Talk:Mentuhotep II

message: This article contains many flaws; for one thing the Mentuhotep kings were not part of the Intef dynasty.
It was Metuhotep II who for the first time reunited Egypt under one crown and not Mentuhotep I.
His supposed enemy the Heraklopitan king Merykara did not die after the battle which settled matters
as to who would rule Egypt, but he died before, it was his successor who was defeated in battle by
Mentuhotep II.
A good reference book is the "Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt".
::My Grimal, Breasted, Gardiner, Redford, and Shaw all seem to say that much of that is incorrect. Thanatosimii 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Die Quelle 46 ist falsch!
An den zitierten Stellen in beiden Büchern steht kein einziger Hinweiß auf die Bepflanzung des Gartens. Ich entferne das jetzt noch einmal und danach ist es mir egal, ob ihr hier falsche Quellen auflistet oder nicht. Grüße Maeve von Connacht (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsche Quellenangabe

message: The lineage Intef III = father of Mentuhotep II and Iah = mother of Mentuhotep II is more than just a flimsy theory: Iah bare the titles of King's mother and King's daughter, so she must have been the mother of Mentuhotep II and the daughter of Intef II. The stele of Tjetjy clearly identifies Intef III as the son of Intef II (see article on Intef II) so Iah was indeed Intef III's sister (at least half-sister through her father). So Mentuhotep II was of royal lineage at least through his mother. Now since it is well known and attested that Iah was Intef III's wife, we have a more than strong evidence that Intef III was in all likeliness Mentuhotep II's father (unless we accuse Iah of adultery...). Finally the Silsileh petroglyph might not be a proof of lineage in itself but if Iah and Intef III are not Mentuhotep's parents, one is left wondered why on earth he represented himself with them ? 
 Iry-Hor (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not convinced that Intef III was his father. But more importantly, Ian Shaw the expert published RS, is not convinced. (It's not supposed to matter what we wikipedia editors think...) But one thing I can tell you is, there is more to this than meets the eye, with regard to these people. I will be happy if: The POV-pushing word "confirmed" should be toned down to "suggested", "probably" to "possibly", and Shaw's opinion on it ought to be given more prominence (at the least, it belongs in the "Family" section and not really the "Reign" section. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright let's change the word 'confirmed' to whatever you like. As for Shaw's opinion it can be moved to the familly section, no problem. In any case, if Intef III and/or Iah are not Mentuhotep II's parents then who are his parents ? Also I do not see the constant boasting of Mentuhotep nor his frequent claims to descent from the gods as a sign of his non-royal origins and the purposedly weak claim to the throne. Given the evidence, it would seem more likely that Mentuhotep behaved this way for he might have believed it. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said he was of non-royal origin. Personally, I'd bet he was a scion of the House of Kheti, but that's me going out on a limb, and I've already said too much.  We really have to stick to what we can find in RSS to avoid accusations of conducting our own original research, even in talk page discussions. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I agree let's do this. About your bet you mean that Mentuhotep was a man of the house of Kheti? the Herakelopolitan ennemies of Intef II and III ? The ones that Djety says in his stele that INtef II fought ? Now that would seem particularly wrong to me, especially knowing that the military campaign of Mentuhotep against the house of Kheti is well attested. Furthermore if this was so, why did he built his temple at Thebes ? Why did he portray himself as Osiris, a local Theban god ? Iry-Hor (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, things aren't always what they seem, and more evidence needs to come to light. That's about all I can say or speculate here, but we can talk about this off-site if you really wish to know my views. If I'm not mistaken it was Mentuhotep I who first established Thebes as a capital, that's one clue. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure I would be really interested to hear more. As far as I know Mentuhotep I was a nomarch who indeed ruled from Thebes. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry for joining this discussion. On stela Cairo Jde 36346 Mentuhotep II is called the son of Intef III; so there is little doubt that their were father and son. Mentuhotep II's mother was Iah, she is shown as his mother on the reliefs in the Wadi Shatt er-Rigal (have in the moment only a German reference: S. Roth, Koenigsmutter, p. 189). bw -- Udimu (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow man this is great references !! I update the article with these. Are sure that on the Silsileh petroglyph you are referring to, Iah is called mwt.f his mother ? In any case, that's just what I thougt. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Wow Udimu, that would seem to blow a hole in what Shaw thinks... not to mention my own analysis! Can you get us a link, I'd love to see a complete translation! Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Wait, Cairo Jde 36346 is not a stele it is the Coffin of Heqata, dated indeed to Mentuhotep II's reign. For the moment I have NOT yet found the text saying that Mentuhotep is Intef's son. As for Iah, her titles are enough to prove the lineage. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the coffin of Heqata is JdE 36418 (it is the subtitle of Willems' book: The coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418). Roth said the stela belongs to a certain Hwnw and refers to a publication of Schenkel, I do not have Schenkel's book here, so can't check that directly. bw -- Udimu (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to find what little I can about it now.  