Preface

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 [5], 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.

Thus we have (apart from Velikovsky's many positive identifications):

1. Pharaoh Amenhotep III as King Asa of Judah.[10]
   
2. Pharaoh Akhnaton (also known as `Neferkheperure Waenre') and his wife, Nefertiti, as the unlovely pair, Ahab and Jezebel.[12]
   (And in this article we are going to be considering Akhnaton's/Ahab's ruler sons).
   
3. Ay as Hazael and
   
4. General Jehu as Horemheb.

In the EA correspondence we have,

1. Amenhotep III is referred to as Nimmuria.
   
2. Akhnaton is Naphuria.[15] I have also identified him as the rebel, Labayu, who, like Ahab, had two prominent sons.
   
3. Nefertiti/Jezebel I have identified with the only female EA correspondent, Baalat Neše.
   
4. Hazael (my Ay), Velikovsky had identified with EA's Aziru.
   
5. And I have taken EA's captain, Iaanhamu - whom Velikovsky had identified with the biblical captain, the Syrian Naaman - as also Jehu/Horemheb.
   
6. Jehoram of Judah has been well identified by Peter James as EA's Abdi-hiba of Urusalim. [20]

Smenkhkare

Now I had also, in my university thesis [25] tentatively identified Labayu's most prominent of his two sons, Mut-Baal, with Ahab's eldest son, Ahaziah. Thus I wrote:

Lab'ayu's Sons

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". [30]. 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) ….

Only one of the sons 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]" [50], 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".[55]

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, 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.

Why Two Names?

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.

What Scholars Find

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.

Moreover I noted that Mut-Baal's letters showed the use of 'Canaanite' (read Hebrew) elements [65]:

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. [70]

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.

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.

Reconstructing History

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:

1. Baasha as Ahab.
   
2. Jehu son of Hanani, Baasha's nemesis prophet, as Ahab's nemesis, Elijah.
   
3. And, importantly for this article, Baasha's son and successor, Elah, as Ahaziah. It is the latter on whom I wish to focus in this section, for, if Baasha is Ahab is Akhnaton, then Elah, or Ahaziah, might well be Akhnaton's successor, Smenkhkare.

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
(ii) the biblical scribes are not interested in one who they deemed to be wicked.

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".[80]

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.

N. 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.[90] 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][95]

That is about all that we get from Grimal on Smenkhkare.

Ahaziah in the Bible

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.

Ahaziah's death

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.

The Companies of Fifty

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.

Considering the Historical and Bible Background

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.

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.[202] 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. 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.

The Alter-Egos

To start with we present a list of the alter-egos we discuss followed by the reasoning on how it all fits perfectly together.

1. Solomon = Senmut = Hammurabi
   
2. Hathsepsut = Queen of Sheba
   
3. Thutmose III = Shishak
   
4. Amenhotep III/Amenophis III's alter ego, it is not clear if he has one
   
5. Amenhotep II = Zerah = Nehesi - His reign largely paralleled that of Thutmoses III. at the end
   
6. Akhnaton = Ahab = Baasha
   
7. General Merymose = Nehesi = Omri
   
8. Queen Tiy = Nefertiti = Jezebel
   
9. Smenkhkare = Elah = Ahaziah
   
10. Tutankhamon = Joram = Jehoram of Israel vs Jehoram of Judah [225][226]

From Rehoboam to Akhnaton

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.[235] 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.[245] 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.[250] 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.

Egypt in Decline

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's successors

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.[266] She, being a worshiper of Baal (as Queen Jezebel), would have urged anyone in his situation to consult magicians and to mistreat his prophet.

Baasha/Ahab and successors

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.[272] 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) [280], 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. [285] 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.[295] - 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).[298]

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. [316] 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 ) [320]

