The Lost Kings of Ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom / F.I.P.

The table below shows the various Kings claimed/listed as recorded by the historians Africanus and Eusebius (based upon the list of the earlier historian, Manetho).

Table 1



Between dynaties 4 and 8 we have quite massive discrepencies in the number of Kings claimed/listed in each list. Of course, this is not unsurpising given the period of turmoil into which these early dynasties fall - the 'First Intermiediate Period'. This was a period of great turmoil in ancient Egypt which followed on from the sudden and catastrophic collapse of the Old Kingdom and is sometimes described as being a relative 'dark age' in AE history of which - compared with other periods of ancient Egyptian history - relatively little is known.

In the Abydos King List we find that dynasties 4-8 comprise of around 28 KIngs. If we combine the figures of Africanus and Eusebius in the tables above we potentially have the kings of dynasties 4-8 totalling around 151 Kings. That is - potentially - 123 missing Kings from the Old Kingdom period and if, for the sake of discussion, we take each King's reign as averaging 15 years, then this amounts to 1,845 years of lost history. It could be much less or it could be much more.

This is, of course, all fairly speculative since the figures in these tables presented by Africanus and Eusebius have been argued and disputed for decades, if not longer, with all manner of explanations being offered for the discrepencies. I just thought I would raise the issue here to see if anyone has any particular thoughts/insights into this problem of missing kings from the Old Kingdom/First Intermediate Period? Is it possible that there is a forgotten chapter in AE history, that in these seemingly lost kings and lost history, we might find where the real 'lost civilisation' resides?

All thoughts welcome.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

dont kings have to make a stella telling their story of ascent and descencion as king?

First this:

This was a period of great turmoil in ancient Egypt which followed on from the sudden and catastrophic collapse of the Old Kingdom and is sometimes described as being a relative 'dark age' in AE history

and then this:

if, for the sake of discussion, we take each King's reign as averaging 15 years, then this amounts to 1,845 years of lost history.

(my emphasis on both quotes)

How can the "great turmoil" be paired with a relatively stable flow of 15-year reigns for 123 kings? Turmoil, by definition, is an unstable period where kings (or rulers in general) succeed one another rather rapidly, no?

Compare the "70 Pharaohs in 70 days" period, which while not the case literally shows how a turmoil unfolds, ruler-wise.

Still, 123 "lost" kings is too much and I agree that much of that period may be entirely lost to us.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Maegnas]

It's interesting that you bring up "the legendary period", which was set down some 3,000 years after these kings supposedly reigned and seems to have little in common with the archaeological record. It also includes gods/names which were not known to the people of the time (a further indication that it's a "pious fraud" from the era of the Greeks.)

For people new to the topic, Wikipedia has a link to the primary sources used when looking up Kings' names: primary sources Scholars feel that the "legendary period" is simply the equivalent of the Babylonian kings lists of a similar type -- when they had no actual record of who ruled but wanted to establish themselves as a very long-lived culture and so set down deities and demigods as their rulers and listed very long lifetimes for them (I believe one of the Babylonian mythic rulers had a reign of 36,000 years but am too lazy to look it up now. Someone will correct me, I'm sure.)

The archaeological record, of course, tells a MUCH different story:
www.touregypt.net...

One of the nicer sites out there for predynastic material is Francisco Raffele's site (he's a grad student in Egyptology... might have gotten his PhD by now but I haven't heard.) His website contains a lot of first source material (in other words, pictures of the real artifacts and his drawings (which ... could use some help...)). The writing is scholarly, but don't let that put you off because there's a lot of fascinating detail there for those of us who love reading about ancient Egypt:
xoomer.virgilio.it...

A lesser known site (and by now out of date, I think) with wonderful material is Predyanstic Historian, which is a similar take from a historian's viewpoint:
www.predynastic.historians.co.uk...

It includes links to the Egyptology blog which announces finds made by everyone (not just Hawass):
www.egyptology.blogspot.com...

