Talk:Khepresh

Dubious claims

"Amenhotep III was the first king whose is known to have worn the Blue Crown, as he is the first king to be depicted doing so." (...) "The crown did not disappear until the Kushite Dynasty (747 to 656 BCE), when it ceased to be depicted." Despite the sources these claims are somewhat dubious to me, since the use of the Khepresh is attested long before Amenhotep III and very long after the Kushite Dynasty: just for saying, a check in the Commons category will give pharaohs outside these ranges, wearing the khepresh such as Amenhotep II, Nectanebo II and an unnamed 30th-to-Ptolemaic Dynasty king. Khruner (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed the text based on a journal article that goes into some detail about the crown's origins. It says the Blue Crown evolved from the cap crown in the early Eighteenth Dynasty and reached its full form in the time of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III. It also says that the Kushites abandoned the Blue Crown in favor of the original cap crown. The paper says nothing about the use of the Blue Crown after the Kushites, but I changed the wording in that part of the article, so it wouldn't state that the Blue Crown was never used again. A. Parrot (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More unsourced text

I removed the following from the article: "Another possibility is that the khepresh was woven like a basket, as the deshret (red crown) is known to have been, from plant fiber such as grass, straw, flax, palm leaf, or reed. The regular array of circles on painted and sculpted depictions of the crown may be an artistic approximation of the hexagonal holes in an open triaxial weave." This text was added two years ago by a user at IP address 2602:306:c428:1e00:38fc:8b8c:3850:d23a, without a source. Others have put "citation needed" tags on it, but I'm just removing it. As it's not wildly implausible, I'm copying it here in case a source can be found to support it. A. Parrot (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

commons:File:Thutmosis IV Head.jpg: Reasonable suspicion of a modern forgery

In an academic paper published in 2021, Egyptologist Helmut Brandl (https://hu-berlin.academia.edu/HelmutBrandl) stated and provided detailed reasons why this cannot be a depiction of Thutmose IV: "In the author's view, there is only one plausible explanation for the different nature of the Munich head (ÄS 6770): it does not depict Thutmose IV and does not originate from antiquity, but was produced based on one or more models from the reign of Amenhotep III, which are, however, significantly larger in size. [...] Due to vague similarities between its profile and that of reliefs of Thutmose IV, the head cannot and must not be identified as a representation of Thutmose IV, even in distinction to Amenhotep III." (p. 126)

Translation of bibliographical information: Brandl, Helmut: Amenhotep and Thutmose? A critical look at three alleged works of royal sculpture from the New Kingdom, in Arnst, Caris-Beatrice and Schulz, Regine (eds.): Types, Motifs, Stylistic Devices, Heidelberg: Propylaeum, 2021 (Contributions to Ancient Egyptian Art, Volume 1), pp. 108–145. https://doi.org/10.11588/propylaeum.838.c10785

German original: Brandl, Helmut: Amenophis und Thutmosis? Drei angebliche Werke der Königsplastik des Neuen Reiches kritisch betrachtet. In Caris-Beatrice Arnst, Regine Schulz (Hrsg.): Typen, Motive, Stilmittel (= Beiträge zur Altägyptischen Kunst. Band 1). Propylaeum, Heidelberg 2021, S. 108–145, {{doi|10.11588/propylaeum.838.c10785

See also: Commons:File talk:Thutmosis IV Head.jpg#Verdacht einer neuzeitlichen Fälschung

That's why I removed the picture. --ThT (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Do we have actual proof it is a fake than a person emphasessing an opinion in a professional way? Is there any testing of the statue head? UWMKEgypt (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The author is Egyptologist and the paper cited was published by the Heidelberg University. This Egyptologist performed a deep stylistic analysis which is an accepted method in Egyptology as far as I know. His result is clear: the head cannot and must not be identified as a representation of Thutmose IV. In my view the use of an image as representation of a person should be based on certainty. The reasonable suspicion of a modern forgery should be enough (cf. WP:OR) to avoid the use that image to illustrate the historic person Thutmose IV. Best, --ThT (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)