From , the free
encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump
to search
Narmer was an ancient Egyptian king of the Early Dynastic Period.[1] He probably was the successor to the Protodynastic king Ka, or possibly Scorpion. Some consider him the unifier of Egypt and founder
of the First Dynasty, and in turn the first king of a unified Egypt.
Contents
·
1Historical identity
·
2Name
·
3Reign
o
3.1Possible identification
with Menes
o
3.2Narmer and the
unification of Egypt
o
3.3Narmer in Canaan
o
3.4Neithhotep
·
4Tomb and artifacts
o
4.1Tomb
o
4.2Artifacts
o
4.3Nag el-Hamdulab
·
5In popular culture
·
6Gallery
·
7See also
·
8Notes
·
9References
·
10Bibliography
·
11Further reading
·
12External links
Narmer's
identity is the subject of ongoing debates, although the dominant opinion among
Egyptologists identifies Narmer with the pharaoh Menes,
who is renowned in the ancient Egyptian written records as the first king, and
the unifier of Ancient Egypt.
Narmer's identification with Menes is based on the Narmer Palette (which
shows Narmer as the unifier of Egypt) and the two necropolis seals
from the Umm el-Qa'ab cemetery
of Abydos that
show him as the first king of the First Dynasty.
The
date commonly given for the beginning of Narmer's reign is c. 3100 BC.[2][3] Other
mainstream estimates, using both the historical method and radiocarbon dating,
are in the range c. 3273–2987 BC.[a]
The
complete spelling of Narmer's name consists of the hieroglyphs for a catfish (n'r)[1] and
a chisel (mr),
hence the reading "Narmer" (using the rebus principle).
This word is sometimes translated as "raging catfish".[4] However,
there is no consensus on this reading. Other translations include ″angry,
fighting, fierceful, painful, furious, bad, evil,
biting, menacing″, or "stinging catfish".[5][6][7] Some
scholars have taken entirely different approaches to reading the name that do
not include "catfish" in the name at all,[8][9][10] but
these approaches have not been generally accepted.
Rather
than incorporating both hieroglyphs, Narmer's name is often shown in an
abbreviated form with just the catfish symbol, sometimes stylized, even, in
some cases, represented by just a horizontal line.[11] This
simplified spelling appears to be related to the formality of the context. In
every case that a serekh is shown on
a work of stone, or an official seal impression, it has both symbols. But, in
most cases, where the name is shown on a piece of pottery or a rock
inscription, just the catfish, or a simplified version of it appears.
Two
alternative spellings of Narmer's name have also been found. On a mud sealing
from Tarkhan,
the symbol for the ṯꜣj-bird
(Gardiner sign G47 "duckling") has been added to the
two symbols for ″Narmer″ within the serekh.
This has been interpreted as meaning "Narmer the masculine";[12] however,
according to Ilona Regulski,[13] "The
third sign (the [ṯꜣj]-bird) is
not an integral part of the royal name since it occurs so infrequently." Godron[14] suggested
that the extra sign is not part of the name, but was put inside the serekh for compositional convenience.
In
addition, two necropolis seals from Abydos show
the name in a unique way: While the chisel is shown conventionally where the
catfish would be expected, there is a symbol that has been interpreted by
several scholars as an animal skin.[15] According
to Dreyer, it is probably a catfish with a bull's tail, similar to the image of
Narmer on the Narmer Palette in which he is shown wearing a bull's tail as a
symbol of power.[16]
Possible
identification with Menes[edit]
Reconstruction
of the Narmer-Menes Seal impression from Abydos
Naqada Label reconstruction Garstang 1905,
p. 62, fig3
Although
highly interrelated, the questions of "who was Menes?"
and "who unified Egypt?" are actually two separate issues. Narmer is
often credited with the unification of Egypt by
means of the conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt. While Menes is
traditionally considered the first king of Ancient Egypt, Narmer has been
identified by the majority of Egyptologists as the same person as Menes.
Although vigorously debated (Hor-Aha,
Narmer's successor, is the primary alternative identified as Menes by many
authorities), the predominant opinion is that Narmer was Menes.[b]
The
issue is confusing because "Narmer" is a Horus name while
"Menes" is a Sedge and Bee name (personal
or birth name). All of the King Lists which began to appear in the New Kingdom
era list the personal names of the kings, and almost all begin with Menes, or
begin with divine and/or semi-divine rulers, with Menes as the first
"human king". The difficulty is aligning the contemporary
archaeological evidence which lists Horus Names with the King Lists that list
personal names.
Two
documents have been put forward as proof either that Narmer was Menes or
alternatively Hor-Aha was
Menes. The first is the "Naqada Label"
which shows a serekh of
Hor-Aha next to an enclosure inside of which are
symbols that have been interpreted by some scholars as the name
"Menes". The second is the seal impression from Abydos that
alternates between a serekh of
Narmer and the chessboard symbol, "mn",
which is interpreted as an abbreviation of Menes. Arguments have been made with
regard to each of these documents in favour of Narmer
or Hor-Aha being Menes, but in neither case, are the
arguments conclusive.[c]
The
second document, the seal impression from Abydos, shows the serekh
of Narmer alternating with the gameboard sign (mn)
sign, together with its phonetic compliment, the n sign, which
is always shown when the full name of Menes is written, again representing the
name “Menes”. At first glance, this would seem to be strong evidence that
Narmer was Menes.[21] However,
based on an analysis of other early First Dynasty seal
impressions, which contain the name of one or more princes, the seal impression
has been interpreted by other scholars as showing the name of a prince of
Narmer named Menes, hence Menes was Narmer's successor, Hor-Aha,
and thus Hor-Aha was Menes.[22] This
was refuted by Cervelló-Autuori 2005,
pp. 42–45; but opinions still vary, and the seal impression cannot be said
to definitively support either theory.[23]
Necropolis
seal impression of Qa'aDreyer 1987,
p. 36, fig.3
Two
necropolis sealings, found in 1985 and 1991 in
Abydos, in or near the tombs of Den[24] and Qa'a,[25] show
Narmer as the first king on each list, followed by Hor-Aha.
The Qa'a sealing lists all eight of the kings of what
scholars now call the First Dynasty in the correct order, starting with Narmer.
These necropolis sealings are strong evidence that
Narmer was the first king of the First Dynasty—hence is the same person as
Menes.[26]
Narmer
and the unification of Egypt[edit]
The
famous Narmer Palette,
discovered by James E. Quibell in
the 1897–1898 season at Hierakonpolis,[27] shows
Narmer wearing the crown of Upper Egypt on one side of the palette, and the
crown of Lower Egypt on the other side, giving rise to the theory that Narmer
unified the two lands.[28] Since
its discovery, however, it has been debated whether the Narmer Palette
represents an actual historic event or is purely symbolic.[d] Of
course, the Narmer Palette could represent an actual historical event while at
the same time having a symbolic significance.
