AMENHOTEP and AKHENATEN: EGYPT'S PHARAOHS OF THE SUN
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Akhenaten probably attracts more attention than any other pharaoh among Egyptophiles. His revolution was swift, wide-ranging and apparently sudden. But to what extent can the changes he introduced be traced to the reign of his father Amenhotep III? This talk looks at some of the key features of the Amarna period, and asks to what extent the changes were already underway when Akhenaten came to the throne, and whether his predecessor might even have continued to play a role after that point.
This talk will be freely available to all but giving lectures like this is a part of how I earn a living so if you ‘d like to send a contribution to support my work please consider doing so via the ‘thanks’ button, or by joining the channel as a member. For more information about this please see chrisnaunton.com/2024/04/04/l...
PLEASE NOTE the live session will start at 5.50 pm, the lecture itself at 6.00 pm.
That makes me sad, to know that Professor Barry Kemp has died. Those were very kind words that you spoke about him and his extensive contribution to egyptology. Thank you, Dr. Chris.
He was really an inspiration, and I feel very lucky to have known him a little.
First I heard of it. He was a gentleman.
Thank you very much for doing this!! I have been interested in Ancient Egypt ever since I was a young child. I have seen you in documentaries. It’s wonderful to be able to hear your lectures on UA-cam. I know that all of us Egypt enthusiasts are grateful to see you on here showing us all the research that you have done.
RIP Barry Kemp. My condolences to you and those who worked with him and were close to him.
Thank you 🙏
I was at this talk when it was held online before. So glad it got uploaded here for everyone to enjoy.
this was a brand new version but glad you enjoyed it anyway!
It makes complete sense! I love how you articulate this! Thank you for breathing new life into this. This is the most engaging lecture on Amarna I have been given to hear!
Thank you! 🙏
Really enjoyed it. Complicated subject but even I got there in the end! Thanks again Chris.
Thanks Alison!
There are TWO quite large statues of Akhenaten at the Boston Museum of Fine Art in Boston, Massachusetts.
Thank you very much indeed! Enjoyable listening, as usual. Now the colossal sculptures of Amenhotep the IV; Exaggerated and stylished as they seem, I think theres more to depictions of Akhenaten than catches the eye. Eventhough the very same depictions appear in two dimensional imagery as well. When you stand in the intense, luminous, sunlight of Egypt, and stand by the feet of the colossal statue in person, a magic trick appears: The statue becomes very vivid and life- like. I stood there with my best friend and stated they were hundreds of years ahead, predecessing greeks who invented- or just re- invented a trick: In order to depict a human in colossal format, ti be seen from belohnt, you have to exaggerate and lenghthen some, widen some, and you have a very living, quite normal looking image. There are style aspects to this, too. These scjlptures of Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten are stylished in a way where sharp sunlight is necessary to lift the effect. Statues in British Museum stand in dull haze- there should be a sharp light following the original lightning- sun. The Sun and sunlight are crucial for these sculptures. I imagine as artist that was the case by then: light and shadow the sun casts makes these sculptures magnificent, awesome pieces of Art with architectural, geometric quality to shape of shadows and soft shining almost liquid opacity to light parts. Btw remembering the mummy of Akhenaten reveal no inbreed or anything obscure, quite normal bone structure.
Amazing talk. Thankyou
Thank you! 🙏
Thank you for another really interesting lecture. Thoroughly enjoy them.
Thank you!
Thanks Chris, great lecture!
Thank you Lyn! Really appreciate the contribution, thanks 🙏
Very interesting lecture ,thanks 👍👍
Thank you!
Congratulations on England's win against Netherland.
Thanks!
Thank you for the fascinating video 🩷
My pleasure, thanks for watching!
Thanks!!
Enjoyed that so much! Great lecture
Just wanted to note that I think that at least one of the Akhnaten colossi at Karnak, ( the one on the right ) in the photograph , time stamped 26:51, appear to be now located in the Ashmolean museum.
Where I currently work!
Would you like me to post an image online . If I am able to
Thanks!
@@miraho1391 I've just checked and it seems Manniche only lists two statues that are outside Egypt, one in Cambridge and one in Munich. I guess what's in Oxford is something similar but not quite the same...?
