Narmer (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Narmer" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
2nd place
2nd place
low place
low place
1st place
1st place
11th place
8th place
26th place
20th place
3rd place
3rd place
6th place
6th place
low place
low place
1,993rd place
3,231st place
6,167th place
low place
low place
low place
1,190th place
959th place
222nd place
297th place
102nd place
76th place
230th place
214th place
low place
low place
613th place
456th place

ancient-egypt.org

archive.org

  • The question of who was Menes—hence, who was the first king of the First Dynasty has been hotly debated. Since 1897, 70 different authors have taken an opinion on whether it is Narmer or Aha.[6] 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. Kinnaer, J. (2001), "Aha or Narmer. Which was Menes?", KMT, 12, 3: 74–81. Cervelló-Autuori, Josep (2005), "Was King Narmer Menes?", Archéo-Nil, 15: 31–46, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2005.896. Heagy, Thomas C. (2014), "Who was Menes?", Archeo-Nil, 24: 59–92, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2014.1071. Helck, W. (1953), "Gab es einen König Menes?", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 103, n.s. 28: 354–359. Emery, W.B. (1961). Archaic Egypt: Culture and Civilization in Egypt Five Thousand Years Ago. London: Penguin Books.. Dreyer, G. (2007), "Wer war Menes?", in Hawass, Z.A.; Richards, J. (eds.), The archaeology and art of Ancient Egypt. Essays in honor of David B. O'Connor, CASAE, vol. 34, Cairo{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).
  • Emery 1961, pp. 44–47. Emery, W.B. (1961). Archaic Egypt: Culture and Civilization in Egypt Five Thousand Years Ago. London: Penguin Books..

