Meet the Egyptian Gods
How to Make a Mummy! Use a special Egyptian salt called natron to fill up the cavities and cover up the body. This will get rid of all the moisture. When the wrapping is all done, put the mummy in a coffin. Then put that coffin in a coffin, and that coffin in . Mummification The earliest ancient Egyptians buried their dead in small pits in the desert. The heat and dryness of the sand dehydrated the bodies quickly, creating lifelike and natural 'mummies'. Later, the ancient Egyptians began burying their dead in coffins to protect them from wild animals in the desert.
A young boy stands in a temple filled with burning incense as he waits for a priest to place a glittering crown on his head. The ritual is part of eggyptian coronation ceremony that will make the nine-year-old pharaoh of ancient Egypt.
His people will call him by his royal name: King Tutankhamun. You probably know him as just King Tut. Tut became pharaoh of Egypt in B. He ruled the country at a time of conflict, when battles over land raged between Egypt and the neighboring kingdom of Nubia. Nearly a decade after coming to power, the young leader died at about After finding a crypt beneath the Egyptian desertSgyptian spent much of the next two years searching the tomb. But the biggest treasure was within another room in the tomb, where Carter found a coffin.
The coffin opened to reveal … another coffin. Inside the second coffin was a third coffin made of gold. Soon after the mummy was uncovered, archaeologists tried to pry his body from the sticky sacred oils that coated the inside of his coffin.
Some suspected he was murdered, perhaps poisoned. But modern technologies like 3-D scanning eventually revealed that the powerful king was actually in poor health—and even had a broken leg. Maybe the frail king how to get tome of jewelcrafting from one of the chariots found in his tomb.
All rights reserved. Skip to content. Personality Quizzes. Funny Fill-In. Amazing Animals. Weird But True! Party Animals. Try This! Explore More.
Scenes showing King Tut's funeral and his journey to the afterlife were painted on the walls inside of his tomb. Women Heroes. African American Heroes. Native Americans Native Americans.
History Hkw about historical events and famous people what are the parts of the clams nervous system the past.
10 Things You Find In An Egyptian Tomb
The second coffin fit neatly inside the first. Like the first, it was made of wood covered in gold leaf, and had a portrait of the king at its head. Inner coffin. The third, innermost coffin was made of solid gold. It is one of the most valuable ancient objects ever found. Mummy. Inside the third coffin . Sep 23, · The outermost coffin is the largest of three concentric coffins inside which King Tut’s mummy was found. While the inner two coffins have already been on display at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the third coffin will finally rejoin them for an exhibit at the new Grand Egyptian . After finding a crypt beneath the Egyptian desert, Carter spent much of the next two years searching the tomb. But the biggest treasure was within another room in the tomb, where Carter found a coffin. The coffin opened to reveal another coffin. Inside the second coffin was a third coffin made of gold.
Smenkhkare alternatively romanized Smenkhare , Smenkare, or Smenkhkara ; meaning "'Vigorous is the Soul of Re" was an Egyptian pharaoh of unknown background who lived and ruled during the Amarna Period of the 18th Dynasty. Smenkhkare was husband to Meritaten , the daughter of his likely co-regent, Akhenaten. Very little is known of Smenkhkare for certain because later kings sought to erase the Amarna Period from history. Because of this, perhaps no one from the Amarna Interlude has been the subject of so much speculation as Smenkhkare.
Smenkhkare's origins are relatively unknown. It is assumed he was a member of the royal family, likely either a brother or son of the pharaoh Akhenaten.
If a son of Akhenaten, his mother was likely an unknown, lesser wife. Smenkhkare is known to have married Akhenaten's eldest daughter, Meritaten , who was his Great Royal Wife. If so, he is a candidate for father of the prince Tutankhaten, who would eventually become Pharaoh Tutankhamun.
Alternatively, it has been suggested that Smenkhkare is actually the Hittite prince Zannanza who was sent to Egypt to marry a queen, called Dakhamunzu , whose husband had died. However, this suggestion is unlikely because Zannanza died before he reached Egypt.
Clear evidence for a sole reign for Smenkhkare has not yet been found. There are few artifacts that attest to his existence at all, and so it is assumed his reign was short. A wine docket from "the house of Smenkhkare" attests to Regnal Year 1.
Some Egyptologists have speculated about the possibility of a two- or three-year reign for Smenkhkare based on a number of wine dockets from Amarna that lack a king's name but bear dates for regnal years 2 and 3. While there are few monuments or artifacts that attest to Smenkhkare's existence, there is a major addition to the Amarna palace complex that bears his name.
