Talk:Akhenaten

Discussion on renaming moved to Talk:Akhenaten/rename from VP. Noel 18:30, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Name

There are 2 entries for him: see also Akhnaten. User:Olivier

Yes but: Akhnaten is the play isnt it? User:Es02

This guy is also Amenophis IV (see, for example History of Egypt). Amenophis doesn't sound at all like Amenothep to me, why the two spellings (or names).

Amenophis is the Greek version of Amenhotep ... which in itself is just a rough transliteration of the hieroglyphic. User:Ffabris

Lineage and Succession

Removed text:

and the immediate predecessor of Tutankhamun

Sorry, but very few Egyptologists hold this position - few enough that I would be dubious about even including it as a significant theory. Almost all seem to agree than Smenkhare (whoever he/she is - there are many well-argued theories for that) came between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun.

Also, this page makes many statements of fact (e.g. the details of how he succeeded Amenhotep III) which again are not really widely agreed (almost all Egyptologists still argue for a co-regency of some length).

The whole page needs to be gone over to make the very nebulous nature of our knowledge of this period of Egyptian history clear. (And it's too bad Wiki seems to have settled on the 'ton' spelling for all these -aten names, most people seem to use the 'ten' variant.)

Noel 18:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think the fact that study of Ancient Egyptian theory involves examining different theories and speculations is common knowledge enough to not be mentioned in the article itself. Adding alternative solutions proposed for the dating and/or the events of his life and reign should help make it obvious enough.

As for Shmenkhare coming between Akhenaten and Tutankhaten:most lists of Pharaohs that I have seen mention him as a co-ruler of Akhenaten for a period of two to four years. There seems to be little support for him ever succeeding Akhenaten and having a lengthy reign and more oftenly I have come accross the speculation that he died before his co-ruler. In any case the immediate successor comment came because I thought the previous version of the article gave the impression of saying that:"Tutankhaten eventualy rose to the throne and married Akhenaten's daughter" without mentioning any dating of their reigns and their respective place in the lists of succesive Pharaohs. Any ideas of how to make clear that the succession goes from Akhenaten to Shmenkhare and then to Tutankhaten with nobody in between?

Co-Regency of some length with Amenhotep III? I thought there was support of a short co-Regency of one or two years at most but not anything certain. My sources are a bit outdated though. Any newer evidence for a lenthiel Co-Regency?

I prefer the -aten spelling myself. And though the article about the Pharaoh is under Akhenaton, the article about the deity he is named after is under Aten.

User:Dimadick

I think the fact that study of Ancient Egyptian theory involves examining different theories
and speculations is common knowledge enough to not be mentioned in the article itself.

First, it may be common to experts, but encyclopaedias are for non-experts, right? Second, and more important, the situation with the Amarna pharaohs (in fact, all of them after Amenhotep III and before Horemheb, who seems to have hated them) is particularly bad since there was an effort made to destroy records of them, especially the Amarna personalities, which makes what would a normally be something of problem into something much more difficult.

As for Shmenkhare coming between Akhenaten and Tutankhaten: most lists of Pharaohs
that I have seen mention him as a co-ruler of Akhenaten .. There seems to be little support
for him ever succeeding Akhenaten

That is not what I am seeing in the most recent scholarship. I don't have a copy Montserrat's book, nor Reeves' (which I just added to the entry), but I do have e.g. the Freed book, in which the section on the rulers was done by Reeves, and also has sections by others. Although not all agree that Smenkhare outlasted Akhenaten, most do seem to agree with that. Smenkhare's rule was certainly short, and was probably mostly as co-regent with Akhenaten, but most seem to have him/her continuing on for a brief period after the latter's death. The more authoritative web sites (e.g. the Theban Mapping Project, which has an entry for Smenkare on this page take the same position.

previous version of the article gave the impression of saying that: "Tutankhaten eventualy
rose to the throne and married Akhenaten's daughter" .. Any ideas of how to make clea
that the succession goes from Akhenaten to Shmenkhare and then to Tutankhaten with
nobody in between?

