Go to content

Part Three

Amarna Period

The Source of Incest and Hierarchical Sexual Penetration


An examination of Akhenaten's Amarna sexual politics with a comparison to Sophocles Oedipus cycle of Greek Drama.

How did all those Amarna Princesses and their Shereet (children) die or disappear?

Even if we follow the Sophocles drama about Oedipus Rex, we have only two sons living for a number of years, one on the throne of Egypt (that would be Tut or Eteocles) and the other in exile (that would be Smenkhkara or Polyneices), and when they finally meet, fight and kill each other, there are only two sisters left (probably Beketaten and Sitamun), one of whom turns up with Oedipus in his Old age at the gates of Colonus.

According to the Oedipus Cycle of dramas, these four children were fathered by Oedipus and born to his mother.

Sophocles does not 'remember' (to use the words of Dr. William Theaux) the other females who belonged to this royal house. Nor does Sophocles remember the children Oedipus might have had with other women who belong to his "Egyptian" life, such as Nefertiti (at least six daughters) and Kiya. So we have a caveat in historical memory.

Who represses what? According to Theaux, the Ramessides repressed any and all memory of Akhenaten. Theaux, Pope and Osman then turn Akhenaten into Moses who clearly states that he was an Egyptian prince but then the entire Hebrew nation represses any Hebrew relationship to Egypt except that of having been slaves there. The Hebrew priests and scribes succeed to such a degree that they have Moses killed before he is able to enter the Promised Land in spite of Yhwh's express promise that he would. Then Dr. Theaux and Velikovsky has Akhenaten/Moses travel on to Greece, arrive at the gates of Colonus blind and lame, guided by a daughter and willing to tell his story to anyone who would listen. Well, someone shortly after their arrival wanted to kill him (to repress his story?) so Oedipus had to flee and go into hiding to save himself. But eventually the grandees of Athens listen to his story and Sophocles tells it all. IN the process, however, the Greeks also repress any connection Oedipus might have had with either the Hebrews in Israel or the Egyptians.

Again, I question why the Greek stories from Sophocles omit the Egyptian connection and all the other Amarna women? Was it sheer psychological/political repression like Dr. Theaux claims they were, or were all of these other women already dead by the time Akhenaten takes his mother to his bed to start a new family out of sheer desperation? And if all of the other Amarna women were dead, how did they die?

The main problem is that in the Amarna version of History, it is Merytaten and Ankhsenamun (Nefertiti's daughters) who survive Akhenaten and marry his two putative sons (Smenkhkara and Tutankhamun). The Sophocles version shows the two surviving daughters to be Jocasta's. The Egyptian version is the more trustworthy since both these ladies left behind their names, their artefacts, their sculpture. All we have from the Greeks is Sophocles' dramas, which are really written memories at best. Since 'Sophocles' means the 'sophisticated' or 'knowing' one, I wonder if his talents were manipulating information (or memories, legends) into a format that was palatable to his audiences, rather than a true historical account of these memories/legends?


Sorry, J, that the whole of my post was unintelligible to you. You certainly understood the first item you respond to, below, although the second, while quite true, meant to emphasize the repression of historical events, not so much the incestuous aspect.

Since the Greeks practiced hierarchical sexual 'penetration' rather than 'sexuality' as we think of it, Oedipus simply shows that at the top of the social pyramid, at the level of royalty, the Queen and King are the only ones to have either control or choice (or both) as to whom they wish to penetrate sexually (or be penetrated by) even if it is anathema to the gods and to public morality.

The rest of my post shows the discrepancy between whose daughters survive: in Egypt, Nefertiti's daughters; in Greece, Jocasta's daughters. Perhaps I should be asking the list members what they think of this paradox?


B. Answered:

Why dwell upon this subject although Akhnaton seems to have his cake and eat it too and all that jazz, I mean he, among the many, really was different in what appears to be his sexual practices and mores. If he attempted to have children ( those little 'shereet') with his own children as it would appear, this also sets him apart from the past. His possible relation with his mother ... oh we have gone
over all this....

Oedipus was humiliated by the fact of his incest, thus he tears out his eyes. Other than the prophet and the man sent out to kill him, the people weren't really aware of his sexual deviance till the end of the first play. The sin that brought the curse was supposed to be from his father's indiscretions with a boy, which would seem out of place in Greece anyway and more toward the Egyptian morality. Taking his own mother to bed was the sin against morality of the Greeks. This practice was also frowned upon by the Romans and the Egyptians. The people who seemed to accept this practice as a religious concept was the Mitannians who 's "Magi" had to engage in xvaetvadatha, which means the marriage of parents with their children and of uterine brothers and sisters. The ancient Iranian texts commend and even command xvaetvadatha; in certain religious ceremonies only a young man who has undertaken may officiate. "Corpse bearers may be purified not only by the urine of cattle (sacred cow), but also with the mingled urine of a man and a woman who have performed zvaetvadatha" (Article, marriage, Iranian in Vol. III of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics ). All these acts were incorporated into the court of Akhnaton who became the high priest, just like a Magus of the Mitannians, a word that continued into the Jewish Essenes, Thereputae, and later into the Hermes Trismegistus cult of the renaissance, a magus also being considered a "Magician", as in Simon Magus , an important Essene 2000 years ago .

Also....D. asked...

The rest of my post shows the discrepancy between whose daughters survive: in Egypt, Nefertiti's daughters; in Greece, Jocasta's daughters. Perhaps I should be asking the list members what they think of this paradox?


