Talk:Taharqa

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

"...after Esarhaddon had settled a revolt at Ashkelon. Taharqa defeated the Assyrians on that occasion."

Where is this documented? The book Ancient Iraq by: Georges Roux never mentions an Assyrian defeat. Rawoyster (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The kushite nubians did the defeat the assyrians at times but lost in egypt,but when the assyrians try to invade the great nubian kushite empire,the kushites push them back.The kushite empire was the largest african empire in ancient times by the way.another point,the kushite rulers and their family do not come from egypt.Their origin is in southern nubia.This is the more update info. `

Well, at the end of the day, they were all Africans...Apart from the invaders.

CELL455 10/8/09- books-the kingdom of kush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cell455 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

TAHARQA DIED IN THEBES Historical Prism inscription of ashurbanipal I by Arthur Carl Piepkorn page 36

the oriental institute of the university of chicago assyriological studies http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/as5.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.83.159 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Tarragona

Plenty of Traditional Spanish histories of Tarragona city usually talk about the article subject, even his coat of arms... While their records may well be unhistorically inaccurate, they still deserve some kind of mention in relevance to the topic here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This comes from van Sertima, a notoriously unreliable "historian". I wouldn't trust anything he says about anything, even the existence of this story, at least not in the form in which he relays it. The 1838 source is of course not reliable as a secondary source, but it is a primary source for attmpts to link the Biblical Tirhakah to European towns. This is pretty typical of Biblical syncretist writers of the period, like Jacob Bryant. I can imagine that it may have popped up in earlier syncretist literature, but we'd need a proper source. Paul B (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like we're up to the usual old stalemate where a wikipedia editor (Paul Barlow) is comparing his own expertise, knowledge, and credentials against that of a published author whom he doesn't personally like (van Sertima). I don't know any way around this kind of stalemate. I will be pasting the offensive text here on the talkpage as is customary when I get the chance, though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

van Sertima is fringe. If you think he's a reliable source, take it to WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, looks like I completely forgot about this debate. I don't even recall what the relevant "offensive text" was, let alone what part of it I should have posted. Paul B (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Taharqa who mythically founded Tarragona was Ethiopian descent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.126.109 (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Too much weight given to sources one over 200 years, the other about 2500 years old

The two paragraphs seem to give undue weight to Griffith's argument. I wish we had p. 255 of this. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Too much weight given to Assyrians and their leaders

In the previous version of the article, undue weight is being given to the Assyrians and their leaders. This is an article about Taharqa. Most headings, text, pictures, etc. should be about Taharqa. There were a lot of battles between Taharqa's army and the Assyrians, so it's necessary to include the Assyrians. However, the majority of section headings in an article about Taharqa should not be about Assyrians and told from the Assyrians viewpoint. I would encourage bold contributors to add that text to the Assyrian page, Sennacherib's page, Esarhaddon's page, or Ashurbanipal's page. Please allow time for input before reintroducing volumes of text and headings about Assyrians in an article about TaharqaEditorfromMars (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem

The article notes that Taharqa's army may have played a role in preventing Sennacherib from conquering Jerusalem, but the article dates the siege to 701 BC and Taharqa's accession to 690 BC. What gives? Furius (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree, would like somebody who has is into chronology to expand on this. Don't agree with the previous comment, it is very relevant as this is an excellent way to combine Egyptian, Judean and (neo-)Assyrian chronology, so this makes it very relevant. Doesn't look much but at this point in time 11 years difference is a lot.

Also note that the Bible book of Kings states the fourth regnal year of Hezekia as the year the Assyrians went tot invasde (and conquered) Israël and his 14 years as the year they invaded Juda, where Assyrian records show there is more then 20 years between the two invasions (so the biblical chronology is very flawed). Codiv (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Furius: This source explains that Taharqa was sent by his father as a military commander to fight against the Assyrians, as Kushite Kings used to delegate actual leadership in combat to a subordinate. Potatín5 (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting! That is not clear from the article as it's currently written. Is it really "Taharqa's army" if he was general on behalf of someone else? Would it be worth mentioning this service in the "early life" section? Furius (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth a shot. Potatín5 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)