Is Akhenaton the founder of monotheism?

I suppose most of already know something about Akhenaton and his religion. So I’ll just post here some of my theories and questions regarding this interesting phenomena.

1. There is absolutely no historical evidence for some kind of Exodus. But I believe that there was some connection between ancient Jews and Egypt — just because usually every myth has some rational background. So I think somebody really left Egypt for Canaan. But who? Could it be some Aton worshipers forced to leave after Akhenaton’s cult was overthrown and Horemhab started to persecute Atonists?
   ​
2. It seems quite obvious from Old Testament that early Judaism was actually a joint venture of two quite different religions. The first was Sumerian/Akkadian cult of El (Enlil) and other gods (so it was polytheistic religion), which where together called Elohim. The other one was that of YHWH — monotheistic and really strange one. Could it be that YHWH was actually Aton (well, not exactly, but something what developed from Akhenaton’s cult?
   ​
3. It is still quite mystery how Jewish nation was formed. They have the same or very similar cultural background as all other Semitic tribes living in the area. I am for the theory that it was their unusual religion which singled them out.
   ​
4. Is it possible that such a strange idea like the concept of just one, universal god, can spring out of nothing? Among primitive nomadic tribes with no central government? I do not believe that. In my opinion it is almost certain that monotheism was import. On the other hand, the conditions in Akhenaton’s Egypt were almost perfect for creation of such concept — absolute power of Pharaoh, disagreement with Amon’s priests, Akhenaton’s most probable illness, which might have influenced his mental state as well, highly developed philosophical system of Egyptian religion etc
   ​
5. Circumcision — this is very strange habit and was as such regarded by all Jewish neighbors. As far as I know, the only continent, were we are able to find similar habits, is Africa. Can this be another clue?

[Change list to use UBB codes to improve readability. --Admin][This message has been edited by Raha, 08-29-2003][This message has been edited by Admin, 08-29-2003]

HI Raha,In regard to your first point: It is very well documented that 'Canaanites' moved freely in and out of Egypt in the period which would have incuded the Patriarchs and all the way up to Moses. Although I am convinced that all the events that comprise primary history of Israel contained in the Hebrew Bible is fictional, certain cities and characters have been confirmed from external sources, but the events associated with these people and places are the product of the storytellers art.I think an answer to your point is that 'Israel' the nation emerged from within Canaan, the 'Israelites' were in fact Canaanites, there is no break at all to be found in the materal culture of Canaan, the Israel emerged from within Canaanite society. I cannot find a modern day scholar who would disagree with this, Israel was not an invading nation, it simply couldn't have been.If you take the dating of 1 Kings 6:1 then the Exodus was in the mid 15th century BCE, right in the middle of Thutmosis III. At this time Egypt was at the zenith of her power, it had never been so powerful, and Palestine was a province of Egypt, the Amarna Letters are testimony to this. So we are being asked to believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt to wander around another part of Egypt, and finally battle for the right to live in another part of Egypt!I agree that what set the Israelites aside was Yahwism, the arrival of this cult may have sparked of a type of revolt, as postulated by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald, and this revolt led to the migration of Canaanites from the city states to the hill country where we find hundreds of new villages suddenly appearing at the end of the Late Bronze/Early Iron ages.It is perfectly possible that monotheism came from Egypt via some Canaanite traders, or canaanite nomads who entered the Nile Delta during times of agricultural difficulty.Brian.

Aton is transliterated in different ways, depending on the nationality and personal inclination of the translating scholar. One of the forms it takes is Adon. In case this alone does not intrigue someone, please note that the Hebrew word translated "lord" is transliterated as, Adon. The plural, Adonai is translated as both "lords," or "Lord," presumably depending on context. Interestingly, the suffix indicating plurality is an aramaic feature.So, Sure! There is reason to believe that the cult of Aton (or Adon), was continued by Hebrews.I am not sure of the time-frame but the Egyptians once threw off the yoke of an Assyrian Empire. The Hebrew calendar and Sabbath observance are Mesopotamian. There are many features of Mosaic law which reflect an Assyrian model, sometimes almost word for word. Considering the difficulties we have dating and correlating ancient events, might not the Exodus feature elements of both: the Assyrian withdrawal from Egypt and survival of a few elements of the cult of Aton? At least: holding his name as a term of reverence, and holding to the idea of One supreme deity.db

