Rating: 
Summary: A Needed Reappraisal of Akhenaten
Review: In my view, Nicholas Reeves delivers a long needed reappraisal of Akhenaten's reign by arguing that most interpretations of this controversial Pharaoh--as a benevolent ruler who merely believed in the existence of One God are totally at odds with the surviving facts from his reign. Although Reeves' book is devoted to the monarch, Akhenaten does not take centre stage until the beginning of Chapter 4(p.75) when he accedes to the throne. In the previous chapters, Reeves meticulously lays out the rise of the New Kingdom Empire, the discovery of El-Amarna and the tremendous wealth that Egypt enjoyed under the prosperous 38 year reign of Amenhotep III, Akhenaten's father.
Reeves argues, compellingly that rather than being a devout Monotheist(someone who believes in the existence of one God--the Aten here), Akhenaten used his Religious Revolution to cynically concentrate power in his hands--at the expense of more traditional political structures of Ancient Egypt such as the Amun Priesthood. The Amun priests were denied access to the considerable wealth of the Amun temples which had boosted the Egyptian economy after they had defied Akhenaten's wishes in his 4th Year. The wealth was instead conveniently diverted into the Treasury of the Egyptian state, ie. Akhenaten. Soon after, Reeves aptly notes that Akhenaten unleashed a Wave of Terror against anything remotely concerning the old religious order as his agents actively destroyed non-Atenist religious statues and hacked out the names and images of these gods wherever they occured--on Temple Walls, Obelisks, Shrines and even on the accessible portions of Tombs. Rather than being a king who wished to reform the traditional Priesthood, Akhenaten wished to create a New Order--his order.
Reeves observes that the scale of the anti-Amun persecutions were so terrifying that mass paranoia reigned throughout Egypt. Archaeological discoveries have shown that many ordinary residents of Akhetaten chose to gouge or chisel out all references to the god Amun on even minor personal items that they owned--like commemorative scarabs or make-up pots--perhaps for fear of being accused of having Amunist sympathies. References to Amenhotep III, Akhenaten's father, were partly erased since they contained the traditional Amun form of his name. In the end, Akhenaten's revolution collapsed from within after his death since the enormous costs of founding a new capital city (ie. Akhetaten) at El-Amarna and the closing of the Amun temples choked off the growth of the Egyptian economy and created massive corruption among the king's state officials who held unprecedented control over all the wealth and produce of Egypt. Later Egyptians rejected Akhenaten's unhappy reign by systematically dismantling all his monuments, denouncing him as "that criminal from Akhetaten"(in an inscription by Ramses II) and abandoning Akhetaten, the seat of Akhenaten's religious Revolution, to the Desert.
On other matters, Reeves rejects the view of a long 12 year coregency between Akhenaten and his father, Amenhotep III in favour of a shorter period of only one year. Reeves notes the clear evidence of docket EA 27--on a letter written to Akhenaten--dated to the latter's Year 2 plus the evidence from Amenhotep III's own tomb, in which the latter's name is always represented in the traditional prenomen nomen of Nebmaatre Amenhotep, rather than the anti-Amun "Nebmaatre Nebmaatre" form which omitted any reference to this king's Amun-inspired birth name.
Finally, on the mysterious Dahamanzu who corresponded with Suppiluliuma of Hatti, the author demonstrates that this Queen could only be Nefertiti, rather than Ankhesenamun, as is traditionally believed. Reeves notes that the approximate time of the first correspondence by this newly widowed Queen--in the late Autumn season(ie.: September/October)when Suppiluliuma I was beseiging Carchemish--corresponds perfectly with the known time of Akhenaten's death when the bottling of the Wine from his Royal estates was taking place. One of his Year 17 wine dockets has even been changed into Year 1 of Akhenaten's successor(cf. CAH) which proves that Akhenaten had died during this process and to reflect this political change. Tutankhamun, by contrast, clearly died late in the Winter Season(December or early January) as the presence of the Blue Lotus flower in his tomb--which only blossoms in late February and early March--shows when one takes into account the traditional 70 day mummification process. The existence of a letter--EA 170--found in El-Amarna from one of Akhenaten's vassals in Canaan which makes reference to a Hittite attack on the city of Amki is undoubtedly the same one which Hittite Annals record as being in progress at the time of Dahamanzu's first correspondence; hence, the Egyptian Queen here can only be Nefertiti. In contrast, Tutankhamun had abandoned Akhetaten(El-Amarna) for Thebes at least 7 or 8 years prior to his death in his Year 10--a fact which eliminates the case for identifying Dahamanzu with Ankhesenamun.
