Human in Amarna Art |
| King Akhenaten |
Most students of ancient Egyptian are aware that the Artwork composed during the Amarna Period under Akhenaten differs markedly from that of other periods in Egyptian history, one among the foremost visible changes within the art of this era was the way during which human figures were depicted, specifically their proportions and at its most extreme therein of the king.
Though initially Akhenaten, known at that point as Akhenaton , was depicted during a traditional idiom , later depictions of Akhenaten typically represent him with an outsized head with drooping features and an extended neck. He features a pointed chin and thick lips. His shoulders and waist are narrow, and therefore the small of his back is high, in order that the upper torso is little . From the waist down, the body swells bent from large buttocks and curvaceous thighs. His belly droops over the sagging waistband of his kilt, while his breasts are pronounced. His appendages, both arms and short lower legs, are thin and lack any musculature.
This representation of an Egyptian pharaoh is totally and absolutely contrary to all or any other depictions, which are more normally idealized portrayals of rugged, physically dominating men.
Later during the king's reign, the art of the Amarna Period became less extreme, with some artwork returning almost to normal. the design becomes more graceful, evolving into a softer, more naturalistic style. In depictions of the king, his shoulders and waist tend to be slightly wider and thus the tiny of his back is lowered, so that there was less contrast between a small upper torso and therefore the enlarged stomach, buttock and thigh
region.
 |
| Akhnaten and Nefrtiti |
With all the knowledge we've on the Amarna Period, including considerable correspondence within the form referred to as the "Amarna Letters", nowhere can we find any evidence for this very dramatic change in Egyptian art. However, most scholars believe that this kind was instigated by Akhenaten, and at any rate, it might have had to satisfy his approval. a variety of explanations are presented by scholars.
One common reason frequently provided is that Akhenaten suffered from some kind of illness. Dr. Sameh M. Arab, a noted medical scholar from Alexandria believes, as an example , that he may have suffered from Hyper-pituitrism (Gigantism or Acromegaly), while others have suggested any number of diseases including tuberculosis of the liver or cirrhosis secondary to Bilharzial parasitic infection. Initial arguments against a disease being the rationale for his almost cartoon-like depictions was that other human figures were represented within the same style. However, those that argue in favor of disease means that, because he was king, others figures could be represented within the same manner so as to artistically camouflage his problem.
It appears that today, many if not most scholars discount disease theory. Others have argued that the art does actually represent the physical characteristics of the king, but during a caricature style that some have termed expressionist.
In his book, The Art of Ancient Egypt, historian Gay Robins of Emory University suggests that, because the new royal image coincided with the preeminence given to the Aten, the new style was probably meant to form a spiritual statement. Like others, he believes that the proportions provide a feminine appearance to the figure of the king, given the slenderness of the torso, the high smallness of the rear , the prominent buttocks and therefore the swelling thighs. Actually, first lookouts at Amarna thought that the depictions of Akhenaten and Nefertiti actually represented two women. Robins goes on to means that, since the king was the manifestation of Aten on earth, and Aten was as a creator god was androgynous, the king may have intended that his image should incorporate both male and feminine elements. He further states that:
"In addition the Aten brought abundance and prosperity to the land, concepts related to Hapy, [the god of] the Nile inundation, traditionally shown as a fat fecundity figure. Texts identify Akhenaten with Hapy, and his corpulence could also be meant to display this aspect of the king. This supposition is strengthened by an unprecedented detail that happens within the rendering of the king's thighs and genital region. Traditionally, figures of kings and elite males wear opaque kilts that reveal nothing of what's underneath. Against this , most two-dimensional figures of Akhenaten show the forward line of the near thigh beneath his kilt, because it runs upwards to satisfy the stomach fold; no genitals are visible. This recalls the way during which fecundity figures are depicted. Like Akhenaten, they too show no genitalia, perhaps so as to reinforce the notion of their corpulence through the self-esteem that the folds of the fat stomach droop so low on conceal the genitals."
However, albeit the king's figure is somewhat feminine, it's differentiated from female figures. The foremost obvious difference is within the genital area, aside from the clothing. Female dress is treated as transparent, in order that the body is visible underneath, including the stomach, thighs and pubic area, which is completely different from the treatment given to the king's figure. This particular aspect of depicting women wasn't new the Amarna Period, since the tight sheath dress outlined the form of the body and drew attention to the pubes . Its purpose was probably to supply an icon of female fertility. This was particularly appropriate for Nefertiti's image, since she represented the cosmic female principle.
The royalty weren't the sole figures presented during this new sort of art. Many non-royal people were also illustrated with thin shoulders, slender limbs, short lower legs, lowering stomachs and noticeable buttocks. However, in two dimensional art a deliberate distinction is formed between how royal and non-royal feet are depicted. The near and many feet of royal figures during the Amarna Period are differentiated but non-royal figures are depicted with both feet shown from the within . Though less extreme and positively not exact copies of the king's figure, lacking his drooping countenance , these non-royal figures point to a possible flaw in Gay Robins' assumptions. If indeed Akhenaten was depicted during this manner for religious reasons thanks to him being a manifestation of Aten, it seems unlikely that non-royal people would even be depicted within the same style despite the very fact that representations of personal individuals had always followed the artistic model of the king during their time. Others outside of the royalty could only worship Aten through their king then the separation between god and therefore the common folk of Egypt was never, nor wouldn't it ever be greater than during the Amarna Period. Hence, why would others be represented within the same style as Akhenaten. Logically, it might seem that the other would be true, though what we perceive as logical within the ancient world can often be in error thanks to concepts unknown to us.
Logically , it might seem that there must certainly be some connection between the radical art style and therefore the revolutionary religion, though perhaps not inevitably specific to Akhenaten as a phenomenon of Aten. One might even realize that the design of art within the Amarna Period was purposely altered as a clean break from the older styles when the capital was moved from Thebes to Akhetaten, but actually , the new style began to evolve before the formation of that city. It more equals the evolution of the new religion itself.
Though prominent scholars often refer to the female nature of Akhenaten's depictions, none that we all know of have ever expressed the likelihood that he may have been subject to alternative sexual preferences. This possibility has not escaped the eye of the gay community, though most of that speculation seems decidedly lacking in any real scholarly pursuit. Nevertheless, among many other possibilities, it's a viable explanation that can't be discarded offhand. Certainly we are given evidence otherwise, like the loving attitude between the King and Queen so often depicted on the walls of varied monuments, but this might have also been a false facade provided to the general public , or maybe even a denial by and for the king himself. Just because he may have had such tendencies doesn't necessarily imply that he acted upon them, or maybe understood, as a member of a line of kings who often compared themselves with bulls to worry about their male virility. He most likely fathered the youngsters so frequently depicted in various monument scenes. Certainly Akhenaten's interests seem to not be as martial in nature as other kings of Egypt. While such an opportunity would require more detailed analysis then would be suitable for the context of this text , it'd explain his look for religious understanding also as Nefertiti's equality within the royalty and his various interests that mostly seem contrary to those of previous kings.
Yet, this theory also has problems, mostly within the way that others were depicted during a style that was so utterly different from former periods. All elements of the change weren't simply sexual in nature, and that we may find, if ever we do, that the art of the Amarna Period was the maximum amount a neighborhood of Akhenaten's creative imagination as was his new religion.
 |
| Akhenaten and his toddler |
Notably, additionally to the physical portrayal of figures during the Amarna Period, the particular compositions into which they were incorporated were even as differentiated from prior times because of the style itself. Absolutelyely, and clearly unique are the scenes that describe the king lovingly nurturing his kids. Many depictions display the king within the company of his family, including their children in scenes that might never be so composed by prior kings. They often represent the family in daily activities. The explanations for this also remain unclear, though there's a particular air of sensitivity and devotion to family never before seen in Royal artwork.
In the end at this stage in our understanding of Akhenaten and therefore the Amarna Period, what seems most blatant is that, even among the simplest of students , there's no absolutely compelling evidence for any specific answer regarding the way in which figures were portrayed. There might even be an inherent fallacy within the art being directly connected with the religious revolution itself. After all, the increase during this idiom does correspond with the arrival of Akhenaten's new religion, but it also corresponds to his reign and therefore the king may have had other private reasons for the artistic change secret to us. We simply haven't any real contemporary explanations which may clear the muck of what remains, a most mysterious period in Egyptian
history and art.
Technical
 |
The change in idiom with regards to figures during the Amarna Period required certain technical changes within the manner during which they were composed. Specifically, ancient Egyptian artists used a grid system in their ad order to make the specified proportions. In prior times, there was an 18 proper grid between the soles of the feet and therefore the hairline. Though few grid traces have survived on Amarna monuments, enough remains to point out that standing figures were drawn on a grid of twenty squares. One additional grid row was added between the junction of the neck and shoulders and therefore the hairline to accommodate the long neck and face. The opposite was added to the torso to permit for the pendulous stomach.
The top of the knee lay on horizontal line six as did within the eighteen square grid, but within the older system the peak of the lower leg was a 3rd of the hairline height, whereas within the Amarna system of twenty grids it had been but a 3rd . The lower legs of Amarna figures therefore appear shorter than those depicted within the old system.
Nonetheless, despite the differences in amounts, the basics of both two and three dimensional depictions actually remained unchanged. Two dimensional figures were still a composite of their many parts. Objects were portrayed in their most characteristic aspect. Scenes were organized into registers. The illusion of depth wasn't incorporated, and in both cult and architectural statuary, the formal frontal pose governed composition.