But, if you were to start anywhere in your investigations I recommend the Wikipedia and TourEgypt links for a fast overview and then a trip to Francisco's site for a very nice long read with all sorts of details to explore PLUS some research on relatively unknown artifacts!

Originally posted by Ausar
dont kings have to make a stella telling their story of ascent and descencion as king?

No, there was no such rule in Egypt... you're thinking of the Mayans, I believe. They did have memorabilia that was produced in the form of jewelry and personal items and scarabs and so forth. In later periods they would have parts of their history painted on the interior of their chapels and tombs.

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

Byrd: It's interesting that you bring up "the legendary period", which was set down some 3,000 years after these kings supposedly reigned...

SC: Africanus and Eusebius place these lost Kings into dynasties 4,5,6,7 and 8. They place them in the dynastic period, not pre-dynastic. Any thoughts?

Regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 25/8/2010 by Scott Creighton]

Actually, Scott, in thinking about it (I hope you didn't think I just went "AAARRRGH!!! IT'S HIM!!!! SMACK HIM WITH A STICK!!!"), I believe what you have there is evidence of a political manipulation of the Egyptian culture.

I'm bounding off to an Audubon event and won't be back till later, but what I do remember is that the Greeks take Egypt over from the Persians and try to redo the Egyptian culture to bring it more in line with Greek thinking and religion (the Apis bulls (didn't we discuss that once?) is an example of this.)

So the "Legendary kings" never appear in earlier lists but do show up after the Greeks take over (the much earlier Saqqara tablet is evidence here: en.wikipedia.org... ). The idea of "demigods" was foreign to the Egyptians -- the dead pharaoh became one with the god Osiris and the new pharaoh became one with the god Ra (or Horus or ...) -- but a "half human descendant of a god" is an idea from Babylon or Greece. There's no such thing in the early Egyptian legends.

I am not sure (something to check into) but they may match some of the concept of the "golden age" of Greece.

I don't know what scholarly papers there are on this, but I think this is worthy of investigating as a clear example of an attempted cultural makeover. The length of period that the rulers reigned sounds derived from Babylonian sources, and the Persians had conquered Egypt right before the Greeks grabbed it from them.

There might be some correlations there, but I'm in a rush right now. If you get a chance to compare, I'd appreciate your information.

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

Byrd: I hope you didn't think I just went "AAARRRGH!!! IT'S HIM!!!! SMACK HIM WITH A STICK!!!"

SC: As if I would ever think that of you!! :-)

Thanks for the info. Most useful. I shall most certainly dig a good bit deeper into this. If I uncover anything noteworthy, I shall most certainly let you know.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Just briefly (I'm very tired tonight) it looks as though "native Egyptians" lost control of the country at the end of the Third Intermediate Period and then ends up in the hands of the Assyrians and later the Greeks who try to syncretize the Egyptian gods with Greek gods.
en.wikipedia.org...

Of the kings lists around that have early dynasties, the ones from Ramses and earlier don't mention the legendary kings. The Assyrians take over about 700 BC and the Greeks around 332 BC.

Manetho (says his name is lost to us but we have the Hellenized version of his name left) worked during the time of the first two Ptolemeys. en.wikipedia.org...

If he's compiling lists, he may have gotten some of his maerial from records of the Ramesside period (1064 BC). Those lists start at the "first kings" and don't contain anything similar to the "legendary kings". Since they'd only be 600 years old or so to him, they might be easily accessible material.
en.wikipedia.org...

However, in his defense, there IS the Palermo Stone (2500 BC) which lists Horus an other legendary kings and gives the length of their kingships in thousands of years. I'll have to see if I can find the listing of those when I'm less sleepy:
en.wikipedia.org...

So it looks as though there were two versions floating around, one with a "legendary kings" and one without. My idea that it was an artifact of the Greeks is NOT supported, therefore -- although (unlike Manetho's version) those kings aren't considered demigods (as far as I know.)