Some sources speak of a Hnnw (Hannu) rather than Hnwn, could that possibly be another reading of the same? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hannu (Henenu) is a little bit later and a different person. Will try to find the stela. bw -- Udimu (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I found the stela, here http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/3cairo.pdf (the document does not has page numbers) and here: http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/5/ (page 39) and the stela says that Mentuhotep II (only part of his Horus name is preserved: Seankh...) is the son of Antef III. bw -- Udimu (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good but note that in the bifao article p.39, the author writes that Sankhare Mentuhotep III succedded Intef III and not Mentuhotep II. This is of course an error due to the fact that at the time of the publication, people did not know the different titularies of Mentuhotep II, in particular they did not know that Mentuhotep II first titulary was Sankhibtawy. Because of that, it seemed to the author that the only 11th dynasty king whose name starts with S-ANKH (which are the only signs readable before the lacuna) is Mentuhotep III, when we know today that Mentuhotep II's name also started with these signs. So the stele demonstrates that either Menuthotep II or Mentuhotep III was the son of Intef III and the author choosed the second solution. Today's knowledge of Mentuhotep II titulary shows that the right answer was the first. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the defunct served Intef II, Intef III and his son, and we know that Intef II reigned around 50 years and that the successor of Intef III was Mentuhotep II (even if he was not Intef III's son), who reigned around 50 years as well. If the S-ANKH signs where those of Sankhare Mentuhotep III, then the defunct must have died aged around 100 years old (an extremely rare occurence in ancient egypt) and one is left wondered why the defunct entirely omitted the glorious 50 years of Mentuhotep II, considered divine or half-divine by the people of that period following the reunification. At the opposite, it seems plausible that he served under Intef II, Intef III and died before Mentuhotep II 14th year on the throne, i.e. before he changed his titulary. Consequently the S-ANKH signs must be those of Mentuhotep II's first titulary and he is indeed the son of Intef III.  Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: yeap! A further point: Iah, was not "King's daughter"; the only title attested for her is king's mother. bw -- Udimu (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Iah bore the title of King's daughter, see Tyldesley, Joyce. Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt. Thames & Hudson. 2006, pp. 66-68.  Iry-Hor (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess she made a mistake, Roth is listing all sources and there is only the title beloved king's mother. bw -- Udimu (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: PS.:I checked Tyldesley, Joyce. Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt, but she does not say that; Tyldesley gives the titles king's mother and priestess of Hathor (not sure about the latter title), on p. 66. bw -- Udimu (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: MY mistake, you're right. Look up this site : http://euler.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/Intef_III_Nakhtnebtepnefer.html I guess one of the references is the one we want that proves Iah's title of king's daughter, but I don't have access to these books to check. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Great! But may I inquire, why is there no cartouche around this "Sa-Ankh-..." who was a son of Intef III? Couldn't it be "son of life of " anyone? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I figured out the Horus names aren't cartouched, and it's supposed to be a Horus name.  But I wish I could read the whole lines! Iry-Hor, could you please give us some idea of what it says? I only know a few basics about how to read hiero... Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I will have access to my egyptian dictionnary this week end  and will translate the stele the best I can. Note the s-ankh does not mean "son of life" (which would be written s3-ankh with a goose sign) but is the verb "to give life/to invigorate" Iry-Hor (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Iah as king's daughter.: I guess that is a mistake of the website your are citing (anyway, I would only use research articles and books, even  Tyldesley I do not use as she does not cite her sources). The main source for Iah is the relief from Shatt er Rigal (picture in the article), and there she just appears as beloved king's mother. The other sources are unpublished references in the tomb of Neferu, so there is no way to check that; but Tyldesley and Roth, both do not mention that title, so I strongely recommend to delete it from the text. bw -- Udimu (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, deleted ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Do you mean to say that the word for 'father' nor 'son' appears there on the stele fragment, but that this was surmised by the scholars to mean three generations of kings from Intef II, Intef III and Mentuhitep II, therefore they were father and son? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry if I was not clear. In the stele Mentuhotep II is clearly identified as the son of his predecessor, whose name is lost in the lacuna. However the stele specifies that Henenu served under 3 kings (it explicitely says three kings), then states the first one was Intef II, then another one lost in the lacuna, and then his son identified as Mentuhotep II. Since Intef III succeeded Intef II, Mentuhotep II was Intef III's son. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentuhotep II's lineage

