SoA Forums

[Redirected from the tail end of Why Would Non-Flanked Formations Rout?]

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 15, 2018, 07:44:13 PM
After all Sophocles wrote some of his Theban plays after the Athenian expedition to Egypt

As did Euripides. Aeschylus wrote his only extant Oedipus story play, Seven Against Thebes, beforehand.  I am not sure what this tells us apart from the fact that Athenians and their playwrights showed interest in the story both before and after the Athenian expedition to Egypt.  Unfortunately the loss of the majority of the plays written by all three major playwrights of the period mean we cannot really determine whether the expedition triggered fresh interest in the story and/or brought to light new information.

QuoteThe problem with Oedipus is that you have to look at the various sources were have, Sophocles and others and decide what they, as writers, added to the story from their own experience, and what was passed down originally ...

Yes, very true (Oedipus ages along with Sophocles, for example), and one does find a number of Grecised additions and changes, for example the 'beards' of Polyneices and Eteocles and the whole transfer of the story from Egypt's capital to Cadmus' colony.  But much is nevertheless preserved and directly comparable with Egyptian source material, for example:

"Thebes of all cities you hold foremost in honour* ..." - Sophocles, Antigone line 1137

*timas, from timē, worship, esteem, honour.

This is certainly true of Egyptian Thebes of the Eighteenth Dynasty, which awed and was admired by all who visited it (Akhenaten being an obvious exception), not least because it was the capital of the mightiest empire any of the visitors would have seen.  I have a hard time picturing an Athenian or anyone else applying it to Greek Thebes at any time in the latter's history. ;)

In any event, the Greek additions and insertions simply make the actual correspondences with the Egyptian events so much more remarkable.  The basic story also explains very well what happened after Akhenaten was deposed: his sons agreed to rule the realm in turn, but after one turn the younger refused to yield to the elder and the elder went off to seek allies abroad to reclaim his birthright.  He returned and fought a successful war up to the walls of Thebes (one illustrated by the fragmentary Amarna papyrus Duncan and I referred to).  Then the war entered a stalemate, which was resolved by a duel.  Both participants perished as a result of the duel, which triggered the suicide of their mother (Jocasta/Tiy).  Creon/Ay, who had arranged for Eteocles/Tutankhamun's army to make a surprise attack on that of Polyneices/Smenkhare no matter what the outcome of the duel, became the next ruler and decreed that the brother who had defended his homeland should receive a special burial (Tutankhamun; KV 62) while the other should be denied any.  The older brother's body was subsequently given funeral rites (KV 55) by his sister (Meritaten left a small gold plaque with a song to her beloved) but of a very improvised nature (Tiy's catafalque, Meritaten's own canopic vessels and other borrowed materials) for which the sister was punished by being confined within a pit with a limited supply of food and water (KV54), in which she eventually hanged herself.

The circumstances of the tale also explain the enigmatic KV63, the cache of coffins and embalming materials: Ay/Creon gave effect to his order by confiscating much extant royal funerary equipment and storing it where it would not be found.

One other feature also blends nicely: Oedipus went blind.  In the Greek story, he blinds himself, but in the Egyptian context, blindness is to be expected after several years of adoring the majesty of the Aten.  (The tomb of Aten priest Ptahwer at Amarna contains a prayer for Amun to restore the supplicant's sight, so it may not have been only Akhenaten who suffered blindness from daily sun-gazing; one wonders about Nefertiti's disappearance from public view in the latter part of Akhenaten's reign.)

QuoteI don't think the problem is a connection between Thebes and Egypt in the Mycenaean period, or even that the Greeks recorded information about Egyptian affairs.  It is the leap of saying that a Greek myth is lifted in detail from Egyptian events and that somehow that detailed original survived to appear in drama hundreds of years later.  You have no evidence for this except that you have noted "similarities", some of which (e,g. the death of Tutankhamun) are subject to multiple interpretations already.

If we want to use 'similarities' to describe these unique details, then so be it. :)  That there may be multiple interpretations of the death of Tutankhamun is immaterial: none of them have considered the evidence offered by the Oedipus story, which casts everything in a new light.

The conicidental details exist in profusion throughout the Oedipus story.  Some of them shed light on the events and personalities of the Amarna period; others confirm the pattern of old king succeeded by exiled son (Tushratta's letters to Akhenaten show the latter was not au fait with matters at the Egyptian court), who murders him (erases his name) and marries the old king's wife (relief of Akhenaten and Tiy crowned and seated opposite each other with a very young Beketaten present from Year 12 of Akhenaten's reign).  Oedipus also had another younger wife, Eurygeneia ('fruitful'); Akhenaten has Nefertiti (and various minor wives who were not prominent enough to make it into Greek legend).  After a 17- or 20-year reign Oedipus is dethroned and replaced by his sons; Akhenaten's reign lasts either 17 or 20 years, and he is replaced by his sons.

The sons agree to rule annually in turn, but after one year each the younger son usurps the elder.  We have Year 1 of Smenkhare but no Year 2. We have Years 1-9 of Tutankhamun.  This is consistent with the story.  The elder son heads off to raise foreign allies to enforce his claim.  There is a war, which culminates at the gates of Thebes.  The Amarna papyrus (I think it is British Museum 10011) shows foreign troops, specifically Achaean Greeks and Libyans, in combat with, and most importantly, defeating, Egyptians (such a portrayal is unique in Egyptian art), placing such a conflict within the Amarna period.  The war is resolved by a duel in which both claimants die, and I have already described events thereafter.

That is a lot of 'similarities', and by no means an exhaustive list.  Yes, there are detail differences which have crept in, and there are multiple minor variations in the Greek versions, but the core of the story indicates that in the Oedipus plays we have a record of historical events from the tail end of the Amarna period.

Intriguing from my point of view is that from the allies of 'Polyneices' (Smenkhare) we also get a significant clue about the dynasty which followed Ay's subsequent demise.

QuoteThat there may be multiple interpretations of the death of Tutankhamun is immaterial: none of them have considered the evidence offered by the Oedipus story, which casts everything in a new light.

So, details of the death of Tutankhamun supports the idea that the Oedipus story is set in Egypt and a particular interpretation of the death of Tutankhamun is to be preferred because it fits the Oedipus story?

It isn't my period but, due to living with a kemetophile, I get to see almost every new Tutankhamun documentary when it turns up on the TV so I am aware that the story of the Great Apostacy and the return of True Religion is full of uncertainties and conflicting interpretations.  In part this is due to deliberate rewriting of history, in part because we have an incomplete understanding of the relationships between the characters and because the physical evidence is confusing.  We should be very wary of any attempt to be definitive which does not take into account this complexity. 

Quote from: Erpingham on December 16, 2018, 11:20:50 AM
It isn't my period but, due to living with a kemetophile, I get to see almost every new Tutankhamun documentary when it turns up on the TV so I am aware that the story of the Great Apostacy and the return of True Religion is full of uncertainties and conflicting interpretations.  In part this is due to deliberate rewriting of history, in part because we have an incomplete understanding of the relationships between the characters and because the physical evidence is confusing.  We should be very wary of any attempt to be definitive which does not take into account this complexity.

So very true.  Yet how is one to explain the basics if not simply?

Actually, the Oedipus story explains so much about the events and personalities of the Amarna period that it should be considered a golden gift to historians.  One snippet which may interest a kemetophile: Nakhtmin is a strange and shadowy figure in Ay's Akhmim clan.  Painstaking work by Egyptologists (mainly a matter of elimination of a list of possibilities down to one) has established that Nakhtmin was Ay's son and designated successor.  We also know that he was a general in the army and honorary fan-bearer to Tutankhamun.

So who is his alter-ego in the Oedipus story?  One can point instantly to Creon's son Haimon ('skilled'), who is his designated heir and betrothed to the recently-widowed Antigone.  He kills himself when she is found hanging.

This tells us that Nakhtmin was indeed Ay's son intended successor and that Ay had betrothed Nakhtmin to Meritaten as part of his scheme to legitimise his own power (having himself married Ankhesenamun) and that Nakhtmin suddenly disappears from the records because he committed suicide.

In essence, the Oedipus story is a cipher which contains much information on the closing years of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

QuoteIn essence, the Oedipus story is a cipher which contains much information on the closing years of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

Or not.  The only person who seems to have thought this was Velikovsky.  I know you are a fan of his and therefore presumably have his book on the subject.  For those who like these sorts of things, there is also a theory on the internet that Akhenaten was Moses.

As I've mentioned, historians (even amateur ones) should be doubly careful when it comes to periods of history with a lack of solid facts but a huge amount of public interest.  In this case, we lack clear evidence that Akhenaten had any problems with incest (Egyptian royals tended not to), no evidence he was blind, no evidence that he asked his sons to share the throne (most people seem to think he was actually suceeded by a daughter), lack of evidence that his predecessor was still alive during Tutankhamun's reign, a shortage of evidence for a big civil war, uncertainty over Tutankhamun's cause of death (let alone detailed accounts of a duel to the death) and no reference to a major siege of Thebes during his reign.

Even by your standards Patrick, you have to admit that evidence for this interpretation is slight.

Oedipus and Akhanton [sic] was published in 1960 and thereafter generally ignored despite the remarkable detective work it displayed.  Had it been written by anyone else I have little doubt it would have become canonical.

I am glad at least someone has read it.

Quote from: Erpingham on December 16, 2018, 07:59:39 PM
In this case, we lack clear evidence that Akhenaten had any problems with incest (Egyptian royals tended not to),

He had absolutely no problems with it.  As is pointed out in Oedipus and Akhnaton, it was the Egyptians who had problems with the mother-son relationship, and they were not over-keen on the father-son relationship either.  The father-daugher relationships may have been neither here nor there, although Herodotus' Mycerinus was referred to in negative terms over his suspected relationship with his own daughter, which is indicative of general Egyptian disapproval, so Akhenaten seems to have managed just about every kind of forbidden relationship while almost uniquely not marrying his own sister (not sure if he had one; Nefertiti may have been Ay's and Ty's issue).

Quoteno evidence he was blind,

Albeit certain of his Amarna style statues show characteristics of weak eyesight.  And we do know that at least one of his principal Aten-admiring followers went blind.  And by 'no evidence' I believe 'no Egyptian documentary evidence' is meant, because there is clear Greek evidence, even if the Greek explanation is incorrect.  There is also the common sense understanding about what years of gazing on the revealed majesty of the Aten on a daily basis would do to the eyesight (do not try this at home!).

Quoteno evidence that he asked his sons to share the throne (most people seem to think he was actually suceeded by a daughter),

But he did not ask - they took it from him.  Regarding the presumed feminine succession, the confusion over Smenkhare being redesignated as 'Neferneferuaten' late in Akhenaten's reign seems to have thrown many people.

Quotelack of evidence that his predecessor was still alive during Tutankhamun's reign,

Again, lack of direct Egyptian evidence from an era whose records (such as they were) were subject to much erasure by future generations.  Greek sources provide the missing evidence.

Quotea shortage of evidence for a big civil war,

Does this admit to some evidence? :)

Quoteuncertainty over Tutankhamun's cause of death

Which can now be resolved.

Quote(let alone detailed accounts of a duel to the death)

We do have Tutankhamun's wounds, which correspond exactly with those inflicted in the duel in Euripides' Phoenissae.  Since these wounds were not discovered until the CT scans of 2004 were evaluated in 2005, any theories from before that date were based on significantly incomplete information and can be discarded.  The latest theory seems to be that Tutankhamun was bitten by a hippopotamus, although this does not explain how traces of gold leaf came to be in his leg wound.  (The idea of a hippo with a gold filling can be discounted!)

Quoteand no reference to a major siege of Thebes during his reign.

For purposes of comparison, can you find any Egyptian record of the Assyrian capture of Thebes in 663 BC?  This is a well-attested key event and indeed the first fixed date in Egyptian history.  Yet there seems ot be no problem relying on non-Egyptian sources for this cornerstone episode in Egyptian history.

QuoteEven by your standards Patrick, you have to admit that evidence for this interpretation is slight.

On the contrary, evidence is abundant.  The Greek evidence ties in with and fills the gaps in the Egyptian evidence.  It is the Egyptian evidence on its own which is slight; adding in the Greek evidence provides a much more complete picture.

Quick observation on the philosophy of interpreting history ...

It seems the objections are along the lines of: Egyptian records are lacking, but we cannot accept clarification from another source, even when that source contains may points of identification; we must have our evidence in Egyptian records or not at all.

Exceptions are made for Assyrian evidence, albeit only after Assyria invades Egypt. Force majeure?  26th Dynasty records are so deficient that Egyptian history of the period is made up from Greek and Assyrian testimony with a dash of Hebrew contribution.  I do not see the validity of objecting to using Greek sources to make up deficiencies in 18th Dynasty Egyptian history.

QuoteOn the contrary, evidence is abundant.  The Greek evidence ties in with and fills the gaps in the Egyptian evidence.  It is the Egyptian evidence on its own which is slight; adding in the Greek evidence provides a much more complete picture.

Quick observation on the philosophy of interpreting history ...

It seems the objections are along the lines of: Egyptian records are lacking, but we cannot accept clarification from another source, even when that source contains may points of identification; we must have our evidence in Egyptian records or not at all.

Exceptions are made for Assyrian evidence, albeit only after Assyria invades Egypt. Force majeure?  26th Dynasty records are so deficient that Egyptian history of the period is made up from Greek and Assyrian testimony with a dash of Hebrew contribution.  I do not see the validity of objecting to using Greek sources to make up deficiencies in 18th Dynasty Egyptian history.

But you are not using a Greek source for the history of Egypt.  You are taking the text of a play written in the 5th century set in the heroic past of the Greek city of Thebes and claiming it is a detailed recollection of a translation of a lost Egyptian original from many centuries before about Thebes in Egypt.  The obvious historical approach in this case would be to start from a critical reading of Euripedes in his cultural context, to see if his work fits alongside other versions of the story and whether what happens is seen through a Greek or Egyptian perspective.  Does the description, for example, fit with other Greek heroic stories (e.g. Homer) or is it notably alien? 

Fascinating, though it is reminiscent of the sort of TV programme where Ancient Alien theorists believe that some carving on an Egyptian relief is a giant lightbulb.
The idea that a story might make its way across distance, cultural divides and time is not at all implausible and that a playwright picks it up and re uses it is well in line with what playwrights do.
As Erpingham says, though, it would need a lot more corroboration before one could claim that such reverse engineering was acceptable historical evidence. He is right too that a lot could be done to buttress the case with analysis of the play's author, the sources of his other work  and the generality if artistic transmission from  Egypt to Greece. Early Greek statuary, for example, is very much derived from Egyptian models.
Then too, good stories are rare and precious and do travel ( shades of Joseph Campbell here) On Michael Wood's TV Oddessy folliwing Alexander he found 'Persian'  storytellers still telling stories of Alexander the Great, though with extensive accretions, that is 2,200 years after the event. Perhaps Patrick might find some support in the sources and content of Herodotus' stories from Egypt?
Roy

Thanks, Roy.

Herodotus unfortunately passes over this particular episode in silence (perhaps unsurprising as his Egyptian priest sources were doubtless not enamoured of the Criminal of Akhetaten), but he is very useful for what happened immediately thereafter, the transition event being provided by a single sentence in Ammianus.

This is one point which I consider significantly in favour of identifying the Oedipus story with the Amarna period in Egypt: it forms part of a cohesive and logical pattern (I might be the only one seeing the logic at the moment, but the pattern is there).  The other point is that there are so many spot-on correspondences (or 'similarities') of the sort historians attempting cross-cultural synchronisation would give their eye teeth for; this kind of multiple match-up is not coincidental.

One of the features I tested was whether the Oedipus story could correlate with any other period in Egyptian history.  The result was a big no: this pattern is not replicated in any other dynasty, or at least any for which we have enough information to judge.

Another important aspect of any such attempted correlation is what we can derive from it, and whether this results in useful additional identifications (or just blind alleys).  In this respect, the Greek plays give us a clue about the tail end of Akhenaten's life, the part Egyptian records do not cover.  They have him wandering in exile - in Greece itself.  (How is that for a transmission link?)  They also have him soliloquising or expostulating that he would dearly love to be buried in his native land (Thebes of many chariots) - and that is the last we hear of him.

From these clues in the Oedipus cycle we can nevertheless work out what ultimately happened to him, and identify his mummy (it is not the one from KV 55).  The clues from the Oedipus cycle are merely pointers: the clinching evidence is provided by Gaston Maspero and his mummy unwrapping team and by subsequent recent examination of the body in question.

QuoteFascinating, though it is reminiscent of the sort of TV programme where Ancient Alien theorists believe that some carving on an Egyptian relief is a giant lightbulb.

That would be the Dendera Lightbulbs (https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/649920/Rare-hieroglyphs-showing-Egyptians-with-electrical-light-bulbs-are-proof-of-time-travel) (or whatever they actually were).

They do look the part.  One wonders what people thought they were before lightbulbs and Crookes tubes were invented.

Quote from: Erpingham on December 17, 2018, 09:56:43 AM
But you are not using a Greek source for the history of Egypt.  You are taking the text of a play written in the 5th century set in the heroic past of the Greek city of Thebes and claiming it is a detailed recollection of a translation of a lost Egyptian original from many centuries before about Thebes in Egypt.

Historians use Greek plays for information on aspects of Greek life and equipment (Aristophanes' plays are considered particularly useful for 5th century BC Athenian military equipment), so to deny a play status as a source seems strange.

I am not claiming it is a recollection of a translation of a lost Egyptian original, merely that the original events made sufficient impression for someone in Greece to take the trouble to remember and record them, that they were passed on to posterity and were seized on as material for 5th century BC Athenian plays, where despite an element of reworking much of the original detail was preserved.

QuoteThe obvious historical approach in this case would be to start from a critical reading of Euripedes in his cultural context, to see if his work fits alongside other versions of the story and whether what happens is seen through a Greek or Egyptian perspective.  Does the description, for example, fit with other Greek heroic stories (e.g. Homer) or is it notably alien?

