posted
I have read several articles that suggest than King Akhenaten suffered from Marfan's syndrome. This condition would have apparently have accounted for his clearly abnormal features. Is this a widly accepted theory?
ausar Member # 1797
posted
It appears that the case of Akenaten having abnormal features is based upon perception. The Amarna period produced some of the most reliatic art that show intricate details specific to the person so I wonder why Akenaten would have such a diease. None of Akenaten's children have any abnormalitiies except Tutankhamun whose spinal column was malformed.
You think maybe some of these abnormalities might be due to incest in the royal line?
Rhi_Sarah Member # 3510
posted
They could be incest...but how do we know there were no other children that did have the condition? Children that might have perhaps died in infancy, or been still born? There would have been no evidence that they did not have the disease would there?
Rhi_Sarah Member # 3510
posted
could Akhenaten and his family have been cremaated rather than buried...just an idea, does anyone have any comments?
ausar Member # 1797
posted
Ceremation was not customary according to the Kemetian belief system. You had to have all body parts intact except the brian to pass to the Field of Reeds.
Just the fact that Akenaten was able to produce so many children shows that he probally did not have Marofan syndrone or Freolich's.
Cobe Member # 3501
posted
what exact abnormalities did he have? you can change bone structure and stuff by tightening bands and stuff around a certain bone which will deform it during growth..i saw a history program where these guys dug up a tribe..cant remember what nationality but they had these leather bands about 5 inches wide that wrapped round their forhead and that made the skull grow upwards..there heads were the shape of eggs except the thinner circumference was much longer..like a oval shape which tapers in at the top..very strange looking..maybe Akenaten used a similar thing
Kem-Au Member # 1820
posted
quote:Originally posted by ausar: You think maybe some of these abnormalities might be due to incest in the royal line?
Doubtful. Amenhotep III had no known relation to Tiye and Akhenaten had no relation to Nefertiti. Don't know if he had any relation to Kiya.
neo*geo Member # 3466
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kem-Au: Doubtful. Amenhotep III had no known relation to Tiye and Akhenaten had no relation to Nefertiti. Don't know if he had any relation to Kiya.
Nefertiti and Akhenaten were first cousins. There is no record of who Nefertiti's mother is because she was born a God's Wife of Amun. However, it's widely accepted that Queen Tiye's brother, Ay, was her father.
As far as we know, Tiye had no relation to Amenhotep III, however, they may have been distant relatives. Kiya was a minor wife from Akhenaten's harem. It's doubtful that she had any royal blood.
Artemi Member # 3176
posted "None of Akenaten's children have any abnormalitiies except ..."
Ausar, where did this information come from? If we are relying on artistic depictions of the royal family, the same style of elongated limbs and skull are used in depicting Akhenaten's daughters as are used to show the King. It may only be artistic interpretation, but that is still up for debate.
"Just the fact that Akenaten was able to produce so many children shows that he probally did not have Marofan syndrone or Freolich's."
Whereas Freolich's syndrome is said to cause sterility, Marfan's does not.
[This message has been edited by Artemi (edited 06 February 2004).]
Keino
posted
quote:Originally posted by ausar: It appears that the case of Akenaten having abnormal features is based upon perception. The Amarna period produced some of the most reliatic art that show intricate details specific to the person so I wonder why Akenaten would have such a diease. None of Akenaten's children have any abnormalitiies except Tutankhamun whose spinal column was malformed.
You think maybe some of these abnormalities might be due to incest in the royal line?
Speaking from a science background I say it is HIGHLY likely that Aknahten had Marfan's syndrome. Marfan syndrome is a genetic defect/mutation in chromosome 15 in FBN1/fribrillin gene-1, the region that codes for connective tissies (fribrin and elastin) (bone, arteries, subcutaneous tissue ect..). Think of connective tissue the "glue" or materials that hold the body together as a unit. Inheritance pattern indicates an autosomal dominant (just need one parent to pass one allele of the gene on the the kid in order for them to express the genetic defect) hence there is a 50% chance that the parent will pass it on the each their offspring. So the chances of tut getting it from aknahten was 50% sadly I believe was unlucky and inherited this defect. His other syblings were just the luck 50% chance that didn't get the defective genes. Common features of persons with Marfan's is long limbs, fingers and toes, tall thin stature, narrow or sharp face, pectus excavatum (chest pokes out like a bird), some have concaved chests, eyesight problems, weak, dissection and aneurysm prone blood vessels particularly the aorta and scoliosis and sometimes klippel-feil. It is prevelance is about 1 in 10,000 in america and in some ethnic groups (not racial group) 1 in 7,000. Various family members with this disease can have different expression of the disease. One might have weak and mal-formed arteries while his son might have bone defects like scholiosis and klippel-feil (king tut had clipplefile= neck vertabrae were fused together). King tut's deceased daughters that was found in this burial chamber also had skeletal defects (scoliosis). The abnormal features of Aknahten along with Tut's klippel-feil plus the scoliosis of tut's daughter is more than enough genetic circumstances to positively indicate that aknahten had Marfan's syndrome/disease.
