TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Archaeology
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-23-2004, 07:01 PM   #1
Johan
IndyFan
 
Johan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Posts: 1,314
King Tutankhamen

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 by Johan : 11-23-2004 at 07:03 PM.
Johan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2004, 05:15 PM   #2
TombReader
IndyFan
 
TombReader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: A place called Vertigo
Posts: 317
I recall reading about this recently.I think that a lot of people will be interested in the results of those tests.
TombReader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2004, 06:33 PM   #3
IAdventurer01
IndyFan
 
IAdventurer01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wish I knew....
Posts: 982
Cool.....

Yeah, that's about it. It's just very interesting. I'm curious to what the results will be.
IAdventurer01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2004, 11:51 AM   #4
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,016
"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.
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2004, 11:53 PM   #5
TombReader
IndyFan
 
TombReader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: A place called Vertigo
Posts: 317
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.
TombReader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2004, 02:38 PM   #6
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by TombReader
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.
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2005, 02:29 PM   #7
Ska
IndyFan
 
Ska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,438
Mystery of King Tut's Death Solved?!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7128729/?GT1=6305
Ska is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2005, 05:56 PM   #8
Aaron H
Moderator Emeritus
 
Aaron H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,567
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.
Aaron H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2005, 11:00 AM   #9
Pilot
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 62
I think Tut died from a sports related injury, probably soccer.
Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2005, 11:52 AM   #10
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,016
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.
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2005, 11:56 AM   #11
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 5,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee R
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)?
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2005, 11:40 AM   #12
INDYfatigable
IndyFan
 
INDYfatigable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: U.S.
Posts: 127
[quote]why would a dead son inherit the riches of his father (who hadn't died yet)? my thoughts exactly
INDYfatigable is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2005, 08:03 PM   #13
Rumpled Fedora
IndyFan
 
Rumpled Fedora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Echo Beach, MN
Posts: 773
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...
Rumpled Fedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2005, 10:59 PM   #14
Shovelbum
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee R
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.
Shovelbum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 05:58 PM   #15
San Holo
IndyFan
 
San Holo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpled Fedora
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.
San Holo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 09:28 PM   #16
TombReader
IndyFan
 
TombReader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: A place called Vertigo
Posts: 317
'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 by TombReader : 03-13-2005 at 09:34 PM.
TombReader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 10:07 PM   #17
Shovelbum
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by TombReader
'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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TombReader
'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 by Shovelbum : 03-13-2005 at 10:09 PM.
Shovelbum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2005, 12:09 PM   #18
TombReader
IndyFan
 
TombReader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: A place called Vertigo
Posts: 317
'he was a part of the royal family to begin with...'

He was indeed.Sorry if my post was unclear about that.
TombReader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2005, 02:40 AM   #19
René
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 8
Marion The Mystery Resolved? I think Not!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shovelbum
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 ... !

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpled Fedora
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.
René is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2005, 03:09 AM   #20
René
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 8
Marion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot
I think Tut died from a sports related injury, probably soccer.
You're close, probably War!
René is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2005, 03:39 PM   #21
Brown Fedora
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 45
I have serious problems with the conclusions drawn, as a result of the work of Dr. Zawi Hawas, as do other (far more senior) archaeologists. Now, granted, I don't have my PHD yet, so I'm not trying to be a definitive last word on this, but.. I just want to point out the major problems with this conclusion.

Forgive me if this seems a bit disjointed. Have been up for most of the week with a flu that won't go away.

Hawas didn't allow anyone from outside Egypt to participate in the work. He didn't share x-rays with colleagues outside his own government, nor did he allow foreigners to take part in the exhumation or the autopsy. Dow Chemical, for example, offered to provide modern equipment for the autopsy. Dr. Hawas refused. So, part of the Egyptian work on Tut must be held up as suspect because the scientific process was not transparent.


Secondly, Hawas has conveniently neglected to mention that, upon exhumation, they would have dealt with the fact that Tut had -already- been exhumed and subsequently damaged.

When Carter excavated the tomb and attempted to remove Tut's body, he found that the materials used to help preserve Tut's body had been applied rapidly and with great carelessness. As a result, Tut's body was firmly affixed to the bottom of the inner coffin, and had to be removed... with a saw and an axe. While great care was taken (Carter was no hack), the body had to be cut into pieces for removal, and these pieces were then re-assembled for examination. So, we're faced with three problems that Hawas fails to analyze in his conclusions (as far as I understand them).