The Story in 2 Kings 9:17-24

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."
"Get a horseman," Joram ordered. "Send him to meet them and ask, 'Do you come in peace?'"
18 The horseman rode off to meet Jehu and said, "This is what the king says: 'Do you come in peace?'"
"What do you have to do with peace?" Jehu replied. "Fall in behind me."
The lookout reported, "The messenger has reached them, but he isn't coming back."
19 So the king sent out a second horseman. When he came to them he said, "This is what the king says: 'Do you come in peace?'"
Jehu replied, "What do you have to do with peace? Fall in behind me."
20 The lookout reported, "He has reached them, but he isn't coming back either. The driving is like that of Jehu son of Nimshi—he drives like a maniac."
21 "Hitch up my chariot," Joram ordered.[336] And when it was hitched up, Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah rode out, each in his own chariot, to meet Jehu. They met him at the plot of ground that had belonged to Naboth the Jezreelite.
22 When Joram saw Jehu he asked, "Have you come in peace, Jehu?"
"How can there be peace," Jehu replied, "as long as all the idolatry and witchcraft of your mother Jezebel abound?"
23 Joram turned about and fled, calling out to Ahaziah, "Treachery, Ahaziah!"
24 Then Jehu drew his bow and shot Joram between the shoulders. The arrow pierced his heart and he slumped down in his chariot.

This would explain the hasty mummification and burial of King Tut. For, as Salima Ikram opines, in the TV documentary,

The Race to Bury King Tut . . .

... the young king may have died in battle, away from the Valley of the Kings, 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 [350] 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. - Yet, as to the mummies themselves, Yuya's seems to have been somewhat better preserved, than that of Tut - for the latters 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 [380]. - 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!!

Why the 18th Dynasty was largely an Israelite Dynasty

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 civilisation 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."

Here is the list of that record:

1. Amenhotep I , "... has left us few records, he ... appears to have been the first king" to do this or that.
   
2. Thutmose I: ... "Amenhotep I was succeeded not by his son (a brake in tradition that would usually indicate a change in dynasty), but by a military man, Thutmosis ..."
   
3. Thusmose II, left "behind a complicated situation vis a vis his successor to the throne."
   
4. Hatshepsut, build "gardens, temples, she traded" ...
   
5. Thutmose III, "... came into his rightful inheritance." He .... "opened up his Near Eastern campaign."
   
6. Amenhotep II, ... "seems to have been" this or that, ".. for the rest of his 34 year - rule, it seems he ..." did this or that.
   
7. Thutmose IV, "there may have been some doubt about the legitimacy of" his succession.
   
8. Amenhotep III, "his long reign of almost 40 years was one of the most prosperous and stable in Egyptian history. ... the peak of artistic achievements" ...
   
9. Akhnaton, "introduction of new" this or that ... "cult of Aten", new "artistic style." Had the influential "Nefertiti as a wife." [Source, Peter Clayton, `Chronicle of the Pharaohs', 1994.]

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]

[5] Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos Vol. I, Oedipus and Ikhnaton. - To facilitate easier `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. - The German version also has King Baasha included, which we are still considering to, perhaps, do in the English version too, for that way Ahab, Smenkhare and Tuankhamun would be all together.

[10] To identify King Asa with 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.

[12] 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:
"The distinctive shape of the uraeus, like that of crowns in general, at different periods can provide important evidence in dating uninscribed artifacts. For example, a double uraeus, one usually wearing the Red Crown and the other the White Crown, is attested for royal women from the reign of Ahmose on. A variation is the (sometimes double) uraeus augmented by a vulture head, referring to the goddess Wadjet and Nekhbet. Another examples includes the plain Kushite cap, which is distinctive of rulers of the and their Napatean and Meroitic successors. Depending on the context, the uraeus can also bear the head of a gazelle (especially for subsidiary royal women) or an ibis. Ptolemaic queens may even wear a triple uraeus. A further increase in the number of cobras is attested from the reign of Amenhotep III on, when a kalathos of uraei as a crown base is attested. Akhenaten is the first king to display a circlet of uraei, also worn by gods, around some of his crowns. The radiance conveyed by disks and uraei likens the wearer to the gods, and the increase of their number on crowns seems to correspond with periods of intensified solar cult activity, developing in particular during he Amarna period." [Click here]
The source for `Neferkheperure' is Davies, `Rock Tombs I-VI, see plates; Maj Sandman, `Texts'.

