FOREIGN PHARAOHS: SELF-LEGITIMIZATION AND INDIGENOUS REACTION IN ART AND LITERATURE

Transcription

1 JSSEA 30 (2003) 15 FOREIGN PHARAOHS: SELF-LEGITIMIZATION AND INDIGENOUS REACTION IN ART AND LITERATURE Corey J. Chimko Abstract The auor takes a new and integrated look at e treatment of e royal foreigner and e politics of race. Specifically examined is e inherent tension between e normally scaing view of e foreigner in Egyptian ideology and e necessity of deferring to him in times of foreign domination by e Hyksos, e Nubians and e Persians. Examined are bo e image e foreign pharaohs wished to portray emselves, as well as e indigenous Egyptian reaction during and after periods of foreign domination. What emerges is a perhaps unexpected conclusion at foreigners were not hated as adamantly as is commonly held. Keywords foreigners, Hyksos, Nubians, Persians, Intermediate Periods, race, domination, legitimization, customs, art, literature One of e most salient features of e depiction of foreigners in Egyptian art is e invariable subordination of e alien to e ideologically superior native Egyptian. Bestialization, feminization, infantilization and e spatial placement of foreigners on e lowest levels of stelae, monuments, temples and oer structures are some ways in which e god-granted dominion over foreign lands and eir inhabitants by e pharaoh are conveyed to e observer. History shows, however, at is domination was only a symbolic and ideal one in terms of Egypt s real world international relations. Egypt in fact found itself under foreign domination on several occasions roughout its history; indeed, increasingly so as time wore on and contacts wi oer ancient civilizations increased. One wonders, en, how e art of ese periods could cope wi e paradoxical situation of having persons traditionally regarded as sub-human occupy e highest positions of honor in Egyptian religion and government. This study aims to examine e art of some of ese periods of foreign domination to determine just at. It will also determine what reaction, if any, is discernible in e art of e periods at follow each foreign domination, in which Egypt was able to restore indigenous rule. Subsequently, a comparison will be undertaken in order to determine wheer any consistency or variation occurs in e ways in which foreign dynasties have emselves depicted and e Egyptian reaction to em, and to suggest possible reasons for similarities and/or differences. 1 I will be focusing on 1) e period of Hyksos rule (XIV-XV dynasties) during e Second Intermediate Period (2IP); 2) e period of Nubian rule (e XXV dynasty) during e Third 2 Intermediate Period (3IP); and 3) e first Persian dynasty (dynasty XXVII) in e Late Period. After each of ese ree periods Egypt was able to restore native rule. Beginning wi e second Persian occupation, Egypt was unable to do so again until modern times.

2 16 Chimko I. THE HYKSOS IN EGYPT 1) A Survey of Hyksos Royal Art One of e problems encountered in a study of is kind is at foreign rule tends to occur in Egypt during periods of internal stress, when e indigenous government is weak, and e traditional administrative and religious infrastructure responsible for artistic production may not be at its most fertile. Coupled wi e assumptions at foreign rulers would have found it more difficult to engender support, and at hate-motivated post-occupational destruction of monuments was likely a frequent occurrence, ere exist less an favorable conditions for e survival of art from ese periods. Nevereless, it is surprising how much what little survives can tell us. 3 The Hyksos, being e first (and perhaps erefore e most violently hated afterwards) foreigners to claim e Egyptian rone, have left us e fewest and most fragmentary remains of any of our periods. Indeed, e number and names of e kings of e period is still a matter of 4 considerable debate. This situation will hopefully ameliorate wi e continuing excavations of 5 M. Bietak at Tell el-dabaa, but for now e gamut of Hyksos royal art may be listed and discussed wiout concern of taking up too much space. 