AMENHOTEP and AKHENATEN: EGYPT'S PHARAOHS OF THE SUN
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ต.ค. 2024
- Akhenaten probably attracts more attention than any other pharaoh among Egyptophiles. His revolution was swift, wide-ranging and apparently sudden. But to what extent can the changes he introduced be traced to the reign of his father Amenhotep III? This talk looks at some of the key features of the Amarna period, and asks to what extent the changes were already underway when Akhenaten came to the throne, and whether his predecessor might even have continued to play a role after that point.
This talk will be freely available to all but giving lectures like this is a part of how I earn a living so if you ‘d like to send a contribution to support my work please consider doing so via the ‘thanks’ button, or by joining the channel as a member. For more information about this please see chrisnaunton.c...
PLEASE NOTE the live session will start at 5.50 pm, the lecture itself at 6.00 pm.
Thank you so much dr.Naunton💙🙏 💙
You're welcome, thanks for watching! 🙏
That makes me sad, to know that Professor Barry Kemp has died. Those were very kind words that you spoke about him and his extensive contribution to egyptology. Thank you, Dr. Chris.
He was really an inspiration, and I feel very lucky to have known him a little.
First I heard of it. He was a gentleman.
Yes, may he rest in peace.
It makes complete sense! I love how you articulate this! Thank you for breathing new life into this. This is the most engaging lecture on Amarna I have been given to hear!
Thank you! 🙏
Thank you very much for doing this!! I have been interested in Ancient Egypt ever since I was a young child. I have seen you in documentaries. It’s wonderful to be able to hear your lectures on TH-cam. I know that all of us Egypt enthusiasts are grateful to see you on here showing us all the research that you have done.
RIP Barry Kemp. My condolences to you and those who worked with him and were close to him.
Thank you 🙏
Thank you ,so much,Dr.Chris.Outstanding presentation!
Thank you!
Really enjoyed it. Complicated subject but even I got there in the end! Thanks again Chris.
Thanks Alison!
Thank you very much indeed! Enjoyable listening, as usual. Now the colossal sculptures of Amenhotep the IV; Exaggerated and stylished as they seem, I think theres more to depictions of Akhenaten than catches the eye. Eventhough the very same depictions appear in two dimensional imagery as well. When you stand in the intense, luminous, sunlight of Egypt, and stand by the feet of the colossal statue in person, a magic trick appears: The statue becomes very vivid and life- like. I stood there with my best friend and stated they were hundreds of years ahead, predecessing greeks who invented- or just re- invented a trick: In order to depict a human in colossal format, ti be seen from belohnt, you have to exaggerate and lenghthen some, widen some, and you have a very living, quite normal looking image. There are style aspects to this, too. These scjlptures of Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten are stylished in a way where sharp sunlight is necessary to lift the effect. Statues in British Museum stand in dull haze- there should be a sharp light following the original lightning- sun. The Sun and sunlight are crucial for these sculptures. I imagine as artist that was the case by then: light and shadow the sun casts makes these sculptures magnificent, awesome pieces of Art with architectural, geometric quality to shape of shadows and soft shining almost liquid opacity to light parts. Btw remembering the mummy of Akhenaten reveal no inbreed or anything obscure, quite normal bone structure.
That's if KV55 really is Akhenaten... As for proximate inbreeding, he would at most have his paternal grandmother and maternal grandfather as siblings, but there's no proof of that yet. Neither do we know whether his paternal great-grandparents, Amenhotep II and Tiaa, were closely related. His commoner maternal grandparents, Yuya and Tuyu, were probably not closely related. So I don't think that Akhenaten was highly inbred, though his (probable) son Tutankhamun was inbred, sufficiently intensely to make his DNA appear as the product of a brother-sister union (even if it wasn't).
I was at this talk when it was held online before. So glad it got uploaded here for everyone to enjoy.
this was a brand new version but glad you enjoyed it anyway!
Amazing talk. Thankyou
Thank you! 🙏
Thanks!
Thank you!
Thank you for another really interesting lecture. Thoroughly enjoy them.
Thank you!
Hi Chris and other folks.
Watching this made me think of some thoughts and research I did awhile back into the reign length of Horemheb. My theory may well already be in an academic study somewhere but I have not come across it as yet. The three reign lengths for Horemheb I have seen discussed and debated are 14 years, 27 years and 59 years. The current 0:12 consensus I think is 14 years, which makes sense to me, judging by those wine labels found in Horemheb’s tomb (KV57). Theoretically, could be 13 or 15-16, but 14 sounds reasonable to me.
But the 27 and 59 years obviously came from somewhere.
27 years is recorded at Horemheb’s mortuary temple. For me, this seems to be a case of Tutankhamun and Ay having their years subsumed for Horemheb, as I think, from memory, it was their mortuary temple Horemheb took over. Tutankhamun and Ay had an approximate totalled reigns of about 14 years. So if the record of 27 years for Horemheb is associated with his year of death, then 27 - 13-14 yea4s (?) gives us 14 years of actual reign, and so 27 is a kind of legal fiction, so to speak, not just a scribal error.
When it comes to the 59 years, I think a similar idea applies. And this definitely rides on a legal fiction IMO.
The Year 59 comes from the tomb of Mes in Saqqara (Memphis). A text on his tomb wall details a court case regarding land he managed to win back from a land shark (lol). The court case was in Year 59 of Horemheb. From this, I can only think Mes is relying on accepted dating the court officials were using. So why? Because it had been decided to erase several reigns but give those pharaohs’ reign years to Horemheb. Year 59 may not be equal to his actual Year 14, but I’ll use that as a marker.
So a little maths. Year 59 minus Year 14 gives us 45 years. So how do we account for the 45 lost years?
Removing Akhenaten’s reign is a pretty obvious IMO. He is referred to in the same wall text as ‘the criminal of Akhetaten’ or similar, clearly identifying him. So 45 minus 17 (approx) gives us 28 years. Remove Tutankhamun and Ay = 14 years (approx). We then have 14 years. Then the mysterious Neferneferuaten, 3 or more years. [The Akhenaten/Neferneferuaten years are up in the air for me, but I’m only talking in approximates anyway). So we have 11 years (approx) Left outstanding.
No matter how hard one may try, while not getting silly, those 11 years just can’t be added to the total number of years of the pharaohs from Akhenaten to Ay. So where must we look?
Amenophis III has to be the only candidate to be brought in to account for the missing years!
I have thought for quite awhile that if a number of years must be taken from Amenophis III then it might well be logical to bring in his penchant for The Aten as a defining factor. He becomes the Dazzling Aten. He has a palace and a town built at Malkata to celebrate the divine sun disc (orb for mine, but who am I anyway, lol?) Is this when folks of Horemheb’s time decided the ‘criminality’ had begun? Amenophis III was a revered King, but who wanted to remember the oddities of his later reign? How do you remove the bad taste? Wipe it away!
As I’ve said, the estimated years involved can only be approximate. But if the 1st heb sed festival, or a few years before, was when later folk looked to the start of the Aten nonsense, then maybe an estimated (still approximate!) number of years might be subtracted from Amenophis III’s reign. 39 years minus 9 (to Year 30). 9 years? 11 years? 15 years? Who can say? But the Aten business in Amenophis III’s reign is surely behind those unaccounted for years beyond those already subtracted from Akhenaten to Ay.
The thing is, Mes is using a legal fiction in his tomb, that is, that Year 59. Its illogical to think he just pulled that Year out of the air. He records a legal case for posterity. So I detect it was the time marker the court officials were using too. Yet why take years away from Amenophis III? For me, it’s that early Aten business. Afterall, as Chris shows us, Amenophis became the Aten, a divine figure while still alive. Was that the specific trigger point when folks got all retrospective and decided to erase certain unsavoury years? So should we see an erasure of all the years from Amenophis III’s year 30(ish?) until the death of Ay? Makes sense to me.
Note: If Year 59 is not Horemheb’s actual Year 14, I would still think it late in the reign, unless we go back quite a bit deeper in Amenophis III’s reign for that ‘trigger’ point I conjectured about above that did not please folks of Horemheb’s time.
If this is all old hat, please someone tell me. If not, you read it here first, lol. ✅
Thanks Chris, great lecture!
Thank you Lyn! Really appreciate the contribution, thanks 🙏
Enjoyed that so much! Great lecture
Just wanted to note that I think that at least one of the Akhnaten colossi at Karnak, ( the one on the right ) in the photograph , time stamped 26:51, appear to be now located in the Ashmolean museum.
Where I currently work!
Would you like me to post an image online . If I am able to
Thanks!
@@miraho1391 I've just checked and it seems Manniche only lists two statues that are outside Egypt, one in Cambridge and one in Munich. I guess what's in Oxford is something similar but not quite the same...?
Thankyou for looking into this.
I did a little research myself and the Ashmolean statues were found in a rubbish filled chamber, near a garden shrine where they originally would have stood.
Found by the Egypt exploration society
AN1924:162
There are TWO quite large statues of Akhenaten at the Boston Museum of Fine Art in Boston, Massachusetts.
Thanks
Thank you!
Very interesting lecture ,thanks 👍👍
Thank you!
The part where Chris talks about Nebmaatre Amenophis becoming divine while still alive made me think of Horemheb and the text on the tomb of Mes at Saqqara that recorded for posterity a court case over land ownership Mes won which occurred in ‘Year 59’ of Horemheb.
For me, it is clear the Memphis court officials involved were using some kind of date reckoning that gave Horemheb (at the time of the court hearing) a reign length (currently of) 59 years. It’s a legal fiction, for mine. With Horemheb’s actual reign very likely to be 14 years or close to that, we must account for that 45 years added. (Basing this on his Year 14, though it might have been in his Year 1, or 7, or 12, or whatever, but not past the 14 years).
So if we need to find 45 years (at least!), where are they to be found?
The ‘criminal of Akhetaten’ is also mentioned in the text, so I think it likely Akhenaten’s years have been given to Horemheb. But that’s not 45 years.
So we might easily decide the figure must include all the years of pharaohs from Akhenaten until Horemheb. Those pharaohs that Horemheb and the Ramessieds tried to erase from history.
Still, no matter how you count them up, the reigns of those pharaohs just won’t make up 45 years. I’m guessing around 10-15 years need accounting for.
The only way I think that can be done is by taking up some of Nebmaatre Amenophis’s years of reign. Why? I have thought for a long time it must have to do with the rise of the Aten.
Nebmaatre Amenophis built a new palace and town named for the Aten. He himself became the Dazzling Aten.
So when the court officials in Memphis decided on that Year 59, surely there was a dating anchor point to set their reckoning. Was it the day in Nebmaatre Amenophis’s reign when he officially announced his rise to godhead while still alive? Say circa Year 30 or so? Works for me.
If you’re checking the comments, Chris, I’d love to know what you think about this. (I also have some thoughts on the Year 27 mortuary temple dating too, lol).
A wonderful explanation, which makes perfect sense to entail the legitimacy from father to offspring. I hope that you will put this in a future book. My visit to the site as a location of the rebirth of the succession within the context of the heliotrope ( new city, new life, birth of a God strengthening the rule of a son) cheers and many thanks.
Thank you! And yes, some of this will make it into the next book I think (due 2026 if I can get my act together...). Watch this space!
Thank you for the fascinating video 🩷
My pleasure, thanks for watching!
Hi Chris. Just joined as a subscriber and an alasbaster!!
I have been thinking of some suggestions of further talk topics for you:
First born who never made it to king.........akhenaten was second born I think. Ther must have been others.
What was Ehypt like when the hyksos reined? What happened to the ehyptian royal family?
Plants and gardens - there are some great examples of scenes of lush gardens in tombs I think - what was the relationship between these and the people/royalty
This kecture was great and you have now got me thinking bery differently about 'those' statues.
hi Emma, thanks so much for joining! Welcome to the club! And many thanks for your suggestions! At some point soon I will need to start making a plan for the talks beyond September, and I will bear your suggestions in mind... I hope to have a more topics ready by the time of the next talk so watch this space!
Fascinating talk Chris,I was wondering if Akhenaten was worshipping his father in the Aten guise.Your theory makes perfect sense.Another reason for Amenhoteps deification might have been to Amenhotep,s health failing in his later years?
Yes, this may have been a part of it!
If his mummy is correctly identified (i.e. did Butehamun et al. get the IDs right?), Amenhotep III was short, stocky and much afflicted in middle/old age.
Danke!
Thank you, I really appreciate your generosity!
I love this theory that the Amarna-style statues are not depicting Akhenaten himself.
Aussie replay crew 😊
Hi! Thanks for coming!
Great talk, Chris. Got to it at the first opportunity.
Are you coming to Monash University to give another in Melbourne? If so, when?
Hi Robert! thanks for watching 😀 I would LOVE to come back to Monash / Melbourne at some point, just need another invitation 😉
Is there anything known about how this new way of depicting people got started?
I imagine the Egyptian culture as very (extremely?) traditional, so I wonder if there was an artist who abandoned the traditions who came therefore into favour with the new court....or that it was the vision of Akhenaten and Nefertiti that was the inspiration for this new style for that short period...?
The short answer to this is 'no'! We cannot know what the thinking was, and it's possible that, at one extreme, Akhenaten/Nefertiti were uninvolved and uninterested, and simply figure-heads for the new way of doing things, or that they were driving the whole thing forward and that the new way of doing things was entirely their vision. What is clear is that, someone made a very deliberate and conscious decision to change things, whereas the subtler changes in art in previous times could more easily be put down to one or more artists particular style or way of seeing things. Fascinating, but we can only speculate!
@@ChristopherNaunton
That is a very interesting idea…. The ones who are at the top or in the public eye more or less always get the “blame” of and when things take a “radical change”. I doubt we will ever truly know who was the driving force as such. Much like who was it that decided to “write” the Armana gang out of history, at least publicly, was it Horemheb? Was it his successor? Indeed could it even be the people sitting behind the throne, who in many ways all Empires have had pulling the strings for their own purposes?
It is imho very important that you raise these concepts and ideas, it is what makes history interesting (in any era) as it get the little grey cells working!
Thanks from Brazil
Much appreciated, thank you!
Interesting that the Aten relief predates his name change
How did they deal with algae growth in the artificial lakes and irrigation canals?
I'm not sure anyone knows to what extent this was an issue let alone if/how they dealt with it - I certainly don't , sorry!
@@ChristopherNaunton makes me wonder if that's why all the statues of Sekhmet were necessary
Thank you for a fascinating talk. Your points about the statues representing Shu and the point about the Aten as being somehow linked to Amenhotep III are ideas I have not heard before and seem worthy of continued investigation. I have a question. I often hear the idea expounded that there was some form of epidemic during Akhenaten's reign and there appear to be various hypotheses regarding this. What are your thoughts, what evidence is there on this matter?
As I understand it, the suggestion that there may have been an epidemic comes in part from the apparent death of at least one of Akhenaten's daughters, Meketaten, and possibly others at a young age, the apparent high turnover of pharaohs at the time (Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten), and eventual absence of an ideal successor - which might explain why Tutankhamun, whose parentage is uncertain, came to throne, and also the appeal of an Egyptian Queen to the Hittites for a husband who could become king of Egypt. We also now have the remains of a significant number of the population from Amarna from the Stone Village cemetery, analysis of which has suggested that there may have been some widespread illness. But the idea of an epidemic is rejected here on p, 7: www.amarnaproject.com/documents/pdf/horizon-newsletter-18.pdf Thanks for watching!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you. I shall look forward to reading this.
Very interesting lecture, introducing some new ideas. Note: 1:04:33 Queen Mutemwiya is said to have been a minor wife of Thutmose IV. It has been suggested that she may have been the sister of Yuya, who was possibly the central figure in the genealogy of the late 18th Dynasty.
Thanks, you're right about Mutemwia, and I was conscious of this as I was saying it. If I remember rightly, no wife of pharaoh took the title 'Great Royal Wife' from the time of Hatshepsut, until Tiye - the suggestion being that Hatshepsut's reign may have encouraged her immediate successors to diminish the standing of the women in the royal family. Mutemwia may not therefore have been a lesser wife as such, and might still have been the most important, it's just that she didn't take that title (Hmt nsw wrt).
@@ChristopherNaunton I visited the British Museum a couple of weeks ago, and in the ground floor Egyptian sculpture hall I particularly wanted to see the dyadic statue of Horemheb and Amenia... only to be told it was on loan to an exhibition elsewhere. However, near its usual location, I was surprised to see two items of Mutemwiya: her on a sacred boat on a sledge, and another which I don't remember exactly what (possibly her head or a shabti). Given how small a selection of objects is on display (relative to the vast sweep of ancient Egyptian history) and Mutemwiya's relative obscurity, I was somewhat startled.
Chris, is there a way to send a donation to you on this TH-cam version of your talk?
Thanks for asking! There should be a 'thanks' button underneath the video to allow you to do this but I gather this might not be visible to viewers in all countries. An alternative would be to use PayPal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/chrisnaunton Thanks again! 🙏
@@ChristopherNaunton No button in Mexico. I used Paypal.
@@bweaverla V useful to know, and thanks again Brad!
Can I please email you, Dr. Naunton? I need your help with something Egyptology related that I cannot do on my own. I know it's a weird request, but it's only something an expert in this arena can help me out with.
Feel free to drop me a line via this page: chrisnaunton.com/contact/ But please bear with me if I'm not quick to reply!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you, Chris! You're the best! 🙂
@@ChristopherNaunton I sent it, but I did notice that you don't accept "critical appraisals" of one's research, as you are currently behind on your own research. I'm praying that this doesn't fall into that category.
Very thought provoking
Something that has occurred to me ….when a “new” religion is “started” as such taking or grabbing from the previous is a way to make it if not easier to understand, ten easier to accept …..rolling up several gods into one …..not exactly the same but possibly akin to when Christianity had the “triad” of Father, son and Holy Ghost, the previous what ever people may want to call that had Mother, Maiden, Crone or variations on said.
It’s not my intention to upset any people with faith, with my comment, maybe only just me but I can see the rhymes in History as such.
Interesting thought! And yes, I agree... It's clear in fact that even during the Amarna Period it was impossible to do away with the old gods entirely, because the Egyptians' entire world view was based on a set of gods and myths etc which could not simply be put down. I find it hard to think like this myself, but everyone in your entire world believes the same set of myths it's very difficult to think differently, and so inevitably when a new way of thinking comes along, people find it more palatable to take some of the old ways along, assimilating them etc.
Could the Aten have been the combination of akennaten and nefratiti? Like depicted in the large statues. Perhaps not but it's interesting to think about.
I think all possibilities like that are 'on the table;' but I think it's probably harder to construct an argument that this was the case, than that the Aten was Amenhotep III. We're so short of good hard evidence for the subtleties of the ideas, that we can only speculate!
Congratulations on England's win against Netherland.
Thanks!
Please tell us your thoughts on the Orion Theory soon. I read much in the official and less in alternative, but sorry, it is bulletproof. Is it time to wake up to that fact?
No waking up required! I'm neither an astronomer nor a surveyor, but I understand that in fact the relative positions of the stars in Orion's belt do *not* quite match the positions of the pyramids, and that the line with a kink in it that can be drawn through the three stars, is, though similar to arrangement of the pyramids, in fact presents a *mirror image* of the latter i.e. not the same. The alignment theory, although, it has received a lot of attention and may seem very persuasive to some, has been challenged by both astronomers and in Egyptology by, in particular, Prof Kate Spence of Cambridge University, who is both an architect and Egyptologist, and therefore very well placed to critique the idea. Moreover, the broader conclusion that the alignment means that the pyramids and sphinx were built much earlier (c. 10,000 BCE) than the current consensus view (c. 2,700 BCE), requires us to disregard the *masses* - inscriptions, ceramics, geology etc - of evidence that the pyramids were built during the Fourth Dynasty, and to assume that all archaeological traces of the earlier activity have disappeared. And this is simply not how archaeology works - the archaeological *evidence* all points to the 4th Dynasty, everything else is just (flawed) speculation! I'll be discussion some aspects of this in my next talk , 'Pyramid Mythbusting': th-cam.com/video/KjOiTX8INrY/w-d-xo.html
Oh, nice. Thanks for the reply. The book 'Origins of the Sphinx' tackles many of these criticisms in the appendix. The 'upside-down' thing is destroyed. The pyramids don't need to be that old, but the Sphinx can be as old as Gobekli Tepe, or older. It certainly looks that old. The pyramids could be built upon original markings/mounds. He goes through all the 'evidence' of Khafre being the builder and, well, there just isn't any evidence at all. It's an opinion based on one flaked-off syllable. The astronomy is tight when seen all together because it's too much, and it fits with the Pyramid Texts' expression of the Orion as the dead king. The three pyramids are accurate enough to Orion - very accurate, if it's religious art. The alignment of 10,500 BC is a 'First Time' also as the lowest point in Orion's cycle. The missing evidence is probably reused statuary. The 4th Dynasy probably revamped the site and recarved the Sphinx head, which is less weathered. Just look at the rainfall cuts in the rock enclosure and compare to 4th Dynasty wind erosion. It's really hard because Egypt has been so ruined and pillaged for so long. We get scraps left. I promise, if you really read Bauval's work in order, ignore the imitations and the oddballs that poison the well, and take the time with the astronomy it becomes really hard to deny. Of course. He can't be right about everything, but the astronomy is the key. A university in Italy did an investigation (so said) and found the OCT unfalsifiable. Pyramids, Sphinx and Nile - Orion, Leo and the Milky Way. And yes, you can see evidence of Leo being a lion for them in the sky. The constellation even looks radically like the Sphinx.
Just throwing that your way. No argument beyond this point from me. I'm just saying really read the stuff from source. Standard Egyptology is constantly simplifying and misinterpreting the actual facts of the work.
Leave that with you. So nice of you to reply.
Continue: El Amarna depictions of Aten; the rays end in Ankh- Symbol, for me upside down. Open a picture of Akhenaten ( Osiris- aspect in particular)sculptures in your telephone, iPad or computer. Tilt the screen so you long along the screen. Can you see it? The exaggerated body forms an Ankh upside down, like the pharaoh were an ending of sunrays/ sun. Does it make sense? I think Amenhotep III and his son created a new somewhat megalomaniac divine ideology...
...sorry: tilt the screen, look ALONG screen...
Hernandez William Lopez Ronald Rodriguez Mark
Its like he talked about everything else but.
Ah, did Barry Kemp die... so sorry. Such a great man.
Yes, very sad news: www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jun/12/barry-kemp-obituary
I don't think the Pyramids were Tombs! if you notice the ADAMs Pyramid in South Afrika along with Great Zimbabwe and the Pyramids of Giza are all Aligned on the 30th Parallel! and I don't think that was a coincidence., South Afrika has the Ankh carved in dolerite.
@@timboslyce1290 I would urge you to watch my talk on Pyramids (th-cam.com/users/liveKjOiTX8INrY?si=902uni9M5E2Eiv1D) if you haven’t already, and in particular the section on the question of whether or not they were tombs (staring at around 1:11:59). The evidence that this what they were is overwhelming! If you’re still not persuaded then there’s nothing more I can do for you!
I just have to say.. that for acedemia to describe the statue of Akhenaten as being "grotesque you might say" is in fact saying a man with feminine features, or a condition that gave him such, is grotesque. It is actually directing people watching this to agree the same and has always bothered me as being bias to the preconcieved notion that men should look masculine. I dont agree with that. There is nothing wrong with how the artist portrayed him, in fact it has always been my favorite statue of great mystery and I find it incredibly beautiful. Elongated heads and everything. These were the features of that royal family including those obviously passed down to his son Tutankhamun. They were not like others. In fact these features are found in skulls in South America. His sculpture was intended to show him as he really was, and it might be the only portrayal of how people with elongated heads and different body porportions actually looked like. It was not a "different artistic style" based on inflated ego. Most statues and other depictions of ancient people probably didn't portray much of what was anatomically correct of them throughout the whole history of egyptian art. But here was Akhenaten saying he didnt want to be portrayed as anything "normal", "perfect" , or "godlike" but to show his natural features and his everyday life with his beautiful family. And if he did indeed have the condition like Marfan's, or other, then it is incredibly childish to say anyone's features that are not "normal" are grotesque. No-one but the ostenatious and immature would say that about someone living today.
He said some would say and then said it was a loaded term, hence agreeing with you.
How do we know sure that it is the sun and not Niburu or another planet?
Well, the sun seems most likely for lots of reasons...
😑
Dr Ahmed Osman wrote in over 7 books who these pharaohs really were. From King david in the bible to moses and his son jesus,
For someone who spends time on mic you sure have a wild ehhhhm habit that needs addressing.
...No surprise of their spirituality black people have always been spiritual.👃✌😎
As soon as he said the pyramids are tomb I am done...Academia is obsolete and tyranical..bye bye...
Byyyyeee
You should watch some of the videos on the "History for Granite" TH-cam channel, he also has a certain amount of derision for "mainstream academia", but despite that his videos are well researched and don't end up in some fantastical plain involving aliens. He mostly (exclusively?) makes videos about the 4th Dynasty pyramids and his going theory at the moment is the pyramids were indeed tombs, but tombs that were meant to be re-accessed at certain ceremonial times to venerate the king after their death.
Do not discount mainstream academia so flippantly, despite what you may think of the depth of your internet education, experts in their field do know more than you. You may know more about Egypt than the guys at your work or your local pub, but you do not know more than a guy that has thought of nothing but Egypt for 20 years, a person that has read papers and listened to thousands of hours of lectures by other guys that have also been thinking of Egypt and the world Egypt existed in for more than 20 years. Our internet education comes nowhere near what these people know, you would be better served to listen to what they have to say, even if you ultimately don't agree with their conclusions.
Or... you can stick your fingers in your ears, bury your head in the sand, and go "la la la la, I know 'The Truth'."
Good that you go.
I'm with you @jordanbey870. Its getting old already. So bizarre that people are still being led to believe they are tombs, as if stating that as fact, while knowing not a single Pharaoh has EVER been found in one, makes it true. Hoping as if certain the discovery of one will absolutely happen "one day" putting all us tinfoil-hat alt-history naysayers to rest. Even more weird that people keep blindly believing outdated info without researching the latest scientific progress and discoveries. The great pyramids were so much more than mere "tombs". They had a functional purpose for something. It is absolutely evident once you go there and see them in real life. The Osirion at Abydos proves that they knew how to create stone structures with function. Not burial. It is a massive stone structure, the size of a 4 or 5 story tall and wide apartment building, that sits perfectly balanced on water saturated sand, 900 meters above the granite basement, without sinking, somehow breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, while pushing water up from an unknown underwater aquifer that is not Nile water. Water that knows how to refill the muddy debris filled spaces around the center structure every time we try to excavate/pump it out. We aren't saying friggen aliens made them, but hammer and copper or bronze chisel everyday ancient egyptian workers sure as hell didnt. Just humans with more advanced intelligence and skill. Why is that so hard to accept? Whatever. Their loss.. let them believe in simple tombs as an explanation for everything.
Sure, Sherlock. You obviously dedicated your life to research, lol.
21:54 Decamps being the appropriate surname here.
22:54 Wonky draughtsmanship. Shu. Bewb.
24:24 UFO glyph with emerging Martian
26:19 Shu Sale: Everything Must Go
27:49 The WWF Belt and QR Codes are later additions
29:49 ⛔⛔🚫🚫👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻
32:34 For 'Tuna', see Tolkien
36:49 As with Ezbet-el, so with Akhetaten ('The Sun at the Horizon'): a pharaoh's name is given to a place-construct
41:34 Key phrase: 'Hypothetical alignments'
44:34 Malkata / Malqata never existed; the city layout corresponds to Petrie's layout at TANIS--the legitimate site.
46:04 Shown: TANIS layout, superimposed over a blank landscape.
53:10 First legit image: defacement--literally--and mutilation of two magnificent men (including the spurious bar code glyphs)
53:55 ⛔⛔🚫🚫👎🏻👎🏻
54:50 ⛔⛔🚫🚫👎🏻👎🏻
56:05 Aakheperre Setepenamen's voyages become 'deified': 'BOAT SHRINE' 🙄🙄
58:20 Both copies: note the awkward positioning of the arms, with their elevated elbows!
1:01:15 CASHETTE.
1:07:30 Dream on. 🙄🙄
1:09:45 Commemorative 'scarab' for a wet nurse infanticide. Shameful.
1:11:25 'Nebmaatra' tbc. This image is for Akhetaten, The Sun at the Horizon, the Master Mariner
1:12:50 Creating a lie to cover who/what the Duat/Amduat actually refers to (as above)
1:13:45 In Brooklyn, NYC: they used Tity the child-killer's face for this mock-up
1:15:10 Tefnut
1:15:50 Shu
You make a lot of noise, but nothing you write makes any sense. By the way, the awkward elbows in the statue are not awkward at all, or are you telling me your elbows touch your hips?!
@@TinkerTaylor-zv1ml SoldierSpy? Is that YOU? 😁😁😆😆😅😅🤣🤣😂😂
Thanks!
Thank you! 🙏
Thanks
Many thanks!
Danke!
Danke schön! 🙏
Thanks!
Thank you! 🙏
Thanks!
Very kind of you to contribute, thank you 🙏
Thanks
Many thanks! 🙏
Thanks!
Thank you David!
Thanks
Thank you!!
Thanks!!
Thanks
Thank you! 🙏
Thanks
Many thanks David, much appreciated!
Thanks
Thank you Richard!
Thanks
Many thanks Alison! 🙏
Thanks!
Thank you Debbie!
Thanks!
Thanks you so much!
Thanks!
Thank you!
Thanks!
Thank you!
Thanks!
Thank you!
Thanks!
Many thanks, much appreciated!
Thanks
Many thanks Ed!
Thanks
Really appreciate this, thanks Angela!
@@ChristopherNaunton thank you for a wonderful lecture !
@@angelarobb9571 Aww, thanks Angela! 🙏
Thanks
Very generous of you, many thanks!
Thanks
Thank you so much Debra!
Thanks
Thanks as always! 🙏