Toby Wilkinson

8/13/2019 Toby Wilkinson

1/11

Egypt Exploration Society

What a King Is This: Narmer and the Concept of the RulerAuthor(s): Toby A. H. WilkinsonReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 86 (2000), pp. 23-32Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3822303.

Accessed: 08/02/2012 09:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Egypt Exploration Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=eeshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3822303?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3822303?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees


2/11

23

WHATA KING IS THIS:NARMERANDTHECONCEPTOFTHERULER*

By TOBY A. H. WILKINSONNarmer, the best-attested Egyptian king from the period of state formation, reigned at a time of great social andpolitical change, a time when the modes of self-expression and the mechanisms of rule employed by the govern-ing elite were undergoingrapidand radical reformulation. In other words, Narmerpresidedover a crucial transitionin the concept of the ruler. His reign displays certain features characteristicof Egypt's prehistoric past, but alsosome early examples of the new forms that were to distinguish pharaonic civilisation. A recognition of this di-chotomy brings new insights into the meaning of Narmer's name, the artistic significance of his famous palette,and the identification of the early royal tombs at Abydos.AT the heart of ancient Egyptian civilisation lies the institution of kingship.1 The spectacu-lar achievements of pharaonicEgypt would have been impossible, even unimaginable,withoutthedriving orce of ideology;and that deologycentredon the roleof theking.Thecreationandpromulgationof the institutionof kingship,a conceptso resonant hat it sur-vived for three thousandyears,must rankas the supremeaccomplishment f Egypt's earlyrulers.2Recentyearshavewitnessedthepublicationof numerousstudiesconcerning he forma-tiveperiodof Egyptiancivilisation, hePredynasticoEarlyDynastictransition, lso knownas the era of stateformation.3 thas become increasinglyapparenthatthe institution, de-ology and iconographyof kingshipwere not inventedovernight,at the beginningof theFirstDynasty.Rather, hey evolved over a long periodof time,4beginningas earlyas theNaqadaI Period.5At the end of thePredynasticPeriod,theconceptof the rulerunderwenta radicalreformulation.This was partof a broaderphenomenonof social and politicalchange thataccompanied he birth of the nation state.Among the various rulersattestedduring hisperiod,one standsout:Narmer,whomtheEgyptiansof the FirstDynastyseemtohaveregarded s afounder-figure,6nd whose famousceremonialpaletteservestodayasan icon of early Egypt (fig. 1).Because Narmer'sreignis betterattested han those of his immediatepredecessors7 or,indeed,his immediatesuccessors),it providesa fascinatingwindow on the world of therulingelite as they moved to consolidate their controlof the embryonic Egyptianstate.Narmer's eignillustrates hismomentof historyparticularlywell. Itdisplaysfeatureschar-

* The author s grateful o MargaretSerpicoand to the two JEAreferees for suggesting improvements o this article.1D. O'Connorand D. Silverman eds),AncientEgyptianKingship ProblemederAgyptologie9; Leiden, 1995).2T. A. H. Wilkinson,Early Dynastic Egypt(London, 1999),183-229.3E.g. A. PerezLargacha,El Nacimentodel Estado en Egipto(Madrid,1993);T. A. H.Wilkinson,State Formation nEgypt.Chronology ndSociety(Oxford, 1996);B. Adamsand K. M. Cialowicz,ProtodynasticEgypt(PrincesRisborough,1997).4 J. Baines, 'Originsof EgyptianKingship', n O'ConnorandSilverman eds),AncientEgyptianKingship,95-156.5 See below,n. 38.6Wilkinson,EarlyDynasticEgypt,66.7 Ibid. 69.


3/11

TOBY A. H. WILKINSON

FIG. 1. The NarmerPalette (after B. J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt.Anatomyof a Civilization(London, 1989), fig. 12).acteristic both of the prehistoricway of life from which Egypt was emerging,and of thedynasticcivilisation of Egypt'sfuture.An examinationof these featureshelps us to under-stand theprocess by which the conceptof the rulerwas recast at the beginningof the FirstDynasty.Theprocessis mostclearlymanifest n threeaspectsof elite culture:royalnames,royalart,and the royaltomb.

