Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London, 2006

Panel I.7

Alexandros TSAKOS
Athens, Greece

THE EVANGELIZATION OF NUBIA

Introduction
The subject of this paper is the Evangelization of Nubia. In order to analyze this subject, five points
should be touched upon:
1. the notions of ‘evangelization’ and ‘Christianization’ and their application to the case of Nubia,
2. the notion of the term Nubia itself,
3. the literary evidence for the conversion of Nubia to Christianity,
4. the archaeological record on the matter,
5. the historical (doctrinal, but mainly political) implications of the adherence of Nubia to
Christianity.

Analysis
1. The term ‘evangelization’ derives from the Greek word ευαγγέλιον, evangel, whose etymology
implies the bringing forward of some good (ευ) news (αγγελία). Its actual meaning is to convert or to
seek to convert someone to Christianity. One would suspect, though, that the term is used in
connection to the Holy Scripts as the means for achieving the aim of conversion, and in this sense it is
linked to the missionary activities during specific periods in history.
The term ‘Christianization’, on the other hand, is used to describe the historical phenomenon of the
gradual adherence of peoples and states to the Christian faith. For individuals the term ‘conversion’ is
more apt.
In the case of Nubia, there is a marked difference between the two processes, since Christianity was
introduced in the region much earlier than the evangelization of the land by the Byzantine missions
sent by Justinian and Theodora between 543 and 580 A.D. This difference can be understood by the
combination of the study of both the historical sources and the archaeological record1.

2. The term ‘Nubia’ can be perceived in four different ways:


a. Etymologically, it comes from the ancient Egyptian word ‘nwb’, meaning gold. It is well-known
that the Egyptians would obtain their gold from the lands south of their country, both along the
Nile and in the Eastern desert. The first attestation of the word, however, is to be found in
Eratosthenes (ca. 200 B.C.) and it is linked to an indigenous term signifying ‘slave’2.
b. Geographically, Nubia would be used as an equivalent to the Middle Nile Valley, which is the
land through which the River Nile passes forming its six cataracts (these in reality are just rapids
caused by the narrowing of the river bed, due to its passing through the granites of the region).
c. Linguistically, it concerns the area of the people speaking some form of the Nubian language.
This would imply that Nubia today is the stretch of the Nile from Aswan, through Halfa and the
Mahas region and down to the end of the Danagla area.
d. Historically, Nubia should be understood as the land where the Nubian people have been
recorded living, and in this sense it is very difficult to establish its limits, since there is no
concordance whatsoever between the sources.
It is characteristic that in medieval times the Nubian kingdoms of Nobadia, Makuria and Alodia,
are not all undoubtedly inhabited by Nubians3. The latter kingdom, being further to the south, is

1 cfr. D.N. Edwards, “The Christianisation of Nubia: some archaeological pointers”, SUDAN & NUBIA 5 (2001), 89-96, and
especially p. 89: ‘(The historical) sources provide us with benchmark ‘events’, but what they do not give us is any
indication of conversion as a dynamic process nor indeed its progress over time.’
2 In Strabo XVII.C.1§2
3 cfr. D.A. Welsby, The Medieval Kingdoms of Nubia; Pagans, Christians and Muslims along the Middle Nile, (London 2002), 7 & Kirwan

L.P., “Notes on the Topography of the Christian Nubian Kingdoms”, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 21 (1935), 61
1
viewed by some sources, among them John of Ephesus, our main source for the evangelization
of the land, as rather Aithiopian or Sudanese.
The ancient term Aithiopia, by the way, had nothing to do with the present-day state of Ethiopia.
It is a Greek word meaning the Land of the Burnt-faced people, and it referred since the times of
Homer and Herodotus to all the lands to the south of Egypt and Libya. In this sense, it is
identical to the term Benid as-Sudan, meaning the Land of the Blacks, which is the term used by
the Arab geographers and historians of medieval times to define the same, more or less,
geographical area.
Gradually, though, a distinction arose for the different peoples inhabiting this area: the Arabs
recognized the Nubians as the people living along the Middle Nile and the Aithiopians as the
people inhabiting the areas of modern Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia. Sudan remained the term
used for the black peoples of the lands south of Alodia and west of Ethiopia.
In some ancient and early Byzantine sources another type of confusion can be observed: with
the term Indians all people living south of the Byzantine and Persian Empires were identified.
This is a misunderstanding of political significance, since it indicates the importance of all these
lands for the trade of these Empires with the Indian Ocean world; a trade which passed through
the Red Sea, which is flanked by Nubia, Ethiopia and Arabia4. With the Arab conquests such
references disappear from the historical record.
Furthermore, L. de Mas Latrie5 describes the territorial organization of the Church in Africa
during the 7th century as follows:
a. The Patriarchate of Alexandria
b. The Church of Ethiopia or Abyssinia
The Church of Nubia
The Homerite Church in Arabia Felix
The Church of Adulis on the Red Sea
c. The Maghreb

