> Case in point for the readers, that would be a
> no. It is from the 4th Dynasty rock cut
> tomb of Debhen (G 8090):
> Which Hassan is more than adamant dates to the 4th
> Dynasty which he says of his excavation efforts of
> the tomb:
> [Hassan, Selim. Excavations at Gîza 4: 1932-1933Quote
These measures will, I hope, preserve from further destruction an extremely interesting monument of the past, and one, moreover, of great archaeological value, by reason of the inscription upon its eastern wall, which not only affords us a vivid and pleasantly human picture of a great Pharaoh's [Menkaure] relations with his subjects but also provides us with a definite dating for the tomb, thus giving us valuable evidence as to the age of the other tombs not so precisely inscribed, but may be dated by comparison of type and constructional peculiarities.
> p160 (Debhen p159-184]
> So not only is Hassan secure in the knowledge the
> tomb of Debhen dates to the 4th Dynasty, but hails
> it as one of the most secure examples of such
> which can be used as a lynch pin to help date
It is dated by the name "Menkaure" being present, yes? No other means are used to date it. So the dating rests solely on a name.
The whole of the Debehen inscription turns on the meaning of the words r gs hr (det.,pramid). This expression has received generally the obvious translation "beside the Her-pyramid" and the Her-pyramid has been variously identified with that of Mycerinus, one of the small pyramids south of the Third Pyramid, and even with that of Dedefra at Abu Roash.
It all falls back to Herodotus. I'd bet Hassan has no idea how the name "Mycerinus/ Menkaure" was originally identified by the antiquarians. And neither do you. But no matter, you must be secure in a myth established by an antiquarian, you must be confident the antiquarian made his deduction by something resembling science. Most likely, you don't care, you just believe what Hassan says without question.