Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Amenhotep
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by U14015818 (U14015818) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
I am interested in Egyptian time's and i am a little stuck working out why the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep was wiped out of Egyptian history.
It also seems that his wife Nefertiti was also put in the cupboard.
Can anyone give me a clue as to why this was.?Was it because he embarrassed the Egyptian dynasties in some way.?
Was it because of his idea of there being only one god,{ie;animosity from the priestly caste's}
Or , being that his existence was hidden , is there a more profound reason for his acquiescence.?
Can any one recommend an above normal book that i can get from the library to help me understand more about this period of time in Egyptian history.?
Because of the mystery surrounding this character i feel that any book recommended must be of the esoteric kind.
thank yous -
Message 2
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
I'm not an expert on Egyptian history, but I believe that the backlash resulted from his moving away from the traditional pantheon of gods, i.e. Ra, Isis, etc, to a new sect, that of the sun-god Aten. The Amenhotep you refer to was Amenhotep IV (ruled 1353-1356), who was the son of the great Amenhotep III. The fourth of that name changed his own name to Akenaten, in honour of the new god. He had as the wife the reputedly-beautiful Nefertiti.
Now, the wealthy and powerful priesthood was against this new sect, and there are theories that the Egyptian people were still loyal to their old gods. When Akenaten died, he was succeeded by his son Tutankaten, who reinstated the old gods and changed his name to Tutankamon. Well, you can guess why....
The now-famous Tutankamon died young, and a very grateful priesthood filled his tomb with treasures, thankful that their power and prestige had been restored. It is theorised that it was during Tutankamon's time that attempts were made to erase Akenaten and Nefertiti from historical records.
For a simple introduction to the two rulers, you could try reading "Akhenaten Tutankhamun" by David P. Silverman. -
Message 3
Posted by U14015818 (U14015818) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
Thank you very much for that, i will read the book.
Do you know wether this all happened around the historical time of mose's?
thank's again.
john -
Message 4
Posted by colinclout (U1717776) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
Since you said esoteric and then mentioned Moses in your reply, you may be interested in reading Freud's Moses and Monotheism.
It's a speculative essay, but Freud suggests in it that many religious ideas and rites that Jews today possess came from the ancient Egyptians. -
Message 5
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 5th June 2009
I've just started reading the book I recommended above, and I'd like to make a correction....
Actually, it seems that it was under Horemheb that the process was taken to try to erase Akenhaten from the records. As you know, Tutankamon died young, and left no heirs, so General Horemheb became pharoah, and took the decision to erase both Akenhaten and Tutankhamon from Egypt's history. How ironic it is that both Akenhaten and Tutankamon are now more well-known than Horemheb!
Akenhaten ruled Egypt long before the Hebrews were supposed to be slaves in that country. Akenhaten and Tutankamon both belonged to the 18 Dynasty, while the Hebrews were supposed to be in Egypt under the 19th dynasty. My understanding is that the pharoah in Moses' time is supposed to be Rameses II (ruled 1292-1225).
However, that's not long after Akenhaten, so I guess it is possible that the Hebrews adopted their monotheistic religion from the discredited pharoah. It's a hypothesis that's very hard to verify, I think. -
Message 6
Posted by U14015818 (U14015818) on Friday, 5th June 2009
Thanks mate.
This project is getting more and more mysterious as i go along. In following this particular "trail", i have chanced upon something called the Aten.This thing, i now understand is of course the name given to the sun-disk/God. This led me to some "org- extraterrestrials" even, called anunnaki...
Now i am wondering who these being's are...
And what they are doing at the cradle of recorded time.?
Wonder if you have heard of them.?
Do you think, being that this time is a time of magic, that these entities are real or just the "craft of some "trippy" priest's ...?
cheer,s mate
john -
Message 7
Posted by U14015818 (U14015818) on Friday, 5th June 2009
colinclout
Thanks for that link mate..
I wonder how much credibility can be given to Freud on this matter.? After all, what this book infers is way above and beyond the written history of thing's.
Yet....?
-
Message 8
Posted by U14015818 (U14015818) on Friday, 5th June 2009
just checked some dates shiv.
It seems logical from these dates that moses left Egypt 1491.
Ramesis born 1300
Amenhotep crowned about 1361
tut 1479
On this hypothesis Moses left Egypt 50 yrs into 18th dynasty..
Mmmm ..the plot thickens
So moses couldn't of taken the "aten" with him if it's author is not yet born...
My dates from original 1840 biblical authority, published by Oxford university press..{ though belief in any books need's faith...}
Whats your take mate..?
