Amarna Reliefs from Hermopolis in American Collections by John D. CooneyReview by: Charles F. NimsJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1968), pp. 544-546Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/596888 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 14:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:31:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

544 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 88.3 (1968)

relative changes of population through time, and comes to the conclusion that there was a rise in population beginning with the Neolithic and last- ing until Early Nubian II. There was a fall in Early Nubian III followed by a gradual recovery which culminated in another high in the New Kingdom. In the late New Kingdom all record of a settled population disappears, and is not picked up until nearly a thousand years later during Ptolemaic times. He then goes on to calculate the actual

population figures throughout the ages based on the number of sites that can be considered to have existed simultaneously multiplied by a factor that represents "the relative average" size of such sites. Factors affecting the size of population such as war, height of the Nile flood, introduction of the shaduf and the saqqia are given in tables.

ELISE BAUMGARTEL

OXFORD, ENGLAND

A marna Reliefs from Hermopolis in American Collections. By JOHN D. CooNEY. Pp. vi + 110, Pls. 79 (2 in color) + 2 drawings. Brooklyn, THE BROOKLYN MUSEUM, 1965. $8.00

In ten years of excavation at Hermopolis the late Professor Gunther Roeder discovered, reused in a foundation of a building of Ramesses II, about 1500 small limestone blocks with relief which had been quarried from structures of Akhenaton at El-Amarna. At the close of the work in 1939 these were stored in a locked magazine. During the ensuing war this magazine was entered and some of the blocks were stolen. These subsequently came on the market. Only five of the 72 blocks which were known to be in America at the time this publication was prepared are identified as coming from Roder's excavations; the others are thought to have come from illicit digging.

Some 20,000 sandstone blocks of the same size, originally measuring approximately one cubit in length by half a cubit square, have been found in Karnak. Some were used as foundations of the columns of the great Hypostyle Hall, most of which were erected by Seti I though some columns may have been erected by Ramesses II. Many more were removed from the inner ends of the Second Pylon, erected by Haremhab, and there is good evidence that there are still a great number within this structure. Because these blocks were about three spans (or three hand-lengths?) in the longest dimension, they were called talatat by the workmen. This word, already a plural, became

talatates in the excavation reports, and this designation is commonly used today. Unfortu- nately, there is no clear account of the removal of these blocks, and an apparently greater number of uninscribed blocks of the same size seem to have been discarded by the excavators. More recently it was discovered by Ramadan Saad that more such inscribed blocks were used as a fill in the west tower of the Ninth Pylon, also build by Harem- hab. These are being carefully recorded by the excavator. Other blocks from the same original sources were used in building the east and west walls of the court between the Eighth and Ninth Pylons. Most have now disappeared. A small number of these blocks have been found in the vicinity of the Luxor Temple, but it is unknown in what building they were reused.

The blocks in the Theban area are being studied by Ray W. Smith, sponsored by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, and the results of this investigation should give much more information concerning the Karnak structure or structures build by Amenhotep IV from such blocks. Certainly the buildings were more ex- tensive than has been envisaged. It is the impres- sion of the reviewer that the art of the Karnak talatates differs from that of the El-Amarna build- ings only in the possibility of the sculptors doing more of a detailed design on the limestone of the latter than on the sandstone of the former. Since the blocks decorated in the style erroneously called "Amarna" (the style originated in Thebes) seem originally to have been quarried to this

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:31:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books 545

common size, there seems no question that their shape is due to a later cutting up of originally larger stones. Only a few larger blocks with this style of relief have come to the reviewer's atten- tion, two built into the Pylon of the Khonsu Temple at Karnak (for one see Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography, II, Theban Temples, p. 84), one reused over the doorway of the roof chapel in the same building and four used in the foundation of a statue at Karnak (see A.S.A., 45, pp. 299-304).

While the smaller than normal size of some of the decorated surfaces of the Karnak and the Amarna talatates arises from the use of these as headers, it is evident that many of the original stones were broken. Some of the injury may have been caused by rough handling during the dis- mantling of the buildings. However, it seems probable that the stresses in the original structures caused much of the breakage. While the large building blocks used in the previous reign were carefully dressed on the fitting as well as the external surfaces, the fitting surfaces of the talatates at both sites were rough, and must have required much plaster in the interstices. The small size of the building stones would have facilitated the quarrying, and one man could lift one block. All this suggests that the later Amenhotep IV- Akhenaton structures were constructed with some haste and perhaps carelessness.

Though Cooney believes that the erection of the Karnak structures was "one of [Amenhotep IV's] first acts as king," it must be noted that other building activities preceded this. He decorated the north and south outer walls of the porch before the Third Pylon with conventional reliefs of the king smiting his enemies. It is probable that Amenho- tep III built this porch as an integral part of his pylon. In the extant portion there is no mention of the Aten. Furthermore, Amenhotep IV built a temple to Re-Harakhti with conventionally sized blocks and decorated it with conventional XVIIIth Dynasty relief. Here the name of the Aten appears in its earliest form, as in the earlier throne scene in the Tomb Chapel of Ramose (see Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography, J2, Theban Necropolis, Part I, Private Tombs, p.

