Menes: Sumerian Prince?
Doug & Jennifer Bailey
I came across a book a few days ago titled "Egyptian Civilization: Its
Sumerian Origian & Real Chronology (And Sumerian Origin of Egyptian
Hieroglyphs" by L.A. Waddell. The year of publication is 1930 and the
publisher was Luzac & Co. out of London.
This book alarmed me due to the claims Waddell makes. Essentially,
Waddell states that Menes (the purported initial Pharaoh of the First
Dynasty and unifier of the Egyptian Kingdoms):
1 - was a Sumerian Crown-Prince
2 - was governor of the Sumerian Indus Valley colony
3 - erected Egypt into an independent kingdom and preserved its
independence within the Mesopotamian empire when he succeeded eventually
to the throne after his father's death
4 - as the Min or Minos sea-emperor of Greek legend annexed and
civilized Crete and extended his rule westwards to the Pillars of
Hercules and Britain.
The above are direct quotes from Waddell (pg. ix of the Preface).
Waddell also makes claims regarding Menes' ancestry and dynastic
successors which I will not go into detail about here.
At this point I was essentially reading the book with my jaw dropped
wondering where Waddell found evidence to support these claims. As far
as I knew, current knowledge regarding Menes was very sketchy to the
point that there was even speculation that he was a mythic figure.
Let me quote directly from Waddell regarding his general summary of his
evidence. He posed the two questions of where did the Nile Valley
civilization come from and what was the timing of this rise? He stated
he had found the answers to these questions.
"What put me on the track of the new evidence was the discovery that a
great deal in the ancient Indian Epics and Vedas regarding Early Aryans,
hitherto considered fabulous (mythic) is historic. Comparing the
King-Lists of the Early Aryans in the Puranas with the records of the
Sumerian Mesopotamian kings on their inscribed monuments and in the
official Mesopotamian King-Lists, I observed that the two records, Eraly
Aryan and Sumerian, are in entire agreement frm the First Dynasty, Aryan
and Sumerian, down through the long period of over two thousand years to
the opening of the classic Greek eopch in Europe; and that the identity
was complete not only in the names, titles, order of succession, and
exploits of the kings, but extended to such minute details as the names
of their consorts and sons, and to the culture, language, writing,
religion, symbolism, arts and industries of the peoples over whom they
ruled.
The offical King-Lists, Indian and Mesopotamian, show Menes and he
predecessors and successors in his First Dynasty in the same
chronological order and position, with the names and titles they bear in
the Egyptian records. The Sumerian Mesopotamian and Indus Valley script
of those kings is the same as that used by the pre-dynastic and First
Dynasty Pharaohs in their monumental inscriptions. The Egyptian
Hieroglyphs are discovered to be a slightly modified conventional form
of the Sumerian diagrammatic picture-writing which came into use
gradually during the rule of Menes and his immediate successors, and to
have the same phonetic values as their parent picture-signs in the
Sumerian. And the radical words in Ancient Egyptian are of Sumerian
origin, though later they became adapted to a large extent to the
Semitic speech and idioms of the aborigines." (Waddell, pg. viii,
Preface)
Waddell goes on in the book itself to evince various claims regarding
Menes, his father (Gin/Gani/Guni/Sha-Gin, also known as Sargon the
Great?), Sargon's father Ro, Ro's father Khetm, Narmar (the second king
of the First Dynasty - Waddell claims he is actually Naram-Sim of
Mesopotamia) and so on.
My real questions here are has the academic community considered
Waddell's arguments? I realize the book is 67 years old and perhaps our
knowledge of the Sumerians and Indians has expanded to expose flaws in
Waddell's reasoning but the implications of his claims and the fact that
I had never heard of them made me wonder. Has anyone heard of this guy
and his theories? Can you give me any additional insight into current
academic consensus regarding his claims?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doug and Jennifer Bailey
aess...@ix.netcom.com
http://adobe.chaco.com/~aessedai/html/home.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
--- Anon.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doug and Jennifer Bailey
aess...@ix.netcom.com
http://adobe.chaco.com/~aessedai/html/home.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
--- Anon.
