egyptian inscriptions of natakamani and amanitore

potah_Egypt _CROSSROADS II_ A G A M Ahřbet_35 mm C M Y K

9 788073 085759

ISBN 978–80–7308–575–9

edited by Jana Mynářová,Pavel Onderka and Peter Pavúk

Myn

ářo

vá, O

nd

erka

and

Pav

úk

(ed

s.)

Proceedings of an International

Conference Held in Prague,

September 15–18, 2014

Thereand Back Again – the Crossroads II

The

re an

d B

ack

Aga

in –

the

Cro

ssro

ads

II

Thereand Back Again – the Crossroads IIProceedings of an International Conference Held in Prague,

September 15–18, 2014

edited by Jana Mynářová, Pavel Onderka and Peter Pavúk

Charles University in PragueFaculty of Arts2015

strana 1 — titul

The book was published from the financial means allocated for the research project of the Czech Science Foundation GA ČR P401/12/G168 “History and Interpretationof the Bible”.

Reviewed by Luca Girella and Jordi Vidal

Contributors: A. Ahrens, F. Blakolmer, L. Bonadies, V. Boschloos, D. H. Cline, E. H.Cline, S. Cohen, P. P. Creasman, V. Dubcová, J. P. Emanuel, G. Gestoso Singer, F. Höflmayer, D. Kahn, U. Matić, E. Morero, A. Morriconi, E. F. Morris, J. Mynářová,P. Onderka, N. Papadimitriou, P. Pavúk, R. Prévalet, G. Tucci, Z. Simon, V. Vrtal, J. Weingarten, H. Wilde

Cover: Glass flask of Maiherperri from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Photo by An-dreas F. Voeglin, Photographer Antikenmuseum Basel, Switzerland; the entire SocialNetwork of the Amarna letters with four clusters (© D. H. Cline – E. H. Cline).

Type-setting layout: AGAMA® poly-grafický ateliér, s.r.o., PrahaPrint: PBtisk a.s.

© Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, 2015

ISBN: 978–80–7308–575–9

strana 2

EGYPTIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF NATAKAMANI AND AMANITORE

Vlastimil Vrtal*

For many centuries the Napatan kingdom had no impetus to develop its own writingsystem, since Egyptian language and hieroglyphs were used in royal monumental in-scriptions. With the passing of time, however, an increasing need for an indigenouswriting system was felt, as every weakening of direct contacts with Egypt resulted ina growing number of grammar and spelling mistakes in the texts (Wildung 1998: 237–238). In the early 3rd century BCE, we find the first indications of change, starting withthe throne name of King Arqamaniqo in Meroitic language, though written still inEgyptian hieroglyphs. At the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, the development ofMeroitic writing system began, based on Egyptian demotic and hieroglyphic scripts,and resulted in the introduction of two parallel alpha-syllabic systems: Meroitic cursiveand Meroitic hieroglyphic. The first Meroitic ruler known to adopt Meroitic script forthe writing of his/her name was either King Tanyidamani (Kröper et al. 2011: 184) orQueen Shanakdakhete, the first ruling queen of the Meroitic period (FHN II, 660). Thelatter was also the last in the line of rulers who used the full Egyptian titulary (Hintze1959; FHN II, §148; Török 1997a: 211). In the following centuries, the Meroitic writingsystems were widely employed in both monumental inscriptions and documents ofeveryday use. Up to now, around 1,500 Meroitic inscriptions are known to us.

However, in the early 1st century CE, during the reign of King Natakamaniand Queen Amanitore, a short period of sudden re-emergence of Egyptian writingcan be noted in the epigraphic record. While the Meroitic script continued to beused concurrently, the particular reason for such a large scale re-introduction ofthe Egyptian hieroglyphs and language in royal monumental inscriptions remainsunclear and only little has been written on the subject (e.g. Wenig 1978: I, 100;Welsby 1996: 189; Török 1997a: 464; Baud 2010: 93).

The reign of Natakamani and Amanitore can be with no doubt marked as oneof the most prosperous periods of the Meroitic kingdom. The king and the queenwere responsible for the building, enlargement and restoration of numerous tem-ples from Faras in Lower Nubia in the north, to Wad Ben Naga and Naqa in thesouth. Influx of imported goods and ideas from Egypt and the Mediterranean

465

* The article was written within the framework of the project “Exploration of the Meroitic RoyalCity at Wad Ben Naga (Sudan)“ supported by the Czech Science Foundation (grant no. 13-09594S).The present author would like to express his sincere thanks to Filip Coppens, Pavel Onderka andMichael Zach for their valuable consultations.

reached Meroe and influenced local production, architecture, as well as iconog-raphy and state ideology (cf. Török 2011).

The extraordinary prosperity of the era is usually explained as a result of PaxAugusta, following the well-known conflict between Meroe and Rome concludedby means of a peace agreement in the winter 21/20 BCE on the island of Samos(cf. Török 1997a: 448ff.). Parallels to this situation can be found in the 3rd centuryBCE, after the campaign of Ptolemy II into Nubia, and even earlier. As Török putit, “such pacifications always terminated a longer or shorter period of stagnationin trade and cultural contacts between the two countries (i.e. Egypt and Nubia)and initiated a period of development and prosperity in Kush, (…) influx ofEgyptian texts and artisans, adoption of Egyptian concepts, forms and technolo-gies, but also a (re-)articulation of Kushite concepts” (Török 1997a: 424–425). Thereis no doubt that the events of the late 1st century BCE initiated the process at theend of which, renewed interest in Egyptian models became apparent in all spheresof the Meroitic culture. However, the re-emergence of Egyptian inscriptions in thetime of Natakamani and Amanitore might have had more complex grounds, thansimply an intensification of contacts with Egypt and availability of Egyptiancraftsmen as a consequence of a mutually beneficial solution of the armed conflictbetween Rome and Meroe.

Although we can speak of a certain weakening of contacts with Egypt afterthe suppression of revolts in the Thebais in the first half of the 2nd century BCE(Török 1997a: 431), the period roughly corresponding with the reign of QueenShanakdakhete, it would be too strong to speak of a termination of mutual con-tacts which would have resulted in the loss of practical ability to write in Egyptian.Numerous imported goods from late Hellenistic Egypt, being objects of both tradeand diplomatic exchange (cf. Török 1989), as well as adoption of some new ideas,e.g. for pottery decoration (Török 2011: 313ff.) and iconography (Török 1997a: 447–448), though occurring on a smaller scale than before, in fact rather speak for con-tinued relations and exchange, including that on the literate level. Introductionof the Meroitic writing is seen as a consequence of internal factors, rather than ex-ternal influences (cf. Török 1997a: 442). The same should perhaps apply to the re-emergence of Egyptian a few centuries later.

Egyptian Inscriptions in the Second Half of the 2nd Century BCEand the 1st Century BCE

Unfortunately, the epigraphic evidence from the second half of the 2nd centuryBCE and the 1st century BCE is quite scarce. The royal inscriptions are limited toseveral stelae (FHN II, §152, §174, §176; REM 1041, 1141; Edwards – Rilly 2007;Kröper et al. 2011: 35, 37, 190; FHN III, §192), cultic objects (REM 46, 127, 405B,628, 1026, 1089, 1140), offering tables (REM 73, 802; Hintze 1959: 45ff, nos. 8a–8b),graffiti (REM 92) and inscriptions in royal pyramid chapels (REM 55, 56, 77). All

Egyptian Inscriptions of Natakamani and Amanitore

466

these inscriptions were carried out in Meroitic hieroglyphic or cursive. However,their limited number, and the absence of inscriptional data from some other con-texts—particularly temples (with the exception of two blocks with the name ofAmanishakheto; REM 706)—do not allow us to conclude that royal inscriptionsof this period employed solely the Meroitic script and language. There are indi-cations that the Egyptian script did not fully disappear from royal inscriptions.The evidence of the continued use or at least limited knowledge of Egyptian be-fore the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore (cf. Kröper et al. 2011: 193) is com-prised of several short inscriptions:

1. From the reigns of Queen Shanakdakhete and King Tanyidamani, there is evi-dence of the parallel use of the Egyptian and Meroitic scripts. In the inscriptionin the temple N 500 at Naqa, Egyptian royal titles and epithets are complementedby the name of Queen Shanakdakhete written in Meroitic hieroglyphs (Hintze1959). King Tanyidamani used a similar pattern. On a cylinder with his name,Meroitic cursive was used (REM 1140) together with Egyptian hieroglyphs.

