> It doesn't. Again, whether it actually translates
> to "Menkaure" or "Bob" is irrelevant as the
> context of the cartouche residing within the 4th
> Dynasty pharaoh group is quite secure and is found
> in numerous places at Giza and elsewhere
> throughout AE history regardless. This cartouche
> is not some "one off", the least of which at Giza.
> All of which is irrelevant as to the point being
> made to Origyptian.
No, the "context of the cartouche residing within the 4th Dynasty pharaoh group is quite secure" is not the least bit secure.
I don't think you understand the consequences of Vyse finding Menkaure's cartouche.
He found a wood coffin, with Menkaure's cartouche in G3. The inscription said it was the coffin of King Menkaure (Mycerinus). He also found the same cartouche painted on the ceiling of the chamber. 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. Quantity does not verify a supposition. 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 dating.