I. THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINATION

1. The withdrawal of the Egyptianviceregal administration

The Middle Nile Region from Aswan in thenorth to the Napata area at the Fourth Cataract inthe south (see Map) was dominated by Egyptduring the period of the New Kingdom. The vastprovince was governed by the highly centralizedadministration of the Viceroy of Kush, astructure closely tied to the royal government inEgypt and also closely modelled upon it. Theprovincial administration was centralized inprovincial capitals (Faras and Soleb) and intemple-towns founded by the rulers of theEighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties. Egyptian rulewas maintained by a rather small number ofEgyptian professionals, and natives participatedin the work of administration on all levels.

The sources of Egyptian late New Kingdomhistory describe in direct or indirect terms aprocess of decline in economy ; social conflicts,and the weakening of the integrity of kingship. to

Signs of these processes have so far· remainedunidentified in the evidence concerning theMiddle Nile province - or were only retro­spectively postulated from knowledge about thefinal outcome, or are indirect (as the decline oftemple building activity under the lateRamessides). Nevertheless, the Egyptian with­drawal under Ramesses XI was in all probability

determined by developments in Egypt. Ourpresent knowledge of the period, even after theingenious 'works of Kitchen, Bierbrier and

11 'others is not such as to enable us to see theevents- with their contextual surroundings ­that led to the abandonment of the greater part ofthe Nubian province. Only hypotheses of a rathergeneralizing sort can be presented : in the follow­ing we shall review the fragmentary evidence onwhich they were built. I do not intend, however,to discuss in any detail the most popular andmost improbable view of the cause of the end ofthe Egyptian dominion, viz., the theory of anecological catastrophy.

The Egyptian withdrawal and the appearanceof the first « historical» king of the independentpost-New Kingdom native state in the MiddleNile Region are separated by almost threecenturies. This interval is generally believed tobe «empty », i.e. , it is maintained in literaturethat hardly. any, or no textual and archaeologicalevidence at all is known from Upper and LowerNubia which could be dated to the period be­tween ca. 1050 and 850 BC (for the significanceof the latter date see Ch. 6, 7 below). The« empty » years of Nubian history belong to thepowerful arguments of the «New Chronolo-

12 d·gy», an In a recent study R.G. Morkotsuggested that this period should be eliminated atall by lowering the date of the end of the

10 Cf., with earlier literature, Zibelius-Chen, 1989.11 Kitchen 1986; Bierbrier 1975 ; and s~e also the titles cited in the subsequent chapters, esp. O'Connor 1983. Cf. also Trigger1977, 138ff. For th7 textual evidence see the illuminating ove~iew presented by H. Jacquet-Gordon : ~ Texts of the XXlst toXXIVth Dynasty ~, In : Textes et langages de l'Egypte pharaonzque II, Le Caire, 1972, 107-12212 James et al., 1991.

17

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINATION

Twentieth Dynasty to somewhere around 850BC. 13

It would seem, however, that the emptinessbetween the Egyptian withdrawal and Kashta'sadvent is only virtual. In an illuminating studyKarola Zibelius-Chen reviewed recently theEgyptian evidence indicating that the viceregaladministration was not completely abandonedunder Ramesses XI. 14 I shall briefly repeat herresults in the following, together with a survey ofthe evidence of continued Egyptian efforts toregain also the lost Upper Nubian parts of the'province. In Part II, Chapters 7-8 I also shall tryto give further support to the views of Zibelius­Chen through the revision of the chronology ofthe cemetery of Kashta's ancestors at el Kurru.

The greatest extension of Egyptian dominationin the Middle Nile Region was achieved underTuthmosis III of the Eighteenth Dynasty andEgyptian administration was established as farsouth as the frontier fort of Napata (called zm3!J3stjw in Tuthmosis Ill's Gebel Barkal stela fromhis Year 47, 1436 BC1S

). It was thus an enor­mous edifice of military, civil, and religiousinstitutions which apparently collapsed around thefirst half of the eleventh century BC, and it wasa vast territory whose thoroughly Egyptianizedpeoples were now confronted with the necessityof achieving some sort(s) of organized stateexistence.

In the course of the New Kingdom the vice­regal province was closely tied to Thebes. Theoffice of the Viceroy was not only inter-twinedwith high military functions, but by the Twen­tieth Dynasty it was associated with the 'HighPriesthood of Amun as well. 16 In the first half ofRamesses Xl's reign the viceregal office wasfilled by a certain Panehesy, 17 who was granted

around the king's twelfth regnal year unpre­cedented power18 in order to restore order inThebes after a civil war-like period of trouble. 19

In order to be able to pacify Thebes and secureorder in Upper Egypt Panehesy was allowed totake control of the military forces in UpperEgypt as well as of all (?) the troops stationed inNubian territory.20 His military authority meantthe end of the traditional system in which theprovincial garrisons were under the command ofa separate military commander and he was thusenabled to achieve an unusual independence. It isvery likely that Panehesy was aware of the op­portunities inherent in his extraordinary authorityfrom the very outset and envisaged the possibilityinherent in the unification of his Theban powerwith his viceregal authority in Nubia. Such apolitical alternative in a decentralized and attimes chaotic Egypt would prove effectual sometwo and a half centuries later with the establish­ment of the Kushite pharaohs of the Twenty-FifthDynasty, and we may perhaps credit Panehesywith considerations that resembled the pragmaticreasoning of his successors in· the Theban Gottes­staat.

His ambitions collided, however, not onlywith the interests of the weakened royal power,but, more directly, with those of Herihor, asoldier of unknown origins/1 whose appearancein Year 19 of Ramesses XI in Thebes opened anew chapter in Egyptian history (for the ge­nealogical and chronological evidence see TableI). He was appointed High Priest of Amun,Generalissimo, army-leader, and, moreover, alsoViceroy of Kush.22 At the same time, Panehesywas declared rebel against the king and forced toretreat to Lower Nubia. Herihor proclaimed inYear 19 the beginning of a new (or Renaissance)

13 Morkot 1991.14 Zibelius-Chen 1989.15 Urk. IV, 1227-43 ; G.A. Reisner - B.M. Reisner1• ZAS 69, 1934,24-39.16 Cf. L. Habachi : 4< Konigssohn von Kusch », LA III, 630-640; M.L. Bierbrier: 4< Hoherpriester des Amun », ibid., II,1239-1249.17 Kitchen 1986, §§ 4, 208f., 251.18 Cf. O'Connor 1983, 231.19 For the diverging interpretations of the events see Kitchen § 208 ; Grimal 1988, 358 ; Bierbrier, Ope cit., 1244f.20 Cf. O'Connor 1983, 231.21 Cf. Wente 1979, xff.22 See D.B. Redford: 4< Herihor » LA II, 1129-1133.