109[7]). This temple remained standing during the later building period; in some places the nomen of the king was changed to Akhenaton and the name of the Aten in cartouches was added. The blocks were reused by Haremhab in the upper part of the east tower of the Tenth Pylon; for the lower part of this tower and for the west tower there is no surface evidence of such reuse of the earlier stones. These blocks are described, though inadequately, in B., A.R., II, p. 382 f., ?932. It was to obtain these blocks that the Gebel El-Silsilah quarry was opened, as the form of the name of the Aten makes clear; see ibid., ??933-35. It is probable that the Karnak talatates came from the same quarry.

The suddenness of the change from the con- ventional to the new style of art is a phenomenon which has received little attention. The same outline draughtsman and sculptors who worked under Amenhotep III prior to his son's accession and who executed the conventional reliefs of Amenhotep IV must have done the work in the new style in which they could have had no more than a few months of instruction. This speaks for a high degree of adaptability on the part of the ancient artisans.

Though it is the opinion of Cooney and others that the Amarna temples were standing for some generations after the abandonment of the site, this is Inot true of the temples of Amenhotep IV at Karnak. Here the buildings were used as quarries by Haremhab. The Karnak reliefs show the same desultory defacement of inscriptions and faces of the royal couple as do those at Amarna. However, there is some unpublished evidence that another means of obscuring the reliefs was used at Karnak. In any case, the de- cision to destroy the buildings made further defacement unnecessary. At Karnak the removal of the stones was as thorough as at Amarna, and only the grotesque Osirid statues of Amenhotep IV identified the site of this ruler's temple.

In the text accompanying the plates Cooney has ably discussed both the subject matter and the art of the reliefs. In some cases there are some questions in the reviewer's mind about relatively minor details. In No. 5 the cutting of the grain

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:31:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

546 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 88.8 (1968)

may well be part of the celebration of the Feast of Min, but no reference is given for the statement that "Amenhotep III is represented performing this ceremony," and such a scene has escaped the reviewer's notice. Medinet Habu, IV, pl. 211, shows Amenhotep III with the float of Min. Though the drawing does not make it evident, the figure of Min was erased, presumably in the Amarna period, and later restored. It is question- able that No. 21 is a representation of the same feast and the bands at the base are more likely to represent rope than reed or wood.

On No. 25 the author comments on the effective combination of incised and raised relief. It is a characteristic of incised relief in all periods that the inner details are shown in bas-relief. In these blocks the bas-relief area is often extensive. If the right end of No. 42 were missing it would ap- pear that the musicians were only in bas-relief. With this in mind, caution must be used in accept- ing the suggestion that Nos. 52 and 57 come from a wall decorated in bas-relief.

The puzzlement expressed in regard to the representation, in No. 51a, of Nefertiti in the traditional royal posture of smiting the enemy is cleared up by a comparison with the decoration of the throne of Queen Tiy in the Tomb Chapel of Kheruef. Here the figures of the sphinx and the prisoners are female; see A.S.A., 42, pp. 93 if. The traditional iconography on the king's throne was followed except for the sex of the figures. Apparently the same change took place in the Amarna relief in question.

In No. 54 the irregularity of the object carried on the shoulder of the workman, and on a similar unpublished block seen by the author suggests to him that the object is a sack. Yet one wonders whether, in spite of the shape, the object is not one of the talatates and what is shown is the actual construction of the temple. Note that in a Karnak relief, A.S.A., 38, pl. CXI, upper, the building stone carried on the shoulder of the workman appears to be curved. The thick bar across the middle of the Amarna relief may then

show a scaffold resting on pillars built of mud brick (or talat ates(?); see the Karnak relief mentioned) and the incline on the unpublished relief be an ascent to a higher part of the construc- tion. The men above on No. 54 may be workmen rather than soldiers.

That in the preserved portion of the excep- tionally fine limestone bust of Akhenaton, No. 61a, the only effacement was that of the cartouches of the Aten need not surprise; there is little evidence of deliberate destruction on the Karnak grotesque statues. The object in the upper left corner of No. 62 may be a fan. It should be noted that No. 32 is now in the Oriental Institute Museum, No. 24828, a gift from Mr. and Mrs. Norbert Schimmel. The block is of soft yellowish limestone.

Various styles and skills of workmanship are displayed in these reliefs. In contrast are No. 57, showing a stand of wheat, and No. 58, with a stand of flowers. The draughtsmanship in both is outstanding, but while the former is in strong bas- relief, the latter is in very shallow incised relief. There is not as yet enough evidence to show whether the varying treatments is because of different periods of decoration or merely indicates the various abilities of the artisans. Other con- siderations may have influenced the style, the nature of the building decorated, the position on the wall, the pressures to finish the work. It is to be hoped that the eventual publication of Roeder, 1500 Amarna-Reltiefs aus Hermopoltis, will shed light on this problem.

Since it seems inevitable that antiquities will be removed from their countries of origin and come onto the market, it is fortunate that these fine pieces of Amarna relief should have come into the possession of responsible persons and be so well published by an outstanding scholar of the art of the period. If the other blocks of this collection now outside Egypt could be similarly made known it would be a great boon.

CHARLES F. NIMS

ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, CHICAGO

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:31:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions