The genius of Google search allows to delve further and more specifically,
[ben kingsley seti 1 exodus] where the full pectoral can be seen.
The central square is a familiar design known from King Tutankhamun's tomb. It depicts the young Tut attended by his wife, Ankhesenamun. It is the main composition on King Tut's throne. It is a famous piece of furniture. There are several compositions of Tut with his wife, both seated and standing. This is unique. The difference between the pectoral above used in the film and composition on the throne is the parallelism in Ankhesenamun's arms and both of their headdresses and the objects to the sides. There are also other compositions of other seated pharaoh with a female attendant, but this composition is particularly tender and touching. It is unique among its general type.
Tutankhamun was four pharaohs before Seti I, the father of Ramses II and chief protagonist in the film. It is unlikely Seti I would care to possess such a design of a previous pharaoh. Pharaohs were quite egoistic, he'd have one of himself not one of Tut. Like Seti I's necklace we must let that slide for the sake of artistic license.
Oh the things that we do for art.
In viewing the trailer only, a few things stand out as anachronistic violations of history that are also included for the sake of art.
Viewers are treated with architectural splendor, monuments indeed built by Ramses II but much later in his extraordinarily long reign. He outlived two generations behind him. He outlived the grandchildren of people born during his reign. And it's no wonder his subjects considered him God. In the trailer we see the temple at Abu Simbel with its four colossi depicting Ramses II himself wearing the double crown of upper and lower Egypt.
In the film Seti I is shown wearing a single uraius, headgear with the cobra symbolizing lower Egypt, this means his son Ramses II gained territory to the south (upper Egypt) and built the massive statues with its two smaller temples there declaring to the Nubians and anyone else traveling the river there at Aswan, "This is where my kingdom begins, brace yourself, because I am awesome," with smaller statues of Hathor, his chief wife Nefertari, (n-f-r again the repeated design of Seti's girlish necklace) along with smaller statues of his first six daughters.
This monument would not have been built while Seti I was still living. The national treasury would be devoted to doing and building things in the name of Seti I, not to his son, Ramses II. The monuments, then, are included for art and not to convey historical accuracy. This is done with artistic license to indulge visual splendor and not with fidelity to historic facts.
The sacrifices one makes for art.
Additionally the trailer shows pyramids under construction. Pyramid building ended before 1700 B.C., around the 14th dynasty. King Tut reigned during the New Kingdom at the end of the 18th dynasty, while Seti I and Ramses II reigned near the beginning of the 19th dynasty. All the pyramids were ancient by then. They are included in the film anachronistically for the art.
The things that are done for art.
But sometimes artistic license is carried out for the sake of national identity. The story of the Passover and Exodus from Egypt is central to Jewish salvation. Most Christians take the story of Jewish exodus from Egypt at face value, but the exodus story does not appear in any Egyptian records. Archaeologists and critical scholars date the writing of the exodus at the time of the Babylonian captivity and consider it an etiological story written by Jewish scribes to give purpose to their plight and hold their community together, rewrite their scrolls to create national heroes that can rally their people and impart pride and meaning to their lives. Incidentally, it is also held by critical readers that several separate stories are combined into one, attributes of several separate Jewish characters amalgamated into the character of David. Composite characters created from preexisting material, as we see done even today. This is discerned by studying early texts and noticing small omissions the scribes overlooked, thorough as they were, they did miss a few points here and there. One such is a another name left unchanged and hanging for the identity of shepherd boy who felled the giant Goliath with a sling. Among other oversights and loose clues to redaction.
Modern scholars no longer use the term "biblical archaeology." Still, by using Biblical text and without the help of modern dating system of A.D. and B.C. designations, (now EC and BCE: for "current era" and "before current era" due to influence of the academic cultural diversity crowd), it is still possible to attempt to date the (story of) the exodus by other means, chief among them the dating of Solomon's temple.
Kings 6:1, the exodus occurred 480 years prior to Solomon's temple his fourth year would be 966 B.C. so the exodus would take place 1446 B.C.
It is very odd the biblical account does not mention the pharaoh. Who was the pharaoh around this date? This is a problem too due to internal differences within Egyptology itself. The exact pharaoh is not so easy to pin down due to the manner Egyptians recorded the passing of time, quite different from the way we do for them. There are problems with identifying Ramses II as pharaoh during the exodus, if the exodus occurred.
Scholars look for the pharaoh who decreed the killing of firstborn Jewish children. (Goodness, what is it with royal edicts commanding the killing of firstborn Jewish male children?) They look for the pharaoh who oppressed Israel. They look for the pharaoh of the exodus event.
Taking the exodus as fact, scholars believe the pharaoh of the exodus would most likely be Amenhotep II (middle of 18th dynasty, one pharaoh before Hatshesup the female pharaoh, and thirteen pharaohs before Ramses II) who reigned in Memphis away from Thebes and closer to the delta, closer to the land of Goshen and to the Israelites.