Kind regards
john -
Message 9
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 6th June 2009
Akhenaten did not actually "create" the sun god Aten (which had been around since the 12th Dynasty)
What he did was raise an aspect of Amun-Ra (aten) and eventually attempted to establish the Aten as the only god within Egypt -
Message 10
Posted by U14015818 (U14015818) on Saturday, 6th June 2009
Ta Richie
Will take a look at 12th dynasty. Out of curiosity, know anything about these mystical anunnaki.?
Starting to think that after browsing an earlier link that maybe they reside somewhere other than the third dimension. -
Message 11
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
I don't know anything about this 'annunaki', but it does sound like a hypothesis with little historical backing, on face value....
On further reading, I can back up the earlier post that the worship of the Aten preceded Akenhaten. In fact, his father, Amenhotep III, started promoting the worship of the Aten, possibly to try to break the grip of the priests on the old order. The whole idea was that the pharoah is the Aten's sole representative on Earth. So, you could see why the powerful priesthood felt threatened!
Amenhotep IV (Akenhaten) just took the worship of the Aten to another level, and gave it precedence over the pantheon of traditional gods, even building a new capital at Amarna.
As for Moses, I don't know how you've arrived at that date for his presence in Egypt, because it seems to me that he's pretty much a mythical figure. What historical records exist to verify his existence? Furthermore, what historical records exist to chronicle the presence of the Hebrews as slaves in Egypt?
I think those are the questions we need to answer first.... -
Message 12
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 13
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 20th June 2009
Just before the religious brigade start to burn me at the stake, I'm not saying that Moses did not exist....
But we have to look at things from a historical perspective. Aside from the Bible, is there any other evidence that Moses actually existed? Or is he a mythical figure much the same way Robin Hood and King Arthur are?
I'm no expert on the Bible, but I believe that the Book of Exodus was written many years - even centuries - after Moses is supposed to have existed. Much like Malory's 'Morte D'Arthur'.
Are there any primary sources that point to the existence of Moses? Or is it just a matter of...faith? -
Message 14
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 20th June 2009
I am a Christian, but as far as I understand the archeology involved, Moses, as recorded in the bible never existed.
There's no evidence of mass Israelite habitation in Egypt, no evidence of their leaving, no evidence of either their exodus or conquest of Cannan which does kinda leave you with the conclusion that Moses was a created figure -
Message 15
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 20th June 2009
Maybe, maybe not. There are clearly elements in the biblical account of Moses that are derived from middle eastern literature and stories. For example the famous story of baby Moses floating down the river in a basket and adopted by a princess... But there may have been a Moses, or many Moseses.
A Canaanite tribal group or large extended family, in its nomadic wanderings in search of good pasture for its livestock, can have reached in the fertile valley of Egypt. Where they probably would not have been very welcome to the local farmers and generally given a hard time, until they managed to depart again and return home. In the long period of existence of these tribes on Egypt's borders, this must have happened many times. Nomads are often more or less dependent on the manufactured goods of their settled neighbours, and perhaps in bad years migrating to the Nile valley and its food stocks (think of Joseph's story) was the only way for some of them to survive.
Perhaps many such independent, small stories of unpleasant encounters with the Egyptians finally merged into one big story. Just like the story of Noah's big Flood seems to condense the human experience of many smaller, but nevertheless dangerous and destructive floods.
It would seem natural that such a story would have been extended and embellished around the campfire, gaining in the retelling until it became the story of a mass migration. And the writers of the book of Exodus, who condensed traditional folk account into written texts centuries later, may have added to the confusion because it was probably already difficult for them to understand the lifestyle and culture of their ancestors. -
Message 16
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Saturday, 20th June 2009
U14015818,
The Annunaki are 99% late 20th century conspiracy theorists invention and 1% myth.
The current nonsense is the work of one man, Zecheria Sitchin, who misinterpreted a couple of ancient glyphs and invented the whole theory around this. The fact that he has no academic background in this area should tell you a lot.
Academics who do have the relevant CV have dismissed his ideas and interpretation as complete nonsense.
If you are the kind of person who can believe that we, the human race, are the result of alien reptillian (Annunaki) genetic engineering, and were 'seeded' here many thousands of years ago, and that the descendents of these creatures (who can 'shape-shift) live among us (we call them the Royal Family, world leaders, and other powerful people), then you're on the wrong messageboards.
Try David Icke (he's a big believer), or those that believe that the Annunaki will return here in 2012 on their spaceship/planet (Nibiru) for the 'harvest'.
They believe that the planet can be seen, but all the world's astronomers, both professional and amateur, are part of the conspiracy and are hiding the truth.
They also believe that the earth is hollow, and when the reptoid hybrids aren't ruuning the planet, they live in underground cities, just like you ones on the hollow moon, which is made of two metal spheres, one inside the other. The moons craters are actually doorways leading to the surface of the internal sphere (remember the Clangers and the Soup Dragon ?).
It's the most ridiculous, nonsensical idea around at the moment, but many people actually believe this stuff.