Yes, Brian, I agree with almost everything except this:

1. I also think that stories from Old Testament are fictional, but I also believe that there is some "story behind". So proper dating of biblical Exodus might provide a clue leading to some real historical event.
2. Thutmosis III is just one possible "exodus pharaoh". The others are - Rameses II, Hatsepsut, Horemheb. According to my opinion, Rameses is "out", simply because there also some other biblical events of much later date attributed to him. Thutmosis III is also "out", I think, because, as you wrote, he was mighty ruler and his reign was that of prosperity. Hatsepsut is "out" because she was a woman, so it is highly probable that something like that would be used by biblical authors. So my candidate is Horemheb - the empire was in turmoil, so it was perfect time for something "interesting" to take place.
3. "...the arrival of this cult may have sparked of a type of revolt..." Well - polytheistic religions were traditionally very tolerant, so it is not likely that an attempt to introduce a new deity would cause some kind stir up. Monotheism was extremely intolerant from the very beginning, but it seems that it was accepted only gradually - so no reason for revolt either. It is also highly improbable that somebody would abandon relatively comfortable live in the city just because of new religion, which was not fully defined in that time. But if we accept the idea that monotheism was "imported" by some kind of "missionaries" from Egypt, than it would be just logical that those missionaries did not go to cities, where the official religion was very well established, but "tried their luck" with relatively "primitive" nomadic tribes of Canaan.

Yes, doctrbill, those are interesting ideas. Both of them.THX, Admin for editing my post. I did not know UBB code supports numbered list. [You're very welcome, and a faster learner to boot! --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 08-29-2003]

I also think that stories from Old Testament are fictional, but I also believe that there is some "story behind". So proper dating of biblical Exodus might provide a clue leading to some real historical event.Can I take from ‘some story’ behind them that you mean some true historical event? If I can I think that there may be some analogies from Egypt that could be used as perhaps a foundation for the Exodus myth. I am sure you will agree that none of the Egyptian sources authenticates the biblical story of the Exodus.The importance of the Exodus cannot be stressed enough; it is one of the foundations of Israel’s faith and is referred to more often in the Bible than any other event of Israel’s past.As you and I agree, there are no direct extra-biblical sources that mention the Exodus, but there are some indirect ones, or probably a better phrase is ‘circumstantial evidence’.For example, when Exodus 13:17 states, ‘When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said: 'Lest the people repent when they see war and return to Egypt.’ This passage about the journey of the Israelites through Sinai may be better understood if we take into account the military road that the Egyptians constructed along the coast of northern Sinai, the biblical ‘way of the Philistines.’ This route was fortified with a tight network of strongholds by Seti I early in the 13th century B.C.E. and remained under strict control of the Egyptians throughout that century (Gardiner A. The Military Road Between Egypt and Palestine Journal of Egyptian Archaeology #6 pp 99-116 Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1920.)This clearly contains an accurate historical recollection, the Military Road or ‘Way of Horus’ can be confirmed from many other texts and inscriptions, but whose recollection is it? It could well be as simple as a commonly known tradition passed down through the generations, but it certainly wasn’t recorded in the Bible until long after these events were said to have happened. Also, just because an aspect of an account is accurate it doesn’t follow that everything else is true, many tales of fiction have historically confirmed landmarks in them.There are a couple of texts within the Papyri Anastasi which reveal the tight control of the Egyptian authorities over their eastern frontier in the last decades of the 13th century. Each and every group or individual, whether Egyptian or foreign, could neither enter nor leave Egypt without a special permit. The Egyptian ‘checkpoints’ functioned in both directions because without this fortification line minority groups, and probably Egyptians as well would have escaped from the delta into Sinai and Palestine.Papyrus Anastasi III records daily crossings of individuals in either direction in the time of Merneptah. Year 3, 1st MONTH OF THE 3RB SEASON, DAY 15.The Guardsman Baal-roy, son of Zippor, of Gaza, went up, who had two different despatches for Syria: the Commander of the Garrison Khay, one despatch; the Prince of Tyre Baal-termeg, one despatch.Anastasi VI shows the passage into Egypt of an entire tribe coming down from Edom during a drought. This report is reminiscent of several patriarchal episodes concerning Abraham and Jacob, who were also said to have descended into Egypt because of a drought. Another communication to my [lord], to [wit: We] have finished letting the Bedouin tribes of Edom pass the Fortress [of] Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat--life, prosperity, healthl--which is (in) Tjeku, (56) to the pools of Per-Atum The most interesting Anastasi Papyrus is Anasasi VI dating to the end of the the 13th century BCE, which reports the escape of two slaves or servants from the royal residence at Pi-Ramesses, on the western edge of Wadi Tumilat. The fugitives flee into the Sinai wilderness by way of the fortified border. The writer of the letter, a high-ranking Egyptian military commander, had been ordered by the Egyptian authorities to ensure that the runaways were captured and returned to Egypt:'Another matter, to wit: I was sent forth from the broad-halls ofthe palace-life, prosperity, health!-in the third month of the third season, day 9, at the time of evening, following after these two slaves. Now when I reached the enclosure-wall of Tjeku on the 3rd month of the third season, day 10, they told [me] they were saying to the south that they had passed by on the 3rd month of the third season, day 10. (xx 1) [Now] when reached the fortress, they told me that the scout had come from the desert [saying that] they had passed the walled place north of the Migdol of Seti Mer-ne-Ptah-life, prosperity health!-Beloved like Seth.