If you're OK with that, I can definitely craft words to say that.

Co-Regency of some length with Amenhotep III? I thought there was support of a short
co-Regency of one or two years at most but not anything certain. .. Any newer evidence
for a [lengthier] Co-Regency?

Again, as I look through things, I don't see that there is any consensus at all. (It's really infuriating the way one respected Egyptologist says "X happened" and another says "not-X happened" - who are we to pick one or the other?) Also, I don't have collections of journals like KMT, so I can't review the recent scholarly debate. (Blast them, why don't the put their old issues online, for scholarly purposes?)

I prefer the -aten spelling myself. And though the article about the Pharaoh is under
Akhenaton, the article about the deity he is named after is under Aten.

Good point. Also, all the books about him use the -aten form too. Shall we change them all (Akhenaton, Akhetaton) to the -aten forms, then?

Noel 17:32, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PS: Here's a bibliography entry I just saw for a recent journal article on the Amenhotep-III/Akhenaten co-regency length issue, arguing for a lengthy co-regency:

MARTÍN VALENTÍN, Francisco J., Indicaciones y evidencias de una corregencia entre Amenhotep III y Amenhotep IV en la necrópolis tebana, Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología, Madrid 6 (1996), 119-146.

Four Theban tombs display a number of common characteristics which strongly support the theory of a coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhnaton. The tombs are TT 48 (Amenemhat), TT 55 (Ramose), TT 57 (Khaemhat), and TT 192 (Kheruef). The similarities can be summarized as follows: a) relief technique; b) theme (the audience scene of Amenhotep III’s year 30); c) three tombs belong to persons related to the king; d) all tombs show signs of a damnatio memoriae; e) all owners participated in the ceremonies of year 30; f) all tombs were constructed and decorated by the same individual (probably Sa-Mut); g) in at least three tombs both sovereigns are depicted. The coregency would have begun in year 28 and lasted until year 38/39. The tombs were therefore constructed in Amenhotep IV's "Theban" period and the owners seem to have fallen in disgrace in either the years 30/31 or year 37.

Noel 00:36, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The chronology problem stands for Horemheb himself. In order to delete the reigns of the previous four Pharaohs, he added those years of reign to his own. As a result no inscription mentioning the length of his reign is reliable.They are not the only Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty ommited from historical record for millenia though. Tuthmosis III made a similar attempt to destroy evidence to the existence of his co-ruler Hatshepsut.

As I see it it is likely that co-rulers Akhenaten and Shmenkhare died shortly one after the other with uncertainty on who was first and who was second. Tutankhaten succeeded to the throne when those two left it vacant. mIf this is made clear with the article, I am content. Anyway getting into arguments about Shmenkhare, the poorest recorded Pharaoh in the 18th dynastie, would be absurd. Nothing seems to be certain of that Pharaoh including an estimated year of birth, identity, sex, relation to other members of the royal family, and year of death.

It is s not so infuriating when you consider that other fields of archaelogy have their own experts arguing with each other. Excavations in modern Israel have found little evidence of an Empire Period under David and Solomon. In fact evidence points at the area of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Judah at their time having a small population at best and reaching their peak under Josiah (640 BC - 609 BC). Similarily no evidence that Israel and Judah originated from a single Kingdom. With Israel actualy advancing to one of the leading states of its area and reaching its peaks under Ahab(870 BC - 848 BC) and Jeroboam II (783 BC - 748 BC). But you can still find scholars who argue for the validity of the report of this Kingdoms' history by the Books of Samuel and Kings and suggesting ways to relate it with the current foundings. In Greece, where I live, arguments are still going about the Royal Macedonian tomb found in 1977 belonging to conqueror Philip II or instead to his feeble-minded son Philip III. And there is still no consensus of what to make of an unnamed ancient city found last year near Sparta and seeming to be active around 1600 BC. With the archeologist who made the excavation believing he found Lacedaemon, the legendary parent-city of Sparta, and others disbelieving because are source for its existance is Homer's Illiad. Archaelogy can point theories it seems but rarely offers certainties.

