The Narmer Catalog

Inscription Detail

4814 (Unusual Narmer serekh from Wadi Ameyra)

Source No: 4814

Date: Narmer

Dated by: royal name

Type: rock inscription

Material: sandstone

Region: Sinai

Site: Wadi Ameyra

Locality: Doc 299

Depository: in situ

Registration No.

References

Tallet and Laisney, 2012

p. 387

p. 397, fig. 10

Tallet, 2015

pp. 18-20

p. 66, fig. 42; pls. 25-26

Comments

Editor's Note: This is the only example of the name Narmer represented with a horizontal chisel. It is also the only example of a Narmer serekh in which the chisel is shown in the name panel. Despite these anomalies, it would be a mistake to conclude that this is not the serekh of Narmer for three reasons. First, Narmer's name is represented in a wide variety of ways - much more so than other early kings. Second, as a rock inscription, it is less likely to have been done by someone familiar with the royal conventions. Third, there is no doubt that it is a serekh and there is no other king to whom it could plausibly refer.

4814 (Unusual Narmer serekh from Wadi Ameyra)

Tallet and Laisney, 2012, p. 397, fig. 10

4814 (Unusual Narmer serekh from Wadi Ameyra)

Tallet, 2015, pl. 25

More Images

Tallet, 2015, pl. 26

Tallet, 2015, p. 66, fig. 42


The Narmer Catalog

Inscription Detail

Source No:4814
Date:Narmer
Dated by:royal name
Type:rock inscription
Material:sandstone
Region:Sinai
Site:Wadi Ameyra
Locality:Doc 299
Depository:in situ
Registration No.
References Discussion Figure/Plate
Tallet and Laisney, 2012 p. 387 p. 397, fig. 10
Tallet, 2015 pp. 18-20 p. 66, fig. 42; pls. 25-26

Comments: Editor's Note: This is the only example of the name Narmer represented with a horizontal chisel. It is also the only example of a Narmer serekh in which the chisel is shown in the name panel. Despite these anomalies, it would be a mistake to conclude that this is not the serekh of Narmer for three reasons. First, Narmer's name is represented in a wide variety of ways - much more so than other early kings. Second, as a rock inscription, it is less likely to have been done by someone familiar with the royal conventions. Third, there is no doubt that it is a serekh and there is no other king to whom it could plausibly refer.


Images

4814 (Unusual Narmer serekh from Wadi Ameyra)

Tallet and Laisney, 2012, p. 397, fig. 10

4814 (Unusual Narmer serekh from Wadi Ameyra)

Tallet, 2015, pl. 25

4814 (Unusual Narmer serekh from Wadi Ameyra)

Tallet, 2015, pl. 26

4814 (Unusual Narmer serekh from Wadi Ameyra)

Tallet, 2015, p. 66, fig. 42

Inscription not found

Ok