Historical Dictionary of Ancient Nubia (Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras) [Illustrated] 9781538133385, 9781538133392, 1538133385

Citation preview

The historical dictionaries present essential information on a broad range of subjects, including American and world history, art, business, cities, countries, cultures, customs, film, global conflicts, international relations, literature, music, philosophy, religion, sports, and theater. Written by experts, all contain highly informative introductory essays on the topic and detailed chronologies that, in some cases, cover vast historical time periods but still manage to heavily feature more recent events. Brief A–Z entries describe the main people, events, politics, social issues, institutions, and policies that make the topic unique, and entries are cross-referenced for ease of browsing. Extensive bibliographies are divided into several general subject areas, providing excellent access points for students, researchers, and anyone wanting to know more. Additionally, maps, photographs, and appendixes of supplemental information aid high school and college students doing term papers or introductory research projects. In short, the historical dictionaries are the perfect starting point for anyone looking to research in these fields.

HISTORICAL DICTIONARIES OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS AND HISTORICAL ERAS Jon Woronoff, Series Editor Pre-Colonial Africa, by Robert O. Collins, 2001. Medieval Russia, by Lawrence N. Langer, 2001. Napoleonic Era, by George F. Nafziger, 2001. Ancient and Medieval Nubia, by Richard A. Lobban Jr., 2003. The Vikings, by Katherine Holman, 2003. The Renaissance, by Charles G. Nauert, 2004. Ancient Israel, by Niels Peter Lemche, 2004. Early North America, by Cameron B. Wesson, 2005. The Enlightenment, by Harvey Chisick, 2005. Cultural Revolution, by Guo Jian, Yongyi Song, and Yuan Zhou, 2006. Ancient Southeast Asia, by John N. Miksic, 2007. Medieval India, by Iqtidar Alam Khan, 2008. Ancient Egypt, Second Edition, by Morris L. Bierbrier, 2008. India, by Kumkum Roy, 2009. The Etruscans, by Simon K. F. Stoddart, 2009. Modern China (1800–1949), by James Z. Gao, 2009. Mesopotamia, Second Edition, by Gwendolyn Leick, 2010. Byzantium, Second Edition, by John H. Rosser, 2012. Ottoman Empire, Second Edition, by Selcuk Aksin Somel, 2012. Mesoamerica, by Walter R. T. Witschey and Clifford T. Brown, 2012. Japan to 1945, by Kenneth Henshall, 2013. British Empire, by Kenneth J. Panton, 2015. Medieval China, Second Edition, by Victor Cunrui Xiong, 2017. Ancient South America, Second Edition, by Martin Giesso, 2018. Mongol World Empire, Second Edition, by Paul D. Buell and Francesca Fiaschetti, 2018. The Hittites, Second Edition, by Charles Burney, 2018. Medieval Christian Nubia, by Richard A. Lobban Jr., 2020. Ancient Nubia, by Richard A. Lobban Jr., 2021.

Historical Dictionary of Ancient Nubia

Richard A. Lobban Jr.

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Rowman & Littlefield A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB Copyright © 2021 by Richard A. Lobban Jr. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Name: Lobban, Richard Andrew, Jr., 1943–, author. Title: Historical dictionary of ancient Nubia / Richard A. Lobban, Jr. Description: Lanham : Rowman & Littlefield, [2021] | Series: Historical dictionaries of ancient civilizations and historical eras | Includes bibliographical references. | Summary: “This book features easy access and cross-listing of multiple themes and topics related to the prehistory and ancient times in Nubia, Kerma, Kush, or Meroe until the end of the Meroitic and post-Meroitic times in the 4th and 5th centuries CE”— Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020041368 (print) | LCCN 2020041369 (ebook) | ISBN 9781538133385 (cloth) | ISBN 9781538133392 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Nubia—History—To 1500—Dictionaries. Classification: LCC DT159.6.N83 L633 2021 (print) | LCC DT159.6.N83 (ebook) | DDC 939/.78003—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020041368 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020041369 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

This book is dedicated to the reclamation, preservation, and understanding of the context of the peoples, cultures, languages, and histories of prehistoric and ancient Nubia. It tries to answer the following major questions: “What were the precursors?” “How did they function?” “What are the survivals and implications as illuminated in the present?” and “How and why should ancient Nubia be considered an important contributor to world culture?”

Contents

Editor’s Foreword

ix

Preface

xi

Acknowledgments

xiii

Reader’s Notes

xv

Maps

xvii

Chronology

xxix

Introduction

1

THE DICTIONARY

3

Appendix 1: Main Language Groups Associated with Ancient Nubia

407

Appendix 2: Salvage of Ancient Nubian Temples in Egypt

409

Appendix 3: Salvage of Ancient Nubian Temples in Sudan

411

Appendix 4: Implications of the High Dam at Aswan

413

Appendix 5: Kings of Kurru and Dynasty XXV Contemporaries

415

Appendix 6: New Kingdom Viceroys of Nubia

419

Appendix 7: Kinship in Dynasty XXV

421

Appendix 8: Dynasty XXV

423

Appendix 9: Near Eastern Dynasties in the Ninth to Seventh Centuries BCE

427

Appendix 10: Kings of Napata (664–295 BCE)

431

Appendix 11: City of Meroё

433

Appendix 12: Schisms among Christian Faiths

443

Bibliography

445

About the Author

501 vii

Editor’s Foreword

The information in this book is an expansion of part of a previous book by the same author, Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia. That book was one of the first in this series, published in 2003. This book deals primarily with the prehistoric and ancient period up to Medieval Christian times (which are addressed in another new, expanded volume: Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia). The ancient period for Nubia covers the great African kingdom of Kerma and its relationship to the Old and Middle Kingdoms of Egypt. It also examines the complex five centuries of the Egyptian New Kingdom of Nubia, or Kush. After recovering national sovereignty, the Nubians of Dynasty XXV returned to conquer Egypt in the seventh century BCE. Even after being expelled by the Assyrians, Nubians continued self-rule at Napata. When the Greeks and Romans took over Egypt, Nubians maintained their contemporary rule in the Meroitic Empire. The Egyptian rule of Nubia was replaced by Nubian rule in Greco-Roman times that were concurrent with classical Meroë. These rivals on the Nile were sometimes peaceful and constructive and sometimes tense and quarrelsome. Readers of this series will already be familiar with Dr. Richard Lobban because of the titles cited above as well as other books. Two are not related to this period or region, Historical Dictionary of Cape Verde and Historical Dictionary of Guinea-Bissau, while Historical Dictionary of Sudan is geographically related to the books on Nubia. Dr. Lobban is professor emeritus of anthropology and African studies at Rhode Island College and teaches African studies at the Naval War College. He is also a cofounder and first president of the Sudan Studies Association. Jon Woronoff Series Editor

ix

Preface

This book brackets, contextualizes, and extracts a segment of the very long history of Nubian Sudan. As described in the Reader’s Notes, versions of this book have been evolving since 1978 as information is collected and recorded. This book focuses on the ancient period of Nubian history from prehistoric times to the start of Medieval Christianity. So this book is focused on the millennia of early humans along the Nile in the prehistoric Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic eras and written periods of Egyptian pharaonic interactions and the Kerma, Napatan, Meroitic, and X-Group civilizations. These were, in turn, replaced by and articulated with the formation and content of the Christian epoch and the subsequent centuries of Islam in Sudan. The long and complex period of Medieval Christianity in Nubia is now covered by the new Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia, which is followed by the fourth edition of the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan, which covers the rise of Islam in Sudan to modern times. These three books make a three-volume, 1,500-page history of Sudan. The evolution of this book began with the slim Historical Dictionary of the Sudan by John Obert Voll in 1978, 42 years ago. It continued with the much expanded second edition by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Richard Lobban, and John Voll in 1992. The third edition was written by Robert Kramer, Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, and Richard Lobban in 2002, and the Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia arrived in 2003 and the A to Z of Ancient and Medieval Nubia in 2010, both by Richard Lobban. A fourth edition of Historical Dictionary of the Sudan written by Kramer, FluehrLobban, and Lobban (2013) includes the modern period of Omer Al-Beshir, just toppled in 2019. This book starts with the ancient prehistoric time and continues to the civilizations of Kerma, Napata, Meroë, and pre-Christian or X-Group horizons of the Ballana and Tangasi cultures to provide context for the start of Medieval Christian Nubia (now addressed in its own volume, which ends after a millennium with the last Christian kingdom of Alwa at Soba). To determine the start of Christianity in the Nile valley is difficult. The roots of monotheism can be traced to Pharaoh Akhenaton of the New Kingdom, and the start of monotheism can be traced to the Hyksos (strongly allied with Kerma Nubians) when they left Egypt and became the Jews of the Exodus. Once Judaism was formally established, the links to Christianity are naturally even closer. This could include the flight of Jesus and his Jewish family back to Egypt and the early martyrdom of many believers resisting xi

xii

•

PREFACE

Roman rule. It could also include the first believer in Meroë, who is noted in Acts of the Apostles. With such a deep foundation of Christianity, it is hard to start with the establishment of Nubian state Christianity with King Silko. So this book ventures into the early part of this period. A much fuller treatment can now be found in the new Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia.

Acknowledgments

I’d like to express my appreciation to NCAM, the National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums, for the support of their directors, a dozen field inspectors, and the licenses that have allowed for field archaeology, especially for my brief work at Musawwarat es-Sufra and more than a decade at Abu Erteila. The first edition of this book contained written contributions from my former students Miriam Ayad, Frederick Collins, Kharyssa Rhodes, and Paul Saucier. They are gratefully acknowledged here. I also happily remember friends from Musawwarat es-Sufra, from my stay there and work on the outside museum; they include Steffen Wenig, Tim Karberg, and Deitrich Eigner. Over the years, my conversations and consultations with Pawel Wolf and Tim Kendall have been much appreciated. I will deeply miss the friendship and collegiality of William Yewdale Adams, American anthropologist and Nubianist who passed away on 22 August 2019. His death is a great loss to Nubian studies; he was a model we should all emulate. Great thanks also to the hosts and organizers of the various Nilo-Saharan, Sudan, Nubian, and Meroitic conferences I have attended in many nations, including Timothy Kendall, Alessandro Roccati, Isabella Caneva, Mathieu Honegger, Wlodzimierz Godlewski, and Osama Abdel Meguid at the Nubia Museum in Aswan. I am also appreciative of the tour companies (especially the Archaeological Institute of America and Ihab Zaki of Speikerman Tours) who asked me to be their group tour leader in Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somaliland, and Djbiouti and therefore have the chance to visit many sites I might not have otherwise seen. I am also grateful for the marvelous resource of REM, the Repertory of Meroitic Epigraphy, to check primary sources, as well as FHN by Tormond Eide, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce, and László Török. While the format of this historical dictionary series is designed to give quick and summary access to this period of prehistoric and ancient Nubian history for “one-stop shopping,” the primary sources in the extensive bibliography are a great beginning place for further serious research in the field. Calendrical dates in Nubian studies are especially problematic, as they are approximate in the BP and much of the BCE period. I have relied on conventional sources and concentrated on keeping chronological sequences correct. None of the people I’ve thanked in these acknowledgments is responsible for any errors resulting from my editing and writing for this edition.

xiii

xiv

•

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Some final thanks: reflective conversations about Nubian history with Eugenio Fantusati for collegial support for decades, Giovanni Vantini for pioneering in Medieval Christian studies in Sudan; Marcus Jaeger on Nubantood, and the late Gerrald Lauche for keeping me current in Nubian linguistics; Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, colleague, wife, and endless sounding board; Robert Kramer for his tireless work on Historical Dictionary of the Sudan; Kharyssa Rhodes and Paul Saucier, former students, researchers, and writers in the earlier edition; and Emily Aprea for help with typing. Special thanks to April Snider and Kellie Hagan at Rowman & Littlefield for, respectively, their professionalism and superb editing talents, which made this project flow so smoothly. All are very much appreciated. My wife, Carolyn FluehrLobban, is a busy and productive scholar of Sudan and Nubia in her own right, and our more than 50 years of marriage and collegial interaction has explored many depths in this study. My gratitude is truly beyond measure.

Reader’s Notes

Many foreign and ancient words have many forms and variations and lack conventions. Thus problems exist with spelling and alphabetizing conventions in recording non-Western languages that are often recorded phonetically in a still greater diversity of languages hearing various phones and phonemes. These approximations may replicate the sound heard by one listener but not by another. Official transliteration orthographic graphic guides for hieroglyphics or Arabic are one way out, but the precise correct form may appear awkward or not even intelligible. In addition, common forms exist that are not proper transliterations. Consequently, for this general reference book built on my primary observations of many of these sites and secondary sources, I have elected to use the simpler and more common forms as a guide when a choice was needed. Frequently, I have given alternative spellings and other names for the same place. This is a challenging issue, especially in the case of Meroitic terms that are largely untranslated, or even unknown except by Arabic words. Egyptian hieroglyphics, much needed in this book, are notably short on vowels (with parallel problems in Arabic), which makes rendering in English challenging. Meroitic demotic (“cursive”) suffers similarly with the long-standing practice of inserting euphonic that follows no particular logic or pattern. Frankly, in many cases in ancient Nubia, scholars have no idea what people called themselves or their places. Often the only clue is from foreigners (usually Egyptians) and later Greeks and Romans who all had their own inherent biases in Nubian nomenclature. Shifting toponyms for the same places over this long period of time are no less problematic. So, this work is much confounded by the mostly nonliterate ancient Nubian societies whose languages were unwritten, untranslated, or unknown—and were neither ancient Egyptian, Greek, Latin, Arabic, nor European—but probably Nilo-Saharan or Sudanic antecedents or dialects. When available, each entry provides some variant forms of the names. This may offend some linguists, epigraphers, and philologists, but my goal was to make this book more user friendly and intelligible to the broader audience for whom it is mainly intended. For later terms of Arabic origin, I have largely followed the standard transliteration guide for Arabic of the International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, but many forms are in established usage that are not “correct” transliterations. An excellent example of this much debated problem is the variety of ways individuals spell or alphabetize their own names. Shall a xv

xvi

•

READER’S NOTES

Sudanese person be informed that his or her name is spelled incorrectly? For example, shall it be ‘Abdel Wahhab Muhammad, ‘Abd al-Wahhab Mohamed, ‘Abdelwahhab Mohammed, or Abdelwahhab Mohamed? Additionally, how shall this be alphabetized—under ‘A, or al, W, or M?’ This book is guided by most common usage and spelling and by the individual’s spelling of his or her name when widely known. The embedded article al- or el- is not used for alphabetizing. Similarly, I have decided to use the term Sudan rather than the Sudan. Recalling that the term Nubia overlaps with Kush and that modern Sudan was called Ethiopia and Nubia or Turkish Nubia from the 19th century to the early part of the 20th adds confusion. In order to facilitate the rapid and efficient location of information and to make this book as useful a reference tool as possible, cross-references are provided in the dictionary section. Within individual entries, terms that have their own entries are in boldface type the first time they appear. Related terms that do not appear in the text are indicated by a see also reference. The term see refers to other entries that deal with the topic. The dictionary uses these common abbreviated forms: BCE: Before the Common Era (Before the Christian Era, BC) BP: Before the Present (very early times, plus 2,000 years) ca.: circa, about CE: Common Era (Christian Era, AD) r.: reigned, ruled

Maps

Main sites in ancient Nubia.

xvii

xviii

•

MAPS

Orientation map of cataracts on the Nile.

MAPS

Map A: Aswan area and First Cataract.

•

xix

xx

•

MAPS

Map B: Lower Nubia, First to Second Cataract.

MAPS

Map C: Third Cataract area.

•

xxi

xxii

•

MAPS

Map D: The Nile at the Fourth Cataract.

MAPS

Map E: The Nile at Meroë, Fifth and Sixth cataracts.

•

xxiii

xxiv

•

MAPS

Eratosthenes.

Map by Magini, 1596, Della geografia di Tolomeo, Libro Quarto, 96.

MAPS

•

xxv

Map by Christophoro Weigelio, Aegyptus Antiqua, in suas partes et nomos divisa cum Troglodytices, Marmarica.

xxvi

•

MAPS

Map from Carte exacte du cours du Nil, 3:90.

MAPS

From a 16-panel folding map of the Nile. London: Edward Stanford, 1884.

•

xxvii

Chronology 1

PREHISTORIC TIMES: PALEOLITHIC, MESOLITHIC, NEOLITHIC ca. 3,000,000–ca. 1,500,000 BPAll of human species first evolve in Africa in varied Australopithecine or Homo africanus species. Examples are found in South Africa, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Chad so it is most likely that the earliest humans were in Sudan; fossil remains are yet to be found in Sudan. ca. 2,000,000–ca. 300,000 BP Lower Paleolithic. Khor Abu Anga stone tools. 750,000 BP Homo erectus established in Africa and Asia in the later Pleistocene. ca. 300,000–ca. 150,000 BP Evolution to Homo erectus distribution. ca. 150,000–50,000 BP Homo erectus replaced by Homo sapiens neanderthalensis that coexist with rise and diversification of Homo sapiens in Africa, then decline. ca. 50,000–10,000 BP Upper Paleolithic. Dominance and dispersal of Homo sapiens sapiens. ca. 10,000–4000 BP Khartoum Mesolithic. Microlithic tools and the start of pottery. ca. 9000 BP Singa skull of the Blue Nile. Homo sapiens sapiens. 4000–3500 BCE Sudan Neolithic. Last Ice Age and the start of Saharan desiccation. 3500–3100 BCE A-Group in Lower Nubia. Archaic period in Egypt, dynasties 1 and 2.

HISTORIC AND DYNASTIC TIMES 3100 BCE Decline of the Chalcolithic period with tools made of copper and stone. 3050 BCE Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt by King Narmer (Aha, Menes). xxix

xxx

•

CHRONOLOGY

3000 BCE Memphite Egypt raids Nubia for slaves, livestock, ivory, and gold. Dynasties–VI in the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Pyramid construction and origin of hieroglyphic writing begins in Egypt. Egypt sees threats by Kerma and makes large fortresses from the First to Second Cataracts along the Nile and establishes nome districts. Religion consolidated into zoomorphic and anthropomorphic deities.

RISE OF KERMA ca. 6000–3200 BCE Prehistoric roots of Kerma. ca. 3100–2600 BCE Pre-Kerma settlement. ca. 2500–2000 BCE Rise of Kerma during the weak Egyptian First Intermediate Period. 2000–1759 BCE Middle Kingdom dynasties XI and XII in Egypt. 1900–1570 BCE Expansion of Kerma Territory due to a weakened Egypt. 1759–1539 BCE Second Intermediate Period in Egyptian dynasties XIII–XVII. 1630–1522 BCE Hyksos take over Lower Egypt in dynasties XV–XVI. Hyksos ally with Kerma Nubians to block Egyptian expansion. Both fail.

NEW KINGDOM COLONIZES KUSHITE NUBIA 1570 BCE New Kingdom revival occupies Kush as Egyptian colony during dynasties XVIII–XX. 1279–1213 BCE Epoch of Ramses II with construction of Abu Simbel temples. 1074–664 BCE Third Intermediate Period. Egypt ruled by foreigners in dynasties XXI–XXV. 1069 BCE Nubian revolts against declining Egyptian rule of Kush.

RESURGENCE OF THE NUBIAN STATE AT KURRU 950 BCE Kushites resume attacks on Egypt.

CHRONOLOGY

•

xxxi

850 BCE Royal Nubian burials started at Kurru pyramids. 800 BCE Nubians push northward to Thebes. 790 BCE Alara restores regional Nubian territory. 765 BCE Nubian conquest of Egypt advances.

NUBIAN DYNASTY XXV RULES EGYPT 760 BCE Nubian “Ethiopian” rule of Egypt established as Dynasty XXV. 760–747 BCE Reign of Kashta. 753 BCE Traditional founding date of the city of Rome. 747–716 BCE Reign of Piankhy. Piankhy completes conquest of Egypt. 716–701 BCE Reign of Shabaka. 701–690 BCE Reign of Shabataka. 690–664 BCE Reign of Taharka, buried at Nuri. 668–627 BCE: Reign of King Ashurbanipal of Assyria, rival to Taharka. 664–653 BCE Reign of Tanutamun. Tanutamun withdraws from Egypt, and Dynasty XXV is terminated.

NAPATAN CIVILIZATION 653–643 BCE Reign of Atlanersa from Napata. 643–623 BCE Reign of Senkamanisken. 623–593 BCE Reign of Anlamani. 593–568 BCE Reign of Aspelta. 591–590 BCE Invasion of Nubia by Psammetichos II (Psamtik), Dynasty XXVI. Gradual transfer of trade and power from Napata to Meroë.

PERSIAN, GRECO-ROMAN, AND MEROITIC TIMES 529–521 BCE Reign of Cambyses II, Persian king of Egypt. 510 BCE Founding of the Roman Republic that later conquers Egypt.

xxxii

•

CHRONOLOGY

404–369 BCE Reign of Kushite king Harsiyotef, buried at Nuri. 356–323 BCE Life of Alexander III “the Great,” Macedonian conqueror of Persia. 335–315 BCE Reign of Nastasen, the last to rule from Napata. 332 BCE Alexander the Great conquers Egypt. 323 BCE Alexander dies of fever in Babylon, and his body is returned for burial in Memphis, Egypt, then to Alexandria where his final resting place has not be found. This starts the Ptolemaic era in Egypt, Hellenization of Egyptian culture, and the Egyptianization of Greek culture, as well as the construction of the great Library of Alexandria and a long and complex interaction with Nubia. 305–283 BCE Reign of King Ptolemy I Soter, first to rule after Alexander the Great. 270 BCE Meroë becomes the capital after strategic withdrawal from Napata, but relations with Ptolemaic Egypt are broadly commercial, scientific, and cordial. 260 BCE Ergamenes is the first king to be buried at Meroë. 240 BCE Meroë retakes Lower Nubia and threatens Ptolemaic Upper Egypt. 150 BCE: Kandake Shanadakheto has first dated Meroitic inscription. 149–146 BCE Third and last Punic war between Carthage and Rome that seeks to rule Egypt. 100–44 BCE Reign of Julius Caesar. 69–30 BCE Reign of Cleopatra VII, last Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt. 44 BCE Assassination of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March. 43 BCE Roman control of Britain begins. 30 BCE Cleopatra VII and Caesar Antony commit suicide. Caesar Augustus (Octavian) begins Roman rule of Egypt until 14 CE. Roman relations with Nubia are often tense and hostile. 24 BCE Meroites attack (Roman) Aswan. 23 BCE Roman Petronius counterattacks Meroites as far as Napata. 22 BCE Meroites counterattack as far as Qasr Ibrim. 21 BCE Meroites and Romans sign peace treaty at Samos.

CHRONOLOGY

•

xxxiii

0–20 CE Reign of Meroitic coregents Qore Natakamani and Kandake Amanitore.

X-GROUP INTERLUDE; PRELUDE TO NUBIAN CHRISTIANITY 33 CE Crucifixion and martyrdom of Christ. 37 CE First Nubian convert to Christianity returns to Meroë. 54–68 CE Reign of Roman emperor Nero. 66–73 CE First Jewish revolt against Romans. 98–117 CE Reign of Roman emperor Trajan. 115–117 CE Second Jewish revolt against Romans. 117–138 CE Reign of Roman emperor Hadrian. 132–135 CE Bar Kochba revolt of the Jews. 260–300 CE Major conversions to Coptic Christianity in Egypt take place; some arrive in Nubia. 284–305 CE Reign of Roman emperor Diocletian. Romans withdraw border back to Aswan. 297 CE Major repression of Jews and Christians by Emperor Diocletian. 312 CE Emperor Constantine ends repression of Christianity for the Roman Empire. 325 CE Council of Nicaea seeks to resolve the theological issue of the “oneness of God” dividing the trinitarian Roman and Egyptian Monophysite Coptic churches. ca. 340 CE Axumite king Ezana accepts Christianity and destroys his rival state at Meroë. 350–550 CE X-Group societies at Ballana and Tangasi configured as a syncretic blend of Pharaonic, Kushite, and Christian beliefs and practices. 381 CE Council of Constantinople. 391 CE Christianity becomes the official religion of the Egyptian state. 410 CE Romans withdraw from Britain to enter a long decline of the empire. 431 CE Council of Ephesus.

xxxiv

•

CHRONOLOGY

451 CE Council of Chalcedon adds to the schism between Monophysites and Roman Church. First mud brick church at Faras. 452 CE Early Christian missionaries arrive in Nubia. 525 CE Emperor Justinian I officially closes the Isis temple at Philae. The building is repurposed as a church.

EXPANSION OF NUBIAN CHRISTIANITY 2 537 CEKing Silko inscription at Kalabsha records his defeat of the Blemmyes. This is often taken as the official start of state Christianity in Nubia. 541–546 CE The “Bubonic Plague of Justinian” sweeps circum-Mediterranean. 543–569 CE Major Monophysite missionary drive by Julian in Nubia endorsed by Empress Theodora occurs, signaling the official formation of the first Monophysite churches in Nubia. 543 CE Faras established as the capital of the Christian kingdom of Nobatia. 560 CE Missionary Longinus is active at Soba, Christian kingdom of Alwa. 569 CE Dongola established as the capital of the Christian kingdom of Mukurra. 579–580 CE The kingdom of Alwa is converted to Monophysite Christianity. 697–707 CE Nobatia and Mukurra are merged for strategic defense of Christian Nubia. 758 CE Nubians refuse to pay baqt tribute to Abbasid Egypt. 819–822 CE Nubians again refuse to pay baqt tribute to Abbasid Egypt. 835 CE George I is crowned king of Dongola; he travels from Cairo to Baghdad in 836. 920 CE King Zakaria starts his reign in Dongola. 951 CE Nubians raid Upper Egypt. 956 CE Nubians raid Upper Egypt. 962 CE Nubians raid Upper Egypt. 969 CE King George II of Nubia attacks Ikhshid Egypt, who are replaced by Shi’ite Fatimids.

CHRONOLOGY

•

xxxv

ca. 1050 CE As many as 50,000 Nubians serve in Fatimid army. 1140s CE Christian kingdom of Dotawo noted in Lower Nubia. 1163 CE Crusaders seek Nubian Christian alliances to attack Ayyubids. 1172 CE Nubian-Crusader alliance attacks Ayyubids in Cairo and Delta; Turanshah counterattacks Christian Nubia. 1173 CE Shams ad-Dawla captures Qasr Ibrim. He is the brother of Saladin al-Ayubi. Region is looted by Ibrahim al-Kurdi until 1175. 1272 CE King Dawud takes throne of Christian Nubia. 1275–1365 CE Frequent wars between Nubian Christians and Egyptian Mamlukes. 1276 CE Shekanda expedition against King Dawud. 1317 CE Defeat of the last Christian king of Nubia. Muslim king ‘Abdullah Barshambu placed on throne at Dongola. First mosque built in Nubia. 1346–1351 CE Black Plague in Egypt, Asia, and Europe kills 25–50 percent in the Old World. 1366 CE Daw occupied by refugee king after the fall of Dongola. Christian nephew of king returned to Qasr Ibrim. 1372 CE The bishop of Faras is still consecrated by Alexandrian patriarch.

DECLINE OF NUBIAN CHRISTIANITY AND THE RISE OF ISLAM IN NUBIA 632 CE The prophet Muhammad dies. 639 CE Muslim (Rashidun) invasion of Egypt. 641 CE Muslim armies reach the Dongola Plain but are forced back. 652 CE Baqt (peace treaty) established between Christian Nubia and Muslim Egypt. 661–750 CE Umayyad dynasty rules Egypt. 750–870 CE Abbasid dynasty rules Egypt. 950 CE Some Muslims reported at Soba. 969–1171 CE Fatimid dynasty rules Egypt. Construction of al-Azhar University in Cairo.

xxxvi

•

CHRONOLOGY

1171–1250 CE Ayyubid dynasty rules Egypt. 1172 CE Saladin forces Nubians under King George IV back to Upper Egypt. 1204 CE Nubian Christians and Crusaders meet in Constantinople. 1235 CE Last Alexandrian priest sent to Nubia. 1260–1277 CE Mameluke Sultan al-Zahir Baybars attacks Nubia. 1264 CE Nubians pay baqt tribute to the Mamelukes. 1268 CE Dongola king Dawud pays baqt tribute. 1276 CE Mamelukes sack Dongola; King Dawud is captured. 1289 CE Last Mameluke campaign against Dongola. 1504 CE Collapse of Christian Alwa and the beginning of Islamic Funj Sultanates. 3

NOTES 1. Early dates are approximate and vary by source and location. 2. See the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia for fuller expansion. 3. See the fourth edition of the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan for fuller expansion of Islamic times.

Introduction

Basic to this reference book on ancient Nubia or Kush are the historiographic parameters of elusive start and end dates with so many transitions and shared influences. When did human civilization start in Nubia? Unfortunately, this simple question is very difficult to answer because it all depends on how we define or identify the term civilization. As an anthropologist, I accept that this work can begin with the rise of the earliest forms of our genus Homo. The earliest known humans—or, broadly speaking, Australopithecine and early Homo species—are found in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Chad, so it is hard to imagine that they were not also found in adjacent Sudan, where the conditions for finding fossils were poor. This book, then, starts with vast prehistory and continues with the ancient historic times in Nubia of the A-Group and C-Group, Kerma, Kush, Napata, Meroë, and the X-Group transition to Nubian Christianity, ending with the rise of the three Christian kingdoms of Nubia that functioned from the sixth century to the early 16th century. This period of Medieval Christianity in Nubia is now covered in the new Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. The period following the end of these Christian kingdoms and the beginning of Islamic times, as well as recent Islamic and Southern Sudanese affairs, are covered in the fourth edition of the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan. The meaning, importance, or significance of any land or people is determined not only by each group’s accomplishments but also by the comparative historical context. So the rise and fall of other empires and states that impacted on and interacted with ancient Nubia are also included to compare and contrast these events in contemporary and contiguous states. Hopefully, this book will tempt others into further comparative and interactive analysis.

1

A ABABDA. The Ababda are a seminomadic people with some sedentary sections in Upper Egypt and Egyptian Nubia and in contiguous northern Sudan. They are also linked to the Qireijab coastal fishermen of western Arabia. The Ababda, Bishareen, and Hadendowa are parts of the wider grouping of Beja who are widely considered as the modern descendants of the ancient PanGrave, Blemmyes, or Medjay peoples. In ancient times, the Ababda ancestors often served as mercenary forces (Matoi) or border patrols for the Egyptians and were sometimes rivals to the riverine Nubians. In Greco-Roman times, it is likely that their reference was as the Troglodytes. In Christian times, they sometimes served as traders and guards in the buffer zone between Islamic Egypt and Christian Nubia. In the earliest times, they may have spoken their own Cushitic language, but they have been multilingual for much of their history as they lived between powerful neighbors. Today they are Arabic speaking. Traditionally they were important as the guardians of the borderlands and caravan routes from Korosko to Abu Hamad and from the Nile valley to the Red Sea. They served from ancient times until their work as irregulars in the Anglo-Egyptian army in the 19th century. Relations with these seminomadic peoples and their regional ancestors have presented security issues to the settled people on the Nile from ancient to medieval Christian times to the modern rulers of Egyptian and Sudanese Nubia. ABKA, ABKAN. Abka is a Neolithic site in Lower Nubia that gives its name to an archaeological typology. It represents an early case of a Nubian pottery tradition that may be just prior to the A-Group. Abkan peoples may descend from the earlier Mesolithic Qadan tradition (12,000–9000 BCE) since they share similar stone tool technology in the same region. Abka is noted for abundant petroglyphs most often depicting cattle. Commonly, both Abkan and Qadan cultures had grinding stones for processing wild grains and flaked microlithic boring and grooving tools. While the Qadan peoples did not have a pottery tradition, the burnished or slightly rippled pottery of

3

4

•

ABU, ABO

the Abkan people is stylistically distinguished from the contemporary Khartoum Mesolithic with its famed wavy line patterns. The smooth finishes for Abkan pottery suggests that they were forerunners of the A-Group tradition. The site of Abka is also known for the numerous petroglyphs of the regional wild fauna, including what appear to be giraffes, ibexes, ostriches, and gazelles. The Scandinavian expedition to Sudanese Nubia closely studied these petroglyphs. Circumstantial evidence exists that links the makers of these petroglyphs to the Abkan pottery tradition. Typical of these times are also eggshell, bone, and oyster shell beads. ABU, ABO. See ELEPHANTINE ISLAND, YEB, IEBEW, ABO, ASWANARTI. ABU ERTEILA. When the first edition of this book was published, the Meroitic site of Abu Erteila was effectively unknown and unexcavated. It is located just southeast of the town of Kabushiya, north of Shendi, in the Western Butana desert. Its coordinates are N 16°52’7.36, E 38°42’23.70. It is now known as an important Meroitic and Christian site excavated by a joint team of Italians (led by Eugenio Fantusati), Russians (led by Eleonora Korymesheva), and American Richard Lobban. Earlier reports noticed three koms and surface debris of fired red bricks and pottery shards, but no excavation took place. Operating under a license from NCAM and after a probe with Ground Penetrating Radar and 12 years of excavations, Kom One has been shown to be multiple storage rooms, shards of utilitarian ware, and a kitchen area with seven cooking pots heated by charcoal and with associated butchered animal bones for large-scale meal production. Tentatively it could be termed a ritual royal palace or storage and kitchen area to support royal or priestly visits. Above the Meroitic strata are scores of (mostly male) Christian burials. The southern end of Kom Two along a long north-south axis wall comprises many storage rooms, some of which were made by recycling Meroitic blocks and elements into later Christian residences and intrusive burials, especially of women and infants. During the excavation, many architectonic temple elements were found, such as lintels, lion sculptures and lion water spouts from the roof, covetto cornices, corner toruses, ferrisilcate floor pavers, column bases, and drums, as well as stone door jambs and a few butterfly joints in walls. It was not until Kom Three was excavated in 2016 that the in situ biaxial temple had been found. It has a shrine room annex and a double-axis temple with three altar stones in the naos of both. The altars are inscribed with the names of well-known King Natakamani and Queen Amanitore as well as the sons Shorkaror and Kheperkara. The easterly paved ramp indicates that this served as a ritual solar temple. These royal members are very well known at

ABU SIMBEL, IBU SIMPEL

•

5

many Meroitic constructions and pyramids but not for this previously unknown site. Thus, this site dates to the very late last century BCE and the first century CE when the very first Christian was known in Meroë as reported in the biblical Acts of the Apostles. Many signs of burned wood timbers and mats and comprehensive destruction suggest that it was finally abandoned, presumably during the Christian Axumite invasion in the fourth century CE. In around the 12th and 13th centuries CE (by C-14), the upper strata of the site were used as a “Christian” cemetery as more than 75 burials with C-14 dates were found. Kom One has predominantly male burials, and Kom Two and Three had mostly women and children. These are considered as “Christian” by default because they were post-Meroitic and pre-Muslim judging by the dates, they had no burial goods, and there were varied burial orientations; however, very often their heads pointed west, they were buried on their backs, and a few had burial shroud fragments. In the area to the east of the main pylon is at least one processional temple that articulates with the main temples. The main deities worshipped at Abu Erteila were Amun, Isis, Osiris, Hapy, and Apdemek judging from the small lion statues and a roof water spout. Forms of Isis are inscribed on the altars found in situ in the naos. One altar replica is on display in the Sudan National Museum, and the others are destined for the new museum under construction at Bejrawiya. ABU HODA, ABAHUDA. The Abu Hoda chapel was formerly located directly opposite from Abu Simbel on the east bank of the Nile. It is a rockcut shrine first constructed at the end of Dynasty XVIII by Horemhab to honor the gods Thoth, Amun-Re, and Horus in four different Nubian forms. In subsequent Christian times, this New Kingdom chapel was reused as a church in which the south wall featured a scene of St. George and the Dragon (good Horus vs. evil Seth) and of Christ (resurrected Osiris). In the UNESCO-sponsored Nubian Salvage project, this was removed to (new) Abu Simbel directly across the river to be reerected there. ABU SIMBEL, IBU SIMPEL. This remarkable temple complex is easily the most spectacular of all antiquities in Lower Nubia. Despite its ancient grandeur and importance, this ancient monument had been virtually forgotten by the Western world until it was rediscovered in the early 19th century, during the 1813 travels of John L. Burckhardt, which generated his posthumous publication titled Travels in Nubia in 1819. Then in the preliminary excavations by G. B. Belzoni in 1817, interest was stirred again. The travels of the artist David Roberts in 1838 and the publication of his handsome lithographs in 1847 and 1848 only heightened public interest. The extensive

6

•

ABU SIMBEL, IBU SIMPEL

Altar, Abu Erteila.

penetration of wind-blown sand buried the original entrance and some inner rooms, which added to the excellent preservation of many of the original colors and features.

ACTIUM

•

7

Unlike many Egyptian temples, the sand-blown closure of the entrance prevented Abu Simbel from being converted into a Christian church as common elsewhere in Lower Nubia. The inscriptions of the Great Temple provide a significant record of the claims of Ramses II for his disputed “victory” at the battle of Qadesh with the Hittites. From a Nubian perspective, this amazing center may not have been so celebrated since it represents a high point of New Kingdom Egyptian colonial domination of Kush. An interior wall image depicts Jebel Barkal. Nubian views may well have seen this as a major act of intimidating propaganda and warning that protest against this pharaoh and his deities would be futile. As remarkable as the ancient construction was, the prodigious modern task of dismantling these vast rock-cut temples into huge stone blocks was begun in January 1966. The engineering approach was to cut into the mountain itself to isolate the original structures carved in virgin Nubian sandstone. Then the newly fashioned pieces could be moved to higher ground and the mountain into which they were first carved could be wholly reconstructed. ABUSIR. Rocky outcroppings at Abusir in the vicinity of Wadi Halfa show numerous Middle Kingdom inscriptions from Dynasty XI and XII. New Kingdom occupation is suggested by the lonely “guard houses” just beyond the summit. The face of Abusir Rock is also covered with 19th-century graffiti, especially of British soldiers on their way to defeat the “Dervishes” of Sudan. Note that this Nubian site of Abusir is not that of the pyramids of Abusir of Dynasty V between Memphis and Giza, nor is it the Ptolemaic temple of Abusir on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. ABWAB. Abwab represents the southern border of Mukurra, or northern “doorways” or “gates” of the Christian Kingdom of Alwa or Alodia with its capital at Soba on the right bank of the Blue Nile. The name appears to be derived from the plural of the Arabic word bab for gate or door. After the fall of Alwa in 1504, the same territory was incorporated with the Funj Sultanates. Perhaps it related to the Nile between the Fifth and Sixth Cataracts— that is, in the vicinity of the strategic trading towns of Shendi or nearby Kabushiya. ACHEULIAN. See PALEOLITHIC. ACTIUM. This famed naval engagement in 31 BCE redefined the balance of ancient world forces with the defeat and subsequent deaths of Antony and Cleopatra VII by the navy of Octavian (later, Caesar Augustus). This preChristian battle terminated all Ptolemaic bids to hold power in Egypt or make strategic alliances with Rome. The polytheistic Roman era in Egypt had

8

•

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

begun, and its growing naval power defeated the ancient land power along the Nile. Moreover, the ancient center of world power based in Egypt decisively shifted to the northern Mediterranean and from Alexandria and Athens to Rome. Not until 1952 CE would Egyptians be in control of Egypt. However, the subsequent rivalry between Monophysite Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Roman Vatican or Constantinople can be traced directly to these times. Almost immediately the generally peaceful relations between Meroitic Nubians and the Ptolemies were replaced with military contestations with Romans in Egypt. Such was the new era of Meroitic forces attacking at Aswan and Roman forces counterattacking deep into Nubia at least to the Fourth Cataract. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. From this chapter of the New Testament, specifically chapter 8, verses 26–40, we learn “And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship, and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah” and was guided by Phillip who told him of “the good news of Jesus” and was baptized when “they came upon water.” This intriguing biblical report has been studied carefully and is usually taken to be the first “official” instance of a Christian convert in Nubia. Certainly, this “Ethiopian” refers to Meroë and one of its queen candaces. The actual title of this anonymous “eunuch” “treasurer” has also been rendered as “chamberlain” “high ranking official,” or “diplomat” or “court official.” He must have been of some considerable importance for his freedom to travel and historical note. The best that can be calculated this event took place some time between 60 and 100 CE. Many religious currents were then extant along the Nile, from Meroitic theology to Judaism from Falashas in Axum, the Persian occupation of Egypt (which brought in Jewish mercenary soldiers to Aswan), or a residential quarter of Greek Alexandria that was devoted to Jews. It is also hard to believe that he was the solitary convert to Christianity since he was apparently welcomed at the royal court. Circumstantial evidence also suggests that he could read Greek and Meroitic. A legend found in the writing of Origen (ca. 250 CE) stated that this first Nubian convert to Christianity was also an evangelist for the new faith. In any event, this case could be the starting point of the very earliest presence of a Christian in Meroë, while contemporary Christians in Egypt were regularly suffering from Roman pogroms and martyrdom. ADDADA. See REHREH, ADADAS. ADDO. See JEBEL ADDA, ADO.

ADINDAN

•

9

ADIKHALAMANI, AZAKHERRAMON, ADKERAMON. This Meroitic king ruled from the late third century BCE to the first decades of the second century (ca. 207–200 BCE–ca. 190–180 BCE). He is known from the Amun temple at Dabod with Ptolemy IV and from a stela at the Isis temple at Philae, to which Ptolemy VII added his name. Both of these sites are in the northernmost parts of Meroitic Lower Nubia, suggesting that he controlled an extensive territory. He likely ruled during the time of the Theban revolt, when he presented himself as the “Image of Re,” the “Lord of Two Lands,” and the “Beloved Son of Isis and Osiris.” Most likely, these images were selected to legitimate his aspirations to recover the Egyptian crown from the Ptolemies. His royal nomenclature may be compared to that of Arkamani II at Philae and Dakka or to Amasis (“the Usurper”) in Dynasty XXVI. Although the Dabod temple appears to have been started by Ptolemy IV, some considerable construction also took place by Adikhalamani, since he ruled Meroë and Lower Nubia during the Theban revolt, giving him access to Philae, which had earlier been under Ptolemaic control. The Amun temple at Dabod was restored to Ptolemaic control by the time of Ptolemy VI. Adikhalamani ruled following the reigns of Arnekhamani and Arkamani II, and it is likely that Adikhalamani or Tabirqo was buried in the Bejraawiya North pyramid 9, but it is not clear whether this is the same or a different person. ADINDAN. Adindan is located on the eastern bank of the Nile about midway between Abu Simbel and Wadi Halfa or almost on the Egypto-Sudanese border. Keith Steele and Bruce Williams of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago excavated cemeteries J, K, T, and U of Adindan, which contained funerary goods and skeletal remains of the C-Group, PanGrave, and Kerma cultural typologies. The largest number of graves is certainly for the C-Group, and this settlement must have been smaller than the C-Group population of Aniba. It appears that the C-Group moved back north into Lower Nubia when the Hyksos had broken the political unity of the Egyptian Nile and thereby liberated the Nubian populations from Middle Kingdom Egyptians. On the other hand, material traces of the C-Group disappear once the New Kingdom is well underway. Were C-Group peoples those depicted as New Kingdom captives? Perhaps the repetitive triangular shapes incised on C-Group pottery and painted on A-Group pottery suggest a thematic relationship, but the style is different. The excavation of Adindan took place from 1960 to 1964 as a part of the UNESCO Nubian salvage project. Several intact C-Group grave circles were found, but many had already been plundered. Some C-Group graves had an unusual shaft configuration. Most corpses were buried on their right sides and were slightly flexed. Some had cattle skulls (bucrania) and animal remains (cattle, goats, gazelles, and a few sheep) in the burial. Cattle were

10

•

ADULIS

clearly very important as a source of food, leather, social status, wealth, and exchange. Distinctive C-Group pottery was typically left outside the burial mound or stone cylinder. The shape of C-Group black-topped, incised ware can vary considerably by intended use for collection, cooking, and storage of liquids or solids. Pottery with cattle motifs was a strongly consistent style of the period at this site. Traces of their other rather simple material culture included leather sandals, leather clothing, caps and belts, ostrich feather fans, ostrich eggs, beaded necklaces (of many materials), rings, anklets and bracelets, snail and cowrie shell belt girdles, shell cosmetic palettes, and slotted hair clips. Some Middle Kingdom Egyptian pottery jars were excavated. These likely arrived at a time of friendly interaction between these two populations. A few figurines (mostly female) were also found. Kerma-related graves were rectangular with a provision for bed burials. These graves were also distinguished by typical black-topped, white banded, red Kerma beakers. Painted animal skulls, broad-bottomed pottery, and distinctive use of shell bracelet ornamentation demonstrated some limited PanGrave occupation. These two other contemporary cultural groups may easily be separated from the C-Group assemblage, but certainly some interaction took place between the three groups. ADULIS. One of the largest urban centers of the Red Sea coast, Adulis was an important trading port during the Greco-Roman period (332 BCE–395 CE) during ancient Egyptian and Nubian history., Classical historical sources report that Ptolemy II founded Philadelphus, the modern archaeological site of Adulis, located on the northeastern coast of the modern Eritrean city of Massawa, in the middle of the third century BCE. By 75 CE, Pliny the Elder considered Adulis one of the most important Roman ports of call on the Red Sea. At a nexus of maritime trade between the Mediterranean and interior Africa, Adulis supplied the Roman Empire with ebony, hippopotamus hides, rhinoceros horns, tortoise shells, gold, spices, and slaves. According to Pliny, important export commodities were ivory and live elephants, which were hunted and captured in the nearby forest and in the eastern Butana for use in entertainment or for Rome’s imperial wars and repression of early Christians in Egypt. The first recorded Christian arrived at Meroë, which used Adulis as a southern port for maritime trade with Roman Egypt. More important, written on the Peripulus were ports in the vicinity of Suakin. Indeed, as the trade shifted more to Adulis and Eritrea this favored Christian Axum that finally came to destroy Meroë. Because of the relative ease by which Adulis could be approached by sea, the port had a tremendous competitive advantage over the Red Sea and Nile ports of Meroë, which was environmentally circumscribed by the desert and the Nile cataracts. As a result, Axum, only an eight-day journey from Adu-

AESOP (?–564 BCE?)

•

11

lis, was able to surpass Meroë as the favored trading partner of the Roman Empire. Some scholars believe that this development dealt an existential economic blow from which Meroë was never able to recover and eventually led to the fall of the Meroitic Kingdom. Adulis reached its peak of prosperity between the fifth and sixth centuries CE, when it became the leading port between the Byzantine Empire, Early Christian Nubia, and India. AESOP (?–564 BCE?). This sixth-century-BCE storyteller was a captured slave of Nubian origins who was sold from Phrygia to a merchant in the island of Samos. His status and name may be taken as a corruption of Aethiop (or “burned-faced people”) and a standard Greek gloss for all people south of the Sahara, but since the slave trade in the sixth century was especially along the Nile, he may well be considered of Nubian origin. In any case, he was traded to Samos as an adult full of stories that parallel the Nubian (or Libyic) folklore genre. His contemporary period coincides with the Assyrian-backed satrap kings of Egypt who had clashed militarily with Nubians and drove them out of Egypt. This certainly gave many opportunities to take Nubian prisoners of war to make them slaves. Although Aesop’s life is not well known, his biographers J. E. Keller and L. Keating describe him as having a large mouth and black eyes, and being “ugly.” Such contemporary terminology would also be consistent for someone of non-European (i.e., African) origins. He was also reported as a stutterer, which could easily be understood as the common classical Greco-Roman reference to the stutters of languages not understood. Thus, they were called ber-ber or bra-bra who lived beyond the limes or borders of Greek Cyrenaica of later Roman North African territory. Until today, the “Berbers” still have this exogenous name while preferring to be called Amazig, or Tuareg. One of Aesop’s tales is about an “Ethiopian” slave (i.e., Nubian). Moreover, the circumstantial evidence is strengthened by the fact that his largely moralist folktales, passed through the centuries, are parallel to this genre in historic and modern Nubian folklore. Animals exogenous to Greece (e.g., scarabs, scorpions, jackals, foxes, monkeys, apes, elephants, crocodiles, camels, lions, poisonous asps, and boa constrictors) are not found in Greece but are plentiful in Africa, and these animals are found commonly in the works of Aesop. Other animals often mentioned by Aesop (e.g., crow, frog, kites, horses, dogs, bees, flies, ants, pigeons, mice, storks, rabbits, sheep, and goats) are found in Greece but were also widely known in Nubia. The Nile is mentioned, interestingly, in his tale The Murderer, and some reports indicate that Aesop may have gone to Egypt on a trip. His tale The Eunuch and the Sacrificer also reverberates with slavery along the Nile. Some of his tales were said to be of Libyan origin, which is a common classical reference for Africa. Modern Nubian folklore is rich in animal themes, and a common theme in African folklore is based on trickster charac-

12

•

AFYEH, AFIYEH, AFIA

ters and cunning exploits, which are also common in Aesop’s fables. The confirmation of Aesop as a Nubian can be made by this circumstantial evidence. Clearly Aesop lived in the pre-Christian period, but long after his death, his stories, morality tales, and parables remain significant in Christian and Islamic times. Thus, he was a global storyteller. AFYEH, AFIYEH, AFIA. This site is some 30 kilometers upstream from Korosko. Indian salvage excavators discovered remains of both A-Group and C-Group habitation at Afyeh. Afyeh is important because it is one of the largest A-Group town sites. For the most part, A-Group and predynastic Egyptians built more temporary structures, but at Afyeh some rectangular dry-stone masonry structures exist as well. The largest has six rooms, and several have prepared floors. All of these features are indicative of a permanent settlement and intensive agriculture. AGATHARCHIDES. Commonly known as Agatharchides of Cnidus, Agatharchides, of the second century BCE, was a Greek writer and geographer who was considered untrustworthy. Many of his original works have been lost; however, Diodorus preserved some. The works that remain give detailed accounts of how gold was extracted from the quartz rock using the Egyptian method. He described horrific reports of heartless and murderous treatment of convict laborers in the gold mines during Ptolemaic rule. His records also tell how control of the gold mine regions of Nubia, like the Wadi Allaqi, were significant because they helped finance Ptolemic foreign policy in the Mediterranean basin in the third century. Accounts of an established “elephant port” by Ptolemy III, named Ptolemais Theron (“Ptolemais of the Wild Beast”), on the Red Sea near modern Suakin, were reported by Agatharchides. AGILKA (AGILKIA) ISLAND. Agilka Island is the modern site of the relocated temples from many periods at Philae. The top of this island was removed, and the site was substantially reconfigured with bulldozers to reproduce the shape and orientation of nearby submerged Philae. Thus, Agilka is a product of archaeological imagination, but the result is so stunningly effective that it has preserved, and essentially assumed, the identity of ancient Philae, when the numbered blocks were resituated in their original places. Philae was repurposed in Greco-Roman times and again in Christian times when some rooms were used as churches. Most of the polytheistic images of deities depicted here were later defaced by Christians who rejected worship of “graven idols.” The strict Chalcedonian emperor Justinian I officially closed the Philae temple in 525 CE, which had been long-used by Nubians still devoted to worshipping Isis.

AGRICULTURE

•

13

AGRICULTURE. The history of Neolithic agriculture in Nubia and along the Nile is a vast topic. The earliest agriculture of the region involved imported grain from the Near East, which included emmer wheat for making beer and barley for making bread. Millet and sorghum, or durra, were important in both Egypt and Nubia and may well have been local domesticates across the Sahel. Clover (berseem) was present from the start of animal husbandry as a food crop for animal feed. Root crops were not as important as they were in sub-Saharan and tropical Africa; however, onions, lentils, lettuce, grapes, figs, melons, garlic, and olives were either from southwest Asia or northeast Africa at the start of the dynastic period. Bananas, sugarcane, rice, eggplant, and mangos came far later, in about the first century CE from southeast Asia. The important New World crops such as corn, peanuts, tomatoes, cacao, papaya, and tobacco did not start to arrive until the early 16th century CE. Animal husbandry included the earliest domestication of sheep, goats, pigs, and cattle, which were all eaten, milked, and used in various ways. Seluki dogs were early domesticated companions for hunting even before agriculture while cats were domesticated as agriculture evolved; donkeys appeared in the Nile valley during the Old Kingdom or before. Systematic beekeeping for honey and wax is known in the Nile valley from the earliest dynastic times and foraging for wild honey even earlier. There were domesticated animals within the Neolithic horizons of the Nubian A-Group and its predynastic Egyptian counterparts. Horses did not arrive in numbers until the time of the Hyksos, and camels likely entered the region in Assyrian times. There are debates over dating, types of animals and plants, and the extent of agriculture to determine the times of their respective introduction. Genomic surveys have already made important inroads in this research. Aside from millet, which may have come from Nubia, many of the other introductions were likely later in Nubia than Egypt since the extensive Nubian savanna with abundant wildlife was more attractive for human use, unlike the impacted habitat, larger population, and earlier mega-fauna extinctions in Egypt that demanded the somewhat earlier switch to intensive, flood-based agriculture. However, dates in the area of 7000 to 6000 BCE are reasonable estimates, but further genetic and archaeological investigation is needed that could provide earlier evidence of plant and animal domestication. Agriculture in ancient and medieval Nubia was first organized around flood-plain and Nile bank cultivation known as gerf farming. Not surprisingly, the several major centuries of early population growth occurred in the delta and Karnak in Egypt and Kerma and Meroë in Nubia, which were all located on extensive floodplains. Some canalization of water diverted or retained between the banks and close islands was likely at early times to extend the growing season for crops or for grazing lands for domestic animals, such as non-taboo pigs in Christian times. The water-lifting beam—the

14

•

A-GROUP, A-HORIZON

keeyay (in Nubian) or shaduf (in Arabic)—in the New Kingdom, and the endless loop of water jars with an animal-driven, wooden-geared system called the essi-kalay (“water-lifter” in Nubian) or sakia (in modern Arabic) that was introduced in Greco-Roman times if not before, endured all through Christian times. These allowed for intensive agriculture to expand considerably at these times. Archaeology of Christian horizons found the use of wine presses and dates continued to have great importance. Now, major dam-based gravity systems and hydraulic pumps have largely replaced traditional modes of irrigation. A-GROUP, A-HORIZON. The A-Group is an arbitrary name given by George Reisner to a pre-literate, agricultural, Lower Nubian culture contemporary with predynastic and early dynastic Egypt (e.g. Badarian and Naqadan horizons) or from around 3800 BCE to around 2700 BCE. In the extensive region between the First and Second Cataracts, they were cattle herders, hunters, fishers, gatherers, and farmers. The material culture and sociopolitical organization of the two societies is similar except for differences in their respective pottery styles. Archaeologists now divide the A-Group into early, classical/middle, and late/terminal phases. Early A-Group is found at Khor Bahan and is the Nubian counterpart of the Egyptian Amratian horizon. Middle A-Group sites are found in the Butn al- Hajr region of Nubia and are counterparts of the Egyptian Gerzean horizon. Terminal A-Group is famed at Qustul where social stratification was taking place, but it was terminated as the Egyptian Archaic and Dynasty I took over the region of Lower Nubia and displaced the remaining A-Group peoples. These last phases showed more political centralization than the early phase. At their height, they lived in small villages with some social ranking, as judged by burial goods. They may account for the now-discarded B-Group, a reference that Reisner first proposed. The increasing social complexity of the phases of A-Group occupation of Lower Nubia was carefully examined by Hans-Ǻke Nordström who brought out the substantial differences between unranked and elite burials; especially intriguing is the high status of some women, which may add to the enduring impression of matrilineal or matriarchal societies in Nubia. The origins of the A-Group are unclear, but work on the A-Group by Sabrina Rampersad suggests that earlier roots may be found regionally within the Abkan and Khor Bahan traditions; to the south in the earlier Khartoum Mesolithic, Kadero, and Kadada traditions; and/or perhaps to the west through Wadi Howar and Wadi Milk as judged by common themes in ceramic and pastoral traditions, perhaps as a function of increasing desiccation of the Sahara.

AHMOSE (SON OF IBANA)

•

15

Most authorities see a rather abrupt end to the A-Group at the time of the Archaic or Old Kingdom Egyptian invasion and, presumably, the expulsion of the A-Group peoples and the subsequent replacement by other cultural horizons. Others interpret the record as one of continuity and the gradual development of new elements leading to the C-Group peoples who were able to return to Lower Nubia when Egyptians withdrew in the First Intermediate Period. A possible exception, found with the research of Elena A. A. Garcia, is the reach of the Nile from Karima to Zuma on prehistoric sites, but the remains are only lithic, with no ceramics to link this clearly with the A-Group. Their material culture is known almost entirely from excavations of roughly 100 cemetery sites. Very few town sites are known, but their dwellings were round and simple and made of perishable wood and fiber. One fascinating exception attributed to the A-Group is a gold-handled mace with many images of wild animals that were likely extant at the time and place. These include elephants, giraffes, ibexes, storks (?), lions, hyenas, and gazelles. AHA, HOR-AHA. This Egyptian king ruled in Dynasty I (Archaic / Early Dynastic periods). He may have initiated a military campaign in Lower Nubia as part of the early political unification of the Nile by Egyptians. This is based on a possible interpretation of an ebony label found at Abydos. However, the main Egyptian aggression in Lower Nubia began after the start of the Old Kingdom. Presumably, this was the time of the expulsion or subjugation of the A-Group. AH-HOTEP. This Egyptian queen of Dynasty XVII in the weak Second Intermediate Period apparently took care of administration while her sons and husband were beginning the fight to expel the Hyksos in around 1550 BCE. She was the mother of Pharaoh Ahmose of Dynasty XVIII, and thus, she was a contributing founder of the Egyptian New Kingdom. The Hyksos were allied with Kerma and the goals to reduce ancient Egypt to only the Thebaid region. Ah-hotep may have led armies herself. On her mummy were golden flies that were the symbolic decoration for military valor. Once the Hyksos were expelled from Middle and Lower Egypt, the New Kingdom could initiate a long-term military offensive against Kerma and ultimately a colonial occupation of Kush. AHMOSE (SON OF IBANA). See AHMOSE I, AMOSE I (r. 1570–1546 BCE).

16

•

AHMOSE I, AMOSE I (R. 1570–1546 BCE)

AHMOSE I, AMOSE I (r. 1570–1546 BCE). Around 1573 BCE, King Kamose, brother of Ahmose I, began the mission to restore Egyptian unity after its collapse in the Second Intermediate Period and expel the Hyksos who had taken over Lower Egypt and their base at Avaris and parts of Middle Egypt. Then these founders of the New Kingdom could turn to wage war against Lower Nubia and begin to wage war on Kerma, which had been allied with the Hyksos in their joint efforts to restrict Egyptians to their capital at Thebes in Upper Egypt. Kamose did not fully achieve his objectives, but Ahmose I continued these missions and pressured the initial withdrawal of the Hyksos and restored the unification of Upper Egypt. Thus Ahmose I became the founder of Dynasty XVIII (and thus the founder of the great Egyptian New Kingdom), terminated the weak Second Intermediate Period, and began the expulsion of the Hyksos. Some of the Hyksos fled to Nubia, their former allies as noted in the Kamose stela. According to Ernest Budge, Ahmose’s attack against Lower Nubia was followed by widespread Nubian counterattacks ranging from Semna to Philae. According to the text written by an Ahmose (Son of Ibana), who apparently participated with the military forces of Ahmose I, another counterraid into Nubia went as far as Khent-hen-nefer and resulted in the defeat of the last Kerma(?) king, Tetaan. These events are described in a tomb inscription that tells of his return to Egypt with a modest number of war captives, slaves, amputated “tally hands,” and gold. Ahmose I left an inscribed doorjamb at the refurbished Buhen fortress and perhaps at Sai Island. This was the start of very many such raids and attacks on Nubia by successive New Kingdom pharaohs such as Amenhotep I and Amenhotep III, Tuthmosis I and Tuthmosis III, Tutankamun, Hatshepsuut, Seti I, and Ramses II and Ramses III. These endless punitive military measures were evidently required to put down revolts and secure a flow of tribute and taxes through the offices of the King’s Son of Kush (the viceroy of Nubia), who was, in the case of Ahmose I, his viceroy Sa-Taiyit. AHMOSE-NEFERTARI (1570–1535 BCE). This queen was the daughter of Kamose, an early founder of Dynasty XVIII in the New Kingdom who was also the brother of Ahmose I. Probably when Kamose died, AhmoseNefertari married her uncle Ahmose I to consolidate this powerful formative dynasty. Interestingly, Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted with a dark-colored skin, suggesting that she may have been of Nubian origins. If this is correct, then either Kamose or his wife likewise also had Nubian roots. Later, the skilled artisans of Deir al-Medina depicted Ahmose-Nefertari as a deity. Being of royal birth, Ahmose-Nefertari became the royal mother of Amenhotep I. The merger or overlap of race, ethnicity, and nationality in ancient Egypt and Nubia becomes an enduring theme and complication.

AKHENATON, IKHNATON, AMENHOTEP IV (R. 1350–1334 BCE)

•

17

AHS. According to Ernest Budge, the minor god Ahs is considered to be of Nubian origin, but this deity is rarely depicted and poorly known. AKASHA. Akasha is located amid the Dal Cataract about 40 kilometers downstream of the Third Cataract in the Butn al-Hajr region. The Third Cataract was also a strategic point with a highly perched Turkish fort overlooking the Kajbar Cataract. Akasha and Kulb are on the eastern bank of the Nile. At Ukma on the western bank are sites of small Christian churches. Akasha was also the site of small monastic communities that may have existed during the Classic Christian period (ninth to 12th centuries CE). For such communities, Akasha was a holy place also housing the only known hot spring in Nubia. Along with Meinarti, Akasha served as a customs post that demarcated the Lower Nubia free trade zone. It should not be confused with Aksha. AKHENATON, IKHNATON, AMENHOTEP IV (r. 1350–1334 BCE). This Dynasty XVIII pharaoh came from a line of pharaohs named Amenhotep and was the son of Amenhotep II and his wife Tiy. While he ruled in ancient dynastic Egypt, he had a foundational tie to Judeo-Christian monotheism. He could have easily ruled from Thebes as did the others, but he is best known for his “heresy” against the henotheistic Amun cult and his introduction of the primary worship of the sun god Aton at his new capitol at Amarna, the worship of the singular Aton cult, his unique portraiture, the Amarna art style, his exquisitely lovely wife Nefertiti, and palace intrigues. The mysteries that surround his death and succession certainly make him one of the more remarkable kings of ancient Egypt. Some scholars believe that his unusual physical appearance was an indication that he had Marfan syndrome. Also an odd and unexplained iconography gives Akhenaton a link to Nubia. On occasion, Akhenaton was depicted wearing a skullcap and the double-cobra uraeus that later became a common symbol for Kushites in Dynasty XXV and thereafter. The political and theological confusion sown in Egypt by Akhenaton’s religious experimentation in henotheism may have come as some temporary relief to Kushites and Asians still reeling from the heavy hand of earlier colonial Dynasty XVIII pharaohs. In Nubia under Akhenaton, only the walled colonial town of Sesibi and three temples at that location were built, but this may have been before his sixth year, when he converted to the Aton cult. Likewise, it may be that his father started the town that became known as Gem-Aton (later Kawa), opposite modern Dongola and a few miles above Kerma. Once his reign was over, many physical traces of his administration were carefully eliminated or recycled into other structures. The temple of Tutankhamun (earlier known as Tutankhaton) also built at Kawa may have

18

•

AKHRATAN

been fashioned from blocks originally used in the construction there by his ancestor Akhenaton. Finally, this dynasty collapsed in confusion, perhaps because of the possible murder of youthful Tutankhamun and the military rule by Horemhab that brought Dynasty XVIII to a halt. However, with the start of Dynasty XIX, Nubia was still under Egyptian colonial rule. This remarkable and strong impulse toward monotheism under the reign of Akhenaton is broadly considered as a significant influence to Moses and the subsequent rise of Judaic monotheism in their Exodus and, ultimately, toward Christianity itself as Jesus was born a Jew and traveled back to Egypt in early Roman times. In short, while Akhenaton and Tutankhamun ruled long before Christianity, but the birth of Atonism was a clear trend of henotheism and monotheism that presaged the very Mosaic and Egyptian origin of the Judeo-Christian order along the Nile that is important to this dictionary and central to the study of medieval Christianity in the Nile valley. Akhentaton and his Aton cult left their traces in Nubia in an effort to erase the role of Amun, but restorations attributed to Seti I and Ramses II sought to correct this mutilation. A substantial amount of the original colors may still be seen in the Amada temple, and rich details of the ritual aspects of temple construction and dedication may be seen in the small chambers to the left and right of the inner sanctuary dedicated to Amenhotep II. In Christian times, this temple was replastered and repainted for religious purposes. Plastered Christian iconography is found only millimeters above New Kingdom images. In an effort to avoid having to deconstruct the Amada temple, workers moved the temple intact on a set of three heavy railroad tracks laid to support its great weight (some 900 tons) across the sand from the barge that carried it from its original site to its present location. There, it was lowered by massive hydraulic jacks to make a prominent monument at this new archaeological center. AKHRATAN. This king of Napatan Kush ruled from roughly 350–335 BCE. His place of burial was at the royal pyramid field at Nuri. Akhratan is suspected to be the son of Harsiyotef. A black granite statue at the Amun temple in Napata (Jebel Barkal) and a sandstone masonry pyramid are the only still existing pieces of architecture that are attributed to Akhratan. AKIN. This province, also known as Meroitic Lower Nubia, was a region that had political and economic autonomy within the Meroitic Kingdom. Since the first century BCE, the region was ruled by a peshto or governor. Akin, an urbanized area, was culturally different from the southern regions. It was extremely important to the kingdom of Meroë for many reasons. First, Akin served as Meroë’s front line of defense against Roman Egypt. Second, Akin’s arable land allowed for an agricultural surplus, and having great

AKSHA, AKSHEH (TEH-KHET DISTRICT)

•

19

wealth for grain was a basic form of currency to pay state employees and those dependent on the state. Third, the region was in a strategic position for profitable external and internal trade networks. The region imported wines, oils, and bronze vessels from Roman Egypt, while exporting products from Upper Nubia and Meroë, like wood, ivory, and cotton, to Roman Egypt. It also possessed a riverine trading route to protect from attacks by desert peoples, especially the Blemmyes. In economic terms, Akin served the classic middlemen in Egyptian and Upper Nubian trade networks. The word Akin is also associated with the three main classes of Meroitic officials of the north: “Prince of Akin” (pesto), “General of the River” (pelmes), and “Royal Crown-Prince” (pqr). Each title appears to have been a hereditary and traditional title, which had an effect on the family’s cursus honorum. AKINIDAD. Akinidad was a Meroitic military leader (pesto) and, later, a king who ruled between 18–12 BCE, after Queen Amanirenas and before Queen Amanishkhete. Akinidad was one of several second- and first-century BCE rulers to leave inscriptions in the temples of Dakka, Meroë, and Napata. The most famed and important inscription for King Akinidad is his “Great Stela” of Meroë as it is the longest and best known from Hamadab. This is now in the British Museum, No. 1650, as it was taken during the period of British colonization of Sudan. This long text in Meroitic writing is believed to record a military account against the Roman army of Petronius who counterattacked Napata in 23 BCE. Petronius was serving as the local commander for Caesar Augustus. The first line shows a long row of 11 bound prisoners. Midway are numerical references that may indicate the numbers and origins of these captives. At the end of the closing line there appears to be a date for this inscription. Three cartouches have been revealed on the corridor walls of the “Sun temple,” which also give the name of Akinidad. AKSHA, AKSHEH (TEH-KHET DISTRICT). Aksha is located between Faras and Buhen, and all are on the western bank of the Nile near to the Second Cataract. Sometimes Aksha is noted as Serra West, across from Serra East. Aksha should not be confused with Akasha. The research by Bruce Williams at Serra East has found occupation from A-Group, CGroup, Pan-Grave, a New Kingdom fortress, and rock-cut tombs, as well as in X-Group (Ballana) times. Not surprisingly, Aksha contains some evidence, raised by Jean Vercoutter, of an Egyptian cemetery that dates back to the Archaic or First Dynasty occupation at this site. However, it is known mainly for serving as a New Kingdom town in the Ibshek region with inscriptions of Hatshepsut (ca.

20

•

AKUYTA

1503–1482 BCE), among others. It was the site of a small free-standing sandstone temple, first built by Seti I, which was completed by his famous son, Ramses II, who deified himself as “the living Lord of Nubia,” thus justifying his list of southern (i.e., Nubian) conquests written on this temple. This was built in much the same spirit of imperial conquest as the constructions of Amenhotep III at Soleb or Sedegna, or Tutankhamun at Faras. Being in poor condition, only the western wall of the temple was removed in 1963 and relocated in 1968 to the northern side of the garden at the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. The remaining inscriptions show lists of northern (Asian) and southern (Nubian) lands he had conquered. Specific lands are noted in the standard form of bound prisoners over the cartouches identifying their places of origin. AKUYTA. Akuyta was a chiefdom in southern Nubia following the disappearance of nomadic states like Aushek and Webetsepet. AL-. Al is the definite article in Arabic and is often found in modern, medieval, and ancient toponyms and site names in Nubia. To find a word beginning with ‘al’ look under the word following it. For example, to find Al-Mahdi, look under Mahdi. This is the convention for Arabic-origin words in this dictionary since al is alif lam; others may render alif as e and thus make it el form, and still others prefer “nunated” letters that transform ‘al’ or el to ar or ash, or an depending upon the euphonics of the following consonants. ALARA. This Nubian king may be the first named king of a ruling group that would later emerge fully as Dynasty XXV. He was likely born in Sanam and was buried at Kurru in a line of about a dozen royal burials that suggest regional state formation coming out of the Nubian “dark age” that preceded Alara by about one or two centuries. Their names have not been recovered. Apparently they ruled this part of Nubia after the withdrawal of the New Kingdom Egyptian military forces and its viceroys (King’s Sons of Kush). Although the location of the earlier mound graves with bed burials at Kurru are known, they lack inscriptions, so none of Alara’s predecessors are known by name or by commonly agreed sequence. This early burial type is reminiscent of Kerma and is certainly not like an Egyptian burial. Most likely, Alara reigned from Kurru or Napata in Upper Nubia in the early or mid-eighth century BCE. The full extent of Alara’s domain is not determined with accuracy. A case could be made that he recovered some of the adjacent territory of Lower Nubia, but he probably he did not control Thebes. However, Egyptian authority was much withered by this time in the Third Intermediate Period. Deep rivalries in Egypt between the delta—at Memphis, Heracleopolis, Thebes, and Hermopolis—meant that the way was

ALEXANDER III “THE GREAT” (356–323 BCE; R. 332–323 BCE)

•

21

paved for Nubians to be heralded as saviors of peace and religious conservatism. On Alara’s death, his brother Kashta continued the path for Napatan rulers to enter Egypt. Under Kashta’s son Piankhy, continuous Nubian rule was established over Egypt in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE as Dynasty XXV or the “Ethiopian Dynasty.” ALEXANDER III “THE GREAT” (356–323 BCE; r. 332–323 BCE). This Macedonian king and military genius was the son of King Phillip II. Born in July 356 BCE, Alexander was the builder of the great empire that spread from Europe to Asia and to Africa. He attacked coastal Asia Minor in 334 BCE and, by 333 BCE, pushed the forces of Persian king Darius into retreat at the battle of Issus. Cyprus was taken over by the Macedonians, and Sidon in Lebanon finally capitulated as Alexander’s disciplined forces marched on Damascus. After a seven-month siege on Tyre, it too fell, and by 332 BCE, he had captured Darius and completed his defeat of the Achaemenid (Persian) Empire. Previously, the Persians had threatened Greece and dominated the eastern Mediterranean. In this context of whirlwind military expansion, the cities of Judea and Egypt welcomed his arrival as the liberator from Persian rule. He arrived in Egypt in 331 BCE and promptly visited the Amun temple in Siwa where he had his famed oracular experience. Almost as quickly, he left Egypt, never to return until his body was brought back after his death. Locating his tomb in Alexandria, which is named in his honor, remains a great archaeological quest. His most lasting major achievement in Egypt was the foundation of the city of Alexandria, designed by Dinocrates, on a grid pattern including “wonder of the world” Pharos Lighthouse, the museum and library, the Jewish quarter, and many public monuments, temples, and tombs. Over the next three centuries, relations between the Greeks in Egypt and Nubia ranged from cordial, collaborative, and commercial to hostile, military, and suspicious. Greek (Ptolemaic) merchants traded cloth, glass, and bronze wares with Nubians for ivory, war elephants, slaves, ebony, feathers, gold, incense, and other goods from “Ethiopia” or “the land of burnt faces,” which was their term for Nubia. Because Jews had been supportive and accommodating in the areas of scholarship, commerce, and martial arts, he, and the Ptolemies who followed, allowed Jews to settle in numbers in Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt. Naturally, this was all in the pre-Christian era, but many elements of the Torah were recorded during Ptolemaic times. These writings persisted in the Old Testament for early Christians, but the first three centuries of Egyptian Christianity were full of peril, pogroms, martyrdom, and abuse by the Romans ruling from his namesake city of Alexandria. Not staying long in Egypt after his brief pilgrimage to the Amun temple in Siwa Oasis, Alexander ventured onward to the shores of the Caspian Sea, and from 327–326 BCE, he was engaged in overextended campaigns in

22

•

ALWA, ALOA, ALODIA

India. It was on his return that he died in 323 BCE, after which Ptolemaic rule ensued in Egypt under his half brother and son, who soon saw the loss of some of the Alexandrian conquests, such as Babylonia by the rival Greek Seleucids in Persia and other parts of the Near East. Judea remained for a longer period of time under Ptolemaic rule, and the long and complex process of the Hellenization of Jews began, as did the Egyptianization of Greeks in Egypt. The clash between the Seleucid Antiochus II and the Ptolemaic king Ptolemy IV, Philopator, would reach a climax with their battle of Rafah in Gaza on 22 June 217 BCE. Such it was until the Lagid Ptolemies began a more institutionalized administration. Hellenic influence in Egypt that emerged in the wake of Alexander had a deep influence in Meroë in architecture, foreign relations and Greek visitors, the sciences, mathematics, Euclidian geometry, and probably the Meroitic written language that evolved in these centuries. Many Egyptian influences also seeped into the Greek occupation of Egypt with art forms and the foundational theological concepts and theogony that got Greek names but basically descended from the Egyptian polytheism and henotheism as well as origin myths and cosmology. Also Alexandria was at the epicenter of the theological disputes in fourth- and fifth-century Christianity that were as much about national, regional, and geo-strategic politics as they were about the debates on the nature(s) of Christ. ALWA, ALOA, ALODIA. The Christian kingdom of Alwa first emerged in central Sudan along the Blue Nile with its capital at Soba, upstream from modern Khartoum. Indeed, many of the red fired bricks salvaged from Soba were used during the Turkiya to build Khartoum in the 1820s. After the collapse of Meroë and the two centuries of the X-Group at around 580 CE, the rulers of Alwa were converted to Monophysite Christianity by the missionary Longinus. Alwa survived as a Christian kingdom far longer that the Christian kingdom of Mukurra at Dongola in the early 14th century as it lasted until 1504 CE when it was conquered by the newly emerging Funj Sultanate at Sennar, farther upstream on the Blue Nile. AMADA, AMADEH. Amada is located in Lower Nubia between Qasr Ibrim and Korosko. Early excavations were made by the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania. Later, German salvage excavations revealed C-Group occupation and remains, a New Kingdom temple, and regional evidence dated to Meroitic, X-Group, and Christian times. The CGroup settlement at Amada shows a complex building, including numerous storage rooms, grain silos, and residential structures. The relative size and differentiation of this building suggest that a ranked society was extant.

AMANIKHAREQEREM, KING (R. 190–200 CE)

•

23

Today, Amada is most noted for the excellent temple dedicated to AmunRe and Re-Horakhty built entirely in the New Kingdom. Pharaohs Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II built the inner sections, and a hypostyle hall or four-columned forecourt was added by Tuthmosis III and Tuthmosis IV in celebration of the latter’s second jubilee festival. Inscriptions noting defeat of Libyans and Asians by Amenhotep II and Merneptah are recorded at this temple. Hekanakht, the viceroy of Kush under Amenhotep II, is depicted personally executing seven chiefs of the Ta-Khesy (Tehkhet?) District and following the ancient example from King Djer. On his ship masts, he displayed their inverted bodies as he sailed back to Egypt proper. Commemorative mention is made of the Egyptian mercenary commander of the Nubian archers, Epyoy, and a pyramidion of Viceroy Mesuy, who served Merneptah. Akhenaton and his Aton cult left their traces here in their effort to remove the role of Amun, but restoration attributed to Seti I and Ramses II sought to correct this mutilation. A substantial amount of the original colors may still be seen in Amada temple, and rich details of the ritual aspects of the temple construction and dedication may be seen in the small chambers to the left and right of the inner sanctuary dedicated to Amenhotep II. In Christian times, this temple was plastered and repainted for new religious purposes. But when the temple was visited in the early 20th century, almost 60 centimeters of rubbish and fill had entered the main temple space, giving access to the upper walls for graffiti of camels and livestock of local nomadic peoples. Being sited below the flood level of Lake Nasser, the temple was dismantled with difficulty between 1964 and 1975. It was moved to a new site, about 3 kilometers upstream and 65 meters higher, in association with the temple of Ed-Derr built by Ramses II and the tomb of Penniut from Aniba. In an effort to avoid fully having to deconstruct the Amada temple, engineers moved the temple onto a set of three railway tracks laid to support its great weight of some 900 tons across the soft sand from the barge that carried it from its original site to its present new location. There it was lowered by hydraulic jacks to make a prominent monument for this new archaeological center. A handsome ceramic child’s coffin from New Kingdom times is also known from Amada and is now in the Museum of Fine Arts collection in Boston. It carries standard funerary features of protective Anubis figures, Osiris, and the four “sons of Horus” symbolizing the canopic jars. AMANIKHABALE. See BASA. AMANIKHAREQEREM, KING (r. 190–200 CE). This little-known Meroitic king is known from the French excavation by Vincent Rondot at alHassa. His name was inscribed on three lovely Amun ram statues found at

24

•

AMANIKHAREQEREM, QUEEN (R. 190–200 CE)

the site. However, the text was too short and not bilingual to advance the long-frustrated decipherment of Meroitic. Al-Hassa also had some evidence of iron production. King Amanikhareqerem was buried in the royal pyramid field at Bejrawiya N 37. AMANIKHAREQEREM, QUEEN (r. 190–200 CE). This relatively late Meroitic queen is noted for her Amun temple at Naqa. She was perhaps among the last to construct at this famous World Heritage site, where at least three other queens had earlier major building projects. She is buried in her pyramid at Bejrawiya North 37. AMANIKHATASHANI (r. 62–85 CE). This Meroitic queen, known from her Bejrawiya North pyramid 18, reigned during the declining period of Meroë just after King Natakamani, Queen Amanitore, and their son, King Shorkaror. The first Christian convert as reported in the Acts of the Apostles had just visited Meroë. In this historical context, it is interesting to note that Amanikhatashani was buried with as many as three wooden bows, suggesting her military and regnal role. While this was in the Christian era, the state religion remained polytheistic, or perhaps henotheistic; deities such as Amun were most important; however, Isis, Osiris, Hapy, and Apedemek, among others, were also celebrated in this theology. It was at about this time that the first Christian convert lived and worked in the royal court of Meroë. Most likely, Jewish refugees had also taken refuge along the Nile and into Ethiopia. AMANIMALOL. See ASPELTA (r. 593–568 BCE). AMANINATAKILEBTE (r. 538–519 BCE). This Napatan king is little known, but a lovely silver mirror handle was found at Nuri with his name and is now in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts (no. 21.338) in Boston. It shows a solar disc with deities protecting the four directions, with Amun-Re guarding the east and west and Re-Horakhty protecting the north and south. This king is also known for a sandstone heart scarab (no. 20.645) that was presumably part of his original mummification and burial at Nuri. AMANINETEYERIKE (r. 431–405 BCE). See IRIKE-AMANOTE, AMANINETEYERIKE (r. 431–405 BCE). AMANIRENAS, QUEEN (20s BCE?). This Meroitic queen is best known from her Hamadab stela that is jointly attributed to her and her son, Prince Akinidad. She was likely the wife of King Teritekas. This historically important document may relate to her attack at the Roman garrisons at Aswan

AMANISHKHETE, AMANISHAKETO, AMNISHAKHETO, AMANISHAKETE (R. 41–12 BCE?) • 25

in 20s BCE, shortly after the arrival of the Romans in Egypt. If this is correct, then she may have been the famed “one-eyed” queen of Meroë and the one who brought back the bronze head of Augustus to that capital town. This also suggests that Teritekas had already died. Inscriptions for Amanirenas are found at temple T at Kawa and at Dakka in Lower Nubia, where Petronius defeated this queen in his counterattack. The case can be made instead that the attack was undertaken by the Meroitic kandake Amanishkhete. That this basic question rests without firm resolution is one of the serious problems in Meroitic historiography. AMANISHKHETE, AMANISHAKETO, AMNISHAKHETO, AMANISHAKETE (r. 41–12 BCE?). This regnant queen of Meroë was on the throne during, or just after, the transition from Ptolemaic to Roman rule in Egypt. Thus, it might have been her forces that attacked the Roman garrison at Aswan and returned to Meroë with the bronze head of Caesar Augustus (according to Shinnie 1996, 116). With Meroitic chronology weak, and Meroitic texts not deciphered, it may be that she (or was it, more likely, Queen Amanirenas, according to Adams 1977, 312; or Welsby 1996, 211) was the kandake in power who was noted by Strabo when the treaty of Samos was concluded to set the Romano-Nubian border at Maharraqa. Was it Amanishkhete or Amanineras who was the Nubian head of state at the failed Meroitic counterattack at Qasr Ibrim? There is reason to believe that her 670-square-meter royal palace was located at Naqa and that it offered living quarters, multicolumned halls, complex corridors, and storerooms for her treasures. As with modern Sudanese residences, it appears that additional living (or sleeping) space was provided by a second story or roof level for cooler nights. Steffen Wenig recently reported two new stela for Amanishkhete from Naqa. One of the most remarkable features of this queen was her very impressive jewelry cache in her Bejrawiya North pyramid 6. This included many lovely objects of gold, glass, bronze, silver, and semi-precious stones and faience, along with four Hellenistic-style flutes. It is not clear whether these objects were made locally under Greek influence or were high-status trade items. It appears that this cache was also uniquely conceived as a tomb for her ba spirit. She also showed great reverence to the goddess Isis. While most Meroitic pyramids are solid superstructures and only covered subterranean tombs, hers was apparently unusual in that some treasures were buried above. After her treasures were discovered in her pyramid in 1834 by the Italian adventurer Guiseppe Ferlini, needless destruction by dynamite of many other Meroitic pyramids was instigated in a pointless quest for other valuables that were never found.

26

•

AMANISHAKETO

AMANISHAKETO. See AMANISHKHETE, AMANISHAKETO, AMNISHAKHETO, AMANISHAKETE (r. 41–12 BCE?). AMANISLO (r. ca. 275–260 BCE). This Meroitic king was the second to be buried at Bejrawiya after the relocation of the capital from Napata to Meroë. Before he departed from Napata, it is believed that Amanislo was responsible for removing a pair of red granite couchant lion statues from Sulb to Napata. In Sulb, they had been first installed by Amenhotep III and may have been reused by Tutankhamun before being transported and inscribed by Amanislo. These famous traveling lions now reside in the British Museum where they are sometimes referred to as the “Prudhoe lions.” Amanislo still attended important ceremonial functions there, such as his coronation, and he probably constructed or renewed a palace at Napata as well. His predecessor, Arkamani I, had earlier introduced the practice of royal burials to the new southern capital at Meroë, and it was there that Amanislo was buried in the Bejrawiya South pyramid 5. It is Amanislo who is rendered as “Amanislo” in the famed Giuseppe Verdi opera Aida. AMANITENMENIDE. This Meroitic king lived in around 50 CE, and inscriptions are attributed to him at the funerary chapel attached to pyramid 17 in the northern royal burial field at Meroë. AMANITORE, AMANITERE, AMANITARE (r. 12 BCE–12 CE). This Meroitic queen or kandake was coregent with her king (qore) “brother” or husband Natakamani at the exact transition to the Christian era. While she and her king did not accept Christianity, it was perhaps just prior to the first Christian being reported at royal Meroë as documented in the Acts of the Apostles. During their reign, there was clearly a vital security concern with rivals to the east, who finally conquered Meroë in the fourth century. Classical Meroitic civilization was at its glorious height but was soon to head toward a long decline until its conquest by Christian Axumites. Their main residence was at the royal capital at Meroë, and they made additions or improvements to the large Amun temple there and to the simple M260 temple. A more prominent image of the coregents Amanitore and Natakamani appears on the Apedemek (Lion) temple at Naqa, along with their son Arikhankharer. There, both are shown smiting enemies. Temples of Amun devoted to Amanitore and King Natakamani at Naqa include N100, N300, and N600, built during their reign. At Dangeil temple Amanitore’s cartouche also appears. Short bilingual inscriptions on a small bark stand from Wad ben Naqa, now in Berlin, were written in Meroitic and Egyptian hieroglyphs and played an important role in the pioneering transliteration of Meroitic by F. L. Griffith. Wad ben Naqa temples T200 and T300 are associated with Aman-

AMENEMHAT I, AMMENEMES (R. 1991–1962 BCE)

•

27

itore. Far to the north at Amara East, another temple was also attributed to these joint rulers. At Jebel Barkal, they had a large palace reconstructed for religious services there. She is well represented at the newly discovered Meroitic temple and ritual site at Abu Erteila where three bark stands were found in this extensive palace and storage complex. Judging from the great extent of the constructions, these two Meroitic rulers represented the Meroitic “golden age” of empire, at least before Axum would erode their trade to the east and the Red Sea. Roman dominance of Egypt curbed Meroitic trade and ambitions to the north. They were among the very last royalty to have pyramids at the Bejrawiya North burial ground. Amanitore has the relatively small, southernmost Bejrawiya North pyramid 1. AMARA EAST. Amara East is located just downstream of Sai Island near the Third Cataract in the Nile. This Meroitic town had a small temple attributed to Amanitore and Natakamani that was styled in a manner similar to their Naqa temple. The Amara East temple is the northernmost example of Meroitic hieroglyphs. AMARA WEST, PEDEME, PEZEME (IN MEROITIC). The site of Amara West is directly across from Amara East and just downstream from Sai Island. This temple town dates largely to Dynasty XIX of the New Kingdom. This includes a small temple for Ramses II and a trace of his town enclosure wall. During the long reign of Ramses II, Amara West was the seat of his several viceroys of Nubia (see appendix 6). Amara West was a more forward location for the imperial viceroys than at their seats at Aniba or Quban. On the town gate are notations of Ramses II’s regional plunder and raiding of Nubia during his dynasty. AMASIS (r. 570–526 BCE). This Saite pharaoh of Dynasty XXVI succeeded Apries after civil war broke out between them. Amasis was a veteran of Nubian military campaigns and was able to turn this combat experience to his favor by defeating Apries in combat, earning him the name “the Usurper.” Amasis had a remarkably long reign and was really the last effective king of his dynasty, which had replaced the Nubian Dynasty XXV in Thebes. AMENEMHAT I, AMMENEMES (r. 1991–1962 BCE). This founder of Dynasty XXII in the Middle Kingdom conducted punitive wars in Wawat in Lower Nubia and thus against the C-Group peoples who were likely still in that region, such as those known at Aniba and Adindan. Textual evidence notes that Amenemhat I “sent 20 ships to Elephantine and above” for this purpose, and his campaign against the C-Group is noted at Korosko as late

28

•

AMENEMHAT II (R. 1929–1895 BCE)

as his 29th regnal year. With the conquest complete, further renewal of the Middle Kingdom forts of Lower Nubia became possible. In addition, it is possible that the territory of the Ta-Setiu (“bow people”) extended much farther north, perhaps even as far as Edfu in Upper Egypt judging from burial types. Seeking strategic security in the contemporary Egyptian empire, Amenemhat I built his capital south of Memphis and north of Thebes. The relocation of political power in the Middle Kingdom is seen in the moving of the capital from Thebes to Lisht. Textual evidence suggests that Amenemhat I had a Ta-Seti or Nubian mother and may have been born at Elephantine in Aswan. He introduced the stabilizing position of a junior regent so that power would flow more smoothly within the dynasty; thus, his successor, Senusoret I, was coregent from about 1980 BCE. It is likely that Senusoret I led important military expeditions against the Nubians in the 29th year of the reign of Amenemhat I. This brought Wawat under Egyptian control up to Korosko, located at the northern end of the valuable Eastern Desert route that led to the gold mines of Wadi al-Allaqi. It is believed that Amenemhat I seized power in Dynasty XI from Mentuhotep IV, under whom he had served as vizier. Amenhotep I was buried in the revived pyramid style at his mud-brick pyramid that still stands at Lisht along the Nile near Fayum. AMENEMHAT II (r. 1929–1895 BCE). This long-lived Middle Kingdom pharaoh from Dynasty XII was the son of Senusoret I and was recorded for backing a trading voyage on the Red Sea and to Punt in the 28th year of his reign. It is unknown whether this was a model for Queen Hatshepsut’s trade mission to Punt four centuries later. His burial in a mud-brick pyramid at Dashur (not Lisht, like Amenemhat I) that held marvelous jewelry for his queens, including a golden cowrie necklace of girdle similar to the real cowrie shell belts for the C-Group at Adindan. AMENEMHAT III, AMMENEMES III (r. 1842–1797 BCE). This Egyptian pharaoh ruled at the height of the Middle Kingdom domination of Lower Nubia. Although like others in Dynasty XII his rule was centered in Lower and Middle Egypt, he is known especially for his “Labyrinth Palace” and his mud-brick pyramid at Hawara in the Fayum, adjacent to an ancient canal that brought water from the Nile into Fayum. He also constructed a pyramid at Dashur and was deified, like Senusoret I.

AMENHOTEP II, AMENOPHIS II (R. CA. 1453/1450–1425/1419 BCE)

•

29

AMENEMOPE. Amenemope is the scribe and great sage of the “wisdom texts” written in Dynasty XX. These are considered to have influenced ethics and religion of the early Jews and of the Bible itself. In Nubia, Amenemope is known from a stela at Shaat on Sai Island and from Amara West. AMENHOTEP I, AMENOPHIS I (r. ca. 1551–1524 BCE). Amenhotep I was the son of Ahmose I, who was a founder of the imperial New Kingdom. Amenhotep I was destined to extend the newly reborn empire into Nubia. He led at least one military expedition to Kush and one against Libyans. Amenhotep I’s mother, Ahmose-Nefertari, may well have had Nubian origins. AMENHOTEP II, AMENOPHIS II (r. ca. 1453/1450–1425/1419 BCE). This New Kingdom pharaoh used his personal and collective military might throughout the Egyptian Empire and into neighboring Palestine and even Syria. As an imperialist, he soon sent his armies to Kush in the third year of his reign. Amenhotep II concluded construction of temples at Elephantine and Amada in Nubia that had been initiated by his famed warrior-king father Tuthmosis III. At Amada, he noted his defeat of the Libyans and Asians. The viceroy of Kush under Amenhotep II was Usersatet/Weser-Satet. The plundered mummy of Amenhotep II was found in its sarcophagus in the Valley of the Kings. Amenhotep II ruled briefly with his father as coregent and soon faced revolts in western Asia on his father’s death. These revolts were put down by the time of the second year of his reign, so he could then turn to the same military problem in Nubia in the third year. He appointed Usersatet as his viceroy there with the assignment of completing his father’s construction projects. These include the completion of a temple at Elephantine at Aswan and another at Amada in Lower Nubia. Those Asian princes who resisted were treated in the now-familiar manner of having them hung dead and upside down on the bow of his returning vessels. Perhaps the pharaoh Amenhotep II himself struck the executioner’s blow on these resistant princes. Six of his victims were hung up on the walls of Theban temples and another “decorated” a temple at Napata as a bloody warning to Nubians who might have thought of a revolt. Napata was thus maintained as a southern point of the New Kingdom region then termed Karoy. Amenhotep II set up a boundary stela at Napata to demarcate his territory. Amenhotep II was buried in the Valley of the Kings, and his mummy is still preserved in the Cairo Museum.

30

•

AMENHOTEP III, AMENOPHIS III

AMENHOTEP III, AMENOPHIS III (r. 1386–1349 BCE OR 1417–1379 BCE). From his great-grandfather, Tuthmosis III, Amenotep III inherited a huge empire. In Nubia, his rule extended to the province of Karoy/Karei (or the region of Napata). Following the standard New Kingdom colonial practice in Nubia, many of the pharaohs of this period sought their legitimacy in Egypt with reference to the gods Amun, Re, and Ptah. However, in Nubia colonial rule was often shown worshiping Nubian deities (such as the “Triad of Aswan” consisting of Khnum, Anqet, and Satet) or by having the pharaoh actually “deified” to ensure “proper” respect. Such was the case for Amenhotep III in Nubia. In Nubia, Amenhotep III constructed the great temple at Soleb where the pharaoh was proclaimed “Lord of Nubia” under the title Neb-Maat Re. Aside from the still-standing remains of this temple were pink granite couchant lions that no doubt flanked the entrance to the temple. These stone lions had a fascinating subsequent journey through time after being removed from Soleb to Jebel Barkal, perhaps at the time of Dynasty XXV. The Meroitic king Amanislo reinscribed these lions in the third century CE. In about 1828, the British explorer Lord Prudhoe traveled to Egypt and Nubia and took them from Jebel Barkal during the Turco-Egyptian occupation of Sudan. After his return to England, they were presented to the British Museum, where they rest today, although no other published accounts seem to exist. The literature sometimes refers to these recumbent lions of Amenhotep III as the “Prudhoe lions.” The four decades of colonial rule of Amenhotep III in Nubia appear to have been very prosperous for Egypt and only relatively peaceful in Nubia. However, at least one punitive expedition in around 1381 BCE is known from inscriptions at Aswan and Konosso. Perhaps a second military expedition was made to Nubia from Semna. The lofty position of the King’s Son of Kush under Amenhotep III was initially occupied by a viceroy also named Amenhotep and then by the viceroy’s son Merymose. In the fifth year of Amenhotep III’s rule, Viceroy Merymose sent a punitive expedition to Nubia, perhaps using Medjay troops from his Kubban fortress in Wawat. He reported that he crushed a revolt upstream of Qasr Ibrim at Ibhet. His victory stela proclaimed 740 Nubian prisoners of war (i.e., slaves) and 312 enemy dead in a brief battle that was followed by extensive looting of Nubian resources and people. From a Nubian perspective, if anything good might be said about the raid of Viceroy Merymose, it is that this was, apparently, the last major military incursion to Nubia in Dynasty XVIII. This was partly because his successor, Akhenaton, suspended the worship of Amun and became so much diverted by the domestic politics of his new Aton cult that Egyptian colonial rule in Nubia was undermined. On the other hand, Egyptian rule was hardly sus-

AMENHOTEP III, AMENOPHIS III

•

31

pended, judging from the flow of Nubian tribute and images of subordination shown by Viceroy Huy, who served Tutankhaton/Tutankhamun, who followed Akhenaton. As with others in the New Kingdom, Amenhotep III is recorded as organizing a trading voyage to Punt probably from the Red Sea port of Quseir. No doubt, any Nubian visitors to Thebes at the time of Amenhotep III were much impressed by his immense mortuary temple on the western bank of the Nile, the scant remains of which are now reduced to the so-called Collossi of Memnon. Many huge, magnificent sculptures and constructions at Karnak and Luxor and the grand Malkata palace of Amenhotep III were also produced partly from the great natural and human wealth extracted from Kush. Amenhotep’s intriguing wife Tiye had a temple built for her at Sedegna north of Sulb. Because of his long life and relatively stable regime, Amenhotep III brought Dynasy XVIII to its height. AMENHOTEP IV. See AKHENATON, IKHNATON, AMENHOTEP IV (r. 1350–1334 BCE). AMENIRDIS I, AMENARDIS I, AMONORTAIS, AMENARTESU (r. 740–700 BCE). This God’s Wife of Amun (GWA, or Divine Wife of Amun) at Thebes was in office from 740 to 700 BCE. She was the daughter of the Nubian king Kashta, who was the forerunner to Dynasty XXV in Napata. The established protocol was that the ruling pharaoh would have his daughter “adopted” into this ranking celibate position of Thebes by the former holder of the God’s Wife of Amun title. Thus, Amenirdis was the “adopted daughter” of Stepenwepet, daughter of the former pharaoh Osorkon III. Amenirdis I was also the sister of Piankhy and Shabaka. It may be that, at one point, Amenirdis I and Piankhy were virtual coregents, at least in terms of the great powers that both wielded. Subsequently, Amenirdis I “adopted” Shepenwepet II, the daughter of Piankhy, as her “daughter” successor to the position of God’s Wife of Amun. At the northern enclosure of Karnak near the Montu temple are several chapels to these Nubian God’s Wives of Amun. A door lintel inscribed to Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II is in the Egyptian Museum (no. 39400, room 30), and it may have been from that chapel at Karnak. They were buried in their own funerary chapels at Medinat Habu, in the forecourt of the funerary temple of Ramses III. A fine freestanding alabaster sculpture of Amenirdis I is at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Clearly, this position of the God’s Wife of Amun carried considerable influence and prestige. It was important in legitimating the connections between the ruling dynasty and the Theban priesthood and its High Priest of Amun, who could also be a royal member, such as was the case in Dynasty XXV, when Harkebi, a

32

•

AMENIRDIS II

grandson of Shabaka, occupied this office, and apparently Harkebi continued in a slightly reduced role even after Dynasty XXVI assumed power. Refer to appendix 7, “Kinship in Dynasty XXV.” AMENIRDIS II. This Nubian princess was the sister of Taharka. She had been “adopted” by Shepenwepet II, who herself had been “adopted” by Amenirdis I, following a pattern of dynastic succession for the significant position of the God’s Wife of Amun at Thebes. Even though Taharka was driven out of Thebes by military force, the position of God’s Wife of Amun held by Amenirdis II still carried powerful legitimacy according to Miriam Ayad who has studied her closely. One assumes that she was compelled to “adopt” Nitocris when Takharka and Tanutamun of Dynasty XXV were replaced by Psamtik I of Dynasty XXVI. Nitocris was the daughter of Psamtik I. In this way, a parallel, more or less exclusive, female dynasty served to thwart the claims of rivals to Theban authority, since the God’s Wife of Amun was a blood relative of the king. The position of the God’s Wife of Amun was something of a divine “mother superior,” and this officeholder was not formally allowed to marry a civilian, as she was viewed as being married to Amun. AMERIS, AMMERIS, AMERES (r. 715–696 BCE). Following the death of Piankhy in 716 BCE, the Nubians sought to upgrade their control of Egypt, now under their complete authority. Annoyed by the lack of loyalty of Bakenrenef and the other Libyan princes in the western delta, the new pharaoh Shabaka determined a new course. He executed Bakenrenef by burning him at the stake and then appointed Nubians to these top administrative positions. According to Manetho, such was the case of the Nubian Ameris, who served as the top administrator of the delta during all of Shabaka’s administration and at least seven years of the reign of Shabataka. This policy proved effective for most of the rest of Dynasty XXV, until Assyrian military pressure on Taharka and Assyrian political appointments of their satraps in the delta brought back disloyal Libyans into these positions to undermine Nubian control. AMUN (AMEN, AMON) CULT. This central and primordial cult of Egyptian origin of the sun god Amun was most likely later merged with the Kerma sheep deities. In the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms, within the polytheistic religion, Amun was typically a male anthropomorphic god. However, as religious and priestly power was more consolidated and expanded into colonized Nubia, during the New Kingdom, Amun gained in prominence and centrality that may be termed as henotheism in which there

AMUN (AMEN, AMON) CULT

•

33

is a plurality of deities but one that is certainly preeminent. This evolutionary theological trend burst forth during the New Kingdom in general, which pushed Amun into the highest level and especially in the case of Dynasty XVIII in which Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) who created the virtually monotheistic god of Aton. To this extent, Akhenaton is often considered as the start of Judeo-Christian monotheism. In the case of Egyptian imperial rule of Kerma, the case can be made that their ram god (of unknown name but of high reverence in iconography, worship, and sacrifices) was most likely syncretically merged with Amun to become commonly reconfigured as a zoomorphic ram-god to represent Amun in both Egypt and colonized Kush or Nubia. Rather than seek to stamp out this form of a central deity inherited from Kerma, it appears that the ram became insinuated in the human forms of Amun that existed previously. New Kingdom, Napatan, and Meroitic pharaohs and kings were projected as direct offspring of the ram-headed god Amun and his consort Mut. During and after the New Kingdom, the high priests of Amun and the God’s Wife of Amun served to legitimate and link the rulers to this cult and to the theocratic state itself. This made for a “holy trinity” inherited from dynastic Egypt composed of the sun god Amun, Mut his consort, and their moon god son Khonsu. The ancient Nubian trinity of Khnum, Anqet, and Satis, or the trinity of Isis, Osiris, and Horus, echo down through Egyptian and Nubian history deep into the theological debates of medieval Christianity as seen with the Arians and Athanasius and onward into the many and divisive Christian Councils of the Eastern Roman Empire. Relative to Nubia, the god Amun, or really the pharaoh, is sometimes reckoned as “The Bull of Nubia”—that is, the patriarchal progenitor or “father of Nubia.” Unlike the ram or goat gods of Harishef and Khnum, Amun was always depicted with forward-curving horns, not with lateral spiraling horns, throughout Egypt and Nubia. At the majestic Napatan site of Jebel Barkal, it was believed and depicted that Amun actually lived within this holy mountain in the freestanding Amun temple stretching out from the southern face of the mountain, or in the rock cut temple, or in the Mut temple on the west. Amun was usually hyphenated with Ra/Re as the composite sun god in ram form throughout the New Kingdom and in subsequent Napatan and Meroitic times. The strength of this cult was so enduring that in steadily evolving forms the Amun cult persisted in a syncretic fashion in Greek times as the god Zeus (god of sky, thunder and a bull), with his wife Hera, in Roman times as Apollo (god of fertility, flocks and herds, and sun among others), and onward into the X-Group and Christian eras. In Christian times, metaphors, and iconography, the ram or sheep god is considered as a “hidden god” and Jesus is the “lamb of God.” One may even observe that Amun lingers on in the closing of prayers in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic tradi-

34

•

ANHUR, ANHURIS, ONHUR, ONOURIS, ONURIS

tion when one invokes his memory with the parting Amen, which has no other likely source than ancient Egypt where Jews got their start in their Exodus. ANHUR, ANHURIS, ONHUR, ONOURIS, ONURIS. This Egyptian god was worshiped in Nubia. His Hellenized form is Onuris, a god of war and hunting. Some tales relate that Anhur encouraged Tefnut to return to Egypt from Nubia after her period of exile there. This deity of the sky has a parallel function with the Egyptian god Shu. Anhur can also serve as a warrior for the god Amun-Re, like the Egyptian god Montu. As a warrior, Anhur usually is depicted in an anthropomorphic form and may be confused with Amin since they are distinguished mainly by having two plumes for Amun and four plumes for Anhur. This deity may also have creator roles. Anhur was worshiped in Nubia and in Greco-Roman Egypt at Abydos and elsewhere. ANIBA, ANIBEH, MIAM. Nubian occupation of Aniba in Lower Nubia is dated to A-Group times, but C-Group cemeteries are also found there. The C-Group occupation of Aniba was contemporary with that of Adindan, which has similar material culture for this period. Perhaps these were contemporary with Middle Kingdom Egyptian use of the site, then termed Miam. It served as a regional fortress during the reign of Senusoret I of Dynasty XII.

Ram as Amun, Meroitic times.

ARAB, ARABIC

•

35

During the New Kingdom (especially in Dynasty XVIII), Aniba was the regional capital of Wawat, or Lower Nubia. As such, it held administrative and residential functions as well as a modest fort and temple to Horus, the protector of pharaohs. The major defensive forts against Nubians were located farther upstream at the Second Cataract. Hekanefer, for example, was titled the “Prince of Miam.” With early and rather long, continuous occupation, Aniba was also the center of a cemetery for local inhabitants as well for those who held the important position of governor of Wawat. It was sometimes the seat for the viceroys of Nubia. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY. See AGRICULTURE; DOGS; ELEPHANTS; SHEEP. ANKHPAKHERED. This High Priest of Amun served at Thebes during the Nubian Dynasty XXV, especially during the reign of Taharka. He likely was of Egyptian origin, having descended from a line of Theban priests, unlike the High Priest of Amun, Harkebi, who was of Nubian origin. The Nubian quest for continuity was much inclined to build on the former Egyptian traditions and personnel in order to achieve legitimacy. Thus, the positions of the High Priest of Amun and the God’s Wife of Amun showed remarkable continuity even at times of dynastic shift. ANKHSHEPENUPET. This royal singer of Dynasty XXV lived at the “Residence of Amun.” She is known from her tomb at the chapel in front of Medinat Habu that was built mainly for Ramses III. At this tomb was found a lovely polychrome inner anthropoid coffin that was also associated with dummy canopic jars, a faience bead mummy cover, and 365 shawabtis (funerary helper statues). Her mummy is now located at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. APOPHIS, APEPY. See KAMOSE STELA (ca. 1576 BCE); KERMA: HISTORY AND LOCATION; KERMA: MATERIAL CULTURE; KERMA: MILITARY AND ECONOMICS; KERMA: RELIGION. ARAB, ARABIC. The Sudanese Arabic language is closest in form and content to Egyptian Arabic. It is the main Sudanese language for communication among the majority of Sudanese. This language has been undergoing a process of development and Sudanization for more than 1,000 years. Arabic, like other Afro-Asiatic / Hamito Semitic languages, is structurally and semantically related to ancient Egyptian and other reginal Semitic languages.

36

•

ARAMATELQO, ARAMTEQO, AMTALQO

The Arabs are, strictly speaking, pastoral nomads who speak this Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) language, have “Arabic” culture, and, after the seventh century, are largely followers of the Islamic religion. Islam was rather slow in reaching Nubia while it spread from the Arabian Peninsula into Egypt, across North Africa, and, by separate routes, deep into western and eastern Europe, all within one or two centuries after the prophet Muhammad. However, the medieval Christian kingdoms in Nubia blocked the spread of Islam into central Sudan until the early 16th century. Today, the majority of Sudanese people who are projected to be cultural and linguistic Arabs are not nomadic; in northern Sudan, they are essentially Arabized Nubians. In Sudan, one also finds nomadic variations of herding cattle rather than camels; many are fully sedentary or only seasonally migratory (transhumant). Africanization of Arabs expanding southward and Arabization of southern slaves brought northward occur in various degrees. Sudanese people such as the Daju, Fur, and Nubians who are heavily Arabized and Islamized still speak their own non-Afro-Asiatic languages, as do native Arabic speakers who are Christians and Jews. Thus, the broader definition of an Arab is a matter more of cultural self-awareness than of strict terminology. Perhaps one-third of Sudanese are “Arabs” in the general sense that they claim descent through the Ja’aliyin, Khazrag, or Juhayna Arab groups. See also CHRISTIANITY IN NUBIA: THE FORMATIVE PERIOD; RACE. ARAMATELQO, ARAMTEQO, AMTALQO. This Napatan king was the successor to Aspelta. Aramatelqo ruled from around 568 to 555 BCE and was buried in pyramid 9 in the royal cemetery at Nuri. His funerary chapel has scenes of people playing the popular board game of Senet. The qo or ka at the end of the name is a common suffix for royal figures in Nubia. ARCHITECTURE: MEROITIC. The architecture of ancient Nubia is a vast topic since the known forms cover 5,000 years of history and numerous independent and syncretic traditions. Ironically, the best-known aspect of these traditions is funerary architecture since that has been the best preserved. However, this distorts our modern consciousness to think that ancient Nubians were somehow preoccupied with death. As states and empires evolved in Nubia, increasing attention was paid to monumental works, especially of a religious nature. Some royal palaces are known, and workshops provide an awareness of the technologies used. The most poorly represented in the archaeological record are the domestic structures of the average people who were the majority at all times.

ARCHITECTURE: MEROITIC

•

37

Surveying the architectural traditions, one can make tentative conclusions about the Paleolithic as seasonal and temporary campgrounds having fire circles and windbreaks along with some round domestic structures. Funerary traditions in burials for this period are poorly known for Nubia, the earliest human remains being associated with the Singa skull. For the Mesolithic period, the architecture likely changed little except for scale and more permanent locations with windbreaks, hearth sites, and matted houses that evolve into the Khartoum Neolithic. The Neolithic period provides for substantial change from the earlier times since the known sites begin to have evidence of funerary architecture and domestic buildings as well as traces of religious structures. In the late Neolithic, A-Group sites of both graves and houses in Nubia favor oral and circular structures with postholes, coming from a long African tradition of such shapes, although at Afyeh some use was made of stone and rectilinear shapes. Some shrines are either square or rectangular structures of posts and fiber mat, perhaps to protect or revere votive objects. This again comes from African spatial and artistic traditions. For C-Group pastoralists, the architectural traditions in funerary application continue to be round, curved, and sometimes rather large (6-meter) domestic structures that appear to have been oriented around a central pole and off-center fire hearth. The use of building stone begins to be regularized in tent circles for these open pastoral villages. Other structures and funerary chapels attached to circular burials start to be rectangular, suggesting deeper influences coming from Egypt. In Lower Nubia, at Wadi es-Sebua, a CGroup village shows clear evidence of limited-access fortification to protect the inhabitants and their food stores. The unplanned nature of this site is retained in the mud-brick foundations. The example from Amada shows substantially more planning, but certainly the silos and curved walls link this complex dwelling to the former C-Group people of the region. Although on a very different scale, the contemporary Kerma peoples continued the conservative round shapes for funerary arts, especially for the huge grave tumuli for the important kings, but even here the evolution of rectangular, mud-brick funerary chapels appears as a result of contact with Egypt. On the other hand, then multi-corridored tumuli or bed burials have virtually nothing to do with Egyptian funerary architecture. The huge deffufas associated with Kerma show influences from Egypt in terms of monumental mud-brick structures, but their arrangement is also unique for Nubia. The adjacent reception pavilion is clearly of African style, with a conical roof and a surrounding circular mud-and-wattle wall. Wall decorations at Kerma are reminiscent of those still found among the Dinka or Shilluk. After the colonial conquest of Nubia by the New Kingdom, the major temple architecture appears to be fully Egyptian, as are numerous cases of accepting funerary arts and design, including mummification and false doors,

38

•

ARCHITECTURE: MEROITIC

but Nubian traditions for burials and likely domestic structures still persist. In the Nubian “dark age” in the Late Period, experimentation or perhaps “recovery” of Nubian-style royal burials appears to have taken place at Kurru, and presumably most domestic structures are rectilinear and built of stone and mud brick; however, exogenous tukls, or roundhouses with arches, branches, and matting, are interspersed, as they continue to be through much of the rest of the ancient history of Nubia. The “Golden Age” of Nubia, represented by Dynasty XXV and early Napatan times, is dominated by rectilinear domestic structures. Nubian bed burials continue to some extent along with mummification, but major figures have the unique Nubian style of a pyramid with steeper angles than those earlier pyramids in Egypt, burials under the structure rather than inside, and funeral chapel annexes that do not penetrate the main structure. Some similarities can be noted with the pyramids found in the New Kingdom workers’ village of Deir al-Medina at Luxor. The state temples continue to be of Egyptian inspiration. As the subsequent Meroitic civilization evolved, mummification seemed to decline, but the unique Meroitic pyramid structures continued, with only small stylistic or scale variations. Domestic building continued for Meroë with a rectilinear shape for the most part and expansive surrounding walls and internal functional differentiation. Some evidence of grid-based town planning is seen, but domestic buildings are in mud brick, with some use of stone for lintels and jambs often taken from earlier structures. Exogenous tukls are also part of the domestic architectural mix along with workshop and storage structures. In Lower Nubia in Meroitic times, attention clearly was paid to defensive structures and walls, but in Upper Nubia, in the Meroitic heartland, this was not an important feature. Most towns generally were unplanned, but each household was rectilinear with internal subdivisions exiting to narrow streets. The variations in household size suggest important class stratification at this time. Some homes in congested areas had second or third stories. As Nubian deities became more distinct, syncretic experimentation emerges in Meroitic temples arts with the portrayal of the deities of Apedemek, Sebiumeker and Arensnuphis, and Dedun and in such unique configurations of a multicolumned central platform or acropolis seen at Musawwarat es-Sufra or at Jebel Adda. Only temples and pyramids were built of masonry, usually sandstone. Meroitic temples had flat, timbered roofs, as rainfall was a minor concern. The two centuries or so of post-Meroitic architecture, especially at Ballana, saw the restoration of large multiroomed tumulus bed burials for royalty. These kings apparently reoccupied earlier temples with little architectural adjustments, such as at Kalabsha, and domestic structures are not especially well known. In the case of Meinarti, excavated by William Adams, one can see domestic structures for some high-status figures and their neighbors in

ARGIN

•

39

their unplanned communities of roughly rectilinear, multiroomed structures with some public and private spaces differentiated as trading, storage, or religious areas. The building materials varied from mud brick to stone and combinations of the two. The last phase of architectural traditions for ancient and medieval Nubia is the feudal Christian Period, where creativity has been applied to essentially exogenous Byzantine church and chapel styles and ecclesiastical conventions. High-quality stonemasons used established geometric proportions and sophisticated notions of secular and sacred space, as seen in the elaboration of the central apse and its associated structures. Multivaulted ceilings of Nubian churches could span considerable distances. Residential areas were not as carefully planned as were the churches, but generally they were dominated by rectilinear, multiroomed domestic structures that now had internal latrines. Fortifications, substantial storage rooms, external town walls, archer loopholes, and strategic elevated locations of Christian towns and houses are persistent themes, as relations with Islamic Egypt were in steady tension and deterioration. The height of the architecture of Christian Nubia is represented by the impressive defensive castles and the large basilicas, such as at Faras and Dongola. Mummification, bed burials, and pyramids are long gone by this time, and domestic structures are made of stone and brick, depending on local circumstances. AREIKA. Areika is a Bronze Age Nubian settlement located in C-Group Lower Nubia. Areika is rather small in physical size; it is only 0.28 hectares or almost three-quarters of an acre but is extremely important because it is the only C-Group settlement ever excavated. The settlement plan differs from other C-Group settlements. Areika features rectilinear mud-brick structures, as opposed to the more common curvilinear structures built from stone masonry, wood, and matting. Areika appears to have been built under Egyptian supervision to control movement in the Lower Nubian valley. ARENSNUPHIS (GREEK), IREY-HEMES-NEFER (EGYPTIAN). This protective god, usually paired with his brother Sebiumeker, was placed in his statue form in front of Meroitic and Greco-Roman temples to guard the entrances such as seen at Musawwarat es-Sufra. No doubt, they descended from the ancient Egyptian brother rivals, Seth and Osiris; these Meroitic brother deities of Arensnuphis and Sebiumeker are perhaps further reconfigured in Christian iconography as the biblical brothers of Cain and Abel. ARGIN. Argin is located on the western bank of the Nile exactly on the modern Egypto-Sudanese border just downstream from old Wadi Halfa. Argin was probably occupied in A-Group times or before, judging from

40

•

ARGO ISLAND

some local petroglyphs. It was again occupied in C-Group times. Ovalshaped burials, with the common cattle heads (bucrania) and geometrically incised globular pottery jars typical of the C-Group were found by Spanish excavators. Argin was again occupied in Meroitic times, and in X-Group or Ballana times, it was known from an extensive cemetery. During the UNESCO archaeological salvage campaign, the Spanish, under Martin Artajo and Manuel Pellicier Catalan, excavated the Meroitic cemetery site of Nag Shayeg at Argin from 1960 to 1962. The 200 burials in varied styles of graves oriented east to west and numerous door lintels suggest that a rather large Meroitic and/or post-Meroitic town was present there. The grave goods included beads, jewelry, bronzeware, and wheel-turned pottery. The Meroitic ceramics were often painted with flowered designs, geometric patterns, and animals such as frogs and crocodiles, and some use was also made of the ankh symbols. Shapes include jars, vases, spouted vessels, flat dishes, and bowls and some with handles and lugs. In modern times, Sudanese Nubians at Argin made a notable effort to resist their relocation and resettlement required by the High Dam at Aswan, but the site is now deep under the waters of Lake Nasser / Lake Nubia. ARGO ISLAND. Argo Island is just upstream from Kerma, above the Third Cataract or between Tombos and New Dongola town. It was probably the furthest southerly penetration of Nubia in the Middle Kingdom’s Dynasty XII. A statue of a king, or perhaps a regional prince (Sobekhotep), of Dynasty XIII of the early Second Intermediate Period was also found on Argo Island. Perhaps it was transported to Argo by a Kerma king when Egypt lost control of the Middle Kingdom forts. After the New Kingdom reconquest of Kush, Pharaoh Tuthmosis I raised a stela to commemorate his Nubian military campaign. On the south end of Argo Island is also the Amun temple of Tabo, built by Taharka who used stone from New Kingdom buildings. This impressive temple, at 75.6 meters long and 31 meters wide, was heavily quarried away in following centuries. Meroitic occupation included two granite colossi of a Meroitic king found lying on the ground. These are presumed to be that of Natakamani and are now on prominent vertical display at the exterior of the Sudan National Museum. ARIANISM. While this topic relates to Christian Nubia its roots are founded within the Greco-Roman occupation of Egypt and Nubia. The separation of ancient Nubian history and early Christianity becomes very difficult. In Christian Nubia and Egypt, the primary theological division was over the profound disagreements of the divine nature(s) of Christ. This took place about a decade after the Donatist controversy broke out in Numidia. More-

ARIANISM

•

41

over, when the pagan invaders of North Africa arrived in 429–439 CE, they mostly converted to Arian Christianity thereby complicating the picture still further. For sure, some of the contemporary anti-imperialist or anti-Catholic orthodoxy tensions existed in these cases. Some of the roots of this division are found among the followers of the prominent Alexandrian priest Arius (ca. 250–336 CE), from whom Arianism gains its name. The argument of Arius was that Christ was a prophet who was higher than a normal human being but that he was subordinate to a higher God, who lived before and after his son Christ. This highest God was inaccessible, ultimately unknowable, and transcendental. In fact, this conceptualization appears to be mirrored on the ancient Egyptian views of Amun, the highest and hidden deity. This outlook may also find its derivation from the slightly earlier teachings of Origen (184–ca. 254 CE) who formulated a lesser theological role for Christ in comparison to God, since Christ was “only the son of God.” Arius believed that the Holy Spirit was not divine or was, at least, at a lower level of divinity than God. National and political rivalries only underscored the theological tensions between the Ptolemaic city of Alexandria and the Roman city of Constantinople that emerged full blown in the fourth century, not to mention the general Coptic Egyptian views against the ruling orthodoxy that could even be dated back to the battle of Actium (31 BCE) when pagan Rome defeated the polytheistic Ptolemies and the regional geostrategic balance of power shifted from southeastern Mediterranean to the northeastern region of Anatolia. The “orthodox Unitarianism” of Arians believed that the Trinitarianism of Constantinople was virtual “backsliding” to polytheism and thus toward (Roman) paganism that they had rejected. When Theodosius came to power in 379 CE, he insisted in 380–381 CE that “barbarian” Arians desist from their “heresy.” Public discussion was officially banned in 388 CE, and “paganism” was banned in 392 CE. The death penalty against “paganism” was decreed in 435 CE, and some 150 laws were passed for additional suppression of this “heresy.” Yet, local Greek and Coptic divisions persisted in a focused way about a century after the Arian controversy, despite their harsh measures. Even at the time of the Council of Orléans in 507 CE, the Arian dispute lingered on in the theological underground; during his papacy when he brought Christianity to England, Gregory the Great (590–604 CE) was still addressing the Arian “heresy.” Thus despite these many measures, edicts, and declarations, Arianism, not to mention Coptic Monophysitism, was much unresolved especially in such peripheral regions as the Nubian Nile valley or in the Horn of Africa. Following this grand historical trajectory, this could be far more deeply rooted in the endless struggles between Mesopotamia and the Nile valley, such as the New Kingdom clashes with the Hittites and the Assyrians and Persians against the Egyptians and Nubians.

42

•

ARIANISM

At a more prosaic and recent level, perhaps too, the support for women and the Alexandrian dockworkers Arius showed did not win friends within the patriarchal and orthodox church teachings. So, the Arian controversary, as along with the Donatist, Monophysite, and Nestorian disputes, needs to be seen in long historical terms and as latent anti-imperial resistance to Ptolemaic Greeks and pagan or Christian Romans by the sometimes subordinated populations of Numidia, Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia, and to Christian Nubia. At first, these divisions were moderately tolerated when the adherents of early Christianity were struggling to define and assert themselves in a factionalized Roman Empire that commonly used terror and execution in repeated campaigns of persecution of nascent Christianity. In 312 CE, Constantine became the first Roman emperor to accept and tolerate various edicts and various Christian sects in the entire Roman state, with Donatists, Arians, and Dyophysites among his followers. However, this dispute was occasionally violent as followers of Arius and popes Athanasius and Alexander of Alexandria clashed over points of dogma and refused to offer communion or recognize marriages. For example, Athanasius insisted that while Christ was born, had died, and was resurrected, it was God who was eternal, and if not, there was no hope for salvation. In other regions, such as Persia and Central Asia, contemporary disputes with the Nestorians (who believed that Christ was human at birth but later had divinity placed upon him) only sowed more division within the ranks of nascent Christianity that was only starting to formulate its orthodoxy. By 318 to 320 CE, Arius and his followers had become a major theological and political problem for Athanasius as well as the entire Roman Church as judged by frequent Councils called to solve these disputes. To resolve this contentious matter, the Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 CE. Under political direction, the bishops decided, first, that Arianism was heretical to the now orthodox Nicaean creed and, second, that its various religious spokespersons were to be excommunicated and exiled. The Nicaean creed established the Trinitarian orthodoxy of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus it was only a matter of time before the initial tolerance gave way to force and fiat. As the official church theology and now official imperial Christian state solidified, the orthodox views became emblematic of its state power. Resistance was no longer accepted. This was particularly the case among the adherents of Arianism in northern Europe and Egypt, or Donatism in Numidia. Once the orthodox Trinitarian view became even more set, this apparently minor dispute became a major fissure as the central Byzantine church held that Christ was, a form of God with two “natures or aspects— that is, a Dyophysite “nature,” not a Monophysite “nature.” Arians refused to accept this view and were exiled and declared heretical.

ARIKANKHARER

•

43

The contentious nature was revealed again in the Council of Tyre (335 CE), which reversed the Arian exclusion and forced the orthodox Athanasius into one of many exiles. Perhaps Arius would have been reintegrated with the church in some way, but he died the night before. All became moot and even more so when Emperor Constantine I himself died in 337 CE. These theological debates became virtually theatrical when the three sons of Constantine all inherited portions of the stumbling empire. Constantine II was to rule the western (Nicaean) Roman Empire; Constans was to rule the Nicaean central part of the Empire of Italy and Greece; and Constantius was to rule the Arian eastern Roman Empire. It seemed that this would, more or less, keep the empire intact with each son having a part of the decentralized administration. In retrospect, this divided the Nicaeans and, relatively speaking, strengthened the Arians. To try to recalibrate, Constantine II was eliminated, and thus Constans consolidated power but was soon assassinated, leaving only Constantius as the sole (Arian) ruler of the empire. This was exactly the result that was not intended, and for a time, Arians were again in ascendancy, and orthodox bishops had another turn at exile. Some scholars believe that the Arian theology lingered on in the Middle East until the seventh century to welcome the arrival of the prophet Muhammad in 641 CE by Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria. Cyrus, and Islam itself, considered that Muhammad was a normal human being and just a messenger of divine God as a parallel to the Arians’ belief about Christ, and parallel to the belief of Muslims about Muhammad. Certainly, the deep religious schisms within southern Mediterranean Christianity assisted the arrival of Islam in the region by failing to provide any unified opposition with its broad frustration with both pagan and early Christian Roman rule as well as expecting that Muslims would tolerate and respect Christians and Jews as ahl alkitab (“people of the book”). At the time of Emperor Theodorius I (381 CE), Arianism was deeply rooted as a divisive factor between the Egyptian and Nubian churches. Even when Arianism was finally marginalized in Byzantium, it reappeared and evolved to become the official Monophysitism of Egypt lasting until today under its own pope. Thus it continued to be the theological foundation of the church of Coptic Egypt and Christian Nubia. Efforts to reunify with the Vatican have been cordial but unsuccessful. Even the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches followed this theology but now have their own independent popes separate from the Dyophysites of Byzantium and the Trinitarians of Rome as well as the Melkite and Maronite churches of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Greek, Russian, and Ukrainian churches. ARIKANKHARER. This Meroitic king (“born of the life of Ra”) ruled briefly during the second decade of the Christian era. He was one of the known sons of King (Qore) Natakamani and Queen (Kandake) Amanitore,

44

•

ARKAMANI

thus also a brother of Shorkaror, all of whom are attested at Abu Erteila. He was likely buried in pyramid 5 in the northern royal cemetery at Bejrawiya. This was a classical period that began the long slow decline of Meroë as well as the first exposure to Christianity with the famed eunuch servant in the royal court. This finally concluded with the destruction of Meroë by the new Christian kingdom of Axum in the fourth century CE attack by King Ezana. ARKAMANI, ARQAMANI, ARKAMANI-QO, ‘ERG’MN, ERGAMENES, ‘IRK’IMN I, II. First, a note of clarification is required since the two Meroitic kings of this name are often confused or conflated because of variant forms of the hieroglyphic, Greek, and Meroitic spellings of this name. The existing evidence is slight, and thus partly to blame, but convincing analysis of the limited available epigraphic evidence supports that there were two kings of similar names. Following the conventional understanding of László Török and Steffen Wenig, Arka(ka)amani I ruled from 270–260 BCE during the reign of Ptolomy II (r. 285–246 BCE), while Arkamani II ruled from 218–200 BCE, thus during the reign of Ptolemy IV (222–205 BCE). The two kings could be distinguished as Arkamani I and II. The case can be made that Arkamani I could also be called Arkakamani on the basis of one instance that has the extra ka and also judging from his unique “Sa-Re” name. However, the comment by Agatharchides referred to him as Ergamenes, and this name has been hard to pry away in existing literature. The comment by Agtharchides also says that the king was a contemporary with Ptolemy II, and this supports the argument made by Török that there must be two named Ergamenes. The parallel use by Arkamani I of the royal titular (“the Heart of Re rejoices”) of King Amasis of Dynasty XXVI gives further circumstantial evidence for the unique identity of Arkamani I (Arkakamani), as his inscriptions are among the last using Egyptian hieroglyphics at Meroë. Apparently both Amasis and Arkamani violently overthrew their domestic opponents. According to Herodotus, Arkamani was subject to a decision of regicide by the royal priests who wielded this power. Not being prepared to accept this fate, Arkamani arranged to have the priests murdered instead. Arkamani I was the first king to be buried at Meroë, presumably after he overthrew the Amun priests probably located at Napata—thus his move to relocate the capital and perhaps the start of a dynasty. After the transfer of the capital from Napata to Meroë, the Nubian state remained otherwise intact. He is also known in the works of Diodorus Siculus. Arkamani I was said to be conversant in Greek, in that he studied in the royal court of Meroë. Meanwhile, Arkamani II (r. 218–200 BCE) is missing the extra ka in his name, and he has various additional titularies that are not parallel to Arkamani I. Possibly Arkamani II is the same as Prince Arki known from Masawwarat es-Sufra. Arkamani II should be credited for some of the construction at

ARKAMANI

•

45

the recycled temple at Dakka and inscriptions at the temples of Debod, at Philae in the Arensnuphis temple started by Ptolemy IV, and at Kalabsha. These projects took place during the period of the Theban revolt (207–186 BCE), and they attest to the large territorial extent of his administration and to the temporary withdrawal of Ptolemaic control of the Dodekaschoenos. While both kings are buried at Meroë, it seems that Arkamani I is associated with Bejrawiya South pyramid 6 and Arkamani II should be associated with Bejrawiya North Pyramid 7 and chapel. See also ERGAMENES, ARKAMANI, ARQAMANI, ARKAMANI-QO, ‘RG’MN, ‘IRK-‘IMN (I AND II). ARKAMANI-QO. See ARKAMANI, ARQAMANI, ARKAMANI-QO, ‘ERG’MN, ERGAMENES, ‘IRK’IMN I, II. ARMINNA (WEST), ADOMN (MEROITIC). Armina West was a late Meroitic and early X-Group settlement not far from Abu Simbel in Lower Nubia. It was excavated jointly by a Yale University and University of Pennsylvania expedition in the early 1960s during the Nubian salvage campaign. The Meroitic remains include ba-statues and Meroitic inscriptions on funerary offering tablets. Mud-brick graves and pyramids, pottery, and small stelae and water bowls were left on the graves. The X-Group remains are close to the Ballana assemblage and are the latest evidence of occupation in early Christian times; thus this site offers a clear transition from Meroitic times to the Christian epoch in this region in the fifth or sixth century CE. ARNEKHAMANI (r. 235–218 BCE). This early Meroitic king, “the Mighty Bull and Beloved of Maat,” ruled only three decades after the Kushite capital was moved from Napata to Meroë, probably during the time of Ptolemy II or Ptolemy IV. A detailed relief in his name is on the southern wall of the Lion temple at Musawwarat es-Sufra. Indeed, King Arnekhamani is the only Meroitic king attested at this site. This shows him with a hemhem war crown with protective cobras as well as the curved horns of Amun wrapped around his ear. He was handsomely adorned with armlets, necklaces with the ram form of Amun, and other state regalia, including a royal staff. The titular in Egyptian hieroglyphs still terms him “Lord of Two Lands,” and the “Son of Re” and is written in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Perhaps he was the father of King Arkamani II. Arnekhamani was an early royal resident of the northern royal cemetery and was perhaps interred in pyramid 53. ARROWS. See BOWS AND ARROWS.

46

•

ARYESBEKLE, KING (R. 62–78 CE)

ARYESBEKLE, KING (r. 62–78 CE). This little known Meroitic king, who may be the son of King Walamani, appears to have been buried in Bejrawiya North royal pyramid 16 whose chapel is known. However, it seems that his pyramid was either neglected or destroyed by King Amanitaraqide (r. 209–228 CE) so he could build his pyramid Bejrawiya North 36 that was built on top, as the available space for royal pyramids by this time was very limited. ASHKEIT. Ashkeit is roughly 12 kilometers downstream from the now submerged Buhen fortress or 3 kilometers north of Argin. It is noted for Paleolithic times, but in much later times, there was a small church and Christian-related petroglyphs found in the vicinity. ASHURBANIPAL (r. 668–627 BCE). This king of Assyria ruled during the closing years of the Nubian administration of Egypt by Taharka. Ashurbanipal was a king of the Sargonid period of the Assyrian Empire. Sargon II (r. 721–705 BCE) had founded this dynasty. Sennacherib (r. 704–681 BCE) was the second, Esarhaddon (r. 680–669 BCE) was the third, and Ashurbanipal (r. 680–627 BCE) was the fourth in this line. The Assyrian kings had been long frustrated and blocked by the Phoenicians, the Judaeans, and the Nubian kings of Egypt in Dynasty XXV. Seeking to block Assyrian expansion into Egypt, the Nubians ruling Egypt at this time tried various measures, including diplomacy, strategic alliances with Judeans and Gazans, and the fomenting of a diversionary revolt in Phoenicia. While each move gained them some time, it was inevitable that clashes would finally take place between Ashurbanipal and Taharka in Egypt. The sudden death of Esarhaddon during an earlier phase of this campaign put Ashurbanipal in power in around 668 BCE. He continued the plan to invade Lower Egypt to reinstate Necho I as king of Memphis and Sais, where his father, Esarhaddon, had originally set him up as a satrap. Then he would drive Taharka from his capital at Memphis. Nineveh palace scenes depict his attack on this Egyptian capital with his soldiers, bowmen, ladders, and wall undermining. Nubian captives with feathers in their hair are shown. Taharka had restored his residence in Memphis from where he had been driven by Esahaddon earlier. Following the battle at Memphis, Taharka fled to Thebes, where he still had support of the God’s Wife of Amun, the High Priest of Amun, and the mayor. Ashurbanipal returned from Egypt with two obelisks that were displayed in his capital. It is not clear whether these were removed from Egypt in 667 or in 664 BCE, but considerable looting of Thebes may well have taken place.

