Nubian towns and temples
Temples were major features of the towns of Egypt during the New Kingdom, and the temple town was also a primary form of settlement in Nubia. These monumental temples served as symbols of Egyptian power after the conquest of the region by the pharaohs of the New Kingdom, and their consequent right to exploit the region’s resources.
Although Middle Kingdom fortifications in Lower Nubia were renovated during the New Kingdom, the Egyptian colonies were apparently not strongly fortified. However, the enclosures controlled movements into and out of the towns and temple storage areas, and therefore facilitated security.
The labor force used in the construction of these monuments sometimes included prisoners of war. Both Ramesses I and his successor, Seti I, claim to have endowed the temple at Buhen with captives, and they were reportedly used to build the Great Temple at Abu Simbel. These slaves may have been skilled artisans intended for the temple workshops, or peasants destined for settlement on the temple estates.
The temples seem to have functioned as a branch of the Egyptian state, serving as centers for the administration and economic exploitation of Nubia. Temples and temple towns were often strategically located near mines, quarries or agricultural land, or where land routes converged on the river. The temples collected local produce and foreign goods in order to maintain themselves and to provision the temple establishments back in Egypt, to which land and trading rights in Nubia had been donated by royal edict. Temple and palace establishments in New Kingdom Egypt were related symbiotically, but it is unclear whether temple personnel in Nubia ever acted as agents of the state.
Archaeologists have also located many temples in Nubia for which no associated settlement remains were found (possibly a function of poor preservation). However, the military control or political administration of the region was the responsibility of soldiers and government officials who were undoubtedly settled in or near temple towns. These ritual centers also functioned as administrative, economic and cultural centers. It has been noted that the distribution of New Kingdom temples and temple towns mirrors the pattern of primary settlement found during earlier and later periods. Although temple towns continued to be important in later periods in Nubia, the following discussion will deal only with those known from the New Kingdom. These centers were not all contemporaneous, and detailed evidence for their dating cannot be given here.
New Kingdom settlements in Nubia
The Egyptian administration of Nubia was conducted from numerous outposts, but the residences of the high officials who helped administer the northern (Wawat) and southern (Kush) districts of Nubia were located at Aniba (22°40′ N, 32°01′ E) and Amara (20°48′ N, 30°23′ E). Faras (22°13′ N, 31°29′ E) and Soleb (20°27′ N, 30°20′ E) briefly usurped this function during the reign of Tutankhamen. All four of these sites were major towns throughout the period. The Middle Kingdom forts at Kuban (23°10′ N, 32°46′ E), Ikkur (23°13′ N, 32°48′ E), Aniba, Serra (22°07′ N, 31°24′ E) and Buhen (21°55′ N, 31°17′ E), which were located in the most fertile regions of Lower Nubia, as well as the Second Cataract forts at Mirgissa (21°49′ N, 31°10′ E), Semna (21°30′ N, 30°57′ E), Uronarti (21°32′ N, 30°57′ E), Kumma/Semna East (21°30′ N, 30°57′ E) and Shelfak (21°33′ N, 31°02′ E), were all renovated and reoccupied during the New Kingdom. Some of these centers were active only at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty, and were abandoned after the Egyptians consolidated their power down to the Fourth Cataract. All had at least one New Kingdom temple.
There were no apparent settlement remains found in association with the New Kingdom temples or chapels at Beit el-Wali (23°33′ N, 32°52′ E), Gerf Hussein (23°17′ N, 32°54′ E), Wadi es-Sebua (22°45′ N, 32°34′ E), Derr (22°44′ N, 32°12′ E), Ellesiya (22°42′ N, 32°03′ E), Qasr Ibrim (22°39′ N, 32°00′ E), Abu Simbel (22°21′ N, 31°38′ E), or Abu Hoda/ Gebel Adda (22°18′ N, 31°37′ E). Most of these temples were built by Ramesses II. The presence of New Kingdom graves near a few of these sites, and the inscriptional evidence which mentions a fort or town in the area (as at Derr), may point to contemporary settlements which were never found by modern surveys.
After the military campaigns of Tuthmose I, the Egyptians had advanced beyond the Fourth Cataract. The forts in Lower Nubia became less important for military security, and some of them were apparently abandoned by the mid-18th Dynasty. Those that continued to exist were eventually expanded beyond the perimeters of the earlier fortifications.
The Middle Kingdom fortress of Kuban, which was situated at the entrance to the gold-mining region of the Wadi Allaqi, was reoccupied during the New Kingdom and a temple built therein. New Kingdom remains were also found across the river at the reoccupied fortress of Ikkur, which eventually lost its importance to an unfortified town that developed at nearby Dakka.
The Middle Kingdom fortress at Aniba was reoccupied early in the 18th Dynasty, and cemeteries in the area continued to be used. The town later expanded beyond the fortification walls of the earlier settlement, and another wall was constructed. The town was never thoroughly investigated, but a New Kingdom temple was discovered in the northwest corner of the new enclosure, and this was surrounded by residential, administrative and storage buildings. Eventually, buildings were constructed outside Aniba’s walls.
There is still no conclusive evidence of New Kingdom occupation across the river at Qasr Ibrim, but a number of New Kingdom rock-cut shrines, built by officials of Tuthmose III, Amenhotep II and Ramesses II, were found in the vicinity. Temples were discovered to the north at Ellesiya, Derr and Amada (22°43′ N, 32°15′ E). The latter was originally built during the reign of Tuthmose III, but the nearby settlement was never thoroughly investigated. An inscription from a New Kingdom grave at Aniba also mentions a settlement at Derr, and there are New Kingdom graves nearby.
An inscription from the reign of Tutankhamen mentions the town of Ibshek, the ancient name of Faras and numerous New Kingdom temples were built in the vicinity. However, no contemporary settlement remains were found at Faras, and the Middle Kingdom fortress was apparently not reoccupied. (The area was extensively used during later periods, and possibly an earlier settlement existed below the Christian citadel). At nearby Aksha the enclosure walls of the Ramesside temple were partly utilized as the main wall of a later town, which formed south of the temple and outside the walls; it was not extensively investigated.
The New Kingdom temples and graves at Faras are spread over a large area, which has led scholars to assume that the administrative, religious and residential buildings of Faras were dispersed (like those of Thebes in Egypt). The mortuary evidence may indicate that the main administrative center was surrounded by small settlements of the indigenous population. However, none of these local centers was ever identified.
The Middle Kingdom fortifications and buildings at Buhen and Mirgissa were extensively renovated and resettled at the beginning of the New Kingdom. New temples were also constructed. The town area of Buhen eventually spread beyond the old walls and the expanded enclosure. The fortified site at nearby Kor (21°52′ N, 31°14′ E) may have also been partially reused during the New Kingdom, but no Middle or New Kingdom temples were found in the enclosure.
Although the Middle Kingdom fortresses south of Mirgissa received some attention during the New Kingdom, their strategic importance decreased after Egyptian expansion to the Fourth Cataract. The fortresses of Semna and Uronarti, however, were renovated during the New Kingdom, and new temples were also built at these sites, as well as at Kumma.
No New Kingdom remains were found between the southern end of the Second Cataract and the southern end of the Batn el-Hagar, but temples and settlements were built in the fertile region between the Third Cataract and the Dongola Reach. Evidence from both archaeological surveys and inscriptions show that towns existed contemporaneously with the temples at Amara, Sai, Soleb, Sesebi, Tabo/ Argo Island (19°30′ N, 30°28′ E), and perhaps also at Kawa (19°07′ N, 30°30′ E). No New Kingdom settlement was found at the temple site of Seddenga (20°33′ N, 30°17′ E).
The New Kingdom levels at the partially excavated town of Amara date from the Ramesside period. This walled temple town was a major Egyptian administrative center located in an agriculturally fertile area capable of supporting a settled population. It was also strategically located within view of the desert and river routes and was near a gold-mining region.
The fortified settlement at Soleb, located south of the temple built by Amenhotep III, was one of the major Egyptian administrative towns in Nubia under Tutankhamen (the center was later moved to Amara). The nearby temple at Seddenga was built for Amenhotep III’s wife, Tiye, but no settlement remains were found there. A rock-chapel of Tuthmose III was built on the west bank at Gebel Dosha (20°30′ N, 30°18′ E), south of Seddenga.