Yet the legendary kings are clearly fictitious. So the question is, I guess, when did this bit of history arise and what was going on in Egypt in or around that time. It's the 5th dynasty... and tired brain is too tired to continue although I find it a rather interesting question. Is there some sort of cultural competition where they might have wanted to establish a long and mythical history?

And what's on the Palermo stone and how are the names treated (as royal names or preceded by deity designations or what?)

A question for tomorrow, I think.

(I'm enjoying pondering this and hope you can add some interesting tidbits.)

the mythical kings, and the so-called missing era was a Farce, started by imhotep and his cult of covanent priests to show they had soverignty in their lineage. they used the 3rd dynasty>onwards to set there roots/seeds

the greeks/romans/hitties would use these kings to establish their right to rule in the new kingdom.

though outside alexandria it was not even mentioned...in the REAL capital THEBES.

the new kingdom FOREIGN pharaohs:
18th dynasty hittites (covenant ex-preists)
persian dynasty
masecdonian

these groups spread these rumours
Pharaoh

reply to post by Scott Creighton


The pyramids line up with their appropriate constellations.....at approximately 10,500 BC. This is due to the procession of the equinoxes. There is currently a debate between the actual scientists....astronomers, geologists, vs. the Egyptologists regarding this matter. So much of history is lost.

Originally posted by theAymen
the mythical kings, and the so-called missing era was a Farce, started by imhotep and his cult of covanent priests to show they had soverignty in their lineage.

That'd be kind of hard to do since the first time the "demigod/god" ruler lists appear are 1,000 years after Imhotep died. He's not turned into a god until 2,000 years after his death, and he never appears in the kings lists -- either the mythical one or the real ones.

the greeks/romans/hitties would use these kings to establish their right to rule in the new kingdom.

Actually, they just beat the Egyptian armies AND the mercenary armies that Egypt hired.

18th dynasty hittites (covenant ex-preists)

Not to be disputatious here, but the Egyptians conquered the Hittites:
www.mnsu.edu...

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

The pyramids line up with their appropriate constellations.....at approximately 10,500 BC. This is due to the procession of the equinoxes. There is currently a debate between the actual scientists....astronomers, geologists, vs. the Egyptologists regarding this matter. So much of history is lost.

Actually, there's no real debate on this -- the consensus is that they don't believe the pyramids line up with the constellations at 10,500 BC. There are many websites (including Wikipedia) that show how Hancock manipulated the data (turning the constellation upside down, and changing the proportions of the positions of the stars to make it fit)
en.wikipedia.org...

WOW a Super Mod...
Im honoured
i`ll answer your attempts to brush me off...I AM EGYPT

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by theAymen

the mythical kings, and the so-called missing era was a Farce, started by imhotep and his cult of covanent priests to show they had soverignty in their lineage.

That'd be kind of hard to do since the first time the "demigod/god" ruler lists appear are 1,000 years after Imhotep died. He's not turned into a god until 2,000 years after his death, and he never appears in the kings lists -- either the mythical one or the real ones.

yes it was him who was the foundation of ths blueprint. he classed himself and djoser (his pharaoh) as gods...(cult of khnum).then 1000 yrs later OTHERS Used this... in particular a covenant sect of priests (18th dynasty pharaohs as well) used his cult of khnum to start there own cult where quite frankly it was a cult of control/ google khnum, the cult founded by imhotep to control the pharaoh

the greeks/romans/hitties would use these kings to establish their right to rule in the new kingdom.