ASPELTA (R. 593–568 BCE)

•

47

Although the precise chronology is weak, it was probably at this time that Taharka returned to Napata to be coregent with Tanutamun, who returned briefly to Egypt to carry on the struggle to restore Nubian influence. At around this time, Taharka died, so that Ashurbanipal’s second campaign in Egypt was against Tanutamun, in 664–663. Ashurbanipal again sacked Memphis but advanced all the way to Thebes and drove Tanutamun back to Kipkipi and on to Napata, never to return to Egypt. Nevertheless, the Nubians persistently claimed to be “Lords of Two Lands” and never granted legitimacy to these or subsequent outside rulers of Egypt. Although famed as an aggressive militarist (nine campaigns in 42 years) and game hunter, Ashurbanipal also built a cuneiform-text library of tens of thousands of clay tablets at the Sennacherib palaces at Nimrud and Nineveh. These collections were central in preserving much ancient Mesopotamian literature, and Ashurbanipal boasted that he was literate. These literary works were in the cuneiform writing systems that produced texts found as far back as the Amarna letters in 14th-century-BCE Egypt. When Ashurbanipal died in around 627 BCE, his son Sinsharrishkun (623–612 BCE) followed him. Even though they had defeated the Nubians, the Assyrians were not at full strength since their Egyptian campaigns had left them overextended and vulnerable to the Babylonians. Ironically, in 616 BCE, the desperate Sinsharrishkun even called for Egyptian aid against the Babylonians. Not surprisingly, the Egyptians did not respond quickly or adequately enough, so the huge and powerful Assyrian capital fell in 612 BCE. ASKUT ISLAND. Askut Island is located at the Saras Cataract, downstream of the great Middle Kingdom fortress complex of Semna and Kumma. Askut Island was just upstream of a western bank lookout point of the Nile and upstream of the fortress of Mirgissa. Its strategic position allowed it to relay messages from the fort at Shalfak to the fort at Mirgissa. Built on a rocky hill of the mid-river island, it was easily defended and served as one of the many Middle Kingdom border forts in Nubia. Consequently, in Christian times, this strategic location hosted a small town on the same site. The University of California excavated the site during the Nubian salvage campaign. ASPELTA (r. 593–568 BCE). This Napatan king ruled a smaller but still powerful kingdom from Jebel Barkal. He is known for a colossal figure at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston that was removed from Nubia by George Reisner. This likely stood in front of the huge Amun temple, but it was found buried elsewhere in circumstances that are still unclear. A massive granite coronation stela (Egyptian Museum, no. 692) from Jebel Barkal

48

•

ASPELTA (R. 593–568 BCE)

shows Aspelta kneeling in front of the ram god Amun, but he is looking away from this deity toward the “royal sister” and sistrum player (probably Queen Nasalsa). Although Amun is shown in this icon, the stela also refers to the Nubian god Dedun. Originally, this stela was next to the stela of Piankhy at Jebel Barkal. Every cartouche with his name has been carefully effaced while foolishly leaving his Nebti, Golden Horus, and Horus names, which had other references to Aspelta, thus confirming his identity. This text also tells us something of the power structure of Napatan society at this time, as the “electoral council” was composed of six military men, six appointees of the chief councilor, six men from the keeper of the archives, and six men from the royal household. Apparently, Aspelta was himself a military officer. Finally, the priests of Napata confirmed this broad consultative process, and the coronation gave the new king his crown and office insignia. A sphinx of Aspelta was found at Deferia, suggesting that his administration reached the confluence of the two Niles. Some believe that Aspelta was on the throne at the time of the invasion by Psamtik II, since his Jebel Barkal statuary was perhaps the last to suffer from destruction and looting. More recently, doubt has been cast on this theory, and perhaps he was on the throne but escaped to secure regions and returned once the danger had passed. As with the Dynasty XXV kings, the role of the queen mother was an important source of legitimacy for Aspelta, but it is perhaps too strong to state that this was matrilineal rule. Aspelta and his senior brother Amanlamani were born of the Queen Mother Amanimalol. He did note on his stela that his grandmother was a High Priestess of Amun (not God’s Wife of Amun) in Thebes during Dynasty XXV. Perhaps more important, legitimacy came his way from consultation with a military council and possible opposition from a priestly group. He also appointed Matisen as his High Priestess of Amun at Jebel Barkal in a fashion similar to that reserved for the God’s Wife of Amun common in Dynasty XXV. Matisen is known from another Napatan hieroglyphic stela (now in the Louvre). This rounded stela depicts Aspelta offering Ma’at to an anthropomorphic Amun, behind whom are Mut and Khonsu. Behind Aspelta are liberating sistrum players: Nasala/Nenselsa (this mother), Matisen (his wife), and Khebit (his daughter). The two senior women are shown as broad hipped, as was the popular form in Meroitic times. The text relates to gifts of ritual temple objects and rations of bread, beer, and oxen offered by Matisen for the priests. A son of Aspelta, Khaliut, is also known. Still another stela text of Aspelta is known that shows him with a ramheaded Amun, Mut, and Khonsu but without other family members. Here Aspelta is promising or offering to Amun the “Lord of Ma’at” (“the true and correct order”). This text found on stela 693 at the Egyptian Museum proceeds with standard invocations and titles but then goes on to excommuni-

ASTAPUS

•

49

cate certain conspiring priests (heretics?) for hateful crimes against Amun. Perhaps murder was their crime? Perhaps it was a conspiracy against Aspelta? Perhaps a violation of temple protocol was committed? Who was the victim? We do not know the answers to these questions, but evidently they were executed by burning. Any future priests thinking of such actions are certainly warned by this proclamation. Madiken (or is this Matisen?) was the wife of Anlamani, Aspelta’s brother. Aspelta was buried in the well-designed pyramid 8 in a handsome granite sarcophagus at the royal cemetery at Nuri. This was also removed to the basement of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, but a full-scale model of it has been constructed at the museum of the National Center of Afro-American Artists in Boston. A queen-wife of Aspelta is known to be Mernua, whose bead-net cover for her mummy was saved although her tomb was plundered. The net with a silver face cover, a winged Isis chest cover, a silver pectoral, and a silver “four sons of Horus” are on display at the Museum of Fine Arts. ASSYRIANS. See ASHURBANIPAL (r. 668–627 BCE); ESARHADDON (ca. 713–669 BCE; r. 680/681–669 BCE); SENNACHERIB (r. 704–681 BCE). ASTABORAS. This is the classical reference used by the Greeks and Romans to refer to what is now known by the modern corruption as the Atbara River. Pliny the Elder (23–79 CE) referred to the Astaboras as a “branch of water coming out of the shade” (V[X]:52–54). This etymology is not understood, but there is speculation that asta refers to essi (waters), or boras may be a local toponym, deity, or the color black. The headwaters of the Astaboras/Atbara are with the Tekkeze River in Ethiopia that forms the modern western border between Ethiopia and Eritrea as well as the Mareb River that drains the western slope of the Eritrean highlands. The two rivers merge inside Sudan to form the Atbara River that drains directly into the Nile. That is, it drains into the Nile when there is water as it is often totally dry, but it provides easily accessed water. The Atbara is also the riverine northern boundary of the Butana region or the “Island of Meroë”; it provided an access corridor for the Christian forces of King Ezana of Axum to travel to and sack the last stages of Meroë in the first third of the fourth century CE. In much later times, during the Mahdist revolt of 1884–1898, the last stand of the Dervish military leader Mahmoud was in the dry basin of the Atbara River. ASTAPUS. The Astapus is the classical Greco-Roman reference to the Nile downstream (north) of modern Khartoum. It can be contrasted with the Astaboras (Atbara River) and the Astasobas (Blue Nile). As with the Astaboras,

50

•

ASTASOBAS

the asta prefix may refer to “waters,” and the “pus” is perhaps a local toponym or deity. Assuming all is correct, the Astapus is thereby the western riverine boundary of the Butana region. The confluence of the White and Blue Niles at the Mogren and at the Mahas Nubian Tuti Island is noted on 17th-century maps. Khartoum (“the elephant’s trunk” or “hose”) is a rather modern city started as a capital only during Turkish times in 1822. ASTASOBAS. This is the classical Greco-Roman reference to the Blue Nile. The prefix asta may reference the “waters” while sobas must relate to a preChristian settlement and river crossing at Soba that became the capital town of the Christian kingdom of Alodia of the Blue Nile. Soba was the last Christian town to fall to the rise of the Funj Sultanates in 1504. Many blocks and bricks from the ruins of Soba were used to construct the Turkish town at Khartoum just downstream on the Blue Nile. ASWAN, SYENE, SWEN. The name of this ancient border town between Upper Egypt proper and Nubia appears to be derived from syene or “trade” since the site is just below the First Cataract and much of the trade and its protection was conducted at this location. This easily defended island and “break-of-bulk” portage location gave Aswan an enduring political, military, and economic importance as it was a critical nexus between Egypt and Nubia. Especially at flood time, it provided a rocky, narrow, and deep passage of fast-moving water as well as high central terrain for temples, warehouses, and fortifications. This is true from the very earliest days in dynastic Egypt (Pepi II) when ancient trade missions of Harkuf, and raiding parties would pass through Aswan and pay tribute to the famed deities Khnum, Ankqet, and Selket, known as the “trinity of Aswan.” Such Trinitarian beliefs echo onward through the millennia as well as the hermaphroditic deity Hapy that “resided” in a cavern on the island that was considered as the “source” of the Nile. More precisely, the eastern bank town of Aswan is facing the island of Elephantine, or aswanarti, the “island of Aswan,” is probably known as a place for importing ivory or for the elephantine-shaped huge granite boulders at the waterside. No period in all of Egyptian history has failed to leave its mark on Aswan and Elephantine, including Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Jews. On the western bank at Aswan, just up a sandy valley, is the Christian church and monastery complex of Deir Simon that is no longer functioning but still largely intact. ATBAI. Atbai is located in southern Nubia and lies between the Atbara and Gash Rivers. Its peak covered roughly 100,000 square kilometers east of the Nile and came to be known as the Atbai ceramic tradition (5000 BCE to 500

ATHANASIUS (CA. 295–373 CE)

•

51

CE). This tradition is closely connected with the development of large villages (more than 10 hectares) during the fourth millennium BCE. The Malawiya Group represents the earliest phase. Ceramics are mainly sand-tempered, unfurnished, buff-colored ware that broke from tradition technological and stylistic production of ceramics. Three phases—the Saroba, Kassala, and Jebel Taka—characterize the Atbai tradition. The Saroba Phase consisted of small sites of 5,000 square meters with the hunting of small bovines (cattle and oxen), warthogs, and monitor lizards. The Kassala Phase was the most complex and developed of the two phases and lasted from the middle of the fourth millennium BCE to the end of the second millennium BCE. This phase was characterized by the Batana and Gash Group, which reintroduced fishing and the exploitation of tortoise, crocodiles, and hippopotamus. Large villages from 45,000 square meters to 120,000 square meters existed during this phase. The largest sites are Mahal Teglinos of the Gash Group and KG23 of the Butana Group. The Jebel Taka Phase is represented by the Hagiz Group, consisting of small sites of 20,000 square meters and scarped ware that suggests links to the Meroitic and pre-Axumite cultures. ATBARA. See ASTABORAS. ATHANASIUS (ca. 295–373 CE). This significant bishop of Alexandria presided over the formation and early Christianity in Nubia and Egypt at a very critical and vulnerable time. By the start of the fourth century CE, perhaps as many as half of the Egyptians were Christian (even if practiced in secret). However, the violent and extensive persecution of Christians by Diocletian in 303 CE sought to reverse this trend. But in 312 CE, Roman emperor Constantine II accepted Christianity for the entire Roman Empire. This contested religious space all took place during the life of Athanasius. Much of the life and theology of Athanasius was centered on the deep doctrinal dispute between his rival Arius (250–336 CE) and his followers such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, whose views could be said to be Unitarian insofar as they considered that only the universal and invisible god was divine, like the ancient Egyptian and Nubian views of Amun. This was opposed to the Trinitarian views of Athanasius, which state that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were all divine. Athanasius argued that if Christ were not a god, then those who prayed to him would be guilty of idolatry and that Christ could not be capable of the powers of redemption. Accordingly, Athanasius attended the pivotal Council of Nicaea in 325 CE that denounced the “heresy” of Arianism. When he returned to Alexandria in 328 CE to become bishop, he deposed the pro-Arian bishops. In 335 CE, Athanasius attended the Council of Tyre in Phoenicia, which again tried but

52

•

ATIRI ISLAND

failed to address and resolve the Arian dispute. That he was a leading figure of the time is clear from the fact that it was Athanasius who introduced the 40-day fast of Lent in 337 CE. In 356 CE, George of Alexandria, a strong Arian, took power in that city, while Athanasius fled to refuge and exile in Upper Egypt for more than five years. Roman emperor Jovian (331–364 CE) recalled Athanasius from exile, but after two years, he again took flight, and it was only in the last seven years of his life that he was in Alexandria. That this was a contentious time is made clear that after Constantine accepted Christianity, then Emperor Julian “the Apostate” (331–363 CE) sought to reverse this and return to non-Christian Roman polytheism. It was after the short life of “back-sliding” Julian that Jovian came to power to restore Christianity as the “correct” state belief, which he managed to do in the short eight months of his reign (363–364 CE) before his death on the battlefield. The views of Athanasius centered around Christ’s “divinity,” so that these early Christians themselves could find personal redemption for their human “sins” and ultimate resurrection by accepting Christ as their savior. The theology of Coptic Monophysites that prevailed in Egypt and Nubia was that Christ was divine but that he was just an aspect of God. At the time of his death in 373 CE, Athanasius was still embroiled in this dispute with the followers of Arius, but his steadfast support for the Council of Nicaea was gaining ground in general, but outside of Egypt. ATIRI ISLAND. Atiri Island is located in the Butn al-Hajr region of Nubia, just upstream (south) of Semna. It was occupied especially in late Christian times and was a substantial regional center for the production and shipment of palm fiber products, such as sandals and mats, as revealed in salvage archaeology. A small church was built in the center of the island, around which was a cluster of houses. It is speculated that the insular location and settlement configuration suggest a threatened and defensive community in the event of Arab incursions into the area. Many late Christian communities in Nubia were built on islands with defensive walls. ATLANERSA (r. 653–643 BCE). Atlanersa was a Napatan king who ruled from 653 BCE to 643 BCE or immediately after King Tanutamun of Dynasty XXV. Typically he still proclaimed to be “Lord of Egypt” as well as Kush as seen in his nesubity name, but there is no evidence that he actually ruled Egypt, which was then controlled by Psamtik I (r. 664–610 BCE). However, Atlanersa certainly perpetuated the earlier art styles of Dynasty XXV if not its political achievements. Atlanersa certainly rejected the claims of Psamtik I as well.

AUGUSTUS (OCTAVIAN) (R. 27 BCE–14 CE)

•

53

An important construction of Atlanersa was the two-room temple B700 at Jebel Barkal, which he apparently started, but it was finished by King Senkamanisken. Atlanersa’s iconography made it clear that he kept a high reverence for the ram god Amun, thought to reside in spirit, or form, within Jebel Barkal. At this temple, Atlanersa commissioned a granite pedestal or holy bark stand (for the ram god?) with high-quality inscriptions that was taken to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (no. 23.728). This pedestal shows Atlanersa (with his Sa Re name) on a platform resting upon a symbol of the unified Nile. The gods Horus and Thoth provide the stability for this platform, while Atlanersa is depicted holding up the sky. After the known dates for Atlanersa, the precise dating for the Napatan kings fall into some confusion, although the general sequence is close to correct. He was buried in a stepped Napatan pyramid with a divided buried chamber at the royal cemetery at Nuri. The tomb of his royal wife was almost of the same size, recalling the relatively elevated position of Nubian queens (coregnant, regnant, or not). AUGUSTUS (OCTAVIAN) (r. 27 BCE–14 CE). Born as Gaius Octavius on 23 September 63 BCE, Caesar Augustus (as he became better known) was not a Christian, but his military and political successes had a great impact on Nile valley Christianity. He was the grandnephew of Julius Caesar, after whose assassination on the Ides of March (15 March 44 BCE) he sought to rule the Roman Empire at the age of 19 or 20. Without exploring all of the great intrigues and dramas of the day between Rome and Alexandria, save it to say this would not be an easy task, with Julius’s lover, Queen Cleopatra VII, still on the throne in Egypt and her new Roman lover Antony having his own political and military ambitions. A major step in resolving this highly coveted position was at the maritime battle of Actium (31 BCE) in which the upper hand finally turned to Augustus. Winning this naval engagement brought military pressure onto Antony and Cleopatra, which finally resulted in their suicides, and put Augustus fully in charge of the entire Roman Empire at a classical period. Augustus set about a major construction boom in Egypt, and many of these temples and building were turned into Christian churches in the following centuries. This was also the time of the birth (ca. 4 BCE) and death of Christ (in 30 or 33 CE). Caesar Augustus decreed the census of the Roman world that brought Jesus and his parents to Egypt. During the reign of Augustus, sustained raids and counterattacks took place against Nubian kandakes and still classical Meroitic civilization in Nubia headed by Queen Amanitore and King Natakamani (ruling from 12 BCE to 12 CE). Meroë would soon be visited by the first Christian convert as reported in the Acts of the Apostles. Clearly much was in play at this major turning point in world history.

54

•

AUSHEK

AUSHEK. See AKUYTA. AXUM, AKSUM. Connections between the Nile valley and the Ethiopian Highlands have existed since Paleolithic times in ecological and human migrations, especially through the several connecting rivers (the Takeze, Gash, Mareb, Atbara, and Blue Nile), and the human, wildlife, and livestock migrations across the Butana and into the Gezira region. For example, the small state of D’mt (ca. 960–400 CE) along the Red Sea is considered ancestral to Axum. These connections appear in the long archaeological record before Christianity and in the historical record in Greco-Roman times such as with the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea and the role of the western coast Red Sea ports of Suakin, Adulis, Massawa, and Assab. However, it is the conversion of Axum to Christianity in the fourth century that it becomes central to the story of Nubian civilizations. Certainly, the Acts of the Apostles tells us of the earliest Christian in Nubia at Meroë, but how much that royal servant converted others is not clear at some time in the first century CE. The fleeing Falasha Jews who settled in Ethiopia in the Babylonian dispersal were another very early exposure to monotheism. The brutal repression of Christians by Emperor Diocletian, who ruled violently from 284 to 306 CE, no doubt created some number of refugees to Nubia and Ethiopia. In short, there were several earlier trends and strands to this story, but clearly the acceptance of Christianity by Roman emperor Constantine in 312 CE brought Christianity front and center to the region. The mid-fourth-century missionizing efforts by Frumentius and Aedesius are usually credited in the decisions of kings Ezana I or Ezana II (325–375 CE) to accept Christianity for the impressive and expansive state of Axum. Around this same time, the political, military, and economic rivalry between Christian Axum and polytheistic Meroë reached a climax when the armies of Ezana (Aezanes, Greek) marched down the Atbara River valley to sack and destroy an already declining Meroë. According to Giovanni Vantini (1981, 29), there were two Axumite invasions of Meroë, and perhaps even two Ezanas, with the first Ezana I being a pre-Christian Axumite, and the second, Ezana II, being a Christian Axumite. Aside from the destruction of this rival state, some 9,000 cattle were seized along with 3,000 prisoners (both “Red” and “Black” Noba) who were presumably turned into slaves. Axum finally collapsed in the eighth or ninth century CE but was itself replaced by the medieval state of Damot (not to be confused with much earlier D’mt). The historical prominence of Axum and its remarkable monumental stelae has meant that several subsequent Ethiopian kingdoms and states often incorporated Axum into their foundational mythologies.

B BA, BA-BIRD STATUES. The belief and use of ba-figures was among the complex concepts of the soul and afterlife that were probably introduced to Nubia during the New Kingdom since no clear use of ba-figures is seen in earlier Kerma. The following Dynasty XXV and Napatan and Meroitic times continued to use ba-figures and other aspects of the soul, like the ren, ka, and kha. In its simplest manifestation, the ba-figure was most often in the form of a bird hovering over the scales of truth on Judgment Day. If one’s soul were favorably judged then you might rise to eternal life in this humanheaded bird form. It also became popular to have ba-figures as little humans, and, especially in Meroë, this finally evolved into making stone carvings of the deceased, both men and women, with wings attached so that they could rise from the dead. The ba-statues would be placed in front of the funerary chapels attached to pyramids in Napatan and Meroitic times. It is believed that this ancient funerary concept was reborn or continued with the Christian notions of angels and birds carrying the human soul of the deceased onward toward eternal afterlife in heaven or resurrection. BAHAN CULTURE. See KHOR BAHAN. BAIT AL-WALI. The name of this small, largely rock-cut temple comes from Arabic, meaning “House of the Guardian.” Its original location was about 50 kilometers south of the Aswan Dam area. It is now relocated on the northwest shore of the island of New Kalabsha behind the Kalabsha temple. It was, and still is, associated with the much greater Kalabsha temple, although it is much older and rock-cut unlike the freestanding Kalabsha temple. Although both structures can be dated to the New Kingdom, the Bait alWali temple was built by Ramses II and was not adjusted or rebuilt by the Greco-Romans afterward, unlike the completely reconstructed Kalabsha temple. The joint effort to study and relocate this temple was supported by Egypt, Switzerland, and the United States. The increased popularity of the temple unfortunately accounts for its abuse and loss of color in wall paintings in the past century. 55

56

•

BAKENRENEF, BAKENRANEF, BOCCHORIS (R. 717–712 BCE)

Its original form included all standard architectural features for dynastic temples, including a pylon, entryway, small hypostyle hall, and inner sanctum. The main function of this small temple was to memorialize the god Amun for his support in successful military campaigns by Ramses II. The Egyptian deities of Isis and Horus (of Buhen) are also celebrated at this temple. On the left or south side of the narrow forecourt are scenes of chariot war and a tribute of monkeys, ivory, gold, and giraffes from Nubia being presented to the viceroy of Nubia who is honored by Ramses II. Apparently, this referred to the Nubian raid led by Prince Ramses II in year 13 of the reign of his father Seti I. Ramses swiftly attacked villages of Irem (Kerma) and made off with plunder. On the right or north side are battle scenes and images of prisoners of Libyan and Asian origins. Consequently, images of conquered peoples and war scenes similar to those of Abydos and Abu Simbel may be found at Bait al-Wali. The abbreviated hypostyle hall consists of just two columns, but some of the original colors of the painted reliefs may still be seen. In the innermost sanctuary of the Bait al-Wali temple, Ramses II is not yet seated among the gods so it is presumed that this smaller temple precedes his later, more formidable Nubian works at Ed-Derr and Abu Simbel. Here, as in the Seheil Island inscriptions, Ramses shows his devotion to the Nubian trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anqet, which suggests that a policy of fear and religious legitimization or incorporation were both parts of his relationship with Nubia. Bait al-Wali temple, like Kalabsha temple, later saw use as a Christian church, at which time the depictions of Egyptian deities were likely damaged by devotees of the new state faith. BAKENRENEF, BAKENRANEF, BOCCHORIS (r. 717–712 BCE). Bakenrenef was one of two Libyan princes of the delta in Lower Egypt in Dynasty XXIV who was a rival of the Nubians in Dynasty XXV, when Nubians came to rule all of the Nile valley. Following Tefnakht, Bakenrenef reluctantly accepted Piankhy’s start of Dynasty XXV, which followed a policy of indirect rule allowing Tefnakht to remain in local control in Lower Egypt. Bakenrenef sought to restore power to the local delta princes. After the death of Piankhy in 716 BCE, he felt that his time had come. The Nubian king Shabaka succeeded his brother Piankhy and began an ambitious program of construction in both Nubia and Egypt. His effort to proclaim himself as the legitimate pharaoh of both lands is illustrated by his devotion to the Apis bull cult at Saqqara and his conservative reference to Old Kingdom texts on the notable Shabaka Stone that was damaged after being used as a grinding millstone, which has been removed to the British Museum.

BALLANA CULTURE

•

57

Although the previous tensions and crises between Tefnakht and Piankhy were resolved by political negotiation, the rivalry between Shabaka and Bakenrenef would be resolved by military might. Once the local forces of Bakenrenef were defeated on the delta battlefield, Manetho reported that Shabaka burned Bakenrenef alive as an object lesson that he wanted no further trouble from the Libyan princes of the Egyptian delta. BAKI. See QUBAN, KUBBAN, BAKI, CONTRA PSELCHIS. BALLANA CULTURE. Ballana culture is a common referent for a regional form of the so-called X-Group culture in Lower Nubia of the period ca. 330s–600 CE—that is, the transitional period from classical Meroë to Christianity in Nubia. Other examples of the X-Group are found at Qustul, or at Tangasi in Upper Nubia. The X-Group arose in the wake of the collapse of Meroë. Perhaps they were northward bound refugees from the defeat of Meroë under the Christian Axumite king Ezana. Such individuals sought to reoccupy Upper and Lower Nubia and thereby constitute what we now term as the X-Group. Some debate exists about the relationship between the XGroup, who were usually considered to be Noba/Nobatae (or Nubians), versus the Medjay, who were either incorporated or subjugated by the X-Group. King Karamadoye, a late X-Group king, was likely in such a relationship on the eve of the Nubian transition to Christianity. Living at the frontier between the Nubians (Nobatae) with Hellenized Roman Egypt they came under those influences, while retaining their own Nubian character. Toward the end of the Ballana horizon additional elements of Christianity began to percolate into their art and funerary goods. One interpretation is that the King Silko inscription relates to his assertion of political control over the Ballana people, or at least over whomever was controlling Lower Nubia. Therefore, he is credited with starting Nubian Christianity. Their lack of literacy has meant a notable limitations in determining Ballana chronology. Even though immense and rich tombs are known, it is not possible to determine which belong to those kings who have known names. This post-Meroitic group came to light especially from the fieldwork and excavation of L. P. Kirwan and W. B. Emery in 1938. Many of the sites they investigated are now lost to the flood of the High Dam at Aswan. However, a rich example of the material culture of the Ballana and Qustul sites is presented at the Egyptian National Museum in Cairo. Ballana grave tumuli are noted for their lovely crowns of silver with semi-precious stones often involving crescent or horn motifs, sometimes with the survival of the atef-form or Isis-form crowns from ancient Egypt or likewise from Meroë. Such

58

•

BANAGGA, WAD NAQA

crowns are similar to that worn by King Silko. Other objects from the transitional X-Group rulers include bronze cast oil lamps, Roman glass, horse burials, and the burials of wives and/or servants associated with that king. BANAGGA, WAD NAQA. See NAQA, BENAGGI, BEN NAQA, WADI BEN NAQA. BAQT. The baqt, or pact, was a long-lasting peace treaty between Muslim Egypt and Christian Nubia. Perhaps it is the most durable of all treaties in diplomatic history since it was started in the mid-seventh century CE by Muslim ‘Abdallah bin Sa’id Abu Sarh in 641–642 CE or was renewed in 652 CE perhaps after Nobatia was absorbed by Mukurra and by its Christian king Zacharias. It lasted in principle until 1292 CE during the late Crusades and Mameluke attacks on Mukurra. Any original copies are lost, and it is known from the Arabic works of Ibn Hawqal, Ibn Selim al-Maqrizi, AlMas’udi, and Qalqashandi. In these many centuries, many changes took place in Egypt and Nubia so the baqt changed its context and interpretation many times. It was a relationship between rivals sometimes focused on economic reciprocity and mutual respect of borders of Lower Nubia, and at other times, it was characterized by mutual resistance and standoff avoidance. It was sometimes a peace treaty of détente and nonaggression, or sulh, including mutual return of rebels. At other times, it was an expression of stalemate, truce, tribute, gifts, and trade. Sometimes it was fully in force and other times seriously in arrears. According to Derek Welsby (2002, 70–71), when it functioned “properly” it provided for the annual export of 360 or 365 Nubian slaves (servants, concubines, and soldiers) and probably other traditional Nubian exports, as well as the imports from Egypt of wheat, barley, horses, cloth, other foods, and perhaps jugs of wine. There were parallel baqts with the neighboring Beja. BASA. Basa is located along the Wadi Hawad in the “Island of Meroë” or the Butana grasslands about 30 kilometers southwest of the royal capital city. As with other Meroitic sites, Basa is known for lion temples, with brick surrounding walls, devoted to the war god Apedemek. One lion statue found at Basa has the cartouche of King Amanikhabale (50–40 BCE) that is contemporary with the reigns of Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV in Egypt, from which his architecture was probably influenced. The lions are similar to those at Philae temple. These lion sculptures are removed to the garden bridge at the Sudan National Museum. They are depicted as devouring a war captive as a symbolic warning to enemies of Meroë. At Basa, a marble sundial was discovered indicating local interest in measuring time as was the case since the geometric research of Eratosthenes.

BAYUDA

•

59

Another prominent feature of the Basa region is the presence of hafirs, low-lying earthen dams across a wadi designed to collect and save rain water for agriculture and animal husbandry in this arid region. Although most are only one or two meters high, they can stretch for up to 250 meters to allow the inhabitants sufficient water for the dry season. The presence of two large stone frog sculptures at the hafirs is evocative of critical water resources. These sculptures are removed to the garden at the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. Frogs are well known in Nubian folklore and are depicted on Meroitic pottery. Frogs are also the ancient symbol for fertility and abundance; indeed, the hieroglyphic number for 100,000 is represented by a frog glyph. The relatively remote location of Basa meant that it also functioned in some role as a forward defense of the eastern Butana to control trade and security routes to the east at Um Usuda and to the south, farther up the wadi, at Jebel Geili with its famed military inscription of King Shorkaror. It appears that Basa was most occupied at this classical time for the Meroitic Empire and not so much at earlier times when the threat from the Axumites was diminished. BATN AL-HAJAR. See BUTN AL-HAJR. BATTALION COMMANDER OF KUSH. See KUSH, QESH, KŠ. BARSHAMBU, ‘ABD ALLAH. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. BAYBARS, SULTAN. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. BAYUDA. The Bayuda is the rocky “white” desert plain within the large southward curving stretch of the Nubian Nile. The recent investigations by D. Q. Fuller and L. Smith have taken its human history back to the early Holocene or between the Mesolithic and Neolithic when food production technologies were improving. Expectedly they found some wavy-line pottery and some grinding stones for processing seeds, as well as vertebrate faunal remains, including snails. Their research was centered on Wadi Muqaddam where tracks across the Bayuda represented a shorter route between the Fourth and Sixth Cataracts to avoid the longer and more dangerous reach of the Nile between at the Fifth Cataract. The northern terminus of the Bayuda road led to Sanam on the left (east in this area) bank of the Nile across from Jebel Barkal. From Sanam, it is possible to cross the Nile and begin another desert shortcut to Kerma at the Third Cataract to avoid another long diver-

60

•

BEER AND WINE

sion of Nile boat travel. The southern terminus of the Bayuda road would bring travelers far up the Nile to either the mouth of the Atbara River or farther south to Meroë, which served as an entry point to the eastern Butana trade routes. Control of the Bayuda track was essentially for the political and military articulation of Napata with Meroë in ancient or medieval times. Probably it carried considerable animal-born freight and lighter items that did not require travel by boats. Much of Nubian trade to Egypt in all periods was of light luxury items such as ostrich eggs, animal skins, and incense or highvalue gold and heavy ivory. Recent excavation in the Bayuda suggests some number of way stations and wells to service the trans-Bayuda caravans. BEER AND WINE. Beer, a common alcoholic beverage, formed an important part of the diet in the ancient and medieval Nile valley. Beer was a secondary product from the staple crop of barley that was prepared in the household as well as by specialized brewers. Probably beer was first made by mashing partially baked loaves of barley bread with screened water, or by directly fermenting grains, which for Nubia was mostly millet. The resulting brew was often flavored with dates, honey, and spices and then left to ferment. Not necessarily high in alcoholic content, beer made in this fashion was a nutritional dietary supplement. Nubian beers (modern merissa, “sour water”) are made with fermented millet. Since the Old Kingdom, both red and white wines had been imported to Nubia from Egypt. In the New Kingdom, and during the Napatan period, attempts were made to cultivate vines in Nubia without success. Given the insufficient local production and the cost of transport, wine was mainly a beverage for the elite. However, the drink gained in popularity with the spread of the popular “cult of the grape” during Greco-Roman times. In the late Meroitic period, dozens of winepress installations appeared at various settlements. A well-known winepress was found at Meinarti in Lower Nubia. An indoor installation, the press consists of a series of three basins arranged in descending series in a long narrow room. Grapes were trodden in the uppermost basin and the extracted juice flowed down a gutter into the lower basins, where fermentation took place and from which skins and amphora were filled for storage and transport. More modest winepresses were located in the open outdoors, presumably close to the vineyards. However, these presses were used for a remarkably short period of time. The hot, dry climate of Sudan was simply not well suited for viticulture. Before the end of the Meroitic period, the winepresses had been abandoned and filled with refuse but were apparently reused in Christian times that had liturgical use of wine and no prohibitions about alcohol as in Islamic times.

BELZONI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1778–1823)

•

61

BEJA. The Beja and related groups are members of the northern branch of Cushitic languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic family of languages. Although generally egalitarian, the pastoral Beja have extended family or lineage heads and occasionally have moved into a political organization of regional chieftaincies or small kingdoms. In very ancient times, the Beja might have roots in the Arabian Peninsula, but for as much as 4,000 years, the Beja and their ancestors have occupied the region between the Red Sea and the Nile. The ancient Blemmyes or Medjay are considered to be the ancestral group of the Beja. Relations among dynastic Egyptians, Kushites, and Nubians show repeated reference to trading, raiding, or guarding the Blemmyes. This dynamic was also well established in Christian times, when Beja would trade with, or raid against, settled riverine Christians. After the seventh century CE, the Medjay gradually converted to Islam and Arab social customs, and the various Beja subgroups began to emerge. In Sudan, these groups include the Ababda (on the coast), Amarar, Bisharin (along the Nile near Atbara), Beni Amer (next to Eritrea), and Hadendowa. Echoing the ancient complexities of Beja-Nubian relations during the 19th-century Mahdist movement (led by a Danagla Nubian), some Beja were militarily active in support of the Mahdist Ansar, especially around Suakin, under the leadership of ‘Uthman Digna. Meanwhile other sections followed the Khatmiya leadership in Kassala and were opposed to the Mahdi. BEJRAWIY. See MEROЁ (ca. 270 BCE–ca. 340 CE). BELZONI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1778–1823). Born in Padua, Italy, Belzoni was a neophyte priest, hydraulic specialist, adventurer. Standing at 200 centimeters (6 feet 7 inches) tall, he put his gigantic stature to use as a circus performer in magic and weight lifting. He had a great interest in exploring regions still poorly known in the 18th and early 19th centuries. After extensive travels in Europe, he finally found his way to Egypt to experiment with some irrigation designs. He had already been intrigued by Egyptian antiquities, and his knowledge of rigging and lifting devices came into use to remove some of Egypt’s great antiquities such as the huge statue of Ramses II, now at the British Museum (no. 19). He also explored the Valley of the Kings and Karnak where he liberally removed ancient objects that found their way back to European museums. As this was long before the dams at Aswan, he sailed farther upstream on the Nubian Nile to try to penetrate the colossal temple at Abu Simbel. Belzoni failed on the first instance given the tremendous amount of drifted sand that had obscured the central opening but succeeded in his second trip in 1817. This made him the first in the early modern era to see inside this

62

•

BEN NAQA

majestic Egyptian monument in Nubia. He was also among the first Europeans in the pre-decipherment era to reach and record elements of the Isis temple at Philae as well as the temples in Upper Egypt at Esna, Edfu, and Kom Ombo. He traveled to the Red Sea coast to locate the Ptolemaic port of Berenice as well as into the Western Desert to the Fayum and Bahariya Oases. Very many of these ancient sites were transformed into Christian churches. Belzoni’s work is recorded in several publications, but of relevance to Nubia are his Narrative of the Operations and Recent Discoveries within the Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and Excavations in Egypt and Nubia and the 44 plates that illustrated these travels. His methods and ethics have come to be seriously questioned over time, but he certainly managed to stir up great interest in Egypt and Nubia. He died exploring coastal West Africa in 1823. BEN NAQA. See NAQA, BENAGGI, BEN NAQA, WADI BEN NAQA. BENI KANZ. At some point in the Early Middle Ages, the Beni Kanz migrated across the Red Sea from Arabia to Upper Egypt. They became greatly mixed with the Beja people in terms of kinship, economy, and local Upper Egyptian politics. Since they controlled the pilgrimage and commercial port of Adhab on the Red Sea, it was critical to the Egyptians that they were under their control. In order to ensure this loyalty, in the early 11th century CE the Fatimids began to award them the honorary title of “state treasurer,” or Kanz al-Dawla. Gradually it was assumed that a sheikh of the Beni Kanz would always hold this position hence their name. William Adams reported that their strategic position in the early 12th century CE was such that they were a threat to the weakening Fatimids who executed the leader of the Beni Kanz. In the following Ayyubid period in 1174, a similar incident took place. Retreating farther into Nubia as a result, the Beni Kanz kept their Islamic faith but also accepted the Nubian language as well as wives, house styles and material culture. This process led to the creation of the population known today as Kenzi and Kenuz Nubians who occupy Lower Nubia all the way to Aswan. Being both Nubian and Muslim, they played a complex role in the region, especially when Muslims sought to push farther into medieval Christian Nubia. Linked by Nubian culture and language, the Beni Kanz people sometimes married into the Christian Nubian communities in Nobatia and Mukurra. A particular title holder of the Kanz al-Dawla position in the 14th century CE thereby found himself again as an intermediary who was under suspicion by the Mameluke sultans of Egypt, while controlling Lower Nubia and seeking to wield power or influence in the declining and precarious decades of Nubian Christianity.

BERTI

•

63

The 13th-century power struggles in Dongola inevitably found the Beni Kanz propping up those they supported to further their own interests while conspiring against those other Christian kings they saw as a threat. The case of Dongola king David and his rival Shekanda is a perfect example of this dynamic situation. The complex insinuation of the Beni Kanz into Dongola politics was also apparent when the last Christian king, Kerenbes, capitulated to the first Muslim king of that town. However, the Beni Kanz opposed the Mameluke appointee, Barshambu. This was because King Kerenbes’s sister’s son was the current Kanz al-Dawla, and he would be entitled by kinship to inherit the title and thereby convert the Christian kingdom to Islam. Barshambu was promptly assassinated, and the independent-minded Kanz alDawla took the throne of Dongola. The Kanz al-Dawla was soon recognized as the king of the isolated and threatened Christian kingdom of Dotawo that tried to survive in this tumultuous time and region. Kerenbes, still a captive in Cairo, was then mobilized by the Mamelukes to overthrow his nephew the Kanz al-Dawla; Kerenbes succeeded only briefly before the Kanz al-Dawla struck back and deposed Kerenbes once again. Dismayed by this bloody infighting, the Mamelukes at last determined they could leave the Kanz al-Dawla in power in Dongola. By 1323 CE, the Christian kings of Dongola were never to rule Nubia again, although believers certainly carried on at Dotawo and the Christian kingdom of Alwa persisted until 1504. Following the now-old regional pattern, turmoil swept into Aswan. As long as the powers in Cairo or Christian Nubia were weak the Beni Kanz could play a strong regional role. They must have added substantially to the 14th-century break in theological and political relations between the Nubian church and the Alexandrian patriarchate. Today the Kenzi people of Aswan and Lower Nubia are a constant reminder of this intriguing history, and while all are strongly Muslim, they also have a very deep devotion to Nubian language and culture as well as a strong affinity to, and interest in, Sudanese Nubia. Further proof of the enduring linkages between the Beni Kanz of Aswan to Dongola is the linguistic evidence that the Nubian dialects at the extreme north and south of Nubia are more similar than either are to the Sukkot and Mahas varieties in between. BERTI. The Berti, Bideyat, and Zaghawa are Sudanic remnants of the ancient Garamantes (Berbers) of the central Sahara and especially of the modern Sudano-Chadian borderlands. They were at the local terminus of the long north-south Selima trade route that went on to the Selima Oasis in Sudan and to the Kharga Oasis in Egypt. The route had significance for economic security but could also be a route that represented a military security threat. These three groups have affinity to the Kanuric linguistic family based in

64

•

BES, BESET

northeastern Nigeria. At the time of Darfur state formation, these groups were usually to the north of the Daju, Tungur, and Keira who founded these famous Darfur dynasties. BES, BESET. Bes and his female counterpart, Beset, were Nubian dwarf deities that traveled into Egyptian cosmology as early as Dynasty XII in the Middle Kingdom when relations with Nubians and the Hyksos were strong. This deformed dwarf offered protection against various dangers, including snakes and other animals. According to a discovery by Derek Welsby, Bes had a female version that was also focused on protection, especially for pregnancy, like Tauret. Bes was especially beneficial at childbirth for all people when he frightened or diverted evil spirits that could put infants at risk. Bes was used by royalty to protect the royal birth of Queen Hatshepsut. Bes also brought happiness and laughter with his dances and tambourine and harp playing as seen in the “music kiosk” at Philae temple. Bes was usually shown in full face, unlike many other deities that were commonly shown in profile. He may have some relationship to a lion god as part of his icon is a lion-like mane, but perhaps this was just designed to make him look more humorous or frightening. Certainly Apedemek is a lion god of Nubian origin, and even Sekhmet is considered to have Nubian roots. Aminata Sackho-Autissier, working at Kurru, found some Bes amulets dating to the Napatan period; in a funerary context such objects were protective, and she considers Bes to have been a syncretic deity, especially in Meroitic times. B-GROUP, B-HORIZON. The concept of the B-Group was a chronological filler designed by George Reisner to put some archaeological order to the non-literate populations between the A-Group and C-Group. The concept is now abandoned. However, one may say that this could correlate to the Nubian culture that emerged after Egyptians invaded Lower Nubia around 2600 BCE. Reisner considered this a decadent order with some new elements not found in the previous A-Group nor in the following C-Group. If this term has any utility it would come to an end in the First Intermediate Period at about 2160 BCE. BIGA, SENMET. Biga Island is just south of Philae and was considered to be the “source” of the Nile and was thus an important sacred site. Its symbolic importance was enhanced by the belief that its sacred place (the Abaton) was where a portion of the body of Osiris was buried. New Kingdom graffiti by Khaemwese (son of Ramses II) on the southwest corner of Biga attest to this tradition. A cartouche of pharaoh Apries of Dynasty XXVI may also be seen on Biga as well as some mud-brick ruins of a Christian monastery on the island in the First Cataract.

BLEMMYES, BLEMYES, PELAMOS

•

65

BION. The Greek traveler, Bion, was one of several foreigners, such as Dalion, Simonides the Younger, and Nicolaus of Syria, who were known to have traveled to Meroë during Ptolemaic times, when relations with the northern neighbors were much better than in Roman times. Clearly, there were many other contemporary relations as one may see with the cases of Aesop, Herodotus, and Eratosthenes. There is fragmentary but independent evidence of the lifeways, circumstances, rituals, technology, and ethnography of this empire at its height. From Bion, we know of the interpretation and application of the Meroitic word and title of ‘candace (kdi-qo) as a “royal mother” or queen. BISHARIN, BISHARHEEN. According to tradition, this nomadic people are descended from the Blemmyes or the ancient Medjay. Occupying the border lands between Egypt and Nubia and serving more as pastoralists rather than settled agriculturists, the Bisharin variously played either a threatening, supportive, or marginal role to regional politics in the Red Sea Hills area as the larger Christian or Muslim powers of Egypt and Nubia contested for their influence or sought to subdue them. Although of ancient origins, they expanded into their present area on the western slopes of the Red Sea Hills in the 15th century and moved into the Atbara River area under a great chief, Hamad Imran, around 1760. There are two major sections, the Umm ‘Ali and the Umm Naji. They were not very active in the Mahdiyia or 20th-century national developments. BLEMMYES, BLEMYES, PELAMOS. The Blemmyes are a very early, mostly pastoral group mainly on the east bank of the Nile of Lower Nubia during the Middle and New Kingdoms through the period of the kingdom of Kush and into Greco-Roman times. Their ancient equivalent was the Matoi or Medjay people famed for their military prowess and albeit shifting allegiances. It appears that they were the same people known archaeologically as the Pan-Grave. This enigmatic group of nomads is usually identified as the ancestors of the modern Beja and Bisharin peoples. It is also believed that the X-Group may represent the archaeological remains of the Blemmyes if not the Noba. Aside from these possibilities, the only undisputed evidence of Blemmyes activity comes from classical texts written in the third and fourth centuries CE. The Blemmyes presence in the Nile valley undoubtedly precedes the first record of their activity, but, other than the possible equivalence with the Egyptian Medjay, evidence of such is lacking. It is known from historical documents that near the height of the Meroitic period (first century BCE–second century CE), the Blemmyes were attracted by the kingdom’s growing wealth and prosperity, and they became increasingly active and

66

•

BLEMMYES, BLEMYES, PELAMOS

hostile rivals to Meroë. From the second century onward, the Blemmyes conducted several raids on the settlements in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia, particularly in the area of Aswan and Philae that might have fallen out of strong Meroitic control by that time. Records indicate that they also participated in two failed Egyptian rebellions against Roman authority. Roman and Meroitic forces briefly combined to defend the gold mines in the Eastern Desert of the Dodekaschoenos from more attacks from the Blemmyes. By the third century CE, the Blemmyes increasingly threatened regional trade caravans and river settlements. Their capacity for disrupting everyday life and commerce was enlarged with the introduction of the camel. Their newfound mobility and growing military power made them particularly adept at menacing the long, exposed trade route between Meroë and Roman Egypt as never before. Blemmyes incursions so seriously disrupted trade that scholars have often cited their interference as a main factor in the decline of the Meroitic Kingdom. Indeed, their constant depredations in the Dodekaschoenos resulted in Roman abandonment of this province under Diocletian in the late third century CE. With the withdrawal of the Roman frontier, the Blemmyes were left in complete possession of this area that they quickly settled. Loss of the Dodekaschoenos to the hostile Blemmyes also severed the Meroë from Roman Egypt and increased the disintegration of its former trade network along the Nile. After the collapse of Meroë in the early fourth century CE, the Blemmyes gained complete control over the east bank of the Nile south of the Dodekaschoenos. Ballana settlements in this area were located on the west bank, perhaps to afford some protection from the encroaching Blemmyes. Also, gold is noticeably absent from Ballana burials of this period, suggesting that the gold available in the nearby Eastern Desert had been inaccessible. All evidence indicates that hostility between the two coexisting peoples continued intermittently through the fourth and fifth centuries CE. By expanding their area, the Blemmyes came into conflict with the Romans in Egypt. The Romans attempted to create a buffer state in Nobatia, but the Nobatae later fought beside the Blemmyes against the Romans. Apparently in 453 CE, the Roman general Maximinus carried out an attack against Blemmyes and Nobatae peoples in order to release some Roman soldiers they had captured. At this time, the Blemmyes and Nobatae were still engaged in Isis worship at Philae temple. By 515 CE, there is an instance of Roman payments to the same people to ensure peace in the region. The Blemmyes did not convert readily to Christianity and in wars with the Kingdom of Dongola in the sixth century CE. King Silko soundly defeated and subjugated the Blemmyes according to his inscription from Kalabsha. Those Blemmyes who surrendered were incorporated into his kingdom while those who resisted were driven out of the area for good. The Silko inscription is usually taken as the marker of the first official presence of Christianity in a

BOATS

•

67

Nubian state. The earlier and immediately adjacent Meroitic proclamation of the Noba (?) king Kharamadoye also at Kalabsha may record another supposedly decisive defeat of the Blemmyes prior to Silko. When his inscription is fully understood, the historical periodization of Lower Nubia and important personages will be better known as he declared his control of the Blemmyes’ former region. As an etymological note, most Meroiticists translate pelemos as “strategos” (local military commander) following the tradition of F. L. Griffith. The obvious linguistic parallel to Blemmyes suggests that these pelemos/ strategos may have played that administrative role, but, in fact, they were actually Blemmyes. In looking over the geographical sources where the word pelemos is inscribed, it is only in areas where Blemmyes were known to be found and active. BOATS. The history of boats along the Nubian Nile is very ancient and may commence with simple flotation devices such as logs but evolved in predynastic times to bundles of papyrus reeds. Such floats still persist in the Upper Nile and in Ethiopia where they are known as ambatch. Boats of Naqada times showed sickle-shaped hulls that appear to be much larger than the small ambatch type. It seems that they still lacked keels and ribs but were likely made of hard acacia and sycamore. The rough planks were then lashed together with complex ropes and knots and with carefully made mortise and tenon joints. The hulls were then caulked to become watertight. The early Nubian or Egyptian varieties were virtually identical and showed the tall curving prow and stern that was long a style type for Nile River vessels. Images of these vessels commonly appear as petroglyphs, on painted pottery, on a stone-inscribed censer from Qustul, and as wooden or clay models. These vessels were punted, paddled, and sometimes rigged with small, square, or sometimes triangular sails. Small cabins are sometimes depicted. The boats were without a keel or deep draft on account of the generally shallow river depth. While some boats were very small and utilitarian, others were much larger and were used for moving bulk cargoes. Still others were emblematic of pharaonic rule, especially if equipped with a cabin and throne. The use of boats and boat metaphors in funerary ritual are also of great antiquity. Boats could be used to actually transport the deceased across the river, but this became a metaphorical trip from the world of the living to the world of the dead. This symbolism continued in funerary rites in which the mummified deceased would be pulled on a boat-shaped sledge into their pyramid or rock-cut tomb. One of the very earliest depictions of hostile relations between Egypt and Nubia is drawn from the inscription of King Djer in about 2900 BCE. In this case, high-prowed, curved riverboats are shown attacking Lower Nubia and bringing back a captured chief hanging from the bow of Djer’s boat as he

68

•

BOATS

sailed victoriously back to Thebes. By the Old Kingdom, more complex rowed and sailed boats appeared with planked hulls cleverly tied together. The sails were mostly, if not entirely, square-rigged with a single mast. Multi-element booms and spars kept the sails taut. The sails were made from cloth or papyrus. The bigger vessels had trusses for hull stability, stays to strengthen the mast, and several lines to control the booms and yardarms. Large vessels had “hogging-trusses” to prevent midship sagging, and some had stepped masts to be raised or lowered; others had special supports for the mast. Later lateen-rigged masts and sails were used. The image of a boat with a sail in use was a determinative of the direction south since sails were needed to move against the Nile. Boats with sails furled indicate the direction north (with the current). In reaching Mesopotamia where the Tigris and Euphrates flow to the south, the Egyptians were frustrated with how to reckon with this by saying that this was a “land where the water flowed in the wrong way.” Boats were used for military transport and for carrying heavy construction stones, especially alabaster and granite, as well as fine-grained stones for royal sculpture. During the famed trip by Harkuf, he traveled to Nubia by donkey train, but apparently, in at least one instance, he returned by boat. Papyrus floats still persisted for small-scale purposes, such as hunting and fishing. At the same time, the Egyptians also built boats large enough for Mediterranean Sea trade, and they regularly traveled to Canaan and Phoenicia for cedar wood, purple dye, and other commodities valued in Egypt. Egyptian forts in Nubia built in the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom made heavy use of river resupply. Vessels of 30 meters were not uncommon for major transport projects. Some were even far larger to judge from the socalled “solar boat” associated with the pharaoh Chephren at his Giza pyramid. In some cases, the channels through the First and Second Cataracts were deepened and improved to allow faster movement of these boats. At the Mirgissa fortress, remains of a mud-lubricated slipway were found to assist in moving vessels around the rapids. At the start of the New Kingdom, military boats with archers and rowers played an important role in transporting Egyptian troops to fight the Hyksos in the delta. By this time, Egyptian boats were truly elegant with classic lines and excellent dovetailed joinery. High steering oars in the spoon-shaped craft along with upturned bowsprits gave these vessels a real dignity. Some could reach lengths of 30 meters and would carry 30 rowers. Also in the New Kingdom, Egyptian exploitation of Nubia required substantial use of river vessels to move troops and livestock, resupply fortresses, acquire stone and minerals, and maintain bulk commerce and communication. Among the most famed of these voyages was that undertaken by Queen Hatshepsut in her Red Sea trading expedition to Punt during Dynasty XVIII. In Dynasty XX, another depiction of large river boats appears at the

BODY DECORATION: CICATRICES, TATTOOS

•

69

Medinat Habu temple for Ramses III that shows him engaged in intense combat with the Sea People. Rowers on these naval vessels were protected from enemy arrows by raised gunwale planks. BODY DECORATION: CICATRICES, TATTOOS. The cicatrix, sometimes called scarification, is a permanent form of body art in which the skin is scarred to produce aesthetic patterns. Cicatrices are created by simply cutting the skin with a knife or through the application of cautery. Cuts may then be medicated with charcoal in order to promote a delayed healing resulting in keloid scarring, an excessive growth of scar tissue that causes a raised pattern on the skin. The earliest archaeological evidence of the cicatrix in Sudan is found in the C-Group (2400–1550 BCE) of Lower Nubia. Patterned markings on small, pottery female figurines have been interpreted as representing the actual decoration of women’s bodies with tattoos and scars. Fourteenth-century-BCE reliefs from the Middle Kingdom tomb of Horemhab at Saqqara carefully indicate facial scars on certain individuals. Most have four or five lines inscribed across the forehead. Identical marks also appear on a dancer represented in the Opet festival reliefs of the Luxor temple as well as among the wrestlers represented in reliefs at Medinet Habu. A second type of facial cicatrix is recorded at Luxor temple. Cheek scars—three deep vertical furrows on each side of the face—are indicated on some of the Nubian captives carved on the base of colossi of Ramses II. Curiously, during the Napatan period there is no evidence of cicatrices among the Nubian rulers of the Dynasty XXV. However, the practice returns in the Meroitic period toward the end of the first century BCE. In Meroitic art, royalty are occasionally depicted in relief sporting cicatrices. Other representations of the practice are found on small clay heads, and a number of ba-statues depict individuals with three vertical lines on the cheeks and horizontal lines on the forehead. Similar scars can also be seen on the painted faces used to adorn pottery. From the Karanog cemetery, three ceramic vessels were found painted with stylized faces, each shown with a crescent pattern, presumably a representation of a cicatrix, on the forehead. Occasionally the same type of scar is referenced in Roman caricatures of Nubians. Juneval (Satyricon) lists “forehead scars” as an essential feature of an Ethiopian disguise. Some people of Nubia and Sudan continue the custom of cicatrix today, adorning their faces with a series of distinctive marks. Many modern-day Sudanese wear cicatrix identical to those representations discussed above. Today the arrangement of scars varies from one group to another, referring to tribal, ethnic, and other affiliations. Cicatrix may also indicate social status or signify rites of passage. Through ethnographic analogy, archaeologists interpret cicatrix to have held a similar meaning for Sudanese peoples in the past as in the present.

70

•

BOWS AND ARROWS

Tattooing is a permanent form of body art in which deep layers of the skin are painted or tinted to produce aesthetic patterns. Tattooing is done by piercing or cutting the skin with a needle, thorn (acacia), sharp bone, or other such instrument, and then a colorant for pigmentation is introduced into the wound. The tattoo may then be medicated with charcoal in order to promote a delayed healing resulting in keloid scarring, an excessive growth of scar tissue which causes a raised pattern on the skin. From the earliest evidence, the custom of tattooing seems to have been reserved only for women. The oldest archaeological evidence comes from the Egyptian Predynastic Period (ca. 5000–2950 BCE). Patterns of tattoos on female figurines, the preservation of geometric designs on some mummies, and depiction of patterns on some women in tomb-paintings all attest to the practice. Evidence of tattooing in Egypt after this period is rather sparse. In fact, the practice seems to have been spurned by the Egyptians in general. However, in the Middle Kingdom (1970–1640 BCE) the practice resurfaces as a Nubian custom. The earliest evidence of tattooing in Sudan, roughly contemporary with the Middle Kingdom, is found in the C-Group (2400–1550 BCE) of Lower Nubia. Patterned markings on small, pottery female figurines have been interpreted as representing the actual decoration of women’s bodies with tattoos and scars. In Egypt, the bodies of three female mummies from this period, believed to be Nubians living in Egypt, were tattooed with geometric patterns of dots and dashes. This same pattern is also tattooed on a female mummy found in the C-Group cemetery at Kubban. Indeed, some scholars maintain that the reintroduction of the custom into Egypt in the Middle Kingdom is due to influences from Nubia. By the New Kingdom (ca. 1539–1075 BCE), tattooing became firmly established as a form of Egyptian art. Still reserved exclusively for women, the patterns of dots and dashes yields to the representation of popular figures. The most common represents the god Bes, which often adorns the thighs of female figures in Egyptian art. An ostracon from the New Kingdom depicts a female dancer whose thigh is tattooed with the same design. During the period of Meroë, female mummies discovered at Aksha are also tattooed. However, these mummies are decorated with geometric designs similar to those popular among C-Group women. Tattoos, like cicatrix, may also serve to indicate social status or signify rites of passage. Some have speculated that prostitutes were tattooed, but it may simply be that the source of forced concubines was in Nubia where the practice existed quite independently. Unfortunately, little ethnographic work has been undertaken on this specific subject. BOWS AND ARROWS. The origin of the bow and arrow in Nubia is extremely ancient coming at least in the Mesolithic, if not as early as the Late Paleolithic period when microliths are found that were probably used as

BOWS AND ARROWS

•

71

projectile points. Indeed, the common name for Nubia in the ancient Egyptian language was Ta-Setiu or “bow people.” It is not clear what Nubians called themselves. Certainly bows (pet-t, in Egyptian) and arrows (aha, in Egyptian) are found for all ancient Nubian horizons, including A-Group, CGroup, Kerma, Medjay, Napatan, Meroitic, X-Group, Christian, and Islamic times. Until Kerma times, the bow was a simple “stave bow” with stone or bronze projectile points. During the Middle Kingdom, the role of Nubian bowmen was critical for the development of the Egyptian state. In fact, its founder, Mentuhotep II, was of possible Nubian origin, so it is not surprising that the tomb models of Nubian archer-soldiers were so popular at this time. The Egyptian fortifications in Nubia at this time were carefully designed to accommodate archers safely behind narrow archer loopholes in the massive mud-brick walls that could give them a clear shot at the control defensive doorway of the fort. Bronze arrowheads were established during the Middle Kingdom and in contemporary Kerma. The first major change in bow technology seems to have arrived in Kerma in conjunction with the innovations in military technology brought by the Hyksos (i.e., a more powerful composite bow as well as horse-drawn military chariots that carried a driver and an archer). The New Kingdom armies used a heavy military composite bow that was made by gluing or binding wood, horn, and bone together. It was slightly, or substantially, recurved for added power. Theban temple images show generous quivers mounted on war chariots and illustrations of leather body armor against incoming arrows. The bow tips were sometimes ornately carved in the form of the enemies of Egypt (i.e., Nubians, Libyans, and Asiatics). The Assyrians continued this weapon even until their wars with the Nubian pharaohs of Dynasty XXV in the seventh century BCE. Iron arrowheads came into widespread use in Meroitic, contemporary Greco-Roman times and thereafter. Often these arrows were barbed. At least by post-Meroitic Ballana or X-Group times there were leather archer bracers to protect the bow-holding wrist from rubbing from the bowstring recoil. Though not found in archaeological sites it can be assumed that some form of wrist protection was used before this time since it is extremely painful when a bowstring repeatedly snaps across the forearm. Nubians also used stone archer thumb rings to protect the thumb from being cut by rapid and recurrent use. Militarily, bows and arrows were used by guards, snipers, and chariot-mounted archers, or in prolonged sieges of walled towns. In such cases, ranks of archers could shoot repeatedly as a group while defenders hid or used shields of reed or animal hides. Naturally, the bow is also one of the oldest weapons for hunting around the world with numerous independent innovations.

72

•

BREITH

BREITH. Breith is believed to be the brother of the Nubian god Mandulis, well known from the Kalabsha temple. Since Mandulis was a solar god, this suggests that Breith was his lunar counterpart. Fraternal deities such as Breith and Mandulis can be compared with the other fraternal Meroitic deities of Sebiumeker and Arensnuphis. These four Nubian gods are not known in ancient Egyptian theology, but the Egyptian fraternal deities of Osiris and Seth were certainly known in Nubia, thus making at least three sets of brotherly deities in Nubia. Thanks to Eugrnio Fantusati, four “sisterly” goddesses (perhaps as aspects of Isis) are also known from the Meroitic temple at Abu Erteila, including Tuayet (north), Khyet (east), Ahayet (south), and Fayet (west) as found on three bark stands at this temple. Nubian depictions of all are concentrated in Greco-Roman and Meroitic times. In Christian times, Osiris is reborn as Jesus, and Seth is reconfigured as the devil or force of evil. St. George is eternally struggling against the devil. Breith and Mandulis—or Sebiumeker and Arensnuphis or Seth and Osiris—are reconfigured as the fraternal pairs that may be considered as ancestral to Cain and Abel in Christian theology. BRONZE TECHNOLOGY. Bronze is an alloy of tin and copper. The addition of about 5–15 percent of tin to copper causes this alloy to have desirable qualities, including increased hardness over copper, making a lower melting point for the copper by over 100 degrees at 15 percent tin, and causing it to have better properties of liquidity that are useful for casting. Bronze could be produced by hammering, which made it substantially harder, or by casting in the lost wax process. According to A. Lucas and J. R. Harris, almost certainly bronze emerged from very early west Asian origins and gradually replaced copper. The earliest bronze is known to date back to perhaps as early as 3500 BCE, and it slowly entered Egypt and the Nile valley. By Dynasty V in the Old Kingdom, bronze was present in Egypt, but its use became much more widespread in the Middle Kingdom. Then it was used for simple implements like axes, adzes, chisels, and knives. It was also used in bar form that may have had value in commercial exchange. In the New Kingdom, bronze metallurgists became very skillful. The inventory of Middle Kingdom items was expanded to include razors, mirrors, bowls, swords, vases, bracelets, hooks, nails, rings, arrowheads, cups, flutes, dishes, medical tools, and mummy eye settings. The introduction of bronze into Nubia came from Egypt, and especially during the Middle Kingdom there was regular contact with Kerma, which resulted in not only bronze imports from Egypt but also increased local production at Kerma. The bronze knives and swords in Kerma military and royal tombs are a prime example, along with military fly medals, razors, and beautifully crafted bed fixtures.

BUDGE, ERNEST ALFRED THOMSON WALLIS (1857–1934)

•

73

In Meroitic and Ballana times, the use of bronze was almost as widespread as it was for their Greco-Roman contemporaries. All of the inventory from the New Kingdom persisted with a prominence for chisels, adzes, spearpoints, and knives; still more items were added, including elegant bronze lamps and lampstands, door hinges, scissors, shears, kohl sticks, and spoons, as well as lovely decorated ware such as spouted pitchers, vases, and bowls that were sometimes inscribed with geometric patterns, Meroitic writing, and other symbols. At last bronze began to give way to iron technology a bit in the New Kingdom and in the Late Period but especially during the Greco-Roman and Meroitic times when the still harder iron became the metal of choice. Iron was much valued for farming adzes and barbed arrowpoints. BRUCE, JAMES (1730–1794). Bruce was born in Kinnaird, Scotland, and headed toward a life in the Portuguese wine business, but, as an early widower, he was drawn to the Middle East and especially to Egypt in 1768. He explored some of the extant tombs in the Valley of the Kings and visible sites in Luxor and Karnak temples. Intrigued by the information that Christian Ethiopia was the headwaters of the Atbara and Blue Nile, he passed on into Nubia from Aswan and finally reached Axum where, some claim, he hoped to find the lost Ark of the Covenant. His precise mission remains in dispute, but he had a long stay in Ethiopia (Abyssinia) and did not return to Aswan until 1772. The account of his Travels was published in 1790 to considerable acclaim. Apparently, John Lewis Burckhardt was familiar with, and stimulated by, Bruce’s travels. BUDGE, ERNEST ALFRED THOMSON WALLIS (1857–1934). This widely controversial, prolifically published, and massively reprinted Egyptologist is probably as much disputed and praised now as he was in his own time. His scholarship has been criticized, and his means of acquiring antiquities would not be ethically accepted today. The dubious circumstances of his birth in Bodmin, England, on 27 July 1857, always made him something of an outsider. His early and profound fascination with ancient Egypt drew him to the British Museum and to distinguished scholarship at Cambridge University from 1879 to 1885 when he completed his master’s degree. Noting that 1885 was the heyday of the British imperial scramble for Africa helps give the context for his approach to acquiring Egyptian antiquities. He held the position of keeper of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum from 1892 to 1924. Some of the criticism directed to Budge might also be directed to his official employer and his illustrious friend, Gaston Maspero, who were endlessly searching for additions to their massive and distinguished collections.

74

•

BUGDUMBASH

Relative to ancient Nubia, Budge was involved with excavations or collections at Aswan, Gebel Barkal, Semna, and Meroë. His studies and travels in Nubia, Egypt, and Mesopotamia resulted in well over 140 books and other publications. Of special relevance to Nubian studies are his Account of Excavations at Aswan (1888); the still handy guide titled The Mummy (1894) in multiple editions and reprints; and On the Orientation of the Pyramids in the Sudan (1899). His major reference work was his eight-volume A History of Egypt from the End of the Predynastic Period to the Death of Cleopatra VII (1902). His book, The Nile: Notes for Travelers in Egypt (1905) has excellent maps on the Nile, including very detailed references to the antiquities and sites of all of Sudanese Nubia. Budge also wrote a two-volume work titled The Egyptian Sudan (1907). These works are still worth consulting if placed in their historical context and read with a cautious eye for some of the details. Considering the explosive advance and interest in Egyptology, this field has necessarily compelled revision of some of the chronologies, data, and interpretations first presented by Budge a century ago. BUGDUMBASH. Bugdumbash is an ancient settlement and cemetery site located on the right bank of the Letti Basin of the Nubian Nile, downstream of where Wadi Howar enters from the west. Bugdumbash is not far downstream from Old Dongola and about 70 kilometers from the modern town of Ed-Debba near the mouth of Wadi Milk. So positioned, it could control the access to these desert wadis, while having adequate basin farmlands and controlling the traffic on the Nile at this point where the S-shaped turn of the Nile reaches its southern bend. David O’Connor believes that this may have been another settlement area of significance during the time of Kerma. Conceivably this was the site of chieftainship that was subordinated to contemporary Kerma thus implying a greater territorial scope for Kerma itself. If Bugdumbash had this level of importance, then it would be based on a heavier use of the Nile than at later times when the stretch between Kerma and Jebel Barkal was probably crossed more often by the land route known as the Maheila Road. O’Connor also believes that Bugdumbash may have been a district for New Kingdom colonial rule of that region. Future archaeological investigation may shed more light on this site and the political position it occupied. BUHEN, BOHEN, BOUN (GREEK). Buhen is at the strategic site of an Old Kingdom town and a major Middle Kingdom border fortification opposite the modern Sudanese town of Wadi Halfa. It is located just downstream of the Second Cataract and was favored to control troop movements, trade, and cultural interaction with Nubia. The massive rectangular layout was 170

BUHEN, BOHEN, BOUN (GREEK)

•

75

by 160 meters. Mud-brick walls 10 meters high and almost 5 meters thick guard the fortress. The stout fortification also included a dry trench (6.5 meters deep and 8.4 meters wide). The defensive structure also had three strongly buttressed entrances toward the river and the associated dockyard, one entrance toward the west, and towers, bastions, and ramparts with archer loopholes. The structure remained in situ until the flood of Lake Nasser. Inscriptional evidence of the fortified structure dates to Senusoret I in Dynasty XII as a rear area for his attacks as far as Argo Island. Buhen was also noted in late Middle Kingdom papyrus found at the Ramesseum in Luxor. This papyrus lists 17 forts in Nubia between Semna upstream of the Second Cataract and Shellal at Aswan. Buhen was clearly among the most formidable. When the Middle Kingdom disintegrated into warring factions between Thebes and the delta, the Asian “Shepherd Kings” or Hyskos saw their opportunity for intervention. The chain of border forts fell into disuse when the Egyptians were isolated in Thebes. Then Nubians from Kerma, seeking to expand their regional control of Lower Nubia, sacked some of these imposing forts. It appears that the Hyksos were content with this relationship that would further weaken their rivals in Thebes. However, when the New Kingdom began to rise with Kamose and Ahmose, the Hyksos remaining in Upper Egypt were only left with escape back into Nubia. When Dynasty XVIII was fully established, the valuable forts of Nubia were restored and reoccupied to serve the earlier purposes. Since the New Kingdom was a colonial regime rather than a hostile border state, the districts around Buhen (Ibshek, Teh-Khet, and Iken) were deep in Egyptian territory and were very secure for religious constructions of Amenhotep II who built northern temples for Isis and Min. Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III built a southern temple for Horus. The massive fortifications of Buhen were not unusual for Middle Kingdom defensive works and they were quite well preserved until the flood of the high dam that has entirely flooded this site. Much of the foundation and lower courses of the south temple of Buhen were removed to the Sudan National Museum where they may be studied today. The Nubian sandstone Horus temple inside Buhen’s walls was dedicated to this falcon god regarded as “the Lord of Buhen” and was the most significant Nubian monument for Queen Hatshepsut of Dynasty XVIII. Some reliefs and colors are still intact and are preserved by a special metal shed that is drawn over the temple relocated in Khartoum. The inner temple should be attributed to Hatshepsut on a grid of six columns wide by eight columns long. The inner rooms include a transverse hall that opens to a sacred bark chamber and three storage rooms for temple tribute.

76

•

BURCKHARDT, JOHN LEWIS (1784–1817)

Not only is this a refined work for Hatshepsut, but also it reveals something of the rivalry she had with her brother and successor, Thutmose III, who systematically defaced her images and cartouches and made unique additions to the temple plan. A mud-brick wall surrounded the temple, which had an inner forecourt almost like a hypostyle hall that was clearly added by Thutmose III, who is depicted on doorjambs built on a different axis from the inner temple. This section shows his viceroy of Kush, Nehi; the king receiving life from the gods; and his military victories over Asians in his 23rd year. During Dynasty XIX in year 2 of Ramses II, specific endowments in slaves and food were allocated to Buhen. Cartouches of Dynasty XX pharaohs are also found at Buhen including Ramses III, IV, and V. During the time of Taharka other additions were made at Buhen’s northern Horus temple. Taharka is depicted on the doorways into the sacred bark chamber and on relief in the southern mud-brick enclosure wall. Settlements at Buhen are known in Ptolemaic and Meroitic times judging from ostraca, Meroitic inscriptions with numbers, and an inscribed column drum, and even during Christian Nubia. Once the ancient fortress was placed at risk from the High Dam, the south temple was removed to the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. BURCKHARDT, JOHN LEWIS (1784–1817). Burckhardt was born in Lausanne, Switzerland, and did formal studies in Germany and England. At Cambridge University he learned Arabic and developed a keen interest in the Middle East where he traveled under the Muslim name of Sheikh Ibrahim as was the popular practice among 19th-century European travelers in the region. He traveled very extensively in Egypt and Nubia from 1814 to 1817. He reported on Wadi es-Sebua and Derr temples and the socio-political differences between Kenzi, Sukkot and Mahas Nubians that he encountered. His pioneering work, Travels in Nubia, remains a foundation of modern Nubian historiography. His observations ranged from agriculture, dress and textiles, foods, and language to antiquities and local ethnography. He visited Abu Simbel in 1813, but it was mostly buried in sand except for the heads of Ramses. This was before Giovanni Battista Belzoni got there and no doubt their conversations stimulated the later work of Belzoni to dig through the massive amount of sand to become the first to see inside that rock-cut structure. Importantly, Burckhardt went much farther than most European travelers had to that time and he went at least as far as Shendi near ancient Meroë. He described the great diversity of local products in that regional market town ranging from livestock and slaves, spices, metal ware, and leather goods. At that point, the nominal Turco-Egyptian authority was meaningless, and the full Turkish military occupation of Nubia was not to take place until 1822–1823. Burckhardt died in Cairo.

BUTN AL-HAJR

•

77

BUTANA. This is the region of Sudan bounded by the Nile to the west, the Atbara River to the north and east, the Blue Nile to the south and Lake Tana to the east. The Butana has long been a rich savanna grasslands, which supported herds of wild animals including valuable leopards and elephants in the past but is today mainly used for varying modes of pastoralism of sheep, goats, cattle, and camels, watered by wells and hafirs. This is the heartland of the ancient Meroë and the site of monuments at Bejrawiya, Ben Naqa, and Musawwarat es-Sufra. During Greco-Roman times and long thereafter the Butana was termed the “Island of Meroë” and was depicted on maps in the tradition of Claudius Ptolemeus as actually being an island in the Nile, which is certainly not the case in actual fact. The Butana represents the continuation of an interior overland trade corridor crossing the Bayuda steppe to the west and north. Today, the Butana is an arid grassland, termed a steppe, dotted with acacia trees and traversed by several wadis, the most notable being Wadi Hawad. On average the region receives from 10 to 60 centimeters of rain annually, with higher rainfall occurring in the extreme south. It is generally agreed that the region was considerably less arid in the past. Geologically the Butana is composed of two major formations of Nubian sandstone and a “base complex” of granite—two types of stone that were regularly used in local architecture. In ancient times, the region provided no exceptional single resource such as gold. The Butana contains numerous sites dating from the Khartoum Neolithic, late Napatan, Meroitic, post-Meroitic, and Christian periods of Sudanese history. Napatan and Meroitic sites include Meroë, Musawwarat es-Sufra, and Naqa, among others. In the Christian period, the southwestern Butana is the site of the Kingdom of Alwa and its capital at Soba. During the Napatan and Meroitic periods, several trade routes passed through the Butana. Perhaps the most important was an easterly continuation of the Bayuda Road along Wadi Hawad, which crossed the Butana to the Ethiopian Highlands. William Y. Adams has suggested (1977:303) that this road may have been the main route traveled by the Axumite army in their proposed conquest of the Meroitic Kingdom in the fourth century CE. BUTN AL-HAJR. This Arabic term for “the belly of stones” is the general reference for the region between the Second and Third Cataracts in Lower Nubia. Its very rocky riverbed in low water made navigation difficult, and it became a key region for the defense of ancient Egypt against Nubian attacks. Consequently, in the Old and Middle Kingdom the Butn al-Hajr was the site of a number of forts or a series of early warning stations to block or restrict Nubian military movements and trade. In early Christian times, this region was under the authority of Nobatia until it was absorbed by Mukurra.

78

•

BYZANTIUM, BYZANTINE

BYZANTIUM, BYZANTINE. Medieval Christianity in Nubia was essentially an episodic extension of Roman Byzantine Christianity, which officially arrived later in Nubia than in Byzantium but lasted longer than the Eastern Roman Empire. The theological and political divisions among Roman, Egyptian, and Nubian Christianity complicate this relationship. The name Byzantium has deep historical roots back to the seventh century BCE from the Greek colonist named Byzas of what was to become Chalcedon, east of the Bosporus (“in the land of the blind”). The religious Council of Chalcedon would later have great significance in Christianity. At the time of “Byzantium,” it was not termed that at all, but more simply it was “New Rome.” This history could be said to have started in 284 CE when Emperor Diocletian (244–311 CE) took the reins of power of the Roman Empire which was still built around a plurality of “pagan” Roman deities that had largely evolved from Greek gods and goddesses. Diocletian planned to rule through a “tetrarchy” of four junior and senior “caesars” that would decentralize political control of the empire and prepare for more orderly transfer of power, which had certainly not been the prior case. Diocletian also ruled by scapegoating the problems of the empire by blaming the nascent Christian movement and thus “justifying” extensive pogroms against Christians and Jews during the infamous “Era of Persecution” (303–311 CE) especially in brutally crushing a revolt in Egypt that took the lives of untold thousands of believers. This “ended” in 311 CE with the Edict of Toleration of Galerius as reported by historian Eusebius. These circumstances set the stage for the rise of Emperor Constantine I (272–337 CE) and the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity during his reign of the Eastern Roman Empire from 306 to 337 CE. The contesting emperors of the eastern empire finally clashed in a military battle in Rome at the Milvian Bridge crossing the Tiber River in 312 CE. When victory against Maxentius fell to Constantine, this was credited to a vision “in this sign, you shall conquer”; the sign of Chi-Rho, X/P, was the proclamation that “Christ was the King.” For this reason, some say that official Christianity started on this date. However, the struggle for power of the emperors continued and another resolution, between rivals Licinius and Constantine appears in the Edict of Milan in 313 CE that was supposed to tolerate (but not accept) Christianity for the empire. But the execution of Licinius after the battle of Chrysopolis in 324 CE near Istanbul at Chalcedon made Constantine the absolute ruler, and some use this date to start Christianity. Then Constantine could move the capital from Rome to start the construction of the new capital at Constantinople in 330 CE with the seven years of his rule still remaining. This walled and gated “city of Constantine”

BYZANTIUM, BYZANTINE

•

79

was much larger than the original site of seventh-century Greece. At the time this was “New Rome”—that is, the Roman Empire without pagan deities but now devoted to Christianity. These bloody battles within the Roman leadership were followed by some effort at backsliding to paganism, but after 380 CE Theodosius I, declared that the official religion of the Roman Empire was Christianity. It never changed again, and the modern Vatican remains as its last official manifestation. The later Councils of Chalcedon and Nicaea meant that further disputes over the “correct” interpretation of the role and form of Jesus was to cause further theological and political disputes among Trinitarians, Dyophysites, Arians, and Monophysites that remain until today. With this tumultuous, divisive, and consequential history in mind, it is clear that this time was an important transitional period. Christians in Egypt, Nubia, and Ethiopia were extensions of the Byzantine Roman Empires, and all the debates and arguments in Constantinople reverberated in these other more distant regions. Art, architecture, and missionizing by Justinian I (ca. 482–565 CE) and his wife Theodora all had relationships with the Byzantine Empire. Constantine XI and Constantinople came to an end in 1453 when conquered by the Muslim Ottoman Turk Mehmet II, and the city was renamed Istanbul. Not surprisingly the term Byzantine can refer to this epoch described here, but it can also be used as an adjective to mean “excessively convoluted and complicated” or even “conspiratorial,” “devious,” or “surreptitious.” Likewise, the term medieval can refer to this historical time from the fifth to 15th centuries, but it can also be an adjective implying anything “outdated,” “obsolete,” “primitive,” or “archaic.”

C CAESAR, JULIUS (100–44 BCE). Julius Caesar was born in Rome. He reached the position of consul of Rome in 59 BCE, and from 58 to 51 BCE, he was concerned with the conquest of Gaul and Britain, as well as many other former Greek possessions; he especially was interested in bringing Egypt into his empire and consolidating a border with Nubia. One of Caesar’s rivals was Pompey (106–48 BCE), the conqueror of Jerusalem in 63 BCE after the Maccabean revolt. Pompey was a formidable foe and after Caesar, and his then ally Antony, crossed the Rubicon River from Italy to Greece it was inevitable that civil war between Caesar and Pompey would be the only resolution. In 49 BCE, Caesar was the military victor, but Pompey survived and was pursued to Egypt by Caesar. Pompey’s flight ended when he was killed by Lower Egyptian supporters of Ptolemy XIII in 48/47 BCE in Pelusium. This represented one of the final stages of the transformation of Greek to pagan Roman rule of Egypt. From 47 to 45 BCE, Caesar confronted the sons of Pompey and in 46 BCE he seized Numidia in neighboring Libya. After he proclaimed himself as the emperor of Rome for life, he was assassinated in March 44 BCE, but this ushered in a civil war between Augustus and Antony. The relations with Nubia in the late Ptolemaic period were rather peaceful because of the weakness and confusion among the Ptolemies under Cleopatra VII. The foundations of Judaic monotheism were much laid in this important transitional time and the birth of Christ at the end of the Ptolemaic period would soon add the element of nascent Christianity, and its repression, to the mix. The transition to Roman rule of Egypt and Nubia under Augustus was violently contested at many times. The Romans clearly realized that their empire was overextended and they withdrew from much of Lower Nubia, while maintaining a presence at Aswan. During most of the times of Julius Caesar, Cleopatra VII was the most significant ruler of Egypt, so much of this period revolves around the foreign and intimate relations between these two sovereigns.

81

82

•

CAESARS

CAESARS. See AUGUSTUS (OCTAVIAN) (r. 27 BCE–14 CE); CALIGULA, GAIUS CAESAR (r. 37–41 CE); DIOCLETIAN (?–316 CE; r. 284–305 CE); CAESAR, JULIUS (100–44 BCE); NERO, EMPEROR (r. 54–68 CE); TRAJAN (r. 98–117 CE). CAILLIAUD, FRÉDÉRIC (1787–1869). Cailliaud could be termed the “grandfather” of modern Nubian archaeology. He was among the earliest European scientific explorers of the Nile who also included Giovanni Belzoni, James Bruce, John Lewis Burckhardt, and Karl Richard Lepsius. Cailliaud was born in Nantes, France, and was formally trained in mineralogy. He traveled to Egypt in 1815 under the authority of the Khedive Mohammed ‘Ali Pasha to seek the famed emerald mines in the region of Upper Egypt and Nubia. On this visit, he focused on the Red Sea Hills and he went as far as Wadi Halfa in Nubia. He took a second trip in 1819 to the oases of the Western Desert of Egypt. He began his third trip in 1820 with Isma’il Pasha, the son of the Khedive. Cailliaud reached Berber in April 1821 and then appealed to go on to the ancient ruined capital and pyramids of Meroë where he arrived on 25 April. He and his French traveling companion, Letorzec, spent around two weeks there measuring, drawing, and surveying. He swung back to join the Egyptian army at Shendi before traveling farther on the Blue Nile with a stop at the ruins of Soba in May. On his return he stopped to map Musawwarat es-Sufra, Naqa, and perhaps Jebel Geili, making him the first modern European scientist to have done so. At Musawwarat and Jebel Barkal, he carefully recorded Meroitic inscriptions that he later published. The French government gave him prominent recognition for this service and for his collection of hundreds of objects of antiquarian interest. Besides the texts that he wrote, he compiled some maps of the region of Nubia that were among the earliest versions that could be considered accurate. His major works relevant to Nubia include Voyage to Meroë, au fleuve Blanc au dela de Fazoql, dans le midi du royaume de Sennar., and his huge fourvolume work with three folio texts titled Recherches sur les arts et métiers, les usages de la vie civile et domestique des anciens peoples de l’Egypte, de la Nubie et de Ethiopie. CALENDARS AND CHRONOLOGY. The topic of calendrical reckoning and chronology is both very ancient and complex. The ancient peoples of the Nile had great reverence for the sky goddess Nut. Her association with the moon and stars appears at very early times. Their close association with nature made the inhabitants along the Nile keen observers of the sun, moon, and stars. Solar or stellar sighting devices were known from as early as the Archaic Period.

CALENDARS AND CHRONOLOGY

•

83

In calendrical calculations only some dates can be absolutely fixed. This requires a known astronomical event such as the Sothic (Sopdu, or Dog) star that appears on 19 July at the dawn horizon. This was usually at about the time of the annual inundation. Any faulty calendar could be annually reset to this benchmark day. On the other hand, uncorrected calendars would be brought back into alignment every 1,456 years of the Sothic cycle. This could provide an additional fixed reference point (at a fixed latitude), for chronologists who could reset their primary reference to it at, for example, 2773 BCE, 1317 BCE, 139 CE, or 1595 CE. Despite a persistent lack of precision in the earlier times, one may assume that after 664 BCE (the end of the reign of Taharka, or the start of Psammetichos I, the dates become quite reliable as they precisely correlate with historical observations of the Sothic star as well as with correlations to independent events external to the Nile valley in an unbroken record thereafter. Before that time, the king lists are helpful for a given reign but the endless restarting of the calendar leaves many earlier periods quite sketchy. As noted by the vital Sothic star, the Egyptian and Nubian reckoning was solar, lunar, or stellar in varying circumstances. Solar reckoning (borrowed from Mesopotamia) provided 12 months of 30 days with periodic adjustments to get the calendar back on schedule once again after losing time by five and one-quarter days per year. They also had a notion of a 24-hour day perhaps from the same sources. As early as the fifth millennium BCE, this calendar was being worked out and cross-checked with Nilometers that carefully measured seasonal floods of the Nile and astronomical observations. Lunar calculations in ancient Egypt were based on a calendar of 12 months each having three 10-day workweeks or 30 days. Four of these months (i.e., 120 days) composed a season, and there were three seasons for each year. This began with the flood season (akhet), then the planting and growing season (peret), and finally the harvesting and fallowing season (shemu). As the shortfall of five and one-quarter days per year accumulated finally seasonal events would be held at an inappropriate time of the year. So corrections were made to add five additional days (epagomenal days) to worship five deities and make up the deficiency in the calendar. Otherwise the steady accumulation of uncorrected dates would finally have the winter season in official summer months and so forth. This adjustment slowed the repetitive error but did not correct it. Variants of this lunar system were used by the Greeks and still appear with Muslims and Ethiopians. Measured candles, water clocks (clepsydras), sundials (gnomons), and hourglasses were used to measure the daily passage of time. A comet, planetary motion, or an exceptional flood or drought season, or corroboration with a parallel known historical event can all assist the chronologist. The use of fixed dates that is possible by dendrochronology (absolute dates by tree growth rings) is little used in Egypt because of the great

84

•

CALENDARS AND CHRONOLOGY

length of dynastic times and conditions promoting seasonal wood growth are not ideal. Dating by numismatic records is also limited in ancient Nubia or Egypt as coinage did not arrive until the Ptolemaic period in the fourth century BCE. Cartouches and cylinder seals are helpful but are also imperfect given the popularity of some names long after that king had died. All together, the circumstances promoting fixed dating in Egypt and Nubia are not often met. Often dates are determined with reference to the coronation and regnal years of a given pharaoh, or lists of successive kings. The most important king list is that developed by Manetho (323–245 BCE), an Egyptian priest residing at the delta temple of Sebennytos during the reigns of Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II. Manetho published his findings in his book Aegyptiaca. The original has long been lost, but it is from Manetho that the approximate sequence of 30 Egyptian dynasties is still known. One may never be sure about intervening, but missing rulers. There are several famed sources of king lists. These include the Royal List of 58 kings ordered by Ramses II for Sakkara that covers dynasties I–XX with some omissions. The papyrus or Canon of Turin, also compiled at the time of Ramses II, is very comprehensive as it was written in the New Kingdom; sadly, it is also very fragmentary. In some cases, it offers regnal dates to the months and days. The list of 80 kings at Abydos is quite lovely in its presentation but has numerous deliberate omissions. To this can be added the list from the Palermo stone. The Karnak list attributed to Tuthmosis III gives the names for 62 kings. Other classical writers such as Josephus and Eusebius added more data to Egyptian chronology. So we can be fairly sure of the sequence of kings, but we also know that much can be missing from this account. When the Egyptian and Nubian interaction was close, one gains a measure of the Nubian record with reference to Egyptian chronology. Chronology developed archaeologically provides relative dates determined by stratification, measures of radioactive decay, or stylistic sequences. These are useful to get material assemblages in the correct order but it is more difficult to assign precise beginning and ending dates. Annual events (such as the Opet festival) and funerary rituals also had specific temporal sequences. Consequently the work on chronology may be considered as generally accurate, but in most cases, it is still a work in progress for refined dates. The essential problem of chronology is that the written record is not consistent or continuous. In Egypt and Nubia there are instances where one may correlate specific named seasons or dates to specific pharaohs or dynasties with a great sense of confidence; at other times, the written records fall into obscurity. Hieroglyphic and demotic number systems are generally well understood, although Meroitic numbers are not fully translated.

CALIGULA, GAIUS CAESAR (R. 37–41 CE)

•

85

The Ptolemaic Greeks were hugely influenced by their three centuries in Egypt where they configured the leap year to correct for the weakness in their calendar. In 47 BCE, as their era was closing, the Greeks officially introduced the better Egyptian calendar to Rome, with a strange “catch-up” year inserted with 445 days. The Greek calendar had 12 named months with intercalary or corrective months inserted to keep the calendar on time. Other Greek adjustments were made to set the schedule for the Olympic games beginning in 776 BCE, and in 432 BCE the Greek astronomer Meton created a 19-year cycle with seven intercalary months. The older Roman calendar was based on 10 months named for important deities and numbers. The later Julian modification of the Roman calendar still has the same nomenclature but with 12 months after inserting the two additional months named for Julius Caesar and Augustus. We now face the odd circumstance that September (literally, the seventh [sept] month) is the ninth month of the year and December (literally, the 10th [decem] month is the 12th month. Since Jews play an important role in the Nile valley it can be noted that their calendar begins in the sixth millennium. For example, the year 2001 is equivalent to around 5761 in the Jewish calendar. The Semitic roots of this calendar persist today with a seven-day week having the Sabbath (from the Hebrew seven) take place on the last weekday. The Jewish and Muslim calendars are both lunar. After the Roman emperor Constantine accepted Christianity as the state religion in the fourth century, the calendar shifted again. The modern Christian (Gregorian) solar calendar begins with Pope Gregory XIII’s corrective effort of 1584 (or 1582) that is now current. The breakaway Monophysite Copts of Egypt and Nubia still use their AM calendar (Year of the Martyrs), which started on 29 August 284 CE. In the seventh century CE, the AH (Year of the Hegira) was adopted by Muslims. The Hegira refers to the “flight,” in 622 CE, of the prophet Muhammad (570–632 CE) from Mecca to Medina. CALIGULA, GAIUS CAESAR (r. 37–41 CE). Caligula was the Roman emperor who was the successor and grandnephew of Tiberius. His bizarre and brief rule was terminated in assassination by his own powerful Praetorian guards. In the Nile valley, his mad reign was expressed in a very vulnerable formative period for established Jews in Egypt and for nascent regional Christianity. Caligula ordered the temple of Jerusalem to be transformed into a Roman temple with his own statue installed in the sanctuary, and since this was early in Roman rule in the eastern Mediterranean, the local Greeks still had a lingering sense of Ptolemaic nationalism. With Jews feeling threatened and some Greeks believing that the Jews were too sympathetic to Roman rule, and Caligula nervous about both, the Romans turned to destruction of synagogues, looting, and rioting that culminated in the pogrom of 38 CE.

86

•

CALLIMACHUS (CA. 310/305–240 BCE)

Some Egyptian Jews fled into delta towns and perhaps to Nubia for security, and the famed Christian apostle and martyr St. Mark reached Alexandria in 40 CE. The important Jewish citizen of Alexandria, Philon, appealed to Caligula in the same year saying that he accepted Roman rule but simply wanted the privilege of Jewish worship. Herein, some scholars see the early rise of Jewish secularism. Although the identity “Christian” was only in formation at the time of Caligula, it is possible that the first Jewish (?) converts to Christianity made their way to Meroë during this time. Caligula did order an addition to the hypostyle hall at the Kalabsha temple in Nubia. His assassination in 41 CE was widely celebrated and allowed the reestablishment of a more orderly Roman republic. Regional Jews and early Christians believed that his murder was just revenge for the brutality that they had experienced under Caligula only three years earlier. CALLIMACHUS (ca. 310/305–240 BCE). Callimachus was born in the Greek colony of Cyrene in Libya, but he moved to Alexandria. He was a prominent poet and writer, but he was most renowned for his leading role as a cataloger and librarian of the great library of Alexandria established by Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II. Callimachus was central in creating this huge and significant archive of ancient classics built from collections, translations into Greek, and documents in other foreign languages. His most important contribution was a 120-volume catalogue of the library. Perhaps this lost library held works in Meroitic, and it may have stimulated the creation of this first written form of the ancient Nubian language. His work continued with the librarian-geographer Eratosthenes. CAMBYSES II (r. 529–522 BCE). Cambyses entered eastern Egypt at Pelusium to terminate the Saite dynasty under Psamtik III in 525 BCE, the last pharaoh of Dynasty XXVI. As such, Cambyses was the founder of the first Persian dynasty in Egypt. From the delta, the Persian forces moved on to Memphis where Cambyses committed the outrageous act of killing the divine Apis bull of that holy city. This was at the height of the Persian Empire that sought to turn Egypt into a Persian province, although Cambyses II only ruled for three years. Another of his notable events was the reputed loss of a sizeable army in the Western Desert. The Greek historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt during this Persian dynasty in around 450 BCE, gives a solitary reference that Cambyses sent a mission or invasion into Lower Nubia that was seriously overextended and resulted in the loss of many of his troops. The precise objective, route, and termination of this incursion are not clear. Persian administration was structured around the appointment of satraps who were granted local autonomy

CATARACTS (SHALLAL)

•

87

but served the fiscal and military needs of the empire. The second period was terminated with the arrival of the army of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE after defeating the Persian leader, Darius III. CAMEL-HERDING ARABS. There are two large camel-herding groups in Sudan. Camels may have first appeared in the region in Persian times and were widely used in the desert and steppe regions thereafter. One of the camel-herding groups is descended from the Blemmyes and the related groups of Medjay, Pan-Grave, Beja, and Bisharin people who were autochthonous in the region. Christian Nubia made heavy use of camels as they have long been used by the inhabitants of the region east of the Nubian Nile and in the Red Sea Hills of Egypt and Sudan. The other camel-herding group, the Juhayna Arabs of Sudan, includes the Kababish, Hamar, Shayqiya, Shukriya, and Dubania. They range, in their respective territories and watering places, in the eastern Butana, in parts of the Bayuda steppe, and in northern Darfur and Kordofan. The Muslim Arab camel herders probably increased with the end of Christianity. See also CATTLE-HERDING ARABS. CANDACE, KANDAKE, KADAKE, KDI-QO. The term kadake is probably the original form of this Meroitic title that was generically applied to regnant queens and perhaps others not regnant. It is possible that it is derived from the Meroitic kdi-qo that could be translated as “royal woman.” The Greeks inserted their version of a more euphonious variant form that has been transmitted as kandake; the Latinized form, candace, is even used as a biblical Christian name in modern times. Among the more prominent kadakes of Meroë were Amanishakhete and Amanitore. CARACALLA (r. 211–217 CE). Caracalla became emperor of Rome in 211 CE following Septimius Severus. By the time of Caracalla most of the Roman Empire had been assembled from conquered and subjugated territories, such as Egypt and the Lower Nubian borderlands. In order to increase colonial revenue, he converted the inhabitants of these provinces into citizens of Rome in 212 CE so they could face burdensome taxes. Ruthlessness in administration, a powerful military, and heavy-handed secret service kept Caracalla in power, but his unchecked expenditures resulted in severe inflation by 215 CE and his murder in 217 CE. CATARACTS (SHALLAL). Cataracts are simply the general name for rocky outcroppings or rapids in the Nile. The six Nile cataracts have often proved to be important points for “break of bulk” in economic relations or for the construction of military fortifications as the rival Egyptian and Nubian

88

•

CATTLE-HERDING ARABS

empires rose and fell. The First Cataract is located at Aswan (“Syene” or “Swen,” probably meaning “trade”) in Egypt. It is commonly recognized as the ancient and modern border between Nubia and Egypt, although today it is wholly within the territory of modern Egypt. The Second Cataract was the usual boundary between Nubia and Egypt in the Old and Middle Kingdoms and it was heavily fortified at these times. Although the Second Cataract is now lost under Lake Nasser it is essentially at the ancient or modern border between Egypt and Sudan, just south of the Tropic of Capricorn. The reach of the Nile between the Second and Third Cataract is usually termed the Butn al-Hajr, or “Belly of Stones” since it was a particularly problematic stretch for navigation. The Third Cataract provided the frontier between Middle Kingdom Egypt and Kerma or Yam, which lay just upstream of this point. Discussion is presently taking place to introduce still another Nubian dam at Kajbar in this vicinity. Above the Third Cataract are located the town sites of ancient and modern Dongola as well as the periodic watercourse known as the Wadi Howar. The Fourth Cataract is something less of a political boundary, except during the New Kingdom. The major Nubian site at Napata is situated just downstream of this cataract. Since the Nile sweeps to the north at this point, it was common to bypass this cataract and the region between the Fourth and Fifth Cataracts. By crossing the Bayuda plain to the southeast on foot or with beasts of burden, it was possible to reach upstream and cross back to the Nile at ancient Meroë. This town rested strategically between the Fifth and Sixth Cataracts on the Nile borders between the Bayuda and Butana steppelands. This region has long been termed the “Island of Meroë” or the Butana plain. The Sixth Cataract, or Sabaluka Gorge, was usually by-passed by terrestrial travel, but is navigable by deep draft vessels at flood seasons. It lies just north or downstream of the confluence of the White and Blue Niles at modern Khartoum. Until one exits Sudan into Ethiopia there are no further natural obstacles on the Blue Nile. On the White Nile, this is also the case until one reaches the vast Sudd swamplands, which were an impenetrable barrier for exploration until the 19th century. CATTLE-HERDING ARABS. Cattle herding is an extremely ancient pastoral mode of production in Egypt and Nubia. The early presence of cattle is closely intertwined with state formation, and as more cattle were raised in Egypt and raided for in Nubia, the appetite only grew. Key deities and the pharaoh himself were associated with cattle. Among the first historical record of interaction between Egypt and Nubia cattle are prominent. Cattle were also central in the economy of the C-Group of Lower Nubia. In the New Kingdom, the common reference to Nubian cattlemen was Menti, but their precise location remains to be determined. Cattle can be grazed and

C-GROUP, C-HORIZON

•

89

herded along the immediate Nile banks or irrigated floodplains or in the savanna grasslands, but not in the desert regions. See also AGRICULTURE; CAMEL-HERDING ARABS. C-GROUP, C-HORIZON. The C-Group is the arbitrary name assigned by George Reisner to a cultural group in Lower Nubia from around 2500 BCE or before until around 1500 BCE. According to Manfred Bietak, the C-Group may be divided into two periods: 2200–1950 BCE and 1950–1600 BCE, or coexisting with Dynasty XVII. In other words, they were dispersed or displaced as the New Kingdom occupied Nubia. They were the purported successors of the B-Group, but this reference has essentially been abandoned, with the understanding that they may have been survivors of late A-Group peoples. More likely, the ethnogenesis of the new intrusive C-Group was from the south toward the north to reoccupy Lower Nubia during the First Intermediate Period. They spread toward Aswan as Old Kingdom Egyptian forces were withdrawn. Some claim that the C-Group arrived from the west or east with Saharan desiccation; however, given the great importance of cattle for the C-Group, extensive herds were more likely from the south where Nile water and rainfed savanna were more reliable. The Egyptian textual references for the riverine peoples of Upper and Lower Nubia at this time were Wawat, Irtet, and Setiu (Zetjau). Essentially these seem to be the Egyptian place-names or ethnic names for the C-Group. In the Eastern Desert, one finds the contemporary Medjay (Medjayu, plural), herders. It appears that they were regional polities under their respective chiefs, at least the equivalent of Egyptian nomarchs if not of greater powers, and may well have been represented by the Pan-Grave cultural horizon. From archaeological evidence, the C-Group economy was centered upon cattle herding and generally gained in strength at times of Egyptian weakness. The C-Group perhaps emerged from refugee descendants of the earlier A-Group culture. The C-Group had contemporary and collaborative relations with Kerma, which lay farther upstream beyond the Third Cataract. At the same time, they were distinct from the Kerma culture that may be referenced as the state of Yam. Kerma gained a degree of political and cultural independence from Egypt during the Hyksos period but was crushed by the revived Egyptian empire of the New Kingdom. Like the prior A-Group occupants of the region, the C-Group cemeteries were above the floodplain on the adjacent desert fringe. C-Group occupation is known at numerous permanent settlement sites. These include Amada, Aniba, Areika, and Debeira. These were built of stone and some mud brick and have varying degrees of fortification. The Coxe expedition organized by the University of Pennsylvania was very productive in the case of the CGroup village at Areika. Foundations show a complex house site with inter-

90

•

C-GROUP, C-HORIZON

nal divisions for special purposes such as livestock, silo grain storage, cooking and sleeping, and perhaps gender distinctions. Pottery is both locally made and imported from Egypt. Aside from being from a different time period than the A-Group, the pottery styles of the C-Group are also easily distinguished. Typical of CGroup pottery found at gravesites are their small round bowls that are heavily incised with white and black zigzag and triangular themes and stamped with geometric patterns, which are quite unlike those of the A-Group. Eggshell thin and ovoid pottery of the A-Group disappears with C-Group assemblages. Large, rather rough utilitarian storage or water jars are associated with C-Group burials. The C-Group also produced burnished black and red pottery, which has some rough affinity to Kerma ware. Both were apparently used for storage and cooking. A common theme of inscribed C-Group pottery relates to the importance of cattle, which are also inscribed on cemetery stelae. Sheep, goats, and cattle also figure very prominently as burial goods with cattle skulls and clay figures of longhorn cattle similar to those of modern Nilotics of southern Sudan. Also unlike the A-Group, the burial practices of the C-Group were usually extended or only slightly flexed, burials. Cattle heads and stelae with inscribed cattle played an important role in the funerary ritual of the C-Group. Modern Nilotics also have cattle sacrifice for funerary rites. Also C-Group and modern Nilotics share ivory arm bands. Egyptian depictions show gold earrings, leopard skin clothing, dyed red hair, and hair styles that are also common for modern Nilotics. Some Egyptian grave goods are found in early C-Group graves. In later C-Group times, this included large, round, unmortared stone superstructures with internal rubble fill over a burial chamber and sometimes with an adjoining funerary chapel. This architecture is most unEgyptian in style. At first, the relationship between the First Intermediate Egyptians and their C-Group neighbors was one of active trade as judged by the common presence of Egyptian pottery in graves of the C-Group. From around 2250 to 2050 BCE Kerma began its growth, and this initially helped check Egyptian ambitions in the region, with C-Group peoples occupying intermediate and peripheral regions. However, around 2000 BCE the intrusive Middle Egyptians displaced the C-Group people of Lower Nubia and began to construct or renew their huge mud-brick forts at former Old Kingdom sites or at new places. This was likely done to control C-Group and Kerma river trade and gold mining in the Eastern Desert and neighboring valleys, as well as present a formidable barrier to Kerman movements. Middle Kingdom tomb models of Nubian bowmen may be considered as C-Group recruits for this purpose, especially

C-GROUP, C-HORIZON

•

91

during the time of Mentuhotep II. It is likely that Kerma was a major slavetrading state, and the ready market in Egypt kept a reciprocal interest in each of these rivals. As the Egyptian Middle Kingdom was strengthened, relations deteriorated, and sometime after 2000 BCE, the Egyptians deepened their strong military presence in the region. A series of about 20 forts were located at strategic signaling and defensive points on the Nile especially from the First to Second Cataracts. These forts were garrisoned by Egyptian and mercenary troops. Among these huge mud-brick forts were those at Aksha, Buhen, Faras, Kumma, Mirgissa, Semna, Shalfak, and Uronarti. Aside from a desire to have strict control of the river trade, the Egyptians were clearly very anxious about the military threat posed by the strong kingdom of Kerma (Yam) that was probably culturally associated with the CGroup peoples. However, with the reunification of Egypt by Mentuhotep II in the Middle Kingdom (dynasties XI and XII, ca. 2065–1780 BCE), the CGroup people of Lower Nubia were demonstrably under an outright colonial and tributary relationship. Stelae proclamations refer to the coercion required of C-Group gold miners to dig for gold to be exported to Egypt. This is not to say that daily relations were brutal and repressive, but that the C-group peoples occupied a region no longer under their own authority, and the cultural allegiance they may have had with Yam did them little good. During the reign of Senusoret (Sesostris) III (1887–1850 BCE), the policy of raiding, trading, and fortifying was probably at its height, and this pharaoh was depicted as a god to help make his occupation more unassailable to Nubians. The Egyptian pharaohs had a high demand for Nubian produce and trade items, including mercenary conscript soldiers seen in Middle Kingdom tomb models and gold from the region. The major state of Yam at Kerma (ca. 2500–1500 BCE) continued to grow above the Butn al-Hajr (Belly of Stones) from the Second to Third Cataracts. Later, Kerma entered its classic period of power and material culture as evidenced by huge grave tumuli, ritual human sacrifice, high-quality pottery, and the impressive ritual structures known as deffufa (“ruins” in Nubian). Farther downstream, amid military occupation and severe restrictions, the Nubian reaction was delayed but intensely felt. As the Middle Kingdom lost its coherence by the early 18th century BCE (dynasties XIII–XVII), the Nubians had a certain measure of relief and even revenge. Apparently benefiting from the protective umbrella of Kerma and relieved of Middle Kingdom occupation, the late C-Group settlement sites show larger and richer graves contemporary with the Hyksos military invasion of Egypt from the eastern delta. During Dynasty XVII, typical C-Group graves with blacktopped incised ware were found by Marie-Kristin Schröder at site HK27C at Hierakonpolis (113 kilometers north of Aswan!). Tactical alliances between the Hyksos and Nubians, especially at Kerma, persisted until the efforts at

92

•

CHALCEDON, COUNCIL OF

New Kingdom reunification under Pharaohs Kamose and Ahmose were successful in restoring and extending Egyptian rule over Nubia in the 16th and 15th centuries BCE. After this time, there are no further traces of the CGroup or of Kerma. CHALCEDON, COUNCIL OF. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. CHAMPOLLION, JEAN-FRANÇOIS (1790–1832). This towering figure in French Egyptology may be credited with starting the modern scientific direction in this field. His work on the trilingual text inscribed on the Rosetta Stone, along with important English scholars, resulted in his famous 1822 Lettre à M. Dacier. This published the first phonetically correct understanding of hieroglyphics since it had become a lost language. By 1824, he added the understanding of the ancient linguistic relationship of hieroglyphics and Coptic that descended from the older written language, which opened the door toward decipherment of this otherwise lost language. In 1828–1829, Champollion was a member of the joint Franco-Italian (Tuscany) expedition to the Nile valley with Ippolito Rosellini. After three months, Champollion reached Thebes in March 1829 to work extensively in the Valley of the Kings. As with Rosellini, Champollion was also charged with removing reliefs from temples and tombs against modern ethics and laws. His early death at age 42, in 1832, did not prevent the posthumous publication, in 1845, of his Monuments de l’Egypte et de la Nubie, a foundational classic in the field of Egyptology and Nubian studies. CHRISTIANITY IN NUBIA: THE FORMATIVE PERIOD. During the ancient period covered in this book is the usual convention that Christ was born on 25 December 4 BCE in Bethlehem under King Herod during the reign of Caesar Augustus. Others calculate it was 7 or 6 BCE when he was born. Fearing Roman taxes and an edict to put Jewish children to death, his parents are believed to have fled with Jesus to Gaza and Al-Arish, Egypt, as noted in Matthew (2:13–23). They were said to return to Judea after the death of Herod, which was around 4 BCE. With the ambiguity and imprecision of these dates, one may only say that Jesus was as young as a newborn when arriving in Egypt to an age of three or so when returning from Egypt. During this flight to Egypt, they went on to Pelusium in the eastern Egyptian delta then under the authority of Prefect Gaius Tyranus. They continued on to Kanatir, Saft al-Henna, Tel Basta (near Zagazig), and Samanoud and finally crossed to the Rosetta branch of the Nile in the western delta. From there, they traveled south to the Jewish village at Leontopolis, where they rested under a famed sycamore tree. This journey continued through Roman

CHRISTIANITY IN NUBIA: THE FORMATIVE PERIOD

•

93

Old Cairo (then called Babylon) and on to another Jewish synagogue at Ma’adi, south of Cairo, where they boarded a small boat to go to Upper Egypt. Along the way, they again stopped at various places for food and rest, which are today considered pilgrimage sites. The southernmost points reached included Beni Hassan, Minya, and Ashmuneim, Hermopolis, and Dairut to Assiut where they stayed for about six months. At their most southerly point in Upper Egypt, a church was later built and is now known as Deir al-Muharaka (Monastery of the Flight). A church was likely built there in 70 CE although the present structure dates to a later time. With these deep roots of Christianity in the Nile, Nubian, Egyptian, and Ethiopian Copts have all been attracted to these locations as important pilgrimage sites. This early period of Christianity in the Nile valley also includes the apostle Mark, who was born in Cyrene in Libya a few years after the birth of Christ. It was in the house of Mark that the Last Supper was reportedly held with Jesus and his disciples. After the execution of Jesus in 30 CE, Mark returned to Alexandria where he built the first Christian church in Egypt; he also ordained a bishop, three priests, and seven deacons around 44 CE according to Coptic history. It was in this Greco-Roman city that Mark started writing his Gospel, the first of the Four Gospels, in 49 CE. Among his followers in this first church school was Athanasius. As the popularity of Christianity began to grow, it opposed and threatened Roman paganism. After Mark was killed by an Alexandrian mob, he became a much venerated Egyptian Coptic martyr. The first Nubian convert to Christianity may be the case of the official of Meroë who was exposed to it around 37 CE. As noted in the Acts of the Apostles (8:27–39), a ranking eunuch of “Candace queen of the Ethiopians” was converted to Christianity under the teachings of the prophet Esaias and was baptized in this faith by church deacon Philip. If the chronology is correct for Meroë, this may have been during the reigns of Pisakar or Amanitaraqide. Presumably, this anonymous royal eunuch of Meroë returned home, but as a solitary or rare devotee. There is no record of others who might have followed this faith at such an early date at this Nubian city, but since he was an evangelist it is reasonable that others were converted. It was not until the disciple St. Mark returned to Egypt from 61 to 65 CE, during the reign of Nero, that one may say that Coptic (Orthodox Egyptian) Christianity reached the Nile in a more institutionalized fashion. Mark had been born as a Jew in Pentapolis, Cyrenaica (Libya), but he had received a strong religious education that attracted him to the new Christian faith. It was during these perilous early decades under such repressive Roman emperors as Caligula, Claudius, and Nero that the gospel was first introduced, especially in Alexandria. St. Mark was savagely martyred on 8 May 68 CE on

94

•

CHRISTIANITY IN NUBIA: THE FORMATIVE PERIOD

Easter Monday after being dragged through Alexandria by a mob of Roman soldiers. His body was removed to Italy in the ninth century CE, but a few revered relics were returned to Egypt in 1968. By the first half of the second century, some Coptic language fragments of the Gospel of St. John are known in Upper Egypt. By the late second century, some small numbers of Christian adherents were found in parts of Upper and Middle Egypt. In 180 CE, the Catechetical Church-School (Didascaleion) was founded in Alexandria by Pantaenus to study religion, philosophy, and ethics, as well as the sciences they had inherited from the Ptolemies and Romans. Coptic Christians, often converted Jews, suffered tremendously from religious and political persecution under the Romans in the second and third centuries CE, particularly under the rulers Septimius Severus (193–211 CE), Decius (249–251 CE), and Valerian (253–260 CE). Septimius Severus actually visited Egypt from 199 to 200 CE, and his Edict of 204 CE prohibited Romans from accepting Christianity. Despite this persistent repression, Patriarch Dionysius actively sought more Egyptian converts to Christianity from 247 to 264 CE. A result of his work was a period of major conversions of Egyptians to this faith. Coptic monasticism in the Eastern Desert developed especially at this time under saints Paul (228–343 CE) and Anthony the Great (251–356 CE). Further percolation of Christianity into Nubia took place from around 260 to 300 CE. An unintended result of this success took place during the reign of Diocletian (284–305 CE), who was increasingly fearful of this rival religion to Roman polytheism. The very foundation of the Coptic calendar, “The Calendar of Martyrs” (AM) is put at 29 August 284 CE to commemorate those who died during the start of the particularly repressive reign of Diocletian. Diocletian used Christians as easy scapegoats for his perceived threats to the division of the Roman Empire into eastern and western sections. Thus he began a reign of terror against Christians, their books, and their property. But in 297 CE, Diocletian withdrew from Hiera Sycaminos (“holy sycamores”; Maharaqa) to Aswan ended Roman dominance of Lower Nubia. The repression of Egyptian Christians under Diocletian in 302 CE is said to have taken hundreds of thousands of lives. Christians in the late third and early fourth centuries, such as St. Anthony, were often struggling to survive in isolated desert retreats, caves, and monasteries. St. Makarius and St. Ammon (followers of St. Anthony) spread the monastic Gospel into the Western Desert, especially at Wadi Natrun, where the monasteries of the Holy Virgin and of St. John Kame (John the Black) at Deir al-Sourian may be seen today. On the Eastern Desert of the Sinai, St. Catherine’s monastery and basilica, dating to the sixth century, still stand today. Additional Christian disciples of this “secret religion” were drawn from throughout the eastern Mediterranean, Armenia, and Nubia (“Ethi-

CIRCUMCISION, FEMALE

•

95

opia”) in the third century CE. The fifth-century-CE Egyptian churches dedicated to St. Sergius (Abu Serga) and St. Barbara were constructed to memorialize these early Christian martyrs. Once trained, these early Christian adherents returned to proselytize in their own lands. The Christian population of Egypt is estimated to have reached as many as one million by this time. After the religious vision of Roman emperor Constantine, as a result of his military victory at Milvian Bridge in 312 CE, he accepted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The liberal Edict of Milan (313 CE) underscored his tolerant views that enabled Christianity to spread more widely in Nubia and elsewhere, such as the Donatist church of Numidia. Yet, the way ahead would not be easy. The Church of the 40 Martyrs in Wadi Natrun, Egypt, commemorates the test of faith of Christians in 313 CE. The early Christian converts in Armenia were tortured if they would not renounce their new faith. However, the first Christian basilica in Rome was under construction from 313 to 322 CE. Increased missionary activity from Egypt is recorded for 324 CE in Nubia. This represented a “pincer movement” as this mission was synchronized with the Axumite king Ezana of Ethiopia entering and destroying the remnants of the “Noba” at Meroë and the “Red Noba” farther north. During the same period, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria ordained the Ethiopian church. Thus the collapse of Meroitic polytheism and the rise of state Christendom in Egypt and Ethiopia created a religious vacuum into which the missionary activities could begin to take place throughout the entire Nile and Blue Nile valleys. The X-Group or Ballana and Qustul period in Lower Nubia (or Tanqasi culture of Upper Nubia) was the first to fill this void with a preChristian syncretic blend of Egyptian, Kushitic, Meroitic, Greco-Roman, and Nubian beliefs, practices, and architecture from about 350 to 550 CE. The presence of this early Christian influence is certainly illustrated in X-Group grave goods including crosses and other icons. This transitional period also featured intense rivalries and military attacks against these settled people in Lower Nubia by the seminomadic Blemmyes who were long accustomed to such a role. Refer to appendix 12, the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia, and the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (4th ed.). CICATRIX. See BODY DECORATION: CICATRICES, TATTOOS. CIRCUMCISION, FEMALE. Although no records exist that evidence the origins of female circumcision, it is generally agreed to have originated in prehistoric, predynastic times. What evidence does exist of female circumcision in ancient Africa comes primarily from historical sources. Herodotus, the Greek historian, reported the practice in Egypt during the fifth century

96

•

CLAUDIUS (R. 41–54 CE)

BCE. He was of the opinion that female circumcision had originated either in Egypt or in Ethiopia. Herodotus explains that infibulation was used on slave girls, while clitoridectomy was a mark of prestige and retained by aristocracy. In 25 BCE, even the Roman ethno-geographer Strabo reported that the Egyptians practiced female circumcision. Female circumcision is also recorded as a custom among several nomadic peoples of the Arabian Peninsula in pre-Islamic times. A second source of evidence for female circumcision in ancient times comes from female mummies themselves. Mummies found in Egypt dated earlier than 25 BCE are thought by some to have been infibulated (LightfootKlein 1989). Egyptologists heavily disputed this interpretation, claiming that no clear evidence of the operation is found on any surviving female mummies (Shaw and Nicholson 1995). The practice of female circumcision was incorporated into “folk” Islamic belief when the jihad swept North Africa from the seventh to the 14th centuries CE. Since that time, the custom has become firmly entrenched in Islamic ideals of virginity, modesty, and family honor and status. As a result, female circumcision is today erroneously thought an original practice of Islam. Female circumcision is currently practiced in many regions of the world, not only Sudan and Egypt but also Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, India, and Belize, among others. This operation is typically performed on girls ranging from the ages of four to 10 years. In varying degrees, female circumcision involves the surgical manipulation of the clitoris as well as other exposed female genitalia. There are several different types of circumcision that are characterized by the extent of excision and stitching. Particularly interesting is the procedure known as infibulation (“pharaonic circumcision”). This type of female circumcision consists of complete removal of the clitoris, excision of the labia minora, and partial removal of the inner labia majora. The remaining labia majora are then stitched together to form a bridge of tissue over the vaginal opening. A small sliver of wood or straw is then inserted into the vagina to prevent complete occlusion, and to leave a passage for urine and menstruation. The reference of this most drastic type of circumcision as “pharaonic” has never been fully explained but is often used as proof of the custom’s pre-Islamic antiquity. Circumcision (tuhur) is performed routinely on Sudanese Muslim males and females as a rite of passage in the preadolescent years. Recent years have sought to make female circumcision illegal in Sudan and Egypt. CLAUDIUS (r. 41–54 CE). The Roman emperor Claudius assumed power upon the assassination of Caligula. His administration brought little change to Egypt. However, nonaggression negotiations took place between Claudius and the Blemmyes in 45 CE at Philae in order to prevent their future harass-

CLEOPATRA VII (69–30 BCE; R. 51–30 BCE)

•

97

ment. Following the death of Claudius in 54 CE, Emperor Nero came to power. Both Caligula and Nero were responsible for bloody persecution of early Christians in the Nile valley. CLEOPATRA VII (69–30 BCE; r. 51–30 BCE). This extraordinary Ptolemaic queen who ruled from 51–30 BCE was of Macedonian origin. She presided over Egypt at one of the pivotal times in its history, ruling as the very last pharaoh of three centuries of Ptolemies. Her death ushered in the start of Roman rule of Egypt and Nubia. Her appealing and tragic story has been often retold by Shakespeare and in film. While she was not the first to rule as a coregent monarch, she was certainly the first woman to rule in her own name in these very intriguing times. Cleopatra was the great-granddaughter of Ptolemy VIII and daughter of Ptolemy XII, “Auletes.” Cleopatra was briefly coregent with her father until his death in 51 BCE. His administration then passed to Cleopatra VII, then 18 years old, and her brother-husband Ptolemy XIII, then 12 years of age. Her two older sisters and one younger sister soon vanished from the political scene. Her brothers Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV would be heard of later. In a celebrated case of palace intrigue, it is said that Cleopatra was brought to Julius Caesar wrapped in a rolled carpet, and she lured him away from supporting Ptolemy XIII. Caesar may have had a different understanding of this relationship, but promptly Ptolemy XIII realized that his options were limited. He turned to a hopeless military effort to attack Alexandria occupied by his sister and new lover. The brief Alexandrian war resulted in some urban destruction including part of the great Ptolemaic library organized by Callimachus and Eratosthenes, which was critical for the translation of the Hebrew Torah to Greek and thereby to the Old Testament Pentateuch for Christians that was later translated again to Coptic and Old Nubian. In this atmosphere, Cleopatra and Caesar took a two-month Nile cruise to Upper Egypt, but it is not clear if she reached Aswan. But when Caesar declared himself emperor for life, this was more than the Roman ruling circles could tolerate, and the dictator Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 BCE. Fleeing Rome for her safety, Cleopatra VII sailed back to Egypt, but amid this new power vacuum she needed a new ally in Rome. Her next famous tryst sought the favor and love of Marc Antony who represented Roman power in the eastern Mediterranean, while Octavian became Roman consul. Cleopatra invited Antony to Egypt from 41 to 40 BCE; he evidently fell in love with her, and their union produced twin children. From 40 to 34 BCE, Marc Antony saw extensive military action from Spain, to Armenia and Judea. In 37 BCE, Antony took a political risk with his declaration of Roman “Donations” that assigned Egypt to Cleopatra, a foreigner. In Rome, Octavian portrayed this act as treason against Rome.

98

•

COBBÉ, KOBBE

This imperial rivalry was finally at a crisis point at the naval battle of Actium in 31 BCE when the ships of Octavian easily defeated the navy of Cleopatra VII and Marc Antony who withdrew to Alexandria for reasons that are still debated. In events much dramatized by Shakespeare, Marc Antony was misinformed that his lover and ally Cleopatra VII had killed herself so he took his own life. This tragic news reached Cleopatra who, reportedly, then committed suicide with a poisonous viper on 12 August 30 BCE. Her son Caesarion was soon assassinated. With no further rivals to crush, Octavian became the first Roman prefect of Egypt. To commemorate this event, he changed his name to Augustus. Roman republicanism was dead along with three centuries of Ptolemaic rule of Egypt. The pagan Roman Empire was on the rise, and the battle of Actium was also to have set the stage for the ongoing battle for regional hegemony in Christian times as well as between the Egyptian Monophysite Copts and the Orthodox Chalcedonians. The temple at Dendara still bears an image of this renowned queen and her son Caesarion (Ptolemy XV) who was born on 23 July 47 BCE as a supposed product of her liaison with Julius Caesar. According to Plutarch, polyglot Cleopatra VII was able to speak the languages of Egypt, Nubia, the Troglodytes (Blemmyes), and she may have spoken Hebrew. The famed geographer Strabo was a contemporary of Cleopatra. During her reign, Cleopatra generally had good relations with Nubia and Upper Egypt, as well as with Egyptian Jews for whom she may have constructed a synagogue. COBBÉ, KOBBE. Few maps show this old trading town of Darfur, as it has long since ceased to exist. Cobbé was situated at the southern end of the Darb al-Arba’in, or 40-Days Road, which went from the Kharga Oasis south to the Selima oasis in the desert west of Wadi Halfa to Cobbe. This was an ancient route between Darfur and the Egyptian Nile that was used for the export of gum arabic, slaves, and camels. Cobbé markets were held twice weekly, and caravans as large as 2,000 camels and 1,000 slaves were known in the 17th and early 18th centuries. At this time, its population of 6,000 was heterogenous with Fellata migrants from the western Sahel, Fur, Kordofani Arabs, Egyptians, and Nubians. The site of Cobbé was ringed with mountains that offered a natural defense and brought water into its wells. However, one of the reasons to move the capital from Cobbé to El Fasher was because of a better water supply there. When El Fasher began to grow in the early 1700s, Cobbé became superfluous to the region and faded from existence. CONSTANTINE I (“THE GREAT”) (r. 306/307–337 CE). This Roman emperor represented a double watershed for Christianity in the world and in the Nile valley. His rise to power terminated the long and bloody history of

COPPER

•

99

Jewish and Christian persecution and brought Christianity as the state religion of the Western Roman Empire from 307 to 324 CE. In 312 CE, Constantine I had his visions of a cross in the sky when he defeated Heraclius at the battle of Mulvian Bridge. Interpreting his victory as a sign that he should convert to Christianity he issued the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which moved the Christian church from a pariah status to one that was favored by returning confiscated property. With this act, Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, and Constantine introduced the X/P (Chi-Rho) monogram that became emblematic for most of Orthodox Christendom, including in Nubia. This Greek monogram indicated that “Christ [X] was the King [P].” Constantine initially came to lead the Eastern Empire of Rome once it was divided during the reign of Diocletian. He served in this capacity from 306 to 324 and then became the emperor of the entire empire from 324 to 337 CE. The brutality and persecution of Christians experienced under Diocletian had failed to achieve its objective, and by 311, the Edict of Toleration, written by Emperor Galerius of the Eastern Empire, had begun to dampen the fires of hatred. Despite this move toward peace and reconciliation, the new legitimated Christians soon turned to schismatic divisions, including the Donatist movement in North Africa and the Arian controversy in Egypt, which was to result in a lasting separation of Coptic and Orthodox Christians. Moreover, the persistent belief in an omnipotent sun god weakened the acceptance of Christianity. Many ancient temples in Egypt and Nubia were transformed from centers of Egyptian deities to those worshipping Mary and Jesus. For example, the Luxor temple was now retrofitted with an altar shrine to Constantine. For reasons of theology and political nationalism, the new Egyptian Diocese at Alexandria followed the Monophysite interpretation that is still pursued by Egyptian and medieval Nubian Copts. They resisted the declarations of Constantine made at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE that unsuccessfully tried to ignore or resolve these differences. Such important church historians as Eusebius maintained some sympathy for Arianism, or he was at least opposed to the more extreme forms of anti-Arianism. Constantinople (today’s Istanbul) was named in his honor in 324 CE, and when it became the capital of the unified Roman Empire, it only undermined the position of Alexandria still further. COPPER. Throughout dynastic times, Nubia was much appreciated for its mineral and stone resources. Although gold was the most valued, copper was much sought after in the Old Kingdom, and thereafter Nubian copper was alloyed with tin to produce numerous bronze implements, and weapons. The main source of Nubian copper was in the Red Sea Hills through the Wadi alAllaqi. Generally the period covered in this book can be termed the Bronze Age, but since copper is the largest ingredient, it obscures its great role in

100

•

COPTS

metallurgy and ancient nomenclature. Only when the harder metal of iron came in Meroitic and Greco-Roman times was bronze replaced, and even then it long continued for sculpture although not for tools and weapons. COPTS. The Copts of the Nile valley are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians who spoke a cognatic language and essentially never moved from their ancestral lands. Some believe that the term Copt is believed to descend from Heka-Ptah or, roughly, “the place where the god Ptah rules.” The form Heka-Ptah was corrupted by the Greeks under Ptolemaic rule to become Aigyptos, and from that, the Copts have evolved. The closeness of the living and written forms of the Coptic language to ancient Egyptian was critical in the broader decipherment of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Inscriptions in medieval Nubia are common in Coptic and Old Nubian, but these two languages are not related, except perhaps in the subjects they were used to record. Hieroglyphics and Coptic were among the most ancient of languages to be written in ancient Nubia and it provides the earliest of texts about Nubia whether told by ancient Egyptian record keepers or by Dynasty XXV Nubians ruling Egypt. Since the Coptic language evolved from Egyptian demotic and the morphology of demotic can be linked to some letters in Meroitic, one can see still more ties to Nubia as Coptic was morphed again into the epigraphy of Old Nubian in Christian times. After their early conversion to Christianity by St. Mark, the Copts identified with their own Monophysite theology that ultimately excluded them from Roman papal authority and Trinitarianism. Copts were largely responsible for bringing Nubian Christianity that usually existed under the authority of the Coptic pope of Alexandria. The Coptic language persists in some monasteries and for liturgical purposes. Like Old Nubian, the Coptic language made heavy use of the Greek alphabet, but all three languages otherwise belong to very different language families. In Old Nubian religious texts, the commentary and theology are essentially of the Coptic tradition although written in a Nubian dialect. The Coptic AM calendar (AM, Year of the Martyrs) began on 28 August 284 CE and is still observed for religious purposes. CORNELIUS GALLUS (r. 30–26 BCE). Following the short and only visit to Egypt by Augustus in 30 BCE, Egypt was left under the authority of its prefect, Cornelius Gallus. The self-confidence of the Roman Empire was so great at this juncture that it felt itself virtually unassailable. Promptly the Romans jeopardized the careful political balance formerly struck between the Ptolemies and Meroë. Prefect Gallus declared that Aswan would be the legal

CORNELIUS GALLUS (R. 30–26 BCE)

•

101

boundary of Roman Egypt, but Meroë, as a bordering client state, would also come under the practical authority of Rome as well. Prefect Gallus also stimulated a Theban tax revolt that he put down by force. Apprehension grew in Meroë, and after frustrating negotiations failed, a very large Meroitic army, led either by Kandake (Queen) Amanikhshete or Amanirenas, attacked Aswan and Philae. In around 29 BCE, Gallus then sent Petronius to counterattack at Dakka and Qasr Ibrim. From there he based his army to conduct a raid into Napata. The Meroites attacked Qasr Ibrim but failed to dislodge the Romans. However, Cornelius Gallus proposed peace negotiations at the remote Aegean island of Samos that reset the border at Maharraqa, thus putting the Dodekaschoenos buffer region of Lower Nubia under Roman control but with Meroitic authority recognized upstream. While this left the valuable Wadi al-Allaqi gold mines in Roman hands, it is clear that the Romans were also stung by these military engagements, and later, the Romans either kept to themselves or withdrew to Aswan. Cornelius Gallus tried to extend his authority in Egypt by claiming these “victories” in his own name, and he was perceived as a threat to Augustus in Rome. Being recalled to Rome and fearing his own execution, Cornelius Gallus killed himself in 26 BCE.

D DABENARTI. Dabenarti Island was located just upstream of the Second Cataract fortress complex of the Middle Kingdom at Mirgissa and just downstream from the contemporary fortress at Shalfak and Askut Island. Thus, it was part of the strong forward defense system of Egypt and of the early warning system against possible attack by Nubians from Kerma. It is now lost under the waters of Lake Nubia/Nasser. DABOD, DEBOD. The original location of Dabod temple was about 9 kilometers upstream of modern New Kalabsha on the western bank of the Nile, or around 20 kilometers from Philae Island. Its modern documentation begins with a site sketch done in 1737 by Frederik Norden. John Lewis Burckhardt visited Dabod in 1813, and in 1815, Giovanni Belzoni followed suit. In 1819, the architect Franz Christian Gau published a sketch and site plan of Dabod. This shows the river’s edge and the causeway, which then led to the sanctuary after passing through three pylons surrounded by a mud-brick wall. Karl Richard Lepsius visited Dabod in 1843 and added to the published documentation of the temple. Among the first photographs of Dabod are those by Maxime Duchamp from 1849 to 1851, by Antonio Béato in 1875, and by Gaston Maspero in 1906–1907, when the three pylons were still standing. Apparently, the Meroitic king Adikhalamani (r. ca. 200–190 BCE) began the Dabod temple to honor Amun and Isis. Since the Kushite capital was moved from Napata to Meroë, this was likely to have been an effort to assert his full territory. Adikhalamani is presented as the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, according to convention but not in contemporary political fact. Also following belief and convention, Adikhalamani was proclaimed the son of Ra and worshiper of Amun. The scribal god Thoth ritually purified this Meroitic king at Dabod temple. Other Egyptian and Nubian deities featured at Dabod in offering and praise reliefs include Amun’s consort Mut, as well as Anqet, Arensnuphis, Behedeti, Geb, Hathor, Horus (Ra-Harekhty, Harendotes, and Harpocrates), Isis, Khnum (Ra), Maat, Mahesa, Min, Nekhbet, Nephthys, Osiris, Ptah, Satet, Sekhmet, Shu, and Tefnut. 103

104

•

DAKKA

During the reigns of Ptolemy VII, Ptolemy XIII, and Cleopatra III, additions were made to the exterior pylons, and the temple was devoted to the worship of the popular goddess Isis. The sacred altar of Dabod is attributed to Ptolemy XIII, the brother of the famed Cleopatra VII. Columns at Dabod were made in the popular Late Period style with palmiform capitals. In Roman times, during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, the exterior pylon entrance received more attention. As a consequence of this long history, the inscriptions at Dabod are in hieroglyphics, Meroitic (for Arkakamani), and Greek. As a result of the High Dam project, Dabod temple was threatened and seasonally inundated in 1959 up to the interior chapel. In 1960, UNESCO decided to save Dabod temple by removing it. In 1961, the temple was dismantled, and the blocks were removed to Elephantine Island at Aswan in preparation for shipment. These building stones rested there until 1968 when they were shipped to Spain. The Spanish archaeologist Martin Almagro has described its renewal at the “Cuartel de la Montana” in Madrid, Spain, in 1968 and its reconstruction in 1970. It is now situated there with restoration of its altar, chapel sanctuary, naos (shrine), and two of the three original pylons, along with the rich theological reliefs. DAJU. The precise origins of the Daju people are unknown, but they probably date back even to dynastic Egyptian times. The Daju were among the earliest inhabitants of Darfur, with whom the Fur people share membership in the Eastern Sudanic language family, along with Nilotic and Nubian languages. However, Fur speakers are distinguished from the Daju in some respects, and thus they qualify as unique in their language stock. The position of the Daju at the southern end of the Darb al-Arba’in (40-Days Road) to the Selima oasis is unquestionably ancient. This strategic position gave them considerable influence at the eastern end of the Sahel and its east-west trade. In the 13th or 14th century CE, the Daju dominance of trade in Darfur was replaced by the Tungur and Fur (Keira) dynasties. DAKKA, DAKKE, DAKKEH, ED-DAKKA, PER-SELKET, PSELQET, PSELCHIS. The marvelous temple of Dakka was built mainly in Ptolemaic (Ptolemy IV, Philopator; Ptolemy VIII, Euergetes II) and Meroitic times to honor the deities Thoth (of Pnubs), Anqet, Selket, and Satet, among others. The ancient name is derived from its local worship in the “house” of the scorpion goddess Selket. This temple was originally sited roughly 40 kilometers north of its new location. It was not far from the Nile on the western edge of a flat plain. It was first excavated by Cecil Mallaby Firth. David Roberts drew the Dakka temple and many other Nubian temples in their original locations.

DAKKA

•

105

Some scholars believed the Dakka temple to have been a condominium effort between Meroë and Ptolemaic Egypt, but no evidence to support this exists. This former interpretation emerged because both Ptolemaic pharaohs and the Meroitic king Arkamani II have their hieroglyphic cartouches at Dakka temple. Most likely, he was able to build there while Ptolemaic kings had temporarily withdrawn from the Dodekaschoenos region. Arkamani II made early additions to the Dakka temple in the late third century BCE and proclaimed himself the king of Upper and Lower Egypt. His constructions were dedicated mainly to Thoth but also to Amun, Hapy, Isis, Osiris, and Arensnuphis. The portions of the Dakka temple attributed to Arkamani II were built very early in the Meroitic period. The relatively few Meroitic inscriptions at this temple probably date to a later time since he preferred to write in hieroglyphics. During the dismantling of the Dakka temple, it was discovered that some of the stones had been reused from Middle Kingdom structures since Dakka was originally situated directly across from the Dynasty XII fort at Quban (Baki) that protected the access to the famed gold mines at Wadi al-Allaqi. Some early construction stones at Dakka are attributed to Amenemhat of Dynasty XII. Other reused stones dated to Dynasty XVIII in the New Kingdom constructions of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis III, and Seti I (father of Ramses II). When the Ptolemies returned to Lower Nubia, the generic inscription to Per-Aa (pharaoh) was commonly made at Dakka and elsewhere since succession in the late Ptolemaic times was more rapid than stonemasons could handle. The Ptolemaic contribution to Dakka is the small but attractive first vestibule that is tied directly to the pronaos (shrine antechamber) and sanctuary that had been built in Meroitic times. Ironically, the innermost chamber dates to the later times of Augustus rather than to Arkamani II by virtue of a rear addition to the temple where a granite cult shrine was placed. The western pylon stairway now takes visitors to the roof for a splendid view of the entire complex, westward across the vast Libyan Desert, and now, to a wide expanse of Lake Nasser to the east, and a view down to the Maharraqa temple below. During the time of Augustus, one side of the outer pylon was finished. Some reliefs were also added during the reign of Tiberius. The three styles of Meroitic, Ptolemaic, and Roman are clearly contrasted at Dakka. The Roman general Petronius likely stopped the forces of the Meroitic queen (candace) in this region in 23 CE. On this occasion, a small temple was built on an earlier foundation of a structure of Arkamani II. During the second century CE, the Romans built a castrum, or military camp, around the temple of Dakka.

106

•

DAKKA

The flood of Lake Nasser compelled the relocation of the temple between 1962 and 1968 to a new, higher location near the relocated temple of Wadi es-Sebua. Today, the large pylon is separate from the temple proper. Before reconstruction, many of the blocks had fallen down, so it is now in much better condition than it had been for centuries. DAL CATARACT. This section of the Third Cataract is a portion of the Butn al-Hajr and is in the vicinity of the village of Firka. DALION. Dalion was a Greek traveler who reached or even traveled beyond Meroë in around the fourth century BCE. His reports noted fanciful accounts of one-eyed people as well as “wild animal eaters” (Agriophagi), “everything eaters” (Panphagi), “man eaters” (Anthropophagi), “seed eaters” (Spermatophagi), “locust eaters” (Acridophagi), “elephant eaters” (Elephantophagi), “ostrich eaters” (Struthophagi), “dog milkers” (Cyanmolgi), and other “ethnographic” references. His work is lost but was cited by Pliny the Elder. DANGEIL. This late Meroitic temple to Amun is located between the Fifth Cataract and Atbara and, most recently, has been excavated by Julie Anderson, Mahmoud Bashir, and Salah Ahmed. It dates to around the first century CE and was likely rebuilt by King Natakamani and Queen Amanitore. Finding a broken statue of King Aspelta of Napatan times suggests the first version may date to that time. Its design and orientation suggest more of Egyptian influences than Meroitic, including an opening to the west (not southeast) for most Amun temples in Meroë and other standard features such as hieroglyphic inscriptions, a temenos wall, peristyle hall, pylon with flagstaffs and interior stairs, and a kiosk in the entrance hall. A dais “stepped pulpit” next to the naos (inner shrine) as in Dangeil is also found in Meroitic temples. The Dangeil region offered another crossing point for the Bayuda if travelers did not want to cross by Wadi Abu Dom. Burned roof timbers and substantial destruction to the building could correlate to the invasion by King Ezana of Axum. DAO, DAW. See DOTAWO, DAO, DAW. DARB AL-ARBA’IN. The Darb al-Arba’in (40-Days Road) connected ancient Nubia and the lands far to the south in northern Kordofan and Darfur with Upper and Middle Egypt by way of a desert route. The route was used for moving not only large numbers of livestock, especially camels, but also slaves and gum arabic and other savanna resources valued in Egypt. It is believed that Harkuf used this ancient desert track in the First Intermediate Period in his trading missions to Yam. Staying away from the more populat-

DEBEIRA, DIBEIRA, WEST

•

107

ed Nile valley enhanced the security of trade items to a certain extent. From the desert west of the Third Cataract, the Darb al-Arba’in headed to the Selima Oasis for rewatering of the animals before going northeast to Kurkur and Dunqul Oases on the way to Aswan. An alternative route stayed in the desert until reaching Kharga Oasis, from which one could rewater again before passing on to Assiut in Middle Egypt. This ancient route has long been favored for animal transport and smuggling. The desert-tracking Medjay have long been involved in patrolling and policing this desert route that passed by the Roman fort at Dush. DARFUR. Darfur is the ancient homeland of the Fur and Daju people. Its vast history is known archaeologically in prehistoric times, and it had connections to dynastic Egypt through Saharan trade routes. Wavy-line and dotted wavy-line pottery typical of the Khartoum Mesolithic has also been found in northern Darfur, perhaps reaching that area through Wadi Howar. Probably later, black and red paintings are found in cave shelters in southern Darfur in the Dajo Hills. These images depict wild animals as well as domestic horses and riders. The precise dates have not been determined for these works. After the collapse of Meroë in the fourth century CE, parts of Darfur may have received refugees of the royal family escaping from the Axumites. In medieval times of Christian Nubia, areas of northern Darfur were opened to some cultivation with the introduction of water-conserving terracing. DEBEIRA, DIBEIRA, EAST. Debeira East is located just downstream of Wadi Halfa. Scandinavian excavation discovered unusual home sites and grain storage of C-Group occupation. Rock inscriptions nearby show Egyptian-style boats carrying cattle that presumably were traded by C-Group people of Egypt. Inscribed patterns of feet are also noted at this site as well as many others. It is believed that they mark a spot of pilgrimage or spiritual invocation. This now flooded site also held the rock-cut tomb of Djehuty-hotep, probably serving Queen Hatshepsut as the prince of the local region of Tehkhet. This tomb has been removed to the garden area at the Sudan National Museum. Debeira East also has cemeteries of other notables in the New Kingdom. Debeira East was also occupied in much later X-Group times. DEBEIRA, DIBEIRA, WEST. The Christian village of Debeira West was located on the west bank of the Nile about 11 kilometers downstream from Wadi Halfa. Both original sites are lost with the flood of Lake Nasser. This is one of many villages along the Second Cataract that had been occupied in Middle Kingdom times as well. Being a part of Christian Nobatia it was an

108

•

DEBOD

early Christian settlement perhaps started in the 700s CE with ruins of a domed church and Byzantine-style frescoes in the apse. A famed and salvaged fresco ironically depicts Noah’s Ark for this church now under water. It was excavated in 1963 by the University of Ghana. DEBOD. See DABOD, DEBOD. DEDUN, DEDAN, DEDWAN, TETUN. This very ancient Nubian god was depicted as ram-headed or more often as an anthropomorphic god. Dedun seems to have been especially important to the Medjay people on the Eastern Desert, even more than riverine Nubians. In the earliest mention of Dedun in the Pyramid Texts of 2300 BCE, he is termed “the youth who came out of Nubia.” Dedun was also considered “the Lord of Punt.” Senusoret III erected a stela dedicated to Dedun at the Middle Kingdom forts at Semma and Uronarti. Apparently, this stela was provided to honor this deity of his Medjay border guards. During the New Kingdom, Tuthmosis III renewed the shrines to Dedun (and Senusoret III) at Semna and Uronarti. L. V. Zabkar states that the Ptolemies considered Dedun ancestral to Arensnuphis. Dedun was very popular in Greco-Roman times, especially in Nubian temples and chapels, such as those at Al-Lessiya, Semna, Kalabasha, and Jebel Barkal. He is depicted throughout Egypt all the way to the delta, and he is reported even in Siwa Oasis in Ptolemaic times. Martin Bernal offered the idea that Dedun even entered Greek theology in the form of the poorly known oracle god Dedona, popular in northern Greece. In the Nile valley, he was also known as a bringer or protector of frankincense (a Nubian commodity highly valued in religious services). In the Old Testament Bible (Genesis 10:7), Dedun is noted as a “Son of Cush.” DEFFINARTI. This early fortified island Christian village is typical of the Second Cataract villages. Its name means simply “island ruins.” Like Debeira West, it was excavated by a team from the University of Ghana in 1963 before being lost under Lake Nasser. DEFFUFA (EASTERN AND WESTERN) OF KERMA. This generic Nubian word refers to “ancient ruins,” but it is usually applied to the great mudbrick structures at Kerma. While the mud bricks appear to be of Egyptian inspiration, the style and function of the deffufas at Kerma appear to be uniquely Nubian. Most likely, they were built during the Classical or Late times of Kerma. Pottery and sealings are dated especially to the Middle Kingdom and to the Hyksos period, when the Kerma kings had strong military and political ties to the Asian kings of the delta. A few seals found at Kerma date to Pepi I at the

DEFFUFA (EASTERN AND WESTERN) OF KERMA

•

109

end of the Old Kingdom. A great deal of speculation has been made about their exact uses, but they can be differentiated by their location and architecture. The lower, or western, deffufa is situated adjacent to a royal residence and a huge circular African-style reception hall. It is roughly 2.5 kilometers from the river in the fertile Kerma basin. Although some thought it had a defensive or commercial application, the tiny interior spaces suggest otherwise, and recent thinking has been more inclined to accept it as a towering, massive religious shrine of some sort. Clearly, it was a central part of the royal town site of Kerma and now consists only of a simple-chambered unfired mudbrick ruin. It is still of impressive size—some 20 meters high, 52.3 meters long, and 26.7 meters wide—but it likely was larger when in use. In Egyptian measures, its length comes very close to 150 cubits, the standard of the time. The forward portion bears some similarity to an Egyptian temple pylon, and the whole structure may have been fully faced with stone or painted mud stucco. Attached to the western deffufa was another smaller mud-brick building of later date that had two small rooms. One of the rooms had six interior (structural?) columns that have a parallel with the eastern deffufa. These structures were sometimes altered, and additions were made. The last change likely was made late in the Classical Period just prior to New Kingdom conquest. From side stairs, it appears possible to enter the rather small interior and, by way of an interior stairway, reach the roof with its commanding view of the area. The small size of the interior chamber does not suggest a storage function. The huge amount of labor required and the proximity to the royal “audience chamber,” “palace,” or “reception pavilion” suggest it had a formal political, religious, or ritualistic function. The round, un-Egyptian palace was rebuilt many times, judging from the series of postholes. It likely had a large, conical thatch roof, similar to those of the Shilluk of southern Sudan or the Buganda of the Great Lakes region. The upper, or eastern, deffufas lie about 3 kilometers farther east. They are situated amid an extensive cemetery field of tremendous circular graves for the Classical Kerma kings. One was probably rebuilt or added to on at least three occasions. That the two eastern deffufas are surrounded by so many major graves suggests that they were used repeatedly for a funerary function. A hint of interior stair exists, as well as two narrow chambers with four interior columns each, indicating that they supported a ceiling. One of the smaller eastern deffufas measures 40 meters in length and 20 meters in width. The other was around 50 meters long and roughly 30 meters wide. Their original height could only be estimated, and they seem to have been built on similar plans. They had interior painting in red, black, and yellow, and some animal motifs are known from their doorjambs.

