Was Akhenaten Moses ... and even more?

Tito101

New Member
Hi Tito, welcome to Postflaviana.

I think that somewhere on the forum we have discussed the moon aspect, and yes I think that it may indeed be related. The problem in creating a new monotheistic schema is that one must select one aspect, or name at least, over another or many others. The Jews retained such as the lunar calendar, but there are also various remnants of prior solar worship.
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."

My reaction was to the article on versions of the "Yahwe," and wanted to throw in another alternative (Iah = moon god).

I think that the most important question (using our specific lens of analysis) is what was the primary goal? Was it to create a new and unique exoteric religion for whatever purpose and/or whatever name, or to advance a specific god (in this case of the Sun) because there are true believers that must be satisfied?
If you look at Amun, he took on additional characteristics. From Amun-Ra to Amun-Min (the penis Amun). Why? May be with the change in the population make up to please more Min followers and keep the peace, conquest of (fertility) min followers, to show more universal characteristics to the one god (Amun), among others. The Bible is loaded with God taking on attributes.

It is our thesis, under the Genesis of the False Dialectic (Jews versus Gentiles) of Western Civilization, that Judaism was synthesized almost 100% as a inversion of prior cultural practices and laws (the 613 Mosaic Laws minus the 10 Commandments) and the moral inversions (from the Mesopotamian corpus) in the Genesis creation mythos. It is our thesis that Judaism was cynically created, for among other reasons, to act as a useful foil for geo-political purposes, and it remains so till today as discussed by James Carroll in his Constantine's Sword. To wit, Catholic theology and the papacy (until JPII) has overtly stated that the Jews are needed as just such useful foils for Christianity, therefore, please don't kill them all. It's all an advanced form of "divide and conquer".
Why the cynicism? It could have been syncretic, that is to say organic and evolutionary. The Canaanites could have adopted Egyptians gods (and they had many) and vice versa like the above monotheistic, the one, Amun taking on different characteristics. Looking back over the distant past without a paper trail of evidence it might seem like something mysterious is going on. This does not of course preclude political forces (elites) from favoring one over the other depending on perceived and actual threat to preserving and enhancing power and contributing to and guiding this process such as Ahkenaten's intentional promotion with solar Aten.

With the advent of Xianity, the lunar and solar aspects become somewhat more openly reunited, albeit still esoteric. See depictions of the crucifiction with the Sun and the Moon, also mimicking depictions on the typical tauroctonies of Mithraism.
I don't know about crucifiction. Weren't the tauroctonies bull slaughter scenes? Romans used solar and moon symbologies going back ways before Mithraism was popular. For example see Augustus Prima Porta breastplate that shows Aurora and Luna on each side as the sky-god Caelus rises to the heavens (sound familiar?).
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I don't know the answers to those questions. However, I did recently watch a video about pharaonic practices that appear to be focused on their reincarnation. The contemporary author, Paul Fitzgerald, claims that reincarnation (back into the same family) is a belief extending back into his Geraldine Norman ancestors, at least.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
My reaction was to the article on versions of the "Yahwe," and wanted to throw in another alternative (Iah = moon god).
How about this: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/ot-series-takeaways-so-far.1335/page-3#post-12084

I forgot that I had written that post on a related thread.

If you look at Amun, he took on additional characteristics. From Amun-Ra to Amun-Min (the penis Amun). Why? May be with the change in the population make up to please more Min followers and keep the peace, conquest of (fertility) min followers, to show more universal characteristics to the one god (Amun), among others. The Bible is loaded with God taking on attributes.
Yes that's possible with 'God', however, let's look at the example of what happened with the Canaanite El (their heavenly Father) and Yah___, one of the seventy or so siblings spawned by El. Somehow, they appear to have been merged into Jewish canon, where they even left us doublets retaining the original names used by the respective groups. These entities were merged somewhat as Osiris and Apis were merged into Serapis.

I believe that 'God' took on his 70 or so names, and respective attributions, via this similar merging process from sibling gods and possibly others. In this respect I think it was not likely organic syncretism, but rather programmatic, hence why the OT admits to the use of force at times, which the Christian Church also resorted to at times.
Why the cynicism? It could have been syncretic, that is to say organic and evolutionary.
Do you think that syncretism is only organic and evolutionary? What should the process name be if such is a intentional planned function of Church and State? For example with the Ptolomaic merger that created Serapis?

