King Tutankhamen

Johan

Active member
I just got word that they are taking King Tut out of his resting place for the second time ever to be X-Rayed to determine once and for all his cause of death. This is exiting news in the world of Archaeology to have the mystery of his death finally solved. We will now before years end!!
READ HERE
:)
 
Last edited:

TombReader

New member
I recall reading about this recently.I think that a lot of people will be interested in the results of those tests. :)
 

Tennessee R

New member
"I may not be much, but I'm still sheriff of Fulcam County, and King Tut fell on his head." To Kill a Mockingbird. ;)

Well, there is one theory that those that believe the Bible find interesting.
Prince Tut was the first-born son of the Pharaoh at the time of the parting of the Red Sea. Then, the great plague, where the first-born sons of Egypt were killed by the hand of God, happened.

No-one really can explain how King Tut died, other than giving more than scketchy evidence of a small fracture in his skull.

Could it possibly be that King Tut was actually Prince Tutankhamen, and that he died just before the Pharaoh died, and the Pharaoh died a few days later, drowned in the Red Sea, leaving no body to bury?

Therefore, the Treasures would have been transferred to Tut, and placed in his tomb, to leave a mystery of his death for ever.

I'm not going to assume that it is true, even though it does make sense, but I am holding that as a definate possibility.

By the way, contrary to the movie 'The Ten Commandments', The Pharaoh did die in the Red Sea.
 

TombReader

New member
If I'm not mistaken,King Tut was actually the son of Akenaten.His birth name was Tutankhaten,but after he assumed the throne he changed his name to Tutankhamen because he worshipped Amun(Amen-sp?) and not Aten,as his father did.
 

Tennessee R

New member
TombReader said:
If I'm not mistaken,King Tut was actually the son of Akenaten.His birth name was Tutankhaten,but after he assumed the throne he changed his name to Tutankhamen because he worshipped Amun(Amen-sp?) and not Aten,as his father did.

You are absolutely correct about the Aten part. However, when I said:
"Could it possibly be that King Tut was actually Prince Tutankhamen"
I was reffering to the PRINCE part as being different.
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
We have indeed solved the mystery surrounding Tut's death! However, we can never proove it, nor can we be 100% certain.

The title of the article is misleading. While this does close the door on certain foul play theories, it doesn't rule out other ways that he could have been killed and/or died. The article itself even admits that the answer isn't clear and quite possibly never will be.

Thanks, for the link SKA. It was still a good article...just poorly written.
 

Tennessee R

New member
Theory: (For those that believe the Bible):

Tut was the son of the Pharaoh (Whose identity is not clear, from the Bible) of Egypt at the time of the Exodus (The freedom of the Israelites).

No-one can prove (or give substantial evidence of) the cause of death.

Therefore, might we theorize that Tut was the firstborn son of that Pharaoh, and died from the final plague, that wiped out the firstborn of Egypt.

That would make him a prince, and he would have died only a few weeks before the Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea.

That would explain why he was so wealthy. Because the Pharaoh drowned, his body was never recovered, and his son, Prince Tut inherited all of the riches.

Just a theory, but a theory that makes sense, (to me, at least).

Also, the ones that do not believe the Bible could check into this, and might find out that it usually proves to be an accurate history book from beginning to end. ;)
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Tennessee R said:
Therefore, might we theorize that Tut was the firstborn son of that Pharaoh, and died from the final plague, that wiped out the firstborn of Egypt.

That would make him a prince, and he would have died only a few weeks before the Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea.

That would explain why he was so wealthy. Because the Pharaoh drowned, his body was never recovered, and his son, Prince Tut inherited all of the riches.

Don't get me wrong, Tenn, you and I are on the same wavelink, but why would a dead son inherit the riches of his father (who hadn't died yet)?
 
A few years back on the Discovery Channel, they had this hour long special called, "The Assassination of King Tut". I taped it but now I can't find it...
 

Shovelbum

New member
Tennessee R said:
Theory: (For those that believe the Bible):

Tut was the son of the Pharaoh (Whose identity is not clear, from the Bible) of Egypt at the time of the Exodus (The freedom of the Israelites).

No-one can prove (or give substantial evidence of) the cause of death.

Therefore, might we theorize that Tut was the firstborn son of that Pharaoh, and died from the final plague, that wiped out the firstborn of Egypt.

That would make him a prince, and he would have died only a few weeks before the Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea.

That would explain why he was so wealthy. Because the Pharaoh drowned, his body was never recovered, and his son, Prince Tut inherited all of the riches.

Just a theory, but a theory that makes sense, (to me, at least).

Also, the ones that do not believe the Bible could check into this, and might find out that it usually proves to be an accurate history book from beginning to end. ;)

Two problems with that:

One, Akhenaten was likely Tut's father (he was the ruler immediately prior to Tut), and Akhenaten (known as "the heratic pharaoh") is the Pharaoh who established monotheism in Egypt for a time, with the worship of Aten. Doesn't seem too likely a candidate to opposed Moses's monotheistic religion, does he?

Two, among scholars there is debate over two Pharaohs for the "Exodus Pharaoh": the Late Date pharaoh, Rameses II (c.1290 BC) and the Early Date pharaoh, Amenhotep II (1450-1425 BC).

The argument for Ramses is that Exodus 1:11 says that the Israelites, when under the control of Pharaoh, built the cities of Pithom and Rameses, which is argued to mean not two separate cities, but Ramses II?s capital, Pi-Ramses.

The argument for Amenhotep II is more complex:

1) Moses was in Midian approximately forty years. Assuming the pharaohs mentioned in Exodus 1:8, 22 and 2:23 are all the same person, he would have had to reign for over forty years. Amenhotep's predecessor, Thutmose III (Amenhotep II's father), is the only pharaoh within the time specified in I Kings 6:1 who reigned long enough (54 years, when one includes the time he reigned jointly with Hapshesut) to have been on the throne at the time of Moses' flight and to die shortly before his return to Egypt.

2) For several years after 1445 B.C. Amenhotep II was unable to carry out any invasions or extensive military operations. This would seem like very strange behavior for a pharaoh who hoped to equal his father's record of no less than seventeen military campaigns in nineteen years. But this is exactly what one would expect from a pharaoh who had lost almost all his military in the Red Sea.

3) The Dream Stela of Thutmose IV, son of Amenhotep II, says that he was not the legitimate successor to the throne (J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, p. 449). This means that Thutmose IV was not the firstborn son, who would have been the legitimate heir. The firstborn son of Amenhotep II died prior to taking the throne of Egypt. This would agree with Exodus 12:29 which says the pharaoh's first-born son was killed during the Passover.

4) Increasing evidence is coming to light that the cult of Aten began during the reign of Thutmose IV (again Amenhotep II's son, but not first-born), and it would seem more likely for this sort of major shift in the culture to happen AFTER the Egyptians had recently seen their gods defeated by one god.

And just a little tie-in back to the beginning, it was Amenhotep IV (Amenhotep II's great-grandson) who changed his name to Akhenaten and, as I said above, brought monotheism to Egypt with the worship of Aten.
 

San Holo

Active member
Rumpled Fedora said:
A few years back on the Discovery Channel, they had this hour long special called, "The Assassination of King Tut". I taped it but now I can't find it...
That documentary ruled. I wonder when it will be re aired.
 

TombReader

New member
'One, Akhenaten was likely Tut's father...'

I agree.It is also believed that Tut's real name was Tutankhaten('Living Image of Aten'),which he changed to Tutankhamun('Living Image of Amun') upon assuming the throne.


'This means that Thutmose IV was not the firstborn son, who would have been the legitimate heir.'

I remembered reading something about this as well.This is really just folklore but the story I heard was that Thutmose IV was,as stated,not the heir to the throne.He was an avid hunter and was out hunting near the Sphinx one day,which was becoming consumed by the sand around it.The Sphinx says to Thutmose that if he would clear all the sand away from the Sphinx,that he would insure that Thutmose would assume the throne as Pharaoh.Again,just a myth.
 
Last edited:

Shovelbum

New member
TombReader said:
'One, Akhenaten was likely Tut's father...'

I agree.It is also believed that Tut's real name was Tutankhaten('Living Image of Aten'),which he changed to Tutankhamun('Living Image of Amun') upon assuming the throne.

That's true. It was because upon taking the throne he (or his advisors through him, as he was a child) undid what Akhenaten had done and returned the religion to the former polytheistic form that Akhenaten had abandoned, where Amun(-Re) was top deity. Hence Tutankhaten becomes Tutanhamun, as you pointed out.


TombReader said:
'This means that Thutmose IV was not the firstborn son, who would have been the legitimate heir.'

I remembered reading something about this as well.This is really just folklore but the story I heard was that Thutmose IV was,as stated,not the heir to the throne.He was an avid hunter and was out hunting near the Sphinx one day,which was becoming consumed by the sand around it.The Sphinx says to Thutmose that if he would clear all the sand away from the Sphinx,that he would insure that Thutmose would assume the throne as Pharaoh.Again,just a myth.

I've heard that too. :) I will add, however, that he wasn't just some old hunter to whom the Sphinx gave this "prophesy", he was a part of the royal family to begin with.
 
Last edited:

René

New member
The Mystery Resolved? I think Not!

Shovelbum said:
Two problems with that:

One, Akhenaten was likely Tut's father (he was the ruler immediately prior to Tut), and Akhenaten (known as "the heratic pharaoh") is the Pharaoh who established monotheism in Egypt for a time, with the worship of Aten. Doesn't seem too likely a candidate to opposed Moses's monotheistic religion, does he?

Two, among scholars there is debate over two Pharaohs for the "Exodus Pharaoh": the Late Date pharaoh, Rameses II (c.1290 BC) and the Early Date pharaoh, Amenhotep II (1450-1425 BC). .

One, Akhenaten was likely NOT Tut's father... he would have bragged all over the walls if he had fathered a son.

Two, Akhenaten did NOT establish monotheism in Egypt ... :whip:!

Three, the "Exodus Pharaoh" was likely either Thothmes IV or more likely Amenhotep III early in his reign, as approximately 480 years earlier there were Semitic traders who came to Egypt, 37 of them, and this unusual event was recorded in a noble's tomb in the reign of Sesostris III... and Amenhotep III's firstborn son, Prince Thothmes, died under mysterious circumstances, before Akhenaten was made CoRegent. And then Amenhotep III began to greatly favor the Aten over Amen-Re as representative of the Chief God. It was Pharaoh's choice to make.

The evidence shows that the Aten, the Disc, the Face of the Sun, was only one aspect of Re, the physical manifestation of Re, long recognized as such in Eternal Egypt, long before Amen, the Hidden One, became the 'Chief of the Gods". True, there was a need to make Egypt's God a universal god that reigned over all its Empire.
The cult of Aten did not begin during the reign of Thutmose IV, but he did begin to declare Aten the power of the sun that reigned over all the lands it shone upon.

Then there are all those troublesome letters out of Palestine, the "Amarna Letters", with all their complaints about the "Habiru" terror and pleas for help from Pharaoh to send Egyptian archers and troops, which never came.

"The Hapiru sack the territories of the king. If there are archers (here) this year, all the territories of the king will remain (intact); but if there are no archers, the territories of the king, my Lord, will be lost! " from Amarna tablets: Letter from Abdu-Heba of Jerusalem.

Why did Pharaoh ignore these pleas for help from his vassal kings?
Was he truly indifferent? Or did Pharaoh fear to confront the Habiru's fearsome god again and lose?

Rumpled Fedora said:
A few years back on the Discovery Channel, they had this hour long special called, "The Assassination of King Tut". I taped it but now I can't find it...

These SHOWS are being constantly re-aired. Just tonight one was on Discovery, and Sunday night there will be a new one on the National Geographic channel. There will probably be a lot more with the upcoming Tutankhamen exhibit starting June 16 in L.A. Many of the same shows are aired on several different channels including Discovery, The History Channel, The Learning Channel, A&E, PBS, even the Travel Channel, as well as National Geographic.
 
Top