[15] 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.
That Akhnaton knew the Hebrew faith very well, is shown by his `Aton Hymn', which is closely related to Psalm 104. Yet, it was difficult for Israel to sense that they were really worshipping a false god, when the name was the same as commonly used for the true God. Doctrines and ideas possessing a verbal similarity to the truth may deceive many when the basic concepts are entirely different from the truth. It is not by the names given to them but only by their moral characteristics, that an unseen God or an unseen Christ can be known, and if the moral characteristics assigned to them are evil, the being worshipped and acknowledged are a false God and a false Christ. However, when Elijah summoned Ahab and his priests of Baal to Mt. Carmel, the priests of Ball had first choice to summon their god. So the priests of Baal gather about their altar, and with leaping and writhing and screaming, with tearing of hair and cutting of flesh, they beseech their god to help them. But they must have been asleep, or perhaps they were on a long journey, for nothing happened.
On the matter of equating Amenhotep III with king Asa of Judah, how would the EA letters influence that theory? Amenhotep III wrote EA letters (EA 1, 5, 31, 31a), but none of them addressed to King Asa (who doesn't seem to have a name known from the letters); but he received even many more addressed to him.
Let us investigate a few names to check if there was communication from or to King Asa: EA 162, 264. Seems to me that these letters are inconclusive on that question
So, when the question comes up, if Amenhotep III was Asa, why would letter writers from Palestine write letters to Pharaoh in Egypt, and hardly ever get an answer, instead of contacting King Asa in Jerusalem? That is another reason why CIAS has trouble making that identification and we suggest to be cautious on that.

[20] Peter James, `The Dating of the El Amarna Letters,' SIS Review (Society for Interdisciplinary Studies), Vol. II, No. 3, (London, 1977/78), pp. 80-85).

[25] Damien Mackey, `A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background', Vol. I, pp. 90-92.

[30] See for example EA 250.

[50] 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.

[55] E. Campbell, `The Chronology of the Amarna Letters', John Hopkins, Baltimore, 1964, p. 97.

[65] Ibid., p. 88.

[70] William F. Albright, 'Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley', JNES, vol. 89, 1943, p. 11. Emphasis added.

[80] J. Tyldesley's, `Nefertiti', Penguin Book, 1998, p. 154.

[90] The throne of King Tut can be seen in `Everyday Life in Bible Times', 1967, p. 118,119.

[95] N. Grimal, `A History of Ancient Egypt', Blackwell, 1994, p. 237. (My emphasis).

[202] (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.
(B) In this part we want to present data which may support that Baasha and Ahab were the same person. The name of Baasha, so far, has not been found in paleo Hebrew letters on seals, however we do have scarabs #340, 294 of Akhenaten/Amenophis IV and perhaps even one of Smenkhare #295 and a fragment of a broken scarab #250 of Tutankhamon. Neither one of the many other personas discussed in this article had apparently that sort of reign which would have resulted in plentyfull scarab and/or seal making. - Next we endeavor to show the proto Hebrew letters which might be part of the name `Baasha' if that name would ever be found - and remember you read Hebrew from right to left.
It might contain , ahsaaB or parts thereof.
In conventional Hebrew it looks as follows: Baesa/Baasha,
, read as ahsaaB - with the "S" as a lispel sound in which the `h' is heard but not written and thus the `s' sound having been canceled, we can read, "Ahaab" or "Ahab".
But how could Baasha be Ahab? The answer is easy, just look at the name. All that needs to be done is put the letter `B' at the end and you get `Aashab' or `Ahab' dropping out the lisping `s'. That is possible because the orthography of these names depended often on how they were sounded rather then strict letter for letter writing in ancient, paleo-Hebrew writing. (`paleo' means antique' or `ancient'.)
It appears that Samaria never was thoroughly excavated, at least I never saw such a report. We do have reports of phylacteries and amulets. There is an article in `BASOR', April 1958; in `BA', July 1983 about unearthing Ahab's palace and finding a sword makers shop.

[225] 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.]

[226] Compare Reign Length Data of the Alter-Egos between Egypt and the Bible.

[235] 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:
1) One in blue porcelain with a rectangular bezel, on it is written in hieroglyphics, "suten hemt Tai", the `royal wife of Queen Tiye/Tai, wife of Amenhotep III.
2) Another blue porcelain ring bears the cartouche of Khuenaten/Akhnaton/Ahab, the heretic king, who gave up the worship of Amen Ra for that of the sun-disk.
3) Another two purple porcelain rings, bearing the oval prenomenof `Xeperu-neb-ra' as it was written over a hundred years ago, and which is now written as Tutankhamun/Jehoram, and his name on the second, . [TSBA, Vol. IX, June 1893, `Notes upon some Egyptian Antiquities,' p. 336-351-354.]

