Allan Scott. One Palette, Two Lands The Myth of The Unification of Egypt by The Narmer Palette

One Palette, Two Lands
The myth of the Unification

of Egypt
By the Narmer Palette
Scott Allan 41965485

Bachelor of Ancient History (Honours: First)
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
2014
ii
Preface
An attempt to interpret the Narmer Palette, including adequate analysis of the plethora of
material written about it, would require a life time of dedicated study to this one artefact. I
hope this study sheds some light on one aspect of the Palette and the purpose attributed to
it.
Thanks to a few people who helped along the way:
My supervisor Yann Tristant for his guidance and support throughout the writing of this
study as well as the previous years of my degree and Susanne Binder whose door was
always open when I needed a friendly ear to bounce ideas off of or to show me what was
important when overwhelmed. Amy Butschek for her friendship and support throughout
our university life together. Lorna Hankin for her kind help during this works final stages
was much appreciated. Friends too numerous to name individually but whose support and
kind words helped without them even realising. Mohamed Sobh for being there. My
mother, Sharyn, and sister, Renee, for their support and help during a difficult time. And my
father, Gary, who will not see me graduate.
I confirm that the work presented in this thesis is all my own work and has not been
submitted for assessment at any other institution. Where information has been derived
from other sources, this has been indicated in the thesis.
Scott Allan
2014
iii
iv
Abstract
The Narmer Palette has often played a pivotal role as evidence of the unification of Ancient Egypt. However,
many scholars have not considered its contextual or temporal associations, instead piecing together an
erroneous narrative that ignores other archaeological evidence associated with the unification process. This
additional evidence supports political unification by a number of rulers before and after Narmer, suggesting
that the palette indicates a stage in the countrys development from acculturation to statehood. Although
identified as their founding ruler on mid-First Dynasty seals, contemporary evidence of Narmers role in the
political unification of Egypt is limited.
Earlier studies of the Narmer Palette relied on a narrative approach. However, recent works have moved
towards an ideological interpretation that ignores artefacts contemporary with Narmer which display similar
iconography to his ceremonial palette. While the palette describes a conflict with peoples of a Lower Egyptian
area, possibly the western Delta, it does not represent a war of unification. The belief that the red crown on this
artefact represents Lower Egypt, and thereby the unification, cannot be supported, due to the unclear
geographic association at this time period.
Other artefacts and evidence of Narmer are assessed as showing his placement at the start of Egyptian history
according to the Ancient Egyptians themselves. However, evidence of earlier rulers show that the political
unification process started earlier than Narmer and possibly in many locations. While Narmer played a
significant role in the unification of Egypt, and in the conflicts detailed in his artefacts, he was not alone in the
process, which appears not to have been completed until well into the First Dynasty. A reanalysis of the palette
and its context has shown that it cannot be viewed in isolation as evidence for the political unification of Egypt
by Narmer in a single, swift military campaign. Dynasty One now includes Narmer, identified with Menes, while
the disputed Dynasty 0 covers the start of the political unification process, which was further consolidated
during the reign of Den.
Contents
Title page..................................................................................................................................... i
Preface ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... v
Contents .................................................................................................................................... vi
List of illustrations and figures .................................................................................................. ix
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.
Literature review ................................................................................................................ 8

2.1.
2.1.1.
Heagy (2014) .......................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2.
Fairservis Jr (1991) ................................................................................................. 13
2.1.3.
Goldwasser (1995) ................................................................................................. 14
2.1.4.
Mark (1997) ........................................................................................................... 15
2.1.5.
Khler (2002) ......................................................................................................... 16
2.1.6.
OConnor (2012) .................................................................................................... 18
2.2.
3.
Narmer Palette .......................................................................................................... 10
Unification ................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.1.
Kemp (1995) .......................................................................................................... 19
2.2.2.
Khler (1995) ......................................................................................................... 19
2.2.3.
Siegemund (1999).................................................................................................. 20
2.2.4.
Wilkinson (2000) .................................................................................................... 21
Overview of cultural unification (acculturation) .............................................................. 23

3.1.
Naqada I .................................................................................................................... 26
3.1.1.
Upper Egypt .................................................................................................................. 26
3.1.2.
Lower Egypt................................................................................................................... 27
Naqada IIA ............................................................................................................................ 30

3.1.3.
Upper Egypt .................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.4.
Lower Egypt................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.
Naqada IIC-IID............................................................................................................ 32
3.2.1.
Upper Egypt .................................................................................................................. 32
3.2.2.
Lower Egypt................................................................................................................... 33
3.3.
Naqada IIIA ................................................................................................................ 34
3.3.1.
Upper Egypt .................................................................................................................. 34
3.3.2.
Lower Egypt................................................................................................................... 35
vi
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
3.4.
Late Naqada III........................................................................................................... 37
3.5.
Summation ................................................................................................................ 39
Description of the Narmer Palette ................................................................................... 42

4.1.
Early Palettes ............................................................................................................. 42
4.2.
Date and find context ................................................................................................ 43
4.3.
General description ................................................................................................... 44
Unification on the Narmer Palette ................................................................................... 46

5.1.
Kingship iconography ................................................................................................ 46
5.2.
Identification of the Delta ......................................................................................... 56
5.3.
Violence and other imagery ...................................................................................... 64
Horus Narmer and the unification.................................................................................... 70

6.1.
Artefacts of Narmer .................................................................................................. 70
6.2.
Serekh of Narmer ...................................................................................................... 78
6.3.
King lists and other records ....................................................................................... 85
Unifiers of Egypt ............................................................................................................... 91

7.1.
Tomb U-j .................................................................................................................... 91
7.2.
Scorpion II .................................................................................................................. 94
7.3.
Horus Aha .................................................................................................................. 96
7.4.
Early Serekhs and tax records ................................................................................... 98
7.5.
Archaeology............................................................................................................. 102
7.6.
First Dynasty ............................................................................................................ 103
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 106
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 110
vii
viii
List of illustrations and figures

Figure 1. Narmer Palette Verso .............................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Narmer Palette Recto............................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Late Naqada I Map .................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4. Mid Naqada II Map ................................................................................................... 31
Figure 5. Early Naqada III Map ................................................................................................. 36
Figure 6. Late Naqada III Map .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 7. Regional cultural chronology .................................................................................... 41
Figure 8. Red Black-Top Ware Fragment with the Red Crown ................................................ 47
Figure 9. Qustul Incense Burner .............................................................................................. 49
Figure 10. Archaic Horus Incense Burner................................................................................. 49
Figure 11. Ceramic Vessel with Bird ........................................................................................ 50
Figure 12. Serekh of the Narmer Palette ................................................................................. 52
Figure 13. Narmer Palette Second Register Verso................................................................ 53
Figure 14. Bowl of Bat .............................................................................................................. 55
Figure 15. Narmer Palette Second Register Recto................................................................ 59
Figure 16. Narmer Palette Second Register Verso Detail ..................................................... 60
Figure 17. Narmer Palette Fourth Register Verso ................................................................ 61
Figure 18. Cities (Libyan) Palette ............................................................................................. 62
Figure 19. Narmer Palette Third Register Recto ................................................................... 63
Figure 20. Smiting Imagery of the Late Predynastic ................................................................ 66
Figure 21. Decapitated Figures of the Narmer Palette ............................................................ 67
Figure 22. Two Dogs Palette .................................................................................................... 68
Figure 23. Narmer Label........................................................................................................... 72
Figure 24. Ivory Cylinder of Narmer ........................................................................................ 73
Figure 25. Inlayed Box Fragments............................................................................................ 74
Figure 26. Narmer Macehead .................................................................................................. 76
Figure 27. Vessel from Kufur Nigm with stylised serekh ......................................................... 79
Figure 28. Serekhs attributed to Narmer ................................................................................. 79
Figure 29. Narmer Serekhs ....................................................................................................... 80
Figure 30. Serekh of Narmer .................................................................................................... 81
Figure 31. Serekhs of Narmer .................................................................................................. 82
Figure 32. Narmer Serekhs from south Levant and Egypt ....................................................... 83
Figure 33. Serekh of Narmer, south Sinai ................................................................................ 84
Figure 34. Seal Impression of Den ........................................................................................... 86
Figure 35. Seal Impression of Qaa ........................................................................................... 87
Figure 36. Tomb U-j, Abydos.................................................................................................... 92
Figure 37. Imported Vessels, Tomb U-j.................................................................................... 93
Figure 38. Scorpion Macehead ................................................................................................ 95
Figure 39. Naqada Label of Aha ............................................................................................... 96
Figure 40. Cemetery B, Umm el-Qaab, Abydos ....................................................................... 97
Figure 41. Early Serekhs ......................................................................................................... 100
Figure 42. Tax Inscription of Ka Lower Egypt ...................................................................... 101
Figure 43. Tax Inscription of Ka Upper Egypt ...................................................................... 101
Figure 44. Cemetery B, Umm el-Qaab, Abydos ..................................................................... 104
ix
1. Introduction
Since its discovery in 1898 by Quibell and Green, the intact ceremonial palette of Narmer
has been the iconic symbol of the unification of Egypt and the joining of the Two Lands:
Upper and Lower Egypt. It is one of the most studied, interpreted and reinterpreted
artefacts from Egyptian history, with scholars looking for narrative or meaning in the now
famous iconography contained in the palette.1 Despite these many studies, the combination
of the iconography used by the Ancient Egyptian artist and any message the artist intended,
remains a mystery. These studies also fail to adequately investigate the claim that the
palette proves the unification of Egypt, with many taking this long-held opinion for granted.
The images of the white and red crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt are the main supporting
evidence used for the unification of Egypt by the Narmer Palette, supported by
interpretations of motifs naming areas of the Delta and Lower Egypt.
According to E.C. Khler, Egyptian culture can be divided differently depending on the
criteria used: Prehistory and History; Alliterate and Literate; Predynastic and Dynastic;
Prestate and State.2 These terms are regularly used in describing the evolution of the
cultural and political entity that would become Egypt. Our current understanding of these
early periods is limited by the preservation of the archaeological record, causing scholars to
assess one transitional stage preunification to unification solely based on the Narmer
Palette.
For information on the study of iconography in visual representations (iconology) cf. Panofsky, E.,
Iconography and Iconology: An Introduction to the Study of the Renaissance Art in E. Panofsky, Meaning in
the Visual Arts (Chicago, 1955), 26-54.
2
Khler, E.C., The State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt: New Evidence for the Development of the
Pharaonic State?, GM 147 (1995), 79.
The sequence of kings for the First Dynasty is one of the best understood in the Early
Dynastic period. However, debate still continues over the first king of this period and the
inclusion of kings with no archaeological evidence.3 The traditional use of dynastic divisions
inherited from Manethos can restrict us into viewing the sequence of Egyptian history in
clearly defined segments, with a clear separation from one period to the next. While there
were times when the Ancient Egyptians would have seen or felt the transition from one
period to another, for example after the expulsion of the Hyksos, for much of history these
transitions may have gone unnoticed.
The use of Dynasty 0 reflects scholars greater understanding of this transitional period
before the start of Manethos First Dynasty. While the traditional use of the dynastic
divisions cannot be avoided, this study will assess the material from the Late Predynastic
and Early Dynastic as one continuous unit (although these terms will be retained to maintain
conventions). Due to the proliferation of work dedicated to the Narmer Palette and
unification of Egypt, the study will only review some of the most important and recent
works to try to understand the function of this early artefact and its association with the
unification process (see Chapter 2).
An increase in archaeological excavation in the Delta and the popularity of studying the
prehistoric period in Egypt has added to our understanding of the process of unification. It
can now be defined as two distinct processes cultural and political that started at
different times and occurred over different time periods, resulting in the formation of the
state. This study will review the acculturation process of the Naqadan culture in Lower Egypt
to place the political unification in its correct chronological context (see Chapter 3). It will
also provide a brief description of the Narmer Palette along with its place in the sequence of
3
Wilkinson, T., Early Dynastic Egypt (London, 2000a), 66.
ceremonial palettes, as well as the prehistoric palettes from which these devise (see
Chapter 4).
Chapter 5 of the study will review the specific iconography in the Narmer Palette used to
support a war of unification by Narmer, including the development of the iconography of
kingship, the identification of the Delta or Lower Egypt, and the imagery of violence
contained within. The chapter compares contemporary representations and the evolution of
this iconography, to see whether they support a war of unification by Narmer as seen in the
palette.
While the palette has been the main focus as the evidence for unification, other artefacts
can now be added to this collection and help to inform us about the unification process.
Similar iconography to the palette can be seen in an ivory cylinder and labels contemporary
with the Narmer Palette. The study reviews this iconography to see if a historical or
ideological representation of the king is portrayed. Later evidence from king lists show who
the Ancient Egyptians considered the founder and focal point for the unification of their
country (see Chapter 6).
While the Narmer Palette and related material show some important iconography for the
Late Predynastic and Early Dynastic period, the palette should not be viewed in isolation.
The evidence of earlier rulers throughout Upper and Lower Egypt show that the political
unification process is more complex than the Narmer Palette presents. Artefacts, serekhs,
and archaeology show the development of various aspects of kingship that started in the
Predynastic period and may not have been complete until well into the First Dynasty (see
Chapter 7).
Analysis of the evidence related to the unification of Egypt can help illuminate the Narmer
Palette and place it in its correct historical context. The probable message in the Narmer
Palette, and similar iconography in other contemporary artefacts, indicates that the
unification of Egypt is not clearly represented by this one artefact. With the evidence of
earlier rulers roles in the period leading up to Narmers reign, the political unification of the
Two Lands needs to be reanalysed and a war of unification discounted. A significant king,
both archaeologically and to the Ancient Egyptians themselves, Narmers role in the
unification of Egypt cannot be sustained by the iconography of the Narmer Palette.
Figure 1. Narmer Palette Verso

(Quibell, Slate palette from Hieraconpolis (1898), pl.13)
Figure 2. Narmer Palette Recto

2. Literature review
During the hundred years since its discovery, the Narmer Palette has generated one of the
largest collections of scholarly interpretation and discussion, yet there is still no clear
consensus on its message or purpose. While many Egyptologists have their own personal
views on, and publications about, the palette, these interpretations are often subject to the
period of Egyptology in which they were written. Late twentieth century studies took a
more ideological reading of the Narmer Palette and its inherent message (Khler, 2002). 1
This is a change from the nineteenth and early twentieth century, when a narrative
approach was preferred as a way of understanding this iconic object, which apparently
shows the unification of Egypt (Gardiner, 1961; Fairservis Jr., 1991; Mark, 1997).
The preference for an ideological reading over the portrayal of a real event has never been
clearly justified in the interpretations, with scholars blindly discounting other views in
preference for their own. However, since Dreyers discovery of the Narmer Label, as well as
several other ivory artefacts, at Abydos (see Chapter 6.1), Egyptologists have started to
abandon the ideological interpretation of the palette in favour of the recording of a
historical event.
This study will first review the new article by T.Heagy (2014), as it presents important
information in regards to who Narmer was and his role in the unification process. Other
works will be presented chronologically, followed by a selection of recent studies on the
unification of Egypt. This review of some of the available literature is not intended to
support one reading of the palette over another but rather to show that Egyptologists
cf. Bard for further study of ideology in the evolution of the Egyptian state including brief reference to the
ideology of the Narmer Palette (Bard, K.A., Towards an Interpretation of the Role of Ideology in the Evolution
of Complex Society in Egypt, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11 (1992), 1-24).
should not abandon traditional readings so quickly without carefully considering and
reviewing all the alternatives.
2.1.Narmer Palette
2.1.1.
Heagy (2014)
Whether Menes, the mythical founding ruler, should be identified as Narmer or Aha has
been debated since the discovery of the Narmer Palette. While a question mark will
undoubtedly remain, T. Heagy puts forth a very strong case for identification with Narmer.2
However, Menes is not mentioned in a clearly royal context until 1000 years after his
apparent rule in the Abydos king list of Seti I, which allows a wide scope for interpretation
and identification.3
Heagy identifies Menes as a personal or birth name, although he does not explain how this
assumption is derived, before assessing the evidence to determine a connection with known
Horus names of the Early Dynastic period.4 The New Kingdom king lists were based on
earlier documents and predominately use the kings nbty or nsw-bity names. Four of these
names can be matched with eight First Dynasty kings using contemporary Early Dynastic
sources. Heagy claims that it would be very unlikely that the keepers of the annals would
forget the name of the first king but remember the others.5 With the first clear attestation
in the royal titulary of the nbty name in Semerkhets reign and the nswt-bity name in the
reign of Den, Heagy says nothing but a contemporary source would prove the identification
of Menes.6
Heagys argument is based mainly on Narmers own claims that he was the first king of
Egypt, and that the propaganda of the Narmer Palette should not be underestimated.7 With
Heagy, T.C., 'Who was Menes?', Archo-Nil 24 (2014), 823; cf. Lorton, D., Why Menes?, Varia Aegyptiaca
3 (1987), 33-38.
3
Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 601.
4
Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 60; cf. OMara for a study on the name Menes (OMara, P.F., Once Again: Who
was Menes? An Orthographical Approach, GM 182 (2001), 97-105).
5
6
7
10
the unusual combination of iconography and the unknown aspect of the palettes display
location, use and access, we should only apply the modern term propaganda to this
ancient artefact circumspectly. Heagy reviews various evidence that has been used to
support either Narmer or Aha as Menes and determines that most is inconclusive. The
founding of Memphis by Menes, as recorded by Herodotus, has not been preserved in the
archaeological record. The cemetery at Helwan indicates that the site was in use from
Naqada IIIA, with Ka as the first attested king. Therefore, Narmer may have only moved the
capital to an existing settlement.8
The Naqada Label of Aha has been discounted as evidence and is now widely accepted as
showing a shrine to The Two Ladies, rather than identifying Aha with Menes. 9 The
Narmer/Mn seal or Princes seal appears to clearly identify Narmer as Menes through the
alternation of their names but is also inconclusive, as analysis of other seals shows the use
of successors names, personal and Horus names, and the names of private individuals. 10 All
other evidence assessed does not show the name of Menes with either Aha or Narmer and
should not be used to support either view.11
Another foundation of Heagys debate is the similarities in the roles of Menes and Narmer in
Egyptian history. The Min reliefs of Ramesses II show the cartouche of Menes associated
with the reunifying kings of Egypt: Mentuhotep II and Ahmose.12 Menes is further attested
as the first ruler in the king list of Seti I and the Turin Canon.13 The seals of Den and Qaa also
list Narmer as the first king (see 6.3), supporting Heagys identification of Narmer as

10
11
Unknown length of reigns inferred from probable gaps in the lost fragments of the Palermo Stone and
Dreyers Athothis I theory (Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 79, 812).
12
13
9
11
Menes.14 However, a large part of Heagys argument is based on the Narmer Palette and the
representations of the red and white crowns.15 The geographic associations of the crowns at
the start of the First Dynastic is unclear but is often used to support Narmer, an Upper
Egyptian king, victorious over a Lower Egyptian enemy. 16 This conflict was further
commemorated through the other objects attested to Narmer (see 6.1): the ivory cylinder,
the inlaid box fragments, the ivory year label and the macehead, which all show indications
of violence or captives related to the Delta region.17 As Menes is identified as the founder of
the unified Egyptian state in the New Kingdom, Heagy claims this as evidence that Narmer
and Menes are one and the same person.18
While Heagy clearly analyses and critiques the evidence and his identification of Menes as
Narmer is convincing, the link is tenuous. That Narmer is Menes because he said so
requires further justification.19 With the Naqada Label discounting a link between Aha and
Mn, and no other evidence supporting the identification of Aha with Menes, Aha can no
longer be claimed synonymous with this founding ruler. With Aha discounted, the Narmer
seal impression then shows the name of Narmer alternating with another of his names,
Menes.
14

