MEROITIC CHRONOLOGY: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
By Fritz Hintze
from a typed paper in the files of Sudan Antiquities Service
I. The Main Stages of Chronolgical Research
II.The Main Problems of Meroitic Chronology
1. The First Meroitic Collateral Dynasty of Napata
2. The second Meroitic Collateral Dynasty of Napata
III. Fixed Points in Meroitic Chronology
IV. Difficulties and Future Tasks of Chronological Research
In the present context the term “chronology” means that part of historical research which pursues the aim (1) to establish the chronological order of historical events or monuments (relative chronology), and (2) to date these events or monuments as far as possible according to our chronological system (absolute chronology).
The historical sources and monuments at our disposal for the reconstruction of the Meroitic history are still rather sparse and disproportionate with regard to their chronological distribution on their historical significance. The royal tombs at Napata and Meroe, however, have survived in an almost uninterrupted sequence. And so it is no wonder that since they were excavated by Reisner, they have gained great importance in the attempts at working out at least a relative and as far as possible also an absolute chronology of the succession of rulers.
It is hardly possible to outline the present state and the next tasks of research in the field of Meroitic chronology without going into details of the history of this research itself. Meroitic chronology research did not proceed in so straight a line that every new step forward was at the same time an absolute improvement in every respect of what had been achieved before. Let me, therefore, give you a short survey of the most important stages of these chronological research. In doing so I shall try to leave such detailed questions as are of less importance for our purposes out of account. Therefore, only attempts at a more or less complete reconstruction of Meroitic chronology shall be taken into consideration here, but not so the occasional remarks as to the dating of individual pyramids or rulers.
I. The Main Stages of Chronolgical Research
Immediately after he excavated the pyramids at Napata (Kurru, Nuri and Jebel Barkal) and Meroe (the Southern and Northern Cemeteries) Reisner elaborated a complete chronology of the Meroitic Kingdom of Ethiopia.
For This purpose Reisner divided the pyramids according to their archaeological features (shape, chapel, type of chapel decoration, tomb-chamber, type of burial etc,) into groups with common features, and put these groups into a chronological order (relative chronology) by means of an assumed or evident line of development of these different features. For absolute chronology Reisner assumed several fixed dates; he estimated the lengths of reign according to size and type of the pyramids in order to obtain absolute dates.
The following were assumed by Reisner (1923, 76-77) as fixed dates:
(1) “Nos. 2-6, the reigns of Piankhy, Shabaka, Shabataka, Taharqa and Tanutaman, are fixed except for a slight uncertainty as to the beginning of the reign of Piankhy and the end of the reign of Tanutaman”.
(2) “No. 33, the reign of Ergamenes, is fixed approximately as contemporaneous with that of Ptolemy IV. The statement of Diodorus that Ergamenes was educated at the court of Ptolemy II is contradicted by other evidence and the rest of his statement about the priestly control of the kingship seems to me very dubious”.
(3) “Nos. 44 and 45, the joint reign of Netekaman and Amantêre is approximately fixed by the conclusion…that Netekaman restored the Amŭn temple at Barkal soon after the Roman invasion of 23 B.C.”
(4) “No. 26, the reign of Manitrar:ze, appears to be fixed by his identity with the king Teraramani of the Philae inscription which is dated to 254 B.C. (sicl. Instead of A.D.).”
(5)“No. 68, represented by N XXV is the last tomb in the Northern Cemetery, and indicated therefore the end of a period in the history of Meroe. It seems only natural to conclude that this end of a period marks the conquest of Meroe by Aizane, King of Axum, about 350 B.C. (sicl. Instead of A.D.) when he assumed the title of ‘King of Cush’…”
Thus Reisner arrived at a complete succession of 68 rulers from Kashta to the last ruler of Meroe in the period from 750 B.C. to 355 A.D. In addition to this main line of rulers, Reisner assumed two collateral lines: the “First Meroitic Kingdom of Napata” (308-283 B.C.and 275-225 B.C.), and the “Second Meroitic Kingdom of Napata” (100-22 B.C.).
