From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Abuwtiyuw is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 8, 2012.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 14, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
November 3, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
Current status: Featured article


What does this sentence mean? "Whether the grave nor the mummy of the dog survived." --Green Cardamom (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It means that whether the grave nor the mummy of the dog remained. Survived can be used here, too. Regards.--Kürbis () 08:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry.. still don't understand. Can you say it using different words, so I understand the intended meaning? I believe you may be using "whether" and "nor" incorrectly, the sentence doesn't make sense. Are you saying the grave survived but the mummy of the dog did not? Green Cardamom (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"Whether" is usually used to present two alternatives "whether A or B", but not "whether A nor B". Is it possible you mean "or" instead of "nor"? Also, "whether" is asking a question so it needs a resolution, such as "Whether the grave or the mummy of the dog survived is unknown" (if that is the intended meaning). Green Cardamom (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible instead of "Whether" you mean "Neither"? That would make sense. I'll be bold and make the change. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are right... I often confuse the two words. "Neither" is correct. (this is because "whether" sounds like "weder" in German, which translates as "neither"...) Regards.--Kürbis () 21:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok another question.. it says "There is a part of a lead visible on the upper-right corner" .. is this a leash? I'll change it because I think leash is more common and clear. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep :) Regards.--Kürbis () 21:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


I'm no expert in hieroglyphs, but the representation of the name doesn't look right. The characters in the article would be transliterated, I think, ‘bwt3, while the correct transliteration in Reisner, p. 97, is ‘bwtiw. So I think the first three (arm & hand, leg & foot, quail) are correct, the eagle should be a quail, and before the eagle should be one or two other characters (which are not clear in Reisner's image). Thoughts? ADAMGARRIGUS talk 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The characters in the article look like ‘bw3; I don't even see a glyph for T. Based on Reisner's transliteration, I'd expect
D36 D58 G43 X1 M17 G43
. I'd expect a dog determinative (
) at the end, too. But my understanding of hieroglyphs is limited, and it's a very complicated system with lots of exceptions to rules. Unless you can find a legible copy of the name as it appears in the inscriptions, the name isn't properly verifiable, and I'd advise leaving out the hieroglyph box. A. Parrot (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
A photograph of the hieroglyphs can be found in Reisners publication, [1], therfore
D36 D58 G43 G4
is correct The hieroglyph
transcribes as tjw. The alternative reading ‘bw3 with a
instead of
was suggested by Jozef Janssen, which is not implaussible, as ‘bw3 is also known as a personal name. A determinative is here not neccesary, as the sentence, where the name is mentioned, explicitely talks about a ṯsm (dog). --GDK (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, GDK. ADAMGARRIGUS talk 20:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename article to Abuwtiyuw[edit]

I would strongly suggest to rename the article Abuwtiyuw, as Abutiu is the German transcription. The english literature uses the Transcription Abuwtiyuw provided by Reisner. --GDK (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of dogs[edit]

The Background section is a little weak - the description of the Persians' relationship with dogs is not quite described in Herodotus as the source states - he does mention dogs when discussing the Persians but only mentions that the Magi don't kill them. They were protected, but chapters 13-15 here may be more helpful (chapter 14 is on otters which were considered water dogs, so slightly less is pertinent, but chapter 15 is interesting for the fact it intermingles pronouncements on the treatment of dogs and humans). The description of the Egyptians' treatment of dogs is cited to three sources, the first is reprint of a 1908 encyclopedia (wrongly cited as 2001) which merely reports Herodotus, the second only mentions that the Egyptians had collars for their dogs so isn't relevant to the sentence it is used to support, and the third appears to be a children's encyclopedia which it seems strange to use for evidence of mummification when you have the more robust Salima Ikram source later. Yomanganitalk 00:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, can you assist with this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not immediately (unfortunately it's more time consuming to track down sources than to point out potential problems - probably something to do with entropy, I'm not going to argue with physics). That section really needs restructuring as the assertions are vague - "According to the Ancient Greeks" and "others of the Near East" - and some of the later observations are slightly precarious too: the reference to the mummified dog in Ikram is to a single case, so the extension of this to multiple cases needs additional support, and I'm not sure that we know what the intention behind the dog mummification was, the invoking of Anubis to reunite the the dog with the owner is cited to the same children's encyclopedia as used previously. The sentence "Many animals were typically consumed as meat after death, but it is highly unlikely that dogs would have been eaten" is part of an argument about possible reasons for animal mummies consisting of wrapped bones and I don't know what it adds here divorced from that context.
A couple of other points:
  • Is the graphics lab still a going concern? An image of the tablet inscription would make a nice project for somebody with artistic leanings (presumably the expedition's photo is not PD yet)
  • The 2280 BC date seems a little off - the tablet was in the spolia used to construct a mastaba around 2280 BC, so the original chapel of the dog's owner is likely to have stood for a few years before that and the dog's tablet to have been installed earlier still. Why do the sources give that date?
  • "Mohammedani Ibrahim, who took more than 9,321 large-format glass-plate images" That's a very precise number to add "more than" in front of. Yomanganitalk 02:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Exceptionally good points again, yes so it would have had to have been between 2280 and 2345 BC. Before 2280 BC should suffice Count de Blofeld 07:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


Should this be promoted, where should it be listed. Graham Colm (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would place it under the animals section. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Afterlife for dogs[edit]

I pointed out an issue at the FAC (here, second bullet point) that wasn't resolved. I realize it was a lengthy and complicated comment and may seem like disproportionate attention to a single sentence in the article. But I think the issue really needs to be addressed, as the sentence in its current state is misleading. If the regular editors here don't have sources to address the issue of afterlife beliefs about animals (I'm fairly sure I don't), then the sentence could simply be removed. The inscription seems to make it fairly clear that this particular dog was going to the afterlife, so this article doesn't need to address the general issue to be comprehensive. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the sentence per my statement on my talk page. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

sex of the dog?[edit]

How is the sex of the dog known? This is a rather glaring omission or presupposition. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It might have been described in a primary source, but the article doesn't explain this in any detail. Jarble (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the inscription under Discovery. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Image gallery[edit]

I hope the photos and images that i added would be beneficial.--Ashashyou (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, since this is about one individual dog. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


On page three of Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, we see a transliteration of the heiroglyphs |bwti|w (Where vertical lines represent glottal stops), giving us a pronunciation guide. I think this should be added to the article. --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this above comment by Sue Rangell (talk · contribs), could we please get some sort of pronunciation guide added to this article? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I, too, would like to see the pronunciation. AmericanLeMans (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The name sound sort of like the phrase "I bit you". Weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

True :).--Tomcat (7) 09:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If any of the Egyptian experts who wrote this article are reading this, could they possibly give a quick explanation as to why such a weird, virtually unpronounceable romanisation of the hieroglyphs is preferred? The alternative 'Abutiu', which seems to have been deprecated above, is perfectly readable, and I don't understand how inserting ys and ws could aid comprehension. -- (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It is from Reisner. --Tomcat (7) 20:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm a layman. That means nothing to me. Why did Reisner add those ys and ws in the middle? -- (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am no expert on Egyptology, but it is a bit of a hobby. If I had to pronounce it, my money would be on Uh-bwit-Ew, with the capital letters pronounced hard, due to the glottal-stops. I think it would be a great addition to the article.--Sue Rangell[citation needed] 23:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How did the Germans come up with such a different pronunciation? The IPA seems like WP:OR to me.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

IPA pronounciation[edit]

The IPA as it stands is a bit off. It's not clear how, in ʔ-bwit-ʔew, one is meant to pronounce the initial glottal stop - it still needs to have a vowel accompanying it to make sense. Working from Reisner's transliteration of ‘bwtἰw, which in MdC would be something like abwtjw, then the conventional IPA should be either a:bwti:w or a:bu:ti:w. I'll change it if there are no objections. Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 18:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)