At Sesebi, the entire circuit of the late 18th Dynasty enclosure wall is known. Its streets, which were constructed on a grid pattern, divided the settlement into residential and administrative, religious and storage sectors. After the reign of Akhenaten, it began to grow in a more haphazard manner. Akhenaten founded all four of the temples located along the northwest wall of the town. A roadway connected this site with the temple town at Soleb.
According to an inscription from Tumbus (19°42′ N, 30°24′ E), which is situated at the south end of the Third Cataract, a fortress was constructed at the site under Tuthmose I. Little is known about New Kingdom remains from the site, but inscriptions found in the vicinity mention Tuthmose III, Amenhotep II and Amenhotep III.
It was once believed that Kerma, to the south of Tumbus, was abandoned during much of this period, but New Kingdom remains have recently been found there, including a cemetery and some houses in the settlement. New Kingdom pottery and inscribed stone blocks were found west and north of the earlier town. A religious complex with associated New Kingdom (and later) remains have also been found (at the "Kom of the Bodegas").
The town of Kawa is believed to be identical with the ancient town of Gempaten, which was established by either Amenhotep III or Akhenaten. The unexcavated settlement stretching north and south of the 25 th Dynasty temple at Kawa may be contemporaneous with a New Kingdom temple, lying beneath the later one.
No New Kingdom remains have been found in the area along the river between Kawa and Napata, which perhaps suggests that an overland route was in use at this time. Located at the southern terminus of this route is Napata/ Gebel Barkal, where a victory stela of Tuthmose III was found. It mentions a fort called "Death to the Foreigners" in which there was a chapel dedicated to Amen. An inscription of Tutankhamen also refers to a fort in this area. The remains of a New Kingdom temple and inscribed artifacts dating from the 18th to 20th Dynasties have also been found in the region, but evidence for a contemporary fortress, settlement or cemeteries is still lacking.
Finally, inscriptions of Tuthmose I and III have been found near modern Kurgus (19°12′ N, 33°30′ E), south of Abu Hamed, between the Fourth and Fifth Cataracts. Although there is an unexcavated fortress on the nearby island of Mograt, none of the surface remains has been dated to the New Kingdom.
Conclusion
Egypt’s occupation of Nubia required administrative, religious and social centers, both for the Egyptian colonizers and the Nubian officials, and for the local people working for them. However, because of past emphasis on excavating temples and cemeteries in Nubia, and because of the abbreviated nature of salvage excavations (preceding the flooding of Lower Nubia by Lake Nasser), information concerning the administrative, residential and service areas of these towns is lacking. Contemporary settlements of the indigenous population are also unknown. The occupation of Nubia during the New Kingdom allowed the Egyptian state and temple establishments to have direct access to the produce of the region, sources of gold and precious stones, and to the markets for luxury products from the south (ebony, ivory, electrum, myrrh trees and myrrh, other types of wood, incense, fruits, cosmetics, throw-sticks, ostrich eggs and feathers, and exotic animals and skins). The inhabitants of temple-centered fortress towns and newly established temple towns in Nubia not only regulated the flow of local goods for the support of the settled population in these centers, but they also facilitated the flow of luxury products north-wards into Egypt.
Nuri
Nuri, whose ancient name is unknown, is a modern Sudanese village, 10km upstream from Gebel Barkal on the opposite bank of the Nile, approximately 28km downstream from the Fourth Cataract (18°33′ N, 31°55′ E). It is the site of the royal necropolis of Kush during the three centuries following the end of the 25th Dynasty and the abandonment of el-Kurru. Founded by the Kushite king Taharka (circa 690-664 BC), the Nuri cemetery was used by all but two of his twenty-one known successors to the time of Nastasen (circa 335-315 BC), and fifty-three queens. Nuri was explored and described by George Waddington and Barnard Hanbury, Frederic Cailliaud and Louis Linant de Bellefonds in 1820-2, by George Hoskins in 1833, and by Carl Richard Lepsius in 1844, among others. It was excavated by George Reisner and the Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Expedition between 1916 and 1918.
Why Taharka chose to abandon the dynastic cemetery of el-Kurru and to choose for his pyramid the novel site of Nuri is unclear, but Timothy Kendall has proposed a mythological explanation. Nuri lies on the left bank of the Nile, the traditional place of burial in Egypt, which was associated with the west. As the place of sunset, the west was identified as the realm of the dead and the entrance to the underworld. Here, paradoxically, due to the reverse curve in the river, Nuri actually lies in the east. which, as the place of sunrise, was identified with rebirth and new life. From the summit of Gebel Barkal, the Nuri pyramids can be seen to the northeast, 68-70° from true north. When sunrise is observed from the summit of Gebel Barkal at the summer solstice, the sun appears to rise at 65°, just to the right of the Nuri pyramids. Several weeks later, when the sun rises at 68-70°, directly behind the pyramids, the period coincides with the heliacal rising of Sirius, which marked the start of the ancient Egyptian New Year, coinciding with the annual Nile flood. Since the New Year symbolized renewal and recreation, the site of Nuri would appear to have been deliberately chosen to create the most favorable metaphorical environment for the king’s assumed rebirth and resurrection.
The Nuri pyramids were erected on a pair of parallel ridges running northeast to southwest about 1.5km from the Nile. Taharka was the first king to use the site, but his tomb (Nu. 1) is such an aberration from those built before and immediately after his reign that it is not clear whether it was entirely constructed in his lifetime or whether it was built in different stages after his death by his successors. The subterranean rock-cut tomb, 13m deep and accessed by a stairway with fifty-one steps, is unique among all the Kushite royal mausolea in that it is closely related in plan to the Osireion of Seti I at Abydos, the cenotaph of Osiris. Taharka’s tomb consists of a room with six massive square pillars and vaulted aisles, once plastered and brightly painted, and encircled by a corridor joining the room at its front and rear axis. The coffin had been raised on a dais in the center of the room, which, being cut below the level of the water table, remained flooded, thus symbolically creating for the king’s mummy the environment of rebirth on the primeval mound emerging from the waters of Nun.
The pyramid itself, with a base length of 51.75m (approximately 100 cubits), is four times larger than the those of his two immediate successors and twice as large as any built later at the site. Degradation of the outer surface of this pyramid, however, revealed that an earlier, smaller pyramid with a base length of 28.5m (approximately 50 cubits), a size identical to those built by most of his successors, had originally marked the tomb. No trace of a chapel has ever been found, leading to speculation that the original chapel might have been encased in the masonry of later additions.
Taharka’s tomb was located between the two ridges; the tombs of two of his queens were sited just to the north of this. Although his successor, Tanwetameni, chose to be buried at el-Kurru, four queens of his generation preferred burial at Nuri. Subsequently, all kings’ tombs were built in a row to the southeast of Taharka’s tomb, while all the royal women were buried to the north or northeast of Taharka’s pyramid. According to Dows Dunham, each tomb was built on the most favorable spot remaining vacant on the site at the time it was constructed.
Following the burial of Atlanersa, whose tomb (Nu. 20) was similar in scale to that of Tanwetameni at el-Kurru, the kings established an entirely new, more grandiose tomb and pyramid type, with an average base length of 28m (50 cubits), which remained the standard for three more centuries. Chapels with pylons were built against the southeast fagades of the pyramids. The subterranean tombs, 8-9m below ground, now consisted of three interconnecting rock-cut chambers accessed by a deep stairway. When well finished, the walls of each of these rooms were completely carved or painted with Egyptian funerary texts and scenes.
The Napatan kings were mummified according to Egyptian fashion; their bodies were wrapped holding gold crooks and flails, and green stone heart scarabs and gold pectorals were placed over their chests. Their fingers and toes were capped with gold, and their faces were covered with gold masks (although the only existing examples were found in queens’ tombs). The viscera were placed in large canopic jars. The royal mummies were encased within wooden anthropoid coffins covered with gold foil and adorned with inlaid eyes of bronze, calcite and obsidian. These coffins were then placed within larger coffins, covered with gold leaf and inlays of colored stones in designs of falcons or vultures with outstretched wings. In two cases (Nu. 6 and 8), the kings’ outer coffins were placed within huge, fully decorated granite sarcophagi. Around the walls of the burial chambers shawabti (servant) figures of stone or faience, numbering between several hundred to over a thousand, would be arranged standing. Although the tombs were all badly plundered, evidence suggests that the kings were buried with chests of valuable jewelry, vessels, toilet articles and other personal possessions. Typically, the first chamber probably contained large numbers of jars of food and drink.