Reisner thought it necessary to assume the existence of these two collateral dynasties, since-according to him-this is the only way to explain the two groups of pyramids at Jebel Barkal which are contemporaneous with some pyramids at Meroe as far as their archaeological features are concerned (see below).
Of course, Reisner, realized the hypothetic character of many of his conclusions and combinations, and yet he was quite sure of his chronology as show his final optimistic words: “Personally I feel that the main outlines of the chronology are now so well established that they form basis for a reconstruction of the history of Ethiopia (Reisner 1923,77).
When the results of Reisner’s excavations of the pyramids at napata and Meroe were finally published, Dunham together with Macadam worked out a new chronology which in part considerably deviates from that elaborated by Reisner.
Dunham chose the following fixed points for his datings:
(1) The first six rulers are fairly accurately fixed by Egyptian chronology assigning them to the period between 750 and 650 B.C.
(2) Aspelta (No. 10) as the enemy of Psametichos II is dated to 593-568 B.C. (as he was dated by Reisner).
(3) Ergamenes is considered a contemporary of Ptolemy II (because of the statement of Diodorus), and of Ptolemy IV (due to their joint building activities at Philae and Dakka) and his reign is dated to the period from 248-220 B.C. (Reisner dated it to 225-200 B.C).
(4) Reconstruction of the temple of Amŭn at Napata, which had been destroyed by the Roman invasion (23 B.C.) by Natakamani and Amanitêre who are supposed to have reigned from 12 B.C. until 12 A.D. (Reisner: 15 B.C.- 15 A.D.).
(5) Teqerideamani (Beg.N. 28) is identified with king Tqrrmn of the Philae graffito from the third year of the emperor Trebonianus Gallus, and is dated to 246-266 A.D.
(6) It is assumed that the Meroitic kingdom ceased to exist in 350 A.D. (when it was destroyed by Ezana of Axum).
This shows that, on the whole, Dunham’s fixed dates coincide with those established by Reisner. And yet, there have been a number of significant shifts in the dates of reigns as a result of the elimination of the second collateral dynasty of Napata.
The king of Barkal 11 of Reisner’s First Collateral Dynasty who reigned from 322 to 315 B.C. is put in between Nuri.? (337-322 B.C., Amanibakhi?), and Begrawiya South. 6 (315-297 B.C. Arakakamani), that is, he is included into the main line; Barkal 11 is attributed to king Arnekhamani. The other rulers remain in the First Collateral Dynasty.
The Second Meroitic Collateral Dynasty of Napata, however, is completely eliminated, and its rulers are included into the main line, assuming a change of the burial-ground. Thus it follows that between 93 B.C. and 0 the site of the royal cemetery changed six times: Beg. N. 21--- Bar. 4, Bar. 2--- Beg. N. 14 --- Bar. 6 --- Beg, N. 2, Beg. N. 6 --- Bar. 9, Bar. 10 --- Beg. N. 22.
The study of the offering tables from the pyramids at Meroe necessitated a re-consideration of Reisner’s and Dunham’s chronologies, and resulted in a new chronology coming again nearer to that of Reisner.
The following have been assumed as fixed dates:
(1) The succession, the dates and thus the reigns of the first nine rulers are, in the main, fixed; thus,
(2) Aspelta has to be considered a contemporary of Psametichos II and dated to 593-568 B.C. (as he was dated by Reisner and Dunham).
(3) Nastasen as the enemy of Khababash has to be dated to 335-315 B.C. (Reisner 328-308 B.C,; Dunham 355-337 B.C.).
(4) Following Dunham, Ergamenes is dated to 248-220 B.C.
(5) Amanirenas (and Akinidad) have to be regarded as the enemies of Petronius. As rulers of the Second Napatan Collateral Dynasty they are dated to 38-18 B.C. (or 18-3 B.C. respectively).
(6) It is probable that the records of expeditions to Meroe made during Nero’s reign, refer to two different expeditions; the first, of which Seneca reported, arrived at Meroe approximately in 6 A.D., and found a king on the throne, while the second, of which Pliny reported, found a queen on the throne in 62 or 67 A.D. According to this fact the change of government between Amanitenmemide (Beg, N. 17) and Amanikhatashan (Beg. N.18) has been fixed to 62 A.D. (Dunham 93 A.D.).
