This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Tutankhamun -- not definately a child of Akhenaten
As I understand it, no one knows for sure who the parents of Tutankhamun were, so should this article list Tutankhamun amongst the children of Akhenaten?
Molybdomancer 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Molybdomancer
Akhenaten is almost certainly Tutankhamun's father. It's not absolutely certain, but it's certain enough. Amenhotep III is also mentioned, but besides for Raymond Johnson, noone holds the 12 year coregency required for him to still be alive when Tutankhamun was born. Thanatosimii 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Tut is not the child of Akhenaten. It is unknown how they are related, but they are related, probably distant cousins, as Tut is married to one of Akh.'s children, and could thus be seen as a intrafamilial alliance of sorts. But its hard to say, and nothing is known except Tut is not his direct son. pookster11 11:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
can you provide a citation for this, and add it to the article ? Markh 11:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree fully with Pookster11 and would like to hear more. Tut's tomb contains items from the whole of Akhenaten's familial tree (1: Lock of hair from his grandmother, Tiye 2: clappers from Tiye/Meritaten, and 3: writing pallette of Meritaten) ...so if someone other than Akhenaten fathered him, what would be the connection to Tiye and Meritaten? The connection to both ladies is Akhenaten. I believe Nefertiti offered her companion Kiya to her husband, and so Tut was born. Iamsmallpeeps (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Marfan's Syndrome
I find it interesting that Akhenaton has all of the characteristics of Marfan's syndrome. See the attached article from [1]
One of history's most enigmatic characters may be one step closer to being understood, thanks to the research of a fledgling Canadian Egyptologist. Alwyn Burridge, an Egyptology doctoral student at the University of Toronto, has been dogging the mystery of the strange appearance of Akhenaten, the "rebel pharaoh" who was one of history's first recorded monotheists. Her persuasive theory suggests he suffered from the genetic disease known as Marfan's syndrome, and not only offers insights into his odd physical characteristics and short lifespan, but into the philosophical and cultural revolution that he visited on the Egyptian society of his day.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW...
The life story of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who reigned from 1356 to 1332 BC, has been shrouded in mystery since the first evidence of him was uncovered little more than 100 years ago. Influential writers, including Sigmund Freud, equated him with legendary figures such as Moses and Oedipus, inspired by his heretical role as the instigator of a wholly new Egyptian religion. Akhenaten, the son of Amenhotep III and born Amenhotep IV, changed his name, built a new capital, and founded a radically new cult. It worshipped the sun as a single monotheistic deity called Aten, and displaced the then-dominant pantheon of gods ruled by Amon, along with the power structure associated with it.
It's little wonder, then, that after Akhenaten's mysterious disappearance (his tomb and remains have never been found) the cult of Amon was restored, and every available trace of Akhenaten's name, rule, monuments and images were destroyed and defaced. His young son Tutankhaten quickly changed his name to Tutankhamen (the well-known King Tut). Akhenaten's name was even omitted from inscriptions listing the kings of Egypt, hence the ignorance until relatively recently of his very existence.
But enough images of Akhenaten and his family have survived to give us a portrait of an extremely odd-looking individual. Many theories have been put forth to explain his long face and fingers, slit-like eyes, protruding breasts and belly, and wide hips. Some have theorized he was a woman, others a hermaphrodite. He has been posited as history's first gay personage, due to speculation about an affair with his co-regent Smenkhkare (said by some to have been his famous and beautiful wife Nefertiti in disguise.) One theory suggested the pharaoh had an endocrinal disorder called Froelich's syndrome, but this seems unlikely as the disease tends to leaves its victims severely retarded, as well as impotent, and Akhenaten appeared to have had many children.
Akhenaten's rule seems to have led to an artistic revolution in the way that the life of the pharaoh could be portrayed (Akhenaten is often seen in peaceful scenes with his family, in contrast to previous pharaohs), which has led to hypotheses that the pharaoh's appearance was influenced to portray him as an androgenous demi-god. But there's little evidence that this had any roots in Egyptian culture, and previous pharaohs were uniformly shown as fit and trim. "The part that really intrigued me was that all the anomalies were consistent in all the depictions," points out Burridge. "Even those that are really exaggerated, like when Akhenaten looks almost like a praying mantis. The same anomalies are there -- nothing more is added, nothing is taken away. And all of these deformities are consistent with Marfan's syndrome."
Marfan's syndrome is a genetic disorder that affects about two people in 100,000 and usually becomes apparent after the age of ten. It affects the connective tissues and has symptoms all over the body, in skeleton, musculature and organs. Eyes are affected and so are hearts - Marfan's syndrome, if untreated, can significantly shorten lifespan. Unfortunately, Akhenaten appears to have a full expression of the disorder, along with all of the deformities: long-headedness, long face, arching neck, bony shoulders, short rib cage, very wide hips and spidery fingers. Burridge was put onto the track of Marfan's syndrome when she saw a television program on the disorder - she was struck by the resemblance of Akhenaten to the sufferers shown on TV.
Burridge thinks the peculiarities of Marfan's syndrome might have influenced Akhenaten in philosophical ways, as well as physical. She thinks it's no accident that he chose the sun as an object of worship. "It could go a long ways towards explaining the radical changes he made to religion during his reign. He worshipped the sun, and people with Marfan's syndrome usually have poor eyesight, and low blood pressure. The warmth of the sun and the brightness would maximize his ability to see. He took the roof off of all of his sun temples -- they were completely open." Marfan's syndrome sufferers have even suggested that the social ostracism that often accompanies a severe expression of the disorder could serve as a powerful incentive to rebel, especially for one who has been suddenly handed unlimited power. Indeed, Akhenaten only came to the throne after the death of his brother, and appeared to have lived in seclusion before this.
The future may vindicate Burridge's theory. Marfan's syndrome is a dominant genetic defect, and it has a fifty- percent likelihood of being passed onto offspring. Portraits of the children of Akhenaten indicate that they may have had the syndrome as well. If genetic testing of the remains of Akhenaten's family shows evidence of the disease, then one of the most intriguing personalities of Ancient Egypt might become a little better understood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John D. Croft (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I'm also a doctoral student, though at a university that has a slightly higher reputation than Toronto. So, does this mean I too can write some crap and someone on here take it seriously? pookster11 11:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, people with Marfan syndrome look a little bit different. This is a (medieval) mummy of a person that very likely had Marfan's; in any case mummies of people in whom "all of the characteristics" will look like this. And why is Nefertiti sometimes portrayed in Amarna style, sometimes not? You don't gain and lose Marfan's like a hangover, it's permanent and innate.
What can be said is that the whole clan was rather long-headed, but as per KV 55, unusually but not unnormally so - compare the KV55 skull to the mummy. In Marfan's, especially the lower jaw is strongly altered in Marfan's, prominent brow ridges are present and there is almost always a pronounced overbite; see also here. KV55 shows none of the typical characteristics; it is simply dolichocephalic and has a cleft palate. But some degree of cleft palate is even under random-mating conditions (and I really doubt that the clan was outbred) present in 1-2 of 1000 newborns; as regards developmental aberrations this is common as shit. The Marfan hypothesis, without some new rock-hard data, is simply not parsimonious.
It remains perhaps more interesting to note that the "marfanisch" depictions of Egyptian royalty appear throughout a certain cultural period. Not earlier, not later. I think the Marfan's theory is attractive because it avoids the main drawback of the "cultural relevance" hypothesis: having no fricking idea why exactly he choose such a weird style. It's not like Ancient Egypt had a culture of artistic experimentation; "high art" in Pharaonic times was rather stereotyped (even throughout the Amarna period. Only differently stereotyped). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Have added a section on Akhenaton's genetic make-up at the section on "Speculative theories". It is interesting that Tutankhamon had a high cleft palate! As did KV55! John D. Croft 13:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a counterargument to the idea that Akhenaten had Marfan's syndrome, mainly, the obviously normal sculptures of the man which exist and which are displayed on the link added. This link lasted one day before it was removed. Can someone with authority explain why? The link is http://moses1350.wetpaint.com/page/Akhenaten+and+Androgeny. I am wondering if the site doesn't meet some Wikipedia criteria and if perhaps the argument should be posted here on talk instead? The idea presented is that the androgeny displayed was intended by Akhenaten to invoke contemplation of the male/female dichotomy and synthesis. I'd like to know why so much force is being put behind this shallow Marfan 'theory' when this Pharaoh was obviously interested in communicating esoteric ideas like this. Why suppose a disease or handicap when direct evidence to the contrary exists? I am replacing the link and will continue to do so until someone explains why I shouldn't. Iamsmallpeeps (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. I made my reason clear when I wrote "rm link to discussion forum, such links not allowed see WP:EL". Before we go any further, please tell me why you think WP:EL says such links are ok? You might read WP:RELIABLE also. Then if you still have questions, come back and I or someone else will try to help you. Meanwhile, I'm removing the link again. I'd like to know why you haven't responded to my reasons for removing it the first time, by the way. One other point, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, encyclopedic articles are not places for personal opinions or research but for verifiable reporting of reliable sources on the various aspects of an article. I put a lot of links on your talk page to help you understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea of NPOV when funded egyptologists are pushing their own theories, is humorous. --Or is the front page of Yahoo not enough exposure for this idea of Akhenaten's feminine appearance? Getting to the point, I am curious about the following section of WP:EL"On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views." ...If there is a link which says "Akhenaten looked like a girl" am I not allowed to post a link labelled, "Akhenaten didn't look like a girl"? As for the content of that link (which is not a discussion board, but rather a wiki), will you please tell me how to modify it so that I can link to it? Thanks. Iamsmallpeeps (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course you are allowed to post links opposing the Marfans theory, which is noot very widley believed. It's just that they should be reliable sources - ideally academic ones. There is a very good book called Akhenaten: History, Fantasy and Ancient Egypt by Dominic Montserrat, which you can access via Google scholar. [2]. Paul B (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, the text on that link you gave is exactly what I was looking for. I don't think it's on the main page, perhaps it could be placed in the links with the text "Akhenaten Did Not Have a Feminine Physique"? ...What concerns me most is the idea of Wikipedia respecting only certain people on Earth, with regards to what is true. Is there anyone here who doesn't know that scholars and teachers are very often the obstacles preventing the search for truth? To say that Wikipedia is not being used to keep ivory towers towering, is incredibly naive at best. Anyway, I've said my peace on this subject. Thanks Paul B. Iamsmallpeeps (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about the search for truth. It's a tertiary source, reporting what reliable and verifable sources have said. Doug Weller (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your clear statement there. If the article says "Some have even suggested that Smenkhkare was actually an alias of Nefertiti", and I find a wiki which discusses the whole concept of Nefertiti being Smenkhare, then I cannot link to that wiki because it is not able to recieve a diploma from an institution, is that right? Only a person, can be a reliable source, whereas wikis cannot get diplomas n' degrees (though Wikipedia certainly is a friend of the diplomaed n' degree'd) and therefore are NOT reliable sources, (though edited by the people). So Wikipedia, in your estimation of the rules, becomes the wiki to end all wikis (tertiary tool to end all tertiary tools) --though the search for truth and the voice of the non college-educated people of Earth, is not even a part of it. Have I understood you correctly? Iamsmallpeeps (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is self-published and because of that it isn't verifiable. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, a lot of editors are almost certainly non-college educated. But yes, the search for truth is not part of it. This statement is part of core policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." I've suggested above what you should read about reliable and verifiable sources so that you can understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines from reading about them yourselves, not just what I or any other editor tells you they are. WP:NOT tells you other things about what Wikipedia isn't.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about who can _edit_ Wikipedia, and I think you know that. But I see your point. 'Reliable' here means someone who went to college and/or got their book published. 'Reliable' doesn't mean any other wiki, though such wikis may be written AND edited by the world at large, these are not as reliable as brick and mortar universities and the persons who have the money to visit them. Thanks for the clarification. ...So I'd have to get a college educated or published person to write something on the wiki in question, for it to be linkable? Then it would be 'reliable'.
{unindent}No, you simply can't use other Wikis as a source. Tell me, where did you get the quote above about brick and mortar universities? Not from Wikipedia guidelines and policies, that's for sure. You seem completely confused as to how Wikipedia works, and until you start reading the stuff I suggested we aren't going to get very far. But I can assure you that just having a degree doesn't make anyone 'reliable' in any sense of the word. This discussion isn't appropriate here anyway because it isn't going to help built a better article.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Mummification
I feel that it is worthy to note whether or not Akhenaten was mummified; in Atenism it is not specified whether or not there is an afterlife, and if there was not, than it is possible that Akhenaten dispensed with mummification was was simply buried. I think that the article should make it clear to those scholars of Atenism and Akhenaten himself as to whether or not he was mummified. --Promus Kaa 21:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Tombs, chambers, necropoleis, etc., continued to be built under Akhenaten, though on the east rather than west bank of the Nile. There's every reason to believe that ideas about the afterlife continued because Egyptian practices involving the afterlife continued.pookster11 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional theories
I'vwe changed this back to "Speculative theories", which is as NPOV as possible. It was changed to "alternative" and then to "optional". I'm not sure what an "optional" theory is. Either you accept it or you don't. Theories are not options - like adding relish to a burger. Anyway, some are rather uncertain (first monotheist), some rather grand (first scientist) but not alternative or optional. Also the first sentence had been changed to a nonsensical assertion that some unconventional theories are mainstream ("Unconventional and alternative theories range from the mainstream to "New Age" esotericism about Akhenaten"). Paul B 13:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Last Changes on Foreign Policy
It is interesting the changes just made about the connections between Tushrata and Akhenaton, considering they were great-uncle and great-nephew. Tushrata's sister, Mutemwiya was Amenhotep III's mother. John D. Croft 03:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to share my ideas
...
Thank you.
And now I would to show another idea, goes something like this; "the story told by Zeti I is not valid", it all went wrong because Akhenaten's monotheïsm included "1 God, 1 religion". Atenism is a very beautiful monotheïsm,and that is why I say Akhenaten should have gone for Syncretism much better. That would have been so much more comfortable, because there is monotheïsm and there is polytheïsm.
Syncretism accepts both monotheïsm & polytheïsm.
I think Atenism is really beautiful, but Syncretism is even more beautiful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
And tell me, how does this actually make a difference for the present article? I suggest you read WP:NOTAFORUM, or share your ideas of beauty and beliefs on your Talk page. Thank You. --Lordmick 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Syncretism, Monotheïsm & Polytheïsm.
Syncretism is the best solution.
It's so sad that Akhenaten declared Atenism to be the only religion, maybe this was because the Egyptian people took polytheïsm out of proportion. Akhenaten must have thought that these people were not seeing the truth, the Egyptian people took their mythology too serious. Akhenaten must have thought that by defacing statues he could prevent people from seeing lies, but the artifacts he defaced were of such important archeological value. He shouldn't have left his mark this way, if only he had been more subtle. The ancient Egyptians had every right to admire Egyptian polytheïsm because it was their religion, Akhenaten had no right to force up monotheïsm by destroying statues like that.
Atenism is perfectly suited for a modern religion.
Because Atenism is logical & beautiful, Egyptian polytheïsm is mysterious and diverse. The 2 should be able to function together, Atenism by itself is Universal. All compliments to Akhenaten, this is the religion of all religions. But the only mistake Akhenaten made, he should have accepted Syncretism. That's the only thing, if Akhenaten would have accepted polytheïsm then all these dramas wouldn't have happened. But I condemn for what he did to the Amun temples, he shouldn't have done that.
The "In the arts" section needs to be broken down into prose format so it isn't a long, unencyclopedic list of "popular culture" references.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Those references useing op cit. should be written out in full. If an editor adds a new reference above them then the whole lot gets thrown into confusion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Somewhat bizarrely, this article starts with a discussion of his religious policies and no where in the article is there a proper biography - who was he, when was he born, what was his parentage and back ground, when did he become pharoah, what did he do when he was pharoah and so on. What is present in the article are rather complicated discussions on certain aspects of his reign, which while interesting, well sourced and certainly relevant, do not allow a casual reader a simple insight into who this man was. Even something as simple as a short section chronicling his life would help solve this issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
On closer inspection I see the problem more clearly: The lead should be used to provide a summary of his life that is then repeated in the text loweer down in greater detail. At the moment, the lead is being used to give biographical details that are not expanded on or discussed any where else. This is a mistake and the lead should be made the first section (edited and expanded) and a new lead written to properly summarise the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
I don't want to fail this, but it is a confusing issue and one I would like to see addressed. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Having reassesed my own assesment, I have decided to pass this article now, although I would like to see the issues I discuss above addressed in the near future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we please revert the page to how it was in like late '08? I really do think it was a much better page.
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Akhenaten/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
A small note: I have removed two calls for citations, since they are not appropriate: that Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's coregent during the final years of his reign, or else his successor, and that Tiye was Akhenaten's mother. To students of Egyptology, both facts are as much general knowledge as that Abraham Lincoln was at American president or that the Kentucky Derby is run at Churchill Downs. Evidence is plentiful for both--too plentiful to cite primary sources and too often treated for a citation of a secondary source to be logical. My own edits need a few citations added. I intend to do so in the next few days.
Last edited at 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC).
Substituted at 16:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Henotheism
I'm a bit surprised that the article just discusses monotheism without discussing henotheism. Eg [3]. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the article talks far too much about this theory as currently it is widely regarded as fact that he established the first Monotheistic religion. Actually, I think the whole opening should be rewritten or changed back to an earlier revision as right now it is quite biased and based much more in theory than what is currently regarded as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.104.46.248 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia should show all significant views. If you have any specific references or changes, feel free to suggest them. There are no 'facts' to this particular issue other than the artefacts, buildings, inscriptions, etc., any comments about monotheism, henotheism, etc are not facts but interpretations. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all that but I still maintain completely that the introductory paragraph is amazingly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.139.73 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I added the following material today[4] but User:Contaldo80 reverted it on the basis that "Christ is not the only person in history to claim a special connection" with god - so linking the two in this way presents original research".
Firstly this isn't my original research, it's drawn from a scholarly article written by Donald B. Redford who has more than enough credibility to write about such matters. Redford just writes about what others have thought before him. "Harbinger" is the terminology used in the article, not mine. Redford points out as Contaldo80 does that Akhenaton was not the first to proclaim himself divine king (in fact he warns against jumping to this conclusion of "harbinger" based only on this claim), but so did the section I added. In Redford's opinion there are however distinguishing features about Akhenaten and these were also given in the text.
If Contaldo thinks this is some new fringe theory then I respectfully point out that Redfords observations about parallels between Jesus and Akhenaten are far from new, e.g James Henry Breasted likened him to Jesus[1]Arthur Weigall saw him as a failed precursor of Christ and Thomas Mann saw him "as right on the way and yet not the right one for the way".[2]
The section added didn't claim this is the academic consensus nor that Donald Redford endorses it, though I note his complete rejection about Akhenatens monotheism having influenced Jewish monotheism he doesn't dismiss the similarities between Jesus and Akhenaten, or In my words trinitarian monotheism.
Please note the passage was added to the section "Speculative theories" because I don't know what the academic consensus is - who has measured the field?. Based on the above I would like to add what I think is useful information back into the article. If anyone would like to add to the section alternative opinions then obviously they can do so. Erik Hornung I believe is sceptical of such connections (see ref above). I don't have Redford's book on Akhenaten[3] to see if he dismisses, something he doesn't do in the article, such comparisons. The point is the article should reflect all notable views. I invite comments before reverting. Taam (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I fear that the only reason we include this text in the article is an attempt to suggest that Christ's "mission" on earth was part of a 'divine plan'. It's a bit like King Henry VIII putting together a family tree that drew upon King Arthur (imaginary) in order to bestow a certain legitimacy. It is at the very edge of relevance in terms of Akhenaten - why not put it in the article about Jesus Christ as it arguably has more to do with him than Akhenaten? And the parallels really are tenuous - least we forget Akhenaten worshipped the sun, and this has very little to do with the Jewish concept of Yahweh. It's a nice thought to show things are connected but I think the text discredits the rest of the article. I would argue that the text needs to be removed completely - or at least cut back considerably to a single line. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for now clarifying the reasons why you reverted. I was going to edit the passage to reflect these views but Rd232 has already done it. A couple of points: you mention that people might think this is pushing the idea that Akhenaten was some kind of divinely ordained King who was preparing the way for Christ. I think this is to read it through Christian lenses. A more detached viewpoint simply reads it as the development of human thought in history. As for the issue about Akhenaten worshipping the sun: others have put forward a slightly more nuanced view. James P. Allen argues that whilst Akhenaten's god was not transcendental [like Yahweh] but immanent, his [didactic] name helped disassociate the new theology from traditional Egyptian concepts of divinity, by emphasizing the abstract nature of his god. "The new image was not an icon to be worshiped but merely a large-scale version of the hieroglyph for light." He also asserts that that this was the first revealed religion to be documented in history. (Monotheism: The Egyptian roots BAR June/July 1999) If notable people have raised Jesus-Akhenaten parallels then I feel it should be included in the article along with any material that discounts such comparisons Taam (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand the point you're making but still not totally convinced that we've got the best outcome yet. My view would be to trim the section you added back so it covers the main points and then include it under the section dealing with 'moses and monotheism' - it is after all an extension of that (if I understand you correctly).
I think it would be wrong to over-play a connection only with Christ; the article on sons of god demonstrates that many others saw themselves as having equally a unique relationship with god or the gods (Christ is simply the best known). I also think we need to better translate some of the language apparently used by Akhenaten to describe this relationship - “thy son who came forth from thy limbs,” etc sounds deliberately Biblical (but it's not clear to me why we should be translating ancient egyptian script into 16th century english?) We must be able to offer something better. Do we know where the original source is? thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree with that - don't overplay Christ parallels when it's more of a Sons of God issue. Perhaps rename heading to match, or merge. Rd232talk 11:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually Sons of God is about the Sons of the Judeo-Christian God, not about the general topic of God having sons. WP:NPOV?? Well Son of God is slightly better, though still very Judeo-Christian. Rd232talk 11:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think rather than seeing some kind of religious development from Akhenaten through Moses culminating in Jesus, others (cryptically alluded to in the article) have maybe seen the development in thought as being less linear. I mentioned earlier that Redford was not a proponent of the view that saw the one-god-ism of Akhenaten being a direct influence on Hebrew monotheism but he didn't in the article dismiss in the same way the Jesus parallels (it's to long to set out here why Egypt was considered to be open to early Christianity in other works).
If you think the language is old fashioned then I take your point, however it's the style used in the cited article and I don't think it would be right to update it. If you feel that the use of "thee", "thou" etc. by Redford might be considered archaistic to push a biblical connection line, then the obvious objection is that scholars still make the same comparisons between Psalm 104 and the Hymn to the Aten when both are translated into pop english - the literary parallels don't disappear. T. G. Allen's translation of the "Book of the Dead - Going Forth By Day" which was published in 1974 still used these "archaisms". Some things are lost in modern pop translations which substitute "you". An example that springs to mind is Luke 22:31-32 in which the archaic translation preserves who Christ is praying for i.e "thee" [Peter] set against "you" meaning the twelve.
As to merging with the Moses section: I'm about to make another edit which updates Redford's opinions (an article written several years later) that gives you a bridge between Jesus/Moses and Monotheism. Though it's slightly ambiguous in my opinion it maybe gives some raw material for a proposed merge and edit. Taam (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
That's constructive - thanks. On the quote cited by Redford I would be interested in confirming the source - is it taken from some sort of inscription? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the BAR archive article contains no footnotes but I assume it's a synopsis of his book, as previously mentioned, so maybe another editor can confirm to your satisfaction. In the meantime I have taken some of the assertions Redford makes and related them to the Great Hymn to the Aten using a pop English translation (by James P. Allen alongside that from ANET[5] which preserves (I think for good reasons) the more archaic but nuanced form of English. The emphasis is of course mine. I begin with a short passage taken from Allen's article "Monotheism: The Egyptian roots" that the pop english translation is taken from. (BAR JULY/AUG 1999)
"In other respects, however, Akhenaten’s creed has some of the classic features of monotheistic religion. Like Christianity and Islam, it is a secondary religion, one that arose in contrast to existing beliefs. It is also a revealed religion—the first to be documented in history. The Amarna texts frequently speak of Akhenaten’s “teaching of life.” Akhenaten’s own hymn to the god proclaims, “You are in my heart, and there is no other who knows you except your son, Akhenaten.” Like many monotheistic religions, Akhenaten’s theology eventually lost its tolerance for other conceptions of divinity. Sometime after his ninth regnal year, the pharaoh began an active campaign of persecution against other forms of Egyptian religion, erasing the names of individual gods and changing the plural “gods” to the singular “god” on monuments throughout Egypt."
ALLEN:lord of the sky, lord of the land, lord of the House of the sun-disk in Akhetaten; and the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, living by what is right, lord of the Two Lands, Neferkheperure-Waenre, son of Re,living by what is right, lord of appearances, Akhenaten, long in his lifetime
ANET:lord of heaven, lord of earth, lord of the House of Aton in Akhet-Aton; (and praise of) the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on truth, the Lord of the Two Lands: Nefer-kheperu-Re Wa-en-Re; the Son of Re, who lives on truth, the Lord of Diadems: Akh-en-Aton, long in his lifetime;
ALLEN: For you are in the sun, reaching to their end and subduing them for the son you love.
ANET:As thou art Re, thou reachest to the end of them; (Thou) subduest them (for) thy beloved son.[Akhenaten]
ALLEN: you yourself cannot be seen except by the sole son you have made.
ANET: ...
ALLEN: You are in my heart, but there is no other who knows you except for your son, Neferkheperure-Waenre,whom you have made aware of your designs and your strength.
ANET:Thou are in my heart, And there is no other that knows thee Save thy son Nefer-kheperu-Re Wa-en-Re,
TAAM: Luke 10:22 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
ALLEN:you founded the land, for your son, who came from your self: the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, living by what is right, lord of the Two Lands, Neferkheperure-Waenre, son of Re, living by what is right, lord of appearances, Akhenaten, long in his lifetime; and the chief Queen, whom he loves, lady of the Two Lands, Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, alive and young forever continually.
ANET: Since thou didst found the earth And raise them up for thy son, Who came forth from thy body: the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, ... Ak-en-Aton, ... and the Chief Wife of the King ... Nefert-iti, living and youthful forever and ever.
TAAM: Lu 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
I have taken the liberty of including in the above some passages from the gospels that relate to Jesus/Kingdom/Sonship, there are lots more biblical passages, not with any intention of including them in the article but only to illustrate how similar thoughts occur at different times without any need to suppose a direct connection. Taam (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If you take a deeper look into what Akenaten and his father AND mother did. Then you will realize that they reformed 'religion' back to it's source, which was of a rational character. Away from a increasing priesthood of more Idoltrious- and superstisious character - than doing good. The source religion of Akenaten is found in descriptions of Ptah. Symbolicly Ptah is also Jesus - as he is also symbolical pillar "Djed" / stability/order (The Son), were "Was" is the symbol for chaos or Set (Nature / symbolicly The father). In between 'Djed' and 'Was', we have the 'Ankh' that symbols the "map" inbetween chaos and order. The ordered map that exists in our minds (Heaven) for use to interpret chaos (Nature). Then 'map' is created by words, which is Thoths responsability to preserve. Ptah created himself using his heart (Egyptian place for intellect) and tongue (using the first spoken words of mankind. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Who is "Him"
I got confused in the section: "Death, burial and succession" about who "him" was. To mark the location I've put { { fact } }. The paragraph was talking about so many people who could be so many other people in a paragraph about one person who ... so that I couldn't really work out whether him was the last male person being spoken about (and wasn't one paraoh female ... oh dear which one was that) ... I think you get the idea! 79.79.255.151 (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Religious Policies Section
Can someone else please read the religious polices section of the Wikipedia article and see if they have any problems with it. To me, it just doesn't sound like a Wikipedia article and it seems to focus on speculations that would go much better in the Speculative theories part of the page. So yeah, does anyone else get what I'm talking about at all? 173.49.211.57 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
King Tut's DNA test
Skull from KV 55
According to the recent DNA tests the remains found in KV 55 are those of Tut's father, Akhenaten. If indeed the the skull on the right is from KV 55, then it is Akhenaten himself. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
DNA test DOES NOT PROVE Akhenaten is Tut's father
The conclusion that Tut is the son of Akhenaten is presumptuous. Zahi Hawass, who has a poor track record for making these kinds of claims, cannot PROVE this to be the case based on the available evidence and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. His conculsion is based on an assumption that the mummy who is the father of Tut must, of necessity, be that of Akhenaten. However, this parentage of Tut could very well be Akhenaten or any of Akhenaten's brothers or sisters or both because the pharaohnic, royal bloodline was incestuous. Furthermore, the line of succession did not require the succeeding pharaoh to be of patralineal descent. Egyptian dynasties are typcially divided by breaks in the line of descent which results in succession crisis and the end of Akhenaten's reign is indicative of such a crisis. There is evidence to show that Akhenaten may have failed to father a male successor and his incestuous attempts to do so with his daughters is part of the archeological record. In which case, it is entirely possible that the female mummy identified as Tut's mother was one of Akhenaten's sisters (full or half) and the male mummy, who was her husband, was someone other than Akhenaten (e.g. half brother, cousin, no relation, etc). Discovering the birth father of Tut does not prove the mummy in question is Ahkenaten. There would have to be other DNA sources and correlations in order to substantiate the claim for this mummy to be, unequivocally, the mummy of Akhenaten. At this time, no such evidence was provided; thereby, rendering the claim to be premature and dubious, at best.
Pvsalsedo (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you haven't looked into the whole situation. They confirmed that both the KV55 mummy and the KV35 woman were each other's full sibling and that they were both the children of Amenhotep III and Tiye. Since the only other son of theirs that is known for sure is Thutmose, who seems to have died or fled the family after a certain point, Akhenaten is certainly the most likely candidate, especially when one considers how dubious Smenkhkare's parentage is. Furthermore, Tutankhamun (as "Tutankhuaten") is directly attested on a block inscription as being Akhenaten's biological son. This test wasn't even needed to show that Tutankhamun was Akhenaten's son. It only strengthened the airtight case and showed the identity of the KV55 mummy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Hannibal Lecter (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The original poster does have a point: knowing that the birth father of Tut is the mummy in KV55 does not *prove* that the mummy in question is Ahkenaten, and the report acknowledges this, saying that the weight of evidence makes it seem "most probable" that that is the case. On the whole, IMHO I think the case for the KV55 mummy being Akhenaten if not proved outright, must at least be seriously considered to be the case unless more compelling evidence comes to light. Captmondo (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I do agree that Pvsalsedo has a point, but it just seems like the chance of it not being Akhenaten is simply negligible. I admit, before these tests I was convinced that the KV55 mummy was Smenkhkare, though this sort of "paternity test" as well as the fact that the mummy was clearly shown to be the son of Amenhotep III and Tiye all but proves that it is Akhenaten. Even the people who buried the body seemed to believe it was Akhenaten. Dr.HannibalLecter 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
From what I have seen in the review of the literature regarding the age (and sex) of the mummy, over the years the most compelling (only?) evidence that persuaded many that this was likely Smenkhkare was that the age of the bones were seen to be too young to be that of Akhenaten. There's plenty of references attributable to Akhenaten in the tomb, and none for Smenkhkare, and as you say it certainly seems as though those who interred the body and then later desecrated it thought that it was of Akhenaten. I believe that the case for Smenkhkare being less than even "ephemerable" is being made, and that Redford's theory about "him" being another name for a name for Nefertiti as pharaoh makes the most sense at this point (if indeed there's any need for Smenkhkare to be there at all). Still, it will be nice to see more info on this mummy (and others) to appear in the scientific journals. Captmondo (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I must admit, I only believed it was Smenkhkare because I personally believe he was a male entity separate from Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Neferneferuaten and because I believed that Akhenaten's body would probably have been destroyed. Of course, this doesn't really matter anymore since the body is pretty much without a doubt determined to belong to Akhenaten. And I must agree with you: it would certainly help if they more regularly published their findings and perhaps if they conducted more research on bodies rather than open-ended fieldwork. Dr.HannibalLecter 20:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot imagine any circumstance under which Akhenaton would have a son (Tutankhamen) and not advertise that fact all over Amarna. Why would he display his beloved daughters, and ignore his son? -- And as to Tut's royal claim, he just says 'Son of the Kings loins', but does not say which king. An obvious question is how accurate are these DNA tests when determining paternity amongst an incestuous family? Can it be that accurate? With such ancient material? I think there are many questions still to be answered. Narwhal2 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that it's Hannibal Lecter who hasn't looked into the "whole" situation since he fails to explain how this alleged "sister" (who may be no sister at all) of Ahkenaten is never mentioned as a queen. More importantly, one of the mysteries concerning DNA links has to do with the fetuses that were buried with Tut. This is anything but negligible (except maybe to Lecter).
If the fetuses belong to Tut's only recorded wife, Ankhesenamun, then they do not correlate to the KV55 mummy as the maternal grandfather; thus, proving that KV55 is NOT Ahkenaten. That leaves the following possibilities: either KV55 is Smenkhkare, Tuthmoses or someone else. According to British researcher, Ralph Ellis, Prince Tuthmoses is probably the most likely candidate for the biblical figure, Moses. According to Ellis, he was the High Priest of Heliopolis in the old, sun worshipping, Hyksos kingdom of the Lower Nile. Ellis points out that a chariot whip handle was found in Tut's tomb with the inscription of Prince Tuthmoses as the commander of the pharaoh's charioteers, which disproves the unsubstantiated, early-death-in-childhood theory. But is he Tut's father?
Ellis' theory parallels Sigumund Freud's theory (Moses & Monotheism, based on the work of British archaeologist, Flinders Petrie) that Moses was a minister in Ahkenaten's government. There was a Ramose who was the vizier of moon (Amun) worshipping Thebes during both Akhenaten's reign and the reign of his father, Amenhotep III. While Ramose has a tomb, where is his mummy? Is he a possible candidate for KV55 as perhaps being the father of Tutankhamun? Therefore, is Tutankhamun's father the "Rameses" who is confused with Rameses the Great, once thought to be the biblical pharaoh of the Exodus? It could be that Ramose is Tut's father, but only if Ramose & Tuthmose are not one and the same. Otherwise, KV55 could be the body of the biblical Moses which is highly unlikely.
In which case, is it possible that Ramose was not only a brother to Akhenaten, but also the twin brother of older brother Tuthmose and the twins were both eschewed by their father, Amenhotep III, as being pharaohs because it would have split the kingdom in two, like the biblical Jacob (Hyksos pharaoh Yacoboaam) & Esau? Is it possible that Ramose refused to accept his younger brother, Ahkenaten's, ascension and usurped his throne and took the name Smenkhkare in order to distinguish himself from his twin, Tuthmose/Moses? Does the deposed Akhenaten then go into exile with Tuthmose/Moses losing his title as commander-in-chief but retaining his role as the biblical Aaron, high priest of the new religion, Judaism, i.e. the monotheistic successor of the Aten used to disguise the old, phallocentric, sun worshipping of their ancestors the former Hyksos shepherd kings of Egypt who became the circumcised viziers (threat of castration, prohibition on incest to prevent a competing royal bloodline) after Joseph (Jacob/Pharaoh Yacoboaam's son) returned to Egypt within a generation of the Hyksos expulsion?
If that's the case, it leaves Ramose/Smenkhkare as the only real alternative to being the KV55 mummy. But in this scenario, according to researcher, Kate Phizackerley, Tut's mother, KV35YL, i.e. "The Younger Lady", is Meritaten, the daughter of Ahkenaten, not his sister as Hawass contends (he can make no genetic claim against this). It's a historical fact, that Meritaten was married to her paternal uncle, Smenkhkare (incest?). But the real kicker is that Tutankhamun's wife, Ankhesenamun, was Meritaten's sister. Therefore, Tut was married to his aunt, not his sister. How's that for incest? Bottom line is that it all works out, not only historically, but genetically; especially in terms of explaining the genetic descent of the fetuses buried with Tut which Zawi Hawass fails to do. Pvsalsedo (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In the end Occam's Razor will out. Despite all of the theorizing done by many, so far what facts we have point to the likelihood (definitely not with 100% certainty) that the mummy in KV55 was Akhenaten. This of course can change in the light of new facts—only a few years ago I would have argued that Smekhkare was the more likely candidate—but the balance of evidence is trending now towards favouring Akhenaten instead. Theories can and will still abound, but it will be an accumulation of facts that eventually decide the case. Captmondo (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Occam's Razor does not "will out" the evidence and "balance of evidence" is neither a scientific or a legal concept and has nothing to do with Occam's Razor. However, "preponderance of the evidence" is recognized by both law and the scientific method as the weight of the evidence and the FULL weight of the evidence must INCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE and not exclude any evidence just because it simplifies one's case. In which case, the fetuses buried with Tutatankhamun must be taken into account, which Zawi Hawass fails to do. Hawass cannot reconcile the fact that KV55 is Akhenaten without asserting that Tut has a queen other than Ankhesenamun who can account for those fetuses and there is NO historical evidence or proof, not even circumstantial, to support that claim. But rather than adding this kind of non-evidence, Hawass chooses to subtract the evidence of the fetuses. Now, the only valid "trend" in science has and always will be truth and ignoring the evidence of the fetuses ignores the truth. Achieving "balance" by excluding evidence is not only irresponsible, but morally repugnant and contrary to the law and the scientific method. That kind of "balance" only succeeds in increasing the likelihood of a false conclusion that Akhenaten's body has been discovered. Pvsalsedo (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your point about the fetuses, since the genetic testing does get a mention in the original JAMA article:
“
It could be further shown that Tutankhamun is the most likely father of the 2 fetuses found in KV62 (Fetus 1: 99.97992885%, Fetus 2: 99.99999299%). The degree of shared alleles between the female mummy KV21A and Fetus 1 and Fetus 2 points toward a possible identification of the mummy as Ankhensenamun, the mother of both fetuses and wife of Tutankhamun. Further data are needed because the incomplete data set does not allow a clear statistical evaluation.
”
(JAMA eSupplement to Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun’s family, p.2)
REPLY TO Captmondo QUESTION "I don't understand your point...": As the quote shows, getting a mention in the JAMA article does nothing to correlate the fetuses to Ahkenaten. It’s not a question of whether the fetuses correlate to Tutankhamun but how they correlate to KV55 as the maternal grandfather. First, there are generational jumps in the alleles that make it impossible for KV55 to be the maternal grandfather if Ankhesenamun is the mother of the fetuses which is why Hawass is contending that KV21A is NOT Ankhesenamun. So, your point that it might be Ankhesenamun contradicts Hawass. Consequently, you can’t defend his conclusion that KV55 is Ahkenaten and then suggest that the mother of the fetuses is Ankhesenamun. The two are irreconcilable without dissociating Tut from Ahkenaten as his son. As Kate Phizakerly points out, the fetuses can only be reconciled to Tut and Ankhesenamun if KV55 is NOT Ahkenaten (see http://www.kv64.info/2010/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not.html) Pvsalsedo (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
...and...
“
Tutankhamun (generation IV) might be the father of the fetuses found in KV62 (generation V). However, to finalize this relationship, we would need to analyze the putative mother, Ankhensenamun, the wife of Tutankhamun, who preliminary results suggest might be mummy KV21A. However, more data on KV21A (and also KV21B) are needed to confirm this proposal. Consequently, part of an ongoing project is the examination of the hypervariable region of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA of all mummies.
”
(JAMA eSupplement to Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun’s family, p.4)
REPLY TO Captmondo SECOND QUOTE: Carsten Pusch already established KV21A as the mother of the fetuses. They can’t use mitochondrial DNA to correlate KV21A to the male KV55. At this stage, the biggest impact the mtDNA would have is in correlating “The Younger Lady” (KV35YL) to Tiye (KV35EL) since Hawass contends that she is the daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. Phizackerly contends she is not, but is, instead, Meritaten the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, and the wife of Smenkhare. Proving that KV35YL is not Tiye’s daughter increases the probability that she might be Nefertiti’s daughter but without her mother’s mummy, it’s still not an absolute. In either case, mtDNA would not affect the outcome of the fetuses as belonging to Tut and KV21A. Pvsalsedo (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
So it sounds like the work that you say is absent is being worked on, and does not attempt to hide that fact. The study strongly suggests (with a 99.9% etc probability) that the fetuses found were fathered by Tutankhaum, and it does not say—as you seem to assert—that Ankhensenamun is the mother, just that the female mummy KV21A might be their mother (and since Ankhensenamun is the only known documented wife for Tutankhamun, KV21A has been tentatively identified with her), which further testing ought to prove or disprove.
REPLY TO Captmondo, "So it sounds like the work you say is absent": I said nothing about work or data on the DNA being absent. What I claim requires no further work on the DNA to conclude that KV55 is not Ahkenaten. If there’s an absence of work, it’s in explaining how mitochondrial (female, matrilineal) DNA resolves the identity of the male KV55 mummy as Ahkenaten. Tut and KV21A are the parents of the fetuses and that’s been genetically proven, but the question remains who is KV21A? That cannot be resolved by mtDNA and, even less so, the identity of KV55. Nevertheless, history shows that Tut had no other queen other than Ankhesenamun (much to the dismay of Zawi Hawass who now claims, otherwise). In order for Hawass to prove his point that KV21A is not Ankhesenamun through mtDNA, he would have to prove that KV21B (or some unaccounted for mummy) is Ankhesenamun, but how is that genetically possible without Nefertiti’s mummy to discern whether KV21A and B are her daughters? Hawass is just making an assumption to reconcile his theory that KV55 is Akhenaten; in which case, Ankhesenamun would not be the mother of Tut’s children. But how likely is that? If she’s a consort like Kiya, then why doesn’t history record it? Would Tut be buried with non-royal offspring from some mistress/concubine? If that’s the case, why would it be limited to a select few? As far as I know, Hawass hasn’t even put forth a plausible theory to explain how Tut would be buried with children other than those born of Ankhesenamun. More importantly, why would Hawass go out on a limb to conclude that KV55 is Akhenaten if his conclusion hinged on the outcome of mtDNA? Doesn’t that strike you as being reckless if he’s supposed to be a responsible academic waiting for ALL the evidence and facts to be presented instead of jumping to conclusions that could well be proven false, e.g. KV35YL as not being related to Tiye? In any event, regardless of the outcome of the mtDNA, Hawass cannot prove his theory in the absence of non-DNA, i.e. historical, evidence. To be clear, the problem is NOT due to an absence in the DNA, but rather a failure to give weight to what is present in the DNA by not taking into account the jumps in the alleles. In fact, Hawass is doing the opposite by giving weight to something that is NOT there nor will be there through mtDNA! I hope this clarifies the situation and further demonstrates the likelihood that KV55 is NOT Akhenaten.Pvsalsedo (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Good science—which includes all available evidence—takes time. Captmondo (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
As for good science, I would further add that Zawi Hawass is now coming under criticism for the conduct of the DNA study due to a lack of control factors to eliminate bias in the outcome. Pvsalsedo (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Plague & Pandemic
re: This sentence: "The black death has also been suggested by Zahi Hawass because at Amarna the traces of the plague have been found." 1) I marked this as needing a citation. 2) What traces? Can anyone clairify? Jedikaiti (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"The existence of large numbers of human fleas and squalid conditions from the Workmens' Village at Amarna, evidence for nile rats and black rats from Pharaonic sites and descriptions of an epidemic disease in the Amarna letters, the Hittitic archives and the Ebers papyrus with references to swelling buboes, present a new scenario for the origins of the disease."
That may well be what Hawass was referring to. If someone else has full access to the article and cite the specifics, that would be good, thought I think even this abstract would do. Captmondo (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Amenhotep was in bad health for a number of years before his death which argues in favour of a long co-regency. With the disappearance of the Crown Prince Thothmes, Amenhotep/Akhenaton has to be groomed in a hurry for the job, although how long this went on for is disputed.
If there was a longish co-regency and Amenhotep seems to have lived long enough in bad health for such a possibility and Akhenaton susequently reigned in his own right as Pharaoh for some 17 years he must have died in his mid 40s at least.
Professor Harrison having examined the remains in KV55 concluded that they were male and no more than 26 on death, which seems to eliminate Akhenaton, in favour of Smenkhare the only other known male. Using the "fudge factor" that with erupted wisdom teeth Tutakhamun could have died at up to 28 seems to make him too old to have been a son of Akhenaton.
Professor Harrisons concluded that Akhenaton was a son of Amenhotep and Tiye and that Smenkhare and Tutankhamun were the younger sons of Amenhotep and another wife possibly Kiya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Akhenaten the undisputed father of Tutankhamun??
This article is confusing. In the introduction this is stated: "Early excavations at Amarna by Flinders Petrie sparked interest in the enigmatic pharaoh, which increased with the discovery in the Valley of the Kings, at Luxor, of the tomb of King Tutankhamun, who has been proved to be Akhenaten's son according to DNA testing in 2010 by Dr Zahi Hawaas, Cairo"
However, later in the article this is stated "Or, it has been suggested, Akhenaten's (and his family's) portraiture exaggerates his distinctive physical traits. Until Akhenaten's mummy is positively identified, such theories remain speculative. Some scholars do identify Mummy 61074, found in KV55, an unfinished tomb in the Valley of the Kings, as Akhenaten's."
When an average reader comes across this article, theyre going to read the introduction and assume that Akhenaten being the father of Tutankhamun is an undisputed fact, when the truth is that this subject is heavily debated by scholars. The information needs to be removed from the introduction or reworded in a non-biased fashion because it states it as if it is undisputed factual information when its not. This is an extremely important historical figure and needs to be treated more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleAAmazin (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, those sections should probably be reconciled, and a clarification should be added that Tutankhamen's parentage is, like most things in Egyptology, the subject of debate, however a growing body of evidence is leading to the mainstream opinion being that Akhenaten is Tutankhamen's father. As I understand it, the primary alternate theory was that Amenhotep III was Tutankhamen's father, and Akhenaten was his brother, but that's hard to reconcile with Tutankhamen's youth when he assumed the throne without a lengthy coregency between Amenhotep and Akhenaten, which has fallen out of favor in recent years. Thanatosimii (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Bug under en.m.wikipedia.org
I'm not sure where else to report this bug, so I will make note of it here:
When viewing this page in the mobile version of wikipedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten, several images use the incorrect subdomain to reference their images, for example:
This causes the images to not be found, I would presume that this extension needs to be symbolically linked on the server for the mobile subdomain *.m.wikipedia.org.
There is a lo of speculation about Akhenataen. When was he born, Tut being his son and many other details. Some of this speculation is based on reasonable evidence and some is a wild guess. It should be noted in the text of this article that the "facts" being presented in it are not solid. Now, I'm not saying that there are glaring errors. How could I know? How could anyone know for sure? This is a rather mysterious person in history and we just don't know.
At any rate, one reading this article would not know it is based on guesses (or the educated and other kind) and this should be presented very near the top of the article. Gingermint (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
In Our Time
The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Akhenaten|b00mwsly}}.
RichFarmbrough, 02:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
DNA does NOT prove Tutankhamun is the son of Akhenaten
The DNA tests put forth by Zahi Hawass do NOT prove Tutankhamun is the son of Akhenaten because the KV55 mummy has NOT been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be the mummy of Akhenaten. In fact, the DNA evidence allows for alternative possibilities that are equally valid (e.g. KV55 as Smenkhare) based on the fact that Hawass cannot make his conclusion without excluding Ankhesenamun (daughter of Akhenaten, presumed wife/sister of Tutankhamun) as the mother of the fetuses buried with Tutankhamun. Hawass asserts without ANY proof to corroborate his conclusion that the fetuses could derive from another wife other than Ankhesenamun since the non-DNA historical and archeological evidence does NOT support the conclusion of a royal wife other than Ankhesenamun. Without the mummy of Ankehesenamun, there is no way to contradict the non-DNA evidence and exclude her maternity of those fetuses. Furthermore, there is no precedence for pharaohs being buried with children whose authentic, royal paternity is in doubt.
An alternative view of the paternity of Tutankhamun based on the DNA evidence is the probability that the KV55 mummy is NOT Akhenaten but is related to Akhenaten. In this scenario, KV55 as Smenkhare, relates him as a full brother to Akhenaten. The DNA evidence does NOT preclude this as a possibility and Hawass has no evidence, whatsoever, to contradict Smenkhare as a valid alternative to the identity of KV55; and, therefore, the father of Tutankhamun. In which case, Akhenaten is not only Tutankahum's uncle, but also his father-in-law with Smenkhare as the paternal uncle/spouse of Tutankhamun’s mother the Younger Lady, KV35YL, i.e. Akhenaten's daughter, Meritaten, who married Smenkhare according to the historical and archeological evidence (paternal uncle and niece marriages were practiced as late as the first century AD as evidenced by the Herodians of Israel).
With Smenkhare as the usurper of his heretical brother, Akhenaten, and father of Tutankhamun, the fetuses buried with Tutankhamun can be validated as his offspring with Ankhesenamun, but only if Ankehesenamun is the sister (albeit younger) of the Younger Lady (Meritaten) since the fetuses are genetically related to the KV35YL mummy. This represents a shift in Tutankhamun’s incestuous profile such that his relationship with Ankhensenamun cannot be viewed as brother/sister incest, but rather a maternal aunt/cousin to a nephew/cousin, probably, of similar age. [4]
The lead section fails to properly summarize the article, particularly the most important elements of the speculative theories section and others. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Too many spellings!
There are too many spellings (transliterations, really) of the name, especially in the lede. Like many non-English words (Q'uran, Khadhaffi, K'bala, Algebra, etc. (and I likely misspelled them)), there are many possible spellings. After a quick search engine run, I can add eight or nine more spellings to the list but that's not good writing. The other spellings are not common, so the list needs to be culled and moved into the article body. Any comments? — UncleBubba( T@C ) 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not see the list as detracting from the lede in any way. Akhenaten/Akhenaton results in some 54,000 hits in google books, Ikhenaton may result in less (ca 250), but Ikhnaton has 16,400 results, Khuenaten has close to 2000 results and Echnaton 18,700. In google scholar you see similar distributions: Akhenaten (5050), Echnaton (1650) show up fairly often; Khuenaten(114) shows up reasonably often; For instance Ikhnaten (20) is not mentioned in the lede and is one I would consider to be not as common. Having the spellings of these names serves a purpose to alert people who are searching for someone on Wikipedia that they have found the correct individual in case they entered one of the other spellings. Furthermore, people looking to research this individual need to know what other spellings to look for. I think deleting the list does more harm than good. But that's just my opinion. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposal
I still think the lede is fine as it is, but if others do not agree, would an introduction mentioning the following be better?: Akhenaten (pronounced /ˌɑːkəˈnɑːtən/; alternative spellings include Echnaton, Ikhnaton, and Khuenaten; (meaning Living spirit of Aten)
A separate section in the article could be used to mention that the Aten is sometimes written as the Aton, leading to versions of the name like Akhenaton, and Khuenaton. Separate mention can be made that Khuenaten is an old transliteration of the name used by Petrie. Ikhnaton appears more often in German literature, etc. all of these statements properly sourced of course. But that is not so hard to do.
I chose the phrase "alternative spellings include" to indicate these are not the only alternative spellings. --AnnekeBart (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent solution to the problem. Are you willing to do it? My only suggestion would be to put the "(meaning Living spirit of Aten)" phrase before the "alternate spellings include" because it seems to flow more smoothly--and gets rid of the parenthetical. Something like:
Akhenaten (pronounced /ˌɑːkəˈnɑːtən/). Meaning "living spirit of Aten", alternative spellings include Echnaton, Ikhnaton, and Khuenaten.
Wasn't "Okhnotan" used in some older European literature? Doesn't matter and I can't find it, so I'm probably mistaken about that. Memory gets foggy sometimes. I'd never heard of "Khuenaten", so ya got me there. — UncleBubba( T@C ) 16:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Cush added the following to my talk page:
May I make the suggestion to remove the rather pointless list of various transliterations from the lead and create a new section that deals with the king's name. I wonder why this article does not feature the full titulary of the king as is customary for articles on Egyptian kings. The new section should give the full names used by the king in various periods of his life and also the various transliterations that occurr in modern literature about him.
I think that what Cush is bringing up is a related issue. The article as it is right now only pays limited attention to the name change from Amenhotep IV to Akhenaten. Almost 25% of his reign was spent as Amenhotep IV in Karnak and probably deserves a little bit more attention than it gets right now. The titulary is mentioned (partially) in the infobox. It would be nice to include the complete 5-fold titulary of the king as Amenhotep IV as well. My suggestion right now would be to:
* Change the lede to UncleBubba's version
* Rename the section "Early life" and call that "Early reign as Amenhotep IV". That section can be expanded to include some mention of his building program in Karnak and the appearance of Amenhotep IV in the tomb of Ramose (Vizier) and Parennefer in Thebes
* Insert a section called "From Amenhotep IV to Akhenaten" and mention in the text that there is a full change of the 5-fold titulary, mention what the 5 names are and include a short discussion about the transliteration of the name Akhenaten at that point.
* Add the 5 fold titulary for Amenhotep IV to the infobox
I'm willing to do some/ most of it. But do others think this is the right way to improve the article? Any thoughts? --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I changed the first sentence. I put the alternative spellings as a parenthetical remark. I think the sentence flows a bit better that way. I added the 5-fold titulary for Amenhotep IV as CUSH suggested. The Article still could use a section about the name change and transliterations, but I thought I would wait for some feedback before doing that. --AnnekeBart (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hatshpepsut
Hatshepsut was born in 1300 BC and was married to Rameses 11 however he left her for someone else and then moved onto antoher 6 wives. This was considered as normal according to the Ancient Egypt laws — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.24.166 (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Kiya and relationship to Tut
Look, 89.159.247.193, you are not allowed to make substantial changes to the text of any WP articles unless you cite [[WP:RS|reliable sources] that corroborate your assertions. One of the things newcomers sometimes don't understand is that the criteria for acceptance of material here are verifiability (see WP:V) and notability (see WP:N). It doesn't matter that you know it's true; if you can't/don't reference sources, it'll get flagged as citation needed and removed, either by me or someone else.
Please stop your edit-warring! If you make a change and another editor removes it, STOP! Don't put it back without discussing it.
Also, please do not say "see (Talk)" in an edit summary unless you put something there for others to read. The Talk page shows no History of you editing it recently so, unless I'm missing something, your claim is disingenuous, at best. — UncleBubba( T@C ) 00:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The link that the IP put in the edit summary was in fact to User talk:Calabe1992, where the IP had already explained his or her reasoning. The articles on Kiya and The Younger Lady (mummy) seem to indicate that the Younger Lady is probably not Kiya, so the DNA test makes it less likely that Kiya was his mother. In any case, it was never regarded as certain that Kiya was Tut's mother; it was only a reasonable conjecture. I don't think the article should ever have said she was his mother with such certainty. I agree entirely with the IP's removal, although given how many reverts there have been already, I'd rather not change it unilaterally. A. Parrot (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Your argument appears sound and, considering the amount of work you've done on the Egypt pages, I'll defer to your judgement.
This may be a good example of how communications can get all fouled up. Could you tell I was nearing the end of a loooooong vandal patrol and was quite tired of typing "Rv unexplained, unsourced alteration of factual data"?
I reckon that's why we have the rule admonishing us to, "Talk about articles on the article's Talk page, not on personal pages." I wish s/he had followed it. Again, many thanks! — UncleBubba( T@C ) 03:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
89.159.247.193 here.
I'm am not aware of all the rules of WP, such as "Talk about articles on the article's Talk page, not on personal pages", but I did explain my changes in the edit summary and then on the user page. If I did err, it was a honest mistake.
Me again, I wasn't thorough enough, since the article also still reads "A secondary wife of Akhenaten named Kiya is known from inscriptions. Some have theorized that she gained her importance as the mother of Tutankhamen, Smenkhkare, or both."
And now I'm afraid of changing it because I don't want to cause a fuss.
The "fuss" yesterday (yesterday on my side of the planet, anyway) was an unfortunate misunderstanding. It won't happen here again. A lot of editors look through the list of recent changes for edits by Wikipedia's constant stream of vandals. Most vandalism comes from people with IP addresses rather than registered accounts, so if an IP address makes a change that isn't obviously constructive, vandalism patrollers can sometimes overreact. Frankly, you have a much better chance of being taken seriously now that you have an account.
I wouldn't complain if you removed the remaining passage about Kiya, but I don't advocate its removal, either. As far as I know, we're not absolutely sure that the Younger Lady is not Kiya, and no one knows who Smenkhare was. A. Parrot (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Citation needed tags
There are a few clean-up tags on this article. They should probally be fixed up otherwise the article could be delisted. AIRcorn(talk) 13:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Life in Akhetaten
I notice that there is very little information on daily life in ancient Akhetaten. I am willing to undertake some updating (I have several books on hand), but I want to make sure that this is the appropriate article for that information.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It depends exactly what you're thinking of mentioning here, but generally I'd say it's more appropriate at Amarna. That article could have a whole section on the subject. A. Parrot (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've started adding some stuff on the Amarna page. I'll do it a little bit at a time, but any experts who wish to chime in, please do so.Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Imram/Amram Osman
Looking into the theories around the connection between Akhenaten and Moses. I'm wondering about Ahmed Osman's claim that one of Akhenaten's cartouches contains the name of "Amran" or "Imran". I've found the quote in his book that makes that claim, and I suppose I could just add it to the section on Akhenaten's connection to Judaism (as Amran is the name of Moses in the Bible), but I can't figure out what cartouche Osman is talking about. The contributors to this page seem pretty knowledgable, so just wondering if there are any experts around who have a secondary source for this or know which cartouche Osman is talking about? (Yes, I know Osman's ideas are controversial...just looking for the facts here. No need for ad hominem attacks on him.)Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea whatsoever who "Ahmed Osman" may be, but in general I do know that in several cases Muslim apologists have made dubious claims to justify discrepancies between the Qur'an and other older sources (including the Bible), such as Haman from the book of Esther joining the Pharoah from the book of Exodus to build the Tower of Babel of the book of Genesis, etc. etc. Amram/Imran can be a sensitive issue for Islamic apologists, since Muhammad almost certainly confused Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the sister of Moses... AnonMoos (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting information, though not surprising. The claim I'm trying to verify is that within one of Akhenaten's cartouches the name imram/amram is contained. I've been through all of his names that I can find - horus name, nebety name, the golden falcon name, the prenomen name, the nomen name. I'm just wondering where this guy found this name Imram within one of his cartouches, and I really wish someone knew something about it.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Just because hs name is Ahmed he is a pseudohistorian ey? Well, for your information that guy contradics the Quran even more than your beloved Judaism or Christianity do don't worry and try to andwer the question asked or just shut the hell up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.44.216 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Just because his name is Ahmed he is a pseudohistorian ey? Well, for your information that guy contradics the Quran even more than your beloved Judaism or Christianity so don't worry and try to answer the question posed or just shut the hell up! And eventhough he is controvertial that doesn't mean everything he sas is crap. So he should me mentioned in the article as one of the people that have put forward the hypotheses of the identification of Moses with Akhenaten. Again that hypothesis britely contradicts the islamic account so don't try to inject your anti-muslim venom by using suggestive terms like 'muslim apologist'. Islam doesn't need week apologists, it is ts own apologist, amely the Word of Allah the All-Mighty God. Shalom! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.44.216 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
b (MoS): 