It is the central theme here at Postflaviana that Paulene Christianity, at least, was such a process fostered by the Roman imperium, most notably the Flavians (using their nexus to 'Chrestianity' [sic] (see the works of John Bartram).

I do realize that there are ostensibly good motives for the creation of a simplified and universal (catholic) religion, of which one can see Judaism as a prior phase followed by the Christian phase. Such providing for several social benefits such as cohesiveness. However, also being a stident of the ills of religions, including the Abrahamic ones, thus my cynicism.

I don't know about crucifiction. Weren't the tauroctonies bull slaughter scenes? Romans used solar and moon symbologies going back ways before Mithraism was popular. For example see Augustus Prima Porta breastplate that shows Aurora and Luna on each side as the sky-god Caelus rises to the heavens (sound familiar?).
My point in comparing the tauroctonies with artistic crucifiction scenes (that I show on that thread) is the identical placement of the Sun and the Moon with respect to what is going on below in the respective schemas.

Yes, you're absolutely correct about prior usages, which is consistent with what we propose. Christianity is nothing but amalgamated paganism, ... syncretized. And, to get us back on topic, such is why the popes and such imported all those Egyptian obelisks to Rome, instead of destroying them.
 
This is the first of a multi-part posting on the genetics of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

GENETICS OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY: PART 1

It's often said that the Egyptians followed matrilineal succession to determine their ruler, but that does not seem to be consistently true. There are anomalies in the Eighteenth Dynasty that suggest to me that there may be more to it. Several of the rulers had a commoner as Great Wife. Several took a foreigner. There was even a female ruler. None of these were typical sister or daughter pairings. What could be going on here?

This appears to me to be an ongoing effort to perpetuate the elite genetics of a royal family, aimed at maintaining a ‘royal’ genotype.

In addition to genotyping the rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty, this exercise will also touch on some of its mysteries and hanky panky. Why did rulers choose the mates they did? How did the Jews become involved in the Egyptian court? Who were the real parents of Akhenaton, Tutankhamen, and Smenkhkare?

Basic Genetics. For this discussion, I’ll denote the ‘royal’ genes as X and Y while ordinary genes are x and y. To help keep track of the geneflow, I’ll append a figure’s inferred genetics to the name. For example, Hatsepsut with two ‘royal’ X chromosomes is referred to as “Hatsepsut XX”.

The Y chromosome does not contain much genetic material with only 70 genes. But this includes the vital SRY gene that triggers male development. Others are activators for some of the 800+ genes on the companion X chromosome. The ‘royal’ X genes could be recessive, so that they would be active in XX females, but not Xx. Thus, expressing the ’royal’ qualities would require an individual to be XY ruler or an XX queen.

I’m not here to speculate on the advantages of possessing ‘royal’ genetics, but Gardiner’s theories of ‘dragon blood’ cover a lot of possibilities. Here it’s enough that the possessors of ‘royal’ genetics got some boost to constitution, intellect, or charisma that made them superior rulers.

Royal Lineage. An XY ruler marrying his XX sister or XX daughter would reliably result in progeny with 'royal' genes. If we start with a 'royal' genotype of XY for the ruler, then daughters will inherit his X chromosome and his sons will get his Y chromosome. To produce XY sons, an X chromosome will have to come from the mother and the surest way for that to happen is to pair with an XX bride.

As long as the lineage consists of XY rulers with XX brides, the 'royal' bloodline stays intact. Thus, the tendency for the rulers to marry close relatives. A full sister would have one chromosome from the father, which would be a 'royal' X, and another one from the mother who would also be XX. A stepsister is as good as a full sister, since both get a 'royal' X from the ruler's father, but her mother's contribution would be uncertain unless it could so be established that she had royal genes. A ruler’s mother would also be a good pairing.

Succession. The rule of succession was not that the ruler had to wed a daughter/wife of the prior ruler, but that the pairing would sustain the ‘royal’ line. To assume the crown, a ruler would have to establish his capacity to produce ‘royal’ offspring. Once crowned, he was free to later select someone else to bear his heirs, so long as they also promised ‘royal’ offspring.
 
GENETICS OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY: PART 2

Maintaining the Royal Line
. Sustaining the ‘royal’ Y chromosome in the bloodline is fairly straightforward as all legitimate male heirs will receive it. Risks to the bloodline would be the failure of a ruler to produce a male heir (Akhenaton), a cuckhold (Amenhotep III), or a usurper of common blood (Horemheb). Alas, in the Eighteenth Dynasty we have all three.