(7)Furthermore, it is supposed that Teqerideamani (Beg N. 28) is identical with the Meroitic king Tqrrmn mentioned in the Graffito Philae mentioned earlier. He is dated to 246-266 A.D. ( as he was by Dunham).
Reisner’s First and Second Meroitic Collateral Dynasties of Napata are accepted and fixed with dates very much approximating those established by Reisner: First Dynasty 315-240 B.C. (Reisner 309-225 B.C.); Second Dynasty 60 B.C.- 12 A.D. (Reisner 100- 22 B.C.).
The excavations at Musawwarat proved that Arnekhamani was the founder of the lion temple thus making it questionable that he belonged to the First Collateral Dynasty of Napata. Besides the form of his name (adding of the epithets cnh dt and mrj Ist within the cartouche) indicated that he was contemporary of Ptolemy IV. These facts made it necessary to reconsider the chronology of the period between 369 and 145 B.C.
(1)While maintaining the First Collateral Dynasty, Arnekhamani was taken out of it, and the dynasty dated to 280-205 B.C.
(2) The period from 233-218 B.C. was calculated for Arnekhamani, and the pyramid Beg. N. 53 was assigned to him.
(3) In connection therewith the reigns of the twenty-fourth to the thirty-seventh rulers were calculated anew, the result being mostly slight modifications as compared to the hitherto existing dates.
(4) Since Arnekhamani proved to have been contemporary of Ptolemy IV, the important conclusion ensued that his successor Ergamenes could not possibly have been contemporary of Ptolemy II. Therefore, the statement by Diodorus- who probably confounded the two very similar names- must have referred to Arnekhamani. The new fixed date for the reign of the latter is now the period from 295-275 B.C. (Reisner: 300-280 B.C.).
While studying the iconography of the representations of Meroitic kings (1963), Wenig had to consider also the chronology, and during his short visit to the pyramids at Meroe he came across new or at least still unpublished material which made him revise the existing chronology (1967). In doing so, he made use of the type of chapel decoration but to a greater extent also o iconographic details. By means of this refined method important improvements of the chronology were achieved by him.
Apart from some secondary modifications of the chronology resulting from the eliminations of several occupants of pyramids from the list of rulers because they are considered as non- governing queens or princes (for iconographical reasons or on account of the type of their tombs), or resulting from the fact that some pyramids have been fixed at an earlier or a later date, the most important modification made by Wenig consists in completely eliminating the First Collateral Dynasty of Napata. As regards the elimination of the Second Collateral Dynasty he followed Dunham, fixing, however, new dates.
The most important modifications which should be mentioned here are the following:
(1) Concerning the group of the Barkal pyramids out of which the pyramids Bar. 11, 14, 15, 18 and 7 had been included into the First Collateral Dynasty, Wenig regards Bar. 18 and 7 as tombs of non-governing persaons. He fits the remaining three pyramids in between Nuri 15 and Begrawiya South 6, the first royal tomb at Meroe (315-270 B.C.). Accordingly, the royal cemetery was at first transferred only from Nuri to the other bank of the Nile, to Jebel Barkal, and then, three generations later, about 270 B.C. under Arnekhamani to Meroe.
(2) Of the group including Bar. 6, 4, 2, 9 and 10 which is classed with the Second Collateral Dynasty, Wenig leaves the pyramids Bar 4, 9 and 10 out of account although he mentions, for instance, that Bar. 4 was the tomb of a governing queen; he does not give his reasons for not taking Bar. 9 and 10 into consideration. Since, according to him, “Reisner’s hypothesis of a (second) Napatan Collateral Dynasty may now, that the family relations between Nawidemak and a king in Meroe have been proved, be laid aside”, he included- like Dunham did- the remaining two rulers into the main line, having to assume that the burial-ground had been changed four times: Beg. N. 20 --- Bar. 6 --- Beg. N. 2, Nu 2, x – Bar. 2 --- Beg. N. 21.