Thankyou for looking into this.
I did a little research myself and the Ashmolean statues were found in a rubbish filled chamber, near a garden shrine where they originally would have stood.
Found by the Egypt exploration society
AN1924:162
Hi Chris. Just joined as a subscriber and an alasbaster!!
I have been thinking of some suggestions of further talk topics for you:
First born who never made it to king.........akhenaten was second born I think. Ther must have been others.
What was Ehypt like when the hyksos reined? What happened to the ehyptian royal family?
Plants and gardens - there are some great examples of scenes of lush gardens in tombs I think - what was the relationship between these and the people/royalty
This kecture was great and you have now got me thinking bery differently about 'those' statues.
hi Emma, thanks so much for joining! Welcome to the club! And many thanks for your suggestions! At some point soon I will need to start making a plan for the talks beyond September, and I will bear your suggestions in mind... I hope to have a more topics ready by the time of the next talk so watch this space!
Hi Chris and other folks.
Watching this made me think of some thoughts and research I did awhile back into the reign length of Horemheb. My theory may well already be in an academic study somewhere but I have not come across it as yet. The three reign lengths for Horemheb I have seen discussed and debated are 14 years, 27 years and 59 years. The current 0:12 consensus I think is 14 years, which makes sense to me, judging by those wine labels found in Horemheb’s tomb (KV57). Theoretically, could be 13 or 15-16, but 14 sounds reasonable to me.
But the 27 and 59 years obviously came from somewhere.
27 years is recorded at Horemheb’s mortuary temple. For me, this seems to be a case of Tutankhamun and Ay having their years subsumed for Horemheb, as I think, from memory, it was their mortuary temple Horemheb took over. Tutankhamun and Ay had an approximate totalled reigns of about 14 years. So if the record of 27 years for Horemheb is associated with his year of death, then 27 - 13-14 yea4s (?) gives us 14 years of actual reign, and so 27 is a kind of legal fiction, so to speak, not just a scribal error.
When it comes to the 59 years, I think a similar idea applies. And this definitely rides on a legal fiction IMO.
The Year 59 comes from the tomb of Mes in Saqqara (Memphis). A text on his tomb wall details a court case regarding land he managed to win back from a land shark (lol). The court case was in Year 59 of Horemheb. From this, I can only think Mes is relying on accepted dating the court officials were using. So why? Because it had been decided to erase several reigns but give those pharaohs’ reign years to Horemheb. Year 59 may not be equal to his actual Year 14, but I’ll use that as a marker.
So a little maths. Year 59 minus Year 14 gives us 45 years. So how do we account for the 45 lost years?
Removing Akhenaten’s reign is a pretty obvious IMO. He is referred to in the same wall text as ‘the criminal of Akhetaten’ or similar, clearly identifying him. So 45 minus 17 (approx) gives us 28 years. Remove Tutankhamun and Ay = 14 years (approx). We then have 14 years. Then the mysterious Neferneferuaten, 3 or more years. [The Akhenaten/Neferneferuaten years are up in the air for me, but I’m only talking in approximates anyway). So we have 11 years (approx) Left outstanding.
No matter how hard one may try, while not getting silly, those 11 years just can’t be added to the total number of years of the pharaohs from Akhenaten to Ay. So where must we look?
Amenophis III has to be the only candidate to be brought in to account for the missing years!
I have thought for quite awhile that if a number of years must be taken from Amenophis III then it might well be logical to bring in his penchant for The Aten as a defining factor. He becomes the Dazzling Aten. He has a palace and a town built at Malkata to celebrate the divine sun disc (orb for mine, but who am I anyway, lol?) Is this when folks of Horemheb’s time decided the ‘criminality’ had begun? Amenophis III was a revered King, but who wanted to remember the oddities of his later reign? How do you remove the bad taste? Wipe it away!
As I’ve said, the estimated years involved can only be approximate. But if the 1st heb sed festival, or a few years before, was when later folk looked to the start of the Aten nonsense, then maybe an estimated (still approximate!) number of years might be subtracted from Amenophis III’s reign. 39 years minus 9 (to Year 30). 9 years? 11 years? 15 years? Who can say? But the Aten business in Amenophis III’s reign is surely behind those unaccounted for years beyond those already subtracted from Akhenaten to Ay.