2. An offering table with the name of King Nqyrjinsan[....] written in Egyptian hi-eroglyphs, was found in Beg N13 (FHN II, §159). Based only on this find, pyramidBeg N13 has been attributed to this king, and his reign dated to the first half ofthe 1st century BCE (FHN II, 685). There are, however, no further attestations of this king to support the dating.

Wsjr nsw-bjty Nq[y]rj[nsn] “Osiris, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt,Nqyrjinsan.”

3. On the front left side of the entrance pylon to the offering chapel of pyramidBeg N20, we come across the Horus name KA-nxt (FHN II, §160), which cannot beattributed with certainty to any Meroitic ruler of the late 2nd or 1st century BCE.Based on the location of the pyramid, it must have belonged to a successor of KingNqyrjinsan[....], who is sometimes identified with Tanyidamani (Wenig 1967: 43;Welsby 1996). The Horus name “Mighty Bull” appears in the titularies of severalPtolemies of the late 2nd and the 1st century BCE (FHN II, 686; Leprohon 2013: 184–186, 188), but also with some earlier Napatan and Meroitic kings (e.g. Harsiyotef,Nastaseñ, Arnekhamani).

4. During Garstang’s excavations in Meroe, four blocks were found in templeM 250 in Meroe (Garstang et al. 1911), on which there are three cartouches with Meroitic hieroglyphs identifying a nearby royal person as Prince Akinidad (REM 402). The cartouches are preceded by titles written in Egyptian hieroglyphs.Although the upper parts of the blocks are damaged, the titles can be restored asnsw-bjty and sA-Ra (?).

5. Similarly, these titles were included in the lunette of the stela of Amanishakhetofound at the temple at Naqa (Kröper et al. 2011: 186–187): (nsw)-bjty nb(.t) (tA.wy)


467

sA-Ra nb(.t) (tA.wy). A fragment of a stela with a similar inscription was found re-cently in the Eastern Temple at Wad Ben Naga (Onderka et al. forthcoming).

6. Further examples of the use of Egyptian come from the tomb of Amanishakheto(Beg N6). Two stone fragments, possibly from stelae or offering tables, were in-scribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs. In one case, one column of text on a slate blockreads Wsjr #n.tj-jmn.tjw (find no. 21-3-334; Dunham 1957: 108), in the other, thereare two rows of illegible hieroglyphic text visible (find no. 21-3-425; Dunham 1957:108).

7. Another inscription employing Egyptian hieroglyphs belongs to the probablepredecessor of Natakamani and Amanitore, King Amanikhabale. On a lion statuefrom Basa, both Egyptian and Meroitic hieroglyphs are used for the writing of thetitles of the king (REM 46): nb-tA.wy-qor-anx(.w).

On the basis of the presented data, one would have to conclude that the useof Egyptian in the second half of the 2nd century BCE and a large part of the 1st

century BCE was limited to writing parts of royal names and titles, seeminglyunder the influence of previous tradition. Already in the reign of Amanishakheto,corresponding to intensification of contacts with Egypt, interest in Egyptian writ-ing had grown. Elsewhere, preference was still apparently given to Meroitic evenin such contexts where Egyptian appears abundantly later, particularly in thereign of Natakamani and Amanitore—e.g. in writing royal names and in the dec-oration of chapels of royal pyramids. However, the situation is further compli-cated by missing data. Many pyramid chapels from this period lack inscriptions,because the captions accompanying reliefs are left blank seemingly (e.g. Bar 5,Beg N6, Beg N11, Beg N12). The empty captions appeared for the first time in thereign of Shanakdakhete (in her chapel a few examples of Egyptian text still occur)and that of her successors. This change clearly coincides with the introduction ofthe Meroitic script. Such an adaptation of the decoration to the needs of the newscript would be a logical process. As is apparent from some well-preserved ex-amples of chapel decoration noted by Lepsius (LD V, Bl. 19a, b), the captions mighthave indeed contained only painted inscriptions, which would have got lost inmost cases. In the pyramid of Queen Nawidemak (Bar 6), the captions were filledwith the Meroitic cursive script, and this may have been the case also in otherpyramid chapels. However, empty captions also appeared in later chapels, occa-sionally even in combination with texts in Egyptian. In some cases it is also im-possible to determine which captions were actually blank and in which the textswere simply not preserved.

Egyptian inscriptions of Natakamani and Amanitore

During the reigns of Natakamani and Amanitore, Egyptian seems to have becomeused in royal inscriptions with exceptional frequency. The number of preserved


468

inscriptions employing Egyptian script and language is even higher than that ofinscriptions composed in Meroitic (see Fig. 1). For the last time, Egyptian wasused extensively in the Middle Nile region.

One logical explanation would be that the high number of Egyptian textsdated to the reign of these two sovereigns simply reflects the extraordinary pros-perity of the period and that it represents a corresponding share of the inscriptionsthe rulers have left behind. If we take a look at the actual inscriptions from a closerperspective, this argument becomes weaker, however. In the first place, in com-parison with the relatively well-attested reigns of their predecessors, QueenAmanishakheto, Queen Nawidemak and King Amanikhabale, the difference inpreference is clearly marked (see Fig. 1). Without any doubt, it is indeed necessaryto take into consideration the vast building programme of Natakamani andAmani tore. Egyptian inscriptions are clearly prevalent in the temples that the kingand the queen built, enlarged or reconstructed throughout the kingdom, and inthe offering chapels of the pyramids from their reign at the royal necropolis atMeroe, while such contexts are usually missing for other rulers (see Fig. 2). Thepreference for Egyptian would thus seem to be associated with a specific context.On the other hand, the large extent of the building programme cannot serve asthe only acceptable explanation for the high frequency of the Egyptian texts. Thetemples of Natakamani and Amanitore were still inscribed mainly in Meroitic,even in such places as Amara (cf. Griffith 1912), which must have had very closeties to Egypt and where Egyptian craftsmen and architects most probably partic-ipated in the construction (cf. Török 2002: 254). Moreover, the inscriptions in theroyal pyramid chapels of Natakamani, Amanitore and Arikankharor were writtenexclusively in Egyptian, while there is no evidence of such large scale use of


469

Fig. 1

Proportion of knownMeroitic royal inscriptions employingEgyptian and Meroiticscript and language.

Egyptian in the pyramid chapel of any other Meroitic ruler since the early Meroiticperiod. Similarly, the names of Natakamani, Amanitore and Arikankharor werethe first ones to be written in the Egyptian script since the introduction of Meroiticin the 2nd century BCE. The prevalence of Egyptian inscriptions from the reign ofNatakamani and Amanitore is apparent, but it is actually their quality, not thequantity that makes the distinction.

Among the most elaborate texts of their reign are the inscriptions on the so-called Altar A and Altar B. These bark stands were discovered in the side roomsof the so-called Isis temple (WBN 300) at Wad Ben Naga (LD V, 336ff.; Priese 1984).The texts contain praises to the goddesses Isis and Hathor. In their composition,they show a close connection to the texts inscribed on the naos stands from Philaedated to the reign of Ptolemy VIII (Priese 1984: 25) and the texts employed in the


470

Fig. 2

Proportion of knownMeroitic royal inscrip-tions employing Egyptian and Meroiticscript and language withrespect to the context of the text.

decorative programme of the temples at Dendera and Edfu (Priese 1984: 27),which are also of late Ptolemaic date (the same applies to the spelling of the titles;Griffith 1911: 68). These temples, and particularly Philae, should be without doubtconsidered to be the most probable sources of inspiration for these inscriptions,which characteristically are of a relatively high quality of composition with min-imum mistakes.

1. Altar A (Fig 3).

Smaj aHa.t “South. Ahayet”

aHa.n(=j) Hr.t n As.t dj anx Hr.n(=j) s.t=s “I hold up the heavens for Isis, r qmA nms=s m=s m wiA=s who gives life. Through me mj jtn m msktt is her place more distant than that of her creator. May she glow in it in her bark, like the sun disc in msktt-bark.”

mH.tj ¦way.t “North. Tuayet”

aHa.n(=j) S.t n nb(.t) tA Hr.n(=j) s.t=s “I hold up the heavens for ther ms=s nms=s m=f m wjA=s mistress of the earth. Through mj jaH sqd m wjA=f me is her place more distant than that of him who begot her. May she glow in it in her bark like the moon travelling in its bark.”

sA-Ra nb xa.w Natakamani1 “Son-of-Re, the lord of nsw-bjty nb tA.wy #pr-kA-Ra the diadems, Natakamani, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the Two Lands, Kheperkare”


471

Fig. 3

The so-called Altar Afrom the reign of Nataka-mani and Amanitore discovered at the site ofWad Ben Naga in 1844(illustration by Alexan-der Gatzsche).

