Among many issues that still do not have a sufficiently substantiated explanation, the question of the unification of ancient Egypt into a single state during the transition from pre-dynastic time to the era of the first dynasties remains the least justified, and is generally described.
Officially recognized is the version of the conquest campaign of the leader Narmer, who, for sure, was one of the nomarchs, against the rebellious nomarchs of other regions of the still ununified country, and the subsequent annexation of nearby lands.
However, in all works on this topic, Egypt seems to immediately become one, and there is not the slightest mention of small unifying processes or an attempt to disconnect. This is partly due to the very small number of monuments and sources of that time, but it seems too simple and unlikely that the local chiefs-nomarchs so simply, without any interest for themselves, and only under pressure from another leader came together just for the sake of Narmer's desire to have a single state.
Small wars between the nomes in the pre-dynastic era were most likely of a regular nature, and not a single nome could get stronger enough to conquer everyone overnight. It is much more logical to assume that the monuments on the basis of which the conclusion about the conquering nature of the association is made refer precisely to the time of chronic inter-ethnic conflicts and only glorify those who ordered these very items for their court use.
In fact, the most reasonable may be the hypothesis of the voluntary unification of Egypt on the basis of the proximity of the interests of the nomarchs in the general strengthening of the entire region of the nomes in the face of a foreign enemy or on a kindred basis.
The nation, which constitutes a single whole in the ethnic mass, and even more so living practically side by side, could not but have family ties with neighbors, including among the ruling elite.
The photographs of the fragments of the dishes, which I have cited, also clearly demonstrate that the "militant" ruler appears before us either in the crown of the upper or in the crown of lower Egypt. Which, by the way, is not at all a confirmation that the country consisted of two warring parts, each of which had symbols and attributes of power. And only demonstrates fashion in different nomes of that time among the rulers, while naturally pointing to the southern or northern style.
And all the more, it is impossible on the basis of these images (fragments) to judge that the depicted really conquered or united something, since these images are of laudatory and often too exaggerated content.
Promotional video:
In addition, most of the fragments clearly show the same symbolism of many nomes, which confirms the conjecture about the relatedness and proximity of lands. Special attention should be paid to the designation, which was later adopted as the concept of "lord of both lands", and referring in the dynastic period to the title of the single pharaoh for all of Egypt.
In the above fragments, this symbol - a dragonfly with a branch on the right and two tubercles below - carries an exclusively limited meaning of the region, nome.
If such a designation had already then the meaning of a name, then an attempt to read these fragments ends in a complete lack of meaning and, for some reason, repeating the same name within the text, and in a row!
In addition, it is necessary to keep in mind the factor that in the pre-dynastic era and in the period of the first dynasties, hieroglyphs were not read like letters and even words. They were signs-formulas, each of which carried a very capacious concept and sometimes meant not just different things, depending on what combination it was in, but could simply be interpreted quite broadly depending on what kind of meaning was put into it by people of one or a different area. It was this process that later led the ancient Egyptian grammar to the state in which the people of the “new kingdom” did not understand the meaning of the “magic formulas” of the ancients, and people of the 2-4 dynasties could mean something completely different, drawing the same hieroglyph.
In the above fragments, it is also clearly noticeable how, for example, the image of the heart is transformed into some abstract one, which certainly complicates its further understanding as a sign that carries some kind of information.
Below there is a fragment on which the neck holds a torn out heart in its paw, and below is a modified version of the "simplified" image of the same one with the transformation of all other details of the drawing.
It is hard to disagree that the original version and the subsequent simplified version can be interpreted differently by an outside observer when considered separately without comparison. Also, attention is drawn to the often found image of a torn heart, which probably symbolizes the strength of the warrior and his mercilessness towards enemies. In subsequent fully preserved images, this symbol disappears, apparently yielding to another, which indicates the further defeat of the one to whom this sign belonged.
And yet the main question remains valid. Was Egypt forcibly united during the era of the first dynasty, or was it a merger based on mutual interests?
I am convinced that the unification of the country took place exclusively on a voluntary basis, and long before Narmer and the kings of the first dynasty. Only after that did the pharaohs add, so to speak, separate nomes, which were in need, and it was the allied power of the nomes that made up the backbone of the union that made it possible to effectively conquer, annex new lands without plundering them as strangers, namely, including in the country with all the resulting civil rights, so to speak, for the elite of the nome and ordinary people.
It is noteworthy that the moment of the merger was a holiday, as evidenced by the inscriptions on some of the vessels dedicated to these events, which is further evidence in favor of a peaceful merger.
A striking example is the inscriptions on the bowls listed below, where the list of uniting nomes is summed up by early signs meaning a holiday, and even hieroglyphs that can be read as "homeland".
On the bowl there are images of three nomes, most likely entering into the first union, then at the paws of two birds there is an image of squares, corresponding in the number of nomes, and one larger, implying a single country. What follows is an image translated something like this:
"A single land, consisting of different lands, included in one, and strengthened (by this)."
The translation is approximate, but these signs cannot be translated for sure, tk. due to the circumstances already mentioned, people who wrote this, put their own, unknown to us, meaning into them. However, this meaning to the smallest detail would shed light only on all the subtleties of the inscription, on the whole the meaning of the inscription is clear.
Pouring beer into this bowl, for example, people had to drink for the health of the "union", remember this and rejoice.
A similar image is also present on the second bowl, although it differs somewhat in the addition of other signs, which, however, have the same general meaning.
There are slightly more "squares" on it, denoting the nomes supposedly included in the "union", but with the same number of "emblems" and "coats of arms" presented, it can also be assumed that the cubes denoted cities that were more or less large within the From the time of the manufacture of the first bowl to the time of the manufacture of the second, the number of cities in the "union" increased.
I did not accompany this work with the details of the literal translation due to the fact that they could take up too much space and distract from the main topic. These bowls were found in the pyramidal complex of Djoser (Gora-Netherekhet), and are now regarded as samples belonging to the third dynasty. Personally, I completely disagree with this and believe that “unifying” ceramics and other attributes of the pre-dynastic period ended up in the Djoser complex solely as a museum, although without a modern understanding of the museum business as such.
None of the above fragments correspond either to the level of art of the third dynasty, higher and more refined, or to the theme of the period. Moreover, the above inscriptions clearly show the presence of many "old" hieroglyphs, which even in the period of the third dynasty have a completely different meaning in the texts and look nothing more than similar.
The author expresses his deep gratitude to the Laboratory of Alternative History and personally to A. Sklyarov for the provided photographic materials.
DMITRY NECHAY