Talk:Akhenaten/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unequivocal claims for DNA evidence is inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence

Claims made about the DNA evidence fail to take fully available evidence into account noted in other articles on Wikipedia related to the subject. The failure to take into account the preponderance of available DNA evidence results in conclusions that are unreliable. For example, "Interest in Akhenaten increased with the discovery in the Valley of the Kings, at Luxor, of the tomb of King Tutankhamun, who has been proved to be Akhenaten's son according to DNA testing in 2010." Fact is, the DNA evidence does NOT prove that Tutankhamun is Akhenaten's son beyond a reasonable doubt and only serves to substantiate the equally valid conclusion that Tut's parents are just as likely to be that of Smenkhare and Meritaten, the eldest daughter of Akhenaten.

The discovery that the KV21a mummy is a match for the maternity of the fetuses buried with Tut raises considerable doubt concerning Tut's own paternity since KV21a cannot be correlated, in any way, to the KV55 mummy the article claims to be substantial proof for being the mummy of Akhenaten. The author's logic here is flawed because it is inconsistent with the unequivocal conclusion, i.e. in the absence of any other conclusion, that Tut is the son of Akhenaten despite the claim that the data concerning KV55 as Akhenaten is questionable. Taking into account the KV21a mummy renders the substance of KV55 as Akhenaten less substantial and, therefore, doubtful.

Furthermore, labeling that data as questionable as to it's question-ability instead of it's reliability is essentially a double negative bias, which fails to take into account the effect the KV21a mummy has in corroborating that data; thus, establishing it as reliable data unless the author wishes to argue for the reliability of data from unreliable sources whose unreliability has never been proven. If the source is questionable because it isn't academic then it should be labeled questionable on that basis with no accompanying question mark. Pvsalsedo (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur (at least I think so). The notion that he is 'proven to be Akhenaten's son' is just the soundbite version in the general media - the JAMA article contains no wording that definitive. Somehow the CT scans indicate the KV55 mummy may be older than previously thought (the CT data has not actually been released, just so characterized) and 'KV55 is likely the son or father of Tut' becomes KV55 IS Tut's Father and IS Akhenaten.--Plutonix (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The notion that Tut is the son of Akhenaten is essentially an ahistorical argument contradicted by both history and the DNA evidence. The historical record shows that Akhenaten fathered no royal male heir since all of his children with Nefertiti were daughters. Prior to the recent DNA analysis on the KV35YL (Younger Lady) mummy, speculation on who Tut's mother was focused on his non-royal consort, Kiya, or one of Akehanten's royal daughters. But the recent DNA analysis proves beyond a reasonable doubt that KV35YL, the mother of Tut, is not Kiya.

As for an incestuous relationship with any of his daughters, this would have been a religious transgression. Incest between the Egyptian gods was strictly limited to brother-sister unions. There are no parent-child marriages or progeny in the pantheon of Egyptian gods. Therefore, an incestuous relationship between Akhenaten and his daughters would have been unprecedented, to say the least, and there is no evidence in the historical record to support the idea for this kind of incestuous relationship ever having existed among any of the pharaohonic dynasties of Egypt.

So while the DNA evidence proves that KV35YL is the mother of Tut and since Akhenaten's eldest daughter, Meritaten (with Nefertiti), is the most likely candidate for that mummy, the idea that Tut is the product of a union between Akhenaten and his daughter is just pure ahistorical speculation. Meritaten was married to Smenkhare and, therefore, the most reasonable solution is to conclude that Tut was the son of Smenkhare with Meritaten. This means that Akhenaten's relation to Tut is one of a paternal uncle and maternal grandfather since the Smenkhare/Meritaten union was a paternal uncle/niece marriage which was not considered incestuous.

Furthermore, if KV35YL is Meritaten, DNA dictates that she must be a descendant of Thuya, the mother of Queen Tiye. Consequently, Nefertiti, the wife of Akhenaten, was in all likelihood the younger sister of Queen Tiye, the mother of Akhenaten. In which case, Akhenaten married his maternal aunt (also not considered incestuous). Later, when Tut marries Ankhesenamun, he, too, will have imitated the union of Akhenaten and Nefertiti since Ankhesenamun was the youngest sister of his mother, Meritaten.Pvsalsedo (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but this is both irrelevant and inappropriate here. This is a discussion page for the asrticle, not a forum to discuss the subject of the article. None of your post can affect the article. If you have sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS feel free to bring them here, but please don't make any more posts simply arguing the sujbect. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If nothing in this section can affect this article, then other Wikipedia articles, as noted at the outset of this section as justification for it, cannot affect the article; and, therefore, are invalid sources for making changes to the article. I am not aware of any guidelines that refute other Wikipedia articles as not valid source material. Absolutely nothing in this section is a matter of opinion that can't be backed up by other Wikipedia articles. If you are the author of the article, it is my intention to draw your attention to this simple fact. Unlike the articles themselves, nothing in the Talk page guidelines requires citing specific Wikipedia articles in question because they are implicit in the discussion, e.g. the subject of the KV55 or KV35YL mummies taken up as specific articles or as content in other Wiki articles which any reader can look up should they wish to challenge the claims made in this section. In which case, there is nothing in this section that violates the Good Practices of the Talk page guidelines. I merely consolidate the material from other Wiki articles in order to draw attention to their relevance so as to not take up space by quoting the specific sources which would be tantamount to rewriting the article.

If anyone wishes to refute the claims made about other articles, then it would be appropriate to cite the article and/or quote the content. In which case, I will reply in kind as a matter of appropriate and honest discourse. Furthermore, it is rude to limit any rebuke to the author of this section without issuing a general warning to others who reply to the section with sources that are either invalid or make invalid claims. Nothing in this section is "simply arguing the subject". That is an oversimplification and suggests that the author refutes not only Wikipedia articles, but their sources. If the author is unwilling to make changes on this basis, as recommended, then that is a matter of the integrity of the article's author, not mine.

As a courtesy, however, here is a link to a non-Wikipedia source (you decide if it's not appropriate) that provides an alternative interpretation of the JAMA article and data produced by Zahi Hawass that underscores not only my section but other Wiki articles and talk pages, as well:

http://www.kv64.info/2010/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not.html

Pvsalsedo (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Smenkhkare

This section is disjointed, poorly summarized, sources contradict each other, it is wildly out of synch with the Smenkhkare entry and contains errors. The topic is far too complex to adequately and accurately summarize in a few sentences. And of course, it is lopsided to mention and explore Smenkhkare and only mention Neferneferuaten in passing. A concise note regarding the association of Smenkhkare with Akhenaten and a main article link to a single entry which can more easily maintained seems a better way to keep the content up to date.

A glaring example:

There has also been interest in the identity of the Pharaoh Smenkhkare, who was the immediate successor to Akhenaten. In particular, descriptions on a small box seemed to refer to "Smenkhkare beloved of Akhenaten".

• A) If the box is Carter 001k, the name "Smenkhkare" does not appear on it. There are no 'weasel words' needed ("seemed") as Carter's notes clearly show
• B) If it is another box, which one?
• C) I'd be very surprised if the 2000 source cited actually said anything of the sort and is mischaracterized here. A source cited later ( J.P. Allen, "Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re", GM 141 (1994), pp.7-17) deals with the issue in much more detail and authority and wholly different conclusions. See also much of M, Gabolde's work.

Other:

• many of the references are "off". Regarding stele of "two rulers, naked and seated together", seems to be #17813, Berlin, but it is not clear if Newberry or Montserrat is being cited (or Montserrat citing Newberry).

I plan to fix it when time allows (soon).Plutonix (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Father/son/brother

The late professor Harrison reviewed all the then available evidence, including blood grouping, and concluded that it was Smenkhare interred in KV55,and Tutankhamun was his brother.

His final conclusion was that Akhenaton was a son of the late pharaoh and his wife Tiye. Smenkhare and Tutankhamun were also sons of the same pharaoh, by a secondary wife, Kiya.

The History Channel also recently suggested that there was a "fudge factor" in estimating the age of an individual on death and that Tutankamun could have been as much as 28 on death making him too old to be a son of Akhenaton.

DNA testing although narrowing the number of possible relationships apparently cannot distinguish between father, son and brothers.

Professor Harrisons conclusions that Akhenaton and Tutankamun were half brothers still seems the most likely explanation.AT Kunene (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Harrison's conclusions that Akhenaten and Tut were half brothers is not possible since the mitochondrial DNA evidence proves that the KV35EL (Elder Lady) mummy is a daughter of Yuya and Thuya; and, therefore, Queen Tiye, the mother of Akhenaten. In which case, if Akhenaten and Tut were half brothers they would have shared the same father or mother. Unfortunately, Akhenaten's father, Amenhotep III was dead before Tut was born. In addition, the KV35YL (Younger Lady) mummy has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be Tut's mother. But since KV35EL is Tiye the KV35YL mummy cannot be Akhenaten's mother; in which case, it is virtually impossible for Akhenaten and Tut to be half brothers. See my explanation in the above section detailing Akhenaten as the paternal uncle/maternal grandfather of Tut. Pvsalsedo (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Amenhotep lll / Tut

This is an interesting argument but can any evidence be quoted that Amenhotep 111 was dead before Tut was born?

