Identifying Pharaoh Smenkhkare & Tutankhamun
The Necessary Decisive Revision of the 18th Dynasty Political Scene
Damien Mackey, December 2011
Poem of Keret
Sources of Ahab's Status
Who was Who, When and Where
Why Two Names?
What Scholars Find
Ahaziah in the Bible
The Companies of Fifty
Considering the Historical & Bible Background
Notes & References - Smenkhkare
See: Ahaziahs & Family Tree
Go to Pharaoh Tutankhamun|
From Rehoboam to Akhnaton
Egypt in Decline
Baasha/Ahab and successors
The Story in 2 Kings 9:17-24
The Race to Bury King Tut
A Description of Tut's Tomb
Where Did the Gold Come from?
Why the 18th Dynasty was largely Israelite
Notes & References - Tutankhamun
List of possible `alter egos'
Chart of Ahaziahs
Source of Gold?
Jump to Tut
the same person as pharaoh Smenkhkare.
Ahaziah, like Jezebel (Nefertiti), died from a fall.
His short reign was in fact one disastrous fall after another. Hence the title of this article. Their background is filled conventionally by the 22nd Dynasty. Why that is not the case we explain here, here and here.
Our revised Egyptian-Biblical interface for the El Amarna [EA] period - based on Immanuel Velikovsky's initial lowering of EA to the mid-C9th BC biblical period , but now greatly modified - seems to have borne fruit, with a succession of biblical rulers and personages of King Asa of Judah's and King Ahab of Israel's dynasties being found in the same chronological sequence as their highly compatible alter egos in EA.
In the EA correspondence we have,
At this point in history we have Jehoshaphat, king of Judah based in Jerusalem, whose family tree included two sons, the eldest of which was Jehoram (ca. 880-841 BC) who had married Athalia, the daughter of Ahab, and ruled for 8 years (2.Chr. 21:20) in Jerusalem and whose son Ahaziah/Azariah (883-841/840 BC) was a grandson of Jehoshaphat. Jehoram of Jerusalem, is said to have begun his reign in the 5th year (ca. 847) of Jehoram/Joram of Israel (ca. 852-841). That must mean that Jehoram of Judah had a coreign with his father between ca. 853-847/848 BC. when his father Jehoshaphat died in 848 BC. His 8 regnal years must then not include this coreign.
Of all of the additional sons of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram died on a disease of the bowels, as prophesied by the prophet Elijah. But before that the incident of the anger of the Philistines and Arabs occurred. - It is important to realize that we must keep apart Jehoshaphat's son and grandson of Judah, from the two sons with the very same name fathered by Ahab, king of Israel. Ahab's Ahaziah, our candidate for Smenkhare, ruled briefly in 853/852 BC, and his son Jehoram or Joram, our candidate for Tutankhamun, between 852-841 BC. Please notice that these two Jehorams/Jorams, of Jehoshaphat and Ahab, ruled during the same space of time. The difference is that in Judah Ahaziah/Azariah was a son of Jehoram and in Israel Ahaziah was a brother of Jehoram/Joram; and in Judah Jehoram ruled before his son Ahaziah, and in Israel Ahaziah ruled before his younger brother Jehoram/Joram, born ca. 861 BC. Then the incident, when Israel's Jehoram/Joram/Tutankhamun, was killed by Jehu tells us that Ahaziah/Azariah of Judah was there to help him (2 Ki 9:27), but was also killed. That means that Ahaziah's brother Jehoram of Judah was already dying or dead of his disease before that, in Jerusalem. It is important to keep these relationships in mind to understand the accounts in the Bible. Thus the house of Jehoshaphat and Ahab was dead by 841 BC. Who succeeded them? In Judah it was Athaliah, the mother of Jehoram and in Israel it was Jehu.
Now I had also, in my university thesis  tentatively identified Labayu's most prominent of his two sons, Mut-Baal, with Ahab's eldest son, Ahaziah. Thus I wrote:
There are several letters that refer to the "sons of Lab'ayu", but also a small number that, after Lab'ayu's death, refer specifically to "the two sons of Lab'ayu". . It follows from my reconstruction that these "two sons of Lab'ayu" were Ahab's two princely sons, Ahaziah (853-852/51) and Jehoram (851-841) ….
Labaya's death was reported by Biridia, Egyptian governor of Syro-Palestine, in the EA letter #245 addressed to the king of Egypt. But Biridia planned at first to capture Labayu; then comes one, Zurata, in the picture who wanted to put Labaya on a ship to Egypt, but then send him to his house. So, at first Labaya was killed, was his body then to be shipped to Egypt to the king, and then, did Zurata convey his body to his house, or was he alive? Perhaps there is a problem with the transliteration of this letter. The problem is, if Labayu was Ahab, and if Ahab was Akhnaton, when Labayu died all three were dead, and we wonder, who was then the king of Egypt who received Biridri's letter? Was it already Smenkhare/Ahazia, so quickly? Well, EA#245 uses the word `sarri/sari' for king - it can also mean queen, which would allow that the letter was sent to Nefertiti who survived Akhnaton. But the word for "queen" in other EA letters, occurs only twice and both times as `Queen of Egypt' as Tushratta writes to Amenhotep III (see EA#26 and 28). Obviously, Tushratta makes it clear that he is proud that his daughter is the queen of Egypt. In the cuneiform we read "sar Miisrii" for `king of Egypt' and "belit Miisrii" for `Queen of Egypt', in the old hieroglypic Egyptian we find several words for queen, two of which are `at' and `nesit'. Tushratta uses a more high flying word for queen, since she was his daughter and he wants to rub it in; but Biridri, writing from Palestine, just uses the common word `sarri'. Thus it appears we have two prime choices, Ahazia/Smenkhare or Jezebel/Nefertiti were meant to receive that letter according to this scenario. We may also have to reasses the idea that Labaya was Ahab.
Only one of the sons of Labaya though, Mut-Baal of Pi-hi-li (= Pella, on the east bank of the Jordan), is specifically named. He, my tentative choice for Ahab's son, Ahaziah - as well as [a] Shuttarna … of Hurri/Mitanni - was the author of EA 255 & 256. [I had identified Artatama, rival of Tushratta, with Ahab, rival of Ben-hadad I. Thus a Shuttarna, son of Artatama, could be Ahab's son].
E. Campbell rightly sensing that "Mut-Ba'lu's role as prince of Pella could conceivably coincide with Lab'ayu's role as prince of Shechem [sic]" , was more inclined however to the view that "Mut-Ba'lu would not be in a prominent enough position to write his own diplomatic correspondence until after his father's death".
But when one realises that Lab'ayu was not a petty ruler, but a powerful king of Israel - namely, Ahab, an Omride - then one can also accept that his son, Mut-Baal/Ahaziah could have been powerful enough in his own right (as either co-rex or pro-rex) to have been writing his own diplomatic letters.
That Ahaziah of Israel might also have been called Mut-Baal is interesting. Biblical scholars have sometimes pointed out, regarding the names of Ahab's sons, that whilst Jezebel was known to have been a fierce persecutor of the Yahwists (1Ki. 18:4), Ahab must have been more loyal, having bestowed upon his sons the non-pagan names of 'Ahaziah' and 'Jehoram'. Along similar lines, Lisa Liel has written in her ADP [Addu Principle] context:
One reason for the use of the generic Addu in place of the actual DN, especially in correspondence between nations worshipping different deities, might have been to avoid the profanation of the divine name by those who did not have the same reverence for it. This would be the case especially for the Israelites. Even Israelites such as Ahab, who introduced Baal worship, did not do so, in their estimation, at the expense of YHVH, Whom they continued to revere. Ahab gave his children (at least those mentioned in the Bible) names containing YHVH: Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash and Athaliah. He also showed great respect and deference to the prophet Elijah.
The truth of the matter is that Ahab called Elijah "my enemy" … (1 Kings 21:20). And, if Elijah were also the prophet, Micaiah son of Imlah … then Ahab also said of him: '… I hate him …' (1.Kings 22:8). Moreover, if, as I am claiming here, Ahaziah of Israel were in fact EA's Mut-Baal - a name that refers to the Phoenicio-Canaanite gods Mot and Baal - then such arguments in favour of Ahab's supposed reverence for Yahwism might lose much of their force. Given the tendency towards syncretism in religion, a combination of Yahwism and Baalism (e.g. 1 Kings 18:21), we might even expect the Syro-Palestinians to have at once a Yahwistic and a pagan name. 
Scholars find that Mut-Baal's kingdom, like that of his father, spread both east and west of the Jordan. They infer from the letters that Lab'ayu had ruled a large area in the Transjordan that was later to be the main substance of the kingdom of Mut-Baal. In EA 255 Mut-Baal writes to pharaoh to say he is to convey one of the latter's caravans to Hanigalbat (Mitanni); he mentions that his father, Lab'ayu, was in the custom of overseeing all the caravans that pharaoh sent there. Lab'ayu could have done so only if he controlled those areas of Transjordan through which the caravans were to pass. The area that came under the rule of Mut-Baal affected territories both east and west of the Jordan.
In EA 256 we learn that the kingdom of Ashtaroth bordered on Mut-Baal's (to the N and E: Ashtaroth being the capital of biblical Bashan/Beth Shean) and that this neighbour was his ally. That Mut-Baal held sway west of the Jordan may also be deduced from EA 250, whose author complains that the "two sons of Labayu" had written urging him to make war on Gina in Jezreel (modern Jenin). The writer also records that the messenger of Milkilu "does not move from the sons of Labayu", indicating … an alliance between these parties, which further suggests that Mut-Baal had interests west of the Jordan.
It will be seen from the above that the territory ruled by Lab'ayu and his sons, which bordered on the territories of Gezer in the west and Jerusalem in the south, also including the Sharon coastal plain, reaching at least as far as the Jezreel valley/Esdraelon in the north, and stretching over the Transjordan to adjoin Bashan, corresponds remarkably well with the territories ruled by Ahab of Israel and his sons. Mut-Baal, as a king of a region of Transjordania (no doubt as a sub-king with his father) had been accused to the Egyptian commissioner, Yanhamu, of harbouring one Ayyab (var. Aiab); a name usually equated with Job. Could this though be a reference to his own father, Ahab (by the latter's biblical name)? Mut-Baal protested against this accusation, using the excuse that Ayyab - whom the Egyptian official apparently suspected of having also been in the region of Transjordania - was actually on campaign elsewhere [EA 256]:
Say to Yanhamu, my lord: Message of Mutbaal, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord. How can it be said in your presence: 'Mutbaal has fled. He has hidden Ayab'? How can the king of Pella flee from the commissioner, agent of the king my lord? As the king, my lord, lives ... I swear Ayab is not in Pella. In fact, he has [been in the field] (i.e. on campaign) for two months. Just ask Benenima….
It should be noted that kings and officials were expected to 'inform' even on members of their own family. Lab'ayu himself had, prior to this, actually informed on one of his fathers-in-law. [Or even his son, according to one version of Lab'ayu's letter EA 254: "Besides, the king has written about my son. I did not know that my son associates with the habiru. Right now I am sending him to Addaya [the Egyptian commissioner"]. These scheming 'vassal kings' were continually changing allegiance; at one moment being reckoned amongst the habiru insurgents, then being attacked by these rebels - but, always, protesting their loyalty to the crown.
Lab'ayu's son too, Mut-Baal - my tentative choice for Ahaziah of Israel (c. 853 BC) … - also displayed in one of his letters (EA 256) some so-called 'Canaanite' and mixed origin words. Albright noted of line 13: "As already recognized by the interpreters, this idiom is pure Hebrew". Albright even went very close to admitting that the local speech was ... phonetically, morphologically, and syntactically the people then living in the district ... spoke a dialect of Hebrew (Canaanite) which was very closely akin to that of Ugarit. The differences which some scholars have listed between Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic are, in fact, nearly all chronological distinctions. 
But even these 'chronological distinctions' cease to be a real issue in the Velikovskian context, according to which both the EA letters and the Ugaritic tablets are re-located to the time of the Divided Monarchy of the two tribes of Judah and the ten tribes of Israel.
If this identification of Mut-Baal with Ahaziah son of Ahab is correct, it would give the lie then to the opinion that Ahab was orthodox enough to have given his sons only Yahwistic names, since the name Mut-Baal would imply a Baal worshipper, which Ahab undoubtedly was.
All good as it stands.
But now, in a more recent historical reconstruction, `The Problem with King Baasha of Israel'
.... on Jeroboam I (I have offered further biblical identifications of Ahab's dynasty, arguing that the dynasty of Baasha of Israel was also Ahab's, and that the Bible's two historical accounts of the one era (all agree that the Books of Kings are composed from various sources) has been mis-represented more recently as referring to two quite distinct historical eras. I have there newly identified:
The fit is very good at least in regard to reign lengths, with Elah/Ahaziah being only an ephemeral king of 2 years of reign (and the 20-22 years of Baasha/Ahab is not bad for Akhnaton, counting co-regencies).
We know extremely little about Elah/Ahaziah as a composite, because of
(i) shortage of reign, but also because
Similarly, we know extremely little about the pharaoh whom I am proposing as the alter ego of Elah/Ahaziah: namely, Smenkhkare. But apparently he, too, reigned for about "two years" (see Grimal quote below). Just how exceedingly obscure Smenkhkare is for the Egyptologists is apparent from J. Tyldesley's highly tentative remarks about him, "possible", "probable": "Smenkhkare … was a shadowy, ephemeral figure, a possible husband to Meritaten and probable co-regent or successor to Akhenaten. Like Beketaten before him, Smenkhkare seemed to spring from nowhere, exist for a short period as a favourite of Akhenaten, and then vanish into obscurity".
The ephemeral nature of the king, I would also put down to the fact that he was (as in the case of Tutankhamun) a ruler of Israel/Transjordania as well. And so he was probably not actually (or always) stationed in Akhetaton. The whole vague thing can lead Egyptologists (e.g. Tyldesley) into an intriguing (though I think ultimately dead-end - on the basis of my own reconstruction) consideration of whether Smenkhkare may actually have been Nefertiti herself, as pharaoh.
Nicolas Grimal in less than a page in total would contain reference to this Smenkhkare (there was apparently also a 13th Dynasty ruler of that same name to whom Grimal refers on one page). The following is about Grimal's entire gist of this "poorly-known" pharaoh, Smenkhkare:
It is apparent from a scene in the el-Amarna tomb of Merire, dated to Akhenaten's twelfth year and showing the king [Akhnaton] face to face with Smenkhkare and Meritaten, that there was a co-regency between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare. Although unproven, this association between the two kings is considered likely: Neferneferuaten Smenkhkare is indeed eventually attested as king and his reign - possibly lasting only two years -- must have intervened between those of Akhenaten and Tutankhaten. It is not clear whether this was a simple co-regency or whether Smenkhkare in fact became sole ruler of the country for a few months. The problem is at present insoluble, since Smenkhkare himself is a poorly-known figure and a great deal of the data concerning him are contradictory. The abandonment of the site of el-Amarna in the first years of the reign of his successor Tutankhaten, has totally confused the evidence. Akhenaten himself was apparently buried, in theory at least, at el-Amarna. The body of Smenkhkare, who died at the age of twenty, was found in a tomb assigned to him in the Valley of the Kings (KV 55). But everything in the tomb - from his funerary equipment to the bandages wrapped around his body - suggests that this was a hasty reburial, probably following upon his transfer from el-Amarna to Thebes. Moreover, Smenkhkare was not the only occupant of the tomb: other remains have been found there which may belong to Queen Tiy. It is therefore generally assumed that the bodies of the whole royal family were transferred there during the reign of Tutankhamun, and only the stone sarcophagi were left in the necropolis of Akhetaten (until they were destroyed by the quarrymen of the Ramessid period).
There are no certainties concerning the succession at the end of the Amarna period - especially regarding the relationship between Akhenaten and his immediate successors. It is likely that the only male heirs were Smenkhkare (born 870 or late 860's)and Tutankhaten (born 862), who may have been cousins or nephews of Akhenaten. Each seems to have legitimized his claim to the throne by marrying one of the king's daughters.
When Tutankhaten inherited the throne from Smenkhkare, at the age of about nine, he married the princess Ankhesenpaaten and lived at first in the 'north city' at Akhetaten. Very soon afterwards, however, Tutankhaten left el-Amarna, although the precise date of his departure is not known; he moved the royal residence back to Memphis, using the palace of Malkata as his temporary residence in Thebes. The city of Akhetaten continued in existence only for those members of the court who remained there - otherwise it was almost entirely abandoned, having only been occupied for about thirty years in all.
There are no certainties concerning the succession at the end of the Amarna period - especially regarding the relationship between Akhenaten and his immediate successors. It is likely that the only male heirs were Smenkhkare (born 870 or late 860's)and Tutankhaten (born 862), who may have been cousins or nephews of Akhenaten. Each seems to have legitimized his claim to the throne by marrying one of the king's daughters.
When Tutankhaten inherited the throne from Smenkhkare, at the age of about nine, he married the princess Ankhesenpaaten and lived at first in the 'north city' at Akhetaten. Very soon afterwards, however, Tutankhaten left el-Amarna, although the precise date of his departure is not known; he moved the royal residence back to Memphis, using the palace of Malkata as his temporary residence in Thebes. The city of Akhetaten continued in existence only for those members of the court who remained there - otherwise it was almost entirely abandoned, having only been occupied for about thirty years in all.[End of quote]
That is about all that we get from Grimal on Smenkhkare.
One could consider more paralleles between the type of Baal type, sun worshipping paganism of this time by noting that they had a Holy of Holies, a concept indepted to the faith of the Hebrews and their sanctuary, and how it taught the necessary cleansing from sin. But while using the concept of `holy of holies,' that is as far as a comparison can go. After that the Hebrew faith, teaching the Creator God and salvation from sin (eternal death), has nothing in common with paganism - earthy gods and their death centered (Osiris ) functions - as opposed to the life giving and sustaining functions of the only true God, who died sacrificially for us sinners, so all of God's faithful people can come back to life again.
