Anhkenaten: monotheist or alien?

[jules99]

Ah, no, that's not wiki that I posted.

Birmingham Medical Journal.

I know this sounds a bit sus but did you check the source for the 1st citation in the article. The info that relates to head binding is cited to a BDSM website. If Im reading that right Im not sure how up to date their knowledge of AE or head binding would be..but I reckon they would be happy to discipline me if Im wrong

[kmt_sesh]

Hi kmt_sesh;

Just a few thoughts that may or maynot be valid, firstly could the warts n all depiction of Akhenaten be an expression of his humanity, as opposed to him being a god?...

A fair question, jules99. In all fairness I would have to answer, no. Or at least, probably no. It seems the last thing Akhenaten wanted to be thought of was as an ordinary human. He held himself above and beyond humanity. After all, he believed he and his queen (especially he) were the only ones who could communicate and intercede with his god, the Aten.

To give you an idea of how Akhenaten wished himself to be regarded by his people, no one was allowed to pray directly to the Aten. Rather, people had to pray to Akhenaten and Nefertiti so that the royal couple could send their prayers to the Aten. In private homes at Amarna personal shrines have been excavated, and many of these shrines contained small stelae depicting Akhenaten and Nefertiti in communication with the Aten. This means you would pray before the stela, your prayers would flow to Akhenaten, and Akhenaten would then send your prayers on to the Aten. Kind of like forwarding an email, I suppose.

In any case, in my opinion, this isn't a belief of a man who believed he was part of ordinary humanity. This was the belief of a man who believed he was divine.

Does this make sense or have I only confused matters more?

Also if there is no background information on Nefertitis past nor remains for either Nefertiti, or her children then how can head binding be completely discounted as an explanation for their appearance.

Thanks..

Also a fair question, and a particularly good one. Of course I cannot sit here and proclaim: "Head binding never occurred in pharaonic Egypt!" I hope I haven't given that impression (which unfortunately I probably have). It's entirely possible African peoples who practiced head binding and who moved to Egypt, could be found among the population.

That said, one must examine the full weight of evidence. No, Nefertiti's body has never been found, so far as we know, but the thousands of human remains dating to pharaonic times do not exhibit deformation of the skull. Were it a part of pharaonic tradition, we would see plenty of examples of head binding in the human remains. We don't. So if Nefertiti did undergo head binding when she was an infant, it would indicate that at birth she was not Egyptian.

I have a bit more to say on the subject in response to Antilles's recent posts. But as for Akhenaten's daughters, a couple of the mummies examined in the extensive 2007-2009 pathological and genetic investigations, are now argued to be likely two of Akhenaten's daughters. One is possibly Ankhesenamun, the half-sister and wife of Tutankhamun. Unfortunately both of these mummies are in an exceedingly poor state of preservation, and one of them even lacks a head, but the head of the other does not evidence skull deformation. Nor do any of the other mummies that were part of these investigations, including Amunhotep III, KV35EL, KV35YL, KV55, Yuya, Tjuya, and Tutankhamun. These are all from the same specific period of Dynasty 18, so in sum total it's obvious head binding was not a tradition for these people.

[kmt_sesh]

http://adc.bmj.com/content/86/3/144.full

The practice of head deformation by pressure to an infant's skull dates back to 2000 bc when the Ancient Egyptians used head binding to produce a cosmetically pleasing and fashionable skull shape.1 With an increasing incidence of plagiocephaly (asymmetric skull) this practice, with a modern slant, is re-emerging. A simple web search resulted in five “paediatric offices” offering such a service. If an Ancient Egyptian walked into clinic today with their child's head bound between two planks of wood, we would be informing social services.

I'm not sure how accurate the information about Egypt is in this article. It seems incidental to the rest of the material.

To verify my argument I turned to Joyce Filer's book Disease (British Museum Press, 1995). Filer is both an Egyptologist and a forensic anthropologist, and is one of the leading experts in ancient Egyptian pathology. This includes her studies of a great many Egyptian mummies and what we can learn about the culture from them.