6 Previously accepted reconstructions of e Hyksos royal dynasty have recently been overhauled by K. Ryholt, who has placed Ma-jb-ra Sheshy and Mr-wsr-ra Yaakob-har wiin e 7 XIV raer an e XV Dynasty. Perhaps e two most important Hyksos pharaohs, %wsr.n-ra Khayan and Nb-xpS-ra/ aa-qnn-ra/ aa-wsr-ra Apophis remain wiin e 15 Dynasty, and it is ey, togeer wi Iannasi, at are e only kings to date for which we have any royal art save scarabs: 8 Items of Khayan Monuments: a. Block of granite from Gebelein 9 b. Usurped MK statue from Bubastis 10 c. Unprovenanced basalt lion from Baghdad 11 Vessels: d. Alabaster lid from Knossos 12 e. Obsidian vase fragment from Bögazköy 13 Items of Iannasi f. Stela fragment from Tell el-dabaa 14 Items of Apophis Monuments: g. A granite architrave from Gebelein 15 h. A piece of building inscription originally from Avaris, found at Bubastis 16 i. A doorjamb of e Princess Tany and Apophis from Qantir (originally from Avaris) 17 j. Usurped statue from Tanis (originally from Avaris) of one Mr-MSa (a pharaoh of e XIII dynasty), and two oer Middle Kingdom sphinxes Furniture: 20 k. A reused XII dynasty offering stand wi e name of e princess Tany and Apophis

3 JSSEA 30 (2003) 17 l. An offering table of black granite from Avaris 21 Tools: m. A scribal palette from Medinet el-fayyum 22 n. An adze blade from near Gebelein 23 o. Sword of nhmn in e grave of aabd at Saqqara (Fig. 1) 24 Vessels: p. A fragment of a stone jar wi e name of Apophis and his daughter from e Tomb of Amenhotep I 25 q. A fragment of a large jar from Memphis 26 r. An alabaster vessel from Spain 27 What, en, can is small corpus of material actually tell us about e nature of Hyksos rule? 2) Evidence for e Hyksos Adoption of Egyptian Custom Taking e corpus of scarabs and e inscriptionally terse monuments of Khayan, one can already draw numerous conclusions. a) The Hyksos sphere of influence spread far and wide. The scarab distributions of Sheshy and Yaakob-har run from Nubia in e sou to Palestine in e nor. Items a-e of Khayan betray e maintenance of, at e very least, extensive trade networks as far as 28 Anatolia, Crete and Mesopotamia, if not diplomatic contacts as well. More recently, many scholars have contributed to a rapidly expanding knowledge of e character and extent of Hyksos trade 29 relations roughout e ancient world. Holladay gives evidence of Egyptian trade routes in e Hyksos period proceeding from economically important sites such as Tell el Dabaa, Tell el-maskhuta and Tell el-yahudiya, and running e entire leng of e Transjordan, east into Babylonia, nor 30 into Hittite territory and noreast into Cyprus, Anatolia and Greece. There is also evidence for trade wi e far East, souern Arabia and inner Africa, which led Holladay to characterize e Asiatic settlements in e Delta as a major port-of-trade probably unequaled in e Eastern Mediterranean. 31 b) There is at least some attempt by e Hyksos kings to cast emselves in e guise of e traditional Egyptian pharaoh. They adopt royal titulary, including e invocation of Horus (item b) and names wi e eophoric element Ra (items a, d, and e). The names are written in e Egyptian language, and ey use praenomens, a traditional practice of e preceding XIII dynasty. Redford suggests at one might, wi some reason, conclude at e Hyksos us adopted forms ey found ready to hand in Egypt, and suffered native mentors to counsel em. 32 Wi Apophis, e proverbial sphere of influence can be seen roughout e whole of Egypt (Avaris, e Fayyum, Saqqara, Memphis, Gebelein, Thebes [items l-q]) and trade influences as far as Spain (item r). The gamut of revered Egyptian deities expands from Re and Horus (items h, j, l, m, o-r) to include e XV Dynasty s favored Se (items h, j, l) and also Sobek (item n). Items p and r have special significance for diplomatic relations and have led some to speculate about Hyksos princesses in e courts of contemporary political powers. 33 As far as e royal image and administration at home was concerned, item o shows e king on e hunt, a typical representation for a pharaoh, and is interpretation is strengened by e comparison of is sword wi an axe of Ahmose, which shows e pharaoh in e familiar smiting scene, striking a personage wi e same attributes as e one on e sword (Fig. 1). In e words of Daressy, sans aucun doute c est un personnage de même race qui est figuré dans les deux cas,

4 18 Chimko ici un chasseur, là un vaincu, et puisque selon toutes probabilités c est un Pasteur qui est gravé sur le poignard, c est aussi un Pasteur qui est terrassé par Aahmès. 34 The usurpation of Middle Kingdom statuary (item j) betrays an attempt by Apophis to identify himself wi e kings of e XII dynasty, and item k (togeer wi a weal of scarabs) shows at administrators in e employ of e Hyksos pharaohs also adopted traditional administrative titles, such as treasurer. 35 By Apophis time, and somewhat ironically, e Hyksos kings also seem to have downplayed eir foreignness by using traditional formulations at laud e pharaoh s dominance over oer foreigners. Apophis has all lands under his feet (item l), his might has reached e limits of e foreign lands ere is not a country exempt from serving him! (item r), and he is even protector of strange lands (3) who have never [even] had a glimpse of him (item m). It is unlikely at is was actually e case, and far more likely at is is e same concept of e god-given dominion over all lands espoused by true Egyptian pharaohs from e earliest of times. A growing body of evidence also suggests at Apophis reign was in some sense one of 36 cultural prosperity; e Rhind Maematical Papyrus was recopied during his reign, and some scholars believe we owe e survival of oer important works such as e Westcar Papyrus and e 37 Admonitions of Ipuwer to him as well. On item m, Apophis is e scribe of Re, whom Tho himself taught, whom [ ] outfitted [...] to/of all ings; multi-talented on e day when he reads faifully all e difficult (passages) of e writings as (smooly as [?]) flows e Nile, suggesting an interest in literature and e skills to pursue it. The contents of Papyrus BM EA suggests 38 pushing back e date of e genesis of e compound genre of eulogy/narrative to e 2IP. The Rhind papyrus also shows an adherence to e tradition of reckoning dates according to e regnal 39 years of e king, and ere is a description of e dedication of a sistrum to e temple of Dendera by one aipp, probably Apophis. 40 Looking at e corpus of art as a whole, items a, n, and p, as well as e mention of Hyksos military presence on e two Kamose stelae (see below), show at attempts were at least made by 41 e Hyksos to control or influence Middle and Upper Egypt. Alough such scanty remains cannot in emselves tell us very much about e nature of Hyksos rule in ese regions, if it in fact existed 42 to any appreciable degree, ere are suggestions of heavy taxation from tax seals and scarabs as well as e words of Kamose (see below). Supporting information is gleanable from some of e archaeological evidence, as explained by Bietak, who tells us at it is not clear [...] wheer [e royal residence found among e MB sequence at Tell el-dabaa] had been a summer residence of an Egptian king of e XIII Dynasty or 43 e palace of a Delta ruler of Asiatic origin. Finds from e palace suggest e latter, alough e 44 architecture seems to be Egyptian. A possible candidate is one aa-zh-ra Nehesy, commonly held 45 to be a member of e XIV Dynasty, who may have been a local ruler of some power before e actual Hyksos takeover. Two limestone doorpost inscriptions of is king were found in e religious 46 sanctuary at Tell el-dabaa, in oroughly Egyptian style even at is early time, despite being surrounded by a oroughly Canaanite settlement. 3) Evidence for Hyksos Resistance to and Disdain for Egyptian Custom As it is unlikely at e Hyksos would flaunt eir foreign nature for fear of inciting e 47 indigenous populace to rebellion, eir royal art betrays little in e way of foreign elements. Some

5 JSSEA 30 (2003) 19 scarabs and seals wi Canaanite depictions of Baaal-like deities and oer near-eastern gods and goddesses appear to be e only evidence. The archaeology of eir capital Avaris, however, 48 suggests at e resident foreigners maintained a strictly Levantine culture, and at e religion, alough once again glossed over wi an Egyptian finish, centered around e worship of Se, who 49 was identified wi e Canaanite storm god Baaal. Ironically, one interesting conclusion at can be drawn from e confusion surrounding names on scarabs is at e Hyksos kings ruled rough e use of local vassals, a practice at is much more Levantine an Egyptian in character. It has been suggested at ese vassals may account for e proliferation of quasi-royal names (i.e. ose wi e title HqA xaswt) on scarabs of e period. 50 There are also scattered finds at indicate destruction of Egyptian royal and cultic property 51 at Avaris, and general disdain for former institutions and rulers. Bietak has found statues used as grinding stones and a defaced cultic plate. Middle Kingdom statuary scattered roughout western 52 Asia is probably booty from e initial takeover. The practice of pillaging monuments was certainly not one practiced by kings ascending e rone rough legitimate means, and would have 53 had a powerfully adverse effect upon e psyche of e Egyptians. This is also a key piece of evidence in e discussion of wheer e original takeover was peaceful or hostile, a consideration in e subsequent treatment of e Hyksos memory, and a discussion we shall return to later when comparing our ree periods. II. REACTION TO HYKSOS RULE IN THE ART AND LITERATURE OF THE NEW KINGDOM 1) The Expulsion Unfortunately, we have very little artistic or literary evidence relating to how e rest of 54 contemporary Egypt regarded Hyksos rule in e Delta. XVI and early XVII Dynasty texts from Thebes are silent about e norern Hyksos regime, which is not surprising if one assumes at it 55 was a source of embarrassment. Legitimizing eir own pretensions to kingship and avoiding e inherent shame of having to share e country (expressed so eloquently by Kamose later on), e Theban pharaohs likely saw fit to simply not mention it. Contemporary documents do, however, speak of great poverty and ruin at may have resulted from e turmoil of e 2IP and e Hyksos takeover From e period of e expulsion, e two stelae of Kamose are by far e most important sources we have, chronicling as ey do e Theban sentiment at e beginning of e campaign, and e results of e campaign itself. It is e results which are probably e cause of e dear of material we now have for is period. The relevant passages for e rationalization of e revolt and e subsequent damage done (I: 2-8; II: 11-14) are well known. The first Kamose stela seems to suggest at ere were many at were happy wi e situation in Egypt, wi a peaceful delineation of territory and benefits for Theban bureaucrats (such as fields to graze eir cattle). In II: 14 e king refers to ey who had allowed emselves to hearken to e call of e Asiatics, presumably collaborators, suggesting again at not all Egyptians ought e Asiatics were as vile as at. Kamose seems to be motivated by a dissatisfaction wi e fragmentation of Egypt, raer an any specific grievance concerning e governance of e Hyksos. This point might suggest at e foreign nature of e Hyksos may have simply been an

6 20 Chimko aspect to seize upon by e XVII and XVIII Dynasty kings to legitimize eir rectification of a situation ey were likely embarrassed to have let occur in e first place. Indeed, one scholar has seen e war between Kamose and Apophis as a eological one, in which foreign conquest itself is seen as a sin or assault on Egyptian dignity at is wory of punishment regardless of e quality 58 of e foreign rule. We will see at e hatred directed towards em in later times was not so vehement as generally ought. 