Piotr Michalowski
In article <33B041CD...@ix.netcom.com> Doug & Jennifer Bailey <aess...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>I came across a book a few days ago titled "Egyptian Civilization: Its
>Sumerian Origian & Real Chronology (And Sumerian Origin of Egyptian
>Hieroglyphs" by L.A. Waddell. The year of publication is 1930 and the
>publisher was Luzac & Co. out of London.
Can you give me any additional insight into current
>academic consensus regarding his claims?
I would not worry much about this; there was no substance to his claims
in 1930 and much has been learned since then. There is not one shred of
evidence to link any Egyptian "Menes", a name that is problematical enough in
the Egyptian context, with anyone from Mesopotamia. In the 20's and 30's
M. was sometimes identified with Sargon, Naram-Sin and other rulers, but this
has always been based on bad linguistics and philology, not to mention bad
history. Recent discoveries at Abydos in Egypt have shed new light on the
earliest periods of state formation in Egypt, but they do not support any
notion of foreign control.
ku...@astro.phys.unm.edu
In article <piotrm.60...@umich.edu>,
Is this guy a precursor to Velikovsky? He wrote similar stuff in _Ages in
Chaos_, _Peoples of the Sea_, and _Oedipus and Akhnato_, 20 or 30 years
later.
Jim
Frank Joseph Yurco
This represents outdated thinking of the 1930s when the myth of foreign
influence on Egyptian culture was at its peak. For a good review of the
development of Egyptian archaeology and Pre and Archaic Era studies, get
a hold of Michael Hoffman's Egypt Before the Pharaohs, 2nd ed. rev.
(Austin: University of Texas, 1991). The current understanding is that the
ancient Egyptian monarchy evolved from the emergence of power centers
in the Late Predynastic, with the southern leaders from Nekhen unifying
the country in a drive lasting from King Scorpion to Aha. As far as the
unification is concerned, either Nar-mer or Aha deserves the credit as
the unifier. Aha founded Memphis and started the Royal Annals, but
recently, a label found at Abydos lists the first kings, starting with
Narmer and ending with Mer-Neit, and so, its viewpoint is that Narmer
is the first king. Menes is a name found later, only from Dynasty 19
and later, for the first king. Exactly which king this referred to is
still up in the air. The strongest candidate now is Nar-mer, but Aha is
still a contender, or perhaps, the deeds of both Nar-mer and Aha figure
in the traditional Menes.
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago
--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu
Steve Whittet
In article <ECC52...@midway.uchicago.edu>, fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu
says...
>
>This represents outdated thinking of the 1930s when the myth of foreign
>influence on Egyptian culture was at its peak. For a good review of the
>development of Egyptian archaeology and Pre and Archaic Era studies, get
>a hold of Michael Hoffman's Egypt Before the Pharaohs, 2nd ed. rev.
>(Austin: University of Texas, 1991).
You might also consider "Egypt's Making; The Origins of Ancient Egypt
5000-2000 BC, Michael Rice, Routledge, 1991
>The current understanding is that the ancient Egyptian monarchy
>evolved from the emergence of power centers in the Late Predynastic,
>with the southern leaders from Nekhen unifying the country in a drive
>lasting from King Scorpion to Aha.
What about the Badarian, Naqada I and Naqada II sites which yield
burials like Helwan which has over 10,000 graves of officials?
The late Uruk period in Mesopotamia corrresponds with Naquada II
in Egypt; a period when there was a flourishing mercantile culture
in the Arabian Gulf Islands and Mesopotamia.
Mesopotamia was a flourishing civilization during Egypt's predynastic
periods. it could hardly have helped being influential. The same is
true for the civilization of the Indus which controlled the access
to Afghanistans lapis lazuli.
So dominent were waterways like the Nile, Euphrates and Indus
in the course of civilizations rise that directions were often
given as upstream or downstream rather than North, South, East or West.
>As far as the unification is concerned, either Nar-mer or Aha
>deserves the credit as the unifier. Aha founded Memphis and
>started the Royal Annals, but recently, a label found at Abydos
>lists the first kings, starting with
>Narmer and ending with Mer-Neit, and so, its viewpoint is that Narmer
>is the first king.
The earliest kings whose names are recorded in the 1st Dynasty
were not the first kings of Egypt. The clan totems of what the
Greeks called Egypts "nomes" easily date back to c 5,000 BC.
The "Red Crown" dates back to Naquada I c 3,500 BC.
There is a site at Merimda dating from the fifth millenium BC which
covers 180,000 sq meters. Among the goods found is a pear shaped mace
which may have originated in Mesopotamia.
The Naquada II period includes a preocupation with boats including
sea going boats. Mining, especially for precious metals was a major
industry and there were expeditions to Nubia and the Sinai. Lapis
Lazuli beads from Afghanistan are found in Naquada II graves.
Rice notes that Lapis was probably transported across Arabia
by land and across the Red Sea by boat. There is evidence of
contact with Oman in the form of sorghum which originated
in the Nile valley, and of course this is the area from which
Dr Juris Zarins has shown there was trade in Frankincense and
Myhr in this period.
>Menes is a name found later, only from Dynasty 19
>and later, for the first king. Exactly which king this referred to is
>still up in the air. The strongest candidate now is Nar-mer, but Aha is
>still a contender, or perhaps, the deeds of both Nar-mer and Aha figure
>in the traditional Menes.
Baines and Ma'lek give Narmer as late predynastic and start the first
Dynasty with Menes (= aha?)
According to Mantheo there reigned over Egypt before Mena or Menes
a number of beings who may be identified with the Sheshu Horu or
followers of Horus.
>
>Most sincerely,
>
>Frank J. Yurco
steve
James Conway
In a previous article, aess...@ix.netcom.com (Doug & Jennifer Bailey) says:
>I came across a book a few days ago titled "Egyptian Civilization: Its
>Sumerian Origin & Real Chronology (And Sumerian Origin of Egyptian
>Hieroglyphs" by L.A. Waddell. The year of publication is 1930 and the
>publisher was Luzac & Co. out of London.
>
>and his theories? Can you give me any additional insight into current
>academic consensus regarding his claims?
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Doug and Jennifer Bailey
>aess...@ix.netcom.com
>http://adobe.chaco.com/~aessedai/html/home.html
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
> --- Anon.
Interesting but the king lists don't match in reign lengths nor
correspond in number.
Egyptian chronology BCE Sumerian chronology BCE
Kings First dynasty
3396 Menes 61 3396 Gaur 1200 20
3335 Athothes 59 3376 Gull-Nidaba-annapad 960 16
3276 Athothes II 32 3360 Palakinatim 900 15
3244 Miabaes 19 3345 Nangishlishma
3225 Pemphos 18 Bahina
3207 Momcheiri 79 Buanum 840 14
3128 Stoichos 6 3331 Kalibum 960 16
3122 Gosormies 30 3315 Galumum 840 14
3092 Mares 26 3301 Zukakip 900 15
3066 Anoyphis 20 3286 Atab 600 10
3276 Mashda 840 14
First dynasty 3262 Arurim 720 12
3250 Etana 1560 26
3046 Narmer 55 3224 Balih 400 7
Iti 3217 Enmenunna 660 11
2991 Itef 47 3206 Melam-Kish 900 15
2944 Interregnum 1 3191 Barsalnunna 1200 20
2943 Iterty 33 3171 Meszamug 140 2
Khasty 3169 Tizkar 305 5
2910 Merpebia 57 3164 Ilku 900 15
2853 Irynetjer 8 3149 Iltasadum 1200 20
2845 Qaa 25 3129 Enmebaraggesi 900 15
3114 Agga 625 11
Manetho's first Kings before the first dynasty of Egypt and the
conventional first dynasty are given here. In the conventional
chronology it is believed Menes and Narmer are the same individual
founder of the first dynasty, but the name Menes may only be a
title of founder or unifier of a dynasty. Whatever, it is clear
that the difference of the number of kings from Egypt and Sumer
and their reign lengths make the idea of any two being the same
individuals unlikely. Sargon is a Sumerian king on the list in
the 24th century BCE or a millennium after Manetho's Menes and
four centuries after Narmer. Naram-Sin can't be Narmer because we
have records of each king. Narmer was a founder of a dynasty and
Naram-Sin is known to be the grandson of a founder where at the
end of his reign chaos came to his kingdom. That didn't occur to
Narmer. As for Menes being Minos the sea king I believe the
greeks place him in the 1500s BCE and not in the 3000s BCE tho no
great strength can be held to greek mythic chronology.
All in all tho the major conclusions except for the _specific_
chronological conclusions can still have merit as there was
great exchanges of religious ideas and trade. Great social
divergent changes in Egypt occurred after the reign of
Sesostris III in the end of the 19th century BCE.
As for India kings only the Egyptian king Mares (9th) is said
to be a man whos father was a great wise man from India by the
Puranas (_Chronology of Ancient Hindu History Reconstructed_
might be the book that would have a reference).
Peace
--
James Conway bb...@scn.org
Seattle, WA 98101 USA
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/
Salvus
> I would not worry much about this; there was no substance to his claims
> in 1930 and much has been learned since then. There is not one shred of
> evidence to link any Egyptian "Menes", a name that is problematical > enough in the Egyptian context, with anyone from Mesopotamia. In the > 20's and 30's M. was sometimes identified with Sargon, Naram-Sin and > other rulers, but this has always been based on bad linguistics and > philology, not to mention bad history. Recent discoveries at Abydos in > Egypt have shed new light on the earliest periods of state formation in > Egypt, but they do not support any notion of foreign control.
>
> Is this guy a precursor to Velikovsky? He wrote similar stuff in _Ages > in Chaos_, _Peoples of the Sea_, and _Oedipus and Akhnato_, 20 or 30 > years later.
>
> Jim
Dear Jim,
Your response was very interesting for me, in that it mentioned a book
called "Peoples of The Sea," and if I understand your reference you gave
writers credit for it to "Velikovsky." This was interesting to me
because I own a copy of a book entitled "People of The Sea," but it was
written by Trude and Moshe Dothan. This book was published by Macmillan
Publishing Company of New York, is copyrighted 1992 by Domino Press, has
an ISBN number of 0-02532261-3, and is in at least the tenth printing.
This is not the book to which you have reference is it? Although the
subject seems also to be foreign people having influence on Palestine
and Egypt, in this case reference the Philistines.
Salvus
Michael Lightfoot
>Your response was very interesting for me, in that it mentioned a book
>called "Peoples of The Sea," and if I understand your reference you gave
>writers credit for it to "Velikovsky." This was interesting to me
>because I own a copy of a book entitled "People of The Sea," but it was
>written by Trude and Moshe Dothan. This book was published by Macmillan
>Publishing Company of New York, is copyrighted 1992 by Domino Press, has
>an ISBN number of 0-02532261-3, and is in at least the tenth printing.
>This is not the book to which you have reference is it? Although the
>subject seems also to be foreign people having influence on Palestine
>and Egypt, in this case reference the Philistines.
>
Yours is probably a history book. Velikovsky wrote amusing fairy tales.
//------------------------------------------------------------------------
// michael Ph +61 6 258 8185
//=============================== Fax +61 6 258 1945
// Michael Lightfoot
// SysIX Unix Systems Consulting
// P.O. Box 155
// CHARNWOOD, ACT 2615 AUSTRALIA For ftp-related mail:
// mic...@canb.auug.org.au ftpm...@tip.net.au
// http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~michal