The Ancient Near East by Amélie Kuhrt

Author:Amélie Kuhrt
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Published: 1995-02-15T00:00:00+00:00

CAH

conventional

low

Amenophis III

1417-1379

1403-1364

1390-1352

Amenophis IV (= Akhenaten)

1379-1362

1364-1347

1352-1336

Smenkhare

1364-1361

1348-1345

1338-1336

Tutankhamun

1361-1352

1345-1335

1336-1327

Ay

1352-1348

1335-1332

1327-1323

Horemheb

1348-1320

1332-1306

1323-1295

The site of el-Amarna in Middle Egypt first focused attention on this period. The first discoveries were made in the 1870s, when some rock tombs and stelae were found. But it was the find of a large number of clay tablets, mainly written in Akkadian and representing the Egyptian imperial correspondence (the ‘Amarna letters’), that aroused real excitement. Intensive exploration of the site by British and German archaeologists followed and they unearthed the city’s extensive remains: wealthy houses, palaces, temples and an artisans’ quarter (Petrie 1984; Davies 1903-8; Peet et al. 1923-51). The royal court used the site only briefly, and the later king, Ramesses II (dynasty XIX: 1290-1224 (1279-1213)), reused blocks from Amarna in his buildings at Hermopolis on the opposite side of the Nile (Cooney 1965; Spencer and Bailey 1983-92).4 The finds at Amarna brought to light two unusual features of Akhenaten’s reign: first, the human figure, especially the king himself, was represented in a very curious way; secondly, a new cult of the ‘Aten’ (the sun-disc) had come into existence and other Egyptian gods were apparently not worshipped. What were scholars to make of this?

One approach was to look more closely at the period following Akhenaten’s reign. It became rapidly clear that the king was not accepted into the later list of Egypt’s kings, his name and those associated with him were excluded from monuments, and the years of his reign were counted together with those of Horemheb, the former general, who became king at the very end of the dynasty. So the period was blocked out from the official record; when it was impossible to avoid a mention of Akhenaten (e.g. for dating purposes) he was simply called ‘the enemy’. This would only happen if something particularly appalling had happened. What could that have been? One possibility is to see whether the inscriptions of Akhenaten’s immediate successors contain any hints. The stele of Tutankhamun from Karnak (Bennett 1939) does, indeed, make some veiled allusions: sanctuaries throughout the land were destitute; the land was in chaos; Egypt had suffered military defeats; the gods were so enfeebled that they could not answer prayers. While due allowance must be made for the exaggeration inherent in the language of royal texts, it is clear that the previous reign was already being regarded with some horror. The situation had to be rectified and Tutankhamun says he did so, by rehabilitating the sanctuaries, giving them properties and staffs as of old and remaking divine images. Although the statements are vague and generalised, something of Akhenaten’s reign does emerge: he had turned the established Egyptian order effectively on its head.

But how and in what way? One of Akhenaten’s policies, that used to be thought quite incontrovertible, was that he neglected Egypt’s imperial holdings; some even argued that military action was against his religious principles. The argument was based on some of the Amarna letters. Several contain dire warnings to the Pharaoh against the treacherous activities of neighbouring rulers, and some repeatedly bewail the Egyptian king’s failure to send troops.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.