The Children of Adam and Eve

Seth-Peribsen was a king during the Second dynasty of Egypt who ruled for seventeen years. He is considered to be the predecessor of Khasekhemwy and was buried in Umm el-Qa'ab in Abydos, where a seal impression contains the first full sentencewritten in hieroglyphs.

His burial stelae (one of which is on display in the British Museum) show a Seth-creature rather than the More common Horus, and this might reveal that the king did not rule over the whole area of Egypt.

There is considerable academic debate as to whether Peribsen was succeeded by Sekhemib-Perenmaat, or whether these two individuals are in fact the same person, being referred to by different names (this may well example the presence of theSeth-creature on his Serekh). As Jochem Kahl states in the most recent (2006) publication on Egyptian chronology:

"It is not clear whether the next two [kings] names--Horus Sekhem-ib and Seth Per-ibsen--beLonged to a single ruler or to two different kings. Peribsen certainly claimed to rule over all of Egypt, but the sources do not confirm this.Contemporaneous evidence for Seth Peribsen is restricted to UE (Upper Egypt) between Elephantine and Beit Khallaf, just north of Abydos, except for his funerary cult in association with nwsw bjt Sened at Saqqara."

In contrast, Sekhemib "is attested at Abydos and Saqqara" and seal impressions mentioning Sekhemib have been found in the tomb of Peribsen "while at Saqqara, Stone vessels with Sekhemib's name were found in the Step Pyramid. Kahl notes that thisdoes not prove that Sekhemib "exercised influence in the Memphite region, since these vessels could have been brought to Saqqara from Abydos after Sekhemib's death."

Kahl mentions three current or older theories concerning the relationship between these two kings: a) Sekhemib and Seth-Peribsen were either names borne simultaneously by a single rule, b) Horus Sekhemib was merely the older name of SethPeribsen or c) Horus Sekhemib buried Seth-Peribsen and was thus his successor. Due to the absence of conclusive evidence, Kahl notes that "at present there is no compelling argument favouring one alternative over the others."