Royal namesIt is clearthatroyalnames are of greatimportance or understandinghe ideological con-cernsandemphasesof theEgyptian ulingelite. Names in ancientEgyptwerefull of meaning,royalnamesespecially so. Wemay assume that the primarynameadoptedby the king foruse on his monuments,his Horusname, carriedgreat symbolic weight. It expressedthepowermanifest ntheking's personas theearthly ncarnation f thesupremecelestialdeity.Yet, when it comes to the name of Narmer,all attemptsat readingor translationseem tofail.8 The combinationof catfish (which had the readingn'r = nar) + chisel (mr = mer;Gardiner ign-listU23) makes no grammatical ense according o currentunderstanding fthe Egyptian anguage.Thereare furtherproblemsconcerningbothelements of the name.Althoughthe word n'r is attestedin Old Egyptian,9there remains some uncertaintysur-

8Cf. T. A. H. Wilkinson,'A New Kingin theWesternDesert',JEA81 (1995), 205-10, n. 38.9D.Wentworthhompson,OnEgyptian ish-names sedbyGreekWriters',EA14(1928),22-33,esp.28.

24 JEA 86


4/11

NARMERAND THE CONCEPT OF THE RULERrounding hereadingof the catfishsign in theveryearlieststagesof theEgyptianscript.Asfor the chisel sign, its morecommonphoneticvalue in hieroglyphicwas ,b rather hanmr.A further omplicationarises when one considers hatthis secondelementin thewritingofNarmer'sname was more often than not omitted.Clearly,the catfish alone was deemedadequateo write heking'sname.'0 f anyconclusioncanbe drawn rom a studyof Narmer'sname, it is surelythat the reading'Narmer' s erroneous.What, then, does the name sig-nify?A royalname was nothingless thana concise theologicalstatement,expressingthe na-ture of the relationshipbetween the king and the gods. The primarysourceof the king'sauthoritywas theideologythatcasthimasgod on earth.Hence,it is in theideologyof royalpower-and in the associated iconography-that we may find clues to the meaningofNarmer'sname. The aggressive,controllingpowerof wild animals s a common themeinthe elite artof the latePredynasticPeriod. Severalfamousexamplesof carved, voryknife-handlesdepictordered egistersof wildanimals,lleachlinecomprisinganimalsof a distinctspecies, dominatedby a 'controlling'animalof a differentspecies.12Significantly, hese'controlling'animals ncludefish: on the bottomregisterof theBrooklynknife-handle flatside)an unidentified ish controlsa line of oryx;13 n thecorresponding egisterof the Pitt-Riversknife-handle,a catfish controlsa line of ratels.'4Within hebelief-systemof the latePredynasticPeriod,the catfish was evidentlyviewed as a symbolof dominationand con-trol,anideal motif with which to associate theking.15The direct associationof controlling,wild animaland royal ruler is seen in other latePredynastic ontexts. Oneof thetworock-cut nscriptionsat GebelSheikhSuleiman, n theSecond Cataract egionof LowerNubia,shows an outsize scorpionpresidingover a sceneof militaryconquest.16The scorpionclearlyrepresents he victoriouspowerof the (Egyp-tian)ruler.A similarrole maybe attributed o the scorpionmotif which appears n frontofthe king on the ScorpionMacehead.Indeed,the scorpionin this contextis perhapsmorelikely to be an expressionof royal powerrather hana 'name'in the modem sense of thatterm.'7TheScorpionMaceheadmay, n thisway, provideaparallel orthe 'name'of Narmer(andthere aregood stylistic reasons for placingthe ScorpionMacehead and the reign ofNarmer eryclose intime).Sinceattemptso 'read' he nameof Narmerhaveproved ruitless,it maywell be that t is not a 'name'atall,but rathera symbolicassociationof thekingwiththe controlling animalforce representedby the catfish. The 'name'of Narmerseems tofit verywell withinthe ideology andiconographyof late Predynastickingship,a stratumof thought which identified the king with the dominant forces of the wild (see alsobelow).

