This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. 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 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles
For the record, the article was moved from "Ankhesenamen" in 2009, but the accompanying talk page was not, so all the discussion that took place there was left at Talk:Ankhesenamen; **this** page started from scratch in 2010. -- 79.115.210.244 (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
Not sure why this was renamed. Nothing in Wikipedia directly points here, they all go through Ankhesenaten via a direct. Markh 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page at this time, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ankhesenamen → Ankhesenpaaten — Naming conventions request that the most common name be used. Now, if one does a google search, the breakdown is thus: *Ankhesenamen-982 *Ankhesenamun-28,600 *Ankhesenpaaten-12,400 Now, the current breakdown would betray a landslide victory for Ankhesenamun, however if one starts searching for pages without other terms, (-Tutankhamun -Tutankhamen -Akhenaten -Amarna), suddenly it turns out that 11,000 of those Ankhensenamuns are people who have taken the name because they think it sounds cool, and are mostly nothing but people's myspaces and forum accounts. Thus the much more widespread nature of the name in common parlance has nothing to do with the actual person, and references to the person herself are just a little more common than her references as Ankhesenpaaten. Furthermore, remember that her post-amarna name is inflated because of people that have been seen that name at Tut Exhibits. As for the scholarly opinion, it is not so inflated. Books on this period use both names. Invariably she is called Ankhesenpaaten before Akhenaten dies, and Aknhesenamen after he dies, since that is the time when her name changed. However, because the vast, vast amount of scholarship focuses on Akhenaten and not on Tutankhamun, there is at least a 2:1 ratio making Ankhesenpaaten the more common occurance. It is a hard call to make, but since she is more well attested during Akhenaten's life than she is attested afterward, it seems that Ankhesenpaaten is the better name. Thanatosimii 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stability is more valuable than quibbling about two legitimate names in common and roughly equal use. Gene Nygaard 16:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The text of the article itself is the place to make the time-related distinctions. As long as both versions get you to the same article through a redirect, there is nothing to be gained by switching them. Gene Nygaard 16:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ankhesenpaaten was the name up until one week ago. If there is nothing to be gained by switching them back, then there was never anything to be gained by switching them back in the first place, except that it could be done manually without other editors' approvals, somthing it never would have garnered. And I reiterate, these are not two equally common names, as Ankhesenpaaten appears at least at a 2:1 ratio. Thanatosimii 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two to one is exactly the sort of roughly equal I'm talking about. This is something that is neither well-defined or capabable of being measured accurately, and it isn't something that we ought to be quibbling about.
Now, had you explained that this would be a reversal of a recent move, I might have supported it. So I will consider changing my vote on that basis after I check into the history. Gene Nygaard 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I can see how that might have been pertinent information. Thanatosimii 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for consistency's sake – her husband's name is not Tutankhaten but Tutankhamen, her father is not Amenhotep IV but Akhenaten. Each of them uses the name they took later, not their birth names. – Alenshatalk 22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They take those names because those are the names which scholars give them, not becuase we're respecting their wishes or anything. This was a move that never would have passed a requested move in the first place, and should be put back. Out of the fifty or so pages that link here, of all the actual articles, only Tutankhamun and the family tree of the 18th dynasty actually link here; additionally, if this stays put all the wikiproject:ancient egypt stuff having to do with her is going to have to be systematically altered. But I return to my original objection, this is not a situation like Akhenaten or Tutankhamen, because in such instances all scholars unquestionably use those names, however with Ankhesenpaaten, both names are used, with Ankhesenpaaten being the more common one. The scholars don't see this as an issue of consistancy, and they're right. 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears that last week's move from Ankhesenpaaten to Ankhesenamen may have made to a strange new spelling, an acceptable one used elsewhere as well but different from one previously used in the article, may been done to circumvent the fact a move to Ankhesenamun couldn't be accomplished without administrator intervention because it was a redirect with history. (And despite Thanatosimii's comments above, it looks like any of us could now just hit the move button and put it back to Ankhesenpaaten but I would strongly suggest nobody do so as long as it is Under discussion here.) Gene Nygaard 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be impossible to do that. A move can only be done if the page being moved to does not exist. Ankhesenpaaten exists. Thanatosimii 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I am wrong I'm sorry, but I was informed recently that an administrator's assistance was required to do that kind of move. Perhaps I am wrong. Thanatosimii 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is always possible to move an article back onto the redirect it was last moved from, unless the redirect has been edited. As of now, this one hasn't. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanatosimii said “however if one starts searching for pages without other terms, (-Tutankhamun -Tutankhamen -Akhenaten -Amarna), suddenly it turns out that 11,000 of those Ankhensenamuns are people who have taken the name because they think it sounds cool.” It depends on what search terms you use. If you search with (-egypt -egyptian -amarna -tutankhamun), it turns out that there are only 939 Ankhesenamuns who use it as a nickname. – Alenshatalk 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a mere nickname, perhaps merely 11,000; however if her immediate context of the Amarna period is removed, the entire 11,000 are so divorced from her person that they don't matter either. However, another matter of contention is that Ankhesenamen turns up next to never. Ankhesenamen seems to be the one name one would not use. If you want to use the post amarna name, the one to be using is Ankhesenamun. Thus, as I have said, a move to neither of these names would have made it through a requested move, so this should be moved back. Thanatosimii 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