The late Leonard Cottrell investigated this question in great depth and concluded, like prof Harrison, that Amenhotep 111 was the likely father of Tut.

He also raised the point that if Tiye was a commoner, her genetic input would have cancelled out the inbreeding and supporting the androgynous statue theory.AT Kunene (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Daughters

If indeed one of the otherwise unidentified remains are DNA linked to Thuya and Yuya and therefore COULD be Tiye still raises the question of how many daughters did this couple actually have? Tiye is well known but were there other daughters and is there is there now at least one otherwise unidentified daughter?

When Tut was originally interred, his parents were known to everybody at the time and apparently nobody thought to record these simple well known details. Tut claimed to be the son of a pharaoh and there are only two contenders, Amenhotep 111 and Akhenaton.

The DNA testing has probably reasonably proved family links but as the corpses are otherwise unidentified and I point out that the Elder Lady was at one time thought to be Hatshepsut, little fresh information seems to have become available to finally settle the various conjectures. To quote prof Hawass "we think that this lady was his (Tuts)mother". Possibly but what was her name?

The History Channel suggestion the Tut may have been up to 28 on death still seem to make him too old to be a son of Akhenaton but probably placing his birth well within the lifetime of Amenhotep 111. This leaves only Amenhotep 111 and with the name of the Lady Kiya being found in Tuts tomb as his most likely parents.

Prof. Harrisons reconstruction still seems to be the most credible.AT Kunene (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)AT Kunene (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

AT Kunene (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Akhenaten/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am starting a good article reassessment of this article because it has not kept up with GA standards since it was promoted, and has numerous tags that show this. Specifically:

• First, tags:
  • References needed banner in the Religious policies section.
  • Eight citation needed tags in various sections
  • "Not in citation given" tag in Death, burial and succession section
  • Two dead link tags
• In addition to the tagged areas, there are numerous spots, including entire paragraphs, of unsourced material. Take, for example, the last two bullet points of the Family and relations section, which gives extensive conjecture with zero sources. Also the first paragraph of the Smenkhkare section, which again includes conjecture without sources.
• What makes ref #6, 47 (Kv64.info) a reliable source?
• What makes ref #14 (Anubis4_2000.tripod.com.) a reliable source?
• What makes ref #80 ( Megaera Lorenz) a reliable source?
• The In the arts section is a bullet-pointed list of trivia that gives the reader little to no indication as to why these mentions are notable or relevant. How does it help the reader to know that Akhenaten has been mentioned in various rock/metal songs? Is he associated with this culture in some way? Why can't all of the song mentions, if all they are is mentions, be summarized in a couple of sentences: "He has been mentioned in several rock songs, including x song by y band, q song by r band and m song by n band. [rinse, repeat for metal songs, or whatever]".

These are the major issues I see on a first run-through. I'm placing the review on hold to allow time for the above issues to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just a brief comment. The 'In the arts section' is just trivia that people insert since Akhenaten is today a very famous person for being one of the monotheists of the world. It can be deleted but I suppose someone may insert them back in the future. The #80 ref by 'Megaera Lorenz' appears to be a general discussion of the symptoms of Marfan's syndrome. I don't know if its totally reliable but it doesn't seem out of place on this article and it does give general sources for its paper including Brittanica. Yes, there are entire paragraphs without sources. Perhaps someone else could verify the information or delete them if they're incorrect. When I wrote the 'International relations' paragraph of Akhenaten's paper years ago, I gave the sources, but today I lack the time sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Two final comments: I think that ref #6 [1] is a minority view. Most Egyptologists believe that the mummy is Akhenaten given the level of damage that his funerary equipment suffered and his cartouches were all totally erased. The mummy mask was partly ripped out and its most likely that this royal ruler was Akhenaten and not the shortlived Smenkhkare. I agree that more references are needed in the Religious policies section but I cannot say anything about them. Akhenaten's "Death, burial and succession section" needs more sources but very little is known about the royal succession or the time of death of Akhenaten. Was Smenkare a coregent of Akhenaten for a while before he assumed the throne briefly after Akhenaten died? The archaeological record is unclear. Until December 2012, most people thought that Nefertiti short after Year 12 of Akhenaten's reign but now we know that she was still alive in Year 16 of his reign--about 1 year before he died. She may have outlived her husband. All that is certain is that Akhenaten was initially buried in his royal tomb at Amarna before his body was presumably moved to Thebes when a successor abandoned Amarna and Akhenaten's religious revolution to return to Thebes. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As no changes have been made to the article in response to the above comments, I am now delisting it from GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Father of Tut, or not?

