May 3, 2008


The Case of the Androgynous Pharaoh

An article on Akhenaten, an Egyptian pharaoh with a feminine form, led me to the work of Dr. Irwin Braverman, a Yale University physician who trains students (and police) in observational skills by having them look at, and describe in detail, works of art. He also, as in the case of the Pharaoh, diagnoses historical figures based on their appearance in paintings, statues, and carvings:

The female form was due to a genetic mutation that caused the pharaoh’s body to convert more male hormones to female hormones than needed, Braverman believes. And Akhenaten’s head was misshapen because of a condition in which skull bones fuse at an early age.

posted by Deron Bauman in art, health, history 

comments

5 Responses to “The Case of the Androgynous Pharaoh”

  1. Sheila Ryan on May 3rd, 2008 at 9:56 am

    Recollection (tangential): The Museo Nazionale del Bargello in Florence. Field trip. A group of preadolescent students from a school for American children. Donatello’s famous David. A question from the teacher, followed by a silence, then a tentative response from one of the boys:

    “Um, he looks kind of . . . gayish.”

  2. Deron Bauman on May 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 am

    he totally does.

  3. The Androgynous Pharaoh « memoirs on a rainy day on May 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 am

    [...] The Androgynous Pharaoh Published May 4, 2008 asides , education , news , science Tags: anthropology, asides, Clusterflock, education, Egypt, Irwin Braverman, news, pharaoh, science, social, Yahoo Dr. Irwin Braverman, a Yale University physician who analyzed images of Akhenaten, has a new theory on why Akhenaten wasn’t the most manly pharaoh, even though he fathered at least a half-dozen children. (via cf) [...]

  4. Alek Lindus on May 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    David: contrapposto, naked vulnerability and monumental stature = gayish… ? hmmm… changing values

  5. Sheila Ryan on May 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    I think it may in fact have been the contrapposto that signaled ‘gayish’ to the kid. That plus the hat and the boots. Or maybe it was a moment in sociocultural time (1991, I believe).

Leave a Reply