So be it, but this remains an unwise name. Thanatosimii 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, looking at it more carefully, I think I made the wrong call. I think the article should be titled Ankhesenamun, per a close reading of the discussion above, and per that being the spelling used in the reference that we provide, at least the online one. I wonder if someone can check how her name is spelled in Akhenaten, King of Egypt, by Cyril Aldred? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can look in about a week, but I already assure you he uses both names, with Ankhesenpaaten more commonly, just like every other egyptologist out there. Thanatosimii 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By both, you mean Ankhesenpaaten and Ankhesenamun? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By both, I mean Ankhesenpaaten and Ankhesenamen. Scholars use E, Populus uses U, but most scholars ignore her post-Amarna name because they're concerned with Amarna period. She is called Ankhesenpaaten under akhenaten, and then when referred to in her insignificant role as Tut's wife, she's just kinda called ankhesenamen and then brushed aside. Thanatosimii 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I'm confused. Just above, you typed: "Ankhesenamen seems to be the one name one would not use. If you want to use the post amarna name, the one to be using is Ankhesenamun." Are you saying now that "-amen" is the name to use, and not "-amun"? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that neither -amon nor -amun should either be used, because of this very contradiction. Ankhesenamen appears virtually never on an internet search, but ankhesenamun appears virtually never in scholarly literature. Regardless, Ankhesenpaaten remains the reasonable choice because 1) it was ankhesenpaaten up until one week ago, and now everything, including templates, links through a redirect and will be nasty to fix. it should never have been moved. 2) Amarna period names are by far the more common version found in scholarly literature, with the sole exception of Tutankhamun, and that only because of his tomb. Thanatosimii 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this move caused such a debate. I'd be happier if it stayed here, for the reasons I mentioned above, but after all the name doesn't matter as long as the article can be found. – Alenshatalk 14:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"She was believed to have been married first to her own father"
-I find this hard to believe. The Egyptian royal dynasties practiced sibling marriages for sure, but I doubt even they allowed parent-child incest.
Nicholas Reeves in his book on Akhenaton shows that she in fact, like her sister Meritaten, was officially married to Akenaton. In this fashion Akhenaton followed the example of his father Amenhotep III, who "married" his daughter Sitamun. As Joyce Tydlesey shows, in cases of Hypergamy (where a royal daughter is forbidden to marry someone of lower status than herself), such cases of daughter-parent "marriage" is quite common. John D. Croft 02:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evidence for the following statements in this text
1. She is believed to have been married first to her own father.
2. She was the mother of the princess Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit when she was twelve.
3. Marriage to Smenkhkare
4. Despite numerous attempts, the couple only had two stillborn daughters (Numerous attempts! Two still born children in KV62, no evidence to show they were their children although likely)
5. A ring shows that Ankhesenamen married Ay, shortly before she disappeared from history. (The ring only suggests a marriage but no other texts support this)
I think you may find that these statements are only speculation and in my opinion have little place in an encyclopedia
Yes and no. These issues are constantly debated in Egyptology. Some people consider them totally proven, and some consider them rubbish. It is technically speculation, but it is scholarly speculation, and thus it belongs in an encyclopedia. All ancient history is speculative. Thanatosimii 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly or not, it should have references attached. Markh 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are plausable statements but without evidence other than someone's speculation, you could argue she loved the smell of lotus flowers in the morning. I don't think you will find any serious academic scholar would consider any of them as proven nor rubbish, and if you do, you should add the reference. For example, regarding the two children, my understanding is that all we know is that 2 still born children were found in Tut's tomb, there is no other evidence to suggest they were his or her children (since they could equally well be symbols of rebirth or spare bodies for the afterlife). The authorities are planning to DNA test them next year to see if they were related to Tutankhamun. Similiarly there is still plenty of debate as to who or even what gender Smenkhkare was, so maybe too early to say Ankhesenamen was his wife. Yes all history is speculative but my point is that within an encyclopedia maybe we should confide ourselves statement for which there is some evidence rather than pure speculation. Sorry to go on Keith Hazell 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, so long as the speculation can be properly sourced in research, and properly critiqued, it does have a place in Wikipedia, as it would in any encyclopedia. For example speculations on the nature of God, on almost any subject you care to name, can be used if handled appropriately. For example to say that the bodies of children were included as symbols of rebirth or afterlife, is speculation unless you can quote a source. Similarly, to include the speculations about Smenkhkare's gender is permissable so long as the evidence for this and the sources of the analysis are included. John D. Croft 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, I totally agree but the speculation to which I refer in the encyclopedia is not properly sourced or critiqued which was my original point Keith Hazell 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, I have gone through and added more 'uncertainty' to the article, and some better references, from published works, rather than someone's website somewhere. How is it looking now ? There maybe more details that need citations, not too sure about "Senior Princesses". Markh 22:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Markh, Nice job, reads so much better now, thank you Keith Hazell 22:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The documents show strange numbering systems (there are a large number of [1] documents shown. Can this be fixed? John D. Croft 02:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They all link to the same footnote. It's either redundant footnotes or a lot of [1]s Thanatosimii 03:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the no references tag as the article now appears suitably referenced. John D. Croft 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that she was 21 when Tutankhamun died, but I always read that she was two years younger than he was. Wouldn't she have been about 16 or 17 when Tut died? Emperor001 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i though ank was portrayed by Patricia Velásquez in the remakes of the mummy?
rachel played nefertiti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRISHANKO (talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason not to give a third possibility credence: Akhenaten may simply have been cuckolded? Nonstopdrivel (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page does need an 'In popular culture' section as her name was used for the character Anck-su-namun in (most famously) The Mummy and The Mummy (1999)/The Mummy Returns. Just need a source for that of course! The inspiration is stated but not cited on the wiki page for The Mummy (1932) Merytat3n (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
_01.svg){kind=small}
