1In the last years, different studies on the earliest iconographic and scriptural material from Egypt have permitted to establish a sequence of development that begins with the artistic representation and finishes with the writing. Thus, it is quite certain that this process was in parallel to the increase of complex societies along the Valley of the Nile (fig. 1). With the first symptoms of the appearance of the complexity in all the spheres of the life (social, economic, religious and political), the visual communication was commoner and more abundant than before. Therefore, scenes with specific meanings multiplied on pots, as well as on plateaux of proper rock surfaces (fig. 2). That dynamic extended to other planes, such ceremonial objects, seals and even for the decoration of restricted spaces, as Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis. As a continuous process, it might be considered a futile debate to establish if the writing originated before the State or together with the State¹. Under my point of view, artistic depictions, writing and the State formation developed together, responding to the social, economic, politic and religious necessities of a dynamic culture.

1. Map of the predynastic Egypt
Carte de l’Égypte prédynastique

2. Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscription
Inscription au Gebel Tjauti Rock

2During this long process, some of the elements become icons and their representation were standardized. The latter innovation is one of the most important steps for the birth of writing, because the standardized icons just represent the most recognizable features of an element. It was just not only an artistic depiction, but also a message whose elements were schematized and, then, understood by a familiarized watcher. However, that message was not writing, because it might be understood by any observer.

3The next step occurred when some of those icons acquired a linguistic meaning and that happened probably short before the period in which lived the ruler buried in tomb U-j.

4In that tomb, G. Dreyer (Dreyer 1998). found an incomparable funerary equipment of the Predynastic period, even taking into account that it was at least disturbed by Aménileau at the end of the 19^th century. The funerary goods found at that tomb had no equal: there were enormous quantities of pottery, in which there were some forms with a Canaanean origin. Together with the latter, there were also Egyptian pots; many of them had different dipinti on the surface, probably showing the place of origin of the products. Dreyer and his team unearthed also exclusive goods that confirmed the high position of the individual buried at that tomb, which, by the way, is the largest of the all the graves dated to the Predynastic period in Egypt. In brief, the discovery of tomb U-j has been the most relevant find in the studies of the early Egyptian writing since the works carried out by Petrie in Abydos (fig. 3). The main reason to asseverate that is the appearance of the earliest signs in Egypt.

3. A representation of an early ruler (?) associated to a falcon
Représentation d’un premier dirigeant associé à un faucon

5The variety in style and number even led to Regulski ⁽Regulski 2008: 1000) to believe in existence of different local traditions of pristine writings. However, this suggesting hypothesis does not find any support in the absence of “local” parallels. As it has just mentioned before, the birth of the Egyptian writing is the result of a long process dominated by the artistic representations, which was the base used for the signs. The conceptualization of Egyptian writing is so complex and created ex nihilo that eliminates the possibility of the existence of contemporary systems of pristine writings. Moreover, as far I know, there is not any single local tradition differentiated from the Upper Egyptian material culture in Naqada IIIA, not even in the variety of the artistic representations. In fact, it is symptomatic that writing appeared in the place that will lead the process of Unification, which opens the question about the transcendence of the writing in the final success of Abydos. Without any doubt, the magic charge of writing played an important role at that early stages of the Egyptian civilization.

The earliest system of writing in Egypt

6Recently, we have suggested (Jiménez Serrano 2007) a process of development of the hieroglyphic writing which at least departs from the signs found in tomb U-j (Dreyer 1998 ) from Umm el-Qaab (Abydos), complemented with the iconographic discourse of the victory represented in the relief of Gebel Tjauti².

7Basically, my hypothesis is focused on the idea that there was a very primitive system of writing –but with a communicative capacity- in the period in which the ruler buried in tomb U-j lived. That writing was only composed with logograms and phonograms. Later (probably during the reign of Horus Ka or short before), due to a wider use of the writing, it was necessary to create semantic determinatives due to the appearance of problems of homophony.

8At a first glance, the signs from tomb U-j seem icons, but a deeper analysis of them permits to individualize logograms and phonograms (Jiménez Serrano 2007: 52-61). Therefore, it is clear that it must be considered a fully developed writing, but with a limited capacity of communication.

9In this context, some questions emerge; does such small quantity of signs represent the reality in which the writing is still developing and, consequently, the number of signs is still very modest? Or, in contrast, do the signs that appeared in tomb U-j are a small part of a more developed system, which, due to various reasons, was not carved or drew on the objects ?

10In order to make an approach for answering of those questions, it is necessary to compare the data from U-j to the relief found at Gebel Tjauti. The aforementioned tableau represents the sacrifice of an enemy as the climax of a victorious discourse, probably after a razzia in the region of Ombos³. At that depiction, it is possible to observe an iconography that it is necessary to remind that is indissolubly united to the writing as it will be later reproduced in the Narmer palette, more concretely the sacrifice of an enemy by the king who beats with a mace. In both cases, the sacrifice happens before the goddess Bat or Hathor and the active action is played by the ruler, in one case represented by a scorpion, in the other by an anthropomofic figured identified with the name of Narmer.

