*

+
 On the Collaborative Nature of the Historical Enterprise
.
/ Forum > Guardian's Egypt's Ancient Egypt Bulletin Board /
/ Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / Topic > Tombs and Temples /
/ Subtopic > The Complete TEMPLES OF ANCIENT EGYPT /
.
> On 7Feb James M. Vance wrote: I hope this discussion is
> not going to degenerate into another black/white argument.
.
 On 9Feb2002 textman replies: I don't think that there's
much danger of that from this end, James. As far as I'm
concerned, that so-called "question" is a non-issue.
.
> For your information, textman, there is absolutely NO
> archaeological evidence that Akhenaton was black, just
> as there is NO archaeological proof that he was white.
.
 Now here is a scholarly cop-out if ever there was one! The
mighty experts are *offended* that a pharaoh like that should be
a black man, so they scamper to assure everyone that "there is
absolutely NO archaeological evidence that Akhenaton was black".
Talk about nonsense! I have on my desktop a wallpaper of a
beautiful bust of Akhenaton. It is scarred and damaged (ie. over
the right eyebrow), to be sure, but is also entirely lacking for
any of the fanciful characteristics of divinity that are imposed
on other images of other pharaohs. This is a MAN I'm looking at
across a gulf of more than 30 centuries wide. This is a 3D-photo-
realistc image of an actual flesh and blood man, by golly. And
a black man to boot! I have no doubt of this, and no one can
convince me that I'm projecting or imagining something that's
not there. Even a blind man could see the truth (ie. with his
fingers)!
.
 Yes, it takes a special kind of scholar to deny something that
blatantly obvious. In other words, there is more than enough
evidence to show that Akhenaton was of "mixed breeding". There
just happens to also be far too much eagerness on the part of
the experts to conceal the facts and evidence, rather than
reveal it. What is it with these guys anyway? Do they want
exclusive ownership over knowledge and truth?!
.
> To say that RII was insane is a common practice with fringe
> -believers -- divert the conversation when a direcct reply
> to a question disagrees with your beliefs.
.
 Sorry, James. I was just joking about that. I take Rameses II
very seriously; and I certainly don't wish to give the impression
that he can be so easily dismissed by simply stamping an 'Abby
Normal' tag on his forehead. After all, pharaohs are by definition
beyond the norm ... So give me a question worth answering, and
I'll do my best to make it a worthy answer :)
.
 btw: Diverting the flow of any rational inquiry usually involves
moving attention, focus, and energy away from relevant things
and onto irrelevant things. Normally these irrelevant things are
presented so as to appear to be relevant things. Right? So why
even make an issue of the black pharaoh's mixed breeding when
everyone acknowledges that fact? Could it be to divert attention
away from the historical meaning inherent within the 'raw facts'?
.
> Bern was stating facts --
.
  Facts heavily laced with insults and dismissive attitude maybe?
.
> Akhenaton DID have Amon's name removed from many
> inscriptions, including his father's name. He DID believe
> he was the living son of his god. His religion DID NOT
> last long after his death. He was the biggest instrument
> in the loss of the Egyptian Empire.
.
 If these are all plain historical facts, that is well and good;
and I have no objections. But now comes the problem of saying what
all the facts and evidence add up to. History is making sense of
all these confused and mystifying little historical-facts. History
is telling a coherent story that is *based* upon the facts, but
focuses rather on the meaning of the men and events long since
vanished. So what do you mean when you say that Akhenaton
caused the downfall and ruin of the great and glorious Egyptian
Empire? Do you mean that all the actions of all the incompetent
pharaohs that ruled after his death is somehow his fault? Or
maybe you mean that had Akhenaton been a wiser man he would
have trashed the reform at once, and hurried forth to Asia and
Syria to put down the rising might of young and hungry nations?
.
   Or ... wut?
.
> If you want to ramble on about your theories,
> give us some proof.
.
 I prefer to speak about the evidence rather than about 'proofs'
as such, because I am not sure that the "proof" you speak of
even exists, friend James. Personally, I don't operate that way.
I rather model my methodology along the lines of Einstein's
famous thought experiments. A virtual model of a very fast
rocket ship will have to do when the real one's not available.
Right? So since we can't actually go back in time to interview
Akhenaton face to face, we'll just have to make do with a virtual
model of the black pharaoh. You see how that works? You just
keep feeding facts and evidence into the model until movement
occurs and then you see what happens. If the virtual king
does something impossible or ridiculous, then the model is
malfunctioning and requires some readjustment and fine-tuning.
Then you just introduce some more details, and better facts, and
more reliable evidence, and you wait and see what happens.
Experimentation! There's the ticket. It's not as good as a time
machine, I'll be the first to admit, but it's the best I can do
for now.
.
> Books written by accredited Egyptologists, excavation reports
> -- anything that shows your off the wall ideas to be true.
.
 Well, I do rely somewhat on authorities like Freud, Breasted,
R.Anthes, Thomas Mann, Hornung, G.Rempel ... and even H.G.
Wells maybe? :D  Hey, I know what. Let's make it so that scholars
and researchers can build upon the discoveries and achievements
of previous teachers and authorities such that the historical
enterprise will ALWAYS be moving forward. Lord help us all if it
ever stops moving forward!
x

+
>> On 7Feb Bern say: Textman, I will respond to factual debate,
>> but I can not argue against suppositions and nonsense.
.
  textman replies: Oh yeah? Sounds like you're taking the easy
way out to me, Bern. I dare say that facts, assumptions,
suppositions, unwarranted conclusions, attractive fancies,
misaligned arguments, haphazard reasoning, and yes even
nonsense, are all aggressive partakers in any and all serious
discussions. Hells bells man, how could there even *be* serious
discussions in the first place if no one was allowed to field
an off the wall concept now and then. The way you talk makes it
sound like no one has ever heard any of this stuff before. I
hasten to assure you that this is NOT the case. Even a non-
historian type like Sigmund Freud recognized (in 'Moses and
Monotheism') that Akhenaton had considerable influence on the
prophet-prince of Egypt.
.
  Since then, some scholars (eg. Breasted, T.Mann) have over-
come the initial negative reaction to Amenophis IV, and have
even offered some remarkably positive evaluations of the
heretic reformer. One scholar (Rudolf Anthes, 1952) even went
so far as to publish this encouraging insight: "To us, Akhenaten
seemed to have been the prophet of a religion for which his
time was not yet ripe." This, in a nutshell, is the heart of my
position, and if it seems nonsense to you, that's too bad, but
I can still take comfort in knowing that at least some few good
scholars actually support my views! ... somewhat 
.
   - the one who wasn't really expecting **that* - textman ;>
x