Evidence of Power

Learning about the evidence of Political Control has led me to believe that military conquest plays a bigger role in the unification of Egypt then it is portrayed. The carved evidence of scenes of warfare is what sparked my opinion on the matter. The Narmer Pallete scene has various underlying images that show the rulers dominion. The lecture explains how the person in the middle of the front of the Namer Pallette is Namer. I noticed that he is relatively bigger in size than everything and everyone else on the palette showing his power. His name also appears on the palette which highlights that his presence needed to be made known and that he was properly identified.  The fact that he was upraising the mace further showed possible the use of cohesion and military power to overtake the “little people”. I consider them “little people” because the person who Namer is preparing to smite is relatively smaller in size, he is on the ground, and is being held by his head. This image shows the weakness and degradation of the other people. The lecture also explained how his name appeared on other vessels and on goods. This could possibly mean that Namer had capital because the process of trading was gradually increasing; Weather it was the need for his goods or the economic revenue he received from the goods he would have power. Namer is also wearing a crown, and a crown represents his sovereignty. What is very interesting about the Namer Pallet though is that on the front Namers crown represents control only over Upper Egypt, then on the back his crown represents control over Lower Egypt. Was he showing his soon succession over Lower Egypt? Was he already ruling both entities? I believe that depends on the time in which this plallete was created.

2 thoughts on “Evidence of Power

  1. I think that Namer was in control of both Lower and Upper Egypt at the time the pallet was created, or at least mostly in control of Lower Egypt. I think that he probably started out as ruler of Upper Egypt and took over at least a significant part of Lower Egypt during his reign. I know that Upper Egypt didn’t retain control of Lower Egypt after Narmer so I wonder if Lower Egypt was not happy about the situation. I think that Narmer probably used military power to take over Lower Egypt. The scene on one side of the Narmer pallet shows this because Narmer is standing over a man from Lower Egypt about to smite him. This shows his dominance over Lower Egypt and tells me that he had a military control over the area. I think that military might had a lot more to do with taking over Lower Egypt than originally thought by scholars. I think this might also be why Lower Egypt borrowed ideas from Upper Egypt in things such ceramics. The nation with the military might also had control over the social customs of the place that they took over. This means that even if Upper Egypt did not retain control over Lower Egypt, they left a mark on the culture. This probably made it easier for Upper and Lower Egypt to eventually unite as one nation.

  2. Both of you brought up excellent ideas. The Narmer Palette depicts a story of power and gaining control. I agree that Narmer soon became the major leader of the two regions but it’s interesting to think about when this happened and how much Upper Egypt’s take over of Lower Egypt affected the social makeup of the villages. I originally thought that the gradual change in ceramics was because Upper Egypt had better methods and materials but now with the point brought up that this change may have occurred by force. I also agree that unite within social aspects makes it easier for communities and eventually regions to unite. Narmer was probably one of many rulers that could’ve made this happen. The Narmer Palette is good evidence to support the transition of separate regions to a united one. It shows the same leader on both sides with the opposite region crown. Also the illustrations of the force put on Lower Egypt gives the evidence that Upper Egypt took over Lower Egypt. The time period of when this was created and how far along the transition was with becoming one nation is questionable. I believe that it took many leaders to make this change. Egypt had grown to be a large region and was only getting larger. I’m sure certain regions had multiple leaders that had to be overtaken before it could be claimed.

Leave a Reply