Talk:Narmer

Serket
Shouldn't the Serket link go to the King Scorpion instead of the goddess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.123.104.9 (talk) 04:07, 2005 September 26 (UTC)


 * Opps, before looking at the history, I re-hyperlinked Serket...should I change it back? Sorry about that...message me if you want me to change it back.-- Violin Girl ♪ 14:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed it. Srdjan Vesic 16:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Narmer is the mesopotamia king also and thats just on PERIODT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CA80:6030:1037:2D13:8434:88EF (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Menes
This is a name in the king list that is impossible to identify from epigraphical evidence. I think we should stick to history in succession boxes and such, and leave legends to a separate discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that I see your cite, I think some adjustment is necessary. I have Hoffman in front of me. He describes the objects not as ostraca but as ebony labels (pp. 295-298; there are large drawings on pp 296-297 and not much room for text) and also mentions on p. 298 some jar sealings found by Petrie, also at Abydos, that "associate" m'n with Narmer. (He gives the cite in Petrie. He does not expand on "associate", unfortunately.) So there seems to be evidence pointing in both directions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's an ivory label as well, I'm just familiar with at least one argued ostricon. Actually, I think the object I referenced was the label, so you're right there. Thanatosimii 21:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, gardiner explains the association. Reading from right to left, at the top of the label, there is a vertical cartouche shaped object (although not a cartouche) containing the Nebty Symbol and then Mn. Following this is the name Hor-Aha. The nebty name didn't exist this early, however, and the nebty symbols were used to indicate the kings personal name. However, the nebty symbols always have to be facing towards the horus name, or so says gardiner, and here they are facing away, so it is believed that this king Mn must be different from Hor-Aha, and the label is ceremonial to indicate that Hor-Aha came to a place associated with Mn at a later date, much like Akhenaten constructed several objects containing both his name and that of his fathers, to legitimize his rule. Thanatosimii 21:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Further to TCC's first comment (I think we should stick to history in succession boxes and such, and leave legends to a separate discussion), would it not be best to remove Scorpion and Ka from the predecessor field? Narmer is historical: the same cannot, I propose, be said of Scorpion and Ka.gergis (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Palette image
Also, is it just me or does that image of the Narmer Palette lack any visible detail? I can fix it, but I don't want to change it if it's something peculiar about my monitor. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't read it at all. If you can fix it, it's probably a good idea. Thanatosimii 19:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the gamma a bit. It doesn't look all that much better in the article, but the reduced version on the image description page looks much better. The full image was actually pretty clear, but you shouldn't have to download a 1.5MB file to see it! TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Palette
many argue this stelae / stone / narmer palette not only contains all religion, it explains it all - ole croan IX, 99.165.196.169 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Narmer and India connection
Hi,
 * It is interesting to note that 'Narmeru' is one of the possible (impure?) forms of the name.
 * In ancient Indian culture. Narmeru' was meant to be 'Nar' (-andros, -man) and 'meru' (Mount Meru of ancient India, generally used to refer any great mountain).
 * Regards,
 * No, not particularly interesting. Sanskrit is an which had not yet entered India at the time. may not yet have differentiated itself.) It's entirely unrelated to the Afro-Asiatic Egyptian language, which is also older than any recorded language in the Indo-European family. "Narmer" is a conjectural pronunciation based on the phonetic values represented by the glyphs of his name known from later times. That the glyphs to not represent an ideogram (as may, for example, the name glyph for the earlier King Scorpion) is that what they literally represent, "catfish chisel", doesn't make much sense. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (whoops, simultanious editing) Not really relevant... First, Sanskrit didn't even exist when narmer lived. Second, there were no indo-europeans in India until almost two millenia later. Thanatosimii 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

important is the mace of King Narmer because it has the three numbers 10000, 100000, 1000000 written on it. Source: Quibell, 1900. the drawing of the excavator Quibell has been copied numerous times, but where is the picture? a link: http://www.recoveredscience.com/const121Narmermacepicture.htm
 * The picture belongs at Narmer Macehead. --Michael C. Price talk 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate text
The first two sentences in the section Reign are duplicated (after the third sentence). Tried to edit them out but it messed up the format of the page so I reverted. Maybe someone with better wiki skills could clean it up? aldiboronti (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Baboon statue...
The article reads that it has Narmer's name on the base. Yet looking at it, I see no heiroglyphs. Is there a mistake, or am I not seeing something? --75.176.70.242 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does base mean underneath? --Michael C. Price talk 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not seeing something, but that's because it is very hard to see in that picture. ;-) The hieroglyphs are carved into the base of the statue, just under it's front paws. A close-up that shows the hieroglyphs (somewhat) more clearly can be seen at: http://egyptologist.org/discus/messages/11/6123.jpg. Captmondo (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Scorpion mace head
The so called "scorpion" mace head in the Ashmolean has long been the subject of argument. Carved on it is a large standardised picture of a pharaoh and alongside a tiny representation of a scorpion. From this it is usually accepted that the figure is the "Scorpion" pharaoh.

The late Prof. WB Emery advanced a plausible argument that a fragment was missing and that the miniature scorpion did not refer to the main figure and that this is Narmer not "Scorpion".AT Kunene (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, well if you have the reference of Emery's article where he states this hypothesis, you can put a sentence in the Narmer article that the scorpion macehead may belong to him. However one must be careful with Emery's articles as many are now outdated. In particular, as far as I know, there exists no artifact identifying Narmer and associating him with a scorpion. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * More modern literature suggests that Scorpion was an independent ruler preceeding Narmer and eventually being his father or grandfather. The scorpion as the heraldic animal of that king was found in several serekhs, so it´s quite sure that Scorpion isn´t Narmer. M. Cialowitz and Ludwig D. Morenz point out, that the sceptre in fact shows two royal figures, one showing clearly the white crown, the other one shows traces of a red crown. If this is correct, Scorpion is shown with both crowns of Egypt, thus indicating that the "great unification of Egypt" was no single and sudden event, but a long lasting process. Narmer (or Aha) was simply the first king ruling totally single over whole of Egypt, without any competition from another royal house, because his assiduous forerunners had erased or taken over all competing royal houses.--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (sorry for joining the discussion) Interessting idea, but we need a proper reference from an Emery book or article, otherwise we can't cite it on Wiki. bw -- Udimu (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I find the lineage Scorpion II father of grandfather of Narmer very hard to believe while the succession Iry-Hor->Ka->Narmer->Aha->etc. is more plausible for the following reasons: 1) There is no tomb attributed to Scorpion II at Abydos, when Iry-Hor, Ka, Narmer and Aha etc. all have one. 2) The geographical alignment of the royal tombs at Abydos from the predynastic cemetery U to the early dynastyic one, is (and it is a fact): Iry-Hor, Ka, Narmer, Aha. 3) Iry-Hor's tomb contained vessels inscribed with Ka and Narmer serekhs. 4) Iry-Hor, Ka and Narmer are attested over progressively larger regions (this is of course debatable). 5) Iry-Hor is never found in a serekh, Ka sometimes is and sometimes is not, Narmer always is and Scorpion II never. Again this is not a direct evidence like the first 3 points but this makes particularly sense if Iry-Hor reigned before Ka, then during Ka's reign the serekh was 'invented' and Narmer (i.e. Ka's immediate successor in this hypothesis) followed this tradition. At the opposite, Scorpion II did not, perhaps because he was a king of another local state. Alternatively he could have reigned before Ka, but nobody believes this today, based on stylistical arguments. For these reasons a well established theory holds that the succession of predynastic and first dynasty kings was Iry-Hor->Ka->Narmer->Aha->etc. Based on the Den and Qaa king lists, it is recognized that first dynasty Egyptians perceived Narmer as a founding figure, something consistent with the idea that he achieved unification for the first time. Thus I find far more plausible that Scorpion II was a predynastic king of Ka or Narmer's time who reigned in the Memphite region or in the Delta (Buto ?). This is not just my opinion but also that of those (e.g. Ian Shaw, Francesco Raffaele etc.) in favor of Iry-Hor->Ka->Narmer, plus it fits the available evidences. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with "Iry-Hor" is, that -as you already correctly wrote- this name was never found in a serekh, so it might be not a royal name, but a mark for a royal ownage. Iry means "belongig to...", thus reading a "belonging to Horus" in sense of "belonging to the king".
 * Your statement that the scorpion never occures in a serekh is not quite correct, Dietrich Wildung points to vessel inscriptions showing a strongly stlisized scorpion grabbed by Horus on his poisonous tail; Wildung, H.A. Schlögl (2008) and Thomas Schneider (2007) think Scorpion II. being a gegenkönig (= competing ruler) of Ka and Narmer. --Nephiliskos (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I am perfectly aware of the problems with Iry-Hor. However, explaining his tomb as a storage pit seems a bit far-fetched to me (of course this is only my personal, hence little-worth, opinion). As for the Horus grabbing a scorpion, that's about how I would imagine a hierakonpolis/thinite king would describe his victory against king-scorpion (again just my opinion). Indeed compare this imagery with that of the Narmer palette for example. In any case, regardless of how one interprets these indices, my points 1)-3) remain indisputable facts that need an explanation and do not fit at all with Scorpion being a close relative of Narmer. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that´s correct, any theory of relation is flim-flam: after around 5.100 years itz impossible to proof any family line. Therefore I´m also very careful about that idea. But letz return to the incoming question: About the equalizing of Scorpion II. with Narmer. As I already wrote, no egyptologist today equalises them, they think the kings Ka, Iry, Scorpion II. and Narmer being competitors to each other. It´s highly unsure who was related with whom and it´s also highly unsure who followed whom to the throne. The only thing that´s sure is, that -as you wrote correctly- Narmer was mentioned on EVERY abydenian seal as the first king, even at the time of king Qa'a. Cheers;--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Totally agree but I would nonetheless add that observations 2), 3) are more than strong indices: Iry-Hor (if he existed), Ka and Narmer cannot have been competitors because they are all buried at the same place and in sequential order. We will probably never know the familly tree but we already have strong clues that Iry-Hor (if he existed) preceded Ka who preceded Narmer and that they reigned over the same kingdom. Thus, as I pointed before, there are egyptologists who supports this hypothesis and as such this hypothesis can be mentioned in the relevant articles, backed, of course, by the appropriate references. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The tomb of scorpion II might have been in buried in Umm El Qa'ab close to abydos, or (alternatively) he was the founder of nekhen and subsequently was buried there too. Emmanuelbruh (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * or "scorpion" possiibly was another title of narmer. personally y believe he was buried in ga'ab near abydos. Emmanuelbruh (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, sure.^^ In my opinion it´s highly important to depict the contradicting theories around the protodynastic kings. In de.Wikipedia we already made it to show the problematics. Besides: I, personally, think that "Iry" or "Iry-Hor" is some kind of forerunner of the nebty-title, a epithet for the true (but lost) serekh name of the king. I have a book in which egyptologists point out to several epithets found beneath the serekhs of Narmer and Ka. We can only hope that they will find the original serekh name asap.--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We are on the same line of thought on this. I believe Wikipedia must be a thorough as possible and as impartial as possible. Let's give all the theories and link them with their references ! Iry-Hor (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Earliest known named person?
I read somewhere that Narmer is probably the earliest person whose name is known (given that Ka, Scorpion etc.'s names are very uncertain). Is this true? If so that's a pretty notable fact. Ben Finn (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great detail! I've added a recent citation for this. Jeffrey Odell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not true. Pharaoh Iry-Hor is. He lived two generations before Narmer and a discovery in 2012 of a relief in Sinai depicting his visit to the city of Memphis establishes his existence beyond doubt. He is also known from his tomb and a number of artefacts. Iry-Hor has been regularly discussed by experts on early Egypt as the earliest person whose name and existence we reliably know about (Gunter Dreyer in particular). Here is the relevant excerpt:

Dreyer's excavations of the necropolis of Abydos revealed that Iry-Hor was in fact well attested there with over 27 objects bearing his name and that his tomb was of royal proportions. Furthermore in 2012 an inscription mentioning Iry-Hor was discovered in the Sinai, the inscription comprising furthermore an archaic empty serekh on the right of Iry-Hor's name. ''The inscription mentions the city of Memphis, pushing back its foundation to before Narmer and establishing that Iry-Hor was already reigning over it. Following this discovery, most egyptologists, including G. Dreyer and the discoverers of the inscription, Pierre Tallet and Damien Laisney, now believe that Iry-Hor was indeed a king.'' &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's a great clarification.
 * Since Narmer is cited as the earliest person whose name is known in at least one recent popular text, what do you think about my revised edit, acknowledging this likely mischaracterization, and redirecting to Iry-Hor? Jeffrey Odell (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Scorpion I from tomb Uj ( also discovered by Dreyer) is earlier, and is more likely the earliest person whose name is known. Kings have been suggested earlier then that, but there is very little evidence for them , and no tombs.Heagy1 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but as far as I know the name of the owner of tomb Uj is unknown. Where did you see that it was Scorpion I? The article on Scorpion I has only two non reliable references and I don't recall reading Dreyer saying a king Scorpion was buried in Uj.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Günter Dreyer, the discoverer of tomb U-j in Abydos has written several articles and a book that include the theory that U-j was the tomb of a king named Scorpion (Scorpion I). The most comprehensive is Umm El-Qaab I: Das prädynastische Köninsgrab U-j und sein frühen Schriftzeugnisse, 1988. A brief ( but in English) report is “ Recent discoveries at Abydos Cemetery U”, in E.C.M. van den Brink, ed. The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC ,1992 There is little doubt that tomb U-j is that of a king. This is based on the large size of the tomb ( much larger than Narmer’s) and the presence of a fragment of a “Heka” or “crock” scepter in the tomb. It is not clear, however, how much of Egypt he ruled over. Dreyer argues, based on several inscriptions with the scorpion symbol found in the tomb, that the name of the king buried in tomb U-j was Scorpion (Scorpion I). Another piece of evidence for Scorpion I is the rock carving at Gebel Tjauti, which shows a scorpion with a hawk immediately above it. (see entry “Scorpion” in The Encyclopedia of the Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, volume I by Darrell D. Baker, 2008. See also the entry under “Scorpion I”.) “Scorpion” could, however, refer to kingship in general, or to a god. Numerous small carvings of scorpions have been found at Hierakonpolis dating to significantly earlier than tomb U-j. An example of the argument against Scorpion I can be found in A history of Ancient Egypt, from the first farmers to the great pyramid, by John Romer, 2013. In summary, there is substantial evidence that a king named Scorpion ruled at least 100 years before Iry-Hor. But this is controversial, and could not be said that it represents a “consensus” opinion. Heagy1 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, I think the article on Scorpion I needs some work to reflect this debate.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Body/Mummy?
The text about Narmer's tomb makes no mention of his body, an odd omission given that there is a tomb. I presume there was no body found, but if so, that deserves mention. I don't know enough about the topic to do this myself. Tmangray (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Of all the Kings of Ancient Egypt, only 2 were found in their tombs. So It isn't really necessary to mention that for Narmer, it was also the case that no body was found Heagy1 (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That isn't quite true, for exemple, the mummy of Merenre Nemtyemsaf I (see here) was discovered as well as those of Neferefre and Djedkare Isesi, parts of that of Djoser and a wrist of Djer.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Narmer first beard?
Heagy recently added info saying one side of Narmer Palette is the first instance of a fake beard. Just a minor question, it looks like Scorpion is shown with the beard as well as Narmer (both times) but I can't find it on any of Narmers successors so I am surprised they don't say he is the last instance of a beard. 172.58.185.180 (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding earlier, but I don't seem to have gotten a notice when this was posted. With regard to the false beard after Narmer. If you look at any history of the art of Egypt you will see examples of pharaohs wearing false beards. The most famous is the funeral mask and coffin of king Tutankhamun. With regard to earlier representations, beards are common, but not false beards, which are only worn by the king ( and some male gods). Note that I was very specific, I said " first unambiguous representation of the royal false beard". The definitive study of this subject is "On the Origin of the Royal False Beard and its Bovine Symbolism " by Hendrickx et al 2014 (see my bibliography entry for complete details). Although Scorpion is shown with a beard on the Scorpion Macehead, it isn't clear that it is a false beard. Hence the conclusion by Hendrickx et al p. 136 "The earliest attestation beyond discussion of the false beard with sideboards is on the Narmer Palette." I looked at both of the references you mentioned, but didn't find anything about representations of royal false beards, perhaps you could give me specific page numbers. Heagy1 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I don't see how they tell the difference between Scorpion and Narmers beards, and after Narmer they seem to become quite rare again until perhaps the Middle Kingdom... but if that's what can be sourced, okay. I actually have not given any references, if you mean the two appearing below they are artifacts from another thread. 172.58.185.160 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The difference in the beards, is that on the Narmer Palette, you can clearly see the straps that show that it is a false beard rather than a real beard. This distinguishes the king from everyone else, and seems to have started with Narmer. It is true that it is infrequent in the Old Kingdom, and as you point out, it became more common in the Middle and New Kingdoms. But it all goes back to Narmer. Heagy1 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision of Reign section
Starting with all the great content in Narmer:Reign, I have restructured the discussion of the first part of the section to focus on the two related issues that are at the heart of any discussion of Narmer : “Was Narmer Menes ?”, and “What was Narmer’s role in the unification of Egypt ?”.

Given that he lived 5000 years ago, it is not surprising that there is a great deal of uncertainty and controversy over every issue relating to Narmer. What I have tried to do is to identify the dominant view among Egyptologists, identify the controversy, and then provide detail of the controversies in the footnotes – material that the average reader is probably not interested in.

I have also added substantial additional information, some in the text, but more in the footnotes where I have put the more technical information. I have also added references. I have a lot of additions to the bibliography that I will put in a little later

Finally, I have added sub-section headings.

I hope everyone finds these changes to be an improvement. Heagy1 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing Facts
Doesn't the name Narmer mean "Fighting Catfish"? I ask because in all the discussion about the Narmer / Menes connection, it seems that information about Narmers identity itself is missing. And how did he die as wasn't Narmer killed by a hippo and his body carried away by the creature? Even if new facts have emerged to say this is wrong, many are familiar with this and it's worth making note of to clarify so this article doesn't seem incomplete.

While I agree it is possible Narmer is Menes, that would be better argued in the Menes topic and only mentioned on this topic rather than comprising the entire thing. Otherwise, wouldn't you agree it's best to just combine Narmer with the Menes topic and do away with this one completely?

The possibility yet exists that Narmer could be a separate king entirely and it is only theory that he is Menes or Hor Aha... he may be neither and until we have proof without question rather than well meaning theory, to include so much about Narmer being Menes and so little that is documented about Narmer himself such as the meaning of his name and things such as how he allegedly died are extremely important things to note. It almost seems as if this article were censored to exclude these things and to put forward the theory Narmer couldn't have and did not exist as a separate Pharoah when we simply do not know enough yet to exclude things we are told about Narmer that don't jive with the story of Menes or Hor Aha.

Armorbeast (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention that some (but not all) scholars interpret the name Narmer as “fighting catfish”. I am in the process of re-writing the Introduction, and will add that, with appropriate references. I am surprised that you think the article overemphasizes the question of whether or not Narmer was Menes. Of the 5 sections in the article, only one is devoted to that subject. Narmer’s role in the unification of Egypt, his (maybe) wife, his tomb, and artifacts with his name on them, are all discussed in detail. The vast majority of Egyptologists believe that Menes was either Narmer or Hor-Aha, with the majority favoring Narmer. (Some also favor the theory that Menes is mythical.) While there is no proof, there is a substantial amount of evidence, as discussed in the Who was Menes? section of the Narmer article and the many articles by scholars on the subject that are referenced. As for how Narmer died, we have no evidence. The story about the hippos is about Menes and comes from Manetho, as our only source. Manetho is believed to have based his History on temple annals (he was a priest) such as the Palermo Stone and the Turin King List. These annals contain information about the length of reign of the kings, and important events that occurred in their reigns, but there are no examples of them containing information about how a king died. Consequently, the story of the hippo is likely a myth. It seems appropriate to mention it in the article on Menes, but not the article on Narmer.

Heagy1 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Narmer in Canaan
The existing article contains an excellent discussion of Egypt and Narmer’s role in Canaan in the section on Artifacts. I have moved it to be a separate sub-section of the Reign section, leaving in the Artifacts section only information that relates directly to artifacts. I have also added a discussion of the relevant quote by Manetho and of Narmer Box 3 by Dryer that may also be relevant.

Heagy1 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The name of Canaan is attested about 1000 years after Narmer and may be an anachronism ... I think iirc the name used in Narmers time was Setjet or Setyet 172.58.217.149 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Canaan is an anachronism, but so is Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt, Serekh, First Dynasty, and for that matter "Egypt". It is the term used by the majority of modern scholars, and I think, like many other anachronisms that people use, it facilitates understanding by using a term the reader is familiar with. I am not familiar with the terms Setjet or Setyet, I would very much appreciate a reference.

Heagy1 (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC) I just googled and found plenty of references confirming that "Syria-Palestine" was known as "Setjet" during the first dynasty, particularly in the celebrated inscription of Djer. There is enough there for you to write a needed article for Setjet, which I unfortunately don't have time to do. 172.58.201.21 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Narmer Catalog
The Narmer Catalog is a comprehensive database of all available information concerning archaeological objects with inscriptions relating to Narmer, including all inscriptions that bear his name and inscriptions that are dated to his reign. The Catalog is currently composed of 109 inscriptions from 28 different sites in Egypt, the Sinai, and southern Canaan, including inscriptions whose interpretations are uncertain and/or controversial. Each inscription page includes key information (Type, Material, Depository, etc.), illustrations (both drawings and photographs), and an extensive bibliography. I am the author of the Narmer Catalog and the article, “Who was Menes?”, published in Archéo-Nil, the leading journal on early Egypt. Günter Dreyer and Renée Friedman, authorities in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, act as scholarly advisors for the Catalog. Links to the inscription pages of the Catalog, provided as a supplement to the references to academic publications, are useful for several reasons. First, most readers of the Wikipedia article do not have access to an Egyptological library. Second, even for people who do have access to such resources, links to the Narmer Catalog allow them to easily and quickly view the material they may be interested in, such as images of an object, the material it is made of, and information on its present location, without the need to track down all the printed material. For each inscription in the Catalog, all relevant data is presented in an easy-to-read format and can be downloaded as a PDF. Finally, it is worth noting that, for most of the inscriptions, the Narmer Catalog is not only the sole online resource with images or other information, it is also the only source for a complete list of references. For many inscriptions, listing every reference in the Wikipedia article would be impractical. For example, the Den necropolis seal impression has 12 references, 3 drawings, and 8 photographs of fragments of the seal impression. [] A simple link to the Narmer Catalog allows readers to learn more about the inscription and to gain access to a comprehensive list of references, Heagy1 (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Religion
Hello all, i must say this is a well written article but as i read it i could not find any reference to what if any religion he practiced, nor could i find a link in the article to the religion practiced at the time, Do you think this should added? 86.185.138.241 (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Very little is known about the religion during this period,and nothing that would distinguish the religion during the reign of Narmer from that of the rest of the 1st dynasty. Any discussion would, more appropriately, go in the Early Dynastic Period section. Heagy1 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong but I feel like his religion was that the Ancient Egyptian religion. Of course it evolved from Narmer until the Ptolemies but I believe it is still considered to be one and the same religion. Ergo, we could perhaps write this in the article since there seems to be people looking for this information.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Lifetime
Article claims lifetime "c. 3273 – 2987 BC" (286 years fresh). Sounds biblical but encyclopedial. That should be clearer. Kipala (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes do not match citations & vice-versa
I am noting that a substantial number of shortened footnotes do not match up to citations & vice-versa. Someone who has User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js installed in their common.js (see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for documentation) could help. Also watching this should I have time. Peaceray (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Image of limestone head
While interesting, the paragraph about who the head might be attributed to seems to have undue length, considering it's mainly not about Narmer. Hypnôs (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)