10S. Quirke,WhoWere he Pharaohs?(London, 1990), photograph n p. 44.11K. M. Cialowicz, 'Lacomposition,le sens et la symboliquedes scenes zoomorphespredynastiques n relief. Lesmanchesde couteaux',in R. FriedmanandB. Adams(eds), TheFollowersof Horus.StudiesDedicated to MichaelAllenHoffman Oxford, 1992), 247-58.12B. Kemp, 'The Colossi from the EarlyShrine atCoptosin Egypt', CAJ 10 (2000), fig. 14.13Cialowicz,in Friedmanand Adams(eds), The Followersof Horus,fig. 1.14Ibid.,fig. 3.15The catfishevidentlysurvived ntotheearlyFirstDynastyas a powerfulculticsymbol,as it appearsn a processionof cultobjectsbeing presentedoKing Djeron awooden abelfromSaqqara:W. B. Emery,ArchaicEgypt Harmondsworth,1961),59, fig. 21.16W.Needler, 'A Rock-drawingon Gebel Sheikh Suleiman(nearWadiHalfa)Showinga Scorpionand HumanFig-ures',JARCE6 (1967), 87-92.17Cf. the comments of J. MalekandW.Forman, n the Shadowof thePyramids Norman,1986),29.

2000 25


5/11

TOBY A. H. WILKINSONThe reign of Aha marksthe beginningof a distinctivelynew traditionof royal names.From this pointonwards, he Horus-falconatopthe serekhbecomes inextricablyinkedtothe overallmeaningof the king's name. In the writingof Aha's name,the falcongripsthe

shield-and-macehieroglyph 'h,'; Gardiner ign-listD34) in its talons.Hence, the name ismorecorrectlyrenderedas Hor-Aha,18Horus hefighter'.Althoughthe imageof a falcongraspinganoffensiveweaponrecalls latePredynastic conography,'9he nameitself repre-sents a much moretheologicallycontrivedexpressionof royal power.Theking's authorityis now expressed,not in terms of the violent forces of nature,butby referenceto the su-preme celestial deity, Horns. The word or phrasewithin the serekh denotes a particularaspectof Hornsthat s manifest n his earthly ncarnation,heking.20 nthe case of Aha, itis the fighting qualitiesof the falcon that are emphasised.Subsequentroyalnames of theFirstDynasty emphasiseother attributes: Horusendures'(Hr-dr= Djer), 'Horus flour-ishes' (Hr-w,d = Wadj/Djet), 'Horus spreads (his wings ready for flight)' (Hr-dwn=De(we)n).21This patternof royalnamesclearlybecamefirmlyestablished-indeed, so firmlyestablished hat the nameof Narmerseemsto have been reinterpretedy latergenerationsto conform o the new convention.Thisoccurredasearlyas the middle of theFirstDynasty.By thereignof Den,just fourgenerationsafterNarmer, he formulation f theking'snameas anepithetof the god Horns was standard.Oldernamingconventionsseem to have beenmisunderstood rdisregarded.The scribesdrawingupthelist of kingsforDen's necropolisseal eithercould not understandNarmer's name' n its originalform,ordecided-follow-ing the decorumof the time-to recast t in theacceptedmould.Hence,on the impressionof the seal which has survived,the primaryelement of Narmer's'name',the catfish,em-blemof controllingpower,has been transmutednto an animalpelt.22 ncombinationwith

thechisel,used as aphoneticcomplement withits more commonvalue?b),the animalpeltgives the readings,b. Hence, following the suggestionof JohnRay,the name as a whole(Hr-sib) has become 'Horns the dappled',23 xpressingthe belief that the firmamentofheaven was formedby the outspreadwings of the celestial falcon,whose dappled eatherswere thedappledcloudsat sunriseand sunset.Thisform of royalname was much moreinkeepingwith the cosmic, transcendent iew of kingshipcurrent n the middle of the FirstDynasty.This reinterpretationf Narmer'sname is also attestedon the laternecropolissealingof KingQaa,from the end of the FirstDynasty.24Royal art

Royal authoritywas expressednotonly in theking'sname but also in worksof art.As thebeginningof the FirstDynastymarksa periodof transitionn the formulationof the royalname,it should come as littlesurprise hatroyal conographyundergoesa simultaneous e-18Thus,W. B. Emery,Excavationsat Saqqara1937-1938. Hor-Aha(Cairo, 1939);idem,ArchaicEgypt,49-56.19Kemp,CAJ10, fig. 10.20Wilkinson,Early Dynastic Egypt,201-3.21For the last, see P.Kaplony, Sechs Konigsnameder 1. Dynastiein neuerDeutung',OrientaliaSuecana7 (1958),54-69.22G. Dreyer, 'EinSiegel der friihzeitlichenKonigsnekropole onAbydos',MDAIK43 (1987), fig. 3.23This intepretation f the name was first suggested by JohnRay in an unpublishedarticle.The author s indebted ohim for a copy of the articleandforpermission o cite his interpretationere.24G. Dreyeret al., 'Ummel-Qaab.Nachuntersuchungenm friihzeitlichenKonigsfriedhof.7./8. Vorbericht',MDAIK52 (1996), fig. 26.