110

•

DEIR AL-MEDINA

Without further investigation or texts, the precise function is not known, but it has been suggested that they could be mortuary temples (George Reisner), a cemetery watchtower (William Adams), or a religious sanctuary (John Taylor). The lack of major storage capacity for goods or troops and the connection with royal residential structures has tipped the consensus toward a political, religious, or mortuary function. DEIR AL-MEDINA. This famed worker’s village was located in the hills of western Thebes in Egypt. It was the residence of the skilled craftsmen who designed, carved, and decorated the splendid tombs for New Kingdom pharaohs. It is certain that some Nubian (Kushite) craftsmen were among the population of Deir al-Medina. For example, there is evidence of a Nubian mason named Trky, who lived there while he applied his skills at nearby Deir al-Bahri during Dynasty XVIII. This would be parallel to the unique case of the burial in the Valley of the Kings of the ranking Nubian servant Maiherpri. During the time of Ramses II in Dynasty XIX, the scribe Amen-em-opet of this village had a father who had been a priest in the Amun temple at Napata in Nubia. During the civil strife at the end of Dynasty XX between the viceroy Piankhy and the Theban priests, an effort was made to recruit soldiers for this conflict from Deir al-Medina. One chapel shows the worship of the Nubian deities Khnum, Anqet, and Satis, at least suggesting that the deceased had worked or traveled to Elephantine at the First Cataract, where these Nubian deities are especially celebrated. DEMOTIC: HIEROGLYPHIC. The demotic form of hieroglyphics was the successor to the very early hieratic form. Both were increasingly cursive writing systems used in everyday record keeping, unlike the more cumbersome Middle Egyptian hieroglyphs, which were used for formal records and monumental inscriptions. All three systems have clearly successive lexical and morphological links to each other. Demotic emerged either at the time of the Nubian occupation of Egypt in Dynasty XXV or in Dynasty XXVI for reasons that are not fully understood. A demotic inscription is known for Taharka. One may speculate that the Nubians needed an easy, rapid system of record keeping in Egypt and that they did not arrive with a writing system of their own at the time. Hieroglyphic writing had certainly been known in Nubia before the New Kingdom’s occupation of that land, but except for some Nubian deities and placenames, it seems that Nubian languages were never recorded in hieroglyphics. In Nubia, contemporary with the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, hardly any inscriptional evidence has been uncovered.

DENDUR, TUTZIS

•

111

Thus, when the Nubians reemerged in the eighth century BCE to become the new rulers of a reunited Egypt, they may well have had need of a writing system that was both familiar to Egyptian scribes and easier for them to operate. Demotic remained in place in Egypt after the Nubians withdrew, and it continued to be used through Greco-Roman times up to the last dated instance in the mid-fifth century CE at Philae, among the last times Meroitic was written, or in the case of Meroitic at Kalabsha. By about the time that Egyptians were also writing in Greek or Coptic, Nubians were starting to record their language in Old Nubian. Coptic and Old Nubian used mainly Greek (i.e., Phoenician-derived) letters with some additional letters for their unique sound systems. Clearly, the most important demotic inscription was the bilingual and tritextual Rosetta Stone, which allowed transliteration and later decipherment of hieroglyphs in the early 19th century. Demotic was horizontally written from right to left like other Semitic languages. It is highly cursive, with numerous stylized ligatures. Thousands of examples of demotic exist on papyrus, ostraca, and stone. The record is especially rich for commercial and legal transactions as well as memorial tributes, proclamations, and scientific and religious themes. DEMOTIC: MEROITIC. The Meroitic language has two written forms. Both are essentially alphabetic with the exception of a few syllabic glyphs, word spacers, and some determinatives. Often the common form of Meroitic is termed “cursive” (running, flowing), but it is really a demotic form. Because it has no ligatures or connections between the letters or the glyphs, the term cursive is really a misnomer, and it should be called “demotic Meroitic” to be consistent with the term and with its use in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Appendix 11 provides a table of Meroitic demonic letters and sounds as deciphered by Francis L. Griffith. DENDUR, TUTZIS. The relatively small temple of Dendur in Lower Nubia was probably started in late Ptolemaic times but was probably not fully inscribed. These turbulent times are implied by the use of cartouches that contain only the generic Per-Aa reference to “pharaoh”; the name is left blank without a specific Ptolemy noted, since the one who started the work may have been dethroned before the project was completed. The standard motif of white and red crowns is common to this temple. Horus (of Buhen and Miam) is also much celebrated at Dendur temple along with his divine mother, Isis, who was very popular at the time. Caesar Augustus (r. 27 BCE–14 CE) completed the construction and inscription of Dendur in early Roman times. This was part of his Nubian temple construction program that included nearby Kalabsha temple. On the eastern end of the top register on the exterior northern wall, a double-crowned Augustus is depicted making an

112

•

DENDUR, TUTZIS

offering on the exterior northern wall to a seated Amun and Mut. In the center, Augustus is wearing the khepresh blue war crown, and the remaining upper-register inscription is severely damaged and difficult to make out. On the bottom register of the same side, Augustus is offering two vessels to Horus and Isis. Another scene shows him offering to a Nubian deity, and the western scene on the northern wall shows him offering to Osiris in front of Isis. On the interior western wall, Augustus is offering a jug to Khnum. Khnum is holding a w3st and ankh and has both the curved Amun horns and an atef crown with horizontal horns. He is described as the Lord of Biga (of the First Cataract), who presides over the first nome of Egypt. In another scene on the rear of the southern gateway doorjamb, Augustus, wearing his atef crown, is pouring milk into a vessel on an offering table in front of Osiris. Behind Osiris is his sister consort Isis. Another interior scene on the south jamb of the pronaos shows Augustus wearing the white crown, offering the cobra deity Wadjet to Horus, who is holding a w3st and ankh. Nearby on the interior southern wall of the pronaos is Augustus, wearing the double crown, offering incense to Isis seated on her throne with an ankh and lotus staff. The temple was built according to a standard plan with an outer pylon, pronaos, hallway, and inner sanctum (perhaps of Dynasty XXVI) to honor the memory of the sons of Quper (Kuper), brother princes Peteese and Pihor (Petessis/Pedesi and Pahor), and local holy men who may have drowned in this area, perhaps during the invasion of Gallus. These two figures are shown in a relief on the interior southern wall of the pronaos. Both are seated and hold the ankh and w3st scepters. Peteese and Pihor were buried in a small rock-cut tomb behind the Dendur temple. Some Meroitic graffiti inscriptions are attributed to this temple as well as depictions of the Nubian deities Arensnuphis and Mandulis. The remaining ceiling blocks are cut with repeated images of the vulture goddess along with stars of the night sky. Lion reliefs were carved into the base of the doorway for protection. In 577 CE, the Dendur temple, like most of the Nubian temples, was converted into a church under the rule of Bishop Theodorus of Philae. Dendur was visited by a number of notable Egyptologists and travelers, including Robert Hay in around 1830, David Rogers in 1838, Felix Teynard in 1853, Amelia Edwards in 1874, Howard Carter in 1901, and Caroline Ransom Williams in around 1910. With the rising waters of Lake Nasser, well over 600 remaining blocks of Dendur were removed in 1963 from its location on the western bank of the Nile downstream of Gerf Hussein, or some 60 kilometers from the First Cataract. In 1968, the 800 tons of blocks were removed to the Sackler Gallery in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, where it has been reconstructed and handsomely displayed since 1980.

D-GROUP

•

113

DEPUTY OF KUSH. See KUSH, QESH, KŠ; WAWAT. DERR, ED-DERR (ANDERE OR DOR IN MEROITIC). This mainly rock-cut temple was built by Ramses II and was originally located on the eastern bank of the Nile around 11 kilometers upstream of Amada. The temple is not considered to exhibit the best craftsmanship, an example of which is the curved, poorly planned architrave, but it is still interesting. JeanFrançois Champollion and James Henry Breasted surveyed the site. Derr is unusual since it is actually on the eastern bank of the Nile. However, the river curves southeasterly so much at that point that the eastern bank is more westerly than the western bank. Usually, the western bank of the Nile was favored for such structures. As at Abu Simbel, the Derr temple has Ramses II deified with the gods Re-Harakhty, Amon-Re, Khnum, and Ptah, so it is assumed that it was constructed relatively late in his reign at about the same time as Abu Simbel. Unlike at Abu Simbel, no seated colossi exist at Derr. The outer court shows four Osiride columns and eight square columns that are heavily damaged, but it is evident that a battle scene was depicted. The middle interior hall of six heavy columns is less damaged, with two scenes of the pharaoh making offerings. Another scene shows the name of Ramses II being recorded on the leaves of the Persea tree. Some of the colors are strong because of their absorption into the stone. The innermost section of the temple consists of three chambers somewhat reminiscent of Abu Simbel, especially because the central chamber has the same four seated deities of Ptah, Amub-Re, deified Ramses II, and Re-Horakhty. In the Christian era, the Derr temple began to be used as a church. Just prior to the region being flooded by the Aswan Dam, the temple was excavated from the solid rock into which it had been carved and was reconstructed at a new site on the western bank between the tomb of Penniut and the relocated temple of Amada. Its overall condition is not good; portions had been subject to defacement and flooding of the Nile before it was moved in 1964. D-GROUP. George Reisner gave the name D-Group to sites and remains in Nubia dating after 1500 BCE, during the period of Egyptian New Kingdom control of the region. As the chronology of ancient Nubia was being developed, the series of A-, B-, C-, D-, and X-Groups was established and continued since no local or original names were established for the peoples of these times and places. However, today the reference to the B-Group and the DGroup are no longer in use among archaeologists, while the other references are still current.

114

•

DIOCLETIAN (?–316 CE; R. 284–305 CE)

DIOCLETIAN (?–316 CE; r. 284–305 CE). This military ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire, including Egypt, had great ambitions to restructure the administration, army, and economy in order to produce more wealth for Rome. Reigning from 284–305 CE, he was the last of the pagan Roman emperors to have actually visited Egypt. He also sought to control the Nubian lands of the Nobatae and the Blemmyes with a system of indirect rule in which their local chiefs would become paid agents of Rome. However, his harsh administration actually stimulated local revolts that compelled him to withdraw his garrisoned troops from most of Lower Nubia very early in his reign. In his withdrawal, he placed the Nile limits (limes) of the Roman Empire at Philae where he built a gateway at the northeastern end of that island. He also strengthened his defenses with a fortress at Elephantine Island. His brutal persecutions of early Christians was so severe that the Coptic Christians immortalize this date in their AM (Year of the Martyrs) calendar to this time—that is, to 284 CE. For example, 637 AM = 921 CE; 732 AM = 1016 CE; 889 AM = 1173 CE. Diocletian abdicated in 305–306 CE and retired from his position to live at Split in Yugoslavia, where he died, rather than being murdered, as was frequently the case with Roman emperors. DIODORUS SICULUS. The Greek Diodorus of Sicily was a world historian during the early Roman period (first century BCE) and thus was a contemporary of Socrates. He contributed to the narratives on Nubia drawn from Dalion, Pliny the Elder, and Strabo. He was known to have lived until at least 21 BCE, and his book Biblioteca Historica reports on the history of the world from early times to Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul. In the 10th century CE, Constantine VII reproduced some fragments of the work of Diodorus. In Book I, Diodorus laid out the geography of Egypt and “Ethiopia” (Meroë). He repeated the length of the Nile at 12,000 stadia. He also spoke of the seasonal floods and cataracts of the Nile and the mineral resources in the adjacent land. The many islands in the Ethiopian Nile were described as overrun with snakes and baboons. Meroë was referred to as the “Island of Meroë.” Book I provides some details on the functioning of the Apis bull cult in Egypt as well as the contemporary worship of other animal deities. In Book II, Diodorus noted the unusual burial practice of Meroites to pour “a heavy coat of glass over the body of the deceased” or a statue of the dead to preserve it. Perhaps this was a Meroitic innovation in mummification and burial practices, or was this just shiny shellac or bitumen? Book II makes mention of the legendary Babylonian queen Semiramis, who, after visiting all of Egypt and the Amun cult there also visited “Ethiopia.” She is said to have visited there in the 700s BCE, according to Herodotus.

DJOSER, ZOZER (R. 2668–2649 BCE)

•

115

DIORITE. This sometimes finely grained, dark, and very hard igneous stone was highly valued by Egyptians for detailed royal sculpture. A major source of diorite was at a quarry deep in the desert west of Toshka in Lower Nubia. DJEHUTY-HOTEP. This Nubian chief was the son of Ruiu, a Nubian who ruled the princedom of Tehkhet during Dynasty XVIII. As such, he was considered an Egyptianized Nubian prince. Djehuty-hotep had a rock-cut tomb created at Debeira East. The tomb paintings illustrate typical Egyptian scenes of hunting and feasting. Plantation scenes in the tomb of Djehutyhotep suggest that Lower Nubia’s economy was active in the production and exporting of dates. DJER, JER (r. ca. 3042–2995 BCE). This pharaoh, son of Aha, ruled from Memphis as the third pharaoh of Dynasty I in the Archaic Period before the Egyptian Old Kingdom. His importance to Nubia especially rests on his inscription showing his boats coming to Nubia to bind and slay A-Group Nubians and take others back hanging from the prow of his boats. Djer’s throne is shown on one vessel. This inscription was found on a rock at Jebel Sheikh Suleiman near the Second Cataract. It is the first historically attested instance, among very many to come, to illustrate a riverine attack against Nubia and the resulting Nubian leaders slain and captured by Egyptians. This is perhaps the earliest of such records, thus presaging millennia of periodically hostile relations between these two Nile valley peoples. This inscription was saved and removed to the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. Djer ruled for as long as 50 years. The products he acquired in Nubia, such as slaves, livestock, oils, resins, mica, feldspar, copper, ivory, gold, amethyst, and carnelian, brought great wealth to this early pharaoh of Egyptian dynastic history. Djer was buried at tomb O in Abydos, where his hieroglyphs are known from wood and ivory labels. One shows his name in a simple serekh that relates to a trip he took to Buto and Sais in the delta. Inscriptions to Djer are also known in Sinai. As with Kerma, human sacrifice of retainers or servants was practiced in Egypt at this time, but Djer may have been one of the last Egyptian pharaohs to do so. Although his remains are not known, some 300 of Djer’s servants were found, as were about 100 private stelae, of which the majority were women who were presumed to be his wives. Djer’s wife Merneith is known for her armlet and lovely bracelets. It is possible that she ruled briefly after his death. Old Kingdom kings Djet and Den followed Djer. DJOSER, ZOZER (r. 2668–2649 BCE). This Dynasty III pharaoh of the Old Kingdom is famed for launching the pyramid era with the construction of his stepped pyramid of Sakkara, the royal burial ground of Memphis.

116

•

DODEKASCHOENOS

Djoser sought to expand the Old Kingdom and control the region in Lower Nubia that had only been marginally brought under Egyptian authority under the previous pharaohs. Apparently accomplishing this objective, Djoser declared that Khnum, the ancient Nubian ram god of the First Cataract, was invoked to control not only the region of Elephantine, where he was believed to reside, but also from there to Maharraqa, around 130 kilometers father south. The reference to Djoser’s invocation to the Nubian triad is noted in a famed “Famine Stela” at a Seheil Island that was inscribed by the Ptolemies, who were seeking relief from a seven-year famine caused by lower floods of the Nile. The Ptolemies thought that by invoking Khnum and Imhotep, the deified architect of Djoser, they would relieve this ecological problem. Thus, this early declaration of Egyptian control of Nubia was a theme to be repeated or resisted often in the coming centuries. DODEKASCHOENOS. Literally, the Dodekaschoenos region means the stretch of Lower Nubia spanning 12 schoenos in length—that is, the region of about 125 kilometers from Aswan to Maharraqa in the south. From early Ptolemaic times, the region was under Greek control until the region was returned to Meroitic authority, allowing these Nubians to construct, or add to, temples at Dakka and Dabod. In later Ptolemaic times, the Greeks returned to the region. When the Romans arrived with Caesar Augustus, the Meroitic queen was so concerned about this threat to her territory that she and her large forces attacked Roman Aswan in 23 BCE. A counterpunitive raid led by Petronius temporarily returned the region to Romans garrisoned at Philae, Kertassi, Dakka, and Qasr Ibrim and sought to negotiate a peace treaty on the Greek island of Samos to agree on a border at Maharraqa (then termed Takompso). The permanent and effective boundary of Roman Egypt was usually at Aswan. Only in 67 CE did the Romans take any heightened interest in the region, when Nero, possibly interested in a future raid, sent an expedition to Nubia. In 297 CE, the Romans withdrew totally from their exposed points in the Dodekaschoenos to the security of Aswan. Not being central to the rule of either Nile power, the region was most often a commilitum, or free buffer zone, rather than a place of Roman-Kushite conflict. At best, the Romans used this region as a periodic military and political check against Nubians, as much as ancient Egyptians had done long before. One of the main interests there was to secure the Nubian quarries for construction and sculptural stone and, above all, to control access to the Wadi al-Allaqi gold mines across from Dakka. In Roman times, agreements were made with Medjay soldiers and Roman officers in the Eastern and Western Deserts to try to control Nubian access to Egypt by land routes as well. Such was the case of Hadrian and Trajan at Philae and the Roman desert temple fort at Dush on the 40-Days Road (Darb al-Arba’in) entering on the south of Kharga Oasis.

DOGS

•

117

After the third century CE, the Romans withdrew fully from the Dodekaschoenos, and the region fell under Blemmye control as Meroë itself went into serious decline. The prohibition of Nubian worship of the Isis cult at Philae in 453 CE deepened the break between Roman Egypt and Meroë, furthering the occupation of the Dodekashoenos by the X-Group. They remained there until being evicted by the rise of Christianity, as evidenced in the King Silko inscription of about 536 CE. The loss of river and Red Sea trade between Roman Egypt and Meroë likely was one of the factors for Meroë’s decline. DOGS. It is generally agreed that African—indeed, all—dogs evolved from the wolf. In the ancient Middle East, dogs are known to be among the earliest domesticated animals and to have coexisted with the beginnings of agriculture. The first domestication was around 12,000 BCE, and the small, domesticated wolf Canis lupus. gradually transformed to Canis familiaris. From their western Asian origin, they spread into the Nile valley but advanced more slowly into sub-Saharan Africa. As is always the case in studying early domestication, domestic species must be sorted out from feral, or wild, Canis, which may also have been consumed as food. In ancient Nubia, dog burials appear in A-Group, Kadero, and Kadada sites along with infant pot burials, thus suggesting the widespread extent of domestic dogs along the Nubian Nile in these early times, although such dog burials do appear in contemporary Egyptian and Nubian sites, apparently indicating the same degree of reverence for dogs in a funerary application. A Kadada case shows both sacrificed dogs and dog burials, but dogs did not have their own cemeteries and were buried among humans. Egyptian animal burials can include a greater diversity of animals, whereas the Nubians seem to focus on dogs and goats in these early times while burying other animals, such as sheep, cattle, and horses, at later times. A very early case of domestic dogs in Nubia is found in around 3300 BCE at Shaheinab near modern Khartoum. In Naqada I (Amratian) times in Egypt, an image of a bow hunter with four leashed dogs was common. Instances of dog burials were known by the time of Naqada III at the important site of Hierakonpolis, and predynastic dog burials with humans were known in Lower Egypt at Ma‘adi and Digla and at Heliopolis. The role of dogs was at first devoted to hunting, but one may also presume a defensive role at these early times as well. Precisely when dog “races” got differentiated is not clear, but an increasing diversity of dog types appears in the dynastic era, as certain forms were preferred for certain tasks. Something like a mastiff, a saluki greyhound, and a basset hound can be detected rather early, while being grouped under the general terms tjesem, aasha or ash, uahr or uher, or the onomatopoeic auau. A more specific term was abiakur (Libyan greyhound). A greyhound hunting gazelle is depicted in the tomb of Hemaka in Dynasty I. Also in the same dynasty is the case of a

118

•

DOGS

pet dog buried with his owner at Abydos. The dog’s name was carved on a stone. This type is reckoned to be the basenji, which still exists in Sudan. The basenji has a desert-colored coat with some white points and a curled tail. These dogs do not bark. The saluki (selugi), or gazelle hound, is a tall, long-limbed, long-nosed dog from Egypt and western Asia. It can have long hair around its ears and legs. In Dynasty V, in the mastaba tomb of Pehenuka at Sakkara an image of a dog grasps a jackal. Another instance is known at Giza, where the dog Abuwtiyuw has his name carved into the rock. Even more, he was provided with his own coffin, linen, and incense for the trip to the afterlife. Deliberate dog burials are known for C-Group and Kerma cemeteries, and dogs are known in the contemporary Middle Kingdom. One of the bestknown monuments to dogs in ancient Egypt is the stela of King Wahanakh Inyotef II in the First Intermediate Period just prior to the formation of Dynasty XI of the Middle Kingdom. In this case, the stela shows this king with five of his dogs (ca. 2053 BCE). Perhaps by this time, the position of dogs in ancient Egypt was heading toward its peak, but generally dogs were appreciated for hunting and security while occupying a social position that was substantially less than cats. Perhaps the dogs of Inyotef II were valued as police dogs for his guards. His dogs were given names of Berber or Libyan origin, suggesting the source of these greyhounds. David Paton (1925, 20) gives the dog such names as Behuka (the oryx, or gazelle), Abiakur (the greyhound), Pehtes (Black[ie]), and Tekeru (the inseparable). In Dynasty XII, the Middle Egyptian nomarch Senbi is shown behind a blind hunting gazelles, sheep, oryx, and other animals with his bow and arrow and his Nubian servant carrying water and arrows while his several dogs pursued the wounded game animals. A similar scene for the nomarch Ukhhotep I is known, with his dogs grasping felled animals; remarkably one includes a giraffe that must have been close to extinction by this time (Houlihan 1996, 44–45). Still at the same period, the tomb of Khuw at Assiut depicts a fastlooking gracile dog held by a leash (Houlihan 1996, 80). In Hyksos times, dogs appear on polychrome frescos, and buried puppies are known from Tel Haror. Most had had their necks broken to join the burial of their masters. The subsequent New Kingdom images show hunting a lion with a spear, and a dog is known from the Valley of the Kings, probably in Rameside times. At the same location, the burial of the Nubian servant Maiherperi was with two lovely dog collars that, one may presume, were his charges when he was alive; the remains of the dogs were not found, suggesting that the dogs presumably were spared. In the New Kingdom, the preferred hunting dog was the saluki, or selugi, type, which was featured in hunting scenes or as a companion to royalty. Dogs apparently were sufficiently valued that breeds from Asia, the Western Desert, and Nubia were imported for the behaviors that they were believed to

DOMESTICATED FOWL

•

119

have had. The site of greyhound kennels has been identified for Amarna. An inscription attributed to Tuthmosis III (regnal year 23) at Wadi Halfa indicates that his “rulers of great houses” (i.e., his followers) are “like dogs at his heels.” Dogs functioned in warfare at this time, if not before, and in Dynasty XVIII, Tutankhamun is shown using dogs as his war chariot and bows and arrows against his Nubian and Asiatic foes. Dogs appear in the Late Period in the practice of pet dog burial for King Psusennes I of Dynasty XXI at Tanis in the delta, where his favorite canine companion went into the burial chamber with the king. In the King Piankhy stela, he considers that those he has conquered in Egypt are like “dogs at his feet.” The practice of dog burials continued into Meroitic times. In Greco-Roman times, a great variety of animals were commonly mummified. Dogs were processed in bundles that were carefully cross bandaged to create geometric patterns while keeping the head exposed to reveal their canine nature. The association of dogs with the jackal god Anubis may account for the large number of dog burials. Dogs apparently were honored at Cynopolis (“Dog-Town”), but even there they were not transformed into deities. Some scholarship has tried to elevate or merge dogs with the very important desert jackal deity Anubis, but this clearly is in error. The species of dogs and jackals are always contrasted in Nubia and Egypt. In the same regard, the wolf was venerated at Lycopolis (Asyut), but these ancient peoples easily recognized the differences between wolves, jackals, foxes, and dogs. DOMESTICATED FOWL. The three primary domesticated fowl in Egypt and Nubia were ducks, geese, and chickens. As depicted in art and in funerary offerings from Old Kingdom Egypt and Kerma onward, ducks and geese dominate this realm of animal husbandry. Evidence that these two birds were domesticated early on and formed a staple of the ancient diet is overwhelming. However, similar evidence of domesticated chickens has been curiously absent until recent discoveries. One of the most notable signatures of Meroitic ceramic art is the rooster motif. Perhaps the most recognizable example of this motif is a cup excavated by the Coxe expedition of 1907 from the Meroitic site of Shablul that is dated from 100 BCE to 250 CE; the cup depicts a rooster pecking from grains in the sand. The motif is an unusual one, for it depicts an animal rarely found in the region. Although the exact origins of the domesticated chicken are unknown, it is generally believed that it was introduced to Egypt from the Mediterranean in the Persian period (Dynasty XXVII, ca. 525 BCE). However, “we have no definite osteological evidence for the presence of domesticated fowl in Egypt until the beginning of the Greco-Roman period (ca. 332 BCE)” (MacDonald and Edwards 1993,

120

•

DONATIST CONTROVERSY

587). This evidence, from the site of Tell Maskhuta in the eastern delta, provides proof of the existence of the bird in Lower Egypt during the GrecoRoman period. The earliest pictorial evidence of the bird comes from a New Kingdom painted limestone fragment of a cock. In Nubia, archaeozoological research at Kerma and Meroë has so far provided no osteological evidence of this domesticated fowl. The earliest pictorial evidence occurs on a single ivory plaque from the tomb of Irentirou (Dynasty XXV) at Nuri, dated to the midseventh century BCE. In the Ptolemaic period (332–30 BCE), depictions of the bird, mostly roosters, increase but are still relatively rare. It is believed that these rare finds depict the rooster as exotic rather than as a locally domesticated resource. Chicken skeletons are known for most of sub-Saharan Africa after 800 CE. More concrete evidence of the domesticated chicken has recently been excavated at Qasr Ibrim, where the remains of a small hen have been positively identified as those of the domesticated species (Gallus gallus). Dated to the late fifth or early sixth century CE, the importance of this find is threefold. First, it is the earliest known osteological evidence of the domesticated chicken south of Egypt. Second, it provides evidence for continuing contact between Egypt and Sudan during the post-Meroitic period. Finally, and most important, the remains suggest that domesticated chickens (Gallusy gallus domesticus) were introduced into sub-Saharan Africa through Nubia during the period from the time of Christ to 550 CE (MacDonald and Edwards 1993). DONATIST CONTROVERSY. The Donatist debate finds its roots in the persecution of 249–259 CE—that is, within the scope of ancient history, especially under the persecution by Roman emperors Decius and Valerian but, in general, the previous martyrdom of so many Christians, and it was sustained by the Diocletian (and Galerius and Maximian) persecutions of 302–312 CE. Aside from this ancient historical context, the Donatists were also founded among rural Numidian (Algerian and Tunisian) Christian Berbers who had suffered especially under Roman rule; thus Donatists were also anti-imperialist (i.e., anti-Roman). The supporters of pagan Roman orthodoxy were more often wealthy, urban elites. While Donatism had geographic parameters, it was contemporary with the Arian controversy in Egypt and the Nile valley that had different theological issues but a rather convergent context in time and with anti-imperialist sentiment. Its name is derived from the Christian Berber bishop Donatus Magnus. The official issue at hand for the Donatists was how did faithful Christians and clergy respond to Roman anti-Christian terror and repression when asked to hand over Bibles and sacraments for destruction under the pain of death. The true-believing Donatists insisted that death is preferable to betraying

DONGOLA, KINGDOM OF

•

121

your faith and holy scriptures, as did the despised traditores (traitors). The bishops argued that saving lives is better than saving books. Sacrifice to the emperor was unforgiveable as a test of faith, especially for clergy who failed this test. After the persecutions ended in 312 CE, the bishops wanted to return to “normal” even when they had renounced their beliefs in Christianity. The Donatist (rigorist) reproach was hard to overcome except by fearful opportunism, and it endured despite Roman efforts to isolate it by the Edict of Toleration (311 CE), the Edict of Milan (313 CE), and the Council of Arles (314 CE) that also cast the debate as the imperial “official” Roman “north” versus the peripheral colonized “south” in modern terms. This remained as an unresolvable anti-Roman antagonism of core versus periphery that lasted until the arrival of Islam in the seventh century. Even then, the receptivity to Islam in North Africa was contextualized by the persistent anti-Roman sentiment. The Donatists rejected the legitimacy of the “weak” bishops and insisted that they no longer had the credibility to baptize or perform church rituals. The strict Donatists argued that the official clergy must be “faultless” to offer prayers and handle sacraments to be valid. The Roman orthodoxy wanted the Donatists back under Roman authority and basically to “get over it.” Virtually contemporary Arian monasticism in Egypt and the later disputes with Egyptian Monophysites were parallel with the Donatist martyrdom complex. These sorts of Puritanical views should be seen as underlying antiRoman attitudes whether in pagan or Christian times. Probably the same could be said even in pagan Greek times when divisions lingered on in Greek versus Coptic Christians. For Nubian Christians, the counterpart was seen in the conspiratorial “battles” between Theodora’s Monophysite missionaries versus the missionaries sent by her husband, Emperor Justinian. The height of Donatism was from the early fourth century during the persecution to the fifth century, but as Roman dominance persisted, purist Donatists endured until the eighth century at least. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. DONGOLA, KINGDOM OF. Dongola was already in existence in the seventh century CE since it gave a heroic resistance to the Islamic military forces of ‘Amr Ibn al-As, who conquered Egypt in 638–640 CE at the end of the ancient period and into medieval times. Indeed, his confidence was much shaken by the skilled archers and cavalry of Christian Nubia who defeated the Arabs near Dongola. Another attack in 651–652 CE was also blocked or else fought to an unstable truce, or baqt, as long as the Nubians produced 360 slaves for the Islamic Egyptians each year. Thus, by 690–710 CE, in the wake of these repulsed attacks, the Christian (probably Dyophysite) kingdom of Dongola was formed through the unification of the earlier Monophysite Christian states of Nobatia and Makuria. The

122

•

DONGOLA, KINGDOM OF

earlier existence of Makuria makes this transition to a unified state rather murky. The town of (Old) Dongola had been the capital of Makuria, and Faras was the capital of Nobatia. In the face of continued Muslim pressure from Egypt, the factious Nubian states managed to unify their kingdom and fortify their resistance to Islamic Egypt. Dongola’s first prominent Monophysite king was Merkurios (697–707 CE), known from his proclamation at Taifa. The Dongola kings may have succeeded in invading Egypt as far as Fustat (Old Cairo) in around 740 CE under the Dongola king Cyruacus. A few years later, in 758 CE, and even into the early ninth century, the Egyptians complained that the Nubians were years behind in their slave payments. Another Christian Nubian invasion of Egypt reached Akhmin in 862 CE, and attacks were reported in Upper Egypt on Kom Ombo and Edfu by the Christian Nubian armies on occasion. These attacks probably did not result in actual control, but they continued until at least 935 CE, during the tumultuous Late Period of Abbasid rule of Egypt. The Christian armies of Nubia also were militarily engaged with the Blemmyes or Beja on some occasions. It should be recalled that much of Upper Egypt was still sympathetic with Coptic Christianity, and even by 962 CE, substantial portions of Upper Egypt temporarily fell under the authority of the kingdom of Dongola. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the kingdom of Dongola occupied mainly a territory from the First to the Fourth Cataracts on the Nubian Nile. Following the collapse of the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt in 1171, the Ayyubids were in power, and Turanshah, the brother of Sultan Saladin al-Ayyubi al-Tikriti, attached Nubia and seized Qasr Ibrim in 1173 CE. There he slaughtered pigs and looted the cotton stores. In 1175 CE, he sent his ambassador to Dongola and reported that the king there was modestly dressed, that only the palace of the king was reported as a substantial structure, and that the rest of the houses were just “huts of straw” (tukls). This was the height of Fatimid penetration, and a few years later the Egyptians were driven out of Qasr Ibrim, which was restored to Nubian control for about a century. After seizing power from the Ayyubids in 1250 CE, the Mameluke rulers of Egypt renewed their military interest in Nubia. The Ayyubids saw internal divisions in Dongola as either militarily advantageous or as a threat to regional stability. Such was the complex condition of the succession struggle in Dongola between Prince Shekanda and King David. The last known Christian king of Dongola was Kudanbes, who ruled from 1310 to 1323 CE, when the Mamelukes finally defeated him. This apparently ended Christianity in Nubia, although small Christian enclaves, such as Dotawo, remained in Lower Nubia, and the kingdom of Alwa at Soba lasted until 1504. The confusing rise of Christianity in Dongola matched its rather

DUKKI GEL, DOUKKI GEL

•

123

cloudy decline. This was because the Beni Kanz Nubians not only were early Muslims but also had close king relations to the leaders of Christian Dongola. DORGINARTI ISLAND. Dorginarti is the site of a New Kingdom or Late Period fort at the Second Cataract just upstream of the old Wadi Halfa. DOTAWO, DAO, DAW. Daw was a major settlement during the Nubian medieval age, but it was more active during the decline of the Nubian Christian monarchs. Situated between the First and Second Cataracts, it survived longer in its relative isolation and was perhaps tolerated as a buffer state under Bishop Merki and King Joel as late as 1484 CE. Thus, it still had a functioning Christian community long after the arrival of Islam. After the destruction of Dongola, apparently some survivors fled to Dotawo to sustain it as a small Christian kingdom, caught between expansive Islam in Egypt to the north and soon after expanding Islam to the south as the Funj Sultanates emerged after the destruction of Alwa at Soba in 1504. Now Dotawo only survives as the name of a modern Nubian studies journal. DUKKI GEL, DOUKKI GEL. In terms of political administration, Dukki Gel ( the “red hill” in modern Nubian) should be formally attributed to Dynasty XVIII and especially for Hatshepsut, Tuthmosis II, and Tuthmosis III. However, it is almost literally in the shadow of the great Nubian capital of Kerma, which is only roughly two kilometers away. This urban settlement and temple complex, excavated by Charles Bonnet, Dominique Valbelle, and Phillipe Ruffieux, is intriguing because round structures, more common in Kerma, persisted in this New Kingdom town that was occupied from 1450 BCE to 400 CE, especially in dynasties VXIII and XX. Were these older structures inherited or renewed? Dukki Gel had at least three multicolumned temples; a remarkable paved, processional avenue some 70 meters long; two large wells with interior circling stairs; a round palace like Kerma; and enclosure walls and defensive bastions to protect against whom? Also remarkable is what else has been found at this site—that is, a cache of some 40 broken, black granite statuary that dates to both Dynasty XXV and the Napatan period that followed the collapse and withdrawal of the New Kingdom. These are cleaned and reassembled and are now displayed at the lovely Kerma Museum. The statues include pharaohs Taharka and Tanutamun of Dynasty XXV, as well as Aspelta, Anlamani, and Senkamanisken from the following Napatan period. Presumably, they were deliberately broken during the invasion of Nubia by Psamtik II in 590 BCE.

124

•

DUNGEIL, DANGEL

Even after these epochs were concluded, the excavations by Salah el-Din M. Ahmed have found that the earlier temple was reused in Meroitic times by King Natakami and Queen Amanitore as the historical record gets lengthened even further. DUNGEIL, DANGEL. This substantial Meroitic walled town site and perhaps market center lies 8 kilometers north of the modern town of Berber on the eastern bank of the Nile. Nearby on the western bank is Jebel Nakheru, which sports a stone fortress and drystone buildings that were used in postMeroitic times and reused in Islamic times. The recent salvage excavation by the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto has begun to change our views of the scope and nature of Meroitic times in Upper Nubia, which have generally focused on Napata and Meroë as the royal capitals. So far, extensive red brick ruins are known, including walls or fortification, temple sites, and a rare stone stela inscription in Meroitic demotic. Future research may fill in important missing information. DUNQUL OASIS. Dunqul Oasis lies on the wide-ranging Western Desert route probably taken by the ancient trading expeditions by Harkuf. The route starts on the western shore of Aswan, probably just north of the Qubbat al Howa, and then stretches west-south-west into the Libyan Desert to Kurkur Oasis and along a region known as Sinn al-Kaddab to near Dunqul Oasis. From Dunqul, the route continues in a wide sweep of Lower Nubia some 80 to 90 kilometers away from the river and finally on to Selima Oasis. Both Dunqul and Selima Oases have northbound tracks that connect to the southern end of Kharga Oasis. This complex network of desert tracks had multiple purposes in the most remote times of human settlement. They provided routes for livestock shipments, security networks for desert patrols, perhaps some use for access to quarrying sites, and smugglers’ shortcuts away from the Nile. From Selima, one may proceed back to the Nile at Kerma or downstream or farther south to Kordofan. DUWEISHAT. The Duweishat region is situated close to the Nile, south of Semna, and is known for its productive gold mines. Much of the gold of Kush came from the mines of Duweishat. However, mining in this region apparently was done on an intermittent basis, such as when the treasury was low or perhaps in cooler, winter weather.

E EBONY. Ebony (Diospyros ebenum) designates the family of Ebenacaea order Ebenales, of dicotyledonous tropical fruit-bearing trees, such as the persimmon. It is native to Africa. Its taxonomic and common name is derived from the ancient Egyptian word hbny for the same tree. As a luxury item in Egypt for millennia, it was imported from Sudan. Its very hard, dark black, and durable wood was used for furniture, knife handles, and decorative woodwork, sometimes in association with hard white ivory for an aesthetic contrast. As a tropical (not desert) wood, ebony was available to Egypt and circum-Mediterranean world primarily through trade with the peoples occupying Upper Nubia and points farther south who harvested and traded this valued product. It was also available from the land of Punt and later through the Axumite port of Adulis. It is generally believed that the earliest smallscale trade in ebony occurred between Neolithic Upper Nubia and the AGroup of Lower Nubia around 4000 BCE. However, the earliest definitive evidence of an organized trade in ebony occurs between predynastic Upper Egypt and the Lower Nubian A-Group that in turn procured the product from pre-Kerma and Kerma peoples in Upper Nubia. According to Trigger (1989), the growing wealth and prosperity of predynastic Gerzean culture presumably created a market for exotic goods from sub-Saharan Africa, demand for which increased sharply with the development of dynastic cultures. Records from Dynasty VI in Egypt (ca. 2300–2100 BCE) chronicle several expeditions to the land of Yam (i.e., Kerma), in order to procure ebony and other luxury goods. Indeed, throughout dynasty history, ebony is frequently depicted as tribute received from the southern lands of Kush and Wawat. A scene from the Theban tomb of Rekmire (1450 BCE) shows Nubians presenting ebony as tribute. A similar image is seen in the Bait al-Wali temple for Ramses II, which shows porters carrying ebony logs along with animal skins, as well as wild animals (like leopards) on leashes. According to research by Kharyssa Rhodes, the importance of ebony as a luxury item is also evident at the Meroitic site of Wad ben Naqa, where ebony was found stockpiled in a storeroom in the palace. After the fall of the

125

126

•

ED-DERR

Meroë around 350 CE, and the consequent collapse of southern Nile valley trade routes with interior Africa, ebony appears to have been acquired primarily from Adulis. ED-DERR. See DERR, ED-DERR (ANDERE OR DOR IN MEROITIC). EDICT OF MILAN. This edict promulgated in 313 CE by Emperor Constantine I took the Edict of Toleration by Galerius one step further by making Christians and Christianity tolerated in the empire; the edict not only declared Christianity the official religion of the now Holy Roman (Christian) Empire but also caused the isolation of the puritanical Donatists. EDICT OF TOLERATION. Still within the ancient period, this edict was promulgated in 311 CE by Emperor Galerius (not to be confused with a different and earlier edict by Galienus). The Galerius edict was the first Roman edict to bring an end to the brutal repression of Christians launched by Diocletian. The main purpose of the edict was to tolerate Christians and bring Donatists back into the fold of the Roman Empire. The Edict of Milan followed two years later. EIRPANOME. Nubian king Eirpanome apparently ruled Nobatia directly after King Silko’s defeat of the Blemmyes and, it is believed, was the first to declare his acceptance of Christianity. As with King Silko, and his famed inscription at Kalabsha temple (carved sometime between the 530s and 543 CE), this claim also rests upon an inscription, in this case at Dendur temple that had likewise been turned into a church of the Monophysite kingdom of Nobatia. While not precisely dated, the Eirpanome inscription was written when Joseph was the exarch of Talmis (or Kalabsha) as early as ca. 550 CE. This was the time when Theodorus was the bishop of Philae as late as 577 CE. King Eirpanome may well represent the second step of the earliest institutionalization of Christianity in Lower Nubia. The adjacent, upstream Nubian kingdom of Mukurra pursued the Dyophysite theology. Thus, the earliest case of Nubian Christianity faced theological issues, which were later “resolved” when the two kingdoms were merged not only to “settle” this issue but also to fortify Nubian Christianity against the increasing threat of Islam arriving in Egypt in 639 CE. Muslims quickly turned to conquer Nubia in 641 CE. When Muhammad was still alive, he demanded that the Christian Roman emperor Heraclius renounce his faith and accept Islam. Heraclius declined, and Nubians were able to block this first attempt at Muslim expansion. This became a persistent concern for many centuries, which created a context for the merger of the two Christian kingdoms perhaps as early as 652 CE. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia.

ELEPHANTINE ISLAND, YEB, IEBEW, ABO, ASWANARTI

•

127

ELEPHANTINE ISLAND, YEB, IEBEW, ABO, ASWANARTI. This strategically situated island can go by many names given that it had a front row seat to much of the long Nile valley history. It is located at the northern end of the First Cataract at Aswan. It was the capital of the first nome of Upper Egypt. It has a very long and complex history, with significant military, religious, architectural, and human history that spans virtually all periods of Egypto-Nubian interactions. Its insular position offered defensive military security at the frontier trade post of Swenet or Syene or Aswan. Predynastic black and red pottery attests to the earliest occupation at Elephantine and, no doubt, was in use even before. The famed expedition to Yam led by the trader-governor Harkuf began at Elephantine. Its position was also such that it was the first place on the Egyptian Nile to detect the annual flood. Accordingly, it was a predynastic center for the worship of the fertility god of primordial waters, or Nun, as well as Hapy, the Nile god who “lived” among the rocks of Bigeh Island just upstream. The ithyphallic fertility god Min was also celebrated at Elephantine from predynastic times as well as the “holy trinity” of the ram god Khnum and his two consorts Satet and Anqet. The great antiquity of these fertility shrines also accounted for the construction of a Nilometer in dynastic times that was renewed in Islamic times. It was also a strategic political location for regional administration under the heka-ibs (“brave-hearted rulers”), who ruled for the central government; when the central authority collapsed, they ruled in their own names. Its access to alabaster and granite quarries was also important for the trade and transport around and across Elephantine Island. The very complex stratification of Elephantine is exemplified in the following inventory of temples that were either newly constructed or rebuilt starting in the Old Kingdom (Dynasty VI, Satet temple for the “keepers of the southern gate”); Middle Kingdom (funerary chapels to the heka-ibs, a chapel for Mentuhotep II of Dynasty XI, and other structures for Senusoret I of Dynasty XII); New Kingdom (Dynasty XVIII, Satet temple for Amenhotep II and Hatshepsut); Dynasty XIX (Ramses II); Late Period (Khnum temple of Nectanebo and inscriptions of Psamtik II of Dynasty XXVI); and in the Greco-Roman period (Satet temple, Khnum temple, and, now, the newly sited chapel from the original location of Kalabsha). The tombs of Harkuf, and many heka-ibs (such as Pepinakht, Mekhu, Sebni, Sirenput I, and Sirenput II) are carved into the sandstone cliffs high above on the western bank known as the Qubbat al-Howa (Tombs of the Wind), just south of the village of West Aswan. In Persian times, Herodotus reported that Elephantine was half Egyptian and half Nubian. As early as the sixth century and certainly by the fifth century BCE, it was the base for a group of Jewish and other mercenary soldiers who were stationed there to guard this southern gateway of Egypt. During the period from 587–515 BCE, the Jewish temple may have been the

128

•

ELEPHANTS

only place where Jewish rituals could be freely observed. The Jewish temple worshipped Jehovah, but apparently they also recognized the other important deities of Satet and Anqet. However, the Jews’ relationship with a foreign occupying power (Persians and Greeks) antagonized their relationship with the occupied Egyptians. Elephantine has produced some of the oldest Greek papyri known in Egypt, but the Jewish records there were kept largely in Aramaic. They include a wide variety of documents relating to marriage, property, legal disputes, and divorce. The marginality of Jews at this time and place was worsened because they had effectively lost control of Jerusalem and the Jewish community was entering its great diaspora. This socio-religious isolation and political marginality made the Jews of Elephantine vulnerable. This finally came to a head when Jewish practices, including sheep sacrifice, were seen as an outrage to the local beliefs that revered the holy ram god Khnum, whose central cult was on the same island. According to J. M. Modrzejewski, in about 410 BCE, Egyptian nationalist rebels used this practice as a pretext for attacking and destroying the Jewish temple at Elephantine. An application and permission to rebuild was granted sometime between 406 and 401 BCE, and it is likely rebuilt, only to be closed and destroyed in the early fourth century BCE. The temple was located on a major street in southern Elephantine. But its precise building foundation or reused building stones have not been identified. In Islamic times, Elephantine remained significant, and Khedive Isma’il renewed the Nilometer in 1870. German and Swiss archaeologists have done an impressive job of reconstructing the history of Elephantine. The two museums there as well as the restored archaeological site should be visited along with the Nubian Museum, which has a number of object from Elephantine. The north end of Elephantine now has a tourist hotel, the midsection is an occupied village on top of antiquities. It is the southern section that is the archaeological site. ELEPHANTS. The history of elephants along the Nile valley and across Africa begins at least 65 million years ago, long before human evolution, but much later climatic shifts and human hunting pressure in the late Pleistocene caused only two elephant genera (with various species) to survive—Loxodonta africana and Elephas iolensis—through that epoch that brought all the others to extinction. The word elephant comes from the Greek word elephas, meaning “ivory.” In hieroglyphics, and lingering in Coptic, the name was abo. Elephantine Island in Aswan was likely getting its name from the ivory trade that took place there.

ELEPHANTS

•

129

Today only Loxodonta species remain in Africa while Elephas species remain in Asia. For Africa, there is Loxodonta africana, the very large savanna elephant; the smaller Loxodonta cyclotis, or the forest elephants that existed much more widely in Africa and were domesticated in Meroë; and some pygmy elephants, Loxodonta pumilo, in the Congo Basin. In around 25,000 BCE, nomadic human bands occupied both Egypt and Nubia, and their survival depended on hunting wild animals and fishing in the abundantly stocked rivers. These areas, which are now deserts, provided excellent grassland and forest habitats for megafauna. The material remains of these early inhabitants include their stone tools for hunting and processing, and numerous petroglyphic drawings along the Nile and in the Sahara show hunting of giraffes, antelopes, gazelles, and elephants. Objects from 4000 BCE show that Nubians and Egyptians used ivory for jewelry, inlays, tools, needles, and awls. Based on modern ethnographic parallels, bone, hair, ivory, meat, and the foot callus probably had special uses for bracelets, anklets, necklaces, and food. Hides were likely used as shields, bags, and drumheads. Drawings of the same animals continue on A-Group pottery and through the Predynastic Period from 3500 to 3000 BCE, when Nubian and Egyptian craftsmen were working in ivory and ebony to produce figurines, amulets, ornamental containers, and furniture fittings. However, by early dynastic times, elephants and giraffes had disappeared from Egypt and Lower Nubia but were still present in Upper Nubia. During Dynasty VI, Harkuf brought back ebony, incense, oil, leopard skins, “elephant teeth” (ivory), and throwing sticks from his famous expeditions to Kerma, but after this time, imported ivory and ebony appear to be more rare in Egyptian graves. Clearly, the Meroites were familiar with the art of taming African elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis), and they used these animals in military campaigns. Especially at Musawwarat es-Sufra, the elephant was frequently represented in relief and sculpture (Wenig 1978, 1:89). The Lion temple, has a relief of the king wearing the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt and riding bareback on a decorated elephant. In this unique representation of an elephant being ridden, one is tempted to see some possible Indian influences as with Meroitic numbers and some iconography, but this cannot be confirmed. However, by this time Meroë was indirectly in touch with India through the kingdom of Axum, which traded with India (Arkell 1961, 166). At Musawwarat es-Sufra, on the western wall, Apedemek appears standing on two caparisoned elephants. A line is attached to the trunk of the first elephant and is then tied around the necks of the kneeling prisoners (Zabkar 1975, 6). On the northwestern wall of the Lion temple, a file of elephants leads prisoners on ropes. Another relief found on the inner walls of this temple is one of a lion and elephant leashed together held by the right hand of Apedemek, who is seated in the upper register above the two animals (Zabkar 1975, 8).

130

•

ELEPHANTS

The elephant was also featured as an architectural element in temple design, with sculptured elephants functioning as column bases (Wenig 1978, 2:89). The bases in the form of lions and elephants at Musawwarat es-Sufra appeared at a time when the Kushite art of Napata still flourished. A god, riding an elephant, appears on a column in the Apedemek temple at the same place (Wenig 1978, 2:68). The unique architectural detail of the central temple at Musawwarat es-Sufra of a projecting wall in the form of an elephant and other numerous representations and mural drawings of elephants certainly suggest that this animal was economically important as a trade item, or even as an object of local cult worship (Wenig 1978, 2:77). Perhaps this Butana center was used in training elephants for war or for ceremonies in using the heavy ramps and bridges that allowed movement of these animals through this expansive complex. Or the strong masonry enclosure walls themselves were used to house the animals to be used in cultic ceremonies (Welsby 1996, 146). There are many questions and not so many answers. Research on elephants (ancient and modern) by Valerie de Liedekerke then at Tufts University Veterinary School has shown that the Ptolemaic period was the golden age of elephant warfare. Most often they were engaged as massive “bowling balls” to charge through enemy lines, such as the Persians against Alexander or at Pyrrhus in southern Italy. A typical war elephant would be furnished with five plates of iron joined together by rings and fastened around the elephant’s ears and head by a network of chains. The wooden “castle” (howdah) secured to its back housed a number of archers and lancers. A tactical problem was that charging elephants in battlefield, sometimes with the legs of elephant teams chained together to mow down more enemies, could not distinguish friend from foe and only added to the chaotic “fog of war.” When the Seleucids with bigger Asian (Indian) elephants fought the Ptolemies with smaller forest elephants from Meroë, it was the small animals that were more easily controlled in active conflicts. An inscription from the Red Sea port of Adulis set up by Ptolemy III indicates that the Ptolemies procured their own war elephants from that point. “The paramount King Ptolemaios . . . went to war with Asia accompanied by Troglodyte and Ethiopian elephants which his father and he himself, as the first ones, have captured from those countries” (Welsby 1996, 175–76). Ptolemy II’s campaigns in the 270s BCE was followed by almost threequarters of a century of sustained diplomatic and quasi-military contact between Egypt and the kingdom of Meroë. Elephant hunting expeditions, sometimes numbering hundreds of men, often visited Upper Nubia either from the north along the Nile or from the east via the Red Sea port of “Ptolemaïs of the Hunts” (Burstein 1995, 108–9). Active Ptolemaic interest in live Nubian elephants ended in the last decade of the third century BCE. Because of their unpredictable performance of Ptolemy IV’s elephant corps at the famed battle of Raphia (Rafa in modern Gaza) (Burstein 1995, 108–9).

ENEMIES

•

131

A final tactical issue was that elephants required considerable amounts of water and forage as Hannibal of Carthage discovered when taking his elephants over the Alps to attack Rome from the north in 202 BCE. The number he started with was way less than what he arrived with in Rome. Fright of the elephants may have been the psychological factor that won on that day, when, in turn, the Romans attacked England in 43 CE with elephants. This experience was echoed in the 18th century in the name “Elephant and Castle” for English ivory merchants and then in the name of a pub and a modern Underground stop in southeast London today. After the extinction of the North Africa (forest?) elephant at the end of the third century CE or the early fourth century CE, attempts to domesticate the African elephants essentially stopped. EMERY, WALTER BRYAN (1903–1971). English-born Emery was considered one of the great 20th-century archaeologists since he was the director of the archaeological survey of Lower Nubia during 1929–1934, due to the construction of the British-built Low Dam at Aswan. He was also a colonel in British military intelligence as well as a diplomat and professor with almost 50 years of experience in Egypt. His work, often with L. P. Kirwan, included major excavations at alAmarna, Armant, Wadi es-Sebua, and the rich X-Group tumuli at Ballana and Qustul that dated from the fourth to sixth centuries CE. Much of his collection was displayed in rooms 40, 44, and 45 of the Egyptian National Museum in Cairo. His pioneering work at the fortresses and towns at Buhen (in 1957), Ikkur, and Quban was very significant especially since all are now lost under Lake Nasser. In addition, from 1935 on, he was famed for his discovery of the tombs of the Apis bull mothers at Saqqara in Egypt. Emery published a popular book in 1967 titled Lost Land Emerging, which made his work on Nubia accessible to the public. ENEMIES. Naturally, the concept of “enemies” or rebels is highly related to those in power or to those contesting that power. It is often said that one man’s “freedom fighter” is another man’s “terrorist.” That being said, from the time of King Djer’s inscription of bound and killed Nubians, the pattern of rivals along the Nile was well established. Kerma was projected and described by Old and Middle Kingdom Egyptians as their threatening enemy. No doubt the feeling was mutual, but we do not have texts or graphics to reference. Nubians were described as “vile” and “wretched” in numerous references and subordinating images throughout the New Kingdom in Nubia. Egyptians of this time conducted countless punitive raids for regaining control, or for tribute given the great human, natural, mineral, and animal wealth of that land. Certainly, Nubians did not want to lose control of their

132

•

ENEMIES

resources. Broadly one may say that, first, when Egypt was strong (i.e., unified politically), it was not an auspicious time for Nubia and, second, when Egypt was weak (e.g., in Intermediate Periods), this represented a relaxation of their control in the south. Thus, the history between these ancient lands is one of rivalry at times, cooperation at others, and domination over Nubia by Egyptians in the New Kingdom and control of Egypt by Nubians in Dynasty XXV, either because it was an opportunity or responsibility, or both. At other times, raids and punitive missions were endlessly recorded on pharaonic stela. This was the particular case in the buffer or battle zone of Lower Nubia where Egyptians had erected a score of defensive fortresses. While a list of such engagements may never be complete, very many clashes and raids are documented by Egyptians upon these Nubian “enemies.” In the Archaic Period, Egyptians occupied Elephantine, and once control of Egypt was consolidated, the Old Kingdom pharaohs, starting with Djer, Sneferu, and Pepi I, did have military operations in Lower Nubia and perhaps were among the first Egyptians to travel to Punt on the Red Sea coast. Other heka-ibs of Aswan, such as Harkuf, traveled to Nubia for peaceful trade in the First Intermediate Period. In the Middle Kingdom Dynasty XI, Mentuhotep II attacked Lower Nubia but did not manage to consolidate his control; however, a maritime trip to Punt led by Hanenu was recorded in this dynasty. In Dynasty XII, active control of Lower Nubia was achieved by the Egyptian pharaohs Amenemhat I, II, and III and Senusoret I and III. In fact, Senusoret III had himself deified in Nubia to add to his “legitimacy.” During the heights of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, major, mud-brick, garrisoned fortresses were the common defensive measures to secure their claims on Nubia. In the imperial days of the New Kingdom, persistent punitive raids replaced the Lower Nubia fortresses after breaking the Kerma-Hyksos alliance that had restricted power to the Theban area in the Second Intermediate Period. Raids into Nubia in Dynasty XVIII are known for Amenhotep II, III, and IV; for Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis I, III, and IV; and for Tutankhamun. In Dynasty XIX, Seti I, Merneptah, and the audacious Ramses II all conducted many raids upon Nubians. In Dynasty XX, most of the early Rameside pharaohs or their viceroys of Nubia waged war and raids in Nubia. Finally, when it came time for Nubians to rule Egypt in Dynasty XXV, it is striking that Egyptians were almost never depicted graphically as enemies. Certainly, their chief concern was with Assyrians who were real, very threatening enemies. Numerous Assyrian images from Nineveh show that Nubians are their Egyptian rivals, but one is hard-pressed to find such images of Assyrians drawn by Nubians, although perhaps they existed and were removed. At the Kawa temple, Taharka does depict Libyans as enemies. In Napatan and Meroitic times, the ethnic names of enemies are listed, and

ERATOSTHENES OF CYRENE (CA. 276 BCE–CA. 194 BCE)

•

133

images show them hog-tied; at Naqa, images of a regnant king and queen are shown smiting enemies that one may presume to be Blemmyes. In postMeroitic times, such as in inscriptions by King Karamadoye and Silko, Blemmyes are described as being defeated once and for all. The IslamoChristian rivalry on the Nile in medieval times produces abundant textual examples of the enemy status that was held by both, while the historic baqt treaty was a serious, long-lasting effort to come to terms with this historic and potentially conflict-prone regional relationship. ERATOSTHENES OF CYRENE (ca. 276 BCE–ca. 194 BCE). Eratosthenes was of Greek origin and was presumably born in the Greek colony of Cyrene in neighboring Libya. He studied under the Stoic, Zeno, the skeptical Platonic, and Arcesilaus, and he most likely had read the earlier works of Herodotus. So he was well prepared for critical and sophisticated thinking. His fame rests on his historic scholarly achievements in Alexandria, where he served as the head of its remarkable ancient library from around 246 to 225 BCE. In this capacity, he became one of the earliest scientific geographers and mathematicians. He was a classic court scholar who also wrote poetry, and he had very eclectic interests in cultural diversity, climatology, astronomy, and historical chronology. Of special relevance to Meroë was his measurement of the inclination of the noon sun, which he arranged to be taken in that ancient town as well as in Aswan and Alexandria; all three are close to equidistant from each other and on about the same longitude. With these facts, he was about to confirm that the earth was round and had a theoretically knowable circumference. At noon in Aswan the sun was virtually vertical, and light reached the bottom of a well. At the same time, on the same day, in Meroë and Alexandria, the angle of the sun behind a plinth (vertical post) was seven degrees, respectively, to the south and to the north of these two cities. Since the distances between the three towns and the angle were known, the principles of geometry (“measuring the earth”) could be applied, assuming, correctly, that the earth was round. The use of sundials was already current at the time at the three geodetic stations. Dividing 360 degrees by 7 degrees yields 51.4, which can be multiplied by the distance of 5,000 stadia, or the approximate distance between Aswan and Meroë and between Aswan and Alexandria. This comes to 257,000 stadia. Then converting stadia to kilometers (1 stadium = 0.16 kilometers), he mathematically calculated that the earth was 41,120 kilometers around. In fact, it is 40,075 kilometers, so that is very close given the many assumptions and inaccurate instruments. So impressed was Strabo, the later Roman geographer, that he gave full credit to Eratosthenes for this historic discovery.

134

•

ERGAMENES

The polymath genius Eratosthenes did not stop there and accurately calculated, with use of geometry, the distance to the sun. He is still famous for the “Sieve of Eratosthenes,” an algorithmic chart for figuring prime numbers. That was not all. He also considered that the “Mountains of the Moon” in Equatorial Africa were the source of the Nile. Believing associations between climate and cultural groups, which was common in his time, Eratosthenes was somewhat of an early ethnographer who noted, among other things, the “Megabarii” and the Blemmyes who occupied the eastern bank of the Nile between Egypt and Meroë. ERGAMENES, ARKAMANI, ARQAMANI, ARKAMANI-QO, ‘RG’MN, ‘IRK-‘IMN (I AND II). Ergamenes has many variant transliterations given his importance that spanned dynastic, Greco-Roman, and Meroitic times. His importance for the study of Nubian Christianity rests upon his transfer of the capital from Napata to Royal Meroë City. It was at Meroë that the first Nubian Christian is recorded in the Bible, and it was Meroë that was replaced by the Christian Axum. The discussion about exactly which one of two kings with this name ordered the transfer is not needed here as the importance is the transfer of the capital that became the entrance for the first recorded Nubian Christian in the biblical Acts of the Apostles. ESARHADDON (ca. 713–669 BCE; r. 680/681–669 BCE). Following a palace murder plot, the elite of Nineveh in Assyria regrouped, and Esarhaddon was placed on the throne. This new neo-Assyrian king descended as the third in the Sargonid dynasty of Assyria while it also ruled as Dynasty IX of Babylon to dominate ancient Mesopotamia. His relevance to Nubia is that he ruled Assyria while it was expanding still farther westward into the Levant, into Israel, and ultimately into Egypt, which was then under the control of the Nubian Dynasty XXV. The Assyrians became the primary foreign policy concern to these Nubian rulers of Egypt at the very time of this ancient regional “world war.” Taharka already had considerable personal, practical, and military experience in resisting Assyrian expansion. From fomenting revolts in Phoenicia, leading cavalry charges in Palestine, and building political alliances with Israel, he knew that the Assyrians were a formidable foe. Following the death of Sennacherib in 680 BCE, it was now Esarhaddon who had to be confronted. Esarhaddon gained the Assyrian throne around 680 BCE with the active council of his mother, Naqi’a. She had been a young wife of Sennacherib, first known as the queen consort of Sennacherib, and later as the queen mother of Esarhaddon. Naqi’a was of Babylonian origin, and she endorsed the idea of reconstructing Babylon after it had been razed in the earlier

ESARHADDON (CA. 713–669 BCE; R. 680/681–669 BCE)

•

135

campaigns of her husband. The tactic of creating subservient vassal kings had long been an objective in Assyrian conquests. Esarhaddon applied this technique against the vassal king Ba’alu of Tyre in Phoenicia, who was prohibited from even opening a letter without a Qipu (Assyrian official) being present. Since Ba’alu had been given military support by Taharka, Esarhaddon formulated plans to attack Egypt itself. The very paranoid Esarhaddon also made an object lesson of King Asukhili when he was brought back to Nineveh humiliatingly bound to a bear, a dog, and a pig. The king of Sidon, Abdimilkutte, was even less lucky. He was overthrown and beheaded by Esarhaddon in 677 BCE. Endemic conspiratorial violence in the palace and by the vassal kings was a part of the political terrain of the time. Meanwhile in Judaea, Esarhaddon threatened King Manaseh (696–641 BCE) with arrest and transformed him into another vassal king, which added to his powers as well as his fears. Deportation of troublesome populations was also a tactic commonly used, such as in the case of the Sidonites after the execution of their king. Many Israelites were deported after the capture of Samaria. Yet tolerance and syncretism of religious beliefs of the conquered presented no special problem for the Shamash-loving Assyrians, who used the gods of vassals to threaten restive populations. For example, when Esarhaddon informed the king of Tyre that, if he resisted, the forces of his gods Bethel and Ba’al would sink his ships. Despite such techniques, his attempt to control Egypt dangerously overextended his empire, which was endlessly beset with internal intrigue and revolts in Persia and Babylon. Annoyed by the fact that Taharka had supported the Phoenicians, Esarhaddon then thought to address the “problem Nubians” who were ruling Egypt. In 674–673 BCE, Esarhaddon attacked the eastern Egyptian delta to punish Taharka’s continued diversionary support of the forces in Sidon and Judaea. Taharka’s forces were tactically retreated to Memphis, but Esarhaddon also withdrew in a temporary standoff, which was no doubt because, in 673, Taharka reengaged Esarhaddon at the coastal town of Ashkelon to defeat the Assyrian military. Ashkelon was not far from el-Tekeh where Prince Taharka had fought the Assyrians under Sennacherib in 701 BCE. This defeat was a shock to Esarhaddon, who was unused to anything but victories, while Taharka regrouped at his frontline capital at Tanis in the eastern delta. This unstable, see-saw pattern of military clashes continued. In his 10th regnal year, Esarhaddon (ca. 671 BCE) again crossed the Sinai to renew his second effort to drive out Taharka. Wanting to make his point even clearer, Esarhaddon advanced further to attack his defensive position at Memphis. There, with ladders and sapper units he actually captured some of Taharka’s unlucky family members. Taharka’s son Ushanahuru was taken as a prisoner back to Assyria, where this young man was portrayed on the Zinjirli stela in

136

•

ETHIOPIA, AETHIOPIA

northern Syria. Like the victories over Lachish by Sennacherib, Esarhaddon carved images of his “Ethiopian” captives into the stone plaques of his palace. Then, with the capture of Memphis, Esarhaddon carried off much loot and property from the Dynasty XXV administration. Taharka was reportedly wounded, but he managed to escape, probably back to Thebes, where he was still welcomed by the High Priest of Amun. The unwelcome presence of Esarhaddon in Memphis and in the Egyptian delta was also long enough for him to appoint subservient local officials, including Necho I as vassal king of Sais and Memphis. This was to be the first seed of what grew to be the Saite Dynasty XXVI, which later drove Dynasty XXV back to Napata. This was not yet to be. Taharka was profoundly angered by this insult to his authority over Egypt and pained by the loss of his son and the thought of his 673 defeat of Esarhaddon, so in around 669 BCE, a third clash between Esarhaddon and Taharka was destined. But this time, there was a new twist. In the same year, Esarhaddon, at the age of 44 and in his 12th regnal year, unexpectedly died on the way back to Egypt. Precisely he died in the month of Araahsammu (October–November) on the 10th day. The solution was to have his son Shamash-Shumukin to take over, but he was already installed as the king of occupied Babylon, so another son, Ashurbanipal (668–626/627 BCE) became the new king of Assyria. His first task was to continue his father’s military campaign in Egypt, so any satisfaction that Taharka might have had with Esarhaddon’s death was short lived. Immediately, Ashurbanipal, now the fourth Sargonid king, restored the momentum of the military struggle against Taharka in the strategic memory of his deceased father. This time, however, Ashurbanipal went further than only expelling Taharka from Memphis. Ashurbanipal reinstalled the vassal king Necho I in Memphis and Sais, where his father had previously installed him. More boldly still, Ashurbanipal’s cavalry forces advanced on to the holy city of Thebes, which was looted by his military in 667 BCE. Taharka had to retreat once more, but this time to Napata where he died in 664, with only a brief attempt by Tanutamun to regain Egypt again. ETHIOPIA, AETHIOPIA. The ancient nomenclature or reference to Aethiopia is drawn from the Greek term for the “land of the burnt faces.” Essentially, it was their word for Nubia or, more generally, for the lands that lay to the south of (or above and upstream) of Egypt, or, even more broadly, all the lands south of the Sahara. Romans sometimes used the same word, Ethiopia, or Nigritia, and when Arabs arrived in the eighth century, it was translated as the “Bilad as-Sudan” (“the lands of the Blacks”). Lands to the west of the Nile were also glossed by the reference to “Libya.” The term Africa (perhaps of Phoenician origin?) and incorporated within the name Scipio Africanus, the Roman conqueror of the Phoenicians in 146 BCE, referenced only a

EZANA, AEZANAS, KING

•

137

small portion of northeastern Tunisia. This ancient word Ethiopia did not mean the modern nation of the same name. Modern Ethiopia was usually called either Punt or the “land of the Habash,” that was corrupted to become “Abyssinia.” Certainly, the shifting territorial application of these ancient references has complicated the study of Nubia, which already can be termed Ta-Seti, Kush, Wawat, southern Egypt, or northern Sudan. One intriguing issue also relates to the Greek storytelling slave Aesop, who appears to have been so-called as the corruption of his name “Aethiop,” thus suggesting the likelihood that he was a slave of Nubian origin. EUNUCH OF MEROË. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. EXECRATION TEXTS AND FIGURES. In the psychological preparation for war or conflict, it was popular to write insulting texts about one’s enemies. These texts were often inscribed on clay effigies or on potsherds. Sometimes they were buried and/or broken to have a positive magical control over the despised enemies. Such execration texts and figurines were often found in Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Egyptian forts in Nubia. EZANA, AEZANAS, KING. See AXUM, AKSUM.

F FARAS (WEST), BUKHARAS, PACHORAS. Faras was the capital of the Christian kingdom of Mukurra before and after it annexed Nobatia to the north. The site was first occupied in Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom times (by pharaohs Tutankhamun and Tuthmosis III) and in Meroitic times. If this history were not impressive enough, its most notable feature in Christian times was its cathedral and the rich record it offered, as well as the outstanding frescoes that have largely been saved from the flood of the Nile of Lake Nasser. All original structures are otherwise lost. It was located across from the Christian village of Serra East and just upstream of Abu Simbel. Between these two points was Ballana, the residence of these XGroup Nobatian kings who followed Meroë’s collapse and immediately preceded the rise of Christianity in Nubia. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. FEDDAN, FADDAN. A feddan is a Sudanese unit of land area equal to 1.038 acres or 0.42 hectares. It is measured by “ropes” (habls) of a standard length, like “chains” in other traditions. This has been the surveying practice in Egyptian and Nubian agriculture from ancient times. FEMALE CIRCUMCISION. See CIRCUMCISION, FEMALE. FERLINI, GIUSEPPE (1797–1870). This Italian military doctor, traveler, and reckless “archaeologist” officially served in the Turco-Egyptian colonial occupation of Sudan from around 1830 to 1837. He and an Albanian businessman “excavated” the royal pyramid burial field at Meroë. The term looting might be a better description since he sold the objects he removed at great profit to the German museums in Munich and Berlin, where they still mostly reside. Probably most notable of his “work” was the discovery of the famed jewels of Queen Amanishkhete, found, apparently, in the superstructure of her pyramid (Bejrawiya North 6), which was thereby destroyed in the process in about 1837. His quest for unprovenanced loot took him throughout the region of royal Meroë and probably to Ben Naqa as well. 139

140

•

FIRKA

FIRKA. This settlement was located in Lower Nubia on the east bank of the Nile just downstream of Sai Island, or around 160 kilometers south of Wadi Halfa in the Butn al-Hajr region. Some C-Group graves exist near the northern cemetery, with the largest tumuli, and a southern cemetery with smaller tumuli that is nearby to a much later Christian graveyard. Firka was the site of a graveyard and administrative center or of a very wealthy family, but its actual function remains obscure; perhaps they may have been intrusive Nobatae. No Meroitic inscriptions or funerary ba-statues have been found, so this site is considered to be very late Meroitic or post-Meroitic X-Group times of the Ballana or Tangasi culture (ca. 400–600 CE). The site also includes royal and ordinary citizen tombs from the Ballana culture, post-Meroitic Nubia (400 to 600 CE). The material assemblage includes painted pottery, bronze lamps, bowls, ewers, ladles and strainer, and a silver goblet, bowl, and anklet. That is, it is typically associated with X-Group tombs and of the earliest transitions to Christian Nubia. A carnelian signet ring of Comodus (?–192 CE), if contemporary, suggests an earlier date. It has substantial tumuli (some are 8 to 10 meters high) for nobility and smaller tumuli for ordinary citizens, including evidence of some human and common animal sacrifice during burials that are reminiscent of those of previous nobles at Kurru. That Firka was linked to the Red Sea is shown by the presence of red coral beads. Its ties to the past endure with Isis symbolism. The latest graves at Firka are dated to early Christianity in Nubia. Especially the steep island of Firkinarti was used at this last period; L. P. Kirwan of Oxford University excavated at Firka from 1934 to 1935, under Anglo-Egyptian colonial rule. FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (2181–2040 BCE). The First Intermediate Period of Egypt falls between the collapse of Dynasty VI of the Old Kingdom and the start of Dynasty XI of the Middle Kingdom when political unity of the Nile valley was reestablished. Since archaeologists recognize that Nubian strength is often at periods of Egyptian weakness, this gave Nubians some chance to recover lost territory and regain economic sovereignty. More specifically, this relaxed Egyptian control of Nubia and this allowed for the expansion of its oldest state of Kerma/Yam and the intrusion of C-Group into Lower Nubia, thereby launching the recurrent themes of rivals on the Nile. FUR. The ancient history of the Fur is not well known at the extreme south of the Darb al-Arba’in that connected this state in the Sahel with the western deserts of Nubia and Egypt through the Selima and Kharga Oases that carried slaves, animal wealth, and incense to the Nile valley. Among the

FUR

•

141

earliest inhabitants of Darfur (the “abode of the Fur”) were the Daju who, with the Fur, are members of in the Eastern Sudanic language family. Perhaps they are all descendants from the ancient Saharan Garamantes. However, the Fur people are sufficiently distinguished in some grammatical and lexical respects, so they qualify as solitary members of the Furian language, which is distinct within the much larger Eastern Sudanic family.

G GABATI. The cemetery site of Gabati has strata from Meroitic, post-Meroitic, and Christian times. It is located between Meroë and Atbara on the east bank of the Nile on the northwestern corner of the Butana plain. This was excavated in 1994–1995 on a salvage project led by David Edwards and his colleagues. While this is not a major monumental site, it fills an important gap in our knowledge in terms of the rural hinterland and nonelite funerary practices. This heavily robbed site reveals important continuities and changes in burial practices that extended over these three periods. The excavation examined some 74 Meroitic graves, including one large one, and 55 postMeroitic tumuli. Most graves were heavily disturbed, but abundant painted pottery sherds and other grave goods, especially beads, still allow some reconstruction of these times. The larger Meroitic graves, dated to around the second and first centuries BCE, show use of mud bricks as blocking stones and in superstructure and as slightly stepped mastabas or perhaps pyramid foundations. Only a few examples of glass, iron, faience, scarabs, signet rings, and graffiti were found in these cases. The later, post-Meroitic graves were dated to the fifth and sixth centuries CE and were more heavily endowed with textiles, mats, and leather burial goods. Elements of bed burials were common but perhaps were more of a way to carry the deceased to the cemetery than a proper bed burial known from earlier periods. Other grave goods included oil bottles, khol pots, jars, painted pottery (both hand thrown and wheel turned), combs, shells, ivory, some iron (arrowheads), plentiful beads, baskets, and a grinding stone (muharka). Among the more interesting findings was the contrast in burial orientations that could be roughly concluded from those burials that were more or less intact. In the case of the Meroitic burials, the majority of the grave shafts were oriented on an east-west axis but often with a north-west orientation of the extended or contracted burials themselves. Heads were often, but not always, southerly and facing west, looking away from the tomb opening, resting on the left side as in Egyptian styles. By contrast, the post-Meroitic grave tumuli restored contracted burials to some extent. Bodies were commonly oriented in a north-south direction, with heads to the south, but they 143

144

•

GALLUS CORNELIUS

were facing east while lying on their right sides. Numerous exceptions indicated substantial variation and the lack of comparable evidence has raised many questions for further investigation in this second-generation archaeology. GALLUS CORNELIUS. See AUGUSTUS (OCTAVIAN) (r. 27 BCE–14 CE); CORNELIUS GALLUS (r. 30–26 BCE). GARAMANTES. This ancient people of the Fezzan region in southern Libya may well descend from the even earlier Tjehenu people who often raided the Egyptian and Nubian Nile settlements and even came to rule Egypt in Dynasty XX. In dynastic times, they were depicted as “three” of the people of the “nine bows” and were distinguished in dress, hair styles, and tattoos. Most likely, as with the Garamantes, the Tjehenu were of a paleo-Berber linguistic stock. Confirming this historic, linguistic, and genetic connection awaits additional study. Pictographic rock art of the central Sahara and Fezzan certainly shows hunting, pastoralism, and settlement in much wetter times. The Garamantes of the Western Desert might be considered as the counterpart of the Medjay or Blemmyes of the Eastern Desert. Their name apparently is derived from the Tifinaq (Berber) word agrem, meaning “castle,” which referred to their capital city of Garama or Germa, one of more than a half dozen towns in the region they controlled. The Garamantes enter GrecoRoman history by name in the known works of Herodotus and Pliny the Elder, and later Christian and Muslim epochs give the Garamantes a time range of 500 BCE to the 700s CE when Muslims arrived. It may well be that refugees from the fourth-century collapse of Meroë or the early X-Group fled to this region through the ancient Wadi Howar as much as modern Sudanese refugees flee to, and through, Libya for work and get trafficked across the Mediterranean Sea. The Garamantes were clearly a political and military “problem” for the Romans of North Africa (Africa Proconsularis) after the third and last Punic war. They were beyond the limes, or Roman territorial boundaries, and they did not respect Roman authority with modern parallels in destabilized Libya. At the same time, the Greeks of Cyrenaica (before Alexander “the Great”) and the later Romans used the Garamantes to supply slaves and livestock from Sahelian and sub-Saharan Africa and, in turn, to trade Roman-made articles for the slaves. In wetter times, the Garamantes could collect water in hafirs, like in the Butana, but as this was no longer possible with Saharan desiccation, the Garamantes turned to foggara shafts to mine paleo-water sources much as Muammar Gaddafi did in his time. Modern descendants of the Garamantes

GAUTHIER, HENRI LOUIS MARIE ALEXANDRE (1877–1950)

•

145

can include the Berti, Bideyat, and Zaghawa of Darfur and the SudaneseChadian borderlands. Archaeological research on the monumental structures along the Nile often neglected these marginal regions that are now drawing greater interest in the complex, interconnected, and expansive ancient landscapes. GARSTANG, JOHN (1876–1956). This important English archaeologist during the colonial period in Sudan was a professor of ancient Near Eastern archaeology at the University of Liverpool. He excavated very widely, including sites in Palestine and Turkey, but was much engaged in Egypt at Beni Hassan, Hierakonpolis, and Beni Khalaf. His work at Meroë (1909–1914) was the first substantial, modern excavation at that site, although many of his field notes were left unpublished until recently. His work produced the first extensive collection of material remains at Meroë, now in Liverpool and Khartoum, and provided us with a basic understanding of the main features of the royal city. Certainly the later studies and excavations of Meroë by F. L. Griffith and P. L. Shinnie were well founded on the pioneering work of Garstang. GAU, FRANZ CHRISTIAN (1790–1853). This German architect traveled in Egypt and Nubia from 1818 to 1819 and might be considered as the “grandfather” of modern, scientific Nubian studies. His education and professional life was mainly in France. Gau published his Antiquités de la Nubie in a series from 1821 to 1827, which he envisaged as an expansion of the great Description de l’Egypte done by the huge team of French scientists under the very brief Napoleonic occupation of Egypt and Lower Nubia. His travels between the First and Second Cataracts expanded the early European knowledge of the region, and it was in the works of Gau that the first four lines in Meroitic cursive were recorded from the pylon of Dakka temple. Gau’s importance to ancient Nubian studies also rests upon his discovery and recognition of the poor Greek inscription of King Silko at the Kalabsha temple, which is widely taken to proclaim the start of official Nubian Christianity with Silko’s military conquest of the regional Blemmyes. GAUTHIER, HENRI LOUIS MARIE ALEXANDRE (1877–1950). This French Egyptologist studied at the Faculté des Lettres at Lyon (1877–1900). Gauthier occupied many senior posts in Egyptology. Relative to Nubian studies, he undertook the copying of inscriptions in the delta and of, at least, three Nubian temples: Amada, Kalabsha, and Wadi es-Sebua. His works include Le temple de Kalabchah (4 vols., 1911, 1914, 1927), and Le temple de Ouadi es-Seboua (2 vols., 1912).

146

•

GAWEISES, GAWERSES

GAWEISES, GAWERSES. This is a tributary district noted in Upper Nubia in New Kingdom tributary texts, but its precise territory is not determined. GEMAI, GEMMAI. George A. Reisner excavated Gemai in 1915–1916. This irrigated plain is located north of Semna. His excavations revealed a Meroitic settlement and cemeteries of well-to-do families in post-Meroitic times that associate it with Ballana culture. Gemai was of lesser significance than the huge burials known from Qustul and Ballana, but it suggests that the wealth of this short period was rather broadly distributed through that territory under X-Group control. GEORGE, GIORGIOS, GURGI, JIRJA, KIRGIS OR YURKI I, II, III, IV (CHRISTIAN KINGS OF NUBIA). Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. GERF HUSSEIN. This temple was located 87 kilometers south of Aswan near the later Dakka temple. Setau, the viceroy of Nubia, constructed this temple for Ramses II some time between the 35th and 50th years of his reign. It was similar to his temples at Derr or Abu Simbel insofar as Ramses II was deified along with other gods, such as Ptah and Hathor. In front of the temple hall were Osiride pillars. Originally, it was partially rock cut and partially freestanding like the others. It was not of the best workmanship, as the figures of Ramses II were rather squat in proportion, nor was it surviving in the best of condition, being crafted of Nubian sandstone. As a result, the effort to save or transport this monument was deemed not worthwhile, and this New Kingdom monument lies in its original location but is “drowned” under the waters of Lake Nasser. In 1964, some temple reliefs and an Osiride statue were luckily saved for the Nubian Museum in Aswan. GEZIRA. Literally, in Arabic, Gezira means “island,” but today in Sudan it refers to the extensive peninsula between the White and Blue Niles. While the precise southern extent of the empire of Meroë is not clearly known, it did reach the eastern bank of the Blue Nile along the Gezira judging from Meroitic pottery found at Soba, and most likely Meroitic traders were at the confluence of the Niles at what became Khartoum. How much farther south it went is uncertain, but there is no question that ivory, ebony, and slaves, important to the Meroitic economy, did go upstream of these two great rivers, in one way or another.

GIRAFFES

•

147

The ancient “Island of Meroë” should not be confused with the modern Gezira, even though they are on the opposite banks of the Blue Nile. The “Island of Meroë” is also not a true island, but this region of the Butana is largely bordered by the main Nile to the west, the River Atbara to the north, and the Blue Nile to the south until it reaches the modern highlands of Eritrea and Ethiopia. At the north end of the modern Gezira is Khartoum (across from Khartoum North, “Bahri,” and Omdurman), the wholly modern capital of Sudan where the two Niles meet at the Mogren. In ancient times, it was also occupied by such horizons as the Khartoum Mesolithic and Khartoum Neolithic, and most likely, the C-Group pastoralists were there as well. In British colonial times, much of the Gezira was devoted to cotton production; today, the Gezira is still the agricultural heartland of Sudan for sugar cane, sesame, durra, food crops, and livestock. The Gezira is the spiritual home for the Nubian-born Mahdi who founded his movement against Turco-Egyptian colonial rule, at Abba Island in the White Nile on the western side of the Gezira. GIRAFFES. As in later periods, giraffes were known to be hunted in the Khartoum Neolithic and probably long before. Throughout all time periods, the giraffe is depicted in ancient Nubian petroglyphs. From the Neolithic, giraffes are represented in rock art found at the site of Abka (7000–4000 BCE). A remarkable A-Group find depicts a giraffe on the gold handle of a mace. At Kerma, a winged giraffe is portrayed in an ivory inlay on a funerary bed. Joyce Haynes (1995) proposed that this fantastical representation attests to the giraffe as a local deity. However, researcher Kharyssa Rhodes (2004) said that no other archaeological evidence supports this claim, and its appearance on utilitarian items suggests that the animal was used merely as an artistic motif. By the Meroitic period, giraffes are frequently found on painted pottery such as a ceramic vessel found at Karanog. Aside from its obvious value as a source of meat, the giraffe also provided secondary products. The thick and multicolored hide was used as battle shields, as were other animals like elephants and crocodiles. Giraffe tails were used as high-status fly swatters. The young animal was also used as a prized live export product. The ancient Egyptians desired exotic giraffes as a curiosity from southern Nubia. From the New Kingdom Theban tomb of Huy is the image of a baby giraffe given as tribute to an Egyptian pharaoh from tributary Kush. By late predynastic times, overhunting and ecological shifts had caused the giraffe to disappear from the savannas that became deserts and the floodplains that were taken over by farmers.

148

•

GODS AND GODDESSES OF NUBIA

GODS AND GODDESSES OF NUBIA. The subject of Nubian deities is remarkably complex. On the one hand, both ancient Nubia and Egypt were polytheistic. At the same time, these deities were not equal to each other, so more precisely they were both henotheistic theologies—that is, some gods and goddesses were much more important than others. Some deities rose in importance, and others declined over the three or four millennia of this history. Still another complexity is that some deities are anthropomorphic, others are zoomorphic, and still others are some other composite. Thus, this domain is certainly very complicated. The highest of all gods was Amun, the sun god sometimes represented as a ram, while some were rather local or regional and others were essentially national. Some deities were clearly Egyptian in origin and were imported to Nubia and the wider region. These can include Amun (in human form), Isis, Osiris, Anubis, Hathor, and Mut among many. Others were of Nubian origin and were absorbed by Egyptians, including Bes, Khnum, Satet, and Anqet. Formal Egyptian religion either ended, or was reconfigured after Dynasty XXX in the early fourth century BCE, while Nubian (Meroitic) religion carried on with those traditions as well as adding deities that never existed in Egypt, such as Apedemek, Arensnuphis, and Sebiumeker on to the mid fourth century CE at the end of Meroë, about eight centuries later, or even to the end of the X-Group in the sixth century CE. The tendency to view the region from an Egyptian perspective has often obscured or minimized the role of origin of Nubian deities. In any case, those gods and goddesses associated particularly with Nubia can include Ahs, Amun (especially in ram form), Anqet, Apedemek, Arensnuphis, Bes and Beset, Breith, Dedun, Khnum, Mandulis, Mash, Neith, Nekhbet, Satet, Seb, and Sebiumeker. Dedun and Mandulis (or Merul) appear to have been especially important, or related to, the Medjay or Blemmyes. The Nubian goddess Satet is associated with hunting, as was Neith. It may not be absolutely certain to say that Neith was of Nubian origin, but her icon was two crossed arrows and a shield. These are certainly typical attributes of Nubia, “the land of the bow.” Neith was popular in most dynastic periods and especially during Greco-Roman times. For example, the Greeks assimilated Neith as their hunting goddess Artemis, as did the Romans in the form of their hunting deity, Diana. Martin Bernal believed that Neith became Athena. With this as one example, it is clear that a majority of Greco-Roman deities were modeled after what they found in the previous millennia of Egyptian theogony, and despite their colonial rule of Egypt, they quickly adopted Egyptian art, architecture, writing, and religion. Finally, special roles for the land of Nubia appear for the Egyptian deities Anhur, Hathor, Sekhmet, and Tefnut, who all fled to Nubia at times of their mythological crises. Such tales may mirror the actual flight to Nubia of

GOD’S WIFE OF AMUN, DIVINE ADORATRICE OF AMUN

•

149

various exiles, rebels, and opponents of the dynastic order, such as some of the Hyksos after defeat by Ahmose I or Nectanebo II who fled to Nubia from Persian mercenaries. GOD’S WIFE OF AMUN, DIVINE ADORATRICE OF AMUN. This high-ranking Theban title was exclusively held by women and was known in various dynasties from the New Kingdom to the Late Period or from Dynasty XVIII to Dynasty XXVI. As far as is known, the first woman to hold this position was Ahmose-Nefertari, who served as God’s Wife of Amun under her husband, Pharaoh Ahmose I, and the last God’s Wife of Amun was Ankh-nes-nefer-ib-re of Dynasty XXVI. The God’s Wife of Amun helped legitimate the politico-religious ties of the pharaoh to the Amun cult in the major religious center at Thebes. The position probably first emerged (or was elevated) in the very early New Kingdom, coming out of the weakness of the Second Intermediate Period and to rebuild the relations between the royal family and the Theban priestly elite. Several female members of the ruling Nubian family held this title when they ruled Egypt in Dynasty XXV. These include Shepenwepet I (from Dynasty XXIV), Amenirdis I (sister of Piankhy), Shepenwepet II (sister of Taharka), Amenirdis II (daughter of Taharka), and Nitocris (who carried on to Dynasty XXVI). It is believed that the female connection to the Theban priests gave any dynasty more stability. This is given proof that even when there was dynastic transfer, a considerable effort was made to have the former God’s Wife of Amun to formally “adopt” the incoming God’s Wife of Amun as her “daughter” to provide continuity of legitimacy. A prime example of such a transition is the case of Nitocris, the daughter of Psamtik I of Dynasty XXVI, who was “adopted” by Amenirdis II of Dynasty XXV. This tradition continued in the following appointment of Ankh-nes-nefer-ibre as God’s Wife of Amun by Psamtik II, also in Dynasty XXVI. A lovely statue of Ankh-nes-nefer-ib-re as Isis protecting Osiris is now displayed at the Nubia Museum in Aswan. Her chief steward was known as Sheshonk. According to Miriam Ayad of the American University in Cairo, the exact personal and political dynamics of this transition need further explanation. Proof of the importance of the God’s Wife of Amun is also seen in the fact that at least two had funerary chapels in the forecourt of the great temple of Ramses III at Medinat Habu in the west bank of the Thebes. Furthermore, at least one (and probably all) of the God’s Wives of Amun had Egyptian stewards to look after their daily practical concerns and manage the endowments and tributes to which she was entitled. The case of the steward Harwa is especially well known in this respect. Another parallel title, High Priest of Amun, which was reserved for men, offered still another link to Theban legitimacy. Nubians such as Horemakhet (son of Shabaka); and Harkebi (grandson of Shabaka) occupied this

150

•

GOLD

position. In this way, the king, princes, and regional governors drawn from Nubian kinsfolk all had ties to the God’s Wife of Amun and the High Priest of Amun. GOLD. To some very important extent, gold is the essence of Nubia. The name Nubia is likely derived from the word nb meaning “gold” in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, in Meroitic, in Coptic, and in modern Nubian dialects. The presence of gold in Nubia was recognized from the very earliest predynastic times. Those who controlled this resource in the mines of the Eastern Desert and elsewhere had an asset of great importance. Certainly it was highly regarded, much coveted, and protected by aggressive military actions and by strategic placement of fortifications and treasuries. Major expenditures to construct wells and tracks to the gold mines of Kush can be documented, and it is not surprising that one of the oldest maps known to the world is one from the New Kingdom showing Egyptian routes to the gold mines of Nubia, such as those along Wadi al-Allaqi and Wadi Gabgaba. The well-known qualities of gold—of being malleable and forever shiny, having a low melting point, and being endowed with symbolic and protective significance—made it heavily sought after for jewelry and a means of storing and displaying divisible and transportable wealth. Agatharchides tells us that gold was extracted from the quartzite veins in which it was found by rough quarrying and then subjecting it to heat to break the stone away from the ore. The resulting gold dust was amalgamated into ingots and cast into other useful shapes. In predynastic A-Group times, it was sometime rendered into gold necklace beads, but gold was especially evident in New Kingdom tribute panels collected by the viceroys of Nubia, where it was heaped up in dust or nugget piles or presented as large cast gold rings. In all dynastic periods, gold was of great eternal interest. This was not less the case in the Late Period, when Assyrians looted vast amounts of gold from Karnak and Thebes, or when Greek and Roman occupation quickly adopted the same interest in Nubian gold to fill their treasuries in Athens and Rome. Highly sophisticated gold jewelry is found from this period, and especially in the later Meroitic times. In current times in Sudan, industrial and artisanal gold production is still an important economic factor as oil production has declined; however, the use of mercury to separate the gold has contributed to vary hazardous and lethal mercury pollution. GOVERNOR OF SOUTHERN LANDS. See NEW KINGDOM. GREAT ENCLOSURE. See MUSAWWARAT ES-SUFRA.

GREEK INFLUENCES IN NUBIA (332–30 BCE)

•

151

GREEK INFLUENCES IN NUBIA (332–30 BCE). The classical Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 485–ca. 425 BCE) was personally familiar with the Nile, but only as far as Aswan. From his reading of reports of Psamtik II (who reached the Third Cataract, at least, in 590 BCE) and reports of Cambyses II (who may have reached the Fourth Cataract in 524 BCE), Herodotus was able to know about, and report on, the “city of the Ethiopians” at Meroë without actually having seen it. Following the conquest of Egypt in 332 BCE by the Macedonian Alexander the Great, the reigning Meroitic pharaoh, Nastasen, became even more apprehensive of his own security. Kush had been repeatedly violated, especially by Psamtik II, and no doubt the potential Ptolemaic threat was a contributing factor to move the Kushite capital from Napata to Meroë. Nastasen was the last to rule from Napata and be buried at the royal cemetery at Nuri. A few more poorly known kings were buried at Jebel Barkal, but after Arkamani-qo (r. 270–260 BCE), almost all Meroitic kings and queens were buried far upstream across the Bayuda plain to Bejrawiya. The Nubian fears were soon realized when Alexander sent expeditions as far as Lower Nubia, and only his desire for more Asian conquests diverted his interests elsewhere. While Greeks used hieroglyphics (including demotic) for record keeping and monumental inscriptions, they also introduced Greek language and culture to the Egyptian and Kushite ruling and clerical classes. Perhaps this created an additional incentive to create an alphabetic and glyphic system of Meroitic cursive writing, which emerged during this period. The amazing Greek cultural, philosophical, and scientific influences were rather rapidly expanded, and by 305 BCE, when Ptolemy I ruled Egypt from Alexandria, it was then that the remarkable Alexandrian library and museum were founded. It was common to both Ptolemaic Greeks and their Meroitic contemporaries to have an extremely high regard and reverence for the goddess Isis. Other influences could be noted in architecture in spatial design, dentalia, and some column capitals. Influences also are in art styles, such as Hellenistic medallions, and the lovely bronze oil lamps then popular; in sciences of solar sighting and sundials and linear measurement such as schoenos as in peaceful relations in the borderlands of Lower Nubia; and in stable and common commercial interests. Nevertheless, during the reign of Ptolemy II (r. 285–246 BCE), frequent raids were made in Nubia for captives, livestock, and elephants, which were raised at, or traded from, Meroë. Some of this trade was maritime on the Red Sea, rather than marching the elephants along the Nile. Meroitic king Arkamani II (r. 218–200 BCE), buried at the royal Meroitic cemetery at Bejrawiya, reportedly studied the Greek language from Greek tutors brought to his court for this purpose. And the last of the Ptolemies, Cleopatra VII, was said to speak the Meroitic language.

152

•

GRIFFITH, FRANCIS LLEWELLYN (1862–1934)

Under Ptolemy III, an expedition to Nubia was undertaken by Eudoxus. During the time of Ptolemy IV (r. 222–205 BCE), apparently good relations were maintained with Meroë, but during the reign of Ptolemy V (r. 205–180 BCE), there were reports of several in Upper Egypt, and in 200 BCE also during his rule the Greek geographer and scholar Eratosthenes described, and collaborated with, his counterparts at Meroë. In around 50 BCE, probably during the rule of Ptolemy XV (Caesarion), the Greek historian Diodorus showed his respect for Meroë by terming it as “the home of the Egyptians” and of civilization itself. The three centuries of Greek occupation was relatively brief by Egyptian standards, but it had deep and lasting effects there and in Nubia. However, by 30 BCE, Greek influences in Nubia and its power itself were at a conclusion with the death of Cleopatra VII in Egypt and her replacement by Roman rulers. Even they continued to use the Greek language for their record keeping. The Egyptian deities that were absorbed and renamed by the Greeks got transformed once again by the Romans. Even after the Romans accepted Christianity, echoes of the written Greek language persisted in the orthography of Egyptian Coptic and Old Nubian. Greek merchants and traders had, and still have, communities and clubs in colonial and postcolonial Sudan. The White Nile town of Kosti is named for the Greek merchant who founded it. Every modern archaeologist of Sudan is very familiar with the Acropole Hotel in Khartoum and its generous and supportive Greek and Sudanese staff. GRIFFITH, FRANCIS LLEWELLYN (1862–1934). This very significant professor of Egyptology from Oxford, Manchester, and London universities was one of the towering figures in ancient Nubian studies, both in archaeological fieldwork and especially in Meroitic epigraphy, while also being skilled in demotic and Coptic. He also worked extensively in Egypt, including work in the delta at Naucratis, sometimes with the noted Egyptologist William Matthew Flinders Petrie. In the British colonial era, in 1906–1907, Griffith traveled widely in the Butana, and he was probably among the very first modern Europeans to reach the lesser known sites of Basa, Geila, Um Soda, and Wadi Hawad. At Basa, he found the five large stone lions and stone frogs that are now in the Sudan National Museum. He also found a limestone sundial dated to Roman times. His search for Meroitic writing at Basa and Musawwarat es-Sufra was only slightly rewarded. In 1909, Griffith returned to Sudan with the University of Pennsylvania Nubia expedition, led by the British archaeologists Leonard Woolley and David Randall-MacIver. On this occasion, he discovered the many stela and offering tablets with Meroitic cursive (demotic) inscriptions that are now in the University Museum in Philadelphia.

GRIFFITH, FRANCIS LLEWELLYN (1862–1934)

•

153

From the discovery of the bilingual bark stand in Wad ben Naqa, by Karl Richard Lepsius, Griffith was the first to determine the correlations between the large number of Egyptian hieroglyphs and the very small number of Meroitic hieroglyphs, and the correlation between Meroitic hieroglyphs and its demotic forms. Thus he revealed the phonetic values of Meroitic demotic and thereby the first transliteration of its 23 demotic and hieroglyphic signs of this otherwise lost language. Despite this very important advance, the lack of a long bilingual text or clear cognates in Old or modern Nubian made the goal to move on to translation remain elusive, even though this was a critical or foundational first step. Given the very slow progress with Meroitic decipherment, the early collections and publications by Griffith are still a common benchmark. These include his Meroitic Inscriptions of Shablul and Karanog (1911) and Meroitic Inscriptions (2 vols., 1911, 1912). The Griffith Institute at Oxford continues in his honor. Appendix 11 of this book provides some of the latest thinking about possible meanings of Meroitic words, such as titles, known kings and queens, and toponyms. This research continues sporadically still without a substantial bilingual source, or even full agreement about the linguistic relationship of Meroitic to possible cognatic languages like Old Nubian or modern Nubian dialects that might share some common lexicons.

H HADENDOWA. See ABABDA; BLEMMYES, BLEMYES, PELAMOS. HADRIAN, PUBLIUS AELIUS (76–138 CE; r. 117–138 CE). This Roman emperor of Spanish origin ruled from 117 to 138 CE during the repressive and formative period of Christianity in the Nile valley. He was among the relatively few Roman emperors who actually visited Egypt during these early Christian times in Egypt. Hadrian’s name appears on one of the “Colossi of Memnon” (actually Amenhotep III) in western Thebes (Luxor). He was also known for hunting lions in the Western Desert of Egypt and for his scholarly debates in the Alexandrian Museum that was still partially extant. Demarcation of Hadrian’s territory was symbolized in Nubia on the western side of Philae Island, where he constructed a gateway. Some of the very latest hieroglyphic and Meroitic graffiti inscriptions are found on the walls of this gateway. Reversing the policy of further expansion of the Roman Empire by his predecessor, Trajan, Hadrian sought to maintain the defense of the empire as he did so dramatically with Hadrian’s wall in northern England in 120 CE to stop threats from the Scots. Other Roman emperors who visited Egypt included Augustus, Caracalla, Claudius, Diocletian, Julius Caesar, Septimius Severus, Trajan, and Vespasian. Hadrian was much involved in crushing the Jews during the Bar Kochba revolt of 133–135 CE. While the Christian kingdoms in Nubia were not yet formed, it is likely that, under these threatening conditions, Jews and early Christians sought sanctuary in nearby Meroitic Nubia, and in Eritrea and Ethiopia joining the Falasha (Baet Israel) communities already there perhaps as early as the 586 BCE Babylonian dispersal. HAMADAB. This Meroitic town site is located close to the Nile between the towns of Bejrawiya south and Kabushiya, north of Shendi and across from Kubania Island. Its Meroitic name is unknown, and it is called Hamadab because of the modern village in which it is located. We do not know when it was first founded, but it was one of several Meroitic towns in the heartland such as al-Hassa, Muweis, Wad ben Naqa, Awlib, and Abu Erteila. The 155

156

•

HARKEBI

first excavation was by John Garstang in 1914, and around a century later, supported by Qatari funds, excavations resumed with Pawel Wolf, Ulrike Nowotnick, and Florian Wöss. We can suppose that, for reasons we do not understand, the larger Upper Town was walled and rather well planned with a main street and east and west gates for higher ranking people, while the smaller Lower Town was unfortified and unplanned perhaps for lower strata. Being close to a bend in the Nile it seems that periodic flooding was a problem since parts of Hamadab are raised while excavations had gone down up to 5 meters. Building and rebuilding of structures at Hamadab had at least four discrete historical phases that were concluded with the Axumite invasion in the fourth century CE. The idea that Hamadab had significant social stratification could be sustained because of finding the important Akinidad ferrous silicate stela from this town. Prince Akinidad was the son of Queen (Kandake) Amanirenas and King (Qor) Teritekas (ruling from around 40 to 10 BCE). The two stelae with long Meroitic texts (237 centimeters tall and 100 centimeters wide) were alongside the doorway of a small temple. One was removed to the British Museum (EA 1650), and the other is, reportedly, still on site. The military conquest stela of Akinidad has raised speculation that it may have been his mother Queen Amanirenas whose forces attacked Roman Aswan in 24 BCE since this is when her family was on the Meroitic throne. This could also be an explanation of why the Upper Town of Hamadab was walled with limited access in case of Roman counterattack. Other features of Hamadab include a temple that might have been dedicated to Amun or Mut (as invoked on the Akinidad stela), pottery kilns, and workshops. Iron production also took place at Hamadab, as at other Meroitic towns; however, according to Pawel Wolf, it may be that the iron ore used at Hamadab may be from a different source than that used at the famous iron smelting at Meroë as judged by Hamadab slag heaps. High temperature technology at Hamadab was thus used not only in ceramic and iron but also in faience production and presumably for goldsmiths, too. HARKEBI. This High Priest of Amun was the grandson of Shabaka. He served in this prominent position during Dynasty XXV and continued as a ranking priest during the subsequent Dynasty XXVI. Despite his kinship with Nubians, his religious position was such that he gave legitimacy to the following dynasty. Statuettes of Harkebi from Karnak are at the British Museum and the Egyptian National Museum. Other Dynasty XXV priests of Thebes who may have continued into Dynasty XXVI included Nesi-Khonsu (known from a Theban stela), Tjannenwast, Djed-Khonsuef-Ankh (known from Theban block statues), and perhaps Ankh-Em-Tenent (known from a block statue fragment). See also GOD’S WIFE OF AMUN, DIVINE ADORATRICE OF AMUN; HOREMAKHET, HARMAKHIS, HAREMAKHET.

HARSIYOTEF, HARSIOTEF (R. 404–369 BCE)

•

157

HARKUF, HARKAF. This official of Dynasty VI served under Pepi II and Merenre. His titled office is rendered as “governor of the south,” and he is most famous for heading as many as four trading expeditions to Yam (i.e., Kerma) in Nubia in the 22nd century BCE. Unlike in the heyday of the Old Kingdom domination of Lower Nubia, his trips were peaceful and did not involve conquest. At this time, late in the Old Kingdom, the military penetration of Nubia had been weakened or withdrawn, especially beyond the Second Cataract, so peaceful commerce became the only way economic relations would function. On Harkuf’s missions, he took scores of donkeys loaded with Egyptian goods across the Selima Oasis to the west of the Nile. He returned with a variety of valued Nubian products, such as incense, ebony, grain, gold, ivory, gum, leopard skins, and throwing sticks. On his well-known fourth expedition, he returned with a “dancing dwarf” or, alternatively, a pygmy. Pepi II asked Harkuf to spare no measures to ensure that the dwarf would be safe and well cared for, on the return journey, since the pharaoh would be much amused by this unusual gift. Evidently Harkuf was specially rewarded for this successful mission, and he became the regional governor of Elephantine at Aswan. Upon his death, he was placed in a rockcut pillared hall tomb among the first Intermediate tombs in the western cliffs of Qubbat al-Howa above the village of West Aswan. It is in this tomb that his four trips to Yam are recorded in hieroglyphics. HARSIESE. Harsiese, presumably a Nubian, was a top advisor and prominent sem priest for Taharka during the Dynasty XXV rule of Egypt. It appears that he was in charge of the delta, perhaps from Heliopolis, at a time of intense rivalries and military engagements with the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. He descended from a Theban priest of the same name who had served Osorkon II in Dynasty XXII. That Harsiese was the cousin of Osorkon II, and he proclaimed himself as “king of the south” to lead a revolt against Takelot II. Neither is he another Harsiese who led a later Upper Egyptian revolt, centuries later, against Ptolemy VIII, but perhaps the second Harsiese was inspired to take his name from either of the earlier ones. HARSIYOTEF, HARSIOTEF (r. 404–369 BCE). Harsiyotef was the son of Queen Atasamalo, who is buried in the royal pyramid 61 at Nuri. His father’s identity is not clearly known. This ambitious Napatan king made additions to the temple at Kawa, and he rebuilt temples at Jebel Barkal to show his devotion to Amun. The glories of Dynasty XXV, and the painful memories of the intrusion of Psamtik II into Nubia, were apparently still alive with Hasiyotef (“the Mighty Bull who appears in Napata”), who still projected himself as a legitimate king of Egypt.

158

•

HARWA

Harsiyotef controlled as far as Mirgissa, and he attacked Aswan in an effort to push farther north into Egypt during the weak and waning days of its last Dynasty XXX (380–343 BCE). Harsiyotef ruled for a long period of around 35 years, during which time he conducted a number of military operations against the Rhrh (Libyans) in his second, 18th, and 23rd regnal years; and against some revolt at Meroë, in his third, fifth, and sixth regnal years; and against the Mddt (Medjay/Blemmyes) in his 16th and 35th regnal years. His 61-line stela at the Egyptian Museum records his military victory over people of Nubia at the end of the fifth century BCE. It is believed that Harsiyotef traveled to Napata for his coronation and for reasons of religious legitimacy. Thus, he is considered as a Napatan king in these respects, but he resided more regularly to the south at Meroë. His control extended through Lower Nubia and perhaps, to some extent, as far north as Aswan. As with many of the Dynasty XXV and the Napatan kings, Harsiyotef was buried at the royal cemetery at Nuri in pyramid 13, where one of his wives, Batalhaye, was also buried in Nuri pyramid 44. An offering tablet (MFA 21.3231) is known for Queen Batalhaye that features Isis with Osiris. Other temple inscriptions at Jebel Barkal tell of his observance of festivals to Isis and Osiris throughout the kingdom. HARWA. This chubby figure was the chief steward (or overseer) of the God’s Wife of Amun, Amenirdis I, during Dynasty XXV. In the eight known statues of Harwa, he is always depicted as a squat, fat, pleasant-faced Egyptian man. He was the son of Padimut, who had been a holder of high office in Thebes. Evidently, he gave long and loyal service to the kings and the God’s Wife of Amun of Dynasty XXV. Texts associated with Harwa celebrate his virtues, and he was given a large tomb in the western necropolis. Despite his numerous titles and prominent tomb in western Thebes, his position was essentially secular service, and he was not directly linked to the Amun priesthood. His statuettes are in the Egyptian Museum and in the British Museum. HATHOR. This central goddess for pre-Christian Egypt and Nubia was typically associated with love, nurturing, nursing, motherhood, and tenderness. Hathor was commonly depicted with the ears of a cow, or with the head of a cow, or as a whole cow. Hathor-headed columns were featured in front of Taharka’s rock-cut Amun temple at Jebel Barkal. In Meroitic and contemporary Greco-Roman times, Hathor was often conflated with Isis, who had many similar nurturing virtues, but can be distinguished by different glyphs. She gets reinterpreted in Christian times as Mary, nursing baby Jesus. Hathor and Isis were associated with the milk rituals (such as at marriage)

HATSHEPSUT (R. 1503–1482 BCE)

•

159

that remain a part of Nubian folk traditions even today. Early Christian kings of Nubia also used matrilineal descent as a means to establish royal legitimacy. HATSHEPSUT (r. 1503–1482 BCE). This famed New Kingdom (Dynasty XVIII) queen had several relationships with Nubia. Not the least of these was her central role among the Tuthmoside kings who were focused on military conquest and colonial control of Nubia. On the other hand, Hatshepsut’s military activities were mainly defensive, but she certainly maintained a strong Egyptian presence there, and at least one military attack is known during her reign. A temple at Semna dated to the second year of the reign of Tuthmosis III shows Hatshepsut in an officially subordinate role, but since the king was only a child at the time, she emerged as the effective sovereign and sometimes, until he was older, she was indicated as a coregent. Her precise kinship to Tuthmosis is debated (brother, cousin, stepson, stepbrother, and such), but most agree that she was the daughter of Tuthmosis II, and when the young Tuthmosis III grew older he ruthlessly tried to erase Hatshepsut from memory. At Seheil Island, near Aswan in Lower Nubia, Hatshepsut’s official, Ti, suggested that she was personally present at one Nubian campaign. At Seheil she also quarried granite for two obelisks she commissioned for her Sed festival of renewal held in her 15th regnal year. At Elephantine Island in Aswan, it is now known that she was celebrated at the Satet temple. At the tomb of her architect, and perhaps consort, Senenmut, in western Thebes, there is the assertion that she had a direct military role in Nubian campaigns. At Deir al-Bahri, adjacent to the damaged (unfinished?) tomb of Mentuhotep II, Hatshepsut built her very impressive funerary temple. At this temple, there is a depiction of the Nubian god Dedun leading captives from “southern”(i.e., Nubian) towns to her highness. Her majestic and unique temple may have taken building stones from the early Middle Kingdom temple to build her own. Her temple also offers her much noted inscriptions describing, in rich details, the trading voyage to Punt undertaken during her rule under the guidance of her chancellor, Neshi. Like most New Kingdom pharaohs, Hatshepsut was shown to be of divine birth, but as a woman she had special reverence to the goddess Hathor, who suckled her and in whose honor she built a number of shrines. Karnak is famous for her towering obelisk, quarried at Aswan and amazingly erected within the massive and already existing temple complex. When he came to full power, Tuthmosis III did his best to obscure this still standing monument. Hatshepsut died in February 1482 BCE.

160

•

HEKANEFER

HEKANEFER. Hekanefer was a significant Nubian prince at Aniba during Dynasty XVIII in the New Kingdom. This is evident in the Theban tomb of Huy, who served as the viceroy of Nubia under Tutankhamun. In that tomb, Hekanefer is mentioned by name and is shown as a Nubian. Hekanefer was buried in an Egyptian-style tomb at Toshka, that suggests the high degree of Egyptianization of this Nubian official for colonial Egypt. In hieroglyphics, his name means “beautiful ruler,” and from an Egyptian point of view, Hekanefer was abundantly rewarded for his loyalty to Egypt. HEPZEFA, HAPZEFI, HAPZEFA. Hepzefa was the Egyptian governor for Amenemhat I and Senusoret I at the start of Dynasty XII of the Middle Kingdom. According to Walter Emery, Hepzefa was of Middle Egyptian origins, and he had an unfinished tomb built at Assiut in his honor. However, his service to his pharaoh took him to an Egyptian fortress near the Third Cataract, where he may have served and died. In the fortress was a typically Middle Kingdom sculpture of Hepzefa and his wife Senuwy. After Egyptian control was lost in the Second Intermediate Period, the sculptures were removed to Kerma, for reasons that are unknown, but probably they were war trophies. They were then placed inside the central section of the huge burial Tumulus III at the eastern deffufa. This raises the question of whether Hepzefa was simply an Egyptian and got buried elsewhere and his statue left behind in a rush, or whether he was a Nubian. Perhaps the unnamed Kerma king brought the statue back to Nubia to symbolize his defeat and was buried with the king as a symbolic “servant” since Kerma’s practice at that time, in that grave, was to bury many sacrificed slaves along with the king. This was not the Egyptian practice. The ambiguous circumstances to find two Egyptian statues in a Nubian cemetery allowed George Reisner to falsely imagine that “Negro” Kerma was a mere Egyptian outpost in Nubia, or that the Kerma kings were just trying to act like Egyptians. HERIHOR. Herihor emerged as a complex figure in a major transitional time in the closing years of the New Kingdom. Apparently, he rose to his influential position through the military and by marriage into a ranking family of the Theban priesthood. Sometime between the middle and late reign of Ramses XI (ca. 1100–1070 BCE), Herihor achieved the powerful position of the viceroy of Nubia, but this was when the entire dynasty was withering away. His further access to this declining power occurred when he became the High Priest of Amun at Thebes. No doubt his rise was to fill the vacuum of the remote and weak administration of Ramses XI, who ruled from Tanis or Memphis in Lower Egypt. Indeed, Ramses XI was the last pharaoh to be buried in the Valley of the Kings in KV4. His death, with no clear successor, brought an even steeper decline of the central authority in the New Kingdom.

HERODOTUS (CA. 484–CA. 425 BCE)

•

161

With no clear person to become the new pharaoh, Panehesi was appointed as the new King’s Son of Kush, asserting that he was the highest member of the former government. The historical record is not precise; possibly Panehesi (re)appointed Herihor as the High Priest of Amun to resolve the succession dispute. Alternatively, perhaps Herihor was appointed as the King’s Son of Kush in the closing years of Ramses XI. Whatever the specifics may have been, the relation between Panehesi and Herihor was one of jealousy and conflicting search for legitimacy. When Panehesi asked Herihor to relinquish power, Herithor resisted and sought to become an influential kingmaker or even a pharaoh in his own right. Some sources assert that he was a founding pharaoh of Dynasty XXI as he began to build at Thebes and used the royal cartouche reserved only for pharaohs. Still more confusion in chronology exists since some believe that Herihor died before Ramses XI, but others think that his use of the “Repetition of Birth” or renaissance themes made it appear that Ramses XI was still living when Herihor simply usurped this royal identity. In this simmering dispute, Herihor appointed his son (in-law?) Piankhy to the position of viceroy of Nubia, while Herihor continued to rule from Thebes. However, Panehesi continued to rule, or claim to anyway, and he resisted the counterclaim that Herihor or Piankhy was the legitimate descendant of Egyptian authority. Thus, the political unity of Upper Egypt and Nubia was deeply fractured. Note that this Piankhy of the 11th century BCE is not the same Piankhy of the eighth century BCE. So, the capital of Lower Egypt fell to Smendes I after Ramses XI was no longer effective or alive under these very strained political conditions. Fundamentally diverted by the politics in Nubia, High Priest Herihor occupied the Theban capital of Upper Egypt from around 1080 to 1074 BCE, and in some compromise, he accepts Smendes I as his “coregent” in the political capital of Lower Egypt, while Panehesi ruled Nubia. So it was that Smendes I can be considered as the founder of the weak and divided Dynasty XXI. The political discord of this Third Intermediate Period also represents the start of something of a Nubian “dark age” since Egyptian written records grow mute, and inscriptions by Nubians are not known again until the eighth century BCE. This chaos gave Nubians an opportunity to recover from five centuries of Egyptian colonization and ultimately to spring forth from Napata as Dynasty XXV some centuries later when the name Piankhy is also reborn. HERODOTUS (ca. 484–ca. 425 BCE). This Greek historian and commentator lived under and traveled to Egypt during the longer First Persian rule (525–359 BCE), or so-called Dynasty XXVII. His Histories are particularly important for reports on the Greco-Persian wars. He probably reached as far south as Aswan, and his writings are highly valued firsthand commentaries

162

•

HEZEKIAH (R. 719–680 BCE)

for this place and time. He is sometimes called the “father of history,” although his use of secondary reports that are without verification may need to be taken with care. This being said, Herodotus gives important benchmarks and observations that are beyond the formulaic statements by Egyptians themselves that are rarely independent or critical. Moreover, much, but perhaps not all, of what is reported by Herodotus can be confirmed by independent archaeological or textual research. While he did not journey beyond Aswan, he did give detailed reports about the previous events and nobility of Dynasty XXV; the invasion of Nubia by Psamtik II during Dynasty XXVI against the forces of Aspelta; and important contemporary accounts of the Kingdom of Napata that was still dominant when Herodotus was looking on from Aswan. For better or worse, this gives some ideas about happenings in Nubia as Napata was declining and Meroë was emerging in importance. Among the tantalizing claims of Herodotus is that 330 kings ruled Egypt after Menes (Narmer) until his time in the fifth century BCE. Naturally, this was before the time of the famed chronologist Manetho (323–245 BCE), who created the 30-dynasty sequence for Egyptian history that can roughly compare with Herodotus. Among the rulers noted by Herodotus were 18 “Ethiopian” (i.e., Nubian) kings and one queen. One may clearly account for several in Dynasty XXV and perhaps a Nubian God’s Wife of Amun such as Amenirdis. The precise identity of the others remains mysterious or subject to further research and analysis but may lend credence to possible Nubian origins such as Mentuhotep II or others. HEZEKIAH (r. 719–680 BCE). Reigning from 719 to 680 BCE, this king of Judah (Israel) resided at his capital in Jerusalem. Hezekiah’s principal foreign policy and military concern was addressing the strategic threat of neo-Assyrian expansion into the Levant and ultimately into the Nile valley. The siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib against Hezekiah finally failed, but Samarians were defeated and forcibly exiled to Assyrians. This was at the time that the Nubian Dynasty XXV that was controlling Egypt adopted various joint strategies to deal with what became a common enemy. These included fomenting a diversionary revolt in Sidon and Tyre in neighboring Phoenicia under Shabataka (701–688 BCE) and a cavalry clash by Prince Taharka at al-Tekeh in Israel. As noted in the Old Testament (2 Kings 20:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:3–4, 30), Hezekiah’s advisors were not much impressed by the Judaen-Nubian alliance, but then there were no more defensive choices available. When Taharka (r. 690–664 BCE) became pharaoh and Hezekiah was replaced by Manasseh (r. 696–641 BCE), his tactics were reduced to military approaches to keep the Assyrians under Sennacherib and Esarhaddon out of Egypt; however, despite several see-saw battles, he finally failed to keep out

HOREMAKHET, HARMAKHIS, HAREMAKHET

•

163

Ashubanipal who forced Nubians out of Egypt and back to Nubia. Even when the kings of Judah were left on the throne, they had been reduced to be vassals of the Sargonid dynasty of Assyria. HIGH PRIEST OF AMUN. This high-ranking title in Thebes was an appointed official often drawn from the family of the ruling dynasty to ensure their legitimacy on the throne by this priestly backing. The reference and use of the High Priest of Amun (always a male) and the counterpart, God’s Wife of Amun (always a female), were essential features for religious legitimization for New Kingdom dynasties as well as Dynasty XXV. These two titled officials completed the politico-religious dominance of the Theban priesthood that conferred the blessing of Amun onto a divine pharaoh. Both Horemakhet and Harkebi occupied this position during portions of Dynasty XXV as did Herihor at the end of the New Kingdom with Ramses XI. HOBAGI. Hobagi is a post-Meroitic site on the western bank of the Nile between modern Shendi and Naqa. While this places the site in the X-Group period also represented by Ballana, Qustul, and Tangasi, it has importance as the last transition into Nubian Christianity. The archaeological excavation by the late Patrice Lenoble refers to this as the post-pyramidal “imperial age” of Meroë. The substantial burial mounds clearly suggest a defensive and retreating military elite or regional kingdom since they include bows, bronze arrowheads, battle axes, large swords, quivers, and archer thumb rings, which were well known from Meroitic times. Images of Horus, Hathor, and lotus motifs express a lingering memory of Meroë in the fourth century and of Egypt still under pagan Roman imperial control. HOREMAKHET, HARMAKHIS, HAREMAKHET. Horemakhet, or “Horus of the Horizon,” was the son of Shabaka. Horemakhet served as the High Priest of Amun, or the First Prophet of Amun, during Dynasty XXV. He may have continued in this position during portions of the reign of Taharka and even Tanutamun’s brief effort to return to Thebes. Horemakhet is believed to have been the half brother of Taharka. Horemakhet’s son was Harkebi who also served as the High Priest of Amun of Dynasty XXV. Horemakhet is illustrated in a lovely 66-centimeter red quartz sculpture at the Egyptian National Museum showing him in a standing position with his left foot forward. This was discovered in the Karnak cachette. While the dress style of kilt, ankh necklace and pectoral, and shaved head all follow a model found in the Egyptian Middle and New Kingdom, his features are Nubian. The back, sides, and base of this statue are inscribed in Egyptian hieroglyphs with the cartouches of Shabaka and Taharka. Scenes of King Taharka at Karnak making an offering to Horemakhet are also visible.

164

•

HOREMHAB, HOREMHEB, DJESERKHEPERURE

HOREMHAB, HOREMHEB, DJESERKHEPERURE. Horemhab was the last king of the glorious Dynasty XVIII of the New Kingdom. He was a rising military star during the reigns of Akhenaton and Semenkhare, and he continued to serve as the head of the army under Tutankhamun. Horemhab was able to marry into the royal family and assume power. The Theban Amun priests had never forgiven the “heresy” of the Aton cult of Akhenaton, and they wished to restore and revitalize Amun in Thebes. Horemhab likely steered through this difficult course and broke with the earlier affiliation with the heretical Atonists. As the top and seasoned military commander of the young king Tutankhamun (Tutankhaton), Horemhab already wielded great influence and traveled with the king on a punitive military mission to Nubia. It is very possible that the early death of Tutankhamun may well have been a murder plot organized by Horemhab (or was it an accident?). There are lots of theories and motives but no forensic proof one way or the other. Horemhab rehabilitated or constructed many monuments and tombs throughout the Nile valley from Thebes to Memphis and in Nubia, too. Coming from the military, he reconstituted the military administration of the nation and restored the Theban Amun priests to the positions they had occupied during the reign of Amenhotep III. Simultaneously, he ordered the systematic destruction of the monumental vestiges of the Aton cult of Amarna, and he strategically moved the effective capital back to Memphis. He built a tomb at its royal burial ground at Sakkara, but he was finally interred in a tomb in the Valley of the Kings, the western necropolis of Thebes. Dying 28 years later without a clear successor, Horemhab saved Dynasty XVIII from Atonism but lost it thereafter and was replaced, instead, by Dynasty XIX with the appointment of a new military strongman from the delta named Ramses I, the predecessor of the era of Ramses II. HORSES. The arrival of horses (Equidae spp.) in the Nile valley is typically dated to the Asian Hyksos rule in Lower Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period in the 16th BCE, or just prior to the formation of the New Kingdom that often used horses for cavalry chariots. There is one report of a horse skeleton found at Buhen fort known for the Middle Kingdom, but it may well be of the Hyksos time. Certainly immediately after the Hyksos arrived, as Dynasty XVIII emerged, the horse glyph appeared in hieroglyphics, and they were used for royal riders and for fast light chariots by the New Kingdom military. The horse-drawn chariots carried both a driver and an archer to break up the lines of enemy infantry. After the Egyptians under Ahmose and Kamose in the 16th century BCE forced out the Hyksos, they then turned south to Nubia and used their war chariots with great tactical success against Nubians in establishing colonial rule there. On the other hand, when Egypt became weak again in the Late Period, then the Nubian horse cavalry was effective against Egypt to take over as Dynasty XXV in

HUY, HUY-AMENHOTEP

•

165

the eighth century. This is made clear in the horse depictions on the Piankhy Stela and his castigation of the rulers of Egypt for mistreating their horses. Throughout Dynasty XXV into the Napatan and Meroitic periods and onward to post-Meroitic times, horses were always highly valued by Nubians. From Dynasty XXV at the Kurru cemetery is a group of 24 horse burials dating from the time of Piankhy to Tanutamun. All of these horses were buried standing, facing south, and were interred with full trappings and decorations befitting chariot horses. Meroitic and especially post-Meroitic tombs renewed the practices of horse sacrifices to accompany the deceased. At Qustul and Ballana, pole-axed horses were again interred with full iron trappings along with other sacrificed animals and human servants. In somewhat later times, during the transition to Christianity, King Silko is shown riding a caparisoned horse while lancing an enemy. As relations deteriorated in the early contacts with Islam, Arabs attacked Lower Nubia with horses with mailed armor, as was typical in the medieval period. When peace was negotiated in the baqt, it did provide, among other things, that two fine breeding mares should be provided by the Nubian Christian kings to the Muslim kings of Egypt. Late Christian times still had a prominent role for horses at Soba, where they were both numerous and highly valued in commerce, in slave raiding, and for military applications. HORSIESNEST, MERITATEN. This princess of Dynasty XXV is little known except for her mummy, which reveals her skull to have been trephined, presumably for some medical reason. A section of her skull was removed, and, amazingly, the wound healed and she survived. The precise diagnosis and techniques used are not clear. HORUS. Naturally, the important god Horus originates in Egyptian theology; however, it is equally clear that this protective god and fighter against evil gets transformed into Christian theology. The holy trinity of Horus, Isis, and Osiris echoes in the holy trinity of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. The eternal battle of the good god Horus against the monster evil god Seth reverberates in the battle of St. George and the Dragon. Horus as the god son of the foundational couple of Isis and Osiris is a parallel to Jesus, god son of Mary and Joseph. Indeed, the immaculate conception and birth of Horus as a god can also be at the roots of Monophysite Christianity, which had the same interpretation of the birth of Jesus in opposition to the Chalcedonian and Nicaean councils and creeds of imperial Christian Rome. HUY, HUY-AMENHOTEP. Huy occupied the position of viceroy of Nubia under the reign of Tutankhamun (1334–1325 BCE). His Nubian service to his pharaoh is abundantly manifest in his Theban tomb (no. 40) at Qurnat

166

•

HYKSOS

Murai, where there are scenes of Huy’s family and investiture, his inspection of Nubian tribute, and travel from Nubia, as well as his appearance in front of Tutankhamun and adoration of Osiris, Anubis, and Ptah. Huy provided Tutankhamun with a steady flow of Nubian wealth that included not only the material goods of gold, livestock, wild animals, rare animal skins, and incense but also, and perhaps more important, the obedient Nubians who made these payments. It is in the tomb of Huy that mention is made of Hekanefer, the loyal Nubian prince of Aniba. Huy may have been responsible for the construction of Tutankhamun’s temple at Jebel Barkal. HYKSOS. The Asian “Shepherd Kings,” or “Foreign Kings,” or the socalled Hyksos of Dynasty XV in the Second Intermediate Period had excellent strategic relations with the Nubians at Kerma since both sought to be allied against a weakened Egypt that was isolated in Upper Egypt after the collapse of Dynasty XII in the Middle Kingdom. In fact, in Dynasty XIV, which preceded the Hyksos in the delta, one of the two obscure rulers was termed Nehesy, or the Nubian (or “Negro”), in his own cartouche. Once Egyptian authority had collapsed in this troubled time, apparently Nehesy, and as many as five other kings of Dynasty XIV, ruled the eastern delta for the substantial period of 57 years, which were partly concurrent with Dynasty XIII. Apophis (Apepi I), noted on the Kamose Stela and one of the Hyksos pharaohs in Dynasty XV, apparently drafted a message to a king of Kush to make joint opposition to Kamose’s efforts to reunify dynastic Egypt and create the New Kingdom. Kamose claims to have intercepted this message and planned to attack the Hyksos in Lower Egypt first, and then wage war against Kerma in Upper Nubia later. Kamose’s brother, Ahmose, finally accomplished this strategic goal to reunify Egypt. He overcame a possible and parallel revolt in Lower Nubia to divert the Egyptian military from their advances against the Hyksos capital at Avaris in the eastern delta. Given the eternal rivalries along the Nile, some defeated Hyksos, who became isolated in Upper Egypt and fled to a welcomed box into the refuge in Nubia. After driving out the Hyksos, Ahmose finally achieved his historic mission that put dynastic Egypt back together again. The Hyksos can be credited with introducing into the Nile valley military hardware the much stronger and more powerful composite bow, body armor, and horse-drawn war chariots, which became critical in the New Kingdom for the fast-moving Egyptian cavalry for endlessly suppressing Nubian resistance and revolts. Until the time of the Hyksos, horses were not a military factor of consequence in Egypt or Nubia as revealed more in archaeological evidence than in any contemporary texts not preserved by Egyptians.

HYKSOS

•

167

For example, the unique funerary chapels, massive royal grave tumuli at the eastern cemetery, the towering western deffufa, and the round royal audience hall at Kerma certainly have more in common with African architectural traditions, more than Egyptian or Hyksos. Moreover, the very heavy mud-brick walls, with disproportionately small inner chambers and limited use of interior columns in only single rows or small numbers, are common for Kerma as well as in some Hyksos buildings. It is well known that the two traded and conspired with each other for the two centuries of the Second Intermediate Period (1782–1570 BCE), and they shared some architectural features as well. Or, if only focused on Hyksos Dynasty XV (1663–1555 BCE), that century gave ample opportunity for Kerma-Hyksos interaction. It is another story to study the expulsion of the Hyksos with the Exodus of the Jews, but the later alliance between Judaea (under Hezekiah and Manasseh) and the Nubian Dynasty XXV suggests that regional strategic security concerns have a very long staying power.

I IKEN. Iken is located on the western bank of the Nile near Jebel Sheikh Suleiman, or just downstream from the Second Cataract. Its cemetery was excavated, but previously it had been heavily looted. In the Middle Kingdom, it served as a point in break-of-bulk from a larger to a smaller vessel proceeding farther into Nubia above the Second Cataract. Especially during Dynasty XII, Senusoret III indicated that Iken would serve as a restrictive customs post for Nubians wishing to travel to Egypt. Iken is likely an early name for Mirgissa. IKHMINDI. Ikhmindi town was located just upstream from Dakka temple in Lower Nubia. The stone-fortified wall section was more than 100 meters long on three sides, with a cliff on the eastern side. Restrictive gates on the northern and southern sides penetrated walls of about 3 meters high. It served to protect this early Christian site from the sixth century on to the full medieval period. The remaining walls suggest both residential and storage structures as well as a small church in the center of the town. Local King Tokiloeton of the Noba has an inscription at Ikhmindi indicating his concern for security, perhaps against possible attacks from the Blemmyes. Evidence of a winepress suggests some local production and regional export. The University of Milan investigated Ikhmindi during the Nubian salvage project. IKKUR. The fortified town of Ikkur was located amid C-Group populations in Lower Nubia. It was one of many sites of the huge Middle Kingdom forts in the Egyptian defensive line against possible Nubian penetration. Its heavy mud-brick walls served this function well until the Middle Kingdom, which finally collapsed for internal reasons at the end of Dynasty XII. Its defensive structures not only provided protection along the river but also faced the desert, with major fortifications anticipating landward attack by Nubian archers as well. This site is lost under the waters of Lake Nasser/ Nubia.

169

170

•

INCENSE, PERFUME, AND GUM ARABIC

INCENSE, PERFUME, AND GUM ARABIC. Kharyssa Rhodes, formerly at the University of Florida, has written on incense in general to describe a range of aromatic substances that produce pleasant odors when burned. For millennia, such have long been traded along the Nile as an in-demand luxury good. Used as a perfume for personal adornment as well as in ritual and medicines, incense can be derived from a variety of gums produced by trees of the Bursera family native to Africa and Asia. Frankincense is a gum resin obtained from various trees of the family Bosellia. Myrrh is a gum resin extracted from any of several plants or small trees of the genus Commiphora, native to East Africa. Gum arabic is obtained from several species of African acacia, especially Acacia senegalensis. Incense and gums played a prominent role in the commerce, religion, magic, and medicine of ancient Nubia and Egypt. It was also used as a perfume in the form of waxed incense cones much celebrated in Theban tomb scenes in the New Kingdom, such as with the noblewoman Nebamun. Unavailable in the Egyptian Nile valley, incense and gums were obtained in the Sahelian regions in Africa. The oldest known record of trade in incense comes from the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Records from Dynasty VI chronicle an expedition by Harkuf to the “Land of Yam,” which was in the Dongola reach of the Nile, now known to be Kerma. Apparently, a main goal of this expedition was to obtain incense and fragrant oils, among other goods. Throughout ancient Nubian history, the majority of incense was exported to Egypt. However, Punt was the chief source of a highly desired incense called ntyw, used in Egyptian religious ritual. Indeed, incense trees were one of the commodities brought back to Egypt by Hatshepsut (among others making this voyage) to Punt. The importance of this commodity is reflected in the deity Dedun, whose primary role was that of being “the protector of the precious southern commodities,” especially frankincense. Finally, while not known as a fragrance, kohl eyeliners used as mascara (ground up from antimony or stibnite) and henna leaves from Lawsonia inermis trees for hair and skin dye have been important in personal cosmetics since ancient times. INFIBULATION. See CIRCUMCISION, FEMALE. INSCRIPTIONS. Various forms of writing have been known in the Nile valley for more than 5,000 years, making some of the very oldest sources of inscriptions on earth. What gets written is a tiny fraction of what is discussed and communicated in human communities and only in the last few thousand years. Moreover, only a small number of all inscriptions are preserved, and many of these are very fragmentary. Of this miniscule group, a still smaller number are recovered in archives and in archaeological excavations. Conse-

INSCRIPTIONS

•

171

quently, this rarity means that each inscription is highly valued on one hand, but it presents a highly skewed problem of representation on the other hand. So it is with epigraphic studies and analysis that much significant ado is made about very small written things, and the vast repertoire of written material is certainly lost forever. The earliest Old Kingdom hieroglyphs later evolved into hieratic and demotic forms, and while the writing form changed it was important to note that the vernacular language of ancient Egypt persisted in Coptic. Coptic was one of the languages reported for inscriptions in medieval Christian Nubia. With the six centuries of Greco-Roman occupation of Egypt, it is not surprising that Greek orthography was used for writing in Coptic, and many Greek inscriptions are known for medieval Nubia. Even the official language for the Roman Empire in Egypt, and elsewhere, was initially in Greek and not in Latin. The most famous Greek inscription in Nubia is that written in poor or “pidgin” Greek by King Silko of Nobatia. That is often considered to be the start of that Christian kingdom, and this argument rests, in part, on the use of a singular god in this important inscription on the Roman temple to the god Mandulis at Kalabsha in Lower Nubia. Similarly, Egyptian demotic has some inscriptional relationship to the form of Meroitic writing, but the languages do not share the same linguistic roots. This is also the case with Old Nubian inscriptions that are from a Nubian (East Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan) language but used the writing form of Greek and Coptic. This early and widespread language family links Nilotic languages of South Sudan such as Dinka and Nuer as well as Masai in East Africa and many of the original languages of Darfur such as Daju, Birgid, and Meidobi, as well as languages in the Nuba Mountains of southern Kordofan. Old Nubian inscriptions became common by the eighth century CE, but their lexicons are most heavily used for religious texts. A spoken form of Nubian (Nubi’in) likely existed long before as was the case of Meroitic writing that essentially vanished prior to the formal arrival of institutional Christianity. It may well be that Meroitic and Old Nubian writing have some common spoken forms before being rendered into written forms. Just as modern largely unwritten (Nile) Nubian dialectics such as Kenzi, Sukkot, Fadicha-Mahas, and Danagla, it may well be that written Meroitic and Old Nubian have a similar relationship. Arabic inscriptions arrived in Nubia in the closing centuries of Christianity, but was certainly present in Egypt from at least the seventh century CE. Instances of Old Nubian inscriptions are known for the entire region of Nubia—that is, from the First Cataract to above the Sixth Cataract and on to Soba, the capital of the Nubian kingdom of Alwa. Texts can range from long biblical and liturgical, to magical and manuscripts, titularies, non-literary descriptions, ownership, and numerous short graffiti. Writing can be found on plastered walls, parchment, paper, papyrus, pottery, tombstones and on

172

•

INSCRIPTIONS

ostraca. Preservation of Old Nubian texts has been notable in churches and monasteries. There are some bilingual texts with Greek and a few are bilingual with Arabic. Perhaps the earliest Old Nubian text is found in the small temple of Ramses II at Wadi es-Sebua, which reused as Christian Church that dates to 284 CE—that is, before Christian kingdoms were formally established in Nubia. If this is correct, then it is possible to conclude that Nubi’in written in Meroitic (“cursive”) was perhaps contemporary with Nubi’in written in Old Nubian. In other words, these were similar languages with different epigraphy—that is, Meroitic derived from a simplified demotic alphabet and Old Nubian recorded in Greek or Coptic alphabet. There are cases of Old Nubian or Nubi’in that survive in modern Arabic and certainly in regional toponyms. As noted, Copts are among the original Egyptians, and likely the term is derived from the Greek rendering of the hieroglyphic heka-Ptah, or “(the land) ruled by (the god) Ptah.” As Christianity emerged, it was these native Egyptians who kept their ancient language but recorded it in Greek letters with a few additional letters not present in Greek. Coptic language is thus the written form dominant (and still used) among Christian believers. Coptic was and is written in Egypt and Nubia (as far south as Soba), while Old Nubian inscriptions are usually limited to upstream of the First Cataract at Aswan. As with Old Nubian, Coptic epigraphy is found in similar applications and on similar materials such as papyrus, paper, parchment, and pottery and is used for liturgical purposes, inscriptions, manuscripts, monograms, magic, widespread graffiti, cryptograms, monograms, tombstones, and writing letters. The numerous Coptic inscriptions recovered at Qasr Ibrim might relate to Coptic refugees from Egypt in the eighth century CE. Certainly churches (such as at Faras), cathedrals, and monasteries were heavy users of Coptic language inscriptions that were sometimes recovered in situ in scriptoria themselves. Egyptian Copts still residing in Sudan still use Coptic for liturgical purposes. Certainly in the Ptolemaic times, Greek was the written and spoken form of communication as in the famed trilingual Rosetta Stone. Among the very first references to the Noba are in Greek inscriptions. Even when Cleopatra died and Caesar Augustus took over for the Roman Empire, Greek persisted at least in the first century CE of this epoch. It could be noted that Meroitic writing persisted until the end of the fourth century or even the start of the fifth century CE, so this probably slowed the penetration of Greek into Nubia until its use expanded in Christian times, when Greek began to be applied. Relative to medieval Nubia, Greek graffiti are present in 537 CE at the Isis temple at Philae and, very importantly, in the Silko inscription at the Kalabsha temple. As the early church was institutionalized, prayers, liturgy, and funerary inscriptions were standardized by the seventh and eighth centuries

IRIKE-AMANOTE, AMANINETEYERIKE (R. 431–405 BCE)

•

173

CE if not before. Generally Greek inscriptions preceded Old Nubian that largely used Greek letters to write their Nubian language. Greek letters, like Latin letters, had numerical equivalents that could be used in recording dates and cryptograms. The fact that Greek writing was on ostraca suggests fairly widespread literacy at least among the elite who used parchment (especially at Qasr Ibrim), pottery, stone, and cloth for writing surfaces. At Old Dongola in the eighth century, many Greek inscriptions are found as well as in chapels and monasteries throughout Lower Nubia and at Faras cathedral; Greek persisted at least until the 11th century CE, and some cases of Greek persisted to the late 13th and 14th centuries CE as protective inscriptions. In modern 21st-century times in Sudan, Greek merchants and Greek Orthodox churches certainly use Greek in written and spoken forms, and it persists in conversational and religious contexts in modern Greek communities in Sudan. Arabic inscriptions begin to be seen in later times in Christian Nubia. Aside from a few cases of graffiti, one trove of mid-11th-century-CE Arabic letters written on paper was found at Qasr Ibrim. In the mid-11th-century CE, an Arabic tombstone was found at Meinarti, and a medallion in Arabic was found at Soba. In the 12th century CE, inscriptions in Old Nubian and Arabic are recorded on ostraca at Debeira. Greek, Coptic, and Old Nubian all persisted until the 14th century CE when the famous dedicatory inscription of Kanz al-Dawla was inserted in the Christian palace throne room at Dongola that was dated to 1 June 1317. This ushered in Islam and Arabic flooded the region, yet Nubian dialects still persist today despite the efforts to reduce and marginalize these languages. IREM. See KERMA: HISTORY AND LOCATION; KERMA: MATERIAL CULTURE; KERMA: MILITARY AND ECONOMICS; KERMA: RELIGION; YAM, IREM. IRIKE-AMANOTE, AMANINETEYERIKE (r. 431–405 BCE). This Napatan king has a Horus and Nebty name similar to that of Dynasty XXV king Piankhy, who was still much celebrated and remembered. It seems that Irike-Amanote was much inspired by Taharka as well. Accordingly, he was crowned at Napata and inscribed his name to make donations at Kawa temple, which had long been of regional significance to Nubian and Egyptian rulers. His queen mother attended one of these visits to Kawa. He was the immediate successor of, and perhaps briefly coregent with, King Talakhamani, and he was the son of former king Malowiebamani. Like his predecessor, Shabataka, Irike-Amanote was styled as the “seizer and subduer of all lands.” He did conduct war against the nomadic groups to the east, probably the Medjay, and perhaps he had hoped to take advantage of the confused and contested Persian rule in Egypt to restore Kushite control to that land as had

174

•

IRIPA-ANKH-KEN-KENEF

been the case in Dynasty XXV. Irike-Amanote may have actually lived at Meroë, but he was buried in a large pyramid, number 12, at the royal cemetery at Nuri, which had been started by Taharka. IRIPA-ANKH-KEN-KENEF. This Nubian prince was likely a son of Kashta and a potential contender to the Nubian crown held by Piankhy. Limited textual reference provides the note that he brought his Nubian mother to the famed Egyptian mortuary and pilgrimage center at Abydos for her burial once Dynasty XXV was in power. IRON. The long history of ancient iron technology in the Nile valley embraces many disciplines and a good number of unsettled questions. In early dynastic history, iron was associated mythically with the complex and rather sneaky god Seth. A few cases of meteoric are known as amulets. Iron ores were found plentifully in Nubia and Egypt, mostly as hematite and red and yellow ocher, found in Aswan and in the oases of the Western Desert. Hematite was made into beads and amulets in the Predynastic Period, and the ochers were used as painting pigments and personal cosmetics. Flinders Petrie discovered some iron tools from Thebes that dated to the Assyrian occupation in the seventh century BCE. Though these tools were of non-Egyptian manufacture, they provide the earliest evidence of an ironmade tool in Egypt. By Dynasty XXVI, iron was common enough to be placed in foundation deposits and used for other general purposes. Thus the appearance of Egyptian-made iron tools was not much earlier than the sixth century BCE during Saite times in Naucratis, where Petrie discovered remains of smelting. Note that smelting is the production of liquid iron (and waste slag) in an oxygen-enriched blast furnace (with tuyeres) to get to temperatures of about 1,800° F; this can be contrasted with iron forging, or hammering of iron ingots at much lower temperatures. Low-quality iron can be much improved by transforming it to steel with the addition of 4–5 percent carbon, which would naturally take place with charcoal-fired blast-furnaces. The quality of iron can be improved—that is, less iron left in the waste slag—by fluxing with lime. This process is more common in the Mediterranean and less common in African iron technology. This distinction can offer ideas about which origins may exist for different high-temperature metallurgical traditions. Unlike the Nile valley traditions of silver, copper, and gold that used the “lost-wax” process and molds, the sustained temperatures required for large-scale iron (or pig iron) production did not, apparently, ever result in cast or poured liquid molten iron but, instead, relied on forging. Cast iron first appeared in China in the fifth century BCE.