If you visit the website of 'Chaiyah', a regular on the R&E boards who believes all these delusions, you'll get the idea :
She keeps her 'evidence' of an entirely populated solar system on her other site, along with her crochet patterns and her claim to be the love-child of Edward V111.
There is a more sinister side. These things are believed by white supremacists, armed militias, anti-Semites, and Pat Robertson (and other Christian evangelists)/ Why ? Because these hybrids became Zionists/Jewish.
Timothy McVeigh was a believer. -
Message 17
Posted by U14038655 (U14038655) on Sunday, 21st June 2009
Del
Don't know what all that was about.Was asking if there is any Archaeological evidence as to wether or not moses actually existed.Would appreciate if you left all this dodgy stuff in a place other than here. Don't know anything about voodoo and aliens just interested in wether or not 3,000,000,000 are walking around this planet with some kind of mass psychosis.But thanks anyway.
Back to the point. There must be someone on this sight who is willing to come down from the clouds in order to give us a scientific take on this thread.? -
Message 18
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 22nd June 2009
Knight, it does seem to me that Richie has covered your question....
There is no real 'proof' that Moses existed, or any primary sources to corroborate the movement of the Hebrews to and from Egypt. Like any other religion, Christianity/Judaism is a matter of faith, not historical research. My daughter considers herself to be CofE, but she takes most of what she reads in the early Old Testament books with a large pinch of salt. -
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 22nd June 2009
3,000,000,000 are walking around this planet with some kind of mass psychosis.
Ìý
I would doubt very much if so many christians subscribe completely to a completely literal interpretation of the bible and even if they did it is hardly a psychosis, more just a tendency to believe what you're told by authorities for want of recourse to contradict it. Some people may not have such recourse because of mental problems such as you allude to, and in the case of fundamentalist theology there might even be an argument that people suffering such delusions have an inordinate and dangerous power to influence others, but I would imagine with the bulk of nominal christians it's down to educational opportunities being denied to them for no reason of their own. -
Message 20
Posted by on your toes (U11274411) on Monday, 22nd June 2009
Delrick, thank you for introducing me to the world of Chiayah. A website containing all those conspiracy theories plus an offer of crochet patterns sounds like the invention of one of the humurous SF authors.
Aplogies for being off topic. -
Message 21
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Monday, 22nd June 2009
U14038655,
You asked about the 'Annunaki'. I was merely trying to let you know that if you 'google' that word, you'll find yourself swamped by some of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories around today.
Try it.
Let me know if you find any websites that offer genuine academic research.
Some of what I've real looks and sounds real, but in every case has turned out to be nonsense. -
Message 22
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Monday, 22nd June 2009
on your toes,
She and her fellow travellers have their own ideas about Amenhotep and ancient mythologies.
If you need a laugh, you know where to go !
Or you could just have a look at her stuff on the R&E boards. -
Message 23
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Saturday, 27th June 2009
As an addendum.
There are those who think we're looking for Moses in the wrong time. Rohl, and earlier Velikovsky, make a case for the exodus happening at the end of the Middle Kingdom. It's controversial, of course, and if true would necessitate a substantial revision of either Biblical or Egyptian chronology (R+V both revise Egyptian chronology, though very differently). Certainly the New Kingdom seems an unlikely time for the events described. Ramesses was long thought to be the pharaoh of the exodus because of the reference to the city of Pi-Ramesses in the Bible, but this is probably the name by which it was known when the story was written, and their is a much older city, Avaris, adjacent to the site of Pi-Ramesses.
Oh, and Amenhotep IV married his mother, Queen Tiy, and this was probably the main reason why he was expunged from history. -
Message 24
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Sunday, 28th June 2009
Amenhotep IV did not marry Tiye, his mother.
Any number of Amarna Family Tree's are available on-line if you choose not to read legitimate historical research (as opposed to Velikovsky)
JonWickerman -
Message 25
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 29th June 2009
Silverman's book makes no reference to any 'marriage' between Akenhaten and Tiye, the wife of his father Amenhotep III, so I'm sceptical about that claim. I would've thought that Silverman would've picked that up....
What evidence does Velikovsky that he married his mother?
I find Silverman's explanation that he tried to change the primary religion to that of the Aten a far more credible explanation. -
Message 26
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 30th June 2009
Nogg
I cant see the exodus happening,if it happened at all, during the time of Ramesses as this pharaoh was deemed to be the greatest of all rulers.
So if he had lost his first born, his valuables{ex3.21-22}and his army . then history would give us a different take on him. -
Message 27
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Tuesday, 30th June 2009
JWM2
Are you suggesting that historical research has all the answers relating to Amarna Family Trees?
Perhaps you can tell me who the mother(s) of Smenkhare and Tutankhamun were? And their fathers?
