an article.

Keita does mention that the available DNA of the ancient Egyptian royals has "affinities with Sub-Saharan Africans" he then later goes on say that this broad category (and the other two options in his analysis) is still a racial category but going by a modern name.

I have absolutely no interest in the specifics of the DNA studies done on Ancient Egyptians as it is, in my personal opinion, still trying to place them into one box or another and such isolated studies of narrow scope on damaged ancient DNA will never accurately reflect the population diversity present in Egypt. The point of the Gad et al paper was to demonstrate that the family tree proposed by Hawass et al (also demonstrating relatedness) was supported by the X and Y haplogroups, not the population histories or affinities of those haplogroups themselves. If I had my way, the article would not even mention the haplogroups, because it only invites more racial interpretations, POV-pushing, and false dichotomies. But luckily Misplaced Pages is the product of consensus (scholarship, users), hence my moving this to the article talk page for the input of others :) Merytat3n (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Merytat3n Yes, he does mention the categories but he also cautions the reader about the nature of the interpretations and himself criticises typological thinking. The fact his STR analysis was made in relation to modern day populations rather than racialist categories of the past should still permit it's inclusion. I think considering Keita makes this balanced view and this article is a peer-reviewed, reliable source then it should be fine to feature this in the article. WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiUser4020: His STR analysis is in relation to modern populations, yes, but the scope was far too narrow, having only three possible broad groupings. For his STR evidence to be useful to Misplaced Pages, it would need to be narrowed down to more specific groups within Sub-Saharan Africa or compared to more groups (that include modern Egyptian, North African, etc populations). He would also need to say which rulers group with which populations if it is appearing on the pages of individual rulers. Because his STR deals in such broad categories and doesn't mention specifics, I feel it is better suited on a more general page, where it can be placed within a wider context. Merytat3n (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Merytat3n The problem with that response is that it is very subjective and is based on a very stringent criteria for the inclusion of articles onto a general page.

This criticism could arguably be applied to the Hawass 2020 paper which has a number of limitations such as the fact the authors do not specify the R1b clade and only obtained a partial genetic profile for Tutankhamun.

The main page for Tutankhamun is a general page and hence the Keita paper should be featured. It was originally permitted on the page from November 2022 until December 2022 before it was removed due to the later proposition that it was not relevant to the familial relationships.

In that case, a compromise position could be to move the Keita paper to another sub-section in the Tutankhamun page rather than outright remove it. The paper still has relevance due to the focus on population affinity and has a critical view on drawing strong conclusions based on this singular analysis. WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiUser4020: Yep, and that is why I also removed the haplogroups in this edit but it was reverted by another user who disagreed

Yes, place it in a sub-section, we'll just have to be careful with wording to give it proper context :) Merytat3n (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! I’ll look for another sub-section to input the article and include the in citation text from the source. Feel free to amend the wording ! WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Capital relocation to Memphis or Thebes?

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

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

The article body does have a citation for the claim that the capital moved back to Thebes—but it's cited to Akhenaten and the Religion of Light by Erik Hornung, which actually says the court went to Memphis.

A deeper question is how meaningful it actually is to speak of a single capital in ancient Egypt. As Garry Shaw puts it in The Pharaoh: Life at Court and on Campaign, "Because the king and his entourage travelled frequently between residences, and because various cities could be important for different reasons simultaneously, we cannot really speak in terms of a single 'capital' city—though Memphis in most periods came closest to the meaning of this word" (p. 138). According to Hornung, even under Akhenaten Amarna's dominance was not absolute, and much of the royal administration remained in Memphis, where earlier Eighteenth Dynasty rulers had increasingly placed it because its more central location made it more workable than Thebes.

My guess would be that Tutankhamun's court reverted to the previous status quo, with Memphis as the main administrative center and Thebes as the greatest religious center and the next-most-important royal residence and burial site, and that this division in status is the reason why we get conflicting accounts of where the "capital" was after Amarna. I'll take a thorough look at my sources later today to see if any of them give more specifics. A. Parrot (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the insight. I am, sadly, completely out of my depth on this topic, a friend of mine and me just noticed the contradiction in the various articles, which is why I put it up for discussion :) 2003:EE:CF2F:E900:8085:695E:E39D:A9CD (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Citation error

I followed the reference #4 to a page 206 in Leprohon (2013) on Tut's Horus name, but it was to the Nebty name: the right one is on page 227. Can someone please fix this for me? Thanks, stranger. 95.150.44.129 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Typo

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just a small fix: change "pharoahs" to "pharaohs" (end of 1st paragraph). I'm a newbie and so can't do it myself. Thanks :-) ShayHacohen (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Birth and death

how can he have been born in 1341 and then died in 1323? 2603:6081:7A00:3AE8:EDE5:64D8:9DB0:2E88 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The aliens who built the pyramids also introduced the Egyptians to time travel. Barry Wom (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

In all seriousness, BC and BCE dates are counted backwards from the year 1 AD/CE, rather than forwards A. Parrot (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Spoilsport. Barry Wom (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Ancient Egypt articles
• Top-importance Ancient Egypt articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (royalty) articles
• Top-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Egypt articles
• High-importance Egypt articles
• WikiProject Egypt articles
• GA-Class Archaeology articles
• Top-importance Archaeology articles
• GA-Class Disability articles
• WikiProject Disability articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report