(3)For iconographic reasons the pyramid Beg. N. 10 was dated by Wenig 180 to 200 years earlier as it was dated by Reisner, Dunham and Hintze.
(4) The pyramid Beg. N. 28 of king Teqerideamani which due to the fact that he was identified with king Tqrrmn (graffito Philae 416 from the year 253 A.D.) had been classed into Reisner’s group j (Dunham, Hintze), was eliminated by Wenig from this group and again fitted into group i. As did Arkell already, he assumed two kings with the same names: Teqerideamani I (Nuri 28, 90-114 A.D.) and Teqerdemani II (Nuri x, 246-266 A.D.). Further details of the new chronology established by Wenig cannot be discussed here.
II. The Main Problems of Meroitic Chronology
In the attempts at reconstructing a Meroitic chronology made so far, the hitherto applied method of starting from the archaeological features of the pyramids has generally proved successful. In this connection it has - upon further consideration – turned out to be quite immaterial for the total framework of chronology to answer the question if this or that pyramid within a particular group should be placed differently, since in most cases this leads only to slight changes of the datings.
There are, however, two problems that are of greater importance since their solution does not only necessitate major modifications of the chronology, but also conditions the historic valuation of important epochs in Meroitic history. These are the problems concerning the existence of the two “Meroitic Collateral Dynasties” of Napata on which I should like to make some comments now and here.
1. The First Meroitic Collateral Dynasty of Napata
From the doubts in the existence of the First Collateral Dynasty expressed by Macadam (1955, 20), Wenig drew the logical conclusion, and completely eliminated this separate dynasty. Only three of the Barkal pyramids in question are tombs of governing rulers: Bar. 11, 14, and 15. They have to be fitted in between Nuri 15 (Nastasen) and Begrawiya South 10 (Arkakamani). But for the present, the association of the rulers Aryamani, Piankh-yerike-qo and Sabrakamani, whom we know from the inscriptions at Kawa, with specific pyramids is still a hypothetic one. As a matter of fact, king Kash..amani who is also known from Kawa cannot be fitted in, nor can king Mn-m..t-Ra Stp-n-Ra (Meroe 40, 43), although both of them belong to the same chronological era as Aryamani, Piankh-yerike-qo and Sabrakamani, judging by the form of their names (addition of Stp-n-Ra, resp. mrj Imn in the case of Kash..amani). This problem requires further consideration.
Though some difficulties still exist, the solution of this problem might be found in the direction indicated here, and bring about a comprehensible general historical picture of that epoch. The transfer of the royal burial-ground from Nuri to Jebel Barkal into the vicinity of the temple of Amon might have been caused by the growing influence exercised on the kingdom by the Amon priesthood, by that very power of the priests reflecting itself in Diodorus' record on the ritual regicide. (Already queen Sakhmakh, wife of Nastasen, must have been buried at Jebel Barkal; comp. Wenig, 1967, 13). The addition mrj Imn 'loved by Amon' which was common just at that time, and the other 'neo-Ramesside' tendencies in art (comp., Hintze, 1962, 16) indicate closer ties between the kings and the cult of Amon. The greater influence of the priesthood of Amon manifesting itself here, might - as a reaction - have caused the 'coup d'état' of "Ergamenes" - Arkakamani of which Diodorus also gave an account. The historically comprehensible result of this elimination of the hegemony of priests is the transfer of the royal burial-ground to Meroe by Arkakamani, Persumably, it was only Arnekhamani who completely did away with the 'neo-Ramesside' tendencies in art while orienting himself on contemporary Ptolemaic Egypt, and who was the first to show typical "Meroitic" tendencies in art at the same time.
2. The second Meroitic Collateral Dynasty of Napata
The younger group of the Barkal pyramids (Bag. 1-6 and 9-10) causes considerably greater difficulties. Judging by their archaeological features these pyramids are contemporaneous with the Meroe pyramids Beg. N. 20, 21, 14, 2 and 6, or were at least built at about the same time. Beg. 6 is the pyramid of the governing queen Nawidemak (Macadam,1966). Judging by the reliefs in the pyramid chapels, Beg. 2, 4 and possibly 10 are also tombs of kings. Nawidemak, however, was the mother of a king who was buried at Meroe.
