Architectural Evolution of the Nubian Church, 500-1400 A.D.

Author(s): William Y. Adams

Source: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 4 (1965), pp. 87-139
Published by: American Research Center in Egypt
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40001005
Accessed: 07/11/2010 13:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arce.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org
 Architectural Evolution of the Nubian Church, 500-1400 A.D.
William Y. Adams

Nubian church architecture has been the sub- shown that the Nubian church was not, at any
ject of a numberof general studies, most notably given time, the highly variable institution which
by Mileham,1Somers Clarke,2and Monneret de has usually been supposed. It evolved through a
Villard.3Each of them made important contri- succession of well-defined types, each of which
butions to the subject, and their works remain in its own time was standardized within fairly
today, with few additions, the standard sources narrow limits. It is now possible not only to
on the Nubian church. They were, however, recognize and define the principal develop-
based on limited and frequently unsystematic mental stages, but in most cases to identify
field investigation ; under the circumstancesit is their historical derivations.
not surprising that they failed to recognize It is my intention in this article to present
either the full variability of Nubian ecclesiastical both a typology and a chronology of Nubian
architecture or its chronological significance. churches, as follows :6
Milehamand SomersClarke,writing in the early TYPOLOGY OF NUBIAN CHURCHES
years of the 20th Century, considerably over- Type Designation Est. dates, A.D.
simplified their generalized type descriptions of ?o Prototype 500-650
the Nubian church.4 Monneret de Villard, a T Converted temples 550-1100
generation later, was much more conscious of 1 Basilican
architectural variability, but never observed 1a Great (Kasr Ibrim Type) 55°~75°
ib Small (Philae Type) 550-750
any evolutionary trends. He treated the Nubian 2 Early Nubian
church essentially as a static concept, and all of 2a Fancy (Debeira Type) 650-800
its permutations as contemporaneousvariants.5 2b Simple (Buhen Type) 650-800
It is only within the last five or six years that 3 Classic Nubian
a certain evolutionary perspective has been pos- 3a Converted (Faras Type) 750-1100
sible in the study of Nubian churcharchitecture. 3b Incomplete (Abu Sir Type) 750-850
3c Complete (Tamit Type) 800-1250
It has come about not from the study of docu- 4 Late Nubian [Sewa Type) 1150-1 400
mentary history, but through the detailed and ?5 Epitype 1350+
systematic excavation of more than a score of 6 It was originally my intention to present, together
sites undertaken in connection with the Nubian with the classification, an extended discussion of the
Monuments Campaign. These investigations typological and chronological data upon which it is
have revealed clearly a number of consistent based. However, the mass of material which has now
accumulated makes this quite impossible within the
developmental trends; moreover, they have
compass of a journal article. I have therefore been
1 Churches in Lower Nubia; hereinafter Churches. obliged to confine the present discussion to a summary,
2 Christian generalized description of the Nubian church types,
Antiquities in the Nile Valley, hereinafter
Christ. Ant. and to reserve a more thorough analysis for a forth-
3 La Nubia Medioevale ; hereinafter Nub. Med. coming monograph. This I hope to publish as part of a
4 Churches 11-13; Christ. Ant. 31-3, series of memoirs setting forth the final results of the
90-94.
5 See esp. Nub. Med. Ill 1-52. Archaeological Survey of Sudanese Nubia.