Filer notes that skull deformation "is a traumatic (but not surgical) procedure, common to many societies but not to ancient Egypt" (1995: 91). One of the only exceptions is the skull of a young woman in the collection of the Royal College of Surgeons; the skull is of uncertain provenance. It does indeed seem to evidence deliberate deformation but is believed to have come from a Coptic cemetery at El Fashim dating to between the first and sixth centuries CE (ibid: 93). This means that if skull deformation is at play, the date of the skull is well beyond pharaonic times and so cannot be attributed to the culture of pharaonic Egypt. Skull binding certainly never was nor is part of Coptic tradition or any other form of Christianity, so if this woman did undergo head binding as an infant, she probably was born elsewhere in Africa and only subsequently moved to Egypt.

[+DieChecker]

Was Ankhenaten a descendant of aliens? His ancestors were never depicted as he was. Was his worship of the one god, the Aten, a sign of his knowledge of Sirius, the founding star in our universe?

Or was his appearance the result of a genetic abnormality and his belief in the Aten a revolt against the overwhelming interference of the priests of Amun-Ra?

According to Wikipedia Akhenaten was the father of Tutankhamun. If Akhenaten was alien, or part alien you'd expect that to show in the DNA of his son. And AFAIK King Tut was completely human DNA-wise. I believe Tut had many of the same kinds of artisitc depictions made of him and it would seem those do not match with his physical remains. Also Tut's mother has been identified using DNA, and Amenhotep III's remains have also been identified. So, it is unlikely that with so much DNA evidence, and nothing strange in it, that Akhenaten was anything other then a human.

If Akhenaten had anything genetic going on, I'd guess it was Autism... maybe Aspergers, where the individual, depending on the level of autism, can be completely cut off from their history and from the people around them and live by their own rules.

Akhenaten's tomb is in the royal wadi to the east of Amarna. It's still there, some of it well preserved and some of it in ruins. His sarcophagus was found completely smashed. Almost certainly his body was destroyed in antiquity, if not within a few years of his burial. That said, no one can be sure how Akhenaten died, but we can state confidently that there's no evidence for usurpation or assassination.

I should note that Zahi Hawass believes the mummy found in the early 1900s in the tomb designated KV55, is the mummy of Akhenaten. He reported as much in the published JAMA findings from the mummy examinations of 2007-2009. Almost nobody agrees with Hawass, however, and subsequently he backed off the claim somewhat. The body found in KV55 is almost certainly that of a man too young to have been Akhenaten.

Wiki says that the mummy found in KV55 has been shown, by DNA, to be a close relative of Tut.

Interest in Akhenaten 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. A mummy found in KV55 in 1907 has now been identified as almost certainly that of Akhenaten. This elder man and Tutankhamun are related without question.

Though further reading seems to indicate that the KV55 mummy died way to young to be Akhenaten.

Also found this...

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/7/638.abstract

Which says it prooves by DNA that KV55 and KV35YL were Tut's parents.

[kmt_sesh]

According to Wikipedia Akhenaten was the father of Tutankhamun. If Akhenaten was alien, or part alien you'd expect that to show in the DNA of his son. And AFAIK King Tut was completely human DNA-wise. I believe Tut had many of the same kinds of artisitc depictions made of him and it would seem those do not match with his physical remains. Also Tut's mother has been identified using DNA, and Amenhotep III's remains have also been identified. So, it is unlikely that with so much DNA evidence, and nothing strange in it, that Akhenaten was anything other then a human.

If Akhenaten had anything genetic going on, I'd guess it was Autism... maybe Aspergers, where the individual, depending on the level of autism, can be completely cut off from their history and from the people around them and live by their own rules.

Wiki says that the mummy found in KV55 has been shown, by DNA, to be a close relative of Tut.

Though further reading seems to indicate that the KV55 mummy died way to young to be Akhenaten.

Also found this...