Reeves' excellent prose and penetrating insight into the real situation that Egypt was facing under Akhenaten's crisis filled reign shows the tremendous value of, and the amount of time which Reeves has devoted towards, this masterful work. I consider it a must read on Akhenaten's tumultous 17 year reign and its terrible aftermath which left behind a weak and chastened Egypt bereft of her imperial possessions in Syria(which had now been lost to the Hittites), and struggling to recover her confidence and belief in the divine kingship of Pharaoh. It took 3 different Pharaohs--Tutankhamun, Ay and Horemheb--to fix the mess that Akhenaten left behind.
The sole regret which I have with this work is its relative brevity--at 194 pages--before you reach the Bibliography and Index sections. But this does not detract from its great value and I would wholeheartedly recommend it to the general reader.
Rating: 
Summary: New Ideas on an Old Favorite
Review: Akhenaten has long been a favorite of Egyptologists...and like many of the other reviewers I've followed the available published material over the years. Unlike some other works, this book is shorter and more readily accessible, especially for those without their MA in history. That said...if this topic interests you, please seek out more information. Other reviews have fabulous suggestions.Great illustrations, succinct text, and a new theory on the identity of "Smenkhare" make this book well worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: hitting the reader on the brain
Review: Hitting Nail Head reviewer FELLOW shows little enlightenment in his comments. Limited intelligence, rather, all rote and book-learned thinking blazes thru, without a hint of common sense applied. I guess he never noticed Nefertitis eyes are BLUE, her skin is WHITE, and so are another couple of statues. He must be Art Deprived. OH WELL for you, nail hit on foot guy~your books must have had no illustrations. I guess he also didnt notice Tut is asian looking as well as African looking. There are egyptian queen statues (go view them in ART) that look ENTIRELY oriental, as well as ENTIRELY african, and ENTIRELY caucasian. Dont the jews who claim to be from egypt have red hair and blue eyes sometimes? They certainly dont cross breed in their hasidic sect, yet there it is to look at. Amazing logic Mr. Nail shows. Modern Day Madagascarians have GREEN eyes and wooly COPPER colored hair - take a trip and learn your facts. It too is in AFRICA. Its obvious to me all races sprang from egypt and exodused to where they split up and remained till today, more than likely when violent ROME invaded, controlled by fear, and they preferred peace/exodus to fighting back. How each RACE today looks, indicates how the TRIBE who left looked. There were at least 12 tribes we know of, right? Or did you forget much of the bible is depicting Egypt? Similar to how ALL DOG BREEDS stem from wolf, dingo, and fox mixed together, goes the logic of the races coming from Egypt. Egypt also PHYSICALLY went thru changing from very fertile, green land to desert as it is today, which would have caused an exodus of separate TRIBES to survive on better land. To mix the narrowed breeds of people we have today back together, you would result back with ALL the genes, looking like dingo, wolf or fox, i.e. EGYPTIAN originators, and people arent excluded from having racial, genetically-limited breeding same as animals. Atenism was the fuzzy beginning of Roman/Greco imposition of forcing the "harm is good" philosophy on Egypt, the REMOVAL of belief in THIS life, and to trade living oppression for " heaven later ". They knew it was a bogus trade and didnt bite. The oppressors rewrote the egyptian Bible (which would be along the lines of the Psalms) to include a new Greco/Roman teacher purporting that "we should trade a stinky present life for a vague reward after death" or "pain is good"- this to a culture that believed one god made them, they never die, there is NO heaven, they return again and again in repeated lives, and LIFE is to be not a sorrow, but the blessing itself. Of course, Egypt never swallowed that logic, or reversing their current beliefs, as it was wholely absurd to them. It was all about oppression and roman RULE, and Ankhenaton was most likely doing what he had to do to try to appease the romans and greeks, (i.e. gain full control, and break the strong religious spirit of the people that indicated future TROUBLE to the romans)...while keeping the best peace he could for his people. It was one of the earliest attempts by the roman invaders, to remove the religion of the egyptian people, and it failed just like the whole 'throwing to lions escapade' failed. The author is on the right track when he says "it was an attempt to remove contact with god from the people", and "make the egyptian subjects more dependant on the king THRU using their devout spirituality and "need" for communication with god, as a weapon". Totally right. Go learn your egyptian Mr. Nail, they had 30 commandments that BLOW AWAY the ten we are left with today, they were ULTRA good compared to christianity in the modern world (vegetarian, never make another cry, never kill ANY living thing, etc.) They didnt believe in "loopholes", or "animal headed folks", they believed in all-inclusive GOOD, ONE GOD. Mr. Nail, I contradict you, just as hinduism is today showing ASPECTS of ONE GOD'S personality thru varied pictures (strong elephant, all-reaching 8 armed, many-eyed all-seeing, etc), SO DID EGYPT draw him the SAME way. YOU probably also think HINDU = pagan, dont you. You need to broaden your horizons and learn a few basics. Egypt ALWAYS believed in one god, the invading roman/greco foreigners with THEIR OWN soap opera-ish, pagan diety pantheons mistook it for similarity on a personally-biased level, (they perceived what THEY were coming from)...and misrecorded it for history to come unravelled in the now. Rather than a genetic disease, Ahkenatons face more likely betrays over inbreeding. The pharoahs of egypt were brothers and sisters, married, which caused inbreeding- ALWAYS not just a couple of odd times. Mr. Ahkenaton probably got unlucky in the process of his accidental genetic draw. Good book for the new facts it shows. I bought it for the archaeological facts, NOT the opinions. :) If anything, Tut would have been murdered out of FEAR that what Ahkenaton did would EVER be repeated in the near future. Egypt and GOD were interdependant, not to be tampered with in the minds of the egyptians. Whats been left out, is that we're only pointing to Ahkenaton changing god's SYMBOL to "sun", and closing the temples. The facts omitted, are that this was only the tip of the iceberg - he tried to change ALL their beliefs and introduce the new "pain in life, pleasure in heaven" idea of oppression. It certainly couldnt have been ONLY a matter of symbol or something so small to cause his failure.
