DYNASTY 0 'SEREKHS'

Late Predynastic Egyptian Royal Names

(An Appendix to the DYNASTY 0 page)

by Francesco Raffaele - I.U.O. Napoli (Italia)

Plate 1 (W. Kaiser, MDAIK 38, 1982) Plate 2 (F. Raffaele, AH 17, 2003)
INDEX*
Plate 3 (T. Wilkinson, MDAIK 56, 2000) Plate 4 (F. Raffaele, AH 17, 2003)

1. PREMISE

2.
Late Predynastic Egyptian Royal Names (F.Raffaele, Sept./Oct. 2003)
INTRODUCTION
---
3. DISCUSSION

A Corpus of Royal Names of Naqada

TABLE 1 (F.Raffaele, 2001-2003)
IIIb1-2

Plate 1 (W. Kaiser, MDAIK 38, 1982) Plate 2 (F. Raffaele, AH 17, 2003)

Plate 3 (T. Wilkinson, MDAIK 56, 2000)

Notes: - In my opinion the Dates BC in Wilkinson's
plate are too low (of c. 100 years from Naqada IIIB
backwards).
- Besides I would shift up the indication of 'Dyn 00' to
coincide with Naqada IIIA.
Plate 4 (F. Raffaele, AH 17, 2003)
 NAQADA IIIb1-2 (and early -IIIc1) Serekhs
and other possible indicators of Royal names

(Francesco Raffaele )

After: Francesco Raffaele, "Dynasty 0" (in: AH 17, 2003, 140-141)

Naqada IIIB (b1-b2) plain, anonymous and personalized serekhs with other possible indicators of
chieftains' and sovereigns' names, from Upper and Lower Egypt, Lower Nubia and Southern Levant
(found on various types of objects, especially on pottery jars). Note that some of these compounds
could either be general indicators of sovereignty (as plain and anonymous serekhs) or not be royal
names at all, with a completely different purpose and meaning (as ns. 19, 26, 32). Ns. 11, 17, 32, 37 are
very hard to set in a precise chronological order (cf. text); also the general sequence and assemblage of
the serekhs must not be interpreted as reflecting true successions stricto sensu (except those from the
Abydos tombs of Iry-Hor, Ka and Narmer). The serekhs are not to scale; most of them are from
inscriptions or artifacts containing further hieroglyphs and/or images which have been cropped out.
Some single serekhs/names of uncertain status have been excluded, as the one of 'Djehwty-Mer' (?)
from Tarkhan t. 412 (cf. Petrie et al., Tarkhan I, pl. 31, nr. 71).

- Abbreviations: MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15 = Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982, 211-269, esp. 262-269
(n. 193ff.), fig. 14, 15. VdBrink 1996 = Van den Brink, in: Spencer (ed.), Aspects, 140-158. For the
other references cf. the Bibliography. - Note: the inscriptions on jar or jar fragments are (pre-firing)
incised, unless specifically stated.

1-2: Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb U-s ink inscr. anonymous serekhs on cyl. jars (Dreyer, in: MDAIK
55, 1999, fig. 4a).
3-4: Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb U-t ink inscr. anonymous serekhs on cyl. jars (Dreyer, in: MDAIK
55, 1999, fig. 4b).
5: Abusir el-Meleq t. 1021 jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 9)[sic].
6: Abusir el-Meleq t. 1144 jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 10)[sic].
7: Wadi el-Arish (previously believed to be from Rafiah) jar (Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982, 269,
fig. 16, nr. 2).
8: Wadi el-Arish (previously believed to be from Rafiah) jar (Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982, 269,
fig. 16, nr. 1).
9: El-Beda jar (Cldat, in: ASAE 13, 1914, 119ff., fig. 5); name reading beside the plain serekh:
(Bark?)-NEITH (?).
10: DOUBLE FALCON; 10a-c: El Beda jar fragments (Cldat, in: ASAE 13, 1914, 119ff., fig. 4, 3, 6;
10b is from a complete jar, ibid., pl. 13); 10d: Turah SS Ezbet Luthy (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 4);
10e: Sinai (ibid., fig. 14, nr. 5). For more serekhs of king (?) DOUBLE FALCON cf. van den Brink, in:
Archo-Nil 11, 2002 (group 2a-c).
11: Metropolitan Museum Palette (MMA New York, 28.9.8; Fischer, in: Artibus Asiae 21, 1958, 82ff.,
n.34, fig. 19); uncertain datation; for similar palettes from later (Naqada IIIC1-2) contexts cf. the
Minshat el-Ezzat palette (quoted in the text and in n. 101) and the palette fragment Kaiser/Dreyer, in:
MDAIK 38, 1982, 228, fig. 6 (lycaon tail, upset ?).
12: Seal impression from Siali, Lower Nubia (Williams, Qustul, 168, fig. 58a).
13: *HAT(Y)-HOR; Tarkhan t. 1702 jar (U.C. London 16084; vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 9; pl. 26a).
14: NY(-HOR); 14a: Turah t. 16g9 (T64) jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 7); 14b: Turah t. 19g1 (T89)
jar (ibid., nr. 8).
15: NY-HOR [or NAR(MER)?] Ezbet Tell jar fr. (vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 21; id., in: Archo-Nil 11, n.
38).
16: Anonymous serekh ?; steatite cylinder seal from Helwan t. 160H3 (Kohler, in: GM 168, 1999,
49ff., fig. 1).
17: Metropolitan Museum Knife-handle, recto: boats procession (Williams/Logan, in: JNES 46, 1987,
245ff., fig. 1).
18: Qustul t. L24 incense burner; boats procession towards a shrine (Williams, Qustul, 142, fig. 55, pl.
34).
19: Qustul t. L23 painted vessel; complex scene with animals, tree and a shrine (?) paliade (Williams,
Qustul, pl. 84).
20: *IRY-HOR; 20a-g: Umm el-Qaab, Abydos jar fragments (20e complete jar) (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-
15, nr. 13, 14, 15, 22, 21, 19, 16 respectively); 20h: same site, Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982,
234, fig. 10d; 20i: seal impression from Zawiyet el Aryan, nearby tombs 86-89 (Kaplony, IAF III, fig.
13).
21: *HEDJW-HOR (?); 21a: Turah t. 15g2 (T54) jar (vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 18); 21b: Eastern Delta
jar (Metropolitan Mus. 61122; Fischer, in: JARCE 2, 1963, fig. 1); 21c: Turah t. 17L7a (T313) jar
(vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 19).
22: P-Elephant (?); 22a-b: Armant site 34 graffiti (Wilkinson, in: JEA 81, 1995, fig. 1a-b).
23a-b: Qustul t. L11 'Archaic Horus' incense burner (Williams, Qustul, pl. 33).
24: Plain serekh from Minshat Abu Omar t. 1210.21 jar (vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 11).
25: Plain serekh from Minshat Abu Omar t. 520.3 jar (vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 12).
26: Qustul t. L2 pot-mark on jar (Williams, Qustul, pl. 78a).
27: PE-HOR ? Qustul t. L2 pot-mark (?) (post firing incision) on jar fr. (Williams, Qustul, pl. 77).
28: HORUS CROCODILE (Shenyw, The Subduer)? 28a: Tarkhan t. 315 ink inscribed cylinder jar
(Kaplony, IAF III, pl. 1); 28b: Tarkhan t. 1549 ink inscribed cylinder jar (ibid., pl. 2); 28c: Tarkhan t.
414 seal impression (ibid., fig. 18) with a serekh-like image representing the temple of Sobek; the
relationship between ink inscriptions and seal impression has been postulated by G. Dreyer (in: Horus
Krokodil).
29: ? Minshat Abu Omar t. 160.1 jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 34). For the various interpretation of
the name cf. text.
30: HORUS KA; 30a: Helwan t. 1627H2 jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 23)[sic]; 30b: Helwan t.
1651H2 jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 24)[sic]; 30c: ink on jar fr., Abydos, t. B7/9 (Petrie, Abydos pt.
1, pl. 2, nr. 15); 30d-j: Abydos, Umm el-Qaab t. B7/9 jar fragments (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 27, 29,
31, 28, 32, 26, 33 respectively).
31: HORUS KA (?) Adaima, carbon inscr. on jar fr. (Grimal, in: BIFAO 99, 1999, 451, fig.1); uncertain
reading.
32: *HWT-HOR (?) Wadi Um-Balad jar fr. (Kohler, in: Castel-Khler-Mathieu-Pouit, in: BIFAO 98,
1998, 57ff., fig. 12); uncertain reading: might be Hor Aha, Djer or another later ruler's (or royal
domain) name.
33: *NY-NEITH; Helwan 257H8 jar (Khler/van den Brink, in: GM 187, 2002, fig. 2.2).
34: Royal Macehead from Hierakonpolis (Quibell, Hierakonpolis, Pt. 1, pl. 26a; Adams, Ancient
Hierakonpolis, pl. 1).
35: SCORPION (II), Macehead from Hierakonpolis (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford E3632; Quibell,
Hierakonpolis, Pt. 1, pl. 26c; photo after: S. Donadoni in: 'Le grandi Scoperte dell'Archeologia', vol.
1.33, p. 17, De Agostini, Novara).
36: HORUS NARMER; 36a: Umm el-Qaab, Abydos (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 40); 36b: same site,
seal impression from tomb T (Den) (Dreyer, in: MDAIK 43, 1987, fig. 3); 36c: Zawiyet el-Aryan t.
Z401 (?) jar fr. (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 37); 36d: Tarkhan (?) ink inscr. cylinder jar (Kaplony, IAFS,
fig. 1061); 36e: seal impression from Tarkhan t. 414 (Kaplony, IAF III, fig. 25); 36f: Tarkhan t. 414 jar
(MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 35); 36g: Tarkhan t. 1100 jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 39); 36h:
Hierakonpolis jar fr. (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 43); 36i: (recto of) Narmer palette from Hierakonpolis
(Cairo Museum JdE 14716, CG 32169; Quibell, Hierakonpolis, Pt. 1, pl. 29; photo after: S. Donadoni,
op. cit., p. 14); 36j: Hierakonpolis cylinder (Kaplony, IAF III, fig. 5).
37: Anonymous serekh, Gebel Sheikh Suleiman graffito (Murnane, in: JNES 46, 1987, 282ff., fig. 1A);
uncertain date.
Late Predynastic Egyptian Royal Names
Premise 1

The origin of the Serekh as a representation of the royal authority of Late Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Egyptian kings is an argument which requires a premise of
historical character.
There is a number of questions of wider range about Late Predynastic Egypt which
have not yet found a proper answer. Some of these problems are also connected with
the evidence provided by the early "serekhs" and by their possible function and geo-
chronological distribution.
State-formation in Egypt is a common object of debate; there are some general
theories each focussing on different factors or causes and proposing alternative
processes and modalities which would have lead to the concretization of the Dynastic
State.
The way in which a more complex kind of society originated in Egypt could have
been either a peaceful (/trade-based one: Trigger, Wildung, Khler) or rather a
conflictual/military one (classical model followed by Kaiser, Helck, von der Way) or
perhaps a combination of both (and of further interacting factors; Hoffman, Kemp,
Bard).[1]
The archaeological data and their interpretations have undergone an outstanding
renewal in the last twenty years. Yet they remain more or less unbalanced. For
example the Late Predynastic (L.P.) and Early Dynastic (E.D.) period in the Delta was
very poorly known before the beginning of excavation campaigns in the 1980s and
the publications of E.C.M. van den Brink edited volumes of 1988, 1992 on Nile Delta.
Now we have a good quantity and quality of data for that region, from both
cemeteries and settlements; this contrasts with the documentation from Upper Egypt
and Nubia which, for the same period, is (owing to different reasons) mainly deriving
from funerary contexts, with the important exceptions of isolated finds at Koptos,
Naqada, Armant, desert widians (rock graffiti) and, especially, the more substantial
and recently excavated contexts at Hierakonpolis, Adaima and at Elephantine (E.D.).
Furthermore, contrarily to what can be said for some southern cemeteries, namely
those of Abydos (U, B), Hierakonpolis (Loc. 6, Loc. 33 tomb 100) or Qustul L, Seyala
137, which have been convincingly demonstrated as belonging to the local or regional
chiefs, no similar proposal or conclusion has been drawn, to my knowledge, for any
Lower Egyptian (L.E.) cemetery or tomb (also those which yielded royal insignia like
pottery incised/painted serekhs) of Naqada IIC-IIIC1 (c. 3500-3000BC).
There are indeed some indications which seem to suggest that there could have
existed independent regions or at least localities up to the very end of Dynasty 0;
these conclusions are generally based on the occurrence of royal names (as Horus
Crocodile, Scorpion II and others) which haven't been (yet) recovered in the Abydos
L.P. cemeteries. But as we have seen, in L.E. during Naqada IIIA-B we don't know
any cemetery which may be certainly attributed to local polities' rulers: this heavily
influences our opinion about Abydos: the absence of the mentioned evidence leads us
to believe that the Thinite could have already been at that time the leaders of the
whole Egyptian Nile Valley. But this is far from being an ascertained fact, although
remaining a concrete possibility. The 'political' situation of early Naqada III L.E. and
Delta is, therefore, still a partial riddle.
All these factors must be taken into account, for they risk to bias our view of the
processes developed during Naqada III. One of the central points here, is just the role
of the Abydos lite before Naqada IIIC - beginning of Dynasty 1 (circa 3060 BC):
should the enormous amount of gravegoods and imported Palestinese wine-jars found
in Scorpion's tomb U-j at Abydos be interpreted as a clue that this king already
reigned all over Egypt (in Naqada IIIA1/a2, i.e. 20050 years before Narmer), or can
we only assume he had overwhelmed the other regional polities of the Qena bend area
(such as Naqada: cf. the Gebel Tjawty panel)? Surely long distance trade with
Southern Levant (espec. luxury goods as wine, oil, cedar wood, resins) was already
very important for Upper and Lower Egyptian societies at that time (and even before:
e.g. Maadi, Buto). But we are not impelled to presuppose a U.E. monopoly for that,
and not even a colonization of Near Eastern centres; this latter circumstance seems to
have only occurred late in Dynasty 0 up to the first half of Dynasty 1.
Probably the Thinites initially availed of trade intermediaries: in the case of the
Southern Levant route, these middlemen must have been the North Egyptians, whose
culture -up to early Naqada II- still differed from the Southerners' "Naqadian" one.
We don't know when did these relations (if any) cease and whether did the Thinites
exploit an alternative trade-route via the Wadi Hammamat and Red Sea as it's been
also proposed. In Naqada IIIA-B, there is no trace of any royal name (before *Iry-Hor
and especially Ka and Narmer) which has been identified in distant spots of the Nile
Valley: the exception is king (?) "Double Falcon", known from U.E. [Adaima,
Abydos(?)] to N. Sinai and S. Palestine. But it has not been demonstrated that this
serekh (cf. the different variants in, van den Brink, Archo-Nil 11, 2001) is a
personalized one, thus identifying a precise early Naqada IIIB ruler's name. Stan
Hendrickx has expressed his perplexities about the actual value as a personal royal
name of all the plain, anonymous and even some apparently 'personalized' serekhs
pre-dating those of late Naqada IIIB (ab Horus Ka).

This period was an age of transition, equally or even more than the Early Dynastic
was. We can follow the evolution of determined 'patterns' which led to incredible
achievements of the late Dynasty 0, in turn brilliantly pursued in the dynastic times.
On the other hand, a number of other paths (which however make up an equally
significant part of L.P. archaeological data characters) were abandoned and did not
survive to the rapid changes and turmoiled centuries of the political unification and/or
to the radical re-canonization and new organization of the First Dynasty state.
To adequately follow the growth of the pre- and early- dynastic civilization, we
should analyze both the differences/breaks between them and the elements of
continuity/evolution; every single feature of the material culture we are facing with
must be properly studied: the evident character that manufacts, their attributes and
other products express (primary use, style and typology, technology and material
used, diffusion) but also their more hidden or concealed aspects (ideology and
symbolic value, eventual hidden purpose and 'esoteric' meaning).
The early royal name is one of these patterns of which we can analyze the structure
(graphic compound form), meaning, diffusion and historical evolution, in order to
attempt to isolate relevant data not only for the specifical matter but, as we'll see, for
wider range objectives too.

2.1 - The Late Predynastic 'Serekh'

The Serekh (henceforth s.) is a roughly rectangular stylized representation of a niched-
faade building (or part thereof). The top of the s. can be both plain or rounded
concave and a falcon can be perched on it [2]. Inside, the proper s. is generally divided
in an upper part, which can be occupied by the royal name, and a lower part which is
framed by the vertical lines representing the palace faade niches, slits or bastions.
There can be many variants to this general formula: plain serekhs (P.), as defined by
E. van den Brink, are composed of the palace faade frame only, while anonymous
(A.) serekhs display both the niched faade and the name compartment above it, but
this latter is left empty. The falcon is frequently omitted and, in a very few instances,
it is represented beside, rather than atop of the s.
There can be P. or A. serekhs with two falcons (in almost all the cases facing at each
other) which are, with some doubt, thought to represent an individual king's name,
Double Falcon.
In some cases, Horus Ka's name appears in the lower part of the s., while the top of
this latter has the niched design or an AH- palace looking motif (cf. n. 2; also J. Kahl,
Das System..., 1994, 38ff.).
Some royal names could be referred to as 'serekhs' even though they are not written
within the serekh, as Pe-Hor and Iry-Hor (which consist of a falcon with its legs on a
monogram, P and R respectively) or some examples of Narmer's name.
Early kings' names could be written with only a monogram (Scorpion), or there can be
a star or "Rosette" which is thought to be another indicator of royal name (as in
Scorpion II's name; cf. bibl. in n. 10).

In the classical royal titulary, the s. is the first of the five titles, representing the so
called Horus name (or Ka-name).[3]
It is generally assumed that the Falcon is the archaic sky-god Horus (cf. n. 2) who
protects the king and his residence; most of the scholars believe that s. represent the
royal palace, but there are some exceptions (royal tomb, funerary enclosure, false
door).[4]
In any case we can consider it as a powerful graphical metonymy of conceded
authority (n. 5): a numinous or divine being, of which the falcon is a hypostasis, rests
and watches over the residence of the reigning monarch, which is a very direct
symbol; the palace, from where the king commands, is a sort of micro-cosm of the
whole state territory, which the king rules just "in the name of the god", under the
god's protection and for god's will and delegation. It is not a case that the king-name,
which labels the serekh-palace, is written below the falcon, with evident implications
about the nature of the early divine kingship.

The Egyptian word for "srkh" is only later attested and its meanings are generally
based on the terms which indicate: a banner for the Horus-name, a throne, a palace
faade, a memorial (stela); alternatively the word etymology has been related to the
causative of the verb rekh, (srkh, 'cause to know', 'to display', 'to learn about').[5]
The Horus name written with(-in) the s., was the official name of the Dynasty 0-3
sovereigns, with rare exceptions [6]; from Snofru onward the cartouche name became
the main and most frequently used one (attached to the Nswt-bity 'prenomen' and to
the Sa-Ra name) so that the Horus name knew a more restricted use and it is in fact
far less frequently encountered (alone) in the inscriptions.
Another debated topic concerning the s. compound, relates to the way in which the so
called 'Horus name' should be read and interpreted with regards to the falcon; there
are different possible options (cf. note 3, esp. W. Barta 1969, Goedicke 1988):
1) The king's name as a specification, attribute or quality of the god Horus [Hrw-Ahaj:
"Horus, to whom the Fighter belongs"];
2) The falcon as a specification, attribute or quality of the king's name [Aha-Hrwj;
"The Fighter, to whom Horus belongs"]
3) The king's name as an expression of his identification with Horus [Hrw Nar:
"Horus (is) the Catfish (-god)"]
4) Horus as genitive (-subjective) of the king's name [Ka Hrw: "Ka of Horus" (or,
very unlikely, "(The) Bull of Horus")]
5) Horus as a title for the king's name [Hrw Ka: "Horus Ka", or "Horus and Ka", or
"Horus(-name): Ka"]
Obviously, apart from the philological alternatives, any of these interpretations does
also imply a different underlying conception of kingship, of king's divinity and of
king's (and falcon's) significance, status and essence.
It is not impossible besides, that the Egyptians acknowledged the s. more than one of
the proposed functions and interpretations at one time; in their mentality in fact, the
exclusion principle did not necessarily always apply: an apparent contradiction of
terms - according to our own way of reasoning and conceiving reality - could instead
fairly subsist in their conceptions, and also constitute a fruitful enrichment and
accumulation of symbols into the 'hieroglyphic-logo' designated to shelter and display
the kings' names [6b].

Most of the known Late Predynastic serekhs are incised on tall wine jars found in
Egypt (and Southern Levant); the incision was made with a pointed (probably bone or
ivory-) tool in the wet clay of the vessel's shoulder, and sometimes an additional mark
was incised beside the s. (possibly these are connected with the 1st Dyn. pot-marks
and might have been properties indicators).
Much more rarely s. are found to have been scratched on the pots after these had been
baked (post-firing incisions; Table 1: pfi).
On cylinder jars the s. were painted with dark ink (by a 2-4mm thick brush), the royal
name hieroglyphs were more cursive and accompanied by the indication of the Upper
or Lower Egyptian tax (respectively jp Shema, Hn/nHb MeHw).
The earliest known seal impressions with clear royal name are from Iry-Hor's reign
(Abydos and Zawiyet el Aryan) but there are older examples which might perhaps
have born high status individuals' names we cannot yet interpret as such.[7]
S. also appear carved on various types of artefacts, thus objects which are not directly
related to the economic / administrative subsystem: these must be rather conceived for
kingship propaganda (powerfacts), being luxury ceremonial manufacts full of
symbolic meanings (Metropolitan Museum palette, ivory knife handles, A-group
incense burners).
 METROPOLITAN MUSEUM PALETTE
(with Anonymous/plain Serekh)
Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York 28.9.8
Unprovenanced, h. cm. 8,5 (schist)

Description

Bibliography
Hayes, Scepter of Egypt p. 28-9, fig. 22
Montet, Le jeu du serpent, CdE 30, 189-197
Fischer, Artibus Asiae 21, p.82 ff, n.34, fig. 19,20;
Asselberghs, Chaos en Beheersing fig. 170
Cialowicz, Les palettes ... Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 3, 1991, 48-49 (+ bibl.); 71f.
J.O. Gransard-Desmond, Les Canidae de la Prehistoire a la Iere Dynastie en Egypte et en Nubie,
1999, (Corpus n. 77)
Raffaele, Dynasty 0, in: Bickel - Loprieno (eds.), Egyptology Prize 1, AH 17, 2003, 99-141

... ... ...

NOTE: It must be noted that the datation of this palette is very difficult on the basis of the extant
material.
The supposed time span of its manufacture, Naqada IIIa2/b1, could fairly be extended up to Naqada
IIIc2 (Aha, Djer): the sign inside the serekh should not be interpreted as the Djer hieroglyph, but the
falcon type and the coiled serpent are typical of early 1st dynasty.
The Serekh doesn't look to be a later addition. It could also be a representation of a building (shrine)
surmounted by the protector-god, thus not being directly related with a sovereign (cf. Hunters palette;
Sobek temple on a sealing attributed to Horus Crocodile) but rather referring to a place-name.
The Minshat el Ezzat palette has been found in a tomb of the period of Den; this means that these
palettes with elaborate decoration still circulated at that time and it cannot be excluded that 1st
Dynasty artisans eventually attempted to copy early Naqada III masterpieces, although I still prefer to
interpret the M.e.E. palette as an heirloom already some centuries old at the time of Den.
 Description

The Hunters Palette (Lion Hunt palette)

B.M. 20790, 20792 + Louvre E 11254 (upper left fragm.)
Unprovenanced - h. 66,8 cm (x 25,7) (schist)

Bibliography
Heuzey, Rev. Arch. 1 (1890) p. 145-62, pl. 4,5 (Louvre fragm.)
Budge, in: Classical Review 4, 1890, 322-323
Maspero, in Heuzey op.cit. p. 335-338 (Louvre fragm.)
Steindorff, FS Ebers (1897) p. 126 (B.M. and Louvre)
Heuzey, C.E. Acad. 1899 p. 60-7, pl.4; C.E. Acad. 7,8 (1915) p.345-52, pl. 17
Capart, Rec. de travaux 22 (1900) p. 108-110
Legge, P.S.B.A. 22 (1900), 108ff., pl.2; id., P.S.B.A. 31 (1909), pl. 45
Capart. Le Debut de l' art ... (1904) p. 226-8, pl. I p.223
Benedite, Mon. Piot 10 (1904) p. 112
Ranke, Alter und Herkunft der agyptischen "Lowenjagd-Palette", in Sitz. Heidelb. Ak. Wiss., 1924-5,
5. Abh., 12p., 3pl.
Schott, Hieroglyphen, pl. 2, fig. 3
Vandier, Manuel I p. 574-579, fig. 380
Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes pl. A3
Fischer, Artibus Asiae 21 p.64-88
Weill, Ire Dynastie I p.177ff (2 hierogl. above)
id. II, p. 183-5 (with full bibl.; reports wrong height of 76,7 cm)
Asselberghs, Chaos en ... p. 284, 329, n. 122
Roland Tefnin: Image et histoire. Reflections sur l' usage documentaire de l' image ... Chron. d' Eg. 54.
1979/ 218-44
Spencer, E.D.O. p. 79, n. 575 (full bibliogr.), pl. 63
Needler, Predynastic and Archaic Objects in the Brooklyn Museum p. 329 (for the probable
chronological position)
Cialowicz, Les Tetes de massues..., 1987, 58f.
W. Davis, Masking the Blow, esp. p. 93ff.
Cialowicz, Les palettes ... Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 3, 1991, 55ff. (+ bibl.); 66ff.
Cialowicz, SAAC 5, Prace Arch. 54, 1992, 7ff.
Cervello Autuori, Un precedente del serej faraonico en la paleta predinastica de la caza?, Aula
Orientalis 13, 1995, 169-175 (not consulted).
J.O. Gransard-Desmond, Les Canidae de la Prehistoire a la Iere Dynastie en Egypte et en Nubie,
1999, (Corpus n. 73)
Cialowicz, La naissance d' un royaume... 2001 p. 189-191
Hendrickx, Autruches et flamants- Les oiseaux reprsents sur la cramique prdynastique de la catgorie Decorated, in:
CCdE 1, 2000/ 21-52.

sealing
 Description
Minshat Ezzat palette
(Manshiyet el-Ezzat)
 Minshat el Ezzat t. 82 (area A1 - sect. 10)
h. cm. 23,6

Bibliography
Salem Gabr el Baghdadi: La Palette decore de Minshat Ezzat ... una palette decore en contexte
archaeologique, Archo-Nil 9, 1999, 9-11.
El-Baghdadi, El Said Nur, in: Cialowicz, Chlodnicki, Hendrickx, Origin of the State... 2002,
Proceedings in press (2004)
S. El-Baghdadi, Proto and early Dynastic necropolis of Minshat Ezzat, Dakahlia province, Northeast
Delta, Archo-Nil 13, 2003
Z. Hawass, National Geographic Jan 2003, Italy (full page photograph of the decorated side of the
palette)

Links
http://guardians.net/sca/Monshaet_Ezzat.htm
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2000/468/tr4.htm

... ... ...

Salem Gabr El Boghdadi, chief archaeologist of the area and the responsible of the pre mentioned
excavations is fascinated by the unearthed alabaster, shiest and arduous utensils, the plates in different
size and shapes, but the masterpiece is that beautiful knife bearing Den's serekh. Den was the fifth
king of the first Dynasty that ruled Egypt and the serekh was the shape that included the king's name
and was developed to become the cartouche. Some of his remains are actually displayed in Cairo
Museum. Hor, on top of the serekh is represented as a falcon to express the fact that Den was a
powerful king and that he, as a ruler, was strong and his reign a particularly characteristic and
prosperous. Amongst the unearthed objects a cylindrical seal bearing Hieroglyph inscriptions that
might represent the owner's title or his position, the signs smr-sk3mr.sb3 might probably design the
combination of the soul and the ba according to the SCA archaeologists who worked hard to unearth
properly these valuable items. The discovered palettes are very few and don't exceed ten, but the
actually unearthed palette is exclusively beautiful in its designs as it represents animals. The palette
was restored as it was broken into four parts, but thus repaired it looks almost complete. The
rare symbols inscribed denote its reference to the Old Kingdom. The inscriptions reveal a
hunting dog pursuing an elegant animal that looks like a jumping gazelle trying to run away
from the dog. That dog is also followed by an animal looking like a gazelle but in a peaceful
attitude; this attitude, according to the area manager Ibrahim El Saidi, denotes peace and
tranquility that were characteristic of the reign during this period. The two animals represented
in a unique position are the symbol of the unification between Upper and Lower Egypt; the two
animals facing each others hold their tails in an upright position. Their long necks interlace in a
mythological appearance; this embrace is a significant sign of the unification. The animals' nails
are reproduced with the other animal represented at the lower part of the palette, its an animal
with long ears and a tail lying at his back and standing in a very peaceful position. A feather that
looks like a palm tree is depicted to the furthest right of the palette whose general shape is the
representation of a heart completely intact apart from the upper left part that is missing. The
palette still needs a long study in order to interpret properly the significance of the pre
mentioned symbols, as they might relate a specific event or simply a story like the other ten
discovered palettes referred to the same period and found at various dates. Generally speaking
the interpretation of the SCA archaeologists is that the palette relates a certain struggle that had
existed in the area and was followed by unification and peace. This struggle occurred during
Den's regency known as king of Upper and Lower Egypt during the first Dynasty whose founder
was the famous Mena, Mena palette is actually exhibited in Cairo Museum in a prominent place.
Dr.Gaballah Ali Gaballah, Secretary General to the Supreme Council checked on the site the progress
of the works there and said " we hope to discover more and more tombs related to this period that goes
back to five thousand years. We also hope that we can find more exclusive and rare findings related to
that important period of our history as excavations reveal the consecutive and continuous progress of
civilization over these important spots in Egypt's land. We can easily notice, through the perpetual use
of a specific necropolis the evolution steps occurred in the Ancient Egyptian Civilization. I praise the
efforts of the SCA employees in the Egyptology Department supervised by Dr.Mohamed El
Soghayar". Monshaet Ezzat, El Senbellawein, Dakahlia governorate is only part of a series of
important archaeological sites covering various ruling Dynasties periods. Tell El Rabee is a 230
feddans surface including pharaonic relics and monuments such as temples, compartments, granite
naos, mastabas, rams necropolis with huge granite sarcophagi.etc. Tell El Balamoun, 158 feddans was
Diospolis Parva during the Ptolemaic reign and was mentioned in important documents, in Edfu texts
she was the capital of Behdet Nome. Many important sites cover not only Dakahlia governorate but
also the whole Delta area and are subject of great interest from the SCA and the foreign working
missions acting in Egypt.

URL: http://guardians.net/sca/Monshaet_Ezzat.htm

Note that these palettes, which have already been hypothesized as possibly provincial (Delta) pieces,
are generally considered to be of Naqada III date, thus predynastic; the occurrance here with objects
of Den might also mean that this piece was already some 200-250 years old when buried, but
certainly if more of these objects were found in a similar middle Ist dynasty archaeological contexts
would completely change the chronology of these pieces. (F.Raffaele)

In Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia there are sporadic traces of Late Predynastic graffiti
with P., A. and personalized s.: the prototype is probably the Gebel Tjauty tableau,
with a scorpion below a falcon related to a complex scene(cf. infra), then a small
number of anonymous s. in the western and eastern deserts (reported to have been
incised alone, i.e. not being part of a representation or inscription) and the Gebel
Sheikh Suleiman one (on the left of a scene showing the aftermath of a fluvial battle)
which is apparently plain and surmounted by a falcon.[8]
The origin of the graphical compound which constitutes the s. is rather obscure: it can
be hypothesised that the prime inspiration for this symbol were the Elamite and
Mesopotamic temples which were represented on cylinder seals as early as the middle
of the IVth Millennium BC (Susa II-III and Uruk V-IVC corresponding to Palestine
EB Ia, U.E. Naqada IIC-D and L.E. Buto II).
The same inspiration must have influenced the much later architectural palace-faades
observed in early Naqada IIIC1 (c. 3000 BC) tombs and mudbrick enclosures (at
Naqada, Abydos Kom es-Sultan and North Saqqara early in the reign of Hor Aha).
However, already during early Naqada III (A-B) there were in Egypt artefacts and
administrative objects (as decorated knife handles, palettes, vessels, tags and seals)
portraying shrines and royal palaces with architectural parts recalling the serekh
device. Shortly later, shrines and plain s. also occur on Lower Nubia A-Group
artefacts (incense burners, seals and painted vases).
It should however be made a distinction between true serekhs and representations of
shrines: although, as we have explained, the latter could have been at the origin of the
former one, we can generally understand the proper function and symbolic value of
the two categories, which is often a somewhat different one. Moreover it is very hard
to establish the secure origin of a motif like the s., which might have embodied
already since its origin a multitude of influences, meanings and functions.

Pot-marks in the shape of crude plain serekhs are found on Lower Egyptian tradition
pottery (late Maadi, Buto I-II, Naqada IIBC) which should be the oldest examples
known to date (post firing incised ?) (T. Von Der Way 1993; A. Jimnez 2002).
At Ezbet et-Tell (Southern Palestine) early anonymous serekhs seem to date as early
as late Naqada IIIa2 or early IIIb1.
In Upper Egypt the earliest ce rtain royal name is that of Scorpion
(the renowned owner of Abydos tomb U-j, born around 3330/3250 BCE) whose name
is written in ink on jars (and incised on few bone tags).

In some of the ink attestations it's formed by the scorpion standing on a flat
rectangular sign with inner vertical and horizontal crosshatched lines, perhaps a
further example of proto-serekh or a 'topological' (district?) hieroglyph (cf. the same
sign painted on cylinder jars from tomb U-s: Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, pl. 59b-c).
Further hieroglyphic signs from the same context have been compared with royal
names or even early s. (see pt. 2.3).
Some decades later (early Naqada IIIB) in some of the latest predynastic tomb of the
Abydos cemetery U (U-t, U-s) ink inscribed anonymous s. are found on cylinder net-
painted jars.

It has been advanced that the s. was originally a symbol/mark of royal ownership, i.e.
signalising that the commodity on which container it was incised or painted did
belong to the local or regional chief (see pt. 3 below).

2.2 - Geographical distribution

As I have premised, royal names and s. are known from different periods and places.
[9]

NORTHERN SEREKHS
The principal L.E./Delta sites where Naqada IIIB personalized and anonymous
serekhs have been found are Tarkhan, Turah, Helwan (N.E. Fayum and S. Memphite
region), El-Beda (N.E. Delta) and N. Sinai. Most of these finds were scarcely
documented, however -I rehearse- it seems that the richest tombs where serekh
inscriptions were found, did belong to rich citizen or local (?) lite members, not to
regional chiefs. The later serekhs might have been of contemporaries of Ka and
Narmer. Some names (uncertain readings) are: Double Falcon (?), Nj-Hor, Hatj-(Hor),
Hedjw(?)-Hor, Hor Nj-Neith, Horus Crocodile...
Plain serekhs are more widespread, for they've been found in many more sites and
even earlier/later than Naqada IIIB. They've been also reported (and published) in
many Southern Levant sites (where, apart from few anonym. serekhs and one possibly
of Double Falcon, the personalized ones start to abound only since late Naqada IIIB
and early IIIC, the period of "Egyptian colonisation" of EB Palestine centres; for this
period specimen, the finds mostly derive from modern excavations, and they are
therefore better published, i.e. exact provenance and associated finds have been
recorded).

T. von der Way and others have dated plain serekhs from Maadi and Buto
(fragmentary jars potmarks) as early as Naqada IIB-C. This coincides with the first
period (around 3500 BC) in which Egyptian artifacts show influences of
Mesopotamic (Uruk V-IV) and Elamite (Susa II-III) glyptic motifs (another period of
heavy N.E. influx seems to have been late Naqada IIIB/ late 'Dynasty 0'). The nature
of Egypt-Syro/Palestine interactions during EBI(A-B) is not yet precisely defined.
Material finds [a wide range of Egyptian objects types found in Canaanites sites and
Palestinese jar types known in some Egyptian (Late) Predynastic sites] demonstrate
that non occasional trade relations already existed at least since the beginning of the
second half of the Fourth Millennium. But it is hard to establish when did this relation
mutated into a form of Egyptian colonialism. Andelkovic (1995) believes that this
occurred in the c. 2 centuries of EB IA (Naqada IIIa-b). In this period, Egypt consisted
of few proto-states or already one early state, whereas Southern Levant centers were
still in the proto-urban phase and therefore at a 'lower step' of society in terms of
cultural evolution (chiefdoms, rural communities and small-medium sized villages).
Thus there was no competition possible, Egyptians being far superior in their
organization; there is indeed inconsistent indication for struggles and the known
fortifications (like at Tell Erani) were plausibly meant to defend (both the indigenous
people and the Egyptians colonists) against incursions of local marauders' bands.
The most important material which Egypt imported from Levant was the Lebanese
cedar wood which was needed in civil and funerary architectures infrastructures and
furniture, whereas the main imported product was certainly wine.

SOUTHERN SEREKHS
If we exclude the cited king (?) Double Falcon, it is only at Abydos that we find a
variety of early examples. There are early Naqada IIIB(IIIb1) anonymous serekhs
from cem. U

(ink-drawn on net-painted cylinder jars). Earlier sources (esp. tomb U-j, Naqada
IIIA1/IIIa2) haven't yielded any trace of this royal-name device: a possible exception
is the palace faade bird-topped shrine carved on some bone labels
 from tomb U-j: (upper row): as I have said above, this is interpreted as a toponym,
which is very likely, and it could relate to "Djebawt" (Buto) in Dreyer's opinion
(contra A. Jimenez Serrano: he proposes it, as well as the temple represented on
Narmer's macehead, should rather refer to the Nekhen temple -within the town of
Hierakonpolis-).
A serekh-like motif is known scratched on a Black topped ware from Naqada (Ic) t.
1546 where a (ibis?) bird is perching on a tall convex-topped structure (?) (W.M.F.
Petrie, Naqada..., pl. 51.28; E. Baumgartel, in: JEA 61, 1975, 31, pl. X.2; J. Kahl, Das
System..., 1994, 157, 159, n.88; J. Crowfoot-Payne, Catalogue..., 1993, 40, fig.
25.174 = Ashmolean Mus. cat. n. 1895.324).
The late Barbara Adams has interpreted as a possible proto-serekh (of plain type) a
sherd of white cross-lined pottery found among later (Naqada III) ceramics in the
Area 1 of the Hierakonpolis cemetery at Locality 6 (B. Adams, in: CCdE 3/4, 2002, 8,
25, fig. 5); in this case it is very difficult to somehow relate the small Naqada I
squarish drawing (depicted within vertical dotted lines) to the later s. of Naqada III.

The palace-faade shrines represented on Naqada III palettes and knife handles are
mostly unprovenanced (however see the recent Abydos finds published by Dreyer, the
new Hierakonpolis knife handle restored at Oxford: H. Whitehouse, MDAIK 58, 2002
with full bibliography).
Plate 2 (nr. 12, 18, 23a-b) illustrates falcon topped s. found on Lower Nubian
Terminal A-group carved artefacts. The nature of these objects and their
representations, as well as the peaceful (trade) and violent relations between Egypt
and Lower Nubia have been summarised in my page and article on Dynasty 0.

2.3 - Formal Evolution of Predynastic Royal names

The German team directed by G. Dreyer has excavated some bone tags with incised
signs (among the earliest hieroglyphs currently known), on a number of which a bird
topped serekh-like building is shown: this is actually much similar to a falcon-topped
plain serekh, yet it is likely to represent a toponym for the settlement of Buto (see
above for a different interpretation).
The vaulted shrine carved on the Hunters palette has been proposed (by J. Cervell
Autuori, in: Aula Orientalia 13, 1995) as an origin or a precursor of the serekh motif.
Similarly -as I have premised above- buildings and structures depicted and carved on
other objects should be considered possible s. precursors [for a more detailed list and
description see my article Dynasty 0, quoted in n. 9, and its shorter/older web
version]: yet we don't know if the shrines carved on early Naqada III pieces have to
be related to the Near Eastern motifs influence or, instead, it was a fully Egyptian
achievement based on imitation of contemporary indigenous wickerwork
'architectures'.

One of the most important indications for reconstructing the history of early Naqada
III Egypt has been the recent discovery by Deborah and John C. Darnell of the so
called Gebel Tjauty tableau of king Scorpion. This discovery has many possible
implications for the knowledge of the relationship between Thinis and other powerful
centers of that time and region (it is supposed that the panel reports the victory of
Scorpion over a ruler of the nearby Naqada, situated some miles to the SE of Gebel
Tjawty). Without pursuing into historical speculative assertions I want to make three
remarks about this source:
1) Contrarily to the so called "commemorative" documents (decorated artefacts
destined to tombs or temples such as palettes, maceheads, knife-handles, vessels and
some desert graffiti) which are nearly univocally interpreted as embodying symbolical
and ritual significance and intents, rock graffiti of the mentioned genre are universally
acknowledged as a kind of historical reportages (the same has always been for the
Lower Nubian graffito of Gebel Sheikh Suleiman).
2) Some elements of this Scorpion's tableau could be useful to comprehend parallel
proto-hieroglyphs attested on decorated ivories. (For this latter specifical trait see the
discussion I have dedicated to the argument in the Dynasty "00"/Scorpion I section).
3) This point could be connected with the argument of the present paper: among the
possible proto-hieroglyphs which can be found on the Scorpion graffito, two of them
seem to cover the role of indicator of personal names of the scene protagonists: the
defeated captive seems to be labelled with a bucranium set on a pole (this could also
represent the territory were the captive came from; Dreyer has proposed that a
Bucranium on pole, written in ink on some jars from t. U-j, should be read as a royal
name); before the procession (closed by the victorious king himself) an interesting
pair of clearly incised hieroglyphs is constituted by a scorpion below a falcon. If both
these signs really refer to the named ruler, and to himself only, we would have here
the first certain attestation of a king's name paired with the Falcon God (Hrw?), this
latter already having a title-like function. Comparable pair of hieroglyphs are incised
on some of the small tags from tomb U-j, whereas on jars ink inscriptions the
hieroglyph of the scorpion occurs alone or with a rectangular sign (similar to later
district-signs such as spt or she; cf. above at the end of part 2.1).