The whole problem of fitting these pyramids into the chronology is very complicated, and so far, three different ways for solving it have been suggested:
(1) The Barkal pyramids and the Meroe pyramids are contemporaneous; the Barkal pyramids are the tombs of rulers belonging to a collateral dynasty (Reisner, Hintze).
The objection was raised that monuments or inscriptions of Barkal rulers and Meroe rulers may be found in both "parts" of the kingdom. Besides, Nawidemak (Bar. 6) was the mother of a ruler who was buried in Meroe (maybe Beg. N. 2).
(2) The Barkal pyramids are contemporaneous, indeed, but the persons buried in them were members of the royal family who only had lived in Napata but had not ruled, whereas the virtual rulers of the whole kingdom lie buried at Meroe. Here the objection has to be raised that the pictures in the chapels of Bar. 6, 4 and 2, clearly show persons with the regalia of governing rulers.
(3) The Barkal pyramids have to be fitted into the main chronological line. Some rulers preferred the old cemetery in Napata (Dunham, Wenig). In this connection Dunham assumed that the royal cemetery was transferred six times, whereas Wenig believed this to have happened four times. But I think that this frequent transfer does not make this theory a very convincing one neither.
First of all, I should like to deal briefly with the third theory. Macadam (1966:65) agreed to it, and without going into details - commented: "It seems, therefore, unnecessary to assume two kingdoms, and then, as some have done, to weaken the argument by saying that anyway they maintained good relations with one another. As I continue to see it, Napata was the old traditional religious capital; rulers went there to be crowned, to make offerings or building additions to the temple of Ammon, and, if they wished to continue in the old tradition, certain of them and other members of the ruling family or families placed their tombs there so long as suitable sites remained and so long as hostile invasions did not prevent access".
Contrary to the religious reasons given by Macadam, Wenig emphasized the political reasons for the transfer of a number of royal tombs: "I do, however, believe that the building of pyramids at Jebel Barkal in the first century was connected with the active Northern policy pursued by Meroe culminating in the attack on Elephantine and Syene". (Wenig, 1967,23).
But both argumentations remain unsatisfactory insofar as they cannot give an exhaustive explanation of the fact that the burial-ground was changed several times. Wenig's reference to the "active Northern policy" in itself is of great value, but it is this very reference which makes this repeated change enigmatic. Besides, one has to bear in mind that such political reasons (reasons of foreign policy, to be more precise) would explain a change of the residence but not automatically the change of the burial-places, which - in the first line - should be explained by religious reasons or such of religious policy. It is precisely in burial customs and burial-grounds that religious traditions play a special role; Napata remained the burial-ground of the kings long after the residence had been transferred to Meroe; the fact that this cemetery, too, was transferred to Meroe is - in all probability - connected with the revolt against the hegemony of the Amon priesthood, According to Macadam's explanation, the sense of tradition of the rulers was very hostile at that time, and the choice of the cemetery was dependent on the subjective whims of individual rulers. But this explanation, too, does not seem to be satisfactory.
I think that in the field of chronology the problem of the "Second Collateral Dynasty" is the most important one, and has to be treated once again and at full length. The solution of this problem is of primary importance not only to chronology itself, but above all to the history proper of that epoch. Since it cannot be treated exhaustively within the framework of this paper, I should like to confine myself to attempting another interpretation without, however, going into any details.