11Apart from the iconographic representation of the sacrifice (known at least from the Naqada I period⁴) and easily understandable by any observer, there are some logograms that contextualize linguistically the scene and provides some details that would be unknown in another way. We refer to the presence of the goddess (Bat or Hathor), represented as a bucraneum, which defines the ritual, or the reference to the desert with an early representation of the later sign N25, which localizes the scene⁵. Those signs can be read as logograms because they match with the three conditions that a hieroglyph must have according to Vernus (Vernus 1993, 2001):

• to be a known hieroglyph or accompany one;

• to follow the conventional system of representation;

• to have other parallels.

12Another feature of the signs discovered at tomb U-j and Gebel Tjauti is that most of them referred to toponyms. In both contexts (a military victory over a close locality followed by a sacrifice of an enemy as well as the tags attached to the products that accompanied to the defunct buried in a great tomb in Umm el-Qaab), the high presence of those mentions is reasonable, moreover in the case of the funerary goods, where it would be necessary to know the origin of the products (cf. infra). Precisely, under our point of view, this is one of the fundamental aspects to unravel the origin and development of the writing in ancient Egypt.

13As it is well known, the funerary equipment was mainly composed by goods of daily use, ritual items to be used only during the funerary ceremonies and, finally, those that were exclusively going to be used as part of the funerary equipment. The two latter, the ritual items and the grave-goods prepared only for the interment, needed a storehouse to be kept them until the death of the owner. At that place, it should be obligatory to have a register or at least a system which permitted the identification of all the goods. It is in this context where the tags found in tomb U-j begin to have sense and together with this, the origin of writing. The tags acted as identifiers of the product, either their precedence or the quantity, and the good itself played as a factual logogram.

14Thus, it is quite probable that in the early court of Abydos there were a storehouse, in which all the objects to be used for the royal burial and kept perfectly classified. Probably, those goods were part of the royal treasure, perhaps already known as pr-hd. That institution is one of the oldest recorded in Egypt. As far we know, the oldest mention dates back to the regency of queen Mer-Neith (Petrie 1900: pl. XXIII, nº 40). Although, the chronological distance between the time of the ruler of tomb U-j and the regency of Mer-Neit is more than two hundred years, the complexity and the size of the territory controlled by the former ruler would need -with no doubt- the existence of similar administrative structures (if not the same) as those that are possible to see during the first half of the First Dynasty.

15There is even the record of a title related most probably with the duties of provisioning the royal tomb: hry tp nswt µs-dfȝ “King’s liegeman (lit. he who is under the head of the king) of the place of provisioning” (Jones 2000, II: 789 § 2877), which first mention dates back to the reign of Horus Sekhemib (Petrie 1901: Pl. XXI, nº 165), at the end of the Second Dynasty. In this case, the word must be translated not as ‘place’ or ‘Chamber’ but as ‘tomb’, as this word used to be understood⁶. If the title is translated as it is suggested here, it becomes full of sense as “supplier of the (royal) tomb”, the person in charge for the management of the funerary goods of the royal tomb. If it existed at the end of the Second Dynasty, it is easy to assume that a similar position might exist before⁷.

16In this sense, it is necessary to remind the discovery of five different types of seal-impressions in tomb U-j (Dreyer 1998: 108-112, Abb. 72a-e, Taf. 26a-n), which certainly proves the existence of a complex administration in the royal palace at that time⁸. It is likely that the absence of more similar examples is due to the archaeological chance and the limited extension of territory controlled by the ruler buried in tomb U-j.

The U-j tags and the Upper Egyptian toponyms

17In despite of Dreyer related some toponyms found in tomb U-j to settlements and towns in Lower Egypt, it seems clear that, in reality, they referred to neighboring toponyms of Abydos or different products. Thus, for example, tags 52-56 were read by the German scholar as ‘Abydos (Dreyer 1998: 139, 140), when it referred to the “Elephantine” (Kahl 2001:118, Breyer 2002:  56- 58, Jiménez Serrano 2004, Kuhlmann 2008). In this context, it seems appropriate to remember that other toponyms firstly identified with localities of Lower Egypt have been localized in Upper Egypt (Jiménez Serrano 2007a: 53- 60). In the hypothetic case that we could read correctly all the toponyms found at tomb U-j, it would permit us to establish quite certainly the boundaries of the territory controlled directly or indirectly by that ruler. But all of this is just a mere conjecture. However, it is certain that many groups of signs have parallels with many similarities with other dated later. Those that cannot be read or identified with later toponyms would refer to localities that lost their importance during the next decades or centuries or they changed their graphy. In both cases, it is impossible for us to relate with the later ones. In the former, it seems obvious that with the expansion of the Upper Egyptian kingdom to the North and to the South, some centers lost their economic, strategic or religious importance.

18It is in this point where some logograms have their origin, concretely in the adoption of the fetishes as elements full of linguistic meaning. Thus, throughout the centuries, the denomination of the nomoi was based in the primitive fetishes or in the representations of the most important gods of their territories (pars pro toto or synecdoche). The clearest example of all of those found in tomb U-j is the one that represents the goddess Bat (cf. Dreyer 1998: 65-68, Abb. 45-48, Taf. 18). In this case, it is impossible to know if it refers to that goddess or to the territory that later will be known as the 7th nome⁹.

19In this sense, Eva-Maria Engel (Engel 2006: 157-158, Abb. 4) register the oldest mention of a nome (spȝt) and that dates to the Naqada IIIA1 period, very close to the date of tomb U-j. Although it is possible that at that time, the complexity of the Abydene state would force to create a territorial administration, under our point of view the unique two pieces of evidence commented before, which are fragmentary, might refer to another topic related to the cultivation. In fact, Engel (Engel 2006: 159-160) suggested that the first division into nomoi was created around the reign of Den, during the middle of the First Dynasty.

20It is likely that during the process of expansion of the Upper Egyptian kingdom at the end of the Predynastic period, the territories just integrated or conquest were identified from the fetish of the main divinity worshiped in the area, whose cult would be controlled by the preceding elites¹⁰. Thus, it was unnecessary to mention the name of the defeated enemy, as it will be done later, which it would require a phonetic way to do it, knowledge that it had not been already fully-developed. Moreover, representing those fetishes with a linguistic charge, the ruler assures the protection of those divinities in the funerary ambit where their names will rest together with the defunct.

21As it is well-known, Egyptian writing was full of magic connotations, most probably because of the primitive use of the fetishes and the divinities as the most ancient signs of writing.

22In the Naqada IIIA2 period, the ruler still relates to a divinity in an equal plane. Concretely, in tomb U-j it was found a tag in which is depicted a human being with a stick together with the figure of a falcon (cf. figure 3 Dreyer 1998: Abb. 76, n. 51). This representation, together with the Gebel Tjauti, shows that the ruler and the god have the same status. In other words, they are associated. Later, at least from the reign of Iry Hor, the king will be identified to the god Horus and vice versa (Jiménez Serrano 2007b: 142-145, Tabla 4).

23Worshipping of falcon gods in Egypt is widely attested in historic times. Therefore, the different depictions of falcons found at tomb U-j or at the Gebel Tjauti Inscription nº 1 might not necessarily make reference to the most known Horus, Horus Nekheni. Moreover, those representations of falcons might refer not to Horus but to have other meanings, as for example nb “lord”. In this sense, Horus and Set are mentioned using two falcons nbwy “The Two Lords” on some stone vessels dated to the reign n of Anedyib and found in Abydos (Petrie 1900: pl. V nº 12 & pl. VI nos. 4 & 8). and the subterranean galleries of the Step Pyramid¹¹. Probably the same reference to both gods together dates back to the period of Naqada IIIB (Jiménez Serrano 2003: 111- 112; 2007: 299-301). All of this means that any identification of the falcon sign with the god Horus Nekheni is just speculative. Indeed, the representation of the god Horus Nekheni is completely different to those found in the Naqada IIIA2. Hence, Late Predynastic falcon depictions use to share more similarities with sign (G5) or even (G7) than with (G11), (G12) or (G13). In consequence, any identification of the Abydene ruler with the god Horus Nekheni would not be necessarily certain. In this context, it is necessary to remind that Hierakonpolis at that moment (Naqada IIIA) had its own elite that might be developing in parallel to the Abydene¹². Then, it would have no sense that a god worshipped in a settlement presumably independent at that time would be represented in an equal plane with a ruler who is spreading his influence most surely to the North. However, several tags, which, according to my interpretation, represent the city temple of Hierakonpolis (Jiménez Serrano 2002: 59-60) were found in tomb U-j (Dreyer 1998: Abb. 77, n. 61-69, Abb. 80, n. 127-129; Jiménez Serrano 2007a: 55-56). If that identification were correct, how would be the presence of products from Hierakonpolis interpreted? Because, it has just been mentioned above that, there is a stable elite ruling at Hierakonpolis, at least since the end of the period of Naqada I.

24The tags that mentioned different places or institutions of Hierakonpolis were manufactured at Abydos or in its immediate territory (Dreyer 1998: 137; fig. 4). Those tags were attached to products that originally come from Hierakonpolis. Those goods could have a commercial or diplomatic origin and only would confirm the intense contacts between Abydos and Hierakonpolis. In this context, there are some votives objects found in the city temple of Hierakonpolis that represent scenes with scorpions, in some cases, together with some hieroglyphic signs (Quibell 1900: pl. XII nº 2, XVII top left, XVIII top) and whose date has been always related to the reign of king Scorpion (II), who would have lived some years before Narmer. However, some of those representations are esthetically closer to the U-j than the previous moments to the First Dynasty.

4.Tags found in tomb U-j representing the temple of Hierakonpolis
Inscriptions retrouvées dans la tombe U-j représentant le temple de Hierakonpolis

25The presence of those hieroglyphs in votive objects in an area where there is no evidence of them until that moment would confer to those offerings a magic transcendence even higher than in a first sight.

26During the Naqada IIIA2 period, the hieroglyphic writing is a reality and is circumscribed to the region of Abydos and the neighboring areas (as Gebel Tjauti)¹³. That can indicate that writing developed at that area, most probably some years before the rule of monarch buried at tomb U-j.