Attila - the quest for the Sword of Mars. The locations of Attila’s lost capital and his legendary tomb, 2024
The Huns are part of Europe's rich history. The direct Hunnic impact on Europe as it stood around... more The Huns are part of Europe's rich history. The direct Hunnic impact on Europe as it stood around 370 was massive. Attila is one of the few names from antiquity that is still instantly recognised. Three famous experts on the Huns - Otto Maenchen-Helfen (1973), Edward Thompson (1948, 1996), and Mischa Meier (2020) - contributed significantly to our knowledge, but they failed to answer the five most important questions on Attila and the Huns:
- Which was the native country of the Huns? - Where are the capitals and tombs of Attila's royal ancestors - Uldin, Charaton, and Ruga? - Where did Attila's decisive Battle of the Catalaunian Plains really take place? - Where is Attila's lost capital? - Where is Attila's legendary tomb with his fabled Sword of Mars?
This book provides answers to each of these five questions, while also solving other mysteries - the identity of Priscus’ formerly enigmatic Drecon River, the historical personalities behind Jordanes’ garbled “Sangiban” and “Balamber”, the name of the village of Attila's sister-in-law, the true course of Attila's Gallic campaign in 451 and his Italian campaign in 452, and Attila’s probable birthplace, his age and likely cause of death in the spring of 453.
This Chapter on the major battle of the Huns is only available here on academia.edu. It is publis... more This Chapter on the major battle of the Huns is only available here on academia.edu. It is published separately from the book because this chapter is voluminous and weakly linked to the other parts and because it deals with one particular topic only.
The book itself is dedicated to the quest to find Attila’s capital (Chapter 5) and his tomb (Chapter 6). This required inquiries into the origins of the Huns and the situation in Eurasia at the time of their arrival in Europe in the 360s (Chapter 2). It was mandatory to study the history of the Huns in Europe and to locate the former Hunnic capitals and the tombs of Attila’s royal ancestors (Chapter 3).
It is the common understanding that the major battle of the Huns was fought in June 451 on the “Catalaunian Plains”. The precise location of this battle between the Huns, Western Romans, and Visigoths, however, has remained elusive. Chapter 4 rejects all of the former locations, in particular Troyes and Châlons. It dismantles Châlons as a fairy tale of the Gothic narrator Jordanes, based on a location error of Hydatius from Chaves. It explains what pugna Mauriacensis of the Lex Burgundionum really meant and that this term has nothing to do with a locus Mauriacus and is devoid of any connection to Troyes. Chapter 4 starts with the facts we know for sure from mid-451. It generates the most likely scenario for this major battle. It names the four, misunderstood or overlooked, ancient sources which concordantly reveal the true location of this battle. It demonstrates that eighteen artefacts, belonging to the Huns, Romans, and Visigoths, which were excavated in the late 19th century, corroborate the true location of this battle in the afternoon of June 15, 451.
Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norde... more Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norderstedt, Feb. 2019. ISBN 9783748140658. 288 pp. EUR 49.
- Alexander had four not three Tombs. His original Tomb is identified and illustrated for the first time. - Alexander’s mummy rested in three not two Sarcophagi. His original Sarcophagus is identified and illustrated. - Due to an overlooked testimony, the fate of Alexander’s Mummy is clarified. Alexander’s Mummy never rested in the Siwa or the Bahariya Oasis. His Mummy is not venerated as “St. Mark” at Venice. Thereby the pharaonic owner of the “Alabaster Tomb” in Alexandria and the identity of "St. Mark" at Venice will be disclosed. - The person responsible for the death of Pharaoh Alexander in June 10/11, 323 BC is identified. - Dynasties 32 and 33 are recognized and the end of the Late Period of Ancient Egypt in 30 BC is suggested. - The Tombs of Philip II and Philip III at Aegae are clarified (Appendix 1, published simultaneously on https://independent.academia.edu/MTRH). - The original East Wall of Ptolemaic Alexandria is reconstructed (Appendix 3, published simultaneously on https://independent.academia.edu/MTRH).
Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norde... more Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norderstedt, Feb. 2019. ISBN 9783748140658. 288 pp. EUR 49.
Appendix 1: The Tombs of Philip II and Philip III at Aegae
This is the first out of four Appendices from the aforementioned book. Appendix 1 is published simultaneously to the book on academia.edu. As this Appendix is voluminous and deals with one particular subject, it is published separately from the book. The book investigates the tombs of Alexander the Great. This also includes Amphipolis. Philip II was one of the proposed owners of the Casta Hill monument in Amphipolis. Katis & Katis (2016) suggest that Casta Hill was where Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, was buried. Therefore, inquiries into the fate of Philip II are necessary. This Appendix analyses in detail and submits identities of the persons buried in Tombs I-IV under the Great Tumulus at Vergina. It thereby demonstrates that Philip II was undeniably buried at Aegae but was not reburied at Amphipolis. Philip II is ruled out as the owner, and as the uncremated Person 3 (male of mid-forties) in the Casta Hill monument at Amphipolis. Appendix 1 thus supports the conclusions of Chapter 1.6 of the aforementioned book. https://www.bod.de/buchshop/pharaoh-alexander-the-great-traugott-huber-9783748140658
Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norde... more Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norderstedt, Feb. 2019. ISBN 9783748140658. 288 pp. EUR 49.
Appendix 3: The original East Wall of Ptolemaic Alexandria
This is the third out of four Appendices from the aforementioned book. Appendix 3 is published simultaneously to the book on academia.edu. As this Appendix is voluminous and deals with one particular subject, it is published separately from the book. The book investigates the tombs and the mummy of Alexander the Great. This prominently also includes Alexandria where two tombs of Alexander were built. The original Alexandria, the town devised by Alexander and built by Ptolemaios I, is decisive to locate the 3rd and the 4th tomb of Pharaoh Alexander, and the original tomb of Pharaoh Ptolemaios I. Whereas the course of the ancient west wall of Alexandria is undisputed, the east wall of early Ptolemaic Alexandria was discussed ever since. This Appendix analyses the facts and the available alternatives. It suggests the most likely course of the original east wall of Alexandria. It also demonstrates the further developments under Ptolemaios II-IV. It clarifies that Ptolemaios I’s Alexandria was much smaller than Ptolemaios IV’s. Appendix 3 thus substantiates the conclusions of Chapter 3.4 of the aforementioned book.