books.google.com

doi.org

  • The question of who was Menes—hence, who was the first king of the First Dynasty has been hotly debated. Since 1897, 70 different authors have taken an opinion on whether it is Narmer or Aha.[6] 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. Kinnaer, J. (2001), "Aha or Narmer. Which was Menes?", KMT, 12, 3: 74–81. Cervelló-Autuori, Josep (2005), "Was King Narmer Menes?", Archéo-Nil, 15: 31–46, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2005.896. Heagy, Thomas C. (2014), "Who was Menes?", Archeo-Nil, 24: 59–92, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2014.1071. Helck, W. (1953), "Gab es einen König Menes?", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 103, n.s. 28: 354–359. Emery, W.B. (1961). Archaic Egypt: Culture and Civilization in Egypt Five Thousand Years Ago. London: Penguin Books.. Dreyer, G. (2007), "Wer war Menes?", in Hawass, Z.A.; Richards, J. (eds.), The archaeology and art of Ancient Egypt. Essays in honor of David B. O'Connor, CASAE, vol. 34, Cairo{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).
  • 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. Shaw, Ian (2000a), "Introduction: Chronologies and Cultural Change in Egypt", in Shaw, Ian (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, pp. 1–16{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Hayes, Michael (1970), "Chapter VI.Chronology, I. Egypt to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty", in Edwards, I.E.S.; Gadd, C.J. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume I, Part I, Cambridge{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Krauss, Rolf; Warburton, David Alan (2006), "Conclusions", in Hornung, Erik; Krauss, Rolf K.; Warburton, David A. (eds.), Ancient Egypt Chronology, Handbuch der Orientalistik. Section 1: The Near and Middle East: – 1:83, Leiden; Boston{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). von Beckerath, Jurgen (1997), Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten, Müncher Ägyptologische Studien: – 46, Mainz{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Helck, W. (1986), Geschichte des alten Ägypten, Handbuch des Orientalistik 1/3, Leiden; Köln{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). 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 (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium, Wein{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Shaw, Ian (2000b), "Chronology", in Shaw, Ian (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, pp. 479–483{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Mellaart, James (1979), "Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology: a dilemma?", Antiquity, 53 (207): 6–18, doi:10.1017/S0003598X00041958, S2CID 162414996 Hendrickx, Stan (2006), "II.1 Predynastic-Early Dynastic Chronology", in Hornung, Erik; Krauss, Rolf; Walburton, David A. (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). 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.
  • 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 2011 also argues that it has nothing to do with the unification, but has a (very complicated) religious meaning. Breasted, James H. (1931), "The predynastic union of Egypt", Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 30: 709–724, doi:10.3406/bifao.1931.1923. 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. (eds.), Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE, London; New York: Leicester University Press, pp. 499–513. O'Connor, David (2011), "The Narmer Palette: A New Interpretation", in Teeter, E (ed.), Before the Pyramids, Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ISBN 978-1-885923-82-0.
  • For a discussion of Cemetery B see Dreyer 1999, pp. 110–11, fig. 7 and Wilkinson 2000, pp. 29–32, fig. 2 Dreyer, G (1999), "Abydos, Umm el-Qa'ab", in Bard, KA; Shubert, SB (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-18589-9. Wilkinson, T. A. H. (2000), "Narmer and the concept of the ruler", Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 86: 23–32, doi:10.2307/3822303, JSTOR 3822303.
  • 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. Kaplony, P. (1963), Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, vol. 8, Wiesbaden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Kaplony, P. (1964), Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit: Supplement, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, vol. 9, Wiesbaden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Kaiser, W.; Dreyer, G. (1982), "Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 2. Vorbericht", MDAIK, 38: 211–270. Kahl, J. (1994), Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglypheninschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie, Göttinger Orientforschungen. 4. Reihe: Ägypten, vol. 29, Wiesbaden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) . van den Brink, E.C.M. (1996), "The incised serekh-signs of dynasties 0–1, Part I: Complete vessels", in Spencer, A.J. (ed.), Aspects of early Egypt, London, pp. 140–158{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) 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, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2001.1239. 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, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2003.1141. 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. 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 (eds.), Verba manent: recueil d'études dédiées à Dimitri Meeks par ses collègues et amis 2, Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry, pp. 307–324. 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.
  • Heagy 2014, pp. 83–84. Heagy, Thomas C. (2014), "Who was Menes?", Archeo-Nil, 24: 59–92, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2014.1071.
  • Heagy 2014, pp. 77–78. Heagy, Thomas C. (2014), "Who was Menes?", Archeo-Nil, 24: 59–92, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2014.1071.
  • Wilkinson 2000, pp. 23–32. Wilkinson, T. A. H. (2000), "Narmer and the concept of the ruler", Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 86: 23–32, doi:10.2307/3822303, JSTOR 3822303.
  • Quibell 1898, pp. 81–84, pl. XII-XIII. 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. S2CID 192825246..
  • Millet 1990, pp. 53–59. Millet, N. B. (1990), "The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects", JARCE, 27: 53–59, doi:10.2307/40000073, JSTOR 40000073
  • Heagy 2014, pp. 73–74. Heagy, Thomas C. (2014), "Who was Menes?", Archeo-Nil, 24: 59–92, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2014.1071.
  • Levy et al. 1995, pp. 26–35. 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, S2CID 193496493.
  • Heagy 2020. Heagy, Thomas C. (2020), "Narmer", in Bagnall, Roger S; Brodersen, Kai; Champion, Craige B; Erskine, Andrew; Huebner, Sabine R (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient History, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, doi:10.1002/9781444338386, hdl:1808/11108, ISBN 9781405179355.
  • Quibell 1898, pp. 81–84, pl. XII–XIII. 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. S2CID 192825246..
  • Williams 1988, pp. 35–50, fig. 3a. Williams, B. (1988), "Narmer and the Coptos Colossi", Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, 25: 35–59, doi:10.2307/40000869, JSTOR 40000869.
  • Ikram & Rossi 2004, pp. 211–215, fig. 1-2. Ikram, S.; Rossi, C. (2004), "A new Early Dynastic serekh from the Kharga Oasis", Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 90: 211–215, doi:10.1177/030751330409000112, S2CID 190218264
  • de Miroschedji & Sadeq 2000, pp. 136–137, fig. 9. 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, 144 (1): 123–144, doi:10.3406/CRAI.2000.16103.
  • Levy et al. 1997, pp. 31–33. 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 (307): 1–51, doi:10.2307/1357702, JSTOR 1357702, S2CID 161748881.
  • Darnell 2015. Darnell, John Coleman (2015), "The Early Hieroglyphic Annotation in the Nag el-Hamdulab Rock Art Tableaux, and the Following of Horus in the Northwest Hinterland of Aswan", Archeo-Nil, 25: 19–43, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2015.1087

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

jstor.org

livescience.com

narmer.org

ox.ac.uk

cdli.ox.ac.uk

royalsocietypublishing.org

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org

  • 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. Shaw, Ian (2000a), "Introduction: Chronologies and Cultural Change in Egypt", in Shaw, Ian (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, pp. 1–16{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Hayes, Michael (1970), "Chapter VI.Chronology, I. Egypt to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty", in Edwards, I.E.S.; Gadd, C.J. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume I, Part I, Cambridge{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Krauss, Rolf; Warburton, David Alan (2006), "Conclusions", in Hornung, Erik; Krauss, Rolf K.; Warburton, David A. (eds.), Ancient Egypt Chronology, Handbuch der Orientalistik. Section 1: The Near and Middle East: – 1:83, Leiden; Boston{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). von Beckerath, Jurgen (1997), Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten, Müncher Ägyptologische Studien: – 46, Mainz{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Helck, W. (1986), Geschichte des alten Ägypten, Handbuch des Orientalistik 1/3, Leiden; Köln{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). 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 (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium, Wein{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Shaw, Ian (2000b), "Chronology", in Shaw, Ian (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, pp. 479–483{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Mellaart, James (1979), "Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology: a dilemma?", Antiquity, 53 (207): 6–18, doi:10.1017/S0003598X00041958, S2CID 162414996 Hendrickx, Stan (2006), "II.1 Predynastic-Early Dynastic Chronology", in Hornung, Erik; Krauss, Rolf; Walburton, David A. (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). 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.

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

  • 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. Shaw, Ian (2000a), "Introduction: Chronologies and Cultural Change in Egypt", in Shaw, Ian (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, pp. 1–16{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Hayes, Michael (1970), "Chapter VI.Chronology, I. Egypt to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty", in Edwards, I.E.S.; Gadd, C.J. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume I, Part I, Cambridge{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Krauss, Rolf; Warburton, David Alan (2006), "Conclusions", in Hornung, Erik; Krauss, Rolf K.; Warburton, David A. (eds.), Ancient Egypt Chronology, Handbuch der Orientalistik. Section 1: The Near and Middle East: – 1:83, Leiden; Boston{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). von Beckerath, Jurgen (1997), Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten, Müncher Ägyptologische Studien: – 46, Mainz{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Helck, W. (1986), Geschichte des alten Ägypten, Handbuch des Orientalistik 1/3, Leiden; Köln{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). 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 (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium, Wein{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Shaw, Ian (2000b), "Chronology", in Shaw, Ian (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, pp. 479–483{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Mellaart, James (1979), "Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology: a dilemma?", Antiquity, 53 (207): 6–18, doi:10.1017/S0003598X00041958, S2CID 162414996 Hendrickx, Stan (2006), "II.1 Predynastic-Early Dynastic Chronology", in Hornung, Erik; Krauss, Rolf; Walburton, David A. (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). 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.
  • Quibell 1898, pp. 81–84, pl. XII-XIII. 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. S2CID 192825246..
  • Levy et al. 1995, pp. 26–35. 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, S2CID 193496493.
  • Quibell 1898, pp. 81–84, pl. XII–XIII. 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. S2CID 192825246..
  • Ikram & Rossi 2004, pp. 211–215, fig. 1-2. Ikram, S.; Rossi, C. (2004), "A new Early Dynastic serekh from the Kharga Oasis", Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 90: 211–215, doi:10.1177/030751330409000112, S2CID 190218264
  • Levy et al. 1997, pp. 31–33. 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 (307): 1–51, doi:10.2307/1357702, JSTOR 1357702, S2CID 161748881.

uchicago.edu

oi.uchicago.edu

uni-muenster.de

www4.ivv1.uni-muenster.de

  • 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. Kaplony, P. (1963), Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, vol. 8, Wiesbaden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Kaplony, P. (1964), Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit: Supplement, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, vol. 9, Wiesbaden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). Kaiser, W.; Dreyer, G. (1982), "Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 2. Vorbericht", MDAIK, 38: 211–270. Kahl, J. (1994), Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglypheninschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie, Göttinger Orientforschungen. 4. Reihe: Ägypten, vol. 29, Wiesbaden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) . van den Brink, E.C.M. (1996), "The incised serekh-signs of dynasties 0–1, Part I: Complete vessels", in Spencer, A.J. (ed.), Aspects of early Egypt, London, pp. 140–158{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) 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, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2001.1239. 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, doi:10.3406/ARNIL.2003.1141. 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. 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 (eds.), Verba manent: recueil d'études dédiées à Dimitri Meeks par ses collègues et amis 2, Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry, pp. 307–324. 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.

warframe.com

web.archive.org

wikipedia.org

fr.wikipedia.org

  • Egyptologists have long debated whether Menes was the same person as Narmer or Hor-Aha, Narmer's successor. A 2014 study by Thomas C. Heagy published in the Egyptological journal Archéo-Nil compiled a list of 69 Egyptologists who took either position. Forty-one of them have concluded that Menes was Narmer, while 31 have concluded that Menes was Hor-Aha. Three Egyptologists—Flinders Petrie, Kurt Sethe and Stan Hendrickx—on the list have first concluded that Menes was Hor-Aha, but later concluded that Menes was Narmer.[6]

wiley.com

onlinelibrary.wiley.com