Petrie Head of “Narmer”

In the late 19th century, when Cairo’s streets were a swirl of dust, donkeys, perfumed coffee, and antiquities hawkers. It was among these souqs (markets) which Sir Flinders Petrie, the legendary British Egyptologist, acquired a small, rough-hewn limestone head, scarcely 10–12 cm high.

These markets were, at the time, half curiosity-shop and half archaeological gamble, and Egyptologists would rummage through trays of mismatched sherds, battered figurines, and unprovenanced fragments in the faint hope that a “maybe” might one day blossom into a “most certainly.”

This head Petrie purchased was no exception. Carved in a stark, early style, with the wide square head shape, sharp jawline, and austere dignity familiar from Predynastic and early Dynastic prototypes, it possessed just enough gravitas to stir Petrie’s imagination. He tentatively suggested, without evidence, but with considerable romantic bravado, that the piece might depict Narmer, the elusive ruler whom later tradition credits with unifying Upper and Lower Egypt around c. 3100 B.C.

Narmer Palette

Why Narmer? Partly the style, which hinted at the archaic. Partly the regal bearing, the stern, almost hawkish set of the features. But partly, too, the era’s scholarly culture. Egyptologists in this age were, quite literally, building the field as they went, and objects bought in the souq were sometimes elevated by hopeful speculation. The markets overflowed with fragments; one could purchase a handful of Faiyum portraits, a chipped ushabti, and a “possible king’s head”, and a Great Wife’s ring before lunch. Provenance and accuracy of the buy was, famously, “optimistic” in these dealings.

Modern scholarship, of course, is far more cautious. With no archaeological context, no inscription, and no secure stylistic anchors, the head cannot be identified. Its supposed royal aura belongs more to Petrie’s wishful thinking than to Narmer himself. Yet it remains a charming relic of a wilder age of Egyptology, and on display in his archive in London.

What Do Scholars Think Today?

The vast majority of Egyptologists today consider the head to be genuinely ancient. There is no strong indication that it is a modern forgery, and several factors favour authenticity, including; the carving style matches Early Dynastic / late Predynastic workmanship, with the slightly abstracted, rectangular planes typical of early royal and elite portraiture. The weathering, tool marks, and surface degradation also appear consistent with antiquity. Petrie himself (despite occasional romantic leaps of imagination) was extraordinarily good at spotting forgeries. He trained himself obsessively to recognise modern tools and shortcuts. So today, despite the mystery of whom the head truly represents, the head is not regarded as a fake among Egyptologists. It is thought to be truly ancient but merely unprovenanced and therefore enigmatic.

Today’s Egyptologists generally agree that the head is not Narmer. Petrie’s suggestion that it could represent Narmer has no support among modern scholars, and over a century after it’s finding, no evidence has come forth to prove Petries hopes right (nor wrong). However, it is generally agreed, the archiving of the head as possibly Narmer was simply Petrie’s hopeful speculation at a time when Egyptologists were delighted to buy “maybes” in the souq and dream them into significance.

Pre-Dynastic Golden Humanoid Figures

The general thought is that the head is clearly of an unknown male (no inscriptions), and may have been a cult offering, or votive statue.

However, at Egypt-Museum, we feel it only fair to speak a kind word in Sir Petrie’s defence. With artists among our number, we, too, can see faint echoes of Narmer’s visage as rendered on his palettes; the broad, sturdy jaw, the wide-set features, that early, square-cut solemnity of face. And Petrie was never some fanciful collector snatching at shadows; he was a rigorously trained scholar whose contributions helped shape Egyptology into a scientific discipline. His intuitions, even when speculative, deserve respect rather than dismissal.

There is, of course, no evidence that the little limestone head portrays Narmer himself. Yet we are content (affectionately, and with a nod to Petrie’s enduring legacy) to refer to it as “Petrie’s Possible Narmer Head.” A small tribute to the man whose meticulous work laid foundations sturdy enough for us to stand upon today, more than a century later, sharing Egypt’s wonders with the world.

And here we have recreated the likeness that could or could not be Narmer, based upon the head itself:

King Narmer

Narmer, whose name is often written with the signs of a catfish (n’r) and a chisel or harpoon (mr), and is generally rendered as “Fierce Catfish,” “Striking Catfish,” or metaphorically “The One Who Strikes Like a Chisel.”, was a king ho ruled around c. 3150–3050 B.C., standing at the misty threshold between Pre-Dynastic and Pharaonic civilisation.

Narmer Macehead

He is best known from the Narmer Palette, a monumental cosmetic palette discovered at Hierakonpolis, which appears to celebrate the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under his rule. Whether Narmer was the final unifier or simply one of several rulers involved in the process remains debated, but his place at the dawn of Dynasty I makes him a luminous, almost mythic figure.