Thus, for any matter dealing with medieval times, Nubia should be understood as the area where the
power of these three kingdoms was exercised, namely:
a. Nobadia, with its capital at Faras, between the 1st and the 3rd Cataracts
b. Makuria, with its capital at Old Dongola, between the 3rd and the 5th Cataracts
c. Alodia, with its capital at Soba, south of the junction of the rivers Nile and Atbara

3. Actually, the literary evidence for the evangelization of Nubia also refers grosso modo to all these
kingdoms along the Middle Nile6. As already mentioned, some archaeological pointers will clarify the
matter further on. First should come the examination of the sources themselves:
a. The main source for these events is John of Ephesus7, also called John of Asia (507-586 A.D.), a
native of Amida, modern Diyarbakır in eastern Turkey. He was an adherent of the Monophysite
doctrine, but enjoyed the esteem of the emperor Justinian (527-565 A.D.) to such an extent that
he was delegated with the evangelization of pagan tribes in Asia Minor in 542 A.D. In 558 he
was appointed Bishop of Ephesus. With the changes that the reign of Justin II (565-578 A.D.)
brought about, John was put to forced residence. About 580 A.D. he composed his main work8,
a Church History in Syriac, of which only Part III is authentic. The first three books of this part
III of John’s History deal with events that happened in Constantinople down to the year 582. It
is in book 4 that the evangelization of Nubia is narrated, beginning with the events of 577 and

4 cfr. D.G. Letsios, Byzantium and the Red Sea; Relations with Nubia, Ethiopia and South Arabia until the Arab Conquest, (Athens 1988)
5 L. De Mas Latrie, Trésor de Chronologie d’Histoire et de Géographie pour l’étude et l’emploi des documents du Moyen Age (Paris 1889), 1866-
1874
6 The reference in John of Nikiou, ch. XC (H. Zotenberg, La Chronique de Jean de Nikiou (Paris 1883 & 19352), 391-393), of the

conversion of the Nubian king is a – probably deliberate – misunderstanding of the story of the victory of the Aksumite
king followed by his ‘conversion to Christianity’ in the reign of Justin I (518-527 A.D.) as found for the first time in
Malalas (L. Dindorf, Joannis Malalae Chronographia, Corpus Script. Historiae Byzantinae (Leipzig 1831), 433-434), which
again is not the real story of the Evangelization of Axum - Ethiopia. But this is an altogether different case study.
7 E.W. Brooks, “Johannis Ephesini Historia Ecclesiastica pars tertia”, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Ser. III, Scriptores

Syri (Louvain 1936)


