|Akhenaten was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Akhenaten has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
This guy is also Amenophis IV (see, for example History of Egypt). Amenophis doesn't sound at all like Amenothep to me, why the two spellings (or names).
Amenophis is the Greek version of Amenhotep ... which in itself is just a rough transliteration of the hieroglyphic. User:Ffabris
This section is disjointed, poorly summarized, sources contradict each other, it is wildly out of synch with the Smenkhkare entry and contains errors. The topic is far too complex to adequately and accurately summarize in a few sentences. And of course, it is lopsided to mention and explore Smenkhkare and only mention Neferneferuaten in passing. A concise note regarding the association of Smenkhkare with Akhenaten and a main article link to a single entry which can more easily maintained seems a better way to keep the content up to date.
A glaring example:
- There has also been interest in the identity of the Pharaoh Smenkhkare, who was the immediate successor to Akhenaten. In particular, descriptions on a small box seemed to refer to "Smenkhkare beloved of Akhenaten".
- A) If the box is Carter 001k, the name "Smenkhkare" does not appear on it. There are no 'weasel words' needed ("seemed") as Carter's notes clearly show
- B) If it is another box, which one?
- C) I'd be very surprised if the 2000 source cited actually said anything of the sort and is mischaracterized here. A source cited later ( J.P. Allen, "Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re", GM 141 (1994), pp.7-17) deals with the issue in much more detail and authority and wholly different conclusions. See also much of M, Gabolde's work.
- many of the references are "off". Regarding stele of "two rulers, naked and seated together", seems to be #17813, Berlin, but it is not clear if Newberry or Montserrat is being cited (or Montserrat citing Newberry).
The late professor Harrison reviewed all the then available evidence, including blood grouping, and concluded that it was Smenkhare interred in KV55,and Tutankhamun was his brother.
His final conclusion was that Akhenaton was a son of the late pharaoh and his wife Tiye. Smenkhare and Tutankhamun were also sons of the same pharaoh, by a secondary wife, Kiya.
The History Channel also recently suggested that there was a "fudge factor" in estimating the age of an individual on death and that Tutankamun could have been as much as 28 on death making him too old to be a son of Akhenaton.
DNA testing although narrowing the number of possible relationships apparently cannot distinguish between father, son and brothers.
- Harrison's conclusions that Akhenaten and Tut were half brothers is not possible since the mitochondrial DNA evidence proves that the KV35EL (Elder Lady) mummy is a daughter of Yuya and Thuya; and, therefore, Queen Tiye, the mother of Akhenaten. In which case, if Akhenaten and Tut were half brothers they would have shared the same father or mother. Unfortunately, Akhenaten's father, Amenhotep III was dead before Tut was born. In addition, the KV35YL (Younger Lady) mummy has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be Tut's mother. But since KV35EL is Tiye the KV35YL mummy cannot be Akhenaten's mother; in which case, it is virtually impossible for Akhenaten and Tut to be half brothers. See my explanation in the above section detailing Akhenaten as the paternal uncle/maternal grandfather of Tut. Pvsalsedo (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Amenhotep lll / Tut
This is an interesting argument but can any evidence be quoted that Amenhotep 111 was dead before Tut was born?
The late Leonard Cottrell investigated this question in great depth and concluded, like prof Harrison, that Amenhotep 111 was the likely father of Tut.
If indeed one of the otherwise unidentified remains are DNA linked to Thuya and Yuya and therefore COULD be Tiye still raises the question of how many daughters did this couple actually have? Tiye is well known but were there other daughters and is there is there now at least one otherwise unidentified daughter?
When Tut was originally interred, his parents were known to everybody at the time and apparently nobody thought to record these simple well known details. Tut claimed to be the son of a pharaoh and there are only two contenders, Amenhotep 111 and Akhenaton.
The DNA testing has probably reasonably proved family links but as the corpses are otherwise unidentified and I point out that the Elder Lady was at one time thought to be Hatshepsut, little fresh information seems to have become available to finally settle the various conjectures. To quote prof Hawass "we think that this lady was his (Tuts)mother". Possibly but what was her name?
The History Channel suggestion the Tut may have been up to 28 on death still seem to make him too old to be a son of Akhenaton but probably placing his birth well within the lifetime of Amenhotep 111. This leaves only Amenhotep 111 and with the name of the Lady Kiya being found in Tuts tomb as his most likely parents.
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Akhenaten/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I am starting a good article reassessment of this article because it has not kept up with GA standards since it was promoted, and has numerous tags that show this. Specifically:
- First, tags:
- References needed banner in the Religious policies section.
- Eight citation needed tags in various sections
- "Not in citation given" tag in Death, burial and succession section
- Two dead link tags
- In addition to the tagged areas, there are numerous spots, including entire paragraphs, of unsourced material. Take, for example, the last two bullet points of the Family and relations section, which gives extensive conjecture with zero sources. Also the first paragraph of the Smenkhkare section, which again includes conjecture without sources.
- What makes ref #6, 47 (Kv64.info) a reliable source?
- What makes ref #14 (Anubis4_2000.tripod.com.) a reliable source?
- What makes ref #80 ( Megaera Lorenz) a reliable source?
- The In the arts section is a bullet-pointed list of trivia that gives the reader little to no indication as to why these mentions are notable or relevant. How does it help the reader to know that Akhenaten has been mentioned in various rock/metal songs? Is he associated with this culture in some way? Why can't all of the song mentions, if all they are is mentions, be summarized in a couple of sentences: "He has been mentioned in several rock songs, including x song by y band, q song by r band and m song by n band. [rinse, repeat for metal songs, or whatever]".
These are the major issues I see on a first run-through. I'm placing the review on hold to allow time for the above issues to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just a brief comment. The 'In the arts section' is just trivia that people insert since Akhenaten is today a very famous person for being one of the monotheists of the world. It can be deleted but I suppose someone may insert them back in the future. The #80 ref by 'Megaera Lorenz' appears to be a general discussion of the symptoms of Marfan's syndrome. I don't know if its totally reliable but it doesn't seem out of place on this article and it does give general sources for its paper including Brittanica. Yes, there are entire paragraphs without sources. Perhaps someone else could verify the information or delete them if they're incorrect. When I wrote the 'International relations' paragraph of Akhenaten's paper years ago, I gave the sources, but today I lack the time sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Two final comments: I think that ref #6  is a minority view. Most Egyptologists believe that the mummy is Akhenaten given the level of damage that his funerary equipment suffered and his cartouches were all totally erased. The mummy mask was partly ripped out and its most likely that this royal ruler was Akhenaten and not the shortlived Smenkhkare. I agree that more references are needed in the Religious policies section but I cannot say anything about them. Akhenaten's "Death, burial and succession section" needs more sources but very little is known about the royal succession or the time of death of Akhenaten. Was Smenkare a coregent of Akhenaten for a while before he assumed the throne briefly after Akhenaten died? The archaeological record is unclear. Until December 2012, most people thought that Nefertiti short after Year 12 of Akhenaten's reign but now we know that she was still alive in Year 16 of his reign--about 1 year before he died. She may have outlived her husband. All that is certain is that Akhenaten was initially buried in his royal tomb at Amarna before his body was presumably moved to Thebes when a successor abandoned Amarna and Akhenaten's religious revolution to return to Thebes. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
co-rule with Amenhotep III confirmed
Apparently a new find in Luxor confirmed that Amenhotep IV, alias Akhenaten, did have a period of co-rule with his father Amenhotep III. A mural painting dating from Amenhotep III's Heb Sed shows both pharaoh's together with their names mentioned together. According to the minister of Antiquities Mohamed Ibrahim Ali al-Sayed, this is an important find. Alas I can only find a Dutch language newspaper source: http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20140206_00967016 Has anyone a English language source confirming this?-- fdewaele, 6 February 2014, 18:27 CET