18

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINATION

era (w1}m mswt)23 and subsequently assumed royaltitulary toO.24 The limits of his kingship, how­ever, did not exceed the extent of the power ofthe high priesthood.25 His authority in UpperEgypt, however, was parallelled by the authorityof Smendes in Lower Egypt who became theactual master of the land already in the lifetimeof Ramesses XI.26 When Herihor died in Year 24or 25 of Ramesses XI (= Year 7 of the Renais­sance27), his offices, including the office of theViceroy of Kush, were inherited by Paiankh (seeTable I). In Year 10-11 of the Renaissance Era(Le., towards the end of Ramesses Xl's life)Paiankh tried to eliminate Panehesy in Nubia.But, as indicated in one of his letters to theNecropolis-Scribe Tjuroy,28 his efforts remainedunsuccessful. Panehesy remained master ofLower Nubia until his death and was then buriedin a pyramidal vaulted tomb at Aniba/9 Le., inthe necropolis of high viceregal officials of theEighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties.

The nature of Panehesy's government and thegeographical limits of his authority are com­pletely obscure. While in Lower Nubia he mayhave maintained the already existing viceregal

structure - for, as we shall see, to an extent italso survived him there - the situation in UpperNubia was apparently different. The sourcesmention that in Year 12 of Ramesses XIPanehesy also sent Nubian troops (the 3 'w) intoaction in the Thebaid.30 These constituted, how­ever, only a contingent of the forces stationed inthe province between Napata and the FirstCataract. Considering the fact that no evidence ofan Egyptian presence that would date from thelater reign of Ramesses XI or from the period ofhis successors was found in Upper Nubia wemay presume that in Year 12 Panehesy withdrewall Egyptian forces from Upper Nubia and thatthese never returned to their garrisons. It wasrepeatedly suggested31 that the province wasevacuated in an organized manner. It appearsindeed that the temples of the province were notdestroyed when the cult life came to an end inthem, and in the temple-towns of Amara andSesebi no traces of a violent end or of animprovised abandonment seem to have beendiscovered. The archaeological evidence is, how­ever, incomplete ; the excavations at Amara andSesebi are unpublished. While the withdrawal of

23 Cf. Kitchen 1986, §§ 2, 14 ; for the general use of the term at the beginning of the rule of a new dynasty cf. Grimal 1986,587. For the term in royal titularies see ibid., 587, note 147.24 Kitchen 1986, § 210 and p. 251 note 40; but see also Wente 1979, xivff. For the titulary see Bonheme 1987, 27ff.25 Wente 1979, xivff. ; Redford, Opt cit. ..26 Kitchen 1986, §§ 209ff. ; J. von Beckerath : « Smendes A. », LA V, 991f.27 Redford, Ope cit., 1132.28 E.F. Wente: Late Ramesside Letters, Chicago, 1967, No. 21. For Tjuroy's correspondence in Year 10 of the Renaissancesee ibid., 9ff. and J.J. Janssen: Late Ramesside Letters and Communications, Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum VI,London, 1991, 11ff.29 PM VII, 79.30 E.F. Wente: « On the Supression of the High Priest Amenhotep », JNES 25, 1966, 73-87 ; O'Connor 1983, 231. After theco.~pletion of the manuscript of this book was published the article of K. Jansen-Winkeln: «Das Ende des Neuen Reiches »,ZAS 119, 1992, 22-37 in which anew, and highly attractive, interpretation of the evidence relating to the reign of Ramesses XIis offered. The view of Niwinski 1979, 52 and 62 (Genealogy) in which Herihor is son-in-law of Paiankh (see my Table I,Version a) is reinforced and the historical process is summarized as follows : 1. The later reign of Ramesses IX and the reign ofRamesses X is characterized by chaotic circumstances in the Thebaid; the first tomb robbery processes date from this period ofpermanent economic crisis. 2. Around Year 12 of Ramesses XI Panehesy, Viceroy of Kush, is ordered to intervene with hisNubian troops in the Thebaid (see notes 18 to 20, above). The unusual fact that he deals in Year 12 and again in Year 17 (?) (cf.Kitchen 1986, § 208 with note 28) with grain-supplies indicates that the provisioning of the troops was difficult and it is undersuch circumstances that his authority collided with that of Amenhotep, High Priest of Amun of Thebes. 3. By Year 17Amenhotep was forced to ask for his king's aid against Panehesy, wQ.ich led to the escalation of military conflict betweenRamesses XI and the High Priest of Amun (henceforth HPA) on the one side and Panehesy on the other (for the « War of theHigh Priest» see the evidence in note 24 to § 208 in Kitchen 1986). 4. By Year 19 Panehesy is defeated and forced to retreat toLower Nubia; in Egypt the beginning of the Renaissance Era is declared. 5. Paiankh is appointed into the former offices ofPanehesy, and, after the death of Amenhotep, is also installed as HPA. In Year 10-11 of the Renaissance. he fights againstPanehesy in Lower Nubia (see note 28). 6. Paiankh is attested until Year 10-11 of the Renaissance (Year 28 of Ramesses XI) ;his offices are inherited by Herihor still in the lifetime (Le., before Year 29) of Ramesses XI. Herihor assumes royal titularyafter the death of Ramesses XI (see note 24). - In accordance with the above reconstruction of the events, of course, also theassumption of Herihor's death in Year 7 of the Renaissance (see note 27) must be abandoned. Otherwise, however,Jansen-Winkeln does not suggest any radical alteration of the chronology of the Twenty-First Dynasty.31 P.L. Shinnie in : Studies in Honour of H. W. Fairman, Wanninster, 1979, 124; Zibelius-Chen 1989, 332; Morkot 1991,206ff.

