I am doing a project in school about ancient egyptian mysteries. Does anyone have any helpful, educated evidence on king tuts death. If so, please reply ASAP. If nobody has any evidence, does anyone have a good supportive educated reason for king tuts death. Thank you for your help.

Sorry, but that is really the question of the century. There is really no proof of what really happened and it is very highly debated. Maybe someone else here will answer your question better than I have, but your best bet is just doing a search on King Tut. There is also a book by Bob Brier named I believe The Murder of Tut that spells out very clearly what he believes happened and with his evidence that he believes supoorts it (his therories).
Hope that helps

I know there is no real evidence, but does anybody have a good conviencing educated guess for king tuts death. Please reply ASAP.

if I knew something like that I would publish a book entitled " How I knew how King Tut died before all other experts who are consuming their brains to reach the solution before the rest of the world"

If it still matters, here is my educated guess on why Tut was murdered with no proof to back my claims.

Tut, a relatively young pharaoh of the time (Ptolemy, I believe conquered Egypt at the age of 13; as the legends go), was surrounded by various advisors, generals, etc., much like a president, prime minister, or king would have today.

One of his advisors felt it unfair that this boy should rule, when he is so unexperienced. The advisor is, after all, bigger, stronger, and might have a cooler looking wig.

Disgruntled, the advisor assassinates Tutankaten, and the advisors rename him Tutankhamen for the sole purpose of making people today annoy me by thinking Tut was named after the ankh, and not renamed after Amen, the god of Thebes.

Where did you find that about Ptolemy? The ptolemies never invaded Egypt strictly, it was Alexander the Great of Macedonia who invaded Egypt with his General Ptolemy (who was a lot older than thirteen). Until then Egypt was ruled by the Ptolemies continuously (yes people I know other kings sprung up but there wasn't a time without Ptolomaic rule in the North) until the death of Cleopatra.

Just had a thought, do you mean Ptolemy XIII, Cleopatras eldest brother who instilled Civill War in Egypt and the exile of Cleopatra? Ptolemy XIII would have been about 12/13 at the time of the war so perhaps thats what you mean? He never invaded Egypt though, he stayed there all along and "defended" it from Queen Cleopatra VII Philopater.

Interesting. What makes you think that Tut was murdered before changing his name from Tutankhaten to Tutankhamun, restoring the polytheistic state religion, shifting power back to the Amun priesthood, and moving the capital from Akhetaten back the Waset. You think this all occurred after his death? I have no doubt that his advisors were responsible for the the above changes I have mentioned , namely Aye, but I am curious to know what leads you to this belief.

Si-Amun - I just remember reading somewhere that Ptolemy ruled Egypt when he was just 13 years old. I honestly have no idea what credibility the site or book or article had, and truth be told, the fact that there were descendents of Ptolemy actually named Ptolemy is news to me! I'm not a product of education, but merely mindless wandering

Neb - you ask why I believe that Tut was murdered before changing his name, restoring the old religeon, shifting power back to Amun(inites ..hehe) and re-re-locating the capital because he was murdered before all of this happened

When I think about this, I try to put myself in Tut's shoes/sandals/what have you. I'm a pretty calm guy; it takes a fair amount of effort to get me rearing. However calm I may be, I will not stand for people changing my life.

Try to imagine yourself as a new pharaoh. You're young, new to the game. You've got to make a name for yourself, right? Well, if you're Tut, how could shifting power back to some unlawful priests that believe the old ways, or by giving up the capital that was just relocated?

Of course Tut was murdered before any of these changes took place. It's just bad politics to do otherwise! Also, (I'm going out on a limb here) I believe the advisors that chose to rename Tut after Amen was a sort of bastardized offering of the highest honor. What would please Amun more than to erase any existence of a pharaoh's name and replace it with a likeness of himself? It's like reforming their identity to create a multiplive, more powerful you!

...I lost myself about half way through that, I think I'm on the right track of my mind though!

Hey, I've found the source!
..sort of.

I have a habit of finding interesting tidbits of information on the internet and copying them down in either .txt or .htm format

In any case, here's what I had read:

"The first non-Egyptian Pharaoh was named Ptolemy. He was a greek general and he ruled in 905 bc."

source is all but known. I'd google it.. meh.

you are correct...in a way.. there were actually quite a number of Ptolemies, hence the Ptolemaic period... here is a run down taken from touregypt.net :

Ptolemaic Dynasty
This period is confusing due to all of the co-regencies. Scholars are not always in agreement on the order of reigns and, in some case, the reigns themselves, from Ptolemy VI through Ptolemy XI. In any event, Egypt's authority and wealth was intact until the death of Cleopatra, at which time, Egypt was overpowered by Rome.

Ptolemy I Soter I 323-285
Ptolemy II Philadelphus 282-246
Ptolemy III Euergeter I 246-222
Ptolemy IV Philopator 222-205
Ptolemy V Epiphanes 205-180
Ptolemy VI Philometor 180-164 163-145
Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator 145
Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II 170-163 &
145-116
Cleopatra III & Ptolemy IX Soter II 116-107 &
88-80
Cleopatra III & Ptolemy X Alexander I 107-88
Cleopatra Berenice 81-80
Ptolemy XI Alexander II 80
Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos 80-58 &
55-51
Berenice IV 58-55
Cleopatra VII & Ptolemy XIII 51-47
Cleopatra & Ptolemy XIV 47-44
Cleopatra VII & Ptolemy XV Cesarion 44-30 BC

Kinda a little more so that you will know who is who:

This period started just after Alexander the Great and the cleopatra that we all know is Cleopatra VII & Ptolemy XIII and XIV were her brothers and were both very young when she married them. Ptolemy XV is her son by Julius Caesar After Cleo's death, Caesar's nephew Octavian than became ruler (he was Roman where as Cleoaptra and the rest were Greeek.
PS sorry about the spelling, I am typing with a smoke in one hand, you should get the jist though.
PPS if you go to www.touregypt.net/kings.htm you can get a full listing of all kings/Pharoahs and you will see that there are quite a number with the same names which makes it very cnfusing, at least to me

Hmmm, although your theory puts a new twist on traditional belief, and I repsect your thoughts on this, I think you are quite mistaken my friend. I think there could be no better political move for Tut than to restore polytheism, under the advisement of Aye, of course.

What I think you may be failing to consider is the religious, social, and political upheval that Tut's father, Akhenaten, put Egypt through. I don't think I have to go into great detail about his reign, but I will summarize.

Akhenaten changed core religious beliefs that stood for over 1200 years, by denouncing all deities except for one, the Aten. He made himself and his wife Nefertiti the sole liaison between the people of Egypt and the Aten. By shutting down the temples across Egypt and prohibiting people to worship the dieites of their ancestors, they were forced to now pay homage to the Aten indirectly through him and his wife. Because of his emphasis on religious reform, the prosperity and foreign relations that his father Amenhotep III acheived fell to the wayside.

Now we all know this but just to put it in perspective think of it as being equivalent perhaps to a new Pope declaring an obscure African deity the supreme God of Catholicism, building a new Vatican City somewhere in Canada, and abolishing all bishops as well as banning the symbol of the Cross, defacing all churches to remove all reference to Jesus, and banning any personal veneration of Jesus.

So after the his father dies a mysterious death, and the enigmatic rule of Nefertiti and/or Smenkhare , a 9 years old Tut would be heir to the throne. With none of his elder family members to protect and mentor him he must have been a a very confused and fearful child. I have no doubt in my mind that members of his office would have greatly influenced a decision to make some very important changes.

Picture if you will, word has spread across Egypt of the new boy king who has brought back the old gods, opened the temples, and moved the capital back to the Waset (Thebes). Imagine the people of Egypt lining the banks of the nile to witness the new Pharaoh sailing down the Nile on his royal barge to his new home. Imagine the procession and festivities that were held as Tut made his way to his new palace in Waset. Imagine the joy and hope that filled the hearts of people all across the land that they could once again worship the dieites of the past, and Ma'at would be restored to Egypt.

I'm sure he was told he would gain respect from the Amun priests, the weakened military, the people of Egypt, and most of all the ancient deities that had been in the shadows for over twenty years. But was this all a scheme of his officials? Did Aye make a deal with the Amun priests to influence the boy to restore power to the Amun priesthood, in return they would murder the pawn giving Aye command of the throne and legitimising his new position by marrying the bride of the dead king, Akhesenamun, who would mysteriously disappear from history a very short time after this union. If so, the name changes of Tutankhaten and Akhesenpa'aten would have occured around the time of the restoration, which scholars have dated between year two and three of his reign.