The recent TV braodcast by The History Channel with Zahi Hawass seems to have left a couple of questions still unanswered. The Genetic scientists concluded that Tut was the son of the person interred in KV 55, unfortunately not naming who they thought this was. Assuming that professor Harrisons conclusions that this was Smenkhare and Tut his son may clarify one conjecture.

Tut claims to have been the son of a pharaoh, if he was the son of Smenkhare then this latter may have reigned as a full pharaoh in his own right for up to the suggested maximum of three years.

Unfortunately the scientists didn't offer any comment on whether the DNA tests are accurate enough to distinguish between brothers and/or half brothers. So if Smenkhare was buried in KV55, could Tut have still been a brother rather than a son of Smenkhare? AT Kunene 123 (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any justification for including Savitri Devi's alternative spelling "Akhnaton"?

I can't think of one. It's not used by Egyptologists and we shouldn't be suggesting that it is a common alternative spelling. The fact that Velikovsky, Devi, etc used it isn't relevant. Devi isn't the originator in any case. Simeon Strunsky wrote a novel called King Akhnaton in 1928 for instance. I've received an email from the editor who added it, User:Tipua, calling me various names. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The spelling has been used occasionally by Egyptologists. Arthur Weigall used it in his book on Akhenaten in 1910, long before Devi. So does T. George Allen's 1974 edition of the Book of the Dead. David Lorton, who unlike the others is a living Egyptologist, seems to use it as his standard spelling (e.g., in a paper in Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur from 1993). But it's not exactly a common variant. There are plenty of variant spellings in the lead already, in my opinion, and "Akhnaton" is sort of a middle spelling between "Ikhnaton" and "Akhenaton". If you type "Akhnaton", you're not going to be surprised at ending up here, so adding "Akhnaton" to the lead section would only increase clutter.

Anyway, there's no reason to mention Savitri Devi herself. It's not her spelling, just another variant. A. Parrot (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this and correcting me. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are numerous spelling variations. One could argue that the listing at the moment is rather arbitrary and pointless. I see no reason why Akhnaton shouldn't be added, but there's no reason to attribute it to Devi. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller -- The ancient Egyptian writing system basically simply doesn't write vowels, so traditionally, in somewhat "popularizing" transcriptions, Egyptologists rendered guttural consonants as "a", sometimes semivowels as "i" or "o"/"u", and then arbitrarily sprinkled in enough "e" letters among the remaining consonants in order to come up with written words that look pronounceable in the Latin alphabet. Variations are not uncommon... AnonMoos (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My issue was really attributing it to Devi. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015

Please edit this page so that B.C. (i.e., "before christ") uses the modern, more culturally sensitive designation B.C.E. ("Before Common Era") Trategos Sol (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:ERA, we do not change the era style without consensus on the article. These changes thus are unnecessary, particularly because both the old and new styles are acceptable on Wikipedia. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 16:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Akhenaten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100218121628/http://abcnews.go.com:80/International/wireStory?id=9850747 to http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=9850747
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120125060720/http://abcnews.go.com/International/wirestory?id=9850747&page=3 to http://abcnews.go.com/International/wirestory?id=9850747&page=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

2004 Lecture by Nicholas Reeves on Akhenaten

Feel free to include information from this online article kindly made public by N Reeves in Akhenaten's article if you wish. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Akhenaten with arms crossed Osiris position, and arms crossed mummiform shabtis of Akhenaten

I am deleting this section as it was started and edited by IPs being operated by a returning banned user. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ararat arev for details. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Name changes -- Horus Name

The altered Horus name adopted by Akhenaten as given in the table is either mistranslated or incomplete. The hieroglyphs (and their transliteration) transparently do not contain the "Strong Bull" element. This is uncited; it should either be cited or corrected. 192.31.106.36 (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akhenaten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cassian.memphis.edu/history/murnane/Allen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Under speculative theories: possible illnesses, one section currently reads: Recently a surgeon at Imperial College London (Hutan Ashrafian) has analysed the early death of Akhenaten and the premature deaths of other Eighteenth dynasty Pharaohs (including Tutankhamun and Thutmose IV). He identifies that their early deaths were likely a result of a Familial Temporal Epilepsy. This would account for the untimely death of Akhenaten, his abnormal endocrine body shape on sculptures and can also explain Akhenaten's religious conviction due to this type of epilepsy’s association with intense spiritual visions and religiosity.[92]

Here's how a more appropriate wording should read.