87
 This schema is based upon the detailed study
of 99 individual buildings: all of the known
churches between Aswan and the Dal Cataract,
excepting about two dozen for which no infor-
mation is available. These churches are listed in
geographicalorder,from north to south, in Table
IA, together with the principalpublishedsources
of informationconcerningthem (table i p. 126).7
The region from Aswan to Dal (i.e. that part
of Nubia which will be submergedby the Aswan
High Dam) has now been exhaustively explored
from end to end, and its archaeologicalhistory
will in any case soon be a closed book. As there is
no prospect of further discoverieshere, the typo-
logy as it stands must be regarded as complete
7 Table I (p. 126) lists the primary sources of
architectural information for each church, and is
intended to eliminate the need for repeated docu-
mentationin the remainderof the article.An exhaustive
list of published sourcesfor each churchwill be found
in Nub. Med. I, to which references are given in
Table I. In additionto these sources,I have receiveda
great deal of informationin the form of direct com-
munications from Messrs. & Mmes. E. Bresciani, S.
Donadoni, E. Gardberg, F. Hintze, J. Jacquet, A.
Klasens, J. Knudstad, W. Kubiak, O. Meinardus,
K. Michalowski, N. B. Millet, A. J. Mills, H.-A.
Nordstrom,A. Ostrasz,J. M.Plumley, F. PresedoVelo,
T. Save-Soderbergh,P. L. Shinnie, B. G. Trigger,
and J. Vercoutter. To all of them I am profoundly
indebted; without their assistance this article could
certainly not have been written.
Numeration in Table I proceeds from north to
south and from east to west, following Nub. Med. I
with a few correctionsand several additions. Nomen-
clature generally also follows Nub. Med., although in
a good many cases I have substituted better known or
more appropriate names. However, the naming of
Nubian churchesin the past has been so inconsistent
(e.g. the name Mediq has been assigned to three dif-
ferent churches by different authors) that I have, in
addition,assignednumbersto all of the churchesnorth
of Dal, and have cited each church by number (in
parentheses) as well as by name in the text of the
article. Where the numberis followed by a dash and
a second figure 1, 2 or 3, reference is to a specific
developmental phase (e.g. 85-2 refers to the Meinarti
church in its second phase). Whereverthe name as-
signed to a church by a previous author is not recog-
nizably the same as the name I have used, I have
entered the variant name in parenthesesin Table I,
following the source in which it appears.
88
and comprehensive for Lower Nubia and much
of the batn el hajar.
For Upper Nubia the situation is quite dif-
ferent. In the whole of this vast region only
about three dozen churches are known (table
ib, p. 132), and of these only two, at Ghazaliand
Nuri,8 have been fully and systematically in-
vestigated. Both churchesfall readily within the
present typology (Type 3c) ; on the other hand
there are churchessuch as those at Old Dongola
and El Usheir9 which appear quite unlike
anything found in Lower Nubia. Hence the
typology can not be regardedas comprehensive
for Upper Nubia. When and as systematic
exploration is undertaken, at least one and
perhapsseveral new types of churches will have
to be recognized.
I. BASIC CHARACTERISTICSOF THE
CHURCH
Before proceeding o distinguish the various
types of Nubian churches, it is necessary to
indicate briefly the common background and
characteristics which they all share.
Distribution
Fig. 1 shows the geographicalsituation of the
118 known churches between Aswan and Dal.
Undoubtedly there are some gaps in the distri-
bution as it appears today, resulting from the
total destruction of a certain numberof churches
in the course of the centuries. This may have
been particularlytrue in the far north of Nubia,
which was more regularly subject to Moslem
depredations, and was apparently converted to
Islam at an earlierdate, than the regions further
south.10In general, however, the distribution of
the churches probably reflects fairly accurately
the demographic patterns of Christian Nubia.
The concentration of more than half of the
known churches (table ia, nos. 20-74) within
8 For publishedreferencessee Table IA.
9 For publishedreferencessee Table IA.
10For discussion see Adams, JEA 52 (1966) in
press.
Figurei
a radius of 60 km. on either side of Faras is
explainable partly in terms of proximity to the
ecclesiastical and secular capital, but even more
because this was always and at all times the
most productive and heavily populated section
of Lower Nubia.
For the most part, the number of churches
per settlement is probably indicative of the
size of the settlement, presuming that the
buildings were all in use at the same time.
However, there must have been other de-
termining factors which are not now apparent.
The astounding concentration of churches in
such communities as Tamit (46-50) and Serra
(73-76) is not explained by anything in the
archaeologicalor historical record. It has been
suggested that these were religiouscommunities,
but they were certainly not monasteries in any
usual sense of the word.11There is nothing in
their remainsto suggest the ascetic life. At Serra,
the secularbuildings (i.e. all those other than the
churches)are identical in plan to ordinaryfamily
houses in the contemporaryand equally impor-
tant villages of Meinarti and Kasanarti.12Yet
Meinarti had only one church (85), and Kasa-
narti none. Clearly this is a problem which
requires further investigation.
Setting
During most of the Christian period the
Nubians seem to have had little concern for
either the physical or the social environment of
the church. A few of the earliest buildings, as at
Ikhmindi (26) and Kasr Ibrim (39), occupied a
central and integral position in the community.
In later times the church was nearly always on
the outskirts, and frequently on lower ground
than the village itself. Such a setting was pre-
sumably dictated by the requirements of the
cemetery, which became a feature associated
with nearly every Nubian church. It is not until
11Moreover,they are not mentioned in Abu Salih,
Churches and Monasteries of Egypt.
12See Adams,Rush 12 (1964)218-34. A preliminary
report of the excavations at Serrawill appearin Rush
14 (1966) in press.
90
the very end of the Christianperiod that we find
any effort to give the churcha position of physi-
cal prominence: the two "Epitype" churches of
Diffinarti (104) and Attiri (no) both occupy
the topmost pinnacles of the rocky islands on
which they are located. However, the buildings
themselves are tiny and inconspicuous; their
elevated situation was probably more for the
sake of protection than of prominence.
Only one inflexible rule seems to have govern-
ed the setting of the Nubian church. It always
stood apart on consecrated ground, and, unlike
the Coptic churches of Egypt,13 was never
adjoinedby secularbuildings.Although contigu-
ous structures are of fairly common occurrence,
they are generally recognizable as other re-
ligious buildings. They fall into four categories:
satellite chapels, other churches, monasteries,
and tombs of ecclesiastical dignitaries. The
Cathedralat Faras West (67) was adjoined by a
large building which is believed to have been the
episcopal palace.
Construction
Cut stone, generally quarried from nearby
temples, was the preferred material for the
earliest Nubian churches. Roughly dressed
native stone, laid in heavy mortar, was also
employed. There was some use of mud brick in
the smaller churches from the beginning, and in
later centuries it became the almost universal
building material. Only in the extreme north
and the extreme south of Nubia- both areas
subject to occasional rainfall- was there some
continued use of stone in later times. Red (fired)
brick was rarely used except for repairs and
secondary construction. Only one church in
Lower Nubia, at Faras West (69), was built
primarily of red brick. On the other hand,
several churches in Upper Nubia, at Sai, Old
Dongola (Churchof the Columns),Gandeisi,and
El Usheir, appear to have been built of red
brick.
13cf. Butler, Ancient Copic Churches of
Egypt
(hereinafterAnc. Copt.)I 12-13.
 Many if not all of the earliest churches had
flat, timbered roofs which were supported on
monolithic columns. However, suitable timber
soon became scarce, and in later centuries all
Nubian churches had vaulted brick roofs, often
with a central dome or cupola.14Because of the
peculiar unwieldiness of the Nubian vault,15
this method of construction necessitated in
every case the replacement of stone columns by
stout masonry piers. The last church in Lower
Nubia to be built with columnsand (presumably)
a flat roof was the South Kom Churchat Faras
(69), dedicated in 930 A.D.
In the earliest churcheswood was used liberal-
ly not only in roof construction, but also for
lintels, altars, pulpits, sanctuary screens (higab),
and perhaps also for tribunes and stairs. Very
probably much of it was imported wood from
the Mediterranean,the availability of which was
sharply curtailed after the Arab conquest of
Egypt in 640-42 A.D.16At all events wood con-
struction of every kind rapidly disappearedfrom
the Nubian church after that time, and was
replaced by mud brick.
Throughout the Christianperiod a few of the
more elaborate churches had stone flagging or
brick pavement over part or all of the floor. The
great majority, however, never had anything
but a packed mud floor.
External Plan
The external plan of the Nubian church is
almost invariably a simple rectangle, having its
long axis east-west. In only one case, the Basilica
at Tamit (46), does the chamber containing the
sanctuary (haikal) project beyond the normal
14In later times this method of construction was
believed to have apostolic sanction; see Wansleben,
Histoirede VEglised'Alexandrie54-5. However,in the
beginningits adoption was probably due chiefly to a
shortageof suitable building timber.
15cf. esp. Churches8-1 1 and Christ.Ant. 25-7.
16See Badawy, "Les Premieres Eglises d'Egypte
jusqu'au Siecle de Saint Cyrille/' Kyrilliana, Jitudes
varieesa I'occasionduXVe centenairede Saint Cyrille
d'Alexandrie,p. 12. (Hereinaftercited as Prern.EgL).
line of the east wall. The apse, when present, is
always of the "internal" variety: it is encased
within a rectangular masonry shell so that its
rounded contour is not perceptible from the
outside.
Both the overall size of the church building
and the proportionof length to width diminished
continually during the Christian period. The
earliest churches were consistently large, long
and narrow. The Basilica at Kasr Ibrim (39),
built probably in the 6th or 7th Century,17is the
largest known church in Nubia, measuring
31 x 19 m. The length: width ratio in the early
churches averaged about 1.67 to 1, and some-
times reached 2 to 1. At the end of the Christian
period the dimensions of most churches were
under 10 m., and the plan was virtually square.
The total area covered by the building had
diminished by 90%, from an average 350 sq. m.
to 35 sq. m.
A peculiarity of some of the earliest churches
is a grotesquely skewed plan, the corners
deviating by as much as 10% from a right
angle.18This characteristicappearsto be confined
to churches which had vaulted roofs, and may
have been designed to facilitate construction of
the vault. It is not found after the 8th Century,
although most churchesexhibit the two or three
degrees of skew which is normal in Nubian
vaulted buildings.19
The first Nubian churches,whoseplan included
a narihex (see Internal Plan), were entered from
the west, either by a single door in the center of
the west wall or by doors at the extreme
western ends of the side (north and south) walls,
or both. However, the narihex went out of
fashion almost at once, and the mode of entry
was altered accordingly. Almost all Nubian
churches from the 7th Century onward were
entered by doors in the north and south walls
located slightly to the west of the center of the
building, corresponding to the western termi-
nation of the aisles (see infra).
17See Kirwan,LAAA 24 (1937) I0I«
18The most outstanding examples are 39, 60, 63,
68, and £5.
19See Churches8-10.
91
Internal Plan (Fig. 2-3)
Except for some of the very earliest and very
latest examples, all Nubian churches embody a
common design concept which may be visu-
alized as a symmetrical arrangement of nine
parts (Fig. 2). The building is divided along its
long (east-west) axis into three sections of
roughly equal width, and is then sub-divided
Figure 2
along its short axis into three rowsof three rooms
each. At the east and west ends are rows of
small, more or less square rooms, with a row of
much longer rooms (the nave and aisles) in the
middle. It should be noted that the division
between the rooms is in some cases structural
and in others largely symbolic (represented
respectively by solid and dashed lines in Fig. 2).
Thus the four rooms at the corners of the
building are always set off by full masonry walls
pierced by relatively small doorways, while the
remaining chambers are separated from each
other only by wide archways. Viewed from the
92
center of the building the effect is that of an
enclosed cross with a very wide transept. The
historical derivation of this design, which is
distinctively Nubian, will be discussed later.
In describing the internal plan of any church
it is essential to distinguish between formal,
or architecturaldivisions (Fig. 2) and functional,
or liturgical divisions (Fig. 3). Failure to main-
tain this distinction has often resulted in
impreciseand incorrect use of terms, which will,
hopefully, be avoided here. As there are no
satisfactory and generally accepted terms for all
of the parts of the church building, some will
have to be invented as the discussion proceeds.
The architectural divisions of the Nubian
church, following the numeration in Fig. 2, are:
1. The sanctuary chamber, the central one
of the three eastern rooms. It always comprised
all or part of the haikal, or sanctuary (see
Functional Divisions, infra). The internal form
of this room, except in the very early and very
late churches, was always apsidal or half-
circular, although it was enclosed within a
rectangular masonry shell. Hence the sanctuary
chamber is most commonly designated as the
apse. However, the use of this term is technically
incorrect in cases where the form was actually
rectangular.20
2. The eastern corner rooms, flanking the
sanctuary chamber on either side. They are
Figure 3
20The sanctuary chamberis also frequently called
the haikal. However, the haikal is in fact a liturgical
division which may include part of the nave (the
presbyterium)as well as the sanctuary chamber. See
FunctionalDivisions, infra.
usually called the sacristies, or, by analogy with
the Greek church, the prothesis (at the north)
and diakonikon (at the south). However, their
function is not absolutely certain, although they
were certainly intimately connected with the
divine service, and were reserved to the clergy.
During the Classic period21(800-1200 A.D.) the
two eastern corner rooms were directly con-
21The division of Christian Nubian
history into
Early,Classic,andLate phasesfollowsthe chronologizal
schemewhich I have previously publishedin Rush 12
(1964) 241-7.
93
nected by a narrow passage running behind the
sanctuary chamber (Fig. 2)- a uniquely Nubian
feature.
3. The nave, in the center of the building,
and separated from all of the adjoining rooms
only by archways. Most of its length was oc-
cupied by the congregation during services;
however, during the Classic period its eastern
end was always included in the haikal, and was
segregated from the rest of the room by a screen
wall (higab).
4. The aisles, flanking the nave on either
side, and sometimes also called naves. Like the
central nave they were occupied by the con-
gregation during services. The archwaysseparat-
ing nave and aisles were necessary primarily to
support the roof, and did not usually signify a
functionaldivision,althoughin the later churches
one aisle may have been reserved for the use of
women (see infra).
5. The western bay, which was merely a
western extension of the nave, although separat-
ed from it in most cases by an archway. It seems
to have had no special function.
6. The western corner rooms, flanking the
western bay to the north and south. In early
churchesthey were often entered from the aisles,
but in the Classic Nubian church they were
always entered from the western bay. One of
them (most commonly at the southwest) usually
contained a stairway leading to overhead gal-
leries or to the roof. The function of the other is
quite obscure; it was apparently included more
for symmetry than to serve any very specific
purpose.22
A few other, less consistent architectural
features also deserve mention :
The eastern passage, a very narrow pas-
sageway behind the sanctuary, connecting the
two corner rooms, has already been mentioned
as a regularfeature of the ClassicNubian church.
The narthex was a single rather narrow
antechamber running across the western end
of the church (cf. Fig. 6). It is found only in the
very earliest Nubian churches,which were enter-
ed from the west (Type ia) ; in later times it was
22See Churches12.
94
replaced by the conventional arrangement of
three rooms which has been described above.
Use of the term narthex as a collective desig-
nation for the three western rooms in ordinary
Nubian churches23is incorrect and misleading.
Overhead galleries, above the two side
aisles, are found only in some of the large early
churches (Type 2a). They were probably re-
served for women members of the congregation.
In churcheshaving overheadgalleries,the height
of the nave was as great as that of aisles and
galleries combined, so that the galleries them-
selves gave onto the nave by means of a row of
windows high in the walls.24A ground plan in
which the nave is markedly wider than the
aisles is usually indicative of a church which
had overhead galleries.
Outside stair chambers are found in a few
early churchesin the far north of Nubia.25They
are small, square additions to the outside of the
building, usually at the southwest corner. Since
they result in a markedly irregular plan, it is
unlikely that they were part of the original
design in any case. It has been suggested that
these structures were towers, but there is no
definite proof of it. Towers were never a normal
feature of the Coptic church either in Egypt or
in Nubia. Most probably the staircases, as in the
later Nubian churches, led simply to overhead
galleries or to the roof.
Satellite chapels were added to half a
dozen Nubian churches of the Classic and Late
periods.26They were long, narrow rooms built
against either the north or the south side of the
church, the effect of which was to add an extra
aisle. This may have been necessiated by
increases in the congregation- a factor which
led in more extreme cases to the building of
complete contiguous churches. However, the
23e.g. Griffith,LAAA 13 (1926) 69-70.
24cf. esp. Christ Ant. PL 16 (p. 71) and Nub. Med.
Ill 25-6. (Monneretde Villard and Badawy both refer
to overhead galleries by the term tribune- see n. 31
infra.)
256, 26, 39, 42, 46.
2640, 44, 4J, 5J, 86, 115. In addition,the outer aisles
of the Faras Cathedral {6j) probably served as side
chapels.
side chapels usually had an apse and an altar of
their own, suggesting that they were used prima-
rily to celebrate the feast of a particular saint,
as is the case in recent Egyptian churches.27
Functional Divisions (Fig. 3-4)
In the beginning, the functional requirements
of the church were undoubtedly closely reflected
in its architectural design. With the passage of
time, however, the architecture proved more
conservative than the liturgy, so that the tra-
ditional arrangement of rooms no longer ade-
quately served its originalfunction. Hence there
grew up a secondary division of the church
building into a number of different functional
components, some correspondingto basic archi-
tectural divisions and others set off by screens
and makeshift partitions.
The Nubian church had three basic liturgical
divisions. The eastern end of the building, which
may be designated collectively as the bema,28
was reserved to the clergy. It consisted of the
haikal (sanctuary) in which divine service was
actually performed, and the corner rooms on
either side (sacristies) in which the elements of
the service were prepared.The remainderof the
church {naos),occupiedby the congregation,was
divided between the male and female worship-
pers. In the earliest churches there may have
been a fourth liturgical division : the narthex,as
in other early Christianchurches, was probably
reserved for penitents and those under disci-
pline.29
The haikal or sanctuary was of course the
"heart" of the church. Originally it conformed
exactly to the sanctuary chamber, in the middle
of the building at the east end. It was not
screened from the view of the congregation, but
was set apart symbolically by a majestic "tri-
27See Anc. Copt. I 32-3; Burmester, A Guide to
the Ancient Coptic Churches of Cairo (hereinafter
Guide)12.
28This is the collective term for the haikal,prothesis,
and diakonikonin the Greek church (see Hamilton,
ByzantineArchitectureand Decoration25). Thereis no
satisfactory equivalent in Coptic terminology.
29See Hamilton, op. cit. (hereinafterByz. Arch).
umphal arch" resting on stone columns or piers.
However, the use of a wooden haikal screen
(higab in the Coptic church, ikonostasis in the
Greek church) was soon adopted.30 In early
churches the altar stood near the back of the
haikal, and there was usually direct access from
this room to one or both of the sacristies, where
the sacred elements were prepared.
In later years, particularly after the tribune31
or conch was introduced (see infra), it became
necessary to move the altar to a position further
to the west and to enlarge the haikal so that it
included part of the nave as well as the sanctua-
ry chamber. The area thus added to the haikal
is usually called the presbyterium?2It was
always completely screened from the nave, and
30This is a questiondeservingfurtherinvestigation,
both in Egypt and in Nubia. In Egypt the use of the
higabis believed to have been adopted as early as the
time of Justinian (Anc. Copt. II 33; Quibell, The
Monasteryof Apa Jeremias9), althoughthe archaeolo-
gical evidence is not conclusive. In Nubia, on the
other hand, there is no evidence of the higab in the
earliest churches.In two churchesof Type 2a (60 and
78) the columns of the triumphal arch were very
roughly notched to receive the wooden higab after
they had been erected, the workmanshipcontrasting
sharply with the care taken in the original shaping of
the columns. In any case the triumphal arch and
higabare in a sense alternativeexpressionsof the same
liturgical concept: the division between haikal and
naos. It is only in some of the late churches of Type
2b that we find them both as originalfeatures. In all
later churchesboth in Egypt and in Nubia the higab
entirely supplanted the triumphal arch.
31This term in English designatesthe curving seats
in the apse. In French (e.g. Prern.Egl. 8) and Italian
(Nub. Med. Ill 25-6, etc.) it refers to overhead
galleries.The seats in the apse are called coro("choir")
by Monneretde Villard (Nub. Med. Ill 14, etc.) and
bemaby Badawy (Prem.Egl. 8). Neither term is wholly
appropriate: the choir or chancelin Coptic churchesis
actually situated between the haikal and the con-
gregation; bema is properly the term for the whole
of the haikal, prothesis,and diakonikonin the Greek
Church(Byz. Arch. 25).
32It is sometimes called the chancel, by analogy
with early churches in Egypt and the Near East.
However, this designation is not accurate, for in the
Coptic church the chancel was a separately screened
areabetweenthe haikaland the congregation.See n. 33
infra.
95
Figure 4
usually from the aisles as well, by a mud brick
higab. The floor level within the haikal was
frequently raised a step or two above that of the
nave and aisles.
The building of a tribune made impossibleany
direct access from the sanctuary chamberto the
sacristies, and hence a portion of the north aisle
(vestibule) was often also screened so as to
provide a secluded passage from haikal to
sacristy. The narroweasternpassage, introduced
at the same time, provided a secluded passage
from one sacristy to the other. Thus with the
passage of time the total area of the bema,
originally fairly small, was gradually enlargedat
the expense of the naos until it included a
portion of the nave (presbyterium) and one or
both aisles (vestibule) as well as the three eastern
rooms. The culmination of this process is
perhaps to be seen in the small, late Nubian
cupola churches (Types 4 and ?5), from which it
appears that the congregation was excluded
altogether, so that the bema encompassed the
whole building. Chronological changes in the
liturgical arrangementof the Nubian church are
charted in Fig. 4.
In the Nubian church, unlike the Egyptian
church of later times, there was never a screened
chancel or choir between the bemaand the con-
gregation.33Only one part of the building was
physically segregated from the worshippers at
large, and it comprised only the haikal and the
sacristies.
The sacristies, adjoiningthe haikal on either
side, were obviously intimately connected with
the sacred ritual. However, their specific func-
tions are not absolutely clear. It seems unlikely,
pace Monneret de Villard,34that either of them
served as the habitual residence of the sacristan,
33cf. Anc. Copt.I 25; Guide11. A possible exception
is the Basilica of Kasr Ibrim (39), which seems to have
had from the beginning the same sort of elongate
chancelas the very early churchesof Egypt (cf. Prem.
Egl. 23, 37) and Palestine (Crowfoot,Early Churchesin
Palestine, frontispiece). This was a very different
proposition from the choir in later Coptic churches,
which ran athwart the whole building (cf. Anc. Copt.
I 25-6).
3*Nub. Med. Ill 8, 14.
7 97
for their proportions are often minute. Of the
two rooms, it would appear that the northern
was usually the more important or the more
sacred, for it was this room which most often
communicated directly with the haikal in the
early church, and whose doorway was screened
by a vestibule in the later church. Perhaps, like
the prothesisof the Greekchurch,it was used for
the preparation of the sacred elements which
preceded the liturgy.35Benches along the walls
are a fairly common feature of this room. By
contrast, the southern sacristy is usually devoid
of furniture, although it occasionally contains a
baptismal font.36 Quite possibly this room, like
the western corner rooms, was introduced more
for the sake of the overall plan than for any
specific purpose. It may have served at different
times and places for a number of purposes: as
vestry, treasury, baptistry, etc.
The vestibule is a final subdivision of the
bemawhich is found occasionally in churches of
the Classic period. It is a small area adjoining
the sacristy, at the end of the north aisle, which
is screened from the rest of the aisle by a
partition similar to the higab. A vestibule may
also be found in the south aisle in a few churches
in which there is no passage behind the sanctu-
ary. The purposeof this feature was obviously to
provide a secluded passage from haikal to sac-
risties, taking the place of the earlierdirect com-
munication between the two, which became
impossible after the introduction of the tribune.
The naos or ''body'' of the churchwas divided
between the male and female members of the
congregation. How this was done is not entirely
clear; probablyit varied from place to place and
from century to century. There is some sug-
gestion that in the earliest churches all of the
women sat behind, or to the west of, the men,
both in the nave and in the aisles.37There would
thus have been a simple fourfold liturgical
progressionfrom east to west: 1, clergy, 2, men,
3, women, 4, penitents. However, with the
disappearanceof the narthexthe penitents were
36Byz. Arch 25; see also Nub. Med. Ill 14.
36Nub. Med. Ill 14.
37Anc. Copt. I 22.
probably excluded from the building altogether,
and it seems that for a time the women were
relegated to upstairs galleries.38When this usage
was abandoned, in the Classic period, they
presumably returned to the ground floor, but
whether they sat behind or beside the men is
uncertain. In modern Egyptian churches they
usually occupy the north aisle.39However, in the
last Nubian churchesthere is a good deal to sug-
gest that both sexes were excluded from the
interior of the building (see Type 4, infra).
The three western rooms, which superseded
the narthex, seem to have had no special
liturgical significance. The western bay was
merely an extension of the nave, and a hallway
giving onto the corner rooms. One of these
nearly always carried the staircase to the over-
head galleries or to the roof. The function of the
other is quite obscure; it might have served as a
cloakroom for the congregation, or as a con-
versation room for visitors.40
Furniture and SecondaryFeatures
Furniture and secondary architectural fea-
tures of the Nubian church include the altar,
tribune, triumphal arch, higab or haikal screen,
pulpit, and staircase. Their usual location within
the church is shown in Fig. 4. These features are.
not always encounteredin excavation, for in the
beginning they were often made of wood, and
have vanished without a trace.
The altar was always situated within the
haikal: at first well toward the back (east), and
later, with the introduction of the tribune, in the
presbyterium. The earliest altars apparently
stood on four wooden legs, of which no trace
now remainsbut the sockets in the floor.41Some
38Ibid 19-22; Prem. Egl. 8. The implicationof both
authors, that overhead galleries were the earliest
area set aside for women in the church, is incorrect
with regard to Nubia. There were originally no over-
head galleries in churchesof Type 1. They may have
been added later in some cases, and they became a
standard feature in Type 2a.
39Guide11.
40cf. Churches12.
41Anc. Copt.II 5-6.
98
of them certainly had fancy marble tops,
imported from the Aegean, such as are still
found in the monasteries of Wadi Natrun.42
After the 8th Century, the typical Nubian
altar was a solid rectangular mass of masonry
measuring about 75 x 100 cm., with the long
axis oriented north-south, or at right angles to
the building. The height varied considerably,
from about 60 to 125 cm. There was often a
recess at the back (east side), which may have
been a reliquary43 or a repository for the
chalice.44No altar slab has ever been found in
situ ; as in the modern Egyptian church, it was
probably carved of wood.46The rather coarse
quality and poor finish of the masonry suggest
that the altar was normally encased in a fabric
sheath, another practice which survives in
modernEgypt.46The altar was probablycovered
by a woodenciboriumor canopy,47althoughnone
has survived archaeologically.
The tribune48 is a stepped series of curving
seats built within the apse and correspondingto
its curvature. It was occupied by the higher
clergy during services. In the center of the top
row there is usually a slightly elevated ''bishop's
seat/' The tribune is not found in any of the
earliest Nubian churches; it was apparently
introduced in the 8th or 9th Century, and
eventually became a standard feature.49Some
42Ibid. 7-8. See also MittKairo 7 (1937) 119-25,
PL 20-22.
43 See Anc. Copt. II 14.
44 See Michalowski, Kush 12 (1964) 196 and PL 39a.
45Anc. Copt. II 3-5; Guide 13.
46Anc. Copt. II 35-6; Guide 13.
47See Anc. Copt II 28-9. Indirect evidence of a
ciboriumwas found in the Mastaba Churchat Faras
(64); see Griffith,LAAA 14 (1927) 60.
48See n. 31 supra.
49However, it may never have become universal.
The date and circumstancesof the introductionof the
tribune into Nubia deserve further study. It was
undoubtedly a feature of some of the very earliest
churchesin Egypt and the Near East ; see Prem.Egl. 8 ;
Byz. Arch. 36, 51; Crowfoot, Early Churches in
Palestine 40, 56, 69. In Nubia, its first appearanceis
presumablyto be associated with the enlargementof
the haikal and the closing of the direct passages from
apse to sacristies, which certainly took place in the
8th Century. However, the earliest tribune per se
early tribunes may have been built of wood,
although this is far from certain.50The great
majority were of simple, whitewashed mud
brick; a few were of cut stone. In the Classic
Nubian church the tribune always occupied the
whole of the apse.
The triumphal arch was the originalsymbolic
division between sanctuary and nave. It was a
wide stone arch resting on monolithic columns,
or occasionally stone piers, at the mouth of the
haikaL From its eastern side descended the
semi-dome which covered the apse. After the
8th Century, when the fully segregated haikal
became universal, the triumphal arch gave way
to the higab or screen wall, although for a time
both arch and higabwere used (Types 2b and 3a).
The higab was a flimsy partition, usually
about 2 m. high,51 which screened the haikal
from the view of the congregation. It always ran
straight across the nave, and was penetrated by
a narrow doorway in the center. When the
haikal was extended into the nave, the higab
was usually returned eastward along both sides
so as to separate it from the aisles as well as
from the nave (cf. Fig. 3).
The higabwas not present in the first Nubian
churches; it seems to have been introducedsome
time in the 7th Century.52The first higabs were
certainly made of wood, as they still are in
Egyptian churches.53However, after the 8th
Century mud brick became the rule in Nubia.
which can be dated with certainty is that in the South
Kom Churchat Faras (69), dedicated in 930 A.D. At
Debeira (7$), Shinnie believed that the tribune was
added after 1029 A.D. (Rush 11 [1963] 258). The
southernchurch at Abdallah Nirqi (53), which would
appear on the basis of both pottery and frescoes to
have been occupied as late as 1100 A.D., never had a
tribuneat any time. Hence it must be assumedthat the
tribune was a preferredbut not a necessary feature
of the Classic Nubian church.
50There are curiousbrick constructionsin the apse
of the Arminnachurch(44)which look like "risers"for
a wooden tribune.
51The only higabever found intact in Nubia was in
the Rivergate Churchin Faras (65). See esp. Griffith,
LAAA 13 (1926) PI. 47, 49.
62 See n. 30 supra.
63See Guide12.
7*
The pulpit or ambo is, along with the altar,
the most consistent secondary feature of the
Nubian church. It was always situated within
the nave, along its northern side, and im-
mediately to the west of the haikaL Usually it
was built alongside the easternmost pier or
column separating the nave from the north
aisle.
Like many other interior features, some of the
earliest pulpits were probably of wood. How-
ever, mud brick was universal in the later
churches. The typical pulpit was a solid mass of
masonry topped by a roughly square platform
60 to 80 cm. wide. Often there was a slightly
raised ridge around the edge of the platform. It
was ascended from the west side54by a short
flight of steps, usually the same width as the
platform. The height varied according to the
height of the church, from perhaps 75 cm. to
more than 2 m. Both the proportions and
the direction of ascent make it clear that the
pulpit was designed for sitting and not for
standing.55
Stairs were apparently not included in the
earliest Nubian churches.Later they were added
to the outside of some of the early buildings,
usually at the southwest corner. From the 7th
Century onward (i.e. beginning with Type 2) the
great majority of Nubian churcheshad an inside
staircase of mud brick, which was built in one
of the western corner rooms. In northern Nubia
there seems to have been no fixed ruleas between
the northwest and southwest cornerrooms, but
from Faras southward the stairs were nearly
always at the southwest.
In some of the early churches the stairways
led to overhead galleries. However, there is no
definite evidence of this feature in later Nubian
churches. Probably the stairs simply gave ac-
cess to the roof of the building, whence the
faithful were perhaps called vocally to service.
64A characteristicwhich the Nubian pulpit shares
with the Mohammedanminbarrather than with other
Christianchurches. See Churches17.
55See Badawy, I'Art Copte22-3; also Quibell, The
Monastery of Apa Jeremias (hereinafter Apa Jer.)
pl. i4.
99
Decoration
Carved stone was the principal and perhaps
the only form of decoration in the earliest
Nubian churches. There was none of the
magnificent imported marble work found in
some of the early Byzantine churchesin Egypt ;56
both the materials and the workmanship were
local. Nevertheless a considerable degree of
artistic finesse was achieved, both in sandstone
and in red granite. Commonelements of carved
stone included capitals, cornices, lintels, and
window grilles. Columnsand jambs were seldom
decorated. The principal design elements were
vine wreaths and other Hellenistic floral motifs,
executed in low relief.57Purely Christiansymbol-
ism is surprisinglyrarein the stone decorationof
the early church.
The carved stonework was apparently white-
washed, and it may even have been painted in
bright colors.68There were, however, no frescoes
orwall paintingsas such in the earliestchurches;59
they would appear to have been introduced
some time in the 8th Century. The earliest
datable examples, from Wadi Sebua (32), were
executed in 795 A.D.60 Frescoes became uni-
versal in later centuries, entirely supplanting
carved stone as the typical decoration of the
Nubian church.61
66See Prem.Egl. 5 ; also Kaufmann,Die Menasstadt,
Plates; Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara, jgoy-igo8
PL 13-49; Apa. Jer. PI. 32-44.
57cf. Prem. Egl. 12.
68Ibid.
59This has been quite clearly established in the
excavation of a numberof early Nubian churches;cf.
Michalowski,Rush 12 (1964)206. Badawy (Prem.Egl.
12-13) believes that there were frescoesin the earliest
Egyptian churches,althoughacknowledgingthat there
are no survivingtraces of them.
6° See Nub. Med. I 88.
61The chronologicaland artistic study of Nubian
frescopaintingis just getting started, as a result of the
magnificentdiscoveriesin the Cathedralat Faras (6y);
see esp. Michalowski,"Die wichtigsten Entwicklungs-
etappen der Wandmalereiin Faras/1 in Christentum
am Nil (Recklingshausen,1964) 79-94. The sequence
of artistic developmentfound at Faras will have to be
confirmedin other sites before it can be presumedto
be characteristicof Nubia as a whole. If such confir-
IOO
There is no indication that mosaic decoration
was ever employed in Nubia. The nearest ap-
proach to a mosaic was a crude cobblestone floor
in the church at Meinarti (85), which had an
inset of white stones in the form of a cross at the
front of the nave.62
II. TYPOLOGY OF NUBIAN CHURCHES
The Nubian church,like the temples of earlier
ages, is characterized by both uniformity and
diversity. No two buildings are identical in plan,
and it seems as if a deliberateeffort was made to
give each church a certain individuality of its
own. Yet variability is confined within narrow,
formally prescribedlimits, so that between any
two churches the similarities alwraysoutweigh
the differences.
Variability is expressed in a wide variety of
characteristics, of which some 30 have been
considered in the present study. They include
details of construction, plan, liturgical arrange-
ment, furniture, and decoration. Within the
total "universeof variability" four common and
fairly distinct combinations of traits can be
recognized: these are the basic types of Nubian
churches (Types 1-4). They fall quite readily
into chronologicalorder. Each type has two or
three sub-types (Types ia, ib, 2a, etc.) which
appear to be concurrent variations. There are
in addition two more hypothetical types (Types
?o and ?5), and a group of churches built
within formerPharaonictemples (TypeT) which
must be considered separately because they do
not conform to any of the conventional types.
As the types are statistical abstractions, it goes
without saying that not every church fits neatly
and readily into one or the other. Each type and
sub-type has certain churches which obviously
belong, others which correspond in most re-
spects but which have marked individual aber-
rations, and still others whose inclusion is simply
doubtful. Moreover, some churches which re-
mationis forthcoming,it shouldultimately be possible
to date Nubian churchesby their frescoes even more
accuratelythan by their architecturalcharacteristics.
62Adams, Rush 13 (1965) 166, PL 35 b.
mained in use for long periods of time were
modified so that they passed from one type to
another.
The typology per se is purely empirical; that
is, it is based on internal evidence only. The
chronologicalorderingof the types, on the other
hand, is based upon direct chronological evi-
dence (and not upon logical seriation or histori-
cal analogy). Four types of evidence have been
considered: direct dating from inscriptions or
documents, indirect dating by association with
dated pottery types63or other remains, relative
dating from stratigraphy or recognizablegrowth
patterns, and guess dating advanced by the
original excavator, usually without explanation.
An extended discussion of the chronological
evidence is impossible within the scope of the
present article, for much of it remains unpub-
lished up to now. However, it is presented in
summary form in Table II, p. 134.
Type ?o. Prototype (Fig. 5)
Very possibly the oldest churches in Nubia
are two buildings situated at Karanog (37) and
at Abd el Qadir South (87).64 Although sepa-
rated by more than 100 km., they are remarkab-
ly similar in size and plan (Fig. 5). Both were
oriented east-west, like true churches, and had
the characteristic tripartite division into nave
and aisles. However, the nave and aisles were
separated by complete walls and not merely by
arcades. Moreover,at the eastern end, in place
of a sanctuary and two sacristies, there was a
single transverse chamber running across the
63Of the dates given in Table II, those which are
based on pottery types have been determinedin most
cases from my own examination of sherds from the
site, or of illustrations of them (e.g. Nub. Med. IV
PL 188-203; PresedoVelo, AntigicedadesCristianasde
la Isla deKasar-IcoFig. 8-12). Mychronologicalstudies
of Christian Nubian pottery have been published in
preliminaryformin Kush 10 (1962)245-88, and a much
fuller and more comprehensive typology is now
complete in ms.
64This building should not be confused with the
famousdecoratedchapelof Abd el Qadir(86),which is
situated about 2 km. further north.
width of the building.65There was a room at the
southwest corner, apparently containing a stair-
case, in both buildings. Entry from the outside
was at the northwest corner in one and perhaps
both cases. The most striking and distinctly ec-
clesiastical feature of both buildings was a
pulpit, built in the conventional position against
the north wall of the nave. The Karanog church
also had a sort of higabimmediately east of the
pulpit.
Both the Karanog and Abd el Qadir South
buildings, as well as their adjoining settlements,
can be very readily dated to the 6th Centuryby
the pottery found in them.66However, they bear
little resemblance to the earliest true churches
(Type 1), built in the latter part of the same
century. The most probable explanation is that
they representlocal prototype churches,built on
their own initiative by some of the earliest
Nubian Christians, before the faith gained
general acceptance.67 With the official con-
version of the Nubian kingdoms they gave way
to the far more imposing true churchesof Type 1,
whose design was imported, along with the
organization and traditions of the church, from
Egypt.68
Type T. ConvertedTemples
Virtually every Pharaonic and Ptolemaic
temple in Nubia shows some signs of use as a
place of worship during Christian times. How-
ever, in only a few cases are the remainssufficient
to indicate a fully developed church. Even in
65Monneret de Villard (Nub. Med. Ill 1-2) cites
early churcheswith a similar arrangementof the bema
in Egypt (Bawit), Syria, and Algeria.
66Moreover,the peculiarconstructionof theKaranog
building- partly of stone and partly of mud brick- is
typical of the X- Group and very early Christian
periods.
67A common phenomenonin many areas prior to
the officialestablishmentof Christianity;see Crowfoot,
Early Churchesin Palestine 1-4; Gough, The Early
Christians59-62.
68Another possible prototype church has recently
been excavated by the Humboldt University Ex-
pedition at Mussawarates Sufra.
1 01
Figure5
these the amount of actual new constructionwas
small; the Christiansadapted their plan as much
as possible to make use of existing walls and
columns. Hence the temple churches as a group
have comparatively little in common; their only
consistent feature is their adaptation to pre-
existing remains.They must be treated as a type
apart only because they can not be fitted into
any of the other types.
Undoubtedly, some of the converted temples
are among the earliest churches in Nubia. Once
Christianitywas formallyestablished, the church
officials would naturally have made haste to
take possession of the earlier symbols of re-
ligious authority.69On the other hand the haikal
features in the temple churches of Wadi Sebua
(32) and Aksha (72) are those of Type 2 (see
infra), indicating that these churches remained
in use several centuries later.
Type 1. Basilican
Very few of the earliest Nubian churcheshave
survived in anything like their original form.
Manyhave probablyvanished altogether; others
were razed and rebuilt along different lines.
Even in those which have remained standing,
numerousmodificationswere made in the course
of the centuries, particularlyin the arrangement
of the haikal. Hence the original features of the
church can in many cases only be reconstructed
from scraps of architectural evidence, and some
of them must remain inferential.
The consistent and distinguishing feature of
all of the churches of Type 1 is entry at the west
end. Instead of the symmetrical arrangement
of three western rooms found in later Nubian
churches, the west end of the building generally
terminated either in a narthex or a "returned
aisle," or both (cf. Fig. 6). In contrast to this
fairly uniform practice, the arrangement of the
east end of the building (sanctuaryand sacristies)
was so variable that no two churchesexhibit the
same characteristics.Type 1 as a whole includes
two sub-types: a group of very large churches
69cf. esp. Kirwan,LAAA 24 (1937) 97~9«
having two aisles on either side of the nave
(Type ia), and a group of smaller buildings
having a single aisle on each side (Type ib).
Type ia. Kasr I brim Type (Fig. 6)
These are the largest churches in Nubia;
perhaps the cathedrals of the region. Their
diagnostic features are two aisles on either side
of the nave, and a narthex at the west. Features
of the bemaare difficult to reconstruct because
of later modifications,but were apparentlyhighly
variable from the beginning. The type is named
for the great Basilica of Kasr Ibrim (39) which
is certainly its outstanding example.
Type Description
Construction
Walls: cut stone, rough stone, red or mud brick, or
combination.
Roof:flat, timbered.Roofsupport:columns;sometimes
also piers.Floors:flagstoneand mud. Interiorfeatures:
lintels, altars, pulpits often wood, sometimescut stone
or mud brick.
External plan
Length:20-31 m., avg. 25. Width: 10-24 m., avg. 19.
Proportion:1.00:1 to 2.00:1, avg. 1.58:1. Entry: 1-3
doors in west wall.
Internal plan
Eastern passage: wide chamber in 2 cases, none in 2
cases. Easternrooms:highly variable; no standard ar-
rangement. Nave& aisles: wide nave with 2 much
narroweraisles on either side.
Numberpiers: 3-5. Westernrooms: narthex, opening
onto nave & aisles by 3 doors.Galleries: probablynone
originally; added later?
Haikal
Form: rectangleor apse. Niches: no. Entry to sacristies:
primarily from sanctuary; also from aisles in some
cases. Tribune: no. Triumphalarch: yes; rested on
columns or piers. Presbyterium:no. Vestibule: no.
Altar: in sanctuary chamber; often of wood. Higab:
none originally; wooden higabadded later.
Other details
Pulpit: 1st pier or columnwest of haikal,north side of
nave.
Stairs:noneoriginally;addedlaterto outsideof building
in some cases.
103
 Figure 6
Decoration Area
Carved stone: usual; elaborate lintels, cornices, First to Second Cataractsonly.
capitals, grilles. Frescoes:none; walls whitewashed.
Historical implications. As might be ex-
Churches pected, these earliest Nubian true churches are
Typical: 6, 39-1 (type church),55-1, 67-1. Uncertain: purely Egyptian in derivation. They are, how-
68.
ever, in the 'local" rather than the "imperial"
Time tradition of contemporaryEgypt ;70that is, they
c 550-75° A.D. 70cf. Prem. EgL 10-11.

IO4
were built and ornamented primarilywith local
materials. They are not nearly so large and
elaborate as a few of the early Egyptian churches
which were built under direct imperialpatronage
and were extensively furnished with imported
marble and wood.71
The basic form of these buildings is that of
the classical basilica, and is common to most of
the early churches of the Eastern world. As an
architectural form its origins are Classical and
pre-Christian.72 The narthex,which is commonto
all of the earliest churches, is probably derived
from the atrium of earlier times.73The extreme
variability which is found in the arrangement
of the bemaseems to be characteristicof Egypt
and the Middle East as well as Nubia,74sug-
gesting that the traditional juxtaposition of apse
and sacristies had not yet crystallized.
The internal or concealed apse found in Type
i a and in all subsequent Nubian churcheshas a
geographically limited distribution, and may
have had its origin in Egypt.75 However, it is
notable that two churchesof Type ia (39 and 55)
apparently had from the beginning a passage
between the apse and the eastern wall (eastern
passage). This feature is never foundin Egyptian
churches,and must be regardedas an indigenous
Nubian development. Although it did not
become general until two centuries later (in
Type 3), it seems to have present from the
earliest times in these two cases.76
One other detail in which the earliest Nubian
churches may have differed from those of con-
temporary Egypt was in the absence of the
higab. There is no evidence of it in Nubia be-
fore the 7th Century, although it is believed
to have been in use in Egypt since the time
71Ibid. See also Kaufmann, Die Heilige Stadt der
Wiiste 91-115; Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara,
igoy-igo8 1-8, PL 37-8; Apa Jer. 1-14, PL 1-45.
72See Rice, ByzantineArt 58-61 ; Gough,TheEarly
Christians125-44.
73 Prem. Egl. 7.
74Ibid. 9-10.
75Badawy, I'Art Copte5-7.
76The historical significance of the eastern pas-
sage will be discussed later (GeneralConsiderations,
infra).
of Justinian. However, the evidence for this is
not conclusive.77
Type ib. Philae Type (Fig. 7)
These are smaller churches of Type 1, with a
single aisle on either side of the nave. They have
no narthex\ entry is either through the western
wall or at the west end of the side (north and
south) walls. As in Type la, the arrangementof
the bemais extremely variable: one church (26)
originally had a rectangular sanctuary which
was later converted to an apse ; in another (46)
the shell of the apse projected beyond the
eastern wall of the building; in still another (12)
solid masses of masonry took the place of the
sacristies. The type name is taken from the
Western Churchat Philae (7), which is its only
more or less conventional example.
Type Description
Construction
Walls: generally rough stone, mud brick, or combi-
nation. Roof: flat or vaulted. Roofsupport:columnsor
piers. Floor: flagstones, bedrock, or mud. Interior
features:rarely found; probably wood.
External plan
Length: 12-20 m., avg. 16. Width: 8-12 m., avg. 10.
Proportion:1.50:1 to 1.70:1, avg. 1.59:1. Entry: west
end of N and S walls; sometimes also W wall.
Internal plan
Eastern passage: no. Eastern rooms: highly variable;
no standardarrangement.Nave &>aisles:roughlyequal
width? Number piers: 1-3. Western rooms: none;
sometimes returnedaisle at W end. Galleries:no.
Haikal
Form:rectangleor apse. Niches: no. Entry to sacristies:
primarilyfrom sanctuary;sometimesalso from aisles.
3 has no sacristies. Tribune: no. Presbyter ium: no.
Vestibule:no. Altar: in sanctuary chamber; often of
wood. Higab: no.
Other details
Pulpit: 1st or 2nd pier, N side of nave. Probably
sometimes wood. Stairs: none originally; added later
to outside of building in some cases.
77 See n. 30 supra.
105
Decoration
Carvedstone: probablyusual.Frescoes: no.
Churches
Typical'. 7 (type church). Aberrant:12. Uncertain:
26-1, 46-1.
Time
c 55°-75° A.D.
Area
Lower Nubia only.
Figure 7
Historical implications. These are probably
the more ordinary, and perhaps originally more
numerous, churches of the earliest Christian
period. In general their characteristics parallel
those of Type ia, although on a smaller scale.
The disappearance of the narthex seems to
foreshadowthe development of the later Nubian
church form, with three western rooms. How-
ever, there is nothing definite to suggest that
106
the churches of Type ib are later in date than
those of Type ia ; probably from the beginning
the narthexwas a feature confined to the larger
churches. For the rest, the churches of Type ib
are too few and too poorly preserved to allow
any important historical deductions.
Type 2. Early Nubian
These are the first churches in the distinctive
Nubian plan, with a symmetrical arrangement
of three rooms at either end, and entry from the
north and south sides. However, they lack the
eastern passage, tribune, and other haikal
features of the Classic Nubian church (Type 3).
They fall into two distinct groups: large and
elaborate churches with a number of ex-
ceptional architectural features (Type 2a), and
somewhat smaller and less pretentious buildings
(Type 2b).

Type 2a. Debeira Type (Fig. 8)
These are the best known and most archi-
tecturally distinctive of all Nubian churches; so
much so that Somers Clarke accepted them as
the basis for his general Nubian type plan.78
Five of the ten churches excavated and pub-
lished by Mileham79(60, 62, 63, 77, 78) were also
Figure 8
of Type 2a. In actual fact, all of its definitely
known members are situated within 20 km.
north and south of Faras, and they are so uniform
a group as to suggest that they may have been
designed by a single architect. The type name
is taken from the well known "Church near
Debereh" (78).
78Christ.Ant. 90-94 (type plan and description).
79Churches.
Type 2a has a whole series of characteristics
which are unique among Nubian churches:
three large niches in the curving end wall of the
apse, a sanctuary chamber which is prolonged
westward beyond the line of the two adjoining
sacristies, a triumphal arch resting on mono-
lithic columns in every case, a nave which is not
only notably wider than the aisles, but is also
wider than the sanctuary and the western bay
(cf. Fig. 8), asymmetrical entry to the western
rooms, and overhead galleries over the aisles.
Type description
Construction
Walls: rough stone usual; occasionally mud brick.
Roof: vaulted mud brick; no domes. Roof support:
masonry piers. Floors: usually bedrock. Interior
IO7
features:none certain because of later modifications.
Possibly some wood altars, etc.
External plan
Length:17-23 m., avg. 20. Width: 9-13 m., avg. 11.
.
Proportion: 1.42:1 to 2.00 : 1 , avg. 1 67 : 1. Entry: aisles is a survival from Type 1, and is common
symmetrical N and S; none W.
Internal plan
Eastern passage: no. Eastern rooms: elongate apse,
projecting further west than corner rooms (exc. 80).
Nave & aisles: nave notably wider than aisles; also
wider than apse and W bay. Number piers: 2-4,
usually 3. Westernrooms: conventional 3. W bay is
narrowerthan nave. Entry to W rooms: usually asym-
metrical; NW room entered from aisle, SW room
entered from W bay. Sometimesboth enteredfrom W
bay. Galleries: yes.
Haikal
Form: elongate apse; projects beyond sacristies.
Niches: yes (exc. $g). Entry to sacristies: highly
variable. NE room usually entered from apse, some-
times also from aisle; SE room always entered from
aisle, sometimesalso fromapse. Tribune:no. Triumphal tolian."85However, in Nubia its adoption was
arch:yes; rests on monolithic columns. Presbytevium: not
no (included in elongate apse). Vestibule:probably
none. Altar: in apse; probably wood in some cases.
Higab: probably none originally; wooden higabadded
later in 2 cases.
Other details
Pulpit: 1st pier west of apse. Mud brick. Stairs:
generally in SW room; one (63) in W bay. 2 examples
(59>63) have additional stairs in N sacristy.
Decoration
Carvedstone: yes; cornices, capitals, grilles. Frescoes: was Melkite and not Coptic in its affiliations.86
none originally; added later.
Churches
Typical: 59-1, 60-1, 62-1, 77-1, J8-1 (type church).
Aberrant:41, 63-1, 80-1. Uncertain:23, ioi, 108-1.
Time
c. 650-800 A.D.
Area
Gerf Hussein to Semna.
Historical implications. Egyptian influence
is still much in evidence in Type 2a. The ar-
rangement of the bemahas now taken a definite
and consistent form: the elongate apse, com-
municating directly with one or both sacristies,
108
is characteristic of both Nubia and Egypt80at
this time. The three niches in the apse wall are
another feature found in many Egyptian
churches.81The nave notably wider than the
to most of the early basilican churches of the
Near East.82 In Nubian Type 2a, as in many
other areas at this time, it is associated with the
building of overhead galleries.
In the design of its western end, however, the
Nubian church of Type 2a is no longer Egyptian
in derivation. The three western rooms, charac-
teristic of all Nubian church buildings from this
time forward, were never developed in the
Egyptian church;83their origin seems rather to
be Near Eastern. The general plan of Type 2
suggests a Nubian adaptation of the "cross-in-
square" design, which was popularin Syria and
particularly in Anatolia as early as the 8th
Century.84This plan is sometimes called "Ana-
accompanied, at least in the beginning, by
any shortening of the nave and aisles so as to
give the interior a more conspicuously cruciform
aspect. Hence the Nubian' plan should more ''
accurately be describedas a 'cross-in-ractangle.
In fact, it probably represents a local compro-
mise or fusion between the basilican and the
cross-in-squaretraditions. It was, at all events,
a non-Egyptian development, and is one of
several indications that the early Nubian church
Type 2b. Buhen Type (Fig. 9)
These churches are generally smaller than
those of Type 2a, and lack most of their dis-
80See Prem. Egl. 9.
81Ibid.; Anc. Copt.I 35.
82Prem. Egl. 8.
83Occasionallythe narthexwas later subdivided by
partitions, somewhat after the Nubian fashion, as at
Deir Abu Hennes (Prem. Egl. 10). However, the
separatewesternroomswere never an originalfeature.
84Byz. Arch. 21-5, 74-5.
85Rice, ByzantineArt, 61.
86This question will be discussed more fully m con-
nection with Type 3, infra.
tinctive features. They do not have the niches
in the apse wall or the elongate apse, and there
is in most cases no direct communication be-
tween apse and sacristies. The nave and aisles
are approximately of the same width, and there
are no overhead galleries. The haikal includes
the forepartof the nave {presbyterium) as well as
the apse, although this was not necessarily an
Figure 9
original feature in every case. The type name is
taken from the little Buhen Church(84),87which
was originally of Type 2b. However, by far the
best preserved example of the type is the
recently excavated Southern Church at Abdal-
lah Nirqi (53).
Type description
Construction
Walls: mud brick usual; some cut and rough stone.
Roof: 1 flat (ygi),all others vaulted. 1 central dome
87Originallycalled the "Churchnear Wady Haifa"
(Churches 48-56).
(84). Roof support: piers (exc. yg). Floors: commonly
paved; flagstones, cobblestones, or brick. Interior
features: considerable use of wood for altars and
higab;otherwise mud brick.
External plan
Length: 11-18 m., avg. 15. Width: 9-12 m., avg. 10.
Proportion: 1.50:1 to 1.64 :1, avg. 1.54:1. Entry:
symmetricalN and S ; none W.
Internal plan
Eastern passage: no. Eastern rooms: 3 symmetrical;
apse same length as corner rooms. Nave & aisles:
approximatelysame width; nave same width as apse
and W bay. Numberpiers: normally2. Westernrooms:
3 symmetrical. Entry to W rooms: from W bay.
Galleries:none known.
Haikal
Form: apse. Niches: no. Entry to sacristies: from aisles
only, exc. in 2 cases. Tribune: no. Triumphalarch:
present in 3 or 4 cases; not consistent. Rested on
masonrypiersin 2 cases. Presbyterium:usual. Original
feature in at least 3 cases; may be later addition in
others. Vestibule:commonin N aisle; also 2 in S aisle.
IO9
Altar: variable; 3 cases in presbyterium,2 cases in
sanctuary chamber. Sometimes wood. Higab: usual;
apparently originally wood in most cases.
Other details
Pulpit: 1st pier, N side of nave. Stairs: SW or NW
cornerroom.
Decoration
Carvedstone:probablycommon:not certain.Frescoes:
none originally.
Churches
Typical: 44-1, 53, 65-1, 79-1, 84-1 (type church),55-1.
Aberrant:26-2. Uncertain:56, 100-1.
Time
c. 650-800 A.D.
Area
Probably all Nubia, 1st to 4th Cataracts.
Historical implications. There is no direct
evidence to suggest that the churchesof Type 2b
are later in date than those of Type 2a. Typo-
logicaily, however, they clearly mark a tran-
sition toward the ClassicNubian church of Type
3. With the shortening of the apse to the same
length as the adjoining sacristies, and the nar-
rowing of the nave to approximately the same
width as the aisles, there emerges for the first
time the symmetricalninefold division (cf. Fig. 2)
characteristic of most later Nubian churches.
The apse niches and overhead galleries have
disappeared,and are never again found in Nubia.
Shortening of the apse, which considerably
restricted the space available for the per-
formance of the service, was offset by the
enlargement of the haikal to include the ad-
joining part of the nave (presbyteriutn).This
feature became standard in the Classic Nubian
church (Type 3). Its historical roots are un-
doubtedly to be found in the elongate chancels
of some of the early churches in Egypt and
Palestine;88however, in Nubia it is clear that
the screened area included only the haikal, and
not the choir. In some of the churchesof Type 2b
(as in many of Type 3a) it was probably a later
88See Prem. Egl. 23, 37; Crowfoot, Early Churches
in Palestine,frontispiece,33, 40, 49, 60, 64, 69, 97.
IIO
addition rather than an original feature; how-
ever, in two cases (44 and 65)89there was a
triumphalarch springingfrom the stone piers of
the nave, rather than at the mouth of the apse,
indicating that the presbyteriutnwas part of the
original design. These were quite possibly the
only churchesin Nubia which incorporatedboth
triumphal arch and higab as original features-
the former was making its last appearance, and
the latter its first. In one final example (53) the
triumphal arch had atrophied to a pair of
ornamental columns set directly into the higab,
serving as jambs for the haikal door. There can
be no doubt that this church, and the two
previously mentioned, represent a transition
between Type 2 and Type 3.
Type 3. Classic Nubian
This is the plan which prevailed in the Nubian
church during the greater part of the Christian
period, and which is most often thought of as
typical. Its distinctive features are the passage
behind the sanctuary (except Type 3a), and the
enlarged haikal containing a tribune, and segre-
gated from the congregation by a full brick
higab (except Type 3b). There are three sub-
types: churches converted from earlier forms,
which lack the eastern passage (Type 3a),
churches which have the eastern passage but
lack the tribune or presbyteriumor both (Type
3b), and churches with all of the distinctive
characteristics of eastern passage and haikal
(Type 3c).
Type 3a. Faras Type (Fig. 10)
It is clear that nearly all of the early Nubian
churcheswhich remainedin use after the middle
of the 8th Century were modified in conformity
89The inclusion of the Faras Rivergate Church(65)
in Type 2b may perhapsbe questioned,since Griffith's
reconstructionof its original form (LAAA 13 [1926]
PL 47:1) shows an eastern passage. However, from a
careful re-examination of the published plan and
descriptions(Ibid.66-73) I am convincedthat this and
one or two other featureshave been incorrectlyinter-
preted.
with a number of newly introduced canons. A
tribune was built within the apse, the altar was
moved from the apse to the presbyterium,and
the presbyteriumwas screened by a brick higab.
In addition, a vestibule was often screened from
the north aisle, and occasionally also from the
south aisle. In other respects, the older churches
Figure 10
retained their original architectural charac-
teristics, whether of Type 1 or of Type 2. Hence
the members of Type 3a as a group are highly
variable, reflecting their different typological
origins. The name "Faras Type" has been sug-
gested by the fact that a large number of
churchesat Faras East and West (60, 62, 63, 65,
67) underwent the transition from Type 1 or 2
to Type 3a.
There is only one clear-cut case in which an
eastern passage was added to an older building
(80, Phase 2) of which it was not an original
feature. The addition of an eastern passage
would of course involve a great deal more effort
than the other modificationsby which churches
were converted to Type 3a, and in most cases it
was obviously not consideredworthwhile.Hence
it is the absence of the eastern passage which
most consistently distinguishes the churches of
Type 3a from those of Types 3b and 3c.
Type description
Construction
Walls: cut stone, rough stone, or mud brick. Roof:
1 flat (6y, Phase 2), others vaulted. Domes not com-
mon. Roofsupport-,columnsin 1 case (6y), otherspiers.
Floors: flagstones in 3 cases, others mud. Interior
features:all mud brick.
Ill
External plan
Length: 14-25 m., avg. 20. Width: 3-aisle churches
9-13 m., avg. 12. 5-aisle churches (formerlyType ia)
19-23 m., avg. 21. Proportion:3-aisle churches1.42:1
to 2.00:1, avg. 1.63:1. 5-aisle churches 1.09:1 to
1.65:1 avg. 1.37:1. Entry: variable but usually sym-
metricalN and S ; originalW doorssometimesblocked
in churchesconverted from Type 1.
Internal plan
Eastern passage: added in 1 case (80, Phase 2); all
others none. Easternrooms: accordingto originalplan,
Type 1 or 2. Churchesformerly Type 2a have apse
longer than sacristies. Nave & aisles: according to
originalplan, Type 1 or 2. Numberpiers: 2-4. Western
rooms: according to original plan; however, narthex
in some churchesof Type ia convertedto 3 symmetrical
rooms. Entry to W rooms:accordingto original plan.
Often asymmetricalNW room entered from aisle, SW
room from W bay. Galleries: churchesconvertedfrom
Type 2a only.
Haikal
Form: apse. Niches: churchesconvertedfrom Type 2a
only. Entry to sacristies: usually from aisles only.
Earlier entries from apse blocked in most cases.
Tribune: yes. Sometimes partial tribune confinedto
back of apse, in churches formerly Type 2a. Tri-
umphal arch: variable; usually remained in situ if
originallypresent. Presbyterium: found in all churches
converted from Type 1 and from Type 2b. Not found
in churchesconverted from Type 2a, which had long
apse. Vestibule:common; usually in N aisle. Altar: in
presbyteriumin all churches converted from Type 1
and Type 2b. Usually remained in apse in churches
convertedfrom Type 2a. Higab: brick walls front and
sides in most cases, but not absolutely consistent.
Other details
Pulpit: usually 1st pier, N side of nave. 2nd pier in 2
cases. Stairs: NW or SW corner room, according to
originalplan,
Decoration
Carvedstone: only when left in place fromearliertimes.
Often damaged and plastered over. Frescoes: usual.
Churches
Typical: 59-2, 60-2, 62-2, 63-2, 65-2, 77-2, 78-2,
79-2, 84-2, 85-2. Aberrant:39-2, 44-2, 46-2, 67-2,
67-3, 80-2, Uncertain:55-2, 102-2, 108-2.
Time
c. 750-1100 A.D.
112
Area
All definite examples are from general Faras area.
Historical implications. The modifications
which were carried out in these churches are
attested by a great deal of clear-cut evidence:
whitewash on the apse wall behind the tribune,90
tombs directly beneath the tribune,91 early
entries from apse to sacristies which were later
blocked,92triumphal arches which were pulled
down when the haikal was enlarged,93 and
various other indications. All of them show that
the tribune and enlargedhaikalwere not original
features but later additions. Taken together,
they constitute some of the key evidence in
regard to the general direction of evolution in
the Nubian church. The haikal features which
were added in Type 3a were incorporated as
original, "standardequipment*'in nearly all the
churches built after the 8th Century. Their
historical significance will be discussed in con-
nection with Type 3c.
Type 3b. Abu Sir Type (Fig. 11)
This is a small group of churches which have
the eastern passage as an original feature, but
which apparently lack the enlarged haikal and
tribune. The type church is located at Abu Sir
(88), near the Second Cataract.
Type description
Construction
Walls: cut stone, rough stone, red or mud brick, or
combination. Roof: flat, vaulted, or domed. Roof
support:columnsfor flat roofs, piers for vaulted roofs.
Floors: flagstone or brick pavement common. Interior
features:rarely found; probably wood in most cases.
External plan
Length: 13-28 m., avg. 17. Width: 9-14 m., avg. 11.
Proportion: 1.18:1 to 2.00:1, avg. 1.55:1. Entry:
symmetricalN and S.
90In 67 and £5.
91In 78.
92In 59, 60, 63, 77, 78, and 80.
93 In
79.
Internal plan
Easternpassage:yes. Easternrooms:3 symmetrical,all
same length. Nave & aisles: approximately same
width. Number piers: usually 2. Westernrooms: 3
symmetrical.Entry to W rooms: usually from W bay.
Galleries: none known.
Haikal
Form: apse. Niches: no. Entry to sacristies: from aisles
only. Tribune:not found (possiblywood ?). Triumphal
Figure 11
arch: possible in 1 case (33); others no. Presbyterium:
certain in 1 case (33) only. Vestibule: 1 case (88) only.
Altar: never found, apparently always wood. Higab:
woodenin 1 case (33); others not found.
Other details
Pulpit: never found; always wood ? Stairs: NW or SW
cornerroom.
Decoration
Carvedstone: 1 case (33); probablynot usual.Frescoes:
i case (88) only; may not be original feature.
3 113
Churches
Typical: 18, 33, 45, 88 (type church). Aberrant:42.
Uncertain:50-1, g6, Ghazali-i.
Time
c. 750-850 A.D. ?
Area
All Nubia ?
Historical implications. These churches
might suggest anothertransitionalstage between
Type 2 and Type 3, assuming that the eastern
passage made its appearance earlier than the
enlarged haikal and tribune. In point of fact,
however, the total absence of secondary features
- not only higaband tribune, but also altar and
pulpit- seems to indicate that these items may
have been present, but made of wood. Hence it
is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about
the arrangement of the bema in Type 3b. A
wooden tribune of the usual conchoidal form
would have been difficult to build ; the presence
of this feature should certainly be regarded as
questionable. At all events the use of wood con-
struction was largely confined to the earlier
Nubian churches, and to that extent there is
reason to suppose that Type 3b belongs to the
early part of the Classic period.94
Type 3c. Tamil Type (Fig. 12)
This is the Classic Nubian church in its fully
developed and most typical form, with eastern
passage, tribune, and enlarged haikal. It re-
Figure 12
mained the basic regional type forfourcenturies,
with little or no modification. The type name is
taken from the important communityof Tamit,95
five of whose seven churches are of Type 3c.
94However,the absenceof the tribunecan not perse
be regardedas evidence of early date ; see n. 49 supra.
95See esp. Nub. Med. I 144-66.
114
Type description
Construction
Walls: usually mud brick; rough stone in extreme
north and south, Roof: vaulted, often with central
dome. 1 early example (69) had flat roof. 2 (48, 51) had
multiple domes. Roof support:piers (exc. 69). Floors:
usually mud; occasionallyflagstone. Interiorfeatures:
mud brick.
External plan
Length: 10-28 m., avg. 15. Width: 8-14 m., avg. 10.
Proportion:1.18:1 to 2.00: 1, avg. 1.41: 1. Entry: sym-
metrical N and S.
Internal plan
Eastern passage: yes. Eastern rooms: 3 symmetrical.
Nave & aisles: approximately same width. Number
piers: 1-3, usually 2. Westernrooms: 3 symmetrical.
Entry to W rooms: nearly always from W. bay.
Galleries:none known.
Haikal
Form: apse. Niches: no. Entry to sacristies: from aisles
only. Tribune:yes. Triumphalarch:no. Presbyterium:
yes. Vestibule:common in N aisle, occasional in S
aisle. Altar: in presbyterium; normally mud brick.
Higab: usually mud brick, front and sides.
Other details
Pulpit: ist pier, N side of nave. Mud brick. Stairs:
usually SW corner room; occasionally NW room in
northernNubia.
Decoration
Carved stone : no. Frescoes : usual.
Churches
Typical: 43, 47, 50-2, 51, 52, 64-1, 69, 82, 95, 100-2,
Ghazali-2, Nuri. Aberrant: 47a., 47b, 48, 118. Un-
certain?*20, 27, 28, 57, 71, 81, 91, 92, 97, 107, 109,
H4> 115-
Time
c. 800-1250 A.D.
Area
All Nubia, ist to 4th Cataracts.
Historical implications. As in each suc-
ceeding phase of Nubian church development,
the churchesof Type 3 are generally smallerand
shorter than those of Type 2. In other respects,
however, there are only two important archi-
tectural innovations in Type 3. One is the
eastern passage, which appears to be a purely
indigenous development.97 The other is the
central dome, which is distinctly of foreign
origin. It may have been present in at least one
church of Type 2b (84), but first became com-
mon in Type 3c. Its appearance in Nubia
perhaps reflects the development of the domed
basilica in the Near East.98
Aside from the dome, all of the elements
which distinguish the Classic Nubian church
(Type 3) from the Early Nubian church (Type 2)
have a common liturgical basis. They are all
connected in one way or another with the total
96The very largenumberof churcheswhich must be
listed as uncertainin Type 3c is due to the fact that in
denuded remains it is often difficult to recognize
tribune, presbyterium,and other haikal features.
97See GeneralConsiderations,infra.
98See Byz. Arch. 48-52.
8*
segregation of the bema from the naos. The
structure of the tribune filled up the apse, and
made necessary the removal of the altar to a
position further west ; hence the addition of the
presbyterium.The tribunelikewiseprecludedany
direct communication between apse and sac-
risties; hence the vestibule in the north aisle,
which provided a screened passage from the
haikal to the north sacristy. The eastern passage
served the same function in connecting the two
sacristies. It was thus possible to pass from any
part of the bema to any other part without
coming into the view of the congregation. This
is the basic consideration which is embodied in
Type 3.
The innovations of Type 3 seem to have been
adopted throughout Nubia within a very short
period, not only in the newly built churchesbut
in the older buildings as well (i.e. Type 3a).99
Collectively, they lend confirmation to the
historical account of Eutychius and Maqrizi,
that the Nubian church changed its affiliation
from Byzantine to Coptic at this time.100The
evidence is by no means conclusive, for the
eastern passage is a purely local development,
while the tribune as well as the segregated
haikal are to be found to some extent in all
Eastern churches.They are, however, more fully
and consistently developed in Monophysitethan
99However,there seem to have been a few churches
in which the tribune was not added until much later;
see n. 49 supra.
100There are conflicting accounts of the original
nature of Nubian Christianity- see Griffith,LAAA 13
(1926) 51-2 and Kirwan, The Oxford University
Excavations at Firka 49-51. John of Ephesus, a
contemporarythough biased observer,wrote that the
Nubian churchwas monophysite (i.e. Coptic)from the
beginning.Eutychius in the 10th Centuryand Maqrizi
in the 14th Century asserted that the Nubians were
originallyconvertedto the orthodoxMelkite sect, but
that after the Arab conquestof Egypt, as there was no
MelkitePatriarchof Alexandria,they asked the Coptic
Patriarchto send bishops to them, with the result that
the Nubian churchwas convertedto the monophysite
persuasion. According to Eutychius, this took place
77 years after the Arab conquest, or about 719 A.D.
Monneretde Villard (Aegyptus12 [1932] 309-16) has
adduced other evidence in support of the account of
Eutychius.
115
in Byzantine churches.101An alternative ex-
planation, if the Nubian church was indeed
Copticfrom the beginning,102 wouldbe to assume
that the tribune, segregated haikal, etc., were
first introduced both in Egypt and in Nubia in
the 8th Century. However, there is a good deal
of evidence that they were present in Egypt
much earlier;103hence the most logical explana-
tion for their general adoption in Nubia at this
time is to suppose that the Nubian church now
came under Egyptian and specifically Coptic
influence, as Eutychius would suggest.
There were other, secondary changes which
took place in Type 3, and which also resulted
directly or indirectly from the termination of
Byzantine rule and influence. One was the disap-
pearance of carved stone decoration from the
Nubian churches. In its stylistic derivations
this had always been Byzantine and Hellenistic
rather than Egyptian; indeed, in some of the
most elaborate churches the stone itself wTas
imported in finished form from the Aegean.104
It is therefore not surprising that there was an
immediate decline in stone decoration after the
Arab conquest of Egypt in 640-42. Within a
century or two it had disappeared altogether,
and frescoes (or other wall paintings) became the
sole technique of church decoration.
As Badawy105has pointed out, much of the
wood used in early Egyptian churches was also
of foreign origin, and this likewise became
increasingly scarce after the Arab conquest.
Hence we find a rapid decline in the use of wood
in Egypt, and still more in Nubia, from the 7th
Centuryonward.After the 9th Centuryvirtually
no wood at all was employed, and even the higab,
traditionally the most highly ornamented ele-
ment in the Coptic church,106was made of
simple mud brick. As a consequence of the
disappearance of wood and stone construction,
the flat roof and columns gave way altogether
101cf. Anc. Copt.I 35.
102As reportedby John of Ephesus;see n. 100supra.
103pYem, Egl. 8-9.
104Ibid. 10-12.
*» Ibid. 12.
106See ^4w£.Co£/. I 28-32; Guide12.
116
to vaulted construction.107This type of roofing
was later said to have canonical sanction,108but
its originaladoption appearsto have been neces-
sitated principally by a shortage of materials.
Type 4. Late Nubian (Serra Type)
(Fig- 13)
These buildings mark a radical departure in
the development of the Nubian church. They
are far smaller than any of their predecessors,
and much simpler in design. Their most con-
sistent and diagnostic features are external:
small size, nearly square plan, and the presence
of a central cupola projecting well above the line
of the roof.
Internal features vary considerably, but do
not group themselves readily into subtypes
(hence two alternative type plans are shown in
Fig. 13). In all but three cases there is no eastern
passage, and the sanctuary chamber is usually
rectangular rather than apsidal. It may still be
covered by a semi-domeresting on inserts at the
corners,but a plain longitudinal vault is equally
common.109 There is no tribune and no presbyter-
turn; the haikal is always confined to the
sanctuary chamber, and is screened from the
nave by a very low partition or not at all. Usually
there is no pulpit. The western rooms are not
consistently developed. In some cases there are
rooms at both corners, as in Types 2 and 3 ; in
others there is only a southwestern room, con-
taining the staircase; and in still others there
are no western rooms.
107In LowerNubia the last knownchurchto be built
with columns and a flat roof (69) was dedicated in
930 A.D. However, this method of constructionmay
have endured much longer farther south. In Upper
Nubia there are numerouschurcheswith columns (e.g.
Sai, Ginetti, Old Dongola, Artul, El Usheir), not yet
excavated, some of which appear to be of quite late
date.
108See n. 14 supra.
109The assertion of Mileham (Churches11, n.) and
Monneret de Villard (Nub. Med. Ill 3) that the rec-
tangular sanctuarychamberwas always coveredby a
semidomeis incorrect.
 The type name is taken fromthe late Christian
village of Serra East, where there are four
churches of Type 4 (73-76). These churches
correspondessentially to Somers Clarke'sType
B,110and are often called cupola churches.111
Type description
Construction
Walls: mud brick; some use of stone in extreme north.
Roof:vaulted with centralcupola. Semi-domeor plain
vault over sanctuary chamber. Roof support: piers.
Figure13
Floors: mud; stone and brick paving very rare.
Interiorfeatures: mud brick.
External plan
Length: 6-16 m., avg. 10. Width: 6-13 m., avg. 8.
Proportion: 1.00:1 to 1.55:1, avg. 1.22:1. Entry:
usually symmetrical N and S; occasionally one side
only.
110Christ.Ant. 32.
111e.g. Nub. Med. Ill 31-2.
Internal plan
Easternpassage: usually none. Easternrooms:3 sym-
metrical. Nave & aisles: approximately same width.
Numberpiers: 1 or 2. Westernrooms',variable; some-
times both corners, sometimes SW only, often none.
Entry to W rooms: from W bay, when present. Gal-
leries:none (exc. 74 ?).
Haikal
Form:usually rectangle,occasionallyapse. Niches: no.
Entry to sacristies: variable; may be from sanctury,
from aisles, or both. Often asymmetrical.Tribune:no.
Triumphal arch: no. Presbyterium: no. Vestibule:2
cases only. Altar: in sanctuary chamber.Always mud
brick. Higab: usually none; occasionally low brick
partition across mouth of sanctuarychamber.
Other details
Pulpit: rarelyfound. At NE side of nave when present.
Stairs:not consistent. In SWcornerroomwhenpresent.
Decoration
Carvedstone: none. Frescoes:apparently universal.
117
Churches
Typical: 30, 38, 73, 75, 76, 89, 90, in, n 3, H7-
Aberrant:J5, 29, 34, 40, 4g, 61, 66, 74, £5-3, 94, 99-
Uncertain:17, 22, 64-2, g8, 112.
Time
c. 1150-1400 A.D.
Area
1st Cataract to Dal; distribution farther south
uncertain.
Historical implications. These buildings
represent something of a paradox. Except for
the continued reduction in size and proportion,
they seem to mark a reversal of most of the
precedingtrends in Nubian churchdevelopment,
and a return to the norms of Type 2. The
parallels include the absence of the eastern
passage, absence of the tribune, haikal confined
to the sanctuary chamber and open to the view
of the nave, and direct communicationfrom the
sanctuary to one or both corner rooms. The
usually rectangular sanctuary chamber and the
frequent absence of western rooms seem to hark
back further still, to the churches of Type 1.
From a liturgical standpoint it is unlikely that
'
the Nubians really experiencedany ''archaizing'
sentiment, or that there was a narrowingof the
heirarchicalgap between clergy and laity. It is
much more probable that the opposite took
place : the betna,formerly confinedto the eastern
end of the church, was now considered to en-
compass the whole building. From this time
onward probably only the clergy and a few
priveleged laymen were admitted within the
church at all; public services were held outside.
This would account for the very small size of the
Type 4 churches, and also for the absence of the
segregated haikal, pulpit, and western rooms.
Throughout the history of the Nubian church
the bemahad been constantly expanding at the
expense of the naos (cf. Fig. 4), and the process
seemingly reached its logical and ultimate
conclusion in Type 4.
The churches of Type 4 have no counter-
parts in Egypt. As many writers have pointed
118
out,112the minority status of the Egyptian Copts
and the frequent persecution to which they were
subject made it imperative for them to confine
their religious activities within doors. On the
other hand the little cupola church has counter-
parts all over the Near East113as well as in
Greece,114and undoubtedly represents a wide-
spread development of the Middle Ages. The
idea must have spread directly from the Near
East to Nubia, by-passing Egypt where because
of special circumstances it was unsuitable.
Since the Nubian villages were under sporadic
attack from nomadic, Moslem raiders after the
12th Century, it might be argued that the
development of the unpretentious church of
Type 4 was prompted by considerations of
' "
protection. However, whatever 'anonymity
the buildings might have achieved as a result
of their small size would have been more than
offset by the conspicuous cupola with which
they were crowned. Moreover,their usually de-
tached, outlying situation left them especially
vulnerable to depredation.
Unlike any of the previous architectural de-
velopments in the Nubian church, the intro-
duction of Type 4 was essentially a revolutionary
rather than an evolutionary change. There is
hardly a suggestion of atransition fromType 3.115
There is only one fairly clear-cut instance of a
church of Type 3 being converted to Type 4 (85,
Phase 3).116Rather, the relationshipbetween the
two types was in the beginning supplementary.
Probably no new churches on the Classic plan
were built after 1200 A.D., but many of the
older buildings remained in use without modi-
112e.g. Anc. Copt. I 11-13; Badawy, I'Art Copte
7-9; Guide19.
113See esp. Nub. Med. Ill 46-7, Fig. 37; E. B.
Smith, The Dome, Fig. 201-2.
114Byz. Arch. 100-101, 105.
115However, the churches at El Oqba (29) and
Sinesra (40) seem to be transitional examples; they
have the proportionsof Type 3 as well as the presby-
terium, but have lost the eastern passage and the
tribune.In eachcasethe formof the sanctuarychamber
is somethingbetween an apse and a rectangle.
116The Mastaba Churchat Faras (64) is a second
possible example.
fication for another century, so that it was not
until the very close of the Christianperiod that
Type 4 became the uniform Nubian church
type.117
Type ?5. Epitype (Fig. 14)
This designationis given to two tiny buildings,
at Abd el Qadir (86)118and Diffinarti (104),
which may well have been the last churches
built in Nubia. They are even smaller than the
Figure 14
churches of Type 4, and differ from them in
having the sanctuary and sacristies combinedin
a single transverse chamber entered through a
doorway at the east end of the nave.119Like most
117The Basilica at Kasr Ibrim (59), built in the 6th
or 7th Century, may have remained in use until the
end of Nubian Christianity;see Plumley, ILN July 11,
1964, 5O-54-
118The basic plan of this church is somewhat ob-
scured by the fact that side chapels were added to
both the north and south sides; cf. Griffith,LAAA 15
(1928) PL 25 and Nub. Med. I Fig. 210. They are not
shown in Fig. 14.
119The parallel examples cited by Monneret de
Villard (Nub.Med. Ill 1-2) from Egypt and elsewhere
are actually of much earlier date, and are probably
relatedhistoricallyto Type ?oratherthan to Type ?5.
of the churches of Type 4, they lack the pulpit
and western cornerrooms. Two churchesnot yet
excavated, at Attiri (no) and Kulb (116), may
also belong to Type ?5. Both of them, as well as
the churches of Abd el Qadirand Diffinarti, are
decorated with frescoes.
The date of the Abd el Qadir church has
always been a mystery, although there is a good
deal of evidence for regardingit as late.120In the
case of Diffinarti and Attiri, however, there is
no question that these were among the last
surviving Christiansettlements in Nubia. Both
of them were built on steep, rocky islands in
the Nile, and in each case the church occupied
the topmost pinnacle. There seems to be little
doubt here that defense was the principal con-
sideration governing the design and location of
the church.
In the churches of Type ?5 the process of
diminution has just about reached its possible
limit. The "aisles" at Abd el Qadir and Dif-
finarti are barely wide enough for a man to turn
around. In other respects, the evolution of the
Nubian churchseems to have completed a circle:
the combination of sanctuary and sacristies in a
120Griffith, LA A A 15
(1928) j8-g;Bissing, MittKairo
7 (1937) 160.
119
single chamber harks all the way back to the
Prototype churches (Type ?o). The resemblance
can be seen at a glance by a comparison of the
two Abd el Qadir churches (86, 87) shown in
Figs. 5 and 14. Finally, it will be noted that the
Diffinarti church (104; Fig. 14), like the earliest
churchesof Type 1, was entered through a single
door at the west.
III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
"Let the building be long with its head to the
east, with its vestries on both sides of the east
end, and so it will be like a ship. In the middle
let the bishop's throne be placed, and on each
side of him let the presbytery sit down; and let
the deacon stand near at hand, with closely girt
garments, for they are like the mariners and
managers of the ship. In accordance with their
arrangement let the laity sit on the other side
with all quietness and good order. And let the
women sit by themselves, they also keeping
silence. In the middle let the reader stand upon
some high place. . ."
Apostolic Constitutions, II, ch. 57121
(c. 380 A.D.)
In these injunctions, written down nearly two
centuries before the introduction of Christianity
to Nubia, we can recognize most of the basic
liturgical "ground rules" which were later to
govern the form of the Nubian church. To a
considerable extent they remained constant
throughout the whole of the Christian period.
They were not, however, expressed architectural-
ly in the same way at all times; what we see in
the overall evolution of the Nubian church is a
continuing re-interpretation of the liturgical
rules in response to a variety of foreign and local
influences.These can not be considered at length
within the frameworkof the present article, but
it is worthwhile to review briefly the main
outlines of architecturaldevelopment in terms of
its historical sources.
121Quoted from Finnegan, Light from the Ancient
Past 416-17.
120
Resumeof Evolutionary Trends
Formal Evolution
In its external and structural characteristics,
the Nubian church followed a consistent, es-
sentially linear course of development from
beginning to end. The earliest true churches
(Type 1) were large, long, and narrow; at each
succeeding phase they became smaller and
shorter relative to width, until the last churches
(Type ?5) were of minute proportionsand virtu-
ally squarein plan. On the average,the areathey
covered was less than 10% of that of their early
predecessors.
In architecture, too, there was a fairly con-
sistent simplification, and an increasing con-
sistency in the use of mud brick for all elements
of the church. Cut stone construction, carved
stone decoration, monolithic columns, flagstone
floors, and wooden furniture all disappearedin
the course of the centuries, until in the latter
part of the Christian period most Nubian
churches contained virtually no material save
mud brick.
In its internal plan, the Nubian church, like
many other elements in Nubian culture, seems
almost to have followed a circular course of
development.122Beginning with the combined
sanctuary and sacristies of the Prototype
churches (Type ?o), we see the development of
the distinct but not segregated sanctuary
chamber (occasionally rectangular) in Type 1,
the standardized apse, with direct communi-
cation to the sacristies, in Type 2, and then the
elaborate, segregated haikal of Type 3, with its
eastern passage, tribune, presbyterium,and full
higab. At this point the trend is abruptly re-
versed: in Type 4 the eastern passage, the
tribune, and the presbyteriumare gone; the
sanctuary is usually rectangular in form, and
communicates directly with one or both sac-
risties. In Type ?5 the sanctuary and sacristies
are once again combined in a single transverse
chamber.
122por a discussion of cyclic repetition in Nubian
cultural history see Adams, JEA 50 (1964) 102-120;
JEA 51 (1965) i6off.
 A similarprocess may be seen in the evolution
of the west end of the church. The earliest true
churches (Type i) were entered at the west end,
and had no separate corner rooms. These,
together with north-south entry, were adopted
in Type 2 and remainedstandard in Type 3. The
cornerrooms largely disappearedin Type 4, and
in at least one church of Type ?5 (104) there was
a return to a western entry.
Liturgical Evolution
From a liturgical standpoint, we can be fairly
certain that there was no reversal in the trend of
evolution in the Nubian church. In the earliest
buildings the division between clergy and laity
may have been ill-defined; there was almost
certainly no physical barrier between the two.
The triumphal arch symbolically marked the
boundary between naos and haikal. The higab,
which secluded the haikal from the view of the
congregation, seems to have been adopted in
Type 2, although it was not an original feature
of its earliest members.123
In Types the bemawas
extended by the inclusion of the presbyterium,
vestibule, and eastern passage, in addition to the
apse and sacristies. In Types 4 and ?5 it seems
to have been further extended to include the
whole church. This process of development is
illustrated schematically in Fig. 4.
The question as to whether the Nubian church
was originally Byzantine (i.e. dyophysite) or
Coptic (monophysite) in its affiliations has been
debated since medieval times.124Unfortunately,
the architectural evidence does not furnish a
conclusive answer. In the 6th Century, when the
Nubian church was founded, the schism between
dyophysites and monophysites had existed for
some 200 years, but the two had not yet de-
veloped recognizably distinct architectural tra-
ditions. In Egypt, they were frequently com-
peting for control of the same churches and
monasteries.125 Nevertheless, the weight of
architectural evidence supports the belief that
123See n. 30 supra.
124See n. 100 supra.
125See esp. Hardy, ChristianEgypt 111-58.
the early Nubian church was Byzantine, and
that it adopted the Coptic affiliation after the
Arab conquest of Egypt had made further com-
munication with Byzantium impossible. Sug-
gestive indications include the adoption of the
non-Egyptian cross-in-squaredesign in Type 2,
and the wave of modifications in the haikal in
Type 3, which would have correspondedto the
introduction of the specifically Coptic liturgy.
Whatever its origins, we know that the Nubian
church,like its neighborsin Egypt and Ethiopia,
was securely Coptic from the 8th Century until
its disappearance600 years later.
The gradual expansion of the bema, until in
Types 4 and ?5 it included the whole church
building, suggests that Nubian Christianitywas
becoming increasingly esoteric with the passage
of the centuries. We are conscious of an ever-
growing separation between clergy and laity,
with a decline in the role and importance of the
latter in religious observances. In this trend the
Nubian church was only following the course of
medieval Christianity in general. In Nubia,
however, where after the 12th Century the
church lacked the backing of a strong state or
central organization, the effect must ultimately
have been fatal. With no firm base of support,
either political or popular, it is not surprising
that Nubian Christianity disintegrated in the
15th Century.126
It might be argued that the continuing re-
duction in the size of church buildings reflects a
decline in the total population and a shrinking
of the congregations.However, we know that in
the late Christianperiod there was a heavy con-
centration of the Nubian population in a few
defensive localities, so that those communities
which remained inhabited were actually in-
creasingratherthan diminishingin size.127Hence
the form of the late churches can only be in-
126The weight of archaeological and historical
evidence suggests that Nubian Christianityultimately
disappearedmore as a result of internal decay than
of Islamicpressure.SeeCrowfoot,JEA 13 (1927)147-8;
Musad,SudanNotesand Records40 (1959)125; Adams,
JEA 51 (1965) i6off. and JEA 52 (1966) in press.
127See Adams,JEA 51 (1965) 160ff.
121
dicative of a lack of public interest and parti-
cipation in church activities. Whether this was
due to public apathy or to the exclusiveness of
the clergy, or both, the effect upon the semi-
theocratic fabric of Nubian society128must have
been the same.
Historical Influences
Egyptian Relationships
The classical basilica, the earliest common
form of church building throughout the Orient,
was probably not of Egyptian origin.129Never-
theless the form was certainly imported into
Nubia directly fromEgypt , alongwith Christiani-
ty itself. The first true churches in Nubia
(Type 1) are indistinguishable from those in
contemporary Egypt, and were probably de-
signed and built by Egytian architects. The
internal or concealed apse, which remained a
constant feature of the Nubian church, may
actually have been an Egyptian innovation.130
After the appearance of Nubian Type 2, in
the 7th Century, the influence of Egypt upon
Nubian church architecture was surprisingly
slight. The three apse niches in Type 2a may be
cited as a specifically Egyptian element ;131how-
ever, in Nubia they were never incorporatedin
any subsequent churches, whereas in Egypt
they have remained a standard feature until
the present day.132The tribune and the haikal
modifications which accompanied it in Type 3
were likewise introduced from Egypt, although
not necessarily originated there. Once again,
their use was later discontinued in Nubia (in
Types 4 and ?5) but not in Egypt.133
128See Monneret de Villard, Storia della Nubia
Cristiana 158-68.
129Although Badawy (VArt Copte 2-3) suggests an
original Egyptian inspiration for the Hellenistic and
Roman basilica, which in turn became the model for
the earliest churches.
130cf. Badawy, I'Art Copte <s~1-
131A nc. Copt. I 35; Prem. Egl. 9; Badawy, VArt
Copte 10.
132See Guide 12.
133Ibid.; Anc.
Copt. I 35.
122
A characteristicwhich Nubian and Egyptian
churches conspicuously share is the unimposing
exterior and setting of the building. In Egypt,
this has usually been explained in terms of the
minority status of the Copts and their need to
remain inconspicuous in order to avoid perse-
cution.134The same explanation can not be
offered for Nubia, where the church remained
formally established and largely secure from
enemy threats until the latter part of the 12th
Century.135Whether the Nubians blindly fol-
lowed the lead of the Egyptian church in this
peculiarity, or whether the unprepossessingex-
terior of the church was dictated by some more
positive canonical sanction, remains to be
learned. Certainly the Nubian church never
went so far as the Egyptian in its quest for
anonymity, for it always stood apart on conse-
crated ground, whereas the Coptic church in
Egypt is frequently encumbered by secular
dwellings on two or three sides.136
Fresco painting, in the typically elongate
Coptic style, must be cited as a final instance of
Egyptian influencewhich persistedin the Nubian
church until the end.137Probably the paintings
were executed in many cases by Egyptian
artists, for they are often accompaniedby Coptic
texts which would probably have been unknown
and unintelligible to Nubians.138
Much more surprising than the corre-
spondences are the non-correspondences be-
tween Nubian and Egyptian churches.The most
conspicous of these are the tri-foliate apse,
popular especially in early Egypt,139and later
the tri-apsal church. This latter form, in which
the sacristies are replaced by subsidiary chapels
on either side of the haikal, has become one of
134Anc. Copt. I 11-13; Guide 19; Badawy, VArt
Copte 7-9.
135See Adams, JEA 51 (1965) i6off.
136Anc. Copt. I 12-13.
137For a discussion of the evolution of Nubian
fresco painting, as evidenced in the successive re-
decorations of the Cathedral at Faras (67), see Micha-
lowski, op. cit. (supra n. 61).
138Since Coptic was never adopted as the liturgical
language of Nubia; see Griffith, LAAA 13 (1926) 53-4.
139cf. Prem.
Egl. 9.
the most widespread and distinctive features of
the Coptic church.140The fact that nothing of
the sort is found in Nubia suggests that the
triapsal church of Egypt was a development of
the later Middle Ages, after the disappearance
of Christianity from Nubia.141
Another Egyptian development, very proba-
bly associated with the triapsal form, is the
multiple-dome church (Somers Clarke's Type
C142).These buildings are made up of clusters of
small square "units," each covered by a low
dome. Their plan is usually asymmetrical, and
the breadth frequently exceeds the length. No
such churchesare found in Nubia;143like the tri-
apsal design, they would appear to be a develop-
ment post-dating the Christianperiod in Nubia.
Still another common Egyptian feature which
never made its appearance in Nubia is the
sceened chancel independent of the haikal.lu
Again, it may have been a later development.
For their part, the Nubian churches exhibit a
number of characteristicswhich are not found in
Egypt. These include the western cornerrooms,
north-south entry, the eastern passage, and the
cupola church (Types 4 and ?5). For their origin
we must look beyond Egypt, or to Nubia itself.
Near Eastern Relationships
As was noted earlier, the Classic plan of the
Nubian church (Type 3) seems to represent a
fusion of the domed basilica and cross-in-square
plans. Both designs probably originated in
Syria or Asia Minor.145However, the basilica
was introduced by way of Egypt, whereas the
cross-in-square is never found in Egypt, and
must be regarded as a direct influence from the
Near East upon the Nubian church.
Perhaps the closest parallel to the Classic
Nubian plan is to be found in the churches of
140Anc. Copt.I 32-3; Prern.Egl. 10.
141Prem. Egl. 10.
142Christ.Ant. 32, 109-10.
143The church at Kaw (45) may have been roofed
entirely with domes, but in other respects its plan was
typically Nubian.
jU cf. Anc. Copt.I 24-7; Prem. Egl. 8; Guide11.
145Byz. Arch. 24, 51, 54, 58.
upland Asia Minor,which are essentially basili-
can with an internal apse,146and which often
have side entries and western corner rooms.
This design has been called Anatolian.147How it
was transmitted to Nubia is not clear. It should
be mentioned that the same plan is found at
Tolemaidein North Africa.148
The little cupola church (Types 4 and ?5),
which became dominant in Nubia at the close of
the Christian period, is another development
which seemingly came direct from Syria or
Palestine. Its ultimate sources are probably to
be found in Syrian tombs and mortuary
chapels.149The fact that nothing comparableis
found in Egypt shows clearly that until the
end of its history the Nubian church was in
active contact with other churches besides the
Alexandrian.
Ethiopian Relationships
No study of the Nubian churchwould be com-
plete without some consideration of its power-
ful and long-established southern neighbor,
the church of Ethiopia. There is no record of
any formal contact between the two bodies,
but for more than 600 years they were subject
to the same Patriarch of Alexandria, and some
parallels should certainly be expected, in archi-
tecture as well as in liturgy.
The great majority of the modern Ethiopian
churches post-date the end of Christianity in
Nubia. There are, however, about a dozen sur-
viving older buildings which invite comparison
with the churches of Nubis and Egypt. They
include the renowned rock-cut churches of
Lalibela and vicinity,150 and the more con-
ventional churches of Debra Damos,151Debra
146Ibid. 69.
147Rice, ByzantineArt 61.
148See E. B. Smith, TheDome,Fig. 213-15.
149cf. Byz. Arch.24; E. B. Smith, op. cit. 50-60, Fig.
57, 78; Nub. Med. Ill 46-7.
150See esp. Monti della Corte, Lahbela; Findlay,
TheMonolithicChurchesof Lalibela;Buxton, Archaeo-
logia 92 (1947) 22-34.
161Buxton, op. cit. 6-13 ; Krencker,DeutscheAksum-
ExpeditionII 168-94, P1- 24~6-
123
Libanos,152Asmara (now destroyed),153 and
Imraha.154All of them date, in all probability,
between the ioth and the 13th Century.165
The early Ethiopian churches are for the most
part basilican in plan,156with a simple rectangu-
lar outline. The proportions are about the same
as in the contemporary Nubian church (aver-
aging about 1.50:1), although the absolute size
is often considerably larger. In details of con-
struction they seem to offer a unique blend of
Egyptian, Nubian, and purely native influences.
'
The highly ornate, ''multi-faceted' exteriors157
are decidedly un-Nubian and un-Egyptian, and
probably hark back to the pre-Christianpalaces
of Axum.158Nearly all of the churcheshave doors
in the north and south walls, in the same
position where they are normally found in the
Nubian church, and also in the center of the
west wall, as in the Egyptian and very early
Nubian churches. Very often there are western
corner rooms, one of which contains a stairway.
In some cases the entrances to the cornerrooms
are asymmetrical (one from the aisle and one
from the western bay) as in Nubian Type 2a.
None of the Ethiopian churches includes
either an apse or a tribune,159and the sacristies
152Buxton, op. cit. 13-14, PI. 3.
15aLupke, in Krencker,op. cit. (supran. 151) 195-8,
PL 27.
154Buxton, op. cit. (supran. 150) 14-21, PI. 4-5.
155The chronological evidence is reviewed in
Buxton, op. cit. (supran. 150) 13-23; Findlay, op. cit.
(supra n. 150) 35-41; and Monti della Corte, op. cit.
(supran. 150) 111-20.
156cf. Buxton, op. cit. (supra n. 150) 12-13; Mon-
neret de Villard,Atti del 30 Congressodi Studi Coloniali
1937, IV *37 et>seq-
157See Buxton, op.cit. (supra n. 150) PL 1-9;
Findlay, op. cit. (supran. 150) PL 1-2; Krencker,op.
cit. (supran. 151) PL 24-5; Monti della Corte, op. cit.
(supra n. 150) Plates, passim.
168Buxton, op. cit. (supran. 150) 3-5.
169Curiously enough, the earliest plan of Biet
Maryam at Lalibela, published by Alvarez in 1568
(Findlay, op. cit. 13; Monti della Corte op. cit. 36)
shows a typical Coptictri-apsal arrangement,and also
shows apses in the neighboringchurchesof Biet Mascal
and Biet Dengel. They must have been suppliedby the
author'simagination,for nothing suggestiveof an apse
is visible in the present-dayplans, and the buildings,
124
are entered in most cases directly from the
rectangular sanctuary chamber. In all these
respects there is a clear resemblance to the
simple rectangular haikal of Type 4 in Nubia,
which was coming into use at about the same
time when the Lalibela churches were built.
Some of the smaller monolithic churches at
Lalibela and Bilbola have other points of
resemblance to Type 4.160 However, many
Ethiopian churchesretain the triumphalarch;161
a feature which disappearedcenturies earlier in
Nubia.
The rock-cut churches of Ethiopia are often
supposed to have been the work of Egyptian
artisans.162Nevertheless, in the sum of their
characteristics they show more affinity to con-
temporary Nubia than to Egypt. In such fea-
tures as the design of the haikal, the placement
of the north and south doors, and the western
rooms, there must certainly have been a con-
tinuity of tradition uniting the two areas. Which
influencedwhich is a question to be answered in
the future; it should lead to a great deal of
fascinating and long-neglected field research.
AutonomousDevelopments
What did Nubia itself contribute to the
evolution of its native church? Amid all the
complex of architectural variables, only one
stands out as a purely local innovation: the
eastern passage. Monneretde Villard163devoted
a good deal of space to the discussion of this
feature, citing a number of parallels outside
Nubia- only to conclude that none of them had
any bearing on the Nubian eastern passage,
which was in fact a bona fide Nubian innovation.
being cut from the living rock, could not have been
altered since Alvarez' time.
160e.g. Biet Abba Libanos at Lalibela and Biet
Georgis,Biet Kierkos, and Biet Arvatensa at Bilbola.
See Montidella Corte,op. cit. (supran. 150) 71, Sj, 89,
92.
161cf. Buxton, op. cit. (supran. 150) 12-13.
162Ibid., 23; Findlay, op. cit. (supran. 150) 39-41;
Monti della Corte, op. cit. (supran. 150) 19-21.
163Nub. Med. Ill 3-8.
This view must undoubtedly be accepted as
correct.164
It would be a mistake to suppose that the
eastern passage had any major liturgical im-
portance; it was simply a convenient and private
way of getting from one sacristy to the other.
164Badawy (I*Art Copteg) cites the easternpassage
as a characteristicof the Egyptian church, and states
that it was adopted for defensive reasons. Both as-
sertions are incorrect. The eastern passage is not
found in any Egyptian church outside Nubia, and in
Nubia itself it is only found from the 8th to the 13th
Centuries- the period when Nubia was most secure
from Moslem depredation. As a defensive feature it
should be encounteredin Types 4 and ?5, from which
it is notably absent, rather than in Type 3.
Although its use became general in churches
built after the 8th Century,it was not considered
worthwhile, except in one case, to add it to the
earlierchurcheswhich remainedin use. It disap-
peared again in the Late Nubian church.
For the rest, the Nubian church followed the
example of Nubian culture throughout the ages :
it made few original contributions, but achieved
a distinctive and vigorous local integration of
elements derived from many differentsources.166
Antiquities Service, Khartoum
165The main outlines of Nubian cultural evolution
are reviewedin Adams,JEA 50-52 (1964-66).
125
 a ^ *> 1 & % i I i 1 1 ".
| & £ i t i * I !P

-3 ^^^ od^. -Sri. I^'s^l

^
2i I a" Sv *! .E. H^ll
^^ r * * . _;^ ^S.^ ^1*5. SI
« ! s il »s
{ ip jlSrJI

°
MT...fft<.0H>!t<_;6vieR«1fviNikJ)<5voS •§,*•" T -I'll S?

§w i „
a if a| |
. % a, (i, Ci (i <4hcL,cL, d »3g § ff § ||

3 i iltliJ I i » 1 ill! I HI
Ill t^i^l -IS :

1| Sffll^l
3 u *a«g«a ^
tiillii!
S 8 Illl 5 | rf
Id

126
 S ***M% I i 51 5-* 55551 f S

Oh & d, A ? a a, «
^

1 s. tl- il I 4 IJ III

C^NWN^N M NN CO CO CO COCOCO COCOCOCOCO Tj-

g<H<M

127
 « m§§ -| I "e -k * -a 3 3 :g

o-. o3 °^ CO ^-^ ct Cd!

«
*^
?* ?' °-
' '
°- ^? n-. o-. ?
* * jl «, ICt'
f*i S^rOfOcSfO H ro ^Ocoro ^co co ro (M^-H N CO <M

i iff 1 1 it i! I Iti f !

SkSh N ^ ^4- ^ ^ ^ c^tvoo <^O H c^ cotJ-iO vO ^ 00 O^

128
 $t
H2J133J3* * * t t^.i l- IR *

!lij i i J i 5 i "»*r4( pi t
mi? ?! f K i i PM I m i
mmm^ i mm ? «^ ?£^
l^°s^
!s.15Hi5=j!s.§Ji? Ssl?s ?

IIlIillMlt
' I I I I 1 rv. ^iru
•^

i i I ! !h I j i.]t
^ w Cw k^
^

8 .
g^O H N CO ^lOVO ^s COC^OHM

9 129
 n on ^ S r« 3 a; ^ 4t- "V» ^ oo H ^* ^t-H

r^i i* ft m n 4«i I! ~*. h

^* ^ ^ ii ts.iUi lit i ^
e^a ?^ |r "1" ^lj^ III ?| f5

I
r-H

^^ ill I! 1 i^nS"

9!

,1 . . .
1 5 .ja ,1 .

S fc! fc •§ -S -^ 8 ra : .3 'd

t% tx c% t^ c^ noo 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
g<i>N

130
 * ^ ^ .* ¥o * 15 *1* 1
2 ^ s* i n s ?* l*s i

?PP i I f« 1 1
i If (3 sIll^lS 'HI &

man mtm i« m

!!!ffilllll!il
CO ri-. o3 ^^
^^

^* w-OJ °- °- ^'
MCO Tf ^" fO fO ^ CO CO COM" Tf C^<^

ill nil! t
III 12 ! £ & I

s si? I I .-I
;

t! 5 •

if tlr !l Si j] il
n
S ^ oo C^ O HM fO t|- 10^0 I>nOO C^ OH OJ ^OTfm
r^f^oooo qn c^cS^^^c^o^c^o^ oo o ooo
C,,j V-i Y-i 1-4 H h4 )-l

9* 131
 h3 co co co So

a H 1 I ^
3 ^ ^ ^ *
-< c4 co ^ © *>
oJ n o* '.s ^
c; 8 <* <* 4 ^ . ^
^ w § ft *>•
bi .S? .SP H
en to to to to eo en ^JO rg E E h§ H ^

*
-iiili3ii* ^ S i5i*s

2.JJJJJ5JJ*^ 2 S
-
1 i^-
g<13<^S<!<f
H- * io c n n di 01 di n a
g, ^.
>o cf, n
'J« ^I'/.'Vn
^^iri
3 - g f>
12

1 3 n^n^co^^ K^ S^ B| | lal^^1 ^^^

« fe; ^ k! !^ ^ ^J k! ^ kl kj S 5 £.0 vtio ^^ ^ « ^W^^oo^^fe;

^ n^>_.^_- - *w
?s oil o.. rv. o.. O-. O-. rv.. n..
^ ^ CO -i- ^

I s *

1i^3 ?? Ill
s

« -I

^ B|as!J fl 3 |
•« ^ as| | I
O HHHHHHHHHH H H H
^ ^ g g J^^ [^ (§

132
 i £ 1 ?
cj s q a) iX

12, 8" IS
s
it *£* - 3
SI * B'i& "Si

^3^| -iS-s- "

»| I 3
J3h 2 ^ ^^^ ^2sn -a

4 4 ^
. . .?°°? A
ID iO " ^t"J^0O T5 6 6 O
. r • -£lQ • • • •- •""*&
6 H CO i < 00 00 00 00 O • fOS bp^H .00*
^f oo" On

HHHHH 0^lOH >-4 h-4 i-4 h* i-i )-* .^•^HHhHI^>^^I^JfJ)Oo'[i|'sgN'^JHH(r5H-4

K i^CO^ .<O CO0^ ^ .•^•^•^hSSS .09

f»^ o-. o-» r»». rv» rv. o-, <-v. o-. r»-» o-« o.. o-» n- (r) rv« CO COn" rv* rVt °" rv* °*# n" rk" °" ru* rv* rv#

I si

Infill1 liafliill ill^ll.illL

133
 LIST OF NUBIAN CHURCHES
TABLE II. CHRONOLOGICAL
Church
No. Locality Church Phase1 Dates2 Basisz
TYPE ?o
37 Karanog House 9 6-7 Centuries P
87 Abd el Qadir 5-0-14 Early 7 Century P

TYPET
2 Philae Eri-Hems-Nufer
8 Bigeh Temple Late 6 Century I
13 Kalabsha Beit el Wali 8 Century? E
14 ,, Augustus Temple
32 Wadi Sebua Temple - 795 - I
35 Amada Temple - 1020 - I
36 Derr Temple
72 Aksha Temple 600-1100 P

TYPE ia
Typical
6 Philae Eastern 6 Century ? I
39 Kasr Ibrim Basilica 1 6-7 Centuries E
55 Gebel Adda Basilica 1 700 - I
67 Faras West Cathedral 1 c. 600 - S

Uncertain
68 Faras West Under Cathedral 6 Century S

TYPE ib
Typical
7 Philae Western - 753 - I

Aberrant
12 Sitte Gasma

Uncertain
26 Ikhmindi Central 1 6 Century E
46 Tamit Basilica (1)
1 Phase number in parentheses indicates separation of phases is hypothetical, not based on conclusive
archaeologicalor architecturalevidence.
2 Dash before date means "up to. . ."; dash after date means ". . .and after." Question mark means date
based on very small sample of pottery, or on dubious reading of inscription.
3 E = excavator'sestimate (cf. originalsourcescited in Table I). F = Frescoes. I = Inscription (cf. original
sourcescited in Table I). P = Pottery or pottery illustrationsexamined by the author. S - Stratigraphy.

134
 Church
No. Locality Church Phase1 Dates2 Basis*
TYPE 2a
Typical
59 Qustul (i)
60 Faras East Riverside 1 7-9 Centuries? P
62 Faras West No. Desert (1)
63 „ So. Desert (1) 6-7 Centuries E
77 Serra East Basilica (1)
78 Debeira West Hammam el Farki 1

Aberrant
41 Tokor
80 Sahaba - .. 1 P
9 Century?
Uncertain
23 Dibger
101 Gemai West Qasrantawu 6 Century P
108 SemnaWest 16-E-19 (1) 8 Century? P

TYPE 2b
Typical
44 Arminna Monastery 1
53 Abdallah Nirqi Southern 900-1100 P- F
65 Faras West Rivergate 1
79 Debeira West 24-R-44 1 8-9 Centuries P
84 Buhen South 1 7 Century? - P
85 Meinarti 1 7 Century S
102 MurshidWest 1 8 Century P

Aberrant
26 Ikhmindi Central 2

Uncertain
56 Gebel Adda No. Contiguous
100 Meili Island 1

TYPE 3a
Typical
59 Qustul (2)
60 Faras East Riverside 2 7-9 Centuries P
62 Faras West No. Desert (2) - 881 - I
9 Century P
63 „ So. Desert (2) 9 Century P

135
Church
No. Locality Church Phase1 Dates2 Basts*
TYPE 3a (cont.)
65 Paras West Rivergate 2 1181 - I
12 Century P
77 Serra East Basilica (2)
78 Debeira West Hammam el Farki 2 - 1029 - I
79 „ 24-R-44 2 8-9 Centuries P
84 Buhen South 2 7-10 Centuries? P
85 Meinarti 2 c. 725-1200 P

Aberrant
39 Kasr Ibrim Basilica 2
44 Arminna Monastery 2 10-11 Centuries? P
46 Tamit Basilica (2)
67 Faras West Cathedral 2 707 - I
3 c 950-1200 P-S
80 Sahaba 2 12 Century ? P

Uncertain
55 Gebel Adda Basilica 2
102 MurshidWest 2 9-11 Centuries P
108 Semna West 16-E-19 (2)

TYPE 3b
Typical
18 Saba Gura Southern
33 Nag Abdallah
45 Kaw
88 Abu Sir 7-8 Centuries P

Aberrant
42 Er Ramal 4-Apse 9-1 1 Centuries? P

Uncertain
50 Tamit Necropolis (1) 11 Century - I
96 Abkanarti Exterior
Ghazali 1 8 Century - P

TYPE 3c
Typical
43 Er Ramal Monastery
47 Tamit Middle 11-13 Centuries? P
50 „ Necropolis (2)

136
Church
No. Locality Church Phase1 Dates2 Basis*
TYPE 3c (cont.)
51 Gindinarri 11 Century? P
52 Abdallah Nirqi Northern
64 Faras West Mastaba 1 8-9 Centuries? P
69 „ South Kom 930 - I
82 Gezira Dabarosa 9-12 Centuries P
95 Abkanarti Fortress 10-12 Centuries P
100 Meili Island 2 11-12 Centuries P
Ghazali 2 - 11 Century P

Aberrant
47a Tamit St. Paul
" Beside Sheikh
47b
" Sheikh
48
118 Kulb Domed 12-13 Centuries? P

Uncertain
20 Gerf Hussein Faqirdib
27 Ikhmindi Southern 7-9 Centuries? P
28 Esh Sheima
57 Gebel Adda So. Contiguous
71 Faras West Nabindiffi
81 Deir el Bollor
91 Gaminarti 9-10 Centuries? P
92 Matuga
97 Tinonamman
107 Semna West 16-E-16 9-10 Centuries? P
109 Semna East 16-E-8
114 Sonki East 24-I-10
115 Ukma East 9-10 Centuries P

TYPE 4
Typical
30 Sheima Amalika
38 Kasr Ibrim Cupola
73 Serra Fortress Northern 13-14 Centuries P
75 ,, Southeast 13-14 Centuries P
76 „ Southwest 13-14 Centuries P
89 Kasr Iko Northwest 13 Century P
90 „ Southeast 13 Century P
in Duweishat West 13 Century? P
113 Sonki East 21-I-5
117 Kulb Kulubnarti 13-14 Centuries P

137
 Church
No.- Locality Church Phase1 Dates2 Basis*
TYPE4(cont.)
Aberrant ..--..
15 Kalabsha Western
29 El Oqba 11 Century4 E
13 Century P
34 Ed Doma
40 Sinesra 11-1 2 Centuries? P
49 Tamit Angels 9-1 1 Centuries?4 I
61 Faras East Desert
66 Faras West Citadel 8-10 Centuries4 E
74 Serra Fortress Central 13-14 Centuries P
85 Meinarti 3 c. 1200-1350 P- S
94 Kisinarti 12 Century? P
99 Gendal Irki Western 8494 I
12 Century P

Uncertain
ij Saba Gura Northern
22 Gerf Hussein Mediq
64 Faras West Mastaba 2
98 Gendal Irki Eastern
112 Sonki West

TYPE ?5
Typical
86 Abd el Qadir 5-0-1
104 Diffinarti 14-15 Centuries P

Uncertain
no Attiri 14-15 Centuries P
116 Kulb Sheikh Fareig

4 These previouslypublisheddates are probablyincorrect.They are either unsupportedguesses or are

basedon questionablereadingof inscriptions.

138
 Text Figures
Fig. i. Distribution map of Nubian churches, Aswan to Dal.
Fig. 2. Basic ninefold architecturaldivision of the Nubian church,i, Sanctuary chamber; 2, Eastern
corner rooms; 3, Nave; 4, Aisles; 5, Western bay; 6, Western corner rooms. Solid line
indicates structural separation; dashed line indicates symbolic separation.
Fig. 3. Key plan showing liturgical divisions and secondary features of the Nubian church.
Liturgicaldivisions: B, Baptistry (occasional); Hp, Haikal - presbyterium; Hsc, Haikal -
sanctuary chamber; N, Naos; S, Sacristy; SC, Satellite chapel; V, Vestibule. Secondary
features: a, Altar; c, Columnsof triumphal arch; h, Higab; n, Niches in apse wall; p, Pulpit;
s, Stairs; t, Tribune; v, Vestibule screen wall. The plan is a composite illustrating charac-
teristics of several actual church types.
Fig. 4. Evolutionary changes in the liturgical division of the Nubian church. B, Bema (reserved to
clergy); M, area reserved to men worshippers;W, area reserved to women worshippers; P,
area accessible to penitents. Divisions between men, women, and penitents are largely
conjectural.
Fig. 5. Type ?o: Prototype churches. Actual plans.
Fig. 6. Type ia: Kasr Ibrim Type. Type plan.
Fig. 7. Type ib: Philae Type. Type plan.
Fig. 8. Type 2a: Debeira Type. Type plan.
Fig. 9. Type 2b: Buhen Type. Type plan.
Fig. 10. Type 3a: Faras Type. Type plan.
Fig. 11. Type 3b: Abu Sir Type. Type plan.
Fig. 12. Type 3c: Tamit Type. Type plan.
Fig. 13. Type 4: Serra Type. Type plans showing extremes of complexity and simplicity.
Fig. 14. Type ?5: Epitype churches. Actual plans.

139