If your theory is true, every single object that was to be placed in Tut's tomb containing his name would have to have been alterted. Why go through the hasty funerary preparations and fill his tomb with riches for the Tut's advancement into the afterlife. This action doesn't serve Amun, but instead serves Tut himself. The ancient Egyptians were in the mindset that if it wasn't written, than it didn't exist, which can be proven in the cases of Hatshepsut, Akehenaten and Nefertiti to name a few. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to eliminate all traces of Tut, and the heresy and legacy of his father if in fact he wasn't the one who was responsible for restore Egypt to its proper state.

Of course we have to rely on a lot of speculation here but I honestly think in Tut's mind, the ultimate move would be to restore Egypt to its proper state, but only because it was fed to him by his kneiving officials...after all he was only a child.

Your theory seems very accurate, Neb, but for one flaw. There is no proof at all that Akhenaten was Tutankhamen's father. In fact, after a lot of study on the subject, I believe that Amenhotep III sired Tut--making Akenaten his brother, or half-brother, not his father. I believe that they were half-brothers. Tiye would have been too old for motherhood at that point, so a lesser queen or concubine was probably his mother. Kiya has often been cited as his mother, but I find this highly unlikely. All ancient writings state that she had only one child--a daughter. A more likely candidate for motherhod is the woman who, in her tomb, emphasized that she was the wet-nurse of Tutankhamen--Miaa.
But I firmly agree with you--Tutankhamen could not have been murdered before his name-change. In fact, I do not believe Tut was murdered--at least, not in the way most popular thought goes. I believe he died as a result of a fall (a push) from a chariot. His mummy, when discovered, was missing the sternum and several ribs. If these had been crushed in an "accident", the would not have been in his mummy. The heavy use of ungents on his mummy indicate that the body had started to decompose when it was mummified, and the ungents were used to cover the smell associated with corruption. If he had been on a hunt in the desert, or perhaps a minor military expedition, mummification would not have taken place until the body was returned to Thebes.

Your scholared mind raises some good points to counteract my wandering one

My one counter is a longshot, but here goes:

If you'll remember, Bush Sr. had good ties with the royal families in the middle east; he had some arrangement for cheap oil, but for some reason was at war with ...some place (can't remember the name). What happened to ruin the part of peace, I don't know

When the world trade center was destroyed, the parties responsible were supposedly traced back to Osama Bin Laden. Then, for no reason whatsoever, the government decided to go after Saddam Hussien(sp?). Well, maybe not no reason. Maybe it was oil; and they used Saddam's "horrific acts" as a liaison...?

Now, my source for this is my A.P.U.S. Gov. teacher sometimes mocking W. Bush by saying, "You took a shot at my dad...", a quote he either picked up from a speech, or a satyrical source (e.g. SNL).

I'm hoping the sources are credible, and my mind is collecting the data in an orderly fashion.

Well, assuming the ancient Egyptians had some sort of family ties like ours, why would Tut undo everything his father had done and/or kept intact? Oh, I knew there was a tie between Nefertiti and Tut, but I never knew what it was, thanks for the info!

Back on topic, I'm going to disprove what I had just said; save you some time.

The rulers of the time probably had their children raised by a personal caregiver. Because of this, the child would be less apt to honor their parent's wishes.

Although (this part is the post's conclusive neutrality), I think it just comes down to whether or not the culture of the class of the royal family was that of honor, or greed. Did the ancient Egyptians follow a quasi-Asian standard and have respect for their elders? If yes, then Tut would be more likely to keep what his father had put into place. If no, then Tut would be apt to do what was best for him.

Oh yes, and thanks Mary, for the Ptolemic list - I seem to remember hearing about the Ptolemic era a long while ago. Now who's this Berenice IV that went ahead and changed the list?

Fair enough Osiris II. Unfortunately, there is a lot of proof missing when discussing the whole Amarna period.

I didn't mention the possibility of Tutankhamun being the son of Amenhotep III because that could be a whole other thread and debate in itself. I tried to keep it as simple and brief as possible, in relation to PsyPharaoh's belief of a name change after the death of the boy. But as you and I know, there is nothing simple about this period.

So with respect to your belief, even if we were to substitute Amenhotep III as Tut's father and Akhenaten as his brother/ half-brother into my last post, it does little, in anything, to dimish the actions of Akhenaten and the reform he forced upon Egypt and all that Tut had to gain from restoring Egypt to its proper state.

As I mentioned, a plot of murder against Tut is pure speculation, but whether he died in an accident or was murdered, Aye, Horemheb, Maya and other officials would most certainly gain and prosper from a move back to polytheism under Tut after the discord of Atensim. They needed Tut to make such a change.