Recently a surgeon at Imperial College London (Hutan Ashrafian) has analysed the early death of Akhenaten and the premature deaths of other Eighteenth dynasty Pharaohs (including Tutankhamun and Thutmose IV). He concludes that their early deaths could have been the result of inherited temporal lobe epilepsy. This would account for the untimely death of Akhenaten, his abnormal endocrine body shape on sculptures and can also explain Akhenaten's religious conviction due to this type of epilepsy’s association with intense spiritual visions and religiosity.[92] However, since there is currently no definitive genetic test for epilepsy, the theory remains impossible to prove.<ref>Locker, Melissa. "Did King Tutankhamen Die From Epilepsy?" Time. 12 Sept. 2013. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/13/did-king-tutankhamen-die-from-epilepsy/</ref> Elbowslapper (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion

Section on Akhenaten and Jewish monotheism

To my mind this section is too verbose and leaves the quite misleading impression that modern scholars seriously entertain the idea that there could be a link between Akhenaten and the rise of Jewish monotheism. They don't: the time gap is enormous, and Jewish monotheism can be quite satisfactorily explained by the unique history of the Jews (which, incodentally, doesn't involve Egypt or an Exodus - the Exodus is a myth, not a reality). I'd suggest a re-write beginning with the actual origins of Jewish monotheism, touching on the composition-history of the Pentateuch, and only then describing the ideas of Freud and others.PiCo (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've started, but let's not do it that way, we need to stick strictly to sources discussing AKhenaten and Jewish monotheism. We've already got Redford, which is a good start. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Section on Implementation of Atenism and later collapse not a summary of the main article

This fails WP:SUMMARY when you compare it to the main article, Atenism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ideas for cleanup or article expansion

Apologies if I just missed something but cursory searching doesn't seem to find any mention of Akhenaton's unusual treatment of the "jubilee" / "Sed festival" early in his reign which appears to have been tied to his other reforms and may have been intended to count his previous service as coregent in a way the priests didn't appreciate. See, i.a., Britannica.

More importantly, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the expected completion of the Egyptian calendar's great Sothic cycle soon after his ascension, a return of the calendar—after more than a millennium of wandering—to a New Year aligned with Sirius, the Nile flood, and (roughly) the summer solstice. (Not sure, but the backward approach of the civil calendar to an alignment with Sirius's heliacal rising may have put New Year at the summer solstice during Akhenaton's own reign.) Schaefer argues that it's not a certain thing but a claim of a completed Sothic cycle during Akhenaten's own reign on political grounds is within the margin of error for the observations involved. — LlywelynII 18:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

"Another unfounded claim was made by Immanuel Velikovsky, who hypothesized an incestuous relationship with his mother, Tiye."

The word 'unfounded' should be removed; all the claims are currently unfounded, not just Velikovsky's. 2600:8800:300:3E00:6412:4F41:74B3:75C8 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - removing the word unfounded leaves the reader unsure if it was true or false; as written there is no ambiguity. - Arjayay (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Akhenaten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531232226/http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Writing&id=71 to http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Writing&id=71
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611125819/http://www.comparative-religion.com/ancient/akhenaten.php to http://www.comparative-religion.com/ancient/akhenaten.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent attempted change to remove Akhenaten, new source we need to use

This []https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.22909[ is the latest study I could find.

"Therefore, based on the genetic results, one must identify mummy CG 61075 as King Akhenaton, until proven otherwise. This view is also supported by Dodson (2014): The age of KV 55 seems to be more towards 18–25 range, but Smenkhkare is unlikely to be the father of Tutankhamun. Smenkhkare would have been c. 16 years old, while his Queen Merytaton would only be about 10 years, too young to be the mother of Tutankhamun. Thus Dodson concluded: the view that Akhenaton was Tutankhamun's father remains by far the most attractive on both historical and genetic grounds (Dodson, 2014). " Doug Weller talk 08:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarity on damnatio memoriae

It needs clarifying that damnatio memoriae was only organised against Tutankhamun regarding monuments and scriptures that bore the name of Tutankhaten only and not Tutankhamun. There is no sourcing or references to this? Why not? Information such as that needs to be backed up as per wiki rules. 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:679A:A2E3:C134:B1A7 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022

Section: Founding Amarna

Please change: "The event Egyptologists know the most about during Akhenaten's life are connected with founding Akhetaten" --> "The events" (plural, to match "are").

Thank you! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done; many thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a question,

How did Akhenaten die? 96.8.131.130 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No one knows. A. Parrot (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)