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 work’s 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 country’s development from acculturation to statehood. Although identified as their founding ruler on mid-First Dynasty seals, contemporary evidence of Narmer’s 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.

v

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.

Köhler (2002) ......................................................................................................... 16

2.1.6.

O’Connor (2012) .................................................................................................... 18

2.2.

3.

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

Unification ................................................................................................................. 19

2.2.1.

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

2.2.2.

Köhler (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

x

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. Köhler, 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.

1

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 Köhler, E.C., ‘The State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt: New Evidence for the Development of the Pharaonic State?’, GM 147 (1995), 79.

1

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.

2

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).

3

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 Narmer’s 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, Narmer’s role in the unification of Egypt cannot be sustained by the iconography of the Narmer Palette.

4

5

Figure 1. Narmer Palette – Verso (Quibell, ‘Slate palette from Hieraconpolis’ (1898), pl.13)

6

Figure 2. Narmer Palette – Recto (Quibell, ‘Slate palette from Hieraconpolis’ (1898), pl.12)

7

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 (Köhler, 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 Dreyer’s 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

1

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).

8

should not abandon traditional readings so quickly without carefully considering and reviewing all the alternatives.

9

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 king’s 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 Semerkhet’s 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 Heagy’s argument is based mainly on Narmer’s own claims that he was the first king of Egypt, and that the propaganda of the Narmer Palette should not be underestimated.7 With

2

Heagy, T.C., 'Who was Menes?', Archéo-Nil 24 (2014), 82–3; cf. Lorton, D., ‘Why “Menes”?’, Varia Aegyptiaca 3 (1987), 33-38. 3 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 60–1. 4 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 60; cf. O’Mara for a study on the name Menes (O’Mara, P.F., ‘Once Again: Who was Menes? An Orthographical Approach’, GM 182 (2001), 97-105). 5 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 61–2. 6 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 62. 7 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 69.

10

the unusual combination of iconography and the unknown aspect of the palette’s 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 Prince’s 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 successor’s 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 Heagy’s 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 Heagy’s identification of Narmer as

8

Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 75. Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 76–7. 10 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 77–8. 11 Unknown length of reigns inferred from probable gaps in the lost fragments of the Palermo Stone and Dreyer’s Athothis I theory (Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 79, 81–2). 12 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 64. 13 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 60. 9

11

Menes.14 However, a large part of Heagy’s 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

Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 80. Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 75. 16 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 69. 17 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 68–9. 18 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 75. 19 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 69. 15

12

2.1.2.

Fairservis Jr (1991)

In his ‘Revised View of the Na’rmr 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 palette’s 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), 100–101. 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’, 18–19. 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’, 12–13. 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 Millet’s 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 Städtepalette die Unterwerfung des Deltas‘, SASAÉ 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 Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 100. 34 Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 97.

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 Mark’s 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.

Köhler (2002)

Köhler 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 Köhler 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

Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 97. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 97. 37 Köhler, 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), 499–500. 38 Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 500–503. 39 Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 507. 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 Köhler, as she cannot exclude the possibility that the enemy may be Libyans from the Western Desert and Delta.40 Köhler 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, Köhler 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 Hunter’s Palette.43 Köhler 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

Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 504. Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 504. 42 Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 506. 43 Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 507. 44 Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 509. 41

17

2.1.6.

O’Connor (2012)

O’Connor 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. O’Connor 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 O’Connor 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’, O’Connor 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, O’Connor 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 Narmer’s Palette that it can continue to generate yet further hypotheses (as all of our interpretations must be) as to its meaning.”49

45

O’Connor, D., ‘The Narmer Palette: A New Interpretation’ in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 146. 46 O’Connor, ‘Narmer Palette’, 149–150. 47 O’Connor, ‘Narmer Palette’, 150. 48 O’Connor, ‘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 O’Connor, ‘Narmer Palette’, 152.

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.

Köhler (1995)

Köhler 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 Köhler 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 Kemp, ‘Unification and Urbanization’, 681. 54 Köhler, E.C., ‘The State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt: New Evidence for the Development of the Pharaonic State?’, GM 147 (1995), 79–82.

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 Köhler 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 Renfrew’s ‘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 scholar’s views rather than creating the balanced analysis he proposes.61

55

Köhler, ‘State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt’, 84. Köhler, ‘State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt’, 84. 57 Köhler, ‘State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt’, 89. 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 Siegemund, ‘Critical review of theories’, 661–5. 61 Siegemund, ‘Critical review of theories’, 80–1. 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), 378–81. Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 382. 64 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 386–90. 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

1

Köhler, 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), 516–7; 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), 1119–1137. 2 Köhler, ‘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 king’s control over his people, enemies and chaos – all of which appear in later periods as important imagery of the divine

3

Köhler, ‘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 Flannery’s ‘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

7

Köhler, E.C., ‘The Rise of the Egyptian State’ in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 123. 8 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 521. 9 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 522. 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 Chlodnicki, ‘Trade and Exchange in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic period’, 498.

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 I–IID 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

Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 526. Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 522. 15 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 378. 16 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 380–1. 17 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 381. 18 Grave U-239 (Dreyer, G., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Köhler, E.C., Müller, V. und Pumpenmeir, F., ‘Umm el-Qaab Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof‘, 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 I–IIB 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). Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 381. 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 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 526. 24 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 527. 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

Tristant, & Midant-Reynes, ‘Predynastic Cultures of the Nile Delta’, 48. Tristant, & Midant-Reynes, ‘Predynastic Cultures of the Nile Delta’, 49–50. 27 Tristant, & Midant-Reynes, ‘Predynastic Cultures of the Nile Delta’, 51. 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 IIA–IIB 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 IIB–IIC, 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

Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 381–2. Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 382. 30 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 382. 31 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 383. 32 Chlodnicki, ‘Trade and Exchange in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic period’, 498. 33 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 527. 34 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 527. 35 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 527. 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 IIC–IID1, 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

Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 384. Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 384. 38 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 384. 39 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 385. 40 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 385. 41 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 385. 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 Köhler 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

Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 385. Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 529. 44 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 530. 45 Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 16–17. 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 IIIA–IIIB 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 owner’s 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

Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 386. Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 386. 50 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 386. 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), 134–5. 52 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 388. 53 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 388. 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 Köhler infers not as the Naqadan

culture

arriving

but

a

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 Köhler’s 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-Ma’asara 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 Köhler, ‘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 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 532. 57 Wilkinson, State Formation in Egypt, 94. 58 Wilkinson, State Formation in Egypt, 94. 59 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 390.

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, Narmer’s 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. Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 392. 62 Dreyer, ‘Tomb U-j’, 128; Tallet, R. & Laisney, D., ‘Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sinaï (Ouadi ‘Ameyra) Un complément à la chronologie des expéditions minières égyptiennes’, BIFAO 112 (2012), 381–2. 63 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 392; Friedman, ‘Hierakonpolis’, 43. 64 Wilkinson, ‘Political Unification’, 393. 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, Narmer’s 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

Köhler, ‘Rise of the Egyptian State’, 123.

39

3150 BCE, approximately 150 years earlier (see Figure 7).66 Narmer’s 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 III–IV

Naqada IIIB

3250

Late Predynastic

Buto IIIB–E

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/C–IIB

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 Köhler, ‘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 IID–IIIA 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

1

Shaw, I. & Nicholson, P., The Princeton Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (Princeton, 2008), 243. Shaw, & Nicholson, Princeton Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, 243. 3 Shaw, & Nicholson, Princeton Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, 243. 4 O’Connor, D., ‘Context, Function and Program: Understanding Ceremonial Slate Palettes’, JARCE 39 (2002), 10. 2

42

found on any of the ceremonial palettes.5 O’Connor 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 palette’s 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 king’s name through the carving of the palette the only dating possible. The representation and 5

O’Connor, ‘Context, Function and Program’, 8. O’Connor, ‘Context, Function and Program’, 8. 7 O’Connor, ‘Narmer Palette’, 148. 8 Shaw, & Nicholson, Princeton Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, 219. 9 Quibell, J.E., ‘Slate palette from Hieraconpolis’, ZÄS 36 (1898), 83. 10 Quibell, J.E. & Green, F.W., Hierakonpolis Part II (London, 1902), 13–14. 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?', 59–92; Dee, et.al., ‘Absolute Chronology for Early Egypt using Radiocarbon Dating’, 5. 13 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 68. 14 Baines, J., ‘Communication and Display: the Integration of Early Egyptian Art and Writing’, Antiquity 63 (1989), 478–79; 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 Narmer’s 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 palette’s 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 Narmer’s 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

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 Narmer’s 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 crown’s presence at the site, its relocation as a symbol of the Delta remains unclear. Yurco’s 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

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 192. 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 figure’s 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 Narmer’s reign, the crowns can no longer be used alone to support the military conquest of Lower Egypt by an Upper Egyptian ruler.

4

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 194. 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), 248–9, 250; Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 194). 7 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 194. 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)

8

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 287; Wilkinson, R., The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (New York, 2000), 200–201. 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 king’s 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

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 286–7. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 91. 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-façade and the Serekh during Late Predynastic – Early Dynastic time’, GM 184 (2001), 104–5. 14 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 286. 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 façade; 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 Narmer’s 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 Narmer’s 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 king’s 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. O’Brien, 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 (1971–1972), 31. 18 Williams, Logan, & Murnane, ‘Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle’, 252, 270. 19 Dreyer, G., et.al., ‘Umm el-Qaab‘ (1998), 88–89; Tallet, & Laisney, ‘Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sinaï’, 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 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 197.

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 Egypt’s 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. (Quibell, ‘Slate palette from Hieraconpolis’ (1898), pl.13)

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’, 248–9; Ridley, R.T., The Unification of Egypt (Deception Bay, 1973), 65). 25 Fairservis Jr., ‘Revised View of the Narmer Palette’, 14. 26 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 191.

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 king’s 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 state’s administration, their presence shows clearly developed social stratification with one figure elevated above others.

27

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 199. Wilkinson, T., Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone and its Associated Fragments (London, 2000c), 67. 29 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 199. 30 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 199. 31 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 297. 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), 103–115). 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 king’s 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

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 190–1. 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 Bat’s 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), 6–11). 37 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 283. 38 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 283. 39 Kemp, ‘Unification and Urbanization’, 679.

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 Köhler 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 king’s 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 enemy’s 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 palette’s verso, where Narmer’s name appears in front of him wearing the red crown.

40

Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 504. 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 Egypt’s 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

Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 91. Wilkinson, Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, 78. 46 Williams, Logan, & Murnane, ‘Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle’, 247; Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette‘, 254. 47 Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 500. 48 Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette‘, 254; Schulman, ‘Narmer and the Unification’, 83–4. 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. (Quibell, ‘Slate palette from Hieraconpolis’ (1898), pl.13)

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 king’s 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

Fairservis Jr., ‘Revised View of the Narmer Palette’, 12. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 96; Millet, N.B., ‘The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects’, JARCE 27 (1990), 56. 50

59

Narmer’s 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. O’Connor 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. (Quibell, ‘Slate palette from Hieraconpolis’ (1898), pl.13)

51

O’Connor, ‘Narmer Palette’, 152. Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette‘, 254; Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 97; Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 7. 53 Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette‘, 254; Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 97. 54 Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 104. 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 Narmer’s 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. (Quibell, ‘Slate palette from Hieraconpolis’ (1898), pl.13) 55

Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette‘, 254. Yeivin, S., ‘The Ceremonial Slate-Palette of King Narmer’ in H.B. Rosén (ed.), Studies in Egyptology and Linguistic in Honour of H.J. Polotsky (Jerusalem, 1964), 30–2. 57 Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 98. 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. (Quibell, ‘Slate palette from Hieraconpolis’ (1898), pl.13) 59

Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 92–3. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 92. 61 Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 92. 62 Yeivin, ‘Ceremonial Slate-Palette of King Narmer’, 24–5; Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 94. 63 Yeivin, ‘Ceremonial Slate-Palette of King Narmer’, 25; Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 94–5. 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 Köhler, 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

Shaw, & Nicholson, Princeton Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, 343. Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 507–511. 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 Egypt’s 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 Köhler, 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.8000–2000BC) (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 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 197. 69 Lankester, F., ‘”Control of the wild” in Egypt’s 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; Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 501–3. 71 Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 507.

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’, 83–84; Köhler, ‘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), 243–6. 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 Narmer’s 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’, 245–6.

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, 97–8. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 97–8; Hendrickx, ‘Upper Egyptian Origin of the Palace-façade and the Serekh’, 98. 78 Ridley, Unification of Egypt, 27–8. 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 Köhler 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 Köhler 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 Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 510. 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 Narmer’s 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 figure’s 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

1

Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 67; Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 68. Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette’, 255. 3 Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 67–8; Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette’, 255. 4 Heagy, 'Who was Menes?', 67-8; Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette‘, 255; Morenz, L.D., ‘Gegner des Narmer aus dem Papyrus-Land: NW und WaS’, GM 189 (2002), 84-5. 5 Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette‘, 255. 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), 51–2. 7 Piquette, ‘Writing, ‘Art’ and Society Vol. 1’, 52–4. 8 Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette’, 255. 2

71

Figure 23. Narmer Label Ivory label showing the catfish of Narmer’s 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 Narmer’s 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 frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof’, MDAIK 59 (2003), 87. 14 Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette’, 256; Dreyer, et.al., ‘Umm el-Qaab’ (2003), 88. 15 Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette’, 256.

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 Städtepalette’, 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 Millet’s 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 Millet, ‘Narmer Macehead and Related Objects’, 56. 19 Millet, ‘Narmer Macehead and Related Objects’, 56. 20 Millet, ‘Narmer Macehead and Related Objects’, 56. 21 Millet, ‘Narmer Macehead and Related Objects’, 53; Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 63–4; Hoffman, M., Egypt Before the Pharaohs (London, 1980), 322–3; Butzer. K.W., ‘Archeology and Geology in Ancient Egypt’, Science 132 (1960), 82–3. 22 Millet, ‘Narmer Macehead and Related Objects’, 57–58; Yurco, ‘Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 89–90.

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’, 58. Millet, ‘Narmer Macehead and Related Objects’, 56; Hendrickx, ‘Upper Egyptian Origin of the Palace-façade 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 Narmer’s role in the unification process. With similar iconography appearing on the Narmer Palette, Year Label, Cylinder, and Inlayed Box, it’s 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

Millet, ‘Narmer Macehead and Related Objects’, 53. Ridley, Unification of Egypt, 65. 27 Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 69. 28 Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 69. 29 Dreyer, ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette’, 256. 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 Narmer’s name. The location of Narmer’s serekh in Lower Egypt, southern Levant and the Sinai show the scope of this king’s 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 Narmer’s 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 Narmer’s 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 Narmer’s name

30

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 69. 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’, 46–7. 34 Fischer, ‘Varia Aegyptiaca’, 46–7. 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 Heagy’s 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

Fischer, ‘Varia Aegyptiaca’, 46–7. Fischer, ‘Varia Aegyptiaca’, 47.

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-Da’ba.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 Narmer’s 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 Gefäß mit Ritzmarke des Narmer’, MDAIK 55 (1999), 1. Dreyer, ‘Ein Gefäß mit Ritzmarke des Narmer’, 3. 39 Dreyer, ‘Ein Gefäß mit Ritzmarke des Narmer’, 3. 40 Dreyer, ‘Ein Gefäß 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 Gefäß 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 Narmer’s 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

Dreyer, ‘Ein Gefäß mit Ritzmarke des Narmer’, 4. 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 Narmer’s 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 Levy, et.al., ‘New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic Egyptian Presence in Canaan’, 32. 50 Levy, et.al., ‘New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic Egyptian Presence in Canaan’, 32. 51 Levy, et.al., ‘New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic Egyptian Presence in Canaan’, 32.

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 Narmer’s 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 Narmer’s 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 artist’s 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-Sinaï’, 381–2. 54 Tallet, & Laisney, ‘Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sinaï’, 387. 55 Tallet, & Laisney, ‘Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sinaï’, 387.

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-Sinaï’, 397 Fig.10)

Through the attestation of Narmer’s 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 Egypt’s 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 Narmer’s 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

Narmer’s 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 Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 126. 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 king’s 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

Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 80. Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 80. 61 Dreyer, G., ‘Ein Siegel der Frühzeitlichen Königsnekropole 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 impression’s 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., Köhler, E.C., & Pumpenmeier, F., ‘Umm el-Qaab Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof’, 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 Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 34. 68 Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 35. 69 Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 35. 70 Kitchen, K.A., Ramesside Inscriptions – Translated and Annotated: Translations Vol. 1 (Oxford, 1993), 153; Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 19–20. 71 Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 8. 72 Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 11. 73 Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 10. 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, Narmer’s 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 Narmer’s reign or possibly during the reign of Aha, Narmer’s successor. Evidence for Narmer’s 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 ruler’s victory over peoples from Libya and the western

75

Köhler, 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), 307–310; 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)’, Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, Cahier 3 (Cairo, 1947), pl.LX. 77 Köhler, ‘Origins of Memphis’, 307. 78 Köhler, ‘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 king’s 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. 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

Dreyer, ‘Tomb U-j’, 128. Dreyer, ‘Tomb U-j’, 132. 5 Dreyer, ‘Tomb U-j’, 131–2. 6 Dreyer, ‘Tomb U-j’, 132. 7 Dreyer, ‘Tomb U-j’, 133. 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)

8

Dreyer, ‘Tomb U-j’, 134–5. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 48. 10 Dreyer, ‘Tomb U-j’, 131–2. 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, Arkell’s interpretations require careful examination.16

11

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 56. 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 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 51. 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, 63–4. 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 Scorpion’s 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. Jiménez 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 Narmer’s 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 Aha’s 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?’, 76–7. 22 Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 77.

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

Wengrow, Archaeology of Early Egypt, 251. 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 Wengrow, Archaeology of Early Egypt, 252. 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 Aha’s 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’, 1104–5. 29 Köhler, ‘Interaction between and the roles of Upper and Lower Egypt’, 535; Emery, Archaic Egypt, 36. 30 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 71. 31 Chlodnicki, ‘Trade and Exchange in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic period’, 497.

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

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 203. 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?’, 10–11. 36 Köhler, ‘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 Dreyer, ‘Ein Gefäß mit Ritzmarke des Narmer’, 5. 40 Dreyer, ‘Ein Gefäß mit Ritzmarke des Narmer’, 5. 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 Gefäß 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, Köhler 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 Narmer’s 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

Köhler, ‘Origins of Memphis’, 310. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 125. 43 Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 70. 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

Jiménez Serrano, ‘Origin of the state and the unification’, 1123–4. Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 70.

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 Narmer’s 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), 505–6. 48 Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 75.

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 Djer’s tomb was increased, along with those at his nearby funerary enclosure, which was considerably larger than Aha’s.54 The central tomb chamber of both Djer and his successor Djet comprised a single chamber, differing from Aha’s 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, 205–6. 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 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 71–2. 54 Bestock, ‘First Kings of Egypt’, 139. 55 Bestock, ‘First Kings of Egypt’, 139. 50

103

Djet’s 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)

Djet’s 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 Den’s 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

Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 72–3. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 75. 58 Heagy, ‘Who was Menes?’, 63; Cervelló-Autuori, J., ‘The Origins of Pharaonic Titulary. A Cultural Approach’ in M. Hasitzka, J. Diethart, & G. Dembski, (eds.) Das Alte Ägypten 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 Den’s 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 Bestock, ‘First Kings of Egypt’, 140. 61 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 109.

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 palette’s 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 Yurco’s 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. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 51.

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; Köhler, ‘History or Ideology?’, 510–11.

107

study would benefit from a new and more detailed epigraphic study of the palette, to correct the outdated representations based on Quibell’s original drawings. While Narmer’s 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), 25–32. Arkell, A.J., ‘Was King Scorpion Menes?’, Antiquity 37 (1963), 31–35. Baines, J., ‘Communication and Display: the Integration of Early Egyptian Art and Writing’, Antiquity 63 (1989), 471–82. 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), 57–82. 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), 28–32. Berry, J.W., ‘Acculturation as Varieties of Adaptation’ in A.M. Padilla (ed.), Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some Findings (Colorado, 1980), 9–25. 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), 5th–8th September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 1091–1106. Bestock, L., ‘The First Kings of Egypt: The Abydos Evidence’ in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 137–144. 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), 105–122.

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), 831–858. Burgess, E.M. & Arkell, A.J., ‘The Reconstruction of the Hathor Bowl’, JEA 44 (1958), 6–11. Butzer. K.W., ‘Archeology and Geology in Ancient Egypt’, Science 132 (1960), 1617–1624. 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), 689–704. Cervelló-Autuori, J., ‘The Origins of Pharaonic Titulary. A Cultural Approach’ in M. Hasitzka, J. Diethart, & G. Dembski, (eds.) Das Alte Ägypten und Seine Nachbarn (Krems, 2003a), 44–57. Cervelló-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), 168–175. 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), 5th–8th September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 501–514 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), 55–64. 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), 5th–8th September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 489–500. 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), 244–246. 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), 199–231.

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), 1–10. Dreyer, G., ‘Ein Siegel der Frühzeitlichen Königsnekropole von Abydos‘, MDAIK 43 (1987), 33–43. Dreyer, G., ‘Ein Gefäß mit Ritzmarke des Narmer‘, MDAIK 55 (1999), 1–6. Dreyer, G., ‘Narmerpalette und Städtepalette die Unterwerfung des Deltas‘, SASAÉ Cahier 34 (2005), 253–261. 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), 127–136. Dreyer, G., Engel, E.M., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Köhler, E.C., & Pumpenmeier, F., ‘Umm elQaab Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof‘, MDAIK 52 (1996), 11–81. Dreyer, G., Hartmann, R., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Kopp, H., Lacher, C., Muller, V., Nerlich, A. & Zink, A., ‘Umm el-Qaab Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof‘, MDAIK 59 (2003), 84–88. Dreyer, G., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Köhler, E.C., Müller, V. und Pumpenmeir, F., ‘Umm elQaab Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof‘, MDAIK 54 (1998), 77–167. Emery, W.B., Archaic Egypt (Harmondsworth, 1961). Evans, L., ‚ ‘The Shedshed of Wepwawet: An Artistic and Behavioural Interpretation’, JEA 97 (2011), 103–115. Fairservis Jr., W.A., ‘A Revised View of the Narmer Palette’, JARCE 28 (1991), 1–20. Fischer, H.G., ‘The Cult and Nome of the Goddess Bat’, JARCE 1 (1962), 7–18. Fischer, H.G., ‘Varia Aegyptiaca’ JARCE 2 (1963), 15–51. Friedman, R., ‘Hierakonpolis’ in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 33–44. 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), 81–84.

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), 3–25. Heagy, T.C., 'Who was Menes?', Archéo-Nil 24 (2014), 59-92. Hendrickx, S., ‘Arguments for an Upper Egyptian Origin of the Palace-façade and the Serekh during Late Predynastic – Early Dynastic time’, GM 184 (2001), 85–110. 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.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 75–81. 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. Jiménez 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), 5th–8th September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 1119–1138. Khal, J., Ra is my Lord (Wiesbaden, 2007). Kaiser, W., ‘Zum Siegel mit frühen Königsnamen 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), 679–690. 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), 657–665. Kinnaer, J., ‘The Naqada Label and the Identification of Menes’, GM 196 (2003), 23–30. Kitchen, K.A., ‘Kinglists’ in D. Redford (ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Vol. 2 (Oxford, 2001), 234–238. Kitchen, K.A., Ramesside Inscriptions – Translated and Annotated: Translations Vol. 1 (Oxford, 1993).

113

Köhler, E.C., ‘The State of Research on Late Predynastic Egypt: New Evidence for the Development of the Pharaonic State?’, GM 147 (1995), 79–92. Köhler, 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), 499–513. Köhler, 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), 295–316. Köhler, 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), 5th–8th September 2005 (Leuven, 2008), 515–544. Köhler, E.C., ‘The Rise of the Egyptian State’ in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 123–125. 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), 233–256. Lankester, F., ‘”Control of the wild” in Egypt’s predynastic rock-art’, paper presented at Origins 5, Fifth International Conference of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Studies, IFAO Cairo, 13th–18th 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), 26–35. 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), 261–276. Lorton, D., ‘Why “Menes”?’, Varia Aegyptiaca 3 (1987), 33–38. MacArthur, E.V., ‘Subsidiary Burials of The First Dynasty’ in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 251–252. 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), 359–370. Millet, N.B., ‘The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects’, JARCE 27 (1990), 53–59. Millet, N.B., ‘The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects: [Correction]’, JARCE 28 (1991), 223–225. 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 Egypt’s Earliest Mediterranean Port’, LAAA 1 (1908), 17-22. O’Brien, A., ‘The Serekh as an Aspect of the Iconography of Early Kingship’, JARCE 33 (1996), 123–138. O’Connor, D., ‘Context, Function and Program: Understanding Ceremonial Slate Palettes’, JARCE 39 (2002), 5–25. O’Connor, D., ‘The Narmer Palette: A New Interpretation’ in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 145–152. O’Mara, P.F., ‘Once Again: Who was Menes? An Orthographical Approach’, GM 182 (2001), 97–105. 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’, ZÄS 36 (1898), 81–84. 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), 131–138. 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 (1941–1945)’, Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, 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), 79–105. 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-Sinaï (Ouadi ‘Ameyra) Un complément à la chronologie des expéditions minières égyptiennes’, BIFAO 112 (2012), 381–398. 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), 3–13. 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), 45–54. Weeks, K., ‘Preliminary Report on the First Two Seasons at Hierakonpolis: Part II: The Early Dynastic Palace’, JARCE 9 (1971–1972), 29–33. Wengrow, D., ‘Rethinking ‘Cattle Cults’ in Early Egypt: Towards a Prehistoric Perspective on the Narmer Palette’, CAJ 11 (2001), 91–104. 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 Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 99–103. Wenke, R. J., The Ancient Egyptian State: The Origins of Egyptian Culture (c.8000–2000BC) (Cambridge, 2009). Whitehouse, H., ‘A Decorated Knife Handle from the ‘Main Deposit’ at Hierakonpolis’, MDAIK 58 (2002), 425–446. 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), 241–243. 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), 23–32. 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), 377–395. Williams, B., Logan, T.J. & Murnane, W.J., ‘The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery before Narmer’, JNES 46 (1987), 245–285. Williams, B., ‘Relations Between Egypt and Nubia in the Naqada Period’ in E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago, 2011), 83–92. Yeivin, S., ‘Early Contacts Between Canaan and Egypt’, Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960), 193–203. Yeivin, S., ‘The Ceremonial Slate-Palette of King Narmer’ in H.B. Rosén (ed.), Studies in Egyptology and Linguistic in Honour of H.J. Polotsky (Jerusalem, 1964), 22–53. Yurco, F.J., ‘Narmer: First King of Upper and Lower Egypt. A Reconsideration of his Palette and Macehead’, JSSEA 25 (1995), 85–95.

117

118