Amarna Art

20 Pages·2011·1.74 MB·English

by  Dimitri Laboury

UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology
UC Los Angeles
Peer Reviewed
Title:
Amarna Art
Author:
Laboury, Dimitri, University of Liège, Belgium and the National Foundation for Scientific Research
of Belgium
Publication Date:
03-07-2011
Publication Info:
UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, UC
Los Angeles
Permalink:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0n21d4bm
Additional Info:
Laboury, Dimitri, 2011, Amarna Art. In Kathlyn M. Cooney, Willeke Wendrich (eds.), UCLA
Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/
zz0026vj6m
Keywords:
art, revolution, pharaoh-centrism, talatat, Atenism
Abstract:
The art that developed in the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, known as “Amarna art,” has
largely been considered revolutionary in the history of ancient Egyptian art. As such, it has
been the subject of much debate and has generated numerous theories, often contradictory or
controversial, and, in fact, deeply influenced by the history of its modern reception. Nevertheless,
the remaining evidence still permits us to investigate Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten’s conception of
images and art, as well as the artistic evolution under his reign. From a hermeneutic point of view,
Amarna art can be interpreted as a multi-causal phenomenon, involving an internal evolution of
18th Dynasty society and art, pharaoh-centrism, and purely aesthetic factors.
eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing
services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic
research platform to scholars worldwide.
A A
MARNA RT
ةنرامعلا نف 
Dimitri Laboury

EDITORS

WILLEKE WENDRICH
Editor-in-Chief
University of California, Los Angeles

JACCO DIELEMAN
Editor
University of California, Los Angeles

KATHLYN M. COONEY
Area Editor Art and Architecture
University of California, Los Angeles

ELIZABETH FROOD
Editor
University of Oxford

JOHN BAINES
Senior Editorial Consultant
University of Oxford

Short Citation:
Laboury 2011, Amarna Art. UEE.

Full Citation:
Laboury, Dimitri, 2011, Amarna Art. In Kara Cooney, Willeke Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of
Egyptology, Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz0026vj6m

1140 Version 1, March 2011
http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz0026vj6m
A A
MARNA RT
ةنرامعلا نف 
Dimitri Laboury

Amarna Kunst
Art amarnien
The art that developed in the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, known as “Amarna art,” has
largely been considered revolutionary in the history of ancient Egyptian art. As such, it has been
the subject of much debate and has generated numerous theories, often contradictory or
controversial, and, in fact, deeply influenced by the history of its modern reception. Nevertheless, the
remaining evidence still permits us to investigate Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten’s conception of
images and art, as well as the artistic evolution under his reign. From a hermeneutic point of view,
Amarna art can be interpreted as a multi-causal phenomenon, involving an internal evolution of
18th Dynasty society and art, pharaoh-centrism, and purely aesthetic factors.
«ةنرامعلا نف» مسإب فورعملاو نوتانخأ/عبارلا بتحنما دھع للاخ روطت ىذلا نفلا ربتعي
روحم روطتلا اذھ لثميف ميدقلا ىرصملا نفلا خيرات ىف ىروث روطت ريبك دح ىلا ربتعي
ةريثم وأ ةضقانتم نوكت ابلاغ ىتلا تايرظنلا نم ديدعلا هيلع ىنبو تاشاقنلا نم ريثكلا
،ثيدحلا هلابقتسا خيراتب ةدشب ةرثأتم تايرظنلاو تاشاقنلا هذھ نإف لاح ىأ ىلعو لدجلل
نفلل نوتانخا/عبارلا بتحتنما موھفم صحفب حمست لازت لا ةيقبتملا ةلدلاا نإف كلذ عم
هرابتعاب ةنرامعلا نف ريسفت نكمي .همكح لظ ىف ىنفلا روطتلا نع لاضف ،ريوصتلاو
ةنماثلا ةرسلاا للاخ نفلاو عمتجملل ةيتاذلا روطت لمشت ىتلاو بابسلاا ةددعتم ةرھاظ
  .ةتحبلا ةيلامجلا لماوعلاو نوعرفلا رود ،رشع

A marna art is the designation by Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten and the new
traditionally used to refer to the ideology of the cult of Aten, the designation
unconventional art developed in “Atenist art” thus appears more appropriate.
the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (1352
- 1336 BCE). It was coined after the modern The Reception of Atenist Art: A Conundrum
Arabic name for the site of el-Amarna, where
The reception of the art of Akhenaten’s time
the king built his new capital, Akhetaten, in
constitutes a remarkable conundrum.
the first third of his year five. So-called
Akhenaton was rejected into collective
Amarna art had nevertheless been initiated
oblivion by his successors, and both he and
earlier, in the king’s regnal year four, when the
his art were later to be completely
cult of the solar god Aten was officially
rediscovered. Although the earliest recorded
launched at Karnak, a period that Vergnieux
modern encounter with Amarna art dates
has proposed designating the “proto-Amarna
back to the beginning of the eighteenth
stage” (Vergnieux 1996; 1999: 201 - 202;
century (van de Walle 1976), it was not until
Vergnieux and Gondran 1997: 193). Given
the scientific expeditions of the founding
the inextricable link between the art instituted
fathers of Egyptology in the mid-nineteenth
Amarna Art, Laboury, UEE 2011 1
Figure 1. Akhenaten and Nefertiti shown in a wall decoration in the tomb of Parennefer at Amarna (AT
7).
century that the first appraisal of its as they found it.”
particularity was presented (for a good
Moreover, despite this rather late
synthesis of this rediscovery, see Hornung
rediscovery and the absence, therefore, of a
1999: 1 - 18; see also Laboury 2010: 15 - 41).
long tradition of distorted interpretations,
Since that dawn of Amarna studies, the
Akhenaten and his art, in the twentieth
beholders of Atenist art have been struck by,
century, very quickly became the target of
and have consequently tended to fixate upon,
modern occidental value-projections. These
two characteristics: the fluidity of its
induced a vast number of historical re-
compositions, in contrast to the very hieratic
creations or inventions based on purely
nature of traditional Egyptian art, and the
ethnocentric factors (notably Montserrat
unusual, distorted anatomy of the king’s figure
2000). In this context of cultural
(fig. 1), which was first interpreted as an
appropriation and re-interpretation, scholars
expression of “realism” according to art-
as well as the general public gained their
historical theories of the time—especially
perception of Atenist art from a rather
those of Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717
obsessive focus on the apparently modern-art-
- 1768), who thought, as did classical authors,
like Gem-pa-Aten colossi of Amenhotep IV
that “ancient Egyptian artists imitated nature
(fig. 2) (discovered by Pillet and Chevrier at
Amarna Art, Laboury, UEE 2011 2
the evolution of art during the reign of
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten—a study that
takes into account all relevant fragments, not
merely the ones considered “impressive” from
a modern, occidental point of view (whether
for their beauty or for their repellent
qualities)—seriously invites questioning these
two interpretations, which appear to be as
hastily and historically shaped as they are
widely accepted.
Akhenaten’s Conception of Images: Rejecting the

Tradition
Figure 2. Comparison between a colossal head of
Akhenaten from the Gem-pa-Aten (Luxor Museum Textual, archaeological, and iconographic
J 46) and a sketch by Italian artist Amedeo evidence converge to demonstrate that
Modigliani (b. 1884). Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten disputed the
traditional Egyptian theology of images.
East Karnak in 1925) and the so-called Berlin
Ancient Egyptian cultic practices and textual
bust of Nefertiti (unearthed by Borchardt at
references to art clearly show that images were
el-Amarna in 1912), which was, since its first
considered magically efficacious: they were
public appearance in 1924, immediately
perceived as animated embodiments of their
appointed as the epitome of beauty and
models, representing beings or elements of
perfection in the occidental collective mind.
the beyond that could “come down into
These two icons of the Amarna era—almost
them” or “put them on,” as the texts say.
inevitably reproduced on the cover of every
And, just like hieroglyphs, with which they
book pertaining to Akhenaten and Nefertiti—
share a common formal construction,
have thus become the foci of any analysis of
traditional Egyptian images aimed to depict
Atenist art.
the essence of things rather than their
This history of the modern reception of ephemeral and incomplete appearances
Akhenaten’s art has determined the current (Laboury 1998a).
two prevailing interpretations: 1) the “clinical”
Unlike the other deities of the Egyptian
reading of the king’s iconography, which,
pantheon, Amenhotep IV’s solar god was,
based on the undemonstrated (and often
after a short time, no longer represented
unquestioned) assumption that Amarna
according to the traditional semi-
imagery faithfully reproduced pharaoh’s actual
anthropomorphic iconography signifying his
appearance, led to the belief that Akhenaten
essential nature (see fig. 5a below), but rather
suffered from a serious physiological disorder
as he appeared each day: as a shining sun. The
(notably Aldred 1962; Arramon and Crubezy
meaning of this unprecedented
1994; Burridge 1996; Ghalioungui 1947), an
metamorphosis is made clear by the king
opinion strongly contradicted by the analysis
himself when he addresses the god with the
of the king’s bodily remains (Hawass 2010);
following words: “Every eye can look at you
and 2) the theory that a clear opposition
straight in front of it while you are [in] the sun
existed between an early exaggerated (or
disk [the Aten] of the day above earth”
caricatural) style, exemplified by the Gem-pa-
(Sandman 1938: 95 [14]; translation by the
Aten colossi, and, in the later part of the reign,
author). Akhenaten also rejected the very
a softened style, notably attested by Nefertiti’s
principle of the cult statue, which represented
so-called Berlin bust (Aldred 1973; or, for
the central concept of Egyptian image-
example, Wenig 1975). A systematic study of
theology and served as the ritual intermediary
all the material evidence and data relating to
between man and the divine (Assmann 1991:
Amarna Art, Laboury, UEE 2011 3
Nevertheless, despite this explicit and
revolutionary intention of rejecting the
traditional image-system, most of the
principles that had always defined Egyptian
art remained unquestioned in Atenist art. For
instance, on the formal level, the combination
of different perspectives was still commonly
used to represent a single object, as was the
case for depictions of architecture or of the
human face, still pictured in profile with one
eye shown from the front. More significantly,
on the functional level, the figure of the king,
which constituted the very semantic center of
Amarna art production, was still conceived as
a symbolic evocation of his ideological
essence. Thus, rather than yielding an

alternative and entirely new system, the artistic
Figure 3. Visualization of an Atenist temple by revolution instigated by Amenhotep
Jean-Claude Golvin. IV/Akhenaten appears as a kind of “window”
in the long-established Egyptian theory of
50 - 63; Eschweiler 1994), by transforming the
images, a window to another image-
traditional, enclosed temple into an open-air
conception that was never fully assumed
structure (fig. 3). Here the deity no longer
(Laboury 2008a), probably—at least to some
needed an iconic hypostasis to inhabit his
extent—because Atenist ideology did not last
earthly dwelling but could rather be
long enough.
physically—and visibly—present by means of
his luminosity. Thus the symbolic
Evolution and Documentation
iconography of essences was clearly replaced
by a representation of phenomenological The preserved documentation relating to the
appearances. Moreover, the cognitive capacity evolution of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten’s art
of an image to capture the essence of the allows us to detail the successive stages
depicted subject was denied by the king when through which this unconventional art was
he asserted that his god was “the one who instituted. The commencement of the king’s
shaped himself, with his arms, and no artist reign bore all the signs of a perfect ideological
knows him” (Sandman 1938: 111 [7]; and artistic continuity with the recent past.
translation by the author). From an For example, the newly crowned Amenhotep
iconographic point of view, the traditional IV ordered the completion of the unfinished
temple-wall imagery, which endlessly monuments of his father, Amenhotep III—
illustrated the ritual exchange between the i.e., the front door of the third pylon of the
king and the deity in a conceptual and generic Temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak (Sa'ad 1970),
manner (i.e., without reference to and the entrance structure of the pylon of the
contingencies of time or space), was temple at Soleb in Nubia (Schiff Giorgini et
supplanted by detailed and seemingly al. 1998: pls. 1 - 26). However, before having
anecdotal representations of the ritualized life completed the monumental main-entrance
of pharaoh, almost as if “every eye could look door of the temple of the dynastic god Amun-
at him straight in front of it” (fig. 4). The style Ra at Karnak, and before the end of his regnal
of these representations, hitherto static and year one (Gabolde 1998: 24 - 25), he who
hieratic, became very fluid and dynamic, often designated himself as “the chosen one of
suggesting motion or displaying other visual Amun” (Sandman 1938: 191, 195; translation
effects. by the author) decided to devote his energy to
the erection of a new cultic structure, still in
Amarna Art, Laboury, UEE 2011 4
Figure 4. Comparison between traditional temple-wall imagery at left (from Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-
Bahri) and Atenist temple-wall imagery at right, where t he ritualized life of the king is depicted under the
sun’s rays (Luxor Museum assemblage).

Figure 5. At left, the so-called “Berlin block” (Ägyptis ches Museum 2072) from Karnak depicting Ra-

Horakhty and Amenhotep IV. Center: Drawing of the king as depicted in the Theban tomb of Kheruef
(TT 192). Right: The king as depicted in the tomb of Ram ose (TT 55).

the Karnak precinct but dedicated to another The metamorphosis of the sun god and his
divinity—“Ra-Horakhty who rejoices in the royal worshiper arose in the king’s year four.
horizon in his name of Shu who is [in] the The first step of the transformation, which
solar disk [the Aten]” (Sa'ad 1974 [Zernikh can be dated to the first half of the year
stelae]; Sandman 1938: 143 - 144 [Gebel el- (Laboury 2010: 128 - 130), was the enclosure
Silsila stela]; translation by the author)—i.e., of the god’s name within a double cartouche,
the deity that would become known as Aten. as was done for pharaohs. Only two images
The iconography of the blocks from this are positively datable to this early phase: a
building, later dismantled (Chappaz 1983), stela of a certain Kiya, now in Edinburgh
already reveals the king’s obvious focus on the (Royal Museum acc. no. 1956.347: Aldred
solar god, while the figures represented on 1959: 19 - 22, pl. 3), and a large graffito in an
them, and in contemporaneous Theban Aswan granite quarry (fig. 6; Habachi 1965: 85
tombs—that of Kheruef (TT 192; Epigraphic - 92, fig. 13). They both show the deity’s
Survey 1980), parts of Ramose’s tomb (TT 55; anatomy slightly altered, with more curving
Davies 1941: pl. 30), and parts of Parennefer’s contours, especially in the abdominal and
tomb (TT 188; Davies 1923: pl. 27h)—are in pelvic area. Yet, before the last two months of
perfect accordance with the artistic standards that same year (regnal year four; Gabolde
of Amenhotep III’s reign (fig. 5). 1998: 26; Goyon 1957: 106 - 107, nos. 90 - 91,
Amarna Art, Laboury, UEE 2011 5
Figure 6. At left, stela of Kiya (Edinburgh Royal Museum acc. No. 1956.347). At right, graffito from
Aswan quarry.

