Explain the degree of Akhenaten’s revolution of Aten politically, if any. Also, Identify what institutions might have posed a threat to the pharaohs of the New Kingdom. What's important is to distinguish between "religious" and "political" in the world of New Kingdom Egypt
Introduction:
The pharaoh Akhnaten was certainly a huge visionary who observed strict guidelines as to the regard of political acumen and intrinsic decisions on anything. He managed to revolutionise the way the Egyptians thought about their pharaoh but was also kind and benign in more ways than one. His relationship with the young Queen Nefertiri was seen by many as a mystical one although there was absolutely no proof that something wrong was going on. However Akhnaten obviously had a number of enemies who worked assiduously to have him removed from power and these were always doing their best to hinder his work and decisions in this regard. However in the long run he was definitely appreciated much more and his work was seen by several scholars to have revolutionized the way Egypt worked.
Up to a few decades ago, the Egyptian pharaoh Akhnaten was described as a considerable revolutionary and also as an idealist and committed pacifist. However recent revision of his story has confirmed that his monotheism was a short lived experiment and it was quickly forgotten after he passed away. Actually some scholars even considered him to be a committed atheist. One must also consider the question of the romantic image caused by the deep bond that there was with his queen Nefertiti and when this was challenged by another queen called Kiya the tables turned. There is also a huge amount of speculation on the incest Akhnaten had with his daughters and at times he is also displayed as being a rather effeminate individual. In his seminal book Aldred focuses extensively on some of the controversies which continue to surround Akhnaten’s life especially the one where he could have been sharing power with a co-regent. There is also the question of the Amarna Letters which are made up of 350 cuneiform slabs which are painstakingly analyzed in this book.
Distinction between religious and political Akhnaten
Principally one must focus on the fact that Akhnaten was a monotheist and Aldred does not even treat that question with much importance in the early stages of the book. However this is a crucially important question when one comes to discuss Akhnaten’s religious observances which are even discussed at length when one observes the way he was buried. The return by Akhnaten to the Old kingdom’s sun worship is also an interesting observation on how this was a departure from the current religion which had several gods and figures to worship and which were eventually cast aside. The kingdom of Aten was certainly a mystical one in the extreme with lots of things going on but one also has to observe the fact that Akhnaten really could not be too bothered about religion. In his book, Aldred goes into great detail about Akhnaten’s impotence and how his somewhat effeminate appearance affecting everything. There is also considerable speculation that Amenhotep the Third might have been the father of Akhnaten’s children and there is considerable cause for believing this theory which Aldred does not discount either.
The political implications of not having an heir in Egypt were obviously considerable and they must be taken into account here. Aldred focuses on the fact that Akhnaten apparently could not have children and that this was a serious problem if the kingdom was to have some sort of continuity. And in fact Aldred actually concludes that although Akhnaten appeared effeminate, the most likely theory is that he actually fathered his own children. The disappearance of Nefertiti is also a political aspect which must be considered when discussing Akhnaten as if there was the opinion that he was a virtuous person then all disappears in this sense as he could have ruthlessy done away with his queen in favour of another. Certainly the religious revolution which Akhnaten implemented in Aten was not all that it seemed it was.
Benevolence and ruthlessness:
When one discusses Redford, it is immediately apparent that Akhnaten was definitely not what he seemed. He was actually an atheist without much imagination in terms of monotheism and was also a strong believer in mythology which was then backed up by what can be called as the concept of Aten. So Redford actually debunks the myth of Akhnaten as somebody who was virtouos and without blemish but was actually pretty much a megalomania. And all this led to him actually leaving the Egyptian empire to rot away into oblivion. This attitude certainly rouses considerable opposition against him and as things began to progress, the situation appeared infinitely worse for Akhnaten. His constant descendancy into self-aggrandization is something which is hinted at by Redford in his book although he does actually observe some good points about the pharaoh.
The question of hereticism is deemed to be important also in the context of the fact that Akhnaten was always revered as some sort of demi God. Redford espouses extensively on this topic and also shows that all is not well when discussing Akhnaten in a familiar guise. However Akhnaten did turn himself to some great public projects such as the Amarna Temples which come across as quite magical and beautiful in more ways than one. Redford also espouses on the fact that Akhnaten had a large number of corrupt advisors among him and these continued his descent into self delusion and anarchy.
There is also extensive debate on whether Akhnaten forced religious reform on his people especially due to his constant obsession with Aten where he attempted to airbrush out the names of other gods which came from the traditional segment such as Amun. He also made his court change their names so that they would no longer remain under the patronage of certain gods but would actually be centralized under the name of Aten. However there is also debate on the policies of Akhnaten which were fairly quite tolerant although resistance against his wide reaching reforms was especially strong in the later years of his reign.
Additionally one has to observe what happened after Akhnaten’s death with most of his policies and religious reforms completely airbrushed out. This shows that his influence was quite a temporary one and waned considerably after his death. One also has to observe the fact that his political reforms were not always doable and that the resistance of the Egyptian nobles to all this was inherently ingrained and without much of a future in this respect. Both authors offer contrasting and differing views on the mixture of politics with religion but at the end of the day everything is resolved with the evidence left behind at the site where Akhnaten was eventually buried.
Akhnaten’s political testament can be seen in the fact that he focused on large construction projects which however never saw the light of day and which would not be ever used. In fact a large number of these projects were used as foundation stones for other projects after his death demonstrating that the cult of Akhnaten vanished completely after his demise.
Conclusion: who was really Akhnaten?
This is a difficult question to answer as we do not have much evidence and proof to come to a really logical conclusion in this respect. However we can say that Akhnaten the man was a political and religious reformer albeit a rather flawed one but his name still lives on in more ways than one. Debate will obviously continue on how effective he was in implementing these reforms but his influence over Egyptian history is certainly substantial. Then there is the issue on how and why he was airbrushed from history after his death, this is largely due to the fact that his religious reforms were met by considerable hostility from the older guard and at the end of the day, these always ruled the roost. Both books under discussion in this essay shed new light on the myth of Akhnaten accordingly and are definitely must reads both for the committed Egyptologist but also for those with a smattering of interest in history as a whole.
Works Cited:
Aldred C; Akhenaton King of Egypt pp 219-48, 291-306; London, Thames and Hudson 1991; Print
Redford D B; Akenhaten the Heretic King pp 157-81, 204-11; Princeton, New Jersey 1984; Print
