Talk:Akhenaten/Archive 1

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 My sources are a bit outdated though.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&#8217;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 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, 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 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: ; ; ; 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

i was looking over this section briefly and many people i dont think understand the armarna period especialy these nutty afrocentrist who worship the homestead website as fact,as nutty white supremecist worship stotrmfront. this sick obession by afrocentrist trying to latch on to ancient egypt,also with this ignorance of if it's not white it must be black non sence and ignoring the world that has many different phenotypes. Akhenaten typically was represented with a large head with drooping features and a long neck ultra thin. He has a pointed chin and thick lips. His shoulders and waist are narrow, and the small of his back is high, so that the upper torso is small. From the waist down, the body swells out to form large buttocks and curvaceous thighs. His belly droops over the sagging waistband of his kilt, while his breasts are pronounced. His appendages, both arms and short lower legs, are thin and lack any musculature they were showing ugliness it had to do with the aten,his new relgion,also i want to know why some afrocentist hide from the fact of later art from the period dipicting akhenaten with more natural features i have a book from the cairo museum and it shows statues head of akhennaten with more natural features from a later period when they ceased from the exagerated style guess what he has normal almond shaped eyes he has acually has thin lips not the exagerated facial features of middle armarna.but those statues dont fit the propaganda--Mikmik2953 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Psalms 78:51, 105:23-27, 106:19-22 in KJV refer to Egypt as the land of Ham. (Noahs black son). Does that make me a nutty afrocentric or nutty biblecentric? Tom 02/13/08

King Tut sandal found in his tomb shows a clearly different image for Asian and Nubian (Black) and the pictures are clearly different from his own picture. Please don’t bring color to the issue here. Almost all the ancient pharaohs’ mummies don’t show black features. Colors in ancient Egypt meant different things that are different from race simple interpretation. --24.211.162.187 (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * The use of Adonai in the traditions of the Semitic traditions seems to have spread with the falling into disrepute of the earlier term Ba'al (Lord), which occurred in the second temple period. This is more than 1,000 years after the disappearance of Atenist belief. I have tried to clear up the "citations needed" section by giving appropriate references.  Surely we can delete the last one, which seems a little mischievous. John D. Croft 04:30, 1 July 2007 (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)

Aphrodite is aknowledged by the Greeks to have been imported from Syria to Cyprus and from Cyprus to Greece. There is an argument that Athena was perhaps imported from Ethiopia, however this is mostly due to some references in Herodotus that the Libyans depict their goddesses in garments that are made of similiar material as those used to weave the garment of Athena during the Panathenaeia. Manetho belongs to an extensive tradition during the Hellenistic period of regions attempting to tie themselves back to Greek heroes and thereby justify a share of Greek identity. pookster11 10:30, 28 March 2007 (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 Ramesses 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.  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. Ramesses 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 Ramesses 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
 * What in the world are you talking about? First off, honesty or dishonesty has nothing to do with it; these were idealized monarchs that used image and writing as propoganda in order to both present and conform their reign to a model of idealized Egyptian kingship specific to their religious and cultural beliefs.  These are not photographs of the pharaoh, they are carved images that conform to artistic standards that he set forth.  Atempting to draw a "real" or "factual" determination of what Akhenaten and his family looked like from these carvings is ridiculous.  This is my point, and is the point of most Egyptologists today.  Yes you will find fringe scholarship that takes these representations as literal stating that he must have had Marfan's or some other debilitating or otherwise odd disease.  So once again, I ask what the hell are you talking about as far as issues of ethnicity of the pharaoh or the Egyptians at large?  What does that have to do with the topic at hand?  What does that have to do with the artistic representations of the pharaoh?  What does that have to do with anything? pookster11 11:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Appearance section has to do with the etnicity of the Egyptians (i.e Akenaton)at it's core. According to you he may have neither been black or diseased. And if the Egyptian's writings and images were propoganda, then there's no image of them that can be trusted. You said that dishonesty had nothing to do with it, but I've never been able to separate dishonesty and propoganda. These effigies were commissioned and then displayed in all of Egypt. If only by accident, during his reign, someone would have made an accurate image of Akenaton. Which is why I think the images are accurate or at least consistent. By speculating away from Akenaton's appearance you (whether intentionly or not) speculate away from his ethnicity as well. You also bring in doubt the appearance/ethnic of all Egyptians, which is the primary goal of most modern scholars. If scholars can't make Egyptians caucasoid then they will settle for not being able to define them at all by discrediting the images that exist. Read this. Not just for the Kushite Dynasty, but for centuries of Egyptian lineage in general: W.M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt - Part Three, (1896), p. 308 states: ". . . . the kings of Napata (Nubia) represented the old civilization of Upper Egypt is clear; and it is probably that they were actually descended from the high priest of Amen, who were the rightful successors of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties. So far, then, as hereditary rights go, they were the true kings of Egypt, rather than the mob of Libyan chiefs who had filtered in the Delta, and who tried to domineer over the Nile valley from that no-man's land". In Book II, Section-104, of his celebrated History, Herodotus states: "For my part I believe the Colchi to be a colony of Egyptians, because like them they have black skins and frizzled hair." (See any English translation of The History of Herodotus). This proves that the Black African features of Egyptians are not loose but rather close depictions of them. Tom 04/18/07