8 For the conditions of composing this work cfr. R. Duval, La literature syriaque (Paris 1907), 183

2
recalling like flashbacks the earlier evangelization under the Patriarch of Alexandria,
Theodosius, in exile in Constantinople since 536. We can follow his narration since most text
critiques would agree that “he evidently strove to be impartial, for which he is very much to be
commended, considering the part he played in the events he related; he is also accurate and full
of details”9.
Among the clergy in attendance upon pope Theodosius, was a presbyter named Julianus, an old
man of great worth, who conceived an earnest spiritual desire to Christianize the wandering
people who dwell on the eastern borders of the Thebais beyond Egypt10. This description would
seem to refer rather to the Beja nomads living in the Red Sea hills than to the Nobades, who
were resettled and reimbursed by Diocletian along the first two cataracts of the Nile, precisely in
order to prevent such nomads from invading the Roman Empire. However, the people John is
referring to are not only subject to the authority of the Roman Empire, but even receive a
subsidy on condition that they do not enter or pillage Egypt. John gives a very clear idea of the
relations of the peoples (Blemmyes11 and Nobades) inhabiting these regions with the Roman
Empire since Diocletian’s visit in 298 A.D.
In any case, Julianus persuaded Theodora, fervent in zeal for God – namely for the Monophysite
doctrine – to dispatch such a mission to the Nobades. Logically, this would not have pleased
Justinian. In John’s narration, the emperor’s reaction is twofold. On one hand, it is said that he
arranged that a letter be dispatched to his bishops in the Thebaid district, ordering them to
enter the territory and instruct the people avoiding to mention that Synod (the Synod of
Chalcedon – 451 A.D.); on the other hand, he is said to have sent immediately some
ambassadors with gold and baptismal garments and gifts destined to the king of that people and
letters to the governor of Thebaid to take care of the ambassadors and forward them to that
people. The empress in her turn sent a threatening letter to the Governor of the Thebaid, and
managed to prevent Justinian’s mission from entering Nobadia first. The Governor of the
Thebaid did obey Theodora, possibly fearing her powers more than a possible revenge of the
emperor. In this sense, it is characteristic that the reason why the Governor is persuaded is not
because he adheres to the Monophysite cause, but rather due to the threat expressed in
Theodora’s letter: for I will immediately send and take off your head. After Julian had entered
Nobadia, the Governor ultimately offered his services to the ambassadors of Justinian too. As to
the Melkite bishops of the Thebaid district, nothing more is said about them. Even Theodorus,
the recently consecrated Bishop of Philae, after the violent first intervention of Justinian in the
area12, followed Julianus’ mission.
All these indicate that the Melkite party had very little power in the heartlands of Egypt, home
to the Monophysite heresy (actually, it was in the 530s that the Monophysites had been
organized by Jacob Baradai, after whom they were named Jacobites). Theodora must have
played a more important role than Justinian in these areas if her anti-Chalcedonian attitude was
known. However, one can not exclude the possibility that there was a complot of the imperial
couple in order to succeed in this mission, which was crucial for the (political and trade)
interests of the empire in the southern Egyptian frontiers13. In any case, the stability of the
empire and the expansion of its sphere of influence through the evangelization of new lands
were better served when the local conditions were understood and the demands were met. For
the case of Nubia, Nobadia was already in contact with Christianity through the preaching of
Egyptians or their presence in Nubian land. Although it is impossible to conclude whether these
Christians were Melkites or Jacobites, it seems most probable that the contra-Melkite doctrine
was prevalent as a form of expression of the local dissatisfaction with the imperial control over
9 v. entry in Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org/cathen/08470c.htm)
10 All citations are put in italics and have been translated by Fr. G. Vantini, Oriental Sources Concerning Nubia (Heidelberg-Warsaw
1975), 6-26
11 Since the case of the Blemmyes can not be touched upon in this paper as they seem to belong rather to the world of the Red Sea,

cfr. R.T. Updegraff, “The Blemmyes I: The Rise of the Blemmyes and the Roman Withdrawl from Nubia under
Diocletian (with Additional Remarks by L. Török)”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt II.10.1 (1988), 44-106
& V. Christides, “Ethnic Movements in Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan, Blemmyes-Beja in Late Antique and Early
Arab Egypt until 707 A.D.”, Listy Filologicke 103 (1980), 129-143
12 Procopius, De bellis, 1.19.36-37
13 cfr. Procopius, Secret History, 10.15