The thing is, Mes is using a legal fiction in his tomb, that is, that Year 59. Its illogical to think he just pulled that Year out of the air. He records a legal case for posterity. So I detect it was the time marker the court officials were using too. Yet why take years away from Amenophis III? For me, it’s that early Aten business. Afterall, as Chris shows us, Amenophis became the Aten, a divine figure while still alive. Was that the specific trigger point when folks got all retrospective and decided to erase certain unsavoury years? So should we see an erasure of all the years from Amenophis III’s year 30(ish?) until the death of Ay? Makes sense to me.
Note: If Year 59 is not Horemheb’s actual Year 14, I would still think it late in the reign, unless we go back quite a bit deeper in Amenophis III’s reign for that ‘trigger’ point I conjectured about above that did not please folks of Horemheb’s time.
If this is all old hat, please someone tell me. If not, you read it here first, lol. ✅
The part where Chris talks about Nebmaatre Amenophis becoming divine while still alive made me think of Horemheb and the text on the tomb of Mes at Saqqara that recorded for posterity a court case over land ownership Mes won which occurred in ‘Year 59’ of Horemheb.
For me, it is clear the Memphis court officials involved were using some kind of date reckoning that gave Horemheb (at the time of the court hearing) a reign length (currently of) 59 years. It’s a legal fiction, for mine. With Horemheb’s actual reign very likely to be 14 years or close to that, we must account for that 45 years added. (Basing this on his Year 14, though it might have been in his Year 1, or 7, or 12, or whatever, but not past the 14 years).
So if we need to find 45 years (at least!), where are they to be found?
The ‘criminal of Akhetaten’ is also mentioned in the text, so I think it likely Akhenaten’s years have been given to Horemheb. But that’s not 45 years.
So we might easily decide the figure must include all the years of pharaohs from Akhenaten until Horemheb. Those pharaohs that Horemheb and the Ramessieds tried to erase from history.
Still, no matter how you count them up, the reigns of those pharaohs just won’t make up 45 years. I’m guessing around 10-15 years need accounting for.
The only way I think that can be done is by taking up some of Nebmaatre Amenophis’s years of reign. Why? I have thought for a long time it must have to do with the rise of the Aten.
Nebmaatre Amenophis built a new palace and town named for the Aten. He himself became the Dazzling Aten.
So when the court officials in Memphis decided on that Year 59, surely there was a dating anchor point to set their reckoning. Was it the day in Nebmaatre Amenophis’s reign when he officially announced his rise to godhead while still alive? Say circa Year 30 or so? Works for me.
If you’re checking the comments, Chris, I’d love to know what you think about this. (I also have some thoughts on the Year 27 mortuary temple dating too, lol).
Danke!
Thank you, I really appreciate your generosity!
Fascinating talk Chris,I was wondering if Akhenaten was worshipping his father in the Aten guise.Your theory makes perfect sense.Another reason for Amenhoteps deification might have been to Amenhotep,s health failing in his later years?
Yes, this may have been a part of it!
If his mummy is correctly identified (i.e. did Butehamun et al. get the IDs right?), Amenhotep III was short, stocky and much afflicted in middle/old age.
Thanks from Brazil
Aussie replay crew 😊
Hi! Thanks for coming!
Interesting that the Aten relief predates his name change
A wonderful explanation, which makes perfect sense to entail the legitimacy from father to offspring. I hope that you will put this in a future book. My visit to the site as a location of the rebirth of the succession within the context of the heliotrope ( new city, new life, birth of a God strengthening the rule of a son) cheers and many thanks.
Thank you! And yes, some of this will make it into the next book I think (due 2026 if I can get my act together...). Watch this space!
Great talk, Chris. Got to it at the first opportunity.
Are you coming to Monash University to give another in Melbourne? If so, when?
Hi Robert! thanks for watching 😀 I would LOVE to come back to Monash / Melbourne at some point, just need another invitation 😉
Thanks
Thank you!
Very interesting lecture, introducing some new ideas. Note: 1:04:33 Queen Mutemwiya is said to have been a minor wife of Thutmose IV. It has been suggested that she may have been the sister of Yuya, who was possibly the central figure in the genealogy of the late 18th Dynasty.
Thanks, you're right about Mutemwia, and I was conscious of this as I was saying it. If I remember rightly, no wife of pharaoh took the title 'Great Royal Wife' from the time of Hatshepsut, until Tiye - the suggestion being that Hatshepsut's reign may have encouraged her immediate successors to diminish the standing of the women in the royal family. Mutemwia may not therefore have been a lesser wife as such, and might still have been the most important, it's just that she didn't take that title (Hmt nsw wrt).
Thank you for a fascinating talk. Your points about the statues representing Shu and the point about the Aten as being somehow linked to Amenhotep III are ideas I have not heard before and seem worthy of continued investigation. I have a question. I often hear the idea expounded that there was some form of epidemic during Akhenaten's reign and there appear to be various hypotheses regarding this. What are your thoughts, what evidence is there on this matter?
As I understand it, the suggestion that there may have been an epidemic comes in part from the apparent death of at least one of Akhenaten's daughters, Meketaten, and possibly others at a young age, the apparent high turnover of pharaohs at the time (Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten), and eventual absence of an ideal successor - which might explain why Tutankhamun, whose parentage is uncertain, came to throne, and also the appeal of an Egyptian Queen to the Hittites for a husband who could become king of Egypt. We also now have the remains of a significant number of the population from Amarna from the Stone Village cemetery, analysis of which has suggested that there may have been some widespread illness. But the idea of an epidemic is rejected here on p, 7: www.amarnaproject.com/documents/pdf/horizon-newsletter-18.pdf Thanks for watching!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you. I shall look forward to reading this.
Chris, is there a way to send a donation to you on this UA-cam version of your talk?
Thanks for asking! There should be a 'thanks' button underneath the video to allow you to do this but I gather this might not be visible to viewers in all countries. An alternative would be to use PayPal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/chrisnaunton Thanks again! 🙏
@@ChristopherNaunton No button in Mexico. I used Paypal.
@@bweaverla V useful to know, and thanks again Brad!
Dr Ahmed Osman wrote in over 7 books who these pharaohs really were. From King david in the bible to moses and his son jesus,
Ah, did Barry Kemp die... so sorry. Such a great man.
Yes, very sad news: www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jun/12/barry-kemp-obituary
Continue: El Amarna depictions of Aten; the rays end in Ankh- Symbol, for me upside down. Open a picture of Akhenaten ( Osiris- aspect in particular)sculptures in your telephone, iPad or computer. Tilt the screen so you long along the screen. Can you see it? The exaggerated body forms an Ankh upside down, like the pharaoh were an ending of sunrays/ sun. Does it make sense? I think Amenhotep III and his son created a new somewhat megalomaniac divine ideology...
...sorry: tilt the screen, look ALONG screen...
Please tell us your thoughts on the Orion Theory soon. I read much in the official and less in alternative, but sorry, it is bulletproof. Is it time to wake up to that fact?
No waking up required! I'm neither an astronomer nor a surveyor, but I understand that in fact the relative positions of the stars in Orion's belt do *not* quite match the positions of the pyramids, and that the line with a kink in it that can be drawn through the three stars, is, though similar to arrangement of the pyramids, in fact presents a *mirror image* of the latter i.e. not the same. The alignment theory, although, it has received a lot of attention and may seem very persuasive to some, has been challenged by both astronomers and in Egyptology by, in particular, Prof Kate Spence of Cambridge University, who is both an architect and Egyptologist, and therefore very well placed to critique the idea. Moreover, the broader conclusion that the alignment means that the pyramids and sphinx were built much earlier (c. 10,000 BCE) than the current consensus view (c. 2,700 BCE), requires us to disregard the *masses* - inscriptions, ceramics, geology etc - of evidence that the pyramids were built during the Fourth Dynasty, and to assume that all archaeological traces of the earlier activity have disappeared. And this is simply not how archaeology works - the archaeological *evidence* all points to the 4th Dynasty, everything else is just (flawed) speculation! I'll be discussion some aspects of this in my next talk , 'Pyramid Mythbusting': ua-cam.com/video/KjOiTX8INrY/v-deo.html
Oh, nice. Thanks for the reply. The book 'Origins of the Sphinx' tackles many of these criticisms in the appendix. The 'upside-down' thing is destroyed. The pyramids don't need to be that old, but the Sphinx can be as old as Gobekli Tepe, or older. It certainly looks that old. The pyramids could be built upon original markings/mounds. He goes through all the 'evidence' of Khafre being the builder and, well, there just isn't any evidence at all. It's an opinion based on one flaked-off syllable. The astronomy is tight when seen all together because it's too much, and it fits with the Pyramid Texts' expression of the Orion as the dead king. The three pyramids are accurate enough to Orion - very accurate, if it's religious art. The alignment of 10,500 BC is a 'First Time' also as the lowest point in Orion's cycle. The missing evidence is probably reused statuary. The 4th Dynasy probably revamped the site and recarved the Sphinx head, which is less weathered. Just look at the rainfall cuts in the rock enclosure and compare to 4th Dynasty wind erosion. It's really hard because Egypt has been so ruined and pillaged for so long. We get scraps left. I promise, if you really read Bauval's work in order, ignore the imitations and the oddballs that poison the well, and take the time with the astronomy it becomes really hard to deny. Of course. He can't be right about everything, but the astronomy is the key. A university in Italy did an investigation (so said) and found the OCT unfalsifiable. Pyramids, Sphinx and Nile - Orion, Leo and the Milky Way. And yes, you can see evidence of Leo being a lion for them in the sky. The constellation even looks radically like the Sphinx.
Just throwing that your way. No argument beyond this point from me. I'm just saying really read the stuff from source. Standard Egyptology is constantly simplifying and misinterpreting the actual facts of the work.
Leave that with you. So nice of you to reply.
How do we know sure that it is the sun and not Niburu or another planet?
Well, the sun seems most likely for lots of reasons...
...No surprise of their spirituality black people have always been spiritual.👃✌😎
I just have to say.. that for acedemia to describe the statue of Akhenaten as being "grotesque you might say" is in fact saying a man with feminine features, or a condition that gave him such, is grotesque. It is actually directing people watching this to agree the same and has always bothered me as being bias to the preconcieved notion that men should look masculine. I dont agree with that. There is nothing wrong with how the artist portrayed him, in fact it has always been my favorite statue of great mystery and I find it incredibly beautiful. Elongated heads and everything. These were the features of that royal family including those obviously passed down to his son Tutankhamun. They were not like others. In fact these features are found in skulls in South America. His sculpture was intended to show him as he really was, and it might be the only portrayal of how people with elongated heads and different body porportions actually looked like. It was not a "different artistic style" based on inflated ego. Most statues and other depictions of ancient people probably didn't portray much of what was anatomically correct of them throughout the whole history of egyptian art. But here was Akhenaten saying he didnt want to be portrayed as anything "normal", "perfect" , or "godlike" but to show his natural features and his everyday life with his beautiful family. And if he did indeed have the condition like Marfan's, or other, then it is incredibly childish to say anyone's features that are not "normal" are grotesque. No-one but the ostenatious and immature would say that about someone living today.
He said some would say and then said it was a loaded term, hence agreeing with you.
😑
As soon as he said the pyramids are tomb I am done...Academia is obsolete and tyranical..bye bye...
Byyyyeee
You should watch some of the videos on the "History for Granite" UA-cam channel, he also has a certain amount of derision for "mainstream academia", but despite that his videos are well researched and don't end up in some fantastical plain involving aliens. He mostly (exclusively?) makes videos about the 4th Dynasty pyramids and his going theory at the moment is the pyramids were indeed tombs, but tombs that were meant to be re-accessed at certain ceremonial times to venerate the king after their death.
Do not discount mainstream academia so flippantly, despite what you may think of the depth of your internet education, experts in their field do know more than you. You may know more about Egypt than the guys at your work or your local pub, but you do not know more than a guy that has thought of nothing but Egypt for 20 years, a person that has read papers and listened to thousands of hours of lectures by other guys that have also been thinking of Egypt and the world Egypt existed in for more than 20 years. Our internet education comes nowhere near what these people know, you would be better served to listen to what they have to say, even if you ultimately don't agree with their conclusions.
Or... you can stick your fingers in your ears, bury your head in the sand, and go "la la la la, I know 'The Truth'."
Good that you go.
I'm with you @jordanbey870. Its getting old already. So bizarre that people are still being led to believe they are tombs, as if stating that as fact, while knowing not a single Pharaoh has EVER been found in one, makes it true. Hoping as if certain the discovery of one will absolutely happen "one day" putting all us tinfoil-hat alt-history naysayers to rest. Even more weird that people keep blindly believing outdated info without researching the latest scientific progress and discoveries. The great pyramids were so much more than mere "tombs". They had a functional purpose for something. It is absolutely evident once you go there and see them in real life. The Osirion at Abydos proves that they knew how to create stone structures with function. Not burial. It is a massive stone structure, the size of a 4 or 5 story tall and wide apartment building, that sits perfectly balanced on water saturated sand, 900 meters above the granite basement, without sinking, somehow breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, while pushing water up from an unknown underwater aquifer that is not Nile water. Water that knows how to refill the muddy debris filled spaces around the center structure every time we try to excavate/pump it out. We aren't saying friggen aliens made them, but hammer and copper or bronze chisel everyday ancient egyptian workers sure as hell didnt. Just humans with more advanced intelligence and skill. Why is that so hard to accept? Whatever. Their loss.. let them believe in simple tombs as an explanation for everything.
Sure, Sherlock. You obviously dedicated your life to research, lol.
21:54 Decamps being the appropriate surname here.
22:54 Wonky draughtsmanship. Shu. Bewb.
24:24 UFO glyph with emerging Martian
26:19 Shu Sale: Everything Must Go
27:49 The WWF Belt and QR Codes are later additions
29:49 ⛔⛔🚫🚫👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻
32:34 For 'Tuna', see Tolkien
36:49 As with Ezbet-el, so with Akhetaten ('The Sun at the Horizon'): a pharaoh's name is given to a place-construct
41:34 Key phrase: 'Hypothetical alignments'
44:34 Malkata / Malqata never existed; the city layout corresponds to Petrie's layout at TANIS--the legitimate site.
46:04 Shown: TANIS layout, superimposed over a blank landscape.
53:10 First legit image: defacement--literally--and mutilation of two magnificent men (including the spurious bar code glyphs)
53:55 ⛔⛔🚫🚫👎🏻👎🏻
54:50 ⛔⛔🚫🚫👎🏻👎🏻
56:05 Aakheperre Setepenamen's voyages become 'deified': 'BOAT SHRINE' 🙄🙄
58:20 Both copies: note the awkward positioning of the arms, with their elevated elbows!
1:01:15 CASHETTE.
1:07:30 Dream on. 🙄🙄
1:09:45 Commemorative 'scarab' for a wet nurse infanticide. Shameful.
1:11:25 'Nebmaatra' tbc. This image is for Akhetaten, The Sun at the Horizon, the Master Mariner
1:12:50 Creating a lie to cover who/what the Duat/Amduat actually refers to (as above)
1:13:45 In Brooklyn, NYC: they used Tity the child-killer's face for this mock-up
1:15:10 Tefnut
1:15:50 Shu
You make a lot of noise, but nothing you write makes any sense. By the way, the awkward elbows in the statue are not awkward at all, or are you telling me your elbows touch your hips?!
@@TinkerTaylor-zv1ml SoldierSpy? Is that YOU? 😁😁😆😆😅😅🤣🤣😂😂
Thanks!
Thank you David!
Thanks
Many thanks!
Danke!
Danke schön! 🙏
Thanks!
Thank you!
Thanks!
Thank you! 🙏
Thanks!
Thank you! 🙏
Thanks!
Thanks!
Very kind of you to contribute, thank you 🙏
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thank you Debbie!
Thanks
Many thanks Alison! 🙏
Thanks
Many thanks! 🙏
Thanks
Many thanks Ed!
Thanks
Thank you!!
Thanks
Many thanks David, much appreciated!
Thanks
Thank you Richard!
Thanks
Thanks
Really appreciate this, thanks Angela!
@@ChristopherNaunton thank you for a wonderful lecture !
@@angelarobb9571 Aww, thanks Angela! 🙏
Thanks
Thanks as always! 🙏
Thanks
Thank you so much Debra!