Talk:Amenemhat IV

What Woman ruled Egypt around 3300 BC [="1500 years" before] ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence ..

Amenemhet IV may have been Moses.^{[citation needed]}

Markh 08:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense.mikey 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The prenomen is wrong. Sigh. So many of the names of Egyptian kings here at Wikipedia are either wrong, incomplete, or mistranslated.

Exactly what is the concern? I see that Maa has been mistransliterated Maat... but is there anything besides that wrong with it? Thanatosimii 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The king's prenomen is mAa-xrw-rA, not mAa-snw-rA as written here. Somebody has replaced the oar glyph (xrw = Kheru) in the cartouche with the arrowhead glyph (sn = Sen).

hmm... good catch. Thanatosimii 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amenemhat IV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 05:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll give reviewing this a shot. I don't believe I've reviewed an Ancient Egyptian article before, so should be interesting. Wizardman 05:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking forward to your review. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• "ruling for over 9 years at the end" nine; write out single-digit numbers.

Y Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• "and to the Land of Punt and maintained trade relation with " relations; also the two ands back to back make this sentence feel like a run-on; reword.

Y Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• "and inaugurates the decline of the Middle Kingdom into the Second Intermediate Period." inaugurated

Y Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The relation of Amenemhat IV to Amenemhat III is similarly uncertain, the " should be a semicolon

Y Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• " This is contested however and some egyptologists, among which Aidan Dodson and Kim Ryholt," I'd use 'such as' rather than among which, the latter doesn't sound right.

Y Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The foundations of the temple, administrative buildings, granaries and residences were uncovered by an Egyptian archaeological expedition in early 2006. Amenemhat IV likely also built a temple in the northeastern Fayum at Qasr el-Sagha." would like to see this cited.

Y Citation added! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Going the other way, why the five citations for the sentence in the next paragraph? Seems like a simple enough paragraph.

Y Because the pedestal of Amenemhat IV in Karnak is an important piece of evidence regarding his coregency and thus has been discussed by scholars a number of times. The citations given include the most recent work on the subject, and the founding studies on the matter as well as a photography of the pedestal. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Less probably, " less likely sounds a bit better.

Y Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• See if you can find someone to do a quick punctuation copyedit; some of the comma usage isn't very good. I gave some examples of this above.

I have asked native speakers to do this for me. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've run through the article, correcting punctuation and trimming some verbiage, and I think it's in pretty good shape now. A. Parrot (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold and will give it a second read-through once everything's addressed. Wizardman 01:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It reads a lot better after the copyedit, thanks for doing that. Since everything else has been addressed, I'll pass the article. Wizardman 05:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

and an inscription found in Semna at the Second Cataract is dated to his year 13, which probably also counts his coregency.

I deleted that sentence. I checked the Semna inscriptions and there is no year 13 for Amenemhat IV. I guess that might be an old - out of date - reading of one of the inscriptions, some of them are quite faded.. bw -- Udimu (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Udimu Wait are you sure? Because this is explicitely said in Baker's book. It says: "At present, the highest contemporary date we have for Amenemhet IV is a year 13 from an inscription found at Semna, at the Second Cataract". Unless you have a contradictory evidence that this is a mistake, the statement should be put back since it is referenced. Iry-Hor (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked the publications (Dunham, Janssen: Second Cat. Forts and Reineke, Hintze: Felsinschriften) of the rock inscriptions of Semna and can't find any year 13 for Amenemhat IV. Does Baker cite his evidence? I can check that. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Baker does give his references but the problem is he does not say which one is about the Semna inscriptions (there is just a list of references at the end of the article on Amenemhat IV). I will boil the possibilities down to 2 or 3 references and will check them. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I also checked Matzker, Ingo: Die letzten Könige der 12. Dynastie http://www.peterlang.com/download/datasheet/12069/datasheet_09348.pdf . He give a list of all monuments with the year dates. There is no year 13 for A. IV. Not sure where Baker got the information. bw -- Udimu (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semna

