Identification of the mummies of Caesar, Cleopatra

The author of the hypothesis and the book "How to find Alexander the Great in the tomb of Tutankhamun" declares that as a result of mistakes Alexander was not recognized and was mistaken for another person.

After a while, we found out what Juma Sadykov is working on now.

- I finished the first book, published it on the Internet, but periodically I supplement it with new data. Now I am working on the continuation of the series of "metamorphoses", the second part of the book is called "And you, Caesar?" - says the author.
-And with Caesar, as with Macedonian, is there something wrong too?

- I argue that as a result of the confusion, some Egyptian dynasties were duplicated in the modern list of the pharaohs of Ancient Egypt.



Alexander the Great, who was awarded the title of "Incarnation" and "son" of the god Amun in Egypt, was reflected in the list once again as a separate pharaoh "Incarnation of Amun" or, if in the language of hieroglyphs, Tutankhamun. Naturally, this is not one mistake and other pharaohs were duplicated together with Alexander. My reconstruction looks like this:
Darius III - the enemy of Alexander is the pharaoh reformer Akhenaten, after the death of Akhenaten - Darius III, his ideas with a solar cult (Zoroastrianism-Atonism) were abandoned and he was buried under a different (not so godless) name - Tutmos II.


The concept of the second book: Caesar was also duplicated in the list of pharaohs and was reflected again, as the pharaoh of Seti 1, I assume that he is the son of Mazaeus - Eye, that is, Caesar is a descendant of the Achaemenids, the successor of Caesar Octavian Augustus was reflected in the list again as the pharaoh of Ramses II- the Great.

Foto: mummy of Seti 1 on the left, Bust of Caesar on the right

Foto: mummy Ramses II the Great on the left, bust of Octavian Augustus on the right
They have the same story, translated from different languages ;;and told in a different way. The Romans in their history did not need outstanding emperors with Persian roots, so in the books about Caesar there are no pages telling about childhood, he just appears as an adult.
In Egyptology, the reason for the confusion is that each pharaoh had many epithets. They were dated and placed on the chronological axis independently of each other, duplicates or phantom reflections of real historical periods were formed in the chronology. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the history of each of them individually "overgrown" with conjectures. As a result of various interpretations and conjectures, everything got mixed up in the “house of the pharaohs”.
-What else is new in this look for readers?

In the book, an unexpected plot twist: Cleopatra VII Philopator (69-30 BC) - Caesar's mistress and the woman Pharaoh Hatshepsut, in my opinion, are phantom reflections of one person - the sister of Alexander the Great, Cleopatra Philopator (c. 354 - 308 BC), about which there is no information and who allegedly died under mysterious circumstances.

Thanks to my first discovery with Alexander - Tutankhamun, I have a completely different picture of the history of antiquity.
I believe that the pages of history are messed up, somewhere by accident, and somewhere on purpose. The empire of Alexander passed into the hands of the Romans and "magically" arose the Roman Empire.

It is possible that this is the reason for the deception, the Romans rewrote history in order to rewrite the empire of Alexander.

The Romans turned the image of Alexander's sister Cleopatra into the image of the dissolute Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII and separated her from Alexander - the famous Roman motto divide and rule.
Most of the documentary evidence was purposefully destroyed, the texts were hidden, and her name was removed from written sources. By doing everything possible to destroy information about this woman, the propaganda of Rome created its own image of Cleopatra VII, which still lives today.  The true Cleopatra VII, for all its glory, is almost unknown to us. Even in the 1960s, her reign was described as a "dark kingdom." Researchers continue to search for her tomb, but they will never find it, because it has already been found, only known by the name - Queen Hatshepsut, from the same period of time as Tutankhamun - 18th dynasty.
Here's an example:

"I already wrote about the mummy of the so-called" Young Lady ", according to the results of genetic examination she is the mother of Tutankhamun, respectively, I think that this is the mummy of Olympias, the mother of Alexander and his sister Cleopatra. "My" Cleopatra has wavy red hair like Alexander's. "

Foto: On the left is the mummy of the Young Lady, on the right is the supposed mummy of Cleopatra - Hatshepsut.
I managed to identify the son of Alexander from Barsina - Hercules, who also allegedly died at a young age.  Mithridates VI Eupator is the son of Alexander the Great - he was also separated from Alexander.

Left, Mithridates VI Eupator, Alexander in the middle, Tutankhamun's mummy on the right
 This hypothesis confirms the ideas about phantom time already expressed by some researchers.
- What other mistakes, in your opinion, are there in history?

- Napoleon owns the saying: "what is history if not a fable, in which they agreed to believe."

Errors are divided into: historical and geographical.

Among the gross geographical mistakes, I would name the confusion with the city of Alexandria.

I believe that Karnak is “the very” Alexandria. The famous ruins of the burned down Alexandrian library are the ruins of the "temple of the annals" of Karnak.

The less famous Alexandrian mausoleum of Alexander the Great - "Shema", in Karnak is called the temple of Tutankhamun - "Cheme". The Alexandria seaport with one of the seven wonders of the world - the lighthouse, is a modern port and the island of Bur Safaga on the Red Sea.
-Isn't Alexandria located on the shores of the Mediterranean?

- The modern city of Alexandria on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea was built only in the 19th century on the ruins of another ancient city. There is nothing in it that should have been in ancient Alexandria.

The ancient author Diodorus writes that ancient Alexandria was located on the shores of the Egyptian Sea. It is believed that the Egyptian Sea is part of the Mediterranean Sea, but the Egyptians called the Mediterranean Sea "Big Green", "Greek", and the Romans called "Mare Nostrum" - "Our Sea". It turns out that the Egyptian Sea of ;;ancient authors is the modern Red Sea.
-Then what sea was called the Red Sea in ancient times?  - For example, the historian Arrian in his book India called the modern Persian Gulf the Red Sea. 
If you look from this angle, then the "mysterious" country Punt, in the southern part of the Red Sea, where the ships of Hatshepsut traveled, ceases to be mysterious - this is the island of Sri Lanka. Alexander knew about this island because his ships sailed from the Indus around the Arabian Peninsula to Egypt. Accordingly, after the death of Alexander, Cleopatra of Macedon possessed all this information.
Alexandria on the shores of the modern Red Sea fits perfectly into the concept of Alexander's world power, with sea trade routes to India and the capital of his kingdom - Babylon.
I believe that the city of Karnak got its name from the eastern version of the sound of the name of Alexander - "Iskander Zul Karnain ar Rumi".

For some reason, European historians did not take this nuance into account when targeting the terrain in a country with the Arabic language. By this I explain that all these famous kings are buried in the Valley of the Kings cemetery of Karnak, and should have been buried in the "Royal Necropolis" of Alexandria, which is essentially the same thing.
The first book of the author can be viewed here