I think that the play is written to entertain as opposed to cite history, though it might hint at history. We don't really know what happened to Nefertiti though my recent study of the pictures of the "Elderly Lady" are very interesting toward giving an actual age of the death of Nefertiti . It seems that at times we want the play to be the history and at times we want the disputed Egyptological theories to be the history. If there really is repression, we can't really find history in any of the evidence because it is all tainted. The daughters might have survived as well
as lesser children who might claim inheritance, as long as they didn't approach the current pharaoh with this as the association with the Aton was so dangerous after Tut. Even Tut may not have survived the association. Perhaps this is why YHWH instead of Aton. Why the new language instead of Egyptian, and the new laws to the Hebrews, as the laws didn't take with the Egyptians. So why couldn't some of
the people have survived and escaped or accepted the new laws given under Moses.

I wonder ..........Isn't this what we are proposing here, that is Moses, Akhnaton, Oedipus ..... I am having more trouble accepting Akhnaton as the actual writer or inspiration of Hermes Trismegistus but I can see why he might be referred to here and yet another mythical character developed , another character that was repressed and changed and blended to the whims of later men. The eventual "Hermetic" writings that Fred has been mentioning seems far, far away from the Jewish laws of Moses, or the worship of the Aton, cabala notwithstanding. All the magical incantations, concoctions, talismans, and chants seem to be rituals that might well be routed in ancient Egypt or Chaldean Magicians but this conclusion that Akhnaton is also the actual writer or inspiration of all this magical philosophy seems to be, again to be over - analyzation and blending of later men. It is a life long exercise to research this area. Thank you Dan and Fred for your expertise, as well as the great writers , Theaux and Osman who have proposed this mystery that continues ........more to come.


Hello B,

Whether I am gazing down my navel or up my anus, I still see ancient Greek sexuality as totally different from ours. Some years back there was a URL circulated here on Akhnaton, IIRC, about a long scholarly article on Greek sexuality: it was about this hierarchical sexual ladder where penetration went only one way; from the top down.

Now the reason I keep talking about it is because of three things: First, the Greek ideal love was between males, but this was almost entirely restricted to the upper classes, or 'citizens' of the various city states, and procreational sexuality came second. Now that is already different from our western 'romantic' love between love stricken males and idealized females. When we were reading Culianu's Eros and Magic in the Renaissance, this romanticized fantasy came under scrutiny several times. I am sure Fred or Hal can find the appropriate postings by number if we ask them nicely.

Secondly, I read an article that in Brazil homosexuality is not an issue nowadays. Rather, sexuality is measured by who penetrates whom? The penetrators are idealized and we know them through 'machismo'. Whether they penetrate males or females is irrelevant in their culture. The above mentioned article on Greek sexuality also stressed the same focus on the 'penetrators' regardless of the gender of the 'penetrated'.

Finally, since we are constantly looking for the flow of cultural habits from Egypt to Greece, I suspect that the Greeks imitated one of their forebears rather than developed their own unique sexual hierarchy.

You have given your opinion that even the Egyptian kings of the 18th dynasty 'learned' their sexual excesses from the Mittanians. That is entirely possible: you cite from the Amarna letters Amenhotep III (Amenophis III) asking the Mittanian king not only for his daughter, but an entire 'army' of women to be sent with her. BINGO! What is it that they knew that AIII wanted so badly? So you are probably right about that.

Now the reason I have been going through Sophocles with a fine toothed comb is to see if there is anything there that might reflect Egyptian sexual habits (besides incest) and give us a clue that Jocasta, as the top bitch of the Theban hierarchy, could pick and choose her lover because of her social position. IF we follow Culianu's edict that a culture will hide its true practices, then sweet Jocasta perhaps is not as sweet as Sophocles tries to show her: he is reflecting Jocasta to his audience changed to what the audience prefers to think of themselves: as a woman who will be taken to wife by a male hero, and a woman who will repent her indulgence in incest once she finds out about, to the point of committing suicide. These scenarios seem to be acts of cultural repression on the part of Sophocles.

This kind of cultural repression is also what Dr. Theaux indulges in penetrating (or pointing out) in the ancient world.


Hello again, B,

I am reading the rest of your post, below, and find that you write "The sin that brought the curse was supposed to be from his father's indiscretions with a boy , which would seem out of place in Greece anyway and more toward the Egyptian morality."

This 'indiscretion' with another king's son is not about homosexuality, but about hierarchical penetration: homosexuality, contrary to what you write that it seems to be out of place in Greece, was a regular practice and was not an issue at all! This is exactly the reason I am writing, to nudge you out of your comfortable 21st century AD mindset about homosexuality and heterosexuality (not that you need it!!!) and reacquaint you with the Classical Greek model.

The 'indiscretion' Laius, King of Thebes, committed was penetrating another King's son, penetrating sideways in the hierarchy rather downwards, as he was supposed to do. In other words, every boy and young man was available to him IN HIS OWN KINGDOM, the city of Thebes. But no, this bastard goes and sodomizes a boy from another city. I believe that is the unacceptable portion of this story in ancient Greece and in Sophocles' play.

I want to thank you for clearly showing the etymology of the word 'magician' and 'Magus'. I know this is your second and third posting of it, but it is just percolating into my consciousness that that a 'magician', then, is the high priest of the incestuous ones. That would open up another possibility or two for me: first, this etymology would strengthen Dr. Theaux's argument that Hermes Trismegistus is a collation of Akhenaten-Moses-Oedipus, since Trismegistus could now also mean 'thrice a motherfucker' (or sister or daughter). But secondly, the 'thrice-great' part would then also allude to his having committed three different acts of incest: with his mother, with his sister and with his daughters.

I think I have to stop here for the moment and think these possibilities through. Thanks for keeping your focus on the Mittanian/Persian precedent. This kind of information is what David Icke needs - it is fuel for his anti-establishment rantings.


Back to content | Back to main menu