​

When my letter reaches you, write to me about all that has happened to [them]. Who found their tracks? Which watch found their tracks? What people are after them? Write to me about all that has happened to them and how many people you send out after them. [May your health] be good!There are certain analogies between the Bible and the external texts, but the Bible is just confirming certain conditions that are already well-established. What is more of a problem is certifying the biblical claims, some are just too outrageously implausible to be true, so maybe it is a case of reinterpreting the biblical texts. I think that the Bible really suggests that it could only be Thutmosis or Rameses II, I have dealt with this before at the forum, maybe you would enjoy reading this:http://EvC Forum: The Exodus: 'A Dead Issue.' -->EvC Forum: The Exodus: 'A Dead Issue.'.the arrival of this cult may have sparked of a type of revolt..." Didn’t the traditional polytheistic Egyptians try to eradicate all trace that Akhenaton ever existed? I should have explained it better, I didn’t mean that the arrival of Yahwism was the sole reason for the revolt. At that time there was a general economic collapse in the eastern Mediterranean at the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age transition. It could be that the already unsettled peasants were attracted to the idea of a new type of community built around Yahweh worship. The continuation of Canaanite culture could be explained by this, but I think a major problem would be the urban civilisation being able to settle into an agricultural lifestyle as quickly as the new villagers did.
But the fact remains, archaeology proves that the city-states were abandoned in the LBA/IA transition, and hundreds of villages sprang up in the highlands, so something significant occurred. So your idea that it was logical for the missionaries not to go to the cities has to contend with the fact that the cities were almost all abandoned when the villages appeared. I also think it is more logical to go to the busy urban centres if you want to be a missionary to the greatest number of people, but if they weren’t there, then the scenario is more believable.In regard to Yahwism, do you think that early Yahwism was indeed monotheistic?I need to go for now.I am really happy that you appeared here at the forum, I don’t often get the chance to discuss my favourite topic.Brian[This message has been edited by Brian, 08-29-2003]

quote:

---

Didn’t the traditional polytheistic Egyptians try to eradicate all trace that Akhenaton ever existed?

---

Yes, but I am sure that has a lot to do with the fact that Akhenaton's revolution crippled the Egyptian economy and nearly brought down the empire. I don't think it was strictly religious intolerance-- more like revenge.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Damn, John! You took it from my mouth (keyboard)!
I'll reply to your post later, when I have more time, Bryan. I am also extremely glad that I met you here. What are your other favorite topics btw?------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Hi,My main areas of interest are:The origins of Ancient Israel.‘Biblical Archaeology’, particularly in relation to the Ancient Israel.The Bible as History.The origins and development of the Hebrew Bible.The Bible as Literature.The ‘Death of Scripture’, when and why the Bible lost its inerrant status.Brian.

