Talk:Menes

Menes or Hor-Aha?
Shouldn't there be just one article for Menes/Hor-Aha, unless they were different people? Lenny Kilmister
 * Since we don't know, and may never know, they should be separate articles.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I took this sentence away: "An image of Menes holding an ankh is depicted on the frieze on the south wall of the U.S. Supreme Court building.[6] Menes settled a capital along the Nile."

I think it has nothing to do with the info the article should be providing. AG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.137.186 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Menes was just a title not his real name it means "he who endures" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.222.120 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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. 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)


 * The image was tagged with pd-self, but I'm positive the uploader didn't create it, and I've found a copyrighted webpage displaying it. (It might be a copyvio there too. Or it might be a very old image that's really PD. Since the uploader didn't tag it truthfully, it's impossible to say.)


 * There's a big problem in Egyptology over whether Hor-Aha, Narmer, and Menes are to be identified with each other, whether Menes was really one or the other, whether these were three separate people, or whether Menes was a title borne by both early kings. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some throw King Scorpion in too, just for good measure, but I think that's unlikely. Thanatosimii 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The infamous Scorpion king? Oh no no, he was clearly before Narmer, and was just a local king of Upper Egypt, who says Menes and Scorpion are one in the same? And Thanatasomii, since you seem to an amateur egytpologist, have you heard of Tera Neter and the so called Aunu people? Get back to me. Peace. Teth22 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, I believe that there is some conspircacy(sorry for the conspiracy theory but I honestly believe) to disprove King Menes & ancient egypt's Blackness. Those people were "brothas" and no one wants to admitt it. So now they have taken down the picture of Menes' head. Thats not right. Why does it matter that the world modeled its civilizations after a black man's?? Just accept it. Maybe that'll end racism if the world knew that every race has accomplished something & contributed to humanity. User:Thatmaned 6 January 2007

It seems strange that there should be any question as to the authenticity of the image of Narmer in the slates and the portrait discovered by Petrie. It is hard to see any difference. What is more important is the idea of a "name" for the king as Wilkenson has noted, "Yet, when it comes to the name of Narmer, all attempts at reading or translation seem to fail. The combination of catfish (which had the readingn'r = nar) + chisel (mr = mer; Gardinersign-list U23) makes no grammatical sense accordingto current understanding of the Egyptian language." (see:What a King Is This: Narmer and the Concept of the Ruler Author(s): Toby A. H. Wilkinson Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 86 (2000), pp. 23-32). On the topic mentioned of the ethnic nature of ancient Egyptians, this too is clear. While Anta Diop produced a convincing series of comparisons of other early dynastic images to assert that early ancient Egyptians were African/Black/"Negroid" his melanin tests are clear evidence. A review of the literature by Herbert Foster (The Ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians Author(s): Herbert J. Foster Source: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Dec., 1974), pp. 175-191) is also conclusive. My thesis supervisor, J. Desmond Clark, one of the most experienced archaeologists of African prehistory was clear on this subject, early Egyptians were Black Africans. Whether Menes is Narmer or that these names represent aspects of rulership of the two kingdoms he supposedly united is interesting but unsubstantiated. As for questions of the images of Narmer one has to recall that even today we are unsure of the likeness of any of the Roman historical figures or even of George Washington (an interesting exercise in this is to copy paintings of Washington and overlay the images and try to associate them in terms of cranial architecture. Of course, paintings are made to flatter and not so often to produce a realistic representation of the sitter.  There is no reason not to show the sculpture of Namer here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caldararo (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Existence
Shouldn't it say somewhere that it's possible that Menes never existed? Some archaeologists believe that Menes was a Romulus type figure: he probably existed, but details about his reign could be Fact or Fiction.Erik the Red 2 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2.
 * Yes, well, we've had this debate before. There should probably be a comment that there is almost certainly no validity to manetho's tales about this one, however it is fact that the name mny appears in contemporary records as a king's name. However, it's also almost certain that he's just another name for either Narmer or Hor-Aha. There is no credible egyptologist whom I am aware of who has postulated that Menes is just a myth within at least the last 50 years. Thanatosimii 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly the legend of Menes as the "founding father" of Ancient Egypt was current by the time of Herodotus, and the physical evidence that has been provided links him with both Hor-Aha and Narmer. There is a jar label with the name of Hor-Aha on it that also contains a hieroglyph for the name "Men", though it may be a place name. Similarly, there are several jar label with the name of Narmer and the heiroglyph for "Men" on it as well. Academic consensus seems to favour Narmer over Hor-Aha from what I can find, and it seems as though much later the Ancient Egyptians adopted the (place?)name of "Men" for their legendary first pharaoh. Captmondo (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

yes i agree this article needs to be rewritten there was no menes it was pure mythology just like no different than the romulus story of how rome came to be,there was no great battle that unified egypt the dynastic period just originated in lower egypt there was no twin kingdom thing going on ancient egypt just came together in time just to make it short--Mikmik2953 (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph
I think the first paragraph needs some slight rewording. Particularly this part: "to some authors the founder of this dynasty, to others the Second." I'm not exactly sure what was intended by that statement, but as it stands it is a fragment. Dominicus Cerberus 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
Is it pronounced like "me-knees"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphis10 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

--'Menes' is the name the Greeks used; probably pronounced something like 'May-nays'. By rights, his name should be rendered 'Amen', as in 'Tut-Ankh-Amen'. It's written in exactly the same way.83.71.72.87 (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

--It is assuredly not written the same way, albeit with the same hieroglyphs. For the order "jmn" which is the one used for Tut-Ankh-Amen, the "j" or Gardiner sign M17 is placed before the game board/"mn" (Gardiner sign Y5), while here it is placed after the "n" (Gardiner sign N35). Also, the god Jmn/Amen is not attested for this period and as such would not have been used in a name. --Nemea (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Black" image
I removed the text that said that Menes was "assuredly" Black, since we have no archaeological or historical evidence to support such certitude. The associated image was unreliably sourced. (That's not to say that Menes/Narmer/Scorpion wasn't black, but where is the evidence?)--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pre-dynastic Africans are Africans in Africa
Realstoryx (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Why is there no pic of the 1st King of Egypt? Why is there a dispute about where he came from?

The Ancient Egyptians talked about coming from the South from the mountain of the moon. They were a number of African kingdoms before the unification of Egypt. Africans being the 1st people the 1st to have an advance civilization. The 1st to have mastered all kinds of Sciences, religions ,Mathamatics,Astrology & Agriculture. All of this they took with them to Egypt. To determine if Nemar or Menee are the same person or 2 different people, we have to get more info or/and do more research.No 1 is disputing if the original Kings & Queens of England, Spain & France are white. Lets stop the miseducation games/racist.


 * I presume you mean a picture of Menes. Please don't try to add one from another website. Read WP:IMAGES. The rest of your comments really don't belong here as they aren't aimed at anything I can se in the article. We are not going to have a discussion here of who did what first, Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for that sort of discussion. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous comment
World weather worsened, in a global climate catastrophe, about 3000 BC, during the period of the Piora Oscillation. Perhaps the period between Dynasty 0 & Dynasty 1 was a time of troubles, and cultural collapse, such that King Narmer unified all Egypt about 3100 BC... and King Menes re-unified all Egypt, again, for the second time, about 100 years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Portrait
Why isn't there a picture of Menes / Namer added, instead of a carved stone? I tend to agree with the first poster in this section, as I have seen the carved head figure of him and he most definitely looks like certain black men you'd see today. When available, there is normally a photo used if article is about a person. I find it very odd that one is not used here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.212.135 (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Transclusion - can't edit out Memes vandalism
Why the heq is it transcluded? Some dastardly folks vandalize it and I cannot edit their stuff out? 212.188.108.196 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Details
When dealing with buildings that have been wrecked and people who have been dead for 5000 years, interpretation of the remaining fragments is bound to be contentious.

Pro. WB Emery died in 1971 but before his death published some of the details of a life times work in popular form and his conclusions still seem to be valid. The Wikipedia article mentions that the "Dynastic Race theory" is now outmoded but no references for this. Emery mentions that prserved corpses of these so called "Followers of Horus" do indeed show racial characteristics and social custom quite different from the original indigenous population. These differences only seem to disappear towards the end of the second dynasty.

No monuments to Narmer are known from further north than Tarquan so although the Unification was well in hand by marrying the northern princess Neith Hotep perhaps full consolidation hadn't been achieved by the death of Narmer and his son completes the political alliance of the two former kingdoms.

Emery also points out that Narmer has only a modest tomb at Abydos and none elsewhere. His son HorAha has a tomb at Abydos and the new capital of "White Walls", both of which are more elaborate than that of Narmer.

Clearly HorAha has access to greater material resources than his father had and is the first pharaoh of Egypt taking the title Menes possibly meaning "(finally)Established" AT Kunene (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No evidence of Dynasties in king List till Mantheo
It might be better to just go with the list of kings without Dynasties 0, 00, 1, and 2; but with the kings previously excluded as mythical. All of them from the Palermo Stone use the symbol for a unified North and South. The fact that there are differences between the lists from Mantheo, Abydos, Turin and Saqarra suggest perhaps the unification was not universally agreed to so some names of kings may have been from the North Only and Some from the South Only. The Second Dynasty has a number of conflicts.

Going back into the Gerzian and Naqada periods there is considerable evidence of trade both by boat and overland. The combination of successful agricultural and animal husbandry technigues with a dependable innundation and good climate made the Egyptians rich. As their wealth increased they went far afield in search of luxuries and status symbols bringing them into contact with the al kharge oasis, the chain of Aphrodite along the red sea, copper mines in the Arabah, Sinai and Negev, sources of Frankincense and Myhr from as far away as Punt along with bitumen and natron for mummification, cedar from Byblos, ebony, ivory and other exotic woods from Egypts southern border, gold mines in Nubia to provide the nub to pay for it all, semi precious stones for jewelry all of which are attributed to Menes as his love of luxury.12.187.94.13 (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

double negative. Did he or didn't he?
This phrase needs rethinking...

"sees no reason to doubt that Diodorus did not correctly record a tradition of Menes.[26]"

The context suggests that the writer is supportive of the idea that "Diodorus" correctly recorded a story but really, with that double negative, it's not sure what the intention of that passage is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger with Narmer
I think that this article should be merged with the Narmer Article. It is now widely accepted that Narmer and Menes were the same person. I don't see the need to have separate articles for one individual. I'm not familiar with the process of proposing a merger, so if someone could help me out, I would appreciate it. Toolen (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Toolen! Regarding your proposed merge, I do not think it is necessary. This article has been proposed for merging a couple times on similar matters, and here was the response from one editor: "Since we don't know, and may never know, they should be separate articles." and another: "Egyptologists range from Serqet-Narmer-Menes-Horaha all being one, to them all being four, and anything inbetween... there's no consensus or definitive evidence one way or the other." History is never absolutely determined, but in some cases it is more obvious than others. In plus, the article on Narmer is very large (at the time of writing 79,230 bytes) so it would be a chore to merge them. Thanks for your concern though. --Ghinga7 (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)