However, the line of 'royal' succession also begins to break down on the female side when non-royal genetics come in. If a ruler's wife has Xx chromosomes, then there is only a 50% chance that their children get the 'royal' X. It may not be possible to determine whether the chosen wife is XX or Xx until subsequent generations have been born and this could result in the pairing of an XY ruler with an Xx wife. Half of their children would continue on with the royal blood line, while half would have the ‘common' x chromosome.

Sons with xY genetics may not be recognizable, so the x chromosome could continue to be passed down to their daughters, making it increasingly difficult for sons in the royal line to find suitable mates. Or it may be that a ruler is unable to produce an XY son, leaving rulership by default to an xY son. If an xY son can be paired with a XX (or Xx) wife, then you can get an XY heir to restore the line. The danger is that the xY son with an Xx or xx mate may produce only xx daughters and the female side of the royal line could be lost. I believe this is what happened to the Eighteenth Dynasty.

In such a circumstance, it would be still possible to restore the royal line by importing an X chromosome from outside the royal family. Even if the foreign bride is only Xx, it will still be possible to produce XY sons and Xx daughters, who will then be able to produce XY sons and XX daughters. Therefore, when an outsider is brought into the royal family, it is worth examining her ancestry. We will look closely at Tiye.

The XY ruler also has the option of taking a common xx wife, as she will produce xY sons and Xx daughters, who can be interbred to get another XY ruler (a quarter of the time). This is obviously risky for the bloodline, which fails if the xY heir mates with an xx queen.

ASIDE: A complicating factor may be genetic drift resulting in variability of the 'royal' X chromosome through a mechanism known as 'crossing over' where during meiosis, two paired strands of DNA exchange some genetic material. If one of the strands is an x, then some of its genes may end up on the X side. The result is that the population of 'royal' X chromosomes will have some that are purer to original genetics and others that are less so. A wise ruler would shop around for the best mate, or accumulate a vast harem in order to better his odds.

ANOTHER ASIDE: Another complication comes from the inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, which comes through the female line. If this a factor in royalty (recall the Gilgamesh claimed to be 2/3 divine), then an imported wife would not necessarily possess it. However, if there is a female remnant of the original royal line, even with degraded xx chromosomes, it is possible to reconstruct the royal line by producing xY and Xx offspring from these foreign mothers and mating them to get an XY son and an Xx daughter with the ‘royal’ mitochondrial DNA, who could then produce XX daughters.

Managing the Royal Line. Now, I’m not saying that the ancient Egyptians understood genetics. They were probably thinking in terms of mingling of blood and going by appearances – hair or skull shape. Male heirs would be recognized to have the characteristics of the father. However, a ruler might not be able to differentiate between a potential XX bride and her Xx sister – or worse, he might prefer a comely xx commoner.

Over time, a randy ruler pumps DNA into a wide pool of concubines, leading to a population of illegitimate xY sons and Xx daughters. The xY sons would either be eliminated as potential rivals to the heir or groomed as backups, making xY sons scarce and under eye.

The X chromosome is messier, since there are three female combinations: XX, Xx, and xx. The Xx concubine daughters could eventually spread the X chromosome, even occasionally yielding an XX. These would be the most desirable concubines as they could produce XY and XX offspring for the XY ruler. But there would be uncertainty as to whether a concubine is actually XX or just Xx. A harem could implement a selective breeding program aimed at producing XX brides. The ruler would occasionally visit the harem with the sons discarded and daughters adopted. Privileged nobles might occasionally be rewarded with brides from the harem, but most would kept for royal use. Some might be sent to foreign rulers to seal relations, but this would be quite rare as even an Xx daughter would be able to produce XX daughters by her Xy sons.
 
GENETICS OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY: PART 3

Against the background in Parts 1 and 2, let’s now look at the genetics of the Eighteenth Dynasty. For family relations, I am going by Wikipedia and I beg anyone who knows better to set me straight. I also go with Ahmed Osman’s identification of Joseph and Yuya, the idea that Moses was Akhenaton, and that the Pharaoh was the true father of Isaac. These are controversial takes, I realize, but not out of bounds here at Postflaviana.

Ahmose I and Amenhotep I. Coming in we have the Eighteenth Dynasty’s founder Ahmose I, straight out of the Seventeenth Dynasty, so we will assume he is a pedigreed XY ruler. His son Amenhotep I would receive his ‘royal’ Y chromosome and he takes a sister-wife Ahmose-Meritamun-XX so Amenhotep I also gets a ‘royal’ X, so we are still good.