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/7/638.abstract

Which says it prooves by DNA that KV55 and KV35YL were Tut's parents.

Some good investigating, DieChecker. It's always been known that Tutankhamun was the son of a king, but to date no surviving monument states which king. Through the years speculation usually has named as Tut's father Amunhotep III, Smenkhkare, or Akhenaten, with Akhenaten as the most commonly argued. I myself always believed Akhenaten was Tut's father, which would at least help to explain why no surviving monument mentions as much: Akhenaten's name was being hacked from history very soon after Tut took the throne.

And now it appears we who favored Akhenaten have always been wrong. So be it. Live and learn. Thanks to the extensive genetic testing from 2007-2009, and as you wrote, we know for certain now that Tut's father was the mummy found in KV55 and his mother was the mummy found in the KV35 side chamber and known as KV35YL. The genetic testing also revealed that KV55 and KV35YL, Tut's mom and dad, were full brother and sister. That's one thing that rules out Akhenaten: his principal wives, first Nefertiti and then Kiya, were not his sisters nor of any known familial relation to him.

The KV55 mummy is very badly preserved and is in fact nothing but a skeleton now, but its bones have been professionally examined a number of times through the years. All who have examined the bones prior to 2007 have agreed the KV55 mummy was a young man who could not have been more than 25 years of age at death, and was probably younger than that. Many have argued for years that KV55 is actually the body of the ephemeral Smenkhkhare, an argument I personally have always favored.

So now it would seem Tut's father, in all likelihood, was Smenkhkhare. This is not something at all shocking, but still, it caught many of us Egyptomaniacs by surprise. That's one of the cool things about science. You never know what will pop up next.

It is primarily Zahi Hawass who favors identifying KV55 as Akhenaten. The JAMA report is exceedingly vague on the issue but mentions in passing that pathological examinations of the bones now suggest the man to whom they belonged may have been more than 30 years old. Akhenaten probably died at around 35, so Hawass jumped onto this possibility like a wildman. The problem is, no strong evidence has ever been presented to maintain an older age at death for the person who owned these bones. The only thing I've subsequently learned is that the pathological examination of the bones revealed osteophytes on the vertebrae. Osteophytes are bone spurs that typically we all will develop as we age, and they're often associated with arthritis, as I understand. However, osteophytes can also develop in younger people due to autoimmune disorders and other pathologies; moreover, arthritis in younger people is amply demonstrated in the human remains of pharaonic Egypt. Therefore, the JAMA report may have rushed to judgement and Hawass himself has since backed off a bit.

Your mention of possible neurological disorders in Akhenaten is intriguing. Trust me, many have considered this through the years. No one can fully explain Akhenaten's odd behaviors and societal upheavals, so a mental disorder is of course possible. Naturally, however, there is no way to prove it.

[cormac mac airt]

Some good investigating, DieChecker. It's always been known that Tutankhamun was the son of a king, but to date no surviving monument states which king. Through the years speculation usually has named as Tut's father Amunhotep III, Smenkhkare, or Akhenaten, with Akhenaten as the most commonly argued. I myself always believed Akhenaten was Tut's father, which would at least help to explain why no surviving monument mentions as much: Akhenaten's name was being hacked from history very soon after Tut took the throne.

And now it appears we who favored Akhenaten have always been wrong. So be it. Live and learn. Thanks to the extensive genetic testing from 2007-2009, and as you wrote, we know for certain now that Tut's father was the mummy found in KV55 and his mother was the mummy found in the KV35 side chamber and known as KV35YL. The genetic testing also revealed that KV55 and KV35YL, Tut's mom and dad, were full brother and sister. That's one thing that rules out Akhenaten: his principal wives, first Nefertiti and then Kiya, were not his sisters nor of any known familial relation to him.

The KV55 mummy is very badly preserved and is in fact nothing but a skeleton now, but its bones have been professionally examined a number of times through the years. All who have examined the bones prior to 2007 have agreed the KV55 mummy was a young man who could not have been more than 25 years of age at death, and was probably younger than that. Many have argued for years that KV55 is actually the body of the ephemeral Smenkhkhare, an argument I personally have always favored.

So now it would seem Tut's father, in all likelihood, was Smenkhkhare. This is not something at all shocking, but still, it caught many of us Egyptomaniacs by surprise. That's one of the cool things about science. You never know what will pop up next.

It is primarily Zahi Hawass who favors identifying KV55 as Akhenaten. The JAMA report is exceedingly vague on the issue but mentions in passing that pathological examinations of the bones now suggest the man to whom they belonged may have been more than 30 years old. Akhenaten probably died at around 35, so Hawass jumped onto this possibility like a wildman. The problem is, no strong evidence has ever been presented to maintain an older age at death for the person who owned these bones. The only thing I've subsequently learned is that the pathological examination of the bones revealed osteophytes on the vertebrae. Osteophytes are bone spurs that typically we all will develop as we age, and they're often associated with arthritis, as I understand. However, osteophytes can also develop in younger people due to autoimmune disorders and other pathologies; moreover, arthritis in younger people is amply demonstrated in the human remains of pharaonic Egypt. Therefore, the JAMA report may have rushed to judgement and Hawass himself has since backed off a bit.

Your mention of possible neurological disorders in Akhenaten is intriguing. Trust me, many have considered this through the years. No one can fully explain Akhenaten's odd behaviors and societal upheavals, so a mental disorder is of course possible. Naturally, however, there is no way to prove it.

What is the concensus on the identity of Smenkhkare's wife? Meritaten? Or someone entirely different?

cormac

[Antilles]

What is the concensus on the identity of Smenkhkare's wife? Meritaten? Or someone entirely different?

cormac

There has been an idea floated, although I don't know how successfully, that Smenkhare was actually Nefertiti ruling in male guise.

[cormac mac airt]

There has been an idea floated, although I don't know how successfully, that Smenkhare was actually Nefertiti ruling in male guise.

That idea is pretty well defunct at this point, as has been pointed out by kmt_sesh, as Tutankhamun's parents were siblings and Nefertiti wasn't related to Akhenaten. Nor is there evidence that she was married to Smenkhkare or any other reigning king after Akhenaten.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

What is the concensus on the identity of Smenkhkare's wife? Meritaten? Or someone entirely different?

cormac

The sum total of evidence on Smenkhkare is scanty, unfortunately. LOL I just realized I've spelled his name in at least two if not three different ways. I think I've written about Smenkhkare in the pages of UM more than anywhere else in all my life...which means not often at all. His name is typically spelled Smenkhkhare or Smenkhkare, and I actually prefer the latter which is more correct so I ought to stick with it.

Anyway, on a handful of monuments (mostly fragmentary) he is mentioned alongside Meritaten. For instance, Smenkhkare appears with her in the tomb of Meryre II in Amarna, and she is referred to as the Great Royal Wife (nswt Hmt wrt), meaning Smenkhkare's principal wife. In another scene, they are shown together at the Window of Appearance awarding Meryre with golden collars. There's just not much out there which has survived, but Meritaten is clearly displayed as Smenkhkare's queen while no other woman is identified as such.

That idea is pretty well defunct at this point, as has been pointed out by kmt_sesh, as Tutankhamun's parents were siblings and Nefertiti wasn't related to Akhenaten. Nor is there evidence that she was married to Smenkhkare or any other reigning king after Akhenaten.

cormac

Plenty of good arguments have been presented either way. The problem is, the evidence for the person known as Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten is so damn ambiguous that there is no clear, definitive answer. Just the same, you're correct: the argument that Nefertiti and Smenkhkare are the same person is falling by the wayside. The sum total of textual evidence, iconography, and genetic evidence would seem to discount it.

