Menes

Egyptian pharaoh

• Born: c. 3100 b.c.e.
• Birthplace: Thinis, Egypt
• Died: c. 3000 b.c.e.
• Place of death: Memphis, Egypt

Menes is described in classical Greek and Roman sources and late-period Egyptian king lists as the ruler who was responsible for the unification of Egypt, the building of the capital city of Memphis, and the founding of the First Dynasty of Egypt.

Early Life

Virtually nothing is known about the early life of Menes (MEE-neez), since neither the extant classical sources nor the Pharaonic period Egyptian sources make any mention about his formative period.

Life’s Work

The details of the life and work of Menes are few, scattered, and somewhat contradictory in some details. By classical times (c. 500 b.c.e.), Menes had been transformed into a culture hero whose life and accomplishments were embellished with semimythical anecdotes. He is thus at most a quasi-historical figure. According to the Egyptian historian Manetho (c. 300 b.c.e.), Menes, who came from the town of Thinis, about three hundred miles south of Cairo, was the first human ruler in Egypt after dynasties of demigods had ruled. He became the founder of the Egyptian state by uniting Upper and Lower Egypt; he was regarded as the first lawgiver and the leader who brought civilization to Egypt. The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484-c. 425 b.c.e.) adds that Egyptian priests told him that Min (Menes) drained the plain of Memphis by damming up the Nile, laying the foundation for Egypt’s first capital.

If Menes was indeed Egypt’s first unifier, then Memphis was a prime location for a capital, as it was centered between Upper and Lower Egypt. According to Manetho, Menes ruled for about sixty years (although a variant text states a mere thirty years) and was the founder of the First Dynasty of Egypt, which lasted for more than 250 years. In addition, he “made a foreign expedition and won renown.” The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (fl. first century b.c.e.) adds the anecdotal statement that Menas (Menes) was pursued by his own dogs into the Lake of Moeris and was carried off by a crocodile that safely ferried him to the other riverbank. In gratitude, he founded the City of Crocodiles and demanded that the locals worship them as gods. Diodorus adds that Menes built his tomb there, a four-sided pyramid (although pyramids are not attested in Egypt until centuries later). Menes is also said by Diodorus to have built a labyrinth, although in another section, he attributes this to a king named Mendes. Manetho states that Menes was carried off by a hippopotamus and died.

Thus, the classical sources concerning Menes are in agreement concerning his position as the first king of Egypt and the founder of Memphis and the First Dynasty. The Pharaonic period Egyptian records, however, contradict the classical sources in many places. Menes is not listed as the first nondivine king and as the unifier of Egypt until king lists from the time of Thutmose III (late sixteenth century-1450 b.c.e.), fifth king of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The Karnak list of kings commences with Menes and lists all of Egypt’s monarchs who ruled over the united kingdom (omitting any kings from the Intermediate periods) down to Thutmose III. Menes’ preeminence is supported by the Turin Canon, or king list, and by a list of sixty-seven kings found inscribed on walls of a temple of Seti I (c. late fourteenth century-c. 1279 b.c.e.) at Abydos. Moreover, a palette from the Nineteenth Dynasty mentions the “Ptah of Menes,” presumably a reference to a cult of the Egyptian god Ptah (the god of Menes). Interestingly, the Turin Canon has the name of Meni (Menes) twice, first with a human determinative before the name and again with a divine determinative. The purpose for this repetition is unknown. However, another king list inscribed in the tomb of a scribe at Saqqara (c. 1300 b.c.e.) omits mention of Menes and the first five kings of the First Dynasty.

It is not certain whether the New Kingdom lists reflect some documentary material that went back to an earlier time or whether they were constructed in conformity with ideas in vogue during their own period. For example, the fragmentary Palermo Stone, an annals text of the Fifth Dynasty (c. 2494-c. 2345 b.c.e.), does not list Menes. It does, however, list monarchs who ruled before the unification, although the text is severely fragmented for the earliest periods. In fact, it implies that there was a unification before the First Dynasty that broke down and thus had to be reinstated.

The issue becomes further complicated when one investigates the material remains from the First and Second Dynasties. An ivory plaque from the mastaba tomb of Neithhotep at Naqada bears the name of Men (assumed to be Menes) and King Aha (likely the husband of Neithhotep). The relationship of these two is not immediately apparent. Was Menes the same person as Aha, or his father? Is one of the names a Horus name (the name a monarch took as the incarnation of the god Horus)? Some kings took as many as five different throne names. In fact, the royal tombs have different names than do the later king lists for monarchs of the first two dynasties, a fact attributed to the myriad names for the king. The name “Min,” it has been argued, appears to be the Nebti name, the second name for the Egyptian king in his role as ruler over both parts of Egypt. A seal impression found at the Umm el-Qa՚ab cemetery at Abydos in 1985 places Aha as the second king of the First Dynasty. The first king in this list is Narmer, presumably the father of Aha. He has also been associated with the Nebti name “Min” on jar sealings at Abydos. Thus, Min (Menes) is associated with both of these kings.