59 If e destruction was as orough as Kamose describes, it is a small wonder at Bietak and his colleagues have uncovered no more an e foundations of buildings at Avaris and next to noing in e way of monumental art. Some pertinent but very fragmentary art concerning e Hyksos expulsion on monuments of Ahmose has very recently been uncovered at Abydos. Stephen Harvey has published preliminary remarks on small-scale narrative reliefs, or fragments ereof, which alough [ey] may derive from a conventional scene of victory over foreigners, it is 60 possible at [ey] represent actual battles wi e Hyksos occupiers. This is also e first known depiction of what becomes traditional iconography in e New Kingdom, e horse and chariot warfare scene. Fragments of inscriptions mentioning Apophis and e Hyksos capital of Avaris have 61 also been found, and may have been part of a larger historical narrative. It is interesting to note at no cartouche surrounds [Apophis ] name, but it is written elsewhere in Egypt wi is spelling, and e enemy ruler s name may have been deemed unwory of any special honour in e context 62 of Ahmose s temple. This might in fact constitute one of e first indignities to which e memories of e HqA xaswt were subjected in subsequent centuries. 2) The Defamation Tradition in e New Kingdom and Later Maneo has long been e primary source for our knowledge of e Hyksos takeover, e Egyptians lamenting at a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from e regions of e East, 63 invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. Maneo s suggestions of burning, razing, hostility and massacring seem to be echoed in ose of someone much less removed in time from e incident in question; on her temple at Speos Artemidos e female pharaoh Hatshepsut expresses similar sentiments, boasting of restoring what was dismembered beginning from e time when Asiatics were in e midst of e Delta, (in) Avaris, wi vagrants in eir midst toppling what had been made. 64 The last salient attempt to cast e Hyksos in a less an impressive light comes from Papyrus Sallier I, also known as e Tale of Apophis and Seqenenre, ough in is tale e foul deeds have been attenuated to high taxation, worshiping gods inappropriately, and complaining of cacophonous hippopotami. 65 The tru of is vilification is hard to substantiate. Wi regard to Hatshepsut, van Seters cautions us at it may be doubted wheer e Hyksos actually destroyed Egyptian temples as she implies. They may have usurped monuments and stone from previous building for eir own constructions, but is practice was common enough and does not necessarily imply any 66 condemnation of Egyptian religion. In regards to Papyrus Sallier I, it should be said at high taxation and mocking behavior are not e exclusive ken of e Hyksos ruler, and we have already 67 seen at ey revered oer gods an Se. Redford suggests at an influx of peaceful Asiatics into e Delta during e XVIII Dynasty may have resulted in attempts to define why e Hyksos 68 were so hated. Indeed, as we shall presently see, ere is little actual evidence for e vile

7 JSSEA 30 (2003) 21 behavior ascribed to e Hyksos; in fact, alough New Kingdom royalty may textually defame e Hyksos reign, oer evidence indicates at it was commemorated and identified wi. 3) The Sympaetic Tradition and Se-Baaal on Ramesside Stelae Despite e much-espoused anti-asiatic attitudes at are indeed apparent in much of e New 69 Kingdom literature, ere is an undercurrent of identification and even veneration of Asiatic traditions in e Delta region. This is particularly so under e Ramesside dynasty, which originated in e nor, established eir capital Pi-ramesse at e same site as Avaris, and selected e Hyksosfriendly Se as eir dynastic ancestor. In e words of Leibovitch, we have d un côté, des textes 70 d une animosité traditionelle et l on peut dire conventionelle à l égard des Asiatiques et d autre part, les rois égyptiens s exposant volontiers en association avec des divinités d origine phénicienne. 71 It is raer e fact at e association itself was made at is wory of attention raer an e choice of gods, for e myologies of Egyptian and Levantine gods have been shown to run parallel in many respects. 