A PETROGLYPHIC RECORD OF PHARAONIC CONQUEST IN THE SINAI:

 There is a lot of activity in the rock art world in Egypt. Reports of new discoveries are seemingly coming out more frequently then ever. A recent report by Mustafa Nour El-Din, and Ludwig D. Morenz (2025) ascribed a petroglyphs panel in the Sinai Peninsula to a period of Egyptian military expansion as a record of conquest.

The conquest panel, lines marked in on photograph.  Photograph by M. Nour El-Din, drawing by E. Kiesel.

Writing for Archaeology Magazine online Dario Radley set the scene as follows. “Mustafa Nour El Din of the Aswan Inspectorate at the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities documented the carving during a field survey. Egyptologist Ludwig Morenz of the University of Bonn led the study of the images and inscriptions. The panel shows a large figure with raised arms facing a kneeling man struck by an arrow. The wounded figure’s posture signals defeat and submission. Nearby, a boat appears carved in outline. Early Egyptian art often used boats as symbols of royal power and state presence.” (Radley 2026) A section of the panel above the boat has been battered out to remove part of the image. This likely represents another example of the instances in Egyptian history where one Pharaoh attempted to have a predecessor erased from their history.

The conquest panel close-up, lines marked in on photograph.  Photograph by M. Nour El-Din, drawing by E. Kiesel.

El Din and Morenz (2025) interpret the panel as following. “Looking at the inscription we might understand the figure of the striding man as a representation of the god Min himself, but lacking specific iconographic indications. However, we should also consider the early date from a time of developing iconograpic conventions in depicting gods in the Nile Valley as well as the cultural periphery. We cannot properly decide, whether the striding man with raised arms depicts an Egyptian ruler (but no name or title is given) or the god Min (the inscription supports that understanding, but the iconography is different from what we might expect for Min: no crown, no phallus). If the striding man would have been depicted with the red crown he can be identified as Egyptian king, but that iconographic identification remains doubtful. Considering the inscription, it does not seem impossible to understand the main figure in the scene as an image of the god Min. Furthermore, looking at the entire composition, we can assume the boat to have been associated with the Egyptian ruler, the triumphant man with god Min and the subdued and killed man with the local inhabitants.” (El Din and Morenz 2025:87) Identification of the figure with the god Min is postulated because of a nearby text carved into the cliff which reads “(God) Min, ruler of copper ore / the mining region.” (El Din and Morenz 2025:87) Whether or not the large figure is the Pharaoh or the god Min the Pharaonic presence is definitely indicated by the presence of the Egyptian style boat.

The conquest panel drawing by E. Kiesel.

This panel is likened to a propaganda poster from the government. “Researchers see the composition as a message placed in a visible location along a travel corridor. The standing victor likely represents Egyptian authority under divine protection. The kneeling figure represents local inhabitants. The imagery forms a narrative of domination linked to resource control. Such visual claims supported economic expansion and reinforced ideological control over distant zones.” (Radley 2026) In this case, the nearby copper mines.

So, is this panel a historical record, or an illustration of a myth or legend. “When looking at scenes of violence, the fundamental question of historical reality versus ideological patterns and visual staging arises, and this seems a big question deserving future research. However, the historical significance of this 5,000-year-old rock picture depicting a scene of Pharaonic dominance lies in its value as evidence of Egyptian colonization of south-western Sinai during the Proto- and Early Dynastic periods. Why did Egyptian extensions of territorial claims beyond the Nile valley happen and why so early? To answer these questions, more detailed archaeological research in this area is needed. However, thanks to the surveys conducted by Mustafa Nour El-Din, we already know some metallurgical installations for copper processing (in this area), as well as copper slag, awaiting publication. It is likely that Wadi Khamila was already an important mining area for raw materials, especially copper ore and perhaps also turquoise, during the 4th/3rd millennium BC.” (El Din and Morenz 2025:90) As the military strength of the Egyptian empire was based upon copper the explanation of this panel as marking a site of early Egyptian expansion and conquest for mineral wealth seems to make the most sense. The presence of copper ore and processing, as well as possibly turquoise, would make this an important acquisition.

NOTE: Some images in this column were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

REFERENCES:

El-Din, Mustafa Nour and Ludwig D. Morenz, 2025, Wadi Khamila, the god Min and the beginning of Pharonic Dominance in Sinai 5000 years ago, freunde-abrahams.de. Accessed 30 January 2026.

Radley, Dario, 2026, 5,000 year old rock art in Sinai shows early Egyptian conquest and control of copper mines, 30 January 2026, Archaeology magazine online, https://archaeologymag.com. Accessed online 30 January 2026.