Unification And The King Summary

Kohler focuses primarily on archeological evidence in Unification and the King: The Limits of Archeology. The author recognizes how limits and flaws in archeological practices can interfere with comprehending the cultural and political evolution of ancient Egypt. Additionally, Kohler analyzes traditional views on state formation and how they relate to archeological evidence. By focusing on changes in specific artifacts, Kohler develops a timeline for ancient Egypt. Before discussing specific artifacts and settlements, the author reviews general trends as it relates to state formation in Egypt. Firstly, the transition from Naqada II to Naqada III included increasing concentration of economic and political power into the hands of only the upper
Much of the proof for unification in Egypt comes from excavations of Upper Egyptian settlements such as Hierakonpolis and Abydos as well as Buto in the Delta. Many of the settlements such as these have been plundered by looters and local farmers for valuable artifacts and fertile soil. This and carelessness in archeology by James Quibell and Fredrick Green has raised many question regarding artifacts found by these archeologists. One of the biggest findings of Quibell and Fredrick was the Main Deposit, located between the walls of two Dynastic temples. This Main Deposit provided some of today’s most groundbreaking artifacts such as Narmer’s palette, however; the author points out that because meticulous notes were not taken on the area, much is still left to question in regards to the beginning of a unified
Using Quibell and Fredrick’s field notes, they attempted to pinpoint the exact location of the Main Deposit; their efforts lead to a vague region for the possible location of this important site. Kohler mentioned Hermann Ranke as another important archeologist known for his attempts to rectify mistakes made around the Main Deposit. He did this by analyzing the twenty plus palettes found in this area, that were similar to Narmer’s palette, and stratifying them into two groups. Group I is composed of images scattered over the surface of the palette without organization of hieroglyphic signs; these palettes are attributed to Predynastic Egypt. Group II palettes are designed in horizontal lines, or registers, include early forms of hieroglyphics, and are associated with Dynastic Egypt. Some palettes, such as Hunter’s palette, involve factors from both groups so it is dated in the middle of the two groups, in Protodynastic Egypt. Narmer’s Palette is thought to postdate both of these groups. One important aspect of Narmer’s palette is the serekh that can be found at the