SoA Forums

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.

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.

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?

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.)

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

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.

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).

no 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!).

no 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.

lack 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.

a shortage of evidence for a big civil war,

Does this admit to some evidence?

uncertainty over Tutankhamun's cause of death

Which can now be resolved.

(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!)

and 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.

Even 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.

But Euripides isn't talking about Egyptian shields.

Well, he does not seem to be referring to any known type of Greek shield.

Seemingly not considered in Wernick's paper (perhaps understandably as his emphasis is on shield shapes and their corresponding handles) is the thought that a spy hole might be surrounded by a decorative motif, that the apparent 'boss' might in fact be a hole.