Interestingly, Aidan Dodson has come up with a pretty decent theory that Nefertiti did in fact outlive Akhenaten for some years and went on to become, for a short time, a coregent with Tutankhamun. I can't recall the particulars of the theory and I'd have to dig it out of the mess of my periodicals at home. But as I recall (hopefully with some accuracy), Dodson's theory doesn't require in this case that Nefertiti and Smenkhkare were the same person.

[cormac mac airt]

The sum total of evidence on Smenkhkare is scanty, unfortunately. LOL I just realized I've spelled his name in at least two if not three different ways. I think I've written about Smenkhkare in the pages of UM more than anywhere else in all my life...which means not often at all. His name is typically spelled Smenkhkhare or Smenkhkare, and I actually prefer the latter which is more correct so I ought to stick with it.

Anyway, on a handful of monuments (mostly fragmentary) he is mentioned alongside Meritaten. For instance, Smenkhkare appears with her in the tomb of Meryre II in Amarna, and she is referred to as the Great Royal Wife (nswt Hmt wrt), meaning Smenkhkare's principal wife. In another scene, they are shown together at the Window of Appearance awarding Meryre with golden collars. There's just not much out there which has survived, but Meritaten is clearly displayed as Smenkhkare's queen while no other woman is identified as such.

Plenty of good arguments have been presented either way. The problem is, the evidence for the person known as Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten is so damn ambiguous that there is no clear, definitive answer. Just the same, you're correct: the argument that Nefertiti and Smenkhkare are the same person is falling by the wayside. The sum total of textual evidence, iconography, and genetic evidence would seem to discount it.

Interestingly, Aidan Dodson has come up with a pretty decent theory that Nefertiti did in fact outlive Akhenaten for some years and went on to become, for a short time, a coregent with Tutankhamun. I can't recall the particulars of the theory and I'd have to dig it out of the mess of my periodicals at home. But as I recall (hopefully with some accuracy), Dodson's theory doesn't require in this case that Nefertiti and Smenkhkare were the same person.

Thanks for that kmt_sesh. So not much more is known about her than about Smenkhkare it seems. I'm wondering if any efforts have been made in an attempt to locate Meritaten's tomb. That might possibly answer alot of the questions we have.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Thanks for that kmt_sesh. So not much more is known about her than about Smenkhkare it seems. I'm wondering if any efforts have been made in an attempt to locate Meritaten's tomb. That might possibly answer alot of the questions we have.

cormac

You know, I'm comfortable in suggesting that Meritaten actually appears on a lot more monuments than Smenkhkare does. She was one of Akhenaten's daughters, after all, and one thinks of all of those charming stelae on which Akhenaten and Nefertiti are shown cuddling their daughters. But, of course, monuments of textual substance for Meritaten are another thing--much rarer.

I am not an expert on the royal daughters of Akhenaten, and in fact I'm probably to be regarded as a sexist pig because I'm much better versed on kings and their male kin than I am on the female relations. However, she was Akhenaten's eldest daughter so she tends to be well represented on royal monuments, more so than the other daughters. And in fact later in the reign, when Nefertiti seems to drop from the scene, Meritaten became Akhenaten's Great Royal Wife (let's not go into further details with that!). This means it's possible her burial was intended to be in the same tomb as Akhenaten, but I can't remember the details as such.

[cormac mac airt]

You know, I'm comfortable in suggesting that Meritaten actually appears on a lot more monuments than Smenkhkare does. She was one of Akhenaten's daughters, after all, and one thinks of all of those charming stelae on which Akhenaten and Nefertiti are shown cuddling their daughters. But, of course, monuments of textual substance for Meritaten are another thing--much rarer.

I am not an expert on the royal daughters of Akhenaten, and in fact I'm probably to be regarded as a sexist pig because I'm much better versed on kings and their male kin than I am on the female relations. However, she was Akhenaten's eldest daughter so she tends to be well represented on royal monuments, more so than the other daughters. And in fact later in the reign, when Nefertiti seems to drop from the scene, Meritaten became Akhenaten's Great Royal Wife (let's not go into further details with that!). This means it's possible her burial was intended to be in the same tomb as Akhenaten, but I can't remember the details as such.

