21 May 2009
Pharaoh Akhenaten’s Unusual Physique: Proof of Alien DNA?
Posted by MSH under: Ancient Astronauts; Ancient Egypt; Cult Archaeology .
Uh . . . nope. Well . . . it does have something to do with genetics . . . but not from space aliens.
Fortunately, we have something called . . . science . . . to help us understand what may have been going on with Akhenaten (and other members of the 18th dynasty).
An interesting 2009 technical article from the professional medical journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, addresses Akhenaten and others in his lineage. You can beam it up here.
9 Comments so far...
Ancient Elongated Skulls: Alien Remains? | PaleoBabble Says:
19 July 2009 at 9:39 PM.
[...] “Yeah, but what about Akehnaten and those weird skulls?” I already blogged that here, posting a 2009 medical journal article on [...]
Rosaleen Says:
15 May 2010 at 11:48 AM.
What proof is available to support the claim that Moses was Akhenaten? Claim made by Laurence Gardener, and Michael Tsarion.
MSH Says:
15 May 2010 at 4:18 PM.
None; Zero. Gardiner and Tsarion wouldn’t know ancient text analysis, archaeology, or ancient Egyptian (or Israelite) religion if they collectively bit them on their a**. Chronology is wrong, religion is wrong, no textual support, no archaeological evidence that makes the chronology possible, etc. Other than that they’re on to something.
Cooper Says:
9 July 2010 at 12:09 PM.
I wouldn’t say Akhenaten’s unusual physique is proof of alien DNA. I’m not sure if anyone is calling it absolute proof. It can viewed as evidence at best. Just as the linked PDF cannot be called proof that Egypt’s 18th Dynasty did in fact suffer from disorders such as gynecomastia or aromatase excess syndrome. The paper merely provides evidence. So either way, speculation should be welcome in this case, not ridiculed.
Upon looking at several images of people suffering from the aforementioned disorders, I don’t see a resemblance to the features portrayed in reliefs and statues of the 18 Dynasty Egyptians in question. The disorders seem to produce a sickly, or somewhat goofy look (aesthetically speaking) which would unlikely invoke leadership over a large population. The features portrayed in imagery of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, et al look much more elegant, proportional, and functional. This could have been the result of the artist taking certain liberties, but I just don’t see enough resemblance to persuade me.
These are my opinions and I’m not convinced either way on this issue. But I lean toward this still being a mystery.
Also, it would be prudent for the author of this website to present material like this with a little less condescension and hubris. It doesn’t help his argument. For me it’s a big turn-off.
MSH Says:
11 July 2010 at 6:24 PM.
Here’s what you need for the alien speculation to *not* deserve ridicule: you need a real alien (live or dead) to have existed and be on earth — i.e., you’d need hard data that such beings exist and have come here. But what we have instead is more speculation. If science could tell us with a high degree of certitude (and actually produce the biological data for it) that aliens exist, THEN they would have to prove they could interbreed with homo sapiens — only THEN would your speculation deserve to be on the table. But right now you have a speculation bolstered by another speculation — and that does not deserve serious attention.
Cooper Says:
12 July 2010 at 12:17 PM.
Based on your logic presented above, the idea of Dark Matter or Dark Energy should be off the table and thus be deserving of ridicule. But it’s not. It’s a highly respected idea in scientific circles. Also, though I do not deny the theory of evolution, apparently, it too should be cast aside and ridiculed since it cannot be observed as such on the macro level. It is only a theory constructed on evidence and speculation. But none of that evidence can be labeled ‘definitive’. Science still can’t agree on whether or not we’ve actually found the so-called ‘missing link’.
I personally don’t think anyone or anything *deserves* ridicule. Here is where you and I (and many others) part. Furthermore, who exactly determines what does and doesn’t deserve serious attention? You? National Geographic? institutional science in general? Obviously you think they DO deserve serious attention in that you’ve dedicated several websites to these issues. Or do you feel it’s your duty to ‘correct’ those who chose not to look to the almighty corporatized, mainstream scientific priesthood for definitive truths and legitimate intellectual pursuits?