16
17
18
19
15
12
2.1.2.
Fairservis Jr (1991)
In his Revised View of the Narmr Palette, Fairservis Jr. relies on a strict hieroglyphic
reading. He is highly critical of previous interpretations of the palette, specifically of
Gardiner (1961) whom he claims only partially read the palettes hieroglyphs before
abandoning this method for an iconographic reading.20
As has been shown with the large collection of ivory labels dating to the late Predynastic
and Early Dynastic period, messages were conveyed pictorially and in written form during
this period, due to the development of the language and the literacy of the society.21
Fairservis Jr.s reliance on this strict reading ignores aspects of the palette that use clear
iconography and does not take into account the philology of the language. Claiming that
the ancient artist intended for the most part to have the palette read as a text (original
italics) ignores vital aspects of Egyptian art seen throughout all of the dynastic period, where
iconography and text are used to reinforce each other.22
Fairservis Jr.s reading of the two symbols behind the kneeling figure (wa and S) fails to
mention the image of the human-headed papyrus land surmounted by a bird, which are
associated due to their direction, size and alignment on the palette. 23 Fairservis Jr. also
interprets Elephantine, Edfu and the Medjay of Nubia as being represented in the palette, as
well as up to six unidentified papyrus lands.24 The conflict apparently represents difficult
interactions between pastoralist and cultivators in the Nile Valley area, where cattle
herders, while looking for grazing land for their livestock, came into conflict with farmers
20
Fairservis Jr., W.A., A Revised View of the Narmer Palette, JARCE 28 (1991), 1, 4.
Wengrow, D., The Invention of Writing in Egypt in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of
Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 100101.
22
Fairservis Jr., Revised View of the Narmer Palette, 4; Bard, K.A., The Emergence of the Egyptian State
(c.3200-2686BC) in I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2003), 75.
23
Fairservis Jr., Revised View of the Narmer Palette, 4.
24
Fairservis Jr., Revised View of the Narmer Palette, 11, 12, 16, 17.
21
13
vying for the same space.25 Through a hieroglyphic reading of even the smallest feature on
the palette, Fairservis Jr. elaborates this livestock theory into one in which the palette was
created for the sandal-bearer of Narmer, who campaigned with the king into Upper Egypt
and dedicated the palette at Neken.26
2.1.3.
Goldwasser (1995)
Goldwasser uses the concept of metaphor in the imagery of the Narmer Palette to show the
cognitive development of the Egyptian mind during the development of writing, and the
impact this had on the formation of the Egyptian civilization.27 The Horus falcon is known as
a representation of the king from later Dynastic history but could also represent the actual
god Horus. These two aspects of the image create difficulty when interpreting Early or
Predynastic images, including the falcon and the human-headed papyrus land signs seen on
the recto of the Narmer Palette.
By comparing the sign combination in other ceremonial palettes, such as the Libyan (Cities)
Palette and the Battlefield Palette, Goldwasser shows that the Narmer Palette had evolved
metaphor to a complex and sophisticated use.28 While the images on the fortified walls of
the Libyan Palette and the armed Horus standards holding captives represent a metaphoric
motif that Goldwasser calls the Phonetic Metaphor, this was still developing and not fully
realised until the Narmer Palette.29 Goldwasser sees the animals and other motifs on the
Libyan Palette as attacking various cities. However, he does not address the hoe they are
25

Fairservis Jr., Revised View of the Narmer Palette, 10, 18; Perez Largacha, A., The rise of the Egyptian state
and Carneiro circumscription theory, CRIPEL 18 (1996), 107-118.
27
Goldwasser, O., The Taming of Metaphor A study of some scenes of the Narmer Palette in O. Goldwasser
(ed.) From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the semiotics of the hieroglyphs (Fribourg, 1995), 3.
28
Goldwasser, Taming of Metaphor, 1213.
29
Goldwasser, Taming of Metaphor, 17.
26
14
holding, which has also been interpreted as the founding of these cities by one, or many,
rulers.30
2.1.4.
Mark (1997)
Mark provides a detailed review of the theories surrounding the palette, including the
complex and often unsupported interpretation by Fairservis Jr., as well as the controversial
work of Y. Yadin and S. Yeivin. From his review, Mark shows that the traditional view that
the palette represents a conflict against Lower Egypt and the Delta is still the favoured
interpretation, even with its inherent flaws and complex decipherment.31
Mark does not consider an ideological interpretation of the palette, preferring the reading
of a historic event. He also shows that Millets proposal that the palette and maceheads
represent year events, seen on wooden and ivory labels, cannot be maintained.32 While
aspects of the iconography are similar, there is no evidence for the progression of year
events from small tags to large, intricately carved artefacts.33
Mark considers many of the views of different aspects of the palette, including the
Mesopotamian motifs and the idea of order over chaos applied to the serpopards with
entwined necks. While there are similarities in the long-necked creatures on the palette and
Mesopotamian seals, no one has clearly explained why a foreign motif was used to
represent this Egyptian sentiment.34
30
Goldwasser, Taming of Metaphor, 14; Dreyer, G., Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette die Unterwerfung des
Deltas, SASA Cahier 34 (2005), 258.
31
Mark, S., From Egypt to Mesopotamia: A study of Predynastic trade routes (College Station, 1997), 99.
32
Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 100.
33
34
15
From the sign group over the decapitated bodies, Mark interprets the palette as depicting
the Delta city of Buto.35 A door sign usually suggests a port or access point into Egypt and
with the harpoon sign, the nome of the same name suggests the site of Buto. 36 This
interpretation is heavily influenced by Marks work on the trade routes between Egypt and
Mesopotamia but should not be discounted. Trade during this time is clearly attested
internally, between Upper and Lower Egyptian sites, as well as externally to foreign
neighbours, including southern Levant and Nubia.
2.1.5.
Khler (2002)
Khler provides a succinct overview of the palette, briefly discussing some previous works,
as well as offering a detailed discourse on the subjugating the enemy motif and its
ideological implications.37 The earlier representations of the subjugation motifs in the late
Predynastic period show that there is a growing representation of rulers in Upper Egypt
being portrayed in dominate roles over enemies, which appear to be antecedents to the
Narmer Palette motifs.38 These subjugation motifs continue throughout pharaonic history,
where the establishment of order over chaos is an underlying message of the smiting scenes
which Khler compares.39 That this much later meaning can be inferred back into the late
Predynastic and Early Dynastic imagery of smiting and subjugation is misleading. It is clear
that order in Egyptian artistic representations was being established from an object like the
Louvre (Four Dogs) Palette, where the recto is symmetrical, but this does not discount the
35

37
Khler, E.C., History or Ideology? New Reflections on the Narmer Palette and the Nature of Foreign
Relations in Pre- and Early Dynastic Egypt in E.C.M. van den Brink & T. Levy (eds.), Egypt and the Levant:
th
rd
Interrelations from the 4 through the Early 3 Millennium B.C.E. (London, 2002), 499500.
38
Khler, History or Ideology?, 500503.
39
36
16
possibility that the smiting scene originated from a real event. While there is a clear change
and application of symmetry to the later palettes (for example, the serpopards of the
Narmer and the Two Dogs palettes) this may also be a result of development or change in
artistic style.
The comparison with the ivory label of Den where he is identified as performing the first
time of smiting the East(erners?) by the hieroglyphic inscription is problematic for Khler,
as she cannot exclude the possibility that the enemy may be Libyans from the Western
Desert and Delta.40 Khler states that Libyans and Asiatics are represented similarly and in
many cases only very explicit depictions or inscriptional evidence allow us to make an
identification one way or another.41 With the clear inscription naming the Easterners,
Khler appears to clarify her own confusion about the label of Den.
The representational motifs of animals on the palettes, and their correlation with
predynastic pottery, show a development of the hunt into iconography from a subsistence
activity to an agricultural society.42 That the palettes were utilised for a hunting ritual to
prepare and paint the face and/or body may be supported by imagery on the Hunters
Palette.43 Khler applies the same theory to the use of the Narmer Palette in warfare and
the decoration of the body and face ready for battle with a neighbouring village.44 While the
find context of the Narmer Palette is complex, its association with a temple precinct must be
taken into consideration when interpreting the palette as an artefact of warfare decoration.
40

42
43
44
41
17
2.1.6.
OConnor (2012)
OConnor starts by describing the palette as small when compared to the inscribed walls of
later temples. This not only creates a temporal issue but also blindly compares an artefact
able to be carried with an immovable wall.45 It is clear and well established that the Narmer
Palette is an elaborately decorated form of the Predynastic cosmetic palettes seen in
geometric and zoomorphic shapes (see 4.1) and should not be compared with later wall
reliefs. OConnor remains cautious on reading the palette as a historical document or an
iconographic representation of royal ceremonies, even though he mentions the ivory label
of Narmer that appears to confirm an actual event.46
OConnor uses recent work on styles of dress and crowns to elaborate that the verso image
of Narmer carries connotations of a sun god, possibly an early version of Re, through the red
crown, and the Lower Egyptian costume.47 While similarities can be seen between the sign
group above the 10 decapitated bodies, and the later procession of the morning barque,
OConnor fails to adequately correlate these images and forgets his earlier claim that the
sun god Re is not clearly attested at this early date.48 While an interesting interpretation,
OConnor shows little clear evidence, other than similarities between the palette and later
iconography. His greatest contribution appears to be his closing line, which suggests that a
definitive interpretation is still out of our grasp: It is a testimony to the protean strength of
the imagery on Narmers Palette that it can continue to generate yet further hypotheses (as
all of our interpretations must be) as to its meaning.49
45
OConnor, D., The Narmer Palette: A New Interpretation in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins
of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 146.
46
OConnor, Narmer Palette, 149150.
47
48
OConnor, Narmer Palette, 150, 152; cf. Khal, J., Ra is my Lord (Wiesbaden, 2007) for a discussion of the Sun
God in the Second Dynasty.
49
18
2.2.Unification
2.2.1.
Kemp (1995)
Kemp provides a concise overview of the Ancient Egyptian concept of unification. However,
this is based on later Dynastic evidence through representations of the unification symbol of
Upper and Lower Egypt.50 Other evidence is taken from the Palermo Stone, which dates to
the Fifth Dynasty and is not contemporary with the transitional phase of political
unification.51 Kemp does propose an interesting concept of the possibility of a myth of
unification due to the bilateral symmetry that the Egyptians implemented into other aspects
of their culture, including art and architecture.52 In this concept, the Two Lands: Upper and
Lower Egypt, east and west, desert and valley, combine to continually complement each
other through their unification into one state controlled by the king. Due to the lack of
written and symbolic language from the late Predynastic period, Kemp states scholars are
hesitant about interpreting the few examples we have, such as the red crown of Lower
Egypt on an Upper Egyptian pot found at Naqada.53
2.2.2.
Khler (1995)
Khler addresses the two leading theories of the time: Kaiser and Trigger. She highlights the
discrepancy seen in settlement versus cemetery archaeology, and the lack of excavations in
the Nile Delta compared with the Nile Valley of Middle and Upper Egypt.54 Khler identifies
three facies as separate cultural groups, with the Badarian and Naqadian cultures divided
50
Kemp, B., Unification and the Urbanization of Ancient Egypt in J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Near East
Vol. II (New York, 1995), 679.
51
Kemp, Unification and Urbanization, 679-80.
52
Kemp, Unification and Urbanization, 681.
53
54
Khler, E.C., The State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt: New Evidence for the Development of the
Pharaonic State?, GM 147 (1995), 7982.
19
based on slight variations in lithic and ceramic productions.55 The early excavations at Buto,
when eventually compared with other sites in the Delta, did not show the dramatic shift in
cultural identifiers that Kaiser had termed the classical model.56 Khler concludes by
stating that the mythology and political ideology of the later Egyptian state must be
carefully assessed before they are applied back into the Predynastic period, where they
often conflict with the archaeological record.57
2.2.3.
Siegemund (1999)
Siegemund reviews some of the theories of the unification of Egypt and the formation of the
state, discounting most previous theories. He reworks Renfrews multiplier effect theory
for civilisation development on Crete and analyses it through the work of Hoffman, Kemp
and Trigger.58 Through this, Siegemund tries to show that there was no war of unification,
and no political rule or entities later known as Upper and Lower Egypt, at the beginning of
the Dynastic period.59
Through the role of Pharaoh as spiritual leader, not political leader, and the control of
water supplies, Siegemund proposes the building of large projects that led to the formation
of the Egyptian state by the Middle Kingdom, not the Early Dynastic or Old Kingdom as
currently accepted.60 While the religious role of the king is often understated in the
formation of the Egyptian state in preference for a political or military role, Siegemund
inverts many scholars views rather than creating the balanced analysis he proposes.61
55
Khler, State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt, 84.

57
58
Siegemund, R.H., A critical review of theories about the origins of the ancient Egyptian state, unpublished
PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (1999), 353.
59
Siegemund, Critical review of theories, 71.
60
61
56
20
2.2.4.
Wilkinson (2000)
Wilkinson provides a clear summation of the cultural stages of the unification process
covering the Naqadan expansion and the change of pottery and technology types in Lower
Egypt. The acculturation of the Upper Egyptian cultures in their early stages is also
addressed from late Naqada I, where the small polities combine before the northward
expansion and supplantation of the Lower Egyptian Cultures.62
Wilkinson only generally surmises the evidence but is concise and allows a good overview of
the current understanding of the cultural unification process. He shows the role of trade,
control of commodities and access to trade routes, but further evidence is required to
clearly demonstrate the impact these exchange networks had on the acculturation
process.63 While an important summation of the cultural unification process, Wilkinson does
not cover the Lower Egyptian Cultures in much detail, only recording the Naqada stage that
supplanted the local cultures.64
62
Wilkinson, T., Political Unification: towards a reconstruction, MDAIK 56 (2000d), 37881.

Wilkinson, Political Unification, 382.
64
63
21
22
3. Overview of cultural unification (acculturation)

With increased excavation and a greater understanding of the cultures of the Delta region in
the Late Predynastic era, the process of the unification of Egypt is now clearer than it has
ever been. The archaeological evidence indicates different, geographically separate cultures
in Upper and Lower Egypt that combined and, through acculturation, resulted in a similar
cultural identity throughout the region before any evidence clearly shows a ruler for the
whole of Egypt.
This unification is now understood as a two-stage process, with a cultural unification around
Naqada IIIA/B preceding a political unification leading to the First Dynasty. To avoid
confusion, terminology regarding these processes needs to be clarified, to differentiate
between cultural and political unification. Acculturation is the process of cultural and social
change, resulting in a culturally similar Egypt. Unification is the historical process in the
mindset of later Egyptians, which saw the unification of the two lands under one king.1 For
this study the term unification will be used to refer to the political process contemporary
with the Narmer Palette and the start of the First Dynasty.
The confusion of these two separate but interlinked processes created the basis of the
Naqadan Expansion theory. The Naqadan Expansion theory appears supported by the later
Dynastic Egyptian concepts of the dual state: two lands, red and white crowns, the sedge
and bee, Nekhbet and Wadjet, and so on;2 but the reality in the archaeological record
Khler, E.C., The interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt in the formation of the
Egyptian state. Another review in B. Midant-Reynes & Y. Tristant (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2: Proceedings of
the International Conference Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France),
th
th
5 8 September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 5167; cf. Jimenez Serrano, A., The origin of the state and the
unification: two different concepts in the same context in B. Midant-Reynes & Y. Tristant (eds.), Egypt At Its
Origins 2: Proceedings of the International Conference Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic
th th
Egypt, Toulouse (France), 5 -8 September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 11191137.
2
Khler, Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt, 517.
23
appears more complex than two distinct ruling societies. This bias of a southern expansion
into the north is seen in the publications dealing with unification and state formation. While
this may also be a result of limited excavations to date in the Delta, some scholars do not
even address the cultures present in Lower Egypt before the Naqada culture is attested.
Acculturation is now understood to be the driving force at the start of the process of state
formation and political unification.3
Contact between two or more cultural groups usually results in changes in at least one of
the groups, which takes on cultural elements of the people it is interacting with.4 Change
can occur in both cultural groups but usually one culture will dominate another. 5 Conflict
can arise if one group resists adapting its valued culture for something different and
unknown.6 Where forced acculturation occurs through invasion or settlement, the chance
for conflict is increased.
Interaction through trade is the best candidate for the process of acculturation in Egypt. The
evidence for sustained warfare in late Predynastic Egypt is difficult to find in the
archaeological record but does appear in the iconography that was later to be identified
with the kingship. This iconography may be an aspect of the kings control over his people,
enemies and chaos all of which appear in later periods as important imagery of the divine
Khler, Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt, 517; cf. Perez Largacha for a
discussion on social circumscription compared to warfare in the Carneiro circumscription theory in the
development of the Egyptian state (Perez Largacha, Egyptian state and Carneiro circumscription theory, 107118).
4
Berry, J.W., Acculturation as Varieties of Adaptation in A.M. Padilla (ed.), Acculturation: Theory, Models and
Some Findings (Colorado, 1980), 10.
5
Trimble, J., Introduction: Social Change and Acculturation in K. Chun, P. Organista & G. Marin (eds.),
Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement and Applied Research (Washington, 2003), 7.
6
Berry, Acculturation as Varieties of Adaptation, 11.
24
king but could also refer to specific battles and conflicts between people of varying
cultural groups.7
Flannerys Old Testament effect was used to explain the acculturation process through
migration. This can no longer be supported, with sites showing regional variations and
similarities appearing through trade contact over large distances.8 These regional variations
appear greater when comparing the extremes of Upper and Lower Egypt. However, a
transition in cultures appears between these extremes, with localised variations gradually
become more similar through the Naqada periods. Gradual cultural developments in these
areas show sites having prolonged contact with settlements in Nubia, the Western Desert,
southern Levant and between each other.9
Upper Egypt may have become the dominate culture in the acculturation process due to its
geographic location restricting access to one main trade route: the river. Trade between the
Naqadan region and areas north and south was easier compared to settlements in the Delta
separated by the less accessible channels and canals.10 Settlements in the Delta on major
trade routes, such as Maadi, benefited as their location provided easy access to the Sinai
and southern Levant.11 Trade provided the basis for the establishment of an administrative
apparatus. This can be seen at the site of Tell el-Farkha in Lower Egypt, where, during the
Naqada III period, cylinder seals and seal impressions appear.12
Khler, E.C., The Rise of the Egyptian State in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian
Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 123.
8
9
10
Chlodnicki, M., Trade and Exchange in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic period in the Eastern Nile Delta in
B. Midant-Reynes & Y. Tristant (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2: Proceedings of the International Conference
th
th
Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France), 5 8 September 2005
(Leuven, 2008), 491.
11
Chlodnicki, Trade and Exchange in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic period, 491.
12
25
3.1.Naqada I
Our view of the cultures of Upper and Lower Egypt in the Predynastic period is complicated
by an imbalance in the archaeological representation, with more than 15,000 graves known
to be from Upper Egypt dating between Naqada IIID compared to approximately 600 from
Lower Egypt.13 The discrepancy was also previously seen in settlements, with more known in
northern Egypt than in the south for the same time period.14 However, recent fieldwork is
starting to correct this.
3.1.1.
Upper Egypt
It is clear from the mortuary evidence for Upper Egypt that four regions (This/Abydos,
Abadiya, Naqada, Hierakonpolis/Nekhen), possibly five including Gebelein, show a ruling
elite class with powerful local chiefs (see Figure 3).15 Burials and tombs at each of these
locations show an increase in high-quality grave goods or traded materials, such as ivory,
beads and fragrant resin, with a large number of locally made pottery vessels. 16 These goods
indicate a person at each location with increased power and control over resources
compared to the rest of the population with graves in the mortuary record.
At Hierakonpolis, a separate cemetery Locality 6 was used for the elite burials. It was
positioned away from the Predynastic settlement and the general cemetery, and included
stone-cut tombs.17 At Abydos, the well-known painted vessel with a ruler smiting bound
enemies shows the start of the formation of the iconography of kingship (see Figure 20,
Naqada IC).18 One of the richest burials in the region is seen at Abadiya Cemetery B; another
13
15
16
17
18
Grave U-239 (Dreyer, G., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Khler, E.C., Mller, V. und Pumpenmeir, F., Umm el-Qaab
Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof, MDAIK 54 (1998), fig.12.1, 13).
14
26
nearby is almost as impressive.19 A similar situation is seen at Naqada, where a ruling elite
appeared to have increased access to high-status goods obtained through trade or
conquest.20
3.1.2.
Lower Egypt
In Lower Egypt, a number of cultural areas are known for the period congruent with the
early Naqada periods of Upper Egypt (see Fig. 7). Once known as the Maadi/Buto cultures,
the archaeology of the Nile Delta has shown that a more complex situation led to the use of
the term Lower Egyptian Cultures21, which should also be adapted to the Upper Egyptian
cultures of this period. Similarities and differences in the cultural remains at the sites
excavated so far show a vast network of interaction and trade between regions, not only in
the Delta but also between southern Levant and Sinai. During the Naqada IIIB period, the
Lower Egyptian Cultures are distinctly different from the Naqadan cultures, with lowerquality domestic structures preserved mainly through postholes and reduced grave goods
and burial investment when compared to the Naqadan cemeteries at Abydos, Naqada and
Hierakonpolis. 22 These burials show similarities with Upper Egypt, with certain areas
dedicated as cemeteries and bodies buried in a pit grave, usually wrapped in an animal skin
or reed mat and placed in a contracted position.23 While the graves of Lower Egypt appear
to be poorer by comparison, they do not necessarily indicating a less-evolved society.24
Due to their geographic proximity, the Lower Egyptian cultures have a greater connection
with southern Levant during this period, showing similarities in lithic material and ceramics,
19
Tomb B101 (Wilkinson, Political Unification, 380).

21
Tristant, Y. & Midant-Reynes, B., The Predynastic Cultures of the Nile Delta in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the
Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 48.
22
Tristant, & Midant-Reynes, Predynastic Cultures of the Nile Delta, 48.
23
24
20
27
and a copper trade.25 The subterranean houses of Maadi, not seen elsewhere in Egypt, are
similar to the Early Bronze Age I houses of Negev in the Levant, while clay cones appear in
the oldest layers at Buto which imitate the decorative motif cones seen in the Uruk
cultures.26 Buto also shows evidence of oval and rectangular structures with postholes that
have been identified as domestic areas similar to constructions located in the Eastern Delta
at Tell el-Iswid.27
25

27
26
28
Figure 3. Late Naqada I Map

The four polities of Abydos/This, Abadiya, Naqada and Hierakonpolis/Nekhen, with a possible fifth polity at Gebelein,
based on variations in the culutral remains (Wilkinson, Political Unification, Fig.1).
29
Naqada IIAIIB
3.1.3.
Upper Egypt
A power shift appears to have occurred in Upper Egypt during early Naqada II. The Naqada
polity increasing in power and influence in the area, as seen through the increased goods in
the new elite Cemetery T.28 This is supported by a break in the mortuary record at
Abydos/This, Hierakonpolis and Abadiya, with Abadiya being subsumed by a neighbouring
polity, possibly This (see Figure 4).29 From Naqada IIBIIC, there is a decrease in the elite
burials at Hierakonpolis and This/Abydos.30 Wilkinson attributes this increase in power and
social stratification in the mortuary record at Naqada to its trade relations and access to
gold resources.31 However, little evidence is available to support this claim.
3.1.4.
Lower Egypt
Tell el-Farkha played a big role in trade between Caanan and other settlements in Lower
Egypt during the Naqada IIB/C period. However, from the clay seals found at the site, the
region also appears to have been the final destination for many of the goods.32 While the
mortuary record differs from Upper Egypt, the complexity of settlements in Lower Egypt can
be seen at Maadi through the size of the town, including the stone houses, and through the
continuing trade interaction with the Levant and Upper Egypt.33 These trades included
specialised crafts such as metallurgy and stone vessels and fine flint tools, such as fishtail
knives from Upper Egypt.34 Access to these high-quality goods indicates social stratification
that included a ruling chief in areas of the Delta.35
28

30
31
32
33
34
35
29
30
Figure 4. Mid Naqada II Map

Expansion of the polities of Abydos/This and Naqada, with Abadiya subsumed into This. Expansion of
Hierakonpolis/Nekhen to the south (Wilkinson, Political Unification, Fig.2).
31
3.2.Naqada IIC-IID
3.2.1.
Upper Egypt
During Naqada IICIID1, Upper Egypt is dominated by three power centres, with local elites
starting to utilise brick-lined tombs such as Tomb U-q at Abydos and Tomb T5 at Naqada.36
An imported Mesopotamian cylinder seal was recovered from tomb T29 in Cemetery T at
Naqada, indicating clear trade networks and an administrative apparatus to deal with
political and economic authority.37 The elite cemetery at Hierakonpolis was relocated closer
to the Predynastic settlement and is best known for Tomb T100, which includes elaborate
decorations of boats and other royal iconography. The expansion of the mortuary culture at
Hierakonpolis may be due to its location, which allowed easy access to trade routes such as
the Wadi Abbad, Nubia and sub-Saharan Africa.38 During Naqada IIC, a local ruler at
Gebelein was buried with a cloth painted with scenes similar to Tomb T100 showing that
iconography of a ruling class was established in separate but closely associated polities.39
We only know of simple pit burials in Abydos for the late Naqada II period. This may indicate
the reduced power and influence of the Abydene elite compared to those at Naqada and
Hierakonpolis, although part of a red limestone HqA sceptre was found in Grave U-547.40
Naqada graves were plundered at Cemetery T, although we can obtain an approximation of
their status from the large number of pottery vessels they contained.41 No one has located
burials at Hierakonpolis; however inferred evidence has been taken from imported pottery
36

38
39
40
41
37
32
vessels found in Lower Nubian A-Group burials showing intensive trade between the two
regions.42
3.2.2.
Lower Egypt
The site of Minshat Abu Omar shows similar pottery types to the Lower Egyptian style of
early Naqada II, including rough lemon-shaped vessels, with the Naqadan culture not
attested until Naqada IIIB-C.43 Coarse wares, which Khler identifies as kitchen wares, are
similar in both Upper and Lower Egypt, indicating a common culture of fine untempered
pottery not manufactured in the Delta.44 When these fine wares, such as Red Polished or
Black Topped vessels, were sought, they had to be imported from Upper Egypt, which shows
the continuing trade and interaction.45
At Tell el-Farkha, excavations discovered large buildings of posts and plaited walls arranged
along narrow streets, with rooms allocated for various uses. The style and arrangement of
these buildings, along with the oldest brewery known for Egypt, show the socioeconomic
division in the Lower Egyptian Cultures at this time.46 The trade with the Levant and Upper
Egypt for ceramics, tools and raw materials shows that these sites were interconnected and
supports the beginning of the gradual process of acculturation.47
42

44
45
46
Cialowicz, K., The Predynastic/Early Dynastic Period at Tell el-Farkha in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids:
The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 55.
47
Cialowicz, Predynastic/Early Dynastic Period at Tell el-Farkha, 56; Tristant, & Midant-Reynes, Predynastic
Cultures of the Nile Delta, 54.
43
33
3.3.Naqada IIIAIIIB
3.3.1.
Upper Egypt
Rock inscriptions dated epigraphically to early Naqada III at Gebel Tjauti suggest a military
victory by the ruler of This against the Naqada region. Wilkinson suggests that this victory
came through the exploitation of southern trade routes that by passed Naqada, reducing
the authority of its rulers in the region (see Figure 5).48 The mortuary records clearly show
large brick tombs dwarfing those at Naqada and Hierakonpolis in the previous eras, and a
large number of imported ceramics.49 Tomb U-j is one of the best examples from this date,
with an elaborate brick built tomb possibly representing the tomb owners house or palace
in life.50 Wilkinson infers from place names on ivory labels in the tomb that This controlled
parts of the Delta, although their presence could also result from trade or raids. 51 That the
tomb owner was a king is clear from the artefacts recovered, but the extent of his rule,
based on the attestation of Delta sites on ivory labels, is difficult to determine.
Hierakonpolis also shows evidence of increased influence, with the elite cemetery returning
to Locality 6 during Naqada III.52 While the cemetery has been disturbed, evidence from
Tomb II shows the high-status items interred and along with a similar increase at sites in
Lower Nubia indicates a large trade network as the basis for the increasing development
of social stratification.53 Unnamed serekhs start to appear in Upper Egypt towards the end
48

50
51
Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 21; Dreyer, G., Tomb U-j: A Royal Burial of Dynasty 0 at Abydos in E.
Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 1345.
52
53
49
34
of Naqada IIIA2 and become more frequent into Naqada IIIB, showing both Naqada and
Hierakonpolis polities using the same iconography for their rulers.54
3.3.2.
Lower Egypt
At Minshat Abu Omar, wavy-handled pottery from Upper Egypt is attested in graves dating
to Naqada IIIB-C. A change in orientation of the body from the right to left side also occurs.55
Delta sites show social and cultural changes occurring, which Khler infers not as the
Naqadan
culture
arriving
but
congruent
culture
developing
gradually
and
interdependently at all sites.56 At Tell el-Iswid there is a break between phases A and B,
while at Tell Ibrahim Awad mudbrick architecture replaces the earlier posthole
constructions.57
Evidence of a gradual change can be seen in the transition layer at Buto, where ceramics
show replacement of the indigenous pottery with straw-tempered ware common
throughout Egypt.58 This gradual change would appear to support Khlers proposal of
transference of culture rather than a forced expansion of the Naqadan culture (see Figure
5). At Helwan a cylinder seal from the necropolis of el-Maasara shows a figure with late
Predynastic royal motifs, indicating a high official in the Memphite region, although there is
no indication if this is a local king, as Wilkinson suggests, or a representative of an Upper or
Lower Egyptian king.59
54
Wilkinson, Political Unification, 389; Friedman, R., Hierakonpolis in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids:
The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 44.
55
Khler, Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt, 529; Wilkinson, T., State Formation in
Egypt: Chronology and society, BAR International Series 651 (Oxford, 1996), 94.
56
57
Wilkinson, State Formation in Egypt, 94.
58
Wilkinson, State Formation in Egypt, 94.
59
35
Figure 5. Early Naqada III Map

Polities of Naqada and Gebelien subsumed into Abydos/This, with cultural remains discovered in Middle Egypt showing
the acculturation of the Naqadan culture towards the Delta. (Wilkinson, Political Unification, Fig.3).
36
3.4.Late Naqada III

From late Naqada III, similar cultural styles were seen throughout Egypt and an increased
use of serekhs, often including names, appeared at sites in both Upper and Lower Egypt (see
Figure 6).60 These include the names of @At-@r, Crocodile, Iry-@r and Scorpion, as well as
others of unclear pronunciation.61
The tombs of the last rulers of the Predynastic period are seen at Abydos in Cemeteries U
and B. Tomb B7/9 belonged to Ka/Sekhen, Narmers predecessor, whose serekhs are also
attested in the Delta, Sinai and southern Levant.62 Hierakonpolis retained control of parts of
southern Upper Egypt until just before the reign of Narmer, with Tomb 1 the last and largest
at the site. It has been speculated as the burial place of Scorpion II, attested on his
ceremonial macehead.63 With the ascension of Narmer to the Thinite throne, Hierakonpolis
ceased to exist. While the exact process is unknown, the archaeological record shows no
more royal burials at Hierakonpolis, with the First Dynasty kings buried at Abydos.64
60
Wilkinson, Political Unification, 390, 392.

62
Dreyer, Tomb U-j, 128; Tallet, R. & Laisney, D., Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sina (Ouadi Ameyra) Un
complment la chronologie des expditions minires gyptiennes, BIFAO 112 (2012), 3812.
63
Wilkinson, Political Unification, 392; Friedman, Hierakonpolis, 43.
64
61
37
Figure 6. Late Naqada III Map

Continued expansion of the Hierakonpolis/Nekhen culture south into Nubia. Contact between the Naqadan culture and
the Lower Egyptian cultures accelerated acculturation in the Delta (Wilkinson, Political Unification, Fig.4).
38
3.5.Summation
Independent cultures in both Upper and Lower Egypt developed, interacted and evolved,
which allowed the Ancient Egyptian state to form. In Upper Egypt, these communities
acculturated earlier than those in Lower Egypt, as their close proximity allowed them to
establish easy trade networks for the exchange of ideas and technologies. With trade
enabling further acculturation, these communities developed into protostates, with a ruler
to manage a political bureaucracy that controlled trade functions.65 This/Abydos rose to
prominence in the region, leaving the Naqada culture to disseminate throughout Egypt
through the process of acculturation rather than forced expansion into Lower Egypt.
Whether Naqada is the right term for a culture whose seat of authority was based at This is
an irrelevant point; tradition has decided the label for this dominant cultural phase of the
acculturation process.
Through extended trade networks, these developing polities came into contact with
settlements in Lower Egypt and, through their connections, settlements further afield in
southern Levant. Acculturation in the Delta resulted in the Upper Egyptian culture
supplanting the Lower Egyptian cultures. With a closely uniform culture throughout Egypt
by early Naqada III, an Upper Egyptian ruler would have found it easier to assert authority
over the people of Lower Egypt, who could by then associate themselves with a common
cultural identity.
With Narmer identified as Menes, the first king of Egypt, the start of the Dynasty is
attributed to him, but he is one ruler in a succession that formed the Ancient Egyptian state.
Through absolute dating, Horus Aha, Narmers successor, has been shown to have started
his rule between 3111 and 3045 BCE. This is supported by the dating of Tomb U-j to 3200
65
Khler, Rise of the Egyptian State, 123.
39
3150 BCE, approximately 150 years earlier (see Figure 7).66 Narmers rule is dated to start
between 3150 and 3045 BCE.
The process of state formation continued through the First and Second Dynasties, leaving
Egypt completely consolidated by the start of the Third Dynasty. During this period, major
changes in the administration were made, especially during the reign of Den. The
development of monumental architecture also laid the foundation for the start of the Old
Kingdom. The consolidation of the iconography of kingship during the First Dynasty was one
of the most important aspects of divine rule, establishing a framework that would last
throughout the dynastic era.67
66
Dee, M., Wengrow, D., Shortland, A., Stevenson, A., Brock, F., Flink, L.G. & Ramsey, C.B., An Absolute
Chronology for Early Egypt using Radiocarbon Dating and Bayesian Statistical Modelling, Proceedings of the
Royal Society 469 (2013), 5; Dreyer, Tomb U-j, 128; Yurco, F.J., Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower Egypt.
A Reconsideration of his Palette and Macehead, JSSEA 25 (1995), 86.
67
Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 112.
40
General
Cultural
Phase
Early Dynastic
Western
Delta
Region
Southern
Upper
Egypt
Djer
Aha
Absolute
B.C.E.
Buto V
Naqada IIIC
Narmer
3150
Protodynastic
Buto IIIIV
Naqada IIIB
3250
Late
Predynastic
Buto IIIBE
KeK 3,
MAO III
IV
North Saqqara
Tura
Helwan
Tarkhan
Naqada IIIA
3300
Buto II
IIIA
KeK 2,
MAO I
Farkha 1,
Iswid A
Abusir el-Meleq
Haraga
Girza
Late
Grezean
Naqada IIC
D
3400
KeK 1
Heliopolis
Digla I + II
Maadi
Amratian/
Early
Gerzean?
Naqada
IB/CIIB
3650
Sedment
Mayana?
Amratian
Naqada IA/B
4000
Transitional
Badarian
Amratian
Transtitional
Badarian
Naqada I
Badarian
Badarian?
Buto I
Predynastic
Late Neolithic
Eastern
Delta
Region
Memphis
Fayum region
Region of
Badari
3111
3045
3500
Merimde
El-Omari
4350
Benisalame
Fayum A
5000
Figure 7. Regional cultural chronology

Regional cultural identifiers and dates through the acculturation process (After Khler, Interaction between and the
roles of Upper and Lower Egypt, 543 with updated absolute dates from Dee, et.al., An Absolute Chronology for Early
Egypt, 5).
41
4. Description of the Narmer Palette

4.1.Early Palettes
The development of the palettes through the late Predynastic period shows increasing
complexity and artistic style with early palettes restricted to geometric shapes and later the
application of zoomorphic features such as bird heads or representations of hippopotami
and fish.1 These palettes were used to grind mineral pigments assumed to be for makeup
and were often made from fine siltstone. Most have been found in a funerary context
associated with cemeteries and other grave goods.2
The ceremonial palette appears during Naqada IIDIIIA and, while a descendant of the
earlier palettes, its exact evolution remains unclear. As complex designs cover much of the
palettes surface, unlike the earlier palettes, and the find location of two palettes is
associated with a temple complex, we should consider a ceremonial or votive function.3 A
clear depression on most of the palette fragments found indicates they were still used with
mixing or grinding pigment. Despite the many interpretations of the iconographic motifs in
the ceremonial palettes (see Chapter 2. Literature review), we appear to be no closer to
understanding the exact message the creator intended.
Questions regarding whether one side of the palette is more important than the other have
been proposed, implying increased importance of the imagery on the dominate side. 4
However, while the circular depression indicates the intended use of the palette, allowing
possible inference of a primary side, no clear evidence of pigment or grinding has been
Shaw, I. & Nicholson, P., The Princeton Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (Princeton, 2008), 243.
Shaw, & Nicholson, Princeton Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, 243.
3
4
OConnor, D., Context, Function and Program: Understanding Ceremonial Slate Palettes, JARCE 39 (2002),
10.
2
42
found on any of the ceremonial palettes.5 OConnor suggests that ceremonial palettes were
only used to mix the ground pigment with water before application and not for the grinding
of the mineral.6 But who or what were the pigments applied to? With the early palettes
found in a funerary context with human remains, the pigment ground on these early
zoomorphic palettes are inferred for human use and decoration. As the Narmer Palette was
found in a votive context, it has been suggested that the pigments were applied to the
divine image of the god. Kings may also have used them in ceremonies.7
4.2.Date and find context

Found by Quibell and Green under the Old Kingdom temple remains at Hierakonpolis in
1897/8, the confused details over the palettes excavation have added to its mystery.8
Located close to, but separate from, the Main Deposit, two other palettes were found with
the Narmer Palette, which Quibell believed were from a royal burial.9 Green details the date
of the Main Deposit and claims the Narmer Palette came from the same level. However,
New Kingdom pottery fragments and a scarab were found under a wall in the surrounding
area.10 Green proposed that these later items fell into a foundation trench for the wall,
although the stratigraphy is unclear due to the lack of clear excavation reports.11
Because of this confused archaeological record, a terminus ante quem is difficult to
determine. This makes reliance on iconographic dating and attestation of the kings name
through the carving of the palette the only dating possible. The representation and
5
OConnor, Context, Function and Program, 8.

OConnor, Context, Function and Program, 8.
7
8
9
Quibell, J.E., Slate palette from Hieraconpolis, ZS 36 (1898), 83.
10
Quibell, J.E. & Green, F.W., Hierakonpolis Part II (London, 1902), 1314.
11
Quibell, & Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, 14; cf. Adams for a study of unpublished material from the Quibell &
Green excavation (Adams, B., Introduction in B. Adams, Ancient Hierakonpolis Vol. 1 (Warminster, 1974), xixvi).
6
43
attestation of the serekh of Narmer, the iconographic motifs of kingship found in the palette
and their comparison to the development of these motifs during the late Predynastic and
Early Dynastic period, clearly date the palette to the transitional period around the
unification of Egypt. As Menes, Narmer can be placed at the start of the modern division of
Dynasty One (approximately 3150 BCE) rather than the end of Dynasty 0. 12 However, as
Wilkinson states, the entire debate for the later division into dynasties is actually rather
anachronistic, as it is clear from the seal impressions of Den and Qaa that later kings
identified Narmer as the first king of Egypt regardless of his actual role in the unification. 13
Stylistically the Narmer Palette shows increased order when compared to other ceremonial
palettes of the late Predynastic period, possibly indicating changes or progression in artistic
style and representations.14
4.3.General description
Due to the proliferation of discourse on the Narmer Palette, and its well-known and iconic
nature, only a brief description is provided in the following section (see Figure 1 and 2).15
Traditionally the side of the palette with the depression for grinding or mixing is referred to
as the obverse/verso, with the other labelled the reverse/recto. For ease of reference, this
identification will be continued here. The verso is separated into four registers: the top
contains the serekh of Narmer flanked by matching bovine heads. Underneath follows a
complex scene, which appears to represent the king wearing the red crown in a procession
towards two rows of decapitated victims. The circular depression is contained in the third
12
Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 5992; Dee, et.al., Absolute Chronology for Early Egypt using Radiocarbon
Dating, 5.
13
14
Baines, J., Communication and Display: the Integration of Early Egyptian Art and Writing, Antiquity 63
(1989), 47879; Davis, W., The Origins of Register Composition in Predynastic Egyptian Art, JAOS 96 (1976),
404-418.
15
cf. Baumgartel for a more detailed description of the palette (Baumgartel, Palettes 90-96).
44
register the largest on this side of the palette with two mythical beasts traditionally
referred to as serpopards framing the depression, controlled by two handlers. The last
register contains a representation of a bull breaking into a fortress and trampling a foe.
The recto is separated into three registers, with the top register almost a mirror image of
the top verso register showing only minor differences in the representation of the mouths
of the bovines and the construction of the serekh. The main register shows an iconic image
from Dynastic Egypt of a king smiting an enemy while wearing the white crown, with a
sandal-bearer nearby and a papyrus land sign with human head topped by a falcon. The last
register shows two figures appearing to flee with two symbols near their heads.
45
5. Unification on the Narmer Palette

The Narmer Palette is often identified as the artefact confirming Narmers role in the
political unification of Egypt. While there is considerable iconography contained in the
palette, we must take care when using this one object as evidence for the unification of
Egypt by a sole ruler. The palettes many registers and combination of signs require careful
analysis for a detailed interpretation of its meaning (see Chapter 2. Literature review).
However, when considering political unification, we are able to limit the discussion to
certain aspects. This chapter will discuss the iconography of the kingship, including the red
and white crowns, the identification of the Delta and the aspect of violence in the palette to
determine what part they play in portraying the political unification of Egypt.
5.1.Kingship iconography
The development of the iconography of kingship in Egypt dates to the late Predynastic
period. Various aspects were slowly incorporated, consolidated or discarded so that by the
First Dynasty, the kingship and the iconography related to it was firmly established and
basically unchanged for more than three thousand years. In the Narmer Palette, we can see
many aspects of this iconography combined for the first time in a highly complex way in one
object, with a ruler of significant influence. These aspects include the representations of the
red and white crowns on either side of the palette, the falcon as the god Horus, the serekh
of Narmer and other aspects of kingship, such as Narmers attendants and standards.
For many scholars, the main argument for Narmer instigating the unification of Upper and
Lower Egypt is the image of the red and white crowns on either side of his palette. 1
Schulman, A.R., Narmer and the Unification: A Revisionist View, BES 11 (1991/92), 83.
46
Associated with clearly defined geographic regions from the mid-First Dynasty onwards in
the late Predynastic period, during Narmers reign this regional association was less clear.
Traditionally associated with Lower Egypt, the red crown is the earliest attested of the two
crowns appearing on an Upper Egyptian red black-top ware pottery fragment found at
Naqada, dating to late Naqada I (see Figure 8).2 While the association of the god Seth and
the colour red with Naqada may account for the red crowns presence at the site, its
relocation as a symbol of the Delta remains unclear. Yurcos interpretation that Narmer built
a tomb for his assumed wife, Neith-hotep, at Naqada in compensation for moving the red
crown away from its traditional home is unsubstantiated at this time.3
Figure 8. Red Black-Top Ware Fragment with the Red Crown

Pottery fragment showing the red crown found at Naqada, dated to Naqada I (Baumgartel, Origins of the Titles of the
Archaic Egyptian Kings, Pl.XV).
2
3

Yurco, Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower Egypt, 89.
47
The white crown is attested earlier with the kingship and connected with Upper Egypt
through the incense burners of Qustul.4 Dated contemporary with the Naqada IIIA2 period,
two Qustul incense burners of Group A Nubian rulers show iconography closely linked with
the Egyptian kingship.5 The fragmentary incense burner from Tomb L24 (see Figure 9)
appears to show a figure wearing the white crown sitting in a boat, with a nine-pointed
rosette and serekh topped by a falcon directly in front of the figures face. A second incense
burner, the Archaic Horus burner from Tomb L11 (see Figure 10), clearly shows two figures
wearing the white crown in a boat, similar to the Metropolitan Museum knife handle.6 The
white crown is also associated with Hierakonpolis through the main Scorpion Macehead
(see Figure 32), which shows King Scorpion wearing the crown. Evidence of trade between
lower Nubia and Hierakonpolis show the two polities were in close contact during this
period.
The size difference between the figures of Narmer on the palette has led Wilkinson to
assume a superior role for the white over the red crown in the unification process. 7 With
both crowns appearing to originate in Upper Egypt before Narmers reign, the crowns can
no longer be used alone to support the military conquest of Lower Egypt by an Upper
Egyptian ruler.

Michaux-Colombot, D., New Considerations on the Qustul Incense Burner Iconography in W. Godlewski
th
th
(ed.), Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11 Conference for Nubian Studies, Warsaw University 27
nd
August 2 September 2006 (Warsaw, 2010), 359.
6
The handle is dated slightly later than the incense burners, where a figure wearing a white crown sits in a
boat holding a flail with a five-pointed star close by (Williams, B., Logan, T.J. & Murnane, W.J., The
Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery before Narmer, JNES 46 (1987), 2489,
250; Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 194).
7
5
48
Figure 9. Qustul Incense Burner

Fragmentary incense burner from Qustul Tomb L24 showing iconography linked to the Egyptian kingship,
including the white crown, rosette, niched building and boats.
(Teeter, Before the Pyramids, 162, Fig.C2)
Horus, the falcon god, is one of the earliest deities connected with the kingship. While
attested at many sites throughout Egypt, the falcon cult of Nekhen remained one of the
most important and ancient places for the worship of Horus.8 For the late Predynastic
period, the role of Horus in the kingship is difficult to determine due to the lack of clear
written records; however, the falcon is often represented in close association with the
figure of the ruler. The Qustul Incense Burner (see Figure 9) is inferred to have a falcon
directly in front of the figure wearing the white crown. It appears twice more on the Archaic
Horus Incense Burner (see Figure 10).9
Figure 10. Archaic Horus Incense Burner

From Qustul, Nubia Tomb L11 showing figures riding in boats with two wearing
the white crown and a falcon atop a serekh in front of their face.
(Michaux-Colombot, New Considerations on the Qustul Incense Burner Iconography, 360, Fig.1.2)
Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 287; Wilkinson, R., The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (New
York, 2000), 200201.
9
Michaux-Colombot, New Considerations on the Qustul Incense Burner Iconography, 360, Fig.1.1, 1.2.
49
Two of the three birds on the Narmer Palette are identified as falcons, with the largest on
the recto beside Narmer smiting the kneeling figure (see Figure 2). As the falcon is
associated with Horus and thereby with the king, it represents the kings control of the
papyrus lands that the kneeling enemy comes from.10 The second falcon appears on the
verso flying over the boat above the decapitated victims in front of a procession of Narmer.
This falcon carries a harpoon which identifies the Harpoon Nome of the western Delta (see
Chapter 5.2).11 A Naqada I vessel shows a potmark with a bird on top of a pointed roof
structure, which has been identified as the Lower Egyptian itrt (see Figure 11).12 Found at
Naqada, this pottery fragment shows another Upper Egyptian motif transferred to the Delta
in later periods.13 The process of the elevation of the falcon to represent the king as the god
Horus is unknown but may be connected to the Horus title written in a serekh usually
topped with a falcon.14
Figure 11. Ceramic Vessel with Bird

Fragmentary vessel showing potmark of a bird atop a pointed roof structure.
(Baumgartel, Origins of the Titles of the Archaic Egyptian Kings, Pl.XV)
10

12
Baumgartel, E.J., Some Remarks on the Origins of the Titles of the Archaic Egyptian Kings, JEA 61 (1975), 31.
13
Baumgartel, Origins of the Titles of the Archaic Egyptian Kings, 31; Hendrickx, S., Arguments for an Upper
Egyptian Origin of the Palace-faade and the Serekh during Late Predynastic Early Dynastic time, GM 184
(2001), 1045.
14
11
50
The Horus or throne name written in a serekh is the oldest form of the royal titulary, with
early serekhs unnamed.15 The shape alone conveys the office of kingship.16 The niches of the
serekh have been interpreted as a palace faade; however, the only evidence outside a
funerary context appears in the late Second Dynasty gateway at Hierakonpolis, which
Weeks believes is an enclosure wall for an Early Dynastic palace.17 The Qustul Incense
Burner also contains a niched building, with the boats appearing to travel to, or from, this
structure.18 The earliest unnamed serekhs from a royal context appear in Tomb U-s at
Abydos on pottery vessels, while rock inscriptions in Wadi Ameyra, south Sinai, show
serekhs of Ka and Narmer associated with boats and topped by a falcon.19
Archaic serekhs, dated before Aha, often appear with a curved top line, upon which one or
sometimes two falcons would stand.20 Narmers serekh is often attested with this curved
top but the reason for this variation, and its disappearance, is unknown. The shape of the
palette between the horns of the bovines imitates the curved serekhs of Narmers Horus
name. This indicates that he was well known by this curved serekh appearance (see Figure
12).
The nar catfish and the mr chisel are clear on the top of both sides of the Narmer Palette,
although there are slight variations in the niching. Our modern translation of this kings
name comes from the Middle Egyptian phonetic reading of the catfish and chisel, Nar-mr,
but the correct Early Dynastic translation is unknown. While other First Dynasty Horus
names can be translated as an aspect of the god, such as Horus-the-Fighter (Aha), the
15
Wengrow, Invention of Writing in Egypt, 101.

OBrien, A., The Serekh as an Aspect of the Iconography of Early Kingship, JARCE 33 (1996), 131.
17
Weeks, K., Preliminary Report on the First Two Seasons at Hierakonpolis: Part II: The Early Dynastic Palace,
JARCE 9 (19711972), 31.
18
Williams, Logan, & Murnane, Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle, 252, 270.
19
Dreyer, G., et.al., Umm el-Qaab (1998), 8889; Tallet, & Laisney, Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sina, 381, 384
5, 387.
20
Ikram, S. & Rossi, C., An Early Dynastic serekh from the Kharga Oasis, JEA 90 (2004), 213.
16
51
association of a catfish to the falcon god remains confusing and open to interpretation.21
Ray suggests a reading of Sharb (^Ab) meaning the dappled one or Horus the iridescent
based on the inconsistent use of the Ab/mr chisel (Gardiner sign list: U23) as a phonetic
compliment for the ^Ab animal hide (F27 or F28).22 The Iridescent Horus evokes an image
of a king and divine kingship that seems more suited to a founding ruler than Horus the
Catfish. However, tradition leaves us to identify this king as Narmer/Menes.
Figure 12. Serekh of the Narmer Palette

Serekh of Narmer from the top register recto of the Narmer Palette (Levy, New Light on King Narmer, 32).
First appearing as a grave good in Naqada I, the piriform mace became an iconic aspect of
the regalia of kingship. Believed to have started as a functional object used in warfare, like
the palettes, elaborate designs were applied to those utilised for ceremonial or votive
purposes.23 On the palette, the smiting scene shows Narmer holding a mace high, ready to
21
Ray, J.D., The Name of King Narmer, Lingua Aegyptia 11 (2003), 132; cf. Goedicke for an alternate reading
of Narmr (Goedicke, H., Narmer, WZKM 85 (1995), 81-84).
22
Ray, Name of King Narmer, 136.
23
52
strike, while in the processional scene on the verso a figure carries a mace and a flail while
wearing the red crown.24
The processional scene on the Narmer Palette is one of the most complex registers, with
many interpretations for the various aspects contained within (see Figure 13). The figure in
front of Narmer, also on the Narmer Macehead, has long hair, is dressed in an animal skin
and is labelled Tt (V13 & X1). Widely accepted as a priest or vizier, Fairservis Jr. incorrectly
infers the figure to be the queen of Narmer and Tt her name.25 The sandal-bearer appears on
both sides of the Narmer Palette and the Macehead, identified as servant of the ruler. The
ivory label of Den shows the importance of sandals to the kingship and may portray the king
as an effective sandal to crush Egypts enemies. This is supported by the inscription on the
Second Dynasty statue of Khasekhemwy from Hierakonpolis.26
Figure 13. Narmer Palette Second Register Verso

Processional scene showing Narmer wearing the red crown, preceded by his Tt vizier and four standards known as the
Followers of Horus. Followed by his sandal-bearer, Narmer is walking towards two rows of decapitated bodies.
24
The flail is one of the oldest symbols of kingship, appearing on the Metropolitan Museum knife handle and
on the Narmer Macehead, with the king again wearing the red crown (Williams, Logan, & Murnane,
Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle, 2489; Ridley, R.T., The Unification of Egypt (Deception Bay, 1973), 65).
25
26
53
The four standards preceding Narmer appear on the Narmer and Scorpion Maceheads as
two falcons with flags, Wepwawet and the placenta. They are identified with the
Predynastic rulers Smsw @r the Followers of Horus named in the Turin Canon, and may
refer to Thinite Royalty or ancestor cults.27 The Following of Horus is one of the most
regular activities of the king detailed in the Palermo Stone and may be related to these
standards through a royal progress around the country.28 The two falcon standards relate to
the god Horus and possibly Seth, while the deification of the placenta could be linked to
Khonsu as a representation of the kings twin.29 The best understood of these standards is
that of Wepwawet, Opener of the Ways, who appears as a canine with the SdSd-device.30
Wepwawet appears on many Early Dynastic labels in front of the king, most notably the
ivory label of Den (BM55586). Through his funerary aspects, he later became associated
with Anubis.31
The balloon shaped SdSd-device has received much speculation, although Evans convincingly
shows that it can be attributed to burrows of animals and specifically the void or space
created in this process.32 Attendants and standards of the king assist in portraying a figure
that commands and is established as a ruler. While it is difficult to identify the role these
people performed in the forming states administration, their presence shows clearly
developed social stratification with one figure elevated above others.
27

Wilkinson, T., Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone and its Associated Fragments (London,
2000c), 67.
29
30
31
32
The burrowing action of the canine animal creating a void is related to the name of Wepwawet as Opener of
the Ways allowing safe access for the king where he is preceded by the god (Evans, L., The Shedshed of
Wepwawet: An Artistic and Behavioural Interpretation, JEA 97 (2011), 103115).
28
54
From the late Predynastic period, the king could be represented as a wild bull or lion,
showing his power and strength (as seen on the Battlefield and Bull Palettes). 33 By the First
Dynasty, the direct association of the king as a wild animal was being discarded but the
addition of a tail to the kings kilt, first seen on the Scorpion Macehead, evoked these wild
aspects.34 The lowest verso register on the Narmer Palette shows the king as the wild bull,
breaking a fortification and trampling a figure underfoot. The human-faced cows on both
sides of the serekhs and in the belt and kilt of Narmer further link the king to these aspects
of wild animals.35
Figure 14. Bowl of Bat

Reconstructed porphyry bowl showing the bovine goddess Bat surrounded by stars.
(Burgess & Arkell, Reconstruction of the Hathor Bowl, Pl.IX).
The four-horned bovines are attributed to Bat, and later subsumed by Hathor as the
celestial cow goddess.36 Each face of Bat is slightly different on the palette, with a clear
33

Ridley, The Unification of Egypt, 60.
35
Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 283; Fischer, H.G., The Cult and Nome of the Goddess Bat, JARCE 1 (1962),
7.
36
Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 282; Wengrow, D., Rethinking Cattle Cults in Early Egypt: Towards a
Prehistoric Perspective on the Narmer Palette, CAJ 11 (2001), 94; cf. The Hathor bowl reconstruction with the
34
55
distinction between the sides, which show an open mouth on the recto and a closed mouth
on the verso. These variations may be connected to Utterance 506 of the later Pyramid
Texts, which refers to Bat with her two faces.37 The origins of Bats name appear to be a
feminine form of bA soul, which may complement the masculine aspects of the bull on the
palette with the feminine forms, representing the dual aspects of the kingship.38
The various aspects of the iconography of kingship utilised on the Narmer Palette show a
figure of authority and significant influence. The chronological development of these motifs
show Narmer was in a position to command large parts of the country, but this iconography
alone cannot prove his role in the unification process. The representations of the red and
white crowns on the palette should also be discarded as evidence of unification due to the
unclear geographical association at this early date.
5.2.Identification of the Delta

The unification of the Two Lands was a central aspect of the kingship during the Dynastic
era, celebrated through festivals and rituals, and represented by the two plants of Upper
and Lower Egypt entwined around the hieroglyphic symbol to unite (F36). 39 Through the
location of his tomb at Abydos, Horus Narmer represents Upper Egypt, with scholars
interpreting other symbols on the palette as identifiers of Lower Egypt. Representations in
the smiting scene, the processional scene and the two lower registers on each side of the
palette have been variously translated to prove the unification of Egypt by Narmer as
represented in the Narmer Palette.
image of a celestial cow with stars the same as the Girza palette (Burgess, E.M. & Arkell, A.J., The
Reconstruction of the Hathor Bowl, JEA 44 (1958), 611).
37
38
39
56
As the largest register on the palette the scene of Horus Narmer ready to smite a kneeling
figure is a powerful image and appears to be easy to interpret. While the portrayal of
violence in the scene will be discussed below (see Chapter 5.3) the kneeling figure and
falcon atop the papyrus reeds are often interpreted as representations of the Delta and
Lower Egypt. The subjugated figure kneeling is portrayed as a foreigner due to his hairstyle
and lack of clothing he only wears a penis sheath (see Figure 15). Identification of this
figure, and the other enemies represented, is difficult to determine from dress alone, with
Khler stating that they are all represented differently.40 The subjugated figures appear to
be represented the same with shoulder length or slightly longer hair pulled back from the
face showing the ears, with a beard and appearing naked or near naked. However, this may
be an iconographic device to remove power from the kings enemies.41 The similarities in
the representation of the figures would suggest peoples from the same regional area are
being portrayed.
Behind the head of the kneeling figure are two hieroglyphs: the harpoon wA (T21) and water
S (N37) signs. These have been interpreted as the enemys name, Washa, or the name of his
lands, the Harpoon Nome, but identification remains uncertain.42 Schulman identifies these
glyphs as the name of the figure, rather than the lands he comes from, which appears to be
the correct interpretation.43 The association of hieroglyphs as a personal name near the
head of a figure can be seen in many Early Dynastic sources and is attested internally on the
palettes verso, where Narmers name appears in front of him wearing the red crown.
40

Schulman, Narmer and the Unification, 84.
42
Schulman, Narmer and the Unification, 80; cf. Newberry who reads these signs as the name of the nome
rather than a personal name (Newberry, P.E., The Petty-Kingdom of the Harpoon and Egypts Earliest
Mediterranean Port, LAAA 1 (1908), 17-22).
43
Schulman, Narmer and the Unification, 80 n.6.
41
57
Above the kneeling figure of Washa, Horus stands atop a complex human-headed sign
group. The elongated shape can be identified as the hieroglyph for land (N18) while the
papyrus stalks have been interpreted as an early representation of the hieroglyph for the
Delta (M16).44 As the symbolic plant of Lower Egypt, the papyrus reeds clearly indicate a
marshland area that can be identified with the north of Egypt. 45 On the Metropolitan
Museum knife handle, papyrus reeds are associated with prisoners and the white crown,
while the Abydos Label of Narmer (see Chapter 6.1) shows papyrus reeds on the head of a
human figure being subjugated by the catfish of Narmer.46 The construction of the sign
group with a human head attached to the land sign would indicate an entire people rather
than just a geographical location.47 With the orientation of the human head facing Narmer,
the same as that of Washa, the figure and the papyrus sign group complement each other,
which indicates the location from which Washa, probably a local chief or ruler, originates.48
44

Wilkinson, Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, 78.
46
Williams, Logan, & Murnane, Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle, 247; Dreyer, Narmerpalette und
Stdtepalette, 254.
47
48
Dreyer, Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette, 254; Schulman, Narmer and the Unification, 834.
45
58
Figure 15. Narmer Palette Second Register Recto

Narmer smiting a kneeling figure, named Washa, with a Horus falcon
atop a human-headed land sign and papyrus reed connected to the Delta.
The second register on the verso shows Horus Narmer wearing the red crown (see Chapter
5.1), accompanied by attendants and processing towards a group of decapitated bodies. The
kings apparent departure point and destination can be variously interpreted to indicate
areas of the Delta; however, some are based on pure speculation. Behind Narmer, above
the sandal-bearer, is a rectangle containing a triangular shape. Fairservis Jr. identifies the
triangular shape as a net float for catching hippopotami, incorrectly linking it to the
hieroglyph for Edfu.49 It may also represent a temple, similar to one on the Narmer
Macehead and possibly connected to Buto, but it remains unclear where or what the
creator intended.50
49

Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 96; Millet, N.B., The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects, JARCE 27
(1990), 56.
50
59
Narmers destination is the two rows of decapitated bodies, which are identified by a
complex sign group above (see Figure 16). A door, a bird, a boat and a falcon with a harpoon
are arranged above the bodies, appearing to float above them. OConnor has interpreted
this as the morning barque and the rebirth of the sun, represented in the New Kingdom by a
high prow boat preceded by a door and swallow bird.51 The poor attestation of the sun cults
at this early date makes this interpretation difficult to support from New Kingdom evidence
alone. Common elements indicate the port of Buto, suggesting a translation as Great Door
of Horus of the Harpoon Nome.52 A title using similar hieroglyphs was given to Elephantine
as Door-of-the-South due to its frontier location.53 This port may have been the entry point
for Mesopotamian influences and trade goods into Egypt during the late Predynastic and
Early Dynastic period, and control of it would have provided significant political advantage
for Narmer.54
Figure 16. Narmer Palette Second Register Verso Detail

Part of the processional scene of the Narmer Palette showing the decapitated bodies with their heads between their
legs and the complex sign group above, naming the western Delta site of Buto.
51

Dreyer, Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette, 254; Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 97; Heagy, 'Who was
Menes?', 7.
53
Dreyer, Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette, 254; Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 97.
54
52
60
The lowest register on the verso shows Narmer as a bull (see Chapter 5.1), trampling a
human figure and breaking into a walled enclosure (see Figure 17). Within the wall is a
trapezoidal shape with crenulations, inferred as the place that the king is subduing.55 Yeivin
infers a place name by linking it to a similar shape on the Cities Palette (see Figure 18) with
the throw stick hieroglyph (T14), which identifies *hnw on the opposite side to the western
Delta and Libya.56 Indentations in the crenulations on the Cities Palette shape appear to
represent the ka hieroglyph (D28) rather than the trapezoid on Narmers Palette. Mark
correctly disputes this leap in connecting two small signs on opposing sides of one palette,
as they may indicate two separate locations.57
A similar structure also appears on the Narmer Macehead, which is often identified as a
temple or shrine topped by a heron can be connected with the town of Buto or +bawt. This
may be the location for the macehead scene (see Figure 26).58 Similarities between these
shapes on the palette and macehead could support the identification of a western Delta
location, but the lack of a heron on the Narmer Palette and the slight differences in the
shape of the structure may indicate two separate locations.
Figure 17. Narmer Palette Fourth Register Verso

Bull, identified as Narmer, breaking open a fortified town and trampling a figure. The shape in the
fortification may indicate Buto or the western Delta but remains unknown.
55
Dreyer, Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette, 254.

Yeivin, S., The Ceremonial Slate-Palette of King Narmer in H.B. Rosn (ed.), Studies in Egyptology and
Linguistic in Honour of H.J. Polotsky (Jerusalem, 1964), 302.
57
58
Millet notes that there is no evidence on the macehead of the usual feathers that tops the head of the bird
identified with this place name (Millet, Narmer Macehead and Related Objects, 56).
56
61
Figure 18. Cities (Libyan) Palette

Fragmentary ceremonial palette showing seven enclosures being attacked or founded on one side and rows of animals
on the other. The throwstick of *hnw, Libya, on the palette has been used to associate the cities with this region.
(Schulz & Seidel, Egypt-The World of the Pharaohs, 28)
62
The last register that may indicate the Delta in the Narmer Palette appears on the lower
recto, where two figures with hieroglyph signs next to each of their heads appear to be
fleeing or dead. These hieroglyphs appear to indicate where the figures are from, although
the translation of these signs remains highly disputed, with both Memphis and Sais
suggested.59 One is clearly identified as the inb sign (O36) of the later Old and Middle
Egyptian language but its meaning at this early date is unknown. It has been identified with
Memphis due to the abbreviated title of the Ancient Egyptian capital, the White Wall (inb
hD); however archaeological and textual evidence regarding the founding of Memphis is
scarce.60
The second sign has also been identified with Sais, or a nomadic tribe of the Delta. 61 Yeivin
identifies the sign as a kite used to move herds into an enclosure, the remains of which have
been found in the eastern deserts around Jordan.62 Together with the fortification sign,
Yeivin infers that the palette shows a conflict between Narmer and people of southern
Levant and Sinai.63 With the other sign groups and iconography on the palette indicating the
western Delta, this claim can no longer be supported and the identification of the two
figures remains unclear.
Figure 19. Narmer Palette Third Register Recto

Two figures appearing to flee with associated hieroglyphs.
59

61
62
Yeivin, Ceremonial Slate-Palette of King Narmer, 245; Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 94.
63
Yeivin, Ceremonial Slate-Palette of King Narmer, 25; Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 945.
60
63
The identification of the Delta is clearly represented on the Narmer Palette through the
human-headed papyrus land sign on the recto and the complex sign group above the
decapitated bodies. As a major port of the Delta, Buto, and the surrounding western Delta
areas, is the probable location for the scenes represented on the palette. The signs in the
lower registers cannot be used at this time to clarify the location of the Narmer Palette
scenes. From the Narmer Palette, it is clear that an Upper Egyptian ruler wanted to portray
himself in a position of superiority over inhabitants of a specific area of the Delta.
5.3.Violence and other imagery

Images of violence and subjugation on the Narmer Palette have been used as evidence of
warfare between the Two Lands, resulting in the unification of Egypt. Conflict between two
opposing communities would not alone support the allegation of war. However, evidence of
possible warfare also appears in contemporary artefacts such as the Battlefield Palette.64
The smiting scene and the decapitated bodies on the Narmer Palette portray violence,
appearing to document a real event but this is disputed, strongly by Khler, as representing
ideological aspects of the kingship and his rule over the land.65 The serpopards and the
duality embedded in the palette have also been used as evidence for the unification of
Egypt, although their interpretation remains unsupported.
From its earliest date, the Narmer Palette has been used as evidence of a military victory by
southern Egypt over the north. This is based primarily on the largest register, where Narmer
prepares to smite a kneeling foe, and its association with the human-headed papyrus land
sign group representing the Delta (see Chapter 5.2). 66 This interpretation is still maintained
64

66
Quibell, Slate palette from Hieraconpolis, 82.
65
64
by many scholars, such as Wenke and Wengrow, but abandoned for sometime by Early and
Predynastic scholars after consideration of other contemporary evidence (see Chapters 6
and 7).67
The image of a ruler standing over a kneeling figure with mace raised high became an iconic
image of the king and kingship throughout the Dynastic period, representing his power over
Egypts enemies as well as establishing order over chaos.68 The smiting or subjugation scene
dates back to Naqada I on a painted vessel discovered in Cemetery U at Abydos (see Figure
20) but debate continues regarding the complex imagery and whether an enemy, hunt or
family group are represented.69 Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis (Naqada IIC) shows the first clear
smiting scene with a larger figure holding a mace raised high over three apparently bound
captives (see Figure 20).70 For Khler, these scenes are all ideological representations of the
power of the king controlling chaos and restoring order through the subjugation of wild
animals and enemies.71
While the ideology of smiting scenes through the Dynastic era is clear, it is difficult to
determine when a change occurred from historical to ideological representations. Evidence
from Abydos suggests that the Narmer Palette is recording an historical event (see Chapter
6.1). Through subjugated poses, naked or near-naked figures are portrayed and identified as
a foreign enemy which the king has control and dominance over, however this does not
67
Hendrickx, S. & Forster, F., Early Dynastic Art and Iconography in A.B. Lloyd (ed.), A Companion to Ancient
Egypt (2010), Blackwell Reference Online, 22 August 2013, 15; Wenke states that Narmer may have unified
Egypt through warfare based almost entirely on the representations of the two crowns (Wenke, R. J., The
Ancient Egyptian State: The Origins of Egyptian Culture (c.80002000BC) (Cambridge, 2009), 183, 186); For
Wengrow, the Narmer Palette is the single object that expresses the culmination of that process of
centralisation of the Egyptian state (Wengrow, D., The Archaeology of Early Egypt (Cambridge, 2006), 207).
68
69
Lankester, F., Control of the wild in Egypts predynastic rock-art, paper presented at Origins 5, Fifth
th
th
International Conference of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Studies, IFAO Cairo, 13 18 April 2014.
70
Hendrickx, S., Iconography of the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the
Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 76; Khler, History or Ideology?, 5013.
71
65
discount its representation in a standardised way. 72 The sign groups naming the people of
the Delta and the port of Buto, as well as the name of Washa behind his head, identify
specific locations and peoples that Narmer is subduing. It is highly unlikely in a real battle
that Narmer would have walked calmly up to the leader of a foreign enemy, followed by his
sandal bearer, and struck him down. Nor was Narmer dressed as a bull destroying a fortified
city. These representations show the strength of the king and his victory canonised while
identifying a specific location or people that a historical battle was against.
Figure 20. Smiting Imagery of the Late Predynastic

Painted vessel of figures dated to Naqada IC, imagery from Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis Naqada IIC
and the smiting scene from the Narmer Palette Naqada III/Dynasty One.
(Andelkovic, Political Organization of Egypt in the Predynastic Period, Fig.3.2)
The decapitated bodies of 10 victims, bound at the elbows with their heads between their
legs, is one of the most violent images of the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic period (see
Figure 21). Davies and Friedman show that all but one of these men has been castrated and
their phalli placed on their decapitated heads.73 Variations in the two figures on the lower
72
Schulman, Narmer and the Unification, 8384; Khler, History or Ideology?, 501, 504.
Davies, V. & Friedman, R., The Narmer Palette: An Overlooked Detail in M. Eldamaty & M. Trad (eds.)
Egyptian Museum Collections around the World Vol. I (Cairo, 2002), 2436.
73
66
left may indicate a different status from the rest of the bodies represented. Both are drawn
with toes pointed left compared to the other bodies shown as pigeon toed, and the lower
figure retains his phallus rather than having it placed on his decapitated head.74 The reason
for these slight variations in the figures is unknown but the violent nature of the scene
highlights Narmers strength by not only killing the enemy but emasculating them as well.75
Figure 21. Decapitated Figures of the Narmer Palette

Reanalysis of the decapitated figures on the Narmer Palette showing the lower left figure with phallus still attached and
absent from the top of his head unlike the other figures, as well as the variations in the feet of the figures.
(Davies, & Friedman, Narmer Palette: An Overlooked Detail, 245, Fig.2)
The second largest scene on the Narmer Palette encircles the central depression used for
mixing or grinding pigment. The long necks of two mythical beasts identified as serpopards
are entwined around the depression, where they are controlled by two handlers (see Figure
1). Claimed to represent the uniting of the Two Lands of Egypt, the ropes are identified as
74
Fairservis Jr., Revised View of the Narmer Palette, 16; Davies, & Friedman, Narmer Palette: An Overlooked
Detail, 244.
75
Davies, & Friedman, Narmer Palette: An Overlooked Detail, 2456.
67
the subjugation of the people.
76
These long-necked creatures often appear on
Mesopotamian seals but the connection with Egypt is not clearly explained. 77 Similar
creatures appear on the Two Dogs Palette but their necks are not entwined nor are the
animals restrained (see Figure 22).78 While it could have reflected the unification of the
country to the contemporary Egyptians, as the unification symbol did in later Dynastic times,
there is no clear evidence to prove the use of Mesopotamian motifs as representations of
the unification process in Egypt at the start of the First Dynasty.
Figure 22. Two Dogs Palette

Palette showing the duality of image through the symmetry of the two canines framing the palette,
as well as the two serpopards on either side of the mixing depression.
(Davis, Narrativity and the Narmer Palette, 202)
76

Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 978; Hendrickx, Upper Egyptian Origin of the Palace-faade and the
Serekh, 98.
78
Ridley, Unification of Egypt, 278.
77
68
Duality in image, ritual and thought was an important concept to the Ancient Egyptians
clearly portrayed through the concept of the Two Lands of Upper and Lower Egypt and the
rituals of kingship that evolved around them. 79 Duality and balance also appear in
iconography, clearly represented in the earlier Two Dogs Palette (see Figure 22), and
retained in certain aspects of the Narmer Palette, where it has been construed to support
theories of unification.80 The near mirror images in the top registers, with the goddess Bat
and the serekh of Narmer, appear to frame the palette and provide order to the complex
scenes below. The establishment of order over chaos can also be inferred into the register
of the serpopards entwined around the depression.81 The duality and balance of this
register creates order while the wild nature of the animals is being controlled. While Khler
infers the order over chaos motif to the smiting scene this is not evidence of the unification
of Egypt.82
The violent imagery of the Narmer Palette shows a victor from Upper Egypt subduing an
enemy of a region of the Delta, both in the smiting scene and the processional scene with
the decapitated bodies. For the palette to represent ideological aspects of the kingship at
this date, questions would need to be answered regarding the location of and access to the
palette, literacy of the population and the intended audience, such as the general
population or the gods. These questions are not adequately answered by Khler and require
further research based on the Narmer Palette and other contemporary evidence of the late
Predynastic and Early Dynastic period. The rarity of ceremonial palettes, and questions over
their provenance and find locations, leaves many of these questions unanswerable at this
time.
79
Gahlin, L., Egypt: Gods, Myths and Religion (London, 2001), 86.
Quibell, J.E. & Petrie, W.M.F., Hierakonpolis Part I (London, 1900), 10.
81
Wengrow, Archaeology of Early Egypt, 215.
82
80
69
6. Horus Narmer and the unification

Evidence in the Narmer Palette appears to support a conflict between an Upper Egyptian
ruler and peoples of a region of the Delta. Whether this was a part of, or the culmination of,
the unification process is unclear from the palette alone. Further evidence of Narmer,
including his geographical scope of authority and how he was regarded by later rulers, is
required to clarify the claims that the Narmer Palette proves the unification of Egypt by a
single ruler.
Contemporary evidence of Narmer has survived through the Ivory Label of Narmer found in
Abydos and the Narmer Cylinder, which both show similar iconography to the palette. This
chapter will examine the Narmer Macehead and the Inlayed Box of Narmer, including the
serekh of Narmer and its wide attestation throughout Egypt and southern Levant. It will also
consider the king lists in their various forms, showing how Narmer was regarded in the later
Dynastic era, as well as by his close contemporaries.
6.1.Artefacts of Narmer
While the Narmer Palette is the most famous of the artefacts attributed to Horus Narmer, a
number of others may shed some light on his role in the unification of Egypt. The Ivory Label
of Narmer, also known as the Narmer Year Label, shows iconography similar to the Narmer
Palette and has been interpreted with the Narmer Cylinder as representing the same event.
Fragments of inlay from a box that were located near the tomb B17/18 at Abydos have been
attributed to Narmer. These show scenes similar to the other objects, including the name
Washa as seen on the Narmer Palette. The Narmer Macehead, the most complete
ceremonial macehead found, may display events after the conflict between Narmer and the
peoples of the western Delta but alternate interpretations have been proposed.
70
Found in the royal cemetery at Abydos, the Ivory Label of Narmer is identified as the earliest
year label discovered in Egypt.1 The lower register records an oil supply while the upper
register shows iconography similar to the smiting scene on the Narmer Palette (see Figure
23).2 Like the falcon on the human-headed papyrus sign, the catfish of Narmers name on
the label is anthropomorphised, with its arms holding a rope attached to a figure and a
mace raised high. A region of the Delta is indicated by papyrus reeds growing from the
figures head. A nw pot hieroglyph (W24) next to the figure has been inferred as a phonetic
compliment of *hnw for the Libyan and western Delta peoples, although the absence of the
throwstick (T14) to complete the name makes identification problematic. 3 The figure itself,
or its arm, may have been intended to be read as *hnw but the papyrus clearly identifies the
Delta. 4 The falcon flag standard further connects the label and palette through the
processional scene and the Followers of Horus.5
Scholars generally agree that the year labels were attached to grave goods placed into a
tomb but these may have been dedicated earlier to a temple or foundation ceremony.6
While questions remain about the reading and identification of certain aspects of year
labels, it is generally agreed that they record the year the item they were attached to was
processed in some way.7 Regardless of what the Ivory Label of Narmer was affixed to, it is
clear through the iconography that one historical event is recorded on the Narmer Palette
and Narmer Year Label rather than an ideological concept.8
Heagy, Who was Menes?, 67; Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 68.
3
Heagy, Who was Menes?, 678; Dreyer, Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette, 255.
4
Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 67-8; Dreyer, Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette, 255; Morenz, L.D., Gegner des
Narmer aus dem Papyrus-Land: NW und WaS, GM 189 (2002), 84-5.
5
6
Piquette, K.E., Writing, Art and Society: A Contextual Archaeology of the Inscribed Labels of Late
Predynastic-Early Dynastic Egypt Vol. 1, unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, England (2007), 512.
7
Piquette, Writing, Art and Society Vol. 1, 524.
8
2
71
Figure 23. Narmer Label

Ivory label showing the catfish of Narmers name ready to smite a figure with papyrus reeds on its head.
(Dreyer, et.al., Umm el-Qaab (1998), pl.39, Fig.29)
An anthropomorphised catfish also appears on the Narmer Cylinder, again holding a stick
and ready to strike three rows of bound captives (see Figure 24).9 Seven captives are
represented on the cylinder with a vulture, like the Narmer Year Label, flying above and
another bird carrying an ankh life sign (S34). Under the catfish, behind the captives, a
complex sign group clearly names the *Hnw (Libya) through the throwstick and nw pot.10
Appearing to copy Mesopotamian cylinder seals, the Narmer Cylinder is carved in raised low
relief instead of the usual intaglio.11 A separate piece of ivory wedged into a hole at one end
suggests that the cylinder was attached to something else and, as Petrie suggests, it may
have fit together with other ivory pieces discovered in the Main Deposit.12 The similarity in
iconography to the Narmer Palette and Year Label would indicate that they record the same
event. However, with the clear naming of *hnw on the cylinder, compared with the papyrus
reeds indicating the Delta on the label and palette, two separate events cannot be
discounted.
9
Quibell & Petrie, Hierakonpolis Part I, 7.

Whitehouse, H., A Decorated Knife Handle from the Main Deposit at Hierakonpolis, MDAIK 58 (2002), 439.
11
Whitehouse, Decorated Knife Handle from the Main Deposit at Hierakonpolis, 439.
12
Quibell & Petrie, Hierakonpolis Part I, 7.
10
72
Figure 24. Ivory Cylinder of Narmer

Narmer Cylinder showing the catfish smiting bound captives. Hieroglyphs name the *hnw of the western Delta.
(Whitehouse, Decorated Knife Handle from the Main Deposit at Hierakonpolis, Fig.4)
A number of small bone inlay fragments believed to come from the decoration for a wooden
box were found in the area around Narmers tomb at Abydos (see Figure 25). 13 The
fragmentary name of Narmer in a serekh is preserved, associated with an ankh sign. Other
pieces show captives, figures holding maces and other figures making offerings or
presenting gifts. A harpoon and a water hieroglyph on one piece match the name of Washa
on the Narmer Palette (see Chapters 5.2 and 5.3) indicating a connection between the
artefacts.14 These fragmentary images further confirm a historical event recorded on the
Narmer Palette that may also be connected with the cylinder and label. The name *hnw
does not appear on the fragments, which may indicate more than one conflict in the
western Delta.15
13
Dreyer, G., Hartmann, R., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Kopp, H., Lacher, C., Muller, V., Nerlich, A. & Zink, A., Umm
el-Qaab Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof, MDAIK 59 (2003), 87.
14
Dreyer, Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette, 256; Dreyer, et.al., Umm el-Qaab (2003), 88.
15
73
Figure 25. Inlayed Box Fragments

Ivory or bone fragments from the tomb of Narmer at Abydos showing bound captives, the name of Washa and the
serekh of Narmer. a) Serekh of Narmer with falcon and ankh sign, b) standard with arm holding a rope and the name of
Washa, c) figures holding a mace, d) and e) bound prisoners, f) offering bearers,
g) offering bearer and two round huts and h) offering bearers with nw pots.
(Dreyer, Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette, 257)
The Narmer Macehead was discovered as part of the Main Deposit and has been widely
interpreted and often translated with the goal of supporting the unification of Egypt by
Narmer (see Figure 26).16 Iconography on the macehead shows similarities to the Narmer
Palette but there is clearly no smiting scene and much of the complex imagery is open to
16
Millet, Narmer Macehead and Related Objects, 53.
74
interpretation.17 In the middle register is an unidentified figure in a litter, with two rows of
semicircles behind suggesting the Heb Sed ritual. Between these stones are three men but it
is unclear if they are bound or just clasping their hands, and if they are performing the
running ritual of the Heb Sed usually performed by the king.18 Millet discounts the Heb Sed
Festival due to the lack of the iconic dual staircase and platform with early knowledge of the
festival dating to the Third Dynasty pyramid complex of Djoser more than 300 years later, it
is difficult to know what format the Heb Sed took at this early date. 19
Millet suggests that the figure in the litter is a female relative, possibly daughter, of the king
who is acting as a witness to the events taking place, but he provides little evidence to
support this claim.20 The vulture over the king and the bovines in the corral above the litter
appear orientated towards each other, which may indicate an association between the king
and the figure. Petrie and Hoffman have suggested this represents a wedding of the king to
a northern princess but the interpretation is difficult to confirm.21
Millets interpretation is based primarily on the lowest register showing a count of animals
and people, with a bound figure indicating prisoners or dead enemies. A figure with raised
arms is often interpreted as the numerical figure for one million (C11) as part of the count of
goats or sheep. However, this causes concern for some scholars due to the large number of
animals compared to the estimated population.22 After the animals and the figure with
raised arms, a line separates the bound figure in a vertical register. This separation, and a
17
The sandal bearer of the king and the *t vizier appear on the Narmer Palette along with the standards
Followers of Horus. The vulture over the king appears on the Narmer Year Label and Narmer Cylinder.
18
19
20
21
Millet, Narmer Macehead and Related Objects, 53; Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 634; Hoffman, M.,
Egypt Before the Pharaohs (London, 1980), 3223; Butzer. K.W., Archeology and Geology in Ancient Egypt,
Science 132 (1960), 823.
22
Millet, Narmer Macehead and Related Objects, 5758; Yurco, Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower
Egypt, 8990.
75
reinterpretation of the one million sign, would suggest captives and free peoples are
recorded as 400,000 cattle, 420,000 goats, 2,000 free people and 120,000 captives or
enemy dead. Based on the cattle count, Millet interprets the macehead as recording the
First Occasion of Counting associated with the Festival of the Appearance of the King of
Lower Egypt. However, as discussed (see Chapter 5.1) the red crown cannot be convincingly
associated with the Delta at this date.23
Figure 26. Narmer Macehead

Scene of Narmer wearing the red crown in a pavilion
attending a ritual or celebration ceremony possibly at Buto in the western Delta.
(Millet, Narmer Macehead and Related Objects [Correction], Fig.1)
A separate section of the macehead showing an animal enclosure and a bird atop a
structure has remained difficult to interpret. The bird is identified as a heron closely
associated with the temple at Buto (+bawt) but the interpretation is speculative.24 The
triangle opposite the heron could be associated with the triangular shape on the Narmer
Palette, and the nw pot as the phonetic compliment of *hnw. While similar in shape there is
nothing to clearly connect these objects or associate the macehead with the western Delta.
23

Millet, Narmer Macehead and Related Objects, 56; Hendrickx, Upper Egyptian Origin of the Palace-faade
and the Serekh, 95.
24
76
With the recording of a cattle count or possible marriage, Millet interprets the macehead as
a year label similar to the Narmer Year Label and as an early precursor of the events
recorded on the Palermo Stone.25 The heron bird associated with Buto and the count of
prisoners and animals has been inferred as a Lower Egyptian festival or victory.26 Heagy also
suggests a celebration or ritual after the conflict with peoples of the western Delta recorded
on the other Narmer artefacts.27 While plausible, the evidence remains unclear what the
Narmer Macehead is recording and can tell little about Narmers role in the unification
process.
With similar iconography appearing on the Narmer Palette, Year Label, Cylinder, and Inlayed
Box, its clear that a significant event has been recorded.28 The attestation of regions of the
Delta and the title *hnw in the artefacts, and the presence of the smiting scene against
bound captives, show evidence of at least one historical event.29 With the palette, label and
inlayed box fragments not clearly naming the *hnw, but rather the name Washa connected
with papyrus reeds, it is possible two events are recorded. Two small conflicts in the
western Delta region by Narmer, against people possibly from the further Libyan Desert and
identified as *hnw by the Ancient Egyptians, may have resulted in his status as a significant
leader and protector of the people, which was later reinterpreted as founder of the
Egyptian state. The Narmer Macehead may represent a celebration or ritual after these
small conflicts but the evidence is unsupported at this time.
25

Ridley, Unification of Egypt, 65.
27
Heagy, Who was Menes?, 69.
28
29
26
77
6.2.Serekh of Narmer
The serekh of Narmer is one of the most widely attested for the late Predynastic period,
appearing on pottery and other artefacts in Upper and Lower Egypt as well as southern
Levant and the Sinai region. As an Upper Egyptian ruler based on the location of his tomb,
only serekhs from elsewhere in Egypt and surrounding regions will be discussed to show the
extent of the attestation of Narmers name. The location of Narmers serekh in Lower Egypt,
southern Levant and the Sinai show the scope of this kings authority through direct control
or indirect via trade networks at the start of the First Dynasty.
In Lower Egypt, the serekh of Narmer is attested at many sites, including Minshat Abu Omar,
Buto, Tura, Helwan and Tarkhan near the Fayum.30 These serekhs appear mostly on pottery
vessels and fragments but also on seals and seal impressions, fragments of ivory or bone
and rock-cut inscriptions.31 Variations in Narmers serekh have also caused scholars to
attribute artefacts to Narmer when further analysis would be prudent. Two vessels from the
eastern Delta show the extent of Narmers presence in the area and the probable trade
routes established further afield. A tall wine jar believed to have originated in the eastern
Delta, near Hehya at Kufur Nigm, shows a serekh with an archaic version of Horus dating to
the early First Dynasty (see Figure 27).32 Fischer connects the circular shapes in the serekh to
other vessels found at Tura, where the iconic curved top line of the early First Dynasty
serekhs is present (see Figure 28).33 The line in Figure 28c is interpreted as a representation
of the Nar catfish.34 These serekhs have been compared with serekhs of Narmer from
Tarkhan and Abydos that show various configurations of the elements of Narmers name
30

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 69; Wilkinson, State Formation in Egypt, 72.
32
Fischer, H.G., Varia Aegyptiaca JARCE 2 (1963), 44.
33
Fischer, Varia Aegyptiaca, 467.
34
31
78
(see Figure 29).35 Fischer briefly translates the three circles in the serekh as Mn but makes
no inference as to the identification of Menes as Narmer.36 With Heagys identification of
Menes, these serekh potmarks require re-examination to determine their correct attribution
to Narmer.
Figure 27. Vessel from Kufur Nigm with stylised serekh

Stylised serekh attributed to Narmer based on a variation of the Mn sign as Menes or Mr chisel.
(Fischer, Varia Aegyptiaca, 44 Fig. 1)
Figure 28. Serekhs attributed to Narmer

Stylised serekhs attributed to Narmer and possibly showing the name Menes. a) Tura, b) Tura and c) Tura.
(Fischer, Varia Aegyptiaca, 46)
35
36

79
Figure 29. Narmer Serekhs

Variations in the serekh of Narmer showing the curved top line, with and without the Archaic Horus falcon, and some
with circles as a variant of Mn. a) Seal impression from Tarkhan, b) seal impression from Tarkhan,
c) seal impression from Abydos and d) relief on a vase from Abydos.
(Fischer, Varia Aegyptiaca, 46)
A large elongated wine jar in a private collection attests the name of Narmer, however all
provenance and context for the vessel is lost.37 The vessel is made of Nile alluvial clay and
comparison analysis with modern clays indicates it may have been made in the eastern
Delta near Tell el-Daba.38 This location is further supported by a match with a clay stopper
on an imported Canaanite jar from Tomb U-j, indicating the trade routes into Egypt from the
Levant.39 The simple serekh is constructed by a square divided vertically into two rectangles
and surmounted by a catfish (see Figure 30). In front of the serekh are three lines crossed in
the shape of the letter Y and inferred to represent the agricultural area of the contained
contents. 40 The crossed lines could also represent the mr chisel, as the phonetic
complement of Narmers name. With the identification of the clay from the eastern Delta
and the connection with the clay stopper it is clear that Narmer had a significant trade
37
Dreyer, G., Ein Gef mit Ritzmarke des Narmer, MDAIK 55 (1999), 1.
Dreyer, Ein Gef mit Ritzmarke des Narmer, 3.
39
40
Dreyer, Ein Gef mit Ritzmarke des Narmer, 3, 4.
38
80
network under his control in this region.41 While it is unknown where this vessel ended up
its origin is clearly associated with the eastern Delta at the start of the First Dynasty.
Figure 30. Serekh of Narmer

Stylised catfish and serekh with chisel inscribed on a pot possibly from the eastern Delta.
(Dreyer, Ein Gef mit Ritzmarke des Narmer, 2, Abb.1)
Two serekhs with the name of Narmer incised on fragments of pottery vessels were found in
southern Levant at the sites of Tel Erani and Arad in Israel.42 The sherd from Tel Erani is
small, with a stylised catfish inside a serekh (see Figure 31.1), and a possible mr chisel on the
fragments left-hand edge.43 No falcon is associated with the serekh and the top line is
straight, unlike many other Narmer serekhs. The serekh from Arad is preserved on four
fragments, with the lower portion of the serekh lost (see Figure 31.2).44 The serekh is topped
with a straight line, upon which stands the archaic form of Horus with a simplified catfish
constructed with two crossed lines. The difficultly in correlating the stratification of the Early
Bronze Age period with the burial of the fragments leaves a question over the date of
Narmers presence at the site.45 The proliferation of similar Egyptian pottery at other sites
during the Late Early Bronze Age I (late EB I) period indicates the probable date for trade,
with it becoming an heirloom vessel before deposition into Stratum II at the site.46
41

Braun E., South Levantine Early Bronze Age chronological correlations with Egypt in light of the Narmer
serekhs from Tell Erani and Arad: New interpretations, BMSAES 13 (2009), 29.
43
Braun, South Levantine Early Bronze Age chronological correlations with Egypt, Fig. 4.1, 43.
44
Braun, South Levantine Early Bronze Age chronological correlations with Egypt, 43, Fig.4.2.
45
Braun, South Levantine Early Bronze Age chronological correlations with Egypt, 32, 36.
46
Braun, South Levantine Early Bronze Age chronological correlations with Egypt, 36.
42
81
Figure 31. Serekhs of Narmer

Pottery fragments from southern Levant showing the stylised catfish of Narmer. 1) Tel Erani and 2) Arad.
(Braun, South Levantine Early Bronze Age chronological correlations with Egypt, 43, Fig.4)
At the Silo site of Halif Terrace, in Nahal Tillah, Israel, a fragment of Nile silt pottery with an
incised serekh of Narmer dating to 3300-3000 BCE (late EB I) was found in site Stratum IIb.47
The serekh is almost completely preserved, with a stylised catfish clearly rendered along
with the iconic curved top line (see Figure 32).48 The serekh is similar to one found in the
Delta at Tell Ibrahim Awad and another from Umm el-Qaab at Abydos.49 Based on the form
of the name of Narmer, Levy dates the vessel to late in Narmers reign. It would be more
likely for his name to be abbreviated to just the catfish when his rule was firmly
established.50 The fragment was also found in a structure architecturally similar to Early
Dynastic buildings found in the Nile Valley, which could indicate the presence of Egyptian
settlers or merchants.51 With the evidence for trade between Egypt and other sites in
47
Levy, T.E., van den Brink, E.C.M., Goren Y. & Alon, D., New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic
Egyptian Presence in Canaan, The Biblical Archaeologist 58 (1995), 26, 29, 31.
48
Levy, et.al., New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic Egyptian Presence in Canaan, 32.
49
50
51
82
southern Levant such as Tel Erani, the site of Halif Terrace shows a larger and more complex
administration and trade network than previously thought.52
Figure 32. Narmer Serekhs from south Levant and Egypt

Pottery fragment showing the catfish of Narmers Horus name from southern Levant with Egyptian comparisons.
Left to right: Silo site, Halif Terrace, Israel; Tell Ibrahim Awad, Egypt; Tomb B2, Abydos, Egypt.
(Levy, et.al., New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic Egyptian Presence in Canaan, 31)
In the Wadi Ameyra, south Sinai, rock-cut inscriptions record the serekhs of a number of late
Predynastic and First Dynasty rulers, including Narmer.53 The serekh of Narmer appears to
be riding in a high prow boat with a Horus falcon on top (see Figure 33). The name has been
read without hesitation as Narmer, despite the reservations of Tallet. 54 The usual
representation of Narmers name, where it includes the mr chisel, shows it vertically rather
than horizontally as in this instance.55 Another issue is the difficult reading of the nar catfish,
which may be due to the quality of the rock or the artists hand, although the sign lacks the
style, quality and detail of the Narmer Palette or even the stylised serekhs of southern
52
Levy, et.al., New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic Egyptian Presence in Canaan, 33; Yeivin, S.,
Early Contacts Between Canaan and Egypt, Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960), 203.
53
Tallet, & Laisney, Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sina, 3812.
54
55
83
Levant. The Narmer serekh, as with the other serekhs recorded on the rock at this location,
show significant expeditions of late Predynastic and Early Dynastic rulers into south Sinai
probably for mining and other resource collection.
Figure 33. Serekh of Narmer, south Sinai

Serekh of Narmer in a boat from Wadi Ameyra, south Sinai.
(Tallet, & Laisney, Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sina, 397 Fig.10)
Through the attestation of Narmers name at seven locations throughout Lower Egypt and
six in southern Levant, the extensive presence this ruler had at the beginning of the First
84
Dynasty can be seen.56 Whether this was established through trade networks or direct
control is unclear, however the increased Egyptian presence in southern Levant during this
period may relate to the copper trade with northern Syria.57 The numerous serekhs of
Narmer so far discovered, as well as their geographic dispersion, show the increased
authority of Narmer compared to his predecessors. This proliferation would support his role
in a major change in Egypts political framework during his reign but from this evidence
alone, it is not clear that this change was the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt.
6.3.King lists and other records

The importance of the role of Narmer in the foundation of Egypt can be seen in the king lists
and other documents that record the rulers of the Early Dynastic period. These lists are not
contemporary to Narmer, with many written in the New Kingdom, but clearly show his
importance throughout Egyptian history.
The closest contemporary evidence to Narmer appears on the Abydos Seal Impressions of
Den and Qaa, listing the rulers from Narmer onward. New Kingdom documents such as the
king list of Seti I, the Min Reliefs of Ramesses II and the Turin Canon show Narmers place in
the history of the Egyptian kings. This place is further supported by Herodotus, who
attributed the founding of Memphis to Narmer, although this was based primarily on
hearsay and third-party reports. While these lists are important documents confirming the
sequence of rulers it must be remembered that many of them were cultic in nature rather
than a historical document.58
56
Narmers serekh appears twice at Tell el-Farkha, with Iry-Hor twice and Ka three times in Lower Egypt
(Cialowicz, Predynastic/Early Dynastic Period at Tell el-Farkha, 63); Heagy, Who was Menes?, 73.
57
58
Redford, D.B., Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books (Mississauga, 1986), 18.
85
Found in Abydos and named after the tombs they were located in, the clay Seal Impressions
of Den and Qaa are the best evidence for the rulers of the First Dynasty. The Den Seal
Impression records the first five rulers in order (Narmer, Aha, Djer, Djet and Den), followed
by Meryt-Neith and her title, mwt nswt, Mother of the King (see Figure 34).59 Problems
arise with the presence of Khentyamentiu, the funerary god of Abydos, in front of the first
three names, indicating the seal was recarved or a coregency occurred during the reigns of
Djet and Den.60 Dreyer attributes Khentyamentiu as representing forgotten kings names,
such as the mysterious Athothis I, which has been widely discounted.61
Figure 34. Seal Impression of Den

Found in Abydos, the clay Seal Impression of Den shows the Horus names of the First Dynasty kings. The first three
kings, Narmer, Aha and Djer are preceded by the necropolis god Khentiamentiu (left to right). The remaining list names
Djet, Den and the kings mother Meryt-neith, but the absence of Khentiamentiu for these names is unclear.
(Yurco, Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Fig.2)
59

61
Dreyer, G., Ein Siegel der Frhzeitlichen Knigsnekropole von Abydos, MDAIK 43 (1987), 39; Heagy, Who
was Menes?, 80.
60
86
The Seal Impression of Qaa is clearer but still shows the presence of Khentyamentiu,
although the god only appears once (see Figure 35).62 The eight kings are listed in reverse
order, with Khentyamentiu next to the name of Qaa. With eight kings attested for the First
Dynasty, the Seal Impression of Qaa confirms their Horus names and who the dynasty
started with. Regardless of the problems associated with the presence of Khentyamentiu on
the Seal Impression of Den, both seals show the known kings of the First Dynasty and that
Narmer was regarded as its founder within a few generations of his rule.
Figure 35. Seal Impression of Qaa

Found in Abydos, the clay Seal Impression of Qaa shows the kings of the First Dynasty listed in order from Narmer to
Qaa (right to left). The presence of Khentiamentiu (on the left) may indicate that the kings listed are deceased,
supported by the seal impressions find location in the royal necropolis.
(Dreyer, et.al., Umm el-Qaab (1996), 72)
The Gallery of the Kings in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos contains a list of seventy-six rulers
in sequence, who are being made offerings by Seti I, listed last.63 Omitted from the two rows
are the kings of the Intermediate Periods and the Amarna Period, as well as Hatshepsut. 64 A
similar list appears in the nearby Temple of Ramesses II, badly preserved and now held
62
Dreyer, G., Engel, E.M., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Khler, E.C., & Pumpenmeier, F., Umm el-Qaab
Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof, MDAIK 52 (1996), 71-2.
63
Kitchen, K.A., Kinglists in D. Redford (ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Vol. 2 (Oxford, 2001), 236.
64
Kitchen, Kinglists, 236.
87
mostly in the British Museum.65 The list starts with Menes (Narmer) and is historically
accurate according to the archaeological record of known kings for the First Dynasty. 66 On
the second pylon at the Ramesseum, the Min Festival of Ramesses II depicts a number of his
ancestors, who appear as statuettes carried by priests.67 Fourteen kings are listed, 12 dating
to the Eighteenth Dynasty, including Ahmose, with the addition of two others, Montuhotep I
and Menes.68 Both these kings, as well as Ahmose, possess the common feature of being
regarded as founders or restorers of the Egyptian state; Menes at the start of the First
Dynasty, Montuhotep I after the First Intermediate Period, and Ahmose after the Second
Intermediate Period.69
Listing Narmer at the start shows that he was considered an important ruler of the Early
Dynastic period and the first king of Egypt into the New Kingdom. 70 The Nineteenth Dynasty
papyrus known as the Turin Canon also contains the name of Menes.71 Though now very
fragmentary, it appears to have contained the names of all kings up to the time it was
written, including gods and Predynastic rulers identified as the Followers of Horus. 72 The
formula used to construct the lengths of reign of important kings appears to link Menes with
iconic rulers such as Djoser and indicates his importance to later Egyptians.73
Herodotus states that Memphis was founded by Menes after creating a bank and diverting
the flow of the Nile, as told to him by the priests.74 However, due to the scant archaeological
evidence at Memphis for this early date, other sources need to be considered. At the nearby
65
Kitchen, Kinglists, 236; Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 20.
Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 19.
67
68
69
70
Kitchen, K.A., Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Translations Vol. 1 (Oxford, 1993), 153;
71
72
73
74
Herodotus, Histories, trans. G. Rawlinson (Hertfordshire, 1996), 2.99.
66
88
cemetery at Helwan, graves date the earliest use of the site back to Naqada IIIA/B. 75 The
earliest king attested in the cemetery is Horus Ka, Narmers predecessor, from potmarks on
jars found in two graves.76 Cylinder seals show anonymous serekhs dating to the Naqada
IIIA/B period that show some form of royal administration was occurring, although it is not
clear if these relate to an Upper or Lower Egyptian ruler or governor.77 Mastaba S3357 in
the elite cemetery at Saqqara is dated to the reign of Aha, the first king named at the site,
indicating that the royal administration of Memphis was not as evolved under Narmer. 78
From the limited archaeological remains, primarily from a funerary context, the founding of
Memphis by Narmer can no longer be supported as claimed by Herodotus. A settlement of
some description was already located on the site but it may not have become the capital
until late in Narmers reign or possibly during the reign of Aha, Narmers successor.
Evidence for Narmers role in the formation of the Egyptian state is supported by the king
lists and records showing him as the first ruler of Egypt. However, these documents are
rarely contemporary and only show how he was regarded in later times. The artefacts of
Narmer are the clearest evidence of his role in conflicts in the western Delta and areas
around Buto. However, this does not support a single military campaign or war against the
population of Lower Egypt.
The Narmer Year Label, Cylinder and Inlay Box fragments support iconography shown on the
Narmer Palette that suggests one rulers victory over peoples from Libya and the western
75
Khler, E.C., On the Origins of Memphis. The New Excavations in the Early Dynastic Necropolis at Helwan in
S. Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Cialowicz and M. Chlodnicki (eds.), Egypt at its Origins, Studies in Memory of
Barbara Adams: Proceedings of the International Conference Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early
th
st
Dynastic Egypt, Karkow, 28 August 1 September 2002 (Leuven, 2004), 307310; Wilkinson suggests a date
of late Naqada II but shows no evidence for this earlier date (Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 339).
76
Saad, Z.Y., Royal Excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941-1945), Supplment aux Annales du Service des
Antiquits de lgypte, Cahier 3 (Cairo, 1947), pl.LX.
77
Khler, Origins of Memphis, 307.
78
Khler, Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt, 535; Emery, W.B., Archaic Egypt
(Harmondsworth, 1961), 36.
89
Delta, possibly protecting the inhabitants of other parts of Egypt. The relocation of the
capital from Upper Egypt to Memphis would have allowed easier access to trade routes but
also to monitor and continually protect the Delta region. These small victories,
commemorated by Narmer through these objects, may have assisted him being identified as
the founder of the First Dynasty and the Egyptian State.
90
7. Unifiers of Egypt
The artefacts and serekhs of Narmer show a ruler of significant influence at the start of the
First Dynasty but do not support a war of unification. Rulers before Narmer, as well as
changes in the state administration after, show evidence that could support another kings
claim as the unifier of Egypt. Unnamed serekhs, vast quantities of imported ceramics and tax
records dated before Narmer show rulers utilising trade networks and overseeing the
production and processing of resources. While difficult to determine the geographical limits
of their authority, it is clear successive rulers had increasing interaction throughout Egypt in
the periods leading up to Narmer, which shows the start of the political unification process.
The archaeological record of Upper and Lower Egypt, as well as the development of the
state through the First Dynasty, show how complex the political unification process is and
suggest its attribution to one ruler difficult to support.
7.1.Tomb U-j
Dating to Naqada IIIa2, Tomb U-j was discovered in Cemetery U, Umm el-Qaab at Abydos,
where the last of the Predynastic rulers were buried. The cemetery continued to be utilised
into the First Dynasty, with the tombs of these rulers categorised as Cemetery B. 1 By the
Naqada III period, the burials at Abydos evolved to use brick walls, roof beams and
additional chambers, eventually becoming the large multi-chambered tombs of the First
Dynastic rulers, surrounded by subsidiary burials.2
1
2
Dreyer, Tomb U-j, 128.

91
Dated approximately 150 years before the tomb attributed to Narmer, Tomb U-j is a large
multi-chamber tomb discovered almost intact (see Figure 36).3 Twelve chambers comprise
the tomb, with 10 containing almost 2000 ceramic vessels.4 Of these chambers, three were
dedicated to imported wares from the Canaanite region: Chamber Seven: 120 vessels,
Chamber 10: 173 vessels (see Figure 37), and Chamber 12: 400 vessels.5 The Nile mud seals
from all 700 imported vessels show evidence of seal impressions, and analysis indicates they
originally contained wine.6
Figure 36. Tomb U-j, Abydos

Twelve-chambered Tomb U-j at Umm el-Qaab, Abydos, discovered with 700 imported Canaanite ceramic vessels.
(Dreyer, Tomb U-j, 128 Fig.14.2)
The tomb also contained ivory tags and a sceptre, while the raw material for a large obsidian
dish, carved into the image of two hands, was imported from Ethiopia. 7 The ivory tags and
ink inscriptions on vessels show the agricultural estates under the control of, or trading
with, the tomb owner. The most frequent estate, Estate of Scorpion, has led Dreyer to
3

5
6
7
4
92
identify the ruler as Scorpion I, a predecessor of Scorpion II of the famous Scorpion

Macehead (see 7.2).8
According to Wilkinson, the size of Tomb U-j may indicate that the occupant ruled over
much of Egypt in early Naqada III.9 While size is an important feature in determining the
status of the individual in the society they lived in, it does not tell us much about the scope
of their authority as a king or ruler. Other evidence must be carefully assessed and, for
Tomb U-j, this includes the wealth of imported fine ceramics indicating trade, ivory labels
showing the production and collection of resources, and artefacts of kingship such as the
ivory sceptre.10
Figure 37. Imported Vessels, Tomb U-j

Chamber 10, Tomb U-j showing some of the 700 imported Canaanite vessels.
(Dreyer, Tomb U-j, 131, Fig. 14.7)

10
9
93
7.2. Scorpion II
The Scorpion Macehead was found with the Narmer Palette and other objects as part of the
Main Deposit at Hierakonpolis. Through the attestation of the rosette indicating a ruler,
confirmed by the white crown and next to the scorpion in front of the face, the figure can be
identified as King Scorpion (see Figure 38). 11 Based on the stylistic features of the
macehead, such as the ground lines and shape of the eyes and nose when compared with
the Narmer Palette, Logan shows that Scorpion II slightly predates Narmer.12 No clear tomb
has been discovered for this ruler; however, the chamber tombs B40 and B50 at Abydos
(see Figure 43) and a tomb at Hierakonpolis, with a possible scorpion and serekh on a wall
close by, have been attributed to him. 13 With the dedication of his macehead at
Hierakonpolis, Scorpion II is associated with this site as a possible competing ruler to the
Thinte royal house of Abydos.14
A second, very fragmented macehead has also been attributed to Scorpion II. In the
decoration, the figure wears the red crown, and with the white crown on the main Scorpion
Macehead, it has been used to theorise that Scorpion II unified the areas of Naqada and
Hierakonpolis.15 The two fragments of the second macehead (UC14898, 14898A) appear to
be two separate pieces, with the decoration and the handle borehole more complete on
one fragment. However, Arkells interpretations require careful examination.16
11

Logan, T.J., Royal Iconography of Dynasty 0 in E. Teeter & J.A. Larson (eds.), Gold of Praise: Studies on
Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente (Chicago, 1999), 271.
13
Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 56; Logan, Royal Iconography of Dynasty 0, 271.
14
15
Yurco, Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower Egypt, 85; Arkell, A.J., Was King Scorpion Menes?, Antiquity
37 (1963), 33, Ridley, Unification of Egypt, 634.
16
Arkell, Was King Scorpion Menes?, 31.
12
94
Arkell also attributes the founding of Memphis to Scorpion, based on the white crown and
the possible foundation ceremony being portrayed.17 Rock inscriptions at Gebel Tjauti and
Gebel Sheikh Suleiman also show a ruler identified by a scorpion in conflicts with lower
Nubia, while serekhs of Scorpion appear at Minshat Abu Omar and Tarkhan in Lower Egypt,
both indicating possible expansion of control before the reign of Narmer.18 The appearance
of the white crown on the macehead shows the establishment of the kingship and, together
with the attestations of Scorpions name, confirm that the political unification was started
before the reign of Narmer but did not cover all of Egypt at this time.
Figure 38. Scorpion Macehead

Found in Hierakonpolis in the Main Deposit, the macehead shows Scorpion II wearing the white crown associated with
standards and the royal rosette.
(Millet, Narmer Macehead and Related Objects [Corrections], Fig.2)
17
Arkell, Was King Scorpion Menes?, 35.

Jimnez Serrano, A., Origin of the state and the unification, 1130; Logan, Royal Iconography of Dynasty 0,
270.
18
95
7.3. Horus Aha

Horus Aha, the Fighter, was Narmers successor and an alternative for the identification of
Menes, the historic founder of Egypt.19 Scholars are still divided on Menes identification but
Heagy has clearly shown him to be equated with Narmer. The claim of Aha as Menes is
based primarily on the Naqada Label of Aha. Found at Naqada in a tomb attributed to NeithHotep, probably Ahas mother, the label shows the serekh of Aha next to a structure
containing the nebty goddesses with a Mn sign (Y5) (see Figure 39).20 The association of
these features have led to the proposal that Menes is the nebty name of Horus Aha.21
However, this has been discounted with the association thought to represent the
establishment of a shrine by Aha to the nebty goddesses, the cobra and the vulture, called
The Two Ladies Endure.22
Figure 39. Naqada Label of Aha

The serekh of Aha appears next to the nbty mn Shrine (top right corner) used to infer the identification of Menes to Aha,
but is widely accepted as the establishment of a shrine by Aha to the goddesses Nekhbet and Wadjet.
(Heagy, Who was Menes?, Fig.15)
19
Cf. Heagy for a list of scholars who identify Aha as Menes rather than Narmer (Heagy, Who was Menes?,
84); Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 70.
20
Heagy, Who was Menes?, 76; Kinnaer, J., The Naqada Label and the Identification of Menes in M.
Eldamaty & M. Trad (eds.) Egyptian Museum Collections around the World Vol. I (Cairo, 2002), 660.
21
Kinnaer, J., The Naqada Label and the Identification of Menes, GM 196 (2003), 23; Heagy, Who was
Menes?, 767.
22
96
Major architectural changes appeared during the reign of Aha, with the royal burial at
Abydos and the burials of elite people at Saqqara, near the capital Memphis. The simple
two-chamber tomb, utilised for Narmer, was expanded to three separate chambers for Aha,
with thirty four subsidiary burials (see Figure 40).23 Three rows of brick-lined pits (B16)
extended out from the three main chambers, with two other burials for women, possibly
queens.24 These subsidiary burials appear to have a hierarchical nature to them and based
on the high quality grave goods found, were not dedicated solely to poor servants.25 Most
belonged to men aged 20 to 30 years old, leading many scholars, with no clear evidence, to
assume human sacrifice for these burials.26
Figure 40. Cemetery B, Umm el-Qaab, Abydos

The Royal Cemetery B of the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic showing the tombs of Iry-Hor (B0/1/2), Ka (B7/9),
Narmer (B17/18), an unknown tomb (B40/50) and Aha (B19/15/10/13/14/16).
(Wilkinson, What a King is This, Fig. 2)
23

MacArthur, E.V., Subsidiary Burials of The First Dynasty in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins
of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 251.
25
Bestock, L., The First Kings of Egypt: The Abydos Evidence in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The
Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 137.
26
24
97
Aha is the only ruler to have built more than one funerary enclosure, with three dated to his
reign located at the North Cemetery in Abydos, all with subsidiary burials.27 The large
enclosure is attributed to Aha while the two smaller ones, both of similar size, were for his
queens.28 At Saqqara, the earliest mastaba (3357) for an official is dated to his reign,
indicating the solidification of Memphis as the capital.29
Based solely on the funerary architecture, Aha appears to be a significant ruler of the First
Dynasty when compared to the relatively small tomb of Narmer. This could be an indication
of his role in solidifying the political unification of the Two Lands initiated by his
predecessor. The absence of Ahas name and serekh outside the Nile Valley could indicate a
focus on internal matters completing the unification and establishing the rule of the First
Dynasty.30
7.4.Early Serekhs and tax records

Cylinders seals and impressions, potmarks, rock engravings, and ivory and bone labels from
the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic period often attest serekhs. Some can be attributed
to specific rulers, while others remain unknown elsewhere in Egypt or are unnamed. A
cylinder seal from Tell el-Farkha dates to Naqada IIIB and is incised with a serekh and nebti
symbol.31 The meaning of the cobra and vulture goddesses on this seal is unclear at this
early date, as the nbty title did not become part of the royal titulary until late in the First
27
Bestock, First Kings of Egypt, 140-1; Bestock, L., The evolution of royal ideology: new discoveries from the
reign of Aha in B. Midant-Reynes & Y. Tristant (eds.), Egypt At Its Origins 2: Proceedings of the International
th
th
Conference Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France), 5 8 September
2005 (Leuven, 2008), 1091.
28
Bestock, Evolution of royal ideology, 11045.
29
Khler, Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt, 535; Emery, Archaic Egypt, 36.
30
31
98
Dynasty.32 Also from Tell el-Farkha, potmarks record the names of rulers, including Iry-Hor
and Narmer, while two serekhs of Horus Crocodile at Tarkhan, contemporary with Iri-Hor
and Ka, indicate Egypt was not completely unified at this date.33 Wilkinson disputes the
existence of Iry-Hor due to the representation of his name not in a serekh, but written with
a falcon and what is taken as a representation of the r mouth hieroglyph (D21).34 Iry-Hor has
also been attested at sites in the Delta twice at Tell el-Farkha and at Zawiyet el-Aryan, as
well as at Tel Lod in South Caanan indicating a ruler of significance just before Narmer.35
Helwan and Memphis also attest the serekhs of rulers not known in Upper Egypt in late
Dynasty 0, such as Ny-Hor, Hat-Hor and Horus Ny-Neith on a wine jar, as well as the serekh
of Horus Ka on two pottery vessels.36 A rock cut serekh found in the Kharga Oasis is topped
by an archaic falcon and contains an arm hieroglyph (D36) possibly naming Aha but without
the weapon and shield typical of his name.37 Stylistically, the serekh appears to belong to
Dynasty 0, naming an unknown ruler Aa, and would be the earliest serekh known in the
Western oases indicating royal sponsored travel to the region.38 Early serekhs of Narmer and
some of his predecessors were depicted with a curved top line, which has been attributed to
the weight of the falcon on the roof of the royal house (see Figure 43).39 Dreyer proposes
that it could be the Dw mountain sign (N26) but the reason for this variation is unclear.40
32

Cialowicz, Predynastic/Early Dynastic Period at Tell el-Farkha, 63; Heagy, Who was Menes?, 74.
34
Wilkinson, T., The Identification of Tomb B1 at Abydos: Refuting the Existence of a King Ro/Iry-Hor, JEA 79
(1993), 243.
35
Cialowicz, Predynastic/Early Dynastic Period at Tell el-Farkha, 63-64; Heagy, Who was Menes?, 1011.
36
Khler, Origins of Memphis, 310; Heagy, Who was Menes?, 74; Fischer, Varia Aegyptiaca, 44.
37
Ikram, & Rossi, Early Dynastic serekh from the Kharga Oasis, 213.
38
Ikram, & Rossi, Early Dynastic serekh from the Kharga Oasis, 213, 215.
39
40
33
99
Figure 41. Early Serekhs

Early serekhs showing the curved top line, possibly dated to Narmer and his predecessors.
a) Rafish (?), b) Tarkhan, c) Tura, d) Helwan, e) Tarkhan and f) Abydos.
(Dreyer, Ein Gef mit Ritzmarke des Narmer, 5)
These otherwise unattested kings and unnamed serekhs show there was a number of rulers
before the start of First Dynasty who utilised the same iconography to convey their power
and authority over a specific area of the country. Two or more contemporary serekhs with
different names would indicate areas were not yet unified; however, Khler proposes some
of these serekhs in Lower Egypt could be a regional governor or administrative
representative of the king based in Upper Egypt.41
Contemporary with these early serekhs are inked inscriptions on pottery vessels
documenting the separate collection of taxes from Upper and Lower Egypt (see Figures 41
and 42).42 Dated to the reigns of Iry-Hor, Ka, Narmer and Aha, these inscriptions show an
administrative division of the country to track the origins of goods as well as taxes. 43 In
Narmers tomb at Abydos, ink inscriptions on pots show the administrative regions of Upper
and Lower Egypt were being utilised for tracking the region where the grave goods
41
Khler, Origins of Memphis, 310.

43
42
100
originated.44 Heagy supports that the division of the country does not denote control of all
Lower Egypt, although he fails to note that these inscriptions refer to taxation. This infers
some sort of control by these rulers of certain areas of the Delta, whether political or
through trade.45
Figure 42. Tax Inscription of Ka Lower Egypt

Inked pottery fragment of Horus Ka showing tax collected for Lower Egypt (Petrie, Abydos Vol.I, pl.III.30).
Figure 43. Tax Inscription of Ka Upper Egypt

Inked pottery fragment of Horus Ka showing tax collected from Upper Egypt (Petrie, Abydos Vol.I, Pl.I.2).
44
45
Jimnez Serrano, Origin of the state and the unification, 11234.

101
7.5.Archaeology
The archaeological record contemporary with the political unification of Egypt can provide
scare information about the unification process. However, this absence of evidence can
provide its own support, as further areas of the Delta, as well as settlements all over Egypt,
are excavated. The excavation at Kom el-Khilgan currently shows no evidence to support a
military invasion or campaign against the inhabitants in the period contemporary with the
political unification and the time of Narmer.46 The only evidence for possible conflict at a
Delta site is Tell el-Farkha, where a Lower Egyptian Cultures house, beneath a later grave,
shows evidence of burning in Naqada IIIa1 (ca.3200 BCE), although an accidental fire cannot
be discounted.47 There is no other evidence on the site for warfare or destruction that
would support the political unification through conflict; however, excavations are still ongoing.
Discussed previously (see Chapters 7.1 and 7.3), the royal tombs of Cemetery U and B at
Umm el-Qaab in Abdyos, show a continuation in use from Naqada II into the First Dynasty.
While similar in style, the tombs of Narmer and his successor Aha vary greatly in size and in
their use of subsidiary burials (see Chapter 7.3). These changes continued through the First
Dynasty (see Chapter 7.6), indicating that Narmers rule was not as solidified as his
successors. The royal cemetery also shows continued use after the relocation of the capital
to Memphis.48 These separate locations, for the capital and the royal burials, have been
used to support the model for political unification through warfare and conflict, with the
46
Buchez, N. & Midant-Reynes, B., A tale of two funerary traditions: The Predynastic cemetery at Kom elKhilgan (eastern Delta) in R. Friedman & P. Fiske (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third
th
st
International Conference Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt London, 27 July 1
August 2008 (Leuven, 2011), 833, 835.
47
Cialowicz, Predynastic/Early Dynastic Period at Tell el-Farkha, 56-7; Cialowicz, K., The nature of the relation
between Lower and Upper Egypt in the Protodynastic Period. A view from Tell el-Farkha in B. Midant-Reynes
& Y. Tristant (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2: Proceedings of the International Conference Origins of the State.
th
th
Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France), 5 8 September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 5056.
48
102
south victorious against the north.49 The proliferation of weapons found as grave goods has
also been used to support a war of unification through inference of their intended use.50
These objects appear to be goods of status, similar to the ceremonial palettes and
maceheads, and may be associated with the royal hunt rather than warfare or violence.51
7.6.First Dynasty
With the development of the kingship through the late Predynastic period and the cultural
unification of Egypt complete, the period identified as the First Dynasty continued to solidify
the rule of the country in one person. Successive rulers added to and improved the
structure of the state, with the appearance of new administrative roles and developments in
monumental architecture and the representation of the king.52
During the reign of Djer, trade with southern Levant and the Near East resumed with an
expedition by the king, possibly to Sinai.53 The number of subsidiary burials around Djers
tomb was increased, along with those at his nearby funerary enclosure, which was
considerably larger than Ahas.54 The central tomb chamber of both Djer and his successor
Djet comprised a single chamber, differing from Ahas three separate chambers, and was
possibly covered by a large mound (see Figure 44).55 Through the long reign of Djer, and
49
Wengrow, Archaeology of Early Egypt, 228; Wenke, Ancient Egyptian State, 2056.
Five macehead dated to Naqada I found in graves at Mahasna (Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 29);
Campagno, M., In the Beginning was the War. Conflict and the Emergence of the Egyptian State in S.
Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Cialowicz and M. Chlodnicki (eds.), Egypt at its Origins, Studies in Memory of
Barbara Adams: Proceedings of the International Conference Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early
th
st
Dynastic Egypt, Karkow, 28 August 1 September 2002 (Leuven, 2004), 689.
51
Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 216; Campagno, In the Beginning was the War, 689 n.1.
52
La Loggia, A.S., Egyptian engineering in the Early Dynastic period: The sites of Saqqara and Helwan in R.
Friedman & P. Fiske (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference Origin of
th
st
the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt London, 27 July 1 August 2008 (Leuven, 2011), 236, 242,
245.
53
54
Bestock, First Kings of Egypt, 139.
55
50
103
Djets shorter reign, the development of metalworking and other craft specialisations
continued.56
Figure 44. Cemetery B, Umm el-Qaab, Abydos

Plan of the royal tombs of the First Dynasty, showing the changes in architecture and number of subsidiary burials.
(Bestock, First Kings of Egypt, 139)
Djets successor Den is one of the best attested rulers for the First Dynasty but could also be
one of the most important.57 The title nswt-bity, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, appears
first in Dens reign and remained in use throughout Egyptian history.58 Den also introduced
the use of the double crown, the combined red and white crowns, to represent the kingship
56

58
Heagy, Who was Menes?, 63; Cervell-Autuori, J., The Origins of Pharaonic Titulary. A Cultural Approach
in M. Hasitzka, J. Diethart, & G. Dembski, (eds.) Das Alte gypten und Seine Nachbarn (Krems, 2003a), 51.
57
104
of Upper and Lower Egypt.59 The use of the double crown may be linked to changes in the
administration of the state which developed during Dens reign, but may also represent a
closer union between Upper and Lower Egypt and further solidifying of the political
unification. The long length of his reign and the major developments during it indicate that
Den may be a more important ruler of the First Dynasty then previously considered.
The continued use of the royal cemetery at Abydos, with the large mud brick tombs,
funerary enclosures and subsidiary burials, show the increased authority of one person
ruling over Egypt.60 The developments in administration and the office of the king, built
upon by successive rulers, laid the foundations for the activities of the Old Kingdom. 61
59
Petrie, W.M.F., Royal Tombs of the First Dynasties Vol. 1 (1900), 21. A rock cut inscription is attested to Djet,
with a falcon wearing the double crown on a serekh. However, the name wADt cannot be firmly linked to Djet.
(Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 73, 75, 196).
60
61
105
8. Conclusion
The various artefacts attributed to Narmer and the wide attestation of his serekh show he
was a significant ruler of the political unification process, but the iconography of the Narmer
Palette does not support a single military campaign. From a cursory glance, the palettes use
of the white crown appears to support the victory of Upper Egypt over Lower Egypt and the
Delta, with the red crown taken by the victorious Narmer. With both crowns originally
connected with Upper Egypt, the date the red crown was relocated to represent the Delta is
unknown. This disputes Yurcos statement that, All this evidence [from the Narmer Palette]
indicates that Narmer was the conqueror of the Delta, and consequently the first attested
unifier of all of Egypt.1
Rulers before Narmer, such as tomb owner U-j and Scorpion II, show individuals in polities
of Upper Egypt gathering power and authority with the support of trade networks. The
development of these networks and associated administrative and taxation roles allowed
the rulers to exert increasing control over geographical areas. Wilkinson claims the process
of unification started between the rules of tomb owner U-j and Narmer and appears to be a
continuation of the acculturation process in the political sphere.2 The process of political
unification evolved slowly as more regions were brought under the authority of one ruler,
mimicking the cultural unification process relying on interaction and trade rather than solely
on violence and warfare. Narmer played a significant role in the political unification but he
did not start the process nor complete it the process was solidified by successive rulers of
the First Dynasty.
1
2
Yurco, Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower Egypt, 86.

106
The discovery of the Narmer Label and Cylinder support the recording of a historical event in
the Narmer Palette, rather than ideological aspects of the kingship. The debate over an
ideological representation will continue, especially as these images did enter into the
ideological realm of kingship, although when this occurred remains unclear and requires
further research. That the Narmer Palette was already part of this ideology should be very
carefully considered and not taken verbatim.3 With the papyrus reeds and the naming of the
port of Buto, a conflict with people of the western Delta area is supported. This conflict, also
represented in the Narmer Year Label and Inlay Box fragments, is associated with a second
conflict against the *hnw in the same region, which is recorded on the Narmer Cylinder.
Victories in two conflicts against people from the Libyan Desert infiltrating into the western
Delta would place Narmer in a position as protector of the people. This status with the
inhabitants of the Delta would have allowed trade networks to flourish and the placement
of administrative officials to oversee their operation.
The evidence no longer supports the unification of Egypt by Narmer alone; however, how he
was regarded in later periods cannot be forgotten. The Ancient Egyptians, from as early as
the reign of Den, identified Narmer as a founding ruler of the Egyptian state. However, this
does not mean he was the founding ruler.
While it is clear the role of Narmer was significant, this study now shows that the Narmer
Palette can no longer be used alone to support his role in the unification process. The
meaning of unification should be revisited to clarify the differences between political and
cultural unification and acculturation, what determines these stages and how they interact
with the process of statehood. After careful consideration of the documentation on the
Narmer Palette and personal observations in the Cairo Museum, it is also clear that this
3
Schulman, Narmer and the Unification, 93; Khler, History or Ideology?, 51011.
107
study would benefit from a new and more detailed epigraphic study of the palette, to
correct the outdated representations based on Quibells original drawings.
While Narmers importance to the Ancient Egyptians and his role in the political unification
process was significant, we must be careful of using only one artefact to support a political
development that would last for 3000 years. It is a myth that one palette can unify Two
Lands.
108
109
Bibliography
Adams, B., Introduction in B. Adams, Ancient Hierakonpolis Vol. 1 (Warminster, 1974), xixvi.
Andelkovic, B., Political Organization of Egypt in the Predynastic Period in E. Teeter (ed.),
Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 2532.
Arkell, A.J., Was King Scorpion Menes?, Antiquity 37 (1963), 3135.
Baines, J., Communication and Display: the Integration of Early Egyptian Art and Writing,
Antiquity 63 (1989), 47182.
Bard, K.A., Towards an Interpretation of the Role of Ideology in the Evolution of Complex
Society in Egypt, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11 (1992), 1-24.
Bard, K.A., The Emergence of the Egyptian State (c.3200-2686BC) in I. Shaw (ed.), The
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2003), 5782.
Baumgartel, E.J., Palettes in E.J. Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt (Oxford,
1955), 81-105.
Baumgartel, E.J., Some Remarks on the Origins of the Titles of the Archaic Egyptian Kings,
JEA 61 (1975), 2832.
Berry, J.W., Acculturation as Varieties of Adaptation in A.M. Padilla (ed.), Acculturation:
Theory, Models and Some Findings (Colorado, 1980), 925.
Bestock, L., The evolution of royal ideology: new discoveries from the reign of Aha in B.
Midant-Reynes & Y. Tristant (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2: Proceedings of the International
Conference Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France),
5th8th September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 10911106.
Bestock, L., The First Kings of Egypt: The Abydos Evidence in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the
Braun E., South Levantine Early Bronze Age chronological correlations with Egypt in light of
the Narmer serekhs from Tell Erani and Arad: New interpretations, BMSAES 13 (2009), 25
48.
Braun, E., Early Interaction Between Peoples of the Nile Valley and the Southern Levant in
E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011),
105122.
110
Buchez, N. & Midant-Reynes, B., A tale of two funerary traditions: The Predynastic
cemetery at Kom el-Khilgan (eastern Delta) in R. Friedman & P. Fiske (eds.), Egypt at its
Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference Origin of the State. Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Egypt London, 27th July 1st August 2008 (Leuven, 2011), 831858.
Burgess, E.M. & Arkell, A.J., The Reconstruction of the Hathor Bowl, JEA 44 (1958), 611.
Butzer. K.W., Archeology and Geology in Ancient Egypt, Science 132 (1960), 16171624.
Campagno, M., In the Beginning was the War. Conflict and the Emergence of the Egyptian
State in S. Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Cialowicz and M. Chlodnicki (eds.), Egypt at its
Origins, Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams: Proceedings of the International Conference
Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Karkow, 28 th August 1st
September 2002 (Leuven, 2004), 689704.
Cervell-Autuori, J., The Origins of Pharaonic Titulary. A Cultural Approach in M. Hasitzka, J.
Diethart, & G. Dembski, (eds.) Das Alte gypten und Seine Nachbarn (Krems, 2003a), 4457.
Cervell-Autuori, J., Narmer, Menes and the Seals from Abydos in Z. Hawass & L.P. Brock
(eds.) Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings of the Eighth
International Congress of Egyptologists Cairo 2000 (Cairo, 2003b), 168175.
Cialowicz, K., The nature of the relation between Lower and Upper Egypt in the
Protodynastic Period. A view from Tell el-Farkha in B. Midant-Reynes & Y. Tristant (eds.),
Egypt at its Origins 2: Proceedings of the International Conference Origins of the State.
Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France), 5th8th September 2005 (Leuven,
2008), 501514
Cialowicz, K., The Predynastic/Early Dynastic Period at Tell el-Farkha in E. Teeter (ed.),
Chlodnicki, M., Trade and Exchange in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic period in the
Eastern Nile Delta in B. Midant-Reynes & Y. Tristant (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2:
Proceedings of the International Conference Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early
Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France), 5th8th September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 489500.
Davies, V. & Friedman, R., The Narmer Palette: An Overlooked Detail in M. Eldamaty & M.
Trad (eds.) Egyptian Museum Collections around the World Vol. I (Cairo, 2002), 244246.
Davis, W., The Origins of Register Composition in Predynastic Egyptian Art, JAOS 96 (1976),
404-418.
Davis. W., Narrativity and the Narmer Palette in W. Davis (ed.) Replications (Pennsylvania,
1996), 199231.
111
Dee, M., Wengrow, D., Shortland, A., Stevenson, A., Brock, F., Flink, L.G. & Ramsey, C.B., An
Absolute Chronology for Early Egypt using Radiocarbon Dating and Bayesian Statistical
Modelling, Proceedings of the Royal Society 469 (2013), 110.
Dreyer, G., Ein Siegel der Frhzeitlichen Knigsnekropole von Abydos, MDAIK 43 (1987),
3343.
Dreyer, G., Ein Gef mit Ritzmarke des Narmer, MDAIK 55 (1999), 16.
Dreyer, G., Narmerpalette und Stdtepalette die Unterwerfung des Deltas, SASA Cahier
34 (2005), 253261.
Dreyer, G., Tomb U-j: A Royal Burial of Dynasty 0 at Abydos in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the
Dreyer, G., Engel, E.M., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Khler, E.C., & Pumpenmeier, F., Umm elQaab Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof, MDAIK 52 (1996), 1181.
Dreyer, G., Hartmann, R., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Kopp, H., Lacher, C., Muller, V., Nerlich, A.
& Zink, A., Umm el-Qaab Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof, MDAIK 59
(2003), 8488.
Dreyer, G., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Khler, E.C., Mller, V. und Pumpenmeir, F., Umm elQaab Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof, MDAIK 54 (1998), 77167.
Emery, W.B., Archaic Egypt (Harmondsworth, 1961).
Evans, L., The Shedshed of Wepwawet: An Artistic and Behavioural Interpretation, JEA 97
(2011), 103115.
Fairservis Jr., W.A., A Revised View of the Narmer Palette, JARCE 28 (1991), 120.
Fischer, H.G., The Cult and Nome of the Goddess Bat, JARCE 1 (1962), 718.
Fischer, H.G., Varia Aegyptiaca JARCE 2 (1963), 1551.
Friedman, R., Hierakonpolis in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian
Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 3344.
Gahlin, L., Egypt: Gods, Myths and Religion (London, 2001).
Gardiner, A.H., Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction (Oxford, 1961).
Goedicke, H., Narmer, WZKM 85 (1995), 8184.
112
Goldwasser, O., The Taming of Metaphor A study of some scenes of the Narmer Palette
in O. Goldwasser (ed.) From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the semiotics of the hieroglyphs
(Fribourg, 1995), 325.
Heagy, T.C., 'Who was Menes?', Archo-Nil 24 (2014), 59-92.
Hendrickx, S., Arguments for an Upper Egyptian Origin of the Palace-faade and the Serekh
during Late Predynastic Early Dynastic time, GM 184 (2001), 85110.
Hendrickx, S. & Forster, F., Early Dynastic Art and Iconography in A.B. Lloyd (ed.), A
Companion to Ancient Egypt (2010), Blackwell Reference Online, 22nd August 2013.
Hendrickx, S., Iconography of the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods in E. Teeter (ed.),
Herodotus, Histories, trans. G. Rawlinson (Hertfordshire, 1996).
Hoffman, M., Egypt Before the Pharaohs (London, 1980).
Ikram, S. & Rossi, C., An Early Dynastic serekh from the Kharga Oasis, JEA 90 (2004), 211
215.
Jimnez Serrano, A., The origin of the state and the unification: two different concepts in
the same context in B. Midant-Reynes & Y. Tristant (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2:
Proceedings of the International Conference Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early
Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France), 5th8th September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 11191138.
Khal, J., Ra is my Lord (Wiesbaden, 2007).
Kaiser, W., Zum Siegel mit frhen Knigsnamen von Umm el-Qaab, MDAIK 43 (1987), 115
119.
Kemp, B., Unification and the Urbanization of Ancient Egypt in J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations
of the Near East Vol. II (New York, 1995), 679690.
Kinnaer, J., The Naqada Label and the Identification of Menes in M. Eldamaty & M. Trad
(eds.) Egyptian Museum Collections around the World Vol. I (Cairo, 2002), 657665.
Kinnaer, J., The Naqada Label and the Identification of Menes, GM 196 (2003), 2330.
Kitchen, K.A., Kinglists in D. Redford (ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Vol. 2
(Oxford, 2001), 234238.
Kitchen, K.A., Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Translations Vol. 1
(Oxford, 1993).
113
Khler, E.C., The State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt: New Evidence for the
Development of the Pharaonic State?, GM 147 (1995), 7992.
Khler, E.C., History or Ideology? New Reflections on the Narmer Palette and the Nature of
Foreign Relations in Pre- and Early Dynastic Egypt in E.C.M. van den Brink & T. Levy (eds.),
Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium B.C.E.
(London, 2002), 499513.
Khler, E.C., On the Origins of Memphis. The New Excavations in the Early Dynastic
Necropolis at Helwan in S. Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Cialowicz and M. Chlodnicki
(eds.), Egypt at its Origins, Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams: Proceedings of the
International Conference Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt,
Karkow, 28th August 1st September 2002 (Leuven, 2004), 295316.
Khler, E.C., The interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt in the
formation of the Egyptian state. Another review in B. Midant-Reynes & Y. Tristant (eds.),
Egypt at its Origins 2: Proceedings of the International Conference Origins of the State.
Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France), 5th8th September 2005 (Leuven,
2008), 515544.
Khler, E.C., The Rise of the Egyptian State in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The
La Loggia, A.S., Egyptian engineering in the Early Dynastic period: The sites of Saqqara and
Helwan in R. Friedman & P. Fiske (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third
International Conference Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt London,
27th July 1st August 2008 (Leuven, 2011), 233256.
Lankester, F., Control of the wild in Egypts predynastic rock-art, paper presented at
Origins 5, Fifth International Conference of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Studies, IFAO
Cairo, 13th18th April 2014.
Levy, T.E., van den Brink, E.C.M., Goren Y. & Alon, D., New Light on King Narmer and the
Protodynastic Egyptian Presence in Canaan, The Biblical Archaeologist 58 (1995), 2635.
Logan, T.J., Royal Iconography of Dynasty 0 in E. Teeter & J.A. Larson (eds.), Gold of Praise:
Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente (Chicago, 1999), 261276.
Lorton, D., Why Menes?, Varia Aegyptiaca 3 (1987), 3338.
MacArthur, E.V., Subsidiary Burials of The First Dynasty in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the
Mark, S., From Egypt to Mesopotamia: A study of Predynastic trade routes (College Station,
1997).
114
Michaux-Colombot, D., New Considerations on the Qustul Incense Burner Iconography in

W. Godlewski (ed.), Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian
Studies, Warsaw University 27th August 2nd September 2006 (Warsaw, 2010), 359370.
Millet, N.B., The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects, JARCE 27 (1990), 5359.
Millet, N.B., The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects: [Correction], JARCE 28 (1991),
223225.
Morenz, L.D., Gegner des Narmer aus dem Papyrus-Land: NW und WaS, GM 189 (2002), 81
88.
Newberry, P.E., The Petty-Kingdom of the Harpoon and Egypts Earliest Mediterranean
Port, LAAA 1 (1908), 17-22.
OBrien, A., The Serekh as an Aspect of the Iconography of Early Kingship, JARCE 33 (1996),
123138.
OConnor, D., Context, Function and Program: Understanding Ceremonial Slate Palettes,
JARCE 39 (2002), 525.
OConnor, D., The Narmer Palette: A New Interpretation in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the
OMara, P.F., Once Again: Who was Menes? An Orthographical Approach, GM 182 (2001),
97105.
Panofsky, E., Meaning in the Visual Arts (Chicago, 1955).
Perez Largacha, A., The rise of the Egyptian state and the Carneiro circumscription theory,
CRIPEL 18 (1996), 107-118.
Petrie, W.M.F., Royal Tombs of the First Dynasties Vol. 1 (London, 1900).
Petrie, W.M.F., Abydos Vol. 1 (London, 1902).
Piquette, K.E., Writing, Art and Society: A Contextual Archaeology of the Inscribed Labels
of Late Predynastic-Early Dynastic Egypt Vol. 1 & 2, unpublished PhD thesis, University of
London, England (2007).
Quibell, J.E., Slate palette from Hieraconpolis, ZS 36 (1898), 8184.
Quibell, J.E. & Petrie, W.M.F., Hierakonpolis Part I (London, 1900).
Quibell, J.E. & Green, F.W., Hierakonpolis Part II (London, 1902).
Ray, J.D., The Name of King Narmer, Lingua Aegyptia 11 (2003), 131138.
115
Redford, D.B., Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books (Mississauga, 1986).

Ridley, R.T., The Unification of Egypt (Deception Bay, 1973).
Saad, Z.Y., Royal Excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (19411945), Supplment aux Annales
du Service des Antiquits de lgypte, Cahier 3 (Cairo, 1947).
Schulz, R. & Seidel, M., Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs (Kohn, 2007).
Schulman, A.R., Narmer and the Unification: A Revisionist View, BES 11 (1991/92), 79105.
Seiegmund, R.H., A critical review of theories about the origins of the ancient Egyptian
state, unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (1999).
Shaw, I. & Nicholson, P., The Princeton Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (Princeton, 2008).
Tallet, R. & Laisney, D., Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sina (Ouadi Ameyra) Un complment la
chronologie des expditions minires gyptiennes, BIFAO 112 (2012), 381398.
Trimble, J., Introduction: Social Change and Acculturation in K. Chun, P. Organista & G.
Marin (eds.), Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement and Applied Research
(Washington, 2003), 313.
Tristant, Y. & Midant-Reynes, B., The Predynastic Cultures of the Nile Delta in E. Teeter
(ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 4554.
Weeks, K., Preliminary Report on the First Two Seasons at Hierakonpolis: Part II: The Early
Dynastic Palace, JARCE 9 (19711972), 2933.
Wengrow, D., Rethinking Cattle Cults in Early Egypt: Towards a Prehistoric Perspective on
the Narmer Palette, CAJ 11 (2001), 91104.
Wengrow, D., The Archaeology of Early Egypt (Cambridge, 2006).
Wengrow, D., The Invention of Writing in Egypt in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The
Wenke, R. J., The Ancient Egyptian State: The Origins of Egyptian Culture (c.80002000BC)
(Cambridge, 2009).
Whitehouse, H., A Decorated Knife Handle from the Main Deposit at Hierakonpolis,
MDAIK 58 (2002), 425446.
Wilkinson, R., The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (New York, 2000).
Wilkinson, T., The Identification of Tomb B1 at Abydos: Refuting the Existence of a King
Ro/Iry-Hor, JEA 79 (1993), 241243.
116
Wilkinson, T., State Formation in Egypt: Chronology and society, BAR International Series
651 (Oxford, 1996).
Wilkinson, T., Early Dynastic Egypt (London, 2000a).
Wilkinson, T., What a King is This: Narmer and the Concept of the Ruler, JEA 86 (2000b),
2332.
Wilkinson, T., Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone and its Associated
Fragments (London, 2000c).
Wilkinson, T., Political Unification: towards a reconstruction, MDAIK 56 (2000d), 377395.
Williams, B., Logan, T.J. & Murnane, W.J., The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and
Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery before Narmer, JNES 46 (1987), 245285.
Williams, B., Relations Between Egypt and Nubia in the Naqada Period in E. Teeter (ed.),
Yeivin, S., Early Contacts Between Canaan and Egypt, Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960),
193203.
Yeivin, S., The Ceremonial Slate-Palette of King Narmer in H.B. Rosn (ed.), Studies in
Egyptology and Linguistic in Honour of H.J. Polotsky (Jerusalem, 1964), 2253.
Yurco, F.J., Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower Egypt. A Reconsideration of his Palette
and Macehead, JSSEA 25 (1995), 8595.
117
118

Allan Scott. One Palette, Two Lands The Myth of The Unification of Egypt by The Narmer Palette

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Allan Scott. One Palette, Two Lands The Myth of The Unification of Egypt by The Narmer Palette

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

One Palette, Two Lands

The myth of the Unification

Scott Allan 41965485

Literature review ................................................................................................................ 8

Heagy (2014) .......................................................................................................... 10

Fairservis Jr (1991) ................................................................................................. 13

Goldwasser (1995) ................................................................................................. 14

Mark (1997) ........................................................................................................... 15

Khler (2002) ......................................................................................................... 16

OConnor (2012) .................................................................................................... 18

Narmer Palette .......................................................................................................... 10

Kemp (1995) .......................................................................................................... 19

Khler (1995) ......................................................................................................... 19

Wilkinson (2000) .................................................................................................... 21

Overview of cultural unification (acculturation) .............................................................. 23

Upper Egypt .................................................................................................................. 26

Naqada IIA ............................................................................................................................ 30

Upper Egypt .................................................................................................................. 30

Upper Egypt .................................................................................................................. 32

Naqada IIIA ................................................................................................................ 34

Upper Egypt .................................................................................................................. 34

Late Naqada III........................................................................................................... 37

Description of the Narmer Palette ................................................................................... 42

Early Palettes ............................................................................................................. 42

Date and find context ................................................................................................ 43

General description ................................................................................................... 44

Unification on the Narmer Palette ................................................................................... 46

Kingship iconography ................................................................................................ 46

Identification of the Delta ......................................................................................... 56

Violence and other imagery ...................................................................................... 64

Horus Narmer and the unification.................................................................................... 70

Artefacts of Narmer .................................................................................................. 70

Serekh of Narmer ...................................................................................................... 78

King lists and other records ....................................................................................... 85

Unifiers of Egypt ............................................................................................................... 91

Tomb U-j .................................................................................................................... 91

Horus Aha .................................................................................................................. 96

Early Serekhs and tax records ................................................................................... 98

First Dynasty ............................................................................................................ 103

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 106

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 110

List of illustrations and figures

Wilkinson, T., Early Dynastic Egypt (London, 2000a), 66.

Figure 1. Narmer Palette Verso

Figure 2. Narmer Palette Recto

Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 75.

Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 80.

Fairservis Jr., Revised View of the Narmer Palette, 1819.

Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 97.

Khler, History or Ideology?, 504.

Khler, State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt, 84.

Wilkinson, T., Political Unification: towards a reconstruction, MDAIK 56 (2000d), 37881.

3. Overview of cultural unification (acculturation)

Tomb B101 (Wilkinson, Political Unification, 380).

Tristant, & Midant-Reynes, Predynastic Cultures of the Nile Delta, 48.

Figure 3. Late Naqada I Map

Wilkinson, Political Unification, 3812.

Figure 4. Mid Naqada II Map

Wilkinson, Political Unification, 384.

Wilkinson, Political Unification, 385.

Wilkinson, Political Unification, 386.

Figure 5. Early Naqada III Map

3.4.Late Naqada III