Misplaced Pages

Aten was removed from the Egyptian pantheon, and Akhenaten as well as his family and religion, were now the focus of prosecution. Their monuments were destroyed, together with related inscriptions and images, as in the case of Hatshepsut.

It is said that one day, the high priest, Ay, led in the priests of Amon and killed the entire family except the 6 daughters, seeing as he himself was still a devout follower of Amun, despite the new religion of the pharaoh. The youngest daughter was in love with Tutankaten. They were allowed to marry, and Tutankaten reigned for only a short while before dying. But before he died, he changed his name to Tutankamun (which indicates that he was probably asked to change his religion or die, and he chose to change his name). His wife, now widow, had also changed her name from Akensenpaaten to Akensenamun. She wrote a letter to the Hittite king asking him to allow her to marry one of her sons, but the king refused. So Akensenamun married Ay, the self-pronounced pharaoh, and ex-high priest.

Tiye connection

It's possible that that point "Twelve years after the death of Amenhotep III she is still mentioned in inscriptions as Queen and beloved of the King" was transcribed into the article incorrectly. However, it would be perfectly reasonable for her to be referred to that way before the death of her husband, so it would not be any cause for remark. I do know that she post-deceased him, and I think it was by a considerable margin, so "twelve years after" is not unreasonable. Do you have something to cite which shows this is wrong? Noel 15:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anon changed it back to 'before', which makes no sense (so I reverted to 'after') in this context. Tiy page supports this. Rd232 14:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk page pointing them to the discussion here. Noel (talk) 15:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ankhenaten and Ankhenaton

Ankhenaten and Ankhenaton are pretty rare (Google count of 658 and 250, respectively) compared to the others (Akhnaten - 11,800; Akhenaton - 93,600; Akhnaton - 19,900; Ikhnaton - 2,750), so I would propose removing them. I suspect they are conflation typos with "ankh", actually. I would be happy to leave redirects at Ankhenaten and Ankhenaton, but I would rather not mention them in the article unless they are valid transliterations of the name. Noel (talk) 16:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Akhenaten's Burial

Someone added "A widespread belief held that, because of the disrespectful handling of the funerary procedures of the Pharaoh, he would return as an incarnation in the body of one of his lineal descendants.", which I reverted. There are things along these lines to be said about Akhenaten's burial; but they need backing up, and probably a separate section. So far I've only found Graham Phillips (Act of God), which has some persuasive speculation about KV55 being originally designed for Akhenaten, and then being reused for Smenkhare in a special burial designed to contain the goddess of destruction Sekhmet which the priests seemed to think had inhabited his body - and possibly Akhenaten's before it. (This special burial may have followed an attempt to contain Sekhmet's influence by destroying Akhenaten's body, which apparently didn't work.) ...anyway, I've not (yet) found any support for this type of thing elsewhere. With proper backup (if any forthcoming), a separate sub/section on it would be justified. Rd232 11:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Atenist revolution

It is well worth having material about the significance and nature about the Atenist revolution in Misplaced Pages - more than there was in earlier versions - but it now dominates Akhenaten's entry too much (and could do with a little more structure). Let's make a separate article about that, link to it in the Main article: Atenism style, and keep a summary here. Rd232 15:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a wonderful idea. We can add some redirects to that too, e.g. Amarna heresy. Go for it! Noel (talk) 19:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Akhenaten's Appearance

Akhenaten's appearance is said to be strange, but it is not. Black people look like him. I have been asked to provide research or proof of some kind that Akhenaten is Black, but that's kind of self-explanatory. Akhenaten's family (18th dynasty) came from Southern Egypt (thebes), many of them exhibit Black features, and they resemble Black people of East Africa even today. Why on earth am I being asked to provide proof for something so obvious, while people specualte Marfan's syndrome in the article, when that is so illogical? Is this all being done to maintain a status-quo assumption that Akhenaten must be "white" or "caucasoid" (no matter what he actually looks like)... how can I prove something that itself is the standard of proof???