26 JEA86


6/11

NARMER AND THE CONCEPT OF THE RULERcodification.The transition romthe latePredynasticPeriodto the FirstDynasty-or, morespecifically, o thereignof Narmer-is characterised y theinventionof the canonicalstyleof ancientEgyptianart,25he rules of depictionthatwere to survive, argelyunchanged, orthe bestpartof three millennia.AnimalimageryPriorto Narmer,elite androyal art,like the carvedivoryknife-handlesdiscussedabove,emphasisesthe wild realm of nature.This is particularly trikingon the series of great,ceremonialpalettesfrom the late PredynasticPeriod.26The Hunter'sPalette,27probablyone of the earliest in the series, shows a connectionwith still earlier ncisedpalettesin itsemphasison the hunt. (In origin, it is likely thatpaletteswere used in a ritualsettingtoprepare he face-paintwornby hunters.)At this stage, there is no explicit depictionof aruler igure.Rather,a more communal nvolvement s suggestedby thegroupof hunters.Aslightlylaterartefact, he OxfordPalette,28hows a similaremphasison thehunt,althoughin this case the wild animals are tamedby a 'controlling' igure,not anotheranimal as ontheknife-handles,buta manwearinga dog mask andplayinga reedflute.29He is probablyto be equatedwiththemanwearingan ostrichmask on the OstrichPalette n the Manches-terMuseum.30tseemsthatpreparationsora hunt nvolvedritualswhereby heparticipants(orone of theirrepresentatives)woulddonanimalattributesn order o assumethe control-lingpowersof nature husrepresented. his, twashoped,wouldensureasuccessfuloutcometo thehuntingexpedition.Towards he end of thePredynasticPeriod,the scenes portrayed n carvedpalettesshift from scenes of hunting o scenes of warfare.Controlling heuntamed orces of naturehas now beenreplaced, n the ideology of royalauthority, y defeatingthe anarchic orcesopposedto theking.However, hesymbolismof the naturalworldhas notyetbeenentirelyabandoned.On the BattlefieldPalette,31whichpredatesthe reignof Narmerby no morethana coupleof generations, hethemeis warfarebutthe ruler s shown as a fierce lion. Asin the Gebel SheikhSuleiman nscription, hefigureof anaggressivewild animal s usedasa metaphor or the king himself. The king embodies the attributes f a lion (or scorpion),and the use of explicit animalimagery emphasisesthis point. Hence, the artof the latePredynasticPeriod echoes the contemporary onventionappliedto royalnames.Thelastexampleof thisiconographicradition,portrayinghekingas ananimal, s foundon the last of the greatceremonialpalettes,the NarmerPalette(fig. 1).32 This is undoubt-edly the most famousartefactof Narmer's eign, yet its verynature asanobjectassociatedprimarilywith the hunt)harksback to Predynasticbeliefs andpractices.Inthe lowest reg-isterof the obverse,theking is shownas a wild bull, tearingdownhis enemy's strongholdandtramplinghimunderfoot.Theimageis certainlyapotentone, andtheassociationof the

25W.Davis, The Canonical Tradition n AncientEgyptianArt(Cambridge,1989).26These artefactshavebeen studiedby manyscholars, orexampleK. Cialowicz,LesPalettesegyptiennesauxmotifszoomorpheset sans decoration. Etudesde l'art predynastique Krakow,1991).They may be comparedmost easily byreferring o the illustrations n Davis, TheCanonicalTradition,141-59.27Ibid.,fig. 6.10.28Ibid.,fig. 6.9.29Ibid. 142.30Ibid.,fig. 6.8b.

31Ibid.,fig. 6.11.32Ibid.,fig. 6.14.

