The Neihart herald. [volume] (Neihart, Mont.) 1890-1901, 1898-10-22
MENES rs NO MYTH.
FOUNDER OF FIRST EGYPTIAN
DYNASTY REALLY EXISTED.
Bones and Seal Identified Wonderful
Proofs of Ancient History Leading to
the Reconstruction of the Traditions
Until Now Doubted. q

A very interesting discovery has
been made by DR.. Borchardt of the
Gizeh museum, which adds immensely
to u knowledge of early Egyptian
history, provided it is fully sustained,
say the London Chronicle. The schol-
ars have hitherto told us that the Or
igins of Egyptian history were wrap
ped in absolute obscurity, and in par
ticular that the founder of the first
Egyptian dynasty, whose name was
Menes, was a mythical person, like
Cadmus of Thebes, and old Anchises,
and many other worthless, who, in sim
pier times, were regarded as real men,
To Menes was ascribed by the ancient'
Egyptians the canals of Egypt and the
union of upper and lower Egypt into
one kingdom. Last year a tomb was
discovered near Thebes, and now DR..
Borchardt has identified that tomb
with that of Menes, who turns out to
have been a real character. The bones
and the seal of Menes, whose body
was burned, not embalmed, and the
inscription in which he calls himself
the king of upper and lower Egypt,
have been so clearly identified that 1t
would appear there is little ground for
doubt. At least the authority of M. de
Morgan and DR.. Borchardt cannot
lightly be set aside and they are agreed
to this tomb being that of the real
founder of the first Egyptian dynasty.
In other words, Menes was no myth,
but a real human being, the founder OF
a kingdom which endured, under the
guidance of a great and powerful
priesthood, for thousands of years. 1t
is clear that there is far more in an
cient tradition than the skepticism of
modern historians, especially of the
German school, has been wont to adj
NIT. Much of the old Roman tradition
set aside by Niebuhr has now been vim
Dictated beyond all dispute by the actu-
al evidence of brick and stone. The
biblical records, which some of the cri-
tics tried to dissolve into thin air, have
been justified by tangible evidence. One
school of critics resolved Abraham into
a sun myth, but the personality of the
mighty founder of the most tenacious
race in human history stands out again
in its imposing outlines. The German
advanced criticism of the new tesla
ment has been pretty severely handled
by the still newer critics with the latest
learning. 1t seems not unlikely that
much of ancient history will be recon-
structed, not as the subjective critics
who evolved camels cut of their moral
consciousness imagined, but by a very
substantial incorporation of much that
was held to be legendary or mythical
into the surer history of the future. The
new history calls archaeology, cranio-
logy and inscriptions to it's aid, and so
earns for itself a position of strength
which before our century was I'M
known. The strange paradox is brought
about that the further we are removed
from ancient times the more we know
about them. In a special degree it may
be said that a fairly complete recon-
struction of Egyptian history and reli-
gion would be a most important contri-
button to the knowledge of the history
of mankind, and this knowledge seems
to be On the point of being obtained.
According to M. de Morgan, real Egyp-
tan history begins with a race of CON
1uerors whose origin was probably in
B%abylonia. They brought with them
wheat and barley, the OK, the sheep, the
goat, the beginnings of writing, and
perhaps the use of tools. They blended
with the primitive race living in the
stone age, and from that union the his
torical Egyptians proceeded. 1t was
this mixed race which built the pyra-
mids and temples, So far, if M. de Nor
gan is to be relied on, and there are
few more trustworthy investigators,
have the researches into the history of
old Egypt led us, and it is a long way.