Would it be too much to add a little subtitle naming who is depicted in the busts you show over and over? I'm getting tired of these docs that just show random cool pictures, some of which have little or nothing to do with the narrative. I'm getting pickier and will ban channels with too much of that.
I love this channel, this channel along with some others, helps with my never-ending love for history, thank you, keep up all the amazing work, have an amazing day to the team(s) of Absolute History.
@@SmokeyTreats Yeah, but to be fair can you find artifacts in good shape near ones in poor so that isn't an evidence. The guy who found it had the expertise, the tools and pretty good motivation to do it and that one eye she have is unique from ancient Egypt so there are certainly a good possibility it was a forgery. However, the museum who owns it refuse testing (probably since they are afraid it indeed might be a fake) so we can't rule out that it certainly can be genuine too. I don't want to rule out either possibility, both are plausible and until it get a close examination by modern experts we really shouldn't say anything for certain. The difference of it is real or not isn't that huge though, it would tell us that at least one ancient Egyptian artist were far better at polishing lenses to look like eyes then we thought but that is about it. Since the actual impact of either conclusion is minimal, it is not really something worth losing sleep over, there are other possibly fake or real artifacts that could change a lot of historical knowledge instead, like the Kenzington stone (who probably is fake but we aren't 100% sure of that). It would make some book covers obsolete though. The only possible impact would be the lens shaping technique. There is a curious depiction of a God in Luxor who have an erect phallus with snakes spraying out of it which probably is a coincidence but it is from around the same time so maybe someone did invent a magnifying glass a lot earlier then we think but even that wouldn't really be a huge discovery, more like one of the oddities invented by Heron (his steamball was kinda an odd precursor to the steam engine but didn't really lead to it, just to amaze some people watching it). That is however a big leap of wild speculation based on a single possibly fake artifact and a single weird picture, so I feel a little like Graham Hancock just suggesting it. ;) Extremely far fetched.
It is hardly surprising to see female children being overlooked in favor of a male heir in royal families. This was a common practice in every nation throughout history. And like it or not, the woman who gave birth to the royal male heir was the one with the power. If a secondary wife bore the king a son, then the fact that he might have loved Nefertiti, and that she had born him six daughters, would count for very little. But I can easily see Nefertiti gaining and wielding power in the court very easily. But by and large, women had very little power. And if a woman wanted to wield power, then she needed to be smart and do it very carefully. Far too many people resented women being powerful. The video keeps suggesting that various persons were done away with. It is rather romantic to decide that a king, queen or princess were done away with by conspirators, so a lot of people lean toward that idea. But the dull, rather prosaic truth is that death was very, very common in the ancient world. Children regularly died in childbirth or shortly thereafter, just as women did. Children died regularly from all kinds of things. Today, the death of a young person is considered suspicious, but not so in the past. Real medicine, antibiotics, did not exist. You could get a cut on your arm and end up dying from infection. Virtually any respiratory or intestinal illness was lethal. There was no refrigeration, so people died regularly of food poisoning. Water was not purified, so it carried disease germs. Disease of all kind was rampant. So when someone disappears from history, it does not mean they were corked off by a rival. They most likely just died from one of the million different kinds of death that were common.
I mean, they were really unpopular with the priests for changing the religion so I can easily see a group plotting to depose the radical king and put the younger, more malleable Tut on the throne. But I 100% agree with pretty much everything else you said
You know, I wonder if that 18 dynasty idea that royal should marry close relatives lead to a large part of Egypt's problems and lead to it's eventual collapse. Yeah, the bronze age collapse wasn't something to do with that and Ramses III was probably the one ruler in the world who dealt with that best but I do notice how often the later Pharaohs in most dynasty performs worse and live shorter then the most of the early Pharaohs of the same new dynasty. The health and mental problems of severe inbreeding is well documented and even smaller crisis can turn into huge problem when you have a bunch of sickly rulers replacing each other. You see far less of the problem in the earlier dynasties. It really is a bit odd that the custom seemingly came out of nowhere and stuck until Cleopatra, you had a bunch of foreigners who came in and created dynasties and regular people didn't do anything similar.
@@pirththee We do actually have pretty good understanding about most dynasties though. 3rd, 4th and 5th for instance, while there are some disagreement in the sources how long some Pharaohs reigned (like Khufu who some scholars think ruled 23 years while others think it was 34) we still have pretty good lists of Pharaohs, their queen, about how long they ruled, general events and some ideas how the economy and warfare was going under most of them. We also have some DNA test and we don't really see the inbreeding problem until the 18th dynasty either (it is true we do lack that with very few exception until the 17th dynasty though but we do have more then a little evidence for the Queens heritage). The first 2 dynasties are a bit foggy, I easily admit that and same for some dynasties during the intermediate periods. I recommend "History with Cy"s documentary series about each dynasty here on UA-cam , he is good at talking a bit about each dynasty even if he certainly doesn't talk about this little hypothesis. It is a goo watch if you want to learn more but don't feel like reading a ton of books. :) You can see something similar with the Hapsburg family too, they were slightly less inbred and were more happy to marry cousins then siblings but when things got bad enough, they just fell apart too.
@@loke6664 I already have history with Cy's ongoing documentary and I stand by my original assertion. .In fact with some of the early dynasties nobody is really sure as to whether or not certain pharaohs actually existed or even if the names are accurate. I wouldn't have minded the Hapsburgs money, but one can keep that nose.
@@pirththee Yeah, as I said, the first 2 dynasties and the ones from the intermediate periods lack a lot of documentation. But the dynasties we have pretty good knowledge of doesn't show the same "whimpering out" as you see from the 18th and longer. Take the third and fourth. To be fair there seems they 2 to have been split into 2 dynasties by some type of historian during the new kingdom, the first of the 4th seems to have been the brother or cousin of the last of the third. With the third the dynasty is getting stronger and stronger together with Egypt's power. It is true that the last 2 of the 4th seems have been a bit of a mess but that seems more to be due to a power struggle then anything else, otherwise the 4th dynasty seems to have been going strong the entire time. The only dynasty you could argue stayed somewhat strong to the end from the 18th was the Ptolemaic dynasty and we do see signs of inbreeding in for instance Cleopatra's brother/first husband. Sure, the New kingdom is better documented but I think we have enough information to say that the dynasties before the 18th generally had stronger pharaohs late in the dynasty then the 18th and later. There are still a bit limited sample size though since there were only that many dynasties in total and a few lack enough information to say anything definite about. I do however think that marrying siblings and other close relatives that often had something to do with that and while I can't prove that beyond any reasonable doubt, I think the data we do have points towards that conclusion. As for the Hapsburgs, what about the chin? That one ended up looking rather unique in later times.
Back then was like now , assassinations , war and politics… and I am talking about the royal families competing for power and control. The king was poisoned ( assassinated) and my Queen did not really become the Pharaoh, that was just propaganda until they had a successor . Nefertiti died of a broken heart and willed herself to death. And I doubt you will find any tablets of gossip about it .
I do not give a fig of what *science* has to say about it. Working in the nursing field (a certified aide so I was in the trenches side by side with my patients)... Willing oneself to the grave to join a beloved due to sadness - a broken heart - is very much a real thing. To be honest... It is the absolute saddest thing I've ever had to hear witness to
Yall do whatever to turn GOD into a woman. This was not the face of a woman! Quit playing with GOD acting like yall people know what yall talking bout! KEEP KEMET OUT YALL MOUTH! Watch what false info you put cause yall gon get a visit from THEMOSTHIGH✊🏾💪🏾💯💎 #GODWILL🗿⚡
2:38 "scattered!..." made me LOL.
I'm assuming this isn't supposed to be a parody of itself, but um.
No matter what they teach you in school,my grandmother told me that she was an alien.
lol yeah because who can believe a woman had so much power
Who's the alien? Neffrtiti or gran ?👍🏼
@@me-iq1vb The gran!
🫂👽💪🫶
Your g ma was an alien 👽
She did become Pharaoh
Would it be too much to add a little subtitle naming who is depicted in the busts you show over and over? I'm getting tired of these docs that just show random cool pictures, some of which have little or nothing to do with the narrative. I'm getting pickier and will ban channels with too much of that.
This is a bit too much "gee whiz".
Great history lesson
I love this channel, this channel along with some others, helps with my never-ending love for history, thank you, keep up all the amazing work, have an amazing day to the team(s) of Absolute History.
Thank you for this. This is the first time that I’ve heard that Tut had sisters.
The real question is whether or not that bust is really an ancient artifact or a fake.
He he Animal crossing
Especially considering the decrepit condition of the bust found near it, which hers should've also looked like...
@@SmokeyTreats Yeah, but to be fair can you find artifacts in good shape near ones in poor so that isn't an evidence.
The guy who found it had the expertise, the tools and pretty good motivation to do it and that one eye she have is unique from ancient Egypt so there are certainly a good possibility it was a forgery.
However, the museum who owns it refuse testing (probably since they are afraid it indeed might be a fake) so we can't rule out that it certainly can be genuine too.
I don't want to rule out either possibility, both are plausible and until it get a close examination by modern experts we really shouldn't say anything for certain.
The difference of it is real or not isn't that huge though, it would tell us that at least one ancient Egyptian artist were far better at polishing lenses to look like eyes then we thought but that is about it. Since the actual impact of either conclusion is minimal, it is not really something worth losing sleep over, there are other possibly fake or real artifacts that could change a lot of historical knowledge instead, like the Kenzington stone (who probably is fake but we aren't 100% sure of that).
It would make some book covers obsolete though. The only possible impact would be the lens shaping technique. There is a curious depiction of a God in Luxor who have an erect phallus with snakes spraying out of it which probably is a coincidence but it is from around the same time so maybe someone did invent a magnifying glass a lot earlier then we think but even that wouldn't really be a huge discovery, more like one of the oddities invented by Heron (his steamball was kinda an odd precursor to the steam engine but didn't really lead to it, just to amaze some people watching it).
That is however a big leap of wild speculation based on a single possibly fake artifact and a single weird picture, so I feel a little like Graham Hancock just suggesting it. ;) Extremely far fetched.
I can only recommend reading “The Law of One: The RA Materials”
A channeled work, but oh so enlightening into the dark recesses of Egyptian history
Oh she was removed by Nefertiti alright lol.
love your documentary :)
So mad I wasn’t born as an Egyptian pharaoh 4,000 years ago. 😠
So interesting!
Why are their skills depicted as elongated?
It's a long story.... 😂
It is hardly surprising to see female children being overlooked in favor of a male heir in royal families. This was a common practice in every nation throughout history. And like it or not, the woman who gave birth to the royal male heir was the one with the power. If a secondary wife bore the king a son, then the fact that he might have loved Nefertiti, and that she had born him six daughters, would count for very little. But I can easily see Nefertiti gaining and wielding power in the court very easily. But by and large, women had very little power. And if a woman wanted to wield power, then she needed to be smart and do it very carefully. Far too many people resented women being powerful.
The video keeps suggesting that various persons were done away with. It is rather romantic to decide that a king, queen or princess were done away with by conspirators, so a lot of people lean toward that idea. But the dull, rather prosaic truth is that death was very, very common in the ancient world. Children regularly died in childbirth or shortly thereafter, just as women did. Children died regularly from all kinds of things. Today, the death of a young person is considered suspicious, but not so in the past. Real medicine, antibiotics, did not exist. You could get a cut on your arm and end up dying from infection. Virtually any respiratory or intestinal illness was lethal. There was no refrigeration, so people died regularly of food poisoning. Water was not purified, so it carried disease germs. Disease of all kind was rampant. So when someone disappears from history, it does not mean they were corked off by a rival. They most likely just died from one of the million different kinds of death that were common.
I mean, they were really unpopular with the priests for changing the religion so I can easily see a group plotting to depose the radical king and put the younger, more malleable Tut on the throne. But I 100% agree with pretty much everything else you said
Beautiful work brother 👏 ❤️ Happy healthy blessed New Year everyone ✨️ 💖 🙏 💪🫶🎉
Why does no one talk about how she looks like a tan Audrey Hepburn
Because you're the only one who thinks so?
@@atlantic_loveright😂
You know, I wonder if that 18 dynasty idea that royal should marry close relatives lead to a large part of Egypt's problems and lead to it's eventual collapse.
Yeah, the bronze age collapse wasn't something to do with that and Ramses III was probably the one ruler in the world who dealt with that best but I do notice how often the later Pharaohs in most dynasty performs worse and live shorter then the most of the early Pharaohs of the same new dynasty. The health and mental problems of severe inbreeding is well documented and even smaller crisis can turn into huge problem when you have a bunch of sickly rulers replacing each other.
You see far less of the problem in the earlier dynasties. It really is a bit odd that the custom seemingly came out of nowhere and stuck until Cleopatra, you had a bunch of foreigners who came in and created dynasties and regular people didn't do anything similar.
Some of what you're saying could be chocked up to having so little information on some of the early dynasties.
@@pirththee We do actually have pretty good understanding about most dynasties though. 3rd, 4th and 5th for instance, while there are some disagreement in the sources how long some Pharaohs reigned (like Khufu who some scholars think ruled 23 years while others think it was 34) we still have pretty good lists of Pharaohs, their queen, about how long they ruled, general events and some ideas how the economy and warfare was going under most of them.
We also have some DNA test and we don't really see the inbreeding problem until the 18th dynasty either (it is true we do lack that with very few exception until the 17th dynasty though but we do have more then a little evidence for the Queens heritage).
The first 2 dynasties are a bit foggy, I easily admit that and same for some dynasties during the intermediate periods.
I recommend "History with Cy"s documentary series about each dynasty here on UA-cam , he is good at talking a bit about each dynasty even if he certainly doesn't talk about this little hypothesis. It is a goo watch if you want to learn more but don't feel like reading a ton of books. :)
You can see something similar with the Hapsburg family too, they were slightly less inbred and were more happy to marry cousins then siblings but when things got bad enough, they just fell apart too.
@@loke6664 I already have history with Cy's ongoing documentary and I stand by my original assertion. .In fact with some of the early dynasties nobody is really sure as to whether or not certain pharaohs actually existed or even if the names are accurate. I wouldn't have minded the Hapsburgs money, but one can keep that nose.
@@pirththee Yeah, as I said, the first 2 dynasties and the ones from the intermediate periods lack a lot of documentation.
But the dynasties we have pretty good knowledge of doesn't show the same "whimpering out" as you see from the 18th and longer.
Take the third and fourth. To be fair there seems they 2 to have been split into 2 dynasties by some type of historian during the new kingdom, the first of the 4th seems to have been the brother or cousin of the last of the third.
With the third the dynasty is getting stronger and stronger together with Egypt's power. It is true that the last 2 of the 4th seems have been a bit of a mess but that seems more to be due to a power struggle then anything else, otherwise the 4th dynasty seems to have been going strong the entire time.
The only dynasty you could argue stayed somewhat strong to the end from the 18th was the Ptolemaic dynasty and we do see signs of inbreeding in for instance Cleopatra's brother/first husband.
Sure, the New kingdom is better documented but I think we have enough information to say that the dynasties before the 18th generally had stronger pharaohs late in the dynasty then the 18th and later.
There are still a bit limited sample size though since there were only that many dynasties in total and a few lack enough information to say anything definite about.
I do however think that marrying siblings and other close relatives that often had something to do with that and while I can't prove that beyond any reasonable doubt, I think the data we do have points towards that conclusion.
As for the Hapsburgs, what about the chin? That one ended up looking rather unique in later times.
Back then was like now , assassinations , war and politics… and I am talking about the royal families competing for power and control.
The king was poisoned ( assassinated) and my Queen did not really become the Pharaoh, that was just propaganda until they had a successor .
Nefertiti died of a broken heart and willed herself to death.
And I doubt you will find any tablets of gossip about it .
I do not give a fig of what *science* has to say about it. Working in the nursing field (a certified aide so I was in the trenches side by side with my patients)... Willing oneself to the grave to join a beloved due to sadness - a broken heart - is very much a real thing.
To be honest... It is the absolute saddest thing I've ever had to hear witness to
Nefertitties is da bom diggity!
Chemical Engineer❤
Kinda looks like Jada Pinket Smith
Pharoah???????????????
The daughters of this mighty queen... and let's add their brother's name because screw it we need to mention a man
Айн цвай фифти фифти...
Wasn’t Kia Tuts sister????
Kia was a slave to King Hyundai.
@@atlantic_love😂
GIRL POWER!!! ... Before anyone really understood what that two word phrase could mean
Nefertiti and Akenathon had 3 children, 2 boys and 1 daughter. This is the truth.
They definitely were black you could see the features
Worst narrator on earth
Well. He's not White.
❤❤❤❤❤
Stolen artifacts
Yes because they were doing such a good job of looking after their cultural heritage before the Europeans got interested in it...
This guy is the worst. What exactly is his fake accent supposed to be?
Yall do whatever to turn GOD into a woman. This was not the face of a woman! Quit playing with GOD acting like yall people know what yall talking bout! KEEP KEMET OUT YALL MOUTH! Watch what false info you put cause yall gon get a visit from THEMOSTHIGH✊🏾💪🏾💯💎
#GODWILL🗿⚡