A co-regency of ten years? I thought the argument against it was that that Amenhotep III's correspondence with Tushratta makes reference to respective Queens Tiy and Juni but not to a co-ruler or this co-ruler's Queen. Ramose sounds interesting. It seems the Egyptian form of Ramses or Ramesses. I wonder if he had any relation to Ramses I, Horemheb's bizyer and successor and the founder of the 19th dynasty.

To rename the articles would be some work. But if you are willing to try, keep in mind to keep Akhenaton as a redirect.

Good points though. Its nice to know there are Wikipedians with some interest in ancient history. Some time it seems that articles about ancient Monarchs get the least attention.

User:Dimadick

A co-regency of ten years? I thought the argument against it was that that
Amenhotep III's correspondence with Tushratta makes reference to respective
Queens Tiy and Juni but not to a co-ruler or this co-ruler's Queen.

I haven't gone through all the various recent things and looked in detail at all the evidence cited by both sides, to decide for myself what I think the evidence best indicates. In any case, that wouldn't be any use for what to put in the article, it would be just another opinion. I think all we can safely say is that there is still disagreement, and many scholars do favour a lengthy co-regency.

E.g. in Armarna Letters: 4, which I just obtained, there's an interesting article by Marshall F. Thompson on Sitamen, in which he clearly has agreed with the 11/12-year camp. (And also that Akhenaten pre-deceased Smenkhare; alas, he promised a forthcoming article on that topic, but died soon afterward.)

(The article itself is quite interesting - his theory is that she is the daughter of Amenhotep II by a different wife from Amenhotep III's mother, was married to her half-brother, and that Smenkhare and Tutankhamun are her sons. He has some interesting evidence based on the concept that Tiye was a commoner, and thus could not be the Royal Heiress (a king's daughter), marriage to whom was a key part of securing title to the throne.)

So all I think we can really do is state that the evidence is really sparse (and why), and that scholars disagree, and list the main theories for each point.

Its nice to know there are Wikipedians with some interest in ancient history.

Likewise.

Noel 20:30, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Religious connectivity theories

I'm tempted to simply completely excise this long addition, because I can't be bothered to edit out all the speculation and inaccuracies to retrieve the few grains of useful material. What do people think? Noel 18:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Same temptation felt here. Similar material has appeared on other 18th & 19th dyn pharaoh's pages in recent days. Perhaps instead of deleting it all it could be dumped on Pharaoh of the Exodus or some similar titled article. It all smacks very much of original research / speculation at the moment, but if could become a good article if the different ideas are back-and-forthed properly. Hey, it could happen. –Hajor 18:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I just fixed the Tutankhamun page from the same stuff. What's here is even less retrievable, though. Whoever gets to it first can clean it up, I guess! Noel 19:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Pharaoh of the Exodus article would be nice, but that wasn't it. Too much conjecture. Deleted the three paragraphs below. –Hajor 19:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although it also might not be a coincidence that he introduced monotheism, and quoted the Psalms of Moses. Could it be that he began to worship the God of the Israelites? Sources indicate that the 13 long lines of the poem were praise for Aten as the creator and preserver of the world. Within it, there are no allusions to traditional mythical concepts since the names of the other gods are absent. Even the plural form of the word god was avoided. Akhenaten also ordered the closure of the temples dedicated to all the other gods in Egypt. Not only were these temples closed, but in order to extinguish the memory of these gods as much as possible, a veritable persecution took place. Literal armies of stonemasons were sent out all over the land and even into Nubia, above all else, to hack away the image and name of the god Amun.