72 This is apparent most saliently on e somewhat confusing and often discussed 400-Year 73 stela. The stela seems to commemorate e 400 anniversary of e rule of Se, which many scholars have identified as being reckoned from e installation of e cult of Se at Avaris under 74 e Hyksos. There is debate as to wheer e Se referred to is a Delta-form of Se-Baaal or e 75 Ombite version of e deity, but whatever e case, e stela indisputably shows Ramses II 76 worshipping a form of Se wi decidedly Canaanite attributes (Fig. 2a). On a decorative scene at Medinet Habu, e end of e pharaoh s chariot pole is decorated wi a scene showing e king receiving a sword from what appears to by a Syrian god (Fig. 2b). This obviously flies in e face of e defamation tradition discussed above, indeed whatever may have been e hatred expressed by e Thebans towards e Hyksos, in e nor e Ramessides could unabashedly espouse a god associated wi eir memory, and even go so far as to commemorate e period inaugurated by e Hyksos as still continuing under e guise of Se s reign and by so doing unconsciously or 77 intentionally keep alive e memory of e Hyksos. It would seem at e norern origin of e XIX dynasty (and hence, presumably, its proximity to Egypt s largest settled Asiatic population) loomed large in eir political and religious program, so large in fact as to run completely opposite to what we are forced to believe was established and traditional hatred toward e occupation in official circles. Oer stelae confirm at is was not an isolated phenomenon, and Bietak speaks of e type as Se of e Ramses who is aa phtj or Great of Streng, and whose primary Asiatic 78 associations concern his status as a weaer god. Similar depictions are found on a stela from Berlin (Fig. 2c) and on oers of Amenophis II, Merneptah, and Usermare-Nakhtu (Fig. 2d), a military official under Ramses III. Compared to similar depictions from Ugarit (Fig. 2e), and 83 Be Shean (Fig. 2f) one can hardly miss e similarity. Evidence at e type goes back to Hyksos times is evident from similar depictions on Hyksos period scarabs. Ramses II seems to have been particularly devoted to Anat. On an obelisk from Tanis he is mhr an tj, ka n StS companion of Anat, bull of Se. He is protected by her on a large number of works, and he even gives his dog 86 and horse names wi Anat s eophoric element. When Baaal is mentioned by name, he is given e Se animal as a determinative. Though bo Tumosis III and Amenophis II stylized emselves smiter of e Hyksos who

8 22 Chimko 87 had attacked him, even before e XIX dynasty, we have e vessel from Amenhotep I s tomb (item p), and Tutankhamun s restoration of e temple of Se of Avaris. The temple is renewed in e reign of Seti I, he who belongs to Se, in order to dedicate a new residence to e god who 88 represented e origins of royal ideology of e XIX Dynasty. Alough ey may not have conceived of it in ese terms, it seems as ough e pharaohs of e New Kingdom were indebted to e Hyksos for e innovations in warfare at lead to e success of e so-called Egyptian Empire. 89 The Asiatic syncretism of e period is equally well-attested in e New Kingdom literature, wi characters such as El, Baaal, and Anat showing up raer frequently, eir attributes sometimes 90 assimilated to ose of native Egyptian deities. Because of e now centuries-old Asiatic cultural presence in e Delta, one might expect signs of such multiculturalism in textual or epigraphic material, but e appearance of Levantine gods on e royal art of New Kingdom pharaohs, e same pharaohs at are proponents and heirs of e defamation tradition directed against e memory of e Hyksos, is an intriguing problem. This is especially so since ere are a number of reasons to assume at e Ramesside form of Se worship closely resembled at of e Hyksos period. 91 Te Velde proposes an interesting cosmological solution. In e tales of Horus and Se, Horus rules kmt while Se rules dsrt, or e foreign places, and is associated wi e rxyt, or non- 92 Egyptians. Se is revered as a frontier god, counterpart to and cooperator wi Horus during a time when e Egyptian Empire ruled and interacted wi foreign lands. He must be venerated, for 93 e divine foreigner makes positive forces available for e maintenance of e cosmos. As at rule is eroded following e reign of Ramses III, e amicable relationship wi e foreign likewise erodes and wi it e worship of Se. As te Velde puts it, e close connection of Se wi foreign countries and wi e God Baaal was not only fatal to e cult of Se, but also to e 94 symbolism of e reconciliation of Horus and Se. This proposition is furer supported by e fact at ere are no representations of Baaal in Egypt where he is not also Se, and at in later periods Se worship is confined almost exclusively to e periphery of Egypt, as e veneration of Se-Baaal occurred on e periphery at Avaris and Pi-ramesse. 