> It matters to eygptology. If it were "Bob" it
> wouldn't name a king who built G3.
I can only say it so many times.
> On and on it goes. All through the 1800's, after
> Vyse's discovery, the cartouche is identified as
> the king of G3, BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND IN G3.
There have been numerous discoveries since that antiquarians were not aware of, like the inscription on the entrance that was only discovered in the 1960's after debris was removed, that create a greater context of Menkaure associated with G3 which only corroborate the antiquarian association of G3 with Menkaure. Ironically, even if you want to make believe Menkaure was a pharaoh of the NK/Late Period it does not change this fact and instead of taking antiquarian's word for it you can take the ancient Egyptians.
> There are two Abydos lists. Now the Abydos king
> list that Egyptology puts so much value in, WASN'T
> DISCOVERED UNTIL 1864 BY MARIETTE. I'm not
> shouting with the caps, I'm emphasizing.
[snip for brevity]
> So they came to the conclusion, in 1837, it was
> Menkaure's cartouche based SOLELY on "context",
> the location where it was found.
The chronology of the 4th Dynasty (among others) was in general worked out from other sources which did not rely on the 1st Abydos list, yet was clearly corroborated by the 2nd. Basically you are saying antiquarians were wrong for putting Menkaure in the 4th Dynasty because on the 1st list they were missing despite the fact the 2nd list, which was complete, proved them essentially correct. Not following you here. If anything the second list shows quite clearly they and their earlier sources were on the right track.
> That isn't the point. The point is HOW it was
> determined that a particular cartouche belonged to
> Menkaure, and WHY this assumption exists today.
But if we throw out the antiquarians the Egyptians themselves say essentially the same thing. This is the point.
> > Apparently people of the 19th Dynasty.
> Really. Did they say Mycerinus built G3?
Did I say he did? In fact I believe I said "regardless of whether he built it or not...." he is still placed correctly in the 4th Dynasty group. Who built it is irrelevant to when Menkaure reigned. But to be fair, Debhen did say Menakure was at least working on it....
> And I'm trying to show you how those anchor points
> came about, and that they are not based on
But they are.
> No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
> I'm saying, this Menkaure who you all think was a
> pharaoh of the 4th dyn, lived during the 12th-9th
> cent b.c.
Which is weird because even the people of this time place him in the the 4th Dynasty group.
> The inscription on the coffin is :
> '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.'
Its an homage of a later era Audrey.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this inscription says
> he was a king.
> RCD says he lived during the
> 12th-9th cent b.c.
No, it says the coffin dates to this time which just so happens to also be stylistically consistent with the era and not the 4th Dynasty whereas other than these we find many examples of Menkaure's name as king.
> So where is the Menkaure of the 4th dyn?
All over the place.
> say he's on a king's list.
I don't say this, the king's lists say this.
> And how do we know
> that's him on a kings list? You'll say - it's well
That is his cartouche is it not? Seems well attested to me.
> Now the one found in G3 is not of the 4th dyn, not
> even close, and couldn't have built G3.
Its a coffin dedicated to an earlier king that was associated with the monument.
> The Menkaure found in G4 is? Anyone's guess.
The king lists aren't "guessing" are they?
> Possibly also of the 12th-9th cent b.c.
> So where exactly is the evidence for Menkaure
> building or being a king in the 4th dyn?
I've already given quite a bit.
> I don't put such faith in carbon dating.
But when it suits your purposes apparently you do put your faith in it. And one thing we can be 100% certain of is that if it were stylistically consistent with the OK and RCD to the early 3rd millennium we would never hear the end of the naysaying and doubt mongering. It amazes me that 700+ samples tell a lie yet one sample tells the truth.
> But the
> mainstreamers do, and since they do I ask; how do
> you and they reconcile RCD dates with cartouches.
Already said why several times now.
> I know enough about RCD to know that the younger
> the item, the more accurate the dating and wood is
> probably the best material for dating.
A single piece of wood isn't all that accurate actually because, again, it depends on when the tree died, but regardless, I am more than happy to accept the date of the coffin because it fits stylistically with the era among other reasons.
> THAT is the point. An icon around which a king is
The point is that the Menkaure "icon" belongs squarely in the 4th Dynasty group.
> They kept the frankenbaby and threw out the
> bathwater. The cartouche in G3 remains today as
> the one who built G3. But there is no evidence to
> substantiate that conclusion.
Maybe not, but what is substantiated is that this cartouche belongs in the 4th Dynasty group in which context associates him directly with G3 regardless of whether he built it or not.
> You seem to be under the same impression as all
> mainstremers here. That being; Egyptology in the
> 1900's gathered together all the evidence and came
> up with what they have today. The truth is, a
> great deal of it was already assumed in the 1800's
> and before. Specifically the order of the
> big 3 and their names.
All Egyptologists are conspirators and anyone who agrees with them in any regard is a dastardly "mainstreamer" fallen under their spell. Got it. Unfortunately I think for myself and the only "impression" I am under is what the archaeology tells me regardless of the opinion of Egyptologists which you never see me quote an opinion as "evidence". If you honestly believe Menkaure was a NK/Late Period pharaoh, which you have based solely on the RCD of an intrusive coffin, then you need to put all the things found of him "presumably" before this time in this context or later. Good luck with that.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06-Mar-17 06:08 by Thanos5150.