Forgive the confusion, but I though it was Meketaten who was believed to have been buried in the same tomb as Akhenaten. Or is it believed that more than one daughter was buried with him? Wouldn't Meritaten have been seen as deserving of her own tomb in the Valley of the Queens?

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Forgive the confusion, but I though it was Meketaten who was believed to have been buried in the same tomb as Akhenaten. Or is it believed that more than one daughter was buried with him? Wouldn't Meritaten have been seen as deserving of her own tomb in the Valley of the Queens?

cormac

Right you are. All those damn "Aten" names sound alike to me. The two suites of unfinished rooms in Akhenaten's tomb were probably meant for Nefertiti and Meketaten.

As I recall, the Valley of the Queens was only getting going at some point in Dynasty 18, and I cannot remember which point. It did not become a frequent burial ground for queens and royal kids till Dynasty 19. In any case, the traditional Theban necropolis had been shunned by Akhenaten, so wherever exactly Meritaten was meant to be buried, originally it was probably in or around the royal wadi east of Amarna. The picture is even fuzzier after she became queen, however.

For all we know Meritaten might be one of those frightfully bad mummies examined in the 2007-2009 tests. I can't remember which but there are two female mummies, one of which is thought to be Ankhesenamun; one of these two mummies is headless. A positive identify for either or both is not possible at this time, of course. And I'm at work and don't have access to the materials in my library to do any fact-checking. We can only imagine upon the collapse of Akhenaten's administration, the chaos that ensued as people were preparing to abandon Akhetaten. Who knows how many bodies Tut may have relocated to Thebes, such as the KV55 mummy? In all likelihood there will be future discoveries that will enable us, at least to an extent, to straighten out some of this stuff.

Or we could abandon reasonable and logical research and just chalk it up to aliens. They were all a bunch of aliens, so who cares?

[+DieChecker]

Some good investigating, DieChecker.

Not bad for being typed out on a work break, eh?

Thanks to the extensive genetic testing from 2007-2009, and as you wrote, we know for certain now that Tut's father was the mummy found in KV55 and his mother was the mummy found in the KV35 side chamber and known as KV35YL. The genetic testing also revealed that KV55 and KV35YL, Tut's mom and dad, were full brother and sister. That's one thing that rules out Akhenaten: his principal wives, first Nefertiti and then Kiya, were not his sisters nor of any known familial relation to him.

The KV55 mummy is very badly preserved and is in fact nothing but a skeleton now, but its bones have been professionally examined a number of times through the years. All who have examined the bones prior to 2007 have agreed the KV55 mummy was a young man who could not have been more than 25 years of age at death, and was probably younger than that. Many have argued for years that KV55 is actually the body of the ephemeral Smenkhkhare, an argument I personally have always favored.

So now it would seem Tut's father, in all likelihood, was Smenkhkhare. This is not something at all shocking, but still, it caught many of us Egyptomaniacs by surprise. That's one of the cool things about science. You never know what will pop up next.

That is how I saw it yesterday when I was posing. KV55 was Tut's father, but could not have been Akhenaten, as KV55 died to early.

Do you think Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's son as has been suggested? or maybe Akhenaten's brother? Amenhotep III died around 1351 BC and Smenkhkare was born around 1358 BC. Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) would have been 20 at the time, so he could have been Smenkhkare's father too.

So what was the likelyhood of Smenkhkare's taking over from Akhenaten in 1335 BC, if Tut was like 6 at the time? Did the crown pass between brothers often in the later dynasties?

Your mention of possible neurological disorders in Akhenaten is intriguing. Trust me, many have considered this through the years. No one can fully explain Akhenaten's odd behaviors and societal upheavals, so a mental disorder is of course possible. Naturally, however, there is no way to prove it.