1. Why was Tut's body so rapidly interred, and with such carelessness?
2. Would the careless nature of his mummification damage the body post mortem?
3. Would Carter's own exhumation, cutting the body into more than a dozen pieces, make an accurate autopsy difficult or even impossible?

These issues truely bother me, and others, and as such I don't accept the current conclusions.

Anyway, as to the Old Testament stuff...

One of the earliest candidates for being the Pharoah of the Exodus (proposed in the 19th century) was Merenkere, who built the third pyramid at Gaza. I can't remember the logic behind this theory, but I believe certain Stone Masons still adhere to it.

As sort of a weird corollary, if you go with the 'New Chronology' theory of things, the Pharoah of the Exodus could not have been Rameses II. He may, actually, have been Pharoah 'Shishak' who attacked Jerusalem, as Rameses II's nickname was 'Shishi' (so was that of his father).

Oddly, there is compelling evidence that the Hebrews may have come in with or been welcomed by the Hyksos, which would explain why the new rulers "knew not Joseph" and why the Hebrews were, suddenly, personas non gratis. The Pharoah of the Exodus might well then have been Ahmose I, who founded the New Kingdom (I think it was Ahmose I... don't exactly have a reference in front of me).

However, and this is what throws a wrench into the mix, an autopsy was performed on Rameses II a few decades ago. The conclusion?
He died of drowning.

-Fed
Brown Fedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2005, 12:14 AM   #22
René
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 8
Marion The Mystery of Tutankhamen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Fedora
I have serious problems with the conclusions drawn, as a result of the work of Dr. Zawi Hawas, as do other (far more senior) archaeologists. ...
Hawas didn't allow anyone from outside Egypt to participate in the work. He didn't share x-rays with colleagues outside his own government, nor did he allow foreigners to take part in the exhumation or the autopsy....
...
Oddly, there is compelling evidence that the Hebrews may have come in with or been welcomed by the Hyksos,...
However, and this is what throws a wrench into the mix, an autopsy was performed on Rameses II a few decades ago. The conclusion?
He died of drowning.

-Fed

To start with the last first: Rameses II was sent to France for treatment of some kind of bacterial or fungi problem. While there, certain tests were run on his hair and nails... maybe more? It was decades ago. But, hey, don't forget the "Secret of the Cocaine Mummies"! The tests revealed traces of nicotine and cocaine.
So here we have a possible connection to the "New World". But ... I do not remember any mention of death by drowning.

There is compelling evidence that the original "Hebrews" came into Egypt just before or during the Hyksos incursion. According to the Old Testament, they were in Egypt at that time for 430 or 480 years.
You know we see that the Ancient Egyptians did not record things that were bad for their country on their walls. They would damage the symbol of an animal or evil god for a reason. More about that later.
They were also capable of inventing or changing the story in their favor, even in the hereafter.
"O, Heart, betray me not!"
So, isn't it possible that these lessons were well-learned by a people that sojourned in Egypt for 480 years? That's a lot longer than the USA has existed. The Egyptians believed in the Power of Words. That's why they had the hieroglyphs, the Sacred Symbols, carved so deeply onto their temple walls.
The Ancient Egyptians believed, no, knew, that these figures of the Gods, Goddesses and Pharaoh could actually animate, come alive and act to protect the country. Just like they did in the animated movie about Moses, "Prince of Egypt". Which is why they would make certain symbols considered hostile incomplete, so it couldn't animate and cause harm.

So, if the Egyptians could prevaricate, shade the truth, change the history, the Hebrews could too. Couldn't they?
Which makes all our speculations just that.
And that is part of the Great Mystery of Eternal Egypt.

As far as Hawas, he was a lot more reasonable when he was younger. Maybe "The Curse of the Pharaohs" has caught up with him, or maybe he's just jealous, possessive. He does want all the Egyptian artifacts from around the world back, even though they cannot take care of them, much less what they already have, and even though the exhibitions of them around the world fires people's imaginations and makes them want to go to Egypt and spend money. Egypt's major source of income, tourism.

