This is the most comprehensive study of Akhenaten and the Amarna period to date. It is without doubt a masterful work of scholarship written with an unexpected clarity and detail. However, as Ridley himself states in his first chapter and on the back cover of his book: "The historian is...bound by certain ironclad rules....All views and all evidence must be presented and analyzed." The author also goes on to affirm that "one must retrace the historical debate on each question in order to distinguish the false trails, on the one hand, and, on the other, the paths that have turned out to be the most fruitful." Unfortunately, Ridley does not completely follow his own advice. When it comes to Ancient Egypt, there are numerous heterodox theories and many capable historians and Egyptologists who do not strictly adhere to the conventional chronology nor the interpretation of subject matter and events at hand. I understand Ridley's position, but before I detail what he omitted or failed to acknowledge I will highlight some of his scholarly accomplishments in this book which I loudly applaud. How he was able to cover so much material in depth and breadth on the Amarna period, Akhenaten, and the royal family is breathtaking. And he did it all in one eminently readable volume!
Here are some of Ridley's key points: 1) He restores Smenkhkare to his legitimate rulership position prior to Tutankhamun's accession to the throne and forcefully reaffirms that it is Smenkhkare's remains that were found in KV55, not Akhenaten's. Attempts by various scholars to make Smenkhkare a non-person and evict him from KV55 were totally rebuffed. 2) The position and possible brief reign of Nefertiti was reinstated. Indeed, the number of times she is mentioned on different talatats discovered during various archaeological reconstructions involving the Amarna period indicates the possibility that she was the true power behind the throne at the time the Aten and Akhenaten reigned in Egypt. 3) Ridley would have the Eighteenth Dynasty conclude with the reign of Ay thanks to the destruction wrought by Horemheb who then stands at the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty. 4) Arguably, a clear case is presented for the familial lineage of Smenkhkare and Baketaten. 5) Which Egyptian Queen wrote a letter to a Hittite King asking for his son's hand in marriage was discussed, but the question was left unanswered (more on this below).
6) Akhenaten's life prior to becoming Pharaoh ("We know next to nothing..."), his theoretical co-regency with Amenhotep III (on the evidence provided by Murnane and Laboury, Ridley leaves the matter unsettled with a lean by him towards rejecting the co-regency theory), and Akhenaten's "pathology" which is brilliantly discussed and dismissed in favor of a new "artistic style" for depicting the pharaoh that held sway for a time. A possible asexual depiction of Akhenaten was also mentioned.
The above was just a sampling and much more could be cited, but that would require a review of book length. Before I begin my own critique I should like to reiterate my profound admiration and respect for this excellent opus and cannot recommend it highly enough. Without doubt, others will follow with their own commentary and critique.
Returning to the earlier quote from Ridley's book presented above, the following is quite appropriate: 1) Ridley fails to acknowledge any of the outstanding relevant scholarship put forth over the past 40+ years by some of his British counterparts. Among them: David Rohl, John J. Bimson, Geoffrey Gammon, Peter James, Martin Sieff, Emmet Sweeney, et al. 2) In the United States, David Talbott, Ev Cochrane, and Lewis M. Greenberg presented important research on the Aten. 3) From Germany comes key scholarship by M. Traugott Huber (to be reviewed elsewhere by me on Amazon). 4) Born in Cairo and now living in England since 1965 is Ahmed Osman, author of much non-traditional books on the Amarna period. 5) And finally, we have the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky, considered a premier "heretic", but one who nevertheless produced three important books involving an analysis of the Amarna period and Akhenaten in part or in whole - Ages in Chaos (1952), Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960), and Ramses II and His Time (1978) - and a few additional scholarly articles on the subject. It is O&A which is the most relevant here. Even the late William F. Albright who reviled AiC praised O&A. In the latter, Velikovsky attempted to show that the story of Oedipus was basically a mythic retelling of the historical events that comprised the Amarna period. If this sounds bizarre, consider the play "Hamlet" by Shakespeare which purportedly reflects actual Danish historical/legendary events. The story of Hamlet was four hundred years plus removed from its context source. Thus the source for Oedipus is not outlandishly removed in time, especially if considered within the framework of a revised Egyptian chronology which has been proposed by many for more than 50 years.
In O&A, Velikovsky compared the unknown early years of Oedipus to those of Akhenaten; addressed the possible late blindness of the two; discussed in detail why the tomb burials of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun were so different; affirmed that Smenkhkare was the true occupant of KV55; posited who the actual parents of Baketamun were; cogently argued which Egyptian Queen really wrote the letter to a Hittite King; dismissed the co-regency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten; suggested by indirection why the body of Akhenaten has yet to be found in Egypt; the significance of the generic names employed in the Oedipus cycle was examined in depth and their parallel relevance for the Amarna period brought forth. Additionally, the subject of "monotheism" was addressed. The worship of the Aten was a form of "monolatry", NOT "monotheism". The former refers to the elevation of a single deity above all others; and in this case Akhenaten was the divine intermediary. The worship of Amun and other Egyptian divinities was not totally expunged. They were both merely diminished along with their priesthood following. In separate published articles going back to 1945 and repeated in 1978 and 79, Velikovsky was actually the first to propose that Horemheb was the first of the Nineteenth Dynasty pharaohs and not the last of the Eighteenth Dynasty. There is so much more that could be said, but I will now conclude my review and commentary on Ronald T. Ridley's superb contribution to the vast literature on the Pharaoh Akhenaten at this juncture.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Add a debit or credit card to save time when you check out
Convenient and secure with 2 clicks. Add your card
All 2 for you in this series
See full series
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Top reviews from other countries
Amazon Customer
Want to sort the wood from the trees?
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on October 9, 2019