This lecture was incredible, and I whole heartedly agree with your observations. It's makes the most sense that Tut died by a chariot accident and was a fit, youthful, strident fellow full of life who loved the odd glass of wine. The 'distorted invalid' image that some have said he was, never resonated at all....and sometimes the truth is simple and right in front of our eyes. It does look like he loved to hunt and race, maybe the wheel fell off his cart and a chariot behind trampled him not having the time to stop. And also he doesn't look like Nefertiti. If you look at his bone structure and his rounder face, agree his Mother was somebody else. I love the childrens book art, and I love your dedication for truth and will buy it. Awesome stuff!
100% on Tut’s fitness. There’s no real reason to assume otherwise beyond the walking sticks (which have an alternative explanation) and analysis of his thousand year old dead body. All the images we have from his life he seemed to want to present himself as a fighting fit young king, I really see no reason to not believe him on how he presented himself. Even though he died young, young people still die tragically today in accidents all the time, it doesn’t mean he was always sickly and frail that he died at 19.
@@theghostinthemirror8158 *_"and analysis of his thousand year old dead body..."_* If he died in 1323 BC, his body is 3,346 years old, not 1,000. {:o:O:}
Many thanks Chris. Just when you think you've heard it all about Tutankhamun, you let us in on more behind the scenes stuff. I found what you said about Carter, really interesting and what he did and did not do. I think knowing how meticulous he was with certain things and not so much with others, opens the possibilities to some answers to questions people may have. Good luck with your children's book. I wish it was around when I was a child. When I was 4, I read a story book about an Egyptian boy and his Saluki that started my life long passion with all things Egypt and Salukis. Yes Salukis really are that smart. I have owned 4 Salukis now. My house is filled with trinkets from Egypt, brought back from friends and I can't wait to go myself, hopefully in 2023. I hope your book inspires other young readers with a passion about this fascinating history. I'll be picking up a copy for my grandchildren when they are old enough. I'm looking forward to your next lecture.
Thank you for watching Deborah and for your kind and encouraging comments - much appreciated! I'm glad you enjoyed the talk and hope your grandchildren enjoy the book!
Found a copy of the book: Tutankhamen by Cristiane Desroches-Noblecourt at a bus stop shelter...of all places. Funny thing about studying History...I NEED to know EVERYTHING about the subject or era. Good thing we have so much spare room in our craniums. Less room in our personal libraries.
Chris, I first watched your documentary “ Ultimate Tutankhamen “. While it was very informative, other documentaries, such as Building Pharaoh’s Chariot, in which Baylor Sander, pointed out that. The main pull bar of these chariots was a loose mortise and tennon joint , and one of the purposes of this was to prevent rollover, a major thesis of your documentary. I then went back to the original photos of the discovery of the chariots in the tomb. Even in Black and White, it became clear that the chariot on the top of the pile, was wrecked. And in the pile of wheels, at the rear was a broken wheel. The wrecked chariot was mist likely overlooked by investigators, due to. It’s condition and not as a cause for Tutankhamen’s death. The wrecked chariot has a broken axle on the left side and the chariot flooring is totally missing. while a horse could break a main pulling pole, the axles are of heaver thickness. So it would take a much stringer animal to do such damage. With that in mind, I considered one of the most dangerous of African animals. The Hippopotamus. They have sufficient strength to easily break a wheel and axle and overthrow both Tutankhamen and his driver out of a chariot. They are also very quick despite their size and especially if wounded could turn into such an accident. Such an impact would easily cause a broken leg to Tutankhamen and while trying to get up on his knees he was run over by another fully loaded chariot from the hunting party, as a Pharaoh would never be alone while hunting. There was an error.made by the accident reconstruction firm, that being in their recreation, the chariot axle was directly under the center of the chariot, when be Tutankhamen’s time all Egyptian chariots had axles at the rear of the chariot. It was their use of an inaccurate chariot that caused the problem. Additionally, that despite any political renderings, any archer would not be driving the chariot. For confirmation if this you can. Contact Military historian Mike Lordes who has ridden in the recreation of a Pharaoh’s chariot and acted as an archer from it.
Thank you Chris. I really do enjoy your documentaries about Tutankhamun and Nefertiti especially the most recent BBC doc which claims his parentage. I love to meet the Amen with the other giant elder gods who are coming on the boat of millions of years from Orion or Sirius and also their rival the saten through your documentaries. I have learnt so many memories about this culture, it’s teachings and the glory days and times of Egypt most stories that come from the flat earth high priest you document so well. I look forward to the future of Egyptology and the discoveries that lie ahead for your field Chris. I hope our understanding and fascination about this mysterious civilization grows so we can marvel at the exquisite eyelash of Horus throne art form and all its most sacred believers. 🙏
Tutankhamun sure looks Young . He has the Wealth of a King even in Death . I wondered what had become of Our inheritance ? Tutankhamun got it all . Thank You .
Dr Naunton if I may ask just to see if my suspicion is correct… There are two cartouches you displayed. One at 18:05 and the one before it. On the second one am I seeing correctly that that is a staff with two head dresses next to it? Based on how I would read that I would think that would roughly mean King of the North and the South. Sorry I just would love to know if my guess is correct for fun
In the two cartouches you mention, no there is no part like this. In the first case the signs spell out the name 'Tutankhaten', in the second they read 'Tutankhamun, ruler of southern Heliopolis'. There is a very common title which we translate as 'King of Upper and Lower Egypt' (or similar) but this is written with a sedge plant, a bee, and two 't' signs - semicircles which are thought to represent loaves of bread.
Hi, you could try the Burton photos of the bed (here: www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/php/am-makegall1.php?db=burton&view=gall&burt=&card=586&desc=bed&strt=1&s1=&s2=&s3=&dno=&what=Search) one of which (p1479a) shows one of the hinges fairly close-up. The article by the leading expert, Dr Naoko Nishimoto, also has some details diagrams: www.nishimoto-jp.com/furniture/furniture.htm (use your browser's translate facility if, like me, you don't read Japanese!). Hope this helps!
Chris, it'd be totally fun if you did a critique of Assassin's creed origins about the world they created. You may know this, but it's a virtual reality world in the Ptolomaic and Roman rule of Egypt. They rebuilt the world, including Alexandria, the Fayuum, and other places. Like your exploration of King Tut, playing the game has really helped me identify with Ancient Egypt and its world.
Hi John, Thanks! In fact I was involved in a project that used AC Origins to teach Egyptology last year. Ubisoft covered it here: news.ubisoft.com/en-gb/article/7Lp5YHoYIlN7k54Jf0JkpA/why-three-egyptologists-are-teaching-history-through-assassins-creed-origins ...and my lecture / exploration of Thebes in the game is available to watch here: ua-cam.com/video/FYgXZFxvGxs/v-deo.html
@1:07:12 - The construction of hardened resin inside the mummy’s skull is related to the Ostrich feather fan. It is far from obvious and is a magnificent reference that really has a lengthy explanation (all science, no aliens, no magic). It is simply brilliantly ingenious of the creators.
Returned to look again at this excellent lecture. And looking at the early slide with two photographs, one of a statue of Akhenaten and one of an image of Nefertiti (with plumes on her head dress), a comment by Chris particularly struck me. He mentions Nefertiti’s rather unique cap. I think Akhenaten wears one in some scenes too. (Late at night and probably too tired for clear thinking and a sharp memory, but there go). It’s interesting to me just now because something else struck me only today. And that is, for the first time I realised something about a couple of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten’s epitaphs and their relation to Akhenaten. (I think the majority of pundits nowadays are happy to think this pharaoh, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, was Nefertiti). The thing is in a couple of places at least, Nefertiti is recorded alongside Akhenaten as ‘Ankhkheperure mery Neferkheperure, Neferneferuaten mery Waenra.’ The thing that had not occurred to me before is that both Ankhkheperure and Neferneferuaten were being linked to the two parts of Akhenaten’s throne name. It suddenly made Neferneferuaten seem more like a throne name than a second nomen for Nefertiti. So in effect, suddenly we have Neferkheperure Akhenaten and an ‘almost’ Coregent with her quasi throne name and her nomen = Neferneferuaten Nefertiti. As both Akhenaten and Nefertiti are often shown in similar size, and wearing that similar unusual cap, it has been remarked they appear as Coregents (even once mistaken for two males, which suggested two pharaohs). Not sure I’m explaining myself well. But in a nutshell, was Nefertiti acting as co-ruler from quite early on with her own (quasi?) throne name? Was Neferneferuaten actually a ‘queenly’ throne name? Not sure how this would make much difference in practice, but it certainly would seem yet another Amarna novelty. But it doesn’t finish there! To try an$ explain I’ll start with a list and chronological sequence: Neferkheperure Amenophis (IV) & Nefertiti. Neferkheperure Akhenaten & Neferneferuaten Nefertiti. Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten (Nefertiti) & Meritaten (GRW) Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare & Meritaten. Yes, I suspect Nefertiti is Smenkhkare. Have for a long time. But the point I think worth considering is: Smenkhkare, like Neferneferuaten, has long been thought more prenomen than nomen. So we have a pairing of concepts (maybe?) Two pharaohs with dual prenomens. Or is that one pharaoh who changed from one set of dual ‘prenomens’ to another? Or, at least, one pharaoh who changed one nomen for another. A potential change from Neferneferuaten to Smenkhkare is not at all unlike Amenophis being changed to Akhenaten. Seemingly, the same kind of thing, except one signaled a religious change in one direction, the other signalled a change back again. Except now it the nomen’s are like prenomens as well. Just some thoughts. 🤔 NB Not sure how this might affect my arguments, but neither Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare ever appear to have had the other three royal names, just prenomens and nomens. They seem to have a lot in common! I’d also like one day to hear theories on why two pharaohs of the time use the same throne name (Ankhkheperure). What would be the motive for that? It was something that happened in a later Dynasty, yes, there was much copying of Ramesses II’s main throne name, its the most famous occurrence, but not at all did it occur elsewhere in the 18th Dynasty, and I don’t think before that either. So why did one Ankhkheperure copy the other when their lives were lived at least partly contemporaneously?
You have referred to the depictions of battle scenes. Both from the chest from the tomb, and on the blocks that were used as infill at karnak. I5 is those blocks that ar3 important, as the6 would have been in the temple to Aten, not Amun. Politically especially to Aye, this would have indicated that Tutankhamen was crediting Aten for his successes. And might be taking Egypt back to the god of his father. Since Tutankhamen’s lufe was cut short, it would be the reason that the funeral preparations were rushed, as with the finding of the ring bearing Aye and Ankhesetamun, that the report of her having sent a letter to the king of the Hittites, requesting a prince to come marry her and combine the empires( found at Hattusha) and that the prince that was sent died in transit. All this would have needed to happen within the forty days. It us intriguing, that after the wedding, Ankhesetamun falls from the records. It had been shown that Aye had Z grand tomb at Armana, but left it behind when as Vizier he persuaded Tut to return the capital back to Thebes and he would have needed to begin another tomb. Whereas Tut, as one if his first responsibilities would be to begin his tomb. As Pharaoh, he was much richer than Aye( now a virtual pauper as he only regained his temple income with the reopening of Karnak) Tut’ tomb would have been much grander. It us likely that Tut was placed in Aye’s tomb and the mummification had actually been in the cut tomb just next to Aye’s which has been excavated and found to contain several coffins with house linens, pillows. etc. everything rushed so Aye could usurp the throne from Horemheb, the commander of the army stationed at the border with the Hittites. Having looked carefully at the photos from the 1968 examination of Tut’s mummy, most of the gold drops appear to still be there.although some do seem to be missing. However, with those that are missing, appearing to be over the central chest area. While some damage to the mummy may have occurred, it seems unlikely that the sternum and so many ribs to be missing just on the left side, along with the heart and how would it explain the missing Illium? It is nowhere near the chest area and to the back of the body. Check with the people that did the virtual autopsy regarding any oils covering the rib ends similar to that found in the broken leg. Also in the photo, there seems to be the normal linen packing in the chest cavity. If tomb robbers tore out the heart, there would be evidence of it in the linen.
Would like to see a presentation for Amenhotep II, Tutmose IV, the movement/abandonment of Egypt's functional palace capitals, and the ups and downs of the Amun Cult during this period. Plus Amenhotep II's war on the Hatshepsut Cult. Over the last decade has there been any new evidence found or old evidence reevaluated?
Thanks for your suggestions! In fact I will be working on the period later this year and will think about gathering the material together for a talk - watch this space!