Thutmose I and Hatsepsut. Now things get interesting. Though Amenhotep I was XY, his wife Senseneb-xx was apparently a commoner, making his heir Thutmose I-xY. Thus, it was essential for Thutmose I to have an XX or Xx mate. He marries Ahmose, daughter of Amose I or possibly Amenhotep I. Her mother may have been Ahmose-Nefertari, sister wife of Ahmose I. “Ahmose was never called a King's Daughter. This fact creates some doubt about these theories about Ahmose's royal family connections. However, Ahmose did hold the title King's Sister. This may suggest that she was a sister of pharaoh Thutmose.” (Wiki) In any case, she looks very much to be an XX. She will become the mother of Hatshepsut, an Xx. Or is she? If Hatsepsut’s father was Thutmose I, she would indeed have to be Xx. But if her real father was Amenhotep I-XY, then she is XX. I’m inclined to think she was XX because she was able to assume the throne, but either way, the plan is for her to produce an XY son. Alas, Thutmose I can only come through with Thutmose II-xY, fathered with another commoner Mutnofret-xx.

Thutmose II, Thutmose III, and Amenhotep II. Thutmose II-xY is paired with his sister/aunt Hatshepsut-Xx/XX in hopes of producing an XY heir, but all they get is the daughter Neferure, who would be an Xx. His heir Thutmose III is by another lesser wife, Iset-xx, so he will be another xY. Hatshepsut is the real power and sets about putting things right.

First Thutmose III-xY was paired with Satiah, who became his royal wife, but the to-be heir Amenemhat died early. Thutmose III-xY went on to father Amenhotep II by Merytre-Hatshepsut, who is said to have been of noble birth and therefore might be Xx, also a possibility for Satiah-Xx. But it is likely Amenhotep II ended up as yet another in the line of xY rulers.

Amenhotep II-xY paired with Tiaa-xx, yet another commoner, so now the bloodline is in deep peril. Parents who are xY and xx will produce only xY sons and xx daughters – the ‘royal’ X has been lost! (And it might be even worse. Had there been an incident of infidelity in recent generations, the royal Y may have been lost as well. A possible opportunity would be Iset appearing to father Thutmose III after Hatsepsut became sterile. Hatsepsut could have arranged for her mentor and Iset’s father Ahmose Pen Nekhbet to covertly serve as the father.)

Thutmose IV. Thutmose IV is an xY needing an X and there are no proven XX brides in the royal family so it looks very much as if Thutmose IV went looking around for a foreign XX or Xx princess. Along comes Mutemwiya, said to have been a Mittani, daughter of Artatama. But she is also said by Cyril Aldred to be the sister of Yuya. (And she’s famous for being on the Colossus of Memnon.) If Yuya is Joseph, then this the Jewish ‘royal’ line and Mutemwiya would be Joseph’s sister Dinah-XX, daughter of Jacob-XY and inheriting his X.

ASIDE: Looking back at the Jewish bloodline, we can start with Abraham as XY and Sarah as XX. Their Pharaoh could have been Amenhotep II who ended up paired with a commoner and would have preferred Sarah as a royal mate. If Isaac is indeed the son of Pharaoh. he will have the Egyptian ‘royal’ Y and the Jewish ‘royal’ X. (His brother Ishmael will have Abraham’s Jewish ‘royal’ Y and an Egyptian ‘royal’ X from Hagar.) Isaac’s XY genetics would give him a superior position over Thutmose IV’s xY.

Isaac XY will pair with Rebecca, granddaughter of Abraham’s brother Nahor. If Rebecca is Xx, then it could be that Esau comes out xY while Jacob is XY (birthright). With Leah-Xx, Jacob fathers Dinah-XX (along with Levi-XY and Judah-xY) and with the more desirable Rachel-XX he fathers Joseph-XY (and Benjamin-XY). From his other wives, he gets a gang of xYs.

ANOTHER ASIDE: Interestingly, there is another individual whose history matches Yuya’s. This is Aper-El, also said to be vizier to Amenhotep III and Akhenaton with a prestigious wife and an influential son. Like Yuya. he had titles of Commander of the Chariots and God’s Father. However, the tomb of Aper-El has been found. Perhaps this was a brother of Joseph, or Jacob himself? (Jacob was buried in Egypt and supposedly returned to Canaan, but the bones were intrusted to Moses.) Another possibility is that the KV46 bodies taken to be Yuya and Tuya were secretly Ay and Tiye.

