Yes, Mirjam, I agree we can't fully eliminate the possibility that Narmer unified the Two Lands, and that we can only build our knowledge of that excedingly remote point in time by a careful analysis of the data we do have. The Palette does not lend itself to the conclusion that Narmer accomplished such a unification. Kinnear's discussion makes a world of sense to me. It is terribly easy to read into anything more than may have been meant, and it is very important to avoid doing so, because such conclusions become the building blocks for the next series of hypotheses.

I found the pronounciation portion of the discussion interesting. Assuming phoenetic values did not change in the earliest of days, a big assumption, other possible readings of the symbols that make up the name Narmer are Narmeru or Merunar. Something more satisfying about the "Egyptian" sound of the latter two readings of the inscription, but this is a bias from millennia away.

Nekh, thank you for the Hoor link.

I'm glad to see that the discussions in this group are so thought-provoking.