Unless you intend to remove Akenaton and his relatives from the XVIII dynasty, then you will have to accept that what Petrie said about the Nubians being the rightful successors to the XVIII dynasty to include Akenaton and his relatives. You cannot have it both ways. Also for modern scholars to disregard Herodotus is the same as disregarding one of histories greatest eye witnesses. Tom 04-28-07


 * You are clearly a layperson, and if we added your opinions, wikipedia would fall apart. That's why we have WP:RS, and you haven't provided any. Furthermore, not only is all of Petrie's work too old to be legitimate, but you don't understand the context of that quote. Thanatosimii 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii what is your understanding of Petrie's and Herodotus' quotes? Tom 04/29/07
 * My understanding is just as irrelevant as yours is, quite honestly. You can't deduce anything for wikipedia whatsoever, it's a violation of violation of WP:NOR. Thanatosimii 03:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you then a layman as well? And does not the same apply to other submitters herein? Tom 04/30/07
 * I am a student – neither layman or professional – Not that that matters, however. Petrie and Herodotus did not say that Akhenaten was black. If you want material saying Akhenaten was black included in this article, you're going to have to find a WP:RS which says outrightly, "The explanation for Akhenaten's appearence is that he was black," and you simply aren't going to find it since you're arguing for a position that reliable sources say is ridiculous. Thanatosimii 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Students are often given projects of deductive reasoning. Let's look at the elements. Egypt: riddled with Nubians, Akenaton: clearly african features, his son King Tut: clearly african features, Petrie: claims Nubians are rightful successors to Akenaton's 18th Dynasty, Herodotus: eye witness to Egyptians black skin and frizzy hair. Dynasties are blood relatives. It's obvious to every reader herein that you don't consider Herodotus a reliable source. What authority claims Herodotus' observation to be ridiculous? Who is the reliable source that you're citing? Who has claimed Petrie's observation inaccurate? On what (other than desire) do you deduce that Akenaton was something other than his ancestry and offspring? Please answer the questions and avoid responding with the cliche that I'm a layman. Tom 05/01/07


 * The comment about being a layman was merely friendly advice just pointing out that you don't have the credentials necesarry to make these judgements yourself. The reason I won't interact with you is because we have this thing called WP:NOR and no amount of talking you do changes the fact that you don't have the required sources to put this on wikipedia. And, reminding you one more time, this is not a forum. Do you understand this? Talk pages are not for discussion on anything but how we want the text of the articles modified. You don't seem to respect this. Secondly, making inferrances about my desires will not be tolerated whatsoever. It's incivil. Thanatosimii 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a simple question. Do you have any information to refute what Petrie and Herodotus have written or not? I'm not asking you to interact with me. I'm asking you to present alternate facts upon which you consider there writings ridiculous. That's all. You're a student with access to a huge library. Address Petrie and Herodotus not me. What are your sources? When you said that Petrie's writings were outdated, who were you citing? Tom 05/01/07


 * Look, as I've explained hundreds of times on wikipedia talk pages we can't do that. Just obey the rules. Thanatosimii 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read the section on appearance? I had nothing to do with whether or not he was black, white, yellow, brown, purple, or green, and everything to do with what some individuals have determined must be a physical abnormality due to Akh.'s appearance and its drastic departure from previous Egyptian artistic styles. We have no idea what he actually looked like, period. pookster11 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pookster we have several ideas/effigies of what Akenaton looked like. They are just not likenesses that you and many others are willing to accept. Akenaton had enough power and influence to remove any likenesses that he didn't like. Imagine someone looking at your family photos and deciding that they don't like the way you look and therefore are not going to accept that it is in fact the way that you looked. What nerve. Tom 06/27/07
 * A comparison between Egyptian Art and a photo album is erronious. cite the findings of experts on Egyptian Art if you desire to change the article. Thanatosimii 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A comissioned statue or wall carving is not a photo. Like you pointed out, Akh. had enough power to remove any statues of himself he didn't like; in other words, he had the power to determine and present himself and his image and appearance however and in whatever way he wanted.  To assume that Akh. must have invariable presented himself the way he actually looked is just blatantly ignorant. pookster11

I guess the example was lost on you. The experts were the Egyptians themselves. There is only confusion amongst the scholars that analyze what was left by the real experts. Confusion is a clear sign of nebulous analogy. It often starts with a distortion of the obvious. Especially when the obvious doesn't parallel scholarly intent. Tom 06/28/07.

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


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


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


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

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)
 * In translation yes, they look similiar. What I'm asking is if there is anything worth comparing in the original languages?  When these documents are translated, they look the same, and most basic freshmen level history courses will compare them in some way, but always in translation. pookster11 11:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Psalms, Psalms 78:51, 105:23-27, 106:19-22 in the King James list Egypt as the land of Ham. Tom 03/27/08

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. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see 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&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * Per WP:MOS, 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.

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.--Sar e kOfVulcan 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)

You did say that the Nubians weren't black when you said that Noone questions whether the 25th Dynasty was black. Why would you cite a source that you think uncredible. If you think my entries uncredible then attack them on their merit and historical accuracy. The farther back you go reveals wars between Black Africans. These were black on black conquests. The Egyptians began to lighten up under conquest from non black countries i.e. Greeks and Romans. These non black conquests happened centuries after the passing of the 18th Dynasty. After the passing of the 27th Dynasty you will discover that Egypt was consistently under non African rule. These later non black rulers/dynasties are not to be confused with the Black African Dynastic founders who centuries earlier built the Pyrimids and established Egyptian Culture. I'm not in your head, so I don't understand your feeling of being strong-armed. Present alternative visual and literary facts and I and other readers will review it. But your attacking my sources without credible alternative archeological research isn't quite fair. The principle problem with the acceptance of Ancient Egyptians being black Africans is the desired belief that blacks were to primate to have built such a culture. Here in lies the significance of Nubian study. Nubians and Egyptians fought and made up, intermingled and intermarried for centuries. They and the Egyptians shared much of the same gene pool. Ancient Egyptians like the other Ancient Africans that they intermingled with were black people. Oh by the way, I don't ever expext to be accepted under scholarly peer review. Taint as they may, even scholars can't change what was dug up or written down. Even they can't change what really happened. Tom 02/26/07


 * Noone questions = everyone already knows. Noone questions that the 25th dynasty was black = Everyone knows that the nubian kings were black. Now as I have said before, this is not a forum for discussion; I have no need to argue with you because wikipedia requires peer reviewed literature. That's all that there is to it. Thanatosimii 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not arguing with me. Noone isn't arguing with me. His and probably your own argument is with the peer reviewed archeological acceptance of the 25th Dynasty being the Kushite Dynasty. Especially since you said that everyone knows that the Kushites were black. Apparently Noone doesn't think so. Your debate can and will only be with what was accually dug up. Noones disagreement with his peers brings serious doubt on his knowledge of the Kushite era of rule in Egypt (i.e. the 25th dynasty). And yet he is presentable in Wikipedia as a peer. When experts disagree on what was found and they are opposites in their opinion, then one of them isn't an expert. I ask you for evidence, not an argument. And since you said that Wikipedia accepts only peer reviewed literature, then present some for us to look at. So far you've only presented your criticism of me as well as the opinion of a man who doubts that the Kushites in the 25th Dynasty were black. Tom 02/25/07


 * No one! Ah what a problem a missing space can make. None of this matters, regardless. This is not a forum! This is a talk page on the content of the page Akhenaten. Stop treating this like a place for discussion on the race of ancient egyptians. Thanatosimii 20:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you a professional purveyor of gibberish? Why is it that Akhenaten gets all this Afrocentrist attention? I don't see it on pages devoted to other pharaohs. Even Tut doesn't get this much. Paul B 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul, haven't talked to you for awhile. This section is titled "Black". But the primary reason that Akenaton is getting all this play is because dynasties are blood lines. Which means that if Akenaton was black then the dynasty that he belongs to is black which lends to the belief that several Egyptian dynasties were black. before and after Akenaton. This is evidenced by the material that you presented above in the appearance section. Akenaton is ripe for this forum beacause of the effigies of him and others in the 18th Dynasty that exist. Tom 02/25/07


 * Not a forum! This is not a place for discussions, except for what may or may not go into the Akhenaten page. Find a peer reviewed RS which says he was black, and we can discuss if that goes in, but nothing else. Thanatosimii 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. Scholars aren't willing to say that he was black despite the visual evidence. Look at figure 2 & 3 that Paul submitted on Sept 27,2006 in the appearance section above. Remember that this is still very late in Egyptian existence. Figure 2 from Seti I tomb is the nineteenth Dynasty, and King Tut of course is the 18th Dynasty. Here you see King Tut as dark as Denzel Washington defeating the Nubians (Egypts old foe) who are as dark as Wesley Snipes. Connecting the dots I can assume that Akenaton's son is of the same race as his father who is also displayed with Negroid features. Scholars have convinced people like yourself that unless they say that this civilization was black, then it's not black regardless of how black they are. Of course these scholars aren't black, and any black scholars who disagree with them are labeled Afrocentric and restricted from peer status. They assume that you can't think and view this evidence for yourself. You know for yourself that if the police asked you to give a description of a suspect in a crime that looked like the Egyptian from Seti's tomb or King Tut, you know what description you would give. And no defense attorney (who is a scholar) could convince you differently. So do you really need a scholar to decide for you what you can clearly see with your own eyes. I want the racial make up of these early Africans acknowledged openly and honestly. I want this silliness to end. I want scholars to give the same credit to these early black africans that I give to the Greeks and the Romans. I want the obvious to be spoken out loud. Tom 02/25/07


 * Well, please don't be offended if we don't give deference to a layman who looks at a couple dozen select pictures, over against formal art historians who have spent their lives studying these things. Regardless, none of this is relevant to what can go in Akhenaten. This is just an off topic tirade. Thanatosimii 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You still withhold your opinion of what you've seen. Of what race do you say these select original drawings represent? I assume that you credit yourself with an opinion from your own studies. Do you have a few dozen select pictures that are indifferent to what's being shown here? Are these not fair questions in a section titled "Black"? A section that was so titled before you commented in it. If you considered this an off topic tirade, why did you comment in this section? Please comment on these questions. Tom 02/25/07