2000 27


7/11

TOBY A. H. WILKINSONking with a wild bull did not disappearentirelyfromthe ideology of Egyptiankingship.The bull's tail remained a standardelement of the royal regalia throughout he dynasticperiod.33Moreover, heHorus-nameof ThutmoseIII in theEighteenthDynasty expressedthe identityof the king as a 'strongbull arisenin Thebes'.Yet,afterthe reignand monu-ments of Narmer,the king was never againrepresented n purely animal form. (In laterperiods, the king is occasionally shown as a human-headedgriffin, but this is a hybridform.)Hence,on a labelof Aha,it is theking's serekhwhich smites a Nubian foe.34Inthenew decorumwhich stressed hedivinityof theking,it appears o have becomeinappropri-ate to depicthimdirectlyas a wild beast. Theimagerywasretained,but was used in a moresubtle fashion.The reign of Narmer illustrates the transitionbetween old and new systems of royaliconography.Onanivory cylinder romHierakonpolis,t is the catfishelementof theking's'name' hat smites rows of bound,Libyancaptives.35On the obverse of the NarmerPalette,at the righthand side of the topmostregister, he victoriousking is represented s a falconatopa harpoon.But when we turn he paletteover,we findthe new conventionwritlarge:thekingis shownin human orm(althoughwearinga bull'stail)as ahuge,towering igure,smitinghis enemywith a mace.This,thequintessentialcon of Egyptiankingship,with itsoriginsfarbackintheearlyPredynasticPeriod,wasto become theprimary ymbolof royalpowerfromthereignof Narmeronwards.The NarmerPalette s thus a strikingamalgamofearlier and later conventions of royal iconography.While the imageryof the obverse isrootedin the PredynasticPeriod,that on the reverse standsat the head of the dynastic,canonical tradition.Narmer'sreign marked a definingtransition n the concept of rule;nowhere is this betterexemplifiedthanon his palette,the most famous artefactof earlyEgypt.Mesopotamianmotifs,xenophobic conographyIn anotherway, too, theNarmerPaletterepresentsan importanturningpointin Egyptianarthistory.The obversebearsthe last significantexampleof a Mesopotamianmotifusedinroyalart, he intertwined erpopardswhose necks framethe centralwell. The use of Meso-potamian conography n the elite artof the late PredynasticPeriodis a well-known andmuch discussed phenomenon.36Fromthe comb-wingedgriffinseen on the Gebel Tarifknife-handleandthe Two Dogs Paletteto the 'masterof the beasts' in the HierakonpolisPaintedTomb and on the Gebel el-Arakknife-handle,37ymbolsof control andauthoritywereborrowedromcontemporaryMesopotamianconographybyEgyptianrulersanxiousto develop andpromotean ideology of power.The intertwined erpopardswere perhapssymbolicof the opposingforces of naturewhich it was the king's dutyto keep in check.

33Wilkinson,Early DynasticEgypt,190- 1.34W. M. F. Petrie,RoyalTombsof the EarliestDynasties,II (MEES21; London, 1901),pl. xi.l.35J. E. Quibell,Hierakonpolis,I (ERA 5; London, 1900), pl. xv.5; for a clearerillustration,see: P. Kaplony,DieInschriftender dgyptischenFruhzeit, II (Wiesbaden,1963),pl. 5, fig. 5.36Recent contributions o the debate include: B. Teissier, 'GlypticEvidence for a Connection between Iran,Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the Fourthand ThirdMillennia',Iran 25 (1987), 27-53; H. Smith, 'The Making of Egypt:aReview of the Influence of Susa and Sumer on UpperEgyptandLowerNubia in the 4th MillenniumBC', in FriedmanandAdams(eds),TheFollowersofHorus,235-46; H. Pittman, ConstructingContext.The Gebel el-ArakKnife.GreaterMesopotamiaandEgyptianInteraction n the Late FourthMillenniumBCE', in J. S. Cooperand G. M. Schwartz eds),TheStudyof theAncientNear East in theTwenty-FirstCentury WinonaLake, 1996), 9-32.37Cf. U. Sievertsen,'Das Messer von Gebel el Arak',BaghdaderMitteilungen23 (1992), 1-75.

JEA 868


8/11

NARMER AND THE CONCEPTOF THE RULERAfter the reign of Narmer,such artisticborrowingswere abandoned n favourof indi-genous Egyptianmotifs, some of which (notablythe king smitinghis enemies) hadtheirrootsin thePredynastic epertoire.38herosette,a symbolof controlborrowed rom Urukiconography,had been used widely in Egyptianroyalart of the late PredynasticPeriod:39examplesinclude the Brooklyn,Carnarvon nd Gebel Tarifknife-handles,and the Scor-pion Macehead.It could easily have been adopted nto Egyptianhieroglyphs,but it, too,was rejected in the recodification that occurred at the beginning of the First Dynasty. Thelast appearancesof the rosette,as a symbol of the ruler,areon objectsfrom the reign ofNarmer,on his maceheadandpalette.As Egypt'srulersrejected oreign iconographyandturned nsteadto indigenousmotifs,so too the officialideology towards he outsideworld underwenta profoundchangeat thebeginningof the FirstDynasty.From hereignof Narmeronwards,Egypt'scollective senseof itself-as encouraged,nay,dictatedby theroyalcourt-was defined and demarcated yreference to a 'collective other':Egypt's foreign neighbours.40 tateideology henceforthcharacterisednon-Egyptiansas the humanequivalentsof untamed wild beasts, standingoutsidetheEgyptianrealmandthereforehostile toEgypt,itsking,itspeople,and ts wayoflife. The power of xenophobiato unite a country'spopulationbehind its ruler has beenappreciatedby despots andpoliticianssince the beginningof humanhistory.The ancientEgyptianswereperhaps hefirstto recognisethe instinctive orceof thisparticular randofideology. Explicitlyxenophobic conographys first metin thereignof Narmer.The afore-mentioned vorycylinder romHierakonpolisnames the rowsof boundcaptivesasTjehenu(Libyans).Both the NarmerPalette and a newly-discoveredyear label of the same kingfromAbydos41 how defeatedcaptivesthathave been identifiedby at leastone scholarasAsiatics,42perhaps nhabitants f theeasternDeltafringesor northernSinai. The choice ofsubjectmatterfor the NarmerPaletteloudly proclaimsthe new propagandaof the post-unificationEgyptian oyalcourt.Nowthata unifiedcountryhadbeenforged, twasimportantto consolidatethe boundariesof the state and match these politicalboundarieswith ideo-logical ones. For the next three thousandyears,there followed anassaulton theheartsandminds of theEgyptianpeople,to convincethem thattheirsecurityandwell-beinglay in thehands of the king, withoutwhomEgypt'senemies wouldtriumphandall would be lost. Itappearsthat the credit is due to Narmerfor laying this particular ornerstoneof ancientEgyptiancivilisation.

Royal tombs

Thebeginningof theFirstDynastymarksa transitionn theconceptandoutwardmanifes-tation of royalauthorityn a thirdsphere: he tombs of therulingelite. Egyptologistshavealways regarded t as significantthat the earliest tombof a high official at NorthSaqqara,mastabaS3357, datesto thereignof Aha. The tombclearly belongedto a close relativeof38A paintedvessel fromgraveU-239 atAbydos, dated to late NaqadaI, carries the earliest known exampleof thismotif:G. Dreyeret al., 'Nachuntersuchungenm friihzeitlichenK6nigsfriedhof.9./10. Vorbericht',MDAIK54 (1998),77-167, esp. figs 12.1 and 13.39Smith,in Friedmanand Adams(eds), The Followersof Horus,241-4.40E. C. Kohler, HistoryorIdeology?New Reflectionson the NarmerPaletteand the Natureof Foreign Relations nPredynasticEgypt', in E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy (eds), Egyptian-CanaaniteRelationsDuring the 4thThroughEarly3rdMillennia,BCE,forthcoming.41Dreyeret al.,MDAIK54, fig. 29 andpl. 5.c.42Kohler, n van den Brink andLevy (eds), Egyptian-CanaaniteRelations.

2000 29


9/11

30 TOBY A. H. WILKINSON JEA 86theking,as indicatedby the use of royal, 'palace-facade' rchitectureor theexternal acesof the superstructure.The owner was probablyAha's younger brother or son, and must haveheld the most seniorposition in the Memphiteadministration, quivalent o the vizier inlaterperiods.43t is likely thatthehighestoffices of state were reserved or membersof theroyalfamilyin theEarlyDynasticPeriod.Theimportance f such individuals anbe gaugedby the scene on theobverseof theNarmerPalette(top register),wherethekingisprecededby an official (perhapshis eldest son) designatedby the signs tt (probablyan abbreviatedwritingofwttw, offspring').44 hedatingof S3357 to thereignofAha has led some scholarsto arguethat Aha foundedMemphis,or was at least the firstking to reside there.This isunlikelyfortwo reasons.First,the earliestburials n thenecropolisof Helwan/el-Maasara,theprincipalcemetery serving Memphis n the Early DynasticPeriod,predate hereignofAha.45Second,recentsoundingsby the Egypt ExplorationSociety Surveyof Memphis,46reinforcedby earlier, solated finds fromnearbyAbusir,47ndicatethatthecity of Memphiswas probablyalready n existence in the late PredynasticPeriod. The establishmentof anelite cemeteryat NorthSaqqara or the highestofficials of the administrationwas almostcertainlyan innovationof Aha'sreign(unlessan earlier omb remains o be discovered),48butit need not correlatewiththedateof the foundationof Memphis.Aha'sown burialcomplexatAbydos (fig. 2) offersfurther videncethathis reignwas aperiodof innovation n mortuaryprovision.The chambersreservedfor the king and hisfuneraryequipment (B 10, B 15, and B 19) are accompanied by rows of subsidiary burials forhis retainers B16). In this, Aha set a new precedent.In deathas in life, the king wouldhenceforthbe surrounded y his attendants.Thispatternwasto remainstandardhroughoutmuch of Egyptianhistory, rom the OldKingdomcourtcemeteriesat Maidumand Giza to

ii(f?^ B ug7 iPE2 0 to mBE

17,

:*^ ..[.B0

~~~850 2BLJ0 2 816

(after G. Dreyer et al., MDAIK52 (1996), fig. 1).43 Cf. Baines, in O'ConnorandSilverman eds),AncientEgyptianKingship,138; Wilkinson,Early DynasticEgypt,139.44 It is even possiblethat the title of the vizier, t,ty, is derived rom the same root.45T.A. H. Wilkinson,'A Re-examination f the EarlyDynasticNecropolisatHelwan',MDAIK52 (1996), 337-54.46 Idem,Early Dynastic Egypt,359.47W.Kaiser, Einige Bemerkungen uragyptischenFrhzeit. III',ZAS91 (1964), 36-125, esp. 106-8.48The existenceof anearlier,undiscovered omb cannotbe discounted,giventhata previouslyunknownand massive

mastabatomb of the First Dynasty was only recentlyexcavatedby the SupremeCouncil for Antiquitiesin the areaadjacent o theAntiquitiesInspectorate t NorthSaqqara.


10/11

NARMER AND THE CONCEPT OF THE RULERthe tombsof high officials in the ThirdIntermediatePeriodroyal cemeteryat Tanis.Theskeletalmaterial romAha'ssubsidiaryburials ndicates hat heaverageage of deathof theoccupantswas under25 years.49This stronglysuggeststhattheking'sretainerswere killed(or committedsuicide)at the deathof theirroyalmaster, o accompanyhim into the here-after.Hence,the subsidiaryburials n Aha'smortuary omplex representa new expressionof royalauthority, nauthoritywhich couldnow command he life anddeathof theking'ssubjects.By contrastwith this totalitarianmodel of rule,the evidencefrom the precedingperiodsuggests a ratherhumblerexerciseof power.Certainly,Narmer's omb atAbydoshas no accompanyingsubsidiaryburials.In this respect,his burialcomplex has more incommonwith its Predynastic orerunnershanwiththe tombsof the FirstDynasty kings.This contrastmay likewise be reflectedin the chambersbuilt for Narmerhimself. Thetombof Narmer s generally dentifiedas comprising headjoiningchambersB17andB18.Even takentogether,these constitutea very small intermentcomparedwith the mortuarycomplexesof Narmer'ssuccessors.Therehavebeensuggestionsthat B17/18do notrepre-sentNarmer's ombatall, and thathis actualburialchamber emains o be discovered n anunexcavatedportionof the Umm el-Qaab.50This is a possibility,but therearetwo otherplausibleexplanations or the small scale of B 17/18.First,these twin chambersmay be only one componentof a tripartite oyal tombcom-plex. It is noteworthythat Aha's mortuarycomplex comprises three almost identicalchambers.Thereareindications hatthesemayrepresentdifferent tagesof a longbuildingprogramme.51 et the final form of the complex, with threeadjacentchambersof equalsize, seems to havebeen deliberate. t is possible thatAha's tombcomplexis not an aber-rantformof royalburialbuta directcopy of his predecessor's.Could Narmer's ombalsohavecomprisedthreeequalelements?A striking eatureof this partof CemeteryB is theclose proximityof threesets of twin chambers:B17/18, attributedo Narmer;B7/9, attrib-utedto thelatePredynastic ing 'Ka';andB1/2,with itsadjacent fferingpitB0,52 attributedby some to a late Predynasticking Iry-Hor.53 hey differmarkedly romthe single cham-bersof PredynasticCemeteryU. ChambersB17/18 arethe only two built withina singlepit,butotherwisethesimilarityamongthethreesetsis striking.Notable,too, is theorienta-tion of all three sets: they are strungout in a line runningN-E-S-W, an arrangementfollowedby Aha'sthreechambers.Onepossibletheory s thatall threesets of twincham-bersbelong to one andthe samemortuary omplex, andthusto one and the sameking. Inthiscase, theonlyrealcandidatewouldbe Narmerhimself.54Thediscoveryof inscriptionsnamingNarmer n bothB1/2 and B7/9 wouldcertainlysupport ucha theory.55ChambersB7/9, attributedo aking 'Ka', couldbe seen insteadas a tombfor theking's ka:56 fore-

49A. J. Spencer,Early Egypt(London,1993), 79.50E. C. Kohler,personalcommunication.51W. Kaiserand G. Dreyer, 'Ummel-Qaab.Nachuntersuchungenm friihzeitlichenKonigsfriedhof.2. Vorbericht',MDAIK 8 (1982), 211-69, esp. 219.52G. Dreyeret al., MDAIK52, 49.53KaiserandDreyer,MDAIK38, 212; Spencer,Early Egypt,76-7. Doubts aboutthis attribution ave beenraisedbyT. A. H. Wilkinson,'The Identification f TombB1 atAbydos:Refutingthe Existenceof a King *Ro/*Iry-Hor', EA79(1993), 241-3; andA. O'Brien,'TheSerekhas anAspectof theIconography f EarlyKingship',JARCE 3 (1996), 123-38, esp. 131-2.54Cf. Quirke,WhoWere he Pharaohs?,21.55Wilkinson,JEA79, 242, nn. 14 and 19.56B. Adams,AncientNekhen.Garstang n the City of Hierakonpolis New Malden,1995),49.

31000


11/11

TOBY A. H. WILKINSONrunner f theseparateka annexseeninthetomb of Den,57n the southtomb of Netjerikhet'sandSekhemkhet'sstep pyramidcomplexes,andin the subsidiarypyramidsof the FourthDynasty.ChambersB1/2, attributedo a king 'Iry-Hor'on the basis of potteryinscribedwith the combinationof a falcon and a mouth could have served as storagechambers oprovidefood and drink or the 'mouthof Horus(i.e. theking)'(r-Hr).58The recentdiscov-eryof an adjacentofferingpit (BO),originallyfilled with winejarsand otherpottery,maysupport his interpretation.Second, if the traditionalattribution f B0/1/2 and B7/9 to predecessorsof Narmer smaintained,an alternative xplanation or the small scale of B17/18 maybe that Narmer'stombcomplex represents he lastgaspof anearlier,essentially Predynasticmodel of king-ship,one that did not expressitself throughgrandiosearchitecturelike the palace-facadetombs of royal relatives buried at NorthSaqqaraandNaqada duringAha's reign) or theextravagant isplayof coerciveroyal power(theretainer acrificeattested n Aha's subsidi-aryburials),butthrough he association of the king with the forces of nature.As we haveseen, the reign of Narmerrepresentsthe end of an older ideology with its roots in thePredynasticPeriod.Withtheunificationof Egypt,this olderstratum f belief wasevidentlydiscarded,no longerconsideredsufficientforholding together he new state,norappropri-atefor an all-powerfulking at its head.

ConclusionThebeginningof the FirstDynastywitnessedhighly significant nnovations n the spheresof titulary,conography, ndmortuary rchitecture.However, heyarebutmanifestations fa widerphenomenon: he reformulationof the conceptof rule duringthe periodof stateformation.This processsucceededin establishingthe court-directedtyles which were tobe promotedvigorously by Egypt's kingsuntiltheyhadeffectivelysnuffedoutall tracesofearlier,Predynastic ultural raditions.Thereignof Narmer,n particular,marksanimpor-tant transitionbetween older, Predynasticand new, pharaonicbrands of kingship. Thesurvivingevidence from this briefperiodallows us to look back intothepastandforward othe futurecivilisationof dynasticEgypt.

57G. Dreyer, 'Umm el-Qaab.Nachuntersuchungenm friihzeitlichenKonigsfriedhof.3./4. Vorbericht',MDAIK46(1990), 53-90, esp. 76-9.58Adams,AncientNekhen,49.

JEA862

Documents

Toby Wilkinson