It is quite alien; family-based tragedies are nothing new to Greek drama, but cross-generational marriage is to say the least extremely rare.  There are other curiously foreign elements like the characteristically Egyptian sphinx and Thebes being referred to as 'of many chariots' and 'first among the nations in honour' (or respect or prestige).  Another curiosity is that Laius (the Oedipus story equivalent of Amenhotep III) sparks the anger of the gods and originates the dreadful curse by entering into a homosexual relationship with a boy - hardly what one would expect as the origin of a terrible curse in a story originating in Greece.  (Velikovsky actually traces some of this in his introductory chapters; it was the culturally jarring bits which caused him to start looking outside Greece, and the sphinx which pointed him towards Egypt's Eighteenth Dynasty.)

Patrick, I suggest that you are giving yourself a more difficult task than necessary by diving straight into the detail. It seems incredible that a story would be transmitted with exact wounds and similar minutiae. You have to make that seem more credible.
It would help if you could cite some evidence of the transmission of stories from Egypt to Greece abd the level of detail concerned.  What would be the method of transition? Were there bards? Were Greeks in Egypt in some special way just before the play was performed?  Were the priests involved? ( priesthoods being excellent means of freezing and maintaining stories, the Nicene creed being 1700 years old abd still being exactly reproduced)  Did said playwright use other Egyptian stories? Were other pkays derived from Egyptian themes? As I said earlier , can we see other cultural media flowing in the same direction.
Without a context within which detailed stories are shown to have travelled the route from Egypt to Greece the very level if detail that you are claiming becomes a barrier to believing your thesis.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on December 17, 2018, 09:55:56 PM
Patrick, I suggest that you are giving yourself a more difficult task than necessary by diving straight into the detail. It seems incredible that a story would be transmitted with exact wounds and similar minutiae. You have to make that seem more credible.
It would help if you could cite some evidence of the transmission of stories from Egypt to Greece and the level of detail concerned.

Well, there is one rather obvious 'context within which detailed stories are shown to have travelled the route from Egypt to Greece' - Oedipus himself.  The story puts the exiled Oedipus in Athens, where he is hosted by Theseus (Sophocles moves him to Colonnus, but that was Sophocles' birthplace so most probably also Sophocles' interpolation).  And Oedipus (Akhenaten) is not alone: he has his daughter Antigone (Beketaten) with him.  Interestingly, the Greek story knows nothing of Oedipus' end, a strange condition given that his presence in Greece is a feature throughout, but entirely understandable if he left the country prior to his decease (e.g. hoping to arrange to be buried in his homeland).  This cut-off point is certainly consistent with the primary source of information being Oedipus (Akhenaten) himself, perhaps supplemented by his dutiful daughter, who would have accompanied him on his return.

Most Greek stories about Egypt were picked up by Greeks who went to Egypt.  Here is an example of the level of detail they could bring back (Herodotus II.121):

This king (they told me) had great wealth in silver, so great that none of the succeeding kings could surpass or come near it. To store his treasure safely, he had a stone chamber built, one of its walls abutting on the outer side of his palace. But the builder of it shrewdly provided that one stone be so placed as to be easily removed by two men or even by one. So when the chamber was finished, the king stored his treasure in it, and as time went on, the builder, drawing near the end of his life, summoned his sons (he had two) and told them how he had provided for them, that they have an ample livelihood, by the art with which he had built the king's treasure-house; explaining clearly to them how to remove the stone, he gave the coordinates of it, and told them that if they kept these in mind, they would be the custodians of the king's riches. So when he was dead, his sons got to work at once: coming to the palace by night, they readily found and managed the stone in the building, and took away much of the treasure.

So far it is rather Ali Baba, but it rapidly becomes less of a fairy tale.

When the king opened the building, he was amazed to see the containers lacking their treasure; yet he did not know whom to accuse, seeing that the seals were unbroken and the building shut fast. But when less treasure appeared the second and third times he opened the building (for the thieves did not stop plundering), he had traps made and placed around the containers in which his riches were stored. The thieves came just as before, and one of them crept in; when he came near the container, right away he was caught in the trap. When he saw the trouble he was in, he called to his brother right away and explained to him the problem, and told him to come in quickly and cut off his head, lest he be seen and recognised and destroy him, too. He seemed to have spoken rightly to the other, who did as he was persuaded and then, replacing the stone, went home, carrying his brother's head.

When day came, the king went to the building, and was amazed to see in the trap the thief's body without a head, yet the building intact, with no way in or out. At a loss, he did as follows: he suspended the thief's body from the wall and set guards over it, instructing them to seize and bring to him any whom they saw weeping or making lamentation.

It gets more detailed.

But the thief's mother, when the body had been hung up, was terribly stricken: she had words with her surviving son, and told him that he was somehow to think of some way to cut loose and bring her his brother's body, and if he did not obey, she threatened to go to the king and denounce him as having the treasure.

The resultant plan and its implementation are described in full.

So when his mother bitterly reproached the surviving son and for all that he said he could not dissuade her, he devised a plan: he harnessed asses and put skins full of wine on the asses, then set out driving them; and when he was near those who were guarding the hanging body, he pulled at the feet of two or three of the skins and loosed their fastenings; [2] and as the wine ran out, he beat his head and cried aloud like one who did not know to which ass he should turn first, while the guards, when they saw the wine flowing freely, ran out into the road with cups and caught what was pouring out, thinking themselves in luck; [3] feigning anger, the man cursed all; but as the guards addressed him peaceably, he pretended to be soothed and to relent in his anger, and finally drove his asses out of the road and put his harness in order. [4] And after more words passed and one joked with him and got him to laugh, he gave them one of the skins: and they lay down there just as they were, disposed to drink, and included him and told him to stay and drink with them; and he consented and stayed. [5] When they cheerily saluted him in their drinking, he gave them yet another of the skins; and the guards grew very drunk with the abundance of liquor, and lay down right there where they were drinking, overpowered by sleep; [6] but he, when it was late at night, cut down the body of his brother and shaved the right cheek of each of the guards for the indignity, and loading the body on his asses, drove home, fulfilling his mother's commands.

We may note the detail with which the man's actions are described, together with other small details (part-shaving the guards, indicating for the historian that the latter were not Egyptian).

The story goes on to describe how the pharaoh tried to catch the enterprising fellow by pandering his own daughter and getting her to ask each man what was the most daring deed he had performed.  Again, the story here is quite detailed.

When the king learned that the body of the thief had been taken, he was beside himself and, obsessed with finding who it was who had managed this, did as follows—they say, but I do not believe it. [2] He put his own daughter in a brothel, instructing her to accept all alike and, before having intercourse, to make each tell her the shrewdest and most impious thing he had done in his life; whoever told her the story of the thief, she was to seize and not let get out. [3] The girl did as her father told her, and the thief, learning why she was doing this, did as follows, wanting to get the better of the king by craft. [4] He cut the arm off a fresh corpse at the shoulder, and went to the king's daughter, carrying it under his cloak, and when asked the same question as the rest, he said that his most impious act had been when he had cut the head off his brother who was caught in a trap in the king's treasury; and his shrewdest, that after making the guards drunk he had cut down his brother's hanging body. [5] When she heard this, the princess grabbed for him; but in the darkness the thief let her have the arm of the corpse; and clutching it, she held on, believing that she had the arm of the other; but the thief, after giving it to her, was gone in a flash out the door.

The enterprising thief was eventually amnestied and given the pharaoh's daughter in marriage (he must have made quite an impression).  We may note that the level of detail is if anything greater than that preserved in the Oedipus stories, or at least the plays derived therefrom.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 17, 2018, 07:55:37 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on December 17, 2018, 09:56:43 AM
But you are not using a Greek source for the history of Egypt.  You are taking the text of a play written in the 5th century set in the heroic past of the Greek city of Thebes and claiming it is a detailed recollection of a translation of a lost Egyptian original from many centuries before about Thebes in Egypt.

Historians use Greek plays for information on aspects of Greek life and equipment (Aristophanes' plays are considered particularly useful for 5th century BC Athenian military equipment), so to deny a play status as a source seems strange.

You have missed the point.  Aristophanes was a 5th century BC Athenian, so is a possible source for 5th century BC Athenian things.  You wouldn't use Shakespeare as a source for 11th century Scottish tactics but you may well use him for details of Elizabethan life.

Quote
I am not claiming it is a recollection of a translation of a lost Egyptian original, merely that the original events made sufficient impression for someone in Greece to take the trouble to remember and record them, that they were passed on to posterity and were seized on as material for 5th century BC Athenian plays, where despite an element of reworking much of the original detail was preserved.

This whole discussion started when you claimed the details of the fight between Etocles and Polynices showed detailed knowledge of a duel between Tutankhamun and Smenkhare, including the use of Egyptian weapons.

Quote

QuoteThe obvious historical approach in this case would be to start from a critical reading of Euripedes in his cultural context, to see if his work fits alongside other versions of the story and whether what happens is seen through a Greek or Egyptian perspective.  Does the description, for example, fit with other Greek heroic stories (e.g. Homer) or is it notably alien?

It is quite alien; family-based tragedies are nothing new to Greek drama, but cross-generational marriage is to say the least extremely rare. 