 * I have learned that it is impossible to argue rationally over afrocentrism, and it is needless to do so here, so I shall not be giving any opinions. However, this section may be titled black, but it was about Akhenaten being black on the grounds of his colossi, somthing I soundly refuted with a reference to Egypt's golden sun, studies in the art of Amenhotep III – a reliable source. That does not make this open season for afrocentric arguments, only open for discussion on whether the colossi are arguably "black," somthing no RS has yet been provided to prove. Thanatosimii 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are worth a thousand words to all except those who refuse to see. Of course it's diffult to argue against the multitude of visual archeological finding. So you have resort to labeling me Afrocentric. Which of course is ironic since we are talking about Africa. The reason you won't give your opinion on the evidence presented here is because you have no strength against the obvious. Everyone who looks at this including you can see that they were black. You're just not honest enough to admit it. This needn't go any further. You like many proclaimed reliable sourses are blinded by (what you want them to be) rather than enlightened by (what you see). This is why whenever there's a documentary done on Ancient Egypt their appearances are changed to reflect what scholars want them to look like, when there are millions of people on this earth who look like these Ancient Egyptians but are never chosen for the documentary. You will always have this controversy until you admit the truth and be consistent with the evidence that exists in there tombs, statues and drawings of themselves. The truth will never go away. It never does. Tom 02/26/07


 * You know, I was looking at this page and I happened to glance down at a book I had on my desk, and, would you believe it, the bloke on the cover is just a dead ringer for ol' Akhenaten, complete with pouty lip, skinny neck, wavy jawline and sunken cheeks. Here it is. It just proves that the pharaoh was really a pasty-faced grumpy Brit! Paul B 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, that was funny. Not accurate, but funny. Thanks for lightening this up a bit. Tom 02/26/07


 * It was sarcasm, but he has a point. There are numerous examples of people with akhenaten-esque features. Why is it so hard to thus believe that these "black" images of Egpytians – a remarkably small amount compared to the vast number of typical reliefs – aren't just a strange fluke? I am afraid that you, my friend, have simply been exposed to selective evidence. And I don't appreciate having someone else tell me what I believe and what I do not believe, and accuse me of academic dishonisty because of it. Civility, please. And as I have said a myriad of times before, you have no business continuing to go on about this if you cannot produce a peer reviewed reliable source supporting your position. If you don't like the fact that academia is entierly opposed to you, go change academia instead of bothering the wikipedians who are simply trying to abide by wikipedia's principles. If you disagree, this is not the place for you to express it. Thanatosimii 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you think that images of Black Egyptians are small in number and a fluke, then you must have a multitude of contrary visual evidence. Especially since we're dealing with a civilization that encompassed 3 millennium B.C. All that I've asked you to do for wikipedians is to display it. With all of your peer reviewed research you must have a lot. You should be able to produce several peer reviewed drawings and statues of Europeon looking Ancient Africans to support your belief. Especially since you consider my black contributions narrow and flukish. Please present the broad scope archeology. Tom 02/26/07


 * Yes, I do have a large amount. If you'd like to see it, go through the Steles of the British Museum, or perhaps Lepsius's gigantic volumes. Or for that matter you could go looking through the images in the 18th dynasty pages; they're fairly representative. However, you may not continue to discuss off topic material here. This is Not a Forum for you to Argue in. Comment on the content of Akhenaten's page only! Thanatosimii 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The photos of a black King Tut's painted box above are from the 18th Dynasty. Since King Tut was black, then his parents (i.e. Akenaton) also had to be. I have the opening of his tomb (with the seal unbroken)on tape showing the blackness of his gaurds and even his childhood doll. You need another example. You'll only prove my point. Especially since King Tut's tomb is the only tomb found in the 20th century with seal unbroken. The British Museum is stacked with evidence of theirs and the Nubian Pharoahs blackness. The (peer reviewed) image that I presented of Taharqa (which is displayed here in Wikipedia) is in the British Museum. Copy and paste some images from your collection like the other contributers have. Tom 02/26/07


 * Look, I don't get into arguments with afrocentrists because you invariably get into utter logical foolishness like this. I say you have only a handful of images and you rebut me with... a handful of images? Do you have peer reviewed literature saying that Akhenaten was black? No? Then enough! That is all we can use. Thanatosimii 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had enough. It's time to break up the bull. Wikipedians observe this 11th Dynasty exibit from the Cairo Museum. www.homestead.com/wysinger/nubianarchers.html Sorry that I can't provide one click access. Also see www.homestead.com/wysinger/tuthmosisIII.html Scroll past the black Tuthmosis III down to the statue of Amenhotep and look at it from top to bottom, including his feet. This was sourced by Egyptologist W.M. Finders Petrie who wrote over a thousand books detaling his excavations and finds in Egypt. I would love comments from anyone. Nubians and Egyptians shared much of the same DNA centuries before, during and after Akenatons and the 18th Dynasty's existence. Akenaton looks like them for genetic reasons. These exhibits alone comprise centuries of history and there's more. Make your own judgement. The other sources for these exhibits are The British Museum, Luxor Museum Egypt, The Cairo Museum Egypt, Berlin Agyptisches Museum, James Henry Breasted, Michael Rice, Nigel Strudwick, and Dietrich Wildung. Tom 02/27/07


 * Your arguments have an air of truthiness, but no truth. You are not an expert; you are not a scholar; you do not know what you are talking about. This is not a place for discussion of this topic. This is not the forum on Akhenaten, this is a talk page only for discussion of changes to the article. Suggest some changes and cite reliabe sources, or stop! Thanatosimii 20:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a known scholar with greater credibility than Petrie. You don't even believe what's in the British and Cairo museums in lieu of your own desired beliefs. God Bless You, I'll just have to leave you asleep. Good Bye. Tom 02/27/07


