Thanks yet again for an informative thread.
I had avoided the possibly 'mug gallery' response along the lines of.... there seems to be troubles with all of the pre and OK dynasties.
As you know (as you have been a major valuable contributor) to much recent discussion here about the advent or introduction of the cartouche and timing of moving away from the serekh.
This one, Senedj is considered to be 2nd dynasty.
Whilst I only link wiki Senedj there seems to be solid references and discussion from numerous mainstream professionals attesting to this relatively unknown (aren't they all) pharaoh. There is further conjecture that it may refer to another 2nd dynasty pharoah
It would seem that current thought Seth Peribsen ( only his Seth name extant?) broke with convention and is yet another example of ubrupt change for short time favoured gods.
For anyone interested in reading , there are other interesting but confused aspects of these two resolutely declared 2nd dynasty kings, as having confusing interaction with Giza and the 4th Dynasty.
If this interests you perhaps given your strong contention of late 3rd or 4th Dynasty invention of cartouche perhaps you would like to present a case that currently held Egyptology has it wrong and Senedj must have been post 4th Dynasty?
Something that I had been considering and strangely you have again interestingly raised in recent times is the discussion and musing about the appearance of stautes as they relate to the various "dynastys"
Again I only link the kings list from wiki being sure that the fine contributing members here can access much better or more complete sources for such.
Wiki- List of Pharaohs
If one scrolls down through all the dynastys I draw readers attention to the considerable disconnect betweeen the appearance and the quality and style of workmanship of kings statues.
There are the marvelous large hard stone very regal (ancient?) looking ones wearing Nemes, the painted almost modern man looking dudes, etc etc
They appear to me easily grouped.... BUT... that grouping of style etc does not in any way conform to the placement of individuals in various dynasties.
I appreciate archaeology does it's very best to determine dynasty often with good evidence however so much of it is based on contradictory kings lists .... which only start at the palermo stone which is way after the MOST interesting part; being the beginnings of this civilization we group into one called Ancient Egyptians.
No hard and resulute opinions, just making a little contribution to troubles of 2nd D, no demand for ANYhigher standard of proof or anything as rediculous! as that worn tired shabby torn dogmatic mantra! ;-)