2:00:40 The family line went back to the end of the 17th Dynasty through the female line, passing through Tuyu. I speculate that it may have gone on to Nefertari, Great Royal Wife of Ramses II.
Hello, Dr. Naunton. Very interesting presentation. But on your comment about the accident of the flash flood concealing Tutankhamun's tomb, I read a long time ago, that the workman's huts for some adjacent tomb were built over the entrance to Tut's tomb, thereby preventing robbers from access. And all those years, those ruins of the workman's huts, concealed the location. Howard Carter removed them, and then found that first step. What do you think?
Hi John, Thanks for watching! You're right, Carter knew that there were workmen's huts of a later period built over the entrance to Tut's tomb; he removed these and then found the steps underneath. The flash flood had already occurred long before those workmen's huts were built, probably only months after Tut himself was buried. This was first proposed the late geologist and Egyptologist, Stephen Cross, and is now widely accepted within Egyptological circles. Steve's article on the subject from the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology is here: www.academia.edu/1476994/Hydrology_of_the_Valley_of_the_Kings_JEA94
@@ChristopherNaunton Wow! Thanks! I never knew that. And thanks for the link. I just discovered you this week and this is a great resource as I'm planning another trip to Egypt in Oct 2022. I received, from my parents, a book about the Tutankhamun discovery, when I was 12 years old and I never got tired of learning about Egypt. Cheers!
Thank for this great video. Could you recommend me yours, or any other books-material where I can find more information about "night trip" of the deceased - through hours ? I'm not so young. I "discovered" Egypt before few years. I've been there 2 times. In meantime I try to read and learn as much as possible about E. culture from different materials. Thank you for your great work.
Glad you enjoyed the video! It's a bit 'dry' but I'd recommend the following: Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian books of the Afterlife, see www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0801485150/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0801485150&linkCode=as2&tag=chrisnaunton-21&linkId=7c7f50d49e171f2ba0614aafe0a3ffe9
@@ChristopherNaunton thank you for your recommendation. I supposed that Book of dead could be the best source for this but I scared that I'll not be able to understand that material without "expert explanations". This book looks like could help me on that. I follow your works, books and video. Thank you very much. You really do GREAT JOB.
Great lecture. Loved it! By the way, do we know what the Giza pyramids looked like when Tut was alive, 1200 years after their construction? Were they already deteriorated? Or were they regularly looked after? Thank you.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it! We can't know exactly what the pyramids would have looked like in Tut's time but while there was likely some wear and tear it's probably that they were still largely in good condition. Our best guide is perhaps the 'dream stela' which was erected in between the paws of the sphinx by Tut's great-grandfather, Thutmose IV - he cleared it of sand showing that while it had suffered at the hands of the elements to some extent there was also a desire to restore it (and probably other monuments) to their full glory. More here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Stele
This was an amazing presentation. I learned a lot about the Am Duat. I never knew that the other figure in the tomb in the nemes headress was Tuts Ka. At some point can you explain the baboons on the wall. Do they also represent the hours of the night? What do the hieroglyphs In each one say? Do they take the place of the Am Duat? I see Aye had them also.
Thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed it! The baboons are among the friendly gods etc who line up to accompany the sun-god at the start of his journey through the Amduat, so this scene is one part of the first hour of the Amduat which appears in much fuller form in .e.g the tombs of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. Hope this answers your question!
Thank you Chris for this video! I’m incredibly interested in Egyptology. But I also have a proposal of thought; there are theories that Nefertiti might be of Kurdish descent, at least having heritage from the Mitanni (?) and its people. Would this play a part in discovering her full lineage through DNA? Has this theory ever been discussed in Egyptology, if you’ve heard of it?
Thank you for watching! This is an interesting idea but unfortunately it would be difficult to test as 1) there are no inscriptions that give us any information about Nefertiti's parents, and 2) we haven't been able to identify her mummy with certainty and it may not have survived. *If* we could be sure of identifying her remains it might be possible to examine her DNA or other aspects of the remains to see if it could tell us anything about her origins but for now it would be impossible.
33:15 -- RE: Is Amonhotep III the Father of Tutankhamun?; You mentioned having to juggle the numbers a bit. It occurs to me that inserting Smenkhkare as a probable half-brother of Akhenaten (thus both being sons of Amonhotep III) is perhaps a simpler explanation. It also occurred to me before now that I'd be mighty curious as to genetic studies that compares similarities on the *Mother's* side for all of these individuals, too. If they all have the same grandmother (plus or minus a few greats), in other words.
I really enjoyed that presentation. When I look at all those wonderful objects in Tuts tomb I can't help but wonder what would have been inside Ramesses the great tomb ?...or Seti the first ?. Alas, we will never know. I have read that Tuts tomb was actually "got at" to a certain degree by robbers and wonder how true this is ?. Anyway, great stuff Chris.
I love your videos more than your documentaries , and I appreciate your acknowledgment for theories about tuts death to be true but actually not ! in fact to me the period between Akhenaten and Tutankhamen is very interesting in needs to refocused on it will give a lot of insight to the amarna period .
1:23:37 As a Thai-American who is interested in Thai history, the concept of looting old historical objects for its material value is very endemic in Southeast Asia. In the 1950s, looters broke into a significant undiscovered crypt of a major historical Thai temple in the old Thai capital of Ayutthaya (Wat Ratchaburana temple). Even up until recent times, old historical temples in Thailand, especially in the rural provinces, often have to lock their temples almost 24/7 due to thieves and vandals. This seems to be a universal thing in countries with lots of historical heritage outside the West and developed world. One definitely has to wonder had Lord Carnarvon refused to give Howard Carter another season in the King Tut excavation and maybe Tutankhamun's crypt could have been rediscovered post-WWII instead.
Hi Chris, I am a university student in ancient Egyptian and near eastern archaeology, I have a question about the controversy surrounding the mummy in kv21A who is suggested to be the biological mother of the two fetuses found in Tutankhamun's tomb. It has been suggested she is Mutemwiya one of the wives of Thutmose IV and the mother of Amenhotep III. Some suggest it's Ankhesenamun based on the fact she is the only known wife of pharaoh Tutankhamun. But there has been a problem with the DNA match from kv21A and the suggested father of Tutankhamun in KV 55 they are not a DNA match, so it's suggested that the mother isn't Ankhesenamun and a lesser known wife of Tutankhamun or Ankhesenamun wasn't the daughter of Akhenaten, or the mummy in KV55 is not that of Akhenaten. Could this in theory be a suggestion that Tutankhamun was in a sexual relationship with the wife of thutmose IV?
Hi Shelly, It seems to me that the DNA does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn at present, and the door is therefore open for various different interpretations. Hawass and Selim (Scanning the Pharaohs) suggest that KV21a may be the mother of the foetuses while admitting that more work / data is needed. If this interpretation is correct then Ankhesenamun would be the obvious candidate as the only known wife of Tutankhamun. I'm not sure of the basis of the alternative explanation i.e. the KV21a is Mutemwia but I assume in this interpretation, KV21a is *not* the mother of the foetuses, in which case there is no need to postulate a sexual relationship between Tutankhamun and his grandfather's wife. The debate goes on!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you for the clarification,🙂 I definitely agree with you. In my opinion everything is speculation, until there is solid evidence. Once they find more royal mummies from the 18th dynasty that can be properly identified it may remain unclear. I definitely look forward to learning more 🙂 Your lecture was great, I enjoyed watching it and has given me much confirmation as well.
@@Dav-ov1pv It is very possible that Tutankhamun had concubines and that the foetuses are not Ankhesenamun's. However, we don't have any *evidence* for any other wives - whereas we do have evidence of second, third and even more wives in the case of many other kings and others. And as evidence of Tutankhamun is relatively abundant - we have lots of inscriptions, and lots of evidence of Ankhesenamun and their relationship - it would seem surprising if he had another wife and we didn't know about it. So, while it's *possible* that he one or more other wives, as there is no *evidence* for it the safest conclusion would seem to be that he had only one.
Impossible to know, but Tutankhamun's official portrait is quite consistent and was possibly influenced by some aspects of his real-life appearance, rather than simply being idealised.
I'm hoping to make my talk 'After Akhenaten: Nefertiti, Smenkhkare and where were they all buried?' available here soon - watch this space...! (Or subscribe - probably better!)
I most definitely will. I just love your work and you. I'm a amazed by all of your work. I have started getting books on ancient Egypt and just learning as I go. I have watched alot of the shows you are featured in and love them all. You make everything so interesting and just wanna see more.
God bless you Chris for your time, energy and patience in researching and putting such interesting information together. The 18th Dynasty is my REINCARNATION time, amongst many others. AKHNATEN's spirit is a FEMALE, hence the "feminine" look. She is called PERSPECTA in the Spirit World and was/is my spirit mother of old. She is a CAT-PEOPLE person and a GODDESS OF THE SUN. Many SPIRITS incarnate in different bodies, depending on the service needed. I was sitting back with my arms folded.... then I realised that my arms were in the exact position as Tut's skeleton is doing. 1:12:14 Interesting lists of ailments. DEAD BONES ( and just about anything else, including STONES) CAN SPEAK. I can READ BONES psychically. I pray that one day I might visit EGYPT and the MUSEUMS and do some BONE READING on each of the MUMMIES on display.
Interesting comments about Tutankhamun's father. Have long thought Smenkhare could be Tut's father or at least older brother of Tut as it would explain why Smenkhare might have took precedence over Tut as Co Regent with Akhenaten. Also the idea that Tut was too young to be King is challenged by historical precedent. Phiops 11 became King aged about 6 and more contemporaneously Tuthmosis 111 became pharoah at about 2 years in c.1479 BCE. Too many historical sources simply state Akhenaten was Tut's father with no qualifications or allowance for the possibility that it might actually be Smenkhare. .
A question I would love clarification on is the degree to which consanguinity could influence the dna results. Tut appears to be the child of full siblings, but if the family had been marrying back in on itself for several generations, might cousins look more like siblings, just due to shared alleles?
Hi Missi, I can't really comment with any authority on this as I'm not a specialist in the study of DNA. I am aware, however, of some doubts that have been raised about the reliability of the studies of DNA from these mummies, and the conclusions reached. We need an expert to comment!
The degree of consanguinity may have been greater than attested. It is possible that Mutemwiya, Amenhotep III's mother, was Yuya's (or Tuyu's?) sister, and that Ay was the son of Yuya and Tuyu, and in turn Nefertiti's father. This would make the DNA analysis more complex.
This idea has been in circulation for a long time but I think the consensus now is that his strange appearance owes more to a desire on the part of the king and/or his artists to smash the rigid conventions of Egyptian art by making the leap away to something grotesque. The strangest images of Akhenaten are from the earliest part of his reign; as time went on and his artists came to adopt a new naturalism in the style and content of their art, he came to be shown in a more and more naturalistic way - which I think was the intention all along.
@@ChristopherNaunton So a religious and corresponding artistic rebellion ? Makes sense. I guess they wanted to distance themselves from tradition. Thanks for the response. Appreciated.
How much of the KV55 mummy remains? I've heard differing claims about his age. As you pointed out, some say he did in his twenties, but I've also heard thirties. The latter would allow him to be a plausible Akhenaten.
A minor thing, but why in the list of pharaohs is Neferneferuaten given a throne name in the list, whereas Smenkhkare isn’t? If the throne name ‘Ankheperure’ is utilised for Neferneferuaten, why not for ‘Smenkhkare’? As I tend to follow Reeves on this that Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare are one (=Nefertiti), maybe it stands out more than it might. Still, why not either utilise the throne name for both or neither, if it needs to be added at all, just for balance? Edit: At one spot I had ‘Ankhkheperure’ where I meant ‘Smenkhkare’. I have fixed same. 👍
Well, this isn't a great excuse but the list is one that 's been used in several books by the same publisher including my 'Lost Tombs'. I suppose the explanation would be that there is only one known individual with the name Smenkhkare who therefore needs no prenomen to distinguish him from anyone else; the prenomen is required in the case of Neferneferuaten to distinguish the pharaoh of that name from great royal wife of Akhenaten (who might or might not be the same individual!).
