Week 3: Military conquest?

The history behind the process of unification between Upper and Lower Egypt is intriguing. Upon watching lectures and reading the required text during this week, I became fascinated on exactly what went “down” during the different phases between Naqada II and Naqada III. I was particularly fascinated at the theory of a military conquest. There is no clear evidence for large-scale military activity at the time of the unification of the Egyptian state. Though, the evidence of the palettes such as the Town Palette show Lower Egyptian walled cities under attack. Or, the Narmer Palette, in which could be interpreted as the ‘king’s power sentences a law-breaker to death’ and shows scenes of the victorious king, dead enemies, and vanquished peoples or towns. I feel that many people can make generalizations and try to convince themselves that perhaps a military attack did happen, but then archaeologists uncover burial grounds and tombs. What does this have to do with military activity? When unraveling cemeteries, such as the remains uncovered from dynasty 0 and 1 cemeteries, we find no signs of violent death or possible battle injuries. There is no evidence for a class of warriors in prehistoric Egyptian society, and no burials that may be classified as
warrior graves. The only remaining evidence for a military conquest of Lower Egypt and the formation of the Egyptian state is in later Egyptian sources which state Menes founded Egypt (Gilbert). Upon researching burial grounds, what about weapons? Were there any type of weapon found that would be used if in the presence of a war? or if weapons were found, could they possibly have been possibly used for agricultural practices?

There are many unanswered questions and information we just don’t have the answers too. Perhaps with more research and soon to be uncovered sites we can find out the answers.

Gilbert, Gregory. \”The Unification of Egypt.\” N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://www.oocities.org/timessquare/alley/4482/Uni.html>.