This book presents the results of the author’s inquiries during the past 31 years on one of the m... more This book presents the results of the author’s inquiries during the past 31 years on one of the most hotly debated subjects of Ancient Egypt, namely the Amarna Period of the 18th Dynasty. Based on a thorough study of the archaeological facts, the available genetic data, the relevant literature, and documentary videos, a coherent new view is presented. This book resolves most of the enigmas of this fascinating period of Ancient Egypt. It discloses the true parents of Tutankhamun. It exposes the identity of Pharaoh Smenkhkare, who died an untimely death at the age of 21. It reveals the gender of the enigmatic Pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. It uncovers the parents of Queen Nefertiti. It discloses the identity of mummy KV35YL. It lays open who was buried in the puzzling KV55 and by whom. It clarifies why vizier Ay, instead of general Horemheb, succeeded Pharaoh Tutankhamun. It unveils the identity of Dahamunzu and reveals why she was forced to request a son from the Hittite Great King Suppiluliuma I. The topics treated in this book were subject to innumerable publications over the past 122 years, starting with Flinders Petrie (1894). None, however, answered the author’s questions satisfactorily. This book delivers verifiable answers to crucial questions left open and corrects erroneous views in the most recent articles and books on Tutankhamun and the Amarna Period.
This essay provides the arguments for a new assessment of Pharaoh Horemheb. It begins with his hu... more This essay provides the arguments for a new assessment of Pharaoh Horemheb. It begins with his humble origins and demonstrates that Horemheb had no relationship with the Thutmosid Dynasty. It highlights Horemheb’s decisive role in the Amka Affair and how he punished the traitors of Egypt. This leads to Horemheb’s emergence as the founder of a powerful dynasty. Finally, this new perspective on Horemheb provides the formerly missing link for aligning the absolute chronology of the Near East for the 14th and 13th centuries BC. As a consequence, this suggests that Ramesses II began his reign in 1290 BC.
Whereas Smenkhkare is confirmed, more convincingly than ever before, to be the father of Tutankha... more Whereas Smenkhkare is confirmed, more convincingly than ever before, to be the father of Tutankhamun, the genetic mother of Tutankhamun, KV35YL, would be princess Baketaten. Queen Meritaten, genetically more likely to be KV21B than KV35YL, was then Tutankhamun’s beloved stepmother, the mother, who possibly educated him.
Part 2 delivers the decisive five further facts that Smenkhkare is indeed identical to the mummy ... more Part 2 delivers the decisive five further facts that Smenkhkare is indeed identical to the mummy from KV55. Smenkhkare succeeded his elder brother Akhenaten as pharaoh of Egypt. Smenkhkare was the husband of Queen Meritaten and the father of Tutankhamun.
The summary (page 28) combines the known facts and contrasts Akhenaten and Smenkhkare. These facts are substantiated in NILE MAGAZINE 20 and 21. Now, if you attribute to each a probability of 0.5-0.9 and combine them, the likelihood is higher than 99.99% that Smenkhkare was male, pharaoh of Egypt, is identical to the mummy of KV55, and represents the true father of Tutankhamun. This is closest to a proof.
Part 1 delivers seven hints that Smenkhkare could have been identical to the mummy from KV 55 and... more Part 1 delivers seven hints that Smenkhkare could have been identical to the mummy from KV 55 and thus represents the true father of Tutankhamun. Smenkhkare was real, and male, and a pharaoh—and he was the husband of his brother’s eldest daughter. He could very well be identical to the mummy from KV 55. He could be the true father of Tutankhamun. But was he? Read on; Part 2 (NILE #21, Aug–Sept 2019) will present the strongest facts yet, as the arguments for Akhenaten being the father of Tutankhamun are thoroughly dismantled.
For the majority of present-day Egyptologists, the history of ancient Egypt ends in 340 BC with t... more For the majority of present-day Egyptologists, the history of ancient Egypt ends in 340 BC with the exile/death of the alleged last native pharaoh, Nectanebo II of Dynasty 30. Dynasties 31 (Persian), 32 (Argead), and 33 (Ptolemaic) are not recognized. For a few other Egyptologists, the history of the Two Lands ends with Dynasty 31 in 332 BC, when Alexander the Great became the new pharaoh. However, here it is argued that Dynasties 32 and 33 should be added to the traditional canon, as was proposed by the father of German Egyptology, Karl Richard Lepsius, in 1858. Manetho’s unfinished work should thus be completed. It will be demonstrated that the Late Period of Ancient Egypt ended in 30 BC, not 340. Modern Egypt started in 1922 AD. Dynasty 33 was among the most powerful and the longest lasting of Ancient Egypt. The founder of Dynasty 33, Ptolemaios I Soter, should even be recognized as one of the true giants of ancient Egypt.
Recent research of M. Traugott Huber and Juan Antonio Belmonte (2024) suggests that Baketaten and... more Recent research of M. Traugott Huber and Juan Antonio Belmonte (2024) suggests that Baketaten and not Meritaten may have been the real mother of Tutankhamun. Thus, Meritaten was more likely just the stepmother, the woman who raised Tutankhamun. Tutankhamun’s father, Smenkhkare, has been confirmed.
We all read the news from the Ministry of Antiquities regarding the final scanning results of KV6... more We all read the news from the Ministry of Antiquities regarding the final scanning results of KV62. No hidden tomb of Nefertiti, no golden treasures, and not the greatest sensation of the 21st century! KV62 was apparently the Tomb of Tutankhamun, as is traditionally interpreted. Therefore, Nefertiti’s tomb and mummy has to be looked for at Amarna or in KV21B. But no evidence exists that Nefertiti was buried at Amarna or in the minor KV21. Instead, it is not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb! KV62 has a lot more to say. In the June issue of Nile Magazine Part 1: The new interpretation of the North Wall of KV62 was presented. Nicholas Reeves was right, at least in essential parts. The original illustrations on the North Wall of KV62 suggest that this rightward tomb was prepared for Pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten (= Nefertiti). The December issue of Nile Magazine, Part 2: Finding Nefertiti investigates her relationship to the elusive Smenkhkare, her untimely death, her burial within KV62 (that’s right), and the whereabouts of Nefertiti’s mummy.
KV 62 HAS A LOT MORE TO SAY
It’s not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb. While the recent scan resu... more KV 62 HAS A LOT MORE TO SAY It’s not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb. While the recent scan results are said to have conclusively proven there are no false walls and no hidden chambers or passages in the tomb, it can’t be said that we now know all there is to know about Tutankhamun’s tomb. Nicholas Reeves’ incredibly-detailed examination of the tomb decorations, its construction and the hand-me-down goods Tutankhamun was given to explore the afterlife, have seen the tomb receive a level of scrutiny unprecedented in its detail. Even those who were immensely sceptical about the prospects for Nefertiti’s hidden burial were forced to examine the proposed evidence in incredible detail to counter Reeves’ now-famous theory. But while this investigation into Nefertiti’s missing burial has concluded, much of the evidence that Reeves cited to state his case still stands. Some of it, however, under a fresh light (and radar scan) doesn’t. In this article, Dr. M. Traugott Huber revisits the decorations in Tutankhamun’s tomb and supports Reeves’ conclusions that today’s text was inserted some nine years after the original illustrations were made. The extant text ingeniously transforms the original personalities and refers instead to the burial of Tutankhamun. The conventional interpretation does not match the original meaning. The interpretation of the original illustration by Nicholas Reeves captured one scene perfectly but misunderstood two others, and thus the original message of the burial chamber’s North Wall. In fact, the entire original illustration refers to the unique career of Nefertiti—the later King Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. This subject will be treated in two parts: this article explores the new interpretation of KV 62’s painted decoration—the original meaning, based on the Amarna period’s personalities and beliefs. Part 2: The Burial of Nefertiti, investigates her relationship to the elusive Smenkhkare, her untimely death, her burial within KV62 (that’s right), and the eventual location of Nefertiti’s mummy. That’s a lot to cover. Read on. NILE MAGAZINE June-July, 2018
In summary, not only Szeged, but all four of Csaki’s traditional locations for Attila’s headquart... more In summary, not only Szeged, but all four of Csaki’s traditional locations for Attila’s headquarters (also Budapest, Jászberény, and Tiszántúl) are erroneous. As demonstrated by Huber (2024: chapter 5), Attila's capital lies north of the middle Tisza River in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County, in a place where no archaeologist has ever excavated before.
The altered ownership of the mansion is shared, but the female identity of Smenkhkare and a mere ... more The altered ownership of the mansion is shared, but the female identity of Smenkhkare and a mere co-regency of Ankhkheperure with epithet is rejected.
In his article "Is Nefertiti buried in the tomb of Tutankhamun?" published in Ahram online (4 Aug... more In his article "Is Nefertiti buried in the tomb of Tutankhamun?" published in Ahram online (4 August 2023), Hawass concludes that: "Despite recent claims to the contrary, there is little evidence that the ancient Egyptian queen Nefertiti is buried behind the walls of the tomb of Tutankhamun." Hawass also rejects the view that Tutankhamun's KV62 tomb was originally built by Nefertiti for her own burial. His first statement is shared by this author. Nefertiti's mummy is indeed not likely to be found in a hidden burial chamber in KV62, because such a chamber does not exist. Hawass' second opinion, however, is rejected. Evidence shows that KV62 was almost certainly originally constructed for Nefertiti and used for her own burial. However, her mummy was most likely removed from this tomb before the burial of her successor Tutankhaten. Let us carefully study Hawass' arguments.
Attila - the quest for the Sword of Mars. The locations of Attila’s lost capital and his legendary tomb, 2024
The Huns are part of Europe's rich history. The direct Hunnic impact on Europe as it stood around... more The Huns are part of Europe's rich history. The direct Hunnic impact on Europe as it stood around 370 was massive. Attila is one of the few names from antiquity that is still instantly recognised. Three famous experts on the Huns - Otto Maenchen-Helfen (1973), Edward Thompson (1948, 1996), and Mischa Meier (2020) - contributed significantly to our knowledge, but they failed to answer the five most important questions on Attila and the Huns:
- Which was the native country of the Huns? - Where are the capitals and tombs of Attila's royal ancestors - Uldin, Charaton, and Ruga? - Where did Attila's decisive Battle of the Catalaunian Plains really take place? - Where is Attila's lost capital? - Where is Attila's legendary tomb with his fabled Sword of Mars?
This book provides answers to each of these five questions, while also solving other mysteries - the identity of Priscus’ formerly enigmatic Drecon River, the historical personalities behind Jordanes’ garbled “Sangiban” and “Balamber”, the name of the village of Attila's sister-in-law, the true course of Attila's Gallic campaign in 451 and his Italian campaign in 452, and Attila’s probable birthplace, his age and likely cause of death in the spring of 453.
This Chapter on the major battle of the Huns is only available here on academia.edu. It is publis... more This Chapter on the major battle of the Huns is only available here on academia.edu. It is published separately from the book because this chapter is voluminous and weakly linked to the other parts and because it deals with one particular topic only.
The book itself is dedicated to the quest to find Attila’s capital (Chapter 5) and his tomb (Chapter 6). This required inquiries into the origins of the Huns and the situation in Eurasia at the time of their arrival in Europe in the 360s (Chapter 2). It was mandatory to study the history of the Huns in Europe and to locate the former Hunnic capitals and the tombs of Attila’s royal ancestors (Chapter 3).
It is the common understanding that the major battle of the Huns was fought in June 451 on the “Catalaunian Plains”. The precise location of this battle between the Huns, Western Romans, and Visigoths, however, has remained elusive. Chapter 4 rejects all of the former locations, in particular Troyes and Châlons. It dismantles Châlons as a fairy tale of the Gothic narrator Jordanes, based on a location error of Hydatius from Chaves. It explains what pugna Mauriacensis of the Lex Burgundionum really meant and that this term has nothing to do with a locus Mauriacus and is devoid of any connection to Troyes. Chapter 4 starts with the facts we know for sure from mid-451. It generates the most likely scenario for this major battle. It names the four, misunderstood or overlooked, ancient sources which concordantly reveal the true location of this battle. It demonstrates that eighteen artefacts, belonging to the Huns, Romans, and Visigoths, which were excavated in the late 19th century, corroborate the true location of this battle in the afternoon of June 15, 451.
Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norde... more Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norderstedt, Feb. 2019. ISBN 9783748140658. 288 pp. EUR 49.
- Alexander had four not three Tombs. His original Tomb is identified and illustrated for the first time. - Alexander’s mummy rested in three not two Sarcophagi. His original Sarcophagus is identified and illustrated. - Due to an overlooked testimony, the fate of Alexander’s Mummy is clarified. Alexander’s Mummy never rested in the Siwa or the Bahariya Oasis. His Mummy is not venerated as “St. Mark” at Venice. Thereby the pharaonic owner of the “Alabaster Tomb” in Alexandria and the identity of "St. Mark" at Venice will be disclosed. - The person responsible for the death of Pharaoh Alexander in June 10/11, 323 BC is identified. - Dynasties 32 and 33 are recognized and the end of the Late Period of Ancient Egypt in 30 BC is suggested. - The Tombs of Philip II and Philip III at Aegae are clarified (Appendix 1, published simultaneously on https://independent.academia.edu/MTRH). - The original East Wall of Ptolemaic Alexandria is reconstructed (Appendix 3, published simultaneously on https://independent.academia.edu/MTRH).
Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norde... more Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norderstedt, Feb. 2019. ISBN 9783748140658. 288 pp. EUR 49.
