Talk:Sesostris

Sestrosis/Senusret III in Asia Minor

Reading Herodotus' Histories ii.106, one can hardly dismiss the possibility that Senusret III or perhaps another pharaoh actually did go into Asia Minor. Is it really that impossible, just because steeles/monuments haven't been currently found, especially since Herodotus says he saw them? Or perhaps Herodotus is mistaken as to the Egyptian identity of the monuments, though the article seems to be saying that his descriptions are very similar to Egyptian monuments. I can see why Europe/Colchis might be dismissed, but why is the possibility of an invasion of Asia Minor so easily rejected by many scholars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renassault (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Papyrus Harris even says Ramesses III "slew the Denen in their isles" referring to the controversial Sea Peoples. Of course the isles in question are a subject of historical debate, but many agree think they were probably Aegean. Whether the papyrus is exaggerated propaganda or not is anybody's guess. The Eckwesh and a couple other sea people tribes were circumcised. Herodotus says the Colchians and a few other northern Asia Minor groups practiced circumcision. Also a variation of this account was written by Jordanes pertaining to Gothic history where Sesotris is called Vesosis and a Gothic king named Tanausis battles with him near Colchis and chases him almost to Egypt before heading back and conquering "Asia" (the sea peoples ravaged many cities by land and sea). This version has a few parallels with the myths of Aegyptus and his brother Danaus. The resistence to the idea of Egyptian kings in Asia Minor or any part of Europe is strange in an almost dogmatic kind of way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.146 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the way dogmas go full circle. It is unquestionable that if you read what the earliest Greek historians have to say, what they talk about is Egyptians running around all over the place including Greece (Apis) and Spain (Taharqa) among others. The Greek historians may have had it totally wrong for some reason, but apparently that's what they believed, and presumably what they were taught to believe. However, this notion goes totally against ways of thinking being projected nowadays, that ancient nations were isolated and ignorant and never even heard of each other except their closer neighbours, so therefore nowadays even discussing details of what the Greeks wrote is discouraged. At this rate, our posterity 3000 years from now will be working hard to prove we never existed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Simply not true. Who claims that ancient nations never heard of any other nations except their closer neighbors? And we know that the Egyptians were well aware of 'Asia Minor', ie Anatolia. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And the Amarna letters show correspondence with Babylonia, Assyria, the Mitanni, the Hittites, Syria, Canaan, and Alashiya (Cyprus). Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Doug, I respect that you are informed enough about these things to know better, but you might be surprised at some of the perceptions from less informed people. Interestingly enough by the way, there are sources stating that the Egyptians included the whole of the world known to them in the "Nine Bows". This includes the "Haunebu" (northerners), known to be used on the Rosetta Stone as an equivalent to "Greeks". Mentuhotep II claims to have subjected these lands as well. (As our article on him points out, he was considered an incarnation of "Osiris".) So in other words the Egyptian point of view is just as fascinating as the Greek point of view. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As regard the Haunebu, Breasted wrote "red pottery produced by the Hittite peoples in Cappadocia, of Asia Minor, was possibly finding its way to the Semites of southern Palestine. Doubtless the commerce along this route, through Palestine, over Carmel and northward to the trade- routes leading down the Euphrates to Babylon, while not yet heavy, was already long existent. Commerce with southern Europe had also begun. The peoples of the Aegean, whose civilization was now rapidly developing into that of the Mycenaean age, were not unknown in Egypt at this time. They were called Haunebu, and a treasurer of the Eleventh Dy- nasty, whose duty was the maintenance of safe frontier ports, boasts of himself as one "who quells the Haunebu." Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Palestine

This is really not very helpful. Palestine is referred to under that name in the same passage in Herodotus' Histories that is being used here, so is certainly not anachronistic. In any case we need WP:RS for the actual fact being given here, whatever name is used, and we should echo the name used in that source. I'd be very surprised if it was "Canaan". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Palestine" is still an anachronism, it doesn't matter if Herodotus used it, there was no entity known as "Palestine" in the reign of Senusret. You are seriously barking up the wrong tree, by wrongly making it appear as if there was an entity known as "Palestine" in the reign of Senusret. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know when "Palestine" was first used and nor do you. We need to find a WP:RS for the reference concerned and use the name it uses. If we can't find one we should delete it altogether. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Taking my own advice, I searched online in the 1911 Britannica and immediately found "Senwosri III. raided south Palestine and Ethiopia", so that settles the matter. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The passage is indisputably talking about the time of Sesostris. The sentence in the article is talking about Senusret. In either case Herodotus wrote over a millennium later in ca 480 BC, the idea that we have to use his 480 BC nomenclature in this one case just because he used the anachronistic term "Palestine" is ridiculous. If we are going to mention the region in the same breath as Senusret, we have to use the name we know from historical records was current in the time of Senusret, which is inarguably "Canaan". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A 1911 Encyclopedia from the time when the name Palestine was the official and current name for the region is worthless to us as any kind of "authority", because "Palestine" isn't currently used in that sense any longer as of 1948. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be pleased if other editors could join this discussion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::We should rarely use encyclopedias for articles on history. See also WP:TERTIARY. It's bad enough that we have text in articles from the 1911 EB (I was reverted once when I asked for citations for statements that seemed incorrect because it was the EB and thus cited!). It's even worse when our source is over a century old. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Til Eulenspiegel: The articles on Sesostris I, Sesostris II and Sesostris III in the EB 15th edition (from 1974) all refer to relations with "Palestine"
• @Dougweller: I don't understand the implications of what you are saying here. Much of the text in the current version of the article is a close paraphrase of EB1911. Are you saying that this should be removed, or that while it can stay, particular points within it should not be explicitly attributed to EB? And if the latter, what WP policy would justify that? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to this article. I am saying I guess that if I added a cite tag I'd be unhappy to have it removed on the basis the text was copied from EB1911. I'm also saying that where possible it should be checked against modern sources and if appropriate updated. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Samuel, given the indisputable historically recorded fact that at the time in question, the name Canaan was used for the region, whereas the name Palestine is an anachronism or at least not attested until 1500 years later, what else is there to debate? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Til Eulenspiegel: The reason we're at cross purposes is that you keep advancing arguments that are WP:OR, while I'm advocating the use of WP:RS. If you can find sources for discussions of the bronze age civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean area that use the name "Canaan" to describe Palestine, you will begin to make your point. And if not, not. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not OR to assert that the term Palestine is anachronistic and was unheard of at the time of Senusret. The OR is your extraordinary implication that the term Palestine is proper to the time of Senusret. The timeframe when the region carried the name Palestine is not in dispute; in 133 the Romans declared that the former name Iudaea was damnatio memoriae and therefore the region must never be referred to by any name other than Palestine. This situation ended in 1948, yet there are still some who hold to this obsolete Roman political POV of damnatio memoriae and wish the region to be called Palestine at all times past, present and future. Wikipedia ought not cater to this obsolete pov and should use Palestine for the correct timeframe 133-1948 only and not call the previous countries that were there such as Canaan by the incorrect and anachronistic term Palestine. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand we have WP:RS such as

• Enc. Britannica 15th edition (from 1974) where the articles on Sesostris I, Sesostris II and Sesostris III all refer to relations with "Palestine"
• Aldred, Cyril (1987). The Egyptians (second ed.). Thames and Hudson. with its frequent use of "Palestine" for all eras
• Burkert, Walter (2007). Babylon Memphis Persepolis. Harvard University Press. which includes the passage (page 11) " ... the Hebrews ... remained grateful to king Cyrus, who allowed them to refound Judaea as a theocratic vassal state in Palestine." which exemplifies current scholarly use of the term.

On the other hand we have Til Eulenspiegel's farrago of irrelevance, factual inaccuracy and prejudice, all without any foundation in WP policy. What else can one say? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you really want sources that say Senusret went to "Canaan" they aren't too hard to find, apparently easier than you really had to do some digging to find one recent book using the obsolete term "Palestine" for the region. You haven't actually responded to any of the FACTS, other than to throw some general name-calling my way for pointing out the facts. That doesn't rate very highly on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, you know. Which of the facts are in dispute with you, Samuel the Ghost? FACT: There was no region known as Palestine in the age of Senusret. FACT: The region was known as Canaan in those days. FACT: The region was only known as Palestine between the years 133 and 1948. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since I am requested to spell out how Til Eulenspiegel's remarks are a farrago of irrelevance, factual inaccuracy and prejudice, consider the followiing:

• Palestine was called Palestine by Herodotus, fifth century BC, so TE's repetition of an earliest date of 133 is at least half a millennium out. There is no reason to suppose that the name was then new; it presumably goes back to a time when the Philistines were perceived as the dominant people there.
• TE's attempt to delegitimise the term Palestine for references after 1948 is a perfect example of the "political POV of damnatio memoriae" for which he rightly condemns the Romans.
• I supplied three citations above. TE refers to them as "one recent book" so apparently can't count. He boasts that he can find counter-references but hasn't actually produced any.
• The real point is that the scholars I have cited are all using "Palestine" as a description of a territory, irrespective of its political status. That is the traditional way it has been used, and is likely to continue. No other word is a better substitute. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring all the scholars who use the more correct term Canaan when discussing Senusret or even Sesostris? You can't just cherry pick the scholars who use the anachronistic term. And we must not give a misleading impression that Palestine was the name of an entity in Senusret's time, when we know perfectly well that entity was known as Canaan. The "political POV of damnatio memoriae" I mentioned is precisely the one that decreed in 133 that the region must forevermore be known only as "Palestine" to please the Roman gods. Why are you holding wikipedia to that crap when it is not necessary? Herodotus may have been the first to record the term ca. 480 BC but that doesn't really make it any less anachronistic when unnecessarily giving the false impression it was called that 1500 years earlier than Herodotus. What is wrong with the term Canaan nowadays and why would you object to it so strenuously here anyway? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel, @SamuelTheGhost: Look guys, the whole discussion is moot: if you want to use the correct term in use in the time of Senusret, then use Retjenu (or more precisely here) Djahy, which are the ancient Egyptian words for the region in question. If instead you want to quote Herodotus then use Χαναάν and leave it untranslated if this leads to edit wars. I would go with Djahy with a nice wikilink. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Iry-Hor, you are right but our standard practice on all other articles, in keeping with most modern scholarship on the subject, has always been to use the term "Canaan" (and link that article) for the entity that was there in 2000 BC, and use "Palestine" for the region between 133 and 1948. This particular article seems to have been singled out for unknown reason to make some kind of a WP:POINT. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: Thanks for your intervention; we need some fresh inputs into this discussion. Just a few points:

• We don't actually want to quote Herodotus but if we did we certainly wouldn't use Χαναάν, a word Herodotus shows no knowledge of. Herodotus' frequent references to Palestine are to Παλαιστίνη.
• We don't want to use "the correct term in use in the time of Senusret". If that was the right sort of policy, how could we ever talk about anything really pre-historic, where we had no knowlege of the language? What we actually want is the term which WP:RS find as appropriate when discussing the time of Senusret, which is quite different.
• I was interested to follow your links from Retjenu and Djahy. However, the case we're arguing about has a source which uses the name "Palestine". If that source actually referred to the Egyptian, and quoted it, it would be fine for us to do so too. But just to retranslate the common English term given to us back into the presumed Egyptian original would be totally phony and dishonest.
• By the same token, if anyone can actually come up with a source that supports the disputed passage using the word "Canaan", we will have a basis perhaps for agreement. But systematically replacing a word used in good sources by a different word not used there, which TE clearly wants, is not supporte by any wikipedia policy. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Herodotus writing in 480 BC speaks of Palestine in connection with Sesostris. However, Herodotus is not to be taken as an infallible authority nowadays, and in fact the sentence in dispute refers not to "Sesostris" but to the historical Senusret II - and finding abundant sources that talk about Senusret's career in "Canaan" is mere child's play - so much so that I haven't even bothered responding to the gratuitous "citation needed tag" for Canaan which is really no problem at all if it were to be taken seriously. I also see sources showing that Senusret indeed used some of the contemporary Egyptian terminology for Canaan in his records like Djahy or Retenu - certainly not Palestine, which again is misleading to suggest such an anachronism. And again, why have you singled out this article to make a point when generally on all relevant articles we link to the region as Canaan when it was Canaan, and Palestine only when it was officially Palestine? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well at least this is something where perhaps as a compromise we can tweak and expand the wording to explain the situation more fully and link all four terms - mentioning that Herodotus associated Sesostris with a campaign in Παλαιστίνη, which is compared to Senusret's records of campaigns in Djahy, etc. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel: I have never before seen such a concentrated series of silly excuses for failure to supply WP:RS. Your reference to "compromise" is welcome, but can only work if we stick to sourced facts. Meanwhile it's worth clarifying a few points:

• The word Canaan (Hebrew: כְּנָעַן) is known only from the Bible, and there are no known independent cognates unless perhaps Arabic: كنانة‎ is one. It became known to Greek and other Western communities only after its appearance in the Septuagint, and until modern times has only been used by Jews and Christians, but never by pagan Egyptians or Greeks or Romans. When discussing ancient Egypt, therefore, it has no great claim to being the appropriate word.
• it is not certain that Canaan and Palestine are/were identical in extent. If not, it is possible that Hebrew: אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים (see for example 1 Kings 5:1) should be translated as "Palestine". In any case there is every reason to suppose that the word "Palestine" long pre-dates Herodotus.
• Above all, anything we put into this or any other article must be based on reliable sources, and we should not wilfully alter what they say. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Canaan makes it explicitly clear that the word Canaan is NOT "known only from the Bible". "Your argument is invalid". Also the article Timeline of the name Palestine was written specifically to educate people lacking knowledge about where that term is known from and to what timefame modern scholars apply it as a regional term. Don't pretend you honestly cannot find any sources saying Senusret campaigned in "Canaan" and therefore nobody ever said this if I do not "prove" it - such games are just a waste of time when this can be established in mere seconds. I suggested tweaking the wording as a compromise, but your response that you "have never before seen such a concentrated series of silly excuses" for not wanting to suggest in just this one article that Palestine was known as any kind of entity in 2000 BC, indicates that you are of no mind to collaborate and that other remedies may become more practical. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK I boobed there about Canaan. In too much of a hurry; it shows how we need to check sources. I didn't know there was an article Timeline of the name "Palestine". It undermines a good deal of what you've said above. Since we've now established that both "Canaan" and "Palestine" have long respectable histories, it may be possible to each a compromise wording, which might even have implications for other articles. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that Til Eulenspiegel was later globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation

User:Til Eulenspiegel. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)