The Exclusive Nature of Touch in Amarna Period...
45
1 The Exclusive Nature of Touch in Amarna Period Art MA Thesis Lorien Yonker Jonah Rosenberg, Advisor The Academy of Art University December 17, 2017
Transcript of The Exclusive Nature of Touch in Amarna Period...
1
TheExclusiveNatureofTouchinAmarnaPeriodArt
MAThesis
LorienYonkerJonahRosenberg,Advisor
TheAcademyofArtUniversityDecember17,2017
2
3
TableofContents
Abstract…4
Introduction…5
Literaturereview…7
IconographyoftouchinEgyptianart…9
GenderinAmarnaart…11
Touchindomesticscenesoftheroyalfamily…13
TouchbetweenAkhenatenandNefertiti…18TouchbetweenthekingandtheAten…22
Conclusion…28
Indexoffigures…31
WorksCited…43
4
Abstract
ThisessayexaminestouchinartoftheAmarnaperiodasavisualizationofthe
exclusiveandproprietaryrelationshipbetweenthekingandthegod,andaspectsof
thatrelationshipthatnecessarilyextendtoothermembersoftheroyalfamily.
Specificattentionisgiventothedynamicinteractionsoftheroyalfamilyas
reflectionsoftheAten’simmediatepresenceamongthem.TouchbetweenNefertiti
andthekingisshowntobeanembodimentofthesolarcycleandanassuranceof
thefutureoftheAtencult.Finally,anexaminationofscenesoftheAtenengaging
directlywiththekingsuggeststhatthesescenesreflecttheirphysicaloneness.
BuildingonpreviousexaminationsofthefamilialrelationshipbetweentheAten,
Akhenaten,andNefertitiasavisualdevicethatsupportedthelegitimacyoftheking
andtheAtencult,theargumentpresentedhereenhancesourunderstandingofthe
roleofintimacyintheAmarnaperiod.Examinationofspecificartworks,aswellas
consistencieswithingroupsofobjects,showsthattouchisusednottocreatea
senseofephemeralnaturalismordomesticaccessibility,butrathertodistancethe
royalsfromtheirpredecessorsandenforcetheexclusivenatureoftheking’s
relationshipwiththeAten.
5
Introduction
Thenotionthattouch,inanyperiodofarthistory,reflectsanemotionalbondor
domesticharmony,reliesonmodernconceptsaboutgender,intimacy,andfamily.
BylookingattouchinEgypt’sAmarnaperiodsolelyasawayofdepictingunity
withintheroyalfamilywedoourselvesadisservice.1Certainly,creatingvisualunity
wasoneconsiderationoftheperiod;buttherearenumerousotherfactorsthatmust
alsobeconsideredifwewishtounderstandwhyandhowtouchwasusedasatool
ofvisualcommunicationintheAmarnaperiod.
Bysettingasidetheideathatthehighlyintimateandpersonalimagesoftheroyal
familyintheAmarnaperiodwereintendedassnapshotsintothelifeoftheking−
andinsteadrecognizingthemasregally-dictatedvisualizationsoftheking’snew
doctrine− wecanbetterunderstandhowtheseimagesservedtoisolatetheroyal
family.Amarnaartistsvisuallyplacedthekingandhisfamilyinanunprecedented
placeofequalitywiththedivine;aplanethatinAkhenaten’scasecreatedoverlap
betweenhimselfandhisgod.
1Forexaminationoftouchasanenhancementofvisualunityseei.a.,Whitney Davis, “Two Compositional Tendencies in Amarna Relief” AJA 82, no. 3 (1978): 387-394; Mary Ann Eaverly, Tan Men/Pale Women: Color and Gender in Archaic Greece and Egypt, A Comparative Approach (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013), 81-82; and Elizabeth L. Meyers, “Component Design as Narrative Device in Amarna Tomb Art,” Studies in the History of Art 16 (1985): 33-51.
6
Akhenatencasthimselfasthephysicalmanifestationofthegod’spoweronearth.
Theneedtoupholdandvisualizethatspecialrelationshipwasatthecoreofthe
Amarnaperiod’sartisticrevolution.Thefollowingexaminationoftouchlooksto
unpackthemeaningbehindtheseshockinglyintimateanddomesticimages.Touch
inAmarnaartwillbeshownnottohumanizetheroyalfamily,buttoconveythe
exclusivenatureoftheirrelationshipwiththeAten.Thisrelationshipisfoundedon
thecorporealbinarybetweenAkhenatenandthegod,mostpowerfullyexemplified
inimageswherethekingandthegodareshowntohaveaphysicalconnectionthat
approachesoneness.
Thisessaywillexplorethethreemodesoftouch.First,inimagesoftheroyalfamily
touchenforcedasenseofimmediacyandtemporalitythatmadeclearthatthegod’s
presencewasuniquelydirect.Thatrelationshipwasinoppositiontothedistantand
restrictedrelationshiptheirsubjectsheldwiththegod.Second,touchbetweenthe
kingandqueenshowedtheroyalcouple’sexclusiveroleinthecontinuityofthe
Atencultandthesolarcycle,andallowedAkhenatentofillcertainritualrolesthat
thenon-physicalAtencouldnot.Finally,touchbetweenthekingandthegodserved
toupholdthekingasanobjectofdivinityandveneration.Italsodepictedthe
uniquephysicalonenessbetweentheAtenandAkhenaten.
7
LiteratureReview
TheintimacyandnaturalismoftheAmarnaperiodhavereceivedmuchscholarly
attention,particularlyfollowingNormandeGarisDavies’spublicationoftheRock
CutTombsofAmarnabetween1903and1906.Thoserevolutionarydepictionsof
thekingandhisfamilywereeasilysensationalized,withsomeoftheearliest
examinationsoftheperiodfollowingadistinctlyJudeo-Christiantheologicalbent.
EvenmodernwriterssuchasRobertNorth,in1977,inferthattheharmoniousand
fecundfamilywasblessedasresultoftheirpurported“monotheism.”Amongstearly
archaeologists,thenovelphysiognomyandsoftenedformwithwhichAkhenaten
waspresentedwerecharacterizedasgrotesquedeformities,ormanifestationsof
somephysicalailment,AlexandreMoretbeingthefirsttoclaimhermaphroditismin
1927.Thatpracticecontinuestothisday,morerecentlywithAlwynBurridge’s1996
articlecitingMarfan’ssyndromeastheexplanationfortheking’s“oddappearance.”
Yettheseauthorsglossoverotherindicationsofaprogrammaticreinventionofthe
visualartsundertheruleofAkhenaten.
ExhibitionssuchastheMetropolitanMuseumofArt’sTheRoyalWomenofAmarna
in1997,andtheMuseumofFineArtsBoston’sPharaohsoftheSunin1999,along
withtheiraccompanyingcatalogs,haveprovidedscholarsoftheAmarnaperiod
withthecomprehensiveandchronologicalviewnecessarytore-evaluate
Akhenaten’sreformsasintentionalreflectionsofhisrevolutionaryreligious
8
doctrine.DorotheaArnoldoftheMetropolitanMuseumgaveparticularfocustothe
elevatedroleofNefertitiandherdaughters,alongwithotherroyalwomensuchas
TiyeandKiya.ThepublicprecedenceofNefertitihasalsopiquedtheinterestof
scholarssuchasJuliaSamsonandJoyceTyldesley,whobothcharacterizeherasa
sortofco-regentinlifeand,quitepossibly,pharaohafterAkhenaten’sdeathas
Neferneferuaten.
Afullerunderstandingofthedoctrineoftheso-called“HereticKing,”asdubbedby
DonaldRedfordin1984,hasbeenundertakeninrecentstudiesbyJamesHoffmeier
andErikHornung.HornungquestionsthetreatmentofAkhenaten’sdoctrineas
monotheismandinsteadcharacterizestheAtenasasortofesotericenergyrather
thanaphysicaldeity.ThisideaisalsopresentinthewritingsofOrlyGoldwasser.All
describethesupra-physicalnatureoftheAten,asthecontemporaryEgyptian
worshipperwouldhaveunderstoodit,andemphasizetheking’ssingular
relationshipwiththatgod.ConsideringtheAtenasasymbolforasortofuniversal,
divineenergywhichissharedwithandaccessibleonlythroughthekingallowsusto
understandtheprevalenceofphysicaltouchintheAmarnaperiodasanimportant
reflectionofthecult’sdoctrine,ratherthanasignofslackeningsocialdividesas
scholarssuchasWhitneyDavis,inherexaminationofthenewcompositionalforms
oftheperiod,mighthaveusbelieve.
9
TouchinEgyptianIconography
TheAten,unlikethetraditionalEgyptiandeities,lackedabody.Thisnecessarily
impactedartisticrepresentationsofinteractionwiththedivine.Intheearliestyears
ofAkhenaten’sreignthegodwasgivenhandsattheendofitsraysforthespecific
purposeofinteractingwiththekingandhisfamily.Insomecasesthistook
traditionalformssuchaspresentingtheankhtotheking,whichiscommonin
AmarnareliefsaswellasandinearliertemplessuchasKarnak(fig.1).Yetother
actswerenotpossibletodepict.Itistheseformsoftouchthatweredramatically
reinventedtotakeplacebetweentheroyals.Asaresult,intimacyandnaturalismin
depictionsoftheroyalfamilyhavelongbeenhailedashallmarksoftheAmarna
period,withtouchamajorcontributor.2
Depictionsoftouchwerenotentirelynewtotheperiod.Actssuchashandholding,
claspingofarms,embracing,andkissingareallseenintheartofearlierdynasties.
Intheseimagestouchservestoindicateunitybetweenindividuals,oftenintheform
ofpairstatues(fig.2),orunitybetweenthepharaohandthegods(figs.3-4),andare
typicallyexclusivetothefunerarycontext.Touchisbothformalizedandritualized,
oneelementofthestaticcanonofEgyptianart.DepictionsoftouchintheAmarna
2OnintimacyandnaturalismseeJohnD.Cooney,AmarnaReliefsfromHeliopolisinAmericanCollections(Brooklyn:BrooklynMuseum,1965),4;RobertHari,NewKingdomAmarnaPeriod:theGreatHymntotheAten(Leiden:Brill,1985),18;ErikHornung,AkhenatenandtheReligionofLight(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1999),36-37;GayRobins,ProportionandStyleinAncientEgyptianArt(Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,1994),119;andEdnaRussman,EgyptianSculptures:CairoandLuxor(Austin:UnivertsityofTexasPress,1994),116-117.
10
period,thoughsimilarinaction,arerevolutionarybecausetheytakeplacebetween
livingpeople−namelyAkhenatenandNefertiti−andthedivine.Further,theyare
setonacontemporary,oftenevendomestic,plane.Thisprogrammaticreinvention
oftouchandintimacyalsoallowsthekingtoperformthoseactsthatarephysically
impossiblefortheAten.Thesechanges’restrictiontoimagesoftheroyalfamily
alongsidetheincreaseintouch,intimacyandnaturalismindicatesomethinghighly
exclusivetotheroyalfamily.3Thisservestoemphasizethesingularityofthe
relationshipbetweenthekingandthegod-nolongerrestrictedtoritualorfunerary
settings,butpartofhisdailyreality.
3Noexamplesofanon-royalinteractingdirectlywiththeAtenexist,noteveninthewell-preservedtombofMeryre,whowas“chiefseerofthediscinthehouseofthediscatAkhetaten”andeffectivelythecult’ssecond-in-commandbehindAkhenaten.DonaldB.Redford,“TheSun-DiscinAkhenaten’sProgram:ItsworshipandAntecedents,II,”JournaloftheAmericanResearchCenterinEgypt17(1980):28.
11
GenderinAmarnaArt
IntimacyandtouchinEgyptianart,beforetheAmarnaperiod,hadbeenusedto
visualizebothhuman-to-humanrelationshipsandthebenevolentinteractionofthe
divine.4Thesetooknewformsastheritualroleofgenderandtheconceptofthe
divineevolvedintheAmarnaperiod,andasinteractionwiththedivinebecomes
morerestrictive.
Intheearliestyearsoftheirreign,NefertitiandAkhenatenbothtookonphysical,
iconographicandritualcharacteristicsthathadpreviouslybeenreservedforthe
oppositesex.5Forexample,incolossalstatuesatKarnak(fig.5),Akhenatenis
shownwithenlargedbreastsandhips,whichwereassociatedintheEgyptian
traditionwithfemalefertility,whileintheWilbourPlaqueNefertitiwearsthecap
crownmoreoftenassociatedwiththepharaoh(fig.6).6Wherehispredecessors
depictedthemselveswithastylizedmalephysiqueandcostume,Akhenatenduring
theearlythroesofhisrevolutiondepictedhimselfmorenaturalistically,softenedin
awaythatbordersonfeminine,andindoingsogavevisualformtohisbreakfrom
4Forexample,themanyimagesfromindividualBookoftheDeadpapyriinwhichthedeceasedisguidedbyAnubis,Horus,orIsis.5DorotheaArnold,TheRoyalWomenofAmarna:ImagesofBeautyfromAncientEgypt(NewYork:TheMetropolitanMuseumofArt,1996),36;Eaverly,TanMen/PaleWomen,70-82.6ForathoroughexaminationofthecolossiandinterpretationoftheirmeaningseeLisaManniche,TheAkhenatenColossiofKarnak(NewYork:AmericanUniversityinCairoPress,2010).
12
thetraditionalsolargodsaswellashiscorporealconnectiontothenon-gendered
Aten.7
YetasAkhenatenaged,hisradicalgenderlessimageseeminglysuccumbedtothe
needtoupholdhislegacyandsustainhiscult.DespiteAkhenaten’srevolutionary
relationshiptothegod,theconceptofsolarregenerationremainedkeytothe
Atenistunderstandingoftheuniverse,andtheritualsofkingship.Thusthe
continuationofAkhenaten’sreformsalsodependedonhisabilitytoproduceheirs.
Hereinlaytheartistic“rub”:howtocontinuetoshowregenerationandfertility−
conceptsdeeplytiedtophysicalintimacyonboththemundaneandcosmicplanes−
whenthedivineisasingular,non-sexualentity,andthekingthereflectionofthat
divinity?ArtistsoftheAmarnaperiodfoundasolution,inpart,bygivingthedistant
solardeitylinearraysculminatinginhands.ThisallowedtheAtentoremaindistant
fromtheordinaryworldwhilesimultaneouslyinteractingwiththekingandhis
familydirectly.8Additionally,touchbetweenthekingandthequeenreflectedthe
king’scorporealidentificationwiththeAten,allowinghimtoembodythephysical
actofcreationandfertilitythatwassoessentialtotheEgyptianconceptofsolar
regenerationandthefutureoftheAtencult.Astheconceptofroyalintimacy
becomeslessinterpersonal,andmoreamodeofvisualizingAkhenaten’s
revolutionaryideology;touchbecomesmoresignificantthaneverbefore.
7Hornung,AkhenatenandtheReligionofLight,55-57.8Ibid,49.
13
Touchindomesticscenesoftheroyalfamily
Theideaofa“holyfamily”hadlongexistedinEgyptianreligionintheformofdivine
triadslikeOsiris,IsisandtheirchildHorusorAmen,MutandtheirchildKonsu.
Thosetriadscombinedtoformpotentenneads,suchasthoseworshippedin
Heliopolissincethe5thdynasty,andformedthebackboneofEgyptiancosmological
beliefaswellasthepatternfordivinekingship.9TheholyfamilyintheAmarna
periodwasrevolutionaryinthatitwascomposedoflivingpeople−Akhenaten,
Nefertiti,andtheirchildren–ratherthandivinities,anditboiledallofthatcreative
powerdowntoasinglecreatorandhisoffspring,AkhenatenandNefertiti.10
Depictionsofthisroyalfamilyweresimilarlyinventive,showingthekingandqueen
notasthesortofnascentdeitiestheirpredecessorshadbeen,butfull-blowngodsin
theirownright.TheabilitytointeractwiththeAten–themostabsoluteand
omnipotentdeityinEgyptianhistory–inawaythatwastactileanddirect,enforced
thefamily’sdivinestatus.
Thiswasheldindirectoppositiontothedistantandmediatedrelationshiptheir
subjectsheldwiththegod.WhilethedoctrineofAtenismprohibitedthegeneral
9H.teVelde,“SomeRemarksontheStructureofEgyptianDivineTriads,”JEA,Vol.57(Aug.,1971),pp.80-86.10WhileNefertitineverclaimsdirectparentagefromtheAtenasdoesAkhenaten,earlydepictionsoftheroyalcoupleequatethemwiththedivinepairShuandTefnut,formingadivinetriadwiththecreatorgodPtah,laterequatedwiththeAten.ForfurtherinvestigationseeRitaFreed,YvonneMarkowitzandSueD’auria,eds.PharaohsoftheSun:Akhenaten,Nefertiti,Tutankhamun(Boston:MuseumofFineArts,1999),107;Hornung,AkhenatenandtheReligionofLight,57;andJuliaSamson,“Nefertiti’sRegality,”JournalofEgyptianArchaeology63(1977),88.
14
populacefromworshippingtheAtendirectly,theycouldinsteadturntotheroyal
familyasembodimentsofthedivine.11Depictionsoftheroyalfamilyservedto
highlightthedivisionbetweentherulersandtheirsubjectsbyplacingtheroyalsina
positionofunquestionablepower,withuniqueaccesstothedivineand,infact,as
divinitiesthemselves.Thisfindssupportinthearchaeologicalcontextwherethe
majorityofsuchimagesarefound;eitherintombsorhouseholdshrinesintended
forprivate,individualworship.12
Forexample,scenesfeaturingthewindowofappearancescommonintombsofthe
upper-classcitizensofAkhetaten;Daviesdocumentsexamplesinsuchtop-level
officialsasMeryre,Huya,andAy(figs.7-9).IneachoftheseimagestheAtenforms
thepinnacleofthescene,withtheroyalfamilybelowandtherecipientoftheir
materialblessingsonthelowertier.Thekingoccupiesthewindowwherehe
receivesthetouchoftheAten’srays,oftenjoinedbytheprincessesandqueen.The
royalwomenalsoengagethroughtouchoraretouchedbytheAten’shands.Inthe
relieffromAy’stomb(fig.7)inwhichthedaughtersarepresent,notethewaythe
princessbehindNefertitiisrenderedwithherleftarmaroundhermother’s
11Arnold,TheRoyalWomenofAmarna,4-5.JamesHoffmeier,AkhenatenandtheOriginsofMonotheism(Oxford:OxfordUniversitypress,2015),87;EmilyTeeter,ReligionandRitualinAncientEgypt(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2011),187.12Theoverallshapeoftheobjectsandtheirarchaeologicalcontext-whereknown-pointtothisritualfunction,whichisreinforcedbytheirinnerframingbyslendercolumns,longstandingindicationsofceremonialobjects.SeeSalimaIkram,“DomesticShrinesoftheCultoftheRoyalFamilyatEl-‘Amarna,”JEA75(1989):89-101;AnnaStevens,“TheMaterialEvidenceforDomesticReligionatAmarnaandPreliminaryRemarksonItsInterpretation,”JEA89(2003):143-168;andArnold,TheRoyalWomenofAmarna,98-99.
15
shoulder;whiletheprincessinfrontofNefertitigazesbackatherandtouchesher
chin,herotherfingergesturingtowardsthecrowd.BetweentheirfacestheAten
offersanankh,andtouchesthequeen’suraeus.Thefamilyandthedivineoccupy
notonlythesameritualspace,butalsothesamephysicalspace,withthe
architecturalformofthewindowenforcingthenotionthatthisrelationshipwas
inaccessibletotheirsubjects.ThetouchoftheAten’sraysisrestrictedtothe
architecturalframeofthewindow,whichisindicatedbyasetofflankingcolumns
toppedwithaseriesofuraei;eachwithasundiscatopitshead.Thesescenesare
designedwithaconsistentvisualhierarchythatisreflectiveoftheking’snew
doctrineratherthananewsocialunity− enforcingthefamily’sseparationfrom
theirpredecessorsthroughtheirintimateanduniqueinteractionswiththedivine.13
Thewindowofappearanceswasanarchitecturalinnovationoftheeighteenth
dynasty,whichallowedthekingtohavemoreregularinteractionwithhis
subjects.14However,thesameinnovationthatallowedformoreregularinteraction
alsoprovidedseparationbetweenthekingandhissubjectsduringthose
encounters.ThewindowofappearancesatAkhetatenwasraised,accessedviaa13TextualevidenceindicatesthatthekingwasverymuchattheheadofthenewartisticprogramatAkhetaten.Forexample,onastelenowinBerlin(AM31009),theroyalsculptorBekcallshimself“theApprenticewhomHisMajestyhastaught.”SeeAldred,AkhenatenKingofEgypt,94.14ThewindowofappearancesisfirstemployedatThebes,whereittooktheformofalinteldecoratedwithafalconorsphinx;seeRedford,“TheSun-DiscinAkhenaten’sProgram,”21.However,theonlysurvivingdepictionsofthewindowarefromAkhetaten,whereittakesonamoresimplifiedarchitecturalformandisshownraisedaboveeyelevel.WhilethewindowitselfdoesnotsurviveatAkhetaten,theprogressiveraisingofthewindowinsubsequentdynastiessuggestselevationwasanimportantelementofitsdesign;seeBarryKemp,“TheWindowofAppearancesatEl-Amarna,andtheBasicStructureofthisCity,”JEA62(1976):81-82.
16
ramporpossiblypartofabridgespanningtheroyalroad.15Thiscreatedan
architecturalbarrierbetweenthekingandhisaudienceaswellasacontrolled
viewingangle.Thewindowthusservedtoenforcetheproprietaryrelationship
betweentherulerandthedivinebyvisuallyandphysicallyseparatingthekingfrom
hissubjects,andtheinclusionoftouchservestoenhancethatdivide.16Thewindow
ofappearancesfunctionedasoneelementinahighlyregulateddailyprocession,in
whichthekingandqueenappearedtotheirpeopleandtraveledbychariotdown
theroyalroadtotheAtentemple,arathertheatricalproductionthatseems
intendedtomimicthesun’sdailyjourney.
Wherethewindowofappearanceswasarealphysicalplace,wherelivingcitizens
interactedwiththeroyalfamily,other,moredomesticscenesoftheroyalfamily
werealsousedinprivateworshipofthefamilyasgodsintheirownright.These
depictedscenestheaveragecitizenwouldneverhavedreamtofbearingwitnessto
inreallife.Depictingonlymembersoftheroyalfamily,theseimagesaredistinctly
lesshierarchical,andwithinthemtouchandgesturebetweenthefamilymembers
andthegodcreatedynamismandintimacy.Moredirectinteractionwiththegod
indicatesthattheAtenisnotadistantobserver,butpresentandengagedwiththe
royalfamily,somethingwhichwasnotpossibleinsceneswheretheirsubjectswere
present.
15Kemp(1976,2012)espousestheramp,whereasPendlebury(1980)arguesforthebridgespanningtheroyalroad.Kemp,“TheWindowofAppearancesatEl-Amarna”,81-99.J.D.S.Pendlebury,TheCityofAkhenaten,III(London:EgyptExplorationSociety,1980),34-43,76-78.16Redford,“TheSun-DiscinAkhenaten’sProgram”,22.
17
InasteleinBerlin(fig.10),forexample,thedaughterbalancedonNefertiti’slap
holdsherhandwhileasecond,smallerprincesstoyswithhercrown.Theking,
opposite,lookspoisedtokisstheyoungdaughterheldinhisarms,whointurn
reachesherhandbacktowardsthatoftheAten.Similarindicationsofimmediacy
throughtoucharepresentinmanyotherreliefscenes,forexampleinadiningscene
drawnbyDavies(fig.11).Here,infrontofofferingtablesladenwithfruitsand
flowers,theroyalfamilyenjoysameal;likelyskeweredmeats.Atleft,two
princessesplayfullyholdhands,kneesgrazingastheyfaceoneanother.Atright,
Nefertitireachesonehanddowntowardshersmalldaughterwhoholdsherhands
upwithpalmsraised.Thesesmallactsoftouch contributetothefamiliarityofthe
scene,indicatingthatthisisnotaritualofferingbeingleftatatemplealtar,buta
mealbeingenjoyedinthecompanyofthegod.
Totheworshipperviewingtheseshrines,theseimageswouldhavevisualizeda
relationshipbetweentheroyalfamilyandthedivinethatwasnotonlyinopposition
totheirdistantandrestrictiveone,butalsoonewhichwasmoredomesticand
intimatethanthatofpreviousrulers.TheseimagesenforcedtheideathatNefertiti
andAkhenatenwerefullydivine,andthedepictionsoftouchwithinthemservednot
tohumanizethefamilybuttoelevatethemthrougharelationshipwiththegodthat
wasemphaticallydifferentthanthatoftheirpeopleandpredecessors.
18
TouchbetweenAkhenatenandNefertitiDorotheaArnoldhasarguedthatNefertiti’sroleinthenewreligionwasequalto
thatofherhusband,andTyldesleycallsher“themostinfluentialwomaninthe
ancientworld.”17DespitetheseacknowledgementsofNefertiti’sunprecedented
importance,thedepictionsoftouchbetweenthekingandqueenhavelargelybeen
takenatfacevalueasintimateglimpsesintothelifeoftheroyalfamily.These
imageshaveonlyrecentlybeguntobeexaminedthroughthelensofAkhenaten’s
religiousreforms.18
TheaboveexplorationofgenderinAmarnaarthassuggestedthat,despite
substantialchangestothetheologicalconceptsoffemininityandmasculinity,the
beliefthatthecontinuityoftheuniversedependedonasortofcosmicregeneration
persisted.ThelanguageoftheHymntotheAtenequatestherisingofthesuntoa
physicalembraceandtothecreationoflife,andlaterdeclaresofthegod“theearth
existsinyourhand,justasyouhavemadeit.Whenyourise,itlives,whenyouset,it
dies.Youyourselfarelifetimeanditisbyyouthatmenlive.”19Theexaminationof
thisconcept,knowingthedivinewassexlessandincorporealyethadthekingasits
directintermediary,providesimportantcontextforthefrequentdepictionsof
intimacyandtouchbetweenthekingandqueenintheAmarnaperiod.17Arnold,TheRoyalWomenofAmarna,10,JoyceTyldesley,Nefertiti:Egypt’sSunQueen(NewYork:PenguinPress,1998),1.18ForotherexaminationsseeFreed,PharaohsoftheSun,28-29;andTyldesley,Nefertiti,102-106.19HymntotheAten,§12,trans.BarbaraWatterson,Amarna:Egypt’sAgeofRevolution(Gloucestershire:Tempus,199),67-68.
19
Bythetimeoftheeighteenthdynastytheroleofthequeenhadcometobetiednot
onlytothatsolarregenerationbutalsotothedivineendorsementofdynastic
succession.20WhileAkhenaten’sdoctrineallowedhimtotakeonbothmaleand
femalecharacteristicsasareflectionofhisnon-gendereddeity,Nefertiti’sroleas
Akhenaten’sphysicalfemininecounterpart–herabilitytomotherchildren–was
essentialforthefutureofthekingship,theAtencultandthecontinuityofthe
universeitself.Yetthequeencouldnolongerbethe“god’swife”,responsibleforthe
arousalofthedivine,whenthedivinewassexless.Thisconundrumwasresolved
throughthepersonofAkhenaten,whohadbythispointintegratedtheroleofthe
godintothepersonoftheking.21Akhenaten’srevolutionarydoctrinehadblurred
thedivisionsbetweenroyalanddivinepower,thushisintimacywithNefertiticould
expresstheking’sroleastheAten’sphysicalpresenceonearth.22Thiswasan
essentialstepinallowingtheroyalcoupletotakeonsomeofthemorephysical
ritualrolesthesexlessgodcouldnolongerfulfill,andallowedthequeentocontinue
fillingtheconceptualroleof“god’swife”whilesimultaneouslycementing
Akhenaten’sdivineimage.Inasystemthatnolongerreliedonthetraditionalbinary
betweenthekingandgod,intimacybetweentheroyalcoupleisintimacywiththe
divine.AkhenatenistheAten.
OvertartisticimplicationsofsexualintimacybetweenNefertitiandAkhenatencome
inscenesofNefertitipouring,commonenoughthatnumerousexamplessurviveand
20Aldred,AkhenatenKingofEgypt,14121Redford,“TheSun-DiscinAkhenaten’sProgram,”24-25.22Samson,“Nefertiti’sRegality,”88.
20
similarlyabundantwithfruitsandflowers.Inanunfinisheddepictionoftheroyal
couple(fig.12),forexample,weseeanintimatesceneinwhichAkhenaten,seatedat
left,presentsagobletthatthequeenfills,standingcloseenoughtobrushtheking’s
knee.InanotherlargerelieffromaprivateAmarnatomb(fig.13),Akhenatenis
seatedandproffershiscuptothequeen.Sheisfurtherawaythistime,bendingover
aprincesswhostandsbetweenthem,emblematicoftheirfruitfulunion.Thequeen
poursliquidintotheking’scup,concurrentlyfillingherown.Whiledrinkingscenes
maynotautomaticallyconjurethoughtsofsexuality,considerthattheverbseti
meantboth“topour”and“toimpregnate”,anddepictionsoftheactofpouring
servedalludetofertility,birthandrebirthasaspectsofsexuality.23
Havingisolatedhimself,thegod’sson,astheonlylivingpersonwhocould
understandandinterprettheAten,astablelegacyforAkhenaten’sreformscould
onlybeachievedthroughtheproductionofheirs.24Thusthesurroundingsforso
manysensualimagesofthekingandqueenasacoupleareverdantwithflowersand
fruits− symbolsoftheAten’sfertility− andincludetheroyalchildrentoreflect
Akhenaten’svirility.TakeforexampleareliefnowintheLouvre(fig.14),inwhich
thequeensitsontheking’slap,herfeetdanglingfreelyfromadiaphanousgown
andachildonherlap,onediminutivearmholdingontothecrookofthequeen’s
elbow.Akhenaten,inturn,raiseshisfoottobalanceandsupportthequeen,facing
him,andthechildinsymmetricalposeonherlap.OrtaketheBerlinstele(fig.15)
inwhichthequeenleansintowardsherhusband,bothhandsaroundhisneckand23Robins,ProportionandStyleinAncientEgyptianArt,31.24Teeter,ReligionandRitual,187.
21
herfacesmilinglyupturnedtowardshis.Arecreationofthefullscenesuggeststhe
queen’sdiaphanousgownmayhavefallenrevealinglyopen,andherjuxtapositionto
Akhenaten’sfacewouldhaverequiredaratherinventiveoverlapbetweentheir
bodies.Inmanyoftheseimagesthearchitecturalfeaturesthatsurroundtheking
andqueenareinfactabirthbower,astructureindicatedbyreedwallsandhighly
chargedwithconnotationsofbirthand,moreimportantly,rebirth.25Thepresence
oftheprincesses,paramountincommunicatingthattheseactsoftouchdepicta
divineintimacy,reflectedthecontinuityofthekingshipandoftheAtencult.26
CertaindepictionsofNefertitiwiththekingwerepurposefullysexualized,through
entendreandtouch;asawayofcontextualizingAkhenaten’sownvirilityasa
reflectionoftheAten’screativepower.Thisallowedfortheconceptualcontinuation
ofthesolarcycleaswellasthecreationofheirswhowouldcontinuethe
administrationoftheAtencult.Theseimages,whichhavetraditionallybeenviewed
asemotiveandintimate,shouldinsteadbeconsidered,asArnoldsuggests,as
esotericobjectsthatrequiredadeepunderstandingoflong-standingEgyptian
theologicalandpoliticaltraditionandwhichareindicativeofAtenisttheology.27
25Arnold,TheRoyalWomenofAmarna,100.26Whiletheargumentpresentedherereliesuponsurvivingvisualevidence,itisinterestingtoconsiderhowthisimagerymayhavedifferedhadamaleheirbeenacknowledged.WouldAkhenatenhavebeenquitesoconcernedwithdepictingcontinuity,orallowedforsuchaselevatedfemalerole,ifaclearmalesuccessorexisted?Orwashisexclusionofallothermalessimplyanotherintentionalassertionoftheisolationofpowerwithinhimself?27Arnold,TheRoyalWomenofAmarna,100.
22
TouchbetweenthekingandtheAten
TheuniquecorporealconnectionbetweenAkhenatenandtheAtenmustinformour
examinationoftouch,andwhilewehaveseentheimportanceoftheAten’s
interactionwithinscenesoftheroyalfamilyandthequeen,wewillconcludewith
anexaminationofthespecificwaystheAteninteractswiththekingalone.Thereare
twoclearindicatorsoftheimportanceofAkhenaten’scorporealitythatare
consistentlydepictedthroughtouch.First,insceneswhereofferingsaremadetothe
Aten,thegodtouchesthoseraisedbythequeenandprincesses,butreachesthrough
thosemadebyAkhenaten,insteadtouchingtheking’sbody.Secondly,inartistic
renderingsoftemples,theAten’sraysonlyenterthetemplewhenthekingis
physicallypresent.
TherearenotabledifferencesinthewaytheAtenreceivesthosetributesfromthe
kingversusthosefromtheroyalwomen.Inmanyofthetombreliefsrecordedby
Davies,forexample,thequeenraisesanoffering,whichtheAtenreceivesby
touchingtheobject(figs.16-19).Thesameistrueforthetablesheapedwithfood
andflowerspresentedtothegodwithinthesamereliefs.However,inthosesame
scenestheAtenoftenreachesthroughtheobjectsofferedbythekingandinstead
toucheshisbody.TheAten’sactofreachingthroughthemoretraditionalofferings
raisedbyAkhenatentotouchtheking’sbodynotonlyseemstoindicatethat
Akhenaten’sphysicalbodyitselfwasanobjectofveneration,italsoprioritizeshis
23
formoverotherofferings.Thisisonlytrueoftheking− neverforthequeenor
princesses.
LetusexamineadetailfromareliefinthetombofPanhesy(fig.18).Atright,the
princessesareshownshakingsistraintworegistersbehindNefertiti.Threehands
oftheAtentouchthequeen.Withone,thegodtoucheswhatwouldlikelyhavebeen
thetopofhertallcrownwhichhassincebeendefaced,whileasecondhoversover
theuraeus,inacommongesturefromtheperiod(seealsofigs.10-11),whichseems
tobothendorseherregalityandensureherprotection.Thethirdandfinalhand
claspstheankh,whichisheldtoNefertiti’smouth.Theking,standinginfrontof
Nefertiti,alsoreceivesthetouchofthreeAtenhands,thoughtheinteractionwith
himisdifferentthanthatwiththequeen.Thehighesthandreachesnottotheking’s
uraeusbuttowardshisface,whileanotherjustbelowitoffershimtheAnkh.The
thirdhand,ratherthantouchingacrownoruraeus,reachesfortheabdomenofthe
king.Notably,thishandisturnedinadifferentorientationthanallothers,
highlightingthisgestureespecially.
24
Thatsameturnedhandisincludedinotherofferingscenes,includingallfour
presentedhere.Whileasurveyofallofferingscenesfromtheperiodshowsthatthis
gestureisfarfromrequisite,itsinclusioninagreatnumberofreliefs,andthe
specificitywithwhichitisappliedtothekingintheseinstances,suggestthatthe
physicaltouchbetweentheAtenandthekingisunique,evenwithintheroyal
family.
Whilescenesofthekingintemplesarelessnumerousthanofferingscenes,those
thatsurvivedtobedocumentedbyDaviesofferthestrongestartisticindicationof
Akhenaten’suniquerelationshiptothegod,andhowitwasvisualizedthrough
touch.Take,forexample,tworeliefsfromthetombofMeryre(figs.20-21).Though
renderedindifferentperspectives(fig.20fromthesideandfig.21fromabove),
bothreliefsdepictalargetemplecomplexcompletewithrowsofladenaltars,pools,
andgroupsofprostrateworshippers.Inboth,theAtenisdepictedatthetopofthe
scene,raysextendingtotouchthewallofthetemple.Yettheydonotenterthe
space,insteadthehandssplayoutasthoughrestingatopthehorizontalsurfaceof
thewall.Whenthekingisnotpresent,evenifthetempleisfilledwithpeopleand
offerings,theAten’sraysdonotpenetratetheinteriorspace.
Yet,insimilardepictionswherethekingispresent,forexampleareliefinthetomb
ofPanhesy(fig.22),wherethekingisshownworshippinginsidethetemplespace,
theAten’shandsareshowspenetratingthewallabovetheking,enteringthetemple
ashemakeshisoffering.Withtwothegodtouchesthebackoftheking’sapparently
25
headwhileanotherpresumablyoffershimtheankh.ThearchitectureofAmarna
wasasradicalasitsvisualarts,andthemostnotablechangetotemplesat
Akhetatenwastheemphasisonsunlightandopenair.Eveninthoseholyinner
sancta,previouslykeptdarkandcoolandaccessibleonlythroughaseriesof
narrowinghalls,AkhenatendesignedhistemplestoallowthelightoftheAtenflow
through,asomnipresentasitwasintheHymntotheAten,“greatandshininghigh
overalltheland.”28
Therayhandsreachingthroughtotouchthekingthenshouldnotbereadsolelyas
indicationsoftheAten’slight,sincethatwouldhavebeenever-present.Instead,the
god’stouchwithinthetemple,restrictedtoinstanceswherethekingispresent,
seemstoindicatethattheAten’sfullattendancewasdependentontheking’s,or
perhapseventhatthetwowereinterchangeable.Thistheoryalsofindssupportin
theHymntotheAten,whichstates“thereisnooneelsewhoknowsyou,exceptfor
yourson,NeferkhepureWaenre(Akhenaten),whomyouhavetaughtyournature
andyourmight”29and,evenmoreconvincingly,thesecondboundarysteleerected
byAkhenatenstatesoftheking,“Iitisthatamto{offer}myself{tomy}father(the
sundisc)inthehouseofthediscinAkhetaten.”30
Akhenaten’srelationshipwiththedivinewasfarmorepatrimonialandpersonalin
conceptthanthatofhispredecessors,orindeedtheothermembersofhisfamily.28HymntotheAten,§1,trans.ErikHornung,AkhenatenandtheReligionofLight,79.29HymntotheAten,§12,Ibid.83.30ForafulltranslationofthesecondboundarysteleseeKemp,TheCityofAkhenaten,34-35.
26
Theuseofacartouche,typicallyreservedforthenameofthereigningpharaoh,is
employedaroundtheAten’sname.CertainatypicalaspectsofAkhenaten’shebsed
providefurthersupportforthisuniquephysicalconnectionbetweentheAtenand
theking.Akhenaten’sfirstsedfestival,performedaroundyear6ofhisreign,results
notinthecustomarytitlechangefortheking,butinsteadbestowsthosetitlesthat
refertothephysicalperformanceofthefestivalritesontheAten.31These
modificationstoalong-standingriteofEgyptiankingshipreflectapotent
connectionbetweenthekingandthegod,inwhichtheirroles,bothearthlyand
divine,overlap.32
TheHymntotheAten,likelyauthoredbyAkhenatenhimself,suggeststhattheking
wastheAten’s“sonwhoemergedfromhisbody”andthepharaohoftenstyled
himselfasthe“beautifulchildofthelivingAten”inhisinscriptionsandtitulary.33
TheverynamechosenbyAkhenatenmayberendered“HewhoisusefultoAten”,
andthekingwritesofhimself“Iamyoursonwhoisusefultoyouandelevatesyour
name”;bothofwhichindicatethatAkhenatenisnotsimplybelovedoforreverent
towardsthegod,heistheincarnationoftheAtenandhisactionsareinserviceof
31Thosetitlesbeingimihbsdandnbhb(w)sdor“stewardofthehedSeb”and“possessorofthehebSed.”32EricUphill,“TheEgyptianSedFestivalRites”JNES24,no.4(1965),123.33Hornung,AkhenatenandtheReligionofLight,50.Notethatthedescriptive“whoemergedfromyourbody”isnotableinlightofthehollowingofthetermfor“son”,whichRedfordnotesisahallmarkofthe18thdynasty.“Son”bythispointwasmoreahierarchicaltermthanabiologicalonesoAkhenatenishighlightingthathisisaphysicalratherthansimplyhierarchicalconnectiontothegod.Redford,AkhenatentheHereticKing,158.
27
thegod.Thisisalsoattestedtoinsurvivinginscriptionsfromtheperiod,suchasone
foundinthetombofAy,whichstates“adorethekingwhoisuniquelikethedisc.”34
Byestablishingthisuniquephysicaldescent,Akhenatenlaysthegroundworkforhis
depictionsoftheAtenasadivinehypostasisofkingship.35Thisphysicalconnection,
borderingononeness,becomesallthemoreessentialwhenthehumanformsofthe
divinearedismissed.InthelateryearsofhisreignitallowsAkhenatentotakeon
thephysicalresponsibilitiesofthedivineaspartofarelationshipbetweentheking
andtheAten,whichbecomes,asRedfordcallsit,a“proximityborderingon
identity.”36
Wherepreviousdynastiesemphasizedtheuniversalabilitytoapproachand
appeasethegodsdirectlythroughofferings,Akhenatenenforcestheideathatthe
mediationofthedivineisdependentuponhisperson.37Certain,exclusiveformsof
touchbetweenthekingandthegodareremindersofthatconnection,sostrongthat
thekingcouldpresenthimselfinliving,bodilyformasavotivetoorintermediaryof
thegod.38AndwhilethelightoftheAtenmayshineonthetemple,hispresenceand
hisworksrequiretheparticipationofAkhenaten.
34Hoffmeier,Akhenaten,123.35Redford,“TheSun-DiscinAkhenaten’sProgram,”24-25.36Redford,AkhenatentheHereticKing,180.37Teeter,ReligionandRitual,188-190.38Ibid,182.
28
Conclusion
EveryaspectofAkhenaten’sreformation− beitpolitical,religiousorartistic−
servedtoemphasizetheoverarchingrelationshipbetweenthegodandtheking,
withlittleconcernfortheirsubjects.Thepresenceoftouchinartisnoexception,
andwhileitmaybetemptingtoseeintheseimagesarelatablevisionofemotional
liberation,todosoignorestheking’sdoctrine;whichislayeredintoeveryimagehe
commissioned.
TheAtenwasadistantgod,inaccessiblewereitnotforthekingwhowashissole
intermediaryonearth.Theirconnectionwasphysical,thustheking’sbodyandthe
actsoftouchitperformstakeonnew,cosmicsignificance.Thepresenceoftouchin
imagesoftheroyalfamily,thekingandqueen,andkingandthegodallserveto
frametherelationshipbetweenAkhenatenandtheAtenasexclusiveand
proprietarytotheking.Theroyalfamilyasawholeisshowntohaveaclose,daily
relationshipwiththedivine,whichplacesthemonaplaneabovethatoftheir
predecessorsandreflectsarelationshipwiththedivinitythatisatoddswiththatof
theirsubjects.ThecorollarybetweenAkhenatenandhisgodalsoinformsour
interpretationoftouchbetweenthekingandqueen,whereAkhenatenembodiesthe
ritualroleofthegodintheregenerativesolarcyclewherethegenderlessAten
cannot.Illusionstotheking’sfertilityfurtherservetoaffirmthefutureoftheAten
cult.Themostdirectformsoftouchfromthegodisreservedforthekingalone,and
remindstheviewerofthatever-importantbinary,inwhichtheking’sthoughts,
29
actionsandpersonareeffectivelythoseoftheAten.WhileNefertitiandthechildren
areoftenincludedinthesescenes,certainartisticconsistenciessuchastheAten’s
reachthroughtheking’sofferingsandthedistinctlyturnedhandarereservedsolely
forAkhenatenTherecentexcavationsandpublicationofthedecorativeprogramsof
thesunshadetemplesatAkhetaten,whichwerereservedfortheprivateworshipof
elitewomenlikeNefertitiandherdaughters,mightprovidefascinatinginsightinto
when,ifever,theAten’stouchwasdepictedwithouttheking’spresence.39
Thelimitationsoftimeandlength,combinedwiththedizzyingnumberof
manifestationsofintimacyandtouchintheAmarnaperiod,makeitimpossibleto
addresseachinfullhere.Imagesofkiss,inparticular,wouldprovideafascinating
avenueforcontinuedstudy.AnindepthstudyofthoseimagesofAkhenatenand
Nefertitiembracingwhileontheirdaily,chariot-boundprocessionalmightalso
providerevealinginsights,especiallyinlightofWilliamson’ssuggestionthatthis
ritualwasmeanttomimicthesolarcycle.40
Thisessay’saimhasbeentoshowhowtheintimateimagesoftheAmarnaperiod
reflectaproprietaryrelationshipbetweentheroyalfamilyandtheAten,onethatat
itscorereliesontheking.Howeverthatdistancingneednotmeanthathuman
emotionisremovedformtheequationentirely.Thestirringimagesfromthetomb
ofMeketaten(fig23),whereAkhenatenandNefertiticlaspontooneanotherwhile
39Williamson,Nefertiti’sSunTemple,2016.40Ibid,191-194.
30
mourningthelossoftheirchild,seemstoshowamoregenuineandlesscalculated
visionoftouchaspartofhumanrelationships.
WhileAkhenaten’sreformswereexpeditiouslyoverthrownbyhissuccessors,and
imageandmonumentssubjecttoadamnationmemoriae,thenaturalismandenergy
oftheAmarnastylecontinuestobeseenlaterinthe18thDynasty.Forexample,the
depictionofTutankhamenandqueenAnkhesenamunonthebackoftheking’s
throne(fig.24)retainsthesoftenedbodies,dynamicposes,andintimateinteraction
seeninimagesofAkhenatenandNefertiti.Surroundingsplantmotifsevokefertility
andabundance,andthequeen’scapcrownechoesthatofherspouse.Yet,withtime,
eventhesedeviationswoulddisappear,assubsequentmonarchssuchasRamsesII
returnedtothetraditionalcanonofEgyptianart;aresoundingrejectionofthe
reformsandinnovationsofAkhenaten,the“HereticKing.”
31
IndexofFigures
Fig.1.ReliefofSenwosretIledbyAtum,fromKarnak.Limestone.Dynasty12(ca.1930).Insitu.
Fig.2.PairstatueofPtahkhenuwyandhiswife,fromGiza.Paintedlimestone.Dynasty5(2465-2323).MFABoston06.1876.
32
Fig.3.AmenhotepIIIwiththegodSobek.Alabaster.Dynasty18(ca.1391-1353).LuxorJ155.
Fig.4.ReliefofSenwosretembracedbyPtah,fromKarnak.Limestone.Dynasty12(ca.1930).Insitu.
33
Fig.5.ColossalstatueofAmenhotepIV/Akhenaten,fromKarnak.Limestone.Dynasty18(ca.1353-1336BC),years2-5.CairoJE49529.
Fig.6.The“WilbourPlaque”,ReliefshowingNefertitiincapcrown(right).Limestone.Dynasty18(ca.1352-1336orslightlylater).BrooklynMuseum16.48.
34
Fig.7.DetailofthewindowofappearancesfromtheeastsideofthenorthwallofthetombofAy,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookVIplateXXIX.
Fig8.DetailofthewindowofappearancesfromtheeastsideofthesouthwallofthetombofMeryra,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIIplateXXXIII.
35
Fig9.DetailofthewindowofappearancesfromthewestsideofthenorthwallofthetombofHuya,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIIIplateXVI.
Fig.10.ReliefoftheroyalfamilyseatedbeneaththeAten,fromAmarna.Limestone.Dynasty18(ca.1353-1336).Berlin14145.
36
Fig.11.FeastingscenefromtheeastsideofthesouthwallofthetombofHuya,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIIIPlateIV.
Fig.12.UnfinishedsteleoftheroyalfamilyAmarna,HouseO.49.12Dynasty18,reignofAkhenaten1353-1336BCLimestoneH.1702cm,w.13.3cm,d.2.8cmAgyptischesMuseumundPapyrussammlung,Berlin,20716
37
Fig.13.DetailfromthewestsideofthesouthwallinthetombofMeryraII,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIIPlateXXXII.
Fig.14.FragmentofasteleshowingAkhenatenwithNefertitiandchildrenonhislap,fromAmarna.Limestoneandpigment.DynastyXVIII(1352-1336).LouvreEII624
38
,Fig.15.FragmentofasteleshowingAkhenatenandNefertiti.Limestone,gessoandpigment.Dynasty18(1352-1336).Berlin14511.Atright,areconstructionofthestelebyMegaeraLorenz.
39
Fig.16.DetailfromtheentranceofthetombofApy,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIVPlateXXXI.
Fig.17.DetailfromtheTombofPanhesy,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIIPlateVII.
Fig.18.DetailfromtheTombofPanhesy,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIIPlateVIII.
40
Fig.19.DetailfromtheTombofMay,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookVPlateIII.
Fig.20.DetailfromtheeastsideofthenorthwallinthetombofMeryre,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIPlateXXXIII.
41
Fig.21.DetailfromtheWestwallofthepillaredhallinthetombofMeryre,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIPlateX.
Fig.22.DetailfromthewestwallofthetombofPanhesy,Amarna.DrawingafterDavies,BookIIPlateXVIII
42
Fig.23.AkhenatenandNefertitimournthedeathofPrincessMeketaten,Amarna.DrawingcourtesyofTheAmarnaProject.
Fig.24.TutankhamenandAnkhesenamunfromthebackrestoftheking’sthrone,fromThebes.Wood,goldsheet,semipreciousstones.Dynasty18(ca.1332-1322).CairoMuseumJE62028.
43
WorksCitedAldred,Cyril.AkhenatenKingofEgypt.London:ThamesandHudson,1988.Arnold,Dorothea.TheRoyalWomenofAmarna:ImagesofBeautyfromAncientEgypt.NewYork:TheMetropolitanMuseumofArt,1996.Burridge,Alwyn."DidAkhenatenSufferfromMarfan'sSyndrome?"TheBiblicalArchaeologist59,no.2(1996):127-28.Cooney,JohnD.AmarnaReliefsfromHeliopolisinAmericanCollections.Brooklyn:BrooklynMuseum,1965.Davies,NormandeGaris.TheRockCutTombsofel-Amarna,Volumes1-6.London:EEF,1903-1906.Davis,Whitney."TwoCompositionalTendenciesinAmarnaRelief."AJA82,no.3(1978):387-94.Eaverly,MaryAnn.TanMen/PaleWomen:ColorandGenderinArchaicGreeceandEgypt,aComprarativeApproach.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,2013.Freed,RitaE,YvonneJ.Markowitz,andSueH.D’auria,eds.PharaohsoftheSun:Akhenaten,Nefertiti,Tutankhamun.Boston:MuseumofFineArtsBoston,1999.Hari,Robert.NewKingdomAmarnaPeriod:theGreatHymntotheAten.Leiden:Brill,1985.Hoffmeier,James.AkhenatenandtheOriginsofMonotheism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2015.Hornung,Erik.AkhenatenandtheReligionofLight.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1999.Ikram,Salima."DomesticShrinesandtheCultoftheRoyalFamilyatEl-'Amarna."TheJournalofEgyptianArchaeology75(1989):89-101.Johnson,W.Raymond."AmenhotepIIIandAmarna:SomeNewConsiderations."JEA82(1996):65-82.Kemp,BarryJ."TheWindowofAppearanceatEl-Amarna,andtheBasicStructureofThisCity."JEA62(1976):81-99.Kemp,Barry.TheCityofAkhenatenandNefertiti:AmarnaanditsPeople.London:Thames&Hudson,2012.
44
Manniche,Lisa.TheAkhenatenColossiofKarnak.NewYork:AmericanUniversityinCairoPress,2010.GeofreyT.ARoyalTombatel-Amarna.London:EgyptExplorationSociety,1989.McCarthy,HeatherLee,andHeatherMcCarthy."TheOsirisNefertari:ACaseStudyofDecorum,Gender,andRegeneration."JARCE39(2002):173-95.Meyers,ElizabethL."ComponentDesignasaNarrativeDeviceinAmarnaTombArt."StudiesintheHistoryofArt16(1985):33-51.Moret,Alexandre.TheNileandEgyptianCivilization.London:Routledge,2013.North,Robert."AkhenatenSecularized?"Biblica58,no.2(1977):246-58.Pendlebury,J.D.S.TheCityofAkhenaten,III.London:EgyptExplorationSociety,1980.Reeves,Nicholas.Akhenaten:Egypt’sFalseProphet.London:ThamesandHudson,2001.Redford,DonaldB."TheSun-DiscinAkhenaten'sProgram:ItsWorshipandAntecedents,II."JARCE17(1980):21-38.Redford,DonaldB.AkhenatentheHereticKing.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984.Redford,DonaldB."Akhenaten:NewTheoriesandOldFacts."BulletinoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch,no.369(2013):9-34.Robins,Gay.ProportionandStyleinAncientEgyptianArt.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,1994.Russman,Edna.EgyptianSculptures:CairoandLuxor.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,1989.Samson,Julia."Nefertiti'sRegality."JEA63(1977):88-97.Stevens,Anna."TheMaterialEvidenceforDomesticReligionatAmarnaandPreliminaryRemarksonItsInterpretation."JEA89(2003):143-68.Teeter,Emily.ReligionandRitualinAncientEgypt.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2011.
45
Tyldesley,Joyce.Nefertiti:Egypt’sSunQueen.NewYork:PenguinPress,1998.Uphill,Eric."TheEgyptianSed-FestivalRites."JNES24,no.4(1965):365-83.Velde,H.Te."SomeRemarksontheStructureofEgyptianDivineTriads."TheJournalofEgyptianArchaeology57(1971):80-86.Watterson,Barbara.Amarna:AncientEgypt’sAgeofRevolution.Gloucestershire:Tempus,1999.
