Elementos constitutivos del RAFA

The presence of the Egyptians in Nubia in the New Kingdom is seen most obviously in the temple building of the late 18th and early 19th Dynasties. Yet the very size and number of these edifices has, in the past, posed a problem for historians of Nubia, especially when allied with presumptions about the country's history. So the temples have been regarded less as centres of religious belief, than as

massive structures of limited function, built to overawe the indigenous population, or to promulgate a particular form of the royal cult amongst "credulous barbarians" [1].

More recently it has been recognised that many temples served as the focus of administrative centres and had an important role in the economy. Emphasis upon the temples as part of the state machine should not deny their cultic and theological role.

The Nubian temples offer important perspectives on Egyptian religion during the New Kingdom because temple buildings were not altered as much as temples in Egypt. Understanding of the temples is made more difficult by the lack of complete publications of many of them, despite the studies and epigraphic work related to the Nubian campaigns. Even Abu Simbel, probably the most famous of Egyptian temples, is not completely published, and some temples, notably Soleb and Sedeinga, are known only through the works of early epigraphic expeditions.

The most significant of religious practices in the New Kingdom was the development of the royal cult, which is particularly visible in Nubia, in two important phases, the reigns of Amenhotep III and Ramesses II. Although the temples of Ramesses II have received considerable attention, the 'Living Image ( W t y *^nh) of

at Soleb has, until recently, remained relatively unresearched in either Nubian studies or Egyptology [2]. This is due, to a certain

extent, to the remoteness of the Soleb temple itself, the lack of a publication and also to the greater Egyptological interest in

Akhenaten and Ramesses 11 [3].

Whilst there are peculiarly local features apparent in the

iconography and associations of the kings in the Nubian temples, the function of the temples reflects current trends within Egypt itself. The worship of Ramesses II in Nubia was studied by Habachi [A] who demonstrated its close relationship with that of the king in Egypt and Bell [5] has discussed Tutankhamun as 'Lion over the South Country* at Kawa, also adding considerably to our understanding of Ramesside royal divinity.

The development of Egyptian religion, and particularly of the royal cult, in Nubia is important because, most obviously, it

reflects the ideology which the Egyptians wished to impose on their dependencies, but it is also significant when the later phases of Kushite history are examined. The *Egyptianisation* of the Napatan and Meroitic periods has been seen as a residue of the years of occupation, gradually dissipated through the dominance of indigenous phenomena. The importance of the Amun cult in the Meroitic period is an obvious example of Egyptian influence. Indeed, the dominance of Amun led earlier writers to suggest a direct contact between Thebes and Napata, and that the Amun priesthood was influential in the formation and ideology of the Kushite state. Some writers even suggested that the ancestors of the 25th Dynasty royal family were emigre Theban priests [6]. Many of these ideas have recently been recast and elaborated upon by Kendall [7]. It is only through close analysis of the kingship of the New kingdom and that of the Kushite periods that we can form any clear view of 'legacy*, or whether the Egyptian features of the Kushite kingship are related more closely to contemporaneous Egypt.

Habachi [8], followed by Kemp [9], Trigger [10] and others, urged that the Nubian temples should be looked at within the context of New Kingdom Egypt and not in isolation. Habachi*s fundamental study of

the deification of Ramesses II showed it to be only another

manifestation of a phenomenon to be found throughout Egypt. Habachi, however, as many scholars, adopted a conventional Western approach to

the royal cult. He argued that the Egyptians did not worship the king himself, but the concept of kingship. Posener also stressed the multiplicity of ways in which the royal ^ and persona were

worshipped [11].

Similar attitudes were observed by Price [12] in his discussion of the relationship between religion and politics in interpretations of the Roman imperial cult. He emphasises the role in historiography of the christianizing view that the imperial cult was a form of

political power lacking religious content. The organisation and exploitation of the imperial cult by local elites and its political exploitation for propaganda purposes, allied with the hostility of the early Christian writers to the phenomenon and more general

opinions about the ancient mentality, has led to a general view that the subjects of the empire did not believe it: it was a form, not a legitimate religious experience.

Price [13] does not deny the obvious political aspects of the Roman imperial cult, but emphasises that initiatives could come "from below", and were not all imposed by central authority. This can be paralleled in New Kingdom Egypt where private inscriptions invoke living and dead rulers [14]. The endowment of royal cult images by members of the elite doubtless guaranteed prestige and may have had economic benefits, but discussions of these have tended to emphasise the economic rather than religious aspects. In establishing these cults, the nobles may have actually believed in them.

Another parallel between the Roman and Egyptian royal cults may be noted. Price comments that [15]:

In fact, neither the Emperor nor his individual cults endured in perpetuity. The imperial cult was far from being a static

monolithic structure, erected once and for all. Cults were constantly being invented and revised.

As in Egypt, the imperial cults did not endure long after the Emperor's death: deceased emperors and pharaohs joined the ranks of the gods, but the most potent form of cult was that of the living ruler.

The development of the royal cult.

The following analysis of the royal cult [16] proposes a development from the Horus cults of Middle Kingdom Nubia which were adapted and then fused with the Amun cult in the mid-18th Dynasty. There are obvious dangers in interpreting material in a linear "evolutionary” progression. It is certain that a phenomenon such as the royal cult did not develop in a homogeneous predictable way. Many factors, historical and ideological would have affected the changes.

The royal cult has recently been the focus of much research. Grimai*s monumental study of the terminology has catalogued the

numerous associations of the kingship [17]. Bell's detailed analysis of worship of the royal ka in Luxor temple [18], and his study of the cult of Tutankhamun at Kawa [19] have clarified the ways in which the king and deity were assimilated. Bryan [20] recently presented an

intepretation of some aspects of the worship of Amenhotep III at Soleb temple. Her work closely relates the cult to religious developments in Egypt during this reign. The interpretation here concentrates on the evidence from Nubia. Yet the theories are not mutually exclusive: the complex nature of Egyptian religion often makes it difficult to present one single valid intepretation.

Comparisons have frequently been made between Egyptian activity in Western Asia and in Nubia, usually to highlight differences. From the Old Kingdom onwards pharaohs sent gifts to Asiatic deities who had become Egyptianised, such as Hathor Lady of Byblos, and during the New Kingdom Asiatic deities, notably Reshep and Astarte, were absorbed into the Egyptian pantheon. Openness to Asiatic cults is further demonstrated by the evidence for a statue of Ishtar being sent to Amenhotep III from Mitanni to cure illness [21]. No Nubian

parallels are noted for this and the general verdict has been that the Nubians had no deities who could be found Egyptian counterparts, and that the Egyptians looked down on Nubian religion [22], It is quite probable that Nubian culture lacked the range of

anthropomorphic deities to be found in Egypt and Western Asia, but the nature and practice of religion in early Nubia is still an obscure subject [23],

The main Egyptian cults celebrated in Nubia in the early 18th Dynasty were those of Horus, originating in the Middle Kingdom fortresses. The political element in the propagation of the cults was discussed by Save-Soderbergh [24], The gods of the First

Cataract, Khnum, Anuket and Satet, were also prominent, especially in the region of the 2nd Cataract, where Buhen became *the Southern Elephantine* [25], It is, at present, unclear whether the cults of the Elephantine gods became important at the more southerly Upper Nubian cataracts also, but the triad of Kawa in the 25th Dynasty was a ram-headed form of Amun, associated with Anuket and Satet,

The *Horus gods. Lords of Wawat* [26], as they were later called (appearing as a triad), were the deities which presided over the Middle Kingdom fortresses; B3ki(Kubban), (Aniba), and Bhn

(Buhen). In the late 18th Dynasty a fourth regional Horus god of Lower Nubia was added to the others; Horus of M M , the region of Abu Simbel [27], As well as the local forms, a more generalised aspect of Horus, *the lord of foreign lands* [28] was worshipped during the 2nd Intermediate Period, With the expansion of Egyptian power south of the 2nd Cataract a new form, **Horus the Bull, Lord of Ta-Seti** was introduced, Horus, as a manifestation of the conquering king, was a deity frequently associated with foreign countries, and there is some evidence that during the Middle Kingdom Monthu as an aspect of the Horus-king was particularly venerated in the fortresses,

Senusret I and III were venerated at the southern frontier,