You're being asked to provide evidence that this is not just your own conclusion, and therefore would fall foul of Misplaced Pages:no original research. This is no reflection on whether it's true or not. "how can I prove something"? This is precisely what you should not be doing - proving things. Misplaced Pages digests what other people have said; what you should do is prove that's it neither your own idea, nor a fringe idea that has no support. Rd232 21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

1. You are asking for research from other people. Ok I am understanding of that. But what you are doing is supporting a whitewashed view of Egypt which would put Marfan's syndrome and Asian origins over a more simple Occam's razor (They look Black because they are Black, Tiye looks like she does because she is of the same background as those around her). Why then the burden of proof goes to me, where I have to provide supporting evidence (which falls into the circular routine... anyone that supports my viewpoint will be dismissed as an afrocentric fringe). How about this, Why not just leave those pictures, the links, to his mom and his dad and let the audience decide.

At no point in the article – until you made your additions – did anyone make any statements about Akhenaten's race. So it's absurd to talk about some "status quo" about race being maintained by the Marfan's speculation. The Marfan's theory is also clearly presented as speculative, not as fact. Marfan's does not cause infertility , so the claim that his having daughters is an argument against it is plain wrong and irrelevant. The Marfan's theory is intended to explain the highly distorted appearence of Akhenaten's body in early Amarna art, along with his open-air buildings and obsession with the sun (Marfan's sufferers feel cold easily). Black people do not have "elongated" faces and long chins in comparison to white people. They do not have wide feminine hips (unless, of course, they are female!). None of these features suggest anything about black/white racial differences. In any case the very notion of a "black"/"white" distinction confuses variations in skin-pigmentation with typologies defined by skull-type. The same skull shape could be consistent with a wide variety of skin pigment differences. We have no good evidence concerning the race of Akhenaten's family. The only "evidence" for Tiye being black is a well-known bust, which is in fact made from mostly unpainted wood, like many other Egyptian statuettes (only the lips and eyelids are coloured). There's a widespread view that she was actually half Asian (see Yuya).

Saying that Akhenaten "obviously looks black", or obviously doesn't, is not reasoned evidence or argument, and it has nothing to do with the legitimate – if certainly highly speculative – reasons for proposing Marfan's syndrome. It's also pretty meaningless to talk about the royal family coming from a particular part of Egypt. Royal families involved harems with wives from all over the place – including foreign "imports" from the Hittites etc. The 18th dynasty Royal Family is likely to have been of very mixed origins. More to the point, discussing Akhenaten's skin-colour is irrelevant and useless. It tells us nothing about him or his ideas.

However, I would gladly do without the ugly and recently-added computer simulations of Akhenaten's face, which have no scientific merit. I'd rather that pic was deleted. We should add one of the late Thutmose sculptures, which probably gives a more accurate image of what Akhenaten acually looked like than the more familar colossal statues. Paul B 21:59 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that Akhenaten’s appearance is being evaluated. And one of the evaluations is that he has Marfan’s syndrome, despite the facts against it. Another, more reasonable implication, is simply put, he just resembles the other people in the region. So you are ok with a speculative theory regarding Marfan’s syndrome being in the article, but what you are ignoring is that the representations of him in sculpture RESEMBLE Black Africans, and that stylized or not, Akhenaten, Tiye, and others of the 18th dynasty have strong BLACK features. There is a widespread view that she was actually half asian. Ok great, you actually give a care about that theory. Why do you not give as much of a care about the more REALISTIC (distancewize, historywize, culturewize) theory that he is half BLACK? Blackness is not merely about skin color. And it is hypocritical to even go in that direction when every modern example of Egyptians in antiquity that are presented are pink skinned Italian looking Egyptian representations. When people are of very mixed orgins, their skin often reflects that, ranging from DARK to light. We don’t see that now do we? We don’t see mixed origins, no, we see a very lightskinned, white looking origin only type of Egypt. Why is that? You yourself just said, ”very mixed origins”… am I to understand that when dark skinned and lightskinned people mix, the offspring must resemble lightskinned Italians? Yes I say he obviously looks black because I believe, especially with the Tutmoses sculptures, if he were walking the street you could mistake him for a Black man, not a “Caucasoid”. Now is it going to kill the integrity of Misplaced Pages to present this VALID perspective into the article? No. Does it lower the tentacles of Eurocentrism? Yes.