Actually, they just beat the Egyptian armies AND the mercenary armies that Egypt hired.

hahah..ruling Upper Egypt was a right given by the gods (Atef worn by osiris)...pharaohs knew that..more importantly the peoeple knew that..so to RULE them is alot more then beating an army...how will u trade. live etc
temperary non lineage pharaohs are egypts curse...grrrrr (upper egypt IS the old kingdom..Thebes is the capital...the REAL pharaohs - google taharaq..the last REAL pharaoh)

18th dynasty hittites (covenant ex-preists)

Not to be disputatious here, but the Egyptians conquered the Hittites:

yes i know...AY and Horemheb....BUT ...they then came back as Priests. in the 19h dynasty..
Pharaoh Seti1 brought them back to help build his temple in abydos. Set1 son ramsees the great had the htiites priests constantly with thm...(who i believe inticed ramsees. on a military campaign in the villages of Ay & horemheb)

who he later expelled for killing his son...who he had with nefertari ..a royal from the conquerd upper egypt.

she demanded revenge..her army from Thebes came north...then... story of exodus,mosis,red sea etc...


Basically to sum up:

non lineage/non sovereign rulers are fabricating a story/link to them being divine rulers on earth , like the upper egyptians have with pharaoh. so this story of demi gods is a lame way to show your RIGHT TO RULE. a lie about being a demigod..this divine right to rule and constant 10,000 bc talk is all links to certain men being related to the pre flood/ antidiluvean, demi god era which will establish their divine right to rule.
more importantly this is the foundations of a religon.

all pharohs knew this.

I AM PHARAOH

repeat soz

this to...read below

Originally posted by Byrd
Just briefly (I'm very tired tonight) it looks as though "native Egyptians" lost control of the country at the end of the Third Intermediate Period and then ends up in the hands of the Assyrians and later the Greeks who try to syncretize the Egyptian gods with Greek gods.

what if i told you tha the people who synchronised the egyptian religon into modern day christianty are still alive and kicking..speaking the same language and practising the same religon!!

...look at the COPTIC churches in egypt...coptic means "ancient greek written in arabic"

they are your holy grail for information being alsothe hittite and new kingdom priests!!

reply to post by theAymen

Originally posted by theAymen
yes it was him who was the foundation of ths blueprint. he classed himself and djoser (his pharaoh) as gods...(cult of khnum).

Could you point to the texts that show that he was known as a god at the same time Djoser was (he actually served several pharaohs)? His name (written on his own statue found at Saqqara) doesn't contain either the royal cartouche or the "cult flag" indicating he's a deity -- the other inscription gives his name in the same format as a simple person and not a deity.
www.sullivanet.com...

So can you point to the hieroglyphs that show he's worshipped before the time of his death? I can read hieroglyphs (badly, but I can read them.)

www.answers.com...

then 1000 yrs later OTHERS Used this... in particular a covenant sect of priests (18th dynasty pharaohs as well) used his cult of khnum to start there own cult where quite frankly it was a cult of control/ google khnum, the cult founded by imhotep to control the pharaoh

I'm not sure where you get this from. Khnum was worshipped long before Imhotep was born. And in googling Khnum, it says he is only a primary god for a short time (en.wikipedia.org...) and is later reduced to a secondary god, worshipped in only two places. By the time of the 18th dynasty, the main god is Ra/Re (en.wikipedia.org...)

There wasn't an unbroken heritage. Egypt's government (the pharaohs) had collapsed twice (en.wikipedia.org...) (en.wikipedia.org...) and had then been taken over by foreigners (the Hyksos) ( en.wikipedia.org...)

The religion changed quite a bit during that time period, as shown in temple walls, in changes in the story of gods, in the changes in the Pyramid Texts/Book of the Dead/Book of Gates, etc.

hahah..ruling Upper Egypt was a right given by the gods (Atef worn by osiris)...pharaohs knew that..more importantly the peoeple knew that..so to RULE them is alot more then beating an army...how will u trade. live etc

I think you'll find that whoever ended up in power became a god (that concept is not exactly right; more of a "god manifestation on earth" than what we think of as a deity. They became a true deity after death.) It wasn't a "right" given by a god or any god. And there were many different crowns worn, depending on the occasion and the dynasty. The monumental statues of Ramses at his temple in Abu Simdal show him wearing the Nemes crown... same with Thutmose (in statuary and in wall paintings)... and so on and so forth. The atef crown is not shown in most depictions. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that the one crown represented the pharaoh's right to rule.

(upper egypt IS the old kingdom..Thebes is the capital...the REAL pharaohs - google taharaq..the last REAL pharaoh)

I googled Taharaq. It's a character in a fantasy novel. (and that's not an Egyptian name, anyway. Nor is Tetisheri, to the best of my knowledge)
en.wikipedia.org...

Not to be disputatious here, but the Egyptians conquered the Hittites:

yes i know...AY and Horemheb....BUT ...they then came back as Priests. in the 19h dynasty.

The Hittites?

Pharaoh Seti1 brought them back to help build his temple in abydos.

His priests were the same people he was battling throughout his reign? The ones who had taken the territory of his fathers, and who he was systematically killing to regain that land?

Can you link to something that shows he was importing priests of an enemy people with a foreign religion (links to their names would be adequate, since Hittite names are very different from Egyptian names)? As far as I know from all the inscriptions, his chief priest (with other titles) was Paser (who was definately Egyptian of Egyptian parents):
en.wikipedia.org...

Set1 son ramsees the great had the htiites priests constantly with thm...(who i believe inticed ramsees. on a military campaign in the villages of Ay & horemheb)

Horemheb died before Ay, who died before Rameses I came to the throne. He's the grandfather of Ramses II. So... what were you using as evidence that Ramses attacked the towns of Henen-nesut (the capital of the 20th Nome of Egypt) and Ipu (capital of the 9th Nome of Egypt)?

who he later expelled for killing his son...who he had with nefertari ..a royal from the conquerd upper egypt.

she demanded revenge..her army from Thebes came north...then... story of exodus,mosis,red sea etc...

Uhm... that doesn't match any of the material from Egypt. Ramses' sons by Nefertari (who is, according to genetic tests, one of his relatives) lived and became commanders in his armies. Here's a big list of them:
en.wikipedia.org...

And Nefertari's biography:
en.wikipedia.org...

non lineage/non sovereign rulers are fabricating a story/link to them being divine rulers on earth

Sometimes they did this in some cultures, yes.

so this story of demi gods is a lame way to show your RIGHT TO RULE. a lie about being a demigod..this divine right to rule and constant 10,000 bc talk is all links to certain men being related to the pre flood/ antidiluvean, demi god era which will establish their divine right to rule.

It *might* be... except that this isn't a long line of father-to-son inheritances. The importance of a demigod in your past makes you divine, but if you're an usurper you have to introduce a new line of gods. Ramses II wasn't an usurper -- he was the son and grandson and great-grandson of pharaohs.

more importantly this is the foundations of a religon.

Which religion?

Originally posted by theAymen
what if i told you tha the people who synchronised the egyptian religon into modern day christianty are still alive and kicking..speaking the same language and practising the same religon!!

Then I would point you to articles on the translation of the Rosetta Stone and to books on how to read ancient Egyptian (which will show you how much the language changed over time) and a lot of history books on how the culture of Egypt changed during the 300 years when the Greeks ruled it and

...look at the COPTIC churches in egypt...coptic means "ancient greek written in arabic"

Uhm... Coptic isn't ancient Greek, nor is it written in Arabic. It's Egyptian of 300 BC and later, written in Greek letters with a lot of Greek and Roman borrow words and a mish-mash of other Mediterranean influences tossed in. It's related to Late Egyptian but it really isn't the same (otherwise, Champolleon would have translated the Rosetta stone in a few months... and Coptic was one of many languages that he knew (he spoke more than eight different languages.)
en.wikipedia.org...

they are your holy grail for information being alsothe hittite and new kingdom priests!!

The Coptic churches? Their religion is not similar at all to the earlier polytheistic Egyptian religions.

Originally posted by Byrd
reply to post by theAymen

 

Could you point to the texts that show that he was known as a god at the same time Djoser was (he actually served several pharaohs)? His name (written on his own statue found at Saqqara) doesn't contain either the royal cartouche or the "cult flag" indicating he's a deity -- the other inscription gives his name in the same format as a simple person and not a deity.
So can you point to the hieroglyphs that show he's worshipped before the time of his death? I can read hieroglyphs

imhotep was the first to class himself as a Demi-god, son of ptah
then he was worshiped, as a demi-god after his death...then later, at the beginning of the new kingdom & under the Persian/ greco-romans he was classed as a Full-god.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ced9c5343e69.jpg[/atsimg]

if you want read on:
" As Imhotep was considered the inventor of healing, he was also sometimes said to be the one who held up the goddess Nut (the deification of the sky), as the separation of Nut and Geb (the deification of the earth) was said to be what held back chaos. Due to the position this would have placed him in, he was also sometimes said to be Nut's son. In artwork he also is linked with the great goddess, Hathor, who eventually became identified as the wife of Ra. He also was associated with Ma'at, the goddess who personified the concept of truth, cosmic order, and justice—having created order out of chaos and being responsible for maintaining it. Also after Death, the Ancient Egyptians believed Imhotep became a god.
Two thousand years after his death, his status was raised to that of a deity. He became the god of medicine and healing. He later was linked to Asclepius by the Greeks. He was associated with Amenhotep son of Hapu, who was another deified architect, in the region of Thebes where they were worshipped as "brothers". [M. Lichtheim, "Ancient Egyptian Literature", The University of California Press 1980, vol.3, p.104] "

I'm not sure where you get this from. Khnum was worshipped long before Imhotep was born. And in googling Khnum, it says he is only a primary god for a short time (en.wikipedia.org...) and is later reduced to a secondary god, worshipped in only two places. By the time of the 18th dynasty, the main god is Ra/Re (en.wikipedia.org...)

khnum (god of nile/rebirth) was there before the time of imhotep, yes.....but, Imhotep started the” cult of khnum”, after the droughts, on the source of the nile, in Elephantine.

As djosers priest and viser... he was the first to make pharaoh pray to a lesser god. As well as influencing him, the state he demanded a large part of egypts wealth for this cult.

The teachings from this cult later became the cult of imhotep in the new kingdom.. the make up of the cult became what was basically a group of covenant priests who ultimately controlled Egypt. They influenced pharaoh, the people and the state....Though to take the throne, proved difficult....they needed proof of their divinity...

“The idea of promoting ur divine right to rule by “claiming” a relationship to the gods.”

even soliman used this template of imhotep

The religion changed quite a bit during that time period, as shown in temple walls, in changes in the story of gods, in the changes in the Pyramid Texts/Book of the Dead/Book of Gates, etc.

I think you'll find that whoever ended up in power became a god (that concept is not exactly right; more of a "god manifestation on earth" than what we think of as a deity. They became a true deity after death.) It wasn't a "right" given by a god or any god. And there were many different crowns worn, depending on the occasion and the dynasty. The monumental statues of Ramses at his temple in Abu Simdal show him wearing the Nemes crown... same with Thutmose (in statuary and in wall paintings)... and so on and so forth. The atef crown is not shown in most depictions. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that the one crown represented the pharaoh's right to rule.

ok firstly...Osiris – is the only god concerned with the divine right to rule by pharaoh – he wears the Atef of upper Egypt. Horus`s crown was worn by new kingdom pharaohs who classed themselves as demigods...sons of gods like horus was. the worship of ra coinsided with its rays possesing a ruler on earth. sungod.

to add: war was in fact seen as a cort of gods law.
victory showed the gods supported the pharaoh...

. It's a character in a fantasy novel. (and that's not an Egyptian name, anyway. Nor is Tetisheri, to the best of my knowledge)

haha...taharraqa was a 25th dynasty ku*hite pharaoh. from upper egypt..the last real pharaoh...why would you think he was a fantasy character lol.
They say the same sort of thing about tutankhamuns mother, who was an upper egyptian royal, who they call nowadays a "slave girl".
it is patronising for an upper egyptian to hear these comments

Pharaoh Seti1 brought them back to help build his temple in abydos.

His priests were the same people he was battling throughout his reign? The ones who had taken the territory of his fathers, and who he was systematically killing to regain that land?

Can you link to something that shows he was importing priests of an enemy people with a foreign religion (links to their names would be adequate, since Hittite names are very different from Egyptian names)? As far as I know from all the inscriptions, his chief priest (with other titles) was Paser (who was definately Egyptian of Egyptian parents)

The hitties were defeated by the end of the 18th dynasty. In the 19th dynasty Seti1 ventured to destroy them. But there priests were captured and lived under his rule within the state, mainly to build his temple. He brought them back due to their extensive knowledge which they took out of Egypt prior, if anything he introduced them back into the state.

His Sons Wife, nefertari, an upper Egyptian was the cause of the major exodus of the hitties powerful priests.
It became apparent to nefartari that these preists were attempting to outbreed the upper Egyptian lineage out from the crown by cross breeding with the pharaoh. though ramsees marrying nefartari annoyed the preists. Which is why they killed one of his first born.

They were also the conspirators for ramsses 3rd, but as the old kingdom armies to the `south was subdued due to his father, he had no support for his resulting wars.

Horemheb died before Ay, who died before Rameses I came to the throne. He's the grandfather of Ramses II. So... what were you using as evidence that Ramses attacked the towns of Henen-nesut (the capital of the 20th Nome of Egypt) and Ipu (capital of the 9th Nome of Egypt)?

Uhm... that doesn't match any of the material from Egypt. Ramses' sons by Nefertari (who is, according to genetic tests, one of his relatives) lived and became commanders in his armies. Here's a big list of them:

tut tut..yes i know...though they killed one of his first borns with her.

??.... Ay ruled for a brief period then horemheb took over.... as those two were non-royals they went about starting the19th dynasty with ramsees1.

my point was Ramsees2 was affirming his soverignty by marrying an upper egyptian royal. bearing in mind those days there was only one lineage that ruled.(marrying relatives was common).. him marrying a royal upset the hittite priests.
they had already inticed ramsees on a military campaign in the south.. he reached as far as where abu simbel is, which he built in the south which is past the villages of ay & horemheb also look at Beit el-Wali and Gerf Hussein
the return of the old kingdom ways was being reintroduced...which the hittite priests hated.

It *might* be... except that this isn't a long line of father-to-son inheritances. The importance of a demigod in your past makes you divine, but if you're an usurper you have to introduce a new line of gods. Ramses II wasn't an usurper -- he was the son and grandson and great-grandson of pharaohs.

i didnt say ramsees was an usurper, i said the 18th dynasty pharaohs were...: tuthmosis,amenhotep,akhenaten.
as well as persians and greco-romans.

more importantly this is the foundations of a religon.

Which religion?

the new kingdom interpretation of old kingdom gods. was in fact a new religon....today..i wont attempt to label a religon but ....We see this going on...(the constant talk of 10,500 bc), common men classing themselves as demigods with a right to rule...the new world order...is now using this “imhotep” blueprint as the foundation of a religion, and the control of that religion. like they have with christianity/catholisim Thank you


as for the coptics..its not modern greek or ancient egyptian...its an ancient language spoken by mediteranean greeks written in arabic...who most definatly had a hand in deciphering new kingdom text leading onto knowing the old kingdom symbols.

to add ....The Wadjet of lower Egypt (red hollow crown) – worn by hitties and most 18th dynasty pharaohs onwards, was not the soverign ruler.

Nekhbet (upper egypt eagle) holding wadjet (lower egyptserpent) in its claws