oncept was in question. During the Intermediate periods, when divine kingship was in doubt, Egypt's once stable nation was in chaos without this god-king or Pharaoh. The belief in the divinity of the king seems to be almost essential to the success of their civilization. The Egyptian Pharaoh is referred to as the "god in residence", and he ruled and blessed the country as he was appointed to do by his father, the chief deity of the land Amon-Re. It seems that the concept of divine kingship was at least in part, a result of the environmental conditions in which the Egyptians lived.
             The Mesopotamian environment, on the other hand, was less stable. "The Tigris and the Euphrates are not like the Nile; they may rise unpredictably, breaking man's dikes and submerging his crops." The Mesopotamians were faced with the harsh reality that they were powerless over whatever great forces surrounded him. There was no divine king to offer him security and shelter. Unlike Egypt, the Mesopotamians had a more direct relationship with God. They did eventually evolve a divine king concept, but it was much later, probably borrowing it from the Egyptians. Originally, the king was not divine himself, but instead looked to the gods for guidance and release from whatever difficulties were being faced on earth. Unfortunately, even the gods were not always reliable: "The power of even the strongest gods could not prevail against the combined will of the divine assembly; and the assembly, swayed by inscrutable motives, might order death and destruction of its own." Mesopotamian deity worship often included lamentation of adverse conditions and prayer for divine intervention. Once again, it is probable that the challenges the environment imposed upon the Mesopotamians greatly influenced these religious practices.
             To begin comparing the differing religious structures, one may start with the physical temple structure itself. The Egyptians were a pe...