It can be accepted as a relative positive fact that the Barkal pyramids have to be dated to the second half of the first century B.C., when the Meroites increased their activities in the north ( Lower Nubia). This active Northern policy was facilitated by Egypt's weakness at the end of the Ptolemaic period, and became all the more necessary when - at the beginning of the Roman period - the Southern policy of the Romans pursued under the prefects Cornelius Gallus and Trebonius was activated in turn. In 24 B.C., the Meroites even succeeded in conquering and pillaging Philae and Syene. To facilitate this active Northern policy it was, of course, necessary to considerably strengthen the northern part of the kingdom that had long been neglected. It was then that the large Meroitic cemeteries were set up in Lower Nubia, where the high officials from Meroe who had been installed there to run the Northern provinces were uried. And it was then that all of a sudden the highly developed Meroitic wheel-made pottery appeared in Lower Nubia. Crown Prince Akinidad held the title of 'Pestê' which must be something in the meaning of the title "viceroy" or "governer". It suggests itself that for the purpose of supporting this active Northern policy it was also expedient to transfer the capital to Napata. Besides, Strabo mentioned expressly ("..and stormed Napata; but this was the residence of Kandaka, and her son was also there") that at Petronius' time Napata was in fact the residence. But since it was impossible to pursue a truly safe policy in the north without the support of the Amon priesthood from Jebel barkal whose influence in the northern part of the country undoubtedly was still very strong, the transfer of the royal cemetery to the vicinity of the temple of Amon assisted this policy as a gesture of good will. It is true, the Romans reached Napata in the course of the war, but this did by no means break the power of the Meroites in Lower nubia> Augustud received the Meroitic negotiators in Samos, and in the peace treaty concluded as a result thereof which turned out to be quite favorable for Meroe, the frontier was fixed at Hiera Sycaminos (Maharraqa).
In the light of the events of which I have just given a rough outline, one might assume that in the second half of the second century B.C. the residence and the royal cemetery were re-transferred from Meroe to Napata with the aim of supporting an active Northern policy, so that the problem does not consist in fitting the rulers buried in the Napatan pyramids into the line of the rulers of Meroe, but, vice versa, the question can be raised if there existed a "collateral dynasty" in Meroe. However all I want to do here is just to indicate this way of solving the problem. (In this connection, the possibility of an arranged and peaceful "division" of the kingdom that was performed in order to strengthen the northern part of the kingdom should also be born in mind; certain historical parallels of such events can surely be found).
A satisfactory theory concerning the solution of the questions raised here should, at any rate, (a) take the existence of the tombs of governing rulers at Jebel Barkal into account; (b) draw upon all historical facts available (including archaeological evidence in the form of Meroitic pottery from Lower Nubia, of the Meroitic cemeteries, and of inscriptions at our disposal) in order to explain it; (c) do without a repeated - and basically unmotivated - undecidedness as to the choice of the royal cemetery; and last but not least (d) draw a historical picture containing as much elements of inherent probability and plausibility as possible. I am under the impression that the solution I have suggested contains elements of a theory taking the historical facts more into account than other theories do.
III. Fixed Points in Meroitic Chronology
In order to achieve absolute chronology it is necessary to determine as many fixed dates as possible. Such fixed points can be obtained mainly by means of synchronisms with Egyptian history which is much better known. I should like to submit another list of fixed dates and synchronisms which – as a result of chronological research – I think to be fairly reliable.
1. The succession of the terms of government and thus the reigns of the first nine rulers (from Kashta to Anlamani) can in the main be accepted as reliable.
2. Aspelta is generally recognized as a contemporary of the invasion waged by Psametichos II (591 B.C.= third year of government of Psametichos II = second year of government of Aspelta who accordingly reigned from 593 to 568 B.C.).
3. From Aspelta to Harsiyotef (according to Hintze from 568 to 369 B.C.) there are only slight deviations in the estimated dates of the different systems of cgronology; the succession of the pyramids and also of the rulers and their terms of government can be accepted as rather secure.
4. If Nastasen really was the enemy of Khababash it seems to be fairly probable that he reigned from 335 to 315 B.C.
5. The first king to be buried at Meroe (Beg. S. 6) whose name has so far been read as Arkakamni, was a contemporary of Ptolemy II (284-266 B.C.), and is identical with king Ergamenes mentioned by Diodorus, under whom the hegemony of the (Amon) priests was abolished. This coup d'état found its visible expression in the transfer of the burial-ground of the kings from Napata to Meroe. But the name may as well be read as Arkamani-qo (according to a suggestion by Dr.Priese). In this case we have to call him "Ergamenes I", and thus the statement handed down to us by Diodorus would prove quite correct. It is in the reign of Ptolemy II that the dates established by Reisner (300-280) and Hintze 1952 (295-275), and also those worked out by Wenig (270-260) fall. But which of those dates will be given priority depends on how the "First Meroitic Collateral Dynasty of Napata" is understood (see above).