Amenhotep III and Tiye. Now we come to the power couple of the famed Amenhotep III and the fascinating Tiye, daughter of Yuya and Tuya. We suppose Yuya was Joseph-XY, so Tuya would be Asenath, daughter of Dinah-XX and her defiler prince Shechem-xy. This makes Tuya Xx. (There is an odd chance the Tuya received a second X chromosome through Shechem. Of course, Shechem was an ancient city and the first capital of Israel, so there could be some ‘royal’ genes there.)

Amenhotep III made his childhood sweetheart Tiye his Great Wife. To do so, he would need to represent that she was of ‘royal’ stock, but this could be done by pointing to Tuya’s X and not raising controversy over Yuya’s X. Tiye was remarkable in that she had X chromosomes from both sides of the ‘royal’ family. It would have been hard to deny this powerful woman. But to appoint her co-regent, Amenhotep III would have to reveal the source of her other X.

To become ruler, Amenhotep III-xY had married Sitamun-XX, his infant daughter by Tiye and made her his Great Wife. It’s possible the marriage was not consummated. It was necessary because Tiye’s pedigree was under question, being daughter of the foreigner Yuya. And Yuya would not want it revealed that he was of ‘royal’ descent until he was able to take the throne, lest he be viewed as a challenger, so Tiye appeared to be Xx.

Their first son Thutmose V-XY died before his father and succession fell to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton). Smenkhkare-xY may also have been a son of Amenhotep III-xY and Sitamun-XX. He too wed Sitamun and ruled for a short time. Sitamun disappeared at the end of Amenhotep III’s reign and though she had a tomb in the Valley of Kings, she was not buried there so there is no body to test.
 
Last edited:
GENETICS OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY: PART 4

Akhenaton
. A central question is whether Amenhotep III-xY was really the father of Akhenaton-XY. Had he become impotent, the bloodline would be in serious danger and Tiye would need a discreet ‘royal’ mate. Could Akhenaton’s father be Ay-XY, her brother? That would secretly restore the royal line as Akhenaton would receive Ay’s Y along with Tiye’s X. But alas, Akhenaton had only a passel of daughters – and more daughters by his eldest daughters -- but no sons, so whatever male genetics he possessed were not passed on. He had failed in the ruler’s duty to produce an heir. In any case, Akhenaton must have had his mother’s X, so these daughters would have been XX.

Nefertiti. The background of Akhenaton’s Great Wife Nefertiti is uncertain. One view is that she was a daughter of Ay, but she does not look as though she inherited semitic genes from Yuya. In fact, she looks like a classical Greek, though this could be just a flattering artistic portrayal. She is said to be a daughter of Ay and Tiye, but there is no hard record for that. More likely she was adopted by them. Speculation is also that she was Mittani. There are not many images of Mittani women, but she does not resemble them either. Several rulers had been gifted with Mittani princesses and none of these was a match for Nefertiti. Either way, she must have been thought to be XX to allow her to assume the co-regency. Her daughter Ankhesenpaten XX would be wed to Tut and later to Ay. (There is an interesting debate as to whether Neferititi ascended to the throne as Smenkhkare, but that’s not pertinent here because Smenkhkare is not known to have had children.)

Kiya. To make Kiya his Great Wife, Akhenaton would have to present her as a ‘royal’ princess, going back into the Mittani-based X line to establish her pedigree. The two ruling houses had been intermarrying for generations, so it would be credible that she might be of ‘royal’ genetics if her mother had been an exported Egyptian. (Recall that an Xx mother can produce an XX daughter by mating with her Xy son.) Mittani records do not go into the parentage of their queens, but it is possible that an Egyptian princess had been given to a Mittani king and an X had been added to their royal line. So it is at least possible Kiya was XX. The suggestion is also that Kiya was somehow disgraced as many of her artifacts have been found defaced or appropriated for others’ tombs. Another possibility is that she died giving birth to Tut.

ASIDE: Exiled, Akhenaton starts another family in Midian. He becomes Moses and marries Zipporah, daughter of Rueul, fathering Gershom and Eliezer. After nothing but daughters in Egypt, now he has two bouncing boys – Barbiero has more on them. Maybe Nefertiti was unable to have sons. What about Zipporah? There is some conjecture about her being a Cushite, but I suspect that she and Rueul were Kenites, part of a ruling elite among the Midianites. (I’ll go into that more some other time.) Whatever genetic component Zipporah contributed, the boys got Akhenaton’s ‘royal’ Y. And now that he has produced ‘royal’ sons, our hero is back in the game for rulership and can head home to make his final play. We know how that turns out.
 