Who was the mother of Bekhet-Aten? And her father?
Whose Canopic jars were discovered in tomb KV55?
Why was Smenkhare buried in ignominy and Tutankhamen with fabulous riches?
When was the existence of Queen Kiya first discovered? When was Oedipus and Akhnaton first published?
Shivfan
I'd like to leave part of my response to you until JWM has responded, if that 's ok?
However, I think it needs to be remembered that Velikovsky presents the evidence in the context of identifying the Amarna period and its immediate sequel with the Oedipus cycle of legends from Greece, and while this presents some problems of its own, a lot of the strength of the argument comes from the totality of its parts. His solution to the problem of the burials of Smenkhare and Tutankhamun, for example, while admittedly speculative, isn't unduly controversial compared to other theories.
Of course, too, Akhnaton is "the first monotheist", and so for some people at least, what Velikovsky suggests is unthinkable. But contrary to what someone suggested above, religious unorthodoxy, while leading to political tension, would probably not have led to the attempt to expunge him from history and so destroy him in the afterlife unless it involved an anathema - like mother son incest.
Docconger
That's basically the point I was making, but I think it applies to most of the New Kingdom, not just Ramesses. -
Message 28
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Wednesday, 1st July 2009
I referred you to one on-line Amarna Family Tree for simplicity.
My copy of Oedipus & Akhenaton was published in 1960, which is a sound indication that Velikovsky's sources, and opinions, are dated.
Even conventional historical theories, especially of a chronological nature, which are that old are not referenced in today's Journals.
As for researching the answers to your questions, I will only provide you with a number of legitimate sources to enable you to do your own research.
Akhenaten, Egypt's False Prophet, Reeves, 2005.
Akhenaten, King of Egypt, Aldred, 1991.
Akhenaten, The Heretic King, Redford, 1987.
Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt, Aldred, 1972.
Either of the above will provide far more valuable education on Akhenaten than one can possibly get from Velikovsky.
Also, you can contact a major library near you for either, Inter-library loans, or copies of any number of scholarly Journals for the latest monographs on the study of Akhenaten & the Amarna period.
JonWickerMan -
Message 29
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
I'm inclined to side with JWM on this one....
It seems to me that one of the main reasons why Tutankhamon had so many riches in his tomb was because he re-embraced the old religious order, throwing off the monotheistic religion of his father, Akenhaten. Remember, Tutankhamon was originally named Tutankhaten, but he changed his name when he gave up Aten for Amon. So, clearly the powerful priesthood would've been happy with Tutankhamon's conversion, and probably put a lot of riches in his tomb as a result.
Then, it's hard to say how many riches were in other pharaoh tombs, because most of them were looted long before they were found by Egyptologists. Maybe Tutankhamon's tomb was lost because of Horemheb's efforts to eliminate Akenhaten and Tutankhamon from history.... -
Message 30
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
Not sure there's actually that much siding to be done, Shiv. Although I said above that I wasn't convinced that in a religiosly syncretistic and pluralistic society like Egypt mere religious unorthodoxy would have been enough to merit erasure from history and consequent annihilation in the afterlife, this is something of a matter of opinion, and since I don't think the argument rests on it being true I don't intend to pursue it. That religion and politics (Ay's designs on the throne) were important factors is not really in dispute.
Reply to JWM coming up soon. -
Message 31
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
Thanks for the advice, JWM. Unfortunately living abroad makes that kind of library stuff difficult, so if I answer the questions myself, perhaps you can point out where I'm mistaken.
Firstly, my copy of O+A was also published/copyrighted in 1960. From what I can find on the internet the existence of Queen Kiya was first discovered in 1959. Doubtless a coincidence, but kinda odd timing.
As far as I know the identity(s) of the mother(s) of Smenkhare and Tutankhamun are still unknown, but I'd really be interested if you know better.
The mother of Bekhet-Aten, and the ownership of the canopic jars in KV55, as well as a number of epithets like "Most beloved wife" I have found attributed to both Tiy and Kiya (see, I said the timing was odd). In Velikovsky they are ascribed to Tiy. What do you make of the re-ascription to Kiya? Do you know if it is generally accepted, controversial, or generally accepted, and can you point me to a good account of the reasons for it?
I agree that the age of O+A does mean that it's dated, and that there will be many new facts to be taken into account, but I'm not claiming that V is infallible - that would be stupid, as it would be for anyone else. Rather I'm saying that his reframing of the period allows us to look at some of the inscriptions from a different perspective. Do you think there has been a major change of perspective or chronology for the end of the Amarna period in the standard history in the last 50 years (and I realise this question admits of degrees, so you don't have to be definitive, but it's also of general historiographical interest, so I'd be interested in what you think regardless of the main question). -
Message 32
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
It seems to me that one of the main reasons why Tutankhamon had so many riches in his tomb was because he re-embraced the old religious order,Ìý
I wonder whether we are allowed to be cynical here. Perhaps the Pharaoh re-embraced the old religious order, but kept the gold?