IRON

•

175

Many archaeologists of ancient Nubia long believed that the introduction of iron into Nubia was from Egypt. Anthony J. Arkell suggested that smallscale iron production may have been introduced to Napata during the retreat by Taharka to Nubia. But the few items known from this period may be imports and not local production. To date, no Napatan site of iron smelting is known to exist before 400 BCE. While it is not precisely clear when, and how, it arrived along the Egyptian Nile, it is generally believed that it diffused from Phoenicians to Assyrians and then to Egyptians in the eighth or seventh centuries BCE and on to Ptolemaic Greeks who reached Meroë in the fourth or third century BCE. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that African iron working with no fluxing may be earlier, and it was perhaps from this tradition that Meroitic iron work emerged and then diffused extensively across the Sahel. King Harsiyotef (r. 404–369 BCE) was apparently the first Meroitic ruler to have had model iron tools in the foundation deposits of his tomb, so this would be before the Ptolemies had come to rule in Egypt. The large slag heaps famed for Meroë seem to be substantially later, suggesting that iron smelting had started in Meroë in the late fifth century BCE but had not yet reached the later, industrial levels of production. These early iron objects remain generally small, and most objects are badly oxidized and hardly identifiable as to function. Nevertheless, among the recognizable objects were tweezers, knives, jewelry, nails, hooks, hoes, spoons, rings, axes, spikes, blades, barbed points, spear heads, chisels, rods, bezels, arrowheads, and a horse bit(?). Thus, the earliest precise date for the regular extraction and production of iron from local ores in the Nile valley in general, and the Nubian Nile in particular, is still uncertain, and the earliest dates for Egypt appear to be far earlier than those from Meroë. The case may be made that Meroitic iron technology first emerged from African traditions but later evolved in conjunction with the relatively positive relations they had with the Ptolemaic Greeks, unlike the often hostile relations with Romans in Egypt. The neat linear diffusionist model of Meroë as “the Birmingham of Africa” proposed by A. H. Sayce must now be rejected and refined. As more contemporary sub-Saharan iron smelting sites are found, the primarily Egyptocentric diffusionist model that has prevailed may have to be rethought in a more complex and less linear fashion. Until or unless the chemistry of the iron and quality of the slag from varying sequential strata of the slag heaps are further known, it will not be clear if Meroitic slag heaps were long- or short-term accumulations or what may have caused the rise and fluctuations in production. Excavations in 1973 located two more iron furnaces, but it is not completely clear whether these were primarily for smelt-

176

•

IRRIGATION

ing or secondary foraging. Excavations and research at these heaps in around 2015 has found more smelting furnaces, and a British team has reconstructed a functioning furnace according to Meroitic specifications. The classical historian Herodotus (1954, 467) made a relevant comment about this when he noted in Book VII that the “Ethiopians” (Meroites) “carried long bows made of palm wood—as much as six feet long—which were used to shoot small cane arrows tipped not with iron but with stone worked to a fine point.” The small-quantity, low-quality iron objects and the large amounts of iron remaining in the fayalite (iron-rich waste) slag suggest that the early iron production techniques of Meroë were relatively poor. In any case, the presence of fayalites at Meroë would be more consistent with either a local Meroitic or wider African iron-smelting tradition, or a lack of technology transfer from the Greeks or the supposedly better fluxing technology of the Romans. Some archaeologists, such as Peter Schmidt, have claimed that some dates in sub-Saharan Africa, like in Uganda, are parallel to, or even earlier to, those in Meroë. Modern smelters use fluxing to increase the percentage of iron and reduce the amount of iron oxides wasted in the slag. The poor quality of Meroitic reduction indicates that fluxing was not much used. Perhaps the tense military relations with Roman Egypt did not easily allow for this technology transfer in the ancient world. However, for a substantial period of Roman rule in Egypt the Meroites reoccupied Lower Nubia and expelled Romans from that contested region. These tense relations may have been costly in the failure of the transfer of fluxing technology in the first centuries CE. In the subsequent X-Group, Ballana, and Qustul burials, iron objects such as spears, swords, hoes, saws, and axes appear to have become more frequent. Research on first-millennium-CE iron production in Jebel Mao in the Tagabo Hills of Darfur by Ibrahim Musa has found evidence of iron ore quarries, smelting, and production of iron implements. Once chemical seriation is better known, the complex issues of the origins, scale, and evolution may become clearer. A step in the direction to understand Meroitic iron technology more precisely has appeared in the article by C. B. Rhoades Jr., Waled Bader, and Richard A. Lobban Jr. in Sudan Notes and Records (1999, 5–23). IRRIGATION. Several ancient types of irrigation techniques were used along the Nile valley. Since Lower Nubia and much of Upper Nubia are without regular rain, irrigation of some sort is essential. If far enough south, as in the Butana plain, seasonal rainfall was sufficient to be trapped in excavated hafirs that consisted of very long, low earthen dams across shallow basins or wadis that could hold large amounts of water for agriculture and livestock. This is well noted in the remarkable case of several wide hafirs at Musawwarat es-Sufra that even provided for canalized plumbing into royal gardens. As such, rainfed agriculture ranges from risky to impossible.

IRRIGATION

•

177

The oldest type of riverine irrigation relied on the annual flood of the Nile and can be termed as gerf (river bank) farming, whicj relied on the flood and its rich deposits of rich silt fertilizer. This could be enhanced by diversionary canals and blocked water between the banks and sandbar of some sort that would trap Nile waters as the river flood declined. This was very early as suggested by the King Narmer palette illustrating his authority to regulate the water flow as needed. In ancient times, no major dams were in regular use since the flood force was too great. Seluka lands, named after the digging stick used to plant crops (rather than seeds being broadcast sown), are found in the arable portion of gerf floodplains of Nubia. This type of farming takes place on the banks and islands along the river that receive adequate water after the annual flood. Irrigation of this type requires only a nominal labor or cost and produces a wide variety of crops for human or livestock consumption such as berseem (clover). Seluka farming was adjusted each season as islands and banks appeared and disappeared. Naturally occurring basin or wadi lands lie between uplands and levees raised along the rivers. At the time of high flood, water could be trapped in a basin and drained off as needed. Oases and dug wells, away from the Nile, also supported limited agriculture and livestock from underground springs. The expansive Kerma and Letti basins were so broad that they supported large farming populations and some of the earliest civilization in Nubia, such as the ancient state of Kerma. All of these flood-fed, rain-fed, or gravity-fed systems clearly had their limitations so technological advances shifted to more active devices that could lift water into canals and fields. The first of this ancient technology was the shaduf (in Arabic) or keeyay (in Nubian), which was a balanced beam with heavy counterweight on one end and a water-catching bag or bucket on the other so that a single operator could dip down into the river and easily lift water to be dumped into a canal. Some cases of multiple devices could lift water up several meters. A second generation of water-lifting device or cogged, wooden, waterwheel took place much later, perhaps in Ptolemaic times, in the case of a yoked, cattle- or camel-driven series of “endless bucket” or clay jars (qadus) tied onto an endless rope loop that would collect water when plunged into the river and would pour out the water when the maximum height was reached. The animals walked in a circle around a central vertical axis that dropped and lifted the endless bucket into the river below. Then the water would flow into a catchment system that, in turn, delivered it to the canals in the farm fields. In Arabic, this is called a sakia; in Nubian it is termed an essi-kalay (water lifter). There is some debate about exactly when the sakia was introduced, and it may have been of Persian origin in the first place.

178

•

IRTET, IRTJET, IRTHET

According to researcher Paul Saucier, in ancient times, shaduf lands were employed to water small vegetable patches during the flood season. While no longer in use, a shaduf is rather easily constructed and could lift water up to 3 meters if the counterbalanced lever is long and strong enough. It was first recorded during the New Kingdom and sometimes operated in teams. The production of water by the animal-powered sakia was very much greater than that of the man-powered shaduf. Sakia irrigation can support heavy cropping and yields up to 350 bushels of wheat per feddan. However, the area irrigated depends on the height it must be lifted from the level of the river. For example, at the height of the Nile flood, a lift of 2 meters can deliver water four to five feddans. Inefficiencies are realized with sakias since some water is lost when raised. Also, its relative complexity requires steady adjustment and maintenance. However, such inefficiencies did not stop it from becoming a revolutionary device in Egypt and Nubia. No longer was farming restricted to gerf or seluka land lying less than 10 meters above the river surface. Many Meroitic settlements are linked to the introduction of the sakia. The “land rush” into ancient Lower Nubia was due, in part, to this innovation. Nearly half of the crop grown was for livestock fodder, which also made it possible to raise more sheep, goats, and cattle. Today in Sudan, the major Gezira Scheme is irrigated by gravity-fed canals from dams across the Nile itself. Smaller plots are irrigated with dieselfired hydraulic pumps raising water from the Nile. Shaduf and sakia technology has essentially vanished. IRTET, IRTJET, IRTHET. Irtet was an independent Nubian chiefdom or small kingdom in the third millennium BCE. It was likely upstream of Wawat in Lower Nubia. Perhaps Wawat and Irtet were known generically as Setju or Ta-Setiu (the “land of the bow people”). As these lands merged into state formation above the Third Cataract, the Old Kingdom reference for Upper Nubia was Yam or Irem. These lands are now known as Kerma, but this is actually a modern reference to the village in that area. When in Nubian hands, or at least not under Egyptian control, Irtet and Wawat were populated by C-Group peoples. Exactly when, how, and by whom the land became known as ancient Kush is unknown, but this seems to be more in early dynastic times; Kush is probably a Nubian term that was incorporated by Egyptians. ISIS. This very ancient, and very important, Egyptian and Nubian goddess figures prominently in the religions of the Nile, and she persists into GrecoRoman theology and on into Christianity. According to the orthodox mythology, Isis was the daughter of Geb (god of the earth) and Nut (goddess of the sky), and she was the sister of Seth, Nephthys, and Osiris, who was also her

ITINERARIUM ANTONINI

•

179

husband. In turn, Osiris and Isis were the parents of the falcon-headed god Horus. These three made for one of many “holy trinities” in this belief system. Horus had a key and legendary role in protecting the pharaohs against the forces of evil. This threatening force was usually projected as an eternal combat against his sinister uncle Seth (Satan) who was endlessly plotting jealous schemes against his brother Osiris (as in Cain and Abel). Imagery of Isis (under various names) extends through the Egyptian and Nubian Nile and the northern Mediterranean empires of Greece and Rome. Isis was even worshipped in London under Roman rule. Isis can be portrayed in several postures, including standing, sitting on her throne, or nursing her son Horus. She can have horns like the goddess Hathor, and both can wear a vulture headdress (symbolizing Mut, the wife of Amun). The deciding difference is that her hieroglyphic name, As-Set. should include her throne glyph and usually a female determinative. In Greco-Roman times, Isis is sometimes conflated with Hathor (cow goddesses) with whom she shared many characteristics of love, motherhood, nurturing, tenderness, and devotion. Later, Isis reemerges in similar roles in Greek theology as the goddess Aphrodite and in Roman theology as Venus (consort of Mars). In the Nile valley, one of the most famous and lasting centers of Isis worship was at the Philae temple, which was her primary shrine, near Aswan. Isis figures often in Dynasty XXV and Napatan iconography and remains very important in Meroitic times. Through these centuries Isis is shown supporting the kings and queens, on temple and funerary chapel walls, on funerary stela, and offering tablets. Even after Christianity was established, this shrine was still visited by Nubians and Egyptians. It was not officially shut down until 551 CE, when it was turned into a church. Meroitic pilgrims are clearly shown in the “Ethiopian Chamber” doing their worship and making offerings. Some historians of religion see the Isis, Osiris, and Horus trinity as being reborn in the Mary, Joseph, and Jesus trinity, and Muslims accept Mary as Mariam, so perhaps she is still with us today. ISLAM IN NUBIA. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia and the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (4th ed.). ITINERARIUM ANTONINI. According to Eugenio Fantusati of the University of Rome, this Latin text of the third century CE is properly known as the Itinerarium Provinciarum Anto(ni)ni Augusti, or more simply, Itinerarium Antonini. This work dates to around the time of Carcalla (r. 211–217 CE). It served as a practical commercial guidebook within the expansive Roman Empire by providing the location of rest house stations and the distances between them. Its precise toponyms are still very useful for historical and geographic reconstruction of Roman North Africa. This tradition of list-

180

•

IVORY

ing and locating places began with the Roman geographers Strabo and Claudius Ptolemeus and continued in the Itinerarium as an example of the Roman influences in the region. The famed, but anonymous, Periplus of the Erythrean Sea was likely a century or so earlier and played a similar role for Roman commercial navigators on the Red Sea. In Lower Nubia, the Itinerarium described Roman settlements and roads, indicating that the biggest settlements or military camps were mostly on the western side of the Nile. From north to south, the Itinerarium mentioned Contra Syene and Syene, Philae, and Shellal at the First Cataract region around Aswan. Heading upstream, there is Parembole (Dabod) and Tzitzis (or Dendur at Wadi Kamar); then Qirtas (or Kertassi); Taphis and Contra Taphis (Tafa); Talmis and Contra-Talmis (Kalabsha); Aguala; Pselchis and Contra-Pselchis (Kubban); and Takompso or Hierasykaminos (Maharaqqa). Such garrison towns were the more common defensive border posts within Lower Nubia or the Dodekaschoenos, although Roman raiding parties ventured farther south from time to time. As in dynastic times, the military posts of Pselchis and Contra-Pselchis guarded the route into the gold mines of Wadi al-Allaqi at this “doorway into Nubia.” Except for Contra Syene (West Aswan) and Shellal (east of Philae), all of the place-names preceded by Contra indicated only small east bank military posts and commercial control posts for the desert caravans and river trade. IVORY. No doubt, millions of elephants have been killed over the millennia to harvest their ivory tusks (“elephant teeth”), and they became extinct in Egypt and North Africa. Elephant (and hippopotamus) ivory was traded from Nubia to Egypt as early as the Neolithic (7000–4000 BCE), and elephants were hunted before that. However, the earliest evidence of this trade comes from the A-Group (ca. 3500–3000 BCE). It is unlikely that the small, scattered population of the A-Group was organized for large-scale, or longdistance trade, but finds at Gerzean sites in Upper Egypt attest to at least an informal ivory trade network. Ivory trade is indicated by artifacts from the tomb of King Djer in Dynasty I (ca. 3000 BCE) in the Archaic Period. At this time, the ivory trade between Nubia and Egypt became more formalized and continued throughout ancient Nubian history. Records from Dynasty VI (ca. 2300–2100 BCE) chronicle several expeditions to the land of Yam, now understood to be Kerma, to procure ivory and other luxury goods. During the First Intermediate Period, the royal craftsmen of Kerma inlaid footboards and headboards of funerary beds with ivory inlays carved in bird and animal shapes. The beds often had ivory legs carved to look like those of animals and were superb examples of carpentry and joinery. The

IVORY

•

181

copper daggers of Kerma owe their characteristic large, flat-topped ivory handles to the ample supply of local ivory. A lively ivory trade also existed between the Kerma Nubians and the Hyksos at that time. Research on elephants by Valerie de Liedekerke at Tufts University, School of Veterinary Medicine and by Kharyssa Rhodes at the University of Florida has found that, by the New Kingdom colonial period (1550–1000 BCE), ivory is a very familiar tribute item paid by Kush, as is known from many tomb wall murals, such as the Theban tomb of Rekmire. Ivory was also featured during the New Kingdom expeditions sent along the western coast of the Red Sea by Queen Hatshepsut to Punt to bring back tusks. Among the chief exports from Nubia to Egypt during the reign of Tuthmosis III were ivory, gold, rare woods, ostrich feathers and eggs, semiprecious stones, and incense. Many tomb paintings depict Nubian or southern Sudanese ivory being offered to the pharaoh by his viceroys of Kush. A case is well known for Tutankhamun during Dynasty XVIII. At the Lower Nubian temple of Bait al-Wali built by Ramses II (1304–1237 BCE) in Dynasty XIX, painted mural scenes show elephants, ivory, gold, leopard skins, ebony legs, and ostrich eggs and feathers, along with live exotic animals such as lions, antelopes, ostriches, gazelles, giraffes, monkeys, and leopards. In the Napatan period and during the centuries of Meroë, ivory remained significant in Nubian commerce as seen in the noted elephant images at Musawwarat es-Sufra where these live animals were trained, mounted, and exported. Besides ivory exports and local consumption of meat, elephant hides were exported for making shields, and elephant hair was exported for making bracelets. In room 15 of the badly damaged “Treasury at Sanam,” trade items of ebony and elephant ivory were found stockpiled. Whether these were for local utilization or for export is not known, but the quantity suggests the latter. The Persian king Darius (r. 521–486 BCE) used ivory that was brought from Kush (Welsby 1996, 175–76). Gifts of ivory and live elephants were a custom for many sovereigns looking for favors or asking for peace. Kushites are shown with gifts of elephant tusks to the Persian king Xerxes (r. 485–465 BCE). Herodotus tells how the “Ethiopians” (i.e., Meroites) sent 20 great elephant tusks every third year to the Persian court. Pliny the Elder notes that elephants were still to be found around Meroë in the 60s CE. In the later Meroitic era (second to third centuries CE), a bronze oil lamp with heads of elephants was found. Early Meroitic palaces contain elephant images, including an unusual one showing a naked man (a Roman deity?) with a yoke across his shoulders, from each end of which a small elephant is suspended. Concurrent with this increased demand, a competing trade was developed in Ethiopia by the emerging kingdom of Axum. After the collapse of Meroë in the fourth century, ivory was still exported to Egypt, but more was exported from the rival port of Adulis in coastal Eritrea. The demand for ivory

182

•

IVORY

grew enormously as the Roman Empire began to use it not only for statues and combs but also for chairs, tables, birdcages, and carriages, as well as a host of other luxury items. Caligula gave his horse an ivory stable, while Seneca possessed 500 tripod tables with ivory legs. During the Ballana period, the graves of the kings of the Nobatae contained ivory inlays on wooden chests. By the fifth century CE, elephants had almost disappeared from the forests of Ethiopia, so in the medieval Christian period, the ivory trade continued in Nubia from elephants hunted in the southern Sudan. According to Ibn Selim al-Aswani, an Arab geographer of the Middle Ages, a large number of Muslim merchants resident in Soba, the capital of the Christian kingdom of Alwa, were much interested in the highvalue trade of slaves and ivory. Today, ivory is still being sold in the main markets of Sudan, despite international efforts to stop it.

J JEBEL ADDA, ADO. This site is referenced in several historical periods, for it was one of the main centers of power and authority from Meroitic times, until the Arabs arrived in the 13th century CE. It served as a subcenter to Qasr Ibrim during the Meroitic period. During this time, Jebel Adda, like Qasr Ibrim, was a walled settlement that overlooked the east bank of the Nile. It featured pyramids covered with white plaster, a mortuary custom that differed from the usual red plaster. Cemeteries were located close to town and on the east bank. This differed for cemeteries, which normally were featured on the west bank. Jebel Adda went through several building phases, with the fourth phase being the most extensive. Stone-dressed walls replaced brick fortifications, temples were built, and sandstone statues were constructed. It is assumed that during this phase Jebel Adda served as a military, administrative, and religious center; it may have served as the capital during the Ballana period. The Ballana culture destroyed many pyramids at Jebel Adda, opting for mound tumuli, a clear rejection of Meroitic culture. During the Middle Ages, Jebel Adda may have served several thousand inhabitants, explaining why the settlement extended beyond the citadel walls. By the 14th century CE, a small Nubian kingdom, the Kingdom of Dotawo, was established at Jebel Adda. Documents dated 1484 CE give evidence of a King Joel, thus showing that Jebel Adda persisted until the 15th century CE. Extensive excavating has only produced one royal name within the fortification. X-Group cemeteries have been found there also, as well as a temple built for the worship of Amun. This temple is considered the latest to have been built in Lower Nubia, thus proving that a cult was retained up until the downfall of the Kushite period. JEBEL ASH-SHAMS. Jebel ash-Shams (“Sun Mountain”) was located just upstream from Abu Hoda and Abu Simbel. It was associated with a stela and small rock-cut chapel for Paser, who served as the viceroy of Nubia under Horemhab at the close of Dynasty XVIII. Elements of this chapel

183

184

•

JEBEL BARKAL

were moved to Abu Simbel in the Nubian Salvage Project. Jebel ash-Shams was also occupied in Meroitic times, as evidenced by pyramidal tombs and a cemetery of that period. JEBEL BARKAL. This flat-topped mountain rises just west of the modern town of Kereima. In ancient times, Jebel Barkal was known in hieroglyphics as the “Pure Mountain,” and its modern Arabic name means the “Blessed Mountain.” It is across the Nile from the ancient town of Sanam, which was at the site of the modern town of Merowe. This should not be confused with the ancient town and state of Meroë. Jebel Barkal is the highest promontory for many kilometers around and is visible from a great distance. Its strategic and prominent location is just downstream of the Fourth Cataract, which is a natural boundary and barrier on the Nile. Jebel Barkal is on the right bank of the Nile, but at this point it is on the western side because of the grand Sshaped turn in Nubia. The lands of the Nubian Desert to the north and behind Jebel Barkal give access to a shortcut to Kerma that is just upstream of the Third Cataract. On the opposite, eastern or left bank was Sanam, which was probably the main commercial town and the terminus of the land route across the Bayuda plain to bypass the longer and difficult river route through the Fourth and Fifth Cataracts. The spiritual presence of the ram form of Amun was believed to reside within the mountain itself. The region dominated by Jebel Barkal was also generally known as Napata, or Kush under the New Kingdom colonization. The region anchored at Kurru in the eighth century or earlier was the center of the rebirth of sovereign Nubia. It was Napata that was the Nubian capital of Dynasty XXV, and it gave the name to the Napatan epoch after the Nubians retreated from Egypt. Initially the Nubian kings were buried downstream at Kurru and, later, upstream at Nuri, with many other pyramids just west of Jebel Barkal and its great Amun temple and palaces built on through the Meroitic period. Jebel Barkal remained the religious and political center of gravity for the Nubian state until the third century BCE when the residence of the royal family was moved to Meroë, but even then, Jebel Barkal was held in great reverence and was the site of royal rituals, palaces, and pilgrimages. Its importance rests solidly on the fact that it was the home of Nubia’s largest Amun temple. Expansive royal palaces for Dynasty XXV and the Napatan kings existed at this location, as did a rock-cut temple for Taharka and Mut. In short, Jebel Barkal has long retained great significance because of its deep religious symbolism; its inherent strategic location on trade routes; and its long service as a political capital, a religious shrine, and a place for royal residences and pyramidal burials.

JEBEL GEILI, QEILI

•

185

While Jebel Barkal was visited by numerous 19th-century travelers, including Frédéric Cailliaud, G. Hoskins, Richard Lepsius, and later E. A. Budge, it was the work of George Reisner that really put this site on the archaeological map. His numbering system for the main features of Jebel Barkal included temple B100 (studied by Timothy Kendall); the Mut temple (B300); the Amun temple (B500); the Napatan time temple of Senkamanisken and Atlanersa (B700); the great palace B1200 (studied by Sarah M. Schellinger); palace B1500 of Nakatamani and Amanitore (studied by Emanuele Ciampini and Alessandro Roccati); and B2400 (studied by Alessandro Roccati). These original Reisner reference numbers are still used today. The architectural analysis by Sarah Schellinger for the form and function of “palaces” versus temples has been instructive. The palace model will be a generally large, square (semi-axial) building with a multicolumned central court and audience hall. None would have long processionals or pylons, but many will have stairways to a second floor that could be used in some manner. Some may have forecourts or, if informed by Egyptian styles, there may be a “window of appearance.” Perhaps most important is that a royal palace should be near to major (nonresidential) religious temples. Generally these features would also be found at the Meroitic palaces at Jebel Barkal, Meroë, Wad ben Naga, Muweis, Dukki Gel, Musawwarat es-Sufra, and elsewhere in the Meroitic landscape. JEBEL DOSHA. Jebel Dosha is located between Soleb and Sedegna on the western bank of the Nile above Sai Island. At Jebel Dosha is a small rockcut temple constructed in the name of Tuthmosis III. JEBEL GEILI, QEILI. This inscribed stone is located deep into the Butana Steppe, southwest of Murabba, and home to the southeasternmost Meroitic monument known. It can also be considered as the southernmost extension of Wadi Hawad that links it to Basa, Awlib, and Abu Erteila and to Royal Meroë on the main Nile to the northwest, and it is actually closer to the Blue Nile to the southeast. This monument contains a “victory” or warning relief of pagan king Shorkaror of the Christian era, his only known relief, receiving blessings from a Hellenized sun god and triumphing over unnamed enemies; it may celebrate a victory over newly Christian Axum. This relief is known to be the last of any significance in the history of the Meroitic kingdom. Shorkaror was one of the sons of King Natakamani and Queen Amanitore who ruled at about the time reported in the Acts of the Apostles that reported about the first Christian in Nubia, a eunuch servant for the royal family.

186

•

JEBEL MEIDOB

This site and inscription is of significant military and political importance for Prince/King Shorkaror. It was clearly designed to warn peoples of the eastern Butana not to attack the Meroitic heartland from this southern province of the empire. The location is also on the track through Murabba that leads on to Wad ban Naqa on the Nile. This warning was placed very strategically to alert potential attackers coming from the southeast or from Axum (Eritrea or Ethiopia). It also was placed as a territorial marker southeast of the important Meroitic sites at Naqa and Musawwarat es-Sufra. It is also not far from the right (east) bank of the Blue Nile. To some ironic extent, this worked, since when the Axumites did attack they used the Atbara River as the corridor for invasion from the Abyssinian Highlands and not the Butana plain. JEBEL MEIDOB. This hill area far to the west of the Nile in northern Darfur is known to have a group of around 30,000 speakers of a Nubian dialect (i.e., a branch of Eastern Sudanic or Nilo-Saharan languages). Although the linguistic distance between Meidobi Nubian (and Nile Nubian or Hill Nubian in southern Kordofan) is the greatest within this widespread and diverse language group, it has raised some important questions. Were the ancient Nile Nubians refugees from the Sahel or refugees to this part of Darfur at some other time? This question is not resolved, and over time many possibilities could exist. Probably the prevailing view is that the Nile Nubians came from this western Sahelian region but were then heavily mixed with colonizing Egyptians from the north and Nilotics from the south. Precisely when this migration, or, really, series of migrations from and to Jebel Meidob, took place is another matter of dispute relative to the broad issues of historic migrations to and from the Nile at some prehistoric time. Nevertheless comparative linguistics confirms a distant relationship, just not the historical direction of the contact. JEBEL MOKRAM. The little known Jebel Mokram horizon consists of more than 50 Neolithic sites in the second millennium BCE. It followed the Gash Group and coexisted with the Kassala Phase, but it perhaps was represented by a seasonal group from the region of what is eastern Sudan and western Eritrea. The site was approximately 10,000 square meters in size and characterized by seminomadic herding and farming. Small clay figurines of animals are found with the Jebel Mokram people, and it is generally known for its pottery that includes thin scraped ware, tempered undecorated brown ware, and thick round vessels that have similarities with Pan-Grave cultures as well as some links to southern Egypt. Lug handles and ceramic strainers are also elements of this group, as well as stone polished bracelets. Obsidian has been found, suggesting contact with the Ethiopian highlands. The lug

JEBEL SHEIKH SULEIMAN

•

187

handles and different types of fabric found at Jebel Mokram also suggest that this group is part of the hereditary base from which some pre-Axumite elements arose. JEBEL MOYA. The site of Jebel Moya (“Water Mountain”) is located about 300 kilometers south of Khartoum in the middle of the Gezira between the White and Blue Niles. As the name suggests, it has year-round water (moya, mai) resources some distance from the Nile. Sophisticated survey research began there in 1910 by Henry Wellcome, but it was not continued in a regular way, and the first publication of the data was not until 1949. The Jebel Moya site represents a horizon well after the Shaheinab site or Khartoum Neolithic, and it may have first been occupied in the first millennium BCE and in the Napatan period as well. The incomplete excavation is such that earlier material, as well as material from the Meroitic period, may be present. Since the archaeology of southern Sudan is poor and the southern extent of the northern kingdoms is also not well known, it is important that this study continues in the future. Lip plugs and mace heads found in Jebel Moya burials suggest ties to Shaheinab, while removal of the lower incisors and general craniometry suggest ties to the “Negroid” Nilotic people of the south. JEBEL QEILI. See JEBEL GEILI, QEILI. JEBEL SAHABA. This Late Paleolithic (or Epipaleolithic) site of the Qadan type is just north of Wadi Halfa. It is unusual insofar as it is a cemetery for the oldest known case of mass violence, sometime between 12,000 and 10,000 BCE. Among the many dead, at least 40 percent were killed by wounds from microlitic arrowpoints of stone, bone, or ivory. One victim had more than 100 buried within his skeleton. It seems that the “Negro” population was represented, along with other multiethnic or multiracial peoples buried there. Precisely who killed whom, and for what reasons, is not clear, but certainly this was a transitional time in a contested contact region, so it may offer evidence of an early raid or violent attack between Egyptians and Nubians early in predynastic times. JEBEL SHEIKH SULEIMAN. This site with its significant rock carving is in Lower Nubia on a cliff near Wadi Halfa. It is considered to depict King Djer of the Egyptian Dynasty I in the Archaic Period of around 3000 BCE. This is believed to record the first Egyptian punitive riad into Nubia for cattle and prisoners of war. It depicts an earlier instance of Egyptian boats in

188

•

JER

Nubian waters, as well as decapitated victims and a local prince of the AGroup bound to the boat mast. The rock was removed and is displayed at the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. JER. See DJER, JER (r. ca. 3042–2995 BCE). JEWS. According to the Jewish calendar, the world began 5,780 years ago (in 2020) or 3,760 BCE. According to the Christian calendar of Bishop Usher, the world began in 4004 BCE or 6,023 years ago (in 2019). These ancient migrants from Mesopotamia, the sons of Abraham (like Christians and Muslims), may have first reached the Nile in some relationship with the Hyksos who were key allies of the contemporary Nubians. The Hyksos had certain ties to Canaan and had Semitic names. It is believed that the famed Exodus led by Moses took place during the reign of Ramses II or even earlier. Apparently, the first reference in the Nile valley to Jews (“Iberu”) was during the reign of Ramses III at Medina Habu in Western Thebes, although scholars have disagreed about these points. The first ancient kingdom of Jews was formed, by convention, by King Saul’s unification of the wandering Judaic peoples and especially by the subsequent reign of his son, King David (1010–970 BCE). The third king in this dynasty was Solomon (970–930 BCE), who is credited with the construction of the temple at Jerusalem (al-Quds) housing the famous Ark of the Covenant. Later, the Jewish state split into the two kingdoms of Judea to the south and Israel (Samaria) to the north. In the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, the Assyrians attacked these two kingdoms, and Jews fled to the west and south with some apparently passing through Lower Nubia on their way to Axum in 586 BCE. It is well known, even in the Bible, that some Nubian pharaohs of Dynasty XXV has close political and military ties with the Judeans as Nubians had also been allied with the previous Hyksos; both had common interests in resisting Assyrian aggression, even though both finally failed. However, it appears that at some point in the seventh century BCE some Jews and Canaanites moved to the Nile valley while it was still occupied by Nubian pharaohs. A Jewish temple was established at Aswan from that time until it was destroyed in the late fifth century BCE. It is likely that Jewish mercenaries were part of the military forces of Psamtik II in his attacks on Napata that would become a part of Christian Mukurra. Under more liberal Persian rule, a number of Jews returned to Jerusalem in 538 BCE, as authorized by King Cyrus, and an early Jewish community was formed in Egypt under the reign of Darius I in 494 BCE. By the time of the Ptolemies in the fourth century BCE, the city of Alexandria was roughly onequarter Jewish, and some of them played a military role in the defense of

JULIAN, EMPEROR (R. 361–363 CE)

•

189

Ptolemaic Egypt at Aswan as they had with the Persians. Jews also played important scholarly roles in the famed Alexandrian library. The role of Jews was especially foundational in the translation of the Septuagint from the original Hebrew to Greek. This became a central document in the JudeoChristian tradition. Meroitic writing seems to have been stimulated by this library, and at least one Ptolemaic ruler spoke Nubian, while some Nubian kings and traders could converse in Greek. Jewish exiles also entered northern Ethiopia long before the birth of Christ and became known as Baet Israel or Falasha (derogatory, meaning “wandering”) Jews perhaps as early as the sixth century BCE during the Babylonian dispersal in 586 BCE. It is claimed that they brought the Ark of the Covenant as celebrated still today in the annual Timkat ceremony where it is presumably paraded; or is the original locked in the church? Roman expansion around the Mediterranean in the first century BCE brought Judea under the authority of Pompey in 63 BCE. The unusual Roman emperor Caligula first appointed Herod as the king of Judea in 37 BCE, and he continued to serve afterward under Caesar Augustus. His Jewish subjects were much oppressed by Roman rule, and they certainly abhorred Herod. In this regard, Jews and Nubians, like the former Hyksos and Kerma leaders, were again of a common mind in their great dislike for the authority controlling Egypt. Passive and active resistance and compromised positions during this period characterize the Jewish-Roman and Nubian-Roman relations at this time and in following centuries. Even when Axum accepted Christianity in the fourth century CE, these Falasha Jews refused to convert. After the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, and assisted by Operation Moses, some of these Ethiopian Jews moved to Israel. This dive into Roman-Nubian relations persisted into Christian times when Roman rule was based in Constantinople, and Egyptian and Nubian Monophysites were still at loggerheads with them. In this instance, history does repeat itself. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. JULIAN, EMPEROR (r. 361–363 CE). This non-Christian, last pagan, nephew of Constantine I briefly sought to restore the worship of the sun god (as was persisting in Meroë), and thus reverse the institutionalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire. He is understood to have criticized his contemporary Christians for corrupting the very values of Christianity. His tolerating and “backsliding” pagan revival movement soon failed. However, the previous stumbles of the three sons of Constantine I over the Arian controversy made for a very rough start to establish Christian orthodoxy.

190

•

JULIAN, MISSIONARY

JULIAN, MISSIONARY. Julian was a Monophysite Christian missionary who was sent by Empress Theodora to Nubia in competition with Orthodox missionaries sent by Emperor Justinian. In 543 CE, Julian managed to convert the kings and bishops of Nobatia to Monophysite Christianity. JUSTIN I, EMPEROR (r. 518–527 CE). Justin I was a Roman emperor of Byzantium from 518 to 527 CE—that is, just prior to Justinian I. Among his main interests was to try to balance the theological dispute between Roman Chalcedonians and Egypto-Nubian Monophysites. He developed a special interest in supporting the Monophysite Axumites in 523–525 CE to serve the Roman political, commercial, and military goals of attacking Persian supporters in Yemen and gain effective control of the Red Sea maritime trade to Asia. JUSTINIAN I, EMPEROR (ca. 482–565 CE; r. 527–565 CE). This orthodox Roman emperor of Christian Byzantium ruled from 527 to 565 CE; he reconquered Italy and North Africa (in 533 CE), repressed the Jews, and struggled to unify the empire under the Council of Chalcedon. His harsh Codex Justinianus was aimed against Donatists, Arians, and Vandals of North Africa with strict religious regulations. However his Egyptian-born wife, Theodora, was friendly to the Egyptian Copts, and she favored the Monophysite view as well as the Alexandrian (Jacobite) patriarch Theodosius who was banished to Thrace. Theodora invited Theodosius and his priest Julian, to Byzantium in 543 CE. This personal, political, familial, and theological struggle continued in Christian Nubia as the husband and wife both pushed for their differing causes. Perhaps it was King Silko (or close successors, like Bahriya, Eirpanome, or Tokiltoeton) who found himself amid this theological battle of the dueling missionaries bringing Christianity to Nubia. Silko stuck with the Monophysite creed having already had problematic relations with the pagan and Christian Romans when they ruled Egypt. Diverted by restoring and expanding the Roman Empire, Justinian had to recover North Africa from the Vandals and Italy from the Ostrogoths. This was largely achieved by rebuilding the Roman administration, by staging grand public events, patronage systems, foreign aid, lavish gifts, and diplomacy. On the other hand, these “carrots” were in tandem with the “sticks” of repressive police, murders, assassinations, executions, opportunism, and strategic marriages, such as with his problematic Egyptian wife whose Monophysitism was opposed to her husband’s orthodoxy. Relative to the Nile valley, this meant a major effort to try to build religious unity at a time of anti-Roman sentiment and theological divisions. He first pursued the goals of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE and continued to isolate the followers of Arianism. His parallel task was to isolate or incor-

JUSTINIAN I, EMPEROR (CA. 482–565 CE; R. 527–565 CE)

•

191

porate the followers of Monophysitism, who were especially numerous and dedicated in Egypt. These represented a delicate politico-religious threat to the unity of Byzantium; Justinian did not want to antagonizing them more, but he did not tolerate their rival Christian theology, which was also held, notably, by his own wife. Finding one possible area of convergence, Justinian determined to arrest the priests and close down the Isis temple at Philae still favored as a pilgrimage site for Nubians. This complex juggling grew more intense with his marriage in 525 CE to Theodora, as a very charming but “humble” bearkeeper’s daughter; she is sometimes considered as the “Cleopatra VII” for Christendom for her personal and profound engagement with the affairs of the Roman state. It is hard to say if love, convenience, frustrations, or mutual intrigue were at the center of this relationship built on such a dubious foundation that would function so effectively. It is clear that Theodora’s wisdom, charm, wit, and power brokering had much to do with this success. Her sponsoring of a Monophysite monastery in Constantinople and Justinian’s effort in 533 CE to negotiate a truce between these religious schisms suggest the dilemma. In 541 CE bubonic plague allegedly originated in “Ethiopia” (i.e., Nubia), and by 542 CE, the epidemic swept through Egypt and to other parts of the Byzantine Empire, including Constantinople. By the time it was over, more than 250,000 people had perished with Emperor Justinian himself becoming gravely ill. During this critical period, Theodora essentially took over control of the state, including military affairs. Taking advantage of this circumstance, in 543 CE Theodora arranged to allow Theodosius, the exiled Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, to consecrate the new bishop, Jacob of Edesa, to spread Monophysitism in Syria and elsewhere. As well, Theodora used this time to make a secret plan to send missionary Julian to Nubia. By 546 CE, the pro-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria (appointed by the emperor) had to flee for his life amid the resurgent Monophysitism. Such was typical for the times and the complexities of their marriage; Justinian I was more focused on growth and stability of the Christian Roman Empire than on theological matters. As today, within various sects in Christianity, the Roman Empire and their marriage could finally accept that Monophysites and Chalcedonians could get along if they tried to have mutual respect. When Theodora died of cancer on 28 June 548 CE, it is possible to imagine the sadness and relief of Justinian I, who continued to try to solve this schism between Constantinople’s Christianity and the Monophysitism of Egypt, Nubia, and Ethiopia until his own death in November 565 CE. The substantial and impressive efforts by Justinian I to restore and expand the Roman Empire proved, in historical terms, to be more of the end of this “golden age” more than the restart of a new one. In fact, it was the start of a

192

•

JUSTINIAN I, EMPEROR (CA. 482–565 CE; R. 527–565 CE)

long period of decline. In 638–642 CE, Arabs entered Egypt to reduce the long-troubling Monophysites to minority status, which they have held ever since. Ironically, Nubian Monophysitism was to last for almost another millennium, and Constantinople finally fell to, or accepted, Islam itself in 1453.

K KADADA, KEDADA. This late Neolithic site is roughly 10 kilometers downstream of modern Shendi on the eastern bank of the Nile on the western side of the Butana. It may date to around 3500 BCE. While it begins to fill a gap in regional archaeology, the sites of Kadada and Kadero raise other questions. Where did these people come from? Are they refugees from Archaic Egyptian intervention in Lower Nubia? Did they come down the Blue Nile, or did they come down from the White Nile? What happened to these populations in the Sudanese Middle Nile after this occupation? Little human occupation is known again in this area until Meroitic times. At least one can say that the categorization of Kadada with the late Neolithic agricultural traditions is reasoned by the rather numerous bones of cattle, sheep, and goats. Kadada is also known for rippled pottery, cosmetic palettes, and clay figurines, which link ancient Nubia to Egypt and to the earlier A-Group assemblages. Red Sea shells also tie the inhabitants of Kadada to extensive regional trade. KADERO, KADERU. Kadero is located some 18 kilometers north of Khartoum, on the east bank of the Nile; it features the largest Neolithic site in the area. This site was 30,000 square meters and contained similar material to that found at Shaheinab. That is, the site produced bones of domestic cattle, sheep, goats, and dogs. The site also had pottery and microliths similar to those found at Shaheinab and Kadada with which it was approximately contemporary. Hunting played a minor role in Kadero’s existence, and possibly millet was already being cultivated by this time. Evidently, Kadero was not a major center for economic or administrative activity, but perhaps it may have had seasonal shifts in population concentration, as is still practiced by modern southern Sudanese Nilotes engaged in seasonal nomadic pastoralism. Among the 55 burials, some social ranking is suggested, judging from the different quantity and quality of grave goods. Recent excavation at the cemetery there by Mark Chlodnicki and Lech Krzyzaniak has continued to produce varied pottery bowls of the Neolithic, but poor stratigraphy and encroaching urbanization has complicated analysis. 193

194

•

KADRUKA

KADRUKA. This Neolithic site near Kerma appears to have a similar cultural assemblage as the sites of Kadada and Kadero. A wide range of food was consumed, including domestic animals, sometime in the late fourth millennium. The relationship between the rather simple people of Kadruka to the earliest times of ancient Kerma is not clearly understood, but one is tempted to see the Kadruka site as ancestral to Kerma or to the C-Group that was to come. KALABSHA, TALMIS. The original location of the Kalabsha temple was around 50 kilometers south of its present, new site, virtually adjacent to the High Dam at Aswan. This was neighboring the Bait al-Wali temple, which has rejoined it at the new location. Hector Horeau painted the inner court at Kalabsha temple in watercolors in 1839. This painting shows the inner wall standing, but hundreds of other blocks have tumbled into a heap. The portico of the temple was the subject of a David Roberts lithograph published in 1847. The 13,000 stone blocks of Kalabsha temple were relocated by the (West) German government, which has taken a gateway from this building to the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. The temple’s large size (74 meters long by 33 meters wide) and excellent condition make it a highlight of Lake Nasser archaeological tours, second only in grandeur to Abu Simbel. This freestanding temple is associated with inscriptions to Tuthmosis II and Amenhotep II in the New Kingdom, but it was substantially redeveloped during Ptolemaic times and rebuilt during the periods of Caesars Augustus, Caligula, and Trajan. Special interest at Kalabsha was shown to the Nubian god Mandulis in anthropomorphic form along with Isis. Depictions of other deities popular in Greco-Roman times, such as Amun, Horus, Khnum, Ptah, and Thoth, are also found. On the right side of the inner forecourt wall are three important, later inscriptions. Probably the earliest of these is one attributed to Aurelius Besarion, Roman commander of Ombos, in around 250 CE, who inscribed his order that polluting pigs should be removed from Kalabsha temple. The second inscription, probably written in the late fourth century CE or later, in the name of King Kharamadoye, is an exceptionally long text in Meroitic cursive. Fragments have been translated, but it is not completely clear whether he was a regional late Meroitic king or possibly a Ballana king celebrating a victory over the Blemmyes. It is possible that either he or his associates were buried in the large Ballana grave tumuli, which unfortunately have no inscriptions. The latest inscription in crude Greek, by the Nubian King Silko, proclaims himself as the king of the “Ethiopians” after his defeat of the Blemmyes in around the first quarter of the sixth century CE. His thanks to a singular god is generally taken to indicate his acceptance of Christianity, and thus this is taken to be the “official” introduction of Christianity in Nubia at this time.

KAMOSE STELA (CA. 1576 BCE)

•

195

Later, the three inner sections of Kalabsha temple were used as a Christian church, and graffiti, defacements, and plastering over at this time can be seen. Affected by the first raising of the British Low Dam at Aswan, this temple had long been exposed to water, but at last in 1962, the huge task of identifying, removing, and rebuilding its stones was started. A Mammisi “birth house,” a Nilometer, and a small collection of prehistoric rock carvings of animals are now located on the southern side of the temple at “New Kalabsha.” KAMOSE. See KAMOSE STELA (ca. 1576 BCE). KAMOSE STELA (ca. 1576 BCE). This stela was removed from Karnak, Egypt, by the English to the British Museum, where it is known as the “Carnarvon Tablet.” This outlines the current situation of Egypt during the time of Kamose in Dynasty XVII at the end of the Second Intermediate Period. It was formerly part of a pair of stelae that described, in a continuous text, how Egypt is “normally at peace,” but at that time Kamose was only ruling Upper Egypt, basically just the Thebaid; the Hyksos were controlling Lower Egypt and Egyptian forces, probably led by Seqenenre, who was killed battling them as far south as Beni Hassan in Middle Egypt; and the princes of Kush were holding the extensive lands upstream of Elephantine, essentially all of Nubia/Kerma. The ambitions of Kamose are also recorded, such as to avenge the death of his predecessor, as well as the self-declared personal dislike at sharing Egypt with outsiders. The text then describes the arrest, in the Bahariya Oasis in the Western Desert, of a messenger who had been sent by the Hyksos king, Apophis, to the independent Nubian kingdom of Kush. The messenger was secretly traveling through the western oases to forge a military and political alliance with the Nubians when he was stopped. The strategic intention was to divide the Egyptian Nile between the Hyksos based at Avaris in the delta and the Nubians based at Kerma. The plan was thwarted when the messenger was humiliatingly sent back to Hyksos territory. In the relatively short reign of Kamose, he clearly began to threaten his neighbors, north and south, as they had been threatening him. The Kamose stela indicates that he organized one attack with his Medjay irregulars against Khent-Hen-Nofer or Kerma in his third regnal year, when he probably renewed his effort to rebuild the Middle Kingdom fortress at Buhen. When Kamose died, his brother Ahmose I completed Kamose’s dream to drive out the Hyksos from Lower Egypt and capture Avaris to reunify all of Egypt under Dynasty XVIII and form the New Kingdom. The 25-year reign of Ahmose I continued this offensive against Kerma, thus introducing five centuries of the Egyptian colonization of Nubia.

196

•

KANDAKE

KANDAKE. See CANDACE, KANDAKE, KADAKE, KDI-QO. KANJERAN. The Kanjeran people were distributed in southern Sudan and neighboring East African lands of Uganda in around 5000 BCE. This “Negro” people extended far to the north, but the precise extent and varying degrees of admixture with northern Sudanese people is a matter that is both complex and even emotional. Certainly “Negro” people are at the foundation of Sudanese Nilotics, whose territory extended at least as far as Khartoum if not much farther north if they may also be considered members of the CGroup. Indeed, the range of Kanjeran people begs the question of the “captive Nubian” in Egyptian dynastic times. They may be, in fact, people who are the descendants of this “Negro” population rather than “Nubians” in the complex, diverse, modern sense of the term. Thus, the present-day people of the Nuba Mountains could be the modern descendants of this ancient Kanjeran stock. Modern DNA analysis by Dr. Shormarka Keita promises to readdress these issues of ancient “raciation” and modern affiliation. KANUZ, KENZI, KENUZ. This group of northeasternmost Nubians occupies the region in Lower Nubia adjacent to Aswan. At the border land between Egypt and Nubia, the Kanuz Nubians played key strategic roles in ancient, medieval, Islamic, and modern times. Linguistically, all Nubians are related with certain dialectical and lexical differences. Ranging from north to south, there are the Kanuz (at the First Cataract), the Fadicha (Halfawi, Matoki, at the Second Cataract), the Sukkot and Mahas (in the Butn alHajr), and the Danagla (at the Third Cataract). However, because of the political and historical connection, the Kanuz dialect is closer to Danagla, and the Sukkot and Mahas are closer to each other. All Nubian dialects are members of the Eastern Sudanic family of the Nilo-Saharan language group. Linguists also see ties to Jebel Meidob Nubians in Darfur, to Hill Nubian in southern Kordofan, and to other Nilotic language members in southern Sudan. The ancient relation of Nubian to Meroitic; to Old Nubian, and Arabized Nubian is covered elsewhere. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia for the Kanuz in that era and the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (4th ed.) for the Kenuz in Islamic times. KARAMAKOL GROUP. The Karamakol group represents a cluster of early Neolithic sites at the great southward bend of the Nile in Upper Nubia between the Third and Fourth Cataracts. The presence of grinding stones suggests small-scale agricultural settlements having some lithic industries as well as pottery. Domestic animals may be assumed, but animal remains are

KARANOG, NALOTE

•

197

not found. Perhaps the subsequent Tergis tradition is linked directly to that represented by the Karamakol group, which is about contemporary with the Egyptian predynastic Badarian horizons. KARANOG, NALOTE. The University of Pennsylvania Museum team of David Randall-MacIver and Leonard Woolley excavated this late Meroitic town site and cemetery in Lower Nubia from 1907 to 1910. Karanog (Nalote, in Meroitic) had been a provincial capital, probably under its own peshto (provincial governor) of the kingdom of Meroë, in about the second or third centuries CE. It is likely that the former capital had been at Faras, before it became the Christian capital of Nobatia. Then Nalote’s role was transferred farther downstream below Aniba when the Roman presence began to weaken in the Dodekaschoenos region. Karanog was likely part of the northern defense of Meroë, not so far from the southern Roman counterpart defensive frontier of Maharraqa. Thus, the site on the western bank of the Nile had strategic significance and was likely of relatively large size when it played this role. Houses of notables and castle-palaces (more than 600 square meters) of the peshtos are known. Other houses are poorly known, being made of weak mud brick. A degree of social stratification is seen in the distribution of grave goods, although the cemetery was much plundered and disturbed. Apparently, the cemetery served the nearby settlements of Akin, Nalote, and Shimale. At least Karanog/Nalote appears to have had some defensive or privacy walls in the settled areas. The larger tombs were filled with pottery jars and baskets for food, and it seems that some parts of the cemetery were socially favored over others. The better, unplundered graves have yielded luxury items of glass, modest jewelry, small bronze utensils, bowls and lamps, beads of stone and glass, iron arrowheads, carpentry tools, cotton and linen textiles, wooden objects with ivory and ebony inlays, handsomely painted ceramic jars, and a few faience objects. At least 100 hetep offering altars and stelae inscribed in Meroitic demotic (cursive) are known from Karanog; many were taken to the University Museum since the excavation took place during British colonial rule. One stela was written in Egyptian demotic and Meroitic, making it unusual for the cases of Egyptian demotic south of Maharraqa. The town was occupied from early to late Meroitic times. Karanog lingered on into post-Meroitic (X-Group) times, known regionally as early Ballana culture, but then its traces vanish from the archaeological record. It now lies under the waters of Lake Nasser.

198

•

KARNAK

KARNAK (ARABIC), WASET, NIWT-AMUN (EGYPTIAN), THEBES (GREEK), LUXOR (ARABIC). This ancient religious capital of Egypt has had virtually continuous occupation from predynastic through all dynastic times and thereafter until the present. It is a hugely complicated urban area because of this antiquity and its expansive extent. The most prominently and enduring monuments today are from the New Kingdom, but elements from the Greco-Roman, Christian, and Islamic times are present as well. The many parts are also nestled within the modern tourist town of Luxor. Waset, symbolized by the “wast” scepter of royal authority, might qualify, but Niwt-Amun (the city of Amun) might also qualify. Thebes and the Thebaid region descended from Greek are also very well known from antiquity. Karnak refers to the northern section on the west bank and descends from Arabic meaning “fortress.” Luxor is its southern counterpart of Karnak, and it is a corruption of the Arabic al-Aqsar, meaning “the palaces.” All of these places on the east bank were linked together. On the west bank of the Nile are palaces and especially funerary temples. These were also linked by the Opet festival. One can refer to the entire area as the Thebaid. Successive pharaohs added their monuments as they came and went. The annual Opet festival tied vast Karnak to the Luxor temple by a paired columns of anthrozoomorphic sphinxes stretching between the two religious sites. Couchant rams of Amun are also plentiful on other axes of Karnak. In turn, the eastern bank features are associated with the western bank sites that includes the Valley of the Kings, the Valley of the Queens; the Tombs of the Nobles; the skilled workers’ village of Deir al-Medina; the huge, extant temple of Ramses III at Medina al-Habu; the Rameseum of Ramses II; and the Deir al-Bahri mortuary temples of Hatshepsut and Mentuhotep II or the Assasif. This entire area, on both sides of the Nile, can be termed as the Theban region of Upper Egypt. To ancient Egyptians and Nubians, especially in the New Kingdom, the significance of the Thebaid in general rested on its being their politicoreligious capital. Even in Dynasty XXV, when Nubians ruled Egypt, they also built monuments for themselves and their royalty at Karnak, Luxor, and at the tombs and temples of the West Bank. Inasmuch as the ram form of the god Amun (as well as several deities) is perhaps of Nubian origins, these aspects of the Theban theogony also have Nubian roots. At Karnak, Dynasty XXV kings Shabaka and Taharka built a small temple immediately adjacent to the Sacred Lake. At the central forecourt of the main east-west axis of the Great Karnak temple was the location of a majestic 10-pillared kiosk of Taharka. Only one of the original columns still remains (more than 26 meters tall), but the immense alabaster altar it covered is still in place. To the north of the Great Temple but inside the enclosure wall is a temple constructed by Shabaka, which was usurped by his rival Psamtik II. Shabaka restored parts of the fourth pylon of the Great Temple.

KARNAK

•

199

Just inside the northern side of the Great Enclosure wall, he constructed the second and probably fourth gate of the Ptah temple. Nearby, just outside of the Great Enclosure, but within the northern enclosure wall, he built gates and small chapels for the God’s Wives of Amun, Amenirdis and Nitocris. Farther to the northwest and beyond the northern enclosure wall, Taharka restored an Osiride temple dating to Dynasty XVIII. In the southern enclosure at the temple of Mut are inscriptions and constructions also attributed to Taharka. At the Luxor temple, little remains of Dynasty XXV. However, construction is attested for Taharka in a chapel to Hathor to the eastern side in front of the great first pylon. Only foundation stones of this chapel (5 meters thick) are now present. Passing through this pylon of Ramses II are inscriptions in the passageway, attributed to Shabaka, invoking Amun and his consort Amunet according to adjustments of the Hermopolis thegony. In the first antechamber after the Luxor hypostyle hall, stones inscribed for Shabaka are also found. This section was converted into a church in the fourth century CE after the Edict of Constantine; the Shabaka stones were used to strengthen the floor. These stones were likely from a colonnade or kiosk of Shabaka built at Luxor temple. On the western bank, the chief Nubian traces are found in the forecourt of the mortuary temple of Ramses III at Medina al-Habu. Immediately upon entering the forecourt on the left side are the funerary chapels for the Nubian God’s Wives of Amun, Amenirdis I, Shepenwepet I, and Shepenwepet II. Apparently, these chapels were popular for devotional pilgrimages. Some irony exists in their being in Medina al-Habu since the walls of this temple show Ramses III engaged in wars against the Nubians. Another footnote to Nubians may also be found in the Valley of the Kings, in the case of the burial of Maiherpri, who was probably a ranking servant in Dynasty XVIII. KAROY. The Karoy region is located between the Fourth and Fifth Cataracts and is the New Kingdom Egyptian reference for the uppermost hinterland of its southern occupation of Kush. It seems to be a broad reference to Jebel Barkal and farther upstream, perhaps as far as Kurgus. As with Wadi al-Allaqi and Wadi Gabgaba, Karoy was also known for gold production. KASHTA (r. ca. 760–751 BCE. In the middle of the eighth century BCE, this king of Kush ruled from Napata, or perhaps from nearby Kurru he had been ruling locally. He and his brother Alara were the first to be clearly recognized by name after a series of unknown Nubian kings who had been ruling Upper Nubia sometime during the latter part of the Third Intermediate or Late Period. Sometime before the end of his reign, Kashta was also controlling Lower Nubia by driving out Libyan rivals from that region, then

200

•

KAWA

he was able to drive on to Elephantine at Aswan and, from there, on to Karnak or Thebes in Upper Egypt. In Thebes, he installed his daughter, Amenirdis I, in the top office of the Gods’ Wife of Amun. Thus he completed the Nubian conquest of Upper Egypt and set the stage for the Kushite Dynasty XXV to rule in all of Egypt. His proclamation (by royal iconography and titles) that he was the king of all of Egypt was still more wishful thinking than a fully accomplished military fact. But around 751 BCE, Kashta’s son Piankhy completed the task, more or less, of controlling the entire Nile valley to become the “Lord of Three Lands” in much the same territorial model as the New Kingdom, but in Nubian hands, as had been the case previously but in Egyptian hands. KAWA. Kawa is located slightly upstream of Dongola, on the eastern bank of Nile. Recent research by Derek Welsby of the British Museum has demonstrated that it is far older and larger (36 hectares) than previously thought. In fact, the site was used in Neolithic times and was occupied intensively during the long Kerma era. Tutankhamun first built the Amun temple at Kawa in the New Kingdom, and it likely remained important during that epoch. It remained very significant for the Nubian pharaohs of Dynasty XXV such as Taharka, where he is shown trampling Libyan enemies who threatened him from the Sahara to the west. In subsequent Napatan and Meroitic times, it continued to function but at a lesser level of activity. An unusual Bes-type figurine was found there, but remarkably it was a female, Beset, and not the typical male form of this god. KEMSIT. See MENTUHOTEP II, MENTUHOTPE II, NEB-HETEP-RE (r. ca. 2060–2010 BCE). KERMA: HISTORY AND LOCATION. Kerma is the Egyptian name of an ancient state in Upper Nubia, which may be Yam or Irem, upstream of Tombos and essentially on the east bank of the Nile at Badin Island. Early 20th-century research there was done by George Reisner. However, more recent research at this very extensive and important site was started by Charles Bonnet in 1977, and subsequent excavations by Matthieu Honegger has pushed the roots of Kerma to steadily earlier settlements certainly deep into the Neolithic with dates as early as 4800–4500 BCE already with traces of barley, wheat, sheep, and goats in pre-Kerma strata and evidence dating to 3100–2800 BCE. Honegger’s work has even indicated prehistoric roots in the late Upper Paleolithic dating to the 7000s BCE and to the early Mesolithic to the east of the present site of Kerma. Judging from posthole arrange-

KERMA: HISTORY AND LOCATION

•

201

ments, Honegger has reconstructed the pre-Kerma villages with round houses with conical roofs and cattle surrounds looking essentially like modern villages in the southern Nilotic Sudan. To summarize, the conventional epochs of Kerma are usually considered as Early Kerma, 2550–2050 BCE; Middle Kerma, 2050–1750 BCE; and Classic Kerma, 1750–1500 BCE. Well over 100 locations at Kerma have C14 dates as well, but these are mostly in the Neolithic pre-Kerma sites associated with the terminal A-Group. Clearly there are many defining variables in the long, intensive, and changeable history of Kerma: (1) the long plain at Kerma; (2) the pressures of the encroaching desert; (3) the ethnic, cultural, and funerary diversity; (4) the economic relations with the pastoral C-Group; (5) the typological shifts in ceramic traditions; (6) the military tensions with Egypt; (7) the many shifts in the course and the height of the Nile in both annual flood and the millennial changes in rainfall; and (8) the increasing social stratification from highly egalitarian and undifferentiated burial in preKerma times to massive tumuli for major kings until Egyptian conquest. are all major factors. These epochs are differentiated by varying burial patterns and in different cemetery locations in the eastern graveyard of Kerma. According to Derek Welsby, Kerma burials also had four variant phases associated with Egyptian dynastic history and with varied association with C-Group burials. Because Kerma’s history is so long and at such large scale, the study of burials is, in itself, a major area of study. In other words, as Kerma was forming, it was earlier than, and contemporary with, state formation in Egypt. Kerma’s later “capitol,” is south of the Third Cataract on the right bank of the Nile in the area across from Badin Island, just downstream from Argo Island. Downstream at Tombos Island were substantial granite quarries used in ancient times. Although Kerma likely controlled the riverine region from the Second to the Fourth Cataracts, there is no evidence that its authority extended to the left (west) bank of the Nile, which might have been under the control of Libyans, or a different intrusive people. In the 19th century, Kerma was the terminus for a short-lived railway and telegraph line from Wadi Halfa. The site is known from today’s village of Kerma, the modern name by which it is widely known. Kerma was most probably the state associated with Ta-Nehessi people known as early as Old Kingdom Egyptian texts. Some typically Kerma and C-Group pottery was even found by Serena Giuliani in Egypt at such burial sites in Hierakonpolis that date to the Old Kingdom or even earlier. The existing Mahas Nubians in the same area might have their name derived from this ancient root. Egyptian mineral prospectors reached the Second Cataract, as we know from rock inscriptions at this time, when the Old Kingdom pharaohs first began fortifying the region at Buhen. At its greatest extent, Kerma likely controlled the Lower Nubian districts of Irtet, Wawat, and

202

•

KERMA: HISTORY AND LOCATION

Setju, which were not under effective Egyptian authority during the First Intermediate Period. Notable Egyptian trade expeditions, such as those organized by Harkuf and Pepinakht, took place at this time. Egyptian-made alabaster vessels with inscriptions dating to this time have been found at Kerma. In the adjacent desert lands were the Medjay (or Blemmyes), likely ancestors of today’s Bisharin and Beja, who are known archaeologically as the Pan-Grave group for their shallow pan-shaped graves with leather sheets covering the deceased and surrounded by libation pots. These times are termed by some scholars as the Middle Kerma period. Kerma was related to other Second Intermediate Period sites elsewhere in Nubia such as Buhen, Mirgissa, Sai, Semna, and Ukma. The significance of Kerma rests upon its being the oldest major state in Africa south of Egypt and having a character that is clearly not Egyptian in terms of burial and pottery styles, as well as domestic, political, and religious architecture. It is important to recall that Africa is a multiethnic and multilinguistic continent with historical dynamism based, in part, upon patterns of social stratification and natural resources. Along the Nubian section of the Nile, the eternal rivalries are expressed in the relative strength of one regional power being a function of the relative weakness of the other. The shifting frontier of these power relations typically oscillates between the First and Second Cataracts. In short, Kerma is the oldest African state built on and around its own traditions even though it had complex and contradictory articulation with Egypt in trade, military, and political relations. The precise time of the earliest rise of the Kerma state is not known, but it can be placed at around 2300 BCE or several centuries earlier if one considers the so-called A-Group and the C-Group cattle people as ancestral to Kerma. Certainly, the state of Kerma was formed before the First Intermediate Period in Egypt (2181–2050 BCE). Kerma was contemporary of some of the later C-Group people of Lower Nubia. Both may have had common ancestry with the A-Group people, which can be termed a pre-Kerma cultural horizon or small-scale chieftaincies, but this is not clear and is largely estimated on relative continuities or discontinuities in pottery typologies and seriation and site locations. In fact, whether the C-Group was ethnically distinct from Kerma or how they were politically articulated with Kerma is also not fully understood. Some aspects of material culture of the C-Group are strongly similar with modern Nilotics of the southern Sudan. None of these groups had any writing systems of their own. Thus George Reisner and Charles Bonnet (in the 1980s and 1990s) know them mainly from Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, or from the archaeological excavations of their cemeteries, graves, and town sites. The early archaeological work by

KERMA: HISTORY AND LOCATION

•

203

Reisner (which granted the A-, B-, C-, and X-Group designations) did mislead the archaeological direction by considering Kerma as a corrupted outpost of Egyptian culture. One may speculate that the rise of Kerma in Nubia helped hasten the collapse of Old Kingdom unity of the Egyptian Nile valley. Until the end of the First Intermediate Period in about 2050 BCE, Kerma had achieved considerable strength and autonomy. Its society expressed notable social stratification and differentiation. The archaeological reports of the huge grave tumuli (Tumulus X was 87 meters [290 feet] in diameter) and human sacrifice (Tumulus X had the skeletal and tissue remains of 322 retainers) of the Kerma kings suggest very substantial wealth and power. The numerous (at least 98) secondary burials into the tumuli may well have been those of nobility who died after their king but wanted to join him for eternity. Of the many mysteries of this ancient state are two large mud-brick structures known as deffufa (derived from a Nubian word for “ruins”). Without further investigation or texts, the precise function is not known, but it has been suggested that they could be mortuary temples (Reisner), a trade center and watchtower (William Adams), or a religious sanctuary (John Taylor). The lack of major storage capacity for goods or troops and the connection with royal residential structures has tipped the consensus toward a politicoreligious function. The massive western deffufa is a central part of the royal town site of Kerma and now consists of only a simple-chambered unfired mud-brick ruin. It is still of impressive size, some 65 feet (20 meters) high, 170 feet (52.3 meters) long, and 88 feet (26.7 meters) wide, but it was likely larger when in use. In Egyptian measures, its length comes very close to 150 cubits, the standard of the time. The forward portion bears some similarity to an Egyptian temple pylon, and the whole structure was perhaps faced with stone. It was also altered, and additions were made. Probably the last change was late in the Classical Period just prior to New Kingdom conquest. From side stairs, it appears possible to enter the rather small interior and, by way of an interior stairway, reach the roof with its commanding view. The small size of the interior chamber suggests that a storage function is unlikely. The huge amount of labor required and the proximity to the royal “audience chamber,” “palace,” or “reception pavilion” suggests that it had a formal political, religious, or ritualistic function. The round, un-Egyptian palace was rebuilt many times judging from the series of postholes. It likely had a large thatch roof very similar to those of the Shilluk of southern Sudan or the Buganda of the Great Lakes Region. The slightly smaller eastern deffufa is associated with the cemetery of Classical Kerma and was likely funerary in nature. It measures 132 feet in length, 66 feet in width, and 40 feet in height. The relatively rich material culture, human sacrifice, and the huge monumental works suggest consider-

204

•

KERMA: HISTORY AND LOCATION

able wealth and autocratic power of Kerma. Given the presence of a small Egyptian community, some Egyptian trade goods, and the persistent need for slaves in Egypt, it may have been that Kerma’s wealth was largely derived from a profitable exchange with Egyptians. This exchange included slaves, ivory, ebony, incense, animal skins, ostrich feathers, and livestock, based on raids and trading farther south of Kerma. Such goods were likely exchanged with resident Egyptian commercial agents for shipment to the north. The royal family retinue, craftsmen, and bodyguards were located within the royal quarter of the city While the population of Kerma cannot be ascertained with precision, there was certainly an extensive residential area beyond the defensive and ditched walls. Unlike Egyptian cities, especially in the New Kingdom, the streets of Kerma were not orthogonal but, rather, wandered in the fashion of traditional Sudanese towns. Houses consisted of one to three rooms, with provisions for holding domestic animals and storing grains. During Egypt’s Middle Kingdom period (2050–1786 BCE) Kerma, the lands upstream of Semna became known as Kush. Kush, or Kerma, experienced further growth and established standard styles for royal burials, polished beaker pottery, and bed (angareb) burials, similar to Nubians still today. During the Middle Kingdom, there was an extensive relationship of trade and interaction with Kerma. A resident Egyptian trader community was probably in place at Kerma, but the Middle Kingdom border of Egypt was just to the north of Kerma thereby allowing Kerma continued autonomy and self-government. The famed Egyptian statues that were found in Kerma royal graves are often taken as loot seized from abandoned Middle Egyptian forts; however, Dominique Valbelle says that a case could be made that they may have arrived in trade or as gifts. It is doubtful that a textual solution to this question will be found. Indeed, the southern borders of the Middle Kingdom incorporated a series of massive and garrisoned fortifications on strategic choke points and islands on the Nile to the southern end of the Butn al-Hajr at the Second Cataract. While Egyptians did not inform us with great detail about the internal dynamics of Kerma at this time, they have implicitly revealed that it was a very strong and potentially threatening state. When the Middle Kingdom collapsed around 1786 BCE, this ushered in the Second Intermediate Period (1786–1567), which offered still more of the relative autonomy for the Kerma kings. Indeed, the disappearance of Egyptian authority allowed Kerma to achieve its greatest “Classical” phase ranging from around 1700 to 1500 BCE. While the intrusive Hyksos (“Shepherd King”) rulers of Egypt controlled the delta and Lower Egypt, they did not have control of Thebes and could not directly reach Nubia, yet trade seals and small jugs from the Hyksos have been found in Kerma. In a celebrated case of an intercepted message, the Hyksos king Apophis wrote to the ruler of Kush (Kerma) to propose a joint alliance

KERMA: MATERIAL CULTURE

•

205

against the Egyptian pharaoh Kamose of Thebes. In 1853, Richard Lepsius reported Hyksos sculptures at Argo Island. Thus it is clear that the Hyksos and the Kerma rulers were politically allied in their convergent aspirations to undermine and reduce the Egyptian power at Thebes. As long as Egypt was divided and occupied, Nubians from Kerma were presented with a great opportunity for the aggrandizement of their state in Lower Nubia as far as the First Cataract and thereby control the gateway at Kubban to the valuable gold mines of Wadi al-Allaqi. This was, of course, a very different Lower Nubia from that of today, and it was under the leadership of Kamose’s successor, Ahmose, the river commander, that the grand New Kingdom reconstituted a united Egyptian state, which has left so many monuments down to the present. It was Ahmose who returned to Thebes with the dead body of a Kerma king hung upside down from the prow. His precise identity is not more clearly known. Kerma was assaulted and burned in the late 16th century or early 15th century BCE; perhaps this happened more than once. All further traces of Kerma are lost early after the rise of the Egyptian New Kingdom (1567–1090 BCE). Tuthmosis I may have sent his soldiers to overrun Kerma in around 1520 BCE. By the time of Tuthmosis III (1504–1450 BCE), Egyptians had fully conquered Lower and Upper Nubia, had destroyed Kerma, and had placed a boundary stela above the Fourth Cataract at Kurgus (meaning the “yellow” place in Nubian). Since the New Kingdom authorities termed the general area as Kush and installed the King’s Son of Kush to administer this area of Nubia, one may also conclude that Kerma people persisted as Kushites but now as a colonial population of Egypt rather than their former sovereign state. When the New Kingdom withered after Dynasty XX, Kushites slowly reemerged in this power vacuum and probably reestablished a small and weak state somewhere between the Third and Fourth Cataracts. Finally, this political process culminated in the emergence of Dynasty XXV at Napata when Nubians were able to seize the entirety of the Egyptian state. In this rather sweeping sense, Dynasty XXV might be considered as the renaissance of the descendants of Kerma, but in a rather Egyptianized form, at least during the period that they ruled from the delta and Thebes. KERMA: MATERIAL CULTURE. As with most ancient civilizations known mainly by archaeology, our awareness is highly skewed toward what has been preserved over the centuries. Organic remains of items of wood, plant, bone, and fiber have broadly vanished, and certainly important grave goods have been looted. What may still lie under the Nubian Desert remains to be seen. Kerma’s material culture is mainly known from the archaeological remains. These are from the cemeteries, including multicorridored grave tumuli and more modest graves, and from the town site, including the “royal

206

•

KERMA: MILITARY AND ECONOMICS

palace,” defensive structures, workshops (for local bronze and faience production), and the deffufa. The very few written records about Kerma are those by Egyptians in hieroglyphics. Kerma’s material remains can be grouped into categories: (1) human skeletal remains; (2) animal and bird remains (skeletal bones of cattle, sheep, and dogs), leather (for garments, burial coverings, and sandals), ivory (for handles and inlays), and feathers (for head decoration and fans); (3) wood products (tool and knife handles, zoomorphic bed legs, carvings); (4) bronze, gold, and silver metal goods (tools, daggers, razors, toilet articles, and jewelry); and (5) pottery, brick, and stone (of varying styles, quantities, and qualities at varying periods) for clay trade seals, construction, vessels; and (6) minerals used decoration (faience, carnelian, mica, porphyry, and quartz). Pottery from Kerma is especially significant because it is well preserved and typologically distinct. The most celebrated type is the fine walled, flared “tulip beaker,” which has a black top, red bottom, and a white lined stripe running horizontally in the midsection. This characteristic marking was likely achieved by firing the pots upside down in a bed of coals, which caused differential heating and oxidation of these lovely vessels. The thin wall is reminiscent of the skilled potters who produced the excellent “egg-shell” pots known for the A-Group. Some related pots, especially for the contemporary C-Group, typically had incised geometric patterns, but they were not so finely made as Kerma ware. In addition to the beaker style, there were flasks with a drinking or pouring tube spout, perhaps for drinking milk or beer. Both are well known in funerary rituals. KERMA: MILITARY AND ECONOMICS. The earliest written record of Kerma (Yam) is during the reign of Pepi II in Dynasty VI when Harkuf, governor (heka-ib) of Aswan (Syene) undertook at least four large-scale donkey-caravan expeditions around the cataracts to trade for the goods of Yam, which likely controlled Wawat, Irtet, and Setju, the intermediate districts of Lower Nubia. In addition to ivory, incense, ebony, oils, and leopard skins, a famous “dancing dwarf” was acquired for the amusement of the pharaoh on the last of these missions. During the governorship of Pepinakht, the relationship was less cordial, and armed raids against Wawat and Irtet were undertaken. After Dynasty VI, there is little record of Kerma-Egyptian trade relations, but it is likely that Nubians as individuals may have sought military service in Egypt since they are depicted as archer battalions in the tomb models of the immediately following Middle Kingdom. At the same time, Kerma was clearly a military and commercial river threat to the Middle Kingdom. In Dynasty XII, Senusret I and Senusret III campaigned in the region and set up a strict military frontier at Kumma and Semna, just upstream of the Second Cataract, indicating that they had reconquered Lower Nubia and that

KERMA: RELIGION

•

207

Nubians were not free to travel or trade beyond Semna. A stela of Senusoret III at Elephantine (First Cataract) states his contempt for the “vile” Nubians who needed constant monitoring and control in his estimation. Other forts at Buhen (opposite Wadi Halfa), Uronarti, Mirgissa, and Quban (to guard to access to the gold mines of Wadi al-Allaqi), all featured in the complex military network of massive mud-brick walled forts. Some of the forts have strong defensive ditches, archer loopholes, and fortified entrances protecting inner storerooms, craft workshops, small chapels, barracks, and Nilometers. These fortifications were often placed at strategic points or on islands and also defended the Egyptians from desert attack by Medjay (Pan-Grave?) peoples. Fragments and broken sculpture from Dynasty XII are found at Kerma. So, our knowledge of Kerma’s military comes by implications from these elaborate measures made by Middle Kingdom Egyptians to control the military and trade potential of the soldiers of Kerma. Our knowledge of Kerma’s defensive or offensive capacity also comes from grave goods and from the defensive walls and ditches at the town site, which might foreshadow the parallel structures of Omdurman in the late 19th century. Especially for male burials it is not uncommon to find injuries of a violent nature, and for many “soldiers,” we find burial with their bows, arrows, stone arrow thumb rings, and handsome daggers, of a style reminiscent to those of the Hyksos. It is likely that there were both soldiers for regional defense and offense for Kerma as well as royal bodyguards for the king’s personal protection. In sum, the economic, political, and military power of Kerma is illustrated by several factors: (1) a stable, long-term, and continuous state; (2) a complex division of labor, including military and craft specialization; (3) centralization of power at a fixed location; (4) extensive and reciprocal regional trade with considerable wealth in livestock, slaves, and primary goods; and (5) construction of large-scale monumental works, including the deffufa and tumuli. The site of Kerma was reoccupied in Napatan and Meroitic periods as recent research is rapidly revealing. See also DUKKI GEL, DOUKKI GEL; KUSH, QESH, KŠ. KERMA: RELIGION. In as much as our awareness of Kerma’s material culture is incomplete, our knowledge of the religion of this nonliterate society is even more speculative. Several main features of Kerma’s urban and mortuary organization are still debated, but reasonable speculation can offer some tentative conclusions about its religious practices. The major concentration of Kerma’s economic and human resources in supporting its king at his palace and in his tomb suggest that he was likely given divine status. This is a very common pattern of early African states, and on the basis of ethnographic parallel, it is a reasonable assumption. Whether access to power was through patrilineal or matrilineal descent can-

208

•

KERTASSI, KERDASSY, QERTASSI, TZITZIS

not be clear, but the use of matrilineal metaphors and legitimacy by Kush allows for the hypothesis that matrilineality and perhaps queen mothers played a role. The small but powerful state probably included specialized workers in the area of religious intervention. There can be little doubt that a major part of the religious belief system was built around the idea of an afterlife as previous, subsequent, and neighboring societies all had such beliefs. On the other hand, the Nubian nature of Kerma is seen to contrast with Egypt in burial styles (bed burial, tumuli, and flex burial) and funerary offerings of humans, cattle, and sheep for royal personages. Stellar and zoomorphic images in the faience wall tiles in the tombs and the well-known presence of zoomorphic deities of Nubia make it reasonable to assume that these could easily be integrated with the religious system of Kerma. One zoomorphic form, that of the fly, was apparently not specifically religious but, instead, was a military badge suggesting the tenacity of Nubian flies. The funerary goods such as offering bowls were typically placed on the east side of the tombs, with the heads of the deceased also oriented to the east, and cattle and decorated ram skulls were placed to the south. Such depictions were not featured in the same way in contemporary Egypt, and the extensive use of cattle (up to 500 for the great Kerma X tumulus) for funerary rituals is highly convergent with similar C-Group practices. On the other hand, a measure of Kerma’s religion was able to mix features of Egyptian religion in statuary, perhaps some deities, and in the use of the winged solar disk icon. According to Kendall, perhaps by the time of Classical Kerma, there may have been some experimental mummification, extended rather than flex burials, and use of funeral chapels, suggesting a possible Egyptian influence for royal burials at this late time. The number of funerary chapels was far less than the number of tombs, so one may guess that they were used repeatedly for a funerary function. Some bodies were very well preserved by only natural desiccation by hot sand. KERTASSI, KERDASSY, QERTASSI, TZITZIS. This small, but striking Greco-Roman kiosk was formerly located at Kertassi around 35 kilometers south of its present site at New Kalabsha near to the western side of the High Dam at Aswan. Its remaining Nubian sandstone papyrus columns have an open-lotus capital, and the two entrance columns are adorned with Hathor heads. In Greco-Roman times, Kertassi was a common pilgrimage site with numerous Greek inscriptions recording various visitors. Just before its reconstruction, it lay in a shambles, and it is considered a tiny gem of the Greco-Roman occupation of Nubia. Originally it was roofed, but now it has only one cross beam still in its original position.

KHARAMADOYE, KHARAMADȆYE

•

209

KHABABASH, SENENTANEN, SETEPENPTAH. Khababash was a native ruler of Egypt from around 338 to 336 BCE. This was during the second Persian occupation of Egypt (343–332 BCE) in the Late Period, immediately before the arrival of Alexander the Great. He is attested on an Apis bull sarcophagus in Memphis around 336 BCE to have buried a royal bull, so his rule must have been stable and extensive enough to achieve this important ritual objective. He is believed to have led a revolt in 336 or 335 BCE against the Persians. Circumstantial evidence suggests that he was of Nubian or Blemmye origin and may have been a local king or nomarch of Lower Nubia. First, he was like Blemmye soldiers, who were secure and skilled enough to organize a sustained revolt against the Persians from that area. Second, his strength was usually considered to be in the border areas. Third, he was termed as “native born,” but that is not usually said for other Egyptians. Finally, after his revolt was defeated, he apparently fled to a secure refuge in Meroë, which was then ruled by either Amanibakhi or, more likely, Nastasen. So, Khababash is not well known, but he indicates the last hope that an Egyptian or pro-Egyptian Nubian supported Nectanebo II, who is considered as the very last to serve as the pharaoh of Egypt after being toppled in 343 BCE. KHARAMADOYE, KHARAMADȆYE. This king of Lower Nubia of the late fourth century CE or early to mid-fifth century CE is best known for his inscription on the screen wall at the eastern side of the forecourt of the Kalabsha temple. The inscription is of special interest since it is among the longest of Meroitic demotic or “cursive” texts, yet its meaning still escapes full understanding. One may assume that this was among some of the later inscriptions in the Meroitic language. Only a few meters away is the King Silko text, which suggests the start of Christianity in Nubia in an inscription in poor Greek. Thus, King Kharamadoye must have been a late post-Meroitic or Ballana king. It is not clear whether he was of Meroitic (Nubian) origin when this small extension of the Meroitic Empire was withering away in Lower Nubia, or whether he was a Ballana king of Blemmye origin. Clearly, his later follower, Silko, was a Nubian (Nobatian) who defeated the Blemmyes, but it is not very clear whether Kharamadoye had done this before, or whether he had been among the Blemmyes who were defeated by Silko. Meroiticists such as F. L. Griffith and Lázsló Török estimate that the reference to Blemmye king Yisemeniye suggests the late fourth or early fifth century date for Kharamadoye. Whether this was a case of conflict or cooperation between the two is still debated, but if this were before the defeat of Blemmye king Phoenen, then it was before the Blemmye expulsion or suppression. Textual references to “Penn” or “Phoenen” suggest that he was a contemporary of Kharamadoye, making him not a Blemmye, and if he is claiming control of Lower Nubia at Blemmye expense, then again, he prob-

210

•

KHARGA OASIS

ably is not of Blemmye origin. Certainly a regional monarch still existed, as judged by the elaborate post-Meroitic or X-Group tomb at Qustul or Ballana, but with no inscriptional evidence, and anyway these tombs are now under the waters of Lake Nasser. KHARGA OASIS. Kharga Oasis lies 200 kilometers west of Luxor. It is one of the great oases of the Western Desert of Egypt, but it is also the southernmost, so it played a significant ancient role in trans-Saharan connections and in later trade between Egypt and Nubia as well as the western Sudanese regions of Darfur and Kordofan. Despite its long and important history, it is often overlooked. The other desert oases, arranged in a broad Cshaped arc, are Dakhla, Farafra, and Bahariya, ending with the Fayum Oasis, which is closer to the Nile, and various important wadis such as Wadi Natrun. The Paleolithic Levallois and Mousterian traditions of hand axes that have some secondary flaking are well documented at Kharga and at least down to the area south of modern Khartoum. This had been true during the long and much wetter Paleolithic times down to the start of the Neolithic and to the present, as it has always had some supplies of permanent water. Kharga has long played a key role in connecting Nubia to Egypt, and vice versa, by way of the Darb al-Arba’in, which could give access to Kerma, or farther west to Cobbé and El-Fasher in Darfur. Probably the famed travels of Harkuf in Dynasty VI took place traveling from the Nile to Kharga, although he may have entered the desert farther south through Kurkur Oasis. Such desert routes and stops offered security and water. Another historical case that involved Kharga was the secret messenger sent by the Hyksos in Lower Egypt to Kerma in Nubia to make a military alliance that would isolate the Egyptians in Upper Egypt to prevent the formation of Dynasty XVIII. When the messenger was stopped by the Egyptians, this plan was aborted, and history changed. During Dynasty XXV, the Nubians controlled Kharga and other Western Desert oases, when threatened by Libyans. At other times, the Blemmyes either attacked or controlled Kharga. During Ptolemaic times, the Greeks gave substantial importance to the Western Desert oases from as far west as Siwa Oasis, next to Libya, to as far south as Kharga. At Dakhla Oasis, the temple at Kellis was developed to worship the protective deity Tutu (Dudu) and his wife consort Tapshay. At Kharga, the temple of Hibis was also constructed for a mission of protection against evil, among other religious goals. More important was the large temple of Kysis at Dush, to the south of the main oasis of Kharga and situated prominently and securely on the Darb al-Arba’in (40-Days Road) to control trade and potential aggression from Nubia. At first, Kysis was a mortuary and healing center during pre-Christian Roman times.

KHOR ABU ANGA

•

211

Kysis was brought under priestly authority as an oracle center with soldiers or parishioners entering a massive southerly mud-brick annex at this great temple in the desert to make requests and inquiries that the Roman priests could consider and recommend, as was also practiced in Siwa and Kom Ombo. Given their remote locations, Kharga and Dakhla also served as refuges and places of exile (e.g., for Nestorius and Athanasius). For sure, Dush was heavily defended by high thick walls to block Nubians or Libyans from advancing on Kharga. Perhaps as many as two battalions of Roman troops and irregulars were stationed at Kharga and Dakhla to prevent desert infiltration by Blemmyes or Nubians, who were otherwise controlled at Aswan and other Nile valley fortifications. With the early monastic and exile experience of Christianity in Nubia and Egypt, it was in Kharga and Dakhla (and at Abu Ghazala in Nubia and Wadi Natrun in Egypt) that such places were among the first places in Egypt to have developed Christian communities, churches (such as that at Kellis), and Christian cemeteries (like that at Bagawat in Kharga). Today in Kharga, the New Valley Development Plan takes water from the Toshka Canal in the raised Lake Nasser in Lower Nubia for use in the increased populations of Kharga still seeking a better modern planned life there than in the crowded cities of the Nile valley. KHARTOUM NEOLITHIC. See NEOLITHIC. KHNUM. The ram-headed (or goat-headed?) god of the First Cataract, particularly at Elephantine Island in modern Aswan, is one of the most ancient Nubian deities to be incorporated into the Egyptian pantheon. He was worshipped at Elephantine from the earliest times through Nubian epochs to the Greco-Roman period. Khnum is usually depicted with his sister-wives, Satet and Anqet. A basic feature of his iconography is that his horns are always depicted as laterally twisted in a corkscrew, unlike the later ram god of Napata that was conflated with the god Amun. When Amun is in the ram form (perhaps from Kerma), but popularized in the New Kingdom, he always had horns that curve forward, although sometimes both horn types are combined in Greco-Roman times. As a god of the Nile, like Hapy, Khnum is considered as a creator god, and among his creations is the use of a potter’s wheel on which Khnum made human beings. The Ptolemaic temple at Esna has a prominent role for Khnum. See also NEOLITHIC. KHOR ABU ANGA. This Paleolithic wadi site along the Nile in Omdurman may represent a northern extension of the Sangoan or Kanjeran people from central Africa. It boasts a rich collection of 1,000 hand axes, cleavers, cores and flakes, hammerstones, and other stone tools that now rest in the

212

•

KHOR BAHAN

Sudan National Museum. The plentiful river-washed gravels were of good quality for this chipping technology, which may have persisted into the Acheulian times. KHOR BAHAN. Bahan culture is named for Khor Baha, just above the modern High Dam at Aswan on the west bank of the Nile. Because of the creation of Lake Nasser / Lake Nubia, Khor Baha is now lost under the waters of the lake, but it was the site of some of the earliest Neolithic culture in Nubia. It has a possible date of 3,500 BCE, thus making such finds associated with the A-Group. Khor Bahan culture may reflect an Amratian colony that either evolved into A-Group or influenced its development. KHOR HUDI. This site, north of the Sixth Cataract and a small seasonal tributary of the Atbara River in the northern Butana, has produced Chellan tools. The site is on the terraces above the river, and it has also yielded bones of megafauna as well as chipped pebble tools, hand axes, and cleavers that were used to process the animals. Anthony J. Arkell believed that this site gave evidence of the Atbara corridor that connected the Lower Paleolithic traditions of East Africa to the Nile valley. KHOR MUSA. The Upper Paleolithic archaeological tradition known by this site just south of the former Wadi Halfa is of interest because it offers some stratification that allows for the development of a regional sequence. All Khormusan horizons have cores, scrapers, blades, and some flakes. The lower levels show more mammal bones typical of hunters, while the upper layers have abundant fish bones, suggesting a later refinement in their food producing technology, including an increase in pebble burins. Carbon dates put this assemblage as early as circa 23,000 BP to as late as 18,000 BP. KING’S SON OF KUSH (VICEROY OF NUBIA). This titled position from the New Kingdom colonization of Kush established a vice-regnal or provincial governor’s administration for Lower Nubia and Upper Nubia. Frequently, the King’s Son of Kush or the viceroy of Nubia resided in the district of Wawat at Aniba, but he went on regional administrative tours of Nubia and reported directly back to the pharaoh he served. Probably, most of the viceroys were Egyptian, but it is likely that some of the last ones to hold this office in the closing years of Dynasty XX were of Nubian origin, such as viceroys Piankhy and Panehesi. As Dynasty XX withered away, the High Priest of Amun, Herihor, a former viceroy, rivaled his contemporary King’s Son of Kush to determine who was actually in charge of collapsing Egypt as it slid into the Third Intermediate Period and of the later Nubian revival at Kurru. Refer to appendix 6 for the full list these titleholders.

KURGUS

•

213

KOR. The fortress at Kor was located amid the Middle Kingdom defensive system at the Second Cataract. It was reused during the New Kingdom. KOROSKO ROAD. The Korosko Road was an overland trade route between Egypt and Sudan, leaving the Nile at Abu Hamed or Kurgus and rejoining in Lower Nubia at Korosko. So, the Korsoko Road bypassed the great bend of the Nile and led to the Wadi Gabgaba gold fields. Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III erected boundary stelas along the route. In Meroitic times, the Korsoko Road became the main link between Central Sudan and the Mediterranean world. In the 1850s, the French traveler Pierre Tremaux took this ancient caravan route through Medjay or Blemmyes territory. In the 2000s, Alfredo and Angelo Castiglioni pursued the same route and found wells, traces of gold mine workings, and prehistoric petroglyphs and inscriptions of the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom. KUBBAN, QUBAN. Kubban served as a major administrative center during the rule of Dynasty XVIII where a great fortress and warehouse was erected. Kubban lies approximately 120 kilometers south of Aswan at the mouth of the Wadi al-Allaqi gold fields, the richest gold fields in the region. During the time of Egyptian gold exploitation, Kubban served a central role, and it probably was established to serve as a control and supply point for the trade along the desert road. In other words, Kubban was the anchor point of the Lower Nubian gold industry. Prisoners and slaves most likely supplied the majority of the labor force. KULB, KULUBNARTI (KULB ISLANDS). This site in the Butn al-Hajr downstream from Akasha dates back to Meroitic times. X-Group pottery is found there, but no settlements or grave sites were found for these times. It is more notable in Christian times when it had a modest, lightly fortified town, two churches, two cemeteries, and various associated island hamlets with buildings of brick and stone. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. KUMMA. See SEMNA EAST. KURGUS. In modern Nubian, kurgus means “yellow,” and it likely refers to the local yellow sandstone of the area. Kurgus is upstream of Abu Hamed, which is at the southern terminus of the desert route to Korosko, and it is used in order to bypass a long stretch of the Nubian Nile above the Fourth Cataract and arrive in Egypt. At Kurgus, Tuthmosis I and Tuthmosis III

214

•

KURKUR OASIS

inscribed a prominent rock face to mark the southern boundary of Nubia during the Egyptian New Kingdom. Field research by Derek Welsby and Vivien Davies revealed that Kurgus was also a burial and settlement site. KURKUR OASIS. Kurkur is a small oasis located 60 kilometers southwest of Aswan in the Libyan (western) Desert. It is a site of Middle Paleolithic assemblages. Its strategic location in the desert meant that it long served as a staging post on long-distance caravan routes since great antiquity such as those attributed to Harkuf. KURRU. Kurru is located on the western, but right, bank of the Nile because of the sweeping S-shaped turn of the river as it heads in a southwesterly direction from Jebel Barkal, which lies around 20 kilometers farther upstream. Kurru is a royal pyramid field for some of the pre-Napatan kings such as Alara and Kashta, as well as many as 16 other tumuli for unidentified kings who had come to rule before turning to the recovery of Lower Nubia. Without much inscriptional evidence, the evaluation and ordering of this Kurru period and its monuments is particularly difficult, but one can construct the early part of the Third Intermediate Period, following the collapse of Dynasty XX after the death of Ramses XI and the interregnum conflicts that ensued with Herihor and Panehesi in around 1060 BCE. Without the Egyptian overlords, Nubians could begin to recover from the five centuries of colonial rule that extracted human and material wealth; it is likely that the small-scale kingdom at Kurru was the first result. The largest pyramid (Ku 1) was apparently not used for some reason but was accessible by an deep underground ramp. By what remains, it seems to have had a steep angle of 70–75 degrees, not like the pyramids of Giza at 51.5 degrees. Who this was for and when it was made remains unclear. The last pyramid built there is now only represented by the lovely underground tomb of Tanutamun. After that, Dynasty XXV and Napatan burial were at Nuri. If the minimal calculation is correct that at least 16 kings are buried at Kurru, and low average of about 20 years of rule is estimated for each, then this regional administration may have lasted for more than two centuries. This could get closer to the first named Kurru ruler of Alara who expanded his domain from Kurru to Kawa, then Kashta expanded this domain farther north to Lower Nubia. Finally, with Egypt still divided and weak, Piankhy could gain control (more or less) of the entire Egyptian Nile as well. If this tentative reconstruction is correct, it is possible to project an early Kurru phase of state reformation by the Kushites at this time, which could be termed the Nubian “dark age” that led directly into the establishment of Dynasty XXV.

KUSH, QESH, KŠ

•

215

Supporting this view is that Kurru is the presumably pyramidal burial places for almost all of the Dynasty XXV kings, including Shabaka (Kurru 15), Tanutamun (Kurrru 16), Piankhy (Kurru 17), and Shabataka (Kurru 18); Taharka, who began the burials at the Nuri pyramid field, is the exception. The funerary chapel at Kurru excavated by Geoff Emberling started as a quarry for the stone of the Kurru pyramids. By descending a stairway to the forecourt circled by 25 columns, one can enter underground chambers. KUSH, QESH, KŠ. Kush is the general name for a region and kingdom centered in ancient Nubia. Kush probably has distant roots in Kerma, and its capitals were at Thebes, Napata, and Meroë at various times. Although Kush is not an immediate lineal descendant of Kerma, it does seem that the impulse toward state formation was reborn with Kush after the intrusive centuries of New Kingdom (1567–1090 BCE) colonization of Nubia was brought to an end. Throughout the New Kingdom, virtually all leading pharaohs recorded attacks against Nubia either to generate booty of livestock, gold, and slaves, or to suppress almost endless rebellions against their rule. Such are the cases in 1530 BCE when Pharaoh Tuthmosis I waged a war against Kush, or during the period 1490–1436 BCE when Pharaoh Tuthmosis III noted repeated military expeditions against Kush past the Third Cataract while seeking slaves and livestock, or in 1375 BCE when Nubians revolted against Amenhotep III. Clearly, the Egyptian presence was maintained by force, and clearly a distinct Kushitic identity persisted even through endless campaigns of subjugation. This model of colonial rule becomes even more apparent in the common appointment of a viceroy of Kush under most New Kingdom pharaohs. Such is the case of Herihor who served in this position under Ramses XI (the first pharaoh of Dynasty XXI). By the time Dynasty XXI closed (ca. 945 BCE), Herihor himself became the pharaoh with his “son” Piankhy who became the new viceroy of Kush. It is worth noting that this identity has raised as a question since it is impossible that this Piankhy could be the same as the Piankhy (r. 747–716 BCE) who ruled later during Dynasty XXV. As the New Kingdom weakened in the early 10th century BCE, the Kingdom of Kush, which had existed as a tributary state, was being reborn in comparative security at Napata. By around 950 BCE, the Kushites, perhaps under King Aserkhamen, started raids on Upper Egypt in attempt to expand northward. Kashta, a ruler of Kush, began the conquest of Egypt, thus setting the stage for the Kushite Dynasty XXV in Egypt. He was succeeded in 747 BCE by his son Piankhy. Sometime in the ninth century BCE, Piankhy claimed Thebes as province of Kush. One presumes that this is the first instance of such a claim. By the time of the reign of Kushite pharaoh Alara

216

•

KUSH, QESH, KŠ

(r. 790–760 BCE), the divisions in Lower Egypt enabled this pharaoh to establish and declare the Dynasty XXV of Lower and Upper Egypt as well as Kush. Dynasty XXV Dynasty XXV (ca 760–656 BCE) emerged either late in the reign of Kushite pharaoh Alara (r. 790–760 BCE) or with his successor Pharaoh Maatre Kashta (r. 760–747 BCE). Dynasty XXV brought Kushite/Nubian (“Ethiopian”) rule from central Sudan to the Egyptian delta and reestablished unity of the Nile valley. Sometimes this is termed the Late Period in Egypt. All pharaohs of Dynasty XXV were deeply troubled with various rivals in the delta or with aggression from Assyria. For example, during the reign of Kashta (r. 760–747 BCE) he fought with Osorkon III (Dynasty XXIII) in the delta. However, Kashta was buried at Kurru not Thebes. Kashta’s son, Pharaoh Usemare Sneferre Piankhy II (r. 751–716 BCE), finally controlled the entire Egyptian Nile valley by ca. 728 BCE, but he was likewise involved in clashes in the delta in 730 BCE with his Libyan rival Tefnakht (Dynasty XXIV) and with military engagements with the Assyrians. Piankhy was also buried at Kurru, near Napata. Piankhy’s younger brother, Pharaoh Neferkare Shabaka (Sabacon) (r. 716–701 BCE), is one of three Kushite/Nubian kings to be noted in the Torah (Old Testament), Genesis 10:7. He supported the Judean king Isaiah at Altaku (Eltekeh) in their joint fight against the Assyrians. In appreciation, Isaiah sent gifts to Shabaka. Shabaka was reported by Manetho to have captured his Dynasty XXIV rival, Bocchoris, and burned him alive. Shabaka died in 701 BCE and was buried at Kurru. The following reign of Pharaoh Djedkaure Shabataka (Shebitqu, Sebichos) (701–690 BCE), was also noted in Genesis 10:7. Similarly he was buried at Kurru, rather than Thebes. Perhaps the most prominent pharaoh of Dynasty XXV was Nefertumkhure Taharka (Tarcus) (r. 690–664 BCE), who was the last to have full control of the unified Nile. The Fame of Taharka King Taharka (r. 690–664 BCE) was a very important pharaoh of Dynasty XXV and the grandson of pharaoh Kashta, the son of pharaoh Pianky, and the younger brother of Pharaoh Shabataka. The date of his birth is not known, but one may guess that it was before 720 BCE. As a young man and the Crown Prince, Taharka was asked by his brother to join the forces of Hezekiah of Judea (Palestine) and King Luli (Tyre and Sidon) in their joint struggle against the Assyrian expansion then led by King Sennacherib (r. 704–681 BCE). Luli escaped to Cyprus in 701 BCE, and Hezekiah finally

KUSH, QESH, KŠ

•

217

submitted to Assyrian siege machines. Prince Taharka and Pharaoh Piankhy were able to withdraw to Egypt. These years gained him practical and firsthand experience in combating the Assyrians, which he was to do for the rest of his life. Taharka is specifically noted in the Old Testament (2 Kings 19:9) as are two other Kushite pharaohs. In around 690 BCE, with his mother present as a witness, Nefertumkhure Taharka was crowned “Lord of Two Lands” at Memphis; his rule was mainly from Tanis in the delta. He fought continually to protect the unity and sovereignty of the Nile valley from the Assyrians. His other main goals were to restore the religious and architectural values of earlier Egyptian dynasties. He built monumental works along the Nile valley from the delta, to Memphis, Karnak, Medinat Habu, Tanis, Edfu, Kawa, Semna, Buhen, and Qasr Ibrim. His famous temple of Amun Ra at Jebel Barkal, might allow Taharka to be termed a Nubian Ramses. Military campaigns from Nubia to the Levant demonstrated the scope of his influence. His talent for great construction was always challenged by his military preoccupation with the Assyrians. First this was in Palestine as a young man fighting Sennacherib, then, for much of his reign, fighting against King Esarhaddon (r. 680–669 BCE), the Assyrian successor to murdered Sennacherib. The imperialist Esarhaddon came to the Nile with much military experience, hardened and well trained troops, new siege tactics, and an effective camel cavalry. Indeed, it was Esarhaddon who is credited with introducing camels to Egypt at this time. Later camels became very important in transSaharan trade as perfect beasts of burden for the desert. In order to distract Esarhaddon away from the Nile, Taharka supported revolts by the king of Sidon and by King Ba’alu of Tyre in Phoenicia. However, these revolts were brutally crushed and actually provoked Esarhaddon to strike at Taharka at Tanis and Memphis. In 671 BCE, Esarhaddon sped across the Sinai with his fast camel cavalry and met the Nubian and Egyptian forces of Taharka in the eastern delta. Taken by the speed and surprise, Taharka was defeated and withdrew from the delta town of Tanis and retreated to a more secure Memphis citadel. The following year, 670 BCE, Taharka regrouped his troops and retook the delta from the Assyrians. Again countering this move, the Assyrians under Esarhaddon returned in 669 BCE to retake the delta and push on to lay siege and sack Memphis. During the battle at Memphis, Taharka was wounded, and his son, Ushanhuru, was captured and taken to Assyria where this was recorded on a mural of permanent humiliation. Shocked by the military defeat and by the capture of his son, Taharka resumed his harassment of Esharhaddon with more tactical support of Phoenician unrest. In 668 BCE, Esarhaddon was again stirred to another round of fighting and planned still another conquest of the delta and Memphis; this time, Esarhaddon died on route to this battlefield in Egypt. Any relief felt by

218

•

KUSH, QESH, KŠ

Taharka was very short lived as Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627 BCE), son of Esarhaddon, quickly resumed his revenge campaign and badly defeated Taharka in the delta, and sacked Memphis once again. Having withdrawn from Memphis, Taharka could only visit the shrines and temples at Thebes before seeking the fullest security of retreat to his beloved Napata in 667 BCE. The delta princes who had either betrayed him or, at least, would not be adequate to face the forces of the Assyrians called in vain for Taharka’s return, but his losses were too great for him to make another attempt to purge Egypt of the Assyrians. In 664 BCE, Taharka died and was buried in the largest pyramid in the royal Nuri cemetery. Immediately following the death of his maternal uncle, Taharka, Pharaoh Bakare Tanutamun (r. 664–653 BCE) assumed the title of “Lord of Two Lands” at Napata in 664 BCE. Tanutamun returned to Egypt and regained control of Memphis and the entire Nile valley for a few years. However, with the weak and unreliable support from the delta princes, which had tormented his uncle Taharka, Tanutamun’s position was precarious. Added to this was a steady threat from the Assyrian and rival claims to rule Lower Egypt by Psammetichos I (r. 664–610 BCE). The Kushites tried to absorb the challenge of Psammetichos by giving him a Kushite wife, the daughter of Shabaka, but this was not sufficient to cement an alliance. In frustration, Tanutamun initially withdrew to Thebes to be lord of Upper Egypt and Kush, but by 661 BCE, he found himself defeated in both Memphis and Thebes, which was sacked and looted by Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627 BCE). With little alternative, Tanutamun withdrew into Sudan to worship Amun at Jebel Barkal. In 653 BCE, Tanutamun died at Napata and was buried at Kurru, failing to fulfill his dreams or those of his uncle. The Kushites at Napata The location of ancient Napata, the sometimes capital of Kush, survives today although it is of minor importance given its relative isolation. Of the several towns, just downstream from the Fourth Cataract, one must distinguish (New) Merowe from its ancient namesake Meroë far across the Bayuda desert near the modern town of Shendi. In 1955, Merowe’s population was not even 2,000, and by 1965, it had reached 2,700. Kareima’s people numbered 6,000 in 1955, but this figure fell to less than 5,000 by 1965. By 1987, Kareima’s population had reached roughly 15,000. Kareima, a modest market town, is serviced by a rail spur to Abu Hamed; Merowe has a small airport for domestic flights. Archaeological interest is very well served in this area with the remains of a huge temple to Amun at the base of Jebel Barkal and the extensive pyramid burials there, as well as at nearby Kurru and Nuri. These places were especially significant in the New Kingdom during the reigns of Tuthmosis III and

KUSH, QESH, KŠ

•

219

Amenhotep II, but this religious center continued in use until the end of the Kushitic Empire. The tourist potential of these sites is only marginally developed; however, one may stay at Kareima’s “Taharka Hotel” and rest houses, and there is a new museum. The ancient site of Napata had the great temple to Amun built during the New Kingdom in Egypt. During the Libyan Dynasty XX in Egypt (ca. 950 BCE), much of the Amun priesthood moved to Napata, and a distinctive Egyptian-Kushite culture emerged. Napata was the capital of the kingdom of Kush until the city’s destruction during the invasion of Psammetichus II in 591 BCE. From around 653 BCE to around 270 BCE, following the clashes with the Assyrians and the defeats of pharaohs Taharka and Tanutamun, the Kushite Empire was compelled to content itself with ruling in the name of the pharaohs but from their capital at Napata (Jebel Barkal) and no longer from Egypt. The use of hieroglyphics and the worship of the principal Egyptian gods (especially Amun) continued, but gradually it assumed local features as special gods. With Egypt itself under a variety of foreign rulers, Kush finally created its own alphabetic written language, which today has still not been fully translated despite an awareness of the phonetic value of the alphabet. With security from the Assyrians and no further concern with rivalries at Thebes or in the delta, the rulers at Kush only had to contend with occasional attacks from the Blemmyes and their own domestic politics. Such was the political life of pharaohs Atlanersa (r. 653–643 BCE); Senkamunisken (r. 643–623 BCE); Anlamani (r. 623–593 BCE); and Aspelta (r. 593–568 BCE), all of whom were buried at nearby Nuri. The only substantial effort to reclaim the Egyptian Nile took place with Pharaoh Aspelta who was thwarted in his plans to attack Pharaoh Necho II (Saite Dynasty XXVI) in 591 BCE. This defeat only served to confirm the northern border of Kush at the Second Cataract. Necho II’s successor, Psammetichos II (r. 595–589 BCE), mounted a counterinvasion of Kush to the Third Cataract in 590 BCE and fought at the northern plain of Dongola, seizing 4,200 captives. In further revenge, he also hacked out Nubian inscriptions to pharaohs of Dynasty XXV. He may not have reached Napata, but at least he gave the Napatan rulers some sense of anxiety, which two centuries later caused them to move their capital still farther up the Nile. Still more Kushite kings ruled Napata, but their influence as true “Lords of Two Lands” became a fantasy, and they could only look idly to the north during the period of the First Persian conquest of Egypt (529–398 BCE), until King Cambyses sought to penetrate Nubia in 524 BCE, but was driven out. As Egyptian power waned further, it was a ripe target for foreign aggression. The Persians took their two turns at ruling in the name of the pharaohs; in between these incursions the weak Dynasty XXX tried in vain to reach the glories of millennia gone by. However, by 360–342 BCE Pharaoh Nectanebo

220

•

KUSH, QESH, KŠ

II of Dynasty XXX had the sad fate to be the last Egyptian pharaoh to wear the double crown. Escaping from the Second Persian invasion (342–333 BCE), Nectanebo II, fled to Nubia for security, but he never returned. Nubian aspirations for global significance were reborn in the Meroitic period (350 BCE–350 CE).

L LASIYA, AL-, EL-LESIYYAH, ELLESIYAH. The small cliff chapel of al-Lasiya was located roughly 6 kilometers downstream of Qasr Ibrim. Both were on the eastern bank of the Nile before the S-shaped turn of the river at Korosko and thus very near Aniba in the district of Wawat. This structure dates to the New Kingdom under Tuthmosis III. The most interesting feature is that this Egyptian pharaoh appears before the Nubian gods Dedun and Satet. The temple was deliberately altered during the reign of the “heretic” pharaoh Akhenaton. In Dynasty XIX, Ramses II restored the chapel in his effort to renew the Amun cult and establish his dominance of over Nubia. The temple was dismantled in 1966 and given to the Egyptian Museum in Turin, Italy, for its distinguished Egyptian collection. LATE PERIOD. No real consistency is seen among experts about the parameters of the Late Period, as some wish to include it (or portions thereof) within the Third Intermediate Period. For example, Nicolas Grimal (1996, 394) places Dynasty XXI through Dynasty XXIII in the Third Intermediate Period, but parts of dynasties XXIV and XXV are in the Late Period, as is Dynasty XXVI. Kenneth A. Kitchen (1986, 530) places dynasties XXI to XXVI in the Third Intermediate Period, which appears to be synonymous with the Late Period. Rosalie David and Antony E. David (1992, 176) consider dynasties XXI to XXVI to be of the Third Intermediate Period and only Dynasty XXVII through XXXI as parts of the Late Period. Peter A. Clayton (1994, 172) follows the same approach as the Davids, while John Baines and Jaromir Malik (1985, 9) take the Third Intermediate Period to be part of the first Theban period of Dynasty XXV, while the second portion is placed with the start of the Late Period, which goes to the end of Dynasty XXXI. Often the Late Period is defined as spanning dynasties XXVI through XXX, when the last Egyptian pharaoh, Nectanebo II, ruled Egypt before fleeing to security in Nubia. Clearly, part of the problem is whether to consider Dynasty XXV as part of, or separate from, the Late Period or whether Dynasty XXV should be considered in a unitary manner, or divided as it was when evolving toward comprehensive control. 221

222

•

LEOPARDS

Indeed, the usual test of dynastic order is to see if the Egyptian Nile had a unitary state; if it did not, it would be relegated to the First, Second, or Third Intermediate periods. However, sometimes (like the Nubian Dynasty XXV) unity was achieved, but not by Egyptians, so should they be considered as “foreigners” in the Nile valley or just another native source for unitary pharaonic authority? Especially in the five centuries of the New Kingdom, Kush was considered as part of Egypt with even some viceroys of Nubia being Nubian. So some authorities include Dynasty XXV within the Late Period and not in the Third Intermediate Period. A further complication of the definition of the Late Period is the long debate over the reckoning of dynastic history since Manetho. Should there be 30 or 31 dynasties or should one include or exclude the first or second Persian, or Libyan, occupation within dynastic history? Meanwhile, recent work on the Late Predynastic Period has formulated a “0” (zero) Dynasty. A quiet comment on this debate appears on the exterior southern face of the Egyptian National Museum, which just omits the Nubian Dynasty XXV altogether, or calls them “Ethiopians,” and puts Piankhy’s original conquest of Egypt stela in a side hall that is not much visited. Importantly, Egyptologists often overlook that the 10 or so dynasties where Egypt was politically unified is only about one-third of its dynastic history, and even that overlooks the following 2,500 years where no Egyptians ruled Egypt until 1952. Herein, it is worth recalling that, in the balance of forces, when Egypt was strong and unified, it could be seen as bad news for Nubia and vice versa. Perhaps this is why Nubia had the several very long ancient epochs, Kerma, Napata, and Meroë. Likewise, separating the five centuries of the New Kingdom rule of Kush, Nubia, or Sudan had only two rather brief periods of colonial rule: the Turkiya (1821–1885) and the British (1898–1956). LEOPARDS. In Egypt, the leopard (or Leonide animals) is associated with two deities (Seshat and Mafdet) and the lion Sekhmet. The goddess of writing and measurement, Seshat, is usually represented as a woman clad in a long panther/leopard skin. In the New Kingdom, Seshat became closely associated with the king’s Sed festival (the royal jubilee running ritual), where she served as the keeper of records. Sheshat was also the wife-god of Thoth, another record keeper. Kharyssa Rhodes points out that Mafdet, the divine manifestation of judicial authority and the goddess of capital punishment, is depicted in the full zoomorphic form of a leopard. Mafdet is also considered as a “helper” of the deceased, and leopard skins are depicted on coffin lids up to the Middle Kingdom. Manfred Lurker (1974) proposed the likelihood that similar customs involving leopard skins among African peoples were related to those of ancient Egypt. He cites two examples across the Sahel in the case of a group in

LEPSIUS, KARL RICHARD (1810–1884)

•

223

northern Nigeria who bury deceased males in leopard skins, and in the southern Sudan on the White Nile, the dead Shillkuk reths are also wrapped in leopard skins. This is certainly true for the Nilotic Dinka and Nuer who have a special role for “leopard-skinned priests.” While leopards may have once inhabited the Nile valley in predynastic times, they deserted the region, or were hunted out, in very early times. As a result, live leopards and leopard skins were obtained either by trade or tribute from Nubia and farther south. The earliest account of trade in leopard skins comes from Dynasty VI (ca. 2300–2100 BCE). Records chronicle several expeditions to Kerma in order to procure these valued items. Depictions of Nubian tribute payers, emissaries, or viceroys of Nubia presenting leopard skins or live leopards to Egyptian kings are found in at least three New Kingdom tombs. Reliefs from the tombs of viceroy of Nubia Rekmire (4500 BCE), Sobekhotep (1400 BCE), and Huy (1330 BCE) portray such images. The last king of modern Ethiopia, Emperor Haile Sellasie, often sat on his throne accompanied by leashed live leopards. Leopard skins also appear in Egypt as a distinctive item of priestly dress as with modern Nilotics. Whole skins with the head intact were worn as an insignia of this position by Sem priests, who performed the work of a son for a father (Horus to Osiris) in the critical “opening of the mouth” ritual to restore life in the “Afterworld.” This association of the leopard with both state authority and the priesthood reflects the interdependence of religion and the state in ancient Egypt and Nubia. During the Napatan period, Egyptian ideology dominated and maintained the state by linking the Nubian kings and queens with the Amun priests at Jebel Barkal who wore leopard skins as a symbol of their office. Meroitic royalty in their funerary chapels are shown seated on thrones alongside their leopards (or rarely lions). LEPSIUS, KARL RICHARD (1810–1884). German-born Karl Richard Lepsius was a major European archaeologist and philologist of the 19th century who undertook extensive field studies and published many seminal descriptive reports on Egypt and Nubia. Lepsius was a professor and director of the Berlin Museum. From 1842 to 1845, he directed the three-year Prussian expedition to Egypt, “Ethiopia” (Nubia/Sudan), and to the Sinai. He cleared the great temple for Ramses II at Abu Simbel during this period. King Frederick William V funded this massive project that resulted in his 12volume publication, Denkmȁler aus Ӓgypten und Ӓthiopen. His Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sinai was first published in German in 1852, and in English, in this case, in the following year. Lepsius’s work largely revisited the sites first described by Frédéric Cailliaud but with his big team of draftsmen, painters, cartographers, and engineers. This scientific effort was considered a major advance in the documen-

224

•

LINANT DE BELLEFONDS, LOUIS MAURICE ADOLPHE (1799–1883)

tation of these famous monuments. He visited Meroë and made detailed records of the site, especially including the pyramid field at Bejrawiya North and South to the east of the royal city. He visited Naqa and reported on a bilingual bark stand that later proved to be very significant in the transliteration of Meroitic. He also published a large number of Meroitic inscriptions and a grammar and lexicon of Nubian languages. With this information, he incorrectly predicted that Meroitic would be quickly translated. It was not, and it remains a key issue of Meroitic/Nubian studies. LINANT DE BELLEFONDS, LOUIS MAURICE ADOLPHE (1799–1883). This French geographer and explorer, born in Britany, had been destined for a career as a maritime cartographer for the French navy. However, he left this work, and during an 1817 tour of the Middle East, he finally arrived in 1818 to do illustrations for European writers then residing in Cairo. From 1818 to 1819, he traveled in Lower Nubia from Aswan, stopping at Abu Simbel, and on to the Second Cataract with British Egyptologists William Bankes and Giovanni Belzoni. In 1820, still only a teenager, he joined an exploratory party under the authority of Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, and led by Bankes, he traveled to Siwa Oasis in the Western Desert. From June 1821 to July 1822, he went as far as Dongola in Nubia, drawing along the way. This was during the Turkish military conquest of Sudan. Accompanied by Frédéric Cailliaud, Bankes led these travels and explored as far south as Meroë. This makes him one of the first modern Europeans to have seen the sites of Naqa and Musawwarat es-Sufra in 1822. He returned to London in 1823 but was back in Nubia for a second tour from March 1826 to September 1827, when he ventured up the White Nile as far as Shilluk territory. In 1831–1832, he traveled to the Ethio-Sudanese borderlands along the Atbai valley in hopes of finding gold for Muhammad ‘Ali. Linant de Bellefonds also traveled as far as Darfur in the west in 1847. His published and illustrated works are numerous, but most important for Nubian studies is his Journal d’un voyage à Meroë dans les anneés 1821 et 1822, which was edited and published by Margaret Shinnie in 1958. His extensive, early modern travels to Nubia made him a much valued associate of Jean-François Champollion and Richard Burton. Linant de Bellefonds died in Cairo in 1883. LIONS. See LEOPARDS; MAHESA, MA’AHES, MAHES, MAAHES, MAYHES, MIYSES, MIHOS, MIYSIS. LITERACY IN ANCIENT NUBIA. Literacy in ancient Nubia was unknown for the A-Group or C-Group or in Kerma times, except for that which was written about them in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Perhaps some traders

LITERACY IN ANCIENT NUBIA

•

225

knew something of hieroglyphs and Egyptian language as they interacted at the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Egyptian forts. At the same time, Egyptian elites were very much exposed to all forms of hieroglyphics— namely, Middle Egyptian classical, as well as hieratic and demotic. The deep and extensive occupation of Nubia for the five centuries in the New Kingdom brought literacy to Nubia. Certainly the viceroys of Nubia, some skilled craftsmen, priests, and other functionaries were literate in classical and demotic hieroglyphs. How deeply this literacy went into Nubian language and culture can only be guessed at since the Nubian “dark age” produced no known texts until the very end of the Kurru kings as the names of Alara and Kashta emerged from this darkness. Needless to say, the Nubian kings and the extensive functionaries of Dynasty XXV were very literate since an abundance of hieroglyphic texts in many forms appears at this time. Even when Dynasty XXV was terminated and expelled from Egypt and the Napatan period unfolded, Egyptian hieroglyphs persisted as they did even into Meroitic times. This is described much more fully in this dictionary, but literacy evolved into Meroitic cursive and hieroglyphic forms. These texts are mostly on stone, but much might be lost on papyrus or parchment. Then in the post-Meroitic or X-Group times, the record of literacy goes blank once again. Literacy in some foreign languages such as Assyrian and Persian is known but was never accepted by Egyptian or Nubians. This was to change once again when contiguous relations with Greeks and Romans had brought familiarity with Greek and Latin (to a limited extent). During Greco-Roman times, Meroitic writing of a Nubian language was widely known in Nubia and was no doubt stimulated by demotic forms from Egypt. So it was that in the continuing Christian times, Greek and Coptic were common, and as with Meroitic, this inspired Nubians to write their own language, Old Nubian, in largely Greco-Coptic letters, with a few extra letters for Nubian phonetics. While substantial lexicons exist in Old Nubian, the struggle to decipher Meroitic still has a long way to go without an extensive bilingual text. Since Meroitic and Old Nubian are rather close in time and are likely derived from similar Nobi’in dialects, it is tempting to think that the key to decipherment might be found in this relationship. Sadly, Meroitic texts are pre-Christian and are largely military, funerary, and economic, while Old Nubian texts are heavily focused on legal statements and Christian religious matters so that the available lexicons are not convergent, overlapping, or bilingual. Islam and Arabic enter the region toward the end of Christianity, and the modern dialectics of Nobi’in have not yet been broadly correlated with Old Nubian or Meroitic. Arabic tombstones, texts, and inscriptions increase rapidly thereafter, and Arabization has presented a problem for the preservation and teaching of Nubian languages and culture.

226

•

LONGINUS

LONGINUS. Longinus was the successor to the missionary Julian and was another Monophysite missionary during the Christian period in Nubia. After facing obstacles from the Melkite (orthodox) Christians, Longinus disguised himself to escape their authority and traveled to Nubia in around 569 CE. He evangelized and rebuilt the clerical staff at Dongola from 570 CE until around 575 CE when he returned to Alexandria. The sectarian disputes between the Melkites and Monophysites were still roiling, and the Alexandrian patriarchate forbade Longinus to return to Nubia in 578 CE, when requested to do so by the king of Alwa and Soba. The Melkites said that Longinus was not empowered to baptize or ordain clerics, but the Alwa king prevailed and wanted to follow the same Monophysite tradition formerly rooted at Mukurra. After these political negotiations were resolved, Longinus still had to face many hardships, since Mukurra was then under Melkite control and they refused to allow him to pass through their territory. Dodging their authority, Longinus took the long and dangerous desert route from Korosko through Blemmye lands far to the east of the Nubian Nile. At long last, he reached the kingdom of Alwa to baptize its king and meet with fellow Monophysites from the Christian church of Axum. LOWER NUBIA. Lower Nubia is usually considered to be the stretch of the Nile from the First to Second Cataract, or in modern terms, from Aswan (Syene) to the modern Egypto-Sudanese border (now under the waters of Lake Nubia / Lake Nasser. Ancient references considered this region to be Wawat, and in Greco-Roman references, the region is referred to as the Dodekaschoenos. This region was the main point of contact or conflict between Egypt and Nubia so often that it was the region of major military fortification and/or colonial administration (as with the King’s Son of Kush) through the long history of relations between the two peoples. In medieval times, the importance of Lower Nubia also rested on its access to the eastern gold mines of Wadi al-Allaqi and the caravans routes to the west to Selima Oasis and the desert route from Korosko to Abu Hamed. Following the declaration of King Silko, this was the starting point for institutional Christianity in Nobatia after defeating the Blemmye rulers of the X-Group. The fact that Nobatia was annexed by Mukurra for defensive security reasons again reveals the contested nature of this territory. This is also evidenced in the rise of the Kanz al-Dawla from this region as he took over Dongola. In short, when Egypt was weak or internally divided, Nubians, such as those from Kerma, Napata, Meroë, or medieval Christian kingdoms, occupied Lower and Upper Nubia. When Egypt was strong, this relationship was reversed, and Nubians were driven out, were occupied, or were forced into agreements such as the baqt.

LULI, ELULAIOS, KING (R. 737?–701 BCE)

•

227

LULI, ELULAIOS, KING (r. 737?–701 BCE). King Luli was the king of both Sidon and Tyre (but not Akko) in Phoenicia and was politically and militarily allied with the Nubians of Dynasty XXV in their common opposition (along with the Judeans under King Hezekiah) to Assyrian expansion, which was especially threatening under Sennacherib (r. 704–681 BCE) during the third campaign in the wider region. Serving under Nubian pharaoh Shabaka, Prince Taharka may have played some role in encouraging the Phoenician resistance to the Assyrians before he himself became a king. In desperation, King Luli temporarily escaped the Assyrian grasp when he fled to nearby Cyprus in 701 BCE. Sennacherib replaced him with King Ittobaal II, and Luli was assassinated in Cyprus shortly afterward. This was a critical time for the Phoenicians, Judeans, and Nubians and perhaps some recriminations. It appears that this was also a turning point in the end of the rule of Shabaka since he was replaced in that year by the new pharaoh, Shabataka. The historical record is silent on any details.

M MAHARRAQA, MAHARRAKA, HIERASYKAMINOS. This Roman region and related temple was originally located on the left (west) bank of the Nile just upstream of Wadi al-Allaqi, roughly 30 kilometers from its present site. Today it is just below the Dakka temple. It looks eastward over a vast stretch of Lake Nasser. It was built to honor Isis, as well as Serapis, a popular syncretic deity of Greco-Roman Egypt. The remains of the temple of Maharraqa are not very large and only lightly inscribed in some interior places. During its functional period, it served largely as a Roman territorial marker when they controlled this region of Lower Nubia. In fact, the temple was not completed because of the withdrawal of Roman control. There is no clear indication of subsequent use in Meroitic or Christian times. Its complete former structures could not be fully restored. Its hypostyle hall is now its main structure, but a corner staircase leads to the roof level. Paintings by Hector Horeau and David Roberts in 1838 showed it already in a poor condition with the outer wall collapsed. When relocated in 1965 by UNESCO, it was restored to some extent and placed on its new site. MAHESA, MA’AHES, MAHES, MAAHES, MAYHES, MIYSES, MIHOS, MIYSIS. This guardian deity of apparent Nubian origin is usually depicted with a fierce lion head on a human body wearing a short kilt. Mahesa can either be a kingly leonine attribute or a separate lion deity. L. V. Zabkar believes that Mahesa was exported from Middle Kingdom Egypt to Nubia. In a New Kingdom case, Tuthmosis III is termed Mahesa, son of the lioness goddess Sakhmet. Mahesa may be crowned with a solar disk, sometimes including a uraeus, but commonly with a plumed atef crown. Mahesa was present in Egypt particularly in his cult center at Leontopolis in the delta in the Late Period. In contemporary Lower Nubia, Mahesa is depicted at the Isis and Hathor temples at Philae, and at Dakka, Dabod, and Dendur. In Upper Nubia, Mahesa is found at Musawwarat es-Sufra and is probably represented at Basa. At Napata, King Tanutamun was supported by Mahesa to give him aid in recovering the declining Nubian control of Egypt. In 229

230

•

MAIHERPRI, MAHERPA (15TH CENTURY BCE)

Egypt or Nubia, Mahesa could be depicted devouring those who resisted state authority, or protecting those in power. Mahesa is sometimes shown chewing on the heads of captives. This is illustrated in lion sculpture at the Sudan National Museum. The customary theogony of Mahesa had the cat goddess Bastet or Sekhmet as his mother and Amun-Re as his father. In Ptolemaic times, Mahesa is syncretically merged with Horus. The iconography for Mahesa suggests he was a protective solar god who was in charge of maintaining order against the forces of evil. Mahesa may be confused with the other very important Nubian lion-god Apedemek, or with the Egyptian goddess Bastet. A few faience examples of Mahesa are known, and Mahesa is depicted at Dabod temple in Lower Nubia. Perhaps the name Mahesa has provided the etymological root for the Mahas people of Nubia. MAIHERPRI, MAHERPA (15TH CENTURY BCE). The burial of Maiherpri in the Valley of the Kings in tomb KV36 offers a glimpse of this Nubian royal fan-bearer serving in the New Kingdom. He was estimated to have been about 24 years of age at the time of his death. The physical features and hair of his properly mummified body make it certain that Maiherpri was of Nubian origin. He is the only known Nubian to be buried in this exclusive royal cemetery, and his position was of a valued servant. Since its discovery in 1899 by Victor Loret, this tomb has not been adequately published, but it is known through the work of Georg Schweinfurth, an explorer and Egyptologist in the 19th century. It is one of the very few in situ burials in the Valley of the Kings excavated in modern times. Although the burial had been partly looted, it still had a gilded cartonage cover suggesting the affiliation to the royal household. Other burial items included his canopic chest and a set of three nested anthropoid coffins (one of which was not used), as well as food, remaining jewelry, bowls, vessels, games, weapons, and a copy of the Book of the Dead in which he appears as the dark-skinned deceased. Also included were two well-worked dog collars, but no dogs, suggesting that he may have been in charge of these animals during his life. One item from his funerary equipment is on display in the New Kingdom room at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts—a very finely cut gazelle-skin loincloth that was placed in a small box in his tomb. Various interpretations about this Nubian’s status have been offered, but it is most likely that he was a companion to a young member of a Dynasty XVIII royal family (perhaps of Hatshepsut or Tuthmosis IV?, rather than a son of a Nubian consort of the king. He was given the intriguing title of “Lion in the Battlefield.” MAKHI. See SEBNI, SABNI AND MAKHI, MEKHU.

MANETHO (323–245 BCE)

•

231

MAKURRA. See MUKURRA, MAKURRA, MAKOURIA, MAKOURIA, MUKURIA, AL-MUQURRA (ARABIC), MACCURITAE. MANDULIS, MARUL, MARUR, MENRULI, MERWEL (IN NUBIAN), AION (IN GREEK). Mandulis is the Greco-Roman common name for this Blemmye and/or Nubian sun god. The Greeks first sought to cultivate the worship of Mandulis as early as the third century BCE. The Romans continued this practice to honor and thereby win the loyalty and respect of the local Blemmyes. As the political motivation for celebration of this Blemmye god deepened, the Romans apparently sought greater control by developing an oracular tradition for this god that could be manipulated by their appointed priests. Mandulis was an important deity for religious pilgrimages and for oracular shrines in Greco-Roman times. The Roman practice of oracle shrines was similar to what Trajan also did in the Kysis temple at Dush in Kharga Oasis in the Egyptian Western Desert. Mandulis was a son of Horus and was thereby a part of the great OsirisIsis cosmogony. In this context, he can be shown with Isis. Mandulis was depicted as a local Nubian anthropomorphic sun god, and as such, he had some affinities to the sun god Re. He usually wears the composite plumed and horned atef crown. His best-known center of worship was at Kalabsha, where he was endowed with healing powers. Probably Kalabsha (ancient Talmis) was a Roman garrison town as well. Mandulis is also known at Dendur temple and in a mostly destroyed small Roman chapel at the eastern colonnade at Philae temple. The Kalabsha temple was probably first built in Dynasty XVIII, but it was reconstructed probably by Ptolemy V and Ptolemy X and especially by the Romans under Augustus. Mandulis was worshipped in Lower Nubia at least until the fifth century CE, when Justinian closed the Philae temple. MANETHO (323–245 BCE). Working from still existing king lists, this third-century-BCE historian-priest organized the chronology of ancient Egypt in his Aegyptica. This work was probably instigated by Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II in their efforts to collect knowledge from all known sources for the development of the great library of Alexandria. Manetho created the framework of 30 pharaonic dynasties that continues to be standard for the study of ancient Egypt and Nubia. Manetho was the Egyptian high priest at the temple of Sebennytos in the delta, and his work was luckily, but only partially, perpetuated by some of the early Christian priests who must have recognized its historic value and copied from his original that would have been lost. Such historians as Eusebius and Josephus also preserved some of the writings of Manetho so larger parts of his original work can be reconstructed.