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 Wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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 [1], 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

I have the opening of King Tut's tomb on film. A product of the Discovery Channel. Tut's tomb is the only tomb in the modern era found with the seal unbroken. In the tomb (for those who haven't seen it) it shows that his dolls and even the guards were as black as Wesley Snipes. There is nothing found in the tomb that shows any variance to this. One can, I believe, accurately assume that what is in Tut's tomb is a composite of Tut's life. Anyone challenging this (and I'm sure you're out there) will expose their intentions to alter history. It should also be noted that All Egyptian Dynastic Founders were Black Africans. A note to Paul B above. Paul you mentioned on the Ethiopian Discussion Page that Ethiopia wasn't mentioned in the Bible when the Old Testament is riddled with verses concerning Ethiopia. I think at this point your research on Ancient Africa is questionable at best. Tom 09/27/06

The discussion on the Ethiopia page was about the etymology of the word "Ethiopia", not about the place Ethiopia. That's a separate matter. It's like saying that the Romans never mentioned "England" (which of course they didn't). That does not mean that they did not know about the place we now call England. Codex was claiming that "Ethiopia" derives from "Etyopis", who was a son of Ham, but no such person is mentioned in the Bible. Only Cush is mentioned, and his is the ethnonym typically used. As for Tut's tomb, you are completely wrong. Several different skin pigmentations are used. Look at pictures of the box in which he depicted crushing Nubians on one side and Canaanites on the other. Look at the reliefs and scuptures. Sometimes he's pure white, sometimes mid-brown, sometimes pinky-brown, sometimes black. In one sculpture he has a dark face and pale arms! See the images here: [2]; [3]; [4]; Paul B 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul thank you for this. Article #2 from Seti's tomb is what I'll comment on. The drawing shows the Nubian and the Egyptian as black people, but all four of them are of long legs and long arms. This is a trait that early white scientists attribute to black people. I think it safe to say that there is little doubt of the ethnicity of the figures on Tut's painted boxes. Modern science through DNA has shown that the differences between the races are minimal at best. But thats not how the world (in ignorance) sees itself. And it's a topic that is usually discussed only when talking about a dominant black civilation. Modern historians have a difficult time accepting or believing that Egypt, in all its sophistication was built and dominated by Black Africans. Many feel it necessary to inject a white influence or pretend that what appears to be black is black only by illusion or misrepresentation. Requiring ancient Egyptians to be proven black (inspite of their appearance) would make it necessary for rulers of Ancient Greece to be proven white (inspite of their appearance). Appearance only becomes irrelevant and non evidential when dealing with ancient black civilizations. Imagine Greeks and Romans having to prove that they are white. We will never have this debate about any European dynasty. Why? Don't the same rules apply? There were blacks in early Europe. The Seti drawing as well as other obvious artifacts prove that black people were rulers and builders of the most advanced ancient civilation known to man. Their depictions of themselves are no less credible than the self depictions of the Romans, Greeks or the British. There are still many people who believe that the culmination of black intellectuality is of European origin. Being educated in the fifties and sixties I felt the same way. Oh, by the way, I apologize for my comment about you above. Although our genetic differences are minimal, our appearance is vastly different and our prejudices profound. And it is in our differences that we need to honestly and accurately acknowledge the accomplishments in culture that these differences have fostered. I don't think it racist nor am I offended by any comment that a white person makes about the contributions of Europeans. But my European brothers don't feel the same way. Black people are not trying to steal credit for Ancient Egypt. They are trying to have the world acknowledge what is clearly and obviously their contribution to mankind. But white people consider this racist, threatening and/or erroneously afrocentric. I have yet to watch a movie or documentary that shows the Egyptians as this drawing from Seti's tomb shows them. Why can't they be shown as they are in their own drawings? Its done for the Romans and the Greeks. Of course there was race mixture within Egypt as in all cultures and countries, but the Dynastic founders, builders and early rulers were Black Africans. That's just the truth. If modern historians and film makers would show Egyptians as this drawing from Seti's tomb does, it would help to break up a lot of confusion concerning the contribution of all mankind to each other. Tom 09/26/06

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)

207.118.9.58 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Also, the best evidence I have seen for the Semitic Exodus place it at the time of the Santerini eruption, to correspond with the plagues. This is over a century earlier, and may point to the opposite of what has been assumed. Akhenaten may have been influenced by Yahwhism, not the one doing the influencing.

