Talk:Amarna letters

24 of which have been recovered since the Norweigan Assyriologist J.A. Knudtzon's landmark edition, Die El-Amarna Tafeln (vol. 1 Leipzig, 1907; vol.2 Leipzig, 1915).

I do not understand this sentence. Burschik 07:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I revised it to this: "The known tablets currently total 382 in number, 24 further tablets having been recovered since the Norwegian Assyriologist J.A. Knudtzon's landmark edition of the Amarna correspondence, Die El-Amarna Tafeln in two volumes, (1907 and 1915)." Easier to chew? ;) Wetman 07:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how to revise the rash of new edits from User:172.155.0.29 into neutral encyclopedic tone tied to some references without hurting feelings. It has to be accomplished somehow. --Wetman 04:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply ]

• I've moved them out of the introduction - I'm not sure how much they actually add to the article though! Markh 17:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted all of the newly added paragraphs. I understand that it would be best to try and integrate them, but, having read them, I feel there is nothing worthwhile in the text. Oswax 14:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply ]

This article gives the reign of Akhenaton/Amenhotep IV as 1369-1353 BC. However, it says the letters also encompass Amenhotep III's reign. When I link to Amenhotep III, his reign overlaps the time that A IV supposedly reigned. Specifically, A III's reign is given as 1389-1351 BC or 1391-1353 BC. Please make Wikipedia more internally coherent. Someone (with a lot of ambition/time) may want to review all the dates given for the reigns of different pharaohs.

Sadly different chronologies (long/middle/short) have been used for different articles in wikipedia. It needs much work to get them together. That academic opinions on the chronologies are always changing does not help matters. Oswax 13:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

I've seen a number of articles use the abbreviation "EA" in referring to documents from the Amarna Letters, but nowhere is this terminology explained. I would add this explanation myself, but at the moment I'm at work & don't have the necessary books at hand. -- llywrch 16:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

EA is for "Tell el-Amarna". (However, the British Museum also numbers its museum items "EA".) The Amarna Letters are EA 1 thru EA 382, "el Amarna" 1, etc. --MMcAnnis,YumaAZMmcannis 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

I wasn't asking for an explanation for my use: I have the books at home with the answer. I was asking that an explanation be added to the article, hopefully one based on a quotable source. I only noticed this oversight in the article because I was away from my library, & I consulted this article in search for a quick answer. -- llywrch 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand; I see now what you meant.-MichaelMcAMmcannis 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Wetman and others, I see the article currently is planning a summary of all the letters, presumably all 300+ of them. I just wonder if this really is something Wikipedia should undertake, especially since a link to a summary is included under external links. I'm sure it is not beyond Wikipedia but it might be beyond this article. I'm only proposing the questions, is it desirable and is this the place?Dave 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

If you only knew how important each letter is... and how it interwikis to other people and events, and placenames. When EA26 says: "and to address this hurdle of the messengers", and the word 'hurdle' is the word for mountain, ...It is all about "words", and the phrases, idioms, and the actual 'Soap–opera Events' involved with each letter. "MyOpinion"..from the SonoranDesert of AZ,usa ..-Mmcannis 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

And this Period, is one important "nodal point" for linking other events. Hasn't anyone noticed that the Hapiru, disappear, and then the history of Judaism, and the bible begins? ..SonDesert ..-Mmcannis 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

Doesnt represent its era, crete was center of a seperate civilisation Minoan unrelated with greeks probably close to luwians, Greeks invaded the island after the Troyan catastrophe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Uhm, no. By the mid-14th century BC, the Mycenaean Greek invasion of Crete had already taken place. There is no single historical "Trojan catastrophe". Troy VII postdates the 14th century BC. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

This source [[1]] doesn't match what the article says.

In the intro the link from Amurru goes to the god not to the people. I'd change it if I knew how but beg ignorance. Nitpyck (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

a little history revising here? I have come to believe from wikipedia itself that the name was coined in the first century by the romans please be conservative using potential plo soap 109.66.17.64 (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

The language of the Amarna letters is known among semitists for its coloring by many "Canaanisms", which have helped to shed invaluable light on the proto-stage of the Canaanite languages, including pre-biblical Hebrew.^{[1] [2]} It would be useful to add a section on this topic to the page. Drabkikker (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Added. Drabkikker (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Is Knudtzon (1905-1915) still the standard work, or that of Moran (1992) as the article about him claims? I am utterly ignorant in this field, I was randomly drawn here by Amarna letter EA 86 which seems lacking in many respects, including the claim that Moran (pp. 158–9) is the translator, whereas he appears to be drawing on RF Youngblood's Ph.D thesis. MinorProphet (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]