[245] 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 were 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. 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.

[250] The glyphs of Merymose were put together from a cone stamp of his shown in KMT, Vol. 15, No. 4, Winter 2004/05, p. 61.

[266] The famous head of Queen Tiy was discovered by Sir Flinders Petrie at Serabit el-Khadim and can be seen in `Ancient Egypt,' July 2007, p. 35.

[280] 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.

[285] This rule may also have been at least partially by proxy.(?)

[295] There is also another cartouche for Smenkhkare, a little different.

[298] 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 mumie (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 grabing 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.
The article `Recent Facts about the Coffin deom KV55', was published by Federico Rocchi of `rocfed@tin.it.'

[316] Since the 3 ˝ 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.

[320] For images of the inside of the tomb of Tutankhamun and its plan see `Art and History of Egypt, p. 100-103.

[336] 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.]

[350] The emergency burials of King Tut and that of Ben-Hadad/Yuya - have some similarities in that both died outside of Egypt and had to be transported to Egypt for mummification and burial. In KV54 embalming paraphernelia were found, including 50 bags of natron. [N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings, p. 126.]
Yuya appears to have died close in time to King Joram/Tut, (but Yuya probably sooner). The thinking probably was, if an emergency mummification could be done for one, so it could be accomplished for the other, for we may assume the news of that transport was probably well known. Both rulers were buried in close proximity to each other, 580 feet walking distance apart, (Tut in KV62, and Yuya in KV46), ca. 843 - 841 B.C. While that may be close in distance, still there were numerous tombs and a hill in between and that is only by happenstance.
Yuya's tomb was discovered February 5, 1905 by James Edward Quibbel and Tut's tomb was started to be discovered by exposing the first step on November 4, 1922, by workers working for Howard Carter.

[380] The Biblical account of Joram/Tutankhamun.

It was in the days of Ahab, the father of Joram, that it hadn't rained for 3 ˝ years.
2.Kings starting in chapter 8:25: "In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
8:27 And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son in law of the house of Ahab.
8:28 And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramothgilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram.
8:29 And king Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick.'
Continued in 2.Kings chapter 9:14: "So Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi conspired against Joram. (Now Joram had kept Ramothgilead, he and all Israel, because of Hazael king of Syria.
9:15 But king Joram was returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria.) And Jehu said, If it be your minds, then let none go forth nor escape out of the city to go to tell it in Jezreel.
9:16 So Jehu rode in a chariot, and went to Jezreel; for Joram lay there. And Ahaziah king of Judah was come down to see Joram.
9:17 And there stood a watchman on the tower in Jezreel, and he spied the company of Jehu as he came, and said, I see a company. And Joram said, Take an horseman, and send to meet them, and let him say, Is it peace?
9:18 So there went one on horseback to meet him, and said, Thus saith the king, Is it peace? And Jehu said, What hast thou to do with peace? turn thee behind me. And the watchman told, saying, The messenger came to them, but he cometh not again.
9:19 Then he sent out a second on horseback, which came to them, and said, Thus saith the king, Is it peace? And Jehu answered, What hast thou to do with peace? turn thee behind me.
9:20 And the watchman told, saying, He came even unto them, and cometh not again: and the driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi; for he driveth furiously."
9:21 And Joram said, Make ready. And his chariot was made ready. And Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out against Jehu, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite.
9:22 And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?
9:23 And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, O Ahaziah.
9:24 And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot." [End Quote]

List of possible `alter-egos'

1. King David - Thutmose I.
   
2. King Solomon - Senenmut, Hammurabi
   
3. The Prophet Elijah - Micaiah, son of Imlah; Jehu, son of Hanani;
   
4. Ben Hadad - Tushrata, Yuya
   
5. King Ahab - Baasha, Artatama, Ayyab (Aiab), Akhnaton, Naphuria, Labayu
   
6. Jezebel - Nefertiti, Tiy, Baalat Nese
   
7. Ahaziah, son of Ahab - Smenkhare, Mut-Baal, Elah, Hiel of Jericho
   
8. Joram, son of Ahab of Samaria also known as `Jehoram' - Tutankhamon
   
9. Jehoram of Jerusalem, son of Jehoshaphat - Abdi-hiba of Urusalim.

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 correlations, some somewhat 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.