 * No scholar more credible? Then I guess you don't have a problem with the fact that his Dynastic Race theory posited that the Egyptians were basically Aryans? Petrie has been out of date (and dead) for over half a century. Get with the times. ;) Thanatosimii 20:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not his position that counts. It's the images that are descriptive of who the people were. How can you say that there is no truth in the images that are displayed here? What evidence do you have that these images are fraud? Nigel Strudwick excavation is referenced as 1993 and Michael Rices "Whos Who in Ancient Egypt" is copywritten in 1999. If it's just the last word that you want, I'll let you have it. But you take bold steps in discounting these images that are in major museums in Berlin, Cairo and Brittain. Especially when the British museum is one of the sources that you claimed for yourself. Now you claim there's no truth in this British Museum exhibit. Have the last word, it's yours. The readers will make up their own minds when they look at these images. I apologize to wikipedians for commenting again after saying good bye to this article. Tom 02/27/07


 * Well, I don't think he actually claimed they were Indo-European, for that you have to go to the scholarly research of Alfred Rosenberg, who proves they were Germanic warrior invaders. Paul B 21:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have said from the beginning, Egyptian art is complecated. There are hundreds of thousands of reliefs, sculptures, and paintings catalogued, and the vast majority of them are not the "black" images which afrocentrist advocates keep sending around. When I see a painting with very dark tones, I find in interesting (as do egyptologists, cf. Gardiner's Egypt of the Pharaohs, regarding Ahmose-nefertari's stele in the chapter on the early new kingdom), however when hundreds of typical images of the same person exist, that must be considered the oddity, not the rule, and this is the view promoted by modern Egyptologists, and this is the view we will find in reliable sources on Egyptian art. Thanatosimii 21:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read through these discussions on Akenaton. I have seen the visual exhibits from museums from Paul and Tom that show Egyptians as black people. I've seen nothing visual in this article to dispute that. It has been admitted by Thanatosimii that the Nubians were black. And there seems to be no dispute that the Nubians were a part of Egyptian culture for more than a thousand years. It has been said by Thanatosimii that the vast majority of sculptures and paintings show Egyptians not as black people, but he (I assume it's a he) refuses to display them feeling that everyone just has to take his word for it. I've seen only negroid features on Akenaton. I have seen only dark skin color on his son Tut. I have read where Thanatosimii strictly declares that King tut is Akenatons son. With Egypt being riddled with Nubians who it is proven were black and even sat on the throne, with every exhibit in this article showing them as black people with no credible visual alternative presented, I would think that it is not the Egyptians being black that has to be proven. But the alternative. Is there anyone that has possession of visual evidence proving otherwise since it has been claimed that the alternative information is the larger. Does anyone have any of the catalogued non black images that Thanatosimii refuses to submit? At this point I'm going to need to see something strong to change my opinion and it just can't be Thanatosimii's word. In terms of Akenaton being black, if this was an algebra equation, it would be easy to find "x".


 * I gave two major catalogues, but that's not the point. I'm refering not to alternative images, but the entire corpus of egyptian artwork, and I can't be asked to provide a catalogue of all of it, especially not online. Real egyptology basically shuns the internet. If you can't be bothered to go digging through university archives for 100 year old british and french stele catalogues, don't accuse me of not providing them. Not that this really matters at all, since the only thing that can prove what you want proven as far as real scholarship (or wikipedia for that matter) is concerned is a scholarly source, not some layperson interpretation of selective evidence. Thanatosimii 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, lets just go back to the first point I made in this interminable and fruitless discussion. There is no clear or precise definition of "black people". It's a fuzzy concept, as is "white people". "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." If you go over to the articles we have on these very subjects (black people and white people) you will see endless pages and pages and pages of debate about who counts as "white" or "black". On both articles North Africans are included by some editors in their preferred category and are excluded by others. One editor on black people keeps insisting that even Ethiopians don't count as black, becuse they have Caucasoid crania and their genetic lineages are distinct from most Sub-Saharan Africans. There have also been claims that Southern Europeans should be included in the "black" category.


 * Now there are some depictions of Egyptians with black skin. They are also depicted with yellow skin, white skin, and, most typically, with a red ochre pigment, giving a reddish brown tone. The overwhelming majority of images use this red-brown colour as the norm. In the common New Kingdom scene known as the "Four Races" the Egyptians are portrayed with this colour, and are clearly depicted as much paler than the Nubians and as much darker than the Libyans and Canaanites. It must be noted that this is a symbolic model, in which the Egyptians are portraying themselves as the central people of the world. As people move away from the Nile (the centre of the world) they become more and more "abnormal". So the central skin colour has the symbolic purpose of demonstrating that the Egyptians are the perfect "normal" people. Of course there was a time when the Egyptians were ruled by Nubians. Equally there was a time when they were ruled by Semites. There was also a lot of dynastic intermarriage. See for example in this article the evidence concerning the Mitanni (Indo-Aryan/Hurrian) ruler who is whining about the fact he hasn't had enough gold for his lovely daughter. So we can assume that some, at least, of the royal family were the product of intermarriage with non-Egyptians.


 * What does this tell us about Akhenaten specifically? I suggest it tells us next to nothing. He could have been quite pale or quite dark. We have no evidence. What would discussion of this point add to the article? Nothing that I can see. Whether he was slightly darker or slightly lighter than average would have had almost no relevance to his life. It would be like having a section debating the colour of Julius Caesar's hair. It would be nonsense. Paul B 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul I think there's room for deductive reasoning. There are some people who feel there is no such thing as black people, white people or oriental people. Just people. Although commendable, the majority of us feel differently. To each his own. But unless you can discount the Nubians as being black by what most of us consider black, then several Pharoahs were black. In any situation one has to weigh the information that's presented. It is not unreasonable to ask for visual information against what appears to be clear information that there was no more of a racial difference between the Egyptians and the Nubians than there is between the Romans and the Greeks. Thanatosimii really disrespects Afrocentricism, but the visual evidence presented here supports their point of view. With no other visual evidence to weigh, what is one suppose to believe. He says that if one wants to go through pages of books one would find this alternative information. Well it appears that that's what the Afrocentrics did. They went to the museums and through the books and found and presented well their visual and literary information. I don't understand anyone who is not willing to do this feeling that their point of view is entitled to equal belief. It's been said that wikipedians require proof. It appears that the afrocentrics are the only ones willing to provide it. At least visually. It appears that both sides are using the writings of the same scholars. Presented visual evidence always out ways no visual evidence. I'm beginning to suspect that the non-afrocentrics have nowhere to go to prove their point, because it looks like the afrocentrics have the museums covered. By the visual and literary information presented herein, deductively, if Akenaton wasn't black, then he was odd compared to his ancestors and his offspring.


 * The visual evidence is that the Egyptians themselves depicted a vivid difference between Egyptians and Nubians. There is overwhelming evidence of this. That difference is at least as much symbolic as real, but that applies to the "white" end of the scale too. There is no evidence at all that Romans saw themselves as visually distinct from Greeks. There is huge evidence that Egyptians saw themselves as visually distinct from Nubians. You are simply denying it. Paul B 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If the Egyptians drew ethnic differences between themselves and the Nubians, then that would be the same as the Germans drawing a difference between themselves and the other white races of the world in WWII. Which I hope you think was incorrect. You've said in other writings that the Egyptians drew no racial distincions as we do today. Based on what you said I suspect that their differences may have been more territorial. But that wasn't my point. Wouldn't you agree with Nubians being ingrained into Egyptian culture for centuries, with proven influence and leadership, on and off the throne, peace time and in war, in and out of marriage, that the line between them genetically had to be blurred? Akenaton included? Also include all of the visual museum exhibits into your opinion. In fact if you were weighing this evidence for the first time with no predisposition, based on what's presented here, what conclusion would you come to? Would you think them more akin to a black african race or not? Honestly?


 * The lines are not nearly as blurred as you think. Unlike semites, nubians never, as far as we know, migrated north. They only entered egyptian society when taken as slaves, and that was a significant, but not comprable amount compared to the number of native egyptians. Furthermore, for the last time, the 25th dynasty was a foreign invasion of nubians. There probably wasn't a single drop of Akhenaten's blood in Taharqa. If you wish to understand how phenotypes and peoples blurred (or more to the point, did not blur) in Egypt, I suggest you look for a old study by Berry, Berry & Ucko from sometime in the 60's in MAN. Thanatosimii 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you not look at the Nubian Archers on display in the Cairo Museum from the 11th Dynasty found in the tomb of Mesehti in Asyut. I'm sure that everyone else did. I've copied the address from Tom's 02/27/07 entry above. I would have thought that you had already read it. Perhaps you have no respect for the Cairo Museum.www.homestead.com/wysinger/nubianarchers.html The Nubians were warriors in Egypt centuries before the reign of Akenaton. The 11th Dynasty alone was 800 years before his reign. Nubians were part of the Egyptian Army under Kamose during his campaign against the Hyksos. They served for hundreds of years, well into the reign of Ramesses IV. Read the whole article, it's a good one with sources, books and page numbers attached. Remember this is on display in the Cairo Museum and was excavated from Prince Mesehti's tomb. Now back to the question above. Base on what's on display in this section and with the absence of any alternative information, would you think Egyptians more akin to black africans or not? Honestly? Of course providing you have no predisposition.


 * Tom's entry? Oh please! You are the same person. You write in an identical style from an identical IP address. Paul B 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than be side tracked what is your honest answer to the question? If you're going to comment why not answer?


 * You're not in a position to lecture about honesty here, but... As I have said before, the presence of small amounts of such art has no impact on the mainstream theory of a cosmopolitan, multi-racial society posessing of all sorts of clines. One or two dark skinned artifacts makes no difference to the mainstream reconstruction, stating that the statues are realistic, and all ranges of tones existed, but the majority fell in the midrange. You, however, have a theory instantly torpedoed if you cannot explain away so much as one lighter skinned artifact. Thanatosimii 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not submitted a lighter skinned artifact to torpedo me. Do you believe that the Nubians were an intregal part of Egyptian culture or do you still hold that they came to Egypt only as slaves that eventually rose up in the 25th Dynasty. Understanding of course to tackle a society as powerful as Egypt would have to have taken an enormous amount of resources, time and planning. Things that slaves don't normally have access to. Oh and there weren't one or two dark skinned artifacts. Even the soldiers numbered forty. So far that's forty more than you've submitted. And there's more. Please answer clearly. I have addressed you clearly. The same question from above is still on the table. I don't understand the lack of direct comments about a direct question. We're all collaborating to uncover the whole truth about Egypt aren't we? At least that's my agenda.


 * I am not obligated to prove any of this to you. You are obligated to prove what you want added to wikipeida with reliable, peer reviewed sources saying "and therefore egyptians were black" in no uncertain terms. Furthermore, based on your recent comments, you clearly haven't got the slightest understanding of Egyptian history. If you are after the truth, you should sit down and allow real experts to teach you. Otherwise, "the fool thinks in his heart, 'I am wise.' " Thanatosimii 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Check that... I read that page of yours. I'm not blaming you, but that page is downright deceitful. Thanatosimii 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Point out the deceitful facts. You've made it clear that you don't feel obligated to prove any claims that you've made here. But you demand from others that they submit peer reviewed proof of their claims. Wikipedians can clearly see the double standard here. I suppose that you also have a valid reason why you didn't know of Nubian warriors in the 11th Dynasty. Did your peer reviewed sources miss that one or did you miss it on your own? You say that I don't have the slightest understanding of Egyptian history. Have you found any incorrections of historical events in my earlier paragraphs like what's been found in yours. This isn't a debate between you and I, but an analysis of Egyptian antiquities from the most prestigious museums in the world. If you don't except these exhibits as being relevant archeological findings, then have enough courage (take a bold step) and declare that these finds are bull and these museums are bull. It's not about you and me. It's about archeology.
 * Stop implying that I'm being dishonest here – incivility is never tolerated. First, I am not obligated because I'm not putting my views into articles, I'm merely keeping out unverefiable views. The burden of proof is on the includer. A deleter may delete for no other reason than that there's no citation by a reputable source. Second, I am well aware of nubian mercenaries and soldiers, however as a general rule they only enter egypt by means of slavery, and in the ancient world, garrisons often were composed of slaves. The medjay are of course a special exception, they were allies who eventually took over the role of police keeping. I will, however, vehemently deny as I have been doing nubians made up any large amount of the population. Remember, the fact that you can find somthing black doesn't make me wrong. The fact that I can find anything not black does make you wrong. Thirdly, if you want one deceitful example, look at the thutmose page you linked to. First, the third, fifth, and sixth images aren't even "black," they're part of the mid-clines which the fellahin today still represent and are typical of the large amount of Egyptian art which you deny ever seeing. But as to the first picture especially, it was cropped so that the distinguishing figures aren't visible, but that's a funerary image of Thutmose III as Osiris. You can tell by the missing arms and the long beard, as well as the white garment and the remaining part of the cropped hat. Now, anyone who knows the slightest things about Egypt, the slightest at all, knows that all osiris images are either black or green skinned because Osiris is a god of fertility and also of death. That image is of no value for determining Thutmose's skin colour. Now for the important part. You have been using this page as a soapbox despite being warned that that is not allowed. I am not going to continue humouring you. Post a specific reccomendation about how to change specific text from Akhenaten's page, somthing more specific than this bloodlines nonsense, somthing with a reliable source, or leave, but you shall not debate as if this were a forum. This is a technical page for discussing prose and punctuation primarily, and you are abusing it.Thanatosimii 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Petrie states that the main sources of the 18th Dynasty is Nubian and Libyan. The black strain coming through the Tao I & II ancestry. " The Making of Egypt" 1939, p.155. X-raying The Pharoahs, (1973) Authors, James E. Harris; Chairman of Orthodontics at the Univ of Michigan, Kent R. Weeks; Chairman of Dept of Anthropology the American University in Cairo wrote of Seqenenra Tao: "His entire lower facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian--that is, non-Egyptian--origin for Seqenenra and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stand in need of considerable re-examination". Also written in the book X-raying the Pharaohs states that Donald Redford, a modern Canadian Egyptologist. . . . "believes Hatshepsut's attainment of the throne represents the final attempt in the Eighteenth Dynasty to establish a strong matrairchate in Egypt. He cites the unusual importance of earlier queens in this period --Tetisheri, Ahhotep I, Ahmose-Nefertari--as evidence of such a tendency, and here suggest that the influences for such a matriarchally determined order of succession might have come from Nubia. The possibility that the rulers of the Seventeenth Dynasty were themselves at least part Nubian". Also all of the images on the Tuthmosis III are consistent with the appearances of black people. I've never said that there was no race mixing in Egypt. I'm saying that the Egyptians were riddled with Nubian DNA which accounts for there negroid features. Obviously the libyans were there, I'm the one who suggested the page. But that's the 18th Dynasty. The Nubian presence and Egyptians own africanness was intermingled for centuries before the 18th dynasty. This accounts for their black african appearance during the earlier periods and Akenaton was not of Libyan extraction. The pure Nubians were just darker black people just like blond caucasions are lighter white people. The farther you get up in years the lighter Egyptians get. Here's another piece from the Cairo museum showing Nubian royalty in the 18th dynasty. '''www.homestead.com/wysinger/maiherperi.html '''


 * Your quotations are all maybes and possiblies, and none of them are about Akhenaten. Indeed your first quotation specifically states that this individual is anomalous "so different from the other pharaohs". Look we do have a page to discuss this issue. I's called Racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians. Go there. Paul B 11:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Paul I'll start on that page. One correction, My first sentence says Nubian/Libyan. My second sentence describes differences from later pharoahs, outlining earlier royal Nubian inclusion. Did you look at Prince Maiherperi?


 * I said your first quotation. Yes, the other pharaohs at the time. Akhenaten did not live in the Old Kingdom did he? What's Maiherperi got to do with anything? So a Nubian prince is portrayed as dark-skinned? Well he would be wouldn't he? Paul B 13:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul that wasn't adversarial. It was only to show once again that Nubians were a part of Egyptian royalty through Egyptian history. It wasn't about a Nubian being dark skinned, everybody knows that they were dark skinned. Paul I didn't create these artifacts. The Egyptians did. And it is strange to me that they are recieved with such dislike and lack of curiosity by people who were (I thought)interested in Egypt. This is tiresome. In my own illusion, I actually thought you and others would be excited by these exhibits. I'm left thinking that many are only interested in what they already know.


 * We are merely not interested in a layperson trying to analyze somthing he clearly does not understand. Thanatosimii 19:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not to me that you haven't presented any of your own visual research, but to all wikipedians. You scoff at any visual evidence that doesn't support your current point of view. You ask for peer reviewed evidence and I provided author, book and page number. You rejected that. I provided excavation exhibits from sources that you quoted as being your own, and you then reject that. I ask you for alternative archeology of what I've provided (visual or literary) and you claim that you haven't got time to look through the books. Which means that you haven't read them. You can't even tell anyone here the book and page number of any counter research that you done that would prove any of this incorrect. Wikipedians are not fooled by you. The evidence that you're not presenting is not being presented because you don't have it. If you had it to present, you couldn't resist making a fraud out of those things that were presented. But you can't, because the archeology is real and everlasting. Of all the comments made herein, I respect yours the least.


 * There's that incivility again. You clearly do not know what you are talking about, so please just stop, and do not misrepresent yourself as in the mainstream. I would suggest you thoroughly read WP:NOT and WP:A before you continue to claim that your behavior has been appropriate. Thanatosimii 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In summary: Egypt was an African civilization. Egyptians had far more in common with the Nubians to the south than with either the Near Easterners or the Europeans. Egyptians themselves saw the Nubians far more as "brothers" than any other group. Some Egyptian dynasties indeed had Nubian blood and may have in fact had dark skin color. During the period of the New Kingdom empire, Nubians were actively brought into Egyptian government, administration, and into the Egyptian military, whereas Egyptian Canaanite holdings were not. That being said, Akhenaten was not black, his dynasty was not a Nubian dynasty; Nubia was under the rule of Egypt at the time, and all of the Thutmosids were aknowledged as "ruling with ma'at", in other words being purely Egyptian. pookster11 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you're about one third right... Thanatosimii 00:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The ruins around Gebel Barkal include at least 13 temples and 3 palaces, that were for the first described by european explorers in the 1820’s, although only in 1916 archeological excavations were started by George Reisner under a joint expedition of Harvard University and the Museum of Fine Arts of Boston. From the 1970’s, explorations continued by a team from the University of Rome La Sapienza, under the direction of Sergio Donadoni, that was joined by another team from the Boston Museum, in the 1980’s, under the direction of Timothy Kendall. Also, not just for the Kushite Dynasty, but for centuries of Egyptian lineage in general: W.M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt - Part Three, (1896), p. 308 states: ". . . . the kings of Napata (Nubia) represented the old civilization of Upper Egypt is clear; and it is probably that they were actually descended from the high priest of Amen, who were the rightful successors of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties. So far, then, as hereditary rights go, they were the true kings of Egypt, rather than the mob of Libyan chiefs who had filtered in the Delta, and who tried to domineer over the Nile valley from that no-man's land." This would include Taharqa and represents the larger and the vast. In Book II, Section-104, of his celebrated History, Herodotus states: "For my part I believe the Colchi to be a colony of Egyptians, because like them they have black skins and frizzled hair." (See any English translation of The History of Herodotus. Tom 04/17/07


 * You're making inferrences from primary sources. Heroditous can say "black" to high heavan, but it isn't changing the fact that modern, peer reviewed egyptological literature needs to make a commentary on that passage in relations to Akhenaten if you want it included. WP:A is not negotiable. Thanatosimii 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn this is still going on? First please realize that archaeology and the study of history has in fact continued to a considerable degree since 1896.  Second, Petrie is referring to the period some 200 years after Akhenaten, specifically the incursions of the Sea Peoples allied with Libyan chiefs and the Third Intermediate Period.  Likewise, Herodotus in that specific section draws a distinction between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians (ie: Nubians), and thus kinda sorta tears your little personal theory apart.  As was previously stated, and will now be more explicitly stated, nobody cares what you think; find a source that isn't more than a hundred years old and actually relates to the topic, and likewise clarify what the heck your overall point is. pookster11 10:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't have a new source for you. Psalms 78:51, 105:23-27, 106:19-22 KJV refer to Egypt as the land of Ham. The father of the black race. Egypt from the loins of Mizraim and Ethiopia from the loins of Cush. Both sons of Ham. Tom 02/12/08