Q&A
Stuart Tyson Smith talks us through the Kushites’ significant relationship with their Egyptian neighbours
What part did the decline of the ancient Egyptian empire play in the foundation of the Kush empire at Napata in c.1069 BCE?
It is clear from both the historical and archaeological record that the Nubian colony broke away from Egypt, not the other way around. After a failed attempt to seize the Egyptian throne, the last viceroy of Kush, Panehesy, retreated south to the colonial capital at Aniba. Early Kushite rulers would have been able to draw upon the old imperial infrastructure, including personnel, settlements, and a sacred (and economic) landscape of temples. They also inherited and expanded trade routes and connections stretching south to Darfur/Chad and the Red Sea, and north to Egypt and beyond, as far as Mesopotamia. It is important to remember that there was a long and continuous tradition of centralised political organisation in Nubia stretching back to the earlier Kerma centred kingdom of Kush, continuing through the colonial era and arguably directly into the early Napatan period.
How did the Egyptians influence Kushite architecture and culture?
Cultural influence was mutual. For example, Kushite temples largely followed along Egyptian lines with large entrance pylons showing Kushite kings smiting enemies, followed by columned halls leading to the inner sanctum where the statue of the god lay. In a Kushite twist, some temples had sanctuaries that were cut into the side of mountains, like Abu Simbel, commissioned by Ramesses II in the New Kingdom, and the Mut Temple at Jebel Barkal/Napata commissioned by Taharqa during the 25th Dynasty. These temples focused on the Egyptian god Amun-Re, who had been syncretized, or merged, with a local ram deity during the colonial era, including a new theology of the mountain of Jebel Barkal as the birthplace of Amun and imagery of the now ram-headed god residing in the mountain.
Kushite kings and queens were buried under pyramids, a practice borrowed from Egypt. These monuments were based not on Egyptian royal pyramids like those at Giza, but instead draw from a long history of pyramid building in Nubia for the tombs of the colonial elites, both Egyptian and indigenous, with distinctive steep sides and attached pyloned pyramid chapels. One contrast with Egyptian practice is the prominence of queens in the royal cemeteries. They often had pyramid complexes of equal size and complexity to those of kings, reflecting their symbolic and political role in Kushite society.
For the broader population, burial practice was remarkably creative in its intercultural mixing, including different combinations of the Egyptian supine position (extended on back), wrapped and possibly mummified and placed in a coffin, but sometimes placed on a