95 If we again accept at settled Levantines in e Delta were not necessarily identified wi e Hyksos kings, and erefore were not driven out as vehemently as e foreign princes emselves, en we might look upon e portrayal of an easternized Se on Ramesside stelae as a concession in ruling a Levantine population, for rank and wild grow of exotic religions and religious needs could be counteracted and obviated by raising up Se to be a state god by e side of Amon, Ptah 96 and Re. Conversely, it might also be e case at Asiatic elements had been present for so long in e Delta by is time, at ey were not in fact considered non-egyptian by e Ramesside kings; as van Seters puts it: during e century and a half of eir residence in Egypt, Hyksos cults and myology were so firmly established at it was no longer possible for e Eighteen Dynasty to 97 eradicate em or even distinguish em as foreign cults. Te Velde s explanation of e utility of e Se cult in terms Egyption cosmology also provides a convincing ideological approach to e problem. Whatever e reason, it is certainly e case at les pharaons à partir du début de la XVIII e dynastie jusqu à Ramsès II n ont pas méprisé [le] panéon phénicien. Bien au contraire, ils ont tous exprimé leur vénération pour ces divinités. 98

9 JSSEA 30 (2003) 23 III. THE THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD AND THE ART OF THE NUBIAN PHARAOHS A comment should be made here concerning e nature of e dynasties designated Libyan, nd i.e. e rulers of e XXII rough XXIV Dynasties. Whereas it is true at ese rulers were of Libyan descent (apparent from eir distinctive Libyan names), and whereas certain facets of eir rule (such as e maintenance of e traditional Libyan titles Great Chief of e Ma[shwesh] and 99 Great Chief of e Libu ) do constitute ties wi eir Libyan heritage, e rule of ese dynasts was obtained rough traditional means in e various Delta centers at were eir capitals, at least 100 insofar as eir power was derived from wiin Egypt itself. Most likely descendants of e Libyan prisoners of war resettled during e campaigns of e New Kingdom pharaohs, it may be said at ese dynasties were for all intents and purposes fully Egyptianized. Indeed, e XXVI, or Saïte Dynasty, which marks e return to indigenous rule after e Nubian occupation, is likely also of Libyan stock. The Libyan dynasties, erefore, do not constitute a foreign occupation in e same way at e Hyksos, Nubian, and Persian ones do, e latter s power being derived from abroad and having conquered Egypt rough military force. 1) Traditional Artistic Production In contrast wi e Hyksos artistic repertoire, at of e Nubian pharaohs is substantially more proliferate. From e time of e institution of e cult of Amun in Nubia rough e efforts of e Egyptian Empire in e New Kingdom, it seems as ough a oroughly Egyptianized religion was practiced in Nubia and e Napatan state. The chronology of Napatan rulers who had aspirations to e Egyptian rone reads as follows: 1) Kashta (c ) 2) Pi(ankh)y ( ) 3) Shabako ( ) 4) Shebitku ( ) 5) Taharqa ( ) 6) Tantamani ( ) 101 A complete inventory of e Nubian kings artistic production is too lengy to summarize 102 here, so I will be confining myself to e most important and representative works at relay most saliently e spirit of Nubian rule. Already in e reign of Kashta, who is unlikely to have penetrated into Egypt very far, we already have e adoption of royal titulary and a respect for native Egyptian 103 deities. An aegis of Mut wearing e double crown, of unknown provenance but very Nubian in style, also bears his name, suggesting e adoption of pharaonic ceremony at e Nubian court. 104 The most important document for is period is e Victory Stela of Kashta s successor 105 Pi(ankh)y, which is written in Classical, not Late, Egyptian. On it, a mutilated Pi(ankh)y, who is 106 king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Piye beloved-of-amun, ever living receives e homage of e conquered Egyptian rulers, backed by Amun and Mut. The stela narrates Pi(ankh)y s triumphant campaign into Egypt, and his observance of cult as he progresses steadily norward towards Memphis. Yet even before setting out, Pi(ankh)y expresses a wish to celebrate traditional

