So, tutness, someone stated that ol' Akhenaten founded Heliopolis?

Goodness, I had no idea that Akhenaten was almost 2000 years old even by the Amarna Period. Now that's longevity!

I'm also a fan of Heliopolis. It was almost certainly founded on temple grounds that are at least predynastic. Too bad the modern suburbs of Cairo cover it up.

Certainly nothing unusual about that. It's one of the most fascinating times of the entire dynastic period, almost like something out of a good Hollywood script.

And it's funny that so many people of the modern world are so intrigued by the Amarna Period...a period that many powerful people of that time tried very hard to erase from history. The mummies of Horemheb, Seti I, numerous Ramessides, and a whole bunch of Amarna priests must be spinning in their sarcophagi!

I'm sorry, I meant to say Amun priests. Man, I totally ruined my own joke...I hate it when I do that!

Bel, That's a very interesting Amenhotep II theory. Kind of a condescending author who makes a lot of assumptions... but a very interesting theory.

18th dynasty pharoahs:
Ahmose: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ahmose1.htm
Amenhotep 1: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep1.htm
Tutmosis 1: http://touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis1.htm
Tutmosis 2: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis2.htm
"We are told that he had to crush a revolt in Nubia in his first year and that this bought about the demise of the kingdom of Kush at Kerma. Apparently, to punish the Kushites for their rebelion, he had everyone put to death with the exception of a royal son, who was bought back to Egypt as a hostage.
Hatshepsut: http://www.touregypt.net/18dyn05.htm
Tutmosis 3: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis3.htm
Amenhotep 2: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm
Tutmosis 4: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis4.htm
Amenhotep 3: http://touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep3.htm
Amenhotep 4/Akhenaton: http://www.touregypt.net/18dyn10.htm
King Tut: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tut.htm

http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn18a.htm
"A man named Amenhotpe who had the rank of 'First King's Son of 'Akheperkare' (this the Prenomen of Tuthmosis I) was not a real son, because both his parents are named"
http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn18b.htm
http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn18c.htm
http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn18d.htm

the_tutness_is_here wrote:


I don't know how much faith to put in that book, but it does paint a rosy picture. Remember that Tut was a prepubescent boy when he assumed the throne and became Lord of the Two Lands; he was indeed pharaoh but likely exercised little to no power of his own. Men like Ay and Horemheb ruled Egypt in his stead. Tut was a puppet king--much like Tuthmosis III under Hatshepsut, but at least Tuthmosis lived long enough to become one of Egypt's greatest warrior pharaohs once his aunt died.

I doubt Tut had much say in what took place in his own kingdom in the early years of his reign. I personally feel Horemheb in particular wanted nothing more than to erase all memory of Akhenaten and Atenism, and regents such as he were most likely responsible for the return of the old ways; the boy king was just along for the ride.

I used to be a proponent of the theory that Tut was assassinated, based on who his parents likely were and what they had done to Egypt, and on the ambitions of his powerful regents. After all, Tut died when he was finally coming into his own and of an age when he could rule independently of his regents. It always struck me as a bit too convenient. But the recent CT scans of Tut's body have more or less put the assassination theory to rest, and that's okay.

If all our questions were answered, ancient Egypt wouldn't be so fascinating.

Congrats on your graduation, by the way. How does it feel to be 18? Ahhhh, youth.

Tutness, the scan does not prove that Tutankhamen wasn't murdered. The only thing it proves is that he did not died from a blow to the back of the head. Hawass himself has stated that he firmly believes there was some sort of consipracy, but we will probably never know who planned it, who carried it out, or how it was done.
In so far as the break is concerned, opinion amongst those who examined the mummy-scan was almost divided 50-50. There were those who believed it was an old break that had occured before death--suggesting some sort of accident, planned or not--and those who believed it to be caused by Carter's efforts to get the mummy out of its coffin.
If it was a break that had happened when he was alive it must have been serious enough to break the skin, cause an infection which killed him--just a simple break would not be fatal.
I don't know if toxicological examination can be done--they need tissue from the liver, and that was dried out and mummified. But it is stongly indicated that he was poisoned in some way--perhaps using the excuse of giving him "medicine" for an injury.

Manetho List of 18th Dynasty Pharoahs:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/dyn18_19.html
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/dyn18.html

Dynasty 12 Theory: (1991-1786BC)
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Traci ... nesis.html

Seti II theory (~1200BC):
http://www.argyrosargyrou.fsnet.co.uk/m ... nology.htm

Tutness, I doubt you'll ever have to worry about Tut's fame dwindling. Though he was a minor ruler in his own time, Tut has become a phenomenon, not a fad. People are fascinated by him to this day. Funny how a few hundred books will do that for a person who died over 3000 years ago.

In the tours I give at our museum I'll often ask my groups, "And who's the most famous king of ancient Egypt?" In unison, from the 5-year-olds to the 70-year-olds, they call out, "King Tut!"

I think the boy king is still doing all right for himself.

Incidentally, Tut's body was so dark because of the copious amounts of resins used in his preservation. That's why they ended up sawing him into a dozen pieces to get him out of his coffin--the resin had dried and stuck him fast inside it.

The examiners of the CT scans Osiris II was telling you about went on record, I believe, as saying he recieved a good mummification. That is clearly not the case. He was well wrapped and sealed inside his coffins and sarcophagus, but the body itself was poorly prepared. His head is in good shape, but the farther down his body you go, the more skeletal he is. We have commoners in our exhibit whose mummies are much better preserved than the boy king's.