2 Natakamani written in Meroitic hieroglyphs.

mn tw sp 2 Hr s.t=t wr.t As.t nb(.t) jgrt “Stay, stay on the Greatmj jtn anx m Ax.t swAH.n=t sA=t Throne, Isis, mistress of theNtk-Jmn Hr nst underworld, like the living sun disc on the horizon, on which you let your son Natakamani remain on the throne!”

sA.t-Ra nb(.t) xa.w Amanitore “Daughter-of-Re, the mistress ofnsw-bjty nb tA.wy Mry-kA-Ra the diadems, Amanitore, the queen of Upper and Lower Egypt, the mistress of the Two Lands, Merikare”mn tw sp 2 Hr s.t=t wr.t As.t nb(.t) jgrt “Stay, stay on the Great Throne,mj jwn srd mj swHt Hr dbn n pt dj=s Isis, mistress of the underworld,anx n sA(.t)=t Jmntre like the moon, which grows like an egg upon traversing the

heaven. May your daughter,Amanitore, be given life.”

2. Altar B.

[Smaj aHa.t] [“South. Ahayet.”]

aHa.n(=j) Hr.t n Hn.t nTr.wt sqA.n(=j) “I hold up the heavens fors.t=s r nTr.w nb(.w) nms=s m=s (m) the lady of the goddesses.HD=s (mj) jtn anx m msktt Through me is her place higher than that of the other gods. May she glow in it in her shrine like the sun disc in its (msktt-)bark.”

mH.tj ¦way.t “North. Tuayet.”

aHa.n(=j) Hr.t n @w.t-@r wr.t sqA.n(=j) “I hold up the heavens for s.t<=s> r nTr.w nb(.w) nms=s m=s Hathor, the Great. Through memj ra m msktt is (her) place higher than that of all the other gods. May she glow in it in her shrine like the sun in its msktt-bark.”

[sA-Ra nb xa.w Natakamani [“Son-of-Re, the lord of thensw-bjty nb tA.wy #pr-kA-Ra] diadems, Natakamani, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the Two Lands, Kheperkare”]


472

mn <tw> sp 2 Hr s.t wr.t @w.t-@r nb(.t) “Stay, stay on the Great Throne, jgrt dj=t anx nb n sA-Ra Ntk-Jmn Hathor, mistress of the under-

world. May you give life to theSon-of-Re, Natakamani!”

sA(.t)-Ra nb(.t) xaw Amanitore nsw-bjty “Daughter-of-Re, mistress of thenb(.t) tA.wy Mry-kA-Ra diadems, Amanitore, the queen of Upper and Lower Egypt, the mistress of the Two Lands, Merikare”

Htp tw sp 2 @w.t-@r wr.t nb.t jgrt Hr p “Be in peace, be in peace, Hathor n nHH Htp=t Hr=f dj=t anx n sA(.t)=t the Great, mistress of the under-Jmntre world, on the throne of eternity!

May you rest on it! May you givelife to your daughter, Amani-tore!”

Another altar/bark stand with Egyptian inscriptions was discovered in the Amuntemple at Naqa (N 100). The decoration as well as the inscriptions seem to becopied from older Napatan prototypes, perhaps the altar of Atlanersa from JebelBarkal (Kröper et al. 2011: 42). The inscriptions include the throne names ofNatakamani and Amanitore and captions by the figures of gods.

3. Altar SNM 31331:

BHdty nTr nfr (sic) dj anx “Hor Behdyte, the great god, given life”

nb #mn.w nb md.w-nTr dj anx “The lord of the Ogdoad, thelord of divine speech, given life”

Mry-kA-Ra “Merikare”bA.w-P-Nxn “the souls of Pe and Nekhen”

#pr-kA-Ra “Kheperkare”bA.w-P-Nxn “the souls of Pe and Nekhen”

Two statues dated to the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore bear inscriptions inEgyptian:

4. A statue discovered by Garstang in Meroe depicts King Natakamani in a veryarchaizing robe (Liverpool Museum 49.47.709; Török 1997b: 231–232, pl. 191; Baud2010: 154, fig. 205). On a belt, part of an inscription identifying the statue can beread:


473

Ntk-Jmn anx(.w) D.t mry As.t “Natakamani, Living Forever,Beloved of Isis”

5. Back pillar of a statue of god Apedemak discovered in the Typhonium at WadBen Naga (Onderka – Vrtal et al. 2014: 174, cat. no. 70) bears a part of an inscriptionidentifying the image as the one of a guardian and creator god:

[…] [toponym] dj=f anx n […] “[…] [toponym], he gives life to […]”

Small finds with an Egyptian inscription are represented by a faience plaquefound in room N 107 of the Amun temple at Naqa (Kröper et al. 2011: 200, fig. 228):

6. sA.t-Ra Mry-[kA]-Ra “Daughter-of-Re, Meri[ka]re”

Egyptian inscriptions from numerous temples are mostly limited to the royalnames and titles. The only evidence of more elaborate texts on the walls of thetemples is provided by relief blocks from temple B 500 at Jebel Barkal (LD V, 15i)and temple M 720 at Meroe (Näser 2004: 274, fig. 139). Block LD V, 14i showsa very unusual writing of the name of Natakamani, attesting to the author’s goodknowledge of the contemporary paleography in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt(FHN III, 897).

7. Parts of relief decoration from the Great Amun Temple at Jebel Barkal (B 500):

sA-Ra ND-kA-mn “Son-of-Re, Nata kamani” (LD V, Bl. 14g)

sA.t-[Ra] Jmntre [...] [nb.t] tA.wy “Daughter-of-Re Amanitore […],Mry-kA-Ra the mistress of the Two Lands, Merikare” (LD V, Bl. 15e)

Arakakhataror […] anx-kA-Ra dj anx “Arakakhataror, […], Ankhkare,mj Ra D.t given life forever like Re”

(LD V, Bl. 15f, tentative identifica-tion by Griffith 1912: 4)

Jmnitre “Amanitore” (LD V, Bl. 15g)

nb tA.wy #pr-kA-Ra “the lord of the Two Lands, Kheperkare” (LD V, Bl. 15h)

Ntk[-Jmn] sA[.t]-Ra Jmn[tre] “Natakamani, the Daughter-nb.w m-m (?) of-Re, Amanitore” “…all the (…) among (?)…” (LD V, Bl. 15i)

Mry[-kA-]Ra […] Jmnt[re] “Merikare […] Amanitore” (LD V, Bl. 15k)


474

8. Parts of relief decoration of kiosk M 280 and temples M 281 and M 720 in Meroe:

Mry-kA-Ra Amanitore “Merikare Amanitore“ (REM 418; Török 1997b: 118)

Ntk-Jmn “Natakamani” (REM 419; Török1997b: 129)

(nsw-)bjty [Amanitore] “the queen of Upper and Lower sA(.t)-Ra Mry-kA-Ra Egypt [Amanitore], the Daugh-

ter-of-Re, Merikare” (Wenig 1978: II, 67; Török 1997b: 178; Näser 2004: fig. 142)

dj.n=j n=k […] “I gave you […]” (Näser 2004: fig. 142)

sA(.t)-Ra Mry-kA-Ra wr(.t) nb(.t) “the Daughter-of-Re Merikare,tA.wy Amanitore the great one, mistress of the

Two Lands, Amanitore” (Näser 2004: fig. 144)

nTr mnx #pr-kA-Ra nsw-bjty nb tA.wy “the excellent god, Kheperkare,Natakamani the king of Upper and Lower

Egypt, the lord of the Two Lands,Natakamani” (Näser 2004: fig. 145)

anx-kA-Ra (?) “Ankhkare (?)” (Näser 2004: fig. 137)

9. During the excavations in temple J at Muweis, fragments of sandstone reliefdecoration showing cartouches of King Natakamani and Prince Arikankharorwere discovered (Baud 2010: 216, fig. 281–282; id. 2014: 769, fig. 4):

Arikankharor […] anx-[kA]-Ra “Arikankharor […] Anchkare”¢pr-kA-Ra “Kheperkare”

10. At the site of Naqa, Natakamani and Amanitore are attested by Egyptian in-scriptions in both the Amun temple (N 100; REM 23, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38) and the so-called Lion Temple (N 300; Griffith 1911: pl. XX; Zibelius 1983). The titles used inthe Amun temple are exceptional in the Meroitic context and show influencesfrom Ptolemaic Egypt, as well as from earlier periods of Nubian history (Griffith1911: 63; FHN III, 898, 903, 907). The Egyptian names and titles occur on the frontand inner walls of the temple gates and on the architraves. Accompanying in-scriptions are carried out in the Meroitic hieroglyphs script. On columns andabaci, decorated in relief, both the names and inscriptions were composed in


475

Meroitic hieroglyphs. In the case of the Lion Temple, still another model was ap-plied. Both the royal names and the accompanying inscriptions are carried out inMeroitic, while only the royal titles are in Egyptian. Based on the presence of a dif-ferent royal prince, the reliefs from Amun temple are perhaps later than those inthe Lion Temple (FHN III, 908).

nTr mnx #pr-kA-Ra sA-Ra nb xa.w “the excellent god, Kheperkare,Natakamani Son-of-Re, the lord of the diadems, Natakamani”

sA.t-Ra Mry-kA-Ra wr(.t) nb(.t) tA.wy “Daughter-of-Re, Merikare,Amanitore the great one, the mistress of the Two Lands, Amanitore”

nTr mnx anx-kA-Ra nsw-bjty nb tA.wy “the excellent god, Ankhkare,Arakakhataror Son-of-Re, the lord of the Two Lands, Arakakhataror”

(nsw)-bjty (nb) tA.wy “the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the Two

Lands” (Natakamani, Amanitore)

nsw-bjty (nb) tA.wy “the king of Upper and LowerEgypt, the lord of the TwoLands” (Arikankharor)

11. Several inscriptions in Egyptian come also from temples at Wad Ben Naga.These comprise of royal names and titles. Besides the Egyptian inscriptions onthe bark stands, Lepsius mentioned a part of a royal name in the cartouche writtenon a pillar in the so-called Isis temple (WBN 300) (LD V, 336; Priese 1984: 13). Thename was preserved only in fragments and could belong either to Natakamani,or to Amanitore. Both sovereigns are attested in the temple also by an abacus withtheir names in Meroitic hieroglyphs (LD V, Bl. 55c; Priese 1984: 13). In the nearbyTyphonium (WBN 200), titles and names of Natakamani written in Egyptian wereincluded in the painted decoration of the main sanctuary of the temple (Onderka– Vrtal 2014: 72–73).

[…]Jmn[…] “Natakamani / Amanitore”

nsw-bjty nb tA.wy #pr-kA-Ra sA-Ra “the king of Upper and Lowernb xa.w Natakamani Egypt, the lord of the Two

Lands, Kheperkare, Son-of-Re,the lord of the diadems, Natakamani”


476

12. The occurence of a few fragmentary blocks, most probably from a temple, withhieroglyphic inscriptions was also reported from Awlib (Sander fortcoming).

The most elaborate texts from the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore arenevertheless the inscriptions accompanying the relief scenes decorating the offer-ing chapels of the pyramids of King Natakamani (Beg N22), Queen Amanitore(Beg N1) and Prince Arikankharor (Beg N5) at Begrawiya. The iconographicalprogramme of these chapels marks a certain change in the decoration of Meroiticroyal chapels (cf. Chapman – Dunham 1952: pls. 18–19). Among other archaizingelements, they show inspiration in the tomb of Arqamani (Beg N7), as well as inEgyptian funerary traditions—Hnw-bark processions of the Sokar/Osirian cultand scenes from the Book of the Dead (Yellin 1979; FHN III, 906–907). Some ele-ments, e.g. the presence of Anubis above the deceased, show that the scenes weremodelled on the contemporary renderings in the late Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt(Yellin 1979: 160), which is in concord with the fact that no scenes are actual copiesof those known from earlier chapels. Similarly, the Egyptian inscriptions show in-fluence by the Ptolemaic grammar and palaeography, and (with the exception ofthree short captions in the chapels of Arqamani and Amanitore) lack prototypesin texts in the earlier chapels. The hieroglyphic texts show nevertheless a largenumber of spelling mistakes, making them practically impossible to read, whichprobably results from erroneous copying. It also needs to be pointed out that thenames of Natakamani, Amanitore and Arikankharor are without exception writ-ten in Egyptian hieroglyphs in the chapels.

The Egyptian inscriptions accompanied the following scenes:

13. Beg N5: burning incense in front of the prince (Chapman – Dunham 1952: pl. 19a), judgement scene (Chapman – Dunham 1952: pl. 19b), texts accompanyingthe figure of the lector priest and the figure of a prince (Chapman – Dunham 1952:pl. 19c), one row of text above the registers on both side walls.

Beg N22: burning incense in front of the enthroned king (Chapman – Dunham1952: pl. 18b; Chapman – Dunham 1952: pl. 18c)

Beg N1: Hnw-bark procession, burning incense in front of the offerings, sphinxpresenting a ram-headed canopic jar (Chapman – Dunham 1952: pl. 18e), pouringwater by Nephthys and Isis (Chapman – Dunham 1952: pl. 18f), erecting the Aby-dos fetish, texts accompanying the figure of a prince (Fig. 4; Chapman – Dunham1952: pl. 18d), one row of text above the registers on both side walls.

From pyramids Beg N22 and Beg N1 come also fragments of blue-glazedfaience offering tables with parts of inscriptions in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Interest-ingly, in the tomb of Prince Arikankharor (Beg N5), fragments of a faience offeringtable were found with inscriptions in Meroitic cursive (find no. 21-12-46; Dunham1957: 125, fig. 84). In the case of the offering table of Natakamani, the text is totallyillegible (find nos. 22-1-53, 22-1-94a; Dunham 1957: 118, fig. 78), in the case of theoffering table for Amanitore, two fragments of text can be identified:


477

[…] D.t nHH […] “[…] eternally, forever […]” (21-3-63; Dunham 1957: 122: fig. 80)

[…] D.t mj Ra “[…] forever like Re.” (21-2-309a;Dunham 1957: 122: fig. 80)

Egyptian Inscriptions of the Late Meroitic Period

In the period following the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore, Egyptian inscrip-tions occur only rarely in the epigraphic evidence. With only a few exceptions,the use of Egyptian is limited on the royal titles written in Egyptian and Egyptianthrone names. The number of royal texts is smaller not only in comparison withthe reign of Natakamani and Amanitore, but also in comparison with the previousperiods.

1. Already the successor of the ruling couple, King Shorkaror, is attested only bya single inscription from his reign. In the inscription accompanying the well-known relief from Jebel Qeili, Shorkaror employed Egyptian for writing his royaltitles (Griffith 1911: 58):


478

Fig. 4

The north wall of the offering chapel of thepyramid of Amanitore(Beg N1) showing Egypt-ian hieroglyphic texts accompanying the scenesof erecting the Abydosfetish and the figure of a prince (after LD V, Bl. 46).

nsw-bjty nb tA.wy “the king of Upper and LowerEgypt, the lord of the Two Lands”

2. Following the model of Natakamani and Amanitore, Queen Amanikha-tashan, who ruled in the second half of the 1st century CE, employed Egyptianlanguage and script in her pyramid chapel at Begrawiya (Beg N18; Chapman –Dunham 1952: pl. 21d; Griffith 1911: 85). The texts nevertheless cannot stand comparison with the elaborate inscriptions from the pyramid chapels ofAmanikhatashan’s predecessors. Besides Egyptian, at least one piece of text in theMeroitic cursive was also inscribed on the wall (LD V, Bl. 51c), although it couldhave also been a later addition. The writing of the titles “Daughter-of-Re, the mis-tress of the diadems” is unusual and shows already some struggle with the com-position. The Egyptian throne name is unfortunately illegible, but apparentlyfollows the model of the previous generations. A small caption by the figure ofIsis, written in Egyptian, could be a copy from an older chapel, as Isis protectingthe ruler is found in many of them (the captions are usually left blank or missing,but similar text is preserved in the chapel of Arqamani by the figure of Isis pro-tecting a shrine; cf. Chapman – Dunham 1952: pl. 5a).

sA(.t)-Ra nb(.t) xa(.w) […]-Ra “the Daugher-of-Re, the mistressnsw-bjty nb(.t) tA.wy JmnxtASn of the diadems, […]re, the queen

of Upper and Lower Egypt, themistress of the Two Lands,Amanikhatashan”

As.t xw sA(.t)=s “Isis who protects her daughter”

In the pyramid of Amanikhatashan, an almost complete sandstone offering tablewas also found with a libation scene bordered by an inscription in (pseudo-) Egypt-ian hieroglyphs (find no. 21-3-572; Dunham 1957: 149, pl. XLa). The inscription isillegible and perhaps represents an erroneous copy of an unknown piece of text.Fragmentary offering tables featuring Egyptian hieroglyphs were found also in the pyramid chapels of Natakamani and Amanitore and such examples mayhave served as prototypes. However, the offering table from the pyramid ofAmanikhatashan has a better parallel in the later offering table of Aritenyese-bokhe, on which a libation scene is similarly bordered by an illegible hieroglyphicinscription.

3. King Amanikhareqerem who ruled around the turn of the 1st and the 2nd centuryCE is attested by four inscriptions, two of which employ Egyptian for writing histhrone name and royal titles. Evidence from Naqa shows that for the decorationof temple N 200, built by this king, Meroitic was used (Kröper et al. 2011: Abb.227, 229). Unfortunately, no pyramid chapel could be attributed to this king. His


479

Egyptian throne name is preserved on the so-called omphalos from Jebel Barkal(REM 1004) and statues of rams from the Amun temple at el-Hassa (Rondot –Török 2010). The name was obviously modelled on the throne name of AmenhotepIII, Nebmaatre. This choice has no parallel in the history of the Nubian kingdomand is indicative of continuing archaizing tendencies. On the ram statues, the royaltitles written in Egyptian precede the throne name of the king:

nsw-bjty nb tA.wy Nb-mAa.t-Ra “the king of Upper and LowerEgypt, the lord of the Two Lands,Nebmaatre”

nsw-bjty nb tA.wy Amanikhareqerem “the king of Upper and Loweranx(.w) D.t Egypt, the lord of the Two

Lands, Amanikhareqerem, livingforever.”

The title nsw-bjty is written in two different variants of writing on the same statue,posing a question about a proper understanding of the script by the Meroitic au-thor. In the case of the omphalos, the throne name is not accompanied by anyroyal titles.4. An identical throne name was used by King Amanitenmomide, as the in-scriptions in his pyramid chapel at Begrawiya (Beg. N17) show (Chapman –Dunham 1952: pl. 21a–c). The fascinating reliefs in this chapel follow the archaizing style of the royal chapels from the reign of Natakamani and Aman-itore (FHN III, 915).

nsw-bjty nb tA.wy Nb-mAa.t-Ra “the king of Upper and Lowernsw-bjty nb tA.wy Amanitenmomide Egypt, the lord of the Two Lands, Nebmaatre, the king

of Upper and Lower Egypt, thelord of the Two Lands, Amanitenmomide”

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, the use of Egyptian seems to have become increasingly exceptional.

5. In pyramid Beg. N32, which belonged to an unknown queen, an offering tablewas found with an inscription in Egyptian hieroglyphs (find no. 21-3-245; Dun-ham 1957; 178, fig. 117). The inscription is unfortunately too fragmentary.

6. From the same period, there are several inscriptions employing Egyptian hi-eroglyphs, attributed to King Tarekeniwal. On the pylon of his pyramid chapel(Beg. N19), the figures of the king smiting enemies are accompanied by his namesand Egyptian royal titles nsw-bjty nb tA.wy. On the south wall of his chapel, a col-


480

umn of text accompanies the figure of the goddess Isis (Chapman – Dunham 1952:pl. 22a):

Dd-mdw jn Nb.t-Hw.t nTr.t [...] “the saying by Nephthys, the [...] nb.t (?) [...] goddess, [...] the mistress of [...]”

Furthermore, a circular blue-glazed faience plaque was found in his tomb, deco-rated with two feathered cartouches with the beginning of the name of the kingwritten in Egyptian hieroglyphs (find nos. 21-3-86, 21-3 164; Dunham 1957: pl. XLVe). The same part of the name can be read also on another fragment offaience found in pyramid Beg. N36 (find no. 21-3-491; Dunham 1957: 183, fig. 120),attributed to Amanitaraqide (Dunham 1957) or Aryesbokhe (Welsby 1996). Fur-thermore, in his pyramid Beg. N19, fragments of a faience offering table werefound with a libation scene and a bordering inscription in Egyptian hieroglyphs(Dunham 1957: 177, pl. XLIVe).

7. Two sandstone blocks with relief decoration discovered in front of pyramid Beg.N30 at Begrawiya, but most probably originating from the pyramid chapel of Beg.N34 (REM 823a–b; FHN III, 939; Dunham 1957: 164, pl. XXXVc, d), bear the namesof King Aritenyesebokhe. The throne name is written in Egyptian hieroglyphsand his own name in Meroitic. On one of these blocks, a further two columns oftext in Egyptian hieroglyphs can be recognized. The reliefs on the blocks are closein style to those of Tarekeniwal (Hinkel 1981: 34) and these two kings thus musthave ruled close to each other in time. In pyramid Beg. N34, fragments of a faienceoffering table were found. The libation scene resembling that from the offeringtable of Amanikhatashan was bordered with a debased illegible (pseudo-) Egyp -tian hieroglyphic inscription (Dunham 1957: XLIIIi).

nsw-bjty nb tA.wy Aritenyesebokhe “the king of Upper and Lowernsw-bjty nb tA.wy #pr-[kA]-Ra Egypt, the lord of the Two

Lands, Aritenyesebokhe, theking of Upper and Lower Egypt,the lord of the Two Lands,Kheper[ka]re”

[nsw-bjty nb] tA.wy #pr-kA-Ra “[the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord] of the Two

Lands, Kheperkare”

Ws[jr] #n.tj-[jmn.tjw] “Osiris-Khontamenty”

8. In the chapel of pyramid Beg. N36, attributed to Aryesbokhe on the basis of thefind of an offering table (FHN III, 914), a sitting king is depicted while receivingofferings. Two cartouches intended for writing of his name are without an inscrip-


481

tion, however, above both of them, the title nsw-bjty (nb) tA.wy is visible (Chapman– Dunham 1952: 23d).

9. The last Meroitic king for whom there is evidence of the use of the Egyptianthrone name is Kheperkare Teqorideamani. On the south wall of the chapel ofpyramid Beg. N28, his names are written in Meroitic and Egyptian hieroglyphs.The titles are unfortunately missing. Similarly to Aritenyesebokhe, Teqorideamanimodelled his throne name on the name of Natakamani.

10. In pyramid Beg. N51, fragments of an offering table were found with a debasedinscription in Egyptian hieroglyphs (find no. 21-2-483; Dunham 1957: 191, fig.125). From the preserved title sA-Ra, it is clear that the offering table belonged toan unknown king.

11. In the chapel of the late pyramid Beg. N26, attributed tentatively to QueenPatra[…]peamani (Hofmann 1978: 185ff.), a block with columns inscribed withEgyptian hieroglyphs was photographically documented by Breasted (Chap-man – Dunham 1952: pl. 23g). The block however does not appear to have be-longed to the scene and might have been moved to this position secondarilyfrom another place or even another structure (such practice is well-documentede.g. from pyramid Beg. N16). The character of the inscription is hard to ascer-tain from the picture, but it must have been a religious type of text with Osirianmotifs.

n [...] nTr [...] nb [...] Wn-nfr [nb] “of [...] the god, [...] the lord of+d.w [...], Wennefer, the lord of Djedu”

Dd-mdw jn Wsjr [...] “The saying by Osiris: [...]”

12. In the last royal pyramid at Begrawiya (Beg. N25), attributed to Queen Ama-nipilade (Hofmann 1978: 185ff.), a fragment of a faience plaque or an offering tablewas found. The fragment bears an illegible inscription in Egyptian hieroglyphs(find no. 21-3-27c; Dunham 1957: 199).

In the periods following the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore, the role ofEgyptian writing in royal inscriptions seems to have gradually diminished. Thereigns of some of the immediate successors of the ruling couple are still markedby the occasional use of the script. Queen Amanikhatashan still had her Mero-itic name written in Egyptian hieroglyphs on the walls of her chapel, and she,Amanikhareqerem and Amanitenmomide used Egyptian throne names. A fewdecades later, Tarekeniwal had in some cases his name written in Egyptian hiero-glyphs, and Egyptian throne names were employed in the titulary of Aritenyese-bokhe and Teqorideamani. Egyptian royal titles continued to be used quiteextensively, but it is far from clear whether they were not rather understood asmere symbols.


482

In the offering chapels of the pyramids of Amanikhatashan, Tarekeniwal,Aritenyesebokhe and Patra[…]peamani (?), Egyptian hieroglyphs were used ona small scale in the captions describing the ritual and religious scenes. It cannotbe excluded that Egyptian still played a significant role in the offering chapels ofthe royal pyramids at Begrawiya, as the decoration of many chapels has vanishedcompletely. However, the preserved evidence rather speaks for the opposite. Thetext in the chapel of Amanikhatashan is very short and could have been easilycopied from an older chapel, rather than having been a part of a complex epi-graphic programme. The same applies to the caption to the figure of Isis in the offering chapel of Tarekeniwal, where Nephthys, standing far to the left, is men-tioned instead of Isis. Also the orientation of the text should be reversed normally.This all could have been an easy mistake to be made by a copyist without a properunderstanding of the scenes and texts. Two illegible (pseudo-)Egyptian inscrip-tions on the offering tables of Amanikhatashan and Aritenyesebokhe further sup-port this assumption. The nature of the texts on the walls of the offering chapelsof King Aritenyesebokhe and Queen Patra[…]peamani is hard to ascertain, as nei-ther can be set into its original context, because one is too fragmentary and theother apparently not in its original position. Nevertheless, in both cases the textscontain references to the Osirian cult. Although it was perhaps the result of copy-ing rather than of knowledge and innovation, the offering chapels of the royalpyramids perhaps remained the only context, in which the Egyptian script wasstill used to some extent well into the 3rd century CE.

Reintroduction of the Egyptian Script: Reading between the Lines?

From the presented data, it is clear that the use of Egyptian language and scriptwas not by far restricted to the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore. It seems thatalready the reign of Queen Amanishakheto was marked by a renewed interest inthe Egyptian writing and this tendency only intensified during the reigns ofNatakamani and Amanitore, and then slowly faded throughout the reigns of theirsuccessors.

Nevertheless, the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore was truly exceptionalwith regard to the reintroduction of elaborate religious texts, as well as new titles,carried out in the Egyptian language, for which inspiration was sought in con-temporary Roman Egypt. Furthermore, contrary to other rulers, the texts ofNatakamani and Amanitore were applied to a wide range of media and werefound in various contexts (cf. Fig. 2). The circumstances were clearly favourable:the vast building programme provided suitable presentation space and intenserelations with Egypt brought along availability of new models to follow, or evenavailability of actual scribes skilled in the Egyptian language and script. But unlessthe introduction of the Meroitic script was driven by the loss of capacity to writein Egyptian, the availability of Egyptian scribes around the turn of the Eras per se


483

could not have been the reason for the reintroduction of Egyptian as the secondlanguage of monumental inscriptions.

The reintroduction of Egyptian on such a scale must be viewed in the contextof the complex social and ideological changes that occurred in this period in theMeroitic kingdom. We can observe major transformations in religious concepts(cf. Török 2011: 318) and in the layout of substructures of the royal pyramids andthe decoration of their chapels (Chapman – Dunham 1952; Wenig 1967; Yellin1979). The whole ideology of the Meroitic kingship was alternated by an accentu-ated status of the queen and the prince, forming a royal trio with the king, perhapsunder the influence of the Ptolemaic dynasty or divine triads (Amun, Mut andKhonsu at Amara; Osiris, Isis and Horus at Naqa; Török 2002: 254, 262). Numerousnew ideas were imported to Meroe from the Mediterranean, and were fully em-braced. For the first time, we come across syncretic deities such as Zeus-Amun orPtireus, depicted in Hellenistic manner (Gamer-Wallert 1983), as well as numerousstatues in Hellenistic style (Török 2011: 139ff.). Similarly, goods from Egypt andthe whole of the Mediterranean found their way to the Middle Nile region (cf. Török 1989) and influenced local production.

At the same time, and perhaps with the same intensity, we can observestrong archaizing tendencies in the monuments of Natakamani and Amanitore.It was manifested particularly in the reliefs on the walls of the temples at Amaraand Naqa, at the offering chapels of the royal pyramids, and also on smallerobjects such as the Arikankharor tablet, the statue of Natakamani etc. (cf. FHNIII, 901, 906; Török 1997b: 231; Török 2002: 254). Reverence for the past can beseen also in the extension of the Great Amun Temple at Jebel Barkal or e.g. inthe decoration of the bark stand from the Amun temple at Naqa, which wassignificantly influenced by the altar of Atlanersa. The archaizing tendencies canbe found already in the monuments of the predecessors of the ruling coupleand reappear also later, particularly during the second half of the 1st and thefirst half of the 2nd centuries CE.

In the realm of language, models were sought even in the ancient past—thethrone names of Nebmaatre Amanitenmomide and Nebmaatre Amanikha-rekherem referred to as far as the reign of Amenhotep III from the time of theEgyptian Viceroyalty in Nubia. Numerous prototypes were found in the Napatanperiod. The throne names of Queen Amanitore (Merikare), Prince Arikankharor(Ankhkare) and Prince Arakakhataror (Ankhkare) were built on the names of theirmighty predecessors Aspelta and Anlamani. Similarly, we come across some longlost titles. Arikankharor had the title Hm-nTr sn.nw (“second prophet”) in his offer-ing chapel at Beg. N5, which is well attested under the 25th Dynasty and in theearly Napatan period (e.g. FHN I, §38) but is unusual in later times (FHN III, 906).Similarly, the title of Queen Amanitore wr.t nb.t tA.wy (“the great one, the mistressof the Two Lands”) was taken from the titulary of Queen Abar, wife of Piye (FHNIII, 903; Lohwasser 2001: 142).


484

Particular stress seems to have been put on the reigns of two kings of the pros-perous period at the turn of the 3rd and 2nd century BCE: Arnekhamani and Arqa-mani. Natakamani adopted the throne name of Arnekhamani, Kheperkare, andbuilt the well-known Lion Temple at Naqa, the architectural and iconographicalinspiration for which was most probably sought in the Lion Temple built byArnekhamani at the nearby site of Musawwarat es-Sufra (Hintze et al. 1993). Theiconographical programme of the offering chapels in the pyramids of QueenAmanitore and Prince Arikankharor derived to a large extent from the tomb ofArnekhamani’s son, Arqamani (Beg. N7), while the shape of the stepped pyramidof Amanitore resembled a pyramid ascribed to Arnekhamani’s wife (Bar. 8; FHNIII, 904; Dunham 1957). Some parallels could perhaps be found also in the realmof religious texts. Recently discovered inscriptions from Wad Ben Naga (the in-scription on the statue of Apedemak; Onderka – Vrtal et al. 2014: 174) and AbuErteila (an inscribed block from a temple dated to the late 3rd century BCE; Fan-tusati et al. 2014) show close resemblance to each other, although any comparisonremains highly speculative due to the fragmentary nature of the texts.

The reigns of Arnekhamani and Arqamani were marked by prosperity andnotable building activity, comparable to the achievements of Natakamani andAmanitore. It is not surprising that in many respects, the era was chosen byNatakamani and Amanitore as a kind of ideal model. Arnekhamani was also thelast Meroitic ruler to leave a legacy of a large volume of Egyptian texts. It is thustempting to understand the re-emergence of the Egyptian language and script atthe turn of the Eras not only as a consequence of re-establishing intense contactswith Egypt (cf. FHN III, 901), but also as another manifestation of archaization.

Archaizing tendencies are well-known from both ancient Egypt and theSudan. They were driven by various factors, notably the need to legitimize a ruleror a dynastic preference in succession. As was noted by Török, in the monumentsof Natakamani and Amanitore the iconographical programme centred around thelegitimacy of royal succession and the dynastic cult (Török 2002: 255). Such ap-proach, focused on the legitimation of the ruler by the gods, was however char-acteristic of Nubian temples in general (Török 2011: 311). There is no clear evidencethat King Natakamani might have not been a strong candidate for the throne, al-though the strongly accentuated status of Queen Amanitore might be an indica-tion of such a possibility (cf. e.g. Zach 2001: 513ff.)

There was still another, specifically Kushite factor behind the archaizing ten-dencies—the effort to depict the Kushite ruler as the only legitimate and properruler of the Two Lands. Although the world view of King Piye could serve as thebest known example, this policy was applied generally and stressed particularlywhen foreign dynasties—the Libyans, the Persians, or the Ptolemies—controlledEgypt and the Kushite ruler could thus stress the adherence to the Pharaonic tradition.


485

In this respect, the text on a fragmentary statue of Natakamani found in building M998 at Meroe seems particularly interesting (Fig. 5). The king was depicted ina feathered archaizing robe (Török 1997b: 231). On his belt, his name and the epithetanx(.w) D.t mry As.t (“Living Forever, Beloved of Isis”) was written in Egyptian hi-eroglyphs. The royal titles, written before the name, are unfortunately missing.

The epithet “Living Forever, Beloved of Isis” was based on epithets of PtolemyIII Euergetes (“Living Forever, Beloved of Ptah”) and Ptolemy IV Philopater (“Liv-ing Forever, Beloved of Isis”), but we find it also much later with Ptolemy XIINeos Dionysos (“Living Forever, Beloved of Ptah and Isis”; cf. Leprohon 2013:180, 187). The titulary of the members of the Ptolemaic dynasty served also as themodel for the royal titles of Natakamani and Amanitore such as nTr mnx (“excellentgod”), sA.t-Ra (“Daughter-of-Re”) or nb.t xa.w (“mistress of the diadems”) (Griffith1911; FHN III, 903). However, Natakamani’s inspiration was rather Arnekhamaniagain, or his successors Arqamani and Adikhalamani, who also used the epithet(FHN II, 581). While King Arnekhamani used both “Living Forever, Beloved ofIsis” and “Living Forever, Beloved of Amun” (cf. Hintze et al. 1993), for Arqamani,only “Living Forever, Beloved of Isis” is attested FHN II, 586; Dunham 1957: fig.D/24g; Chapman – Dunham 1952: Pls. 4e, 5b), and the same applies to Adikhala-mani (Farid 1978; FHN II, 590). These three Meroitic rulers were roughly contem-poraries of Ptolemy III and Ptolemy IV and we can thus understand the epithetas a sort of competition between the rulers (cf. Török 2002: 272–273). Interestingly,other kings also adopted this epithet at around the same time – the rebelling kingsfrom the seceded Thebais Herwennnefer and Ankhwennefer.

The epithet “Living Forever, Beloved of Isis” thus seems to have been used asa manifestation of the ruler’s piousness and legitimate claim to the throne of


486

Fig. 5

The statue of KingNatakamani found in thevicinity of building M 998 at the Royal Cityat Meroe and bearing thename of the king and his epithet (after Török1997b).

Egypt, or at least, in the case of Meroitic rulers, to the country’s reconqueredsouthern part. As Török has noted, the remarkable titulary of Arqamani wasclearly designed to mediate this message to the Lower Nubian and Upper Egypt-ian audience (Török 2009: 393). Arqamani was the “Living Hand of Amun”,“Image of Re”, “The God’s Hand in his Temple, whose Arm is Raised, Chosen ofAmun to Purify the Lands” and most interestingly “The Kushite of Divine Being”.It is surely no coincidence that he was responsible for the reconquest of the Tri-akontaschoenos and actively supported the uprising in the Thebaid (cf. FHN II,§133, §134). The sanctuary of Isis at Philae must have played an important medi-atory role in these events.

As Török has also noted, another archaizing element referring to the reign ofArnekhamani is the throne name of Natakamani, Kheperkare (Török 1997a: 463;FHN III, 901). While he recognized that “the decision as to whether an ancient ora contemporary Egyptian name would be adopted was determined by politicalmotifs rather than knowledge or ignorance of appropriate Egyptian models,” healso concluded that “the stereotypic appearance of names modelled on Egyptianexamples indicates from the late 2nd century BCE onwards—i.e. from the timeMeroitic replaced Egyptian as the language of the royal documents and whenMeroitic titulary type was created which almost entirely replaced the Egyptiantype five-part titulary—that the old archives were no longer consulted.” (Török2002: 339). Understanding the Egyptian throne names of Natakamani and someof his successors as mere “dull” repetitions of older models could be an oversim-plification, however. With respect to the obvious interest in Egyptian texts andmodels—from the past but also from the present—the adoption of the Egyptianthrone names might be considered a conscious choice with a political meaning.Similarly to previous periods, the throne name of Natakamani might have con-stituted a significant component of the manifestation of his political programme,sending a clear message through this well-established medium.

The throne name Kheperkare was associated with Senusret I who was deifiedin the temple at Buhen, where performance of cult resumed in the Napatan period.In Egypt, the throne name was later adopted only by Nectanebo I, the king who as-cended to the throne through a successful rebellion against the Persians. In Nubia,the name was used more frequently. The first ruler who used this name was Mal-owiebamani in the 5th century BCE. In the early Meroitic period, the name wasadopted by Arnekhamani, and later still by further three Meroitic rulers: Nataka-mani, Aritenyesebokhe and Teqorideamani. This list presents us with a handful ofNubian rulers some of whom carried out very active policies towards Egypt.

In the mid-5th century BCE, Malowiebamani was one of a group of rulers withtitulary in an imperialist style (Török 2009: 18). Particularly the early titulary ofMalowiebamani’s son, Irike-Amannote, is self-evident: he claims to be the “Seizerof Every Land, Mighty Bull Appearing in Thebes” (FHN II, 396). Irike-Amannote’s


487

successor Harsiyotef is further known to have been involved in military activitiesin the Lower Nubia. It is perhaps also no coincidence that these rulers were con-temporary to anti-Persian revolts in Egypt, although no direct evidence of any ac-tive or passive Kushite involvement in the uprisings exists.

Similarly, Arnekhamani had the title “Mighty Bull” and probably starteda policy which was crowned by the Merotic re-occupation of Triakontaschoenusat the latest in the reign of his son Arqamani, as is attested by the latter’s buildingactivity at Dakka, Kalabsha and Philae. There is also clear evidence in Egyptianwritten sources of active, perhaps even military support of the Upper Egyptianuprising of Herwennefer and Ankhwennefer (FHN II, §133, §134).

We can thus speculate that the throne name Kheperkare may have hada specific connotation in Nubia and that Natakamani chose the name with re-spect to this meaning, referring particularly to the reign of Arnekhamani interms of the political programme of his reign. Interestingly, one of the two lateMeroitic rulers who also adopted this throne name, King Teqorideamani whoruled in the middle of the 3rd century CE, restored the Meroitic rule over Do-dekaschoenos (Zach 2012: 541) which at that time had been for almost 300 yearsunder Roman control.

Military elements in the iconographical programme of royal monumentsfollowing the war with Rome have been noted by various authors. The presenceof weapons in the hands of the members of royal family starts with Teriteqasand Akinidad and is particularly notable on the reliefs of Amanishakheto andreliefs from the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore. Later, we find them onthe relief of Shorkaror at Jebel Qeili and in the offering chapels of Amaniten-momide and Tarekeniwal. This military character of the decoration of royalmonuments coincides with the archaizing elements in the royal iconography,but interestingly also with the period of the use of the Egyptian script and lan-guage. Altogether, these various elements of royal iconography, titulary andother means of presentation positioned the Meroitic king or queen as the right-ful ruler and restorer of the tradition, order and cults. The intensification of thispolicy of presentation in the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore might havebeen generated by a number of factors, from the better availability of Egyptiancraftsmen and scribes, to a flourishing economic situation within the kingdom,to external political impulses, e.g. the reduction in the number of the Romanlegions present in Egypt in 14 or 23 CE (Strab. 17.1.12; Tac. Ann. 4.5), asa Meroitic reaction to such a stimulus has a good parallel in 25 BCE. The revoltin Egypt or at least Lower Nubia, so badly wanted, never happened again,though, and after the reconnaissance expedition sent to Meroe by Nero in 61–63 CE, the active policy of the Meroitic rulers towards Egypt seems to haveslowly come to an end.


488

Conclusion

It may be suggested that the re-emergence of Egyptian inscriptions at the timearound the turn of the Eras and particularly during the reign of Natakamani andAmanitore might have been an element of a sophisticated political programme ofthe Meroitic rulers. This programme was addressed to (Upper) Egyptian, LowerNubian and also—and perhaps most importantly—divine audiences. Archaicmodels were employed in order to depict the Meroitic king or queen as the onlylegitimate ruler on the banks of the Nile and the provider of continuity with thepast, particularly in opposition to the ever-absent Roman emperor who de iureruled over Egypt. From the retrospective point of view, the reign of Natakamaniand Amanitore is marked by prosperity stemming from peaceful co-operationwith Rome that was to last a further three centuries. However, a more active policytowards Roman Egypt, backed by a complex ideological concept, might be sug-gested for Natakamani and Amanitore, and—to a lesser extent—for some of theirpredecessors and successors, respectively. The legitimacy and surely also attrac-tiveness of the Meroitic ruler might have been further supported by their abilityto embrace the newest religious and cultural ideas from Egypt, although it re-mains unclear whether he or she was able to distinguish between tradition andinnovation with regard to Egypt.

Bibliography

Baud, M., ed.2010 Méroé. Un empire sur le Nil. Paris: Musée du Louvre.2014 “Downtown Muweis – A progress report (2007–2011).” In The Fourth Cataract and

Beyond, edited by J. R. Anderson and D. A. Welsby, 763–782. Leuven – Paris – Wal-pole: Peeters.

Chapman, S. E. – Dunham, D.1952 The Royal Cemeteries of Kush, Vol. III: Decorated Chapels of the Meroitic Pyramids at

Meroë and Barkal. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.

Dunham, D.1957 The Royal Cemeteries of Kush, Vol. IV: Royal Tombs at Meroe and Barkal. Boston:

Museum of Fine Arts.

Edwards, D. N. – Rilly, C.2007 “The Amanishakheto stele (REM 1141).” In The Meroitic temple complex at Qasr

Ibrim by Pamela J. Rose with contributions by David N. Edwards et al., 82–90. Lon-don: Egypt Exploration Society.

Fantusati, E. – Kormysheva, E. – Malykh, S.2014 “Abu Erteila – An Archaeological Site in the Butana Region.” Der Antike Sudan.

Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin e.V. Ein Forscherle-ben zwischen den Welten. Zum 80. Geburtstag von Steffen Wenig. Sonderheft, 65–94.


489

Farid, A.1978 “The Stela of Adikhalamani Found at Philae.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo-

logischen Instituts Kairo 34, 53–56.

Gamer-Wallert, I.1983 Der Löwentempel von Naq’a in der Butana (Sudan), Vol. III: Die Wandreliefs 1. Text. 2.

Tafeln, Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients 48/3. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Garstang, J. – Sayce, A. H. – Griffith, F. Ll.1911 Meroë. The City of the Ethiopians. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Griffith, F. Ll.1911 Meroitic Inscriptions. Part I: Sôba to Dangêl, Archaeological Survey of Egypt 19.

London: Egypt Exploration Society.1912 Meroitic Inscriptions. Part II: Napata to Philae and Miscellaneous, Archaeological

Survey of Egypt 20. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Hinkel, F. W.1981 “Die Pyramide Beg. N 34 des Königs Aritenyesbokhe.” Bulletin du Centenaire,

Supplement au BIFAO 81, 379–388.

Hintze, F.1959 “Studien zur meroitischen Chronologie und zu den Opfertafeln aus den Pyra-

miden von Meroe.” Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Ber-lin, Kl. für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst 1959/2. Berlin.

Hintze, F. – Priese K.-H. – Wenig, St. – Onasch C. – Buschendorf-Otto, G. – Hintze, U.1993 Musawwarat es Sufra. Band 1, I: Der Löwentempel. Textband; Band 1, II: Der Löwen-

tempel. Pläne. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Hofmann, I.1978 Beiträge zur meroitischen Chronologie, Studia Instituti Anthropos 31. St. Augustin:

Anthropos Institut.

Kröper, K. – Schoske, S. – Wildung, D.2011 Königstadt Naga. Grabungen in der Wüste des Sudan. / Naga – Royal City. Excavations

in the Desert of Sudan. München – Berlin: Staatliches Museum Agyptischer Kunst –Kunstforum der Berliner Volksbank.

Leprohon, R. J.2013 The Great Name. Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary, Writings from the Ancient World

33. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Lohwasser, A.2001 Die königlichen Frauen im antiken Reich von Kusch. 25. Dynastie bis zur Zeit des

Nastasen, Meroitica 19. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Näser, C.2004 “The Small Finds.” In The Capital of Kush 2. Meroë Excavations 1973–1984, edited

by P. L. Shinnie, and J. R. Anderson, 215–350. Meroitica 20. Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz.

Onderka, P. et al.forthcoming Wad Ben Naga Reports II: The Eastern Temple (WBN 500) and the Small Temple

(WBN 400). Praha: Národní muzeum.


490

Onderka, P. – Vrtal, V.2014 “Preliminary Report on the Sixth Excavation Season of the Archaeological Expe-

dition to Wad Ben Naga.” Annals of the Náprstek Museum 35/1, 69–80.

Onderka, P. – Vrtal, V. et al.2014 Núbie. Země na křižovatce kultur. / Nubia. A Land on the Crossroads of Cultures. Wad

Ben Naga 2014. Praha: Národní muzeum.

Priese, K.-H.1984 “Wad Ban Naqa 1844.” Forschungen und Berichte 24, Archäologische Beiträge,

11–29.

Rondot, V. – Török, L.2010 “Le maison du dieu: le temple.” In Méroé. Un empire sur le Nil, edited by M. Baud,

227–233. Paris: Musée du Louvre.

Sander, A.forthcoming “Sandstore reliefs and other architectural details revealed at the Awlib tem-

ple complex in 2003: a preliminary analysis.” In The Kushite World. Proceedings of the11th International Conference for Meroitic Studies, Vienna 1–4 September 2008, edited byM. H. Zach. Beiträge zur Sudanforschung. Beiheft 9. Vienna: Verein der Förderesder Sudanforschung.

Török, L.1989 “Kush and the external world.” Meroitica 10, 49–215, 365–379. 1997a The Kingdom of Kush. Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization, Handbuch der

Orientalistik 31. Leiden: Brill.1997b Meroe City. An Ancient African Capital. John Garstang’s Excavations in the Sudan.

London: Egypt Exploration Society.2002 The Image of the Ordered World in Ancient Nubian Art. The Construction of the Kushite

Mind (800 BC–300 AD), Probleme der Ägyptologie 18. Leiden – Boston – Köln: Brill.2009 Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region between Ancient Nubia and Egypt, 3700 BC

– 500 AD, Probleme der Ägyptologie 29. Leiden – Boston: Brill.2011 Hellenizing Art in Ancient Nubia 300 BC – AD 250 and its Egyptian Model: A Study

of Acculturation. Leiden: Brill.

Welsby, D. A.1996 The Kingdom of Kush. The Napatan and Meroitic Empires. London: British Museum

Press.

Wenig, St.1967 “Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Reiches von Meroe.” Mitteilungen des Insti-

tuts für Orientforschung 13, 1–44.1978 Africa in Antiquity. The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. New York: Brooklyn

Museum.

Wildung, D., ed.1998 Die Pharaonen des Goldlandes, Antike Königreiche im Sudan. Mannheim: Mannheim

Reiss-Museum.

Yellin, J. W.1979 “A Suggested Interpretation of the Relief Decoration in the Type B Chapels at Be-

grawiyah North.” In Africa in Antiquity. The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan,Meroitica 5, 157–164.


491

Zach, M.2001 “Gedanken zur kdke Amanitore.” In Begegnungen. Antike Kulturen im Niltal, edited

by C.-B. Arnst, I. Hafemann, and Angelika Lohwasser, 509–520. Leipzig: HelmarWodtke und Katharina Stegbauer.

2012 “Teqorideamani.” In Dictionary of African Biography, edited by E. K. Akyeampong,and H. L. Gates, Jr., 540–541. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.

Zibelius, K.1983 Der Löwentempel von Naq’a in der Butana (Sudan), Vol. IV: Die Inschriften, Tübinger

Atlas des Vorderen Orients 48/4. Wiesbaden: Reichert.


492

egyptian inscriptions of natakamani and amanitore

Documents