Curiously, Dr. Hawas seemed to change after he explored the Sphinx. Some people seem to think he actually discovered something under the Sphinx and is hiding it.

As far as the poor mummy of Tutankhamen, after the brutal stripping by Carter and his associates, he has lain in that open tomb for 70 years protected by only one coffin and a piece of glass.
What kind of effect do you think that might have had on the mummy?

It's possible that Dr. Hawas did not want the world to know how badly the mummy might have deteriorated.

Several years ago there was a program that ran on all the history and learning channels, that tested the DNA of Tutankhamen, and promised to tell us the results. But. The results were never revealed. Ever. I do not believe Hawas was involved in that one, but he might have been.

If you have been a student of Archeology, you probably know how eccentric archeologists and Egyptologists can become. There is just so much disjointed bits of knowledge. It's impossible to correlate it all.

I try to approach it from an investigative reporter's stance. See which ideas make the most sense after collecting all the evidence you can.
Which is how I started plotting my book about Prince Tutankhaten.

-- René
René is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2005, 01:40 AM   #23
René
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 8
Marion Was King Tutankhamen murdered?

There has been a lot of speculation on "Who Murdered Tutankhamen?"
Some people have built their careers on it, claiming they "KNOW who done it" (sic).

But, despite growing "evidence", no one really knows how he died. C'mon! It was 3,300+ years ago. The evidence is NOT there.

1. Ankhesenamen? Why on earth would she have even considered it? They were both still young, they still had a chance to have babies. And she was already Queen of Egypt. Who would she replace him with? A foreign prince? A stranger? No Queen or Princess of Egypt would ever consider marrying a foreigner. It just wasn't done. Nor would it work!
Maybe a so-called "Queen" did write to the Hittite King asking for one of his sons, but I do not believe "Dahamunzu" (the name of the Queen in the cuneiform letters that were found) was Ankhesenamen.
Or ... maybe it was a very cunning diplomatic ploy by the Egyptian Queen to gain time. Why would that foreign king attack Egypt at its weakest moment if he thought his own son could win the kingdom by marriage? But ... why would she think it was necessary to deceive him?


2. Lord Aye? Tut's grand-uncle, Ankhesenamen's grandfather. Chancellor, High Priest of Amen-Re, formerly High Priest of Aten, Master of Horse (like a Five-star general), father of Nefertiti. It's possible. But he held great power already, and he was very old.

3. Horemheb? Envoy Plenipontentiary, Master of Horse, general. He also held great power and led military expeditions for his King, Tutankhamen, and perhaps for Aye, too. After he became King he never led another expedition. Perhaps he was too busy cleaning up the country. Or perhaps there was another reason.
Nor did he "usurp" Tutankhamen's statues when he was Pharaoh. Pharaoh always had the right to replace the names on the statues and the images of the Pharaoh in the temples. (Something that we in this day and age have a hard time understanding.) And, in fact, most Egyptologists agree that he did not even do that until late in his reign, possibly until after anyone who would be offended were already in the Land of the West.

It was the next Dynasty, the 19th, Seti I and Rameses II, that did most of that "erasing". When Seti had his King List constructed in Abydos, he deliberately left out Akhenaten, SmenkhKare, Tutankhamen and Aye. Seti I and Rameses II were supposedly the most prolific builders of all the Kings of Egypt, but they probably re-inscribed many many monuments with their own names.
Consider the possibility that the Abu Simbal monuments were started by Amenhotep III and finished by Rameses. After all, it was AmenHotep III who had grouped statues made that included his Queen in basically the same size as himself.
Another King that did that was MenKauRe, over a thousand years before, who built the third and smallest pyramid at Giza, a very progressive king who also began the tradition of education of the children of nobles and princes in the 'palace' with his own royal children.

4. Tutu? We do know he was a villain, in the pay of the Hittites, from the Amarna tablets discovered buried there. But, he was discredited and disgraced before King Tut died.

5. Maya? No way. His friend, his treasurer. He protected the tomb of Tutankhamen after it was broken into twice during Horemheb's or Aye's reign.

6. A mosquito? A bite on his cheek that turned septic and killed him? Hmmm.
Curious. Ironic, if so, that the very man who financed the search for and discovery of his tomb would die of that very thing. The Curse of Pharaoh, again.

7. A fall from his chariot?
The wound behind his ear would make that unlikely. This prince, this King was an experienced charioteer.

