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.