Talk:Menes

Menes or Hor-Aha?

Shouldn't there be just one article for Menes/Hor-Aha, unless they were different people? Lenny Kilmister

Succession box

It seems to me we shouldn't have one here at all. Archaeology tells us only of Narmer and Hor-Aha; Manetho mentions neither. (His second king, Athothis, is identified with Djer.) Where exactly does Menes fit in here? We don't know for sure and there is no scholarly consensus. It's better to say nothing than to include something that gives a false impression of certitude, as does a succession box. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Menes' name does apper to be found on several different ostrica at abydos. There is dispute towards if he was the same as other kings, but there is overwhelming archaeological evidence that Menes existed. The dispute is to if he was or was not the same as either narmer or Hor-aha. However, the order that seperatists keep Narmer, Menes, and Hor-Aha in is Narmer-Menes-HorAha. Some people say Narmer is Menes, which leads to the order Narmer/Menes - Hor Aha, and some say Narmer Menes/Hor Aha, and some even say they're all the same person, but the order is always Narmer-Menes-Hor Aha. The "?" are used to describe that sucession is unclear, and any further unclarity ought to be explained in text. Thanatosimii 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Narmer/Menes one in the same...

What's the current egyptological consensus on the possible one-personness (what's the word?) of Narmer and Menes? Because I think it's the general consensus that they're the same person. Nice to see that the portrait of Narmer/Menes is finally up (Thanatosimi was that you?) which is rarely shown in the mainstream, because of its, um, features ;). Peace. And Thanatosimi if you could present evidence that Narmer and Menes are different individuals, or if Menes was merely mythical. Thank you. Peace. Teth22 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been a technical egyptological position on Menes because there hasn't been a seminal predynastic work done by a formal egyptologist since Emery's work, which has certain outdated claims in it. There's a sociologist/anthropologist who did a work, but obviously he didn't touch this issue. Egyptologists range from Serqet-Narmer-Menes-Horaha all being one, to them all being four, and anything inbetween. As for the Narmer-Menes-Horaha business evidence, Gardiner and Emery bicker between each other in their two works on the significance of "nbty mn" and "Hr Hr-ahA" coming sequentially instead of facing each other on the ivory tag, and each one claims different facts about the state of the artifacts from later on which would show how to interpret these. In other words, there's no consensus or definitive evidence one way or the other. Thanatosimii 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As to the picture, I didn't do that, but I'd like to know the providence. If that's a real menes head from the first dynasty, that'd be the only portreture of a pharaoh before the Old Kingdom... Thanatosimii 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Oh, so you didn't put up the Menes head? And as for the "providence" it was found in a first dynasty tomb by Petrie in the late 19th century, and why do you say "if that's a real menes head"? Do you doubt it's authenticity? And no there are other portaitures of pre-old kingdom pharaohs, Khaskehmy (?) of the 2nd dynasty, and I think Djet of the first dynasty. Peace. Teth22 06:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's "provenance". Petrie indeed said this head was that of Menes -- but he based that by comparing it to the Narmer Palette, not on any epigraphical evidence.[1] That's a very dodgy method, and I doubt anyone would accept it today. It also relies on the identification of Menes with Narmer, which cannot be made with any certainty.

That image may come down soon anyway. It looks like a copyvio. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess that's what I get for listening to art scholars who slur their words.
There are indeed portraitures, however I can't seem to think of any 3d sculpture of a head. At any rate, I suppose I am simply suprised that petrie would say that was a menes head, due to his affiliations with the now defunct Dynastic Race Theory, and the fact that he wrote a paper for the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain which divides all heads into four or five "racial" subsets. Petrie would have probably put this under the so called Badarian race due to its features. But I suppose if he did, he did. Yet I agree with Csernica, It's pretty tenuous at best. Thanatosimii 07:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh the image violates copyright laws somehow? and what do you mean it's tenous? Teth22 08:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)