Talk:Akhenaten
From Academic Kids
Discussion on renaming moved to Talk:Akhenaten/rename from VP. Noel 18:30, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Name
There are 2 entries for him: see also Akhnaten. User:Olivier
Yes but: Akhnaten is the play isnt it? User:Es02
This guy is also Amenophis IV (see, for example History of Egypt). Amenophis doesn't sound at all like Amenothep to me, why the two spellings (or names).
Amenophis is the Greek version of Amenhotep ... which in itself is just a rough transliteration of the hieroglyphic. User:Ffabris
Lineage and Succession
Removed text:
- and the immediate predecessor of Tutankhamun
Sorry, but very few Egyptologists hold this position - few enough that I would be dubious about even including it as a significant theory. Almost all seem to agree than Smenkhare (whoever he/she is - there are many well-argued theories for that) came between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun.
Also, this page makes many statements of fact (e.g. the details of how he succeeded Amenhotep III) which again are not really widely agreed (almost all Egyptologists still argue for a co-regency of some length).
The whole page needs to be gone over to make the very nebulous nature of our knowledge of this period of Egyptian history clear. (And it's too bad Wiki seems to have settled on the 'ton' spelling for all these -aten names, most people seem to use the 'ten' variant.)
Noel 18:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think the fact that study of Ancient Egyptian theory involves examining different theories and speculations is common knowledge enough to not be mentioned in the article itself. Adding alternative solutions proposed for the dating and/or the events of his life and reign should help make it obvious enough.
As for Shmenkhare coming between Akhenaten and Tutankhaten:most lists of Pharaohs that I have seen mention him as a co-ruler of Akhenaten for a period of two to four years. There seems to be little support for him ever succeeding Akhenaten and having a lengthy reign and more oftenly I have come accross the speculation that he died before his co-ruler. In any case the immediate successor comment came because I thought the previous version of the article gave the impression of saying that:"Tutankhaten eventualy rose to the throne and married Akhenaten's daughter" without mentioning any dating of their reigns and their respective place in the lists of succesive Pharaohs. Any ideas of how to make clear that the succession goes from Akhenaten to Shmenkhare and then to Tutankhaten with nobody in between?
Co-Regency of some length with Amenhotep III? I thought there was support of a short co-Regency of one or two years at most but not anything certain. My sources are a bit outdated though. Any newer evidence for a lenthiel Co-Regency?
I prefer the -aten spelling myself. And though the article about the Pharaoh is under Akhenaton, the article about the deity he is named after is under Aten.
I think the fact that study of Ancient Egyptian theory involves examining different theories and speculations is common knowledge enough to not be mentioned in the article itself.
First, it may be common to experts, but encyclopaedias are for non-experts, right? Second, and more important, the situation with the Amarna pharaohs (in fact, all of them after Amenhotep III and before Horemheb, who seems to have hated them) is particularly bad since there was an effort made to destroy records of them, especially the Amarna personalities, which makes what would a normally be something of problem into something much more difficult.
As for Shmenkhare coming between Akhenaten and Tutankhaten: most lists of Pharaohs that I have seen mention him as a co-ruler of Akhenaten .. There seems to be little support for him ever succeeding Akhenaten
That is not what I am seeing in the most recent scholarship. I don't have a copy Montserrat's book, nor Reeves' (which I just added to the entry), but I do have e.g. the Freed book, in which the section on the rulers was done by Reeves, and also has sections by others. Although not all agree that Smenkhare outlasted Akhenaten, most do seem to agree with that. Smenkhare's rule was certainly short, and was probably mostly as co-regent with Akhenaten, but most seem to have him/her continuing on for a brief period after the latter's death. The more authoritative web sites (e.g. the Theban Mapping Project, which has an entry for Smenkare on this page (http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/resources/glossary.html) take the same position.
previous version of the article gave the impression of saying that: "Tutankhaten eventualy rose to the throne and married Akhenaten's daughter" .. Any ideas of how to make clea that the succession goes from Akhenaten to Shmenkhare and then to Tutankhaten with nobody in between?
If you're OK with that, I can definitely craft words to say that.
Co-Regency of some length with Amenhotep III? I thought there was support of a short co-Regency of one or two years at most but not anything certain. .. Any newer evidence for a [lengthier] Co-Regency?
Again, as I look through things, I don't see that there is any consensus at all. (It's really infuriating the way one respected Egyptologist says "X happened" and another says "not-X happened" - who are we to pick one or the other?) Also, I don't have collections of journals like KMT, so I can't review the recent scholarly debate. (Blast them, why don't the put their old issues online, for scholarly purposes?)
I prefer the -aten spelling myself. And though the article about the Pharaoh is under Akhenaton, the article about the deity he is named after is under Aten.
Good point. Also, all the books about him use the -aten form too. Shall we change them all (Akhenaton, Akhetaton) to the -aten forms, then?