@@ChristopherNaunton I think you’ve helped me focus on why this small issue stood out. I find it frustrating as one with an amateur interest that with all the questions about who is who in Amarna, that Egyptologists use names like ‘Smenkhare’ or ‘Nefernefeuaten’ when quoting individuals, when it is not necessarily accurate to do so. As an example, I am a little obsessed currently with the ‘fill’ in the entrances and entry passages of KV55&62 (and ‘fill’ generally of relatively contemporary other VoK tombs) and you read Carter and he mentions finding remnant artefacts in the staircase of KV62 with the name ‘Smenkhkare’, when what he found was ‘Ankhheperure’ from all I can tell. Or a remnant box in the tomb with Akhenaten, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and Meritaten, and calls it ‘Smenkhkare’s’ box or similar. Carter thought Neferneferuaten and Smenkhare were the same person (while your list states straightly two individuals). Along with, say, Allen’s rather dubious logic that Ankhkheperure with or without epithets is either Neferneferuaten or Smenkhkare, it lodges ‘facts’ that are hardly proven ‘facts’ into the heads of interested amateurs like myself. Why not use the actual names on a particular artefact, not a ‘presumed’ name? Hope I’m making sense here. To get to my point more directly, I like to know the ‘names’ found when Egyptologists discuss their views, not the ‘names’ of whom they think they are. Again, not sure I’m explaining my ‘issue’ all that well. 🤞on that. And thanks btw for your reply. Much appreciated. 👍
@@glennmaillard5972 Hi Glenn, Yes, you're absolutely right to be frustrated about this! Over the years the consensus about who 'Ankhkheperure' was has changed, and in fact at the moment there is no consensus which is why as far as possible it's vital that we try to use the full names and refer directly to the evidence. I've tried to explain the way the debate evolved in my talk 'After Akhenaten' (see chrisnaunton.com/recorded-talks-online/) - this one is available but not for free, sorry! The guide to related literature here might also help: chrisnaunton.com/after-akhenaten-links-further-reading/ Good luck with your work!
@Chris Naunton I missed this reply. A little late, but thank you for your reply. Just now I came back to look at your lecture again. My amateur fixation on the period continues. It’s interesting that I have been looking at the ‘Coronation’ Hall of Smenkhkare at Akhetaten and the ‘Mansion of Ankhkheperure’ at Thebes (via the Pairi tomb graffito). Both are actually identified, as you would know, by the prenomen ‘Ankhkheperure’. Exactly the problem I was complaining about 5 months ago. The upside: I am so aware of the issue now and I trust nothing until I research until I find the actual names in the record. Fact checking never hurts (as I learned as a long serving cop). I guess even an avid history amateur can learn again to be disciplined and remember relevant old skills! Believe nothing, check everything. Thanks again for your reply.
King Tut was one of the royal first born struck down in the 10 th final plague at the Exodus. His father Ahkenaten and the royal guard died, and his body was not recovered and mummified when he pursued the Hebrews into the Red Sea
when you are speaking of "conditions" which Tutankhamen may have suffered, did you say "hyper phalanges?" I have never heard of this before. Did I mishear, or is someone claiming that Tutankhamen had extra bones in his fingers or toes?
I don't think I will actually have *said* the word 'hyperphalangism' but it does appear on the long list of conditions from which it has been suggested the king might have suffered - see slide no. 44 in all talk. All the slides and a link to the article by Ikram and Ruhli from which I took the list are here: chrisnaunton.com/tutankhamun-in-life-death-eternal-afterlife-links-further-reading/
Chris, very much enjoyed your videos; this one and "After Akhenaten: Nefertiti, Smenkhkare, and where were they all buried?" I for one believe it is Smenkhkare buried in KV 55 Coffin due to the age of the mummy and I do not believe Akhenaten's recovered remains would have been kept intact and would have been damaged beyond recognition in the move from Amara to the Valley of the Kings. Question: Why have you left out a discussion of Yuya's and Tuya's mummies during wider discussion of the 18 Dynasty? Is there any possibility in your understanding that Yuya could be Joseph? I ask this because the belief in one God evolved out of the 18th Dynasty and Zahi Hawass is very resistant to scholarly debate on Akhenaten and this period other than his view on the 18th Dynasty figures.
Thanks Wayne, glad you've been enjoying the talks! To answer your question, I think discussion of the mummies of Yuya and Thuya would have ben somewhat tangential to the main themes dealt with in this talk and in 'After Akhenaten' - and it's not as though there wasn't plenty of material to get through in both cases! As far as the conventional Egyptological view goes, while many have argued for connections between the Egyptian evidence and the Old Testament, it's insufficient for a compelling case to be made. We probably couldn't *prove* beyond all doubt that Yuya was not the Joseph of the Bible, but we certainly can't prove that he was either.
@@ChristopherNaunton Again thank you for your expertise on this subject; the 18th Dynasty is captivating and yet so much more work needs to be done to fill in the gaps.
Could Smenkare have been Tut"s father and a general in Akenaten 's army? How do his bones look? Are they robust? If he was 20 years old he could have died on a military conquest... I believe Kia is the mother. They both have strong jaw lines. Also Nefertiti and Akenaten were pictured as a loving family. Would it make sense to ignore your only son??,
I'm not aware of any evidence of trauma having been observed in the remains of the KV 55 individual (or anything else that might indicate cause of death). It may not have been that Akhenaten and Nefertiti were ignoring their son but that convention dictated that it was only daughters, rather than sons who could appear alongside the king and queen - see the many images of pharaoh + wives / daughters but not with sons.
The 'highest regnal date' for Akhenaten (i.e. the inscription in his name with the latest year date) is year 17 so at present we assume he died during his 17th year. Of course, this relates only to inscriptions that have survived and it's not impossible that a new inscription with a higher date could turn up which would cause us to revise things.
Around the 40 minute mark you're talking about Meritaten being great royal wife of Smenkhare when he was co Pharoah to Akhenaten. You said this makes her a possible candidate for mother of Tut but that there's a problem because she was a daughter of Akhenaten and the mother of Tut was a daughter of Amenhotep the third. I agree that's a problem, it means no she wasn't his mother. My take is that Tut's mother the younger lady from kv35 was probably Beketaten and was Smenkhare's sister wife and together they had Tut. She was then murdered when Tut was very young and later when he became co Pharoah Smenkhare married again as he now needed a great royal wife. As he was Akhenaten's younger brother he married Meritaten as she was Akhenaten's oldest daughter. Ah, moving on I see you suggest Beketaten as a possible mother of Tut. You also say that people presenting the kv55 mummy as Akhenaten as being settled is too strict. I agree. You also suggest the kv55 mummy however was most likely Akhenaten even though it isn't settled. I agree that it isn't settled however my opinion which of course is nothing more than opinion is that the kv55 mummy is Smenkhare. Awhile ago I saw a documentary where that skeleton mummy was examined by a woman from England who was an expert on estimating the age of the dead. She said the mummy was 20 to 25 when he died. Akhenaten must have been over 40. I think Akhenaten was a son of Queen Tiye from when she was a teenager while Smenkhare was a son of Tiye probably from her late 20s or early 30s. One of her last born. I think the man in kv55 was Smenkhare and that he was chosen as co pharoah by his much older brother Akhenaten both because he was young and because he already had his own male heir in Tutankhaten. Everyone has their opinions I know. :) Those are mine. And thank you for the fascinating lecture.
Interesting points, thanks Ingur. Just to be absolutely clear, I was only saying that Meritaten would be likely candidate for Tut's mother if a) the KV 55 mummy (which the DNA suggests is Tut's father) is Smenkhkare and b) you then also ignore the other DNA evidence that Tut's mother was also a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. I do say this but it's perhaps a strange point to make as it requires you to accept some but not all the DNA evidence. In any case I don't think Meritaten is a plausible candidate to be Tut's mother because of the DNA. The issue of the the identity of the KV 55 mummy boils down to this: the inscriptional evidence all suggests it's Akhenaten; the anatomical evidene suggests the individual was too young to have been Akhenaten. So, those who believe it is Akhenaten (myself included) have to assume the anatomists are wrong (and there is evidence from elsewhere that the ageing of ancient skeletons this way can be flawed). Those who believe it's Smenkhkare have to disregard all the inscriptions and conclude that despite the coffin and bricks belonging to Akhenaten they were used to bury someone else who is never named. It's impossible to resolve these problems satisfactorily, but that's where the debate - and the fun - comes from!
@@ChristopherNaunton Right. Thank you. Yes I should have said that basically I'm in agreement with you that Meritaten was very unlikely to have been Tut's mother due to the dna situation rather than just reiterating that unlikelihood myself. I am a Smenkhare man as I've said when it comes to the kv55 mummy but I didn't know about the inscriptions and coffin and bricks belonging to Akhenaten. I thought any identification on that coffin had been utterly removed. So no other person is named precisely because the cartouche on the coffin is chiseled out. Also it's a wooden coffin more suitable I'd have thought for a junior co Pharoah. Surely a mighty Pharoah like Akhenaten would have had a golden one like Tut did. And I just find it to hard to believe that a man as utterly hated as Akhenaten could have had his body spared by later Pharoahs. I know that Nefertiti and Ankhesunamun and Tut himself all had their bodies spared but they were not the architects of the Amarna heresy, Akhenaten was. They were expunged from history but not murdered in the afterlife. I would find it incredible that Ramses 1 and Seti 1 spared the body of a man that Egyptians referred to simply as the enemy. Also time for a wee bit of name dropping. I corresponded with Zahir Hawass by email last year and he told me they were going to be doing another big round of dna testing in October (of last year). I haven't been back to him about that. Perhaps you might have heard something?
@@ingurlund9657 The cartouche on the coffin is missing, but the epithet that follows it ('the beautiful child of the Aten') is that of Akhenaten so there is little doubt that the name in the cartouche was at one time Akhenaten's. his name is also still visible in a cartouche on the magical bricks that were carefully placed around the coffin. this all points to the body being that of Akhenaten. By contrast there is not a shred of inscriptional evidence to connect any of the material in the tomb with Smenkhkare. We cannot know how the ancients really *felt* about Akhenaten. It was obviously felt to be important to expunge his name from the records (along, later, with those of Neferneferuaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun and Ay) but I don't find it at all difficult to think that some at least might have been torn - the KV 55 burial is by no means a full royal burial but it seems originally to have housed the bodies of Tiye and a son of hers, and the burial was made in Tutankhamun's name - seal impressions with his name were found in the debris - so the young king was burying his father and grandmother. Was the KV 55 burial a compromise - he couldn't give his relatives a full burial as they were tainted, but at the same time he didn't want to chuck their bodies away because they were his flesh and blood. I don't have any problem thinking that Akhenaten could have been buried in this way. I don't think by the way that there's any reason to think that Sety and Ramesses would have had anything to do with desecrating graves - KV 62 was certainly sealed during their reigns and KV 55 may well have been too. All the tombs of the kings were entered at the end of the New Kingdom with the clear exception of KV 62 and probably also KV 55. I don't see any reason to think that that Sety or Ramesses would have wanted to open either of them. And lastly, no, I don't know anything about a new DNA study, sorry!
@@ChristopherNaunton I must say you have made me reconsider. I love the subject but am very much in discovery mode. I didn't know about the epithet or that it is of Akhenaten. But "beautiful child of the Aten" does sound about right. :) I thought the tomb had been washed through by floods so many times that there wasn't anything left but the Tiye shrine panel and some magic bricks. But I did not know that the bricks had Akhenaten's name on them or that they would have been arranged around the coffin. Your describing how it was Tutankhamun who was behind the kv55 burial is also very interesting. I can fully imagine him bringing his dead relatives from Amarna and reburying them in the valley of the Kings. You say he couldn't give his relatives a full burial as they were tainted but surely the original coffin could still have been used in the reburial?. And surely they wouldn't have used a cheap wooden one in the originally burial at Amarna?. If Akhenaten had originally been buried there surely he would have had a much richer coffin for a man who was the son of the Aten and object of worship for tens of thousands at Amarna every day for a decade. A wooden box seems ridiculously cheap for such a (in his own mind at least) titan. It does feel more like something he would have put his younger brother in and his brother having the epithet "beautiful child of the Aten" wouldn't be to out of place for Smenkhare if he was also completely sold on the new religion. I don't know if Ramses 1 and Seti 1 would have gone after Akhenaten's body but someone certainly had no problem with desecration. They obliterated his sarcophagus completely. That points to some serious rage on someone's part. Maybe that rage extended to the body too. I have to say you have made me think on the subject. From my musing I'd say that there are still so many arguments for me that it's not Akhenaten... the age estimation by a woman that I found very convincing, the obliteration of the sarcophagus that points to a high likelihood of attack on his body, the cheapness of the coffin that says it's not him and the fact that 9000 dead building his city gets you enemies so hate filled that it makes the survival of your body very much in doubt. Maybe Tutankhamun had Akhenaten brought to kv55 and reburied. I can believe that. Maybe after Tut's death Akhenaten's sarcophagus and body were then destroyed but the magic bricks were left in there. Maybe Smenkhare was then placed there for safe keeping. After all the bodies were moved several times. Queen Tiye ended up in kv35. Nefertiti and Ankhesenamun ended up together in kv21 and who knows what other tombs they spent time in first. Maybe kv55 was just the last tomb Smenkhare's body ended up in after Akhenaten had spent time in there before being destroyed.
@@ingurlund9657 Hi Ingur, Just a quick reply to one or two of your points: I don't think we can assume that a smashed sarcophagus is anything to do with rage - there are countless examples of sarcophagi being treated this way, generally, we assume, as a means for robbers to get inside them to retrieve any precious materials. It happened in the case of Apis bull sarcophagi and it's difficult to imagine anyone being angry at a bull! This could even have happened in Akhenaten's case while the Atenist religion was still in favour - we know that the robbery of tombs even of kings in some cases took place within weeks of the tombs being sealed. I also don't think it's correct to say that the KV 55 coffin was 'cheap' - quite the reverse. Wood was expensive for the ancient Egyptians, and even among kings I can only think of a handful of examples of coffins being made of e.g. gold or silver; the most famous of these is the innermost coffin of Tutankhamun but the other two he was buried in were both made of wood. Moreover, the KV 55 coffin is elaborately decorated with gilding and inlays in various precious materials, and feathered pattern is very similar to that on the coffins of Tutankhamun, so it is a very good match for some of the finest - of not the finest - coffins to have survived from ancient Egypt. That can't be used as an argument suggest that the coffin could not have belonged to Akhenaten therefore. On the contract, the inscription makes it very likely that it did, even if it had originally been made for someone else (Kiya). Why he came to be buried in a recycled coffin *is* a bit of a mystery, but then it's very likely that Tutankhamun was too, and as far as our evidence goes, it seems this kind of recycling was much more common than we might assume - the Tanis burials (see chrisnaunton.com/the-third-intermediate-period/) exhibit great wealth on the part of the kings concerned but they also re-used items of burial equipment belonging to New Kingdom pharaohs reclaimed from the valley of Kings.
34:16 the Nefertiti Bust is modeled after this face i'm sure. just look at that jawline her forehead eyes nose and the fact that it's a mummy and still looks the same. put the hat and mouth from the bust on it and its identical. That together with the DNA saying she is one of the candidates i would say this is most likely Nefetiti.
First, thank you for making this informative video. @12:27 Who are the two males who face toward the right? Also, who is the male who faces forward and the female who leans as if whispering into his left ear? @14:13 Caption: "Tutankhamun’s parentage unclear". I disagree. His maternal and paternal lineages were demonstrated in his tomb by constructed references. The set of three nested coffins for example represent his maternal line from Tiye (outermost coffin), her daughter Nefertiti (middle coffin) and her daughter Meritaten (who is the mother of Tutankhamun). Meritaten is the daughter of Amenhotep III with Nefertiti. Akhenaten was the brother of both women. Their identifications were established by references within and beyond the tomb. I don't know that you will find their full story inscribed. A set of nested coffins can demonstrate maternal lineage , transcending changes in language for much longer than an inscription. Each child is represented as if in its mother for as long as the coffins were to endure. The gold mask complexly symbolizes Ankhesenamun who extended that line of queens into the reign of Tutankhamun. Where are the fathers? They can be inferred because there are no queens without kings. They are also complexly represented by the resin that was in the coffins. The outermost coffin (Tiye) was not covered with resin because Tiye was not a child of her husband or her son. The tomb was staged to be carefully considered. It was never robbed as has been mistakenly believed. @41:05 - Unfortunately, the mummies found in KV55 and KV35 (includes the Younger Lady) are not royal. They are servants (who seem by DNA to be related). They were (stationed?) to effectively greet and provide informative reference. The king has servants even in death and I am aware of the implications of my claim.
The Elder Lady IS the daughter of Yuya and Thuya. The Younger Lady IS the daughter of Amenhotep III and the Elder Lady. She is also the mother of Tutankhamun. Please name another Royal tomb which included servants in death….
the exodus created a crisis in the ruling dynasty pharaohs, young sons would have needed emotional support so Nefertiti was allowed to “co “ rule, but it was a male dominant society and actually the priests reasserted their authority in the vacuum of ahkeneten’s vdeath and destruction of the cream of the army sent to return the Hebrew’s about 5-6 weeks after the shock of the plagues wore off . The Sinai commandments were given about 3 months after the exodus .
If we were still practicing mummification. Would it actually be as fascinating as it seems😮 or do we just over dramatise everything we do these days😮. Food for thought 😅
I don't think we would find it as fascinating because it would be our 'normal'. Equally though, many of us probably wouldn't think about it very much in the same way that most of us don't think about the equivalent modern processes that occur after an individuals death in modern times - medical inspection, dressing of the body, removal of valuables, placement in morgue and subsequently into a coffin etc. Other than those involved in the funerary industry most of are usually too preoccupied with the loss of a loved one to think very much about the process.
And I have always loved you. Maybe you had not been the first person to throw my tantrum on but in silence when I ruminate on life, it has always been your eyes that pops up in my mind. If I had to lay bundles of blue roses at somebody's feet, it would have been you.... I lay my heart bare to you... You had always been the one I loved. You didn't turn up playfully. I found you in Dr. Martinez's video, since then I have been carrying the torch for you! If there's in true love and soul mate in this world, to me it's my dearest and most beloved Christopher standing on the most intoxicating soil of Egypt! I recognized it when you laid your eyes onto the screen for those brief moments of Dr. Martinez's video.....You pushed me away but I still carry the torch for you.... In the depth of your grey eyes, I find real me, that me who is all serene and loved! I would have put forth most beautiful bouquet of blue roses. My most beloved dearest and nearest Christopher! You carry my name, why so callous to my feelings then?
Christopher, I really dote upon you! Don't turn me down! Next time when you write your surname, please remember me. If someday I get lost, will you remember me?
Wasnt it Tutankhamens sister Queen Scotia that returned to Ireland with the Millesions and their brother king Heber? In my understanding,Akhenaten was trying to give back to the people the ancient pre-dynastic mystery teachings,after the priests had corrupted it and were using it for their own self gain. By the time Akhenaten died,the people and priests were that invested in ego and self,they ran the rest of Akhenatens family out of Egypt,which was the biblical exodus. Im also of the understanding Tutankhamens tomb had already been opened by Carter months earlier and it wasnt actually Tutenkhamen who was in the tomb. Flower of Light Mystery School does some awesome talk about who and what Akhenaten and the 18th dynasty was really all about. ua-cam.com/video/YBtxdUmcX3E/v-deo.html
@@atticus6572 Theres wise men that thank you for new knowledge,and then theres fools,who would rather mock then learn,,its quite obvious which one you are.
Good morning or evening how are you doing peace be upon you all today just want to know is the red and blue and yellow prayer was Derrick Cramon Wright from Irving masjid in Dallas tx you gave me
Ahkhenaton and Nefertiti wanted to see Tut was taken care of and not struck down by the Hebrew God because the killed Hebrew infants. Subsequently after the Red Sea disaster , many changes occurred since Ahkenaten ‘s self worship at Amarna the Exodus and plagues were attributed to the old gods being subordinated to the sun disc Ra, even though the plagues struck at the Nile, the scarab , earth and frogs still worshipped by the older priesthood
Sorry just me again. :) At 1.02.50 or so you're saying that the restoration of the old religion happened on his watch. I think it made huge strides on his watch but I think it actually began with his predecessor Nefertiti. ua-cam.com/video/48-mKPjQtSA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=AncientWorld In this video from 34.30 it shows something fascinating. A tomb with pictures showing Nefertiti in the 3rd year of her reign worshipping Amun in a great temple. Under Akhenaten such a temple would not even have been open. So she reopened such temples and gave them her blessing by worshipping in one. I had thought she eased the religious restrictions of Akhenaten after his death but it seems she dumped them. Maybe Tutankhamun grabbed the credit for it while in fact maybe having only continued it.
Hi Ingur, Yes, I'm aware of the year 3 inscription from the tomb of Pairy and it features in my presentation 'After Akhenaten' (see chrisnaunton.com/after-akhenaten-links-further-reading/). It doesn't *show* Nefertiti or any Amun temple - there are no images of either - but the inscription is dated to what appears to be her reign and mentions a temple of Amun of Ankhkheperure. This may indicate that the transition was already underway during her reign (or that of whoever the female pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was - not all scholars believe it was Nefertiti), but there are other possible interpretations including that she reigned alongside Tutankhamun, or that the 'Ankhkheperure' of the temple was not Neferneferuaten but Smenkhkare who used the same prenomen. I tried to deal with all of this in the 'After Akhenaten' talk!
Hi Linda, no, although many people have speculated that Akhenaten's religion and the monotheism of the jewish people may have had common origins there is no clear evidence to connect them. And as far as I understand it, it unclear when the god Yahweh of the jews first appeared, but there is no evidence from as early as the time of Akhenaten. His reign fell in the 14th century BCE, while "the term Israel first enters historical records in the 13th century BCE with the Egyptian Merneptah Stele, and, while the worship of Yahweh is circumstantially attested to as early as the 12th century BCE,[17] there is no attestation of even the name "Yahweh" in the Levant until some four hundred years later with the Mesha Stele (9th century BCE)." - from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism with refs.
@1:39:42 - the supposed ritual figures "of the king" show females with obvious breasts. They are not representations of Tutankhamun. @1:53:03 - The half-mannequin figure with no arms or legs reprepresents a young female. It was a reference element in a greater informative reference within the tomb. All of the necessary elements to know and understand the reference were in the antechamber of the tomb. The mannequin figure had been stationed in the southwest corner. It was facing towards north.
Thanks!
Thank you so much!
Thank you for making this a free lecture
Yes thank you for the free podcast
Glad I found you Chris, very easy to listen to
A talk just about the hours of the night would be amazing. This has fascinated me for years.
Thanks for the suggestion!
As a lifetime Egyptophile, I am happy and gratified to say that was the most informative presentation on King T. that I have ever seen. Thanks.
Lovely to read this, many thanks Edgar!
Thank you for this excellent lecture - I learn so much from you 😊
Lovely to know, thank you! 🙏
Thank you for the interesting lecture!
Thank you for watching!
Excellent presentation Chris.
Many thanks Peter!
This lecture was incredible, and I whole heartedly agree with your observations. It's makes the most sense that Tut died by a chariot accident and was a fit, youthful, strident fellow full of life who loved the odd glass of wine. The 'distorted invalid' image that some have said he was, never resonated at all....and sometimes the truth is simple and right in front of our eyes. It does look like he loved to hunt and race, maybe the wheel fell off his cart and a chariot behind trampled him not having the time to stop.
And also he doesn't look like Nefertiti. If you look at his bone structure and his rounder face, agree his Mother was somebody else.
I love the childrens book art, and I love your dedication for truth and will buy it. Awesome stuff!
100% on Tut’s fitness. There’s no real reason to assume otherwise beyond the walking sticks (which have an alternative explanation) and analysis of his thousand year old dead body. All the images we have from his life he seemed to want to present himself as a fighting fit young king, I really see no reason to not believe him on how he presented himself. Even though he died young, young people still die tragically today in accidents all the time, it doesn’t mean he was always sickly and frail that he died at 19.
@@theghostinthemirror8158
*_"and analysis of his thousand year old dead body..."_*
If he died in 1323 BC, his body is 3,346 years old, not 1,000.
{:o:O:}
Thank you for sharing this lecture
Thank you for watching!
Thank you for a balanced lecture.
Thanks for watching!
Many thanks Chris. Just when you think you've heard it all about Tutankhamun, you let us in on more behind the scenes stuff. I found what you said about Carter, really interesting and what he did and did not do. I think knowing how meticulous he was with certain things and not so much with others, opens the possibilities to some answers to questions people may have.
Good luck with your children's book. I wish it was around when I was a child. When I was 4, I read a story book about an Egyptian boy and his Saluki that started my life long passion with all things Egypt and Salukis. Yes Salukis really are that smart. I have owned 4 Salukis now. My house is filled with trinkets from Egypt, brought back from friends and I can't wait to go myself, hopefully in 2023. I hope your book inspires other young readers with a passion about this fascinating history. I'll be picking up a copy for my grandchildren when they are old enough. I'm looking forward to your next lecture.
Thank you for watching Deborah and for your kind and encouraging comments - much appreciated! I'm glad you enjoyed the talk and hope your grandchildren enjoy the book!
Wonderful talk, and going overtime is NEVER a bad thing for your content.
Thank you, great to know! 🙏
Found a copy of the book: Tutankhamen by Cristiane Desroches-Noblecourt at a bus stop shelter...of all places. Funny thing about studying History...I NEED to know EVERYTHING about the subject or era. Good thing we have so much spare room in our craniums. Less room in our personal libraries.
I know the feeling! Thanks for watching :)
Chris, I first watched your documentary “ Ultimate Tutankhamen “. While it was very informative, other documentaries, such as Building Pharaoh’s Chariot, in which Baylor Sander, pointed out that. The main pull bar of these chariots was a loose mortise and tennon joint , and one of the purposes of this was to prevent rollover, a major thesis of your documentary. I then went back to the original photos of the discovery of the chariots in the tomb. Even in Black and White, it became clear that the chariot on the top of the pile, was wrecked. And in the pile of wheels, at the rear was a broken wheel. The wrecked chariot was mist likely overlooked by investigators, due to. It’s condition and not as a cause for Tutankhamen’s death. The wrecked chariot has a broken axle on the left side and the chariot flooring is totally missing. while a horse could break a main pulling pole, the axles are of heaver thickness. So it would take a much stringer animal to do such damage. With that in mind, I considered one of the most dangerous of African animals. The Hippopotamus. They have sufficient strength to easily break a wheel and axle and overthrow both Tutankhamen and his driver out of a chariot. They are also very quick despite their size and especially if wounded could turn into such an accident. Such an impact would easily cause a broken leg to Tutankhamen and while trying to get up on his knees he was run over by another fully loaded chariot from the hunting party, as a Pharaoh would never be alone while hunting.
There was an error.made by the accident reconstruction firm, that being in their recreation, the chariot axle was directly under the center of the chariot, when be Tutankhamen’s time all Egyptian chariots had axles at the rear of the chariot. It was their use of an inaccurate chariot that caused the problem. Additionally, that despite any political renderings, any archer would not be driving the chariot. For confirmation if this you can. Contact Military historian Mike Lordes who has ridden in the recreation of a Pharaoh’s chariot and acted as an archer from it.
thanks so much for your devotion and knowledge
Thank you Chris. I really do enjoy your documentaries about Tutankhamun and Nefertiti especially the most recent BBC doc which claims his parentage. I love to meet the Amen with the other giant elder gods who are coming on the boat of millions of years from
Orion or Sirius and also their rival the saten through your documentaries. I have learnt so many memories about this culture, it’s teachings and the glory days and times of Egypt most stories that come from the flat earth high priest you document so well. I look forward to the future of Egyptology and the discoveries that lie ahead for your field Chris. I hope our understanding and fascination about this mysterious civilization grows so we can marvel at the exquisite eyelash of Horus throne art form and all its most sacred believers. 🙏
Tutankhamun sure looks Young . He has the Wealth of a King even in Death .
I wondered what had become of Our inheritance ? Tutankhamun got it all .
Thank You .
Fascinating.. thank you very much!
Thanks for watching! 🙏
Thanks
Fantastic presentation as always. Really enjoy all of your work.
Thank you! 🙏
thanks, Chris. I watched it before and will enjoy it again. Have a great (and safe) Christmas. Will be at your next lecture(s)...
Thank Erika, see you at the next one!
I am practicing my listening in English with one of my favorite topic. Saludos desde México ✌🏽
Great! I hope you're finding it useful! Best wishes from London!
This is going to be good!
Glad I found this channel awesome information very interesting so fascinating
Thanks Chris!
Glad you found it! I was going to message you... Enjoy!
Omg I saw that program w the chariot explanation! 🎉
Thank you so much! ...and ..hny...may there be many more!
Thank you! Tutankhamun as subject may be somewhat worn out, yet your narration is captivating.
Very kind of you, many thanks!
Thank you for lovely lecture 😊.
Dr Naunton if I may ask just to see if my suspicion is correct…
There are two cartouches you displayed. One at 18:05 and the one before it.
On the second one am I seeing correctly that that is a staff with two head dresses next to it?
Based on how I would read that I would think that would roughly mean King of the North and the South. Sorry I just would love to know if my guess is correct for fun
In the two cartouches you mention, no there is no part like this. In the first case the signs spell out the name 'Tutankhaten', in the second they read 'Tutankhamun, ruler of southern Heliopolis'. There is a very common title which we translate as 'King of Upper and Lower Egypt' (or similar) but this is written with a sedge plant, a bee, and two 't' signs - semicircles which are thought to represent loaves of bread.
Hello Chris,
Are you aware of any good pictures of the hinges themselves on Tut's folding couch? I cant find any
Hi, you could try the Burton photos of the bed (here: www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/php/am-makegall1.php?db=burton&view=gall&burt=&card=586&desc=bed&strt=1&s1=&s2=&s3=&dno=&what=Search) one of which (p1479a) shows one of the hinges fairly close-up. The article by the leading expert, Dr Naoko Nishimoto, also has some details diagrams: www.nishimoto-jp.com/furniture/furniture.htm (use your browser's translate facility if, like me, you don't read Japanese!). Hope this helps!
Chris, it'd be totally fun if you did a critique of Assassin's creed origins about the world they created. You may know this, but it's a virtual reality world in the Ptolomaic and Roman rule of Egypt. They rebuilt the world, including Alexandria, the Fayuum, and other places. Like your exploration of King Tut, playing the game has really helped me identify with Ancient Egypt and its world.
Hi John, Thanks! In fact I was involved in a project that used AC Origins to teach Egyptology last year. Ubisoft covered it here: news.ubisoft.com/en-gb/article/7Lp5YHoYIlN7k54Jf0JkpA/why-three-egyptologists-are-teaching-history-through-assassins-creed-origins ...and my lecture / exploration of Thebes in the game is available to watch here: ua-cam.com/video/FYgXZFxvGxs/v-deo.html
Thanks Chris. I found that very interesting
@1:07:12 - The construction of hardened resin inside the mummy’s skull is related to the Ostrich feather fan.
It is far from obvious and is a magnificent reference that really has a lengthy explanation (all science, no aliens, no magic).
It is simply brilliantly ingenious of the creators.
Thank you -extremely interesting !
Excellent.
Thankyou, GoodSir.
🙏🏻
Returned to look again at this excellent lecture. And looking at the early slide with two photographs, one of a statue of Akhenaten and one of an image of Nefertiti (with plumes on her head dress), a comment by Chris particularly struck me. He mentions Nefertiti’s rather unique cap. I think Akhenaten wears one in some scenes too. (Late at night and probably too tired for clear thinking and a sharp memory, but there go).
It’s interesting to me just now because something else struck me only today. And that is, for the first time I realised something about a couple of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten’s epitaphs and their relation to Akhenaten. (I think the majority of pundits nowadays are happy to think this pharaoh, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, was Nefertiti). The thing is in a couple of places at least, Nefertiti is recorded alongside Akhenaten as ‘Ankhkheperure mery Neferkheperure, Neferneferuaten mery Waenra.’
The thing that had not occurred to me before is that both Ankhkheperure and Neferneferuaten were being linked to the two parts of Akhenaten’s throne name. It suddenly made Neferneferuaten seem more like a throne name than a second nomen for Nefertiti. So in effect, suddenly we have Neferkheperure Akhenaten and an ‘almost’ Coregent with her quasi throne name and her nomen = Neferneferuaten Nefertiti.
As both Akhenaten and Nefertiti are often shown in similar size, and wearing that similar unusual cap, it has been remarked they appear as Coregents (even once mistaken for two males, which suggested two pharaohs). Not sure I’m explaining myself well. But in a nutshell, was Nefertiti acting as co-ruler from quite early on with her own (quasi?) throne name? Was Neferneferuaten actually a ‘queenly’ throne name? Not sure how this would make much difference in practice, but it certainly would seem yet another Amarna novelty.
But it doesn’t finish there! To try an$ explain I’ll start with a list and chronological sequence:
Neferkheperure Amenophis (IV) & Nefertiti.
Neferkheperure Akhenaten & Neferneferuaten Nefertiti.
Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten (Nefertiti) & Meritaten (GRW)
Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare & Meritaten.
Yes, I suspect Nefertiti is Smenkhkare. Have for a long time.
But the point I think worth considering is: Smenkhkare, like Neferneferuaten, has long been thought more prenomen than nomen. So we have a pairing of concepts (maybe?) Two pharaohs with dual prenomens. Or is that one pharaoh who changed from one set of dual ‘prenomens’ to another? Or, at least, one pharaoh who changed one nomen for another. A potential change from Neferneferuaten to Smenkhkare is not at all unlike Amenophis being changed to Akhenaten. Seemingly, the same kind of thing, except one signaled a religious change in one direction, the other signalled a change back again. Except now it the nomen’s are like prenomens as well. Just some thoughts. 🤔
NB Not sure how this might affect my arguments, but neither Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare ever appear to have had the other three royal names, just prenomens and nomens. They seem to have a lot in common! I’d also like one day to hear theories on why two pharaohs of the time use the same throne name (Ankhkheperure). What would be the motive for that? It was something that happened in a later Dynasty, yes, there was much copying of Ramesses II’s main throne name, its the most famous occurrence, but not at all did it occur elsewhere in the 18th Dynasty, and I don’t think before that either. So why did one Ankhkheperure copy the other when their lives were lived at least partly contemporaneously?
Thank you!
You have referred to the depictions of battle scenes. Both from the chest from the tomb, and on the blocks that were used as infill at karnak. I5 is those blocks that ar3 important, as the6 would have been in the temple to Aten, not Amun. Politically especially to Aye, this would have indicated that Tutankhamen was crediting Aten for his successes. And might be taking Egypt back to the god of his father.
Since Tutankhamen’s lufe was cut short, it would be the reason that the funeral preparations were rushed, as with the finding of the ring bearing Aye and Ankhesetamun, that the report of her having sent a letter to the king of the Hittites, requesting a prince to come marry her and combine the empires( found at Hattusha) and that the prince that was sent died in transit. All this would have needed to happen within the forty days. It us intriguing, that after the wedding, Ankhesetamun falls from the records.
It had been shown that Aye had Z grand tomb at Armana, but left it behind when as Vizier he persuaded Tut to return the capital back to Thebes and he would have needed to begin another tomb. Whereas Tut, as one if his first responsibilities would be to begin his tomb. As Pharaoh, he was much richer than Aye( now a virtual pauper as he only regained his temple income with the reopening of Karnak) Tut’ tomb would have been much grander. It us likely that Tut was placed in Aye’s tomb and the mummification had actually been in the cut tomb just next to Aye’s which has been excavated and found to contain several coffins with house linens, pillows. etc. everything rushed so Aye could usurp the throne from Horemheb, the commander of the army stationed at the border with the Hittites.
Having looked carefully at the photos from the 1968 examination of Tut’s mummy, most of the gold drops appear to still be there.although some do seem to be missing. However, with those that are missing, appearing to be over the central chest area. While some damage to the mummy may have occurred, it seems unlikely that the sternum and so many ribs to be missing just on the left side, along with the heart and how would it explain the missing Illium? It is nowhere near the chest area and to the back of the body. Check with the people that did the virtual autopsy regarding any oils covering the rib ends similar to that found in the broken leg. Also in the photo, there seems to be the normal linen packing in the chest cavity. If tomb robbers tore out the heart, there would be evidence of it in the linen.
I love anything to do with Egyptian culture, I wish I was a Egyptian Princess 👸 in my afterlife. Long live King Tut 🤴
Que bueno!!!! Gracias chris!!!😘
Thank you for this video. Can you do a video about where the ancient Egyptians came from?
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll have a think about this!
Would like to see a presentation for Amenhotep II, Tutmose IV, the movement/abandonment of Egypt's functional palace capitals, and the ups and downs of the Amun Cult during this period. Plus Amenhotep II's war on the Hatshepsut Cult. Over the last decade has there been any new evidence found or old evidence reevaluated?
Thanks for your suggestions! In fact I will be working on the period later this year and will think about gathering the material together for a talk - watch this space!
2:00:40 The family line went back to the end of the 17th Dynasty through the female line, passing through Tuyu. I speculate that it may have gone on to Nefertari, Great Royal Wife of Ramses II.
Informative lecture 👏🏼
Hello, Dr. Naunton. Very interesting presentation. But on your comment about the accident of the flash flood concealing Tutankhamun's tomb, I read a long time ago, that the workman's huts for some adjacent tomb were built over the entrance to Tut's tomb, thereby preventing robbers from access. And all those years, those ruins of the workman's huts, concealed the location. Howard Carter removed them, and then found that first step. What do you think?
Hi John, Thanks for watching! You're right, Carter knew that there were workmen's huts of a later period built over the entrance to Tut's tomb; he removed these and then found the steps underneath. The flash flood had already occurred long before those workmen's huts were built, probably only months after Tut himself was buried. This was first proposed the late geologist and Egyptologist, Stephen Cross, and is now widely accepted within Egyptological circles. Steve's article on the subject from the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology is here: www.academia.edu/1476994/Hydrology_of_the_Valley_of_the_Kings_JEA94
@@ChristopherNaunton Wow! Thanks! I never knew that. And thanks for the link. I just discovered you this week and this is a great resource as I'm planning another trip to Egypt in Oct 2022. I received, from my parents, a book about the Tutankhamun discovery, when I was 12 years old and I never got tired of learning about Egypt. Cheers!
Thank for this great video. Could you recommend me yours, or any other books-material where I can find more information about "night trip" of the deceased - through hours ? I'm not so young. I "discovered" Egypt before few years. I've been there 2 times. In meantime I try to read and learn as much as possible about E. culture from different materials. Thank you for your great work.
Glad you enjoyed the video! It's a bit 'dry' but I'd recommend the following: Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian books of the Afterlife, see www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0801485150/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0801485150&linkCode=as2&tag=chrisnaunton-21&linkId=7c7f50d49e171f2ba0614aafe0a3ffe9
@@ChristopherNaunton thank you for your recommendation. I supposed that Book of dead could be the best source for this but I scared that I'll not be able to understand that material without "expert explanations". This book looks like could help me on that. I follow your works, books and video. Thank you very much. You really do GREAT JOB.
I know it's hard to belief and wonderfull
Great lecture. Loved it! By the way, do we know what the Giza pyramids looked like when Tut was alive, 1200 years after their construction? Were they already deteriorated? Or were they regularly looked after? Thank you.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it! We can't know exactly what the pyramids would have looked like in Tut's time but while there was likely some wear and tear it's probably that they were still largely in good condition. Our best guide is perhaps the 'dream stela' which was erected in between the paws of the sphinx by Tut's great-grandfather, Thutmose IV - he cleared it of sand showing that while it had suffered at the hands of the elements to some extent there was also a desire to restore it (and probably other monuments) to their full glory. More here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Stele
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you for the quick reply. I just found your channel. Many hours will be spent watching your videos. Great work. Merci.
This was an amazing presentation. I learned a lot about the Am Duat. I never knew that the other figure in the tomb in the nemes headress was Tuts Ka. At some point can you explain the baboons on the wall. Do they also represent the hours of the night? What do the hieroglyphs In each one say? Do they take the place of the Am Duat? I see Aye had them also.
Thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed it! The baboons are among the friendly gods etc who line up to accompany the sun-god at the start of his journey through the Amduat, so this scene is one part of the first hour of the Amduat which appears in much fuller form in .e.g the tombs of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. Hope this answers your question!
Thank you Chris for this video! I’m incredibly interested in Egyptology. But I also have a proposal of thought; there are theories that Nefertiti might be of Kurdish descent, at least having heritage from the Mitanni (?) and its people. Would this play a part in discovering her full lineage through DNA? Has this theory ever been discussed in Egyptology, if you’ve heard of it?
Thank you for watching! This is an interesting idea but unfortunately it would be difficult to test as 1) there are no inscriptions that give us any information about Nefertiti's parents, and 2) we haven't been able to identify her mummy with certainty and it may not have survived. *If* we could be sure of identifying her remains it might be possible to examine her DNA or other aspects of the remains to see if it could tell us anything about her origins but for now it would be impossible.
@@ChristopherNaunton Interesting journey to follow. Thank you for your research and sharing your lectures on UA-cam!
Imset, Quebsehenuf, Hapi and Duamutef.
Can't believe I remember the names of the sons of Horus (relatively correct?)
33:15 -- RE: Is Amonhotep III the Father of Tutankhamun?; You mentioned having to juggle the numbers a bit. It occurs to me that inserting Smenkhkare as a probable half-brother of Akhenaten (thus both being sons of Amonhotep III) is perhaps a simpler explanation. It also occurred to me before now that I'd be mighty curious as to genetic studies that compares similarities on the *Mother's* side for all of these individuals, too. If they all have the same grandmother (plus or minus a few greats), in other words.
^^ In Other Words (a few more): if the Men all have the same Grandmothers, *their* mothers also have the same grandmothers.
New sub here...excellent!
Great, thanks Robin!
I really enjoyed that presentation. When I look at all those wonderful objects in Tuts tomb I can't help but wonder what would have been inside Ramesses the great tomb ?...or Seti the first ?. Alas, we will never know. I have read that Tuts tomb was actually "got at" to a certain degree by robbers and wonder how true this is ?. Anyway, great stuff Chris.
Knowledge is what it presents! Fools look or see knowledge and give it happenstance!
@@justicefreedom1441 No idea what you are talking about...
Know anything about the mummy's skull cap? It's in old photos and so many depictions show Tut wearing one but now there's nothing
If you scroll forward to around 1:20:43 you'll see I mention it there!
I love your videos more than your documentaries ,
and I appreciate your acknowledgment for theories about tuts death to be true but actually not !
in fact to me the period between Akhenaten and Tutankhamen is very interesting in needs to refocused on it will give a lot of insight to the amarna period .
Thanks for your kind words! You might enjoy my talk 'After Akhenaten' - available here: chrisnaunton.com/recorded-talks-online/
1:23:37 As a Thai-American who is interested in Thai history, the concept of looting old historical objects for its material value is very endemic in Southeast Asia. In the 1950s, looters broke into a significant undiscovered crypt of a major historical Thai temple in the old Thai capital of Ayutthaya (Wat Ratchaburana temple). Even up until recent times, old historical temples in Thailand, especially in the rural provinces, often have to lock their temples almost 24/7 due to thieves and vandals. This seems to be a universal thing in countries with lots of historical heritage outside the West and developed world.
One definitely has to wonder had Lord Carnarvon refused to give Howard Carter another season in the King Tut excavation and maybe Tutankhamun's crypt could have been rediscovered post-WWII instead.
Hi Chris, I am a university student in ancient Egyptian and near eastern archaeology, I have a question about the controversy surrounding the mummy in kv21A who is suggested to be the biological mother of the two fetuses found in Tutankhamun's tomb. It has been suggested she is Mutemwiya one of the wives of Thutmose IV and the mother of Amenhotep III. Some suggest it's Ankhesenamun based on the fact she is the only known wife of pharaoh Tutankhamun. But there has been a problem with the DNA match from kv21A and the suggested father of Tutankhamun in KV 55 they are not a DNA match, so it's suggested that the mother isn't Ankhesenamun and a lesser known wife of Tutankhamun or Ankhesenamun wasn't the daughter of Akhenaten, or the mummy in KV55 is not that of Akhenaten.
Could this in theory be a suggestion that Tutankhamun was in a sexual relationship with the wife of thutmose IV?
Hi Shelly, It seems to me that the DNA does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn at present, and the door is therefore open for various different interpretations. Hawass and Selim (Scanning the Pharaohs) suggest that KV21a may be the mother of the foetuses while admitting that more work / data is needed. If this interpretation is correct then Ankhesenamun would be the obvious candidate as the only known wife of Tutankhamun. I'm not sure of the basis of the alternative explanation i.e. the KV21a is Mutemwia but I assume in this interpretation, KV21a is *not* the mother of the foetuses, in which case there is no need to postulate a sexual relationship between Tutankhamun and his grandfather's wife. The debate goes on!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you for the clarification,🙂 I definitely agree with you.
In my opinion everything is speculation, until there is solid evidence. Once they find more royal mummies from the 18th dynasty that can be properly identified it may remain unclear. I definitely look forward to learning more 🙂
Your lecture was great, I enjoyed watching it and has given me much confirmation as well.
@@shelly9784 Great to know, thanks Shelly!
@@Dav-ov1pv It is very possible that Tutankhamun had concubines and that the foetuses are not Ankhesenamun's. However, we don't have any *evidence* for any other wives - whereas we do have evidence of second, third and even more wives in the case of many other kings and others. And as evidence of Tutankhamun is relatively abundant - we have lots of inscriptions, and lots of evidence of Ankhesenamun and their relationship - it would seem surprising if he had another wife and we didn't know about it. So, while it's *possible* that he one or more other wives, as there is no *evidence* for it the safest conclusion would seem to be that he had only one.
Do you think he really looked like that? I just love his statue.
Impossible to know, but Tutankhamun's official portrait is quite consistent and was possibly influenced by some aspects of his real-life appearance, rather than simply being idealised.
Akhenaten was brutal but for some reason I find him fascinating.
I'm hoping to make my talk 'After Akhenaten: Nefertiti, Smenkhkare and where were they all buried?' available here soon - watch this space...! (Or subscribe - probably better!)
I most definitely will. I just love your work and you. I'm a amazed by all of your work. I have started getting books on ancient Egypt and just learning as I go. I have watched alot of the shows you are featured in and love them all. You make everything so interesting and just wanna see more.
@@joeelliottfan11 This is lovely to read, thank you!
God bless you Chris for your time, energy and patience in researching and putting such interesting information together.
The 18th Dynasty is my REINCARNATION time, amongst many others.
AKHNATEN's spirit is a FEMALE, hence the "feminine" look. She is called PERSPECTA in the Spirit World and was/is my spirit mother of old. She is a CAT-PEOPLE person and a GODDESS OF THE SUN. Many SPIRITS incarnate in different bodies, depending on the service needed.
I was sitting back with my arms folded.... then I realised that my arms were in the exact position as Tut's skeleton is doing.
1:12:14 Interesting lists of ailments.
DEAD BONES ( and just about anything else, including STONES) CAN SPEAK. I can READ BONES psychically. I pray that one day I might visit EGYPT and the MUSEUMS and do some BONE READING on each of the MUMMIES on display.
Interesting comments about Tutankhamun's father. Have long thought Smenkhare could be Tut's father or at least older brother of Tut as it would explain why Smenkhare might have took precedence over Tut as Co Regent with Akhenaten. Also the idea that Tut was too young to be King is challenged by historical precedent. Phiops 11 became King aged about 6 and more contemporaneously Tuthmosis 111 became pharoah at about 2 years in c.1479 BCE. Too many historical sources simply state Akhenaten was Tut's father with no qualifications or allowance for the possibility that it might actually be Smenkhare.
.
A question I would love clarification on is the degree to which consanguinity could influence the dna results. Tut appears to be the child of full siblings, but if the family had been marrying back in on itself for several generations, might cousins look more like siblings, just due to shared alleles?
Hi Missi, I can't really comment with any authority on this as I'm not a specialist in the study of DNA. I am aware, however, of some doubts that have been raised about the reliability of the studies of DNA from these mummies, and the conclusions reached. We need an expert to comment!
The degree of consanguinity may have been greater than attested. It is possible that Mutemwiya, Amenhotep III's mother, was Yuya's (or Tuyu's?) sister, and that Ay was the son of Yuya and Tuyu, and in turn Nefertiti's father. This would make the DNA analysis more complex.
Could the physical depictions of Akenaten be an indication he suffered some type of genetic disorder ?
This idea has been in circulation for a long time but I think the consensus now is that his strange appearance owes more to a desire on the part of the king and/or his artists to smash the rigid conventions of Egyptian art by making the leap away to something grotesque. The strangest images of Akhenaten are from the earliest part of his reign; as time went on and his artists came to adopt a new naturalism in the style and content of their art, he came to be shown in a more and more naturalistic way - which I think was the intention all along.
@@ChristopherNaunton So a religious and corresponding artistic rebellion ? Makes sense. I guess they wanted to distance themselves from tradition. Thanks for the response. Appreciated.
How much of the KV55 mummy remains? I've heard differing claims about his age. As you pointed out, some say he did in his twenties, but I've also heard thirties. The latter would allow him to be a plausible Akhenaten.
I believe it's just the disarticulated skeleton that remains now. The question of the individual's age is the crux of the issue!
A minor thing, but why in the list of pharaohs is Neferneferuaten given a throne name in the list, whereas Smenkhkare isn’t? If the throne name ‘Ankheperure’ is utilised for Neferneferuaten, why not for ‘Smenkhkare’? As I tend to follow Reeves on this that Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare are one (=Nefertiti), maybe it stands out more than it might. Still, why not either utilise the throne name for both or neither, if it needs to be added at all, just for balance?
Edit: At one spot I had ‘Ankhkheperure’ where I meant ‘Smenkhkare’. I have fixed same. 👍
Well, this isn't a great excuse but the list is one that 's been used in several books by the same publisher including my 'Lost Tombs'. I suppose the explanation would be that there is only one known individual with the name Smenkhkare who therefore needs no prenomen to distinguish him from anyone else; the prenomen is required in the case of Neferneferuaten to distinguish the pharaoh of that name from great royal wife of Akhenaten (who might or might not be the same individual!).
@@ChristopherNaunton I think you’ve helped me focus on why this small issue stood out. I find it frustrating as one with an amateur interest that with all the questions about who is who in Amarna, that Egyptologists use names like ‘Smenkhare’ or ‘Nefernefeuaten’ when quoting individuals, when it is not necessarily accurate to do so. As an example, I am a little obsessed currently with the ‘fill’ in the entrances and entry passages of KV55&62 (and ‘fill’ generally of relatively contemporary other VoK tombs) and you read Carter and he mentions finding remnant artefacts in the staircase of KV62 with the name ‘Smenkhkare’, when what he found was ‘Ankhheperure’ from all I can tell. Or a remnant box in the tomb with Akhenaten, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and Meritaten, and calls it ‘Smenkhkare’s’ box or similar. Carter thought Neferneferuaten and Smenkhare were the same person (while your list states straightly two individuals). Along with, say, Allen’s rather dubious logic that Ankhkheperure with or without epithets is either Neferneferuaten or Smenkhkare, it lodges ‘facts’ that are hardly proven ‘facts’ into the heads of interested amateurs like myself. Why not use the actual names on a particular artefact, not a ‘presumed’ name? Hope I’m making sense here. To get to my point more directly, I like to know the ‘names’ found when Egyptologists discuss their views, not the ‘names’ of whom they think they are. Again, not sure I’m explaining my ‘issue’ all that well. 🤞on that. And thanks btw for your reply. Much appreciated. 👍
@@glennmaillard5972 Hi Glenn, Yes, you're absolutely right to be frustrated about this! Over the years the consensus about who 'Ankhkheperure' was has changed, and in fact at the moment there is no consensus which is why as far as possible it's vital that we try to use the full names and refer directly to the evidence. I've tried to explain the way the debate evolved in my talk 'After Akhenaten' (see chrisnaunton.com/recorded-talks-online/) - this one is available but not for free, sorry! The guide to related literature here might also help: chrisnaunton.com/after-akhenaten-links-further-reading/ Good luck with your work!
@Chris Naunton I missed this reply. A little late, but thank you for your reply. Just now I came back to look at your lecture again. My amateur fixation on the period continues. It’s interesting that I have been looking at the ‘Coronation’ Hall of Smenkhkare at Akhetaten and the ‘Mansion of Ankhkheperure’ at Thebes (via the Pairi tomb graffito). Both are actually identified, as you would know, by the prenomen ‘Ankhkheperure’. Exactly the problem I was complaining about 5 months ago. The upside: I am so aware of the issue now and I trust nothing until I research until I find the actual names in the record. Fact checking never hurts (as I learned as a long serving cop). I guess even an avid history amateur can learn again to be disciplined and remember relevant old skills! Believe nothing, check everything. Thanks again for your reply.
King Tut was one of the royal first born struck down in the 10 th final plague at the Exodus. His father Ahkenaten and the royal guard died, and his body was not recovered and mummified when he pursued the Hebrews into the Red Sea
when you are speaking of "conditions" which Tutankhamen may have suffered, did you say "hyper phalanges?" I have never heard of this before. Did I mishear, or is someone claiming that Tutankhamen had extra bones in his fingers or toes?
I don't think I will actually have *said* the word 'hyperphalangism' but it does appear on the long list of conditions from which it has been suggested the king might have suffered - see slide no. 44 in all talk. All the slides and a link to the article by Ikram and Ruhli from which I took the list are here: chrisnaunton.com/tutankhamun-in-life-death-eternal-afterlife-links-further-reading/
Chris, very much enjoyed your videos; this one and "After Akhenaten: Nefertiti, Smenkhkare, and where were they all buried?" I for one believe it is Smenkhkare buried in KV 55 Coffin due to the age of the mummy and I do not believe Akhenaten's recovered remains would have been kept intact and would have been damaged beyond recognition in the move from Amara to the Valley of the Kings. Question: Why have you left out a discussion of Yuya's and Tuya's mummies during wider discussion of the 18 Dynasty? Is there any possibility in your understanding that Yuya could be Joseph? I ask this because the belief in one God evolved out of the 18th Dynasty and Zahi Hawass is very resistant to scholarly debate on Akhenaten and this period other than his view on the 18th Dynasty figures.
Thanks Wayne, glad you've been enjoying the talks! To answer your question, I think discussion of the mummies of Yuya and Thuya would have ben somewhat tangential to the main themes dealt with in this talk and in 'After Akhenaten' - and it's not as though there wasn't plenty of material to get through in both cases! As far as the conventional Egyptological view goes, while many have argued for connections between the Egyptian evidence and the Old Testament, it's insufficient for a compelling case to be made. We probably couldn't *prove* beyond all doubt that Yuya was not the Joseph of the Bible, but we certainly can't prove that he was either.
@@ChristopherNaunton Again thank you for your expertise on this subject; the 18th Dynasty is captivating and yet so much more work needs to be done to fill in the gaps.
Could Smenkare have been Tut"s father and a general in Akenaten 's army? How do his bones look? Are they robust? If he was 20 years old he could have died on a military conquest... I believe Kia is the mother. They both have strong jaw lines. Also Nefertiti and Akenaten were pictured as a loving family. Would it make sense to ignore your only son??,
I'm not aware of any evidence of trauma having been observed in the remains of the KV 55 individual (or anything else that might indicate cause of death). It may not have been that Akhenaten and Nefertiti were ignoring their son but that convention dictated that it was only daughters, rather than sons who could appear alongside the king and queen - see the many images of pharaoh + wives / daughters but not with sons.
@@ChristopherNauntonThank you for replying. Yes that's true with conventional rulers but to me it seems out of character for Akenaten and Nefertiti.
🌞sunTutankhamun here
It's ironic that the very pharaohs who they wanted to be erased from history should be the pharaohs who are best known today.
How many years did Akhenaten rule and how do we know that ?
The 'highest regnal date' for Akhenaten (i.e. the inscription in his name with the latest year date) is year 17 so at present we assume he died during his 17th year. Of course, this relates only to inscriptions that have survived and it's not impossible that a new inscription with a higher date could turn up which would cause us to revise things.
Beketaten as mother of Tut does actually tick a few boxes.
The ads are so frequently awful! I need to listen on an ad blocker.
Around the 40 minute mark you're talking about Meritaten being great royal wife of Smenkhare when he was co Pharoah to Akhenaten. You said this makes her a possible candidate for mother of Tut but that there's a problem because she was a daughter of Akhenaten and the mother of Tut was a daughter of Amenhotep the third. I agree that's a problem, it means no she wasn't his mother.
My take is that Tut's mother the younger lady from kv35 was probably Beketaten and was Smenkhare's sister wife and together they had Tut. She was then murdered when Tut was very young and later when he became co Pharoah Smenkhare married again as he now needed a great royal wife. As he was Akhenaten's younger brother he married Meritaten as she was Akhenaten's oldest daughter.
Ah, moving on I see you suggest Beketaten as a possible mother of Tut.
You also say that people presenting the kv55 mummy as Akhenaten as being settled is too strict. I agree. You also suggest the kv55 mummy however was most likely Akhenaten even though it isn't settled. I agree that it isn't settled however my opinion which of course is nothing more than opinion is that the kv55 mummy is Smenkhare. Awhile ago I saw a documentary where that skeleton mummy was examined by a woman from England who was an expert on estimating the age of the dead. She said the mummy was 20 to 25 when he died. Akhenaten must have been over 40. I think Akhenaten was a son of Queen Tiye from when she was a teenager while Smenkhare was a son of Tiye probably from her late 20s or early 30s. One of her last born. I think the man in kv55 was Smenkhare and that he was chosen as co pharoah by his much older brother Akhenaten both because he was young and because he already had his own male heir in Tutankhaten.
Everyone has their opinions I know. :) Those are mine. And thank you for the fascinating lecture.
Interesting points, thanks Ingur. Just to be absolutely clear, I was only saying that Meritaten would be likely candidate for Tut's mother if a) the KV 55 mummy (which the DNA suggests is Tut's father) is Smenkhkare and b) you then also ignore the other DNA evidence that Tut's mother was also a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. I do say this but it's perhaps a strange point to make as it requires you to accept some but not all the DNA evidence. In any case I don't think Meritaten is a plausible candidate to be Tut's mother because of the DNA.
The issue of the the identity of the KV 55 mummy boils down to this: the inscriptional evidence all suggests it's Akhenaten; the anatomical evidene suggests the individual was too young to have been Akhenaten. So, those who believe it is Akhenaten (myself included) have to assume the anatomists are wrong (and there is evidence from elsewhere that the ageing of ancient skeletons this way can be flawed). Those who believe it's Smenkhkare have to disregard all the inscriptions and conclude that despite the coffin and bricks belonging to Akhenaten they were used to bury someone else who is never named. It's impossible to resolve these problems satisfactorily, but that's where the debate - and the fun - comes from!
@@ChristopherNaunton Right. Thank you. Yes I should have said that basically I'm in agreement with you that Meritaten was very unlikely to have been Tut's mother due to the dna situation rather than just reiterating that unlikelihood myself.
I am a Smenkhare man as I've said when it comes to the kv55 mummy but I didn't know about the inscriptions and coffin and bricks belonging to Akhenaten. I thought any identification on that coffin had been utterly removed. So no other person is named precisely because the cartouche on the coffin is chiseled out. Also it's a wooden coffin more suitable I'd have thought for a junior co Pharoah. Surely a mighty Pharoah like Akhenaten would have had a golden one like Tut did. And I just find it to hard to believe that a man as utterly hated as Akhenaten could have had his body spared by later Pharoahs. I know that Nefertiti and Ankhesunamun and Tut himself all had their bodies spared but they were not the architects of the Amarna heresy, Akhenaten was. They were expunged from history but not murdered in the afterlife. I would find it incredible that Ramses 1 and Seti 1 spared the body of a man that Egyptians referred to simply as the enemy.
Also time for a wee bit of name dropping. I corresponded with Zahir Hawass by email last year and he told me they were going to be doing another big round of dna testing in October (of last year). I haven't been back to him about that. Perhaps you might have heard something?
@@ingurlund9657 The cartouche on the coffin is missing, but the epithet that follows it ('the beautiful child of the Aten') is that of Akhenaten so there is little doubt that the name in the cartouche was at one time Akhenaten's. his name is also still visible in a cartouche on the magical bricks that were carefully placed around the coffin. this all points to the body being that of Akhenaten. By contrast there is not a shred of inscriptional evidence to connect any of the material in the tomb with Smenkhkare.
We cannot know how the ancients really *felt* about Akhenaten. It was obviously felt to be important to expunge his name from the records (along, later, with those of Neferneferuaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun and Ay) but I don't find it at all difficult to think that some at least might have been torn - the KV 55 burial is by no means a full royal burial but it seems originally to have housed the bodies of Tiye and a son of hers, and the burial was made in Tutankhamun's name - seal impressions with his name were found in the debris - so the young king was burying his father and grandmother. Was the KV 55 burial a compromise - he couldn't give his relatives a full burial as they were tainted, but at the same time he didn't want to chuck their bodies away because they were his flesh and blood. I don't have any problem thinking that Akhenaten could have been buried in this way.
I don't think by the way that there's any reason to think that Sety and Ramesses would have had anything to do with desecrating graves - KV 62 was certainly sealed during their reigns and KV 55 may well have been too. All the tombs of the kings were entered at the end of the New Kingdom with the clear exception of KV 62 and probably also KV 55. I don't see any reason to think that that Sety or Ramesses would have wanted to open either of them.
And lastly, no, I don't know anything about a new DNA study, sorry!
@@ChristopherNaunton I must say you have made me reconsider. I love the subject but am very much in discovery mode. I didn't know about the epithet or that it is of Akhenaten. But "beautiful child of the Aten" does sound about right. :) I thought the tomb had been washed through by floods so many times that there wasn't anything left but the Tiye shrine panel and some magic bricks. But I did not know that the bricks had Akhenaten's name on them or that they would have been arranged around the coffin.
Your describing how it was Tutankhamun who was behind the kv55 burial is also very interesting. I can fully imagine him bringing his dead relatives from Amarna and reburying them in the valley of the Kings. You say he couldn't give his relatives a full burial as they were tainted but surely the original coffin could still have been used in the reburial?. And surely they wouldn't have used a cheap wooden one in the originally burial at Amarna?. If Akhenaten had originally been buried there surely he would have had a much richer coffin for a man who was the son of the Aten and object of worship for tens of thousands at Amarna every day for a decade. A wooden box seems ridiculously cheap for such a (in his own mind at least) titan. It does feel more like something he would have put his younger brother in and his brother having the epithet "beautiful child of the Aten" wouldn't be to out of place for Smenkhare if he was also completely sold on the new religion.
I don't know if Ramses 1 and Seti 1 would have gone after Akhenaten's body but someone certainly had no problem with desecration. They obliterated his sarcophagus completely. That points to some serious rage on someone's part. Maybe that rage extended to the body too.
I have to say you have made me think on the subject. From my musing I'd say that there are still so many arguments for me that it's not Akhenaten... the age estimation by a woman that I found very convincing, the obliteration of the sarcophagus that points to a high likelihood of attack on his body, the cheapness of the coffin that says it's not him and the fact that 9000 dead building his city gets you enemies so hate filled that it makes the survival of your body very much in doubt.
Maybe Tutankhamun had Akhenaten brought to kv55 and reburied. I can believe that. Maybe after Tut's death Akhenaten's sarcophagus and body were then destroyed but the magic bricks were left in there. Maybe Smenkhare was then placed there for safe keeping. After all the bodies were moved several times. Queen Tiye ended up in kv35. Nefertiti and Ankhesenamun ended up together in kv21 and who knows what other tombs they spent time in first. Maybe kv55 was just the last tomb Smenkhare's body ended up in after Akhenaten had spent time in there before being destroyed.
@@ingurlund9657 Hi Ingur, Just a quick reply to one or two of your points: I don't think we can assume that a smashed sarcophagus is anything to do with rage - there are countless examples of sarcophagi being treated this way, generally, we assume, as a means for robbers to get inside them to retrieve any precious materials. It happened in the case of Apis bull sarcophagi and it's difficult to imagine anyone being angry at a bull! This could even have happened in Akhenaten's case while the Atenist religion was still in favour - we know that the robbery of tombs even of kings in some cases took place within weeks of the tombs being sealed.
I also don't think it's correct to say that the KV 55 coffin was 'cheap' - quite the reverse. Wood was expensive for the ancient Egyptians, and even among kings I can only think of a handful of examples of coffins being made of e.g. gold or silver; the most famous of these is the innermost coffin of Tutankhamun but the other two he was buried in were both made of wood. Moreover, the KV 55 coffin is elaborately decorated with gilding and inlays in various precious materials, and feathered pattern is very similar to that on the coffins of Tutankhamun, so it is a very good match for some of the finest - of not the finest - coffins to have survived from ancient Egypt. That can't be used as an argument suggest that the coffin could not have belonged to Akhenaten therefore. On the contract, the inscription makes it very likely that it did, even if it had originally been made for someone else (Kiya). Why he came to be buried in a recycled coffin *is* a bit of a mystery, but then it's very likely that Tutankhamun was too, and as far as our evidence goes, it seems this kind of recycling was much more common than we might assume - the Tanis burials (see chrisnaunton.com/the-third-intermediate-period/) exhibit great wealth on the part of the kings concerned but they also re-used items of burial equipment belonging to New Kingdom pharaohs reclaimed from the valley of Kings.
34:16 the Nefertiti Bust is modeled after this face i'm sure. just look at that jawline her forehead eyes nose and the fact that it's a mummy and still looks the same. put the hat and mouth from the bust on it and its identical.
That together with the DNA saying she is one of the candidates i would say this is most likely Nefetiti.
First, thank you for making this informative video.
@12:27 Who are the two males who face toward the right?
Also, who is the male who faces forward and the female who leans as if whispering into his left ear?
@14:13 Caption: "Tutankhamun’s parentage unclear".
I disagree.
His maternal and paternal lineages were demonstrated in his tomb by constructed references.
The set of three nested coffins for example represent his maternal line from Tiye (outermost coffin), her daughter Nefertiti (middle coffin) and her daughter Meritaten (who is the mother of Tutankhamun).
Meritaten is the daughter of Amenhotep III with Nefertiti. Akhenaten was the brother of both women.
Their identifications were established by references within and beyond the tomb.
I don't know that you will find their full story inscribed.
A set of nested coffins can demonstrate maternal lineage , transcending changes in language for much longer than an inscription.
Each child is represented as if in its mother for as long as the coffins were to endure.
The gold mask complexly symbolizes Ankhesenamun who extended that line of queens into the reign of Tutankhamun.
Where are the fathers?
They can be inferred because there are no queens without kings.
They are also complexly represented by the resin that was in the coffins.
The outermost coffin (Tiye) was not covered with resin because Tiye was not a child of her husband or her son.
The tomb was staged to be carefully considered. It was never robbed as has been mistakenly believed.
@41:05 - Unfortunately, the mummies found in KV55 and KV35 (includes the Younger Lady) are not royal. They are servants (who seem by DNA to be related). They were (stationed?) to effectively greet and provide informative reference.
The king has servants even in death and I am aware of the implications of my claim.
The Elder Lady IS the daughter of Yuya and Thuya.
The Younger Lady IS the daughter of Amenhotep III and the Elder Lady. She is also the mother of Tutankhamun.
Please name another Royal tomb which included servants in death….
Just the pure truth! The god of "dead" or the dead God? Still alive?
Tut and Osiris are one soul.
I had two invisible friends as a child.
Tutankhamun and Alice in Wonderland.
the exodus created a crisis in the ruling dynasty pharaohs, young sons would have needed emotional support so Nefertiti was allowed to “co “ rule, but it was a male dominant society and actually the priests reasserted their authority in the vacuum of ahkeneten’s vdeath and destruction of the cream of the army sent to return the Hebrew’s about 5-6 weeks after the shock of the plagues wore off . The Sinai commandments were given about 3 months after the exodus .
Nafateri?
The living unearthly #King take care
I didn’t forget I’m going too make THE #Family Reunion T Shirts 👔 And #Study
Great Night Take Care
Obviously some do not believe that the flash flood obscuring tut’s tomb was divinely ordained .
If we were still practicing mummification. Would it actually be as fascinating as it seems😮 or do we just over dramatise everything we do these days😮. Food for thought 😅
I don't think we would find it as fascinating because it would be our 'normal'. Equally though, many of us probably wouldn't think about it very much in the same way that most of us don't think about the equivalent modern processes that occur after an individuals death in modern times - medical inspection, dressing of the body, removal of valuables, placement in morgue and subsequently into a coffin etc. Other than those involved in the funerary industry most of are usually too preoccupied with the loss of a loved one to think very much about the process.
And I have always loved you. Maybe you had not been the first person to throw my tantrum on but in silence when I ruminate on life, it has always been your eyes that pops up in my mind. If I had to lay bundles of blue roses at somebody's feet, it would have been you.... I lay my heart bare to you... You had always been the one I loved. You didn't turn up playfully. I found you in Dr. Martinez's video, since then I have been carrying the torch for you! If there's in true love and soul mate in this world, to me it's my dearest and most beloved Christopher standing on the most intoxicating soil of Egypt! I recognized it when you laid your eyes onto the screen for those brief moments of Dr. Martinez's video.....You pushed me away but I still carry the torch for you.... In the depth of your grey eyes, I find real me, that me who is all serene and loved! I would have put forth most beautiful bouquet of blue roses. My most beloved dearest and nearest Christopher! You carry my name, why so callous to my feelings then?
Christopher, I really dote upon you! Don't turn me down! Next time when you write your surname, please remember me. If someday I get lost, will you remember me?
Wasnt it Tutankhamens sister Queen Scotia that returned to Ireland with the Millesions and their brother king Heber? In my understanding,Akhenaten was trying to give back to the people the ancient pre-dynastic mystery teachings,after the priests had corrupted it and were using it for their own self gain. By the time Akhenaten died,the people and priests were that invested in ego and self,they ran the rest of Akhenatens family out of Egypt,which was the biblical exodus. Im also of the understanding Tutankhamens tomb had already been opened by Carter months earlier and it wasnt actually Tutenkhamen who was in the tomb. Flower of Light Mystery School does some awesome talk about who and what Akhenaten and the 18th dynasty was really all about. ua-cam.com/video/YBtxdUmcX3E/v-deo.html
There are far fetched theories and then there's that; complete fiction. Got to be honest.
@@atticus6572 Theres wise men that thank you for new knowledge,and then theres fools,who would rather mock then learn,,its quite obvious which one you are.
They erred in greedily unwrapping tut’s mummy, causing damage
You would think they would have concluded the brain was important from observation of common injuries
Good morning or evening how are you doing peace be upon you all today just want to know is the red and blue and yellow prayer was Derrick Cramon Wright from Irving masjid in Dallas tx you gave me
Ahkhenaton and Nefertiti wanted to see Tut was taken care of and not struck down by the Hebrew God because the killed Hebrew infants. Subsequently after the Red Sea disaster , many changes occurred since Ahkenaten ‘s self worship at Amarna the Exodus and plagues were attributed to the old gods being subordinated to the sun disc Ra, even though the plagues struck at the Nile, the scarab , earth and frogs still worshipped by the older priesthood
Sorry just me again. :) At 1.02.50 or so you're saying that the restoration of the old religion happened on his watch. I think it made huge strides on his watch but I think it actually began with his predecessor Nefertiti. ua-cam.com/video/48-mKPjQtSA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=AncientWorld
In this video from 34.30 it shows something fascinating. A tomb with pictures showing Nefertiti in the 3rd year of her reign worshipping Amun in a great temple. Under Akhenaten such a temple would not even have been open. So she reopened such temples and gave them her blessing by worshipping in one. I had thought she eased the religious restrictions of Akhenaten after his death but it seems she dumped them. Maybe Tutankhamun grabbed the credit for it while in fact maybe having only continued it.
Hi Ingur, Yes, I'm aware of the year 3 inscription from the tomb of Pairy and it features in my presentation 'After Akhenaten' (see chrisnaunton.com/after-akhenaten-links-further-reading/). It doesn't *show* Nefertiti or any Amun temple - there are no images of either - but the inscription is dated to what appears to be her reign and mentions a temple of Amun of Ankhkheperure. This may indicate that the transition was already underway during her reign (or that of whoever the female pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was - not all scholars believe it was Nefertiti), but there are other possible interpretations including that she reigned alongside Tutankhamun, or that the 'Ankhkheperure' of the temple was not Neferneferuaten but Smenkhkare who used the same prenomen. I tried to deal with all of this in the 'After Akhenaten' talk!
@@ChristopherNaunton Righty ho. And thank you very much. I'll giive that talk a listen. :)
Looks like a beer belly to me ^^
They found the King's vital organs separate from his body. They said his heart wasn't in it. Smh
Is there any evidence that Akhenaten's belief in one god was influenced by the Jewish belief?
Hi Linda, no, although many people have speculated that Akhenaten's religion and the monotheism of the jewish people may have had common origins there is no clear evidence to connect them. And as far as I understand it, it unclear when the god Yahweh of the jews first appeared, but there is no evidence from as early as the time of Akhenaten. His reign fell in the 14th century BCE, while "the term Israel first enters historical records in the 13th century BCE with the Egyptian Merneptah Stele, and, while the worship of Yahweh is circumstantially attested to as early as the 12th century BCE,[17] there is no attestation of even the name "Yahweh" in the Levant until some four hundred years later with the Mesha Stele (9th century BCE)." - from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism with refs.
@1:39:42 - the supposed ritual figures "of the king" show females with obvious breasts. They are not representations of Tutankhamun.
@1:53:03 - The half-mannequin figure with no arms or legs reprepresents a young female.
It was a reference element in a greater informative reference within the tomb.
All of the necessary elements to know and understand the reference were in the antechamber of the tomb.
The mannequin figure had been stationed in the southwest corner. It was facing towards north.
How very coy….
Vive l'Angleterre et vive le roi