The Bible tells us more about the pharaoh, if indeed he were Ahaziah. He was, like his father Ahab, allied to the great king Jehoshaphat of Judah – a great failing on the part of this pious king. Together, they built a fleet of ships of Tarshish. But the project did not get off the ground, so to speak. The fleet was wrecked. At any rate, we must keep in mind this special, not good relationship of Ahaziah, son of Jehoshaphat with Jehoram/Joram, son of Ahab in the year 840 BC. Jehoshaphat's son Ahaziah reigned in that one year Joram (Tutankhamun) was slain by Jehu in 840 BC, and we remember that Ahab's Ahaziah (Smenkhare) had died by 852 BC.
"Now Jehoshaphat built a fleet of trading ships to go to Ophir for gold, but they never set sail--they were wrecked at Ezion Geber." 1 Kings 22:48.
Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, "Because you have made an alliance with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy what you have made." 2.Chr. 20:37. The ships were wrecked and were not able to set sail to trade.
Eventually Ahaziah fell through a lattice and he, suffering serious injury, consulted the god of Ekron, much to the chagrin of the prophet Elijah.
The faith of Ahaziah was shown in 2. Kings 1, after he fell out of a window,
Now Ahaziah fell through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria, and was injured; so he sent messengers and said to them, "Go, inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this injury." 2.Kings 1:2. NKJV
For some reason, he had fallen out of the window and had sustained serious injuries. He was obviously concerned about his condition, and tried to get some reassurance from his gods. He send messengers to Ekron to enquire of Baal-Zebub, but the messengers were intercepted on the way by Elijah, who had been given a message from God for Ahaziah,
But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, "Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say to them, 'Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?'" ... "Now therefore, thus says the LORD: 'You shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but you shall surely die.' " 2.Kings 1:3,4, NKJV.
So Elijah departed.
In this passage, God spells out what Ahaziah had done. In choosing to send to Ekron, he had shown his allegiance. He had made a decision to trust in Baal-Zebub rather than the God of Israel. God highlights this, and then says that he will not recover, but instead would die from his injuries. The use of the word "therefore" in connecting the two ideas shows that the lack of recovery was due to Ahaziah's lack of trust in Yahweh, the God of Israel. Because he had put his trust and allegiance in Baal, he would have to rely on Baal to heal him.
After Ahaziah received the message through Elijah, he then called for Elijah to come to him. He obviously held a regard for Elijah, as he sent a company of 50 soldiers to meet him,
"Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty with his fifty men. So he went up to him; and there he was, sitting on the top of a hill. And he spoke to him: "Man of God, the king has said, 'Come down!'" ... "So Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, "If I am a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men." And fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty." 2.Kings 1:9,10, NKJV.
This was an amazing display from God. From the passage, the display of force appears unprovoked on the surface. It is evident, however, that the captain's use of the term "man of God" was not in true reverence. Instead Elijah chose to give a sign that he was really a man of God, and The sign was very severe. Not only did the fire consume the captain, but his fifty men as well. There doesn't appear to be any significant warning and opportunity for repentance, instead, the response was fast and decisive. This was a very powerful sign, to those who saw it, that the God of Israel was powerful, and that Elijah was his messenger.
This, however, did not deter the next captain of fifty that was sent from the king. If anything, this captain was more demanding than the first, commanding to Elijah, "come down quickly". This captain and group then suffered the same fate. The king then sent a third delegation. This captain behaved somewhat differently, ...
"And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and pleaded with him, and said to him: "Man of God, please let my life and the life of these fifty servants of yours be precious in your sight." 2.Kings 1:13, NKJV.
This time, God told Elijah that he could follow the messenger and see the king. Elijah then gave his previous message in person to the king, saying that he would surely die.
Ahaziah (Smenkhkare) had no sons to succeed him, but was succeeded by his brother, Jehoram (= Tutankhamun). And this is where Ahaziah's alter ego of King Elah comes in. I have identified the latter as the mysterious Hiel the Bethelite, who, in the days of Ahab, built Jericho, at the cost of his two sons.
"In Ahab's time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken by Joshua son of Nun." 1.Kings 16:34 .
[At that time Joshua pronounced this solemn oath: "Cursed before the LORD is the man who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho: "At the cost of his firstborn son will he lay its foundations; at the cost of his youngest will he set up its gates."]
Was this terrible practice the reason why "great wrath" came upon Israel in the time of Ahaziah's brother, Jehoram (2K 3:1,2), when the king of Moab - whom Jehoram had just defeated in an almost miraculous victory (with Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom) - sacrificed his son upon the wall (in imitation of the previous king of Israel?)?
Immediately upon his accession, Jehoram came into conflict with Mesha, king of Moab (2 Ki 3:4 ff). The account of the conflict is of special interest because of the supplementary information concerning Mesha furnished by the Moabite Stone. There we learn (ll. 1-8) that Moab became tributary to Israel in the days of Omri, and remained so for forty years, but that it rebelled in the days of Ahab. This probably brings us to the statement in 2 Ki 3:4ff that Mesha "rendered unto the king of Israel the wool of a hundred thousand lambs, and of a hundred thousand rams," and that "when Ahab was dead, .... the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel." The victories of Mesha, glorified by the Moabite Stone, possibly took place before the events of 2 Ki 3:4 ff. Accordingly, Jehoram resolved to recover the allegiance of the Moabites. He called to his aid the ally of his father, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and the latter's vassal, the king of Edom. Jehoram was entertained at Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant, IX, ii i, 1). The allies marched against Moab by the longer route, around the southern end of the Dead Sea, indicating that Moab was fortified against attack from the West, and that Israel was weak in the East Jordan country. After the allies had been miraculously delivered from perishing for lack of water, they devastated the land and sacked the cities, and finally they succeeded in shutting up Mesha in Kir-hareseth. Driven to despair, Mesha offered his eldest son upon the wall as a burnt offering to Chemosh. This seems to have caused the tide to turn, for "there was great wrath against Israel," and the allies returned to their own land, apparently having failed to secure a lasting advantage.
We saw how wide-ranging was the territory of Ahaziah (Elah) as Mut-Baal. But one would think that he would nevertheless have needed king Jehoshaphat's agreement to rebuild Jericho. Jehoshaphat seems to have been far too compliant towards this wicked king, anyway.
Be that as it may, this new knowledge - Jericho now pinpointed to Smenkhkare's era, to EA - ought to help greatly with the resolution of the Jericho stratigraphy.
CIAS postscript: The end of Smenkhkare, unlike that of Tutankhamun, was accidental. He had fallen down through a roof or balcony and incurred injuries which caused him to die, probably at a similar young age as King Tut.
Part 2: Pharaoh Tutankhamun|
November 1, 2011
From Rehoboam to Akhnaton
Egypt in Decline
Baasha/Ahab and successors
The Story in 2 Kings 9:17-24|
The Race to Bury King Tut
A Description of Tut's Tomb
Why the 18th Dynasty was largely Israelite
Notes & References - Tutankhamun
Ahaziahs & Family Tree
Carbon Dating Tut
How, from Amenhotep III the succession of alter-ego kings included Akhnaton  and Tutankhamon/ Tutankhamun , plus those of Judah, would influence the political scene we want to describe at this time. We assume the reader has a basic knowledge of Egyptian antique history and the history as presented in the Bible, particularly the books of Kings and Chronicles. Most realize that Tutankhamun has been Egyptology personified ever since they found his tomb , and that is why we spend some space and time on it, for, until recently, no one dreamt of finding real, life alter egos for this line of kings. It advances the historical books of the Bible to a large degree. We may or may not bring all the scriptures which present the background, for you can follow that in your own Bibles. We expect you to follow each link for the linear chronological sequences of the rulers we discuss and those for additional details.
To start with we present a list of the alter-egos we discuss followed by the reasoning on how it all fits perfectly together.
Following the death of Rehoboam (930-913) and his son Abijah (913-911, Asa reigned in Judah/Jerusalem during the approximate time of Amenhotep III reigning in Egypt. It has been suggested that the two were the same person, however, studying the Amarna letters of Amenhotep III, seems to make that quite unlikely and CIAS refrains from identifying him as the alter-ego of Pharaoh Amenhotep III who had his palace at Thebes. In the 5th year (907 BC), Amenhotep III fights his great Libyan war. His general Merymose, may possibly be the later King Omri of Israel. The war took place in his 15th year (896/5), 2.Chr, 15:10,11. This is approximately year 41 of Thutmose III, whose son, Amenhotep II may well be `Zerah the Ethiopian' (Thut III may have had Nubian blood being the Nehesi of the Punt expedition) who led the massive army of a million men against Asa, king in Jerusalem. King Asa's victory was so great, that it brought to an end the long series of Egyptian campaigns into Syro-Palestine under Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. Egypt was now a spent force. The reign of Amenhotep II was largely synchronous with the last 15-17 years of Thutmose III, in particular if Amenhotep II and III were the same king. The fame or extent of Pharaoh Amenhotep III was probably throughout the Medeteranian region, for his cartouche was found at Myceneae. 
That Tutankhamun grew up into a king who had to concern himself with warfare is evident from the evidence for that from art work as well as the contents of his tomb which contained also "scales of armor and eight shields".  The diet of Egyptians included: bread made of emmer wheat flower, almonds, tigernuts, olives, eggs, butter or milk, nuts, seeds like caraway, coriander and aniseed, watermelons, dates, figs, pomegranates, grapes, honey, onions, leeks, garlic, beans, chickpeas, lentils, lettuce, and cucumbers. Meat items included beef, pork, geese, ducks, chicken, lamb ... . Unfortunately they did get drunk on alcolholic beverages. Their average life expectancy was 35, Amenhotep III reached about 50 years of age.
Riches untold from the era of Amenhotep III included valuables which he used to decorate his constructions. Altogether sources state that the record reveals more than 3 tons of electrum, 2.5 tons of gold, 924 pounds (420 kg) of copper, 1250 lbs (560 kg) of lapis-lazuli, 215 lbs (97 kg) of turquoise, 1.5 tons of bronze, and 10 tons of copper. [JFL, p. 117.]
With Egypt in decline, the mighty King Asa, now with tens of thousands of captured foreign troops at his disposal, began to spread out from Judah into northern Israel. Ben-hadad/Ashurnasirpal/Yuya may have been pushed out of Israel and stationed himself at Damascus. - Apparently Asa had made an alliance with Jeroboam I; one which he would later renew with Jeroboam's son, Ben-hadad.
Asa, son of Abijam, after a long and peaceful reign blessed by God, in which he must have ruled a large portion of the world (possibly Babylon also - he is to be considered as one of Hammurabi's strong successors there), went into decline by about his 38th year in 874 BC, physically, with a disease in his feet (1.Kings 15:23), and spiritually, given his consultation now of medicine men and his mistreatment of a prophet. The reason? - It was likely due to knowledge of the evil Queen Tiy, as Nefertiti, at this time. She, being a worshiper of Baal (as Queen Jezebel), would have urged anyone in his situation to consult magicians and to mistreat his prophet.
It is only now that Baasha/Ahab comes on the scene - with the death of Omri - as ruler of Samaria, after having (as Baasha) reigned two years at Tirzah. He continually fights wars with Asa, whose reign right until then had been peaceful and untroubled 2Chr. 16:1. - Baasha, Elah and Zimri have all been misplaced, and should be recognized as, respectively, Ahab, Ahaziah (as Elah he is the Hiel the Bethelite who rebuilt Jericho) , and Jehu (whom Jezebel calls "Zimri"). - As Ahab's political strength increases, Amenhotep III fades away and dies, in 871 BC. Ahab now also married Tiy/Nefertiti and assumes the rulership of Egypt as Akhnaton.  Asa's son Jehoshaphat, who himself will become a real power, seems to be the secondary partner in an alliance (unapproved by the prophets) with Ahab. - Ahab's sons, Ahaziah (Elah) and Joram/Jehoram - not necessarily both by Jezebel - may be, respectively, Akhnaton's sons - not necessarily both by Tiy -- Nefertiti - Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun (whose mother may have been Kiya).
In the last year of his reign, Jehoram and his nephew of Ahaziah, laid siege to Ramoth-Gilead (which had been the site of an earlier siege that had given rise to Jehu's conspiracy, 2.Ki. 9:23). Jehoram clashed with the Syrians, now under the command of King Hazael, and was wounded. He retired to, and in fact took up residence on, what used to be Naboth's vineyard. Ahaziah stayed with him. ( 2.Ki. 8:28-29)
Soon afterward, a watchman spotted a company of men approaching the residence. Jehoram ordered the watchman to send a messenger on horseback.  A messenger went, but did not return. The watchman sent out a second messenger, with the same result—but now the watchman knew, from the way the company was moving, that the leader could only be the noted officer Jehu. Jehoram and Ahaziah prepared their chariots and rode out to meet Jehu. When Jehoram drew to within shouting distance, he asked Jehu, "Is it peace?" Jehu answered that it was definitely not peace, on account of the abominable practices of the dowager queen, 2.Ki. 9:22. Jehoram turned and fled, and said to Ahaziah that they had been tricked. Almost at once an arrow struck him in the back between the shoulder blades and exited at his heart, so that he died instantly. (2.Ki. 9:17-24 ) 
The frequent encounters between the Syrian ruler, his might, and that of Ahab and his people, may provide a clue at a critical time for we read,
"And they (the two lepers) rose up in the twilight, to go unto the camp of the Syrians: and when they were come to the uttermost part of the camp of Syria, behold, there was no man there. For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel (Ahab) hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us. Wherefore they arose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life." 2.Kings 7:5-7.
New International Version (NIV)
17 When the lookout standing on the tower in Jezreel saw Jehu's troops approaching, he called out, "I see some troops coming."
The Race to Bury King Tut . . .
... the young king may have died in battle, away from the Valley of the Kings - the `Gates of the
Kings', `Biban el Moluk' in Arabic. But he died far away, in a place where there was no natron available for the full mummification process.
... the young king may have died in battle, away from the Valley of the Kings - the `Gates of the Kings', `Biban el Moluk' in Arabic. But he died far away, in a place where there was no natron available for the full mummification process.
Thus it had to be an emergency operation, firstly, with the natron stuffed in to the mummy later, in Egypt  and, probably secondly, with the assembling of all the grave goods, gifts and treasures, brought together and placed in there nice and neatly until grave robbers/guards caused some disarray.
Christine El Mahdy states, "All the evidence from the tomb shows that the burial of the king was an extremely hasty one. The sarcophagus was borrowed; the lid was found as scrap and some attempt had been made to paint it; the burial shrines were banged together in the wrong order; the paintings in the burial chamber are distorted and the painters had not cleaned up the mess they made; and much of the important funerary equipment, such as the Canopic jars ... and the bands along the King's body were not his. The statues, many of which belonged to a woman and not to him, display all the signs of being taken from elsewhere. They are a nonsensical and incomplete set. Most of the furniture and many of the other pieces belonged to his early childhood, things he had long outgrown." 
The `things he had outgrown' comment by the author seems to help to realize, that the king spent his later life to a significant length of time far enough away from Egypt, that his things from his later teen years did not make it to the tomb, for they were largely in Israel and didn't make it to Egypt upon his death; only his early teen things were thus left in Egypt from where they made it to the tomb. We can say this, because these kings were not solely kings of Egypt. They had far flung responsibilities and knowing this, helps us to comprehend their time in much improved ways.
We may also estimate that, since the royal line, the `House of Ahab' in Israel, was now totally destroyed, the responsible official for the funeral of King Tut, made sure that the boy king would be buried in Egypt and not in Israel like his father and brother.
Yet, as to the mummies themselves, Yuya's seems to have been somewhat better preserved, than that of Tut - for the latter's was a fast job. It appears Ben-Hadad/Yuya was smothered to death, while he was sick in bed, by Hazael, in the Damascus area (2.Kings 8:8-15), for that was his center of power. They may have been able to find in his town, unlike in Israel, enough preservatives, (they also used pitch from trees, he came from Lebanon), before they had him transported to Egypt.
The vivid biblical account of the death of Joram/Jehoram (of Israel) may go a long way towards explaining the peculiarities with the mummy and rushed burial of Tutankhamun, Jehoram of Israel's proposed alter ego . - If we have indeed found the true biblical identification of the famous `boy king', Tutankhamun in king Joram/Jehoram of Israel (who is given a bad press in the Bible, but less so than his brother, Ahaziah), then this must surely be an astounding discovery for Egyptology - a defeat of the idea, that history gives to the lives of these rulers no final answer!!  Yet, B. Mertz (1927-??) said she would scream if they had another article on Tut. (`Archaeology,' March/April 2005, p. 46-51.)
Another resigned authority on Egyptian history is quoted as saying, "The end of Akhetaten's reign is cloaked in confusion - a scene acted out behind closed curtains. One or possibly two kings rule for a short period of time, either alongside Akhnatons, after his death, or both. Like many other Egyptologists, I believe the first of the "kings" is actually Nefertiti, the second is a mysterious figure called Smenkhkare about whom we know almost nothing, . What we know for sure is that, when the curtain opens on Act III, the throne is occupied by a young boy king; the nine year old Tutankhaten (`the living image of Aten'). Within the first two years of his tenure on the throne, he and his wife Ankhesenpaaten (a daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti) abandon Amarna and return to Thebes, reopening the temples and restoring their wealth and glory. They change their names to Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun, proclaiming their rejection of Akhenaten's heresy and their renewed dedication to the cult of Amun. - - Then the curtain falls. Ten years after his ascending the throne, Tutankhamun is dead, leaving no heirs to succeed him. He is hastily buried in a small tomb, designed originally for a private person rather then a king. In a backlash against Akhenaten's heresy, his successors manage to delete from history nearly all traces of the Amarna kings, including Tutankhamun." 
The inability to penetrate the enigma who these pharaohs were in more detail is quite profound, for they would really like to know more about them. Well, we have provided more for you to consider, which may help greatly, except it requires to apply revising the chronology of these kings, as we have set out to do in many ways with great success, in fleshing out what were dark alleys, curtains and enigmas for so long. Well, like Jesus said after his "... disciples rejoiced and praised God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had done; . . . And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, `Master, rebuke thy disciples.' And he answered and said unto them, `I tell you, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." Luke 19:37-40. Which sounds almost like saying, if some of you want to hide the evidence how God worked for His people, the stones or rocks and the words written on them would cry out the truth of what you read in God's word. Therefore, believe rather the written evidence, than what people guess about strata and pottery. That is why CIAS has included an article on possible pitfalls on the subject of dating pottery.
There is said to have been a reference to Tutankhamun in a tomb of one of his officials stating that certain tribes in Syria and in the Sudan were subject to him and brought him tribute. And in 1907 a French archaeologist, Georges Legrain, published his discovery of a stele at the base of the temple at Karnak in ancient Thebes. Its inscription referred to Tutankhamun's coming to the throne and, roughly translated, read:
"This land was overriden with ills. The shrine of the gods ran to destruction. The gods neglected the land. I appealed to the gods and goddesses for assistance, but they shunned me. To win them back I labored mightily, I found the temples fallen into ruin, with their holy places overthrown, and their courts overgrown with weeds. I reconstructed their sanctuaries, I re-endowed the temples, and made them gifts of all precious things. I cast statues of the gods in gold and electrum, decorated with lapis lazuli and all fine stones."
The proclamation goes on to say that Tut made laws for the land and every day without ceasing, and built new ships to ply the waters, and covered them with gold so that they illuminated the Nile. It says that he was benevolent as a ruler and as a judge. 
We probably also should mention the letter written by a Queen of Egypt to a Hittite king, asking to marry one of his sons. However, that letter was more likely written to Mursilis (rather then Suppiluliumas) by Dakhamun, the widow of Tirhaka, over a hundred years later. However, "The vital information Howard Carter (1874-1939, since 1899 chief inspector [A1] of Upper Egypt) wanted was never found (in the tomb of the king). In all the material packed into that small tomb, not one papyrus nor one single historical inscription was ever found." [Christine Hobson, `The World of the Pharaohs', Thames & Hudson, 1007, p. 113.] - And so we ask, who may have been those who buried the king? Who was still alive? Was it Tiye or Kiya? The author states that, "Queen Kiya had vanished from Amarna at about the same time Tut must have been born. We know Akhnaton, Meritaten and Smenkhare had died before. What about Queen Ankhesenpaten, Tut's wife? The author states, the British Assyriologist and linguist Archibald H. Sayce (1846-1933) - a clergyman - had seen a procession leaving the royal tomb, carrying bodies which they burned on a funeral pyre. Whether there is any basis in this is unclear, but when the tomb was finally entered, the bodies of Akhenaten, Nefertiti and the other members of the royal family had been removed." (Hobson, p. 106, 107) To this we can say, that Akhnaton/Ahab and Nefertiti/Jezebel died in Israel and never were buried in Egypt, especially since only "the skull, her feet and the palms of her hands" of Nefertiti/Isebel remained after dogs had eaten or torn up her remains, 2.Kings 9:35. So, whatever Sayce might have seen, is certainly unclear and the author gives no written source for that information. Therefore, we also do not know who it was who buried the king, aside from priests, the usual folk who saw after these things, or whoever. Dr. Zahi Hawass wrote, Tut's government included,
That King Tut was the son of a king is said to be confirmed by an inscription found at `el-Ashmunein' and reproduced in the here referenced source, across the river from el-Amarna which reads, "King's bodily son, his beloved, Tutankhamun." [Nicholas Reeves, `The Complete Tutankhamun', 1999, p. 24.] In essence then, after Akhnaton died, died Smenkhkare/Ahaziah, Tutankhamin/Joram, within two more years Nefertiti/Jezebel, followed by the left over 70 sons of Ahab, 2.Kings chapters 9 and 10.
Actually, I have read next to nothing about how the wealth of Egypt was sustained during the time of Akhnaton to Tutankhamun - if through commerce, gold mining or taxing the people; it seems to have been just there. But for the massive amounts of gold found in the boy king's tomb, we have a source which required less taxes, but obtaining it by taking it from elsewhere - in this case Jerusalem. The quantites looted from Jerusalem by Pharaoh Shishak/Thutmose III, was sufficient to fulfill the needs of all kings after that, even, in particular Amenhotep III, Akhnaton and Tutankamun. Besides the furnishings and implements in KV62, the three sarcophagies and their artful golden likenesses of a king, in the case of the inner third 6 foot 1 inch long coffin is stated to have been 2.5 to 3.5 mm in thickness; it weighs 245 lbs (111.04 kg). It was wrapped up in a red linen shroud folded back to reveal the face alone. No doubt that gold was not of recent derivation but must have been in use for something else. What could it have been? Well, it seems to us that the most likely sources of the great quantity of gold was from the loot of Thutmoses III (ca. 948-911 BC), which he had brought from the great, by Solomon constructed Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, to Egypt, where it was documented on the walls of Karnak. Going over the list prepared by Walter Wreszinsky, the amount and weight of gold is more than enough used in the burial of King Tut about 70 years after the death of Pharaoh Thutmose III. The illustration of the objects confirms that. In particular take a look at item number 127. - No doubt, many of the items were already of the right thickness and just needed to be reworked by skilled gold metal workers.
His tomb also contained royal regalia like three examples of crooks and two flails, the only such items found in Egypt, inside a cartouche-shaped box inlaid with his cartouche in the treasury of the tomb. The regalia were constructed of rods of copper-alloy around which cylinders of dark blue glass and gold were mounted. The beads of the flail were made of gilded wood, carnelian, and glass. [Z. Hawass, Tutankhamun, 2005, p. 187.]
Having arrived at nearly the end of the 18th Dynasty, the question comes naturally up, why has this dynasty turned out to be largely Israelite in composition?
Let us reflect on that. At the end of the 12th Dynasty, when Moses, guided by the pillar of clouds led Israel out of Egypt and pharaoh and his army drowned in the Red Sea, and the Amalekites/Hyksos invaded Egypt to reign for over 400 years, no native Egyptians seemed to have educated and stationed themselves sufficiently to rule their nation.
Even though Ahmose, with the aid of King Saul, managed to drive the oppressors of Egypt out, his record is not very impressive as to administrative skills and wisdom to start right away a new civilization among his people. One might argue that the second king, Amenhotep I was not an Egyptian native king, but probably the alter-ego of King Saul in proxy. It is the scarcity of information, not so much due because of the vast amount of time between then and now, but probably more so, because they were proxy rulers, they had things to do at home and abroad - more or less through proxy administrators of theirs when not present themselves.
Since then we had a whole succession of proxy, alter-ego rulers up until the time of Pharaoh Thutmoses III, who vented his hatred and wrath on exactly that nation which so long had influenced his people.
But he didn't really have a lot to complain about, because during that entire time, no wars were fought between Israel and Egypt. Thutmose III did also not destroy Jerusalem (click here why his primary target was not Megiddo), he just looted the temple treasures and whatever else they could find. Other then that, there was economic exchange, and cooperation, and people largely minded their own business which resulted in a flourishing era in art, manufacturing skills, construction skills, refining themselves until the time of Thutmose III., whose reign put a dent in their tranquillity and peaceful co-existence. We have written up their history and have now been able to round it up with what you read above. Thus we have an astonishing re-alignment of the ancient history of the Bible lands, for, you see, conventional history could not really contribute that much, for they ruled out a priori any effort to consider Israel's influence in the history of 18th Dynasty Egypt, thus robbing themselves of great discoveries and leaving the world a rather interesting, yet also vexing account of the pharaohs of this era, for everything they discovered had the continual missive, "not much is known otherwise about this king." In fact, Joyce Tildesly's latest book, mentions things, but cannot give us supported conclusions.
A list of items from the tomb is below, .
The rest of the information is written up in the various articles and what we have above.
Thus, during an impartial evaluation, what else could be said? Please let us know.
[End of Article on Pharaoh Tutankhamun]
Part 1: Notes & References - Smekhkare
 Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos Vol. I, Oedipus and Ikhnaton. - To facilitate easier access, `having more or all the data at hand in one click' we put Smenkhare and Tutankhamun together. We also put Smenkhare first, since he is supposed to have reigned before Tut. Finally, we named the whole article on Smekhare and Tut, `Tutankhamun', because we had the `Thutankhamun' article a little longer and he is better known persona and looked for more frequently by the public.
 To identify King Asa with Pharaoh Amenhotep III of the later 18th Dynasty, CIAS would refrain from, since the conflicts seem to outweigh the reason to suggest such a uniting of these two names. - The word `pharaoh' occurs 200 times in the KJV of the Bible, starting from Genesis 12:15 to Romans 9:17.
 Since we show how it can be that Queen Jezebel, wife of King Ahab of the 10 tribes of Israel, was also Nefertiti, Queen of Pharaoh Akhnaton (on his sarcophagus), that scenario would help explain why she wears a double cobra/uraei topped by a sun disk. Image 1 is that of `Berlin, Germany museum, object #15000', presumably that of Nefertiti, #2 shows a cobra serpent all by itself, #3 shows the usual single uraei on Egyptian royal displays. - Our important interpretation is that she is shown to wear a double uraei because she was not only a Queen of Egypt (Moon goddess Astarte) but also a Queen of the northern kingdom both of which venerated the sungod Baal in the days of Akhnaton 18th Dynasty Egypt and Ahab. The years of Akhnaton belong into the era of King Ahab of Egypt as we have shown numerous ways by now for the 18th Dynasty was dated some 600 years too early. We defend that Akhnaton = Ahab and Tutankhamon = Jehoram, son and successor of Ahab. [See KMT, Winter 2004/05, Vol. 15, Number 4, p. 39-43.] - Question, `Why then does Akhnaton and Tutankhamen not wear a double uraei if they were Ahab and Joram of Israel? Well, here it is:
 In this footnote we want to discuss, if Ahab = Akhnaton, how does that effect the EA letters of Akhnaton? Well, EA letter #14, is the only one coming from Akhnaton. There are three letters addressed to Akhnaton, EA#27, 28, 29. These three letters came from Tusrata, whom we identified as Benhadad/Yuya. Thus, if Akhnaton = Ahab, judging by these letters, when Ahab/Akhnaton was in Egypt, Tusrata would write letters to him there, even using the phrase "my brother" (EA28) which we also find in the Bible, "he is my brother" 1.Kings 20:22. - Thus there seems to be no conflict to equate Akhnaton with Ahab. When Ahab/Akhnaton was in Samaria, Benhadad also contacted him there, probably through tablets which are not extant, if not personally.
 Connecting the El Amarna fiigure and EA letter writer Labaya with Ahab, and equate both with Akhnaton/Amenophis IV of Egypt, prompts us of course to address the identity of other EA letter writers, i.e. Burnaburiash, whose name was found in the foundation of a temple at Larsa (located in today's Iraq. On that foundation plaque Burnaburiash wrote that he had rebuilt the temple erected, what was read as 700 yrs before by king Hammurabi. Now, if Solomon is Hammurabi, Solomon, there is no difference in their time.
 See for example EA 250.
 Shechem excavations upper layers were dated from the Pre-Amarna period to the Post-Amarna period. See `Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research', No. 205, Febr. 1972, pp. 20-35. Albeit their dates are off.
 E. Campbell, `The Chronology of the Amarna Letters', John Hopkins, Baltimore, 1964, p. 97.  Such multiple names could easily be in use in each part of their possessions and among the multiple language or dialect groups among the various tribes.
 A rendering by N.G. Davies, of a preliminary ink sketch in the chapel of El Amarna Tomb of Meryre II, depicts King Smenkhkare and Meritaten in KMT, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 33, as well as here.; See also J. Tyldesley's, `Nefertiti', Penguin Book, 1998, p. 154.
 Tell el Amarna was first uncovered starting in 1887 (BAR, Jul 1986, p. 6). When Petrie searched around Akhetaten, Tell el Amarna, he found blue painted pottery, figures of Pharaoh Akhenaten, green glaze mouldings, and ponds in deep hollows like those shown in the reliefs on the walls of the tombs. He also found about what he said was the, "most important discovery artistically since the Old Kingdom statues of Mariette." A large hall with beautifully painted pavement (the floor) that covered an area 25 square feet. He also found workshops of manufacture from crushing quartz pebbles to the final decoration of glass vessels and tiles that were on columns and walls. [1/29/01 - http://home.uleth.ca/geo/excavat.htm]
 On the subject of family relations, Dr. Tiffany Vora of Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, lectured on that topic in January 1012 for the Berkeley, CA, based chapter of ARCE. Her topic was, "Examining the ancestry and pathology of King Tutankhamen's Family." I was not yet able to find her conclusion on the Internet.
 N. Grimal (b. 1948), `A History of Ancient Egypt', Blackwell, 1994, p. 237. (My emphasis).- Last we may want to add that Josephus's Acencheree(s) may be a mistake for Smenchere(s) according to Arthur Weigal.
Part 2: Notes & References - Tutankhamun
 "If you go to the temple at Karnak at around 3 in the afternoon on any day, when the rays of the sun fall obliquely over the walls, you will see images carved lightly on Amenhotep's third pylon. These images are invisible at other times of the day, and are indeed only clearly visible for a period of around thirty minutes. In the pictured scene is a huge boat, with one large figure carved in raised relief standing on it. Only the lower half of the figure survives. Behind this one stands another figure, more slender than the first, carefully chiseled out at a later date, but so carefully that the outline can still be seen. In the oblique light of mid afternoon, even the hieroglyphics, faintly carved, many deliberately removed, can still be read. - The large figure is Amenhotep III Nebmaatre; the smaller, his son, Amenhotep IV, later Akhnaton. The inscription below - lets call it the `faint inscription' - reads, "He commanded his son to appear, rich in magnificence, this King, who brought him into being, being his son. He united with his beauty, he hands over to him his daily plans to do things that are beneficial. He has elevated the wonders of the one who brought him into existence. . . . (below the damaged figure) I am his eldest son, who came into existence through him (name hacked out). I rule by his agreement, I join with his strength, I take possession of his power . . . I am the son who will do good for the one who beget him." [Christine El Mahdy, Egyptologist at Yeovil College, England, Tutankhamen', 1999, p. 170. - Cmpr. Karnak map with A. Rosalie David, The Making of the Past of the Egyptian Kingdoms, p.22.; Daniel Myerson, In the Valley of the Kings, 2009, p. 184. Says Mahdi had all kinds of crazy ideas about Carter and others.]
 See King Tutankhamun (his throne name in Egypt was (Nebkheperure) and Ankhesenamen in a bower from KV62 in KMT, Vol. 23, No. 1, Spring 2012, p. 35. Tut's throne name (prenomen) was represented by a scarab beatle called "kheper" (meaning `to happen' or `to become'), the three strokes below the beatle make the word plural, the basket below that is the sign for "neb", meaning `lord'. [See `Archaeology Odyssey', May/June 2004, p. 45.]
 (A) The face of Akhnaton, who reigned just before Smenkhare and Akhnaton, is also shown as elongated. Some of his monumental statues at Karnak were made like that because they were designed to be viewed from below and then would appear normal. The image here is originally elongated, we just shortened the display of it, and then it appears normal like the Karnak statue which you can see in N. Reeves, `Ancient Egypt,' p. 135 shows the head of a normal looking Akhnaton 135; Page 173 tells about the Karnak statue; p 179 shows a statue of King Tut. But there are in fact some truly out of proportion skinny necks and facial images of Akhnaton [D. Redford, p. 58, 81]. We conclude, some of these may have been produced on less prominent walls (talalats) in jest or on trial stones of the king by workmen (Bek, Men, Auta and Thutmose), since the king was not uncommonly absent abroad.
 The entrance to Tutankhamun's tomb had been concealed beneath the remains of ancient workmen's huts near the tomb of Ramses VI. Fifteen steps led down to a plastered door with traces of seals, including that of Tutankhamun, which showed that the tomb had been robbed in antiquity. Behind this door had been a second door. The discovery of the tomb included this description, "We were ready to leave the Valley of the Kings to try our luck elsewhere. Then, hardly had we driven the sounding rod into the earth in one last desperate try, when we made a discovery which surpassed our wildest dreams. . . . With trembling hands I made a small opening in the top left corner (of the external door of the tomb). For as far as my pick would reach there was a black, empty space which proved that whatever was behind the door was hollow and not filled with rubble like the passage we had just cleared. At first I could see nothing because the warm air made the candle flicker but gradually, as my eyes got accustomed to the light, I could make out the details of the room, which was slowly taking shape in the gloom; strange animals, statues and gold . . ." [Henri-Paul Eydoux, The Buried Past, N.Y., p. 170.]
 First as to the cartouche of Tutankhamun. It contains the signs for Tut, ankh and amun; plus the sign for rule, life and the south. Of course we know that King Tut seems to have had his primary residence at Thebes, in the south of Egypt, looking from the Nile Delta. However, as an aside (and perhaps other kings too) he also may have had `south' in his name because he also had northern interests or territory to rule as Jehoram.?.? Of course that is a theory, but it seems to be an interesting theory at this time. [`The Dating of the El Amarna Letters,' SIS Review (Society for Interdisciplinary Studies), Vol. II, No. 3, (London, 1977/78), pp. 80-85.] That the descendants of Amenhotep III had interests in Palestine may be deduced from his written information mentioning "Retenu the Upper and Lower," locations ranging from Palestine to the Hittites domain (Carchemish), Naharin (northern Syria) at least.
 The ca. 170 years from David to Jehu.
|Egyptology Reign Length Data||Bible Reign Length Data|
Carbon Dating Tutankhamun||Akhnaton||17/18/20* years||
* According to Reeves & Wilkinson 1996, p. 9.[226b]|
So far there is nothing known about how Akhnaton died.
|22 reg. yrs 1.Kings 16:29. 24 yrs 1Ki15:33||We know Ahab died very similar to how his son Joram died. He was shot by an arrow in battle, 1.Kings 22:29-37, and was buried in Samaria.|
|Smenkhkare||02 years||Died probably accidentally. Egyptologists say that he left Akhetaten, city of Akhnaton, at some point which is not in disagreement with what we find.[See Peter Clayton]||Ahaziah||01 year||Died after falling through a lattice. He had reigned 2 yrs partly in a co-reign with his father and partly by himself, 1Ki. 22:51.|
|Tutankhamun||09/10 years||We don't know how King Tut died, except that he died young and perhaps far away from his home in battle. - Since during his reign chariots figure prominently, his suggested alter-ego, Joram, makes a good identity for King Tut.||Joram||11/12 years||
Joram was shot with an arrow by Jehu, 2.Kings 3:1; 9:14-24. Since his use of chariots is prominent, his alter-ego as King Tut seems attractive. - Ahab's son Joram of Samaria became king in the 2. yr of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, 2Ki. 1:17, and in the 18th yr of Jehoshaphat, 2Ki.3:1; J. Ussher, Annals, 940-889BC, p. 71.
|Total years:||about 30-32 years||Total:||about 32/34/35 years|
The difference in regnal years is not insurmountable, given that the Egyptian data are approximations, and in Israel, if a king reigned 2 years, that could mean 35 months, as well as 13 months. We just give the actual years, not the official years for the Bible data. In the case of Joram/Tutankhamun, he reigned 11 years using the accession year reckoning and 12 years using the non-accession year reckoning. [See Thiele, p. 98, 101] Ahaziah probably died a while before his 2nd year's 12 months were up, perhaps after 1 year and 2 or 3 months, or whatever number of days, weeks or months. Thus his last year was incomplete and so was the first of Tut for the remaining time of that initial year. At the end, again, people can die anytime within the 360 days of the Jewish year. It means 10 Jewish years are 5 x 10 = 50 days shorter (plus a fraction) than our 365 days to a year years. Depending how one looks at it, the first year and the last 11th accession year may have been less than 12 months long, thus deriving 10 years.
Notice the striking closeness in the length of reign of Tutankhamun and Joram, and actually all of them are close dates. Considering the sequence of these dates between Egypt and Israel/Judah and how well they agree in their overall length from long to short, and from short to long reigns - in the same sequence; that detail ought to help us recognize that one cannot offhand ignore these data.
Explanation for Name Erasures and Slouchy Physiognomy
Another item, why the name circles of these kings from Akhnaton to Tutankhamon were `erased' was probably because they introduced, or were part of a new, different religion. That conlusion may be deduced by the fact that their names do not appear in the `Abydos King List'. That list stops at Nebmaatra/Amenhotep III and continues with Haremhab. For the same reason that Amenhotep III is on this list, may consequentially also mean that he was a native Egyptian king, and his successors were not. That detail seems to be a striking explanation for such name erasures and perhaps too for the strange physiological representations of Akhnaton, Nefertiti and kin. [National Geographic, April 2001, `Pharaoh of the Sun', p. 34-57, & Nat. Geogr., Nov 2003, Mystery of the Sun God's Servant', p. 53-59.]
Additional evidence includes: "... serological examination (blood grouping) of tissue, as well as close skull measurement comparisons, indicate that the occupant of KV55 was a brother, or possibly half-brother, of Tutankhamun." Peter James, `Chronicle of the Pharaohs', p. 127. That "Manetho does not recognize any of these four kings (Akhnaton, Sakere/Smenkhare, Tutankhamon and Eye), and instead gives in their place as successors of Amenhotep III a line of kings through the daughter of Amenhotep, who was known to Manetho as Achencheres." [Courville, `The Exodus Problem', Vol. I, p. 256,257] That Manetho does not recognize or credit these rulers as part of Egyptian kings (See chart), may indicate that these were indeed proxy rulers primarily based in Israel and not native Egyptians. Their powerbase was religiously based on the worship of Baal as energetically advanced by Nefertiti/Jezebel in Egypt and in Israel.
We don't know how Smenkhare died, but if he was Ahaziah, son of Ahab and brother of Joram, we have powerful testimony that Smenkhare was Ahaziah and Tutankhamun was Joram/Jehoram, the two successor sons of Ahab, with Ahab himself being Akhnaton.[See F.J. Giles, Ikhnaton, Legend and History, illustrations i-xvi, pp. 200ff.]
The reign lengths of the trio of kings matches, and their history and religion finds startling insightful corroboration of the Biblical accounts of these three rulers - multi- identfied, multi-named and explained in all the critical areas using all the available data. That is what we should expect in a rightly setup revision of the ancient history of these contemporaries from the: Amalekites=Hyksos, Queen of Sheba=Hatshepsut, Thutmose III=Shishak, Yuya=Benhadad, Akhnaton=Ahab, Nefertiti=Jezebel, Smenkhare=Ahaziah and Tutankhamun=Joram - multiple connections we discuss here and in many other places. Another sweet `icing of the cake' to equate these two kings as advanced here, is the fact that Carbon 14 dates have shown good agreement, in fact so good, that it can hardly be doubted any more.
These kings, like most, were despotic rulers at the pinnacle of their social status much like rulers desire to be today as the society we knew becomes more and more unglued. That is why they told us in history classes that man, if he forgets the past, will have to repeat past history in the future.
[226b] The apparent discrepancy between the reign length of Akhnaton and Ahab (18 vs. 24 years), if they were the same king, may also be due to the circumstance, that, towards the end of Ahab's reign, that he had a period of three years of no war between Syria and Israel (1Ki. 22:1), but his life was hectic nevertheless with prior wars and activities, and he may have spent no or less time in Egypt then before his final battle.
 Incidental discoveries include porcelain rings which were made for sepulchral purposes during 18th and 19th Dynasties times. Evidently they were made to represent rings of gold and more costly materials. The following rings of the Amarna period were made:
 According to Sir Alan Gardiner, Amenhotep III was the son of Menkheperure, that being the prenomen of Thutmoses IV. About Queen Tiy, he quotes from her marriage scarab where it says, "She is the wife of a victorious king whose southern boundary is to Karoy, and his northern to Naharin." [A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 207.] - Naharin (Nahrima in the EA letters, Mercer) is the region of Mitanni. - Now, Thebes is some 740 km (ca. 460 miles, 400 nautical miles) in a straight line from Jerusalem. Probably a 400 hour trip one way by ship - how the progress on the Nile would be against the flow I don't know. Well, rulers probably could easily take a week, or a month off for such a trip.[See image of boat in Nat. Geogr., Apr. 2001, p. 49 and here.] They could have done this just like the Queen of Sheba did. - But if he had a harem at Thebes, how about Jerusalem? That makes things quite uncertain, even if we assume his faithfulness was short lived. It says he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. But since the Lord helped Asa against Zerah, because he answered his prayer, there is no way that the Lord would have helped King Asa on other terms than the kings before him, or If he was Amenhotep III, if he was wishy-washy and not faithful to God. - So, we refrain from following the idea that because of a sickness to the feet for Asa, A. III and Asa were the same person. Allen Gardiner says, "Amenhotep III was probably a sick old man." Such foot ailments are common in diabetics, and numerous other ailments, including plaque in arteries or parasitic infections. - The equating of Ahab with Akhnaton is less of a problem, since they were wicked kings, so too Thutmoses I and King David, who may have been used as a proxy power in Egypt because of his successes in warfare. While 1. Kings may have been written in the approximate days of Jeremiah, the prophet himself probably was not one of the authors, based on style of writing. The religious standards on King Asa were apparently regarded as considering him a faithful king. His reign occupies a portion of 1.Kings chapter 15.
 "The extent of Amenhotep's actual political power in the Aegean was limited, although his name was certainly known as far afield as Mycenae, where his cartouche has been found." [Fletcher, Joann (JFL), `Chronicle of A Pharaoh', Oxford, 2000, p. 75.] Unforntunately in what context the cartouche was found is not stated.
 The famous head of Queen Tiy was discovered by Sir Flinders Petrie (1853-1942) at Serabit el-Khadim and can be seen in `Ancient Egypt,' July 2007, p. 35.
 The two years of ruling from Tirzah are explained here.
 1.Kings 16:34. Smenkhkare must have been a bad one if he was Ahaziah, because Ahaziah was considered to be worse than Jehoram (Tut) who was still bad enough. Obviously, if Ahaziah (as Elah = Hiel) could resurrect Jericho over his sons' bodies, he must have been very evil. With a father like that, who needs enemies! He really was a bad one, apparently. Thus it seems, Elah (2 years) fits well as Ahaziah (2 years) and as Smenkhkare (2-3 years, possible co-regency). He had no sons to succeed, for they lay dead underneath Jericho. That is why Ahaziah was succeeded by his brother, not son; the same was the case with Smenkhkare.
Jehoram (Tut), on the other hand, saw a time of reaction against Atonism. - Was Nefertiti Tut's mother? Jehu would seem to suggest so: "When Joram saw Jehu he asked, "Have you come in peace, Jehu?" "How can there be peace," Jehu replied, "as long as the idolatry and witchcraft of your mother Jezebel abound?" 2.Kings 9:22. - Does that mean that Tut's supposed mother, Kiya, might have been Nefertiti/Tiye/Tiya (= Kiya?)? - Dating a new Jericho level to Ahaziah, at the time of Nefertiti and Akhnaton, should help to anchor which archaeological level it actually was. And we certainly need help, because Jericho has proved extremely tricky, perhaps thanks to messy early archaeology. (Not long ago I read a line somewhere that someone discovered something in the Jericho area, 8 meters deeper, that he/they thought had to do with that city. I forgot what I was reading. Let's be on the look out.)
 In July 17, 2000, `Der Spiegel' published an article in German by Matthias Schulz, titled `God-King in the Basement', which was largely about stolen artifacts, but it also deals with a pharaonic sarcophagus discovered by Edward Ayrton in 1907 in KV55, located directly next to that of Tutankhamun, which, was thought, contained the remains of Nofretete (which we know could not be), others thought it was `Echnaton/Akhnaton'. Then it says that a new examination of the mummy (located in the national museum in Cairo), discounted that assumption. Next it says, "The skeleton, on which remained hanging a few pieces of skin, belonged to a man, who became no older than 18-22 years of age. Like Tutankhamun, his blood type group was A2. His name was Semenkhare/Smenkhare - a phantom pharaoh, who appears in no royal list. - Currently they discuss the following scenario: After the death of Echnaton climbed his son Semenchkare the throne. After him followed the little brother Tutanchamun. Both boys died early. Possibly they were poisoned by priests of Amun of Thebes, who wanted to erase any memories of the heretic king. But these are hypothesis. The dramatic chaos during the Echnaton era remains unexplained. Scholars would like to very much decipher the hieroglyphs which are on the glittery sarcophagus/Sargwanne of KV55. But how?" - We can tell now in the last sentence about the priests poisoning is grabbing for straws. The `hieroglyphics' are on a gold-foil which disappeared from Cairo and is thought to have arrived at the Munich Museum, which ignited a storm of protests then. For us it is of interest that, according to this information, Smenkhare and Tutankhamun had the same blood group A2 (Note: names spelled different for search engines).
 Who was Naboth the Jezreelite? - Some think that Naboth was Ahab's first cousin, his father's brother's son; after all he did own the estate lying next to Ahab's, and he was set in a 'high place' among a gathering of the other nobles; in which case Ahab would have been next in line to inherit the estate of Naboth (It is worth pointing out that the sons of Naboth were put to death with him, and that Ahab did inherit Naboth's estate after he killed them all.). If this were the case then perhaps, contrarily, Naboth himself was a contender for the throne of Israel, in the event of the death of Ahab and his sons, which actually did occur eventually.
 Since the 3 ½ year drought, the judgment on Mt. Carmel, some (plus or minus a few years) 20 - 24 years had passed. Tutankhamon, during the critical months, weeks and days, was apparently not in Egypt. The days of mercy were greatly lessened, and the mighty men lived on luck/no luck alone. In the days of Ahaziah, alias Smenkhare (852 BC), the young king could send out a troop of fifty soldiers and their commander, two times, altogether 100 troops and two commanders, all of which perished, only the third captain and his troop of fifty survived. In the days of Joram, alias Tutankhamon, no troops or commanders figure in the story. Apparently by this time (843 BC) any troops had said good by to these, more or less, boy kings, and Joram was largely on his own. Yet they were deceived by witchcraft, headstrong and warlike, as the image of King Tut shows, and the Bible, unlike Egyptian sources which lack well written history, supports that view vividly, "if they obey not, they shall perish by the sword, and they shall die without knowledge." Job 36:12. Thus young Tut lived much like his father, Joram was wounded before in battle against the Syrians, 2.Kings 8:28. His father was mortally wounded there.
 "The full-body CT scan revealed damage to the king's rib cage," wrote Z. Hawass, Tutankhamun, 2005, p. 268. We wonder if that may have been due in part to removing the arrow point. - For images of the inside of the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62), which would be sealed undisturbed for 2764 years (841 BC - 1924), and its plan see `Art and History of Egypt, p. 100-103. - The death of Ahazia of Judah is written up in 2.Kings 9:27,28 followed by the death of Jezebel shortly after.
 1) The chariots of Tutankhmen are well known especially also from the ornate fans, made of metal and which originally held ostrich feathers. The king is shown in the chariot with bow and arrows which seems to put life into the Biblical account here presented. Treasures of King Tut, seen at the M.H. de Young Museum, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA., June 1979. [See A. Rosalie David, `The Making of the Past - The Egyptian Kingdoms', p. 62.]
To see these color images of the leather items go to World Archaeology, Apr/May 2012, Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 36,37.
 Some good B&W images of the bows of King Tut can be seen in, Howard Carter, `The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen', Dover Publ., NY, 1977, p. 220, Plate LXXVI & LXXVII.; Professor Walter Wreszinski (1880-1935) of Albertus University of Koenigsberg (East Prussia) published 1923 Atlas zur Altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte, in Leipzig, Germany in 1931-34. This work comprises, I believe at least three large, oversize volumes. All images are in B&W, but many are not published anywhere else on account of their age and condition by the time color photography was possible. I made a few photocopies, of what I thought at the time to be relevant. In particular are his publications helpful on Thutmose III and the Karnak panel of treasures. His volumes have of course nothing on Akhnaton or Tutankhamun.
 The emergency burials of King Tut (KV62) and that of Ben-Hadad/Yuya (KV46) - have some similarities in that both died outside of Egypt and had to be transported to Egypt for mummification and burial. In KV54 embalming paraphernalia were found, including 50 bags of natron. [N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings, p. 126.]
 The Biblical account of Joram/Tutankhamun.
CIAS postscript: The courier of King Tut, alias Jehoram, was over when he was about 19 or 20 years of age - after a 10 year reign. Hands were busy fashioning his gold mask and all the gifts, including his chariot in his tomb. (His golden chariot was likely not the one used in Israel.) We don't know if they examined the chariot for blood stains. (They have very sensitive tests to detect heme today.)
With Tutankhamun the most famous 18th Dynasty, misdated and interpreted for decades upon decades - only in these days finds a footing in real history - still tentative - but it sounds better than anything in the literature by the most famous archaeologists and historians. Why? Because they disregarded or even threw out the Hebrew Scriptures which alone can verify real history of the Bible lands during these ancient times. - The reader may reflect upon the multiple lines of correlating evidence, some stronger than others and how they present the EA era, the 18th Dynasty era, the period of the Israelite kings and then the divided kingdoms against the background of all their neighbors in the Middle East. Just look at the Ashurnasirpal/ Yuya equation and how faithfully real history shows now its hidden secrets for all to see.
 Dr. Zahi Hawass, `National Geographic', `King Tutankhamun's family secrets.' September 2010, p. 34-59. - According to their carefully conducted DNA analysis, Akhnaton had a child with his sister, fathering Tutankhamon.
 Thomas Hoving (1931-??), `The Untold Story', NY, 1978, p. 18-19. - For our readers it may be interesting to notice a connection to Syria, perhaps meaning also northern Palestine - Retenu of old, and that he built ships - he voyaged between his palace and northern Israel.
 See Joyce Tildesly, `The Search for an Egyptian King,' 2012. Where she says, "None ... determined the exact cause of the king's death, although there are many theories: including murder, killed by a hippopotamus, or thrown from a chariot while hunting or in battle, causing a crushed chest (his sternum is missing) and fractured leg, leading to infection and death. Hawass's team purportedly showed that the king may have suffered a whole host of health problems, including a left club-foot, diseased bones in his right foot, a cleft palate, scoliosis and malaria. Many of these conclusions have been challenged, however, in particular, the club-foot. Was Tut a sickly king with mobility problems? Since it is unlikely that there will be any further examination of his mummy, his cause of death will no doubt remain a mystery." - - CIAS Comment: Well, if Miss Tildesly had waited with her book just a little longer, and would now research our conclusion, would she agree, disagree or wait? Anyway, we conclude that he was murdered by Jehu with a straight arrow shot through his heart, as only possible by a revision of his life time and the reading of an independent, more contemporary source.
 Some may object, `You are too far off of the conventional dating of these kings.' - Yes. But the roots of conventional dating were laid way too early - before all the evidence was in. It started to a great degree in the days of Napoleon, when his scientists called the `feather crown' wearing sea peoples of the time of Ramses III `Philistines,' when they were actually Persians. We know from the `Canopus Decree' that the `Peleset' were the `Pereset' Persians. This way Ramses III was placed 700 years too early, and archaeologists and historians agreed. That was too bad. Unfortunately, the entire subsequent history of this nation and all other nations saw no humanity friendly improvement, even though they had opportunities. At the end we see the outworking of continual evils and how it transforms people into servants of evil, since they trample the law of God under their feet. Napoleon's visit to Egypt, when the Rosetta Stone was found, can be seen in `National Geographic's, `Adventure of Archaeology' (NGAA), 1985, p. 43. See also p. 214ff.
Bible Topics Main Menu Museum Submenu