Figure 8. The king represented in the new Atenist
style on talatats 154 and 155, from the ninth pylon
of the Temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak.
the Atenist age (Hornung 1971; for
iconographic antecedents, see Redford 1976).
Figure 7. Top: The so-called “Paris block” (Louvre One of the first occurrences of this new
E 13482ter) from Karnak. Depicted in close-up divine representation appears on a large block
bottom left and bottom right. known today as the “Paris block” (Louvre E
13482ter), where Amenhotep IV is featured
pl. 25; Redford 1963), the god relinquished his twice, in a symmetrical composition in
classic and symbolic semi-anthropomorphic keeping with the long-established
iconography to be depicted according to his fundamental principles of traditional temple
visual manifestation as a shining sun (though imagery (fig. 7). However, the body shape—
with hands at the end of his “rays,” to suggest this time of the king—is now more sinuous.
his actions on earth)—according to an image This physical remodeling quickly led to a
already attested in literary sources long before peculiarly elongated royal figure (fig. 8),
Amarna Art, Laboury, UEE 2011 6
Figure 9. Top: The king and queen on their way to the matrimonial bed, on talatats 31/216 and 31/203
from the ninth pylon, Karnak. Bottom: The “heliacal ris ing” of Akhenaten, on talatats re-used in the ninth

pylon (originally from the Rudj-menu, in the Atenist complex, Karnak).

androgynous rather than feminized (Robins traditional interaction between god and king
1996), visible in the next phase, a phase to an exclusive representation of pharaoh’s
distinctive for the invention of talatat- actions under the auspices of the divinity (see
technology and of the new open-air temple fig. 4), a transference that ultimately resulted
architecture exploited to build a gigantic in the depiction of sacred, or sanctified, royal
complex in east Karnak (the Gem-pa-Aten), intimacy on temple walls (fig. 9; Traunecker
where the king officially inaugurated the new 1986) and other religious monuments (Aldred
Atenist era with the celebration of an 1973: cat. no. 123; Freed 1999: 28, fig. 13;
abnormally early Sed Festival (Gohary 1990; Ikram 1989; Stevens 2006: 133 - 136; Vassilika
Redford 1988; Smith and Redford 1976; 1995: cat. no. 27)—a concept astonishingly
Traunecker 1986; Vergnieux 1996, 1999; similar to the famous heliacal rising of Louis
Vergnieux and Gondran 1997). XIV, thirty centuries later.
From this point on, the entire official On the basis of the Gem-pa-Aten colossi and
iconographic repertoire—in temples, palaces, isolated talatat representations, this emerging
and even private tombs—is centered on the Atenist art from Karnak has often (if not
ritual, or “ritualized,” life of pharaoh, who is always) been described as excessive,
shown “embraced by the sun’s rays,” as caricatural, and even grotesque, as opposed to
Amarna texts describe him (Sandman 1938: the Amarna art of the second half of the
76 [8]; translation by the author). Vergnieux reign, which depicted Nefertiti with her
(Vergnieux 1999: 193 - 194; Vergnieux and (apparently) more naturalistic face, in contrast
Gondran 1997: 154 - 191) emphasizes this to the elongated one of Akhenaten. Such an
important iconographic shift from the evolution is, however, highly questionable. On
Amarna Art, Laboury, UEE 2011 7
Figure 10. “Perspective deformation” of the Gem-pa-At en colossi physiognomy and the geometry of the
observer’s theoretical perspective.

the one hand, the Gem-pa-Aten colossi have regnal year six (fig. 11; Laboury 2008b, with
proved to display deformations according to reference to Vergnieux 1999: 127, pl. 25).
the perspective from which they were meant
Moreover, the artistic documentation that
to be viewed by the observer (fig. 10) from far
can be dated later in the reign does not show
below, and, as such, they are not fully
any clear-cut evolution from this proto-
representative of the artistic standards of their
Amarna phase. For example, for statuary,
time (Laboury 2008b). On the other hand,
which always allows a more precise stylistic
although Nefertiti, like every queen depicted
analysis than do two-dimensional
in ancient Egyptian art, might have been
representations, the following successive
portrayed at first with her husband’s features
groupings can be singled out: 1) the statues
(Krauss 2005: 136), large-scale assemblages of
made to adorn the first official buildings
talatats from Karnak already show her with the
erected in Akhetaten (fig. 12), i.e., the temples
distinctive physiognomy of the Berlin bust
of Aten and the Great Palace, in preparation
very early—before or, at the latest, during
for the move to the new royal residence (thus
Amarna Art, Laboury, UEE 2011 8