Talk:Ahmose I

message: I'm all for this, but I'm very busy in real life. I'd like to take a straw poll to see exactly what our various opinions are, so we can fix things, and/or pick a good time to nominate this during which we can defend our work. Therefore...
* Support nomination but not too soon if it's all the same with the rest of you. I don't have the time to adress things at the drop of a hat, what with schoolwork being particularly heavy right now. Thanatosimii 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there it goes. Let's see how well this goes. Thanatosimii 04:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't know how a GA nomination proceeds... Do we have to defend it anywhere, like for FA? Thanatosimii 04:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination Straw Poll 

message: For some reason, the tomb equipment of Ahhotep is not showing up, even though it's still in the actual code of the page... Does anyone know exactly why? Thanatosimii 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the footnotes was missing a forward slash so it was hiding both the image and the next two paragraphs. Maybe the rest should be checked as well. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanical trouble 

message: Is a creepy mummy photo really the best thing to use for the front page image of this guy? I mean, sure, its him... but thats kinda like putting a jar of ashes as the photo for Gandhi, aint it? Murple 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The shabti isn't a free image and cannot be on the main page. It's fair use, but Today's featured article can't use free use images. I'd prefer to use the shabti picture too, but such is life. Thanatosimii 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That doesn't really make any sense to me... free use isn't free to use? That seems rather silly, but OK... Murple 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use is only free to use solely to illustrate the subject in question (i.e. on the Ahmose I article page), so that having such a picture on related pages (i.e. the main page) may not qualify as fair use, if I'm right in thinking this...--HisSpaceResearch 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree all you like, but as I have said, nothing can be done about that. The Shabti is not a free image. If any of you live in brookyln and want to go take and GFDL a picture of the shabti in the Brooklyn museum, please do. However, we don't live there, and can't do anything about it. Thanatosimii 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the Brooklyn museum then? In that case, I intend to contend that it's replacable... Nil Einne 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see "one of which resides in the Brooklyn Museum of Art, the other in the Khartoum Museum". I'll be tagging it  as soon as it's unprotected if an admin doesn't earlier. Nil Einne 15:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is quite unreplaceable. First of all, the other images are of colossal statuary, what we need is that shabti, that's only in brooklyn I believe (or perhaps it was in the british museum). Second, that tag says "It should be possible for someone to create or find a freely licensed replacement for this fair use work". Find; no. All such images are copyrighted. Create an adequate replacement; also no. Any replacement is likely to be a cruddy duplicate at best. It is not practically possible to replace that image. Thanatosimii 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er you seem confused. Given that the shabti is in a public museum in Brooklyn, there is absolutely no reason why someone can't photograph the one in Brooklyn museum and freely license the image rather then use using a photo taken from some British museum under fair use as we currently do. No one is talking about replacing the shabti itself, there is absolutely no need since the info we have suggests there are two shabti's in exitance, publicly viewable and we assumeable photographable... The shabti itself can't be copyrighted since it was create several thousands years ago and thankfully even with the current insane copyright laws on the US, they don't consider such a work copyrighted Nil Einne 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one shabti, and it is in the british museum, now that I check it. The other two are colossi. I am not certain that any of them are publically viewable at any given time. We would love a free image replacement, however the chances that it can be done are very low. That is, unless wikipedia wants to finance a several thousand dollar trip to britain for either myself (A native minnesotan), a Portlander or a denzien of Toronto. My objection is that the fair use argument stands on sound legal footing – the statement that the image should not be replaceable is wikipedia's requirement, not the law's, and recall that one of the highest rules is ignore most of the rules if they interfere with wikipedia's best interest. With no legal qualms, while a free image is better, no such image is avalable within reason. The tag you wish to put on says that the image may be deleted if progress is not made within a reasonable amount of time, and the demands being asked of us are unreasonable; yet some delete-happy admin is surely going to come in and delete the image anyhow, if you put that tag up.  Thanatosimii 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, there's more apparently. The wikipedia rules say, "not reasonably repeatable," thus establishing that my position is actually in alignment with the letter of the law for wikipedia too! Thanatosimii 20:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I work 5 minutes walk from the British Museum, do you want me to get anything photoed ? Markh 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Um, Nil Einne, forget all that; I forgot Markh was british (slinks off sheepishly) Thanatosimii 20:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends if the British shabti is photographable. The implication of  suggests that it is part of a special collection not typically on show to the public, and whether or not they would allow Markh to come in and take a photo for Wikipedian purposes is unlikely. Captmondo 15:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can probably get to see it, but taking a photo is probably out of the question. Is there any other depiction of him available ? Markh 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah okay now I understand what all this British Museum stuff was about. Anyway as I've explained all over the place, I withdrew the tag because of the museum restrictions. But no image is in fact better then fair use when the image is resonably replacable and even if you don't agree, policy dictates it is as does precedent so it should have been deleted were it not for the museum policies. Nil Einne 13:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll probably leave this for ever after this. But I just wanted to point out that this case perhaps illustrates why the policy is effective. Although this image is not replacable, this FA went on the main page with a picture of a mummy with from what I can tell, limited or nor consideration for replacament of the fair use photo which would have been better on the main page were it not fair use. Only when I pointed out it was in violation of policy and suggested it be deleted (which I know realise was wrong) did anyone really start to consider to replace it. I don't think this is unique either. I'm pretty sure there have been other cases when we've survived with fair use photos for a long time. Only when they were deleted or tagged for deletion were they replaced. Nil Einne 14:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "policy" - which as I read more, the way you are implementing it does not exist - almost got a vital image deleted because the a group of deletionists obstinatly refuse to actually do themselves what they want others to do. Thanatosimii 14:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Could someone fix the Ahhotep dab? I'm not sure which queen is supposed to be. --Brand спойт 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanatosimii 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab repairing 

message: Is it possible to put the info box on the right? Some pharoah articles have these and it seems a neater way to get to the textual information quickly. If this wall-to-wall layout is not 'style' and putting it on the right is, can someone change it and explain how it's done please?
Julia Rossi 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it can be done until Markh finds the free version of the image we need in the near future. Thanatosimii 04:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the layout change is due entirely to someone adding the replaceable fair use image request in the pharaoh infobox, which screws up the layout. When that request goes away (possibly taking the image with it) then the infox will return to the usual right-aligned formatting. Captmondo 15:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks,  people... Julia Rossi 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  query dominant info box 

message: Has this connection ever been entertained? certainly a Pharoah under the name Ahmoses, leading nearly 100,000 semites thru the desert to Canaan might possibly have lead an impression on later generations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.215.154.31 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard enough about it to know it's totally unscholarly and pretty ridiculous. The History Channel can rarely be trusted. Thanatosimii 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would never be accepted as sufficient to make a historical claim, especially because the claim that Moses and Ahmose are the same name is quite... false. They share the word ms, but that's a common word in over half the names of kings in the new kingdom. Four Thutmoses, and eleven Rameses... all these names contain ms. Add to that viziers and archetects like Ramose and Minmose, and you've got a plethora of names that share as much in common with moses as Ahmose does. Thanatosimii 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmoses, and Moses? 

message: Jehovas Eyewitness have said the exode was in 1513 bevor our timeline. But the name mose and Ahmose are not the same. In the new translation the pharaons are not named.
Rene nguyen 2008-04-14  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.229.47 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jehovas Eyewitness

message: "It was he who confronted Moses, many evidence are found in cairo museum today... most shocking is his stela,now lies in the basement of Cairo museum, which tells the whole incident of darkness, hail ,sea turning to blood, locust ,and in wich order it came just as the bible state.. evidence sorrounding his pyramids tombs ,his empire basicaly, concludes that  the Exodus indeed happen... also he kept a journal like monument telling the whole story in his point of view... by the way if you translate Ahmose in hebrew, it means the brother of Moses"
Any reason to keep this anon. contribution to the sum of human knowledge? Lou 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the original posting used a contact email address for the supposed sender (check a few edits back), that there was no citation to back it up, and the poor spelling/punctuation, this is clearly stating a personal opinion and definitely not a scholarly posting. Delete with impunity as far as I am concerned. Captmondo 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's clearly from a Jacobovici supporter... who doesn't realize everything Jacobovici says is wrong. Brother of Moses, for instance, would be Senmose or Senmessu depending on what period of the Egyptian language the name was created during. Thanatosimii 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from main page 

message: Is it possible to have a normal size info box...I came to this page and looked really wrong 172.213.201.227 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''info/pic box''' 

message: OK, folks, (men, women, (and the young and bold)), here are some facts:first, there was "Kamose", pharaoh-(Ka-Mes)then, there was Ahmose-(Ah-Mes)I was going to start defending the name 'Moon-Born', but here is my Epiphany (feeling), (which is actually: Epiphany (realiazation)).  ...Since these two fellows followed one another:  'Ka-Born' , then  'Ah-Born' , there was probably some focus on some society changes. "Ka-(spirit)-Born", implies this 'heavenly', ethereal, untouchable stuff, but switching to something we see, and feel, a monthly moon that goes through its changes of getting brighter and weaker (during its closest approaches in orbits, I think the recent numbers given are: up to 14 percent larger (at close approach), and 30 percent brighter)),.......it might be totally easier to think of "Moon-Born" as a return to Earthly problems and responsibilities. (If a society only focusses on the religion, and untouchable, ethereal stuff, then the problems of an organized, agricultural, political, human society, may get ignored). I am Not saying the Moon-Born is a better name for "Ah-mose I". I am saying: His name is 'Moon-Born'; he followed a predecessor named: 'Spirit-Born' .An evaluation of these pharaohs, their "states of the Union"-(of ancient Egypt), could sway opinions, ..about their names.  (From the HotDesert..SonoranDesertArizona)..Mmcannis (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kamose, then Ahmose

message: I fixed the link problems that a bot was complaining about at the top of this page. I removed the references to Iah, because while iah may be the Egyptian word in Ahmose's name, it's not necessarily the specific moon god intended; I've seen scholars wonder if the "moon" in question might really be a reference to Thoth, given the later Thutmosids. There also doesn't seem to be a specific place in mummy which it would be appropriate to section-link, so I removed the broken section links entirely. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re removal of Iah: What source says that it does not refer to Iah? I find references to the fact that Ahmose (Iah-ms) is a reference to the moon god Iah is every reliable source I can find: Bierbrier (Historical dictionary of ancient Egypt 2008), Hornung and Bryan (The quest for immortality: treasures of ancient Egypt 2002), Wilson (Understanding hieroglyphs: a complete introductory guide 2005), etc. That seems like more than enough to warrant inclusion in the article. --AnnekeBart (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: A 2010 article in Archaeometry shows that the Hyksos expulsion comes very near the time of the explosion of Thera.  For Ahmose to be involved, he cannot have reigned in the 1500s BCE.  If you can get hold of the following in a university library or through interlibrary loan, read it.  I paid to get a copy and it was worth every penny.
Manning, S.W., and B. Kromer, “Radiocarbon Dating Archaeological Samples In The Eastern Mediterranean, 1730 To 1480 Bc: Further Exploring The Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration Record And The Archaeological Implications”, Archaeometry, Vol. 53, Issue 2, pp. 413-439, 
April 2011
4.248.217.40 (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article states that the Tell el-Daba site seems to be older as suggested by Bietak. But it does not follow that this means Ahmose I lived during an earlier period. An article by Ramsey et al in Science (Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Ramsey, et al., Science 18 June 2010: 1554-1557.) shows that the conventional dating of the reign of Ahmose is consistent with the data from carbon 14 dating. This article by Ramsey is quoted several times by Manning and Kromer and not put in doubt. Bruins published an article in the same issue of Science (Dating Pharaonic Egypt Science 18 June 2010: 1489-1490.) Bruins mentions the discrepancies between the Bietak and Manning/Kromer studies. Ultimately either one of the C14 dates could be wrong, or Tell el-Daba has a slightly different history as proposed initially. Alternative issues mentioned in the articles include the fact that the strata in tell el-Daba were rather disturbed and the association of certain layers with time periods may not be as they first appeared? Non of the articles draw the conclusion Ahmose I reigned earlier than stated in the article here on Wikipedia. --AB (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be intersting to look at new evidence. It seems that now the tempest stela and ahmose reign could be linked to the Thera axplosion. : Ritner, R.K. and Moeller, N. 2014. The Ahmose ‘Tempest Stela’, Thera and Comparative Chronology, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73: 1-19. :  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RigOLuche (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article by Moeller on Tempest Stele from 2014: https://www.academia.edu/6683011/The_Ahmose_Tempest_Stela_Thera_and_Comparative_Chronology
100.15.117.207 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiocarbon dates and Ahmose 

message: The syllable Ah in the name Ahmose is a theophoric syllable. Ahmose I. was the first pharao in the ruling dynasty which was named after him, the Ahmosides. The deity of this ruling dynasty was Iah, a moon deity.
Theoporic syllables were very common in ancient Egypt. See: Ramesses_I Ra-moses -> Born of Ra and not Born of the Sun
--Basti Schneider (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see your point, but isn't it a little misleading or suggestive to put Jah to the right of the pipe, instead of Iah? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on two grounds. This rendering leaves the name untranslated and overly specific. Iah is the moon. To argue that the name is not to be rendered "born of the moon," but "born of the god Iah" wouldn't make sense to the Egyptians - the moon is the god Iah. Egyptian doesn't have separate words for the god and the astronomical feature, cf. Sol and Luna in Latin. "Born of Iah," thus, leaves untranslated a word which must be conceived of as being, strictly speaking, the common noun "moon." Secondly, since Iah simply is Egyptian for moon, all moon gods are Iah, in much the same way all sun gods invariably end up being bundled together into Ra somehow. It is thus uncertain whether the moon god in question here is the moon god whose name simply means moon god, or the moon gods par exellence of the 18th dynasty, Iah-Thoth and Iah-Khonsu. I stated here a few years back that I had read someone argue that the Iah in question may very well be taken as a reference to Thoth due to the use of Thoth as the theophor of the Thutmosids of the same dynasty, and I spent the morning looking for that source without success, but I am for this reason not particularly comfortable with the claim the article presently makes, at least not until someone comes around with a paper demonstrating that Ahmose must be a reference to the vanilla moon deity because of late 17th or early 18th dynasty connections to the cult of Iah as a distinct entity from the other moon gods to which he was melded in the early New Kingdom. And, being honest, I am even more concerned that this is a sideways attempt to insert material from The Exodus Decoded into this page. For those who aren't following the state of modern crackpotism, Iah is taken by a certain documentary to be the origin of the name of Yahweh, since Iah is presently pronounced the same as its first syllable, and laypersons view this as significant. All else held equal, this article probably shouldn't say things that might reinforce all the nonsense which has been manufactured about Ahmose over the last decade. If not "born of the moon," "born of the moon god" is a perfectly acceptable translation, and won't dangle a false cognate in front of the crackpots for them to grab onto. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born of Iah, not Born of the Moon 

message: The picture for the Conquest of the Hyksos section is not Ahmose I and the Hyksos, but actually a depiction of Ramesses II at the battle of Kadesh, taken from a modern mural.
It also appears incorrectly labelled in a few other articles, there I’d suggest changing ‘Hyksos’ to ‘Hittites’  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.93.152 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture for Ahmose vs Hyksos 

message: After it is clear now, that Senakhtenre had the nomen Ahmose, we should rename the article to Ahmose II. 82.16.170.193 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. We don't decide those things. If the majority of published sources start using that nomenclature, sure. But this isn't the first time a new discovery screws up the established number system, and scholars don't necessarily renumber when these kinds of discoveries are made. It tends to cause confusion in the literature because two different books may be referring to two different people by the same name. Cf. Sobekhotep and Intef Thanatosimii (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholars are not a uniform bunch, and some already renumber this Ahmose (as well as the one in the 6th century BC, "Amasis"), while some do not. To leave the number uncorrected is ultimately as problematic as correcting it, since either can cause confusion, and in different ways and to different extent over time. While surely correctness ought to be preferred, I think it is worth pointing out that in such instances recourse to including the throne name would be advisable, especially as it is not shared with the other two kings named Ahmose. So perhaps it would be most accurate and preferable to name the article "Nebpehtyre Ahmose." Moreover, the article ought to indicate the numbering issue in some way. Similar issues have cropped up with the numbering of kings named Shoshenq (to the point of a coalition of Egyptologists actually declaring a standard, with some counterfactual implications!) and Osorkon (with the Osorkon in Dynasty 21 labeled variously "Osokhor," "Osorkon the Elder," or "Osorkon I"). StefThrax (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number 

message: Substituted at 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ahmose I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731124906/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/755/he1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/755/he1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731124906/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/755/he1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/755/he1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should we add an Ahmose in Literature section,  or put it in its own section, or...  something?  I'm not sure erat the usual protocol here is.  It's a very interesting claim from a very ancient source (and interestingly,  Ahmose's Crown Prince did predecease him,  just like according to Moses.)  I don't want to make this into a theological discussion,  I just think that it's  an important enough claim (thousands of years old, and from an ancient historian) to add to his page, but I'm not sure how/where to do it. Tabbycatlove (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Josephus tells us that according to Manetho the Hyksos were finally expelled I in the reign of Misphragmuthôsis. Josephus actually says it's in his sons reign, Thummôsis, but he does not realize that Misphragmuthôsis is Thutmose III, and his son was Amenhotep III.  He implies that they were defeated by Ahmose I but expelled by Misphragmuthôsis.  If you allow that the whole story of the Hyksos Is political propaganda, the parallel is obvious that the Hebrews are subjugated by Ahmose I or perhaps Amenhotep I, but are expelled by Misphragmuthôsis, which corresponds to the date of the Exodus given by the Bible.
The official accepted scholarship here ignores most of this information from Manetho.  Even here in the article it says "all we know about this comes from the mathematical papyrus", which is false, much more is learned from the Manetho epitome than goes in to the conclusion reached by the scholars presented here on the matter. The relation between the Hyksos and Joseph and his people sojourning in egypt and their expulsion with the Exodus it is blatant, and it is systematically downplayed by scholars. The biblical chronology places Joseph the sojourn and the Exodus exactly parallel to where the Egyptian chronology places the story of the  Hyksos.  I have never seen people so afraid that something so obviously true might actually be true. 2600:1004:B05B:1D18:15E3:7AD6:EC65:9B24 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to the ancient Historian Manetho, Ahmoses I was the pharaoh during the Exodus. 

message: G'day all, there appear to be a few parts of this article that aren't referenced. Given that the article is currently rated as a featured article, I think it is pretty important that this gets rectified, if possible. As such, I have marked where I think more citations are needed with Cn tags, with this edit:  If there is anyone who is able to assist with adding these, I am sure the effort would be greatly appreciated.  G'day, not sure if you can help, but figured I'd ask given that you may have some references applicable to this area based on other articles you have edited in the past. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (Apologies for the long wait) I think the uncited material could be fairly easily removed, my major concern is, with the age of the article, how many of the refs may have been muddled, and how current scholarship is, etc. I'll have to take a deeper look to see if it can be made "good enough for now" or if the whole article would be better served by being completely scrubbed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed