> Are you purposefully misrepresenting what Reisner
> said by taking it out of context or did you just
> not read and/or understand the rest? A rhetorical
> question at this point. And this is the same
> Resiner you now rely on that tried to "defraud the
> world" with his "Hetepheres Hoax"?
I replied to your post in which you said...
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 others.
I asked this question..
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.
Which you did not answer probably because the importance escapes you. Now you go sideways again, off on some tangent totally unrelated to the subject.
The Debehen tomb is dated according to an engraved name. This name is Menkaure.
If the method for determining the cartouche is "Menkaure" is incorrect, then the dating of the tomb is incorrect.
> Anyways. So the readers can follow along: [www.gizapyramids.org] The Debhen Inscription and the Her-Pyramid
I posted the sources the first time around and I doubt anyone read them.
> The "whole" of the Debhen inscription he is
> reffering to has nothing to do with a Menkaure
> provenance, which Reisner has no doubt,
That is the whole point, which you miss. The Menkaure cartouche is assumed to be that of Menkaure based on bs assumptions from an antiquarian. The Her pyramid is NOT the subject and not related to what you originally posted about the undoubted construction date of Debehen tomb. The point of my quoting Reisner was to show one thing only...
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,
The reason for my quoting Edward Brovarski was to show the confusion in interpretations/translations. You will snag one translation and try to use that to prove a point, but I originally posted 3 translations to show that one cannot get OCD about a single translation. You made a declaration that the dating of Debehen tomb was precise and there was no room for doubt. I am showing that there is considerable room for doubt. Now if you can stay on track with the subject and not wander off sideways, you may comprehend what I'm saying.
> but rather
> the geographical logistics of the "Her-pyramid",
> i.e. what exactly is it referring to, in relation
> to Menkaure's pyramid. The Debhen inscription is
> reffering to two pyramids, the
> "Her-pyramid" and Menkaure's pyramid.
> The inscription clearly says that Menkaure was on
> the road beside the Her-pyramid to inspect the
> work on the pyramid "Menkaure is Divine" (G3). If
> Hawass sums up the problem:
The text also mentions that the king stood
> on the road by the Hr pyramid inspecting the other
> pyramid. The name "Hr" was also found written in
> the tomb of Urkhuu at Giza, who was the keeper of
> a place belonging to the Hr pyramid. It is not
> clear what the Hr pyramid is. Is it a name of a
> subsidiary pyramid, or the name of the
Now the Debhen inscription makes it clear
> that Mycerinus was going to the site of the Third
> Pyramid. The word g's seems to mean the
> centreal working administration, almsot the modern
> expresion of "works"; hr, simply "the
> pyramid-cemetery" which included at the time the
> large pyramid and the three small pyramids. The
> word hr is probably related to hry-t
> "cemetery", "tomb".
> So according to Reisner he believes the
> "Her-pyramid" that Menkaure stops on the road next
> to to view the work going on at G3 is actually the
> pyramid cemetery. Therefore, the "whole of the
> Debhen" translation Reisner speaks has nothing to
> do with whether or not it dates to the time of
> Menkaure or if Menkaure was working on G3, quite
> clearly the opposite, but rather what the
> construction named the "Her-pyramid" actually
Everything you said above, hinges on a certain cartouche being that of Menkaure. You originally posted this quote....
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.
The cartouche they say belongs to Menkaure, does not belong to him. I would have quoted Vyse, who was the first to say that particular cartouche belonged to Menkaure, but if you are unable to comprehend that there was a particular development of the cartouche, from being unidentified and then identified as Menkaure, and this happened almost two hundred years ago, then you will only go off on some other tangent to try to prove the cemetery dates to 4th or 5th dyn.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Is the concept of translations being totally wrong so objectionable to you that you refuse the acknowledge the origination of a translation.