Talk:Taharqa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Contributed content
From Talk:Egypt on 25 Feb:
On the main article page it lists the 13th dynasty as being more current than the 18th dynasty. When in fact the 13th dynasty was 1400 years earlier from around 1773 B.C.to around 1650 B.C. It's probably just an honest mistake and should be corrected by the person that made it. The thirteen Dynasty page here in Wikipedia bears the same mistakes in period.
The Article page not only bears mistakes on the dates of the Thirteenth Dynasty it also completelty passes over the the Kushite Dynasty, omitting four hundred years of Egyptian History. When I put in the information (which can be sourced through Wikipedia and even Harvard University) it is erased. If Wikipedia isn't seeking the truth and nothing but the truth, what's the point? Tom 02/25/07
- That is a really good point. Ben 02/25/07
It appears the text was too detailed for that article. I pulled the text from the history of the article Egypt on 25 Feb and commented below. -- Beland 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Twenty Fifth and Twenty Sixth Dynasties were marked by the Kushite/Ethiopian rule of Egypt. With some interruptions by the Assyrians, there was a line of Nubian rulers of Egypt from around 750 B.C. to 332 B.C. which overlaps into the Persian/Twenty Seventh Dynasty.
That appears to contradict the article Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt. What is the source of this information?
- A prominent pharoah during this period was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taharqa. (Taharqa) ruled upper Egypt from around 688 B.C. to 662 B.C. Defeated once by the Assyrians he again regained power and declared himself ruler of all Egypt. During his reign, Taharqa controlled the largest empire in Ancient Africa. He built a temple of solid granite at Jabal Barkal in the Sudan. He also built another temple to the gods Osiris and Ptah. Scholars have identified him with Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, who waged war against Sennacherib during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah (2 Kings 19:9; Isaiah 37:9). He built temples in Sanam, Kawa, Atribis, Pnubs, Semna, Kasr Ibrim, and in the Theban district. Trading increased dramatically during his reign, fostering economic, religious and cultural activities in both Egypt and Ethiopia. His remains were excavated from a pyramid in Nuri in 1917 by an expedition sponsored by Harvard University.
To link to a Wikipedia article, instead of using the URL, you write something like [[Taharqa]], which appears like this: Taharqa
Wikipedia articles do not act as authoritative references for each other without at least one of them having an external reference to document the claims made. Most of the information in the above paragraph is new to this article, so it should be referenced.
While Harvard University is a reputable source, they aren't really considered a reference unless you have heard from them directly. How do you know about the 1917 excavation? Is there a rumor on the street? Or did you read about it in a book or see it mentioned in a documentary? The source that needs citing is the one from which you gleaned the information, or through which you best confirmed it. "Largest empire in Ancient Africa" seems unlikely. Presumably this refer to this particular period in the very long history of ancient Africa?
We would also want a reference to the "scholars" who identify this historical person with a figure from the Bible. The Bible is not accepted by everyone as historically accurate, but it is very interesting to people of many points of view when outside sources agree on particular details. -- Beland 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- There isn't much dispute that Taharqa and Tirhakah are one and the same. It's only people who do believe in the literal truth of the Bible who have a problem with that since the dates don't exactly match. I'm not sure what the issue is here - though 400 years seems rather an overestimate of the length of the Cushite dynasty. Paul B 08:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I dodn't quite realise that this comment was about the proposed additions imported from the Egypt article rather than the existing text. Paul B 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The ruins around Gebel Barkal include at least 13 temples and 3 palaces, that were for the first described by european explorers in the 1820’s, although only in 1916 archeological excavations were started by George Reisner under a joint expedition of Harvard University and the Museum of Fine Arts of Boston. From the 1970’s, explorations continued by a team from the University of Rome La Sapienza, under the direction of Sergio Donadoni, that was joined by another team from the Boston Museum, in the 1980’s, under the direction of Timothy Kendall. Also, not just for the Kushite Dynasty, but for centuries of Egyptian lineage in general: W.M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt - Part Three, (1896), p. 308 states: ". . . . the kings of Napata represented the old civilization of Upper Egypt is clear; and it is probably that they were actually descended from the high priest of Amen, who were the rightful successors of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties. So far, then, as hereditary rights go, they were the true kings of Egypt, rather than the mob of Libyan chiefs who had filtered in the Delta, and who tried to domineer over the Nile valley from that no-man's land." This would include Taharqa and represents the larger and the vast. Tom 03/22/07
- Well you just copied that Petrie text from a website! Most of what you say in the above is accurate, but I don't know where you get the idea that the Nubian dynasty lasted for 400 years, unless you are counting the fact that they still called themselves Pharaohs of Egypt even after they had been pushed back to Nubia. Of course they did control territory that had formerly been part of the Egyptian empire. The version the text given above gives the false impression that he was only temporarily defeated by the Assyrians, but eventually regained control of Egypt. Paul B 12:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's easier and convenient to scan accurate references from the web than it is from the library. Tom 03/22/07