Again, you seem to have missed the point.  The story is one covered by other writers and playwrights - it cannot therefore be considered alien to the traditions of Greek literature.  It may have been popular because of its great potential for tragedy - family conflict, mistaken identities, the outworking of fate, but that would be to embark on a discussion of the evolution of Greek drama, which isn't what we are about.  However, back to where we started, does the detailed description of the duel fit the Greek tradition of heroic combat or is it notably alien?

Would not matter if the duel fitted Greekbtraditions as stories are changed by transmission to fit  the understanding of the audience, hence king Arthur and his knights, tourneys etc.
I worry a bit about Patrick seeing 'detail' as somehow indicative of accurate transmission, unless that detail is entirely something that could only happen in Egypt.
What is suppirtive is that Fift century Greeks actively sought and disseminated Egyptian stories which the cite does prove.
Kastly, I take the point on Shakespeare, but if we had no modern survivals of Latin literature, then it would be useful to have Julius Caesar as evidence for the end of the Republic.
Roy

QuoteKastly, I take the point on Shakespeare, but if we had no modern survivals of Latin literature, then it would be useful to have Julius Caesar as evidence for the end of the Republic.

We might, and if we did we would do so cautiously.  However, that isn't the parallel here.  That would be "In the absence of historical records from Mycenaean period Thebes, to what extent am I willing to treat the legendary tale of Oedipus as evidence of the development of that city?".  If you told me that Shakespeare's Julius Caesar allowed us to accurately reconstruct the career and death of Alexander the Great, you'd be less likely to get an accomodating reply.

Quote from: aligern on December 18, 2018, 11:42:36 AM
Kastly, I take the point on Shakespeare, but if we had no modern survivals of Latin literature, then it would be useful to have Julius Caesar as evidence for the end of the Republic.
Roy

No.
If there was no surviving Latin literature, there would be NO Julius Caesar by Shakespeare.
Shakespeare knew nothing about Julius Caesar, but he did read some Latin literature.

And no Patrick, we can't use this logic in reverse, because the Oedipal play shows no knowledge of Egyptian history or Egyptian histories.

You mistake my point Nicholas. Let me be clear. If no Latin literature survived today, but Plutarch had been available in Shakespeare's time, before being lost, then our knowledge of Caesar would derive from Shakespeare.
We could then argue about how accurate Shakespeare's Julius Caesar was as a portrayal of a period where the only infirnation was based upon coins, the odd inscription and statuary. We would be in much the same situation as Patrick claims for Tutankhamun, where we had detailed information that accorded with the few facts that we had, but dare we trust the level of detail.
Roy

Quote from: Erpingham on December 18, 2018, 10:42:23 AM
You have missed the point.  Aristophanes was a 5th century BC Athenian, so is a possible source for 5th century BC Athenian things.  You wouldn't use Shakespeare as a source for 11th century Scottish tactics but you may well use him for details of Elizabethan life.

Shakespeare wrote a number of historical plays and in some of these plays kings die quite historical deaths.  Are we to say he is unusable as a source, e.g. on Richard III's crook-back and demise?  He actually did rather better on the whole than many modern historians prior to a particular discovery under a certain car park.

QuoteThis whole discussion started when you claimed the details of the fight between Etocles and Polynices showed detailed knowledge of a duel between Tutankhamun and Smenkhare, including the use of Egyptian weapons.

That is eminently correct.  What puzzles me is where the idea of translation of a written Egyptian original emerged from.

QuoteAgain, you seem to have missed the point.  The story is one covered by other writers and playwrights - it cannot therefore be considered alien to the traditions of Greek literature.

I think we might need a more careful definition here.  If a particular story carries some oddly non-Greek cultural elements, I would class it as alien to Greek culture no matter how many playwrights adopt it.  (There are incidentally a few inconsistencies in the Greek Oedipus cycle, notably the need for one Antigone to do the work of two; one who accompanies her father into exile, and one who perishes for burying her brother.  Sophocles does his best to shuttle his single Antigone back and forth, but has something of a Schroedinger's Cat problem with her just the same.)

QuoteHowever, back to where we started, does the detailed description of the duel fit the Greek tradition of heroic combat or is it notably alien?

Perhaps we can list the two most outstanding alien features.

1) Spy holes in the shields.
2) No thrown spears (duels in the Iliad, our principal source for Greek heroic combat, involve and usually begin with thrown spears).

These are clear and distinctive differences from the Greek norm.

Quote from: Dangun on December 18, 2018, 05:59:28 PM

Quote from: aligern on December 18, 2018, 11:42:36 AM
Lastly, I take the point on Shakespeare, but if we had no modern survivals of Latin literature, then it would be useful to have Julius Caesar as evidence for the end of the Republic.
Roy

No.
If there was no surviving Latin literature, there would be NO Julius Caesar by Shakespeare.

Roy is positing Latin literature which survived up to Shakespeare's time but not ours.

QuoteAnd no Patrick, we can't use this logic in reverse, because the Oedipal play shows no knowledge of Egyptian history or Egyptian histories.

It is correlation with Egyptian details which is relevant.  Whether or not Greek playwrights knew of Egyptian history is immaterial.  It is actually better that they did not, because then the details they preserve cannot have been deliberately adjusted to fit their knowledge or belief.

QuoteShakespeare wrote a number of historical plays and in some of these plays kings die quite historical deaths.  Are we to say he is unusable as a source, e.g. on Richard III's crook-back and demise?  He actually did rather better on the whole than many modern historians prior to a particular discovery under a certain car park.

It is really a different discussion but we can show easily why Shakespeare said those things - we still have the history books on which he based them.  A lot of work has been done on Shakespeare's inspiration by literary critics.  Perhaps we should do the Greek playwrights a similar honour and look at how they fit into their context rather than dreaming of disguised Egyptian originals?

QuoteI think we might need a more careful definition here.  If a particular story carries some oddly non-Greek cultural elements, I would class it as alien to Greek culture no matter how many playwrights adopt it. 

This is indeed a problem.  When I initially wrote about alien to Greek culture, I meant it didn't fit in the legendary narrative as widely understood at the time.  It clearly did, given the number of versions of the story in existence.

QuotePerhaps we can list the two most outstanding alien features.

1) Spy holes in the shields.
2) No thrown spears (duels in the Iliad, our principal source for Greek heroic combat, involve and usually begin with thrown spears).

These are clear and distinctive differences from the Greek norm.

But experts on hoplite warfare seem to consider it a classic example of a classical Greek hoplite fight, albeit maybe with some antique features thrown in (like Theban shields, because they are Theban heroes).  I don't know where you are drawing your details of Egyptian dueling from.  I'm not aware of any but I admit I've not studied Egyptian warfare in any detail.  Can you quote your source?

We might also note that evidence for shields with holes is far from definitive - indeed Duncan quoted a paper recently which doubted they existed at all.

Quote from: Erpingham on December 19, 2018, 10:11:19 AM
It is really a different discussion but we can show easily why Shakespeare said those things - we still have the history books on which he based them.  A lot of work has been done on Shakespeare's inspiration by literary critics.  Perhaps we should do the Greek playwrights a similar honour and look at how they fit into their context rather than dreaming of disguised Egyptian originals?

Two points spring to mind here:

1) The means of information transmission would have been people.  Greeks fought in Smenkhare's army.  They saw the duel.  The survivors would not have forgotten the details when they returned home; the fall of the world's greatest kingdom tends to make an impression on those who witness it at first hand.  Centuries later, playwrights take what survives from their dusty Greek sources and put their own 'spin' on it, but some details escape their attentions.  Do we need to look any further than this as a transmission mechanism, and if so, why?

2) What can be gained by looking at how Greek playwrights 'fit into their context'?  Apologies if I am wrong, but this looks to me like sociology rather than history.

Quote

QuoteI think we might need a more careful definition here.  If a particular story carries some oddly non-Greek cultural elements, I would class it as alien to Greek culture no matter how many playwrights adopt it. 

This is indeed a problem.  When I initially wrote about alien to Greek culture, I meant it didn't fit in the legendary narrative as widely understood at the time.  It clearly did, given the number of versions of the story in existence.

I am a bit puzzled about how this attempted classification serves any useful purpose in evaluating the veracity or usefulness of the details in the plays.  Some elucidation would be welome.

Quote

QuotePerhaps we can list the two most outstanding alien features.

1) Spy holes in the shields.
2) No thrown spears (duels in the Iliad, our principal source for Greek heroic combat, involve and usually begin with thrown spears).

These are clear and distinctive differences from the Greek norm.

But experts on hoplite warfare seem to consider it a classic example of a classical Greek hoplite fight, albeit maybe with some antique features thrown in (like Theban shields, because they are Theban heroes).  I don't know where you are drawing your details of Egyptian dueling from.  I'm not aware of any but I admit I've not studied Egyptian warfare in any detail.  Can you quote your source?

Are the goalposts moving? ;)  We began with the aim of identifying elements alien to Greek heroic duelling.  These I pointed out.  If this duel is considered a classic hoplite fight (how many hoplite duels do we know of?), then it is seriously anachronistic given the context of Homer's Iliad and the fighting styles therein being well known to 5th century Greeks; the events of the Oedipus story take place a short time before the Trojan War, so the default fighting style should be 'heroic'.

The idea of a source on Egyptian duelling is a new one.  Duels between contenders for the Egyptian throne were sufficiently rare that nobody would have got around to writing a book on how to conduct one.

My points are a) this is not heroic Greek duelling as we understand it and b) the wounds suffered by Eteocles in the duel are exactly those suffered by Tutankhamun, in the context of a long and consistent series of correspondences between Amarna period history and the Oedipus story.  If it were simply a coincidence in isolation I would not be bothering about it any more than I would about King Ahab and Julian the Apostate each apparently getting a death wound in the same part of the anatomy.

QuoteWe might also note that evidence for shields with holes is far from definitive - indeed Duncan quoted a paper recently which doubted they existed at all.

One paper does not make a certainty, and indeed the core subject of the paper was something completely different.  The author failed to consider that his 'bosses' two thirds of the way up the shield could easily be spy-holes with decorated borders.

It might be worth an observation on Egyptian shield spy-holes.  If one just bores a hole in a shield, one can expect an arrow or javelin-point to find its way through sooner or later.  However the designs for these 'bosses' include spoked wheels (good as a see-through arrow filter) and apparent meshes (doubtless mistaken for solid 'bosses'), which make sense as see-through arrow-stoppers.  Their positioning two thirds of the way up the shield works well for a spy-hole but appallingly for a shield 'boss', especially given the positioning of the grips as noted in Wernick's paper.

I am very keen on context. Its much mor likely that a Greek playwright would use an Egyptian story if Greeks habitually did that, much more likely too if they were in the habit of importing sections whole cloth so to speak, that such sections eould include material that better fitted an Egyptian context.
The context of Celtic societies is tgat they are relatively poor at copying their neighbours forms of warfare. The context of Roman society is thatt they Kit and fighting styles ( where these are successful) , frequently.  Thus when faced with a question about the likelihood of Celts changing fighting style despite defeats I would be more inclined to see them as doggedly conservative, thus Galatians are good evidence for other Celts . Their context and culture indicates that they might take on Greek equipment, but they will use it like Galatians. Romans would adopt Sarmatian cavalry equipment because they had no social barrier tobadopting kit and fighting style.
In contextual terms Heroditusbis a bit of a clincher for Patrick's argument. It would appear that Egyptians, particularly priests, kept alive stories and that Greeks were happy to use these tales.
Of course the lack of a direct reference from the playwright to say that this is an Egyptian story means that Patrick can never compkete the linkage, only move the likelihood up the graph in terms of certainty.
The advantage of proving context furst is that the first proof is plausibility. That is easier to get agreement on because it is generalised abd requires beither side to commit to believing details are true. Beyond plausibity ( ie a context in which Greeks are visiting Egypt and bringing back stories) there is no certainty unless there are direct references to this story being an import and being based upon a particular story fromnEgypt ( say a para in Herodotus) abd tgat we will not get.
Roy

Quote2) What can be gained by looking at how Greek playwrights 'fit into their context'?  Apologies if I am wrong, but this looks to me like sociology rather than history.

And thereby reveals a large difference in historical methodology between us.  Understanding sources in the context of the time, place and culture of where they come from is important.  It also helps to have some idea of the literary or stylistic conventions we are dealing with.  We are dealing with a play, intended to be performed according to certain rules, and to deliver a sense of tragedy and maybe some food for thought.  If we just pick random pieces out of it to construct a theory, we are heading for trouble.

QuoteI am a bit puzzled about how this attempted classification serves any useful purpose in evaluating the veracity or usefulness of the details in the plays.  Some elucidation would be welome.

You asked for clarification of what I meant, so I told you.  I think I have explained enough how in my (orthodox historical) opinion, literature can and cannot be properly used as a source now.

QuoteWe began with the aim of identifying elements alien to Greek heroic duelling.  These I pointed out.  If this duel is considered a classic hoplite fight (how many hoplite duels do we know of?), then it is seriously anachronistic given the context of Homer's Iliad and the fighting styles therein being well known to 5th century Greeks; the events of the Oedipus story take place a short time before the Trojan War, so the default fighting style should be 'heroic'.

No, we started talking about spear fighting, using a quote by Matthews on hoplite combat.  You chose to interpret some elements of this as representing "Egyptian" elements, in particular that it preserved details of an Egyptian duel between Smenkhare and Tutankhamun.  Your argument appears to be the original story, which the details were taken from, must be Egyptian based on nobody throwing spears and the fact that Egyptian shields had holes in them.  This seems rather thin.  Whereas, if we say is this single combat that an Athenian citizen who had served as a hoplite and was familiar with Homer would recognise, it seems to fit rather better.  As to "hoplite duels", images of hoplites dueling (representing heroic originals) are found on any number of ceramics, so I expect any play-attending Athenian would have been very familiar with them.

Ultimately, this discussion is falling into the usual attritional pattern and, as is often the case, it is irresolveable because our entire approach to historical evidence is different.  So what you see as proof I see as very selective evidence collection used in a circular argument to bolster a dramatic theory.

Probably time you and Velikovsky went in one direction and me and orthodoxy went in the other.

Quote from: aligern on December 19, 2018, 11:56:55 PM
Of course the lack of a direct reference from the playwright to say that this is an Egyptian story means that Patrick can never compkete the linkage, only move the likelihood up the graph in terms of certainty.

We do of course have hints like

"... chariot-rich Thebes" - Sophocles, Antigone line 149
"... thou holy ground of Thebe, whose chariots are many" - idem line 844
"Thebes of all cities you hold foremost in honour" - idem line 1137

which point to the Egyptian rather than the Greek Thebes, despite overt references to the latter elsewhere.

Quote from: Erpingham on December 20, 2018, 09:31:03 AM
Understanding sources in the context of the time, place and culture of where they come from is important.

Very much so, but this is not the whole of the story.  The content also matters. :)

QuoteIt also helps to have some idea of the literary or stylistic conventions we are dealing with.  We are dealing with a play, intended to be performed according to certain rules, and to deliver a sense of tragedy and maybe some food for thought.

But a play based on past events, not imagination.  All of the dramatic elements are readily discernible, but what is significant for the historian is what has been preserved from those past events.

QuoteIf we just pick random pieces out of it to construct a theory, we are heading for trouble.

But what we are presenting is not random.

Quote

QuoteI am a bit puzzled about how this attempted classification serves any useful purpose in evaluating the veracity or usefulness of the details in the plays.  Some elucidation would be welome.

You asked for clarification of what I meant, so I told you.  I think I have explained enough how in my (orthodox historical) opinion, literature can and cannot be properly used as a source now.

I beg to differ.  It appears to me that the thrust of your argument is that any details noted in a play must be straitjacketed into a literary formula, one of which the original practitioners were most likely unaware.

Quote

QuoteWe began with the aim of identifying elements alien to Greek heroic duelling.  These I pointed out.  If this duel is considered a classic hoplite fight (how many hoplite duels do we know of?), then it is seriously anachronistic given the context of Homer's Iliad and the fighting styles therein being well known to 5th century Greeks; the events of the Oedipus story take place a short time before the Trojan War, so the default fighting style should be 'heroic'.

No, we started talking about spear fighting, using a quote by Matthews on hoplite combat.

Actually Paul Bardunias quoted from Euripides' Phoenissae, and my recollection of the relevant part of the resultant discussion between ourselves is this:

QuoteQuote
    However, back to where we started, does the detailed description of the duel fit the Greek tradition of heroic combat or is it notably alien?

Perhaps we can list the two most outstanding alien features.

1) Spy holes in the shields.
2) No thrown spears (duels in the Iliad, our principal source for Greek heroic combat, involve and usually begin with thrown spears).

These are clear and distinctive differences from the Greek norm.

But now ...

QuoteYou chose to interpret some elements of this as representing "Egyptian" elements, in particular that it preserved details of an Egyptian duel between Smenkhare and Tutankhamun.  Your argument appears to be the original story, which the details were taken from, must be Egyptian based on nobody throwing spears and the fact that Egyptian shields had holes in them.

My actual argument was that in the context of a long and consistent line of coincidences between the Oedipus story and the Amarna period, we get the character who corresponds to Tutankhamun (i.e. Eteocles) receiving wounds which exactly correspond with those suffered by Tutankhamun.  The emphasis on 'Egyptian duelling' is your own red herring; perhaps it was my fault for not steering the discussion onto the main focus of evidence for tie-ins between the story and the period.

QuoteWhereas, if we say is this single combat that an Athenian citizen who had served as a hoplite and was familiar with Homer would recognise, it seems to fit rather better.

And why would we have any reason to say this?

QuoteAs to "hoplite duels", images of hoplites dueling (representing heroic originals) are found on any number of ceramics, so I expect any play-attending Athenian would have been very familiar with them.

I was of course referring to 'hoplite duels' in dramatic and historical literature; they seem conspicuous by their absence.  Pictorial representations of traditional legends have the usual problems of portraying past persons in contemporary clothing, as any student of mediaeval illuminated manuscripts will appreciate.

Quote... our entire approach to historical evidence is different.

It does seem so.

QuoteProbably time you and Velikovsky went in one direction and me and orthodoxy went in the other.

Might it not be more constructive to examine the roots, rationale and methods of our varying approaches to history?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 20, 2018, 10:22:33 AMWe do of course have hints like

"... chariot-rich Thebes" - Sophocles, Antigone line 149
"... thou holy ground of Thebe, whose chariots are many" - idem line 844
"Thebes of all cities you hold foremost in honour" - idem line 1137

which point to the Egyptian rather than the Greek Thebes, despite overt references to the latter elsewhere.

Not really, since Boeotia, and Boeotian Thebes, are also associated with chariots: cf. the 300 "charioteers" and parabatai at Delium (Diodoros 12.70), usually thought to be the forerunners of the Sacred Band: the Thebans kept up the tradition of military charioteering, at least in name, very late. No reason to drag in Egypt here at all.

Quotewhich point to the Egyptian rather than the Greek Thebes, despite overt references to the latter elsewhere.

Why?  Thebes will have had many chariots in heroic times.  Egyptian Thebes was distinguished by its gates, I think - 100 as opposed to 7.  How many gates are there in the tale of the Seven against Thebes?

QuoteIt appears to me that the thrust of your argument is that any details noted in a play must be straitjacketed into a literary formula, one of which the original practitioners were most likely unaware.

I didn't pay much attention to Greek tragedy at school but I'm pretty sure that playwrights were very aware of the conventions they were operating within.

QuoteActually Paul Bardunias quoted from Euripides' Phoenissae,

Actually, Justin quoted Matthews quoting Euripedes but it isn't that important.  The key thing is two published writers on hoplites - perhaps more- have identified this as being a hoplite fight.  In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the fight seems to fit comfortably within a Greek tradition.

Before I sign off on this, I would remind you of what has already been said way back.  You are being very selective in which of the multiple interpretations of Akhnaten's dynasty you call upon to support your theory.  This period in history is badly understood because of deliberate attempts to remove all reference to the key players from history.  Even the archaeology of Tutankhamun's mummy is unclear and, while there are many theories about his death, the idea of a death in a duel against his brother/sister does not appear to be one of the front runners, at least in part because most scholars believe Smenkhare had been dead for several years at the point of Tutankhamun's death.

Others may wish to take you up on your desire to debate your new paradigm for studying history if you set it out.  I must admit I would rather withdraw to the reserve trenches and let someone else take up this new challenge.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 20, 2018, 10:46:40 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 20, 2018, 10:22:33 AMWe do of course have hints like

"... chariot-rich Thebes" - Sophocles, Antigone line 149
"... thou holy ground of Thebe, whose chariots are many" - idem line 844
"Thebes of all cities you hold foremost in honour" - idem line 1137

which point to the Egyptian rather than the Greek Thebes, despite overt references to the latter elsewhere.

Not really, since Boeotia, and Boeotian Thebes, are also associated with chariots: cf. the 300 "charioteers" and parabatai at Delium (Diodoros 12.70), usually thought to be the forerunners of the Sacred Band: the Thebans kept up the tradition of military charioteering, at least in name, very late. No reason to drag in Egypt here at all.

The Egyptian affiliation lies in the description of Thebes as the foremost city in timas (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tima%3D%7Cs&la=greek&can=tima%3D%7Cs0&prior=pa=sai&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0185:card=1137&i=1#lexicon), a term indicating renown, esteem, value, dignity.  This was clearly true of Eighteenth Dynasty Thebes, but not its seven-gated recently-founded Greek namesake, especialy given the pre-eminence of Argos and Mycenae.

Regarding chariots, the point involves quantity rather than quality: Thebes, like other Greek heroic cities, fielded chariots, but it is very questionable whether they were particularly noted for their charioteering: Homer is silent on the matter, and when the Achaean chariots are given a tactical lesson, it is by Nestor of Pylos and not some Theban.  I think it would be particularly hard to sustain any contention that the Thebans of the heroic age were renowned for the number of their chariots.

In fact, to point out the association of Boeotia with chariots seems counterproductive to the argument that Thebes in heroic age Greece was polyharmatic (there is no easy way to say 'many-charioted' in English), because the Boeotians, with whatever chariots they possessed, were invaders after the Trojan War.

Conversely, an almost stock phrase in the Amarna letters is: Pharaoh is well and his chariots are many.

Quote from: Erpingham on December 20, 2018, 11:10:40 AM
Before I sign off on this, I would remind you of what has already been said way back.  You are being very selective in which of the multiple interpretations of Akhnaten's dynasty you call upon to support your theory.

Well, they cannot all be correct so judgement is called for.  The Oedipus story provides a pattern which a) fits the Amarna period evidence and b) fits it a lot better than any other interpretation or explanation.  This is why I selected it.

QuoteThis period in history is badly understood because of deliberate attempts to remove all reference to the key players from history.

This is very true.  And it is not even understood just how badly understood it is.  Some day I shall demonstrate exactly who Horemheb really was, together with his actual place in Egyptian history.  (And it is not what Velikovsky thought, either.)

QuoteEven the archaeology of Tutankhamun's mummy is unclear and, while there are many theories about his death, the idea of a death in a duel against his brother/sister does not appear to be one of the front runners, at least in part because most scholars believe Smenkhare had been dead for several years at the point of Tutankhamun's death.

Indeed.  Thankfully, the Oedipus story can cure them of this misapprehension.  On a historical philosophy point, if we are to take popularity as the primary criterion of historical validity, we can easily end up with historical demagoguery rather than history.  I prefer to look for actual solutions.

QuoteOthers may wish to take you up on your desire to debate your new paradigm for studying history if you set it out.  I must admit I would rather withdraw to the reserve trenches and let someone else take up this new challenge.

Duncan has nobly squelched up the duckboards into the front line.  Greater love than this hath no man ... :)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 20, 2018, 08:07:03 PM
In fact, to point out the association of Boeotia with chariots seems counterproductive to the argument that Thebes in heroic age Greece was polyharmatic (there is no easy way to say 'many-charioted' in English), because the Boeotians, with whatever chariots they possessed, were invaders after the Trojan War.

The argument, surely, is that Boeotia was renowned for chariotry, whether current, historical, or legendary does not matter, in the classical era, and that therefore references in Sophocles and the like to "chariot-rich Thebes" are simply explained without any association with Egypt.

One might add the sanctuary of Onchestos in Boeotia and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo if any more examples of Boeotian fame in chariotry are required.

Quote
"Thebes of all cities you hold foremost in honour" - idem [Sophocles, Antigone] line 1137

The Egyptian affiliation lies in the description of Thebes as the foremost city in timas, a term indicating renown, esteem, value, dignity.  This was clearly true of Eighteenth Dynasty Thebes, but not its seven-gated recently-founded Greek namesake, especialy given the pre-eminence of Argos and Mycenae.

!!!

A bit of context helps.

"O Bacchus, denizen of Thebes, the mother-city of your Bacchants, dweller by the wet stream of Ismenus on the soil of the sowing of the savage dragon's teeth! The smoky glare of torches sees you above the cliffs of the twin peaks, where the Corycian nymphs move inspired by your godhead, and Castalia's stream sees you, too. The ivy-mantled slopes of Nysa's hills and the shore green with many-clustered vines send you, when accompanied by the cries of your divine words, you visit the avenues of Thebes. Thebes of all cities you hold foremost in honor, together with your lightning-struck mother." Sophocles, Antigone 1120-1139

It is Dionysus/Bacchus who holds Thebes foremost in honour, because his mother (Semele) lived there and his rites were first established there - it's his home town.

Quote from: aligern on December 18, 2018, 07:45:00 PM
You mistake my point Nicholas. Let me be clear. If no Latin literature survived today, but Plutarch had been available in Shakespeare's time, before being lost, then our knowledge of Caesar would derive from Shakespeare.
We could then argue about how accurate Shakespeare's Julius Caesar was as a portrayal of a period where the only infirnation was based upon coins, the odd inscription and statuary. We would be in much the same situation as Patrick claims for Tutankhamun, where we had detailed information that accorded with the few facts that we had, but dare we trust the level of detail.
Roy

Yep. I did appreciate your point, but I intentionally misconstrued it to make what I thought was a more important point.
There are clear antecedents for Shakespeare's Julius C through the Latin literary tradition, but there is not the same bridge (or series of shaky bridges) that gets us from Tutankhamon to Euripides, either directly, or by inference through context (Roy's point).

And I daresay that we have a ton more evidence for JC than Tut outside the literary tradition.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 20, 2018, 08:39:09 PM
The argument, surely, is that Boeotia was renowned for chariotry, whether current, historical, or legendary does not matter, in the classical era, and that therefore references in Sophocles and the like to "chariot-rich Thebes" are simply explained without any association with Egypt.

Except that 'chariot rich' (poluarmatō) is in the sense of many chariots rather than renowned chariots.

QuoteOne might add the sanctuary of Onchestos in Boeotia and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo if any more examples of Boeotian fame in chariotry are required.

I am puzzled by the reference to the Homeric Hymn of Apollo, which states:

Quote225    Next you arrived in Thebè's abode, all covered in forests,
          since no one among men yet dwelt in Thebè the holy,
          nor at the time were as yet any footpaths nor any roadways
          there across Thebè's wheat-bearing plain—it was covered in forest.

The chariots are not even a twinkle in Cadmus' eye because the city is not yet built.  There is of course the reference to Onchestos:

QuoteNow yet farther from there you went, far-shooting Apollo,
230    coming to Onchestos, the resplendent grove of Poseidon;
          there where a colt, new-broken, recovers his breath from the pain of
          drawing a beautiful chariot; though he is skillful, the driver
          leaps from the car-box and goes on his journey; and meanwhile the horses
          rattle the empty conveyance, bereft of a master to guide them.
235    Should they shatter the chariot there in the forested woodland,
          men take care of the horses, the car they tilt and abandon;
          for it was so in the earliest ritual; then do the drivers
          pray to the lord; as the share of the god is the chariot guarded.

The Hymn thus associates Onchestos with chariotry but specifically excludes Thebes.

Quote from: RichT on December 20, 2018, 10:34:04 PM
It is Dionysus/Bacchus who holds Thebes foremost in honour, because his mother (Semele) lived there and his rites were first established there - it's his home town.

OK, I shall accept that.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 21, 2018, 08:47:44 AMI am puzzled by the reference to the Homeric Hymn of Apollo ...
The chariots are not even a twinkle in Cadmus' eye because the city is not yet built.

The point, which I made previously and you clearly missed, is that this isn't about Cadmus' time, or any legendary or Bronze-Age period; it's that Boeotia is associated with chariotry at the time of Sophocles, the author of your original quotes. The Hymn is part of the literary background of that association.

Quote from: Dangun on December 21, 2018, 05:09:20 AM
There are clear antecedents for Shakespeare's Julius C through the Latin literary tradition, but there is not the same bridge (or series of shaky bridges) that gets us from Tutankhamon to Euripides, either directly, or by inference through context (Roy's point).

What does briing together Sophocles, Euripides and the Amarna era is the long series of correspondences, far too many for coincidence.

Laius = Amenhotep III.  Both originate 'the curse' by molesting a youth who commits suicide (Chrysippus = Prince Thutmose, one of the three royal suicides in KV 35*).

*Kings' Valley Tomb 35.  Originally Amenhotep II's tomb, but three Amarna period mummies were found together in an annex.

Oedipus = Akhenaten. The estranged exiled son who murders his father and marries his mother.  After a 17-year reign, he goes into exile - blind.

Jocasta = Tiy.  The incestuous mother of two princes (Polyneices = Smenkhare and Eteocles = Tutankhamun) who depose their father, share rule, fall out and fight a civil war against each other which ends when, among other things, Eteocles sustains a leg wound and terminal chest wound together.  Upon the death of her two sons, she commits suicide.  (Tiy is the older woman from among the three Amarna royal suicides in KV 35.)

Creon = Ay. The brother of Jocasta/Tiy takes over rule and forbids the burial of the invading king (Polyneices/Smenkhare) while giving the defending king (Eteocles/Tutankhamun) a most splendid burial (KV 62*).  His cruelty causes a 'tumult of hatred' to rise against him - exemplified by the thorough destruction of Ay's tombs.

*Kings' Valley Tomb 62; Tutankhamun's tomb.

Polyneices = Smenkhare. This son of Oedipus/Akhenaten is first to rule but then displaced by his brother (Smenkhare's one-year reign).  Denied burial by Creon/Ay, he is given an improvised clandestine burial by his sister (Antigone/Meritaten).  This burial is subsequently disturbed by Creon/Ay's guards (KV 55*).

*The KV 55 burial involved many 'borrowed' items: Tiy's catafalque and coffin; Meritaten's canopic jars; pots, boxes, tools and symbolic offerings with the names of Amenhotep III and Tiy.

Antigone = Meritaten.  The sister of Polyneices/Smenkhare is punished for his burial by being imprisoned within a rock chamber (KV 54*).  She hangs herself with a halter made of strips of fine linen, the third of the KV 35 Amarna royal suicides.

*KV 54 was a mystery to archeologists.  It contained food and water jars, worn kerchiefs, cups which had been used as lamps, a worn broom and strips torn from fine linen.

Eteocles = Tutankhamun. The second son of Oedipus/Akhenaten and Jocasta/Tiy deposes his brother and rules for several years while the latter gathers an invading force to support his claim.  The campaign stalls at the walls of Thebes and the brothers duel, both perishing.  Creon/Ay gives Eteocles/Tutankhamun a splendid burial (KV 62) - which is the greatest distinction this pharaoh is known to have received.

Ismene = Ankhesenpaaten.  Antigone/Meritaten's sister accepts what cannot be changed, unlike her fiery sibling.  She is little more than a spectator in the events of the tragedy.

Haemon = Nakhtmin.  Ay/Creon's son and heir is betrothed to and enamoured of Antigone/Meritaten and kills himself upon learning of her suicide.

Tiresias = Amenhotep son of Hapu.  The famous aged seer in the Oedipus story, who was said to have lived both as man and woman, has his counterpart in the Egyptian Amenhotep son of Hapu, a noted and long-lived seer, one of whose statues portrays him as a woman.

This series of ocrrespondences cannot be ignored.  The Oedipus story is the relic of actual events involving historical personages of the Amarna period.  It has suffered in transmittion, but not so much that we cannot recognise the individuals concerned.  And, as we learn more about those individuals, the correspondences keep growing, one being the exact correspondence between the wounds suffered by Tutankhamun and those sustained by Eteocles.

QuoteAnd I daresay that we have a ton more evidence for JC than Tut outside the literary tradition.

Depends what you mean.  For Tutankhamun, we do have a body. :)

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 21, 2018, 09:14:58 AM
The point, which I made previously and you clearly missed, is that this isn't about Cadmus' time, or any legendary or Bronze-Age period; it's that Boeotia is associated with chariotry at the time of Sophocles, the author of your original quotes. The Hymn is part of the literary background of that association.

Very well, I take that point, but in return reiterate that even Sophocles' 5th century BC Boeotia is not noted for the multiplicity of its chariots, which is what poluarmatō means.

QuoteThis series of ocrrespondences cannot be ignored.  The Oedipus story is the relic of actual events involving historical personages of the Amarna period.  It has suffered in transmittion, but not so much that we cannot recognise the individuals concerned.  And, as we learn more about those individuals, the correspondences keep growing, one being the exact correspondence between the wounds suffered by Tutankhamun and those sustained by Eteocles.

Patrick, you are simply stating your interpretation of fact with little or no supporting evidence.  Akhnaten did not grow up in exile.  Amenhotep III appears to have died of natural causes.  There is no record of Akhnaten marrying his mother.  There is no evidence Smenkhare was deposed and went into exile, or that he/she returned with an army and besieged Thebes.  It has been impossible for the many experts who have examined Tutankhamun's mummy to be sure of his cause of death.  Unfortunately, the mummy was badly damaged post excavation, which doesn't help.  On what might be called the flip side, two key aspects of the story of Akhnaten are the development of a new state religion and the building of a new capital.  Neither of the these important elements appear in the Oedipus story.

Perhaps we should stop this now?  I for one have found your argument for this theory utterly unconvincing.  The story seems to fit with much less mutilation and a great deal more logic into a Greek tradition of heroic tales of legendary past.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 21, 2018, 09:23:41 AM
Antigone = Meritaten.  The sister of Polyneices/Smenkhare is punished for his burial by being imprisoned within a rock chamber (KV 54*).  She hangs herself with a halter made of strips of fine linen, the third of the KV 35 Amarna royal suicides.

Puzzled here - is she buried in KV35 and KV54?

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 21, 2018, 10:21:18 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 21, 2018, 09:23:41 AM
Antigone = Meritaten.  The sister of Polyneices/Smenkhare is punished for his burial by being imprisoned within a rock chamber (KV 54*).  She hangs herself with a halter made of strips of fine linen, the third of the KV 35 Amarna royal suicides.

Puzzled here - is she buried in KV35 and KV54?

Sorry, I was a bit vague.  She was confined (and committed suicide) in KV54 and her mummy is currently in KV 35 along with those of Tiy and young Thutmose.

Quote from: Erpingham on December 21, 2018, 10:14:54 AM
Patrick, you are simply stating your interpretation of fact with little or no supporting evidence.  Akhnaten did not grow up in exile.

How sure can we be about that?  Amarna letters 28 and 29 (Tushratta to Akhenaten) tell him to consult his mother in order to get information on the diplomatic situation between Egypt and Mitanni - a curious suggestion unless the new pharaoh has just returned from exile and hence is out of touch with the current situation.

QuoteAmenhotep III appears to have died of natural causes.

One advantage of being married to a kemetophile is that one can ask about the significance of erasing the ren (name) of a person.  In particular, how this affects the essence of the person even after physical death.

QuoteThere is no record of Akhnaten marrying his mother.

No record is not the same as no evidence.  Huya's tomb (Amarna Tomb 1) contains interesting evidence; if you have a copy of Oedipus and Akhnaton, please see pages 90-95 for a discussion.

QuoteThere is no evidence Smenkhare was deposed and went into exile, or that he/she returned with an army and besieged Thebes.

Not quite true: while the abrupt termination of his reign after Year 1 is not per se prima facie evidence of deposition, it is certainly consistent with such a situation.  The evidence of a civil war in the Amarna period lies in the Amarna papyrus Duncan mentioned earlier in another thread (about opponents for Mycenaean armies).  It is Amarna style and was found in Amarna; there was no reason for any Amarna inhabitant to depict Egyptian troops being defeated - apparently in Egypt itself - by Libyans and Mycenaeans.  Unless, that is, those foreigners were allies of a contemporarily successful Amarna-based faction.  By process of elimination, we can assign this to Smenkhare (Akhenaten did not invite foreign armies into the country, Tutankhamun is depicted as fighting against Ethiopians* and Libyans and Amarna seems to have been abandoned under Ay).  By process of association with the Oedipus story we can confirm it as applying to Smenkhare.

*Although not Mycenaeans. There is a strategic story there.

QuoteIt has been impossible for the many experts who have examined Tutankhamun's mummy to be sure of his cause of death.  Unfortunately, the mummy was badly damaged post excavation, which doesn't help.

All true, especially as the embalmers rather overdid the preparations and used too miuch resin and too many unguents.  However the 2004-2005 CT scan discoveries have highlighted the knee and chest injuries and especially the terminal nautre of the latter.  Any prior examinations and theories were thus based on significantly incomplete information.

QuoteOn what might be called the flip side, two key aspects of the story of Akhnaten are the development of a new state religion and the building of a new capital.  Neither of the these important elements appear in the Oedipus story.

One suspects that neither aspect really interested the Greeks who went to Egypt or those who first heard the story in Greece (the Amarna correspondents are a bit vague on this, too).  The downfall of the world's most important man and the doings of his family, however, did interest them.  (This distribution of interest seems to be reflected in the audience comment figures on internet news items. Plus ca change ...)

QuotePerhaps we should stop this now?  I for one have found your argument for this theory utterly unconvincing.  The story seems to fit with much less mutilation and a great deal more logic into a Greek tradition of heroic tales of legendary past.

Again, if you possess a copy of Oedipus and Akhanton, have a look through and you might revise that opinion.  Or not, as you choose.  But you will at least have seen the reasoning which underlies the identification of the Oedipus story with the Amarna period and personages, and the refutation of the idea that the story is either Greek or a legend.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 21, 2018, 07:36:05 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on December 21, 2018, 10:14:54 AM
Patrick, you are simply stating your interpretation of fact with little or no supporting evidence.  Akhnaten did not grow up in exile.

How sure can we be about that?  Amarna letters 28 and 29 (Tushratta to Akhenaten) tell him to consult his mother in order to get information on the diplomatic situation between Egypt and Mitanni - a curious suggestion unless the new pharaoh has just returned from exile and hence is out of touch with the current situation.

Not necessarily, it may simply be that his mother was a lady with influence who knew what was going on behind the scenes and hadn't been minuted
Looking at her, some seem to think her father was not Egyptian and given her background and possible knowledge she might have been 'in the loop' over a lot of matters

Jim

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 22, 2018, 06:23:36 AM
Not necessarily, it may simply be that his mother was a lady with influence who knew what was going on behind the scenes and hadn't been minuted

Which would certainly be just like Tiy. :)  Tushratta however is principally referring to the official state of 'excellent friendly relations' between Egypt and Mitanni, which would hardly be a secret to anyone at court, especially a court with at least one recently-acquired Mitannian princess (Tadukhipa) in the royal family.  Doubtless there were also some other less official things to be understood, and for those he would indeed have been nudging the new pharaoh in Tiy's direction.

QuoteLooking at her, some seem to think her father was not Egyptian and given her background and possible knowledge she might have been 'in the loop' over a lot of matters

Yes, her parents (and Ay's) were considered to be of part-foreign stock, largely on account of their names (cf. Dudu at Akhenaten's court).  Culturally, however, they seem to have been solid citizens of Akhmim, with no discernible trace of foreign influence.  I think the jury is still out on that one.

Tiy was, of course, very close to the reins of power: she acted as regent before Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV as he then was, albeit without the 'IV') was crowned and her presence in Huya's tomb reliefs show her wearing the queen's crown during Akhenaten's reign.  She certainly has the potential to be an Agrippina figure.

QuoteHow sure can we be about that?

You can ask me that?   ::)  Your entire theory only works because there are enough gaps in the known record to allow you to be a bit creative.  Your reconstruction of the Thutmoside dynasty's demise is imaginative in itself, let alone trying to link it with Oedipus.  I know I'm old fashioned but I do prefer proper historical method which weighs the evidence and is clear what is fact and what is interpretation or interpolation. 

It's certainly interesting to look at cross-pollination and influence in the development of myth cycles and traditional literature, but it's very difficult to argue authoritatively that such traditions are rooted in particular historical episodes, and even harder to prove that they are an allegorical re-telling of historical events in another place. It starts to get into 'secret history' territory and while that can be good fun to speculate on (and quite a money spinner for the Dan Browns of this world!) it's probably not a direction we want to go too far towards.

Unless of course the Society of Ancients is really an ancient brotherhood of initiates into the Mysteries, and not just a collective of slightly fusty military history and wargaming enthusiasts ;-)

Quote from: Prufrock on December 22, 2018, 03:07:18 PM

Unless of course the Society of Ancients is really an ancient brotherhood of initiates into the Mysteries, and not just a collective of slightly fusty military history and wargaming enthusiasts ;-)

Dammit, we've been made!  Just dropping the word Justified from the name wasn't enough  :)

Quote from: Erpingham on December 22, 2018, 10:23:24 AM
Your entire theory only works because there are enough gaps in the known record to allow you to be a bit creative.

This reads like the epitaph of just about every theory in Egyptology. ;)

Anyway, I have what I need, namely that nobody among our regular posters has found any actual evidence against the identification of Eteocles with Tutankhamun.  Thank you, gentlemen.  This identification, incidentally, results in some very specific historical requirements, i.e. in order to be valid, what must follow Tutankhamun's death within a few years is a foreign invasion by at least some of the successors of the leaders who were lost at Thebes.  As it happens, this invasion (mentioning the nationality of the invaders) is exactly what Ammianus and Herodotus provide.  Specifically, Ammianus mentions the invasion and Herodotus describes the aftermath and the new dynasty which took power.  And there we may conclude matters for the present.

Quote from: Erpingham on December 22, 2018, 03:31:47 PM

Quote from: Prufrock on December 22, 2018, 03:07:18 PM

Unless of course the Society of Ancients is really an ancient brotherhood of initiates into the Mysteries, and not just a collective of slightly fusty military history and wargaming enthusiasts ;-)

Dammit, we've been made!  Just dropping the word Justified from the name wasn't enough  :)

I have it!  They are members of the Cabiri, like that Herodotus fellow. ;D

QuoteAnyway, I have what I need, namely that nobody among our regular posters has found any actual evidence against the identification of Eteocles with Tutankhamun.

An interesting conclusion but if that works for you, I'm glad.  At some point, it might be trying the argument on people with more knowledge of Egyptology, just be sure  :)

I am curious what you need it for.  A novel in the style of Christian Jacq perhaps?

Quote from: Erpingham on December 22, 2018, 07:40:56 PM
At some point, it might be trying the argument on people with more knowledge of Egyptology, just be sure  :)

Oh, yes.  I have some in mind.

QuoteI am curious what you need it for.  A novel in the style of Christian Jacq perhaps?

Unlike some members, I am not very good at novels, otherwise that would be an excellent idea (as nominal 'fiction', it would abrade less against 'orthodox' susceptibilities).  This is for a probe through Egyptian history, to see just how far the revised chronology and its spin-offs can actually go without bumping into dead ends.

What I am finding is that instead of hitting blocks and incompatibilities, new avenues are opening up and new connections being made.  To take an inconsequential example: earlier in this thread, I mentioned Thebes being held foremost in honour/esteem.  Richard T correctly pointed out the context, that the esteem was conferred by Dionysius (the Roman Bacchus), Thebes' hometown deity.  So I checked Dionysius' Egyptian equivalent (Osiris) and looked up his hometown.  And surprise surprise, it was Egyptian Thebes*.  It looks as if we may have another case of cross-cultural transfer.

*Although Osiris had the unique distinction of being buried in parts throughout Egypt, the 'Tomb of Osiris' is at Thebes.

More significantly, the revised chronology means that Herodotus' pharaohs suddenly make a lot of sense and open up vistas of context for the remainder of New Kingdom Egyptian history.  With Herodotus an open book* it is even possible to correct a couple of Velikovsky's self-imposed misapprehensions, namely about the placement of Horemheb and the dating of the Trojan War.  The overall scheme fits nicely; the challenge is delving into details, and so far the details are overwhelmingly compatible - even supportive - as opposed to causing puzzles and problems.

*Worst pun of 2018 award?

With any grand scheme there is always the danger of disposing of small amounts of 'inconvenient' evidence because it is 'just a blip' or 'an anomaly' or 'there is doubtless some explanation which we have not considered yet'.  What I find interesting - even gratifying - is that the small details are fitting in with remarkable precision and accuracy.

Anyway, enough for now.  Let the festive season commence!