8. A broken leg? C'mon. Those Egyptians were experienced bone-setters. Please note the discoveries of Dr. Zawi Hawass himself in the cemeteries around the Giza pyramids from the 4th Dynasty.

So, how did King Tutankhamen die? And how will we ever know?

No, the answer is not in my first book, Sun Child, Prince of Egypt.
Sun Child
is about how Prince Tutankhaten became the King at such an early age.

But ... You might want to check out the story about the Magical Muses that came to visit me in the Southwestern desert while I was struggling with the plot of Sun Child.
You can find it on my Author page at: http://www.reneodeay.com/author.html

Maybe Tut himself sent me the answer.
René is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2005, 10:42 PM   #24
René
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by René
7. A fall from his chariot?
The wound behind his ear would make that unlikely. This prince, this King was an experienced charioteer.

8. A broken leg? C'mon. Those Egyptians were experienced bone-setters. Please note the discoveries of Dr. Zawi Hawass himself in the cemeteries around the Giza pyramids from the 4th Dynasty.

So, how did King Tutankhamen die? And how will we ever know?

No, the answer is not in my first book, Sun Child, Prince of Egypt.
Sun Child
is about how Prince Tutankhaten became the King at such an early age.

But ... You might want to check out the story about the Magical Muses that came to visit me in the Southwestern desert while I was struggling with the plot of Sun Child.
You can find it on my Author page at: http://www.reneodeay.com/author.html

Maybe Tut himself sent me the answer.

Oh, stupid me, obviously I hadn't seen the cat-scans program Dr. Hawass did when I wrote that. If what they revealed in that program holds up, it does not take away from the messages I was given. It only changes where the blow was delivered.
Impacted wisdom tooth, hmm. I had one of those. It would have been very painful to remove.

So, how did King Tutankhamen die, or how did he receive the wound that killed him? And how will we ever know?

I re-iterate:
Maybe Tut himself sent me the answer.
René is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2005, 12:12 PM   #25
René
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 8
King Tut ... tut ... tut

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Fedora
I have serious problems with the conclusions drawn, as a result of the work of Dr. Zawi Hawas, as do other (far more senior) archaeologists.
...
Hawas didn't allow anyone from outside Egypt to participate in the work. He didn't share x-rays with colleagues outside his own government, nor did he allow foreigners to take part in the exhumation or the autopsy. Dow Chemical, for example, offered to provide modern equipment for the autopsy. Dr. Hawas refused. So, part of the Egyptian work on Tut must be held up as suspect because the scientific process was not transparent.


Secondly, Hawas has conveniently neglected to mention that, upon exhumation, they would have dealt with the fact that Tut had -already- been exhumed and subsequently damaged.

...
1. Why was Tut's body so rapidly interred, and with such carelessness?
2. Would the careless nature of his mummification damage the body post mortem?
3. Would Carter's own exhumation, cutting the body into more than a dozen pieces, make an accurate autopsy difficult or even impossible?

These issues truely bother me, and others, and as such I don't accept the current conclusions.

Anyway, as to the Old Testament stuff...

...
-Fed

for those of you interested in the mad doings of our famous doctor, check out this news story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1610673,00

Also this series of posts:

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about100031.html

All these things are already having serious implications in the world of Archeology and Egyptology, and the tourism that Egypt's economy is based on.
Don't forget these people are muslims, and what their religion has to say about 'images'. Remember what the Taliban did to the Buddha statues in Afganistan.

The days of Indy are not just fantasy or in the past. Some of this could be happening right now.
Think about what is going on in Nepal too. My niece interviewed many Tibetan refugees, monks and children, just in the last year, in Nepal. Many archeological treasures in Tibet and Nepal are in danger if they have not been well hidden, or already looted by the Chinese, etc.

Also, the moderator of the HorizonofAten Yahoogroup

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/horizonaten/message/150
pointed out the MISSING KNEECAP of King Tut is actually in his right hand, (maybe hidden in the sand the mummy rests on by Carter himself ... or) but it is shown in the National Geo site, which removed the "Missing Kneecap" arrow.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...forensics.html

*

* Once you get there, click on the section tagged, "Upper leg and thumb".

Hmmm...

René
www.reneodeay.com
René is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 PM.