Hi Brian, Doctrbill, John and everybody!
Well, Brian made another great post, to which I have very little to add. I already supported John’s opinion about Anti-Akhenaton revenge. Regarding Yahwism and monotheism — yes, I am quite convinced that it was monotheistic from the beginning, but — as I wrote in my first post — Yahwism created only one part of early Judaism. There was also polytheistic Elohism and maybe even some other cults (as evident from Old Testament). The fight was finally won by Yahwism (which was later influenced by Zoroastrism, which is quite another story — and most probably my next thread).
As for the possible exodus pharaoh — here is the line of pharaohs from Tuthmosis III to Merneptah:Tuthmosis III
Queen Hatshepsut
Amenhotpe II
Tuthmosis IV
Amenhotpe III
Amenhotpe IV (Akhenaten)
Smenkhkare (?)
Tutankhaten/Tutankhamon
Ay
Horemheb
Ramesses I
Seti I
Ramesses II
MerneptahAs Brian wrote, there are some hints in bible which place the exodus either to reign of Tuthmosis III or Ramesses II. This is quite a discrepancy! So I regard those two periods as a boundaries, while the exodus (regardless what we think it was or was not) could take place anytime between those boundaries. (There are in fact also some theories which place exodus much earlier, stating that it was associated with the "expulsion of the Hyksos.")
And Charles N. Pope writes:

quote:

---

Another basis that Hatshepsut used to justify her pharaonic status was the claim of chasing off an exodus party. She left a very revealing inscription. Quoting from a book called Distant Secrets (p 128) by Robert Schiller, "As [Egyptologist] Goedicke translates the text, it tells of a people called the Amu (an Egyptian term for Canaanites), among whom was a group of aliens called the shemau (semites?), who had enjoyed special privileges which Hatshepsut had annulled, and had 'disregarded the tasks assigned to them.' After she allowed these 'abominations of the gods' to depart, the 'father of fathers (who Goedicke identifies with the primeval water god Nun) came unexpectedly' and 'the earth swallowed their footsteps.' To Goedicke, this is nothing less than an Egyptian version of the Exodus ..."

---

I think I must warn you before farther discussion — I am not a historian, I am a writer. Therefore my imagination tends to be rather wild sometimes. I obey facts, but where they are lacking I try to find most logical or probable solution. Quite often I also apply memetics approach, which can be formulated in following terms:

1. Memes spread like contagious diseases
2. Therefore everybody who had a chance of being exposed to some meme had a chance of being infected.
3. This chance of being infected was much less, if there was already some immuno-meme present in his/her system.
4. But the new meme might come to surface anytime, if there are some powerful immuno-depressants.

There was information in Brian’s post, which was rather new to me:

quote:

---

archaeology proves that the city-states were abandoned in the LBA/IA transition, and hundreds of villages sprang up in the highlands, so something significant occurred.

---

Where can I find more information about this? It is interesting and perfectly fits my theory. What would you think about following story?:Once upon a time, in the sacred land of Egypt, there was a king whose mind was not that of ordinary man and not even that of ordinary king. The name of this pharaoh was Akhenamon and one day, he had a vision. While walking in one of his palace garden, the sun shined through his scull and young king suddenly realized that the sun is god. And this god spoke to him:
I am Aton, the supreme universal god. There are no other gods but me. I nourish all living creatures. I am life and eternal love. Be my deputy on Earth, and I’ll give you absolute power over this land. There was never king so powerful like you can be with my help.
And the head of young king was filled with sun and his love, and so was his heart. Akhenamon listened to this god and learned from him that all other gods are dead, so they were not to be worshiped any more. So he changed his name to Akhenaton and built new city for his new god. He moved there with his beautiful wife and all his court. And he declared that it was evil to worship old gods, because they were all dead. And anybody who disobeyed his orders was punished severely. Many were tortured and killed. So it happened that Aton, the god of eternal love, was the one most feared and hated. It was very bad time for Egypt. Province after province broke free and people were unhappy and miserable.
So one day, the highest priest Ay and pharaoh’s general Horemheb held a secret meeting.
Something must be done, general said Ay.
Yes. This new god is destroying Egypt and his people.
How is your army?
My men listen to my orders only. They worship Amon. They hate this new god.
It would be no problem than.
No problem at all.
They discussed the details and went after their business. After few days Akhenaton became seriously ill. Believing that Aton will cure him, he insisted that he would lie in the open sun. He died quickly. Ay announced that pharaoh’s last will was to be burned, so his spirit would be freed. The pyre was made in the desert and Akhenaton’s body was turned to ashes and sent to the wind.
Young Tutankhaten was made a king. But it was Ay, with the help of Horemheb and his army, who ruled the kingdom. Ay persuaded Tutankhaten to change its name to Tutankhamon. The cult of Amon-Re was restored. But strangely enough, there were still some people worshiping Aton. Priests, members of king family — quite influential group. They tried to convince Tutankhamon that he had made a mistake. That Aton was the only god. Tutankhamon listened. He wanted to be a king. The real one. He hated being just Ay’s and Horemheb’s puppet. But what he could do? He had no real power. No friend to rely on. But he tried — and he died. Hi was buried hurriedly, in very modest tomb.
Now Ay felt strong enough. So he pronounced himself a king. And as before, Horemheb backed him with his soldiers. But there was some disagreement between Ay and Horemheb — the Aton’s cult was still alive.
We must get rid of all of them! insisted general. They are real threat! They are seeking power!
But Ay objected. He had a good reason for that — some of his friends and even members of his family were Atonists.
Who is holding Ay on the throne? told Horemheb to himself. I am! What real power does he have? None! Who has the power? I have! If I give an order. And so he did. Ay was murdered and Horemheb made himself a pharaoh. He was obsessed with the idea that there is no place for lepros (how he called Atonists) in his empire. He ordered them arrested. But he was too afraid to kill them. They were members of the most privileged families. Some of them with royal blood in their veins. And some of them were priests. No more priest killing, he thought. He had enough bad dreaming because of Ay. What can I know? What if gods do not tolerate murder of priest? He decided to cure them — by hard work in a quarry. But really strange thing happened — the harder the work, the more miserable their conditions, the stronger their belief. Well, some of them converted. Some of them died by disease, exhaustion or accident but there were still more then enough of them to spread the plague. Some of them tried to convert their guards. Successfully. I need a more permanent solution to my problem, thought Horemheb. Let’s send them away. He sent for leaders of Atonists.
I’ll let you go.
Will you? asked one of the priests. There was neither fear nor reverence in his voice. He never considered Horemheb a king. To him, he was just a traitor, murderer and usurper.
Yes, I will, ignored Horemheb priest’s disrespect. You will be led to desert by my soldiers. From there you can go wherever you want. Only if you ever try return to Egypt, you will be killed. Understand?
To desert? asked priest, and there was sarcastic laugh in his voice. How generous are you! Why not to kill us all right away? You know perfectly well that we have no chance in wilderness.
You must trust your god, said Horemheb mockingly. If you trust him, I am sure he will lead you to safety.
And so the small group of Atonists were led to desert a left in the middle of nowhere. Most of them were quite reconciled with the idea that they were just going to die on the spot. They had absolutely no idea were to go. But the highest priest was thinking about Horemheb’s words. Why not? asked himself. Shall we wait here for our own death? Or shall we try to find the way out? He stepped out and addressed the crowd. He talked about god, how good is he and how much he cares about his people. That he never let them to die. He talked about new covenant and promised land. He poured courage into the hearts of his people. So they set forth. After several days they came to the land of Canaan. They found it in the state of chaos and disorder. Plague was killing inhabitants in big cities by hundreds and people were fleeing to mountains. They were leaderless, scared, confused. Also it seemed that gods of those people remained in the cities, locked and forgotten in their ziggurats. Was it because these people were angry at their old gods?....
the rest is obvious

Hi Raha, This really highlights the unreliability of the Bible as a source for reconstructing an accurate history of Israel.The presentation of Tuthmosis III as the pharaoh of the Exodus is based on the dating given in 1 Kings 6:1.In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.’ The date of Solomon’s reign is worked out by synchronising astronomically fixed Assyrian and Babylonian king lists and is given as around 967 BCE, this obviously puts the Bible’s date of the Exodus at 1447 BCE. (Dates vary of course depending whether a high, middle or low chronology is used.)But the overwhelming archaeological evidence and extra-biblical data places the background of the Israelite settlement (if it did happen that is) into the mid 13th century BCE. Only a few of the fundamentalists try to maintain this dating for the Exodus (Bryant Wood and John Bimson), but their theories have been so annihilated that it is embarrassing that they cling desperately to them.Ramesses II is posited because of Exodus 1.11, the mention of the Estate of Ramesses here means that it has to be 1304 BCE at the earliest as no pharaoh was called Ramesses before this. But the evidence all points to it being Ramesses II who instigated the building of the city, so the Exodus by this dating would be around 1279-1213 BCE.There is a big gap here, as you say, but if you are claiming that they could have left at anytime in between you have to provide some evidence of this. You cannot really just say it happened anytime in between without proving that the other theories were not possible or that you have an alternative date based on some evidence.The 13th century date is convincing because of the disruptions that were happening all over the Mediterranean area. The Amarna Letters prove that there were civil disruptions as well, archaeology provides some destroyed cities at the end of the 13th c BCE, and IF the Merneptah Stele refers to Israel, then the dating of the Exodus to the reign of Ramesses II is even stronger because the conquest of Canaan allegedly took place 40 years after the Israelites left Egypt.Regarding the Hyksos, they were the subject of one of the most debated political events of the Middle Bronze Age, the arrival of a new group in the Egyptian Delta took advantage of the collapse (and maybe even contributed to) of the Egyptian rule (Second Intermediate Period) and set up a capital at Avaris.
The Hyksos set up the Fifteenth Dynasty and ruled over Egypt (at least the northern part) for over 100 years, from the middle of the 17th to the middle of the 16th century BC. Exactly who these people were in terms of ethnic identity is still uncertain, although the study of their names occurring on scarabs, as well as the material evidence from Tell ed-Dab’a, (Avaris) specifies they were essentially Semitic. The older theory that they gained dominance over Egypt in a single assault has recently been challenged, especially in light of the recent excavations at Tel ed-Dab'a. Their rise to power now appears to have been the result of the infiltration of several groups of Asiatics over a long period of time. William Dever has argued that the takeover of Egypt in the seventeenth century was more the result than the cause of the internal collapse of Egyptian control during the Second Intermediate period.Anyway, however they achieved it, by the end of the eighteenth century they seem to have been well established in the Nile Delta. The location of this city is probably indicative of close ties they maintained with Palestine, from which they had come, as well as the fact that they were never in full control of Upper Egypt, which remained in the hands of Theban princes during this time. It is from within this Theban group that the Egyptians battle to overthrow the Hyksos began with the efforts of Kamose, the last Upper Egyptian ruler of the Seventeenth Dynasty. But, acknowledgment for the eventual expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt goes to Kamose's brother, Ahmose (c. 1552-1527 BC), the founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty. By 1540 BC he had succeeded in driving the Hyksos back into Palestine as far as Sharuhen, now identified with Tell el-Ajjul. Following a three-year siege of the city, Ahmose successfully drove them out.The full extent of Hyksos rule and influence is still unclear, but the evidence points to Egypt, Palestine and parts of Syria. Also, to what extent they should be credited with the introduction into the area of such developments as the rampart. war chariot and the composite bow is still not entirely clear, though the latter two are thought more likely than the first. Politically they organised Palestine into a city-state system producing a feudal society with its concomitant uneven distribution of wealth. But Palestine experienced one of its most affluent periods under Hyksos rule.The group associated with the Hyksos would be far too early to have been the biblical Exodus group, it doesn’t fit in with any of the biblical claims. The 1 Kings 6:1 reference is over a hundred year after the Hyksos were routed and the reference to Ramesses Estate is even more problematic. The last 300 years or so of the long Bronze Age are characterised by new demographics which witnessed an almost total abandonment of the rural areas and a build-up in the coastal regions. This period saw increased power and control of the region, especially Palestine and Syria, by Egypt. It led to a general decline in living conditions for most of the people and at the same time a concentration of power and wealth into the hands of an elite group. This situation is reproduced in the architectural remains of large "patrician" houses or "governor" mansions identified at many sites (Tell Beit Mirsim, Megiddo, Tell el-Ajjul, for example), which probably served as domestic quarters for either an Egyptian official or a local who served at Egypt's behest. (Laughlin J. Archaeology and the Bible Routeledge London 2000. p.79.Egypt's control is also seen in the fact that, with few exceptions, most Palestinian sites during this period were unfortified. Furthermore, this concentration of power and wealth is reflected in increased trade, especially with the Mediterranean world, which brought such luxury items as carved ivories, copper, wines, oil and, especially, fine ceramics.In general, the beginning of the Late Bronze Age is linked to the destruction that brought an end to the Middle Bronze Age. Part of the problem, however, is that not all MBA cities/settlements suffered destruction at this time. Examples include Lachish, Gezer, Megiddo, Beth Shean and Hazor. Furthermore, the destruction that did take place cannot be linked to a single event (Bunimovitz S. On The Edge of Empires: Late Bronze Age 1500-1200 in The Archaeological Society In the Holy Land 1995: p.322).Similar problems exist for the ending of the LBA. At the end of the thirteenth century BC, much of the Near Eastern as well as the Mycenaean worlds witnessed major disruptions and collapse. This breakdown can be seen in Palestine, where many sites were destroyed (for example, Hazor and Bethel). On the other hand, Egypt's control over Palestine did not come to a complete end until sometime during the first half of the twelfth century BC. In addition, several sites (such as Megiddo, Lachish, Beth Shean and Ashkelon) were not destroyed at the end of the thirteenth century. Furthermore, the two hallmarks of the Iron Age I period - the spread of the Philistine material culture and the widespread use of iron - do not seem to have occurred until the latter half of the twelfth century (Ussishkin D. Level VII and VI at Tel Lachish and at the End of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. Institue of Archaeology, London 1985 p.216).Information for the collapse of the city states in the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age should be fairly easy to find. Perhaps you could even search the Internet for background information, I am sure there will be some sites dedicated to this.If you have access to a good library, maybe a University library, I can send you a comprehensive bibliography that would give you a good understanding of this period.I need a bit more time to digest your story, but on first reading it is interesting. I might find faults with it because I look at these things from an historical perspective and you have stated that it is a story.Brian.

Hi Brian,
Thanks for your reply. I also need some time to "digest" it. .
I really want to know your opinion about my "story". Yes, it is a story, but it can be also viewed as a rather freely formulated hypothesis. So now I need people like you to test its validity.In my opinion there is still some kind of misunderstanding between the two of us regarding Bible as a historical document. I have an impression from your posts that you are always looking for some "direct connection" between biblical stories and actual events. I am looking just for "hints" or "clues" that might lead to some actual events, but through very long, obscured and winding road. Like - there was an event and that event inspired a legend. Then the legend was retold and rewritten some hundred times. Is there still some truth in the legend? That's a question. And if so - is it possible to "decipher" such legend with some credibility? I think it is, but we cannot rely solely on the "facts" (now I have some difficulty to express myself clearly, so please, try to read "between the lines" little bit). Everybody knows how information can be distorted in the process of transfer, how much noise is added, how much interference can occur. So when some facts contradict the story it does not necessarily mean that there is no correlation between the two of them.
So I use my own imagination when searching for truth. I try to see "the untold story". It is rather risky business, of course, because imagination is said to have no boundaries. But that is why I am seeking help from people like you - to be anchored to the ground when necessary.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Have anybody read Nicholas Reeves’ book Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophe? I haven’t, but with the help of some reviewers and fellow posters I was able to get some general idea what it is about. There are some interesting claims there which I would like to share with you and would like to know your opinion about them:

1. Reeves’ approach reaches a crescendo with his discussion of Akhenaten’s unhealthy sexual interest in his children. — incest was, according my knowledge, not only perfectly normal among Egyptian royal families, but was actually almost mandatory — to preserve pure blood. So although it does sound unhealthy according to our current standards, it was perfectly legal for Akhenaton.
   ​
2. Reeves.s main thesis is that Akhenaten was not a religious fanatic, as commonly viewed, but a king who sought to restore absolute royal power at the expense of the priesthood. Akhenaten.s main strategy was to merge the societal kingly and priesthood roles within the royal family. — I think the same, but would like to see some other opinion as well.
   ​
3. A secondary thesis of Reeves is that Smenkhkare was Nefertiti in disguise. Reeves also suggests that Nefertiti, not Ankhesenamun, wrote the famous marriage proposal to the Hittites. While these arguments have been made before, Reeves readdresses the issues with new evidence that seems convincing — my main problem here is that I supposed that the prevalent opinion about Nefertity is that she disappeared during Akhenaton’s reign. I have even read some speculation that Akhenaton had her murdered. And Smenkhare — how strong is our evidence, that he was brother of Tutankhamon?
   ​
4. I find it suprising that Dr Reeves maintains the misleading tradition of calling the pharaoh Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten, since throughout his reign he was known (always and only) as King Neferkheperure Waenre.
   Every single king of the 18th Dynasty incorporated Ra into their name as Pharaoh, and none of them included the name of Amen - they are (up to 'Amenhotep III') Kings NebpehtiRE, DjeserkaRE, AkheperkaRE, AkheperenRE, MaatkaRE, MenkheperRE, AkheperuRE, MenkheperuRE and NebmaatRE.
   Note also that even 'Akhenaten' himself was King NeferKHEPERuRE WaenRE - making any claims of his supposedly dogmatic monotheism somewhat lame. — this is from some amazon review. Is that true? If so, why is it generally understood that Akhenaton changed his name from Akhenamon and Tutankhaton back to Tutankhamon?

And finally — are there some other interesting views/observations/theories in Reeves’ book which my sources overlooked?------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.[This message has been edited by Raha, 09-15-2003]

A little background. To the best of my knowledge:There is no reference to Smenkhkare before Nefertiti's dissapearence in known artifacts. In the record, Smenkhkare immediately replaces Nefertiti as Akhenatun's co-regent.There is no reference to Nefertiti's death at all in known artifacts.Poorly preserved remains considered by some to be Smenkhkare has been found in Tomb 55 (itself quite a mystery - there are many different royal names all associated with the same tomb), but it is far from conclusive. However, whoever this was seems to have been closely related to Tutankhamen - they share a similar spinal defect and blood type.There is a reference to Nefertiti being at Akhenatun's funeral - long after her dissapearence from the record.Smenkhkare married (two?) of Nefertiti's daughters, making it unlikely that it was Nefertiti; no children were had, however.A female mummy, apparently royalty, was found with several other mummies that, due to the mummification technique used, is dated to very close to the time of Akhenatun. It is an age that Nefertiti would be when she died; additionally, the mummy was found with a wig of a rare style worn by Nefertiti, and nefer beads were found in the wrapping, left from when a looter stole the neck piece she was wearing. Interestingly, whoever this mummy was had been buried with her arms in the position of a pharaoh, and had one arm snapped off after burial and repositioned into that of a queen's position. The mummy had been severely beaten either at death or shortly after; its face had been smashed in, and there were numerous other injuries.It would be nice if they could get more conclusive testing done on the two bodies... or if they could find Akehnaten's body.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Let me start by saying this whole thread is awesome. I have very similar interests as Brian, but as far as "historian" versus "writer" fall more into Raha's camp.Maybe not too much of a surprise, both myself and my girlfriend (who shares my interest in this subject) have formulated the same theory that Raha has. I find your story quite plausible, even if there end up being minor errors here and there.So I wait with avid interest to see Brian's responses.I guess I should note that this whole idea is not new at all. It was actually the basis of an action movie with hmmmm, robert taylor? or stewart granger? back in the technicolor days.But as far as Reeves' book on Akhenaten goes...1) Incest... you are correct and Reeve's moralizing seems a bit out of place. A few millenia out of place.2) Not a religious fanatic... almost agree, but how do you discern between a true religious fanatic and someone that gains power by fanning the flames of other people's fanatcism?3) Smenkhkare-Nefirtiti... I have seen the same evidence/arechological gossip as Rei stated in his post. Personally I think it is "suggestive" but not "conclusive". However, I don't think marrying the daughters diminishes the suggestion. As has been noted incest isn't frowned on at all, and in the role of Smenkhkare, Nefirtiti was a "male" and so open to marrying those daughters.4) Amenhotep-Akhenaton... Well this just goes to show I am not really a historian and more of a dilletante. I am not aware there was a problem with this. In fact I may have compounded this error with a very very silly one. Since I had also seen Amenhotep shortened to Amen, or Amen-Ra as the deity, it made me scratch my head and wonder if that had anything to do with using the word Amen at the end of Xtian prayers. This "observation" is probably very stupid and based on coincidence, but what can I say? I made it. Is there anything to it? And don't spare my feelings.Along with this "observation", if Amen, did not come from reverence to Amen, what exactly does it mean and where did it come from?------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-16-2003]

I agree, extremely interesting topic.I don't have an opinion on the rest of your post at this time but as for your question concerning the origins of the word amen...from websters: edited because cut and paste wasn't working correctly
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato[This message has been edited by Asgara, 09-16-2003]