Keino
posted
quote:Originally posted by Artemi: [b]"None of Akenaten's children have any abnormalitiies except ..."
Ausar, where did this information come from? If we are relying on artistic depictions of the royal family, the same style of elongated limbs and skull are used in depicting Akhenaten's daughters as are used to show the King. It may only be artistic interpretation, but that is still up for debate.
"Just the fact that Akenaten was able to produce so many children shows that he probally did not have Marofan syndrone or Freolich's."
Whereas Freolich's syndrome is said to cause sterility, Marfan's does not.
[This message has been edited by Artemi (edited 06 February 2004).][/B]
Those picture with the enolgated head are not characteristic of any genetic defect that I know of. Marfans people will just have an exaggerated long facial reature and limbs not a mal-formed head. The images in your posts are either head stretching or artistic perception.... I thought that maybe Akenaten moved the artist of the time to depict him and others in his exaggerated image that he deemed "godly". What do you think since he was bold enough to introduce monotheism. Bases on that personality characteristic I think he would be bold enough to ask people to be drawn in his exagerated image?? Any thoughts?
Artemi Member # 3176
posted
I have read that the head shape was symbolic of Godliness - something to do with the primeval egg of creation.
In the catalogue for "The Royal Women of Amarna" exhibition in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (1996), Dorothea Arnold writes: "With the princesses' heads, Amarna artists probably overemphasized hereditary traits, a view reinforced by a comparison of the princesses' sculptured heads with the mummified heads of Smenkare [sic] and Tutankhamen. Elongated skulls were characteristic of these two young men who followed Akhenaten as Pharoah. Since Akhenaten's successors must have been members of the royal family, it is safe to assume that his daughters, whose mummies are not preserved, possessed the same traits. The question, then, is: Why did the artists emphasize this particular feature to a seemingly abnormal degree? ... A view of any of the heads from the back reveals that the sculptor has given the skull the unmistakeable shape of an egg. 'Egyptian theologians speculating about the creation of the world...spoke of a miraculous egg placed upon a hill surrounded by the primeval waters. The egg hatched, and from it flew a bird that was a god and brought forth light, ending chaos and marking the beginning of things.' Thus, traditional Egyptian theology saw in the egg a symbol of the divine creation of the cosmos."
[This message has been edited by Artemi (edited 07 February 2004).]
Wally Member # 2936
posted
Come now everybody. We seem to be slipping into the "Ancient Egypt's not African" syndrone: This first instance may be anecdotal (since I didn't have a camera handy) but I remember seeing this young Ethiopian mother with a child who looked EXACTLY like the one (that I hope is) pictured here, head shape and all. And remember that at least one other African people indulges in this practice of skull elongation? [IMG] http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/000000000mangbetu.jpg[/IMG] If you don't see the image, then click the link below. http://www.euronet.nl/users/rcc/store/gallery/fishadorn04.html
Artemi Member # 3176
posted
Thanks Wally, that really is a very good comparison... except it still seems that it was only in the Amarna art phase of Pharoanic Egypt that such elongated skulls were depicted. So, whether it was actual physical elongation (intentional or genetic) depicted by art or not, it was not common throughout the rest of that contemporary history - for whatever reason.
Rhi_Sarah Member # 3510
posted
About the cremation thing. If Akhenaten did not believe in the wide pantheon of Gods and goddesses that his ancestors would have believed in, how do we know that the Aten-ists (is that the name for them?) did believe in the field of reeds at all?
Kem-Au Member # 1820
posted
Wally, that picture is very interesting. The elongated heads may have been ginuine after all. I've never seen anything like this.