Narmer is well known from a mudstone ceremonial palette and a limestone macehead, both of which were excavated at Hierakonopolis in Upper Egypt. Both were found in poor archaeological contexts; the macehead seems to have been among a group of First Dynasty items buried beneath the floor of the Hierakonopolis temple complex dated to the Old Kingdom (c. c. 2687-c. 2125 b.c.e.), and the palette was found a few meters away. Both items have been dated stylistically to the period of the First Dynasty (c. 2925-c. 2775 b.c.e.). Though the macehead is severely fragmented and the palette in good condition, both are carved with reliefs that feature Narmer. On one side, he is shown with the white crown of Upper Egypt, striking a foreigner; on the other side, he is depicted with the red crown of Lower Egypt, taking his place in a procession that is moving toward a group of decapitated prisoners. The palette has been traditionally viewed as a memorial commemorating military successes over foreigners (usually identified as Libyans and Northern Egyptians). However, later studies have argued that the palette is an iconographic depiction of summaries of victories that occurred over the past year. If so, the palette was a votive object offered to the temple and may not express any particular historical reality.

The issue is still further complicated by the existence of a fragmentary limestone macehead containing an inscription of a king wearing the crown of Upper Egypt and identified as King Scorpion. Like the Narmer objects, it was found at Hierakonopolis in a poor archaeological context, although it also appears to date stylistically to the First or Second Dynasty. The king is shown excavating a ceremonial irrigation canal with the help of some subjects. More recently, a tomb at Umm el-Qa՚ab at Abydos was excavated that contained many pieces of Predynastic Period (c. 3050-c. 2925 b.c.e.) pottery, many of which bore the scorpion hieroglyph. It is unclear whether these two items depict the same king, and his possible relationship to Menes is also uncertain.

Significance

Menes is credited with being the unifier of Egypt, the builder of Memphis, and the founder of the First Dynasty of Egypt. However, it should be noted that it is impossible to identify Menes with any particular ruler from Egypt’s First and Second Dynasties. Some scholars, however, have argued that Menes may later have become a name given to the unifier or unifiers of Egypt and thus may represent a composite of Narmer, Aha, and perhaps King Scorpion. Conversely, there are those who argue for identifying him either with Narmer or with Aha because of Menes’ association with these monarchs in various inscriptions. No doubt the later classical tradition has become garbled because mistaken readings of the earliest cursive form of the Egyptian script were canonized by later dynasties.

Furthermore, the work of Manetho, the primary historian of ancient Egypt, is no longer extant and is known only from isolated statements in the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37-c. 100 c.e.). An epitome of Manetho’s work was made at an early date in the form of lists of dynasties and kingdoms, with short notes on kings and events. This was preserved in part primarily by the early Christian writers Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 180-c. 250 c.e.) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-339 c.e.). The original makeup of Manetho’s Aegyptica, however, also appears to have included narratives. If ever recovered, the Aegyptica may hold the key to discovering the identity of Menes.

Bibliography

Assmann, Jan. The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. Reprint. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. Although dense and best read by those with some background in the intricacies of Egyptian history, this book ably dissects the attitudes of Egyptians, from the most ancient times to the Alexandrian era, toward history and what it meant. Helps explain why the chronology of ancient Egypt is so tortuous.

Emery, W. B. Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1961. Though dated, this work contains one of the most detailed discussions in English concerning the problem of the identification of Menes.

Redford, D. Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. Mississauga, Ont.: Benben Publications, 1986. A critical analysis of the historical value of Egyptian king lists, with a number of discussions of Menes and his identification.

Rice, Michael. Egypt’s Making: The Origins of Ancient Egypt, 5000-2000 B.C. 2d ed. New York: Routledge, 1991. The introduction to ancient Egypt focuses on the psychology and culture of the people. The illustrations go beyond the standard images to give a broader understanding of Egypt’s cultural inheritance.

Verbrugghe, Gerald P., and John M. Wickersham. Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Ancient Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001. The second half of this study provides an introductory chapter to what is known of Manetho, especially assessing his sources, reliability, and methods, and then provides the fragments of and references to his work that have been preserved in later authors. The final chapter provides a number of tables comparing Manetho’s chronology and king lists with those from other sources.