The role played by Narmer during the formation of the early Egyptian state has been, over the years, an area of much discussion amongst scholars. The evidence for this period is fragmentary and ambiguous, which has led to a great many theories, with each theory based on a different interpretation of what evidence is available. A further complication is that, although the Egyptians were avid record keepers, there are no references to a king named Narmer in their own literature, and no king-list records that name. Narmer was this kings Horus name, and there is the possibility that he was recorded under his nbty, or Two Ladies name, which perhaps was Menes. Most Egyptian king-lists name Menes as the first Pharaoh of Egypt, and the foundation of Memphis is attributed to him. Consequently, it has been assumed, both by the Egyptians of the New Kingdom and later, and by recent scholars, that it was Menes who first united Egypt under his sole rule. Many have attempted to argue that Narmer and Menes are the same, and that therefore Narmer was the first ruler of a united Egypt. Although many of the arguments are convincing, it is not my purpose here to attempt to prove that Narmer was Menes, and performed the legendary Unification of Egypt. Instead, I intend to discuss some of the basic evidence relating to Narmer, mainly, the Narmer Palette, the Narmer Macehead, and some smaller items, in an attempt to assess Narmer’s position during the development of the early Egyptian state, and discover how he was regarded by his immediate successors.

Perhaps the most well known object dating from the time of Narmer is the Narmer Palette, now in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. This was found with a group of other items, now known as the "Main Deposit," in Hierakonpolis to the far south of Egypt, in the closing years of the nineteenth century. This Deposit was found buried inside an area thought to be a temple precinct, and also included the Scorpion and Narmer Maceheads. The exact circumstances and context of this discovery remain unclear, as recording techniques were not as sophisticated as they are today, but what remains is that, when a new temple was built on this site in the Old Kingdom, these items were thought important enough to be placed together and buried in the remains of the old temple where they had most likely been dedicated.

Ever since it’s discovery, the interpretation of the Palette has been the subject of much discussion. Very briefly, the obverse shows Narmer, followed by his sandal-bearer and wearing the White Crown associated with Upper Egypt, with his arm upraised about to smite the man kneeling at his feet with his mace. Above this unfortunate man, the Falcon Horus, synonymous with the king, leads the head of a captive, which is attached to land bearing papyrus stalks. The bottom register shows some of his defeated foes. On the reverse, Narmer is shown wearing the Red Crown associated with Lower Egypt, and carrying a flail and a mace. Preceding him are his standard bearers, and another figure, which could be an official or his wife, and following him again is his sandal bearer. They are processing towards a group of ten bodies with their decapitated heads between their legs, and above them is a boat with the Horus Falcon and other symbols. In the bottom register the king is shown as a bull destroying an enclosure and trampling his enemy.

The Narmer Palette

Obverse                                                                                        Reverse

The interpretations of this item fall into two broad categories, historical and symbolic. Most of the discussion has been based around a historical interpretation. Many, including Walter Emery,[1] and, more recently, Michael Rice,[2] have seen it as commemorating the victory by Narmer, king of Upper Egypt, over the kingdom of Lower Egypt. Those who take this view would see the Horus Falcon leading the head of the captive attached to the papyrus stalks as meaning; "The king has defeated the people of the Delta," the Delta region being symbolized by the papyrus. They would also see the hieroglyphic symbols on the reverse above the decapitated bodies as signifying the Delta town of Buto. [3] However, other scholars would not go so far as to see the Palette as commemorating the conquest and annexation of the north by the south, instead seeing it as a representation of a single successful battle in the unification process.

"The King has defeated the people of the Delta"

Perhaps most interesting of all of the historical interpretations is W Fairservis Jnr’s revised view of the Palette. In his 1991 article he deconstructs it into each of it’s individual components, and reads each part independently, before attempting to read the Palette as a whole. He suggests new readings for the hieroglyphs that appear on the Palette, and concludes that it was probably created on the orders of Narmer’s sandal bearer to commemorate a campaign not into the Delta, but into Northern Nubia, by a ruler of the Edfu district who was not necessarily the ruler of the whole of Egypt. Although this may seem far-fetched, this interpretation is possible. There is evidence dating from the late Predynastic Period for Egyptian incursions in to Northern Nubia, in the form of inscriptions at the Second Cataract. Also, the Red Crown need not symbolize Lower Egypt, as it is first attested in the Upper Egyptian town of Naqada in 3600 BC, around six hundred years before the Unification is supposed to have taken place. The remainder of his interpretation depends on whether or not the papyrus stalks represent just the Delta or the Nile Valley as a whole, and also his identification of the decapitated foes as Medjay Nubians who are often shown in other sources wearing feather headdresses as these enemies seem to here.

Medjay Nubian?                                                                                        The Red Crown

Those scholars who see the Palette as being purely symbolic are also divided. It has been suggested that it does not represent any single event that took place in Egyptian history, but was created in an attempt to convey the power and omnipotence of the king. There are also those who believe that it does represent the Unification, but symbolizes a state of affairs already achieved. As Toby Wilkinson points out, [4] the ritual re-enactment of the Unification of the Two Lands was an integral part of the coronation of early Egyptian kings. In this respect, perhaps the Palette can be viewed as being both symbolic and historical, in that it may have been carved to commemorate Narmer’s coronation, and symbolizes the union between Upper and Lower Egypt.

The Narmer Macehead has also suffered many similar interpretations and reinterpretations. Here the king is shown wearing the Red Crown, sitting enthroned while a figure in a carrying chair is seated before him, with three other figures behind the carrying chair. On the far right, a heron perches on top of a shrine, with the hieroglyph Dbawt before it. This is almost universally accepted to signify the town of Buto in the Delta. The other significant figures are in the bottom left hand side of the scene, where cattle and goats with the numerals for 400, 000 and 1, 422, 000 respectively are shown, and on the far left there is a bound captive above the numerals for 120, 000.

Drawing of the Narmer Macehead

Many who believe that the Narmer Palette celebrates the triumph of the Upper Egyptian king over Lower Egypt see the Macehead as commemorating the same event. [5] The figure in the carrying chair is seen as a Princess of the Northern kingdom, who is about to be married to Narmer to cement the Unification. The figures behind her are seen as important captives, while the figures of cattle, goats and other captives are seen as booty from the conquered North.

Dbawt = Buto                                                                                          The Apis and his Mother

This interpretation has never been fully accepted, for it does not explain some of the other features of the scene, such as the cow and calf in the enclosure above the figure in the carrying chair. It is more likely that this scene represents a festival of some sort, with the cow and calf being the Apis bull and his mother, and the person in the carrying chair being a child of the king, probably female, as the female relatives of the king often took part in festivals. Or, the seated figure could be the deity Repit, "She of the Carrying Chair," as such a figure is also shown on the Scorpion Macehead.

The figure on the Narmer Macehead                                                     & on the Scorpion Macehead

Although it is possible that the festival represented is the Heb-Sed, or festival of renewal, lack of some of the main characteristics of that festival has led the scene to be recently reinterpreted by N B Millet as the festival of xat bity or "the Appearance of the King of Lower Egypt," a festival which, according to the Palermo Stone, took place regularly during the Early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom. This view seems the most plausible, but the numbers of goats, cattle and bound captives still need to be explained. He does this by suggesting that the figures of cattle and goats refer to the cattle count, which is known to have taken place every other year from the Second Dynasty onwards, and that the other figure refers to a human census. Although the Egyptians are not recorded to have carried out a human census, it seems likely that they would have done so. The figure of 120, 000 is considered too low to be the entire population of Egypt at that time, but might represent the number of adult males subject to corvée labour and military service. He concludes that the Macehead was a gift to a temple, and the scene carved upon it represents the events that happened in the year it was given. He also briefly gives his opinion that the Narmer Palette represents a similar temple gift. Using the events, festivals or battles of a particular year of a king’s reign was the usual form of dating during the Early Dynastic Period and into the Old Kingdom. It is used on the Palermo Stone, a Fifth Dynasty king-list, where every king’s reign is divided into the significant events of each year. Labels attached to commodities were also dated in the same way, and it is interesting to note that a recent discovery of a year label of Narmer seems to depict the same event that appears on the Narmer Palette, which perhaps supports Millet’s theory about these two items.

As well as these two impressive objects, there have been many smaller finds bearing the name of Narmer, which have been discovered over a very wide area. His name has been found on sherds from as far afield as Israel and the northeastern Delta, indicating an active trade route with southern Palestine. A fragment of ivory found at Narmer’s tomb at Abydos, showing a man of Asiatic appearance in a stooping posture, perhaps paying homage to the Egyptian king, is more evidence of contact. Other objects bearing his name have been found all over Egypt, from Zawiyet el-Aryan in the Delta, to Hierakonpolis in the south. Lastly, in the eastern desert, halfway between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea coast, the serekh of Narmer and a second, empty, serekh have been discovered cut into the rock.

Serekh of Narmer taken from the Macehead

His name has also been found in other contexts from the Early Dynastic Period. For example, the thousands of stone vessels found in the step-pyramid complex of Netjerikhet Djoser include many dating from earlier reigns, with Narmer being the earliest king attested. Finally, two necropolis seal impressions, one from the reign of Den, approximately one hundred years after Narmer, and one from the reign of Qa’a, approximately two hundred years later, list the rulers of the First Dynasty in order up to their own times, and each begins with Narmer.

Reconstructed necropolis seal of Den. Narmer's name can be seen second from the left.

Reconstructed necropolis seal of Qa'a. Narmer's name can be seen on the far right.

It is clear from these last items that Narmer’s successors regarded him as a founder figure. The kings Den and Qa’a both lived relatively close to Narmer’s time, and may have been directly descended from him, but this is not likely to have been the case with Netjerikhet, who ruled at the beginning of the Third Dynasty, separated from Narmer by over four hundred years. Every known king is attested in his hoard of stone vessels, plus some ephemeral rulers known only from inscriptions on these vessels. It seems as though he was aiming for completeness when he collected these items, perhaps to revere his predecessors, but also, without doubt, to harness his own reign. Narmer is the earliest ruler attested among the vessels, and therefore, Netjerikhet must have viewed his power as Pharaoh as being derived from him. The same can be said for both Den and Qa’a whether they were actually descended from him or not.

This leads to the question: why would the kings of the Early Dynastic Period regard Narmer as such a founder figure? To attempt an answer, I must return to the Narmer Palette and Macehead. The hypothesis of W Fairservis Jnr., that the Narmer Palette represents a campaign into Nubia by a king of the Edfu district, while interesting, is flawed when viewed in conjunction with the Narmer Macehead. The Macehead shows Narmer celebrating a festival in Buto, and the identification of Buto being undisputed. Rather than just being the king of a small portion of Upper Egypt, this would seem to make him king of most, if not all, of Egypt. It is possible that the Palette was carved at a time when Narmer was king of this smaller portion of Egypt only, but as he is celebrating the festival in Buto wearing the Red Crown on the Macehead, it appears as though the Red Crown had already come to symbolize Lower Egypt, despite originating in Naqada in Upper Egypt, and he is shown wearing both on the Palette. [6] Both the Macehead and Palette therefore indicate that Narmer ruled an already unified Egypt, one that may have been united by a predecessor, or which he may have unified himself. At the very least he completed the process by consolidating his rule over the country. This may have been done by control over the trade routes, and this is borne out by the archaeological evidence, which is far richer for Narmer than any of his predecessors or immediate successors, covers a very wide area, and is mainly associated with trade goods. Indeed, it is now thought that the Unification was achieved just as much through the desire to control the trade routes into the Near East as through battle. [7]

Whether or not Narmer was the legendary unifier of Egypt, it is clear that his rule set a precedent for those who came after him. The Palette shows much of the iconography that is familiar from later times, such as the pose of the smiting of the foreigner, and the regalia of rule, and the Macehead shows that other traditions, such as the cattle count, were already being carried out. He was in control of trade within the traditional borders of Egypt, and was actively pursuing it outside those borders far more than his predecessors. Foreigners in the form of Asiatics may have come to pay homage to him. It seems that Narmer represented the ideal of kingship in a way that his predecessors did not, as a strong king, in control of his country, represented by an attractive iconography, and it was this that caused the kings of the Early Dynastic Period to regard him as their founder and a template from which they could develop.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baumgartel, E. J., 1960 Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, Vol. II, Oxford

Clayton, P. A., 1994, Chronicle of the Pharaoh's, London

Emery, W. B., 1961, Archaic Egypt, London

Fairservis, W. A. Jnr., 1991, 'A revised View of the Narmer Palette' in The Journal of the American Research center in Egypt, 1 - 20

Hassan, F., 1992, 'Primeval Goddess to Divine King: The Mythogenesis of Power in the Early Egyptian State,' in Friedman, R. and Adams, B., The Followers of Horus; Studies Dedicated to Michael Allan Hoffman, Oxford, 307 - 322

Kemp, B., 1991, Ancient Egypt; Anatomy of a Civilization, London & New York (reprint)

Midant-Reynes, B., 2000, The Prehistory of Egypt, Oxford (trans. Shaw, I.)

Millet, N. B., 1990, 'The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects' in The Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, 53 - 59

Rice, M., 1990, Egypt's Making, London

Shaw, I., & Nicholson, P., 1995, British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, London

Trigger, B. et al. 1983, Ancient Egypt; A Social History, Cambridge

Wilkinson, T. H., 1999, Early Dynastic Egypt, London

HOME