King Tut: The Pharaoh Returns!
An exhibition featuring the first CT scans of the boy king's mummy tells us more about Tutankhamun than ever before
- By Richard Covington
- Smithsonian magazine, June 2005, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 4)
While Tut was being educated at the palace, the empire was losing its grip on its northern territories in what is now Syria. But there is no indication that Akhenaten, perhaps reluctant to send his troops to foreign fields while he attempted to recast the established religion, took any action against invading Hittite warriors from Anatolia.
Although little is known of Tut’s childhood, British historian Paul Johnson speculates that life in a new capital city, Amarna, must have been insular and claustrophobic. Five or six years before Tut’s birth, Akhenaten had created Amarna, in part, perhaps, to escape the bubonic plague that was ravaging Egypt’s congested cities as well as to make a clean break with the cult of Amun, then Thebes’ chief god. Declaring Aten as the supreme and only god, Akhenaten closed the temples of rival gods and had his soldiers deface images of Amun and other deities, tossing out, to widespread consternation, a system that for two millennia had brought stability to this world and promised eternal life in the next. “The [new] religion was followed only in Amarna,” says André Wiese, curator of the Antikenmuseum in Basel, Switzerland, where the exhibition originated. “In Memphis and elsewhere, people continued to worship the pantheon of old.”
After Akhenaten’s death, a scramble for the throne ensued. A mysterious pharaoh named Smenkhkare may have become king and reigned for a year or two before dying himself. (It’s also possible that he was a co-ruler along with Akhenaten and predeceased him.)
As the child husband of Akhenaten’s third daughter, Ankhesenpaaten (who may also have been his half sister), Tut inherited the crown circa 1332 B.C., when he was 8 or 9 years old (about the same age as his bride). The couple were probably married in order to legitimize the boy’s claim to rule.
Although Egypt, a superpower with a population of 1 million to 1.5 million, commanded territory stretching from Sudan almost to the Euphrates River, the empire under Akhenaten, “had crumpled up like a pricked balloon,” according to Howard Carter in his 1923 book on the discovery of Tut’s tomb. Merchants railed at the lack of foreign trade, and the military, “condemned to a mortified inaction, were seething with discontent.” Farmers, laborers and the general populace, grieving the loss of their old gods, “were changing slowly from bewilderment to active resentment at the new heaven and new earth that had been decreed for them.”
Carter believed that Akhenaten’s wily adviser, Ay (who may have been Nefertiti’s father), was responsible for installing Tut as a puppet pharaoh as a way to heal the divided country. When Tut and his wife were both about 11, Ay moved the court back to the administrative capital of Memphis, 15 miles south of today’s Cairo, and likely advised the boy-king to reinstate polytheism. Tut obliged and changed his name to Tutankhamun (“living image of the Amun”); his wife became Ankhesenamun (“she lives for Amun”).
Outside the Amun temple in Karnak, Tut erected an eight-foot-tall stela as an apology for Akhenaten’s actions and a boast of all Tut had done for the Egyptian people. “The temples . . . had gone to pieces, the shrines were desolate and overgrown with weeds,” the stela proclaimed. But the pharaoh now has “filled [the temple priests’] workshops with male and female slaves” and all “the property of the temples has been doubled, tripled, quadrupled in silver, gold, lapis lazuli, turquoise . . . without limit to any good thing.”
As Carter’s examination of Tut’s mummy revealed, the young ruler stood about 5 feet 6 inches tall. Like his ancestors, says Hawass, he was probably raised as a warrior. (His tomb contained six chariots, some 50 bows, two swords, eight shields, two daggers and assorted slingshots and boomerang-like throwsticks.) Scenes on a wooden chest found in his tomb depict him riding into battle with drawn bow and arrow, trampling hordes of Nubian infantry under the wheels of his chariot. W. Raymond Johnson of the University of Chicago says Hittite texts recount an Egyptian attack on Kadesh, in today’s Syria, shortly before the king’s death. Tutankhamun “may actually have led the charge,” he says. But other scholars, including Carter, view the militaristic images as polite fictions or propaganda, and doubt that the monarch himself ever saw combat.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (21)
What did king tut say before he was a king
Posted by Hayden on January 9,2013 | 02:18 PM
i think that the head is creepy! but that is pretty cool! i LOVE egyptian stuff! so...AWESOME!
Posted by Marley on February 14,2012 | 08:46 PM
No, the curse is not real(there has even been a study where 20 people assist in unwrapping king Tut's mummy and they all had normal life spans). There's been a study where genetic tests showed he had malaria. CT scans showed he had a deteriorating left foot, dislocated left knee, fractures and broken skin and bone. I even heard there was even a theory where they think he was holding his kneecap in his hand. And all these injuries are on the left side!!!!! He also could have died of brain tumors,a lung disease, or assassinated by the angry people who were mad at his father for taking away the old religion of Amun, or vise/ versa, they assassinated him for attempting to bring back polytheism. They also found coriander in his tomb, which you know reduces fever, a symptom of malaria (the DNA tests showed he had the most severe type of malaria that lots of people still die from today). He was a carrier for Marfans Syndrome because his father and daughter (who died from it) had it.
Posted by Ration on December 14,2011 | 01:31 AM
i think he had brain malaria because his head looks slightly larger than the average head
Posted by M on October 21,2011 | 03:30 PM
This Passagemakes you think a litte bit.