232

•

MANJIL

Manetho is the source that gives Narmer as the first king of unitary Egypt. He also referred to Djer (or Athothis) who was among the very first Egyptians to attack Nubia. It was Manetho who spoke of the origins of Dynasty V as being from Elephantine and about Queen Nitocris whose name reappears in Dynasty XXV. Manetho suggests that Taharka may have been involved in a plot that killed Shabataka. Manetho’s records about the Hyksos also appear in the work of the Jewish historian Josephus. Manetho preserved many of the traditions of Dynasty XXV in his writings such as the destruction of Bakenrenef by Shabaka. The inclusion of astronomical events and king lists make the foundational work of Manetho key in calibrating the calendar of ancient Egyptian and Nubian history. MANJIL. Manjil is a title used by exceptionally important chiefs subject to the Funj sultans. The best-known manjils were the ‘Abdallab leaders around Gerri, which lies upstream of ancient Meroë, and may be derived from the Meroitic word qor or king, suggesting that this was the residence or capital of kings. The title manjil may also be of Meroitic origin. MARK, SAINT. This disciple and evangelist of St. Peter is credited with bringing Christianity to Egypt in 61 CE and founding churches in Alexandria during the rough reign of Roman emperor Nero. St. Mark had been born to a Jewish family from Cyrenaica in Libya, but he grew up in Jerusalem. His first convert was reported to be Anaias, a Jewish shoemaker from that city. St. Mark traveled to Rome where he stayed until 64 CE, when he returned to Alexandria. There an enraged anti-Jewish crowd set upon him perceiving he was responsible for a desecration of the local Serapis bull cult temple. He was captured, beaten, and dragged to his death in the streets of Alexandria in 68 CE. Other records about this very early time are deficient, and the earliest clear ideas about Egyptian Christianity under the Romans are usually attributed to Origen. The papal line of Monophysites descended from the See of St. Mark. Relics of St. Mark are reported in Venice and in the Cathedral of St. Mark in Alexandria, and icons of Mark are very common in the Nile valley. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. MASH. This Nubian sun god is known only from his cult found at Karanog (Nalote) where tombs and a temple give evidence of this deity. The modern Nubian word for sun, mashil, suggests some continuity from this past god. MASHWASH (MA). The Mashwash were of Libyan (Libu) origin. They were, alternatively, of military value or a military threat to New Kingdom Egyptians, particularly in the Western Desert and in the delta; elsewhere they

MATRIARCHY, MATRILINEAL

•

233

were used as mercenaries in the Egyptian army. Apparently it is Mashwash chiefs who were depicted among New Kingdom tribute payers such as at Medinat Habu. The Mashwash were usually drawn showing their characteristic sidelocks, curled long beards, and penis sheaths. If this understanding is correct, Mashwash may be a general term for specific Libyan peoples such as the Tjehenu and Tjemehu. Alternatively, these may all be local or regional names for different Libyan peoples. It also appears that Mashwash of some variety were a periodic danger to oasis routes and to western Thebes. Judging from the Kawa inscription of Taharka, the Mashwash were a threat that he needed to address with punitive measures. MASMAS. The site of Masmas is located in Lower Nubia on the west bank of the Nile just downstream from Toshka West. In the Second Intermediate Period, Masmas was the home of a late C-Group population that used a small cemetery there. The graves were small and round with some flex burials and simple C-Group pottery. It was reoccupied in Dynasty XVIII of the New Kingdom. The cemetery site 201 at nearby Nag Fahrki from the early New Kingdom had ceramic vases and jars, simple necklaces, and scarabs with hieroglyphic inscriptions. The sites at nearby Khor Kokmar and Khor Dambusia on the east bank of the Nile are dated to the same time. Meroitic tombs at Masmas had their customary polychrome painted pottery with flowered and geometric designs and ankhs, and some had images of frogs, birds, and humans. Some pottery with shells embedded into moist clay was found. A Spanish team reconstructed a Meroitic tomb from Masmas that was in the form of a mastaba with a chapel annex with a provision for a modified ba-statue and Meroitic-inscribed offering tablets for funerary libations. This style was similar to contemporary Meroitic graves at Karanog. At Nag Sawesra, near to Masmas, the Spanish investigated a very early Christian cemetery. Christian tombs there were of considerable stylistic variation, including one double-ended grave with multiple burials. A stone funeral marker written in Coptic was in this context. L. P. Kirwan and Walter Emery investigated Masmas in the early 20th century. The Spanish excavation was by Martin Almagro, Eduarado Ripoll, and Luís Monreal Graves during the Nubian salvage campaign from 1960 to 1962. MATRIARCHY, MATRILINEAL. A considerable amount of discussion has been generated about the reputed presence of matrilineal kinship in ancient or modern Nubia. Technically, matrilineal descent means the tracing of descent—as in family names and property—only, or primarily, through the female line. Often this is conflated or confused with matriarchy and even matrilocality, which relate, respectively, to public power and post-marital

234

•

MATRIARCHY, MATRILINEAL

residence. Certainly, matrilineal kinship is known in several places in Africa, such as the Ashanti in modern Ghana and for several ethnic groups in the “matrilineal belt” of Central Africa. Matrilineality does also correlate with horticultural societies and those in more egalitarian social relations, especially with a lesser role for moveable wealth, particularly in the form of large livestock that might be in the hands of men. Matrilocality can occur when men are consistently absent and local residence and decision making defaults to women. With this as background, the ancient or modern anthropological evidence for strictly matrilineal descent in Nubia is weak. However, several areas in Nubian social practice are indicative of a relatively high status of women and an important role for women in legitimating men and society. Perhaps the oldest evidence for a high status of women is from the A-Group, where the burial of one woman had the greatest endowment of grave goods. In addition, during the A-Group female figurines are commonly found in burials. In dynastic Egyptian times, there are a few regnant women, such as Nitocris, Sobekneferu, and Hatshepsut, who came to power in weak or transitional times. Little is known about social and gender relations in Kerma times, but certainly the sacrifice of humans such as captives or slaves, especially women, is problematic. As for royal women, sisters, and wives, the record is mute. However, in Dynasty XXV and Napatan times, there are a number of very high ranking positions for women, including the God’s Wife of Amun (Divine Adoratrice of Amun) and the consultative and legitimating role of the mother of the king. In Meroitic times, the record of women as rulers or matriarchs becomes much clearer with some eight cases of regnant and coregnant queens who come to the throne as their husband predecease them or they rule in their own names, especially at times of military or political crisis. Among other possibilities, these include Amanikhatashani, Amanirenas, Amanishkhete, Amanitore, and Shanadakete, as well as three other anonymous queens who are buried in Bejrawiya pyramids 4, 25, and 26. Apparently these were fully regnant or coregnant queens and not just wives of kings. Legitimacy through women was also seen in the institution of the God’s Wife of Amun, which was neither started by nor ended with Nubians but was certainly followed closely during the period of Dynasty XXV. Likewise the status of “royal mother” of Napatan and Meroitic kings seems significant, not to mention the title candace (kdi-qo), meaning “royal woman” in Meroitic. Thus Nubian women could hold the title of regnant queens, royal mothers, God’s Wives of Amun, and queen consorts, all indicating their elevated position. Yet descent cannot be described in any real way as truly matrilineal, and confusion exists since, within the royal family at least, endogamy and sibling marriages were

MEDJAY, MATOI, MAZOI, MḌA’A, MEDJAYIU (PL.)

•

235

common; hence there is a perception that descent was through women. The evidence of post-marital residence and lines of descent for nonroyal people is essentially absent. No case of a regnant queen is seen in X-Group or Christian times in Nubia, although some manipulation of kinship may have been used in the transition from Christianity to Islam. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. MEASURES. There are many missing, or imperfectly known, measures in use in ancient or medieval times. The Coptic calendar and flood seasons gave an idea of the annual passage of time. Sundials and marked candles were known in Meroitic times, so they may have continued. Bulk dry measures for grain or dates used the ardeb, which was equal to about 200 liters. The qintar was equal to roughly 100 pounds. The rotl was equal to around one pound. The dinar was a gold coin or changeable value, and the one-eighth-ounce dirham was minted in silver. Land was measured by habls, or ropes of a fixed length, for irrigated gardens. It is not clear when feddans were introduced to measure field areas. MEDJAY, MATOI, MAZOI, MḌA’A, MEDJAYIU (PL.). Medjay is just one of the variant spellings of this semi-settled ethnic group located especially in the Nubian Desert between the Nile and the Red Sea. They were also found west of the Nile in the Libyan Desert but probably in lesser numbers. In the accounts of Merenre of Dynasty VI, they are termed the “Matoi,” and they were very highly valued as soldiers in the Egyptian army. The Coptic language preserved the word matoi to mean “soldier.” At that time, the Medjay were reported as living “east of Yam and south of Wawat.” Intermediary groups of Irtet and Setiu between Wawat and Yam were also recognized during the time of Merenre who claimed authority over them. It appears that they have had virtually continuous occupation of this region for as much as 5,000 years if not longer. They are probably the same as the people known archaeologically as the Pan-Grave culture, so-called for the shape of their shallow flex burials. The Medjay’s ancient hostility or rivalry with the settled Nubians often meant that there was an inherent division that could be exploited by the rulers of Egypt. Consequently, the Medjay have been long employed by Egyptians or the rulers of Egypt as scouts, border guards, and police especially in this region, but throughout Egypt as early as the Middle Kingdom under Senusoret III. An interesting case noted in the Old Testament is that of Meluha alNehesi who was probably a Medjay chief serving in the security of the eastern delta and was involved with the holding and returning of King Yemani back to Sargon II. This would be congruent with the ancient reference to

236

•

MEINARTI

Medjay as typically synonymous with police or judicial administrators. When they served as mercenary troops, they were especially noted for their fast infantry or, later, cavalry attacks from the desert that offered strategic advantage over the settled peoples. After the arrival of wheeled military chariots, the Medjay were very proficient in their use. In fact, Medjay troops were critical in the first half of the 16th century BCE in support of the efforts of Kamose and Ahmose to drive away the Hyksos and establish the New Kingdom. The alliance between the Hyksos and Kerma suggests that Nubians were hostile to the Medjay role in asserting five centuries of New Kingdom colonization of Nubia. There is evidence that Tuthmosis III used Medjayu as garrison troops in his New Kingdom forts in Nubia and elsewhere. During the time of Akhenaton in the 14th century BCE, his “police chief” Mahu was likely of Medjay origin. Records from the workers’ village at Deir al-Medina show that Medjay guards were used for security detail in the Valley of the Kings. Their service was not limited to the Eastern Desert, and their military use was also seen in the Western Desert oasis patrols such as at Dungul, Kurkur, and elsewhere, and raids against Libyan incursions into the western oases in particular. Since one of their local deities was Dedun, the Medjay were sometimes known simply as the Dedu, or followers of this patron god. In the Middle and New Kingdoms, some pharaohs build specific shrines or temples, such as at Semna to honor Dedun, and curry the favor of the local Medjay. Occupying an intermediary position between Egyptians and Nubians, the Medjay were used in divide-and-rule strategies of regional control. In GrecoRoman times, the people of this region were termed either Troglodytes (“Cave Dwellers”) or Blemmyes. In post-Meroitic times when the Noba intruded into this region, it was probably Medjay or Blemmyes (later termed X-Group or Ballana people) who were subordinated if one may judge correctly from the King Silko inscription at Kalabsha temple. Today these same peoples are those known ethnographically as the Bisharin in Egypt or Beja peoples in Sudan. They belong to the Tu-Bedawie or Cushitic language group. Today they are heavily Arabized and Islamized, but they still retain various aspects of their independent culture. MEINARTI. Meinarti is a flat alluvial island located in Lower Nubia near the Second Cataract between Buhen and Mirgissa. It was used as a military relay fort during the New Kingdom. In Meroitic, post-Meroitic, and Christian times, it featured a small agricultural village that measured more than onequarter of a hectare (roughly half an acre). Also known as the “Island of Michael,” this island was reoccupied during the Meroitic period and continued to be used through the Middle Ages (200–1400 CE). It was also used during the Ballana and X-Group periods; much of what we know about Ballana village life comes from this site. Among its duties, Meinarti served

MENTUEMHAT, MONTUEMHET

•

237

as a customs post, marking the northern front of the Lower Nubian free-trade zone and the Upper Nubian closed zone. The original Meroitic settlement consisted of various public buildings, such as temples, market areas, and winepresses, all surrounded by houses. The winepress is one of a dozen in the region. However, it is one of only two indoor presses; another is featured at Wadi el-Arab. The stratigraphy of Meinarti provides valuable information on its social and economic changes from beginning to end. Floods during its long uninterrupted existence repeatedly damaged Meinarti. MEK (MAK, MEEK). Mek is a title used by some traditional chiefs in Sudan. Mek is likely a term of Meroitic origins meaning a local king. A very late use of this term was for Mek Nimr, the king of Shendi (near Meroë), who was famous for his resistance to the Turkish invasion in 1821. MEKHER. This is an ancient reference to an imprecise region in Nubia that was mentioned in the trade expeditions of Harkuf. Perhaps it was in the vicinity of the Second Cataract. MEMPHIS. Memphis has an extremely ancient history in the Nile valley as it served as the first capital of a unitary Egyptian state. Its deep traditions, necropolis, and iconography have long been important in Egyptian religion and history. Since Memphis was at the southern point of Lower Egypt, its practical relationship with Nubia was remote, but it was certainly venerated as a holy place by Nubians. Memphis figures more directly in Nubian history when it was involved in Piankhy’s takeover of that city and the delta in the formative period of Dynasty XXV. Seeking legitimization, the Nubian pharaohs of this dynasty used Memphite traditions such as the coronation of Apis bulls and frequent reference to Ptah, especially by Shabaka. In the closing years of Taharka, Memphis proved to be a battleground where the Assyrians assaulted the walls and Taharka’s son was captured and taken back to Nineveh as a prisoner. MENTUEMHAT, MONTUEMHET. Mentuemhat was the governor or mayor of Thebes during dynasties XXV and XXVI. As such, he saw, or participated in, the glories of its monumental construction, especially during the long reign of Taharka as well as its ignominious defeat and sacking under the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, who finally reached that royal religious center in 664 BCE. Unlike Horemakhet, who was of Nubian origin, Mentuemhat appears to have been Upper Egyptian in origin. While Horemakhet was serving as the High Priest of Amun at Thebes, Mentuemhat was probably serving under the lesser title of the fourth Priest of Amun. One of a dozen known sculptures of Mentuemhat was found at the Mut temple in

238

•

MENTUHOTEP II (R. CA. 2060–2010 BCE)

Karnak. The effort to portray him realistically reveals him as a burdened, somber, heavy, and unsmiling figure. The limited effort to rebuild Dynasty XXV under Tanutamun was also within the experience of Mentuemhat as was the birth of Dynasty XXVI under Psamtik I. Remarkably he survived until year 14 of that pharaoh whose task had been the eradication of Taharka. When Mentuemhat died, he was given a huge and stately mud-brick tomb (TT 34) with a sun court in the Asasif in the western necropolis. Like Dynasty XXV, his tomb incorporated conservative themes inspired from the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom. MENTUHOTEP I. Little is known about this purported Theban nomarch, who may have ruled a portion of Upper Egypt during the First Intermediate Period or in very early Dynasty XI before the political reunification of the Egyptian Nile. This was around 2135 BCE perhaps prior to Intef I and before Mentuhotep II. MENTUHOTEP II, MENTUHOTPE II, NEB-HETEP-RE (r. ca. 2060–2010 BCE). This pharaoh of Dynasty XI is credited with the complete restoration of the unity of the Nile that marked the formation of the Middle Kingdom. For this reason, Mentuhotep belongs in the same category as Narmer and Ahmose as all three were founders of major periods in Egyptian history. Following the pattern of Nile political relations, when Egypt is strong it is usually a difficult time for Nubia. This would also be the case for Mentuhotep II. After the civil strife and collapse of the unitary Egyptian state in the First Intermediate Period, power began to reemerge in a series of Theban kings: Intef (or Inyotef) I (r. 2134–2117 BCE), Intef II (r. 2117–2069 BCE), and Intef III (r. 2069–2060). The precise transition and specific battles that led from Intef to Mentuhotep II are not well understood. Well into his reign, in around 2040 BCE, Mentuhotep II’s forces managed to retake Heracleopolis or, at least, to reassert Theban control over the previous rivals in the later First Intermediate Period during dynasties IX and X. With Upper Egypt under his authority, he was able to proceed with military engagements in the western delta with the Libyans and with “Asiatics” in the Sinai. Thus Mentuhotep II is credited with rebuilding the unity of Upper and Lower Egypt between 2050 and 2040 BCE and becoming the real founder of Dynasty XI, which ushered in the Middle Kingdom. It appears that Mentuhotep II, the son of Intef III and Queen Yah (Aoh), came to rule Thebes and its vicinity. It is possible that Mentuhotep II was of Nubian origin if one judges from the images in his statuary and the images of his favorite wives. Assuming this to be the case, it is not clear if his Nubian roots were inherited from Intef III or Yah or both. One of the most celebrated statues of Mentuhotep II, now in the Egyptian National Museum in Cairo,

MENTUHOTEP II (R. CA. 2060–2010 BCE)

•

239

shows this pharaoh seated in an Osiride posture with his arms crossed. No doubt he had held a flail or royal implement in his hands. He had the false beard of pharaonic authority and the double crown signifying that he was “Lord of Two Lands.” Unlike most former or successive pharaohs, his skin was shown as black. Some commentators believe this color symbolizes his Osiride rebirth (such as black-colored funerary statues of Tutankhamun who was not Nubian), but other evidence that surrounds Mentuhotep II suggests that his black skin indicates a Nubian origin even if he had Egyptian interests there. This was certainly the basic model in Dynasty XXV more than a millennium later when Nubians came to rule all of Egypt but Egyptianized themselves in the process. His complex and changing titulary having three different Horus names is also indicative of someone struggling for legitimacy. The very name Mentuhotep (“Montu is [praised] or content”) reflects his reverence to the Theban war god Montu who was invoked because of the military struggle that established his reign. This can also be reflected in the wooden models showing ranks of Nubian and Egyptian spearmen and archers found in Assiut, in Middle Egypt in the tomb of Mesehti. The focus on military matters is also clear in the nearby burial of some 60 of his soldiers, many with war-related injuries, in a tomb near to that of Mentuhotep II at Deir al-Bahri. These military themes suggest the degree of force required to reassert his state power over regional authorities or nomarchs at this time. Very late in his reign, expeditionary inscriptions in Lower Nubia and in Middle Egypt support this record of military conquest to restore Egyptian control. The Egyptian reference to “Kush” begins to appear at around this time, but for this book independent “Kerma” is used until its destruction in the New Kingdom. For these military missions, Mentuhotep II used mercenaries from both Libya and Nubia as shown in the Mesehti tomb models. Mentuhotep II’s interests in Nubia were to restore trade and military security, as well as reopen the access to Nubian gold mines and quarries of hard stone. During the First Intermediate Period, Nubians from Kerma had restored the C-Group occupation of Lower Nubia, and they had initiated the development of this most ancient large-scale Nubian state. But with the Middle Kingdom Egyptian reconquest of Lower Nubia, the former C-Group people were either dispersed or subjugated. Certainly, Mentuhotep II raided in this region. During his reign, he brought in steady peaceful commerce to areas in Lower Nubia, to lands west of the Nile, and to the Sinai; he also ushered in a resumption of the timber trade to Phoenicia, as well as incense trade to Punt via the Red Sea. During the Middle Kingdom, Egyptians reasserted their control of most of Lower Nubia with a series of heavy military fortifications, especially at the Second Cataract during the following Dynasty XII under Senusoret III. Mentuhotep II appears to have personally engaged in the restoration of trade in

240

•

MENTUHOTEP II (R. CA. 2060–2010 BCE)

ivory, incense, feathers, and slaves, as well as gold mining and stone quarrying in Nubia. His administration there may have included the recruitment of the Nubian archers in addition to the Nubian servants in his royal household and his family members noted below. Mentuhotep II’s constructions are numerous but are primarily found in Middle and Upper Egypt. In Nubia, at Elephantine he constructed a temple to the Nubian triad of Khnum, Satet, and Anqet. Most notable of all was his major mortuary temple on the west bank of Thebes that was excavated in the early 20th century by H. E. Winlock. This temple is often overlooked today since it was smaller than the later temple of Hatshepsut, which was of Dynasty XVIII and was not present at the time of Mentuhotep II. Perhaps some of the stone from the Mentuhotep II temple was used in her temple. The very impressive mortuary temple and tomb for Mentuhotep II rested upon a huge terraced stand that was reached by a central ramp to the raised colonnaded forecourt of the mortuary temple. There was some sort of superstructure, perhaps a pyramid, at the center of this forecourt. Whether it was a stepped or smooth pyramid or some other form has not been resolved. At the base of the ramp, a cenotaph and avenue of sculpture are presumed, but this is still under debate. There is evidence of planted trees or gardens along this avenue. This complex then extended back through a hypostyle hall into a rock-cut sanctuary chamber for the king. Immediately behind arose the majestic cliffs of Deir al-Bahri. Beneath the temple and buried still deeper into the cliffs of Deir al-Bahri was his burial chamber. Access to the royal tomb was from a tunnel cut into the plain in front of the huge temple base. Inside it had a peaked roof and his alabaster sarcophagus. It was there that Howard Carter found the famed statue of Mentuhotep II. The temple was roughly 140 meters long. The architectural style of incorporating forward tunnels into and under funerary temples or pyramids was later readopted in Napatan royal burials. At the rear of his mortuary temple are the shaft burials of six royal consorts and his mother. Among these are his royal queen and sister Neferu. This is similar to Nubian patterns (elaborated in Dynasty XXV) when a king’s sister was also the God’s Wife of Amun at Thebes. Relative to his possible Nubian origins, his consort-sisters, Amunet, Kawit, and Kemsit, were also buried at this same location. The last two are shown with a dark skin while being served by lighter-skinned Egyptian women servants who are grooming their mistresses while smelling a fragrant lotus. This color iconography gives additional weight to the family being of Nubian origin. These are both referred to as the “Sole Favorite of the King.” Their status, even if not queenly, was clearly high judging from the scale, quality, and image of their portraits. His daughter (?), Princess Ashayt, is also shown with dark skin, not like Egyptians, and is also seated comfortably sniffing the fragrance of a lotus. His consort Tem is believed to have been the mother of his son, and successor, Mentuhotep III. Tem’s tomb is the largest of these

MENTUHOTEP II (R. CA. 2060–2010 BCE)

•

241

royal women, and her sarcophagus of alabaster is said to be most impressive. The high prominence for the queen mother is a practice that strongly persisted among Nubian royalty ruling from, or originating from, Napata. Even in the famed and very detailed tomb models for Mentuhotep’s Chancellor Meketre, one sees Egyptians and Nubians differentiated by skin color. For example, the herdsmen in the well-known livestock-tallying model are clearly Egyptian, while the carpenters are painted with skin colors of Nubians. Thus, in addition to the military and political context of Mentuhotep II as well as his coloring, the kinship and depiction of his related royal wives give further support to his Nubian origins. These graphic depictions of Mentuhotep II and his wives, the critical use of Nubian troops, and his conservative emphasis suggest that this founder of the Middle Kingdom may have played a similar role as Nubian king Piankhy in later times. MENTUHOTEP III, SANKHKARE (r. 2010–1998 BCE). Mentuhotep III was the son of the famed and long-lived Mentuhotep II in Dynasty XI. Given the 51 years of the reign of his father, Mentuhotep III was likely rather old when taking the Egyptian throne in the Middle Kingdom. He was noted for supporting an expedition to Punt on the Red Sea, maintaining the Middle Kingdom fortresses in Nubia, as well as an imaginative but unfinished mortuary temple at Deir al-Bahri. He died in 1998 BCE and was followed by Mentuhotep IV (r. 1998–1991), which terminated Dynasty XI and initiated Dynasty XII under Pharaoh Amenemhat I (r. 1991–1962 BCE). MERENRE, NEMTYEMSAF (r. 2283–2278 BCE). This third Egyptian pharaoh of Dynasty VI was sandwiched between Pepi I and Pepi II. He followed similar policies for Nubia. Under the instruction of Merenre, five additional canals were constructed through the First Cataract to allow easier access to the human, natural, and animal resources of Wawat and Yam. In year 5 of the reign of Merenre, he actually appeared in Elephantine to receive the subordinated Nubian (C-Group?) chiefs representing Wawat, Irtet, and the Medjay who were valued as soldiers for Egypt. They were pleased that only one warship was needed for protection to have access to the granite quarries of Nubia in order to procure suitable stone for his sarcophagus and pyramid at Memphis. Upon his father’s death, Merenre appointed Uni as the governor of the south who also held the title of “keeper of the door of the south” since the military and economic control of Nubia was a significant feature of this administration. It was also under the rule of Merenre that Harkuf was first appointed as the governor of the south to replace Uni. Under Pepi II, Harkuf

242

•

MERKURIUS, MERCURIUS, KING

continued to organize large and long trade expeditions to Kerma. The mummified head of Merenre (without the lower jaw) still resides in the Cairo Museum. MERKURIUS, MERCURIUS, KING. Merkurius was the single monarch of the joined kingdoms of Dongola (i.e., Mukurra and Nobatia) during the reign of Eparch Markos of Nobatia who represented the crown at Faras. These kingdoms were unified under his rule in the late seventh century CE (ca. 697 CE) to improve their defensive position against Muslims expanding in Egypt. With this strong defense, he was sometimes termed the Constantine of Nubia. Egyptian Muslims referred to the “Kingdom of the Nuba” to define this newly unified state. The more exposed territory of Nobatia had already, and exclusively, signed the peace treaty or baqt with Egypt, and it is clear they needed additional alliances with Mukurra. King Merkurius is known from an inscription in his 11th year (707 CE) in the five-aisled church of Faras. He is also known from an inscription in his 13th year from Tafa. Despite this geographical and religious isolation, King Merkurius persisted in following the Monophysite faith of the Alexandrian patriarch. Although in line of royal descent, Merkurius’s son Zacharias did not assume the throne, preferring more religious duties, and the crown of the joint Christian kingdom passed to King Simon. MERNEPTAH, MERENPTAH (r. 1212–1202 BCE). Merneptah was a son of the great Ramses II. Merneptah was the first pharaoh of Dynasty XIX, and during his reign, there was a concerted effort by Libyans to organize a revolt. Part of their strategy was to gain control of the delta and the western oases while encouraging a joint revolt in Nubia. This was to have paralleled the strategy of Kerma and the Hyksos that did succeed three centuries before to isolate Egyptians to the Thebaid. However, a preemptive strike by Merneptah defeated the Libyans; the Nubian revolt went ahead but without surprise or allies. Merneptah then turned the largest portion of his forces against his southern rivals. Lower Nubia had been rather peaceful for most of the time of his father Ramses II, and Merneptah was to set a stern example by crushing the Nubian opposition. MERNUA. See ASPELTA (r. 593–568 BCE). MEROЁ (ca. 270 BCE–ca. 340 CE). Meroë is the general name for the state that prevailed in Nubia from the early third century BCE until its close in about 340 CE. As far as it is presently understood, Meroë represents a linear dynastic sequence from the earlier Napatan state that is a continuation from Dynasty XXV or even before. At some point in the third century BCE, the

MEROЁ (CA. 270 BCE–CA. 340 CE)

•

243

capital was moved from Napata to Meroë, which initiated the Meroitic period when the reigning monarchs were no longer buried in the royal cemeteries around Napata but instead were buried in the southern and northern pyramids of the royal necropolis of Bejrawiya at Meroë, on a dramatic ridge to the east of the main modern highway. To the west of the highway and closer to the royal city is the western burial ground of generally smaller pyramids. It was long supposed that this was for the graves of the nonroyal elite. While inscriptions are limited, Claude Rilly applied the principles of paleoepigraphy and stylistic change and confirmed that these were the graves of ranking local officials, not the tombs of the imperial elite buried nearby on the ridge to the east. Meroë persisted until its deteriorating economy, and perhaps ecology, made it susceptible to foreign aggression. In this instance, the attack came from the newly formed Christian kingdom of Axum led by King Ezana. Patrice Lenoble believes that Hobagi represented a weak effort to perpetuate the Meroitic leadership; without inscriptions, this case remains plausible but not proven. In around 315 BCE, King Nastasen was probably the last Kushite to be buried near Napata at Nuri pyramid 15. At the death of King Arkamani (r. 270–260 BCE), he became the first to be buried at Meroë (Bejrawiya), near modern Shendi. Thus it was apparently between the reigns of Nastasen and Arkamani that the Kushite capital was shifted from Napata to Meroë. At Meroë, the Kushitic traditions continued for another 600 years, long after the “mother society” of dynastic Egypt had vanished. Notable features of Meroitic society were the expansion of Meroitic writing; the continued construction of smaller pyramids in Nubia/Sudan (but later and a greater number than even in Egypt); the export of cattle, elephants, and other livestock to the Greeks and Romans; and the significant production of iron implements. Certainly Meroë existed as a trading center during the Napatan period. Among its many prominent features was an Isis temple, an Apedemek temple, large city walls, a royal compound, and impressive hills of iron slag that must have been produced there in great quantity over a long period of time. To the west of the royal palace 295, there was a “royal bath” at Meroë that has long drawn attention of archaeologists, first by John Garstang who excavated it to depth and found striking sculpted figures. In recent years, HansUlrich Onasch and Simone Wolfe have investigated the three-channel water supply system that seems to have come from a well and then to the basin/ bath. Aside from original construction, the bath was repaired twice, and the original floor was replastered three times. When service attendants wished, the entire water could be drained out in the southwest corner and thence under the massive city wall that was installed before the bath was built. Nonroyal cemeteries for dignitaries and elites lie nearby to the east, and the royal cemeteries of Bejrawiya South and North lie still farther to the east on a ridge. Numerous temples and other buildings dot the landscape.

244

•

MEROITIC: DECIPHERMENT

In a more comprehensive and stylistic sense, Meroë may refer to the socalled Island of Meroë or the Butana region of eastern Sudan. As such, it includes the other important sites of the same period such as Naqa, Musawwarat es-Sufra, and Basa, as well as sites occupied as far away as Lower Nubia that are certainly related judging from common ceramic traditions and Meroitic inscriptions. Facing economic and ecological challenges in the early fourth century CE, as well as incursions by the eastern Beja people, Meroë was vulnerable to attack, and sometime well before 350 CE, the Christian Axumites from Ethiopia invaded and destroyed Meroë. After Meroitic civilization ended, it was replaced by the syncretic X-Group peoples (the Ballana or Tanqasi cultures). The ancient Sudan was over, and it entered another “dark age” that lasted until the rise of the Christian kingdoms in the sixth century CE. MEROITIC: DECIPHERMENT. The historical analysis of the rise of Meroitic writing is essential in forming the strategies for the decipherment of Meroitic. Epigraphers still wish to find a substantial bilingual text in Meroitic to compare to the famed bilingual Rosetta Stone critical in Egyptian hieroglyphic decipherment. Such is still possible since the Meroites and Greeks were in prolonged interaction. Perhaps some extensive bilingual texts in Meroitic demotic, Greek, Latin, or Axumite may be found in Meroë to help. Yet, it is sometimes forgotten that the Rosetta Stone for Egyptian hieroglyphics and demotic only started the process of decipherment. This second and much slower process was possible through the many cognates between ancient Egyptian and Coptic. Thus, the transliteration of Meroitic letters has been achieved and is generally accepted. Another barrier for further advancement has been the debate about the linguistic affiliation with Meroitic and other cognatic languages especially in the absence of a long bilingual text. Early researchers had small lexical databases and few established written forms of modern Nubian dialects so that path grew cold, and many sources suggest that there is no relationship between Meroitic and modern Nubian dialects that belong to the Sudanic language family. There are some overlaps in modern Nubian dialects and Old Nubian (essentially a liturgical Nubian written in Coptic letters). Similarly there are some shared words and meanings between Old Nubian and Meroitic at least as far as this language is understood. Certainly they share many parallel phonetic patterns that make further comparisons worthwhile. Now using a sophisticated and very speedy computer program developed by Adam Gerard, Helene Longpre, Monica Ouelette, Kharyysa Rhodes, and Melissa Talbot a substantial lexicon with known meanings from Egyptian demotic, Old Nubian, and modern Nubian dialects has been created. The program rapidly searched for consonantal clusters and sequences that have some congruence with conventionally transcribed Meroitic words that now number well over 1,000. Certainly the

MEROITIC: DEMOTIC “CURSIVE”

•

245

process is not neat or linear, but it has found some cognates in these languages with Meroitic. This gives a basis for hypothesis generation and contextual testing in the absence of the sought-after bilingual text. This process is by no means complete, but it has been more productive than expected. The known meanings have been determined by contexts such as royal and official titles, funerary contexts, shared deities, toponyms, genders, numbers, and ethnicities so that one can be rather sure about the general meanings of texts while searching for intermediary words, grammatical rules, and spelling variations. The comparative computer-driven word search strategy noted here can at least generate new hypotheses for alternative or possible words that can proceed to fill in additional missing information. Considering that this is the oldest written African language on the continent, aside from hieroglyphics, the mission to decipher Meroitic has received some new impetus in recent years. Increasingly, scholars and members of the public are reexamining Nubian and African culture and history. Major steps in advancing this work have occurred with the pioneering effort by French scholars such as Jean Leclant to create the systematic computer-based system known as REM (The Collection of Meroitic Epigraphy) and with the huge effort by the Bergen, Norway, scholars including Tormod Eide, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce, and László Török, who have created the marvelous primary database known as the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum, which unifies most of the known written documents of ancient Nubian history. With these sources and computers, the problem of Meroitic will be solved one day. Refer to appendix 11. MEROITIC: DEMOTIC “CURSIVE”. Once Francis L. Griffith had his breakthrough with Meroitic hieroglyphs, he could relatively easily move to the next stage with the realization that every glyph had a corresponding demotic form, and by substitution and cross-checking this could be confirmed. Aside from some adjustments introduced by the computer age, Griffith’s system of transliteration (slightly adjusted) has been confirmed in numerous ways. Often the prevailing form of Meroitic is termed “cursive” for no very good reason since the letters have no linking ligatures as one should expect from a “running” or “cursive” script with ligatures. Moreover, the evolution from and morphological relationship between some Meroitic demotic letters and a number of Egyptian demotic letters suggest that the time has come to use the term demotic for both. Indeed, just as the morphology of Meroitic hieroglyphics is heavily influenced from classical Egyptian so was it the case for Meroitic demotic. This is not to say that the two languages are conceptually related but only in the Meroitic borrowing of some letter morphology. Before this time, the only written language ever used by Kushites was Egyptian hieroglyphs, hieratic and demotic. One may also speculate about the context for the rise of Egyptian demotic, which is either dated

246

•

MEROITIC: HIEROGLYPHIC ALPHABET

to Dynasty XXV or Dynasty XXVI. The borrowing of some demotic letters presages a similar process in rendering Old Nubian into Coptic or Greek letters. Again, this should not be understood to link these languages etymologically or conceptually but only to borrow a writing form during their common Christian periods. Another attempt was briefly made in the 19th or 20th century to render Nubian languages into Arabic letters. At present, some linguists and Nubian cultural promoters such as Herman Bell, Jalal Hashim, and Marcus Jaeger are seeking to transcribe and regularize modern Nubian in Latin or Coptic letters and with computer-assisted software like Shoebox. MEROITIC: HIEROGLYPHIC ALPHABET. Meroitic writing probably first appeared in the third century BCE, but clearly dated examples appear in the second century BCE. It continued until the fourth century CE. The precise creator of Meroitic is not known, but it emerged during the time of the Ptolemies and their construction of the famed library of Alexandria. This ancient think tank had a great thirst for documents in all foreign scripts and tongues, and it is reasonable to imagine that the Greeks might have had an important role in stimulating the production of this writing system. At least one of the Ptolemies (i.e., Cleopatra VII), may have had some ability to speak this ancient Nubian language. It was never used much north of Aswan, nor does it appear south of the confluence of the Niles and only slightly to the east of the Nile in the Butana heartland. Meroitic writing became known in the 19th century by the works of Frédéric Cailliaud and Franz Gau. But it was the pioneering work of F. L. Griffith that advanced our understanding from epigraphic inscriptions to transliteration. Following a strategy similar to that of Jean-François Champollion in his decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs, Griffith took full advantage of a very limited text from a bark stand found at Naqa in the Butana. This stand, now in Germany, had royal cartouches in an Egyptian hieroglyphic form that paralleled cartouches written in derivative Meroitic hieroglyphs. Through a meticulous process of substitution and corroboration, the Meroitic hieroglyphs were solved since several of the Meroitic hieroglyphs had ancient Egyptian counterparts that helped this process. Altogether this was actually a much less difficult transliteration than it was for hieroglyphs since that work had already been done, and Meroitic is virtually alphabetic with 20 monoconsonantal glyphs and only three syllabic glyphs. There are hardly any homophones, biconsonantal glyphs, or triconsonantal glyphs in Meroitic as there are in very many confusing cases in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Moreover, aside from the use of cartouches there are only rare instances of determinatives in Meroitic unlike hieroglyphics. In addition, Meroitic (like Ge’ez and Amharic) makes use of the clarifying double dot or rare triple-dot word dividers. They are absent in hieroglyphics and early Greek and Latin, and this had been an additional complexity for those languages. Moreover, Meroitic hieroglyphs are themselves quite rare

MEROITIC: NUMBERS

•

247

and are used chiefly for royal nomenclature. The usual form of Meroitic is in its “cursive”/demotic form. Meroitic hieroglyphs can be written only in two ways, from the top downward in vertical contexts, or from right to left. There are no instances of left to right or “mirror” writing in Meroitic as is the case for hieroglyphs nor boustrophedon writing as sometimes happens in Greek. Despite these important advances in the study of Meroitic epigraphy, only a very limited number of words have been translated, and these include names for kings and queens, some titled offices, cognatic deities, toponyms, and some personal names from funerary inscriptions. A copy of the Meroitic alphabet in hieroglyphs and cursive is provided in appendix 11, as well as a selected list of known words. MEROITIC: NUMBERS. The use of numbers in Meroitic inscriptions is featured in tribute lists that included such things as male and female captives and perhaps livestock, as well as in dates that sometimes appear at the end of long stele texts. Apparently, numbers are not known on hetep (funerary offering) tablets or on funerary stele but appear on a few long texts. Meroitic numbers usually operated on a base-10 system that was parallel in function to the Egyptian hieroglyphic system, and during Dynasty XXV and in the early Napatan period, Egyptian hieroglyphic numbers were used. Derek Welsby believes that Meroitic fractions were represented by a series of dots. With the emergence of demotic in Egypt during Dynasty XXV or Dynasty XXVI, the number system in Egypt and Nubia also shifted to the simplified demotic (enchorial) variety (i.e., it continued to be base 10 but with a special form of left-sweeping line under the numbers when shifting to 100s). Demotic numbers could be used in a common form for tallies or with an alternative marker when used in dates. Since early Greek, Latin, and Semitic languages used letters with a determinative as numbers, it is possible that Meroitic may have done likewise. The state of Meroitic translation does not allow this to be proven, but some untranslated Meroitic numbers suggest this possibility. On the other hand, Meroitic numbers as seen in Jebel Barkal inscriptions have a morphology that shows strong affinities to Indian Kharosti numerals known in the third and second centuries BCE. It was then that Meroitic was also in active evolution and development. The Kharosti system was the unusual base-four system that appears to have been incorporated in some Meroitic tally lists from Jebel Barkal. Both Meroitic and Kharosti languages died in antiquity. While the names of the numbers in hieroglyphics and its successor Coptic language are known, it cannot presently be confirmed that Old Nubian or modern Nubian are cognatic relative to the vocative terms for Meroitic numbers.

248

•

MEROITIC: WRITING

MEROITIC: WRITING. The history of Meroitic writing can only be sketched in general terms since much is still not known or understood. Nubian people during A-Group, C-Group, and Kerma times had been exposed to Egyptian hieroglyphic writing systems, but these three Nubian peoples/ phases did not accept any variant forms of hieroglyphics to record their own history, king lists, inventories, religious beliefs, or funerary practices. During the New Kingdom colonial occupation, Nubians were even more directly exposed to hieroglyphic inscriptions in their own lands. Yet during the early centuries of the Third Intermediate Period or Late Period when Nubia returned to Nubian control, they still did not write in this or other languages even though they resumed monumental burials at Kurru, but the names of these kings remain obscure until Alara and Kashta. Only when Nubians emerge fully on the scene as holders of state power along the Nubian and Egyptian Nile during Dynasty XXV do they write their own history, but in the conventional grammar and vocabulary of Egyptian hieroglyphics. At some point in the seventh century BCE, Egyptian hieroglyphics took a new, popular written form known as demotic. Demotic was a simplified and “speed-written” form of hieratic or hieroglyphic cursive. While hieratic retains apparent elements of hieroglyphics, demotic loses this clear morphological relationship even though it is still the ancient Egyptian language. Some scholars determine that this adaptation was during Dynasty XXV, while others believe it took place in Dynasty XXVI. In either case, Nubians in the Napatan period were exposed to both forms of hieroglyphics, and both continued through the Greco-Roman period thus providing a model for rendering Nubian languages into those forms when Meroitic finally emerged as its own form of writing. As much as it is unclear if Nubians or Saites should be credited for the transition to demotic, it is also unclear who should be credited for the emergence of Meroitic that also has hieroglyphic and demotic (cursive) forms. Several contexts for this can be considered during the third century BCE when the first Meroitic inscriptions begin to appear. First, the linguistic and political dominance of Egypt was much withered by this time. Second, the sense of Nubian nationalism was maintained in both Napatan and Meroitic times while Egypt was itself under Greek or Roman control. Third, the huge intellectual influence of the great Alexandria library may also have played a role. That is, this ancient think tank endeavored to collect texts and samples of all contemporary writing. They may have encouraged Nubians to render their own tongue into a written form, and it is well known that the Ptolemies and Meroites collaborated in many ways. Some classical sources say that even Cleopatra VII spoke some “Ethiopian” language. The famed Rosetta Stone was written in hieroglyphics, demotic, and Greek, and the hope to find an equivalent in Meroitic has been tantalizingly frustrating. A very short text was found at Jebel Adda, and a longer bilingual text was found on a bark

MESOLITHIC (KHARTOUM)

•

249

stand at Meroë, which allowed F. L. Griffith to reach major conclusions about transliteration of Meroitic as it was presented in association with the then known hieroglyphic signs. Meanwhile, Meroitic decipherment is slowly advancing, but a substantial bilingual text would certainly accelerate this process that can still proceed slowly by searching for cognates in such languages as demotic and Old Nubian. MEROWE. See SANAM. MERYMOSE. Merymose was the viceroy of Kush under his father, Pharaoh Amenhotep III, sometime after 1349 BCE when the former viceroy also called Amenhotep died or was replaced. Since this period of Dynasty XVIII in the New Kingdom was one of strong colonial rule, one concludes that Merymose was very effective in keeping Kushites under control and paying regular tribute. Rather little military activity in Nubia is known for this period. However, one hour-long engagement was recorded for Merymose at Ibhet where he killed 312 men (chopped hand count) and captured another 150 men, 250 women, and 175 children among a total of 740. The high number of men killed and the high number of women and children captured was typical for ancient patterns of slave raiding that did not need forced male labor but was more interested in domestic servants and concubines for the royal families. MESOLITHIC (KHARTOUM). This hunting, gathering, and grinding cultural horizon was first found in archaeological sites in and near Khartoum, hence its common name, but it was certainly widespread in Sudan, if not damaged by modern urbanization and agriculture. It is assumed that the lifeway was semisedentary, given improvements from the Paleolithic that included better food storage, better stone, bone tools, and, where possible, a heavy use of fishing and the riverine ecology that probably incorporated throwing sticks, fishing and birding nets, and bone harpoon heads. The climate at the time had substantially more rainfall to support grassland hunting of still abundant megafauna using refined microliths for harvesting, hunting, and food processing. Tools included a diversity of blades, flakes, grinders, borers, and scrapers. Unlike the Neolithic site at Shaheinab, no fishhooks are known for the Khartoum Mesolithic. These Mesolithic horizons possessed distinctive pottery that is among the oldest known in Africa and the Middle East. Relatively abundant food and clay led to needs for storage vessels. The unburnished pottery typically had a wavy-line pattern that evolved to combinations of wavy-line and dotted. It is proposed that the wavy lines were drawn with a section of a fish backbone onto wet clay. Some Mesolithic pottery had a conical or ovoid shape that was

250

•

MESOLITHIC (KHARTOUM)

prepared by a coil-method. Such shapes reappear in the A-Group fine-ware pottery that was also ovoid or pointed. It is possible that the Mesolithic pottery was invented by lining a basket with pressed and dried mud to improve its storage of liquids as with other pre-Nilotic peoples with whom they were related or descended. The firing of pottery may have taken place simply by moving the pottery close to firepits. Some pottery vessels were spherical, and others were conical or ovoid (like the A-Group). As pottery evolved, the coiling method was also used as is still done by some pre-Nilotic people who may likely be the modern descendants of these “Negroid” people. The distribution of this type of pottery extends considerably into the eastern Sahara such as at the sites at Nabta Playa (8500–3500 BCE). Rockerdecorated pottery, then rocker-dotted and wavy-line pottery, have been found there. Precise dating is difficult with only lithic and ceramic evidence, but some parameters by style and stratigraphy make for dates between 8000 to 4000 BCE, such as the early Mesolithic Qadan type or Shamarkian types to the late Mesolithic at Abka. A Spanish team has excavated Mesolithic horizons at Sheikh Mustafa and Al-Mahalab near Soba on the Blue Nile. Their strata date from around 5,700 to 4400 BCE. Other Mesolithic evidence is found at Saggai, Geili, Surourab, Shaqadud, and the Khartoum Hospital site. Domestication of hunting dogs was evolving, along with hunting and perhaps incipient domestication of cattle by 8000–7000 BCE and with hunting transitioning to domestication of goats (caprids) and sheep (ovides) arriving about 5000 BCE. Saharan grasslands could still support an easy life of pastoral nomadism at this time. Their strata date from around 5700 to 4400 BCE. The wavy-line type of pottery seems to decline in the late Mesolithic cultures, but zig-zag patterns persist into Neolithic pottery. As the Sahara desiccated further, the option of domestic animals became a necessity in the Neolithic, especially in Egypt, where the impacted riverine habitat launched incipient state formation from 4000 to 3000 BCE. To get the Mesolithic chronology in a more refined order, a four-phase sequence is proposed: Mesolithic I, 8300–7900 BCE; Mesolithic II, 7800–7200 BCE; Mesolithic III, 7200–6300 BCE; and Mesolithic IV, 6200–6000 BCE, but this awaits better ceramic typology and C-14 dates. The Khiday sites along the White Nile excavated by Donatella Usai and Sandro Salvatori have expanded our understanding of the range of the Sudanese Mesolithic with more knowledge of faunal and funerary remains, including elongated burials rather than flex burials. The site of Wad Shanaina in the northeastern central Gezira, somewhat closer to the Blue Nile than the White Nile, has been excavated by Mohammad Alfatih Hayati who estimated that it was late Mesolithic or early Neolithic. It does have typical wavy-line pottery, shells, bones, and grinding stones. Hayati noted that this site is at risk because of local use for sand quarrying. Mesolithic sites are also found in the Eastern Desert of Sudan.

MONOPHYSITE

•

251

MIAM. See ANIBA, ANIBEH, MIAM. MIDDLE KINGDOM FORTS. To protect the southern Egyptian border from possible attacks from Kerma and to control trade from that ancient state, the Old Kingdom and especially the Middle Kingdom built a strong series of fortifications along the stretch between the First and Second Cataracts in Lower Nubia, including those at Buhen, Diffinarti, Kubban, Kor, Meinarti, Mirgissa (to protect the Egyptian island settlement at Dabenarti), Semna West (to protect the fortified Egyptian settlements at Kumma and Semna East), Serra East, Shalfak (on the west bank and just downstream from the island fort at Uronarti). It is worth noting that most of these major forts were either on the west (left) bank of the Nile (to protect against Libyan attack as well) or they were on defensible islands as attested by the Nubian suffix -arti, meaning “island.” MIKET. This little known Nubian deity seems to have been celebrated mainly in the vicinity of the First Cataract. This deity is depicted at the Bait al-Wali temple of Ramses II where Miket is embraced by this pharaoh. MIRGISSA. Located at the strategic site at the Second Cataract, Mirgissa served as a frontier post, trade center, and river control point during the Middle Kingdom. Always nervous about attacks from Kerma, Mirgissa and Buhen fort just downstream were on alert in dynasties XI and XII. Because of its continued occupation, Mirgissa has the dominant central fort, but it also a town site and cemetery. Although not as significant as a military center in the New Kingdom, a small shrine to Hathor was built there at that time. MIU. Miu is an ancient place-name that appears to be in the vicinity of the Fifth and Sixth Cataracts or the Shendi region of modern Sudan or roughly from Kurgus to Sabaluka. Francis Geus believes that it was adjacent to Irem (Kerma) and could be defined as the Berber-Shendi reach on the east bank of today’s Nile or the northern portion of the Butana. MONOPHYSITE. The theological view of Monophysitism holds that Christ has wholly one divine rather than a parallel human nature. The humanity of Christ is excluded. This unitary view of Christ is that held by Egyptian Coptic Christians and their followers in Ethiopia and the medieval Christian Nubia. Although this is not the place for a major treatise on theological history, it is worth noting that the ancient Egyptian view of the highest, universal god Amun was that he was invisible or hidden and was simultaneously universal. This view of a singular god is maintained with Monophysitism. Likewise the relationship envisaged in ancient Egypt between god and

252

•

MONOPHYSITE

the apparently human pharaoh was that the pharaoh was virtually a deity who was born of the immaculate conception of Amun and his consort Mut. Since Monophysites believed that Christ was divine, he was a god in a manner similar to deities in their polytheistic past. This view was in opposition to that of the early Alexandrian Christian rivals, the Arians, who held that only god himself was divine and that Christ and the Holy Spirit were not. The effort to isolate the Arians in the 325 Council of Nicaea by Constantine I was welcomed by the Monophysites under their early Patriarch Athanasius in Alexandria as well as Monophysites in Syria and even in Constantinople. But despite his flexibility, the western Roman church was not inclined to be so accommodating of Monophysite views as eastern and western Christianity began their separate paths. Also the Roman church favored a unity of church and state that was opposed by the Monophysites. However, the initial plurality of views about Christ in the early Christian church gave way to Trinitarian orthodoxy as the church and the imperial state of Christian Byzantium solidified. Beyond the theological differences, another dimension of this dispute rested upon the political (and perhaps the linguistic and national) independence of Egypt. The marginalization of Alexandria was implicit by Christian Greeks ruling from Byzantium. Egyptian Monophysitism was a regional or national reaction to this perceived threat. Their more dominant Trinitarian view was that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit were all divine and that Christ thereby had “two natures” (i.e., Dyophysite), both divine and human. The issue of orthodoxy again came to a head in the 451 CE at the Council of Chalcedon near Constantinople where it was determined that the Monophysite view was also heretical—that is, the declaration that Christ had both a divine and human nature was rejected by the Monophysites. Operating on this renewed theology, the Byzantine church removed the Monophysite bishop from Alexandria and installed a Dyophysite, Bishop Proterus, as the patriarch of Alexandria. The Monophysites were hugely provoked by this heavy-handed approach of Byzantium, and when a religious mob murdered Patriarch Proterus, the seeds for this long-lasting division were deeply sown. A failed effort to resolve this division in 482 CE was initiated by Emperor Zeno with his moderate proposal known as the Henoticon, which accepted some Monophysite views. The death of Emperor Anastasius in 518 CE was a great blow, as he had been a devout Monophysite and had advanced its interpretation with appointments of Monophysites in eastern Christendom, where the followers of Byzantium became known as “royalists” (melikiya [Melkite], in Arabic). Without the leadership of Anastasius, fissures erupted between these Melkite believers and the Monophysite Copts as well. By 565 CE, Emperor Justinian had managed to maintain control in Byzantium and the eastern

MUKURRA

•

253

Mediterranean and was asserting himself in Egypt and North Africa from the eastern Maghreb to Cyrenaica that recovered from the Vandals. He advanced still more to take over southern Spain, as well as Italy that was recovered from the Ostrogoths. Egyptian Copts had not been diverted from their commitment to Monophysitism, and Justinian had to tread cautiously in this respect since he relied very heavily on the huge grain supplies from the Nile valley just like the Romans had in the past. Elsewhere he sought to expel those patriarchs with Monophysite views, but Egypt was handled more delicately. In fact, Egypt became a refuge for Monophysites being pursued elsewhere in the region. In 578 CE, Jacob Baraeus, a Monophysite from Antioch, carried on in with propagating Monophysitism with the support of Theodora. His involvement generated another name for the dispute that began to be termed as the movement of the Jacobites. But when Arabs entered Egypt in 640 CE with their new prophetic religion, the Coptic Egyptians were much divided. They were weakened by the three centuries of theological division between Byzantium and Rome (over the accommodation of the Henoticon); between Byzantium and Alexandria (Dyophysite “Chalcedonians” and Monophysites); and between Monophysites and Arians in Alexandria. Perhaps the still earlier heritage of Arianism already inclined them to see Christ and Muhammad in a similar light to humans with a divine mission. Today Coptic or Monophysite Christianity still prevails among a large minority in Egypt and Ethiopia. Christianity survived for about a millennium in ancient Nubia but had to wage a diplomatic and military struggle against Islamic expansion. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. MOUSTERIAN. See PALEOLITHIC. MUKURRA, MAKURRA, MAKOURIA, MAKOURIA, MUKURIA, AL-MUQURRA (ARABIC), MACCURITAE. Moving from Meroitic religion into the pre-Christian / post-Meroitic X-Group left Nubia in a receptive or vulnerable situation to allow Christianity to be rather rapidly instituted in a formal or institutionalized manner in the three Nubian kingdoms and their respective (capitals): Nobatia (Faras), Mukurra (Dongola), and Alwa (Soba). Certainly Christians as individuals were well known before, but once backed by the state, the traditions of Meroë and the X-Group such as pyramids and huge grave tumuli with grave goods were abandoned. Previous temples were converted to churches, and centuries of extensive building of new churches began.

254

•

MUKURRA

Precisely when Mukurra annexed Nobatia is not clear, but by 710 CE, Mukurran faith had turned to the Coptic patriarch of Alexandria, which was the more deeply rooted regional belief as the Byzantine opposition to Monophysitism was deepened, while a few Egyptian Christians still held Melkite views. Egyptians had a much deeper experience with monasticism, since they had suffered grievously from Roman repression as seen in their AM calendar for the Year of the Martyrs (e.g., 637 AM = 921 CE, or 732 AM = 1016 CE). On the other hand, monasticism played only a small role for Mukurra, which had converted much later and without the same Roman brutality. In the 10th century CE, some Nubian Christians even had recourse to their own monastery in Wadi al-Natrun in Egypt or at Abu Ghazala church/monastery in Nubia, and perhaps the Mukurran religious retreats were built by Coptic refugees from Egypt. So, in its earliest official times (ca. fifth to eighth centuries CE), this Christian kingdom emerged in Nubia after the fall of Meroë and the intervening X-Group period. After the suppression of Christians by Diocletian and the acceptance of Christianity by Constantine in the fourth century CE, Egyptians were free to exercise and spread their beliefs; however, Orthodox (Roman) Christianity was not accepted by the Monophysite Egyptian Copts, and tensions persisted. In the first third of the seventh century CE, Muslims arrived in Egypt, and as they promised security for, and respect of, the Copts as ahl al-kitab (“People of the Book”), they were generally welcomed. So it was during these times that early Christianity spread to Nubia in the form of three Christian kingdoms of Nobatia with its capital at Faras; Mukurra with its capital at Dongola (Tungul in Old Nubian); and Alwa, with its capital at Soba. After an early attempt of conquest, tensions between Muslim Egypt and Christian Nubia were negotiated by the pact (baqt) on nonaggression, trade, and mutual respect that was observed, more or less off and on, for about seven centuries, making it one of the most enduring agreements in the history of world diplomacy. In contrast to the neighboring states of Nobatia and Alwa, the rulers of Mukurra appear to have initially converted to Orthodox rather than Monophysite Christianity in Nubia in about 569 CE. However, when it merged with, or really annexed, Nobatia to create the unitary kingdom of Dongola in the 690s CE, it had adopted the Monophysite view under the Alexandrian patriarchate. This merger may also be contextualized by seeing that it gave more military strength to resist Muslim aggression by withdrawing farther into Nubia and by making the threatened buffer state of Nobatia as an integral part of the larger, less exposed, and more powerful state at Dongola. Certainly under King Merkurius of Dongola there was also a functional alliance with Alwa (Alodia) to the south that also had its security concerns with nomads and Axumites to the east across the Butana. Not surprisingly, this time and place allowed Mukurra to reach its climax, judging from the art

MUKURRA

•

255

and inscriptions, religious architecture, fine pottery, constructions, and territorial extent. Mukurra was probably at its height from the ninth to 11th centuries CE before its rule was again contested by Muslim encroachment. In 1172 CE or (888 AM), the king of Mukurra rode out on his horse to meet the Ayyubid Shams ad-Dawla, and this was essentially the start of a long slide toward Islamization and the beginnings of the end of Nubian Christianity. With the annexation of Nobatia to the north, Mukurra controlled areas from Egyptian Nubia (at Aswan) all the way through the Third Cataract and past the Fourth Cataract and perhaps as far as modern Abu Hamad or even upstream of that point until it reached the Abwab boundaries of the southern Christian kingdom of Alwa. Its commercial influence also stretched to the west to control the desert trade route from northern Kordofan and on to Selima Oasis with access to this route (the 40-Days Road) through Wadi Howar. By the mid to late 14th century CE, steadily increasing threats from Muslim Egypt, the internal struggles for power, nomadic attacks from the east and west, and trade that was shifting to the Red Sea were all factors for the weakening of the Christian kingdom at Mukurra and, ultimately, for Alwa as well. These made the Nubian state weaker and weaker and more vulnerable. In its final phases, Mukurra lingered on as the small kingdom of Dotawo (in Old Nubian) in the 14th and to the late 15th centuries CE as Islam swept through the region. Even Dotawo had disappeared by the mid-16th century CE when Nubia and other regions of Sudan were Islamized and Arabized. The pottery of Christian Nubia is durable and found in abundance throughout the region, especially at town and religious sites. It is widely considered as a rich and varied example of high-quality wheel-turned ceramics that built on the previous tradition of Meroitic turned fine ware. Ceramists usually divide the pottery into three historical periods. The first is from 550 CE to around the 650 CE Muslim invasion of Nobatia or to 750 CE with the Umayyad collapse. These events put Christian Nubia more on its own ceramics path especially at the major production facility at Faras. In this second period, lasting until 1100 CE, the pottery was painted with floral and zoomorphic scenes reminiscent of some Meroitic or Arabic patterns. The last period of declining Mukurra resumed more of the simpler Egyptian imports that perhaps relate to the trade and peace agreement of the baqt. Potteryfiring temperature skills had improved to give better control of colors. Aside from decorative and utilitarian pottery, other practical activities focused on basketry, weaving, and mat making and leather works as these materials were widespread. Metal working had a long history in Nubia, so this included gold, silver, copper, bronze, and iron ever since the earlier Meroitic times.

256

•

MUKURRA

The actual administration of the Nubian kingdoms raises many questions. Clearly the king and bishop were the top two officials, and the local eparchs appear to act as regional viceroys or governors in charge of local trade or taxation. In the frontier regions, the eparchs apparently dealt with diplomatic, and perhaps security, matters. However, the kings were endowed with a sacred mission, and the bishops supported the governance of the royal ruling class. There is no question that the Christian kingdoms were centralized states, but the degree to which their power devolved to the local level with princes or viceroys or the degree of “federalism” remains unclear. Since the history of Nobatia was truncated by being absorbed by Mukurra and since Alwa was more remote, the greatest knowledge is about Mukurra, which had some seven bishoprics. It appears that these bishops functioned under the authority of the Alexandrian patriarch rather than from the Nubian king. On the other hand, there certainly were many bishops of Nubian origins judging from their representations in mural art. The extent to which the titles and offices were hereditary may be more by practice and kinship more than by official obligation or recruitment. One may say that the king made appointments by his authority, while the bishops legitimated this authority. There are no known cases of regnant queens during Nubian Christianity, but the role of the queen mother and matrilineal descent has played a key role at times. As for a military, clearly there were defensive structures and placement as well as walled settlements. Nubian archers were famed for their accuracy, and horse-mounted lancers were known. But evidence about the command structure of armed citizens or an irregular militia is ambiguous, but perhaps there were at least Blemmye frontier guards and patrols at the periphery and in walled towns as well as bodyguards for the king. While this record is incomplete, a look at medieval Byzantine or Muslim governance, administration, and military will give general parameters. As with the entirety of Nubian or Sudanese history, the backbone of the Nubian Christian economy rested in agriculture, animal husbandry, and artisanal crafts. The very arid environment required irrigation by the annual flood of the Nile and then by lifting water with a man-powered shaduf or keeyay (in Nubian) balance beam and then since Greco-Roman times with a saqia or essikalay (in Nubian) or animal-powered endless geared-chain of pottery “buckets” to deliver still more water to the fields. The main food crops included sorghum, barley, dates, onions, and lettuce. Livestock included donkeys, camels, sheep, goats, pigs, cattle, and horses. Dogs and cats were also common. Non-currency trade in agricultural products and livestock was either local by barter or with Egypt, which had currency in contemporary Islamic times. Trade to the west to Darfur and to the east to Ethiopia certainly took place, but records of this are scarce. To the south, trade was for ebony,

MUKURRA

•

257

ivory, hides, and slaves as it had been for millennia. Slaves were a central part of the baqt that existed, more or less, throughout all of the period of Christian Nubia and certainly thereafter in Mameluke and Ottoman times. Mukurra officially came to an end as a Christian kingdom in 1317 CE when its principal palace was converted into an Islamic mosque, while Muslims had been in Nubia since the 10th century at least. A bishop still functioned at Faras, the former capital of Nobatia, and many Christian practitioners persisted in their beliefs and practices there and in Dotawo. The remaining Christian kingdom of Nubia of Alwa at Soba carried on until 1504. MUSAWWARAT ES-SUFRA. Musawwarat es-Sufra is the modern placename of one of the main archaeological sites of the Meroitic period of ancient Sudan. It is situated at the western fringes of the Butana, around 180 kilometers north of Khartoum and roughly 30 kilometers east of the Nile (N 16°24’, E 33°19’) in the Wadi es-Sufra. Some 14 complex ruins are scattered here in a circular shaped valley, circa 3.5 kilometers in diameter (Hintze 1982). The ancient place-name of Musawwarat was Aborepe (Hintze 1962a, 20). It must have played a significant role in the religious and political life of the Meroitic kingdom. Most of its ruins are remains of temples. However, there are secular buildings like the so-called Small Enclosure and other remains of the Meroitic period as well, for example, artificial water basins or hafir, stone quarries, and settlement areas. The cemeteries belong probably to later periods, since the only excavated is a post-Meroitic Noba cemetery. According to Hintze (Hintze and Hintze 1970, 50–63), building activity started in Musawwarat es-Sufra probably as early as the Napatan period. However, remains of these early buildings no longer exist. The predominant part of the preserved ruins was erected during the early and middle Meroitic periods—the prime of Musawwarat es-Sufra. The only sovereign known to have built in Musawwarat is King Arnekhamani (r. ca. 235–218 BCE). During the late Meroitic period, building activity was confined to repairs and preservation work. However, at least one of the buildings was reused in the Christian period. The predominant ruin complex of Musawwarat es-Sufra, the so-called Great Enclosure, is situated at the western side of the valley. This building complex, which covers an area of more than 42,800 square meters, belongs to the greatest examples of Meroitic architecture. Its main components, three temples( two of which are built on several-meter-high terraces), side chapels, and auxiliary rooms are interconnected by elevated corridors, having ramps leading down to a complex of 24 courtyards. Many features, like the general architectural design of the buildings, the ramps, and courtyards, and such, are known from Egyptian and Ptolemaic architecture. Other elements—like protomes of human- and animal-headed gods (Dreiköpfe) decorating the tem-

258

•

MUSAWWARAT ES-SUFRA

ple doorways, columns designed partially as sculptures and supported by animal-shaped column bases, and a parapet wall terminated by an elephant sculpture—lack any parallel throughout the Nile valley. The harmonic composition of all these elements makes the Great Enclosure a unique and marvelous example of genuine Meroitic architecture. The Great Enclosure’s main buildings were plastered and painted. Only few reliefs are preserved on columns in front of the central temple. They show the king in contact with gods—subjects known from ancient Egyptian temple relief iconography. However, the walls of the Great Enclosure are covered with thousands of graffiti that originate from the Meroitic, postMeroitic, Christian, and Islamic periods. Ancient and modern visitors scratched these graffiti there. The corpus includes some 150 ancient inscriptions, for the most part in Meroitic, as well as inscriptions in Old Nubian, Latin, Greek, and demotic languages (Hintze 1984, 338). The pictorial graffiti, many of which are of outstanding artistic quality, display a large variety of subjects, including wild and domestic animals, gods, priests, horsemen, representations of hunting and fighting, architectural elements, and boats, as well as Christian and Arabic symbolism (Hintze 1979; Wolf 1994). To the east of the valley is the so-called Lion temple dedicated to the Meroitic god Apedemek (Hintze et al. 1971; Hintze et al. 1993), also built during the reign of Arnekhamani. As a typical genuine Meroitic temple, it consists of only one room. Since its reerection in 1969–71, it is among the best preserved monuments of the Meroitic period. Its exterior relief decoration, depicting King Arnekhamani and Prince Arka in front of Apedemek and other genuine Meroitic and Egyptian gods, is of extraordinary artistic quality. On the southern side of the temple, the iconography of the reliefs represents war and kingship power. On the northern side, peace and creation are predominant. This typical Meroitic dualism lacks any parallel in ancient Egyptian temple decoration (Wenig 1989). The interior reliefs represent King Arnekhamani in front of Amun and Apedemek during stations of the cult procession. The early Ptolemaic inscriptions, names, and hymns of the represented gods are the last known examples of complete hieroglyphic relief inscriptions in Meroitic architecture (Hintze 1962b). Louis Linant de Bellefonds (Shinnie 1958, 114–21, pl. xviii–xxiv) and Frédéric Cailliaud (q.v., 1826, 140–58; 1823, xxii–xxxvi) were the first European travelers to visit Musawwarat es-Sufra in 1822. In 1844, the Königlich Preussische expedition, led by Richard Lepsius, made the first thorough scientific documentation of the site (LD I, 139–42; V, 71–75; LDT V, 343–45). (For further reports of European travelers and early expeditions to Musawwarat, see B. Porter and R. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, vol. 7, Nubia, the Deserts, and Outside Egypt [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951].) Archaeological fieldwork started in 1958 with the Butana expedition of the

MUSAWWARAT ES-SUFRA

•

259

Institute for Egyptology of the Humboldt University of Berlin, led by Fritz Hintze. Until 1971, several seasons of archaeological fieldwork were dedicated to the investigation of various sites in the valley of Musawwarat. (For the preliminary reports, see Hintze 1959a, 179–83; 1962b; 1963; 1968; U. Hintze 1972; Hintze and Hintze 1970.) Among others, these excavations produced a documentation of the Great Enclosure’s architecture based on the archaeological record. In addition, a chronological framework was established by subdividing the Great Enclosure’s building history into eight periods, during which the central temple and other buildings were several times dismantled and reerected with a slight change in orientation. The sixth building period was dated into the reign of King Arnekhamani. Fieldwork was revived in 1993 by the Seminar for Sudan Archaeology and Egyptology of the Humboldt University, led by Steffen Wenig. (For the preliminary reports, see Wenig 1994; Wolf 1996a, 1997; Wenig and Wolf 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b.) These excavations focus on the study of the function and the development of various parts of the Great Enclosure. In addition, the epigraphic documentation of the graffiti (Wolf 1994; Wolf, Duwe, and Gründer 1994); interdisciplinary research like geodetic, photogrammetric, palaeo-ecological ,and geophysical surveys; and conservation and reconstruction work, which is sponsored by the Sudanarchäologische Gesellschaft zu Berlin, are components of the fieldwork. (For reports on the conservation work, see Wolf 1995, 1996a; Wolf and Pittertschatscher 1996; Wolf 1998a, 1998b.) Recent excavations unearthed the largest known temple garden of the ancient Sudan (Wolf 1997; Wenig and Wolf 1996, 1998a, 1998b). It is situated to the east of the Great Enclosure’s central temple. An avenue of two rows of up to 150-centimeter-deep plantation pits forms the north-south axis of the garden. In the south and in the garden’s eastward extension, its layout changes into rectangular patterns of small- and medium-sized pits. Due to the lack of organic remains, it was not yet possible to define the species of plants. However, according to the variety of pit types having different sizes and shapes, elaborate multilayer soil fillings, and remains of different types of planting vessels, it might be suggested that there were planted different species of plants, which were brought up in nurseries near the Nile. Several observations support the view that the garden was rearranged and prepared on the occasion of probably intermittently celebrated festivals in the Great Enclosure, but that it was left without attention between these festivals. The garden developed through its history, and its layout changed in connection with the building periods of the Great Enclosure. The garden’s irrigation system consists of about 30-centimeter-broad trenches dug about 20 centimeters into the ground. The trenches are supported by brickwork in areas they

260

•

MUSAWWARAT ES-SUFRA

crossed paths. Water basins of up to 3.5 meters by at least 5 meters were probably used as intermediate water storage. They were laid out in red bricks and plastered with a thick water-resistant rendering. Another important discovery was the evidence of a ceramic workshop housed in the northernmost part of the Great Enclosure (Wolf 1997; Edwards 1998). There, an archaeological test trench revealed a deposit of ash up to 120 centimeters thick, sandstone debris, and some 24,000 ceramic sherds. Among them, there were around3,000 sherds of finewares with painted and stamped decoration. The finewares, partially of outstanding artistic and technical quality, can be dated by style into the first century CE. Kiln remains have not yet been identified with certainty. However, there are many shards of kiln wasters and fragments of unfired vessels.; The origin of the pottery of the Classical Meroitic period, which is part of the most outstanding artistic heritage of northeastern Africa, was long time under discussion. The discovery of the pottery deposit is probably the largest corpus of finewares ever excavated in a non-funeral complex of the Meroitic South. This proves the assumption that these finewares were produced in the center of the Meroitic Empire (Wenig 1978, 94) and that it was not a mere import from Lower Nubia (as suggested by Adams 1973, 232; 1986, 13–14; Török 1988, 203). Since the discovery of Musawwarat in 1822, several ideas have been issued in order to interpret the Great Enclosure. It was explained as a palace of the Meroitic queen (candace), as a priests’ seminar, as a military post and cadet school, as a sanatorium, and even as a training camp for elephants. However, most of these ideas lack any scientific foundation. At the end of the 1960s excavations, Hintze adopted the interpretation that Musawwarat was a place of pilgrimage with the Great Enclosure as its religious center (Hintze and Hintze 1970, 50). This conclusion was drawn from several facts. There was stone used as building material of the monuments, which was generally used for sacral and funeral monuments only. Many of the Meroitic graffiti are proscynemata of visitors. The immense artificial water basins (hafirs) suggest that large groups of people stayed in Musawwarat es-Sufra during specific periods. On the other hand, no urban structures or Meroitic cemeteries have been found yet. Recently, the discussion on the interpretation of the Great Enclosure revived. It focuses now mainly on whether the Great Enclosure might be explained as a palace-like secular building complex (Török 1992, 121–24; 1997, 437; Welsby 1996, 145). However, in addition to the arguments brought forward by Hintze, other aspects, like the architectural iconography of the main buildings (Wenig 1999, cf. Wenig 1992, 139–40), or the overall arrangement of the building structures inside the Great Enclosure, support an interpretation of the Great Enclosure as a sacral temple complex. In addition, the study of the Meroitic graffiti supports the interpretation of the Great Enclosure as a center of Apedemek worship. Almost all of the mostly frag-

MUWEIS

•

261

mentary preserved invocations, proscynemata addressed to specific persons or gods, were addressed to Apedemek, the only god who received such invocations in the Great Enclosure, making it to the site with the most numerous evidence of this god’s name at all (Wolf 1999). MUSIC. The history of ancient Nubian music has hardly been written, but some archaeological evidence can be pieced together from known instruments and texts from the Nile valley. Among the instruments are sistra for religious functions, which are still in use among Axumite Christians today. Clappers and bells were also known and may have played a similar or public role. Reed, ivory, and wooden flutes are known from burials at many different periods. Likewise long, bronze horns were popular at least from the New Kingdom forward. A trumpet was discovered at Musawwarat es-Sufra, and there were large war drums and small dancing drums from many periods. At temple T at Kawa and at the delightful kiosk or Temple of Music at Philae, one may find graphic images of tambourines and stringed instruments, such as lyres and multistringed harps, as well as early forms of the modern Nubian rababa or the ancient Egyptian lute(nefer), which also served as a triconsonantal glyph in hieroglyphics. The Nubian god Bes was also known to be associated with the happiness of music. MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN RELATIONS (639–1504 CE). Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia and the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (4th ed.). MUWEIS. In 2003, the late Patrice Lenoble and Ahmed Sokari began work at the ancient medium-sized town of Muweis that was continued in 2006 by Michel Buad and the University College in London. The Meroitic site of Muweis is on the east bank of the Nile upstream of Shendi or roughly between royal Meroë City and Wad ben Naqa. Muweis was little excavated partly because it was close to gerf farmlands close to the shifting courses of the Nile. It has been heavily robbed for bricks and stone for later human use. Nonetheless this 15-hectare site is now known to have a notable palace (Gala’a el-Howari), an Amun(?) temple, and diverse workshop areas, including for iron working and pottery kilns in three main koms, as far as is presently known. Without inscriptions but with C-14 dates and Meroitic typology in mind, it dates from the first to fourth centuries CE or the Classical to Late times, which can include the reigns of Amanishaketo, Natakamani/Amanitore, and Amanikhareqerem. Material finds, including bones of sheep, goats, and cattle, attest to a substantial settlement when active. Other finds are iron slag, plentiful brick and pottery sherds, some faience and a few archer thumb

262

•

MUWEIS

rings, sealing marks, and human figurines. Without more work, Muweis was likely comparable to other medium to small temple/palace towns like Hamadab, Wad ben Naqa, al-Hasssa, and Abu Erteila.

N NABTA PLAYA. This site in the Western Desert of Upper Egypt or Lower Nubia provides very early evidence of raising cattle (Bos, sp.) at about 10,000–7000 BCE by using the grassland region and by access to hafirs or wells. Perhaps by 7000 BCE sheep and goats had been added to their domesticates. Large numbers of grinding stones also reveal processing techniques for wild (?) sorghum and other grains in their diet. The people of Nabta Playa may also have been responsible for petroglyphic inscriptions of their cattle. The site was semisedentary judging from the remains of a series of small houses, pottery, and storage pits. This evidence suggests that these people had entered into the Neolithic transition that would be intensified by further Saharan desiccation. The peoples represented by this archaeological assemblage stretched broadly into the eastern Sahara as well as south of the Kharga Oasis along the ancient Darb al-Arba’in through the Selima Oasis. There is some reason to believe that the site of Nabta Playa may have been one of the corridors that livestock and Neolithic cultigens entered into Upper Nubia to the later sites at Kadada, Kadero, Kadruka, and Shaheinab. NAPATA. The term Napata can have several referents. Generally it refers to the specific geographical location downstream of the Fourth Cataract at the huge plateau of Jebel Barkal next to the modern Sudanese town of Kareima. In the New Kingdom, Napata was often termed Karoi. Thus Napata can refer to this general modern area, or it can refer to the extremely important religious and political capital of ancient times at the same location. With respect to antiquity, the general reference to Napata should also include the ancient residential and commercial town of Sanam across the Nile at the modern site of the town of Merowe (not to be confused with the ancient capital at Meroë). The general site of Napata has probably been prominent even in prehistoric times and at all periods of Nubian history. The major monumental and temple constructions date back to the New Kingdom occupation of Nubia and especially to the period when Nubians were creating and ruling their own state and during Dynasty XXV when they ruled Egypt. Even after Nubians were forced back out of Egypt in the late 660s BCE, their religious 263

264

•

NAPATA

and political capital was retained. In this case, the term Napatan can refer to the subsequent Nubian rule down to around 270 BCE when the political capital was shifted to Meroë, so in this case, Napata refers to a historical period as well as a place. Finally, the area of Napata was also the site of royal burials, major pyramids, and cemeteries of some of the most notable kings. In this case, the cemeteries of Kurru, Nuri, and Jebel Barkal may all be included even at times before and after Dynasty XXV. The religious site of Napata is composed of a number of major features that are arrayed around the eastern, southern, and western sides of the huge bluff or plateau of Jebel Barkal. These include the huge temple for the Amun cult, royal places and temples, and a pyramid burial field in sectors 1000 and 2000. The site was actively destroyed by fire in Dynasty XXVI by Psamtik II (r. 595–589 BCE) and perhaps again in early Roman times. Various European visitors noted Napata in the 19th and 20th centuries; however, active scientifically based archaeological investigation versus monument looting was not really commenced until the 1918–1919 fieldwork of George Reisner. Taking advantage of the British military conquest and occupation of Sudan, he was able to excavate and explore areas of Nubia that were formerly unknown to the archaeology of the Nubian Nile. Like much of Nubian chronological nomenclature (A-Group, C-Group, and X-Group), it is Reisner’s reference numbers that persist in identifying the main structures at the site of Napata. These include the huge Amun temple numbered B [Barkal] 0500, which has subdivisions of 0501 for the first forecourt, 502 for the second forecourt, and 551 for the outer kiosk and avenue of sphinxes (attributed to Natakamani). Much of the structure of B0500 was either built, expanded, or substantially reconstructed during the reign of Taharka, but an inner kiosk was added by his successor Tanutamun and probably for some Meroitic kings. To the southwest side of this temple was a well or Nilometer. Other smaller temple structures are the partially rock-cut temples B0200 and B0300 of Taharka, which may also have been started in the New Kingdom. Other temples are located at B0600, B0700, B0800 (reused in Meroitic times), B0900, B1000, and B1100 (now believed to have been an early temple for this site). As with temple B0500, subsections and rooms of these buildings descend from these base numbers. Given the religious importance of the site, the Nubian kings built large and impressive palaces for annual and coronation rituals. Among these, the best known to date is B1200, which was used, destroyed, rebuilt, and reused for many centuries of the Napatan period. Located outside and to the southwest of the Amun temple B0500 and temple B0800, the palace had an orientation similar to that of Ramses III at Medinat Habu. Such a temple-palace may well have been a model for its orientation or, indeed, an earlier palace from the New Kingdom at the same location is not inconceivable. The first clear instance of Nubian use of the palace site was that of Kashta (760–747 BCE).

NAQA, BENAGGI, BEN NAQA, WADI BEN NAQA

•

265

This palace was also used by Piankhy (r. 747–716 BCE), Anlamani (r. 623–593 BCE), Aspelta (r. 593–568 BCE), Irike-Amanote (r. 431–405 BCE), Harsiyotef (r. 404–369 BCE), and even Amanislo (r. 260–250 BCE) who was buried at Bejrawiya and not in the Napatan cemeteries like the others noted above. There is some textual evidence to believe that Aspelta may have perished in the palace during the military raid of Psamtik II, and thus the site may have been cleared and rebuilt thereafter. On the other hand, if the regnal dates for these rivals on the Nile are correct it can only mean that Psamtik II destroyed the palace and statues of Aspelta who must have escaped his personal destruction. The much reused palace site is orientated in such a way that suggests coronation rituals celebrated the Amun spirit believed to reside in the mountain. Its complexes include complex corridors, rooms for storage and sleeping, and an extensive kitchen. Few items have been found intact, but immense amounts of fragmented pottery, faience, column drums and capitals, and broken statuary suggest both its greatness and the great violence that took place at one stage of its life. No doubt the main deity worshipped at Napata was the ram form of the god Amun, but numerous other Egypto-Nubian gods and goddesses were also invoked at this site. These include Atum, Hathor, Isis, Maat, Mut, a Nubian form of Neith, Nekhbet, Nun, Onuris, Osiris, Sekhmet, Tefnut, and Wadjet. See also KUSH, QESH, KŠ. NAQA, BENAGGI, BEN NAQA, WADI BEN NAQA. The Wadi ben Naqa, or just Naqa, was an interior region in the Butana related intimately to Meroitic times. It lies about 50 kilometers east of the Nile and connects to Wadi Awatib and thence to Wad ben Naqa and its own Meroitic monuments not to be confused with this site. When John Garstang and Richard Lepsius initially researched Meroitic civilization only some of the ruins of the main buildings of Naqa were recognized. Excavations in recent years by Dietrich Wildung, Karla Kroeper, Lech Krzyzaniak, and others on their teams have revealed a far more complex pattern of residential and agricultural occupation (a functioning deep well is still in use there), with an extensive multiroomed brick palace complex and the extant and classical Apedemek (Lion) temple of Natakamani and Amanitore (r. ca. 12 BCE–ca. 12 CE). The impressive henotheistic Amun temple, some 100 meters long, originally with roofs and still with ramps and a colonnade of rams, has some earlier attribution to Queen Amanishakheto (r. ca. 41–12 BCE) but was most likely completed by Natakamani and Amanitore as attested by a (now replica) bark stand found in the innermost naos. The main axis of this temple is dramatically centered on a distant, southerly mountaintop. A handsome statue of Isis was also found at Naqa that has now been removed to Berlin.

266

•

NAQADA, NAGADA, NAKADA (I, II, III)

Directly across from the Apedemek temple is a famed, airy, and GrecoRoman-Meroitic syncretic kiosk that is thought to be for Isis (with Meroitic conflation) but could also be for Hathor. Still another much older Amun temple (500) is not in good condition but was built by Queen Shanakdakhete (r. 170–150 BCE). Another much later temple attributed to Queen Amanikhareqerem (r. 190–200 CE) is at this rich Meroitic center for trade and religious ritual. So, now it is clear that there were at least six temples, five storeroom complexes, perhaps a dozen administrative or domestic buildings, and priestly residences. Even if there may not have had enclosure walls, it is likely as vast and great a site as its closest neighbor at Musawwarat esSufra. Thus this important region in southern Nubia still has much to reveal in terms of regional trade during its occupation. It is now recognized by UNESCO as a World Heritage site. NAQADA, NAGADA, NAKADA (I, II, III). The Naqada periods are also known as the Amratian period / Naqada I (4000–3500 BCE); the Gerzean period / Naqada II (3500–3300 BCE); and the Late Predynastic Period / Naqada III (3300–3050). These are all predynastic Egyptian sites that existed toward the close of the prehistoric times of Nubia, thus they were contemporary with the Nubian A-Group. Essentially one may consider that Nubians and Egyptians were in something of an unconscious race toward state power. The Naqadan people finally emerged at Hierakonpolis as a major kingdom of Upper Egypt under Narmer who then proceeded to conquer Lower Egypt and unify the Egyptian Nile for the first time in history. One may also wonder about the extent of Nubia at this time since the presence of people of a Nubian race during predynastic times certainly reached Upper Egypt. Meanwhile, A-Group Nubians were coalescing around Qustul. By the Old Kingdom, pharaohs Djer and Senefru emerged from Egypt and began a long history of attacks against Nubian rivals, such as those as Qustul. Before this major transformation in Nile valley power relations, the Naqadans and Nubians were remarkably similar in technology, cultural and political complexity, and funerary practices. Naqadans were characterized by large mud-brick and reed settlements, black-topped pottery, and other painted vessels common to graves. Weaving of textiles and mats developed artistically. They had settled agriculture based on wheat and barley as well as domestic animals including sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and dogs. Copper tools also came into existence during this period. Burials were typically flexed in oval pits sometimes with a stepped burial chamber having covering stones. Stone cosmetic palettes and grinding stones are common in Naqada burials.

NATAKAMANI (R. 12 BCE–12 CE)

•

267

NARMER. Conventional Egyptian chronology places King Narmer (Menes) as the first to achieve the political unification of Egypt in around 3100 BCE of the Archaic or Early Dynastic Period. His Narmer palette records that he is the first to wear the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt. He may have ventured south of Aswan into Lower Nubia for his empire building. Alternatively, Nubian territory may have extended as far north as Edfu at that time, so Narmer may have been conquering Nubia by controlling lands now considered as eternally Egyptian. NASTASEN (r. 335–315 BCE). This Napatan king ruled in the late fourth century BCE—that is, during the arrival of Alexander the Great to Egypt and during the early construction of Ptolemaic rule. His stela at Jebel Barkal is the last clearly dateable historical document (ca. 336 BCE) during the Napatan kingdom. His administration was much modeled after that of his predecessors Harsiyotef and Irike-Amanote in terms of common features in iconography, military concerns, and political objectives of restoring Kushite control of Egypt. Egypt had fallen under foreign rule, and Egyptian resistance under Khababash had been broken. Nastasen was known to have fought the Meti (Medjay?) and the chiefs from the lands of Mekhenteqnent, Rebarut, and Mashat. According to George Reisner, Nastasen was the last king to be buried in the north at Nuri in pyramid 15. The several successive kings were buried at Jebel Barkal pyramids and are all poorly known. At the end of this sequence, probably during the reign of Arkamani, the capital was moved from Napata to Meroë, so his reign is commonly referred to as the end of the Napatan era. NATAKAMANI (r. 12 BCE–12 CE). This Meroitic king ruled from the Butana as a contemporary of Christ and perhaps at the time of the first biblical report of a Christian in Nubia. Natakamani ruled jointly with Queen Amanitore, and they were known for extensive restoration projects. A debate persists about their relationship as coregents or even that Amanitore may have been his mother, rather than his wife. Works of Natakamani and his coregent include restoration of the Napatan temples and the construction of his impressive lion-gated palace near to the Great Amun temple (B0500) there at Jebel Barkal. The excavations by Alessandro Roccati of the multiroomed, extensive, and two-story Natakamai temple (B1500) showed many restorations of earlier temples as well as much destruction by invasion and natural events. Roccati also noted Hellenistic features. At the royal city of Meroë, this famous couple also added constructions. Natakamani and Amanitore also built the famed Lion temple at Naqa, thus including temples N100, N300, and N600 at this site. This temple shows King Natakamani before the lion-headed god Apedemek and the gods Horus and Amun. This iconogra-

268

•

NECHO, NEKAU I

phy illustrates the replacement of Egyptian royal costumes with Meroitic styles. He and Amanitore are now known to have constructed an extensive temple complex at Abu Erteila. A small chapel at Wadi Banat is attributed to Natakamani as well as temples T200 and T300 at Wad ben Naqa. Finally, King Natakamani was buried in pyramid 22 of Bejrawiya North as the northernmost on the ridge of royal burials. Natakamani may also be the king represented in the uninscribed colossal figures outside of the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. One of their sons, Shorkaror, probably ruled after his parents died, and he is well known from his inscription at Jebel Geili. Another son, Prince Arikankharer (“Born of the Living Horus”) is not so well known except for an inscribed plaque showing him slaying enemies with the assistance of a dog who is shown eating some victims. Prince Arikankharer was shown with a royal cartouche, but it is likely that he did not actually come to power. NECHO, NEKAU I. The Assyrian king Ashurbanipal installed this puppet king in the seventh century BCE to assert their power against the Saite kings very shortly after the expulsions of the Nubian dynasty of Egypt. Psamtik I immediately followed his very short reign. NECHO, NEKAU II (WAHEMIBRE) (r. 610–595 BCE). Necho II was the son of Psamtik I. Necho II became the pharaoh of Egypt during the fall of Assyria to the forces of Babylon and the Medes and the rise of Nebuchadrezzar II with whom he contested and lost Judea. Despite these important dilemmas, Necho II brought in Greek sailors to modernize the Egyptian navy and must be given credit for making the first canal from the Pelusaic (eastern branch) of the Nile to join it with the Red Sea, which brought strategic and commercial advantage to the region. The later Persian king Darius I completed and cleaned the canal in 518 BCE so that he could sail directly from Egypt to Persia. Necho II’s most remarkable achievement is the funding for the first documented circumnavigation of Africa (Libya) in a famed three-year voyage conducted by Phoenician sailors who began from Etzion-Gaber in the Gulf of Aqaba. Then they went down the east coast to plant a crop that would feed them for the next leg of their voyage and so on until they returned through the straits of Gibraltar (the pillars of Hercules) and back to the Egyptian delta. NECTANEBO II, NAKHYENEBES, NAKHTNEBEF, SETEPENINHUR (r. 360–343 BCE). Nectanebo II was the very last Egyptian king of Egypt. Dynasty XXX was concluded with his departure from power. An Egyptian did not rule Egypt again for 2,300 years. His defeat by the Persian

NEOLITHIC

•

269

Artaxerxes III in 343 BCE set the stage for the later arrival of the “liberator” Alexander the Great. Interestingly, Nectanebo II fled south from the invading Persians to Nubia for his refuge, but then his trail disappears. His stone sarcophagus was reused, and in modern times it was taken by the British and installed in the British Museum. An effort to mythically link Nectanebo II to Alexander was made, but this is simply not possible. NEHESI, NEHESIU. See TA-NEHESSI, TA-NEHESIU, TA-NEHASYU, NEHISI. NEHESY, KING. Nehesy is a little known king of the delta during the late Dynasty XIII or early Dynasty XIV period of the very unstable Second Intermediate Period that was contemporary with ancient Kerma. His name hints that he may have been from Ta-Nehesi and, therefore, a Nubian. More circumstantial evidence is that his burial inscriptions are known from doorjambs in the style of the Kerma funerary chapels. Buried with him were several girls as was the practice of “classical” Kerma kings. The limited chance to gain power for a Nubian would have only been possible during these turbulent and insecure times and at that his reign in the eastern delta was short lived. This conjecture does presage the documented relations that did later exist in Dynasty XVII between the later kings of the Hyksos and Kerma who were seeking to overtake the Egyptian kings residing in isolated Thebes. NEOLITHIC. This archaeological horizon replaces the Mesolithic and emerges with more sophisticated fishing and hunting technologies and especially with the start of the agricultural revolution in planted food crops, especially storable cereal grains and regular domestication of animals (dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs). The Sahara was much wetter at this time, but gradual desiccation would begin around 4000 to 3000 BCE with small streams and swamps still present as the Neolithic began but disappearing with subsequent climatological shifts. Regional dates may be as early as 10,000–8000 BCE to around 3000 BCE to cover this epoch. Site examples in Sudan include Kadero, Kadruka, Kedada, Shaheinanb, Shaqadud, Surourab, Zakiab, Wadi Howar, Karamakol, Khor Bahan, and especially the AGroup in Lower Nubia at Abkan sites with their noted petroglyphs of wild and domestic animals. Research by Donatella Usai and Sandro Salvatori at the Wadi and Jebel Baroka far west of Omdurman and the Nile has found a full range of prehistoric evidence, including Neolithic burnished and blacktopped pottery bowls. Thus, a hunting and gathering economy supported by some farming in a wetter climate resulted in a widely dispersed Neolithic population, not only along the Nile but also substantially far from it. Perma-

270

•

NERO, EMPEROR (R. 54–68 CE)

nent Neolithic settlements are known from collections of rounded series of postholes. Funerary goods from flex burials include fine pottery, clay and shell beads, and female figurines. Tools included a wide array of stone microliths, grinders, scrapers, choppers, and tools made of wood and bone. NERO, EMPEROR (r. 54–68 CE). Jews and Christians were already present in Egypt and probably Nubia during the reign of Nero. He sent an exploratory expedition up the Nile to Meroë and beyond, into the Ethiopian highlands viewing various flora and fauna. For example, rhinoceros, elephants, monkeys, green grass, and a description of the Sudd were recorded. The purpose of the expedition is not clear, but historians believe Nero was intending to organize a military conquest of Nubia. Pliny the Elder and Seneca have recorded the details of the expedition undertaken under the rule of Nero, a contemporary of St. Mark. In the “age of persecution,” Nero’s brutal oppression of Christians and Jews was notorious, including the martyrdom of saints Peter and Paul in the context of finding someone, or some religion, to blame for the burning of Rome in 64 CE. His assassination aborted whatever plans he may have had, and Nubia was again spared Roman domination. NESTORIAN. During the formative period of state Christianity, especially in the third to fifth centuries, there were many theological (i.e., political) disputes in the broad domain of Christology. Usually the debates were centered on the “nature” of Christ (whether human or divine), Mary’s relationship to God, and Christ’s relationship to a monotheistic god. Ultimately, these discussions were about recruiting, uniting, and galvanizing followers as an expression of state legitimacy and authority since matters of faith and interpretation would not be susceptible to conventional or objective analysis. The earliest views of Origen (185–254 CE) held that the human Christ was of a lower order than the great and unknowable God. This idea carried on in the view of Arius (250–336 CE), who believed was that Christ was a prophet but was mortal and God lived before and after him. This Arian interpretation was strongly rejected by the Monophysites who claimed that Christ was divine at birth, somewhat like the ancient Egyptian deities who were also divine at birth and the god Amun (especially in the New Kingdom) who was above all. As Nubia was converted to Christianity, often under Alexandrian authority, it usually followed the Monophysite view. When Emperor Constantine I accepted Christianity in 312 CE, this dispute needed some sort of resolution. By this time, the Arians and the Monophysites were in antagonistic gridlock but were also opposed to the Dyophysite and later Trinitarian view of the Byzantine church, which saw the holy trinity

NEW KINGDOM

•

271

of Father (God), Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. These contradictory and alternative views were initially tolerated especially as the Alexandrian church was led by Pope Athanasius, a Monophysite. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE concluded that Arianism was a heretical view and was no longer accepted within the official Nicaean creed. While the Alexandrian Monophysites agreed with this point, they could not accept that Christ had two natures. He was divine and that was that. The orthodox Dyophysite view that Christ was both human and divine was not acceptable. The (Second) Council of Constantinople in 381 CE tried again to “resolve” the dispute that only became deeper and more schismatic between Alexandria and Constantinople and went even further establishing the fully Trinitarian view. Amid these controversies, the theologian Nestorius (386–450 CE), who had very briefly served as patriarch of Constantinople (428–431 CE), presented still another view of radical Dyophysitism. Nestorius continued his opposition to Arianism and the Monophysite view that persisted in Egypt and Nubia, and thus the theo-political schism between Alexandria and Constantinople was now effectively permanent. However, the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE rejected the Dyophysite view of the Nestorians that opposed Christ’s union of humanity and divinity and was thus opposed to this “hypostatic” union. This council thereby concretized the theological schism not only between Arianism and Monophysitism on the one hand but also between Nestorian Dyophysites and Trinitarians on the other. The Nestorian view that Christ had two “natures” at various times was itself rejected by the 451 CE Council of Chalcedon, which insisted that Christ was God and established the Catholic Orthodoxy as Trinitarian. While Nestorianism disappeared in Egypt and Nubia, it did not vanish entirely and was sometimes known as the Nestorian “Church of the East” in Persian and even Chinese churches. Other schisms in Christianity were to appear in Ethiopian, Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, Melkite, and Antiochian churches. One the one hand, one may speculate that these deep and complex divisions made it more difficult to resist the spread of Islam in the seventh century CE. On the other hand, the earliest Christians experienced pagan Roman brutality, and even when Romans were Christian, there were “backsliding” problems; these various councils were perceived as marginalizing local and regional Christian patriarchates. Muslim promises of respected ahl al-kitab status and protected dimmi rights made for minimal Christian resistance to the new faith of Islam. NEW KINGDOM. This term refers to the period of ancient Egyptian dynastic history constituted by dynasties XVIII, XIX, and XX covering the years 1570 BCE when the New Kingdom was completely consolidated by Ahmose I in Dynasty XVIII until its collapse in Dynasty XX under Ramses XI in

272

•

NILE

1070 BCE. This ushered in the Third Intermediate Period or Late Period led off by the dispute between Herihor, the viceroy, and Piankhy, the High Priest of Amun, which brought on the so-called Nubian dark ages. The New Kingdom was a period of colonial or temple manorial occupation of Nubia from Aswan to the Fourth Cataract or above. With access to Nubian trade and natural resources, especially gold, ivory, woods, hides, and slaves, this was an Egyptian “golden age.” However, in the eternal relations along the Nile, the strength of one of these two powers was at the expense of the other. Because the New Kingdom was so long lasting, it is difficult to characterize briefly all of its complexities. The record is very full of recurrent military attacks and punitive raids to keep the Nubian population under control. Yet, it is also a time of deep Nubian acculturation to Egyptian values, art, language, and religion. Many New Kingdom pharaohs such as Hatshepsut, Tuthmosis III, Amenhotep III, Akhenaton, Tutankhamun, Ramses II left important monuments in Nubia, or at least written records of their ties to Nubian resources. In the eighth century BCE (if not before), Nubians recovered from this long Egyptian occupation, and they managed to reestablish a Nubian state at Napata that reemerged from the ancient shadows of the Nubian kingdom of Kerma. Although little is known about the earliest rulers, recognized leaders appear in the cases of Alara and Kashta, and by the time of King Piankhy, Nubians are able to occupy all of Egypt. However, their inscriptions are in hieroglyphics, and their art and iconography follow Egyptian patterns. So it is clear that the effects from Egyptian influence were persistent and much accepted by these new rulers. NILE. The Nile River proper is 6,680 kilometers (4,150 miles) in length and ranges from the merger of the White and Blue Niles at modern Khartoum to the delta in the north along the southern shore of the Mediterranean. It is the world’s longest river with a prodigious history bringing ancient Nubia and Egypt to life in a symbolic and real way by its critical waters for irrigation and transport. The river flows northward so that Lower Nubia is to the north of Upper Nubia. Six cataracts or rapids punctuate the Nubian Nile. These make a natural series of demarcations in the river that have long proven to be natural points for military defense, break-of-bulk, trade and transport hubs, and political boundaries. The First Cataract, coming upstream from Egypt is at Aswan, which marks the northernmost extent of Nubia proper. The region between Aswan and the Second Cataract is termed Lower Nubia, or the Dodekaschoenos in Greek and Roman times. The Second Cataract has often been a frontier post for Egypt in both ancient and modern times. From the Second to the Third Cataracts, the Nile is termed the Butn al-Hajr, or the “Belly of Stones,” since the riverbed is quite rocky especially at the low water season. The section of the river between the Third and Fourth Cataracts is sometimes termed the Letti Basin. The stretch between the Fourth and

NILOTIC

•

273

Fifth Cataracts is known as the Manasir or Abu Hamad reach, and this borders the Bayuda desert to the south. The Fifth to Sixth Cataracts are in the heartland of Meroë, and they separate the western Bayuda desert from the eastern Butana steppe lands and their northern boundary of the seasonal Atbara River that enters the Nile in this region. Above the Sixth Cataract or the Sabaluka rapids is the confluence of the White and Blue Niles. Excavations along the White Nile region are very limited with respect to ancient culture, but along the Blue Nile certainly Meroitic and Christian occupation is well attested at a number of sites. See also ASTABORAS; ASTAPUS; ASTASOBAS. NILO-HAMITIC. See NILOTIC. NILO-SAHARAN LANGUAGES. In the absence of written records, historical linguistics provides a means by which to structure and relate ancient languages. Historical linguistics, which is based upon the concept of language divergence, employs methods such as the lexical, semantic, syntactical, and phonological comparison of living languages to reconstruct proto(or mother) languages. In this way, linguists are able to construct phylogenetic (or family) trees that illustrate the relationship between ancient and modern languages. The well-known historical linguist Joseph Greenberg was the first to definitively construct a genetic classification of the languages of Africa. One of the many families delineated in Greenberg’s (1966) construction of the languages of Africa was Nilo-Saharan. Geographically, NiloSaharan includes parts of the central Sahara and the Lake Victoria region (including parts of Kenya, Uganda, and Zaire), and in Lower Nubia. The Nilo-Saharan family includes the subgroups of Songhai, Saharan, Maban, Fur, Koman, and Chari-Nile languages. This last subgroup has further subdivisions of Sudanic languages. Nilo-Saharan languages in Northeast Africa exist in contrast to the widespread Afro-Asiatic family, to which ancient Egyptian and Ge’ez (Ethiopic) belong. Although modern Nubian, Dinka, and other “indigenous” languages of Sudan are classified as Nilo-Saharan, attempts to place Meroitic into the Nile-Saharan family using historical linguistics have not proven very fruitful except for some limited success with Sudanic cognates and perhaps links to Old Nubian according to Kharyssa Rhodes. NILOTIC. All Nilotes belong to the Eastern group of Sudanic language speakers. Most are cattle, sheep, and goat pastoralists by tradition. They arrived from southeastern Sudan sometime before 1000 CE, or maybe long before, if they are related to the C-Group. The extent of modern greater Nilotic territory also includes such others as the Luo, Masai, Karamajong,

274

•

NIMLOT

Jie, and Turkana. At the northern peripheries of their territory, they came into contact with so-called Cushitic or Hamitic influence through Ethiopia and are sometimes called Nilo-Hamitic people. In Sudan, after reaching superior grazing lands to the east and west of the Bahir al-Ghazal, Nilotic people dispersed in all directions. The best-known Nilotes of Sudan are the Dinka and Nuer. Elsewhere, they spread over a group of earlier inhabitants, the PreNilotics, and transferred their linguistic system to them. The Bantu Azande peoples blocked their spread to the southwest. Cattle-herding Baggara Arabs and Pre-Nilotic Shilluk blocked their northern expansion. NIMLOT. See PIANKHY, PIANKHI, PI, PIYE, PIYI, PIANK, KING (r. 747–716 BCE). NITOCRIS, GOD’S WIFE OF AMUN (GWA). This God’s Wife of Amun, or Divine Adoratrice of Amun, was the daughter of Psamtik I (r. 664–610 BCE) of Dynasty XXVI who came to rule as a puppet king or satrap for the Assyrians after they drove out Taharka and Tanutamun of Dynasty XXV. Nitocris was “adopted” by God’s Wife of Amun Amenirdis II to give legitimacy to the Dynasty XXVI rulers. Amenirdis II was herself a “daughter” of pharaoh Shabataka and God’s Wife of Amun Shepenwepet II who were both Nubians. Nitocris held her very influential position for six decades, and she achieved such prominence that she was entitled to a huge bureaucracy and impressive titles, and she could have her name inscribed in a royal cartouche. At the northern enclosure of Karnak, there are chapel gates in the wall that are inscribed to Nitocris. Indeed, Nitocris was the second to last to hold the God’s Wife of Amun title as this New Kingdom practice was terminated under Persian times. Apparently, in the scramble for legitimacy, the archaizing tendencies of dynasties XXV and XXVI there was an effort to find their own roots in the past. Apparently Nitocris was named for Queen Nitocris who supposedly closed out the Old Kingdom’s Dynasty VI in a dramatic fashion. Although there is scholarly debate about the lack of inscriptional evidence for Queen Nitocris and some alleged that she was mythical, her story was taken as inspirational. Queen Nitocris was reputedly the first queen to rule over Egypt, according to Strabo and Herodotus. After the death of Pepi I the chaotic First Intermediate Period began, and as the wife and sister of the assassinated King Metesouphis II, Queen Nitocris sought revenge and plotted the murder of her husband’s assassins. Accomplishing this deed, she ruled for two years, one month, and one day before she committed suicide. Queen Nitocris’s virtues of justifiable revenge and devotion to her husband—as well as the fact that she was a model of women’s rule—must have been powerful factors for the

NOBA

•

275

God’s Wife of Amun Nitocris to adopt the same name. In dynasty XXV and XXVI, such conservative themes were often celebrated since neither were Egyptians and they sought legitimacy to be on the Egyptian throne. NOBA. The reference to the Noba is actually one of the more ambiguous ethnic concepts along the ancient Nile. It is a reference used by outsiders for people of the Nubian Nile and farther south and especially to the western side of the Nile. The first complexity is that the Nubians of the cataracts are certainly a heterogeneous population because of the great length of their history and their strategic role along the corridor to Africa with many peoples coming and going. Moreover, the long presence of stratified and slave-based economies have long given further expansion to racial admixture. Thus, people commonly identified as Nubian “slaves” or “vile Nubians” in New Kingdom iconography may actually not be the heterogenous “cataract (or riverine) Nubians” but actually slave prisoners from regions still farther south— that is, Noba people as they are still known in the Nuba Mountain regions of southern Kordofan. This ambiguity only raises more problems of ethnic identity since it is virtually certain that these Noba or Nuba Mountain people originally had a territorial range that far exceeded that of the present. Their current range represents an enclave refugee population resulting from centuries, if not millennia, of predatory slave-raiding by peoples of Lower Nubia and Egypt. Classical references try to differentiate the Noba from the Nobatae, but it is not sufficiently clear that these are different people at all; in fact, these may just be further ambiguous references to people south of Egypt without clarifying precisely who is who. Adams does use the term Nobatae for those people west of Butn al-Hajr while the term Noba is used in the region of the Bayuda and west of Meroë and west of the White Nile. This implies that this might have been the contemporary northern range of the people of the Nuba Mountains who entered this northerly domain as a result of the collapse of the Meroitic state. The Greek geographer Eratosthenes and the Roman geographer Claudius Ptolemeus both refer to the Noba in the Greco-Roman period. It is generally agreed that by post-Meroitic (X-Group) times these Noba or Nobatae people were known as the so-called Ballana people of Lower Nubia or the Tanqasi people of Upper Nubia. They were certainly beyond the authority of Meroë, especially in its declining period. As further verification of this, the famed report of King Ezana of Axum claims that his army traveled down the Atbara River to the meeting of the Nile, and he made war with the Noba who had, apparently, by that time even crossed into the eastern Butana grasslands (as suggested by African-style housing constructed at Meroë).

276

•

NOBATIA, NOBATAE, NOBADAE, NOBA

NOBATIA, NOBATAE, NOBADAE, NOBA. It is useful to use this variant spelling of the Nobatae to distinguish these pre-Christian Nobatae or Noba people from their apparent descendants in the Christian kingdom of Nobatia. The kingdom of Nobatia emerged in Lower Nubia in the late 200s CE. The origins of the Nobatae are unclear, but they seem to have received assistance from the Roman rulers of Egypt in conflict with the Blemmyes. It is possible that the Nobatae were of the X-Group or Ballana culture, but some scholars identify the latter as the Blemmyes. To confuse the situation further, at times the Nobatae and Blemmyes joined together to fight the Romans based in Egypt. The rulers of Nobatia converted to Monophysite Christianity through the works of missionary Julian around 543 CE. The kingdom eventually merged with Mukurra to form a unified kingdom at Dongola around 650–700 CE. Despite the isolation from the Egyptian Orthodox church, there was an aggressive attempt to spread the Christian message from Egypt to Sudan that can be dated to 452 CE. A political and religious alliance was established by 524 CE between Byzantium in Egypt and the Axumites in Ethiopia. At some point in the sixth century, King Silko proclaimed himself as the king of the Nobatae after defeating Blemmyes who had been his rivals in Lower Nubia. This was done in the name of his singular God, thus making him the founding Christian king of Nubia. When Justinian I came to rule Byzantium in 527 CE, this movement gained even greater force. Julian was a Monophysite missionary sent by Empress Theodora to compete with other missionaries sent by Justinian. During the years 543–569 CE, the first Monophysite Christian kingdoms were organized in Nubia. In 543 CE, Faras was established as the capital of Nobatia. Julian’s Monophysite successor in the missionizing of Nubia was Longinus who visited the region in 569 CE when he recognized Dongola as the capital of Mukurra. He extended his missionary work as far south as the kingdom of Alwa. Probably by 579 CE Alwa was converted to Christianity, and its capital was established at Soba. However, it was only a few decades later, in 640 CE that another religious history was being written. Arab Muslims conquered Egypt and immediately moved across North Africa. The holy war quickly spread southward to Lower Nubia. By 641 CE, the forces of ‘Amr ibn Al-‘As reached the plain just north of Dongola, but they failed to capture this Christian capital of Mukurra. See also ROMAN INFLUENCES IN SUDAN (30 BCE–476 CE). NUBA. The Nuba people of the Nuba Hills in southern Kordofan must be distinguished from modern Nubians, even though some Nubian refugees have also found their homes in the Nuba Hills. The Nuba proper speak Kordofanian languages, while the Nile Nubians speak lexically different languages. At the same time, both are members of the Eastern Sudanic family of

NUBIA

•

277

Nilo-Saharan languages. Thus at a general level they are linked by linguistic structure, but not in common communication. The exact origins of the Nuba are not clear, but they represent an isolated people in a borderland area perhaps less affected by Pharaonic, Kushitic, or Sudanic cultural and historic forces. The archaeology of the Nuba is poorly developed. In ancient times, one may conclude that either the Nuba territory extended much farther north, or Nubians raided the lands of the Nuba for slaves. In either case, whether by their own will or by coercion in slave raids the genetic inheritance from the Nuba is certainly deeply present in Nubia and southern Egypt. Images of “Nubian” slaves in dynastic times are closely parallel in physiognomy and dress (earrings, feathers, and bracelets) to those people of the modern Nuba Mountains. This also raises the difficult issue of determining the ancient extent of the Nuba. Might they have been the same as the Noba? This complicated question of ethnogenesis is not yet resolved. The Nuba are “Negroid” by conventional “racial” classification and probably had, at least, a somewhat more extensive territory until they were pushed into their mountain retreat by cattle-herding Nilotics to the south in the 10th century CE, or perhaps long before. From the 16th century onward, cattle-herding Arabs from the north and east, and relentless predations of Jellaba slavers in the 18th and 19th centuries, pressed heavily on the Nuba. This historical dynamic continues until the present with various marginalized people from this area in armed revolt against the Khartoum government. The Nuba have maintained distinctive linguistic and cultural traditions but have been increasingly incorporated into northern Sudanese life. NUBIA. Nubia is the general name of the area in the Nile valley south of Aswan in Egypt at the First Cataract on the Nile extending today into the northern Sudan to the Third or Fourth Cataracts. In the ancient past Nubia reached as far north as Upper Egypt and as far south as the confluence of the White and Blue Niles at modern Khartoum. Indeed, the community at Tuti Island at the juncture of these great rivers is almost entirely Mahas Nubian until a bridge linked it more closely to Khartoum. Nubia is the land of the ancient kingdoms of Kerma and Kush and the various small ancient states such as Wawat, Irtet, and Setiu. The term Nubia is most likely derived from the Egyptian or Coptic word nb for gold, but the common use of the word Nubia appears more in the medieval times since ancient Egyptians and Nubians usually termed their land Kush and the Greeks and Romans called it “Aethiopia” above Egypt. After the fall of the medieval Christian kingdoms, the population converted almost completely to Islam. Although most Nubians today speak Arabic, the Nubian languages have been maintained, with a number of local dialects being spoken. Nubians have been active in trade and politics. Many have left the home area but maintain a close sense of community in the cities

278

•

NUBIAN

and towns of Egypt and Sudan where they have been resettled. As a result of the inundation of land caused by the building of the High Dam at Aswan, many Nubians have been resettled. More than 30,000 were moved to Khashm al-Girba in eastern Sudan in the 1960s. Because of a relatively high level of education and active involvement, Nubians have played an important role in modern Sudanese politics. See also CHRISTIANITY IN NUBIA: THE FORMATIVE PERIOD. NUBIAN. Nubians and their subgroups have a very long history linked to the rise of agriculture, ancient states, and urbanism. In the ancient history of Nubians, even before dynastic Egypt, they are probably the descendants of the Khartoum Mesolithic with some admixture from Egyptian peoples (Capsian stone tool types) to the north. “Negro” ancestors of Nubians also appear in the Khartoum Neolithic as riverine hunters, and fishermen, who also had domesticated dogs, sheep, and goats between 4000 and 3500 BCE. Grain cultivation came some time later, probably based upon millet (durra) from the western savanna and later merged with Egyptian cultigens. Anatomical and archaeological evidence places Nubians at the northern extension of the Eastern branch of Sudanic languages—that is, not related to the Afro-Asiatic or Semitic languages of the regions farther north and east. Part of the problem in translating the ancient written language of Nubians (i.e., Meroitic) rests upon its isolation and barely known vocabulary, although phonetic values have been determined. Nubian relations with ancient Egypt are long and deep as Nubia was, for millennia, a source of gold, slaves, cattle and other livestock, animal skins, ivory, ebony, ostrich feathers, gum, and incense, which played a very substantial role in the basic accumulation of Egyptian wealth and power. In the case of Kerma, Nubians independently created their own trading state. At the time of the New Kingdom, Nubia was fully colonized by Egyptians, and in the case of the Dynasty XXV, Nubians ruled the entire Nile valley and contested with the Assyrians, for control as far away as Lebanon. In about 340 CE, late Nubian (Meroitic) civilization was destroyed by Christians from Axum, but in less than two centuries, Nubia became reorganized as the three Christian kingdoms of Nobatia, Mukurra, and Alwa, which substantially delayed the arrival of Islam through the 14th to 16th centuries CE. During this period, some Nubians fled to remote locations in Darfur and Kordofan where some linguistic traces may still be seen. Such refugee groups include the Anag, Birked, Dilling, Kadaru, Meidob, and Nyama; some say that they are “Negro” with “Caucasoid” traits (to use a terminology that confuses more than clarifies), but they should be distinguished from the other people of the Nuba Hills who speak unrelated Kordofanian rather than Sudanic languages. The other group of Nubians, sometimes called “Barabra” (a pejorative Latin-rooted term), stayed in their ancestral riverine region in Nubia. It is

NUBIAN

•

279

this group that has mostly closely preserved the Nubian lifeways. Generally they are found in their respective territories: Kenuz Nubians are found from the First to Second Cataracts; Sukkot and Mahas are found from the Second to Third Cataracts; and Danagla are found from the Third to Fourth Cataracts. Nubians also occupy the southern portion of Egypt up to the First Cataract as Aswan and elsewhere as a result of their migrations and the resettlement following the dam construction. Traces of matrilineal inheritance are also found with Nubians who show somewhat less patrilineal descent than other Arabized peoples. Nubians also dispersed in the 16th and 17th centuries to communities along the Nile near Khartoum (such as the Mahas town at Tuti Island) and as far as Sennar. They developed a tradition of religious scholarship and teaching which gained them influence under the Funj Sultanates. As bearers of Islam to the Funj Sultanate, Mahas Nubians frequently provided fuqaha (religious sages) and advisors to the rulers at Sennar. Mahas religious schools of Faqih Hammad wad Marium, Sheikh Khogali, and Sheikh Arbab al Agayed were established at the confluence of the two Niles and along the Blue Nile up to Sennar. The mosque and school of Sheikh Arbab, built in 1691, can be said to be the first permanent structure in Khartoum. In the 1960s, the rising waters of Lake Nasser / Lake Nubia flooded much of Nubia. Most of the traditional town sites were involved; this compelled Kenuz Nubians to move to Egypt (especially Kom Ombo) and Sukkot, Mahas, and Halfawi Nubians were relocated to towns in the eastern Sudan such as New Halfa and Khasm el-Girba. Some Nubians still remained but moved their homes to higher elevations. Danagla have not been affected by the floodwaters, but they are more Arabized than their relatives to the north. Although a mixture of “Arab” peoples predominates in the northern urban areas of Sudan today, the Nubians are one of the most important minority ethnic groups. This fact is made more significant when it is understood that Nubians today only constitute 3–4 percent of the national population of Sudan. Other entries in this dictionary provide additional information about this region and its people. In terms of “race,” Nubians have a phenotypic diversity which is in harmony with the complex history of their territory; “Arabs,” autochthonous Nubians, southern slaves, and North African and European conquerors have all left their genetic marks. Nubians of the northern Sudan, speaking a non-Arabic tongue, must be distinguished from the peoples of the Nuba Hills who appear to have been isolated in southern Kordofan before the main penetration of Islam into Sudan. In any case, the modern people living in the region between the Fourth and Sixth Cataracts have been heavily Arabized and Islamized and often boast of Arab pedigrees and speak only Arabic and no Nubian languages. However, Nubian languages are still the

280

•

NURI

mother tongues of the people from the First to Third Cataracts straddling the Egypto-Sudanese border. See also CHRISTIANITY IN NUBIA: THE FORMATIVE PERIOD. NURI. The modern hamlet and ancient cemetery termed Nuri is at the location of the ancient royal cemetery initiated at the end of Dynasty XXV and persisting through much of the Napatan period. The precise name for the ancient cemetery at this site is not known, so the Arabic name from the modern hamlet near this site is the name usually applied to the royal cemetery. In the early 20th century, the Nuri cemetery was found to have been looted at some ancient date; however, it was excavated by George Reisner who was also to recover some large objects, some fragments, and other material remains of the funerary activities that took place from its foundation to its last interment. As far as is presently known, the cemetery was first used in 664 BCE for the royal burial of King Taharka, and the last rulers buried there were either Nastasen or Amanisbakhi in the late fourth or early third centuries BCE. In general, the royal cemetery of Nuri replaced those on the opposite shore of the Nile at Jebel Barkal and Kurru. After Nuri’s last royal burial, all later kings of Napata were buried at Meroë; hence, it represents the last of the Napatan epoch that followed Dynasty XXV. Taharka’s pyramid is the largest at Nuri at more than 30 meters on a side. Only its core remains intact at the present time. Like other Napatan pyramid tombs, they rose at a steep angle of 60 to 70 degrees like those of the workers in Deir al-Medina and unlike the pyramids of the Giza plateau. The burial chambers were essentially separate structures underneath the sandstone pyramids and were accessible by a ramp leading to two or three underground chambers. Mortuary chapels were usually on the eastern sides. Still under Egyptian culturo-religious influences, the burials were not on wooden beds as with Kerma, but some had stone benches on which the coffins were placed. The coffins were built of stone or wood, and the practice of mummification persisted. Other ranking members of the royal family were buried nearby at Nuri.

O OBSIDIAN. Obsidian was an important and valued export from Nubia to Egypt. It is the naturally glassy volcanic stone known also as “Ethiopian stone.” It does not seem to be found naturally, or at least in quantity, in Egypt itself. It was found in various ways from the predynastic times and through all of dynastic and Greco-Roman history in Egypt and Nubia. It has varying colors but the favored were usually dark black or dark green. Its value rested partly upon the very sharp edge that could be produced by knapping a core to make arrowheads and knives. In the absence of high quality metals such as iron, and even after bronze technology, obsidian was still valued for decorative purposes as well as cutting edges required in knives and sickle blades. Another use for obsidian was to make the inlaid eyes in human and animal sculpture, coffins, and mummies. In such an instance, it could give a very realistic image of the black pupil of the eyes. Obsidian also appears in beads and jewelry and some early vessels and vases. OCTAVIAN. See AUGUSTUS (OCTAVIAN) (r. 27 BCE–14 CE). OLD KINGDOM (2886–2181 BCE). This dynastic epoch of ancient Egypt is usually constituted by the period from Dynasty III to Dynasty VI, but some sources might extend this further. The Old Kingdom continues the Archaic or Early Dynastic Period (dynasties O, I, II). The First Intermediate Period follows the Old Kingdom when the politically cohesive Egyptian state again devolved into regional rival kingdoms. During the Archaic Period, Egyptians were mainly preoccupied with the first instance of forming a unitary government of Upper and Lower Egypt. During Dynasty I, there was at least one case of a raid against Nubia conducted by King Djer as seen in the petroglyph now in the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. As the Old Kingdom unfolded, Egyptians turned their attention to more regular military and economic conquests south of Egypt in Nubia. Especially this was the case in Dynasty IV under Seneferu who brought back substantial amounts of livestock and captives in his raids in Lower Nubia. During the time of Pepi II in Dynasty VI, there were also reports of relations with Nubia, 281

282

•

OLD NUBIAN

but these appear to be mutual trading rather than raiding. Most celebrated of these trading expeditions were those of Harkuf, who set out to Kerma with a desert donkey caravan that brought back many valuable items from Nubia. It is clear, however, that the Old Kingdom Egyptians initiated a series of massive strategic mud-brick fortresses in Lower Nubia to restrict and control Nubian economic and military access to Egypt. These were substantially renewed on the same sites in the Middle Kingdom. At the conclusion of the Old Kingdom, Egyptians could no longer maintain their military presence in Lower Nubia, so Nubian peoples known as the C-Group were able to reoccupy their territory and have relatively peaceful interactions with the Egyptians based at Aswan. OLD NUBIAN. Old Nubian was the main language of Christian Nubia. After the initial work by Francis L. Griffith in the early 20th century, the classical linguist of Coptic and Old Nubian, Gerald M. Browne (1943–2004), made the seminal and comprehensive contributions with his Old Nubian Dictionary (1996); Old Nubian Dictionary: Appendices (1997); and Old Nubian Grammar (2002), as well as scores of detailed articles on Old Nubian. Essentially the rather small, but main corpus of Old Nubian texts dates from the late eighth century CE to the late 15th century CE. The largest collection of Old Nubian texts is centered on the 10th to 12th centuries CE. Earlier writing used Meroitic cognates, Coptic and Greek, with the most famous being the Greek inscription of King Silko. Later dates of writing in Nubia saw the use Arabic. Modern Nubi’in (especially Mahas) has descended from Old Nubian, suggesting common membership in the Nilo-Saharan language family. Old Nubian made heavy use of the Greek alphabet (as did Coptic) but added some letters for Nubian phonetics. Perhaps as many as half of all Old Nubian texts are of a religious (Christian) nature, while the rest are on mundane matters such as land transfer. Since Old Nubian follows Meroitic by only a few centuries, it is tempting to think that this closeness may help address the issue of Meroitic decipherment. However, the earlier writing system did not discuss Christianity and was focused on other matter such as war tribute, so the lack of convergent or overlapping lexicons has only been productive in a very small number of cases. ORIGEN (184–ca. 254 CE). The foundation of Christianity in the Nile valley is usually dated to St. Mark, the disciple of St. Peter, but these early times have left little record since the communities were small and were under periodic Roman oppression. Origen brought Christianity into sharper focus by the second century CE. Nubia was geographically and theologically situated between the governing bishops of Alexandria and the Christian kingdom of Axum in Ethiopia. However, since these two reference points were outside

OSIRIS

•

283

of the mainstream of orthodox Christianity of Constantinople so also was Nubia. The isolation of the Christians of the Nile valley was because they were followers of Monophysitism, which had been influenced by Arianism and the teachings of Origen whose influence had been isolated in the period before the institutional acceptance of state Christianity in Nubia. Origen was a major conservative theologian of early Christianity, and he was an active participant of the sectarian and theological debates in Alexandria and eastern Mediterranean Christianity. Clement and Philo influenced him. His very scholarly research into ancient chronology and the precise Jewish translation of the Septuagint led to his major work, titled Hexapla. Since his father had been martyred, he was much driven by the martyr complex and was eager to have a strict interpretation of Christian theology, especially if it would support his preference for austerity and his great vigilance against perceived evil. Similar to the Monophysites, Origen understood that Christ and God were one, but Christ was subordinate since Christ was the Son of God and was only a mediator or route through whom God might be reached. OSIRIS. The god Osiris is one of the very most important deities in the ancient Nile and even in the much wider region of the ancient Mediterranean. Osiris was born of the deities Geb and Nut, along with his evil brother Seth, his sister Nephthys, and his sister-wife Isis. Together Isis and Osiris were parents of the falcon god Horus, who was the model of filial piety and the eternal protector of his father’s name. The epic conflict between nephew Horus and his uncle Seth is the prototype of the struggle between good and evil. When Osiris was treacherously slain by Seth, the dutiful Isis reassembled his body parts except his missing phallus, which was eaten by an Oxyrhyncus fish in the Nile. Fluttering over Osiris, Isis cautiously conceived Horus to avenge his father’s death. This holy trinity (Osiris, Isis, and Horus) is one of many triads in ancient Egyptian theology, and it can be assumed that this carried over into Christian Trinitarian views of the deities (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) or even with the saintly trinity (the holy family of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus). Subsequently, Osiris became the god king over the afterlife/underworld and thus will be met in a favorable judgment in the “weighing of the heart” ceremony that all deceased must pass through. In short, Osiris was the noble deity bringing order to the afterlife and providing a model of exemplary behavior himself and those relating to him are likewise favored. Indeed, historians of comparative religion see Osiris as a prototype for Jesus as a god of resurrection at Judgment Day and in funerary practices. There are parallels in Christian religious traditions with “fratricidal conflict” and the “immaculate conception.”

284

•

OSORKON I (R. 924–889 BCE)

The long-enduring importance of Osiris in Egypt extended to those areas to the west, east and south that came under these religious influences. Certainly for Nubia, Osiris and his related divine family were of very great importance from the New Kingdom onward and were incorporated in various lesser ways even earlier. All Osiride beliefs and rituals were practiced in ancient Nubia from this time through Dynasty XXV, the Napatan period, all of Meroitic times, and in syncretic forms even into the rise of Nubian Christianity. Among the known words in the Meroitic language are shorey (Osiris) and woshi (Isis), which are typically found in funerary contexts and on funerary hetep tablets. As another example the epic battle between St. George and the Dragon is easily seen as a parallel between noble Horus and his elusive, metamorphizing, and evil uncle Seth. OSORKON I (r. 924–889 BCE). Osorkon I was the second king of the Libyan or Tanite Dynasty XXII. He was the son of its founder, Sheshonk I. As Sheshonk I had used Nubian mercenaries in his conquest of Judea in 925 BCE, it is possible to imagine a similar function for his son. Dynasties XXI to XXIV are usually included in the Late Period as they could only come to power on the delta because of the weakness of the Egyptian authorities in Upper Egypt. By definition, none had the power for the complete conquest of the Egyptian Nile. Inasmuch as the political or military position of Nubians might be improved by a weakened Egypt, such was the case for Dynasty XXII. Osorkon I built extensively in the delta during his reign and was ineffectually engaged in Karnak politics through his son Sheshonk II. His other son, Takelot I, ruled for 15 years but is very poorly known by existing monuments or inscriptions as Egypt slipped steadily into persistent disunity. OSORKON II (r. 874–850 BCE). As with other kings of Dynasty XXII, the reign of Osorkon II was contemporary with the embryonic rise of the Nubian state in the vicinity of Napata. Unitary political authority over Egypt was tenuous at this time, and Nubians were beginning to restore a regionally centralized government as a result. The authority of Karnak was his cousin Harsiese, the High Priest of Amun who claimed to be the king of Upper Egypt. Following the death of Harsiese, Osorkon II installed his son, Nimlot, in this capacity and another son as the High Priest of Memphis. These critical placements allowed Osorkon II to regain some lost control for Dynasty XXII, especially in Lower Egypt, but fears of Assyrian expansion were highly diversionary for his administration. At his death, his son Takelot II came to power in the delta with his brother Nimlot still holding on in Karnak as the High Priest of Amun. Politically arranged marriages within these family

OSTRICH FEATHERS AND EGGS

•

285

branches managed to bring some additional unity within Dynasty XXII; however, it was without meaningful institutionalization, and hostile rivalries resumed upon the death of Nimlot. OSORKON III (r. 787–759 BCE). This Libyan king of Dynasty XXIII in the Late Period struggled to restore political unity of the Egyptian Nile by defending the rival delta capital at Leontopolis (818–712 BCE) against the claims of the Tanite kings. Without even a common administration in the delta the rest of Egypt had split loyalties. Even the late appointment of Osorkon’s son Takelot II as the coregent did as much to confuse the situation as it did to establish dynastic unity. Once again, Nubians could gain more recovery of their own political administration with Egypt so divided. Even Egyptologists find this period very difficult to describe and analyze since construction and inscriptions slowed and numerous contradictory claims to be the pharaoh of Egypt were made. By the end of dynasties XXII and XXIII, one may consider Egypt as a set of several city-states but hardly a common government. With their attention diverted to the northeast in some fear of Assyrians and especially diverted by their own internal politics, these Libyan rulers had not been paying attention to the Nubians to the south. Their even more feeble successors in Dynasty XXIV such as Bakenrenef and Tefnakht would not be able to stop the Nubians of Dynasty XXV from coming to power in Nubia and Egypt during the reign of Piankhy. OSORKON IV (r. 730–715 BCE). This Libyan king was the last to rule from the eastern delta at Tanis in Dynasty XXII. By this time, the Leontopolis rivals in the central delta had weakened him there, and the Saite rivals had challenged him in the western delta. The divided royal house could not stand, and by Dynasty XXIV, further challenges arose at Hermopolis and Herakonpolis. To the east, the Assyrians were increasing their threat on the kingdom of Judah. It was a tense time for Lower Egypt. The time for the restive Nubians was at hand, and it would be a matter of time for Piankhy to come out of Nubia to make his bid for Lower Nubia, Aswan, and Karnak and then advance northward to confront these confused Libyans fighting each other for control of the delta. Osorkon IV was known as the last pharaoh of Dynasty XXIII; he surrendered to Piankhy, who founded Dynasty XXV when Nubians took over all of Egypt. OSTRICH FEATHERS AND EGGS. Ostrich eggs and feathers were unique products of ancient Sudan. Ostrich feathers in particular served as an important ritual item in Egyptian ideological practice. However, by late predynastic times, free-ranging ostrich had disappeared from both the desert and floodplain of the Egyptian Nile in favor of less populated areas to the south

286

•

OSTRICH FEATHERS AND EGGS

in Sudan. Consequently, ostrich feathers were acquired through trade with Nubia. In Egyptian ideology, ostrich feathers were worn in the headdresses of the god Shu and the goddess Ma’at. In fact, the ostrich feather alone represented Ma’at as the “feather of Truth,” which was weighed against the heart of the deceased in the Egyptian ritual of the same name. Ostrich feathers were also used in the decoration of ceremonial meret chests, a symbol of the land of Egypt. In contrast, the ostrich played a more modest role in indigenous Nubian culture. Perhaps because it was a local animal, less ritual attention was paid to the ostrich as in Egypt. Beads made from ostrich eggshell served a utilitarian purpose and were extremely common through all periods of ancient Sudanese history. In Kerma, the ostrich itself appears as a motif in art. The most beautiful and striking example of this motif was found in a Kerma burial that yielded a leather cap onto which mica appliqués in the form of an ostrich and ostrich feathers had been sewn, according to Kharyssa Rhodes. Curiously, this motif disappears after colonization of Nubia by New Kingdom Egypt. Perhaps we can assume at this time the adoption of Egyptian beliefs concerning the ostrich and the use of its feathers in ideology. In either case, by the Napatan and Meroitic periods, the ostrich motif is rarely used in indigenous art, although products of the animal continued to be traded to Egypt.

P PALEOLITHIC. The African Lower Paleolithic stone tool industry is contemporary with the European Acheulian Lower Paleolithic that dates from perhaps as early as 2.5 million years BP to about 150,000 years BP. In other words, it follows the African Oldowan pebble tool and so-called osteodentokeratic (bone-tooth-horn) traditions of Australopithecine genera and species and precedes the African equivalents of the Mousterian. Its more or less standardized tools are the oval or pea-shaped hand axes initially associated with Homo erectus and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and early Homo sapiens sapiens populations. Our understanding of the Paleolithic in the Nubian Nile valley is still very incomplete, but it has improved with extensive archaeological salvage work with dam flooding and displacement. Only stone tools are known rather than any fossil human remains until Homo sapiens sapiens. However, the hominid fossils to the east in Danakil Valley of Eritrea, to the south in the Omo and Rift Valleys, and to the west in the Lake Chad Basin (Australopithecus bahrelghazali) take the origins of regional humanity back to the very beginning at three to four million years ago. With this wide distribution over several million years and no natural barriers, it is likely that such early hominids also traveled across the ancient Nubian savanna lands of the Butana and Bayuda as well as the Nile and Atbara river systems. The Lower Paleolithic site near Abu Simbel is considered by Nicolas Grimal (1994, 18) to date back to 700,000 BCE or at the end of the Olduwan assemblage of “pebble tools” associated with late Australopithecines or most likely with Homo erectus. Perhaps it is just a matter of time before Australopithecines, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis fossil remains of Kanjeran stock are located in Nile silts, or along the upper gravel banks, or in deepcut wadis, or in former well-watered depressions in today’s Sahara. West southwest of Omdurman at the Wadi and Jebel Baroka, Donatella Usai and Sandro Salvatori have found archaeological traces going back as far as the Late Pleistocene, the Late and Middle Paleolithic, and many much later periods as well. The early material includes typical Levalloisian flakes, blades, and cores, and bifacial hand axes. 287

288

•

PALEOLITHIC

Human forms continued to live along the entire Nile from then if we may judge from the Pre-Chellean and Chellean sites at Wadi Huda and Wadi Halfa. Acheulian bifacial tools were discovered at Wadi Halfa and at sites near Omdurman such as Khor Abu Anga, while Levallois cores and flakes are known from Abkan, Atbara, Khasm al-Girba, Wadi Halfa, Tangasi, and Selima Oasis, which give indirect proof of the early human presence in a broad region of ancient Nubia. Major changes in climate and rainfall have reconfigured the bed of the modern Nile especially in comparison to several other ancient parallel watercourses. Tools that appear to be Early Paleolithic are found at Qala’a al-Haddadiya along the east bank of the Blue Nile, but their lack of hand axes makes it questionable that they may be parallel to those of Khor Abu Anga. Middle Paleolithic sites are known in the vicinity of Soba, and they include some denticulate scrapers. Upper Paleolithic sites are found in Lower Nubia and elsewhere along the Blue Nile. Also complicating the image of the Paleolithic along the Nile is confusion about the ethnicity or race of its populations. Precisely when racial differences became apparent and the extent of the territories of African, Nilotic, and/or Semitic people is a subject of dispute. In the Middle Paleolithic at about 150,000–50,000 BCE, the evolution from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis to early Homo sapiens sapiens was underway or had taken place at least in the Lower Nile as a regional parallel to the human evolution in North Africa and Europe. This transition is mirrored in the shift from predominant bifacial hand axes to Acheulian and Mousterian stone flake and core tools. Such evidence was found by Ahmed Hamid Nassr at the Jebel Elgrian site along the lower right bank of the Atbara River, which produced bifacial hand axes, cleavers, and points of the Acheulian, Levalloisian, and Mousterian traditions from Lower to Upper Paleolithic times. Another complication for this period is to try to understand the extent of proto-Nilo-Saharan and protoSudanic languages that may have existed in Homo sapiens times. Certainly the isolated positions of today’s Nilo-Saharan language must be a faint residue of a much larger territory they occupied in ancient times. Some of the major Paleolithic tool industries and their sites in Nubia/ Sudan include (1) Nubian Mousterian, Type A, from 47,000–35,000 BP, found in a site east of Wadi Halfa; (2) Khor Musan, 22,000–18,700 BP, scrapers, burins, and flakes found in a site at Debeira East; (3) Halfan, 20,000–17,000 BP, found at a site at Wadi Halfa; (4) Sebilian, 15,000–11,000 BP, found at a site near Mirgissa; and (5) Qadan, 14,500–6,400 BP, found at a site in Halfa Dequim, south of Wadi Halfa. See also JEBEL SAHABA; MESOLITHIC (KHARTOUM); NEOLITHIC; SHAHEINAB.

PALEOLITHIC, UPPER OR LATE

•

289

PALEOLITHIC, LOWER OR EARLY. All Paleolithic (prehistoric) dates are rough and approximate. Sources are scattered, and dates are broadly configured by stratigraphy, typology, and seriology. Without organic remains, dating with C-14 will not work. For the earliest times in Africa, this is the beginning of our genus Homo with Australopithecine examples of Olduwan “pebble tools” augmented by bone, stone, and horn implements dating back two to three million years ago or perhaps earlier and lasted until about 150,000 BP (Before the Present). This long and stable period was maintained by simple hunting and gathering economies. The environment was relatively rich for these seminomadic peoples and was without competition from agriculture. Sangoan horizons can be found during this epoch. Such times included the human evolution from Homo africanus (species) and on through the dispersal of Homo erectus species throughout the Old World. Paleoanthropologists in Sudan have found stone tools of the later periods in the Lower Paleolithic but no human fossils because the conditions of preservation and discovery of human fossils are not very favorable. In European terms, this epoch is termed the Abbevillian or Chellean stone tool tradition. Examples in Sudan and region can include Ashkeit, Axum, Khor Abu Anga, and Khor Hudi. PALEOLITHIC, MIDDLE. The Middle Paleolithic also has very rough dating but can embrace a period from around 150,000 to around 50,000 BP when Homo erectus was replaced by Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and the transition to Homo sapiens sapiens was starting. In European archaeological terms, this stone tool tradition of hand axes, choppers, scrapers, and flakes and some denticulate cutters is termed Acheulian or Mousterian at other times and places, the Levallois tool types. Stone tools of this type and period are also found in Sudan at Kurkur Oasis, Jebel al-Grain, Khor Musa, and along widespread sites on the lower Atbara River according to the studies by Ahmed Hamid Nasser. PALEOLITHIC, UPPER OR LATE. By the Late Paleolithic at around 50,000 BP to around 10,000 BP, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis had either become fully extinct and/or evolved into modern forms of humans extant today and finally migrated globally. Stone technology became more sophisticated with core and blade fabrication with complex techniques of hunting, gathering, and fishing in environments that were relatively rich for small populations. This period comes to an end with the Mesolithic. Examples of this stone tradition in Sudan can include sites at Khor Musa, Qadan, Napta Playa (11,000–8000 BP), Shamarkian, and Sebilian. Until this time, the Sa-

290

•

PANEHESI, PANNEHSI, PA-NEHESI

hara was still well watered forest and grasslands supporting a wide variety of large game, especially adequate for small-scale hunting and gathering populations. PANEHESI, PANNEHSI, PA-NEHESI. During most of the New Kingdom, the royal authority usually appointed a viceroy of Nubia, or King’s Son of Kush, essentially a colonial governor-general, to administer the Egyptian manorial estates and tributary claims over Nubia. Panehesi was such an officer, but he was probably one of the very last to serve to serve in this capacity, and he ushered in the Third Intermediate Period. His ethnic identity is not certain, but his name suggests that he was of Nubian origin since “Nehesi” or ‘Ta-Nehessi’ was a common referent for Nubia since ancient times. It is not unlikely that, at this critical time, colonial Egyptians relied on experienced local Nubian administrators from Nubia, unlike earlier times when this position was occupied by Egyptians. Panehesi served as the royal administrator during the weak and terminal rule of Ramses XI. Amid a widespread famine, political contestation, and a Theban revolt over the succession of a High Priest of Amun, Panehesi sought to restore order in a way similar to that of King Piankhy, much later in Dynasty XXV. In this power vacuum, Panehesi assigned Herihor to take over Thebes, end the divisive disputes, and restore stability to Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. Promptly, Herihor exceeded his mission and became the de facto ruler of Upper Egypt (r. 1080–1074 BCE) as the High Priest of Amun at Thebes, while his colleague Smendes became the ultimate authority of Lower Egypt. Panehesi continued to assert he was the highest authority for the entire Nile valley. In fact, he only controlled Nubia, which had, by default, become entirely separate from Egypt by this time. Panehesi quarreled with the weak Theban priests for as much as a decade, until his death and burial in Nubia. Even thereafter, the feeble pharaoh Ramses XI resided mainly in the delta, and Viceroy Piankhy was the effective ruler or rival in Thebes some time between 1080 and 1074 BCE. Clearly, three or four claimant rulers of Egypt were not going to rule a unitary state. Perhaps this is why Nubian king Piankhy selected this name when he became the unitary ruler of Nubia and Egypt in around 740 BCE some three centuries later. Thus, at first, Panehesi, viceroy of Kush, sought to express his loyalty to Pharaoh Ramses XI and to a unitary Egypt. However, the divisions among the Theban High Priests of Amun meant that control of Upper Egypt was unpredictable, and the kings residing in Lower Egypt could hardly be confident of a stable national government. As the Rameside Dynasty XX concluded, the five centuries of Egyptian New Kingdom colonial rule were over, and Nubian autonomy was restored, however inadvertently. The case of Panehesi is important to Nubia in several respects. First, it created another opportunity for Nubians to be self-governing. Second, it gave Nubians a legiti-

PEKHERHONSU

•

291

mate role to claim a religious and political responsibility to rule Nubia and Egypt while Egypt was internally divided as in all of the three Intermediate periods and their own 2,000 years of foreign occupation. Third, this initiated a time of Nubian “dark ages.” Egypt was no longer in a position to record events in Nubia, and for several centuries, Nubians stopped writing their own historical record. When the writing of history resumed in the eighth century BCE, Nubians had begun to form, or reform, their own state around the Fourth Cataract at Kurru, upstream of former Kerma near the Third Cataract. The stage was set for the emergence of Dynasty XXV. PAN-GRAVE. This archaeological horizon was contemporary with the Kerma period. Pan-Grave culture is named after the shallow oval grave pits found sporadically in Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt. This style of grave is strictly a Nubian characteristic, although it is distinct from C-Group and Kerma burials. It is suggested that these graves featured nomadic people, conceivably mercenaries of the kings of Kerma or more likely for Egyptian pharaohs, and were most probably Medjayu people. The Medjayu people settled in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period and acquired Egyptian cultural and burial practices. In Lower Nubia, these Medjayu were considered invaders, and their sites were near Egyptian fortified positions at Aniba, Dakka, Quban, Sayala, and Toshka, and not farther upstream on the Nile than Serra (East and West). For example, in the Faras-Ashket region, CGroup people moved away from Medjayu settlements. Such movement by the C-Group people suggests that regions like Aushek and Webetsepet became small states for these seminomadic borderland regions. The Medjayu may have possibly shaped the Gash Group in the southern Atbai region. PASER II. Paser II was a viceroy of Nubia for Ramses II during his 25th to 34th regnal years. Paser’s tomb was in the vicinity of Abu Simbel. It shows scenes of .individuals making offering to Nubian deities as well as another scene in which Paser is worshipping Anubis (the jackal), Sobek (the crocodile), and the deified pharaoh Senusoret III. Paser II was followed by Viceroy Sethauw. Paser I, also a viceroy of Kush, had served pharaohs Ay and Horemhab. PEKHERHONSU. This man served as the “Doorkeeper of the House of Amun” during the Nubian Dynasty XXV. Fragments of his wooden anthropoid coffin are at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. His mummy was also covered by a cartonage face mask. His burial also contained several shawabti, a shawabti box, Osiride figures, and canopic jars that are indicative of his relatively high status and Theban wealth in the seventh century BCE.