If it was autism, then it might be possible to look for the markers in his DNA. Of course that still does not proove he had autism fully expressed, but it would indicate, with his actions, that it was a strong possibility. I think autism or a genetic mental issue is a lot more likely then some kind of psychosis.

[kmt_sesh]

Not bad for being typed out on a work break, eh?

That is how I saw it yesterday when I was posing. KV55 was Tut's father, but could not have been Akhenaten, as KV55 died to early.

Do you think Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's son as has been suggested? or maybe Akhenaten's brother? Amenhotep III died around 1351 BC and Smenkhkare was born around 1358 BC. Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) would have been 20 at the time, so he could have been Smenkhkare's father too.

So what was the likelyhood of Smenkhkare's taking over from Akhenaten in 1335 BC, if Tut was like 6 at the time? Did the crown pass between brothers often in the later dynasties?

No one knows Smenkhkare's parentage. No evidence has survived to clarify it (at least to this point in time) so either scenario is plausible: Smenkhkare's father was Amunhotep III or Smenkhkare's father was Akhenaten. Oddly Smenkhkare is never mentioned as the son of a specific king so we just can't be sure. I'm not wedded to either theory but I tend to lean toward Amunhotep III as the father, meaning Smenkhkare was a brother or half-brother to Akhenaten.

At this point in pharaonic history the crown nearly always went to the king's eldest son borne of the king's chief wife. A king's brother was not usually in line for the throne, but there are numerous exceptions throughout pharaonic history, so precedent is there. It all depended on what was happening at the time and especially whether the reigning king had a son who could take the throne. Also, what was best for the state? Picture Akhenaten dying. He has a mature brother or half-brother (Smenkhkare), while the only other male choice is a very small boy (Tutankhaten) who on the weight of evidence now does not seem even to have been Akhenaten's son. Add to the mix the unpleasant fact that Egypt's power and position had slipped during the reign of Akhenaten, so it would've been best for the state to put an adult male on the throne. Therefore, if Smenkhkare was in fact a brother or half-brother of Akhenaten, I can see why he would've ascended to the throne next, instead of little Tut.

But to be entirely honest, I could also sum it up by declaring: Who in the hell knows? That's what makes the study of the Amarna Period so attractive. As well documented as Dynasty 18 is, that one stretch of some 17 years remains very murky and mysterious to us. It's like an ongoing detective mystery.

If it was autism, then it might be possible to look for the markers in his DNA. Of course that still does not proove he had autism fully expressed, but it would indicate, with his actions, that it was a strong possibility. I think autism or a genetic mental issue is a lot more likely then some kind of psychosis.

I am not the best informed when it comes to the science of genetics, but can autism be detected by DNA alone? LOL Pity we don't have Akhenaten's body because it might answer all sorts of questions. And while many of us who are absorbed in the history do tend to joke that Akhenaten was something of a lunatic, we are largely only joking. Mostly. Kind of. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for why Akhenaten did what he did, and numerous theories exist for those, too.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

@Kmt

Then why city was left after his death if it doesnt built on stupid location?

[kmt_sesh]

@Kmt

Then why city was left after his death if it doesnt built on stupid location?

I'm not certain I understand your question the way it's worded, Melo. Are you asking why the city Akhenaten built was still there after he died, or why his city disappeared after he died?

Perhaps I can answer the question either way. The city Akhenaten built, called Akhetaten ("Horizon of the Aten"), lasted for some time after Akhenaten died. The state's restoration to orthodoxy didn't happen instantly--it too some time to restore the old ways. We see inscribed dockets in Tut's tomb attached to wine jars and reading "from the estate of the Aten," meaning remnants of Akhetaten and its estates were still extant at least until the time of Tut's funeral. This would've been around a decade after the death of Akhenaten, then.