I sense a certain fanaticism in your posts. You have apparently decided at some point that if someone has the proper title or credentials, and they’re affiliated with just the right institutions, then their information is trustworthy and truthful. You trust in ’science’ like the fundamentalist Christian trusts in Jesus. As if science is infallible and without corruption or agenda outside its stated purpose. You put faith in the filtered knowledge of others to shape your view of the world and subsequently grant yourself authority to deem someone correct, incorrect, worthy of ridicule or worthy of attention.
Mainstream, corporatized science has proven time and again that it often presents skewed research and outright lies to serve (or preserve) a larger socio-economic agenda. This is not to say that all science is distorted. But I feel it’s been compromised enough to justify a search for answers outsides it’s current influence. At the end of the day, speculation is all we have. Everything else is essentially rumor. Peer-reviewed or otherwise. How can we call something absolute truth, when we haven’t personally experienced it or have at least been directly involved in it’s revelation?
I will most-likely decide to not reply or comment any further. We are coming from two very different directions in our approach to knowledge. It would be a futile attempt to try to convince you any further that what you’re promoting is essentially a form of authoritarianism. It comes in several forms: religion, government, and sadly, science. The latter could easily be corrected if we learn to make the distinction between the scientific method, which should be encouraged, practised, and respeced on all levels and institutional (authoritarian, economically-driven, conservative, status-quo maintaining) Science, which is limited to the chosen few in whom we are expected to believe without question (unless, of course, you wish to be ridiculed).
MSH Says:
12 July 2010 at 7:39 PM.
I don’t agree on the dark matter analogy. Dark matter is a working hypothesis based not on zero evidence, but very real gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation. In other words, there is something testable here that needs an explanation. An illegitimate explanation, worthy of ridicule, might be “those gravitational effects might be caused by a passing alien mothership.” That is worthy of ridicule since there is no proof of intelligent aliens of any size, much less something that large. The theory of dark matter has a basis in that science has demonstrated as fact the idea that there can be unseen material causes for other effects. And so it becomes a hypothesis.
When it comes to Akhenaten, for the ET DNA hypothesis to not be worthy of consideration, we need to know that there are ETs. This is an entirely reasonable bar of legitimacy. If it isn’t then there are no scientific controls. Like it or not, science is important. You use it every day (frankly we all live and die by it every day, whether we think that closely about it or not). There is a difference between speculations that have scientific analogues (dark matter) and those that have no such analogues (ET DNA in an otherwise human specimen).
Flag-Waver Says:
6 August 2010 at 10:40 AM.
You have a good point, that there is no distinct proof of alien life except found on earth. However, what of the Martian Meteorite? What of the amino acids found on the Martial Lander rocks? Just because you cannot see it does not mean it does not exist. If that were the case, then Einstein’s theory of relativity is false because it cannot be actively scientifically proven, as well as many other theories that we hold as true.
Personally, I do not know if there is alien ancestry involved in Akhenaten. Until an in-depth investigation can be done on his remains, then it is a mystery. The lack of evidence does not prove a theory, all it proves is that you need more study.
MSH Says:
7 August 2010 at 7:42 PM.
The Martian meteorite (I presume you speak of the famous one, ALH840001) has not been accepted as proof of Martian life. I quote here (since I’m a bit lazy) from an article I wrote on this a while back for a chapter in a book:
“The most famous Martian meteorite, ALH84001, which received global attention in 1996 when it was put forth as containing fossilized bacterial life, is still not accepted as credible evidence for extraterrestrial life. The presumed bacteria are considered by most scientists to have been possibly formed abiotically from organic molecules. This uncertainty in how these fossils were formed means ALH840001 is not proof of extraterrestrial life. Whether the organic molecules were created by non-biological extraterrestrial processes or are the result of contamination by Antarctic ice is still hotly debated.” (Sources for this: Bada, J. L.; Glavin, D. P.; McDonald, G. D.; Becker, L. (1998). “A Search for Endogenous Amino Acids in Martian Meteorite ALH84001″. Science 279 (5349): 362–365; Becker L., Glavin D. P., Bada J. L. (1997). “Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Antarctic Martian meteorites, carbonaceous chondrites, and polar ice”. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 61: 475–481).