Last edited:
GENETICS OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY: PART 5

Who the Hell is Tut?
This guy makes no sense! There is all manner of weirdness about his famous tomb. For all the imagery everywhere in Amarna, there’s no clear indication of who his parents were. Or of his relationship to Akhenaton and Nefertiti. His co-regency is not well understood. As a ruler, he seems to have been a puppet for Ay.

Was Tut’s father really Akhenaton? He does not seem to be featured in the loving portraits of the royal family seen all over Amarna as you would expect for a royal son and heir. As a pliable youth, he was mentored by Ay, so that would be my candidate. Producing a ‘royal’ son with the Jewish Y would be a hedge against the loss of the Egyptian Y as Akhenaton’s male potency came into question – and another card for Ay to play when his turn came.

Tut’s mother may well have been Nefertiti, but there are indications that favor Akhenaton’s other wife Kiya, who is believed to be another Mittani. It is also said that Kiya was the mother of Beketaten. She is deemed to be the ‘younger lady’ of KV55 and by genetic analysis, a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. However, the genetic evidence cited for Tut’s parentage is based on the identification of the body in KV55 with Akhenaton, which could not be true if Akhenaton went on to become Moses. Graham Philips makes a good case that it was actually Smenkhkare in KV55. All the genetic analysis really shows is that Tut was a close relative of the KV55 body.

Tut had only two stillborn daughters with Ankesenpaten, leaving no one to carry on the bloodline so the Eighteenth Dynasty is now in dire trouble.

Had Nefertiti been immediately welcomed as the Great Wife, it would not have been necessary for Akhenaton to marry Kiya. Maybe this was a guard against both being Xx, or her Mittani origins were more acceptable than Nefertiti’s as Nefertiti was being proffered as a daughter of Ay while Kiya could claim to have an XX Mittani pedigree.

ASIDE: According to Velikovsky, Beketaten was the love child of Akhenaton (Oedipus) and Tiye (Jocasta). This would explain why she’s not posed with Akhenaton’s other daughters. Wiki lists her as a daughter of Tiye, but not of Amenhotep III.

Ay. The last hope for the royal line now falls to Ay-XY, provided he can find a ‘royal’ wife. The most logical pairing would be his sister Tiye-XX, but she had died during Akhenaton’s reign. The best available choice was Tut’s widow Ankensenpaten-XX. (Ellis has this pair setting off to Ireland in SCOTA.)

Ay had inherited his Y chromosome from Yuya, not the prevailing Egyptian dynasty. It’s interesting to consider who might have known of Sarah’s deception. At her departure, her Pharaoh (Amenhotep II-xY) may not have known whether she was bearing a son or daughter, but would want to track a potential XY heir. So there would be a record in Egypt, but it would be kept secret. Abraham may have been deceived, believing Isaac to be his. The truth could have been discovered by Joseph/Yuya in Egyptian records then passed on to Ay, who could use the information to legitimate himself as ruler. Otherwise, his ascension would look like a naked coup. Marrying Ankhesenpaten would seal the deal as her XX would guarantee ‘royal’ offspring, even though the sons would be carrying Yuya’s Y. Early in Tut’s reign, Horemheb had been named successor, so Ay would have had to maneuver his way to the throne. (The circumstances of his exile are taken up by Ellis in SCOTA.)

The End. As the Eighteenth Dynasty wound down, Ay attempted to preserve the ‘royal’ succession by putting Smenkhkare and then Meritaten on the throne, but eventually he married Ankesenpaten and claimed rulership for himself. By now it was evident that the ‘royal’ line of Ahmose I had been totally lost, so the revelation of Sarah’s secret trist would support his claim, no matter how much it would offend the Egyptian nobility.

Ay’s death is not recorded and he is presumed to be buried in Tut’s original tomb WV23, but the tomb was badly defaced and no remains were recovered. Ay had planned for his son Nakhtmin by his wife Iuy (aka Tey) to succeed him, but the throne was usurped by general Horemheb. Iuy had been the nurse of Nefertiti, supporting the adoption theory. I suspect Horemheb’s claim was forged since he had no ‘royal’ genetics and could not even be named regent.