Artemi, I think this skull elongation is an artifical process, according to the image Wally posted. Why some did it and some didn't, I can't say. Someone needs to do a study to see the connection between these Mangbetu and AE's.
Keino
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kem-Au: Wally, that picture is very interesting. The elongated heads may have been ginuine after all. I've never seen anything like this.
Artemi, I think this skull elongation is an artifical process, according to the image Wally posted. Why some did it and some didn't, I can't say. Someone needs to do a study to see the connection between these Mangbetu and AE's.
My hypothesis is that AE's did this but it was very early in the founding dynasties (the ORIGINAL "Black" african founders). Later it became more of a symbolic representation as the practice slowed and eventually ended. I think they viewed head stretching as a representation of their "godly ancestors" whom left the ritual behind. It was probably also a sign of immense beauty. Then the ritual died out and left just the representation of that form as being royal, godly and beauty. This seems logical as to why they haven't found any skulls that has actually been stretched. Or have they?? To me all of egyptology is very logical and there is absolutely NO mystery as to where the AEs came from...!
Artemi Member # 3176
posted
Funny how no matter what the topic starts out with here, it always seems to return to the racial origins of the Ancient Egyptians.
Wally Member # 2936
posted
quote:Originally posted by Artemi: Funny how no matter what the topic starts out with here, it always seems to return to the racial origins of the Ancient Egyptians.
You may have said more than you think you have Artemi. The best example is that if we were consciously aware of the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians (Black Africans), we would have immediately sought the answer to the question of the elongated skulls of the Amarna period in Black Africa! To paraphrase C.A. Diop, you can't possibly understand Ancient Egypt without connecting it to its Black African reality. This methodology is used in the study of ALL societies, both ancient and modern. It isn't, however, necessary to stress the ethnic identity of say, the ancient Maya, or Aztecs, or Incas, simply because the West did not steal those legacies. They stole Egypt! And as you no doubt have come to discover, they are in no hurry to return it. You simply have to take back what rightfully belongs to you! The presentation of history is a primary factor in the shaping of the ideology of a nation or a people. How history is presented determines how we come to see ourselves, collectively. Those who know this, and mean you no good, would distract you from this, and try and convince you that it's all irrelevent...
Kem-Au Member # 1820
posted
I have to agree with Wally in this case. Had we been more educated about Egypt in its proper African context, we wouldn't have speculated for so long about these elongated skulls. Who knows what other questions we would have answers to.
Keino
posted
quote:Originally posted by Artemi: Funny how no matter what the topic starts out with here, it always seems to return to the racial origins of the Ancient Egyptians.
Who a people were and are is very important in the contest of history and understanding their society and culture. If one wants to understand the culture, its is a necessity to understand the origins of that culture and the peoples whom have influenced the culture and whom the culture has influenced. Its ok to talk about the middle eastern and asiatic influences, but as soon as one talks about the african influence and origins some people are offended. The ethnicity of AEs will always matter until it is placed in its correct context and until the truth is told.
Meritaton Member # 2090
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kem-Au: Doubtful. Amenhotep III had no known relation to Tiye and Akhenaten had no relation to Nefertiti. Don't know if he had any relation to Kiya.
These are only 3 examples of non-incestuous marriages. For almost ten generations before Akhenaten's birth his ancestors married within the family. Maybe he is not from an incestuous marriage (although some say Tiye was related to Amenhotep's mother Mutemweya) but he is certainly a descendant of incestuous people.
Kem-Au Member # 1820
posted
quote:Originally posted by Meritaton: These are only 3 examples of non-incestuous marriages. For almost ten generations before Akhenaten's birth his ancestors married within the family. Maybe he is not from an incestuous marriage (although some say Tiye was related to Amenhotep's mother Mutemweya) but he is certainly a descendant of incestuous people.
Even these three examples might be considered incestuous if there is in fact a family link. I'm not too sure about the syndrome, but I'd assume more people in the family would have it if it were due to incest. According to Bob Brier, Akhenaten was not depicted as part of the royal family when he was young. Does anyone have more info on this? If it's true, there must be a reason for it.
Meritaton Member # 2090
posted
He wasn't depicted but the reason for it is not really known. It may be because originally his brother Thutmose was the heir (but he died young).
posted 