19

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINAnON

the military forces and then the subsequentexodus of the Egyptian professionals that wasdoubtless caused by the secession of Panehesybrought about the collapse of the Egyptian admi­nistrative, economic, and religious structure, it isnot self-evident that these changes annihilated alllife in, and around, the settlements of UpperNubia. Before turning to the Upper Nubianevidence, however, let us first survey the dataconcerning the Lower Nubian situation.

2. Egypt in Lower Nubia after thewithdrawal of the viceregaladministration and Egyptianclaims in Upper Nubia

As was shown recently by Karola Zibelius­Chen,32 the viceregal administration was not com­pletely liquidated. On the contrary, the evidenceseems to suggest that, though confmed only toLower Nubia to the Second Cataract, it wasrestored after Panehesy's death. The remaindersof the province belonged under the authority ofthe rulers of Upper Egypt, Le., of the Theban« State of Amun » ; but Kush, as a whole, con­tinued to appear in political utterances of thedynasts ruling in Lower Egypt too.

In Thebes several members of the dynasty ofthe High Priests of Amun (henceforth HPA)succeeded in uniting the same branches of poweras previously Herihor and Paiankh had done, andbearers of the title « King's Son of Kush », Le.,Viceroys continue to appear under the Twenty­Second and Twenty-Third Dynasties too. More­over, the kings of the Twenty-First to Twenty­Third Dynasties made repeated attempts at there-conquest of the Upper Nubian part of the

province. Their efforts remained, however,successless. In the following I give a brief surveyof the relevant data (see also Table I).

Already Smendes I (1069-1043)33 assumed animperial-style royal titulary and especially anebty-name that refers to the intention of restor­ing the lost province. In his nebty-name slJm p1)tjI)wj rqyw.j [...]34 « Powerful of Strength, SmitingThose Rebellious (against) Him» rqy refers to apoliti- cal enemy in the sense of « dissident ».35The High Priest of Amun Pinodjem I (1064­1045) appears in a Sehel inscription as Generalis­simo (in the following titulary : IJm-ntr tpj n'Imn-R 1 nswt ntrw mr-ms l wr sm l t3-mlJ,w36

) andhis active military role is attested by the epithet13 lJps l}wj pdwt-9, «With a Strong Forearm,Who Has Smitten the Nine Bows » in the ChonsTemple at Karnak. 37 The same is indicated by thewords spoken by the goddess Amaunet in thesame temple :38 I have given you all life anddominion. I [cause] the foreign countries to[co]me to you in humility, la[den] on their backs,to the place where you are. I conduct their greatones to you under your sandals. I make the aweof you to be great in every foreign country.

Although Amaunet's words are doubtlesstraditional and thus apparently banal, just like themajority of the titularies listed in this chapter, itis their occurrence in the Chons Temple that issignific~t. Similarly, the titularies in questionare relevant because of their context: for theimperialistic ones are unevenly distributed andcan be explained in the first place as politicallymotivated and not as mere topoL

In the reign of Pinodjem I as king39 his sonMenkheperre, HPA, Generalissimo from Year 25of Smendes 1,40 was engaged in a militaryconflict in Lower (?) Nubia.41

32 Zibelius-Chen 1989.33 Regnal years after Kitchen 1986.34 Beckerath 1984, XXIII; Kitchen, § 216 ; Zibelius-Chen 1989, 355. For the evidence see Bonheme 1987, 53ff. The end ofthe name is not preserved.35 G. Posener : L 'enseignement [oyaliste. Sagesse egyptienne du Moyen Empire, Paris, 1976, 24 ; Grimal 1986, 651.36 LR III, 245 (vii). Cf. also Bonheme 1987, 39 with note 5.37 Weeks 1981, 22 and PI. 137A; Kitchen 1986, § 216; Zibelius-Chen 1989, 335.38 Weeks 1981,3 and PI. 114B.39 Beckerath 1968, 29ff.; Kitchen, §§ 216ff.40 Beckerath 1968.41 For his Bigge graffito see LR III, 266 (vii) ; G.A. Reisner, lEA 6, 1920, 53.

20

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINAnON

The titulary of Psusennes I (1059-1033)similarly indicates ambitions directed towardsNubia: zm3-lJprw dr-pdt-9 jtj-m-slJm.f-t3w-nbw,his Golden Horus-name, as well as his' epithet ntrnfr wr nlJtw nwl) tpw wrw 1J3swt,42 suggestwarlike intentions. Following the above-mention­ed Menkheperre, the title of the Viceroy of Kushis inherited, in a most remarkable manner, by hisgranddaughter Nesikhons A, wife of the HPAPinodjem II. Her titulary is worth quoting here :1}ryt spswt, « Leader of the spswt» (a titlesignifying her status in the Harem43

), 1}ryt wrtIJnr tpt n 'Imn-R' nsw ntrw, «Great One of theIJnr-Harem of Amun-Re King of the Gods »,

1}mt-ntr n Nbt-lftpt n Srdt, « Priestess ofNebet-Hetepet of Srdt » lJ,rnt-ntr n Hnm nb KblJ,w,« Priestess of ChnUffi, Lord of the Cataract » ands3 nsw n Ks, «King's Son (sic !) of Kush ».44

The last title could perhaps be interpreted as atraditional, and only theoretical, claim : yet thetitles connected with the Lower Nubian cults ofNebet-Hetepet45 and Chnum. suggest the contra­ry : the existence of an actual administration.This is further supported by data attestingcontemporary viceregal officials as a certainChons-em-renep ss s1}n (a financial office) and ass slJn '3 n pr n p3 s3-nswt n Ks whose name is,

however, not preserved.46 In this period alsowares arriving from Kush (Upper Nubia?) arementioned. 47

The first ruler of the Twenty-Second Dynasty,Shoshenq I (945-924), assumed a Golden Horus­name recalling Smendes I's nebty-name thusgiving expression to the program of re-conquest :slJm p1}tj IJ,wj pdwt-9 wr nlJtw m t3w nbw ;48 themodel is reinforced here with Eighteenth andNineteenth Dynasty reminiscences. 49 The successof the policy indicated by the titulary wasrecorded in the reliefs carved later on theBubastide Portal at Karnak where the kingclaims, besides victories in Palestine, thriumphover the « great ones of the jwntjw StjW».50Shoshenq's son and successor Osorkon I (924­889) is Horus k3 nlJt mrj R' rdj.n-sw-Jtm-I}r­nst.f-r-grg-t3wj, «Strong Bull, Beloved of Re,Whom Atum Placed on His Throne to Providefor the Two Lands» and Golden Horus nlJt-~ps

dr-pdt-9 jty jtj-t3w-nbw, « Strong in Might,Subdoing the Nine Bows, Who Conquers AllLands ».51 It is assumed by Kitchen52 that ­similarly to Shoshenq 153

- also Osorkon hadNubian contingents in his army. In his54 waragainst King Asa of Judah the army is led byZerah « the Kushite ».

42 Beckerath 1984, XXII3; Bonheme 1987, 64ff.43 Troy 1986, 185f.44 Kitchen 1986, § 232; Troy 1986, 174, 21.24. A complete list of the priestly titles held by the wives of Pinodjem II,Nesikhons A and Istemkheb D, is given by A. Niwinski : ~ Some Remarks on Rank and Titles of Women in the Twenty-FirstDynasty Theban "State of Amun" », Discussions in Egyptology 14, 1989, 79-89, 87f. Niwinski suggests on the basis of theanalysis of the two sets of coffins made for Istemkheb D - the earlier one of which was usurped for Nesikhons A - that thetwo queens held successively identical titularies, except for the title ~ Viceroy of Kush» which was confined on Nesikhons A. Inaddition to the titles registered by Troy, Niwinski also lists the following : ~ prophetess of the funerary temple of Ramesses II inWestern Thebes; priestess of Mut in Karnak and of Chonsu in Karnak; priestess of Onuris-Shu, of Min, of Horus, and of Apis inApu (ninth Upper Egyptian nome), of Nekhbet in Nekheb (third nome), of Osiris, Horus, and Isis in Abydos; priestess ofHathor, Lady of Kis (fourteenth Upper Egyptian nome), of Amun-Re Lord of Iu-red (sixteenth Upper Egyptian nome) ; ofHathor, Lady of Agana (third Upper Egyptian nome) ». In Niwinski's view these titles indicate that the wife of the HPA had asimilar supreme authority over the female priesthood of the entire Theban Gottesstaat as was the authority of the HPA over themale priesthood.45 Srdt was in all probability in Lower Nubia, cf. Kitchen 1986, § 276.46 Zibelius-Chen 1989, 336.47 A. Niwinski : Studies on the Illustrated Theban Funerary Papyri, Freiburg, 1989, 353.48 Beckerath 1984, XXIIll ; Bonheme 1987, 97ff.49 Grimal 1986, 703ff. His programme was, however, complex as indicated by the titulary. The Horus-name k3-nht mrj-R'sQ j.f-m-nsw r-sm3-t3wj, ~ Strong Bull, Beloved of Re, Crowned to Unify the Two Lands » announces ~ diplomatic» policy, cf.H. Goedicke : « zm3-t3wy » in : Melanges Ganuzl eddin Mokhtar I. Le Caire, 1985, 307-324. This is also indicated by the GebelSilsileh inscription in which the king is promised to receive from Ptah-Nun « all the Two Lands in peace », see Grimal 1986,442, note 10.50 Zibelius-Chen 1989, 337.51 Beckerath 1984, XXII/2 ; Bonheme 1987, 142ff.52 Kitchen 1986, § 268.53 2 Chronicles 12:2f., if Shishak is really identical with Shoshenq. For the problem (and for arguments against theidentification) see P. James in James et al., 1991, 229f.54 Cf. Zibelius-Chen 1989, 337.

21

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINATION

The next indication of an aggressive policyaimed at Nubia may be identified in the titularyof Osorkon II (874-850). In a Ramesside style,he is Golden Horus wr-p1)tj IJ,wj-Mntjw (var.Jjftjw) , «Great of Strength, Smiting the Asiatics(var. Enemies) », and in the reliefs recording hissed-festival at Bubastis there occur jwntjw sty,Le., Troglodytes from the eastern desert regionadjacent to Lower Nubia.55 As noted byZibelius-Chen, the sed-portal of Osorkon II is, asto its iconography, closely connected withAmenophis Ill's sed festival reliefs at Soleb.56Moreover, the dateline text at Bubastis is aword-for-word copy of a text from the sameSoleb context.57 Although it cannot be entirelyexcluded that the connection between the two sedfestival cycles was indirect (via a Theban render­ing), the actual impact of the Amenophis IIIreliefs at Soleb appears likely in the light ofOsorkon II's Elephantine stela58 in which mentionis made of a Nemrut (?), King's Son of Kush,priest of Chnum and charioteer of the king. Thestela attests thus the existence at this time of aviceregal administration in Lower Nubia whichtemporarily also might have extended over terri­tories farther south. It also shows that, similarlyto the long line of his predecessors, also .thisNemrut was appointed Viceroy of Kush after amilitary career.

On the other hand, his association with thecult of Chnum repeats the pattern alreadyobserved in the case of Nesikhons A. A furtherViceroy, Osorkon-ankh (attested on the base of astatue from Akhmim59), may be dated to thereign of Osorkon II or perhaps of Takeloth III.60

Some decades later Prince Osorkon, son ofTakeloth II, assumes as HPA the epithet « TheOne Who Descends Like the Son of the StrongBull Upon Those Who Attack His Borders, Likethe Falcon Upon the Birds ».61 After disastrousyears of civil war, the same HPA donates gold ofUpper Nubia (bnt-lJ,n-nfr) and myrrh of Punt(referred to by the name of the territory ofNubia, t3-nlJsj, through which Punt could bereached) to Amun and Mut of Karnak. 62

The tribute of gold may perhaps also beinterpreted as originating from commercialcontacts. It must be realized, however, that theperiod in question - i. e., the reigns ofOsorkon II and Takeloth II - witnessed therapid emergence of.a new power in Upper Nubia(see Chapters 8-10 below). The gold presentedby Prince Osorkon, similarly to certain items(twin-humped camels, a hippopotamus, a rhino­ceros, an antelope, elephants, and two differentsorts of monkeys) sent as tribute by Takeloth IIto Shalmaneser III of Assyria,63 may well havebeen obtained in the course of military inter­vention(s) attempting to curb developments inUpper Nubia - interventions which may havebeen also motivated by the northward advance ofthe young Upper Nubian power.

The last known Viceroy of Kush is theSouthern Vizier Pamiu.64 He was closely linkedwith the Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty : two ofTakeloth Ill's daughters were married tomembers of his family. 65 If the dating of hisactivity to ca. 775-750 put forward by Aston andTaylor66 is correct, he may be regarded as thelas't Viceroy at all, whose office extinguished as adirect consequence of the occupation of Lower

55 Ibid., 338. For the titulary see Bonheme 1987, 157ff.56 Ibid., 338.57 Kitchen 1986, § 280.58 S. Seidlmayer, MDAIK 38, 1982, 329ff. ; Zibelius-Chen 1989, 338.59 PM V, 25. .60 Cf. Zibelius-Chen 19~?, 340 ; dated to the reign of Takeloth III : Leahy 1990, 171f.61 K. Jansen-Winkeln : Agyptische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastien, Wiesbaden, 1985, 292, Text B 22.62 Kitchen 1986, §§ 292ff. ; Zibelius-Chen 1989, 339. For the period see R.A. Caminos : The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon,Rome, 1958.63 Kitchen 1986, § 288.64 He is mentioned as Viceroy of Kush on the coffm of his great-grandson Pediamenet, see L. Bell, Oriental Institute News andNotes 90, Sept.-Oct. 1983, 48 ; Aston-Taylor 1990, 147f. Cf. also J. Yoyotte, RdE 39, 1988, 169f. ; D.A. Aston, lEA 77,1991, 99f.65 Kitchen 1986, Table 15* ; Aston-Taylor 1990, 148.66 Aston-Taylor 1990, 147ff.

22

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINATION

which we find the names of the last threeRamesside rulers at different temple towns, 69 wasthus explained either by the hypothesis of catas­trophally low Niles or - in O'Connor's view ­with the supposed « intensity of Paiankh'scampaign» that had caused « the voluntary andwholesale evacuation of Lower Nubia».70 Theassumption of an ecological catastrophy cannotbe substantiated by independent evidence.71 Aswas also indicated in Chapter 1, a politicalexplanation is more probable. The archaeologicalemptiness of Nubia - also including the ar­chaeologically far less explored Upper Nubianterritories south of the Third Cataract which,interestingly, were not supposed to be unin­habited in the period in question - is, after all,only virtual.

3. The population question

It was pointed out already in 1978 in aningenious, and in Nubian literature unfortunatelyignored, study by Kemp that burial customschanged radically and from our perspective high­ly significantly by the late New Kingdom. Theburial of multitudes of household items wasreplaced by the practice of the burial of smallamulets with the dead. This radical change in thecharacter of the grave equipment concurred withanother change of major importance, viz., thebuilding of family vaults. Both changes can beobserved also in Nubia, and it cannot be dulyemphasized that the dating of burials on the basisof «late New Kingdom-type» amulets is aneasily manipulable procedure : believers in thedepopulation of Lower Nubia would automatical­ly date any such amulet prior to Ramesses XI.- Family vaults were also introduced in Nubia.In the thoroughly robbed Soleb necropolis from49 vaults 733 bodies were obtained, while in twochambers of a New Kingdom tomb at Shellal 135bodies were found. 72 The weaknesses of the

67 Trigger 1976 ; Adams 1977 ; for the view see the convenient summary in Zibelius-Chen 1989 332ff.68 For the i~scriptions in Pennl;lt's tomb recording the donation of agricultural land for the benefit of the cult of a statue ofRamesses VI In the temple of Amba ~ee BAR IV §§ 474ff.; for the interpretation of the donation see Kemp 1978, 21ff.69 Ramesses IX at Kuban, Abu Stmbel, Serra, Buhen, Semna, Amara West, Sai, Gebel Barkal ; Ramesses X at Aniba;Ramesses XI ~t Kal~bsha (cf., ~M VII, 2~~" Bu~e!l' Ani~a. - ,For the evidence on late Ramesside administrative centres in Kushalso see I. HeIn: Dle ramessldlsche Bautatlgkelt In Nublen, Wlesbaden, 1991, passim and Karte 7 ; and pp. 105f.70 O'Connor 1983, 268.71 K.W. Butzer: Studien zum vor- und jruhgeschichtlichen Landschajtswandel der Sahara III Mainz 1959 113'R. Fairbridge : ~ Nile Sedimentation above Wadi Haifa in the Last 20,000 Years» Kush 11 1963 96-107' Trigge1l" 1970 355:cf. also Torok 1987,1, 139ff. ' , , .l , ,

The contradiction between the data surveyedin Chapter 2 and the virtual absence of a pro­vincial government is obvious. Literature on thehistory of the Middle Nile Region in this periodignores the textual evidence and depicts a totallyuninhabited Lower Nubia between Ramesses XIand the 1st or 2nd century AD. 67 The depo­pulation of a province which was admittedly stillagriculturally productive under Ramesses VI,Le., only some decades before the supposedmysterious collapse and depopulation,68 and in

The data listed above reflect the maintenanceof the viceroyalty of Kush, though limited to theterritory of Lower Nubia, by the Theban rulersin the period of the Twenty-First to Twenty­Third Dynasties. There are also signs of repeatedattempts at the re-conquest of the lost territoriesof Upper Nubia, but these efforts do not appearto have been serious and the conflicts underOsorkon II and Takeloth II seem rather to havebeen provoked by the expansion of a youngnative state created by chiefs residing in theNapata area. The actual form and goals of theTheban administration of Lower Nubia remain,however, completely obscure. The total lack ofmonuments of the High Priests of Amun and ofthe kings of the Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty inLower Nubia indicate a superficial and ratheruninterested regime and perhaps also an inter­mittent authority.

Nubia by the rulers of the new native kingdom inUpper Nubia. His figure would thus fit excellent­ly into the historical picture and chronologicalframework presented below in Chapters 9-10.

23

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINAnON

archaeo-demographical argumentation are alsodemonstrated by the example of Wadi es Sebuawhere the New Kingdom tombs were judged tohave been « extremely poor », but where the ­unexcavated - extensive settlement moundssuggest a less miserable picture.73 Kemp's con­clusion may certainly be accepted here : ...whilstthe later New Kingdom was not a period ofparticular prosperity for Lower Nubia, and mayhave seen an agricultural population with verylittle material wealth at all existing beside smallgroups of officials, it is not justified to invokealmost total depopulation. 74

In the excavated as well as unexcavated« New Kingdom» material of Lower Nubia wemay furthermore suspect post-New Kingdomburials and settlement features which, on accountof their poverty and/or late New Kingdom type(Le., the amulets), were not recognized as suchby an archaeological research which was notprepared to identify phenomena dating from thepost-Ramesses XI period.75 The necessity of are-assessment of the archaeological evidence isalso prompted by two recently-published radio­carbon dates (the tests were made on camel­dung !) from Qasr Ibrim which indicate that theearliest building activity at this site - which wasto become under Taharqo an administrativesettlement of major importance - dates approxi­mately from the eleventh to ninth centuries BC.76

The post-New Kingdom population of LowerNubia could nevertheless not have been large.

Even if not in a completely annihilating manner,the rebellion of Panehesy and the armed conflictsof his period may well have decimated thepopulation and it must also be remembered thatthe « Year of Hyenas », i.e., a year of extraor­dinary famine, falls in the same period.77 Yet thetheory of a complete disruption of life for longcenturies is also contradicted by the continuity' oftoponyms in the entire Middle Nile Valley fromthe New Kingdom to the Ptolemaic period andfrom the· Ptolemaic period to Meroitic times.78

Though a good part of the settlements mayhave sunk: to the level of military- and caravanstations, the evidence of the place-names suggeststhat the social and economic development of theNew Kingdom province was not discontinued orreversed and the native population did notabandon all· Egyptianized settlements. WhenTaharqo enlarged in the seventh century BC theSouth Temple at Buhen79 and dedicated a templeto Amun at Qasr Ibrim80

- to name only thebetter-known monuments of the Twenty-FifthDynasty reorganisation of Lower Nubia81

- hewas certainly not acting in, a demographicalvacuum. With due caution, similar conclusionsmay also be inferred from the early fourthcentury Be annals of King Harsiyotef, whowarred in his sixteenth and thirty-fifth years withrebellious tribes of agriculturalists and cattle­breeders in Lower Nubia (see also Chapter 14).

72 Kemp 1978, 39f. and note 106 with reference to Schiff-Giorgini 1971 and to G.A. Reisner: The Archaeological Survey ofNubia. Report for 1907-1908, Cairo, 1910, 69. For Twenty-First to Twenty-Sixth Dynasty family vaults in Abydos seeA. Leahy: «Abydos in the Libyan Period », in : A. Leahy (ed.) : Libya and Egypt c 1300-750 BC, London, 1990, 155-200,160f.73 Kemp 1973, 42f. and fig. 4.74 Ibid., 43.75 Cf. Adams 1977, 253ff.76 The two tests resulted 1040-850 BC and 920-800 BC, see P. Rowley-Conwy: « The Camel in the Nile Valley: NewRadiocarbon Accelerator (AMS) Dates from Qasr Ibrim,., lEA 74, 1988, 245-248, 246. On pre-Twenty-Fifth Dynastyoccupation at this site see now in somewhat more detail M. Horton: « Africa in Egypt: New Evidence from Qasr Ibrim,., in:W.V. Davies (ed.) : Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, London, 1991,264-277, 264ff.77 Papyrus BM 10052, 11,8, T.E. Peet: The Great Tomb-Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty I, London, 1930, 153 ;Kitchen 1986, § 208.78 For the toponym continuity see above all Priese 1984 and cf. also Torok 1987, 1, 150ff. ; Torok 1988, 205ff., 267ff. ; andsee more recently B.B. Williams: Twenty-Fifth Dynasty and Napatan Remains at Qustul .' Cemeteries W and V, OINE VII,Chicago 1990 ; L.A. Heidorn: « The Saite and Persian Period Forts at Dorginarti » in : Davies, Ope cit., 205-219.79 PM VII, 136f. ; R.A. Caminos : The New Kingdom Temples of Buhen, London, 1974, 82ff., PIs 99-103.80 J.M. Plumley: « Gods and Pharaohs at Qasr Ibrim » in : Studies ... Fairman, Warminster, 1979, 127-131.81 Cf. Heidorn, Ope cit., For a careful reassessment of the evidence see now the unpubl. Ph.D. thesis of P. Wolf: Diearchiiologischen Quellen der Taharqazeit im nubischen Niltal, Berlin, 1990.

24

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINATION

4. Upper Nubia at the close of theEgyptian domination

The suggestions made above are also valid forUpper Nubia. The settlements and templesabandoned by the Egyptian military, the priest­hood, and the viceregal administration were notdestroyed,82 and the lack of post-Ramesses XIobjects in the archaeological record reflectsdisrupted contacts but does not necessarilyindicate the abandonment of the settlements bytheir indigeneous inhabitants. Regrettably, how­ever, we may speak only in terms of a hypo­thesis about the survival of the New Kingdomsettlement chain, since no excavations wereconducted in post-colonial settlement layers. Thesurvival of Egyptianized communities is indirect­ly supported by two considerations : firstly, thenative population was included in the viceregaladministration and was thus Egyptianized also inthe sense of social interaction; secondly, therapid emergence of a centralized kingdom in thecourse of the tenth-ninth centuries BC (for thechronology see below, Chapters 6-7) can beunderstood only on the basis of traditions thatcounteract an irreversible process of disinte­gration into small tribal units.

. Upper Nubia south of Sai (see Map) wasdivided up by Tuthmosis I into five vassalchiefdoms.83 Although not occupied, the UpperNubian region could thus be efficiently controlledfrom Lower Nubia and, on the other hand, fromthe fort of Kurgus built at the Fourth Cataractand directly connected with Lower Nubia viadesert roads running behind the vassal chief­doms. 84 A permanent occupation was achieved inthe course of three campaigns under Queen

Hatshepsut. 8s By the sole reign of Tuthmosis IIIthe frontier fortress of Napata seems to havebeen firmly established86 and the vassal chief­doms probably disappeared as self-governingstructures. The actual pace and intensity of theEgyptianization of the Upper Nubian populationis unknown. The introduction of the cults ofAmen-Re and Re-Harakhty in Lower Nubiaduring the reign of Tuthmosis III marked theideological integration of this territory. A similar­ly conscious religious and dynastic policy,centered around the cults of Amen-Re andHathor, can be observed under the reign ofAmenhotep III in the more southerly Abri-Delgoreach. 87 The ideological Egyptianization appearsto have reached the southern frontier regionunder Horemhab who is perhaps the founder ofthe earliest Amen-Re temple at Napata. 88 Thefirst temple dedicated to the local form ofAmen-Re, Le., Amen-Re Dwelling in the PureMountain (the Gebel Barkal),89 was erected byRamesses II at Napata90 and the introduction ofthe official cult of the ram-headed Nubian formof Amun of Thebes marks the complete integra­tion of Upper Nubia into the realm of Egyptianreligion and political ideology.

The abandonment of the vassal chiefdoms didnot necessarily mean a wholesale destruction ofnative social structure and institutions. On thecontrary, important native families, includingprobably the families of former vassal chiefswere included into the structure of viceregaiadministration.91 Viewed together with theprogressive acculturation to Egyptian norms ofthe entire indigeneous population under theNineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties, the partici­pation of these families in an administration that

82 Cf. Zibelius-Chen 1989, 332 ; Morkot 1991, 206ff.83 See O'Connor 1987, 126.84 For the fortress at el-Kenisa opposite Kurgus, destined probably to protect the desert routes and the gold-mining areas seePM ~II, 233 and Morkot 1987, 31 ; for the boundary stela of Tuthmosis I at Kurgus/Hagar el Merwe see J. Vercoutter : « NewEgyptIan Texts from the Sudan ,., Kush 4, 1956, 66-82, 67ff .; O'Connor 1987, 126.85 D.B. Redford: History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt Toronto 1967 57ff· O'Connor 1987 126·Morkot 1987, 32f. ' , ,., "86 ~ee the Geb.el B~rkal ~tela of Tuthmosis III from Year 47, ~oston MFA 23.733, W!~ mention of the fortress called vn3h3stjw probably Identical WIth Napata, Urk. IV, 1227-43, G.A. ReIsner - M.B. Reisner Z4S 69 1933 24-3987 Morkot 1987, 34f. ' " , .88 Suggested by Morkot 1987, 37.89 Cf. S. Wenig : « Napata ,., Lri", IV, 342-344.90 PM VII, 215ff.91 Cf. O'Connor 1983, 262ff.

25

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINATION

represented a copy of Egyptian state organism92

is of a great significance. The Egyptianization- to use a rather rigid term for such a complexprocess - of the native elite may provide anexplanation for the smoothness of the process inwhich the dynasty buried at el Kurru would thenre-adopt Egyptian state ideology after the crisisof the Egyptian withdrawal under Ramesses XI.

As far as may be judged on the basis of theincomplete archaeological evidence, the nuclei ofthe indigeneous governmental structure(s) emerg­ing after the end of the Egyptian dominion wereat New Kingdom settlements. The temple townsof Napata, Kawa, Sesebi, Soleb, Sai, and AmaraWest were inhabited by an Egyptianized indi­geneous population the bulk of which must haveremained, if we regard these settlements retro­spectively from the aspect of their Twenty-FifthDynasty and later development, in place. Thoughthe withdrawal of the military and the evacuationof the professional Egyptian elite destroyed thecentral element of these towns, viz., the Egyptiantemple economy, the functions thereof might wellhave been replaced by a similarly functioningindigeneous institution. There are no reasons tosuppose that the agriculturalists of Upper Nubiawould have suffered a catastrophal setback withthe disappearance of their Egyptian overlords.We may perhaps hypothesize that post-NewKingdom development in Upper Nubia wasdetermined by the following factors :

a. The survival of the indigeneous elite,including the families of chieftains who main­tained the connection with their original tribalterritory and tribal community.

b. The survival of New Kingdom «urban»setlements inhabited by communities which hadpreserved to a significant extent an Egyptianizedcommunity structure and could in this ·wayconstitute the bases for « incipient city-states »,93

and furthermore represented administrative tradi­tions that were still adaptable under the changedcircumstances.

c. The survival in a fairly intact form of therural settlements and of the structure of theirinterconnections with the «urban» settlements.Obviously, we here also assume the continuity ofagricultural production.

It is for the time being obscure, how manychiefdoms emerged from the ruins of the NewKingdom province, and what was their geo­graphical situation and ethnic composition. Thecoronation inscriptions of Twenty-Fifth Dynastyand later Kushite kings preserve the tradition ofthe origins of the kingdom in a sort of federationof territorial units with their centres at Meroe,Napata, Kawa, and Tabo (see Chapter 12 below).For lack of archaeological data we may identifythese units only hypothetically with tribal chief­doms, and it would be certainly unwise to regardall of them as ethnically different.

The history of Tabo (ancient Pnubs on theIsland of Argo) is known to some extent onlyfrom the period of the Twenty-Fifth Dynastywhen the temple of Amun of Pnubs was erected(by Taharqo ?). Isolated finds associated with thenames of Sesostris I of the Twelfth,94 andSebekhotep IV of the Thirteenth Dynasty95 areirrelevant from the aspect of this investigation,and the uninscribed New Kingdom finds from thesite are rather uninformative.96 Although thetown site of Kawa (ancient Gematon) is stillunexcavated, the finds made in its temples do notleave any doubt that this temple town was animportant administrative, military, and urbancentre from Amenophis 111'S97 or Tutankhamun'sreign,98 and centered around a temple dedicatedto Amen-Re by Tutankhamun.

92 Ibid., 262f.93 For the comparable process in Predynastic Egypt see Kemp 1989, 31-63, esp. 51.94 PM VII, 180.95 Ibid.96 Ibid.97 Foundations of temple of Amenophis III (?) under the temple of Taharqo; see L.P. Kirwan, lEA 22, 1936, 205f. ;Macadam 1949, 82f.98 PM VII, 181 ; for the documents of Panakht, governor of Gematon in the reign of Tutankhamun and of Ramessenakht,overseer of the garrison, temp. Ramesses VI, see Macadam 1949, 1-3 and 84, respectively.

26

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINATION

Pnubs and Kawa are situated in the fertileDongola reach, but their importance in theviceregal administration was not equal. Thevalley stretch between Kawa and the Napata areais devoid of New Kingdom monuments, but itmay not be excluded that this gap will be filledby more intense archaeological work. It wassuggested that this area remained under indigen­eous control all through the New- Kingdomperiod,99 which is not improbable considering thefact that Napata was connected with the Abri­Delgo reach and Lower Nubia via the desert roadleaving the river valley at Kawa. If, however, thered granite column fragment of King Merenptahof the Nineteenth Dynasty allegedly from OldDongolal

°O comes in fact from this site, we mustaccept the possibility that the power of the NewKingdom Viceroy of Kush also extended over theDongola reach. Nevertheless, in the backgroundsof the el Kurru chiefs emerging after the Egyp­tian withdrawal we may assume this fertile area.

5. The Butana region before the endof the Egyptian domination inUpper Nubia

Pnubs, Kawa, and Napata were situated in aterritory inhabited by Nubian-speaking ethnicgroups. 101 The fourth main centre appearing inthe coronation records of the kings of Kush,Sanam, lies opposite Napata on the left bank ofthe Nile still in a territory inhabited by Nubian-

speakers. It is in the region of Sanam where thefourth century BC ruler Nastasen situates thebirth-place of Alara, the founder of the dynastyof the kings of Kush (see Chapters 8, 13-14), yetit is also possible that this place of the ancestorcult of Alara is not identical with the actual placeof his family's origin. The fifth main placementioned in the royal inscriptions, Meroe City,a settlement in the grasslands of the Butana, wassituated in the territory of a different ethniccomplex, viz., the Meroitic-speakers.

As we shall see below, the Butana became apart of the kingdom of Kush only by the reign ofKashta or, at the latest, under Piye. Theterritory - identified recently in a convincingmanner by O'Connor with the Irame of NewKingdom texts lO2

-, was never subjected toEgypt, but it was in the course of the NewKingdom increasingly in the field of her interest.In the first period of the conquest of UpperNubia the Butana region (or Irame) came intocontact with Egypt as a consequence ofHatshepsut's Punt expedition. 103 Although Iramefigures as a captured territory in the queen' sKush list at Deir el Bahari and in Year 34 ofTuthmosis III four sons of the Prince of Irameare taken as «tribute» (b3kw) to Egypt,104 wehave no reasons to suppose its conquest. Afterthe establishment of the frontier of the provinceat Napata Irame became the target of militarycampaigns. Military actions are recorded underTuthmosis IV, 105 Amenhotep III, 106 SetiI,107Ramesses 11,108 and Ramesses 111. 109 As· suggestedby O'Connor,110 this aggressivity parallels thecontemporary policy shown in Palestine and

99 Morkot 1987.100 Cairo JE 27846, unpublished, cf. PM VII, 193. ,101 For Nubian place-names in New Kingdom texts see K.-H. Priese : «Articula~, Etudes et Travaux 7, 1973), 155-162;Priese 1978 ,76.102 O'Connor 1982, 934ff. ; O'Connor 1987 ; cf. also J.C. Darnell: « Irem and the Ghost of Kerma ~ GM 94, 1986, 17-23(contra : H. Goedicke : « Yam - More ~, GM 101, 1988, 35-42, yet with unconvincing arguments).103 O'Connor 1987, 127.104 Ibid.105 Urk. IV, 1556, 15-19.106 Year 5, see I.E.S. Edwards: British Museum Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, Part 8. London, 1939, 21f.107 Qasr Ibrim stela, PM VII, 94 ; J. Vercoutter: «La XVII~ dYP.1\stie a SaY et en Haute-Nubie» CRIPEL 1, 1972, 9-38 ;K.A. Kitchen: «Historical Observations on Ramesside Nubia ~, in : Agypten und Kusch, Berlin, 1977, 213-225.108 H.W. Fairman: «Preliminary Report on the Excavations of Amara West~, lEA 34, 1948, 3-11.109 Zibelius 1972, 49 VI Da 5 ; O'Connor 1982, 934; for the iconography of the campaigns of Ramesses II and Ramesses III inthe temples at Beit el WaH and Derr and for its relevance for Irem see O'Connor 1987, 131ff. For Twenty-Fifth Dynasty andNapatan copies of these war reliefs see Torok n.d. Chapters 2.4, 27, 98.1.110 1987, 135.

27

THE END OF EGYPTIAN DOMINATION

Syria. The hostility was motivated in the firstplace ideologically, 111 yet doubtless also strategicand economic considerations played a role. Itmay be assumed, too, that from time to timeIrame displayed a provocative attitude towardsthe Egyptian province of Kush.

Unfortunately, the Irame of the New King­dom period is archaeologically completely un­known. We have an idea of the culture of theinhabitants of Meroe City only from the early

111 Cf. Kemp 1978, 8ff.112 See also Torok n.d.

28

Twenty-Fifth Dynasty period onwards. Thescanty evidence suggests that :

a. The indigeneous culture of the Butanaregion differed from the culture of the Napataregion, though this cultural difference is so fardiscernible only in the realm of mortuarycustoms;

b. The Butana region was « Egyptianized » asa result of its unification with the Upper Nubianchiefdoms. The problem of the unification will'be discussed in the second part of this book. 112