The queens’ tombs and burials shared much in common with those of the kings’, but they were less elaborate and the materials used were less costly. The most developed queens’ tombs contained two interconnecting rock-cut chambers, 4-8m deep, surmounted by pyramids about half the size of those of the kings. A lesser type contained only a single rock-cut chamber with an even smaller pyramid. Still another contained only a single chamber without any evident superstructure. These were the same types of queens’ tombs that had been manifested at el-Kurru. As preserved, the walls exhibited little decoration, but one tomb (Nu. 24) was extensively carved with texts from the Book of the Dead, and others (e.g. Nu. 53) bore traces of plastered and painted decoration. Some tombs contained niches in their walls, either for lamps or for statues. In the center of the floor, or slightly off-axis to the south, a low bench, either rock-cut or of masonry, appeared on which the queen’s coffin was laid. Each tomb was marked on the surface by a pyramid ranging in base length from 6.3-7.5m for the earliest, to 10-11m for those in mid-sequence, to 12-13m toward the end of the sequence. This increase in size would seem to correspond to the increasing political importance of the great queens in the Meroitic period, when the capital of the Kushite state was farther south at Meroe. None of the queens’ pyramids preserved a chapel with a pylon.
Nuri was abandoned as a royal cemetery in the late fourth century BC. Subsequent kings initially built their tombs at Gebel Barkal, but by the mid-third century BC the royal cemetery was moved to Meroe.
Obelisks: quarrying, transporting and erecting
There are scarcely any original sources for the quarrying, transport and erection of the tall temple obelisks of ancient Egypt. We can only examine the results and try to discern the technical steps by investigating the possibilities using the resources that were at the disposal of the ancient Egyptians. Egyptian obelisks are well known from examples such as the obelisk now in Central Park in New York, originally erected by Tuthmose III in Heliopolis, or the obelisk in front of the Lateran in Rome, originally erected by Tuthmose IV at Karnak. Only such large-scale obelisks will be dealt with here. At least until the end of the New Kingdom, they were shaped from hard stone, reddish-brown quartzite or red granite, a stone which is found in Egypt only in the region of Aswan. Due to their color, both types of stone have a symbolic connection with the rising sun. In the quarries near Aswan are found many traces of the extraction of granite, some of quite recent date but others also reaching back to pharaonic times. This evidence allows us to see how the stone was extracted. One unfinished obelisk measuring nearly 42m in length still lies in the quarry. When finished, it would have weighed nearly 1,200 tons. This is the largest obelisk known; its unfinished condition, showing certain stages of the work, helps us to reconstruct the quarrying methods used by the ancient Egyptians.
Only great experience enabled the Egyptians to select a place likely to include a flawless piece of stone long enough for an obelisk. Once a section of rock was chosen, the outer weathered layers would be removed, partly by burning fires on the surface of the rock and cooling it suddenly with water while it was still hot, and partly by pounding with stone hammers. Then the surface of the block was more or less smoothed. During or before smoothing, the masons hammered vertical hollows round the shaft in order to test for any weaknesses which would make further work senseless. After successful testing, they began to dig trenches round the perimeter of the desired shaft.
In pharaonic times, Egyptians working on hard stones had to use tools made of still harder stone, because metal implements of iron were not in use until very late in pharaonic history. Many finds from the quarries are sharp-edged dolorite hammers which were used for working on granite. During the process of hammering, pieces of stone were burst with each blow until the hammers gradually got round and could only be used for pounding, i.e. bruising off small flakes of granite. On the trench walls one can still clearly see slightly concave vertical grooves about 30cm wide. One man worked on two such grooves. More than 100 men were able to work on the unfinished obelisk at the same time, all in the same position, either to the right or to the left of the grooves. One man would squat in front of the shaft and the next would squat with his back to it. Remains of ochercolored lines marking the working sections and control marks for the efficiency of the laborers may still be seen.