292

•

PENNIUT, PENNUT

PENNIUT, PENNUT. See ANIBA, ANIBEH, MIAM. PEPI I, PEPY I, MERYRE (2332–2283 BCE). This Egyptian pharaoh was the second to rule in Dynasty VI of the Old Kingdom. As with his predecessors, pharaohs Sahure and Djoser, he sought control of Lower Nubia beyond the “door of the south” at Elephantine Island in Aswan. His military raids into Nubia produced slave soldiers who were critical in battles elsewhere in his empire. PEPI II, PEPY II, NEFERKARE (2278/2269–2184/2175 BCE). This pharaoh of Dynasty VI was a successor to Pepi I, and he had a reign of remarkable length both because he assumed the throne at an early age because of the death of his father, Pharaoh Merenre I, and because of a very long life of more than 90 years, according to Manetho. Relative to Nubia, it was during the long reign of Pepi II that the trading expeditions to Kerma (Yam) were undertaken by Harkuf and much celebrated by Pepi II. Fragments of Egyptian-made alabaster vessels with the name of Pepi II (as well as Pepi I and Merenre) have been uncovered at Kerma as further documentation of this interaction. During his heyday, he ruled a strong, unitary Old Kingdom, and in the wake of the murder of Makhi, he also undertook punitive raids into Wawat led by Pepinakht, who followed Harkuf in the position of “governor of the south.” Pepinakht carried out much slaughter, seized livestock and slaves, and captured two of the (C-Group?) chiefs from this region in Nubia. Perhaps because Pepi II ruled so long, there is reason to think that this stultified leadership in the Old Kingdom actually ended with the collapse of this epoch and ushered in the First Intermediate Period as the local governors (heka-ibs) of Elephantine sought, but failed, to hold on to Lower Nubia in the name of this pharaoh. Ruling from Memphis, Pepi II, along with his wives, was buried at the pyramid complex of Sakkara. His son Merenre II also failed to hold the Egyptian state together. This gave the C-Group Nubians and their cattle culture the chance to reoccupy Lower Nubia and for the Nubian state to continue the development of Kerma. PEPINAKHT. Pepinakht was an Old Kingdom Egyptian trade caravan leader to Nubia and Asia during the time of Pepi II. His role was a protype of the position of the heka-ib (“brave-hearted governor”) of Aswan in the Middle Kingdom with the viceroy of Nubia that was formalized to rule over Nubia during the New Kingdom. His tomb (no. 35), in the western cliffs at Qubbat al-Howa in Aswan, gives some testimony of the assignments of the pharaoh. One of Pepinakht’s missions was to return to Aswan with the body of Enk-

PERSIANS

•

293

het, another caravan leader and trader to Punt on the Red Sea coast. Another mission was to put down a revolt by Nubians and compel their leaders to indicate their submission to the rule of Egypt. PERSECUTIONS. The lives and faith of the early Christians were severely tested by repeated attacks, murders, and martyrdom throughout the ancient Roman Empire, which saw Christians as serious theological and political challengers to pagan Roman rule. No doubt, many thousands were killed during the reigns of Nero (64 CE), Septimius Severus (201–202 CE); Decius (249–251 CE), Diocletian (302–304 CE), Galerius (311 CE), and others. If Christians would not worship the Roman gods and surrender their religious texts, they would be put to death. Much later the Donatists of Numidia faced the same brutal test of faith. Persecutions in Egypt were also brutal, and they sparked the rise of monastic retreats as self-imposed tests of faith. The Edict of Milan and the Edict of Toleration were supposed to bring an end to this brutality as the Roman state under Emperor Constantine I accepted Christianity. PERSIANS. Persians represent the ancient reference to the people of modern Iran, who have gone under various names and empires over the millennia. At their height, their territory included Egypt in the sixth century BCE when their satraps (provincial governors) were installed there. Each satrap maintained law and order and supplied the taxes required in Persopolis, their primary capital. On the eve of their takeover of Egypt, their king ,Cyrus II, died in 529 BCE, but his successor, Cambyses II (r. 529–522 BCE), was able to resume this effort. Following an intense battle at Pelusium, Cambyses was installed as the new ruler of Egypt after driving out Psamtik III, the last king of Dynasty XXVI, which had replaced the former Nubian Dynasty XXV that had ruled Egypt and Kush. Thereby, the Persians constituted the formation of Dynasty XXVII, or the first Persian period (525–404 BCE). A much-noted event occurred during the reign of Cambyses when he lost a large army in a sandstorm in the Western Desert. The quest to locate this lost army long continued to engage archaeological curiosity with various claims, routes, and theories. Herodotus believed that this historic loss sent Cambyses into a fit of insanity and despotic rule that might have resulted in some important cultic temples. Herodotus also reported that an army of Cambyses ventured into Nubia as far as Napata. Presumably, this was on an intelligence-gathering mission, but no corroborating accounts exist that would have been contemporary with the Napatan king Amaninatakilebte (r. 538–519 BCE). On the other hand, the late William Y. Adams (1977, 270) raises the intriguing issue that Nastasen (in the fourth century BCE) referred to a northern enemy with a

294

•

PETRONIUS

name that could be rendered as “Cambyses.” But this would require a substantial reordering of Nubian chronology that has not taken place in the past 40 years; the George Reisner sequence still prevails. The Persians were forced out by Egyptians and kept out until the end of the reign of Nectanebo II in 343 BCE of Dynasty XXX, the very last native Egyptian to rule Egypt for 2,500 years. Immediately after that collapse, the Persians were able to return to Egypt under King Artaxerxes III, in what is termed the Second Persian Period, or Dynasty XXXI (343–332 BCE), in their effort to legitimate themselves into Egyptian history. It was the demise of this shorter Persian period that ushered in the relatively peaceful “liberation” of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 331 BCE after he defeated the Achaemenid Persian navy of Darius at the battle of Issus. This gave rise to the three centuries of Ptolemaic rule of the Egyptian Nile, contemporary with Nubian Meroë. PETRONIUS. Following the defeat of the Ptolemies, who had defeated the Persian navy in 332 BCE, the Roman navy defeated the Ptolemies at the sea battle of Actium in 31 BCE. Following the subsequent deaths of Cleopatra VII and her Roman lover and ally Antony, the Ptolemies were decisively ended politically, while Greek culture and language persisted. The young Roman Caesar Augustus could now claim Egypt as a part of the Roman Empire, with him at the head. In negotiations with the Meroitic royalty, the Romans set their limes (borders) at Aswan, and initially they had no more territorial or security ambitions into the lands of the “Barabra” (Nubian “barbarians”, to use this pejorative term) beyond the Roman limes. It seems that the contemporary Meroites were inclined to accept this boundary, but the Romans apparently abrogated this understanding. By projecting the Nubians as a tributary population, they tried to install Roman authority over the Nubian Dodekaschoenos (ancient Wawat) or more. This was completely unacceptable to the Meroites, who were ruled either by Amanirenas or perhaps Akinidad. Caesar Augustus soon returned from Egypt to manage Roman politics, and he appointed Petronius as the Roman prefect of Egypt sometimes before 24 BCE. The Roman geographer Strabo reported that while Roman troops were diverted in a punitive mission in Arabia, the Meroites led by a “one-eyed queen” saw this as an opportunity to redress their grievances in 24 BCE. They attacked Philae, Elephantine, and Aswan with a Nubian army of some 30,000 soldiers. Much booty was seized, including a bronze head of Augustus that made its way back to the royal capital at Meroë. Strabo and Pliny the Elder reported a Roman reprisal raid by infantry and cavalry (11,000 troops and 800 horses) into Nubia in 23 BCE, in which Petronus replaced Gallus as the prefect of Egypt. First, Petronius and his troops captured Qasr Ibrim and Dakka, leaving a 400-man garrison with

PHILAE

•

295

supplies (military projectiles) for two years at Qasr Ibrim, putting it under Roman occupation from 23 to 21 BCE. From there, apparently he went on to Napata. The so-called Roman Tower with archer loopholes situated just downstream from Napata hints that this might have been the case. Nevertheless, little else has been discovered of whatever the Roman army may have achieved in Upper Nubia at this time. Apparently the military forces of Petronius, concerned about over-extension, mostly withdrew back to Aswan and Alexandria , but probably a garrison force was left on the heights of Qasr Ibrim to keep watch on, and discourage, any movements of Meroitic armed forces. The final stage in this rough start of Romano-Nubian relations took place on the Aegean Island of Samos. Meroitic envoys were able to meet there with Augustus, or his representative, to settle this discord by accepting a mutual boundary line at Maharraqa or Hieraskyminos, where a temple there would represent the temporary southern limit (limes) of Roman Egypt or the northern limit of the Meroitic Empire. These attacks, counterattacks, and negotiations between Rome and Meroë ultimately stimulated an explosion of temple building under the rule of King Natakamani and Queen Amanitore. PHILAE. The ancient site at Philae is no more; the rising of the Low Dam in Aswan subjected this nearby island to annual flooding and caused damage to the colors of the famed temples there. Luckily, the renewed interest in Nubia generated in the 1960s was translated to Philae, which was unfortunately above the Low Dam but downstream of the High Dam. In the context and new technologies for relocating so many Nubian monuments, the temple of Philae was also selected for removal and relocation to the nearby island of Agilka (roughly 500 meters away). With remarkable care and precision, it is now possible to visit this new site and have a profound sense of its former condition and orientation. The area of Philae and nearby islands was visited throughout dynastic times as it lay on this key corridor to Africa. However, the oldest known evidence in the vicinity is at Biga and Seheil Islands in New Kingdom times. During Dynasty XXV, some shrines were built on Philae, although few traces of this period still remain except for the small granite altar of Taharka at the southwest corner of the inner, eastern colonnade. This is the very oldest time period still represented at Philae. Overwhelmingly Philae represents the Greco-Roman period as well as some important Meroitic and Christian episodes of Nile valley history. Nectanebo I of Dynasty XXX, built an airy kiosk or pavilion in the southwest corner of Philae. Its 14 columns and Hathor capitals represent the oldest extant portion of the Philae complex. Nectanebo I also built the portal in first pylon, certainly long before the additions of Ptolemy XII. Even though the record of periods earlier than the Ptolemies is sparse, the links to the past are still profound in the iconography and deities who received special attention

296

•

PHILAE

at Philae. For example, the ruined west-facing temple of Arensnuphis with its three vestibules and inner sanctuary ties Philae to Nubian deities, although it was built in Greco-Roman times. The same may be said for the nearby foundation of the small Mandulis chapel on the outer, eastern colonnade. This south-facing chapel built in Roman times had one vestibule and an inner sanctuary. One approach to explain Philae is with a chronological list of the architectural contributions to Philae by successive pharaohs. Ptolemy II is credited for the construction of the oddly oriented gate just outside the first pylon (18 meters high and almost 46 meters wide). This suggests that the temple was redesigned and reoriented on more than one occasion. Ptolemy VI has built the marvelously illustrated Mammissi, or birth house, in the inner courtyard that apparently necessitated its own retrofitted entrance through the first pylon. This gave him the chance to add the lovely relief scenes in this passageway. A text on the Mammissi outer facade carried references known from the Rosetta stone and thus added a significant part to its decipherment. A great granite stela buried into pylon 2 celebrated the land donation of Ptolemy VI to Isis, who is, in fact, the central deity for Philae temple. Ptolemy VI was also responsible for the Hathor/Bes music sanctuary on the eastern side of Philae. Ptolemy VIII is associated with the construction of pylon 2, which took advantage of the natural granite outcroppings on Philae to integrate this stone mass of the Ptolemy VI stela into the second pylon. The inner 10-column hypostyle hall is noted for its having been painted by David Roberts in 1838. While the former glorious colors are now completely gone, the excellent capitals remain to be enjoyed. This hall with its open roof is something of a compromise between a standard hypostyle hall and an outer court; probably this is due to the limited construction area available on Philae. Ptolemy VIII was also responsible for the construction of the eastern colonnade between pylons 1 and 2, and for some additions to the Hathor/Bes music sanctuary. The innermost scenes of Philae offer illustration of Isis’s effort to collect the dispersed body parts of her husband Osiris, and thereby prepare for his funeral and resurrection. Ptolemy XII was involved in either the construction of, or at least the reliefs on, the outer wall of pylon 1. These show huge images of this pharaoh smiting the heads of prisoners for the glory of Isis, Horus, and Hathor. He also decorated sections of pylon 2 and commissioned reliefs of a Sokar procession along sections of the eastern colonnade. Roman times saw exterior wall reliefs of the Isis temple added by Augustus and Tiberius. Augustus also built a badly ruined temple on the north side of Philae. He also decorated the Hathor/Bes temple. Diocletian added a gateway and dock that are still to be seen. These provide an example of a Roman arch that is not known otherwise for the site. Important contributions of

PHOENICIANS

•

297

Hadrian include the western gateway or bastion that has many important late reliefs of Isis, Osiris, Horus, and Nephthys. The image of Hapy living under the stones of the neighboring island is rich in symbolism. The inscriptions a few meters away are reckoned to be among the very last in hieroglyphics. One of the most impressive and lovely Roman works is the huge “Pharoah’s Bed” or kiosk of Trajan. Its 14 columns with screen walls still support huge architraves and have richly decorated capitals. Presumably, the annual river processions of the Isis figurine would begin and end at this building. In Meroitic times, Philae became a depository of numerous Meroitic inscriptions, graffiti, and an especially long and intriguing text in the “storeroom” in the eastern side of the inner courtyard known as the “Ethiopian chamber.” This appears to represent very late Meroitic visitors to Philae who were still devoted to the worship of its deities after the temple was formally closed. Christian times did terrible damage to the reliefs of Philae and it is believed that most of the systematic defacement took place in this era. The Blemmyes and Meroites had been allowed some access to Philae in the early Christian era, but during the reign of Justinian, Philae was finally closed in 551 CE as a temple of Egyptian deities. After 553 CE, it was officially transformed into the church of St. Mary and St. Stephen. PHILO JUDAEUS. Philo was a commentator and historian of early Christianity especially in Alexandria. Philo believed that the Ptolemy II–sponsored translation of the Hebrew Septuagint into Greek by 70 translators was divinely assisted. Philo noted the importance of celibacy for the Essene community of early Christians. He was noted to have a tolerant attitude for Jews and was somewhat influential to the writings of Origen, as Christianity in the Nile valley was getting its start and evolving from Jewish traditions. PHOENICIANS. Old Kingdom Egyptians had close trade ties to Phoenicia, especially for valuable cedar. In the New Kingdom, the military forces of Ramses II clashed with Hittites in Lebanon at the battle of Kadesh. But generally, the relations between the Phoenicians and the ancient Nubians are not too significant because of considerable distances and quite different economic modes of production. But, during Dynasty XXV both were temporarily linked in the common, but ultimately failed, efforts to block Assyrian expansion. Under Pharaoh Shabaka, efforts were made to foment a diversionary rebellion in Phoenicia with their King Luli. Perhaps Prince Taharka was engaged in this sensitive assignment. When Luli fled to Cyrus, and the northern Jewish kingdom of Samaria fell, little more could be done in this respect. Another small linkage between Phoenicians and Nubians in Meroitic times is

298

•

PIANKHY, HIGH PRIEST OF AMUN AT THEBES (R. 1074–1070 BCE)

that a few of their written letters have a similar morphology and pronunciation. Several eastern Mediterranean alphabets have common influences and ancestry, but it would be going too far to say that Meroitic morphology is derived from the more ancient Phoenician writing systems. During the reign of Necho II, the relations between Egypt and Phoenicia were close. PIANKHY, HIGH PRIEST OF AMUN AT THEBES (r. 1074–1070 BCE). It is critical to distinguish the High Priest of Amun Piankhy from King Piankhy of Dynasty XXV. They are clearly different people at different times. The identical names may have added confusion to the early, but mistaken claim that two Piankhys of Dynasty XXV may have existed. On the other hand, it does seem possible that the later King Piankhy might have been given this name to legitimate his effort to regain Egypt as if he were serving in the honorable role similar to the high priest Piankhy, who may have been of Nubian origin. It was common throughout Dynasty XXV for Nubians to use all available icons and beliefs of Thebes to justify themselves as not-soforeign conservator of Egyptian religion and values, thus in the quest of ruling all of the Nile valley, he may have turned to this earlier namesake from the past. Piankhy, the high priest, was also a military man who followed Herihor, in around 1060 BCE, to continue the movement that led to the virtual autonomy of Thebes. Herihor may have been the father of High Priest Piankhy, whose concern was to stabilize or recover control over Nubia, which had broken away under the leadership of Panehesi in the chaotic time following the death of Ramses XI. In this respect, he acted as a viceroy of Nubia. Even when Priest Piankhy died and was followed by his son Pinudjem I, the conflict continued. Indeed, the depth of this dispute over territorial control between Upper and Lower Egypt and Lower Nubia was so great that the Third Intermediate Period was to last for two centuries and would not be fully resolved until the Nubian Dynasty XXV finally gained control over all of Nubia and Egypt combined. On the other hand, knowledge of this Nubian “dark age” is poor, as is the time of Pinudjem I, until the Kurru kings began to reassert Nubian control of Upper Nubia. PIANKHY, PIANKHI, PI, PIYE, PIYI, PIANK, KING (r. 747–716 BCE). Although variant forms of his name have appeared, the glyphs in his cartouche can be accurately rendered as “Piankhy.” This Nubian king was the son of Kashta, who managed to gain control of all of Nubia and possibly Thebes. Piankhy apparently was married to Tabiry (daughter of his uncle Alara, Kashta’s brother), perhaps Abar (daughter of another aunt), and Perrksater/Pekareslo, Khensa, and Neferukekashta were also his “sister” wives. The case of Tabiry provides an ancient example of the still preferred Nubian

PIANKHY, PIANKHI, PI, PIYE, PIYI, PIANK, KING (R. 747–716 BCE)

•

299

(and Islamic) form of marriage to one’s father’s brother’s daughter (patrilateral parallel cousin, or bint ‘amm, in Arabic). Khensa was buried at Kurru’s royal cemetery, where a silver vessel (MFA 21.3091) was found inscribed with her name. Another “sister” of Piankhy was Amenirdis I, the God’s Wife of Amun at Thebes. Although no inscriptional evidence has been found, circumstantial reason exists to believe that King Piankhy might have been named for Piankhy, the High Priest of Amun. The thought that there were two kings of Dynasty XXV both named Piankhy is without foundation. The Nubian tendency to seek legitimacy with reference to earlier times and persons is not uncommon. Modern Nubians still name their children “Taharka,” for example. King Piankhy of Kush managed to achieve control of Upper Egypt up to Herakleopolis by around 728 BCE. Under his generals Purem, Lanersekenny, and Purma, Piankhy sent Nubian soldiers to advance farther northward and achieve full control of a reunified Egyptian Nile by around 726 BCE after defeating rival kings (or princes) in the western delta. The precise chronology and dates for Piankhy are disputed, but this event took place late in his reign (perhaps the 21st year). Piankhy’s father, Kashta, had started this initiative, and Piankhy’s conquest appears to have been somewhat cautious or reluctant. At first, he seems to have been satisfied just to be king of Kush and then Thebes. However, Tefnakht, the prince of Sais in the delta, headed southward to regroup his forces with his ally, Nimlot, king of Hermopolis, and drive out the Nubians. Because of this challenge, and perhaps with more Nubian troops and boats, Piankhy left his secure base at Thebes to attack and defeat the combined forces of Tefnakht, Nimlot, and Herakleopolis. Nimlot temporarily escaped to refuge in the delta but later returned to Hermopolis, thereby renewing his challenge to Piankhy. Piankhy personally resolved to return to these conflicts after celebrating the next year’s Theban Opet festival. His advance military troops had likely already isolated Hermopolis, so Nimlot’s position was precarious, and he begged to surrender on favorable terms and with offers of gifts negotiated by his own queen. With the surrender of Nimlot, Piankhy could again claim the entire Nile valley to be under his authority, but he still had to dispose of Tefnakht once again. However, the defeat of Nimlot hastened the surrender of Peftjaubastet (Pefnefdibast), who had been the king of Herakleopolis. Then, one after the other, the local kings (or nomarchs) fell under Piankhy’s advancing forces except for the local rulers of Crocodilopolis in the Fayum and Aphroditopolis on the eastern bank of the Nile at Meidum. But these places were perceived as unnecessary diversion, which could be addressed later while Piankhy sent his soldiers in hot pursuit of Tefnakht. Surveying his booty and tribute, Piankhy saw that the stables of Nimlot’s horses were in deplorable condition, and as a horseloving Nubian, he noted this on his commemorative stela.

300

•

PIANKHY, PIANKHI, PI, PIYE, PIYI, PIANK, KING (R. 747–716 BCE)

Meanwhile, Tefnakht had created a strongly fortified position at Memphis, and he exhorted his followers to hold out against the Nubians. Taking Memphis was to prove a challenge to Piankhy, and he had to determine his tactics. Would a long siege work with undermining the defensive walls, or should he use siege ramps to succeed in breaching the walls of Memphis? He determined that the western, desert-facing walls of the city had been raised and strengthened for Tefnakht’s protection since he anticipated that Piankhy’s cavalry forces would attack by land. Instead, Piankhy estimated that the weakest defense of Memphis was on the eastern side, in the river port area, which may have been even more vulnerable during the annual inundation. Piankhy’s flexible strategy used his river boats to make a raid against Tefnakht’s poorly defended shipping port. Memphis was quickly captured after the Nubian soldiers broke through the eastern walls. The defenders were slaughtered, and the ancient capital fell to Piankhy’s rule. This impressive strategic move and powerful show of force had a desired effect among holdouts around Memphis and across the delta where some may have hoped for Tefnakht’s victory. Piankhy advanced to Heliopolis (to the east of modern Cairo) to give thanks at its venerable temple for the Old Kingdom sun god. Now Piankhy was the legitimate protector of the holy places of Egypt. It was in Heliopolis that Piankhy received the Libyan Osorkon IV to acknowledge Piankhy as the only king of Egypt. Near Athribis (modern Benha), the numerous humbled delta princes and kings now gave their loyalty to Piankhy. The prince of Athribis, Pedise, recognized Piankhy’s love of horses and offered him the very best from his stable. Meanwhile, Tefnakht had still escaped Piankhy’s grasp and managed to kill General Purem’s son Bonakhta before fleeing deeper into the western delta and destroying his own supplies and vessels as he went to prevent them from falling into Piankhy’s hands. Fearing that it was just a matter of time before he would be captured and slain, Tefnakht finally capitulated to the Nubian general Purem along with the rulers of Crocodilopolis and Aphroditopolis, who heretofore had been spared in this conflict. His military and political mission in Lower Egypt now complete, Piankhy returned to Upper Egypt and back to Nubia, having accepted the word of the delta princes that no further armed resistance would take place. Much of this information was recorded on the tall military stela erected by Piankhy at the great Amun temple at Napata to register these conquests and his famed love of horses that he thought had been mistreated in Egypt. In this way, he may have also hoped to demonstrate his compassion and humanity. This stela was taken to Cairo, where it rests in an infrequently visited side hallway in the Egyptian National Museum while most tourists are diverted to other exhibits. Indeed, at the main public entrance, the left hand wall notes dynasties prior to Dynasty XXV, and the right hand wall has dynasties afterward. Dynasty XXV is absent in the space of the tall doorway.

PIANKHY, PIANKHI, PI, PIYE, PIYI, PIANK, KING (R. 747–716 BCE)

•

301

Piankhy’s wishes for the loyalty of the delta princes was mistaken. Tefnakht waited for Piankhy to retire to Napata so that he could reclaim his own ambitions to rule the delta from Sais. Even after Tefnakht’s death in 720 BCE, his son Bakenrenef (Bocchoris) made an attempt to organize Dynasty XXIV. By 718 BCE, Bakenrenef controlled most of the delta and Lower Egypt. Once again he claimed that he was the “Lord of Two Lands.” His reign is not well known, but an Apis bull of Memphis was buried in the sixth year of his reign. Thus, Piankhy’s claim to control the entire Nile was being seriously challenged. Despite this confrontational resistance in Lower Egypt, Piankhy never lost control of the region between Herakleopolis and Thebes, where he made a modest addition at the Mut temple at Karnak. Piankhy also celebrated the ritually and politically significant Opet festival and processional in the Thebaid region. In addition, he incorporated himself into the Theban priesthood by having his sister Amenirdis I “adopted” by Shepenwepet (daughter of Osorkon III) as the God’s Wife of Amun. The precise dynamics in Thebes are not fully clear, but Piankhy’s chief advisor was Nalsken, and his treasurer was Khalibu. Perhaps in his early period in Thebes, Osorkon II may still have played some role in that glorious capital, judging from a chapel he built there in these confusing times. Since Amun was the central god of Thebes and at Jebel Barkal, this religious metaphor helped cement political relations between the two peoples and lands of Nubia and Egypt and to legitimate Piankhy in both. In fact, Piankhy’s decision to voluntarily return to Napata may have been less “free will” than it was a means to avoid the Theban intrigues and the threatening presence of Osorkon’s allies. Perhaps even a brief coregency with Takelot III was formed to recover Thebes while Piankhy was away in Nubia. Certainly, the lack of an effective central government in Egypt gave economic and military precariousness and opportunity to those with ambitions to rule. If the delta princes were not enough of a distraction, the Assyrians under King Sargon II had turned their attention to the Judaean king Hezekiah. Judaean fears of Assyria were realized when the neighboring northern Jewish kingdom of Samaria, under Hoshea, fell in around 722 BCE; Jewish captives were taken back to Assyria in fear and humiliation. Hezekiah was much shocked by the news of this defeat, and he began an active campaign of military defense, politico-religious reform, and alliance building that is described in a number of biblical references. It was in this complex context that the Judaeans explored their need for a military and political alliance with the “Ethiopian” Piankhy, then the ruler of Egypt. With Assyrian troops reaching Raphia in Gaza by 720 BCE, Piankhy had a great deal to worry about. Upon Piankhy’s death in 716 BCE, he was buried at Kurru in Nubia just downstream from Napata and not in the Egyptian soil for which he had struggled so long and hard. His tomb was likely among the first of the pyramid revival type at Kurru, although future excavations may show that

302

•

PIHOR AND PIDISI, PEDESSE

this was initiated somewhat earlier. It was likely that this was influenced by his experiences in viewing the Old and Middle Kingdom pyramids at Giza, Sakkara, and elsewhere in Egypt. As the centuries passed, Nubian pyramids became more numerous than those in Egypt, but they rise at an angle 10 to 20 degrees steeper than the Giza type; while some Nubian pyramids are very large, even the largest (Taharka’s pyramid) is smaller than those in Egypt. Continuing the process of legitimating themselves by Egyptian standards, the Dynasty XXV kings were embalmed, had canopic jars, and had shawabti “helper” statues to reside with them in their tombs. This continued in the early Napatan period and then declined. But, following Nubian cultural traditions, even dating back to Kerma times, most were buried resting on their royal beds or benches, and some of the earliest were buried with their beloved horses. In any case, Piankhy’s long, and sometimes contested, reign over Egypt and Kush did lay the foundation of the Kushite Dynasty XXV, which ruled over Lower and Upper Egypt and Nubia. It was not long before the treachery of the delta princes reemerged in around 715 BCE, when Piankhy’s successor and younger brother, Shabaka, was compelled to return to the delta with even stronger military forces to try to deal with this once and for all. PIHOR AND PIDISI, PEDESSE. See DENDUR, TUTZIS. PINUDJEM I, PINEDJEM I (r. 1070–1032 BCE). This High Priest of Amun at Thebes succeeded his father and counterpart, High Priest Piankhy, in 1070 BCE during the Late Period. Even though a unified Egypt was lost, Pinudjem I held this position for a rather long period until 1032 BCE. Perhaps he even claimed to be unitary pharaoh, or was this just usurped statuary of Ramses II? Meanwhile in Nubia, at Kurru, this “dark age” began to allow Nubians to recover and emerge from these historical shadows and rebuild the political capacity to rule Upper Nubia and finally all of Egypt in Dynasty XXV. PINUDJEM II, PINEDJEM II (r. 990–969 BCE). This High Priest of Amun at Thebes controlled Upper Egypt during the time of the rival Dynasty XXI at Tanis in the delta. In these contested times, Pinudjem II was a contemporary with Amenemope (r. 993–984 BCE) in Nubia, Osorkon I (the Elder, r. 924–889 BCE) in the delta, and “King” Siamun (r. 978–959 BCE) in Thebes. The mummy of Pinudjem II and his blue faience shawabtis were found in the royal cache of Deir al-Bahri.

PLAGUES

•

303

PLAGUES. Infectious human plagues are well known in history to have had devastating demographic effects and to have caused grave social disorder in the absence of means to prevent, mitigate, or even to understand them. For the Nile valley, the biblical plagues are legendary. Like other disasters, such as war and famine, the arrival of a plague can also precipitate crises with major political and military upheavals and socioreligious “explanations” turned into abject terror, cultural conflicts, and ethnic persecutions. Most of the 10 biblical plagues described in Exodus (1–12) could be scientifically explained as a natural occurrence in one way or the other, including these nine plagues: the Nile turning red, frogs, small insects, large insects, livestock, (lymphatic) boils (like the Black plague?), storms, locusts, and darkness (volcanic eruptions). It is widely understood that state formation on the Nile in 3000 BCE correlated with Sahara desiccation and incipient urbanization, which may relate to an early plague as rodents and humans fled to the Nile to start agriculture. The highly infectious bacteria, Yersinia pestis, is considered to be the cause. Transmission to, or from, fleas on humans and rodents is the most likely culprit, especially in unclean urban areas and often transmitted by ships coming to, and going from, the ancient ports of the Mediterranean. Other notable cases were in the fifth-century-BCE “Plague of Athens” or the (Bubonic) “Plague of Justinian” from 541 to 546 CE that killed something from 25 to 100 million people and even lingered on until 750 CE. It is not hard to imagine that the tumultuous times of Justinian were partly related to the plague. However, when the “Black Plague,” “Black Death,” or “Pestilence” is commonly mentioned this refers to the 1346/1347–1351/1353 CE period that took the lives of 30–50 percent of the world’s population, or perhaps 75 to 200 million people in Europe and North Africa. It is said that the Nile in Cairo was filled with unburied corpses, and some 50 smaller epidemics took place after this time frame. Indeed, many more limited cases took place in the Middle East from 1500 to 1850. Did the Sahara prove to be barrier to this disease, or have faulty records just given the impression that it did not cross this desiccated region? This research continues. Perhaps it did block West African transmission, but ships in East Africa carried these lethal fleas to Swahili shores. Plague was reported in Africa in 1445 CE. So, whether ancient Egyptian state formation, or the politico-religious turbulence along the Nile of sixth-century-CE Justinian, or the collapse of medieval Nubian Christianity and replacement with Islam may need closer analysis of this epidemiological background and context.

304

•

PLINY THE ELDER (GAIUS PLINIUS SECUNDUS) (23?–79 CE)

A modern case of the Bubonic plague started in China in 1894 and ended in California in 1924 was transmitted by fleas on rats arriving by ship. Many thousands lost their lives. The plague is still present in the 21st century when it entered from Madagascar and on to Malawi, Zambia, Algeria, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other spots in East and South Africa. Today after the “Spanish Flu” of 1917–1921 and now with COVID-19, it is easy to see how very devasting the major human, sociopolitical, and economic effects of a tiny bacteria or virus can be. The historical record may need review considering this epidemiological context. PLINY THE ELDER (GAIUS PLINIUS SECUNDUS) (23?–79 CE). This famed Roman writer and encyclopedist is most known for his work in 37 volumes, titled Natural History, which provided an encyclopedic inventory of historical events, practical knowledge, and very detailed records of Middle Nile toponyms, flora and fauna, physical appearances, races, ethnography, elephant hunting, minerals, longevity, and anatomy especially as they related to medicine practiced in the Nile valley. He is a valuable reference on the geography and ethnography of Nubia. For example, he describes the Blemmyes as being savage like and wretched. He also gives account of Petronius’s attack on Napata and its repercussions on Nubia, as well as Nero’s expedition up the Nile to Meroë and beyond. Pliny also reconstructs an “Ancient Aithiopan” empire, based on the Greek legend of Memnon. The only known source of information about a trade route from Napata to the Red Sea comes from the writings of Pliny. Accounts of rhinoceroses and elephants at Meroë in the 60s CE are supplied. He developed a serious interest, following earlier classical scholars, about the source of the Nile and its tributaries, the Astaboras, Astasobas, and Astapus. He traveled from Alexandria to Berenice on the Red Sea and provided an important contemporary travel reference during the perilous times of early Christianity in the region. It was Pliny the Elder who reported the Roman counterraid into Nubia in 23 BCE. Pliny the Elder, Josephus, and Philo also wrote about the early Essene Christian community in Judea that would influence the regional development of Christianity. “Admiral” Pliny was also a Roman naval commander who died in a vain attempt to rescue the people of Pompei from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE. PLINY THE YOUNGER (PLINIUS GAIUS) (61–113 CE). Pliny the Younger was a Roman governor and legal advisor in Asia Minor in 112 CE when he asked Emperor Trajan for legal advice about the policy and treatment of early Christians. He decided to execute some of those not having Roman citizenship, while those having a political tie to Rome were sent there for judgment. Apparently, Trajan was much less concerned about this than

POLYBIUS (CA. 208–125 BCE)

•

305

was Pliny the Younger. His numerous letters to his emperor provide a dynamic account for the functioning of the Roman Empire at this period. In letters to Tacitus, Pliny the Younger recorded the volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE in which his uncle, Pliny the Elder, was killed. PLUTARCH (45/50–120/127 CE). This well-known and productive Greek historian and biographer wrote on many prominent Greek and Roman figures, especially military, in the earlier centuries. His work on Alexander the Great and Augustus provides much basic information on these men with great historical significance to the Nile valley. These were collected in a work known commonly as Plutarch’s Lives. Plutarch was a contemporary of such Roman emperors as Nero and Trajan. Plutarch was a deeply reflective and scholarly man of leisure and probably of a devout religious orientation. He was often critical of the writings of Herodotus, especially in trying to reconcile fact, fiction, and mythology that sometimes intertwined in the work of Herodotus. Plutarch’s work on Alexander describes his military activities in Phoenicia (Book 24); Alexander’s crossing of Sinai into Egypt to Pharos Island (Books 25–26); and his use of cavalry in fighting against Persian military elephants (Book 60). In his work on Antony (Books 27–28), we learn that Cleopatra VII spoke many languages, including that of the “Ethiopians” (contemporary Meroites) and that she was the first of the Ptolemies to speak Egyptian. In Book 81 of Antony we learn that Cleopatra sent Caesarion, her son by Julius Caesar, with much treasure to India by way of “Ethiopia” (i.e., Nubia). POLYBIUS (ca. 208–125 BCE). This remarkable and factual Greek historian was influential in accurately writing the history of Rome and Greece, especially the period from 264 to 146 BCE—that is, during the period of the Egyptian Ptolemies II to VI, or the contemporary and important Meroitic rulers including Arkamani-qo, Amanislo, Arnekhamani, Arqamani, and Shanakdakhete. While mainly known for writing The Histories, he was also a cavalry officer so he wrote about military history, cryptography, and enduring strategies of governance. In fact, his father, Lycortas, was a leader in the Archaean League as a Greek strategos. While his father was opposed to the Archaean War against Rome, Polybius certainly studied that because it was quickly defeated by Rome, and Polybius became a rather honorable hostage of the rapidly rising Roman Empire, which had so many implications to Egypt and Nubia after 31 BCE. As a firsthand witness to important world events, such as the sack of Carthage in 146 BCE, Polybius added to his credibility and critical thinking; this included a critique of his contemporary,

306

•

POTTERY

the noted geographer Eratosthenes, in the library of Alexandria. While most of his works were lost, enough was written by his followers that his role in history remains strong. POTTERY. See A-GROUP, A-HORIZON; C-GROUP, C-HORIZON; KERMA: MATERIAL CULTURE; MEROЁ (ca. 270 BCE–ca. 340 CE); MESOLITHIC (KHARTOUM). PSAMTIK I, PSAMMETICHUS I, WAHIBRE (r. 664–610 BCE). Following the very short reign of Necho I, Psamtik I of Sais in Dynasty XXVI may be considered as a successor to the two delta princes, Tefnakht and Bakenrenef, if one considers the Nubian Dynasty XXV to be “interlopers” as Psamtik I projected. On the other hand, Psamtik I could also be seen as a puppet king or satrap for the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, who sought to wield his power in Egypt through this local appointment in 663 BCE. By 656 BCE, Psamtik I had, in fact, established control of the delta and of Thebes itself. Then when other powers conquered Assyria, Psamtik I was able to reclaim a unified Nile for himself. His connection to Dynasty XXV was concretized when he forced the “adoption” of his daughter Nitocris to be the God’s Wife of Amun in Thebes to legitimate his presence there. He also accepted the continuing role of Mentuemhat as the “Lord of Thebes”; Mentuemhat formerly served Taharka and Tanutamun. Numerous Dynasty XXV cartouches and Nubian iconography with the unique double cobra uraeus were defaced at the time of Psamtik I. According to Herodotus, a large number of the soldiers of Psamtik I went unpaid for three years, and in frustration, they fled in a big group to offer their services to the king of Meroë. There they became known as the Sembritae, who are reported on some early Latin maps. At his death, Psamtik I was replaced by Pharaoh Necho II. PSAMTIK II, PSAMMETICHUS II, NEFERIBRE (r. 595–589 BCE). This pharaoh of the Saite Dynasty XXVI in the Late Period sought to rebuild the glories of the former New Kingdom. In particular, he sought to reassert unitary Egyptian control of Nubia. While Nubia was certainly weakening at this time since the expulsion of Dynasty XXV, it seems that Psamtik II was overly ambitious. In 592 BCE, he attacked deep into Nubia with his Carian and Greek mercenary soldiers, some of whom wrote some famous graffiti on the legs of the towering figure of Ramses II at his Abu Simbel temple in Lower Nubia. Elsewhere, in Judaea, Psamtik II sought a much more cautious and conciliatory policy in fear of the strength of the Babylonians.

PTOLEMIES

•

307

PSAMTIK III, PSAMMETICHUS III, ANKH-RE (r. 526–525 BCE). Psamtik III of Dynasty XXVI was the last pharaoh of the Third Intermediate Period. He was the successor to Amasis. The Persian king Cambyses II ended the very brief rule of Psamtik III. This incorporated the lands of Egypt within the expanding Persian Empire for the first time as Dynasty XXVII. The Persians left but returned a second time in Dynasty XXXI in 343–332 BCE, which was concluded with the arrival of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE. PTOLEMEUS, CLAUDIUS. This second-century-CE Roman geographer and astronomer lived in Alexandria between 127 and 151 CE. The precise dates of his birth and death are unclear. Claudius Ptolemeus was not a Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt since this Hellenistic epoch was already completed. However, he did continue the rich traditions of the Alexandrian geographer Eratosthenes, and this made Ptolemeus the last great ancient geographer. Ptolemeus studied astronomy, mathematics, and cartography at Alexandria even though the library there may have begun its deterioration. He proposed that the earth was stationary and was circled by the sun, but he also recorded the places and regions of the ancient world with more accuracy than formerly known. His Guide to Geography described solar and lunar movements, eccentric planetary orbits, and the earth’s motion. The geocentric geography of Ptolemeus established latitudinal lines that depicted the known circum-Mediterranean world. These were to last through the Dark Ages and until the European Renaissance and the Age of Exploration. Then active site exploration found and corrected many long-lasting errors. PTOLEMIES. Following the reign of Alexander the Great, his successors quickly divided into the Seleucids of Asia and the Ptolemies of Egypt and Nubia. All of the subsequent rulers of Hellenic Egypt were titled Ptolemy with the exception of Cleopatra VII who ruled in her own name. The Ptolemies followed Egyptian traditions of art, architecture, and theology but with a variety of adjustments and additions. Such included the addition of Greek language texts that resulted in the famed Rosetta Stone and several cases of religious syncretism in which they merged Egyptian deities or linked Egyptian deities with their own. A prime example was the emergence of the god Serapis, and the expanded worship of the Apis bull cult at Memphis included a vast catacomb for bull mummies. During the three centuries of Ptolemaic rule, they built extensively at Alexandria and Memphis, as well as other very important Egyptian temples at Esna, Edfu, and Kom Ombo. In Nubia, the Ptolemies built in many places, such as Dakka, Dabod, Kalabsha, and Philae. Relations with contemporary Meroë were mostly cordial and linked these

308

•

PTOLEMY I, MERYAMUN, SOTER I (THE SAVIOR) (R. 305–282 BCE)

people in science and trade. Hostilities only emerged in sometimes contested parts of Lower Nubia. During Ptolemaic times, the distribution of the arts and theology of ancient Egypt dispersed throughout the Mediterranean world and into Europe. By the time the Romans took over this empire, Isis was worshipped as far away as London, and Cestius built a Ptolemy-inspired pyramid in Rome. Among these many influences, certainly the creation of the great library at Alexandria and the neighboring Lighthouse of Pharos were among the most significant. PTOLEMY I, MERYAMUN, SOTER I (THE SAVIOR) (r. 305–282 BCE). This first Ptolemy had been a personal friend of Alexander the Great, and he began the new Lagide dynastic line of the Ptolemaic administration of Egypt. At Philae in Nubia, Ptolemy I may have been inspired by remnants of a shrine perhaps started by Taharka to build an even larger temple to the goddess Isis. This important temple may have been started late in his reign as it appears to have been constructed more by Ptolemy II and other Ptolemaic successors. The capital of the Ptolemies was in Alexandria, where Ptolemy I began the library and museum in 285 BCE. Writing was done on papyrus scrolls and waxed tablets for this collection. His other remarkable construction was the massive three-tiered lighthouse at Pharos. This edifice was said to have been 109 meters in height, and it long-remained a wonder of the ancient world, until the Eiffel Tower exceeded its height. During his time, the Jews of Alexandria numbered at least in the tens of thousands, if not more than 150,000; they formed the first Jewish quarters in that new city, making this the largest Jewish urban population in the world. Jewish communities were also established in the delta, in the Fayum, and across Ptolemaic Egypt. Depending upon sources, the Jews were deported to Egypt or welcomed and protected there at this point; indeed, many served as mercenary troops for Ptolemy I. The Greeks allowed the Jews to be ruled by their own Council of Elders (ethnarchs) unlike the local Egyptians. These elders were appointed to rule Jews in Alexandria and in Jerusalem at this time. The great geometrician Euclid died in Alexandria in 285 BCE during the life of Ptolemy I. When Ptolemy I abdicated, his son Ptolemy II began to reign. A huge statue of Ptolemy I was found under water in Alexandria in 1996 amid a new surge in the technology of underwater archaeology. PTOLEMY II, USERKAENRE, PHILADELPHUS (BROTHER LOVER) (r. 285–246 BCE). The “brotherly” name of this Ptolemy is quite ironic since it is believed that he executed two of his brothers. It was during his reign that the Ptolemaic priest Manetho wrote his significant and lasting history and chronology of Egyptian pharaohs. A major expansion of the

PTOLEMY III (R. 246–222 BCE)

•

309

library in Alexandria took place under Ptolemy II. When his father started this institution, it was only on a small scale. This famed collection hired 72 translators to collect all known books of the world, which resulted in roughly 500,000 papyrus scrolls. A major addition to the library resulted in the acquisition of the library of Aristotle who had died in 322 BCE. These were the times of the noted cataloguer Callimachus and the great scientist and geographer Eratosthenes. It was during the reign of Ptolemy II that other areas of scientific research were broadly encouraged. This also included his creation of a great Alexandrian royal zoo that acquired a vast array of wild and domestic animals, birds, and reptiles from throughout his empire and from Nubia. Ptolemy II took special interest in maritime trade for his fleet said to number 4,000 commercial and naval vessels. To facilitate trade, he expanded the work on the canal system begun by Necho II and continued by the Persians to connect the eastern Nile delta with the Red Sea. His wife and full sister was Arsinoë II; he married her after divorcing his first wife of the same name. Arsinoë was also the name of his port at what is today the port of Suez. The Red Sea port of Berenice was named for his daughter and served the trade town of Aswan, while the port of Kossier served Thebes. These ports took on added importance for upgrading the maritime link to Meroë and other east African destinations. Meroë was significant for ivory, slaves, livestock, and shipments of elephants for military purposes. The reign of Ptolemy II overlapped with that of Arkamani of Meroë, who was able to speak Greek. This was during a heyday of Meroë when cattle and elephant exports were significant and local iron production was at a high level. Arkamani was the first king to be buried at Meroë as the importance of this capital shifted the regional center of gravity from Napata to the Butana. Ptolemy II largely completed the Isis temple at Philae as well as the waterside entrance to this complex. However, in 281 BCE Seleucus I annexed Asia Minor, thus seizing a substantial portion of what Alexander had earlier won. The Seleucid and Ptolemaic rivalry for the eastern Mediterranean was long enduring. Some sentiment against the Jews in Alexandria continued under Ptolemy II. PTOLEMY III, SEKHEMANKHRE, EUERGETES I (THE BENEFACTOR) (r. 246–222 BCE). Ptolemy III was the eldest son of Arsinoë I, first wife of Ptolemy II. His wife was Berenice II. It was during the long reign of Ptolemy III that further expansion of the library of Alexandria took place under Eratosthenes. That famed librarian geographer later became the personal tutor of Ptolemy IV. Ptolemy III’s constructions in Nubia appear to be limited to some final decoration to the antechamber of the forecourt at

310

•

PTOLEMY IV (R. 222–205 BCE)

Philae, which was done in his name and that of his wife Berenice, as well as the installation of a granite offering stand in the inner sanctum of the Isis temple. Ptolemy III built upon the maritime developments of Ptolemy II with expanded trade to Adulis on the Red Sea for trade with Axum and Meroë. Ptolemy III sent at least one expedition to Nubia that was led by Eudoxus. Although the trade to India was beyond the reach of Ptolemy III, commodities from the Far East were accessible in the port towns of Yemen. The ambitious projects of Ptolemy III came at a price of heavy taxation on Egypt, which ultimately discredited and weakened the subsequent Ptolemies. PTOLEMY IV, SETEP-PTAH-USER-KA-RE, PHILOPATOR (FATHER LOVER) (r. 222–205 BCE). Ptolemy IV was the eldest son of Ptolemy III and the brother of Ptolemy VI. His route to power included the murder of his mother Berenice since she had backed his brother as king. During his reign, on 23 June 217 BCE, the battle of Raphia (Rafah) took place at the border between Egypt and Palestine (i.e., the boundary between Seleucid and Ptolemaic Greeks in the modern Gaza Strip section of Palestine). This battle demonstrated the difficulties of effective military use of Nubian elephants, which had, until that time, been commonly exported from Meroë to Ptolemaic Egypt via the Red Sea port of Berenice. The future Ptolemy IV had to be rescued by his father Ptolemy III during the battle. According to Polybius, even though victory fell to Ptolemy IV, the damage done by his elephants to his own troops meant that their import declined sharply thereafter. The narrow victory at Raphia was also achieved by the acceptance of Egyptian soldiers on the side of Ptolemy IV. They had been excluded from military service before, so this new level of Egyptian empowerment was soon to reverberate in increasing weakness for Ptolemaic rule. The Hellenization of the Jewish population increased to the extent that much Jewish literature was written in Greek at this time. In some instances, this Hellenization was required, such as the demand that Jews recognize the god Dionysius, and threats and pressures were directed against Jews to encourage them to abandon their god in favor of the Greek pantheon. At the same time, there were various instances of state-backed intolerance of the Jews at this point. One infamous case during the reign of Ptolemy IV was the casting of a group of 500 Jews in the path of war elephants crazed by fermented drinks so that they would be trampled to death. These potential victims were delivered from this fate “by an angel.” In Nubia, Ptolemy IV completed the construction of the temple at Dakka. During the last years of Ptolemy IV, a Theban revolt broke Ptolemaic control of the unified Nile. The deteriorated relations with Jews were about the same as with Nubians who had taken some important leadership in the revolt. In 207 BCE, a Nubian king was reported as ruling from Thebes as had been the case earlier in

PTOLEMY VI (R. 180–164 BCE; 163–145 BCE)

•

311

Dynasty XXV. At this low point in Ptolemaic rule, there was a convergent interest among Jews, Nubians, and some Theban Egyptians to seek the expulsion of the Greeks. PTOLEMY V, SEKHEM-ANKH-AMUN, EPIPHANES (THE MANIFEST) (r. 205–180 BCE). Officially Ptolemy V came to power at the age of five as the son of Ptolemy IV. His effective reign did not begin until 196 BCE when he reached his majority. In 193 BCE, Ptolemy V married Cleopatra I (of Seleucid origins) who ruled for as much as four years before her son could rise to the throne. This established a model of female rule or coregency that continued until the very end of the Ptolemies under Cleopatra VII. Ptolemy V is probably most known for the fact that his coronation at Memphis was written in hieroglyphics, Greek, and demotic on the famed Rosetta Stone, which had been erected along the Rosetta branch of the Nile. The French recovered the stone more than 2,000 years later, and its trilingual text became a central key for the decipherment of ancient hieroglyphics and, to a much lesser extent, for Meroitic writing. The library of Alexandria continued to thrive under Ptolemy V, and the monopoly on papyrus remained an important Egyptian export. Relative to Upper Egypt and Nubia, Ptolemy V spent considerable effort in trying to reconstruct Greek control of these regions. At Philae, Ptolemy V and his wife Cleopatra I expressed their gratitude to the god of medicine, Asklepius, on the occasion of the birth of their son. At Seheil Island, using an archaic reference at the prominent “Famine stela,” Ptolemy V made his religiously based claim for ownership of Lower Nubia. In Jerusalem, Ptolemy V massacred and looted Jews in the context of Seleucid rivalries. The forceful repression of Jews and coerced obligation to worship the god Jupiter in their temple triggered the subsequent Maccabean revolt of the Jews. Ultimately Ptolemy V represented a brief halt in the decline of the Ptolemies as he did manage to hold on to Cyprus and thus stave off further Roman expansion, but at the same time, his murder in 180 BCE began the final decline of weak Ptolemaic rulers and the final collapse of the Ptolemies and their replacement by Roman rule in 31 BCE. PTOLEMY VI, SETEP-EN-PTAH-KHEPRI, PHILOMETOR (MOTHER LOVER) (r. 180–164 BCE; 163–145 BCE). Ptolemy VI was the brother of Ptolemy IV and son of Cleopatra I. Similar to his predecessor, Ptolemy VI came to power at age seven, so his mother Cleopatra I ruled in his name. Following the model of his father, Ptolemy VI ruled as a coregent with his wife, Cleopatra II.

312

•

PTOLEMY VI (R. 180–164 BCE; 163–145 BCE)

Relative to Nubia and Upper Egypt, Ptolemy VI forcefully reestablished control during his second reign when the gold mines of Nubia were brought back into production. At Philae, Ptolemy VI installed a temple to Arensnuphis, and he began the hypostyle hall and antechamber reliefs of the temple of Kom Ombo whose ruins are still seen today. In Lower Nubia, he enlarged the temple of Dabod. Whatever strength he recovered in Nubia he lost most elsewhere. By the time of Ptolemy VI, control of Jerusalem had returned to the Seleucids. When the Seleucid Antiochus IV sought to require the Jews to worship Zeus in the Jerusalem temple, this provoked the Maccabean revolt that temporarily restored Jewish independence. In this context, and because of the Jewish resistance to Ptolemy V, Ptolemy VI permitted the Jew Onias to construct a temple at Leontopolis, which had a large Jewish population; he also used Jews as soldiers and officers in his army. These acts recovered some lost trust between Jews and Greeks, but their relations were maintained in a state of mutual vigilance. Added to this mixture were Greek-Nubian and Greek-Egyptian relations. While the intermarriage of Greeks, Egyptians, Nubians, and Jews was sometimes formally excluded, it is also known that this prohibition was not infrequently violated. Moreover, syncretic religious beliefs were common among the majority polytheists, but this excluded the more orthodox among the monotheist Jews. Almost always, the Ptolemies took formal Egyptian names, and they worshipped at Egyptian shrines, such as the Apis bull cult at Memphis, the Bochis bull cult at Hermonthis, and the syncretic Serapis shrine in Alexandria. Faraway, in 146 BCE, at the last year of the reign of Ptolemy VI, a major and very threatening shift in Mediterranean power took place. After three Punic wars, Romans finally managed to defeat their long-time Phoenician rivals at Carthage (modern Tunisia). In the same year, Romans destroyed Corinth and seized Athens. In this context, Roman pressure was rapidly mounting on a weak Ptolemaic administration in Egypt, and in about a century Romans would even be at war with Nubia. PTOLEMY VII, NEOS PHILOPATOR (r. 145 BCE). This Ptolemaic king ruled for only one year when he was murdered. Essentially he served as an interregnum king between Ptolemy VI and the second reign of Ptolemy VIII as they passed into their last century of rule of Egypt. He completed some decorative detail at the Isis temple of Philae in Nubia.

PTOLEMY XI, ALEXANDER II (R. 80 BCE)

•

313

PTOLEMY VIII, EUERGETES II (THE BENEFACTOR) (r. 170–163 BCE; 145–116 BCE). A crisis period followed from the death of Ptolemy VI and the very brief rule of his nephew Ptolemy VII. So, Ptolemy VIII, nicknamed “Physicon” (“the Fat Stomach”) was returned to the throne to try to reach détente with the expanding and imperial Romans. His sudden flight to Cyprus from Alexandria in 130 BCE and rule by his wife Berenice suggest the instability of these times. His constructions in Nubia include additions to the Dakka and Dabod temples. At Philae, Ptolemy VIII installed a pair of obelisks and some reliefs at the Mammisi there. Elsewhere in Upper Egypt, he continued work on the temple at Kom Ombo. He was hostile to the Jews since they had backed his brother. On one occasion, he sought to have them trampled to death by military elephants, but they were spared by the intervention of his mistress. Some sources attribute this event to the time of Ptolemy IV instead. By the time of Ptolemy VIII, Greek ships regularly sailed on the Red Sea and Meroitic ports. They began to sail beyond Yemen into the Indian Ocean to Pakistan and India for trade. Eudoxus of Cyzicus was specifically employed for this trade mission to India. PTOLEMY IX, SOTER II (THE SAVIOR) (r. 116–110 BCE; 109–107 BCE; 88–80 BCE). Ptolemy IX was the eldest son of Ptolemy VIII, and he came to power with the death of his father. By this time, the Ptolemies had now lost Judea and Cyrene (Libya) to Roman administration as the Greek empire steadily withered. In Nubia at Philae, Ptolemy IX added some reliefs to the third chamber of the Mammisi and to the Hathor temple. Reliefs were also added to the Kom Ombo temple. His death in 80 BCE saw the brief rule of his wife for several months until Ptolemy XI could assume power for another very brief reign. PTOLEMY X, ALEXANDER I (r. 110–109 BCE; 107–88 BCE). Periodically replacing his older brother, Ptolemy X came to power in 110 BCE. He was married to Cleopatra III from around 106 to 101 BCE. In roughly 102 BCE, Cleopatra III had some thought of recovering Israel, but the influential role of Alexandrian Jews managed to halt this initiative. It was during the reign of Ptolemy X that Julius Caesar was born in Rome in 100 BCE. The remaining decades for Greek rule of Egypt and peaceful Greco-Nubian relations were now numbered. The death of Ptolemy X in 88 BCE brought Ptolemy IX back to power for a third administration. PTOLEMY XI, ALEXANDER II (r. 80 BCE). Ptolemy XI replaced Ptolemy IX who had been recalled to serve very briefly. Upon his death, Berenice ruled very briefly until her murder. This was followed by only a few weeks

314

•

PTOLEMY XI (R. 80–58; 55–51 BCE)

of the administration of Ptolemy XI, who was also murdered by the outraged elite of Alexandria. The changes and confusion of this late period of Ptolemaic rule were matched with temple epigraphy. Amid this great political turbulence, only the general anonymous name pharaoh began to be inscribed in the royal cartouche in temples in Egypt and Nubia. From the start to the end of these brief administrations, there was not sufficient time to complete large or complex construction projects. In the case of Ptolemy XI, there is no clearly known cartouche, and this confusion has sometimes resulted in contradictions in the numbering system of the remaining Ptolemies. PTOLEMY XII, SETEP-PTAH-IR-MAAT, NEOS DIONYSOS (AULETES; “THE PIPER”) (r. 80–58; 55–51 BCE). Ptolemy XII was the son of Ptolemy XI. Among his accomplishments was a Ptolemaic trade colony on Socotra in the Indian Ocean. He was also father of the famed Cleopatra VII (r. 51–30 BCE). She and his queen, Berenice IV (r. 58–55 BCE), served as the rulers of Egypt upon his death. In Nubia, Ptolemy XII made some additions to the Debod temple. He added some reliefs to the massive entrance pylon at Philae and to the hypostyle hall at Kom Ombo. His administration was contemporary with the birth of the famed geographer Strabo and with the slave revolt of Spartacus against Rome. He was still serving during the attacks of Pompey against Jerusalem and Caesar’s appointment as consul and the Roman invasion of Gaul and Britain. In Egypt, Ptolemy XII was luckily spared major Roman interest that was so distracted, but the Roman noose was steadily tightening on the Nile. PTOLEMY XIII. Ptolemy XIII temporarily blocked the spread of Roman troops into Egypt once his father, Ptolemy XII, declared him as the joint heir of Egypt and Lower Nubia with Cleopatra VII. The civil war that broke out in Rome in 49 BCE between Julius Caesar and Pompey gave some shortlived additional life to Ptolemaic Egypt. Pompey’s death in Egypt soon provoked a struggle for power between Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIII. But when Caesar met Cleopatra VII in Alexandria he supported her claim to the Egyptian throne. This precipitated the Alexandrian civil war in which Ptolemy XIII lost his life and Cleopatra VII gained her precarious and famed access to power. PTOLEMY XIV (XV). Ptolemy XIV was a junior brother of Cleopatra VII, with whom she briefly ruled (and married?) as the official coregent. He quickly vanished from the political scene in Alexandria.

PUNT, TO-NEFER, PWNT

•

315

PTOLEMY XV (XVI), IWAPANNETJER, “CAESARION” (r. 36–30 BCE). Caesarion was reputedly the son of Cleopatra VII and Julius Caesar. While he was the official Ptolemaic king, it was his mother who certainly ruled. It is in the famed image of Cleopatra VII at Dendera temple where she is shown presenting “Caesarion” to the goddess Hathor. In the bloody transition to Roman power in Egypt and Lower Nubia, Caesarion was a dispensable threat and link to the past that Caesar Augustus clearly wanted to leave behind. Greek rule in Egypt and Nubia was utterly terminated with the death of Ptolemy XV. Monotheistic Jews were central in Ptolemaic times, but Christianity had not emerged since its Jewish founder Jesus Christ was only born as the Ptolemaic dynasty was replaced by the Romans. PUNT, TO-NEFER, PWNT. Punt is a region along the western coast of the Red Sea of northeastern Africa with which the Egyptians sporadically traded from as early as Dynasty V (2498–2345 BCE) onward. Egypt relied on Punt as a source of numerous luxury goods. This legendary territory in the “land of the south” probably is along the modern Sudanese, Eritrean, and Somali coasts such as the modern ports of Suakin, Adulis, and Berbera. Punt may also include the site of Khent Hunnefer, which is roughly the region from the Nile to the Red Sea. If so, this is about the same region as the land associated with the interior(?) Blemmyes. It was once proposed that Punt was as far south as modern Somalia. Another argument, by David O’Connor, posits the location of Punt in the pre-Axumite Gash delta of modern coastal Eritrea. Perhaps it was a general reference to both coasts of the southern Red Sea to include coastal Yemen as well. Ancient ports at Adulis or Suakin may have been among those visited on trading voyages to Punt. In any case, Punt was conceived as being associated with coastal Kush, suggesting that it was not as far as modern Somalia, which is substantially farther south. Punt was accessible by seafaring Egyptian boats throughout much of the New Kingdom and even before. One of the most celebrated voyages to Punt was undertaken during the ninth year of the reign of Queen Hatshepsut (1503–1482 BCE) of Dynasty XVIII. Punt was depicted on the second terrace of her famous mortuary temple at Deir al-Bahri in western Thebes. According to these inscriptions, Punt was a source of spices (cinnamon), perfumes, and incense (gum arabic and myrrh), ivory, exotic animals (monkeys, baboons, giraffes, leopards, dogs, and panthers), antimony, ebony, gold, animal skins, and live trees (fruit and sycamore), as well as slaves and rare curiosities such as pygmies. These trade items were much valued in Egypt, as much for their utility as for their unique origin. Overland routes may also have reached Punt from the Nile valley across the Butana or from the Arabian Peninsula.

316

•

PYRAMIDS

The appearance of small round houses raised on platforms is clear in the Deir al-Bahri mural inscriptions, but such are only known today among Nilotics in southern Sudan. The flora and fauna shown in Egyptian reliefs also correspond with those of southern Sudan. Another feature of the inscriptions is the presence of a very fat (steatopygous) woman who may have been in some honorific position. Many queens of Meroë were shown as very corpulent. The possible movements of the coastal Puntities from their interior hinterland, and other ancient ethnographic and ecological changes, further complicate this picture. Thus, the precise location of Punt has been difficult to determine without reference to modern place-names, but the items sought and other ethnographic details certainly connect it with the western shores of the Red Sea. PYRAMIDS. The funerary pyramid tradition of ancient Egypt was started by pharaohs Djoser and Seneferu in Archaic times and was dominant through the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom. Contemporary Kerma did not have pyramids, but sometimes they had huge multicorridored tumuli. Generally, pyramids were abandoned in the New Kingdom, with its royalty and wealthy citizens favoring rock-cut tombs; there were, however, small pyramids at the workers’ village of Deir al-Medina, but these had a subterranean rock-cut tomb underneath. When Nubians came to power in Egypt in Dynasty XXV, they restored pyramid construction in Nubia but not really in Egypt. The earliest cases would be found at Kurru, then at Nuri. In Napatan and Meroitic times, pyramid construction became routine for royalty and for wealthy citizens who could afford such buildings. The smaller nonroyal Meroitic period pyramids had a sort of hetep-shaped “blueprint” where the “handle” was the entrance, and the main body of the pyramid was for the resting place of the deceased who was essentially the “offering” to the earth. For the sometimes very large royal pyramids, especially in Bejrawiya, the eastern side of the pyramid had an attached funerary chapel, which was not actually an entrance into the pyramid. The actual entrance was a stairway many meters in front of the owner’s pyramid. Down the stairs there were sometimes multiroomed burial chambers below. Burials were sometimes on a funerary pedestal or bed with offerings placed inside. The stairways were filled in to discourage robbing, but almost all were robbed at one time or another. Mummification took place during Dynasty XXV and in early Napatan times but then declined. The exterior superstructure of Meroitic pyramids was most often stepped and much steeper than Egyptian pyramids that are generally way earlier and bigger. In Christian times, burials were usually very simple with no burial goods, and the corpse was often oriented east to west with the head to the west. Muslim burials in Sudan today usually involve men carrying the body to the cemetery on a bed (angareb). Burials are best made within a day

PYRAMIDS

•

317

after death, and the body is placed on its side with the head facing Mecca. See also FERLINI, GIUSEPPE (1797–1870); LEPSIUS, KARL RICHARD (1810–1884); MEROЁ (ca. 270 BCE–ca. 340 CE); NASTASEN (r. 335–315 BCE); TAHARKA, TAHARQA, TARCUS, NEFERTUMKHURE (r. 690–664 BCE).

Q QADAN. The Qadan complex is typical of the Late Paleolithic from about 12,000 to 6000 BCE in Lower Nubia. This megafauna hunting tradition has left numerous flakes and blade microliths and may represent a northern extension of a “Negro” race of people. One of the best-known and intriguing examples of the Qadan type is at site 117 at Jebel Sahaba. QASR IBRIM, PEDEME, PRIMIS, IBRIM, SHIMALÊ. The remarkable site of Qasr Ibrim was situated on a lofty promontory point that was visited in the New Kingdom by the viceroys of Kush serving Amenhotep I, Seti I, and other pharaohs of dynasties XVIII and XIX. A stela of Seti I from Qasr Ibrim has been transported to New Kalabsha. Its original location also offered visible places for the viceroys of Nubia to carve inscriptions into the rock face to record the tributes gathered under their administration. For example, the viceroy of Seti I noted 1,000 man loads of ebony, 10 men with live panthers, and 250 with perfume and aromatic woods, along with the total of 2,667 bearers with gold, ivory, minerals, dogs, oxen, and cattle. The great height of the original site gave a wide sweeping view to the west as well as a very long stretch of the Nile and a usual sandbar along the western shore pushed river craft closer to the base of Qasr Ibrim and gave it great strategic significance. Nubian pharaoh Taharka of Dynasty XXV reconstructed an Amun temple at Qasr Ibrim in his name, and it was used in subsequent Napatan times when this territory was under Nubian control. Brief use was apparently made of Qasr Ibrim in early and then late Ptolemaic times. After 23 BCE, the Romans made heavy military use of the easily defended fort that sometimes served as their forward border point with the Meroites. This was especially the case during the time of Caesar Augustus who based the troops of Petronius there in preparation for a counterattack against the Meroites who had earlier attacked Roman garrisons in Aswan. Perhaps as early as the mid-first century CE, until the fourth century CE, Meroitic and Blemmyes peoples sporadically used the site when the Romans were not controlling the region. Later, Christians transformed Taharka’s temple into a church on the site. 319

320

•

QUBAN, KUBBAN, BAKI, CONTRA PSELCHIS

In still later Islamic times, Qasr Ibrim continued to be used. For example, in his 12th-century-CE reign, Turanshah based his effort at Qasr Ibrim to force Islamic conversion upon the local population of Nobatia. In the early 16th century CE, Sultan Selim used the same small location for a base for his Bosnian troops to guard the border with Nubia and shift the cathedral use to that of a mosque. Given the great length of its occupation, this site has a remarkable stratigraphy, and the hot, dry Nubian weather has resulted in excellent preservation of even texts in a half dozen languages (including demotic, Meroitic, Greek, Latin, and Arabic), papyrus, leather goods, and textiles. Its great elevation has meant that it has been somewhat protected from the flood of Lake Nasser although the site is very much at risk from erosion and tourist boats. The once high cliff is now reduced to a small island where only very limited archaeological research is possible. QUBAN, KUBBAN, BAKI, CONTRA PSELCHIS. Quban was a strategic fort guarding the route to the rich copper and gold mines of Wadi al-Allaqi, at least by the time of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom if not before Its importance was maintained through the New Kingdom. Directly across the Nile was Pselchis, which became the site for the Greco-Roman temple of Dakka. Stones from Dakka are inscribed with the cartouches of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III and may well have come from a temple built in their honor at Quban or in the vicinity. The relocated Wadi es-Sebua temple has some reliefs of Ramses II on the southern chapel offering food and incense to a seated Horus of Quban (Baki). QUEENS (KDI-QO, KANDAKE) OF MEROЁ. This list of regnant or coregnant queens at least includes the following eight examples. It is possible that there were others, but their names remain obscure. Shanakdakhete ruled in around 170–150 BCE during the rule of Ptolemy VI in Egypt. She was buried in Bejrawiya North pyramid 11. She was followed by Amanirenas who may have ruled a portion with Teitekas from roughly 40 to 12/10 BCE as a contemporary with Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XV. She is buried in Bejrawiya North pyramid 21. The famous Amanishakheto ruled from about 10 BCE to 1 CE and is likely a candidate for the attack on Romans at Aswan. She is buried in Bejrawiya North pyramid 6. She was followed by Amanitore who ruled from around 1 CE to either 20 or 25 CE and may be the other alternative kandake who attacked Aswan under Augustus. She is buried in the southernmost of the Bejrawiya North pyramid 1. It is unclear if she survived her husband, King Natakamani (or vice versa), and they were succeeded by their son, King Shorkaror. There may also have been a Kandake Amanititide (r. 22–41 CE) ruling during the time of Caligula’s rule in Rome. Kandake Amanikahtashani ruled from around 62 to 85 CE or during the

QUSTUL

•

321

chaotic reign of Nero amid Jewish revolts against Roman rule in the region. She is buried in Bejrawiya North pyramid 18 as Meroë began its long decline. She was followed by Kandake Maleqorobar who ruled from around 266 to 283 CE during the time of mass conversions to Christianity in Egypt (and perhaps Nubia). She is buried in Bejrawiya North pyramid 27. Another unknown queen apparently ruled from roughly 300 to 306 CE and was placed in her pyramid at Bejrawiya North 26. The last known ruling queen was Lahideamani, who ruled from around 306 to 314 or 320 CE. In any case, this was the time of Roman king Constantine’s official conversion of the empire to Christianity. Kandake Lahideamani was buried in Bejrawiya North 25. Perhaps she was on the throne just before or during the Axumite invasion that terminated the Meroitic Empire. QUSTUL. Qustul village is approximately 75 miles north of the Second Cataract, as a part of one of the wealthiest agricultural districts in Lower Nubia. Qustul occupants are thought to have been in control of all Lower Nubia. Large tombs, rivals to that of the great tumuli of Kerma, illustrate the great wealth of its inhabitants. Some tombs even suggest a monarchial authority was present in post-Meroitic times. Small pyramids also exist here, along with sacrificial burials of humans and animals. Rare collections of fine clothing have been recovered, including tunics, loincloths, and belts. AGroup, New Kingdom, and X-Group cemeteries are found at Qustul on the east bank of the Nile approximately across from the Christian capital of Nobatia at Faras. Its history is long and complex as it enters the archaeological record as early as the A-Group, and it reappears during the New Kingdom as well as in Meroitic times (with small nonroyal pyramids and chapels). In A-Group times, Qustul cemeteries show a certain degree of social stratification judging by tomb size and quality of grave goods. It was especially interesting to note that some of the largest graves were devoted to females. This gave rise to speculation that this was an early example of Nubian state formation with regnant queens. Precisely what relation Qustul had with Archaic Egyptians is debated, but by the Old Kingdom, Qustul was either rendered subordinate to Egypt or its Ta-Setiu population fled southward. In X-Group or Ballana times, Qustul features the large grave tumuli of post-Meroitic kings from the fourth to sixth centuries CE in the excavations by Walter Emery. The biggest is more than 50 meters in diameter and almost 10 meters high. These tumuli show a resumption of funerary sacrifice of horses as well as the presence of numerous other animals and servants; the bed burials for the kings are like those in Kerma times. Its very arid location has given rise to a high degree of preservation of human tissues and bones, as well as textiles and leather clothing and shields. Well-made silver crowns, swords, spears, and horse trappings attest to considerable wealth at Qustul.

322

•

QUSTUL

Icons of Isis and Amun (in a ram form) are retained on the jeweled crowns. The ram or lamb later became one of the icons for Christianity. Since the flooding of Lake Nasser, Qustul is no longer available for investigation.

R RACE. The term race can be considered to be the genetically inherited aspect of human society; however, with advances in the study of human biology and with the complex interrelations between all human groups, the categorization of humanity into discrete racial groups has lost considerable scientific meaning. Indeed, the anthropological “science of race” has become one in which the concept is seen more as a social construct than one that is biological, even though one’s genotype is the foundation for the phenotype. In the present case of Nubia, the great antiquity and diversity of interactions in the Nile valley finds most “racial” terms lacking. The people of Nubia are certainly African in the modern continental sense, but this can also include those of Middle Eastern, Asian, and European origins as well since all of humanity has African roots. In ancient Egypt, Nubians were given a variety of names. These ranged from the probable ethnic label of Ta-Nehessi, to the more problematic implication of the Ta-Setiu referring to the land of the “bow people,” to the clearly pejorative reference to “the vile Nubians” that was common during imperial Egypt in the New Kingdom domination of Nubia. The reference to the Nubian kingdom of Yam or Irem seems to be the kingdom of Kerma as a placename rather than specifying anything racial. Other place-names in Egyptian hieroglyphics can be correlated with specific locations, but many cannot be determined with accuracy. Since Nubians did not use writing until their exposure to hieroglyphics, we can only discover their reference to themselves as coming from Kush, or later, with Meroitic inscriptions as the people who followed their own deities. Complicating the interpretation of the ancient racial picture to a great extent is that the term Nubia or Nobatia is probably derived from the Egyptian word nb for gold, and then by an ethnic gloss it became the sweeping reference for all peoples living south of Aswan. Potentially more confusing, in terms of race, is that the ancient states of Nubia such as Kerma, Dynasty XXV, Napata, and Meroë were certainly based on a slave trade conducted by their own raids in these regions. Thus, the millennia of the Nile valley slave trade has made the “race” concept in Nubia particularly evasive since most 323

324

•

RACE

Nubians have very plural racial origins unlike those populations of Nilotics, Darfur, or the Nuba Mountains who are far more homogeneous in their genetic admixtures. In Greco-Roman times, the picture was further clouded with the arrival of the racio-ethnic term Aethiopia referring to all lands south of Egypt as the “land of the burnt-face people.” When Arab travelers entered the region, they simply translated this Greek concept to be the “land of the blacks” or Bilad as-Sudan in Arabic. By this time, any ethnic precision was lost, and the phenotypical skin color was determinative of race. Notions of being “Arabs” are also confounding in many ways, as this term has a special sociopolitical connotation in the 20th century, and the precise meaning of the word nomads in Arabic is anachronistic in the modern world. If one uses the term Negroid and perhaps has a Nigerian in mind, then most ancient Nubians do not comfortably fit this phenotype, and southern Nilotic peoples are also easily distinguishable. Some feel more comfortable with an “Afro-Arab” mélange for some northern Sudanese, but this does not work well for Nilotic people in the south. This does not cover many other groups such as Nubians, Nuba, some Bantu, Adamawa, Pre-Nilotes, Nilo-Hamites, Fellata, Fur, and Sudanic groups. Indeed, at this level, the confusion between language and race becomes even greater. In the Sudanese case, there has been such admixture between indigenous and exogenous ethnic and linguistic groups as well as an extremely long known history that “racial” phenotypes become most challenging to apply with any rigor or scientific meaning. On the other hand, interesting genotypic studies of Sudanese people have been advanced in recent years. Ahmed Batrawi did one of the most systematic of such studies in 1945–1946 in a two-article series in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. This seminal study was based on very detailed craniometric studies of Nubian and Egyptian cranial drawn from the predynastic to Christian periods. Readers are referred to this work, but among his main findings were the following: “(1) There was no evidence of a progressive change in variability corresponding to the chronological sequence of the populations. (2) The A-Group [Nubians] had the least variability. (3) The variabilities of the Nubian populations examined as close to the variabilities of ancient Egyptian populations” (Batrawi 1945, 91). He also states that all the series represent variants of a single stock and that the AGroup is parental to the population that followed it (Batrawi 1946, 154). Also of interest is his conclusion that “in Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of Negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger Negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period” (Batrawi 1946, 155). He also notes that the abundant close connections between the grades of Nubian and Upper Egyp-

RAMSES II, USER-MAAT-RE SETEPENRE (R. 1279–1212 BCE)

•

325

tian series of those early Kingdoms clearly show the persistence of the predynastic cranial type in a large area over a long span of time (Batrawi 1946,144). In short, the “race” of Nubians in the earlier times is closely linked to that of Upper Egyptians that can in turn be distinguished from Lower (northern) Egyptians. As time passed, the Nubian and Upper Egyptian distinction was blurred with Nubians withdrawing, or being pushed, more into modern Nubia and more Egyptians occupying Nubia. As a result, the precise “racial” lines to be drawn today are only clear in the extremes of Lower Egypt and Upper Nubia and not in the grades of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in between. RAMSES I (r. 1295–1294 BCE). Ramses I was a short-lived pharaoh but father of Seti I and grandfather of Ramses II. From his Memphis capital, Ramses I decreed endowments of food and servants for his priests at the Buhen temple in Nubia. RAMSES II, USER-MAAT-RE SETEPENRE (r. 1279–1212 BCE). Few Egyptian pharaohs lived so long, had so many offspring, or ruled such as extensive empire as Ramses II. This red-haired monarch has been admired and feared for ages. Since his biography is quite well known, there is hardly any debate that he was the greatest pharaoh in the glorious age of the New Kingdom. He is even cited in the Bible (in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers) and in the poetry of Percy Bysshe Shelley. His monumental constructions are found far to the north in Lebanon, in the delta, and at the vast Upper Egyptian temples of Karnak, Luxor, and Abydos, where bound Nubians are shown under his authority, and his additions were in unprecedented quantity and size. His battle at Kadesh against the Hittites; the purported exodus of the Jews; the vast storehouse temple precinct known as the Ramesseum; his celebrated wife, Nefertari; and his tomb (KV 7) in the Valley of the Kings are some of the features most noted by Egyptologists. His mummy is also well known as it was luckily retrieved intact at the royal mummy cache in Deir alBahri in 1881. Ramses II built in Nubia at the same huge scale as he had elsewhere. Here his monumental works are to be found at the majestic shrine protected by Horus (Re-Harakhty) at Abu Simbel that is guarded by his much-famed four colossal (18-meter-high) figures. This grandiose rock-hewn temple gives another account of his “victory” at the battle of Qadesh in circa 1274 BCE, suppression of Libyans, and a rebellion at Irem in Nubia. The careful alignment of the temple with the sun upon the solar altar focuses on the gods Amun, Ptah, Re-Harakhty, and the deified Ramses II himself. Near this great work is a somewhat lesser temple to Hathor (q.v.) built to honor his wife Nefertari. Probably in 1269 BCE, this monumental complex was initiated by

326

•

RAMSES II, USER-MAAT-RE SETEPENRE (R. 1279–1212 BCE)

Heqa-Nakht, his viceroy of Nubia. The subsequent overseer was his viceroy, Iuny. Iuny based his construction foreman role on the vice regnal town later known as Amara West. This complex was completed in around 1255 BCE, just prior to the death of Ramses’s beloved Nefertari. At Abu Simbel, the Decree of Ptah announces a subsequent marriage to a daughter of the great King Hattusil. Iuny was also in charge of a temple for Ramses II at Aksha. A text at Quban in Nubia suggests that Prince Ramses II was officially given a viceroy of Kush military command at age 10. Much later, also at the strategic site at Quban, Ramses ordered his to build a series of wells to the gold fields at Wadi al-Allaqi, probably to help increase god production. Other Nubian temples built for Ramses II are very numerous, including Bait al-Wali, that was likely built early in his Nubian campaigns before he was deified at Abu Simbel. The mention of his senior son by Nefertari hints that he might have been preparing for coregency transition. Numerous inscriptions of Ramses II are to be found on Seheil Island where he invokes the Triad of Elephantine: Khnum, Anqet, and Satis. It was also common in the temples of Ramses II to invoke the spirit of the god Hapy, who tied together the waters of the Nile. Ramses II’s viceroy, Setau, was in charge of the construction at the Gerf Hussein temple, which shows Ramses II and the god Ptah as united. In around 1236 BCE, at the rebuilt semi-rock-cut temple of Wadi es-Sebua, Ramses II ordered Setau to inscribe the names of about 30 of his sons and a portray symbolic merger of himself with the god Amun. Both temples were built of poor-quality local Nubian sandstone and were built rather late in Ramses’s rule, so neither is considered of the same high standard as his other monumental works. The Wadi es-Sebua temple was built with forced Tjemehu (Libyan) labor under the direction of Setau. Perhaps these were captives from raids against the Libyans at Dunqul and Kurkur Oases to the west of the Nile in Lower Nubia. Perhaps the raiding party of Setau even went as far south at the Selima Oasis, which was in the desert hinterland of Ramses-Town at Amara West. In any case, Setau performed faithfully to gather Nubian tribute for his lord Ramses II. At Derr temple, Ramses II honored himself and the falcon god Re-Harakhty. At al-Lasiya, Ramses II renewed the worship of Amun along with Nubian deities of Satis and Dedan. Even into Upper Nubia at Napata, inscriptions are known for Ramses II. Ramses II foreign and military preoccupations mainly lay to the north and in the Levant, but punitive attacks against Kerma were led by four his sons in years 15 and 20 of Ramses’s reign; 7,000 captives were taken back to Egypt. Many of the constructions of Ramses II were repurposed into Christian churches and chapels.

RAMSES VI, NEB-MAAT-RE MERYAMUN (R. 1141–1133 BCE)

•

327

RAMSES III, USER-MAAT-RE MERYAMUN (r. 1182–1151 BCE). Ramses III was probably the last of the great New Kingdom pharaohs as few afterward could control so much and so effectively for so long. Perhaps his strength was a function of the regional chaos, especially among Mediterranean Sea powers. Generally Nubia appears to have been a calm Egyptian colony. No constructions in Nubia can be attributed to Ramses III. However, Libyans and the so-called Sea-People were to require energetic military and naval intervention by the armies of Ramses III. His great palace at Medinat Habu records these exploits in graphic detail and makes the first note of the Jewish (Ib-er-u) people in Egypt. One Nubian campaign was noted, but there is scholarly skepticism about the importance or veracity of this account. On the other hand, the Harem Conspiracy Papyrus of Turin gives substantial documentation of an attempted mutiny against Ramses III. The charges, trial, and penalties are reported around the case that involved Tiy, a minor queen’s hope to move her son onto the throne. The abortive plot apparently implicated Nubian members of his military staff. One may have been the brother of Tiy. Death penalties and mandated suicide brought this matter to a close. Much later in Dynasty XXV, Nubian pharaohs and their God’s Wives of Amun used Medinat Habu as a site for their temples to add to their quest for Theban legitimacy. Included in this respect are the shrine for the God’s Wife of Amun, the “Ethiopian Pylon” at the small temple of Medinat Habu, and the gate of Taharka. RAMSES IV, HEQA-MAAT-RE (r. 1151–1145 BCE). This pharaoh of the waning New Kingdom during Dynasty XX had a short reign, but expeditions to Buhen were recorded. His mummy has been recovered, but in the tomb of Amenhotep II. RAMSES VI, NEB-MAAT-RE MERYAMUN (r. 1141–1133 BCE). This poorly known Dynasty XX pharaoh had a relatively short reign that he assumed from his even shorter-lived brother Ramses V. He was likely much troubled by attacks from Libyans, and his policy was one of cautious retreat throughout the empire. He did maintain a titled viceroy of Nubia named Siesse, but it was clearly not a time of great prosperity or solid authority. Ramses VI is associated with his usurped tomb (Number 9) in the Valley of the Kings and with the tomb (Number 35) where his mummy was found. It is possible to imagine that the severe desecration of his tomb was the result of aggressive tomb robbing followed by a feeble effort to restore his body.

328

•

RAMSES IX (R. 1126/1132–1108/1112 BCE)

RAMSES IX, NEFER-KHA-RE SETEP-EN-RE (r. 1126/1132–1108/ 1112 BCE). The regnal length of Ramses IX suggests that some stability had been restored to the Egyptian Nile, but the main focus of his known monumental constructions appears to have been in the delta. The result of this was increasing isolation from Thebes and its priestly class that felt more emboldened to make political decisions. Ramses IX did maintain a viceroy of Nubia named Wentawat, but there is little indication of how effective his control really was in these late years of Dynasty XX. One of the last written accounts of Egyptian rule in Nubia comes under the rule of Ramses IX where a textual record notes a ceremonial tribute to Ramses IX, and then the record becomes virtually mute. RAMSES X, KHEPER-MAAT-RE (r. 1108–1098 BCE). The withering away of Dynasty XX was temporarily slowed in the unclear reign of Ramses X, but the Theban priests exercised a steadily increasing degree of autonomy. No doubt, the leaders of Nubia were beginning to question where their loyalty should be directed. An inscription of Ramses X is known at Aniba. RAMSES XI, MEN-MAAT-RE (r. 1098–1070 BCE). Ramses XI was the last of the Ramesides of Dynasty XX. Considering the recently past glories, Egyptians had fallen on hard times. Theban priests frequently fought among themselves and resisted the assertions from Lower Egypt that the nation was still united. Officially the viceroy of Kush still existed under the leadership of Panehsi, who expressed his loyalty to the concept of a united Egypt by taking over control from the squabbling Theban priests. But this grasp at flickering power was likewise unstable. Soon former viceroy Herihor came to assert his rule of Upper Egypt and Nubia, which Panehsi did not accept, and Nubia went still another step toward its political independence. At the same time, Smendes became the effective ruler of the delta. Herihor had problems enough just trying to keep the Theban royal tombs of Ramses II and Seti I from being looted. All of these events and struggles were undertaken during the very weak, but nominal control of Ramses XI. With his death, the New Kingdom and the long lines of Ramesides was concluded. RANDALL-MACIVER, DAVID (1873–1945). This English archaeologist directed the 1907–1911 Eckley B. Coxe expedition in Egypt and Nubia. With Charles Leonard Woolley, he excavated the fortress of Buhen and the town and cemetery sites at Areika and Karanog. His work appeared in publications of the University Museum in Philadelphia.

REISNER, GEORGE ANDREW (1867–1942)

•

329

REHREH, ADADAS. This area is located to the east of southern Nubia in which there were periodic confrontations between Napatans and the nomadic people of Adadas. REISNER, GEORGE ANDREW (1867–1942). This American-born Harvard University professor of Semitics was a major figure in Egyptology at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) at the time of its move from Copley Square to the present Huntington Avenue location. Reisner received his PhD from Harvard in Semitic studies in 1893, coached football at Purdue in his home state of Indiana, studied Assyriology in Göttingen, Germany, and had a stint at the Berlin Museum. In the first three decades of the 20th century CE, Reisner excavated extensively at roughly two dozen important sites throughout the Nile valley, including in Nubia, Dashur, Middle Egypt (the Archaic site of Naga ed-Der), and the Near East (Samaria, Palestine). His chronology of the A-, B-, C-, and X-Groups for Nubian cultures was truly pioneering and is current today with some modifications. Reisner sought to strike a balance between the science of Egyptology he loved and the fascination for ancient Egypt by the art-loving public and museum trustees. For example, he managed to stay clear of the contemporary issues surrounding the tomb of Tutankhamun. Luckily for Reisner, Egypt was a semi-colony of England and Egyptology was under French control, so he was given many liberties in excavation that are no longer available. Likewise, his Nubian archaeological expeditions in 1907–1909, at Kerma in 1913–1916; at Napata in 1916–1920, and at Meroë in 1920–1923 generated a great number of impressive antiquities from Nubia, especially from Kerma, Lower Nubian cemeteries, Jebel Barkal, and the Napatan cemeteries of Dynasty XXV and thereafter. This fieldwork was undertaken just after the British military conquest of Sudan under General Lord Kitchener who had fought his way up the Nile to Omdurman and Khartoum. On occasion, Kitchener and Reisner interacted to determine the division and disposition of Reisner’s finds in the first two decades of the century. Even though the Nubian collection was assembled “with the permission of the government of the Sudan,” this colonial government was British, and no Sudanese authorities were empowered to regulate or resist the excavation and collecting by Reisner. Dows Dunham noted that some of the workforce at Napata was actually formed by slaves. Some have criticized the MFA for keeping much of the Nubian collection in basement storage until recent years. Others have also noted that Reisner was inclined to view Sudan just as an outpost of Egypt and not on its own terms in either antiquity or during his excavations. In the case of Kerma, he viewed its architecture and styles through Egyptian eyes rather than seeing Kerma as an ancient African kingdom in its own right.

330

•

RELIGION IN NUBIA BEFORE CHRISTIANITY

His work on the first Nubian salvage project of 1907–1910 was in response to the British construction of the Low Dam at Aswan that threatened the regional antiquities. His published references to Sudan as late as 1925 used the now-outdated term Ethiopia, and he referred to the Nubian tombs at Kurru as belonging to “the Egyptian 25th Dynasty.” Reisner was a cautious competitor of Flinders Petrie in London, who was another major figure in Egyptology of the time. Reisner was a meticulous fieldworker and was strong in the use of photography in archeological excavation. Reisner was a colleague of Dows Dunham, who succeeded him at the MFA and long continued to process Reisner’s unpublished excavation notes and thereby kept this chapter of the archaeology of Nubia in Euro-American hands. RELIGION IN NUBIA BEFORE CHRISTIANITY. The study of religion in ancient Nubia is often viewed as a pale and poor rendering of ancient Egyptian religion in its time of decline. This not only is inaccurate and unfair but also obscures the creativity in religious belief systems for Nubia. Nubian religion and history must be understood from its own perspective if it is to be understood at all. The first step is to discover which of the Egyptian deities were worshipped in Nubia, especially during the five centuries of Egyptian imperial occupation. Yet the second step is to see which Nubian deities were also worshipped in Egypt as this was a two-way street. There are also Nubian deities that were never recognized in Egypt, and there are syncretic deities that evolved through the post-Meroitic period until their demise with the arrival of monotheistic Christianity. It is ironic that it was in Nubia (Kush or Meroë) that Egyptian religion persisted the longest with a much lesser degree of influence from the Greek and Roman overlords who ruled Egypt but did not conquer Nubia. Thus, the comparative approach is useful to see which deities had Egyptian origin and which had Nubian origin and which were shared and which were not. One may also make the standard distinction between anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and anthrozoomorphic gods in the Nubian pantheon. Egyptian gods exported to Nubia include Amun (Amun-Re), Apophis, Hathor, Horus (Re-Horakhty), Isis, Onuris, Osiris, Ptah, Selket, and Thoth, as well as the deified kings Sesostris and Ramses II. Conversely, Nubian gods incorporated in Egypt include Anqet, Bes, Khnum, Satet, Sekhmet, perhaps Hapy (the god of Aswan), and probably the ram god from Kerma that became the ram form of Amun. However, once Egypt fell under foreign control in Persian, Libyan, Greek, and Roman rule, not to mention Muslim rule, Nubians continued to worship many of the principal Egyptian deities. As the theological separation grew in Meroitic times, several Nubian gods were celebrated only in Nubia. These include the Nubian war god Apedemek, Arensnuphis and his fraternal god Sebiumeker, as well as Mandulis, Dedun, and possibly an elephant god.

ROMAN INFLUENCES IN SUDAN (30 BCE–476 CE)

•

331

ROBERTS, DAVID (1796–1864). Roberts was a famed 19th-century lithographer of the Holy Lands and the Nile valley following his travels in 1838. His romanticism of the region was strongly featured in his work and still remains an artistic inspiration. He traveled throughout Lower Nubia and reached Abu Simbel as his southernmost point in the region. His work began to appear in 1841, and between 1846 and 1849, he published 123 images of Nubia and Egypt in a set of three volumes of heavy printed pages. His prints typically featured Victorian subtle nuance rather than detailed style. Aside from his lithographs of Lower and Upper Egypt, Roberts depicted the Nubian temples at Abu Simbel (four prints), Dakka, Kalabsha, Kertassi, Maharraqa, Philae (four prints), Tafa, and Wadi es-Sebua (two prints). Since Egyptology was growing quickly in the wake of the decipherment by JeanFrançois Champollion, the excellent works of Roberts only made this fascination deeper. ROMAN INFLUENCES IN SUDAN (30 BCE–476 CE). The closing parameter of this book is built around pagan and Christian Rome from the start with Caesar Octavian (Augustus) who consolidated the Roman conquest of Egypt in 30 BCE. Augustus sent Cornelius Gallus a Roman prefect to meet Meroitic envoys at Philae in 28 BCE. In 27 BCE, the geographer Strabo was sent to Nubia to report on conditions there, especially with threats from the Blemmyes and Noubadaes. From a sense of opportunity or alarm, the Meroites raided Elephantine and Philae Islands at Aswan in 24 BCE. At this time, they probably seized a bronze bust of Caesar Augustus as booty; this reappeared in the archaeological investigation of Meroë 2,000 years later. Threats from various Nubian peoples persisted for the next six centuries. Even after Nubia and Rome were both Christian, theological disputes continued until the arrival of Islam. In retaliation, Caesar Augustus sent Roman general Petronius to invade Nubia in 23 BCE as far as Napata. In around 21 BCE, the Romans and Meroites reached a nonaggression pact. In 14 CE, during the reign of Meroitic king Natakamani (r. 12 BCE–12 CE?), Caesar Augustus’s rule of Egypt came to an end. Some decades later, the first Christians entered Nubia, perhaps as early as 37 CE, but this was as a “secret religion.” While the famous Emperor Nero ruled (r. 54–68 CE), “explorers” were sent to Nubia in 60 CE. These “explorers” gathered information for a military campaign planned for 64 CE, but this was not carried out because of Nero’s assassination. Other reports of Roman activity in Nubia are sketchy, but such would include the 70 CE reports on Nubia by the writer Pliny. Since the spheres of influence of Meroë and Roman Egypt were generally respected there was a measure of peace for much of this period. One may point to the period from around 100 to 300 CE when Kushites were permitted to reoccupy parts of Lower Nubia such as Qasr Ibrim. This policy of

332

•

ROSELLINI, IPPOLITO (1800–1843)

mutual respect was certainly well established during the reign of Emperor Diocletian (r. 284–304 CE) who withdrew his forces from Nubia to Aswan in 298 CE. In the third century CE, perhaps the most frequent problem troubling both Romans and Kushites was recurrent attacks by the Blemmyes who were neither easily defeated nor reliably hired as border guards. Sometimes Romans blamed the leaders of Kush for “allowing” this to happen. After Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity as the state religion in 324 CE, the chief effect of Roman rule in Nubia was the subsequent increase of Christian missionary activity. This trend was well established by the time of the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 CE, and with no clear successor, the Christian movement deepened its roots in Egypt and Nubia. Some epochs in Romano-Nubian relations had effective treaties, return of captives, and toleration with Meroitic access to the Isis temple at Philae allowed, but tensions and distrust were also near the surface. At other times, some Nubians would work with Romans against common enemies in Lower Nubia. In 540 CE, the Romans under the Melkite Dyophysite emperor Justinian (r. 527–565 CE) finally closed the Isis temple, but this was virtually at the same time that state Christianity in Nobatia was starting up with King Silko in any case. and the theological struggles and rival missionaries among Constantinople, Alexandria, and Nubia were intensifying. ROSELLINI, IPPOLITO (1800–1843). Rosellini was a joint member of the 1828–1829 Franco-Italian (Tuscany) expedition with Jean-François Champollion. From 1824, Rosellini had been professor of Oriental languages at the University of Pisa. He removed many reliefs from the temples and tombs for European collections. In 1832, he wrote Monumenti dell’Egitto e della Nubia.

S SAHABA, JEBEL. Sahaban sites date to the Upper Paleolithic or Lower Mesolithic or around 13,000 to 10,000 BP at the Second Cataract now under Lake Nasser. The Sahaba site is just prior, or about contemporary with, Sebilian and Qadan archaeological horizons. The presence of microlith suggests the Mesolithic, but the relatively low quantity in the assemblage suggests Upper Paleolithic. Of particular note in the Sahaba cemetery is that a number of the microliths are buried in human skeletons and are taken as early historical proof of regional warfare. SAHURE (r. 2491–2477 BCE). This Dynasty V Egyptian pharaoh was apparently the first to send direct trading missions to Punt by way of the Red Sea. His trade official left inscriptions at the First Cataract as they entered Lower Nubia, although King Djer’s forces had certainly gone much farther into Nubia at an earlier time, and Harkuf and Pepinakht followed in this tradition of Egyptian trading missions with Kerma. SAI ISLAND. Sai Island is located in the Abri-Delgo Reach, 50 miles upstream from Firka. Its archaeological history can even start with pre-Kerma storage pits found by Francis Geus or the downstream end of the island that are carbon dated between 2900 and 2600 BCE. But Sai Island strongly features pharaonic forts and cemeteries of all periods with very complex stratigraphy. The strategic fortress at Sai may have been constructed under the reign of Ahmose when this was close to the then southernmost point in the early Egyptian New Kingdom. Later, expanded by Amenhotep I, Tuthmosis I, and Tuthmosis III, this island served as an important seat of power as the fortified town site of Shaat during Dynasty XVIII. It is believed that strategic and expansive Sai Island was the sub-capital of Kush and was used in Napatan times. Large populations suggest that a political center was present during the early Bronze Age. Its location was also valued in Meroitic times. The necropolis features enormous cemeteries with large tumuli, but sacrificial burials are absent. Sai Island is also the southernmost known Ballana culture site. As well, on the west bank of the Nile across from Sai 333

334

•

SANAM

Island is the shortest distance to Selima Oasis and the alternative transSaharan routes using the Western Desert oases to bypass middle Egypt, which was the case when Kerma strategists sought to ally with the Hyksos and isolate Theban Egyptians in the Second Intermediate Period. Even in Christian times, Sai Island was occupied at the northern (downstream) end at Sai-Sab, which has some ruins of a red brick church with granite columns. SANAM. Across from Napata is ancient Sanam or modern Merowe town that is built around or on top of the ancient ruins. Sanam served as the commercial and strategic logistic capital of ancient Kush just below the Fourth Cataract. Merowe survived as a ferry crossing, but today the ferry is replaced by a modern bridge. One must distinguish (New) Merowe from its ancient Nubian capital namesake of Meroë, which rests far across the Bayuda Desert near the town of Kabushiya/Bejrawiya, north of the Shendi city. Clearly both were connected as Bayuda crossing points short-cutting the major S-shaped curve of the Nile. Archaeological interest is abundant in this area at Napata/Kareima and Kurru across the river on the (western) right bank and with Nuri on the (eastern) left bank of the Nile at this point. All together, these many very important sites could be grouped as the ancient Napatan capital region. They were also of commercial and religious importance in the New Kingdom, especially during the reigns of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II, but certainly the regional importance was high in Dynasty XXV, through Napatan times and onward until the end of Meroë. Following the work of Irene Vincentelli, it appears that Sanam functioned as the large commercial, break-of-bulk entrepot at the northern Bayuda crossing and access to trade along the Wadi al-Milk. It measured 267 by 67 meters with some 35 storage rooms. It was likely in use from the time of Dynasty XXV through Napatan times and even later. Stores of ivory and ebony were found in situ at a burned warehouse at Sanam. Most certainly an ancient ferry boat crossed the Nile at Sanam to head across the Nubian Desert and come back to the Nile above the Third Cataract at Kerma on the east bank of the Nile, thus avoiding the other long southward S-shaped curve of the river at Korti. SANGOAN. This Middle to Upper Paleolithic (130,000–10,000 BP) tool industry is found very broadly from southern Africa to Ethiopia and west into the Congo Basin. Their tools included somewhat refined Achuelian hand axes that were augmented by other tools of horn, wood, and bone all to support their hunting and gathering economy. It was named for a site in Sango Bay, Uganda. As with most of the Paleolithic in Sudan, conditions of preservation and discovery are poor, and as for the human type who made

SATET, SATI, SATIS

•

335

these tools, one can speculate that at least they ventured into southern Sudan and perhaps traveled along the banks of the Nile. This was a time when the Sahara had not started its desiccation, so megafauna of the forest and savanna was still abundant. If later Sudanese human groups evolved from the Sangoan tradition, one can also speculate, pending more finds and information. SARAS, SARRAS. Saras is near Wadi Halfa and opposite to the Middle Kingdom fortress of Shalfak. It is noted for rock drawings of elephants as well as quartz pebble tools and Chellean (i.e., Lower Paleolithic) stone tools. Later times at Saras also show some A-Group occupation. SATET, SATI, SATIS. Votive statues of this Nubian goddess are found at Elephantine associated with a predynastic cavern or crevice between the huge granite stones that registered the early flood of the Nile. Initially, he was mainly a local, rather than national, goddess, but as the Old Kingdom occupied Lower Nubia, Satet was celebrated in Egyptian-controlled areas. Satet was often termed the “Lady of Elephantine” and typically was viewed as a member of the “Triad of Elephantine” along with his “sister-wife,” goddess Anqet, and their husband the goat-god Khnum. During Dynasty XII of the Middle Kingdom, she commonly was depicted in the Egyptian fortresses built in Nubia. In the New Kingdom, Tuthmosis III and Ramses II celebrated Satet in the temple at al-Lasiya. In Meroitic times, she appears on the southern wall of the Lion temple at Musawwarat es-Sufra. At the Greco-Roman temples of Dendur and Debod in Lower Nubia, she was worshipped as the consort of Amun. Sources do not agree whether Satet was the daughter or cowife of Anqet, and thus she could either be the cowife or daughter of the creator god Khnum. This conflict is also the basis of a view that Satet took over the position as wife of Khnum, which had been formerly occupied by Heket (in the Hermopolis theogony) so that Satet could be the second member of the Elephantine Triad. Another important cult center for Satet and the Triad (or the pluralizing trinity) was at Saheil Island just upstream of Elephantine where the triad appears on many rock inscriptions in the First Cataract. The meaning of Satet’s name is “to sow seed,” and images exist of her pouring water on the land of Egypt. Satet was also the giver of water, especially in purification rituals for the deceased (refer to The Pyramid Texts, no. 1116). She is depicted as a human rather than zoomorphic goddess, and she usually wore the white crown (hedjet) of Upper Egypt. Her crown was adorned with two gracile curved antelope horns on the sides and a single vulture uraeus. The antelope was probably sacred to Satet, and it may be

336

•

SATIS

offered to her as a temple sacrifice. She could also be considered as a goddess of hunting and is sometimes shown with a bow and arrow as the southern counterpart of the goddess Neith. Clearly Satet was the prototype of the Greek goddess Artemis who shares the attributes of Satet of hunting, bows and arrows, fertility, wild animals, and deer. Then Artemis is echoed into the Roman goddess Diana who has the same features. At other times, Satet is depicted holding a tall papyrus scepter. She was also known as the “eye or daughter of Re” and as a goddess of fertility and love, thus parallel to Hathor and Nephthys, both of whom had attributes of love and womanhood. SATIS. See SATET, SATI, SATIS. SAYALA, SEYALA. Sayala is the enigmatic burial place of a ranking Nubian chief, but it represents the northern limit of Meroitic Nubia. Sayala features evidence of a wine cult, for taverns and wine cellars are a prominent feature. Broken amphora and goblets also suggest a wine cult. Meroitic and X-Group pottery is found at Sayala as well as some examples of X-Group architecture. SEB, GEB, KEB. Seb could be a Meroitic name for the very ancient deity known better as Geb or Kebe. By Meroitic times, the reference had apparently been transformed into Seb, as noted in some Meroitic texts. It seems that the “cakes or bread of Seb” were placed on hetep offering tablets as a gift to be transferred by Seb to Horus; his grandson, Seb of Geb, was the son of Shu, the god of the air. Re, the sun god, called upon Shu to be joined with Tefnut, his consort and the goddess of moisture. A result of this joining was Seb or Geb, the god of earth and his sister consort Nut, the goddess of the sky. As a universal god of earth, Seb also became the god of cardinal points or all directions of the earth, or “the house of Seb.” According to ancient Egyptian and Nubian theogony, Seb was thus the father of Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, and Seth. Seb is presented as an anthropomorphic deity wearing the plumed atef crown and may be associated with the white crown ( hedjet) of Upper Egypt and with the sacred goose (“the Great Cackler”) that was also a form of Re, or Seb, which may also be associated with the Bennu bird (“the Phoenix”). The Bennu bird was, in turn, a manifestation of the primal mound or “pyramid of earth” from which land emerged from the primal waters of the universal god Nun. As god of earth, Seb was tied to funerary and agricultural rituals, especially in Meroë.

SEBNI, SABNI AND MAKHI, MEKHU

•

337

SEBILIAN. The long-lasting and extensive Sebilian archaeological horizon emerges in the Upper or Late Paleolithic or early Mesolithic from some 26,000 to 10,000 BP. It could be termed as Epipaleolithic in Lower Nubia or in Upper Egypt. Thus in the oldest times it was contemporary with Khor Musa traditions and lasted until Qadan times. Sebilian stone tools and microliths were known before the Nubian salvage campaign but are now lost under Lake Nasser, where sites were known from below Abu Simbel to above Wadi Halfa in Lower Nubia. The Sebilian assemblage includes a variety of Levalloisian types of points, borers, scrapers, flakes, and blades, which were known in Europe at the same time. SEBIUMEKER. This red-faced Meroitic deity is usually shown at a temple entrance to offer supernatural protection. Apparently, Sebiumeker was a royal creator god and, for this reason, can be closely associated with Osiris, thus making both the sons of Geb or Seb and Sebe have a portion of his name. Monumental sandstone sculptures of Sebiumeker are found at Musawwarat es-Sufra, portraying him with a man’s head and a double crown (hedjet and deshret), false beard, beaded (gold?) necklace, and a single cobra uraeus. He also appears on the southern wall of the Lion temple at Musawwarat esSufra. Often Sebiumeker is paired with Arensnuphis, such as at the doorway of temple C or “300” at the same site. Their close association suggests that they may have been “brother” deities having the apparent parallel with Seth and Osiris. Even though Sebiumeker is clearly a Nubian god, the form, theogony, and symbolic placement of his images indicate very substantial earlier Egyptian influences in his related iconography and architecture. At the same time, during the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period (11th to sixth centuries BCE) and/or the Late Period (eighth to fourth centuries BCE), in which Napata and Meroë grew (seventh century BCE to fourth century CE), Egypt itself was no longer controlled by Egyptians but, instead, by foreigners. SEBNI, SABNI AND MAKHI, MEKHU. Sebni was a “governor of the south” serving of Pepi II at the close of Dynasty VI. His father, Makhi, was killed while on a trade expedition to Wawat. After receiving the sad news, Sebni returned south with a substantial punitive military force as well as a priest and embalming supplies. Sebni’s trip was lauded as a prime example of filial piety. When Sebni returned from Nubia with his father’s mummified body, it was entombed at the Gubbat al-Howa cliffs in Aswan during the First Intermediate Period. His spacious rock-cut shrine tomb was also the burial place for Sebni and many other family members. In subsequent centuries, this tomb became a much venerated pilgrimage site for those respecting the duties of sons to fathers.

338

•

SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (1782–1570 BCE)

SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (1782–1570 BCE). This is the conventional reference to the two centuries between the end of Dynasty XII of the Middle Kingdom and the start of Dynasty XVIII of the New Kingdom. Thus, it spans Dynasty XIII (1782–1650 BCE) to Dynasty XVII (1663–1570 BCE) according to the dates offered by Clayton, which vary considerably with other chronologies of this particularly contested epoch. As with the First Intermediate Period and the Third Intermediate Period, this represents a loss of the political unity of the Egyptian state despite continuing references by rival kings to being the “Lord of Two Lands.” In the usual dialectical relationship between Nubia and Egypt, such a weakness in Egypt represented an opportunity or responsibility to intervene in Egyptian governance when Nubians of Kerma and the Hyksos of Lower Egypt sought a political and military alliance. Interestingly, even in this murky period, Brigitte Gratien found seal impressions that indicate that trade on a smaller scale continued between Egyptians and Nubians. As the New Kingdom emerged, the reverse mission was to recover national unity; first, this meant the expulsion of the Hykos and, second, the colonial conquest of Kerma/Kush. SEDEGNA, SADEGNA, SEDEIGNA. Sedegna is well known for the now much-ruined temple built by Amenhotep III in honor of the goddess Hathor and was constructed for his wife Queen Tiy. This was built some 13 kilometers north of his Soleb temple also on the west bank of the Nile. These were built during Dynasty XVIII of the New Kingdom colonial occupation of Lower Nubia. Another small temple was built at Jebel Dosha for Tuthmosis III. Also at Sedegna some blocks were found for Taharka of Dynasty XXV leading to unlikely speculation that he might have been buried here rather than in Nuri at his pyramid. During later Meroitic times, Sedegna was reoccupied and the site has many ruined pyramids and tombs found at this large cemetery. SEGERSENI, SEKHERSENI. The transition from Dynasty XI to Dynasty XII in the Middle Kingdom was neither smooth, nor clear. If it is correct to assume that Mentuhotep II of Dynasty XI was quite possibly of Nubian origin (even if Egyptian by nationality), then a struggle for power may have occurred to shift to the Egyptian Dynasty XII, led by Amenemhat I. Amid this transitional period, Segerseni apparently sided with the descendants of Mentuhotep II in his battles with Inyotef and Amenemhat I. While Segerseni is rather poorly known, he apparently had a Lower Nubian territorial base (like his ally Qakere?) that suggests he may have been a Medjay, C-Group,

SEHEIL, SEHEL, SAHEIL ISLAND

•

339

or even a Kerma chief. His short-lived role in this transition was terminated when Amenemhat I defeated him by sending 20 boats from his river navy into Lower Nubia, where Segerseni apparently had lived, ruled, and died. SEHEIL, SEHEL, SAHEIL ISLAND. This island lies amid the First Cataract just downstream (north) of the Low Dam at Aswan and upstream (south) of Elephantine. It is famed for its many rock inscriptions spanning many centuries. Occupying this strategic location, passed by all, going to Nubia, or coming from Egypt, Seheil has long been a way station in the history of both. Seheil was long considered as the center for the cult of important Nubian deities of Anqet, Satet, and Khnum, also known as the “Triad of Elephantine.” The first inscribed reference relates to a visit by King Djoser of Dynasty III of the Archaic Period. Believing that the source of the Nile was within the First Cataract and that the creator god Khnum and his two “wives” resided there, Djoser ordered offerings to be made at Seheil to celebrate the end of a protracted drought in Egypt when the annual inundation had failed. Evidently, he erected a famine stela to commemorate the welcome restoration of the Nile flood. During Dynasty VI of the Old Kingdom, some effort was made to remove rocks from the main channel of the Nile at Seheil Island to help more rapid navigation of Egyptian troops and traders through the cataract for campaigns in Nubia to secure its natural and human resources. A Middle Kingdom inscription of the pharaoh Senusoret III of Dynasty XII states that he was engaged in improving river navigation someplace to the west side of Seheil Island by deepening and enlarging a canal for deeper draft vessels. Another inscription attests to the completion of this project. During the New Kingdom, when Lower Nubia and Upper Nubia were entirely under Egyptian control, it became very common to inscribe greetings to the Triad on the numerous granite stones of Seheil, Elephantine, and elsewhere in the First Cataract region as Egyptians passed through with their perilous missions to Nubia. Inscriptions at Seheil were especially numerous in Rameside times particularly for Ramses II. These inscriptions were tribute to the “Triad of Aswan” or to the “Triad for the First Cataract.” In Greco-Roman times, the long-established tradition of invoking the “Triad” at Seheil was continued, and stones were still inscribed on many voyages to Nubia. The famous, but split, Seheil Island “Famine Stone,” done in Ptolemic times, contains commentary about King Djoser worshipping the “Triad” in the late Archaic Period. At present, Seheil has a modern community of Kanuz Nubians. On the adjacent western bank of the Nile is the ethnically related Kenzi community of West Seheil.

340

•

SEKHMET

SEKHMET. According to her mythology, this unpredictable and potentially violent lion goddess of Egypt was supposedly lured by a gazelle into the Nubian Desert. Sekhmet was the “wife” of the very ancient god Ptah, who was in turn worshipped as a form of the Apis bull in Dynasty XXVI. Sekhmet was also a goddess of the “Triad of Memphis” (with her consort Ptah and son Nefertem). She was also the “Mighty One” who could violently defend the “Divine Order” of Egypt. She would bring destruction to those who defied this order. Hathor sometimes took the form of Sekhmet in the “Destruction of Mankind,” which was halted only when Re made her drunk on blood laced with wine. Her statues were widespread in Egypt in the New Kingdom especially at Thebes, but a statue of Sekhmet was removed from a Middle Kingdom fortress in Lower Nubia and removed to Kerma where it was found broken into many pieces that were restored at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. Although the warlike lion god of Meroë is a male, the attributes of Sekhmet linger on in the form of Apedemek. SELIMA OASIS. The Selima Oasis is situated in the Sahara Desert west of Amara West. Selima was, and is, a critical link on the desert track now known in Arabic as the Darb al-Arba’in, or 40-Days Road, which comes from northern Kordofan and Darfur through the Laqia Oasis and onward in the Western Desert where it splits north of Selima to a northeastern route to Dunqul and Kurkur Oases. Another route heads on by the imposing Roman Dush temple and onward to Kharga Oasis and west through the other oases or east toward the Nile to such places as Daraw where the livestock drive would end or go on through Middle Egypt. The desert route was commonly used for driving livestock, incense, slaves, and trafficking northbound and southbound Egyptian traders and raiders who wished to bypass Lower Nubia and the Second Cataract. It is likely that Harkuf passed through Selima during his famed trading missions to Kerma (Irem). SEMNA EAST. The Middle Kingdom fort at Kumma was the eastern bank counterpart of the major fortifications of Semna West on the opposite shore around 60 kilometers upstream from Wadi Halfa. Semna East was one of a variety of related military structures in Lower Nubia that were first built during the Middle Kingdom by Egyptians fearing attacks from Kerma and wanting to control the Nile trade. Semna East is also noted for rock inscriptions recording the level of the Nile and for a Dynasty XVIII temple. In the 15th century BCE, Hatshepsut, Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis III, and Amenhotep II all built or added to a small sandstone temple at Kumma to the god Khnum who was linked to Nubia by his “marriage” to Anqet and Satet, the Nubian goddesses of the First Cataract and Seheil Island. No doubt these New Kingdom rulers

SEMNA WEST

•

341

believed that a temple in honor of Khnum would endear them to their colony of Kush. The stone for the temple was quarried at Sai Island, roughly 112 kilometers farther upstream. Three sides of the temple were in low cost mud brick that may have been painted. Entry to the temple could be made through a modest colonnaded court with square pillars built into the mud-brick wall. Upon entering, one sees Tuthmosis II receiving life from Dedun, another Nubian god, and making tribute to Khnum. The scribe god Thoth records the age of Tuthmosis III; on an inner wall this pharaoh sits between Khnum and a deified pharaoh, Senusoret III, whom he is honoring. Other depictions in the temple repeat these themes by Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II. Another figure in the inner hall was clearly Hatshepsut, who was replaced and effaced by Tuthmosis III. Two small innermost chambers preserve some original paint. Following the flooding of Lake Nasser, the temple was removed and now stands in the garden at the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. SEMNA WEST. The fort and temple at Semna West was the counterpart of Semna East. Likewise, its origin dates to the period of Middle Kingdom fortifications. The site held the boundary stela of Senusoret III, who was later deified. Like other boundary stela, it proclaimed strict controls for Nubians to pass through the area. The fort at Semna West was larger than that of Semna East or at Mirgissa (in Iken District), and together they sought to control movement through the Second Cataract area. The fort at Semna West was reused during the New Kingdom, when Tuthmosis I added a small stone and brick temple to this fort. Reconstruction undertaken by Tuthmosis III was even more significant. He replaced the ruined mud bricks of Senusoret III with stone, and he expanded the temple that celebrated the gods Amun, Dedun, Khnum, and a deified Senusoret III in many fine variant scenes inside and outside the temple. The importance of Dedun (a god revered by the Medjay and Nubians) suggests that these people were central to the regional military defense. The religious metaphors are similar to the temple of Semna East. The temple is heavily adorned with relief and inscriptions of high quality. Taharka renewed this temple during Dynasty XXV. The partial structure that remains is a single room with some adjoining features. It was dismantled and relocated in the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. The Semna West temple give inscriptional reference to Queen Katimala (of Meroë?), who is communicating with Isis and projects herself as queen of Upper and Lower Egypt. She is otherwise unknown. The original stone roof slabs still show the stars of the night sky.

342

•

SENEFERU (R. CA. 2613–2589 BCE OR CA. 2575–2551 BCE)

SENEFERU, SNEFRU, SNOFRI (r. ca. 2613–2589 BCE OR ca. 2575–2551 BCE). Seneferu was the first king of Dynasty IV and thus a founder of the Old Kingdom. This early Egyptian king was the first to launch the standardization of the Old Kingdom pyramid at Meidum and Dashur. His reign was long and prosperous. His prosperity grew, not only from his effective administration of the surplus production in Egypt but also from his military conquests in Nubia, following the previous example of King Djoser. During his rule, he recorded a major invasion of Nubia in his quest for slaves and livestock. Once his control of Lower Nubia was settled, he proceeded to build a series of fortresses and open mines and quarries for Nubian materials, especially including gold and hard stones for building construction and for sculpture. His military rule in Egypt also depended on seizing Nubian conscripts for his army. His conquests in Nubia may have actually involved his personal presence, as noted in the Palermo Stone that described his warfare against the Nubians of Wawat to the south and Libyans to the west. This engagement supposedly resulted in the capture of 7,000 Nubians and some 200,000 “large and small cattle/livestock.” Seneferu is also famed for embarking on sea voyages to Lebanon to acquire much-valued cedar wood used in mortuary functions and fine temple sculpture. Seneferu built a stepped pyramid at Meidum, a bent pyramid at Dashur, and the red pyramid also at Dashur. As such, he usually is credited with finally perfecting the classical pyramid architecture, which his son, the great Khufu or Cheops, used as a model to make the greatest of all pyramids on the Giza plateau. His significance grew to the point of his deification by Dynasty XII, and his archaic style of pyramid construction was rejuvenated in the conservative design of the temple complex of Mentuhotep II and in Dynasty XXV in the royal cemeteries at Napata and, later, at Meroë. SENKAMANISKEN (r. ca. 643–623 BCE). Senkamanisken is believed to be a grandson of Taharka and a king in the Napatan era of Kush. Senkamanisken probably completed temple B700 that was started by King Atlanersa who preceded him. This is near the great Amun temple at Jebel Barkal. Senkamanisken is buried in pyramid 3 at the cemetery of a score of royal burials at Nuri, 22 kilometers upstream of Napata. SENNACHERIB (r. 704–681 BCE). While Dynasty XXV was ruling Egypt, this Assyrian king was militarily engaged with Shabaka, Shabataka, and, briefly, with Taharka. Preoccupied with military affairs elsewhere in the expanding Assyrian Empire, Sennacherib apparently put off an Egyptian campaign from fears of being overextended. Diplomatic relations with Shabaka later evolved to outright war with Shabataka, who had been allied with

SENNACHERIB (R. 704–681 BCE)

•

343

the Jews and Phoenicians against the Assyrians, so this greatly annoyed Sennacherib. Probably Shabataka had asked the then Nubian crown prince and younger brother, Taharka, to support the effort of Tyre and Sidon, and the Judeans under Hezekiah, to resist further Assyrian expansion into Egypt. This was noted in the Bible in 2 Kings 19:9 and in Isaiah 37:9. After putting down these insurgencies, Sennacherib next turned against the “troublesome” Philistines and Judeans. When Hezekiah’s capital at Jerusalem came under siege by Sennacherib in summer 701 BCE, the Assyrians failed to take the well-defended city. Nevertheless, they did succeed in capturing other Judean towns, and Sennacherib bragged that he shut up Hezekiah “like a bird in a cage.” However, the story in the same year was quite different at Lachish (around 45 kilometers away to the southwest of Jerusalem), which also came under siege. The siege and defeat of Lachish is remarkably well recorded in numerous military scenes carved in Sennacherib’s fabulous palace at Nineveh, which was begun shortly after his victorious return. One quarry scene shows a large group of men moving stone for construction and sculpture. Other depictions of Lachish show bowmen, slingers, storm troops, siege engines with ramps, and the nature and quantity of booty seized. Still another scene at Nineveh shows prisoners from Canaan or Phoenicia depicted played lyres in the palace of Sennacherib. As a possible result of the Assyrian military victory at Lachish, Sennacherib forced Hezekiah to pay a symbolic tribute of 30 talents of gold and either 300 or 800 talents of silver and a team of singers and dancers. An alternative view is that this payment was for release from Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem. Whatever the case, whether by naked pressure or by clever political tactics, the fortunate Hezekiah was left intact at Jerusalem despite the Judean defeat at Lachish. This was as Isaiah had foretold. The mystery of these unfolding events was deepened when suddenly a plague swept through the Assyrian forces, causing some 5,180 deaths and their precipitous withdrawal from Jerusalem spared from conquest. Another dimension of these dynamic times may include the fact that Sennacherib’s forces were getting spread too widely. Some were left at Libnah and Lachish, while others were engaged in the siege of Jerusalem. Sennacherib may have received intelligence reports of a renewed offensive by the forces under the command of Prince Taharka. Consequently, Sennacherib quickly regrouped in Ashkelon on the coast while Taharka retreated to Egypt. Even though Prince Taharka and Pharaoh Shabataka had little time to celebrate their holding off the Assyrians at the clash at El-Tekeh, they withdrew when Sennacherib regrouped. They could say with some satisfaction

344

•

SENUSORET I, SENWOSRET I, SESOSTRIS I (R. CA. 1971–1926 BCE)

that Sennacherib was no longer harassing their Judean ally, nor did the Assyrians then advance farther into Egypt. In retrospect, it was not a very damaging defeat at El-Tekeh, and it was rather an aggressive defense. Nevertheless, Hezekiah was left as a weakened, now-vassal king, and starting in around 696 BCE, Hezekiah ruled with the assistance of his son Manasseh as coregent. Shabataka continued to rule in Egypt for nine more years, and the early years of Pharaoh Taharka were contemporary with the Hezekiah/Manasseh coregency. However, when Manasseh ruled alone, he was compelled to pay tribute to the Assyrians during the later reign of Sennacherib’s son Esarhaddon. The temporary withdrawal of the Assyrians under Sennacherib may have been a relief to the eastern Mediterranean states and to the Nubians ruling Egypt, but it was not to last. Because of these military actions, some scholars give Sennacherib a reputation for being a “ruthless barbarian” for his conquest of Babylon, then a center of culture, and Phoenicia and Judea, small trading states. However, he was also interested in technological progress, and some credit him with a new method in metal casting, new irrigation equipment, and finding new mineral resources. Certainly Sennacherib is highly credited for the lovely cuneiform stone prisms that record the annals of his many military exploits. Sennacherib is also famed for laying out Nineveh as his new capital, where he located probably the largest of Assyrian palaces at the Kuyunjik mound. Although this palace was badly damaged by fire, it is easy to see its original beauty, including parks and the Jerwan Aqueduct, which provided a regular and adequate water supply. The corbeled structure of this aqueduct was an ancient engineering marvel that brought water from its source at Khinnis, where it was guarded by a winged bull, all the way to his palace at Nineveh. In 681 BCE, Sennacherib’s son Esarhaddon probably assassinated him to come to power and continue the regional struggles with Taharka. SENUSORET I, SENWOSRET I, SESOSTRIS I (r. ca. 1971–1926 BCE). This Egyptian pharaoh of Dynasty XII in the Middle Kingdom campaigned extensively in Nubia, especially beyond the Second Cataract. As such, he was a contemporary and Egyptian rival of the Nubian state at Kerma. He ruled for decade as a coregent with his father, Amenemhat I, and as a sovereign later. In order to make his military and commercial presence in Nubia, he constructed or improved the fortress at Semna. His “governor of the south” (i.e., Nubia) was Sirenput I. Warned by his father to take firm control of Egypt, he had a long reign. He shared his throne again with his own son, Amenemhat II, at the end of his rule. He was buried at his pyramid complex at Lisht in Middle Egypt.

SENUWY, SENNUWY

•

345

SENUSORET II, SENWOSRET II, SESOSTRIS II (r. ca. 1879–1878 BCE). The very brief rule of Senusoret II allowed for little time for construction projects. However, he tried to refortify the Lower Nubian fortresses to secure Egyptian interests there. His improvements to the fortress at Aniba date to this period. Later, the New Kingdom pharaohs heavily plundered his constructions to get building materials, thereby further obscuring his brief rule. SENUSORET III, SENWOSRET III, SESOSTRIS III (r. ca. 1848–1841 BCE). Senusoret III, also of the Middle Kingdom, resumed the missions of his father, Senusoret II, with economic reforms in Egypt, and by renewing the Second Cataract forts with his defensive military campaigns in Lower Nubia and offensive operations in Upper Nubia. Fearing that the Nubians of Kerma’s military might strike back, Senusoret III securely established defensive fortification in Upper Nubia. In his eighth regnal year, his program included the renewal of the clogged canal (of Weni) at Seheil Island. The canal had first been opened in the Old Kingdom, but it had not been well maintained during the First Intermediate Period. Senusoret III had his engineers expand it to 150 cubits (78 meters) in length, 20 cubits (13 meters) wide, and 15 cubits (7.8 meters) deep to accommodate his warships and cargo craft to gain more rapid access into Wawat. He also made major improvements to the huge Egyptian fortresses at Kumma and Semna to give more protection for attacks from Kerma. A boundary stela erected at Semna warns Nubians of passage, which was only tolerated if trade was involved. Otherwise the border was closed. At Semna, there was also a shrine to Dedun to honor this local deity since his defense also relied on local Medjay soldiers. In his 16th regnal year, as feared, Nubians did raid across the border, which prompted a retaliatory counterraid by Senusoret III when he extended his boundary stela and inscriptions as far as Uronarti. Senusoret III was buried at Dashur in an impressive pyramid built from wealth derived from Nubia, Sinai, and, of course, from the rest of Egypt itself. SENUWY, SENNUWY. Senuwy was the wife of Hepzefa (Hepjefa), who as ambiguous governor of Nubia or Assiut for Egypt during the reign of Senusoret I. He may have been of Nubian origins himself. A life-size seated stone statue of Senuwy was probably first installed in a Middle Kingdom fortress and then removed to Kerma where it was buried in a central place next to a nameless Kerma king in the huge K-III tumulus as an indication that they had recaptured that land in the Second Intermediate Period. It has

346

•

SEPEDHOR

inscriptions in Egyptian hieroglyphs, and she appears to be holding a rolled message in her right hand. Her hair is full and bushy. Was this statue a gift to a Kerma king, or was this seized by a Kerma king? During the Reisner excavation of Kerma under British colonial rule of Sudan, it was removed to Boston, where its many fractured pieces were reassembled for public display in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. SEPEDHOR. This modest stela of Sepedhor is not in good condition and its mere nine lines of text in Egyptian hieroglyphs does not suggest that it would have much significance. However, the Sepedhor stela from Buhen relates to the task of rehabilitating its interior temple for the “heka of Kush” (i.e, the regnant king of Kerma), rather than the former Middle Kingdom pharaoh. Thus the Sepedhor stela reveals the regional change in the balance of power at this time in the Second Intermediate Period. It is not clear whether this stela was crafted before or during the time when the Middle Kingdom forts were sacked and occupied by Kerma peoples. It was also during this epoch that the Egyptian sculpture of Senuwy from a Middle Kingdom fort made its way back into Kerma’s K-III grave tumulus. So, this stela gives proof that Upper Egypt no longer controlled Lower Nubia and that it had also lost control of Lower Egypt to the Hyksos occupation. SEPTUAGINT. This foundational Judeo-Christian document was the result of an order, in the third century BCE, from Ptolemy II, Philadelphus (r. 285–246 BCE), who had noted from the scholarly Jewish population in Alexandria that many of the Jews could no longer read Hebrew, and it would be better to translate the Hebrew texts (the Torah for Jews or the Pentateuch for Christians) into Koine Greek. The Pentateuch (“Five Books”) for Christians were Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It was already common practice to build the collection in the famed library of Alexandria, where books in any language would be seized, copied, and sometimes translated for the library. To ensure faithful translations, Ptolemy II employed 70 translators (or perhaps 72) to allow six from each of the Jewish “tribes” to translate this work. The number 70 in Roman numerals is written LXX, so it is sometimes known simply by that reckoning. Even though each translator worked separately, the results were said to be identical, and so this became the official (Greek) translation better known as “The 70” or, later, as the Old Testament. The Jewish quarter of Alexandria was already large and situated near the library. Already displaced in the Babylonian diaspora in 586 BCE, Jews were specialized in scholarly, financial, and military affairs that did not require land ownership.

SHAAT

•

347

SERRA (EAST AND WEST). This Christian town and fortress dating to the 10th century CE sits roughly 17 kilometers south of the Egyptian New Kingdom temple of Abu Simbel built for Ramses II in Lower Nubia. It is located essentially opposite to the town of Faras, the capital of Nobatia. All are now removed or flooded by Lake Nasser. See also AKSHA, AKSHEH (TEH-KHET DISTRICT). SESIBI. Sesibi is a New Kingdom town and temple located in Upper Nubia on the eastern sweep of the Nile between Soleb and Kerma. The temple’s iconography to the Aton cult indicates construction by Amenhotep IV of Dynasty XVIII and by Seti I of Dynasty XIX. SETAU, SETAW. Setau was the last viceroy of Kush under Ramses II. Setau oversaw the construction of an uninspired temple for Ramses II in the “Domain of Ptah” at Gerf Hussein in Lower Nubia. SETI I, SETHOS I (r. 1291–1278 BCE). Seti I was the father of the great Ramses II. Seti I attacked Nubia in his eighth regnal year, the third month of winter, the 13th day of his reign (i.e., ca. late January 1287 BCE). A Nubian revolt against the Egyptians was reported in an inscription from Qasr Ibrim. Seti I put down a one-week revolt of the “despicable” people of Kerma. A number of oases well-towns were plundered, and 600 captives were seized, along with livestock from the towns of Tipaw, Tabnut, Tairosu, Kurokasa, and Tusaru. Another raid on Nubia by Seti I is recorded in the 13th year of his rule. In this case, his son Prince Ramses II was the leader of a brief chariot raid. Seti I also maintained control of the Nubian gold mines of Wadi al-Allaqi. The tribute collected from these raids in Nubia is recorded at the temple at Bait al-Wali, which Ramses II built when he became the pharaoh. SETIU. See TA-SETI (SING.), TA-SETIU (PL.), TA-SETJIU, TA-SETJU, ZATJU (PL.). SHAAT. The region or even a small state (or perhaps a nome) of Shaat appears in New Kingdom records for tribute or in execration texts. It is not clear if this was in Upper Nubia, or even farther upstream. After the fullscale occupation of dynasties XVIII to XX, it seems to have been absorbed into colonial Kush. It had its own heka (administrator) under the viceroy of Kush who reported directly to the pharaoh. See also IKEN; SAI ISLAND.

348

•

SHABAKA (R. 716–701 BCE)

SHABAKA, SHABAKO, SHABAQO, SABTA, SEBICHOS, NEFERKA-RE (r. 716–701 BCE). After Piankhy’s death, his younger brother, Pharaoh Shabaka, assumed the double crown of Egypt and Nubia and thereby continued with Dynasty XXV. Shabaka has a biblical reference in 1 Chronicles 1:9. As with his senior brother, Piankhy, Shabaka was also engaged in recurrent conflicts with aspiring princely rivals in the delta. For example, the great chronologist Manetho reported that Bakenrenef claimed to found Dynasty XXIV, but he was seized by Shabaka, who burned him alive in 712 BCE. Piankhy had tried and failed to gain the loyalty of Bakenrenef, but apparently this rival could not be trusted. Manetho considers that it was really Shabaka, not Piankhy, who was thereby the true founder of Dynasty XXV. Like Piankhy, Shabaka took pains to legitimize his position in Egypt, and under his orders, his craftsmen prepared a careful copy of the Memphite creation myths from an old papyrus text still extant in the temple of Ptah at Memphis. The very much abused “Shabaka Stone,” which still survives in the British Museum, is an important source of this mythical and religious tradition. Shabaka’s control of Egypt is also apparent in the extensive construction projects throughout the Nile valley from the delta to important religious centers at Memphis, Abydos, Dendera, Esna, Edfu, Karnak, and, naturally, at Napata. His common political and military capital was at Memphis, from which he orchestrated his conservative reforms. At the northern side of the central enclosure at Karnak, Shabaka built a temple to Ptah at the second gate and also built the fourth gate, which was augmented in Roman times by Emperor Tiberius. Judging from stylistic images, it is possible that some of the construction of the Dynasty XXV temple adjacent to the sacred lake was also done by Shabaka but was reused by either Shabataka or Taharka. For Piankhy, legitimacy and consolidation of power was also achieved when he installed his cousin, Amenirdis I, as the God’s Wife of Amun in Thebes. He may have also married her as she was also his father’s brother’s daughter. This form of preferential marriage persists in Sudan today among wealthier people. Amenirdis I was briefly removed from this position by Osorkon III but was returned with greater personal authority over the High Priests of Amun. A stela at the Metropolitan Museum in New York is attributed to Shabaka in the sixth year of his reign (ca. 710 BCE). On this stela, he invokes Horus and Wadjet in a land grant to Bakenatum. Another undated stela of Shabaka at the Metropolitan Museum is from the eastern delta and invokes Horus and Hathor in an offering of nu jars to Patjenfy. After stabilizing the western delta at Sais, Shabaka was persistently distracted by the territorial ambitions and threats of the Sargonid Assyrians led first by King Sargon II (r. 721–705 BCE) from Khorsabad and then by his crown prince, King Sennacherib (r. 704–681 BCE), from Nineveh. The

SHABAKA (R. 716–701 BCE)

•

349

Assyrians were far from their homeland when attacking Egypt, but their armed forces used horse-driven chariots, mule-carried baggage and supplies, sapper engineers, and a strong infantry, all a formidable combination of military technology. Having the common military and political objectives of blocking the Assyrian offensives, Shabaka supported the neighboring Judean king Isaiah at the battle of El-Tekeh. This was recognized in gifts sent from Isaiah to Shabaka, as subsequently noted in the Old Testament. Meanwhile, Sennacherib was diverted at first in his 703 BCE subjugation of a restive Babylon. His 24-year reign had eight military campaigns. With Babylon under some control, Sennacherib’s offensives then took him to Phoenicia, which had long had commercial and military importance to Egyptians, and so it was also while Egypt was under Kushitic/Nubian rule. It was also true that the Assyrian ambitions had long bedeviled the commercial autonomy of the Phoenician city-states. The inexperience and remote Nubian support and the internal divisions of the Phoenician city-states made the military work of Sennacherib relatively easy in Phoenicia. There he seized the trade cities of Akko, Sidon, Tyre, and Ushu. The Phoenician king Luli of Sidon or Tyre did manage to escape from the Assyrians by fleeing to Cyprus in 701 BCE. This was much like the former tactical retreat from Assyrians by the Tyrian queen Didon to faraway but secure Carthage a century earlier. Thus, this year proved pivotal in this ancient “world war” of the region, and the balance of power titled toward Assyria and away from the Nile valley and Levantine and Judean powers. As the Nubian king of Egypt, Shabaka sought to strengthen the vulnerable and strategic northeastern flank of Egypt in his foreign and military policy of supporting Hezekiah, the king of Judah. It was also in his strategic interest to support the simmering revolts of the neighboring Philistines at Ashdod who were also destabilizing the Assyrians. So, just as the Assyrians to all of the Eastern Mediterranean nations, so also did the Nubians ruling Egypt see them with alarm as an existential threat. Shabaka sent his nephew Taharka to assist in their insurgency. Sargon II was annoyed by these not-so-secret alliances of Hezekiah to link up with Piankhy and Shabaka and to give at least tacit support to the citizens of Ashdod. Anti-Assyrian protests in Ashdod, just north of Ashkelon, were neither joined nor opposed by Hezekiah, who was a “secret” but passive supporter. At least since 712 BCE, Ashdod (under King Yemeni) had mounted sporadic revolts against the same Assyrians who were threatening Hezekiah. In response to this restive situation, Sargon II and his successors conducted at least three military campaigns between 712 and 705 BCE under Assyrian field marshals, or turtanu, in an effort to subdue the Ashdod revolts and to plunder its icons, women, livestock, and other treasures.

350

•

SHABATAKA (R. 701–688 BCE)

When Ashdod was finally captured and an Assyrian victory stela was erected, the Philistine king Yemeni managed to escape to Egypt. There he sought refuge with Shabaka, who was then in power. However, not wanting to antagonize the Assyrians further, Shabaka arranged for King Yemeni to be extradited to Assyria as a captive. His fate is not known. This approach to Shabaka’s foreign policy earned him a measure of peace although perhaps also a degree of betrayal for those citizens of Ashdod. The murder of Sargon II in 705 BCE left the same regional struggles unresolved, and they fell to Sennacherib, his successor. Fresh from earlier victories in Phoenicia, Sennacherib launched his third campaign in 702–701 BCE to defeat the Philistines/Canaanites. At the battle of El-Tekeh (Al-Taqu), a modest number of Egyptian and Nubian bowmen, horsemen, and chariots of Pharaoh Shabaka, probably led by Prince Taharka, clashed with the Assyrians. While some are inclined to judge this as a defeat since they did not remain at El-Tekeh, one may also note that the Assyrians did not then pursue the Nubians. A temporary draw might be a better reckoning of this indecisive military engagement. From the battles of El-Tekeh, Timmnah, and Ekron, Sennacherib moved on to his famous siege and victory at Lachish but for his unexpected withdrawal from Judea, just as it was about to capitulate. Precisely why the reign of Shabaka comes to an end at this time is still not clear. Speculation arises whether the approximate synchrony of his death and the battle of El-Tekeh were related since he could easily have been on that battlefield. Or was there a coup d’état in the Nubian royal family, who may have felt that Shabaka was not up to the task at hand? The Bible (2 Kings 18:21) refers to his reign as a “bruised reed” that would just piece the hand of those who might rely on him. The answer is not known, but nevertheless Shabaka’s body and his chariot horses were returned to Nubia for burial at Kurru. King Shabaka was followed by his paternal nephew once removed, Shabataka, who became the next ruler of Dynasty XXV. SHABATAKA, SHEBITQO, SHEBITQU, SHEBITKO, SEBTECHA, SHABITKU, DJED-KAU-RE (r. 701–688 BCE). The Nubian pharaoh Shabataka came to power upon the death of his grand-uncle Shabaka. Immediately following his coronation, Shabataka plunged into the turbulent political and military arena of the contemporary region. Shabaka’s conciliatory, even collaborationist, policies were abandoned, and Shabataka sought to engage in direct combat with the Assyrians. He apparently thought that the best defense would lie in bold offensive actions. During the Shabataka administration, the Nubian/Egyptian forces had offered political and military support to the defeated Phoenicians and Judeans. Certainly, this greatly annoyed the Assyrian king Sennacherib. Probably Shabataka had asked the Nubian crown prince and his younger brother Ta-

SHABATAKA (R. 701–688 BCE)

•

351

King Shabaka, Dynasty XXV.

harka to support the efforts of Tyre, Sidon, and the Jews under Hezekiah to resist further Assyrian expansion. This was noted in the Bible (2 Kings 19:9) and (Isaiah 37:9).