10 24 Chimko 107 observances, en pays homage to e local deities of e towns he overtakes. He continues to be hailed by e fallen princes as an incarnation of Horus and as son of Nut, he sacrifices to Sokar, and 108 finally, after he succeeds in capturing Memphis, he is legitimized by Ptah. These are certainly e actions of a pious Egyptian king; indeed it is interesting to note at e Libyan rulers whom Pi(ankh)y supplanted are cast as foreigners and are treated (on e top of e stela) in such a way as to suggest at he is a more legitimate successor to e rone an ey. We have seen at e Nubian pharaohs were well versed in Egyptian custom prior to e takeover, and ey seem to have taken genuine pride in fulfilling traditional obligations. The stela is complemented by a pair of blocks from e temple of Mut in Karnak, one showing Pi(ankh)y s fleet returning from a successful foreign trading mission, and e oer part of a religious scene in 109 a Theban temple. Perhaps more significantly, Pi(ankh)y s stay at Memphis is probably behind e 110 inauguration of e custom at El-Kurru of burying e Nubian pharaohs under pyramids. This hearkening back to ancient and revered forms in religion and art is a trademark at e Nubians will 111 employ over and over, interestingly enough most often in Nubia itself. Pi(ankh)y returned to Napata after his Egyptian victories and added a temple wall, columned halls and forecourts, and an 112 entrance pylon to e Amun temple at Gebel Barkal. Again, it seems as ough Egypt prospered under is rule and at deviations from traditional custom did not occur, but were followed and even enhanced. The prosperity and piety of Egypt under Nubian rule is epitomized by Pi(ankh)y s successor Shabako, who is e first Nubian ruler to be named in Maneo s XXV Dynasty, and who adopted a very archaizing titulary according to Old and Middle Kingdom style by using e praenomen rd 113 Neferkare, known from e III (?), VI, VII, VIII, IX and X dynasties. He not only followed custom but added significantly to e building programmes at Karnak, Luxor, and Medinet 116 Habu. Shabako is also e first Nubian pharaoh for which we have established portraiture, in statuary from Karnak, Memphis and El Kurru. On his reliefs, as on his stelae, Shabako is shown performing cult offering to various Egyptian deities, most notably Amun, Mut, and Osiris. He seems to have had a special relationship to Memphis, where he erected a chapel and naos stela. His reverence for Memphis is also apparent in his decision to have e Memphite Theology recopied onto 119 a granite stela, e Shabako Stone, as a result of its deteriorated state on papyrus. This is only one instance of e overall archaizing tendency already mentioned for is period, e Nubian rulers seeing fit to copy art, worship, and titulary from Old and Middle Kingdom models. Alough none of ese were vast works, [...] ey heralded a new era of royal building bo wiin Thebes and 120 roughout Egypt. It might seem as ough such activity might be an attempt at selflegitimization more an a genuine love for Egyptian culture, but oer evidence of Nubian rule as well as e later celebration of Shabako s memory argue oerwise. 121 This trend continues under e reign of Shebitku, who added to e temple of Osiris-Hekadjet and a chapel of Amun to e Karnak precinct, as well as scenes at Luxor, where he offers to 124 Amon and Haor. A stela dedicated to his cult has also survived. Shebitku, however, decided to revert to a more imperial-style titulary, akin to e pharaohs of e New Kingdom. This is possibly because of his military initiatives in Palestine versus e Assyrians, defending Egypt rough e use of his general Taharqa, who would succeed him as pharaoh. Taharqa surpasses all Nubian pharaohs in e extent of his piety, having built extensively all 125 over Egypt and Nubia. Some of e more interesting of his works come from e reliefs and