In
1993, Günter Dreyer discovered
a "year label" of Narmer at Abydos, depicting the same event that is
depicted on the Narmer Palette. In the First Dynasty, years were identified by
the name of the king and an important event that occurred in that year. A
"year label" was typically attached to a container of goods and
included the name of the king, a description or representation of the event
that identified the year, and a description of the attached goods. This year
label shows that the Narmer Palette depicts an actual historical event.[29] Support
for this conclusion (in addition to Dreyer) includes Wilkinson[30] and
Davies & Friedman.[31]Although
this interpretation of the year label is the dominant opinion among
Egyptologists, there are exceptions including Baines[32]and
Wengrow.[33]
Archaeological
evidence suggests that Egypt was at least partially unified during the reigns
of Ka and Iry-Hor (Narmer's
immediate predecessors), and perhaps as early as Scorpion I (several
generations before Iry-Hor).Tax collection is
probably documented for Ka[34] and
Iry-Hor.[35] The
evidence for a role for Scorpion I in Lower Egypt comes from his tomb Uj in Abydos (Upper Egypt), where labels were found
identifying goods from Lower Egypt.[36] These
are not tax documents, however, so they are probably indications of trade
rather than subjugation. There is a substantial difference in the quantity and
distribution of inscriptions with the names of those earlier kings in Lower
Egypt and Canaan (which
was reached through Lower Egypt), compared to the inscriptions of Narmer. Ka's inscriptions have been found in three sites in Lower
Egypt and one in Canaan.[37] Iry-Hor inscriptions have also been found in two sites in
Lower Egypt and one in Canaan.[37][38] This
must be compared to Narmer, whose serekhs have
been found in ten sites in Lower Egypt and nine sites in Canaan (see discussion
in "Tomb and Artifacts" section). This demonstrates a qualitative
difference between Narmer's role in Lower Egypt compared to his two immediate
predecessors. There is no evidence in Lower Egypt of any Upper Egyptian king's
presence before Iry-Hor. The archaeological evidence
suggest that the unification began before Narmer, but was completed by him
through the conquest of a polity in the North-West Delta as depicted on the
Narmer Palette.[39]
The
importance that Narmer attached to his "unification" of Egypt is
shown by the fact that it is commemorated not only on the Narmer Palette, but
on a cylinder seal,[40] the
Narmer Year Label,[29] and
the Narmer Boxes;[41] and
the consequences of the event are commemorated on the Narmer Macehead.[42] The
importance of the unification to ancient Egyptians is shown by the fact that
Narmer is shown as the first king on the two necropolis seals, and under the
name Menes, the first king in the later King Lists. Although there is
archaeological evidence of a few kings before Narmer, none of them are
mentioned in any of those sources. It can be accurately said that from the
point of view of Ancient Egyptians, history began with Narmer and the
unification of Egypt, and that everything before him was relegated to the realm
of myth.
Narmer
in Canaan[edit]
According
to Manetho (quoted
in Eusebius (Fr. 7(a)), "Menes made a foreign expedition and won
renown." If this is correct (and assuming it refers to Narmer), it was
undoubtedly to the land of Canaan where
Narmer's serekh has been identified
at nine different sites. An Egyptian presence in Canaan predates Narmer, but
after about 200 years of active presence in Canaan,[43] Egyptian
presence peaked during Narmer's reign and quickly declined afterwards. The
relationship between Egypt and Canaan "began around the end of the fifth
millennium and apparently came to an end sometime during the Second Dynasty
when it ceased altogether."[44] It
peaked during the Dynasty 0 through the reign of Narmer.[45] Dating
to this period are 33 Egyptian serekhs found
in Canaan,[46] among
which 20 have been attributed to Narmer. Prior to Narmer, only one serekh of Ka and one
inscription with Iry-Hor's name have been found in
Canaan.[47] The serekhs earlier than Iry-Hor
are either generic serekhs that do
not refer to a specific king, or are for kings not attested in Abydos.[45] Indicative
of the decline of Egyptian presence in the region after Narmer, only one serekh attributed to his successor, Hor-Aha, has been found in Canaan.[45] It
should be noted that even this one example is questionable, Wilkinson does not
believe there are any serekhs of Hor-Aha outside Egypt[48] and
very few serekhs of kings for the
rest of the first two dynasties have been found in Canaan.[49]
The
Egyptian presence in Canaan is best demonstrated by the presence of pottery
made from Egyptian Nile clay and found in Canaan,[e] as
well as pottery made from local clay, but in the Egyptian style. The latter
suggests the existence of Egyptian colonies rather than just trade.[51]
The
nature of Egypt's role in Canaan has been vigorously debated, between scholars
who suggest a military invasion[52] and
others proposing that only trade and colonization were involved. Although
latter has gained predominance,[51][53] the
presence of fortifications at Tell es-Sakan dating
to the Dynasty 0 through early Dynasty 1 period, and built almost entirely
using an Egyptian style of construction, demonstrate that there must have also
been some kind of Egyptian military presence.[54]
Regardless
of the nature of Egypt's presence in Canaan, control of trade to (and through)
Canaan was important to Ancient Egypt. Narmer probably did not establish
Egypt's initial influence in Canaan by a military invasion, but a military
campaign by Narmer to re-assert Egyptian authority, or to increase its sphere
of influence in the region, is certainly plausible. In addition to the quote by
Manetho, and the large number of Narmer serekhs found in Canaan, a recent
reconstruction of a box of Narmer's by Dreyer may have commemorated a military
campaign in Canaan.[55] It
may also represent just the presentation of tribute to Narmer by Canaanites.[55]
Neithhotep[edit]
Narmer
and Hor-Aha's names were both found in what is
believed to be Neithhotep's
tomb, which led Egyptologists to conclude that she was Narmer's queen and
mother of Hor-Aha.[56] Neithhotep's name means "Neith is
satisfied". This suggests that she was a princess of Lower Egypt (based on
the fact that Neith is the patron goddess of Sais in
the Western Delta, exactly the area Narmer conquered to complete the
unification of Egypt), and that this was a marriage to consolidate the two
regions of Egypt.[56] The
fact that her tomb is in Naqada,
in Upper Egypt, has led some to the conclusion that she was a descendent of the
predynastic rulers of Naqada
who ruled prior to its incorporation into a united Upper Egypt.[57] It
has also been suggested that the Narmer Maceheadcommemorates
this wedding.[58] However,
the discovery in 2012 of rock inscriptions in Sinai by Pierre Tallet[59] raise
questions about whether she was really Narmer's wife.[f]
Tomb[edit]
Chambers
B17 and B18 in the Umm el-Qa'ab,
which constitute the tomb of Narmer.
Narmer's
tomb in Umm el-Qa'ab near Abydos in
Upper Egypt consists of two joined chambers (B17 and B18), lined in mud brick.
Although both Émile Amélineau and Petrieexcavated
tombs B17 and B18, it is only in 1964 that Kaiser identified them as being Narmer's.[61][g] Narmer's
tomb is located next to the tombs of Ka,
who likely ruled Upper Egypt just
before Narmer, and Hor-Aha,
who was his immediate successor.[h]
As
the tomb dates back more than 5,000 years, and has been pillaged, repeatedly,
from antiquity to modern times, it is amazing that anything useful could be
discovered in it. Because of the repeated disturbances in Umm el-Qa'ab, many articles of Narmer's were found in other
graves, and objects of other kings, were recovered in Narmer's grave.
However, Flinders Petrie during
the period 1899-1903,[64][65] and,
starting in the 1970s, the German Archaeological Institute (DAI)[i] have
made discoveries of the greatest importance to the history of Early Egypt by
their re-excavation of the tombs of Umm el-Qa'ab.
Despite
the chaotic condition of the cemetery, inscriptions on both wood and bone, seal
impressions, as well as dozens of flintarrowheads
(Petrie says with dismay that "hundreds" of arrowheads were
discovered by "the French", presumably Amélineau.
What happened to them is not clear, but none ended up in the Cairo Museum.[66])
Flint knives and a fragment of an ebony chair
leg were also discovered in Narmer's tomb, all of which might be part of the original
funerary assemblage. The flint knives and fragment of a chair leg were not
included in any of Petrie's publications, but are now at the Petrie Museum of Egyptian
Archaeology(University College London), registration
numbers UC35679, UC52786, and UC35682. According to
Dreyer,[16] these
arrowheads are probably from the tomb of Djer, where
similar arrowheads were found.[67]
It
is likely that all of the kings of Ancient Egypt buried in Umm el-Qa'ab had funerary enclosures in Abydos' northern cemetery,
near the cultivation line. These were characterized by large mud brick walls
that enclosed space in which funerary ceremonies are believed to have taken
place. Eight enclosures have been excavated, two of which have not been
definitely identified.[68][69] While
it has yet to be confirmed, one of these unidentified funerary enclosures may
have belonged to Narmer.[j]
Artifacts[edit]
Narmer
is well attested throughout Egypt, southern Canaan and
Sinai: altogether 98 inscriptions at 26 sites.[k] At
Abydos and Hierakonpolis Narmer's name appears both within a serekh and
without reference to a serekh. At every other
site except Coptos, Narmer's name appears in a serekh.In Egypt, his name has been found at 17
sites: 4 in Upper Egypt (Hierakonpolis,[75]Naqada,[76][77] Abydos, [64][65] and Coptos[78][79]);
ten in Lower Egypt (Tarkhan,[80][81] Helwan,[82][83] Zawyet el'Aryan,[84] Tell
Ibrahim Awad,[85] Ezbet el-Tell,[86] Minshat Abu Omar,[87][88] Saqqara,[89][90] Buto,[91] Tell
el-Farkha,[92][93] and
Kafr Hassan Dawood[94]);
one in the Eastern Desert (Wadi el-Qaash[95]);
and two in the Western Desert (Kharga Oasis[96][97] and
Gebel Tjauti[98][99]).
During
Narmer's reign, Egypt had an active economic presence in southern Canaan.
Pottery sherds have
been discovered at several sites, both from pots made in Egypt and imported to
Canaan and others made in the Egyptian style out of local materials.
Narmer serekh on pottery sherd from Nahal Tillah (Canaan) showing
stylized catfish and absence of chisel, Courtesy Thomas E. Levy, Levantine and
Cyber-Archaeology Laboratory, UC San Diego
Twenty serekhs have been found in Canaan that may
belong to Narmer, but seven of those are uncertain or controversial.
These serekhs came from eight
different sites: Tel Arad,[100][101] En Besor (Ein HaBesor),[102][103] Tel
es-Sakan,[104][105] Nahal Tillah (Halif
Terrace),[106] Tel
Erani (Tel Gat),[107][108] Small
Tel Malhata,[109][110] Tel
Ma'ahaz,[111] and
Tel Lod,[112]
Narmer's serekh, along with those of other Predynastic and Early Dynastic kings, has been found at the
Wadi 'Ameyra in the
southern Sinai, where inscriptions commemorate Egyptian mining expeditions to
the area.[113][114]
Limestone
head of a king. Thought by Petrie to be Narmer. Bought by Petrie in Cairo,
Egypt. 1st Dynasty.
The
Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London, exhibits a limestone head of an
early Egyptian king which the Museum identifies as being a depiction of Narmer
on the basis of the similarity (according to Petrie[115])
to the head of Narmer on the Narmer Palette.
This has not been generally accepted. According to Trope, Quirke & Lacovara,[116]the
suggestion that it is Narmer is "unlikely". Alternatively, they
suggest the Fourth Dynasty king Khufu.
Stevenson[117] also
identifies it as Khufu. Charron[118] identifies
it as a king of the Thinite Period (the first two
dynasties), but does not believe it can be assigned to any particular king.
Wilkinson[119] describes
it as "probably Second Dynasty".
Nag
el-Hamdulab[edit]
First
recorded at the end of the 19th century, an important series of rock carving at
Nag el-Hamdulab near Aswan was
rediscovered in 2009, and its importance only realized then.[120][121][122] Among
the many inscriptions, tableau 7a shows a man wearing a headdress similar to
the white crown of Upper Egypt and
carrying a scepter. He is followed by a man with a fan. He is then preceded by
two men with standards, and accompanied by a dog. Apart from the dog motif,
this scene is similar to scenes on the Scorpion Maceheadand
the recto of the Narmer Palette. The man—armed with pharaonic regalia (the
crown and scepter) can clearly be identified as a king. Although no name
appears in the tableau, Darnell[121] attributes
it to Narmer, based on the iconography, and suggests that it might represent an
actual visit to the region by Narmer for a "Following of Horus"
ritual. In an interview in 2012, Gatto[123] also
describes the king in the inscription as Narmer. However, Hendricks (2016)
places the scene slightly before Narmer, based, in part on the uncharacteristic
absence of Narmer's royal name in the inscription.
·
The
First Pharaoh (The First Dynasty Book 1) by
Lester Picker is a fictionalized biography of Narmer. The author consulted with
Egyptologist Günter Dreyer to achieve authenticity.
·
Murder
by the Gods: An Ancient Egyptian Mystery by
William G. Collins is a thriller about Prince Aha (later king Hor-Aha), with Narmer included in a secondary role.
·
The
Third Gate by Lincoln Child is an adventure story with a dose of the occult
about an archaeological expedition in search of the real tomb of Narmer and its
mysterious contents.
·
Pharaoh:
The boy who conquered the Nile by Jackie French is a children's book (ages 10–14) about the
adventures of Prince Narmer.
·
Alabaster
statue of a baboon divinity with the name of the pharaoh Narmer inscribed on
its base, on display at the Ägyptisches Museum Berlin.
·
A
mud jar sealing indicating that the contents came from the estate of the
pharaoh Narmer. Originally from Tarkhan,
now on display at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York City.
·
The Narmer Macehead,
on display at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,
UK.
·
Pottery sherd inscribed
with the serekh and
name of the pharaoh Narmer, on display at the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston.
·
Narmer
wearing the Deshret crown
of Lower Egypt on
the Narmer Palette.
·
Incised
inscription on a vessel found at Tarkhan (tomb 414), naming
king Narmer; Petrie Museum UC 16083.
·
Narmer serekh in its full formal format on an
alabaster vase from Abydos, Petrie, 1901, RT II, p. 44, fig. 52.359(detail).
·
Drawing
of Narmer serekh on pottery vessel
with stylized catfish and without chisel or falcon, copyright Kafr Hassan Dawood Mission.
·
Arrowheads
from Narmer's tomb, Petrie 1905, Royal Tombs II, pl. IV.14. According to
Dreyer,[16] these
arrowheads are probably from the tomb of Djer, where
similar arrowheads were found.[67]
·
List of Pharaohs
·
Narmer Palette
·
Menes
·
Thinis
1.
^ Establishing
absolute dating for Ancient Egypt relies on two different methods, each of
which is problematic. As a starting point, the Historical Method makes use of
astronomical events that are recorded in Ancient Egyptian texts, which
establishes a starting point in which an event in Egyptian history is given an
unambiguous absolute date. “Dead reckoning” – adding or subtracting the length
of each king’s reign (based primarily on Manetho, the Turin King List, and the Palermo Stone) is then used until one
gets to the reign of the king in question. However, there is uncertainty about
the length of reigns, especially in the Archaic Period and the
Intermediate Periods. Two astrological events are available to anchor these
estimates, one in the Middle Kingdom and one in
the New Kingdom(for a discussion of the
problems in establishing absolute dates for Ancient Egypt, see Shaw 2000a, pp. 1–16). Two
estimates based on this method are: Hayes 1970, p. 174, who gives
the beginning of the reign of Narmer/Menes as 3114 BC, which he rounds to 3100
BC; and, Krauss & Warburton
2006,
p. 487 who places the ascent of Narmer to the throne of Egypt as c. 2950 BC.
Several estimates of the beginning of the First Dynasty assume that it
began with Hor-Aha. Setting aside the question
of whether the First Dynasty began with Narmer or Hor-Aha,
to calculate the beginning of Narmer’s reign from these estimates, they must be
adjusted by the length of Narmer’s reign. Unfortunately, there are no reliable
estimates of the length of Narmer’s reign. In the absence of other evidence,
scholars use Manetho’s estimate of the length of the
reign of Menes, i.e. 62 years. If one assumes that Narmer and Menes are the
same person, this places the date for the beginning of Narmer’s reign at 62
years earlier than the date for the beginning of the First Dynasty given by the
authors who associate the beginning of the First Dynasty with the start of Hor-Aha’s reign. Estimates of the beginning of Narmer’s
reign calculated in this way include von Beckerath 1997, p. 179 (c.
3094-3044 BC); Helck 1986, p. 28 (c. 2987
BC); Kitchen 2000, p. 48 (c. 3092
BC), and Shaw 2000b, p. 480 (c. 3062
BC). Considering all six estimates suggests a range of c. 3114 – 2987 BC based
on the Historical Method. The exception to the mainstream consensus, is Mellaart 1979, pp. 9–10 who
estimates the beginning of the First Dynasty to be c. 3400 BC. However, since
he reached this conclusion by disregarding the Middle Kingdom astronomical
date, his conclusion is not widely accepted. Radiocarbon Dating has,
unfortunately, its own problems: According to Hendrickx 2006, p. 90, “the
calibration curves for the (second half) of the 4th millennium BC show
important fluctuations with long possible data ranges as a consequence. It is
generally considered a ‘bad period’ for Radiocarbon dating.” Using a
statistical approach, including all available carbon 14 dates for the Archaic
Period, reduces, but does not eliminate, these inherent problems. Dee & et al., uses this approach, and
derive a 65% confidence interval estimate for the beginning of the First
Dynasty of c. 3211 – 3045 BC. However, they define the beginning of the First
Dynasty as the beginning of the reign of Hor-Aha.
There are no radiocarbon dates for Narmer, so to translate this to the
beginning of Narmer’s reign one must again adjust for the length of Narmer’s
reign of 62 years, which gives a range of c. 3273-3107 BC for the beginning of
Narmer’s reign. This is reassuringly close to the range of mainstream
Egyptologists using the Historical Method of c. 3114 - 2987 BC. Thus, combining
the results of two different methodologies allows to place the accession of
Narmer to c. 3273 - 2987 BC.
2.
^ The question of who
was Menes – hence, who was the first king of the First Dynasty has been hotly
debated. Since 1926, 70 different authors have taken an opinion on whether it
is Narmer or Aha.[17] Most of these are
only passing references, but there have been several in depth analyses on both
sides of the issues. Recent discussions in favor of Narmer include Kinnaer 2001, Cervelló-Autuori 2005, and Heagy 2014. Detailed discussions in
favor of Aha include Helck 1953, Emery 1961, pp. 31–37,
and Dreyer 2007. For the most part
English speaking authors favor Narmer, while German speaking authors favor Hor-Aha. The most important evidence in favor of Narmer are
the two necropolis seal impressions from Abydos, which list Narmer as the first
king. Since the publication of the first of the necropolis sealings
in 1987, 28 authors have published articles identifying Narmer with Menes
compared to 14 who identify Narmer with Hor-Aha.
3.
^ In the upper right
hand quarter of the Naqada label is a serekhof Hor-Aha. To its
right is a hill-shaped triple enclosure with the “mn”
sign surmounted by the signs of the “two ladies”, the goddesses of Upper Egypt
(Nekhbet) and Lower Egypt (Wadjet). In later contexts, the
presence of the “two ladies” would indicate a “nbty”
name (one of the five names of the king). Hence, the inscription was interpreted
as showing that the “nbty” name of Hor-Aha was “Mn” short for
Menes.[18] An alternative
theory is that the enclosure was a funeral shrine and it represents Hor-Aha burying his predecessor, Menes. Hence Menes was
Narmer.[19] Although the label
generated a lot of debate, it is now generally agreed that the inscription in
the shrine is not a king’s name, but is the name of the shrine “The Two Ladies
Endure,” and provide no evidence for who Menes was.[20]
4.
^ According to Schulman the Narmer Palette
commemorates a conquest of Libyans that occurred earlier than Narmer, probably
during Dynasty 0. Libyans, in this context, were not people who inhabited what
is modern Libya, but rather peoples who lived in the north-west Delta of the
Nile, which later became a part of Lower Egypt. Schulman describes scenes
from Dynasty V (2 scenes), Dynasty VI, and Dynasty
XXV. In each of these, the king is shown defeating the Libyans, personally
killing their chief in a classic “smiting the enemy” pose. In three of these
post-Narmer examples, the name of the wife and two sons of the chief are named
– and they are the same names for all three scenes from vastly different
periods. This proves that all, but the first representation, cannot be
recording actual events, but are ritual commemorations of an earlier event. The
same might also be true of the first example in Dynasty V. The scene on the
Narmer Palette is similar, although it does not name the wife or sons of the
Libyan chief. The Narmer Palette could represent the actual event on which the
others are based. However, Schulman (following Breasted 1931) argues against this on
the basis that the Palermo Stone shows predynastic
kings wearing the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt suggesting that they
ruled a unified Egypt. Hence, the Narmer Palette, rather than showing a
historic event during Narmer’s reign commemorates the defeat of the Libyans and
the unification of Egypt which occurred earlier. Köhler 2002, p. 505 proposes
that the Narmer Palette has nothing to do with the unification of Egypt.
Instead she describes it as an example of the “subjecting the enemy” motif
which goes back as far as Naqada Ic (about 400 years before Narmer), and which
represents the ritual defeat of chaos, a fundamental role of the king. O’Connor 2011also argues that it has
nothing to do with the unification, but has a (very complicated) religious
meaning.
5.
^ During the summer
of 1994, excavators from the Nahal Tillahexpedition, in
southern Israel, discovered an incised
ceramic sherd with the serekh sign of Narmer. The sherd was found on a
large circular platform, possibly the foundations of a storage silo on the Halif Terrace. Dated to c. 3000 BCE, mineralogical studies
conducted on the sherd conclude that it is a fragment of a wine jar which had
been imported from the Nile valley to Canaan.[50]
6.
^ In 2012, Pierre Tallet discovered an important new series of rock carvings
in Wadi Ameyra. This discovery was
reported in Tallet 2015, and in 2016 in two web
articles by Owen Jarus[60]These
inscriptions strongly suggest that Neithhotep was Djer’s regent for a period of time, but do not resolve the
question of whether she was Narmer’s queen. In the first of Jarus’
articles, he quotes Tallet as saying that Neithhotep “was not the wife of Narmer”. However, Tallet, in a personal communication with Thomas C. Heagy explained that he had been misquoted. According to Tallet, she could have been Narmer’s wife (Djer’s grandmother), but that it is more likely (because
Narmer and Hor-Aha are both thought to have had long
reigns) that she was in the next generation – for example Djer’s
mother or aunt. This is consistent with the discussion in Tallet 2015, pp. 28–29.
7.
^ For a discussion of
Cemetery B see Dreyer 1999, pp. 110–11, fig. 7
and Wilkinson 2000, pp. 29–32, fig. 2
8.
^ Narmer’s tomb has
much more in common with the tombs of his immediate predecessors, Ka and Iry-Hor, and other late Predynastic tombs in Umm el-Qa’ab
than it does with later 1st Dynasty tombs. Narmer’s tomb is 31 sq. meters
compared to Hor-Aha, whose tomb is more than three
times as large, not counting Hor-Aha's 36 subsidiary
graves. According to Deyer,[62]Narmer’s
tomb is even smaller than the tomb of Scorpion I (tomb Uj),
several generations earlier.[63] In addition, the
earlier tombs of Narmer, Ka, and Iry-Hor
all have two chambers with no subsidiary chambers, while later tombs in the 1st
Dynasty all have more complex structures including subsidiary chambers for the
tombs of retainers, who were probably sacrificed to accompany the king in the
afterlife.O’Connor 2009, pp. 148–150 To
avoid confusion, it's important to understand that he classifies Narmer as the
last king of the 0 Dynasty rather than the first king of the 1st Dynasty, in
part because Narmer’s tomb has more in common with the earlier 0 Dynasty tombs
than it does with the later 1st Dynasty tombs.Dreyer 2003, p. 64 also makes
the argument that the major shift in tomb construction that began with Hor-Aha, is evidence that Hor-Aha,
rather than Narmer was the first king of the 1st Dynasty.
9.
^ Numerous
publications with either Werner Kaiser or his successor, Günter Dreyer, as the lead author -
most of them published in MDAIK beginning in 1977
10.
^ Next to Hor-Aha’s enclosure is a large, unattributed enclosure
referred to as the “Donkey Enclosure” because of the presence of 10 donkeys
buried next to the enclosure. No objects were found in the enclosure with a
king’s name, but hundreds of seal impressions were found in the gateway chamber
of the enclosure, all of which appear to date to the reigns of Narmer, Hor-Aha, or Djer. Hor-Aha and Djer both have
enclosures identified, “making Narmer the most attractive candidate for the
builder of this monument”.[70] The main objection
to its assignment to Narmer is that the enclosure is too big. It is larger than
all three of Hor-Aha’s put together, while Hor-Aha’s tomb is much larger than Narmer’s tomb. For all
of the clearly identified 1st Dynasty enclosures, there is a rough correlation
between the size of the tomb and the size of the enclosure. Identifying the
Donkey Enclosure with Narmer would violate that correlation. That leaves Hor-Aha and Djer. The objection
to the assignment of the enclosure to Aha is the inconsistency of the
subsidiary graves of Hor-Aha’s enclosure, and
subsidiary graves of the donkeys. In addition, the seeming completeness of the
Aha enclosure without the Donkey Enclosure, argues against Hor-Aha.
This leaves Djer, whom Bestock
considers the most likely candidate. The problems with this conclusion, as
identified by Bestock, are that the Donkey Enclosure
has donkeys in the subsidiary graves, whereas Djer
has humans in his. In addition, there are no large subsidiary graves at Djer’s tomb complex that would correspond to the Donkey
Enclosure.[71] She concludes that,
“the interpretation and attribution of the Donkey Enclosure remain
speculative.”[72] There are, however,
two additional arguments for the attribution to Narmer: First, it is exactly
where one would expect to find Narmer’s Funerary Enclosure – immediately next
to Hor-Aha’s. Second, all of the 1st Dynasty tombs
have subsidiary graves for humans except that of Narmer, and all of the
attributed 1st Dynasty enclosures, except the Donkey Enclosure, have subsidiary
graves for humans. But neither Narmer’s tomb nor the Donkey Enclosure have
known subsidiary graves for humans. The lack of human subsidiary graves at both
sites seems important. It is also possible that Narmer had a large funerary
enclosure precisely because he had a small tomb.[73][74] In the absence of
finding an object with a Narmer’s name on it, any conclusion must be tentative,
but it seems that the preponderance of evidence and logic support the
identification of the Donkey Enclosure with Narmer.
11.
^ Of these
inscriptions, 29 are controversial or uncertain. They include the unique
examples from Coptos, En Besor, Tell el-Farkhan, Gebel Tjauti, and Kharga Oasis, as well
as both inscriptions each from Buto and Tel Ma'ahaz. Sites with more than one inscription are footnoted
with either references to the most representative inscriptions, or to sources
that are the most important for that site. All of the inscriptions are included
in the Narmer Catalog, which also includes
extensive bibliographies for each inscription. Several references discuss
substantial numbers of inscriptions. They include: Database of Early Dynastic
Inscriptions, Kaplony 1963, Kaplony 1964, Kaiser & Dreyer 1982, Kahl 1994,van den Brink 1996, van den Brink 2001, Jiménez-Serrano 2003, Jiménez-Serrano 2007, and Pätznick 2009. Anđelković 1995 includes Narmer
inscriptions from Canaan within the context of the overall relations between
Canaan and Early Egypt, including descriptions of the sites in which they were
found.
1.
^ a b Wilkinson 1999,
p. 67.
2.
^ Hayes 1970, p. 174.
3.
^ Quirke & Spencer 1992, p. 223.
4.
^ Redford 1986, pp. 136, n.10.
5.
^ Pätznick 2009, pp. 308, n.8.
6.
^ Leprohon 2013, p. 22.
7.
^ Clayton 1994, p. 16.
8.
^ Pätznick 2009, p. 287.
9.
^ Ray 2003, pp. 131-138.
10.
^ Wilkinson 2000, pp. 23-32.
11.
^ Raffaele 2003, pp. 110, n. 46.
12.
^ von Beckerath 1999, p. 36.
13.
^ Regulski 2010, p. 126.
14.
^ Godron 1949, p. 218.
15.
^ Pätznick 2009, p. 310.
16.
^ a b c G.
Dreyer, personal communication to Thomas C Heagy,
2017
17.
^ Heagy 2014, pp. 83-84.
18.
^ Borchardt 1897, pp. 1056-1057.
19.
^ Newberry 1929, pp. 47-49.
20.
^ Kinnear 2003, p. 30.
21.
^ Newberry 1929, pp. 49-50.
22.
^ Helck 1953, pp. 356-359.
23.
^ Heagy 2014, pp. 77-78.
24.
^ Dreyer 1987.
25.
^ Dreyer et al. 1996, pp. 72-73, fig. 6,
pl.4b-c.
26.
^ Cervelló-Autuori 2008, pp. 887-899.
27.
^ Quibell 1898, pp. 81-84, pl.
XII-XIII.
28.
^ Gardiner 1961, pp. 403-404.
29.
^ a b Dreyer 2000.
30.
^ Wilkinson 1999, p. 68.
31.
^ Davies & Friedman
1998,
p. 35.
32.
^ Baines 2008, p. 23.
33.
^ Wengrow 2006, p. 204.
34.
^ Dreyer, Hartung &
Pumpenmeier 1993, p. 56, fig. 12.
35.
^ Kahl 2007, p. 13.
36.
^ Dreyer 2011, p. 135.
37.
^ a b Jiménez-Serrano 2007,
p. 370, table 8.
38.
^ Ciałowicz 2011, pp. 63-64.
39.
^ Heagy 2014, pp. 73-74.
40.
^ Quibell 1900, p. 7, pl. XV.7.
41.
^ Dreyer 2016.
42.
^ Quibell 1900, pp. 8-9, pls. XXV,
XXVIB.
43.
^ Anđelković 1995, p. 72.
44.
^ Braun 2011, p. 105.
45.
^ a b c Anđelović 2011,
p. 31.
46.
^ Anđelović 2011, p. 31.
47.
^ Jiménez-Serrano 2007, p. 370, Table 8.
48.
^ Wilkinson 1999, p. 71.
49.
^ Wilkinson 1999, pp. 71-105.
50.
^ Levy et al. 1995, pp. 26–35.
51.
^ a b Porat & 1986-87,
p. 109.
52.
^ Yadin 1955.
53.
^ Campagno 2008, pp. 695-696.
54.
^ de Microschedji 2008, pp. 2028-2029.
55.
^ a b Dreyer 2016,
p. 104.
56.
^ a b Tyldesley 2006,
pp. 26-29.
57.
^ Wilkinson 1999, p. 70.
58.
^ Emery 1961, pp. 44-47.
59.
^ Tallet 2015.
60.
^ Owen Jarus: Early
Egyptian Queen revealed in 5.000-year-old Hieroglyphs at livescience.com
61.
^ Kaiser 1964, pp. 96–102, fig.2.
62.
^ Kaiser et al.
63.
^ Dreyer 1988, p. 19.
64.
^ a b Petrie 1900.
65.
^ a b Petrie 1901.
66.
^ Petrie 1901, p. 22.
67.
^ a b Petrie 1901,
pp. pl.VI..
68.
^ Adams & O’Connor 2003, pp. 78-85.
69.
^ O’Connor 2009, pp. 159-181.
70.
^ Bestock 2009, p. 102.
71.
^ Bestock 2009, pp. 102-104.
72.
^ Bestock 2009, p. 104.
73.
^ Dreyer 1998, p. 19.
74.
^ Bestock 2009, p. 103, n.1.
75.
^ Quibell 1898, pp. 81–84, pl.
XII–XIII.
76.
^ Spencer 1980, p. 64(454), pl.
47.454, pl.64.454.
77.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/0084
78.
^ Williams 1988, pp. 35-50, fig.
3a.
79.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/0085
80.
^ Petrie, Wainwright &
Gardiner 1913.
81.
^ Petrie 1914.
82.
^ Saad 1947, pp. 26-27.
83.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/0114
84.
^ Dunham 1978, pp. 25-26, pl.
16A.
85.
^ van den Brink 1992, pp. 52-53.
86.
^ Bakr 1988, pp. 50-51, pl. 1b.
87.
^ Wildung 1981, pp. 35-37.
88.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/0121
89.
^ Lacau & Lauer 1959, pp. 1-2, pl. 1.1.
90.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/0115
91.
^ von der Way 1989, p. 285-286, n.76,
fig. 11.7.
92.
^ Jucha 2008, pp. 132-133, fig.
47.2.
93.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/6002
94.
^ Hassan 2000, p. 39.
95.
^ Winkler 1938, pp. 10,25,
pl.11.1.
96.
^ Ikram & Rossi 2004, pp. 211-215, fig.
1-2.
97.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/6015
98.
^ Darnell & Darnell
1997,
pp. 71-72, fig. 10.
99.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/4037
100.
^ Amiran 1974, pp. 4-12, fig. 20,
pl.1.
101.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/0123
102.
^ Schulman 1976, pp. 25-26.
103.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/0547
104.
^ de Miroschedji &
Sadeq 2000, pp. 136-137, fig. 9.
105.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/6009
106.
^ Levy et al. 1997, pp. 31-33.
107.
^ Yeivin 1960, pp. 193-203, fig.
2, pl. 24a.
108.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/0124
109.
^ Amiran, Ilan & Aron
1983,
pp. 75-83, fig.7c.
110.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/6006
111.
^ Schulman & Gophna
1981.
112.
^ van den Brink & Braun
2002,
pp. 167-192.
113.
^ Tallet & Laisney 2012, pp. 383–389.
114.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/4814
115.
^ Petrie 1939, p. 78.
116.
^ Trope, Quirke &
Lacovara 2005, p. 18.
117.
^ Stevenson 2015, p. 44.
118.
^ Charron 1990, p. 97.
119.
^ Wilkinson 1999.
120.
^ Gatto et al. 2009.
121.
^ a b Darnell 2015.
122.
^ The Narmer
Catalog http://narmer.org/inscription/6014
123.
^ Gatto 2012.
·
Adams,
Matthew; O'Connor, David (2003), "The Royal mortuary enclosures of Abydos
and Hierakonpolis", in Hawass, Zahi, The treasures of the pyramids, Cairo: American
University in Cairo Press, pp. 78–85.
·
Amiran, Ruth (1974), "An Egyptian jar fragment with
the name of Narmer from Arad", IEJ, 24, 1: 4–12
·
Amiran, R.; Ilan, O.; Aron, C.
(1983), "Excavations at Small Tel Malhata: Three
Narmer serekhs", IEJ, 2: 75–83.
·
Anđelković, B (1995), The Relations Between
Early Bronze Age I Canaanites and Upper Egyptians, Belgrade: Faculty of
Philosophy, Center for archaeological Research, ISBN 978-86-80269-17-7.
·
———
(2011), "Political Organization of Egypt in the Predynastic
Period", in Teeter, E, Before the Pyramids, Chicago: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, ISBN 978-1-885923-82-0.
·
Baines,
J (1995), "Origins of Egyptian Kingship", in O’Connor, D; Silverman,
DP, Ancient Egyptian Kingship, Leiden, New York, Cologne: EJ Brill,
pp. 95–156, ISBN 978-90-04-10041-1.
·
Baines,
John (2008), "On the evolution, purpose, and forms of Egyptian
annals", in Engel, Eva-Maria; Müller, Vera; Hartung,
Ulrich, Zeichen aus dem Sand: Streiflichter aus Ägyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Günter Dreyer,
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz., pp. 19–40.
·
Bakr,
M.I. (1988), "The new excavations at Ezbet
el-Tell, Kufur Nigm; the
first season (1984)", in van den Brink, E.C.M., The archaeology of
the Nile Delta: Problems and priorities. Proceedings of the seminar held in
Cairo, 19 - 22 October 1986, on the occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of
the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo,
Amsterdam, pp. 49–62.
·
Bestock, Laurel (2009), The development of royal
funerary cult at Abydos: two funerary enclosures from the reign of Aha, Menes
(6), Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz
·
Braun,
E (2011), "Early Interaction Between Peoples of the Nile Valley and the
Southern Levant", in Teeter, E, Before the Pyramids, Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ISBN 978-1-885923-82-0.
·
Breasted,
James H. (1931), "The predynastic union of
Egypt", Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie
Orientale, 30: 709–724.
·
Campagno, M (2008), "Ethnicity and Changing
Relationships between Egyptians and South Levantines during the Early Dynastic
Period", in Midant-Reynes; Tristant,
Y, Egypt at its Origins, 2, Leuven: Peeters, ISBN 978-90-429-1994-5.
·
Cervelló-Autuori, Josep (2003),
"Narmer, Menes and the seals from Abydos", Egyptology at the dawn of
the twenty-first century: proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of
Egyptologists, 2000, 2, Cairo: The
American University in Cairo Press, ISBN 9789774247149.
·
Cervelló-Autuori, Josep (2005),
"Was King Narmer Menes?", Archéo-Nil, 15.
·
Cervelló-Autuori, J. (2008), "The Thinite
"Royal Lists": Typology and meaning", in Midant-Reynes,
B.; Tristant, Y.; Rowland, J.; Hendrickx,
S., Egypt at its origins 2. Proceedings of the international conference
"Origin of the state. Predynastic and Early
Dynastic Egypt", Toulouse (France), 5th - 8th September 2005, OLA (172),
Leuven
·
Charron, Alain (1990), "L'époque
thinite", L'Égypte
des millénaires obscures, Paris, pp. 77–97.
·
Ciałowicz, KM (2011), "The Predynastic/Early
Dynastic Period at Tell el-Farkha", in Teeter,
E, Before the Pyramids, Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, pp. 55–64, ISBN 978-1-885923-82-0.
·
Darnell,
J.C.; Darnell, D. (1997), "Theban Desert Road Survey", The
Oriental Institute Annual Report, 1996-1997, Chicago, pp. 66–76.
·
Davies,
Vivian; Friedman, Renée (1998), Egypt Uncovered, New York: Stewart, Taboti & Chang
·
Dee,
Michael; Wengrow, David; Shortland,
Andrew; Stevenson, Alice; Brock, Fiona; Flink, Linus Girland; Ramsey, Bronk. "An absolute chronology
for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical
modeling". Proceedings of the Royal
society. Retrieved 31 October 2016. published 2013.
·
de
Miroschedji, P.; Sadeq, M. (2000),
"Tell es-Sakan, un site du Bronze ancien découvert dans la région de
Gaza", Comptes Rendus
des Séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres, 1: 123–144.
·
Dodson,
Aidan; Hilton, Dyan (2004), The Complete Royal
Families of Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, ISBN 978-0-500-05128-3.
·
Dreyer,
G. (1987), "Ein Siegel der frühzeitlichen
Königsnekropole von Abydos", MDAIK, 43:
33–44.
·
Dreyer,
G (1999), "Abydos, Umm el-Qa'ab", in Bard,
KA; Shubert, SB, Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, New
York: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-18589-9.
·
———
(2000), "Egypt's Earliest Event", Egyptian Archaeology, 16.
·
Dreyer,
G. (2007), "Wer war Menes?", in Hawass, Z.A.; Richards, J., The archaeology and art of
Ancient Egypt. Essays in honor of David B. O'Connor, CASAE, 34.1,
Cairo.
·
Dreyer,
Günter (2011), "Tomb U-J: a royal burial of Dynasty 0 at Abydos", in
Teeter, Emily, Before the pyramids: the origins of Egyptian civilization,
Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, pp. 127–136.
·
Dreyer,
Günter (2016), "Dekorierte Kisten
aus dem Grab des
Narmer", Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, 70-71 (2014-2015), pp. 91–104
·
Dreyer,
Günter; Hartung, Ulrich; Pumpenmeier,
Frauke (1993), "Umm el-Qaab:
Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof,
5./6. Vorbericht", Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, 49: 23–62.
·
Dreyer,
G.; Engel, E.M.; Hartung, U.; Hikade,
T.; Köler, E.C.; Pumpenmeier,
F. (1996), "Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen
im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 7./8. Vorbericht", MDAIK, 52:
13–81.
·
Dunham,
D. (1978), Zawiyet el-Aryan: The cemeteries
adjacent to the Layer Pyramid, Boston.
·
Edwards, I.E.S (1971), "The
early dynastic period in Egypt", The Cambridge Ancient History, 1,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
·
Emery,
W.B. (1961). Archaic Egypt: Culture and Civilization in Egypt Five
Thousand Years Ago. London: Penguin Books..
·
Gardiner,
Alan (1961), Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford University Press.
·
Godron, G. (1949), "A propos du nom royal [hieroglyphs]", Annales du Service des Antiquités
de l'Égypte, 49: 217–220, 547.
·
Hassan,
FA (2000), "Kafr Hassan
Dawood", Egyptian Archaeology, 16: 37–39.
·
Hayes,
Michael (1970), "Chapter VI.Chronology, I. Egypt
to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty", in Edwards, I.E.S.; Gadd,
C.J., The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume I, Part I, Cambridge.
·
Heagy, Thomas C. (2014), "Who was Menes?", Archeo-Nil, 24: 59–92. Available online "[1]"..
·
Heagy, Thomas C. "The Narmer
Catalog".
·
Helck, W. (1953), "Gab es einen König
Menes?", ZDMG, 103, n.s. 28: 354–359.
·
Helck, W. (1986), Geschichte des alten
Ägypten, Handbuch des Orientalistik 1/3, Leiden;Köln.
·
Hendrickx, Stan (2006), "II.1 Predynastic-Early
Dynastic Chronology", in Hornung, Erik; Krauss,
Rolf; Walburton, David A., Ancient Egyptian
Chronology, Leiden.
·
Hendrickx, Stan (2017), Narmer Palette
Bibliography (PDF).
·
Hendrickx, Stan; De Meyer, Marleen; Eyckerman,
Merel (2014), "On the origin of the royal false
beard and its bovine symbolism", in Jucha, Mariusz A; Dębowska-Ludwin,
Joanna; Kołodziejczyk, Piotr, Aegyptus est imago caeli: studies
presented to Krzysztof M. Ciałowicz on his 60th
birthday, Kraków: Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University in Kraków;
Archaeologica Foundation, pp. 129–143.
·
Ikram, S.; Rossi, C. (2004), "A new Early
Dynastic serekh from the Kharga Oasis", JEA, 90: 211–215
·
Jiménez-Serrano,
A. (2003), "Chronology and local traditions: The representation of power
and the royal name in the Late Predynastic
Period", Archéo-Nil, 13: 93–142.
·
Jiménez-Serrano
(2007), Los Primeros Reyes y la Unificación de Egipto [The
first kings and the unification of Egypt] (in Spanish), Jaen, ES:
Universidad de Jaen, ISBN 978-84-8439-357-3.
·
Jucha, M.A. (2008), Chłondicki,
M.; Ciałowicz, K.M., eds., "Pottery from
the grave [in] Polish Excavations at Tell el-Farkha
(Ghazala) in the Nile Delta. Preliminary report 2006-2007", Archeologia, 59: 132–135.
·
Kahl, J. (1994), Das System der ägyptischen
Hieroglypheninschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie, Göttinger Orientforschungen. 4. Reihe: Ägypten, 29, Wiesbaden .
·
Kahl,, Jochem (2007), "Ober-
und Unterägypten: eine dualistische Konstruktion und ihre Anfänge", in Albertz, Rainer,; Blöbaum, Anke; Funke, Peter, Räume und Grenzen: topologische Konzepte in den antiken Kulturen des östlichen Mittelmeerraums, München: Herbert Utz,
pp. 3–28
·
Kaiser,
W.; Dreyer, G. (1982), "Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 2.
Vorbericht", MDAIK, 38: 211–270.
·
Kaplony, P. (1963), Die Inschriften
der ägyptischen Frühzeit, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, 8,
Wiesbaden.
·
Kaplony, P. (1964), Die Inschriften
der ägyptischen Frühzeit:
Supplement, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, 9,
Wiesbaden.
·
Kinnaer, J. (2001), "Aha or Narmer. Which was
Menes?", KMT, 12, 3: 74–81.
·
Kinnaer, Jacques (2003), "The Naqada
label and the identification of Menes", Göttinger
Miszellen, 196: 23–30.
·
Kinnaer, Jacques (2004), "What is Really Known About
the Narmer Palette?", KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt.
·
Kitchen,
Kenneth A. (2000), "3.1 Regional and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt
(Absolute Chronology I) The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, A Current
Assessment", in Bietak, Manfred, The
Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second
Millennium, Wein.
·
Köhler, E. Christiana (2002), "History or ideology?
New reflections on the Narmer palette and the nature of foreign relations in
Pre- and Early Dynastic Egypt", in van den Brink, Edwin C. M.; Levy,
Thomas E., Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the
early 3rd millennium BCE, London ; New York: Leicester University Press,
pp. 499–513.
·
Krauss,
Rolf; Warburton, David Alan (2006), "Conclusions", in Hornung, Erik; Krauss, Rolf K.; Warburton, David
A., Ancient Egypt Chronology, Handbuch der Orientalistik. Section 1: The Near and Middle East: - 1:83,
Leiden;Boston.
·
Lacau, J.P.; Lauer, P. (1959), La Pyramide
à degrés. vol. 4. Inscriptions gravées
sur les vases, Excavations at Saqqara/Fouilles à Saqqarah, 8, Cairo.
·
Leprohon, Ronald Jacques (2013). The Great Name:
Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary. Writings from the
Ancient World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature..
·
Lloyd,
Alan B (1994) [1975], Herodotus: Book II, Leiden: EJ Brill, ISBN 978-90-04-04179-0.
·
Levy,
TE; van den Brink, ECM; Goren, Y; Alon, D (1995),
"New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic
Egyptian Presence in Canaan", The Biblical Archaeologist, 58 (1):
26–35, doi:10.2307/3210465, JSTOR 3210465.
·
Levy,
T.E.; van den Brink, E.C.M.; Goren, Y.; Alon, D.
(1997), "Egyptian-Canaanite interaction at Nahal
Tillah, Israel (ca. 4500-3000 B.C.E.): An interim
report on the 1994-1995 excavations", Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research, 307: 1–51.
·
Manetho (1940), Manetho,
translated by Wadell, W.G., Cambridge
·
Mellaart, James (1979), "Egyptian and Near Eastern
chronology: a dilemma?", Antiquity: 6–18
·
Midant-Reynes, B (2000), The Prehistory of Egypt.
·
de
Miroschedji, P (2008), "Sakan,
Tell Es-", in Stern, E; Geva,
H; Paris, A, The new Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land, Supplementary Volume, 5.
·
Newberry,
Percy E. (1929), "Menes: the founder of the Egyptian monarchy (circa 3400
B.C.)", in Anonymous, Great ones of ancient Egypt: portraits by
Winifred Brunton, historical studies by various
Egyptologists, London: Hodder and Stoughton, pp. 37–53.
·
O'Connor,
David (2009), Abydos: Egypt's first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. New
aspects of antiquity, London: Thames & Hudson.
·
O'Connor,
David (2011), "The Narmer Palette: A New Interpretation", in Teeter,
E, Before the Pyramids, Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, ISBN 978-1-885923-82-0.
·
Pätznick, Jean-Pierre (2009), "Encore et toujours l'Horus Nâr-mer? Vers une
nouvelle approche de la lecture et de l'interprétation de ce nom d'Horus", in Régen,
Isabelle; Servajean, Frédéric, Verba manent: recueil
d'études dédiées à Dimitri
Meeks par ses collègues et amis 2, Montpellier: Université
Paul Valéry, pp. 307–324.
·
"Petrie Museum of
Egyptian Art (University College London)"..
·
Petrie,
W.M.F. (1900), Royal tombs of the First Dynasty. Part 1, Memoir, 18,
London: EEF.
·
Petrie,
W.M.F. (1901), Royal tombs of the First Dynasty. Part 2, Memoir, 21,
London: EEF.
·
Petrie,
W.M. Flinders (1939), The making of Egypt, British School of Archaeology
in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, 61, London: Sheldon Press.
·
Petrie,
W.M.F.; Wainwright, G.; Gardiner, A.H. (1913), Tarkhan
I and Memphis V, London: BSAE,
·
Petrie,
W.M.F. (1914), Tarkan II, London: BSAE.
·
Porat, N (1986–87), "Local Industry of Egyptian
Pottery in Southern Palestine during the Early Bronze
Period", Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar, 8.
·
Quibell, JE (1898). "Slate Palette from
Hierakonpolis". Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. 36:
81–84, pl. XII-XIII. doi:10.1524/zaes.1898.36.jg.81..
·
Quibell, J. E. (1900), Hierakonpolis, Part I, British
School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, 4,
London: Bernard Quaritch.
·
Quirke,
Stephen; Spencer, Jeffery (1992), The British Museum Book of Ancient
Egypt, London.
·
Regulski, Ilona (2010). A paleographic study of early
writing in Egypt. Orientalia Lovaniensia.
Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters and Departement Oosterse Studies.
·
Regulksi, I. "Database of Early
Dynastic Inscriptions".
·
Saad, Z.Y. (1947), Royal excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941-1945), Supplément
aux annales du Service des Antiquités
de l’Égypte, 3, Cairo.
·
Schulman,
AR (1991–92), "Narmer and the Unification: A Revisionist
View", Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar, 11: 79–105.
·
Schulman,
A.R. (1976), "The Egyptian seal impressions from 'En
Besor", 'Atiqot, 11:
16–26.
·
Schulman,
A.R.; Gophna, R. (1981), "An Egyptian serekh from Tel Ma'ahaz", IEJ, 31:
165–167.
·
Seidlmayer, S (2010), "The Rise of the Egyptian State
to the Second Dynasty", in Schulz, R; Seidel, M, Egypt: The World of
the Pharaohs.
·
Shaw,
Ian (2000a), "Introduction: Chronologies and Cultural Change in
Egypt", in Shaw, Ian, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford,
pp. 1–16.
·
Shaw,
Ian (2000b), "Chronology", in Shaw, Ian, The Oxford History of
Ancient Egypt, Oxford, pp. 479–483.
·
Spencer,
A.J. (1980), Catalog of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum. vol.V. Early Dynastic objects, London.
·
Tallet, Pierre (2015), La zone minière
pharaonique du Sud-Sinaï -
II: Les inscriptions pré- et protodynastiques
du Ouadi 'Ameyra (CCIS nos 273-335), Mémoires publiés par les membres de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 132,
Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.
·
Tallet, P.; Laisney, D (2012),
"Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sinaï:
Un complément à la chronology des expéditions
minères égyptiennes", Bulletin
de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 112: 381-298.
·
Tassie, G.J.; Hassan, F.A.; Van Wettering,
J.; Calcoen, B. (2008), "Corpus of potmarks from the Protodynastic
to Early Dynastic cemetery at Kafr Hassan Dawood, Wadi Tumilat, East Delta,
Egypt", in Midant-Reynes, B.; Tristant, Y., Egypt at its origins 2. Proceedings of
the International Conference "Origin of the state. Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Egypt", Toulouse (France), 5th - 8th September 2005,
OLA, 172, Leuven, pp. 203–235.
·
Trope,
Betsy Teasley; Quirke, Stephen; Lacovara,
Peter (2005), Excavating Egypt: great discoveries from the Petrie Museum
of Egyptian Archaeology, University College, London, Atlanta: Michael C. Carlos
Museum, Emory University.
·
Tyldesley, Joyce (2006), Chronicle of the Queens of
Egypt, London: Thames & Hudson.
·
von
Beckerath, Jurgen
(1997), Chronologie des Pharaonischen
Ägypten, Müncher Ägyptologische Studien: - 46,
Mainz.
·
van
den Brink, E.C.M. (1992), "Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Ibrahim
Awad, Seasons 1988-1990", in van den Brink,
E.C.M., The Nile Delta in transition: 4th-3rd Millennium B.C., Proceedings
of the seminar held in Cairo, 21-24 October 1990, Tel Aviv, pp. 43–68.
·
van
den Brink, Edwin C. M.; Braun, Eliot (2002), "Wine jars with serekhs from Early Bronze Lod: Appelation vallée du nil contrôlée, but for whom?", in van den Brink, E.C. M.; Yannai, E., In quest of ancient settlements and
landscapes: Archaeological studies in honour of Ram Gophna, Tel Aviv, pp. 167–192.
·
van
den Brink, E.C.M. (1996), "The incised serekh-signs
of dynasties 0-1, Part I: Complete vessels", in Spencer,
A.J., Aspects of early Egypt, London, pp. 140–158
·
van
den Brink, E.C.M. (2001), "The pottery-incised serekh-signs
of Dynasties 0-1. Part II: Fragments and additional complete
vessels", Archéo-Nil, 11:
24–100.
·
von
Beckerath, Jürgen (1999). Handbuch
der ägyptischen Königsnamen.
Münchner Ägyptologische Studien. Münchener Universitätsschriften, Philosophische
Faklutät. 49. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
·
von
der Way, T. (1989), "Tell el-Fara'in - Buto", MDAIK, 45: 275–308.
·
Wengrow, David (2006), The archaeology of early Egypt:
social transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC, Cambridge world
archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
·
Wildung, D. (1981), Ägypten vor den Pyramiden: Münchener Ausgrabungen in Ägypten, Mainz am Rhein.
·
Wilkinson,
TAH (1999), Early Dynastic Egypt, London, New York: Routlege.
·
Wilkinson,
T. A. H. (2000), "Narmer and the concept of the
ruler", JEA, 86: 23–32, doi:10.2307/3822303, JSTOR 3822303.
·
Williams,
B. (1988), "Narmer and the Coptos
Colossi", JARCE, 25: 35–59, doi:10.2307/40000869, JSTOR 40000869.
·
Winkler,
H.A. (1938), Rock drawings of southern Upper Egypt I. Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition Season 1936-1937, Preliminary
Report, EES, 26, London.
·
Yadin, Y (1955), "The Earliest record of Egypt
Military Penetration into Asia?", Israel Exploration Journal, 5 (1).
·
Yeivin, S. (1960), "Early contacts between Canaan and
Egypt", IEJ, 10, 4: 193–203.
·
Davis,
Whitney. 1992. Masking the Blow: The Scene of Representation In Late
Prehistoric Egyptian Art. Berkeley: University of California Press.
·
Goldwasser, Orly. 1992. "The
Narmer Palette and the 'Triumph of Metaphor'." Lingua Aegyptia 2: 67–85.
·
Muhlestein, Kerry. 2011. Violence In the Service of
Order: The Religious Framework for Sanctioned Killing In Ancient Egypt.Oxford: Archaeopress.
·
Ray,
John D. 2003. "The Name of King Narmer." Lingua Aegyptia 11: 131–38.
·
Shaw,
Ian. 2004. Ancient Egypt: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
·
Takacs, Gabor. 1997. "Note on the Name of King
Narmer." Linguistica 37, no. 1:
53–58.
·
Wengrow, David. 2001. "Rethinking 'Cattle Cults' in
Early Egypt: Towards a Prehistoric Perspective on the Narmer
Palette." Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11, no. 1:
91–104.
·
Wilkinson,
Toby A. H. 2000. "What a King Is This: Narmer and the Concept of the
Ruler." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 86: 24–32.
·
Williams,
Bruce, Thomas J. Logan, and William J. Murnane. 1987.
"The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery
before Narmer." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, no.
4: 245–85.
·
The Narmer Catalog
·
Database of Early
Dynastic Inscriptions
·
Early Egyptian Queen
Revealed in 5,000-Year Old Hieroglyphs
·
Photos: 5,000-Year Old
Hieroglyphs Discovered in Sinai Desert.
·
Hierakonpolis: City of
the Hawk
Categories:
·
32nd-century BC Pharaohs
·