3
Egypt. Especially in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia, such a tendency would also be explained
by the age-old contacts between the two lands. These contacts were probably based on the
mutual economic interests in the trade between the Mediterranean world and the African
heartlands behind the Middle Nile. Thus, a Monophysite mission would have been more
appealing to the people of Nobades14.
In this scope, it is of no surprise that when in 543 A.D. Julian and his fellow-ambassadors
reached the country and sent information to the king and his princes, a whole army was sent to
meet them; they received Julian’s expedition with joy and introduced them to their king, and the
latter also received them gladly. Then (Julian) produced the letters of the queen; they were read
and their content was understood; they accepted also the great gifts and the numerous
baptismal garments, everything in plenty. They soon offered themselves gladly to be instructed,
renouncing the errors of their forefathers and confessing the God of the Christians, saying:
“This is the one true God, and there is no other beside Him”. It is more than probable that it is
for political reasons that such a warm welcome and acceptance of a new faith was reported.
Nevertheless, the understanding of the official letters implies some previous experience and
knowledge of the Christian teachings and philosophy. Furthermore, the whole instruction was
very rapid indeed: After having instructed and prepared them thoroughly, Julian’s group
informed them also ‘that certain disputes had arisen among Christians about some point of faith
and that, therefore, even blessed Theodosius had been removed by the king from his see having
refused to obey; that the queen, however, had supported him valiantly, and added: she herself
has sent us to you with this faith, that you may follow the patriarch Theodosius and may receive
baptism in his faith and may keep his truth. But the king also has sent his ambassadors who are
already coming after us’. Then they taught the Nobades how to receive them and what to answer
to them. They had been just instructed firmly in all these things, when the king’s ambassador
arrived. The only logical explanation for such an immediate and deep success might lie with the
popularity of the persons of Theodora and especially Theodosius among the Nobades, the latter
possibly as partisan of the independence of Egypt and the Nile Valley. In any case, the Melkite
mission did not succeed in anything more than their presents being accepted by the Nobadian
king. He and his court had already become such fervent adherents of the Monophysite doctrine,
that the Dyophysite one promoted by Justinian was characterized by the Nobadians in front of
the emperor’s ambassadors as the wicked faith professed by the king.
From this point onwards, Julianus was free to start preaching and baptizing the Nobadian people
systematically. During the two years of his staying with them, he learnt many wonderful things
about that great people. These things he used to narrate to the court in Constantinople, where
John was also present. Unfortunately, our source consciously omitted everything else from these
stories except for two details: that Julianus was accompanied by Theodorus, to whom he
entrusted the Nobades after he departed, and that he used to seat from the third to the tenth hour
in caves full of water with the whole people of the region, naked or, better, wearing only a cloth,
while he could perspire only with the help of water. He persevered, however, and instructed and
baptized the king and his noblemen and a lot of people with them.
This is the last thing that is told about Julianus. The next part of the narration concerns the
events that followed the death of Patriarch Theodosius (566 A.D.), which took place long after
the deaths of Julianus and of the empress Theodora (547 A.D.). Pope Theodosius, on the day he
died, remembered this people and gave orders that the pious Longinus should take the place of
Julian, for Longinus was a man fired with zeal and capable of completing the conversion of the
Nabados (sic) and strengthening them in the Christian religion. Immediately after the death of
the pope, Longinus was ordained bishop of those countries and made preparations for the
journey. When he arrived in that country he was received with great rejoicing. He instructed all
the people again in the Christian religion, preaching and enlightening them. He also built a
church and established the clergy, organized the liturgy and set up all the church institutions. It
seems that from the days of Julianus some weakening had taken place in the religious feelings of
the Nobades, which could perhaps be linked to Melkite action in the region, as will be
demonstrated below. The description of his mission, however, sounds as the final step to the