message: Translation, some passages I am not sure as I don't know well the idyomatic expression of the egyptian such as n(j)-i-w-Ht-nbt-im-n3't-rHHt
-D36:P6*G43-D12:N36-O29-m-M4-t:Z2:N39-(?)-T18-s-D54:n-M23-t:n-O50:D53-t:Z2-D35:i*D54-G43-O50:t-nb:t-i-m-n:O29:t-r:D12*D12:t*Y1
For a period of many years (litt: great of years) I served three kings, never was any fault found in me, I had great wisdom
i-G43-T18-s-n-G5-V29-S34-<-G38-N5-W25-n:t:f->-D36-P6-G43-D12:N36-O29-M4-t:Z2-HASH-HASH-HASH-HASH
I followed the Horus Enduring of Life, the son of Ra, Intef, for a period of many years (litt: great of years)
Z3-nb:G43-D35:i*D54-G43-O50:t:nb-i-O50:r-m-s-U28-G4-D54:f-r:N27*t-f-r:b*G43-n:t-R8:Z2-i-m-D36-P6-D36:n
all, never was any fault found in me (??not finished to translate here) when(?) he went to his horizon in the heaven of the gods (unfinished translation) 
T18-s-D54:n-G38:f-G5-s-S34-F34:N16:N16-<-G39-N5-mn:n:T-w-Htp:t*p->-HASH-HASH-HASH-HASH
I served his son the Horus who invigorates the heart of the Two Lands, the son of Ra, Mentuhotep
Third line refers to Intef III's death with a standard expression, I will finish to translate tonight. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... Mentuhotep was indeed cunning, but surely he would have no reason to lie about his parentage on a stele... or whoever wrote it, if not Mentuhotep himself... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah well clearly Mentuhotep did not wrote it, and probably was he not involved at all in commanding the stele given that Henenu was not so high ranked. I don't know why there are books casting doubts on the lineage Intef II-> Intef III ->Mentuhotep II. Maybe were the authors not aware of this stele: there are thousands stelae and this one is badly damaged so it is probably not the most well known ? Iry-Hor (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it is food for thought, no? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes definitely. Do you have the name of the author who doubts the lineage ? I will try to send him an email with the question, he may tell us his point of view on the matter. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But certainly, it is a mister Shaw of Oxford. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding what you said of Henenu, do you happen to know if it would have been possible for a stele to commissioned by someone other than the Pharaoh? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, this is always the case for private steles. These are an important part of the funerary furniture and, as such, were commissioned and funded by wealthy-enough private individuals just as the tomb itself. This is why the funerary steles extols the vertues of the deceased, contains short biographies, and invitations for the living to pray and make offering for the deceased. For money reasons, the tomb of poor individuals are generally little decorated or not at all. At the opposite, royal statuary, royal decrees and the royal tomb were commissioned by the pharaoh and funded by the government, just as for example the construction of a new temple. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cairo stele proving Mentuhotep II is Intef III's son

message: This popular press article says that this person had lymphatic filariasis.
*
Here is a late academic source which suggests that this is old information. 
*
I am unsure where the original paper is making this claim.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filariasis 

message: -- Could I get a second opinion on this article, a possible updated assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely C-Class. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentuhotep II