> How convenient that Verner left out the best part.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his omission was not to deceive anyone.
> A coffin with a mummy in the depository of the
> British Museum were attributed to King Mycerinus.
> According to our examination in 1990, the
> Egyptological dating of the coffin was confirmed
> by 14C date (range 12th-9th cent. BC), while the
> mummy was found to be a natural one and as late as
> from 7th-9th cent. AD.
> Notice the use of the name "Mycerinus". Still...
> in 1990 they are linking it to Herodotus.
I looked and have no idea why I couldn't find something on this. Thanks. As was discussed before in talking about RCD of Greek ships, there was a discrepancy of dating derived from a single sample of about 100-200yrs than what was expected and one of the archaeologists involved lamented about the pitfalls of getting RCD from only one sample of a wood object which could skew dates either which way depending on the age of the wood i.e. "old wood".
This is an interesting tidbit from your source:
However, a skull and two bones of an adolescent girl found in another place of the Step Pyramid yielded 14C age range 3532-2878 years BC...
A story for another time, but I've got some thoughts on that.
> If you read Vyse and where the coffin was found
> (under a pile of rubbish), the above statement
> becomes nothing more than pure guesswork. You're
> not going to the sources, you're believing the
> tales modern Egyptology has spun.
You sure about that:Menkaure's Sarcophagus Revisited?
> Why doesn't the British Museum give the RCD dates?
> I'm guessing it's too embarrassing of a mistake to
All part of the conspiracy I assume.
> Then you have investigated the location where
> every Menkaure cartouche was found? You cannot
> make this statement without doing so. Unless you
> are just accepting, without question, what
> Egyptology says.
Tsk, tsk. You know this is not true.
> The context for the wood coffin was perfect;
> inside G3. But they were dead wrong. "Context"
> does not supersede science and investigation. The
> "context" has been fabricated by Egyptology over
> the last 500 years. Would you believe their
> "context" over RCD?
But the "context" is that the burial is intrusive. In this instance I believe both.
> > I am confident the RCD is correct and that in
> > both coffin and body are intrusive.
> Read Raven's statement in
I have. What did I miss?
> Herodotus named the big 3 : Cheops > Chephren >
> Mycerinus. Manetho placed them in the 4th dyn. of
> a table he made up.
> Why are they still called by those names today?
Does it matter?
> Why are you constantly reading that such & such
> name is a Hellenized version of these names? Why
> did Wilkinson in 1837 and also Rossetti make a
> point of converting the Greek names to
> hieroglyphs? Because the greek names had already
> been accepted, and if the hieroglyphs were not an
> equivalent they had no other way of linking a name
> to a specific dynasty.
As I've said, the names don't matter. At their basest forms cartouches are "icons" reffering to a specific king therefore regardless of how we translate their names we look for the context of these "icons" which no matter where we look or when the 4th Dynasty pharaohs are grouped together after those of the 3rd, and the 2nd, and the 1st. Seriously, what does it matter if that icon translates to "Menkaure" or "Bob"?
> I thought everyone knew that the dynasties were
> Manetho's divisions of the king's reigns, and are
> still called today - Manetho's dysnasties.
Of course, but the kings are still placed in order, or relative groups, in earlier king lists and reliefs.
> I thought everyone knew that that the 4th dynasty
> kings had been determined long before the
> hieroglyphs were deciphered.
> Where did you think ground zero was? In the 20th
As below, obviously not. Regardless of the fact Dynasties are the invention of Manetho, even if we discard the dynasties this still does not fundamentally change their order or relative groupings.
> 1. Soris reigned 29 years.
> 2. Suphis reigned 63 years. He built the largest
> pyramid which He rodotus says was constructed by
> Cheops. He was arrogant towards the gods, and
> wrote the sacred book ; which is regarded by the
> Egyptians as a work of great importance.
> 3. Suphis reigned 66 years.
> 4. Mencheres 63 years.
> 5. Rhatceses 25 years.
> 6. Bicheris 22 years.
> 7. Sebercheres 7 years.
What does this have to do with the order of 19th Dynasty king lists? Even those that differ still have the same relative chronological groupings.
> Now how would anyone know what the "correct order"
> is? Who established the correct order?
Apparently people of the 19th Dynasty.
> The correct
> order was taken from Manetho and Herodotus. No ifs
> and buts about it. I'm surprised you didn't know
Audrey. You know I know this, but you are apparently missing the point as you are still stuck on Manetho. The Abydos king list for example, from the 19th Dynasty, is written in order:
Abydos King List
While there are obviously differences with Manetho, there are enough anchor points in the Abydos list that make it, or Manetho as it were, more or less generally correct chronologically. Inserting or deleting a few kings here or there, regardless of how long they ruled, does not make the 4th Dynasty kings all of a sudden now the 25th Dynasty kings ect.
Turin King List.
Despite the flaws of Manetho's list, and the inconsistency of the various early King Lists, there is a congruity of anchor points that when taken together are accurate enough to give a pretty decent general chronological rule from the very least the 1st Dynasty to the 19th.
> According to whom? Who was it that determined the
The ancient Egyptians Audrey.
> No, it doesn't ALL hinge on Manetho. But the
> dynasties do.
Dynasties are irrelvant. We discussed this years ago you and I.
I think the above covers this.
> And what does the RCD tell you about Menkaure?
Nothing. Other than his funerary cults were active for a very long time.
> Were all the statues found buried around G3 of the
> Menkaure of the 12th-9th dyn?
So, despite all of the archaeology and corroborating 19th Dynasty AE king lists and inscriptions you are saying because an incongruous wood coffin with his name on it was RCD to the 12th-9th centuries this means Menkaure was a pharaoh of the Late Period? Or maybe, as was common of the late period, this was an intrusive cult burial. You do know about funerary cults right?
> Do you place science
> above the quantity of cartouches found?
Science and archaeology are used together which all things point to the coffin being intrusive of a later date and Menkaure being of the 4th Dynasty. But its nice to know you put such faith in RCD now so hopefully in the future you'll dispel with all the nonsense about the 700+ samples taken from the OK across 3 different studies which place its entirety at the very least sometime after the 4th millennium. Good to know. Funny how science works.
> Somethings about them
> don't jive. There was a wooden sarcophagus found
> in Qar's tomb. What do you bet it hasn't been
Must be those evil Egyptologists trying to trick humanity again.
> Tell that to all of the Egyptologists who have
> stated "Mencheres" (Manetho) is the Greek version
> of Menkaure
Who cares. All that matters is the icon:
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 05-Mar-17 16:30 by Thanos5150.