> No, the "context of the cartouche residing within
> the 4th Dynasty pharaoh group is quite secure" is
> not the least bit secure.
Of course it is.
> I don't think you understand the consequences of
> Vyse finding Menkaure's cartouche.
I'm sure you don't mean that.
> He found a wood coffin, with Menkaure's cartouche
> in G3. The inscription said it was the coffin of
> King Menkaure (Mycerinus).
The coffin in question would be this:
The inscription reads:
O the Osiris King of Upper and Lower Egypt Menkaure, living forever, born of the sky, conceived by Nut, heir [of Geb] .....: Your mother Nut spreads herself over you in her name of 'Mystery of Heaven'. She has made you a god, [whose enemies do not exist], King of Upper and Lower Egypt Menkaure, living forever.'
> He also found the same
> cartouche painted on the ceiling of the chamber.
According to Hawass:
"The name of Menkaure found written in red ochre on the ceiling of the burial chamber in one of the subsidiary pyramids."
> This became the proof that G3 was built by
> Manetho's Menkheres. Two of the pyramid dates were
> solidified by Vyse; G1 and G3. The cartouches
> became THE proof that Manetho was correct, which
> in turn made the antiquarians correct in their
> chronology. Maybe you don't realize that Manetho
> was all they had to go on back then. And that the
> entire skeleton of the early dynasties was built
> upon Manetho. If Vyse hadn't found the cartouches,
> they would have keep looking for proof of
> Manetho's timeframe. All the antiquarians in the
> 1800's wrote of how Vyse's discoveries resolved
> the problem of who built the pyramids. As time
> went by, Manetho was mentioned less and less, and
> "modern" archeology became the true 'proof', yet
> 'modern' did nothing more than carry forth the
> assumptions of the antiquarians.
> The wood coffin he found was carbon dated to
> the 12th-9th cent. b.c.
> It can only mean that
> Menkaure lived during THAT period, and NOT during
> the 4th dyn.
No. What it means, since we are speaking in absolutes, is that the skeleton was intrusive as was the sarcophagus which is believed to date to the Saite period:
The coffin was not part of the original funerary equipment of Menkaure, but was made for a later restoration of his burial, as indicated by both stylistic and epigraphic evidence.
> Quantity does not
> verify a supposition.
Its quantity in context that matters.
> That the cartouche is found
> in several places does not verify a date. This
> immediate assumption of finding the name of the
> king of G3, was accepted and repeated as fact by
> all antiquarians and is still done so today. If
> you believe carbon dating is reliable, then you
> must believe Menkaure DID NOT live during the 4th
> dyn. Consequently, any item that is dated by his
> cartouche is a gross error. The only conclusion
> one can come to, if one has confidence in carbon
> dating, is that Menkaure lived during 12th-9th
> cent b.c. and his coffin was an intrusive burial.
> Therefore Weni and Debhen did not write of a king
> in the 4th dyn, and what they wrote did not
> transpire during the 4th dyn.
> This would mean that Weni was remodeling and/or
> repairing 1,400-1,100 yrs AFTER the 4th dyn., and
> Debhen lived at the same time, also NOT in the 4th
> dyn. However, Egyptology has continued in this
> charade by using the same logic you gave me, the
> old 'it's well attested'.
> Debhen and Weni are more examples of Egyptology
> IGNORING science. Specifically ignoring carbon
I am confident the RCD is correct and that in fact both coffin and body are intrusive.
But, no, neither have anything to do with why Menkaure is placed in the 4th Dynasty regardless.
The 19th Dynasty Saqqara Tablet:
Yes, Menkaure is missing, but here we have a list that shows the 4th and preceding 5th Dynasty kings (among others) in more or less the correct order.
19th Dynasty Abydos Kings list:
All 4th Dynasty kings (among others) in the correct order.
There are other lists that predate Manetho which show the correct order as well, meaning no, again as we have discussed this before, the placing of Menkaure in the 4th Dynasty group has nothing to do with Manetho which as we can see goes as far back in King Lists to at least the 19th Dynasty. Also, speaking of Manetho, he lived in the 3rd century BC yet Herodotus, nearly two centuries before, wrote of the pyramids of Giza belonging to Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure respectively, yet for some reason you still think this all hinges on Manetho?
Dozens of full and partial statues were found buried around G3 bearing Menkaure's name. Dozens of seals have been found bearing Menkaure's name in the Workers Camp and Harbor in which other than a few of Khafre no other pharaoh's name is found. Near the entrance there is an inscription believed to have been written by Khaemweset in the 19th Dynasty which according to Rigano:
The inscription was badly eroded and has only been partially translated. It says Menkaure was buried on the twenty-third day of the fourth month of the winter season, about MArch, with all his possessions. The year was eitehr not present or eroded away. Four cartouches are barely visible, the names in three cannot be read, the fourth contains Menkaure's name.
Relief from the 6th Dynasty mastaba of Qar showing the cartouches of Menkaure, Khufu, and Khafre as well as his own king Pepi I:
These are some of Qar's titles which include:
""Inspector of the wab priests of Ur-Khafre" (name of the pyramid of Khafre)
"Director of the town of Pyramid Netjery-Menkaure" (name of the Pyramid of Menkaure)
"Director of the Pyramid Town Akhet-Khufu" (name of the Pyramid of Khufu)
This is all I have time for to put together off the top of my head, but I'm sure the readers get the picture. Among others, if I recall, there are also few 6th Dynasty stele from Pepi I and Merenre I at G3's mortuary temple which also mention Menkaure by name, but am not finding the translations at a glance.
The idea Menkaure belonging to the 4th Dynasty pharaoh group or that he was associated with G3, regardless of "whether he built it or not", is only based on Manetho simply has no merit and is clearly contradicted by literally all of the evidence. Though, to be fair, Debhen's account does not say what the nature of the work to G3 Menkaure was doing, I have no reason to believe it is not an authentic account belonging to the period it is ascribed.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 05-Mar-17 03:57 by Thanos5150.