The canonized and definitive version of the s. only appeared late in Naqada
IIIB/Dynasty 0 (Horus Ka/Sekhen).
Even during the Dynastic period there were different graphical variations of s.: e.g.
the falcon could wear different crowns, it was substituted by Seth/Ash during
Peribsen's reign and by the divine pair Horus & Seth during Khasekhemwy's one, late
in the Second Dynasty. In the early- First Dynasty the falcon tends to lose its roughly
horizontal posture in favour of a more oblique one; by the same period (Aha, Djer) the
concavity of the upper part of the s. is dismissed and the upper line is always drawn
straight.
Other variants (see the list below or the plate 2 above) were the painted s. of
Crocodile from Tarkhan (no palace faade; also cf. note 2), those of Nj-Neith (lateral
falcon), *Hedjw-Hor (palace faade is substituted with three mace-like objects), Iry-
Hor (no serekh) and more (e.g. the many forms in which Narmer's name is attested).
All these differences are comprehensible, and not only in geographical terms, because
the standard of the royal name compound was not yet fixed and did not conform to a
single form before the end of Naqada IIIB/early IIIC.

We have mentioned some of the variations in Ka's serekhs (reversed ka and/or

serekh): at that time there was also a broader genre of differences, such as in the reign
of Scorpion (II) who employed the Rosette instead of the Serekh to accompany the
royal name. We can postulate two alternative reasons for this difference in the
'Dynasty 0' royal titulary:
1) King Scorpion (II) belonged to the Thinite Dynasty 0, and he must have been
buried at Abydos cemetery B in a tomb which has not yet been located (or in tomb
B50, few meters south of Umm el-Qaab O) as G. Dreyer supposed. Thus the adoption
of a different title must have depended on the fact that the designation of royal name
'protocol' in the written documents was not yet fully developed at that time. In support
of this theory we could consider a short list-like inscription on a tile from the early
temple of Abydos: beside a long nsw (sw) hieroglyph (sovereign) are roughly and
vertically incised the hieroglyphs Ka, Scorpion (Srq ?) and R (no serekh) which A.
Jimnez-Serrano interprets as a likely rude indication of the late Dynasty 0 rulers'
succession [A. Jimnez- Serrano, Los reyes del Predinstico tardo (Naqada III), in:
BAEDE 10, 2000, 33-52; W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos II, pl. VIII.205].
2) W. Kaiser, M. Hoffman and others thought that Scorpion originated from a
different ruling line of a different region than the Thinite nome, likely from
Hierakonpolis (in M. Hoffman's opinion his tomb could perhaps have been nr. 1 of the
cemetery at Locality 6). In the southernmost Egyptian regional polity (capital
Nekhen), the rulers would perhaps be designated by a rosette or star: this could also
explain the diffusion of this symbol in Lower Nubia (Qustul cem. L), which surely
shared a durable trade partnership with Hierakonpolis.[10]

There is no doubt, but it is important to remark this fact, that the formal evolution of
the monarchs' name-designation is not only a matter of mutating aesthetics' canons
and ongoing elaboration of the laws of decorum: these systems were influenced and
guided by parallel developments in other spheres of the Egyptian civilization, namely
society, administration, politics and especially monarchy and religion. Beside these
factors, regional traditions and foreign influences (presumably with variable impact
onto different areas) could have had an additional, if not decisive role in shaping
initially divergent configurations of the paramount leadership and its aspects of
display.
Anyway, early in Naqada III, the slight discrepancies in these and in other features of
the Egyptian reigns traditions, must be considered already well advanced on their way
towards the uniformation. This process ("cultural unification") was favoured by the
Gerzean chiefdoms' tendency to the 'mobility', which first caused the "Upper Egyptian
way of life" to spread all over the Lower Nile Valley (before the end of Naqada II)
and then, perhaps after multiple episodes of war and warfare in various areas, brought
a few polities ('proto-states') to accomplish the final step for the creation of a unique
'national' entity (during Naqada IIIA1-C1).

Despite the fact that this age is currently attracting many researchers and excavation
campaigns, which is contributing to unveil more and more secrets of LP history and
culture, it still remains difficult to fully comprehend it. New and multi-varied
perspectives of study will certainly help the better understanding of many aspects of
this sector of Egyptology, but field-work and discoveries do remain the former source
for improvements and progresses in our study and knowledge.
For instance, it can be hard to positively date a certain ruler whose attestations are
only a few ones; but sometimes the form of the s. or details thereof can help us to
compare and establish parallels on palaeographic bases. Van den Brink (2001) has
reasonably argued for the possibility to attribute certain falcons of incised s. on
pottery fragments to the same artisan "hand".
This analysis, as well as that of the object (style, typology and material) on which the
s. is found, is often of fundamental importance for archaeological, chronological and
historical purposes.
In my opinion it could be possible to isolate regional styles in the decorations of late
Naqada II- early Naqada III palettes, knife handles and other objects, in the same way
as E. Finkenstaed (see note 13) has attempted to do for Naqada I and II painted
pottery (Petrie's C and D ware). The obstacles are obviously in that most of these
artefacts are of unknown provenance and limited number; and, for the provenanced
ones, there is always the possibility that they were object of trade or gift in the
antiquity.

3 - 'Serekhs', early royal names, niched architecture and emergence of writing

It is in Upper Egypt that the architectural motifs (which are thought by some scholars
to lie behind the serekhs stylised representations) are presently known from earlier
contexts: 1) Niche-like slits in tomb U-j chambers (similar to false doors between the
various rooms of the model royal-palace which the tombs seems to imitate). 2)
Naqada mastaba of Neithhotep (but this already dates early Naqada IIIC). The
important evidence of a bastioned palace- (?) gateway in the settlement of
Hierakonpolis (K. Weeks, in: JARCE 9, 1971, 29ff.) is generally considered, not
doubtlessly, of late Second Dynasty date (reign of Khasekhemwy).
However no similar early architectural feature is presently known from LE and Delta
before the First Dynasty: the evidence of possible faade decorations at Buto, which
would have consisted of clay cones ("Tonstifte" and "Grubenkopfnagel") applied to
the external walls like in the examples known from Mesopotamia, has revealed
misleading because the functional character of these pots has been clarified (bread
moulds, beer and salt production tools).
The mudbrick niched mastabas of the Memphite area date from Aha's reign, and those
of Minshat Abu Omar are even later (Den). Now, some authors have postulated that
the (plain) serekh might have originated in Lower Egypt: A. Jimenez Serrano, basing
on von der Way and on the finds from Maadi and Buto, has hypothesised that the
iconographic device could witness the emergence of L.E. culture lites in mid-late
Naqada II (GM 183, 2001). Van den Brink (ibid.) has challenged some of the
presuppositions Jimenez has availed of, yet seemingly joining on a theoretical,
hypothetical level, the general idea of a possible origin of the serekh (and niched
architecture) in Lower Egypt (influenced by the Near Eastern decorative motifs). He
also notes that evidence from jar-inscriptions is very dangerous to base on, for jars can
be and are usually traded, even along large distances. S. Hendrickx points to a more
probable independent origin of palace faade and serekh motifs in Upper Egypt (GM
184, 2001). He also believes that the three main types of serekhs (anonymous, plain,
personalized) might have had themselves a different (chronologically and
geographically) origin and evolution and that, the anonymous ones of Abydos
southern cemetery U (in ink on cylindrical net painted jars) predate the plain ones.
It is not certain that the complex niched architecture was the base or inspiration for
the serekh representation: maybe the latter imitated lighter materials buildings and the
palace faade derived from a later Near Eastern influence of Early 1st Dyn. date.
Moreover Hendrickx states that, apart from the jar type on which the serekhs appear
(which can be a chronological indicator, cf. vdBrink 1996, 2001), another important
diagnostic feature can be the same kind of inscription: pre-firing incised or painted
(post firing incised are quite rarer).
As also the other authors have noticed, the geographical distribution of the serekhs
(for which cf. Jimenez Serrano, Archo-Nil 12, in press) may not be a fully reliable
indicator of the presence of a local power nearby the findspot (cf. van den Brink
above).
Finally, even more important, Hendrickx underlines the possible antecedent of the
serekhs in the UE architectural structures (both in light materials and in mudbrick) at
least as early as 3300BC (mentioned slits in tomb U-j chambers).
This opens another problem: the origin of the wine jars on which serekhs are inscribed
(originally probable indicators of royal property). It can be thought that pottery was
occasionally or regularly manufactured elsewhere from where it was finally found. I
think that this problem could be solved with a deep analysis of documents (materials,
palaeography and, more limitately -for the inscriptions are usually short- epigraphy).
[Cf. similarly the stone vessels with incised inscriptions from Djoser's complex].
Some of the known pottery incised serekhs must have been drawn in Canaanite
centers.
The problem about relationship between architectural palace faade and
representational one (serekh) is that the earliest evidence for the former one are
actually much more recent than the latter; besides, the serekh, except perhaps those
from Maadi, are always assumed to have been attached to chiefs' or kings' ownership,
while the very first niched architecture presently known (Naqada IIIC1) is not directly
related to the kings, rather to their wives or courtiers.

Certainly, it is to be assumed that the mudbrick niched architecture has (1) a longer
history extending back in L.P. period and (2) an original urban destination (temples or
chiefs' residences) in lighter materials (3).
This doesn't imply that a prime Near Eastern influence should be dismissed at all as
the origin of the architectural (and iconographic) motifs: but this influx might have
occurred independently, in different stages and modalities for U.E. and Delta.
(1) must be still demonstrated archaeologically;
(2) can be deduced by the fact that, at least since early Naqada III up to the Dynastic
times, tombs and parts thereof were shaped with gods-, kings- or commoners-houses
resemblance and provided with goods and tools useful during life (and for a new life);
(3) is evidenced by the structure of the buildings figured on Naqada IIC-IIIB sealings,
carved ivories and other objects.

E. van den Brink's (1996, 2001) studies on pottery incised serekhs (and 1992; in press,
on 'potmarks') are fundamental for a more precise chronological arrangement of the
serekhs depending on the wine jar types on which they are incised. However there are
some (minor) problems with the datation of both some early types (I-II) as well as
later ones (III-IVa): e.g. some types seem to have overlapped with each others and
other ones could/must have had longer life-spans than supposed. It is hoped that the
corpus will continue to increase as well as that of cylindrical vessels with ink
inscriptions. Incised serekhs are often associated with further marks (similar to later
1st dyn. potmarks or true hieroglyphs) which should specify the origin or destination
of the commodity contained in the jar. Cylindrical vessels (esp. from Iry-Hor to
early/mid. 1st Dyn.) are associated with the indication of the U.E. or L.E. tax (cf.
above). Thus these latter, despite the different use, must also be considered beside the
other type pottery corpus.

To summarise to this point, the serekhs corpora are certainly one of the main elements
to be investigated in order to form better ideas on chronological, political (kings'
names and area of influence, state formation process) and economical/administrative
(trade organization, centres of production, of delivery, redistribution) matters.
Of course newer discoveries of this kind of sources will help to further clarify the
aspects just outlined: but, IMO, we also need to find the explanation of the wider-
range problems addressed above through the study of as various types of data as
possible. I mean, other categories of sources as rock drawings, settlement finds,
datable tombs, decorated/inscribed objects, gravegoods...
In general, the problem of the serekhs on jars is tightly related to that of the area of
influence of Naqada IIIA-early IIIB rulers, which is still open to debate in lack of
further evidence (from other sites and on different supports). Perhaps Abydos was
only one of the late Naqada II/early III proto-states of Egypt. The DAIK discoveries
there, have lead some scholars to suppose (on the basis of the massive evidence from
tomb U-j) that king Scorpion (I) did already reign on the whole Egyptian Nile Valley
around 3250BC. This recalls me of the (speculative) somewhat hazardous statements
that another great Egyptologist, B. Williams, attempted when he published the
material from the early 1960s K.Seele's excavations of the (Terminal A-group/
Naqada IIIa2-b2) Lower Nubian cemetery of Qustul L.
Indeed we actually don't know how many more royal tombs lie not yet unearthed at
Abydos itself. The same number of kings of the so called "Dynasty 0" is unknown.
Dreyer's theory of royal names carved on the Koptos colossi and other
monuments/objects, has been recently criticised [11] and the same attribution of the
name "Scorpion" (I) to the ruler buried in Abydos tomb U-j is far from being
undisputable. Right or wrong as these theories may be, we are still lacking a limpid
picture of the number of sovereigns (and of eventual parallel ruling lines) involved in
the long process of Unification during Naqada III and we ignore the exact way in
which this process was carried out (and the part that Abydos, Hierakonpolis and other
polities played in this).
Trade between LE and "Canaanites" existed from late Palaeolithic and espec.
Chalcolithic, but it was in Early Bronze IA-B (Naqada IIc-IIIb2, Mesopot. Uruk V-
IVa = c. 3500-3050 BC) that these interactions became regular. In this period Egypt
was undergoing a profound structural change, for the "Gerzean" or "Naqada" culture
spread in the Memphite region and Delta. Independently from the reason, we can
guess that trade was one of the chief factors which brought Upper Egyptians
involvement in Lower Egypt, thus substituting the local inhabitants and culture into
the Southern Palestine commercial relations.
The evidence of serekhs diffusion in Late Predyn. Delta and EB IB Canaan is
certainly an important clue about how developed must have been the Egyptian
administrative organization at that time. But if we are not able -also through other
paths- to ask more general questions, the evidence of serekhs distribution will turn out
to be, taken by itself, somewhat sterile in the discussions about the origin of the state,
although remaining of unlimited importance in other respects. Archaeologists are
often forced to proceed by inductive methods (rather than with deductive ones), even
if it can quite seem like composing a puzzle without having a reference picture of
what it will look like at the end of the game.

The earliest royal names did probably appear in order to establish the ownership of
certain valuable goods, which were the object of long distance trade. The same pattern
was at the origin of the earliest s., which were marked on the vessels to generically
indicate that the goods they contained were 'royal property'.
At that time there was already a way to indicate the name of distinct places and
individuals by means of a developed code of signs which rendered both the phonemic
aspect and the semantic category of what was written.
It must have naturally followed, at a certain point, identifying the mark of royal
ownership with the actual reigning ruler's name itself, and this was achieved
personalising the s. by the association of the royal building (or whichever it
represented) with the name of its owner.

Early in Naqada III Egypt, at the time of the oldest ascertained royal names, writing
was already developed and used for different purposes.[12] But for more remote ages,
the question of the origin of s. and royal names melts with the thorny problem of the
invention of writing in Egypt.
Some time before true writing, there already existed a set of conventions apt to
represents the external reality such as animals and humans, plants, boats, water,
mountains, shrines, houses and smaller objects (weapons, traps, emblems, pelts...). As
these elements of the environment were becoming more and more frequently the
subjects of bidimensional representations, the way to draw them tended towards
standardization.[13]
The 'codification' of a series of rules to portrait reality occurred well before the similar
process which later involved the hieroglyphs signs elaboration. It is noticeable that the
canons adopted to draw the first hieroglyphs, were mostly the same as those applied
in the scenes represented on vessels and other s. In some cases these conventions
remount to Naqada I (C-ware paintings), but in many others they follow the later
Naqada II-III 'parameters' and style (or they were re-arranged anew).
At a certain moment, the representation of what was observed, started to be
complemented (or even substituted) by the representation of a meaning, a symbol, a
sort of graphical metaphor [14].
This must have occurred both in the sphere of pictured scenes and in that of the use of
graphic signs: a relevant individual could be portrayed on an object by indicating his
figure; later a name-label, pictographically indicating what his personal name was,
could be applied to the image of that individual; then, with the homophony and rebus
principles, a meaning could be conveyed by one or more (logographic or phonetic)
signs not directly related to what they pictured.
The same would be for places and other names and, much later, for fixing complex
expressions and concepts on any material.
But, in presence of isolated glyphs, as those carved on Naqada II artifacts, it becomes
very difficult to demonstrate their function as proto-writing and their meaning as
proper names.
In mid-late Naqada II, despite several indications that seem to show the transition
which led to the developed writing system known on the objects from tomb U-j, no
certain writing (thus no name) has been identified. But it is evident that the known
carvings and painting on various objects types, were by no means purely decorative
embellishments (see above).
Particular motifs on Gerzean sealings, vessels, knife handles and palettes could prove
to be onomastic indications (either personal names, gods' names, or clans' and place
names) which would therefore attest that the first sporadical use of a proto-writing
system arose before the state society, thus out of its subsystems' organizative needs.
Conversely, whatever the conclusions may be, it must be admitted that only the
transformation of the Egyptian chiefdom/ village communities into (proto-) states did
produce the urges which prompted the first forms of numerical notations and of
complex writing systems. As K. Bard (1992) concluded: "Early writing developed in
Egypt, then, to serve the state: for justifying its political organization, and for
facilitating its economic, administrative and religious control".[15]

Notes

[1]: General Bibliography on State Origin: M.A. Hoffman, Egypt before... 1979; B.
Trigger, The Rise..., 1983; B.J. Kemp, Anatomy..., 1989; W. Kaiser, MDAIK 46,
1990; id., GM 149, 1995; K. Bard: JAA 11, 1992; id., JFA 21, 1994; id. with
Carneriro, CRIPEL 11, 1989; id., with Rodolfo Fattovich, The Early Pharaohs: State
formation and Ideology in Ancient Egypt, n.p.; R. Fattovich, Definizione dei
complessi culturali dell' Egitto predinastico e loro rapporti reciproci, in: Africa 28,
1973, 257-89; id., Remarks on the dynamics of State Formation in ancient Egypt, in:
Dostal (ed.), On Social Evolution, 1984, 29-78; C. Kohler, GM 147, 1995; T. Von der
Way, MDAIK 47, 1991; F. Hassan, JWP 2, 1988; id., WA 29:1, 1997; C.E. Guksch,
Ethnological models and processes of state formation..., in: GM 125, 1991, 37-50; A.
Perez-Largacha, CRIPEL 18, 1996; M. Campagno, CCdE 5, 2003, 23-34; id., GM
188, 2002, 49-60; id., in press, abstract; A. Krol, in press, abstract. Also see the EEF
archives: cf. topics of 'Unification' (Nov 1998, May 1999), 'Nomes and Protostates'
(Sept. 2002) and my own page here.
For Naqada IIIA and IIIB history see the text and relative bibliographies of my pages
of "Dynasty 00" and Dynasty 0 respectively.
[2]: 'Serekh' can indicate either the only Ka-name + niched building or the whole
compound of this latter plus the falcon atop of it.
The adoption of the term s. is undoubtedly not seldom an improper short-cut, when it
is applied to royal names of L.P.: in this period these insignia often display a different
formal structure and may have divergent ideological bases and shared symbolism than
the dynastic ones, which context the term is generally used for.
It must also be stressed that the falcon is almost universally considered to represent
Horus (Hrw) since the earliest s., but Barta (1969) has also argued for an eventual
generic designation of the bird as bjk (hawk), reading s. as "Falcon of the (royal)
Palace".
Contrarily to the evidence known for 2nd Dyn. Peribsen and Khasekhemwy, no L.P.
serekh is known to be composed with a surmounting protector god different than the
falcon: the example on the seal impression from Tarkhan tomb 414 (Narmer reign) is
unlikely a bull-head topped serekh, rather the temple of Sobek (J.D. Degreef, pers.
comm.) in the nearby Fayyum area [see S. Donadoni, L'Arte nell' Antico Egitto
(1981), 1994, p. 33, fig. 6b for a similar later representation of the Sobek temple Per-
Nsr/Nw with a bucranium topped pole on it; for other L.P. bucrania faade shrines cf.
Quibell, Hierakonpolis pt. 1, pl. 2 and 14].
G. Dreyer (in: Umm el-Qaab I, 180), has proposed that the falcon upon s. could have
originated from a deified ruler who'd played a relevant role (perhaps as subjugator of
the Delta peoples); this king would be Dreyer's king Scorpion (I)'s successor, Falcon
I. However the question (which has parallels in the names of the roman Caesar and,
perhaps, in the Luvian-Hittite Labarna), as well as the entire interpretation by Dreyer
of certain -mostly animal- early hieroglyphic signs on Naqada III sources as
predynastic royal names, all remain highly hypotetic and have already been the object
of different critics (cf. F. Breyer and other authors cit. in n. 11).
[3]: On the (early) Horus names: H. Mller, Zur Formale Entwicklung der Titulatur
der gyptischen Knige, 1938; W. Barta, "Falke des Palastes" als ltester Knigstitel,
in: MDAIK 24, 1969, 51-57; id., in: ZAS 114, 1987, 105ff.; P. Kaplony, Eine
Schminkpalette von Knig Scorpion aus Abu 'Umuri (Untersuchung zur ltesten
Horustitulatur), in: Orientalia 34, 1965, 132-167; id., Sechs Knigsnamen der 1.
Dynastie, in: Orientalia Suecana 7, 1956; id., Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reichs, 1977,
111ff.; H. Goedicke, Zum Knigskonzept der Thinitenzeit, in: SK 15, 1988, 123-41;
J. von Beckerath, Handbuch der gyptischen Knigsnamen, (MAS 20) 1984, 11ff.,
45ff., 169ff.; W. Helck, Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit, 1987; R.H. Wilkinson, The
Horus name and the form and significance of the Serekh in the Royal Egyptian
Titulary, JSSEA 15, 1985, 98-104.
[4]: General Bibliography on Early Serekhs: Wignall, GM 162, 1998; A. OBrien,
JARCE 33, 1996, 123-138; cf. G. Dreyer, MDAIK 55, 1999, 4f.; for important
considerations on the Delta origin of Serekhs/mudbrick architecture, with palace-
faade features possibly reflecting the existence of relevant Maadi - Buto lites:
Jimenez-Serrano, GM 183, 2001, 71ff., interestingly commented by E. van den Brink,
GM 183, 2001, and disputed by S. Hendrickx, GM 184, 2001, 85-100, who proposes
arguments for an independent Upper Egyptian origin of both the iconographical and
architectural devices.
An interesting, but unluckily fragmentary, representation of the lower part of a s. with
a king (or statue ?) in front of him was found by Petrie in one of the tombs of the early
temple/town area at Abydos (Petrie, Abydos, pt. 2, 1903, 27, pl. X.216).

[5]: For the word serekh cf. WB IV, 200,3-14; Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 236-7.
For the etymology of this word also cf. O'Brien, op. cit., 124; A. Gardiner, Egyptian
Grammar (3rd ed.), p. 72 (and Hieroglyphic sign-list: O33). The identification of the
monarch with his abode, throne, seat or mat is a common metonymy in ancient (and
in some recent) cultures: from the NK the Egyptian sovereign is Per-Aa (Pharaoh,
Great House). At the end of the 1st Dynasty, some inscriptions commemorating the
Heb Sed festivals of Horus Qa'a

show his s. base drawn in the form of a throne instead than a palace faade (cf. J.
Baines, Trone et dieu..., in: BSFE 118, 1990, 5-37); on early Egyptian Kingship cf.
id., Origins of Egyptian Kingship, in: Silvermann- O'Connor (eds.), Ancient Egyptian
Kingship, 1995.
[6]: In short, some mid-Second Dynasty kings are known by their Neswt-Bity names
only (but this could depend on chance). The trend of cartouche names had already
begun in the 2nd (Sened, Peribsen) and 3rd Dynasty (Nebka and Huni / Nswt-Hu).
[6b]: A parallel for the relationship between falcon-god and king-name in the serekh-
name can be found in the 1st and 2nd Dynasty kings' "Nebty-name", where the two
goddesses are a common element of the Nsw-bity name (and part of the personal
name itself) besides that (or rather than ?) already a title, e.g. Horus Semerkhet: Nswt-
bity *Irj-Nebtj (or *Irj Netjer-Nebty); Horus Qa'a: Nswt-bity Qa a(w)-Nebty (instead
of Nswt-bity/Nebty: Irj-Netjer; Nswt-bity/Nebty: Qa'a).
Sen-Nebty and Shotep-Nebty are known on Qa'a labels where they're never preceded
by the Nswt-bity title: therefore these two might either be two different Nebty titles of
Horus Qa'a or his princes' names (cf. S-hotep-Nebty found on labels beside Qa'a's
serekh and Hotepsekhemwy's Nswt-bity name Hotep-Nebty)].
[7]: Foreign Near Eastern seals of early-mid Naqada II are chronologically followed
by Egyptian seal impressions -also found on Palestinese imported jars- from Abydos
cem. U (cf. similar ones from Naqada and Abusir el Meleq) showing Egyptian motifs
as geometric friezes, chaotic assemblages of animals and perhaps the earliest writing
signs (personal or place names ?) datable to Naqada IId. Cf. U. Hartung, in: MDAIK
54, 1998, 187-217; id., in SAK 26 1998, 35-50; id. Umm el-Qaab II, 2002; cf. n.12.
[8]: The graffito was found near Wadi Halfa (2nd cataract) and the whole sandstone
block is now at the Khartum Nat. Museum (Murnane, JNES 46, 1987; cf. Dynasty 0
webpage, pt. II and notes 68-71). It is mostly in relief, but some details (the s. falcon,
the water sign at the feet of the captive, the two towns signs and the boat 'sail') are
incised. The s. on the left hand of this panel is composed with three large niches
below a punctured upper part. The alleged falcon's hindpart was partly over-incised by
a horned mammal (antelope, dama deer, bovine ?) rough graffito. It is to be noted that
the falcon is too small, too decentralised (on the left) and in too high a position than it
should be if it really belonged to the serekh: this latter upper part seems to really end
at the level where it is shown in the line drawing; so we must either suppose that the
falcon had been erroneously drawn with oversized long legs and other incongruencies
or that it belonged to a later inscription (than the main Dyn. 0 scene) which was in
turn overincised with the gazelle-like animal. Just on the right of the falcon there is a
"j" (feather) hieroglyph! The whole block is densely inscribed with lines and columns
of Ptolemaic hieroglyphic inscriptions (omitted in the line drawing). Finally, it
necessitates to remark that, although difficult to exactly date stylistically, the graffito
must not be referred anymore to the reign of Horus-Djer (as it still happens) for it has
been shown (by Murnane) that the *djer-sign was instead the body of the leftwards-
facing antelope.
[9]: For early Naqada III serekhs 'lists' cf. the articles of W. Kaiser (1982), E.C.M. van
den Brink (1996, 2001), S. Hendrickx (2001), A. Jimnez-Serrano (2001, 2003)
quoted in the bibliography of the Corpus (see below in this page). For a discussions of
the known sources of 'Dynasty 0' kings: F. Raffaele, Dynasty 0, in: S. Bickel-A.
Loprieno (eds.) Aeg. Helvet. 17, 2003, 99-141.
[10]: The motif of rosette/florette (or star, palm-tree) is not only encountered in the
region of the southernmost three nomes of U.E. (as on the late Naqada IId-early IIIa
Brooklyn Knife handle from Abu Zeidan, south of Edfu; the Scorpion macehead,
Naqada IIIb2; perhaps the Metropolitan Museum knife handle). The Gebel Tarif knife
handle and more unprovenanced objects were probably found in the Abydos-Dendera
region: yet it is also very likely that Thinis and Nekhen lites/chiefs did exchange and
present to each other the masterpieces their craftsmen fashioned (the similar style of
animals skins on the Gebel Tarif ivory handle and on the Seyala golden mace-handle
has already been noticed). See F. Raffaele, The Dynasty 0 page, part II, note 28.
For the rosette/florette reading: H.S. Smith, in: Followers of Horus, 1992, 235-246.;
Schott, Hieroglyphen 1950, 25.
[11]: Cf. B. Kemp, in: CAJ 10:2, 2000; L. Baqu Manzano, in: BIFAO 102, 2002;
(followed by A. Jimenez, in: Archo-Nil 12, in press); F.A.K. Breyer, in: JEA 88,
2002, 53-65; J. Kahl, in: Archo Nil 11, 2001; id., in: GM 192, 2003; id., in: CdE in
press.
The Gebel Tjauty tableau has given new vigour to the identification of a ruler whose
name would be Scorpion (I) to be identified with the outstanding personage buried in
Abydos cemetery U, tomb U-j. However it must be stressed that alternative theories
have recently been proposed for the interpretation of both the mentioned graffito as
well as the corpora of inscriptions from tomb U-j (mainly small incised
bone/wood/ivory tags and ink signs on wavy handled jars) and those on the Towns
palette and Min Colossi.
Despite our omnipresent urge to extract historical informations from any source (as it
was with regards to the so called 'monuments of Unification') it is criticizable that
these early objects might have really contained any information about facts and events
(B. Kemp, J. Baines and, more recently, K. Khler, have pointed out the symbolic and
nearly "philosophical" status of early Egyptian representations which, as also H.
Asselberghs remarked in 1961, are more likely a vehicle of the lites' ideology,
beliefs, needs, psychology and traditions rather than cronicle-like narrations of real
events). However I would not categorically exclude the possibility that some late
Naqada II- early Naqada III representations could reflect or relate either to important
facts happened at the time the representations were carved or to some which were still
remembered by that time, thus having a (though relative) historical importance. This
would seem to be the case for the Gebel Tjauty graffito and perhaps for Narmer's
reign scenes on the famous palette, the Abydos label and the ivory cylinder from
Hierakonpolis (which all appear referring to more or less specifical campaigns against
precise rather than idealised enemies; but this is questionable and yet unproven).
All in all it seems sure that in the mind of Ancient Egyptians (in Predynastic as well
as in Dynastic times), it was not the effective historicity, and historical truth or
reliability of an event represented to be important, but the magical value (either
positive / propitiatory or negative / apotropaic) and the very effect that the
representation itself would have on the real World.
Finally, about early royal names, it is still to be definitively proved that proper kings'
names have already existed on artifacts and monuments dating before Naqada IIIB,
including the much renown 'Scorpion' (I)'s one (for convincing alternative hypotheses
-toponyms or gods' names- cf. Breyer's and Kahl's papers quoted above in this note).
[12]: On Egyptian writing in the second half of the IVth Millennium see: J. Kahl, op.
cit., 2001; id., Das System der Agyptischen Hieroglypheninschrift, 1994 (esp. p.143-
163); id., Della scrittura geroglifica arcaica, SEAP 16, 1997, 5-23; G. Dreyer, Umm
el-Qaab I, 1998; U. Hartung, op. cit. (cf. note 7); R.M. Boehmer, Das Rollsiegel im
prdynastischen gypten, in: A.A. 4, 1974, 495-514; W. Kaiser, in: MDAIK 46, 1990,
287-299; H.S. Smith, The Making of Egypt, in: Friedman - Adams (eds.), The
Followers of Horus, 1992, 235-246; K. Bard, Origins of Egyptian Writing, ibid., 297-
306; W.S. Arnett, The Predynastic Origin of Egyptian Hieroglyphs, 1982; J. Baines,
Communication and Display..., in: Antiquity 63, 1989, 471-82; id., Scrittura e societ
nel pi antico Egitto, in: Tiradritti (ed.), Sesh. Lingue e scritture nell' Antico Egitto,
1999, 21-30; P. Vernus, La Naissance de l'Ecriture dans l'Egypte Ancienne, Archo-
Nil 3, 1993, 74-108.
[13]: Cf. W.S. Smith, A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old
Kingdom, 1946; Schfer (Brunner-Traut / Baines), Principles of Egyptian Art, 1974;
E. Iversen, Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art, 1975. Also cf. R. Tefnin, Image et
histoire. Reflections sur l' usage documentaire de l' image..., in: CdE 54, 1979, 218-
44; W. Davis, The Canonical Theory of Composition in Egyptian Art, in: GM 56,
1982, 9-26; J. Endrodi, "Figurative discourse" and "Communication" in the Emerging
State of Egypt, in: GM 125, 1991, 21-36; E. Finkenstaedt, Regional Painting style in
Prehistoric Egypt, ZAS 107, 1980, 116-120; id., in: JARCE 18, 1981, 7-10; J. Baines,
On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art, CAJ 4/1, 1994, 67-94; H.
Sourouzian, Concordances et cartes..., in, N. Grimal (ed.), Les Critres de datation
stylistiques..., 1998 (BdE 120), 305-352.
[14]: E.g. from a scene which represented a particular hippopotamus hunt (pseudo-
chronicle of an event), to one in which an ideal hunt is shown, which is full of
symbolic, ritual, divinatory, propitiatory or apotropaic meanings (symbolic meta-
narrative). Of course there must have existed no rigid difference between the two
forms of expression and it's often hard to interpret the scenes as belonging to one of
the two groups. A graffito which aimed to represent a mythical event -thus one
thought to have really happened- might have shared parts of both the narrative
principles: whether the chronicle-like or the metaphorical, symbolical one.
The problem of the interpretation of the oldest attestations of Egyptian writing is
roughly similar to the one just outlined: we have some difficulties in understanding
when a sign represents itself (pictogram, semogram) and when a different thing
(phoneme, logogram).
[15]: Therefore we can hypothesize that rude forms of onomastic-notations occurred
well before the Egyptian society accomplished its transformation into what we call, in
an evolutionist terminology, a state. This latter social level was highly benefited by
the different uses of writing, which became one of the most important features of any
state (world-wide).
Yet the full capability of writing to translate any kind of thought (by extended
sentences), was achieved only in the 2nd and 3rd Dynasty and the most efficient and
developed use occurred since the 5th/6th Dynasty, a millennium after the Abydos t. U-
j inscriptions. It is nonetheless certain that early Naqada III inscriptions are already a
mixed (phonetic, logographic, pictographic) and thus improved form, which must
have had a longer history and a probale (c. 200 years) older origin, back to late
Naqada II.
Even if it was not the state to inspire writing invention, it was certainly the state to
require and guide the improvement and evolution of this ingenious tool from a limited
notation-system towards an elaborate form similar to the one we currently avail.

A Corpus of
ROYAL NAMES of NAQADA IIIb 1-2
Main references and their abbreviations:
- Werner Kaiser, M.D.A.I.K. 38, 1982 p. 263 fig. 14;
 p. 266 fig. 15; abbrev. WKM (Marke)
- Jochem Kahl, 'Das System der Hieroglyphenschrift Dynastie 0.-3.' 1994 p. 171-88
(Die Quellenliste); abbrev. JKQ
- Edwin van den Brink, 'The incised serekh-signs of Dynasties 0-1. Part I: Complete
vessels', in A.J. Spencer ed., 'Aspects of Early Egypt' 1996 p. 140-58, tab. 1; abbrev.
VDBc (complete jars)
- Edwin van den Brink, 'The Pottery-Incised Serekh-Signs of Dynasties 0-1. Part II:
Fragments and Additional Complete Vessels', Archo-Nil 11, 2001; abbrev. VDBf
(following number corresponds to the serekh and figure number)
- RAF : Francesco Raffaele, "Dynasty 0", in: S. Bickel - A. Loprieno (eds.), Basel
Egyptology Prize 1 (Aegyptiaca Helvetica 17), 2003, 99-141, plate of p. 141.
After: Francesco Raffaele, "Dynasty 0" (in: AH 17, 2003, 140-141)

Naqada IIIB (b1-b2) plain, anonymous and personalized serekhs with other possible indicators of
chieftains' and sovereigns' names, from Upper and Lower Egypt, Lower Nubia and Southern Levant
(found on various types of objects, especially on pottery jars). Note that some of these compounds
could either be general indicators of sovereignty (as plain and anonymous serekhs) or not be royal
names at all, with a completely different purpose and meaning (as ns. 19, 26, 32). Ns. 11, 17, 32, 37
are very hard to set in a precise chronological order (cf. text); also the general sequence and
assemblage of the serekhs must not be interpreted as reflecting true successions stricto sensu (except
those from the Abydos tombs of Iry-Hor, Ka and Narmer). The serekhs are not to scale; most of
them are from inscriptions or artifacts containing further hieroglyphs and/or images which have
been cropped out. Some single serekhs/names of uncertain status have been excluded, as the one of
'Djehwty-Mer' (?) from Tarkhan t. 412 (cf. Petrie et al., Tarkhan I, pl. 31, nr. 71).

- Abbreviations: MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15 = Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982, 211-269, esp. 262-
269 (n. 193ff.), fig. 14, 15. VdBrink 1996 = Van den Brink, in: Spencer (ed.), Aspects, 140-158. For
the other references cf. the Bibliography. - Note: the inscriptions on jar or jar fragments are (pre-
firing) incised, unless specifically stated.

1-2: Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb U-s ink inscr. anonymous serekhs on cyl. jars (Dreyer, in:
MDAIK 55, 1999, fig. 4a).
3-4: Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb U-t ink inscr. anonymous serekhs on cyl. jars (Dreyer, in:
MDAIK 55, 1999, fig. 4b).
5: Abusir el-Meleq t. 1021 jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 9)[sic].
6: Abusir el-Meleq t. 1144 jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 10)[sic].
7: Wadi el-Arish (previously believed to be from Rafiah) jar (Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982,
269, fig. 16, nr. 2).
8: Wadi el-Arish (previously believed to be from Rafiah) jar (Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982,
269, fig. 16, nr. 1).
9: El-Beda jar (Cldat, in: ASAE 13, 1914, 119ff., fig. 5); name reading beside the plain serekh:
(Bark?)-NEITH (?).
10: DOUBLE FALCON; 10a-c: El Beda jar fragments (Cldat, in: ASAE 13, 1914, 119ff., fig. 4, 3,
6; 10b is from a complete jar, ibid., pl. 13); 10d: Turah SS Ezbet Luthy (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr.
4); 10e: Sinai (ibid., fig. 14, nr. 5). For more serekhs of king (?) DOUBLE FALCON cf. van den
Brink, in: Archo-Nil 11, 2002 (group 2a-c).
11: Metropolitan Museum Palette (MMA New York, 28.9.8; Fischer, in: Artibus Asiae 21, 1958,
82ff., n.34, fig. 19); uncertain datation; for similar palettes from later (Naqada IIIC1-2) contexts cf.
the Minshat el-Ezzat palette (quoted in the text and in n. 101) and the palette fragment
Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982, 228, fig. 6 (lycaon tail, upset ?).
12: Seal impression from Siali, Lower Nubia (Williams, Qustul, 168, fig. 58a).
13: *HAT(Y)-HOR; Tarkhan t. 1702 jar (U.C. London 16084; vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 9; pl. 26a).
14: NY(-HOR); 14a: Turah t. 16g9 (T64) jar (MDAIK 38, fig. 14-15, nr. 7); 14b: Turah t. 19g1
(T89) jar (ibid., nr. 8).
15: NY-HOR [or NAR(MER)?] Ezbet Tell jar fr. (vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 21; id., in: Archo-Nil
11, n. 38).
16: Anonymous serekh ?; steatite cylinder seal from Helwan t. 160H3 (Kohler, in: GM 168, 1999,
49ff., fig. 1).
17: Metropolitan Museum Knife-handle, recto: boats procession (Williams/Logan, in: JNES 46,
1987, 245ff., fig. 1).
18: Qustul t. L24 incense burner; boats procession towards a shrine (Williams, Qustul, 142, fig. 55,
pl. 34).
19: Qustul t. L23 painted vessel; complex scene with animals, tree and a shrine (?) paliade
(Williams, Qustul, pl. 84).
20: *IRY-HOR; 20a-g: Umm el-Qaab, Abydos jar fragments (20e complete jar) (MDAIK 38, fig.
14-15, nr. 13, 14, 15, 22, 21, 19, 16 respectively); 20h: same site, Kaiser/Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38,
1982, 234, fig. 10d; 20i: seal impression from Zawiyet el Aryan, nearby tombs 86-89 (Kaplony, IAF
III, fig. 13).
21: *HEDJW-HOR (?); 21a: Turah t. 15g2 (T54) jar (vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 18); 21b: Eastern
Delta jar (Metropolitan Mus. 61122; Fischer, in: JARCE 2, 1963, fig. 1); 21c: Turah t. 17L7a (T313)
jar (vdBrink 1996, tab. 1, nr. 19).
 See also:
- Stan Hendrickx, GM 184, 2001, 85-110, table 2 (Note that this author doubts that the
serekhs before Ka represent royal names)
- A. Jimnez-Serrano, Chronology and Local Traditions: the Representation of Power
and the Royal Name in the Late Predynastic period, in: Archo-Nil 12, 2003 (in
press).

Signs and other abbreviations used in Table 1:

Keys to the "Serekh type, King-name" column
No sign beside the royal name means that this is written
in a standard Falcon-topped Serekh
P : Plain Serekh = Serekh without name-compartment and
with no Falcon Keys to the "object" and "notes" columns
A : Anonymous Serekh = Serekh with empty name-
compartment, no Falcon s. : serekh; KN : king name
+ : The Falcon is present atop P or A Serekh (++ = F. : falcon (Horus-bird atop the s.)
Double Falcon on s.) jar : inscription incised on jar (before
: No Falcon = Name in Serekh without Falcon atop of firing)
it; [] : the Falcon is not visible (lacuna) ink jar : ink-inscription on (cylinder) jar
- : No Serekh = Name below the Falcon, without Serekh; fr : fragment or sherd
[-] : the Serekh is not visible (lac.) seal imp : seal impression
(...) : Missing hieroglyph (not written); [...] : st : stone (vessel, dish; otherwise
hieroglyph not visible (in a lacuna) indicated)
<...> : The Serekh or Royal-name status is very pfi : (jar) post-firing incised inscription
unprobable rc : Recto, Obverse; vs : Verso,
? : Uncertain reading, partly unreadable/erased KN, s. or Reverse
F., uncertain status of the inscription
/ : 'Alternatively', 'or'
* : Rosette or star (associated with a KN with Royal title
function)

Note that some of these Naqada IIIb1-2 rulers might have reigned contemporarily.
The list of Serekhs of Ka and Narmer from Abydos cemetery B is incomplete.
This table will be perpetually updated
 - T A B L E 1 -

Period S. type, KN Site, Tomb Object References Notes

Dreyer, Umm el Qa'ab I, 1998 n.
127-129, X188
"Palastfassade" shrines (s.
< shrine, not prototypes ?).
Abydos U-j tags
Should be toponyms:
s. >
Djebawt (or Nekhen ?)

< - More examples (no s. or

IIIa2 ink jar /fr, Dreyer, Umm el Qa'ab I, 1998 with a s.-like flat
Scorpion Abydos U-j tags fig. 35ff rectangular sign below the
>? scorpion)
Gebel Tjawty

< - Are the F. and the

Hendrickx, Friedman, Darnell, scorpion below it in a
Scorpion graffito
2002 direct relation to eachother
>? (as in later KN) ?

IIIb1- MDAIK 46, 59

A Abydos U-s (119) ink jar
fig. 3a; JKQ 1
(IIIb2)
MDAIK 46, 59
A Abydos U-s (119) ink jar
fig. 3b; JKQ 2
MDAIK 49,
A Abydos U-t (120) ink jar
fig.4
WKM 10; VDBc These two
P Abusir el Meleq 1021 jar 1; JKQ 158; serekhs are
RAF 5 erroneously
inverted in
WKM 9; VDBc Kaiser, MDAIK
P Abusir el Meleq 1144 jar 2; JKQ 159; 38 plan p. 266
RAF 6 and fig. 14 n.
9,10
MDAIK 38, 269 Both these
fig. 16.2; VDBc serekhs were
P Wadi el-Arish jar
3; JKQ 175; previously
RAF 7 thought to be
from Rafiah (cf.
MDAIK 38, 269
van den Brink -
fig. 16.1; VDBc
P Wadi el-Arish jar
4; JKQ 174;
Khler, in: GM
187, 2002, 62)
RAF 8
++P Tura SS jar Junker, 1, 31, (Ezbet Luthy)
Double 46ff; WKM 4;
VDBc 6; JKQ
Falcon 162; RAF 10d
 ++P Cledat, ASAE
It is not sure that
13, 119ff, fig.6;
Double El Beda jar fr
WKM 3; JKQ
D.F. is an
Falcon individual KN
173; RAF 10c
El Beda

id, ASAE 13,

++A 119ff, fig. 3,
Ismailia Mus.
Double jar pl.13; WKM 2;
1928
Falcon VDBc 5; RAF
10b

++A id, ASAE 13,

119ff, fig. 4;
Double El Beda jar fr
WKM 1; JKQ
Falcon 161; RAF 10a
++[-] van den Brink,
NileDelta p. 52
Double Tell Ibrahim Awad jar fr
fig. 8.1; VDBf
Falcon 18
++P Oren, Sinai, 184
fig. 37; WKM 5;
Double Sinai jar fr
JKQ 169; RAF
Falcon 10e
+[+] only the upper
[-]Double Adaima jar fr VDBf 21, p. 36 part of the laft
F.(?) Falcon visible
++P
VDBf, p. 34 the F. are both
Double Abydos jar fr
(note 30) facing right
Falcon
++A
VDBf 19, p. 35- oversimplified
Double Palmahim jar fr
36 Double F. ?
Falcon
El Beda Cledat ASAE 13,
119 ff, fig. 5; with a mark on
P jar fr
WKM 12; JKQ the right
172
Uncertain
Ny WKM 8; VDBc reading of N
Tura 19g1 jar
8; VDBf 14 hierogl. and
(Hor)?
missing F.
Tura 16g9 Uncertain
Ny WKM 7; VDBc reading of N
jar
(Hor)? 7; VDBf 13 hierogl. and
missing F.
VDBc 21; VDBf
Ny Hor / 15; JKQ 119 Sign for day/sun
Ezbet el-Tell jar
(Narmer ?); RAF right of the s.
Nar(mer)
15
Ny Small Tel Malhata jar fr Amiran-Ilan- All the
(Hor)/ Arnon, IMJ 2, examples of
1983, 75ff.; Nj(-Hor) could
 VDBf 22 refer to
[Also cf. VDBf Nar(mer),
Nar(mer) 24-25 (p. 39), although they
probably not seem of earlier
Serekhs] date
Ny
(from Stratum
(Hor)/ Buto jar fr VDBf 23
IVc of the site)
Nar(mer)
Helwan 160 H3
Jimnez
Z. Saad, Royal Serrano,
Excavations... interprets this
1947, 165-6 fig. serekh and the
st
14 human figure
+A? cylinder
C. Kohler, GM with raised
seal
168, 49 ff hands beside it,
Jimnez Serrano, as the royal
GM 180, 81 ff name of Horus
Ka. (Steatite).

Saad, The
Khler-van den
Excavations at
P Helwan 1371 H2 jar
Helwan, 1969,
Brink, GM 187,
2002, 67, n.37
pl. 20
van den Brink -
ibid., fig. 1.1,
Khler, GM 187,
P Helwan unkn. jar
2002, 59ff., fig.
2.1, pl. 1 (reg.
Cairo EM00-92)
1.1, pl. 1
Tarkhan 1702

Tarkhan II, 20,

pl. 4, 20, 40;
Hatj WKM 6; VDBc
jar (U.C. 16084)
(Hor) ? 9; VDBf 16;
JKQ 110
(Narmer)

VDBc 11, VDBf

P Minshat Abu Omar 1210.21 jar
7; RAF 24
T-shaped mark
VDBc 12; VDBf
A (?) Minshat Abu Omar 520.3 jar
18; RAF 25
on the right of
the s.
Hendrickx, GM
+A Minshat Abu Omar 1640 jar fr 184, 2001; VDBf
10
Hendrickx, GM
+A Minshat Abu Omar 1800 jar fr 184, 2001; VDBf
9
+P Siali Seal seal imp Williams, Qustul
cem L, fig. 58a,
59; JKQ 217
 Archaic Horus Incense Burner (Qustul t.
L11) Williams, Qustul
incense
+P burner
cem L, pl. 33;
JKQ 215

Qustul Incense Burner (Qustul t. L24)

Williams, Qustul Naqada IIIa ? -
incense
*+P burner
cem L, pl. 34; Rosette left of
JKQ 216 the s.

Qustul L2

B. Williams, Unlikely = Iry

- Pe 1986 p. 147-50, Hor as
jar fr pfi
Hor ? pl. 76-77; VDBf suggested in
46; JKQ 132 VDBc

Jimnez-Serrano,
- Pe in: AN 12, in
Adaima jar fr
press, n. 145, pl.
later ?
Hor ?
3
Site 34, Armant western desert It is not clear
whether the
lower sign is the
palace faade or
a further
Winkler, Rock-
hieroglyph.
drawings I pl.
Jimenez Serrano
11.2
Pe Hor ? graffito
T. Wilkinson,
(in: BAEDE 10,
2000, 38)
J.E.A. 81, 205-
proposes the
210
reading Hor
Hwt Nwb.

Pe Hor ? Site 34, Armant western desert graffito Winkler, Rock-

drawings I pl.
11.3
 T. Wilkinson,
J.E.A. 81, 205-
210
Metropolitan Mus. knife handle

Williams -
No s. visible,
knife- Logan, JARCE
-* handle 46, 245ff, fig. 1-
only a star-like
rosette
7

Jimenez Serrano,
P? Hierakonpolis graffito
GM 180, 84
Metropolitan Museum palette Hayes, Scepter
of Egypt p. 28-9,
fig. 22;
Fischer, Artibus
+P ? palette Asiae 21, p.82 ff,
n.34, fig. 19,20;
Asselberghs,
Chaos fig. 170;
JKQ 177
Uncertain
chronol.
position: once
said to be of
Murnane in:
Djer, then dated
Williams-Logan,
+(?) A? Gebel Sheikh Suleiman graffito
JNES 46, 1987,
by Murnane to
Dynasty 0.
appendix 1
IMO the f.
might not
belong to the
punct. s.

IIIb2- Tarkhan I,
(IIIc1) <- pl. 31.71;
Likely a
Djehwty Tarkhan 412 jar ink MDAIK 38,
private name
mer > ? 262, 267;
JKQ 155
Emery,
Missing
Archaic
palace faade
+A Wadi Qash graffito Egypt, 1961,
(only a small
p. 47, fig. 6
stroke)
(right)
+A / +P ? Gebel Tjawty graffito Darnell,
Darnell
1997 rep.;
Jimenez
Serrano, AN
12
 WKM 11;
VDBc 18;
Hedjw 1) Helck
Tura 15g2 jar VDBf 21;
(Hor)? /A? JKQ 160; (1987) has
RAF 21a proposed to
WKM 44; read this
Tura 17L7a VDBc 19; name: Wa
Hedjw She,
jar VDBf 22;
(Hor)? /A? JKQ 161; identifying the
RAF 21c ruler with one
Eastern Delta of the two
defeated
JARCE 2, chiefs on the
44 fig. 1; Narmer
Hedjw VDBc 17; Palette rc;
jar 2) cfr RT II pl.
Hor? /+A? VDBf 20;
JKQ 168; 55.12
RAF 21b

Petrie, RT In my opinion
<[] Hedjw II, pl. 55.12; this is a s.
Abydos, Umm el-Qaab U jar fr
VDBf 28 (p. mark of
(Hor)?>
45) Semerkhet
The reading of
this KN is not
certain
- Iry Hor ? Abydos B 0/1/2 jar
(altern. Ro-
Hor, Horus'
mouth/speech)
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 jar
RT I pl.
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 jar 44.2; WKM
13; JKQ 6
RT I pl.
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 jar fr 44.3;WKM
18; JKQ 7
Abydos B 1

RT I pl.
(Three strokes
44.4; WKM
beside the R-
- Iry Hor jar 19; VDBc
sign) UC
22; VDBf
16089
24; JKQ 8

RT I pl.
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 jar fr 44.5; WKM
20; JKQ 9
RT I pl.
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 jar fr 44.6; WKM
17; JKQ 10
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 jar RT I pl.
 44.7; WKM
21; VDBc
14; JKQ 11
RT I pl.
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 jar fr 44.8; WKM
15; JKQ 12
RT I pl.
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 jar fr 44.9; WKM
16; JKQ 13
RT I pl.
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 jar 52.731; JKQ potmark
14
RT II pl.
- Iry Hor Abydos B cem jar fr 55.5; WKM potmark ?
14; JKQ 24
MDAIK 38,
231 fig. 8;
- Iry Hor Abydos B 2 jar fr
WKM 22;
JKQ 16
MDAIK 38,
- Iry Hor Abydos B 2 ink jar 234 fig. 10a;
JKQ 18
MDAIK 38,
- Iry Hor Abydos B 2 ink jar 234 fig. 10b;
JKQ 19
MDAIK 38,
- Iry Hor Abydos B 2 ink jar 234 fig. 10c;
JKQ 22
MDAIK 38,
- Iry Hor Abydos B 2 ink jar
233; JKQ 20
MDAIK 38,
- Iry Hor Abydos B 2 ink jar
233; JKQ 21
MDAIK 38,
- Iry Hor Abydos B 2 ink jar 234 fig. 10d;
JKQ 23
- Iry Hor Abydos B 2
Gilroy, GM Royal Ontario
- Iry Hor Abydos B cem. jar fr 180 fig. 3, Museum,
pl. 2a Petrie's excav.
Gilroy, GM Royal Ontario
- Iry Hor Abydos B cem. jar fr 180 fig. 4, Museum,
pl. 2b Petrie's excav.
Quibell-
Green 1901 I am not sure
- Iry Hor ? Hierakonpolis spindle whorl pl. 63.1; IAF that this is Irj-
I, 467; JKQ Hor's KN
5
Dunham,
1978 pl.
16B cfr. MDAIK
- Iry Hor Zawiyet el Aryan 86-89 debris seal imp
IAF I, 38, 232 n. 76
62,66; JKQ
15
IAF I,
62,66; IAF
- Iry Hor Abydos B 1 seal imp
III, 13; JKQ
15 sic
< -[] Iry Tel Lod jar fr van den Doubtful: the
[Hor] > ? Brink-Braun R extremities
 are lacking
2002, 177, and only the
180, fig. 9; lower part of
VDBf 114 the F. (?) leg
is visible
Wadi Um Balad
(Western Desert mines)
Castel- (Ovoid jar);
Khler- Possibly KN:
Hwt Hor / Mathieu- Nj-Hor, Hwt-
Pouit, Hor, Ka, Hor
Ny Hor ? jar fr pfi
BIFAO 98, Aha; if not
<?> 1998, 57ff., KN: Hwt-
fig. 12; domain,
VDBf 119 Hathor ?

Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar

Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar
VDBc
Ka Abydos B 9/7 jar fr
16a ???
VDBc
Ka Abydos B 19 jar fr
16b ???
Only a leg of
Gilroy, GM
the F. is
Ka Abydos B cem. jar fr 180 fig. 2,
visible on the
pl. 1b
s.
Tarkhan 261

Tarkhan I, 9,
Ka ink jar 28; pl.
31.67; pl. 61

Ka Helwan 1627 H2 jar WKM 24; Republished

VDBc 15 by E. van den
(inverted); Brink - C.
VDBf 28 Khler, in:
 GM 187,
2002, 59ff.,
fig. 1.3, 2.3,
pl. 3 (1627
H2); fig. 1.4,
2.4, pl. 4
(1651 H2).
WKM 23;
Helwan 1651 H2 VDBc 16
Ka jar
(inverted);
VDBf 29
van den
Brink,
Ka Tell Ibrahim Awad jar fr NileDelta p.
52 fig. 8.2;
VDBf 48
van den
Brink-Braun
Ka (?) Tel Lod jar fr 2002, 173,
178, fig. 1;
VDBf 47
Hassan E.A.
cf. Hendrickx
16, 37-9
Ka Kafr Hassan Dawood 1008 jar
(2000);
GM 184,
2001, 85ff.
VDBf 27
Adaima

Grimal,
BIFAO 99, cf. Hendrickx
Ka ? jar fr 451 fig.1; GM 184,
VDBf fig. 2001, 85ff.
D; RAF 31

? Nj Neith Helwan 257 H8 jar van den The Falcon is

? Brink - left of the s.
Khler, GM
187, 2002,
59-81
fig. 1.2, 2.2;
pl. 2 (reg.
Cairo
EM00-87);
VDBf 17 (p.
40-42)
 The F. is
similar to Nj-
Neith's one;
yet an
eventual s.
[-] [Nj VDBf 26 (p. should be
Abydos B10 jar fr
40-42) below it, not
Neith] ?
on the right.
(Minor
similarity with
Irj-Hor F., cf.
VDBf 30)
Rohl,
Eastern
Unclear
Desert 1,
reading, date
<?> ? Wadi Mineh graffito 2000;
and status of
Jimenez
this s.(?)
Serrano, AN
12
Tarkhan 315
Kaplony, IAF
II p. 1090,
advanced
these were
Tarkhan II, king
p. 8, 28, pl. Scorpion's
Crocodile jar ink
31.66, pl. serekhs; Petrie
40; JKQ 154 erroneously
drew the name
in the serekh
from T. 315 as
Ka.

Tarkhan I,
Crocodile Tarkhan 1549 jar ink 11, pl. 9.3;
JKQ 157
- Tarkhan 414 seal imp Tarkhan I pl. Bucranium
Crocodile 2.4; IAF III, over a s.-like
18; JKQ 156 shrine (of
Sobek), a
 crocodile on
standard,
crocodiles
circ. ropes

Minshat Abu Omar 160,1

Previously
Wildung,
related to Aha
Aegypten
and then also
vor... p. 37;
suggested to
Ka / Kaiser, ZAS
jar be Scorpion
Crocodile ? 91 p. 95;
II; van den
WKM 34;
Brink reads
VDBc 13;
(Crocodile)
VDBf 19
The Subduer

Hierakonpolis Main Dep.

[Crocodile / Quibell-
macehead Green, HK I
Scorpion] ? pl. 26a

Murnane in
Very uncertain
Williams-
- Scorpion the attribution
Gebel Sheikh Suleiman graffito Logan,
to Scorpion
? JNES 46,
(II)
appendix 2
*-
Hierakonpolis ivory "
Scorpion ?
Hierakonpolis Main Dep.

Quibell-
*- Green, HK I
macehead
Scorpion pl. 26c; JKQ
76

Nar(mer) Wadi Qash graffito Winckler,

Rock Draw.
I pl. 11.1;
Emery,
 1961, 47,
fig. 6 (left)
Jimenez
id., Archo-
Serrano,
Nar(mer) Wadi Qash graffito
GM 180, 84
Nil 12, note
162
n.34
Narmer Abydos B
Narmer Abydos B17/18 (nx) various
Narmer
MDAIK 46,
Narmer Abydos B cem. ??? st fr
38, fig.5
alabaster plate
MDAIK 54,
Nar(mer) Abydos B cem. ink jar
140, fig.30
Gilroy, GM
Royal Ontario
180 fig. 1,
Nar(mer) Abydos B cem. jar fr
pl. 1a;
Mus.; cfr.
Tarkhan 1100
VDBf 74
Petrie RT I,
pl. 44.1; F. head is right
?
Abydos B1/2 jar fr WKM 40; of the s. (cf.
Nar(mer) VDBf 73; VDBf p. 40)
RAF 36a
MDAIK 49, alabaster dish
Narmer Abydos U cem. st fr
fig.5 fragment
Abydos B18

RT II pl.
Narmer ivory label
2.4; 10.2

Abydos B16,2

- Narmer, MDAIK 54,

ivory label
Narmer 139

The NAR sign

Dreyer, is atop a kind
Nar(mer) MDAIK 55, of plain s.
East Delta unprov. jar
1999, 1ff.; (A.M. May
P
VDBf 30 private
collection)
<- Coptos Colossus (Cairo) statue Williams Probably no
[Nar]mer > JARCE 25, KN; (a F. on a
35-59; JKQ perch ?)
? 85a,b
 Zawiyet el Aryan 401
Dunham,
1978 p. 26,
pl. 16a;
Nar(mer) jar fr
WKM 37;
VDBf 62;
RAF 36c

SASAE 3,
from the
165, fig.
Narmer Helwan 1H3-40H3 faience tag
13a; JKQ
debris of the
two tombs
114
Tarkhan ?

IAFS fig.
Narmer ink jar 1061; JKQ
112

IAFS fig.
Narmer Tarkhan ? ink jar 1062; JKQ
113
WKM 39;
VDBc 10; van den Brink

Tarkhan 1100 jar VDBf 33; dates this to
Nar(mer) ? JKQ 109; Naqada IIIb1
RAF 36g
IAF III, 25;
Narmer
Tarkhan 414 seal imp JKQ 104;
Tjay RAF 36e
IAF III, 34; Narmer's
Narmer Tarkhan 414 seal imp
JKQ 105 estate ?
IAF III, 35a; Narmer's
Narmer Tarkhan 414 seal imp
106 estate ?
IAF III, 35b; Narmer's
Narmer Tarkhan 414 seal imp
JKQ 107 estate ?
IAF I, 63ff;
WKM 35;
VDBc 23;
Narmer Tarkhan 414 jar
VDBf 32;
UC 16083
JKQ 103;
RAF 36f
Tarkhan I,
Narmer ? Tarkhan 415 ink jar pl. 31.69;
64; JKQ 108
- Tarkhan 412 ink jar Tarkhan I, Also
(Nar)mer ? pl. 31.71; interpreted as
JKQ 155 a priv. name
 (Djehwtymer)
Tarkhan II,
TK. 1982
pl. 4; 9.2;
dated by
Narmer Tarkhan 1982 ink jar MDAIK 38,
ceram. to e. -
266; JKQ
m. dyn. I
111
Halif Terrace,
Nahal Tillah
Levy-van
den Brink et
al., Bibl.
Nar(mer) jar fr
Arch. 58,
26ff; VDBf
70

[] () F. not visible
but supposed
Nar(mer) Halif Terrace jar fr VDBf 71
not to have
(?) been
Amiran IEJ
24, fig. 1, pl.
Nar(mer) Arad jar fr 1; WKM 36;
VDBf 61;
JKQ 123
Nar(mer) / cfr. supra
Ezbet el-Tell jar fr (Ny-Hor)
Ny-Hor
Bakr, in: van
den Brink
[] Narmer Ezbet el-Tell jar fr (ed.) 1988,
52, pl. 1a;
VDBf 60
Schulman,
F. tail partly
Atiqot 11,
visible;
Nar(mer)? 'En Besor jar fr 22ff; WKM
possibly a
42; VDBf
later s.
80
Amiran et
Cf. Ilan, in:
al. IMJ 2, p.
van den
Narmer Small Tel Malhata jar fr 75ff;
Brink-Levy
Hendrickx
2003, ch. 20
GM 2001
IAF III, 25;
Narmer
Tarkhan 414 seal imp JKQ 104;
Tjay RAF 36e
IAF III, 34; Narmer's
Narmer Tarkhan 414 seal imp
JKQ 105 estate ?
IAF III, 35a; Narmer's
Narmer Tarkhan 414 seal imp
106 estate ?
IAF III, 35b; Narmer's
Narmer Tarkhan 414 seal imp
JKQ 107 estate ?
Narmer Tarkhan 414 jar IAF I, 63ff; UC 16083
WKM 35;
VDBc 23;
VDBf 32;
JKQ 103;
RAF 36f
 Tarkhan I,
Narmer ? Tarkhan 415 ink jar pl. 31.69;
64; JKQ 108
Also
Tarkhan I,
- interpreted as
Tarkhan 412 ink jar pl. 31.71;
a priv. name
(Nar)mer ? JKQ 155
(Djehwtymer)
Tarkhan II,
TK. 1982
pl. 4; 9.2;
dated by
Narmer Tarkhan 1982 ink jar MDAIK 38,
ceram. to e. -
266; JKQ
m. dyn. I
111
Levy-van
den Brink et
Halif Terrace, al., Bibl.
Nar(mer) jar fr
Arch. 58,
Nahal Tillah
26ff; VDBf
70
[] () F. not visible
but supposed
Nar(mer) Halif Terrace jar fr VDBf 71
not to have
(?) been
Amiran IEJ
24, fig. 1, pl.
Nar(mer) Arad jar fr 1; WKM 36;
VDBf 61;
JKQ 123
Nar(mer) / cfr. supra
Ezbet el-Tell jar fr (Ny-Hor)
Ny-Hor
Bakr, in: van
den Brink
[] Narmer Ezbet el-Tell jar fr (ed.) 1988,
52, pl. 1a;
VDBf 60
Schulman,
F. tail partly
Atiqot 11,
visible;
Nar(mer)? 'En Besor jar fr 22ff; WKM
possibly a
42; VDBf
later s.
80
Amiran et
Cf. Ilan, in:
al. IMJ 2, p.
van den
Narmer Small Tel Malhata jar fr 75ff;
Brink-Levy
Hendrickx
2003, ch. 20
GM 2001
IAF III, 25;
Narmer
Tarkhan 414 seal imp JKQ 104;
Tjay RAF 36e
IAF III, 34; Narmer's
Narmer Tarkhan 414 seal imp
JKQ 105 estate ?
IAF III, 35a; Narmer's
Narmer Tarkhan 414 seal imp
106 estate ?
IAF III, 35b; Narmer's
Narmer Tarkhan 414 seal imp
JKQ 107 estate ?
Narmer Tarkhan 414 jar IAF I, 63ff; UC 16083
WKM 35;
VDBc 23;
VDBf 32;
JKQ 103;
RAF 36f
 Tarkhan I,
Narmer ? Tarkhan 415 ink jar pl. 31.69;
64; JKQ 108
Also
Tarkhan I,
- interpreted as
Tarkhan 412 ink jar pl. 31.71;
a priv. name
(Nar)mer ? JKQ 155
(Djehwtymer)
Tarkhan II,
TK. 1982
pl. 4; 9.2;
dated by
Narmer Tarkhan 1982 ink jar MDAIK 38,
ceram. to e. -
266; JKQ
m. dyn. I
111
Levy-van
den Brink et
Halif Terrace, al., Bibl.
Nar(mer) jar fr
Arch. 58,
Nahal Tillah
26ff; VDBf
70
[] () F. not visible
but supposed
Nar(mer) Halif Terrace jar fr VDBf 71
not to have
(?) been
Amiran IEJ
24, fig. 1, pl.
Nar(mer) Arad jar fr 1; WKM 36;
VDBf 61;
JKQ 123
Nar(mer) / cfr. supra
Ezbet el-Tell jar fr (Ny-Hor)
Ny-Hor
Bakr, in: van
den Brink
[] Narmer Ezbet el-Tell jar fr (ed.) 1988,
52, pl. 1a;
VDBf 60
Schulman,
F. tail partly
Atiqot 11,
visible;
Nar(mer)? 'En Besor jar fr 22ff; WKM
possibly a
42; VDBf
later s.
80
Amiran et
Cf. Ilan, in:
al. IMJ 2, p.
van den
Narmer Small Tel Malhata jar fr 75ff;
Brink-Levy
Hendrickx
2003, ch. 20
GM 2001
van den
Brink-Braun
Nar(mer) Tel Lod jar fr
2002, fig. 2;
VDBf 63
van den
Brink-Braun
Nar(mer) Tel Lod jar fr
2002, fig. 3;
VDBf 64
van den
[] () Brink-Braun
Tel Lod jar fr
2002, fig. 4;
Nar(mer)
VDBf 65
[] () Tel Lod jar fr van den
Nar(mer) Brink-Braun
2002, fig. 5;
 VDBf 66
van den
[] () Brink-Braun
Tel Lod jar fr
2002, fig. 6;
Nar(mer)
VDBf 67
van den
[] () Brink-Braun
Tel Lod jar fr
2002, fig. 7;
Nar(mer)
VDBf 68
Miroschedji-
Sadeq,
[] () CRAIBL
Tell es-Sakan jar fr
2000, p.
Nar(mer)
137, fig. 9;
VDBf 69
Yeivin IEJ
10, 196ff.,
pl. 24a;
Nar(mer) Tel 'Erani jar fr
WKM 41;
VDBf 75;
JKQ 124
no subdivision
and palace
WKM 38;
fac. in s.;
VDBc 20;
Narmer Minshat Abu Omar 44.3 jar
VDBf 31;
the sign NAR
is an
JKQ 121
horizontal
stroke
< The name
hieroglyph
Nar(mer)? Buto jar fr VDBf 76
looks like a
>? NEB sign
van den
Brink,
Nar(mer) Tell Ibrahim Awad jar fr NileDelta p.
52 fig. 8.3;
VDBf 72
cf. Hendrickx
GM 184,
Hassan,
2001.
E.A. 16, 37-
(Narmer) ? Kafr Hassan Dawood 913 jar
39, 2000;
No
information
VDBf p. 67
available on s.
and KN type
Spencer,
Nar(mer) Naqada Mastaba ivory plaque fr
1980 n. 454
Garstang,
ASAE 8, RAF 36h

Hierakonpolis jar fr 135, pl. 3.1; (Liverpool
Nar(mer) ? WKM 43; Univ. E5248)
VDBf 77
Narmer Berlin Museum Ape statue Schott,
R.d.E. 21 p.
81, fig.5
 Hierakonpolis Main Dep.

Quibell-
Narmer, - Narmer
palette Green, HK I
Narmer Palette
pl. 29

Hierakonpolis Main Dep.

Quibell-
Narmer
Narmer macehead Green, HK I
Macehead
pl. 26b

Hierakonpolis Main Dep.

Nar animated
Quibell-
hieroglyph (of
Green, HK I
Narmer's
- Narmer ivory cylinder pl. 15.7; IAF
name) smiting
III, 5; JKQ
the Tehenw
79
with a staff