14 cfr. remarks of Letsios, op.cit, p. 184 & 274


4
Christianization at least of Nobadia, since, after being ordained bishop in 566 A.D., he must
have arrived in Nobadia by 569 A.D., where he is supposed to have built the first church,
established the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and organized the liturgical matters. After six years (575
A.D.) he was called to attend the election of the new Patriarch of Alexandria, but had to flee to
Arabia due to the persecutions launched against him by the Melkites. He was still in Arabia
when he was invited by the king of Alodia to ‘evangelize’ the country.
This invitation was, according to John, the beginning of the conversion to Christianity of the
people whom the Greeks call Alodaei and whom we think to be the Aithiopians. Letters had been
exchanged between the kings of the “Aithiopian” Alodaei and the “Nubian” Nobades15.
Actually, the Alodian king had to invite Longinus to his country twice, for the Melkites in
Alexandria were complotting against his mission to the southernmost Nubian kingdom. At this
point, interestingly enough, John of Ephesus offers an excellent insight on the way the
evangelization process was seen in Byzantium: Then they (the Melkites) prepared a careful and
deceiving letter for them in regard to Longinus. They did not fear God and so, moved by envy
and hatred, they did not entertain thoughts of justice; these would have showed to them that it
was not according to the fear of God to convey in writing, immediately, before other things
convenient to their conversion, what referred to the dissension, quarrels and schisms among
Christians. And this to a people, who from error and paganism had asked to turn to Christianity
and to learn God’s fear. But, since, as aforesaid, their mind was clouded and their foolish
intellect was blinded, instead of the fear of God, they laboured to set for them, as first basis,
offensive enmity, by construing a letter against Longinus and sending it by means of two bishops
– among those they had created contrary to the church laws – and of other people. It is worth
underlining the fact that the first orders of Justinian to his bishops in the Thebaid district was to
enter the territory and instruct the people avoiding to mention that Synod (the Synod of
Chalcedon). This remark has been long neglected, although it seems to be decisive to the
understanding of how Justinian and Theodora interacted in the affair of evangelizing Nubia.
Furthermore, the explanations given by Julianus about the problems with the Melkites were
passed on to converted people and thus his action is somehow excused.
In any case, when the king of the Alodaei sent the delegation to the king of the Nobades, asking
that bishop Longinus be sent to them to instruct his people and baptize them, it was clear that
the good disposition of that people towards conversion had been produced in a certain
miraculous way by God. Then ‘God moved the spirit’ (Rom. 9:30f. & 2:14) of Longinus to
depart and come to them (the Alodians); the king and nobles and chiefs (of the Nobades),
though sorry that he should leave them, allowed him to go, in the company of some people who
know the desert. On the road he got sick and so also some of his companions; as he writes in his
letter, besides other animals, seventeen camels died in the desert because of the heat. It is
obvious that John wants to present the events of the evangelization of Alodia as a miracle of
God’s providence; but there are definitely historical events that explain what actually happened.
Longinus, after receiving the invitation of the Alodian king in Arabia, left the region, crossed
Egypt to Korosko and from there followed the desert road to Abu Hamed. As the missionary
himself recorded in letters that he sent from Soba (?), there were special reasons for avoiding the
Nile and following a road, where he got sick and so also some of his companions; as he writes
in his letter, besides other animals, seventeen camels died in the desert because of the heat. This
reason was that another people, called Macuritae, was midway between the two kingdoms; their
king, informed that Longinus was on the way, was moved by satanic envy to place watchmen on
all the borders of his kingdom, on all roads, mountains and plains up to the Suph [=Red] Sea, to
hold Longinus and hamper the salvation of that great people of the Alodaei. God, however, hid
him and blinded the eyes of those who wanted to hold him and ‘he passed through them’ (Lk.
4:30) without being seen by them. This desert crossing was known since very ancient times and
it is much more convenient for someone who wants to cross the Middle Nile without having to