352

•

SHABATAKA (R. 701–688 BCE)

Within the few years of breathing space during the Piankhy-Shabaka and Ahaz-Hezekiah interregnums, it is seen that Hezekiah extended his control of the Philistines. He also made strategic alliances with the Babylonians and with the Kushites of Egypt then ruled by Shabaka. However, Hezekiah’s skeptical advisor, Isaiah, opposed Jewish ties with Babylon and Egypt. Perhaps most significant of all was his improvement of the national defense systems. This included the fortification of Jerusalem and the remarkable 531meter-long tunnel from Gihon Spring, which provided a critical water supply to the Pool of Siloam just beyond the southern wall of Jerusalem. This strategically important hydraulic engineering project enabled him to resist the later siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. Even today, waters still flow through Hezekiah’s tunnel. A famed Siloam inscription, found in 1880 CE, notes the completion of the tunnel during his time. When Hezekiah’s capital came under siege by Sennacherib in summer 701 BCE, the Assyrians failed to take this well-defended city. Even though Crown Prince Taharka and King Shabataka had little to celebrate about their aggressive defense at the battle of El-Tekeh, and they withdrew their forces when Sennacherib regrouped, they could say with some satisfaction that Sennacherib was, for a time anyway, no longer harassing their Judean ally, and the Assyrians temporarily suspended their further advance into Egypt. Hezekiah was left as a weakened vassal king, and starting in about 696 BCE, Hezekiah ruled with the assistance of his son Manasseh as coregent. Shabataka continued to rule in Egypt for nine more years. Likewise the Hezekiah/Manasseh coregents witnessed the early years of Pharaoh Taharka. However, when Mannaseh ruled alone, he was compelled to pay tribute to the Assyrians during the later reign of Sennacherib’s son, Esarhaddon. The temporary withdrawal of the Assyrians under Sennacherib may have been a great relief to the Levantine powers and to the Nubians, but it did not last. Shabataka is given reference in the Bible (1 Chronicles 1:9). Maybe Shabataka took a wife from the royal female line—that is, from a sister of Shepenwepet II, a daughter of Amenirdis I. The exact circumstances of Shabataka’s death and Taharka’s rise are shrouded in mystery, but allegations by Manetho suggest that Taharka may have dethroned or killed him as an ineffective leader during this critical time. At least, the death of Shabataka in 688 BCE was likely welcome news to the Assyrians, but this only meant a new Nubian pharaoh with whom Sennacherib would have to contend. Shabataka’s body was brought 1,600 kilometers from the eastern delta back to his beloved Nubia to be buried at the royal cemetery at Kurru just downstream from Napata. At his subterranean tomb under a pyramid were also buried the bodies of his standing horses in full-dress bridles and tack and his wife Qalhata. Some of her faience necklaces and menat necklace

SHABATAKA (R. 701–688 BCE)

•

353

counterweights are in the Boston Museum of Fine Ats collection (21.11809 a-p), which were collected by George Reisner. A bronze brick stamp for some of the construction projects of Shabataka are also known. SHABLUL. At Shablul, in Lower Nubia, a large number of funerary stelae have been recovered featuring Isis and Osiris. These funerary texts, along with those at Karanog, enabled F. L. Griffith to recognize a number of personal names, titles, and place-names in the Meroitic era thus assisting him in this aspect of the decipherment of Meroitic writing. Some of the tombs appear to show significant social stratification for the ranked Meroitic officials who occupied this post. SHAHEINAB. Shaheinab is an early Neolithic site on the western bank of the Nile north of modern Khartoum. The site is on a gravel ridge almost 5 meters above the modern floodplain of the Nile, suggesting considerably more rainfall at the time. No evidence of plant domestication exists at the site, but some does for the domestication of livestock, especially a dwarf goat and perhaps dogs like some other Neolithic sites. The advances in the local technology included detachable harpoon or spear heads of bone with a perforation for attaching a fiber line. Also included are stone net weights, borers, stone maces, curved and barbed fishhooks cut from shells, bone axes, adzes, partially ground stone gouges with very good secondary flaking, and stone lip plugs. Wattle and reed domestic construction is also known from the Shaheinab site. Their burnished red or black pottery had repetitive impressed or incised designs around thickened rims. The earlier wavy-line or dotted patterns associated with the Khartoum Mesolithic persists in this Neolithic site along with some zig-zag decorations. These people were still major hunters of the wider Nile valley megafauna while also making extensive use of diverse species in the river. Domestic animals played only a small role in their diet. Other examples of the Neolithic in Sudan are found at Haj Yousef, Sheikh al-Amian, and Gereif East near Khartoum. This cultural horizon has some affinities to assemblages found to the west in Tibesti and Fayum in the Sahara. Carbon dates for materials found at Shaheinab date from 3500 to 3100 BCE, thus making this site contemporary with late predynastic Egypt. The site was also occupied in subsequent Meroitic, Christian, and Islamic periods. SHALFAK, SHELFAK. This Middle Kingdom fortress was built by Egyptians high above the Nile River on the western bank of the Nile between Uronarti and Askut. It was known as the “Curbing the Countries” fortress, and it served as another part of the major military defense barrier organized by the Egyptians against the real and perceived threat of Kerma in Upper

354

•

SHAMARKIAN, SHARMAKIAN

Nubia. The fortress also furthered the Egyptian desire to have complete control of Lower Nubia. The main twinned forts at Semna and Kumma farther upstream were at the front line, but Shalfak gave additional reserve protection and probably had some role in the regional administration in the total defensive strategy. Shalfak, like the other score of forts, was heavy defended with heavy buttressed walls and watchtowers on the Western Desert side. Only two easily defended entrances were provided in its sturdy mud-brick walls. Clearly this serves as an indication of Egyptian fears of Kerma as a rival on the river. SHAMARKIAN, SHARMAKIAN. This archaeological typology dates to the closing phase of the Paleolithic in Lower Nubia with dates ranging from 5700 to 3270 BCE. As such, it has denticulate microliths in its assemblages that could be compared with Mousterian assemblages in North Africa or almost like Mesolithic tools farther upstream in Nubia. SHAMS AD-DAWLA. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. SHAMS AD-DIN. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. SHANAKDAKHETE, SHANAKDAKHETO (r. 170–150 BCE). This famous stout Meroitic queen (kandake, kdi-qo) was a contemporary of Ptolemy VI in Egypt. Although ruling in her own right, she was depicted and termed as a (male) “Lord of Two Lands” as a parallel to the terminology used much earlier for Queen Hatshepsut in Egypt. She was among the very first Meroitic queens to achieve this status. She was followed by at least seven other regnant queens of Meroë, including such notables as Amanirenas, Amanishakheto, and Amanitore. She also has the first dated Meroitic hieroglyphs at the Amun temple F at Naqa. She was buried in the Bejrawiya North pyramid 11, where pottery ostraca were found with Egyptian and Meroitic demotic (cursive) suggesting the point of origin of this writing style. There her funerary chapel shows her protected by Isis and presented to Osiris. Behind her is a prince. SHAQADUD. The site at Shaqadud Cave belongs to the Neolithic tradition, along with Kadada and Kadero downstream from the confluence (Mogren) of the White and Blue Niles. Shaqadud was located next to an improved natural pool, or hafir, well into the Butana plains away from the eastern bank of the Nile. Its location suggests a regular pastoral economy with water provided from this pool for their livestock in a mixed economy that sup-

SHEEP

•

355

ported a semisedentary occupation. However, following its early use, it appears to have been abandoned until about 2600 BCE, a time when Kerma was in formation. Perhaps this took place during a time of prolonged drought and then these Bronze Age seminomadic herders who lived east and west of southern Nubia could return to their homes. SHEEP. Among the diverse taxonomic family of the Ovidae are the sheep (Ovis orientalis) that were ancestral to those having great economic and religious importance in the Nile valley. In this case, the two most important species are Ovis longipes paleo-aegyptiacus and the later Ovis platyuraaegyptiaca. The O. longipes variety is the earlier of these two sheep to arrive in Egypt. These long-legged, long-tailed, heavy-shouldered rams have a sparse fleece and rather horizontally twisted corkscrew horns. The O. platyura variety was also introduced later than O. longipes. The O. platyura type is hairy, thin tailed, and lop eared, with a forward-curving (not corkscrew) horns for rams. It is important to note that because of the historical differences in their time of introduction, because of their different horn structure, and because they are associated with different deities, one may determine the historical context in which both sheep and their associated deities have emerged. Images of sheep in Egypt appear in Naqada times (4000–3100 BCE) in Upper Egypt. In the case of the predynastic Naqadan II (or Gerzean) horizon (3500–3100 BCE), one finds images of corkscrew-horned sheep (O. longipes) on pottery and cosmetic palettes. Meanwhile, in the Khartoum Mesolithic or the so-called wavy-line pottery of Sudan (ca. 3300 BCE) at Shaheinab, some remains have been found of domesticated sheep and goats as a small part of their otherwise fishing, hunting, and gathering economy. At the somewhat later sites at Kadero and Kaduda, the presence of sheep and goats had already increased substantially. When Kerma arose, it established military alliances with the “Shepherd Kings” of the Hyksos, who occupied the delta and other parts of Lower Egypt. Perhaps it was then that the O. platyura also became much more widespread. Although virtually no textual evidence exists, the presence of highly decorated sheep in burials and of painted stone sculptures of sheep certainly suggests that they were of great symbolic and ritual importance. The sheep found as funerary offerings and depicted at Kerma are the later, forward-curving horned type (O. platyura) rather than the corkscrew-horned variety (O. longipes). Until this time, the Egyptians had settled for worship of the two ram gods Harishef and Khnum (unless he was a goat god); both of these were representations of O. longipes. Thus, the fascinating question is raised about why the New Kingdom conquerors of Kerma not only adopted the O. platyura ram as their own but also elevated it to their high state god—that is, the

356

•

SHEEP

celebrated ram god Amun, who is typically shown as O. platyura. From the New Kingdom onward, Amun is never shown with only the corkscrew horns. It appears that in the conquest of Kerma, the Egyptians incorporated this deity of this conquered people to assist in the legitimization of their colonial rule. By dynasties XIX and XX, the ram wore the double plumes of the conflated god Amun-Re, the father of all pharaohs. In the case of the famed Middle Kingdom (in the Dynasty XII tomb 280), a model of enumerating livestock for the Theban overseer Meketre shows an abundance of cattle, but sheep are not indicated. Nor do sheep appear in the tombs of the wealthy in Old and Middle Kingdom times despite the abundance of other types of food and livestock. The rock-hewn tomb 3 of the nomarch Khnumhotep III at Beni Hasssan during Dynasty XXII contains one of the first depictions of both varieties of sheep being herded together. Appropriately, the name of this nomarch may be translated as “ the one who pays tribute to Khnum” (the ram god). In hieroglyphics, an impressive ram is used as a triconsonantal glyph of syllable in writing his name. Just prior to the New Kingdom in Upper Egypt during the early Dynasty XVII, the tomb of the nomarch Renni of El-Kab records that he owned, or received as tribute, 122 cattle, 100 sheep, 1,200 goats (or sheep?), and 1,500 pigs. During the New Kingdom (1568–1080 BCE), the wooly, heavy-maned, curved-horn rams had apparently taken over in actual animal husbandry. In an effort to reconcile these images for these two types, instances are seen of ram images shown sporting both horn structures, something that, naturally, never happened at all. Still another form of ram worship is seen with the four-headed ram amulet, first seen in Rameside times. The four heads captured the notion of “doubling” or rebirth, and one also finds a double-ended or double-headed faience ram that carried a moon between these ends. The link to resurrection (or doubling of the soul) is suggested by a ram amulet with a solar disk and the wings of a ba-bird of the reborn soul. This recurs in the Late Period, when the ram becomes identified as the god Ba-neb-djedet or the ancient ram god of Mendes, where an ancient graveyard for sacred rams is known. During the New Kingdom colonization of Nubia, at the holy mountain of Jebel Barkal, the Egyptians built an immense Amun temple to honor the ram god with inscriptions and a colonnade of rams in front of the main pylon. When Nubians recovered their political autonomy from Egypt, they continued with the ram as a s form of the god Amun, where it was believed that the spiritual manifestation of the ram god Amun (O. platyura) actually resided within the mountain. Since the ram was so important, it appears in many forms of iconography, epigraphic inscriptions, and religious sculpture. For Pharaoh Shabaka, a double-headed steatite ram seal is known with a solar disk, uraeus, and wadjet eyes.

SHEEP

•

357

Among the famed images of rams in Dynasty XXV is that from the temple of Taharka at Kawa, where he is shown standing between the protective forelegs of the ram that are now located in the front of the Sudan National Museum. These images are rams in the form of the heavy-wooled, lop-eared, forward-curving horn type. Other ram forms of Amun during Dynasty XXV have the characteristic Nubian double-cobra uraeus. The significance of the ram as Amun is further underscored in the two highest titled appointments after the pharaoh himself with the God’s Wife of Amun (often the pharaoh’s sister) and the High Priest of Amun (often the pharaoh’s brother). An image of Shepenwepet II shows her holding a libation vessel with its lid in the form of a ram of Amun. The ram continued to be popular in some of the magnificent royal jewelry known from Meroë. This is very well illustrated in the royal pyramid cache of lovely gold rings, pendants, necklaces, and inscriptions of Queen Amanishkhete, among others. In the Late Period, the atef crown evolves to become an ornate triple atef or hemhem(t) crown with corkscrew sheep horns and usually two cobra uraei. Since hemhem means to “shout” or ‘cry out’ in ancient Egyptian, it seems that the hemhem crown may represent a horn for use as a war or battle cry. Apedemek, the Meroitic lion-headed war god, is shown wearing the hemhem crown at the Apedemek temple in Musawwarat es-Sufra and at the Lion temple at Naqa. At the same temple is one ramheaded deity wearing the Osiride crown, while another has the crown of Amun. The Meroitic kings Natakamani and Arnekhamani and even the Christian king Silko also wear the hemhem crown when they first invoke Apedemek, or for Silko, they appear in a combat or military context. This military association reinforces the understanding that the hemhem icon in the form of the corkscrew horn is a military battle trumpet. The same is true for the Meroitic gold jewelry for which the ram form has the double plume of Amun, while the god Apedemek wears the hemhem crown. Sometimes both have their crowns on a corkscrew horn base while sporting the forwardcurving horns in addition. The atef persists on some royal crowns at Ballana during the X-Group period. From Meroë, another rare ram depiction is of a semi-kneeling curved-horn ram shown preparing to fire an arrow. This military theme for this deity integrates with other Meroitic military concerns and their important state god of war, the lion-headed Apedemek. From the Meroitic town of Gemai, an incised bronze bowl was found that has a seated ram form of Amun along with an image that seems to be a mummified ram behind him. Ram amulets in faience, lapis lazuli, and gold also appear in the Saite Dynasty XXIV. These are either couchant or standing rams, sometimes in a sphinx form carrying a solar disk and uraeus. Ram sphinxes were also incorporated as scarab bases and in ring bezels. In dynasties XXVI and XXX, some use was

358

•

SHEEP

made of ram amulets in funerary heart scarabs that have ram’s heads that appear to be the Khnum (goat?) or the Harishef ram forms invoking a spirit of resurrection with Osiris. From the perspective of zooarchaeology, the bones of sheep and goats are difficult to distinguish without a detailed study of DNA that might be retrieved from ancient bones. The iconography is easier with the view of the different configurations of the horns or the inscriptions describing the sheep and goats. By Ptolemaic times, the worship of Khnum had become even more widespread, and by then he was projected to be the god who fashioned human beings and animals from clay spun around on a potter’s wheel. This role also associates rams with fertility as another aspect of creating life. The link between rams and kingship continues dramatically in the case of Alexander the Great. In seeking legitimacy, he visited the Amun temple in far western Egypt at Siwa Oasis, and in a coin that was minted in his honor, Alexander is shown with forward-curving ram horns wrapped around his head. Aside from the Jebel Barkal pilgrimage site for Amun rams, the other location is at Aswan, the site of one of the most venerated cults for the god Khnum with his two Nubian consorts Satet and Anqet, which form the “Triad of Elephantine,” one of several ancient holy trinities. A temple there was built to honor Khnum, and many privileged royal rams or goats were pampered, decorated, adored, and actually mummified with gold-covered cartonage wrappings. In the Aswan cataracts was Seheil Island, where scores of inscriptions invoke the Nubian/Egyptian god Khnum and his two wife-goddesses. Khnum is consistently shown with the horns typical of the O. longipes species. A curious incident involving Khnum took place at Elephantine when some Jewish mercenaries were hired during the first Persian occupation of Egypt sometime around 525 BCE to be stationed at the strategically placed border fort there. To serve their own religious needs, they constructed a temple that apparently damaged the existing Khnum shrine located nearby. Perhaps local priests were already opposed to Jews eating rams (since pork was prohibited) and held Khnum in such reverence that the Jewish temple was an affront. In around 410 BCE, the citizens attacked the Jewish temple and caused very considerable destruction. Or perhaps the citizens were just tired of Persian mercenaries in their land and they just needed some excuse? Another example of sheep relating intimately to Judaism is the use of the shofar, which is a central feature of rituals held at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. In ancient times, the blowing of the ram’s horn wind instrument, the shofar, was important for military communication, and the shofar is essential in the synagogue as a valued tradition for calling Jews together for worship. As noted, the Meroitic and late Egyptian use of the hemhem to symbolize a horn or trumpet for battle and the Jewish shofar may have evolved from this

SHEIKH SULEIMAN

•

359

tradition, since much of Judaic culture was heavily Hellenized as it emerged in the refuge of Egypt. For Jews, the appropriate form of the shofar is the older corkscrew variant (O. longipes) of the ram’s horn, as in the hemhem crown. The association of rams with the high god Amun persist clearly with the Coptic use of amoun, who was still a recognized deity, and one may see that the use of the word Amen to conclude prayers for Jews, Christians, and Muslims may perpetuate this eternal reverence even when the historical and theological reference has been lost. Given the early and deep linkages between Judaism and Christianity and the ancient Nile valley, it may not be surprising that the height of Amun worship as a ram for the Theban priests is echoed by the fact that Christ is projected as the “lamb of God.” As a parallel to the crucifixion of Christ, the Eucharistic slaughter of sheep is an established ritual. This is especially true at Passover and Easter dinner meals, where lamb is commonly served as a symbol of the sacrifice of the mortal body of Jesus. Since the death of Christ is believed to atone for the “sins” of subsequent humanity, the sacrifice of lamb continues this metaphor. Western Christians prefer a green garnish or green mint jelly with their Easter lamb. The color green is strongly associated with Osiris in ancient Egypt and Nubia, for resurrection as in green palm fronds, and with modern Islam. In tabulating animal references in the Bible, as many as 553 notions are made to sheep, with 188 references to lambs and 165 to rams. These are far and above the most cited animals in biblical references. Lions are a distant second at 176 citations, with oxen at 166, horses at 164, bullocks at 152, asses at 150, goats at a mere 138, and the all-important Middle Eastern camel at only 62. Images of sheep and shepherds abound in the Old Testament, and the shepherd staff attributed to Jesus and to popes has its counterpart shepherd staff to lead (along with the flail to beat) of pharaonic authority. Both Jesus and God are reckoned as “shepherds” to their “flocks,” and in John 21:15, Jesus referred to his followers as his “lambs.” According to Vantini (1981, 150), medieval Christian iconography in Nubia often places two shepherds, Arnias and Lekotes, in Nativity paintings that are rare elsewhere. Without any question the real and symbolic role of sheep in the ancient Nile is highly valued. SHEIKH SULEIMAN. This site held the rock inscription of King Djer of Dynasty I in the Archaic Period, showing the first recorded Egyptian raid into Nubia for cattle and probably slaves or using boats in the Nubian reach of the Nile River. It was located not far from Wadi Halfa, but this historical notation has been moved to the National Museum in Khartoum.

360

•

SHEKANDA

SHEKANDA. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. SHELLAL, SHALLAL. Shelllal is a Kenuz Nubian and generic Arabic word for “cataract.” However, the more specific application is for the First Cataract at Aswan and the upstream rocky outcrops as in Seheil and Philae Islands. The creation of the Low and High dams south of Aswan have obliterated other traces of the First Cataract. However, as these constructions took place they launched major international campaigns in salvage archaeology. At the time of Senusoret III in the Middle Kingdom, a defensive wall may have been constructed at Shellal to support the canal improvements he made to allow more rapid movements of troops and commerce to Kerma in Nubia. In Roman times, two military camps at Shellal protected Aswan and Elephantine from Meroitic attack and provided a near staging base from which to launch attacks on Nubia. Located in Lower Nubia, a few miles south of Aswan, Shellal was excavated by George Reisner, and it played a role in forming Reisner’s alphabetic groups; the A-Group, B-Group, and X-Group are all recognized at Shellal, as well as the Ballana culture. SHEMAMUN. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. SHENDI. The modern market town and train stop of Shendi lies upstream from the ancient Meroitic capital and its neighboring pyramid fields that are opposite to the village of Bejrawiya, and the small town of Kabushiya. To the southeast of Shendi are the important Meroitic ruins at Naqa and Musawwarat es-Sufra, not to mention Shendi’s own rich archaeological record. As with ancient Meroë, the local produce of Shendi included items such as local foodstuffs, pottery, baskets, livestock, metalware, rope, grains, wood, and slaves. The 19th-century history of Shendi is rich with pivotal points in the evolution of modern Sudan. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (4th ed.). SHEPENWEPET I. This noblewoman of the Libyan Dynasty XXIII was the daughter of King Osorkon III in the delta during the Third Intermediate Period. He appointed her as the God’s Wife of Amun in Thebes. Osorkon III revived this office so his daughter could travel to Thebes to assist her father in gaining legitimacy with the Theban Amun cult. She was associated with a small temple at Karnak and was given high titles to cement her political and religious ties to this significant Theban body.

SILKO, KING

•

361

This approach was relatively successful, but according to Miriam Ayad, when Dynasty XXV gained control of these rivals, they compelled Shepenwepet I to “adopt” Amenirdis I to fulfill the same office for the Nubian king Piankhy who was the brother of Amenirdis I. SHEPENWEPET II. According to Miriam Ayad, this noble Nubian woman of Dynasty XXV was the sister of Shabataka and Taharka and served in the high-ranking position of the God’s Wife of Amun, or the Divine Adoratrice of Amun, to continue in the same way that her Libyan namesake had done in Dynasty XXIII. Amenirdis II, also in Dynasty XXV, served as the God’s Wife of Amun as well, and in Dynasty XXVI, Nitocris followed Shepenwepet II in the same manner. SHESHONK I, SHOSHENQ I (r. 945–924 BCE). This founding ruler of the Libyan or Mashwash Dynasty XXII ruled from the eastern delta during the Third Intermediate Period. With his appointments to the rulers of Upper Egypt, he tried to reconstitute a unitary authority for Lower Egypt. How well he succeeded is debatable. He also tried to recover portions of the Nubian trade to Egypt, and he may have also invaded Nubia, but the evidence is unclear. Sheshonk I also raided Judea in 930 BCE, and according to Karnak inscriptions, he also received tribute from Nubia; however, later these Libyan kings of Egypt lost their hold on Nubia, thus paving the way for the subsequent emergence of Dynasty XXV, when the Nubians came to rule all of Egypt. SHORKAROR, SHERKARER (r. 12–17 CE OR 20–30 CE). This son of Natakamani and Amanitore ruled Meroë after their deaths. Shorkaror was one of three sons of these rulers. His most famous monument, a “victory” stele, is located at Jebel Qeili in the south central Butana. This most southerly Meroitic monument depicts the king receiving alms from a Hellenistic sun god and warning and/or conquering over an unknown (Axumite?) eastern people. In one hand he holds his weapons, and the other has a staff of red sorghum (durra), the grain staple of Meroë. At Abu Erteila, he is also cited on a bark stand. His place of burial is presumed to be at a late pyramid in Meroë’s royal burial ground at Bejrawiya North. SILKO, KING. At a large Roman temple at Kalabsha in Lower Nubia that was mainly built by Caesar Augustus, there is an important inscription its own right, because of its relevance to medieval Christianity. This inscription, attributed to King Silko, the king of Nobatia, is a historical benchmark for this period. It was in this region at this time that the newly converted Silko defeated the Blemmyes who were his military rivals, and this inscrip-

362

•

SIMPSON, WILLIAM KELLY (1928–2017)

tion was retro-inscribed on a stone screen in the forecourt. Silko claimed that his success in his military campaigns was because of his devotion to the singular god—that is, to Christianity. This inscription was in poor and ungrammatical Greek and so begins the historical record of Nobatia. Apparently Silko was a king of the Noba people who may have migrated to the Nile valley from the west. If this is true, then moving to the Nile valley assisted their control of the Selima to Kharga Oases trade routes. Apparently King Silko was succeeded by King Aburni. SIMPSON, WILLIAM KELLY (1928–2017). Director of the joint Yale and University of Pennsylvania archaeological salvage mission in Nubia in 1962–1963 and excavator at Abydoss in Egypt, Simpson was professor emeritus of Egyptology at Yale. SINGA CRANIUM. This is the earliest human fossil found in Sudan, in modern Sennar state on the Blue Nile. It was discovered in 1924 by W. R. G. Bond, a British colonial official. Much earlier stone tools are also found in the Lower Paleolithic but without fossilized hominids. Initially it was thought to be about 17,000 BP, thus Homo sapiens sapiens, but more recent analysis at the British Museum of this cranium, which is without dentition or mandibles, is inclined to place this fossil much earlier within 130,000–150,000 BP or with Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. There are substantial supraorbital ridges, small mastoid process, and parietal bosses, as well as a rather robust framework that suggests the earlier date to the Middle or Late Paleolithic. The debate continues whether it is a possible example of Sudanese Stillbay culture. SIPTAH (r. 1193–1187 BCE). Ruling briefly toward the end of Dynasty XIX in the New Kingdom, Pharaoh Siptah struggled to assert the waning power. J. H. Breasted believed that Siptah had a Nubian power base from which he could oppose his rivals in Thebes, although the data to support this are not strong. In any case, he was able to establish a viceroy of Kush named Seti. Presumably, he was named for Seti I, the father of the famed Ramses II who ruled so prominently earlier in this dynasty. Pharaoh Siptah apparently maintained a regular flow of Nubian tribute during his short reign. He was followed by Queen Twosret as was often the case that women would rule as dynasties were collapsing. SIRENPUT I. Sirenput I served under Pharaoh Senusoret I (1971–1926 BCE). Sirenput I resided in Aswan and was titled as the “governor of the south and of Elephantine.” The title suggests that his authority was that of a heka-ib of Aswan and nomarch combined, since the position of the viceroy

SOBA (EAST)

•

363

of Kush was not established until the New Kingdom colonization of Nubia. Thus, in any case, the local temples for Khnum, Satet, and Anqet were under his religious and political authority. His local prominence is illustrated by his impressive construction at the Gubbat al-Howa cliffs at Aswan. There is a six-columned court and a three-room rock-cut tomb (no. 36) for Sirenput I that still shows detailed painted scenes of his family and daily life. Sirenput I was the grandfather of Sirenput II. SIRENPUT II. Sirenput II was the son of Satet-hotep and the grandson of Sirenput I, and he held a similar title and roles. So he was also a “governor of the south” or Lower Nubia, and he was also the “High Priest of Elephantine,” which put him in charge of the Khnum temple. In addition, he was the “commander of the troops” during Dynasty XII of the Middle Kingdom. Sirenput II is known mainly from his well-preserved rock-cut tomb (no. 31) at the Gubbat al-Howa cliff tombs in Aswan. This tomb has a narrow entrance hall followed by a six-pillared chamber and then a gallery with niches for the display of Osiride forms of the deceased. The incomplete, innermost chamber has four pillars that frame a lovely, fresh polychrome image of Sirenput II seated on a lion-footed stool and being presented with offerings of food (ducks, grapes, meat, and drink) by a lotus-bearing son or servant. Sirenput II is shown with a fine kilt, bracelets, pectoral necklace, and a small beard. Above his head are two cartouches inscribed as Neb-Kau-Re (i.e., Amenemhet II) of Dynasty XII as well as a fascinating and rare image of an ivory-bearing elephant, suggesting his interest in Nubia. The neighboring right wall shows his wife, who was titled “Priestess of Hathor,” who also receives gifts of food. SMENDES, NESBENEBDED (r. 1069–1043 BCE). In the wake of the death of Ramses XI and the collapse of the New Kingdom after Dynasty XX, Smendes was the coregent of Lower Egypt, while the High Priest of Amun Herihor ruled in Upper Egypt and Viceroy Panehesi ruled Nubia. In short, no single ruler prevailed in the Nile valley; political unity was lost. This Late Period allowed Nubians the autonomy that finally led to their opportunity to conquer all of Kush and Egypt in Dynasty XXV. It is probably during this time that the famous, but incomplete, story of the traveling merchant Wenamun was written. SOBA (EAST). Soba East is on the right bank of the Blue Nile roughly 20 kilometers southeast of modern Khartoum. As an archaeological site, its known history dates to Meroitic times, when it controlled a river crossing and southern entryway into the Butana trade routes. Soba East shows its late Meroitic history with diagnostic pottery, a temple, some Meroitic inscrip-

364

•

SOLEB, SOLB, SULB

tions, and Meroitic stone lions and rams. Vincent Rodot believes that one of the rams went from the temple at al-Hassa and was transported to Soba, perhaps in Meroitic times. Then, in modern times that ram went from Soba to the Sudan Museum in Khartoum. Recent excavations by the British Museum staff have revealed the foundation of a Meroitic pyramid that was apparently destroyed to make way for a perhaps Christian building. Mixed burial orientation and extensive postholes also suggest ethnic and religious diversity in the transition from post-Meroitic horizons on to Christianity. Probably Soba is much better known for being the medieval capital of the kingdom of Alwa from the sixth to 16th centuries CE. When this came to an end, Soba was a historical benchmark for the arrival of Islam when it fell in 1504 to the Muslim forces of Amara Dunqas from the Funj Sultanate of Sennar, farther upstream on the Blue Nile. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia and the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (4th ed.). SOLEB, SOLB, SULB. This pharaonic temple, located on the west bank of the Nile in the Abri-Delgo Reach, was built by Amenhotep III. It was a major New Kingdom settlement in Egyptian texts. Parts of the eastern pylon and major interior columns still remain, but the temple was badly damaged by flooding of the Nile that cut through the midsection of this temple. Excavation by the Italian M. S. Giorgini in the 1960s and 1970s contributed much to our knowledge of this once great Egyptian temple in Nubia. Just 13 kilometers north at Sedegna, Amenhotep III built another temple for his Queen Tiy, the mother of the “heretic” pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV). STEINDORFF, GEORG A. (1861–1951). This German Egyptologist studied under Adolf Erman in Berlin and was a founder of the Egyptian Institute in Leipzig (1893–1938). He excavated and traveled in riverine and desert Egypt and Nubia. During 1910–1912, Steindorff worked with the Siegelin expedition at Aniba in Lower Nubia while studying the C-Group and a pharaonic fortress in the region. He worked again at Aniba during the 1929–1933 Nubian salvage campaign when the British built the Aswan Low Dam. On this second field season, Steindorff focused on A-Group, C-Group, and pharaonic cemeteries. Steindorff was particularly skilled in his knowledge of Egyptian and Coptic languages. He fled to the United States with the rise of German Nazism and he continued his distinguished published career in German and English in leading Egyptological Museums in Boston, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, and in Hollywood. He died in Hollywood on 28 August 1951.

STRABO (64/63 BCE–23 CE)

•

365

STILLBAY HORIZON. This East and South African cultural horizon is thought to represent Bushmanoid peoples. This typological archaeological industry was so-named in 1929 by A. J. H. Goodwin and C. van Riet Lowe for a Middle Paleolithic to Late Paleolithic site in South Africa. The Stillbay industry is known to have stone tools as well as the use of fire, which dates from about 160,000 to as late as 70,000 BP. This race of Homo sapiens sapiens of the Late Paleolithic were hunters and gatherers across the savanna and light forests. If the Singa cranium is ancestral to, or derived from, Stillbay peoples this would be a of a much earlier time. The major issues of human evolution in Sudan is that Nilotic and proto-Bantu peoples have left few early traces and may have arrived at a much later time, such as around the time of Christ. Certainly the Lower Paleolithic and Middle Paleolithic periods in Sudan had human occupation with cores, blades, flakes, and microliths, but exactly who were the tool makers remains largely unanswered. Indeed, even in the well-occupied Mesolithic cultural horizons in Sudan it is not clear if the actual peoples were Bushmanoid, Nilotic, Cushite, or something else in the absence of DNA. A-Group burials begin to address this problem but still with substantial debate. STRABO (64/63 BCE–23 CE). Strabo was a Greek by birth in around 63 BCE in Amasia, Greece, to a wealthy, well-educated family, so he also had Greek language and culture. However, he spent much of his life in Rome, and as a Roman citizen, he traveled widely. By around 44 BCE, Strabo traveled from Corinth, Greece, to Rome to further his formal education; Rome was then under the intellectual traditions of Polybius, which, one presumes, were influential for Strabo. He was reported in Rome again in 35 BCE. Following the suicide of the last Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt, Cleopatra VII (r. 51–30 BCE), she was replaced by the Roman Caesar Augustus (r. 27–BCE to 14 CE); this opened a chance for Strabo to travel to Alexandria, Egypt, in around 26 BCE to study at the world’s greatest museum and library of science, mathematics, geography, medicine, history, and literature. He was there for three to five years, so until 23 or 21 BCE. In Egypt, he traveled as far south as the Roman frontiers of Nubia including Aswan, Philae, and perhaps as far upstream as the Dodekaschoenos of Lower Nubia. His 17 “books” (really scrolls) on history and geography, however fragmentary, are much celebrated for what they describe in the earliest parts of the Christian era in the Nile valley. His reports on Nubia included livestock, geography, rivers (the Astaboras), food, customs, ethnography of the local groups, and religious practices, among many other details. For example, Strabo recorded the refugees from the rule of Psamtik II, who fled to Nubia to the land termed Tenessis (possibly a rendering of the Nubian Ta-n-Essi, the “land of the [joined] waters,”) where the Astapus and Astasobas Rivers meet (i.e., the conjunction of the White and Blue Niles).

366

•

STRABO (64/63 BCE–23 CE)

Strabo offers the nomenclature for the Astaboras River, which survives in the present Atbara River. His reference to the Blue Nile is the “Astasobas” (perhaps a reference to Soba), and the White Nile is known as the “Astapus.” Possibly, the common asta prefix to these three rivers is derived from a corruption of the Nubian word essi for “water.” Strabo advances a sort of proto-ethnography with references to the ethnic region of “Aethiopia” as the “land of the burnt faces” inhabited by various peoples defined by what they eat: the “Elephantophagi” (elephant eaters), the “Struthophagii” (ostrich eaters), the “Ichthyophagii” (fish eaters), the “Rhizophagii” (root eaters), the “Acridophagii” (root eaters), “Anthropophagii” (cannibals), and “Helei” (marsh men). Strabo states that the Blemmyes (Matoy) to the east are subjects of the Aethiopians, but the Nubae to the west of the Nile are not a subject population. Probably, his most significant work was his eight-volume Geography, which was written between 9 and 5 BCE with research done at the library of Alexandria and in Rome, his adopted capital city. This work was not only a comprehensive and integrated volume but also one of the major surviving links to the intellectual Alexandrian scholarship that was largely lost. Similarly, for many centuries, the work of Strabo became the “state of the art,” especially in the decades-later writing of Claudius Ptolemeus with whom numerous similarities and differences exist. Still benefiting from the earlier reports of the Phoenician circumnavigation of Africa, Strabo’s map of the inhabited Old World shows Africa surrounded by water. This fact was to be lost within two centuries. Apparently, the coast-hugging Phoenicians knew of the Aethiopes Hesperii (the Canary Islands or Cape Verde) off of coastal West Africa. The term Libya was the general reference for what became known as the continent of Africa. The large S-shaped curve of the Nubian Nile is more accurately drawn by Strabo than for the more impressionistic Ptolemeus who could have known more except for the bad relations between contemporary Roman Egypt and Meroë. Strabo also recorded, rather accurately, that Meroë was situated on the same longitude (meridian) as Aswan and Alexandria, as Eratosthenes had previously assumed, with more or less accuracy. The incorrect notion of Ptolemeus that Meroë was an island is not indicated by Strabo. Strabo credits Eratosthenes for describing the S-shaped curve of the Nile between the Fifth and Third Cataracts and that the earth is spherical. He then theoretically measured (by travel time) its various segments in stadia, which he debated as somewhat different from those of Eratosthenes. For example, he made the following claims: Selected Places

Distance in Stadia

Diameter of the Earth

252,000

Aswan to Equator

16,800

SUAKIN

Meroë to Athens

15,000

Meroë to Alexandria

10,000

Aswan to Meroë

5,000

Confluence to Meroë

700

•

367

Note: 1 stadium equals 0.16 kilometers (e.g., 10 stadia equals 1.6 kilometers). Among his “books” are the reports on the military engagements between Rome and Meroë (Aethiopia), which mentioned the Blemmyes and Noubai, among others; in Book 17, he noted the attack on Aswan by the “one-eyed” Meroitic queen kandake and the Roman counterattack on Nubia by the prefect Petronius as far as Napata. This mutual raiding ended in the peace treaty in Samos circa 20 BCE still during the reign of Caesar Augustus. Strabo died sometime between 19 and 23 BCE. STRATEGOI. This Greek term was a reference to the regional generals put into place during the Ptolemaic administration. The strategoi were overseers of their subordinates, the epistrategos and the nomarchs of large towns or provinces. In turn, the epistrategos headed the administrations of oikonemes (treasurers), epistates (regional commanders), and his phylakitai (police militias), as well as the epimeletes (court guards or bailiffs). Each nomarch also had a hierarchical administration of komarchs (village scribes) and toparchs (town scribes). Because the Blemmyes were commonly placed in the position of strategoi in the borderlands, the Meroitic or Greek term pelemos is likely rooted in this term. Such specific titles are not so well known for Meroë, but it is likely that such roles were also shared from their contemporary Greek neighbors for many centuries. SUAKIN. This is a fascinating but largely abandoned island town on the western Red Sea coast. Its history dates back to early pharaonic times as early as the Old Kingdom, and especially when New Kingdom sailors used the west coast of the Red Sea for their repeated trading and exploring missions to the “land of Punt” (or To-Neter). The hinterland of Suakin was occupied by the ancient Blemmyes and Medjay (ancestors of the modern Beja and Hadendow). Meroitic times used ports on the Red Sea, probably including Suakin, to export elephants and other goods to the Ptolemies. When Axum had its emergence in the fourth century CE, they used their closer port of Adulis farther down the coast, which undermined the economic role Suakin. This seriously undermined the Meroitic Empire and played a role in its final collapse.

368

•

SUDANIC LANGUAGES

Some of the earliest Greco-Roman references, such as those reported in detail by the Roman geographer Strabo, call the peoples of the adjacent Red Sea Hills Troglodytes (“cave dwellers”) and Ichthyophages (“fish eaters”). The famed Roman navigational chart, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea underscores the importance of these ancient trading towns. SUDANIC LANGUAGES. Using the principles of historical linguistics and glottochronology to guide genetic classification of early African languages, the Sudanic language subgroups have been reconstructed by Joseph Greenberg (1966), among others. He placed the Sudanic languages in the family of Nilo-Saharan languages as a subfamily of the Chari-Nile group. Sudanic languages are further subdivided as Central Sudanic and Eastern Sudanic. In turn, Eastern Sudanic (or Nilotic) languages are found in the eastern Sahara, including parts of Chad, Uganda, and parts of the Lake Nyanza (Victoria) basin adjacent to South Sudan and western Kenya. In (northern) Sudan, eastern Sudanic languages are found in Upper Nubia and Lower Nubia, in pockets in central and western Darfur, in (southern) Sudan in the southern savanna, in the Nuba Mountains, and in the Sudd. This subgroup consists of seven branches: Nubian (River and Hill), Beir-Didinga, Barea, Tabi, Merarit and Daju (in Darfur), and the large Southern Branch. The large Southern Branch is further delineated to include Nilotic groups (Burun, Luo, Budama, and Dinka-Nuer) and the Great Lakes (Nilo-Hamitic) groups (Nandi-Suk, Bari. Fajulu, Nyangbara, Kakwa, Kuku, Masai, Teso, Turkana, Topotha, Karamajong, and Latuka). Central Sudanic languages are found in parts of Uganda, southwestern Sudan, the central African Republic, and Congo/Zaire. This subgroup includes the languages of Bongo-Bagirmi, Efe, Mangbetu, Beta, and Kunama. Attempts by Kharyssa Rhodes and other students at Rhode Island College to place ancient Meroitic into the Sudanic language family using a computerbased comparative historical linguistics have confirmed a distant relationship. However, they have only been marginally successful partly because there are few shared lexicons that are positively known for Meroitic that is well transliterated, but not translated much beyond titles, toponyms, and personal names. Some Meroitic cognates with Old Nubian and modern Nubian dialects do exist, but not enough to solve this decipherment problem without a substantial bilingual text. See MEROITIC: DECIPHERMENT; MEROITIC: DEMOTIC “CURSIVE”; MEROITIC: HIEROGLYPHIC ALPHABET. SUDD. The Sudd is an Arabic term for a vast swamp “barrier” region in southern Sudan that is today mainly concentrated in the Bahr al-Jebel section of the White Nile. The heavy floating vegetation in the Sudd makes riverine

SULB

•

369

navigation very difficult to impossible without constant clearing activity. In antiquity, little to no evidence has been found that this barrier was penetrated southward in any permanent occupation. The only external reports of ancient explorers heading this far south were during the Greco-Roman period, and not in Kerma, pharaonic, Meroitic, or medieval Christian times. Even in Greco-Roman times, the reports were rather sketchy and anecdotal. Thus in ancient times, the northern boundary of the Sudd generally represented the southernmost possible extent of ancient Nubian civilizations. There are two important exceptions to the barrier role of the Sudd or in the headwaters of the Blue Nile on to Abyssinia. First, the territorial extent of the modern Nilotic peoples of southern Sudan, especially the Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk and in the Nuba Mountains had a much wider distribution into the lands of Nubia or northern Sudan. The burial customs, material culture, New Kingdom imagery, linguistic evidence, house styles, and the important role of cattle of the C-Group is indicative that the ancestors of these Nilotic people spanned as far north as Lower Nubia, adjacent to Upper Egypt. Second, from Kerma times on to New Kingdom occupation and during Meroitic times there was a pervasive trade in slaves and human trafficking upon Nilotic peoples for literally thousands of years. So it was that slave raiders and slave traders ventured southward, and the genetics and DNA of Nilotic people spread northward and eastward, and even off the African continent. Literally, fleeing for their lives over many centuries, Nilotic and Nubianrelated peoples of southern Kordofan and Darfur retreated to mountainous regions and back south of the Sudd to gain some protection from the predations of the ancient, medieval, and modern slave traders (both Nubian and Egyptian). So, while the barrier metaphor is commonly cited, it may be more accurate to speak about a sieve motif, in which cattle herders went much farther north in ancient times, until they were driven south for their security, retreating from the nascent and flourishing ancient states that all had slaves for domestic and export purposes. Even then, the slave traders kept Nilotics moving, albeit involuntarily, back north, and slave raiders penetrating south to seize more slaves. This long-standing pattern continued on in Islamic and modern times. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia and the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (4th ed.). SULB. See SOLEB, SOLB, SULB.

T TABO, TEBO, PNUBS. Tabo is located on Argo Island in the Kerma Basin in Upper Nubia some 20 kilometers south the Kerma heartland; some burials and pottery date back to this time as well as other potsherds and building blocks that date to the New Kingdom occupation in dynasties XVIII and XIX. Tabo has a temple dedicated to Amun and Thoth as well as the Nubian goddesses Satet and Anqet. This temple was built by Taharka of Dynasty XXV. Tabo continued to be used in Napatan times probably for coronation and purification rituals. The Meroitic period is represented in the largest cemetery at this site, having the typical hetep offering tablets, some statuary, and examples of writing in Meroitic demotic and some hieroglyphs. Dating to this period are also two colossal granite statues (around 7 meters high) that are to honor an unknown Meroitic king (probably Natakamani?) since the 1822 image of the statue by Linant de Bellefonds shows it with a (presumably red and white) double crown reserved for royalty. The proposal that they might represent the Nubian brother deities Arensnuphis and Sebiumeker should be rejected because they lacked this iconography and their false beards also differed. These two statues have been repaired and are now located in front of the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum. TAFA, TAPHIS, TAIFI. Originally, this site on the western bank of the Nile in Lower Nubia had two temples built in the Roman period or perhaps as early as Ptolemaic times. The southern temple was in poor condition and is lost. The simple northern temple was dismantled in 1960 by the Czechoslovak Institute of Egyptology. In Roman times, Tafa also had a military garrison to control trade and block Nubian attacks. Since it was also an area of Blemmye populations, the Romans either used them as irregular scouts but also needed to check their movement. Tafa was specifically noted in the King Silko inscription that indicated he had defeated them at Tafa and Talmis when he proclaimed himself as the first Christian king, and later in medieval Christian times, Tafa was the refuge of Melkites in opposition to Monophysites. 371

372

•

TAHARKA, TAHARQA, TARCUS, NEFERTUMKHURE (R. 690–664 BCE)

These two temples were originally located between Kertassi kiosk and the Bait al-Wali rock-cut temple to the god Amun about 50 kilometers south of the High Dam at Aswan. The Tafa temple was drawn by the famed artist of the Nile, David Roberts, and was reproduced by lithograph. The northern temple was relocated in Leiden, Holland, in a courtyard at the Rijksmuseum. TAHARKA, TAHARQA, TARCUS, NEFERTUMKHURE (r. 690–664 BCE). This very important 25th-dynasty ‘Ethiopian’ or Kushitic pharaoh was the grandson of Pharaoh Kashta, the son of Pharaoh Piankhy, and the younger brother of Pharaoh Shabataka. Precisely how he came to power is uncertain, but Manetho alleges, with no known evidence, that he killed Shabataka. The date of Taharka’s birth is not known, but one may guess that it was before 720 BCE. As a young man and the crown prince, Taharka was asked by his brother to join the forces of Hezekiah of Judea (Palestine) and King Luli (Tyre and Sidon) in their joint struggle against the Assyrian expansion then led by King Sennacherib (r. 704–681 BCE). Luli escaped to Cyprus in 701 BCE; and Hezekiah finally succumbed to Assyrian siege machines. Prince Taharka and Pharaoh Piankhy were able to withdraw to Egypt. These years gained him practical and firsthand experience in combating the Assyrians that he was to do for the rest of his life. Taharka is noted in the Old Testament (2 Kings 29:9), as are two other Kushite pharaohs. In around 689/690 BCE, with his mother present as a witness, Nefertumkhure Taharka was crowned “Lord of Two Lands” at Memphis, but his Egyptian rule was mainly from Tanis in the delta as it had been the forward capital for the Rameside period. He fought continually to protect the unity and sovereignty of the Nile valley from the Assyrians. His other main goals were to restore the religious and architectural values of earlier Egyptian dynasties. He was famed for monumental works throughout the Nile valley from the delta, to Memphis, Karnak, Medinat Habu, Tanis, Edfu, Kawa (built in 684 BCE), Semna, Buhen, and Qasr Ibrim. At Karnak, Taharka constructed or rebuilt the small Dynasty XXV temple adjacent to the sacred lake. There are also inscribed blocks at a gate at the Khonsu temple at the southern Mut enclosure at Karnak that are attributed to Taharka. Along with the Nubian God’s Wives of Amun, Taharka also built at the Montu temple just outside the northern enclosure at Karnak. Taharka also reconstructed two New Kingdom Osiride temples at Karnak. At the lovely Philae temple attributed mainly to the Ptolemies and Romans, there are foundation stones with the cartouche of Taharka. Normally one might be inclined to dismiss these as being removed from another site and moved here for construction. This might still be the explanation; however, the presence of a small bark stand also inscribed to Taharka inside the forecourt at Philae suggests that this temple site might have earlier roots with Dynasty XXV.

TAHARKA, TAHARQA, TARCUS, NEFERTUMKHURE (R. 690–664 BCE)

•

373

An interesting footnote to Taharka is seen in a lovely figure of this king at the Louvre Museum (E25276). This depicts a small, bronze, kneeling Taharka offering two nu jars. Typical for Nubians in Dynasty XXV and Napatan times are the two cobra uraei on Taharka’s head. Taharka is placed on a silver-covered, wooden stand with a socket into which is a much larger goldcovered falcon god. At first, it would be possible to imagine that this was the falcon god Horus, but the inscription in his regnal year 6 (ca. 684 BCE) is to the Upper Egyptian local falcon god Hémen. The reason given is that Taharka was giving thanks to the end of a famine and drought and the restoration of the Nile flood. Needless to say this was also his effort to strengthen his local Egyptian quest for legitimacy. Farther south at Qasr Ibrim, still struggling to keep above the high waters of Lake Nasser is the mud-brick temple at the acropolis that was also used by Taharka as well as earlier New Kingdom kings and generals, not to mention later Romans, Meroites, and Christians. It was Taharka’s huge and famous temple of Amon Ra at Jebel Barkal that would permit Taharka to be termed a “Nubian Ramses.” Military campaigns from Nubia to the Levant demonstrated the scope of Taharka’s influence. A stela from year 3 of Taharka is in the Cairo museum. His talent for great construction was always challenged by his military preoccupation with the Assyrians. First, in Palestine as a young man, he fought Sennacherib, and second, for much of his reign, he fought against King Esarhaddon (r. 680/681–669), the Assyrian successor to Sennacherib who had been assassinated in 681 BCE. Now the Assyrian imperialist Esarhaddon came to the Nile with much military ambition and experience, hardened and well trained troops, new siege tactics, and an effective camel cavalry. Indeed, it was Esarhaddon who is credited with introducing camels to Egypt at this time. Later camels became very important in trans-Saharan trade as perfect beasts of burden for the desert. In order to distract Esarhaddon away from the Nile, Taharka supported revolts by the king of Sidon and by King Ba’alu of Tyre in Phoenicia. However, these revolts were brutally crushed and provoked Esarhaddon to strike at Taharka at Tanis and Memphis. In around 673 BCE, Esarhaddon sped across the Sinai with his fast camel cavalry but was blocked by the Nubian and Egyptian forces of Taharka in the delta. Taken by the speed and surprise, Taharka withdrew from the eastern delta capital of Tanis and retreated to a more secure Memphis citadel. However, it was not a victory for Esarhaddon who could not complete his conquest of the delta as planned. The following year Taharka regrouped his troops and reoccupied the eastern delta. Again countering this move, the Assyrians under Esarhaddon returned in circa 671/670 BCE to retake the delta and push on to lay siege and sack Memphis. During the battle at Memphis, Taharka was wounded, and his son, Ushanakhuru, was captured and

374

•

TAHARKA, TAHARQA, TARCUS, NEFERTUMKHURE (R. 690–664 BCE)

taken to Assyria where these events were recorded on a mural of permanent humiliation. Esarhaddon appointed a score of vassal princes to govern the delta and keep it out of Nubian hands. Among these was Necho I, who is considered a founder of the rival Dynasty XXVI. Shocked by the military defeat and by the capture of his son, Taharka resumed his tactical harassment of Esarhaddon by continuing to support Phoenician unrest. In 669/668 BCE, Esarhaddon was again stirred to another round of fighting and planned still another conquest of the delta and Memphis. However, this time, Esarhaddon died on route to this battlefield in Egypt. Apparently Taharka and his forces reoccupied the delta, but any relief felt by Taharka was very short lived. By circa 667/666 BCE, Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627), son of Esarhaddon, resumed the revenge campaign and badly defeated Taharka in the delta, once again sacking Memphis and causing Taharka to withdraw southward to a more remote and secure Thebes. But this time, Ashurbanipal pursued Taharka to Thebes, and it is possible that Taharka had a brief and depressing visit to the shrines and temples at Thebes. The soldiers and mercenaries of Ashurbanipal were too much of a match for the now-tired Nubians. The Assyrian king commanded the surrender of Mentuemhat, and Taharka sought still fuller security of retreat to his beloved Napata in circa 666 BCE. The delta princes—who had either betrayed Taharka or, at least, had not been adequate to face the forces of the Assyrians—called in vain for Taharka’s return, but his losses were too great for him to make another personal attempt to purge Egypt of the Assyrians. From roughly 666 to 665 BCE, apparently Taharka ruled as a coregent of Nubia with Tanutamun. But in 664 BCE, Taharka died and was the first to be buried with later Kushitic kings in the Nuri pyramid cemetery. The idea that he might have been buried at Sedeinga in Lower Nubia is without substantial evidence. The National Museum in Khartoum and the Nubian Museum in Aswan contain many of the monumental works and smaller objects that testify to Taharka’s greatness. Among his tomb treasures are 1,070 shawabtis that mostly reside at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and in many other museum collections along with his canopic jars, and it is understood that some of his dried organs are at Harvard University. The end of his reign was not precisely the end of Dynasty XXV because some of its life flickered again when his coregent, Tanutamun, was coronated in 664 BCE and resumed the Nubian reoccupation of Egypt for around one year. Outraged by these endless Nubian insurrections, Ashurbanipal’s forces returned to Memphis and Thebes a second time to loot and destroy this great center that had briefly returned to the control of Mentuemhat and Shepenwepet II. Then, at long last, the effective Nubian administration of Egypt was truly at an end.

TAKELOT III, TAKELOTH III (R. 774–759 BCE OR 764–757 BCE)

•

375

TAKELOT I, TAKELOTH I (r. 898–874 BCE). Takelot I was the son of Osorkon I by a minor wife. Takelot ruled in the so-called Libyan (Bubastite) Dynasty XXII at Tanis. His monuments are few to none, and the Egyptian state just became weaker. When he died in 874 BCE, he was followed by Osorkon II. TAKELOT II, TAKELOTH II, TALELOT II (r. 860–835 BCE OR 850–825 BCE). In the Third Intermediate Period, the start of the Libyan (Meshwesh) Dynasty XXII by Sheshonk I in 945 BCE had been rather smooth, but by the middle of this dynasty, the stability in Upper Egypt was in question. Takeloth II, son of Osorkon II, was within the same dynasty, and he ruled from Tanis in the eastern delta. Apparently, but the record is unclear and inconsistent, King Takelot II sought to maintain his rule in Lower Egypt, while his divisive half brother or cousin Nimlot (and later Harsiese) ruled as High Priest of Amun in Thebes. Nimlot had his daughter marry Takelot II to try to rebuild unity, but the divisions endured that blocked the political unification of Egypt. In year 11 of Takelot II’s reign, Nimlot died, and the issue of who should be the High Priest of Amun returned until this position was occupied by Harsiese. This was opposed by Takelot and devolved into civil war, and it appears that Nubians backed some of these succession disputes in Thebes or at least may have given refuge to those struggling for Theban power. In any case, it was this divisive political context that gave the opportunity for Nubians to start thinking about consolidating their own sovereign power in the comparative security of Napata or Kurru since the New Kingdom occupation was over and these Nubians were geographically removed from Egypt, particularly while Thebes and Tanis were contesting for power. Takelot II sent the ruler of Assyria, as payment, animals (e.g., rhinoceros and elephants) that could only have been obtained from Nubia. Dynasty XXII finally collapsed. TAKELOT III, TAKELOTH III (r. 774–759 BCE OR 764–757 BCE). Takelot III was the son of Osorkon III. Takelot II tried to put the Egyptian state back together during the period of “Libyan anarchy” at Leontopolis, in the central delta, by supporting or forming Dynasty XXIII after rising to be the High Priest of Amun in Thebes in 764 BCE. However, he failed and open civil war evolved. Dynasty XXIV emerged at Sais with the very weak leaders Tefnakht (r. 727–720 BCE or 725–717 BCE) and Bakenrenef (r. 720–715 BCE or 717–712 BCE) trying to rule Egypt. This provided a responsibility or opportunity for Nubians, Alara, and Kashta, led by Piankhy in around 727 BCE, to “save” Egypt from this endless division and begin to

376

•

TA-NEHESSI, TA-NEHESIU, TA-NEHASYU, NEHISI

expand their recovered power base in Napata to take over Upper Egypt and onward. So, this important transition from Egypto-Libyan rule to Nubian rule was as much about the former’s weakness as the Nubian strength. Following their Egyptianized traditions, these Nubian (Kurru) kings would make conservative reference to their devotion to the highest god Amun and proposed their faithful responsibility or desire to assume Theban (and Egyptian) power and unity during its apparent collapse and mismanagement. By the times of Nimlot (Dynasty XXIII) and especially Tefnakht and Bakenrenef (Dynasty XXIV) in the faraway delta, the tensions were high who would rule the Nile and restore its unity in the name of Amun. TA-NEHESSI, TA-NEHESIU, TA-NEHASYU, NEHISI. The ethnonym Ta-Nehessi literally means, in hieroglyphics, the “land of the Nehes.” This was the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom reference to this section of Lower Nubia. Unlike the term Ta-Setiu or “land of the bowmen,” this appears to be an ethnic reference that may have been used by Nubians themselves. Some scholars speculate that the word Nehes survives in modern Nubian ethnic nomenclature as the Mahas. One delta king, Nehesy, is known in the Second Intermediate Period when Nubians and the Hyksos were politically and militarily allied. A late New Kingdom viceroy of Kush (Nubia) called Panehesi is believed to have been of Nubian origin, judging from the root in his name. Finally, a modern African American writer and journalist was inspired by this identity and is named Ta-Nehisi Coates. TANIS. Also known as San el-Hagar, Tanis is located in Lower Egypt (eastern delta region). It has an incomplete stela of Taharka’s accession to power perhaps when he defeated Takelot II or Takelot III. The stela recalls how Taharka sent for his mother to witness his crowning, as Horus did with Isis. The inscription indicates that at some period he ruled from Tanis as a strategic defensive gateway to the Sinai and Asia. TANQASI. This site is located directly across the Nile from el-Kurru, in Upper Nubia, north of Meroë. It has two large tumuli, several X-Group tombs, and distinct handmade pottery known as Alwa Ware. Beehive-shaped storage sorghum containers were recovered here, predating post-Meroitic, suggesting the growth of sorghum in Nubia. Tanqasi culture designates the post-Meroitic X-Group, which incorporates Ballana and Tanqasi assemblages.

TANUTAMUN (R. 664–656/653 BCE)

•

377

TANUTAMUN, TANWETAMUN, TANUATH-AMEN, URDAMANI, BAKARE, URDAMANI (r. 664–656/653 BCE). Tanutamun was the grandson of Kashta, who started the line leading to Dynasty XXV as far as is presently known. But in about 665 BCE, nearing the end of Nubian rule of Egypt, King Taharka appointed his sister’s son, Tanutamun, as his coregent of Kush and Egypt, according to a stela showing both as rulers. Clearly, Taharka’s plan was to maintain Nubian control over both lands and ensure continuity of the ruling Dynasty XXV. When Taharka died in the following year at Napata, his nephew Tanutamun assumed the full title of “Lord of Two (really Three) Lands,” but truly Dynasty XXV was almost over, at least in controlling all of Egypt, then under severe military pressure by Dynasty XXVI leader Psamtik II. Yet king Tanutamun placed the double crown on his head with the blessing of Amun of Jebel Barkal, and he set out to avenge the expulsion from Egypt of his maternal uncle Taharka. He is shown offering wealth and the goddess Ma’at and her (“true and correct order”) to Amun in a human and ram form. Behind him is his royal sister-wife Qalhata, reckoned as the queen of the TaSetiu, holding a sistrum and offering legitimating libations. On the left side, he is shown with his Egyptian royal sister-wife Kerar, who presumably resided in Thebes. On this stela, Tanutamun is also termed the “Lord of the Nine Bows”—that is, all of the joined lands (east, west, and south) formerly held by Dynasty XXV, which he hoped to maintain or restore. His mission was envisioned in a prophetic dream he had while coregent with Taharka. Tanutamun’s granite dream stela had been erected at Jebel Barkal among other commemorative monuments for Dynasty XXV. It now rests in the Egyptian National Museum (item 691) after being published by Mariette in 1865. His priest advisors indicated that his dream of “the two ladies” (the serpent and vulture of Upper and Lower Egypt) was an omen that he would recover and rule over Egypt. He then celebrated greatly at Napata, slaughtering cattle and drinking quantities of beer, and returned to Egypt via Aswan where he paid homage to the Nubian triad of Khnum, Anqet, and Satet and their shrines on Elephantine Island, believing that this would ensure success and prosperity for the entire Nile. From there he went on to Thebes, which was officially still under his authority, and he made his homage to the many shrines of that city before sailing on downstream to Memphis. Along the way, throngs were said to greet him along the banks of the river. Apparently, it was smooth going until this point, but moving his forces farther into the delta, Tanutamun’s capacity to resist the Assyrian threat and repeated attacks was much riskier. Thus with some illusions, Tanutamun did succeed in restoring Nubian control to Thebes for a short time and even briefly to Memphis far to the north from Napata. But the unreliable princes of the delta who had annoyed and frustrated the Nubian predecessors also came to haunt Tanutamun and

378

•

TANUTAMUN (R. 664–656/653 BCE)

make his position precarious. It may well be that the duplicitous Assyrian vassal Necho I was killed in combat with Tanutamun. Necho’s son Psamtik I (r. 664–610 BCE) fled back to safety in Assyria and Tanutamun imagined that he had won the war, but Psamtik I promptly returned to the delta, while Ashurbanipal was still diverted to the east in his invasion of Elam in 664 BCE. When this campaign was concluded, Ashurbanipal was free to conduct his second Egyptian campaign as he already had against Taharka. Thus the former Assyrian threat against Nubian rule of Egypt resumed as another hard reality to be faced by Tanutamun in 664–663 BCE, and his brief administration was driven from Memphis after hearing that Ashurbanipal was mounting still another punitive expedition against Egypt. In fear or frustration, Tanutamun initially withdrew upstream to Thebes to keep control of Upper Egypt and Kush, but by 661 BCE, he found himself defeated in both Memphis and Thebes. Tanutamun withdrew again to Kipkigi and then farther back to Napata, never to set foot again in Egypt. In circumstances that are not very clear, the transition from Kushite to Assyrian rule of Thebes is symbolized by Psamtik I inheriting or forcing a daughter of Shabaka to become his own Theban God’s Wife of Amun. The persistent administrator of Thebes, Mentuemhat, who had been closely associated with Dynasty XXV, managed to stay in Karnak, but he was now demoted to the lesser position of the Fourth Priest of Amun. Evidently, Thebes was further looted at the time of the second invasion of that city under the command of Ashurbanipal. Gold and silver temple treasures were seized, children were killed, women were enslaved, and men of rank were taken in chains. Certainly Psamtik I made substantial efforts to eliminate and deface the Kushite presence in Thebes after both had annoyed each other for several years. Tanutamun died in around 653 BCE, and while he failed to fulfill his dreams or the wishes of his uncle Taharka, he was the first and last king of the Napatan epoch that descended directly from Dynasty XXV. Tanutamun was buried in a large pyramid at Kurru, where his image may still be seen in his tomb along with standard funerary iconography. Never again did ancient Nubians make an effective effort to rule all of Egypt, although in the ensuing centuries several kings controlled Lower Nubia and some attacked Aswan. Medieval Nubian Christians and modern Sudanese Muslims also had their ambitions, but no success. TANYIDAMANI (r. ca. 120–100 BCE?). Tanyidamani followed the Meroitic queen Shanakdakhete and is much famed for his lengthy Meroitic inscription on a phallic (?) stela removed to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. It is an early case of a royal proclamation in Meroitic cursive. The stela depicts bound prisoners and gratitude expressed to Amun in raised relief and a military proclamation. Presumably, this was issued after the

TATTOOS

•

379

Meroitic army defeated enemies such as the Blemmyes. A bronze cylinder with his name was recovered from the Amun temple at Jebel Barkal. Tanyidamani is also known from a votive sculpture (Louve E. 11657b) found at Meroë that shows his name with the lion god Apedemek wearing a hemhem crown. Another votive stela (Baltimore, 22.258, WAG 213) of Tanyidamani that probably came from the same Apedemek temple at Meroë shows the king making a ritual offering and has a Meroitic inscription above his head. Perhaps these two long stela paralleled each other at a temple or palace doorway. His place of burial is Meroë, in the royal north cemetery. TAREKENIWAL (r. 85–103 CE). This king of Meroë ruled during the first century of the Roman occupation of Egypt as the empire was entering its long and slow decline. He was buried in the royal northern cemetery at Meroë. TA-SETI (SING.), TA-SETIU (PL.), TA-SETJIU, TA-SETJU, ZATJU (PL.). This is the general ancient Egyptian term for Nubia—that is, the land (Ta) of the bow people (Setiu). This was used commonly in Egyptian references for Nubia from the earliest dynastic times. It is not always clear whether this was a specific territorial reference or a more general term for Nubians. Sometimes, Ta-Setiu was differentiated into sections of Lower Nubia, including Wawat and Irtet near the Second Cataract, and Upper Nubia, including Yam or Irem, now termed simply Kerma. In the earliest dynastic times, Ta-Setiu was essentially a polity contemporary with, or identified as, the A-Group based at Qustul and Sayala where some political stratification existed. The term Ta-Setiu also relates to the famed prowess of Nubians in using bows and arrows for hunting and in military service in their own defense and as hired or drafted bowmen. An excellent example of Nubian soldiers appears in the famed tomb models of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. Such archers probably assisted Mentuhotep II in his rise to power in Dynasty XI, which restored political unity to the Egyptian Nile. At times, the reference to “bow people” was even more glossed as three of the “nine bows”—that is, the three neighbors/enemies of Egypt: Libyans to the west, Asians to the east, and Nubians to the south. Since three is the plural for each of these three people, the term was rendered as “nine bows” in total. TATTOOS. Research by Kharyssa Rhodes informed this entry on tattoos in Nubia. Tattooing is a permanent form of body art in which deep dermal layers are dyed to produce aesthetic patterns, marks, symbols, or images. This is done by piercing or cutting the skin with a needle, (acacia) thorn, or sharp bone to introduce the dye or charcoal. The tattoo can be medicated to

380

•

TEFNAKHT, TEFNAKHTE (R. CA. 725–717 BCE)

delay or accelerate the healing to cause keloid scarring that raises the skin in desired patterns as with modern Nilotics and people of the Nuba Mountains. From the earliest evidence, tattooing was common for women as seen in AGroup female figurines and other predynastic (5000–3000 BCE) evidence in both Egypt and Nubia. Dynastic times give still more evidence of various forms of tattooing, but it seems to decline in ancient Egypt while persisting in Nubia, especially in Middle Kingdom times (1970–1640 BCE) with the Nubian C-Group in Lower Nubia; elsewhere it was common and well known at Kubban. Egyptians instead used a wide variety of cosmetic treatments for hair and skin. By the Egyptian New Kingdom, tattooing was common, especially for women, with various patterns of dots and dashes. Entertainers and gods like Bes were often depicted with tattoos. When skin survives from Meroitic times (340 BCE–340 CE), there is some evidence of tattooing, but systematic mumification had largely ended. The evidence available suggests patterns similar to the earlier C-Group. Modern (older) Nubian women sometimes still tattoo their lips. Tattoos (with dyes) are not be confused with cicatrices where the cheek skin is cut and not dyed in various ethnically specific marks for northern and southern Sudanese. Some practices of tattooing may relate to rites des passage, and male and female circumcision certainly do relate but are not associated with tattooing. Medieval and modern Egyptian and Sudanese Copts often tattoo Coptic crosses on their wrists for religious identity. TEFNAKHT, TEFNAKHTE (r. ca. 725–717 BCE). Tefnakht was one of two regional princes of Dynasty XXIV whose capital was at Sais in the Egyptian delta. He descended from the family known as the “Great Chiefs of Ma” or delta princes of Mashwash (Libyan) origin who had rivaled Kashta who tolerated their local authority while expanding the Nubian state into Lower Nubia. Fearing further Nubian encroachment, Tefnakht created a military alliance with Osorkon IV of Dynasty XXIII at Tanis in the eastern delta and with kings or nomarchs of Hermopolis and Leontopolis. Thebes was under local authority of a High Priest of Amun. These cobbled together allies were designed to stop and probably stalemate the Nubians from advancing farther northward until around 725 BCE when the Middle Egyptian princes and the Nubian Piankhy clashed at Herakleopolis. Tefnakht retreated first to Hermopolis and later regrouped his allies at Memphis where they tactically admitted defeat and surrendered to Piankhy. Piankhy allowed them to remain in office but as tributary princes in applying his policy of indirect rule. But Tefnakht’s loyalty was not deep, and for a number of years, he tried to reestablish his autonomy in the western delta and not pay tribute. Piankhy saw this as an act of resistance and challenge to Nubian rule and sent his

THEODORA (“GIFT OF GOD”) (CA. 497–548 CE; R. 527–548 CE)

•

381

forces against Tefnakht. When Tefnakht was defeated one can say that Dynasty XXV was officially started and the whole of Egypt brought under Kushite control. However, another delta prince, Tefnakht’s son, Bakenrenef, continued to be a problem for Nubian king Shabaka, who captured him and had him burned to death as a severe object lesson. TEHKHET. See DEBEIRA, DIBEIRA, EAST. TEQERIDEAMANI I (r. 90–114 CE). According to Derek Welsby, this Meroitic king was one of two kings with the same name. He was buried in Bejrawiya North pyramid 28. TEQERIDEAMANI II (r. 246–266 CE). According to Derek Welsby, this Meroitic king was one of two kings with the same name. This second one was possibly buried in an unknown pyramid as Meroë went into its steep decline with attacks from the Blemmyes to the northeast and the Noba from the southwest. This king is known from graffiti at Philae temple noting a message he sent to Rome at a time of increased conversion to Christianity in Egypt. This was the last dateable Meroitic inscription at Philae some decades before the final collapse of Meroë. TERITEKAS, TERITEQAS. This Meroitic king of the late first century BCE, some time between 40 and 10 BCE, is known from Meroitic inscriptions at the Dakka temple and in a stela from Meroë. In the first case, he must have been close to the reigns of Queen Amanirenas or King Akinidad when this region was accessible to Meroites. These two monarchs are notable at Hamadab. Teritekas most likely was the king just prior to Queen Amanirenas. Conceivably, he was her husband. The location of his burial is believed to be pyramid 14 at the royal cemetery of Bejrawiya North. THEODORA (“GIFT OF GOD”) (ca. 497–548 CE; r. 527–548 CE). As the ancient period was drawing down, Empress Theodora was the wife, lover, and advisor of Emperor Justinian I. She was effectively coregent with her emperor husband at the time of aggressive missionizing following the decision taken at the Council of Chalcedon (in 451 CE) that was designed to resolve the dispute about the “nature” of Jesus. Instead, this was the start of a deep and enduring schism between the (Eastern) orthodox view and the Alexandrian Monophysites and Arians that he sought to isolate. In this rather strange intramarital theological dispute, Justinian, ruling from 527 to 565 CE, was steadfast in supporting the Chalcedonian orthodoxy while his famous wife followed a Miaphysite variant of this, and both separ-

382

•

THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

ately sent missionaries to newly Christian Nubia. According to Ephesus, a Monophysite, Theodora sent missionary Presbyter Julian to Nobatia in 543–545 CE for this purpose while Justinian’s surrogate arrived later, and in the short term, he failed in this rivalry with his famous wife. This odd competition continued with another Monophysite, Bishop Longinus, in the secret and difficult undertaking to missionize Mukurra and Alwa in 570–575 CE. At the same time, it is widely considered that her consultations played a significant role in saving the Byzantine empire facing numerous challenges. To try to reconcile and understand this theological dispute, Theodora believed that Chalcedonians and Monophysites could get along and the schism could be avoided; Justinian I was to insist that the views could not be accommodated. Being able to introduce laws, she also helped protect the rights of women. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia. THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD. The Third Intermediate Period of Egypt began with the death of Ramses XI, and thus it was the conclusion of Dynasty XX of the New Kingdom. As with the First Intermediate Period and Second Intermediate Period, this was a time when the political unity of dynastic Egypt was lost and either foreigners intruded (like Libyans, Asians, or Nubians) or the conflicting rulers of Upper and Lower Egypt equally claimed to be the unitary rulers. Since Egyptian political unity often came at Nubian expense, when Egypt was weak it represented an opportunity or responsibility for Nubians, such as in the conservative Dynasty XXV. This complex, dialectical relationship is one of the essential dynamics in EgyptoNubian relations in all of dynastic times and to the present. Not all authorities agree with the placement of Dynasty XXV within the Third Intermediate Period since this dynasty unified the entire Egyptian and Nubian Nile, albeit under Nubian control. So, technically one may say that it was no longer an Intermediate Period at this time. But since Nubians could be viewed as “foreigners,” the reference to the Intermediate Period persists. Some chronologies include Dynasty XXV within the Late Period, and others do not. Other chronologies include Kashta and Piankhy of the early part of Dynasty XXV with the Third Intermediate Period, as their control was centered around Thebes, and from Shabaka on to the second Persian occupation of Egypt, with the Late Period. So, depending on definition or perspective, the Third Intermediate Period concluded either at the start, or the end, of Dynasty XXV. Then the Late Period began according to some reckoning. This period also had some foreign rulers, but it also contained the last Egyptian ruler, Nectanebo II of Dynasty XXX. Then Egypt headed by Egyptians was really over until 1952.

TJEHENU, THAMEHU, TEMEHU, TEMENU, THNW

•

383

THUWRE, THURE. See AMENHOTEP I, AMENOPHIS I (r. ca. 1551–1524 BCE); KING’S SON OF KUSH (VICEROY OF NUBIA). TIRAWA. This Nubian land appears in New Kingdom tribute or conquest lists, but its precise location or organization has not been determined. TIUREK. This Nubian land appears in New Kingdom tribute or conquest lists, but its precise location or organization has not been determined. TIY, TIYE (r. ca. 1417–1379 BCE). This nonroyal, but high-ranking, woman was married to the enduring pharaoh Amenhotep III. She was the daughter of Yuya and Tuya. After her marriage, she held the title of the Great Royal Wife of Amenhotep III. Her influence and depictions were extensive. The royal couple resided in their lavish palace at Malkata on the western bank at Thebes. Upon the death of Amenhotep III and the rise of her second son, the so-called heretic king, Akhenaton, she likely moved to his new capital at Amarna. There she continued to exert considerable influence in their common effort to curb the powers of the Theban Amun priests and shift the empire to the worship of Aton instead. Tiy had a close relationship to Tutankhamun, or Tutankhaton, and some postulate that she was possibly his mother or grandmother, as a lock of her hair was in his long-lost tomb in the Valley of the Kings. Her burial site is disputed, and she may have been buried first at Amarna and then moved to the western necropolis of Thebes. Since Dynasty XVIII was at its height during the New Kingdom occupation of Nubia, Tiy was celebrated there in a temple constructed at Sedegna, where she appears in the form of Hathor. Sedegna is just downstream of Soleb, where Amenhotep II had built a huge temple. TJEHENU, THAMEHU, TEMEHU, TEMENU, THNW. This sometimes nomadic Libyan or Berber people lived in Libya and in the western deserts and oases of Nubia and Egypt and probably descended from the ancient Garamantes people. Other references to the Ma or Mashwash people of that region may only represent a different subgroup of the Libu (Libyan) people or a more general term for the Tjehenu, but this is not completely clear since the terms evolved and are not used consistently. From time to time throughout history, they represented a political and military threat to the settled peoples of the region, and sporadically they attacked the Nile valley. From the early travels of Harkuf on his Western Desert route to Kerma, we learn about hard and insecure passage through Tjehenu territory. When ancient Egypt is noted as the “land of the nine bows,” or Ta-Setiu, there were three bows each for Libyans, Nubians, and Asians, who were all depicted in particular forms of hair and dress. Seti I and Ramses III made

384

•

TOMBOS

punitive raids into Tjehenu lands. At Wadi es-Sebua, Ramses II noted Tjehenu people in that area on the western bank of the Nile. At the Kawa temple, an inscription by Taharka shows him trampling such invaders. The ultimate expression of this threat became known as the “Libyan dynasties,” which took over Egypt with varied kings named Bakenrenef, Osorkon, Sheshonk, and Tefnakht. Actually Libyans controlled various parts of Egypt at various times in the Late Period in Dynasty XXII and Dynasty XXIII from 943 to 716 BCE. Most Kerma and Meroitic sites are on the east side of the Nile suggesting that the west side was less safe. Often the Tjehenu are translated as “Libyans,” but this was a general Greco-Roman reference for north and subSaharan Africans away from the Nile. At least this was until the Third Punic War in 146 BCE when a tiny part of Tunisia’s Cape Bon was noted as “Africa,” and that term gradually replaced the “Lebu.” Clashes between Egyptians with the Tjenhenu and Mashwash were noted in the western delta in the Late Period, when they represented a major threat to the unity of the Nile during Dynasty XXV under Nubian rule and in Dynasty XXVI when Psamtik II sought to control the oases trade in the Western Desert. In the Roman times of Trajan, he also had to face the Tjenhenu or else risk losing control of the desert trade, so the Romans built a series of large desert forts, such as at Dush along the 40-Days Road to Nubia, for this purpose. Even in the 21st century, relations among Sudan, Egypt, and Libya remain complex and contentious. TOMBOS. The Tombos granite quarries lie on islands and on the eastern and western banks off the Nile just downstream of Kerma. Tombos was the chief source of Nubian granite and gneiss, which was used in construction and statuary in the vicinity of the Third Cataract and wider exports. Using stone from Tombos saved the New Kingdom Egyptians and Dynasty XXV Nubians the trouble of going much farther downstream to the large Aswan granite quarries. Important boundary inscriptions at Tombos are for pharaohs Tuthmosis I in his year 2 and Amenhotep III. Because of the New Kingdom’s five-century duration, there is also an important cemetery dating to this period as with the excavations by Stuart T. Smith and Michelle R. Buzon. New Tombos was also used during Dynasty XXV, Napatan, and Meroitic times. Among the many graves is that of Siamun, the 10th-century-BCE claimant to the Theban crown in the Third Intermediate Period. An uninscribed and mostly finished statue (of Atlanersa?, r. 653–643 BCE) that is dated stylistically to late Dynasty XXV or early Napatan times still rests at Tombos. Regional quarries were also known at Daygah, upstream from Napata at the Fourth Cataract, but they appear to be less productive or less popular than the Tombos quarries.

TRAJAN (R. 98–117 CE)

•

385

TOSHKA WEST. The archaeological site of Toshka West was noted for its cemeteries dating from Meroitic to Christian times and presumed related town sites on the west bank of the Nile. Toshka West was to the north of Abu Simbel. In the desert to the west of Toshka were diorite quarries that were periodically favored for fine-grained sculptural stone in the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom. In 1889, Toshka East was the farthermost northern point of military expansion of the Mahdist forces of Khalifa ‘Abdullahi, led by his accomplished general Wad al-Nijumi who was stopped there by Anglo-Egyptian soldiers. Now, with a heightened Lake Nasser, Toshka West is the site of a major irrigation system that provides water for the “New Valley” of Kharga Oasis. TRAJAN (r. 98–117 CE). This Spanish-born Roman served Emperor Domitian as consul before he himself became the emperor of Rome. Trajan built extensively in Rome, including a huge forum or shopping mall in 113 CE. This is probably the largest and most spectacular of the imperial forums in Rome. Trajan had bloody “games” in the Roman Colosseum in which thousands of animals and humans perished for Roman amusement. Trajan’s column, built in Rome in 106 CE, shows Dacian war captives as slaves as well as other military scenes. The Dacian wars from 101 to 102 CE and from 105 to 106 CE were especially productive for the great wealth that supported his construction projects. The historian Tacitus recorded Trajan’s wars against the Germanic people as he was building his empire, and it was partly under Trajan’s later administration that Plutarch also wrote. Meanwhile, in Egypt and Nubia, Trajan decorated the columns in the hypostyle hall of Kalabsha temple, dedicated to the Nubian deity Mandulis. He constructed his famous and impressive kiosk on the eastern side of Philae Island, where Isis was the most revered deity. This tall and airy structure of 14 beautifully sculptured columns was saved during the Nubian salvage project and relocated to Agilka Island. Deep in the Sahara along the Darb alArba’in road south of Kharga Oasis, Trajan also built and maintained a military fort and temple at Dush to control the slave and merchandise trade with Nubia. Correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan reveals discussions over his policies of the harsh suppression of Christians in the contemporary eastern Mediterranean states at a time of the early, but very difficult rise of Christianity in that region. Generally, it appears that Trajan did not consider Christians to be much more than a minor problem at his time, when the Roman Empire was at its height. Upon his death, he was cremated, and his remains were interred in his memorial column at his forum.

386

•

TUTHMOSIS I (R. 1524–1518 BCE)

TRIAKONTASCHOENOS. Literally, this term refers to the region and distance from Maharraqa in Lower Nubia to the Second Cataract, or using Greek measurement, it was 30 (triakonta) schoenoi (about 200 miles). Adjacent, and to the north, is the Dodekaschoenos 12 (dodeka) schoenoi, which began just south of Aswan up to Maharraqa. These terms were commonly used under Greek and Roman occupation of Nubia. Apparently, Ptolemy VI was the first to use the term when he reestablished Ptolemaic rule to these two regions after having lost control to Meroitic Nubians during the previous Ptolemaic rulers. Sometime after Ptolemy VI, the contested Triakontaschoenos region returned to Nubian control at least as far as the strategic high point of Qasr Ibrim. TUMULI. See BALLANA CULTURE; GABATI; KERMA: HISTORY AND LOCATION; KERMA: MATERIAL CULTURE; KURRU. TUTANKHAMUN, TUTANKHATON (r. 1334–1325 BCE). This Egyptian pharaoh of Dynasty XVIII was a short-lived, transitional pharaoh during whose reign the Theban priests were able to restore the Amun cult from the “heretical” Aton beliefs of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton). Remarkably, his small tomb (KV 62) was buried in rubble from the above tomb of Ramses VI (KV 9), and it was left virtually undisturbed in the Valley of the Kings. Its excavation in 1922 by Howard Carter found it virtually untouched, and its glorious treasures promptly became a world archaeological sensation. From a Nubian viewpoint, the grave goods of Tutankhamun display the typical New Kingdom chauvinism and arrogance relative to Nubians. This is demonstrated in Tutankhamun’s chariot being depicted on a treasure box driving over slaughtered Nubians or the image of Tutankhamun as a lion stepping on Nubians. This motif is continued in the handles of royal canes depicted with carved heads of Nubians. Further, on his sandals were more images of bound Nubians with their typical icons of leopard skin clothes, a head feather, and eight bows. Thus, with every step that this youthful pharaoh took, he literally trod upon Nubians. In addition, in the tomb of Huy-Amenophis, the King’s Son of Kush or viceroy of Nubia under Tutankhamun, there were images of Nubian servants or subordinates presenting tribute of gold rings, wild animal skins, incense, and ivory, all of which serve to illustrate the lowly view of Nubians held by New Kingdom monarchs. TUTHMOSIS I, THOTHMOSES I, DJEHUTYMES (r. 1524–1518 BCE). This noted New Kingdom pharaoh of Dynasty XVIII conducted military campaigns in Nubia and raised a commemorative stela in his second regnal year at Tombos in Nubia. Indeed, Tuthmosis I likely had a military

TUTHMOSIS I (R. 1524–1518 BCE)

•

387

background rather than a royal background, but he married into the royal family. Following the tradition of Amenhotep I whom he had succeeded, Tuthmosis I continued to use the military skills of Ahmose, son of Ebana, to repress Nubians. Like Amenhotep I, the campaigns of Tuthmosis I also sought to intimidate Nubians by tying one of their dead leaders upside down on the bow of his riverboat as he returned to Egypt. It is believed that Tuthmosis I was the father of Hatshepsut. His mummy was first placed in his Theban tomb (KV 38) and is now well preserved in the Cairo Museum. TUTHMOSIS II, THOTHMOSES II (r. 1518–1504 BCE). This shortlived New Kingdom pharaoh crushed a Nubian revolt in “vile Kush” in his very first regnal year. This is recorded on a commemorative stela on the Aswan-Philae road. Apparently he took hostages from among some of the children of a Nubian chief to pressure the Nubians into accepting his rule. Tuthmosis II was married to his “sister” Hatshepsut, but he died not long after. Tuthmosis II was also married to Queen Nitocris who is not the same as the God’s Wife of Amun of the same name. His son was Tuthmosis III who was much younger than Hatshepsut who seized the throne until he was much older. He was first buried in his Valley of the Kings tomb that was removed to security in the Deir al-Bahri cache, which now resides in the Cairo National Museum. TUTHMOSIS III, THOTHMOSES III (r. 1504–1450 BCE OR 1479–1425 BCE). Hatshepsut had moved herself into power after Tuthmosis II died, while the much younger Tuthmosis III grew into his majority. However, power had been already effectively handed to Hatshepsut who was known variously as his stepmother, aunt, or “sister.” Evidently she was slow and reluctant to surrender her powers to Tuthmosis III until her death in around 1482 BCE when he became the sixth pharaoh of the great Dynasty XVIII in the New Kingdom; he then took pains to erase and deface her inscriptions. In the Annals of Thutmose III, there are accounts of gold, grains, cattle, and slaves from Nubia, as well as Egyptian colonialism in Nubia. This pharaoh is generally associated with the first wave of temple building in Nubia by Egyptians. The earliest major shrine dedicated to Amun in Nubia was built by Tuthmosis III; hence he was the first Egyptian ruler to reach the area. A boundary stela at Jebel Barkal makes clear that the king has been given his divine right to rule by Amun of Thebes and Amun of Jebel Barkal. Another boundary stelae of his and Tuthmosis I can be found near the Fifth Cataract at Kurgus, beyond Abu Hamed; thus this was the southernmost point of the New Kingdom. Tuthmosis III constructed a temple at Semna in his second regnal year; however, this may have been constructed by Hatshep-

388

•

TUTZIS

sut when she was officially coregent. He also built at Kalabsha temple, as well as at Amada and Soleb and at the fortresses of Kumma and Semna. Also at Semna, he received the “white crown” of Upper Egypt from the Blemmye god Dedun. At Karnak temple, he listed 115 places in Nubia that he brought under his authority, although most are impossible to identify with precision today. Tuthmosis III is likewise credited with a trading voyage to Punt and frequent military campaigns into Nubia. A great measure of the wealth and opulence of the reign of Tuthmosis III was attributed to the gold mines of Nubia, which produced 500 to 800 pounds of gold annually. Tuthmosis III’s tomb (KV 34) is remarkably complex, well concealed, and elevated in the Valley of the Kings. His mummy is now located in the Cairo Museum. TUTZIS. See DENDUR, TUTZIS. TZITZIS. See KERTASSI, KERDASSY, QERTASSI, TZITZIS.

U UKMA. The site of Ukma lies on the eastern bank of the Nile just downstream from Kulubnarti or on the upper reach of the Butn al-Hajr. Ukma was first surveyed by the Sudan Antiquities Service and later by the Swiss under André Vila during the Nubian Salvage Project. Ukma features several hundred nonroyal Kerma-style graves. These graves indicate the further extent of Kerma culture or peoples under the influence of Kerma. UPPER NUBIA. Although complete agreement has not been reached regarding the precise domain of Upper Nubia, it certainly begins at the Second Cataract and includes the Butn al-Hajr to the Third Cataract. Thus, it is the part of Nubia that lies to the south, or upstream, of Lower Nubia. Some scholars add the Nile reach from the Third to the Fourth Cataracts as part of Upper Nubia. Other scholars reserve this region for references to Kush in general or Napata in particular. The term Kush can also be applied to all of Nubia, both Upper and Lower, and southern Nubia in a general sense, but here the term Kush is used for Nubia during and after the New Kingdom occupation. Kerma is the name used here for the previous, independent Nubian state. The region above the Fourth Cataract and certainly upstream of the Fifth Cataract can be termed southern Nubia or Meroë. Irem or Yam may apply only to Upper Nubia, but they are subsumed under the reference to Kerma, which is at the heartland of Upper Nubia before 1500 BCE. Naturally, the influence of Kerma or Meroë extended further than these geographical domains, and at times, the territories of these empires expanded or contracted. The ancient reference to the Ta-Setiu is probably broad enough to include the “bow people” of both Upper and Lower Nubia. Refer to maps C and D. URONARTI. This Nubian island is located just upstream of Shalfak between the Second and Third Cataracts on the Nile. Uronarti is a heavily walled, compact military settlement with only two gateways and rooms for barracks and storage. During the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian military planners were deeply fearful of attacks from Kerma, and Uronarti was part of a 389

390

•

USHANHURU, USHANAHURU

series of forts built along this region of the Nile. In the colonial New Kingdom, the need for defensive posts on the Nile was lessened, but Tuthmosis III used Uronarti to build small temples dedicated to the Nubian god Dedun and Montu the warrior (falcon) god, who was particularly popular in the Middle Kingdom and among the Theban priests. Its modern name is probably derived from the Nubian words for “King’s Island.” USHANHURU, USHANAHURU. This Nubian crown prince was the son of the famous King Taharka of Dynasty XXV. In around 671 BCE, during his father’s administration of Egypt from Memphis, Egypt was attacked repeatedly by the Assyrian forces of King Esarhaddon. In one military operation, Ushanhuru and perhaps some of Taharka’s wives were captured and taken back to the Assyrian capital at Nineveh, where they disappeared from the written record. Taharka himself may have been wounded during this siege, but he lived and was motivated enough to drive Esarhaddon back out of Egypt and continue the battle for Nubian control of the Nile valley.

V VANTINI, GIOVANNI (1923–2010). This Italian priest spent many years in Sudan at the famed English-language Camboni College of Science and Technology in Khartoum. He is known for his publications on medieval Christianity, especially his Christianity in the Sudan, and on Sudanese medieval archeological excavations at Faras and Sonqi Tino. His works are considered highly valuable because they are built on the primary original oriental sources for this period in Sudanese history. VESPASIAN (r. 69–79 CE). This Roman emperor is best known for starting the construction of the Great Colosseum in Rome. He commanded the Roman army, in 67 CE, to crush the Jews, then in another anti-Roman revolt in Palestine. The Roman prefect of Egypt declared Vespasian to be the emperor in 69 CE, and he ruled from Alexandria briefly until taking control of Rome. In Egypt, he is known from inscriptions at the Serapis temple of Alexandria and from the Esna temple in Middle Egypt. VICEROY OF KUSH. See KING’S SON OF KUSH (VICEROY OF NUBIA). VICEROY OF NUBIA. See KING’S SON OF KUSH (VICEROY OF NUBIA).

391

W WAD BEN NAQA. This town on the western Butana adjoins the eastern bank of the Nile between modern Shendi and the Sabaluka (Sixth) Cataract. This first-century-BCE royal town was an access point through Wadi Awatib to the Meroitic sites at Naqa and Musawwarat es-Sufra. This places it 75 kilometers upstream of royal Meroë. It is a site mainly attributed to the Meroitic king Natakamani and Queen Amanitore and perhaps Queen Amanishkhete due to an inscription with her name. She ruled just before the turn of the millennium. Perhaps she started the construction that was completed by Natakamani and Amanitore. The town has special significance because of a bark stand (Berlin 7261) found at the multiroomed Isis temple there. This stand had parallel Egyptian and Meroitic hieroglyphs that allowed F. L. Griffith to resolve the transliteration of this form of Meroitic cursive (demotic). Since then at the newly discovered temple of Natakamani and Amanitore at Abu Erteila three more bark stands were found in situ with additional hieroglyphic inscriptions. One is relocated to the Sudan National Museum, and the other two will be on display at the new museum at Bejrawiya. The first modern European to visit Wad ben Naqa was Giuseppe Ferlini, who was more interested in treasure than archaeology; evidently he found little worth for his effort except a freestanding column with a Bes figure on top. The so-called Typhonium of Frédéric Cailliaud in 1826 of Wad ben Naqa also drew archaeological interest. The French archaeologist Jean Vercoutter excavated Wad ben Naqa in 1959–1960 and described the palace, storerooms, and two temples in more detail. Again, this is a similar configuration to the Abu Erteila complex for the same king and queen. The royal palace is very large; measuring 61 meters on each side, it has three west doors and two east doors but no doors on the north. The main entrance is on the south side and opens to a six-columned hall and many narrow rooms, corridors, and interior halls. It was also a two-storied building as some steps to the roof floor were identified. Left in storerooms were supplies of timber, pottery jars, ebony, and elephant ivory as with Sanam. The jars contained wine, olive oil, and honey that were apparently traded from Egypt. Other 393

394

•

WAD SHANAINA

features recovered from Wad ben Naqa included a small statue of Amenhotep I that may have been first installed at Kumma fortress. Statues of lions in stone and clay, falcons, and a king’s stone head were also found there. As well, there is a thick-walled, round beehive-shaped structure some 20 meters in diameter and still 5 meters high with interior stairs. Most likely this was a grain-storage silo, but other ideas have been suggested. Wad ben Naqa is not to be confused with Hosh ben Naqa farther north, downstream on the Nile, nor with the Naqa temple and kiosk farther up Wadi Awatib. WAD SHANAINA. See MESOLITHIC (KHARTOUM). WADI ABU DOM. This valley and route is located in the northwest portion of the Bayuda plain within the major sweep of the Nile where it heads north on the east, and back southwest on the west before heading north once again after Korti (“elbow” in Nubian). It has long been considered as an important transit route and shortcut between Sanam/Napata and Meroë. Survey research by Angelika Lohwasser explored this region. In wetter times, it supported more agriculture, livestock, and human populations than today; now only a small population and limited agriculture are possible here using small oases and wells as deep as 8 meters. She found some traces from the Middle Paleolithic and Neolithic times as well as from Kerma horizon and a few sherds of Meroitic pottery when desiccation was more widespread. The Christian monastery of Abu Ghazli is along Wadi Abu Dom. The most impressive find in the survey is the large, square, limited access, fortified trade center with small windows at Umm Ruwein and another structure at Quweib. These structures are estimated to date to around 230–280 CE or late Meroitic times when trade to the Red Sea was starting to decline. WADI AL-ALLAQI, WADI ALAKI. This wadi or track to the interior, along with the Wadi Gabgaba, was part of Lower Nubia or Wawat’s valuable mining industry as early as A-Group and C-Group times. The thickwalled Kubban fortress on the eastern bank of the Nile guarded this Nubian valley, which was a major source of gold and copper. Dakka temple reinforced Kubban temple from the west bank. This wadi is also known as Akita. These mines were especially important in the New Kingdom, Ptolemaic, and Roman times. The lack of water for drinking and mining proved problematic in this dry riverbed that also featured fortified settlements. However, the pharaohs of Dynasty XIX sunk a number of strategic wells to address this problem. A stela of Ramses II tells of the hardships miners confronted in this area. Traveling up Wadi al-Allaqi from Kubban, it is possible to gain access to Wadi Gabgaba, which also had a gold-producing minefield.

WADI ES-SEBUA, WADI SABOUA

•

395

Today the lower parts of Wadi al-Allaqi are now under the waters of Lake Nasser. Gold is still produced in the Red Sea Hills by artisanal and industrial methods that use dangerously polluting mercury. Some modest efforts have been made to allow some Nubians to return to the region around Wadi alAllaqi to create a modern fishing village. WADI AL-HUDI, WADI HUDI. This valley in Lower Nubia, only a dozen kilometers from Aswan, has quarrying inscriptions that date to Mentuhotep III and Mentuhotep IV at the end of Dynasty XI in the Middle Kingdom and Senusoret I, Senusoret III, and Amenemhat III in Dynasty XII. Valued resources of Wadi al-Hudi included amethyst and copper ore. WADI AWATIB. A corridor from the Nile into the western Butana and to the important Meroitic sites of Naqa and Musawwarat es-Sufra from Wad ben Naqa travels up through a usually dry, seasonal watercourse called Wadi Awatib. However, its use for human settlement is far more ancient as revealed in the site surveys and excavations by Przemysɫaw Bobrowski and Maciej Jórdeczko who found flakes, cores, and lithic tools as early as the Middle Paleolithic and more than 80 sites of occupation as well as some 380 circular mound graves. Sites identified also included those of Neolithic times, and not surprisingly, some Meroitic sherds were found as well since it was a route between these significant Meroitic sites. WADI ES-SEBUA, WADI SABOUA. The origin location of the Wadi esSebua temple was on the western bank of the Nile across from the small wadi that gave it its name. Because it was situated on a low river floodplain, the creation of Lake Nasser required that it would be moved to higher ground a few kilometers upstream. Its original orientation was peculiar in that it was parallel rather than perpendicular to the river. Before its relocation, the avenue of sphinxes in the outer court and the very base of the first pylon were flooded by the rising waters. Amenhotep III in the New Kingdom Dynasty XVIII built a small rockcut temple with a brick pylon at the former site. The temple was dedicated to a Nubian form of Horus and, later, to Amun after the reign of Akhenaton, who stressed the worship of the Aton cult. The Amun cult was reestablished thereafter, and Ramses II added to the front of that temple pylon. The remains of this earlier temple at Wadi es-Sebua were lost. However, in Dynasty XIX, Ramses II built the new and larger (?) Wadi esSebua temple. It was roughly two kilometers from its present relocation. It was partially rock cut and partially freestanding, especially the grand avenue of sphinxes, two outer forecourts, and outer pylons. Probably four colossi of this pharaoh were placed in front of the third pylon, and standing images of

396

•

WADI GABGABA, KABKABA, CAABGABA

Ramses II were in the inner court before the hypostyle hall of 12 columns was removed from solid rock for its historical preservation. This court led to another set of three chambers, of which two were probably for storage. Finally, the innermost sanctuary, having three chambers, is reached. The central sanctuary had been converted to a church in Christian times, so that one sees the ironic anachronism of Ramses II, on the lower layers of plaster, making offerings to Christian icons plastered on later layers some 2,000 years later. This important temple has an inscription indicating that Ramses II had at least 170 children, of whom 111 were males. Another inscription indicates that it was built at the time the viceroy of Kush was Setau who served in the last years of Ramses II. Aside from its orientation, the temple is more or less standard in style and arrangement with a central axis, three pylons, a small stairway to the rock-cut hypostyle hall, and an inner sanctuary. Although the sanctuary statues are damaged and difficult to confirm, the late date of construction in his reign and the apparent parallel with the Abu Simbel temple farther upstream in Nubia can lead to the conclusion that Ramses II was also represented as a deity seated with Amun, Ptah, and Ra-Horakhty. Today the temples of Wadi es-Sebua, Maharraqa, and Dakka are reconstructed and relocated in a common, new archaeological part that can be visited by tourists of lake cruises. WADI GABGABA, KABKABA, CAABGABA. This ancient wadi is well known for its rich slave-operated gold field, deep in the Eastern Desert of Lower Nubia or Wawat as described in the Annals of Thutmose III. Wadi Gabgaba was a portion of a complex network of dry riverbeds, along with Wadi al-Allaqi, that left the Nile valley near the southern end of the Dodecaschoenos and, on the east, into the Red Sea. Access to gold was much sought by Nubians, Egyptians, Ptolemies, and Romans when they controlled these lands. Control of the fortress at Kubban was critical to defend the entrance to Wadi al-Allaqi, while the use of the Korosko Road, farther upstream on the Nile, gave more direct access to Wadi Gabgaba. WADI GHAZALI. Wadi Ghazali is located downstream of the Fourth Cataract on the left bank of the Nile, but at this point, it is on the eastern side of the Nile because of the big S-shaped turn. It follows Wadi Abu Dom southeasterly into the Bayuda plain from the Kushite town of Sanam. In ancient times, this was likely a trade route and shortcut across the Bayuda until it rejoined the Nile around the Atbara River and on to Meroë. At this rather removed location was built a Christian church and monastery that operated from the ninth to 12th centuries CE.

WADI HOWAR, WADI GAOGA, WADI KAUGHA

•

397

WADI HALFA. Wadi Halfa is at the downstream end of the Second Cataract and is on the modern Sudanese-Egyptian border. Wadi Halfa is significant in prehistoric times, as it produces some of the early traces of Middle Paleolithic humans in Nubia at the nearby site of Khor Musa, which functioned at around 18,000 years BP. Thus the Wadi Halfa area enters the historical record in the very earliest times. It was on a nearby stone that the Archaic Period pharaoh King Djer recorded one of the very earliest Egyptian conquests of Nubia. It was in this vicinity that various Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom pharaohs commonly made their defense lines against Nubians of Kerma. For example, inscriptions found in the area of Wadi Halfa date to Senusoret I of Dynasty XII, and others are dated to Dynasty XIX in the New Kingdom. By the end of Dynasty XX, Nubians returned to this borderland to reassert their control of the region and press on to reassert control of Lower Nubia and even Upper Egypt. The modern history of Wadi Halfa is central to the Turco-Egyptian and the later British conquest of Sudan. As Lake Nasser was being flooded, Wadi Halfa was particularly important in the Nubian salvage and relocation project. Sadly, the original town is submerged under the lake, and a new town was created at a higher elevation. Many of the original inhabitants were moved to Khasm al-Girba far away in eastern Sudan or to other Nubian communities throughout Sudan. WADI HAWAD. This seasonal wadi drains the western Butana from as far southeast as Basa and Jebel Geili. It also serves as a track for watering livestock at wells or at the Nile. As it nears the Nile (just east of the modern Khartoum-Atbara highway), it passes by the elevated Meroitic temple Awlib to the north and the Meroitic temple of Abu Erteila to the south of the wadi. WADI HOWAR, WADI GAOGA, WADI KAUGHA. Studies by Birgit Keding of 1,500 sites have pushed the early dates of human settlement in a much wetter Wadi Howar far earlier than expected and far to the west to the Ennedi Erg in the Chad-Sudanese borderlands and to the northeast to Jebel Uweinat where Sudan, Egypt, and Libya meet today and where hundreds of prehistoric petroglyphs are found. Friederike Jesse and Mathias Lange has researched the same areas, including Laqiya to the north of Wadi Howar via Wadi Hariq, and found human settlement going back to 9000 BCE with hunting, gathering, and, remarkably, even fishing economies in the Leiterband cultural horizon of 4000–2200 BCE and the following Handessi horizon of 2200–1100 BCE. These horizons have material similarities with Abkan and Nabta Playan horizons to the north of Wadi Howar and thus onward to A-Group and C-Group times further on in time.

398

•

WAVY-LINE POTTERY

Hand-thrown wavy-line pottery of distinct, evolving subtraditions as early as 5000 BCE enrich our understanding of this important central Saharan connection to the Nile. Wadi Howar was probably an important migration route into and out of the Saharan Sahel before the profound desiccation in the fourth millennium BCE. In much wetter times, the upper reaches of Wadi Howar stretched into eastern Chad, north of Jebal Mara in Darfur. In much later times, this irregular or seasonal watercourse drains the region up to 100 kilometers west of the Dongola reach of the Nile, and when flowing, it empties into the river downstream of ad-Debba between the Third and Fourth Cataracts. A-Group and C-Group pottery parallels have been found to the west of the middle of Wadi Howar. The wadi has produced stone celts that appear to have Egyptian inspiration. In the times of Kush and Napata, Wadi Howar may have served as a transportation and security route to the western areas of northern Kordofan and Darfur and to the 40-Days Road. In a map titled “Nubia and Abissinia” by Emanuel Bowen published as late as 1770, there is reference to the “Lac de Gaoga and to the ‘Royaume de Gaoga,’” suggesting that water was still there and under some sort of local political authority. WAVY-LINE POTTERY. See MESOLITHIC (KHARTOUM). WAWAT. Wawat was a sometimes independent polity in Lower Nubia. Although regional history goes back to the Paleolithic period, the Nubian people of Wawat first enter the historical record as the A-Group and, later, with the intrusive cattle-herding C-Group. In the Middle Kingdom, the southern boundary of Wawat was usually at the Second Cataract forts that blocked attacks from contemporary Kerma, Egypt’s military rival in Upper Nubia. The northern frontier of Wawat was likely upstream of Aswan, but this may have fluctuated at times. The administrative center for Wawat was usually at Aniba (Miam), which shows a long occupation in the Middle Kingdom. For example, Pharaoh Amenemhat in Dynasty XII wrote of his clashes with the chiefs of Wawat. During the New Kingdom, the provincial town of Aniba in Wawat was sometimes the headquarters of the King’s Son of Kush. Many New Kingdom pharaohs make reference to the slaves, livestock, natural resources, and administration in Wawat. Such accounts are found for Tuthmosis III and Tuthmosis IV. From Wawat, this viceroy could quickly advance farther to Upper Nubia for offensive action or back to Thebes for defense. Today, all of the riverine lands of the original Wawat are now under Lake Nasser.

WOMEN

•

399

WEBETSEPET. Webetsepet was one of two desert chiefdoms (the other being Aushek) ruled by the Medjayu. Webetsepet was considered to have eventually evolved into probably a tributary “nomadic state.” WENI. This dynamic, innovative Egyptian military leader, investigator, and judge served under Pepi I (ca. 2332–2283 BCE) of Dynasty VI. His procurement of conscripted troops from each Egyptian nomarch allowed for a broad base for his military. He also relied on battalions of highly regarded Nubian archers for his campaigns in Nubia, Sinai, and elsewhere. At this time, Egypt was at the conclusion of its early period of expansion, but defensive structures and forts of the First Cataract and some early work on canals near to Seheil Island also took place during his administration. As a governor of Upper Egypt during the Old Kingdom, he was buried at the important Osiride pilgrimage center at Abydos. WERESH, WERETJ. This Upper Nubian (?) territory is mentioned in New Kingdom texts that suggest either a local nome administration or a tributepaying region. A number of references have been made to Nubian polities that have not been identified with precision, but they appear in the “land” cartouches of bound Nubian prisoners featured in New Kingdom statuary showing their subordinate status. W-GROUP. This is one of the names ascribed by George Reisner to create some order to Nubian archaeological horizons. The W-Group was meant to embrace the Greco-Roman period. It is now abandoned along with the BGroup and the Y-Group. Surviving in this alphabetic chronology are the prehistoric A-Group, the cattle-herding C-Group, and the post-Meroitic XGroup. WILBOUR, CHARLES EDWIN (1833–1896). This American businessman traveled extensively in the Middle East and was deeply fascinated by Egyptology. Much of his personal collection led to the formation of the Brooklyn Museum collection on Egyptology. In 1889, he reported on the noted famine stela on Seheil Island in southern Aswan. In 1978, the Brooklyn Museum hosted one of the first major conferences and exhibitions on Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. WOMEN. This dictionary is focused on the archaeological history of Nubia. Inevitably it also becomes an ethnic, “racial,” and gendered history of Nubia. The ethnicity of Nubia is covered in very many entries as well as the topic of race. As for gender, the entries listed in the see also section at the end of this entry suggest many other directions for research in theology, kinship, family,

400

•

WOOLLEY, CHARLES LEONARD (1880–1960)

women in leadership, titles, and styles. All of these topics could become a different thematic, gendered history of Nubia. See also AMANIRENAS, QUEEN (20s BCE?); AMANISHKHETE, AMANISHAKETO, AMNISHAKHETO, AMANISHAKETE (r. 41–12 BCE?); AMANITORE, AMANITERE, AMANITARE (r. 12 BCE–12 CE); AMENIRDIS I, AMENARDIS I, AMONORTAIS, AMENARTESU (r. 740–700 BCE); AMENIRDIS II; ANKHSHEPENUPET; BODY DECORATION: CICATRICES, TATTOOS; CANDACE, KANDAKE, KADAKE, KDI-QO; CIRCUMCISION, FEMALE; CLEOPATRA VII (69–30 BCE; r. 51–30 BCE); GOD’S WIFE OF AMUN, DIVINE ADORATRICE OF AMUN; ISIS; MATRIARCHY, MATRILINEAL; MENTUHOTEP_II; NITOCRIS, GOD’S WIFE OF AMUN (GWA); QUEENS (KDI-QO, KANDAKE) OF MEROЁ; SATET, SATI, SATIS; SHANAKDAKHETE, SHANAKDAKHETO (r. 170–150 BCE); SHEPENWEPET I; SHEPENWEPET II; THEODORA (“GIFT OF GOD”) (ca. 497–548 CE; r. 527–548 CE); TIY, TIYE (r. ca. 1417–1379 BCE). WOOLLEY, CHARLES LEONARD (1880–1960). This English archaeologist excavated widely in the Middle East, including Ur in Mesopotamia and Amarna and Sinai in Egypt. His Nubian research was at Areika with David Randall-MacIver and Francis L. Griffith in the 1907–1911 Eckley B. Coxe expedition and in the 1912 Oxford University Nubian expedition. He excavated a major Meroitic cemetery at Karanog that produced a significant number of Meroitic inscriptions on funerary stela and hetep offering tablets. He also published reports on the Middle Egyptian fortress at Buhen. His work with MacIver appeared mostly in publications of the University Museum in Philadelphia.

X X-GROUP AND PRE-CHRISTIAN TIMES. By the mid-fourth century CE, Meroë was in its death throes after economic competition and invasion by Axumites. Ancient Kush was long over, and by the end of the fourth century CE, some refugees from Meroë and its allies filled the vacuum. This created local elites that are merged as the so-called X-Group that were buried in large tumuli like those at az-Zuma, Ballana, or Tanqasi. Artistic traditions of the X-Group show ties to Byzantine Egypt, and so when Christian Nubia emerged continued contacts were maintained with the Byzantine world. Since the early X-Group could have included refugees from declining and collapsed Meroë, the research by Faisal M. Musa raises the question of where such refugees went. He turns to the Germa (Garamantes) in southwestern Libya and in the Fezzan. Musa believes that they joined, or became, the Tjehenu or Tebo people of this area. His evidence is seen in similar burial traditions, common reverence for Amun, Nubian-type names, use of hafirs, and similar iron-working traditions. While Christianity, in general, was deepening its hold, a schism still needed to be overcome between the three newly formed Christian kingdoms. By the sixth century CE, Emperor Justinian of the expanding Byzantine empire instituted a policy of expansion by converting allied territories to the orthodox Chalcedonian state religion. However, the royal court was divided by those who followed the Chalcedonians and those, like the emperor’s wife Theodora, who followed the Miaphysite or Monophysite interpretation founded in Coptic Egypt. They arrived first in the kingdom of Nobatia in 543 CE, and the Nobatian king refused Justinian’s Chalcedonian mission to travel farther south. The more southerly kingdom of Mukurra was converted to the opposing orthodoxy sometime before 568 CE, and by 573 CE, a mission from Mukurra reached Constantinople, offering friendship and gifts of ivory and a live giraffe. Rivalry between Chalcedonian Mukurra on one hand and Nobatia in the north and Alwa in the south on the other apparently persisted at this time. Trade, art, and architecture between Mukurra and

401

402

•

X-GROUP AND PRE-CHRISTIAN TIMES

Constantinople suggests close relationship, not to mention tensions with the other two Nubian Christian kingdoms. Refer to the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia.

Y YAM, IREM. Yam was an independent trading kingdom in the third millennium BCE. Probably it was the precursor of what is now termed as Kerma. Indeed, Yam or Irem are essentially the Egyptian, or perhaps the Kushite, names for the ancient Nubian state generally referred to by archaeologists as Kerma. In fact, Kerma is named only for the modern village at this site, and Yam might be the correct name. Yam is first known textually from at least four peaceful trading visits of Harkuf, the governor (hekaib) of Aswan who served pharaohs Merenre and Pepi II in the Old Kingdom and in the First Intermediate Period. On Harkuf’s first trade mission to Yam, he traveled for seven months with his father, Iri. His second mission took eight months and was led without his father. On his third expedition, he reported that the kingdom of Yam was warring with the southernmost Libyan (Berber) people, the Tjehenu, to the west. In order to secure the friendship of Yam, Harkuf pursued and supposedly defeated the Tjehenu. His reward was abundant trade items requiring 300 donkeys with an armed detachment from Yam, which guaranteed protection against the Irtet and Setiu peoples of Lower Nubia. Apparently, each of these missions bypassed the First and Second Cataracts, with his donkey train traveling more safely in the Western Desert to and from Yam. The short reign of Merenre brought Harkuf into service under Pharaoh Pepi II, under whom he took his fourth expedition to Yam. On this trip, he carefully returned with a dwarf, or pygmy, who was much-noted as a gift that would please his king. It was imagined that dwarfs were the Nubian prototypes for the gods Bes and Beset, who were considered as deities for amusement and joviality. In the Middle Kingdom, Yam/Kerma was a major concern that threatened Egypt, as demonstrated by the renewal of the massive and numerous Egyptian border fortresses. In the New Kingdom, after the Hyksos were expelled from Lower Egypt, Yam was conquered, and probably looted and burned, by the Egyptian invasion forces and the initiation of construction of Dukki Gel. Yet in the 1280s BCE, the leaders of Yam attempted a revolt against the

403

404

•

YESBOKHEAMANI (R. 283–300 CE)

Egyptian pharaoh Seti I, the father of the Great Ramses II. The revolt was finally put down when Seti I’s troops launched a week-long punitive mission, which resulted in some 800 Nubian prisoners of war. YESBOKHEAMANI, YESBEKHEAMANI, AMANI-YESH-BEHE (r. 283–300 CE). This king of late Meroitic times probably ruled at the end of the third century CE as Meroë was in its long decline. An inscription of Yesbokheamani is recorded on the lion temple at Meroë. According to Derek Welsby, the presence of Meroitic graffiti at Philae and Qasr Ibrim suggest that he may have reoccupied Lower Nubia following Diocletian’s tactical retreat to Aswan in 298 CE. Yesbokheamani’s place of burial is known to be in the north cemetery at Meroë. If this interpretation is correct, this may indicate a last stand of Meroë, which may have been the overextension of his empire to the north that weakened it further for the Axumite attack from the east some time in the early decades of the fourth century CE. Y-GROUP. The so-called Y-Group descends from George Reisner’s effort to give some historical order to nonliterate Nubian archaeological horizons including the A-Group, B-Group, C-Group, W-Group, and the X-Group. In this sequence, the Y-Group was designated to the medieval Christian period from the sixth to the 12th centuries CE. The term is discontinued along with the B-Group, but the A-Group, C-Group, and X-Group carry on partly because these groups have no clear ethnonyms. For this dictionary, in any case, the period covered ends with what might have been the Y-Group.

Z ZERAH. It is possible that Zerah was another name for the Egyptian pharaoh Sheshonk, who followed after Pharaoh Osorkon I (r. 924–889 BCE) of the Tanite Dynasty XXII. On the other hand, Sheshonk is clearly and separately named in the Bible in 1 Kings 14:26, so perhaps this is an otherwise unknown “Ethiopian” (i.e., Nubian) ruler or leader. In the Bible, references are made to the “Ethiopian” Zerah in 2 Chronicles 14:9–15 and 16:8. According to this, Zerah invaded Judea from the south in 900 BCE but was defeated and driven out by the Judean king Asa (r. 911–870 BCE). There he is referred to as “the Ethiopian with a host of a 1,000 and 300 chariots,” who were defeated and dispersed at Mareshah by King Asa, who pursued them to Gerar. King Asa returned safely to Jerusalem with cattle, sheep, and camels taken from Zerah. Thus, with this brief mention, Zerah is otherwise obscure.

405

Appendix 1 Main Language Groups Associated with Ancient Nubia

The information in this appendix is inspired by G. P. Murdock, Africa: Its Peoples and Their Culture History (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955) but has been adapted and revised by R. A. Lobban for this publication. I. Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) languages: a. Hamitic: Ancient Egyptian [Saidic and Boharic] (hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic written forms); Coptic; Libyic; and Berber b. Northern Cushitic: Blemmye, Ababda, Amarar, Beni Amer, Beja, Bisharin, Hadendowa, and Medjay c. Central Semitic: Aramaic, Assyrian, Canaanite, Hebrew, Punic, ProtoSinaitic, and Arabic d. South Semitic: South Arabian and Axumite (Ge’ez). II. Eastern Sudanic languages: a. b. c. d. e.

PreNilotic: Shilluk Nilotic: Dinka and Nuer Daju Nilo-Saharan Nubian languages: Meroitic (?) and Old Nubian Danagla/Dongolawi, Fadicha, Kenuz/Kenzi, Mahas, and Sukkot III. Kordofanian (of the Nuba Hills)

IV. Furian (of Darfur) V. Niger-Congo (Nigritic, Bantu) languages VI. Indo-European: Greek, Latin, and Persian

407

Appendix 2 Salvage of Ancient Nubian Temples in Egypt

Ancient Site

Associated with

Current Status

Abu Simbel temples Re-Horakhty, Hathor, and Nefertari

Ramses II (1279–1212 BCE)

Moved and elevated 60 meters

Qasr Ibrim

Multiple periods including Dynastic, Meroitic, Roman, Christian, and Islamic

Excavations continue; much already lost; at great risk

Amada Temple

Tuthmosis III (1504–1450 BCE) Amenhotep II (1453–1419 BCE)

New Amada

Derr Temple

Ramses II

New Amada

Tomb of Peniut

Peniut, governor of Wawat

New Amada

Dakka Temple

Ptolemy IV and Meroitic

New Wadi es-Sebua

Maharraqa Temple

Roman

New Wadi es-Sebua

Wadi es-Sebua Temple Ramses II

New Wadi es-Sebua

Kalabsha Temple

Roman, Augustus; Christian, Silko

New Kalabsha

Beit Al-Wali

Ramses II

New Kalabsha

Qertassi Kiosk

Greco-Roman

New Kalabsha

Isis Temple Complex at Greco-Roman and Meroitic Philae (332–312 BCE)

Relocated to nearby Agilkia Island

Gerf Hussein Temple

Ramses II

Fragments saved

Qasr Ibrim chapel

Christian

Fragments saved

Abu Oda Temple

Horemheb (1321–1293 BCE)

Fragments saved

409

Appendix 3 Salvage of Ancient Nubian Temples in Sudan

Ancient Site

Associated with

Current Location

Semna West Temple

Thutmosis III

Sudan National Museum

Djer inscription

Old Kingdom

Sudan National Museum

Djehutihotep tomb

New Kingdom Prince

Sudan National Museum

Buhen Temple

Hatshepsut (1498–1483 BCE)

Sudan National Museum

Semna East Temple

Hatshepsut (1498–1483 BCE) Sudan National Museum Amenhotep II (1453–1419 BCE) Thutmosis III (1504–1450 BCE)

Soleb Temple

Amenhotep III (1386–1349 BCE)

In situ

Kerma

Kerma kings and occupation

In situ

Napata

Dynasty XXV and Napatan times

In situ

Meroë and Butana

Meroitic times and later

In situ

Dongola and Soba

Christian and Islamic times

In situ

Blue Nile

Various periods

Little study

White Nile

Various periods

Little study

Ancient structures removed to new locations: Temple

Associated with

Moved to

Debod Temple

Ptolemy VI and Adikhalamani

Madrid

Taffa Temple

Greco-Roman

Leiden

Dendur

Augustus

New York

Al-Lasiya

Thutmosis III

Turin

Kalabsha Gate

Augustus

Berlin

411

Appendix 4 Implications of the High Dam at Aswan

Gains

Losses

Vast hydroelectric power

The end of excavations in Lower Nubia, especially at Ballana, Qustul, and Qasr Ibrim

Effective flood control

Traditional Nubian villages and lifeways

Expansion of irrigation land

Loss of bilingual texts?

Expansion of lake fishing

Depopulation of Lower Nubia

New tourist potential

Original temple colors

Salvage of Nubian temples

Loss of agricultural lands and trees

Popular interest in Nubia

Loss of townsites and cemeteries

Other liabilities: 1. Changed water table and increased soil salinity, jeopardizing many sites 2. No more river silt with polluting fertilizers 3. Expansion of Bilharzia 4. Expansion of water hyacinth

413

Appendix 5 Kings of Kurru and Dynasty XXV Contemporaries

Rulers

Dates

Nubians/Dynasty XXV Alara

790–760 BCE

Kashta

760–747 BCE

Piankhy

747–716 BCE

Shabaka

716–701 BCE

Shabataka

700–688 BCE

Taharka

690–664 BCE

Tanutamun

664–653 BCE

Anlamani

623–593 BCE

Aspelta

593–568 BCE

Dynasty XXIII (Leontopolis) Osorkon III

787–759 BCE

Takelot

764–757 BCE

Rudamon

757–754 BCE

Iuput

754–715 BCE

Dynasty XXIV (at Sais) Tefnakhte

727–720 BCE

Bakenrenef

720–715 BCE

Dynasty XXVI Psamtik I

664–610 BCE

Necho II

610–595 BCE

Psamtik II

595–589 BCE

415

416

•

APPENDIX 5

1. Both Shabaka and Shabataka have diverse spellings of their names. Both are mentioned in the Old Testament, Genesis 10:7. Shabaka is called: Shabako, Sabteh, and Sabacon; Shabataka is called Shebitku, Sebichos, and Sabtechah. 2. Piankhy is sometimes called Piye, or Pi. 3. The daughter of Queen Amenirdis I and Shabaka is not known by name, but one of their daughters married Psamtik (Psammetichus), a pharaoh-prince in the delta, to help solidify Kushitic political relations there or, alternatively, to solidify Psamtik’s ties to Theban legitimacy. Whether this daughter or another had the child Harkhebi is not clear. Harkhebi is just known as a grandson of Shabaka. Budge (1893) states that Psamtik married Shepenupt, a daughter of Piankhy and sister of Taharka; perhaps he married both. In any case, Psamtik’s daughter Nitaqert (Nitocris I) was considered adopted by Shepenwepet (Shepenupt) to secure his access to the matrilineal royal line. Psamtik was the son of Nekau (Necho), the Saite governor who recognized the rule of the 25th dynasty at Sais. When Psamtik I died in 610 BCE, after the fall of Ninevah, he was succeeded by his son also known as Nekau (see 2 Kings 23:29; 2 Chronicles 35:20; also Jeremiah 46:2). Psamtik II (Dynasty XXVI) followed his father, Necho II, also of Dynasty XXVI. The marriage(s) of Psamtik I are excellent examples of the use of the principle of matrilineal descent. It is clear that Psamtik I was an outsider (26th dynasty) who sought to legitimize his access to royal authority: first, by his marriage to the daughter of Amenirdis, a sister of Piankhy; second, by his marriage to Shepenwepet, a daughter of Piankhy; and third, by the adoption of Nitocris by Shepenwepet, a final demonstration that the line of inheritance was traced by and through women. 4. It is not certain that Khapenupet II was the wife of Shabataka, but only that he married a daughter of Piankhy. It is a reasonable assumption, however, since she is represented in the royal Isis-form manner in a statue with her name at Medinat Habu. A lesser figure than a pharaoh’s wife would not likely be projected in this way. 5. Ushanhuru was the son of Taharka and Queen Yusata, who was captured at Memphis by Esarhaddon and taken as a captive back to Assyria. Taharka also had a son named Esshowtfenet and a daughter named Peltasen, as well as Amenirdis II who became a Theban God’s Wife of Amun (GWA). 6. The proposal that Senkamunseken married both Amarimalel and Nasalsa seems to be the only way to resolve numerous overlapping relationships typical of an endogamous, matrilineal ruling class. If this is correct, he probably married Nasalsa first and then married Amarimalel.

APPENDIX 5

•

417

7. The unknown name of the sister of Asata and Madekan was termed the “chief sistrum player” in the royal court. A sistrum is an ancient musical instrument for religious purposes. 8. The record is unclear about the parents of Kashta and Pabatma. 9. According to R. A. Fazzini (1988, 2), the reigns of the GWAs are indicated as: (a = adoptive tie to GWA). Kinship according to Dunham and Macadam (1949, 149):

Dates

Rulers

Descriptions

754–714? BCE Shepenwepet I

Daughter of Osorkon

740–700 BCE

Amenirdis I

Daughter of Kashta

710–650 BCE

Shepenwepet II

Daughter of Piankhy

670–640 BCE

Amenirdis II

Daughter of Taharka? (through adoptive mother Piebtetemery)

656–586 BCE

Nitocris I

Daughter of Psamtik I

Note: There were at least four previous Kurru kings starting in 890 BCE.

Wives of Piankhy: • • • • • •

Nefrukekashta, daughter of Kashta and Pebatma Abar, daughter of Kashta and Pebatma, mother of Taharka Khensa, daughter of Kashta and Pebatma Peksater, daughter of Kashta, adopted by Pebatma Tabiry, daughter of Alara and Kasaqa Khapenupet I, perhaps a wife of Piankhy

Wives of Taharka: • • • • •

Yusata, mother of Ushanhuru (Esanhure, Ushanakhuru), taken captive Atakhebasken, mother of Atlanersa Naparaye, daughter of Piankhy Tabekenamun (?), daughter of Piankhy Tekahatamani, daughter of Piankhy

Appendix 6 New Kingdom Viceroys of Nubia

Viceroy

Serving Pharaoh

Regional Dates

Sa-Taiyit

Ahmose I

1570–1546 BCE

Thuwre

Amenhotep I

1551–1524 BCE

Thuwre

Tuthmosis I

1524–1518 BCE

Seni

Tuthmosis I and II

1518–1504 BCE

Nehi

Hatshepsut

1498–1483 BCE

Nehi

Tuthmosis III

1504–1450 BCE

Usersatet

Amenhotep II

1453–1419 BCE

Amenhotep

Tuthmosis IV

1419–1386 BCE

Amenhotep

Amenhotep III

1386–1349 BCE

Merymose

Amenhotep III

Tuthmose

Amenhotep IV

1350–1334 BCE

Huy-Amenhotep

Tutankhamun

1334–1325 BCE

Paser I

Ay

1325–1321 BCE

Paser I

Horemheb?

1321–1293 BCE

Amenemopet

Seti I

1293–1291 BCE

Amenemopet

Ramses II

1279–1212 BCE

Yuni

Seti I Ramses II

Hekanakht

Ramses II

Paser II

Ramses II

Sethauw

Ramses II

Messuwy

Merneptah

1212–1202 BCE

Messuwy

Amenmesses?

1202–1199 BCE

Messuwy

Seti II

1199–1193 BCE

Seti

Siptah

1193–1187 BCE

Hori I

Setnakhte?

1185–1182 BCE

Hori II

Ramses III

1182–1151 BCE

Hori II

Ramses IV

1151–1145 BCE

Siese

Ramses VI

1141–1133 BCE

419

420

•

APPENDIX 6

Nahiho

Ramses VII

1133–1126 BCE

Wentawat

Ramses IX

1126–1108 BCE

Ramesenakht

Ramses IX

Panehsi

Ramses XI

Herihor

Ramses XI

Piankhy

Herihor

1098–1070 BCE

1080–1074 BCE

Notes: These data are adapted from the list of Reisner (1920). The viceroy of Nubia or the “King’s Son of Kush” was the administrative official responsible for the southern section of Egypt and Nubia (i.e., ranging from Hierakonpolis [Nekhne] in Upper Egypt to Napata [Karei] near the Fourth Cataract). The Piankhy listed here should not be confused with the Piankhy of Dynasty XXV.

Appendix 7 Kinship in Dynasty XXV

This diagram unifies a wide variety of sources and has included all information without apparent contradiction. Assumed relations are indicated with a question mark. Notes: bold all-cap text = male; lowercase text = female; | = descent; N = descent from Nasalsa; A = descent from Alara; italicized = God’s Wife of Amun; double underscore = High Priest of Amun.

421

Appendix 8 Dynasty XXV

THEMES IN STATECRAFT Period/Pharaoh

Themes and Events

Formative Period Alara (780–760 BCE)*

Re-emergence of the Nubian state following the post–New Kingdom “Dark Ages”; religious revival in Nubia in the context of a collapsed unitary state in Egypt

Kashta (760–747 BCE)

Consolidation of Lower Nubia and Thebes?

Classical Period Piankhy “the Pioneer” (747–716 BCE)

Foreign Relations: Conquest of Upper and Lower Egypt but without administrative consolidation; siege of Memphis; “defeat” of Tefnakht and Nimlot; control of the oases and delta Legitimacy: Amun; “Critique” of Nimlot; Stela at Napata; Steward Harwa; GWAs: Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I Construction: Kurru, Abdyos Chapel for Peksater, Sanam

Shabaka “the Diplomat” (716–701 BCE)

Foreign Relations: Defeat of West Delta rival Bakenrenef (Bocchois); peaceful alliance with Judeans; peaceful cooperation with Assyrians; extradition of Philistine Yamani of Ashdod; avoided war Legitimacy: Son of Amun; Apis Bull; GWA-sister, Amenirdis I; HPA-son, Haremakhet; Shabaka was the brother of Piankhy Construction: Karnak, Memphis (stone), Medinat, Habu, Luxor, Kawa, Kurru

Shabataka “the Revivalist” (701–688 BCE)

Foreign Relations: Failed insurrection in Phoenicia; political and military training for Prince Taharka; Battle of El-Teqeh**; aggressive policy to resist Assyrians; strategic alliance with Hezekiah; local rule in Delta Legitimacy: GWA Amenirdis and sister Shepenwepet II Construction: Karnak, Kurru

423

424

•

APPENDIX 8

Taharka “Sleeping Giant” (690–664 BCE)

Foreign Relations: Full ruler of Kush and Egypt; defeat of Libyans; military rival to Assyrians; Essarhaddon and Ashurbanipal; unstable alliances in the Delta Legitimacy: Mother’s visit; GWA; Apis bull; Theban authority of Mentuemhat; Taharka was son of Piankhy Construction: Karnak (four places at least), Tanis, Memphis, Kawa, Napata, Qasr Ibrim, Medinat Habu, Nuri

Decline Tanutamun “Failed Dreamer” (664–656 BCE)

Foreign Relations: Brief return to Egypt; failed revival of 25th dynasty; sack of Karnak; exile to Napata Legitimacy: Brief coregency with Taharka; Amun; Tanutamun was the grandson of Piankhy Construction: Tomb at Kurru

* Chronology following K. A. Kitchen (1986, 2nd ed.). ** The battle of El-Teqeh was probably attended by Prince Taharka, and although it was not decisive it served temporary strategic advantage: (1) probably bowmen and cavalry largely returned and were not pursued; (2) Assyrians did not press attack into Egypt or Palestine; (3) divided Assyrian forces had to regroup, thus relieving pressure on Jerusalem in conjunction with the death of Sennacherib.

LEGITIMACY Religious/Ideological

Cultural

Monumental

Worship of Amun-Re

Nubian dress

Construction at:

Worship of Apis Bull

Nubian features

Tanis, Memphis,

Celebration of Sed Festival

El Kab, Edfu

Celebration of Opet Festival

Medinat Habu

Use of God’s Wives of Amun

Karnak, Kawa

Use of Theban Priesthood Egyptian Mortuary Beliefs

Semna, Buhen Nubian bed burials

Qasr Ibrim, Nuri, Kurru

(pyramids, ba, ka) Recognition of Book of the Dead

Egyptian mortuary practices

Jebel Barkal, Shabaka Stone

Cultural

Monumental Inscriptions in:

APPENDIX 8

•

Egyptian mythology and deities

Nubian deities

Demotic, hieroglyphics, mummification, canopic jars, shawabtis

Themes

Cultural

Monumental

Restoration, renewal, purification,

Nubianity

Proper Rulers

service to Amun

Authenticity

of the “World”

425

ADMINISTRATION Egyptian Administration

Diplomatic Relations

Military

Tax and fiscal system

Alliances with Sidon and Tyre

Cavalry

Calendrical reckoning

Alliances with Judea

Expert archers

Monarchs / local chiefs and scribes

Extradition of rebel Yamani of Ashdod

Siege engineers

Theban priesthood

Repression of Delta Princes

River navy

Gold reserves

Tefnakht, Bakenref

Easy supply

REASONS FOR DYNASTY XXV’S COLLAPSE I. Military overextension in context of the regional “world war” with the Assyrians, Phoenicians, Judeans, Samarians, Canaanites, Egyptians, and Nubians. II. Failed or weak alliances a. Weak Egyptian support: a. among repressed rivals in the Delta b. among members of the Theban priesthood? b. c. d. e.

Failed alliance with Phoenicians Weak alliance with Judeans Antagonism with Canaanites Hostility with Libyans III. Technological Weaknesses

a. No military chariots for Nubians b. Reliance on bronze (not iron) technology

426

•

APPENDIX 8

c. Probably limited use of camel logistic support d. Probably no major role for sea transport of troops

Appendix 9 Near Eastern Dynasties in the Ninth to Seventh Centuries BCE

Kingdom of Judah (921–586 BCE) Uzziah (Azariah) 790–739 BCE Jotham

750–731 BCE

Ahaz

735–715 BCE

Hezekiah

729–686 BCE

Manasseh

696–641 BCE

Amon

641–639 BCE

Josiah

639–608 BCE

Built tunnel at Jerusalem during siege of Sennacherib (see 2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:3–34:30)

Source: Shanks (1988, 117)

Kingdom of Israel (921–722/721 BCE) David

ca. 1010–970 BCE

Solomon

Split into Northern Kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam and Southern Kingdom of Judah under Rehoboam, Solomon’s son

Zimri

882–882 BCE

Omri

882–871 BCE

Ahab

871–852 BCE

Ahaziah

852–851 BCE

Joram

851–842 BCE

Joash

798–782 BCE

Jeroboam II

793–753 BCE

Zachariah

753–752 BCE

Shallum

752 BCE

Menahem

752–742 BCE

Pekahiah

742–740 BCE

Pekah

740–732 BCE

Built royal city of Jezreel

Father of Jeroboam II

During the Tiglath-Pileser III raid on Israel

427

428

•

APPENDIX 9

Hoshea

732–723/722 BCE

Sources: Shanks (1988, 117); Schneider (1995, 31)

Sargonid Dynasty of Assyria Sargon II

721–705 BCE

Samaria falls in 722 BCE to Shalmaneser; in 712 BCE Sargon II conquers Ashdod

Sennacherib

704–681 BCE

In 701 BCE Sennacherib campaigns against Hezekiah (see 1 Kings 18:13–16; Isaiah 36:1); 46 fortified cities destroyed (noted by Lachish in 2 Chronicles 32:9 and Isaiah 36:2)

Esarhaddon

680–669 BCE

Ashurbanipal

680–627/6 BCE

Ashuretelilani

630–623 BCE

Sinsharrishkun

623–612 BCE

Gilgamesh Epic recorded at Nineveh

Sources: Saggs (1965, 49); Finegan (1986, 105)

Segment of the Ninth Dynasty of Babylon Sargon II

709–705 BCE

Sennacherib

704–703 BCE

Minor kings

703 BCE

Sennacherib

688–681 BCE

Esarhaddon

680–669 BCE

Shamashshumukin

668–648 BCE

Source: Finegan (1986, 82)

Dynasty XXII: Libyan, at Tanis and Bubastis (a complex, divided, and confusing dynasty) Sheshonq I / Shishak

945–924 BCE

Defeated Judah and Israel in 925 BCE; Solomon marries the pharaoh’s daughter

Osorkon I

924–889 BCE

Sheshonq II

ca. 890 BCE

Takelot I

889–874 BCE

Osorkon II

874–850 BCE

Wife was Queen Karomama I

Takelot II

850–825 BCE

Wife was Queen Karomama II

Sheshonq III

825–773 BCE

Pami

773–767 BCE

Sheshonq V

767–730 BCE

Osorkon IV

730–715 BCE

APPENDIX 9 Harsies

870–860 BCE

•

429

Tried to be high priest of Thebes after Nimlot

Source: Clayton (1994, 182) Note: For Shishak, see 1 Kings 14:25–26; 2 Chronicles 12:2–9.

Dynasty XXIII (Delta rebels at Leontopolis and Tanis) Pedibastete

818–793 BCE

Sheshonq IV

793–787 BCE

Osorkon III

787–759 BCE

Takelot III

764–757 BCE

Rudamon

757–754 BCE

Iuput

754–715 BCE

Peftjauabastet

At Herakleopolis

Nimlot

At Hermopolis; father of Queen Karomama II; Nimlot served as High Priest of Thebes; father-in-law of Takelot II; referred to as Nimrod in the Bible

Source: Clayton (1994, 183)

Dynasty XXIV Shepsesre (Tefnakhte)

727–720 BCE

Bochoris (Bakenrenef)

720–715 BCE

Source: Clayton (1994, 183)

Dynasty XXVI (Saite) Psammetichos I (Psamtik I) 664–610 BCE Necho II (Nekau II)

610–595 BCE

Psammetichos II (Psamtik II)

595–589 BCE

Apries (Wahibre)

589–570 BCE

Amasis (Ahmose II)

570–526 BCE

Psammetichos III (Psamtik 526–525 BCE III) Source: Clayton (1994, 194)

Appendix 10 Kings of Napata (664–295 BCE)

Tanutamun

664–653 BCE

Atlanersa

653–643 BCE

Senkamanisken

643–623 BCE

Anlamani

623–593 BCE

Aspelta

593–568 BCE

Amtalqa

568–555 BCE

Malenaqen

555–542 BCE

Analmaye

542–538 BCE

Amaninatakilebte

538–519 BCE

Karkamani

519–510 BCE

Amaniastabarqa

510–487 BCE

Siaspiqa

487–468 BCE

Nasakhma

468–463 BCE

Malewiebamani

463–435 BCE

Talakhamani

435–431 BCE

Irike-Amanote

431–405 BCE

Baskakeren

405–404 BCE

Harsiyotef

404–369 BCE

unknown king?

369–350 BCE

Akhratan

350–335 BCE

Nastasen

335–310 BCE

Source: Shinnie (1967, 58–61) Note: Names in bold have entries in the dictionary.

431

Appendix 11 City of Meroё

KINGS AND QUEENS (Q) Arkakamani

295–275 BCE (first to be buried at Meroë)

Amanislo

275–260 BCE

Q. Bartare

260–250 BCE

Amani[. . .]tekha?

250–235 BCE

Arnekhamani

235–218 BCE

Arkamani (Ergamenes)

218–200 BCE

Tabirqa

200–185 BCE

[. . .]iwal?

185–170 BCE

Q. Shanakdakhete

170–160 BCE

(unknown ruler)

160–145 BCE

Naqrinsan?

145–120 BCE

Tanyidamani

120–100 BCE

[. . .]khale?

100–80 BCE

[. . .]amani?

80–65 BCE

Amanikhabale

65–41 (alt. 50–40 BCE)

Q. Amanishkhete

41–20s BCE (alt. 10–1 BCE)

Q. Amanirenas, Teritekas, Akinidad (20s–12 BCE), Natakamani

12 BCE–12 CE

Q. Amanitore, Arikhankharer Shorkaror

12–17 CE

Pisakar

17–35 CE

Amanitaraqide

35–45 CE

Amanitenmenide

45–62 CE

Q. Amanikhatashani

62–85 CE

Tarekeniwal

85–103 CE

Amanikhalika

103–108 CE

Aritenyesbokhe

108–132 CE

433

434

•

APPENDIX 11

Aqrakamani?

132–137 CE

Adeqetali?

137–146 (alt. 134–140 CE)

Takideamani

146–165 (alt. 140–145 CE)

[. . .]reqerem?

165–184 CE

(unknown ruler?)

184–194 CE

Teritedakhatey?

194–209 (alt. 200–215 CE)

Aryesbekhe

209–228 (alt. 215–225 CE)

Teritnide

228–246 CE

Aretnide

246 CE (very brief)

Teqerideamani

246–266 CE

Maleqorobar

266–283 CE

Yesbokheamani

283–300

Q. Tamelerdeamani?

300–308

Q. Lakhideamani?

308–320 CE (last to be buried at Meroë ?)

Sources: Shinnie, 1996, Meroë, pps. 58–61; augmented by Welsby (1996, 207–9); edited by Lobban for this book; dates are approximate. Note: Names in bold have entries in the dictionary.

APPENDIX 11

•

435

MEROITIC ALPHABETS

Original in Griffith (1912, 49); republished in Welsby (1996, 192).

MEROITIC WORDS WITH KNOWN OR POSSIBLE MEANINGS This short list is assembled from the works of Griffith (1910, 1911 [various], and 1922); J. Leclant (1967); Hofmann (1981); Trigger (1970); and Fanfoni (1996). It also includes some of the author’s refinements based on computerbased Meroitic studies with Kharyssa Rhodes, Helene Longpre, Monica Ouelette, and Melissa Talbot at Rhode Island College. At this stage in Meroitic studies, it should be considered only a guide and should be used with caution. Translation

Meroitic Word

abundant

mge

after

dik

agent

porite

Amanitaraqide

mnitrqide

Amanitore, Queen

Mnitore, Mnitr

436

•

APPENDIX 11

Amara West

Pedeme

ambassador, trade representative, envoy

apote, epote, apete

Amun

Mn, Amni, Mni, Mnis

Amun of Napata

mnpi, mnp, mnptes, mnpte, mnpteli

Amun of Note

mnote

Amun of Pedeme [Amara]

mnptme

Aniba

miym

Aniba/Karanog

Nlote

Apedemek

Pdmk, Pedemk, Apedemki

Arminna

Adomn

Ballana

Beqe, Boqh

Begarawiya

bedewe

beget, born of

terikeli, terikelowi

benefit

qetjyijqe

big

tr

Blemmyes, military leader

plimish, blms, pelamos, plemos

bond, abundant

mhe, mb

book, scroll (?)

dor

bread

at

brother

wi

chief, king, ruler

qor, qr

child

as

child, small

mate

civil title

atqi

clergyman

amero

clergyman

ant

clergyman, priest

beloloke

crown prince

pqr

daughter

mevkdi

Derr

Adere, Dor

Earth

ad, adb

Elephantine

Abu/yeb

equipped for life

wtj

eternally

mrozo

falcon (?)

bk

Faras [Pakhoras]

Phrse, Phrs, Pkhrs

APPENDIX 11

•

437

father

sv

female title

shiremroke

footprint

zvqo

formula of blessing

kos

God

Amnbshi

God

Ariteny

God

Arokhetye

God

Ptroti

Goddess or Queen

Mkdi

great

lkh, lh

Harendotes

Aretate

Hathor

Atari, Atriqo

head

mlo

Horus, related

armoke, are

Ibrim

Pedeme

Ibrim

shimlok

Ikhimidi

Sye, Siye

incarnation

yesboxe

infant, son

dd

Isis, various

Ashi, Ashy, Wos, Wosh, Woshte, Ahwosh, Ws, Woshi, Woshs, Woshsli, Woshslw

Karanog [Abu Simbel]

Simbo

Kerma

[Yam, Irem], Arme

Khonsu

Aqedis

kin relations

tdkhelowi

kin relations

tedkheli

kin relations

tedkhelowi

King Akinidad

Akinidd

King Amanakhedolo

Amnkhedolo

King Amanikhabale

Mnkhble

King Kharamadoye

Khrmdoye

King Natakamani

Ntkmni

King Shorkaror

Shorkrr

king’s name

Akhniqwi

king’s name

Tmeqorde

king’s name

Trekendlqo

king’s name

Wyekiyeqo

438

•

APPENDIX 11

Kush (related to)

qsh, qshy, qeshto, qeshli, qesh, qsh, kishri, khshlis

land

ado

land, earth

adb

landlords

trot

large, high

lx, lh, lg

life (?)

pke, bkeli

life (?)

wv

living

pi

local official

perite

local official

pester

local official

plshn

local ruler

mak

Lower Nubia, town in

Akin

man

abr

Mashil, Nubian sun god

mashamani, msmni

Medjay

Mdoye

men

abrleb

messenger

apov

military title

khlbiny

monarch, king

qore

month or season

glabi

mother

ste

name of a prince

Shorkhror

nephew, cousin

yetmde

noble/great

qowi

noble person (?)

tjyij

Nubian god (?)

ptrotislw

Nubians

nobow

Nubians (Nehesi)

nhs

obedient

yerexlo

obeisance

twisti

offer

avpo

officer of the queen

msqoros

official

kroro

old

wid(e)

APPENDIX 11

•

439

Osiris (various)

Shor, Ashoreyi, Ashori, Sorey, Shori, Shoreyi

palace courtiers

salakhas

People of Abrye

abryeqowi

People of Aman Napata

mnpsleb

People of Shdost

shdosteleb

People of Tyesi

Tyesiqowi

personal name

Hanptp

personal name

Herpmlo

personal name

Horplmo

personal name

Khirettenyyi

personal name

Mkesmeny

personal name

Mnhdoke

personal name

Pkhomekhimeye

personal name

Pqebete

personal name

Ptsnoyeqowi

personal name

Tyeshinokhoye

personal name

Yiqrekye

Philae

Pilqo, Pilqe

place

Abesnyye

place

Apmle

place-name (Quban)

Qbnysli

prayer formula

tewiseti

preferred

medes

priest

hont

priests

wab

prince, royal heir, commander, crown prince

pqrtrlo, pqr, pqrtrqo, pqorlike, pq-rli, –pqar

Prince Arakakhtani

Arakakhtani

Prince Arikakharor

Arikhrorqo, Rkrror

Qasr Ibrim

Pedeme

queen

kdike, ktke, kntiky

Queen Amanishete

Amnishete

Queen Amanitere

Amniteres, Amanitnide

queen mother, royal woman

kdakqo, kdiqo

Queen Shanakdakhete

Shnkdkhete

Qustul

Amod

440

•

APPENDIX 11

regional military administrator of the land plemos adb-li-s regional military administrator of the water

plemos ato-li-s

ring, collar

tgirl

Rome, Roman

Areme

Sai

shiyeteli, shyeteli

Saqadi

Skdi

scribe

ddor

Sedeigna

Atitye, Atiye, Atiy

servant

kdbj (?), wide

Shablul

Saple

shawabti, helper statue

shpti

Shellal (cataract)

Sleleyte, Slele

sister

kdis

sky

ari

southern

yere

spouse (?)

qoresm

spouse

sm

star

wyeki

sun, Sun God (?)

masha

temple

mklu

title

ant

title

khrpkhe

title

qoreny

title

ttnylkh

title

shshor

title, royal

qo

to, towards

-w

to be born, generate

yerike, erike

to calculate

yevke

to donate

d(e)

to exist

qe

to give birth

tedehe

to kill (?)

kedi

to look (?)

dek

to make

due

to obey

erexio

APPENDIX 11 to offer

ple, pwrite

to send

apete

to tread upon

dk

two (?)

tbo

until

-yotiu, -yu

viceroy (of Lower Nubia)

pedu, pesato, pesto

Wadi es Sabua

Sdose

water

ate, ato

west (?)

vjke

wife

sem

witness, testimony (?)

mtr wse

woman

kdi

woman’s name

kditrye

women

kdileb

word, saying

sal

world

dto

year, ten (?)

deme

young person (?)

mv, dg

•

441

Appendix 12 Schisms among Christian Faiths

WESTERN ROMAN CHURCH Latin Rite 1. Catholics (Old and New Worlds) 2. Many Protestant faiths (after Martin Luther)

EASTERN PATRIARCHAL CHURCH Antiochian 1. Armenian a. Catholics b. Monophysites 2. Syrian a. Catholics b. Jacobites c. Malankarites (in India) 3. Chaldean a. Catholics b. Nestorians c. Malabarite (in India) 4. Maronite Catholics Alexandrian 1. Coptic and Nubians 443

444

•

APPENDIX 12

a. Catholics b. Monophysites 2. Ethiopian and Eritrean a. Catholics b. Monophysites (Constantinople) 1. Byzantine a. Byzantines b. Melkites 2. Orthodox a. Greek b. Russian

Bibliography

CONTENTS Introduction Journals and Abbreviations General or Survey References Bibliographies Prehistoric and Early Neolithic Times A-Group, C-Group, and Relations with Dynastic Egypt Kerma (Yam, Irem) Dynasty XXV and Early Napatan Times Late Napatan and Meroitic Times Greco-Roman Times Post-Meroitic Times Geology of Nubia and Sudan Museums and Archives Modern Nubian Salvage and Relocation Language and Linguistics MA Theses and PhD Dissertations Children’s and Specialty Books, Magazines, and Films Books and Magazines Films

445 446 447 457 457 463 468 472 475 486 489 491 492 493 494 497 499 499 500

INTRODUCTION A wide variety of information on ancient Nubia is available to Englishlanguage readers. Given the close intersection between ancient Nubia and ancient Egypt, there is also a huge Egyptological and archaeological literature with valuable works in various European languages that describes and interprets the history and culture of this region that straddles the present regions of southern Egypt and northern Sudan. It is thus possible to learn about ancient Nubia from a variety of perspectives. The time frame for this book and its bibliography is from prehistoric times to the start of state Christianity in the sixth century. Those interested in Christianity should consult with the new Historical Dictionary of Medieval Christian Nubia, published 445

446

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

by Rowman & Littlefield in 2020. Those interested in Islamic and present times in the Sudan should consult the fourth edition of the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan in the same Historical Dictionaries of Africa series. The ancient and medieval periods of Sudanese history are exciting areas of expanding study. The many archaeological projects of the past years are opening new vistas of history, and new works continue to appear. Valuable sources are the journals Kush, Meroitica, Sudan Archaeological Research Society Newsletter, and Sudan Notes and Records. Important summary studies in this area include William Y. Adams’s Nubia: Corridor to Africa, P. L. Shinnie’s Meroe: A Civilization of the Sudan, and Fritz and Ursula Hintze’s Civilizations of the Old Sudan, which is a short, readable, and well-illustrated book. Mandour el-Mahdi’s A Short History of the Sudan presents a summary of Sudanese history from antiquity to the present. For the Christian and early Islamic eras, several works are useful, including G. Vantini’s Christianity in the Sudan, J. S. Trimingham’s Islam in the Sudan, Yusuf Fadl Hasan’s The Arabs and the Sudan: From the Seventh to the Early Sixteenth Century, R. S. O’Fahey and J. L. Spaulding’s Kingdoms of the Sudan, and H. A. MacMichael’s A History of the Arabs in the Sudan, as well as Richard Hill’s A Biographical Dictionary of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, which covers up to the 20th century. Journals and Abbreviations AJA

American Journal of Archaeology (Boston)

AJE

American Journal of Egyptology (Chicago)

EA

Egyptian Archaeology (London)

IJAHS

International Journal of African Historical Studies (Boston)

JARCE

Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt (Cairo)

JEA

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (London)

JNEAS

Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago)

JRAI

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (London)

KMT

KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt (Sebastopol, California)

Kush

Kush (Khartoum)

Meroitica

Meroitica (Berlin)

MittSAG

Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin (Berlin)

MN

Bulletin d’Informations Méroitiques / Meroitic Newsletter (Paris)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NEA

Near Eastern Archaeology (Atlanta)

NEAS

North East African Studies (East Lansing, Michigan)

NL

Nubian Letters (The Hague)

S&N

Sudan and Nubia (London)

Sahara

Sahara (Milan)

SARSN

Sudan Archaeological Research Society Newsletter (London)

SNR

Sudan Notes and Records (Khartoum)

ULAAA

University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology (Liverpool)

•

447

GENERAL OR SURVEY REFERENCES Adams, William Yewdale. “Archaeological Survey of Sudanese Nubia: Introduction.” Kush 9 (1961): 7–11. ———. “Archaeological Survey on the West Bank of the Nile: Introduction.” Kush 10 (1962): 10–18. ———. “Archaeological Survey on the West Bank of the Nile: Pottery Kiln Excavations.” Kush 10 (1962): 62–75. ———. “Sudan Antiquities Service Excavations in Nubia: Fourth Season, 1962–63.” Kush 12 (1964): 216–50. ———. “The Nubian Campaign: Retrospect and Prospect.” In Mélanges offerts à Kazimierz Michalowski, edited by Maria L. Bernhard, 13–30. Warsaw: PWN, 1966. ———. “Post-Pharaonic Nubia in the Light of Archaeology, III.” JEA 52 (1966): 147–62. ———. “The Vintage of Nubia.” Kush 14 (1966): 262–81. ———. “Continuity and Change in Nubian Cultural History.” SNR 48 (1967): 1–32. ———. “Invasion, Diffusion, Evolution?” Antiquity 42 (1968): 194–215. ———. “Settlement Pattern in Microcosm: The Changing Aspect of a Nubian Village during Twelve Centuries.” In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. C. Chang, 174–207. Palo Alto: National Press Books, 1968. ———. “Ethnohistory and Islamic Tradition in Africa.” Ethnohistory 16 (1969): 277–88. ———. “Resumé of Discussion [Pottery, Society, and History in Meroitic Nubia].” Meroitica 1 (1973): 227–40. ———. Nubia, Corridor to Africa. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977.

448

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. Ceramic Industries of Medieval Nubia. Vol. 1. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1986. ———. “Three Perspectives on the Past: The Historian, the Art Historian and the Prehistorian.” In Nubian Culture Past and Present: Main Papers Presented at the Sixth International Conference for Nubian Studies in Uppsala, 11–16 August 1986, edited by Tomas Hägg, 285–91. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1987. ———. “Sudanology: The Noble Salvage.” SARSN 11 (November 1996): 3–13. Adams, William Yewdale, J. A. Alexander, and R. Allen. “Qasr Ibrim 1980 and 1982.” JEA 69 (1983): 43–60. Adams, William Yewdale, and P. E. T. Allen. “Archaeological Survey of Sudanese Nubia: The Aerial Survey.” Kush 9 (1961): 11–15. Adams, William Yewdale, and H.-A. Nordstrom. “The Archaeological Survey on the West Bank of the Nile: Third Season, 1961–62.” Kush 11 (1963): 10–46. Alexander, John A. “The Saharan Divide in the Nile Valley: The Evidence from Qasr Ibrim.” African Archaeological Review 6 (1988): 73–90. ———. “Beyond the Nile: The Influence of Egypt and Nubia in Sub-Saharan Africa.” In Nubia: An Ancient African Civilization, 51–61. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1993. Reprint, Expedition 35, no. 2 (1993). Anon. “Opening the Door on Africa’s Past.” In Africa’s Glorious Legacy, 7–39. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1994. ———. “The Nubians’ Ascent to Greatness.” In Africa’s Glorious Legacy, 49–79. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1994. Arkell, A. J. A History of the Sudan: From the Earliest Times to 1821. 2nd ed. London: Athlone, 1961. ———. “The Iron Age in the Sudan.” Current Anthropology 7 (1966): 451–52. Armelagos, George J. “Diseases in Ancient Nubia.” Science 163 (1969): 255–59. Bacon, Edward, ed. Vanished Civilizations. London: Thames and Hudson, 1963. Baedeker, Karl. Egypt and the Sudan: Handbook for Travelers. Leipzig: Karl Baedeker, 1908. Baines, John, and Jaromir Malek. Atlas of Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File, 1985. Barbour, K. M. The Republic of the Sudan: A Regional Geography. London: University of London Press, 1961. Bates, Oric, and Dows Dunham. Excavations at Gammai. Harvard African Studies 8 (Varia Africana 4). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 1927.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

449

Bell, L. Idris. Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Oxford: Clarendon, 1948. Ben-Jochannan, Yosef. Africa: Mother of Western Civilization. Student’s and Researcher’s ed. Baltimore, MD: Black Classic Press, 1971, 1988. Bernal, Martin. Black Athena: The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. 2 vols. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987, 1991. Berry, L. “Geographical Research in Sudan.” In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Philosophical Society of Sudan. Khartoum: University of Khartoum, 1964. Berry, L., and A. J. Whiteman. “The Nile in the Sudan.” Geographical Journal 134 (1968): 1–37. Bierbrier, Morris L. Historical Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1999. Bonapart, Napoleon, under orders of. Description de l’Égypte. New York: Taschen, 1997. Bonnet, Charles, ed. Études Nubiennes. Vol. 1. Geneva: Society of Nubian Studies, 1992. ———, ed. Études Nubiennes. Vol. 2. Geneva: Society of Nubian Studies, 1994. Braidwood, Robert J., and Gordon Willey, eds. Courses toward Urban Life. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 32. Chicago: Aldine, 1962. Breasted, James Henry. Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1959. ———. Ancient Records of Egypt. 5 vols. New York: Russell & Russell, 1962. ———. The 1905–1907 Breasted Expedition to Egypt and the Sudan: A Photographic Study. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1975. Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology. New York: KPI, 1987. Originally published in 1893. ———. The Egyptian Sudan: Its History and Monuments. 2 vols. London: Darf, 1986. Originally published in 1907. Burstein, Stanley. Ancient African Kingdoms: Kush and Axum. New Rochelle, NY: Aristides D. Karatzas Publishers, 1995. Celenko, Theodore, ed. Egypt in Africa. Indianapolis, IN: Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1996. Clayton, Peter A. Chronicle of the Pharaohs. London: Thames & Hudson, 1994. Condopoulo, P. An Illustrated Guide Book on Egypt and Nubia. Cairo: E. Menikidis, 1930. Crowfoot, J. W. “Further Notes on Pottery.” SNR 8 (1925): 125–36. Damiano-Appia, Maurizio. Egitto e Nubia. Milan: Mondadori, 1995. David, Rosalie, and A. E. David. A Biological Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge, 1992.

450

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Davies, W. V., ed. Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam. London: British Museum Press, 1991. Diop, Cheikh Anta. The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality. New York: Lawrence Hill, 1974. Edwards, Amelia. A Thousand Miles Up the Nile. London: Routledge, 1891. Edwards, David N. Archaeology and Settlement in Upper Nubia in the 1st Millennium A.D. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 36. Oxford: BAR International, 1989. ———. “South from Wadi Halfa: Archaeology in Nubia in the 1990s.” SARSN 3 (November 1992): 5–7. ———. “Aerial Photographs of Archaeological Sites in Northern Sudan.” SARSN 11 (November 1996): 14–22. ———. The Nubian Past: An Archaeology of the Sudan. London: Routledge, 2004. Eide, Tormod, ed. Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD. Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of Classics, 1994. Elliot Smith, G. “Anatomical Report (A).” Archaeological Survey of Nubia, no. 3 (1909): 21–28. Elliot Smith, G., and F. W. Jones. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1907–1908. Vol. 2. Cairo: National Printing Department, 1910. Fage, J. D., and Roland Oliver, eds. The Cambridge History of Africa. 8 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Fairservis, Walter A., Jr. The Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile. New York: New American Library, 1962. Finegan, Jack. Light from the Ancient Past. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1946. ———. Archaeological History of the Ancient Middle East. New York: Dorset Press, 1986. Firth, C. M. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1908–1909. 2 vols. Cairo: National Printing Department, 1912. ———. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1909–1910. Cairo: National Printing Department, 1915. ———. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1910–1911. Cairo: National Printing Department, 1927. Gailey, Harry A. History of Africa from Earliest Times to 1800. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press, 1970. Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996. Grossmann, Peter. “Deutsche Nubien-Unternehmung 1967, Vorbericht, B. Die Baureste auf der Insel Sunnarti.” Archäologischer Anzeiger 4 (1968): 720–32.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

451

Grzymski, Krzysztof Adam. Archaeological Reconnaissance in Upper Nubia. Toronto: Benben, 1987. ———. “Trial Excavations at Hambukol and Bukibul.” Archéologie du Nil Moyen, no. 3 (1989): 71–91. ———. “Excavations at Hambukol (Upper Nubia): 1987 and 1988 Seasons.” JARCE, no. 27 (1990): 139–63. ———. “Nubia: Rediscovering African Kingdoms.” American Visions 8, no. 5 (October–November 1993): 20–25. Gundlach, Rolf, Manfred Kropp, and Annalis Leibundgut, organizers. Der Sudan in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart [Sudan past and present]. Conference Papers, 11–13 November 1993, Universitat Mainz. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1996. Hägg, Tomas, ed. Nubian Culture Past and Present: Main Papers Presented at the 6th International Conference for Nubian Studies in Uppsala, 11–16 August 1986. Stockholm, Sweden: Almquist & Wiksell International, 1987. Hansberry, William Leo. “Ancient Kush, Old Aethiopia, and Balad es Sudan.” Journal of Human Relations 8, no. 3–4 (1960): 357–87. ———. Pillars in Ethiopian History. Vol. 1 of African History Notebook, edited by Joseph E. Harris. Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1981. ———. Africa and Africans as Seen by Classical Writers. Vol. 2 of African History Notebook, edited by Joseph E. Harris. Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1981. Hasan, Yusuf Fadl. The Arabs and the Sudan. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1967. ———, ed. Sudan in Africa. Khartoum: Sudan Research Unit, Sudan Studies Library, 1971. Haynes, Joyce Louise. Nubia: Ancient Kingdoms of Africa. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1992. Henderson, K. D. D. Sudan Republic. New York: Praeger, 1965. Herzog, Rolf. Die Nubier. Vö1kerkundliche Forschungen, Band. 2. Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1957. Hodgkin, R. A. Sudan Geography. London: Longmans, 1951. Hoefer, Hans, et al. The Nile. Boston: APA, 1996. Holt, P. M. A Modern History of the Sudan. New York: Grove, 1961. Houlihan, Patrick F. The Animal World of the Pharaohs. London: Thames & Hudson, 1996. Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille. Actes de la VIIIe Conférence Internationale des Études Nubiennes, 11–17 Septembre 1994, Lille, France. Villeneuve d’Ascq, France: Université Charles de Gaulle, 1995. Jarvis, C. S. “Flood-Stage Records of the River Nile.” Journal of Cycle Research 2 (1953): 96–100.

452

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kamil, Jill. Aswan and Abu Simbel. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1993. ———. Upper Egypt and Nubia. Cairo: Longmans, 1996. King, Joan Wucher. Historical Dictionary of Egypt. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1984. Kirwan, L. P. “A Survey of Nubian Origins.” SNR 20 (1937): 47–62. Kitchen, K. A. Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II. Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips, 1982. Kropacek, L. “Nubia from the Late Twelfth Century to the Funj Conquest in the Early Fifteenth Century.” In Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century, edited by D. T. Niane. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Leclant, Jean. “Les reconnaissances archéologiques au Soudan.” Actes du VIIème Congrès International d’Études Nubiennes (Geneva) 1 (1992): 57–60. ———. Dans les pas des pharaohs. Paris: Librarie Hachettee, 1967. Lepsius, C. Richard. Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, nach den Zeichnungen der von Seiner Majestät dem Könige von Preussen Friedrich Wilhelm IV, nach diesen Ländern gesendeten und in den Jahren 1842–1845 ausgeführten wissenschaftlichen Expedition. 12 vols. Plates, Berlin: Nicholaische Buchhandlung, 1849–1859. ———. Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Vol. 5, Text. Leipzig, 1913. Letsios, Demetres. Vyzantio kai Erythra Thalassa: Scheseis me te Nouvia, Aithiopia kai Notia Aravia hos ten Aravike Kataktese [Byzantium and the Red Sea: Relations with Nubia, Ethiopia and South Arabia until the Arab Conquest]. Athens: Historikes ekdoseis St. D. Vasilopoulos, 1988. Lister, Florence C. Ceramic Studies of the Historic Periods in Ancient Nubia. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 86. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967. Lobban, Richard, Jr., and Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, eds. “The Sudan: TwentyFive Years of Independence.” Special commemorative issue, Africa Today 28, no. 2 (1981). ———. “Ancient Africa to the 15th Century.” In Africans in the Americas, edited by M. L. Conniff and T. J. Davis, chapters 1 and 2. New York: St. Martin’s, 1993. ———. “Geography of the Bible.” Mercator’s World 3, no. 1 (January–February 1998): 78. ———. “Jews in Ancient Africa.” RI Jewish Historical Notes 12, no. 4 (November 1998). Ludwig, Emile. The Nile: The Life-Story of a River. New York: Viking, 1937.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

453

Lurker, Manfred. The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974. MacMichael, H. A. A History of the Arabs in the Sudan. 2 vols. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967. Originally published in 1922. Magi, Giovanna. Aswan, Philae, Abu Simbel. English ed. Florence, Italy: Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1996. Magid, A. Plant Domestication in the Middle Nile Basin. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 35. Oxford: BAR, 1989. Mahdi, Mandour el-. A Short History of the Sudan. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. Mann, Kenny. African Kingdoms of the Past: Egypt, Kush, Aksum. Parsippany, NJ: Dillon, 1997. Metz, Helen Chapin, ed. Sudan: A Country Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992. Mills, A. J. “The Reconnaissance Survey from Gemai to Dal, a Preliminary Report.” Kush 13 (1965): 1–12. ———. The Cemeteries of Qasr Ibrim. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1982. Mills, A. J., and H.-A. Nordström. “The Archaeological Survey from Gemai to Dal: Preliminary Report on the Season 1964–65.” Kush 14 (1966): 1–15. Mokhtar, G., ed. General History of Africa II: Ancient Civilizations of Africa. Paris: UNESCO, 1990. Moorehead, Alan. The White Nile. 2nd ed. New York: Harper, 1971. ———. The Blue Nile. New York: Harper, 1972. Nelson, Harold D., et al. Area Handbook for the Democratic Republic of the Sudan. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Okasha, Sarwat. Nubia. Cairo: Ministry of Culture, 1960. Paton, David. Animals of Ancient Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1925. Petrie, W. M. Flinders. A History of Egypt. Vols. 1–3. New York: Scribner, 1895, 1896, 1905. Plumley, J. Martin. “From the New Kingdom to the Mamelukes: 3500 Years of History Uncovered at the Nubian Fortress of Qasr Ibrim.” Illustrated London News, 11 July 1964, 50–53. Price, John, and John Wright. “Mapping Sudan, before and after Independence.” In Second International Sudan Studies Conference Papers, 279–93. Durham, UK: University of Durham, 1991. Reisner, George A. “The Archaeological Survey of Nubia.” Archaeological Survey of Nubia, no. 3 (1909): 5–20. ———. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1907–1908. 2 vols. Cairo: National Printing Department, 1910. Rice, Michael. Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge, 1999.

454

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Robinson, A. E. “The Camel in Antiquity.” SNR 19 (1936): 47–69. Rose, Pamela. “Qasr Ibrim Regional Survey: Preliminary Results.” Archéologie du Nil Moyen 3 (1989): 121–30. Rosellini, Ippolito. Monumenti dell’Egitto e della Nubia. 3 vols. Pisa, 1833. Ross, D. H. Elephant: The Animal and Its Ivory in African Culture. Hong Kong: Pearl River Printing, 1992. Said, Beshir Mohammed. The Sudan, Crossroads of Africa. London: Bodley Head, 1965. Säve-Söderbergh, Torgny. “Preliminary Report of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition.” Kush 10 (1962): 76–105. ———. “Preliminary Report of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition: Archaeological Investigations between Faras and Gemai, November 1961–March 1962.” Kush 11 (1963): 47–69. ———. “Preliminary Report of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition: Archaeological Investigations between Faras and Gemai, November 1961–March 1963.” Kush 12 (1964): 19–39. ———. “Preliminary Report of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition: Archaeological Investigations between Faras and Gemai, November 1963–March 1964.” Kush 15 (1965). ———. Temples and Tombs of Ancient Nubia. Paris: UNESCO / Thames and Hudson, 1987. Säve-Söderbergh, Torgny, and Lana Troy. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia: New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell Tryckeri, 1991. Schneider, Thomas. “Foreigners in Egypt: Archaeological Evidence and Cultural Context.” In Egyptian Archaeology, edited by W. Wendrich. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1995. Seignobos, Robin. “La liste des conquêtes nubiennes de Baybars selon Ibn Šadd Ād (121–1285).” In Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana: The Wlodzimierz Godlewski Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, edited by A. Łajtar, A. Obłuski, and I. Zych, 553–77. Warsaw: Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, 2016. Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte. Fouilles en Nubie (1959–1961). Cairo: Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1963. ———. Fouilles en Nubie (1961–1963). Cairo: Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1967. Shanks, Hershel. Ancient Israel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Shaw, Ian, and Paul Nicholson. The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. New York: Harry Abrams, 1995. Shinnie, Margaret. Ancient African Kingdoms. London: Edward Arnold, 1965. Shinnie, Peter L. “New Light on Medieval Nubia.” Journal of African History 6, no. 3 (1965).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

455

———. “Christian Nubia.” In The Cambridge History of Africa. Vol. 2, edited by J. D. Fage, 556–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. ———. “The Main Lines of Socio-economic Development in the Sudan in Post-Neolithic Times.” In Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa, edited by L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobusiewicz, 109–15. Poznan, Poland: Poznan Archaeological Museum, 1984. ———. Ancient Nubia. London: Kegan Paul International, 1996. Snowden, Frank M. Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. ———. “Images and Attitudes: Ancient Views of Nubia and the Nubians.” In Nubia: An Ancient African Civilization, 40–50. Philadelphia: University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1993. ———. Ancient Nubia. London: Kegan Paul, 1996. Spaulding, Jay. “Medieval Christian Nubia and the Islamic World: A Reconsideration of the Baqt Treaty.” International Journal of African Historical Studies 28, no. 3 (1995). Starkey, Janet, ed., with help from Paul Starkey. Sudan: Environment and People. Conference Papers of the Second International Sudan Studies, held at University of Durham, co-sponsored by the Sudan Studies Society of the United Kingdom, Sudan Studies Association (United States), and the Institute of African and Asian Studies of the University of Khartoum, 1991. Strudwick, Nigel, and Helen Strudwick. Thebes in Egypt: A Guide to the Tombs and Temple of Ancient Luxor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Survey Department of Egypt. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Bulletin 3. Cairo: National Printing Department, 1909. Taylor, J. H. Egypt and Nubia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Tom, Mahdi Amin el-. The Rains of the Sudan. Khartoum: Khartoum University Press, 1975. Trigger, Bruce G. History and Settlement in Lower Nubia. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 69. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965. ———. “New Light on the History of Lower Nubia.” Anthropologica (Ottawa) 10 (1968): 81–106. ———. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Trigger, Bruce G., B. J. Kemp, D. O’Connor, and A. B. Lloyd. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

456

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ucko, P. J., and G. W. Dimbleby, eds. The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1969. UNESCO. Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. [By the International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa.] Vagn Nielsen, Ole. Human Remains (Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia). Vol. 9. Copenhagen: Scandinavian University Books, 1970. Veillon, Margo. Nubia: Sketches, Notes, and Photographs. London: Scorpion, 1994. Verwers, G. J. “Archaeological Survey of Sudanese Nubia: Trial Excavations in the Faras Region.” Kush 9 (1961): 15–29. ———. “Archaeological Survey on the West Bank of the Nile: The Survey from Faras to Gezira Dabarosa.” Kush 10 (1962): 19–33. Weigall, A. E. P. Antiquities of Lower Nubia in 1906–1907. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907. Welsby, Derek A. “The Northern Dongola Reach Survey.” In Egyptian Archaeology: Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society, no. 5 (1994): 7–8. ———. “The Northern Dongola Reach Survey, the 1994–1995 Season.” SARSN, no. 8 (June 1995): 2–10. Wenig, Stefan. Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Brooklyn Museum, 1978. Wildung, Dietrich, ed. Sudan Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile. Translated by Peter Der Manuelian. New York: Flammarion, 1997. Williams, Bruce Beyer. Nubia, Its Glory and Its People: Ancient Artifacts from Nubian Dynasties of Africa, 3500 B.C. to 1200 A.D. Exhibition, 1–28 February, 1987. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Oak Woods Cemetery, 1987. ———. “The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia.” Archaeology Magazine 33, no. 5 (1980). Reprinted in African Diaspora: Africans and Their Descendants in Wider World to 1800, 50–55. Needham Heights, MA: Ginn, 1989. Zetterstéen, K. V. Nubische Studien im Sudan 1877–78 aus dem Nachlass Prof. Herman Almkvist. Leipzig, 1911. Zeuner, Frederick E. A History of Domesticated Animals. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Zurawski, Bogdan. “The Nubian Mortuary Complex.” In Nubian Culture Past and Present: Main Papers Presented at the 6th International Conference for Nubian Studies in Uppsala, 11–16 August 1986, edited by Tomas Hägg, 275–78. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International, 1987.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

457

BIBLIOGRAPHIES Anon. Classified List of Publications. Khartoum: Khartoum University Press, 1985. Bayoumi, A. A. Forest Bibliography of the Sudan up to 1973. Khartoum: National Council for Research, 1974. Beshir, Ahmed al-Amin el-, ed. The Democratic Republic of the Sudan in American Sources. Washington, DC: Office of the Cultural Counselor, Sudan Embassy, 1983. Hill, Richard L. A Bibliography of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, from the Earliest Times to 1937. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939. Nasri, ‘Abdel Rahman el-. A Bibliography of the Sudan, 1938–1958. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962. The National Register of Current Research, 1982–1983. Khartoum: National Council for Research, National Documentation Centre, 1984. The National Register of Current Research, Supplement, 1983–85. Khartoum: National Council for Research, National Documentation Centre, 1985. Nur, Qasim Osman. Sudan: Bibliography of Bibliographies. Khartoum: Economic and Social Research Council, 1982. Porter, Bertha, and Rosalind L. B. Moss. Nubia, the Deserts, and Outside Egypt (Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings). Vol. 7. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, Griffith Institute, 1952. Rose, Jerome C. Bioarchaeology of Ancient Egypt and Nubia: A Bibliography. London: British Museum, 1996. Scholz, Piotr O. “Materialien zu einer fur die Nubienforschung relevanten Bibliographie I.” In Nubica, vol. 1/2, edited by Piotr O. Scholz und C. Detlef G. Muller. Cologne: Verlag Jurgen Dinter, 1990. Zahlan, A. B., ed. Agricultural Bibliography of Sudan 1974–1983. London: Ithaca Press, 1984.

PREHISTORIC AND EARLY NEOLITHIC TIMES Abbas Mohammad Ali. “Sorourab I: A Neolithic Site in Khartoum Province, Sudan.” Current Anthropology 25 (1984): 117–19. Abbas Mohammad Ali, and A. E. Marks. “The Prehistory of Shaqadud in the Western Butana, Central Sudan: A Preliminary Report.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 17 (1984): 52–59. Abbas Sid Ahmed. “The Antiquities of Mograt Island.” SNR 42 (1971): 1–22.

458

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Addison, Frank. Jebel Moya (Text). Vol. 1 of The Wellcome Excavations in the Sudan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949. ———. Jebel Moya (Plates). Vol. 2 of The Wellcome Excavations in the Sudan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949. Arkell, A. J. Early Khartoum. London: Oxford University Press, 1949. ———. The Old Stone-Age in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Sudan Antiquities Service Occasional Papers 1. Khartoum: Sudan Antiquities Service, 1949. ———. Shaheinab. London: Oxford University Press, 1953. ———. “Four Occupation Sites at Agordat.” Kush 2 (1954): 33–62. ———. “Khartoum’s Part in the Development of the Neolithic.” Kush 5 (1957): 8–12. Batrawi, Ahmed M. Report on the Human Remains. Cairo: Government Press, 1935. ———. “The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia, Part I.” JRAI 75 (1945): 81–101. ———. “The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia, Part II.” JRAI 76 (1946): 131–56. Baumgartel, Elise J. “Predynastic Egypt.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Berry, A. Caroline, R. J. Berry, and P. J. Ucko. “Genetical Change in Ancient Egypt.” Man (London), no. 2 (1967): 551–68. Butzer, Karl W. “Environment and Human Ecology in Egypt during Predynastic and Early Dynastic Times.” Bulletin de la Société de Géographie d’Égypte (Cairo) 32 (1959): 43–87. ———. Die Naturlandschaft Agyptens wahrend der Vorgeschichte und dem Dynastischen Zeitalter. Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse 2. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaftlichen und der Literatur, 1959. ———. “Remarks on the Geography of Settlement in the Nile Valley during Hellenistic Times.” Bulletin de la Société de Géographie d’Égypte (Cairo) 33 (1960): 5–36. ———. Environment and Archaeology. Chicago: Aldine, 1964. ———. Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt: A Study in Cultural Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. Butzer, Karl W., and Carl L. Hansen. Desert and River in Nubia. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968. Caneva, I., et al. El Geili: The History of a Middle Nile Environment 7000 BC–AD 1500. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 29. Oxford: BAR, 1988. Carlson, Roy L. “A Neolithic Site in the Murshid District, Nubia.” Kush 14 (1966): 53–62. Clark, Grahame. Aspects of Prehistory. New York: Praeger, 1970.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

459

Clark, J. Desmond. “Africa South of the Sahara.” In Courses toward Urban Life, edited by R. J. Braidwood and G. R. Willey, 1–33. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 32. Chicago: Aldine, 1962. ———. The Prehistory of Africa. New York: Praeger, 1970. ———. “Shabona: An Early Khartoum Settlement on the White Nile.” In Late Prehistory of the Nile Basin and Sahara, edited by L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobusiewiz, 387–410. Poznan, Poland: Poznan Archaeological Museum, 1989. Cole, Sonia. The Prehistory of East Africa. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books, 1954. Dunbar, J. H. The Rock-Pictures of Lower Nubia. Cairo: Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, 1941. Engelmayer, Reinhold. Die Felsaravierungen im Distrikt Sayala-Nubien. Vol. 1, Die Schiffsdarstellungen. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften 90. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1965. Gatto, Maria Carmela. “Civilta Pre-protostoriche in Bassa Nubia: Bilancio delle Ricerche e Nuove Prospettive di Indagine.” Africa (Rome) 50, no. 1 (March 1995): 94–101. Hassan, Fekri. “Prehistoric Settlements along the Main Nile.” In The Sahara and the Nile, edited by M. A. J. Williams and H. Faure, 421–50. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1980. ———. “Chronology of the Khartoum ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ and Related Sites in the Sudan: Statistical Analysis and Comparisons with Egypt.” African Archaeological Review 4 (1986): 83–102. Heinzelin, J. de, and R. Paepe. “The Geological History of the Nile Valley in Sudanese Nubia: Preliminary Results.” In Contribution to the Prehistory of Nubia, edited by Fred Wendorf. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1964. Hellström, Pontus, and Hans Langballe. The Rock Drawings (The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia). Vol. 1.1, Text. Vol. 1.2, Plates. Copenhagen: Scandinavian University Books, 1970. Hewes, Gordon W., et al. “A New Fossil Human Population from the Wadi Halfa Area, Sudan.” Nature (London) 203, no. 4943 (1964): 341–43. Higgs, E. S., and M. R. Jarman. “The Origins of Agriculture: A Reconsideration.” Antiquity (London) 43 (1969): 31–41. Hillelson, S. “Nubian Origins.” SNR 13 (1930): 137–48. Irwin, Henry T., Joe Ben Wheat, and Lee F. Irwin. University of Colorado Investigations of Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic Sites in the Sudan, Africa. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 90. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1968. Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. “Rock Paintings in the Sudan.” Current Anthropology 2, no. 4 (1961): 388–89.

460

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kaiser, Werner. “Stand und Probleme der Ägyyptische Vorgeschichtsforschung.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde (Leipzig) 81 (1956): 87–109. ———. “Zur Inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur.” Archaeologia Geographica (Hamburg) 6 (1957): 69–78. Kantor, Helene J. “The Final Phase of Predynastic Culture: Gerzean or Semainian?” JEA 30 (1944): 110–36. Krzyzaniak, Lech. “The Neolithic Habitation at Kadero (Central Sudan).” In Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North Eastern Africa, edited by L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobusiewicz, 309–16. Poznan, Poland: Poznan Archaeological Museum, 1984. ———. “Early Farming in the Middle Nile Basin: Recent Discoveries at Kadero (Central Sudan).” Antiquity 65 (1991): 515–32. ———. “The Kadero Project.” SARSN (London), no. 10 (June 1996): 14–17. Marks, Anthony E. Preceramic Sites (Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia). Vol. 2. Copenhagen: Scandinavian University Books, 1970. Marks, Anthony E., et al. “The Prehistory of the Central Nile Valley as Seen from Its Eastern Hinterland: Excavations at Shaqadud, Sudan.” Journal of Field Archaeology 12 (1985): 261–78. Marks, Anthony E., T. R. Hays, and J. Heinzelin. “Preliminary Report of the Southern Methodist University Expedition in the Dongola Reach.” Kush 15 (1967–1968): 165–92. Marks, Anthony E., Joel L. Shiner, and T. R. Hays. “Survey and Excavations in the Dongola Reach, Sudan.” Current Anthropology 9 (1968): 319–23. McBurney, C. B. M. The Stone Age of Northern Africa. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960. Mukherjee, R., C. R. Rao, and J. C. Trevor. The Ancient Inhabitants of Jebel Moya (Sudan). Occasional Publications of the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 3. Oxford: BAR, 1955. Myers, O. H. “Drawings by the Sudanese Artists of Seven Thousand Years Ago.” Illustrated London News, 13 November 1948, 556–57. ———. “Excavations in the Second Cataract Area.” SNR 29 (1948): 129. ———. “Abka Re-excavated.” Kush 6 (1958): 131–41. ———. “Abka Again.” Kush 8 (1960): 174–81. Needler, Winifred. “A Rock Drawing on Gebel Sheikh Suliman (Near Wadi Halfa) Showing a Scorpion and Human Figures.” JARCE 6 (1967): 87–91. Otto, Karl-Heinz. “Shaqadud: A New Khartoum Neolithic Site outside the Nile Valley.” Kush 11 (1963): 108–15. ———. Felsbilder aus dem Sudanesischen Nubien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1993. [Nubian Petroglyphs.] Palma di Cesnola, Arturo. “L’Industria Litica della Stazione di Abka.” Kush 8 (1960): 182–236.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

461

Peters, Joris. “A Revision of the Faunal Remains from Two Central Sudanese Sites: Khartoum Hospital and Esh Shaheinab.” Archaeozoölogia, August 1986, 11–33. Piotrovsky, B. B. “The Early Dynasty Settlement of Khor-Daoud and WadiAllaki, the Ancient Route of the Gold Mines.” In Fouilles en Nubie (1961–1963), 127–40. Cairo, 1967. Reed, Charles A. “The Pattern of Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East.” In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, 361–80. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1969. Reisner, George A. “Ancient Egyptian Forts at Semna and Uronarti.” Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston) 27 (1929): 64–75. ———. “Excavations at Semna and Uronarti by the Harvard-Boston Expedition.” SNR 12 (1929): 143–61. Sadr, Karim. The Development of Nomadism in Ancient Northeast Africa. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. ———. “Preliminary Results of CERDO’s Research in the Nubian Desert.” Nyame Akuma, no. 41 (June 1994): 66–68. ———. “Nubian Desert Archaeology: A Preliminary View.” Archéologie du Nil Moyen, no. 7 (1995): 203–35. Sandford, K. S., and W. J. Arkell. “On the Relation of Paleolithic Man to the History and Geology of the Nile Valley in Egypt.” Man 29 (1929): 65. ———. Paleolithic Man and the Nile Valley in Nubia and Upper Egypt. Oriental Institute Publications 17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. Säve-Söderbergh, Torgny. Ägypten und Nubien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte altägyptisher Aussenpolitik. Lund: Hakan Ohlssons, 1941. ———. “A Buhen Stela from the Second Intermediate Period (Khartoum No. 18).” JEA 35 (1949): 50–58. ———. “The Hyksos Rule in Egypt.” JEA 37 (1951): 53–71. ———. “The Nubian Kingdom of the Second Intermediate Period.” Kush 4 (1956): 54–61. ———. “The Paintings in the Tomb of Djehuty-Retep at Debeira.” Kush 8 (1960): 25–44. ———. “The Tomb of the Prince Teh-Khet, Amenemhet.” Kush 11 (1963): 159–74. ———. “The Egyptianization and Depopulation of Lower Nubia.” Kush 12 (1964): 19–39. ———. “Die Akkulturation der Nubischen C-Gruppe im Neuen Reich.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 17, Supplement 1 (1969): 12–20. ———. The Rock Drawings. Uppsala: Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, 1970.

462

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, ed. Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia: Middle Nubian Sites. Vol. 4:1–2; Vol. 5:2–3. Partille: Paul Astrom, 1989. Saxe, Arthur A. “Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices in a Mesolithic Population from Wadi Halfa, Sudan.” In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by James A. Brown, 39–57. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 25. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology, 1971. Schiff Giorgini, Michela. “Soleb, Campagna 1959–60.” Kush 9 (1961): 182–97. ———. “Soleb, Campagna 1960–61.” Kush 10 (1962): 152–69. ———. “Soleb, Campagnes 1961–63.” Kush 12 (1964): 87–95. ———. “Première Campagne de Fouilles a Sedeinga, 1963–1964.” Kush 13 (1965): 112–30. ———. Soleb I. Florence: Sansoni, 1965. ———. “Sedeinga, 1964–1965.” Kush 14 (1966): 244–61. ———. Soleb II. Florence: Sansoni, 1972. Smith, Philip E. L. “A Preliminary Report on the Recent Prehistoric Excavations Near Kom Ombo, Upper Egypt.” In Fouilles en Nubie l961–1963, 195–208. Cairo: Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1967. Vaufrey, R. 1958. “Industrie d’Abka.” Kush 6 (1958): 142–43. Verner, Miroslav. Some Nubian Petroglyphs on Czechoslovak Concessions. Prague: Charles University, 1973. Wendorf, Fred, comp. Contributions to the Prehistory of Nubia. Edited by Angela E. Close. 2 vols. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1965, 1968. ———. Loaves and Fishes: Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya. Dallas, TX: Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, 1980. Wendorf, Fred, Rushdi Said, and Romauld Schild. “Egyptian Prehistory: Some New Concepts.” Science 169 (1970): 161–71. Wendorf, Fred, R. Schild, and H. Haas. “New Radiocarbon Chronology for Prehistoric Sites in Nubia.” Journal of Field Archaeology 6 (1979): 219–33. Wendt, W. E. “Two Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Egyptian Nubia.” Postilla of the Yale Peabody Museum 102 (1966): 1–46. Yousif el Amin. “The Late Paleolithic in Sudan in the Light of New Data from the Atbara.” In Nubian Culture Past and Present: Main Papers Presented at the 6th International Conference for Nubian Studies in Uppsala, 11–16 August 1986, edited by Tomas Hägg, 33–46. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International, 1987. ———. Later Pleistocene Cultural Adaptations in Sudanese Nubia. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 4. Oxford: BAR, 1981.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

463

Zaba, Zbynek. The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia. Prague: Czechoslovak Concession, 1974.

A-GROUP, C-GROUP, AND RELATIONS WITH DYNASTIC EGYPT Adams, William Yewdale. “Sudan Antiquities Service Excavations at Meinarti, 1963–64.” Kush 13 (1965): 148–76. ———. “Ecology and Economy in the Empire of Kush.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 108 (1981): 1–11. ———. “Doubts about the ‘Lost Pharaohs.’” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44 (1985): 185–192. Almagro Basch, Martin, Eduardo Ripoll, and Luis Monreal. Las Necropolis de Masmas, Alto Egypto. Memorias de la Misión Arqueologica en Nubia 3. Madrid: Comité Español de la UNESCO para Nubia, 1964. Badawy, Alexander. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations by the University of California at Askut (First Season, October 1962–January 1963).” Kush 12 (1964): 47–56. ———. “Askut: A Middle Kingdom Fortress in Nubia.” Archaeology 18 (1965): 124–31. ———. “Archaeological Problems Relating to the Egyptian Fortress at Askut.” JARCE 5 (1966): 23–27. Bell, Barbara. “The Dark Ages in Ancient History, I: The First Dark Age in Egypt.” American Journal of Archaeology 75 (1971): 1–26. ———. “Climate and the History of Egypt: The Middle Kingdom, c. 1990 to c. 1785 B.C.” American Journal of Archaeology 79, no. 3 (1975): 223–69. Bietak, Manfred. Ausgrabungen in Sayala-Nubien 1961–1965; Denkmäler der C-Gruppe und der Pan-Graber-Kultur. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften 92. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenchaften, 1966. ———. Studien zur Chronologie der Nubischen C-Gruppe. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse Denkschriften 97. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1968. Bietak, Manfred, and Reinhold Engelmayer. Eine Fruhdynastische AbriSiedlung mit Felsbildern aus Sayala-Nubien. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften 82. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1963. Bresciani, Edda. L’Antico Egitto di Ippolito Rosellini nelle tavole dai “Monumenti dell’Egitto e della Nubia.” Novara: Istituto geografico de Agostini, 1993. Budge, E. A. Wallis. A History of Ethiopia. 2 vols. London: Methuen, 1928.

464

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Caminos, Ricardo A. The Shrines and Rock-Inscriptions of Ibrim. London: Egyptian Exploration Society, 1968. ———. The New Kingdom Temples of Buhen. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1974. Cerny, Jaroslav. “Graffiti at the Wadi el-Allaki.” JEA 33 (1947). Champollion, Jean François. Monuments de l’Égypte et de la Nubie. Paris: Robert Laffont, 1990. First published 1845 by Firmin-Didot. Chittick, H. N. “Notes on the Archaeology of the Middle Nile Region.” Kush 2 (1954): 94–95. ———. “Antiquities of the Batn el Hajjar.” Kush 5 (1957): 42–48. ———. “A New Type of Mound Grave.” Kush 5 (1957): 73–77. Davies, Nina, and A. H. Gardiner. The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the Reign of Tutankhamen. Theban Tomb Series 40. London: Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1926. Dawson, Warren R., and Eric Uphill. Who Was Who in Egyptology. 2nd ed. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1972. Dunham, Dows, and Jozef M. A. Janssen. Semna, Kumma (Second Cataract Forts). Vol. 1. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1960. ———. Uronarti, Shalfak, Mirgissa (Second Cataract Forts). Vol. 2. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1967. Edel, E. “Inschriften des alten Reiches V.: Die Reiseberichte des Hrw-hwjf (Herchuf).” In Agyptologische Studien, edited by Otto Firchow. Berlin, 1955. ———. “Die Ländernamen Unternubiens und die Ausbreitung der C-Gruppe nach den Reiseberichten des Hrw-hwjf.” Orientalia (Rome) 36 (1967): 133–58. Emery, W. B. “A Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Buhen.” Kush 7 (1959): 7–14. ———. “A Preliminary Report on the Excavations of the Egypt Exploration Society at Buhen, 1958–59.” Kush 7 (1960): 7–10. ———. Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth: Pelican, 1961. ———. “A Preliminary Report on the Excavations of the Egypt Exploration Society at Buhen, 1959–60.” Kush 9 (1961): 81–86. ———. “Egypt Exploration Society: A Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Buhen, 1960–61.” Kush 10 (1962): 106–8. ———. “Egypt Exploration Society: Preliminary Reports on the Excavations at Buhen.” Kush 11 (1963): 116–20. ———. “Egypt Exploration Society: Preliminary Report on the Work at Buhen, 1962–63.” Kush 12 (1964): 43–46. ———. Egypt in Nubia. London: Hutchinson, 1965. ———. Lost Land Emerging. New York: Scribner, 1967. Emery, W. B., and L. P. Kirwan. The Excavations and Survey between Wadi es-Sebua and Adindan. 2 vols. Cairo: Government Press, 1935.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

465

Emery, W. B., H. S. Smith, and A. Millard. The Fortress of Buhen: The Archaeological Report. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1979. Engelbach, R. “The Quarries of the Western Desert.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 33 (1933): 65–74. ———. “The Quarries of the Western Desert and the Ancient Road to Toshka.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de 1’Égypte 38 (1938): 369–90. Fairman, H. W. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Sesebi and Amarah West, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, 1937–8.” JEA 24 (1938): 151–56. ———. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Amarah West, AngloEgyptian Sudan, 1938–39.” JEA 25 (1939): 139–44. ———. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Amarah West, AngloEgyptian Sudan, 1947–48.” JEA 34 (1948): 3–11. Fischer, Henry George. “The Nubian Mercenaries of Gebelein during the First Intermediate Period.” Kush 9 (1961): 44–80. Gardiner, Alan. “An Ancient List of the Fortresses of Nubia.” JEA 3 (1916): 184–92. ———. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Giorgini, M. S. Soleb. 2 vols. Florence, 1965–1971. Gunn, B. “A Middle Kingdom Stela from Edfu.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de 1’Égypte 29 (1929): 5. Habachi, Labib. “The First Two Viceroys of Kush and Their Family.” Kush 7 (1959): 45–62. Hein, Irmgard. Die Rammessidische Bautätigkeit in Nubien. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1991. Hery, Francois-Xavier. Abou Simbel et les temples de Nubie. La Calade, Aixen-Provence: Edisud, 1994. Hofman, Inge. “Zu den sogennanten Denkmälern der Könige Skorpion und Dr am Jebel Sheikh Suliman (Nubien).” Bibliotheca Orientalis 28 (1971): 308–9. Kemp, Barry J. “Fortified Towns in Nubia.” In Man, Settlement and Urbanization, edited by P. J. Ucko et al., 651–56. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman, 1972. Kitchen, K. A. “Punt and How to Get There.” Orientalia 49 (1971): 184–207. ———. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1973. Klasens, Adolf. “Dutch Archaeological Mission to Nubia: The Excavations at Abu Simbel North, 1962–64.” In Fouilles en Nubie (1961–1963), 79–86. Cairo: Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1967. Knudstad, James. “Serra East and Dorginarti.” Kush 14 (1966): 165–86.

466

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lacovara, Peter. “The Archaeology of Bronze Age Nubia.” In American Discovery of Ancient Egypt, edited by Nancy Thomas, 141–49. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art; New York: American Research Center in Egypt, 1996. Lawrence, A. W. “Ancient Egyptian Fortifications.” JEA 51 (1965): 69–94. Little, O. H. “Preliminary Report on Some Geological Specimens from the ‘Chephren Diorite’ Quarries, Western Desert.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 33 (1933): 75–80. Lobban, Richard A., Jr. “Cattle and the Rise of the Egyptian State.” Anthrozoös 2, no. 3 (1989): 194–201. ———. “Bees in Ancient Egypt.” Anthrozoös 7, no. 3 (1994): 160–65. ———. “Pigs and Their Prohibition.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 26, no. 1 (1994): 57–75. ———. “Pigs in Ancient Egypt.” MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 15 (1998): 137–48. ———. “A Solution to the Mystery of the W3s Scepter of Ancient Egypt and Nubia.” KMT 10, no. 23 (1999): 68–77. Lobban, Richard A., Jr., with V. de Liedkerke. “Elephants in Ancient Egypt and Nubia.” Anthrozoös 13, no. 4 (2000): 232–44. Lobban, Richard A., Jr., and Michael Sprague. “Bulls, and the W3s Scepter in Ancient Egypt and Sudan.” Anthrozoös 10, no. 1 (1997): 14–22. Lopez, Jesus. Las Inscripciones Rupestres Faraónicas entre Korosko y Kasr lbrim. Memorias de la Misión Argueológica en Nubia 9. Madrid: ComitéEspañol de la UNESCO para Nubia, 1966. Lorton, David. “The So-Called ‘Vile’ Enemies of the King of Egypt (in the Middle Kingdom and Dynasty XVIII).” JARCE 10 (1973): 65–70. Masson, Oliver. Carian Inscriptions from North Saqqara and Buhen. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1978. Meyer, Laure. “Nubie ancienne, rivale de l’Égypte.” Archeologia, no. 312 (May 1995): 14. Morkot, R. “Nubia in the New Kingdom: The Limits of Egyptian Control.” In Egypt and Africa, Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, edited by W. V. Davies. London: British Museum, 1991. Murray, G. W. “The Road to Chephren’s Quarries.” Geographical Journal (London) 94 (1939): 97–114. Nordström, Hans-Äke. “Archaeological Survey on the West Bank of the Nile: Excavations and Survey in Faras, Argin, and Gezira Dabarosa.” Kush 10 (1962): 34–61. ———. “A-Group and C-Group in Upper Nubia.” Kush 14 (1966): 63–68. ———. Neolithic and A-Group Sites. Vol. 3:1 of Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia. Stockholm, 1972.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

467

Porter, B., and R. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Vol. 7, Nubia, the Deserts, and Outside Egypt. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1951. Rampersad, Sabrina R. “Relationships of the Nubian A-Group.” JARCE 37 (2000): 127–42. Randall-MacIver, D., and C. L. Woolley. Areika. Vol. 1 of Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition to Nubia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Egyptian Department of the University Museum, 1909. ———. Buhen. Vols. 7 and 8 of Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition to Nubia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Egyptian Department of the University Museum, 1911. Ricke, Herbert, George R. Hughes, and Edward F. Wente. The Beit El-Wali Temple of Ramesses II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Rowe, Alan. “Provisional Notes on the Old Kingdom Inscriptions from the Diorite Quarries.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de 1’Égypte 38 (1938): 391–96, 678–88. ———. “Three New Stelae from the Southeastern Desert.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 39 (1939): 188–91. Ruby, Jay W. “Preliminary Report of the University of California Expedition to Dabernarti, 1963.” Kush 12 (1964): 54–56. Sauneron, Serge. “Un village nubian fortifié sur la Rive Orientale de Ouadi es-Sebou.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 63 (1965): 161–67. Seele, Keith C. “From Khor Dehmit to Beit el Wali: Oriental Institute Egyptian Assuan Dam Program: Joint Expedition with the Schweitzerisches Institut, Report of Season of 1960–1961.” In Fouilles en Nubie (1959–1961), 79–85. Cairo: Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1963. Shinnie, P. L. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Amarah West, 1948–49 and 1949–50.” JEA 37 (1951): 5–11. Simpson, W. K. Heka-nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 1. New Haven, CT: Peabody Museum, 1963. Sliwa, Joachim. “Die C-Gruppe Keramik aus Toschke in Krakau.” In Nubica, vol. 1/2, edited by Piotr O. Scholz und C. Detlef G. Muller, 243–54. Cologne: Verlag Jurgen Dinter, 1990. Smith, Harry S. Preliminary Report of the Egypt Exploration Society’s Nubian Survey. Cairo: Antiquities Department of Egypt, 1962. ———. “Kor: Report on the Excavations of the Egypt Exploration Society at Kor, 1965.” Kush 14 (1966): 187–243. ———. “The Nubian B-Group.” Kush 14 (1966): 69–124. ———. “The Rock Inscriptions of Buhen.” JEA 58 (1972): 43–82. Smither, Paul C. “The Semnah Despatches.” JEA 31 (1945): 3–10.

468

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Spencer, Patricia. Amara West. Sixty-Third Excavation Memoir. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1997. Steindorff, Georg. Aniba. Vol. 1. Hamburg: J. J. Augustin, 1935. ———. Aniba. Vol. 2. Hamburg: J. J. Augustin, 1937. Taylor, John H. Egypt and Nubia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Trigger, Bruce G. Nubia under the Pharaohs. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1976. Trigger, Bruce G., B. Kemp, and D. O’Connor. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Van Seters, John. The Hyksos. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966. Vandier, Jacques. La famine dans 1’Égypte ancienne. Cairo, 1936. Wild, Henri. “Une danse nubienne d’époche pharaonique.” Kush 7 (1959): 76–90. Wilkinson, J. Gardner. The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. Rev. ed. 3 vols. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1878. Williams, Bruce. Excavations between Abu-Simbel and the Sudan Frontier: C-Group, Pan Grave, and Kerma Remains at Adindan Cemeteries T, K, U, and J. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1983. ———. Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. Part 1, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul Cemetery L. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1986. ———. Neolithic, A-Group, and Post-A-Group Remains from Cemeteries W, V, S, Q, T, and a Cave East of Cemetery K. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1989. ———. New Kingdom Remains from Cemeteries R, V, S, and W at Qustul and Cemetery K at Adindan. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1992. Wilson, John A. The Culture of Ancient Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Zabkar, L. V. “The Egyptian Name of the Fortress of Semna South.” JEA 58 (1972): 83–90. Zibelius-Chen, Karola. Die Ägyptische Expansion nach Nubien: Eine Darlegung der Grundfaktoren. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1988.

KERMA (YAM, IREM) Adams, William Yewdale. “Reflections on the Archaeology of Kerma.” In Ägypten und Kusch, edited by E. Endesfelder et al. Schriften zur Geschicte und Kultur des Alten Orients 13. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1977.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

469

Ahmed, Salah el-Din Mohamed. L’agglomeration Napateénne de Kerma: Enquête archéologique et ethnographique en milieu urbain. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1992. Bonnet, Charles. “Kerma: Point de recontre entre l‘Égypte et les populations Africaines.” Sahara 3 (1990): 83–88. ———, ed. Kerma, Royaume de Nubie. Geneva, 1990. ———. “Upper Nubia from 3000 to 1000 BC.” In Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, edited by W. V. Davies. London: British Museum, 1991. ———. “Excavation at the Nubian Royal Town of Kerma, 1975–1991.” Antiquity 66 (1992): 611–25. Bonnet, Charles, et al. “Les Fouilles Archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan).” Geneva 26 (1978): 107–27; 28 (1980): i–xxi, 31–72; 30 (1982): 1–59; 32 (1984): i–xx, 5–42; 34 (1986): i–xxii, 5–45; 36 (1988): i–xviii, 5–35; 39 (1991): i–xix, 5–41; 41 (1993): i–xv, 1–33; 43 (1995): i–xv, 31–64. Bonnet, Charles, et al. “La Defuffa Occidentale à Kerma: Essai d’interprétation.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale: Bulletin du Centenaire (Supplément), 1981. Bonnet, Charles, et al. “Kerma: An African Kingdom of the Second and Third Millennia B.C.” Archaeology 36 (1983): 38–45. Bonnet, Charles, et al. “Aperçu sur l’architecture civile à Kerma.” Sociétés Urbaines en Égypte et au Soudan. Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille 7 (1985): 11–21. Bonnet, Charles, et al. Kerma, territoire et métropole: Quatre leçons au Collège de France.” Bibliothèque Générale 9. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1986. Bonnet, Charles, et al. “La Deffufa Orientale à Kerma: Nouvelle analyse archéologique.” In Hommages à Jean Leclant, edited by C. Berger et al. Vol. 2. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1994. Dixon, D. M. “The Extent of Wawat in the Old Kingdom.” JEA 44 (1958): 119. ———. “The Origin of the Land of Yam.” JEA 44 (1958): 40–55. Dunham, Dows. Excavations at Kerma. Part 6. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1982. Geus, Francis. “Archaeology and History of Sai Island.” SARSN, no. 8 (June 1995): 27–34. Gratien, Brigitte. “Les Nécropoles Kerma de l’île de Sai I.” Cahiers de Recherche de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’ Egyptologie de Lille, no. 1 (1973): 143–84. ———. Les cultures Kerma. Lille, 1978. ———. Prosopographie des Nubiens et des Egyptiens en Nubie avant le Nouvel Empire. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille III, 1991.

470

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gratien, Brigitte, and Françoise Le Saout, organizers. Nubie, les cultures antiques du Soudan: À travers les explorations et les Fouilles Françaises et Franco-soudanaises. Exposition organisée à la Fondation Prouvost, Marcq en Baroeul, du 16 septembre au 27 novembre 1994. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Université Charles De Gaulle-Lille III, Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie, 1994. Hintze, Fritz. “Das Kerma-Problem.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 91 (1964): 79–85. Junker, Hermann. “Bemerkungen zur Kerma-Kunst.” In Studies Presented to F. Ll. Griffith, edited by S. R. K. Glanville and Nora Macdonald Griffith, 297–303. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1932. Kendall, Timothy. Kerma and the Kingdom of Kush, 2500–1500 B.C.: The Archaeological Discovery of an Ancient Nubian Empire. Washington, DC: National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution, 1996. Lacovara, Peter. “An Inscribed Vase from Kerma.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44 (1985): 211–16. ———. “The Funerary Chapels at Kerma.” Cahiers de Recherche de l‘Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille 8 (1986): 49–58. ———. “The Internal Chronology of Kerma.” Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 2 (1987): 51–74. Morkot, Robert. “Kingship and Kinship in the Empire of Kush, Part I, Kingship in Nubia before the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty.” Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference for Meroitic Studies. Berlin: Humboldt University, 1992. O’Connor, David B. “Ancient Egypt and Black Africa: Early Contacts.” Expedition 14 (1971): 2–9. ———. “Kerma and Egypt: The Significance of the Monumental Buildings Kerma, I, II, and XII.” JARCE 21 (1984): 65–108. ———. “The Locations of Yam and Kush and Their Historical Implications.” JARCE 23 (1986): 26–50. ———. “The Location of Irem.” JEA 73 (1987): 99–136. ———. “Early States along the Nubian Nile.” In Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, edited by W. V. Davies, 92–111. London: British Museum, 1991. ———. Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa. Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 1993. ———. “Chiefs or Kings? Rethinking Early Nubian Politics.” In Nubia: An Ancient African Civilization, 4–14. Philadelphia: University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1993. Reprint, Expedition 35, no. 2 (1993): 4–14. Posener, Georges. “Pour une localisation du pays Koush au Moyen Empire.” Kush 6 (1958): 39–68.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

471

Priese, Karl. “`Irm und `3m, das Land Irame: Ein Beiträg zur Topographie des Sudan im Altertum.” Altorientalische Forshungen 1 (1974): 7–41. Reisner, George A. “Excavations at Giza and Kerma.” Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts 13 (1915): 29–36, 71–83. ———. “Kerma and the Viceroys of Ethiopia.” JEA 6 (1920): 28–55, 73–78. ———. Excavations at Kerma, I–III. Harvard African Studies 5. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 1923. ———.“Excavations at Kerma, IV–V.” Harvard African Studies 6. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 1923. ———. “The Egyptian Forts from Halfa to Semna.” Kush 8 (1960): 11–24. ———. “Black-Topped Pottery.” JARCE 5 (1966): 7–10. Ryder, M. L. “Skin, Hair and Cloth Remains from the Ancient Kerma Civilization of Northern Sudan.” Journal of Archaeological Science 11 (1984): 477–82. Sadr, Karim. “The Territorial Expanse of the Pan-Grave Culture.” Archéologie de Nil Moyen 2 (1987): 265–91. ———. The Development of Nomadism in Ancient Northeast Africa. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. Säve-Söderbergh, T. “The Nubian Kingdom of the Second Intermediate Period.” Kush 4 (1956): 54–61. Trigger, Bruce. “Kerma: The Rise of an African Civilization.” IJAHS 9, no. 1 (1976): 1–21. Venot, C. “Le Cimetière MX TD de Mirgissa.” Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille 2 (1974): 27–49. Vercoutter, Jean. “New Egyptian Texts from the Sudan.” Kush 4 (1956): 66–82. ———. “Upper Egyptian Settlers in Middle Kingdom Nubia.” Kush 5 (1957): 61–69. ———. “Excavations at Sai 1955–7.” Kush 6 (1958): 144–69. ———. “The Gold of Kush.” Kush 7 (1959): 120–53. ———. “A Dagger from Kerma.” Kush 8 (1960): 265–67. ———. “Deus mois de fouilles à Mirgissa en Nubie Soudanaise.” Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie, no. 37–38 (1963): 23–30. ———. “Excavations at Aksha, September 1961–January 1962.” Kush 11 (1963): 131–40. ———. “Fouilles à Mirgissa (Octobre–Novembre 1962).” Revue d’Égyptologie 15 (1963): 69–75. ———. “Excavations at Mirgissa-I (October–December 1962).” Kush 13 (1964): 57–62. ———. “Nouvelles fouilles de Mirgissa (campagne 1963–1964).” Bulletin de la Société Française d’Egyptologie, no. 40 (1964): 4–12. ———. “La Stèle de Mirgissa IM.209 et la localisation d’Iken (Kor ou Mirgissa?).” Revue d’Égyptologie 16 (1964): 179–91.

472

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “Excavations at Mirgissa-II (Oct. 1963–March 1964).” Kush 13 (1965): 62–73. ———. “Fouilles de Mirgissa (1964–1965).” Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie, no. 43 (1965): 7–13. ———. “Le cimitière ‘Kerma’ de Mirgissa.” In Mélanges offerts à Kazimierz Michalowski, edited by Maria L. Bernhard, 205–26. Warsaw: PWN, 1966. ———. “Semna South Fort and the Records of Nile Levels at Kuma.” Kush 14 (1966): 125–64. ———. “Trois campagnes de fouilles à Mirgissa en Nubie Soudanaise (1963–1966).” In Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Année 1966, 276–83. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1966. ———. “État des Recherches à Mirgissa.” Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie, no. 49 (1967): 5–11. ———. “Six années de fouilles à Mirgissa.” Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie, no. 52 (1968): 7–14. ———. Mirgissa I. Paris: Division Générale des Relations Culturelles, Scientifiques et Techniques, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, avec le concours du Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, 1970. ———. “Nouvelles fouilles de Sai (Soudan Nilotique).” Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie, no. 58 (1970): 19–31. Vila, André. Le cimitière meroïtique d’Aksha, II. Paris: Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, 1967. ———. “L’armement de la fortresse de Mirgissa-Iken.” Revue d’Égyptologie 22 (1970): 171–99. ———. “Le cimitière Kerma.” In, Mirgissa I, by Jean Vercoutter, 223–305. Paris: Division Générale des Rélations Culturelles, Scientifiques, et Techniques, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, avec le concours du Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, 1970. ———. La prospection archéologique de la Vallée du Nil, au sud de la Cataracte de Dal. Fasc. 12, 13, 14, and 15. Paris: Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1985. Wheeler, Noel F. “Diary of the Excavation of Mirgissa Fort.” Kush 9 (1961): 87–179. Yoyotte, Jean. “Pour une localisation du pays de Iam.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 52 (1953): 173–78.

DYNASTY XXV AND EARLY NAPATAN TIMES Addison, Frank. “The Temple of Taharqa at Kawa.” SNR 12 (1929): 85–90.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

473

Budge, E. A. Wallis. Annals of Nubian Kings: With a Sketch of the History of the Nubian Kingdom of Napata. London: Kegan Paul, 1912. Cowell, Michael R. “Preliminary Report on the Examination of the Metalwork from the Temples of Kawa, Sudan.” SARSN, no. 8 (June 1995): 34–38. Dunham, Dows. El Kurru. Vol. 1 of Royal Cemeteries of Kush. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1950. ———. “From Tumulus to Pyramid—and Back.” Archaeology 6 (1953): 87–94. ———. “The Harvard-Boston Archaeological Expedition in the Sudan.” Kush 3 (1955): 70–74. ———. Nuri. Vol. 2 of Royal Cemeteries of Kush. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1955. Dunham, Dows, and M. F. Laming Macadam. “Names and Relationships of the Royal Family of Napata.” JEA 35 (1949): 139–49. Fazzini, R. A. Egypt: Dynasty XXII–XXV. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1988. Goedicke, Hans. Pi(ankh)y in Egypt: A Study of the Pi(ankh)y Stela. Baltimore, MD: Halgo, 1998. Grimal, Nicholas. Quatre stèles napateénnes au Museé de Caire. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1981. Haycock, Bryan G. “The Kingship of Cush in the Sudan.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 7 (1965): 461–80. ———. “Towards a Better Understanding of the Kingdom of Kush.” SNR 49 (1968): 1–16. Kitchen, K. A. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. 2nd ed. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1986. Leclant, Jean. Montouemhat, quatrieme prophete d’Amon, prince de la ville. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1961. ———. “Kashta, Pharaon, en Égypte.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 90 (1963): 74–81. ———. Recherches sur les monuments thebains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne. Bibliothèque d’Étude 36. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1965. Lewczuk, Jaroslaw. “Studies on the Iconography of Thoueris in the Art of the Kingdom of Kush.” In Nubica, vol. 1/2, edited by Piotr O. Scholz und C. Detlef G. Muller, 541–47. Cologne: Verlag Jurgen Dinter, 1990. Lobban, Richard. “Foreign Relations of the XXVth Dynasty: The Struggle for Legitimacy and the Burden of Power.” In Recent Research in Kushite History and Archaeology: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for Meroitic Studies, edited by Derek A. Welsby, 331–46. London: British Museum, 1999. Macadam, M. F. Laming. The Temples of Kawa. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949.

474

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “Four Meroitic Inscriptions.” JEA 36 (1950): 43–47. ———. The Temples of Kawa. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955. ———. “Queen Nawidemak.” Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin (Oberlin) 23 (1966): 42–72. Monges, Miriam Ma’at-Ka-Re. Kush, the Jewel of Nubia: Reconnecting the Root System of African Civilization. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 1996. Morkot, Robert G. The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers. London: Rubicon, 2000. Parker, Richard A. “King Py, a Historical Problem.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 93, no. 1 (1966): 11–14. Parker, Richard A., Jean Leclant, and Jean-Claude Goyon. The Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1979. Priese, Karl-Heinz. “Nichtägyptische Namen und Wörter in den Ägyptischen Inschriften der Könige von Kusch I.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 14 (1968): 165–91. ———. “Der Beginn der Kuschitischen Herrschaft in Ägypten.” Zeitschrift fur Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 98 (1970): 16–32. Reisner, George A. “The Barkal Temples in 1916.” JEA 4 (1917): 213–27. ———. An Inscription from Jebel Barkal, 198–99. Harvard African Studies 1 (Varia Africana 1). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 1917. ———. “The Barkal Temples in 1916.” JEA 5 (1918): 99–112. ———. “Outline of the Ancient History of the Sudan, I–III. SNR 1 (1918): 3–15, 57–79, 217–37. ———. Preliminary Report on the Harvard-Boston Excavations at Nuri: The Kings of Ethiopia after Tirhaqa, 1–64. Harvard African Studies 2. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 1918. ———. “Discovery of the Tombs of the Egyptian XXV Dynasty at El Kurruw in Dongola Province.” SNR 2 (1919): 237–54. ———. “Outline of the Ancient History of the Sudan, IV.” SNR 2 (1919): 35–67. ———. “The Barkal Temples in 1916.” JEA 6 (1920): 247–64. ———. “Inscribed Monuments from Gebel Barkal.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 66 (1931): 76–100. Von Ziessl, Helene. Äthiopen und Assyrer in Ägypten. Ägyptologische Forschungen 14, edited by Alexander Scharff. Gluckstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1944.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

475

Williams, Bruce. Twenty-Fifth Dynasty and Napatan Remains at Qustul: Cemeteries W and V. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990.

LATE NAPATAN AND MEROITIC TIMES Abd al-Magid, Anwar. “Test Excavations in the Southern Red Sea Hills (Sudan): Cultural Linkages to the North.” Archéologie du Nil Moyen, no. 7 (1995): 163–90. Abdalla, Abdelgadir M. “A System for the Dissection of Meroitic Complexes.” SNR 54 (1973): 81–93. ———. “Meroitic Social Stratification.” In Meroitica 7, Meroitische Forschungen 1980, edited by F. Hintze, 23–84. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1984. ———. “Napatan-Meroitic Continuity: Kush and Kushiteness/Meroiticness.” Meroitica 10 (1989): 875–84. Adams, Nettie K. “Meroitic High Fashion: Examples from Art and Archaeology.” Meroitica 10 (1989): 747–75. Adams, William Yewdale. “An Introductory Classification of Meroitic Pottery.” Kush 12 (1964): 126–73. ———. “Pottery, Society and History in Meroitic Nubia.” Meroitica 1 (1973): 177–219. ———. “Meroitic North and South.” Meroitica 2 (1976). Addison, Frank. “Sagadi & Dar el Mek.” In The Wellcome Excavations in the Sudan. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951. Ahmed, Khidir Abdel-Karim. Meroitic Settlement in the Central Sudan. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 8. Oxford: BAR, 1984. Almagro Basch, Martin, and Martin Almagro Gorbea. La Necropolis Meroitica de Nag Gamus.” Memorias de la Misión Arqueológica en Nubia 8. Madrid: Comité Español de la UNESCO para Nubia, 1965. ———. Estudios de Arte Rupestre Nubio. Memorias de la Misión Arqueológica en Egypto 10. Madrid: Comite Español de Excavaciones en el Extranjero, 1968. Anon. “Karanog, Wealthy Capital of a Lower Nubian Province.” In Nubia: An Ancient African Civilization, 62–63. Philadelphia: University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1993. Reprint, Expedition 35, no. 2 (1993). Ashby, Solange. “Milk Libations for Osiris: Nubian Piety at Philae.” Near Eastern Archaeology 82, no. 9 (2019): 200–209. Barns, J. W. B. “Four Khartoum Stelae.” Kush 2 (1954): 19–25.

476

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bodley, N. B. “The Auloi of Meroë.” American Journal of Archaeology 50, no. 2 (1946): 217–40. Bosanquet, R. C. “Second Interim Report on the Excavations at Meroë in Ethiopia. Part III, On the Bronze Portrait-Head.” ULAAA 4 (1911): 66–71. Burstein, Stanley, ed. Ancient African Civilizations: Kush and Axum. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener, 1998. Chamla, Marie-Claude. La population du cimitière meroïtique (Aksha III). Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1967. Chapman, Suzanne E., and Dows Dunham. Decorated Chapels of the Meroitic Pyramids at Meroë and Barkal. Vol. 3 of Royal Cemeteries of Kush. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1952. Crawford, O. G. S., and Frank Addison. “Abu Geili.” In The Wellcome Excavations in the Sudan. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951. Crowfoot, J. W., and F. L. Griffith. The Island of Meroë and Meroitic Inscriptions. Part 1. Archaeological Survey of Egypt Memoir 19. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1911. Dafa’alla, Samia B. “Art and Industry: The Achievements of Meroë.” In Nubia: An Ancient African Civilization, 15–27. Philadelphia: University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1993. Reprint, Expedition 35, no. 2 (1993). ———. “Succession in the Kingdom of Napata 900–300 BC.” International Journal of African Historical Studies 26, no. 1 (1993): 1–7. Dixon, D. M. “A Meroitic Cemetery at Sennar (Makwar).” Kush 11 (1963): 227–34. ———. “The Origin of the Kingdom of Kush (Napata-Meroe).” JEA 50 (1964): 121–32. Donadoni, Sergio, and Steffen Wenig, eds. Studia Meroitica 1984: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference for Meroitic Studies, Rome, 1984. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1989. Dunham, Dows. Two Royal Ladies of Meroë: Report on Some Results of Excavations by the Harvard University–Museum of Fine Arts Expedition, 1922–23. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1924. ———. “Notes on the History of Kush, 850 B.C.–A.D. 350.” American Journal of Archaeology 50 (1946): 378–88. ———. “Four Kushite Colossi in the Sudan.” JEA 33 (1947): 63–65. ———. “Outline of the Ancient History of the Sudan.” SNR 28 (1947): 1–10. ———. Royal Tombs at Meroë and Barkal. Vol. 4 of Royal Cemeteries of Kush. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1957. ———. The Egyptian Department and Its Excavations. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1958. ———. The West and South Cemeteries at Meroë. Vol. 5 of Royal Cemeteries of Kush. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1963.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

477

———. The Barkal Temples. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1970. ———. Recollections of an Egyptologist. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1972. Edwards, David N. “A Meroitic Settlement and Cemetery at Kedurma in the Third Cataract Region, Northern Sudan.” Archéologie du Nil Moyen, no. 7 (1995): 37–51. ———. “The SARS Excavations at Gabati, Central Sudan, 1994–1995.” SARSN, no. 8 (June 1995): 11–27 (includes “The Excavations,” David N. Edwards, 11–16; “The Meroitic and Post-Meroitic Pottery,” Pamela J. Rose, 16–23; “Skeletal Remains,” Joyce Filer, 23–27). ———. “Report on the Musawwarat Pottery.” MittSAG 8 (1998): 62–67. Eisa, Khider Adam. “The History and Antiquities of Karaba-Sheriek in the Middle Nile Region.” Archéologie du Nil Moyen, no. 7 (1995): 53–58. Fattovich, Rodolfo. “Gash Delta Archaeological Project: 1991, 1992–93, 1993–94 Field Seasons.” Nyame Akuma, no. 42 (December 1994): 14–18. Freeman, D. Elephants: The Vanishing Giants. New York: Putnam, 1981. Gadallah, Fawzi. “Meroitic Problems and a Comprehensive Meroitic Bibliography.” Kush 11 (1963): 196–216. Gamer-Wallert, I., and K. Zibelius. Der Löwentempel von Naq’a in der Butana (Sudan). 2 vols. Weisbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1983. Garcia Guinea, Miguel, and Javier Teixidor. La Necrópolis Meróitica de Nelluah. Memorias de la Misión Arqueólogica en Nubia 6. Madrid: Comité Español de la UNESCO para Nubia, 1965. Garstang, John. “Preliminary Notes on an Expedition to Meroë in Ethiopia.” ULAAA 3 (1910): 57–70. ———. “Third Interim Report on the Excavations at Meroë in Ethiopia.” ULAAA 5 (1912): 73–83. ———. “Fifth Interim Report on the Excavations at Meroë.” ULAAA 7 (?): 1–25. 1914. Garstang, John, et al. “Second Interim Report on the Excavations at Meroë, Ethiopia.” ULAAA 4 (1911): 45–71. Garstang, John, and W. S. George. “Fourth Interim Report on the Excavations at Meroë in Ethiopia.” ULAAA 6 (1913): 1–21. Garstang, John, A. H. Sayce, and P. L. Griffith. Meroë, the City of the Ethiopians. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1911. Gervers, Michael. “Cotton and Cotton Weaving in Meroitic Nubia and Medieval Ethiopia.” In Orbis Aethiopicus: Studia in Honorem Stanislaus Chojnacki, vol. 1, edited by Piotr O. Scholz, 13–29. Albstadt: Schuler, 1992. Greene, David L. Dentition of Meroitic, X-Group, and Christian Populations from Wadi Walfa, Sudan. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 85. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967.

478

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Griffith, F. L. Karanog: The Meroitic Inscriptions of Shablul and Karanog. Vol. 6 of Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition to Nubia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Egyptian Department of the University Museum, 1911. ———. Meroitic Inscriptions. Part 1. Memoir 19. London: Archaeological Survey of Egypt, 1911. ———. Meroë, the City of the Ethiopians: Becoming an Account of a First Season’s Excavation on the Site, 1909–1910. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911. ———. “Meroitic Studies, III.” JEA 4 (1917): 21–27. ———. “Meroitic Studies, IV.” JEA 4 (1917): 159–73. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, I–II.” ULAAA 8 (1921): 1–181. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, III–VII.” ULAAA 8 (1921): 65–104. ———.“Meroitic Funerary Inscriptions from Faras, Nubia.” In, Recueil d’études eyptologiques dédieés à la mémoire de Jean-François Champollion, 565–600. Paris: Librairie Champion, 1922. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, VIII–XVII.” ULAAA 9 (1922): 67–124. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, XVIII–XXV.” ULAAA 10 (1923): 73–171. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, XXVII–XXIX.” ULAAA 11 (1924): 115–25. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, XXX–XXIII.” ULAAA 11 (1924): 141–80. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, XXXIV–XXXIX.” ULAAA 12 (1925): 57–172. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, XL–XLII.” ULAAA 13 (1926): 17–37. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, XLIII–XLVIII.” ULAAA 13 (1926): 49–93. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, XLIX–LV.” ULAAA 14 (1927): 57–116. ———. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, LVI–LXI.” ULAAA 15 (1928): 63–88. ———. Meroitic Inscriptions. Part 2, Napata to Philae and Miscellaneous. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1912. Reprint, 1978. Hakim, Ahmed Ali. “The City of Meroë and the Myth of Napata.” Adab 2, no. 3 (1975): 120–34. Haycock, Bryan G. “The Later Phases of Meroitic Civilization.” JEA 53 (1967): 107–20. Hewes, Gordon W. “Gezira Dabarosa: Report of the University of Colorado Nubian Expedition 1962–63 Season.” Kush 12 (1964): 174–87.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

479

Hintze, Fritz. “Preliminary Report of the Butana Expedition Made by the Institute for Egyptology of the Humboldt University, Berlin 1958.” Kush 7 (1959): 171–96. ———. Studien zur Meroitischen Chronologie und zu den Pyramiden von Meroë. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959. ———. Die Inschriften des Löwentempels von Musawwarat es Sufra. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst Jg. 1961, Nr. 1. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1962a. ———. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Musawwarat es Sufra 1960–1, by the Institute of Egyptology, Humboldt University, Berlin.” Kush 10 (1962b): 170–202. ———. “Musawwarat es Sufra: Preliminary Report on the Excavations of the Institute of Egyptology, Humboldt University, Berlin, 1961–1962 (Third Season).” Kush 11 (1963): 217–26. ———. “Musawwarat es Sufra: Report on the Excavations of the Institute for Egyptology, Humboldt University, Berlin, 1963–1966 (Fourth to Sixth Seasons).” Kush 15 (1968): 283–98. ———. “Musawwarat es-Sufra.” LÄ 4 (1982): 226–28. ———. “Diskussionsbeitrag zum Thema ‘Meroitische Architektur.’” Meroitica 7 (1984): 332–46. Hintze, Fritz, et al. “Einige neue Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts für Ägyptologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in Musawwarat es Sufra.” In Kunst und Geschichte Nubiens in christlicher Zeit, edited by E. Dinkler, 49–65. Reclinghausen: Aurel Bongers Verlag, 1970. Hintze, Fritz, et al. Musawwarat es Sufra I. Vol. 2, Der Löwentempel. Tafelband, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Archäologische Forschungen im Sudan. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1971. Hintze, Fritz, et al. Musawwarat es Sufra I. Vol. 1, Der Löwentempel. Textband, Musawwarat es Sufra (Sudan), Die Ausgrabungen der HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin 1960–1970. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1993. Hintze, Fritz, and Ursula Hintze. Civilizations of the Old Sudan. Leipzig: Verlag für Kunst und Wissenschaft; Amsterdam: B. R. Gruner, 1968. First published 1967 as Alte Kulturen im Sudan by Callwey (Munich). ———. “Einige neue Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts für Ägyptologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in Musawwarat es Sufra.” In Kunst und Geschichte Nubiens in Christlicher Zeit, edited by E. Dinkler, 49–70. Recklinghausen: Aurel Bongers Verlag, 1970. Hintze, Ursula. Studien zur Merotischen Chronologie und zu den Opfertafeln aus den Pyramiden von Meroë. Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur, und Kunst 2. Berlin: Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1959.

480

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “Eine neue Inschrift vom 19 Jahre König Taharqas.” Mitteilungen des Institutus für Orientforschung der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 7 (1960): 330–33. ———. Die Inschriften des Löwentempels von Musawwarat es Sufra. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst 1. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962. ———. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Musawwarat es Sufra 1960–61.” Kush 10 (1962): 170–202. ———. “Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen des Instituts für Ägyptologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in Musawwarat es Sufra, 1960–1961.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschafts und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 11 (1962): 441–88. ———. “Musawwarat es Sufra: Preliminary Report on the Excavations of the Institute of Egyptology, Humboldt University, Berlin, 1961–62 (Third Season).” Kush 11 (1963): 217–20. ———. “Musawwarat es Sufra, Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen des Instituts fur Ägyptologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 1961–1962 (dritte Kampagne).” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin, Gesellschafts-und Sprach-wissenschaftliche Reihe 12 (1963): 63–77. ———. “Preliminary Note on the Epigraphic Mission to Sudanese Nubia, 1962.” Kush 11 (1963): 93–95. ———. “Preliminary Note on the Epigraphic Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, 1963.” Kush 12 (1964): 40–42. ———. “Preliminary Report on the Epigraphic Mission to Sudanese Nubia.” Kush 13 (1965): 13–16. ———. “Musawwarat es Sufra, Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen des Instituts für Ägyptologie der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 1963 bis 1966 (vierte bis sechste Kampagne).” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschafts und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 17 (1968): 667–84. ———. “Musawwarat es Sufra, Vorbericht über die Ausgrabung des Instituts für Ägyptologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin 1968 (siebente Kampagne).” Wissenschafliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin 20 (1971): 227–46. ———. Der Löwentempel, Musawwarat es Sufra. Vol. 1. Part 2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1971. ———. “Siebente Grabungskampagne in Musawwarat es Sufra 1968 und der Wiederaufbau des Löwentempels 1969/70.” EthnographischArchäologische Zeitschrift 13 (1972): 259–271. ———. “Stand und Aufgaben der Chronologischen Forschung.” Meroitica 1 (1973).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

481

———. “The Graffiti from the Great Enclosure at Musawwarat es Sufra.” Meroitica 5 (1979): 135–50. ———. Felsinschriften aus dem Sudanesischen Nubien, Publikation der Nubien-Expedition, 1961–1963. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1989. Hofman, Inge. “Eine Meroitische Stadt in Wadai?” Meroitic Newsletter, no. 9 (1972): 14–18. ———. “Kuschiten in Palestina.” Gottinnger Miszellen, 46 (1981): 9–10. Holthoer, Rostislav, Armas Salonen, and Henrik Zilliacus. “Five Grave-Stelae from Sudanese Nubia.” Studia Orientalia Edidit Societas Orientalis Fennica (Helsinki) 28, no. 15 (1964). Jacquet, Jean. “Remarques sur l’architecture domestique à 1’Époque Méroïtique.” Beiträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde 12 (1971): 121–31. Jacquet-Gordon, Helen, C. Bonnet, and J. Jacquet. “Pnubs and the Temple of Tabo on Argo Island.” JEA 55 (1969): 103–12. Kendall, Timothy. “The American Discovery of Meroitic Nubia and the Sudan.” In American Discovery of Ancient Egypt, edited by Nancy Thomas, 151–67. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Boston: American Research Center in Egypt; New York: Abrams, 1996. Kraeling, Emil G. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953. Kraus, T. “Der Kiosk von Naga.” Archäologischer Anzeiger (Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts) 1964 4 (1965): 834–68. Kroeper, Karla. “The Rediscovery of the Kushite Site at Naqa, 1822 to 1996.” SARSN, no. 10 (June 1996): 18–23. Leclant, Jean. “Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1966–1967.” Orientalia 37 (1968): 94–140. ———. “L’archéologie meroïtique: Recherches en Nubie et au Soudan: Resultats et perspectives.” In Actes du Premier Colloque International d’Archéologie Africaine (Études et Documents Tchadiens, Memoire 1), 245–62. Fort Lamy, Chad, 1969. ———.“La Nécropole de 1’Ouest à Sedeinga en Nubie Sudanaise.” In Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Année 1970, 246–76. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1970. ———.“Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1971–72.” Or 42 (1973): 393–440. Littmann, Enno. “Äthiopische Inschriften.” Miscellanea Academica Berolinensa 2, pt. 2 (1950): 97–127. Lobban, Richard A., Jr. “Problems and Strategies in the Decipherment of Meroitic.” Northeast African Studies, n.s., 1, no. 2–3 (1994): 159–64. ———. “Rethinking Iron-Working in Nubia.” SNR, n.s., no. 3 (1999): 5–23.

482

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “Toward the Decipherment of Meroitic Numbers.” In Proceedings of the 1999 Sudan Studies Association Meetings, edited by Mohammad Mahmoud. Medford, MA: Tufts University, 2001. ———. “Toward the Decipherment of the Kharamadoye Proclamation at Kalabsha.” Unpublished paper presented at the May 2001 meetings of the Sudan Studies Association, Michigan State University. MacDonald, Kevin, and David Edwards. “Chickens in Africa: The Importance of Qasr Ibrim.” Antiquity 67, no. 256 (1993): 584–91. Manzo, Andrea. “Remarks on the Jebel Moya Ceramics in the British Museum and Their Cultural Significance.” SARSN, no. 9 (November 1995): 11–19. Maystre, Charles. “Les fouilles de Tabo.” Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie, no. 55 (1969): 5–12. Millet, Nicholas B. “Gebel Adda, Preliminary Report for 1963.” JARCE 2 (1963): 147–65. ———. “Gebel Adda Expedition Preliminary Report, 1963–1964.” JARCE 4 (1964): 7–14. ———. “Gebel Adda Preliminary Report, 1965–66.” JARCE 6 (1967): 53–63. Mojsov, Bojana. “Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa” (Newark Museum, Newark, NJ, 27 January–17 April 1994) and “The Gold of Meroe” (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 23 November 1993–3 April 1994). [Exhibition reviews.] African Arts 27, no. 4 (Autumn 1994): 78–79. Otto, Karl-Heinz. “Zur Klassifikation der Meroitischen Keramik von Musawwarat es Sufra (Republik Sudan).” Zeitschrift für Archäeologie 1 (1967): 1–32. Pellicer Catalan, Manuel. La Necrópolis Meroítica de Nag-Shayeg. Memorias de la Misión Arqueológica en Nubia 2. Madrid: Comité Español de la UNESCO para Nubia, 1963. Phythian-Adams, W. J. “Fifth Interim Report on the Excavations at Meroë in Ethiopia; Part II, Detailed Examination.” ULAAA 7 (1914): 11–22. Porten, Bezalel. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. Priese, Karl-Heinz. “Vorbericht über den Abbau des Löwentempels von Musawwarat.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Gesellschafts und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 20 (1971): 247–56. ———.“Zur Ortsliste der Mischen Meroe-Expedition unter Nero.” Meroitica 2 (1973). ———. Das Gold von Meroë. Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1992. [“Treasures of Amanishakhete” exhibition catalog, The Gold of Meroë. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1993.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

483

Reisner, George A. “The Pyramids of Meroë and the Candaces of Ethiopia.” SNR 5 (1922): 173–96. ———. “The Meroitic Kingdom of Ethiopia, a Chronological Outline.” JEA 9 (1923): 34–77, 157–60. Rhoades, Charles B., Walid Bader, and Richard A. Lobban Jr. “Rethinking Iron-Working in Nubia.” Sudan Notes and Records, issue 3 (1999): 5–23. Robertson, John H. “History and Archaeology at Meroë.” In African Commitment: Papers in Honour of Peter Lewis Shinnie, edited by Judy Sterner and Nicholas David, 35–50. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1992. Sauneron, Serge, and J. Yoyotte. “La campagne nubienne de Psammetique II et sa signification historique.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 50 (1952): 157–207. Sayce, A.-H. “Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan.” London: Alexander Moring, 1906. ———. “Meroë.” ULAAA 3 (1910): 53–56. Shinnie, Margaret, ed. “Linant de Bellefonds.” Journal d’un Voyage a Méroé dans les Années 1821 et 1822. Khartoum: Sudan Antiquities Service, Occasional Papers no. 4, 1958. Shinnie, Peter L. Meroe: A Civilization of the Sudan. New York: Praeger, 1967. ———. “Excavations at Meroe.” MN, no. 5 (1970): 17–19. ———. The African Iron Age. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. ———. “The Nilotic Sudan and Ethiopia c. 660 B.C. to c. A.D. 600.” In Cambridge History of Africa, edited by J. Fage, 210–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Smith, H. F. C. “The Transfer of the Capital of Kush from Napata to Meroe.” Kush 3 (1955): 20–25. Strouhal, Evzen.“Die Menschlichen Skelettreste der Nachmeroitischen Zeit aus dem Nordfriedhof in Musawwarat es-Sufra.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschafts und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 20 (1971): 257–66. Török, Laszlo. The Royal Crowns of Kush: A Study in Middle Nile Valley Regalia and Iconography in the 1st millennia B.C. and A.D. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 18. Oxford: BAR, 1987. ———. “Kush and the External World.” In Meroitica 10, Studia Meroitica, edited by S. Donadoni and S. Wenig, 147–48. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1989. ———. “Ambulatory Kingship and Settlement History: A Study on the Contribution of Archaeology to Meroitic History.” In Seventh International Conference for Nubian Studies, edited by C. Bonnet, 1: 111–26. Geneva, 1992.

484

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. Meroe City: An Ancient African Capital [John Garstang’s Excavation in Sudan]. London: The Egypt Exploration Society, Occasional Publications 12, 1997. ———. The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Trigger, Bruce G. “The Myth of Meroe and the African Iron Age.” African Historical Studies 2 (1969): 23–50. ———. “The Meroitic Funerary Inscriptions from Arminna West.” Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 4. New Haven, CT: Peabody Museum, 1970. Tylecote, R. F. “Iron Working at Meroë, Sudan.” Bulletin of the Historical Metallurgy Group 4 (1970): 67–72. Vercoutter, Jean. “Le Sphinx d’Aspelta de Defeia.” In Melanges Mariette, 97–104. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1961. Wainwright, G. A. Balabish. Excavation Memoir 1. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1920. ———. “Iron in the Napatan and Meroitic Ages.” SNR 33 (1945): 5–36. ———. “The Position of Ast-Raset.” JEA 33 (1947): 58–62. ———. “The Date of the Rise of Meroe.” JEA 38 (1952): 75–77. Welsby, D. A. The Kingdom of Kush: The Napatan and Meroitic Empires. London: British Museum, 1996. Wenig, Steffen. “Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Reiches von Meroe.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 13 (1967): 1–44. ———. “Nochmals zur 1. und 2: Meroitischen Nebendynastie von Napata.” Meroitica 1 (1973). ———. Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Museum, 1978. ———. “Die Darstellungen der Gottheiten am Löwentempel von Musawwarat es Sufra: Eine Taxonomische Studie.” Meroitica 10 (1989): 549–79. ———. “Kommentar zu Török: Ambulatory Kingship and Settlement History: A Study on the Contribution of Archaeology to Meroitic History.” In Seventh International Conference for Nubian Studies, edited by C. Bonnet, 1:137–40. Geneva, 1992. ———. “Die Weiterführung archäologischer Arbeiten im Sudan—Bericht über die Erkundungs kampagne.” MittSAG 2 (1994): 24–25. ———. “Zur Deutung der Großen Anlage von Musawwarat es Sufra.” Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie, 1999, 23–44. Wenig, Steffen, and Pawel Wolf. “Archaeological Fieldwork at Musawwarat es Sufra, Spring 1995.” Nyame Akuma 44 (1995): 57–58. ———. “Bericht über die Vorkampagne 1996.” MittSAG 5 (1996): 12–18.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

485

———. “Feldarbeiten des Seminars für Sudanarchäologie und Ägyptologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in Musawwarat es Sufra. Erste Hauptkampagne, 16.10.1995–13.1.1996.” MittSAG 8 (1998a): 24–37. ———. “Feldarbeiten des Seminars für Sudanarchäologie und Ägyptologie der Humboldt-Universität in Musawwarat es Sufra: Zweite Hauptkampagne, 1.2.1996–1.4.1996.” MittSAG 8 (1998b): 38–49. ———. “Feldarbeiten des Seminars für Sudanarchäologie und Ägyptologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in Musawwarat es Sufra: Dritte Hauptkampagne, 13.1.1997–11.4.1997.” MittSAG 9 (1999). ———. “Feldarbeiten des Seminars für Sudanarchäologie und Ägyptologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin in Musawwarat es Sufra: Vierte Hauptkampagne, 12.1.1998–1.4.1998.” MittSAG 10 (1999). Whitehead, G. O. “Nagaa and Musawwarat.” SNR 9, no. 2 (1926): 59–68. ———, and F. Addison. “Meroitic Remains.” SNR 9, no. 2 (1926): 51–58. Wolf, Pawel. “‘Felsbildkunst’ an den Tempelen von Musawwarat es Sufra.” Actes de l’Assemblée Annuelle de l’Association des Amis de l’Art Rupestre Saharien, Ingolstadt, 21–23 Mai 1993, 37–41. France: Association des Amis de l’Art Rupestre Saharien, 1994. ———. “Bemerkungen zum Schutz der Denkmäler von Musawwarat es Sufra vor Wind- und Sanderosion, Teil I: Mechanismen und Schäden der Erosion.” MittSAG 3 (1995): 10–19. ———. “Bemerkungen zum Schutz der Denkmäler von Musawwarat es Sufra vor Wind- und Sanderosion, II. Möglichkeiten des Schutzes.” MittSAG 4 (1996a): 6–10. ———. “Bericht über die Baukampagne 1994.” MittSAG 5 (1996b): 10–12. ———. “Recent Fieldwork at Musawwarat es Sufra.” S&N 1 (1997): 20–29. ———. “Kurzbericht über die Konservatorischen Arbeiten in Musawwarat es Sufra: Erste Hauptkampagne, 16.10.1995–13.1.1996.” MittSAG 8 (1998a): 6–9. ———. “Bericht über die Konservatorischen Arbeiten in Musawwarat es Sufra: Zweite Hauptkampagne 1.2–1.4.1996.” MittSAG 8 (1998b): 10–12. ———. “Bemerkungen zu den Sekundärinschriften und zur Deutung der Großen Anlage von Musawwarat.” Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie, 1999. ———. “Arbeitsbericht über die Dokumentation der Sekundärbilder und Sekundärinschriften von Musawwarat es Sufra.” MittSAG, n.d. Wolf, Pawel, H.-P. Duwe, and K.-P. Gründer. “Optische 3D-Messungen an Felsbildern und Gra,” 4. Internationale Konferenz Zerstörungsfreie Untersuchungen an Kunst- und Kulturgütern, Berlin, 3–8 Oktober 1994, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zerstörungsfreie Prüfung e.V., Berichtsband 45, Teil 1 (1994): 102–13.

486

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wolf, Pawel, and M. Pittertschatscher. “Vorbericht über die Konservatorischen Arbeiten während der Frühjahrskampagne 1995 in Musawwarat es Sufra.” MittSAG 4 (1996): 15–22. Zabkar, L. V. Apedemak Lion God of Meroë: A Study in Egyptian-Meroitic Syncretism. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1975.

GRECO-ROMAN TIMES Adams, William Yewdale. “Post-Pharaonic Nubia in the Light of Archaeology, I.” JEA 50 (1964): 102–20. ———. “Post-Pharaonic Nubia in the Light of Archaeology, II.” JEA 51 (1965): 160–78. Aldred, Cyril. The Temple of Dendur. New York: Metropolitan Museum Brochure, 1978. Almagro Basch, Martin. El Templo de Debod. 2nd ed. Madrid: Instituto de Estudos Madrileños, 1971. Bell, L. Idris. Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1953. Bernand, Etienne. Inscriptions grecques d’Égypte et de Nubie au Musée du Louvre. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1992. Bevan, Edwyn R. The House of Ptolemy. Chicago: Argonaut, 1968. Boardman, John, Jasper Griffen, and Oswyn Murray. The Oxford History of the Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Bowersock, G. W. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Burstein, S. M. Graeco-Africana: Studies in the History of Greek Relations with Egypt and Nubia. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1994. Canfora, Luciano. The Vanished Library. Translated by Martin Ryle. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Curto, Silvio, et al. Kalabsha. Orientis Antiqui Collectio 5. Rome: Centro per le Antichita e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, 1965. Curto, Silvio, et al. Korosko-Kasr Ibrim: Incisioni Rupestri Nubiane. Milan, Italy: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1987. Daremberg, C., and E. Saglio. Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines d’après les textes et les monuments. 10 vols. Paris: Hachette, 1887–1919. Desanges, Jehan. “Vues grecques sur quelques aspects de la monarchie meroïtique.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archeologie Orientale 66 (1968): 89–104.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

487

———. “Le status et les limites de la Nubie Romaine.” Chronique d’Égypte 44 (1969): 139–47. ———. “Les chasseurs d’elephants d’Abou-Simble.” Actes du QuatreVingt-Douzième Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes, 1967 [Archéologie] (1970): 31–50. Diodorus Siculus. The Library of History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. 12 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Donadoni, S. “Un epigraphe Greco-Nubiana da Ikhmindi.” La Parola del Passato 69 (1959): 458–65. Grant, Michael. The Ancient Historians. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1994. Guerrini, Lucia. Vasi di Hadra. Studi Miscellanei 8. Rome: Seminario di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte Greca e Romana dell’Università di Roma, 1964. Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt. New York: Penguin Classics, 1954, 1972. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Ennis Rees. New York: Modern Library, 1960. James, George G. M. Stolen Legacy. Nashville, TN: James C. Winston, 1954. Jameson, Shelagh. “Chronology of the Campaigns of Aelius Gallus and C. Petronius.” Journal of Roman Studies 58 (1968): 71–84. Kirwan, L. P. “Rome beyond the Southern Egyptian Frontier.” Geographical Journal 123 (1957): 13–19. ———. “Comments on the Origins and History of the Nobatae of Procopius.” Kush 6 (1958): 69–73. ———. “The International Position of Sudan in Roman and Medieval Times.” SNR 40 (1959): 23–37. Kromer, Karl. Römische Weinstuben in Sayala (Unternubien). Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften 95. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1967. Livy. The War with Hannibal. London: Penguin, 1965. Macquitty, W. Island of Isis: Philae Temple of the Nile. London: Scribner, 1976. Mahaffy, J. P. A History of Egypt under the Ptolemic Dynasty. New York: Scribner, 1899. May, E. C. The Circus from Rome to Ringling. New York: Dover, 1963. Modrzejewski, J. M. The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1995. Monneret de Villard, Ugo. La Nubia Romana. Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente, 1941. Mullerus, C. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Vol. 4. Paris, 1851. Murray, G. W. “Troglodytica: The Red Sea Littoral in Ptolemaic Times.” Geographical Journal 133 (1967): 24–33.

488

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Murray, N. The Love of Elephants. Secaucus, NJ: Chartwell, 1990. Pliny the Elder. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham. 10 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938–1963. Polybius. The Histories. Translated by W. R. Paton. 6 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Priego, Carmen, and Alfonso Martin Flores. Templo de Debod. Madrid: Museos Municipales, 1992. Priscus. “Fragmenta.” In Historici Graeci Minores, edited by Ludwig A. Dindorf. Leipzig: Teubner, 1870. Procopius. History of the Wars. Translated by H. B. Dewing. 7 vols. London: Heinemann, 1914. Roeder, Gunther. Debod bis Bab Kalabsche, Tempel und Inschriften: Temples Immergés de la Nubie. 2 vols. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1911. Säve-Söderbergh, Torgny.“Zu den Äthiopischen Episoden bei Herodot.” Erani 44 (1946): 68–80. Schoff, W. H. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. New York: Longmans, Green, 1912. Scullard, H. H. The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974. Snowden, Frank M., Jr. Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. Strabo. Geography. Translated by H. L. Jones. 8 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Strouhal, Eugen. Wadi Qitna and Kalabsha-South: Late Roman–Early Byzantine Tumuli Cemeteries in Egyptian Nubia. Prague: Charles University, 1984. Thompson, Lloyd A. “Eastern Africa and the Graeco-Roman World (to A.D. 641).” In Africa in Classical Antiquity, edited by L. A. Thompson and J. Ferguson, 26–61. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1969. ———. Romans and Blacks. London: Routledge, 1989. ———, and J. Ferguson, eds. Africa in Classical Antiquity. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1969. Török, L. “Geschichte Meroes: Ein Beitrag über die Quellenlage und den Forschungsstand.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Teil II, Bd. 10.1, edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase, 107–341. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1988. Vassilika, Eleni. Ptolemaic Philae. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Vercoutter, Jean. “Un palais des ‘Candaces’ contemporain d’Auguste.” Syria 39 (1962): 263–99. Williams, Denis. “African Iron and the Classical World.” In Africa in Classical Antiquity, edited by L. A. Thompson and J. Ferguson, 62–80. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1969.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

489

Woolley, C. L. Karanòg: The Town. Vol. 5 of Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition to Nubia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Egyptian Department of the University Museum, 1911. Woolley, C. L., and D. Randall-MacIver. Karanòg: The Romano-Nubian Cemetery. Vols. 3 and 4 of Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition to Nubia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Egyptian Department of the University Museum, 1910. Wright, George R. H. Kalabsha. The Preserving of the Temple. Cairo: German Archaeological Institute, 1970. ———. Kalabsha: The Ptolemaic Sanctuary (at Elephantine). Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern, 1987. Zaba, Zbynek. “Tafa and Qertassi; Asswan High Dam Program, Report of Season 1961.” In Fouilles en Nubie (1959–1961), 46–51. Cairo: Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1963. ———. “Second Season (1962) of the Czechoslovak Institute of Egyptology in Nubia: Tafa and Qertassi.” In Fouilles en Nubie (1961–1963), 209–15. Cairo: Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1967.

POST-MEROITIC TIMES Behrens, P. “The ‘Noba’ of Nubia and the ‘Noba’ of the Ezana Inscription: A Matter of Confusion.” Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 8 (1986): 117–26. Edwards, David N. “Some Recent Work on the Post-Meroitic (X-Group) in Lower Nubia.” SARSN, no. 6 (June 1994): 9–11. Emery, W. B. The Royal Tombs of Ballana and Qustul. 2 vols. Cairo: Government Press, 1938. ———. Nubian Treasure: An Account of the Discoveries at Ballana and Qustul. London: Methuen, 1948. Farid, Shafik. Excavations at Ballana 1858–1959. Cairo: Antiquities Department, 1963. Hofman, Inge. “Zu einigen Löwendarstellungen in der Ballana-Kultur.” Beitrage zur Sudanforschung 2 (1987): 127–37. Kirwan, L. P. The Oxford University Excavations in Nubia, 1934–1935. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1935. ———. The Oxford University Excavations at Firka. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939. ———. “The Ballana Civilization.” Bulletin de la Société de Géographie d’Égypte 25 (1953): 103–10. ———. “Tanqasi and the Noba.” Kush 5 (1957): 37–41. ———. “The Decline and Fall of Meroë.” Kush 8 (1960): 163–73.

490

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “The X-Group Enigma.” In Vanished Civilizations, edited by Edward Bacon, 55–78. London: Thames and Hudson, 1963. ———. “Prelude to Nubian Christianity.” In Mélanges offerts à Kazimierz Michalowski, edited by Maria L. Bernhard, 121–28. Warsaw: PWN, 1966. Lenoble, Patrice. “A New Type of Mound Grave: Le tumulus enceinte d’Umm Makharoqa, près d’el-Hobagi.” Archéologie du Nil Moyen 3 (1989): 93–120. MacDonald, Kevin, and David Edwards. “Chickens in Africa: The Importance of Qasr Ibrim.” Antiquity 67, no. 256 (1993): 584–91. Pellicer Catalan, Manuel, and Miguel Llongueras. Las Necrópolis Meroíticas del Grupo ‘X’ y Cristianas de Nag el-Arab. Memorias de la Misión Arqueológica en Nubia 5. Madrid: Comité Español de la UNESCO para Nubia, 1965. Plumley, J. Martin. “Qasr Ibrim 1963–1964.” JEA 50 (1964): 3–5. ———. “Qasr Ibrim 1966.” JEA 52 (1966): 9–12. ———. “Qasr Ibrim December 1966.” JEA 53 (1967): 3–5. ———. “Qasr Ibrim 1969.” JEA 56 (1970): 12–18. ———. “Pre-Christian Nubia (23 B.C.–535 A.D.), Evidence from Qasr Ibrim.” Travaux du Centre d’Archéologie Mediterranéene de l’Academie Polonaise des Sciences 2 (1972): 8–24. Shinnie, P. L. “Excavations at Tanqasi, 1953.” Kush 2 (1954): 66–85. Strouhal, Evzen. “Age Changes in Some Metrical Features in Nubian Men. In Biology of Man in Africa: International Biological Programme, 179–90. Warsaw meeting, 24–27 June 1968. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawn, 1968. ———. “Czechoslovak Research in Nubia 1961–67.” Current Anthropology 9 (1968): 539–41. ———. “Uber die Längenmasse der Langen Gliedmassenknochen der Bevölkerung der Nubischen Gruppe X.” In Anthropologie und Humangenetik, Festschrift zum 65: Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. K. Saller, 84–92. Stuttgart: G. Fischer, 1968. ———. “A Contribution to the Anthropology of the Nubian X-Group.” In Anthropological Congress Dedicated to Ales Hrdlicka, 30th August–5th September 1969, 541–47. Prague, 1971. ———. “Morphological Variability of Egyptian Nubian Men.” In Anthropological Congress Dedicated to Ales Hrdlicka, 30th August–5th September 1969, 465–71. Prague, 1971. ———. Sedmkrat do Nubie. Vyd. 1. Prague: Vysehrad, 1989. Török, Laszlo. “A Contribution to Post-Meroitic Chronology: The Blemmyes in Lower Nubia.” MN, no. 24 (March 1985). ———. Late Antique Nubia: History and Archaeology of the Southern Neighbor of Egypt in the 4th–6th c. A. D. Budapest: Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

491

Trigger, Bruce G. “The Royal Tombs at Qustul and Ballana and Their Meroitic Antecedents.” JEA 55 (1969): 127–28. ———. “The Social Significance of the Diadems in the Royal Tombs at Ballana.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28 (1969): 255–61. Williams, Bruce. Meroitic Remains from Qustul Cemetery Q, Ballana cemetery B, and a Ballana Settlement. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991. ———. Noubadian X-Group Remains from Royal Complexes in Cemeteries Q and 219 and from Private Cemeteries Q, R, V, W, B, J, and M at Qustul and Ballana. Vol. 9. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991.

GEOLOGY OF NUBIA AND SUDAN Ahmed, Farouq. “The Sileitat es-Sufur Subvolcanic Intrusion, Northern Khartoum Province.” SNR 58 (1977): 226–33. Almond, D. C. “New Ideas on the Geological History of the Basement Complex of North-East Sudan.” SNR 59 (1978): 107–36. Andrew, G. Sources of Information on the Geology of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Bulletin 3. Khartoum: Geological Survey Department, 1945. ———. “Geology of the Sudan.” In Agriculture in the Sudan, edited by J. D. Tothill, 84–128. London: Oxford University Press, 1948. Blandford, W. T. Observations on the Geology and Zoology of Abyssinia Made during the Progress of the British Expedition to That Country in 1867–68. London, 1869. Boushi, Isma’il Mudathir el-. “The Shallow Ground Water of the Gezira Formation at Khartoum and the Northern Gezira.” SNR 53 (1972): 152–61. Cahen, L., and N. J. Snelling. The Geochronology of Equatorial Africa. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1966. Delany, F. M. “Recent Contributions to the Geology of the Sudan.” Nineteenth International Geological Congress (Algiers) 20 (1952): 11–18. Girdler, R. W. “The Relationship of the Red Sea to the East African Rift System.” Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 114 (1958): 79–105. ———. “Geophysical Studies of Rift Valleys.” In Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, edited by L. N. Ahrens et al., vol. 5. New York: Pergamon, 1964. Heinzelin, J. de. “Le Sous-sol du Temple d’Aksha.” Kush 12 (1964): 102–10. Hussein, Mohammed Tahir. “Reconstitution of the Paleogeography of the Delta Tokar.” SNR 59 (1978): 145–65.

492

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lofti, M., and M. L. Kabesh. “On a New Classification of the Basement Complex Rocks of the Red Sea Hills, Sudan.” Bulletin de la Société de Géographie d’Égypte 38 (1964): 91–99. Mula, Hafiz G. “A Geophysical Survey of Jebel Aulia Region.” SNR 53 (1972): 162–66. Omer, M. K., and J. Perriaux. “Gedaref Sand Stones vs. Nubian Sand Stones: A Comparative Study.” SNR 59 (1978): 137–44. Swartz, D. H., and D. D. Arden Jr. “Geological History of the Red Sea Area.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 44 (1960): 1621–37. Whiteman, A. J. “Geological Research in the Sudan.” In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Philosophical Society of Sudan, 219–39. Khartoum: University of Khartoum, 1964. ———. “Comments on the Classification of the Basement Complex of the Red Sea Hills.” SNR 51 (1970): 126–30. ———. The Geology of the Sudan Republic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Worral, G. A. “A Simple Introduction to the Geology of the Sudan.” SNR 38 (1957): 2–9.

MUSEUMS AND ARCHIVES ‘Abdelrahim, Isma’il H. “Museums in the Republic of the Sudan.” Prema Newsletter-Chronique, no. 5 (1995): 7–8. Anon. (Royal Ontario Museum). Ancient Egypt and Nubia. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1994. Anon. “The Nubia Museum at Aswan.” Museum International 47/2, no. 186 (April–June 1995): 18–20. Braukamper, Ulrich. “Zum Stand der Nubien-Sammlungen des Ethnographischen Museums zu Khartoum.” In Nubica, vol. 1/2, edited by Piotr O. Scholz and C. Detlef G. Muller, 235–42. Cologne: Verlag Jurgen Dinter, 1990. British Museum (Raymond and Beverly Sackler Gallery) Exhibitions of Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam. London: British Museum Press (with Egypt Exploration Society), 1991. Engestriöm, Tor. “Notes sur les modes de construction au Soudan.” Statens Etnografiska Museum, Smärre Meddelanden, no. 26 (1957). Forbes, Lesley. “The Sudan Archive of the University of Durham.” Middle East Studies and Libraries: A Felicitation Volume for Professor J. D. Pearson, edited by B. Bloomfield, 49–57. London: Mansell, 1980. Haynes, Joyce L. Nubia, Ancient Kingdom of Africa. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

493

MODERN NUBIAN SALVAGE AND RELOCATION ‘Abdalla, Isma’il Hussein. “The Choice of Khashm al-Girba Area for the Resettlement of the Halfawis.” SNR 51 (1970): 56–74. Christophe, Louis, comp. Campagne International de UNESCO pour la Sauvegarde des Sites et Monuments de Nubie. Paris: UNESCO, 1977. Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane, et al. Le déplacement du Temple d’Amada. Paris: Annals de l’Institute de l’Technologie et des Transport Publics, 1966. Desroches-Noblecourt, and Georg Gerster. The World Saves Abu Simbel. Berlin: Verlag A. F. Koska, 1968. Drower, Margaret. Nubia: A Drowning Land. London: Longmans, 1970. Fahim, Hussein M. Nubian Resettlement in the Sudan. Miami: Field Research Projects, 1972. Gauthier, Henri. Temples immergés de la Nubie: Le Temple de Kalabchah. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1911. ———. Le temples immergés de la Nubie: Le Temple de Ouadi Es-Seboua. 2 vols. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1912. ———. Le temples immergés de la Nubie: Le Temple d’Amada. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1913. Gohary, Jocelyn. Guide to the Nubian Monuments on Lake Nasser. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1998. Greener, Leslie. High Dam over Nubia. London: Cassell, 1962. Hinkel, Fritz. Exodus from Nubia. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1978. Keating, Rex. Nubian Twilight. London: Rupert Hart Davis, 1962. ———. Nubian Rescue. London: Robert Hale, 1975. Kelen, Emery. The Temple of Dendur. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972. Lightfoot-Klein, Hanny. Prisoners of Ritual: An Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa. New York: Harrington Park Press, 1989. Little, Tom. High Dam at Aswan. London: Methuen, 1965. Lyons, Henry George. A Report on the Temples of Philae. Cairo: Ministry of Public Works, 1908. Roeder, Gunther. Les temples immergés de la Nubie: Debod bis Bab Kalabische. Cairo: Institut Français de Archéologie Orientale, 1912. Säve-Söderbergh, Torgny. “International Salvage Archaeology: Some Organizational and Technical Aspects of the Nubian Campaign.” Annals of the Royal Science Academy 15/16 (1972). ———, ed. Temples and Tombs of Ancient Nubia: The International Rescue Campaign at Abou Simbel, Philae and Other Sites. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987. Translated as Victoire en Nubie: La Campagne Internationale de Sauvegarde d’Abou Simbel, de Philae et d’autres trésors culturels. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987; Paris: UNESCO, 1992.

494

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Abd Al-Rahman Ayoub. The Verbal System in a Dialect of Nubian. Linguistic Monograph Series. Khartoum: University of Khartoum, n.d. Abdelgadir Mahmoud Abdalla, ed. Studies in Ancient Languages of the Sudan. Khartoum: Sudan Research Unit, University of Khartoum, 1974. Ahmed Sukarno Abd Al-Hafiz. A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms of the University of Michigan, 1989. ———. Nhumhaolah Lktaba Al-Lgha Al-Nubea. Shubra, Cairo: Mtba’a AlJblaoh, 1998. Arkell, A. J. “An Old Nubian Inscription from Kordofan.” AMJ 455 (1951): 353–54. Armbruster, Charles Hubert. Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. ———. Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Bell, Herman. “The Tone System of Mahas Nubian.” Journal of American Languages 7 (1968): 26–32. ———. Place Names in the Belly of Stones. Khartoum: Sudan Research Unit, University of Khartoum, 1970. ———. “An Extinct Nubian Language from Kordofan.” SNR 54 (1973): 73–80. Browne, Gerald M. “Notes on Old Nubian.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 16 (1979): 249–56. ———. “New Texts in Old Nubian from Qasr Ibrim, I (Jude 9–16).” Sudan Texts Bulletin 2 (1980): 16–33. ———. “A New Text in Old Nubian (Luke 1:27–29).” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 37 (1980): 173–78. ———. “Notes on Old Nubian.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, 17 (1980): 37–43, 129–41. ———. “New Texts in Old Nubian from Qasr Ibrim, II (A Bilingual Psalter).” Sudan Texts Bulletin 3 (1981): 9–19. ———. “Notes on Old Nubian.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 18 (1981): 55–67. ———. “An Old Nubian Version of Mark 11:6–11.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 44 (1981): 155–66. ———. “The Old Nubian Verbal System.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 19 (1982): 9–38. ———. “An Old Nubian Version of Mark 11:6–11.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 53 (1983): 259. ———. “Chrysostomus Nubianus: An Old Nubian Version of Ps.-Chrysostom.” Papyrologica Castroctaviana 10 (1984).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

495

———. “Notes on Old Nubian.” Sudan Texts Bulletin 7 (1985): 6–13. ———. Old Nubian Texts from Qasr Ibrim. Vols. 1–3. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1989, 1991. Bryan, M. A., and A. N. Tucker. Distribution of the Nilotic and Nilo-Hamitic Languages of Africa. London: Oxford University Press, 1948. Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Nubian Text. Oxford: Hoerce Haret, 1909. Crabtree, W. A. “The Nubian and Bari Languages.” SNR 4 (1921): 57–58. ———. “The Nubian and Bari Languages.” SNR 5 (1922): 58–60. Crum, Walter Ewing. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1939. Fanfoni, Luisa Bongrani. Appunti di Lingua Meroitica. Rome: Centro per le Relazioni Italo-Arabe, 1996. Faulkner, Raymond O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 1996. Gadalla, Fawzi. “Meroitic Problems and a Comprehensive Meroitic Bibliography.” Kush 2 (1963): 208–11. Gauthier, Henri. Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenu dans les textes hieroglyphiques. 7 vols. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1925–1931. Greenberg, Joseph H. Studies in African Linguistic Classification. New Haven, CT: Compass, 1955. ———. “Nilotic, Nilo-Hamitic and Hamito-Semitic.” Africa 27 (1957): 364–78. ———. The Languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966. Hainsworth, Michael, and Jean Leclant. “Introduction au Repertoire d’Epigraphie Merotique (REM).” MN, no. 19 (July 1978). Hair, P. “A Layman’s Guide to the Languages of the Sudan Republic.” SNR 47 (1966): 65–78. Heine, Bernd, and Derek Nurse, eds. African Languages: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Hintze, F. “Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik. Mit Kommentaren von M. Beirwisch et al.” Meroitica 3 (1979): 11–92, 181–214. Hofman, Inge. Material für eine Meroitische Grammatik. Vienna: Beiträge zür Afrikanistik, 1981. Homburger, L. “La morphologie Nubienne et l’Egyptien.” Journal Asiatique 218 (1939): 249–79. Huffman, Ray. Nuer–English Dictionary. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1929. [Nuer is an Eastern Sudanic language, like Nubian.] Kabara, Muktar Khalil. Al-Lugha Al-Nubiah: Kaef Naktabha? [The Nubian language and how to write it?]. [In Arabic.] Cairo: Nubian Studies and Documentation Center, 1997. Kohler, O. “The Early Study of the Nilotic Languages of the Sudan.” SNR 51 (1970): 85–94; 52 (1971): 56–62.

496

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Leclant, Jean. “The Position of Deciphering of the Meroitic Script.” Cairo Symposium, 1974. Lepsius, Richard. Nubische Grammatik: Mit Einer Einleitung über die Völker und Sprachen Afrika’s. Berlin: Verlag Von Wilhelm Hertz, 1880. Lesko, Leonard H. A Dictionary of Late Egyptian. Vol. 1. Berkeley, CA: B.C. Scribe Publications, 1982. Lobban, Richard A., Jr. “Problems and Strategies in the Decipherment of Meroitic.” Northeast African Studies, n.s., 1, no. 2–3 (1994): 159–64. ———. “Toward the Decipherment of Meroitic Numbers.” In Proceedings of the 1999 Meetings of the Sudan Studies Association. Medford, MA: Tufts University, 2001. MacMichael, H. A. “Nubian Elements in Darfur.” SNR 1 (1918): 30–48. Millet, Nicholas B. “Some Notes on the Linguistic Background of Modern Nubian.” In Contemporary Egyptian Nubia, edited by Robert A. Fernea, 59–71. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files, 1966. Murray, G. W. An English–Nubian Comparative Dictionary. Harvard African Studies 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923. Nebel, A. Dinka Dictionary. Wau: Verona Fathers, 1954. [Dinka is an Eastern Sudanic language like Nubian.] Plumley, J. Martin. The Scrolls of Bishop Timotheos: Two Documents from Medieval Nubia. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1975. Plumley, J. Martin, and G. M. Browne. Old Nubian Texts from Qasr Ibrim. Vol. 1. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1988. Reinisch, L. Die Nuba-Sprache. Vienna, 1879. Sambaj, Iusif. Al-Qamus Al-Nubi. [In Arabic.] Cairo: Muktaba El-Sharuq, 1998. Sayce, A.-H. “Karian, Egyptian, and Nubian-Greek Inscriptions from the Sudan.” Proceedings of the Society for Biblical Archaeology, 40th Session, 6th Meeting, 14 December 1910, 261–63. London, 1910. Shinnie, P. L. “The Ancient Languages of the Sudan.” In Language in the Sudan: A Symposium, edited by R. W. Thelwal. London: Hurst, 1975. Stevenson, R. C. “The Significance of the Sudan in Linguistic Research, Past, Present and Future.” In Sudan in Africa, edited by Yusuf Fadl Hasan, 11–25. Khartoum: Khartoum University Press, 1971. Stricker, B. H. “A Study in Medieval Nubian.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 19 (1940): 439–54. Till, W. Koptische Grammatik. Leipzig, 1955. Trigger, Bruce G. “Meroitic and Eastern Sudanic: A Linguistic Relationship?” Kush 12 (1964): 188–94. ———. “The Languages of the Northern Sudan: An Historical Perspective.” Journal of African History 7 (1966): 19–25. Tucker, Archibald N. The Eastern Sudanic Languages. London: Dawsons, 1967.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

497

Tucker, Archibald N., and M. A. Bryan. Handbook of African Languages. Oxford: International Africa Institute, 1956. UNESCO. The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Decipherment of Meroitic Script. The General History of Africa, Studies and Documents. Proceedings of the 1974 Cairo Conference. Paris: UNESCO, 1978. Vycichl, Werner. “Old Nubian Studies.” Kush 6 (1958): 172–74. ———. “Berber Words in Nubian.” Kush 9 (1961): 289–90. ———. Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Copte. Leuven and Paris: Peeters, 1983. Zyhlarz, Ernst. “Grundzüge der Nubischen Grammatik im Christlichen Frühmittelalter Altnubische: Grammatik, Text, Kommentar und Glossar.” Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 18, no. 1 (1928).

MA THESES AND PHD DISSERTATIONS Ahmed, Osman Hassan, ed. Sudan and Sudanese: A Bibliography of American and Canadian Dissertations and Theses on the Sudan. Sudan Publication Series 9. Washington, DC: Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan, 1982. Albert, Arlene Midori. “Assessment of the Variability in the Timing and Pattern of Epiphyseal Union Associated with Stress in Teenage and Young Adult Skeletons from Medieval Lubnarti, Sudanese Nubia.” PhD diss., University of Colorado, 1995. Anon. Theses on the Sudan. 2nd ed. Khartoum: University of Khartoum Library, 1971. Baker, Brenda J. “Collagen Composition in Human Skeletal Remains from the NAX Cemetery (A.D. 350–550) in Lower Nubia.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1992. Beck, Rosemary Carol Stutts. “The Dental Pathology of Medieval-Christian Sudanese-Nubians from the Batn el-Hajar.” MA thesis, University of Colorado, 1988. Burrell, Lydia Lambe. “A Diachronic Study of Sexual Dimorphism in a Series of Human Skeletal Populations from Ancient Nubia.” PhD diss., University of Colorado, 1988. Calcagno, James M. “Mechanisms of Human Dental Reduction: A Case Study from Post-Pleistocene Nubia.” PhD diss., Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, 1989. Cummings, Linda Scott. “Coprolites from Medieval Christian Nubia: An Interpretation of Diet and Nutritional Stress.” PhD diss., University of Colorado, 1989.

498

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Edwards, David N. “Settlement and Archaeology in Upper Nubia from the 2nd to 9th Century AD.” MLitt. thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1988. Heidorn, Lisa Ann. “The Fortress of Dorginarti and Lower Nubia during the Seventh to Fifth Centuries B.C.” PhD diss., Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago, December 1992. Huppe, Karen Anne. “Patterns of Osteoporotic Bone Loss in a Medieval Christian Cemetery from Kulubnarti, Republic of Sudan.” MA thesis, University of Colorado, 1995. Kassem, Mohsen Mohamed Morsy. “The Failure of Vernacular Housing Policy and Design in Egypt: The Case of Nubia.” PhD diss., University of Strathclyde, 1988. Lewis, Adele H. “The Very Atmosphere of Egypt: David Roberts’ Egypt and Nubia.” MA thesis, Arizona State University, 1994. Lobban, Richard A. “Social Networks in the Urban Sudan” [on Mahas Nubians]. PhD diss., Northwestern University, 1973. Mahgoub, Yasser Osman Moharam. “The Nubian Experience: A Study of the Social and Cultural Meanings of Architecture.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1990. Millet, Nicholas B. “Meroitic Nubia.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1968. Monges, Miriam Ma’at-Ka-Re. “Kush: An Afrocentric Perspective.” PhD diss., Temple University, 1995. Moore, Mary Louise. “A Proposed Date for a Limestone Relief of a Head of a Nubian from the Albert Gallatin Collection.” MA thesis, University of Memphis, 1995. Mulhern, Dawn Michelle. “The Effects of Environment and Culture on Patterns of Microscopic Histological Change in Human Bone: A Comparison of a Late Christian Nubian Population with Archaeological and Modern Populations.” MA thesis, University of Colorado, 1994. O’Connor, David B. “Nubian Archaeological Material of the First to the Second Intermediate Periods: An Analytical Study.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 1969. Sandy-Karkoutli, M. Louise. “Perspectives on the Nubians of Semna South, Sudan: A Craniometric Analysis.” MA thesis, Arizona State University, 1989. Shaheen, Alaa El-Din M. “Historical Significance of Selected Scenes Involving Western Asiatic Nubians in the Private Theban Tombs of the XVIIIth Dynasty.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1988. Smith, Stuart Tyson. Askut in Nubia: The Economics and Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium B.C. London: Kegan Paul International, 1995. (PhD diss., University of California at Los Angeles, 1993.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

499

Staten, Lisa Kay. “The Reliability of Vertebral Neural Canal Morphometrics as Indicators of Nutritional Stress.” MA thesis, University of Colorado, 1990. [Ancient Nubian nutrition.] Vagn Nielsen, Ole. “The Nubian Skeleton through 4,000 Years.” Thesis, Andelsbogtrykkeriet I Odense, 1970. White, Christine Diana. “Isotopic Analysis of Multiple Human Tissues from Three Ancient Nubian Populations.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1991. Wolf, Pawel M. “Die Archaologischen Quellen der Taharqozeit im Nubischen Niltal.” PhD diss., Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, 1990. Woodcome, Mary Elizabeth. “Stories of the Self: Exhibiting Nubia and the Politics of Cultural Representation.” BA thesis (Honors in Social Studies), Harvard University, 1995.

CHILDREN’S AND SPECIALTY BOOKS, MAGAZINES, AND FILMS Books and Magazines Anon. “Ancient Nubia.” Calliope Magazine: World History for Young People 7, no. 2 (November/December 1996). Anon. Discover Our Heritage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. [Includes elementary social studies section on the dawn of civilization; Ancient Egypt and Nubia.] Bartok, Mira. Ancient Egypt and Nubia. Glenview, IL: Good Year Books, 1995. [Colored stencils.] Bianchi, Robert Steven. The Nubians: People of the Ancient Nile. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook, 1994. Bradshaw, Gillian. The Land of Gold. New York: Greenwillow Books, 1992; Braille: Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind, 1997. Carpenter, Allan, ed. Sudan. Enchantment of Africa Series. Chicago: Children’s Press, 1972. Henderson, Larry. Egypt and the Sudan: Countries of the Nile. New York: Nelson, 1971. Jenkins, Ernestine. A Glorious Past: Ancient Egypt, Ethiopia, and Nubia. New York: Chelsea House, 1995. Langley, Andrew. Explorers on the Nile. Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdette, 1982. Lobban, Richard A., Jr. “Nubia.” Dig Magazine 5, no. 5 (September/October 2003). ———. “Taharqa: Ruler of Nubia and Egypt.” Calliope Magazine: Exploring World History 14, no. 2 (October 2003).

500

•

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lumpkin, Beatrice. Multicultural Science and Math Connections: Middle School Projects and Activities. Portland, ME: J. Weston Walch, 1995. [Section on Nubia and Egypt.] Mann, Kenny. Egypt, Kush, Aksum: Northeast Africa. Parsippany, NJ: Dillon, 1997. Olson, Stacie. Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa, Educational Guide Accompanying the Exhibit. Philadelphia: Education Department of the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 1992. Peters, Elizabeth. The Last Camel Died at Noon. New York: Warner Books, 1991. Service, Pamela F. The Ancient African Kingdom of Kush. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 1998. Films Ahmed, Osman Hassan. A Bibliography of Documentary and Education Films on Sudan. Washington, DC: Office of the Cultural Counselor, Sudan Embassy, 1982. The Ancient Africans. 29 mins. Color, 1969. The Forgotten Kingdom. London: BBC-TV, 1971. Released in the United States by Time-Life Films. McCray, Judith. Nubia and the Mysteries of Kush. 27 mins. Color. Chicago: Juneteenth Productions, 2001. Sudan: Black Kingdoms of the Nile. Released by RM Associates (UK), 2000.

About the Author

Richard A. Lobban Jr. is a professional Africanist anthropologist (BS in biology, Bucknell; MA in anthropology, Temple; and PhD in anthropology, Northwestern). His work in Africa began in 1964 with FRELIMO in Dar es Salaam. His MA on Oshogbo Yoruba made him an “official” Yoruba Elder, and his doctoral research from 1970 to 1972 was on modern Mahas Nubians in Sudan. In 1981, he cofounded the Sudan Studies Association and was its first president. He worked and published in all fields of holistic anthropology. This includes social anthropology and the ethnography of Sudan, physical anthropology of human and animal remains, linguistics of ancient and modern Nubian languages, and archaeology with active Meroitic field excavations at Musawwarat es-Sufra and Abu Erteila. This book in the Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras series is the first on ancient Nubia from prehistory up to the rise of Christianity. A new companion volume is on Medieval Christianity in Nubia. After teaching anthropology and African studies at Rhode Island College for 35 years, Dr. Lobban retired as department chair and then began a second career teaching African and military studies for the U.S. Navy. He was also on the faculty of Tufts University Veterinary School, American University in Cairo, and Carnegie Mellon University. He led archaeological tours in Egypt, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa and was a journalist and expert witness in political asylum cases. Dr. Lobban also worked extensively in West Africa, especially Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde. He is an active beekeeper with his colleague wife, Dr. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, who also specializes in Islamic studies in Sudan.

501