Appendix 1: The Tombs of Philip II and Philip III at Aegae
This is the first out of four Appendices from the aforementioned book. Appendix 1 is published simultaneously to the book on academia.edu. As this Appendix is voluminous and deals with one particular subject, it is published separately from the book. The book investigates the tombs of Alexander the Great. This also includes Amphipolis. Philip II was one of the proposed owners of the Casta Hill monument in Amphipolis. Katis & Katis (2016) suggest that Casta Hill was where Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, was buried. Therefore, inquiries into the fate of Philip II are necessary. This Appendix analyses in detail and submits identities of the persons buried in Tombs I-IV under the Great Tumulus at Vergina. It thereby demonstrates that Philip II was undeniably buried at Aegae but was not reburied at Amphipolis. Philip II is ruled out as the owner, and as the uncremated Person 3 (male of mid-forties) in the Casta Hill monument at Amphipolis. Appendix 1 thus supports the conclusions of Chapter 1.6 of the aforementioned book. https://www.bod.de/buchshop/pharaoh-alexander-the-great-traugott-huber-9783748140658
Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norde... more Huber, M. Traugott. Pharaoh Alexander the Great – his Tomb, his Sarcophagus, and his Mummy. Norderstedt, Feb. 2019. ISBN 9783748140658. 288 pp. EUR 49.
Appendix 3: The original East Wall of Ptolemaic Alexandria
This is the third out of four Appendices from the aforementioned book. Appendix 3 is published simultaneously to the book on academia.edu. As this Appendix is voluminous and deals with one particular subject, it is published separately from the book. The book investigates the tombs and the mummy of Alexander the Great. This prominently also includes Alexandria where two tombs of Alexander were built. The original Alexandria, the town devised by Alexander and built by Ptolemaios I, is decisive to locate the 3rd and the 4th tomb of Pharaoh Alexander, and the original tomb of Pharaoh Ptolemaios I. Whereas the course of the ancient west wall of Alexandria is undisputed, the east wall of early Ptolemaic Alexandria was discussed ever since. This Appendix analyses the facts and the available alternatives. It suggests the most likely course of the original east wall of Alexandria. It also demonstrates the further developments under Ptolemaios II-IV. It clarifies that Ptolemaios I’s Alexandria was much smaller than Ptolemaios IV’s. Appendix 3 thus substantiates the conclusions of Chapter 3.4 of the aforementioned book.
This book presents the results of the author’s inquiries during the past 31 years on one of the m... more This book presents the results of the author’s inquiries during the past 31 years on one of the most hotly debated subjects of Ancient Egypt, namely the Amarna Period of the 18th Dynasty. Based on a thorough study of the archaeological facts, the available genetic data, the relevant literature, and documentary videos, a coherent new view is presented. This book resolves most of the enigmas of this fascinating period of Ancient Egypt. It discloses the true parents of Tutankhamun. It exposes the identity of Pharaoh Smenkhkare, who died an untimely death at the age of 21. It reveals the gender of the enigmatic Pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. It uncovers the parents of Queen Nefertiti. It discloses the identity of mummy KV35YL. It lays open who was buried in the puzzling KV55 and by whom. It clarifies why vizier Ay, instead of general Horemheb, succeeded Pharaoh Tutankhamun. It unveils the identity of Dahamunzu and reveals why she was forced to request a son from the Hittite Great King Suppiluliuma I. The topics treated in this book were subject to innumerable publications over the past 122 years, starting with Flinders Petrie (1894). None, however, answered the author’s questions satisfactorily. This book delivers verifiable answers to crucial questions left open and corrects erroneous views in the most recent articles and books on Tutankhamun and the Amarna Period.
This essay provides the arguments for a new assessment of Pharaoh Horemheb. It begins with his hu... more This essay provides the arguments for a new assessment of Pharaoh Horemheb. It begins with his humble origins and demonstrates that Horemheb had no relationship with the Thutmosid Dynasty. It highlights Horemheb’s decisive role in the Amka Affair and how he punished the traitors of Egypt. This leads to Horemheb’s emergence as the founder of a powerful dynasty. Finally, this new perspective on Horemheb provides the formerly missing link for aligning the absolute chronology of the Near East for the 14th and 13th centuries BC. As a consequence, this suggests that Ramesses II began his reign in 1290 BC.
Whereas Smenkhkare is confirmed, more convincingly than ever before, to be the father of Tutankha... more Whereas Smenkhkare is confirmed, more convincingly than ever before, to be the father of Tutankhamun, the genetic mother of Tutankhamun, KV35YL, would be princess Baketaten. Queen Meritaten, genetically more likely to be KV21B than KV35YL, was then Tutankhamun’s beloved stepmother, the mother, who possibly educated him.
Part 2 delivers the decisive five further facts that Smenkhkare is indeed identical to the mummy ... more Part 2 delivers the decisive five further facts that Smenkhkare is indeed identical to the mummy from KV55. Smenkhkare succeeded his elder brother Akhenaten as pharaoh of Egypt. Smenkhkare was the husband of Queen Meritaten and the father of Tutankhamun.
The summary (page 28) combines the known facts and contrasts Akhenaten and Smenkhkare. These facts are substantiated in NILE MAGAZINE 20 and 21. Now, if you attribute to each a probability of 0.5-0.9 and combine them, the likelihood is higher than 99.99% that Smenkhkare was male, pharaoh of Egypt, is identical to the mummy of KV55, and represents the true father of Tutankhamun. This is closest to a proof.
Part 1 delivers seven hints that Smenkhkare could have been identical to the mummy from KV 55 and... more Part 1 delivers seven hints that Smenkhkare could have been identical to the mummy from KV 55 and thus represents the true father of Tutankhamun. Smenkhkare was real, and male, and a pharaoh—and he was the husband of his brother’s eldest daughter. He could very well be identical to the mummy from KV 55. He could be the true father of Tutankhamun. But was he? Read on; Part 2 (NILE #21, Aug–Sept 2019) will present the strongest facts yet, as the arguments for Akhenaten being the father of Tutankhamun are thoroughly dismantled.
For the majority of present-day Egyptologists, the history of ancient Egypt ends in 340 BC with t... more For the majority of present-day Egyptologists, the history of ancient Egypt ends in 340 BC with the exile/death of the alleged last native pharaoh, Nectanebo II of Dynasty 30. Dynasties 31 (Persian), 32 (Argead), and 33 (Ptolemaic) are not recognized. For a few other Egyptologists, the history of the Two Lands ends with Dynasty 31 in 332 BC, when Alexander the Great became the new pharaoh. However, here it is argued that Dynasties 32 and 33 should be added to the traditional canon, as was proposed by the father of German Egyptology, Karl Richard Lepsius, in 1858. Manetho’s unfinished work should thus be completed. It will be demonstrated that the Late Period of Ancient Egypt ended in 30 BC, not 340. Modern Egypt started in 1922 AD. Dynasty 33 was among the most powerful and the longest lasting of Ancient Egypt. The founder of Dynasty 33, Ptolemaios I Soter, should even be recognized as one of the true giants of ancient Egypt.