After Tut came Ay, an elderly man under whose reign not a hell of a lot happened. But then came Horemheb, the great general. It was during the reign of Horemheb that proscriptions against Akhenaten first began. Whoever was still living in Akhetaten by that time, if indeed anyone was, would've cleared out and moved elsewhere. First in the reign of Horemheb and then in the subsequent reigns of Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II, the buildings and temples of Akhetaten were systematically disassembled and used as fill and rubble for other buildings. The massive pylon gateways these later kings built at Karnak, for example, contain countless thousands of inscribed talatat blocks that originally came from Akhetaten.

So it's not at all that the physical setting for Akhetaten was a "stupid location." There was nothing wrong with the site at all, and in fact had Akhenaten not built his city there, some other king mostly likely would've built something there sooner or later. It's only because of the upheaval Akhenaten caused and especially for the religious heresy for which he was remembered, that the site we now call Tell el Amarna was never used again. It's not really that later Egyptians thought the place was cursed or anything like that, but they simply didn't want anything to do with a place made popular by a heretic king.

[kmt_sesh]

Damn, I write way too much. I am such a tedious windbag.

I could've answered the above by just saying:

Nothing wrong with the location, Akhenaten made bad, very bad. Bad memories. Bad mojo. Real estate values plummeted. No one want to live there anymore.

There. I have no idea why I wrote that in pidgin English, but I've arrived at basically the same answer in much fewer words.

[tipotep]

I don't have anything productive to add to this topic but I just wanted to let you guys know that I have been following this thread & enjoying the information provided .

And yes KMT you like to post the long side of the story but I’m sure myself and other appreciate the extra time you put in to give a " complete " insight .

Keep it up

TiP.

[+DieChecker]

Damn, I write way too much. I am such a tedious windbag.

I could've answered the above by just saying:

Nothing wrong with the location, Akhenaten made bad, very bad. Bad memories. Bad mojo. Real estate values plummeted. No one want to live there anymore.

There. I have no idea why I wrote that in pidgin English, but I've arrived at basically the same answer in much fewer words.

Soooo.... It was abandoned because of the pidgins??

... Please forgive me...

[kmt_sesh]

I don't have anything productive to add to this topic but I just wanted to let you guys know that I have been following this thread & enjoying the information provided .

And yes KMT you like to post the long side of the story but I’m sure myself and other appreciate the extra time you put in to give a " complete " insight .

Keep it up

TiP.

Thanks, tipotep. Like it or not, of course, there's not much chance of my posts becoming short. I have too much to say, and too much motivation to bore everyone into a stupor.

If you think you have nothing to add, why not sing us a few tunes from Philip Glass's opera Akhenaten. Just kidding. Please don't. I'm not a big fan of opera to begin with, but I had a college professor who used to play Philip Glass in the classroom. From that experience I learned that I am definitely not a fan of Philip Glass.

Soooo.... It was abandoned because of the pidgins??

... Please forgive me...

Damn pidgins, ruined everything.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Damn, I write way too much. I am such a tedious windbag.

I could've answered the above by just saying:

Nothing wrong with the location, Akhenaten made bad, very bad. Bad memories. Bad mojo. Real estate values plummeted. No one want to live there anymore.

There. I have no idea why I wrote that in pidgin English, but I've arrived at basically the same answer in much fewer words.

Thanks Kmt. No you are not writting too much. Well sometimes But thats why I like you. Also the real historians must have that trait.

[kmt_sesh]

Thanks Kmt. No you are not writting too much. Well sometimes But thats why I like you. Also the real historians must have that trait.

LOL Yes, real historians have that trait, all right. The difference is, I'm not a real historian. Real historians get to do it for a living!

Lucky b*******.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Lucky b*******.

Well they are a realy lucky b*******, I agreed on that. When I wanted to go studied history everybody in my family was like: "are you nuts?" Then I realized that they were telling me the truth. Few of them wrote some decent books, some wrote for some site ,newspaper , TV shows, some works as proffesors most are working something total different if working at all. I left history to be my mistress.

EDIT: You should wrote a book.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Melo

[ZaraKitty]

I was taught he was portrayed that way because he loved the female form, and he was portraying himself as hapy, the god of the nile or something, I can't remember.