Pharaoh and Temple Building in the Fourth Century bce *

The fourth century BCE was a period of widespread transformation, marked by the transition from the Oriental empires to the Hellenistic states, in which Egypt played a central role. After the first Persian Period (525–404/1), the Twenty-eighth (405/401–399) and Twenty-ninth Dynasties (399–380) were short-lived and seem to have been undermined by competition for the throne.1 The rulers were also struggling to repel Persian invasions. It is therefore not astonishing that there are very few traces of temple building or decoration from this short period, which might nonetheless have paved the way for further developments.2 According to Neal Spencer, significant temple building wasprobably planned in theTwenty-ninthDynasty, but there is noway toprove this. He suggests thatmuch of the cultural renaissancewhich is attested for the Thirtieth Dynasty may “represent a flourishing of trends nascent in the previous dynasty”.3 Nectanebo I Nekhetnebef (380–362) and Nectanebo II Nekhethorheb (360– 342) of the Thirtieth Dynasty were the last great native pharaohs of Egypt.


Introduction
The fourth century bce was a period of widespread transformation, marked by the transition from the Oriental empires to the Hellenistic states, in which Egypt played a central role. After the first Persian Period (525-404/1), the  and Twenty-ninth Dynasties (399-380) were short-lived and seem to have been undermined by competition for the throne.* 1 The rulers were also struggling to repel Persian invasions. It is therefore not astonishing that there are very few traces of temple building or decoration from this short period, which might nonetheless have paved the way for fur ther developments.2 According to Neal Spencer, significant temple building was probably planned in the Twenty-ninth Dynasty, but there is no way to prove this. He suggests that much of the cultural renaissance which is attested for the Thirtieth Dynasty may "represent a flourishing of trends nascent in the previ ous dynasty".3 Nectanebo 1  and  of the Thirtieth Dynasty were the last great native pharaohs of Egypt. * I am most grateful to Paul McKechnie and Jennifer A Cromwell for the invitation to a very stimulating conference, to John Baines for reading a draft of the chapter and his valuable critical remarks, to Francisco Bosch-Puche for sending me his articles on Alexander ("The Egyptian Royal Titulary of Alexander the Great" I and 11) before publication, to Dietrich Raue for information on Heliopolis, to Daniela Rosenow for fig. 5.3, and to Troy L. Sagrillo for fig. 5.5.
1 All dates according to von Beckerath, Handbuch der dgyptischen Konigsnamen. For the his Nectanebo i, a general from Sebennytos in the Delta, usurped the throne from Nepherites 11, the last king of the Twenty-ninth Dynasty, and was crowned king of Egypt at Sais, the former capital city of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty in the west ern Delta.4 The key political event in his eighteen-year reign was the defeat of the Persian forces attempting to invade Egypt in 373. For Egypt, Nectanebo 1 began a period of great prosperity, which is reflected in massive temple con struction, from the first cataract region to the Delta, as well as in the oases of the western desert (for details, see below). His co-regent for two years and successor, Teos (or Tachos;, moved into Palestine; but soon, in 360, his nephew Nectanebo 11 was placed on the throne. Nectanebo 11 con tinued the building activity on a large scale. The Thirtieth Dynasty left an impressive legacy of temple construction at the major sites of Egypt, so that the sacred landscape changed considerably and with long-lasting effects.5 This legacy also demonstrates the economic effectiveness of the Thirtieth Dynasty.
Nectanebo 11, the last native pharaoh, repelled a Persian invasion in 350 and ruled until 342, when Artaxerxes III conquered Egypt and the second Persian Period of Egypt began.
In the turmoil of the second Persian Period from 343 to 332, no temple seems to have been built; at least, nothing has been found so far. Unfinished building projects of the Thirtieth Dynasty were only completed after the liberation from the Persians, mainly in the early Ptolemaic period.