15
It would be interesting to speculate in which language these letters were composed. A possible answer might be found in the
language used for an inscription of a Nobadian king and a letter between a Blemmyan king and his Nobadian consort:
both were written in Greek15. This may have been the language used in all official correspondence in late antique Sudan, at
least after the 5th century AD.
5
deal with the very difficult Third and Fourth Cataracts. As the king of Nobadia states in his
letter to Theodore of Alexandria (cfr. below), it was the Blemmyes that guided Longinus
through the desert tracks. Nobody could have known the roads in the Eastern Desert better than
its ancient dwellers, who appear as a friendly – or at least a pacified – force towards Nobadia
and Alodia.
As to this satanic envy that motivated the king of the Macuritae, one may wonder whether it was
the same one that motivated Melkite oppositions to the Monophysites’ plans. It is worth noting
that John uses the expression in a different way when referring to the heretic Chalcedonians: as
if motivated by satanic envy, they tried in the first place to prevent Longinus from reaching
Alodia. Was this satanic envy an attribute of non-Christians, or just of heretics? A possible
answer may derive from the combination of the archaeological record and the testimony
preserved in the Chronicon of John of Biclar (cfr. below c.).
Before that, however, there are yet some more points of interest in the history of John, now
staged in the country of the Alodaei and narrated through the quotation of three very interesting
letters: in chapter 52 he quotes a letter from the king of the Alodaei to the king of the Nobades,
and in chapter 53 parts of a letter from bishop Longinus as well as a letter from the king of
Nobades to Theodore of Alexandria. This method and his selective quotation are chosen
because, as he says in reference to the last letter, it proves that the whole deed was divine ... And
since the importance of the whole affair and of this divine operation is made evident by the two
letters of the bishop and of the king to all those who read them, it seemed to us, therefore,
useless to enlarge further our narrative.
In any case, four points in these letters are of special interest:
i. The Alodian king reveals the name of his Nobadian consort. That was Orfiulo, who
could be identified with Eirpanome, who was on the throne of Nobadia in 559. Could
he also have been the king who received Julianus’ first mission?
ii. The same letter underlines the friendly relations that existed between Nobadia and
Alodia. On the diplomatic level, it is very interesting that the Alodian king demanded
that his Nobadian consort dispatch church furniture to him. This demand, however, is
formulated immediately after the following remarks: And in everything the work of
Christ is multiplied, and I have hope in the holy God, and am desirous moreover of
doing thy pleasure, and driving thy enemies from thy land. For he is not thy enemy
alone, but also mine: for thy land is my land, and thy people my people. Let not their
courage therefore fall, but be manful and take courage: for it is impossible for me to
be careless of thee and thy land, especially now that I have become a Christian, by the
help of my father, the holy father Longinus. It would have seemed like a kind of
agreement, an alliance between the two kingdoms against their enemies, who probably
are the Macuritae, threatening mainly the Nobadians, perhaps out of fear of the power
of the southern kingdom.
iii. A reason for this might be the identification of the Alodaei with the Aithiopians.
Although it is not at all certain, nevertheless it is certainly tempting to read this
equation expressed in the letter of Eirpanome to Theodore as a reference to a
dependence of Alodia from Axum. The latter was by no means a small power in the 6th
century A.D. and the former is undoubtedly in contact with the Ethiopian heartlands
since the events of the Ezana campaigns in the Middle Nile as recorded in several
epigraphic monuments16.
iv. Last but not least, Longinus himself states in his letter:
Now, when the king of the Alodi (sic) was informed that I had set out to come to him,
sent one of his highest officials, by name Itika, and he introduced me in his country
with great pomp. And on our arrival at the river’s bank, we went on a vessel; and the
king hearing of our arrival rejoiced, and came out in person to meet us and received
us with great joy. And by the grace of God we taught him, and have baptized him and
his nobles and all his family; and the work of God grows daily. And since there were

16 cfr. S. Munro-Hay, Aksum: An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity (London 1991); M. Zach, “Aksum and the End of Meroe”, to
be published in the acts of the 10th International Conference for Meroitic Studies held in Paris, in September 2004.
6
certain Axumites, who have fallen into the malady of the fancy of Julianus and say that
Christ suffered in a body not capable of pain or death, we have told them what is the
correct belief, and have required them to anathematize this heresy in writing, and have
received those persons upon their presenting their recantation. So, one can not doubt
that there were Axumites in Alodia, who professed a doctrinal particularity
characteristic of the Himyarite world, with which the Axumites have just come out
from a successful war. This Julianus was from Halicarnassus, initially a Monophysite,
who created the Phantasiast heresy, which professed that Christ’s body was
incorruptible or not subject to human sufferings. The presence of Phantasiasts in
Alodia shows that Christianity had entered the country before the Byzantine missions.
The presence of the Christian Axumites in Alodia paved the way for Longinus and
probably explains the reason for the invitation sent by the king. Can we also infer that
he was trying to obtain the support of the Byzantines in an attempt to stop some
Axumite occupation? If this is the case, then the eagerness of the Nobadians to receive
Julianus might have been linked to an attempt to gain imperial protection from the
Macuritan threat.
b. The next sources referring to the evangelization of Nubia are Michael the Syrian (Patriarch of
Antioch 1166-1199 A.D.) 17 and Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286)18, but both repeat almost verbatim
the account of John of Ephesus. Nevertheless, Michael records a story linked with the activity of
the Phantasiasts (or Aphthartodoceticts), a heresy that started from the Himyarite lands in
Southern Arabia and, according to him, spread even to Egypt and Kush19. This is again indirect
evidence of the activity of Christian Axumites in the Middle Nile, although in this case the
reference might be linked to the confusion between the terms Indians, Aithiopians, and Nubians.
c. Last but not least, there is a short but very important reference in the work of John of Biclar20.
This John was born in Lusitania, in 540 A.D.. He was exiled by King Leovigild to
Constantinople, where he eye-witnessed the coming of a delegation from Makuria to emperor
Justin II (565-578 A.D.): In the seventh year of Emperor Justin (573 A.D.), which is the fifth
[year] of king Leovigild, delegates of the people of the Maccuritae arrived at Constantinople.
They brought to Emperor Justin presents consisting of elephant tusks, a giraffe, and stated their
friendship with the Romans. Based on this reference, Monneret de Villard21 postulated that the
Macuritae had been evangelized by some Melkite mission, either the one sent by Justinian or
some other dispatched during the reign of Justin II. There are no other sources, however,
referring to such a mission, either during the former’s or during the latter’s reign. Furthermore,
Theodor Mommsen, the editor of the text, corrects Maccuritarum with Mauritarum, thus linking
the people who sent the delegation to Justin II with the Garamantes, who are recorded again by
John of Biclar as having sent a delegation in the third year of this emperor (568 A.D.). In this
sense, a remark made by late L.P. Kirwan, whose reasoning is followed by the author in this
aspect, is of primal interest: ‘Could it be that this Dongola reach of the Nile, so much less
accessible than Lower Nubia, had yet to be converted?’22. It is time to turn to the archaeological
record now.

4. The historical sources referring to the Monophysite Evangelization of Nubia are all of Syrian origin.
The main idea is that the missions of Julianus and Longinus were sent to an area where the friendly to
the Roman causes Blemmyes, Nobades and Alodaei, but also the hostile Macuritae, dwelled. Can
archaeology explain this difference?
Since the beginning of the campaigns for the salvation of the cultural history of Nubia, which was
endangered by the subsequent construction of the Dams at Aswan, several instances of the relations

17 J.B. Chabot, La Chronique de Michel le Syrien (Paris 1899-1910), vol. II, 251 & 263-267
18 J.B. Abeloos & Th.J. Lamy, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Louvain 1872-1877), Nr. 46, col. 230-234
19 Egyptian term referring to the Bronze Age state of Kerma, used often to describe the ancient cultures of the Middle Nile Valley

in toto
20 Th. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. XI (Berlin 1894), 207-220
21 U. Monneret de Villard, Storia della Nubia Christiana (Rome 1938), 87-92 and notes.
22 L.P. Kirwan, “Some Thoughts on the Conversion of Nubia to Christianity”, in J.M. Plumley, ed., Nubian Studies (Proceedings of

the Symposium for Nubian Studies) (Cambridge 1978), 144


7
between Byzantine Egypt and Lower Nubia have been identified. A highly characteristic aspect of
these relations has been uncovered by the excavations of the Royal Cemeteries at Qustul and Ballana,
where some of the deceased were buried with royal insignia combining symbols of the Meroitic past
with influences from the Christian world dominating Egypt23. The funerals of even the simple people
along the same stretch of the Nile indicate a shift from pagan to Christian burial practices. When, by
the end of the 5th century, this new situation becomes the norm in the area north of the Second
Cataract, it just makes its first appearance in the area upstream from the Third Cataract24. For the rest
of the Middle Nile the picture is completely different: for Central Sudan, “both the deposition of pots
in graves and the contracted burials would seem to represent the persistence of pre-Christian burial
traditions into the medieval period”25.
Late post-Meroitic cemeteries excavated in the later kingdom of Makuria (roughly 3rd-5th Cataracts)
indicate that “this was an independent region that inherited some of the earlier Nubian traditions
although affected to some degree by slight doses of northern and southern influences”26, always
foreign to Christian customs. Furthermore, if the location of al-Abwab, the frontier between Makuria
and Alodia, is correctly identified with present-day Begrawiya27, where the Meroitic capital and
pyramidal cemetery have been found, then recent excavations in Gabati and Akad provide us with
intriguing data.
In Gabati28, the post-Meroitic graves excavated continue the Meroitic burial traditions down to the
6th/7th centuries, as can be deduced from pottery dating. In Akad29, grave No. 10 produced a very
interesting set of grave furnishings: on the one hand the same pottery as in Gabati, on the other hand a
first instance for these southern regions of cross decorations on pottery from post-Meroitic burial
contexts. It is, however, noteworthy that at this time the region is highly influenced from the South,
namely from Soba, which seems to have taken the place of Meroe and El-Hobagi in the control of the
areas south of Atbara during the post-pyramidal Meroitic times30.
Moreover, the city of Dongola has been thoroughly investigated for almost 40 years now by the
Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology. Both the foundation of the city walls and the earliest
dwellings at the site cannot be dated earlier than the late fifth or the early sixth century A.D.
Furthermore, it seems certain that right from the beginning Dongola was a Christian settlement31. Was
it that Dongola was founded in an environment still adhering to the old faith?

Conclusions
In the days of John of Ephesus the three Nubian kingdoms seem to have been independent. This did not
seem to be the case anymore when the Arabs invaded the area between 641 and 652. At that time,
Nobadia and Makuria were united, although one may wonder whether the role of Dongola had not been
precisely to act as a retreat in case of emergent danger from the north. It is characteristic that king
Merkurios, to whom the legend attributes the unification of the two Churches (or the two lands?), despite
the fact that he reigned in the turn of the 7th to 8th centuries, was named the ‘New Constantine’ in The
Annals of the Coptic Patriarchs. It has been suggested that this may reflect his zeal in stamping out
paganism32. What is certain is that the title of the Eparch, carried by the governor of Nobadia under
Makuritan-Dongolian rule, is recorded for the first time precisely during the reign of king Merkurios. By
that time, the Christian kingdom of Nubia was facing Islamic Egypt in the same way as the Early
Byzantine Empire would face its neighbors: through the administrative ‘barrier’ of an Eparch.

23 Among several works cfr. L. Török, Late Antique Nubia (Budapest 1988)
24 D.N. Edwards, op. cit., p. 95
25 ibid., p. 94
26 M. El-Tayeb, “Burial Customs of Post-Meroitic Makuria”, African Reports I (1988), 50
27 For identification cfr. L.P. Kirwan, “Notes on the Topography of the Christian Nubian Kingdoms”, Journal of Egyptian

Archaeology 21 (1935), 61 and footnote 8


28 D.N. Edwards, Gabati. Volume I. Sudan Archaeological Research Society Publications No. 3 (London 1998)
29 M.F. Abdelrahman & A., Tsakos, “A preliminary report of rescue excavation at Akad: the 2004 season”, SUDAN & NUBIA 9

(2005), 62-71
30 P. Lenoble, Du Méroïtique au Postméroïtique dans la region méridionale du Royaume de Méroé. Recherches sur la période de transition,

Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Paris (Sorbonne 1994)


31 S. Jakobielski, “35 years of Polish Excavations at Old Dongola. A Factfile”, Dongola-Studien, Bibliotheca nubica et aethiopica 7,

(Warszawa 2001), 1-48


32 D.A. Welsby, op. cit., 38

8
In general, thus, archaeology demonstrates that for the state of the Macuritae there can be no certainty as
to the time of the land’s Christianization, since at least for its southern limits, still in the 7th century only
some minor decorative elements reminiscent of Alodian Christianity have been recorded so far outside
the royal and/or elite environments. In any case, the Christianization of Makuria seems to have been a
process that spanned over much longer periods of time and that ended later than is the case with Nobadia
and Alodia, where both historiography and archaeology seem to agree that by the late 5th century
Christianity had been established, thus giving the Byzantine missions a highly political allure,
culminating with the adherence of Nubia to the Monophysite faith.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen