Talk:Menes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Menes or Hor-Aha? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Succession box 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed Existence 

message: 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)
thread_title: The first paragraph

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

message: 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)
thread_title: "Black" image

message: Realstoryx (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pre-dynastic Africans are Africans in Africa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anonymous comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Transclusion - can't edit out Memes vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Details 

message: 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)
thread_title: No evidence of Dynasties in king List till Mantheo

message: 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)
thread_title:  double negative. Did he or didn't he? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger with Narmer