#narmer

[jcollinswrites]

Lmao I keep getting messages about how very short Qenna is, so to clear things up, here is where they all fall on the in-game scale...

That means, if your MC is "very tall", then you'll be around the same height as Narmer.

On the other hand...

Yes, indeed, it also means that if you're playing a very short MC, then you officially look like this in the game...

[whencyclopedia]

Early Dynastic Period In Egypt: Unification and the Rise of the First Egyptian Kings

The Early Dynastic Period in Egypt (circa 3150 to circa 2613 BCE) is the beginning of the historical era of the country during which the regions of Upper Egypt (south) and Lower Egypt (north) were united as one country under a centralized government, and kingship was first established. During this period, the divine rule of the kings began, and a recognizable Egyptian culture, including the development of writing, arts, and sciences, developed. The title "pharaoh" was not used during this period; rulers were referred to as "kings" and addressed as "your majesty." The title of "pharaoh" was not used until the period of the New Kingdom (circa 1570 to circa 1069 BCE), when the word pero (also per-a-a) came into use to designate the royal residence and meant "Great House" in reference to the king's palace.

This era followed the Predynastic Period in Egypt (circa 6000 to circa 3150 BCE) and was followed by the period known as the Old Kingdom (circa 2613 - 2181 BCE). While these dates are not arbitrary, they should not be understood as any kind of demarcation ending one era and beginning another. They are used to help clarify the long history of ancient Egypt by dividing its story into sections of cohesive development.

The line between some periods in ancient Egyptian history does seem quite clear, while with others (such as that between the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods), it is blurred. Dates should be understood to be approximations the further back in time one travels in Egyptian history. This same paradigm, however, should also be applied to all of Egyptian history as the ancient Egyptians themselves did not record their history according to these terms and demarcations; all of these are modern constructs.

Egypt's Unification & First King

According to the chronology of Manetho (3rd century BCE), the first king of Egypt was Menes, a king of Upper Egypt possibly from the city of Thinis (or Hierakonpolis), who overcame the other city-states around him and then went on to conquer Lower Egypt. This king's name is known primarily through written records such as Manetho's chronology and the Turin King List; however, it is not corroborated by any extensive archeological evidence, and scholars now believe the first king may have been a man named Narmer who peacefully united Upper and Lower Egypt at some point circa 3150 BCE.

This claim is contested, however, owing to the Narmer Palette (an ancient inscribed slab), which depicts a king, positively identified as Narmer, as a military figure conquering a region which is clearly Lower Egypt. Scholar Marc Van de Mieroop comments:

That Egypt was created through military means is a basic concept expressed in the art of the period. A sizeable set of stone objects, including cermonial mace-heads and palettes, contain scenes of war and fighting between men, between animals, and between men and animals.

Whereas in the past, Egyptologists read the scenes of war literally as records of actual events, today they prefer to see them as stereotypical statements of kingship and the king's legitimacy.

(33)

This new method of interpreting ancient inscriptions, however valuable some may consider it, does not mean such interpretations are accurate. The argument against such interpretations asks why, if these inscriptions are to be taken symbolically, others of later periods – such as those of Ramesses II the Great at the Battle of Kadesh – continue to be read literally as historical record.

Mieroop comments further, stating, "This new approach makes it impossible to date the unification of Egypt or attribute it to a specific individual on the basis of these representations" (33-34), but he notes that, whatever the case regarding the first ruler, "the art of the period shows that the Egyptians linked unification with conflict" (34).

Scholar Douglas J. Brewer, on the other hand, does not see any problem in regarding the inscriptions symbolically. The name "Menes" means "He who endures" and could possibly be a title, not a personal name, in which case there is no difficulty in identifying the first king as Narmer, "who endured."

The name "Menes" has also been found on an ivory inscription from Naqada associated with Hor-Aha of the First Dynasty of Egypt, which could mean the title was passed down or that Hor-Aha was the first king. Brewer notes that these ancient inscriptions, such as the Narmer Palette, perpetuate "a culturally accepted scenario and, therefore, should perhaps be regarded as a monument commemorating an achieved state of unity rather than depicting the process of unification itself" (141).

To scholars such as Brewer, the means by which unification came about are not as important as the fact of unification itself. The details of the event, like those of any nation's origins, may have been largely embellished upon by later writers. Brewer writes:

Menes probably never existed, at least as the individual responsible for all the attributed feats. Rather he is most likely a compilation of real-life individuals whose deeds were recorded through oral tradition and identified as the work of a single person, thereby creating a central hero figure for Egypt's unification. Like the personalities of the Bible, Menes was part fiction, part truth, and the years have masked the borderline, creating a legend of unification.

(142)

Unification, Brewer and others claim, was "most likely a slow process stimulated by economic growth" (142). Upper Egypt seems to have been more prosperous, and their wealth enabled them to systematically absorb the lands of Lower Egypt over time as they found they needed more resources for their population and trade. Whether the king who united the country was Narmer or someone of another name, this king laid the foundation for the rise of one of the greatest civilizations of the ancient world.

Read More

⇒ Early Dynastic Period In Egypt: Unification and the Rise of the First Egyptian Kings

[house-of-the-sun-project]

[ Pharaohs and their Favorite Gods -Narmer ]

Narmer, the legendary king and the very first pharaoh of Egypt, is remembered not only for unifying the land under his rule, but also for setting a new standard in royal art. On the famous Narmer Palette, he appears for the first time side by side with a god: Horus, the falcon-headed god of kingship.

Here, Horus is not a distant figure - or a mere symbol on top of the king's name - but an ally, working with the king during his conquest of the northern lands. This is a revolutionary moment in Ancient Egyptian art, as the pharaoh is no longer seen as just a ruler: he is a living god whose strength allows him to restore the cosmic order, all in the name of Ma'at.

From this moment on, every pharaoh would either show himself as Horus on earth or in close company with the gods, assisting and supporting them like close and old friends or family.

[orokin-grub]

Tennotober 2025 - Day 15, 16, 17 and 19.

[1-800-daylon]

[egypt-museum]

King Narmer

A print from Kings and Queens of Ancient Egypt, portraits by Winifred Brunton (South African, 1880-1959), Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1926.

[luctlapt]

Solaris: Folk-ish songs of the people; Corpus: Epic space sea shanty; Narmer: Melodical mind-control corrupted melody; The Infested: 1999's Boy Band with subliminal undertones

Grineer:

[autisticexpression2]

Egyptian race discourse is fucking insufferable because everyone on both "sides" of the "debate" is coming from the same dumbass mentality that one of the most ancient and influential civilizations in history can be lumped into a single made up race category.

"Kemet was a black civilization and modern Egyptians are Arab invaders." There is no major genetic difference between ancient and modern Egyptians and this narrative erases the existence of people you would consider black still existing in modern Egypt.

"They chipped the noses off Ancient Egyptian statues to hide their black features." No, they did not. Extremities like noses, ears, fingers, and penises are always the first parts of a statue to break off. This narrative also erases the many examples of classically black features that survive in Ancient Egyptian art (though more on that later).

"Cleopatra was a black woman." We technically don't know exactly what colour she was, but considering her family was Macedonian, she's probably the worst example for you to latch onto for this.

"Ancient Egyptians weren't black because the paintings depict them with a sort of copper colour." So pretentious. Shut the fuck up. They're fucking brown. What colour do you think most black people are? Do you think they're literally black? Are you an infant? Are all dogs boys and all cats girls? Do you not realize that the ancient paintings actually depict the same variety of skin colours we see in modern Egypt including what we would unambiguously consider black?

"Okay, but the black people in Ancient Egypt were slaves." No the fuck they were not. You really think black people have always been the slave race? The paintings show Egyptians of all skin colours at every level of society.

"But blacks were the enemies of Egypt! Look at this picture of them fighting!" Those are the Nubians, a specific civilization who they had a very complicated relationship with over the course of their shared history. There was a whole Nubian dynasty of pharaohs, and even before and after that period, there always were and still are people we would consider black in Egypt.

"This painting clearly differentiates Egyptians from black Nubians and lighter-skinned Libyans." Yes, I've seen that one. Interesting picture. It still doesn't erase the multitude of paintings depicting Egyptians in distinctly Egyptian clothing with varying skin colours and facial features.

"But Egyptians can't have been black because the mummies don't have prognathous faces with wide, flat noses." Neither do a lot of East Africans or even many African Americans. Black people are not a real biological category, and your indicators are worthless. Race is fake and made up. Even if it wasn't, there are statues depicting pharaohs like Narmer and Khufu with stereotypically black features as well, so this would still be a bullshit argument.

"Okay, but the bust of Nefertiti has clearly Caucasian features." The bust of Nefertiti is a fucking Rorschach test because it really doesn't have ethnically distinct facial features at all. I've seen black women who look like that. I've seen West Asian women who look like that. I have seen white women with tans who look like that. What Nefertiti definitely was not is Caucasian. Of the many foreign empires that conquered Egypt, not one of them hailed from the Caucasus region. The only notable Caucasian-Egyptian I know of is Raffi.

"Actually, gene sequencing on three pharaohs proves that Egyptians were white." Gene sequencing on the Obama family proves all Americans are black.

"No, but this genetic study says the ancestors of Egyptians descended from Anatolia, so they must have been white." Even if that conclusion was true (though that is a big if), the descendants of these mythical white precursors would not stay white after naturalizing in Egypt. Skin colour isn't immutable. It evolves in response to environmental factors like everything else. Again, look at the fucking paintings. Why is this debatable?

"Why do you hate white people?" I don't because that's a meaningless category. I just hate you specifically.

"One day, we will take Kemet back." I am shipping both of you clowns to a deserted island.