Amarna, Before and After

[atalante]

On 7/13/2024 at 7:27 PM, Aldebaran said:

Enough already with the facial reconstructions using the forensic method! [ie from a skull]

https://www.academia.edu/122024679/No_Reconstructions_of_the_Face_of_Amenhotep_III_Really_Necessary

This one of Akhenaten was done from one of his ancient portraits and I'll bet it isn't far from the truth.

 

 

Aldebaran,

The Francisco pdf says (on its page 6)

 https://www.academia.edu/8243823/Amenhotep_III_and_Amenhotep_IV_The_long_coregency_in_the_Chapel_of_the_Vizier_of_Amenhotep_Huy_Tomb_No_28_at_Asasif_

.....the "juvenilizing" portraits [of Amenhotep III] begin to appear around Year 30.

 

 

Is there an explanation for why the artwork style (for AIII and AIV) changed around AIII's year 30, but the vizir remained in power until year 35?

 

 

Edited July 19 by atalante

[Aldebaran]

22 hours ago, atalante said:

Aldebaran,

The Francisco pdf says (on its page 6)

 https://www.academia.edu/8243823/Amenhotep_III_and_Amenhotep_IV_The_long_coregency_in_the_Chapel_of_the_Vizier_of_Amenhotep_Huy_Tomb_No_28_at_Asasif_

.....the "juvenilizing" portraits [of Amenhotep III] begin to appear around Year 30.

 

 

Is there an explanation for why the artwork style (for AIII and AIV) changed around AIII's year 30, but the vizir remained in power until year 35?

The Heb Sed is not really connected to the vizier.  It was a ritual that can have had a symbolic rejuvenation of the pharaoh because the first one of Amenhotep III, occurring in his Year 30, seems to be the catalyst for this king suddenly being portrayed with quite a childlike face.  I don't think the face of the coregent, Amenhotep IV, took on the "weird" aspect until he moved to Akhetaten.  For me, the Meidum graffito announces the start to their coregency in this same Year 30 of the senior king and the colophon on the boundary stela in Year 8 of Akhenaten provides the terminus [it also would have been Year 38 of AIII].  However, I don't think Amenhotep IV [as he was then] celebrated a mirror Heb Sed until the Year 34 one of his father as by then he was already a co-king.  But he was still not living at Akhetaten yet as the place was not ready until his own Year 6.

Anyway, there are portraits in the round of Akhenaten as a pharaoh that show him as quite young [which he was, to start] but with a perfectly normal and even handsome visage.  So the change in the look of his father had no effect on his image.  The two co-kings probably shared a vizier while the future Akhenaten still resided at Thebes because I would not imagine the court of the junior king was very large or that he did much except some building at his request.  His main function was to act as Shu to the Re-Horakhty of his father because Amenhotep III now touted himself as the living manifestation of a god.  In fact, in the tomb of Kheruef, a steward of his mother, Queen Tiye, Amenhotep IV is shown offering to Ra-Horakhty, who stands in for AIII, in my opinion.

 

[Aldebaran]

Below are snippets, as quotes, from a paper by Jose Lull.  I don't really agree with Lull's own opinions, but anyone who wishes to read the entire paper can easily find it at Academia.edu.  

https://www.academia.edu/43364646/A_Chronological_Perspective_on_the_Transition_from_Amenhotep_III_to_Amenhotep_IV_Akhenaten

In his Year 4, Amenhotep IV sent the high priest of Amun to supervise the getting of the stone for the building, mentioned in the inscription.  For me, this means the high priest of Amun was in his office at Thebes and did the bidding of both co-kings.  There was, obviously, as yet no disapproval of Amun and his priesthood.  Also significant is the mention of Shu, Amenhotep IV being the personification of that deity while the coregency lasted.  Even though the Aten quickly became the favorite god of the junior king even before his move to Akhetaten, he had no choice but to be tolerant of all the gods while his father was supreme. 

 

Edited July 20 by Aldebaran

[Wistman]

On 7/20/2024 at 3:04 PM, Aldebaran said:

  I don't think the face of the coregent, Amenhotep IV, took on the "weird" aspect until he moved to Akhetaten. 

Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) finished building his temple, the Gem-pa-aten, east of Karnak's Great Temple of Amun @ yr 3 of his reign, to celebrate his Heb Sed festival.  Along the walls of its open court were arranged colossal statues of the king, inscribed with his name Amenhotep IV.  These exhibit the striking stylized depictions of the pharaoh which have become familiar:

This was built prior to his move to Akhetaten, which occurred @ his yr. 6. 

[Wepwawet]

I think that without doubt Akhenaten looked normal, though presuming KV55 is he, then with a bit of an "overhang" to the back of his head, which when fleshed out and with a head of hair may not have been very noticable anyway. I've read a paper on this recently, though the paper is quite old now, and provides some posibble answers to why KV55 and KV62 have an elongated cranium, and also, and I did not know this, Thutmose III. It also explains, possibly, the "belloid" shape of the KV35 boy's head, but I'll go into this later.

The important question is why did he bring in the distorted images. The only explanation I have read is that the large hips represent androgony and therefore Atum, but Atum has a male name and is depicted as male, so I don't really go with that position. Does "Atenist" theology give an answer, perhaps it should do, but how can we tell from one hymn and scattererd texts that do not go into this in depth.

[Aldebaran]

On 7/24/2024 at 7:46 AM, Wistman said:

Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) finished building his temple, the Gem-pa-aten, east of Karnak's Great Temple of Amun @ yr 3 of his reign, to celebrate his Heb Sed festival.  Along the walls of its open court were arranged colossal statues of the king, inscribed with his name Amenhotep IV.  These exhibit the striking stylized depictions of the pharaoh which have become familiar:

How is it known for sure that those colossal statues were placed there in Year 3 of Amenhotep IV?  My memory needs help sometimes at my age.  The reason I ask is not because the statues look "weird" to me but because the future Akhenaten appears too old compared to some very youthful statues of him as a new king [at Thebes], including one that has the red paint on the lips, the sign of "dewy youth" in both females and males at this time.  I also did not realize that Amenhotep IV celebrated a Heb Sed in his Year 3.  I thought it was Year 4, mirroring the one his father celebrated in his own Year 34.  When AIV appears in the Heb Sed cloak, is the year actually specified?

[Aldebaran]

Perusing Reeves' book "Akhenaten, Egypt's False Prophet" page 91 onward, there is nothing to date those Karnak temples built by Akhenaten except the presence of the daughters.  Reeves used the word "perhaps" when it comes to a date for all of them. For example, there is only Meritaten shown in the Gemetpaaten, so Reeves concludes that must have been built first.  At the Hut-Benben there is also Meketaten, so later.  Trouble is we don't really know how far apart these two princesses were in age.  All that seems clear is that Ankhesenpaaten cannot have been born until late in Year 6 at the very earliest, judging by the Akhetaten Boundary Stele.

So, from those inscription quotes I gave, above, Akhenaten was still building at Karnak in his Year 4.  Now, I really do not consider the Karnak colossi "weird", although stylized.   And, if a certain head of Nefertiti on a block is really from Karnak, she looks very ugly there and so I may be wrong about the "weird" look not having come into being until Akhetaten.

But, really, how do we know those statues, once dismantled and buried, were actually erected in years 1-5 of Akhenaten?  Is it simply taken  for granted that Akhenaten built nothing more at Karnak after the move to Akhetaten?  Why?  His Karnak temples were dedicated to the Aten, not Amun, and big statues were meant to convey the same message always which was "I am a mighty ruler".  I haven't really thought about this before but, given the eight-year coregency I espouse, Akhenaten would not have had the nerve to build the colossi until after his father was dead.

On page 96, Reeves addresses the Heb Sed.  He writes "A precise corelation between the sed festivals of Amenhophis III and those of his son cannot be proposed with absolute conviction, etc..." but I think it's rather obvious that this is the case.  But there is no dating of the scenes in which Akhenaten figures.

[Wepwawet]

Arielle Kozloff determined that these statues had been re-cut and had originally been in the traditional style. Between this and what Elizabeth Blyth writes about Amunhotep IV at Karnak I get the impression that the statues were made very very early his reign, or, by Kozloff, originally been for AIII, but this is disputed by Dodson. From these sources, principally Blyth, the better authority on Karnak, I get a date for his first jubilee in his year 2.

