Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.