Talk:Imhotep
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale. |
pharaoh is a much later title, not applicable to old kingdom egyptian emperoros. --ppm 20:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The point is not to use words that were used then, but words that are understood now. Most egyptologists still call them all pharaohs, even Narmer. As do most peopl in the world at large, so by Wikipedia naming policy, it should be pharaoh. ~~~~ 21:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with the fourfoldsquiggleman. The other is a technicality. –Hajor 22:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Is "king" a word not understood now? If we insist on using an ancient egyptian word not used now, it should be the correct one, otherwise it gives a false impression of authenticity. --ppm 18:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The word "king" is not really used much in the context of ancient egypt, not even for Narmer, wheras "pharaoh" is. Whether or not it is technically accurate. ~~~~ 21:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Biblical words are fascinating, ain't they?--ppm 18:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
El certainly is. ~~~~ 19:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Added bit about Imhotep's tomb. I do have a book about the whole search and imhotep in general, but couldn't find it. It also is not really my expertise. Anyone want to expand on this? Garion96 21:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It's my guess that Imhotep wasn't native to Egypt and hence was not buried there. But my reasons for such a guess are theologicaly based. I'm not an Egyptologist of any kind so take it with a grain of salt. But it would, in my view, explain why such a celebrated man's postmortum whearabouts are so hard to pin down in a culture that's renowned for making i's renowned renowned in death, and doing such in a glorified physical location such as one of the many grand tombs Egypt is known for among the average joe and/or jane in modern western civilization.
- unsigned by anon
Almost all Egyptologists consider Imhotep to be native, or Nubian. The problem with the early period is that SO MUCH has yet to be discovered that we know very little, mostly only rumours, and hearsay, that was transmitted down the centuries. We don't know where the biblical Joseph is buried either, nor do we know the site of the tombs of King David or of Solomon. At least even the most critical scholars believe Imhotep really existed. --Victim of signature fascism 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Well...
The website that is in the fringe theories section seems to be very inaccurate, as I have looked up other websites for Imhotep on Google and NONE of the websites give the information that the website in the section has, which makes me think that they were just making stuff up to inflate the theory. Therefore, I believe that the link should be removed. Therealmikelvee 19:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
207.118.9.58 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)There have been television documentaries on the theory that Imhotep was Joseph. These oddly enough include information regarding Imhotep's tomb, which the article says has never been found.
[edit] Cultural Impact
Regarding an item in the "Cultural Impact" section: Boris Karloff's character in the original Mummy film was Imhotep, not Kharis. Universal did make several movies about a mummy named Kharis, but the Boris Karloff film wasn't one of them. The name Kharis was introduced in the later films, in contrast to the way the article has it. --Frank
- Since the Cultural Impact section was correctly tagged as a trivia section, but since the trivia was all about other uses for the name "Imhotep," I moved it all to Imhotep (disambiguation) and cleaned it up. Others may want to clean it up further there.
- Fredwords 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request IP ban
I edited a comment added by this IP "189.156.152.2" since he/she edited the article to include several profanities in spanish. Im kinda new at wikipedia, but shouldn't that IP be baned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krasno (talk • contribs).
[edit] How was the I in Imhotep pronounced?
How was the "I" in "Imhotep" pronounced. Was it the short i sound as in bill and pick?
[edit] Comment on Content: Age of Imhotep
I don't know how long he lived, but currently the article has him living to be a total of 19 years.
[edit] Pharaoh
I agree with PPM above.
The Ancient Egyptians didn't call their kings Pharaohs until well into the New Kingdom... over a thousand years later.
Over a thousand years.
See the wiki entry Pharaoh. It was a title in a letter to Aknenaten and only LATER than THIS became a title for a king. Much later.
I do not believe it serves any good purpose to universally use the term Pharaoh as King. It creates the impression that kings in the Old Kingdom were Pharaohs. They were not. Imhotep did not serve a Pharaoh. Zoser (Djoser) was not a Pharaoh. The biblical Pharaoh was a thousand years (or more) later. People will come here and see this entry and believe that Pharaoh is correct. It is not.
And it isn't just a technicality.
I think it should say "King."
King is a better word. King is not the ancient word, it is a good, understandable word used and understood now. I'm not suggesting that we use an archaic and unknown Egyptian word (to be technically accurate). I'm suggesting that we use a conceptual word. King.
PPM is 100% correct
To use the word Pharaoh is to substitute a general conceptual word (King) with a title, which is WHOLLY inaccurate. Isn't wiki supposed to be a source of truth?
Hank01 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question about the glyph order for Imhotep's name.
BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- From a link that I found I believe the glyphs for Imhotep are reversed? http://www.ancient-egypt.org/glossary/people/imhotep.html It demonstrates the order of the glyphs on a stone referencing Imhotep in reverse order.
No expert here... so I defer to those who understand the writing.
BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.2.0
iD8DBQFH06JIAS9dxxA237oRAjmvAJ9G6bt+uyE8tEN52eoL/7mH2+6KlwCeILf7 0TG5S9iWlrmAycxR7+mNVaI= =PWMH
END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gnu invivo (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well that was annoying... apparently we can't use GNUPG signed messages without wikipedia's browser-based editor messing them up? The ability to use GNUPG to encrypt and sign messages accurately so that the code can be accurately copied and pasted needs to be added to wikipedia.
This would permit encoded/signed or signed/encrypted contents for a page to be shared with less errors encoded and all changes (errors and corrections) could be preserved and verifiable by the author(s)/collaborator(s) so their work is passed on to others more reliably.
To whom do I report this "bug" (the obligatory GNUPG dashes and spacing gets altered with a wikipedia submission)?
I fail to understand how a string of tildes compares to a true GNUPG signed message. Certainly both could be used I suppose. However, I do respect the notion of preserving the ability of anonymous contributors to make changes. Being able to collaborate with trusted partners on parts of wikipedia by encrypting code to each other (or groups of collaborators) would permit a more reliable product that could also be contributed to by "untrusted"/anonymous readors and collaborators.
Respectfully yours,
GNUPG PUBLIC KEY ID: 1036DFBA NOTE: I do not correspond via the internet and e-mail in unencrypted form with anyone who does not have a public key. You may reply to me at my gmail account. Gnu invivo (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The order is the same. Hieroglyphs are read so that you meet the characters face on. In the hieroglyphs produced by Wikipedia, the characters (most obviously the owl) face left, so the characters are to be read left to right. In the text the link leads to, the characters face right, indicating that they are to be read right to left. Right to left is most common in ancient inscriptions.