Zaphnath, you're essentially asserting a conspiracy theory - that Egyptology is ignoring an obvious explanation for some of the representations of Akhenaten (they do vary) because it's ... what - stupid, racist, I'm not sure what your argument is. In any case, Misplaced Pages does not allow users to make such assertions, however obvious they may be to the user concerned, because that way the path lies open for anyone to come along and say "well it's obvious to me that George Bush is a giant lizard from outer space, and this should be in the article somewhere." Sorry, I don't mean to imply your theory is that nuts, just that we have standards for inclusion, which include Misplaced Pages:no original research. If you can't find any credible external support for your theory, you will struggle to persuade other editors to let your theory go in the article, and quite rightly so. Sorry, but once again, that's how Misplaced Pages works. Rd232 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, have you looked at closely at full-body representations of Akhenaten, with his weird chicken-legs? He may or may not have been black, but that wouldn't explain the legs. Rd232 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Humm. If I "fail to understand is that Akhenaten’s appearance is being evaluated", why did I spend most of the discussion evaluating his appearance - and the evidence for it? The only "fact" that you provided against the Marfan's theory was that it caused infertility. But that "fact" was not a fact at all, as I pointed out. Mainly I was trying to show that Marfan's theory simply does not have any relevance to black/white distinctions. It's not that I agree with the Marfan's theory, just that it should be included here as a legitimate hypothesis. Nowhere does the article say anything about Akhenaten looking like a "light-skinned Italian", so you are arguing against a position that the article does not take and has never taken. Yes, often Egyptians are portrayed as exclusively light-skinned in popular culture, as in the film Stargate for example. But the only aspect of this article that could be said to support the image of a "white" Akhenaten was the computer generated simulation of his face, which had been added shortly before you came along. That image was placed here with the transparent intention of advertising the company that made it, whose website address was included in the caption. I was already looking for a better pic to replace it. Whether or not Tiye was half Asian, we don't know. She may have been. Or alternatively she may have been from Nubia. Apart from the fact that the yew heartwood of Tiye's bust has darkened almost to black (as ancient yew-wood does), I don't see anything in her bust to clearly indicate her skin-colour. We know that wives for Akhenaten and his father came from the Mitanni in Asia, and we can fairly assume that there were some dark-skinned ones from southern Egypt too, but be can't say anything for sure about Akhenaten himself or his parents. Paul B 17:23 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It amazes me of the disbelief that some people have that Black African People may have had an ancient culture that has significantly affected life in the modern era. It seems to be more comfortable to think that modern blacks are a product of European influence with no earlier equal exchange. I am informed however when I see reporters and egyptologists in the tombs of dead pharoahs standing in front of tomb drawings of what are clearly black people. I believe the need for them not to be black, is so strong, that someone is going to comment after this article discounting even these original tomb drawings as accurate. Regardless of hypothesis, until the tomb drawings and statues that show these Black Africans for whom they were, are destroyed, the argument that they were black will never end. Speculation of who they were has been debated and altered throughout the ages. The truth of who they were will stand forever through their depictions of themselves. Who they really were and what they really contributed to mankind cannot be removed. It is important to note that none takes offense to an European's caucasian features. None tries to say that their skin was lightened or that they were sick as to why they look so European, being from Europe. Why then are the drawings and sculptures of ancient Africans that were commmissioned by themselves often brought into question or thought to be caucasians in disguise? Why do drawings made centuries later with little orientation to the original ones get more respect than the originals? So much to the point that they are actually exihibited as accurate? Is it not as worthy for Ancient Africans of influence to be observed as they were, as it is for Ancient Europeans of influence to be observed as they were? Or is it more popular to assume beyond evidence that these earlier Africans couldn't possibly have built such a sofisticated society? The more popular belief is that they must have been caucasians in disguise. Tom.

The "popular belief" is that they were North African. No one has or does deny this. This whole "debate" is predicated on a spurious opposition between "black" and "white", so that if you are not white you must be black, and if you are not black you must be white. There is no rigid dividing line. Diferences are clinal. Paul B 12:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is no rigid dividing line between the mixed people of the earth. All of us share DNA. But because of how we see each other, you would, (based on visual evidence) consider Sidney Poitier a black man and Bill Clinton a white man. The visual evidence of the Ancient Egyptians is consistent throughout with the images of Black African People, just as the visual evidence of Irishmen is consistent throughout with images of White People. Only when we honestly recognize each others existence and historical contributions will we truly be able to trust each other genuinely. I've actually been in conversations where the topic was a debate over whether Sammy Sosa was Black. Imagine that. I of course explained that a sample of his DNA would easily kill this foolish debate. The Egyptians knew who they were and left us overwhelming visual evidence of who they were. They did not however share our concept of racism. Which means that there is still more that we can learn from them. Unfortunately there are people (who for strong internal reasons) want them not to be the Black Africans that they were. So much so, that they are willing to disregard the obvious for the conceptual. NOT FAIR/NOT HONEST. Tom.

No, the visual evidence is not "consistent throughout with the images of black Africam people". There is considerable variation in the skin pigmenation used, ranging from pure white to pure black, with yellowish and reddish pigments in between. There are some images of Egyptians that look quite European, even going as far back as the Old Kingdom, and there are some that look more black/Negroid. Most look like North Africans. The people of North Africa are not normally defined as either "black" or "white". Both concepts are unhelpful and misleading. No doubt there are some people who "want them not to be Black Africans". It is obvious that there are also some who equally want the opposite. Paul B 13:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I read some of the comments in this section. I have one basic question. Does it look to you like Akhenaten has black features? Like his mom? When we explain all these reasons Akhenaten looks the way he does, is there a reason that saying "his family may have been descendent from a more predominantly negro/id/ black/african equatorial (or whatever adjective) background? WHy is this not even mentioned? The guy looks like a black guy. George bush does not look like a lizard. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

See Nubian. Oh, and lizard. --Victim of signature fascism 20:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yahweh, Elohim, and Aten

As to the principal Judaic terms for God, Yahweh and Elohim, Ahmed Osman (IIRC) does link a connection to Aten. I'll see if I can get his book again. Sincerely, JDR 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No doubt he tries to, but even the "Adon" argument is very forced. The word is "Adonai". It means "lord", and is an ordiary Semitic word also used in the polytheistic Semitic religions of the time, so there is no reason to connect it to "Aten" other than the fact that with a bit of abbreviation the two words can be made to sound similar. So can many words. If it was only used in monotheist proto-Judaism there might be a case, but since it is used in all Semitic traditions as a generic word of respect the claim that there is a specific link to monotheism seems implausible. Paul B 10:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Akhenaten and Danaus

Two questions by IonnKorr

Was Akhenaton (or an naval-general of Egyptian fleet) the same person with Danaus, king of Argos?

Was Ay the same person with Aegyptus (of historian Manetho)?

Was Nefertiti post-developed ('mutated") into Aphrodite, Greek goddess of love and beauty?

Take into account.

"It has been suggested that the figure Danaus represents an actual Egyptian monarch, possibly identified with the pharaoh Akhenaton (as accounted by the ancient Greco-Aegyptian, Manetho). Furthering the parallel, the character of Aegyptus bears similarities with the pharaoh Ay. This leads some to believe that the Aegyptiads were an Egyptian army that was sent by Ay and Ammonian priests to punish Akhenaton and Atenists, and, following from this presumption, that the Danaids were Egyptians who followed Akenaton to Greece after his escape from Egypt."

From Misplaced Pages, article "Danaus"

--Ionn-Korr 18:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Who added that to Danaus ?

It seems somewhat implausible, linguistically, particularly as Danaus is the eponym of the Danaii, one of the greek tribes, and Aphrodite also has a seperate etymology. Indeed, there is little to no connection between Nefertiti and Aphrodite, bar the aspect of supposed beauty. --Victim of signature fascism 23:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Request to remove commentary on appearance

I added a note at the end of the section on Akh.'s artistic representation, to the effect that his statues and lithographs of him and his family are artistic representations of how Akh. wanted to be portrayed, and should not be presented as a literal portrait of his physical appearance. The more I read the rest of the section however, the more ridiculous it seems. The rest of the section on Akh.'s appearance is attempting to take his artistic representation literally and thereby attempt to draw some medical conclusion about conditions he may have had; to do so is patently absurd. He was the pharaoh, the absolute ruler of Egypt, and he was portrayed exactly as he WANTED to be portrayed regardless of what he looked like; this is true of every pharaoh. Hatshepsut for example is portrayed as a man. A recent examination of the mummy of Rameses II shows that he had a number of physical ailments towards the end of his life and may have been unable to even walk; all of the Rameseid dynasty is portrayed in militaristic terms, with strong broad shoulders and very muscular features. Previous dynasties portrayed the opposite, with the pharaoh and nobles portrayed as being soft, pale, and slightly overweight, as a possible sign of peace and prosperity. What this all boils down to in essence is that, once again, this section in the article where we are trying to deduce physical characteristics and abnormalities from a figurative, artistic representation of a pharaoh is ridiculous. It would be far more useful and far more of a scholarly pursuit to instead have a section on the interpretations of why Akh. wanted himself and his family portrayed in such a way, rather than the entirely useless and speculative section we have now. Let me know your comments of course, and what you think, good or bad, of this suggestion and move, before either I or someone else commit the change. pookster11 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Psalm 104

Is there a reference to anyone of note stating that Psalm 104 and the Hymn to Aten are similiar? pookster11 09:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an extremely common view, though quite properly counted as speculation, which is the section that it is in. Indeed it's so commonplace that you can even buy a cheat term paper on the topic online! Paul B 11:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But anything behind it beyond the English translations sound similiar? I won't get into how you found out about the term paper online.pookster11 03:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not for us to say whether or not there is "anything behind it". What matters is that it is a well established academic view. I don't know what you are driving at with your comment about translations. Obviously the two poems are in different languages, so there are no direct liftings from one to the other. Here's some literature on the comparisons. The connection was made almost immediately after the Hymn was discovered: Peter Craigie, "The Comparison of Hebrew Poetry: Psalm 104 in the light of Egyptian and Ugaritic Poetry," Semitics 4 (1974):12-15; Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988):60-65; and R. J. Williams, "The Hymn to Aten," in Documents from Old Testament Times Edited by D. W. Thomas (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1958):142-150. The similarities are not really in dispute. Essentially, the question is whether there has been a direct influence, or simply a convergence becuse of similar literary tropes. Paul B 09:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Automatic peerreview

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and last year might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Misplaced Pages:Persondata for more information.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 18 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah . to blah blah.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Speculation Section

The Speculative Theories section is a bit messy, with a bit just thrown here and there, and it may even get annoying to read. Maybe it should be cleaned up a little. mikey 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could be a little clearer: "a bit just thrown here and there"? Paul B 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

1. See footnote
2. See footnote
3. See footnote
4. See footnote
5. See footnote
6. See footnote