With the ascension of Horemheb-xy, the royal line finally came grinding to an end. He married Mutnedjmet, a sister of Nefertiti. She could have been a daughter of Ay and Iuy. There were no sons, so the end had come at last. The Eighteenth Dynasty had completely failed.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
This is pretty interesting Charles.

One might suppose that a series of recessive traits in a royal line might be a good way to self-observe if the line purity was being maintained. This is generally what DeVere was talking about with his red-haired, green-eyed clan. Of course, these traits I believe extend beyond the XY chromosomes, but if we are talking genetic origins where adherence had been strictly observed then recessive traits outside of the XY would track with those inside the XY, thus providing proxy markers I would think.

And, as I've hinted at before, the 18th Dynasty lines may have had an inherently close link to the Mittani -- via the Hyksos phenomenon. In other words, they are all Out of Urfa, before there was Out of Egypt.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
This interview with Ellis was posted earlier today. It starts with discussing Akhenaton and his second wife as the Biblical Adam and Eve (from Ellis' Eden in Egypt). It then moves on to the Ellis' Exodus interpretation, where he has Akhy as Aaron and his brother Tuthmoses as Moses.

I believe that the (legacy of the) Amarna court likely adopted the prior Adamu narrative from Mesopotamia, which the Egyptians were well aware of. Similarly, the later Medici family of Florence liked to play the key roles in Biblical plays about the Passion Story or the Nativity, even getting themselves painted into artworks like The Adoration of the Magi.

 
Last edited:

Tito101

New Member
Good post and inline with what I was thinking too.

I believe that 'God' took on his 70 or so names, and respective attributions, via this similar merging process from sibling gods and possibly others. In this respect I think it was not likely organic syncretism, but rather programmatic, hence why the OT admits to the use of force at times, which the Christian Church also resorted to at times.
Yes this happened throughout history. When a rival king/queen wanted to vanquish his or her enemies, he/she would remove the god(s) and bring them into their territory and maybe even take ownership of those gods into their own. I would claim this is still syncretism because there was something there prior to adoption and modification. The new or modified god wasn't created out of thin air.

Do you think that syncretism is only organic and evolutionary? What should the process name be if such is a intentional planned function of Church and State? For example with the Ptolomaic merger that created Serapis?
Serapis is an example of syncretism being created out of Egyptian animal form gods into human form for consumption by the greeks. The Bull in Egyptian mythology was the earthly form or intermediary of Osiris and the Egyptians; you can think of it as a sun-moon duality god. The greeks had enough practice with Serapis by the time the Christ god appeared.


It is the central theme here at Postflaviana that Paulene Christianity, at least, was such a process fostered by the Roman imperium, most notably the Flavians (using their nexus to 'Chrestianity' [sic] (see the works of John Bartram).
Could be. The Flavians were Isis worshipers unlike the Julii clan who threw Isis worshipers out of Rome when they got out of line. What were they called? Chrestians? OK. There was significant internecine conflict between the Jews, Greeks, and Egyptians during that time which spilt over into the religions, a legacy of which is is christianity.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yes this happened throughout history. When a rival king/queen wanted to vanquish his or her enemies, he/she would remove the god(s) and bring them into their territory and maybe even take ownership of those gods into their own. I would claim this is still syncretism because there was something there prior to adoption and modification. The new or modified god wasn't created out of thin air.
Yes, this is syncretism, no argument here. When we transition from mere 'kings' and 'queen's to expansionary emperors (imperialism) then the syncretory and/or assimilation processes would seem to become institutionalized. Something such as Pontifex Maximus, Julius Caesar would clearly understand.
Serapis is an example of syncretism being created out of Egyptian animal form gods into human form for consumption by the greeks. The Bull in Egyptian mythology was the earthly form or intermediary of Osiris and the Egyptians; you can think of it as a sun-moon duality god. The greeks had enough practice with Serapis by the time the Christ god appeared.
But these Greeks (the Ptolomids) created Serapis, for a purpose beyond just religious consumerism right?
Could be. The Flavians were Isis worshipers unlike the Julii clan who threw Isis worshipers out of Rome when they got out of line. What were they called? Chrestians? OK. There was significant internecine conflict between the Jews, Greeks, and Egyptians during that time which spilt over into the religions, a legacy of which is is christianity.
Ah, Christ, the solar avatar for the imperial caesars and the pharaohs.

