Editing Narmer (section)

==Reign==
The date commonly given for the beginning of Narmer's reign is {{circa}} 3100 BC, which is derived from several sources including the [[Turin Canon]].{{sfn|Hayes|1970|pp=173-176}}{{sfn|Quirke|Spencer|1992|p=223}} A 2013 study, using [[radiocarbon dating]] and other tools, placed the reign of [[Hor-Aha|Aha]] (Narmer's successor) most likely between 3111 and 3045 BC (with 68% confidence), with a broader range of 3218 to 3035 BC (with 95% confidence).{{sfn|Dee| et al.}} Other mainstream estimates, using both the historical method and radiocarbon dating, are in the range {{circa}} 3173–2987 BC.{{efn|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 [[Early Dynastic Period (Egypt)|Archaic Period]] and the Intermediate Periods. Two astrological events are available to anchor these estimates, one in the [[Middle Kingdom of Egypt|Middle Kingdom]] and one in the [[New Kingdom of Egypt|New Kingdom]] (for a discussion of the problems in establishing absolute dates for Ancient Egypt, see {{harvnb|Shaw|2000a|pp=1–16}}). Two estimates based on this method are: {{harvnb|Hayes |1970|p=174}}, who gives the beginning of the reign of Narmer/Menes as 3114 BC, which he rounds to 3100 BC; and {{harvnb|Krauss|Warburton|2006|p=487}}, who places the ascent of Narmer to the throne of Egypt as {{circa}} 2950 BC.

Several estimates of the beginning of the [[First Dynasty of Egypt|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 {{harvnb|von Beckerath |1997|p=179}} ({{circa}} 3094–3044 BC); {{harvnb|Helck |1986|p=28}} (c. 2987 BC); {{harvnb|Kitchen|2000|p=48}} (c. 3092 BC), and {{harvnb|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 {{harvnb|Mellaart |1979|pp=9–10}} who estimates the beginning of the First Dynasty to be {{circa}} 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 {{harvnb|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. {{harvnb|Dee| et al.}}, uses this approach, and derive a 65% confidence interval estimate for the beginning of the First Dynasty of {{circa}} 3111 – 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 {{circa}} 3173–3107 BC for the beginning of Narmer's reign. This is reassuringly close to the range of mainstream Egyptologists using the Historical Method of {{circa}} 3114 – 2987 BC. Thus, combining the results of two different methodologies allows to place the accession of Narmer to {{circa}} 3173 – 2987 BC.}}

===Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt===
The famous [[Narmer Palette]], discovered by [[James Quibell|James E. Quibell]] in the 1897–1898 season at [[Hierakonpolis]],{{sfn|Quibell|1898|pp=81–84, pl. XII-XIII}} 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.{{sfn|Gardiner|1961|pp=403–404}} Since its discovery, however, it has been debated whether the Narmer Palette represents an actual historic event or is purely symbolic.{{efn|According to {{harvnb|Schulman|year=1991–92}} 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 {{harvnb|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.

{{harvnb|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. {{harvnb|O'Connor|2011}} also argues that it has nothing to do with the unification, but has a (very complicated) religious meaning.}} 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.{{sfn|Dreyer|2000}} Support for this conclusion (in addition to Dreyer) includes Wilkinson{{sfn|Wilkinson|1999|p=68}} and Davies & [[Renée Friedman|Friedman]].{{sfn|Davies|Friedman| 1998|p=35}} Although this interpretation of the year label is the dominant opinion among Egyptologists, there are exceptions including [[John Baines (Egyptologist)|Baines]]{{sfn|Baines|2008|p=23}} and [[David Wengrow|Wengrow]].{{sfn|Wengrow |2006|p=204}}

{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = vertical
| header = Narmer Palette
| total_width = 350
| caption_align = center
| image1 = Narmer Palette.jpg
| caption1 = Narmer Palette
| image2 = Narmer Palette recto.svg
| caption2 = Drawing (front)
| image3 = Narmer Palette verso.svg
| caption3 = Drawing (back)
| footer = 
}}

{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = vertical
| header = Narmer Macehead
| total_width = 350
| caption_align = center
| image1 = Narmer Macehead.png
| caption1 = The [[Narmer Macehead]]
| image2 = Narmer Macehead drawing.svg
| caption2 = Narmer Macehead (drawing). The design shows captives being presented to Pharaoh Narmer enthroned in a [[Shrine|naos]]. [[Ashmolean Museum]], [[Oxford]].{{sfn|Wengrow|2006|pp=41–44}}
| footer = The scene depicts a ceremony in which captives and plunder are presented to King Narmer, who is enthroned beneath a canopy on a stepped platform. He wears the Red Crown of Lower Egypt, holds a flail, and is wrapped in a long cloak. To the left, Narmer's name is written inside a representation of the palace facade (the ''serekh'') surmounted by a falcon. At the bottom is a record of animal and human plunder; 400,000 cattle, 1,422,000 goats, and 120,000 captives.{{sfn|Millet|1990|pp=53–59}}
| perrow = 
| width = 37
}}

Archaeological evidence suggests that Egypt was at least partially unified during the reigns of [[Ka (pharaoh)|Ka]] and [[Iry-Hor]] (Narmer's immediate predecessors), and perhaps as early as [[Scorpion I]]. Tax collection is probably documented for Ka{{sfn|Dreyer| Hartung| Pumpenmeier| 1993|p=56, fig. 12}} and Iry-Hor.{{sfn|Kahl|2007|p=13}} 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.{{sfn|Dreyer|2011|p=135}} 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.{{sfn|Jiménez-Serrano|2007|p=370, table 8}} Iry-Hor inscriptions have also been found in two sites in Lower Egypt and one in Canaan.{{sfn|Jiménez-Serrano|2007|p=370, table 8}}{{sfn|Ciałowicz|2011|pp=63–64}} 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 Artefacts" 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.{{sfn|Heagy|2014|pp=73–74}}

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,{{sfn|Quibell|1900|p=7, pl. XV.7}} the Narmer Year Label,{{sfn|Dreyer|2000}} and the Narmer Boxes;{{sfn|Dreyer|2016}} and the consequences of the event are commemorated on the [[Narmer Macehead]].{{sfn|Quibell|1900|pp=8–9, pls. XXV, XXVIB}} 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.

===Peak of Egyptian presence in Canaan===
According to {{harvnb|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,{{Sfn | Anđelković | 1995 | p = 72}} 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."{{sfn|Braun|2011|p=105}} It peaked during Dynasty 0 through the reign of Narmer.{{sfn|Anđelković|2011|p=31}} Dating to this period are 33 Egyptian ''serekhs'' found in Canaan,{{sfn|Anđelković|2011|p=31}} 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.{{sfn|Jiménez-Serrano|2007|p=370, Table 8}} 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.{{sfn |Anđelković|2011|p=31}} 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.{{sfn|Anđelković|2011|p=31}} Even this one example is questionable, Wilkinson does not believe there are any ''serekhs'' of Hor-Aha outside Egypt{{sfn|Wilkinson|1999|p=71}} and very few ''serekhs'' of kings for the rest of the first two dynasties have been found in Canaan.{{sfn|Wilkinson|1999|pp=71–105}}

The Egyptian presence in Canaan is best demonstrated by the presence of pottery made from Egyptian Nile clay and found in Canaan,{{efn| During the summer of 1994, excavators from the [[Nahal Tillah]] expedition, 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 {{circa}} 3000 BC, 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]].{{Sfn | Levy | van den Brink | Goren | Alon | 1995 | pp = 26–35}}}} 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.{{sfn|Porat|1986–87|p=109}}

The nature of Egypt's role in Canaan has been vigorously debated, between scholars who suggest a military invasion{{sfn|Yadin|1955}} and others proposing that only trade and colonization were involved. Although the latter has gained predominance,{{sfn|Porat|1986–87|p=109}}{{sfn|Campagno|2008|pp=695–696}} the presence of fortifications at [[Tell es-Sakan]] dating to 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.{{sfn|de Miroschedji|2008|pp=2028–2029}}{{full citation needed|date=April 2025}}

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.{{sfn|Dreyer|2016|p=104}} It may also represent just the presentation of tribute to Narmer by Canaanites.{{sfn|Dreyer|2016|p=104}}

===Neithhotep===
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.{{sfn|Tyldesley|2006|pp=26–29}} 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, Egypt|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.{{sfn|Tyldesley|2006|pp=26–29}} The fact that her tomb is in [[Naqada]], in Upper Egypt, has led some to the conclusion that she was a descendant of the predynastic rulers of Naqada who ruled prior to its incorporation into a united Upper Egypt.{{sfn|Wilkinson|1999|p=70}} It has also been suggested that the [[Narmer Macehead]] commemorates this wedding.{{sfn|Emery|1961|pp=44–47}} However, the discovery in 2012 of rock inscriptions in Sinai by [[Pierre Tallet]]{{sfn|Tallet|2015}} raise questions about whether she was really Narmer's wife.{{efn| In 2012, Pierre Tallet discovered an important new series of rock carvings in [[Wadi Ameyra]]. This discovery was reported in {{harvnb|Tallet |2015 |}}, and in 2016 in two web articles by Owen Jarus<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/53406-early-egyptian-queen-revealed-in-hieroglyphs.html Owen Jarus: ''Early Egyptian Queen revealed in 5.000-year-old Hieroglyphs'' at ''livescience.com'']</ref> 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 {{harvnb|Tallet |2015 | pp=28–29}}.}} Neithhotep is probably the earliest non-mythical woman in history whose name is known to us today.{{sfn|Heagy|2020|}}