not sure where you are going with this. Narmers tomb has been thought to be identified, and his immediate successors tombs definitely have. His name appears on a chronology within 150 years of his existance, and pottery etc bearing his sign have been dated to the right time. His existance is of no doubt to any serious archeologist or historian.
Much later (e.g. 300 BC) chronologies may have him confused (or misnamed) with Menes or other kings and very little is known about him. However, he is almost certainly the first person we can place with any confidence in our history books.
That rather depends on what you mean by an autograph signature. Examples of Charlemagne’s sign manual survive, as do those of some of the Merovingian kings.
Do a person’s works count as evidence of the person? If so, then the winner would probably be the painter of one of the prehistoric cave paintings, or the maker of some ancient tool found by archaeologists. We’ven’t a clue as to that person’s name, but the OP said that wasn’t necessary.
What appears to be a tomb is not always a tomb- a tomb could be a monument instead. And, the documentation is not from an outside source. I believe one of the British kings claimed he was related to Arthur and the very early Kings had geneaologies back to the Gods. So just because a King lists a name in his list of ancestors, that does not mean it was a real person.
I am not doubting him, myself (I do doubt the Scorpion King). But I think an outside contemporary mention is needed for this.
but your examples of the arthur lineage (cite?) was not comtemporaneous . The monuments, (or tombs doesnt matter), pottery etc of Narmer were done in his time. Each time his sign turns up in any form in material from that time (or just after) is an independent confirmation of his existance. By that critereon there are probably more than ten independent confirmations of his name from material at that time, plus many more from (much) latter histories. I agree that a lineage written 1000 years after the event is not worth much if anything. However a coin from that time with Arthurs picture and name on it, or a piece of pottery with “King Arthur” stamped on it would be regarded as highly significant should it ever arise (which it wont of course in that case)
I guess what I mean are documents that aren’t disputable. For instance, Jesus the biblical accounts were all written long after he died. So that is hearsay (is that the right word). Were any of the new testement books written while Jesus or someone who “Should’ve known him personally,” alive?
As for graves, it would be far to easy to carve anything on a stone. You can probably date stone somehow (maybe I don’t really know I’m guessing) but the carving?
I mean we have written records of the people on the Mayflower right? If so that means we could find people back to 1600s. You probably could date the paper right? I don’t know anything about dating things, I know to be carbon dated it has to be a substance that was once alive.
What’s to say that evidence of a fictional person or legend can’t be contemporaneous with their non-real existance. If some pottery appears that refers to someone recent, does that person have to be more real than a history of someone 1000 years prior?
Archaeologists of the future are going to dig up a bunch of *Star Wars * lunch boxes and think that Han Solo was real. After all, that dude has countless contemporaneous accounts in all manner of media.
I think Nar-Mer shows up on three contemporaneous objects. Does that count? His palette, a bit of ceramic from nearby, and something else, I think but don’t know the details.
Assuming that Jesus died circa A.D. 30, it’s possible that eyewitnesses to his ministry were still living when all four of the Gospels were written. Mark was written about A.D. 70, Matthew and Luke a little later. John was written last, perhaps in the A.D. 90s. Thus, people who witnessed Jesus’ ministry when they were 20 would have been in their 80s when the last Gospel was written.
And even John has evidence of relying on eyewitness accounts. For instance, about how an invalid was lowered on a litter by ropes through a roof opening to hear Jesus speak inside a house — neither here nor there theologically, just the kind of memorable details an eyewitness would have retained.
How do we know they are from his time? C-14 isn’t that precise is it? Are they “from that time” because we have his name on a list of Kings? I know a lot of Egyptian dating is done that way.
They all were. Currently the Consensus is that Gospel of John was actually dictated (at least in part) by the Apostle of that name to his disciples(in Ephesus), while John was a very old man. c. 100AD
However, the Gospel of Matthew was almost certainly not written by the A. Matthew, although perhaps by one of his disciples. Written c 85-90AD.
The G. of Mark was possibly written by Mark, an interpreter of Peter. It is possible that if so, that Mark may have briefly met Jesus (Mark 14:51), while Mark was very young and Jesus was about to be executed. That’s the legend anyway. However, if the writer of that Gospel was indeed that Mark mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13 nd Acts 12;12, he was the right age to have met Jesus. Written c.65-75AD
G. of Luke, written possibly by the Physician of Paul, c. 80-85AD.
Jesus likely died in AD 33. Thus three of the Gospels were written only about 50 years later. So, 70+/- year old people would have living memory of Jesus at that time. The legend is that John lived to be over 90, which is not impossible at all.
there is some circular arguments in archeology that can be proved wrong - e.g. pottery fragments found in a certain layer used to either date the layer or the pottery and have been shown to be wrong on occasion. However, one builds up the best picture one can using hundreds of examples of say pottery, changing styles, techniques, language etc one can date an unknown pot. It is also most unlikely that a pot or tomb would have the sign of a king on if it wasnt produced when he was alive. There are also independent methods of dating pottery (eg. thermoluminescence).
With a good fragment C14 is precise enough to tell whether distinguish between say 3000 BC or 2700 BC. This is not usually any good for pottery of course, but may date papyrus in a tomb.
You seem to be playing devils advocate for no good reason. Yes it is possible that everything we know about egyptology is all wrong. There are still many things that are being argued over. However saying in effect “why believe in a King named Narmer” seems pointless without knowing at least something on the issues.