Noel 17:32, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
PS: Here's a bibliography entry I just saw for a recent journal article on the Amenhotep-III/Akhenaten co-regency length issue, arguing for a lengthy co-regency:
- MARTÍN VALENTÍN, Francisco J., Indicaciones y evidencias de una corregencia entre Amenhotep III y Amenhotep IV en la necrópolis tebana, Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología, Madrid 6 (1996), 119-146.
- Four Theban tombs display a number of common characteristics which strongly support the theory of a coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhnaton. The tombs are TT 48 (Amenemhat), TT 55 (Ramose), TT 57 (Khaemhat), and TT 192 (Kheruef). The similarities can be summarized as follows: a) relief technique; b) theme (the audience scene of Amenhotep III’s year 30); c) three tombs belong to persons related to the king; d) all tombs show signs of a damnatio memoriae; e) all owners participated in the ceremonies of year 30; f) all tombs were constructed and decorated by the same individual (probably Sa-Mut); g) in at least three tombs both sovereigns are depicted. The coregency would have begun in year 28 and lasted until year 38/39. The tombs were therefore constructed in Amenhotep IV's "Theban" period and the owners seem to have fallen in disgrace in either the years 30/31 or year 37.
Noel 00:36, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The chronology problem stands for Horemheb himself. In order to delete the reigns of the previous four Pharaohs, he added those years of reign to his own. As a result no inscription mentioning the length of his reign is reliable.They are not the only Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty ommited from historical record for millenia though. Tuthmosis III made a similar attempt to destroy evidence to the existence of his co-ruler Hatshepsut.
As I see it it is likely that co-rulers Akhenaten and Shmenkhare died shortly one after the other with uncertainty on who was first and who was second. Tutankhaten succeeded to the throne when those two left it vacant. mIf this is made clear with the article, I am content. Anyway getting into arguments about Shmenkhare, the poorest recorded Pharaoh in the 18th dynastie, would be absurd. Nothing seems to be certain of that Pharaoh including an estimated year of birth, identity, sex, relation to other members of the royal family, and year of death.
It is s not so infuriating when you consider that other fields of archaelogy have their own experts arguing with each other. Excavations in modern Israel have found little evidence of an Empire Period under David and Solomon. In fact evidence points at the area of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Judah at their time having a small population at best and reaching their peak under Josiah (640 BC - 609 BC). Similarily no evidence that Israel and Judah originated from a single Kingdom. With Israel actualy advancing to one of the leading states of its area and reaching its peaks under Ahab(870 BC - 848 BC) and Jeroboam II (783 BC - 748 BC). But you can still find scholars who argue for the validity of the report of this Kingdoms' history by the Books of Samuel and Kings and suggesting ways to relate it with the current foundings. In Greece, where I live, arguments are still going about the Royal Macedonian tomb found in 1977 belonging to conqueror Philip II or instead to his feeble-minded son Philip III. And there is still no consensus of what to make of an unnamed ancient city found last year near Sparta and seeming to be active around 1600 BC. With the archeologist who made the excavation believing he found Lacedaemon, the legendary parent-city of Sparta, and others disbelieving because are source for its existance is Homer's Illiad. Archaelogy can point theories it seems but rarely offers certainties.
A co-regency of ten years? I thought the argument against it was that that Amenhotep III's correspondence with Tushratta makes reference to respective Queens Tiy and Juni but not to a co-ruler or this co-ruler's Queen. Ramose sounds interesting. It seems the Egyptian form of Ramses or Ramesses. I wonder if he had any relation to Ramses I, Horemheb's bizyer and successor and the founder of the 19th dynasty.
To rename the articles would be some work. But if you are willing to try, keep in mind to keep Akhenaton as a redirect.
Good points though. Its nice to know there are Wikipedians with some interest in ancient history. Some time it seems that articles about ancient Monarchs get the least attention.
A co-regency of ten years? I thought the argument against it was that that Amenhotep III's correspondence with Tushratta makes reference to respective Queens Tiy and Juni but not to a co-ruler or this co-ruler's Queen.
I haven't gone through all the various recent things and looked in detail at all the evidence cited by both sides, to decide for myself what I think the evidence best indicates. In any case, that wouldn't be any use for what to put in the article, it would be just another opinion. I think all we can safely say is that there is still disagreement, and many scholars do favour a lengthy co-regency.
E.g. in Armarna Letters: 4, which I just obtained, there's an interesting article by Marshall F. Thompson on Sitamen, in which he clearly has agreed with the 11/12-year camp. (And also that Akhenaten pre-deceased Smenkhare; alas, he promised a forthcoming article on that topic, but died soon afterward.)
(The article itself is quite interesting - his theory is that she is the daughter of Amenhotep II by a different wife from Amenhotep III's mother, was married to her half-brother, and that Smenkhare and Tutankhamun are her sons. He has some interesting evidence based on the concept that Tiye was a commoner, and thus could not be the Royal Heiress (a king's daughter), marriage to whom was a key part of securing title to the throne.)
So all I think we can really do is state that the evidence is really sparse (and why), and that scholars disagree, and list the main theories for each point.
Its nice to know there are Wikipedians with some interest in ancient history.
Likewise.
Noel 20:30, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Religious connectivity theories
I'm tempted to simply completely excise this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Akhenaten&diff=5925581&oldid=5921257) long addition, because I can't be bothered to edit out all the speculation and inaccuracies to retrieve the few grains of useful material. What do people think? Noel 18:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Same temptation felt here. Similar material has appeared on other 18th & 19th dyn pharaoh's pages in recent days. Perhaps instead of deleting it all it could be dumped on Pharaoh of the Exodus or some similar titled article. It all smacks very much of original research / speculation at the moment, but if could become a good article if the different ideas are back-and-forthed properly. Hey, it could happen. –Hajor 18:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just fixed the Tutankhamun page from the same stuff. What's here is even less retrievable, though. Whoever gets to it first can clean it up, I guess! Noel 19:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A Pharaoh of the Exodus article would be nice, but that wasn't it. Too much conjecture. Deleted the three paragraphs below. –Hajor 19:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Although it also might not be a coincidence that he introduced monotheism, and quoted the Psalms of Moses. Could it be that he began to worship the God of the Israelites? Sources indicate that the 13 long lines of the poem were praise for Aten as the creator and preserver of the world. Within it, there are no allusions to traditional mythical concepts since the names of the other gods are absent. Even the plural form of the word god was avoided. Akhenaten also ordered the closure of the temples dedicated to all the other gods in Egypt. Not only were these temples closed, but in order to extinguish the memory of these gods as much as possible, a veritable persecution took place. Literal armies of stonemasons were sent out all over the land and even into Nubia, above all else, to hack away the image and name of the god Amun.
- Aten was removed from the Egyptian pantheon, and Akhenaten as well as his family and religion, were now the focus of prosecution. Their monuments were destroyed, together with related inscriptions and images, as in the case of Hatshepsut.
- It is said that one day, the high priest, Ay, led in the priests of Amon and killed the entire family except the 6 daughters, seeing as he himself was still a devout follower of Amun, despite the new religion of the pharaoh. The youngest daughter was in love with Tutankaten. They were allowed to marry, and Tutankaten reigned for only a short while before dying. But before he died, he changed his name to Tutankamun (which indicates that he was probably asked to change his religion or die, and he chose to change his name). His wife, now widow, had also changed her name from Akensenpaaten to Akensenamun. She wrote a letter to the Hittite king asking him to allow her to marry one of her sons, but the king refused. So Akensenamun married Ay, the self-pronounced pharaoh, and ex-high priest.
Tiye connection
It's possible that that point "Twelve years after the death of Amenhotep III she is still mentioned in inscriptions as Queen and beloved of the King" was transcribed into the article incorrectly. However, it would be perfectly reasonable for her to be referred to that way before the death of her husband, so it would not be any cause for remark. I do know that she post-deceased him, and I think it was by a considerable margin, so "twelve years after" is not unreasonable. Do you have something to cite which shows this is wrong? Noel 15:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Anon changed it back to 'before', which makes no sense (so I reverted to 'after') in this context. Tiy page supports this. Rd232 14:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I left a note on their talk page pointing them to the discussion here. Noel (talk) 15:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ankhenaten and Ankhenaton
Ankhenaten and Ankhenaton are pretty rare (Google count of 658 and 250, respectively) compared to the others (Akhnaten - 11,800; Akhenaton - 93,600; Akhnaton - 19,900; Ikhnaton - 2,750), so I would propose removing them. I suspect they are conflation typos with "ankh", actually. I would be happy to leave redirects at Ankhenaten and Ankhenaton, but I would rather not mention them in the article unless they are valid transliterations of the name. Noel (talk) 16:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Akhenaten's Burial
Someone added "A widespread belief held that, because of the disrespectful handling of the funerary procedures of the Pharaoh, he would return as an incarnation in the body of one of his lineal descendants.", which I reverted. There are things along these lines to be said about Akhenaten's burial; but they need backing up, and probably a separate section. So far I've only found Graham Phillips (Act of God), which has some persuasive speculation about KV55 being originally designed for Akhenaten, and then being reused for Smenkhare in a special burial designed to contain the goddess of destruction Sekhmet which the priests seemed to think had inhabited his body - and possibly Akhenaten's before it. (This special burial may have followed an attempt to contain Sekhmet's influence by destroying Akhenaten's body, which apparently didn't work.) ...anyway, I've not (yet) found any support for this type of thing elsewhere. With proper backup (if any forthcoming), a separate sub/section on it would be justified. Rd232 11:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Atenist revolution
It is well worth having material about the significance and nature about the Atenist revolution in Wikipedia - more than there was in earlier versions - but it now dominates Akhenaten's entry too much (and could do with a little more structure). Let's make a separate article about that, link to it in the Main article: Atenism style, and keep a summary here. Rd232 15:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think that's a wonderful idea. We can add some redirects to that too, e.g. Amarna heresy. Go for it! Noel (talk) 19:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