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/from-chrest-to-christ.2462/
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/from-cleopatra-to-christ.2515/
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
This interview with Ellis was posted earlier today. It starts with discussing Akhenaton and his second wife as the Biblical Adam and Eve (from Ellis' Eden in Egypt). It then moves on to the Ellis' Exodus interpretation, where he has Akhy as Aaron and his brother Tuthmoses as Moses.
I was watching a video discussing Dan Gibson's theory about Petra (Becca) being the original Mecca (and qibla direction) for Islam. They mentioned that the Quran claims that Adam and Eve took refuge in Becca after being expelled from paradise.

Islamic lore also has it that Moses took refuge and ended his days in the area of Petra. The Midianites are also from this more 'northern' region than is typically accorded for them. And these Petra Nabateans are still found as players into the Jewish War period.
 

Seeker

Active Member
I believe that the (legacy of the) Amarna court likely adopted the prior Adamu narrative from Mesopotamia, which the Egyptians were well aware of. Similarly, the later Medici family of Florence liked to play the key roles in Biblical plays about the Passion Story or the Nativity, even getting themselves painted into artworks like The Adoration of the Magi.
Thank You for that explanation, that was another sticking point for me about Ellis, I could not reconcile the Biblical Adam and Eve with the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, but, as usual, your clarification makes it more palatable to me. From memory, I believe that Roman Piso associates "Adam and Eve" with earlier Egyptian rulers, there seems to be a pattern here.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
We should remember that, back in those times and in contrast to today, memesis / imitatio was considered the highest form of literary composition, rather than inovatio. This would especially be the case if one's intention was to preserve some valuable mythic / theological concept while providing it with a new cultural gloss to the mostly unwitting audiences.
 

Seeker

Active Member
Could an offshoot of this "memesis/imitatio" be calling George Washington "The Father of Our Country", and depicting his apotheosis (ala Julius Caesar)? Also, like Caesar, he supposedly turned down a crown, and if he had run for a third term and won, instead of retiring after his second term, but still passed away in 1799, he would literally have been President "for life" (he declined a third term precisely because of this possibility). However, again like Julius Caesar, after leaving the Presidency (as Caesar would have left Rome for Parthia but for his assassination), he was Commander-in-Chief of the Armies from July 13, 1798 until the day he passed away in bed (this time like the "son" of Julius, Augustus Caesar), so was he really so "retired" and powerless?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I would guess that it is indeed part of the same general tradition, which also quietly communicates linkage over time.

Your reminding us of Julius' planning for a military campaign against Parthia now butts up against the idea regarding his secret daughter, Thea Muse Ourania, ... and the idea that his assassination seems quite possibly another fake event. The latter which begs the question of where he might have ended his days. Quietly preparing the way (as the supreme bridge builder) for his illustrious offspring?
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
Charles N. Pope, on his "Domain of Man" site, has Julius Caesar heading East anyway, after his faked assassination, and under other aliases he rules as the "Great King of the World" (the supreme bridge builder, as you put it), and locally with an army of Indo-SCYTHIANS. Also surviving, Caesarion will eventually succeed him in that position, with Augustus getting Rome, as in conventional history. As for George Washington, mainstream historians believe him possibly to descend in the male line, via England-Scotland-Ireland, to Niall of the Nine Hostages, who himself was supposed to be of the male line back to Scythia.
 

Seeker

Active Member
So when Mark Antony and Cleopatra proclaimed Caesarion "King of Kings", the son and legitimate heir of the Divine Julius, at the Donations of Alexandria, they were disclosing "truth in plain sight" (the Elite "Rules of Play", according to Tupper Saussy), because Caesarion actually was all of these things that the "unwitting audiences" of Romans did not understand, and who were offended by this public announcement from a seemingly renegade Roman and a royal Egyptian harlot. Of course this truth was only made public for a limited time, it was obliterated less than 4 years later by the seemingly violent "deaths" of Caesarion, Mark Antony, and Cleopatra, with Augustus given the "consolation prize" of the Roman Empire [!!!] (did he not ask for applause on his deathbed for playing a good part?). Contrary to conventional history (according to Charles N. Pope, anyway) the true dynastic rulership of the world was from the East, not Rome, and at this particular period of history, specifically from the pairing of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. Ralph Ellis acknowledges this bloodline up to a point, but does not go as far as Charles N. Pope, who also includes Josephus and the Flavians as secret branches descending from the Uber-Elite mating of Divine Julius and Goddess Cleopatra.
 
Top