Page:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 1.djvu/500

 404 A History of Art in Ancient Egypt. This question is more easily asked than answered. The following explanation seems to us, however, the most probable. Ethiopia was not Egypt. Although they were closely connected as early as the sixth dynasty, the former never lost its character of a conquered province. In Ethiopia men did not feel so sure of the morrow as in Egypt proper. Between the sixth and the eleventh dynasty the hold of Egypt upon Ethiopia had been lost at least once. Reconquered by the kings of the first Theban period, it regained its independence during the domination of the Hyksos ; the eighteenth dynasty had, therefore, to begin the work of subjugation. all over again, and it did its work more thoroughly than any of its predecessors. Then, when the Egyptian sceptre ruled as far south as Napata and the great bend of the Nile, the governors of the southern provinces must have been continually employed in repelling the incursions of the negroes from Upper Ethiopia, and in suppressing the warlike tribes who lived within the conquered frontier. At such times the king himself must often have been compelled to take the field and lead his armies in person. A constructed temple, especially when of small size, would be in great risk of destruction in a country exposed to the repeated incursions of savage tribes ; columns and piers would soon be overturned by their ruthless arms. But chambers cut in the living rock would offer a much stouter resistance ; the decorations might be scraped down or daubed over, but the time and patience required for any serious attack upon the limestone or granite sides and piers would not be forthcominof. Such damaw as could be done in a short time and by the weapons of the invaders could readily be repaired when the raid was over. We think it probable, therefore, that subterranean architecture was preferred throughout this region because the political con- dition of the province was always more or less precarious, rather than because the configuration of the country required it. Where security was assured by the presence of a strong and permanent garrison, as at Semneh and Kumneh, we find constructed temples just as we do in Egypt. They are found, too, in those localities — Soleb and Napata for instance — where there was a large urban population, and therefore fortifications and troops for their defence. Everywhere else it was found more convenient to confide the temple to the guardianship of its own materials, the living rock, and to bury