[Jon101]

Thank you all for you very interesting contributions to this thread, it's a pleasure to read such well informed posts.

Aldebaran, in particular, has my admiration for her DNA papers, I recommend them very much. 

 

In regards to the apparently more youthful depictions of Akhhenaten, and the more well preserved of his dynastic associates to whom youth seemed desirable, at least with regard to their portraits and statuary, is it possible that Atenism was also a 'youth cult', with Akhhenaten both Mother and Father to a new order?. 

The Sun is usually portrayed as youthful and flawlessly visaged, forever young.

I suppose it would be sensible that a new city and religion should be filled with citizenry culled from sections of society less indoctrinated than adults, perhaps young hostages, as has been alluded to, and illness devastated these citizens of Amarna, less robust than adults. 

Perhaps the cemeteries discussed are the remains of this experiment and thus don't occur elsewhere. A societal disgust toward the Amarna court for wiping out nigh a generation due to folly was behind the destruction of the Aten cult?. 

 

Forgive me, I speculate from a position of ignorance. 

Edited July 26 by Jon101

[Wepwawet]

11 hours ago, Jon101 said:

In regards to the apparently more youthful depictions of Akhhenaten, and the more well preserved of his dynastic associates to whom youth seemed desirable, at least with regard to their portraits and statuary, is it possible that Atenism was also a 'youth cult', with Akhhenaten both Mother and Father to a new order?. 

The Sun is usually portrayed as youthful and flawlessly visaged, forever young.

I suppose it would be sensible that a new city and religion should be filled with citizenry culled from sections of society less indoctrinated than adults, perhaps young hostages, as has been alluded to, and illness devastated these citizens of Amarna, less robust than adults. 

Perhaps the cemeteries discussed are the remains of this experiment and thus don't occur elsewhere. A societal disgust toward the Amarna court for wiping out nigh a generation due to folly was behind the destruction of the Aten cult?. 

You raise some very good points there, some that I've not really considered that much, but now you raise them they do look interesting.

Focusing on the rising Sun and ignoring the setting Sun does put a youth spin on this, and could be a reason for the dropping of Ra-Horakhty because it then removes the western horizon, the "dying" horizon. The Sun, or the Aten to Akhenaten, is in a state of always rising. Of course it rises and sets, but he ignores the setting aspect, it's always dawn for Akhenaten, or, "Every day is like the first day of Spring".

In populating Amarna, then in the first instance we have the fact that Akhenaten is "God Emperor" and does what ever he wants, though he would need to have support from the main nobles, and perhaps by the end of the 18th Dynasty many being relatives from many cadet branches splitting off over hundreds of years. I think this is an overlooked factor, what happens to a kings brithers and sisters and their families and then their descendants. From Thutmose I to Akhenaten there will be very many relatives, thousands. Otherwise, to an extent the entire Aten thing looks like a modern cult, and I would not be surprised if it did attract younger sections of society that bought into the "new craze". To some it was probably a great new adventure, if they were at least middle class, but for peasants, maybe a nightmare, as the cemeteries full of youngsters show.

Why it fell will always be disputed, and we will never know the truth. My view, which is not fixed by any means, is that while Akhenaten allowed people to continue to believe in the old gods, he cannot stop this, no totalitarian societies can stop this, serious issues may have begun to occur when he began closing temples late in his reign. This is not so much to do with worship as the temples were not the same as our churches, there were no services for the people, who were not even allowed inside the temples anyway. This is power and revenues in the hands of the permanent priesthoods, though a caveat on this is that for at least the High Priests, they are appointed by the king, so are his men. However, only the major temples of gods had a High Priest appointed by the king, the rest were family affairs.

I've always thought that Akhenaten's doing away with their normal funeral beliefs may have caused some consternation, even anger. It is noted that it appears that none of the tombs of nobles built at Amarna were ever used. Perhaps they built tombs to "toe the line", but were actually buried in a tomb which by magic gave them eternity in the way they wanted it. I don't know, but it does suggest itself.

