Egypt’s story: Narmer and the question of the first pharaoh

Home > Opinion > Meanwhile

Egypt’s story: Narmer and the question of the first pharaoh

Published: 10 Apr. 2026, 00:05

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Kwack Min-soo

The author is the director of the Korea Institute of Egyptology.

Among the candidates for the title of first pharaoh, Narmer stands out. Unlike Menes, discussed previously, Narmer’s existence is firmly supported by archaeological evidence.

The Narmer Palette, housed in the former Egyptian Museum [Kwack Min-soo]

One of the most important discoveries was made in 1897 by British Egyptologist James Quibell at Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt. Excavating a temple site, Quibell uncovered a large number of early dynastic artifacts that had been buried for ritual purposes. Among them was the “Narmer Palette,” a schist slab measuring 64 by 42 centimeters (25.2 by 16.5 inches) and engraved with symbols widely interpreted as representing the unification of Egypt. The artifact also bears Narmer’s name, which combines the hieroglyphs nar (catfish) and mer (chisel) and is often translated as “fierce catfish.”

Evidence of Narmer’s existence has also been found beyond Egypt. Pottery fragments inscribed with his name have been discovered at sites such as Arad and Tel Erani in what is now Israel. These findings not only support the historical reality of Narmer but also suggest that Egypt’s influence had already extended into the Levant during this early period.

A particularly significant piece of evidence emerged in 1985, when German archaeologist Günter Dreyer discovered a cylindrical seal at Abydos. Found in the tomb of Den, a pharaoh of the First Dynasty, the seal bears a sequential list of early rulers. Narmer appears at the very beginning of this list.

Taken together, these archaeological findings point to the “presence” of Narmer and the relative “absence” of Menes. At this stage, it is reasonable to draw a tentative conclusion that the first pharaoh may have been a ruler known as Narmer. This raises a further question: Who, then, was Menes? Was he another name for a historical figure or a symbolic construct created by later generations?

Written records reflect intention. Archaeological evidence, by contrast, consists of traces left behind without such intent. In other words, the former is “what was said,” while the latter is “what remained.” Researchers move between these two forms of evidence, interpreting the motives behind recorded accounts and reconstructing the meaning of material traces.

In this process, history does not emerge as a fixed set of facts. Rather, it resembles an image, the resolution of which is continually adjusted, coming into clearer focus over time.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.