Rating:
Summary: The Real Akhenaten
Review: I have read several books on Akhenaten and this one is by far the best. An up-to-date title that is accessable even to the non-expert. Reeves puts forth the most plausible explanation for the identity of the ephemeral Smenkhkare, and the occupant of KV55. And most important of all, the REAL motive behind Akhenaten's new religion. This book will make you reconsider everything learned in Aldred's and Redford's books.
Rating:
Summary: The Real Akhenaten
Review: I have read several books on Akhenaten and this one is by far the best. An up-to-date title that is accessable even to the non-expert. Reeves puts forth the most plausible explanation for the identity of the ephemeral Smenkhkare, and the occupant of KV55. And most important of all, the REAL motive behind Akhenaten's new religion. This book will make you reconsider everything learned in Aldred's and Redford's books.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating re-assessment of the Atenist "heresy"
Review: I loved this book; I found it enlightening as well as fascinating, especially the views of the Atenist religion as the ulimate in Egyptian ancestor worship. Reeves also makes a very good case for Nefertiti being the "real" person behind the ephemeral figure, Smenkhare. Indeed, this theory is one of the central ones behind his current "Amarna Royal Tombs Project", the first expedition looking for additional tombs hidden in the Valley of the Kings since the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamon in 1922 (KV5 was already known, just not explored). I do agree with the earlier reviewer's concern with Reeves' obviously negative view of Hatshepsut, who happens to be a favorite of mine. I think he places too much blame on her for the underlying cause of the Amarna "revolution", the power struggle between the throne and the Amon priesthood. This is an excellent book on Akhenaten, based on research and theories more recent than the classic works by Donald Redford and Cyril Aldred.
Rating:
Summary: Amarna revisited
Review: Nicholas Reeves' latest book, Akhenaten is a convincing re-assessment of the 17 year reign of Egypt's heretic king. Drawing on recent discoveries and the re-examination of previous finds, to shed more light on this most controversial period of Egyptian history. Especially convincing were his arguments on the true identity of the mummy found in KV55, and the evidence pointing to Akhenaten's co-regency with Queen Nefertiti as Smenkhare. What I did find distressing and curious was Mr. Reeves' obvious distaste and criticism for Queen/King Hatshepsut. I do still recommend this book highly. An important work on a very important time in history.
Rating: 
Summary: Hitting the Nail on the Foot
Review: Not sure what it is about Akhenaten that authors tend write about him as either a saint or a monster. This book is of the monster variety. Whereas in previous decades it was the fashion to see him as a saint, the current fad is to see him as a monster. I'd like to point out one obvious fact: AKHENATEN WAS A HUMAN BEING. (I can imagine him having a sense of humor and an interest in palace gossip). The only author to present him as a human being was Allen Drury in his two-volume novel in the 70's.
I have read as much about Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tut, and the Amarna Age as I could lay my hands on. I don't think that any author has written the truth about Amarna as they have very divergent ideas about who was there, what they were like, and what they did. The writings - fiction, nonfiction, poetry, etc. - range from total absurdity to serious scholarship. Mr. Reeves' book is of the latter category.
One of the things about the fiction that irks me: I'm rather fed up with reading about blond-haired blue-eyed, etc., ancient Egyptians. Excuse me as I present another obvious fact: EGYPT IS IN AFRICA, NOT EUROPE. I would guess that most ancient inhabitants of the Two Lands had skin color in various shades of brown and black, black hair, and brown eyes. Probably most people born in Egypt before 400 AD were ethnically and culturally an admixture of African blacks and west Mediterranean whites, with odds and ends of other peoples thrown in to the mixture. Just look at portraits of Akhenaten and Tutankhamen, and it's obvious that they had some black African ancestry; Nefertiti probably did too.
Having vented those feeling, now to Mr. Reeves' book. I seriously disagree with his ideas that the Aten religion was superficial; we just don't know much about it because so much evidence was destroyed by Horemheb and the 19th Dynasty kings. In my opinion, the Atenist religion was Earth's first known monotheism and the purest one; it was a religion of light and ma'at. It was an attempt to cut through centuries of dark and mysterious religion and superstition and to present the one true God as a loving person who cares for everyone and the whole world. Modern archaeologists weren't in Amarna and Thebes when all of this was going on. I consider Atenism to be my religion; it's the only one that's ever interested me.
To me, Akhenaten was a young man, a true mystic, with radical, original ideas (it's possible to borrow from other people's works and thinking and still be original; this happens all the time in the Arts) who sought to bring a religion of light, truth, and ma'at to his nation. However, he made some serious mistakes in doing so. I think he became coregent at about 20 years of age, had a 2-year coregency with dear old dad, reigned as sole pharaoh for 15 years and died at age 37. Many archaeologist, scholars, and other writers have condemned him for losing the empire, closing the temples of other gods and thus wrecking the economy, making himself and Nefertiti as the only two people who could approach the Aten (i.e., God) directly, being a tyrant by trying to force his religion on the nation, and for being so wrapped up in his religion that he neglected the governing of the country. Well, I don't think all their "evidence" would stand up in a court of law.
Yes, it was a mistake for him to close down the temples of what he considered false gods and forbid their worship. It was also a mistake to for him to proclaim that only he and Nefertiti could approach the Deity directly, and other people had to pray to the royal couple. I do think that he did his best to govern the country wisely; his mother probably taught him how (dear old dad was mostly interested in wine, women, food, and architecture). As for losing the empire, some of the blame should devolve on Amenhotep III. Also, how much of the recovered Amarna correspondence was Akhenaten aware of? It would seem that one of the court officials, Tutu (or Dudu), may have been bribed to keep some of the letters from the king's attention. How was Pharaoh to know who to believe in the letters from Canaan? They all professed to be his loyal subjects. And without rapid communication, it was hard for him to know who was telling the truth.
What Akhenaten did was a real heresy and revolution in thinking, art, and language that he intended to be good. He gets condemned by modern people for the supposed results of what he did. How was he to know what would happen? There was no guidelines then. Was he supposed to have gotten degrees in Economics, Psychology, Political Science, and Comparative Religion? Where would he have gotten this knowledge, Yale or Oxford? Remember, we're talking 1350 BC, thiry-four centuries ago, over three millenia ago.
As for Nefertiti becoming a king and renamed Smenkare, uh-uh, I don't think so. (Smenkare was a real person, a shadowy royal male who married Meritaten, and probably the half-brother of Akhenaten and Tutankhamen with whom he shared the same mother; his father being Amenhotep III). Has anyone ever considered that in the last years of her husband's reign, Nefertiti may have kept from the public eye for reasons of health? Perhaps her health had failed, and she was ill much of the time. One possible reason could be too many pregnancies too fast. We know that she had six daughters who survived birth, but how many miscarriages and stillbirths did she have?
The thing is that the evidence is too fragmentary to draw many conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: Compiled new results by a forcible story.
Review: This book is an interesting reading instead of archeological study.
N.Reeves includes result of the new archeology that there is not in C.Aldred and D.B.Redford.
However, a total style of reciting is forcible In a direction to affirm his insistence.
I think that we cannot understand a king before 3,300 year with a human being general idea of the 21th century.
It violates the same mistake that it considers him to be a pacifist and a devoted husband to liken him to a revolutionist and a dictator.
Even if it is hard to understand a real image rising from a document , it is historical fact.
I want to avoid judging a past with our value judgment of the present age.
What this book should evaluate is to have arranged a point at issue about this time to a compact, and it's demerit to lack humility for the history.
Rating:
Summary: Finally! An Accessible Scholarly Title on Akhenaten
Review: This book is the best book-length treatment of the Heretic King since Aldred's famous "Akhenaten: King of Egypt" (1988), and of course, it is more up-to-date. Beautifully illustrated, scholarly but eminently readable. The author's grasp of most of the complex and controversial issues surrounding the Amarna period is on the money. He develops the equation of Queen Nefertiti with King Smenkhkare in a way that is the most convincing yet (although I must still disagree with that theory, I confess). For sheer reading pleasure, I must say it is on a par with Mme Desroches-Noblecourt's "Tutankhamen" (1963). There's a surprise on almost every page for even the seasoned Amarnaphile (Who else could tell you that Hitler was a great admirer of the "Aryan" bust of Queen Nefertiti?). In summary, this book is easily without peer on all counts and, in fact, is the best thing the author has written to date.
|