Edited July 27 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

The colossal statues that enclosed the great court at Gem-pa-aten were carved with the name Amenhotep IV, which he changed to Akhenaten @ his yr 5, and would therefore date the statues prior to his name change and prior also to the court's move to Akhetaten.  We should note that, as with AIII and Malkata, the initiation of building the city Akhetaten would necessarily have begun prior to the court's moved there, yr 6.  I think the earlier boundary stele at Akhetaten were erected in yr 5.

 

Edited July 27 by Wistman

[Aldebaran]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

The colossal statues that enclosed the great court at Gem-pa-aten were carved with the name Amenhotep IV, which he changed to Akhenaten @ his yr 5, and would therefore date the statues prior to his name change and prior also to the court's move to Akhetaten.  We should note that, as with AIII and Malkata, the initiation of building the city Akhetaten would necessarily have begun prior to the court's moved there, yr 6.  I think the earlier boundary stele at Akhetaten were erected in yr 5.

Well, that's it then.  I do not have the book on the colossi and it took me until today [for some reason] to see for myself that the name of Amenhotep IV was there--corroborated by you.  I can't argue that Akhenaten waited until his father died to change his name--nobody would.  But, according to Wepwawet, others found the statues odd in their context, as well.  I did see that someone in modern times thought it was Amenhotep III, himself, who had the colossi taken down and buried.  Who knows now?  I still believe in a coregency and those great statues struck me as very presumptuous for a junior pharaoh.  Actually, now we are discussing them and I am focused on them, they could pose various problems.  As I wrote before, Akhenaten suddenly no longer appears a teenaged youth.  It took me awhile but I finally settled on the age of 15 for him when the coregency began,  Certainly, he has images that support that.  According to our ,modern view of such matters, he would have started as a boy and, by the death of his father, commenced his sole reign as a man of 23.  Yet those colossi seem so mature, even decadent.  A different king from the earliest portraits.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

But, according to Wepwawet, others found the statues odd in their context, as well.

What Kozloff says is that she can see that the statues in their entirety have been re-cut to their current form, and that they had originally depicted Amunhotep III. Dodson does not dispute that they had been re-cut, but disputes that they had originally depicted Amunhotep III. Blyth states that the statues come from a courtyard at the entrance to the Gem-pa-Aten, which was directly connected by a passage to the Amunhotep III palace at Karnak, Nebmaatre-is-the-Shining-Sundisk, subsequently renamed to Neferkheperure-rejoices-in-the-Horizon-of-the-Sundisk.

Kozloff states this about the statues in her 2006 book on Amunhotep III. As Dodson in 2014 agrees they were re-cut, and I cannot find any authors since refuting this, or actually mentioning it, I presume it's seen as a fact, or as best anything about Amarna can be seen as a fact.

I'll go out on a limb here and offer this suggestion about these statues, not a firm opinion, just throwing it up in the air really. The palace of Amunhotep III and the Gem-pa-Aten seem to be physically connected, with the statues at the Gem-pa-Aten end. They are Osirian, and they have been re-cut. Going with Kozloff for the sake of this suggestion, if they were originally of Amunhotep III, then might they have been made for him as an Osiris, and they would presumably have been made while he was still living, like with his mortuary temple, and the Gem-pa-aten begun, or at least the connecting passage and courtyard, as another type of mortuary temple for him in Karnak, but then re-designed and finished by Akhenaten as a temple for the Aten. It doesn't fit with normal practise, but then we are in "interesting times" here.

Edited July 27 by Wepwawet

[Jon101]

6 hours ago, Wistman said:

The colossal statues that enclosed the great court at Gem-pa-aten were carved with the name Amenhotep IV, which he changed to Akhenaten @ his yr 5, and would therefore date the statues prior to his name change and prior also to the court's move to Akhetaten.  We should note that, as with AIII and Malkata, the initiation of building the city Akhetaten would necessarily have begun prior to the court's moved there, yr 6.  I think the earlier boundary stele at Akhetaten were erected in yr 5.

 

Thanks for this. 

If I understand correctly, this is really meaningful. 

 

[Jon101]

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What Kozloff says is that she can see that the statues in their entirety have been re-cut to their current form, and that they had originally depicted Amunhotep III. Dodson does not dispute that they had been re-cut, but disputes that they had originally depicted Amunhotep III. Blyth states that the statues come from a courtyard at the entrance to the Gem-pa-Aten, which was directly connected by a passage to the Amunhotep III palace at Karnak, Nebmaatre-is-the-Shining-Sundisk, subsequently renamed to Neferkheperure-rejoices-in-the-Horizon-of-the-Sundisk.

Kozloff states this about the statues in her 2006 book on Amunhotep III. As Dodson in 2014 agrees they were re-cut, and I cannot find any authors since refuting this, or actually mentioning it, I presume it's seen as a fact, or as best anything about Amarna can be seen as a fact.

I'll go out on a limb here and offer this suggestion about these statues, not a firm opinion, just throwing it up in the air really. The palace of Amunhotep III and the Gem-pa-Aten seem to be physically connected, with the statues at the Gem-pa-Aten end. They are Osirian, and they have been re-cut. Going with Kozloff for the sake of this suggestion, if they were originally of Amunhotep III, then might they have been made for him as an Osiris, and they would presumably have been made while he was still living, like with his mortuary temple, and the Gem-pa-aten begun, or at least the connecting passage and courtyard, as another type of mortuary temple for him in Karnak, but then re-designed and finished by Akhenaten as a temple for the Aten. It doesn't fit with normal practise, but then we are in "interesting times" here.

Wouldn't it be massively disrespectful to do this.

Egyptian society, in this period seems to be very conservative e. 

[Wepwawet]

8 hours ago, Jon101 said:

Wouldn't it be massively disrespectful to do this.

Egyptian society, in this period seems to be very conservative e. 

Usurping statues of a previous king, even your own father was normal. Akhenaten started his reign by making a proclamation stating, essentially, that the previous king was rubbish and he will rectify all the errors. He does not mention the name of the previous king, his father, but again this is not unusual for a new king to make such a proclamation. Ramesess II altered inscriptions in the temple of Seti I at Abydos, re-carving his name over that of his father, and the palimpsests eventually forming "helicopters and submarines" for ignorant and mischevious people to have some fun with. He also usurped statues of previous kings, Amunhotep III for instance. It all looks like a damnatio memoriae to us, but it isn't, it's not disrespect. Removing a previous king in all forms possible is a damnatio memoriae, and that, to the best of my knowledge, in all of their history only applies to Akhenaten and his family. Hatshepsut was not totally erased by Thutmose III, and I believe we have gotten the wrong end of the stick about her. If she had been subjected to a damnatio memoriae like Akhenaten, then her obelisks and chapel at Karnak would have been destroyed, and her mortuary temple at Deir-el-Bahari, but what Thutmose III did was not much more than any other king to a predecessor, a bit more that's true, but her monuments were not erased.

The two major issues, to me, are that Akhenaten ceased performing his role as sole priest to all the gods, and removed their expectations for a normal afterlife in the Duat. They would not be doing what they did in life, but would exist only as a ba bird that would, invisibly, fly from the tomb at dawn, spend the day receiving offerings at the nearest Aten temple, then fly back to their tomb at dusk. The Duat and everything that went on there just ceased to exist, there was no mechanism for the union of Ra and Osiris, thus re-energising the "dead" Ra, there was no Osiris. It's my belief that the statues of Akhenaten in an Osirian pose are stating that resurrection is now through Akhenaten as Osiris has gone. This is profound, it is catastrophic for ordinary Egyptians, and massively disrespectful to all Egyptians who had ever lived.

I think the statues could have multiple meanings, even, tentatively and in modern terms, stating that Akhenaten is the "Alpha and Omega" if they are a type of fusion of Atum and Osiris. Amunhotep III declares himself, among other things, to be Ra-Horakhty, Horus at the start and end of the day essentially, and joined by being with Ra all through the day. Just a thought.

Edited July 28 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

22 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What Kozloff says is that she can see that the statues in their entirety have been re-cut to their current form, and that they had originally depicted Amunhotep III. Dodson does not dispute that they had been re-cut, but disputes that they had originally depicted Amunhotep III. Blyth states that the statues come from a courtyard at the entrance to the Gem-pa-Aten, which was directly connected by a passage to the Amunhotep III palace at Karnak, Nebmaatre-is-the-Shining-Sundisk, subsequently renamed to Neferkheperure-rejoices-in-the-Horizon-of-the-Sundisk.

Kozloff states this about the statues in her 2006 book on Amunhotep III. As Dodson in 2014 agrees they were re-cut, and I cannot find any authors since refuting this, or actually mentioning it, I presume it's seen as a fact, or as best anything about Amarna can be seen as a fact.

Previously I wrote that I did not have a certain book on the colossi and by that I meant the one by Lise Manniche, title below.  But I found a website [not Amazon] where one could do a search in this work and my search was for "recarved", as you brought up an interesting aspect.  Actually, the search inside the book did not bring up much.  I would consider this an important thing to point out but...

Manniche Lise

in The Akhenaten Colossi of Karnak

Published: 01 May 2010

... to be considered whether some of the colossi might show Akhenaten's vision of his earthly father in divine guise. It has recently been suggested by Arielle Kozloff that the Karnak colossi were not produced originally by the sculptors of Akhenaten, but that they had in fact been re-carved from existing colossi... 

Detail of Luxor head and torso (E12) with re-carved nemes.Get access 

in The Akhenaten Colossi of Karnak > Interpretation

Published: 01 May 2010

Fig. 3.6 Detail of Luxor head and torso (E12) with re-carved nemes.

 

 

 

 

Manniche Lise

in The Akhenaten Colossi of Karnak

Published: 01 May 2010

... Museum re carving uraeus B3 E12 G14 K38 Fuad king plumes G15 Luxor J46 ÄS 6290 E GA 4516 1943 H26 I33 I34 JE 55938 kilt Hatshepsut Akhenaten Temple Project Horemheb sed festival Brock E Maurice Pillet architect Akhenaten Egyptian Antiquities Service Karnak Henri Chevrier...

Abstract 

 

 

As I said--nothing much--and in a book wholly devoted to these colossi.  So exactly what was re-carved and on which statues?  Regarding the ones where Akhenaten wears a kilt--it is the same well-known paunchy figure, not seen on previous kings, who had themselves portrayed with athletic physiques no matter in what shape they really were.  I would say it would be difficult to get Akhenaten's wide-hipped figure from that of another slim pharaoh and also his long face and thick lips.  Amenhotep III did not have a long face or nose and his lips may have been thick but they were different.  He may have been a fat man but would also not have that revealed in colossal statues.   I find these "re-carving" references rather mysterious.

Chapter

 

[Aldebaran]

On 7/26/2024 at 4:41 PM, Jon101 said:

I suppose it would be sensible that a new city and religion should be filled with citizenry culled from sections of society less indoctrinated than adults, perhaps young hostages, as has been alluded to, and illness devastated these citizens of Amarna, less robust than adults. 

Perhaps the cemeteries discussed are the remains of this experiment and thus don't occur elsewhere. A societal disgust toward the Amarna court for wiping out nigh a generation due to folly was behind the destruction of the Aten cult?. 

That's what I suggested in my paper "Akhenaten Angel of Death?"  The man was a hated character and it has been assumed that this was due to his religious heresy.  But, in my view, Akhenaten's sole reign only lasted 9 years--and it has always been taken for granted that he did not begin his religious persecutions until his Year 9--which would have been well after the death of his father in his Year 8 in my coregency scenario.  After Akhenaten's own death in Year 17, his successors were not at all long in restoring the old pantheon.  The only ones who really had anything to lose from the Amarna interlude were those priests who made their living from the temples that were closed.  But the young people and what happened to them could have affected many Egyptians.

[Wepwawet]

16 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

to be considered whether some of the colossi might show Akhenaten's vision of his earthly father in divine guise. It has recently been suggested by Arielle Kozloff that the Karnak colossi were not produced originally by the sculptors of Akhenaten, but that they had in fact been re-carved from existing colossi

This is what Kozloff states on page 242 of Amenhotep III - Egypt's Radiant Pharaoh published in 2012.

"Amenhotep IV hastily built a huge new temple complex to the Aten behind Karnak Temple and moved colossal sandstone statues of Amenhotep III, which had fallen and broken, to this new site possibly from Luxor Temple (see Chapter 10). He drastically revised these statues in his own state image, shaving down Amenhotep III's pudgy, round, beneficent face into a narrow and dour one with with sunken cheeks and eye sockets and a chin so long that the root of the royal beard had to be cut away to accomadate it. The old man's wide hips were left nearly as they were, but his thick chest and upper abdomen were hollowed to a shallower form. Some of the new tool marks continue past areas where these sculptures had been damaged, evidence that the breaks preceded the recarving."

What Kozloff writes in Chapter 10 is found on page 141, and is in a section about Luxor.

"In addition to the Sekhmets, there may have been Osiride-type statues of Amenhotep III similar to those in the peristyle of the memorial temple. Monumental sandstone statues found in Amenhotep IV's Gem-pa-Aten temple at Karnak are actually originals of Amenhotep III recut by Amenhotep IV in the earliest years of his reign. One of the best preserved, now in the Cairo museum, retains in places the subtly detailed carving of Amunhotep III's sculptors beneath and beside the crude, rough-shod reworkings of his son. In their original condition, they represented the king wearing the striped nemes head cloth, the double crown, a finely pleated kilt, and an ornate apron. His arms were crossed over his chest, the crook and flail held in his hands, and his feet were together in the stance of Osiris, almost exactly like the Osiride statues directly across the river at the memorial temple."

Edited July 29 by Wepwawet

[atalante]

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

This is what Kozloff states on page 242 of Amenhotep III - Egypt's Radiant Pharaoh published in 2012.

"Amenhotep IV hastily built a huge new temple complex to the Aten behind Karnak Temple and moved colossal sandstone statues of Amenhotep III, which had fallen and broken, to this new site possibly from Luxor Temple (see Chapter 10). He drastically revised these statues in his own state image, shaving down Amenhotep III's pudgy, round, beneficent face into a narrow and dour one with with sunken cheeks and eye sockets and a chin so long that the root of the royal beard had to be cut away to accomadate it. The old man's wide hips were left nearly as they were, but his thick chest and upper abdomen were hollowed to a shallower form. Some of the new tool marks continue past areas where these sculptures had been damaged, evidence that the breaks preceded the recarving."

 

Perhaps Amenhotep III became senile in the last years of his reign.  He could have ordered his sculptors to create stuff somewhat like the modern so-called Happy Buddha of abundance poses.  If so, this mental illness of AIII would have tormented his son Amenhotep IV; and led to recarving the late statues of AIII, to hide the evidences of AIII's mental collapse..    

 

Edited July 29 by atalante

[Wepwawet]

3 hours ago, atalante said:

Perhaps Amenhotep III became senile in the last years of his reign.  He could have ordered his sculptors to create stuff somewhat like the modern so-called Happy Buddha of abundance poses.  If so, this mental illness of AIII would have tormented his son Amenhotep IV; and led to recarving the late statues of AIII, to hide the evidences of AIII's mental collapse..    

 

I think he was too young to be senile, but he may have had mental health issues. That he had very bad teeth is well known, but his cranium showed signs of thinning which indicate a brain tumour. Some of the symptoms are, hallucinations, mania, euphoria and, perhaps most fitting, grandiosity.

Edited July 29 by Wepwawet
typo

[Aldebaran]

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

This is what Kozloff states on page 242 of Amenhotep III - Egypt's Radiant Pharaoh published in 2012.

"Amenhotep IV hastily built a huge new temple complex to the Aten behind Karnak Temple and moved colossal sandstone statues of Amenhotep III, which had fallen and broken, to this new site possibly from Luxor Temple (see Chapter 10). He drastically revised these statues in his own state image, shaving down Amenhotep III's pudgy, round, beneficent face into a narrow and dour one with with sunken cheeks and eye sockets and a chin so long that the root of the royal beard had to be cut away to accomadate it. The old man's wide hips were left nearly as they were, but his thick chest and upper abdomen were hollowed to a shallower form. Some of the new tool marks continue past areas where these sculptures had been damaged, evidence that the breaks preceded the recarving."

Thanks for taking the trouble to write this and more.  I don't have this book, either, but I have most of the others about Akhenaten and his time and I can't believe nothing was mentioned about any of this--or at least to the point where it made any sort of impact on me.  To be honest, I find this--if Kozloff's observations reflect the truth and it was really Amenhotep III recarved from--the biggest blow against the long coregency theory so far.  How, while a co-king, could Akhenaten do this?  Seems incredible, on the one hand, and a pretty good argument for the anti-coregency scholars to use--but they never do!  With an eight-year coregency so much else makes better sense--but not this.

And why would the sandstone statues of Amenhotep III have fallen and broken?  That would have taken an earthquake, it seems to me.  The colossi of Memnon seem to have been affected by an earthquake at some point.  But just when was the first one? Impossible to know.

Edited July 29 by Aldebaran

[Aldebaran]

4 hours ago, atalante said:

Perhaps Amenhotep III became senile in the last years of his reign.  He could have ordered his sculptors to create stuff somewhat like the modern so-called Happy Buddha of abundance poses.  If so, this mental illness of AIII would have tormented his son Amenhotep IV; and led to recarving the late statues of AIII, to hide the evidences of AIII's mental collapse..    

There did come the day when Amenhotep III was portrayed looking rather like a pregnant woman, wearing a different sort of garment than the usual kilt.  The Metropolitan Museum in New York has this piece with the names of the king on the back, too.  Don't forget that, in life, this pharaoh may have been 5'1" at best.  

[Aldebaran]

I think Amenhotep III is wearing the same outfit--in red yet--on this shrine where he is seated beside Tiye.  Everyone has come away with the same impression from this piece--a sick man, slouching listlessly.  Notice that the pharaoh's skin is left pale [probably because of the color of his garment--and so much for the color canon being accurate] and the legs of the queen are dark!  Most strange is that they are bare!.  I can spot no sheer robe covering them.  

Edited July 29 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

3 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

Thanks for taking the trouble to write this and more.  I don't have this book, either, but I have most of the others about Akhenaten and his time and I can't believe nothing was mentioned about any of this--or at least to the point where it made any sort of impact on me.  To be honest, I find this--if Kozloff's observations reflect the truth and it was really Amenhotep III recarved from--the biggest blow against the long coregency theory so far.  How, while a co-king, could Akhenaten do this?  Seems incredible, on the one hand, and a pretty good argument for the anti-coregency scholars to use--but they never do!  With an eight-year coregency so much else makes better sense--but not this.

And why would the sandstone statues of Amenhotep III have fallen and broken?  That would have taken an earthquake, it seems to me.  The colossi of Memnon seem to have been affected by an earthquake at some point.  But just when was the first one? Impossible to know.

Thank you. Most of the Amarna and other relevant  literature predates what Kozloff says about these statues, which originally dates to 2010, so I think it a case of this still perculating through. For instance Dodson references this in 2014 and Guy De La Bedoyere in 2022, but looking for this prior to Kozloff draws a blank, for instance Blyth in her 2006 book specifically about Karnak mentions the statues, but not that they might have been for Amunhotep III, O'Connor and Cline's major work on Amunnotep III from 1998 is silent as well.

This is what Bedoyere says on page 241 in his book Pharaohs of the Sun

"Colossal statues of Akhenaten, and apparently Nefertiti, embossed the piers in a colonade around a courtyard, These famously androgynous figures deliberately blurred the royal couple's genders. The statues were originally conventional in design but were subsequently modified into the exaggerated style so characteristic of the more extreme early works of the regime's art."

I read Kozloff's book when it was published, and I can only think that this information just did not properly register, even though it is repeated twice, and I know I've quoted her about AIII numerous times over the years. A blind spot.

A question that comes to mind is that no matter how big the footprint and the "Colossi of Memnon", was AIII's mortuary temple actually ever finished, could an earthquake have caused extensive destruction shortly before AIII died, and when he was dead it was never completed by Akhenaten as it would have been "non compliant" to "Atenism". That the Ramesseum and Medinet Habu, both smaller than AIII's temple, survived and his did not might be an indicator that it may never have been finished, or were those two temples built from stone from AIII's temple.

Edited July 29 by Wepwawet