Recent research of M. Traugott Huber and Juan Antonio Belmonte (2024) suggests that Baketaten and... more Recent research of M. Traugott Huber and Juan Antonio Belmonte (2024) suggests that Baketaten and not Meritaten may have been the real mother of Tutankhamun. Thus, Meritaten was more likely just the stepmother, the woman who raised Tutankhamun. Tutankhamun’s father, Smenkhkare, has been confirmed.
We all read the news from the Ministry of Antiquities regarding the final scanning results of KV6... more We all read the news from the Ministry of Antiquities regarding the final scanning results of KV62. No hidden tomb of Nefertiti, no golden treasures, and not the greatest sensation of the 21st century! KV62 was apparently the Tomb of Tutankhamun, as is traditionally interpreted. Therefore, Nefertiti’s tomb and mummy has to be looked for at Amarna or in KV21B. But no evidence exists that Nefertiti was buried at Amarna or in the minor KV21. Instead, it is not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb! KV62 has a lot more to say. In the June issue of Nile Magazine Part 1: The new interpretation of the North Wall of KV62 was presented. Nicholas Reeves was right, at least in essential parts. The original illustrations on the North Wall of KV62 suggest that this rightward tomb was prepared for Pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten (= Nefertiti). The December issue of Nile Magazine, Part 2: Finding Nefertiti investigates her relationship to the elusive Smenkhkare, her untimely death, her burial within KV62 (that’s right), and the whereabouts of Nefertiti’s mummy.
KV 62 HAS A LOT MORE TO SAY
It’s not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb. While the recent scan resu... more KV 62 HAS A LOT MORE TO SAY It’s not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb. While the recent scan results are said to have conclusively proven there are no false walls and no hidden chambers or passages in the tomb, it can’t be said that we now know all there is to know about Tutankhamun’s tomb. Nicholas Reeves’ incredibly-detailed examination of the tomb decorations, its construction and the hand-me-down goods Tutankhamun was given to explore the afterlife, have seen the tomb receive a level of scrutiny unprecedented in its detail. Even those who were immensely sceptical about the prospects for Nefertiti’s hidden burial were forced to examine the proposed evidence in incredible detail to counter Reeves’ now-famous theory. But while this investigation into Nefertiti’s missing burial has concluded, much of the evidence that Reeves cited to state his case still stands. Some of it, however, under a fresh light (and radar scan) doesn’t. In this article, Dr. M. Traugott Huber revisits the decorations in Tutankhamun’s tomb and supports Reeves’ conclusions that today’s text was inserted some nine years after the original illustrations were made. The extant text ingeniously transforms the original personalities and refers instead to the burial of Tutankhamun. The conventional interpretation does not match the original meaning. The interpretation of the original illustration by Nicholas Reeves captured one scene perfectly but misunderstood two others, and thus the original message of the burial chamber’s North Wall. In fact, the entire original illustration refers to the unique career of Nefertiti—the later King Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. This subject will be treated in two parts: this article explores the new interpretation of KV 62’s painted decoration—the original meaning, based on the Amarna period’s personalities and beliefs. Part 2: The Burial of Nefertiti, investigates her relationship to the elusive Smenkhkare, her untimely death, her burial within KV62 (that’s right), and the eventual location of Nefertiti’s mummy. That’s a lot to cover. Read on. NILE MAGAZINE June-July, 2018
In summary, not only Szeged, but all four of Csaki’s traditional locations for Attila’s headquart... more In summary, not only Szeged, but all four of Csaki’s traditional locations for Attila’s headquarters (also Budapest, Jászberény, and Tiszántúl) are erroneous. As demonstrated by Huber (2024: chapter 5), Attila's capital lies north of the middle Tisza River in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County, in a place where no archaeologist has ever excavated before.
The altered ownership of the mansion is shared, but the female identity of Smenkhkare and a mere ... more The altered ownership of the mansion is shared, but the female identity of Smenkhkare and a mere co-regency of Ankhkheperure with epithet is rejected.
In his article "Is Nefertiti buried in the tomb of Tutankhamun?" published in Ahram online (4 Aug... more In his article "Is Nefertiti buried in the tomb of Tutankhamun?" published in Ahram online (4 August 2023), Hawass concludes that: "Despite recent claims to the contrary, there is little evidence that the ancient Egyptian queen Nefertiti is buried behind the walls of the tomb of Tutankhamun." Hawass also rejects the view that Tutankhamun's KV62 tomb was originally built by Nefertiti for her own burial. His first statement is shared by this author. Nefertiti's mummy is indeed not likely to be found in a hidden burial chamber in KV62, because such a chamber does not exist. Hawass' second opinion, however, is rejected. Evidence shows that KV62 was almost certainly originally constructed for Nefertiti and used for her own burial. However, her mummy was most likely removed from this tomb before the burial of her successor Tutankhaten. Let us carefully study Hawass' arguments.
Uploads
Books by Traugott Huber
- Which was the native country of the Huns?
- Where are the capitals and tombs of Attila's royal ancestors - Uldin, Charaton, and Ruga?
- Where did Attila's decisive Battle of the Catalaunian Plains really take place?
- Where is Attila's lost capital?
- Where is Attila's legendary tomb with his fabled Sword of Mars?
This book provides answers to each of these five questions, while also solving other mysteries - the identity of Priscus’ formerly enigmatic Drecon River, the historical personalities behind Jordanes’ garbled “Sangiban” and “Balamber”, the name of the village of Attila's sister-in-law, the true course of Attila's Gallic campaign in 451 and his Italian campaign in 452, and Attila’s probable birthplace, his age and likely cause of death in the spring of 453.
The book is available from BoD in printed form or as e-book:
https://buchshop.bod.de/attila-the-quest-for-the-sword-of-mars-m-traugott-huber-9783759756879
The book itself is dedicated to the quest to find Attila’s capital (Chapter 5) and his tomb (Chapter 6). This required inquiries into the origins of the Huns and the situation in Eurasia at the time of their arrival in Europe in the 360s (Chapter 2). It was mandatory to study the history of the Huns in Europe and to locate the former Hunnic capitals and the tombs of Attila’s royal ancestors (Chapter 3).
It is the common understanding that the major battle of the Huns was fought in June 451 on the “Catalaunian Plains”. The precise location of this battle between the Huns, Western Romans, and Visigoths, however, has remained elusive. Chapter 4 rejects all of the former locations, in particular Troyes and Châlons. It dismantles Châlons as a fairy tale of the Gothic narrator Jordanes, based on a location error of Hydatius from Chaves. It explains what pugna Mauriacensis of the Lex Burgundionum really meant and that this term has nothing to do with a locus Mauriacus and is devoid of any connection to Troyes. Chapter 4 starts with the facts we know for sure from mid-451. It generates the most likely scenario for this major battle. It names the four, misunderstood or overlooked, ancient sources which concordantly reveal the true location of this battle. It demonstrates that eighteen artefacts, belonging to the Huns, Romans, and Visigoths, which were excavated in the late 19th century, corroborate the true location of this battle in the afternoon of June 15, 451.
The book is available from BoD in printed form or as e-book:
https://buchshop.bod.de/attila-the-quest-for-the-sword-of-mars-m-traugott-huber-9783759756879
- Alexander had four not three Tombs. His original Tomb is identified and illustrated for the first time.
- Alexander’s mummy rested in three not two Sarcophagi. His original Sarcophagus is identified and illustrated.
- Due to an overlooked testimony, the fate of Alexander’s Mummy is clarified. Alexander’s Mummy never rested in the Siwa or the Bahariya Oasis. His Mummy is not venerated as “St. Mark” at Venice. Thereby the pharaonic owner of the “Alabaster Tomb” in Alexandria and the identity of "St. Mark" at Venice will be disclosed.
- The person responsible for the death of Pharaoh Alexander in June 10/11, 323 BC is identified.
- Dynasties 32 and 33 are recognized and the end of the Late Period of Ancient Egypt in 30 BC is suggested.
- The Tombs of Philip II and Philip III at Aegae are clarified (Appendix 1, published simultaneously on https://independent.academia.edu/MTRH).
- The original East Wall of Ptolemaic Alexandria is reconstructed (Appendix 3, published simultaneously on https://independent.academia.edu/MTRH).
https://www.bod.de/buchshop/pharaoh-alexander-the-great-traugott-huber-9783748140658
https://www.amazon.de/dp/3748140657/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1550674420&sr=8-1&keywords=Pharaoh+Alexander
Appendix 1: The Tombs of Philip II and Philip III at Aegae
This is the first out of four Appendices from the aforementioned book. Appendix 1 is published simultaneously to the book on academia.edu. As this Appendix is voluminous and deals with one particular subject, it is published separately from the book. The book investigates the tombs of Alexander the Great. This also includes Amphipolis. Philip II was one of the proposed owners of the Casta Hill monument in Amphipolis. Katis & Katis (2016) suggest that Casta Hill was where Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, was buried. Therefore, inquiries into the fate of Philip II are necessary. This Appendix analyses in detail and submits identities of the persons buried in Tombs I-IV under the Great Tumulus at Vergina. It thereby demonstrates that Philip II was undeniably buried at Aegae but was not reburied at Amphipolis. Philip II is ruled out as the owner, and as the uncremated Person 3 (male of mid-forties) in the Casta Hill monument at Amphipolis. Appendix 1 thus supports the conclusions of Chapter 1.6 of the aforementioned book.
https://www.bod.de/buchshop/pharaoh-alexander-the-great-traugott-huber-9783748140658
https://www.amazon.de/dp/3748140657/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1550674420&sr=8-1&keywords=Pharaoh+Alexander
Appendix 3: The original East Wall of Ptolemaic Alexandria
This is the third out of four Appendices from the aforementioned book. Appendix 3 is published simultaneously to the book on academia.edu. As this Appendix is voluminous and deals with one particular subject, it is published separately from the book. The book investigates the tombs and the mummy of Alexander the Great. This prominently also includes Alexandria where two tombs of Alexander were built. The original Alexandria, the town devised by Alexander and built by Ptolemaios I, is decisive to locate the 3rd and the 4th tomb of Pharaoh Alexander, and the original tomb of Pharaoh Ptolemaios I. Whereas the course of the ancient west wall of Alexandria is undisputed, the east wall of early Ptolemaic Alexandria was discussed ever since. This Appendix analyses the facts and the available alternatives. It suggests the most likely course of the original east wall of Alexandria. It also demonstrates the further developments under Ptolemaios II-IV. It clarifies that Ptolemaios I’s Alexandria was much smaller than Ptolemaios IV’s. Appendix 3 thus substantiates the conclusions of Chapter 3.4 of the aforementioned book.
https://www.bod.de/buchshop/pharaoh-alexander-the-great-traugott-huber-9783748140658
https://www.amazon.de/dp/3748140657/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1550674420&sr=8-1&keywords=Pharaoh+Alexander
This book resolves most of the enigmas of this fascinating period of Ancient Egypt. It discloses the true parents of Tutankhamun. It exposes the identity of Pharaoh Smenkhkare, who died an untimely death at the age of 21. It reveals the gender of the enigmatic Pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. It uncovers the parents of Queen Nefertiti. It discloses the identity of mummy KV35YL. It lays open who was buried in the puzzling KV55 and by whom. It clarifies why vizier Ay, instead of general Horemheb, succeeded Pharaoh Tutankhamun. It unveils the identity of Dahamunzu and reveals why she was forced to request a son from the Hittite Great King Suppiluliuma I.
The topics treated in this book were subject to innumerable publications over the past 122 years, starting with Flinders Petrie (1894). None, however, answered the author’s questions satisfactorily. This book delivers verifiable answers to crucial questions left open and corrects erroneous views in the most recent articles and books on Tutankhamun and the Amarna Period.
Papers by Traugott Huber
The summary (page 28) combines the known facts and contrasts Akhenaten and Smenkhkare. These facts are substantiated in NILE MAGAZINE 20 and 21. Now, if you attribute to each a probability of 0.5-0.9 and combine them, the likelihood is higher than 99.99% that Smenkhkare was male, pharaoh of Egypt, is identical to the mummy of KV55, and represents the true father of Tutankhamun. This is closest to a proof.
Smenkhkare was real, and male, and a pharaoh—and he was the husband of his brother’s eldest daughter. He could very well be identical to the mummy from KV 55. He could be the true father of Tutankhamun. But was he? Read on; Part 2 (NILE #21, Aug–Sept 2019) will present the strongest facts yet, as the arguments for Akhenaten being the father of Tutankhamun are thoroughly dismantled.
However, here it is argued that Dynasties 32 and 33 should be added to the traditional canon, as was proposed by the father of German Egyptology, Karl Richard Lepsius, in 1858. Manetho’s unfinished work should thus be completed. It will be demonstrated that the Late Period of Ancient Egypt ended in 30 BC, not 340. Modern Egypt started in 1922 AD. Dynasty 33 was among the most powerful and the longest lasting of Ancient Egypt. The founder of Dynasty 33, Ptolemaios I Soter, should even be recognized as one of the true giants of ancient Egypt.
https://www.academia.edu/115951738/Instead_of_Meritaten_it_is_Smenkhkares_youngest_sister_Baketaten_who_seems_to_be_the_true_mother_of_Tutankhamun
But no evidence exists that Nefertiti was buried at Amarna or in the minor KV21. Instead, it is not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb! KV62 has a lot more to say. In the June issue of Nile Magazine Part 1: The new interpretation of the North Wall of KV62 was presented. Nicholas Reeves was right, at least in essential parts. The original illustrations on the North Wall of KV62 suggest that this rightward tomb was prepared for Pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten (= Nefertiti). The December issue of Nile Magazine, Part 2: Finding Nefertiti investigates her relationship to the elusive Smenkhkare, her untimely death, her burial within KV62 (that’s right), and the whereabouts of Nefertiti’s mummy.
It’s not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb. While the recent scan results are said to have conclusively proven there are no false walls and no hidden chambers or passages in the tomb, it can’t be said that we now know all there is to know about Tutankhamun’s tomb.
Nicholas Reeves’ incredibly-detailed examination of the tomb decorations, its construction and the hand-me-down goods Tutankhamun was given to explore the afterlife, have seen the tomb receive a level of scrutiny unprecedented in its detail. Even those who were immensely sceptical about the prospects for Nefertiti’s hidden burial were forced to examine the proposed evidence in incredible detail to counter Reeves’ now-famous theory. But while this investigation into Nefertiti’s missing burial has concluded, much of the evidence that Reeves cited to state his case still stands. Some of it, however, under a fresh light (and radar scan) doesn’t.
In this article, Dr. M. Traugott Huber revisits the decorations in Tutankhamun’s tomb and supports Reeves’ conclusions that today’s text was inserted some nine years after the original illustrations were made. The extant text ingeniously transforms the original personalities and refers instead to the burial of Tutankhamun. The conventional interpretation does not match the original meaning. The interpretation of the original illustration by Nicholas Reeves captured one scene perfectly but misunderstood two others, and thus the original message of the burial chamber’s North Wall. In fact, the entire original illustration refers to the unique career of Nefertiti—the later King Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. This subject will be treated in two parts: this article explores the new interpretation of KV 62’s painted decoration—the original meaning, based on the Amarna period’s personalities and beliefs. Part 2: The Burial of Nefertiti, investigates her relationship to the elusive Smenkhkare, her untimely death, her burial within KV62 (that’s right), and the eventual location of Nefertiti’s mummy. That’s a lot to cover. Read on. NILE MAGAZINE June-July, 2018
Drafts by Traugott Huber
- Which was the native country of the Huns?
- Where are the capitals and tombs of Attila's royal ancestors - Uldin, Charaton, and Ruga?
- Where did Attila's decisive Battle of the Catalaunian Plains really take place?
- Where is Attila's lost capital?
- Where is Attila's legendary tomb with his fabled Sword of Mars?
This book provides answers to each of these five questions, while also solving other mysteries - the identity of Priscus’ formerly enigmatic Drecon River, the historical personalities behind Jordanes’ garbled “Sangiban” and “Balamber”, the name of the village of Attila's sister-in-law, the true course of Attila's Gallic campaign in 451 and his Italian campaign in 452, and Attila’s probable birthplace, his age and likely cause of death in the spring of 453.
The book is available from BoD in printed form or as e-book:
https://buchshop.bod.de/attila-the-quest-for-the-sword-of-mars-m-traugott-huber-9783759756879
The book itself is dedicated to the quest to find Attila’s capital (Chapter 5) and his tomb (Chapter 6). This required inquiries into the origins of the Huns and the situation in Eurasia at the time of their arrival in Europe in the 360s (Chapter 2). It was mandatory to study the history of the Huns in Europe and to locate the former Hunnic capitals and the tombs of Attila’s royal ancestors (Chapter 3).
It is the common understanding that the major battle of the Huns was fought in June 451 on the “Catalaunian Plains”. The precise location of this battle between the Huns, Western Romans, and Visigoths, however, has remained elusive. Chapter 4 rejects all of the former locations, in particular Troyes and Châlons. It dismantles Châlons as a fairy tale of the Gothic narrator Jordanes, based on a location error of Hydatius from Chaves. It explains what pugna Mauriacensis of the Lex Burgundionum really meant and that this term has nothing to do with a locus Mauriacus and is devoid of any connection to Troyes. Chapter 4 starts with the facts we know for sure from mid-451. It generates the most likely scenario for this major battle. It names the four, misunderstood or overlooked, ancient sources which concordantly reveal the true location of this battle. It demonstrates that eighteen artefacts, belonging to the Huns, Romans, and Visigoths, which were excavated in the late 19th century, corroborate the true location of this battle in the afternoon of June 15, 451.
The book is available from BoD in printed form or as e-book:
https://buchshop.bod.de/attila-the-quest-for-the-sword-of-mars-m-traugott-huber-9783759756879
- Alexander had four not three Tombs. His original Tomb is identified and illustrated for the first time.
- Alexander’s mummy rested in three not two Sarcophagi. His original Sarcophagus is identified and illustrated.
- Due to an overlooked testimony, the fate of Alexander’s Mummy is clarified. Alexander’s Mummy never rested in the Siwa or the Bahariya Oasis. His Mummy is not venerated as “St. Mark” at Venice. Thereby the pharaonic owner of the “Alabaster Tomb” in Alexandria and the identity of "St. Mark" at Venice will be disclosed.
- The person responsible for the death of Pharaoh Alexander in June 10/11, 323 BC is identified.
- Dynasties 32 and 33 are recognized and the end of the Late Period of Ancient Egypt in 30 BC is suggested.
- The Tombs of Philip II and Philip III at Aegae are clarified (Appendix 1, published simultaneously on https://independent.academia.edu/MTRH).
- The original East Wall of Ptolemaic Alexandria is reconstructed (Appendix 3, published simultaneously on https://independent.academia.edu/MTRH).
https://www.bod.de/buchshop/pharaoh-alexander-the-great-traugott-huber-9783748140658
https://www.amazon.de/dp/3748140657/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1550674420&sr=8-1&keywords=Pharaoh+Alexander
Appendix 1: The Tombs of Philip II and Philip III at Aegae
This is the first out of four Appendices from the aforementioned book. Appendix 1 is published simultaneously to the book on academia.edu. As this Appendix is voluminous and deals with one particular subject, it is published separately from the book. The book investigates the tombs of Alexander the Great. This also includes Amphipolis. Philip II was one of the proposed owners of the Casta Hill monument in Amphipolis. Katis & Katis (2016) suggest that Casta Hill was where Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, was buried. Therefore, inquiries into the fate of Philip II are necessary. This Appendix analyses in detail and submits identities of the persons buried in Tombs I-IV under the Great Tumulus at Vergina. It thereby demonstrates that Philip II was undeniably buried at Aegae but was not reburied at Amphipolis. Philip II is ruled out as the owner, and as the uncremated Person 3 (male of mid-forties) in the Casta Hill monument at Amphipolis. Appendix 1 thus supports the conclusions of Chapter 1.6 of the aforementioned book.
https://www.bod.de/buchshop/pharaoh-alexander-the-great-traugott-huber-9783748140658
https://www.amazon.de/dp/3748140657/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1550674420&sr=8-1&keywords=Pharaoh+Alexander
Appendix 3: The original East Wall of Ptolemaic Alexandria
This is the third out of four Appendices from the aforementioned book. Appendix 3 is published simultaneously to the book on academia.edu. As this Appendix is voluminous and deals with one particular subject, it is published separately from the book. The book investigates the tombs and the mummy of Alexander the Great. This prominently also includes Alexandria where two tombs of Alexander were built. The original Alexandria, the town devised by Alexander and built by Ptolemaios I, is decisive to locate the 3rd and the 4th tomb of Pharaoh Alexander, and the original tomb of Pharaoh Ptolemaios I. Whereas the course of the ancient west wall of Alexandria is undisputed, the east wall of early Ptolemaic Alexandria was discussed ever since. This Appendix analyses the facts and the available alternatives. It suggests the most likely course of the original east wall of Alexandria. It also demonstrates the further developments under Ptolemaios II-IV. It clarifies that Ptolemaios I’s Alexandria was much smaller than Ptolemaios IV’s. Appendix 3 thus substantiates the conclusions of Chapter 3.4 of the aforementioned book.
https://www.bod.de/buchshop/pharaoh-alexander-the-great-traugott-huber-9783748140658
https://www.amazon.de/dp/3748140657/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1550674420&sr=8-1&keywords=Pharaoh+Alexander
This book resolves most of the enigmas of this fascinating period of Ancient Egypt. It discloses the true parents of Tutankhamun. It exposes the identity of Pharaoh Smenkhkare, who died an untimely death at the age of 21. It reveals the gender of the enigmatic Pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. It uncovers the parents of Queen Nefertiti. It discloses the identity of mummy KV35YL. It lays open who was buried in the puzzling KV55 and by whom. It clarifies why vizier Ay, instead of general Horemheb, succeeded Pharaoh Tutankhamun. It unveils the identity of Dahamunzu and reveals why she was forced to request a son from the Hittite Great King Suppiluliuma I.
The topics treated in this book were subject to innumerable publications over the past 122 years, starting with Flinders Petrie (1894). None, however, answered the author’s questions satisfactorily. This book delivers verifiable answers to crucial questions left open and corrects erroneous views in the most recent articles and books on Tutankhamun and the Amarna Period.
The summary (page 28) combines the known facts and contrasts Akhenaten and Smenkhkare. These facts are substantiated in NILE MAGAZINE 20 and 21. Now, if you attribute to each a probability of 0.5-0.9 and combine them, the likelihood is higher than 99.99% that Smenkhkare was male, pharaoh of Egypt, is identical to the mummy of KV55, and represents the true father of Tutankhamun. This is closest to a proof.
Smenkhkare was real, and male, and a pharaoh—and he was the husband of his brother’s eldest daughter. He could very well be identical to the mummy from KV 55. He could be the true father of Tutankhamun. But was he? Read on; Part 2 (NILE #21, Aug–Sept 2019) will present the strongest facts yet, as the arguments for Akhenaten being the father of Tutankhamun are thoroughly dismantled.
However, here it is argued that Dynasties 32 and 33 should be added to the traditional canon, as was proposed by the father of German Egyptology, Karl Richard Lepsius, in 1858. Manetho’s unfinished work should thus be completed. It will be demonstrated that the Late Period of Ancient Egypt ended in 30 BC, not 340. Modern Egypt started in 1922 AD. Dynasty 33 was among the most powerful and the longest lasting of Ancient Egypt. The founder of Dynasty 33, Ptolemaios I Soter, should even be recognized as one of the true giants of ancient Egypt.
https://www.academia.edu/115951738/Instead_of_Meritaten_it_is_Smenkhkares_youngest_sister_Baketaten_who_seems_to_be_the_true_mother_of_Tutankhamun
But no evidence exists that Nefertiti was buried at Amarna or in the minor KV21. Instead, it is not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb! KV62 has a lot more to say. In the June issue of Nile Magazine Part 1: The new interpretation of the North Wall of KV62 was presented. Nicholas Reeves was right, at least in essential parts. The original illustrations on the North Wall of KV62 suggest that this rightward tomb was prepared for Pharaoh Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten (= Nefertiti). The December issue of Nile Magazine, Part 2: Finding Nefertiti investigates her relationship to the elusive Smenkhkare, her untimely death, her burial within KV62 (that’s right), and the whereabouts of Nefertiti’s mummy.
It’s not over yet for Tutankhamun’s tomb. While the recent scan results are said to have conclusively proven there are no false walls and no hidden chambers or passages in the tomb, it can’t be said that we now know all there is to know about Tutankhamun’s tomb.
Nicholas Reeves’ incredibly-detailed examination of the tomb decorations, its construction and the hand-me-down goods Tutankhamun was given to explore the afterlife, have seen the tomb receive a level of scrutiny unprecedented in its detail. Even those who were immensely sceptical about the prospects for Nefertiti’s hidden burial were forced to examine the proposed evidence in incredible detail to counter Reeves’ now-famous theory. But while this investigation into Nefertiti’s missing burial has concluded, much of the evidence that Reeves cited to state his case still stands. Some of it, however, under a fresh light (and radar scan) doesn’t.
In this article, Dr. M. Traugott Huber revisits the decorations in Tutankhamun’s tomb and supports Reeves’ conclusions that today’s text was inserted some nine years after the original illustrations were made. The extant text ingeniously transforms the original personalities and refers instead to the burial of Tutankhamun. The conventional interpretation does not match the original meaning. The interpretation of the original illustration by Nicholas Reeves captured one scene perfectly but misunderstood two others, and thus the original message of the burial chamber’s North Wall. In fact, the entire original illustration refers to the unique career of Nefertiti—the later King Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. This subject will be treated in two parts: this article explores the new interpretation of KV 62’s painted decoration—the original meaning, based on the Amarna period’s personalities and beliefs. Part 2: The Burial of Nefertiti, investigates her relationship to the elusive Smenkhkare, her untimely death, her burial within KV62 (that’s right), and the eventual location of Nefertiti’s mummy. That’s a lot to cover. Read on. NILE MAGAZINE June-July, 2018