This is for some certainty NOT Amenemhat IV. This is most likely a statue showing Amenemhat III twice (young and old). These double statues of the same person twice are not uncommon in the Old Kingdom and there are similar statues by Neferhotep I. best wishes Udimu (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Udimu – Hmm. There is a second image of the same Naos further down Amenemhat IV's article (ctrl+f for 'One of the naos') and another on Amenemhat III's article (ctrl+f for 'A naos') with similar captions. Do you by any chance know the Cairo Museum's catalogue number for the statue? Le Caire JE 43289 is a close match from MKS (vol. 10; p. 334) but the figures are described in reverse (Connor writes that the left figure wears the nemes and the right figure wears a khat and carries ankhs), though that may either be an error in the description or perhaps it's written from the perspective of the figures rather than the viewer. If it is that one, then the image file might be updated with descriptions. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Mr rnddude The labelling of the images on Wikimedia is just terrible bad. The Cairo catalogue number is indeed is JE 43289. I think there is no entry in the Catalogue General. There is a second statue, almost identical in Copenhagen (Connor. p. 305). There are also two double statues of Neferhotep I (https://www.flickr.com/photos/menesje/277355435050) and the other So this type is attested for kings. Connor does not even mention Amenemhat IV and I do not know any recent literature that proposes that the Statue in Cairo (or Copenhagen) shows A III AND A IV (see also Lisa Saladino Haney, Visualizing Coregency, p. 559). Check also Nyuserre Ini. I did not change the other references/articles, before that is clear. Udimu (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Udimu – Thanks for the response and confirmation. Quite right that Connor doesn't mention A IV, only A III. Your explanation of a young and old Amenemhat III seems sound to me, I was just hoping that with a positive identification that some sources could be collated and a proper description matching academics accounts of the statue be written on the commons entry and then also to update the captions in the articles (though by all means, amend the captions whenever). I'm realising how valuable having proper indexing for these artefacts (whether seals, statues, or other) is and how much better our coverage of them would be if every such item was properly labelled and catalogued. I didn't used to bother with labelling these objects, but have started to do so whenever possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: While working on the article for Sobekneferu, I just came across a comment in a footnote in Rylholt (1997), pp. 209–210, fn. 716 in which he writes: 'Several uninscribed naoi from the pyramid-complex of Amenemhet III at Hawara depict two kings, one presenting life to the other ... Just possibly, the two figures in the naoi represents Amenemhet III and Amenemhet IV in which case the naoi would seem to commemorate Amenemhet III's adoption of Amenemhet IV as his coregent. For a different interpretation, see Seidel, loc. cit.' I don't know how recent recent is intended to be, but thought it was worth a mention. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

We might have to revert to File:Frente de la esfinge de Amenemhat IV, British Museum.jpg if this fails. UWMKEgypt (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not know the Ryholt reference, but that is one opinion against those people working on sculpture. The Hawara statues are uninscribed and all evidenceː see, Neferhotep I and Niuserre point to a different interpretation.Udimu (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither did I, I just happened to be looking at the book and of all available coincidences to arise, that one just happened to be it. Beyond that, I am aware of both discussions here and at user talk. I have to think about this before opining. I see the point regarding the usurpation and the obvious mismatch in cartouches with the subject; I also see the point that the statue in all probability originally belonged to Amenemhat IV; and I also see the point about the BM statue image having being taken in a less than ideal perspective. No good choices means deciding on the least worst choice. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

BTW, to make it more complicated, Jorgensen, Mogens; Catalogue Egypt I. (3000-1550 B.C.). Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1996, p. 170-171 dates the naoi to the 13th Dynasty and thinks that a 13th Dynasty king refers to Amenemhat III, an ancestor to support his claim on the throne.Udimu (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears that the status quo remains then. UWMKEgypt (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)