The riches of the 18th dynasty was proverbial. As a foreign ruler put it in a letter to, IIRC, Amenhotep III, "in the land of my brother, gold is as common as dust". Even in the Iliad there is a reference to "the wealth of the Egyptian Thebes, the richest city in the world". Most kings of the 18th dynasty had been demonstratively generous in sharing their wealth with the gods. The temple complexes could accumulate a lot of wealth, especially the temples of Amun, the patron god of earlier 18th dynasty kings.
When Akhenaten's men closed the temples of Amun and other gods, they probably not only dismissed the priests but carried away as much of the temple treasures as they could. Presumably a lot of it must have been diverted by various forms of corruption, and Akhenaten's expensive building programme must have consumed a lot of the accumulated wealth. (A plausible motive for closing the temples of Amun.) Nevertheless, for a while the followers of Aten must have been flush with gold and other treasures.
Tutankhamen's tomb is not entirely filled with burial gifts made specially for him: He died too young and his burial was more or less improvised. Analysis has resulted in the conclusion that many pieces may have been made for somebody else. The content of the tomb may be a kind of 18th dynasty garage sale: Artwork that had gone out of fashion, leftover burial attributes, various stuff found in the attic, and some personal possessions of the young pharaoh. -
Message 33
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
I don't think there's any serious disagreement about any of that, MM. The point I had been trying to make with my questions to JWM was that there's a lot we don't know, and that there is still controversy among many historians about things that are relevant to our own dispute here, and that it's not all as cut and dried as he seemed to be implying.
For example, what do we know about events between the death of Akhnaton and the accession of Ay? There were two pharaohs, brothers, who both died young and violently, one of whom received a magnificent burial, and the other that of a pauper. It's conjectured from the context that the motivations were religious (a perfectly reasonable conjecture, of course, and I'm not dissenting from it). I'm sure if I've missed anything salient, someone will remind me of it.
So, without further comment, a story from the Oedipus cycle.
After the exile of Oedipus and the death of Jocasta, it was agreed between Creon (the brother of Jocasta) and two sons of Oedipus, Polynices (the elder) and Eteocles (the younger), that these two sons would rule turn and turn about, a year at a time. Polynices ruled first, and at the end of the year relinquished the throne and went into voluntary exile. When he returned however, Eteocles, at the behest of Creon, refused to hand over the throne. A few years later Polynices returned with an army, and there was a battle in which both sons were killed. Creon decreed that Eteocles should receive a splendid burial, but that Polynices was to be buried in secret, with none of the rites and rituals. Creon then had himself crowned king.
You probably don't need any help from me to identify which of these characters are which in the Amarna story.
Now this is speculation, of course, but does it contradict anything we know for sure? Is it an interesting possibility that might help to explain what happened?
And of course, it may be wrong. But does it trigger the same level of condemnation and ridicule as the suggestion that Akhnaton may have had children by his mother, Tiy? That claim too does not contradict any known facts, and seems to illuminate certain facts that are otherwise puzzling. Of course, it may be wrong too. But there does seem to be a strange reluctance to even consider the idea. -
Message 34
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
NN,
Speculation opens up an infinite number of possibilities, but that isn't a scientific or logical approach.
We don't actually know who was buried in KV55, nor do we know that Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun were brothers. We also don't know how Smenkhkare died, or how old he was. Some Egyptologists have cast doubt on the very existence of Smenkhkare as more than a title carried by other Amarna royals. And if there were any hostilities between Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun, we have no evidence for them whatsoever.
It is probable that the body buried in KV55 belonged to a close relative of Tutankhamun, but that's about all we know for sure. We don't know whether Tutankhamun had any brothers, and if so, how many... And why would we assume that this person was buried as a pauper? We don't know that either, as KV55 is very likely a reburial anyway, and KV55 seems to have been robbed of most of its content a few hundred years later.
Any relation with the sons of Oedipus and the plots of Greek tragedies (and French tragedy, as Anouilh created his own version of 'Antigone') therefore is just a projection of Greek myth, or more precisely a selected version of the Greek myth, on the void. There is no justification for it and it doesn't help explain what happened any more than any other wild theory.
As for the suggestion that Akhenaten may have fathered children of Tiy, there again is a conspicuous lack of evidence for that. Tiy kept her titles after the death of her husband, but this does not indicate a similar relation with the new pharaoh. There are more indications that both Amenhotep III and Akhenaten may have married some of their own daughters -- although the majority opinion seems to be that they only given the title of queen for ceremonial reasons -- but that again fails to fit the pattern of the Greek myth. -
Message 35
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
MM
Yes, speculation does open a lot of possibilities, though maintaining some sort of consistency does reduce the number. But it's not actually that simple.
Firstly, if you remove all conjectures from the Amarna story it's pretty bare bones. Most of what we think we know involves the interpretation of inscriptions and pictures in a context. Historians tell stories to try and understand the significance of what archaeologists find. I'm not suggesting that this process is random, but the framework chosen does affect the interpretation.
You imply quite strongly that Velikovsky's choice of myth is random and meaningless, but this is not so. The reasons are not random (they may be wrong, of course, but that's not quite the same thing). Oedipus takes place in Thebes. It features a sphinx. Laertes' fate is sealed because he "corrupted a youth" (the Greeks weren't that bothered by homosexuality). The theme of the second part of the cycle is proper burial and afterlife - not typically Greek concerns. If you have seen pictures of Akhnaton you'll understand why he might be named Oedipus - swollen foot.
You state that Tiy kept her titles after the death of her husband, but the title "Great Wife and Mother of the king" is a strange one for her to have with reference to Amenhotep III, and has no precedent. Equally strange is the small daughter Beket-Aten who she is shown with in the Huya's Tomb, in the twelfth year of Akhnaton's reign.
So, how do you interpret the reliefs in Huya's tomb? And why? -
Message 36
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 6th July 2009
Yes, interpreting the Amarna story involves some conjecture, but we can should take the side of Occam and "not multiply our hypotheses without necessity". It is hard enough, when dealing with an unprecedented period in Egypt's history, to figure out the facts without adding our own fictions.
I find the claim that burial and afterlife are not "typically Greek concerns" rather strange. Ancient Greek literature and myths are full of concern with such matters. The Iliad, for example, deals at length with the mutilation of Hector's body by Achilles, until he finally relents and hands the body over to Priamus for burial. There are also plenty of stories of heroes and demi-gods visiting Hades, the most famous one of course being that of Orpheus and Eurydice.
A big problem with mapping the story of Egyptian kings on that of kings of the Greek Thebes, is that Greek mythology is full of the latter, spread over generations. Oedipus' story cycle is just one of the many, but you might as well take another generation of Theban kings and make it fit equally well (or poorly).
As for the "small" daughter Beketaton in the reliefs in Huya's tomb, if you look at the reliefs with more attention you will see that the size of the people in it reflects their importance, not their age. The servants are also tiny compared to the Pharao, but this does not mean they are babies! There actually is nothing in this relief to indicate that Beketaten cannot have been 12 or older at the time when it was made. -
Message 37
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
nog.
i know that is what you meant about Ramesis.
If the exodus could not of happened then, for the reasons i spoke of,then time lines and all that stuff aside, it would make sense that the time of the exodus was during the reign of Amenhotep on the grounds that he was most definately not revered.? -
Message 38
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Saturday, 11th July 2009
Akhnaton has often been considered a candidate for any possible exodus, but this just pushes the period of the conquest and the early judges into the reigns of Seti and Ramses II, which doesn't make much sense.
Actually, Occam said we shouldn't multiply *entities* without necessity, MM. In the absence of a unifying theory, however, hypotheses, recognised as such, are absolutely essential.
Even leaving aside sphinxes (indubitably Egyptian), are there any examples from Greece of denial of burial being considered the ultimate punishment, worse than death itself? And the "swellfoot" connection? And I notice you had no trouble identifying the Greek characters from my story with their Egyptian counterparts.
So, as a general question, how many parallels would you require before considering the possibility of the Amarna period in Egypt being the source of the Oedipus legend (not proven, just as a reasonable hypothesis)? -
Message 39
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Saturday, 11th July 2009
NtN
Velikovsky suggested Thutmosis III was the Biblical Shishak, yes?
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten reigned approx 100 years after Thutmosis III.
Shishak is placed in Biblical chronology in the early 10th century BCE (circa 950-920), therefore Akhenaten must be around 850 BCE.
Sophocles, who wrote the Oedipus tragedy lived in the 5th century BCE.
It is well known that the Armarna Pharaohs were eradicated from Egyptian history, especially Akhenaten.
In the conventional time-line there is almost a thousand years between Akhenaten and Sophocles, in Velikovsky's Revised Chronology there appears to be some 350 years between the two.
What evidence exists to suggest the biographical history of Akhenaten survived to the time of Sophocles?
What was the specific source for the Oedipus story?
Wickerman -
Message 40
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Saturday, 11th July 2009
"And I saw the mother of Oedipodes, fair Epicaste, who wrought a monstrous deed in ignorance of mind, in that she wedded her own son..."
Ö÷²¥´óÐãr, "The Odyssey"
Probably written about 200 years before Sophocles, and plainly referring to a story that was already known in Greece. In the revised chronology at least the transmission poses no insuperable problem.
What do you mean by specific source? A named individual? -
Message 41
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 11th July 2009
You are presuming that we need, if not an unifying theory, then at least a hypothesis. But there is not need whatsoever for us to unify Greek myth with the history of the Egytian 18th dynasty. Even if we would have this hypothesis, it is of no value to us. A hypothesis can be useful if it helps us to interpret other evidence we already have, or if we can -- as Heinrich Schliemann did -- put the spade into the ground to look for evidence. This "hypothesis" leads to neither. So why bother with it?
The problem with this all too easy "mapping" of two stories onto each other, is that they are simply the stories of two thoroughly dysfunctional families. That, plus a few common human themes such as taboos against incest and the worry about the afterlife, make up most of the similarity of the two stories.
That generic framework is only filled in with guesswork and unproven hypothesis, for the more specific "parallels" evaporate on inspection. It doesn't matter how many there are, if none of them is of value. As G.K. Chesterton put it, it amazing how many people don't understand that 0+0+0+0+0 is still 0.
Comparing Greek and Egyptian attitudes to the afterlife is fascinating, but it doesn't reveal much more than the shared human concerns of most cultures. Proper burial was indeed regarded as important in Greek culture, and at time as necessary to allow the deceased to enter the afterlife, but this is an almost universal theme in all religious thought. As an example, a considerably part of the Iliad is devoted to the burial of Patroclos and Hector. Specifically, to Achilles' initial refusal to bury the bodies of his friend and his enemy, until he is overruled by the ghost of Patroclos and the gods, respectively.
(The Egyptian belief that is was important for a person's name, and perhaps statues and monuments, to remain in existence, also has parallels in Greek and in Roman culture, and in other cultures. The Romans even had formal "damnatio memoriae" as an ultimate punishment.)
Sphinxes may well be Egyptian in origin, but they don't play a particularly important role in Akhenaten's story. (If there was an 18th century king who was strongly involved with the sphinx of Gizeh, it was not Amenhotep IV but his grandfather Thutmosis IV.) Besides, Greek mythology knew only a single Sphinx, a predatory beast-demon of evil nature, while the Egyptian sphinxes were both numerous and benign.
The "swellfoot" connection is impossible to verify for me without direct evidence. What imagery represents Akhenaten with unusually swollen feet? On the rich collection we have of Amarna reliefs, his feet don't look any different than those of other people represented. And the feet of Egyptian statues often look a bit un-anatomic anyway, so it would take a comparison of the feet of several people to arrive at the conclusion that Akhenaten's feet were unusual. -
Message 42
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Sunday, 23rd August 2009
Oh, and Amenhotep IV married his mother, Queen Tiy, and this was probably the main reason why he was expunged from history.
Ìý
Hi NtN.
I thought I'd return to this point because to be quite honest I couldn't remember why Velikovsky proposed this marriage.
Yesterday I had need to look through Oedipus and Akhenaten, as there is no index, to look for details on another issue. While I was looking I thought I'd keep an eye open for this marriage argument.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I got the impression a marriage between Akhenaten & Tiye was proposed based on the understanding that Baketaten was actually Tiye's daughter. As Baketaten was born after Akhenaten began to rule (about his year 6?), and therefore Amenhotep III must have been dead, Velikovsky concluded Tiye must have married Akhenaten?
Today, although there is not direct proof it is widely assumed that there was a co-regency of 10-12 yrs between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten. Therefore Baketaten was born to Amenhotep III & Tiye sometime during this co-regency period. Amenhotep III had not died.
Velikovsky's arguement has no basis.
The Egyptian archaeological world is anxiously awaiting the results of some recent DNA tests which are being touted as 'to prove the co-regency was fact' (or words to that effect).
There is a damaged relief in Amarna art from the house of Pinhasy that shows an aged and corpulent Amenhotep III with Tiye seated in front of the rays of Aten. The name of which is given in its late form suggesting this relief was created after year 9 of Akhenaten.
Amenhotep III is named by his prenomen Neb-maat-re, perhaps to avoid the use of the name Amun.
Ref. Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt, Aldred, 1968, plate 80.
Regards, Wickerman -
Message 43
Posted by geordiejarrovian (U14132427) on Thursday, 10th September 2009
Hello everyone, new to this board.
As far as I was aware Ahkenatens unpopularity was due to his closure of the old religions and temples. Each of the main temples of the old gods had become petty fiefdoms, large in area, employing huge numbers of people, and having immense wealth under the high priests of the orders, who were in fact, little more that local shoguns. They were also highly influential in politics etc. When he declared the old gods "bankrupt" in favour of the Aten, he did much to destroy Egyptian society and lower level economy, and the lot of the poor, a great number of whom had been employed by the old religions. -
Message 44
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 11th September 2009
Welcome, geordie!