It was built in approximately Year 15 and was likely built for a significant event related to him. Academic consensus has yet to be reached about when exactly Smenkhkare ruled as pharaoh and where he falls in the timeline of Amarna. In particular, the confusion of his identity compared to that of Pharoah Neferneferuaten has led to considerable academic debate about the order of kings in the late Amarna Period.
Aidan Dodson suggests that Smenkhkare did not have a sole reign and only served as Akhenaten's co-regent for about a year around Regnal Year Per Dodson's theory, Smenkhkare served only as co-regent with Akhenaten and never had an individual rule and Nefertiti became co-regent and eventual successor to Akhenaten. There, Smenkhkare wears the khepresh crown , however he is called the son-in-law of Akhenaten. Further, his name appears only during Akhenaten's reign without certain evidence to attest to a sole reign.
However, this is the only object known to carry both names side-by-side. However, the scene in Meryre's tomb is undated and Akhenaten is neither depicted nor mentioned in the tomb. The jar may simply be a case of one king associating himself with a predecessor. The simple association of names, particularly on everyday objects, is not conclusive of a co-regency. Arguing against the co-regency theory, Allen suggests that Neferneferuaten followed Akhenaten and that upon her death, Smenkhkare ascended as pharaoh.
Allen proposes that following Nefertiti's death in Year 13 or 14, her daughter Neferneferuaten-tasherit became Pharaoh Neferneferuaten. Furthermore, work is believed to have halted on the Amarna tombs shortly after Year For him to have succeeded Neferneferuaten means that aside from a lone wine docket, he left not a single trace over the course of five to six years.
In comparison to the theories mentioned above, Marc Gabolde has advocated that Smenkhkare's Great Royal Wife, Meritaten, became Pharaoh Neferneferuaten after her husband's death.
Later, she succeed her father and ruled as pharaoh in her own right The main argument against this is a box Carter k from Tutankhamun's tomb that lists Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, and Meritaten as three separate individuals. There, Meritaten is explicitly listed as Great Royal Wife. However under this theory, Akhenaten would be dead by the time Meritaten became pharaoh as Neferneferuaten. Gabolde suggest that these depictions are retrospective. Yet since these are private cult stelae it would require a number of people to get the same idea to commission a retrospective, commemorative stela at the same time.
Allen notes that the everyday interaction portrayed in them more likely indicates two living people. There has been much confusion in identifying artifacts related to Smenkhkare because another pharaoh from the Amarna Period bears the same or similar royal titulary. In , it was proposed that there were two individuals using the same name: a male king Smenkhkare and a female Neferneferuaten. After their initial rediscovery, Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten were assumed to be the same person because of their similar royal titulary.
Thus, the use of similar titulary led to a great deal of confusion among Egyptologists. Indeed, Petrie makes exactly that distinction in his excavation notes. Later, a different set of names emerged using the same: " Ankhkheperure mery Neferkheperure [Akhenaten] Neferneferuaten mery Wa en Re [Akhenaten]". There are two main methods for differentiating between the two pharaohs.
First, the feminine traces in some versions of the regnal names is most likely to be Neferneferuaten. Second, the absence of epithets in the cartouche most likely refers to Smenkhkare. All but a few cartouches that are identified with Neferneferuaten include the epithets " Ten years later, James Peter Allen pointed out the name 'Ankhkheperure' nearly always included an epithet referring to Akhenaten such as 'desired of Wa en Re' when coupled with 'Neferneferuaten'.
Theories arose when the two pharaohs Smenkhkare and Akhenaten were still considered the same, male person, that they could have been homosexual lovers or even married. This is because of artwork clearly showing Akhenaten in familiar, intimate poses with another pharaoh. For example, stele in Berlin depicts a pair of royal figures, one in the double crown and the other, who appears to be a woman, in the khepresh crown. However, the set of three empty cartouches can only account for the names of a king and queen.
This has been interpreted to mean that at one point Nefertiti may have been a coregent, as indicated by the crown, but not entitled to full pharaonic honors such as the double cartouche. Alternatively, once the feminine traces were discovered in some versions of the throne names, it was proposed that Nefertiti was masquerading as Smenkhkare and later changed her name back to Neferneferuaten. There would be precedent for presenting a female pharaoh as a male, such as Hatshepsut had done generations prior.
As the evidence came to light in bits and pieces at a time when Smenkhkare was assumed to have also used the name Neferneferuaten, perhaps at the start of his sole reign, it sometimes defied logic. For instance, when the mortuary wine docket surfaced from the 'House of Smenkhkare deceased ', it seemed to appear that he changed his name back before he died.
Since his reign was brief, and he may never have been more than co-regent, the evidence for Smenkhkare is not plentiful, but nor is it quite as insubstantial as it is sometimes made out to be. It certainly amounts to more than just 'a few rings and a wine docket' or that he 'appears only at the very end of Ahkenaton's reign in a few monuments'  as is too often portrayed. Smenkhkare has been put forward as a candidate for the mummy within a desecrated royal coffin discovered in KV The tomb was discovered in the Valley of the Kings in by Edward R.
Ayrton while working for Theodore M. The tomb contained funerary objects inscribed with the names of several figures of the Amarna Period, including magic bricks with Akhenaten's name, canopic jars assumed to be for King's Wife Kiya , and a shrine built for Tiye.
The mummy discovered in the tomb rested in a desecrated rishi coffin and the owner's name had been removed. It is generally accepted that the coffin was originally intended for a female and later reworked to accommodate a male. The case for Akhenaten rests largely on the 'magic bricks' and the reworking of some of the inscriptions on the coffin.
The case for Smenkhkare comes mostly from the presumed age of the mummy see below which, between ages 18 and 26 would not fit Akhenaten who reigned for 17 years and had fathered a child near by his first regnal year. There is nothing in the tomb positively identified as belonging to Smenkhkare, nor is his name found there. The tomb is certainly not befitting any king, but even less so for Akhenaten.
Wente used craniofacial analysis in as well as examining past X-rays to examine a cache of mummies, mostly from the 18th Dynasty , in order to sort out the relationships and true identities of each. Serological tests on the KV55 remains and Tutankhamun's mummy were performed and published in Nature The KV55 mummy was also examined by Harris in , but only an abstract of the results was published, and most recently by Hawass, Gad et al.
Filer's conclusions were largely representative of the pre examinations, noting " The human remains from Tomb 55, as presented to me, are those of a young man who had no apparent abnormalities and was no older than his early twenties at death and probably a few years younger.
These were largely in keeping with the previous results 18—26 years allowing for the technologies available. For instance, Derry concluded an age of about 23 and Strouhal gave an age range of 19 to A brother seemed more likely since the age would only be old enough to plausibly father a child at the upper extremes.
CT scans were also performed on the mummy from which it was concluded that his age at the time of death was much higher than all previous estimates. New CT scans of the KV55 mummy also revealed an age-related degeneration in the spine and osteoarthritis in the knees and legs. It appeared that he had died closer to the age of 40 than 25, as originally thought. With the age discrepancy thus resolved, we could conclude that the KV55 mummy, the son of Amenhotep III and Tiye and the father of Tutankhamun, is almost certainly Akhenaten.
Since we know so little about Smenkhkare, he cannot be completely ruled out. Evidence to support the much older claim was not provided beyond the single point of spinal degeneration.
A growing body of work soon began to appear to dispute the assessment of the age of the mummy and the identification of KV55 as Akhenaten. The content was retold on the Archaeology News Network website and is representative of a portion of the dissent:.
These earlier analyses — documented with written descriptions, photographs and radiographs — show a pattern of fused and unfused epiphyses caps on ends of growing bones throughout the skeleton, indicating a man much younger than Akhenaten is believed to have been at the time of his death.
Baker also uses a photograph of the pubic symphysis of the pelvis to narrow the age of KV55 to 18—23 based on recent techniques used in osteology and forensic anthropology. He published his conclusions in where he 'utterly excluded the possibility of Akhenaten':. He did not possess the slightest dental pathology and not even the onset of degenerative changes in the spine and joints. Other criticisms surround what the project did not do.
Wente had noted that the mummies of both Tutankamun and KV55 bore a very strong craniofacial similarity to the mummy of Thutmose IV, yet this mummy was not tested. Dylan Bickerstaffe calls it "almost perverse" that the mysterious "boy on a boat" found in KV35 was not tested while the "Elder Lady" and "Younger Lady" found there were.
The boy could very well be Akhenaten's older brother Prince Thutmose or even Smenkhkare given that the KV35 ladies are now known to be related to Tutankamun. While it now seems likely that the KV55 mummy is the father of Tutankhamun, for many his identification as Akhenaten seems as doubtful as before. At the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, the royal family had prepared tombs in Amarna, rather than in the traditional burial grounds at Thebes. After the capital moved from Amarna, Akhenaten's successor might have faced a shortage of tombs for royal reburials.
Left alone in a tomb with few of the trappings of the typical Ancient Egyptian burial, the KV55 mummy appears to be not so much buried as disposed of. Since the KV55 mummy is conclusively a close relative of Tutankhamun, if not his father, why such a haphazard burial?
<- What medical deductions for taxes - How to make a complete website->