6. According to the facts which I fully substantiated in 1962, Arnekhamani was a contemporary of Ptolemy IV (221-203 B.C.); at that time I worked out the period from 235 to 218 B.C. for him which I still consider to be the most probable one. The objections raised by Haycock (1965) practically miss the crux of the matter since it was not the additions mrj Ist or cnh dt to the names themselves that were of importance to me but the adding of the epithets mrj Ist cnh dt within the cartouche which for the first time is found with Ptolemy IV (comp. Wenigm 1967, 14).
7. The name of prince Arka, son of Arnekhamani, who is portrayed on the walls of the lion temple at Musawwarat is likely to be a shortened form of the full king name of Arqamani whom we must now call Ergamenes II as the son and successor of Arnekhamani. It would seem to be fairly correct to date his reign to the period from 218 to 195 B.C., which also includes the joint building activities carried out together with Ptolemy IV at Dakka and Philae.
8. According to the reasons I gave in 1959, the queen Amanirenas and her son Akinidad were the enemies of Petronius. In this connection it is not so much the questionable interpretation of the stela of Akinidad that is of importance (for instance the question if arme is really an early way of spelling arême = 'Rome', but the circumstance that the only inscriptions of Meroitic rulers in Lower Nubia which might belong to this period are those of Teriteqas, of Amanirenas (and Akinidad) at Dakka. But according to Strabo Dakka was temporarily the headquarters of the Meroites before they launched their attack on Philae, Elephantine and Syene.
9. If my interpretation of the Greek inscription at Dakka LD VI gr. 407 is correct (Hintze, 1959, 26), a queen must havr reigned in Meroe (or in Napata?) in the year 23 B.C. This question is closely connected with the problem of the "Second Collateral Dynasty" of Napata.
10. I hope to have proved that at Nero's time two Roman expeditions were sent to the region of Meroe. The expedition recorded by Seneca arrived at Meroe approximately in the year 62, and at that time there was a king reigning. The expedition recorded by Pliny came to Meroe a few years later, approximately in 66 or 67. At that time there was a queen on the throne.Thus, we have to assume that between 62 and 66 B.C. a change of rulers took place which at the same time was a change from a king to a queen, a fact providing a clue as to the dating of Amanitenmêmide and his queen successor Amanikhatashan.
11. Natakamani (and Amanitêre) have to be fixed as the restorers of the temple of Amon at Jebel barkal soon after the expedition by Petronius.
12. The pyramid Beg. N. 24 was dated by Reisner to 290-310 A.D. and by Dunham, Hintze and Wenig to 283-300 A.D. I attributed - by way of trial - this pyramid to king Yesbêkheamani who is known from Philae (inscriptions 119 and 120). His inscriptions in Philae are written at a representative place above a king's picture. They are the only royal inscriptions at Philae belonging to the late Meroitic period. To my mind, these facts can best be understood when regarding these inscriptions as a royal monument written during the reoccupation of the Dodecaschoinus by the Meroites after the withdrawal of the Romans under Diocletian (284-300 A.D.). The lion with the name Yesbêkheamani in Meroitic hieroglyphs found at Qasr Ibrim has also to be seen in this connection. It would make the dating of this king more probable. (Such an interpretation of the monuments of Yesbêkheamani would, on the other hand, require new speculations as to the final stage of Meroitic history, the role of the power of the king of Meroe in Lower Nubia at that time, and the question of the "Nobades" in favour of whom Diocletian is reported to have left the Dodecaschoinos - all these being problems which I cannot possibly enter into detail now.
Two of those fixed dates that so far have been regarded as secure have become somewhat questionable if not null and void:
(1) The identification of king Teqerideamani buried in Nuri, 28 with the Meroitic king Tqrrmn mentioned in the demotic graffito Philae 416 of the year 253 A.D., which was made by Dunham and had been accepted ever since, is now invalid due to the dating of this pyramid by Wenig. Hence, we have to assume that there were two kings with the same (or at least a similar) name.
(2) The end of Meroe is generally associated with a campaign by the Axumite king Ezana, and consequently dated to about 350 A.D. In 1959, and again in 1967, I tried to prove that from the record on Ezana's campaign no immediate conclusions as to the date of the end of the Meroitic kingdom can be drawn. As far as this date is concerned we are dependent on conclusions from Meroitic history itself which are scarce enough, indeed.
IV. Difficulties and Future Tasks of Chronological Research
In studying the Meroitic chronology we are faced with extremely great difficulties.
We know only a few fixed points for a period of more than 600 years, which often are not even fully reliable; the succession of the pyramids within the groups established by Reisner on the basis of archaeological features is in many cases rather uncertain still; most of the pyramids have no names so that it is hypothetic and often problematic to associate them with certain rulers; on the other hand, we know many king names without being able to safely associate certain pyramids with them; besides, some pyramids were destroyed or pulled down, as for instance Beg. N. 53, and it is only the many blocs which had gone for building pyramids of later periods that give evidence of their existence; the number of the royal offering tables which have survived, and of which only fragments were often found, is very small, and due to the partly very obscure circumstances of their discovery their association with certain pyramids is very uncertain. Another factor of uncertainty in reconstructing the Meroitic chronology is the respective length of government of the individual rulers which can be estimated only in virtue of the size and decoration of the pyramids. Besides, we know only little of the course of succession so that it is very difficult to establish genealogical tables.
In view of these undoubtedly great difficulties one might be inclined to think it hopeless to reconstruct a chronological course of Meroitic history which would have more than just speculative character. But strangely enough, whatever we already know today of Meroitic chronology, though – on the whole – intensive research has just begun, is much more than might be expected in view of the great difficulties and handicaps.
It is mainly to the solid foundation laid by Reisner’s work that we owe this favorable situation. His sober method as well as attentive observation and consideration of the archaeological details have established a basis to build on. Even if almost all dates given by Reisner in his absolute chronology will have to be modified by years or even decades as research in this field progresses, his main guiding lines and the main framework elaborated by him will last on principle. Reisner’s optimism with regard to his “chronological outline” proves fully justified still today.
To my mind, the main task to be tackled in order to solve the chronological problems is a revision of the question concerning the two ‘collateral dynasties’. Our conceptions of the course of Meroitic history as a whole greatly depend on the answer to this question, and it will hardly be possible to reach an agreement on the datings after Ergamenes II without this question being clarified.
Moreover, further success in making chronology secure will mainly be achieved in field work. Every new excavation may bring to light documents which might be significant also for chronolgical research. But in the first line much more remains to be done at the Meroe pyramids themselves than one would expect after the comprehensive publication of Reisner's excavations. The chapel reliefs themselves have so far not been taken sufficiently into account, and the available publications do not suffice for detailed iconographic studies. Besides, part of the still existing material at the pyramids has not as yet been published or even listed. Complete hitherto unknown chapel walls can be put together from the blocs lying about at the pyramids, as Wenig (1971) could prove. The blocs re-used for building later pyramids have not even been investigated systematically by now. It is in this field that essential work still has to be done which can enable us to improve our knowledge of the exterior course of Meroitic history. The study of Meroitic chronolgy is not only a more or less amusing game with figures, but persues the aim to create a solid basis for proper historical investigations.
References
G.A.Reisner 1923, The Meroitic Kingdom of Ethiopia: A Chronological Outline.- Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 9.
St.Wenig 1967, Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Reiches von Meroe.- Metteilungen für Orientforschung 13.
M.F.L.Macadam 1966, Queen Nawidemak,- Allen Memorial Art Museum, Bulletin XXIII,2.
B.G.Haycock 1965, Towards a Data for King Ergamenes,- Kush 13.
St.Wenig 1971, Bericht uber archaologische Arbeiten ad der Pyramidenkapellen des Nordfriedhofen vn Begrawiya (Meroe), WZHU, XX.
Translated into Arabic by Osama Elnur