With the victories of Alexander the Great, the Persian Empire disintegrated, and he took the land by the Nile without resistance.6 Under his reign, Egyptian temples were extended and decorated at crucial points (see below). Although his two Macedonian successors never visited Egypt-neither his brother Philip Arrhidaios nor his son Alexander iv-their cartouches can be found on some Egyptian monuments, which suggests that the building projects continued, 4 Nectanebo I took the throne name Kheperkara (von Beckerath, Handbuch der agyptischen Konigsnamen,[226][227], which refers back to Senwosret I of the Twelfth Dynasty. It seems that he wanted to evoke the grandeur of his predecessors, referring to a time before the Per sian rulers conquered Egypt Artistic traditions of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty were taken up again and developed (Spencer,ANaos of Nekhthorheb,47  . 6 Holbl, History of the Ptolemaic Empire, 9-12, 77-80. Chauveau, "L'Egypte en transition", dis cusses the transition of Egypt from Persian to Macedonian rulers. See also Ruzicka, Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire,[199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209] 122 MINAS-NERPEL probably under some influence from Ptolemy the Satrap, who ruled Egypt de facto as absolute autocrat.
The Ptolemies carried to fruition the political aspiration of the Thirtieth Dynasty, the creation of a once more powerful Egyptian empire that dominated the Eastern Mediterranean for a time. Large new temples were built and unfin ished sacred projects were completed. Ptolemy I Soter, following Alexander's example, recognized temple building as a critical element in Egyptian kingship and engaged with it, perhaps not on the same scale as his son and successor Ptolemy n,7 but quite noticeably.
This essay does not present a complete list of temple building sites in Egypt of the fourth century bce, but rather concentrates on some major sites where temple construction was undertaken, looking into specific features that were developed and asking why and how far sacred landscapes in Egypt changed in this period of transition under the last native pharaohs, Alexander, and his immediate successors including Ptolemy i Soter, as well as reflecting on possi ble (cross-) cultural relevance, especially for the usurpers and/or foreign rulers of the period.
When looking at the sites, we need to bear in mind that only a small propor tion of ancient temples is preserved, due to the normal reuse of older temples as building material during antiquity and subsequent periods, the burning of stone for lime, earthquakes, and other factors that changed the landscape sub stantially, not only for modern visitors but already in antiquity. This is espe cially true for sites in the Delta, a bias that considerably distorts our picture of the construction programmes. Before exploring specific sites and their temple buildings, I give a short description of the Egyptian temple as the reflection of the cosmos, in order to outline the religious and cultural basis on which these temples were built. 7 Ptolemy 11 Philadelphos' building programme has never been discussed in a dedicated publi cation, as has been done for Ptolemy 1 Soter (Swinnen, "Sur la politique religieuse de Ptolemee Ier"), Ptolemy vi Philometor and Ptolemy viii Euergetes n (Minas, "Die Dekorationstatigkeit", 1 and 2), and Ptolemy ix Soter 11 and Ptolemy x Alexander I (Cafior-Pfeiffer, "Zur Reflex ion ptolemaischer Geschichte", 1 and 2). Chauveau, "L'Egypte en transition", 390-395, and served as an image of the world.10 Every single temple mirrored the cosmos and was a microcosm in itself, as well as the earthly residence of its main deity.
The ancient Egyptians re-enacted creation by ceremonially founding and con structing a temple, and in the process re-establishing maat (universal order).
As part of this cosmic meaning, the daily repetition of the solar cycle was rep resented in the temple. The inner sanctuary symbolizes the primeval mound °f earth that emerged from Nun, the marshy waters at creation. The cosmic dimension of the temple is further reflected in the depiction of the ceiling as sky, the plant decoration on the base of the wall, and the columns of the pillared halls, which have the forms of aquatic plants. In the Graeco-Roman period they often have composite capitals, which bring together different vegetal elements and also form a point of contact with Hellenistic architecture.11 The ritual scenes show two categories of protagonists involved, one or sev eral deities and the pharaoh in traditional Egyptian regalia, no matter whether it was a native or a foreign king. It was a requirement of temple decoration to show the pharaoh performing the rituals that would guarantee the exis tence of Egypt. The king presents diverse offerings, ranging from real objects, such as food, flowers, or amulets, to symbolic acts like smiting the enemies or presenting maat.12 Further topics of the temple decoration included festivals, foundation, and protection of the temple and its gods, in accordance with the theological system of each temple. with more than 4000 stone fragments, mainly of red granite.32 As at Behbeit el-Hagar, the visitor to the temple today sees only a large area of blocks and broken monuments, due to an earthquake probably around 2000 years ago ( Figure 5.3).
The late temple was begun in the Twenty-second Dynasty under Osorkon 1 and extended significantly under Osorkon 11,33 with farther work being under taken by Nectanebo 11. In his reign, a separate hall of roughly 60 x 60 m was con structed in the westernmost area, where a number of shrines were situated.34 Fragments of at least eight huge naoi for secondary deities were arranged around the red granite naos of Bastet. 32 Tietze, "Neues Exemplar des Kanopus-Dekrets", 3. Since 1991, archaeological and epi graphic field work has been undertaken by the Tell Basta Project, which is a joint mission of the University of Potsdam/Germany, the Egyptian Supreme Council, and the Egypt Explo ration Society. 33 Spencer, A Naos ofNekhthorheb, 40; Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 129.

MINAS-NERPEL
In 2004, an exciting discovery was made: a fragment of a stele, comprising a duplicate of the Canopus decree dating to year 9 of Ptolemy 111 Euergetes 1 (238), was found in situ in the entrance area of the Bubastis temple, which dates to the reign of Osorkon 11.35 It was located around 2 m north of the main axis of the temple, not far from statues of Osorkon 11 and his queen. The fragment of black granite is around 1m high, 84 cm wide, and 65 cm thick. The fact that this ecree was discovered here indicates that in the third century bce the temple of Bastet still belonged to the sanctuaries of the first three categories mentioned in the last line of each version of the text.3* So far, no other trace of Ptolemaic activity has been found at Bubastis. Furthermore, this is the first time that the exact original location within a temple of one of the synodal decrees has been established.
3-1-3 Saft el-Henna Not far from Bubastis, roughly 10 km east of Zagazig, Saft el-Henna is located, ancient Per Sopdu, where Nectanebo I had begun a temple of which only traces survive. The presence of a stele of Ptolemy 11 suggests that the site was still mportant in the Ptolemaic Period.37 The temple was dedicated to the falcongo Sopdu, the guardian of Egypt's eastern borders. Again, several monolithic naoi are known to come from this location, all dating to Nectanebo i.38 A naos is the ritual heart of a temple, a shrine in the most sacred location, in which the image of the principal deity was placed-or those of birther gods enerated there. Because it is monolithic hard stone, it formed the most power u evel of protection39 of the (wooden) statue within. This might be was incorporated into, the Twenty-second Dynasty structures. The remains could be seen as replacing or extending an existing building or as a completely new temple (Spencer, A Naos ofNekhthorheb, 39-42; Rosenow, "Nektanebos-Tempel", "Sanctuaire de Nectanebo II", and "Nekhethorheb Temple" especially true in Saft el-Henna, which was in the first line of any possible Asian invasion and thus strategically vital. The Delta in particular needed to be rein forced against Persian attacks, and this might also be a reason why the eastern Delta received so much attention under the Thirtieth Dynasty, if the view of strategic support is correct. One might also view the monolithic naoi as pieces of extravagant expenditure on the gods rather than strategic buildings, which Were specifically safeguarded because of worries about security.
Naoi not only displayed the theology of a specific temple, their inscriptions also legitimized the Thirtieth Dynasty rulers, connecting them to the gods.
This legitimation was of utmost importance in a period when Egypt was so often threatened by Persian invasions. In addition, Nectanebo I had usurped the throne of Egypt and needed to prove his legitimacy, which is one probable reason behind his vast building programme.40 41 A political meaning can thus be attributed to the religious texts on the naoi. The shrines of Saft el-Henna are cultic instruments intended to protect the kings magically and to legitimize their rule against obstacles whether political or metaphysical. This profusion of monolithic naoi is not attested from earlier periods and seems to be specific to the Thirtieth Dynasty.42 3-1.4 Naukratis and Thonis-Herakleion The emporium of Naukratis, situated on the east bank of the now vanished Canopic branch of the Nile, some 8okm south-east of Alexandria and around 15km from Sais, was established in the late seventh century bce, and was in existence until at least the seventh century ad.43 It functioned as the port of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty royal city of Sais and remained a busy centre of industry 40 Schneider, "Mythos und Zeitgeschichte", 207-242:  The singular "god" (wi.t ntr "path of god") is followed by a plural resumptive pronoun (hw. wt=sn "their temples"). The alteration of singular and plural is a very interesting point and should be noted in discussions whether there was a single god. See, for example, Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, 168-207, especially his chapter "Conceiving the One in Ancient Egyptian Tradition", and Baines, "Presenting and Discussing Deities" (with further refer ences).

134
MINAS-NERPEL the rays of the disk, it is to him that the mountains offer what they con tain, that the sea gives its flow...

Heliopolis
The ancient site of Heliopolis, city of the sun-god and one of the most impor tant religious and intellectual centres of ancient Egypt, is located at the north far numbering far more than a thousand. In addition, the processional way was bordered on the east and west by brick walls, of which almost nothing is left.
On the base of one of the sphinxes in the western row, the processional avenue  3-4 Elkab As is evident in Heliopolis and Karnak, another typical project of the Thirtieth Dynasty was to construct new enclosure walls that created significantly larger sacred areas. Spencer has identified these as the "most lasting legacy of the 30th Dynasty construction work".65 A good example is the enclosure wall at Elkab ( fig. 5.6), the present-day name of the ancient Egyptian town of the vulture god dess Nekhbet, on the east bank of the Nile about 15 km north of Edfu, which had been inhabited since prehistory. Together with Wadjit of Lower Egypt, Nekhbet Spencer, A Naos ofNekhthorheb, 50. De Meulenaere, "Un general du Delta", 209, suggested that the great enclosure wall was a defence structure ordered by Nectanebo 11 against fur ther Persian invasions, which seems quite unlikely. Under Nectanebo I, these edifices were rather straightforward in design, more like a shrine with a forecourt and an access path. Under the Ptolemies, this tem ple type was enlarged and its architectural features further developed, so that the birth houses turned into proper temples, suitable for a daily cult ritual,75 76 gaining even more importance.

3-5 Elephantine
The island of Elephantine is situated in the Nile opposite the city of Aswan, realized the importance of maintaining the integration of "church and state".
With his alleged coronation as pharaoh at Memphis100 and subsequent consul tation of the oracle in Siwa Oasis in the Western Desert, where he was declared the son of Zeus-Ammon, Alexander demonstrated that he was willing to act as pharaoh and be legitimized by Egyptian gods-useful for someone who was about to conquer the world. A legitimate pharaoh had to care for Egypt by fight ing against its enemies and by providing temples and cults for the gods, and he fulfilled these tasks, which benefited those whose service he required, that is, the Egyptian elite.
In addition, a legendary link to Nectanebo 11 was established: in the Alexan der Romance, a popular novel of the Hellenistic world, Alexander the Great is connected with his "real" father, the last native pharaoh of Egypt. Nectanebo n is described as a powerfill magician who caused Olympias, Alexander's mother, to believe that she had been impregnated by the Egyptian god Amun.101 A fur ther narrative, "Nectanebo's Dream", was most probably also translated into Greek from an Egyptian original. This prophecy, concerning the demise ol Egypt's last native pharaoh, was used as nationalistic propaganda against the Persian rulers who conquered Egypt, so that it can be assumed that the author came from the Egyptian elite or priesthood. Its sequel, as Ryholt states, was used in favour of Alexander the Great, which underlines the sophisticated use of political propaganda.102 100 Winter, "Alexander der Grofie als Pharao", 205-207, provides an overview of the evidence. Contra Burstein, "Pharaoh Alexander", who does not believe that Alexander was crowned in Egypt. See also Pfeiffer "Alexander der Groke in Agypten". For a discussion of Alexan der as pharaoh and the attestations of his royal titulary see Bosch-Puche, "Egyptian Royal Titulary" 1 and 11 (hieroglyphic sources); Bosch-Puche and Moje, "Alexander the Great's Name" (contemporary demotic sources).  During the Opet festival at Luxor, the king was worshiped as the living royal ka, the chief earthly manifestation of the creator god. As a god's son, Alexan der was himself a god. His "visible activities in the human world had invisible counterparts in the divine world, and his ritual actions had important conse quences for the two parallel, interconnected realms".105 It is very significant that Alexander decided, no doubt on advice from the priests, to rebuild a bark shrine in precisely this temple. He was thus connected with the great native rulers of Egypt and their ka by renovating the divine temple of Luxor.106 107 The ancestral ka of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty kings was reborn in Alexander, and he was associated once more with Amun, first in his Libyan pharaoh and temple building in the fourth century bce 147 Nectanebo 1I,108 and of a gate at the temple of Khnum on Elephantine,109 which Was inscribed with the names of Alexander iv ( fig. 5.8).
The amount of building work undertaken in the relatively short Macedo nian period is in no way comparable with that of the thirty-seven years of the Thirtieth Dynasty, either in the amount or in inventiveness. Alexander the Great used the ideas of Egyptian divine kingship for his own purpose and thus fulfilled the requirements. Under his two immediate successors, Egyptian kingship cannot have played the same major role, but the native priests had at least enough funds to continue with the building work, although Philip Arrhidaios and Alexander iv, a relatively small child, never visited Egypt. Ptolemy the Satrap, who ruled the country in their name as an absolute autocrat, must have had input into the decisions. The Satrap Stele shows that by 311 he was in charge.
One can also imagine the Ptolemies, as believers in religion in general, would have accepted the local gods and assumed they should support them. During his reign as Ptolemy 1 (306-283/2), much emphasis was put on religious politics, as the creation, or at least active promotion, of the cult of the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis attests. From Ptolemy II onwards, that cult was closely connected with the ruler-cult.110 When they assumed power, the Ptolemies had to establish a stable political base. It was therefore necessary to respond to the needs of the Egyptian pop ulation, to which the native priesthoods held the key. On the Satrap Stele it is reported that Ptolemy the Satrap attended to the needs of the Egyptian temples already when governor.111 The stele was once set up in a temple, according to its texts presumably in Buto in the Delta, but was discovered in 1870 in Cairo, re-built in a mosque. It is now housed in the Egyptian Museum (cgc 22182).
Its date in line 1, the first month of Akhet, year 7 of Alexander iv (November/December 311) is also the terminus ante quern for the move of the capital to Alexandria, described in line 4: "Ptolemy moved his residence to the enclosure of Alexander on the shore of the great sea of the Greeks (Alexandria)". 108 Barguet, Le temple <TAmon-Re, 136-141. For further references, see Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 140; Chauveau, "L'Egypte en transition", 394; Blobaum, "Denn ich bin ein Konig..." 362,no. Ar-PA-010. 109 Bickel, "Dekoration des Tempeltores". According to Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 141, several relief blocks at Sebennytos in the Delta (see fig. 5.1) with the name of Alexan der iv confirm that the decoration of the granite walls of the temple of Nectanebo n for Osiris-Shu, suspended in 343 when the Persians re-conquered Egypt, was resumed. See also section 3.1 above.
Ho Pfeiffer, "The God Serapis". Hi For references to the Satrap Stele, see Section 2 above, including n. 16.  Egyptian nome and had been an important administrative centre since an early date. The inhabitants of Hermopolis apparently assisted Nectanebo I, then only a general, against Nepherites n, the last king of the Twenty-ninth Dynasty, and Nectanebo i therefore embellished the site with massive temple buildings that are mostly lost, but described in the text of a limestone stele, now in the Egyptian Museum Cairo (je 72130). The stele is 2.26 m high and inscribed with thirty-five lines of hieroglyphic text.117 Also under Nectanebo I, the temple of Nehemet-away was constructed and the temple of Thoth renovated. Nehemetaway was a creator goddess and consort of Thoth; according to the stele, both deities were responsible for Nectanebo's ascent to the throne (section C, 1. 9" 11).118 The inscription not only gives technical details of the temple construction and decoration, but also attests to the use of royal propaganda, including the divine selection of the king by a god and goddess, as well as rewards to the local priesthood for their support in gaining the throne. The temple of Thoth was further expanded under Nectanebo 11 and Philip Arrhidaios.119 Tuna el-Gebel and Hermopolis continued to play an important role into the Roman period. Monuments include a wide variety of funerary chapels in the form of small temples at the necropolis of Tuna el-Gebel, of which that of Petosiris, high priest of Thoth, is the best preserved and highly innovative, constructed around 300 bce.120 Dynasty), and the throne name stp-n-r mrj-jmn. This throne name could belong to Alexan der the Great, Philip Arrhidaios, or Ptolemy 1 Soter, indicating that the current temple is based on foundations that include Macedonian or early Ptolemaic blocks. See Leclant and Clerc, Fouilles et travaux 1984-85", 287-288;1987, 349, fig. 56 Tuna el-Gebel is also famous for its animal cemeteries and the burial of mummified ibises, the sacred animals of Thoth. The practice begun in the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, and the cult received increasing attention under the Thirtieth Dynasty, whose reforms of animal cults were continued under the Ptolemies.121 Several underground chapels, cased with limestone blocks, were connected to the subterranean Ibiotapheion. These, which belong to the time of Ptolemy I, are decorated in partly well preserved colours, on which the grid system still survives in some cases. In comparison to the rest of Soter s construc tion work, two relatively well preserved cult chapels for Thoth in his form of Osiris-Ibis and Osiris-Baboon from Tuna el-Gebel, now housed in the Roemerand Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim (fig. 5-9)   however, was in the north and the most creative regions were probably in the Delta and the Memphite area. Therefore, one could assume that temples in the north were larger and more richly decorated than those in the provincial south.
The bias towards the south causes well-known problems of interpretation.
According to a mythical text in the temple of Horus at Edfu, monumental temple architecture was developed north of Memphis near the sanctuary of Imhotep close to Dj oser's pyramid, dating to the Third Dynasty.127 The current pharaoh and temple building in the fourth CENTURY BCE 153 Ptolemaic temple at Edfu replaced a much older construction that seems to have had a link to Memphis.128 The enclosure wall is said to be a similar con struction to that first begun by those of old, "like what was on the great ground Plan in this book which fell from heaven north of Memphis" (my wn hr snt wr n mds.t tn htj.t n p.t mh.t jnb hd).129 130 Another text in the same temple states that the pattern which the Ptolemaic builders followed when constructing this enclosure wall was derived from "the book of designing a temple (sfd.t n ssm hw.t-ntr), which Imhotep himself was supposed to have composed.1.
We also learn from the Edfu text that temple architecture was canonical, which means that the temple can be understood as the three-dimensional real ization of what was written in "the book". One might wonder whether this inscription refers to the "Book of the Temple ,131 a handbook or manual that, as Quack establishes, describes how the ideal Egyptian temple should be built and operated. This book is attested in over forty fragmentary manuscripts, demonstrating its wide and supra-regional distribution in antiquity. The mostly unpublished papyri all date to the Roman period, but the manual s origin pre dates the foundation of Edfu in 237BCE.

Conclusion
As Spencer emphasizes, the temple complexes of the Late Period, especially those of the Thirtieth Dynasty, should be seen as "emblems of Egyptian cul ture"132 With the enclosure walls, encircling layers of dark rooms, halls, and corridors, the sanctuaries in the temples of the last native dynasty were much more protected than earlier ones, thus enhancing the feeling of seclusion. And in the most sacred area of these fortress-like temples were placed the naoi. The divine world was shielded from the human world, creating a protected dwelling space of the divine, with its protection emphasized by the darkness of the entire temple structure, especially the sanctuary. The only light filled structures were the pronaoi, colonnaded courts, and the rooftop with its kiosk, necessary 128 See n. 116 above for comments on archaeologically attested earlier structures. Graeco-Roman period.137 138 Those of the New Kingdom lack an overall schema and appear relatively free, although they are not undisciplined or random.
In comparison, the Graeco-Roman forms are highly systematized and com prehensive, following much more rigid frameworks. This development had its starting point at least in the Thirtieth Dynasty, perhaps already in the preceding Twenty-ninth Dynasty, but in any case after the first Persian period.
Temples of the last native dynasty embodied the sense of identity of the Egyptian elite. We should assume non-royal involvement in temple building, and Spencer sees in it one of the main reasons that the traditional forms of Egyptian cult places persisted through periods of foreign occupation.133 This is also true for the Hellenistic and Roman period.139 As hieroglyphic Egyptian and Demotic developed, they hardly took in Greek vocabulary. This does show the commitment to traditional culture. Most relevant evidence, for example from Edfii and Dendera, is a bit later than what is considered here, but it must have had a point of departure within the fourth century bce.
Ptolemaic temple plans are clearly connected to those of the Thirtieth Dy nasty. It seems that a master plan was developed, including important elements like the enclosure wall, the axis, the wabet, the birth house, and the ambulatory around the sanctuary as well as the sequence of halls, corridors, and roomsfeatures that were developed under the last native pharaohs or at least are for the first time attested from the Thirtieth Dynasty. The reasons for this continu ity might have been to avoid any break from past principles140 and to connect themselves to legitimate rulers-or, on a more practical level, because most temples of the Old to the New Kingdom had long since disappeared, whereas temples of the Thirtieth Dynasty were still standing when the Ptolemies and later the Roman emperors ruled Egypt. This pattern also relates to the fact that in the Thirtieth Dynasty older temples were commonly razed to the ground to build new ones, ideally at a larger scale. Ptolemy I Soter's name is not attested so far in the huge temple complexes of the Thirtieth Dynasty, discussed at the beginning of this chapter, but the name of his son and successor Ptolemy n is. At Tell Basta, no traces of the Ptolemaic period were known until the copy of the Canopus decree was found in 2004. The Satrap Stele from the area of Buto is another lucky piece of evi dence that considerably changed our view of the early Hellenistic period in 137 Baines, "King, Temple, and Cosmos", 31. 138 See Spencer, A Naos of Nekhthorheb, 51; Spencer, "Sustaining Egyptian Culture?" 441-446, for a discussion of the king as the initiator of temple construction.

MINAS-NERPEL
Egypt and Soter's involvement with, and perception by, the native priesthood, as chances of survival often influence our picture. From rather few surviving temple blocks, some stelae and chapels, we know that Ptolemy I Soter followed Alexander in promoting native cults and in supporting the temples, thus fulfill ing his role as pharaoh. However, only his successor succeeded in leaving huge temples in Egypt that spring immediately to mind: Athribis, Dendera, Edfu, Kom Ombo, and Philae, to mention the obvious ones. Only under Ptolemy H was the ruler cult established in the Egyptian temples,141 but without Ptolemy 1 and the Macedonian dynasty its inauguration would not have been possible.
Once again, a royal line was established that would leave in Egypt its mas sive imprint through temple complexes, often larger than anything which went before. These structures took into account the architectural developments of the last native dynasties of Egypt.