An especially difficult task was detaching the obelisk, rough-worked on three sides, from the parent rock. Where it was possible, the masons tried to use natural bedding planes. These, however, only very seldom ran as wanted, especially when huge blocks were required. Only in such cases was it possible to first hack out the lower side in the same way as the lateral surfaces. The Egyptians probably tried to squeeze off the block by beginning to bash out the lower side and then employing huge levers at the top of one of the trenches, so the block was broken from the bedrock by leverage. Next, the front wall of the hole in which the obelisk lay had to be removed so that it could be transported out of the quarry. All this toil would have been facilitated enormously by the technique of wedging with iron chisels. This method was not used in Egypt before post-pharaonic times, however.
As a rule the blocks were shaped as much as possible while still in the quarry in order to save weight in transporting the block; several unfinished but extensively worked and partly decorated objects prove this. Anomalies in the monuments occasionally show us evidence of slight carelessness among the stoneworkers. For instance, the slight longitudinal curves of the Luxor obelisks may be the result of the sagging of the measuring cord when the stone was still lying in the quarry, and the slight convexity in section seems to have come from the system of polishing, which produced a more intensive rubbing along the edges than at the center.
The transport of the monuments from the quarry to the banks of the Nile took place by means of sledges or rollers (used for the bigger and heavier objects) on tracks beaten for that purpose. Further transport was by river on vessels known by the term wsht. However, we have no exact descriptions or representations of them. Probably the most famous depiction of the transport of obelisks occurs in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri. One of the four obelisks erected by this queen is still standing at Karnak. Although the vessels and sledges on which the obelisks are transported are shown in great detail, we should not take this representation as being completely accurate; diverse stages of an action are projected in a hieroglyphic manner, that is, condensed into one picture to demonstrate the aim or intention of the action. Thus, although the obelisks are shown fixed on a sledge, this does not mean that they were actually transported on sledges. The sledge is used here as a pictogram for forwarding weighty cargoes: the actual transport could have been done by rollers. The same holds true for the obelisk-vessels represented with many details in the same temple. They must not be interpreted literally; the depiction does not indicate whether the obelisks were stored on the vessel one behind another—as represented—or side by side. Neither can the type of vessel on which the obelisks were shipped be deduced with any certainity; shipping by means of a raft remains a possibility. Hatshepsut’s relief indicates only the transportation of an obelisk by water.
The most vexing problem involves how the obelisks were actually erected. We know of officials responsible for the erecting of obelisks or other labors concerning them from tomb inscriptions or rock graffiti; these are high-ranking functionaries of the temple-administration, but the inscriptions give no technical details. There are also papyri (such as Papyrus Anastasi I, a satiric model letter) including arithmetical problems about the work needed to build embankments (for obelisks) and the like. However, such papyri contain a number of unique words or phrases which make interpretation difficult. Some of the data presented may in fact have been fanciful; for instance, the length of an obelisk relative to its thinness on Papyrus Anastasi I would not have been possible to transport and erect because of the dead weight. With all known obelisks, this ratio is always within a range where sound stone would not break.
Ritual representations in temples show the king erecting obelisks by means of ropes. However, again we should not interpret these illustrations as technical drawings. The erection of obelisks seems to have been possible by lifting up with levers and ropes and simultaneous gradual underpinning. More probably, as generally supposed, the obelisk was slid off an embankment. First, sufficiently strong foundation layers were built and pedestals raised. Horizontal grooves on their upper sides served as construction elements for the erection, especially during the final stage, in order not to damage the lower edges of the shaft through the weight pressing heavily upon them. Grooves at right angles to the ones mentioned above were probably of use for fixing a crossbeam buttressing the obelisk during erection. According to current opinion, it seems most probable that two facing embankments were built parallel to the front of the pylon, enclosing conical pits of masonry at the bottom and ending at the upper side of the pedestal, with drains for sand at right angles to the axis of the forward ramp. The obelisk was slid into the shaft filled with sand by discharging the sand from the drains. It was then pulled into its final position by means of ropes. For all these tasks, it was necessary to calculate the center of gravity and to take precautions that the obelisk did not rock and twist too much after passing over dead center.