Posted by on March 29,2010 | 10:10 AM
wow thats really cool
Posted by on October 29,2009 | 09:57 AM
this is really cool
Posted by on October 24,2009 | 11:58 AM
knowone broke into his tomb bc he had a huge tomb and he had like rooms in his tomb and also everything in his tomb was sealed and loakced up good
Posted by kari on October 7,2009 | 06:46 PM
how many more artifacts are there than just the ones that were found? do you think there are more?
Posted by liyla on September 23,2009 | 10:50 AM
how much are king tuts belongings worth and how many artifacts were found?
Posted by danie guevara on September 5,2009 | 11:19 PM
Why didn't anyone braek into KING TUT'S TOMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posted by joah on July 20,2009 | 08:46 PM
Can you please tell me when the exhibition of King Tut will be in Atlanta, Ga. and how much the tickets are for children and adults. Thank you.
Posted by LeeAnn on March 25,2009 | 01:58 PM
Please, return this gold boy king Tut back home to Egypt, to his mummies. They are missing him more, than we love him. Sincerely yours, Artist Olga from New York City. P.S.The Gold Mask Of King Tut is enclosed.
Posted by Olga Tsytsarina on March 3,2009 | 04:48 PM
Go King Tut!
Posted by waterise on February 25,2009 | 08:21 PM
About the whole curse thing, the man didn't die from the curse, "Carnarvon died from a mosquito bite that he had infected while shaving". (that is what it says in the article) So it might not even have been bacteria from the tomb at all... if it really was bacteria, the people who were figuring out the reason for the man's death, would have found similarities between the bacteria in the tomb and the bacteria that infected the person.
Posted by J on February 7,2009 | 02:03 PM
is the curse of king tut really real? if so, then how come other scientists without a doubt says that the burial chamber was just filled with bacteria and that caused allergic reactions to the unfortunate people? while others say that they had checked for bacteria and supposedly, there was no bacteria at all. as you can see, i am a superstitious person and i do believe in supernatural things like curses. so i would like to know whether of not king tuts curse was actually true, its hard to know between all these different answers. Posted by Amanda on December 26,2007 | 08:16PM Ok, we can say that scientist group 1 had checked and found nothing. However, group 2 had went in and discovered all sorts of bacteria. There are several possibilities to this. You can go to a doctor and they will tell you that you don't have anything wrong with you. A week later the symptoms get worse and you see another doctor and they find out that you have a disease. Just because one did not find bacteria does not mean it's not there. However, if the first group found bacteria and the second group did not. The bacteria could have went away like a seasonal thing or they might not have had the proper tools. Superstition is just that. Maybe they went down there and were allergic to something but others aren't. Say, you and I had walked into this place and you became ill but I was still quite healthy. Let's take it a step further and say that I messed around with everything and you touched nothing and was still fine. I believe they could have set it up with traps and bacteria just so the grave robbers would stay out or die trying. But years later when we examined these places the stuff deteriorated or whatever. It is nothing to worry about. Good and bad stuff will happen no matter what you do. Whether you read this or agree is irrelevant. But someone else may read this and may get something out of it. I however will not be back to this site to check so I hope this helps.
Posted by Simply J on February 3,2009 | 07:42 PM
To Amanda...No, sorry, the curse of King Tut is not real. Most of the "facts" that people know about curse came from period newspaper articles, including the famous, "Death comes on swift wings..." That inscription never appears in the tomb at all. I had not heard about mysterious deaths being explained by bacteria. Lord Carnarvon most certainly died of an infection. (Blood poisoning due to a shaving cut was the stated cause.) If you read actual accounts, in fact, nothing mysterious occurred at all. Accidents happen. Applying a supernatural cause to it and embroidering in a few newspaper exaggerations (and outright fiction) will not make a curse. There are no curses needed to account for the way most humans meet their ends. Things happen and we are fragile creatures, comparatively. Let's look at this in a way more open to superstition...Please remember that according to the the religion of the time, speaking the name of the dead will give them life. Without the discovery of this tomb, most people would not be speaking his name. If you accept those things as baseline, logically, can you think of a single reason why he would curse the excavators? I would think he would have thrown out the welcome mat. Floyd Hall and She, I am curious where this info is coming from. Is there any research I should be aware of?
Posted by Nef on November 2,2008 | 07:19 PM
That picture is so cool but weird at the same time! i also think tut is lying between the elder lady and the younger lady in kv 35. this is so cool!
Posted by she on September 28,2008 | 06:48 PM
royal family of amarna is in kv 35,43 and 57.i believe it is horemheb in the so called tomb of tut.i also believe tut is lying between the elder lady and the younger lady in kv 35.
Posted by floyd hall on March 6,2008 | 11:30 AM
is the curse of king tut really real? if so, then how come other scientists without a doubt says that the burial chamber was just filled with bacteria and that caused allergic reactions to the unfortunate people? while others say that they had checked for bacteria and supposedly, there was no bacteria at all. as you can see, i am a superstitious person and i do believe in supernatural things like curses. so i would like to know whether of not king tuts curse was actually true, its hard to know between all these different answers.
Posted by Amanda on December 26,2007 | 11:16 PM
is the curse of king tut really real? if so, then how come other scientists without a doubt says that the burial chamber was just filled with bacteria and that caused allergic reactions to the unfortunate people? while others say that they had checked for bacteria and supposedly, there was no bacteria at all. as you can see, i am a superstitious person and i do believe in supernatural things like curses. so i would like to know whether of not king tuts curse was actually true, its hard to know between all these different answers.
Posted by Amanda on December 26,2007 | 11:16 PM
love bazar
Posted by virginia rogers on December 22,2007 | 03:36 PM
he has a big head
Posted by me on December 10,2007 | 02:47 PM