I agree with everything you've just said - that was my understanding about Akenaten too. -
Message 45
Posted by Namah (U14135561) on Saturday, 7th November 2009
Shivan, Geordie...
If only the storey was so simple.
M.M. As for dysfunctional. Not sure about that either.!
"The texts and bas-reliefs on the walls of the temple of Luxor glorify the devine birth of Amenhotep as a result of Amons love for the Queen mother, wife of Thuthmosis 1V. But on the death of Amenhotep the cult of Ra-Harakhteb gained new importance. Under the name "Aten of the day," Ra-Harakhte, engaged in a struggle against his rival Amon which was so successful that Amon was humbled. In the 4th year of his reign Amenhotep proclaimed a great religious reform and decreed that only the religion of Aten was official..{ergo; the jealousy of the priests of Heliopolis}
Amenhotep becomes..Akhenaton...Abandons Thebes for {present day} Tell-el-Amarna..
All men , they claimed were equally the children of Aten..In this modified attempt at monotheism we could see plans for an Empire wide religion, especially if it is remembered that at this time Egyptian domination extended as far as Asia, where the Syrians worshipped Adonis and the Jews worshipped Adonai";
As long as the king lived there was no official god in Egypt but Aten. The other gods were proscribed and bitter war was raged against them, especially against Amon and his trinity. Thier temples spoiled and thier wealth taken.. -
Message 46
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Saturday, 7th November 2009
Monotheism denies the existence of other gods. Akhenaten acknowledged the existence of the pantheon of Gods, so he didn't initiate Monotheism. What Akhenaten followed is termed Henotheism, one god above all other gods.
The Egyptian tradition had been Polytheism, Akhenaten initiated Henotheism.
However, if you read the Bible cafefull enough (thou shall have no other gods before me?) it appears that Judaism may also have been Henotheistic. There is some acceptance that other gods did exist.
One interesting documentary on recently argued that Akhenaten may have had Morphan syndrome, and as such his eyesight was impaired.
Bright sunlight was required to help him see clearly. He may not have been able to see too well indoors or in subdued light hence Akhenaten was drawn to worship the power that gave him sight!
..things to ponder I guess..
Wickerman -
Message 47
Posted by Namah (U14135561) on Sunday, 8th November 2009
Hi Jon
thanks for that jon. plenty of room for thought.seems to me that a lot of those old folk went blind in the dark. says alot about thier time , i suppose..Maybe they should of been enlightened enough to see without the good rays of the Sun illuminating the words..
True kings see with thier minds, i feel, and not with thier eyes.
The original interpretation of "no other gods before me" reads "no strange gods...." So on that basis i am able to believe that there are lots of other "dudes " running around at that time... so Henotheism sounds good to me. how do you interpretate the word strange...? do you think that strange would be any of the dudes who were not paying tribute.?
qb
qb -
Message 48
Posted by Namah (U14135561) on Thursday, 12th November 2009
The number of gods worshipped in the nile vally was considerable, and a list found in the tomb of Thuthmosis 111 enumerates 740 of them.
qb -
Message 49
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Friday, 13th November 2009
The original interpretation of "no other gods before me" reads "no strange gods...."Ìý
I'm not a Hebrew scholar and I'm not at all sure what 'original' means, seeing as there are no 'original' texts to work with. All Biblical texts are copies of copies.
However, the relevent word in Hebrew seems to be "paniym" which comes from the root "panah", meaning "to turn".
"Paniym" is interpreted, depending on context, to mean either "before", "in front of", "presence", or "against", etc.
Interestingly then, this phrase seems to suggest that "you will not entertain images/idols of other gods while in my presence".
Don't worship them while worshipping me!
There are 11 occurences in the Bible of the term "strange gods". Most of them can be divided up among three words, example:
1 "nekar 'elohiym" - from Hebrew where "nekar" means "foreign" or "alien".
2 "zuwr" (with reference to 'elohiym) - from Hebrew where "zuwr" means "strange" or "stranger".
3 "xenos daimonion", from the Greek which also means "foreigner" or "stranger".
None of which are applicable to the phrase, " 'acher 'elohiym paniym" in Exodus 20:3.
Wickerman -
Message 50
Posted by Namah (U14135561) on Saturday, 14th November 2009
Cheers john..
I was quoting from a book on pastoral theology,{1935}.from a personal view "strange" does it for me, but i do get your point.
Wont trouble you with the ins and outs of the theology mate, as its just too involved and maybe a bit too involved for a message board. Though i must say that along with other works, strange does fit the bill..
I'm sure that others posting on this board will all have an opinion on this and though happy to hear them ,i'm not sure i wish to argue the point..{though theoretically it is a biggy}
And any other points of view are welcome..even though i'm happy with my own view..
Thanks again, JonWickerMan2
qb
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.