The Santorini Thera dates have been sent backwards to about 1628 BCE, which is too early for the association with the expulsion of the Hyksos, used since Josephus to correspond with the Exodus. There is also the evidence that the Bible mentions the use of Hebrews on the cities of Pithom and Raamses. The former was Per Atum, a favourite city of the Pharaoh Setnakhte, whilst the latter was capital of Egypt under the Ramesides. This would suggest an exodus associated with the expulsion of Asiatics mentioned in the Harris papyrus and the Elephantine stele. John D. Croft 14:45, 30 November 2006 (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 Wikipedia, 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)

If the appearance of Ancient Egyptians (Akenaton included) cannot be trusted, then the same rule would apply to the rulers of Ancient Greece and Rome. If there is a question about Africans being black, then there is also a question about Greeks and Romans being white. Fair is fair. Tom 10/01/06

The vast majority of art historians, Egyptologists, and Amarna experts would disagree with you. Wholeheartedly. There ought to be a section on his appearence, but if it doesn't cite prominant art historians, specifically Cyril Aldred, although not him alone, it's going to be horrifically unscholarly. Thanatosimii 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that pookster's comment was about a section that was speculating about medical conditions Akhenaten may have suffered from, based on his appearence in sculptures. Marfan's disease and other conditions were debated. The section was not about race. Of course we "trust" the portrayal of ancient Egyptians in their art - up to a point. Hence we show the pictures that they made of themselves. But we can't deny the fact that many pictures of Akhenaten are highly stylised and eccentric. Clearly something specific and unusual is happening in Amarna art. Paul B 11:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on Akenaton's appearance was not only dealing with Marfan's disease, but his and the ethnicity of Egyptians. There is more respect for scholarly conceptualism than there is for the obvious/truth. By many scholarly reports one could think that when the Egyptians drew and carved effigies of themselves, that they were just fooling around. To the extent that modern scholars, historians, film makers and documentarians rarely portray them as the Egyptians potrayed themselves. Peferring much lighter complected Egyptian Pharoahs than what's actually portrayed in authentic Egyptian art. But they are dead on point with the Greeks and the Romans. I prefer and trust the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians portrayal of themselves far more than I trust the Scholarly conceptual. I actually think the difference is as broad as Fact vs. fiction. Tom 10/02/06

Before you make statements like the above please CHECK YOUR FACTS. You say "the section on Akenaton's appearance was not only dealing with Marfan's disease, but his and the ethnicity of Egyptians." No it wasn't. Here's what it looked like at the time. [5] Talking about "the ethnicity of Egyptians" in general should not be relevant to a page devoted to one individual - unless there is reason to believe that that individual had a distinctive non-normative ethnicity for the time and place. This is not an article about films makers and TV documentaries. Also, most scholars don't preoccupy themselves with skin colour. Paul B 21:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul, the section on Akenaton's appearance starts off in the first paragraph discussing his ethnicity. You cannot discuss anyones ethnicity without discussing their ancestry simultaneously. Whether it's conscious or unconscious, written or unwritten. This fact is even more relevant in the study of dynasties. Tom 10/03/06

Oh dear. Please check what people are actually referring to. Pookster was discussing the content of the article (what I linked to), not the content of the Talk page. Apart from vandalism and personal abuse we should never remove content from Talk pages, only archive it. The article is a different matter. It did not discuss his skin-pigmentation, mainly because there's nothing meaningfully to discuss. We cannot know on present evidence. The Egyptian population itself was very mixed, and the royal family was always acquiring wives from foreign royal families, so would be even more so. It's all speculation. We show the pictures and sculptures. You can decide whether you want to label him black, white, brown, Africoid, Caucasoid or whatever. Paul B 16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in labeling him. Labeling is where the discrepencies lie. That would be the same as labeling the Romans or the Greeks. They knew who they were. Modern Scholars however, have taken great liberties with labeling Ancient African civilations. Often they pay little respect to Ancient Africans account of themselves. They decide (in the name of research) what they want them to be. It seems that the more prominent their position in history becomes, the less Black African they become. There's a probability that the Greeks and the Romans were even more mixed through conquest than the Egyptians. Let's not forget the Black African wives, slaves and mistresses that bore countless offspring into Roman and Greek Aristocracy after their pillage of Africa. And where there were children born into Quasi royalty there were countless more born to the militia. Many of them were raised in marriage in their fathers Roman and Greek Societies. And yet the Romans and the Greeks are safe from adverse labeling. They are still considered caucasion races. But not the Egyptians. Regardless of their origin and appearance, unlike the Romans and Greeks, African Egyptians have to be proven to be black. What scholars are suggesting (albeit unconsciously) is that these Black Egyptians were conquering caucasion countries and bringing the caucasion women back as wives and putting their offspring on the throne. Are scholars openly willing to admit that? (I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that debate). I understand Pooksters comments. But Pookster wants to remove the entire appearance section. Not just the part about illness. He considers this entire debate silly, including the part about illness. Rameses II probably had strong broad shoulders in his youth when his effigies were commissioned and also had illnesses in his old age (like most of us) which can be found in his mummy. The previous dynasties may have actually been overweight. Some of them were lighter and darker than others as my sister and myself have vastly different complexions and yet are of the same parents. But the source of the debate that is now several decades running can be traced to labeling. It went from (who were the Egyptians?) to, we didn't like what we found, so let's decide who they were. Scholars, with their arbitrary practices have done a marvelous sales job against the obvious with respect to the ethnicity of Ancient African Civilizations. If someone thinks Akenaton a bad example for this analysis, then lets use the images of Tuthmosis III going backward or perhaps the Ethiopian Pharoah, King Piankhi going forward. I don't care which. Tom 10/03/06

This is an article about Akhenaten, not Greeks and Romans (who "pillaged" Carthage in north Africa, which was a Phoenician settlement) or even Ramsses. Please stay on topic. You have no idea what pookster wanted to remove because it's obvious that you haven't even looked.There was no discussion of race.Paul B 09:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no reference to Rameses II in pooksters first paragraph? Pooksters belief that the Egptians were dishonest in their interpretations of themselves is not to be challanged? His opinion that dialog should be opened as to why the Egyptians altered their appearance should stand? Again I think that this is an opportunity to draw a speculative popular conclusion against unpopular Archeological evidence. I believe Paul, that even you said that we just don't have enough evidence to form an opinion. If this is thought true, then on what lack of evidence will one speculate. It will just once again become a platform on which the subject of race is to be avoided. As much as there are some who are determined to avoid any Ethnic discussions about Egyptians, I am equally determined to keep bringing it up. I expect my comments to be considered inappropiate and off the point. There's no way for my comments to be considered to the point in a discussion that many "Scholars" are tryng to avoid. Tom 10/06/06

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! [6] 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)

207.118.9.58 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)We have copies of the entire Book of Psalms in Coptic. The Hymn to Aten should be simple to write out (no translation needed) in Coptic. How are they written in two different languages?

No, translation is needed. The hymn to the aten is barely in late egyptian, not even coptic yet. Anyhow, it's not like they're the same document, it's that the language of the one is belived to have inspired the other. Thanatosimii 01:07, 7 November 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 Wikipedia: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 [2]. to blah blah.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia'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)

I mean some of the stuff there is a little out of place and it could just be a little more pleasent to read. mikey 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Osman/POV pushing

Why was the Osman section reverted due to "POV pushing"? It may not be credible, but Judith Tarr did cite Osman in her Pillar of Fire.--SarekOfVulcan 00:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pillar of Fire is a fantasy rather than a scholarly book. Tarr's reference to Osman's writings may be mentioned in the article about himself, but hardly elsewhere. Beit Or 06:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Osman was in the speculative theories section along with Freud, Devi and other idiosyncratic non-professional commentators. I wrongly accepted Beit Or's deletion of the section on Osman which now makes the whole passge nonsensical.Paul B 09:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too quick to remove Ahmed Osman from this article given the existence of the entire section on speculative theories. Beit Or 11:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Black

Akhenaten is the most Somali/Ethiopian looking ancient person I have ever seen. Disease? Hardly. Take a look at Somali's or Ethiopians and tell me if Akhenaten doesn't look more like them, than any other people. Also, is it a coincidence that both Nefertiti AND Akhenaten are excellent examples of black in ancient Egypt?

Dear me, this again. Akhenaten's appearence has not been solved since symposium upon symposium comes to the conclusion that Akhenaten's art is some strange twist in a trend of development that began in the time of Amenhotep II and continued straight through to Alexander the great (cf. Raymond Johnson's work in papers on the art of Amenhotep symposium in cleveland). Now, what's more, in one of the old catalogues of the antiquities authorities from around 1910, a group of archaeologists spotted a modern egyptian who was a dead ringer for Akhenaten, and published the pictures. Thus obviously some sort of disease is possible. The third problem you face is that there are three different styles of art in the Amarna period. The wall paintings, Akhenaten's "freakish colossi," and the "naturalistic style." If you wish to construe the wall paintings as somali/etheopian, you're going to have to at least adress the problem that the nefertiti bust has been called by others downright "Aryan" (cf. Nicholas Reeves in Akhenaten, Egypt's false prophet. That being, also, the reason the nazis kept the bust is in germany, where it is today, and was not returned as requested by the egyptians.) The scholarly world has been tackling these problems for years, and has come to the tenative conclusion that the "naturalistic style," because it is more detailed, is probably more accurate. As per the reliable source requirement, we'll stick to the published mainstream. Thanatosimii 22:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is follow the blood lines of the dynasties to know that there is no way the early Egyptians were not black. The light skinned Egyptian rulers were issued in through Egypts conquest by the Romans and the Greeks. These conquests started during the 27th Dynasty which is modern history by comparison. Two and a half Millennium of African rule had already passed. Take a look at (Taharqa) for indesputable evidence of Black African Rule in Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taharqa Tom 02/25/07

Taharqa was a foreign conqueror from Napata... Noone argues that the 25th dynasty wasn't "black", however we all know that they were neither Egyptians. However, none of this is relevant, because of one simple problem. Only peer reviewed egyptological material counts for anything, and the afrocentrist position has next to zero real peer reviewed egyptological support. On wikipedia, you cannot add things unless you have Reliable sources. Thanatosimii 21:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that the Nubians weren't black should not be allowed to comment. Anyone who thinks that Napata wasn't in Nubia should not be allowed to comment. Anyone who thinks that the Nubians didn't rule Egypt for some 400 years are not interested in the truth. Any one who thinks that the Nubians conquered an Aryan Egyptian society is incorrect. Anyone who looks at the multitude of busts, statues and archeological evidence of Taharqa from Britannica to Harvard, who cannot see that he is clearly a black man is just dishonest. You and Noone need to look at the evidence. Afrocentricism isn't in discussion here, history is. Look in your search engine for Taharqa and scroll down to his photo gallery. Tom 02/25/07

I'm not saying that nubians are not black, I'm saying nubians aren't Egyptian. Furthermore, I will not be strong-armed into the false dilemma that says that if I don't believe they were black I believe they were aryan. Further yet, This has nothing to do with Akhenaten. This is not a forum for discussion. And remember, wikipedia includes expert opinions, not your own opinions about what somthing looks like. Thanatosimii 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)